## MEMORANDUM

TO: Record

FROM: Lisa Biddle, U.S. EPA

DATE: March 31 , 2015

SUBJECT: Fact Sheet about F lowback and P roduced W ater M anagement in EPA

Region 2 (DCN SGE00618)

I n July 2013 , EPA Office of Water (EPA OW) communicated with EPA Region 2 regarding oil and gas extraction wastewater management practices in Region 2. Region 2 confirmed that there were no current discharges of unconventional oil and gas (UOG) extraction wastewater (as defined in the proposed rule) to publicly owned treatment works (POTW s) in New York and New Jersey. The enclosed fact sheet from EPA Region 2 summarizes history and the status (as of March 12, 2012) of oil and gas extraction wastewaters that at some time may have been managed at POTWs, as well as related state and county le vel planning and policies. EPA Region 2 indicated that the status of these potential discharges was current as of July 2013

. EPA Region 2 also indicated that additional local ordinances and prohibitions related to the transport and management of UOG extrac tion wastewater had since been added in New York.Updated 3/12/2012

FLOWBACK AND PRODUCED WASTEWATER FROM HYDRAULIC FRACTURING OPERATIONS TO PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS ( POTW s) IN REGION 2

NJ: As far as we know, t here are no POTWs that accept flowback or produced wastewater from hydr aulic

frac turing operations (“hydrofrack wastewater”)

. NJ DEP has told the EPA that they will not allow the discharge of hydrofrack wastewater to POTWs due to concerns over radioactivity.

NY: Some POTWs in New York have acc epted wastewater from hydr aulic fracturing operations ( s ee below for a list of these POTWs and their status). As noted in the Natural Gas Drilling in the Marcellus Shale NPDES Program Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) dated March 16, 2011 developed by the EPA Headquarters office

, POTWs must provide adequate notice to the Director of any new introduction of pollutants into the POTW from an indirect discharger which would be subject to effluent guidelines if it were directly discharging those pollutants and

a lso provide notice of any substantial change in the volume or character of pollutants being introduced into that POTW. In cases such as New York, where the state is the permitting authority and the EPA is the approval authority for pretreatment, the POTW m ust submit the required information to both agencies. The EPA Region 2

office provided all approved pretreatment programs and mini

- pretreatment programs in NY with a copy of the FAQs in a letter dated April 7, 2011. Region 2 is working with NY State to mod ify POTW permits to explicitly require this notification to Region 2 so that Region 2 is aware as soon as possible of any POTWs that wish to accept hyrdr ofrack wastewater

.

City of Watertown

On January 5 to 7, 2010, with approval from NYSDEC, Watertown a ccepted approximately 33,000 gallons of

wastewater from a vertical hydr aulic fracturing operation from Utica Shale deposits in Otsego County, NY. NYSDEC required that Watertown perform monitoring for total solids, total dissolved solids (TDS) , chloride

, toluene, and acute toxicity. NYSDEC has provided the monitoring data to Region 2.

Watertown’s permit was renewed effective February 1, 2011. Watertown did not seek permission to accept hydrofrack wastewater on a regular basis . I nstead, Watertown want ed to accept hydrofrack wastewater with case

by

- case approval from NYSDEC. Nevertheless, the permit issued to Watertown requires twice a week monitoring for TDS and states that, “The permittee is not permitted to accept flowback waters (i.e., drilling fluids fr om hydrofrac operations) for treatment at a rate which exceeds one (1) percent of the Daily Average flow on a daily basis without prior approval by Region 2, based on a headworks analysis performed in accordance with 40 CFR
403.5, that demonstrates that th e discharge(s) will not cause pass through or interference.” and “Flowback waters cannot be accepted for treatment without a case

- by

- case approval by the Department. If flowback waters are approved by the Department for acceptance for treatment, the monito ring frequency shall increase to 3 [times per] day for the period that such wastewaters are being treated at the treatment facility.”

Niagara Falls Water Board

The Niagara Falls Water Board (NFWB) is considering building additional wastewater treatment in order to take hydrofrack wastewater

. NFWB's existing wastewater treatment plant include s carbon treatment, but it does not include any type of treatment for Total Dissolved Solids (TDS). To date, the NFWB has done bench scale tests to

determine if it ca n accept hydrofrack wastewater for treatment. Its next step is to do pilot scale testing on a process whereby the hydrofrack wastewater would be treated and returned to the generator for reuse. Under this
scenario, hydrofrack wastewater would not go throug h NFWB's existing wastewater treatment process and the effluent would not be discharged into local waters. If this proves feasibl e and NFWB proceeds, it would not need a modification to the existing permit in order to accept hydrofrack wastewater.

On Mar ch 5, 2012, the City of Niagara Falls passed an ordinance to prohibit the “storage, transfer, treatment or disposal of natural gas exploration and production wastes.”

Buffalo Sewer Authority (BSA)

T he Artvoice.com blog reported in late January 2011 that US Energy, a regional natural gas driller located in Getzville, New York told the NYSDEC of its intention to dispose of the hydrofrack wastewater it used in a natural gas well through B SA ’s POTW

. They based that report on a US Energy filing with NYS DE C from 2008.DEPP followed up with BSA and on February 1, 2011, BSA terminated three permits for trucked waste to BSA

from US Energy. The letters state that BSA has a policy of not accepting hydrofrack wastewater and the permits

were terminated based on a statement by US Energy that “approximately less than 25% of the volume of” wastewater could be hydrofrack wastewater

.

City of Auburn

In the past, Auburn accepted well development and production wastewater. Auburn p erformed an analysis in January 2009 regarding acceptable levels for chlorides

. As a result, Auburn requires that in addition to meeting their local limits and a barium limit of 100 mg/l, hauled wastewater must not exceed 60,000 mg/l of chloride. Auburn’s analysis is based on accepting 0.097 million gallons per day (MGD) of hauled wastewater. The average plant flow is between 8 and 10 MGD. The design flow of Auburn’s POTW is 12 MGD.

Effective July 7, 2011, the City of Auburn began its prohibiton of the acceptance of any water produced as a

b yproduct from natural gas well drilling at the Auburn WPCP. According to Auburn’s records, the final gas well drilling process wastewater was disposed at the plant on June 21, 2011.

On March 7, 2012, Auburn’s city council reversed its prohibition on accep ting natural gas well drilling wastewater from vertical natural gas well drilling. The resolution bans the acceptace of gas well drilling wastewater from horizontal well drilling. Auburn notified Region 2 on March 8 and indicated that they will perform a h eadworks analysis before accepting new natural gas well drilling wastewater.

Village of Cayuga Heights

The EPA received an e mail from Walter Hang (an environmental activist in Ithaca) containing information regarding the Village of Cayuga Heights ’ acceptance of hydrofrack wastewater. The Village o f Cayuga Heights does not have a pretreatment program approved by the EPA

. POTWs with design flows of less than 5 MGD are not required to develop pretreatment programs. The Cayuga Heights POTW ha s a 2 MGD d esign flow. Currently, Region 2 has not substantiated whether or not Cayuga Heights is accepting the wastewater. We are follow ing up
on this issue.

Mr. Hang also believed that Canandaigua (which does have an approved program) was receiving gas extraction

wastewater. Canandaigua said that they might have accepted waste from a well developer before NYS DEC

issued its policies in 200 8, but that it had stopped.

Chemung County

C hemung County, while not taking hydrofrack wastewater

, does get landfill leachate from a landfill that is known to take drill cuttings from wells. DEPP asked that Chemung County sample the wastewater for radium. Landfill

Cell #3 leachate had rad ium 226 at 3.3 p icocuries / l iter (pci/l)

– the state water quality standard is 3 pci/l

. DEPP

told Chemung County that it should report the findings to NY

. The leachate should be sufficiently diluted such that it would not exceed the water quality standard.

City of Cortland

During Region 2 ’s June 2011 pretreatment audit of the City of Cortland, Cortland indicated that they accepted wastewater from gas well extraction for a couple of months in 2008 but ceased accepting the wastewater. In Region 2 ’s August 1, 2011 pretreatment program audit report, we reiterated that i f Cortland wants to accept hydrofrac k wastewater in the future, Cortland would need to notify Region 2 and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation prior to accepting the wastewater.

Village of Sherbur ne

The Village of Sherburne has accepted wastewater from drilling activities. Sherburne has ceased acceptance of

waste water from well drilling activities. NYSDEC is in the process of modifying their SPDES permit to include monitoring and reporting conditions for when/if they do accept well drilling water in the future.City of Geneva

The Geneva POTW does not accept wastewater from gas extraction. During the June 1 , 2011 City Council meeting, the Geneva’s City Council unanimously resolved, “that the Geneva City Council, hereby and in due form, does direct the City Manager to refrain from entering into any agreement, or otherwise effectuate the treatment of

wastewate r from hydro

- fracking or related ventures at any wastewater treatment or other facility owned or operated by the City of Geneva.”