In an April 1, 2014 memorandum, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) summarized state regulatory programs concerning the management of solid waste from oil and natural gas exploration, development and production (E&P) operations.
In reviewing each state’s regulations, the EPA focused on surface storage and disposal facilities managing produced waters, drilling muds, drilling cuttings, hydraulic fracturing return fluids, and various other waste liquids and materials intrinsically related to oil and gas E&P.
The EPA found that the state regulations were primarily concerned with the “technical requirements associated with the design, construction, operation, maintenance, closure, and reclamation of surface pits, ponds, lagoons or tanks, as well as financial assurance requirements associated with such facilities.”
Among the common parameters are state requirements for liners in pits and impoundments, secondary containment requirements for tanks, set-back requirements, and various inspection requirements. However, the EPA did find gaps in regulations relating to groundwater monitoring, leachate collection, air monitoring, and waste characterization.
Overall, with the review, the EPA had developed an understanding of the wide-range of state regulatory programs currently in place in the twenty-six (26) oil and gas producing states covered in the summary.
This post was written by Barclay Nicholson (barclay.nicholson@nortonrosefulbright.com or 713.651.3662) from Norton Rose Fulbright's Energy Practice Group.
Showing posts with label Kentucky. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kentucky. Show all posts
Summit Petroleum (6th Cir. Aug. 7, 2012): EPA’s Aggregation of Oil and Gas Emissions Based on “Mere Functional Relatedness” is Unreasonable
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit* in Summit Petroleum Corporation v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Nos. 09-4348; 10-4572) vacated EPA's order aggregating Summit's sour gas wells and sweetening plant into a single major source.
This article was prepared by Barclay Nicholson (bnicholson@fulbright.com / 713 651 3662) from Fulbright's Energy Law Practice.
The Court agreed with American Petroleum Institute and American Exploration and Production Counsel that EPA’s determination that the physical requirement of “adjacency” in an aggregation determination can be established through mere functional relatedness is unreasonable and contrary to the plain meaning of the term “adjacent.”
The court remanded the case to EPA for a reassessment of Summit's Title V source determination in light of the proper, plain-meaning application of the requirement that Summit's activities be aggregated only if they are located on physical contiguous properties.
Judge Moore dissented from the opinion, stating that EPA’s consideration of functional interrelatedness was “both reasonable (and thus worthy of deference) and correct,” and that she would have affirmed the agency’s decision to aggregate Summit’s stationary sources.
It is not yet known whether EPA will seek a rehearing en banc or a petition for certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court.
* The states within the geographic boundaries of the Sixth Circuit are Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, and Tennessee.
This article was prepared by Barclay Nicholson (bnicholson@fulbright.com / 713 651 3662) from Fulbright's Energy Law Practice.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)