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 »

Hazardous Waste Determination – The Foundation for Waste Compliance

Posted on April 29, 2013 by William K. Graham, P.E., C.P.E.A.

Proper waste determinations are the foundation for waste compliance; failure to perform them properly can lead to cascading violations.  Generators commonly fail to document hazardous waste determinations from the point of generation for each solid waste stream (as required by 40 CFR 262.11).  This is a frequent citation in RCRA enforcement and observation during compliance audits.

USEPA has updated the 1994 version of Waste Analysis Plan Guidance. This guidance is helpful in understanding regulatory requirements and USEPA intent regard the obligation each solid waste generator has to document a hazardous waste determination.

One tool provided in the new guidance document is a checklist for evaluating waste determinations using acceptable knowledge (i.e. without having waste analysis).  Another consists of tips for using the Safety Data Sheet to support a waste determination.  Appendix F also provides a number of key considerations, including several that are important for generators.

Another issue that arises is whether the generator needs to document the waste determination.  Regulation and USEPA guidance make it plain that these must be documented, and reviewed annually or more often, with records kept for 3 years.  A CESQG especially needs to do this documentation because they rely on proper determinations to assure they stay below the 100 kilogram/month threshold and avoid additional regulatory burdens as a Small Quantity Generator.

For each solid waste stream, regulations require that the generator must determine if the waste is:

  1. Excluded from regulation under 40 CFR 261.4 as not a solid waste.
  2. Listed as a hazardous waste in Subpart D of 40 CFR part 261.
  3. Identified in Subpart C of 40 CFR part 261 with a hazard characteristic by:
    1. Testing the waste using standard or approved methods, or
    2. Applying knowledge of the hazard characteristic of the waste in light of the materials or the processes used.
  4. Excluded or restricted under parts 261, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, and 273.

The Point of Generation is where the waste determination should be made, rather than after waste is moved to storage, exposed to the elements, or mixed with other materials.  Hazardous waste is not regulated until it exits the unit in which it was generated or remains within a shutdown unit for more than 90 days.

Basis for Determination – The generator should document waste determinations for each waste stream coming from each discrete equipment item and, if necessary, for each operating scenario such as normal, shutdown and cleanout.  Records must be kept of unit shutdowns to assure residuals are not stored for longer than 90 days.  For waste streams determined to be not hazardous, the regulatory citation and basis (such as acceptable knowledge or testing) should be documented, recorded and updated as needed. A good engineering practice would be to review and update waste determinations annually or more often if changes occur.

Acceptable Knowledge – The Waste Analysis Guidance document suggests that acceptable knowledge will be: as current as practicable, based on material balances; reviewed annually or when changes occur; and documented with appropriate records retained.

Safety Data Sheet (SDS) – The Waste Analysis Guidance document warns generators to confirm they are using the correct SDS and it is current. The SDS may mention the material is a RCRA waste if discarded or provide CAS numbers that can be compared to the listed wastes.  Properties may reveal the material would be characteristically hazardous (e.g. flash point, pH, reactive, toxic). The SDS should not be used if the waste is mixed, treated or chemically altered or as a substitute for laboratory analyses where appropriate.  SDS may not report all components and may not list hazardous components present in concentrations below 1 percent by weight.  The generator retains the burden to make a correct waste determination and the liability from improper disposal.

Codes for generator reporting need to be assigned for each hazardous waste stream. These codes describe the type of process or activity (Source), physical/chemical characteristics (Form) and type of hazardous waste management system (Management).

Key Considerations for Generators include:

  • Check State and local requirements which may be more stringent
  • Compile records of collective knowledge of wastes
  • Assure representative samples are analyzed using standard methods
  • Document acceptable knowledge in lieu of analysis
  • Support claims that secondary materials are not solid waste
  • Do not rely on single analysis for subsequent waste streams
  • Make new waste determination for each new point of generation
  • Process changes require a new waste determination
  • Periodically review and update waste determinations

 A copy of the new Waste Analysis Guidance can be downloaded from EPA’s website. Additional  information on related USEPA Guidance is available here. If you have any questions about RCRA Waste Determination requirements, please contact William K. Graham, P.E. at bgraham@cecinc.com or 630-541-0626.

Filed under: Environmental, Waste Management, Water Resources | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Deadline Extended for Toxic Substances Control Act Chemical Data Reporting

Posted on June 28, 2012 by Paul W. Tomiczek III, REM, P.E.
On June 18, 2012, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) amended the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) regulations by extending the submission deadline for 2012 reports from June 30, 2012 to August 13, 2012. This is a one-time extension for the 2012 submission period only. The CDR regulations require manufacturers and importers of certain chemical substances included on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory (TSCA Inventory) to report current data on the manufacturing, processing, and use of the chemical substances. Potentially affected manufacturers may include:
  • Chemical manufacturers and importers (NAICS codes 325 and 324110, e.g., chemical manufacturing and processing and petroleum refineries).
  • Chemical users and processors who may manufacture a byproduct chemical substance (NAICS codes 22, 322, 331, and 3344, e.g., utilities, paper manufacturing, primary metal manufacturing, and semiconductor and other electronic component manufacturing).
Manufacturers (including importers) are required by the CDR rule to report to EPA information concerning the manufacturing, processing, and use of certain chemical substances listed on the TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory. The CDR requirements have changed since the last collection, which occurred in 2006 (based on 2005 production data).
EPA amended the IUR rule in a final action promulgated on August 16, 2011. Manufacturers (including importers) are subject to the revised reporting requirements based on manufacturing (including importing) activities conducted during the principal reporting year (calendar year 2011).
The 2012 reports must be submitted via the Internet using e-CDRweb and EPA’s Central Data Exchange (CDX). e-CDRweb is a web-based reporting tool that allows companies to file a paperless CDR submission and receive instant receipt confirmation.
To determine whether you are required to report for each chemical substance that you domestically manufactured (including imports) in the United States during the principal reporting year (i.e. calendar year 2011), you should consider the following three steps:
  • Step I: Is your chemical substance subject to the CDR rule? A CDR reportable chemical is a chemical substance that is domestically manufactured or imported into the United States, is listed in the TSCA Inventory, and is not specifically exempted by 40 CFR 711.6(a).
  • Step II: Are you a manufacturer (including importer) who is required to report? If you determined from Step I that you manufacture (or import) a CDR reportable chemical substance, you should subsequently determine whether you are a manufacturer (or importer) who must report. You are subject to CDR reporting if you manufactured (or imported) a chemical substance in production volumes of 25,000 pounds or greater at any single site you owned or controlled during 2011.
  • Step III: What information must you report? If you determine from Steps I and II that you are a manufacturer (or importer) of a CDR reportable chemical substance and you are required to report, then you are required to report the information described in 40 CFR 711.15(b)(1), (b)(2), and (b)(3) in Parts I and II of Form U. Basic company and site identification information is required by 40 CFR 711.15(b)(1) and (b)(2). Chemical identification and information pertaining to the manufacture (including import) of chemical substances is required by 40 CFR 710.15(b)(3). Note that the basic company and site identification information is reported once per site, while the manufacturing information is reported separately for each reportable chemical substance at the site.
The CDR report can be a fairly complex effort, depending upon your company’s manufacturing or importing activities. CEC has noted that some manufacturing companies are not familiar with this reporting obligation, perhaps due to the long duration from the most recent reporting period (2006). In the future, EPA is planning to require TSCA CDR reporting every four years. Perhaps this is EPA’s way of “helping” U.S. manufacturing companies.

If you have any questions about the TSCA CDR reporting requirements and whether your facility may be subject to these regulations, please contact Paul Tomiczek III, REM, P.E. at ptomiczek3@cecinc.com or 800-365-2324. More information on the TSCA CDR reporting obligations and instructions for completing the report are provided here.

Filed under: Environmental, Water Resources | Tagged: , , | Leave a 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 »

Next Page »
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.