Legal, Regulatory and Environmental Challenges of Hydraulic Fracturing Summit

Jeff Pilkington and Gail Wurtzler spoke at the Legal, Regulatory and Environmental Challenges of Hydraulic Fracturing Summit, presented by Information Forecast, Inc. on December 7th and 8th in Houston, Texas.  Jeff participated in a panel discussion titled "Litigation Round-up: Key Take-Aways for Drilling Companies and Their Advisors."  Gail moderated that panel and also presented on "Disclosure and Reporting of Fracking Fluid Chemicals: Legal Requirements and Best Practices" in a separate session.  To read more event related information, click here.

RMMLF Hydraulic Fracturing: Core Issues and Trends Workshop

Adam Cohen and Shannon Stevenson co-spoke at the Hydraulic Fracturing: Core Issues and Trends Workshop, which was presented by the Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation, on November 17th at the Grand Hyatt in Denver, Colorado.  Adam and Shannon represented the Rocky Mountain region in "The States' Legal Framework" presentation.  To read more event related information, click here

Cooking Oil Dumped in Sewer May Not Be a Pollutant

In a February 2008 post, we summarized the holding in Mountain States Mutual Casualty Co. v. Kirkpatrick, No. 06-cv-00221-WDM-OES. (See Commercial Waste is a Pollutant, Feb. 19, 2008). Essentially, the Hog’s Breath Saloon & Restaurant dumped used cooking oil and other nontoxic waste into the sewer, clogging it. City workers clearing the clog succumbed to hydrogen sulfide gas trapped behind the clog and were severely injured. They sued the restaurant owner, Kirkpatrick, ultimately obtaining a $3.9 million judgment. 

Kirkpatrick’s insurer, Mountain States Mutual, brought a declaratory judgment action against Kirkpatrick in Colorado federal court. The federal court held that the oil and waste were “pollutants” as defined by the policy and therefore there was no coverage.

Continue Reading...

Fracking Litigation: Disclosure and Causation Issues

How may current statutes and regulations requiring disclosure of hydraulic fracturing chemicals impact private party litigation? What causation issues affect private party tort claims? To view the presentation slides entitled “Fracking Litigation: Disclosure and Causation Issues,” from speaker Gail L. Wurtzler, Partner at Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP, which were presented Tuesday, September 27th, as a segment of a Stafford webinar, “Hydraulic Fracturing and the Legal Onslaught: Preparing for EPA Actions, New Statutory Requirements, and the Growing Litigation Threat,” please click here. Learn more about disclosure issues requirements, possible pitfalls, and possible claims and causation issues evidence, confounding factors, and litigation tools.

Environmental Groups Submit Hydraulic Fracturing/TSCA Disclosure Petition

By Robert Lawrence

In a significant development yesterday, a number of environmental organizations submitted a petition to EPA on August 4 seeking to require manufacturers and processors of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing and other oil and gas exploration and production operations to disclose the contents of the "chemical substances and mixtures" used in these operations. Earthjustice’ New York office sent the 22 page petition to EPA on behalf of more than 100 environmental organizations, including branches of the Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund and the League of Women Voter, seeking relief under the Toxic Substances Control Act ("TSCA"). 

Specifically, the environmental organizations petitioned EPA under section 21 of TSCA  “to promulgate rules protecting public health and the environment from the serious risks posed by chemical substances and mixtures used in oil and gas exploration or production (“E&P Chemicals”).” The petitioners requested that EPA "adopt a rule requiring that manufacturers and processors of E&P Chemicals conduct toxicity testing of all E&P Chemicals and identify all chemical substances and mixtures tested." They also seek promulgation of a rule under TSCA section 8 requiring the maintenance and submission of various records related to E&P Chemicals, “calling in records of allegations of significant adverse reactions to E&P Chemicals, and requiring submission of all existing health and safety studies related to E&P Chemicals.”  

The petitioners allege that these rules are needed because EPA and the public lack adequate data about the identify of chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing operations, as wells as about the "significant adverse reactions posed by E&P Chemicals, and health and environmental hazards, exposures, and risks posed by E&P Chemicals."    

EPA reportedly is not commenting on the petition at this time.  

EPA Proposes New Air Rules To Reduce Emissions from Fracking Operations

On July 28, 2011, EPA proposed a set of standards to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and air toxics from the oil and natural gas industry. The rules also would significantly reduce methane, a greenhouse gas.  The Proposed Rule, EPA's Fact Sheet for the Proposed Rule and Overview Presentation and a Regulatory Impact Analysis are on EPA's Oil and Natural Gas Air Pollution Standards webpage.  The Proposed Rule has yet to be published in the Federal Register. 

Background

 

In January 2009, WildEarth Guardians and the San Juan Citizens Alliance sued EPA, claiming that EPA had failed to review new source performance standards and air toxic standards for the oil and natural gas industry.  In February 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit entered a consent decree among the parties requiring EPA to sign its proposed rules related to the review of these standards by July 28, 2011 (thus EPA's notice of signature on EPA’s website on July 28) and to issue final standards by Feb. 28, 2012.

 

EPA’s proposal includes four air regulations for the oil and natural gas industry: a new source performance standard for VOCs; a new source performance standard for sulfur dioxide; an air toxics standard for oil and natural gas production; and an air toxics standard for natural gas transmission and storage.

 

In explaining the applicability of the Proposed Rule to hydraulic fracking operations, EPA stated:

 

The majority of new wells drilled today produce gas, and the majority of those new wells use a process known as hydraulic fracturing or "fracking." In this process, a mixture of water, chemicals and a proppant (usually sand) is pumped into a well at extremely high pressures to fracture rock and allow natural gas to escape. An estimated 11,400 new wells are fractured each year; another 14,000 are re-fractured to stimulate production or to produce natural gas from a different production zone. . . .Some of the largest air emissions in the oil and gas industry occur as natural gas wells that have been fractured are being prepared for production. During a stage of well completion known as "flowback," fracturing fluids, water, and reservoir gas come to the surface at a high velocity and volume. This mixture includes a high volume of VOCs and methane, along with air toxics such as benzene, ethylbenzene and n-hexane. The typical flowback process lasts from three to 10 days.

 

EPA Fact Sheet. 

 

The proposed NSPS would limit VOC emissions from gas wells in the well completion process.  It would apply to all hydraulically fractured wells - new wells as well as  existing wells that are fracked or refracked in order to obtain more gas from a well. EPA claims that “these processes are the source of an estimated 500,000 tons of VOC emissions each year, and that about 9,700 completions of new wells annually are not controlled.” EPA also asserts that “12,000 re-completions annually would fit the criteria but are not controlled.” See EPA Overview Presentation.

 

According to EPA, the rule would require a combination of “green completion” and flaring for most fractured wells.  It would also achieve 95% VOC reduction and 90% recovery of salable natural gas. The Proposed Rule would require flaring in those circumstances where criteria for reduced emissions are not met and where flaring is not a hazard.

 

Comments on the Rule will be due within 60 days of the date that EPA actually publishes the Proposed Rule in the Federal Register. If you would like to discuss the Proposed Rule or this blog post, please contact Robert Lawrence at 303-892-7409 or robert.lawrence@dgslaw.com.

Fracking Fluids Disclosures

One of the earliest and most frequently expressed public concerns has been the lack of readily available information about the materials used in hydraulic fracturing. Over the last several months, steps have been taken to address that concern by industry, regulatory agencies and public interest groups. 

FracFocus maintains a voluntary hydraulic fracturing chemical registry website where industry members may post information and interested members of the public can research the materials used.

Some individual companies providing hydraulic fracturing services maintain their own webpages with materials information. One such page provided by Halliburton is found here.

Several state agencies also provide information. As required by O.R.C. 1509.10 (E), the Ohio Department of Natural Resources posts Material Safety Data Sheets for materials used in well completion operations by operators in Ohio. That webpage can be found here.  Similar information is available for Pennsylvania and is found on a webpage maintained by the Department of Environmental Protection -- Bureau of Oil and Gas Management.   Colorado’s Oil and Gas Conservation Commission provides information on materials as well as a number of other fracking topics at its website.

District Court Stays EPA's Emergency SDWA Order

 

One of EPA’s strategies for addressing potential environmental effects of fracking is to issue emergency orders under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. §300i(a), in situations that may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health.  Such orders have been issued against drilling operations in Texas and Pennsylvania where neighboring well owners have claimed that their drinking water wells have been contaminated. The emergency orders typically direct the oil and gas operators to stop the contamination and impose environmental monitoring and reporting obligations.

One of the issues raised and decided in U.S. v. Range Production Co., Case No. 3:11-cv-00116 (N.D. Tex.), was whether the emergency order was final agency action subject to judicial review.  The court ruled that it was and denied Range’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Another issue raised but not yet decided is whether, after issuing the emergency order, EPA must then prove that the defendant’s drilling operations actually caused the contamination in order to enforce the order and obtain civil penalties.  Before reaching that issue, the district court judge sua sponte stayed the case pending resolution of a related Fifth Circuit action, Range Resources Corp. et al. v. EPA, Case No. 11-60040. Range Resources Corp. seeks to nullify the emergency order on the grounds that the SDWA provision under which the order was issued violates Range Resources’ constitutional due process rights.

New York DEC Recommendations

 

On July 1, New York Department of Environmental Conservation issued recommendations based on its hydraulic fracturing review. The recommendations revise several positions in the DEC’s 2009 draft Supplemental Generic Environmental Impact Statement (SGEIS) report. Among others, high-volume fracturing would be prohibited in the watersheds for New York City and Syracuse as well as in an area delineated as a buffer zone. In addition, drilling would be prohibited in primary aquifers and within 500 feet of their boundaries. The surface of state-owned land could not be used for drilling. 

The DEC recommendations also provide that no permits would be issued for well pads within a 100-year flood plain. An additional, third cemented casing would also be required for each well to prevent gas migration. This casing would be an intermediate casing between the surface casing and the production casing. The depths of both the surface and intermediate casing would be determined by site conditions for a specific well. Other recommendations include: new guidelines for control of flowback water and spills; a new permit process for stormwater protection; a special permit for withdrawal of large volumes of water for industrial or commercial purposes; provisions to ensure the proper handling of flowback water; disclosure of fracturing fluid chemicals; air protection provisions; and notice to local governments and certification of compliance with local land use and zoning laws.

The complete draft SGEIS will be available on the DEC website on July 8. The DEC notes that it is continuing to study socioeconomic, transportation and visual and noise impacts of hydraulic fracturing. That research is expected to be completed by July 31, 2011, and it will be reflected in the final draft of the SGEIS.

The DEC plans for a 60-day public comment period to begin in August. No permits will be issued until the public comment period has closed, public comments have been reviewed, and a final version of the SGEIS is released.   For more information, see www.dec.ny.gov/

Update on EPA Fracking Guidance - Legal Challenges

 

Despite requests from industry and environmental groups to initiate formal notice-and-comment rule-making, EPA continues to proceed with its plans to address potential environmental impacts of fracking through guidance documents rather than through rule-making.  In theory, use of guidance permits EPA to state its position on an issue more quickly and may thereby assist the regulated community to comply with existing laws more quickly. However, from the perspective of the regulated community, and sometimes the environmental community, guidance that does more than merely explain existing agency regulations or describe how EPA applies those regulations in specific situations can be problematic.  

As a matter of due process, guidance should not substitute for regulations adopted through a formal notice-and-comment rule-making.  The procedures required under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) for formal rule-making are essential to provide due process. Following those procedures is also regarded by many courts as a critical prerequisite for judicial review of EPA’s action. Many courts find that guidance is not “final agency action” and therefore is not reviewable under the APA.  

EPA reliance on guidance documents to address fracking is legally vulnerable. EPA’s similar reliance on guidance to address mountaintop coal mining was recently held to exceed EPA’s authority under the APA and the Clean Water Act. See National Mining Ass’n v. Jackson, Case No. 10-1220 (RBW) (D.C. Cir.).  It is also possible that EPA’s guidance advising states on imposition of ozone fees may have a similar fate.  A case challenging the ozone fee guidance, Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, Case No. 10-1056 (D.C. Cir.), is currently pending.  The rulings in those two cases may be instructive regarding the ultimate decision in IPAA et al. v. EPA, Case No. No. 10-1233 (D.C. Cir.), where industry has challenged EPA’s guidance regarding use of diesel fuel in fracking. 

 

Tags: