Not my work - but this was emailed to me.
October
14, 2012 12:08 am
0
By
Don Hopey / Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
The state Department
of Environmental Protection has a new review policy for water contamination
cases related to Marcellus Shale gas well operations that lets department
administrators in Harrisburg instead of field offices decide whether residential
water users should receive letters notifying them about
problems.
The month-old policy
hasn't stopped, held up or altered any contaminated-water determination letters.
And the DEP said in response to questions that it would not result in delays to
homeowners about water contamination.
However, critics are
concerned that the policy allows high-level DEP officials in Harrisburg to
decide not to issue, or delay issuing, contamination determination letters
recommended by a field office. A decision not to make that determination could
save drilling companies millions of dollars in groundwater remediation, water
treatment or replacement costs, and lengthen the time it takes to fix the
problems.
Prior to the change
in policy, DEP water quality specialists would send samples to the state testing
laboratory and review the results with department geologists. Then, based on
those results, district offices would send contamination determination letters
to the affected residents or property owners.
The new policy,
instituted in mid-September, requires DEP field offices to
instead send the contamination determinations to Harrisburg for review by top
administrators, up to and including Scott Perry, deputy secretary of
DEP's Office of Oil and Gas Management, and DEP Secretary Michael Krancer. The
administrators then decide whether determination letters should be
sent.
The policy was not
publicly announced and was distributed in a brief, internal DEP email on Sept.
14 from Mr. Perry to four regional oil and gas field
offices.
According to an
email string obtained by the Post-Gazette, the policy requires those offices to
send all positive water contamination reports to Harrisburg as a Major Action
Advisory, "prior to issuing any water supply impact determination letter." The
MAA designation means the matter goes to top administrators for
review.
A follow-up email
from one of the regional offices asks whether all DEP water quality test
determinations, including those that show no contamination, should be forwarded
to Harrisburg or only those showing contamination related to drilling
operations.
The email response
from Mr. Perry is, "I think it should be limited to positive determinations. If
a negative determination may generate media interest please let me know, but you
won't need to go through an MAA."
DEP sources,
unwilling to speak on the record because of concerns about job security, say
some DEP district office staffers are concerned about the policy, which would
allow headquarters' officials to second guess their test-based contamination
determinations.
A former DEP
official also said the policy baffles him.
"The MAA used to be
an advisory process but now it's an approval process," said George Jugovic Jr.,
chief executive officer of Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future, a statewide
environmental advocacy group. He was a DEP regional director during the
administration of Democratic Gov. Ed Rendell but resigned in September 2011 at
the request of officials in the administration of Gov. Tom Corbett, a
Republican.
"Harrisburg is
making a decision on the notification before action is taken," he said. "But
it's supposed to be a scientific decision based on water test results and the
law. What [science] expertise in that does Krancer have?"
In a written
response to questions, DEP spokesman Kevin Sunday said the department made the
policy change as a result of a "recent" Environmental Hearing Board ruling that
found that a department determination letter is an appealable action that
deserves top-level review. He also said the "DEP takes very strong action in
cases where oil and gas drilling causes methane
migration."
The ruling Mr.
Sunday referred to occurred in May and said that a Washington County resident,
Loren Kiskadden of Amwell, could appeal a negative DEP water testing
determination, which he contended was inaccurate and
incomplete.
In a follow-up
response, Mr. Sunday said determination letters that don't show contamination as
well as those that do will go through the MAA process. That contradicts the
email exchange between Mr. Perry and Alan Eichler, program manager of DEP's oil
and gas district office in Pittsburgh.
John Hanger, DEP
secretary during the Rendell administration, said the DEP bears the burden of
justifying why such a change was made to a science-based process that reported
water test results "honestly and independently and
professionally."
"The process wasn't
broken. There was no abuse. The field staff is professional and careful and does
a good job," Mr. Hanger said. "These determination letters should be based on
good science. You can be concerned about the changes but there's no cases yet to
indicate a problem. "However if we get down the road and see decisions that are
different than the staff recommendations, that could be
troubling."
The latest policy
change follows the
DEP's attempt in March 2011 to
require that all field enforcement actions, also known as "Notices of
Violations," or "NOVs," involving Marcellus Shale gas drilling operations be
pre-approved by administrators in Harrisburg. Staff in DEP field offices
grumbled about the change as did environmental groups and businesses, causing
the department to publicly roll back the policy after two
months.
The number of water
contamination determination letters issued by the DEP each year fluctuates
depending on how many cases of private water supply contamination are reported
and investigated and how widespread the contamination is. According to the DEP,
water contamination letters related to Marcellus drilling and other oil and gas
operations were sent to 57 individuals in 2010, 27 in 2011 and 19 so far this
year.
According to Mr.
Sunday, that data shows the industry's performance and compliance have improved,
due to DEP enforcement actions and new regulations mandating stronger casing and
cementing around wells.
In September, before
the change in policy was announced, Range Resources, one of the state's largest
drilling companies, had several meetings with DEP to contest water contamination
letters sent to three property owners living near the company's Harman Lewis
well in Lycoming County.
Range maintains its
well is not linked to those water problems, which occurred from February through
the summer, and the letters of determination delivered in early September did
not allege a link.
The DEP
determination letters do say the residential water supplies are contaminated,
probably due to methane migration from Marcellus Shale gas drilling, but didn't
name a specific source or company responsible for the
contamination.
"When we saw the
[contamination] letters we met with the DEP on multiple occasions. That's just
part of the process," said Matt Pitzarella, a Range spokesman. adding that the
department has not issued a violation notice or determined that Range caused the
well contamination in the area.
"We've conducted our
own investigation, brought in the best experts, and I can say without a shadow
of a doubt that our gas well operations have nothing to do with this
case."
According to the
DEP, Range was cited in February 2012 for defective cement in casings at the
well. The casing and cement which is located underground around the drill pipe
is designed to act as a seal to prevent gas contamination of shallow
groundwater. Its investigation is ongoing.
Jim Finkler who said
his water began bubbling with methane in February and continued through this
spring and summer, said he has been working with the DEP on the problem and was
happy to receive the determination letter.
"I don't like the
idea of someone in Harrisburg, who's not an expert, intervening one bit," said
Mr. Finkler, who lives about a half mile from the Range well. He said he has not
received replacement water from Range, although the company did install a vent
on his well cap. "The letter should come from the science end of things, and
that's where the determination should be made."
Overall - My comments
Assuming this is done for reasons that is get to the facts and make timely decisions:
1. This could be a good thing - if all notifications go to one place - then it may be possible to require that they be tracked, documented, and decisions released. Therefore, this information should be available for review and be part of a file review process and the referrals should be tracked.
2. This would tend to take the pressure off the field staff and put it on the technical staff / professional staff at central office. This would allow the field staff to provide a recommendations and then this recommendation gets reviewed. This would give the finding more weight and additional support.
3. It would make responses more consistent and allow a rapid lessons learned by the reviewing team that would get a real-time statewide perspective.
4. There are experts in Central Office and as long as they are reviewing the recommendations and confirming the findings this would be a very good peer reviewed approach.
5. The process of identifying and fixing an issue is a slow process. Each company should be required to implement a response and action plan.
My comments assume a lot. Also, if a homeowner has a problem or questions they can always reach out to the Water Research Center or submit their data as part of the Citizens Database.
