1

STATES PRETREATMENT COORDINATORS’ QUARTERLY

CONFERENCE CALL

August 8, 2012 / 2:00 – 2:45 PM EDT

Summary

PARTICIPANTS:

States

Alaska

Florida

Michigan

Minnesota

New Jersey

North Carolina

Ohio

Oklahoma

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Virginia

EPA Headquarters

Jan Pickrel (OWM)

Chrystal 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. 

DISCUSSION TOPICS

Shale Gas Extraction Wastewater going to POTWs

Ms. Pickrel introduced Lisa Biddle of EPA’s Office of Science and Technology (OST) Engineering and 

Analysis Division (EAD). Ms. Biddle stated that she is working on an effluent guideline (ELG) for 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 early stages of 

research. She commented that there is a data gap about 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 such 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 New Jersey have received inquiries about

accepting hydrofracking wastewaters, but the POTWs decided not to accept the wastewater. He 

commented that the state assembly is developing a bill to prohibit the acceptance of wastewaters from 

the hydrofracking operations and offered to send EPA a copy of the draft bill.

Grace Scott (Michigan) stated that POTWs 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 Texas does not have any regulation regarding the disposal of 

hydrofracking wastewater. She noted that the city of Fort Worth had accepted some hydrofracking 

wastewater on 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 facility 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 might accept hydrofracking wastewater, but she 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 hydrofracking wastewater. 

Jenny Dodd (Tennessee) 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 state 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 litigation with one industrial 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 the Department of Natural Resources, not the Ohio 

EPA, can regulate this type of wastewater. He noted that, to his knowledge, this 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 conducting research on this issue 

and is in the process of developing regulations to address it. There are, to her knowledge, no facilities 

discharging hydrofracking wastewater in the state. She noted that that the state prohibits deep well 

injection of hydrofracking 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 issue. She promised 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 weighed 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 priorities, because some previously identified 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 Caspers (Kansas) have volunteered to poll 

the states and develop a list of priorities and asked for other volunteers to help with this process. She 

also requested that everyone participate in the polling process by completing the upcoming survey, and 
3

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

needed.

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

states to carefully consider which guidance materials are needed or need to be updated and other 

issues of concern. She noted that state-specific concerns that don’t affect other states might not make 

the final list and encouraged the group to think of national topics of interest.

Regulation of Taxidermists

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 that some of the processes are similar. Ms. Scott indicated that she has searched 

the development documents and there are references to domestic types of animals, but nothing about 

exotic animals, which are often processed 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 looking 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 reference taxidermy, 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 categorical standard. Ms. Dodd remarked that a metal finisher 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 tanneries closed in Milwaukee 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 use pesticides 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 Luckstein (Minnesota) 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 as 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 increase in silver detected in a 

facility’s biosolids. (Ms. Scott did not know the name of the specific facility.) She reported that the 

consultant suspected that nanosilver particles could be contributing to the increased silver 

concentrations in the biosolids, because there has been no change in the POTW’s influent 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 input on these topics. Ms. 

Pickrel answered that, in a Region 6 meeting some years ago there was a discussion about 
4

nanoparticles. The speaker was saying that, depending what the particle is coated with, it might be 

overlooked by one test but then detected by 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 in 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 total 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 commercial uses. It is not just used in washing machines, but also 

applied to sports equipment (e.g., hockey), socks, hunting gear, etc. 

Ms. Pickrel asked if the POTW was violating its sludge limits. Ms. Scott answered that the facility is not 

exceeding any 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 next conference call has been scheduled for October 10, 2012, at 2:00 p.m. 

EDT.