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 

SGE01334)

This memorandum presents the tables and figures in the Technical 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 identifying 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

June 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 Table 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 January 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

June 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 Table 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 Marcellus 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 Radioactive 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

June 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 Table 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 Removal 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 Gas 

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 Extraction 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 Mixing 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

June 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 Table 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 Data 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 at 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 Wastewater (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

June 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 Standards 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 Major 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 Pennsylvania (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

June 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 Standards 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 

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‐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 Figure 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

June 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 Standards 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

Figure 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