Environmental Groups Raise Serious Compliance Issues With Olympus Energy-- Over 600 Violations On 13 DEP Permits-- In Comments On Proposed Shale Gas Drilling Pad In Allegheny County
Olympus Energy is proposing to construct a 500-foot by 340-foot unconventional natural gas drilling well pad with a 3,750-foot long by 24-foot wide access road. The project will disturb a total of 24.2 acres of land, according to DEP’s PA Bulletin notice (page 5696).
DEP said the site will discharge or have the potential to discharge stormwater to a tributary to Fallen Timber Run which is already determined to have impaired water quality as a result of siltation (PA Bulletin, page 5696)
Construction of the well pad will also involve surface mining coal from the site. Olympus is being required by DEP to also obtain a separate Incidental Coal Extraction Permit, according to the groups.
The groups noted on the permit application Olympus Energy checked the box saying-- “Was/Is the facility owner or operator in violation of any DEP regulation, permit, order, or schedule of compliance at this or any other facility or project site within the past 5 years?”
The groups said the company attached a table showing 32 instances of non-compliance for dates ranging from 2/21/2018 to 3/11/2022 for eight unique project names/permits.
However, Oil and Gas Compliance Report for Olympus was obtained by the groups from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for the same date range, 2/21/2022 to 3/11/2022 which reveals 601 instances of non-compliance (unique Violation IDs) reported for 13 unique DEP permits (unique Site Names) associated with Olympus as the Operator.
Of the 601 non-compliances, 75 are specifically violations of the state Clean Streams Law (CSL).
"A comparison of Olympus’s DEP violations per well drilled revealed that Olympus had 735% more violations per well drilled than the average for the top 20 PA operators (Deep Well Site IDs only, excluding pipeline violations).
“Further, Olympus had 296% more violations per well drilled than the next highest operator.
“It was also revealed that Olympus has 548% higher fines per well drilled than the average for the top 20 PA operators and 163% more fines per well than the next highest operator."
"We, the undersigned, call upon the Department to deny the requested permit due to the applicant’s misrepresentation of its compliance history and their egregious disregard for public health, the waters of the Commonwealth, and environmental protections.
“These protections are guaranteed by the very laws and permits repeatedly violated by Olympus Energy. Operators should not be rewarded with additional permits when they have not met the conditions of existing permits."
Text Of Comments
The following is the full text of the comments submitted by the groups in a cover letter--
Please accept the following comments regarding Olympus Energy, LLC’s (Olympus) application for ESCP Permit #ESP070222001-00 for the Heracles Well Pad located in Elizabeth Township, Allegheny County.
These comments are a collaborative effort of the Environmental Integrity Project (EIP), Food & Water Watch, Mountain Watershed Association (MWA), the Youghiogheny Riverkeeper, and the undersigned citizens.
As part of Olympus’s 3800-PM-BCW0019b application, the applicant checked “Yes” when asked, “Was/Is the facility owner or operator in violation of any DEP regulation, permit, order, or schedule of compliance at this or any other facility or project site within the past 5 years?”
An attachment to the application was included which contained a table showing 32 instances of non-compliance for dates ranging from 2/21/2018 to 3/11/2022 for eight unique project names/permits.
An Oil and Gas Compliance Report for Olympus was obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) for the same date range, 2/21/2022 to 3/11/2022 and is included as Exhibit 1.
This report reveals 601 instances of non-compliance (unique Violation IDs) reported for 13 unique DEP permits (unique Site Names) associated with Olympus as the Operator. Of the 601 non-compliances, 75 are specifically violations of The Clean Streams Law (CSL).
DEP Inspection Record No. 3363279 (IR) is included as Exhibit 2. This IR is from Olympus’s Selene Well Pad for an inspection performed on 5/16/2022.
The inspector found multiple Chapter 102 & CSL violations, among other things. Photos were included in the IR showing BMPs failing to prevent the potential of pollution to waters of the Commonwealth.
Olympus wrote a response to DEP dated June 1, 2022, which has been included as Exhibit 3. Despite clear evidence to the contrary, the response states, “Olympus did plan, design and implement E&S controls and BMPs in accordance with its approved ESCGP.”
Further, despite clear evidence to the contrary, the response goes on to say, “There was no danger of pollution to waters of the Commonwealth and there was no impact to waters of the Commonwealth.”
This response makes clear that Olympus does not take its responsibility to comply with laws protecting public health and the waters of the Commonwealth serious enough to prevent harm.
An analysis of DEP compliance data for the top 20 unconventional well operators in Pennsylvania from 1/1/2018 through 8/18/2021 is included as Exhibit 4.
A comparison of Olympus’s DEP violations per well drilled revealed that Olympus had 735% more violations per well drilled than the average for the top 20 PA operators (Deep Well Site IDs only, excluding pipeline violations).
Further, Olympus had 296% more violations per well drilled than the next highest operator.
It was also revealed that Olympus has 548% higher fines per well drilled than the average for the top 20 PA operators and 163% more fines per well than the next highest operator.
Olympus’s egregious history of significant and persistent violations of environmental laws is a critically important consideration for the DEP.
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has stated that “evidence relating to past conduct and practices of a facility’s owners, and specific impacts on the community from the functioning of the facility” is “relevant and probative in determining whether, if conditional use authorization were granted, the facility’s operation would pose a threat to the welfare of the community.” EQT Prod. Co. v. Borough of Jefferson Hills, 652 Pa. 508, 535 (2019).
In the Jefferson Hills case, the Supreme Court held that a municipality may receive, consider, and rely upon evidence related to adverse public health, safety, and environmental impacts associated with an applicant’s similar, existing facility when reviewing a conditional use application. Id. at 539–40.
The [PA] Supreme Court noted that the similarity between the existing facility and the proposed facility “need not be precise in every detail” and need only be a “similarity in such circumstances or conditions as might supposably affect the result in question.” Id. at 538–39.
Similarly, a municipality may receive and consider evidence of violations of environmental laws at similar facilities owned by the applicant, including notices of violations (NOVs) and other evidence publicly available on DEP’s website, during its review of the conditional use application for the applicant’s project.
NOVs issued by DEP to the applicant for violations of environmental laws at other similar facilities owned by the applicant and other evidence of noncompliance are relevant and probative in determining whether the proposed project poses a threat to public health, safety, or the environment.
The fact that an agency takes a progressive enforcement approach generally, or that it may or may not ultimately resolve a violation with an administrative order, in no way means that an NOV—the initial documentation and notification of a violation—is not relevant or probative of an operator’s history of compliance with environmental laws.
To the contrary, an NOV is the formal written notification to an operator that the agency charged with regulatory oversight has identified violations of the law at a facility. Id. at 9.1
In fact, DEP’s own regulations governing erosion and sedimentation permits explicitly
provide that “[t]he Department may deny, revoke, suspend or terminate coverage under a general permit for failure to comply with The Clean Streams Law.” 25 Pa. Code § 102.5(l)(6), 102.5(c).
We, the undersigned, call upon the Department to deny the requested permit due to the applicant’s misrepresentation of its compliance history and their egregious disregard for public health, the waters of the Commonwealth, and environmental protections.
These protections are guaranteed by the very laws and permits repeatedly violated by Olympus Energy. Operators should not be rewarded with additional permits when they have not met the conditions of existing permits.
Click Here for a copy of the comments submitted by the groups with attachments. Contact information for these groups is included in the comments submitted.
(Photo: The Midas shale gas drilling pad constructed by Olympus Energy in Plum Borough, Allegheny County.)
PA Environment Digest:
-- Recent Articles Posted On Oil & Gas Drilling Impacts
Related Articles This Week:
-- DEP Collects $147,250 Penalty From Rice Drilling B LLC For Erosion & Sedimentation Violations In Greene County; DEP Found Rice Had Hundreds Of Other Violations, Including Abandoning Wells Without Plugging Them [PaEN]
-- Fall Visitors To Conventional Oil & Gas Drilling Areas Urged To Report Illegal Road Dumping Of Drilling Wastewater [PaEN]
-- Washington County Community Meeting Updates Residents On PA Health & Environment Studies, Discusses Health Impacts Of Shale Gas Development [PaEN]
[Posted: October 5, 2022] PA Environment Digest
Comments
Post a Comment