Apr 16, 2015 2 min read

Range Resources has argued for months the company is not responsible for disclosing a full list of chemicals and substances it used at its Yeager well site in Amwell Township.

This week, the state Superior Court disagreed with Range and quashed the company’s appeal of a Washington County Court order from last June that compelled Range to produce the chemical constituents of its products.

Three Amwell families who alleged that Range’s operations contaminated their water supply – the Haney, Voyles and Kiskadden families – requested the product information during the ongoing discovery period of their lawsuit, which was filed in 2012.

Attorneys John and Kendra Smith, who represent the three families, applauded the court’s decision.

“We are extremely pleased with the unanimous decision of the Superior Court and look forward to receiving the information ordered by the trial court requiring the full disclosure of all of the chemicals used at the site,” John Smith said in an email.

Range spokesman Matt Pitzarella did not respond for comment on whether the company would appeal the decision.

The Superior Court ruled that Range did not have a “recognizable interest” in the trade secrets that it sought to protect from disclosure.

“To the extent the proprietary, chemical ingredients of products used at the Yeager Drill Site are entitled to protection, the right to assert such protection is held by the manufacturers of those products, not Range Resources,” President Judge Emeritus John Bender wrote in the memorandum. “Seemingly, Range Resources recognizes this shortcoming, as it makes no attempt to persuade this court otherwise.”

Range attorney Bruce Rende stated in Superior Court arguments in February that there was no “compelling need” to release industry secrets. He said former Washington County President Judge Debbie O’Dell Seneca’s order last June was a “sweeping order” that requested proprietary information that Range is not privy to.

In a separate but related case involving the Kiskaddens, Environmental Hearing Board Judge Thomas W. Renwand also determined last June that Range was “in the best position” to obtain the information from its manufacturers.

No trial date has been set for the case involving the three families.