December 17, 2015 NGRC Public Meeting:
Questions for DEP and JKLM regarding
JKLM’s North Hollow Release Incident in September

Most of the following questions were previously submitted to JKLM, LLC; PA DEP; the
county-sponsored Water Quality Work Group; the Potter County Commissioners; and the Triple
Divide Watershed Coalition (TDWC) in the months following JKLM’s September 24th
​​meeting with
county and local officials. We have also previously submitted the questions to various local media.
Since we still do not have answers, we are submitting them again to the participants of this meeting,
hoping that finally the public will be informed about the full nature and extent of the contamination
resulting from this incident. We also want to know the actions that all responsible parties are taking
to ensure the safety of both the public and private water supplies.
1. Although JKLM has regularly reported the results of 3 parameters of their testing
(isopropanol, MBAS, and acetone), we still do not have a full list of the chemical
compounds that were injected into the uncased well bore. As originally reported in
Public Herald,​
isopropanol constitutes only 10-15% of the surfactant formula.
(​
www.publicherald.org/north-hollow​
) What are the remaining chemicals of that
formula? And what are the chemical compounds of Rock Drill Oil, which was also used?
2. We have been told repeatedly that the surfactant formula is “proprietary” and therefore
protected from public disclosure. However, this is an extreme case. These chemicals
were injected into an aquifer that supplies many private water wells. Additionally, JKLM
revealed at the September 24th
​​meeting that they had received complaints of
contaminated water wells that were within the recharge zone of two public water
supplies, Cole Memorial Hospital’s and Coudersport Borough’s east well. So again we
ask, “If we don’t have the complete list of chemicals, how can we be confident that the
water will be safe for consumption?”
3. Has DEP tested for the presence of the chemicals that were actually injected into the well
bore? Has JKLM?
4. What was the source of the nearly 22,000 gallons of water that were used to flush the
surfactant into the well bore to release the drill bit, and what is the name of the
company that transported it? Were tanker trucks used that only transport fresh water?
Or might those trucks also have been previously used to carry wastewater and therefore
contain trace amounts of chemicals that might additionally pose a health threat?
5. When will the two affected public water supplies be returned to service? What actions
have DEP, the borough, and hospital taken to ensure that these two sources will be safe
for use and consumption?
6. Is it possible that the plume of contamination within the aquifer has not yet reached all
potential users? Do we know how long the contaminants may linger if we don’t know
what they are?

 7. Will there be a legally binding agreement between JKLM and the affected water well
owners--and also the hospital and the borough of Coudersport if their wells are found to
be impacted--until all known contamination issues are completely resolved?
8. How long will JKLM continue to provide drinking water to affected owners of private
water wells?
9. What are the chemicals or product names (with their CAS numbers, if available) that
were onsite during the department’s inspections after JKLM’s chemical injection?
10. Will DEP’s lab results of the sampling done on the public water supplies be released to
the public or to the borough?
11. What is the final number of residential water supplies that JKLM has sampled? The final
number that DEP has sampled?
12. How many complaint investigations are currently recorded by JKLM? By DEP?
13. How many investigations by DEP have received a determination letter, and how many
are currently being investigated without a determination?
14. When will public and private water users be notified officially with information delivered
directly to their homes or establishments, of the contamination of the shared water
source?
15. How far away from the well bore is JKLM testing? DEP?
16. How long will JKLM test for contamination once water quality appears to have returned
to background conditions?
17. Will there be 24-hour monitoring at public water supplies once they’re back online? For
how long?
18. How many groundwater monitoring wells have been installed? How long will they be in
place?
19. Will DEP issue a fine that truly demonstrates the gravity of the violations issued in this
incident and that discourages any company from committing similar actions in the
future?
20. A November 5, 2015 report by Penn Live refers to the following formula used by the
department when determining penalties for environmental violations: Penalty Amount =
Impact + Willfulness + Commonwealth’s Costs + Violator’s Savings + Violation History –
Cooperation.
(​
http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2015/11/federal_regulators_find_major.ht
ml​
) ​
Is this formula still used? If so, would you please explain the calculation of each part
of the formula?
21. What compensation will the borough and county receive for the time and resources
spent on this incident and its consequences?

Laurie Barr, Concerned Resident
Les Rolfe, Concerned Resident
Mary Anne Heston, Concerned Citizen
Melissa Troutman, Concerned Resident and ​
Public Herald​
Executive Editor

 Joshua Pribanic, Concerned Citizen and Public Herald Editor?in?Chief