# MEMORANDUM

TO: Public Record for the 2010 E ffluent 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 Meet ing with National Tr ibal Water Council,

Arlington, VA Regarding the Coalbed Methane Detailed Study and

Information Collection Request (ICR)

EPA and representatives from the Nationa l Tribal Water Council participated in a

meeting on 15 October 2008 to discuss the st atus 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 Trib al Water Council – EPA Meeting

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



# P ARTICIPANT 

# C ONTACT 

# L IST

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 Passamaquod dy 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 Nati onal Tribal Water Council

Arlington, VA

15 October 2008Office of WaterNational Tribal Water Council MeetingOil & Gas Drilling - Update & Discussion15 October 2008Office of WaterPage 2 of 1815 October 2008 National Tribal Water Council MeetingPresentation Overview• EPA’s Study of Coalbed MethaneProduced Water Management• EPA’s Recent Review of DischargeStandards for Cook Inlet, Alaska.• Questions?CBM Produced WaterGathering Pipes (WY)Office of WaterPage 3 of 1815 October 2008 National Tribal Water Council MeetingHigher natural gas prices and advances in drilling technology have helpedprompt recent CBM development.In 2004, CBM accounted for about 10.4% of the total U.S. natural gasproduction and is expanding in multiple basin across the U.S.Current National Production (2004)w/ +25,000 wells = 1.7TCF/yrSource:Annual Energy Outlook 2006 (DOE/EIA)Utah: 0.082 TCF/yrEastern States (PA, VA, WV): 0.072 TCF/yrWestern States (KS, MT, OK): 0.077 TCF/yrNew 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 of thedomestic natural gas: 1.81 TCF/yr (2015) and 1.88 TCF/yr (2025). Based onBLM and States projections this will likely involve over 100,000 CBM wells.– For example, ~ 5% of WYCBM reserves have been producedIdentification of CBM Sector for Detailed StudyOffice of WaterPage 4 of 1815 October 2008 National Tribal Water Council Meeting• EPA’s two national databases for estimating pollutant dischargescontain very little data for this industrial sector.– Discharge Monitoring Data (PCS & ICIS): Most data held at the State level.– Toxics Release Inventory: O&G extraction (SIC 1311) isexempt from reporting.• Consequently, EPA focused on identifying other sources of dischargedata, potential new technologyoptions for this industry, andstakeholder issues.• EPA received comments from public interest groups on this industrysector in the 2004 and 2006 Plans.–Tongue River Water Users’ Associationrequested protection of the TongueRiver’s existing sodium levels so that it can continue to be used for irrigation.–NRDCcited the need for consistent, national regulations instead of statedetermined permitting based on BPJ.–Cook Inlet Keepercommented on the 2003 annualreview that EPA shouldexpand its examination of available dataon the impacts of CBM-produced waterdischarges.Identification of CBM Sector for Detailed StudyOffice of WaterPage 5 of 1815 October 2008 National Tribal Water Council MeetingSource:Evaluation of Impacts to Underground Sources of Drinking Water by Hydraulic Fracturing of CoalbedMethane Reservoirs, EPA 816-R-04-003, www.epa.gov/safewater, June 2004.Note:Alaska also hasCBM reservesCBM Detailed Study: National in ScopeOffice of WaterPage 6 of 1815 October 2008 National Tribal Water Council MeetingEPA’s CBM Detailed Study is national inscope. However, EPA will examine eachbasin separately to identify potential pollutant discharges and technology options.Produced water volumes can vary greatly over time, between and within CBMbasins, and may be very large.– Production volumes range from1,000 to 17,000 gal/day/wellin the San Juan and PowderRiver Basins, respectively.Pollutants in CBM produced water also vary between basins. For example, totaldissolved solids (TDS) varywidely depending on basin geology.–Eastern U.S.:TDS concentrations typically range from 500 to 27,000mg/L with somewells over 50,000 mg/L.–Western U.S.:TDS concentrations range from 400 to2,000 mg/L (Powder River Basin),9,000 to 11,000 mg/L (WindRiver), to approximately 50,000 mg/L (San Juan Basin).CBM produced water may also contain smallamounts of metals and some volatileand semi-volatile organic compounds.CBM Detailed Study: Basin SpecificOffice of WaterPage 7 of 1815 October 2008 National Tribal Water Council MeetingSource:USGS Open-File Report 00-372pubs.usgs.gov/of/2000/ofr-00-372/OF00-372.pdfExample of CBM ProducedWater Chemistry Changingwith Geographic Location:Powder River Basin(MT/WY)Office of WaterPage 8 of 1815 October 2008 National Tribal Water Council MeetingSource:Handbook on Coal Bed Methane Produced Water: Management and BeneficialUse Alternatives, ALL Consulting, http://www.all-llc.com/CBM/BU/index.htm, July 2003.This graph shows the increased production of water in the early life of aCBM well.Well Shut-inExample of CBM Produced Water Discharge VolumesChanging with TimeOffice of WaterPage 9 of 1815 October 2008 National Tribal Water Council MeetingCBM produced water of a suitablequality can be used for beneficialuse. Key controls are TDS andSodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR).– Beneficial use technologies includesub-drip irrigation, irrigation,livestock watering all either with orwithout treatment.Irrigation with CBM Produced Water(Powder River Basin, WY)Treatment options include iron oxidation(aeration), coagulation/precipitation, reverseosmosis (RO), countercurrent ion exchange(CCIX), fixed bed ion exchange,precipitation, surface impoundments,downhole separation, and re-injection.– Reduces TDS, SAR, and metals content.– Iron oxidation is typically performed atdischarge locations as part of BMPs to reducediscoloration ofdischarge point.CCIX resin contract chamber(Powder River Basin, WY)Coalbed Methane Technology Options (Examples)Office of WaterPage 10 of 1815 October 2008 National Tribal Water Council Meeting• Major Tasks for Data Collection and Analysis:– Information Collection Request (ICR) for technical, economic, and environmentaldata from a wide range of CBMoperations across the Nation.– Site Visits & misc. secondary data sources (e.g., DOE/EIA data)– Stakeholder meetingsin the major CBM basins.– EPA contacted over 700 people in eightstates during the 66outreach and datacollection activities in 2007 and 2008.• Stakeholders:– So far: API, regional trade associations,individual companies, treatment technologyvendors, DOE, BuRec, BLM, States, Landowners, Indian Nations• Schedule:– First ICR Federal Register notice (1/25/08). Comment period closed on 4/24.– Second ICR Federal Register notice(7/15/08). Comment period closed on 8/14– Distribute First and Second Phases ofSurvey (late November & February ‘09).CWA 304(m) Detailed Study: Coalbed Methane ExtractionOffice of WaterPage 11 of 1815 October 2008 National Tribal Water Council MeetingEPA received 37 comments on the first Federal Register notice (1/25/08):– Industry comments (27)– Federal government (BLM, FWS, BuRec)– Public Interest Group (Tongue River Water Users' Association, Oil and GasAccountability Project, Citizensfor Responsible Development)– Private Citizens (2);– Local Government (City of Raton); and– OK Congressional Delegation.EPA received 19 comments on the second Federal Register notice (7/15/08):– Industry comments (17)– Public Interest Group (Trout Unlimited, Western Organization of ResourceCouncils)EPA CBM ICR: Public Comments and Recent OutreachOffice of WaterPage 12 of 1815 October 2008 National Tribal Water Council Meeting•Burden Reduction:Industry expressed concern for the very large amounts of data andinformation requested for individual wells, and that the burden to provide such data andinformation for all wells would not be reasonable for industry and would also overwhelm EPAresources and would notbe used productively. They requested more time to complete thesurveys.•Providing Sensitive Financial Data:CBM representatives asserted that detailed projectand firm-level financial data are extremely sensitive, and most companies would not respondto financial data requests because of concerns for protection ofthese very sensitive data andthe undemonstrated need for the data.•Variable Gas Prices:Wide variations in natural gas prices, types of surface owner andmineral rights, pipeline availability, and demand issues further confound EPA’s ability toperform a realistic economic analysis.•Firm Level Financial Questions:Financial questions at the firm level are inappropriatebecause decisions about whether to produce are made at the project level. EPA should notask for financial data above the immediate owner/operator; financial data from the divisionlevel is what is most relevant.•CBM Basin Differences:CBM well circumstances (e.g., produced water quantity and quality,available and applicable produced waste management and control technologies, etc.) arediverse and complex geographically and geologically, and thedraft questionnaire does notaddress this complexity and variation.EPA CBM ICR: Industry Public CommentsOffice of WaterPage 13 of 1815 October 2008 National Tribal Water Council Meeting• All Public Interest Groups are supportive ofEPA’s efforts to better understand watertreatment technology options applicableto the CBM industry and urge EPA toimplement technology-based effluent limits for this extractive industry.• Several commenters expressed a desire for EPA to include questions in the survey onpotential “community costs”:• “OGAP understands the need to assess the financial implications of such a guideline toindustry, as well as the needto identify management options available from industry’sperspective. However, we respectfully request that you include in your questionnaire analternative section on “communitycosts” that will assess the costs to communities of not limitingthese discharges.” Oil and Gas Accountability Project• On page A-6, under ii (c),the supporting statement describes how EPA will estimate secondaryeconomic impacts of adopting effluent control technologies (onstate and local taxes and royaltycollections, employment, etc). If EPA is goingto determine whether ornot to impose effluentcontrols in part on the secondary economic costs, EPA shouldnet out the positive secondaryeconomic impacts of reducingpollution costs on landowners, water users, and theenvironment.” Western Organization of Resource Councils•Environmental Data Collection:Several commenters encouraged EPA to collectenvironmental data in the survey and through open literature: “TU encourages EPA alsoto consider information from other sources [outside the ICR]that document theecological consequences thatcan arise from product water disposal.” Trout UnlimitedEPA CBM ICR: Public Interest Group CommentsOffice of WaterPage 14 of 1815 October 2008 National Tribal Water Council MeetingFor 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 topic of CBMproduced water management:– National Research Council (BLM funding)– Bureau of Reclamation (potential for re-use of CBM produced water)– Colorado School of Mines (DOE funding)Office of WaterPage 15 of 1815 October 2008 National Tribal Water Council MeetingOil production in Cook Inlet peaked several decades ago and is now decliningas most of the oil resources are nowextracted. Natural gas exploration andproduction is also now on the decline.This means that fewer and fewer wellseach year are being drilled and less drillcuttings are being treated and discharged.However, as is common with matureoil fields, operators are pumping and processing more water than oil in CookInlet. Consequently, the volume of produced water being discharged in CookInlet is trending upwards.Most of the 16 platforms inCook Inlet were constructed from 1964 to 1968. Themost recently constructed platform(Osprey) began operation in 2000 and doesnot discharge pollutants.Water movement in Cook Inlet is dominated by the tidal cycle and stronglyinfluenced by the freshwater inputs fromrivers and precipitation. The platformsare constructed in water depths that range from 46 to 184 feet.EPA’s Review of Discharge Standards in Cook Inlet, AKOffice of WaterPage 16 of 1815 October 2008 National Tribal Water Council MeetingEPA promulgated effluent guidelines forthe Coastal subcategory (Subpart D) on16 December 1996 (61 FR 66086). Withone exception EPA’s Coastal ELGsban the discharge of drilling fluid,cuttings, produced water, deck drainage,produced sand, and other miscellaneous oil field wastes.In the final 1996 rule EPAallowed coastal operators inCook Inlet, Alaska, todischarge and set the limits for coastal Cook Inlet equal to the Offshoresubcategory for produced water and aqueousdrilling fluids and cuttings.EPA did not identify injection of drill cuttings and produced water as the basis forBAT limitations or NSPS due to:– Uncertainties regarding the availability of geologic formations suitable for injection;– Limited availability to onshoredisposal for drilling wastes; and– Potential economic impacts (EPA’s economic analyses predicted that 1 platform wouldclose and 2 additional platforms would suffer severe economic impacts under the zerodischarge option).EPA’s Review of Discharge Standards in Cook Inlet, AKOffice of WaterPage 17 of 1815 October 2008 National Tribal Water Council MeetingSeveral Cook Inlet native villages andCook Inlet Keeper submitted comments onthe preliminary 2004 Plan asking for EPAto revise the Coastal ELGs and ban thedischarge of produced waters andaqueous drill fluids and cuttings.EPA conducted several analyses to responseto these comments and ultimately didnot initiate an effluent guidelines rulemaking:– Pollutant discharges fromthe 16 platforms and their related shore-based facilities arerelatively low compared to other industrial toxic discharges.– Newer injection technology might also make injection of produced water and drilling fluidsand cuttings more available.However, EPA does not know how widely these newertechnologies can be usedacross all Cook Inlet facilities (due to site specificdifferences ingeologic formations).– EPA also identified that production at the 1960’s platforms was declining at the time of the1996 rule and has continued itsproduction decline. That is,in 2004 EPA identified that allCook Inlet facilities could be considered as marginal(less able to affordany new costsassociated with achieving zero discharge) andthat only a few wellsare drilled each year.Region 10 is the current permitting authority for Cook Inlet. They issued a newNPDES general permit for Cook Inlet on 31 May 2007 (72 FR 30377).In 2007 Trustees for Alaska, on behalf of Cook Inletkeeper, two Native villages, andtwo fishermen’s groups, sought review of this NPDES permit.EPA’s Review of Discharge Standards in Cook Inlet, AKOffice of WaterPage 18 of 1815 October 2008 National Tribal Water Council MeetingAny 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