1 

### STATES PRETREATMENT COORDINATORS’ QUARTERLY

CONFERENCE CALL August 8 , 2012 / 2:00

– 2:4 5 PM EDT

Summary

PARTICIPANTS:

States
Alaska
Florida Michigan

Minnesota New Jersey
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma

Tennessee

Texas
Utah Virginia EPA Headquarters Jan Pickrel (OWM)

C h rystal Beasley (OWM)
Lisa Biddle (OST

- EAD )

Tetra Tech

I

- Hsin Lee Christine Wong

INTRODUCTION

Jan Pickrel (EPA Office of Wastewater Management [OWM]) welcomed everyone to the conference call
and took roll.

DISCUS SION TOPICS

Shale Gas Extraction Wastewater going to POTWs
Ms. Pickrel introduced Lisa Biddle of EPA’s Office of Science and T echnolog y (OST) Engineering and Analysis Division (EAD). Ms. Biddle stated that she is w orking on an effluent guideline (ELG) fo r the discharge of shale gas extraction wastewater that will include pretreatment standards for discharges to publicly owned treatment works (POTWs)

. She noted that OST EAD is only in the e arly stages of
research. She commented that there is a data gap a bout POTWs that receive or have received wastewater from hydrofracking operations and asked the group to help her compile a list of these

POTWs. She noted that her email address is included with the call agenda and invited anybody with
information about s uch POTWs to contact her.

Ms. Pickrel asked the group if any state had regulations in place regarding hydrofracking wastewater. Valentine Kouame (New Jersey) stated that some POTWs in N ew J ersey have receive d inquiries about
accept ing hydrofracking wast ewaters , but the POTWs decided not to accept th e wastewater

. He
commented that the state assembly is developing a bill to prohibit the acceptance of wastewaters from
the hydro fracking operations and offered to send EPA a copy of the draft bill

.

Grace Sco tt (Michigan) stated that POTW s and centralized waste treaters (CWTs) in Michigan are prohibited from accepting hydrofracking wastewater. Hydrofracking wastewater cannot be discharged

to surface waters or a POTW.2

Allison Osbourne (Texas) stated that Texa s does not have any regulation regarding the disposal of hydrofracking wastewater. She noted that the city of Fort Worth had accepted some hydrofracking

wastewater o n a very limited basis a couple of years ago and the city closely monitored the wastewater
for the duration of the discharge

. Since then, the city has passed an ordinance including very high surcharge fees for hydrofracking wastewaters and has not been asked again to accept this type of discharge. Ms. Orbourne stated that this was the only f acility in Texas that she had knowledge of that accepts or has accepted hydrofracking wastewater. She noted that the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) staff sometimes receive questions from the industry section inquiring
about which POTWs m ight accept hydrofracking wastewater, but s he does not know of any POTWs that have been approached to accept this waste. She stated that TCEQ staff have told inquirers that it is up
to each individual POTW whether to accept this type of waste and directed inquirers towards larger POTWs (e.g., POTWs with more than 1 million gallons per day of influent flow). She indicated that no staff member at TCEQ is specifically tracking inquiries or activities regarding hydro fracking wastewater.

Jenny Dodd (Tennesse e) stated that she is not aware of any POTWs in Tennessee that are accepting or have accepted this type of wastewater. She noted that the s tate is working on a rule and/or guidelines regarding this issue and has just taken public comment on their proposed materials. Ms. Pickrel stated that she would be interested to see what was asked during the comment period and the responses
received. Ms. Dodd agreed to send EPA a copy of the materials and comments.

Ryan Laake (Ohio) indicated that Ohio is in litiga tion with one industr ial user that sends hydrofracking wastewater to the city of Warren

. (Note: the city of Warren does have an approved pretreatment

program

. ) So far in the suit it has been found that t he Department of Natural Resources, not the Ohio

EP A , can regulate this type of wastewater. He noted that, to his knowledge, t his is the only facility that has discharged hydrofracking wastewater to a POTW or waters of the state.

Sarah Morrison (North Carolina) stated that North Carolina has been conduc ting research on this issue and is in the process of developing regulation s to address it. There are, to her knowledge, no facilities discharging hydrofracking wastewater in the state. She noted that that the state prohibits dee p well injection of hydrof racking wastewater, so, if necessary, the wastewater would likely be discharged to a

POTW.

Ms. Pickrel asked how Oklahoma is dealing with this issue. Roshini Nambiar (Oklahoma) answered that she is unsure how the state is dealing with the issu e. She pr omised to look into it and respond to EPA.

Mr. Kouame asked when the rule is expected to be proposed. Ms. Biddle answered that the most recent
§ 304(m) Effluent Guidelines Program Plan forecast 2014 for the proposed rule

.

Pretreatment Program Priorities Ms. Dodd stated that it has been four years since the states have weigh ed in [as a group] about state pretreatment program priorities for EPA ( i.e., updating guidance materials and policies)

. She noted that

it is a good time to update the state list of p riorities , because some previously ide ntified issues have
been resolved by EPA (e.g., EPA has reissued a guidance) or are no longer relevant. She indicated that

Grace Scott (Michigan) , Karen Whisler (Oregon)

, and Steve Casper s (Kansas) have volunteered t o poll
the states and develop a list of priorities and asked for other volunteers to h elp with this process. She
also r equested that everyone participate in the polling process by completing the upcoming survey , and3

by sending in concerns and priorities. Jennifer Robinson ( Utah ) answered that she would help if
needed

.

Ms. Dodd stated that, in the ne xt few weeks, the group will be sending out a survey. She asked the

states to ca refully consider which guidance materials are needed or need to be updated a nd other
issues of concern. She noted that s tate

- specific concern s that don’t affect other state s might not make the final list and encouraged the group to think of national topics of interest.

Regulation of T a xidermists Ms. Scott asked the group how or if they regulate taxidermy shops . She wondered specifically if they had regulated any facilities as categorical industrial users (CIUs) under the leather tanning (40 CFR Part 425) categorical standard. She commented that the leather tanning regulations do not reference taxidermy, but noted t hat some of the process es are similar. Ms. Scott indicated that she has searched the development documents and there are reference s to domestic types of animals, but nothi ng about
exotic animals , which are often proc essed in taxidermy shops

. She stated that a brief search online showed that there are taxidermy shops all over the nation.

Ms. Dodd responded that there are no programs in Tennessee that regulate taxidermy shops. Ms. Scott replied that they are only lo oking into the issue because a pump station was destroyed and a taxidermy shop upstream was identified as a potential culprit. The facility in question does have a proprietary tanning process, and because the categorical standard does not specifically ref erence t axidermy, she is
unsure how it should be regulated. She surmised that the ELG might have been intended to pertain to large

- scale tanning operations; taxidermy seems to be mostly a cottage industry that has not been evaluated by EPA under a categor ical standard. Ms. Dodd remarked that a metal finishe r in Tennessee
had tried to convince the state that that elevated zinc in the wastewater could be attributed to a taxidermy operation but that was a long reach.

Ms. Pickrel recalled that many large t anneries close d in Mil waukee and facilities in the Region 1 area

went to court or closed upon the promulgation of 40 CFR Part 425 . She noted that lye, chrome, and arsenic were among the pollutants of concern. She also noted that facilities might us e pest icides to kill the bugs on the animal skins being tanned. Ms. Scott stated that the facility in question is receiving hides that have already been salted and preserved ; it is processing the skins by putting them on forms or stuffing them

.

Aaron Luckste in (M innesota) commented that Minnesota has quite a few taxidermy shops but the state had never considered regulating them. There is a large tannery ( the Red Wing facility) that is regulated under 40 CFR Part 425, but taxidermist have not been evaluated a s industrial users of concern. He stated that he would call Randy Dunnette, the former pretreatment coordinator, and respond back to the group about his findings.

Nanosilver Detection Ms. Scott stated that a consultant had recently asked her about an in crease in silver detected in a facility’s biosolids

. ( Ms. Scott did not know the name of the specific facility

. ) She reported that the
consult ant suspected that nanosilver particles could be contributing to the increased silver

concentrations in the bios olids , because there has been no change in the POTW’s i nfluent monitoring or
the industrial user base

. The consultant also asked if 40 CFR Part 136 methods for silver detection
would detect the silver nanoparticles. Ms. Scott asked the group for any inpu t on these topics. Ms. Pickrel answered that, in a Region 6 meeting some years ago there was a discussion about4

nanoparticles. The speaker was saying that

, depending what the particle is coated with , it might be
overlooked by one test but then detected b y another. For example, bioassay tests could have healthy test subjects for the first few days, but then the subjects would all die on day 5 , with the pollutants of concern acting like time

- release pills. So , from that discussion, it seems like a delay i n detection could be possible. Ms. Scott noted that this could be a significant issue in the future. Ms. Pickrel agreed, giving the example of a POTW that fails to detect parameters of concern in its effluent but still has a fish kill resulting from its discharge.

Ms. Pickrel asked if the POTW in question was testing for t otal silver or dissolved silver. Ms. Scott did not know but suggested that the POTW was likely testing for total silver. She pointed out that nanosilver has increasingly common comm ercial uses. It is not just used in washing machines, but also applied to sports equipment (e.g., hockey), socks, hunting g ear, etc.

Ms. Pickrel asked if the POTW was violating its sludge limits. Ms. Scott answered that the facility is not exceeding an y limits, but had noticed higher

- than

- normal levels of silver and an upwards trend

.

NEXT MEETING

Additional questions and topics for the next call should be e

- mailed to Jan Pickrel at pickrel.jan@epa.gov . The ne xt conference call has been scheduled for October 10

, 2012, at 2:00 p.m.

EDT.