but" i i ea: 3 west virginio department of environmental protection Division ofWatcr and Waste Management Earl Ray Tomblin. Governor 60] 57"'1 Street SE Randy C- Huffman. Cabinet Secretary Charleston, WV 25304 Phone: (304) 926-0495 Fax: (304) 926-0463 CONSENT ORDER ISSUED UNDER THE WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT WEST VIRGINIA CODE, CHAPTER 22, ARTICLE 11 TO: Antero Resources Corporation DATE: June 1, 2016 IN: Alvyn A. Schopp, Regional Vice President 1615 Wynkoop Street ORDER NO: 8060 Denver, CO 80202 INTRODUCTION This Consent Order is issued by the Director of the Division of Water and Waste Management (hereinafter ?Director?), under the authority of West Virginia Code, Chapter 22, Article ll, Section 1 et seq. to Antero Resources Corporation (hereinafter ?Antero?). FINDINGS OF FACT In support of this Order, the Director hereby ?nds the following: 1. Antero is an oil and gas company conducting land disturbance activity in Harrison County, West Virginia. 2. On January 13, 2014, West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) personnel conducted a complaint investigation relating to Antero activity near Chie?on in Harrison County. During the investigation, a violation of the following section of WV Legislative Rules was observed and documented: a. 47CSR2 Section 3.2.b-Antero caused conditions not allowable in waters of the State by creating sediment deposits. Speci?cally, activities associated with Antero on and near Katy Lick - Sardis Road (County Route 7) resulted in deposition of sediments/solids in a UT of Limestone Run at and near GPS coordinates 39? 18' 09.12" 80? 25' 58.09." Debris from road sweeping, access road deterioration, dust and other sources created signi?cant sediment deposits in waters of the State. Promoting a healthy environment. As a result of the aforementioned violation, Notice of Violation (NOV) No. W-NW- 1314-001 was issued to Antero. . On August 18, 2014, WVDEP Of?ce of Oil and Gas personnel conducted a site visit at the Antero Morris Frac Pit. During the visit, evidence of a spill occurring at a secondary containment structure on Antero?s nearby water treatment facility at or near GPS coordinates 39? 18.2458? 80? 25.8990? was observed. The inspector alerted on-site personnel and noti?ed WVDEP Environmental Enforcement personnel. During the spill response, the following observations were made: a. Staining consistent with the reported breach of containment was evident on the felt underlying the secondary containment. b. Gravel had been placed over an area where staining had been identi?ed by an inspector with WVDEP Of?ce of Oil and Gas. 0. Soil samples were taken in the vicinity of the reported breach of containment by WVDEP Environmental Enforcement personnel. The sample resulted in a Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) Oil-Range Organics (ORO) level of 622 mg/kg, which is well above the TPH-ORO Action Level of lOOmg/kg outlined in the WVDEP Groundwater Program Remediation Guidance Document. To date, this spill has not yet been remediated. . On December 16, 2014, WVDEP personnel conducted a partial inspection of a spill reported at Antero?s Water Process Facility. The spill report stated that the spill (Spill One) was contained inside of secondary containment, and that cleanup of the spill was complete. During the inspection, however, WVDEP personnel observed and documented that the reported spill from a leak in the frac tank was in progress, cleanup was not completed, and the wastewater was leaking outside of the dedicated containment system. It was also noted during the inspection that a second source of spillage (Spill Two) was occun'ing near the western footprint of the Water Process Facility near a small unnamed tributary of Limestone Run, and the soil in the area was dark and had a petroleum odor. Lab results of a soil sample taken at the eastern bank of the unnamed tributary at the spill site revealed elevated levels of Total Chloride, Total Strontium, Total Barium, Diesel Range Organics (DRO), and TPH-ORO as compared to a background sample taken at the western bank of the unnamed tributary. During the inspection, a violation of the following section of WV Legislative Rules was observed and documented: a. 47CSR11 Section 2.5 -Antero failed to immediately take all measures necessary to contain spills. As a result of the aforementioned violation, NOV No. was issued to Antero. . On December 18, 2014, WVDEP personnel conducted a partial inspection of Antero?s Water Process Facility. During the inspection, WVDEP personnel observed that, in addition to the two spills observed and documented during the December 16, 2014 inspection, another spill (Spill Three) had occurred. Further investigation revealed that this spill had not been reported. WVDEP personnel observed another spill (Spill Four) in an area down gradient of the o?load manifold covered with straw. Further investigation revealed that a tank truck had spilled its contents during off-loading activities, a spill containment system had not been deployed, the contents had migrated off of the pad and onto the ground, straw had been deployed to soak up the contents, the soil was stained black, and the spill had not been reported. During the inspection, a violation of the following section of WV Legislative Rules was observed: a. Section 2.5 ?Antero failed to immediately take all measures necessary to contain spills. 6. On December 22, 2014, WVDEP personnel met with Antero at the Water Process Facility. During this meeting, the following items were discussed: a. Elevated chloride levels in a small constructed sump outside the secondary containment at Spill One were discussed. The sump is routinely evacuated, and its contents, including spillage and stormwater, are returned into the water treatment system. b. A small constructed sump near Spill Two is frequently evacuated of stormwater and associated spillage. Black stained soil near Spill Two had been sampled and analyzed by Antero and re?ected elevated levels of TPH-DRO. The sump had been constructed in or near the de?ned limit of a reported wetland and some ?ll may have been placed in the wetland. c. Remediation of contaminated black stained soil near Spill Four is necessary. Antero was advised by WVDEP personnel to report the Spill to the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Antero agreed to provide a proposed sampling and remediation plan for the spill areas. d. Antero agreed to provide a written copy of its Spill Reporting and Response Plan including training, reporting procedures, response procedures and other pertinent information. e. The following action items were requested as a result of this meeting: i. Submittal to WVDEP personnel of a proposed site investigation plan for the aforementioned four (4) spill locations that were continued or reasonably expected to contain contaminated soils. ii. Submittal to WVDEP personnel of Antero?s Stande Operating Procedures for spill reporting. Submittal to WVDEP personnel of Amanda Fernley?s ?eld reports detailing visits to the spill sites on December 18 and 19, 2014. iv. Submittal to USBPA of a report that documents spill related impacts to Wetland One (1). Of speci?c concern were chloride results in the wetland sump that was collecting stormwater. 7. On January 30, 2015, WVDEP personnel received a preliminary proposed sampling and soil remediation plan for the aforementioned four (4) spill locations that were con?rmed or reasonably expected to contain soil contamination. The plan stated that Shalewater Solutions, LLC. would cease operations at the site within the next six (6) to twelve (12) months, and, after operations were concluded at the Morris Pad location, Antero would conduct a more robust sampling and analysis of soil and water at the site. The completed sampling and soil remediation plan was intended to adequately cover the entire footprint of the water treatment process location in the form of grid soil and water sampling throughout the site. Antero represented that the completed plan would be submitted to WVDEP personnel for comment by April 1, 2015. 8. On February 7, 2015, WVDEP personnel were noti?ed that a spill of contaminated stormwater had occurred at Antero?s Water Process Facility when a truck driver contracted by Antero failed to close the valve on his hose. The trucking company retained a remediation company for clean-up, and WVDEP Personnel visited the site on February 10, 2015 to determine if additional remediation would be required. There was no visible staining on the ground, and a soil con?rmation sample re?ected a result below the action level for TPH. 9. On February 9, 2015, WVDEP personnel were noti?ed of a spill of sludge from the treatment tank that occurred on February 8, 2015. The truck driver, a contractor, failed to empty the hose completely before placing it back on the truck, allowing the residual material to ?ow onto the ground. The trucking company retained a remediation company for clean-up, and WVDEP Personnel visited the site on February 10, 2015 to determine if additional remediation was needed. There was no visible staining on the ground, and a soil con?rmation sample re?ected a result below the action level for TPH. 10. On February 9, 2015, WVDEP personnel were noti?ed of a spill of brine water from one of Antero?s contracted trucks onto the asphalt at the Water Treatment Facility. An investigation by WVDEP personnel on February 10, 2015 determined that the ?uid had ?owed off of the pavement and onto the vegetation below. Antero representatives reported that only an inch of soil was removed, because there was a gas line running through the area. The line was marked, and additional soil was excavated on February 16, 2015. Soil con?rmation samples re?ected results below the action level for TPH. 11. On March 20, 2015, WVDEP personnel were noti?ed of a spill at Antero?s Water Treatment Facility that occurred on March 19, 2015. Antero reported that one of its contracted trucks loading treated water on the upper lot over?owed onto the pavement. Antero stated that the material did not leave the asphalt and was remediated using sphag sorb and pads; therefore, soil con?rmation samples were not taken. An incident report and photos taken at the spill site on March 19, 2015 were provided by Antero during WVDEP personnel?s investigation. 12. On April 7, 2015, WVDEP personnel received an email from Antero requesting an extension until May 15, 2015 for submittal of the aforementioned completed site investigation plan. The request was approved by WVDEP personnel. 13. On May 15, 2015, Antero submitted a proposed site investigation plan. 14. On June 12, 2015, WVDEP personnel responded to Antero?s proposed site investigation plan. The plan was not approved, additional revisions were requested by WVDEP personnel, and a detailed list of comments was provided. 15. On August 27, 2015, Antero was issued Permit No. WV0111457, Registration No. WVG611695, for its regulated activity at the Morris Pad Water Treatment Facility. ORDER FOR COMPLIANCE Now, therefore, in accordance with Chapter 22, Article 11, Section 1 et seq. of the West Virginia Code, it is hereby agreed between the parties, and ORDERED by the Director: . Antero shall immediately take all measures to initiate compliance with all pertinent laws and rules. . Within thirty (30) days of the e?'ective date of this Order, Antero shall provide a report to WVDEP personnel that identi?es all unpermitted sites in West Virginia for which coverage under Multi-Sector General Water Pollution Control Permit No. W01 1 1457 is required. . Within forty-?ve (45) days of the effective date of this Order, Antero shall submit administratively complete permit applications for all sites identi?ed in the report required by Order for Compliance No. Two (2). Any questions regarding the application process shall be directed to WVDEP DWWM-Permitting Section at (304) 926-0495. . Within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this Order, Antero shall submit for approval a proposed plan of corrective action (POCA) outlining action items and completion dates for how and when Antero will complete the provisions of the POCA and achieve compliance with all terms and conditions of its permit and pertinent laws and rules. The POCA shall include, but not be limited to, the following: a. An approvable sampling plan for the aforementioned areas of concern. The plan shall include, but not be limited to, detailed sampling procedures and standards that will be used to evaluate sample results. b. An approvable remediation plan for any areas in which the aforementioned sampling results indicate that remediation is necessary. Upon approval, the plan of corrective action and schedule shall be incorporated into and become part of this Order, as if fully set forth herein. Failure to submit an approvable plan of corrective action and schedule or failure to adhere to the approved schedule is a violation of this Order. The aforementioned report and plan of corrective action shall make reference to Order No. 8060 and shall be submitted to: Chief Inspector Environmental Enforcement - Mail Code #031328 WVDEP 601 57?1 Street SE Charleston, WV 25304 . Because of Antero?s Legislative Rule violations, Antero shall be assessed a civil administrative penalty of eleven thousand one hundred ninety 1,190) to be paid to the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection for deposit in the Water Quality Management Fund within thirty (30) days of the effective date of this Order. Payments made pursuant to this paragraph are not tax-deductible for purposes of State or federal law. Payment shall include a reference to the Order No. and shall be mailed to: Chief Inspector Environmental Enforcement - Mail Code #031328 WV-DEP 601 57?? Street SE Charleston, WV 25304 OTHER PROVISIONS l. Antero hereby waives its right to appeal this Order under the provisions of Chapter 22, Article 1 1, Section 21 of the Code of West Virginia. Under this Order, Antero agrees to take all actions required by the terms and conditions of this Order and consents to and will not contest the Director?s jurisdiction regarding this Order. However, Antero does not admit to any factual and legal determinations made by the Director and reserves all rights and defenses available regarding liability or responsibility in any proceedings regarding Antero other than proceedings, administrative or civil, to enforce this Order. 2. The Director reserves the right to take further action if compliance with the terms and conditions of this Order does not adequately address the violations noted herein and reserves all rights and defenses which he may have pursuant to any legal authority, as well as the right to raise, as a basis for supporting such legal authority or defenses, facts other than those contained in the Findings of Fact. 3. If any event occurs which causes delay in the achievement of the requirements of this Order, Antero shall have the burden of proving that the delay was caused by circumstances beyond its reasonable control which could not have been overcome by due diligence force majeure). Force majeure shall not include delays caused or contributed to by the lack of suf?cient funding. Within three (3) working days a?er Antero becomes aware of such a delay, noti?cation shall be provided to the Director/Chief Inspector and Antero shall, within ten (10) working days of initial noti?cation, submit a detailed written explanation of the anticipated length and cause of the delay, the measures taken and/or to be taken to prevent or minimize the delay, and a timetable by which Antero intends to implement these measures. If the Director agrees that the delay has been or will be caused by circumstances beyond the reasonable control of Antero force majeure), the time for performance hereunder shall be extended for a period of time equal to the delay resulting ?'om such circumstances. A force majeure amendment granted by the Director shall be considered a binding extension of this Order and of the requirements herein. The determination of the Director shall be ?nal and not subject to appeal. 4. Compliance with the terms and conditions of this Order shall not in any way be construed as relieving Antero of the obligation to comply with any applicable law, permit, other order, or any other requirement otherwise applicable. Violations of the terms and conditions of this Order may subject Antero to additional penalties and injunctive relief in accordance with the applicable law. 5. The provisions of this Order are severable and should a court or board of competent jurisdiction declare any provisions to be invalid or unenforceable, all other provisions shall remain in full force and effect. 6. This Order is binding on Antero, its successors and assigns. 7. This Order shall terminate upon Antero?s noti?cation of full compliance with the ?Order for Comp 'ance? and veri?cation of this noti?cation by WVDEP. I Alvyn A. Regional ViceJPresident Antero Resourc Corporation Public Notice begin: Public Notice end: Scott G. Mandirola, Director Division of Water and Waste Management c/?tf?bw Date Date Date Date Antero Resources Appalachian Corporation Photos 2014mm: Finding of Fact (FOF) No. 2 - P1 130008 Compromised BMPs observed contributing to settleable solids in Toms Fork I vi 1. rigits. w. FOF No. 2 - P1130038 Compromised BMPs observed contributing to settleable solids in Toms Fork Antero Resources Appalachian Corporation Photos -- as? ea? ERIN ?v - .- any (new 41 POP No. 3 - P8180008 Staining observed outside of secondary containment and gravel placed in an area where staining was observed by WVDEP inspector who identi?ed the spill 1., iq. ?1 - inn/?- FOF No. 3 - P8180017 Staining observed outside of secondary containment and gravel placed in an area where staining was observed by WVDEP in5pector who identi?ed the spill Antero Resources Appalachian Corporation Photos Jar-f. PC16172 FOF No.4 - Spill continuing, clean-up in progress, not contained in plastic (Spill l) i - . . Produce water still spraying ?'om deteriorated valve FOF No.4 - Spill continuing, clean-up in progress, not contained in plastic (Spill l) Antero Resources Appalachian Corporation Photos PC161726 FOF No. 4 - Spill continuing, clean-up in progress, not contained in plastic (Spill 1) Antero Resources Appalachian Corporation Photos fa PC161727 FOF No.4 - Spill continuing, clean-up in progress, not contained in plastic (Spill l) PC161728 FOF No. 4- Spill continuing, clean-up in progress, not contained in plastic (Spill 1) Antero Resources Appalachian Corporation Photos I l: -.-. ?Sump dug to suck up spill material outside containment .l I Earthen pit where spill material fl tv P63161735 FOF No. 4 Spill continuing, clean-up in progress, not contained in plastic (Spill l) Antero Resources Appalachian Corporation Photos FF No. 4 - 'gz pill continuing, cle-up in progress, not contained. in?lastic (Spill Spill continuing, clean-up in progress, not contained in plastic (Spill l) Antero Resources Appalachian Corporation Photos 1 7 cuavg-"- I ?vi. '9 .11 I PC161737 (Zoomed) FOF No.4 - Spill continuing, clean-up in progress, not contained in plastic (Spill 1) Antero Resources Appalachian Corporation Photos . - 'tsz? 4 PC161721 FOF No.4 - Spill area tested positive for TPH-DRO and contained odors (Spill 6171 8 FOF No.4 - Spill area tested positive for and contained odors (Spill 2) Antero Resources Appalachian Corporation Photos .V. mmumw ri. 4W PC181757 FOF No. 5 - Spill not reported to spill line (Spill 3) PC221776 FOF No. 5 - Spill not reported to spill line (Spill 3) Antero Resources Appalachian Corporation Photos PC221777 FOF No. 5 - Spill not reported to spill line (Spill 3) 1 -4701? v? PC181752 FOF No. 5 - Additional spill area not reported to spill line (Spill 4) 04/1316 Page 1 of 5 Base Penalty Calculation (pursuant to Antero Resources U?t? ol'Luncstone Run Responsible Party: Appalachian Corp. Receiving Stream: Treatment System Design Maximum Flow: MGD Treatment System Actual Average Flow: MGD linter and rate each ?nding as to Potential and Extent. Potential for Harm Factor 29 4" 5? 1) Factor Range Amount of Pollutant Released ?03 2 b} ToxicityofPollutant 0t03 1 Sensitivity oflhc 0) Environment 0?03 I I cl) lto3 1 Actual Exposure and c) Effects thereon 0m3 1 1 Averagepmmt'alfor?Factor 2) Extent 0f Factor Deviation Factor Range Dcw?ide' 1103 2 3 3 Compliance Potentig?or Harm Factors: l)c - Sensitivity of the Potentially Affected (0 for "dead" stream) - Length oi?Timc ol'Violatiort lie - Actual Exposure and Resulting Effects thereon ExampleslGuidance: Note: Rate as for Minor, 2 for Moderate and 3 for Major. Rate as 0 if it does not apply. Minor exceedance of permit limit by for Avg. Monthiy or <=100% for Daily Max.. exceed numeric W0 standard by 100%. or report doesn?t contain some minor information. Moderate exceedance of permit limit by 41% and 300% for Avg. . 101% and 600% for Daily Max. exceed numeric WQ standard by 101% and of 600% or report doesn't fully address intended subject matter. male exceeoance or umn by cu ror Avg. mommy, 9: DUl?m uany max, exceed numeric W0 standard by 601 failure to submit a report. failure to obtain a permit, failure to report a spill. etc. Note that a facility in SNC should be rated as major for length of time and degree of non-compliance. Narrative WQ standard violations - case-by-case. Page 2 of 5 Continue rating Findings of Facts (FOF) here, if necessary. Otherwise, continue on Page; 1) Potential for Factor Harm Factor Range Amount of Pollutant a) to 3 Releasad b) Toxicity ol? Pollutant 0 to 3 Sensitivity ol'Lhc c) Environment 0'03 d) Length of Time l03 Actual Exposure and ?3 Effects thereon mo" Average PDtenm'for Harm Factor 2) Extent of Factor Deviation Factor Range Degree of Non- Compliance 1 to 3 Extent of Deviation from Requirement Major Moderate Minor Potential $8000 to 0' Major $10,000 $6,000 to $8,000 $5,000 to $6,000 ?m?ml $4,000 to e? Moderate $5,000 $3,000 to $4,000 $200010 $3,000 or the v, $1,500 to Minor $2,000 $1,000 to $1,500 Up to $1,000 Potential for Extent of Multipl FOF Harm Deviation Penalty Factor Base Penalty 28 Moderate Moderate $3,200 I $3.200 4a Minor Major $2,000 1 $2,000 53 Minor Major $2,000 1 $2,000 0 FALSE FALSE FALSE 1 $0 0 FALSE FALSE FALSE 1 $0 0 FALSE FALSE FALSE 1 $0 0 FALSE FALSE FALSE 1 $0 0 FALSE FALSE FALSE 1 $0 0 FALSE FALSE FALSE $0 0 FALSE FALSE FALSE 1 $0 0 FALSE FALSE FALSE I 50 0 FALSE FALSE FALSE 1 $0 0 FALSE FALSE FALSE 1 $0 0 FALSE FALSE FALSE 1 $0 0 FALSE FALSE FALSE 1 $0 0 FALSE FALSE FALSE 50 0 FALSE FALSE FALSE 1 $0 0 FALSE FALSE FALSE 1 $0 0 FALSE FALSE FALSE 1 $0 0 FALSE FALSE FALSE 1 $0 0 FALSE FALSE FALSE $0 0 FALSE FALSE FALSE $0 0 FALSE FALSE FALSE 1 $0 0 FALSE FALSE FALSE 1 $0 0 FALSE FALSE FALSE 1 $0 0 FALSE FALSE FALSE 1 $0 Total Base Penalty $7,200 Page 3 of 5 Page 4 of 5 Penaiy Ad?ustment Factors (pursuant to 47CSR1-6.2) Penalty Adjustment Factor 6.2.b.1 - Degree of or absence of willfulness and/or negligence - 0% to 30% increase 6.2.b.4 - Previous compliance/noncompliance history - 0% to 100% increase - based upon review of last three (3) years - Warning maximum of 5% each, N.O.V. maximum of 10% each, previous Order maximum of 25% each - Consistent DMR violations for <1 year 10% maximum, for >1 year but <2 years 20% maximum, for >2 years but <3 years 30% maximum, for >3 years 40 maximum 62.b.6 - Economic bene?ts derived by the responsible party (increase to be determined) 6.2.b.7 - Public Interest (increase to be determined) 6.2.b.8 - Loss of enjoyment of the environment (increase to be determined) 6.2.b.9 - Staff investigative costs (increase to be determined) 6.2.b.10 - Other factors Size of Violator: 0 - 50% decrease This factor is not available to discharges that are causing a water quality violation. This factor does not apply to a commercial or industrial facility that employees or is part of a corporation that employees more than 100 individuals. WW Flow 000 Additional Other factors to be determined for increases or decreases on a case-by-case basis. Public Notice Costs (cost for newspaper advertisement) 6.2.b.2 - Good Faith - 10% decrease to 10% increase 6.2.b.3 - Cooperation with the Secretary 0% to 10% decrease 6.2.b.5 - Ability to pay a civil penalty - 0% to 100% decrease Base Penalty Adjustments [pursuant to 47CSR -6.2) Page 5 of 5 Comments: Economic bene?t was considered but not applied. Base Penalty Penalty Adjustment Factor Increase Decrease Adjustments 6.2.b.l - Willfulness and/or negligence - 30 $2,160 6.2.b.4 - Compliance/noncompliance history 25 $1,800 6.2.b.6 - Economic bene?ts - (?at monetary increase) so 6.2.b.7 - Public Interest - (?at monetary increase) $0 6.2.b.8 - Loss ofenjoyment - (?at monetary increase) $0 6.2.b.9 - Investigative costs - (flat monetary increase) $0 6.2.b.10 - Other factors (size of violator) $0 6.2.b.10 - Additional Other Factors - Increase (?at monetary increase) $0 6.2.b. I 0 - Additional Other Factors Decrease (?at monetary decrease) $0 Public Notice Costs (?at monetary increase) $30 $30 6.2.b.2 - Good Faith - Increase 30 6.2.b.2 - Good Faith - Decrease $0 6.2.b.3 - Cooperation with the Secretary $0 6.2.b.5 - Ability to Pay $0 Penalty Adjustments $3,990 Penalty $11,190 Estimated Eamomic Bene?t Estimated Item Bene?t Monitoring 8. Reporting Installation Maintenance of Pollution Control Equipment expenses and cost of equipmentlmaten'als needed for compliance Permit Application or Modi?cation Competitive Advantage Wene?t $0