1

Coalbed Methane State Phone Calls

EPA and ERG participated in calls with state water permitting representatives to discuss the current status of CBM.

Date: 12/15/11

Contact Name: Tom Reed

Affiliation: Montana Department of Environmental Quality 

Call Participants: Ahmar Siddiqui, EPA

Lori Weiss, ERG

TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN

1. Current Status of Industry

Mr. Reed stated the industry is in decline and suggested we contact the Montana Oil and Gas Commission for the

latest information. He stated that development stopped during the development of the Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS). He thinks the number of lawsuits over discharge permits and the declining natural gas price played 

a part in reducing development.

[Note from ERG: In 2003, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the State of Montana prepared the Montana 

Final Statewide Oil and Gas Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Amendment of the Powder River and 

Billings Resource Management Plans. As a result of lawsuits, BLM was required to prepare a Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) which included an evaluation of a phased development alternative for CBM 

production. In 2008, BLM prepared a Final SEIS which addressed topics identified by the U.S. District Court. The 

purpose of the EIS was to analyze impacts from oil and gas activity. Information on the Montana EIS can be found 

at: http://deq.mt.gov/coalbedmethane/finaleis.mcpx]

2. CBM Permits

Montana has issued permits to three operators: Fidelity; OW Ranch; and Pinnacle (now Summit). Only Fidelity is 

operating. Pinnacle constructed a plant but then removed it. They are not discharging but may be doing some 

exploration work.

[Note from ERG: EPA visited Fidelity and OW Ranch in 2007 as part of the CBM detailed study data collection and 

outreach. Fidelity used the EMIT/Higgins Loop to treat water prior to discharge to the Tongue River. At the time of 

the visit to OW Ranch in 2007 there was no CBM development.]

3. CBM Treatment/Decision to Treat

Mr. Reed gave an approximate history of the issues but did not know exact details. He will send EPA copies of the

permits.

Montana issued the first permits in approximately 2000 and used water-quality based limits. Treatment was not 

required to meet the limits. Montana started a process of developing water-quality based standards for electrical 

conductivity (EC) and sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) which were approved by EPA. Wyoming then sued EPA over the 

standards. The standards were fairly restrictive so operators would have had to use treatment to meet them and

looked to ion exchange.

The Fidelity permit numbers are listed below:

MT0030457 – Original 2000 permit, no water treatment
2

MT0030724 – Current Fidelity permit, uses EMIT/Higgins loop

[Note from ERG: EMIT was bought by Exterran.]

4. Impacts from CBM Produced Water

The main opponent to CBM development has been the Tongue River Water Users Association who claims there is 

damage to soil from CBM produced water. USGS and BLM monitoring sites along river do not show a big change in 

total dissolved solids (TDS) and SAR.

There have been some flow related problems. During the Montana dry cycle, there are some spikes in concentration 

that could be due to CBM produced water but it is hard to pinpoint the cause of the spike. Some tributaries of 

Tongue have relatively high SAR naturally (10-15).

[Note from ERG: EPA has not obtained the USGS or BLM monitoring data as part of the CBM ELG work.]

5. Downhole Gas Water Separators (DGWS)

Mr. Reed is not aware of DGWS used in the basin because the technology does not present a discharge issue. He 

suggested we check with the state oil and gas commission.

6. Miscellaneous

• Operators in Montana set up the infrastructure to move produced water to a centralized treatment system 

or to underground injection. 

• Montana struggled with the issue of bypass. Operators can not treat 100% of the water due to costs so 

industry ‘blends’ prior to discharge. Montana talked to EPA HQ about this issue and ultimately Montana 

decided to allow the blending. 

Date: 12/15/11

Contact Name: Bill Dirienzo

Affiliation: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

Call Participants: Ahmar Siddiqui, EPA

Lori Weiss, ERG

1. Current Status of Industry

According to Mr. Dirienzo, new development has been stagnant and Wyoming is not seeing new applications for 

discharge permits. He believes that the declining gas prices and operators ‘over-permitted’ during the peak 

production period are the primary causes. Operators proactively obtained permits for planned development during 

the peak production period but the permits were never active. There has been a decline in production in some 

fields. 

Mr. DiRienzo is seeing larger companies selling their operations to smaller and smaller companies as the production 

declines. He stated that the decline in production has been seen throughout the Powder River Basin. New interest is 

in the Pinedale Anticline and Jonah fields (tight and conventional gas).
3

2. CBM Permits

Wyoming has approximately 750 active WYPDES permits and 5,000-6,000 outfalls. The state is mostly working on 

permit renewals. However, the volume of produced water is declining in the Wyoming coal basins. In the east end of 

the basin where development first started, CBM wells are producing very little water.

Operators use a variety of disposal options. The Tongue River has highest quality – direct discharge into the Tongue 

is not permitted. In the Belle Fourche and Cheyenne River watersheds, the produced water quality is high, so there 

are no issues with the quality required for discharge. In the Powder River area, operators use a combination of

irrigation, injection, and direct discharge with and without treatment.

Wyoming establishes permit limits for SAR through their assimilative capacity program which is similar to a total 

maximum daily load (TMDL). Wyoming calculated how much salt and sodium could be added to the river each 

month and allocated the discharge among operators to stay below the standard.

Wyoming will provide EPA with CBM discharge monitoring report (DMR) data.

[Note from ERG: Wyoming provided DMR data for 2008 and 2010.]

3. Treatment 

Treatment is used to reduce salinity and salt. Ion exchange is the most common form of treatment used in 

Wyoming. Operators may need to use ion exchange to treat water to the levels required for irrigation or to meet the 

discharge limits established by the assimilative capacity program. The EMIT/Higgins Loop process has been the most 

common treatment technology used in the area. PetroCanada built a reverse osmosis (RO) plant that is still being 

run (now operated by Noble). JM Huber obtained a permit for a RO unit to treat water prior to discharge to the 

Tongue but the plant was never built and JM Huber never discharged water under the permit.

4. Downhole Gas Water Separators (DGWS)

Mr. Dirienzo was not familiar with DGWS and whether it was being used in Wyoming.

5. Miscellaneous

Mr. Dirienzo stated that EPA may need to consider specific water quality issues in developing a national ELG. If high 

quality CBM produced water is discharged into small streams, the water discharged can leach salts from the soil and 

degrade the water quality even if there are not high levels of salt in the discharged produced water. In some areas 

the background water quality is poor and the produced water is already of higher quality than background.

Date: 1/9/12

Contact Name: Jonathan Hall

Affiliation: Alabama Department of Environmental 

Management

Call Participants: Ahmar Siddiqui, EPA

Lori Weiss, ERG

1. Changes in Industry

According to Mr. Hall, CBM projects in Alabama are still operating but there have not been many new wells. Bigger 

companies have been buying out the smaller operators.
4

2. CBM Permits

In EPA’s meetings with industry representatives, operators have noted that the Alabama permit approval and 

renewal process has been slow and there have been delays in receiving new permits. Mr. Hall provided an overview

of the current status of CBM permitting:

• NPDES permitting was divided into two different divisions: the Water Division was responsible for general 

industry permits, industrial permits, and municipal permits and the Field Operations Division was 

responsible for construction and development stormwater, and industrial permits for mining.

• Around 2008, all permitting was consolidated in the Water Division. 

• Alabama sent new CBM permits to Region 4 for review. Region 4 did not like the whole effluent toxicity 

(WET) part of the permit (dilution calculations).

• Around 2008/2009, CBM permitting came to a halt due to concerns with the permits that had already been 

issued, particularly the in-stream waste calculations. Alabama began working on a new approach to write 

scientifically based, environmentally protective permits. Alabama developed a framework for the new 

approach and industry conducted stream modeling for the state to review. This process will result in a 

template for new permits.

• The revised permitting process is ongoing. The permit issue date will depend on the results of industry’s 

modeling.

• Currently, CBM operators in Alabama monitor and report:

o Flow and pH (daily)

o Iron, manganese, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), chlorides, oil and grease, instream chlorides 

and conductivity up and downstream from discharge (weekly)

• Alabama has issued approximately 26 permits for CBM facilities, about half have already expired and the 

other half will expire in 2012/early 2013.

3. Documented Impacts

Mr. Hall is not aware of any documented impacts from CBM produced water discharges. There was a minor fish kill 

in the Black Warrior River but that could not be attributed to CBM. EPA measurements in the river were within the 

water quality standars. [Note from ERG: We do not have information on the parameters monitored after the fish 

kill.] There are no streams in Alabama on EPA’s 303d list for chlorides and conductivity that receive CBM discharges. 

The current permits have WET testing upstream and downstream of the discharge location and industry data shows 

they are being protective. 

There are many different types of discharges going into the Black Warrior River. Birmingham is in the watershed and 

discharges include wastewater from steel production, oil production, municipal wastewater, and coal mining.

4. Current Management Practices

Mr. Hall stated operators typically use sedimentation basins, usually a two or three cell lagoon with aeration. 

Operators may add chemicals to control the pH. Operators do not typically use flocculation chemicals because the 

water is of fairly high quality and pollutants are mainly salts. The chloride values will vary by location. The chronic

chloride value is 230 mg/L and some operators are below this all the time while some have >10,000 mg/L chlorides. 

Operators may mix water from different wells to equalize the chloride concentration or discharge this water to a 

larger stream. One or two sites may use underground injection but only a few sites can do this because of the 

geology of Alabama.
5

5. Miscellaneous

Mr. Hall stated that water constituents will differ by location. Alabama may remove oil and grease and BOD from the

CBM permits based on their current data because these pollutants are not found in CBM produced water. Iron is 

high naturally in Alabama.

Wyoming Call – January 10, 2012

Date: 1/10/12

Contact Name: Bill Dirienzo

Affiliation: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

Call Participants: Ahmar Siddiqui, EPA

Lori Weiss, ERG

Dan-Tam Nguyen, ERG

The purpose of this call was to discuss the DMR data that Wyoming can provide and the data fields that will be 

included in the file.

• Each record characterizes the flow and pollutant concentrations of the produced water at the discharge of 

the permitted outfall. The record has a data field that specifies the type of discharge at the outfall . Types of 

discharge included in Wyoming permits:

o Discharge to reservoir. These reservoirs are designed for full containment of produced water during 

a 50 year, 24 hour storm event (1A_HWR and 1B_HWR codes in Wyoming DMR data). 

o Discharge to enclosed basin. The basin is a natural enclosed basin with no connection to 

downstream waters (1B_Playa code).

o Discharge to on-channel reservoirs. These ponds are designed for full containment during dry 

operating conditions so there is normally no discharge. These may discharge if there is a storm event 

but this discharge must stop within 48 hours (2-OCR code).

o Direct discharge. This discharge is directly to a drainage channel or to an on-channel reservoir with 

no containment requirement (2_DD code in DMRs). 

Notes on Assimilative Capacity Program:

• Wyoming calculated the total TDS and sodium capacity of the Powder River for each month and allotted 

monthly discharge credits for all CBM operators in the Powder River Basin based on the operator’s share of 

the mineral lease. The assimilative capacity of the river is based on the monthly average background water 

quality of the Powder River at the gauging station in Moorhead, MT.

• During August and September (low flows), operators may have fewer credits to discharge water because 

the assimilative capacity of the the Powder River is lower. Operators may store water in reservoirs during 

these months and discharge when the assimilative capacity of the river is higher (for example, in the winter)

or purchase credits from other operators to be able to discharge. There is no assimilative capacity for 

sodium during these months. 

The assimilative capacity program is only applicable on the Powder River. The Tongue River is very high 

quality so there are no active Wyoming permits that dischargeto the Tongue River. Two operators with 

treatment units prior to discharge are permitted to discharge to the river, but these permits have not been 

used and no discharges have occurred on the Tongue River. 
6

Date: 2/16/12

Contact Name: Bill Dirienzo

Affiliation: Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

Call Participants: Ahmar Siddiqui, EPA

Tom Born, EPA

Lori Weiss, ERG

Dan-Tam Nguyen, ERG

The purpose of this call was to clarify data fields in the Wyoming DMR data.

1. Direct Discharge outfalls are noted in the file with the “2_DD” designation. These outfalls have the capability to 

discharge to a stream that connects to the Powder River. Discharge from “2_DD” outfalls may flow through a 

reservoir but the reservoir is not required to contain the discharge and therefore, the discharge may ultimately 

reach surface water. There may be reservoirs on the drainage but the permit limits were established without 

taking the reservoirs into consideration. The discharged water may also infiltrate or evaporate. Only a small 

amount of the produced water discharged would get to surface water; however, the actual volume discharge to 

the Powder River is not measured. 

2. Anadarko and Williams are probably the only operators that have large volumes of produced water discharged 

to the Powder River. The volume of water discharged by these operators are large enough so that the entire 

volume discharged at the outfall is not infiltrated or evaporated before it gets to the Powder River. These 

operators also have outfalls that are close to the river. 

3. Produced water that is discharged to the Belle Fourche and Cheyenne watersheds typically does not reach the 

main stem of the Powder River. 

4. A USGS study of flows in the Powder River is currently under peer review (Melanie Clark is contact). The study 

evaluates the volume of water discharged into the Powder River in Wyoming. Downstream users in Montana 

are concerned that they are not receiving their water (water rights issue).

5. The type of permit discharge option 2_OCR (on-channel reservoir) allows discharge from the containment 

reservoir during storm events, but the discharge must stop within 48 hours of the runoff event. This flow is from 

the overtopping of the reservoirs by stormwater runoff. Wyoming may allow discharges from OCR outfalls in 

some circumstances. Operators must apply for authorization, sample the water in the reservoir, and Wyoming 

can authorize a controlled release. Wyoming tracks these releases and this would count against the operator’s 

allocation of credits under the assimilative capacity program. This does not happen very frequently.

6. Wyoming is moving away from end-of-pipe chemistry for permit requirements and is looking at water 

management requirements. Most environmental issues are not due to the chemistry of the water but due to 

flooding, creation of wetlands, elevation of groundwater levels, etc. Permits may have more emphasis on field 

monitoring in drainages.
7

Date: 6/11/12

Contact Name: Amy Steinmetz

Affiliation: Montana Department of Environmental Quality 

Call Participants: Lori Weiss, ERG

The purpose of this call was to discuss the current issues surrounding CBM discharges from Wyoming flowing into 

Montana rivers.

1. Ms. Steinmetz stated the main concern about CBM discharges from Wyoming has been raised by the irrigators 

using water from the Tongue River.

2. Monitoring on the Tongue River has shown that there is an increase in salinity but the reason for the increase 

has not been determined. The Tongue River has a higher natural water quality than the Powder River. 

3. Montana has not studied any effects of infiltration of produced water from ponds on ground or surface water 

quality. 

4. Montana established conductivity (EC) and sodium adsorption ration (SAR) water quality standards which EPA 

approved. Wyoming sued Montana over the standards and Montana submitted revised standards to EPA last 

summer. These revised standards have not yet been approved.

[Note from ERG: Information on Montana’s rationale for EC and SAR standards can be found on Montana’s EIS 

website http://deq.mt.gov/coalbedmethane/finalEIS.mcpx.]

5. Montana and Wyoming representatives participate in monthly calls regarding CBM issues. Wyoming is trying to 

work to meet Montana’s proposed water quality standards in their permits. Montana is reviewing Wyoming 

permits during the public comment period. Ms. Steinmetz did not know when Montana began reviewing the 

Wyoming permits. Ms. Steinmetz stated they are seeing many permit renewals but not many new permits.

Many of the larger CBM operators are selling their operations to smaller operators.

[Note from ERG: The notification of the public comment period for Wyoming permits can be found at: 

http://deq.state.wy.us/wqd/events/index.asp. The Montana CBM website contains a link to a Memorandum of 

Coorperation between Montana and Wyoming dated 2001, Montana and Wyoming Powder River Interim Water 

Quality Criteria Memorandum of Coorperation, which can be found at:

http://deq.mt.gov/coalbedmethane/interstate_issues.mcpx]

6. Montana currently has three discharge permits but only one is active (Fidelity permit that requires EMIT 

system).