Cases of misconduct by PA DEP officials in water contamination investigations related to oil and gas. Report at PublicHerald.org.
 Share
The version of the browser you are using is no longer supported. Please upgrade to a supported browser.Dismiss

 
View only
 
 
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZAAAB
1
PUBLIC HERALD: Cases of PA Dept. of Environmental Protection Misconduct
2
DEP REGIONCOUNTYTOWNSHIPCOMPLAINT #DATE RECEIVED
DATE OF FIRST RESPONSE
DATE RESOLVEDDEP INSPECTORDEP SUPERVISORLINK TO COMPLAINT FILE
MISCONDUCT: Malfeasance (breaking the law), Misfeasance (wrongful actions), Neglegence (careless behavior), PH (Public Herald files), STT (Scranton Times-Tribune's files), WSRC (DEP's Water Supply Resolved Complaints report)
TYPE OF ABUSE
3
NCROBradfordFranklin2884205/21/20125/29/20125/30/2012Brendon G LoganJeremy R Danielhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1667229-franklin-twp-water-289638-288420.html#288420 MISFEASANCE: DEP inspector responds to a complaint reporting sediment in the water and takes a conductivity reading of the water. The Inspector decided not to sample because the conductivity reading matched that of the pre-drill sample. No determination letter, DEP considers this"non-impact" (WRSC).
MISFEASANCE
4
NCROBradfordAuburn28982612/13/201012/13/20103/24/2011Eric M RooneyMarc B Cooleyhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1505930-auburn-twp-water-289826.html#289826 MISFEASANCE: DEP sends a non-impact determination letter stating that some (not all) of the paramters are related to background conditions, citing a pre-drill from a different water well.MISFEASANCE
5
NCROBradfordFranklin29376912/10/201212/11/201212/12/2012Brendon G LoganJeremy R Danielhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1667228-franklin-twp-water-293769.html#293769 NEGLIGENCE: DEP refuses to sample because the complainant reports water problems due to nearby pipeline construction. DEP states that "there is no law which addresses water complaints and pipeline activity." This complaint is later re-opened under #296362 over four months later, and DEP sends a positive determination impact letter becuase the resident is within presumption distance and time.NEGLIGENCE
6
NCROBradfordGranville2724486/30/20107/14/20101/21/2011Caleb WooleverJennifer W Meanshttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1667598-granville-twp-br-water-272448.html#272448 MISFEASANCE: DEP sends a letter that provides the water sample results but does not include a determination stating if water quality issues were related to oil and gas activity. No explanation of the results is provided. DEP considers this "non-impact" (WSRC).MISFEASANCE
7
NCROBradfordGranville26851501/06/20101/20/201003/07/2013Caleb WooleverJennifer W Meanshttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1667588-granville-twp-br-water-268515.html#268515 MALFEASANCE: DEP sends an "undetermined letter" but continues to sample, finally closing the case over three years after the complaint was registered. Methane was consistently detected at explosive levels, and iron was at extremely high levels. DEP does not make a determination in 2013. Instead, the complaint is considered resolved, but remains undetermined (WSRC).MALFEASANCE
8
NCROBradfordGranville2914098/13/20128/21/201212/10/2013Brendon G LoganJeremy R Danielhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1667637-granville-twp-br-water-291409b.html#291409 MALFEASANCE: DEP does not make a determination until over a year later after the complaint was requested. DEP became aware of this water supply in 2011 when water quality was reported by the operator. DEP allowed the operator to investigate the water supply and did not contact the resident until 2012. DEP sends a non-impact determination in 2013 without providing an explanation for the explosive levels of methane detected.MALFEASANCE
9
NCROBradfordGranville28136405/09/201105/09/201107/08/2011Rebecca RennerJeremy R Danielhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1667626-granville-twp-br-water-281364.html#281364 MISFEASANCE: DEP makes a non-impact determination almost two months after the initial complaint (over 45 days). In the letter, DEP attributes ALL water quality problems to "background conditions" in the area without providing any evidence (pre-drill samples, other water well samples). The timing of drilling activity corresponded with the water problems and is similar to complaints 279579 and 280016.MISFEASANCE
10
NCROBradfordGranville2797305/12/20115/12/201107/08/2011Rebecca RennerJohn W Ryderhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1667581-edit-removepages-granville-twp-water-279730.html#279730 MISFEASANCE: DEP samples and finds extremely high concentrations of barium, chloride, bromide, TDS, strontium, SPC, sodium along with elevated iron and manganese. DEP sends a non-impact determination letter attributing ALL water quality issues to background conditions without providing evidence (pre-drill, other water samples). MISFEASANCE
11
NCROBradfordGranville2795794/12/20114/13/201107/07/2011Rebecca RennerJohn W Ryderhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1667613-granville-twp-br-water-279579b.html#279579 MISFEASANCE: DEP makes a non-impact determination almost three months after the initial complaint. In the letter, DEP attributes ALL water quality problems to "background conditions" in the area without providing any evidence (pre-drill samples, other water well samples). The timing of drilling activity corresponded with the water problems and the complainant experienced health issues. MISFEASANCE
12
NCROBradfordGranville2800165/19/20115/19/201107/08/2011Rebecca RennerJohn W Ryderhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1667614-granville-twp-br-water-280016.html#280016 MISFEASANCE: DEP makes a non-impact determination, attributing ALL water quality problems to "background conditions" in the area without providing any evidence (pre-drill samples, other water well samples). The timing of drilling activity corresponded with water problems and the complainants neighbor is complaint #279579. MISFEASANCE
13
NCROBradfordLeroy2778083/14/20113/16/201110/11/2011Rebecca Renner Anthony L. Martinelli https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1667564-leroy-twp-water-277808.html#277808 MALFEASANCE: DEP sends a determination six months later (over 45 day limit). DEP samples until the water quality "looked relatively clear" and makes a non-impact determination stating that the results were similar to pre-drill data. However DEP ignores the pre-drill data from 2009 that show no elevated parameters. DEP's post-drill water sample shows elevated iron and manganese.MALFEASANCE
14
NCROBradfordLeroy2823618/10/20118/11/20119/23/2013Brendon G. Logan Jeremy R. Daniel https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1667571-leroy-twp-br-water-282361-b.html#282361 MALFEASANCE: DEP samples once in response to the complaint, then allows the operator to conduct the rest of the investigation. DEP calls the complainant four times after sampling, from September 2011 - September 2013. DEP closes the complaint in September 2013. DEP makes a "non-impact" determination (WSRC).MALFEASANCE
15
NCROBradfordLeroy30192712/23/201312/23/20131/3/2014Brendon G. Logan Matthew R. Nusshttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1667569-leroy-twp-br-water-301927.html#301927 MALFEASANCE: DEP discriminates against the resident and calls complainant's mother a "chronic complainer." The complainant's mother called in the request to sample, but DEP refused because her daughter, the complainant, did not return their call. MALFEASANCE
16
NCROBradfordLeroy3025872/7/20142/7/20143/14/2014Brendon G. Logan Matthew R. Nusshttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1667568-leroy-twp-br-water-302587.html#302587 MALFEASANCE: DEP samples and several paramters are present in both the water sample and the trip blank. This is considered a lab created sample result. DEP should re-sample to verify that the result was due to the lab, to make sure that the residents water is safe. DEP fails to enact presumption even though resident lives just over 1,000 feet from a faulty Marcellus gas well, which DEP has issued violations to, and which has impacted water supply of neighbors. DEP denies resident access to temporary water supply during its investigation, manipulates the law. Public Herald investigated this complaint in person. As of February 1, 2017, resident still does not use their water.MALFEASANCE
17
NCROBradfordLeroy3032433/20/20143/20/20143/20/2014Jennifer W. Means Jennifer W. Means https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1667566-leroy-twp-br-water-303243.html#303243 MALFEASANCE: DEP refuses to sample the complainants barn well becuase an investigation of her spring (#302587) resulted in a non-impact determination. At the time of the previous investigation, the barn well was frozen and could not be sampled.MALFEASANCE
18
NCROBradfordLeroy28410210/13/201110/18/20111/19/2012Brendon G. Logan Jeremy R. Daniel https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1667570-leroy-twp-br-water-284102-b.html#document/p1/a335618#284102 MALFEASANCE: DEP makes a determination three months after the complaint is called in. DEP tells the resident they will wait for the operator's sample results and conclusion before making a determination. Sample results show elevated sodium, chlorides, and SPC, indicitave of "brine." Methane, bromide, barium, strontium, and others are elevated. DEP makes a non-impact determination stating the the pre-drill "mirrors the lab results" but provides no data to support that. MALFEASANCE
19
NCROBradfordTerry27653401/05/201101/06/201102/08/2011Jason A YuferAnthony L Martinellihttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1670517-terry-twp-br-water-276534b.html#276534 MISFEASANCE: Water tests high for iron, turbidity and manganese. DEP fails to inform of high turbidity and manganese in determination letter to resident. DEP issues a negative determination despite issuing positive determinations to residents with similar cases (#273403). MISFEASANCE
20
NCROBradfordTerry27758803/03/201103/03/20113/28/2011Jason A YuferAnthony L Martinellihttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1670516-terry-twp-br-water-277588b.html#277588 MISFEASANCE: Water tested for iron and manganese above standards, DEP issues non-impact without explanation despite issuing positive impact letters to cases in with similar issues in the area (#273403 & #273350).MISFEASANCE
21
NCROBradfordTerry2779303/17/20113/21/20114/22/2011William J KosmerAnthony L Martinellihttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1670515-terry-twp-br-water-277930b.html#277930 MISFEASANCE: Water samples show manganese (0.86 mg/L) and iron (0.42 mg/L) above standards. DEP issues non-impact determination with inconclusive justification despite issuing positive impact determinations to similar cases in the area (#273403 and #273350).MISFEASANCE
22
NCROBradfordTerry2713875/14/20105/28/201009/01/2010Caleb WooleverJennifer W Meanshttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1670508-terry-twp-br-water-2713878b.html#271387 NEGLIGENCE: Determination letter not sent despite high iron + turbidity, DEP claims no need to send because potential impact related to pipeline activity not well drilling.NEGLIGENCE
23
NCROBradfordWyalusing2807516/17/20116/21/20111/10/2012Matthew P ShopeMichael T O'Donnellhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1502006-wyalusing-twp-water-280751.html#280751 MALFEASANCE: DEP samples several times over four months and makes a determination almost 7 months after the complaint was registered. The parameters never fall within standards, but DEP issues a non-impact letter attributing the contaminants to background conditions, citing no evidence.MALFEASANCE
24
NCROBradfordTerry29350011/20/201211/21/201211/26/2012Rebecca Renner Jeremy R Danielhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1670504-terry-twp-water-293500.html#293500 MISFEASANCE: Water shows manganese (0.12 mg/L) and turbidity (4.99 mg/L) above MCLs. DEP fails to mention high turbidity in determination letter, issues non-impact based on "background conditions" for which no evidence is provided. MISFEASANCE
25
NCROBradfordTerry2798117/13/20107/15/201010/01/2010Caleb WooleverJohn W Ryderhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1670490-terry-twp-water-complaints-279811.html
#279811 NEGLIGENCE: 2 cases (this & #279813) of drinking water supplies contaminated by disinfectant gluteraldehyde not disclosed on DEP's list of total contamination cases.NEGLIGENCE
26
NCROBradfordTerry2798137/21/20107/21/201010/01/2010Caleb WooleverJohn W Ryderhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1670489-terry-twp-water-complaints-279813.html#279813 NEGLIGENCE: 2 cases (this & #279811) of drinking water supplies contaminated by disinfectant gluteraldehyde not disclosed on DEP's list of total contamination cases.NEGLIGENCE
27
NCROBradfordWilmot2741929/14/20109/15/20105/10/2011Eric M RooneyMarc B Cooleyhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1670816-wilmot-twp-br-water-274192-b.html
#274192 MALFEASANCE: Non-impact letter delivered over 6 months late (law says must happen within 45 days). Water tests high for chlorides, TDS and methane. DEP attributes all elevated parameters to "background conditions" without providing proof and issues a non-impact determination letter despite issuing positive impact letters to others in the area for similar issues (see #274484).MALFEASANCE
28
NCROBradfordGranville30371704/09/20144/14/20145/16/2014David E EngleMatthew R Nusshttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1667639-granville-twp-br-water-303717.html#303717 MALFEASANCE: DEP does not sample or investigate becuase this resident had previous investigations (complaints 288672 and 291409). DEP conducts on administrative review of the previous complaints and re-sends the determination letter from 2013. MALFEASANCE
29
NCROBradfordWilmot30294703/04/201403/04/201407/06/2014Rebecca RennerMatthew R Nusshttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1670806-wilmot-twp-br-water-302947.html#302957 NEGLIGENCE: DEP sends a non-impact letter after two investigations, the second indicating impact from pipeline construction. The elevated parameters barium, strontium, iron, and manganese are not mentioned in the determination letter. The resident also described a chemical taste to their water but DEP did not test for Volatile Organic Compounds, a test that would reveal analytes that result in chemical taste. NEGLIGENCE
30
NCROBradfordWyalusing2815027/13/20111/13/20113/11/2013Gene T RickardMichael T O'Donnellhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1502007-wyalusing-twp-water-281502.html#281502 MALFEASANCE: DEP ignores pre-drill samples, and waits two and a half years to make a determination. DEP makes a non-impact determination claiming that the explosive level of methane is a background condition but fails to address or explain the other elevated parameters like arsenic, aluminum, iron, and total dissolved solids. The operator installed water well ventilation.This is part of the regional Sugar Run gas migration investigation.MALFEASANCE
31
NCROBradfordWyalusing2918018/10/20128/10/20128/29/2012Gene T RickardMichael T O'Donnellhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1502015-wyalusing-twp-water-291801.html#291801 MALFEASANCE: DEP does not send a determination letter. The inspector decided not to send one becuase he did not take any water samples. This complaint is a diminution - water loss- complaint and still requires and official determination by law.MALFEASANCE
32
NCROBradfordTuscarora28384910/04/201110/17/20116/22/2012Gene T RickardMichael T O'Donnellhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1670659-tuscarora-twp-br-water-283849-b.html#283849 MISFEASANCE: DEP sends a determination letter 8 months after the complaint is registered. DEP issues a non-impact letter attributing methane to background conditions but provides no explanation for elevated barium, chloride, and TDS. MISFEASANCE
33
NCROClearfieldLawrence2658648/24/200908/24/20095/18/2010Jessica MillerJohn W Ryderhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1507104-lawrence-twp-water-265864.html#265864 MALFEASANCE: DEP samples over the course of seven months, observing the water quality improve over time. All but two parameters fell within standards, and DEP attributes them to background conditions. DEP does not make a determination, but instead states that the Department would not take any more samples. DEP ignores the pre-drill sample that provides a baseline of paramters and considers this case "non-impact" (WSRC).MALFEASANCE
34
NCROLycomingCogan House2810876/29/20117/6/20118/4/2011Robert W. EverettDavid E. Englehttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1385174-cogan-house-twp-water-281087.html#281087 MISFEASANCE: DEP sends a non-impact letter listing the high iron and manganese but providing no reason why they are not related to oil and gas. In the notes DEP states that the resident is outside of the presumption distance. However, the operator drills a new water supply for the homeowner.MISFEASANCE
35
NCROSullivanFox28497711/15/201111/21/201112/12/2011Rebecca RennerJeremy R Danielhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1506656-fox-twp-water-284977.html#284977 MISFEASANCE: DEP samples and states that all parameters were within standards in a non-impact determination letter. However, iron, aluminum, and turbidity were elevated, and the chemical bis(2-Ethylhexyl)phthalate was detected. There was also drilling/fracking activity nearby.MISFEASANCE
36
NCROSusquehannaAuburn28657002/07/201202/07/201210/10/2013Matthew P ShopeMichael T O'Donnellhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1505924-auburn-twp-water-286750.html#286570 MALFEASANCE: DEP makes a determination 20 months after the complaint is registered. Both the operator and DEP samples, finding elevated methane and TDS. The operator had previously installed a vent on the resident's water well. DEP makes a non-impact determinaiton stating that the methane is related to background conditions - no comparison to pre-drill or reason provided. MALFEASANCE
37
NCROSusquehannaAuburn2768691/26/20111/27/20116/24/2011Matthew P ShopeMichael T O'Donnellhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1505912-auburn-twp-water-276869.html#276869 MALFEASANCE: DEP makes a determination almost six months after the complaint is registered. DEP samples 5 times over three months until paramters fall within standards. DEP attributes some parameters to background conditions and issues a non-impact determination letter.MALFEASANCE
38
NCROSusquehannaDimock2962044/16/134/17/134/17/13Brianna CunninghamMichael T O'Donnellhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1506017-dimock-twp-water-296204.html#296204 MALFEASANCE: DEP does not investigate this request becuase their concerns are solely health related. The residents described getting headaches after drinking their water. MALFEASANCE
39
NCROSusquehannaDimock2970485/28/136/11/132/27/14Gene T. RickardMichael T O'Donnellhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1506018-dimock-twp-water-297048.html#297048 MALFEASANCE: DEP had the information it needed to make a determination within 45 days, but they failed to do so. Instead the determination letter was sent nine months later.MALFEASANCE
40
NCROSusquehannaLenox25885410/06/200810/08/20085/27/2009Michael T O'DonnellAnthony C Oprendekhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1506238-lenox-twp-water-258854.html#258854 MALFEASANCE: DEP makes a determination seven months after the first complaint is called in, and four months after the second complaint is called in. DEP uses water samples from a community well 4k ft away as evidence of background conditions in the area to make their non-impact determintion, even though manganese levels are higher than the community well sample. DEP sends two positive determination letters to residents who reported the same water problems becuase they are within the presumption distance of the gas well pad.MALFEASANCE
41
NCROSusquehannaLenox25886110/06/200810/08/20085/27/2009Michael T O'DonnellAnthony C Oprendekhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1506239-lenox-twp-water-258861.html#258861 MALFEASANCE: DEP makes a determination seven months after the first complaint is called in, and four months after the second complaint is called in. DEP uses water samples from a community well 4k ft away as evidence of background conditions in the area to make their non-impact determintion, even though manganese levels are higher than the community well sample. DEP sends two positive determination letters to residents who reported the same water problems becuase they are within the presumption distance of the gas well pad.MALFEASANCE
42
NCROSusquehannaLenox28971010/01/201010/04/20101/21/2011Michael T O'DonnellMarc B Cooleyhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1506252-lenox-twp-water-289710.html#289710 MISFEASANCE: DEP uses the community well sample as evidence of background conitions. However the resident's water results show iron elevated above standards and the community well samples.MISFEASANCE
43
NCROSusquehannaLenox30110211/07/201311/07/201311/07/2013Michael T O'DonnellMarc B Cooleyhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1506258-lenox-twp-water-301102.html#301102 MALFEASEANCE: DEP does not investigate this request becuase the Department had investigated previously three years prior. MALFEASANCE
44
NCROSusquehannaLenox3007029/21/20139/23/20139/27/2013Michael T O'DonnellMarc B Cooleyhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1506257-lenox-twp-water-300702.html#300702 MALFEASANCE: DEP does not investigate six requests from residents in the area who are concerned about arsenic in their well following a spill on a nearby gas well pad. DEP calls each resident and states that they will not sample becuase the Department had been investigated in 2009/2010, and becuase the operator had sampled the area earlier that year and had detected very little arsenic.MALFEASANCE
45
NCROSusquehannaLenox28557712/13/201112/13/201110/01/2014Ryan C KlemishMichael T O'Donnellhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1506249-lenox-twp-water-285577.html#285577 MALFEASANCE: DEP takes two years and 10 months to make a determination. DEP allows the operator to handle the complaint though the resident did not cancel their request with DEP. The operator had installed a water treatment system after detecting elevated paramters and MBAS. After the most recent sample showed all parameters within standards, DEP sent a non-impact determination letter.MALFEASANCE
46
NCROSusquehannaLenox27650501/04/201101/05/201103/04/2011Ryan C KlemishMichael T O'Donnellhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1506241-lenox-twp-water-276505.html#276505 MISFEASANCE: DEP uses the community well sample as evidence of background conditions. However, the community well does not have adequate water results from before 2010, and is not a substitute for the pre-drill conditions of the resident's water supply.MISFEASANCE
47
NCROSusquehannaLenox29299710/23/201210/24/201210/24/2012Ryan C KlemishMichael T O'Donnellhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1506255-lenox-twp-water-292997.html#292997 MALFEASANCE: DEP does not respond to the complaint becuase the timing, distance, and drainage area do not provide enough evidence to link the residents water loss to drilling activity.MALFEASANCE
48
NCROSusquehannaFranklin28575712/20/201112/22/20114/24/2013Ryan C KlemishMichael T O'Donnellhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1506037-franklin-twp-water-285757.html#285757 MALFEASANCE: DEP makes a non-impact determination one year and four months after the original complaint, waiting for the operator to finish their investigation. DEP attributes all water quality problems to background conditions - no discussion of backgrond samples or isoptopic test results.MALFEASANCE
49
NCROSusquehannaFranklin28610101/06/20121/11/20124/24/2013Ryan C KlemishMichael T O'Donnellhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1506038-franklin-twp-water-286101.html#286101 MALFEASANCE: DEP makes a non-impact determination one year and three months after the original complaint, waiting for the operator to finish their investigation. DEP attributes all water quality problems to background conditions - no discussion of background samples, or isoptopic test results.MALFEASANCE
50
NCROSusquehannaFranklin28649212/20/201112/22/20114/24/2013Ryan C KlemishMichael T O'Donnellhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1506039-franklin-twp-water-286492.html#286492 MALFEASANCE: DEP makes a non-impact determination one year and four months after the original complaint, waiting for the operator to finish their investigation. DEP attributes all water quality problems to background conditions - no discussion of background samples, or isoptopic test results.MALFEASANCE
51
NCROTiogaCharleston2794945/13/20115/17/20116/3/2011Terra L. TokarzJohn W. Ryder
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1674280-charleston-twp-water-279494.html#279494 MALFEASANCE: DEP does not send a determination letter. The complaint is referred to environmental clean-ups program. Extremely high levels of carcinogenic BTEX compounds are found. DEP considers this a "non-impact" (WSRC).MALFEASANCE
52
NCROTiogaCharleston2691442/8/201004/17/2012Caleb Woolever Jennifer W. Meanshttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1674268-charleston-twp-water-269144.html#269144 MALFEASANCE: DEP samples the water supply over the course of six months, then makes a determination two years and two months after the complaint was called in. DEP samples reveal an increase in strontium, barium, TDS, SPC, and methane in each consecutive test. DEP sends a non-impact letter attributing methane to background conditions, with no evidence, and failing to address the increases in the other parameters.MALFEASANCE
53
NCROTiogaCharleston2729047/13/20107/15/201010/4/2011Terra L. TokarzJohn W. Ryderhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1674272-charleston-twp-water-272904.html#272904 MALFEASANCE: DEP samples the water supply once, finding several elevated parameters. DEP does not sample again until a year and one month later. Then, DEP issues a non-impact determination letter. MALFEASANCE
54
NCROTiogaCharleston2739129/1/20109/15/20108/27/2014Terra L. TokarzJohn W. Ryderhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1674275-charleston-twp-water-273912-b.html#273912 MALFEASANCE: DEP samples the water supply once, then does not sample again until a year later. DEP ignores pre-drill data that show an increase in parameters, and sends a non-impact determination letter attributing sample results to background condition without providing evidence of those conditions.MALFEASANCE
55
NCROTiogaDelmar2742359/13/20109/13/20101/30/2012Terra L. Tokarz
John W. Ryder (further assistance requested by Terra)
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1688821-delmar-twp-water-274235-b.html#274235 MALFEASANCE: DEP samples over a period of seven months, waiting until several parameters fall within drinking water standards. DEP sends a non-impact determination letter one year and two months after the complaint was registered. MALFEASANCE
56
NCROTiogaDelmar2817447/22/20117/25/20119/15/2011Terra L. TokarzJeremy R Danielhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1688829-delmar-twp-water-281744.html#281744 NEGLIGENCE: DEP investigates and finds water contamination as a result of a bentonite release during pipeline construction. The resident had a new well drilled and a water treatment provided (likely by the operator). DEP inspector Terra Tokarz does not make a determination becuase this water supply was impacted by pipeline activities. DEP considers this case "non-impact" (WSRC).NEGLIGENCE
57
NCROTiogaDelmar2867642/6/20122/20/20123/22/2012Terra L. TokarzJeremy R Danielhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1688835-delmar-twp-water-286764.html#286764 MISFEASANCE: DEP accepts pre-drill sample results taken after drilling had occured recently, and after drilling had occured in the past. DEP bases their non-impact determination on this "pre-drill"MISFEASANCE
58
NCROTiogaRichmond26850401/05/201001/05/20103/19/2010Caleb WooleverJennifer W Meanshttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1198028-richmond-twp-water-268504.html#268504 MALFEASANCE: DEP does not send a determination letter after this investigation becuase the Department made one two years ago following a previous investigation. DEP considers this case "non-impact" (WSRC).MALFEASANCE
59
NCROTiogaRichmond2706204/15/20104/20/20104/20/2010Caleb WooleverJennifer W Meanshttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1198036-richmond-twp-water-270620.html#270620 MALFEASANCE: DEP does not send a determination letter after this investigation becuase the Department made one two years ago following a previous investigation. DEP considers this case "non-impact" (WSRC).MALFEASANCE
60
NCROWayneManchester2774242/28/201103/01/201106/08/2011Ryan C KlemishMichael T O'Donnellhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2418441-manchester-twp-water-277424.html#277424 MISFEASANCE: DEP makes a non-impact determination based on the fact that the impact to resident occured over 6 months after drilling activity, and the distance from the well pad. There is no pre-drill sample, but DEP attributes the elevated iron in the resident's water to background conditions without providing any evidence.MISFEASANCE
61
NCROWyomingMeshoppen2809276/23/20116/29/20119/30/2011Matthew P ShopeMichael T O'Donnellhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1674366-meshoppen-twp-water-280927.html#document/p3/a336050#280927 MALFEASANCE: DEP does not request sample results for BTEX compounds despite the fact that the operator detected toluene in the residen'ts water supply and installed a water treatment system. DEP issues a non-impact determination letter stating that "the potential exists that a temporary impact could have occurred during drilling activities."MALFEASANCE
62
NCROWyomingMeshoppen29460301/31/201302/03/20135/20/2013Matthew P ShopeMichael T O'Donnellhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3219442-Meshoppen-Twp-WY-Water-294603.html#294603 NEGLIGENCE: DEP does not issue a determination letter, likely becuase this is a pipeline complaint. DEP does issue a violation to the operator for failure to employ best management practices, acknowledging that the operator was responsible for these issues. This case is considered "non-impact" by DEP (WSRC).NEGLIGENCE
63
NCROWyomingMeshoppen29460501/31/201302/02/20135/20/2013Matthew P ShopeMichael T O'Donnellhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3219443-Meshoppen-Twp-WY-Water-294605.html#294605 NEGLIGENCE: DEP does not issue a determination letter, likely becuase this is a pipeline complaint. DEP does issue a violation to the operator for failure to employ best management practices, acknowledging that the operator was responsible for these issues. This case is considered "non-impact" by DEP (WSRC).NEGLIGENCE
64
NCROWyomingMeshoppen29462002/01/201302/04/20135/20/2013Matthew P ShopeMichael T O'Donnellhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3219444-Meshoppen-Twp-WY-Water-294620.html#294620 NEGLIGENCE: DEP does not issue a determination letter, likely becuase this is a pipeline complaint. DEP does issue a violation to the operator for failure to employ best management practices, acknowledging that the operator was responsible for these issues.NEGLIGENCE
65
NCROTiogaRichmond26944103/02/201003/08/20104/30/2010Caleb WooleverJennifer W Meanshttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1198029-richmond-twp-water-269441.html#269441 MISFEASANCE: DEP does not sample for volatile organic compounds. MISFEASANCE
66
NWROButlerForward 29800207/02/201307/09/20138/22/2013Brian D MacQuarrieJohn S Luxhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3228382-Forward-Twp-BU-Water-298002.html#298002 MALFEASANCE: DEP ignores the pre-drill sample, that indicates iron was at a lower concentration in the past. DEP sends a non-impact letter, with no evidence why.MALFEASANCE
67
NWROButlerConnoquennessing28120307/05/201107/06/201110/20/2011Brian D MacQuarrieJohn S Luxhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3228320-Connoquenessing-Twp-BU-Water-281203.html#281203 MALFEASANCE: DEP ignores the pre-drill sample that indicates methane and manganese were at a lower concentration before recent drilling activites. DEP sends a non-impact letter without explaining why.MISFEASANCE
68
NWROButlerConnoquennessing28121807/05/201107/06/20119/15/2011Brian D MacQuarrieJohn S Luxhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3228321-Connoquenessing-Twp-BU-Water-281218.html#281218 MISFEASANCE: DEP ignores the pre-drill sample showing arsenic and ammonia were not detected before, citing differing sample detection limits. DEP issues a non-impact letter.MISFEASANCE
69
NWROButlerConnoquennessing28430010/21/201110/25/20113/30/2012Brian D MacQuarrieJohn S Luxhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3228324-Connoquenessing-Twp-BU-Water-284300.html#284300 MISFEASANCE: DEP ignores the pre-drill sample that indicates iron and manganese were at lower concentrations before recent drilling activites. DEP sends a non-impact determination letter, attributing the elevated metals to low water levels in the resident's well.MISFEASANCE
70
NWROButlerConnoquennessing29330011/13/201211/14/201201/07/2013Brian D MacQuarrieJohn S Luxhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3228330-Connoquenessing-Twp-BU-Water-293300.html#293300 MALFEASANCE: DEP ignores the pre-drill samples from 2010 and 2012, stating the elevated paramters then issuing a non-impact determination letter despite noting the difference. The most recent "pre-drill sample" was also taken after drilling had occured in the area, and showed elevated parameters over the earlier pre-drill.MALFEASANCE
71
NWROButlerLancaster2828268/31/201109/06/201109/06/2011Brian D MacQuarrieJohn S Luxhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3228443-Lancaster-Twp-BU-Water-282826.html#282826 MALFEASANCE: DEP does not sample or send a determination letter. DEP considers this "non-impact" (WSRC).MALFEASANCE
72
NWROButlerLancaster30659708/08/20148/14/20148/14/2014Brian D MacQuarrieJohn S Luxhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3228452-Lancaster-Twp-BU-Water-306597.html#306597 MALFEASANCE: DEP refuses to investigate, take water samples because resident is 3,500 feet away from nearest gas well. Historically, contamination has occured miles away from well sites, and DEP is required to invesigate by law. MALFEASANCE
73
NWROMcKeanLafayette20965903/02/200503/03/20059/30/2005Robert J MaykowskiJohn S Luxhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3236420-Lafayette-Twp-MCK-Water-209659.html#209659 MALFEASANCE: DEP appears to send a non-impact determination letter for this complaint six months after the initial complaint. After the first complaints, the operator provided hotel accomodations for the residents, and restored the water supply. DEP closed the complaint, but then re-opened it when the residents experienced new issues. DEP samples again, adding paramters. DEP inspector describes evidence of a brine discharge. DEP samples again a month later and the parameters had decreased. Then DEP sends a non-imapact determination letter.MALFEASANCE
74
NWROMcKeanLafayette2139217/15/20057/18/200509/09/2005Robert J MaykowskiJohn S Luxhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3236421-Lafayette-Twp-MCK-Water-213921.html#213921 MALFEASANCE: DEP finds the operator responsible but does not send a determination letter. DEP considers this "non-impact" (WSRC).MALFEASANCE
75
NWROMcKeanBradford26850101/05/201001/05/20102/16/2011Brian B Ayers / David W Ford / Mark Ansell / Leland B SwansonRichard L Nevillehttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3236065-Bradford-Twp-MCK-Gasmigration-268501.html#266433 MALFEASANCE: DEP issues a determination one year and one month after the initial complaint. DEP issues a non-impact determination letter for this complaint, stating that although there is only one operator in the area, they cannot identify a specific gas well as the cause of the methane migration, despite evidence from nearby wells. However, DEP does issue a violation to the operator for failing to prevent gas migration and for polluting groundwater. MALFEASANCE
76
NWROMcKeanBradford2790544/25/20114/25/201111/20/2014Brian B Ayers / Joseph F LichtingerRichard L Nevillehttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3236068-Bradford-Twp-MCK-Gasmigration-279054.html#279054 MALFEASANCE: DEP does not send a determination letter and fails to enforce the restore/replace order. The complainant has issues in 2015 and DEP samples again. It does not appear that a determination was made following that investigation either - this is considered a gas migration case, and does not have a coinciding water supply case.MALFEASANCE
77
NWROMcKeanBradford25932210/27/200810/27/200802/09/2009Brian B AyersRobert J Maykowskihttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3236124-Bradford-Twp-MCK-Water-259322.html#259322 MALFEASANCE: DEP does not issue a determination letter for this complaint. There is no evidence in the record of the resident cancelling the complaint with DEP. There is no official determination for this complaint becuase it was switched from the "Water Supply" category to the "Gas Migration" category and is not in the WSRC.MALFEASANCE
78
NWROMcKeanBradford2664339/15/20099/29/2009UnknownBrian B AyersRobert J Maykowskihttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3236149-Bradford-Twp-MCK-Water-266433.html#266433 MALFESANCE: DEP does not issue a determination letter for this complaint, even though it is clear that the water supply was impacted. DEP issues a restore/replace order and the operator replaces their water supply and eventually they are connected to municipal water. There is no official determination for this complaint becuase it was switched from the "Water Supply" category to the "Gas Migration" category and is not in the WSRC.MALFEASANCE
79
NWROMcKeanWetmore21602011/01/200511/027/25/2007Robert J MaykowskiJohn S Luxhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3236505-Wetmore-Twp-MCK-Water-216020.html#216020 MALFEASANCE: DEP investigtes for a year and 8 month, contracts a company to plug a nearby oil/gas well thought to be the cause of water contamination, work to alleviate pressure in water well, state they will continue to look for the source of pollution, but fail to produce a determination letter (PH/STT) and list as "non-impact" (WSRC). MALFEASANCE
80
NWROWarrenSheffield22607402/05/200702/05/20073/19/2007Richard A MaderRobert J Maykowskihttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3243751-Sheffield-Twp-WAR-Water-226074.html#226074 MALFEASANCE: DEP sends a non-impact determination letter after sample results returned to within standards, after issuing violations to the nearby operator who had an improperly lined pit. The nearest well was fracked on the same day the resident experienced water problems.MALFEASANCE
81
NWROWarrenSheffield2267913/12/20073/12/200705/03/2007Richard A MaderRobert J Maykowskihttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3243752-Sheffield-Twp-WAR-Water-226791.html#226791 MALFEASANCE: DEP sends a non-impact letter after water results return to pre-drill conditions. The operator restores the water supply after contaminating the spring with drill cuttings.MALFEASANCE
82
NWROWarrenSheffield23232710/15/200710/15/200711/21/2007Richard A MaderRobert J Maykowskihttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3243753-Sheffield-Twp-WAR-Water-232327.html#232327 MALFEASANCE: DEP sends a non-impact letter after water results return within standards, acknowledging that the water supply was impacted initially. DEP issued violations to the operator. MALFEASANCE
83
NWROWarrenSheffield2692472/16/20102/16/201003/04/2010Richard A MaderRobert J Maykowskihttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3243756-Sheffield-Twp-WAR-Water-269247.html#269247 MALFEASANCE: DEP sends a non-impact letter after water quality returned to pre-drill condition. DEP inspector found that frac fluids had flowed off location and into the resident's spring. No mention of violations.MALFEASANCE
84
SWROAlleghenyMonroeville Borough29335111/14/201211/15/201211/15/2012Richard FreeseFrancis J Calderonhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2938271-Monroeville-Boro-ALL-Leaking-Gas-293351.html#293351 MALFEASANCE: DEP notes same leaking gas issue twice, two years apart and fails to act. DEP inspector notes gas is reaching nearby homes and venting into atmosphere.MALFEASANCE
85
SWROArmstrongKittanning2227359/11/20069/11/200612/06/2006Edward LRenwickAlan J Eichlerhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3225634-Kittanning-Twp-AR-Water-222735.html#222735 MALFEASANCE: DEP issues Water Supply Replacment Order, but no determination letter on file. DEP lists as "non-impact" determination (WSRC). Not on DEP's total water impacts list.MALFEASANCE
86
SWROArmstrongKittanning2089701/21/20051/15/20053/31/2005Edward LRenwickAlan J Eichlerhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3225989-Kittanning-Twp-AR-Water-208970.html#208970 MALFEASANCE: DEP orders company to restore/replace water, but no determination letter on file. DEP lists as "non-impact" determination (WSRC). Not included in DEP's total water impacts list. MALFEASANCE
87
SWROArmstrongKittanning29659305/08/20135/14/20137/23/2013Gregory D HigginsApril Weilandhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3225639-Kittanning-Twp-AR-Water-296593.html#296593 NEGLIGENCE: DEP fails to report high manganese in determination letter.NEGLIGENCE
88
SWROArmstrongKittanning2870812/17/20122/21/20124/3/2012Michael L MorgartRichard H Palmerhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3225637-Kittanning-Twp-AR-Water-287081.html#287081 MALFEASANCE: No determination letter on file (PH/STT). DEP considers this "non-impact" (WSRC)MALFEASANCE
89
SWROArmstrongKittanningNo CIDUnknownUnknown09/26/2013Doug CatalanoUnknownhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3225644-Kittanning-Twp-AR-Water-NOCid.html[no complaint #] MALFEASANCE: DEP neglects mentioning very high chloride & TDS, high iron, manganese, turbidity in letter to resident. DEP makes non-impact determination based on isotopic analysis which is not included in file, specific isotopic results also not included in letter to resident.MALFEASANCE
90
SWROArmstrongNorth Buffalo Township2693842/25/20102/26/20107/19/2010Michael L MorgartJohn W Crookhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3225715-North-Buffalo-Twp-AR-Water-269384.html#269384 MALFEASANCE: DEP does not test water. Alan Eichler finally sends letter in 2011 saying DEP could not assess water, and can't make determination because they weren't involved in original arrangement between operator and resident to drill new water well. No determination on file (PH/STT). DEP lists as "non-impact" (WSRC).MALFEASANCE
91
SWROArmstrongNorth Buffalo Township2189754/13/20064/14/20068/21/2006Michael L MorgartAlan J Eichlerhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3225701-North-Buffalo-Twp-AR-Water-218975.html#218975 MALFEASANCE: Supervisor Alan Eichler orders complaint closed after four months of DEP witnessing company provide water and agree to restore supply. No determination on file (PH). DEP lists as "non-impact" (WSRC).MALFEASANCE
92
SWROArmstrongNorth Buffalo Township2567557/15/20087/15/20084/30/2009Michael L MorgartJohn W Crookhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3225913-North-Buffalo-Twp-AR-Water-256755.html#256755 MALFEASANCE: DEP observes water quality + loss, responsible party drills new water well, complaint closed. No determination on file (PH/STT). DEP lists as "non-impact" (WSRC).MALFEASANCE
93
SWROArmstrong North Buffalo Township2755418/31/200909/09/200911/17/2009Jarrod K ShultzEdward M Ritzerhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3225718-North-Buffalo-Twp-AR-Water-275541.html#275541 NEGLIGENCE: No determination on file (PT/STT).NEGLIGENCE
94
SWROArmstrongNorth Buffalo Township25758408/05/200808/06/200811/20/2008Gregory D HigginsEdward L Renwickhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3225710-North-Buffalo-Twp-AR-Water-257584.html#257584 MALFEASANCE: DEP observes contaminants above predrill, waits for levels to decrease, closes complaint over 3 mos. later, no determination on file. MALFEASANCE
95
SWROArmstrongNorth Buffalo Township2565506/24/20086/26/200808/06/2008Michael L MorgartJohn W Crookhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3225707-North-Buffalo-Twp-AR-Water-256550.html#256550 MALFEASANCE: DEP notes water quality & quantity problems, notes case is within presumption & operator replaces water supply. DEP fails to issue positive determination. DEP lists as "non-impact" (WSRC).MALFEASANCE
96
SWROArmstrongNorth Buffalo Township26902902/02/20102/18/20103/14/2010Jarrod K Shultzhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3225714-North-Buffalo-Twp-AR-Water-269029.html#269029 MALFEASANCE: DEP closes complaint after operator replaces resident's water affected water supply. No determination on file (PH/STT). DEP lists as "non-impact" (WSRC).MALFEASANCE
97
SWROArmstrongNorth Buffalo Township26228404/07/200904/08/20095/14/2009Gregory D HigginsVincent M Yantkohttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3225713-North-Buffalo-Twp-AR-Water-262284.html#262284 MISFEASANCE: DEP fails to test for VOCs, opts for most basic test despite observable oily substance in water.MISFEASANCE
98
SWROArmstrong Plumcreek Township21572210/11/200510/12/200511/23/2005Edward LRenwickAlan J Eichlerhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3226259-Plumcreek-Twp-AR-Water-215722.html#215722 MALFEASANCE: DEP issues restore water supply order, but there is no determination letter on file (PH). DEP lists as "non-impact" (WSRC). Not included in DEP's total water supply impacts list. MALFEASANCE
99
SWROArmstrong
Plumcreek Township26776711/13/200911/20/200912/22/2009Gregory D HigginsEdward M Ritzerhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3226265-Plumcreek-Twp-AR-Water-267767.html#267767 MALFEASANCE: DEP has evidence of significantly elevated parameters but states the opposite, no determination letter on file (PH/STT). MALFEASANCE
100
SWROArmstrong Plumcreek Township2265143/21/20073/21/20074/21/2007Michael L MorgartAlan J Eichlerhttps://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3226262-Plumcreek-Twp-AR-Water-226514.html#226514 NEGLIGENCE: No determination letter on file (PH/STT).NEGLIGENCE
Loading...
 
 
 
Cases of misconduct
Hidden Positive Determinations
DEP Oil & Gas Contacts