Site Visit Report

US Gas Field Fluids Management

(formerly Clean Streams)

Marcellus Shale Gas Operations

May 22, 2014
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................1-1

2.0 BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES .......................................................................................2-1

3.0 CLEAN STREAMS WILLIAMSPORT CWT FACILITY............................................................3-1

3.1 Wastewater Services............................................................................................3-1

3.2 Plant Flow Description ........................................................................................3-2

3.3 Wastewater Accepted for Treatment ...................................................................3-4

3.4 Treated Wastewater Streams................................................................................3-5

3.5 Facility Waste Streams ........................................................................................3-6

3.6 Costs.....................................................................................................................3-7

4.0 OVERVIEW OF DRILLING FLUID WASTEWATER AND CUTTINGS........................................4-8

4.1 Drilling Fluid Wastewater Characteristics...........................................................4-8

4.2 Drilling Fluid Wastewater Volumes....................................................................4-9

4.3 Management and Disposal Options.....................................................................4-9

APPENDIX A: LIST OF PARTICIPANTS ON THE CLEAN STREAMS CONFERENCE CALLS AND 

SITE VISIT.......................................................................................................................A-1
ii

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 3-1. Wastewater Acceptance Criteria ................................................................................ 3-5

Table 3-2. Chemically Treated Wastewater Target Quality ........................................................ 3-5

Table 3-3. Waste Stream Descriptions......................................................................................... 3-7

Table 3-4. Clean Streams Treatment Costs.................................................................................. 3-7

Table 3-5. Solid Waste Disposal Costs Incurred by Clean Streams............................................ 3-8

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 3-1. Plant Flow Diagram .................................................................................................. 3-4
1-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

On June 14, 2012, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) held a conference 

call with U.S. Gas Field Fluids Management (owned by US Environmental; formerly Clean 

Streams, LLC; referred to as Clean Streams in this report) to discuss their plant operation in 

Williamsport, Pennsylvania. The conference call attendees are listed in Appendix A. Discussion 

topics from this conference call included:

 Wastewater Services

 Plant Flow Description

 Treated Wastewater Streams

 Waste Streams

 Costs

On September 17, 2012, EPA met with Clean Streams and visited their plant in 

Williamsport, Pennsylvania. Site visit participants are listed below. Contact information is 

included in Appendix A.

U.S. EPA Office of Water, Office of Science and Technology Engineering and Analysis 

Division

Lisa Biddle

Tom Born

Brian D’Amico

Erik Helm

Pooja Parikh

Eastern Research Group, Inc. (ERG) (EPA Contractor)

Casey MacQueen

Brent Ruminski

U.S. Gas Fields Fluid Management (Clean Streams)

Tim Miller

Richard Weaver

On May 6, 2014, EPA held a follow-up conference call with Clean Streams to discuss 

drilling waste (i.e., drilling fluids, drilling cuttings) characteristics, volumes, and disposal or 

management practices. Conference call attendees are listed in Appendix A. Discussion topics 

included:

 Status of Clean Streams CWT Facility

 Drilling Fluids/Cuttings Volumes

 Drilling Fluids/Cuttings Characteristics

 Drilling Fluids/Cuttings Management and Disposal Options
2-1

2.0 BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The Clean Streams Marcellus Shale site visit was the third in a series of site visits that the 

EPA planned for this industry. The purpose of the site visit was to collect background 

information on the shale gas extraction wastewater treatment industry and observe wastewater 

treatment operations. To initiate site visits, the EPA reviewed information about Marcellus shale 

gas producers and their wastewater management practices. During this review, the EPA 

identified Clean Streams as a recipient of shale gas extraction wastewater for treatment, active in 

the Marcellus Shale Play.

Tim Miller, Director of Gas Field Services, and Richard Weaver, President of Clean 

Streams, led the discussion of the company’s Marcellus operations, the site tour, and the May 

2014 conference call.

During the May 6, 2014 conference call, Tim Miller provided EPA with more 

information on drilling fluid and drilling fluid wastewater. He also updated EPA on the status of 

the Clean Streams CWT facility. Clean Streams Williamsport CWT facility shut down due to 

financial complications. Mr. Miller said that he is currently involved in other oil and gas services 

such as hauling materials via rail [truck] and truck. Mr. Miller also has experience consulting 

with oil and gas companies regarding management of their waste streams (e.g., UOG process 

wastewater1, drilling fluid wastewater and cuttings).

The remainder of this report summarizes information discussed during the June 14, 2012, 

conference call; September 17, 2012, site visit; and May 6, 2014 conference call.

 

1

In this report, UOG process wastewater is referred to as flowback and long-term produced water.
3-1

3.0 CLEAN STREAMS WILLIAMSPORT CWT FACILITY

During the June 2012 conference call and prior to a tour of Williamsport, Pennsylvania,

operations, EPA and Clean Streams discussed information specific to their operations at their 

CWT facility. Topics discussed include:

 Wastewater Services

 Plant Flow Description

 Accepted Wastewater for Treatment

 Treated Wastewater Streams

 Waste Streams

 Costs

3.1 Wastewater Services

The Clean Streams wastewater treatment plant was a zero discharge facility that accepted

long-term produced water, flowback water, top hole water2, and drilling fluid wastewater. All of 

the influent wastewater was treated and returned to the field for reuse in shale gas extraction 

activities. Because the treatment included an evaporation/condensation unit, it had potential to 

meet Pennsylvania’s Chapter 95 discharge standards for publicly-owned treatment works 

(POTWs).3The company worked with the Williamsport Sewage Authority to come up with an 

agreement allowing Clean Streams to discharge to a nearby POTW. However, the Sewage 

Authority’s proposed pretreatment standards were more stringent than Pennsylvania’s Chapter 

95 requirements (e.g., copper must be less than 20 parts per trillion). According to Clean 

Streams, there was no technology that could meet the more stringent standards. Therefore, all of 

the treated wastewater from Clean Streams was returned to the field for reuse and was not 

discharged to a POTW.

The company offered two main services:

 Disposal—Operators paid to drop off a load of wastewater for treatment and left. 

Clean Streams had to find another operator to take the treated wastewater.

 Recycling—Operators paid to drop off a load of wastewater and picked up a load 

of treated wastewater. They could choose from the following treatment levels:

— Filtration — this treatment level was the least common. If an operator 

chose this option, the truck dropping the load off was required to remain 

onsite to take back the treated wastewater. Each truck remained onsite for 

approximately one hour.

— Chemical Treatment and Filtration — this treatment level was the most 

common. Wastewater was chemically treated, filtered, and stored until an 

operator took it for reuse. Operators typically reused this wastewater for 

hydraulic fracturing or drilling.

 

2 Water that flows to the surface during the initial drilling process.

3

http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/025/chapter95/chap95toc.html.
3-2

— Chemical Treatment, Filtration, and Evaporation/Condensation —

approximately 25 percent of incoming wastewater to the plant went 

through this treatment (at the time of the site visit). When gas prices were 

higher in 2010, almost all incoming wastewater went through this 

treatment but this has decreased since gas prices have remained low. 

Distilled water was typically used for rig cleaning and cementing—not for 

hydraulic fracturing.

According to Clean Streams, larger gas companies used the recycling service (i.e., drop 

off and pick up), while smaller companies used the disposal service (drop off only). This is 

because even during periods of low drilling activity, large companies were continuously 

fracturing and/or drilling at least one well and had an immediate demand for treated water. Small 

companies may only have fractured several wells per year leaving months between jobs. 

Therefore, if smaller companies took treated wastewater they must have had the infrastructure to 

store it. Because storage infrastructure requires capital investment and freshwater in 

Pennsylvania is abundant, it was cheaper for them to dispose of the wastewater. During the 

September 2012 site visit, Clean Streams stated that only one of their customers used the 

disposal option; all other Clean Streams customers used the recycling service.

3.2 Plant Flow Description

The treatment plant was permitted for 10,000 barrels per day. However, in the 

configuration that EPA saw during the site visit, it could only treat 2,500 barrels per day. Clean 

Streams was in the process of upgrading the plant configurations by minimizing the number of 

tanks. During the site visit, there were 14 different 500 bbl tanks throughout the plant. Clean 

Streams intended to replace 12 of these tanks with two new 6,000 bbl tanks to increase capacity.

Figure 3-1 presents a flow diagram of the treatment system. Treatment steps include:

 Screening: Each load was core sampled for pH, total dissolved solids (TDS), 

barium, strontium, iron, and total suspended solids (TSS). The water was 

characterized as high TSS wastewater (e.g., top hole water, drilling muds) or low 

TSS wastewater (e.g., long-term produced water, flowback).

 Chemical Batch Treatment: Two chemical batch treatment tanks were operated in 

parallel: one for high TSS wastewater and one for low TSS wastewater. Each

treatment tank had an approximate capacity of 360 to 430 barrels. When the tanks 

reached full capacity, various chemicals were added depending on the 

constituents targeted for removal from the specific wastewater batch:

— pH was raised to 9.2 or 9.3 to promote metals precipitation;

— Tank fluids were mixed for 15 to 20 minutes;

— Polymers were added to promote solid binding;

— Tank fluids were mixed for 15 to 20 minutes; and/or

— Tank fluids were settled so that sludge could be pumped from the bottom.
3-3

 Sludge Dewatering: Tank bottoms from chemical treatment flow to a filter press 

that generated solid waste and decant water. The solid waste was hauled to a 

landfill. Decant water was routed back to the influent stream to the chemical 

treatment tanks.

 Multiple Stage Media Filtration: From the chemical batch treatment tanks, the 

wastewater flowed through 100, 50, 25, and 10 micron filters to remove 

suspended solids.

 Evaporation/Condensation: If an operator wanted distilled water quality, the 

wastewater flowed from the filtration units to an AltelaRain® evaporation/

condensation unit. This unit generated concentrated brine and distilled water. The 

concentrated brine was hauled to Ohio underground injection wells or returned to 

the operator for reuse.

 Treated Wastewater and Distillate Storage: Chemically treated wastewater and 

distilled water were stored in separate 4,000-barrel storage tanks until an operator 

picked it up for reuse.
3-4

Figure 3-1. Plant Flow Diagram

3.3 Wastewater Accepted for Treatment

Clean Streams accepted drilling fluid wastewater, flowback, and long-term produced 

water from operators. During EPA’s preliminary call and site visit, Clean Stream’s provided 

information on wastewater acceptance criteria.

Clean Streams’ criteria for accepting UOG wastewater included specifications on: (1) 

fracturing fluid composition; (2) radioactivity levels; and (3) TSS and barium content. In 

deciding whether or not to accept wastewater, Clean Streams did not require operators to provide 

comprehensive disclosure of drilling fluid or fracturing fluid composition. Clean Streams had

enough familiarity with the industry that they decided whether or not to accept wastewater based 

on operators providing the name of the service provider used. Operators also submitted “waste

profile” forms for each waste load.

Clean Streams screened all incoming loads with a Geiger counter for radioactivity. If the 

Geiger counter detected radioactivity greater than 10 μrem per hour, Clean Streams had to follow 

additional procedures outlined in their radiological plan. First, the load was moved to a 

Sludge 

Dewatering

High

TSS

Solid waste to

landfill

Truck unloading 

area

Wastewater Stream

Waste Streams

Chemical Additives

Evaporation 

Condensation

Chemical 

additives 

Truck pickup 

area 

Filtration

Concentrated 

brine

Sludge

Returned to 

operator

Underground 

injection in 

Ohio

Treated 

Wastewater

Storage

Decant 

water

Low 

TSS

Chemical batch 

treatment tanks

Monitoring Point

Distillate 

Storage
3-5

quarantine area. Next, Clean Streams notified PA DEP and waited for a permit to transport it as a 

hazardous waste. PA DEP typically issued this permit within two days, and Clean Streams 

returned the load to the generator. Only occasionally were incoming loads identified as 

radioactive, when solids had accumulated at the bottom of a vessel. Clean Streams also 

monitored TSS and barium and would issue a surcharge per barrel for loads exceeding 

conformance criteria.

Table 3-1 lists the general target levels for constituents in wastewater for acceptance.

Table 3-1. Wastewater Acceptance Criteria

Constituent Approximate Concentration or Range (mg/L)

TSS < 2%

TDS ≤ 10,000

Barium ≤ 2,000

Iron ≤ 300

3.4 Treated Wastewater Streams

Two treated wastewater streams left the plant:

 Chemically Treated Wastewater: picked up by operator for reuse in fracturing or 

drilling.

 Distillate: picked up by operator for reuse in shale gas activities.

Chemically treated wastewater contained approximately 100,000 mg/L TDS. Clean 

Streams monitored treated wastewater for pH, TSS, TDS, iron, barium, and strontium to ensure 

that the water quality met operator specifications. Clean Streams also screened all exiting loads 

for radioactivity. Approximately three of every seven treated loads per day were identified as 

radioactive. According to Clean Streams, all of their customers specified targets for pH, TDS, 

TSS, and iron. Some companies would also specify barium concentrations. However, because 

barium is a component of barite, which is a common additive for drilling fluid that increases 

density, some companies do not care about the barium concentrations in the treated wastewater.

Table 3-2 lists the general target levels for constituents in the treated wastewater.

Table 3-2. Chemically Treated Wastewater Target Quality

Constituenta Approximate Concentration or Range (mg/L, unless otherwise noted)

TDS 70,000—100,000

TSS < 50

Iron < 10

Barium < 10—1,000b

Sulfate <250

pH 6 to 7 S.U.

a—Clean Streams reported low to no oil content is required for treated wastewater.

b—Clean Streams reported the barium criteria as less than 200 mg/L on the 6 May 2014 conference call. 
3-6

The Clean Streams CWT facility was not concerned with the TDS concentrations in the 

effluent water, because operators were often interested in receiving “high TDS” waste streams

(e.g., 70,000 to 80,000 mg/L typically; 200,000 mg/L during winter months) for reuse.

Clean Streams operated their evaporator to generate distillate containing approximately 

2,000 mg/L TDS. According to Clean Streams, distillate with too low TDS concentration is 

oxygen-starved and removes ions from piping surface, leading to corrosion. Therefore, if 

operators chose to take distillate for reuse, it could not be used directly in fracturing. Typically, 

operators blended it with freshwater, flowback or long-term produced water to use in fracturing 

or for other things without blending such as cleaning rigs or cementing. According to Clean 

Streams’ permit, distillate had to be returned to a wellpad instead of being discharged or used for 

other purposes. 

Clean Streams considered adding crystallization4 to their evaporation process. The 

company investigated at least eight different vendors and concluded the technology was too 

expensive given the existing price of gas. The biggest problem was the lack of market for the 

solid waste (i.e., salt). One potential use would be road salt. However, public perception would 

be that the salt would be derived from a “hazardous” source (i.e., shale gas wastewater). Through 

their research, Clean Streams estimated that the crystallization process, alone, would cost 

operators $10.5 to $14.7 per barrel. After including pretreatment the total cost would range from 

$15 to $18 per barrel.

3.5 Facility Waste Streams

Table 3-3 describes the waste streams generated from the treatment operations at the 

Clean Streams facility. Waste streams leaving the plant include concentrated brine (trucked to 

Ohio for underground injection or picked up by operator for reuse) and solid waste (trucked to 

landfill).

Clean Streams used third-party-owned waste trucks with 18 ton capacity. Contents were 

approximately 42 to 45 percent solids. Solids containing freefloating water or thixotropic5fluids 

are not accepted at landfills for disposal. Concentrated brine was either trucked to Ohio for 

underground injection or given back to the operators. Because trucking this waste stream to Ohio 

was expensive, Clean Streams offered it to operators for a credit to their account. Operators 

could have used concentrated brine during the drilling process when high density fluids were 

desired.

All solid waste generated by the plant was disposed of via landfill. As required by their 

permit6from Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP), Clean Streams 

submitted a new analysis for every 400 tons of material that was disposed of at a landfill. The 

State reviews these analyses and decides whether or not it is appropriate to approve the operator 

to dispose of the solid waste at the given landfill. For many Pennsylvania oil and gas operators, a 

new analysis was required approximately every four weeks.

 

4 Crystallization is a treatment process that converts water containing high TDS concentrations into solid crystals

and distillate.

5 Becomes less viscous when agitated.

6 WMGR123NC006.
3-7

Table 3-3. Waste Stream Descriptions

Level of Treatment

Waste 

Stream Destination Waste Stream Description

Filtration Solids Hauled to one of two landfills. --

Chemical Treatment 

and Filtration

Sludge Hauled to one of two landfills.

--

Chemical Treatment, 

Filtration, and Evaporation/

Condensation

Concentrated 

Brine

Returned to operators for 

credit or hauled to Ohio for 

underground injection.

Concentrated brine from 

evaporation/condensation is 

approximately 250,000 mg/L TDS.

3.6 Costs

Cost to operators depended on the waste type, treatment level, and service type. If the 

operator was able to take a load of treated wastewater, they could choose the level of treatment 

that was performed. If the operator was unable to take a load of treated wastewater, Clean 

Streams charged them for full treatment (i.e., chemical treatment, filtration, evaporation). Clean 

Streams provided cost information for different levels of treatment, which is summarized in 

Table 3-4. Clean Streams estimated that their cost to customers reflected a 10 to 15 percent profit 

margin over operation and maintenance cost. Table 3-5 provides solid waste disposal costs.

Table 3-4. Clean Streams Treatment Costs

Waste Type Level of Treatment

Service Type

Notes

Recycling Cost 

(Dollars per 

bbl)

Disposal Costs 

(Dollars per 

bbl) c

Flowback and 

long-term 

produced water a

Filtration 1.00 Not an option

Trucks remain onsite for 

approximately 1 hour to 

receive the exact same 

wastewater unloaded.

Chemical treatment and 

filtration 3.60 Not an option --

Chemical treatment, 

filtration, and 

evaporation/condensation

6.30—6.50

6.30—6.50

+

1.68—1.75

Assumes the next operator 

will want full treatment.

Maximum 2% TSS for 

acceptance; otherwise a 

surcharge calculated by 

solids content applies.

Tophole water b Chemical treatment and 

filtration 9.2—9.50

9.2—9.50

+

1.68—1.75

--

Water-based and 

synthetic based 

drilling fluid b

Chemical treatment and 

filtration 13.60

13.60

+

1.68—1.75

--

a—Low TSS wastewater.

b—High TSS wastewater.

c—Clean Streams charges an additional $1.68 to $1.75 fee for not taking a treated load.
4-8

Table 3-5. Solid Waste Disposal Costs Incurred by Clean Streams

Landfill Trucking Distance

Transportation Cost 

(Dollars per Load)

Disposal Cost

(Dollars per Ton)

Additional Fee for 

Hazardous Waste

(Dollars per Ton)

Landfill A 1 to 1.5 hour truck drive. 300

40 200

Landfill B 3 to 4 hour truck drive. 700

a—Each solid waste truck load is approximately 18 tons.

4.0 OVERVIEW OF DRILLING FLUID WASTEWATER AND CUTTINGS

During EPA’s follow-up call with Clean Streams in May 2014, the primary topics of 

discussion were drilling fluids, drilling fluid wastewater, and drilling cuttings. The following 

subsections describe the information provided by Mr. Tim Miller, of Clean Streams.

4.1 Drilling Fluid Wastewater Characteristics

EPA asked Clean Streams to provide information on typical characteristics of drilling 

fluid wastewater and any variations based on the completion methods used (i.e., conventional, 

unconventional), drill type (i.e., horizontal, vertical, directional), and/or well location. Clean 

Streams provided the following information regarding characteristics of drilling fluid 

wastewater. 

Drilling fluid wastewater that returns to the surface typically has the same properties as 

the drilling fluid that goes downhole, with the addition of pulverized shale pieces and grit that is 

collected during the drilling process. The following are constituents commonly found in drilling 

waste:

 Oils

 Gels

 TPH (hydrocarbon level)7

 pH – varies between 5 and 13 S.U.

 TSS

Further, Clean Streams discussed the following stream characteristics in more detail. 

Liquids off of the drilling cuttings typically have low TPH (hydrocarbons) concentrations and

high oil concentrations, while the presence of bentonite in drilling fluid wastewater typically 

indicates high pH (12 to 13 S.U.). Waste streams with a pH greater than 12.5 SU are considered 

hazardous wastes and; therefore, can be more difficult to manage and/or dispose of. The presence

of gels in drilling fluid wastewater typically indicates high salt concentrations. However, the 

concentration of TDS in drilling fluid wastewater depends on the location of the shale/tight 

formation. As previously noted, the Clean Streams CWT facility targeted influent drilling fluid 

wastewater with TDS concentrations less than 10,000 mg/L.

 

7

If TPH concentrations are greater than 10,000 mg/L, oil and gas operators cannot land apply in Pennsylvania.
4-9

The concentration of TSS in drilling fluid wastewater depends on the oil and gas 

company’s management practices. Operators typically run drilling waste through a shaker/

separator to separate the drilling fluid wastewater stream from the solid drilling cuttings. If this is 

done correctly, the liquid stream would contain less suspended solids than it otherwise would 

contain.

4.2 Drilling Fluid Wastewater Volumes

EPA asked Clean Streams to provide information on typical volumes of drilling fluid 

used per well, typical volumes of drilling fluid wastewater generated per well and any variations 

in these volumes based on the completion methods used (i.e., conventional, unconventional), 

drill type (i.e., horizontal, vertical, directional), and/or well location. Clean Streams provided the 

following information regarding drilling fluid wastewater generated. Clean Streams did not 

provide any information about volumes of drilling fluid used per well.

Drilling fluid wastewater volumes vary dramatically by operator, formation, and even by 

wellpad. Mr. Miller, of Clean Streams, reported that typically, between 10% and 33% of the 

drilling fluids used during the drilling process return to the surface as wastewater. The remaining 

drilling fluids are lost to the formation, similar to fracturing fluid. The percent of drilling fluid 

that returns to the surface is formation specific, and heavily depends on the characteristics of the 

rock face. Mr. Miller noted that in Pennsylvania, it is typical to see low drilling fluid return rates 

(~8%). One reason for low return rates is that operators may hit fractures during the drill and lose 

the drilling fluid into the formation. Mr. Miller also noted that “pad water” (in Pennsylvania, in 

particular) consists of drilling fluid wastewater as well as other wastewater streams generated 

onsite (e.g., equipment washing wastewater). For comparison, Mr. Miller reported that in Texas 

it is typical to see high drilling fluid return rates (~31%). Operators may also get up to 1,300 tons 

of drill cuttings back from the well head during drilling.

In Pennsylvania, operators that reused the same drilling fluid for all of the wells on a 

wellpad commonly generated approximately 2,000 barrels (84,000 gallons) of drilling fluid 

wastewater once they finish drilling all of the wells on the wellpad.

4.3 Management and Disposal Options

EPA asked Clean Streams to provide information on disposal and management practices 

used by oil and gas operators for drilling fluid wastewater and how these practices varied across 

the United States. Clean Streams provided the following information in response.

Operators run drilling waste through a shaker/separator to separate the drilling fluid 

wastewater stream from the solid drill cutting stream. Drilling fluid wastewater is typically 

reused in subsequent well drilling operations until the characteristics of the fluid are no longer 

ideal for drilling or until the operator no longer has additional wells to drill. The solid drilling

cuttings out of the shaker/separator are typically disposed of at a landfill.

Once the operator determines that the drilling fluid wastewater is no longer reusable, they

must decide on a wastewater management alternative to use. Operators may decide to transfer 

the drilling fluid wastewater to a CWT facility (commercial or operator-owned) for treatment 
4-10

followed by disposal8or reuse (e.g., zero discharging CWT facilities like the Clean Streams 

Williamsport facility). Another option is for operators to transfer the drilling fluid wastewater to 

an underground injection for disposal well.

The three main problems encountered while treating drilling waste at a CWT facility 

include:

 High Oil Concentrations – CWT facilities are typically not designed to remove 

oil.

 High Salt Concentrations – CWT facilities may experience influent TDS 

concentrations as high as 300,000 mg/L.

 Presence of Methanol – Methanol has a flash point less than 140oF and therefore, 

is considered a hazardous waste.

Chesapeake and Anadarko (oil and gas operators) re-treat their own waste streams9. Chief 

(oil and gas operator) implements filtration processes to treat their own waste streams. Other 

operators simply allow waste streams time to settle out solids prior to reuse.

Operators may hire multiple service providers to complete the different phases of well 

development (i.e., drilling, hydraulic fracturing, flowback/production); therefore, waste stream 

management may vary throughout the different phases. For example, UOG process wastewater 

(i.e., flowback, long-term produced water) may be reused in subsequent fracture jobs while 

drilling fluid wastewater may be disposed of via underground injection. The waste management 

decisions are typically made by the service provider.

 

8 Wastewater disposed of at CWT facilities is either discharged to surface water or indirectly discharged through a 

POTW.

9 Mr. Miller did not elaborate about how these operators re-treat their waste streams (e.g., operator-owned CWT, onsite treatment).
Appendix A:

LIST OF PARTICIPANTS ON THE CLEAN STREAMS CONFERENCE CALLS AND SITE VISIT
A-1

Table A-1. List of Attendees on June 2012 Conference Call

First Name Organization Phone Number Email

Lisa Biddle U.S. EPA, SGE Engineer (202) 566-0350 Biddle.Lisa@epa.gov

Brent Ruminski ERG, Energy Engineer (703) 633-1701 Brent.Ruminski@erg.com

Meghan Camp ERG, Chemical Engineer (703) 633-1684 Meghan.Camp@erg.com

Betsy Bicknell ERG, Senior Engineer (703) 633-1612 Betsy.Bicknell@erg.com

Tim Miller, P.E. Clean Streams, Director of 

Gas Field Services

(610) 518-5800 Tmiller@usenv.com

Richard Weaver Clean Streams, President (610) 637-7282 Rweaver@usenv.com

Table A-2. List of Attendees on Site Visit

First Name Organization Phone Number Email

Lisa Biddle U.S. EPA, SGE Engineer (202) 566-0350 Biddle.Lisa@epa.gov

Tom Born U.S. EPA, SGE 

Environmental Scientist

(202) 566-1001 Born.Tom@epa.gov

Brian D’Amico U.S. EPA, SGE Engineer (202) 566-1069 Damico.Brian@epa.gov

Erik Helm U.S. EPA, SGE Economist (202) 566-1049 Helm.Erik@epa.gov

Pooja Parikh U.S. EPA, SGE Attorney (202) 564-0839 Parikh.Pooja@epa.gov

Casey MacQueen ERG, Chemical Engineer (703) 633-1686 Casey.Macqueen@erg.com

Brent Ruminski ERG, Energy Engineer (703) 633-1701 Brent.Ruminski@erg.com

Tim Miller, P.E. Clean Streams, Director of 

Gas Field Services

(610) 518-5800 Tmiller@usenv.com

Richard Weaver Clean Streams, President (888) 884-9700 Rweaver@usenv.com

Table A-3. List of Attendees on May 2014 Conference Call

First Name Organization Phone Number Email

Lisa Biddle U.S. EPA, SGE Engineer (202) 566-0350 Biddle.Lisa@epa.gov

Sarah Yates ERG, Environmental Engineer (703) 633-1661 Sarah.Yates@erg.com

Tim Miller, P.E. Clean Streams, Director of Gas 

Field Services

(610) 518-5800 Tmiller@usenv.com