1 STATES PRETREATMENT COORDINATORS’ BI

- MONTHLY

CONFERENCE CALL August 14 , 2013 / 2:00

– 4:00 PM ED T

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

C hristy Williams

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

w elcomed everyone to the conference call and took roll.

DISCUSSION TOPICS

Acceptance of Oil and Gas Extraction W astewater 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 te ntatively would not include regulation for coal

- bed methane extraction but will provid e additional controls for discharges from other unconventional oil and gas extraction methods ( i.e. shale gas, shale oil,

etc. ). Ms. Biddle state d that OST has been doin g 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
b eing 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

a dd value to their pretreatment programs and why or why not. Ms. Biddle also stated that a2

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 r esearch 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

usua lly 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 wastewat er. She said that she knew some CWTs were in P ennsylvania

.

Al len 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 p erforming 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 deliber ating . The volumes that would be discharged were quite large

– 1000 b arrels. He added o ther cities have been approached about taking flow back frack ing waste waters. His state has been warn ing these cities that accepting this type of wastewater could warr ant 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 decide d 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 re view the memorandum of understanding ( MOU ) with the oil and gas

commission which is the primary regulator f or shale formation gas frack ing 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 backg round 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 brin e discharge s a couple of summers ago. Ms. Biddle indicated
she was aware. Ms. Phillips stated that she thought the Office of General Counsel ( OG C) tried to interpret OST’s decision to not promulgate pretreatment standards to mean that it is acceptable for these faci lities 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 pretreatment3

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 n o t the permitting agency, but oversaw the implementation o f best management practices ( BMPs )

. This is s imilar 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 discharge s 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 di scharging 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 n o t 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 t his type of wastewater. Kansas has CWTs but Mr. Casper d id

n o t 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 n o t 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 C alifornia

. Russell Norman ( California ) stated that he was n o t awar e of any but he would research the question
with the R egional B oards.

Ms. Biddle asked if the representatives from W est V irginia and O klahoma knew of any examples. Nate Wadhwa ( West Virginia ) stated that West Virginia ha d a POTW accept ing oil and gas wastewater but it was not considering frack ing waste water. The POTW did not renew

t he permit

. Mr. Wadhwa added that the state sent letters to its POTWs stating that they should not accept frack ing waste water and he has not received any reques ts 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 requ irement.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 addr ess 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 A ppendix II of the IU Inspection and Sampling Manual

, which EPA i s currently updating. The appendix contains sector specific questions for about 60 industry sectors. He
asked the group to review the se 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 the se questions may also be helpful for POTWs to incorporate into sector specific industrial user surveys as well as being used during inspections

.

Ms. Scott i ndicated 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 i n Appendix II are very helpful, e specially for those new to the pretreatment progr am.

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
l etter 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

i ndicated 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 si nce 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 Evaluation5

Ms. Pickrel indicated prior to today’s call, two Office of Inspector General ( OIG ) evaluation link s were sent to the group. The link that Mr. G illiam provided discusses EPA’s need to improve oversight of state enforcement a ction . The one she sent out d iscusses the toxic release inventory ( TRI ) and wh ich 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 program s 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 M innesota that dis charges 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 ad ded 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 n ot all chemicals that are required to be reported through TRI are considered hazardous chemi cals

. 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

wa ste.

Mr. Logelin asked if hazardous waste notification (as required by 40 CFR 403.12(p)) was a one

time 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 Gui dance 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 thi s 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 i s 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 inf ormation the manual that will be out of date when it’s published.

Poll Regarding Possible Dates for the Webcast R egarding the E

- Reporting Rule
Ms. Pickrel announced that OECA have scheduled a webcast for the August 2 7 th

, 2013. H owever 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 a nother webcast with a pretreatment focus and requested t he 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 su ggested 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 Requiremen ts 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

- D MR 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 . S tates 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 facilit ies 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 system7

to be able to accommodat e 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 sh ould 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.