 |
The case involved a subsidiary of the nation’s second largest natural gas producer and was brought by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) for violations of the Clean Water Act (CWA) in West Virginia. The alleged violations involved filling streams and wetlands with discharged sand, dirt, rocks, and other fill materials without federal permits at 27 sites in eight counties. Sixteen of the sites were conducting hydraulic fracturing operations, a method of horizontal gas extraction that uses chemicals, particles and huge amounts of water to flush out natural gas embedded in shale formations. The controversial practice has been associated with numerous environmental problems from earthquakes to drinking water pollution.
Specifically, the complaint filed against the company alleged violations of Sections 301(a) and 404 of the CWA, 33 USC Sections 1311(a) and 1344, which prohibit the discharge of dredge and/or fill material to waters of the United States except when in compliance with a permit issued by the Army Corps of Engineers. In 2012, the company pled guilty to three other CWA violations at one of the sites for discharging crushed stone and gravel into a local stream to create a road and improve site access. The company received a penalty of $600,000 and has since restored the site.
Forget expensive calls to lawyers and consultants. With Enviro.BLR.com, you get instant access, 24/7. Try it out today and get an the 2014 EHS Salary Guide, absolutely free. Download Now.
According to the EPA, the company’s most recent activities impacted more than 12,000 linear feet (or approximately 2.2 miles) of stream and more than three acres of wetlands while constructing well pads, impoundments, road crossings, and other related structures. Several of the violations were discovered during routine inspections and through information provided by the public and the company voluntarily disclosed 19 additional potential violations after an internal audit. The EPA issued administrative compliance orders for violations at 11 sites in 2010 and 2011.
In response to the investogation, the company received a civil penalty of $3.2 million – the largest ever obtained under the CWA for violating provisions prohibiting the unpermitted discharge of dredged and/or fill material to waters of the United States. The penalty will be split evenly between the federal government and the State of West Virginia, a co-plaintiff in the case.
Everything You Need for Environmental Compliance
Enviro.BLR.com puts everything you need at your fingertips, including practical RCRA, CAA, CWA, hazardous waste regulatory analysis and activity, news, and compliance tools. Try it at no cost or risk and get a FREE report.
In addition, injunctive relief includes three separate actions related to the violations.
1) Restoration and/or Mitigation: The company is required to restore all sites where feasible and monitor all restored sites for up to 10 years to confirm the restorations are successful. The Consent Decree also includes requirements intended to permanently preserve the restored sites and the company will also perform compensatory mitigation, probably by purchsing credits from a wetland mitigation bank in or near the impacted watersheds.
2) CWA Employee Training Program: The company will provide CWA training to employees, contractors and affiliates with responsibility for design and construction or employee supervision of oil and gas facilities in West Virginia, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Maryland for five years.
3) West Virginia Operational Protocol: The company will implement a CWA Section 404 compliance protocol as part of its West Virginia operating procedures. The protocol requires the company to use a Qualified Wetlands Professional to assess all aquatic resources within any proposed limit of disturbance prior to submitting any applications to the state’s Department of Environmental Protection for new/expansive construction of well pads or impoundments beyond approve limits of disturbance and the Department of Transportation for construction of access roads.
Other additional requirements for relevant sites include alternatives analysis, use of design techniques that avoid or minimize water resource impacts, employing construction practices certified by a Professional Engineer to stabilize disturbances and meet state and local soil erosion requirements, and ensuring that no earth disturbances take place without proper CWA and state permits in place.
The implication that the violatons were a result of hydraulic fracturing is a travesty. Simply because hydraulic fracturing is in the popular media (and is WIDELY not understood, and that these sites would employ hydraulic fracturing (as does 90% of all oil and gas development in the US) does not give license to claim every potential environmental impact is the result of the practice. I expect more of a professional education organization than to engage in the popular press techniques of sensationalism.
Have to agree with Adell. My first question when I read the article was,”What does this have to do with Fracking? ” This company was fined for building roads, well pads, impoundments, and other structures by filling wetlands and streams. They did it without proper permits, and have been caught and fined. And it affecteded streams and wetlands. But caused by Fracking? Is it worth reporting? Yes, but how about a correct title that describes the situation, rather the sensationalistic journalism unbecoming of the professional organization you profess yourselves to be.
You could also use asterisks, dashes, hyphens, as well as other keyboard characters to format the summary and allow it to be easier to see. A $25 fee per month to host the script, your screenplay will probably be available for anybody looking for new talent to see.