Emergency Response Planning at Pennsylvania Unconventional Well Sites

Posted on May 6, 2013 by Kristian Macoskey, QEP

On February 2, 2012, Governor Corbett signed into law Act 9 (P.L. 67, No. 9) codified at 35 Pa C.S. §7321.  This rulemaking required the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency (PEMA) to adopt emergency regulations aimed at new and existing unconventional wells within the Commonwealth.  The rulemaking was intended to enhance the ability of local governments to manage emergency response, establish Statewide standards for emergency response, and define standard signage to aid emergency responders.

This rulemaking was issued in “final-omitted” form.  That action is taken in special cases when it is deemed necessary to respond to an emergency, and allows the Commonwealth to issue rules without publishing a proposed rule or offering them for public comment.  Because Governor Corbett’s Marcellus Shale Advisory Commission had recommended that actions be taken to enhance emergency response at unconventional well sites and that the lack of effective emergency response has a direct and immediate impact on human health, safety, and welfare, the final-omitted rulemaking form was used to add sections to 25 Pa Code, Chapter 78 relating to oil and gas wells.  The regulation was published in the January 26, 2013, Pennsylvania Bulletin   and became effective on the same date, with the exceptions noted below.

Site Address

Site address registration requirements of 25 Pa Code 78.55(f)(3) became effective on February 25, 2013.  Since then and prior to construction of an access road to a well site, operators have been required to obtain a municipal street address for the site and determine GPS coordinates for both the well and site entrance.  The site name, address, and GPS coordinates are to be registered with PEMA, the PADEP, the county emergency management organization, and the 9-1-1 Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP).

Emergency Response Plans

Emergency response plan requirements contained in 25 Pa Code 78.55(f)(5) took effect on April 26, 2013.  Operators are required to have implemented “an emergency response plan that provides for equipment, procedures, training, and documentation to properly respond to emergencies that threaten human health and safety for each well site.”  These plans are to “incorporate National Incident Management System planning standards, including the use of the Incident Command System, Incident Action Planning, and Common Communication Plans.”  Six categories of emergency are to be addressed:

  1. Fire;
  2. Medical;
  3. Explosion or similar event;
  4. Spill;
  5. Security breach or other security event; and
  6. Any other incident that necessitates the presence of emergency responders.

Other key elements to be included in these plans include:

  1. Emergency contact information and notification procedures;
  2. Procedures to provide current hazardous material (e.g., MSDS) information to emergency responders;
  3. A list of fire suppression and spill control equipment;
  4. A description of off-site emergency equipment;
  5. A summary of risks to the public located within ½-mile of the site; and
  6. An outline of the emergency response training plan.

Provisions have been included for the preparation of a common base plan and then site-specific plans unique to each location.  Plans are required to address each of the following stages of operation:

  1. Preparation of the access road and well site;
  2. Drilling the well;
  3. Hydraulic fracturing and stimulation of the well;
  4. Production;
  5. Site restoration; and
  6. Plugging of the well.

In addition to being maintained at the site during all phases of operation, these plans are to be distributed to PEMA, the PADEP, the county emergency management agency, and the PSAP.  The plan must be reviewed annually on or before March 1.  If updates are required, they must be submitted to the same recipients.  Otherwise a statement indicating that a review occurred but no updates were needed must be submitted.

Signage

The final element of these new requirements addresses signage.  Signage requirements specified at 25 Pa Code 78.55(f)(4) take effect on July 25, 2013.  Prior to constructing an access road, operators will be required to display a sign that meets specific fabrication, design, size, content, and installation requirements.  “Sample Site Entrance Signage” is provided within the PA Bulletin link noted above.

PADEP acknowledges that industry will incur costs associated with preparing emergency response plans and posting signs but expects that “responsible operators already do both.”  As such, the incremental costs are expected to be insignificant.  To assist with the implementation of these requirements, PADEP intends to implement a compliance assistance plan with regional training sessions presented by PADEP and PEMA.

If you are unclear about how this regulation affects your operations or have questions regarding these requirements, please contact Kris Macoskey at 800-365-2324 or via email at kmacoskey@cecinc.com.

Filed under: Ecological Services, Environmental, Water Resources | Tagged: , | 1 Comment »

2012 Deadlines and New Requirements Established in Ohio’s New General Permit for Industrial Storm Water Discharges

Posted on January 11, 2012 by Andy McCorkle

Ohio EPA recently issued its new Multi-Sector General Permit (MSGP) for Industrial Storm Water Discharges (Ohio EPA General Permit Number OHR000005).  The existing general permit expired at the end of May 2011, and Ohio EPA spent several months soliciting input from industry and regulatory groups to develop a permit that is consistent with US EPA’s MSGP. There are 2012 deadlines for submittals associated with coverage under the new MSGP, along with a series of new requirements. The remainder of this blog describes the deadlines for submittals required to maintain coverage under the new MSGP, and the new permit requirements.

The new MSGP is a significant shift from the previous general permit.  The new MSGP has grown from 36 pages to more than 140 pages.  The previous permit included broad, non-facility specific, monitoring and recordkeeping requirements. The new MSGP establishes industry-specific requirements for managing and monitoring storm water discharges.  The new MSGP contains new requirements that were contested by industry groups, including the establishment of benchmarks, quarterly visual sampling, and submittal of an annual report.  The new MSGP places additional burdens on both industry and the regulators by requiring virtually every facility in the state to re-apply for a storm water permit, and to revise or update Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPPs).

The effective date of the new MSGP is January 1, 2012.  Individual facilities were to be notified by letter, which Ohio EPA should have mailed prior to December 31, 2011.  Ohio EPA indicates that if you do not receive a letter by January 13, 2012, you should immediately contact the agency.

No action is needed by current permit holders until the letter is received from Ohio EPA.  Important submittal deadlines are:

  •  Existing permit holders are to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) within 90 days after receiving written notice from Ohio EPA.
  • SWPPPs for existing permit holders are to be updated within 180 days of the effective date of the General Permit.
  • For facilities not covered under a prior NPDES permit, a SWPPP needs to be prepared before submitting a NOI.  The NOI is to be submitted at least 180 days prior to discharge.

It is important to note that facilities renewing their permits must use the NOI form that Ohio EPA developed for this permit.  The form and instructions  can be downloaded from their website.

All facilities are required to design, install, and implement control measures (including Best Management Practices (BMPs)), and describe them in their SWPPP.  As part of the SWPPP, facilities are required to identify a storm water pollution prevention team.  Annual training will also be required, and the facility will need to maintain documentation concerning the training.

The three types of inspections required by the new MSGP include:

  1. Routine facility inspections that are to be conducted at least quarterly, and in some cases more frequently (i.e., monthly).  Documentation of the inspections will need to be maintained on-site as part of the SWPPP.
  2. Quarterly Visual Assessments of storm water quality.  This consists of collecting a sample during the first 30 minutes of discharge from a storm event.  The sample is to be visually inspected for color, odor, floatables, foam, oil, etc.  Documentation will need to be maintained on-site with the SWPPP.
  3. Comprehensive Site Inspections that are to be conducted annually.  Documentation of the inspections will need to be maintained in the SWPPP and recorded in an Annual Report (Ohio EPA will provide the form).

Two types of monitoring are included in the new MSGP: Benchmark Monitoring and Effluent Limitations Monitoring.  The types of monitoring and individual parameters are specified for each of the specific industry sectors within the new MSGP.  Benchmark Monitoring is required for 13 of the Industry Sectors.  The purpose for benchmark monitoring is for evaluating the overall effectiveness of control measures and to know when additional actions are necessary to comply with BMPs. Effluent Limitations Monitoring is required for five (5) industry sectors.  This monitoring is an annual event that is for the most part consistent with the prior permit, but with differences in monitoring parameters.

The new MSGP includes an exemption for monitoring multiple outfalls that are “substantially identical outfalls”.  If a facility has two or more outfalls that discharge substantially identical effluent and drainage areas, there is a provision to monitor only one of the outfalls and report that the results apply to the other substantially similar outfalls.  This exemption does not apply to outfalls covered by numeric effluent limits.

There has also been a minor change in the definition of a “measurable storm event” from the prior permit.  A measurable storm event is defined as a storm event that results in discharge from the facility and follows the preceding measurable storm event by 72 hours (3 days).  There is also a provision for monitoring snowmelt.

The new MSGP contains an exemption to the monitoring requirements for inactive and unstaffed sites.  This exemption applies to benchmark monitoring, quarterly visual inspections, and routine facility inspections.  It will be necessary to make a demonstration, and then certify there are no industrial materials exposed to storm water.  The exemption applies differently to certain industry sectors.

For more information, see the dedicated page on Ohio EPA’s website.

If you have questions on how the requirements of the new MSGP may apply to your facility(ies), or require assistance updating your facility’s SWPPP, contact Andy McCorkle at 888-598-6808 or by email at amccorkle@cecinc.com.

Filed under: Civil/Site, Ecological Services, Environmental, Water Resources | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Conclusions of “Duke Paper” Not Supported By Limited Data

Posted on November 20, 2011 by Mark Orzechowski, P.G.

The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) recently published a letter coauthored by Mark Orzechowski, P. G.,  of Civil & Environmental Consultants, Inc. and Tarek Saba, Ph. D., of Exponent, Inc.  The letter was written in response to an article published earlier this year by PNAS, entitled Methane Contamination of Drinking Water Accompanying Gas-Well Drilling and Hydraulic Fracturing, written by Osborn et al.  The article is typically referred to as the “Duke Paper” by many in the natural gas industry.  Based on the results of 68 water-well samples, Osborn et al. concluded that there was evidence of increased concentrations of thermogenic methane in water wells near active gas extraction areas compared with water wells outside active gas extraction areas.  The Osborn study also concluded that the thermogenic methane in the water wells was consistent with Marcellus Shale gas.

The response letter by Mr. Orzechowski and Dr. Saba indicates that the data set presented in the study was too limited to support the conclusions provided by the authors.  In addition, Mr. Orzechowski and Dr. Saba provide evidence that natural gas from the much shallower Lock Haven Formation is the more likely source of methane in the water wells sampled in the study (many of those water wells are completed in the Lock Haven Formation).  The studies behind the “Duke Paper” also failed to analyze for carbon and hydrogen isotopes in the methane and ethane, which would be required to determine if the methane was related to the Marcellus gas extraction operations.  The response letter concluded the limited data presented in the “Duke Paper” do not support the presence of gas from the Marcellus Formation in private water wells in the vicinity of gas extraction operations.  Click here to see the response letter.

If you have questions on the conclusions reached by Mr. Orzechowski and Dr. Saba, please contact Mark Orzechowski, P.G., (morzechowski@cecinc.com) at 800-365-2324.

Filed under: Civil/Site, Ecological Services, Environmental, Water Resources | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Cleanup of Chlorides in Soils at Natural Gas Well Sites

Posted on November 13, 2011 by Thomas L. Maher, Jr., P.G.
As described in our previous posting, CEC recently learned that the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) will soon be issuing draft guidance that standardizes the regulatory requirements for reporting, remediating, and restoring areas impacted by spills or releases from oil and gas (O&G) well operations. That guidance specifies that the remediation of specific types of releases will be referred to the Bureau of Environmental Cleanup and Brownfields (BECB) for oversight of remedial activities which will be performed in accordance with the provisions of the Pennsylvania Land Recycling Program, commonly known as Act 2. Among the other provisions of Act 2, it requires that a site be remediated using one of three standards available in Act 2: Background Standard; Statewide Health Standard; or Site-Specific Standard. One parameter that must often be addressed after releases at natural gas well sites is chloride. Act 2 does not have a Media Specific Concentration (MSC) established for chlorides in soils for use in achieving the Statewide Health Standard, which could preclude the use of that cleanup standard. The lack of an established regulatory standard for chlorides in soil to guide remedial activities is also a potential concern in surrounding states.
The term “chloride” does not refer to any specific compound but is a category of substances that are either present in the deep groundwater encountered during well drilling to reach the Marcellus Shale, or are added to drilling muds or hydrofracturing fluids to facilitate development of a gas well.  The most common chlorides of interest include sodium chloride, calcium chloride, magnesium chloride, ammonium chloride, potassium chloride, and barium chloride. Act 2 established a MSC of 250 mg/l for chlorides in groundwater based on the Secondary Maximum Concentration Level (SMCL) promulgated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). However, as stated earlier in this blog, Pennsylvania does not have a MSC for chlorides in soil. Both PADEP and industry personnel have requested guidance on how to address chlorides in soils.  As a result, PADEP is considering proposing the use of a Site-Specific Standard for chlorides in soil that would address both the potential soil-to-groundwater pathway and the ecological pathway that could impact species and habitats of concern.
The soil-to-groundwater pathway could be evaluated by submitting samples of impacted soil to a laboratory for analysis using the Synthetic Precipitation Leaching Procedure (SPLP).  Soils with a SPLP-leachable chloride concentration less than the groundwater MSC of 250 mg/l would be considered as having achieved attainment with the soil-to-groundwater MSC.  Additionally, potential surface water impacts to seeps/springs and stormwater runoff would be evaluated using the water quality standard (WQS) of 250 mg/l.  The potential for using soil to groundwater leachability calculations to derive cleanup standards for chlorides and other soluble constituents such as sulfate and bromide may also be considered since methods for performing these calculations have already been established under Act 2.
Under the existing Act 2 process, an evaluation of the ecological risk must be performed to address potential species and habitats of concern, but the evaluation does not have to consider impacts to common plant species.  PADEP is considering implementing additional requirements in an attempt to prevent the development of a Site-Specific Standard that would be considered to be protective of the species and habitats of concern specified in the Act 2 regulations while allowing residual chloride concentrations to remain in the soil that would negatively impact vegetation on the property.  These additional requirements would include an assessment of the chloride tolerance of the vegetation present at a site to develop a Site-Specific Standard.  This site-specific vegetation chloride tolerance approach could result in a large variation of chloride cleanup criteria from site to site.  For example, some agricultural crops can tolerate total chloride concentrations in soils of up to 1,500 mg/kg while more sensitive species cannot tolerate total chloride concentrations in soils at concentrations in the range of 500 to 800 mg/kg.  Proper selection and application of soil amendments can reduce the amount of chlorides and other ions (particularly sodium) in the soil that are potentially deleterious to plants, thereby reducing the potential toxicity due to residual chloride concentrations.
If you have questions on how the spill and release guidance might apply to your operations, please contact Bo Valli, P.G., (bvalli@cecinc.com) or Tom Maher, P.G., (tmaher@cecinc.com) at 800-365-2324.

Filed under: Civil/Site, Ecological Services, Environmental, Water Resources | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

PADEP to Issue Draft Guidance for Response to Releases and Spills From Gas Sites

Posted on November 6, 2011 by Thomas L. Maher, Jr., P.G.

CEC recently learned that the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) will soon be issuing draft guidance that standardizes the regulatory requirements for reporting, remediating, and restoring areas impacted by spills or releases from oil and gas (O&G) well operations. The guidance will be applicable to spills and releases from conventional well operations as well as unconventional shale gas exploration and production (E&P) operations involving the Marcellus and Utica Shales. The guidance is being developed to provide a consistent and uniform response program for releases and spills, and to establish a regulatory framework within which PADEP will exercise its administrative discretion when dealing with releases.

Until recently, responses to spills and releases from O&G operations were administered by the Office of Oil and Gas Management (OOGM), which was formerly referred to as the Bureau of Oil and Gas Management.   The various OOGM offices were free to exercise their discretion as to how to address each spill on a case-by-case basis. The incident reporting mechanism and overall responsibility for handling releases will remain with the OOGM, while the remediation of specific types of releases will be referred to the Bureau of Environmental Cleanup and Brownfields (BECB) for oversight of remedial activities. The practice of referring spills and releases to the BECB has already occurred with the issuance of several Notices of Violation that direct responsible parties to contact the BECB regarding procedures for conducting cleanups under the provisions of the Pennsylvania Land Recycling Program, commonly known as Act 2.  Specifically, environmental remediation standards established under Act 2 will be used whenever site remediation is required under the Clean Streams Law, the Air Pollution Control Act, the Solid Waste Management Act, the Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act, and the Storage Tank or the Spill Prevention Act.

The two types of releases specified in the guidance are based on their potential to cause environmental harm.  The first type is a release of regulated substances of less than 42 gallons that does not pose a danger of polluting waters of the Commonwealth and does not result in damage to the property. The guidance will specify that releases of that type will be cleaned up by removing visibly impacted soil.  For releases that exceed those criteria, performance of remediation of the impacted media will be required in accordance with the administrative and technical requirements of Act 2.  The cleanup standard used may be selected from three standards available in Act 2: Background Standard, Statewide Health Standard, or Site-Specific Standard. The Responsible Party would be required to follow the administrative process set forth in Act 2, including the submittal of a Notice of Intent to Remediate (NIR), publishing public notices and submitting a Final Report demonstrating attainment of the selected standard.  The submission of a NIR and public notifications can be waived under Act 2 if the final report is submitted within 90 days of the release.

Some potential concerns related to this guidance include:

  • The time needed to administratively complete the Act 2 process.  The Act 2 process will add to the administrative requirements and likely add to the time needed to obtain a release from PADEP. As indicated earlier in this posting, the administrative requirements could be reduced somewhat if a spill or release referred to the BECB is remediated to attainment of one of the remediation standards available under Act 2.
  • Potential for negative publicity: Increased negative publicity for the natural gas industry may result should the public notification portion of the Act 2 regulations be necessary.
  • Deed covenant requirement: Activities of natural gas operators are usually performed on leases and there is uncertainty about how landowners will react to the deed notification/environmental covenants required when utilizing site-specific cleanup standards under Act 2.  This would be the case for soils impacted by chlorides, a chemical of concern often associated with releases at natural gas sites.  There is no Statewide Health Standard for chloride in soil; and, as such, only the Site-Specific Standard and Background Standard are available for use under Act 2.

If you have questions on how the spill and release guidance might apply to your operations, please contact Bo Valli, P.G. (bvalli@cecinc.com) or Tom Maher, P.G. (tmaher@cecinc.com) at 800-365-2324.

Filed under: Civil/Site, Ecological Services, Environmental, Water Resources | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Next Page »
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.