Urban Drilling correlates w/almost TRIPLE TTHM in Arlington TX drink’n water + 2009 anomaly (spill ?)

—– Forwarded Message —–
From: kim feil <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>
To: “charles.maguire@tceq.texas.gov” <charles.maguire@tceq.texas.gov>
Cc: Chris Turner <chris.turner@house.texas.gov>; “chris.turner@house.state.tx.us” <chris.turner@house.state.tx.us>; Congressman Joe Barton <joe.barton@houseenews.net>; “konni.burton@senate.state.tx.us” <konni.burton@senate.state.tx.us>
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2018 11:06 AM
Subject: O& G produced water exempt from Clean Water Act-Class 1 injection well risks on lenient truck manifests
Mr Maquire, once humans touch a natural element and it changes in its composition, isn’t it considered technologically enhanced? And if there are any traces elementally of NORM, isn’t it then TENORM and subject to the more regulated class II injection well trucking manifests?
Currently produced water from the oil & gas industry are under the less regulated class I injection well truck manifests, but by definition fit the criteria in needing to be treated as Class II.
How do we get the changes made to protect our water sources? Please read below on the microbe situation as the impetuous to get these changes asap.
Currently oil & gas wastewater is under the lessor regulated Class 2 wells
—– Forwarded Message —–
From: kim feil <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>
To: Craig Cummings <Craig.Cummings@arlingtontx.gov>
Cc: Victoria Farrar-Myers <Victoria.Farrar-Myers@arlingtontx.gov>; Robert Shepard <Robert.Shepard@arlingtontx.gov>; Roxanne Thalman <Roxanne.Thalman@arlingtontx.gov>; Kathryn Wilemon <Kathryn.Wilemon@arlingtontx.gov>; Lana Wolff <Lana.Wolff@arlingtontx.gov>; Michael Glaspie <Michael.Glaspie@arlingtontx.gov>; Jeff Williams <Jeff.Williams@arlingtontx.gov>; Sheri Capehart <Sheri.Capehart@arlingtontx.gov>; Trey Yelverton <Trey.Yelverton@arlingtontx.gov>; Jim Parajon <Jim.Parajon@arlingtontx.gov>; Cynthia Simmons <Cynthia.Simmons@arlingtontx.gov>; Chris Kite <chris.kite@tceq.texas.gov>; Chris Turner <chris.turner@house.texas.gov>; “chris.turner@house.state.tx.us” <chris.turner@house.state.tx.us>; “Christi.Craddick@rrc.state.tx.us” <christi.craddick@rrc.state.tx.us>; Buzz Pishkur <buzz.pishkur@arlingtontx.gov>; Zacariah Hildenbrand <zac@informenv.com>; Kevin A. Schug <kschug@uta.edu>; “pdws@tceq.texas.gov” <pdws@tceq.texas.gov>; Julie Hunt <huntj@trinityra.org>; Angela Kilpatrick <kilpatricka@trinityra.org>; Aaron Hoff <hoffa@trinityra.org>; “isantos@utexas.edu” <isantos@utexas.edu>
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2018 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: Produced water exempt from Clean Water Act-Class 1 injection well risks on lenient truck manifests
Thank you for such a timely and thorough follow up on my TTHM concerns. My casual connection to our higher TTHM’s is at the very least a horrible coincidence that our TTHM’s have gone up almost triple since we allowed fracking.
I am on the steering committee for the Village Creek Lake Arlington Water Protection Plan and they just finished a two year study. The EPA gave TCEQ the funds who had the Trinity River Authority carry out the study identifying surface sources where contamination can be occurring. While UTA CLEAR has studied ground water near fracking finding microbes proliferating, I do have an unrelated general statement below from the Trinity Rive Authority acknowledging that there are microbes resistant to chlorination AT THE WATER TREATMENT PLANTS. While not trying to take her words out of context…the message is clear that some microbes are resistant to chlorination….note below I cut and paste the email and have boldfaced for emphasis. 
This should give pause to the risk to surface water with any surface spills during mining and production which also includes the unmitigated risk in trucking out produced waste water because of the oil & gas exemption in the Clean Water Act where the classification of the injection wells is not as regulated. 
Knowing that microbes proliferate in a spill/pollution “response” is information we should act upon. In not acting upon to ban fracking is opening Pandora’s Box which can eventually cause the water treatment plants to have to take extraordinary measures to filter out microbes using non-chlorinated methods, should surface spills of aggregate cause microbes to become unmanageable.
The trucks that visit each drill site daily to excavate the produced waste water from the storage tanks and drive to the injection wells is risky business in that the less regulated oil & gas related Class II truck manifests do not require the truck manifest amount of fluids leaving the storage tanks be accounted for at the injection well sites (in case there is a spill along the way intentional or unintentional).
We should mandate in our ordinance such a check an balance system or work with our legislatures for this next session to have the injection wells be designated as Class 1 (more regulated truck manifests) to require TENORM accountability with stricter truck manifests statewide.
Thank you
Kim Feil
Here is the cut & paste from the TRA….
—– Forwarded Message —–
From: Angela Kilpatrick <KilpatrickA@trinityra.org>
To: kim feil <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net> 
Cc: Aaron Hoff <hoffa@trinityra.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2017 11:43 AM
Subject: RE: Question on Clearfork of Trinity River


Hey Kim,
It doesn’t. The Clear Fork runs southeast by Weatherford and then cuts back northeast through Lake Benbrook.  It ties in to the Lower West Fork Trinity River over near Henderson Street in Fort Worth.
As an extended side note, the crypto and giardia tests are somewhat similar to E. coli tests in that they are really just an indicator of potential pathogenic species.  At least for the more common testing methods.  I can’t determine from Fort Worth’s report what method they use.  The common testing method only counts the number of crypto or giardia cysts in a sample.  Unfortunately it doesn’t identify which species of crypto are present and there is a limited set of species that can cause illness in humans.  Also, the test doesn’t determine if the crypto or giardia cysts are viable or not so the cysts that are counted could be dead.  The testing methods that determine species and viability are very complicated and expensive so most entities choose to go with the common enumeration method.  That being said, it is important to test for these indicator organisms at the untreated/raw water intake point because they are resistant to the typical chemical disinfection processes that use chlorine and the number of ingested viable cysts required for infection is pretty low.  However, filtration at water treatment plants is very effective at removing cysts from the finished drinking water.  And as a final line of defense in the rare instance that crypto or giardia are detected in finished drinking water, boiling will kill the cysts.  In those cases, a water treatment facility would issue a boil order. 
From: kim feil [mailto:kimfeil@sbcglobal.net] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2017 10:49 AM
To: Angela Kilpatrick <KilpatrickA@trinityra.org>
Subject: Question on Clearfork of Trinity River
Does Clearfork of Trinity River feed Lake Arlington? I was noting in Ft Worth’s 2015 water quality report some detects.


From: Craig Cummings <Craig.Cummings@arlingtontx.gov>
To: kim feil <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>
Cc: Craig Cummings <Craig.Cummings@arlingtontx.gov>; Victoria Farrar-Myers <Victoria.Farrar-Myers@arlingtontx.gov>; Robert Shepard <Robert.Shepard@arlingtontx.gov>; Roxanne Thalman <Roxanne.Thalman@arlingtontx.gov>; Kathryn Wilemon <Kathryn.Wilemon@arlingtontx.gov>; Lana Wolff <Lana.Wolff@arlingtontx.gov>; Michael Glaspie <Michael.Glaspie@arlingtontx.gov>; Jeff Williams <Jeff.Williams@arlingtontx.gov>; Sheri Capehart <Sheri.Capehart@arlingtontx.gov>; Trey Yelverton <Trey.Yelverton@arlingtontx.gov>; Jim Parajon <Jim.Parajon@arlingtontx.gov>; Cynthia Simmons <Cynthia.Simmons@arlingtontx.gov>
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2018 5:54 PM
Subject: RE: UTA Clear research may point to TTHM increase in water treatment


Ms. Feil
Since most North Texas water supplies derive their supply from surface water sources, I do not believe there is any causal association from the groundwater withdrawn from very small wells (as noted in the “Impacts from Microorganisms” article) to TTHM (chemicals that are by-products of drinking water disinfection) variations in those surface water supplies. That is certainly the case for the Arlington Water Utilities (AWU). Groundwater is profoundly different from surface water and the article you cite which focuses on increased bacterial counts in groundwater. Since AWU is a surface water supply there would be no association with any of the study conclusions.
There is no scientific evidence that I am aware of, that links TTHM values found in surface water supplies to anything related to fracking, which is viewed as largely a subsurface practice. TTHM’s are a by-product of the application of elemental chlorine to water that has the natural precursors of humic and fulvic acids (resulting from natural plant decay), which are found in most surface waters.
Since AWU utilizes several processes, such as ozonation,  removal of organic precursors by granular activated adsorption, biological removal via biologically active filters, carefully controlled chloramination creation, and optimal distribution system monitoring and control, TTHM formation, although not eliminated, is controlled.
The variations with TTHM values in water from AWU are the result of a very complex set of variables, that again, to my knowledge, have nothing to do with fracking. The biggest factor is probably the amount of naturally occurring organic matter in the source waters for our water treatment facilities.  This is highly variable and is dependent on the amount of organic matter in the reservoirs watersheds that is washed into the reservoirs with storm events and the level of natural biological activity, such as algae growth, that occurs within the reservoirs.
With varying levels of naturally organic precursors, and other factors such as residence time in the distribution system, physical and chemical variations like temperature and pH, TTHM formation can rise and fall in small amounts as identified in the AWU quarterly sampling (done to capture seasonal variations).
Rather than focusing on TTHM levels that may rise and fall in small amounts but are still well below USEPA health-based standards, I think the real story is AWU water has TTHM values well below those standards, the processes employed by AWU are designed to prevent the formation of TTHM’s and although it is a daunting task, AWU is the primary funding source and is working with partners such as the Trinity River Authority to develop a Watershed Master Plan to allow the utility to become eligible for federal grants to improve water quality coming into Lake Arlington.
Lastly, there is a record of the level of constituents (either regulated by USEPA or not) that is shown in the annual Consumer Confidence Report that is made available to all Arlington residents in July of each year. This information can be compared year over year for almost the last 20 years.
Please contact me with any further questions or comments.
—– Forwarded Message —–
From: kim feil <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>
To: “ewg@ewg.org” <ewg@ewg.org>; “craig.cummings@arlingtontx.gov” <craig.cummings@arlingtontx.gov>; Aaron Hoff <hoffa@trinityra.org>; Angela Kilpatrick <kilpatricka@trinityra.org>; Angela Hunt <angela@angelahunt.com>; Buzz Pishkur <buzz.pishkur@arlingtontx.gov>; Kevin A. Schug <kschug@uta.edu>; Zacariah Hildenbrand <zac@informenv.com>; “isantos@utexas.edu” <isantos@utexas.edu>
Cc: Zac Trahan <zac@texasenvironment.org>
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2018 11:52 AM
Subject: UTA Clear/ERG says Arlington TX 2009 best water to 4th worst of recent- how to reconcile if this is a fracking related change?
FYI if we have been increasing water treatments for higher bacteria….I’ll also copy Trinity River Authority and UTA CLEAR for their input…thank you EWG for assisting via your database.
Here is another piece supporting my hypothesis that our higher total trihalomethanes since urban drilling in Arlington may be due to more water treatment products being used due to higher bacteria/microorganisms in our source water…..due to drilling related effluents introduced into the Barnett Shale.
——————-end update———-

Add https:// to the link….www.facebook.com/meghan.oshields.1/videos/1604955919559502/” / to view the THM comments at the meeting in Plano when Erin Brokovich came to town.

End Jan 2018 update.
Update July 27 2017 Regis my cat is home from ICU (see below) and he is NOW out of the woods.  Days after posting his illness after he was drinking tap instead of his usual Arlington filtered, The Environmental Working Group posted their analysis of drinking water contaminants and of course I zipped directly to the TTHM’s to update this post.
I found EWG posted each sample from 2010-2016 instead of the yearly averages I posted below. Arlington has exceeded 100% of almost 200 samples when using California’s .8 ppb ‘protective of public health guideline’ (vs the lax legal limit of 80 ppb).
If you only care about who violated the LEGAL enforceable water quality limits, chick here to see the top 23 countys, https://barnettshalehell.wordpress.com/2017/08/29/oklahoma-has-most-polluted-drinking-water-counties-the-fracking-connection/
Thanks to the Environmental Working Group’s work, you can click here to see what’s in YOUR water, https://www.ewg.org/tapwater/#.WaWW2iiGPIU.

Total trihalomethanes (TTHMs)

City of Arlington

Trihalomethanes are cancer-causing contaminants that form during water treatment with chlorine and other disinfectants. The total trihalomethanes group includes four chemicals: chloroform, bromodichloromethane, dibromochloromethane and bromoform. Read More.



Testing results – average by year

Year Average result Samples taken Detections Range of results
2010 16.1 ppb 8 8 8.30 ppb – 29.5 ppb
2011 13.5 ppb 8 8 9.30 ppb – 18.3 ppb
2012 14.9 ppb 38 38 6.10 ppb – 25.5 ppb
2013 13.7 ppb 49 48 ND – 27.8 ppb
2014 14.1 ppb 48 48 5.80 ppb – 23.3 ppb
2015 15.2 ppb 48 48 8.60 ppb – 24.6 ppb

ppb = parts per billion.

State and national drinking water standards and health guidelines

 The health guideline of 0.8 ppb for trihalomethanes was defined by the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment as a draft public health goal, the level of drinking water contaminant that does not pose a significant health risk. This health guideline protects against cancer.

ppb = parts per billion.

EPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) 80 ppb which is 100 times less protective.

The enforceable federal standard that defines the highest level of a contaminant allowed in drinking water.

ppb = parts per billion.

All Arlington test results

Date Lab ID Result
2010-03-17 1003546007 17.5 ppb
2010-03-17 1003546008 8.30 ppb
2010-06-03 1006171002 29.5 ppb
2010-06-03 1006171003 12.2 ppb
2010-07-15 1007621005 23.1 ppb
2010-07-15 1007621006 18.2 ppb
2010-10-18 1010541001 10.9 ppb
2010-10-18 1010541002 9.10 ppb
2011-01-06 1101098007 13.0 ppb
2011-01-06 1101098008 9.30 ppb
2011-04-14 1104296001 17.0 ppb
2011-04-14 1104296002 11.1 ppb
2011-07-07 1107211001 18.3 ppb
2011-07-07 1107211002 12.0 ppb
2011-10-10 1110303001 14.6 ppb
2011-10-10 1110303002 13.0 ppb
2012-02-01 1202035005 10.1 ppb
2012-02-01 1202035006 6.10 ppb
2012-05-22 1205696008 15.8 ppb
2012-05-22 1205696009 23.3 ppb
2012-05-22 1205696010 23.9 ppb
2012-05-22 1205696011 23.0 ppb
2012-05-22 1205696012 25.5 ppb
2012-05-22 1205696013 15.0 ppb
2012-05-22 1205696014 13.5 ppb
2012-05-22 1205696015 23.7 ppb
2012-05-22 1205696016 13.4 ppb
2012-05-22 1205696017 16.2 ppb
2012-05-22 1205696018 16.0 ppb
2012-05-22 1205696019 21.3 ppb
2012-07-24 1207872001 22.0 ppb
2012-07-24 1207872002 13.8 ppb
2012-07-24 1207872003 14.2 ppb
2012-07-24 1207872004 15.1 ppb
2012-07-24 1207872005 13.6 ppb
2012-07-24 1207872006 13.1 ppb
2012-07-24 1207872007 20.2 ppb
2012-07-24 1207872008 13.5 ppb
2012-07-24 1207872009 20.4 ppb
2012-07-24 1207872010 18.2 ppb
2012-07-24 1207872011 11.1 ppb
2012-07-24 1207872012 10.2 ppb
2012-10-09 1210344001 13.7 ppb
2012-10-09 1210344002 10.4 ppb
2012-10-09 1210344003 11.1 ppb
2012-10-09 1210344004 10.7 ppb
2012-10-09 1210344005 10.8 ppb
2012-10-09 1210344006 11.6 ppb
2012-10-09 1210344007 12.1 ppb
2012-10-09 1210344008 10.4 ppb
2012-10-09 1210344009 12.5 ppb
2012-10-09 1210344010 9.90 ppb
2012-10-09 1210344011 11.1 ppb
2012-10-09 1210344012 9.90 ppb
2013-01-08 1301229006 5.90 ppb
2013-01-08 1301229007 5.70 ppb
2013-01-08 1301229008 6.70 ppb
2013-01-08 1301229009 5.70 ppb
2013-01-08 1301229010 5.00 ppb
2013-01-08 1301229011 6.70 ppb
2013-01-08 1301229012 5.70 ppb
2013-01-08 1301229013 5.30 ppb
2013-01-08 1301229014 6.90 ppb
2013-01-08 1301229015 6.80 ppb
2013-01-08 1301229016 5.40 ppb
2013-01-08 1301229017 7.20 ppb
2013-04-09 1304412007 9.30 ppb
2013-04-09 1304412008 6.90 ppb
2013-04-09 1304412009 7.80 ppb
2013-04-09 1304412010 7.80 ppb
2013-04-09 1304412011 8.10 ppb
2013-04-09 1304412012 8.80 ppb
2013-04-09 1304412013 8.70 ppb
2013-04-09 1304412014 6.40 ppb
2013-04-09 1304412015 8.90 ppb
2013-04-09 1304412016 7.20 ppb
2013-04-09 1304412017 8.80 ppb
2013-04-09 1304412018 7.30 ppb
2013-07-09 Q1303504013 ND
2013-07-09 Q1303504015 19.4 ppb
2013-07-09 Q1303504016 24.2 ppb
2013-07-09 Q1303504017 27.2 ppb
2013-07-09 Q1303504018 24.2 ppb
2013-07-09 Q1303504019 27.8 ppb
2013-07-09 Q1303504020 25.8 ppb
2013-07-09 Q1303504021 19.8 ppb
2013-07-09 Q1303504022 24.8 ppb
2013-07-09 Q1303504023 18.1 ppb
2013-07-09 Q1303504024 22.8 ppb
2013-07-09 Q1303504025 27.7 ppb
2013-07-09 Q1303504026 26.1 ppb
2013-10-17 Q1308977014 15.3 ppb
2013-10-17 Q1308977015 20.4 ppb
2013-10-17 Q1308977016 19.2 ppb
2013-10-17 Q1308977017 20.2 ppb
2013-10-17 Q1308977018 20.8 ppb
2013-10-17 Q1308977019 17.7 ppb
2013-10-17 Q1308977020 12.9 ppb
2013-10-17 Q1308977021 18.1 ppb
2013-10-17 Q1308977022 15.4 ppb
2013-10-17 Q1308977023 17.1 ppb
2013-10-17 Q1308977024 18.1 ppb
2013-10-17 Q1308977025 20.6 ppb
2014-02-11 Q1404025001 8.50 ppb
2014-02-11 Q1404025002 13.2 ppb
2014-02-11 Q1404025003 8.30 ppb
2014-02-11 Q1404025004 9.30 ppb
2014-02-11 Q1404025005 5.80 ppb
2014-02-11 Q1404025006 7.90 ppb
2014-02-11 Q1404025007 8.10 ppb
2014-02-11 Q1404025008 7.30 ppb
2014-02-11 Q1404025009 8.70 ppb
2014-02-11 Q1404025010 8.90 ppb
2014-02-11 Q1404025011 8.60 ppb
2014-02-11 Q1404025012 9.50 ppb
2014-04-30 Q1413772005 12.8 ppb
2014-04-30 Q1413772006 10.4 ppb
2014-04-30 Q1413772007 10.6 ppb
2014-04-30 Q1413772008 10.7 ppb
2014-04-30 Q1413772009 11.4 ppb
2014-04-30 Q1413772010 10.4 ppb
2014-04-30 Q1413772011 13.4 ppb
2014-04-30 Q1413772012 10.6 ppb
2014-04-30 Q1413772013 12.6 ppb
2014-04-30 Q1413772014 12.7 ppb
2014-04-30 Q1413772015 11.1 ppb
2014-04-30 Q1413772016 11.0 ppb
2014-07-16 Q1428390003 15.8 ppb
2014-07-16 Q1428390004 21.7 ppb
2014-07-16 Q1428390005 23.3 ppb
2014-07-16 Q1428390006 20.4 ppb
2014-07-16 Q1428390007 20.3 ppb
2014-07-16 Q1428390008 19.9 ppb
2014-07-16 Q1428390009 14.6 ppb
2014-07-16 Q1428390010 16.9 ppb
2014-07-16 Q1428390011 17.4 ppb
2014-07-16 Q1428390012 15.8 ppb
2014-07-16 Q1428390013 19.1 ppb
2014-07-16 Q1428390014 21.9 ppb
2014-10-15 Q1452722001 15.4 ppb
2014-10-15 Q1452722002 18.9 ppb
2014-10-15 Q1452722003 17.6 ppb
2014-10-15 Q1452722004 18.2 ppb
2014-10-15 Q1452722005 17.7 ppb
2014-10-15 Q1452722006 16.6 ppb
2014-10-15 Q1452722007 16.7 ppb
2014-10-15 Q1452722008 17.6 ppb
2014-10-15 Q1452722009 17.4 ppb
2014-10-15 Q1452722010 17.1 ppb
2014-10-15 Q1452722011 18.0 ppb
2014-10-15 Q1452722012 16.5 ppb
2015-01-21 Q1502500006 8.60 ppb
2015-01-21 Q1502500007 9.60 ppb
2015-01-21 Q1502500008 11.2 ppb
2015-01-21 Q1502500009 11.7 ppb
2015-01-21 Q1502500013 11.4 ppb
2015-01-21 Q1502500014 8.90 ppb
2015-01-21 Q1502500015 9.30 ppb
2015-01-21 Q1502500016 9.40 ppb
2015-01-21 Q1502500017 8.70 ppb
2015-01-21 Q1502500018 9.40 ppb
2015-01-21 Q1502500019 9.80 ppb
2015-01-21 Q1502500020 8.80 ppb
2015-04-28 Q1515602006 20.4 ppb
2015-04-28 Q1515602007 18.6 ppb
2015-04-28 Q1515602008 17.4 ppb
2015-04-28 Q1515602009 17.3 ppb
2015-04-28 Q1515602010 17.1 ppb
2015-04-28 Q1515602011 19.2 ppb
2015-04-28 Q1515602012 19.8 ppb
2015-04-28 Q1515602013 16.8 ppb
2015-04-28 Q1515602014 18.2 ppb
2015-04-28 Q1515602015 20.0 ppb
2015-04-28 Q1515602016 18.9 ppb
2015-04-28 Q1515602017 18.4 ppb
2015-07-21 Q1528156001 10.9 ppb
2015-07-21 Q1528156002 11.7 ppb
2015-07-21 Q1528156003 11.2 ppb
2015-07-21 Q1528156004 12.7 ppb
2015-07-21 Q1528156005 14.1 ppb
2015-07-21 Q1528156006 10.7 ppb
2015-07-21 Q1528156007 13.0 ppb
2015-07-21 Q1528156008 14.0 ppb
2015-07-21 Q1528156009 12.8 ppb
2015-07-21 Q1528156010 16.4 ppb
2015-07-21 Q1528156013 18.2 ppb
2015-07-21 Q1528156014 15.1 ppb
2015-10-20 Q1541213001 17.3 ppb
2015-10-20 Q1541213002 24.2 ppb
2015-10-20 Q1541213003 24.6 ppb
2015-10-20 Q1541213004 20.4 ppb
2015-10-20 Q1541213005 21.4 ppb
2015-10-20 Q1541213006 17.5 ppb
2015-10-20 Q1541213007 16.9 ppb
2015-10-20 Q1541213008 18.7 ppb
2015-10-20 Q1541213009 12.1 ppb
2015-10-20 Q1541213010 16.4 ppb
2015-10-20 Q1541213011 16.6 ppb
2015-10-20 Q1541213012 22.1 ppb
Update 7/24/2017regis
—– Forwarded Message —–
From: kim feil <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>
To: Buzz Pishkur <buzz.pishkur@arlingtontx.gov>
Cc: Trey Yelverton <trey.yelverton@arlingtontx.gov>; Jeff Williams <jeff.williams@arlingtontx.gov>; Robert Rivera <robert.rivera@arlingtontx.gov>; Charlie Parker <charlie.parker@arlingtontx.gov>; Michael Glaspie <michael.glaspie@arlingtontx.gov>; Kathryn Wilemon <kathryn.wilemon@arlingtontx.gov>; Sheri Capehart <sheri.capehart@arlingtontx.gov>; Victoria Myers <victoria.farrar-myers@arlingtontx.gov>; Lana Wolff <lana.wolff@arlingtontx.gov>; Robert Shepard <robert.shepard@arlingtontx.gov>; John Dugan <john.dugan@arlingtontx.gov>
Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 7:56 AM
Subject: FYI on how my male cat got sick after switching from filtered to tap
Within days my male tabby got a bladder block when my husband started changing their water in the morning and was using tap instead of filtered…cost me $2,400 (make that $3,000) and the cat is in ICU as I type this…please know that I am not pointing fingers but merely stating the timeliness of this event as my 4 year old outdoor cat, Regis, has never been sick.
Update 5/20/2017 – Here is a study on the TTHM and kidney cancer connection….https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22480171 part of the abstract reads “The municipality of residence for cancer cases and controls was presumed to be the source of the subject’s TTHM and hardness exposure via drinking water. Relative to individuals whose TTHM exposure level was <4.9 ppb, the adjusted OR (95% CI) for kidney cancer was 0.98 (0.77-1.25) for individuals who resided in municipalities served by drinking water with a TTHM exposure ≥4.9 ppb. However, evidence of an interaction was noted between the use of soft water and drinking water TTHM concentrations. Increased knowledge of the interaction between hardness and TTHM levels in reducing risk of kidney cancer development will aid in public policy decision and establishing standards to prevent disease occurrence”.
While this pic below shows one of Arlington’s residents’ proximity to a drill site upon hearing of her passing…it was an aggressive kidney cancer that she succumbed to and it is sickening to know how our TTHM’s have shot up since we started fracking and so it begins?……
easterly dead

Total Trihalomethanes are the unwanted byproduct of disinfecting polluted water.

TTHM has no federal guideline for a margin of safety in a MCLG. Maximum Contaminant Level Goal assures us that below a certain level there is no known or expected risk to health.

Trihalomethanes aren’t found in drilling wastewater, but there can be a link. The waste stream often contains bromide, a salt, which reacts with chlorine disinfectants used by drinking water systems to kill microbes. That interaction creates trihalomethanes.

The EPA says people who drink water with elevated levels of trihalomethanes for many years have an increased risk of getting cancer and could also develop problems of the liver, kidney or central nervous system”.

In 2009 Arlington TX had a spike where TTHM’s went as high as 26 ppb. While still under the 80 ppb MCL (maximum contaminant level), this was a dramatic departure from the second highest max of 16.3 ppb in 2010.

The good news for 2009 was that the average was 14.7 ppb, so the spike did not persist the whole year, but the overall range in TTHM’s have almost TRIPLED since we embraced Urban Drilling.

Note *Ft Worth’s TTHM’s have been chronically averaging about 45 ppb and have finally started dropping in 2012 which I believe correlates to the reduced drilling in the Barnett Shale.

Impressively compared to Ft Worth, Arlington’s TTHM were low. In averaging the range from 2003-2006, the TTHM’s had a range of 4.4 – 5.8 ppb. So that averages to 5 ppb in PREDRILLING. But since drilling….

              Postdrilling  2007 our AVERAGE TTHM’s  =  8.1 ppb
                                       2008                                                 10.2 ppb
                                         2009                                                 14.7 ppb  max 26 ppb
                                         2010                                                 15.9 ppb
                                         2011                                                 13.9 ppb
                                         2012                                                 13.6 ppb
                                         2013                                                 12.4 ppb
                                         2014                                                 14.4 ppb
                                         2015                                                 15.1 ppb
                                         2016                                                 12.6 ppb

The change was an increase in TTHM’s by a factor 2.6 or 160% increase in Arlington’s drinking water.

At the very least our water reports should be broken down into two reports as we have two treatment plants.

At the very best, Arlington residents should be able to view a report online and when hovering over a field, the link to the raw data should be accessible.

We need access to transparent, usable information such as which water treatment plant was involved and the duration of the spike event.

I am willing to bet that the Arlington water treatment plant that had the spike in 2009 came from Lake Arlington  which is home to many drill sites on the lake’s edge on the Ft Worth side. Was the spike in TTHM related to an unreported fracking spill that was bigger than the 2010 spill in Lake Arlington ?

Here is a cut & paste from our 2014 City of Arlington Drinking Water Quality Report that I boldfaced items of interest…

“The water in Arlington is treated at two state of the art water treatment plants. Ozone is used as the primary disinfectant. Aluminum sulfate and a cationic polymer are added to help dirt and other particles clump together and settle out during treatment. The water is then filtered through granular activated carbon beds to remove smaller particles and substances that are dissolved in the water. The water is then chloraminated (treated with chlorine and then ammonia) as it enters the clearwell for storage. Chloramine is the secondary disinfectant that keeps the water safe on its way to your faucet”.

Here is an article about a fracking waste water study that showed that Barium & Strontium doubled in Ernst’s aquifer in Canada and claims the confirmation that drilling related waste water causes cancer.

http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/new-study-confirms-fracking-wastewater-is-cancer-causing-barium-and-strontium-were-elevated-in-frac-flowback-water-exposed-cells-encana-and-alberta-government-testing-showed-barium-strontium-d…… “ ‘Malignant human cell transformation of Marcellus Shale gas drilling flow back water,’ is the first study of its kind to confirm widely held suspicions concerning the carcinogenicity of fracking pollution”.

I did blog and contacted our city about seeing bromate start to appear in our Arlington drinking water reports in 2007 when we started drilling. Bromide is in drilling mud and turns into Bromate, a disinfectant by product.

And here is my most recent letter to our city and university leaders on the subject of water quality precautions since we NOW live in a drilling town.

—– Forwarded Message —–
From: kim feil <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>
To: Kevin A. Schug <kschug@uta.edu>
Cc: Zacariah Hildenbrand <zac@informenv.com>; Desiree Plata <desiree.plata@yale.edu>; Jim Platt <jim.platt@halliburton.com>; Cynthia Simmons <cynthia.simmons@arlingtontx.gov>; Brett Shipp <bshipp@wfaa.com>
Sent: Friday, January 8, 2016 12:08 PM
Subject: How can UTArlington help w/treat&release risks that enhance disinfection byproducts to our drinking water?
Mr Schug, as more injection wells are shut down or reduced in volumes for produced water disposal from the oil & gas industry in Oklahoma, I am hoping we can be ready in the event that more seismicitiy begins to occur here in Texas.
Limiting injection wells or *above ground storage pits of produced waste water could cause an interest in more private, drilling related recycling waste water companies to pop up and worsen/complicate the toxicity of waters that can be legally discharged west of the 98th meridian that could affect our drinking water supplies.
Several days ago a 23 year old died in Midland mixing chemicals for a company that recycles oil & gas waste water…we need at the very least for the industry to understand that the use of NON-chemical treatments is advised….we need to push for new laws that prohibit the use of chemicals to treat industrial waste waters.
How can UT Arlington be of service in any or all of these aspects?
Here is some RRC permitting information & correspondence with the EPA on this topic of permitting the release of treated oil & gas waste waters where allowed…
*above ground waste water holding pits are not allowed in Urban Drilling areas but HB40 could challenge that as cities can regulate “only surface activity that is incident to an oil and gas operation” but only if the city ordinance “permits a reasonably prudent operator to fully, effectively, and economically exploit, develop, produce, process, and transport oil and gas.”
At some point we could be forced to let them use the most economical disposal of waste fluids and need to be ready with protective laws to reduce the load on what our municipal drinking water plants can treat.
—– Forwarded Message —–
From: kim feil <kimfeil@sbcglobal.net>
To: Buzz Pishkur <buzz.pishkur@arlingtontx.gov>
Cc: Cynthia Simmons <cynthia.simmons@arlingtontx.gov>; Trey Yelverton <trey.yelverton@arlingtontx.gov>; Jim Parajon <jim.parajon@arlingtontx.gov>; Jeff Williams <jeff.williams@arlingtontx.gov>; “wamitch@stanford.edu” <wamitch@stanford.edu>; Jenny Narvaez <jnarvaez@nctcog.org>
Sent: Friday, January 8, 2016 11:31 AM
Subject: scientists find in northeast enhanced disinfection byproducts – we need Barnett Shale study/recommendations
Please comment on if you can get NCTCOG to work on this, thanks.


Enhanced Formation of Disinfection Byproducts in Shale Gas Wastewater-Impacted Drinking Water Supplies

—–end love letters——begin Work IN Process Arlington collection of drinking water quality reports no longer available online and no longer being mailed to Arlington residents—————-

2003 http://www.arlington-tx.gov/water/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/05/2004-Water-Bill-Inserts.pdf

2004  http://www.arlington-tx.gov/water/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/05/2005-Water-Bill-Inserts.pdf 

2005 http://www.arlington-tx.gov/water/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/05/2005-Water-Bill-Inserts.pdf








2013 http://www.arlington-tx.gov/water/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/05/2013-Water-Quality-Report.pdf

2014 http://www.arlington-tx.gov/water/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2014/05/2014-Water-Quality-Report.pdf


*Here is Ft Worth’s TTHM’s in ppb by year…note they have been drilling longer (1998) than Arlington and have had persistently higher TTHM’s that average 45 ppb from 2003-2012. The decrease in 2013 & 2014 could be related to the decrease in drilling the Barnett Shale.

2003  39 ppb

2004  37

2005  48

2006 38

2007 51

2008 52

2009 45

2010 49

2011 50

2012 38

2013 22

2014 26

2015 28



About Kim Triolo Feil

Since TX Statute 253.005 forbids drilling in heavily settled municipalities, I unsuccessfully ran for City Council Seat to try to enforce this. Since Urban Drilling, our drinking water has almost tripled for TTHM's. Before moving to Arlington in 1990, I lived in Norco’s “cancer alley”, a refinery town. It was only after Urban Drilling in Arlington did I start having health effects. After our drill site was established closest to my home, the chronic nosebleeds started. I know there are more canaries here in Arlington having reactions to our industrialized airshed (we have 55-60 padsites of gas wells). Come forward and report to me those having health issues especially if you live to the north/northwest of a drill site so I can map your health effects on this blog. My youtube account is KimFeilGood. FAIR USE NOTICE: THIS SITE MAY CONTAIN COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL THE USE OF WHICH HAS NOT ALWAYS BEEN SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE COPYRIGHT OWNER. MATERIAL FROM DIVERSE AND SOMETIMES TEMPORARY SOURCES IS BEING MADE AVAILABLE IN A PERMANENT UNIFIED MANNER, AS PART OF AN EFFORT TO ADVANCE UNDERSTANDING OF THE SOCIAL JUSTICE ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH EMINENT DOMAIN AND THE PRIVATIZATION OF PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE (AMONG OTHER THINGS). IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS IS A 'FAIR USE' OF THE INFORMATION AS ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 107 OF THE US COPYRIGHT LAW. IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 USC SECTION 107, THE SITE IS MAINTAINED WITHOUT PROFIT FOR THOSE WHO ACCESS IT FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. FOR MORE INFORMATION, SEE: HTTP://WWW.LAW.CORNELL.EDU/ TO USE MATERIAL REPRODUCED ON THIS SITE FOR PURPOSES THAT GO BEYOND 'FAIR USE', PERMISSION IS REQUIRED FROM THE COPYRIGHT OWNER INDICATED WITH A NAME AND INTERNET LINK AT THE END OF EACH ITEM. (NOTE: THE TEXT OF THIS NOTICE WAS ALSO LIFTED FROM CORRIDORNEWS.BLOGSPOT.COM)
This entry was posted in fluoride, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

1 Response to Urban Drilling correlates w/almost TRIPLE TTHM in Arlington TX drink’n water + 2009 anomaly (spill ?)

  1. Pingback: oh dang this poem | Kimfeilgood's Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s