Hello CIPCA newsletter recipients, the 2015 Executive Committee members are introduced below. Please let us

know how we may assist you. We have some great meetings and tours planned for this year for our members.

Keep an eye out for emails and check the website (www.cipca.org). Remember, just because you get the news-

letter doesn’t mean that you are a member. Renew today to receive the emailed meeting notifications.

Renew membership by March 15th: http://www.cipca.org/register.html

Thanks to everyone that submitted articles this quarter.

-Mary Paterniti

Note from the Editor

I N S I D E T H I S

I S S U E :

View from the

Chair

2

Wynkoop Tour 3

Fracking

Technology

4

Permit Closure 5

Quiz 6

Upcoming

Events

8

Introducing the 2015 Executive Committee

THE CIPCA MONITOR

M A R C H 2 0 1 5 V O L U M E 1 5 , I S S U E 1

Sheri Duren

—Chair

JB Reyes

—Co-Chair

Mary Paterniti—Newsletter

Justin Elkins

—Secretary

Debbie Trusty

—Treasurer

Scott Caldwell

—Education

Gwen Lawrence

—Issues

Please direct questions, com-

ments, and submissions to:

mary.paterniti

@longmontcolorado.gov

(303) 651-8667

P A G E 2

View from the Chair Sheri Duren

CIPCA Chair

City of Boulder

First of all, I’d like to thank you

for entrusting me with the lead-

ership of CIPCA for 2015. I’m

honored and will strive to do

my best in representing this

great organization.

Introduction: I’ve been work-

ing for the City of Boulder’s

Industrial Pretreatment group

since 1999 with a 3-yr hiatus

into Operations. Before that, I

worked for the State of Ten-

nessee’s Water Pollution Con-

trol group for 6 years doing

various water quality related

work.

I graduated from Tennessee

Technological University in

1993 with a BS in Civil & Envi-

ronmental Engineering. Now

you know where my nerdiness

comes from. But aren’t we all

nerds to some point?

Public Participation: I like

the following excerpt from the

US Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) on what public

participation is:

“Public participation can be any

process that directly engages

the public in decision-making

and gives full consideration to

public input in making that deci-

sion.

Public participation is a process,

not a single event. It consists of

a series of activities and actions

by a sponsor agency over the

full lifespan of a project to both

inform the public and obtain

input from them. Public partici-

pation affords stakeholders

(those that have an interest or

stake in an issue, such as indi-

viduals, interest groups, commu-

nities) the opportunity to influence

decisions that affect their lives.

Agencies should not be concerned

that seeking public input means

having to do “what the public

wants”. Generally speaking, there

is no single public. Rather the

public consists of a range of stake-

holders holding an array of views

and concerns on an issue. When

conducting meaningful public par-

ticipation, an agency will gather

input from a wide spectrum of

stakeholder interests, resulting in a

wide range of views and concerns.

The job of the sponsor agency

then is to balance among these

views and concerns and reflect

back decisions so that the public

understands how its diverse con-

cerns were considered.”

I would like to thank all of you

that participated in the public

comment period regarding the

EPA proposed rule, “Effluent Lim-

itations Guidelines and Standards

for the Dental Category”. There

are few opportunities that we are

given to participate in a rulemak-

ing session and it’s important that

we participate when we can.

CIPCA had good representation

at both of our meeting to discuss

the proposed regulation. I feel

that our organization submitted a

well-rounded set of comments

and we should be proud of our

accomplishment.

I also want to thank all of you that

submitted comments on behalf of

yourself or your employer. As I

looked through the comments, I

recognized many names. It was

great to see such participation.

The rule may or may not be

published as it was proposed but

now at least we have provided

comments and hopefully they

will make a difference.

A few ways to stay up on pro-

posed rules and learning about

comment periods are:

• To subscribe to the Federal

Register Table of Contents elec-

tronic mailing list at http://

listserv.access.gpo.gov. This

arrives in your email daily with

the Table of Contents of the

notices posted that day.

• To visit the Federal Register

website at https://

www.federalregister.gov/. At

the website, you can sign up for

“My FR” which you can choose

documents titles that when up-

dated will send you a notice.

While the daily email can be

overwhelming, it’s an easier way

of keeping up with notices than

logging into My FR each time. I

have the daily emails being deliv-

ered to a folder to keep them

out of my inbox.

Future: As we look towards

the rest of the year, the Execu-

tive Committee seeks another

form of public participation – we

are in need of suggestions from

the membership on what topics

should be covered at our gen-

eral meetings and at the fall con-

ference. If you have a subject

and/or speaker to recommend,

please let me or one of the oth-

er committee members know.

We are here to serve you and

in order to do that, we need to

know what you need and want

to learn about.

* * *

T H E C I P C A M O N I T O R

Many of us participated in NACWA’s survey on mercury.

Read NACWA’s comments on-line.

P A G E 3 V O L U M E 1 5 , I S S U E 1

Wynkoop Brewery Tour and Membership Appreciation, 2014

T H E C I P C A M O N I T O R

Founded in 1988 by John Hickenlooper and

located in LoDo, Wynkoop Brewery was Col-

orado’s first brewpub and Denver’s first mi-

crobrewery. The tour included a behind the

scenes look at equipment used for mash cook-

ing, heat exchange, fermentation, filtering and

keg packaging. Following the tour, members enjoyed food and billiards upstairs.

As Fracking Regulation Lags, Technology Captures Attention

oil and gas produced from their wells.

In other states, such as Colorado

where volumes are not reported, esti-

mates are based on site specific data.

(Colorado volumes for 2012 were esti-

mated at 2.2 billion gallons). This esti-

mate does not include uncollected

spills, drill muds, and leaks into ground-

water, etc.

States and the U.S. Environmental Pro-

tection Agency (EPA) share responsi-

bility for regulating treatment and dis-

posal of wastewater from shale-gas

extraction under National Pollutant

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).

In October 2011, EPA announced a

schedule to develop categorical effluent

standards for wastewater discharges

produced by natural gas extraction

from underground coal-bed and shale

formations. EPA will publish the Final

2014 Effluent Guidelines Program Plan

after incorporating feedback gathered

during the public comment period,

which ended November 2014. Without

comprehensive regulation surrounding

oil and gas regulation, which is by the

way about 10 years behind schedule,

our only hope in reducing contami-

nants to source waters is through

treatment technology.

Most package treatment plants used at

well sites incorporate chemical coagu-

lants and/or polymers, DAF, filters,

presses and storage systems to treat

Gwen Lawrence

Issues Editor

Littleton/Englewood WWTP

It is undisputable that hydraulic frac-

turing has an impact on our environ-

ment and public health. It has proven

difficult to quantify the effects due to

the varying data collection practices

across the states. One thing for sure

is that the number of production wells

drilled and injection wells used for

waste storage have dramatically in-

creased in the last 10 years. Between

2005 and 2012, Colorado was second

to Texas with a whopping 18,000 plus

wells. Since then 4,190 new Colorado

drilling permits were approved, 80% of

those in Weld and Garfield counties.

Only 500 of the new wells have re-

ported fracking chemicals used to

FracFocus, the national hydraulic frac-

turing chemical registry.

FracFocus is managed by the Ground

Water Protection Council and Inter-

state Oil and Gas Compact Commis-

sion, to provide public access to re-

ported chemicals used in hydraulic

fracturing within specific areas. The

primary purpose of this site is to pro-

vide factual information concerning

hydraulic fracturing and groundwater

protection. It is not intended to argue

either for or against the use of hydrau-

lic fracturing as a technology. Cur-

rently, sixteen states use FracFocus as

a chemical disclosure resource.

FracFocus does not include data on all

wells. The site came into operation in

2011 and does not account for the

thousands of wells already fracked.

Colorado and roughly 8 other states

adopted reporting to FracFocus in

2012.

In some states, such as New Mexico,

North Dakota, Ohio, Pennsylvania and

Utah, well operators submit regular

reports on the volumes of wastewater,

P A G E 4 V O L U M E 1 5 , I S S U E 1

flowback and produced waters. If

properly operated, these processes

can remove heavy metals, disinfect

pathogens, reduce soluble iron, bari-

um strontium and hardness (TDS) for

recycling and reuse. These methods

can be extremely expensive and are

certainly not energy efficient.

Environmentalists behold - there is a

new treatment technology on the

horizon. One that is sustainable and

is a much simpler process that can

simultaneously remove both salts and

organic contaminants, all while pro-

ducing energy. The new technique,

unveiled in February 2015, and devel-

oped by engineers at the University of

Colorado Boulder, was recently pub-

lished in the journal Environmental

Science Water Research & Technolo-

gy. The treatment technology is

called the microbial capacitive desali-

nation cell (MCDC) and works like a

battery, using microbes to generate an

electrical current that can be used for

desalination. This microbial electro-

chemical process uses energy-rich

hydrocarbons as a food source for

the microbes. The energy released

creates a positively charged electrode

on one side of a cell and a negatively

charged electrode on the other. The

cell is then able to remove the salt in

Continued on page 7…

T H E C I P C A M O N I T O R

Mary Paterniti

City of Longmont

I have been wanting to share

something that I have not heard

anyone else talk about in pretreat-

ment: a Closure Management Plan

(CMP) that is used in the event of

the discontinuation of discharge of

a regulated waste stream. This has

become a valuable tool to avoid

mishaps with categorical wast-

estreams, hazardous wastes,

chemicals and products.

Permittees are responsible for all

discharges to the wastewater sys-

tem and permits are not closed

until the Pretreatment Program

has determined the industry has

disposed of the regulated wastes

in a proper and safe manner. In

Longmont, CMPs are a require-

ment of the Municipal Code and

the permit and must be submitted

by the Permittee 30 days prior to

the planned disconnect.

In most cases, the closing of a

permit is simple. But other times,

retaining the authority over the

discharge and requiring a CMP can

aide a pretreatment program in

avoiding potential slug discharges.

In the following example, a busi-

ness declared Chapter 11 and I

relied heavily on the CMP process

to ensure communication re-

mained open while all the wastes

and products were removed from

the site.

A manufacturer in Longmont

made flexible circuit boards by

plating metals onto a flexible film.

The boards could then be

wrapped around objects or includ-

ed inside products such as stuffed

animals. Due to the flexibility, the

solder would eventually peel off

the substrate causing the board to

fail. During the final months, the

manufacturer began testing differ-

ent processes to correct the prob-

lem. Excessive amounts of rinse

water were generated and the

pretreatment system was unable

to handle the volume of wastes.

Wastes began to be accumulated

on-site with the hope that rinse

waters could be treated and re-

used. The facility was sold to an

out of state company and soon

after, declared bankruptcy. The

business was split between 3 enti-

ties. The out of state company

took possession of all the equip-

ment, most of which was quickly

auctioned off. All the local em-

ployees were transferred to a sec-

ond out of state company. A skel-

eton crew contracted from this

company and made up of the local

employees was left in Longmont

to oversee the shut-down. The

original company that held the

permit and owned all the leftover

products and wastes became

owned by one man living in

France. A Closure Management

Plan was submitted by the Permit-

tee and though convoluted, the

process to close the facility was

easily managed. The one excep-

tion was when 20,000 gallons of

categorical wastes were found in a

back room during the final inspec-

tion. No one took possession of

the wastes, but all 3 entities

claimed to own the large valuable

tank. I am sure that without a

CMP, much of the wastes would

have been discharged to drain. The

CMP allowed me to track all the

wastes and products and forced the

Permittee to maintain the permit

until all of the wastes were re-

moved.

Minimum requirements of the CMP:

1. Date of planned disconnect.

2. Methods of disposal of regulated

process tanks, chemicals, sludges,

plating wastes, cleaning solutions.

3. Methods of cleaning tanks, bar-

rels or other vessels containing

regulated pollutants.

4. Names of carriers and ultimate

disposal site(s) of the regulated pol-

lutants and the EPA permit num-

bers for transportation of the

wastes, if a permit is required by

EPA.

Upon receipt of the CMP, the Pre-

treatment program works with the

industrial user to determine when

the permit will be closed. This also

gives me time to ensure that the

minimum sampling requirements

are completed before closure. (I

got dinged on my first EPA audit

when a facility closed in January and

I hadn’t completed the sampling for

that calendar year!) Final inspection

of the location is conducted to en-

sure that all wastes and chemicals

are properly removed before per-

mit closure. The industrial user is

responsible for submitting all re-

quired reports on time until the

permit is closed.

Upon closure of the permit and

Continued on page 6…

T H E C I P C A M O N I T O R

P A G E 5

Closure Management Plans

P A G E 6

T H E C I P C A M O N I T O R

...continued from page 5 (CMP)

receipt of the last self-monitoring

report, the City will send a letter

stating the date of permit closure.

It is suggested that the industrial

user keep a copy of final letter in

the event that the CDPHE contin-

ues to send annual billing fees after

the business is closed.

It should also be noted that the

information provided in the CMP

was used years later when an envi-

ronmental audit was conducted on

the above mentioned property.

The information helped the auditor

identify another property owner

(not the former Permittee) as re-

sponsible for soil contamination.

I have a fact sheet on the City of

Longmont website that outlines the

CMP requirements. Email me if you

would like to get the editable ver-

sion in Publisher.

* * *

CIPCA Quiz Test your legal knowledge by interpreting the use of the word “indemnify” as it pertains to the follow-

ing paragraph and then answer the question:

“The Association may purchase and maintain insurance on behalf of any person who

is or was an officer or agent of the association or who is or was serving at the re-

quest of the association as an officer or agent of another enterprise. The insurance

may provide coverage of the person against any liability asserted against him/her or

incurred by him/her in his official capacity or arising out of his/her status whether or

not the association would have the power to indemnify him/her under the provision

of the Article.”

QUESTION: Should or is the Association required to “indemnify” officers/agents and

maintain insurance coverage on behalf of its past or present officers? Why?

Please submit answers to Gwen Lawrence by March 31st.

To help you with the quiz, section 4 of the CIPCA Bylaws is provided:

4. INDEMNIFICATION

4.1 Who May be Indemnified

Subject to the other provisions in this article, the association may indemnify any per-

son who was or is a party, or is threatened to be made a party, of any legal action be-

cause: (a) The person was or is an officer or agent of CIPCA. (b) The person was or

is serving at the request of the association as an officer or agent of another corpora-

tion, association or enterprise.

The term "legal action" means any threatened, pending or completed action, suit or

proceeding whether civil, criminal, administrative or investigative. The indemnifica-

tion provided for in this Article shall inure to the benefit of the heirs and personal rep-

resentatives of the person.

4.2 Scope of Indemnification

4.2.1 Legal Action Not Brought By or In the Right of the Association

If the legal action is not brought by or in the right of the association, the association

may indemnify the person against expenses incurred in the defense of the legal action,

attorney fees, judgments, fines and the amounts paid in a settlement. The termination

of a legal action by judgment, order, settlement or conviction or upon a plea of nolo

contendere or its equivalent shall not of itself create a presumption that the person did

not act in good faith and in a manner which he or she reasonably believed to be in the

best interest of the association and, with respect to any criminal action or proceeding,

and reasonable cause to believe that his or her conduct was lawful.

4.2.2 Legal Action Brought By or in the Right of the Association

If the legal action is brought by or in the right of the association, the association may

indemnify the person against expenses actually and reasonably incurred in the defense

Continued on page 9...

V O L U M E 1 5 , I S S U E 1

...continued from page 4 (Fracking)

the wastewater by attracting the

charged ions onto a high surface

area electrode. During the pilot

studies, the MCDC removed great-

er than 65% of TDS and 85% of

COD in just 4 hours of operation in

cell and more than 98% of the salts

and 75% of the organics were re-

covered during the capacitive de-

ionization regeneration process,

and 1780 mJ/g of activated carbon

cloth was harvested. This technol-

ogy provides a new integrated pro-

cess to complement current sys-

tems for organic matter and salt

removal as well as energy recovery

from real produced water.

To try to turn the technology into a

commercial reality, the inventors

have co-founded a company called

BioElectric Inc. The goal is to scale

up the technology at a cost that is

competitive with what the oil and

gas industry currently spends on

buying and hauling potable water

and operating package plants.

There is also some movement in

state legislatures to require oil and

gas companies to reuse wastewater,

which could make this product even

more appealing. The inventors

Zhiyong Jason Ren and Casey For-

restal, of CU Boulder, have re-

ceived funds from the National Sci-

ence Foundation to work on scaling

up the water treatment cell, after

taking first place at the NSF’s Inno-

vation Corps Program.

* * *

T H E C I P C A M O N I T O R

P A G E 7

1. Read the manufacturer’s instructions on battery care.

2. Heat causes battery damage. Remove the battery from the

charger when fully charged. DO NOT leave battery pack on the

charger.

3. Bring cold battery packs to room temperature before charging.

4. If you don’t use the battery on the regular basis, charge it every

3-4 months. Most NiCd batteries self-discharge 1-2% each day

when not in use. NiCd batteries can discharge to 0, but NEVER let

Pb acid batteries fully discharge.

5. When the equipment begins to slow down or fade, STOP using

the battery and recharge. Repetitively discharging past this point

can cause battery damage.

6. It is not required to fully discharge your pack every time to use

it. Every 4th or 5th usage, drain the battery before recharging.

Tips on Extending the Life of Rechargeable Batteries

CIPCA 2015 Membership

Fees Due

http://www.cipca.org/register.html

Reuse of Brewery Wastes at a Wastewater Treatment Facility

The City of Boulder WWTF is working with a local brewery to use process

wastewater to improve nitrogen treatment. Wort from this particular brewery con-

tains the right concentration of sugar to aid the WWTF. View the 9 News story.

This regulatory action would amend "Guidelines Establishing Test Proce-

dures for the Analysis of Pollutants" at 40 CFR part 136 to approve test

procedures. These test procedures must be used in applications for per-

mits and for reporting under the NPDES program (unless use of an alter-

nate procedure is approved). The regulation would also revise, clarify

and correct errors and ambiguities in existing methods.

As a pretreatment professional, you may want to pay close attention to

the proposed changes to MDL definitions and procedures (starting on

page 38 of the above link).

Comment period closes April 20, 2015. Read comments on-line.

EPA-HQ-OW-2014-0797

UPCOMING EVENTS

OUR MISSION: STRIVING TO MAKE THE

ENVIRONMENT A CLEANER, SAFER PLACE FOR

TODAY’S AND FUTURE GENERATIONS.

OSHA HAZWOPER FREE 8-hour Refresher

March 24, 2015 8—4:30

Email LEPC@bouldercounty.org for more information

National Pretreatment & P2

Workshop May 13– 15,

Greenville, SC

http://www.nacwa.org/

Industrial Wastewater PWO RMWEA members

April 24, 2015

Golden, CO

Email

Abigail.Antolovich@Honeywell.com

EPA Region 8

Pretreatment Conference

April 14-16, 2015

St. George, Utah

EPA Region 8 and the Region 8 Pretreatment Association (R8PA) are developing a workshop to address the

varied needs of municipal Pretreatment personnel to implement the Pretreatment Regulations. Advanced to

basic Pretreatment training, discussions, and presentations will be provided by local, state, and federal govern-

ment representatives, as well as experts from outside the government.

The Workshop will be held at the Best Western Abbey Inn.

Registration Information: Region 8 Pretreatment Association <region8pa@gmail.com>

CREEC Meeting June 11, 2015 RSVP Bill Battaglin

CIPCA 2015 Membership Now Due

http://www.cipca.org/register.html

...continued from page 6 (Bylaws Section4)

of the legal action and attorney fees. However, the association shall not indemnify the person with respect to any claim, issue or

matter in which the person has been adjudged to be liable for negligence or misconduct in the performance of his or her duty to the

association unless the court in which the legal action was brought permits the indemnification, and the association shall only indem-

nify the person to the extent permitted by the court.

4.2.3 Right to Indemnify

A person who is an officer of the association and who is made a defendant in any legal action referred to in Article 4.1, shall be in-

demnified against his or her expenses and attorney fees actually and reasonably incurred to the extent that he or she has been success-

ful on the merits in his or her defense of the legal action or in defense of any claim, issue or matter within the legal action.

4.3 Procedure for Authorizing Indemnification

Unless the person has a right to indemnify under Article 4.2.3 or unless a court has ordered indemnification, the association shall not

indemnify a person unless authorized to do so by the Executive Committee. In order to authorize indemnification of a person, a de-

termination must be made that the person: (a) Acted in good faith. (b) Acted in a manner he or she reasonably believed to be in the

best interests of the association. (c) Acted with respect to any criminal action or proceeding and had no reasonable cause to believe

his or her conduct was unlawful. This determination shall be made by the Executive Committee by a majority vote consisting of

officers who were not parties to the action. If a majority of officers who were not parties to the action is not attainable and a quorum

of disinterested Association members so directs, the determination shall be made by the independent legal counsel in a written opin-

ion or by the Association members.

4.4 Advances

The Association may pay the person’s expenses including attorney fees before the final disposition of the legal action or before deter-

mining whether the person is entitled to indemnification upon receipt of an undertaking by or on the behalf of the person to repay the

amount unless it is ultimately determined that he is entitled to indemnification under the Article.

4.5 Not Exclusive

The indemnification provided for in this Article shall not be deemed exclusive of any other rights to which those indemnified may be

entitled under Section 7-129-101 Colorado Revised Statutes as it presently exists or may be amended and any other applicable law

of Colorado, any by-law, agreement, vote of members or disinterested directors, or otherwise, and any procedure provided for by any

of the foregoing, both as to action in his/her official capacity and as to action in another capacity while holding such office, and shall

continue as to a person who has ceased to be a director, officer, or agent and shall inure to the benefit of heirs, executors, and admin-

istrators of such a person.

4.6 Insurance

The Association may purchase and maintain insurance on behalf of any person who is or was an officer or agent of the association or

who is or was serving at the request of the association as an officer or agent of another enterprise. The insurance may provide cover-

age of the person against any liability asserted against him/her or incurred by him/her in his official capacity or arising out of his/her

status whether or not the association would have the power to indemnify him/her under the provision of the Article.

* * *

P A G E 9

T H E C I P C A M O N I T O R

V O L U M E 1 5 , I S S U E 1