close

Hearing continued in Haney vs. Range Resources case

3 min read

Range Resources again argued in Washington County Court Thursday that it released a list of all chemicals used in fracking operations at an Amwell Township well site. The hearing, held before President Judge Debbie O’Dell Seneca, was a continuation of a two-year-old lawsuit involving three families who allege they suffered health problems from living near the Yeager well pad.

Several Range attorneys argued the plaintiffs – Stacey Haney and her two children; Beth and John Voyles and their daughter; and Loren and Grace Kiskadden – know enough information about the products and additives Range used in fracking to conduct tests of their water supply. Range’s counsel said the “chemical families” were released for all proprietary products that were not named by manufacturers, and thus the families could determine whether or not chemicals in their water match those found in Range’s products.

Range attorneys reaffirmed the company’s position that no operations at that site led to any adverse effects on human health.

John and Kendra Smith, husband-and-wife counsel representing the families, said chemicals were detected in their clients’ water supplies that could potentially match the products Range used, but they can’t know for sure unless a full list is disclosed.

O’Dell Seneca said if Range is correct about disclosing the chemicals, all parties have “wasted a lot of time and resources” through countless hearings. The judge ruled in June, along with an Environmental Hearing Board judge, that Range was responsible for providing a full list of products and chemicals used at that site.

Range since appealed that decision to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, and it is awaiting a court date. John Smith questioned why Range needed to file an appeal if the company contends it released all chemicals.

In an unexpected twist Thursday, Range’s attorneys also demanded to know whether a third party was footing the Smiths’ attorney bills. Range’s counsel, citing case law, said that information should be made available to Range for its pretrial discovery, and also claimed the “integrity of the jury” could be jeopardized if a member of the hypothetical party backing the Smiths were to sit on the panel, unbeknownst to them.

O’Dell Seneca said it was an “offensive” question, but entertained Range’s explanation. John Smith said he and his wife felt underprivileged residents in Washington County deserve representation, and he called Range’s questions “baseless” and “defamatory.”

O’Dell Seneca granted John and Kendra Smith the ability to move forward with their depositions and submit additional testimony. John Smith said this will take at least six months, which would push back the tentative trial date in January.

CUSTOMER LOGIN

If you have an account and are registered for online access, sign in with your email address and password below.

NEW CUSTOMERS/UNREGISTERED ACCOUNTS

Never been a subscriber and want to subscribe, click the Subscribe button below.

Starting at $3.75/week.

Subscribe Today