May 2005 Petition for Rulemaking for Regulation of CBM Development

1. May 2005 Petition for Rulemaking for Regulation of CBM Development Bob Bukantis Water Quality Standards DEQ Planning Division

2. Overview • 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

3. Petition Process(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

4. Rulemaking • 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

5. 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

6. Why is EC important? As EC increases a threshold is reached where further increases in EC cause decreases in plant growth

7. What is SAR? Measure of abundance of Sodium relative to abundance of Calcium & Magnesium

8. Why is SAR important? High SAR water can cause serious damage to soil structure Adversely affects water movement into soil

9. Tongue River: • SAR ~ 1 • Powder River: • SAR ~ 5 • CBM water: • variable • SAR ~ 55

10. Water Quality Standards • Have 3 components: • Beneficial Uses • Standards (criteria) • narrative or numeric • Nondegradation Policy

11. Nondegradation • 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

12. Significance Thresholds Standard Narrative standard: measurable x effect on use or measurable change in aquatic life or ecological integrity) 50% of Standard (harmful) Increasing Change 15% of Standard (toxics) Existing water quality: Carcinogen: any change 0

13. Water Quality Standard Example • 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))

14. Events • 2000 • Redstone MPDES Permit • DEQ initiates public scoping meetings (WQS) • Much public interest • 2001 • DEQ proposes EC & SAR Standards

15. 2002 • 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

16. March 2003: CBM-related WQS 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))

17. MPDES 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

18. 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 Effluent Limits

19. 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

20. Zero discharge / technology based CBM discharge regulation • Reinjection (shallow aquifers) where feasible • 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

21. We would like to hear the Council’s comments DEQ planning, permitting & legal staff are present to answer questions

22. Extra Slides Follow