Transcript An Assessment of Marcellus Shale Environmental Issues in

An Assessment of Marcellus
Shale Environmental Issues in
West Virginia
By:
David M. Flannery
Kathy G. Beckett
Jackson Kelly PLLC
Presented at:
Marcellus Shale in WV: Emerging Issues
June 21, 2011
Morgantown, WV
1
Overview of Presentation
•
•
•
•
WV Oil and Gas Program
Marcellus Shale activities in WV
Well work permitting
Water
–
–
–
–
–
–
Zero discharge effluent guideline
Disposal options
TDS
Pit Solids
Water withdrawal
EPA Study
• Air issues
• NORM
• Legislative initiatives
2
WV Oil and Gas Program
• Interstate Oil and Gas Compact
Commission – minimum state program
guidelines
• STRONGER – State Review of Oil and
Gas Environmental Regulation
– The 2003 West Virginia review consisted of
two parts. A follow-up review of the progress
made since the 1993 Review and a
supplemental review.
3
Marcellus Shale activities in WV
4
5
6
7
8
Marcellus Shale Wells Drilled
in West Virginia
Permitted
Drilled
2009
426
125
2010
433
58
9
Marcellus Shale Water Tracking
in West Virginia
•
In 2010, 28 of 58 wells reported:
– 156.5 million gallons water withdrawn
– 16 million gallons water recovered (10.2%)
• 2 million gallons UIC disposal
• 13 million gallons reuse
• 1 million gallons centralized treatment
plant and reuse
10
Well Work Permitting
11
Well Work Permitting
Permit required from Office of Oil and Gas for all
wells*
- bonding
- soil and erosion and sediment control plan
- notice to:
•
surface owners
•
coal operators
* W. Va. Code '22-6-6
12
Water Quality
13
Water Pollution Control Permits
Additional permit required for any stream discharge*:
applicable to individual or general permits
must meet water quality standards
must meet effluent guidelines
Onshore Oil and Gas Effluent Guideline (40 C.F.R. '435.32)
“no discharge of waste water pollutants”
exception: “stripper oil wells”
Appalachian Producers requested exemption “Marginal gas
wells” – no action by USEPA
Are Marcellus Shale wells covered by effluent guidelines? See
September 1976 Development Document
* W. Va. Code '22-6-7
14
Water Disposal*
- Prohibition against on-site stream
discharge
- UIC – “best option”
- Recycling
- POTW option heavily restricted; none
authorized at this time
* Office of Oil and Gas, Industry Guidance, January 8, 2010
15
Land Application General Permit
General Water Pollution Control Permit (GP-1-WV88) – “land application permit”
- no discharge to streams
- pit liquids treated / land applied
- pit solids disposed on site
July 30, 2010 Office of Oil and Gas memorandum
“land application of any return fluids from
completion activities in the Marcellus Shale
formation is prohibited”
16
Drilling Pit Reclamation*
Requirements:
1. Pit liners remain intact
2. Pit contents must be solidified with
approved materials
3. A liner must be placed over the top of
pit
* Office of Oil and Gas, Memorandum, March 23, 2010
17
Total Dissolved Solids
- Existing water quality criteria
• chloride
• sulfate
- On-going water quality concerns are causing some to
call for TDS criteria of 500 mg/l
• WV Legislature rejection of TDS criteria
• ORSANCO?
- Issues
• 500 mg/l is a non-enforceable drinking water criteria
• no stream discharge of Marcellus Shale water
• need for additional scientific research
18
Water Withdrawal
19
Water Withdrawal*
- W.Va. Code Chapter 22, Article 26
requires after-the-fact reporting
- Office of Oil and Gas now requires prior
reporting and approval:
• supplemental permit application form
• no withdrawal allowed “at volumes beyond
which the waters can sustain”
• Water Withdrawal Guidance Tool
* Office of Oil and Gas, Industry Guidance, January 8, 2010
20
USEPA Hydraulic Fracturing Study
- February 28, 2011 request to EPA Science
Advisory Board
- Initial results: end of 2012
- Additional results: 2014
- Scope:
• acquisition of water
• chemical additives
• fracturing
• flow back management (including treatment
and disposal)
21
Air Issues
22
Air Issues
- Permitting:
• Minor source permitting (45 CFR 13)
individual compressors, etc.
• Major source permitting (45 CFR 14)
aggregation of activities?
McCarthy Memo (September 22, 2009)
aggregation criteria
1.
adjacent property
2.
common control
3.
single industrial grouping
Hughes v. DEP (10-3-AQB) – dismissed
23
Air Quality Modeling*
* Performed by Alpine Geophysics for the Midwest Ozone Group
24
O3 Trends by Regions
RPO Regional Average O3 Design Values
Ozone Concentration [ppm]
0.1
0.09
0.08
0.07
CENRAP
0.06
MANE-VU
MRPO
0.05
VISTAS
Standard
0.04
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
25
* Performed by Alpine Geophysics for the Midwest Ozone Group
New Haven, Connecticut
90
Hudson, New Jersey
Allegan, Michigan
Butler, Ohio
Monmouth, New Jersey
Cecil, Maryland
Mecklenburg, North Carolina
Warren, Ohio
Hampden, Massachusetts
Hamilton, Ohio
Gloucester, New Jersey
Fairfield, Connecticut
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Westchester, New York
Suffolk, New York
Harford, Maryland
Bucks, Pennsylvania
Ozone DV (ppb)
8-hour Ozone Modeling Results*
2008 DVB (Obs)
2014 DVF (BAU)
2018 DVF (BAU)
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
County
26
PM2.5 Trends: Regions
PM 2.5 Concentration ug/m3]
RPO Regional Average PM2.5 Annual Design Values
18
16
14
12
10
8
c
CENRAP
6
MANE-VU
4
MRPO
2
VISTAS
0
2000
Standards
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
PM 2.5 Concentration ug/m3]
RPO Regional Average PM2.5 24-Hour Design Values
40
35
30
25
20
CENRAP
15
MANE-VU
MRPO
10
VISTAS
5
0
2000
Standards
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
27
* Performed by Alpine Geophysics for the Midwest Ozone Group
Scott, Iowa
18
Marion, Indiana
Clark, Indiana
Saint Clair, Illinois
Cook, Illinois
New Castle, Delaware
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Brooke, West Virginia
Beaver, Pennsylvania
Hamilton, Ohio
Cuyahoga, Ohio
Wayne, Michigan
Madison, Illinois
Allegheny, Pennsylvania
Annual PM2.5 dv (µg/m^3)
PM 2.5 (Annual) Modeling Results*
20
2008 DVB (Obs)
2014 DVF (BAU)
2018 DVF (BAU)
16
14
12
10
8
County
28
P
en
Br
ns
oo
yl
ke
va
,W
ni
a
es
tV
i rg
W
ay
in
La
ia
ne
nc
,M
as
ic
te
hi
r,
ga
Pe
n
n
H
n
sy
ud
lv
so
an
n,
ia
N
ew
Je
C
rs
uy
ey
ah
M
o
i lw
ga
au
,O
ke
hi
e,
o
W
N
ew
isc
on
Yo
Ph
si
rk
n
i la
,N
de
ew
lp
hi
Yo
a,
rk
Pe
nn
sy
Br
lv
on
an
x,
ia
N
Be
ew
rk
Yo
s,
rk
P
en
D
au
ns
yl
ph
va
in
N
ni
,P
or
a
th
e
am
nn
sy
pt
lv
on
an
,P
ia
en
Be
ns
av
y
er
lva
,P
ni
en
a
ns
yl
va
M
ni
us
a
ca
t in
U
e
ni
,I
on
ow
C
,N
um
a
ew
be
rl a
Je
nd
rs
ey
,P
en
ns
Br
yl
ow
va
ni
n,
a
N
W
ew
is
c
C
on
as
si
tle
n
,D
el
aw
Je
ar
ffe
e
rs
on
,O
hi
o
Al
le
gh
en
y,
24-hr PM2.5 Design Value (µg/m3)
PM 2.5 (24-hour) Modeling Results*
60
55
2008 DVB (Obs)
2014 DVF (BAU)
50
2018 DVF (BAU)
45
40
35
30
25
20
County
* Performed by Alpine Geophysics for the Midwest Ozone Group
29
Air Quality Modeling Conclusion
• The ozone NAAQS can be achieved with no new
controls no later than 2014
• The annual PM NAAQS can be achieved with no new
controls no later than 2014 with the possible exception of
local controls at the Allegheny PA location
• The 24-hr PM NAAQS can be achieved with no new
controls no later than 2014 with the possible exception of
local controls at the Allegheny PA and Brooke WV
locations
30
NORM
31
NORM
WVDEP presentation to legislative
committee (May 7, 2011)
- testing shows “safe levels of
radioactivity from drilling the Marcellus
Shale”
- radiation in WV may be of less concern
than PA
- testing in PA has shown radiation levels
“at or below normal”
32
Legislative Initiatives
33
WVDEP Proposed Legislation
SB 424 (2011)
1. $10,000 fee for horizontal drilling
2. Revised permitting requirements
3. Require a water management plan for
horizontal drilling
4. Increased penalty authority
5. New regulation of large impoundments
(independent of well work permit)
34
WVDEP Proposed Legislation
SB 424 (2011) (cont)
6. New BMP requirement (including protection of
groundwater and fugitive particulate matter)
7. No water withdrawal beyond what the waters
can sustain
8. Enhanced notice requirements
9. Enhanced inspection authority
10. Seismic activity subject to notice to Miss Utility
and to property owners
11. Regulate pooling of gas from horizontal
shallow wells
35
Joint Judiciary Proposed Legislation
HB 2878 (2011)
1. New well work permit required for horizontal
wells
2. New water pollution permit required
3. Permit application must include certification of
Division of Highways
4. Enhanced notice to property owners
5. 1000 feet buffer from building / water wells
6. 2500 feet buffer from surface (1000 feet from
groundwater) source for horizontal wells
7. Enhanced enforcement authority
36
Joint Judiciary Proposed Legislation
HB 2878 (2011) (cont)
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Expanded pre-drilling survey requirement
Disclosure of chemicals used in fracturing
Double liners for centralized impoundments
Water withdrawal plan required
Mandates surface use and compensation
agreement
13. Appeal to Environmental Quality Board
14. Pre-empts local ordinances but not zoning
37
Conclusion
• WV DEP has developed a Marcellus Shale
regulatory program based upon its well work
permit.
• New legislation will buttress the existing
regulatory program and address important
issues such as horizontal shallow well pooling.
• Even with new legislation, it is likely that some
parties will continue to raise objections to
horizontal drilling.
38
Contact Information
Kathy G. Beckett
Jackson Kelly PLLC
PO Box 553
Charleston, WV 25322
Telephone: (304) 340-1019
Email: [email protected]
39