1

STATES PRETREATMENT COORDINATORS’ BI-MONTHLY

CONFERENCE CALL

August 14, 2013 / 2:00 – 4:00 PM EDT

Summary

PARTICIPANTS:

States

Alaska

Arkansas

California 

Colorado

Iowa

Kanas

Michigan

Missouri

Minnesota

North Carolina

Oklahoma

Oregon

Tennessee 

Texas

West Virginia

EPA Headquarters

Jan Pickrel (OWM)

Ginny Phillips (OECA)

Rebecca Roose (OECA)

Jesse Pritts (OST)

Lisa Biddle (OST)

Other

Susan Kirsch, Association of Clean Water 

Administrators (ACWA)

Tetra Tech

I-Hsin Lee

Christy Williams

INTRODUCTION

Jan Pickrel (Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] Office of Wastewater Management [OWM] 

welcomed everyone to the conference call and took roll. 

DISCUSSION TOPICS

Acceptance of Oil and Gas Extraction Wastewater at POTWs and CWTs

Lisa Biddle (Office of Science and Technology, OST) reported that EPA is developing a proposed 

rule to amend the Effluent Limitations Guidelines (ELGs) for the Oil and Gas Extraction 

Category, Onshore Subcategory (40 CFR Part 435, Subpart C). The revisions tentatively would 

not include regulation for coal-bed methane extraction but will provide additional controls for

discharges from other unconventional oil and gas extraction methods (i.e. shale gas, shale oil, 

etc.). Ms. Biddle stated that OST has been doing research to see if wastewaters from this 

industry sector are being discharged to POTWs. Based on preliminary literature review and 

research, she indicated that OST believes that unconventional oil and gas wastewater is not 

being discharged to POTWs, but she wanted to ask the group if they agree with this conclusion. 

She also asked the group if they thought a pretreatment standard for this subcategory would 

add value to their pretreatment programs and why or why not. Ms. Biddle also stated that a 
 2

part of the analysis is to consider alternative disposal methods, such as CWTs. They have found 

information in the literature that this is being done, but they have not found an actual example. 

Lisa Knerr (Colorado) indicated that her state had just issued a permit to a conventional oil and 

gas facility that discharges wastewater to a POTW. This facility discharges its wastewater to a 

small POTW and has a large amount of data they could provide to EPA. Ms. Biddle indicated 

that the current OST research was dealing only with unconventional oil well wastewaters. Ms. 

Biddle asked Ms. Knerr if she knew how the unconventional oil and gas facilities were 

discharging their wastewaters to POTWs and Ms. Knerr replied that this type of wastewater are 

usually sent to other states’ underground injection wells for disposal.

Ms. Biddle also stated that OST is also trying to gather data on whether centralized waste 

treaters (CWTs) are accepting this type of wastewater. She said that she knew some CWTs were 

in Pennsylvania.

Allen Gilliam (Arkansas) asked if Ms. Biddle was asking for pre-frack or post-frack information. 

A city in Arkansas has questioned him about accepting “frack tank” wash water. The facility is a 

conventional oil and gas facility but is now performing some horizontal drilling. He asked Ms. 

Biddle if this type of wastewater would be considered ancillary waste subject to the new rule.

Ms. Biddle responded that she would check with current regulation since that would not be the 

same as flow-back water. She asked Mr. Gilliam what the city decided to do. Mr. Gilliam 

responded that nothing had been decided yet and the city is still deliberating. The volumes that 

would be discharged were quite large – 1000 barrels. He added other cities have been 

approached about taking flow back fracking wastewaters. His state has been warning these 

cities that accepting this type of wastewater could warrant a change in their National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination Discharge (NPDES) permit requirements. 

Ms. Biddle stated that OST was interested in information about POTWs taking flow back or 

brine wastewaters. She asked if any of these cities had decided to accept this water. Mr. 

Gilliam indicated that, to his knowledge, they had not agreed to accept this type of wastewater 

but he would need to review the memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the oil and gas 

commission which is the primary regulator for shale formation gas fracking facilities in 

Arkansas. He added that it would be helpful to him and the POTWs within his state for have 

pretreatment standards for these discharges and he added that it would be helpful to cities to 

have some sort of background information or standards or characterization of expected total 

dissolved solids and minerals.

Ginny Phillips (Office of Compliance Assurance, OECA) asked if OST was aware that a POTW in 

Pennsylvania agreed to accept brine discharges a couple of summers ago. Ms. Biddle indicated 

she was aware. Ms. Phillips stated that she thought the Office of General Counsel (OGC) tried 

to interpret OST’s decision to not promulgate pretreatment standards to mean that it is 

acceptable for these facilities to discharge its wastewater to POTWs and that control of these 

wastewaters is not necessary. Ms. Phillips added that this is not the case, rather pretreatment 
 3

standards were not proposed because, when the rule was being developed, no one had 

thought these facilities would be indirect dischargers. She stated this definitely needed to be 

addressed.

Ms. Pickrel asked Mr. Gilliam if the Oil and Gas Commission was the primary permitting agency 

for oil and gas facilities. Mr. Gilliam responded that they were not the permitting agency, but 

oversaw the implementation of best management practices (BMPs). This is similar to how an 

agricultural agency would implement a program for and application of nutrients. Ms. Pickrel 

asked if the oil and gas commission would issue wastewater discharge permits and Mr. Gilliam 

stated he would need to research that question. Ms. Pickrel indicated that Ohio had a situation 

recently where they had different agencies trying to decide who had the authority to permit 

discharges into a POTW. 

Ms. Biddle asked Mr. Gilliam if there are CWTs in Arkansas that accept this type of wastewater. 

Mr. Gilliam so no, that there were very few CWTs in Arkansas and if any of the CWTs in 

Arkansas were taking this type of waste, he was unaware of it.

Mr. Gilliam asked Rebecca Villalba (Texas) if their oil and gas commission was allowing these 

types of discharges. Ms. Villalba indicated one facility discharged to a POTW in Fort Worth for a 

short time but she thought the facility had stopped discharging to the POTW. Ms. Biddle asked 

Ms. Villalba to confirm the facility’s discharge practices and asked if there were any CWTs 

accepting this waste in Texas. Ms. Villalba did not think so but she would survey the CWTs to 

see.

Steve Casper (Kansas) indicated that they have an active oil and gas industry but all the 

wastewater is going to underground injection control (UIC) wells. None of the cities in his state 

have been approached to take this type of wastewater. Kansas has CWTs but Mr. Casper did

not know if they have been contacted by the oil and gas industries to treat its wastewater. He 

offered to call and ask them. He said that they have a corporation commission which regulates 

the oil and gas industry but he was not sure if they issue the permits. Mr. Casper added that he 

did not think additional pretreatment standards would be helpful in his state.

Ms. Pickrel asked if any POTWs were accepting this type of wastewater in California. Russell 

Norman (California) stated that he was not aware of any but he would research the question 

with the Regional Boards.

Ms. Biddle asked if the representatives from West Virginia and Oklahoma knew of any 

examples. Nate Wadhwa (West Virginia) stated that West Virginia had a POTW accepting oil 

and gas wastewater but it was not considering fracking wastewater. The POTW did not renew 

the permit. Mr. Wadhwa added that the state sent letters to its POTWs stating that they should 

not accept fracking wastewater and he has not received any requests to do so. He stated that 

pretreatment standards may not be necessary since the state has explicitly stated that POTWs

should not accept this type of wastewater. Ms. Biddle indicated that one of the options for the 

standard would be a no-discharge requirement. 
 4

Mr. Gilliam and Grace Scott (Michigan) both indicated they would support a no discharge 

pretreatment standard.

Finally, Ms. Biddle told the group that if anyone had any additional information to please email 

it to her. Ms. Biddle’s email address is biddle.lisa@epa.gov.

Revisions to the IU Inspection and Sampling Manual 

Mr. Gilliam informed the group that they may have received an email from him requesting that 

they review Appendix II of the IU Inspection and Sampling Manual, which EPA is currently 

updating. The appendix contains sector specific questions for about 60 industry sectors. He 

asked the group to review these questions. He added that if everyone could review the industry 

sector that they were most familiar with, that it would be extremely helpful. All comments and 

suggested improvements are welcome. He indicated that these questions may also be helpful 

for POTWs to incorporate into sector specific industrial user surveys as well as being used 

during inspections. 

Ms. Scott indicated that the questions in Appendix II would be suited for sector specific surveys 

because some of the facility sectors are so rare. Mr. Casper thought these questions in 

Appendix II are very helpful, especially for those new to the pretreatment program.

Rebecca Roose (OECA) thanked everyone in advance for reviewing the document and asked 

that they forward any additional sector questions.

AWCA Letter Update

Ms. Pickrel indicated that Ms. Susan Kirsch (ACWA) gave a summary of the states’ priorities 

letter at the Region 6 workshop last week in Texas. She added that EPA has sent a response 

back to ACWA thanking them for the letter and to request a date to discuss the issues noted in 

the letter. Ms. Kirsch indicated that she will touch base with Ms. Pickrel to set up one or more 

calls perhaps in late September or October.

Ms. Scott asked Ms. Kirsch if she had received any feedback from the municipalities and if so, 

was their comments and concerns the same as those noted from the states. Ms. Kirsch

indicated that she did not get any comments during at the workshop. Ms. Kirsch thought it

might be a good idea to contact the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) to 

see if they had any feedback from the municipalities. Ms. Scott agrees since so many 

municipalities use the EPA guidance manuals. Ms. Kirsch indicated that NACWA was not sent a 

copy of the letter, but she will consider sending it to them.

Update regarding the OIG Evaluation 
 5

Ms. Pickrel indicated prior to today’s call, two Office of Inspector General (OIG) evaluation links 

were sent to the group. The link that Mr. Gilliam provided discusses EPA’s need to improve 

oversight of state enforcement action. The one she sent out discusses the toxic release 

inventory (TRI) and which industries are discharging these chemicals to POTWs. Today’s update 

regards the latter OIG evaluation (Notification of Preliminary Research to Evaluate Hazardous 

Waste Passing Through Publicly Owned Treatment Works, 

http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/notificationMemos/newStarts_03-13-

13_Hazardous_Waste_POTWs.pdf).

OIG is trying to evaluate the effectiveness of EPA’s programs in preventing and addressing 

contamination of surface water from hazardous waste passing through POTWs. OIG has been 

asking why these hazardous wastes are not monitored, or required to be monitored, by POTWs 

per the associated POTW NPDES Permit. OIG sent out requests to EPA Regions and States 

regarding seven POTWs and industries that discharge to those POTWs. OIG questions include: 

if the POTW monitors for these pollutants, were these pollutants included in the NPDES permit,

and did the facilities file the hazardous waste discharge form indicated at 40 CFR 403.12(p). 

Ms. Pickrel indicated that OIG should have the preliminary results in October.

Jaramie Logelin (Minnesota) said that there was a facility in Minnesota that discharges 9 million 

pounds of methanol and asked how the TRI reporting system works. Does the industry report

directly to the EPA? Ms. Pickrel indicated that yes that the TRI reporting is directly to EPA, 

usually done through electronic reporting. She added that there are certain qualifiers that an 

industry must meet before they have to report to TRI. For example the facility has to be a 

certain size and type and not all chemicals that are required to be reported through TRI are

considered hazardous chemicals. Ms. Pickrel indicated that there used to be a lot of soft drink 

companies that would report discharges of phosphoric acid to the POTW. Mr. Gilliam asked if 

methanol is listed as a hazardous waste. Ms. Pickrel answered that methanol is a U-listed 

waste.

Mr. Logelin asked if hazardous waste notification (as required by 40 CFR 403.12(p)) was a onetime reporting requirement. Ms. Pickrel indicated that yes, but it was not clear that the POTWs 

understood this reporting requirement regarding the thresholds for changes in the discharge. 

Mr. Wadhwa asked whether whole effluent toxicity (WET) testing results were considered as 

sufficient monitoring. Ms. Pickrel indicated that they made this suggestion.

Mr. Gilliam asked if the Guidance Manual for the Identification of Hazardous Waste Delivered to 

POTWs by Truck, Rail, or Dedicated Pipeline is being updated would include a list of hazardous 

waste to help POTWs identify hazardous waste. Ms. Pickrel indicated that she will ask if this 

document is still applicable. Ms. Phillips indicated that she would check into this with contacts 

she has in the EPA Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery (ORCR). Mr. Gilliam 

mentioned the Domestic Sewage Exclusion, that the term hazardous waste is not an 

appropriate label for constituents of wastewater discharged via the collection system to POTW 

plants. Ms. Pickrel suggested that the updated manual include links and citations where up-to-
 6

date information can be obtained rather than including information the manual that will be out 

of date when it’s published. 

Poll Regarding Possible Dates for the Webcast Regarding the E-Reporting Rule

Ms. Pickrel announced that OECA have scheduled a webcast for the August 27

th, 2013. However

this webcast will be primarily dedicated to the NPDES data community, so it may not be 

focused to answer questions specifically for pretreatment staff. Ms. Pickrel added that OECA is

willing to do another webcast with a pretreatment focus and requested the group to suggest 

possible dates. Yatasha Moore indicated that she will send out a survey via Survey Monkey to 

the group to determine an appropriate date.

Steam Electric Webcast and Proposed Rule

Ms. Pickrel announced that there will be webcast for the steam electric rule on August 20, 2013 

from 11 AM – 1 PM. The webcast will not be archived so if anyone is interested, they must 

attend the live event. More information regarding the event can be found at 

http://water.epa.gov/scitech/wastetech/guide/steam-electric/proposed.cfm.

Ms. Scott stated that she and Ms. Villalba are working on comments to the steam electric rule 

and asked the group if for suggested on how to format the letter (i.e., major comments versus 

minor comments). Ms. Phillips suggested that they put the major requests in the main body of 

the letter and include the more minor comments as an attachment to the letter.

CROMERR Requirements

Mr. Logelin stated that there was a POTW in Minnesota that would like to require their 

industrial users to report electronically and he wanted to know if the POTW needed to apply 

directly to EPA or would the state need to coordinate this effort. Ms. Scott indicated that a 

POTW in Michigan made their request directly to EPA. Mr. Logelin said he heard that a POTW 

in TX might be trying to do the same thing. Ms. Villalba said that the City of Austin might be. 

They have been talking to the state’s Net-DMR staff.

Ms. Pickrel stated that EPA has developed Net-DMR for states to use and if they use it, the 

software is CROMERR compliant. However, getting CROMERR approval also involves additional 

legal requirements. States can also create their own software, but state would have to ensure 

that their software contains all of the requirements. 

Mr. Logelin said his state just went to full electronic submittal for DMRs. Ms. Pickrel stated that 

the proposed E-reporting rule would require NPDES permitted facilities to E-report. As is the 

current practice, each state will continue to be able to choose if they will batch upload to EPA 

or if the state will download the information off of the Integrated Compliance Information 

System (ICIS). 

Ms. Scott asked if EPA will be developing a standardized annual reporting form. Ms. Pickrel 

indicated that they would be developing some mechanism as part of the NPDES E-Reporting 

Rule for POTWs to submit a minimum annual report. She said that OECA plans for the system 
 7

to be able to accommodate additional reporting requirements, as part of NPDES permits, that 

states and Regions may include in the annual reports. 

Miscellaneous Item

Ms. Villalba thanked everyone in Region 6 for attending the regional workshop and expressed 

her gratitude of Dr. Sawyer’s attendance and the fact that he listened to the groups’ thoughts 

and concerns.

NEXT MEETING

Additional questions and topics for the next call should be e-mailed to Jan Pickrel at 

pickrel.jan@epa.gov. The next conference call has been scheduled for October 9, 2013, at 2:00 

p.m. EDT.