REGULATORY ISSUES 

AFFECTING MANAGEMENT OF 

PRODUCED WATER FROM 

COAL BED METHANE WELLS

PREPARED FOR: 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

OFFICE OF FOSSIL ENERGY 

UNDER CONTRACT W-31-109-ENG-38 

PREPARED BY: 

JOHN A. VEIL 

ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY

FEBRUARY 2002 
1 

Introduction

Coal bed methane (CBM) wells are being developed in increasing numbers throughout the 

United States. These are wells that are drilled into coal seams to withdraw ground water 

(produced water) to reduce the hydrostatic pressure on the coal seam. The reduced pressure 

allows methane gas to migrate to the well bore where it moves to the surface and is collected. 

Where possible, operators prefer to discharge the produced water into nearby streams, rivers, or 

other surface water bodies. Depending on the chemical characteristics of the produced water, 

different levels of treatment are applied to the produced water before discharge. In some 

locations, produced water cannot be discharged and is injected, reused, or evaporated. 

Although the CBM industry is producing “natural” gas, such gas may not necessarily be covered 

under the existing national regulations for discharges from the oil and gas industry. This paper 

describes the existing national discharge regulations, the ways in which CBM produced water is 

currently being managed, the current CBM discharge permitting practices, and how these options 

might change as the volume of produced water increases because of the many new wells being 

developed. 

Existing National Discharge Regulations

NPDES permits: The primary U.S. law affecting water quality and water pollution control is the 

Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act requires that all discharges of pollutants to surface 

waters (streams, rivers, lakes, bays, and oceans) must be authorized by a permit issued under the 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Individual NPDES permits can be 

issued to specific facilities, or general NPDES permits can be issued that cover all similar 

activities located in the same geographic area. Most states have been delegated the authority to 

administer the NPDES program. Consequently, permits must follow not only the federal 

regulations but also any additional state regulatory requirements. 

The heart of an NPDES permit is its numerical effluent limits. These limits describe what 

pollutants must be monitored and what is an acceptable quantity or concentration of the 

pollutants. Effluent limits are developed by considering both (a) technology-based limits 

developed to comply with applicable effluent limitations guidelines (ELGs) and (b) water 

quality-based limits. 

Figures 1 through 4 outline the process used by permit writers to establish NPDES permit limits 

and conditions. Figure 1 shows that technology-based limits must be developed first; they serve 

as a minimum set of requirements. Figure 2 describes the actions that are taken to develop the 

technology-based limits. Figure 3 shows the process used to determine if water quality-based 

limits are necessary, and, if so, the process to calculate these limits. Finally, Figure 4 indicates 

that other permit conditions, like monitoring and reporting requirements, best management 

practices, and operational requirements, are added to the permit after the numerical limits are 

established. 
2 

ELGs – ELGs are national technology-based minimum discharge requirements. These standards 

are developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) on an industry-by-industry 

basis and represent the greatest pollutant reductions that are economically achievable for an 

industry sector or portion of the industry. Selection of ELGs involves consideration of 

technologies that have already been demonstrated in industrial applications, costs and economic 

impacts, and non-water-quality environmental impacts. The ELGs are applied uniformly to 

every facility within the industrial sector, regardless of where in the country the facility is located 

or the condition of the water body receiving the discharge. Existing facilities must meet a level 

of performance known as best available technology (BAT), while new facilities must meet new 

source performance standards (NSPS). 

The EPA has developed ELGs for most major industrial categories. For the oil and gas industry, 

the EPA developed separate ELGs for onshore activities in 1979, offshore activities in 1993, and 

coastal activities in 1996. Special provisions for discharges from offshore wells drilled using 

synthetic-based drilling fluids were added in 2000. These ELGs are compiled into the Code of 

Federal Regulations as 40 CFR Part 435. 

This paper is concerned only with onshore CBM activities. Three subcategories of Part 435, 

which covers the oil and gas industry, deal with onshore activities. The first is Subpart C, the 

onshore subcategory. The requirements for produced water in this section are very clear: no 

discharges are permitted. The other two subcategories provide exceptions to the onshore 

subcategory. Subpart E is the agricultural and wildlife water use subcategory, which applies to 

facilities located in the continental United States west of the 98th meridian, for which produced 

water is clean enough to be used for wildlife and livestock watering or other agricultural uses. 

The 98th meridian extends from near the eastern edge of the Dakotas through central Nebraska, 

Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas. Produced water with a maximum oil and grease limit of 35 mg/L 

may be discharged from such sites. One caveat to this subcategory is that the produced water 

must be of good enough quality to be used for wildlife or livestock watering or other agricultural 

uses and must actually be put to such use during periods of discharge. 

The second subcategory that permits onshore discharges is Subpart F, the stripper subcategory 

(40 CFR 435.60). This subcategory applies to facilities that produce 10 barrels per day or less of 

crude oil. The EPA has published no national discharge standards for this subcategory, 

effectively leaving any regulatory controls to states or EPA regional offices, depending on which 

has NPDES primacy. The EPA’s decision to provide an exception for small oil wells reflects 

the economic burden that an across-the-board zero discharge standard would impose. The 

stripper subcategory is inconsistent in that it applies only to small oil wells and not to small 

(marginal) gas wells (typically 60 thousand cubic feet [MCF] per day or less). In the absence of 

any regulatory exception for marginal gas well discharges, such discharges are prohibited by the 

general onshore standards. 

Permit writers may face situations in which no ELGs have been developed for entire industries, 

industry segments, or particular waste streams. In these circumstances, the permit writers must 
3 

use their professional judgment (BPJ) to develop an ELG-equivalent technology-based limit 

(Figure 2). Under a BPJ permit, the permit writer can start from scratch or can borrow limits 

from other ELGs that have some relevance to the situation under consideration. 

Water-quality-based limits – The Clean Water Act does not prohibit discharges of materials that 

can be considered toxic, like metals and organic chemicals. Instead, the Clean Water Act 

prohibits the discharge of toxic substances in toxic quantities. This goal is accomplished through 

water-quality-based effluent limits that make sure ambient receiving water concentrations of 

contaminants are low enough to maintain the designated use of the waters (e.g., drinking water 

supply or aquatic life protection). 

ELGs serve as a foundation for the effluent limits included in a permit, but the ELGs are based 

on the performance of a technology and do not address the site-specific environmental effects of 

discharges. In certain instances, the technology-based controls may not be strict enough to 

ensure that the aquatic environment will be protected against toxic quantities of substances. In 

these cases, the EPA must include additional, more stringent water quality-based effluent limits 

in NPDES permits (Figure 3). These water-quality-based limits may be numeric or narrative (for 

example, “no toxic substances in toxic quantities”). The EPA has published numeric water 

quality criteria for more than 100 pollutants that can be used to calculate water-quality-based 

limits, and states have adopted many of these into their own water quality standards. The 

procedures for setting these limits take into account the designated use of the water body, the 

variability of the pollutant in the effluent, species sensitivity for protecting against toxicity, and, 

where appropriate, the available dilution in the receiving water. 

Other NPDES permit conditions – To a large extent, facilities are responsible for taking the 

steps necessary to demonstrate compliance with NPDES permit limits. Permits instruct each 

facility operator on the frequency for collecting wastewater samples, the location for sample 

collection, the pollutants to be analyzed, and the laboratory procedures to be used in conducting 

the analyses. Detailed records of these “self-monitoring” activities must be retained by the 

facility for at least three years. Furthermore, each facility is required to submit the results of 

these analyses to the EPA on a periodic basis. For most facilities, the reporting frequency is 

monthly or quarterly, but in no case may it be less than once per year. Failure to meet the permit 

limits can result in fines or loss of the permit. 

NPDES permits may also include operational or environmental effects monitoring requirements. 

Examples of these include preparing best management practices plans or spill prevention plans; 

conducting additional monitoring of the discharges, sediments, or fish tissues; and restrictions on 

the rate of discharge based on the receiving water flow (Figure 4). 

Current Produced Water Management Practices

Alabama -- CBM production began as a mine safety effort rather than as a mechanism to recover 

methane. Research in Alabama in the mid-1970s indicated that methane could be drawn out of 

coal seams by dewatering the seams. At that time, the price of natural gas was very low and the 
4 

gas was discarded. Following the Arab oil embargo in the late 1970s, as gas prices rose, there 

was a greater desire to capture and sell the methane from coal beds. Much of the early CBM 

development occurred in Alabama. Alabama operators recognized that an economic means of 

disposing of the produced water was critical to the viability of their fledgling industry. In the 

early 1980s, a group of Alabama producers petitioned the EPA for relief from the oil and gas 

ELGs.1

 Alabama is located east of the 98th meridian, so the agricultural and wildlife water use 

subcategory was not applicable. The stripper subcategory was only open to small oil wells, and 

the general onshore subcategory called for zero discharge. The producers argued that if the same 

coal bed was mined through conventional mining methods, the water associated with the seam 

could be discharged under an NPDES permit reflecting the coal mining ELGs. The EPA 

concurred with this position and further noted that when it had developed its onshore oil and gas 

ELGs, it had not performed a technical or economic analysis of the CBM sector. Therefore, at 

least for Alabama, CBM produced water was not considered to be regulated under Part 435, and 

operators could discharge the produced water. 

Western States – The CBM industry in western states lacks the long-term history with produced 

water discharges that Alabama has had. As the CBM industry has increased in recent years in 

western states, various options for produced water management have been explored. Unlike the 

climate in Alabama, the climate in Wyoming, Montana, Colorado, and New Mexico is arid, and 

evaporation can be utilized. Furthermore, water is a scarce commodity in many western states, 

and the produced water can possibly be reused. 

Information on actual produced water disposal practices from several CBM operations in 

Wyoming is available on EPA Region 8's website at: 

http://www.epa.gov/region08/water/wastewater/npdeshome/cbm/gillette_operatiorn.PDF. 

The disposal methods discussed there include: 

- discharge to stream following treatment; 

- storage in ponds, reservoirs, and tanks, and then evaporation; 

- livestock watering; 

- crop irrigation; 

- water enhancement work at wells; 

- constructed wetlands; 

- deep injection wells; and 

- aquifer storage and retrieval using shallow injection wells. 

The technical feasibility and cost of these options varies at different locations. Operators are 

likely to select the least-cost options that are authorized by state permitting authorities. 

 

1

 Personal communication between John Veil and Stan Graves, President, Graco Resources 

Inc., Birmingham, AL, December 3, 2001. 
5 

Permitting Issues and Limits

If produced water is discharged to streams or other surface water bodies, it must be authorized by 

an NPDES permit. The permit writer must first determine the applicable technology-based limits 

and then add water-quality-based limits as necessary. 

Alabama – The Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) began issuing 

NPDES permits that were based on the coal mining ELGs and added other water quality-based 

limits. The following two paragraphs summarize portions of a May 1993 publication entitled 

“Coalbed Methane Produced Water Management Guide Treatment and Discharge to Surface 

Waters: Black Warrior Basin, Alabama.”2

“In Alabama, the construction and operation of CBM wells are regulated by the 

State of Alabama Oil and Gas Board and CBM discharge permits are handled by 

the Water Division, Mining and Nonpoint Source Section of ADEM. Initial 

permits were based on total dissolved solids (TDS), and discharges were limited 

to an instream TDS concentration of 500 mg/l. As the number of CBM wells 

increased sharply in the mid to late 1980s, ADEM began to enact more stringent 

discharge requirements to protect the water quality of the Black Warrior River. 

In 1988, EPA published an Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Chloride which 

established a National Chloride Criterion of 230 mg/l and ADEM then adopted 

rules whereby applicants were permitted to release produced waters into surface 

streams if the instream concentration of chloride beyond a mixing zone would not 

exceed 230 mg/l. However, because of the perceived difficulty in enforcing this 

standard the state developed a total loading criterion for CBM operations at the 

point of discharge. The allocation for each CBM operator was based on a 

calculated loading beginning at a point above the discharge, with additional 

allocations permitted downstream because of additional tributary waters provided 

dilution for additional chlorides. This procedure calculated the allowable mass 

loading [the number of pounds per day] for chlorides that will not exceed an 

instream concentration of 230 mg/l. These permits were later referred to as Tier I 

permits. To allow growth while still protecting aquatic resources, CBM operators 

and ADEM jointly developed guidelines for instream monitoring of chloride 

concentration as the basis for additional NPDES permits. These permits were 

called Tier II permits and were issued with instream chloride concentration limits 

rather than the mass limits used in Tier I permits.” 

 

2

 Summary provided to John Veil by Carey Johnston, U.S. EPA Office of Water, Engineering 

Analysis Division on November 30, 2001. 
6 

Information collected in 19973

 indicates that ADEM uses a baseline permit that can be 

customized for discharges to small streams. The permit is quite detailed and contains numerical 

limits for pH, iron, manganese, biochemical oxygen demand, oil and grease, and dissolved 

oxygen; additional monitoring requirements for conductivity, chlorides, and effluent toxicity are 

included. Dischargers are required to install a diffuser on the end of their discharge pipes and to 

implement a best management practices plan. It appears that ADEM’s permitting program has 

been effective and successful. 

Western States (focus on EPA Region 8) – Much of the interest in this issue is focused on 

activities underway by EPA Region 8 to develop permitting guidance for CBM produced water. 

The EPA study is evaluating the technical feasibility and cost of allowing discharge with 

minimal treatment, discharge with beneficial use, discharge with advanced treatment (reverse 

osmosis is under consideration), and zero discharge (i.e., evaporation, shallow injection, or deep 

injection). The three key CBM-producing states in Region 8 (Colorado, Montana, and Wyoming) 

have received primacy to administer the NPDES program with the following exceptions. The 

EPA maintains permitting authority for Tribal lands in all three states and for Federal facilities in 

Colorado. The vast majority of CBM operations in those states will be on private lands or on 

Federal lands in Montana and Wyoming (primarily lands managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land 

Management [BLM]); therefore, NPDES permits will be issued by the state agencies. EPA’s 

guidance, when completed, would be used by EPA permit writers for any permits on lands they 

regulate. EPA’s guidance would be recommended but not required for any permits issued by the 

state agencies. However, given the active environmental organizations in Region 8, it is likely 

that state permits written with limits and controls less stringent than those recommended in 

EPA’s guidance would be challenged. Thus, EPA’s guidance could well become de facto

regulatory controls. 

In establishing technology-based limits, permit writers can elect to use the agricultural and 

wildlife water use ELGs directly and not seek exclusion from the oil and gas industry, as did the 

Alabama operators, because the Western states are located west of the 98th meridian. If permit 

writers use the agricultural and wildlife use ELGs directly, they must follow the caveat that the 

produced water must be of good enough quality to be used for wildlife or livestock watering or 

other agricultural uses and must actually be put to such use during periods of discharge. The 

second portion of this requirement raises additional issues. First of all, how could the produced 

water be used for agricultural or wildlife use? Some of the obvious answers include use in 

livestock watering tanks, use in ponds that serve as water supply for wildlife, and use for 

irrigation of crops. In a less direct way, such use could result from higher stream flow that 

would raise the water table and provide more consistent water to the roots of forage crops that 

are used by livestock or wildlife. There may be other ways of making this demonstration too. A 

permitting agency could be very strict on this point and require that a direct link must be shown, 

 

3

 Veil, J.A., 1997, “Surface Water Discharges from Onshore Stripper Wells,” prepared for 

U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, December. 
7 

or it could approve the discharge on the basis of general beneficial uses to local and downstream 

agriculture and wildlife. 

A second important point is what time frame is meant by “during periods of discharge.” This 

requirement could be interpreted as beneficially using the produced water in the same hour or 

day in which it is discharged. This interpretation would seriously restrict the applicability of 

these ELGs. Conversely, the time frame could be on the order of months or calendar quarters. 

This interpretation would allow for a greater range of opportunities to discharge under the ELGs. 

Alternatively, a permit writer could establish technology-based limits through BPJ by using the 

agricultural and wildlife use ELGs or coal mining ELGs as a model or could conduct an 

independent analysis of technologies and economics. However, if the agricultural and wildlife 

use ELGs are chosen as a model for BPJ, the permit writer could choose to ignore the idea of 

beneficially reusing the produced water during periods of discharge. 

CBM produced water, while typically much fresher than produced water from oil and gas wells, 

still contains parameters that can cause exceedances of state water quality standards (e.g., total 

dissolved solids [TDS], chlorides, barium, and others), or it could create problems when applied 

to soils through irrigation by virtue of an elevated sodium absorption ratio (SAR). There are 

concerns associated with discharges of large volumes of produced water to stream systems 

unaccustomed to high water levels. Consistently higher stream flows can lead to enhanced 

erosion or can cause the water table to rise allowing the roots of crops to come into contact with 

saltier water. 

Some streams and rivers have relatively little assimilative capacity to handle the additional 

pollutant load from produced water. Even if CBM produced water discharges do not exceed 

water quality standards, they may lead to anti-degradation problems.4

 Permitting in Wyoming - The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) 

website has extensive information about CBM discharge application and permitting 

requirements. To summarize, it has issued individual NPDES permits and general NPDES 

permits that cover many similar discharges in the same geographic area. Currently, the DEQ has 

issued approximately 600 NPDES permits for CBM discharges covering nearly 3,000 different 

discharge points.5

 It first issued a statewide general permit that had relatively stringent limits. 

So far, only 5 to 10 companies have applied for coverage under this general permit. Most 

companies have sought individual permits. 

 

4

 Personal communication between John Veil and Dan Arthur, president, ALL Consulting, 

Tulsa, OK, December 3, 2001. 

5

 Personal communication between John Veil and Kathy Shreve, Wyoming DEQ, Cheyenne, 

WY, on December 4, 2001. 
8 

The DEQ has established a baseline set of requirements for all streams as well as additional 

stream-specific water-quality-based limits. The baseline requirements are shown in Table 1. 

Option 1a is for discharges to constructed upland reservoirs with no potential for discharges from 

the reservoir. Option 1b is for discharges to reservoirs in areas that drain to closed basins. 

Option 2 is for discharges into Class II water systems. Basin-specific guidelines are provided in 

Table 2. Additional metals limits may be applied on the basis of the results of the representative 

sample submitted to the DEQ as part of the application package. The most current information 

on permitting options is a memorandum by Gary Beach, Administrator of the Water Quality 

Division, dated December 10, 2001. This, along with other CBM information, can be found at 

http://deq.state.wy.us/wqd/cbm.htm. 

Table 1 - Baseline Requirements for Wyoming 

Parameter Option 1a Option 1b Option 2 

Specific Conductance *7500 umhos/cm *7500 umhos/cm *7500 umhos/cm 

pH *6.5-8.5 *6.5-8.5 *6.5-8.5 

Total Dissolved Solids *5000 mg/l *5000 mg/l *5000 mg/l 

Total Petroleum Hydro. **10 mg/l **10 mg/l **10 mg/l 

Total Radium 226 **60 pCi/l **1 pCi/l **1 pCi/l 

Chlorides *2000 mg/l **46 mg/l **46 mg/l 

Sulfates *3000 mg/l *3000 mg/l *3000 mg/l 

Dissolved Iron NA Calculate (no assim cap) See Table 2 

Dissolved Manganese NA Calculate (no assim cap) See Table 2 

Total Arsenic NA Calculate (no assim cap) See Table 2 

Total Barium **1800 ug/l **1800 ug/l **1800 ug/l 

Sodium Absorption Ratio NA 10 BF, Site-specific PR 10 BF, Site-specific PR 

 

SAR and EC limits for P.R. and L.P.R. will be site specific if irrigation occurs on the tributary 

 

* Limits based on Wyoming Water Quality Rules and Regulations, Chapter 7; for Option 2 discharges to 

the Belle Fourche and Cheyenne River drainages, the specific conductance limit is 2000 umhos/cm. 

** Limits based on Wyoming Water Quality Rules and Regulations, Chapter 1.

A January 30, 2001, memo from Leah Krafft, Wyoming NPDES Program Principal, notes that 

individual permits would rely on EPA’s agricultural and wildlife use subcategory ELGs as the 

technology basis; therefore, applicants would need to submit documentation that the discharged 

water will be used for a specific agricultural or wildlife purpose 

(http://deq.state.wy.us/wqd/watershed/10294-doc.pdf). Ms. Krafft indicated that Wyoming is 

meeting the ELGs limit of 35 mg/l oil and grease on the basis of meeting a surrogate parameter 

of total petroleum hydrocarbons at the stricter level of 10 mg/l. 
9 

Table 2 - Basin-Specific Limits for Wyoming

Watershed Station Dissolved 

Iron ug/l 

Dissolved 

Manganese ug/l 

Total Barium 

ug/l 

Total Arsenic 

ug/l 

Little Powder River Corral Creek 237 786 1800 2.3 

 Near Weston 234.3 718.5 1800 3.6 

 Weston 253.4 718.6 1800 7 

Watershed Station Dissolved 

Iron ug/l 

Dissolved 

Manganese ug/l 

Total Barium 

ug/l 

Total Arsenic 

ug/l 

Cheyenne River Dull Center 249 873.9 1800 2.4 

 Antelope Creek 240 905.7 1800 2.4 

 Black Thunder 255.2 632.2 1800 5.7 

Watershed Station Dissolved 

Iron ug/l 

Dissolved 

Manganese ug/l 

Total Barium 

ug/l 

Total Arsenic 

ug/l 

Belle Fourche River Caballo Creek 236.6 755.9 1800 2.3 

Donkey Creek 234.2 841.5 1800 3 

Belle Fourche 275.3 818.1 1800 3.1 

Rattlesnake 262.1 808.1 1800 2.7 

Dry Creek 284 861.9 1800 3.3 

Moorcroft 274.5 790.4 1800 3.1 

Watershed Station Dissolved 

Iron ug/l 

Dissolved 

Manganese ug/l 

Total Barium 

ug/l 

Total Arsenic 

ug/l 

Powder River Sussex 248.6 646.4 1800 7 

Arvada 299.7 629 1800 7 

Crazy Woman 116.6 69.4 1800 2.5 

Clear Creek 123.9 36.6 1800 2.3

 Permitting in Montana - Montana has issued just one CBM NPDES permit to date.6

 The 

permit, which can be found on the Montana DEQ website 

(http://www.deq.state.mt.us/coalbedmethane/MT0030457.htm), places numerical average limits 

on total flow of 1,600 gallons per minute (gpm) and on total suspended solids of 30 mg/l, and 

requires an acute toxicity test. Additional monitoring without limits is required for TDS, specific 

conductance, SAR, iron, dissolved aluminum, ammonia, fluoride, radium 226, and chloride. 

This particular permit involved extensive site-specific calculations to ensure that state water 

quality standards were not exceeded. 

 

 

6

 Personal communication between John Veil and Tom Richmond, Administrator, Montana 

Board of Oil and Gas Conservation, Billings, MT, January 29, 2002. 
10 

 Permitting in Colorado - The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, 

Water Quality Division, has issued 12 NPDES permits for CBM discharges. They have very 

comprehensive limits set to achieve agricultural and water quality standards. The least stringent 

set of limits includes the following: 

TDS - 3,500 mg/l 

metals - limits on a full set of metals, unless applicant submits an analysis with the application 

boron - 2 mg/l 

copper - 0.2g/l 

manganese - 0.2 mg/l 

iron - 5 mg/l 

selenium - 0.02 mg/l 

zinc - 2 mg/l 

chlorides - 1,500 mg/l 

total suspended solids - 30 mg/l average and 45 mg/l maximum 

pH range - 6.5 to 9.0 

whole effluent toxicity test each quarter 

oil and grease - 10/mg/l. 

If discharges are made to particularly sensitive streams, the limits may be much stricter than 

these. In addition, permittees must do a organic pollutant scan for every tenth discharge point.7

Colorado uses the agricultural and wildlife use ELGs as its technology basis but has elected to 

use a stricter oil and grease limit than the 35 mg/l limit in the ELGs. 

Discussion

Alabama has found a permitting approach that has been successful. It has used effluent limits 

that are economically achievable and stream flows that are adequate and available to assimilate 

the discharges. 

The Region 8 states are still operating at the front edge of the CBM development curve. To date, 

there have been relatively few CBM discharges to permit, and state agencies can generally feel 

comfortable that they are issuing permits with suitable controls. However as a result of the rapid 

increases in the number of wells, the volume of new produced water, could if discharged, modify 

the hydrology and chemical characteristics of ecological systems that have evolved in waterscarce regions. In a similar vein, western communities and culture have developed under waterscarce conditions. If the availability of surface and near-surface ground water were suddenly 

magnified, the existing social and commercial systems could be strained. Apparently these 

factors are contributing to concerns that produced water discharges are having or could have 

 

7

 Personal communication between John Veil and Chris Gates, Colorado Water Quality 

Control Division, Denver, CO, December 6, 2001. 
11 

negative impacts. Several examples are described in a draft report posted on Region 8's website 

at: http://www.epa.gov/region08/water/wastewater/npdeshome/cbm/gillette_landowner.pdf. 

The problems described include: 

- An influx of salty water to ditches and tributaries can kill vegetation in ditches and lead to an 

elevated water table. 

- An elevated water table with a higher SAR or chlorides content may influence the ability of 

soils to support crops necessary to maintain livestock production. 

- An elevated water table can change the stability of surface soils, so that foundations shift and 

crack. 

- Spills or ponding of produced water on soils can kill vegetation. 

Rapid increases in permit applications could overwhelm state permitting agencies and lead to 

backlogs in issuing permits. Unless alternatives to surface discharge are economically available, 

the CBM industry might not be able to grow at its desired rate. CBM operators might voluntarily 

choose to employ produced water management or disposal methods that do not involve NPDES 

permits to avoid project development delays and possibly strict and costly permit limits. 

CBM operators favor as much flexibility in produced water management options as possible. A 

first step toward this goal is to identify geographic areas in which CBM discharges could be 

approved in a reasonable length of time or could be pre-approved under a general permit or other 

set of standardized limits, like those used in Alabama. Several different tiers of treatment 

requirements might be imposed at different locations on the basis of the characteristics of the 

produced water, its volume in relation to the stream flow, and other local factors, such as the 

availability of feasible beneficial reuse opportunities. There might be areas in which surface 

discharge would not be permitted because of soil or ecosystem sensitivity. In those areas, other 

types of produced water treatment or management would be necessary. 

The information being collected by the EPA and its contractors should help in reaching these 

goals. The data should contribute to a better understanding of the technical feasibility and cost 

of different treatment or management options. 

 
12 

Figure 1 - Establishing NPDES Permit Limits 

and Conditions – Simplified Overview

Step 1 – Develop technology-based 

limits

Step 3 – Determine other permit 

conditions

Step 2 – Develop water quality-based 

limits

Are other ELGs strict 

and comprehensive 

enough?

Figure 2 - Establishing NPDES Permit Limits and Conditions 

Step 1 - Develop Technology-based Limits

Are there any applicable ELGs?

Need to develop BPJ (best professional 

judgment) limits

Apply ELGs

Borrow ELGs from 

another industry

Develop your 

own BPJ limits

yes

yes

no

no

Develop 

additional 

technology-based 

limits

Final technologybased limits

GO TO STEP 2
13 

Figure 3 - Establishing NPDES Permit Limits and 

Conditions Step 2 - Develop Water Quality-based Limits

Do technology-based limits developed in step 1 

protect water quality?

-determine background concentrations of pollutants and 

dilution

-compare concentrations to water quality standards

Develop water quality-based limits:

-stricter limits for pollutants already covered by technology-based 

limits

-limits for other pollutants not covered by technology-based limits

May need to do modeling and determine mixing zone 

yes

no

Final water qualitybased limits GO TO STEP 3

Figure 4 - Establishing NPDES Permit Limits and Conditions 

Step 3 – Determine Other Permit Conditions

Use numerical limits developed in steps 1 and 2 and 

determine monitoring and reporting methods and frequency

Are other types of controls necessary?

-best management practices plans

-operational requirements

-restrictions on flow or other activities

yes

Final permit

no

Develop other types of controls and add to permit