1. Baseline data from predrill water test results is dismissed. Postdrill water tests become the baseline or ‘norm.’ DEP issues a “non-impact” determination despite documented changes in water quality before and after drilling. The first of these cases was uncovered in Triple Divide. This changes local water quality history. Predrill tests are essentially thrown out.

E.G. 281502 (Wyalusing Twp., Bradford Co.) – methane levels go from around 8mg/L in resident’s predrill to 40mg/L in postdrill, an explosive change in methane levels (28mg/L is an explosion hazard in a home.) DEP determines methane is “ related to background conditions and concludes “non-impact.” DEP does not provide an isotopic analysis of the methane to identify the source. Additional cases in the neighboring Leroy Township did receive positive determination letters from DEP having similar methane changes and levels in their water supply.

E.G. 274235 (Delmar Twp., Tioga Co.) – no predrill test is provided. DEP is told by the gas company that an isotopic test showed the gas in the water supply was thermogenic (signifying it came from deeper, shale gas formations). However, DEP issued a non-impact letter after 16 months of investigating stating it does not “appear” gas well drilling is to blame.

E.G. RW04 (Leroy Twp., Bradford Co.) – no complaint record on file [Watch Triple Divide “Shoveling Water” re: Atgas well blowout; Read the story here.]

predrill test (n.) – a water test conducted by a certified laboratory at a private water supply before nearby drilling or fracking; used to document baseline water quality in the event of underground water contamination related to oil and gas operations.

postdrill test (n.) – a water test conducted by a certified laboratory at a private water supply after nearby drilling or fracking; used to compare to predrill water test results to determine whether oil and gas drilling or fracking operations have contaminated a drinking water source.

2. DEP cites postdrill water tests as if they are predrill test results. DEP uses water tests taken after drilling within one mile of the complaint as predrill.

E.G. 286764: DEP cites a predrill test that is taken after drilling has occurred in the area. The predrill used by DEP for its determination was conducted prior to drilling of one well pad (Nestor pad in 2011) but after the drilling of another (Stock 144 pad in 2008). Complaint records show the Stock 144 well illegally buried a waste pit that had to be removed. Public Herald talked to Charles Stock, landowner of the Stock 144 well, who confirmed that the Stock 144 well pad had welding problems during the initial casing and drilling. Charles Stock also has water quality problems related to the gas well on his property, but negotiated with the industry off public record. (Delmar Twp., Tioga Co.)

predrill (n.) and postdrill (n.) = not the same thing; see definitions under 1. above

3. DEP issues non-impact determination letters to neighbors of residents with positive determination letters, typically after long, drawn out investigations. Residents who experienced water changes at the same time, usually within the same one mile radius, receive different determinations from DEP.

E.G. 302442 (Donegal Twp., Westmoreland Co.) – Nick Kennedy, Esq., the Community Advocate of Mountain Watershed Association, calls out DEP for failing to conclude contamination in a water well after DEP previously found a fracking company responsible for two neighboring contaminations of the same kind. [Public Herald has not yet retrieved Westmoreland County records, due 2016.]

E.G. Sugar Run GMI (gas migration investigation) (Wyalusing Twp., Bradford Co.) – Two water supplies receive positive impact determination and 21 other water supplies with similar problems in close proximity/time are issued non-impact determinations.

determination letter (n.) – letter sent by DEP to a resident stating whether drilling, fracking, waste storage, waste transport, or any other oil and gas activity is the culprit of sudden drinking water problems.

4. DEP “kicks the can” – DEP is aware that contamination related to oil and gas exists but sends the concern to another department, consequently keeping these cases off the books.

E.G. 279494 (Charleston Twp., Tioga Co.) – complaint shows signs of contamination from BTEX compounds at levels far above the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) safe for human consumption. But, the case is moved out the of complaint program and sent to the Environmental Cleanup Program (ECP). No determination letter can be found in the record.

E.G. 279262 (Leroy Twp., Bradford County) – complaint is part of Atgas blowout from April 2011 and has been pushed to the Environmental Cleanup Program (ECP). Even though complaint states water conditions met MCL according to an August 2011 test, it implies there were problems associated with the well which resulted in a temporary impact, which in other cases has resulted in a positive determination letter.

E.G. 273912 Complaint shows signs of problems and goes through a year of testing then state it’s “referred to the Program Geologist for additional evaluation” and falls off the radar. (Charleston Twp., Tioga Co.)

5. DEP uses the Presumption of Liability section under Act 13 to dismiss the complaint, basing their conclusion on a loophole in law rather than documented evidence of water contamination, i.e. the complaint came more than 12 months after drilling, or the complaint was made from more than 2,500 ft. from a well.

E.G. 275802: “The Judys” – DEP looked past documented water contamination to determine that a fracking company was not responsible for the contamination because the water well user, Judy Eckert, made the complaint about her water more than six months after the neighboring Marcellus gas well was drilled. (Roulette Twp., Potter Co.)

E.G. 290934: In the complaint DEP states, “Although there appears to be some fluctuation in several parameter concentrations, the 2012 results indicate better water quality than the 2011 sample. Although the complaint was received within a year of drilling and stimulation activities at the Broadbent 466 well site, the location of the water supply is beyond the presumptive distance.” However, DEP previously issued a positive determination letter in the same township for water contamination caused by a well pad a mile away from the complaint, which would put it well beyond the presumptive distance. (Delmar Twp., Tioga Co.)

presumption of liability (n.) – an oil and gas company is presumed to be responsible for any water contamination within 2,500 feet of an oil or gas well if the water becomes polluted within 12 months of drilling, fracking, or any other oil or gas activity (See § 3218. Protection of water supplies, ACT 13). However, the Department uses a loophole in this law to avoid obvious impacts to water supplies in some cases.

6. Oil and gas operator reports residential water contamination, left to handle its own investigation. The company tells DEP it has tested a homeowner’s water and found postdrill contamination. DEP contacts the water well owner, who declines DEP’s assistance, so the case is left off the books. The company is left to handle the contamination case on its own, without it being registered on DEP’s list of positive determination records.

E.G. 283479 (Wyalusing Twp., Bradford Co.) – combustible gas detected in water supply as part of stray gas problems in the area. Chesapeake Energy handles the investigation; no DEP determination made.

E.G. 287447 (Delmar Twp., Tioga Co.) – elevated methane detected by Shell in water supply; no DEP determination.

E.G. 287444 (Delmar Twp., Tioga Co.) – DEP doesn’t issue a determination letter in this case even though the waterway, not used currently used for drinking, has observable impacts of methane from non-detect in predrill to 21mg/L postdrill. Complaint is also located to the Nestor well which DEP used in a previous complaint to claim background conditions of methane in the predrill even though this complaint does not reflect those conditions.

E.G. 287704 (Leroy Twp., Bradford Co.) – methane problems detected in water supply; Chesapeake handles the case off the books.

E.G. 281744 (Delmar Twp., Tioga Co.) – DEP documents water contamination related to pipeline boring activities resulted in replacement of water supply, yet no determination letter issued “since this water supply was affected by pipeline activites.”

7. DEP water tests find contamination, but fails to make a determination, in some cases for years, until water quality returns to ‘normal’ background conditions. DEP issues a non-impact determination letter and the case is kept off the books. (In other cases, only one predrill and postdrill test is used to conclude whether there’s been water changes.)

E.G. 274235 (Delmar Twp., Tioga Co.) – DEP documents elevated, thermogenic (deep) methane and other contaminants linked to fracking in complainant’s water supply. Sampling continues several times over eight months, and when results are nearer background conditions, DEP issues “non-impact” determination.

E.G. These following examples aren’t necessarily “cooked” but DEP did fail to produce a determination letter according to the files provided: 292895, 291801, 294024, 288672 (Wyalusing Twp., Bradford Co.)

8. The Department or operator cites preexisting or background conditions as reasons for contamination without providing evidence, i.e. predrill test results, to demonstrate a history of water quality problems – or cites no evidence at all. In these cases, contaminants could be considered naturally occurring, but sudden increases typically associated with underground disturbance related to drilling and fracking are written off as normal or are unexplained.

E.G. 267559 (Leroy Twp., Bradford Co.) – DEP finds discrepancy in Chesapeake Energy’s water sampling results, documents methane levels of concern, cites several water tests but fails to provide or cite predrill. Isotopic testing conducted but not included in notes or determination letter.

E.G. 282617 (Leroy Twp., Bradford Co.) – original complaint not included in file. DEP gives no explanation for appearance of methane in water supply, nor does the agency reference predrill or background conditions. Oddly, Department states that it is “continuing to work to permanently resolve this issue” but issues a “non-impact” determination.

E.G. 284102 (Leroy Twp., Bradford Co.) – methane levels attributed to background conditions but no evidence of background provided. DEP finds barium, chlorides, manganese and TDS (all associated with oil and gas contamination) above maximum contaminant levels, provides no explanation about where these contaminants came from, issues “non-impact.”

E.G. 280569 (Wyalusing Twp., Bradford Co.) – predrill tests cited but not provided. Based on complainant’s recollection, however, methane was elevated beyond predrill results. Other water wells report complaints in area; DEP issues “non-impact.”

9. DEP Retention Policy for complaint records says complaints are to be kept on file for five years, “then shred.” [Read the complete front-page cover story about shredding published by ERIE READER on Wednesday, September 16th.]

Around month twenty-eight of this investigation, sitting down to scan the last remaining complaint files, a paper with everything blacked out except one paragraph was left on Public Herald’s file review desk by a veteran PA Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) employee. It read “DEP retention policy.” In a paragraph about “Complaints,” the document revealed that the Department should only hold complaint records for five years after resolution – “then shred.”

Initially, Public Herald figured these records would be kept on microfiche or a digital PDF and that shredding them would only ensure space within the records office. But, after careful questioning with an employee who’s been with the agency for decades, the staff person revealed that only those records which could be considered “useful” would be kept on record at all, turned into microfilm, and “useful” meant only those listed in DEP’s 260 positive determinations. What shocked us even more is that, according to this whistleblower, there is no review committee in place to sift through the “non-impact” complaint records before they are shredded.