Lawsuit raises questions over DEP's testing of water for drilling contaminants
By Bill Vidonic
Published: Thursday, Nov. 1, 2012, 7:08 p.m.
A Washington County lawsuit alleging that gas driller Range Resources contaminated three families' drinking water has raised questions about whether the Department of Environmental Protection is releasing incomplete test results, a state representative and attorney said Thursday.
The DEP defended its water testing. “The battery of analyses we order during investigations are thorough and give us the results we need to make sound determinations, which we fully stand behind,” spokesman Kevin Sunday said in a statement. “DEP takes very seriously instances where we do determine gas migration has occurred from drilling.”
Range Resources spokesman Matt Pitzarella termed as grandstanding the release of depositions in the case by the plaintiffs' law firm, Smith Butz of Canonsburg. The firm represents three Amwell families who claim they were sickened by chemicals used in gas drilling.
He also criticized state Rep. Jesse White, who is calling for a criminal investigation.
“This is simply the latest line of attacks by an outspoken critic of this industry. This is nothing to do with science or health,” Pitzarella said.
White demands the state Attorney General and the federal Environmental Protection Agency investigate the DEP “for alleged misconduct and fraud.”
“This is beyond outrageous,” White, D-Cecil, said in a statement. “Anyone who relied on the DEP for the truth about whether their water has been impacted by drilling activities has apparently been intentionally deprived of critical health and safety information by their own government.”
A litany of spills and leaks and the use of a potentially cancer-causing chemical to stop odors at the site contributed to air and water pollution, the three Amwell families claim. Range Resources and its contractors built a water impoundment above a dozen natural springs and the source of well water there, but made errors in its construction and repairs while using it as an unpermitted dump for well waste, lawsuits filed in Washington County Court said.
White and Smith Butz on Thursday released depositions from DEP Bureau of Laboratories Technical Director Taru Upadhyay taken in September. They said the depositions show the DEP conducted water tests using an EPA-approved standard, but the DEP employee asking for the tests coded the requests to limit the contaminant results the lab gave to the DEP field office.
The results omitted heavy metals and other elements, according to a letter from attorney Kendra Smith to DEP Secretary Michael Krancer, that are considered carcinogens. That omission, she wrote, “denies a homeowner claiming water impacts from oil and gas drilling operations and their treating physicians of critical information.”
Sunday said Smith's letter “misrepresents the deposition transcripts by selective quotation and the lawyer either misunderstands how a laboratory functions or is intentionally misrepresenting how one does.”
The state Attorney General's office did not return a call for comment.
Bill Vidonic is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-380-5621 or firstname.lastname@example.org.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.