City debates treatment of gas-well wastewater

The Watertown City Council has never stepped in to stop the sewage treatment plant from treating waste from outside users, but it's considering doing so after learning the plant was permitted by the state to accept hydro-fracking fluid from a natural gas well in the Northern Catskills.

The plant accepted 35,000 gallons of the fluid in January. Some environmental groups have argued that large quantities of the fluid, a byproduct of a certain drilling process for natural gas, can kill the organisms used to digest waste in sewage treatment plants, potentially harming both the plants and the waterways into which they discharge treated water.

The state Department of Environmental Conservation granted the city permission in late December to accept 35,000 gallons of "flowback fluid" from the Ross No. 1 vertical well drilled in the town of Maryland, Otsego County, by Gastem Inc., Quebec. The company is using the well to extract natural gas from the Utica Shale formation.

Council members expressed varying opinions about continuing to accept the fluid following Monday night's meeting.

"My feeling all along is that this is a parochial issue taking place in Pennsylvania and the Southern Tier," Mayor Jeffrey E. Graham said. "I don't think this is our problem, and it doesn't make sense to ship it all the way up here."

While treatment plant Supervisor Michael J. Sligar could not attend Monday night's council meeting, a report was included in the lawmakers' agendas that said the fluid had no ill effects on the plant or Black River. Mr. Sligar has said the plant likely would treat the wastewater produced by Gastem for any of the remaining four wells the company is permitted to drill.

"I just don't think we should be getting into it," Councilwoman Teresa R. Macaluso said. "A lot of people seem to have a problem with it."

Councilmen Joseph M. Butler Jr. and Jeffrey M. Smith both said they will defer to Mr. Sligar's opinion.

"I think the report clearly states that this didn't have a negative impact on either the plant or the river," Mr. Smith said. "If we're going to have an industrial hauling program, then we should use it."

He added that the city should be charging a higher rate per gallon as long as developers are willing to haul the fluid from the well to Watertown. The city charged Gastem $1,125 for the treatment.

The plant has accepted liquid waste from outside customers, with little oversight from the City Council, since 1986.

Council members who spoke to the Times on Monday night said they trust Mr. Sligar will not take excessive risks when accepting flowback fluid.

"I believe he will make sure that plant is working well within its capabilities and I trust he's keeping everyone's safety in mind," Mr. Butler said.

Council members learned of the city's involvement with the Montreal-based driller in an eleventh-hour memo sent to them from City Manager Mary M. Corriveau in January. The memo said that tankers filled with the fluid would be arriving at the city sewage treatment plant the following day.

"The development and siting of this type of natural gas well fields has been controversial, therefore I wanted the City Council to be aware of the fact that on Tuesday, January 5, 2010, the city of Watertown will begin treating and disposing of 35,000 gallons of well flowback wastewater authorized by the DEC," Mrs. Corriveau wrote in the letter.

The city manager was criticized in her annual review by Councilwoman Roxanne M. Burns because of the late notification.

"The response that council didn't need to give approval, the memo was just a courtesy, was not appropriate given the possible public opposition to such activity," Ms. Burns wrote.

The council has asked that Mr. Sligar attend a meeting later this month to discuss the issue.