# EPA Weighs Setting Possible FirstTime Water Quality Criteria For Bromide

Posted: January 4, 2012

EPA is weighing whether to develop first-time water quality criteria for bromide, a pollutant found in wastewater from hydraulic fracturing operatio ns as well as discharges from cooling towers and emissions control technologies at coal-fired power plants

. In particular, EPA headquarters, with urging from Re gion III, is attempting to develop a quantitative relationship between levels of bromides discharged into waterbodies and toxic disinfection byproducts (DBPs) in drinking water, an issue that is worryin g some drinking water utilities that are downstream from fracking operations.

The agency's effort comes as it is also seeking to develop Clean Water Act (CWA) pretreatment standards for produced water and flowback waste associated with shale gas operations, believed to be one of several key sources of bromide contaminants.

"We don't know what high bromides is yet," Victoria Binetti of Region III's water protection division, told a Dec. 15 meeting of the National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) held in Arlington, VA. Binetti said the agency is struggling to use monitoring data , mostly from Pennsylvania, to better characterize the relationship between levels of bromides discharged into streams and other CWA-regulated waters and DBPs formed from the interaction between brom ides and downstream drinking water treatment processes.
Specifically, EPA is laying potential groundwork for possible water quality criteria, examining the effects of bromide concentrations on the formation of total trihalomethanes (TTHMs) -- DBPs that EPA regulates under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and which are linked to adverse human health effects, including liver, kidney and central nervous system, and increased cancer risks.

But agency and other sources say that DBPs formed from bromide interaction are believed to be more toxic than other types of DBPs. "Many variables go into TTHMs, that's why we're trying to develop a quantitative relationship between TTHMs and what is an acceptable level of bromide in a stream," Binetti said.

Since bromides, highly saline compounds typically foun d in seawater and some types of seafood, are not considered a threat to human health or aquatic life on their own, EPA has never developed water quality criteria for the pollutants, making it difficult for re gulators to set conditions in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits to ensu re that wastewater trea tment facilities effectively remove the compounds from effluent.

EPA is yet to make a decision on whether it will begi n developing water quality criteria, though Region III is hopeful it will do so, agency sources said at th e meeting, and the effort to develop a quantitative relationship could establish the foundation for a regula tory limit. "The key is determining the source of bromide," Binetti told the NDWAC m eeting, saying that EPA headquarters and Region III, in particular, have noted increasing problems with brominated DB Ps but have yet to definitely determine a source.A drinking water utility source in Pittsburgh says the ci ty, in cooperation with the University of Pittsburgh, is undergoing extensive monitoring at 38 different po ints along the Allegheny River to try to determine the major sources of the bromide discharges, includin g cooling towers at coal-fired power plants and some steel mills, where brominated agents are sometimes used to control microbial growth; flue gas desulfurization, or scrubber technology used to control emissions at coal plants; and hydraulic fracturing wastewater . "Typically, bromide concentrations are very low -- the only place we see increases are around some of these industrial sites," the utility source says.

The source says that EPA has "seemed very interest ed" in the monitoring data, and that drinking water utilities in the region have urged the agency to step in, saying that the bromide concentrations have made it increasingly difficult for them to meet SDWArequirements for TTHMs, which currently include a maximum contaminant level of 0.08 milligrams per liter.

And during the NDWAC meeting, panel member Jessica Godreau, chief of North Carolina Natural Resources Division of Environmental Health's public water supply section, said that her state has also been struggling with bromide concerns because of th e scrubbers installed to control emissions at power plants. Godreau expressed frustration that though re gulators can require monitoring for bromides as specific permit conditions, there is no other way to ta mp down on discharges absent a water quality limit. "Why don't we have water qualit y criteria for bromides -- what needs to happen?" Godreau said.

EPA officials pointed out that the agency has only re cently flagged bromides as a problem, and reiterated that Region III has requested that it develop national standards, but also added that absent EPA criteria states can develop their own water quality limits for the contaminant.

Research conducted in Pennsylvania and presente d to EPA last year by American Water Works Association indicated that bromide concentrations in the Allegheny River have steadily increased since technological advances in hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, led to a shale gas development boom in the northeast Marcellus Shale formation which underlies much of the Keystone State ( Inside EPA, March 11).

Produced water and flowback associated with frackin g often brings up significant amounts of bromide and other brine located deep underground during the drilling process.

At the time, Pennsylvania publicly owned treatment wo rks (POTWs) and industrial wastewater treatment facilities, known as centralized waste treatment (CWT ) plants, were treating Marcellus Shale waste, a practice that EPA and Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) officials actively sought to discourage.

"Bromide, which can be present in shale gas extracti on wastewater in significant concentrations, has the potential to be present in POTW effluent as a disinf ection byproduct and may cause an increase in whole effluent toxicity," EPA wastewater chief Jim Hanlon said in a March 16 letter to EPA regional offices outlining the difficulties in developing perm its that adequately address fracking waste.

Whether POTWs and CWTs can effectively treat shale ga s waste is of particular concern in Pennsylvania, where there is limited ability to re-inject wastew ater underground as in Western states, generally considered the preferred EPA and industry method of waste disposal.

"We're certainly not anti-Marcellus Shale [drilling], bu t we can't handle the bromides," the Pittsburgh utility source says.

An EPA source says that the agency is struggling to in terpret the monitoring results, particularly given the multiple potential sources of bromide. "We don't know the critical value yet -- when we have x we get y - - threshold for ambient water that throws up the red fl ag," the source says. The agency source says thatit is difficult given that there is not a wealth of mo nitoring data out there that specifically tracks bromide levels.

But the utility source says that preliminary findings, which will eventually be published by AWWA, indicate that while normal concentrations of bromides in the Allegheny River appear to stay between 50 and 100 parts per billion (ppb), monitoring results are showing concentrations can spike higher than 200 ppb. "The results show that greater than 200 parts pe r billion can increase TTHMs," the source says.

The utility source adds that the initial results also indicate that CWTs still accepting Marcellus Shale wastewater are likely to be the biggest discha rger of bromides, though added that any EPA regulation should also target power plants . -- Bridget DiCosmo

Related News: Edit tags 2386380