Environmental Enforcement

P.O. Box 662

Teays, WV 25569
Telephone: (304) 757-1693 Fax: (304) 757-3873

Earl Ray Tomblin, Governor

Randy C. Huffman, Cabinet Secretary
www.wvdep.org

November 23, 2015

Jeffrey Laskey
Venture Engineering and Construction
AOP Clearwater/Fairmont Brine Processing
1501 Reedsdale Street, Suite 505
Pittsburg, PA 15233
Certified Return Receipt Requested
Cert # 7012 2210 0001 4274 0973
Dear Mr. Laskey:
Enclosed is the compliance inspection report for the River Monitoring Evaluation
conducted from the Monongahela River at Fairmont Brince Processing (WV/NPDES Permit No.
WV0116408) on September 23, 2015. A copy is maintained with the West Virginia Department
of Environmental Protections Division of Water and Waste Management.
No deficiencies were noted during the evaluation of your facility as observed from the
river. You and your staff are to be commended for your commitment to proper operation and
maintenance of your treatment facility.
If you have any questions, please contact my office at (304) 757-1693.
Sincerely,

Douglas Alan Kee

Environmental Inspector Supervisor

enclosure
cc:
David Simmons, Assistant Chief Inspector, EE/WW (via e-mail)
Kirk Powroznik, Environmental Inspector Supervisor, EE/WW (via e-mail)
Phil Carper, Environmental Inspector, EE/WW/CM (via e-mail)
Jason Ely, Environmental Inspector, EE/WW (via e-mail)
Promoting a healthy environment.

Rev. 5/15

I-Form

STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
ENVIRONMENTAL ENFORCEMENT

INDUSTRIAL FACILITY INSPECTION FORM

Facility Name: Fairmont Brine Processing LLC (AOP Clearwater)
Permittee: Venture Engineering & Construction
Location: AFR Drive (Fairmont)
County: Marion

Permit Number:
Registration Number:
WV0116408
Expiration Date: March 26, 2020
Time In: 0900
Weather: sunny, cool

Address: 1501 Reedsdale Street, Suite 505

Pittsburg, PA 15233

Time Out: 1400

Photos:
Date Inspected: 9/23/15

*Rating: S-Satisfactory

M-Marginal

U-Unsatisfactory

N/A-Not Applicable

N/O-Not Observed

N/D-Not Determined This Visit

No Treatment
Treatment:
SECONDARY / TERTIARY
Rating
RECORDS / OPERATIONS
14 Pond(s)
27 Solid Waste Disposal
15 Aeration
28 Sludge Disposal
16 Clarifier
29 General Housekeeping
17 Neutralization
30 Operation and Maintenance

01
02
03
04

PRIMARY
Pond
Clarifier
Separator(s)
Equalization Basin

Rating

05
06
07
08
09
10

Neutralization
Sump
Chemical Feeder
Scum Removal
Septic Tank
Holding Tank

18
19
20
21
22
23

Chemical Feeders
Sludge Return
Filtration
Carbon Filter
Air Stripping
Dissolved Air Floatation

31
32
33
34
35
36

Secondary Containment
SWPPP/GPP/SPCC
Sampling / Laboratory
Records / Reporting
Discharge Limitations
Storm Water

11
12
13

Emergency Basin
Impoundment(s)
Other:

24
25
26

Post Aeration
Sanitary Wastewater System
Other:

37
38
39
40

BMPs
Compliance Schedule
Monitoring Wells
Other:

Rating

Outlet

Marker

Design Flow

Present Flow

Appearance

Odor

TRC
mg/L

pH
S.U.

DO
mg/L

Cond.
s/cm

Temp.
C.

Samples

001
002

N/E

N/O

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Receiving Stream / Basin Monongahela

Comments / Deficiencies:
No deficiencies noted.
Jeffrey S. Laskey (714)231-5890x369
Patrick Vescovi (714) 231-5890 x324
Official Representative
Number of NOVs issued on this date:

Manager of Projects
Project Manager
Title

Phil Carper

11/23 /15
Date

Inspector
None:

Fairmont Brine
Processing
Supplement 2
FBP Reply to Violation W16-24-008-JME

WVDEP Statement of Violation

1.

Exceeded raw wastewate r loads for the parameters Radium 226+228, Phthalate Esters, Fluo ride,
Nitrogen Ammonia at Outfall 201, and failed to obtain approval from the WVDEP for accepting
these loads. See attached table.

Corrective Steps to be taken:

1.

Radium 226+228: FBP recognizes t hat t he 150 pCi/L stipulated in Section C.19.b.1) for Radium

226+228 has been exceeded. A review of the literature reflects that this lim it is exceeded by all
flowback and produced water. For example, PADEP's repo rt entitled Technologically Enhanced
Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials {TENORM) Study Report, dated January 2015, reports

the fo llowing for flow back fluid prior to the we ll entering production: "Radium-226 levels were
elevated, ranging from 551 to 25,500 pCi/L. Radium-228 was also elevated, ranging from 248 to
1,740 pCi/L." (pg 3-7) For comparison, please note that the same reference reports for POTWs
that have never received wastewater from the oil and gas industry, the average radiation in
unfiltered influent is as follows: Ra-226: 103 pCi/L, Ra-228: 11.6 pCi/L, Gross Alpha: 67.3 pCi/L,
and Gross Beta: 80 pCi/L. What this data suggests is that the limit is more appropriate to POTW.
Sectio n C. 19.b.1) requires director approva l for all loads that exceed 150 pCi/L. The methods
stipulated in the permit are: Gross alpha and Beta EPA900.0, Radium 226 EPA Method 903.1,
Radium 228 904.0. A 28 turnaround is involved with these methods. A 28 day delay would make
our business non-viable. Our customers would simply divert to deep we lls in other states. Based
on our influent sampling data to date, and the PADEP report, all conventional and
unconventional gas wells produced waters have radium in excess of 150 pCi/L, with t he average
closer to 9,000 pCi/L.
In addition, we have demonstrated through 19 months of operating history that radium is not
being passed through . We are removing the radium in our sodium sulfate precipitation process,
and our removal efficiencies are greater than 99%, resu lting in an effluent that is at or better
than drinking water standards.
Acco rd ingly, Fairmont Brine is requesting a blanket notification to accept incoming brines up to
25,500 pCi/L as radium 226+228, which is typica l of the produced waters that are anticipated to
be received.
Given that the limit affects all Marcellus flowback received, t hat the ana lytical requirements
effectively make our service non-viable, tha t we have demonst rated that our process is effective

Page 6

Fairmont Brine
Processing
at removing radium >99%, and t hat we have been working diligently with the West Virginia
Division of Health, Office of Environmental Health Services/ Radiation to manage our wastes
properly and safely, we request relief from these onerous requirements.
2. Phthalate Esters:

Section C.19.b. l) require s director approval for all loads t hat exceed 0.04

mg/I, or 40 g/I. Our data ranges from 2.8 to <19.1 g/ I. Zero excursions are reported in the
attachment to the NOVs. We assume the inclusion of this parameter in the NOV is an erro r.
3.

Fluoride: The presence of fluoride at 52.5 mg/ I (average) and 75 mg/I is curious. Fluoride has a

high affinity for calcium, and wit h a Solubility Product (K5p) 3.9 x 10-11, one would expect little
fluoride in our brines as rece ived. And typica lly, t he fluorid e we see is at low levels.
It is possible that t he two loads sampled had a low pH, which can interfere wit h the formation
of ca lcium flu oride. But after mixing with wastewaters in our system, and achieving a typical pH
of 5 to 6, the soluble fluoride would precipitate immediately.
While we do not see fluorid e as an issue from a health, safety or environmental perspective, we
have been adding caustic at the raw brine basin, and our planned improvements for the
pretreatme nt area will make the likelihood of any problems non-existent.
Another possibility is simply that bot h data points are laboratory error.
Finally, we do not understand t he regulator's concern with fluoride and request relief from the
lim it and notification requirement.
4. Nitrogen Ammonia: The appea ran ce of ammonia in our raw brine was a surprise, but we have
learned that Quaternary Ammonium Ch loride is used as a biocide in fracking. Section C.19.b.1)
of the permit requires notifica tion and authorization when we exceed 141 mg/ I. We recognize
t hat we have exceeded that level.
In 2015, Fairmont Brine had Venture Engi neering perform a literature review of methods for
ammonia remova l, both in brine as received and on effluent . The study showed that there were
no viab le methods for treating the brine, but after processing, there was at least one viable
option.
In the fall we implemented a pilot program using a non-regenerant zeolite adsorbent to ca pture
ammonia that carries through the process to the discha rge. This pilot program is still ongoing.
Results to date have shown that th e adso rbent is effective. Accord ingly, we plan to make it
permanent, and we request relief from the ammonia lim it and notification requirement.

Page 7

Fairmont Brine
Processing
5.

The actions taken to abate this violation, by parameter, are described above and summarized as
follows:

We request relief from the radium limits, which are not feasible and more typical of
average POTW influent, not industrial wastewater plant influent nor produced water
influent.

We are in compliance with the limit on phthalate esters.

Since fluoride is removed by our process, we request relie f from limit and notification
requirement.

Since we have demonstrated that we can remove nitrogen ammonia, we request relief
from the ammonia limit and notification requirement.

Page 8

sometimes hit the secondary containment. It was mentioned to the permittee to investigate implementing further Best Management
Practices to prevent the secondary containment from tearing any further and to repair the secondary containment. A hose inside the
secondary containment had a leaky valve. This hose was connected to the raw brine holding pond; once discovered the permittee had
personnel begin pumping out the wastewater inside the secondary containment - this material was then pumped into the frac tanks.
Salt crystals were also observed near the leaky valve was. A steady drip of liquid was observed coming from the orange barriers
holding up the secondary containment around the Calcium Chloride tanks; this liquid was me lting the snow. Orange puddles were
observed outside the secondary containment of the Calciu m Chloride tanks; sample results of one of these puddles revealed e levated
Chlorides and Total Dissolved Solids; results match concentrations found in the raw brine holding pond. Snow was me lted in the area
where these orange puddles were located.
During the inspection the raw brine holding pond exceeded the 2' freeboard mark, a violation of Section C.29 of your WV/NPDES
Permit. A section of snow was melted below the lowest point in the raw brine holding pond, however, th is inspector could not
determine ifan overflow did occur.
Since the previous inspection the permittee: added concrete pads around the salt storage building and moved the activated carbon filter
from the previous adjacent property to near the ammonia vessels onsite. Salt storage and surrounding area appeared visually
satisfactory. The salt being produced is being sold as Road Salt. During the inspection salt was being removed from the salt storage
area by a company called Landscapes Plus, and was being placed in a Hall Drilling truck for transporting.
Laboratory/Sampling- Discharge Monitoring Reports and supporting documentation were reviewed from July 2015 to December
20 15. Research Environmental Industrial Consultants, INC (REIC) analyzes all of the samples requ ired by their permit; besides pH
and TRC which is conducted internally. Chain of C ustody forms were reviewed and appeared complete and accurate. Outlets 001 and
I 0 I exceeded discharge limits set forth in the permit (see attached table). Stormwater outfall 002 in 2015 exceeded the benchmark
concenstration for Total Dissolved Solids. This is a violation of Section C. 12 of your WV/NPDES Permit. A letter has not been
received by the WVDEP stating what practices wi ll be taken to reduce the concentrations.
Permittee is not using EPA Method No. 606 for analysis of Phthalate Esters, a violation of Section C. 14 of your WV/NPDES Permit.
Permittee exceeded raw wastewater loads for the parameters Radium 226+228, Phvthalate Esters, Fluoride, and Nitrogen Ammon ia at
Outfall 20 I, and failed to obtain approval from the WVDEP for accepting these loads; see attached table. Th is is a violation of Section
19.b of your WV/NPDES Pe rmit.
Effluent/Receiving Waters- Outlet 00 l was discharging at the beginning of the inspection and at the end of the inspection. The
receiving stream visually appeared satisfactory.The permittee stated they showed they were not di scharging; the permittee should
in vestigate why a d ischarge was occuring if their controls show no discharge was occuring. Outlet 002 could not be reached due to
safety concerns; the outlet was covered with snow durin g the inspection. Outlet I01 and 20 I both had the appropriate sign age at their
des ignated areas.
Sludge Disposal- in July of20 15 FBP hired Advanced T ENO RM Services to transport thirty-five (35) sealed contrainers of sl udges
high in TENO RM that came from the pre-treatment area to Ash la nd, KY for solidification. and then eventually will be properly
disposed of at a Subtitle D landfill located in Irvine, Kentucky.

***WARNING !

*** You are hereby warned that the fo llowing remedial measures must be taken on or before

v-, .

Inspector: Jason M. Ely

Company Official: _ _ Title:
Number of NOV's issued this date: 1

Telephone: 304-368-2000
NONE:

copy distribution: Regional Office; Faci lity, Charleston, Inspector