f

 

   

       

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Response to 

Congressional Inquiry 

Regarding the EPA’s 

Emergency Order to the 

Range Resources 

Gas Drilling Company 

Report No. 14-P-0044 December 20, 2013 

Scan this mobile 

code to learn more 

about the EPA OIG. 
 

 

Report Contributors: Kathlene Butler

 Dan Engelberg 

 Johnny Ross 

 Genevieve Borg Soule 

Abbreviations 

DOJ 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 Suggestions for Audits or Evaluations 

To report fraud, waste or abuse, contact To make suggestions for audits or evaluations, 

us through one of the following methods: contact us through one of the following methods:
 

email: OIG_Hotline@epa.gov email: OIG_WEBCOMMENTS@epa.gov 

phone: 1-888-546-8740 phone: 1-202-566-2391 

fax: 1-202-566-2599 fax: 1-202-566-2599 

online: http://www.epa.gov/oig/hotline.htm online: http://www.epa.gov/oig/contact.html#Full_Info 

write:	 EPA Inspector General Hotline write: EPA Inspector General 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Mailcode 2431T Mailcode 2410T 

Washington, DC 20460
 Washington, DC 20460 
 

 

 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 14-P-0044 

December 20, 2013 Office of Inspector General 

At a Glance 

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.gov/oig/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 The EPA withdrew its to Range Resources under Section 1431 of emergency order regarding the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the region’s Range Resources hydraulic subsequent enforcement actions, conformed fracturing operations, but to agency guidelines, regulations and policy. continues to monitor the 

The region’s interactions with state officials situation for evidence of 

and other stakeholders were appropriate and widespread contamination. 

within Section 1431 guidelines. 

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 

FROM:	 Arthur A. Elkins Jr. 

TO:	 Ron Curry, Regional Administrator 

 Region 6 

Cynthia Giles, Assistant Administrator 

Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance 

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. 

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 14-P-0044 

Regarding the EPA’s Emergency Order to the 

Range Resources Gas Drilling Company 

Table of Contents 

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 With the Order............................. 14 

Withdrawal of the Emergency Order Was Within 

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
 

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 

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://yosemite.epa.gov/oa/rhc/epaadmin.nsf/Filings/5BDBB00D74503113852578010020F7FA/$File/SDWA08201
 

10006%20AO.pdf.
 11 Kenneth Brockett Farm, Docket No. SDWA-03-2011-0205-EO, 6/28/11. 

http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/public_notices/BrockettEmergencyOrder.pdf. 

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 DOJ 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 DOJ 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 DOJ 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 

POTENTIAL MONETARY 

RECOMMENDATIONS BENEFITS (in $000s) 

Rec. 

No. 

Page 

No. Subject Status1 Action Official 

Planned 

Completion 

Date 

Claimed 

Amount 

Agreed-To 

Amount 

1 

2 

19 

19 

Collect and evaluate the testing results being 

provided by Range Resources to determine 

whether the data are of sufficient quality and utility. 

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.

O 

O 

Regional Administrator, 

Region 6 

Regional Administrator, 

Region 6 

12/31/13 

12/31/13 

3 

4 

19 

19 

Advise residents at sites of evaluated wells of the 

present status of the contamination and of any 

Region 6 planned actions. 

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. 

O 

O 

Regional Administrator, 

Region 6 

Regional Administrator, 

Region 6 

12/31/13 

12/31/13 

5 19 Document the costs and resources invested to 

complete the work included in these 

recommendations.

 O Regional Administrator, 

Region 6 

3/31/14 

O = 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 

1 
 

 

 

 

 

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 

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 oiland 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 

14-P-0044 27 
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 oiland 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 “We have shared all of First Quarter We agree with the EPA’s 

sites of evaluated wells of Range Resources’ analyzed FY 20014 upon proposed actions. 

the present status of the quarterly sampling data with receipt of any This recommendation is 

contamination and of any the Railroad Commission. additional resolved. 

Region 6 planned actions. We will promptly share any 

additional information that 

we receive from Range 

Resources regarding its 

quarterly sampling events 

with the Railroad 

Commission.” 

information. 

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 “We will document any costs Second Quarter 

and resources invested to and resources expended to FY 2014. We agree with the EPA’s 

complete the work address these proposed actions. 

included in these recommendations.” This recommendation is 

recommendations. 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