#• o %
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
M RANGE
PRODUCTION COMPANY
teal unit lease
210.732 ACRES
EMERGENCY 911
DAY BOO-919-3710 24-HR 800-919-3710
BUTLER LEASE
EO2.90 ACRES
EMERGENCY 911
0# W0-9W-37W 2VMB 800-010-3710
Response to
Congressional Inquiry
Regarding the EPA's
Emergency Order to the
Range Resources
Gas Drilling Company
December 20, 2013
Report No. 14-P-0044
Scan this mobile
code to learn more
about the EPA OIG.
-------
Report Contributors:
Kathlene Butler
Dan Engelberg
Johnny Ross
Genevieve Borg Soule
Abbreviations
DO J U.S. Department of Justice
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ISE Imminent and Substantial Endangerment
OECA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
OIG Office of Inspector General
RRC Railroad Commission of Texas
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
Cover Photo: Outside the Range Resources' Butler and Teal hydraulic fracturing well sites.
(EPA OIG photo)
Hotline
To report fraud, waste or abuse, contact
us through one of the following methods:
email: OIG Hotline@epa.gov
phone: 1-888-546-8740
fax: 1-202-566-2599
online: http://www.epa.gov/oig/hotline.htm
write: EPA Inspector General Hotline
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Mailcode 2431T
Washington, DC 20460
Suggestions for Audits or Evaluations
To make suggestions for audits or evaluations,
contact us through one of the following methods:
email:
OIG WEBCOMMENTS@epa.oov
phone:
1-202-566-2391
fax:
1-202-566-2599
online:
http://www.epa.g0v/0i0/c0ntact.html#Full Info
write:
EPA Inspector General
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Mailcode 241OT
Washington, DC 20460
-------
^£Dsrx
• A v
lSi
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
At a Glance
14-P-0044
December 20, 2013
Why We Did This Review
We conducted this review in
response to a congressional
request. We evaluated the
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA's) Region 6
issuance and withdrawal of an
emergency order under Section
1431 of the Safe Drinking Water
Act to the Range Resources Gas
Drilling Company, to determine
whether the EPA followed
applicable laws and policy.
Region 6 concluded that a
gas well owned and operated by
Range Resources in Parker
County, Texas, either caused or
contributed to contamination found
in the groundwater. Subsequently,
on December 7, 2010, Region 6
issued an emergency order
instructing Range Resources to
investigate the groundwater and
soil in the contaminated area to
determine the cause of the
contamination and to take actions
to remediate and prevent further
contamination.
This report addresses the
following EPA themes:
• Making a visible difference in
communities across the country.
• Taking action on toxics and
chemical safety.
• Protecting water: A precious
limited resource.
For further information,
contact our public affairs office
at (202) 566-2391.
The full report is at:
www.epa.aov/oia/reports/2014/
20131220-14-P-0044.pdf
Response to Congressional Inquiry
Regarding the EPA's Emergency Order to the
Range Resources Gas Drilling Company
What We Found
Region 6's issuance of the emergency order
to Range Resources under Section 1431 of
the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the region's
subsequent enforcement actions, conformed
to agency guidelines, regulations and policy.
The region's interactions with state officials
and other stakeholders were appropriate and
within Section 1431 guidelines.
The EPA withdrew its
emergency order regarding
Range Resources hydraulic
fracturing operations, but
continues to monitor the
situation for evidence of
widespread contamination.
Laws and guidance do not address withdrawing Section 1431 emergency
orders and the EPA used its discretion in withdrawing the emergency order.
The EPA reached an agreement whereby Range Resources agreed to test
20 water wells every 3 months for a year to provide information about the
presence of more widespread contamination. According to the EPA, the
sampling that Range Resources has completed indicates no widespread
methane contamination of concern in the wells that were sampled in Parker
County. However, the EPA lacks quality assurance information for the Range
Resources' sampling program, and questions remain about the
contamination.
Recommendations and Planned Corrective Actions
We recommend that the Region 6 Regional Administrator (1) collect and
evaluate the testing results being provided by Range Resources to determine
whether the data is of sufficient quality and utility, (2) determine whether an
imminent and substantial endangerment still exists at the original residential
well involved, (3) inform the affected residents of the present status of the
contamination and of any Region 6 planned actions, (4) work with the Railroad
Commission of Texas to ensure appropriate action is taken as needed, and
(5) document the costs and resources invested to complete the work included
in these recommendations.
In its official comments and in subsequent meetings, the EPA agreed with
and provided corrective actions that address our recommendations. All
recommendations are resolved with corrective actions underway. No final
response to this report is required.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
December 20, 2013
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Response to Congressional Inquiry Regarding the EPA's Emergency Order to the
Range Resources Gas Drilling Company
Report No. 14-P-0044
This is our report on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) emergency order to the
Range Resources Gas Drilling Company conducted by the EPA Office of Inspector General (OIG). This
report contains findings that describe the problems the OIG has identified and corrective actions the OIG
recommends. This report represents the opinion of the OIG and does not necessarily represent the final
EPA position. Final determinations on matters in this report will be made by EPA managers in
accordance with established audit resolution procedures.
Action Required
All recommendations are agreed to and resolved. Therefore, no final response to this report is needed.
If you wish to provide a final response to this report, it should be provided as an Adobe PDF file that
complies with the accessibility requirements of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
amended. The final response should not contain data that you do not want to be released to the public;
if your response contains such data, you should identify the data for redaction or removal along with
corresponding justification. We will post this report to our website at http://www.epa.gov/oig.
FROM: Arthur A. Elkins Jr.
TO:
Ron Curry, Regional Administrator
Region 6
Cynthia Giles, Assistant Administrator
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please contact Carolyn Copper,
Assistant Inspector General for Program Evaluation, at (202) 566-0829 or copper.carolyn@epa.gov; or
Dan Engelberg, Director, Water Program Evaluations, at (202) 566-0830 or engelberg.dan@epa.gov.
-------
Response to Congressional Inquiry
Regarding the EPA's Emergency Order to the
Range Resources Gas Drilling Company
14-P-0044
Table of C
Chapters
1 Introduction 1
Purpose 1
Background 1
Scope and Methodology 5
2 The EPA Adhered to Policy, but Questions Remain 7
Emergency Order Met the Two Requirements of SDWA 7
The EPA Concluded That a Gas Well Was the Most Likely
Contributor to the Contamination 8
Range Resources Emergency Order Similar to Other
Emergency Orders 12
The Region's Communications with State and Other Stakeholders
Adhered to Law, Policies and Procedures 13
Range Resources Did Not Fully Comply Wth the Order 14
Wthdrawal of the Emergency Order Was Wthin
the EPA's Discretion, but Questions Remain 16
Conclusions 18
Recommendations 19
Agency Response and OIG Evaluation 19
Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits 21
Appendices
A Agency Response to Recommendations 22
B Agency Letter to Range Resources 27
C OIG Response to Agency Comments 29
D Distribution 31
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
Purpose
This assignment responds to a congressional request the Office of Inspector
General (OIG) received from six United States Senators to evaluate the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) issuance and withdrawal of an
emergency order under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Our objective was
to determine whether EPA Region 6's issuance of an emergency order to the
Range Resources Gas Drilling Company under Section 1431 of the SDWA, and the
region's subsequent enforcement actions, conformed to agency guidelines,
regulations and policy. We also reviewed the region's interactions with state
officials and other stakeholders, and the EPA's withdrawal of the emergency order.
Background
SDWA Provides the EPA with Emergency Powers
Congress established the SDWA to protect the quality of drinking water in the
United States. Although most of the SDWA is concerned with ensuring that
drinking water meets standards at public drinking water systems, part of the law,
including Section 1431, is directed toward protecting drinking water sources from
contamination.
Section 1431 of the SDWA authorizes the EPA to take immediate action to protect
public health when any source of drinking water is, or will be, contaminated when
two conditions exist. First, the EPA has information that a contaminant is in or likely
to enter a public water system or underground drinking water supply and may
present an imminent and substantial endangerment (ISE) to public health. Second,
state and local authorities have not acted to protect public health from the ISE.
The preventative nature of Section 1431 means that for the EPA to take and
enforce a Section 1431 emergency order, it needs neither proof that contamination
has already occurred nor proof that the recipient of the order is responsible for the
contamination. EPA guidance says that the EPA may act when the ISE is either
direct or indirect, and whether the ISE is foreseeable in the near future or present
at the time.1
Case law has supported the EPA's authority under the emergency powers
provided in Section 1431 to "overlook technological and economic
feasibility.. .unlimited by other constraints, [to] giv[e] paramount importance to
1 Final Guidance on Emergency Authority under Section 1431 of the Safe Drinking Water Act. September 27, 1991.
14-P-0044
1
-------
the sole objective of the public health."2 Individuals at both the EPA and the
U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) explained that SDWA Section 1431 gives the
EPA the authority to take action to address emergencies proactively, even when
the EPA does not have comprehensive information about the scenario. As a result,
court opinions and case law have tended to give the EPA deference in these cases.
The EPA's guidance reads:
Even though EPA should strive to create a record basis to support
its Section 1431 actions, the Regions should recognize that EPA
does not need uncontroverted proof that contaminants are present
in or likely to enter the water supply or that an imminent and
substantial endangerment may be present before taking action
under Section 1431. Similarly, EPA does not need uncontroverted
proof that the recipient of the order is the person responsible for
the contamination or threatened contamination. Courts generally
will give deference to EPA's technical findings of imminent and
substantial endangerment.3
The EPA guidance says that if the responsible party is not clearly known, an
emergency order should be issued to the most likely contributor(s) based on the
type of contaminant(s) found as compared to current and past land practices in the
area. When the EPA determines that the two Section 1431 conditions are met, the
EPA may take the steps necessary to protect public health. As part of an order, the
guidance states that the EPA can require that a study be performed to more clearly
determine the responsible parties. The EPA may:
• Order those who caused or contributed to the endangerment provide
alternative water supplies, at no cost to the consumers (e.g., provisions of
bottled water, drilling of new well(s) and connecting to an existing public
water system).
• Notify the public of hazards (e.g., door-to-door, posting, newspapers and
electronic media).
• Order studies to determine the extent of the contamination.
• Order engineering studies to propose a remedy to the endangerment and a
timetable for its implementation.
• Order the halting of the disposal of contaminants that may be contributing
to the endangerment.
Section 1431 and the EPA guidance do not offer criteria for withdrawing an
emergency order. Therefore, the EPA uses discretion to decide when to withdraw
an emergency order.
2 United States v. Hooker Chem. & Plastics Corp.,749 F.2d 968, 988 (2d Cir. 1984).
3 Final Guidance on Emergency Authority under Section 1431 of the Safe Drinking Water Act. September 27, 1991.
14-P-0044
2
-------
SDWA Advises Consulting With States on Emergency Orders
Most states have received authority to implement the SDWA requirements.
However, the EPA retains responsibility to oversee drinking water programs by
taking actions when states do not. Section 1431 of the SDWA instructs the EPA
to consult with the state and local authorities prior to taking enforcement action
"to the extent practicable."
The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality is the chief environmental
agency for the state of Texas. However, for matters involving the production of
oil and gas, the Railroad Commission of Texas (RRC) has regulatory authority.
The RRC, through its Oil and Gas Division, regulates the exploration, production
and transportation of oil and natural gas. Its statutory roles include preventing
waste of the state's natural resources, protecting the correlative rights of different
interest owners and preventing pollution. To prevent pollution of the state's
surface and groundwater resources, the RRC has an abandoned well plugging and
abandoned site remediation program. The oil and gas industry partially funds this
program through fees and taxes. Within the Oil and Gas Division, the Site
Remediation Section, with field offices throughout the state, accepts and
investigates complaints of contamination caused by oil and gas production.
EPA Policy Requires Press Releases to List Statutes, Risks and
Precedents
The EPA's 2007 EPA Policy on Publicizing Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance Activities provides guidance on the content of enforcement
publications and the proper review process. The policy states that the EPA should
not negotiate the content of press releases outside of the agency. It states that the
press release should include the statute(s) violated, the environmental and health
impacts of the specific pollutants or contaminants involved and whether the case
would create national or program precedents. It also states that the relevant press
office has ultimate responsibility for final editorial control over the content of
national/regional press announcements and is responsible for disseminating them
to the media, regions and program offices.
A review of the Information Quality Act and subsequent guidelines issued by both
the Office of Management and Budget4 and the EPA5 indicates that press releases
are exempt. The Information Quality Act does not apply to communications such
as press releases.
4 Office of Management and Budget Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and
Integrity of Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies; Republication. February 22, 2002.
5 EPA Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information
Disseminated by the Environmental Protection Agency. October 2002.
14-P-0044
3
-------
The EPA Investigated a Drinking Water Contamination Complaint and
Issued an Emergency Order
In August 2010, a homeowner in Parker County, Texas, complained to Region 6
that the drinking water well associated with his home had become contaminated
with natural gas and requested assistance. In a phone call to Region 6, the
homeowner stated that the well pump malfunctioned because high levels of
natural gas in the water caused the pump to lose suction. He reported that his
drinking water was effervescing inside the home, indicating high levels of gas in
the water. The homeowner indicated that he could set his drinking water on fire to
illustrate high levels of natural gas in the water at the wellhead. He indicated that
he had contacted state officials at the RRC, the state arm responsible for
investigating contamination of drinking water wells, but they had not been able to
resolve his issues.
In response to the complaint, on October 26, 2010, Region 6, in consultation with
the RRC officials, conducted sampling and testing of the air and the well water at
two residential wells to verify the existence and nature of the contamination.
Region 6 also identified a nearby gas production well as a potential source and
collected gas samples for isotopic and compositional analysis from both the gas
well, operated by Range Resources, and the drinking water wells. The EPA
conducted the analysis to determine the possible origin of the gases in the
drinking water and gas wells, and to compare the composition of gas in the well
water to gas from the production well.
Region 6 received results from its October sampling and testing on
November 16, 2010. The testing results prompted the EPA to advise the residents
at both homes to discontinue use of the well water. The test results showed levels
of methane above action levels set by USGS (i.e. 10 mg/L, the level at which
wells should be evaluated for venting and ignition sources should be removed
from the area). This presented a potential explosion hazard. The test results also
showed benzene levels above the EPA published maximum contamination levels.
Based on an isotopic analysis, Region 6 concluded that gas in the groundwater
and gas from the production well were nearly identical and likely originated from
the same source. Region 6, therefore, concluded that a gas production well owned
by Range Resources caused or contributed to the contamination in the
groundwater. Region 6 provided its test results to officials at the RRC, telling the
state that the evidence demonstrated an ISE.
The RRC informed Region 6 that it did not share the EPA's conclusion that the
Range Resources gas well caused the drinking water well contamination, but said
the RRC would continue its own testing and research. Region 6 requested a
meeting with Range Resources to discuss its results as it related to the gas
production well. However, Range Resources declined to meet with the region and
indicated that they would be working with state officials to investigate and resolve
the issue.
14-P-0044
4
-------
Based on the evidence collected and its discussions with the RRC in
November 2010, Region 6 began coordinating with the EPA's headquarters to
take emergency action under the SDWA. Region 6 issued an emergency order to
Range Resources on December 7, 2010, citing that the gas production well either
caused or contributed to the contamination in two residential water wells.6 The
order required Range Resources to conduct research on the source and extent of
contamination, provide drinking water to affected residents, and develop a plan to
mitigate contamination in the aquifer.
Range Resources did not fully comply with the order, and legal actions between
the company and EPA ensued. EPA withdrew the order in March 2012, reaching
a nonbinding agreement with Range Resources for additional well testing.
Scope and Methodology
We conducted our evaluation in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform our work to
obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the
evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions
based on our evaluation objectives. We conducted our evaluation from July 2012
to July 2013.
We sought to determine whether Region 6's issuance, implementation and
withdrawal of the emergency order under Section 1431 of the SDWA met all
requirements of the Act. We also sought to:
• Determine whether Region 6's interaction with state officials, EPA's
headquarters and other stakeholders was appropriate and in accordance
with Section 1431 guidelines.
• Determine the applicability of the Information Quality Act to Region 6's
press release concerning its Section 1431 actions.
• Determine whether Region 6's Section 1431 actions for Range Resources
were compatible to other Section 1431 actions for other violators.
• Evaluate eight items enumerated in the congressional request letter dated
June 19, 2012.
To complete our work, we conducted interviews and obtained and reviewed
documents and official records. We interviewed staff and officials in the EPA's
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA), EPA's Region 6, the
DOJ, the RRC and Range Resources. We interviewed homeowners at one
contaminated residential well and their attorney. We made site visits to the homes,
6 Subsequent to the emergency order, the EPA determined that it was unlikely that Range Resources' gas well
drilling and production activities had caused the contamination in Residential Well 2.
14-P-0044
5
-------
to the contaminated water wells and to the two Range Resources gas production
wells. We attempted to interview residents at two other homes where
contaminated wells were identified, but they did not agree to participate in our
evaluation. We reviewed the order, administrative record and court documents,
and assessed evidence surrounding the contamination from the EPA, Range
Resources and the RRC.
We compared the Range Resources emergency order with other emergency orders
the EPA issued between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2011. We used the
EPA's Enforcement and Compliance History Online EPA enforcement cases search
tool to query all SDWA Section 1431 orders issued during the 3-year period. This
search returned 40 orders, the overwhelming majority of which were against public
water systems and not relevant for comparison. Of the 40 orders, we identified two
cases for comparison: one involved a company that was also part of the oil and gas
industry, and the other involved a single company allegedly contaminating one or
more private citizen water wells. We compared the elements of the Range
Resources order with these two orders.
14-P-0044
6
-------
Chapter 2
The EPA Adhered to Policy, but Questions Remain
The EPA's issuance of the emergency order to Range Resources under SDWA
Section 1431 and Region 6's subsequent enforcement actions conformed to
agency guidelines, regulations and policy. The Range Resources order was similar
to two other emergency orders the EPA issued in the past. The region's
interactions with the RRC and other stakeholders followed Section 1431
guidelines. Laws and guidance do not address withdrawing Section 1431
emergency orders, so the EPA withdrew the order based on its discretion. Upon
withdrawal, the EPA reached a non-binding agreement with Range Resources for
additional testing in the area. According to the EPA, the sampling that Range
Resources completed in wells in Parker County, Texas, indicated no widespread
methane contamination at action levels7 (i.e., one well of 20 showed methane
above action levels, and a subsequent sample at this well was below the limit).
However, the EPA lacks quality assurance information for Range Resources'
sampling program, and questions remain regarding the presence of contamination.
Emergency Order Met the Two Requirements of SDWA
Section 1431 requires two conditions for the EPA to take emergency enforcement
action. Both existed at the time Region 6 issued the emergency order. First, the
EPA concluded that two residential drinking water wells were contaminated with
methane, benzene and other contaminants. Second, test results showed methane
levels that could accumulate in the affected homes and potentially cause an
explosion.
The Contamination Warranted an Emergency Order
The EPA was justified in concluding that the contamination in the residential
wells constituted an ISE based on the data the EPA collected. The EPA water and
gas samples collected from the residential water wells were contaminated. Test
results on November 16, 2010, showed the presence of chemical contamination in
both wells. The contamination levels indicated a risk to a drinking water source—
the aquifer and the wells drawing from it.
The U.S. Department of the Interior advises owners of wells with methane
concentrations greater than 10 milligrams per liter to consider removing ignition
sources from the immediate area to prevent the possibility of an explosion. The
EPA used this standard to conclude that the concentration of methane in
7 i.e., 10 milligrams per liter, the level at which wells should be evaluated for venting and ignition sources should be
removed from the area.
14-P-0044
7
-------
residential water wells presented a risk of explosion. Data showed dissolved
methane at one residential water well reaching twice this limit: 20.1 milligrams
per liter. Data also showed benzene in one residential well at 6.84 micrograms per
liter. This level is above the maximum SWDA contamination standard set for
public water supplies of 5 micrograms per liter. In addition, results indicated the
presence of ethane, propane, toluene and hexane.
The methane in the wells presented an explosion hazard, and benzene presented
health hazards. Methane poses risks of explosion and fire. In large concentrations
in air, it may pose a risk of asphyxiation. Benzene is a known human carcinogen.
It can cause anemia, neurological impairment and other adverse health impacts.
Hexane, propane, ethane and toluene may also cause adverse health impacts if
inhaled or ingested. The residences housed nine people, including adults and
young children. Region 6 staff concluded that the levels of methane and benzene
in the water posed an imminent and substantial endangerment to the residents.
State and Local Authorities Did Not Plan to Act Immediately
Evidence shows that EPA correctly determined that the RRC did not plan to act
immediately. Region 6 officials and staff communicated with the RRC officials
and staff while they were investigating the contamination, and while the EPA was
considering taking action. The EPA asked the RRC if they planned to take action,
and the RRC said they were not prepared to do so. State laws did not authorize
officials at the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to act because the
contamination involved gas and oil production, which is outside of their
jurisdiction. SDWA Section 1431 and the EPA's guidance8 do not define how to
determine whether actions will happen in a timely fashion. Therefore, based on
their assessment of the explosion risk and the RRC response to the EPA's
questions on taking action, the EPA concluded that appropriate state and local
officials had not taken sufficient action to address the endangerment and did not
intend to take timely action.
The EPA Concluded That a Gas Well Was the Most Likely Contributor
to the Contamination
The information that the EPA had in its possession was sufficient for it to
conclude that the gas production well was the most likely contributor to the
contamination of the aquifer that led to the ISE. It was the closest potential source
of contamination to the contaminated drinking water well and Range Resources
drilled the well shortly before the homeowners first reported the contamination.
Moreover, the EPA data showed the composition of the gas contaminating the
water wells to be nearly identical to that of the gas in the production well, and that
the gas from both types of wells was likely from the same source.
8 Final Guidance on Emergency Authority under Section 1431 of the Safe Drinking Water Act. September 27, 1991.
14-P-0044
8
-------
The EPA met the legal burden required for Section 1431 when it issued the
emergency order against Range Resources. Section 1431 does not expect the EPA
to delay acting to address an ISE until it is certain of the source of the
endangerment. Rather, the EPA guidance states:
In cases where the responsible party is not clearly known, the order
should be issued to the most likely contributor(s) based on the type
of contaminant(s) found in ... [the] USDW [underground source of
drinking water] compared to current and past land practices in the
9
area.
The Location and Timing of the Gas Well Operation Coincided with
Well Contamination
The location and timing of Range Resources gas well drilling and operations
contributed to the EPA's determination that a nearby gas production well caused
or contributed to well contamination. The EPA identified two gas production
wells close to the two contaminated water wells, both operated by Range
Resources. These wells went into production in August 2009, and were the only
two natural gas wells within 2,000 feet of the contaminated residential water
wells. The gas production wells both included a vertical bore and a horizontal
fracture bore. The residential wells were both within 500 feet in horizontal
distance from the fractured track of the horizontal section of the gas production
well bore and approximately 2,300 feet from the vertical bore.
Figure 1. Approximate Location of Gas Production Wells and
Contaminated Residential Wells
Residential Well 1
Residential Well 2
Gas Production Wells-
horizontal fracture
Q Gas Production Wells-
vertical bores
0 800 1,600 3,200 Feet
1 I I I I I I I I
Source: EPA Region 6.
9 Final Guidance on Emergency Authority under Section 1431 of the Safe Drinking Water Act. September 27, 1991.
14-P-0044
9
-------
The EPA relied on the coincident timing of the gas production well drilling and
operations and the detection of the water well contamination to provide additional
evidence of the connection. A professional drilling service drilled Residential
Well 2 in August 2002 and Residential Well 1 in April 2005. The homeowners
primarily used the water well for human consumption and landscape irrigation.
Neither the homeowners nor the well drilling services observed or reported that
either residential well contained any noticeable natural gas at the time of drilling.
The water wells produced drinking water for years without signs of natural gas.
In December 2009, approximately 4 months after Range Resources placed the gas
wells into production, the homeowners at Residential Well 1 began noticing signs
of natural gas. In May 2010, the homeowners at Residential Well 2 began
noticing signs of natural gas.
Records indicate that Range Resources began drilling the gas production well in
June 2009. The hydraulic fracture operation was completed and the well began
gas production in August 2009. The homeowners reported noticing that drinking
water started to effervesce (give off bubbles as gas escaped) in late 2009 and early
2010. In July 2010, the homeowners at Residential Well 1 reported that methane
caused their pump to malfunction. At that point, the homeowners determined that
the gas in the water well was flammable and contacted state officials and the
EPA. This sequence of events contributed to Region 6's conclusion that the gas
production well contributed to the contamination of the water well.
Isotopic Analysis Indicates Gases Nearly Identical and
Likely From the Same Source
Based on data it collected, Region 6 concluded that the presence of gas in the
residential water wells was likely due to impacts from gas development and
production activities in the area. Through a method known as isotopic
fingerprinting and compositional analysis, the region determined that the gas in
the water samples and gas from the production wells were likely from the same
source and were identical within analytical error. Both gases contained the same
components in the same relative concentrations.
Isotopic fingerprinting determines the ratio of different isotopes of a particular
element in an investigated material. Methane produced in the ground varies in the
relative concentrations of carbon 12 and carbon 13 isotopes. The ratio of these
isotopes provides an indication of the source of the natural gas. The isotopic
fingerprint analysis of methane in the water and gas samples Region 6 obtained
on October 26, 2010, showed that the isotopic values from the residential water
wells and the gas production well were thermogenic in nature and likely from the
same source. In addition, the compositional analysis indicated that both gases
contain significant amounts of heavier hydrocarbon components, and that the
gases were identical within analytical error; the hydrocarbon portion of each gas
contains the same components.
14-P-0044
10
-------
Region 6 concluded that gases from the production wells and contaminated
residential wells were likely from the same source. Moreover, samples taken from
other wells in the area had a different isotopic profile. Region 6 concluded that the
gas produced by Range Resources' gas well was most likely the source that was
contaminating the aquifer and the drinking water wells. Figure 2 shows plotted
isotopic values of gases from the gas production well and the residential water
well along with gas samples from other nearby wells.
Figure 2. Isotopic Fingerprinting of Gas from Contaminated Residential and
Gas Production Wells
-200
-180
contaminated wells
gas production well(s)
-160
~ ~
~
~
~
o
o
to
-140
-120
-100
-30 -40 -50 -60 -70
813C of Methane (%o)
Range Data: Dissolved Gas Samples
Source: EPA Region 6.
EPA Evidence Led to Emergency Order Against Range Resources
Based on the evidence the EPA uncovered regarding the nature and source of the
contamination in the residential wells, the EPA determined that a Range
Resources gas production well was the most likely contributor to the
contamination. The EPA drew on its authority in SDWA Section 1431 to issue an
emergency order to Range Resources to protect an underground source of
drinking water from contamination. The EPA's emergency order outlined steps to
investigate and remediate the contamination identified. Specifically, the
emergency order directed the company to take the following steps:
• Provide drinking water for the consumers of the contaminated wells.
• Conduct research into potential contamination of drinking water supplies
within 3,000 feet of the gas well.
14-P-0044
11
-------
• Conduct soil gas and indoor air concentration analysis at the houses served
by the contaminated well.
• Identify and repair the contamination pathways.
OECA staff told us that after the order was issued, the EPA determined that it was
unlikely that Range Resources' gas well drilling and production activities had
caused the contamination in Residential Well 2. Subsequent discussions about
contamination focused only on Residential Well 1.
Range Resources Emergency Order Similar to Other
Emergency Orders
Our review of recent emergency orders revealed two recent situations similar to
that of the Range Resources case. Both were situations where the EPA issued an
emergency order in response to what it believed to be contamination threatening
drinking water sources by a company.
• The first instance was the East Poplar Oil Field Section 1431 Order.
This situation involved multiple companies drilling for oil in Montana.
Region 8 determined that these activities had contributed to contamination
of the groundwater. Although the public water system was not yet
contaminated, Region 8 determined that there was an ISE. This is unlike
the Range Resources case in that Region 6 believed that the private well
was already contaminated and that there was an imminent potential of the
well exploding.10
• The second instance was the Kenneth Brockett Farm Section 1431 Order.
This case was similar to the Range Resources case because it involved a
single company contaminating a private well. It was based on evidence
that a dairy farm was contaminating a private well with fecal coliform,
E. coli and ammonia at levels that presented an ISE.11
The EPA imposed similar requirements in all three cases. It ordered the
companies to monitor the contamination in public water supplies and private
wells, and to develop a mitigation or remediation plan to correct the situation.
All three orders also directed companies to provide an alternate source of water
for contaminated wells.
10 East Poplar Oil Field, Docket No. SDWA-08-2011-00126, 12/16/10.
http://vosemite.epa.gov/oa/rhc/epaadmin.nsf/Filings/5BDBB00D74503113852578010020F7FA/$File/SDWA08201
10006%20AQ.pdf.
11 Kenneth Brockett Farm, Docket No. SDWA-03-2011-0205-EO, 6/28/11.
http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/public notices/BrockettEmcrgencvOrdcr.pdl'.
14-P-0044
12
-------
The Region's Communications With State and Other Stakeholders
Adhered to Law, Policies and Procedures
Region 6's communications with the state satisfied the requirements of the
SDWA its communications with the public and other relevant stakeholders
adhered to agency policy and procedures. The region coordinated with its state
partner, the RRC, as required under Section 1431. Region 6's press release
regarding the Range Resources Section 1431 Emergency Order followed
procedure in both content and distribution. The content of the release followed the
EPA's policy and was similar to other press releases. The timing of the
distribution followed agency procedures. Press releases are exempt from the
Office of Management and Budget and the EPA's Information Quality Act
guidelines. Therefore, these guidelines were not relevant for comparison.
The EPA Regularly Interacted With and Communicated With Its
State Partners
The EPA followed Section 1431 by regularly consulting with the RRC prior to
taking enforcement action. According to Region 6 documents, Region 6 staff
consistently coordinated by phone and email with the RRC staff from August to
December 2010 to discuss the investigation of the well water contamination and
the issuance of the emergency order. Our review of records indicated that between
August and October 2010 Region 6 staff had seven email exchanges with RRC
staff located at the Abilene, Texas, field office. Between September and October
2010, Region 6 staff exchanged seven emails with the RRC Site Remediation
office in Austin, Texas. This email traffic was concerning the contaminated well
water.
The RRC staff told us that Region 6 staff coordinated with them via email and
conference calls in an effort to collect samples from the gas and water wells and
to discuss sampling methods. Subsequently, Region 6 and the RRC held a
conference call to discuss the sampling method for the October 21, 2010,
sampling. Region 6 and RRC staff visited the site and worked cooperatively in
collecting gas and water samples. In November, Region 6 sent its test results of
the October samples to the RRC staff. In addition, email traffic showed that
Region 6 coordinated with the RRC to discuss the pending emergency order.
Prior to issuing the order to Range Resources, Region 6 discussed the contents of
the emergency order with the RRC.
Press Release Conformed to Requirements
The Region 6 press release regarding the Range Resources Section 1431
Emergency Order followed required procedure in both content and distribution.
The region followed the typical procedures for distributing the press release to the
public. The EPA issued the press release on December 7, 2010, the day it issued
the emergency order. The region issued its press release 11 minutes prior to
14-P-0044
13
-------
sending the order to Range Resources, which was not typical, but also not
specifically against any policy provision. However, Region 6 has stated that
Range Resources had knowledge of the order prior to its issuance on December 7,
2010. The EPA requested a meeting with Range Resources to discuss the
impending order, which Range Resources declined. However, according to
Region 6 enforcement personnel and Range Resources, the RRC provided Range
Resources with details of the order prior to the EPA's issuing the order.
The contents of the release adhered to EPA policy and Region 6 followed EPA
procedures in ensuring review and concurrence from headquarters. Additionally,
the content was similar to other enforcement press releases we reviewed. The
press releases for the two other Section 1431 cases that we reviewed also included
additional information beyond the case facts. The EPA press personnel indicated
that the agency does this to provide context for the enforcement action. They also
indicated that this practice follows Associated Press standards. Finally, our review
of the Information Quality Act and subsequent guidelines issued by both the
Office of Management and Budget and the EPA found that press releases are
exempt from the act; therefore, we did not assess EPA's Range Resources press
release against these criteria.
The EPA Informed Citizens Groups About the Order
The former Region 6 Administrator informed environmental and citizen groups of
the order and the associated press release after the region issued the two
documents. Some members of these groups had shown interest in oil and gas
issues in the state and had attended prior meetings with Region 6. A review of the
evidence showed that this communication occurred after the region issued its
press release and that it is not out of the ordinary for the EPA to inform interested
parties of press releases after they are released. Although OECA's communication
policy restricts discussions concerning press releases and administrative orders
when they are in draft form, it places no such restrictions once they are issued.
Range Resources Did Not Fully Comply With the Order
Range Resources contended that the order was factually and legally
unsupportable. In its response to the emergency order, Range Resources said that
the company's investigation indicated that natural gas had been present in this
aquifer long before Range Resources' production activities and was likely
naturally occurring migration from several other shallow gas zones immediately
below the aquifer. However, Range Resources responded to the December 2010
order by indicating that they had offered to provide water to the affected well
owners. Range Resources did not comply with the other elements of the order.
Range Resources emphasized that the company drilled the gas production wells
into the Barnett Shale formation, more than a mile below the aquifer from which
the residential water well was drawing water. They said this demonstrated that the
14-P-0044
14
-------
depth of the gas well's horizontal bore was vertically too far below the maximum
water well depth to contaminate it with gas from the Barnett Shale. However,
Region 6 countered by offering evidence from scientific literature suggesting that
even at greater depths deep production wells may affect water wells in a shallow
aquifer. Range Resources met with Region 6 staff on December 15, 2010, to
discuss the emergency order, but Range Resources did not agree to comply with
the EPA's order.
Subsequent Federal, State and Legal Actions Questioned Cause of
Contamination
Several legal actions between the EPA and Range Resources regarding the
contamination ensued and were ongoing between January 2011 and March 2012.
On January 19, 2011, the RRC held a hearing to make its own determination
about whether Range Resources caused the contamination. In contrast to the EPA
guidance concerning emergency orders, the RRC needed definitive proof that a
direct source was causing the contamination in order to take action. When we
asked staff/officials of the RRC what sort of evidence RRC required to determine
if a direct connection existed, they told us that they did not know. They said the
RRC has never had a case where they found a direct connection between an oil or
gas well and a drinking water well.
In this case, the Texas Railroad Commissioners found that the Range Resources
gas wells were not causing or contributing to the contamination of any Parker
County wells. Subsequent to this RRC finding, Range Resources ceased
complying with the two parts of the EPA emergency order to which it had agreed:
(1) it stopped providing alternate water to the one home where it had been doing
so, and (2) removed the explosivity monitor it had installed in the home. The EPA
disagreed with the finding reached by the state at the RRC hearing. In addition,
the agency had collected additional information supporting its claim that Range
Resources' gas well caused the contamination.
The EPA Filed Suit to Enforce the Order and Range Resources Filed
Judicial Review
The DO J filed an action (a complaint) on January 18, 2011, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas to require Range Resources to comply
with the order, among other things. This action did not receive a ruling because,
on January 20, 2011, Range Resources filed an action seeking judicial review of
the order in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The District Court
issued a stay of the DO J action to enforce the order pending the outcome of the
Court of Appeals' ruling on Range Resources' action seeking judicial review.
14-P-0044
15
-------
Withdrawal of the Emergency Order Was Within the EPA's Discretion,
but Questions Remain
The EPA's withdrawal of the emergency order did not violate any regulation or
policy. Because SDWA Section 1431 and the EPA's guidance do not provide
criteria or a process for withdrawing Section 1431 emergency orders, EPA
officials exercised discretion in withdrawing it.
The EPA and Range Resources began discussions to resolve the situation outside
of the courts and came to an agreement in March 2012. As such, also in March
2012, EPA withdrew the order, the DO J withdrew its action seeking to enforce
the order in District Court and Range Resources withdrew its action seeking
judicial review of the order in the Court of Appeals before the Court of Appeals
ruled.
Region 6 and OECA staff and officials cited several reasons for withdrawing the
order. First, the EPA wanted to reduce the costs and legal risks associated with the
ongoing court cases. In addition, an EPA official indicated that the EPA believed
that the risk faced by the residents at the well where contamination had first been
found was reduced because the residents had obtained water from a separate
source and were no longer using the well. Finally, the EPA was able to obtain
Range Resources' agreement to participate in a national agency study of the
relationship between hydraulic fracturing and drinking water contamination.
Range Resources also agreed to sample 20 water wells in Parker County every
3 months for a year if the EPA withdrew the order.
The EPA Perceived High Litigation Risk and Cost
Senior OECA and Region 6 officials indicated to us they were willing to settle the
case because it was more complicated than they had anticipated. EPA leadership
determined in 2012 that although they still believed the statute supported the
EPA's actions, the case with Range Resources required more resources than
anticipated because the judge had called for the review and consideration of
additional evidence not ordinarily included in such cases.
An OECA official told us that enforcing the order in the courts is usually a simple
process because Section 1431 does not require absolute proof of contamination or
cause. A senior DOJ attorney who worked on the case said that he believed that
the emergency order was sufficient and could have been enforced through the
courts. The EPA's Assistant Administrator for OECA also told the OIG that she
was "very confident" in the enforcement case. Both the DOJ and OECA officials
said that the EPA had enough evidence and support to enforce the order. Further,
they explained that Congress designed the existing statutes to protect people;
these statutes give the EPA the authority to take action to address emergencies, so
court opinions and case law have tended to give the EPA deference.
14-P-0044
16
-------
However, the EPA believed its prospects in this case were uncertain. OECA
officials told us that although they believed they were on firm ground there was
always a risk that the judge could rule against the EPA. If that happened, it would
risk establishing case law that could weaken the EPA's ability to enforce
Section 1431 emergency orders in the future.
Because the court was requiring additional evidence beyond that provided in the
EPA's administrative record, EPA officials said they would have to gather
additional evidence and expert witness testimony at additional cost. As a result,
OECA senior officials said that was not an efficient use of agency resources.
The EPA Believed the Risk to Homeowners Had Been Reduced
In interviews, an OECA official indicated to us that a factor that influenced the
withdrawal decision was the belief that the risk faced by users of the remaining
residential well covered by the emergency order had lessened since they issued the
emergency order in 2010. The homeowner who owned the well of primary concern
had begun purchasing water from an alternate source and was no longer using the
contaminated well. Moreover, in responding to our preliminary findings, OECA
officials explained they also believed that the risk had diminished because "to the
best of our knowledge, explosivity limits had not been reached" in any of the
households where Range Resources briefly installed monitoring devices.
Range Resources Agreed to Conduct Further Research and Sampling,
but Questions About Data Quality and Contamination Remain
Another reason for withdrawing the emergency order was that in 2012 the EPA
had begun discussions with Range Resources that resulted in a non-binding
agreement being reached in the spring of 2012. Under the agreement, Range
Resources agreed to participate in the EPA's national study of drinking water
effects from hydraulic fracturing once the EPA withdrew the order. Range
Resources also agreed to test the water from 20 wells near its gas production well
in Parker County for a year.
The EPA said that Range Resources' hydraulic fracturing facilities and
operational information would make a valuable contribution to the study. Prior to
reaching this agreement, Range Resources had indicated that they would not
allow the EPA access to their facilities or participate in the study as long as the
emergency order remained. However, as part of the agreement, Range Resources
agreed to allow the EPA access to their gas facilities in Pennsylvania and would
provide operational information to the agency. As of August 2013, the EPA and
Range Resources had not agreed on the terms of Range Resources' participation.
A senior EPA official said that the outcome of ongoing discussions between
Range Resources and the EPA was uncertain.
14-P-0044
17
-------
Range Resources also agreed to test 20 wells near the gas well every 3 months for
a year, and the EPA said that the 20 wells were close enough to the gas well that
sample results would indicate whether there is a wider contamination problem.
Sampling these wells would show whether there was an immediate risk to
individual homeowners not included in the emergency order.
According to the EPA, the sampling that Range Resources has completed
indicates no widespread methane contamination above action levels in the wells
that were sampled in Parker County (only one well of 20 showed methane above
that level, and a subsequent sample at this well was below that level). However,
the agreement for testing did not include other elements of the original emergency
order directed toward characterizing the ISE, such as testing the soil in the area of
the contamination, conducting indoor air monitoring, conducting a geographical
survey and defining contamination pathways. OECA managers accepted this
partial solution because Range Resources would not voluntarily conduct these
elements of the order, and they judged that the EPA could not spare the resources
to continue enforcement through the courts.
In addition, the EPA lacks quality assurance information for Range Resources'
sampling program, and questions remain about the presence of contamination.
We identified two limitations with the approach taken. First, the sampling by
Range Resources excluded one of the two wells where contamination was first
identified in 2010. According to both the EPA and Range Resources, this was due
to an ongoing lawsuit between the company and the homeowner. Second, Range
Resources, via its attorney's March 30, 2012, letter, committed to sample the
private water wells in accordance with EPA-sanctioned test methods. However,
the EPA did not review or approve Range Resources' sampling protocol, nor did
it review or approve the data collection and analytical methods during the course
of the study.
In our draft report, we stated that the EPA should have an oversight role in Range
Resources' sampling program. We believe this is important to ensure the validity
and reliability of the data that the EPA is using to evaluate whether additional
contamination of drinking water sources exists. Subsequent to the issuance of our
draft report, EPA reviewed Range Resources' quarterly sampling data and
determined that the data lacked some of the required quality assurance information.
As a result, in an August 22, 2013, letter to Range Resources' attorney (see
Appendix B), a Region 6 enforcement chief requested that Range Resources
provide to Region 6 information on Range Resources' quarterly sampling, such as
field results and sampling notes, sampling locations, sampling methods, and chain
of custody records for sample results.
Conclusions
Region 6 and EPA headquarters met all requirements of Section 1431 of the
SDWA in issuing the emergency order to Range Resources and in communicating
14-P-0044
18
-------
with the public and stakeholders. In addition, since SDWA Section 1431 and the
EPA's guidance do not provide criteria for withdrawing the emergency order, the
EPA's use of discretion in withdrawing the order was allowed. The EPA
withdrew the order because an agreement with Range Resources was underway;
the costs and risks of litigating this particular case were likely to be very high and
the needed short-term benefits would be low, if any; and immediate human health
risks were believed to have been addressed.
One matter that led the EPA to issue the emergency order was addressed—Range
Resources agreed to perform additional tests near the wells. However, other issues
remain. Although EPA officials believe that current residents are not presently at
risk, the overall risk faced by current and future area residents has not been
determined. We believe that the EPA needs to implement cost-effective steps to
better gauge the risk and document and disseminate its findings to affected
residents. The EPA should oversee the sampling Range Resources agreed to
perform and conduct its own sampling at any locations it suspects may be
contaminated that are not contained in Range Resources' sample. The EPA should
also provide homeowners with information about any contamination at their
homes and work with the RRC to take corrective actions.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Regional Administrator, Region 6:
1. Collect and evaluate the testing results being provided by Range Resources
to determine whether the data are of sufficient quality and utility.
2. Using quality data collected and analyzed, determine whether an ISE still
exists at the original residential wells that prompted the emergency order
and at other wells where Range Resources has identified contamination.
3. Advise residents at sites of evaluated wells of the present status of the
contamination and of any Region 6 planned actions.
4. As needed, work with the RRC to ensure appropriate action is taken to
respond to any ISE at the sites where contamination was identified. If the
data and information available to Region 6 indicate no ISE, document and
communicate that decision.
5. Document the costs and resources invested to complete the work included
in these recommendations.
Agency Response and OIG Evaluation
We received a response to the draft report on September 3, 2013. In the written
response, the agency agreed with and provided corrective actions that address
14-P-0044
19
-------
recommendations 3, 4 and 5. These recommendations are resolved with corrective
actions underway.
In a meeting to discuss the agency's comments on our report and response to the
recommendations, we sought clarification on recommendations 1 and 2.
Specifically, for recommendation 1, the OIG requested that the agency commit to
evaluate the information that it receives, and take appropriate actions should it
determine that the data are not sufficient for it to reach a conclusion concerning
the level of contamination of the underground source of drinking water. EPA
agreed that it will take appropriate steps should any of the information it receives
indicate a potentially significant data quality concern.
For recommendation 2 the OIG requested that the agency commit to taking action
should the data collected indicate ISE to other drinking wells in the involved area.
EPA agreed that should any of the sampling data provided to the EPA by Range
Resources reveal ISEs to other drinking wells in the involved area, the EPA will
take appropriate action by the end of the first quarter of fiscal year 2014. Based on
our discussions and agreements with the EPA, recommendations 1 and 2 are
resolved and open with corrective actions underway.
14-P-0044
20
-------
Status of Recommendations and
Potential Monetary Benefits
RECOMMENDATIONS
POTENTIAL MONETARY
BENEFITS (In $000s)
Rec.
No.
Page
No.
Subject
Status1
Action Official
19 Collect and evaluate the testing results being
provided by Range Resources to determine
whether the data are of sufficient quality and utility.
19 Using quality data collected and analyzed,
determine whether an ISE still exists at the original
residential wells that prompted the emergency
order and at other wells where Range Resources
has identified contamination.
19 Advise residents at sites of evaluated wells of the
present status of the contamination and of any
Region 6 planned actions.
19 As needed, work with the RRC to ensure
appropriate action is taken to respond to any ISE at
the sites where contamination was identified. If the
data and information available to Region 6 indicate
no ISE, document and communicate that decision.
19 Document the costs and resources invested to
complete the work included in these
recommendations.
Planned
Completion
Date
Claimed
Amount
Ag reed-To
Amount
Regional Administrator, 12/31/13
Region 6
Regional Administrator, 12/31/13
Region 6
Regional Administrator, 12/31/13
Region 6
Regional Administrator, 12/31/13
Region 6
Regional Administrator, 3/31/14
Region 6
1 0 = recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending
C = recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed
U = recommendation is unresolved with resolution efforts in progress
14-P-0044
21
-------
Appendix A
Agency Response to Recommendations
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1200 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
September 3, 2013
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Response to the Office of Inspector General Draft Report: "Response to
Congressional Inquiry Regarding the EPA's Emergency Order to the Range
Resources Gas Drilling Company," dated July 18, 2013, Project No. OPE-FY12-
0019
FROM: Ron Curry
Regional Administrator
Region 6
Cynthia Giles
Assistant Administrator
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
TO: Carolyn Copper
Assistant Inspector General
Office of Program Evaluation
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the draft findings and recommendations presented in
the Office of Inspector General (OIG) Draft Report, "Response to Congressional Inquiry
Regarding the EPA's Emergency Order to the Range Resources Gas Drilling Company." We
appreciate the OIG's careful consideration of this matter and agree with your conclusion that
EPA's issuance of the emergency order (order) was supported by law and fact, and that our
exercise of discretion to resolve the matter was consistent with all applicable rules and policies.
In particular, the Draft Report finds that EPA satisfied all requirements of Section 1431 of the
Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. § 300i, in issuing the order to Range Resources, and that
issuance of the order was supported by the information in the Agency's possession, the location
and timing of Range Resources' gas well drilling and gas production activities, and EPA's
isotopic analysis. In addition, the Draft Report concludes that the order issued to Range
Resources was similar to other recent Safe Drinking Water Act emergency orders, and that
EPA's communications with the State and other stakeholders adhered to applicable law, policies,
and procedures. The Draft Report also concludes that EPA consistently coordinated with the
PRO^
ro
z
UJ
o
14-P-0044
22
-------
Railroad Commission of Texas (Railroad Commission) prior to the order's issuance. Finally, the
Draft Report finds that withdrawal of the order was within EPA's appropriate discretion and that
the resolution of the matter did not violate any regulation or policy. We think that these
conclusions are well supported and we agree.
While we agree with the overall conclusions of your review, there are a few minor places where
the Draft Report is unclear or where the information differs from our understanding of the
specific facts. We are attaching a list of these instances, along with suggested language to clarify
or improve accuracy, for your consideration.
Responses to Recommendations
We appreciate the OIG's recommendations. Withdrawal of the order and resolution of the related
federal litigation allowed the Agency to shift its focus in this particular matter towards a joint
effort on the science and safety of energy extraction. Pursuant to its attorney's March 30, 2012
letter, Range Resources indicated its intent to conduct a year-long sampling effort (quarterly
sampling events) in accordance with EPA-sanctioned test methods. We are committed to
ensuring that all data and related information collected by Range Resources as part of its
quarterly sampling events and provided to EPA are shared with the Railroad Commission, which
is the lead state agency charged with overseeing oil- and gas-related activities in Texas.
Furthermore, we will discuss the OIG's recommendations with the Railroad Commission and
offer whatever assistance the Railroad Commission may require in carrying out its oversight
functions in this area.
Recommendation 1: On August 22, 2013, we sent the attached letter to Range Resources'
attorney regarding quality assurance information related to its quarterly sampling events. Upon
further review of Range Resources' quarterly sampling data, we determined that the data
contained some quality assurance information but lacked other such data. As described in our
August 22 letter, we identified certain quality assurance information that appeared to be lacking
and requested that Range Resources provide such additional information. The letter also
requested that as part of its response, Range Resources confirm that it has submitted all
information related to its quarterly sampling events. We will promptly share any additional
information that we receive from Range Resources regarding its quarterly sampling events with
the Railroad Commission.
Recommendation 2: Since EPA took samples in 2010 that ultimately led to the issuance of the
order, circumstances have changed. Based on information available to the agency, the one
private water well that was of primary concern has been disconnected from the home thereby
addressing explosivity concerns, and the well is no longer used as a source of drinking water. In
addition, only one of the approximately 80 water well samples taken by Range Resources
identified methane above the action level of 10 milligrams per liter (mg/L), which is the level at
which the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) recommends having water wells evaluated for
possible venting (the subsequent quarterly sample taken from this well identified methane below
10 mg/L). Importantly, EPA retains authority to take action in the future should circumstances
14-P-0044
23
-------
change and the Railroad Commission fails to act as the lead state agency charged with
overseeing oil- and gas-related activities in Texas.
Furthermore, we respectfully suggest that this recommendation is beyond the scope and purpose
of this investigation, which was described on page five of the Draft Report.
Recommendation 3: We have taken appropriate action with respect to Range Resources'
analyzed quarterly sampling data by sharing it with the Railroad Commission, which is the lead
state agency charged with overseeing oil- and gas-related activities in Texas. Our understanding
is that it is the Railroad Commission's practice to notify water well owners when the State
possesses data that suggests contamination levels of potential concern. As noted above, we will
promptly share any additional information that we receive from Range Resources regarding its
quarterly sampling events with the Railroad Commission.
Recommendation 4: We have taken appropriate action with respect to Range Resources'
analyzed quarterly sampling data by sharing it with the Railroad Commission. The analyzed
quarterly sampling data submitted by Range Resources indicate that there is not widespread
groundwater contamination of concern in the wells that were sampled in Parker County. As
discussed above, only one of the approximately 80 water well samples taken by Range
Resources identified methane levels above the 10 mg/L level identified by USGS, with the
subsequent quarterly sample from that well identifying methane below 10 mg/L. We have shared
these data with the Railroad Commission for them to follow up to ensure that any elevated
methane levels do not pose a concern. We will promptly share any additional information that we
receive from Range Resources regarding its quarterly sampling events with the Railroad
Commission.
Recommendation 5: We will document the costs associated with reviewing any additional
information that we receive from Range Resources regarding its quarterly sampling events and
coordinating with the Railroad Commission.
14-P-0044
24
-------
Responses to Recommendations Table
No.
Recommendation
High-Level Intended
Corrective Action(s)
Estimated Completion
by Quarter and FY
1
Collect and evaluate the
testing results being
provided by Range
Resources to determine
whether the data is of
sufficient quality and
utility.
We have re-evaluated quality
assurance information
associated with Range
Resources' analyzed quarterly
sampling data and sent the
attached letter to Range
Resources' attorney. We will
promptly share any additional
information that we receive
from Range Resources with the
Railroad Commission.
First Quarter FY 2014
upon receipt of any
additional information.
2
Using quality data collected
and analyzed, determine
whether an ISE still exists
at the original residential
wells that prompted the
emergency order and at
other wells where Range
Resources has identified
contamination.
As noted above, the well of
primary concern has been
disconnected from the home
thereby addressing explosivity
concerns, and it is no longer a
source of drinking water. EPA
retains the authority to take
action if circumstances change
in Parker County and the
Railroad Commission fails to
act as the lead state agency
charged with overseeing oil-
and gas-related activities in
Texas.
No further action
proposed.
3
Advise residents at sites of
evaluated wells of the
present status of the
contamination and of any
Region 6 planned actions.
We have shared all of Range
Resources' analyzed quarterly
sampling data with the
Railroad Commission. We will
promptly share any additional
information that we receive
from Range Resources
regarding its quarterly
sampling events with the
Railroad Commission.
First Quarter FY 2014
upon receipt of any
additional information.
14-P-0044
25
-------
No.
Recommendation
High-Level Intended
Corrective Action(s)
Estimated Completion
by Quarter and FY
4
As needed, work with the
RRC to ensure appropriate
action is taken to respond
to any ISE at the sites
where contamination was
identified. If the data and
information available to
Region 6 indicate no ISE,
document and
communicate that decision.
We have shared all of Range
Resources' analyzed quarterly
sampling data with the
Railroad Commission. The
analyzed quarterly sampling
data indicate that there is not
widespread groundwater
contamination of concern in
the wells that were sampled in
Parker County. We will
promptly share any additional
information that we receive
from Range Resources with the
Railroad Commission.
First Quarter FY 2014
upon receipt of any
additional information.
5
Document the costs and
resources invested to
complete the work included
in these recommendations.
We will document any costs
and resources expended to
address these
recommendations.
Second Quarter FY
2014.
Contact Information
If you have any questions or concerns regarding this response, please contact the Region 6 Audit
Liaison, Susan Jenkins, at (214) 665-6578.
Attachments
cc: Charles Sheehan, OIG
Samuel Coleman, R6
John Blevins, R6/CAED
Stephen Gilrein, R6/CAED
Jerry Saunders, R6/CAED
Steven Chester, OECA
Susan Shinkman, OECA/OCE
Pamela Mazakas, OECA/OCE
Andrew Stewart, OECA/OCE
Timothy Sullivan, OECA/OCE
Lauren Kabler, OECA/OCE
Gwendolyn Spriggs, OECA/OAP
14-P-0044
26
-------
Appendix B
Agency Letter to Range Resources
j>SrtDSr%
MO
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 6
1445 ROSS AVENUE. SUITE 1200
DALLAS, TEXAS 75202 - 2733
August 22,2013
Mr, John Riley
Braccwcll & Giuliani
111 Congress Avenue
Suite 2300
Austin. TX 78701-4061
Dear Mr, Riley:
Thank you for undertaking the four quarterly sampling events and for providing information in a timely
maimer related to those events as committed to in your letter dated March 30,2012, to Mr, Steven
Chester regarding Range Production Company and Range Resources Corporation (Range). It is my
understanding that all of the sampling events have been conducted, and all analyses are complete.
The EPA is reviewing the information Range has submitted related to the sampling events (as discussed
in paragraph 2 aad 3 of your letter) that will help the EPA and the State of Texas {The Railroad
Commission of Texas) assess the quality of the data collected and the integrity of the sampling. Based
upon a review of the data provided by Range, it does not appear that we have the following information
regarding the quarterly sampling:
a. Field results and records made during sampling. (We have a copy of field results for the first
quarter sample event, bat we do not have the field records and results for the last three
quarters.)-,
b. Trip blanks, equipment blanks, duplicates, matrix spikes and matrix spike duplicates. (These
were taken, but the results were not submitted,);
e. Chain of custody forms for samples sent to Isotcch. (These were only provided for the first
quarter. We have not received these forms tor quarters 2.3 and 4.);
d. Sample locations were not provided for the 4th quarter sampling event, and a summary table
was not provided.); and
e. Description of the sampling technique for dissolved gas. including the amount of time
between filling the sample bottles, wetting the cap and placing the cap on the bottle.
Additionally, if Range has any further information related to the quarterly sampling events and analyses
pursuant to the March 30, 2012 letter, please submit this as well All information should be sent to Jerry
Saunders in the Region 6 office within 30 days of the receipt of this letter. The Region has shared all of
the information submitted to date by Range with the Railroad Commission of Texas, the primary
regulatory agency for the well field in southern Parker County. We will share any additional data
submitted as well
Tte papar Is prirrtetl wKJi woatabla-oil-taseS ink® and is 1 «H>ereent po«toor»umar rocyoM mate*,
chtorine-itee-praeessai and njcycMsle.
14-P-0044 27
-------
2
As part of your response, please confirm in your reply that Range has submitted the entirety of Ms
information If you have any questions regarding this matter, do not hesitate to call me at
214-665-2718, Thank you for your cooperation.
cc: Mr. David Poole
Range Production Company
Mr. Peter Pope
Railroad Commission of Texas
Mr. Steven Chester
Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Sincerely,
Scott McDonald, Chief
Water Enforcement Branch
Office of Regional Counsel
14-P-0044
28
-------
Appendix C
OIG Response to Agency Comments
OIG Recommendation
EPA Response
EPA
Corrective
Action
OIG Assessment of
EPA Response
1. Collect and evaluate
the testing results being
provided by Range
Resources to determine
whether the data are of
sufficient quality and
utility.
"We have re-evaluated
quality assurance
information
associated with Range
Resources' analyzed
quarterly sampling data and
sent the attached letter to
Range Resources' attorney.
We will promptly share any
additional information that
we receive from Range
Resources with the Railroad
Commission."
NOTE: In a subsequent
communication, EPA agreed
to take appropriate steps
should any of the
information it receives
indicate a potentially
significant data quality
concern.
First Quarter
FY 2014 upon
receipt of any
additional
information.
We agree with the EPA's
proposed actions.
This recommendation is
resolved.
2. Using quality data
collected and analyzed,
determine whether an ISE
still exists at the original
residential wells that
prompted the emergency
order and at other wells
where Range Resources
has identified
contamination.
"As noted above, the well of
primary concern has been
disconnected from the home
thereby addressing
explosivity concerns, and it
is no longer a source of
drinking water. EPA retains
the authority to take action if
circumstances change in
Parker County and the
Railroad Commission fails to
act as the lead state agency
charged with overseeing oil-
and gas-related activities in
Texas."
NOTE: In a subsequent
communication, EPA agreed
to take appropriate steps
should any of the sampling
data collected by Range
Resources reveal imminent
and substantial risks to other
drinking wells in the involved
area.
First Quarter
FY 2014.
The OIG accepts the
agency's interpretation
that the well of primary
concern has been
disconnected from the
home, thereby addressing
explosivity concerns, and
it is no longer a source of
drinking water.
We agree with the EPA's
proposed actions.
This recommendation is
resolved.
14-P-0044
29
-------
OIG Recommendation
EPA Response
EPA
Corrective
Action
OIG Assessment of
EPA Response
3. Advise residents at
sites of evaluated wells of
the present status of the
contamination and of any
Region 6 planned actions.
"We have shared all of
Range Resources' analyzed
quarterly sampling data with
the Railroad Commission.
We will promptly share any
additional information that
we receive from Range
Resources regarding its
quarterly sampling events
with the Railroad
Commission."
First Quarter
FY 20014 upon
receipt of any
additional
information.
We agree with the EPA's
proposed actions.
This recommendation is
resolved.
4. As needed, work with
the RRC to ensure
appropriate action is
taken to respond to any
ISE at the sites where
contamination was
identified. If the data and
information available to
Region 6 indicate no ISE,
document and
communicate that
decision.
"We have shared all of
Range Resources' analyzed
quarterly sampling data with
the Railroad Commission.
The analyzed quarterly
sampling data indicate that
there is not widespread
groundwater contamination
of concern in the wells that
were sampled in Parker
County. We will promptly
share any additional
information that we receive
from Range Resources with
the Railroad Commission."
First Quarter
FY 2014 upon
receipt of any
additional
information.
We agree with the EPA's
proposed actions.
This recommendation is
resolved.
5. Document the costs
and resources invested to
complete the work
included in these
recommendations.
"We will document any costs
and resources expended to
address these
recommendations."
Second Quarter
FY 2014.
We agree with the EPA's
proposed actions.
This recommendation is
resolved.
14-P-0044
30
-------
Appendix D
Distribution
Office of the Administrator
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Regional Administrator, Region 6
Agency Follow-Up Official (the CFO)
Agency Follow-Up Coordinator
General Counsel
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Associate Administrator for External Affairs and Environmental Education
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 6
Director, Office of Regional Operations
Region 6 Public Affairs Office
Region 6 Director for Enforcement
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Region 6
14-P-0044
31
------- |