MEMORANDUM 

TO: Public Record for the 2010 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan 

 EPA Docket Number EPA-HQ-OW-2008-0517 (www.regulations.gov) 

FROM: Carey A. Johnston, P.E. 

USEPA/OW/OST 

ph: (202) 566 1014 

johnston.carey@epa.gov 

DATE: 28 October 2008 

SUBJECT: Notes from 15 October 2008 Meeting with National Tribal Water Council, 

Arlington, VA Regarding the Coalbed Methane Detailed Study and 

Information Collection Request (ICR) 

 EPA and representatives from the National Tribal Water Council participated in a 

meeting on 15 October 2008 to discuss the status of EPA’s Coalbed Methane (CBM) 

Detailed Study and Information Collection Request (ICR). The list of meeting 

participants is provided in Attachment 1. A copy of the presentation is provided in 

Attachment 2. 
Attachment 1: National Tribal Water Council – EPA Meeting 

Embassy Suites Crystal City- Arlington, VA, October 15 & 16, 2008 

PARTICIPANT CONTACT LIST

NTWC

Alex Cabillo Hualapai Tribe acabillo@hotmail.com

Ann Marie Chischilly GilaRiver Indian Community annmarie.chischilly@gric.nsn.org

Carlyle Ducheneaux Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe cducheneaux@crstepd.org

Daniel Chythlook Aleknagik Traditional Council drc0515@yahoo.com

Dave Fuller Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe dfuller@pgst.nsn.us

Denise Jensen Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska winnewater@winnebagotribe.com

Ken Norton Hoopa Valley Tribe knorton@hoopa-nsn.gov

Michael Bolt Eastern Band/Cherokee Indians michbolt@nc-cherokee.com

Nancy John Cherokee Nation njohn@cherokee.org

Nancy Schuldt Fond du Lac Band/Lake Superior Chippewa nancyschuldt@fdlrez.com

René Rickard Haudenosaunee Envt’l Task Force/Tuscarora rene.rickard@starband.net

S. Deb Misra Navajo Nation EPA sdebmisra@yahoo.com

Steve Crawford Passamaquoddy Tribe@ Pleasant Point stevecrawford@wabanaki.com

Kathleen Hill NTWC Project Manager tribal_water_council@hotmail.com

Joseph Dupris NTWC Project Administrator tribal_water_council@hotmail.com

Lorraine Taggart NTWC – NTWC Support elfie8@hotmail.com

EPA

Cheryl Chipman EPA-OCFO-OB chipman.cheryl@epa.gov

Christopher Hoff EPA-AIEO hoff.chris@epa.gov

David Harvey EPA-OGWDW harvey.david@epa.gov

Elin Betanzo EPA-OGWDW betanzo.elin@epa.gov

Frances Desselle EPA-OW-OST desselle.frances@epa.gov

Carey Johnston EPA-OW-OST johnston.carey@epa.gov

Judy Davis EPA-OW/OWM davis.judy@epa.gov

Loren Setlow EPA-OAR-ORIA setlow.loren@epa.gov

Marjorie Copeland EPA-OW-OGWDW copeland.marjorie@epa.gov

Mike Shapiro EPA-OW-DAA shapiro.mike@epa.gov

Nanci Gelb EPA-OGWDW gelb.nanci@epa.gov

Nizanna Bathersfield EPA/OWM bathersfield.nizanna@epa.gov

Stephen Hoffman EPA-OSW-Mining hoffman.stephen@epa.gov

Summer Goodwin EPA-OW goodwin.summer@epa.gov

Tom Wall EPA-OW wall.tom@epa.gov

Wendy Drake EPA-OW drake.wendy@epa.gov

Other Participants 

Bonnie S. Hillsberg National Indian Health Board bhillsberg@hinb.org

Dana Baer Indian Health Service dana.baer@ihs.gov

Jodi Eimers U.S. Geological Survey jleimers@usgs.gov 
 

Attachment 2: 

EPA Presentation to National Tribal Water Council 

Arlington, VA 

15 October 2008 
National Tribal Water Council Meeting

Oil & Gas Drilling - Update & Discussio

15 October 2008
15 October 2008 National Tribal Water Council Meeting P

Presentation Overview

• EPA’s Study of Coalbed Methane 

Produced Water Management

• EPA’s Recent Review of Discharge 

Standards for Cook Inlet, Alaska.

• Questions?

CBM Prod

Gathering 
15 October 2008 National Tribal Water Council Meeting P

 Higher natural gas prices and advances in drilling technology ha

prompt recent CBM development. 

 In 2004, CBM accounted for about 10.4% of the total U.S. natur

production and is expanding in multiple basin across the U.S.

 Current National Production (2004) w/ +25,000 wells = 1.7TCF/

Source: Annual Energy Outlook 20

Utah: 0.082 TCF/yrEastern States (PA, VA, WV): 0.072 Western States (KS, MT, OK): 0.077 

New Mexico: 0.528 TCF/yrColorado: 0.520 TCF/yrWyoming: 0.320 TCF/yrAlabama: 0.121 TCF/yr

• DOE/EIA expects CBM production to remain an important source 

domestic natural gas: 1.81 TCF/yr (2015) and 1.88 TCF/yr (2025BLM and States projections this will likely involve over 100,000 C

– For example, ~ 5% of WY CBM reserves have been produced

Identification of CBM Sector for Detailed Study
15 October 2008 National Tribal Water Council Meeting P

• EPA’s two national databases for estimating pollutant disc

contain very little data for this industrial sector.

– Discharge Monitoring Data (PCS & ICIS): Most data held at the Sta

– Toxics Release Inventory: O&G extraction (SIC 1311) is exempt fro

• Consequently, EPA focused on identifying other sources o

data, potential new technology options for this industry, anstakeholder issues.

• EPA received comments from public interest groups on th

sector in the 2004 and 2006 Plans.

– Tongue River Water Users’ Association requested protection of 

River’s existing sodium levels so that it can continue to be used for 

– NRDC cited the need for consistent, national regulations instead of 

determined permitting based on BPJ.

– Cook Inlet Keeper commented on the 2003 annual review that EP

expand its examination of available data on the impacts of CBM-prdischarges.

Identification of CBM Sector for Detailed Study
15 October 2008 National Tribal Water Council Meeting P

Source: Evaluation of Impacts to Underground Sources of Drinking Water by Hydraulic Fracturing of Methane Reservoirs, EPA 816-R-04-003, www.epa.gov/safewater, June 2004.

Note: Alaska also has CBM reserves

CBM Detailed Study: National in Scope
15 October 2008 National Tribal Water Council Meeting P

 EPA’s CBM Detailed Study is national in scope. However, EPA will exam

basin separately to identify potential pollutant discharges and technolog

 Produced water volumes can vary greatly over time, between and within 

basins, and may be very large.

– Production volumes range from 1,000 to 17,000 gal/day/well in the San Juan 

River Basins, respectively.

 Pollutants in CBM produced water also vary between basins. For examp

dissolved solids (TDS) vary widely depending on basin geology.

– Eastern U.S.: TDS concentrations typically range from 500 to 27,000 mg/L w

wells over 50,000 mg/L.

– Western U.S.: TDS concentrations range from 400 to 2,000 mg/L (Powder R

9,000 to 11,000 mg/L (Wind River), to approximately 50,000 mg/L (San Juan 

 CBM produced water may also contain small amounts of metals and so

and semi-volatile organic compounds.

CBM Detailed Study: Basin Specific
15 October 2008 National Tribal Water Council Meeting P

Source: USGS Open-File Report 00-372pubs.usgs.gov/of/2000/ofr-00-372/OF00-372.pdf 

Example of CBM Produced Water Chemistry Changing with Geographic Location: Powder River Basin (MT/WY)
15 October 2008 National Tribal Water Council Meeting P

Source: Handbook on Coal Bed Methane Produced Water: Management and Benefi

Use Alternatives, ALL Consulting, http://www.all-llc.com/CBM/BU/index.htm, July 200

This graph shows the increased production of water in the early life CBM well.

W

Example of CBM Produced Water Discharge VoChanging with Time
15 October 2008 National Tribal Water Council Meeting P

 CBM produced water of a suitable 

quality can be used for beneficial use. Key controls are TDS and Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR).

– Beneficial use technologies include 

sub-drip irrigation, irrigation, livestock watering all either with or without treatment.

Irrigation with CBM Produced Water (Pow

 Treatment options include iro

(aeration), coagulation/preciposmosis (RO), countercurren(CCIX), fixed bed ion exchanprecipitation, surface impoundownhole separation, and re

– Reduces TDS, SAR, and m– Iron oxidation is typically pe

discharge locations as part discoloration of discharge p

CCIX resin contract chamber 

(Powder River Basin, WY)

Coalbed Methane Technology Options (Exampl
15 October 2008 National Tribal Water Council Meeting Pa

• Major Tasks for Data Collection and Analysis:

– Information Collection Request (ICR) for technical, economic, and e

data from a wide range of CBM operations across the Nation.

– Site Visits & misc. secondary data sources (e.g., DOE/EIA data)– Stakeholder meetings in the major CBM basins.– EPA contacted over 700 people in eight states during the 66 outrea

collection activities in 2007 and 2008. 

• Stakeholders: 

– So far: API, regional trade associations, individual companies, treat

vendors, DOE, BuRec, BLM, States, Landowners, Indian Nations 

• Schedule: 

– First ICR Federal Register notice (1/25/08). Comment period closed – Second ICR Federal Register notice (7/15/08). Comment period clo– Distribute First and Second Phases of Survey (late November & Fe

CWA 304(m) Detailed Study: Coalbed Methane E
15 October 2008 National Tribal Water Council Meeting Pa

 EPA received 37 comments on the first Federal Register notice 

– Industry comments (27)– Federal government (BLM, FWS, BuRec) – Public Interest Group (Tongue River Water Users' Association, Oil 

Accountability Project, Citizens for Responsible Development)

– Private Citizens (2); – Local Government (City of Raton); and – OK Congressional Delegation.

 EPA received 19 comments on the second Federal Register not

– Industry comments (17)– Public Interest Group (Trout Unlimited, Western Organization of Re

Councils)

EPA CBM ICR: Public Comments and Recent Ou
15 October 2008 National Tribal Water Council Meeting Pa

• Burden Reduction: Industry expressed concern for the very large amounts 

information requested for individual wells, and that the burden to provide sucinformation for all wells would not be reasonable for industry and would also resources and would not be used productively. They requested more time to 

surveys.

• Providing Sensitive Financial Data: CBM representatives asserted that de

and firm-level financial data are extremely sensitive, and most companies woto financial data requests because of concerns for protection of these very se

the undemonstrated need for the data.

• Variable Gas Prices: Wide variations in natural gas prices, types of surface 

mineral rights, pipeline availability, and demand issues further confound EPA

perform a realistic economic analysis.

• Firm Level Financial Questions: Financial questions at the firm level are in

because decisions about whether to produce are made at the project level. E

ask for financial data above the immediate owner/operator; financial data frolevel is what is most relevant.

• CBM Basin Differences: CBM well circumstances (e.g., produced water qua

available and applicable produced waste management and control technolog

diverse and complex geographically and geologically, and the draft question

address this complexity and variation.

EPA CBM ICR: Industry Public Comments
15 October 2008 National Tribal Water Council Meeting Pa

• All Public Interest Groups are supportive of EPA’s efforts to better unde

treatment technology options applicable to the CBM industry and urge implement technology-based effluent limits for this extractive industry.

• Several commenters expressed a desire for EPA to include questions i

potential “community costs”:

• “OGAP understands the need to assess the financial implications of such a g

industry, as well as the need to identify management options available from perspective. However, we respectfully request that you include in your questalternative section on “community costs” that will assess the costs to commu

these discharges.” Oil and Gas Accountability Project

• On page A-6, under ii (c), the supporting statement describes how EPA will e

economic impacts of adopting effluent control technologies (on state and loccollections, employment, etc). If EPA is going to determine whether or not to 

controls in part on the secondary economic costs, EPA should net out the po

economic impacts of reducing pollution costs on landowners, water users, an

environment.” Western Organization of Resource Councils 

• Environmental Data Collection: Several commenters encouraged EP

environmental data in the survey and through open literature: “TU enco

to consider information from other sources [outside the ICR] that docum

ecological consequences that can arise from product water disposal.” T

EPA CBM ICR: Public Interest Group Comments
15 October 2008 National Tribal Water Council Meeting Pa

For more information on EPA’s study on CBM...

 More information is available on EPA’s website at:

– http://www.epa.gov/guide/304m/index.html#coalbed.

 EPA project lead is Mr. Carey Johnston, 202-566-1014, 

johnston.carey@epa.gov.

 FYI – there are other related studies underway on the top

produced water management:

– National Research Council (BLM funding)– Bureau of Reclamation (potential for re-use of CBM produc– Colorado School of Mines (DOE funding)
15 October 2008 National Tribal Water Council Meeting Pa

 Oil production in Cook Inlet peaked several decades ago and is now 

as most of the oil resources are now extracted. Natural gas exploraproduction is also now on the decline.

 This means that fewer and fewer wells each year are being drilled a

cuttings are being treated and discharged. However, as is common oil fields, operators are pumping and processing more water than oInlet. Consequently, the volume of produced water being dischargeInlet is trending upwards.

 Most of the 16 platforms in Cook Inlet were constructed from 1964 t

most recently constructed platform (Osprey) began operation in 200not discharge pollutants.

 Water movement in Cook Inlet is dominated by the tidal cycle and s

influenced by the freshwater inputs from rivers and precipitation. Thare constructed in water depths that range from 46 to 184 feet.

EPA’s Review of Discharge Standards in Cook 
15 October 2008 National Tribal Water Council Meeting Pa

 EPA promulgated effluent guidelines for the Coastal subcategory (S

16 December 1996 (61 FR 66086). With one exception EPA’s Coasban the discharge of drilling fluid, cuttings, produced water, deck dr

produced sand, and other miscellaneous oil field wastes.

 In the final 1996 rule EPA allowed coastal operators in Cook Inlet, A

discharge and set the limits for coastal Cook Inlet equal to the Offshsubcategory for produced water and aqueous drilling fluids and cutt

 EPA did not identify injection of drill cuttings and produced water as 

BAT limitations or NSPS due to:

– Uncertainties regarding the availability of geologic formations suitable fo– Limited availability to onshore disposal for drilling wastes; and – Potential economic impacts (EPA’s economic analyses predicted that 1 

close and 2 additional platforms would suffer severe economic impacts 

discharge option).

EPA’s Review of Discharge Standards in Cook 
15 October 2008 National Tribal Water Council Meeting Pa

 Several Cook Inlet native villages and Cook Inlet Keeper submitted c

the preliminary 2004 Plan asking for EPA to revise the Coastal ELGs 

discharge of produced waters and aqueous drill fluids and cuttings.

 EPA conducted several analyses to response to these comments an

not initiate an effluent guidelines rulemaking:

– Pollutant discharges from the 16 platforms and their related shore-based 

relatively low compared to other industrial toxic discharges. 

– Newer injection technology might also make injection of produced water 

and cuttings more available. However, EPA does not know how widely thtechnologies can be used across all Cook Inlet facilities (due to site spec

geologic formations).

– EPA also identified that production at the 1960’s platforms was declining 

1996 rule and has continued its production decline. That is, in 2004 EPA 

Cook Inlet facilities could be considered as marginal (less able to afford 

associated with achieving zero discharge) and that only a few wells are d

 Region 10 is the current permitting authority for Cook Inlet. They iss

NPDES general permit for Cook Inlet on 31 May 2007 (72 FR 30377

 In 2007 Trustees for Alaska, on behalf of Cook Inletkeeper, two Nati

two fishermen’s groups, sought review of this NPDES permit.

EPA’s Review of Discharge Standards in Cook 
15 October 2008 National Tribal Water Council Meeting Pa

Any questions?

 Please contact me if you have any questions:

– Carey A. Johnston, P.E.

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW (4303T)Washington, DC 20460202-566-1014johnston.carey@epa.gov