|
|
|
2.1.1 Narrative
2.1.2 Response Actions to Date
On 07/28/2016, the OSC accessed CANAPS and obtained an
initial project ceiling of $50,000 to continue removal assessment (e.g.
feasibility of removal action); continue maintenance of defensive actions to
mitigate the effects of a discharge and of the substantial threat of discharge
of an unknown quantity of crude oil onto the adjoining shorelines of and into
Harrisburg Run; continue efforts to the extent practicable to identify PRPs;
continue efforts to the extent practicable to identify and provide the RP an
opportunity to voluntarily and promptly perform removal actions; and/or in
absence of a RR, conduct the removal actions necessary to mitigate the effects
of a discharge and of the substantial threat of discharge of crude oil onto the
adjoining shorelines of and into Harrisburg Run.
On 07/28/2016, via
telecoms, the OSC issued a verbal Task Order to the ERRS contractor to initiate
defensive actions at leaking wells on the Harrisburg Farm. Following-up via email correspondence, the
OSC submitted the Task Order paperwork to EPAR3-DPO Jackie Williams and
EPAR3-CO John Robb to prepare the procurement request in the amount of $38,000
and issue the Task Order to the ERRS contractor. The OSC commenced with an on-site preliminary
reconnaissance and evaluation of four (4) well locations on the abandoned
on-shore facility, and deployed defensive actions (sorbent pads and boom) to
prevent additional quantities of crude oil from discharging into the navigable
waters of the U.S.
On 07/28/2016: Via
email correspondence USCG-NPFC Case Officer MSTC Devine informed the OSC of the
USCG-NPFC position on multiple oil well cases as follows: (1) Each individual
well needs to be a substantial threat or discharging into a navigable waterway
and explained in detail to the USCG-NPFC before plugging is to begin; (2) If
multiple land owners are involved, the OSC is required to contact the USCG-NPFC
Case Officer immediately to discuss keeping charges separate per potential RP
or opening an individual FPN per RP/oil well/oil wells. The OSC was aware that the USCG-NPFC intends
to pursue landowner(s) on all well cases as the Responsible Party (RP). However, the PRP-search conducted by and/or
at the direction of the OSC, clearly indicates that the owner and/or operator
(e.g. RP) of the abandoned on-shore facility was not the current landowner(s). Via telecoms, the OSC advised USCG-NPFC Case
Officer MSTC Devine that the PRP/RP identification issue(s) specific to this
incident could be discussed during the Oil Response Policy and Funding
(ORPF) Workgroup face-to-face meeting at the NPFC offices in Washington, DC
on August 5, 2016.
On 07/29/2016, per the verbal Task Order, the Emergency and Rapid Response Services (ERRS) and ERRS oil field removal response subcontractor met the OSC at the EPA Command Post located at 655 South Avenue, in Bradford, PA at 0730 hours, in preparation to respond to the HARRISBURG FARM OPA SITE [FPN E16316] and take actions necessary to prevent, control, stabilize and mitigate the effects of actual discharges of crude oil and/or eliminate the substantial threats of discharges of crude oil into or upon the navigable waters of the United States (Harrisburg Run) or its tributaries or its adjoining shorelines from the abandoned on-shore production facility.
On August 3, 2016,
as requested by the OSC, the written Task Order was issued to the ERRS
contractor from EPAR3-CO Lorrie Murray.
On August 5, 2016,
EPA members of the Oil Response Policy and Funding (ORPF) Workgroup met
face-to-face with the USCG-NPFC at the USCG-NPFC offices in Washington,
DC. PRP/RP identification issue(s) were
briefly discussed, and the Workgroup agreed to meet again on April 24, 2017. Subsequent to the ORPF Workgroup meeting,
the OSC reviewed the PRP-search package with and provided a copy to USCG-NPFC
Case Officer MTSC Devine. The OSC
indicated that “Legal Notice to Suspect Discharger” would be issued to the
PRP/RP identified by the OSC, and that pending response from the PRP/RP removal
actions would continue, but be limited to defensive actions at leaking wells,
and continued reconnaissance and well-site-specific removal evaluations. In
regards to the USCG-NPFC premise that each well should be addressed as a
separate FPN or a cluster of wells on an individual surface be addressed as a
separate FPN, the OSC showed USCG-NPFC Case Officer MTSC Devine the old lease
maps, deeds and production records which clearly depict the 22 ½ acre on-shore
production facility as a function of the lease between the OGM rights owner and
the owner/operator of the facility, and not a function of surface ownership. However, the OSC indicated a cost benefit
analysis would be prepared to evaluate activating each well or cluster of wells
as separate FPNs, or conduct the removal action based upon the defined on-shore
production facility under an OPA90 Removal Project Plan
On August 8, 2016,
the “Legal Notice to Suspected Discharger” was sent certified mail to the
Trustees of the Trust and heirs under the Last Will and Testament of Milton L.
Dana.
On August 19,
2016, one of the Trustees/Heirs responded to the OSC via voice mail message
confirming receipt of the legal notice, stating that he and his sister never
had anything to do with that piece of property and were not responsible.
On August 22,
2016, the other Trustee/Heir, on behalf of both Trustees/Heirs, responded to
the OSC via correspondence, denying responsibility for the discharge of oil
described in the legal notice, stating they never owned or had anything to do
with the subject property, and therefore, were have no responsibility.
On August 22,
2016, via email correspondence to USCG-NPFC Case Officer Sean Devine, the OSC
suggested that the Harrisburg Farm OPA Site [FPN E16316] in Foster Twp., McKean
Co., PA would be a good candidate for an on-site consultation, suggesting the
second week of September (Tuesday September 13th, Wednesday September 14th,
and/or Thursday September 15th) as potential dates to meet
on-site. The OSC informed the Case Officer that in the meantime, at
the direction of the OSC, the EPA-hired contractor (ERRS) would continue to
ground-truth locations of wells and other sources on abandoned on-shore
facility; implement and maintain defensive actions at the leaking wells which the
OSC determines to have discharged or pose substantial threat of discharge into
Harrisburg Run; and that the OSC would continue to make well/source-specific
evaluations to determine the scope and complexity of the removal action pending
an on-site consultation/meeting, with the primary topic of discussion at such
meeting to determine if the removal action at the on-shore (production)
facility is to be conducted under an "OPA90 Removal Project Plan" or
if each well/source will require a separate activation/separate FPN.
On August 31,
2016, via email correspondence USCG-NPFC Case Officer Sean Devine advised the
OSC he would not be able to travel to the Site for an on-site consultation due
to other commitments. Via voice
message, the OSC informed USCG-NPFC Case Officer Sean Devine of the response to
the “Legal Notice to Suspected Discharger” from the Trustees of the Trust and
heirs under the Last Will and Testament of Milton L. Dana, and that “Notice of
Federal Assumption” would be sent.
On September 19,
2016, “Notice of Federal Assumption” was issued to the Trustees of the Trust
and heirs under the Last Will and Testament of Milton L. Dana (e.g. current
owner of the abandoned on-shore facility) by the OSC via certified mail.
2.1.3 Enforcement Activities, Identity of Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs)
In accordance with the requirements of the NCP, the OSC, to
the extent practicable, made efforts to identify potentially responsible
parties and provide the responsible party an opportunity to voluntarily and
promptly perform removal actions.
In accordance with the definitions of Responsible Party
found at Section 1001 of OPA, efforts were made to identify the persons owning
or operating the onshore facility, and/or those persons who would have been
responsible parties, immediately prior to the abandonment of the facility.
The OSC’s efforts to identify potentially responsible
parties included evaluating if the current surface or landowner(s), the current
OGM rights owner(s) and/or any other person was the current owner/operator of
the onshore production facility. The
OSC’s findings and conclusions are as follows:
Current Surface or
Landowner:
Surface or land is not
a facility, and therefore, the surface or land was not the source of discharge
or substantial threat of discharge.
Legal access to the surface or land on which the federal removal
response activities have been conducted to date was obtained by the OSC
verbally from the current landowner(s).
Based
upon the OSC’s review of information provided by the current landowner,
provided by PADEP-OGMP and otherwise available at the McKean County Courthouse
(deeds), the OSC concluded that the twenty-two and one-half (22 ½) acre
on-shore production facility (the Harrisburg Farm) was not sold, transferred or
otherwise conveyed with the surface on February 12, 2015 (Deed Book 839, Page
975), or when the surface was subsequently sold, transferred or otherwise
conveyed on May 13, 2016 (Deed Book 845, Page 213)
Based
upon the OSC’s review of deeds and records, review of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania Oil and Gas statutes (e.g. Pennsylvania’s Oil and Gas Act [Act
223]) and oil and gas wells regulations (e.g. Chapter 78), and consultation
with PADEP-OGMP, the OSC concluded that the individual elements of the
Harrisburg Farm (wells, tanks, separators, piping, etc.), upon abandonment, did
not automatically segregate themselves from the on-shore production facility
and become separate facilities associated with the land upon which they were
situated. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s
statute (Act 223) and regulation (Chapter 78) defines "owner" as “any person who owns, manages, leases,
controls or possesses any well or coal property; except that for purposes of sections
203(a)(4) and (5) and 210, the term "owner" shall not include those
owners or possessors of surface real property on which the abandoned well is
located who did not participate or incur costs in the drilling or extraction
operation of the abandoned well and had no right of control over the drilling
or extraction operation of the abandoned well.
This term shall not apply to orphan wells except where the department
determines a prior owner or operator benefited from the well as provided in
section 210(a).”
The OSC
further considered the USCG-NPFC premise that the individual components of an
on-shore facility automatically “revert” to the surface or land upon which were
situated. The OSC concluded, presuming
in the unlikely event that the USCG-NPFC premise may be correct, if the current
landowner had actually purchased the abandoned on-shore facility, or any
component thereof, the landowner might be considered to be a subsequent
innocent purchaser who would not liable if the property was acquired after the
placement of the oil on, in or at the real property; and/or did not know or
have reason to know about the oil after having conducted all appropriate
inquiries.
The OSC
concluded that the current landowner was neither the person who currently owns
and/or operates the on-shore facility or any individual component of the
on-shore facility at the time of the federal removal response action, nor was
the person who owned and/or operated the on-shore facility or any individual
component of the on-shore facility immediately prior to abandonment. Therefore,
the current landowner was not identified either as a potentially responsible
party or the responsible party, and “Legal Notice to Suspected Discharger” was
not served to the current surface or landowner(s).
Although
the OSC’s findings indicate that the current landowner is not a PRP or
Responsible Party, the OSC looks forward towards whatever NPFC assistance can
be provided to supplement or refute the findings of the OSC’s PRP-search, and
to facilitate and expedite the OSC’s NCP requirements to identify PRPs to the
extent practicable and afford the Responsible Party an opportunity to
voluntarily conduct the removal action, and thus better afford the NPFC the
opportunity to pursue cost recovery as may be applicable.
Current Oil, Gas
and Minerals (“OGM”) Rights Owner:
OGM is not a facility, and therefore, was not the source of discharge or
substantial threat of discharge. Based
upon the OSCs review of information available at the McKean County Courthouse
(deeds), the OSC concluded that the OGM rights had been transferred to the
Executors of the Estate of Milton L. Dana on July 5, 1982, and had not been subsequently
transferred to the current landowner(s).
Production records indicate the on-shore production facility had last
been operated between July 1, 1959, and June 30, 1960, by M.L. Dana. There is no records indicating the on-shore
production facility had been owned and/or operated by the current OGM Rights
Owner. Although the Trustees/Heirs were not the person
who owned or operated the production facility immediately prior to abandonment,
the Trustees/Heirs may be considered the person who owned the facility at the
time of the federal removal response action. Therefore, the current OGM rights
owner was identified as a Potentially Responsible Party and/or the Responsible
Party, and, Legal Notice to Suspected Discharger was served to
the current OGM rights owner. .
Current owner/operator
of the onshore production facility:
Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 112 as amended on December
5, 2008, and as published in the Federal Register (“FR”) on July 01,
2014[references: 67 FR 47140, July 17, 2002, as amended at 71 FR 77290, Dec.
26, 2006; 73 FR 71943, Nov. 26, 2008; 73 FR 74300, Dec. 5, 2008], provides the
definition of an onshore oil and/or gas production facility as follows:
“Production facility” means all structures (including
but not limited to wells, platforms, or storage facilities), piping (including
but not limited to flowlines or intra-facility gathering lines), or equipment
(including but not limited to workover equipment, separation equipment, or
auxiliary non-transportation-related equipment) used in the production,
extraction, recovery, lifting, stabilization, separation or treating of oil
(including condensate) and associated storage or measurement and is located in
an oil or gas field, at a facility.”
Based upon the OSCs observations of the conditions at the
abandoned on-shore production facility, it is apparent that the facility ceased
operating many years ago. Documentation
gathered by the OSC from the McKean County Courthouse, or otherwise available
to the OSC, indicated:
On October 6, 1909, three pieces of land were conveyed from
Mabel S. Brown to L.G. Dana and F.M. Johnston (Deed Book 154, Page 128).
On July 1, 1910, F.M. Johnston conveyed his interest to L.G.
Dana (Deed Book 154, Page 124).
On July 8, 1933, and Agreement between Lawrence G. Dana
(sometimes written L.G. Dana) and Mary A. Dana and Milton L. Dana, Trustee,
sold, transferred or otherwise conveyed, in addition to other certain lands,
leaseholds and property mentioned and fully described in the Agreement, the
lands, leasehold and property subject to this federal removal action. The Agreement conveyed the wells, tubing,
casing, pipe, rods, tanks, fixtures, fittings, equipment, etc. on the lands and
leaseholds. The Agreement also required
that oil be produced, with certain proceeds from the sale of the oil to be used
to fully pay Lawrence G. Dana. (Deed Book 225, Page 111).
Based upon the OSCs review of production records available
at the McKean County Courthouse, M.L. Dana produced 8 wells on the 32 acre
Harrisburg property, and ceased operating sometime between July 1, 1959, and
June 30, 1960. Based upon the OSCs
review of information available at the McKean County Courthouse (deeds), the
OSC concluded that although the OGM rights had been transferred to the
Executors of the Estate of Milton L. Dana on July 5, 1982, the on-shore
production facility had not been transferred to the Executors of the Estate of
Milton L. Dana. Therefore, when the
Executors of the Estate of Milton L. Dana sold, transferred or otherwise
conveyed the land (surface), neither the OGM or the facility was sold,
transferred or otherwise conveyed.
Since 1985, the transfers of oil and/or gas well ownership
in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania are required to be in accordance with
PADEP-OGMP oil and gas laws and regulations, and recorded through the
submission of a Request to Transfer Well Permit or Registration form to PADEP-OGMP. Based the OSCs discussions with PADEP-OGMP,
no information is expected to be found in PADEP-OGMP’s records indicating that
any of the wells were individually or collectively sold, assigned, transferred,
conveyed or exchanged from Milton L. Dana (M.L. Dana) to any other person, or
that any other person currently owns the production facility.
On February 12, 2016,
the 22 ½ acre parcel of land on which the abandoned on-shore production
facility was located had been conveyed from the two surviving Trustees of the
Trust and heirs under the Last Will and Testament of Milton L. Dana, deceased to
Samuel J. McEwen (Deed Book 839 Page 975). The OGM and the wells, tubing, casing, pipe,
rods, tanks, fixtures, fittings, equipment, etc. on the lands and leaseholds,
were not transferred to Samuel J. McEwen via this conveyance. The 22
½ acre parcel of land has subsequently been subdivided and the OSC currently
has received verbal permission from the two (2) landowners to access the properties
and conduct removal response activities (preliminary assessment, implementation
of and maintenance of defensive actions).
With the principle, Milton L. Dana deceased, the OSC sent “Legal Notice to Suspected Discharger” and/or request assistance from the
USCG-NPFC Case Officer to serve “Notice of Potential Liability” or “Notice of
Federal Interest” to the two surviving Trustees of the Trust and heirs under
the Last Will and Testament of Milton L. Dana.
On August 8, 2016,
the “Legal Notice to Suspected Discharger” was sent certified mail to the
Trustees of the Trust and heirs under the Last Will and Testament of Milton L.
Dana.
On August 19,
2016, one of the Trustees/Heirs responded to the OSC via voice mail message
confirming receipt of the legal notice, stating that he and his sister never
had anything to do with that piece of property and were not responsible.
On August 22,
2016, the other Trustee/Heir, on behalf of both Trustees/Heirs, responded to
the OSC via correspondence, denying responsibility for the discharge of oil
described in the legal notice, stating they never owned or had anything to do
with the subject property, and therefore, were have no responsibility.
On September 19, 2016, “Notice of Federal Assumption” was issued to the Trustees of the Trust and heirs under the Last Will and Testament of Milton L. Dana (e.g. current owner of the abandoned on-shore facility, and the person who would have been the RP immediately prior to the abandonment of the facility) by the OSC via certified mail.
2.1.4 Progress Metrics
| Waste Stream |
Medium |
Quantity |
Manifest # |
Treatment |
Disposal |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
