City treating toxic water
Environmental groups are warning Watertown officials that if the waste fluid the city is now treating from a hydraulic-fracturing mine isn't processed properly, it could harm the Black River and damage the city's sewage treatment facility.
"This might be the most well-studied water in the state right now," said Michael J. Sligar, Watertown sewage treatment plant operator.
Watertown is one of very few municipalities in New York treating the briny cocktail, as few governments are pursuing permits from the state because of the potentially harmful impacts of the treatment process, environmental groups and industry insiders said.
The danger, those sources said, is that the treatment process can overwhelm sewage plants, effectively shutting them down if too much "flowback fluid" is entered into the plant's system.
The salinity content of the discharged water can exceed federal limits, killing freshwater species near discharge points. In the city's case, that water is put into the Black River, which then flows into Lake Ontario.
'IT CAUSED A LOT OF ISSUES'
The "hydro-fracking" technique of gathering natural gas involves pumping large volumes of water, sand and chemicals into shale formations thousands of feet underground. The process fractures the shale, releasing natural gas into collection pipes. The water — laced with naturally occurring radioactive material, salt and other chemicals — is then pumped back to the surface. Well operators must either store the fluid in an underground well, haul it out of state for treatment or get the state Department of Environmental Conservation's approval to have it processed at an in-state sewage treatment facility.
"This is interesting because it caused a lot of issues and this is only 35,000 gallons," said Roger F. Downs, a conservation associate for the Sierra Club's Atlantic chapter. "Imagine what will happen when a company wants to treat a million gallons, because that is what is projected for someMarcellus (shale) operations."
Despite the high demand in New York for the service, the city is charging the well operators its standard rate of 3.5 cents per gallon for the service, a $1,125 bill for 35,000 gallons.
The state does not mandate that well operators reveal which chemicals they use in the hydro-fracking process, meaning it does not know the exact contents of what is being pumped into the ground.
"Most fracturing fluid components are not included as analytes in standard chemical scans of flowback samples that were provided to DEC, so little information is available to document whether and at what concentrations most fracturing chemicals occur in flowback water," the DEC wrote in a draft environmental impact statement it released in September.
The Watertown treatment plant has received permits to treat the initial 35,000 gallons and would need the state's approval to treat any more. The treatment process will take about five weeks to complete, Mr. Sligar said.
Gastem Inc., Quebec, which sent the flowback fluid to Watertown, drilled the Ross No. 1 mine in the town of Maryland, Otsego County. It has received permits from the state to drill five vertical wells at the site that tap into the Utica shale formation.
PENNSYLVANIA PROBLEMS
The hydro-fracking technique, which uses high volumes of water, is a relatively new activity in New York. Its development, however, in Pennsylvania and the subsequent flowback water created by the process have overwhelmed that state's municipal treatment plants in the past two years.
"You only have to look as far south as Pennsylvania to see what happens when things go wrong," said Katherine R. Nadeau, water and natural resources program associate for Environmental Advocates of New York.
Ms. Nadeau pointed out the problems Pennsylvania authorities are having with the high number of total dissolvable solids now being found in the Monongahela River because of shale drilling operations.
"Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection, after the fact, is trying to put in rules and regulations for this type of wastewater," Ms. Nadeau said. "We cannot go the same route. We need to look at others' mistakes and look at how we're going to deal with the water and then not permitting this type of waste."
She added: "These plants can't take that much salt out of the water. Now we're talking about the desalination process. It's like drinking sea water. This doesn't really treat the fluid; it dilutes it."
Mr. Downs said that shale drilling eventually will overwhelm sewage treatment infrastructure in New York if DEC does not properly regulate the industry.
"The big deal is being able to deal with the total dissolved solids and chlorides before these things are then flushed back out into the Black River," he said.
DEC's environmental impact statement also focuses on the state's concern about relying on municipal plants to treat the fluid.
"Salts and dissolved solids may not be sufficiently treated by municipal biological treatment and/or other treatment technologies which are not designed to remove pollutants of this nature," it states.
Mr. Sligar said the plant's pretreatment program helps determine how the fluid will affect the digester's bacteria, and what the water is expected to contain when it is discharged into the river.
"Of the approximately 600 municipal wastewater treatment plants in the state, there are about 100 with pretreatment programs," Mr. Sligar said. "The EPA has passed some very specific regulations concerning these pretreatment requirements that will prohibit plants from accepting anything that will interfere with the anaerobic processes or cause undue safety hazard to the plant."
DIFFERING SHIPMENTS
ProPublica, a nonprofit for-hire journalism group, contacted 109 of the 135 plants in New York listed by DEC as having the ability to treat the fluid and found that operators from only three have any interest in accepting it.
Of the dozen out-of-state plants listed by DEC, nine have reached their capacity and will not take any more flowback fluid, ProPublica reported.
Individual treatment plant operators also should be wary that each shipment of hydro-fracking fluid can differ, depending on the company and depth and location of the wells. Because treatment plants are designed to process natural waste, the chemicals could slow or stop the bacteria from working correctly, Ms. Nadeau said.
"If you start messing with the basic makeup, this is going to mess with the bacterial process and could potentially shut the process down," she said.
Mr. Sligar and a pair of truck drivers can attest to the inconsistent makeup of fluid used in the process.
In September, Gastem Inc. used about 40,000 gallons to drill the Ross No. 1 well. Because the company was not actually using the hydro-fracking process, the fluid was not expected to be as potent and could be treated at the Watertown facility without the oversight being used for flowback fluid, Mr. Sligar said.
The first two tankers arrived with no issues, but a third carried solution more potent than expected.
"The third one came in heavy," he said. "There were more solids than we had expected. So I called them and said, 'Hey, we need to do more testing before we take any more.'"
When two more tankers arrived the following day, Mr. Sligar sent them back to Otsego County, a roughly 170-mile drive.
"I told them that you now know where we are, so you shouldn't get lost on your way up again," Mr. Sligar said.
While the plant had the ability to accept the water, Mr. Sligar wanted confirmation of that fact. After the heavier batch was tested, the tankers were driven back to Watertown to unload the fluid.
The city defended its effort, and its lean financial payoff for the risk.
"I would have had the same number of people working here if that water had come in or not," Mr. Sligar said. "We're taking 35,000 gallons versus the 12 million we treat here daily."
The plant is rated to treat as much as 16 million gallons each day.
Any additional testing and analysis performed for the state to determine whether the plant could handle the fluid also was charged to Gastem.
"The state has ordered 35 days of extraordinary testing once the fluid was received and all of that is being billed to the well driller," Mr. Sligar said. "This is not a profit-making organization; it's a service-rendering organization."
NEW FOR NEW YORK
City Council members, however, have said they will charge more for the service if the city continues to treat the fluid. New York state will grant permits for hydro-fracking operations only if the operator can show it has a place to either treat the fluid or store it underground.
DEC spokesman Yancy Roy said that while hydro-fracturing has been around for decades, the large amounts of wastewater it creates, combined with its use in horizontal wells, is new in New York.
Mr. Roy did not know how many vertical-well operators that use the hydro-fracturing process send their flowback water to municipal treatment plants.
Correspondence obtained by the Sierra Club between DEC and Gastem indicates the company shopped the fluid to a number of other treatment plants, including Auburn, Cortland and Norwich, before settling on Watertown.
"I cannot issue a drilling permit until an approved treatment facility capable of receiving and disposing of the spent frack fluids is identified," Jack K. Dahl, DEC director of the bureau of oil and gas regulation, wrote in an October 2008 e-mail to the natural gas company.
Other e-mails between DEC and Gastem show that the state does not have a firm process to approve permits.
"Sorry this took a while — we're still getting a feel for these things," Brian Baker, section chief for the DEC Bureau of Water Permits, wrote in a May 29 e-mail.
Orville R. Cole is the president of Gastem, which is partnering with Covalent Energy Corp., Arlington, Va., to develop the Ross No. 1 well. Mr. Cole said his Quebec-based company successfully drilled a 4,950-foot vertical well at the site in September into a Utica shale formation. The well has since provided "significant gas kicks at target intervals."
The Gastem well is a vertical well that uses far less water than horizontal wells. Vertical wells also produce far less natural gas.
"The fact is that we reviewed a number of facilities that have pretreatment programs, which is actually a very limited number," Mr. Cole said. "Then we came to the Watertown facility and we were happy with the documentation in terms of what they were managing and disposing of."
Mr. Cole said his company would haul more flowback fluid to Watertown if Gastem can develop another well. His preference, though, would be to find plants closer to the site that will accept the fluid.
'AWESOME' PROCESS
The Ross No. 1 well is on 1,923-foot Crumhorn Mountain, close to a Boy Scouts of America camp, Mr. Downs said.
"It's a fantastic natural area and it's very picturesque," he said. "It's probably the most inappropriate area to put a well."
Gastem'sofficials allowed Mr. Downs to attend the initial hydro-fracking operation Nov. 11.
"It's impressive. There seemed to be a crew of 50 working with the fracking operation. There were dozens of trucks with a number of hoses and large equipment. The diesel smoke was very thick and there was a significant amount of noise," he said.
Mr. Downs described the process as "a pretty awesome thing to see" and said it took a few hours to complete before workers packed up and left.
While he is critical of the location, Mr. Downs said Gastem has been very open about its work.
"Basically, I would say that this company has bent over backwards to follow the DEC's new permitting guidelines," he said. "I think they've been very good about it."
Mr. Sligar is expected to make a presentation about the treatment process to the Watertown City Council at 7 p.m. Tuesday.
