Comment

Comment by John Reed on March 15, 2010 at 10:13am

City says fluid had nothing startling
WELL FLOWBACK: Plant performance not affected by waste
By ROBERT BRAUCHLE
TIMES STAFF WRITER
MONDAY, MARCH 15, 2010
ARTICLE OPTIONS
A A A

The 35,000 gallons of flowback fluid treated in January at the Watertown sewage treatment plant had little or negligible effects on the plant and the Black River, according to documents about the testing process made available by the city Friday.

"There is nothing in that fluid that this plant was not designed to treat," plant Supervisor Michael J. Sligar said.

The city received permission from the state Department of Environmental Conservation in late December to accept the flowback fluid from the Ross No. 1 well drilled in the town of Maryland. The vertical well, operated by Gastem Inc., Quebec, uses the controversial hydro-fracking process to extract natural gas from the Utica Shale rock formation.

While vertical wells produce far less wastewater than horizontal wells also using the hydro-fracking process, drillers are hampered by the limited options to treat the fluid. Companies can either ship it to municipally owned treatment plants, store it underground or find a way to reuse it.

ADVERTISEMENT


"The sampling results presented in this report show that the loading indicated was not significant as compared with routine daily loadings at the sewage treatment plant and that the plant's performances were not impacted in any manner by them," Mr. Sligar wrote in a memo to the City Council.

"Further, the relevant conclusion of the toxicity testing is that nomortalities or effects were noted in any ofthe treatments testsfor either the vertebrate species or the invertebrate species."

Environmental protection groups have said that large quantities of flowback fluid introduced in sewage treatment plants can kill the organisms used to digest waste. The groups also have stated that municipal treatment plants are not equipped to treat the fluid, which has a high salt content.

"The question never was what is in the fluid. We knew that before we accepted it," Mr. Sligar said. "The question was how much is in it?"

Mr. Sligar said DEC asked him to monitor whether the chlorides and toluene, which is commercially used as a solvent, in the fluid affected the plant's digestion.

"There was such a small amount of this stuff that it didn't even realize it was there," Mr. Sligar said, referring to the flowback fluid.

The plant treats an average of 12 million gallons of sewage each day and is rated to treat 16 million gallons. Any criticism that the plant is not equipped to treat salts is disingenuous, Mr. Sligar said, because the plant uses about 700 pounds of chlorides each day to treat phosphorus found in household sewage.

The plant typically treats about 25,000 pounds of chlorides daily, according to information provided to the Times.

The tankers hauling the fluid pumped 2,294 pounds of chlorides into the system over a two-day period, meaning the flowback fluid increased the amount of chlorides in the plant by 4.8 percent.

The city also tested for the nuclear content of the fluid, which Mr. Sligar said was below the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's threshold for drinking water.

"It's incumbent on these plant operators to not allow this fluid to overwhelm their processes," Mr. Sligar said. "I am aware of the threshold that this plant can deal with and what it's designed to do."

He said he has talked with Gastem's president, Orville R. Cole, to treat any further fluid produced at the Otsego County site.

"They're permitted for five wells there," Mr. Sligar said. "So, yeah, I think it's a foregone conclusion."

Any additional fluid treated at the Watertown plant must be approved by DEC.

SHOW COMMENTS (0)
MORE JEFFERSON COUNTY NEWS
■Barclay declines race for 23rd District
■City says fluid had nothing startling
■City braces for Reserve unit move to post
■Zumba workout raises $1,500 for Heart Association
■Upset at error, Orleans rejects Bernier, Carr for 2nd project
■Oswego County joins fight against turbines
■Skiing areas experience 'decent' winter season
■Attorneys paid big bucks for PILOT
■LeRay water project hits snag
■25th annual festival packs in the crowds
■Clayton seeks proposals for ex-Frink site
■Police cite five people with drunken driving
■Family takes possession of house
■Statewide ban on burning brush takes effect Monday
■Man gets year for thefts and probation violation
■District accepting petitions for seats on school board
■Watertown airport awarded $3,904,500
■Former fire chief indicted, allegedly stole money
■Indian River gets grant for wind-power study
■Special ed needs aired at forum
You may use this copy for your personal, non-commercial use only. Redistribution or repurposing without express written permission of the Watertown Daily Times is strictly prohibited.Copyright. Watertown Daily Times, Inc., Watertown, NY. All rights reserved.ADVERTISEMENTS

Comment by John Reed on March 15, 2010 at 9:57am

I've met several rocks and even a few trees that are smarter than a few of the people that post here. I say we have a public debate that is televised. That would be fun. Marie you up for it ? Better do some homework first.

Comment by John Reed on March 15, 2010 at 9:52am

Oh, and worth mentioning again.... The amount of salt/brine used on our roadways to treat ice and snow in Pa every year is equal to the amount of flow back water and chemicals/brine that 31.000 hydro-fracked natural gas wells will produce. I don't hear you complaining about the chemicals we use to treat our roads. Again, another case of being misinformed and hipocritical.

Comment by John Reed on March 15, 2010 at 9:49am

CJK. You live on a working farm ? Do you know that the farming industry is 100% proven much more detrimental to the environment than natural gas drilling ? Did you know you are being hipocritical by your admission that you have livestock and a working farm ? As far as you thinking globally you don't. If you did you would recognize that if you are farming, using pesticides in farming, allowing your cows to defacate all over the place and not clean it up you are adding to the pollution problem that exists. By the way, I really find nothing wrong with working a farm, I just find it amusing that you do not recognzie your own contributions to pollution. Furthermore, if you use any household cleansers, cleaners, detergents and many food products you are just as guilty as gas companies who hydro-frack. Oh, by the way, do you wear make-up ? If you do you are guilty as charged. That goes for you too Marie. These chemicals are the same. The dangerous stuff is what they bring back to the surface that naturally exists at great depths. Stuff that is undisturbed, but can migrate to the surface with or without hydro-fracking. It happens every day. Go see a geyser or an active volcano. This is the low level radio active material and heavy metals. Before you get so darn hung up on fracking chemicals do your homework !!!!!!!!

Comment by daniel cohen on March 15, 2010 at 9:16am

Dear CJK,
Others may be louder, but you speak truth.Let no one shut you up.Thanks for being a voice for safe practices. We all benefit from that.
Dan

Comment by CJK on March 15, 2010 at 8:40am

BuckinghamGasMan; You can dance around all you want to with regards to the exemption of fraccing to the Safe Drinking Water Act, but the fact remains that they are dumping tons of questionable materials into each fraccing. Last I heard only 15% of the fraccing fluids come back up, every time I talk to an industry official they change this figure and since there is no cradle to grave records being kept and reviewed by anyone they can continue to tell me different stories because it is conceivable that they do not even know the facts. That means 85% of the fluids remain in the ground. Do you really think that there is no chance of these fluids finding their way to the surface? It is not a question of whether they will but when will it happen?
As far as your discussion of no proof that is not so, there have been cases but they have not been documented as such because the people did not take the appropriate precautionary measures. I have a dear friend in NW Pa that had their spring, which supplied two houses, damaged both in quantity and quality. The chemicals from the fraccing fluid came up in her water. In her case it was the position of the drill site and the fact that the casing was not adequate that damaged her water. Her case was not documented by DEP and EPA because she did not have her water tested with a chain of custody. There are others I am sure but it is very difficult to prove and the gas companies have more money than most to fight their litigation.

John: Yes the gas companies are worried about spending too much money. Bottom line more money less profit. I have asked many industry spokesperson’s as to whether or not their compressor stations have all current green practices incorporated in them. I then have listed some of them specifically. Many of the industry respond that they are not doing that because it is too expensive. For example not all gas companies are enclosing their compressor units. Some of you may not mind airplanes, trains, factory humming, etc, but I moved to the country from the city and I do not want to listen to those types of noises and be subjected to their fumes 24/7.

As far as your inference that gas exploration is no more risky than many of the things we face daily, I respectfully disagree. I work hard on a daily basis to ensure that the water and soil on my farm is healthy for my family, livestock and the food that it produces for us. If a company comes along and sells me a lie that this is so safe and nothing will ever go wrong and it does you best believe I am going to be prepared for a fight. The problem rests in the fact that until one “proves” it you are out of water. Yes they generally provide those affected with water but it is bottled and treated, something I do not want to bathe, cook and drink daily. I have always felt blessed with the clean, abundant water that my land has provided me with.

As far as thinking globally goes I do, but I am not willing for my land to potentially be ruined in the name of cheap efficient energy. After the gas is gone my land will still be here and who will be able to use it. The gas industry can and should be required to be more responsible. No if and buts about it.

Comment by BuckinghamGasMan on March 15, 2010 at 8:37am

Marie, excuse me?

Comment by BuckinghamGasMan on March 15, 2010 at 8:02am

Dear duh!!:

As just one example, the section of the "Clean Water Act", where you say the "Halliburton Loophole" exists, regulates other aspects of drilling (e.g. deep well injections, fraccing fluids on the surface). There are others, but why bother explaining?

Comment by Carol on March 15, 2010 at 8:01am

Marie,
Who is exempt from everything? The gas and drilling companies? I don't think so.
Maybe you and Dan Cohen can move to NY.

Comment by BuckinghamGasMan on March 15, 2010 at 7:20am

Dan, read what I said. The natural gas industry is not "unregulated at the federal level" as Carolyn said -- that is a serious error.

"Hazardous Waste" is defined by the Federal government. I grew up on dairy farm, the waste there was hazardous, but it was not "Hazardous Waste" as defined by the Feds or understood by the public.

I think that you modify what others say to fit your own purposes and then say they are in error. I'm not even sure that you mean well.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 33
• 34
• 35
• 36
• 37
• …
• 46
• Next ›
• Page