May 2005 Petition for May 2005 Petition for Rulemaking for Regulation of Rulemaking for Regulation of

CBM DevelopmentCBM Development

Bob Bukantis

Water Quality Standards

DEQ Planning Division

OverviewOverview

Petition process EC & SAR basics Water quality standards basics

– EC & SAR

Montana’s CBM standards development MPDES basics Petitioner’s request to the Board Questions, discussion & comment

Petition ProcessPetition Process(2-4-315 MCA)(2-4-315 MCA)

“An interested person…. may petition …… requesting the promulgation…..of a rule.”

“....decision to deny a petition or to initiate rulemaking proceedings must be in writing and based on record evidence.”

“Record evidence must include any evidence submitted by the petitioner….and by the agency and interested persons …..”

If BER accepts, normal rulemaking process begins

RulemakingRulemaking

WPCAC review & opportunity for comment BER decision to accept or deny (based on “record

evidence”) Proposed rule published Public hearing & opportunity for public comment BER considers comment & may amend rule Adoption notice published

What is EC?What is EC?

Measure of salinity -- results given in µS/cm2

–Ability of solution to conduct electricity

EC of the Tongue River is about 800 µS/cm2

EC of the Powder River is about 1,900 µS/cm2

EC of CBM water is about 2,000 µS/cm2

Why is EC important?Why is EC important?

As EC increases a threshold is reached where further increases in EC cause decreases in plant growth

What is SAR?What is SAR?

Measure of abundance of Sodium Measure of abundance of Sodium relative to abundance of Calcium & relative to abundance of Calcium & MagnesiumMagnesium

Why is SAR important?Why is SAR important?

High SAR water can cause serious damage to soil structure

–Adversely affects water movement into soil

Tongue River:Tongue River:– SAR ~ 1SAR ~ 1

Powder River:Powder River:– SAR ~ 5SAR ~ 5

CBM water:CBM water:– variablevariable– SAR ~ 55SAR ~ 55

Water Quality StandardsWater Quality Standards

Have 3 components:– Beneficial Uses – Standards (criteria)

narrative or numeric

– Nondegradation Policy

NondegradationNondegradation

Applicable to any new or increased discharge which may cause degradation

Significance determination– Carcinogens– Toxics– Harmful– Narrative

If significant change to water quality, then need authorization to degrade

Significance ThresholdsSignificance ThresholdsIn

crea

sing

Cha

nge

Existing water quality: Carcinogen: any changeExisting water quality: Carcinogen: any change

15% of Standard (toxics)15% of Standard (toxics)

50% of Standard (harmful)50% of Standard (harmful)

StandardStandard Narrative standard: measurable Narrative standard: measurable

0

xeffect on use or measurable effect on use or measurable change in aquatic life or change in aquatic life or ecological integrity)ecological integrity)

Water Quality Standard Water Quality Standard ExampleExample

Beneficial Use: Agriculture Numeric standard for SAR in Tongue River

during irrigation season is monthly average of 3 and no sample may exceed 4.5

Nondegradation Policy: “Changes in…..water quality….with respect to EC and SAR….are considered nonsignificant….provided the change will not have a measurable effect….on any….use or cause measurable changes in aquatic life or ecological integrity.” (ARM 17.30.670(6))

EventsEvents

2000 – Redstone MPDES Permit– DEQ initiates public scoping meetings (WQS)

Much public interest

2001– DEQ proposes EC & SAR Standards

20022002

May: draft EC & SAR WQS– Numeric standards to protect agriculture as most

sensitive use– EC & SAR would continue to be treated as narrative for

purposes of nondegradation significance determination July: initiate rulemaking

– 2 alternatives proposed– 3rd alternative proposed by petition– Board directs parties to enter into collaborative meetings

Sept: Board tour & public meetings

March 2003: CBM-related March 2003: CBM-related WQS adoptedWQS adopted

Numeric EC & SAR (ARM 17.30.670)

– Tongue, Powder & Rosebud drainages Tributaries & Tongue Reservoir Powder River higher values due to naturally higher EC & SAR Expressed as monthly averages and sample maxima

– Irrigation & non-irrigation season Narrative nondeg approach (ARM 17.30.670(6))

Flow-based permitting (ARM 17.30.670(7)) Non-severability of nondeg & flow-based

permitting provisions (ARM 17.30.670(8))

MPDES PermitsMPDES Permits

Required for discharge of pollutants to state waters– CBM discharge water considered a pollutant

Set effluent limits for all relevant pollutants– discharger determines how to meet limits

Effluent LimitsEffluent Limits

Technology based– Set discharge limits

based on cost-effective treatment technology

– Receiving water quality not considered

– Use EPA effluent limitations guidelines

Lack of ELG’s develop on case by case basis (BPJ)

Water Quality based– Protect beneficial uses– Needed when

technology-based limits inadequate

May 2005 Petition Proposes:May 2005 Petition Proposes:

Changes to MT Water Quality Standards:– treatment of EC & SAR as harmful rather than

narrative for nondegradation– Require use of annual 7Q10 for permit calculations– remove non-severability clause

New rules for minimum treatment requirements for CBM industry

Zero discharge / technology Zero discharge / technology based CBM discharge based CBM discharge

regulationregulation

1. Reinjection (shallow aquifers) where feasible

2. When not feasible to reinject, new rule provides for waiver

– Provides set timeframe– Public comment

– Decision points

– Requires treatment-based MPDES permit– Allows for stock water use exception

We would like to hear the We would like to hear the Council’s commentsCouncil’s comments

DEQ planning, permitting & legal staff are present to answer questions

Extra Extra Slides Slides FollowFollow