Monday, April 8, 2013

Recent Court of Appeal decisions show the ERCB has a history of not upholding its own laws and even the Royal Society of Canada chided the agency for a 2007 incident in which the regulator spied on landowners and damaged “its credibility as an independent quasi-judicial board.” In a court document filed on December 5/2012, the ERCB argues that it is exempt from liability for its actions in the Ernst case and that it owes no “duty of care” to landowners impacted by oil and gas development. “I suspect that most Albertans will be shocked to learn that the province’s oil and gas regulator is arguing that it is totally immune from legal accountability even if there is gross negligence and incompetence,” says Murray Klippenstein, lawyer for Jessica Ernst. Last December, an ERCB investigation found a company guilty of “accidentally” perforating above the Base of Groundwater Protection and contaminating groundwater near Grand Prairie but issued no fine saying the incident “posed an insignificant risk to drinking water resources” in a sandstone aquifer. One third of Alberta’s population is dependent on groundwater for drinking purposes.



From: Julie Ali [mailto:julie.ali@]
Sent: April-08-13 10:27 AM
To: 'pm@pm.gc.ca'; 'rajotj1@parl.gc.ca'; 'calgary.elbow@assembly.ab.ca'; 'edmonton.whitemud@assembly.ab.ca'
Cc: 'stephen.mandel@edmonton.ca'; 'linda.sloan@edmonton.ca'; 'kim.krushell@edmonton.ca'; 'dave.loken@edmonton.ca'; 'ben.henderson@edmonton.ca'; 'karen.leibovici@edmonton.ca'; 'jane.batty@edmonton.ca'; 'tony.caterina@edmonton.ca'; 'ed.gibbons@edmonton.ca'; 'bryan.anderson@edmonton.ca'; 'don.iveson@edmonton.ca'; 'kerry.diotte@edmonton.ca'; 'amarjeet.sohi@edmonton.ca'; 'calgary.hawkwood@assembly.ab.ca'; 'edmonton.castledowns@assembly.ab.ca'; 'grandeprairie.smoky@assembly.ab.ca'; 'calgary.hays@assembly.ab.ca'; 'draytonvalley.devon@assembly.ab.ca'; 'edmonton.strathcona@assembly.ab.ca'; 'peace.river@assembly.ab.ca'; 'sherwood.park@assembly.ab.ca'; 'wetaskiwin.camrose@assembly.ab.ca'; 'lethbridge.east@assembly.ab.ca'; 'edmonton.millwoods@assembly.ab.ca'; 'strathcona.sherwoodpark@assembly.ab.ca'; 'calgary.lougheed@assembly.ab.ca'; 'leduc.beaumont@assembly.ab.ca'; 'edmonton.manning@assembly.ab.ca'; 'edmonton.decore@assembly.ab.ca'; 'vermilion.lloydminster@assembly.ab.ca'; 'calgary.fishcreek@assembly.ab.ca'; 'lacombe.ponoka@assembly.ab.ca'; 'calgary.buffalo@assembly.ab.ca'; 'calgary.mccall@assembly.ab.ca'; 'chestermere.rockyview@assembly.ab.ca'; 'medicine.hat@assembly.ab.ca'; 'oldsdidsbury.threehills@assembly.ab.ca'; 'laclabiche.stpaul.twohills@assembly.ab.ca'; 'highwood@assembly.ab.ca'; 'livingstone.macleod@assembly.ab.ca'; 'drumheller.stettler@assembly.ab.ca'; 'calgary.mountainview@assembly.ab.ca'; 'edmonton.whitemud@assembly.ab.ca'; 'edmonton.rutherford@assembly.ab.ca'; 'athabasca.sturgeon.redwater@assembly.ab.ca'; 'fortmcmurray.conklin@assembly.ab.ca'; 'ahscorp@albertahealthservices.ca'; 'AHSB Admin'; 'Simons, Paula (Edm Journal)'; 'jconnolly@edmontonjournal.com'; 'lchodan@edmontonjournal.com'; 'Dave Colburn'; 'Heather.MacKenzie@epsb.ca'; 'Michael.Janz@epsb.ca'; 'Sarah.Hoffman@epsb.ca'; 'Cheryl.Johner@epsb.ca'; 'Ken.Shipka@epsb.ca'; 'Leslie.Cleary@epsb.ca'; 'Christopher.Spencer@epsb.ca'; 'Catherine.Ripley@epsb.ca'; 'Jacquie Hansen (Mobile PDA)'; 'Edmonton Meadowlark'; 'edmonton.highlandsnorwood@assembly.ab.ca'; 'Elizabeth.May@parl.gc.ca'; 'bob.rae@parl.gc.ca'; 'thomas.mulcair@parl.gc.ca'; 'louis.plamondon@parl.gc.ca'; 'skearns@oktlaw.com'; 'Jay Ramotar'; 'tony.clement.a1@parl.gc.ca'; 'swimau@anishinabek.ca'; 'partners@pppcouncil.ca'; 'edmonton.rutherford@assembly.ab.ca'; 'athabasca.sturgeon.redwater@assembly.ab.ca'; 'fortmcmurray.conklin@assembly.ab.ca'; 'Newsroom@globeandmail.com'; 'Heather Raymond'; 'Joyce Clayton'; 'contact@jessicaernst.ca'; 'publisher@calgaryherald.com'; 'lmotley@calgaryherald.com'; 'jose.rodriguez@sunmedia.ca'; 'martin.hudson@sunmedia.ca'
Subject: and so we want a new government


When you get up do not be sorry
that you are speaking against the government of Alberta
(that has failed at its work
of protecting the public interest)

We are to dissent daily until
they protect the ground water in Alberta
and we are to shout about this matter
from the rooftops of the legislature   until the children are safe

We are to throw their history of negligence and obstruction  in their faces
so that they will see the radioactive water wastes finally as the pollutants they are
that they have dug under in the fields of Rosebud Alberta where we grow our crops
and if they tell us this is perfectly safe we are to refuse their lies

If it is so safe     then why don’t they go and  live there?
Why don’t they drink from the well water
in Jessica Ernst’s land that is now worthless?
What will we do when they frack Alberta all to hell and use up all our water

because they obey their oil masters and not the citizens of Canada?
Will we say we were too afraid to speak up for our children?
Will we say we were under the sickle and the boot of the Republicans we have hired
and they sent the RCMP to our door to intimidate us into silence? Will we remain cowards?

Do we live in China or Russia?
Or is it that democracy that was once alive in Canada is finally dead?
When we put our faith in these people in government
did we expect they would betray us as traitors and bullies?

They work for the oil industry and treat us
like disposable diapers   and so we want a new government
that won’t frack the aquifers to kingdom come
that won’t use up all our reservoirs of water and bitumen

We want something left for our children
(if they tell us that this all about business we do not accept these excuses
We are to tell them  we understand this is about power
that the people have none      this is a matter about democracy and its subversion)

We understand clearly we  the people
have no power to alter the rule of dictators in government  and that our resources
are being plundered  every day    We understand that our
country is being turned over to the foreign corporations for profits we will not see ourselves

We understand big oil and fracking companies  obey their own laws
and treat the environment like a landfill because of our government’s failure in oversight
We won’t tolerate this   We are telling our government
we will rise up and upend them  if they do not obey what we tell them about fracking and emissions

They are to protect the water
so that we can be sure that we are not drinking
pollutants along with fire    with the water in our wells
and taps   They are to ensure that the bitumen we are giving away to big oil

doesn’t destroy our health and that
carcinogens in emissions and in oil spills    do not set up the future
of cancers for our children   We want the government
to wake up and deal with the tailings ponds now and not later

We want our government to see that we are serious
about this matter   and that we are working daily in small ways
to hire new people to do the work of government who will replace them
and it will not be the Tories ever that will come back to rule us for they betrayed our trust

We have had forty years and more of lies
and secrecy in Alberta     we the people are rising up
daily  and telling those we have now in government
they had better deal with the issue of fracking and emissions pronto

We won’t be patient forever
This is our land air and water we are speaking about
This is the heritage of our children
They’d better get cracking and do the job for which they were hired

We can see that other countries like the USA are becoming active
in the work of research and legislation
but what about Canada?       Will we get what we are asking for
forty years and more?    Or is it already too late for those who have the seeds of cancer in them?

When we think about this matter
we can see that the neglect has been evil   I see our government hires as psychopaths walking
When will we evict them?   I say to you sooner rather than later
They have had decades to create this disaster and even now cannot be leaders




Pavillion

DRAFT REPORT
EPA has released a draft report outlining findings from the Pavillion, Wyoming groundwater investigation for public comment and independent scientific peer review. The draft report will be available for public comment through September 2013. A subsequent peer-review process will be led by a panel of independent scientists.
EPA is accepting public comments on the draft report through September 30, 2013.
Federal Register Notice announcing extension of public comment period

Groundwater Investigation

http://www.epa.gov/region8/superfund/wy/pavillion/Pavillion_Location.jpg
Site Type: Non-NPL
City: Pavillion
County: Fremont
ZIP Code: 82523
EPA ID: WYN000802735
SSID: 08QV
Congressional District: At Large


On this page:

On other pages:

  • Site Documents: more than 800 documents related to quality assurance, monitoring well drilling information, raw laboratory data, well sampling information, lab standard operating procedures, and lab-produced reports


What's New?

January 11, 2013
EPA is extending the public comment period for the draft research report to September 30, 2013. During this time, EPA will continue its public outreach activities including meeting with key stakeholders and posting additional technical information on this website. This extension will allow the public additional opportunity to comment on EPA's draft report and the latest round of sampling conducted by EPA and USGS. The Agency will take into account new data, further stakeholder input, and public comment as it continues to review the status of the Pavillion investigation and considers options for moving forward. View the Federal Register notice announcing the extension of the public comment period (PDF) (2 pp, 203K).
November 6, 2012
EPA has updated and corrected the well completion schematics for Monitoring Wells 01 and 02 based on a detailed review of the drillers logs and field notes. View the updated schematics here:
October 16, 2012
EPA has extended the public comment period on the Draft Report until January 15, 2013. View the Federal Register Notice announcing the extension of the public comment period (PDF) (2 pp, 204K).
October 10, 2012
EPA released the methodology and results for samples collected during April 2012. Click here for more information.
September 26, 2012
The U.S. Geological Survey has released data from samples taken from a Pavillion area monitoring well earlier this year. USGS conducted this sampling at the request of the State of Wyoming and in coordination with EPA. This data will be made available to the independent peer review panel that will review EPA's draft Pavillion groundwater report beginning later this year.
June: Update on 2012 sampling activity
EPA, in cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey, the Tribes, and the State of Wyoming, is re-sampling two monitoring wells the Agency installed in the Pavillion area in the summer of 2010. EPA is also collecting samples from four private and one public water supply well. Sample results, which are expected later this summer, will be posted on this web page. These data will be made available for public comment and included in the peer review process.
March 8: EPA extending public comment period and delaying peer review to consider additional sampling
EPA and the State of Wyoming recognize the value of further sampling of the deep monitoring wells drilled for the Agency’s ground water study in Pavillion, Wyoming. EPA will partner with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the State, and the Tribes to complete this sampling as soon as possible.
To ensure that the results of this next phase of testing are available for the peer review process, EPA has delayed convening the peer review panel on the Pavillion Draft Report until a report containing the USGS data are publicly available. In addition, EPA is extending the public comment period on the Draft Report through October 2012 to provide additional time for the public to review and comment on the new data. Federal Register Notice announcing public comment period (PDF, 5 pp, 75K)
View the full joint statement from EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, Governor Matt Mead and the Northern Arapaho and Eastern Shoshone Tribes.
February 8: The public comment period on the Draft Peer Review Charge opened on February 8; the comment period has closed. View public comments on the Draft Peer Review Charge that were received during the public comment period:
January 31: 622 files have been added to the Site Documents page. The files include additional analytical data and QA documentation.
January 23:
January 18: EPA is inviting the public to nominate scientific experts to be considered as peer reviewers of a draft report on the Pavillion ground water investigation. Nominations will be accepted through February 17. Details can be found in the Federal Register notice. (PDF, 2 pp, 156K)
View more information on the peer review process.
December 14, 2011: EPA has released a draft report outlining findings from the Pavillion, Wyoming groundwater investigation for public comment and independent scientific peer-review. See the box at the top right of this page for more information.
November 9, 2011: EPA released the latest data from Pavillion-area domestic and monitoring wells at a public meeting on November 9, 2011. We are sharing this data with the community, Encana, the state, tribes and federal partners as part of an ongoing process to develop sound science about contamination in the aquifer used by Pavillion residents for drinking water.
EPA will release a draft research report summarizing investigation findings. This report will be available for public comment as part of an independent peer-review process coordinated by our Office of Research and Development.
Public Documents and Presentations


Site Description

Welcome to Pavillion, Wyoming
Pavillion, Wyoming is located in Fremont County, about 20 miles northwest of Riverton. In 2003, the estimated population was 166 residents. The concern at the site is potential groundwater contamination, based on resident complaints about smells, tastes and adverse changes in water quality of their domestic wells. Community members contacted EPA in spring 2008.
The Pavillion area has approximately 80 domestic wells. The town of Pavillion provides municipal water to residents through eight groundwater wells. Private water wells just outside the town of Pavillion are used for drinking water, irrigation, and stock watering, and are completed at depths from 50 feet to 750 feet or more. Pavillion is within the Wind River Indian Reservation as described by the Northern Arapaho and Eastern Shoshone Tribes in a pending application for treatment in a similar manner as a state under the Clean Air Act. The site is located west of Boysen State Park.
January 2010 sampling
January 2010 sampling
In March 2009 EPA sampled 39 individual wells (37 residential wells and two municipal wells). The purpose of this sampling was to collect data to assess groundwater conditions and evaluate potential threats to human health and the environment. EPA conducted additional sampling in Pavillion in January 2010. This effort included sampling 21 domestic wells within the area of concern, two municipal wells, and sediment and water from a nearby creek. EPA has also sampled groundwater and soil from pit remediation sites, produced water, and condensate from five production wells operated by the primary natural gas operator in the area. EPA installed two monitoring wells in the Pavillion area in 2010. Data collected from these wells will build upon prior sampling events and help us further assess groundwater hydrology and contamination in the aquifer. EPA released the latest data from domestic and monitoring wells at a public meeting on November 9, 2011.
The Pavillion groundwater investigation is being conducted by EPA’s regional office in Denver in collaboration with scientists from our Office of Research and Development.


Site Reports and Public Presentations

You will need Adobe Acrobat Reader to view some of the files on this page. See EPA's PDF page to learn more.
Best way to open a very large file: right-click and save it to a folder
Documents related to August 31, 2010 public meeting:


Phase 2 Field Sampling Plan, January 2010 (PDF, 52 pp, 557K)
Public Meeting Presentation of Phase 1 Sampling Results, August 11, 2009 (PDF, 10 pp, 1.4MB)
Groundwater Investigation Analytical Results Report and Phase I Maps, August 2009 (PDF, 49 pp, 3.2MB)


Contacts

Richard Mylott
Public Affairs
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8
1595 Wynkoop Street (OC)
Denver, CO 80202-1129
303-312-6654
800-227-8917 ext. 312-6654 (toll free Region 8 only)
mylott.richard@epa.gov
Larry Jackson
Media Relations
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Headquarters
Washington, DC
202-564-0906
202-564-0236
jackson.larry@epa.gov


Photo/Video Gallery

Click on a thumbnail below to view the full size image.
  • http://www.epa.gov/region8/superfund/wy/pavillion/Pavillion_landscape_t.jpg
Pavillion, Wyoming landscape
  • http://www.epa.gov/region8/superfund/wy/pavillion/Pavillion_0110sampling_t.jpg
January 2010 sampling
  • http://www.epa.gov/region8/superfund/wy/pavillion/Pavillion_0110sampling2_t.jpg
January 2010 sampling
  • http://www.epa.gov/region8/superfund/wy/pavillion/Pavillion_Collecting0110samples_t.jpg
Collecting January 2010 samples
  • http://www.epa.gov/region8/superfund/wy/pavillion/Pavillion_Preparing0110samples_t.jpg
Preparing January 2010 samples


You are here:

EPA Region 3 (Mid-Atlantic)

http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/maps/region3.gif
Serving Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia
Related Information


Hotlines:
  • Business Assistance 800-228-8711
  • Regional tip line (formerly "eyes on drilling") 877-919-4372 or via the internet epa.gov/tips
  • Superfund 800-553-2509




Energy Vampires

http://www.epa.gov/region3/multimedia/images/VampireEnergy_sm.jpg
Podcast: Alexander Van Savings meets Countess Drainawatts!
Podcast | Get MP3 player | Transcript | More on energy vampires from EnergyStar.gov

Key Issues

Region 3 News & Events

All Region 3 News & Events
News
Events

 

Contact the About EPA Web editor to ask a question, provide feedback, or report a problem.
Region 3: The Mid-Atlantic States
Serving Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia
Recent Additions | Contact Us Search: All EPA This Area


Key Documents About Mid-Atlantic Oil and Gas Extraction

You will need Adobe Acrobat to view some of the files on this page.
See EPA's PDF page to learn more.


If you have problems accessing any of the documents on this page, please contact us.
Documents Referred to in 5/12/11 EPA News Release

Natural Gas Drilling Tipline
You can provide tips anonymously if you do not want to identify yourself.
Related Topics
On this page

Background

Extraction from “unconventional” resources – shale gas formations, coal beds and tight sands – through the combination of horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, as well as other techniques, has increased at a rapid pace in recent years.
The Marcellus Shale is a sedimentary formation that underlies most of Pennsylvania and West Virginia and extends into parts of Virginia, Maryland, New York and Ohio. It is one of several important gas reserves in the United States and is one of the largest natural gas “plays” in the world. A "play" is the geographic area underlain by a gas or oil containing geologic formation such as the Marcellus Shale.
Development of these gas plays and other unconventional resources presents significant potential for economic development and energy independence, as well as the potential for environmental impacts on land, water and air.
While EPA is currently undertaking a national study to examine potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing to drinking water resources, EPA is also working with federal, state and local partners to ensure public health and the environment are protected as unconventional resource extraction and production activities become a more prominent component of the oil and gas sector.
EPA has received inquiries from the general public and a diverse range of stakeholders regarding a variety of topics related to unconventional resource extraction and oil and gas development in general. In keeping with EPA’s commitment to transparency, EPA Region 3 has developed this Public Reading Room dedicated to providing public access to documentation of EPA’s activities related to key oil and gas topics in the Mid-Atlantic states.


Site Construction

Administrative Orders Addressing Violations of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act at Oil and Gas Construction Sites
Company
Facility Location
Date of Letter
Harrison Co., W.Va.
June 21, 2011
Harrison Co., W.Va.
June 21, 2011
Harrison Co., W.Va.
June 21, 2011
Harrison Co., W.Va.
May 23, 2011
Harrison Co., W.Va.
March 31, 2011
Harrison Co., W.Va.
March 31, 2011
Harrison Co., W.Va.
July 28, 2011
Marshall Co., W.Va.
May 23, 2011
Marshall Co., W.Va.
Sept. 28, 2011
New Martinsville, Wetzel Co., W.Va.
Nov. 2, 2010
New Martinsville, Wetzel Co., W.Va.
Sept. 15, 2011
Cameron, Marshall Co., W.Va.
Nov. 2, 2010
Buckhannon, Upshur Co., W.Va.
Sept. 15, 2011
Marshall Co., W.Va.
June 21, 2011
New Martinsville, Wetzel Co., W.Va.
Nov. 2, 2010
Rock Cave, Upshur Co., W.Va.
Sept. 15, 2011
New Martinsville, Wetzel Co., W.Va.
Oct. 5, 2010
Buzzard Property, Cameron, Marshall Co., W.Va.
Jan. 26, 2011
Pleasant Ridge, Marshall Co., W.Va.
Jan. 26, 2011
Villers Property, Marshall Co., W.Va.
Jan. 26, 2011
Wetzel Co., W.Va.
March 31, 2011
New Martinsville, Wetzel Co., W.Va.
Jan. 11, 2011
Knob Fork, W.Va.
Aug. 30, 2012
Center Point, Doddridge County, W.Va.
Feb. 22, 2012
Tallmansville, Upshur Co., W.Va.
Dec. 2, 2011
Nutter Fort, Harrison Co., W.Va.
Feb. 2, 2012
Nutter Fort, Harrison Co., W.Va.
Feb. 2, 2012
Mount Clare, Harrison Co., W.Va.
April 30, 2012
Mount Clare, Harrison Co., W.Va.
Aug. 23, 2012
New Martinsville, W.Va.
Nov. 9, 2012
Porter Falls, W.Va.
Mar. 29, 2013
Wetzel Co., W.Va.
Sept. 28, 2012
Marshall Co., W.Va.
Dec. 17, 2012
Wetzel Co., W.Va.
Sept. 28, 2012
Marshall Co., W.Va.
Dec. 17, 2012
Marshall Co., W.Va.
Dec. 17, 2012
Marshall Co., W.Va.
Dec. 17, 2012
Marshall Co., W.Va.
Sept. 28, 2012
Lumberport, Harrison Co., W.Va.
Sept. 28, 2011
Marion Co., W.Va.
June 23, 2011
Marion Co., W.Va.
Feb. 29, 2012


Clean Water Act Section 308 Information Requests

EPA Request for Information on Marcellus Shale Flowback Water
On May 12, 2011, EPA’s Mid-Atlantic Region issued information request letters to six natural gas drillers directing them to disclose how and where they dispose of or recycle wastewater generated by their Marcellus Shale natural gas exploration, extraction and production activities. These six companies currently hold more than half of all permits issued for natural gas drilling in Pennsylvania.
EPA’s directive followed an April 19, 2011 request by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) that by May 19, 2011, natural gas well drilling operators voluntarily stop taking gas extraction wastewater to 15 facilities in Pennsylvania.
The companies were directed to report back to EPA by May 25, 2011 with information on disposal or recycling practices for the wastewater through the development of natural gas wells they own and/or operate in EPA’s Mid-Atlantic Region.
In the letters, EPA required the companies to describe how they intend to handle gas extraction wastewater during 2011.  All six companies indicated their intention to employ reuse, disposal, and/or treatment rather than using any of the 15 wastewater treatment facilities referenced in PADEP’s April 19, 2011 request. Some companies expressed an intention to reuse over 90% of gas extraction wastewater in 2011.
Most of this information has been released through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). EPA is not endorsing or adopting this information by posting this information on our website.
To facilitate online review of these records, EPA has parsed some files into multiple components and omitted duplicative records.
EPA is in the process of reviewing the information it has received from the natural gas drillers (including review for confidentiality) and, after completing the review, will continue to make this information available as appropriate.


Requests for Information from Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) Taking Oil and Gas Waste
Plant
Facility Location
Date of Letter
Belle Vernon, Pa.
Feb. 19, 2009
Brownsville, Pa.
Feb. 19, 2009
California, Pa.
Feb. 19, 2009
Charleroi, Pa.
Feb. 19, 2009
Clarksburg, W.Va.
Feb. 25, 2009
Waynesburg, Pa.
Feb. 19, 2009
Donora, Pa.
Feb. 19, 2009
McKeesport, Pa.
Feb. 19, 2009
Waynesburg, Pa.
Feb. 19, 2009
Wheeling, W.Va.
Feb. 25, 2009


Clean Water Act Section 309 Administrative Orders

Administrative Orders and Information Requests to Wastewater Treatment Facilities Accepting Wastewater From Marcellus Shale Drilling Operations
Certifications from Sewage Authorities About Accepting Oil and Gas Wastewaters
Wastewater Treatment Facility Effluent Sampling Data Submissions
Wastewater treatment facilities in receipt of the Administrative Orders and Information Requests were given the opportunity to sign and return to EPA certifications stating they were no longer accepting oil and gas exploration and/or production wastewaters. Information request recipients that did not sign and return a certification statement were required to conduct and submit additional effluent sampling in addition to their NPDES permit required monthly discharge monitoring reports. These facilities were required to sample effluent for total dissolved solids, chloride, bromide, sulfate, Gross Alpha, Radium 226 and 228, and Uranium.
Brockway Area Sewer Authority
Dominion Transmission
Minard Run
Ridgway Borough


Wastewater Management

Underground Injection Control
May 12, 2011 Safe Drinking Water Act Proposed Administrative Order to Tunnelton Liquids (PDF) [6 pp, 2MB]
May 12, 2011 Public Notice of Administrative Order to Tunnelton Liquids
Letters regarding National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits for Wastewater Treatment Facilities in Pennsylvania Accepting Oil and Gas Wastewater
NPDES Permit Name
Facility Location
Date of Letter
Brockway Borough, Jefferson Co., Pa.
July 17, 2009
Brockway Borough, Jefferson Co., Pa.
Sept. 21, 2009
City of New Castle, Lawrence Co., Pa.
Aug. 5, 2009
Williamsport, Lycoming Co., Pa.
Sept. 21, 2009


July 13, 2011 Letters from EPA to 14 Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) in Pennsylvania Stating That Drilling Waste May Be Considered a Substantial Change
Location
NPDES Permit Number(s)
PA0027014 and PA0027022
PA0028428
PA0026824
PA0026310
PA0026034
PA0027626
PA0026913
PA0027511
PA0026255
PA0020346
PA0028207
Ridgway Borough (PDF) [3 pp, 423k]
PA0023213
PA0046426
PA0027049 and PA0027057
2013 Letters to Pennsylvania Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) regarding acception of Oil and Gas Waste


Information Provided to EPA by PADEP

EPA Correspondence with PA DEP
EPA Region 3 Letter to PA DEP Dated March 7, 2011 Concerning Natural Gas Drilling Operations (PDF) [3 pp, 704k]
May 12, 2011 Letter from EPA to PADEP Regarding Water Quality Standards (PDF) [2 pp, 756k]
May 12, 2011 Letter from EPA to PADEP Regarding Wastewater Disposal at Tunnelton Liquids Facility (PDF) [2 pp, 891k]
May 12, 2011 Letter from EPA to PADEP Regarding the April 19, 2011 Press Announcement and May 2, 2011 Follow-up Discussions [3 pp, 1.2MB]
July 26, 2011 Letter from PADEP to EPA Regarding PADEP's Call to Gas Drillers to Cease Delivering Wastewater from Shale Gas Extraction to 15 Facilities That Accept It (PDF) [7 pp, 214k]
Information Provided to EPA by PADEP and Through Information Requests to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs). Most of this information has been released through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). EPA is not endorsing or adopting this information by posting this information on our website.
Letters from Hart Resources





Local Navigation

Environmental Kids Club
Environmental Education for Kids





http://www.epa.gov/region03/marcellus_shale/
Last updated on April-04-13

http://www.epa.gov/hfstudy/

EPA's Study of Hydraulic Fracturing and Its Potential Impact on Drinking Water Resources

HF Study Banner

Study of the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources: Progress Report

At the request of Congress, EPA is conducting a study to better understand any potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water and ground water. The scope of the research includes the full lifespan of water in hydraulic fracturing.
The hydraulic fracturing water cycle.  Please click on the image for an explanation of each step.
The first progress report was released in December 2012. A final draft report is expected to be released for public comment and peer review in 2014.
How EPA is doing the research
  • Plan to Study the Potential Impacts of Hydraulic Fracturing on Drinking Water Resources
  • Approach to the Science
  • Quality Assurance & Integrity
  • Peer Review
  • Transparency
Learn More About How EPA is doing the research
How you can get involved
  • Participate in Meetings
  • Technical Stakeholder Outreach
  • Coordination with federal, state and tribal government agencies
  • Peer Review
Learn More About How you can get involved
Contact the Hydraulic Fracturing Study Website Editor to ask a question, provide feedback, or report a problem.
Latest News
EPA posts:
Archives
Spotlight
Read EPA Science blog on HF Study
Highlights
Stakeholder Engagement Roadmap
Questions & Answers
Fact Sheets
2011 Technical Workshops
Case Studies
Publications
email alerts
Sign up for EPA's hydraulic fracturing research email alerts
Other Resources
Main Hydraulic Fracturing Page



The Lawsuit

UPDATE / MISE À JOUR
On a February 20, 2013 case management call, it was decided that Chief Justice Wittmann will choose whether to read the transcripts of the arguments heard by Justice Veldhuis on January 18 and rule, or require a re-hearing which will add significant delay and costs.
On February 8, 2013, the Harper Government promoted Justice Barbara L. Veldhuis to the Court of Appeal of Alberta; she will not rule on the defendants’ applications she heard in Court of Queen’s Bench on January 18, 2013. Court of Queen’s Bench Chief Justice Neil Wittmann volunteered to take over case management.
Ernst Statement to the Calgary Court of Queen’s Bench, read by Murray Klippenstein, January 18, 2013, heard by Justice Barbara L. Veldhuis:

I wanted to attend today’s hearing, but I decided not to attend because I feel strongly that my lawsuit should be heard in the judicial district of Drumheller as it is the courthouse with the closest connection to my dispute. This is where I live; this is where my water is; this is where coalbed methane wells were drilled; and this is where my water is contaminated. It seems to me that it is important to rural Albertans that disputes and harms that occur in our communities are also judged in our communities. Today’s application is not a minor or merely procedural step – it will determine the core issue of whether a landowner can sue the Energy Regulator for failing to protect rural Albertans from the harmful effects of the oil and gas industry.
I have a lot of respect for the court, and because of this respect, I feel it is important to make my position known. I will continue to request that all major applications be heard in Drumheller with the closest connection to my dispute.

Jessica at Drumheller Court, 10 AM, January 18, 2013. Jessica spent the day there, with a witness. Video of the hearing in Calgary Court was not available, requested or the heart of the matter.
On January 18, 2013, in Calgary Court of Queen’s Bench, Judge B. L. Veldhuis heard the defendants’ applications.
Read the original full Statement of Claim filed in Drumheller Court April 21, 2011.
In the summer of 2011, Encana suggests that the case be moved to Calgary. Klippensteins respond by explaining to all defendants why it is best to proceed in the Drumheller judicial centre, which is where the harm took place.
On April 26, 2012, the first hearing took place in Drumheller Court. Rather than hear the defendants’ arguments to strike out the case, Judge Veldhuis requests a shortened statement of claim.
Read the Fresh Statement of Claim filed in Drumheller Court on June 25, 2012.
On October 1, 2012, during a case management call heard by Justice B.L. Veldhuis, Encana, the ERCB and Alberta Environment (HMQ) request the case be moved to Calgary for the convenience of the defendants’ lawyers despite the fact that Drumheller is clearly the court with the closest connections to the lawsuit.
Alberta Environment (HMQ): “It clearly tips in favour of the defendants’ position, that it ought to be in Calgary and not in Drumheller”
Encana’s Drumheller Office
Subsequently, the request to move this particular hearing to Calgary is granted by Judge Velduis and Alberta’s Chief Justice. The Plaintiff respectfully requests that all major applications be heard in Drumheller as it is the judicial district where the harm took place.
Read the ERCB’s Brief of Argument to strike the case against them, filed in Drumheller Court December 5, 2012.
Read Alberta Environment’s (HMQ’s) Brief of Argument on the Special Application to strike paragraphs referring to the other contaminated water wells in the Rosebud community, filed in Drumheller Court on December 5, 2012.
Encana did not file application to strike the case against them or any paragraphs, and argued nothing in court.
Read the Plaintiff’s Brief in Response to the ERCB, filed in Drumheller Court on December 21, 2012.
Read the Plaintiff’s Brief in Response to Alberta Environment (HMQ), filed in Drumheller Court on December 21, 2012.
Read the ERCB’s Reply Brief and Alberta Environment’s (HMQ’s) Reply Brief, filed in Drumheller Court on January 3, 2013.
December 15, 2012 – Encana frac’ing above the Base of Groundwater Protection at Rosebud, Alberta
Landmark Alberta Fracking Lawsuit Resumes in Calgary Court
Alberta’s Key Regulator Argues It Has No Duty of Care to Landowners and Groundwater
Friday Jan. 18 at Court of Queen’s Bench
Suite 705-N, 601 – 5th St SW, Calgary T2P 5P7

10 AM to 4 PM 
Jessica Ernst, a 55-year-old oil and gas industry consultant and scientist from Rosebud, Alberta, returns to court this Friday to continue her multi-million dollar lawsuit against EnCana, one of the continent’s largest unconventional gas producers, for negligence causing water contamination.
Her landmark lawsuit also alleges that the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB), the province’s energy regulator, breached her Charter Rights and failed to “exercise a reasonable standard of care, skill and diligence in taking reasonable and adequate steps to protect her well water from foreseeable contamination caused by drilling for shallow methane gas.”
Recent Court of Appeal decisions show the ERCB has a history of not upholding its own laws and even the Royal Society of Canada chided the agency for a 2007 incident in which the regulator spied on landowners and damaged “its credibility as an independent quasi-judicial board.”
In a court document filed on December 5/2012, the ERCB argues that it is exempt from liability for its actions in the Ernst case and that it owes no “duty of care” to landowners impacted by oil and gas development.
“I suspect that most Albertans will be shocked to learn that the province’s oil and gas regulator is arguing that it is totally immune from legal accountability even if there is gross negligence and incompetence,” says Murray Klippenstein, lawyer for Jessica Ernst.
Last December, an ERCB investigation found a company guilty of “accidentally” perforating above the Base of Groundwater Protection and contaminating groundwater near Grand Prairie but issued no fine saying the incident “posed an insignificant risk to drinking water resources” in a sandstone aquifer. One third of Alberta’s population is dependent on groundwater for drinking purposes.
During the last decade, EnCana intentionally perforated and fractured hundreds of gas wells above the Base of Groundwater Protection at Rosebud. The regulators continue to allow EnCana to do this.
In December 2012, only after about 171,000 energy wells were already fractured in Alberta, did the ERCB release draft regulations. Public input closes the day of this hearing on January 18, 2013.
The $33-million lawsuit effectively puts on trial the practice and regulation of hydraulic fracturing: the controversial blasting of both shallow and deep coal, tight sands, oil and shale formations with toxic chemicals, sand and water.
The poorly studied technology, which can cause earthquakes and methane leaks, has sparked moratoriums, bans, debates and regulatory investigations from New Brunswick to South Africa due to growing concerns about groundwater contamination, property devaluation, air pollution, health impacts and climate change.
Neither EnCana nor the Alberta regulators have yet filed statements of defense on incidents that took place nine years ago that resulted in scores of groundwater complaints.
EnCana, whose CEO abruptly resigned last week, has been the subject of many recent public controversies.  It remains the subject of a major US government groundwater study in Pavillion, Wyoming linking hydraulic fracturing to aquifer contamination as well as an ongoing antitrust investigation in Michigan for allegedly colluding with Chesapeake Energy to keep land prices low. A grassroots organization of mothers has also challenged the company’s aggressive fracing operations in Colorado.
EnCana received record fines from Colorado’s Oil and Gas Commission for contaminating water in 2004.
Murray Klippenstein: 1-416-937-8634
Jessica Ernst: 1-403-677-2074 (cell: 403-436-2062) contact@jessicaernst.ca

Background
A 2008 scientific review panel report for Alberta Environment warned that “preliminary data from the Rosebud, Alberta area suggest groundwater gas concentrations are being underestimated by a factor of three.”
A 2008 presentation to the International Wellbore Intergrity Network in Paris, France, co-authored by the ERCB, admitted “high pressure fracturing” increased the potential to create pathways to groundwater, and “the likelihood that gas, due to migration through shallow zones, can accumulate in buildings.”
A 2009 paper also co-authored by the ERCB on gas migration being a chronic problem reports that “high buildup pressures may potentially force gas into underground water aquifers” and that the factors affecting gas leakage and migration “can be generalized and applied to other basins and/or jurisdictions.”
November 14, 2012 – EnCana spraying drilling waste at Rosebud
Procès marquant reprend à la cour de Calgary, en Alberta 
Un régulateur clé de l’Alberta prétend qu’il n’a pas le devoir de protection envers les propriétaires terriens et l’eau souterraine 
Vendredi le 18 janvier à la Cour du Banc de la Reine
Suite 705
-N, 601 – 5e Rue SO, Calgary T2P 5P7 
10:00 heures à 16:00 heures 
Jessica Ernst, une consultante  pour l’industrie pétrolière et gazière et scientifique de Rosebud en Alberta, âgée de 55 ans, revient devant le tribunal ce vendredi pour continuer son procès de plusieurs millions de dollars contre EnCana, l’un des plus important producteurs de gaz non conventionnel du continent, à cause de négligence qui aurait causé de la contamination de l’eau.
Son procès important prétend aussi que la commission Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) de l’Alberta, le régulateur de l’énergie de la province, aurait violé sa Charte de Droits et aurait manqué à son devoir “d’exercer une norme raisonnable de protection, compétences et diligence en prenant des mesures raisonnables et adéquates pour protéger son eau de puits de la contamination prévisible causée en forant à la recherche de gaz de méthane peu profond.”
Des décisions récentes de la cour d’appel démontrent que la ERCB a une historique de ne pas faire respecter ses propres lois et même la Société royale du Canada a réprimandé l’agence pour  un incident de 2007 durant lequel le régulateur a espionné sur des propriétaires terriens et nuit à “sa crédibilité en tant qu’une commission indépendante quasi judiciaire.”
Dans un document de la cour déposé le 5 décembre 2012, la ERCB soutient qu’elle est exemptée de toute responsabilité de ses actions dans la cause Ernst et n’a pas “le devoir de protection” envers les propriétaires terriens impactés par le développement pétrolier et gazier.
“Je pense que la plupart des Albertains seraient choqués d’apprendre que le régulateur de la province argumente qu’il est complètement exonéré de toute responsabilité légale même s’il y a eu extrême négligence et incompétence,” dit Murray Klippenstein, l’avocat de Jessica Ernst.
En décembre dernier, une enquête de la ERCB a déclaré une compagnie coupable d’avoir “accidentellement” perforé au-dessus de la base de protection de l’eau souterraine et avait contaminé l’eau souterraine près de  Grand Prairie mais n’a émis aucune amende, disant que l’incident “ne posait pas de risque important à la ressource d’eau potable” dans un aquifère de formation de grès. Un tiers de la population de l’Alberta dépend de l’eau souterraine pour son eau potable.
Pendant la dernière décennie, EnCana a intentionnellement perforé et fracturé des centaines de puits de gaz bien au-dessus de la bas de protection de l’eau souterraine à Rosebud. Les régulateurs continuent de permettre  Encana de le faire.
En décembre 2012, une fois qu’environ 171,000 puits énergétiques avaient déjà été fracturés en Alberta, et seulement à ce moment-là, la ERCB a émit son ébauche de règlements. La période pour recevoir les commentaires du public termine en cette journée de séance le 18 janvier 2013.
En réalité, le procès de $33 millions met en cause la pratique et les règlements encadrant la fracturation hydraulique: le dynamitage controversé  des formations de charbon, qu’elles soient à faible profondeur ou très creuses, des réservoirs étanches dans le sable ou le schiste, des formations  contenant du pétrole ou du gaz,  avec des produits chimiques toxiques, du sable et de l’eau.
La technologie, si peu étudiée, qui peut provoquer des séismes et des fuites de méthane, a déclenché des moratoires, des interdictions, des débats et des enquêtes régulatrices du Nouveau-Brunswick jusqu’en Afrique du Sud à cause des préoccupations grandissantes pour les contaminations de l’eau souterraine, les dévaluations des propriétés, la pollution de l’air, les impacts sur la santé et les changements climatiques.
Ni EnCana, ni les régulateurs de l’Alberta n’ont encore déposé des requêtes pour la défense à propos des incidents qui ont eu lieu il y a de cela 9 ans maintenant et qui sont la source de plusieurs plaintes de problèmes d’eau souterraine.
EnCana, dont le PDG a brusquement démissionné la semaine dernière, a été  au coeur de plusieurs controverses publiques récemment.  La compagnie est toujours impliquée dans une étude gouvernementale sur l’eau souterraine aux États-Unis à Pavillion, au Wyoming, qui fait des liens entre la fracturation hydraulique aux contaminations de l’aquifère ainsi qu’avec une enquête antitrust toujours en cour au Michigan pour une présumée collusion avec Chesapeake Energy afin de garder les valeurs des terres à la baisse. Un groupe populaire de mères a aussi mis au défi les opérations agressives de la compagnie au Colorado.
EnCana a reçu amendes qui ont battu des record de la Commission pétrolière et gazière du Colorado pour avoir contaminé l’eau en 2004.
Murray Klippenstein: 1-416-937-8634
Jessica Ernst: 1-403-677-2074 (cell: 403-436-2062) contact@jessicaernst.ca

Mise en contexte
Un rapport de 2008 d’un comité de révision scientifique pour Environnement Alberta prévenait que les “données préliminaires venant de Rosebud, en Alberta, laissait penser que les concentrations de gaz dans l’eau souterraine sont sous-estimées par un facteur de trois.”
Une présentation au groupe International Wellbore Intergrity Network en 2008 à Paris, France, dont la ERCB était un coauteur, admettait que la “fracturation à haute pression” augmentait le potentiel de créer des passages vers l’eau souterraine, et “la probabilité que le gaz, à cause de la migration à travers les zones peu profondes, peut s’accumuler dans les bâtiments.”
Un papier dont ERCB est aussi un co-auteur datant de 2009 sur la migration du gaz étant un problème chronique rapporte que “l’accumulation importante de la pression peut potentiellement forcer le gaz à pénétrer dans les aquifères d’eau souterraine” et que les facteurs affectant les fuites de gaz et la migration “peuvent être généralisés et s’appliquer à d’autres basins et/ou d’autres juridictions.”
November 2012 – EnCana’s drilling waste at Rosebud
CAPP’s 2006 Best Management [Voluntary] Practices for NGC/CBM:  “Drilling fluids are transported, stored and handled in tanks. Typically, drilling fluid waste will be transported off-site for re-use and treatment/disposal…. Some additives may be caustic, toxic, or acidic.”
Alberta Landspraying While Drilling (LWD) Review Public Lands and Forests Division, Alberta Sustainable Resource Development December 2003, released three years later, only after FOIP and public pressure.

No comments:

Post a Comment