Report : Short

- Term

, High

- Intensity Monitoring Program

Submitted by: POTW, City of Watertown, NY; SPDES NY 002 5984 Page 1 Michael J. Sligar

Chief Operator

NYS ELAP

Certified Lab

Lab ID# 10166 

### William T. Field Memorial

Pollution Control Plant

SPDES Permit NY 002 5984

700 William T. Field Drive

Watertown, New York 13601

phone: (315) 785

- 7840

fax: (315) 779

- 2095

e m ail: MSligar@watertown

- ny.gov Joseph Castro

O & M Supervisor

Sidney A. Pond

Lab Technician

March 11 , 2010

Mr. Brian F.R. Baker

Chief, Wastewater Permits

– Water Section

Division of Water, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation

625 Broadway

Albany, NY 12233

- 3505

RE: Short

- Term High

- Intensity Monitory Program

SPDES Permit NY 002 5984

Required due to deliveries of Flowback Wastewater

From the Ross #1 Natural Gas Well developed in Otsego County

Dear Mr. Baker:

Attached to this letter is t he order issued by you dated December 29, 2009 requiring the above

referenced monitoring program. Attached also is the report completing the requirements of the

order.

Sincerely,

Michael J. Sligar

Chief Operator

Cc: Regional Water Engineer, NYSDEC Region 6, Watertown, NY

Mr. Orville Cole, President GASTEM USA, 1155 University, Suite 1215, Montreal

(Quebec) H3B 3A7

Mary Corriveau, City Manager, Watertown, NY

Kurt Hauk, City Engineer, Watertown, NYReport : Short

- Term

, High

- Intensity Monitoring Program

Submitted by: POTW, City of Watertown, NY; SPDES NY 002 5984 Page 2 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

Division of Water

Bureau of Water Permits, 4 th Floor

625 Broadway, Albany, New York 12233

- 3505

Phone: (518) 402

- 8111 • FAX: (518) 402

- 9029

Date: December 29, 2009

Michael J. Sligar , Chief Operator

William T. Field Memorial Pollution Control Plant

700 William T. Field Drive

Watertown, NY 13601

Dear Mr. Sligar:

Re: New Discharge Notification

By Letter Dated December 18, 2009

SPDES Permit NY 002 5984

This letter is to notify you that the above noted discharge may proceed without modification to the above

noted permit.

Under 6 NYCRR Part 750 and 40 CFR 122.42, Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW) permittees are

required to notify the New York State Depar tment of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) when they will be

accepting 'new or increased discharges of pollutants'. Under 6 NYCRR Part 750

- 2.9 the NYSDEC may prohibit the

discharge until the SPDES permit is modified to account for the new discharge. I t is not necessary to modify your

SPDES permit to account for the above noted discharge.

This approval is solely for the discharge of approximately 35,000 gallons of flowback water being held at the

“Ross 1” well site from a vertical gas well drilled int o the Utica Shale formation and developed by Covalent Energy.

Departmental approval will be required for any other sources of well development, flowback, or production water.

This source of wastewater shall be processed in accordance with the above reque st and as memorialized on the

following page.

In accordance with Section 308 of the Clean Water Act, 33 USC Section 1318, we are requiring the Short

Term High Intensity Monitoring Program detailed on the attached page to monitor the impacts of this sourc e of

wastewater on the facility’s discharge, assure that the receiving water is not adversely impacted, and assure that the

facility’s wastewater permit does not require modification.

If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to call me at (518) 402

- 8124

Sincerely,

/s

Brian F. R. Baker

Chief, Wastewater Permits

- Western Section

cc: Regional Water Engineer

- Region 6

W. Mirabile

K. Kosinski

J. Dahl, DMN

File Alexander B

Grannis

Commis sionerReport : Short

- Term

, High

- Intensity Monitoring Program

Submitted by: POTW, City of Watertown, NY; SPDES NY 002 5984 Page 3 Short

- term High

- Intensity Monitoring Progr am

SPDES Permit NY 002 5984

Background:

1. The analytes of concern detailed in the TestAmerica report are Total Dissolved Solids and Chlorides,

concentrations of which in the flowback water are 6,460 mg/l and 5,070 mg/l, respectively. The 35,000 gall ons of

flowback water would therefore contain 1,886 pounds of total dissolved solids and 1,480 pounds of chlorides. The

flowback water will be discharged into the anaerobic digester for solids removal, with the supernatant discharged

into the WWTP headwor ks for additional treatment prior to discharge.

2. It is noted that the chemicals present in the biocide that was used during well development, specifically

Dibromoacetonitrile and 2,2

- Dibromo

- 3

- nitrilopropionamide, have applicable water quality standards but no

approved laboratory methods. These chemicals are not expected present in the discharge at levels that would cause

or contribute to water quality standards violations. The flowback water was tested against the microbial populations

that exist in t he POTW activated sludge aeration tanks and in the lead primary anaerobic digester, and indicated that

toxicity would not be an issue at the WWTP. However, to be conservative, acute toxicity testing of the effluent will

be required as part of the STHIM pr ogram.

3. The Watertown POTW analyzes and records influent and effluent 24 hour composite sampling for total

solids and suspended solids a minimum of twice weekly. Further, the POTW has initiated sampling and analyzing

the anaerobic digesters for chloride s in anticipation of this source of wastewater. The routine analyses already being

conducted enable the tracking of dissolved solids (total solids minus suspended solids) for the POTW influent and

effluent, and of chlorides in the digesters. It is propos ed that said sampling and analyses continue through one cycle

of the digester system hydraulic detention time of approximately four weeks, followed by one week of post

processing sampling. Further, routine daily recordings of digester gas production will o ffer information relative to

toxicity and temperature impacts.

4. The permittee shall therefore conduct sampling in accordance with the following table:

Compliance Action Duration

The permittee shall conduct influent and effluent sampling for the following parameters.

Sampling shall be at the interval specified below. The permittee submit the results of the

analyses along with the daily flow:

Parameter Sampling Frequency S ample Type

Solids, Total Twice per week 24 hr composite

Solids, Total Dissolved Twice per week 24 hr composite

Chloride Twice per week 24 hr composite

Toluene Twice per week Grab

Toxicity, Acute (effluent only) See a) below See a) below

The permittee shall submit a report detailing the above sampling results, and chloride sampling

results from the anaerobic digesters, to this Department within 90 days of the date of discharge

of the flowb ack water into the digester. 35 days (5 weeks),

beginning with the

date of discharge of

flowback water into

the anaerobic digesterReport : Short

- Term

, High

- Intensity Monitoring Program

Submitted by: POTW, City of Watertown, NY; SPDES NY 002 5984 Page 4 a) A minimum of one a cute WET test shall be conducted on the effluent from the treatment plant between 3

weeks and 5 weeks following the discharge of flowback water into the anaerobic digester . The test

shall be conducted in accordance with 40 CFR Part 136 and TOGS 1.3.2. The test species shall be

Ceriodaphnia dubia (water flea

- invertebrate) and Pimephales prom elas (fathead minnow

- vertebrate).

Receiving water collected upstream from the discharge should be used for dilution. All tests conducted

should be static

- renewal (two 24 hr composite samples with one renewal for Acute tests). The appropriate

dilution s eries bracketing the IWC and including one exposure group of 100% effluent should be used to

generate a definitive test endpoint, otherwise an immediate rerun of the test is required. The ratio of critical

receiving water flow to discharge flow (i.e. dilu tion ratio) is 32:1 for acute.

b) The permittee shall also sample the flowback water for the above parameters (with the exception of acute

toxicity) during the beginning, middle, and end of the discharge into the anaerobic digesters.

c) The permittee sha ll submit copies of any document required by the above schedule of compliance to

NYSDEC Regional Water Engineer and to the Bureau of Water Permits, 625 Broadway, Albany, N.Y.

12233

- 3505 , unless otherwise specified in this permit or in writing by the Depart ment.Report : Short

- Term

, High

- Intensity Monitoring Program

Submitted by: POTW, City of Watertown, NY; SPDES NY 002 5984 Page 5 

### Table of Contents

Executive Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 6

Table 1: Results of Analyses on the Contents of Delivered Tankers.

................................ ....... 7

Table 2: Comparison of Typical STP Loadings with Composite Tanker Deliveries

................ 8

Figure 1: Digester Gas Pro ductivity

................................ ................................ .......................... 9

Appendix A

– STP Loadings of Selected Analytes

– Tables 3 through 14

................................ .. 10

Table 3: Influents A & B Solids Concentrati ons, January 2010

................................ .............. 11

Table 4: Effluents A & B Solids Concentrations, January 2010

................................ ............. 12

Table 5: Influents A & B Solids Concentra tions, February 2010

................................ ............ 13

Table 6: Effluents A & B Solids Concentration, February 2010

................................ ............. 14

Table 7: Influent and Effluent Solids Mass Loading, January 2010

................................ ........ 15

Table 8: Influent and Effluent Solids Mass Loading, February 2010

................................ ...... 16

Table 9: Influent, Effluent , and Digester Chloride Concentrations, January 2010

.................. 17

Table 10: Influent, Effluent, and Digester Chloride Concentrations, February 2010

.............. 18

Table 11: Influent and Effluent Chloride Mass Loading, January 2010

................................ .. 19

Table 12: Influent and Effluent Chloride Mass Loading, February 2010

................................ 20

Table 13: Influent and Effluent Toluene Concentrations, January 2010

................................ . 21

Table 14: Influent and Effluent Toluene Concentrations, February 2010

............................... 22

Appendix B

– Tanker Deliveries

– Lab Analyses

................................ ................................ ........ 23

Appendix C

– STP Effluent

– Acute Toxicity

................................ ................................ .............. 24

Appendix D

– STP Influent and Effluent

– Lab Analyses

................................ ............................ 25Report : Short

- Term

, High

- Intensity Monitoring Program

Submitted by: POTW, City of Watertown, NY; SPDES NY 002 5984 Page 6 

## Report

March 5, 2010



### Short

- Term, High

- Intensity Monitoring Program

Required by the New Discharge Notification

Issued by NYS Departme n t of Environmental Conservation

Division of Water, Bureau of Water Permits

Notification Dated: December 29, 2009

Submitted by:

POTW, City of Watertown, NY

SPDES NY 002 5984

Executive Summary

On December 29, 2009 the New York State Department of Envir onmental Conservation

(NYSDEC) approved the City of Watertown’s Pollution Control Plant (the STP) as a disposal

site for “flowback” wastewater extracted from the Ross #1 well. This deep vertical well was

developed to extract natural gas from Utica Shale d eposits in Otsego County, NY.

Approximately 35,000 gallons were delivered to the STP on January 5, 6 & 7, 2010 via seven

tankers (3 shipments received each the 5 th and 6 t h ). The seventh tanker carried only 250 gallons

(the wash water that was used to cl ean the storage tanks that had held the well flowback water

the months it had been stored at the Otsego site).

Exhaustive testing had been accomplished on the flowback water prior to the approval by the

NYSDEC. This testing had formed the basis by which t he approval was granted. Based upon

the known quantity and character of the flowback water, assurance was obtained that the City’s

STP could successfully treat and dispose of the wastewater. As a confirmation, the NYSDEC

required the City to conduct repr esentative an d targeted sampling of the flow back water received

as well as subsequent performances of the STP for a 35 day period commencing with the receipt

of the first tanker. This report summarizes the results of the ordered testing.Report : Short

- Term

, High

- Intensity Monitoring Program

Submitted by: POTW, City of Watertown, NY; SPDES NY 002 5984 Page 7 Four analytes had been selected for this testing: total solids, dissolved solids, chloride,

toluene 1

. Additionally, acute toxicity testing of the STP effluent was also ordered to be

conducted “...between 3 weeks and 5 weeks following the discharge of flowback water into

th e anaerobic digester..”. Table 1 below presents the loading on the STP of these four analytes

delivered by tankers in both concentration (milligram per liter, mg/l) and mass (pounds).

Table 1 : Result s of Analyses on the Contents of Delivered Tankers.

1 Toluene (CH 3 C 6 H 5 ), sometimes referred to as methylbenzene, is a colorless, refractive, flammable liquid used in

blending fuel s, solvents for paints, gums, resins, rubber cement, etc. Certain derivatives are employed in the

manufacture of saccharin, medicines, dyes, and perfumes.

Toluene is the “T” in the routine “BTEX” scan for the presence of petroleum products in contaminate d wastewater.

(BTEX = Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, Xylene)Report : Short

- Term

, High

- Intensity Monitoring Program

Submitted by: POTW, City of Watertown, NY; SPDES NY 002 5984 Page 8 The sampling results presented in this report show that the loading indicated in Table 1 was not

significant as compared with routine daily loadings at the STP and that the STP performances

were not impac ted in any manner by them. Further, the relevant conclusion of the toxicity

testing is that no mortalities or effects were noted in any of the treatments tested for either the

vertebrate species or the invertebrate species.

Typical Loadings on the STP f or targeted analytes:

Appendix A presents a series of Tables which summarize the loadings on the STP from its two

influent streams:

Influent A: City of Watertown proper; Town of Watertown Sewer Districts 2, 3, 4, & 5;

Route 3 Sewer District (northeast of the City)

Influent B: DANC pipeline which includes Fort Drum, Villages of Great Bend, Felts Mills,

Black River; and the Sewer Districts located along the DANC pipeline in the

Towns of Pamelia and LeRay.

As indicated by the summaries, the typical influent and subsequent effluent loadings experienced

by the STP for the targeted analytes are:

Total

Solids Suspended

Solids Dissolved

Solids Toluene Chloride

Typical STP

Influent

(pounds per day) 89, 410 1 9,303 70,107 < 0.34 24,273

Typical STP

Effluent

(pound s per day) 7 8,202 1,4 81 76, 721 < 0.15 25,268

Total Tanker

Deliveries from

Ross #1 (pounds) 5,441 73 5,368 0.009 2,294

Tanker % of

typical STP daily

loading 3 .1% 0.2 % 3.8 % 1.3% 4.8 %

Table 2 : Comparison of Typical STP Load ings with Composite Tanker Deliveries

( Tanker deliveries were spread over two days

– total tanker deliveries must be applied

against twice the typical daily loading to yield the appropriate %)Report : Short

- Term

, High

- Intensity Monitoring Program

Submitted by: POTW, City of Watertown, NY; SPDES NY 002 5984 Page 9 Figure 1 : Digester Gas Productiv ity

durin g the 35 day period of the Short Term Monitoring Program

Natural Gas production in the anaerobic digesters remains low because of reduced organic

loading on the digesters. The majority of the volatile solids are reserved for incineration to

pre serve the BTU value in the sludge and hence, reduce the requirement for supplemental fuels

(#2 fuel oil employed the expense of which cannot be offset by the alternative natural gas

production). The natural gas that was produced reflects the cyclic loadin gs of weekday vs

weekends typical of the facility. Further, the consistency of the loading throughout the duration

of the test indicates that the digesters were unaffected by the Ross #1 deliveries on January 5 th

and 6 th

.Report : Short

- Term

, High

- Intensity Monitoring Program

Submitted by: POTW, City of Watertown, NY; SPDES NY 002 5984 Page 10 

# Appendix A

– S TP Loadings of Selected

Analytes

– Tables 3 through 14Report : Short

- Term

, High

- Intensity Monitoring Program

Submitted by: POTW, City of Watertown, NY; SPDES NY 002 5984 Page 11

Table 3 : Influents A & B Solids Concentrations, January 2010Report : Short

- Term

, High

- Intensity Monitoring Program

Submitted by: POTW, City of Watertown, NY; SPDES NY 002 5984 Page 12

Table 4 : Effluents A & B Solids Concentrations, January 2010Report : Short

- Term

, High

- Intensity Monitoring Program

Submitted by: POTW, City of Watertown, NY; SPDES NY 002 5984 Page 13

Table 5 : Influents A & B Solids Concentrations, February 2010Report : Short

- Term

, High

- Intensity Monitoring Program

Submitted by: POTW, City of Watertown, NY; SPDES NY 002 5984 Page 14

Table 6 : Effluents A & B Solids Concentra tion, February 2010Report : Short

- Term

, High

- Intensity Monitoring Program

Submitted by: POTW, City of Watertown, NY; SPDES NY 002 5984 Page 15

Table 7 : Influent and Effluent Solids Mass Loading, January 2010Report : Short

- Term

, High

- Intensity Monitoring Program

Submitted by: POTW, City of Watertown, NY; SPDES NY 002 5984 Page 16

Table 8 : Influent and Effluent Solids Mass Loading, Fe bruary 2010Report : Short

- Term

, High

- Intensity Monitoring Program

Submitted by: POTW, City of Watertown, NY; SPDES NY 002 5984 Page 17 Table 9 : Influent, Effluent, and Digester Chloride Concentrations, January 2010Report : Short

- Term

, High

- Intensity Monitoring Program

Submitted by: POTW, City of Watertown, NY; SPDES NY 002 5984 Page 18 Table 10 : Influent, Effluent, and Digester Chlo ride Concentrations, February 2010Report : Short

- Term

, High

- Intensity Monitoring Program

Submitted by: POTW, City of Watertown, NY; SPDES NY 002 5984 Page 19

Table 11 : Influent and Effluent Chloride Mass Loading, January 2010

NOTE: Approx. 760 pounds per day of chlorides are added to the secondary clarifiers

daily as a component of the Ferric Chloride (FeCl 3 ) process chemical used for Total

Phosphorus control.Report : Short

- Term

, High

- Intensity Monitoring Program

Submitted by: POTW, City of Watertown, NY; SPDES NY 002 5984 Page 20

Table 12 : Influent and Effluent Chloride Mass Loading, February 2010

NOTE: Approx. 760 pounds per day of c hlorides are added to the secondary clarifiers

daily as a component of the Ferric Chloride (FeCl 3 ) process chemical used for Total

Phosphorus control.Report : Short

- Term

, High

- Intensity Monitoring Program

Submitted by: POTW, City of Watertown, NY; SPDES NY 002 5984 Page 21

Table 13 : Influent and Effluent Toluene Concentrat ions, January 2010Report : Short

- Term

, High

- Intensity Monitoring Program

Submitted by: POTW, City of Watertown, NY; SPDES NY 002 5984 Page 22

Table 14 : Influent and Effluent Toluene Concentrations, February 2010Report : Short

- Term

, High

- Intensity Monitoring Program

Submitted by: POTW, City of Watertown, NY; SPDES NY 002 5984 Page 23 

# Appendix B

– Tanker Deliveries

– Lab

AnalysesReport : Short

- Term

, High

- Intensity Monitoring Program

Submitted by: POTW, City of Watertown, NY; SPDES NY 002 5984 Page 24 

# A ppendix C

– STP Effluent

– Acute ToxicityReport : Short

- Term

, High

- Intensity Monitoring Program

Submitted by: POTW, City of Watertown, NY; SPDES NY 002 5984 Page 25 

# Appendix D

– STP Influent and Effluent

–

Lab Analyses