ShareThis Page
Business Headlines

Its appeal denied, Range Resources ordered to disclose drilling chemicals in Washington County lawsuit

| Wednesday, April 15, 2015, 11:21 p.m.

Range Resources Corp. must gather information about the chemicals its contractors used at a Washington County shale gas well and disclose it to neighbors who sued over leaks from a nearby wastewater holding pond, state judges said this week.

Superior Court denied the Fort Worth-based gas producer's appeal of a county judge's order directing the disclosure as part of a 2012 lawsuit involving the Yeager drill site and impoundment in Amwell. It's one of five impoundments Range agreed to close as part of a $4.15 million settlement reached last year with Pennsylvania regulators.

“We look forward to receiving the information ordered by the trial court requiring full disclosure of all chemicals used at the site,” attorney John Smith said Wednesday. He represents families who sued Range in 2012, alleging leaks from the pond and related drilling fouled their water.

A spokesman and lawyer for Range could not be reached for comment on whether Pennsylvania's most prolific shale driller will appeal the decision to the state Supreme Court. The company has denied the families' claims and says testing by the Department of Environmental Protection found no evidence that gas activity polluted their water.

The case brings together two prime issues of contention in the decade-long shale drilling boom: leaky wastewater impoundments that regulators are seeking to phase out and disclosure of the chemicals used during drilling and hydraulic fracturing.

In agreeing to last year's fine, Range said it would install new liners and leak-detection systems at remaining impoundments. The DEP fined Downtown-based EQT Corp. $4.5 million for leaky ponds, and the agency's new draft of environmental rules for oil and gas wells includes stricter permitting of the earthen pools.

State law requires companies to report most chemicals to an industry-run, online database, though proprietary ingredients can be redacted. Companies must disclose secret ingredients to doctors if they're treating someone for exposure and sign a confidentiality agreement.

Then-Common Pleas Judge Debbie O'Dell Seneca ordered the disclosure as part of the usual exchange of paperwork in the lawsuit. Range appealed last year. Superior Court judges ruled Range does not have standing to appeal the pretrial order because it has no interest in protecting contractors' and suppliers' trade secrets.

“To the extent the proprietary, chemical ingredients of products used at the Yeager drill site are entitled to protection, the right to assert such protection is held by the manufacturers of those products, not Range Resources,” Judge John Bender wrote.

Senior Judge William Nalitz took over the case when O'Dell Seneca retired in January, though a trial is not imminent. Range appealed another decision involving a subpoena.

David Conti is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-388-5802 or

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.

click me