## MEMORANDUM

TO: Record

FROM: James K. O’Connell, ERG

DATE: June 6 , 2016

SUBJECT: Memorandum Providing a Crosswalk between Tables and Figures in the

Proposed and Final Technical Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for Oil and Gas Extraction ( DCN SGE0 1 33 4 )

T his memorandum presents the tables and figures in the Tec hnical Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for Oil and Gas Extraction (TDD) ( DCN SGE01188). Table 1 and Table 2 are crosswalks between the Proposal TDD ( DCN SGE00704) and Final TDD ( DCN SGE01188) to assist readers in identify ing changes made after the rulemaking was proposed in April of 2015. Table 1 lists the tables from both documents, including the table number and table title. Table 2 lists the figures from both documents, including the figure number and figure title. Both tables are organized so that corresponding tables and figures which appear in both versions are presented in the same row.

### Memorandum

J une 6 , 2016 Page 2

Table 1

. List of Tables Crosswalk for Proposal and Final Versions of the Technical Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for Oil and Gas Extraction
Proposal Table Number Proposal Table Title Final Table Number Final Ta bl e Title
Table A

‐ 1 Summary of State Regulations Table A

‐ 1 Summary of State Regulations/Guidance

Table B

‐ 1 Characteristics of Reservoirs Containing UOG and COG

Resources -- --

-- -- Table B

‐ 1 Summary of State Regulatory Definitions

Table B

‐ 2 Active Onshore Oil and Gas Drilling Rigs by Well Trajectory

and Product Type (as of November 8, 2013) Table B

‐ 2 Active Onshore Oil and Gas Drilling Rigs by Well Trajectory and Product Type (as of October 9, 2015)
Table B

‐ 3 UOG Potential by Resource Type as of J anuary 1, 2012 Table B

‐ 3 UOG Potential by Resource Type as of January 1, 2013
Table C

‐ 1 Sources for Base Fluid in Hydraulic Fracturing Table C

‐ 1 Sources for Base Fluid in Hydraulic Fracturing

Table C

‐ 2 Fracturing Fluid Additives, Main Compounds, and Common

Uses Table C

‐ 2 Fracturing Fluid Additives, Common Compounds, and Common Uses

Table C

‐ 3 Most Frequently Reported Additive Ingredients Used in

Fracturing Fluid in Gas and Oil Wells from FracFocus (2011

- 2013) Table C

‐ 3 Most Frequently Reported Additive Ingredients Used in Fracturing Fluid in Gas Wells from FracFocus (2011

– 2013)

Table C

‐ 4 Most Frequently Reported Additive Ingredients Used in

Fracturing Fluid in Oil Wells from FracFocus (2011

– 2013)

Table C

‐ 4 Median Drilling Wastewater Volumes for UOG Horizontal and

Vertical Wells in Pennsylvania Table C

‐ 5 Median Drilling Wastewater Volumes for UOG Horizontal and Vertical Wells in Pennsylvania

Table C

‐ 5 Drilling Wastewater Volumes Generated per Well by UOG

Formation Table C

‐ 6 Drilling Wastewater Volumes Generated per Well by UOG Formation

Table C

‐ 6 UOG Well Flowback Recovery by Resource Type and Well

Trajectory Table C

‐ 7 UOG Well Flowback Recovery by Resource Type and Well Trajectory

Table C

‐ 7 Long

- Term Produced Water Generation Rates by Resource

Type and Well Trajectory Table C

‐ 8 Long

- Term Produced Water Generation Rates by Resource Type and Well Trajectory
Table C

‐ 8 Produced Water Volume Generation by UOG Formation Table C

‐ 9 Produced Water Volume Generation by UOG Formation

Table C

‐ 9 Availability of Data for UOG Extraction Wastewater

Characterization -- --

Table C

‐ 10 Concentrations of Select Classical and Conventional

Constituents in UOG Drilling Wastewater from Marcellus Shale Formation Wells Table C

‐ 10 Concentrations of Select Classical and Conventional Constituents in UOG Drilling Wastewater from Marcellus Shale Formation Wells

### Memorandum

J une 6 , 2016 Page 3

Table 1

. List of Tables Crosswalk for Proposal and Final Versions of the Technical Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for Oil and Gas Extraction
Proposal Table Number Proposal Table Title Final Table Number Final Ta bl e Title

Table C

‐ 11 Concentrations of Select Classical and Conventional

Constituents in UOG Produced Water Table C

‐ 11 Concentrations of Select Classical and Conventional Constituents in UOG Produced Water

Table C

‐ 12 Concentrations of Select Anions and Cations Contributing to

TDS in UOG Drilling Wastewater from Marcellus Shale Formation Wells Table C

‐ 12 Concentrations of Bromide and Sulfate in UOG Drilling Wastewater from Marcellus Shale Formation Wells

Table C

‐ 13 Concentrations of Select Anions and Cations Contributing to

TDS in UOG Produced Water Table C

‐ 13 Concentrations of Select Anions and Cations Contributing to TDS in UOG Produced Water

Table C

‐ 14 Concentrations of Select Organic Constituents in UOG Drilling

Wastewater from Marcellus Shale Formation Wells Table C

‐ 14 Concentrations of Select Organic Constituents in UOG Drilling Wastewater from Marcellus Shale Formation Wells

Table C

‐ 15 Concentrations of Select Organic Constituents in UOG

Produced Water Table C

‐ 15 Concentrations of Select Organic Constituents in UOG Produced Water

Table C

‐ 16 Concentrations of Select Metal Constituents in UOG Drilling

Wastewater from Marcellus Shale Formation Wells Table C

‐ 16 Concentrations of Select Metal Constituents in UOG Drilling Wastewater from Marcellus Shale Formation Wells

Table C

‐ 17 Concentrations of Select Metal Constituents in UOG Produced

Water Table C

‐ 17 Concentrations of Select Metal Constituents in UOG Produced Water

Table C

‐ 18 Concentrations of Select Radioactive Constituents in UOG

Drilling Wastewater from Marcell us Shale Formation Wells Table C

‐ 18 Concentrations of Select Radioactive Constituents in UOG Drilling Wastewater from Marcellus Shale Formation Wells

Table C

‐ 19 Concentrations of Select Radioactive Constituents in UOG

Produced Water Table C

‐ 19 Concentrations of Select Radioactive Constituents in UOG Produced Water

Table C

‐ 20 Concentrations of Radioactive Constituents in Rivers, Lakes,

Groundwater, and Drinking Water Sources Throughout the United States (pCi/L) Table C

‐ 20 Concentrations of Rad ioactive Constituents in Rivers, Lakes, Groundwater, and Drinking Water Sources Throughout the United States (pCi/L)
Table D

‐ 1 UOG Produced Water Management Practices Table D

‐ 1 UOG Produced Water Management Practices

Table D

‐ 2 Distribution of Active Class II Disposal Wells Across the United

States Table D

‐ 2 Distribution of Active Class II Disposal Wells Across the United States (Primarily 2012 and 2013 Data)

-- -- Table D

‐ 3 Distribution of Active Class II Disposal Wells on Tribal Lands (2014 Data)

### Memorandum

J une 6 , 2016 Page 4

Table 1

. List of Tables Crosswalk for Proposal and Final Versions of the Technical Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for Oil and Gas Extraction
Proposal Table Number Proposal Table Title Final Table Number Final Ta bl e Title

Table D

‐ 3 Reuse/Recycle Practices in 2012 as a Percentage of Total

Produced Water Generated as Reported by Respondents to 2012 Survey Table D

‐ 4 Reuse/Recycle Practices in 2012 as a Percentage of Total Produced Water Generated as Reported by Respondents to 2012 Survey
Table D

‐ 4 Reported Reuse/Recycle Criteria Table D

‐ 5 Reported Reuse/Recycle Criteria

Table D

‐ 5 Reported Reuse/Recycle Practices as a Percentage of Total

Fracturing Volume Table D

‐ 6 Reported Reuse/Recycle Practices as a Percentage of Total Fracturing Volume

Table D

‐ 6 Number, by State, of CWT Facilities That Have Accepted or

Plan to Accept UOG Extraction Wastewater Table D

‐ 7 Number of CWT Facilities That Have Accepted or Plan to Accept UOG Extraction Wastewater, by State
Table D

‐ 7 Typical Composition of Untreated Domestic Wastewater Table D

‐ 8 Typical Composition of Untreated Domestic Wastewater

Table D

‐ 8 Typical Percent Re moval Capabilities from POTWs with

Secondary Treatment Table D

‐ 9 Typical Percent Removal Capabilities from POTWs with Secondary Treatment
Table D

‐ 9 U.S. POTWs by Treatment Level in 2008 Table D

‐ 10 U.S. POTWs by Treatment Level in 2012

Table D

‐ 10 POTWs That Accepted UOG Extraction Wastewater from

Onshore UOG Operators Table D

‐ 11 POTWs That Accepted UOG Extraction Wastewater Directly from Onshore UOG Operators

Table D

‐ 11 Percentage of Total POTW Influent Wastewater Composed of

UOG Extraction Wastewater at POTWs Accepting Wastewater from UOG Operators Table D

‐ 12 Percentage of Total POTW Influent Wastewater Composed of UOG Extraction Wastewater at POTWs Accepting Wastewater from UOG Operators

Table D

‐ 12 Summary of Studies About POTWs Receiving Oil and Ga s

Extraction Wastewater Pollutants Table D

‐ 13 Summary of Studies About POTWs Receiving Oil and Gas Extraction Wastewater Pollutants

Table D

‐ 13 Clairton Influent Oil and Gas Extraction Wastewater

Characteristics Table D

‐ 14 Clairton Influent Oil and Gas E xtraction Wastewater Characteristics

Table D

‐ 14 Trucked COG Extraction Wastewater Treated at McKeesport

POTW from November 1 Through 7, 2008 Table D

‐ 15 Trucked COG Extraction Wastewater Treated at McKeesport POTW from November 1 Through 7, 2008

Table D

‐ 15 McKeesport POTW Removal Rates Calculated for Local Limits

Analysis Table D

‐ 16 McKeesport POTW Removal Rates Calculated for Local Limits Analysis

Table D

‐ 16 Constituent Concentrations in UOG Extraction Wastewater

Treated at the McKeesport POTW Before M ixing with Other Influent Wastewater Table D

‐ 17 Constituent Concentrations in UOG Extraction Wastewater Treated at the McKeesport POTW Before Mixing with Other Influent Wastewater

### Memorandum

J une 6 , 2016 Page 5

Table 1

. List of Tables Crosswalk for Proposal and Final Versions of the Technical Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for Oil and Gas Extraction
Proposal Table Number Proposal Table Title Final Table Number Final Ta bl e Title

Table D

‐ 17 McKeesport POTW Effluent Concentrations With and Without

UOG Extraction Wastewater Table D

‐ 18 McKeesport POTW Effluent Concentrations With and Without UOG Extraction Wastewater

Table D

‐ 18 Charleroi POTW Paired Influent/Effluent Data and Calculated

Removal Rates Table D

‐ 19 Charleroi POTW Paired Influent/Effluent D ata and Calculated Removal Rates

Table D

‐ 19 Franklin Township POTW Effluent Concentrations With and

Without Industrial Discharges from the Tri

- County CWT Facility Table D

‐ 20 Franklin Township POTW Effluent Concentrations With and Without Industrial Discharges from the Tri

- County CWT Facility

Table D

‐ 20 TDS Concentrations in Baseline and Pilot Study Wastewater

Samples at Warren POTW Table D

‐ 21 TDS Concentrations in Baseline and Pilot Study Wastewater Samples at Warren POTW
Table D

‐ 21 EPA Region 5 Compliance Inspection Sampling Data Table D

‐ 22 EPA Region 5 Compliance Inspection Sampling Data
Table D

‐ 22 Inhibition Threshold Levels for Various Treatment Processes Table D

‐ 23 Inhibition Threshold Levels for Various Treatment Processes

Table D

‐ 23 Industrial Wastewater Volumes Received by New Castle POTW

(2007

– 2009) Table D

‐ 24 Industrial Wastewater Volumes Received by New Castle POTW (2007

– 2009)

Table D

‐ 24 NPDES Permit Limit Violations from Outfall 001 of the New

Castle POTW (NPDES Permit Number PA0027511) Table D

‐ 25 NPDES Permit Limit Violations from Outfall 001 of the New Castle POTW (NPDES Permit Number PA0027511)

Table D

‐ 25 Concentrations of DBPs in Effluent Discharges a t One POTW

Not Accepting Oil and Gas Wastewater and at Two POTWs Accepting Oil and Gas Wastewater (μg/L) Table D

‐ 26 Concentrations of DBPs in Effluent Discharges at One POTW Not Accepting Oil and Gas Wastewater and at Two POTWs Accepting Oil and Gas Waste water (μg/L)
Table E

‐ 1 Source List Table E

‐ 1 Source List

Table F

‐ 1 TDD Supporting Memoranda and Other Relevant Documents

Available in FDMS Table F

‐ 1 TDD Supporting Memoranda and Other Relevant Documents Available in FDMS
Table F

‐ 2 Crosswalk Between TDD and Supporting Memoranda Table F

‐ 2 Crosswalk Between TDD and Supporting Memoranda
Table F

‐ 3 UOG Resource Potential: Shale as of January 1, 2012 Table F

‐ 3 UOG Resource Potential: Shale as of January 1, 2013
Table F

‐ 4 UOG Resource Potential: Tight as of January 1, 2012 Table F

‐ 4 UOG Resource Potential: Tight as of January 1, 2013

### Memorandum

J une 6 , 2016 Page 6

Table 2

. List of Figures Crosswalk for Proposal and Final Versions of the Technical Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and St andards for Oil and Gas Extraction Proposal Figure Number Proposal Figure Title Final Figure Number Final Figure Title Figure A

‐ 1 UOG Extraction Wastewater Figure B

‐ 5 UOG Extraction Wastewater
Figure B

‐ 1 Historical and Projected Oil Production by Resource Type Figure B

‐ 1 Historical and Projected Crude Oil Production by Resource Type
Figure B

‐ 2 Historical and Projected Natural Gas Production by Resource

Type Figure B

‐ 2 Historical and Projected Natural Gas Production by Resource Type Figure B

‐ 3 M ajor U.S. Shale Plays (Updated May 9, 2011) Figure B

‐ 3 Major U.S. Shale Plays (Updated April 13, 2015) Figure B

‐ 4 Major U.S. Tight Plays (Updated June 6, 2010) Figure B

‐ 4 Major U.S. Tight Plays (Updated June 6, 2010) Figure B

‐ 5 Geology of Formations Containing Various Hydrocarbons

-- -- Figure B

‐ 6 Horizontal (A), Vertical (B), and Directional (C) Drilling

Schematic Figure B

‐ 6 Horizontal (A), Vertical (B), and Directional (C) Drilling Schematic

Figure B

‐ 7 Length of Time to Drill a Well in Various UOG Formations as

Reported for the First Quarter of 2012 through the Third Quarter of 2013 Figure B

‐ 7 Length of Time to Drill a Well in Various UOG Formations (2012 through 2014)
Figure B

‐ 8 Hydraulic Fracturing Schematic Figure B

‐ 8 Hydraulic Fracturing Schematic Figure B

‐ 9 Freshwater Impoundment Figure B

‐ 9 Freshwater Impoundment Figure B

‐ 10 Vertical Gas and Water Separator Figure B

‐ 10 Vertical Gas and Water Separator Figure B

‐ 11 Fracturing Tanks Figure B

‐ 11 Fracturing Tanks Figure B

‐ 12 Produced Water Storage Tanks Figure B

‐ 12 Produced Water Storage Tanks
Figure B

‐ 13 Number of Active U.S. Onshore Rigs by Trajectory and Product

Type over Time Figure B

‐ 13 Number of Active U.S. Onshore Rigs by Trajectory and Product Type over Time Figure B

‐ 14 Projections of UOG Well Completions Figure B

‐ 14 Projections of UOG Well Completions
Figure C

‐ 1 UOG Extraction Wastewater Volumes for Marcellus Shale

Wells in Pennsy lvania (2004

– 2013) Figure C

‐ 1 UOG Extraction Wastewater Volumes for Marcellus Shale Wells in Pennsylvania (2004

– 2014)
Figure C

‐ 2 Ranges of Typical Produced Water Generation Rates over Time

After Fracturing Figure C

‐ 2 Ranges of Typical Produced Water Generation Rates over Time After Fracturing

### Memorandum

J une 6 , 2016 Page 7

Table 2

. List of Figures Crosswalk for Proposal and Final Versions of the Technical Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and St andards for Oil and Gas Extraction Proposal Figure Number Proposal Figure Title Final Figure Number Final Figure Title
Figure C

‐ 3 Anions and Cations Contributing to TDS Concentrations in

Shale and Tight Oil and Gas Formations Figure C

‐ 3 Anions and Cations Contributing to TDS Concentrations in S hale and Tight Oil and Gas Formations

Figure C

‐ 4 Chloride, Sodium, and Calcium Concentrations in Flowback and

Long

- Term Produced Water (LTPW) from Shale and Tight Oil and Gas Formations Figure C

‐ 4 Chloride, Sodium, and Calcium Concentrations in Flowback and Long

- Term Produced Water (LTPW) from Shale and Tight Oil and Gas Formations
Figure C

‐ 5 Barium Concentrations in UOG Produced Water from Shale and

Tight Oil and Gas Formations Figure C

‐ 5 Barium Concentrations in UOG Produced Water from Shale and Tight Oil and Gas Formations
Figure C

‐ 6 Constituent Concentrations over Time in UOG Produced Water

from the Marcellus and Barnett Shale Formations Figure C

‐ 6 Constituent Concentrations over Time in UOG Produced Water from the Marcellus and Barnett Shale Formations Figure D

‐ 1 UOG Produced Water Management Methods Figure D

‐ 1 UOG Produced Water Management Methods Figure D

‐ 2 UOG Drilling Wastewater Management Methods Figure D

‐ 2 UOG Drilling Wastewater Management Methods
Figure D

‐ 3 Management of UOG Drilling Wastewater Generated by UOG

Wells in Pennsylvania (2008

– 2013) Figure D

‐ 3 Management of UOG Drilling Wastewater Generated by UOG Wells in Pennsylvania (2008

– 2014)
Figure D

‐ 4 Active Disposal Wells and CWT Facilities Identified in the

Appalachian Basin Figure D

‐ 4 Active Disposal Wells and CWT Facilities Identified in the Appalachian Basin

-- -- Figure D

‐ 5 U.S. Injection for Disposal Volume and UOG Production over Time

-- -- Figure D

‐ 6 Injection for Disposal Volume and Crude Oil Production over Time in North Dakota

-- -- Figure D

‐ 7 Injection for Disposal Volume, Cumulative Bakken Wells Drilled, and Cumulative Disposal Wells Drilled in North Dakota
Figure D

‐ 5 Flow Diagram of On

- the

- Fly UOG Produced Water Treatment

for Reuse/Recycle Figure D

‐ 8 Flow Diagram of On

- the

- Fly UOG Produced Water Treatment for Reuse/Recycle
Figure D

‐ 6 Hypothetical UOG Produced Water Generation and Base

Fracturing Fluid Demand over Time Fig ure D

‐ 9 Hypothetical UOG Produced Water Generation and Base Fracturing Fluid Demand over Time

Figure D

‐ 7 UOG Extraction Wastewater Management Practices Used in the

Marcellus Shale (Top: Southwestern Region; Bottom: Northeastern Region) Figure D

‐ 10 UOG Extraction Wastewater Management Practices Used in the Marcellus Shale (Top: Southwestern Region; Bottom: Northeastern Region)

### Memorandum

J une 6 , 2016 Page 8

Table 2

. List of Figures Crosswalk for Proposal and Final Versions of the Technical Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and St andards for Oil and Gas Extraction Proposal Figure Number Proposal Figure Title Final Figure Number Final Figure Title
Figure D

‐ 8 Number of Known Active CWT Facilities over Time in the

Marcellus and Utica Shale Formations Figure D

‐ 11 Number of Known Active CWT Facilities over Time in the Marcellus and Utica Shale Formations Figure D

‐ 9 Typical Process Flow Diagram at a POTW Figure D

‐ 12 Typical Process Flow Diagram at a POTW
Figure D

‐ 10 Clairton POTW: Technical Evaluation of Treatment Processes’

Ability to Remove Chlorides and TDS Figure D

‐ 13 Clairton POTW: Technical Evaluation of Treatment Processes’ Ability to Remove Chlorides and TDS
Figure D

‐ 11 McKeesport POTW: Technical Evaluation of Treatment

Processes’ Ability to Remove Chlorides and TDS Figure D

‐ 14 McKeesport POTW: Technical Evaluation of Treatment Processes’ Ability to Remove Chlorides and TDS
Figure D

‐ 12 Ridgway POTW: Annual Average Daily Effluent

Concentrations and POTW Flows Figure D

‐ 15 Ridgway POTW: Annual Average Daily Effluent Concentrations and POTW Flows
Figure D

‐ 13 Johnstown POTW: Annual Average Daily Effluent

Concentrations and POTW Flows Figure D

‐ 16 Johnstown POTW: Annual Average Daily Effluent Concentrations and POTW Flows

Fi gure D

‐ 14 California POTW: Annual Average Daily Effluent

Concentrations and POTW Flows Figure D

‐ 17 California POTW: Annual Average Daily Effluent Concentrations and POTW Flows
Figure D

‐ 15 Charleroi POTW: Annual Average Daily Effluent

Concentrations and POTW Flows Figure D

‐ 18 Charleroi POTW: Annual Average Daily Effluent Concentrations and POTW Flows Figure D

‐ 16 Barium Sulfate Scaling in Haynesville Shale Pipe Figure D

‐ 19 Barium Sulfate Scaling in Haynesville Shale Pipe Figure D

‐ 17 THM Speciation in a Water Treatment Plant (1999

– 2013) Figure D

‐ 20 THM Speciation in a Water Treatment Plant (1999

– 2013)
Figure F

‐ 1 Constituent Concentrations over Time in UOG Produced Water

from the Marcellus and Barnett Shale Formations Figure F

‐ 1 Constituent Concentrations over Time in UOG Produced Water from the Marcellus and Barnett Shale Formations