What's in the Water?

On a sunny late afternoon in Conrad on Sept. 23, people came to voice their opinions at an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hearing on the injection of bio-aviation fuel wastewater by Montana Renewables into two injection wells. They waited patiently through the slide presentation by the four EPA representatives from Denver. The hearing was held to present the revised portion of the permit for the two wells on Jody and Bonnie Field's property west of Valier. At an earlier hearing, attendees had objected to the potential migration of the wastewater to the permit's quarter mile radius from the wells. The EPA took the objections back to the drawing board and revised the permit to expand migration of the wastewater to a 2.1-mile area. The short comment period first set by the EPA was expanded to October 13, at the request of Pondera County commissioners. A court reporter recorded the hearing and a transcription will be available at http://www.regulations.gov

At the end of the EPA presentation, attendees were given five minutes each to speak their mind. Thirty people exercised their right to free speech. Some came armed with facts, clear they had done their research. All spoke passionately and from their hearts. Water is a passionate subject. The three Pondera County commissioners – Zane Drishinski, Tom Kuka and Jim Morren, spoke against the permit. Members of the Golden Triangle Resource Council spoke against, as well as a representative of Glacier Two Medicine Alliance. They talked about failed injection wells in Texas, Florida and Ohio. Some people spoke about the possibility of earthquakes causing well failure. The mayor of Roundup asked that the EPA require a constant monitoring system of the wells in case of failure.

To their credit, the four EPA representatives listened intently. They were young, with expertise in their fields. They were not seasoned. And they had no idea about life in rural Montana. They used population numbers (600 within Valier town limits) to decide how much drinking water is needed in Pondera County and didn't take into account that livestock need water too. They claimed that the Madison Aquifer in this area is contaminated, thus the migration of wastewater really didn't matter in the long run. After all, at the rate of the migration flow, their calculations showed it would take 10,000 years to know if there was contamination. Several speakers denied the Madison aquifer is contaminated and listed towns south of Great Falls that have drilled into that aquifer for their drinking water. There are 70 EPA documents online with technical information and everyone is encouraged to read these. Find them at http://www.regulations.gov and search for EPA ro8-06-2025-0852. The large amounts of technical information there are beyond the scope and size of this article. Everyone is encouraged to take the time to read at least some, if not all of these documents.

The real question on everyone's minds was what's in the water. Montana Renewables claims the wastewater is wash water from grain, animal fat from rendering and "other contaminants" but is safer than what has been and is still being injected into the other 25 injection wells in Pondera County. Pondera County commissioners say: prove it! County Sanitarian Corrine Rose has asked Montana Renewables to allow her to take a sample and have it tested. Montana Renewables has refused, saying the wastewater content is proprietary. It's understandable that they would not want someone from another county dipping into their wastewater and taking it somewhere else to test. They would lose chain of custody, not knowing who would touch it and how it would be transported or what possible contamination could occur. In a reverse situation, it's probable that the City of Conrad would take the same stance if someone from another county proposed the same ask. However, it seems reasonable that Montana Renewables could provide test results of the wastewater and give it to Pondera County Commissioners after they signed a non-disclosure agreement that would safeguard the proprietary nature of the water. Neither side will budge on this issue. EPA's Frasier stated that the EPA has studied the chemistry of the wastewater, indicating they found no problem with it.

Another bone of contention is the probable expansion of injecting this wastewater into other wells in Pondera County, making these two wells the first of many. Two more permit requests have already been submitted by Montalban Oil and Gas Operations, the company doing the actual injecting.

Montana Renewables has received a $1.67 billion federal loan guarantee to build a water treatment plant. Several speakers asked why the plant wasn't already being built. Montana Renewables has stated that they plan to build a treatment plant, but using injection wells is the interim plan until that can happen. A preliminary engineering report is one of the first steps -- a two-year cycle. Next is a two-year cycle for grant applications, then securing an engineering firm, contractors, etc. There are a lot of federal and state regulations to satisfy before ground can be broken for a treatment plant. An Alderwoman from Belt spoke about the ten years it took for that city to complete their treatment plant.

After the Oct. 13 deadline for comments is past, the EPA will make its final decision on the permit and open its last public hearing on this matter.

People are encouraged to read the documents online and comment before the October 13 deadline.

What's in the Water?

Comments