[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 14 (Monday, January 22, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6607-6610]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-1829]
[[Page 6607]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-6935-7]
Notice of Proposed NPDES General Permit for Discharges From the
Coastal Subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category
in Texas (TXG330000)
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of draft NPDES general permit.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA Region 6 is proposing to reissue General NPDES Permit No.
TXG330000 regulating discharges from oil and gas wells in the Coastal
Subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category in
Texas. Most of the requirements in this proposed permit are the same as
in the previous permit having an effective date of October 21, 1993 and
expiration date of October 21, 1998. The main differences between the
previous permit and this proposed permit are: discharges from New
Sources are authorized by this permit, there are changes in the
requirements for treated waste water from drilling fluids/cuttings and
dewatering effluent, and changes in the requirements for well
treatment, completion and workover fluids. These permit requirement
changes are the result of incorporating additional or more stringent
requirements contained in effluent limitations guidelines for the
Coastal Subcategory contained in 40 CFR part 435, subpart D.
Additionally, EPA Region 6 is proposing to reissue NPDES General
Permit TXG290000, regulating produced water and produced sand
discharges to coastal water in Texas, and combine that permit with
NPDES General Permit TXG330000. Permit No. TXG330000 previously
regulated all discharges from wells in the Coastal Subcategory of the
Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category, except for produced water
and produced sand. Combining these two permits will, thereby, allow
regulation of all discharges from Coastal Subcategory wells in one
permit. General Permit TXG290000 also regulated the discharge of
produced water from wells in the Stripper and Offshore Subcategories
which discharged into coastal waters of Texas. Regulation of that
produced water will also be incorporated into General Permit TXG330000.
DATES: Comments on this proposed permit must be submitted by March 23,
2001.
ADDRESSES: Comments on this proposed permit should be sent to the
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas
75202-2733.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Diane Smith, EPA Region 6, 1445
Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214) 665-7191. Copies
of the complete fact sheet and proposed permit may be obtained from Ms.
Smith. The fact sheet and proposed permit can also be found on the
Internet at http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6wq/6wq.htm. In addition, the
current administrative record on the proposal is available for
examination at the Region's Dallas offices during normal working hours
after providing Ms. Smith 24 hours advanced notice.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated categories and entities include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Examples of regulated entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry............................... Operators of oil and gas wells
in the Coastal Subcategory of
the Oil and Gas Extraction
Point Source Category.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware
could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether
your (facility, company, business, organization, etc.) is regulated by
this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in
part I, section A.1 of this permit. If you have questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA or the Act), 33 U.S.C.
1311(a), makes it unlawful to discharge pollutants to waters of the
United States in the absence of authorizing permits. CWA section 402,
33 U.S.C. 1342, authorizes EPA to issue National Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permits allowing discharges on condition they will meet
certain requirements, including CWA sections 301, 304, and 401 (33
U.S.C. 1331, 1314 and 1341). Those statutory provisions require that
NPDES permits include effluent limitations requiring that authorized
discharges: (1) Meet standards reflecting levels of technological
capability, (2) comply with EPA-approved state water quality standards
and (3) comply with other state requirements adopted under authority
retained by states under CWA 510, 33 U.S.C. 1370.
Two types of technology-based effluent limitations must be included
in the permit proposed here. With regard to conventional pollutants,
i.e., pH, BOD, oil and grease, TSS and fecal coliform, CWA section
301(b)(1)(E) requires effluent limitations based on ``best conventional
pollution control technology'' (BCT). With regard to nonconventional
and toxic pollutants, CWA section 301(b)(2)(A), (C), and (D) require
effluent limitations based on ``best available pollution control
technology economically achievable'' (BAT), a standard which generally
represents the best performing existing technology in an industrial
category or subcategory. BAT and BCT effluent limitations may never be
less stringent than corresponding effluent limitations based on best
practicable control technology (BPT), a standard applicable to similar
discharges prior to March 31, 1989 under CWA 301(b)(1)(A).
National guidelines establishing BCT, BAT and New Source
Performance Standards have been promulgated for discharges from
facilities in the Coastal Subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction
Point Source Category. The final rule for these guidelines was
published in the Federal Register at 61 FR 66086 on December 16, 1996.
These guidelines can also be found at 40 CFR part 435, subpart D. The
current proposal is to reissue NPDES General Permit TXG330000 which was
issued in the Federal Register at 58 FR 49126 with an effective date of
October 21, 1993, and an expiration date of October 21, 1998.
Additionally, NPDES General Permit TXG290000, regulating produced water
and produced sand discharges to coastal waters in Texas, will be
reissued and combined with NPDES General Permit TXG330000. General
Permit TXG290000 had an effective date of February 8, 1995 and an
expiration date of February 7, 2000. Since these expired permits were
issued before the BCT and BAT guidelines were promulgated, BCT and BAT
requirements were based on
[[Page 6608]]
best professional judgement. The current proposed permit incorporates
the BCT, BAT and New Source Performance Standards from 40 CFR part 435,
subpart D.
Changes From the Expiring Permit
Although the 40 CFR part 435, subpart D, requirements are mostly
the same as those in the expiring permits which were derived using best
professional judgement, requirements for several waste streams are more
stringent. The proposed permit, therefore, incorporates those more
stringent guidelines limits. Specifically, the discharge of well
treatment, completion and workover fluids is now prohibited. In
addition, the discharge of dewatering effluent from reserve pits which
received drilling fluids and/or drill cuttings after January 15, 1997,
is prohibited. Since the guidelines do not address reserve pits which
did not receive drilling fluids and/or drill cuttings after January 15,
1997, the limits in the previous permit apply, with one exception. In
the previous permit, the No Free Oil limit was to be measured by a
visual sheen test with the option of using the static sheen test. Since
the guidelines require the use of the static sheen test for all No Free
Oil limits except for deck drainage, the No Free Oil requirement for
the reserve pit dewatering effluent discharges and the formation test
fluid discharges has been changed to use of the static sheen test only.
The proposed permit also authorizes discharges from new source
facilities, whereas, the expiring permit does not.
Summary of Proposed Permit Limitations
A. Drilling fluids--No Discharge.
B. Drill cuttings--No Discharge.
C. Produced water--No Discharge.
Exception: Facilities in the Stripper Subcategory located east of
the 98th meridian whose produced water comes from the Carrizo/Wilcox,
Reklaw or Bartosh formations in Texas and whose produced water does not
exceed 3000 mg/l Total Dissolved Solids shall meet the following
limits: 25 mg/l monthly average and 35 mg/l daily maximum for oil and
grease.
D. Produced sand--No discharge.
E. Dewatering effluent--No Discharge.
Exception: Dewatering effluent from reserve pits which have not
received drilling fluids and/or drill cuttings since January 15, 1997,
shall meet the following limits:
Free oil--No Discharge as determined by the static sheen test
Oil and grease--15 mg/l daily maximum
TSS--50 mg/l daily maximum
TDS--3000 mg/l daily maximum, except for discharges to tidally
influenced watercourses if the TDS of the treated reserve pit effluent
does not exceed the TDS concentration of the receiving water at the
point of discharge at the time of discharge.
COD--200 mg/l daily maximum
pH-6.0-9.0 Std. Units
Chlorides--500 mg/l daily maximum (discharges to inland areas) and 1000
mg/l daily maximum (discharges to tidally influenced water courses).
Chloride concentration may exceed 1000 mg/l in tidally influenced
watercourses (downstream of the upper limit of saltwater intrusion) if
the chloride concentration of the treated reserve pit effluent does not
exceed the chloride concentration of the receiving water at the point
of discharge at the time of discharge.
Hazardous metals--The discharge must not contain concentrations of the
substances classified as ``hazardous metals'' in excess of the levels
allowed by TAC 319.21)
F. Deck drainage--No discharge of free oil as determined by the
presence of a film or sheen upon or a discoloration of the surface of
the receiving water (visual sheen).
G. Formation test fluids--No Discharge except to bays and estuaries
where no chloride standards have been established.
Where discharges are allowed:
Free oil--No Discharge as determined by the static sheen test.
pH-6.0-9.0 Std. Units
H. Well treatment, completion and workover fluids--No Discharge.
I. Sanitary waste--
No floating solids
BOD5-45 mg/l daily maximum
TSS-45 mg/l daily maximum
Fecal coliform--200/100 ml daily maximum
J. Domestic waste--No Discharge of floating solids or garbage or
foam.
K. Miscellaneous discharges: Desalinization unit discharge; blowout
preventer fluid;uncontaminated ballast and bilge water; mud, cuttings
and cement at the sea floor; boiler blowdown; excess cement slurry;
diatomaceous earth filter media; uncontaminated water--Discharge of
free oil is prohibited as determined by a visual sheen on the surface
of the receiving water. Discharge is authorized only at times when
visual sheen observation is possible. Discharge may occur at any time
if the operator uses the static sheen method for detecting free oil.
Other Legal Requirements
A. State Certification
Under section 401(a)(1) of the Act, EPA may not issue an NPDES
permit until the State in which the discharge will originate grants or
waives certification to ensure compliance with appropriate requirements
of the Act and State law. Section 301(b)(1)(C) of the Act requires that
NPDES permits contain conditions that ensure compliance with applicable
state water quality standards or limitations. The proposed permit
contains limitations intended to ensure compliance with state water
quality standards and has been determined by EPA Region 6 to be
consistent with the Texas water quality standards and the corresponding
implementation plan. The Region has solicited certification from the
Railroad Commission of Texas.
B. National Environmental Policy Act
EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 6, subpart F, which implement the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C 4331, et
seq., provide the procedures for carrying out the NEPA environmental
review process for the issuance of new source NPDES permits. The
purpose of this review process is to determine if any significant
environmental impacts are anticipated by issuance of NPDES permits
authorizing discharges from new sources. In order to make this
determination, EPA has prepared an environmental assessment in
accordance with 40 CFR 6.604. Based on this environmental assessment
document, EPA has determined that there will be no significant impact
as the result of issuing today's proposed permit adding coverage of
discharges from new sources. EPA is, therefore, proposing to issue a
Finding of No Significant Impact in accordance with 40 CFR part 6
procedures concerning adding new source coverage to this general
permit.
C. Endangered Species Act
When EPA issued the previous Permit TXG330000, effective October
21, 1993, covering existing sources, but not New Sources, the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service concurred with EPA's finding that the
permit was unlikely to adversely affect any threatened or endangered
species or its critical habitat. When EPA issued Permit TXG290000,
effective February 8, 1995, the Service also concurred with EPA's
finding that the permit was unlikely to adversely affect any threatened
or endangered species or its critical habitat. As discussed previously
in this
[[Page 6609]]
Fact Sheet, the proposed permit requirements are the same as, and in
some instances more stringent than, those in the previous permit.
Furthermore, the proposed limits are sufficiently stringent to assure
state water quality standards will be met. The effluent limitations
established in these permits ensure protection of aquatic life and
maintenance of the receiving water as an aquatic habitat. The Region,
therefore, finds that adding New Source coverage to the permit is also
unlikely to adversely affect any threatened or endangered species or
its critical habitat. EPA is seeking written concurrence from the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine
Fisheries Service on this determination.
D. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
The 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act set forth a new mandate to identify and protect
important marine and anadromous fisheries habitats. The purpose of
addressing habitat in this act is to further the goal of maintaining
sustainable fisheries. Guidance and procedures for implementing these
amendments are contained in National Marine Fisheries Service
regulations (50 CFR 600.805-600.930). These regulations specify that
any Federal agency that authorizes or proposes to authorize an activity
which would adversely affect an Essential Fish Habitat is subject to
the consultation provisions of the Manguson-Stevens Act. The Texas
Coastal Subcategory areas covered by this general permit include
Essential Fish Habitat designated under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Based on the prohibitions and limitations and other requirements
contained in this proposed general permit, as well as the Essential
Fish Habitat Assessment prepared for this permit reissuance, the Region
finds that adoption of the proposed permit is unlikely to adversely
affect Essential Fish Habitat. EPA is seeking written concurrence from
the National Marine Fisheries Service on this determination.
E. Coastal Zone Management Act
The Coastal Zone Management Act and its implementing regulations
(15 CFR part 930) require that any Federally licensed or permitted
activity affecting the coastal zone of a state with an approved Coastal
Zone management Program be consistent with that Program. EPA has
concluded, based on the conditions, limitations and prohibitions of
this permit that the discharges associated with this proposed permit
are consistent with the Texas Coastal Management Program goals and
policies. EPA has requested a consistency determination from the Texas
Coastal Coordination Council.
F. Historic Preservation Act
Facilities which adversely affect properties listed or eligible for
listing in the National Register of Historical Places are not
authorized to discharge under this permit.
G. Economic Impact (Executive Order 12866)
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may have an annual effect
on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a
material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State,
local, or tribal governments or communities; create a serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by
another agency; materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements,
grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or raise novel legal or policy issues arising out
of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set
forth in the Executive Order. EPA has determined that this general
permit is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of
Executive Order 12866 and is therefore not subject to formal OMB review
prior to proposal.
H. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection required by this permit has been
approved by OMB under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq., in submission made for the NPDES permit program
and assigned OMB control numbers 2040-0086 (NPDES permit application)
and 2040-0004 (discharge monitoring reports).
I. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires that
EPA prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for regulations that have
a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. As
discussed below, the permit being proposed to be reissued is not a
``rule'' subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act. EPA prepared a
regulatory flexibility analysis, however, on the promulgation of the
Coastal Subcategory guidelines on which many of the permit's effluent
limitations are based. That analysis shows that compliance with the
permit requirements will not result in a significant impact on
dischargers, including small businesses, covered by these permits. EPA
Region 6 therefore concludes that the permits proposed today will not
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
J. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), Public Law
104-4, generally requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their ``regulatory actions'' on State, local, and tribal governments
and the private sector. UMRA uses the term ``regulatory actions'' to
refer to regulations. (See, e.g., UMRA section 201, ``Each agency shall
* * * assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions * * * (other
than to the extent that such regulations incorporate requirements
specifically set forth in law)'' (emphasis added)). UMRA section 102
defines ``regulation'' by reference to section 658 of Title 2 of the
U.S. Code, which in turn defines ``regulation'' and ``rule'' by
reference to section 601(2) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA).
That section of the RFA defines ``rule'' as ``any rule for which the
agency publishes a notice of proposed rulemaking pursuant to section
553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), or any other law * *
*''
NPDES general permits are not ``rules'' under the APA and thus not
subject to the APA requirement to publish a notice of proposed
rulemaking. NPDES general permits are also not subject to such a
requirement under the Clean Water Act (CWA). While EPA publishes a
notice to solicit public comment on draft general permits, it does so
pursuant to the CWA section 402(a) requirement to provide ``an
opportunity for a hearing.'' Thus, NPDES general permits are not
``rules'' for RFA or UMRA purposes.
EPA thinks it is unlikely that this proposed permit issuance would
contain a Federal requirement that might result in expenditures of $100
million or more for State, local and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. The Agency also
believes that the proposed permit issuance would not significantly nor
uniquely affect small governments. For UMRA purposes, ``small
[[Page 6610]]
governments'' is defined by reference to the definition of ``small
governmental jurisdiction'' under the RFA. (See UMRA section 102(1),
referencing 2 U.S.C. 658, which references section 601(5) of the RFA.)
``Small governmental jurisdiction'' means governments of cities,
counties, towns, etc., with a population of less than 50,000, unless
the agency establishes an alternative definition. The proposed permit
issuance also would not uniquely affect small governments because
compliance with the proposed permit conditions affects small
governments in the same manner as any other entities seeking coverage
under the permit.
Dated: January 8, 2001.
Sam Becker,
Acting Director, Water Quality Protection Division, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 01-1829 Filed 1-19-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P