Frac waste injection, seismic activity, and agency subpoenas
September 3rd, 2016
BIG earthquake in Oklahoma today, and are we surprised? Naaaaah… Here’s the info, including location, economic impacts, etc., from USGS:
CLICK HERE: USGS Pawnee, OK Earthquake Page
In the news, and they’re making the link between gas wells and earthquakes:
Earthquake Rattles Oklahoma; One Of Strongest Recorded In State
Earthquake Shakes Swath of Country Where Wells Have Drawn Scrutiny
IMPORTANT: The Oklahoma Corporation Commission takes action!
Oklahoma Corporation Commission orders disposal wells shut down near quake epicenter
Consider why fracking and injection of frac waste is allowed… Why is a pipeline route through earthquake prone area considered? The impacts of fracking and waste injection is one thing they do NOT want to acknowledge. From KOTV in June 2014 — USGS should know better:
And when searching, look at this — can you believe:
OGS: Earthquake risk low for proposed disposal wells in Yukon
When the topic of earthquakes and other seismic activity comes up, I always recommend the “bible” of injection into the earth, because this is not a new phenomenon and we’re making this happen, putting people and our water supply at risk:
When I got this book, it was an older edition, though pricey, but with patience, it could be had for $20. For about a decade now I’ve been recommending this book, and look at the price now. Out of bounds for most of us… funny how that works. I’d guess a library could find a copy, and here it is on google books, “only” $224.00 (GRRRRRRRRRR):
Gas migration: events preceding earthquakes
Elisa Young, a cohort in Ohio, has lived in the epicenter of frack injection triggered earthquakes around Youngstown. There, after so many earthquakes, the causal connection was acknowledged, but it took too long. Here’s a Legalectric post from four years ago:
Ohio Earthquakes & Fracking
And now for a complicated sidebar. Elisa Young asked today how to get the state and federal agencies to communicate about this problem and take action. How? Damned if I know — impacts of injecting gas and liquids into the earth are well known. Yet federal and state agencies are in serious state of denial. And it’s very difficult at times to get the agencies to show up, to do their job. It’s even difficult to get their analysis, their own reports, into project permit dockets. I get really tired of this…
How to get them to weigh in? In Public Utilities Commission dockets in Minnesota, I’ve had a hard time with state agencies, initially. For example, in Excelsior Energy’s Mesaba Project docket, there was a claim that coal gasification was “clean” yet the Minnesota Pollution Agency had not, and would not, weigh in on the emissions projected for this coal gasification power plant. WHAT? We pushed and pushed, threatened to subpoena, raised this at a PUC meeting, and finally, the PUC issued an Order and wrote a letter to the PCA Commissioner requesting the MPCA lend its expertise to the Commission and show up!
And a Legalectric post about later subpoena requests on the Mesaba Project:
And subpoena and Data Practices Act requests in that same docket for financial information:
I’ve had similar issues in transmission dockets, where the DOT and DNR would file Comments on environmental scoping, and/or the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, but those Comments would only be sent to the Dept. of Commerce, and were not posted in the PUC docket, so parties and the public had no idea the concerns the agencies may have. NOT OK. During the first CapX 2020 routing docket, Brookings 08-1474, it was so egregious, I asked the DOT General Counsel who was present to make comments at the public hearing, and to submit a copy for the routing docket record (the route ultimately turned on DOT easements and that DOT would not allow the transmission line to be built over those easements). The matter was remanded by the Commission for rehearing based on their routing quandry. Shortly after, on behalf of No CapX 2020, I subpoenaed testimony and Comments.
Subpoena requests sent! (DOT & DNR)
Subpoena plot thickens (Agreement to testify)
Subpoena request for US Fish & Wildlife
Subpoena Denied(tried to get USFWS, didn’t work. USFWS Comments had been hidden in EIS Comments)
Notes from Friday
In the Goodhue Wind docket (permit granted, and then much later revoked!):
Goodhue Wind Truth – Subpoena Requests for Bjorklund and Bull
ALJ Sheehy’s Letter to Overland – Denial of Subpoena Requests
When this was attempted in the Sandpiper Pipeline docket, the ALJ denied the Subpoena request. WHAT?
And an interesting back and forth with a hearing officer about getting information into the record and whether it would take a subpoena to get it, where ultimately, the ALJ agreed that the primary documents would be entered in the record:
And here’s an aside, use of subpoena regarding Xcel’s plans for coal, served by NY’s A.G.:
New York A.G. serves Xcel with subpoena
Enbridge files to withdraw Sandpiper applications!
September 1st, 2016
YES! It took them a month from their announcement, but finally, Enbridge has filed to withdraw the Sandpiper pipeline Certificate of Need and Route applications, and has asked to suspend the contested case and EIS process in the meantime.
There is a 14 day window to “object” to this Certificate of Need withdrawal, and a 10 day window to address the Motion to suspend contested case.
Now’s the time to say “WITHDRAW, WITHDRAW WITH PREJUDICE!” Now’s the time to say “WITHDRAW ALL RELATED APPLICATIONS” because there are so many applications for transmission lines for pumping stations, i.e., the Clearbrook Transmission Line!
And then sometime after the Comment period ends, PUC staff will issue “Briefing Papers” and then the Commission will schedule a meeting to address this, with at least 10 days notice. Expect, then, at least a month before the PUC acts.
Now, about that Line 3 replacement project…
Settlement? PUC says “show your work!”
August 29th, 2016
Xcel Energy’s rate case just received another interesting twist — a request of the PUC that the parties to the “settlement agreement” show their work! I love it when that happens.
PUC staff wants detailed information about how they reached the numbers they did, how the settlement relates to each of the parties initial positions and testimony, etc., to “show your work!” The PUC staff is requesting this information so that the Commission can determine whether to accept, modify, or reject the partial settlement agreement. And note that the parties are mostly those e21Participants who signed off on Xcel’s Exe21_Initiative scam.
GOOD! Take a close look, PUC!
To review the filings in this docket, go to this PUC SEARCH DOCUMENTS PAGE and search for docket “15-826.”
Sandpiper EIS on HOLD!
August 26th, 2016
The Department of Commerce has hit the brakes on Sandpiper Pipeline and Line 3 Replacement Projects “until such time as Enbridge makes clear its intentions about the projects, or until we receive further direction from the Commission.”
Here’s the letter from Bill Grant:
20168-124424-01_Commerce_EIS Scope Decision Document on HOLD
And the guts of it:
YES!!! Now, about those transmission lines proposed for pumping stations related to these projects????
Dept. of Health & 3M’s PFC/PFOA contamination
August 23rd, 2016
(click for larger version)
3M has gotten away with poisoning the water of Minnesota, and the Dept. of Health has taken some protective and/or remedial measures, but it’s not nearly enough. Isn’t it a wake-up call that we need a “Drinking Water Health Advisory” in this Land of 10,000 Lakes? Minnesota’s “Pollution Control Agency” has not been proactive on this, and we’ve known about 3M’s contamination for how long? This is why we need the EPA! The EPA is leading the charge, and Minnesota’s Department of Health (MDH), as above, has “responded” to the EPA Advisories.
80 Washington County homes will get bottled water as state reviews new pollution rules
In part:
The Dept. of Health page:
MDH Response to EPA Health Advisory for PFOS and PFOA
From the EPA’s page:
Basic Information
- Fact Sheet on PFOA and PFOS Drinking Water Health Advisories (May 2016)
- BLOG: Science Guides Public Health Protection for Drinking Water by Joel Beauvais
Technical Information
- FR Notice on the Health Advisories for PFOA and PFOS (May 25, 2016)
- 2016 PFOA Health Advisory
- 2016 PFOA Health Effects Support Document
- 2016 PFOS Health Advisory
- 2016 PFOS Health Effects Support Document
- 2016 EPA Response to Peer Review Comments
Provisional Health Advisories and Draft Health Effects Documents
Technical documents
- 2009 Provisional Health Advisory
- 2014 Draft Health Effects Document for Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA)
- 2014 Draft Health Effects Document for Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS)
- Peer Reviewer Summary Report: External Peer Review of EPA’s Draft Health Effects Documents for Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) and Perfluorooctane Sulfonate (PFOS)
Peer Review