Cecil Twp. wants answers about Marcellus Shale impoundment
Cecil Township officials want to meet with the state Department of Environmental Protection to discuss the situation surrounding the Worstell water impoundment and whether it should be closed.
The supervisors voted unanimously Monday night to schedule a public meeting with the DEP to answer questions about the 15 million-gallon impoundment operated by Range Resources and ask about a permit that states it should be “restored” within nine months after the last well on the site is placed into production.
Supervisor Andy Schrader produced the DEP permit at the meeting and argued it shows the impoundment should not be operational since the last of three wells drilled on that site has been producing natural gas for more than a year. Township Manager Don Gennuso said he has contacted the DEP to set up a meeting to answer their questions and clarify the stipulations of the impoundment.
“We’re not quite sure whether or not it should be closed because of the way the DEP permit reads,” Gennuso said. “There are a lot of items the board members are unclear of. That’s the point of the meeting, to get answers from the DEP.”
However, one resident said at Monday night’s meeting she expects more wells to be drilled in that area. Schrader acknowledged that might be true, but he thought the wording in the permit indicated the impoundment should be restored to its natural state.
“I want to be able to ask (DEP) those questions,” Schrader said.
DEP spokesman John Poister said he was unaware of the meeting request, but said the agency would make accommodations with the township.
State and local officials began asking questions about the Worstell impoundment off Swihart Road earlier this year when information surfaced that a DEP investigation showed a defective valve in a holding tank caused 30 gallons of recycled wastewater to escape in November 2011. There also was a spike in the total amount of dissolved solids at the impoundment site last fall, although the DEP does not think the two events are connected.
Poister said the inspection of the impoundment found “some minor damage” to the top liner but no evidence of a leak. He said the damage included small tears “that may have resulted after the impoundment was drained and cleaned” by Range Resources. Another hole was found above the waterline, he said, but was not deemed to be a threat to the impoundment.