The new Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection directive requiring just Marcellus drilling inspectors to get approval to issue notices of violations (NOV) of regulations from the Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection is unwise and should be reversed. The new Marcellus directive represents a sharp break from the long-standing practice going back at least 5 secretaries and 3 governors of allowing professional DEP inspectors who are the only ones at the site and doing the actual inspections to make the initial decision on whether a violation of regulation exists.
Inspections of mines power plants, water treatment systems, sewer plants, x-ray machines and much more are not subject to this new review and approval process by the Secretary for the issuance of notices of violations. Singling out just Marcellus inspections and notices of violations for this unprecedented, special process is odd and compounds the error.
The professional, independent regulation by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection of our mines, power plants, x-ray machines, drinking water plants, sewer plants, construction sites and gas drilling sites is indispensable to public safety, public health, environmental protection. All of those who enforce our law, all our cops, environmental or otherwise, have tough jobs, are subject to second-guessing and attacks, and could not do their jobs if they had to get approval of each and every enforcement action before it was taken. While all enforcement work is controversial, Marcellus gas drilling enforcement has been especially controversial.
Pressures attacking the professional independence of inspectors have come from many directions, including those who oppose the industry. Resisting all these pressures must begin with insuring that the inspectors in the field will report the truth, the facts, no matter whom it pleases or displeases. A good regulator is not a friend or foe to anybody involved in the process.
Importantly the system of law that exists in Pennsylvania gives companies that disagree with the issuance of a notice of violation means to challenge or appeal inspectors's decisions. There is an existing process that serves as a check on the inspectors initial decision. This is a critical part of the process. Outside of the Marcellus area this is the process available to every other company or institution that disagrees with a notice of violation.
I have been asked today by the media if I believe the Marcellus industry lobbied for this directive. I do not believe that it did.
In my experience drilling companies resolved most notices quickly. Most companies fixed problems and spent considerable funds to do so. Sometimes companies did disagree with a notice and would avail themselves of the proper avenues to answer, modify or challenge a notice of violation. But the Marcellus industry, to its credit in my view, was not challenging most or even a significant number of violations.
I urge rethinking and rescinding the directive.
Mr. Hanger,
ReplyDeleteMay I first thank you for being an honest and informed voice that tells it like it is here in Pennsylvania. We need many more like you.
I own a natural gas leasing company, and I too find it somewhat odd that such a change in operation has occurred. It is easy to jump to the conclusion that this is a politically motivated change to benefit the natural gas companies, as the anti-drilling groups have been doing all morning in the blog-o-sphere. I would like to think that this is not the case.
Do you think that this could possibly have something to do with the influx of new, relatively inexperienced inspectors the DEP has hired? Or possibly overzealous inspectors? Obviously something triggered this change in policy. What would your hypothesis be?
Thanks, and please keep up the great work.
Mike Knapp
President
Knapp Acquisitions & Production
Kittanning, PA
The professional staff at DEP have been attacked by just about everyone at one time or another. I can tell you that they are qualified, dedicated people who are trying to both produce the gas and protect the environment. They have been criticized for not writing violations; for not finding that pollution was caused by gas; and now some are suggesting that they are inconsistent or overly zealous. DEP is not perfect but both of these categories of criticisms are false and destructive. The public good will be lost unless all the political pressures from all directions are resisted that seeks to make DEP something other than the professional, independent regulator it has been. We all have a huge stake in that whether we think so or not. Pennsylvania must have it.
ReplyDeleteJohn,
ReplyDeleteI fully agree with your post. Professional inspectors should never be micromanaged by department executives. Such an approach is inefficient and demoralizing. It's also contrary to best interests of the regulated industry, the credibility of which is dependent upon a credible inspection program.
If an inspector is new, he or she should be accompanied by someone with more experience. If DEP has problems with an inspector's actions, they should deal with that inspector directly, not handcuff the entire force.
Elmer P. Danenberger
John,
ReplyDeleteI believe DEP has one of the most thankless jobs in the state. It seems that no matter what they do, they cannot please anyone. To me, that's a good indicator that they are indeed doing their job correctly. I hope that the Corbett administration continues to give them the tools to effectively manage the industry. Those of us who take the strides regardless of regulations to do the right thing are depending on the DEP to make sure the "less than concerned" (who I believe are in the vast minority) operators don't ruin it for the rest of us.
Thank you for your response and I wish you the best of luck in your next endeavor. I hope you will continue to stay involved in this energy debate.
Mike Knapp
President
Knapp Acquisitions & Production
Kittanning, PA