Decision on Supplemental Information on the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category, 32094-32096 [2019-14361]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
32094
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
*
PART 180—[AMENDED]
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2019–14325 Filed 7–3–19; 8:45 am]
1. The authority citation for part 180
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
2. In § 180.564, add paragraph (b) to
read as follows:
■
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Section 18 emergency exemptions.
Time-limited tolerances specified in the
following table are established for
residues of the indoxacarb, including its
metabolites and degradates, in or on the
specified agricultural commodities in
the table below, resulting from use of
the pesticide pursuant to FIFRA section
18 emergency exemptions. Compliance
with the tolerance levels specified in the
table below is to be determined by
measuring only indoxacarb, (S)-methyl
7-chloro-2,5-dihydro-2[[(methoxycarbonyl)[4(trifluoromethoxy)phenyl]amino]
carbonyl]indeno[1,2-e][1,3,4]
[oxadiazine-4a(3H)-carboxylate, and its
R-enantiomer, (R)-methyl 7-chloro-2,5dihydro-2-[[(methoxycarbonyl)[4(trifluoromethoxy)phenyl]amino]
carbonyl]indeno[1,2-e][1,3,4]
[oxadiazine-4a(3H)-carboxylate.
The tolerances expire on the dates
specified in the table.
Parts per
million
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with RULES
Grass, forage ....
Grass, hay ........
10
50
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 435
§ 180.564 Indoxacarb; tolerances for
residues.
Commodity
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
[EPA–HQ–OW–2016–0598; FRL–9995–74–
OW]
Decision on Supplemental Information
on the Effluent Limitations Guidelines
and Standards for the Oil and Gas
Extraction Point Source Category
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notification of decision.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is providing notice of its
decision to not revise the final rule
establishing pretreatment standards for
discharges of pollutants into publicly
owned treatment works (POTWs) from
onshore unconventional oil and gas
(UOG) extraction facilities. In 2016, the
EPA promulgated the final rule, Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards
for the Oil and Gas Extraction Point
Source Category (the unconventional oil
and gas or UOG rule), based on record
information indicating that all facilities
subject to the rule were meeting the zero
discharge of pollutants requirement in
Expiration
the rule. After promulgation, the EPA
date
received information indicating that
certain facilities subject to the final rule
12/31/2022
were not meeting the rule’s zero
12/31/2022
discharge of pollutants requirement.
SUMMARY:
This notice provides new data and
information, the EPA’s analyses of that
data and announces the Agency’s
decision to not revise the final UOG rule
in response to the remand in
Pennsylvania Grade Crude Oil Coalition
v. EPA, No. 16–4064 (3rd Cir., August
31, 2017), requiring the EPA to consider
further information and take any
appropriate action with regard to the
final rule.
This decision shall be
considered issued for purposes of
judicial review at 1 p.m. Eastern
Standard Time on July 19, 2019. Section
509(b)(1) of the CWA, judicial review of
this decision can be had only by filing
a petition for review in the U.S. Court
of Appeals within 120 days after the
decision is considered issued for
purposes of judicial review.
DATES:
For
more information, see the EPA’s
website: https://www.epa.gov/eg/
unconventional-oil-and-gas-extractioneffluent-guidelines. For technical
information, contact Karen Feret,
Engineering and Analysis Division
(4303T), Office of Water, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460–0001;
telephone: 202–566–1915; email:
feret.karen@epa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this notice apply to me?
Entities potentially affected by this
action include:
North American
Industry
Classification
System
(NAICS) code
Category
Example of regulated entity
Industry ..................................
Industry ..................................
Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas Extraction ....................................................................
Natural Gas Liquid Extraction .............................................................................................
B. Obtaining Copies of This Document
and Related Information
The EPA has established a docket for
this action under Docket ID No. EPA–
HQ–OW–2016–0598. All documents in
the docket are listed on the https://
www.regulations.gov website. Although
listed in the index, some information is
not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material,
is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket
materials are available electronically
through https://www.regulations.gov.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Jul 03, 2019
Jkt 247001
II. Why is EPA issuing this decision?
The EPA promulgated the UOG rule
on June 28, 2016. 81 FR 41845. The
UOG rule regulates wastewater
pollutants from unconventional oil and
gas extraction activities under Subpart C
(Onshore Subcategory) of the oil and gas
extraction effluent guidelines. The UOG
rule is a national rule that prohibits
onshore unconventional oil and gas
extraction operations from discharging
pollutants in wastewater to publicly
owned treatment works (POTWs), in
other words, a ‘‘zero discharge’’
requirement. The UOG rule defines the
term ‘‘unconventional oil and gas
operations’’ to include operations
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
211111
211112
involving ‘‘crude oil and natural gas
produced by a well drilled into a shale
and/or tight formation (including, but
not limited to, shale gas, shale oil, tight
gas, and tight oil).’’ See 40 CFR
435.33(a)(2)(i). In promulgating the rule,
the EPA explained that UOG
wastewaters are not typical of POTW
influent wastewater, and as a result
some UOG extraction wastewater
pollutants: Can be discharged untreated
from a POTW to the receiving stream
(i.e., the POTW is not designed to treat
the pollutant); can cause the disruption
of the POTW treatment operations (e.g.,
biological treatment is inhibited); can
accumulate in biosolids, limiting their
E:\FR\FM\05JYR1.SGM
05JYR1
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
use; and can cause the formation of
harmful disinfection by-products.
The EPA’s record at the time of
promulgation indicated that all UOG
extraction facilities were meeting the
zero discharge requirement, and the
EPA received no comments at proposal
indicating otherwise. However, after the
UOG rule was promulgated, several
interested parties notified the EPA that
a number of oil and gas operations in
Pennsylvania covered by the rule were
in fact discharging wastewater to
POTWs. These parties stated that their
operations are ‘‘conventional’’ under
Pennsylvania definitions, although they
appear to meet the definition of
‘‘unconventional’’ in the UOG rule.
Based on this post-promulgation
information, the EPA extended the
compliance date for existing sources
that were lawfully discharging to
POTWs on or between April 7, 2015,
and June 28, 2016, to three years from
the effective date of the rule—to August
29, 2019, (compliance date
postponement rule). See 81 FR 88126–
88127. That rule did not change the
compliance date for all other facilities
subject to the final UOG rule.
Pennsylvania Grade Crude Oil
Coalition (PGCC) also filed a petition for
review of the rule in the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit. PGCC
indicated that the EPA incorrectly found
that there were no existing discharges to
POTWs by facilities that meet the
definition of ‘‘unconventional’’ in the
UOG rule. In response, the EPA filed a
motion (unopposed by PGCC) for
voluntary remand without vacatur
which was granted by the Court in
October, 2017. Pennsylvania Crude Oil
Coalition v. EPA, No. 16–4064 (3rd Cir.,
Aug. 31, 2017). In the motion, the EPA
discussed the post-promulgation
information referenced above,
acknowledging that this new
information was inconsistent with the
record for the rule. The EPA explained
that the Agency requested the remand to
consider any additional evidence
relevant to the UOG rule, develop the
record, and take any follow-up action as
appropriate. This notice provides the
EPA’s decision in accordance with this
remand.
As explained in this notice, the EPA
recently gathered new data and
information and performed supporting
analyses to update the 2016 record for
the final UOG rule. The scope of the
data collection and analyses discussed
in this notice pertains only to those oil
and gas extraction facilities in the
United States that the EPA has
identified to be discharging UOG
wastewater to POTWs at the time it
finalized the UOG rule—in other words,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Jul 03, 2019
Jkt 247001
those facilities defined as conventional
by Pennsylvania that meet the definition
of unconventional in the UOG rule and
are thus likely subject to the EPA’s 2016
UOG pretreatment standard rule.
EPA staff also met with producers in
Pennsylvania to further understand
their concerns. As a result of this
interaction, the EPA learned that the
scope of the Agency’s 2016 UOG
pretreatment standard rule may not
have been clear to certain producers. To
clarify the scope of the UOG rule, the
UOG rule is not applicable to activities
regulated under the Stripper
Subcategory (40 CFR 435 Subpart F).
The UOG rule applies to onshore
unconventional oil and gas extraction
facilities regulated under Subpart C.
Subpart C excludes facilities regulated
under Subpart F.
III. Summary of Analysis and Results
A detailed description of the data
sources, methodology, and associated
analyses can be found at: https://
www.epa.gov/eg/unconventional-oiland-gas-extraction-effluent-guidelines.
This section summarizes that
information and provides results.
First, the EPA conducted additional
analyses to determine whether wells
discharging to POTWs in Pennsylvania
would meet the definition of
‘‘unconventional’’ and thus be subject to
the EPA’s 2016 UOG rule. Oil and gas
operators in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania must report to the
Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Protection information
on their wells, such as wastewater
management and formation type. During
development of the 2016 UOG rule, the
EPA used this Commonwealth-compiled
data to support the Agency’s finding
that there were no UOG extraction
facilities discharging wastewater to
POTWs. However, based on the
information submitted to the EPA after
promulgation of the rule, the Agency
came to understand that some facilities
that would meet the definition of
unconventional in the 2016 UOG rule
were categorized as conventional in the
Pennsylvania data that the EPA relied
on, based on the Commonwealth’s
narrower definition of unconventional.
Accordingly, the EPA has re-evaluated
the available data. In particular, the EPA
used information that the oil and gas
extraction facilities reported to
Pennsylvania for 2016 and well
formation information from multiple
sources to identify those oil and gas
extraction facilities that discharged any
wastewater to POTWs and that are
defined as conventional under
Pennsylvania’s definition, but are
defined as unconventional under the
PO 00000
Frm 00081
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
32095
UOG rule’s definition.1 As described
above, oil and gas extraction activities
regulated under the Stripper
Subcategory (Subpart F) are not
included in this rule, and therefore were
not included in the scope of analyses
discussed in this notice. In the analysis
of the data, the EPA excluded any well
that had less than a ratio of 15,000 cubic
feet of gas per 1 barrel of oil and had
less than an average of 10 barrels per
day of oil over the year’s reported
production and number of producing
days. Based on the 2016 Commonwealth
data, the EPA determined that out of
879 oil and gas extraction entities
reporting to Pennsylvania in 2016 (and
over 6,000 entities nationwide), 22
entities discharged at least some portion
of their wastewater to a POTW from
UOG operations as defined by the 2016
UOG rule. Based on the 2016 data, the
EPA concludes that this subset of
entities may need to make changes to
comply with the 2016 UOG rule (and
would incur any associated costs).
For each well that generated
wastewater that was sent to a POTW
from these 22 entities, the EPA
determined the nearest wastewater
management alternative (centralized
waste treatment (CWT) facility or Class
II underground injection control (UIC)
well). The EPA found that wastewater
management alternatives were available
to all of these entities as many of them
reported using another wastewater
management alternative in addition to a
POTW in 2016. To estimate the
potential incremental costs of this rule
to these entities (which represent the
only entities in the U.S. that may incur
costs associated with the nationally
applicable rule), the EPA calculated any
incremental wastewater management
costs for these entities to send their
wastewater to the nearest wastewater
management alternative as well as any
associated incremental transportation
costs. The EPA added incremental
wastewater management and
transportation costs to determine the
total incremental costs to these entities
to comply with the 2016 UOG rule.
The EPA also evaluated incremental
non-water quality environmental
1 The EPA defines unconventional as: 40 CFR
435.33(a)(2)(i) Unconventional oil and gas means
crude oil and natural gas produced by a well drilled
into a shale and/or tight formation (including, but
not limited to, shale gas, shale oil, tight gas, tight
oil). Pennsylvania defines an unconventional
formation as: A geological shale formation existing
below the base of the Elk Sandstone or its geologic
equivalent stratigraphic interval where natural gas
generally cannot be produced at economic flow
rates or in economic volumes except by vertical or
horizontal well bores stimulated by hydraulic
fracture treatments or by using multilateral well
bores or other techniques to expose more of the
formation to the well bore (See DCN SGE01486).
E:\FR\FM\05JYR1.SGM
05JYR1
32096
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 129 / Friday, July 5, 2019 / Rules and Regulations
jbell on DSK3GLQ082PROD with RULES
impacts associated with alternative
wastewater management approaches.
These include changes in air emissions,
solid waste generation, and energy
consumption. The incremental change
depends on the alternative wastewater
management approach. For example,
sludge generation would likely decrease
if a UOG facility sends its wastewater to
a UIC well and would likely increase if
it sends its wastewater to a CWT
facility. Even if each UOG operator that
currently sends its wastewater to a
POTW elected to use a wastewater
management approach that
incrementally increased air emissions,
sludge generation or energy usage, these
changes would be small relative to U.S.
totals for this industry as a whole.
The EPA then conducted a discounted
cash flow analysis (modeled future
revenue and operation costs) over 10
years to estimate the potential financial
impacts on these entities. Based on this
analysis, the EPA determined that seven
of the 22 entities would have negative
profits irrespective of the UOG rule’s
incremental costs. For the remaining
entities, when adding in the incremental
costs of the rule, the EPA’s analysis
shows that none of the 15 entities would
be at risk of closure as a result of
complying with the UOG rule.
In light of the model predictions
based on 2016 reported data that some
of these entities would have negative
profits irrespective of the UOG rule’s
incremental costs, the EPA also
reviewed oil and gas production data for
all 22 entities as reported to
Pennsylvania in 2017. All 22 entities
continued to report oil and gas
production to Pennsylvania,
demonstrating that they remain in
business. Therefore, the EPA is
reporting cost information as a range
with the lower value representing
information for the 15 modeled
profitable entities and the upper value
representing information for all 22
entities. The EPA’s analysis shows that
for 2016, the median incremental costs
would be $131 to $279 per entity and
the total costs of the UOG rule for 2016
would be approximately $33,000 to
$65,000 (in 2016$).
IV. Findings
At the time the EPA promulgated the
2016 UOG rule, it established a zero
discharge of pollutant pretreatment
standard for UOG extraction facilities
based on alternative wastewater
management approaches. Consistent
with the factors identified in the Clean
Water Act and described in the
preamble to the 2016 rule, the EPA
found these alternatives to be available,
have acceptable non-water quality
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:30 Jul 03, 2019
Jkt 247001
environmental impacts, and be
economically achievable, based in part
on its findings that no existing UOG
facilities were discharging pollutants to
POTWs at the time of the 2016 rule. The
EPA concluded that such standards
would prevent some UOG extraction
wastewater constituents from largely
‘‘passing through’’ the POTW untreated,
and then discharged from the POTW to
the receiving stream.
The EPA has supplemented that
rulemaking record to account for the
UOG facilities in Pennsylvania that
were in fact discharging wastewater to
POTWs at the time of the rulemaking.
Based on the EPA’s analysis of the new
information described above, the EPA
concludes that the zero discharge of
pollutants standard is technologically
available, economically achievable, and
has acceptable non-water quality
environmental impacts. Based on this
information, the EPA will not revise the
2016 UOG rule.
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Interim final rule, request for
comments.
implementing a Federal requirement for
catcher vessels using trawl gear in the
Pacific Coast Groundfish fishery
Shorebased Individual Fishing Quota
(IFQ) Program to complete and submit
logbook forms in the absence of similar
state regulations. This rule is necessary
to continue collection of data vital to
coastwide management of the
groundfish trawl fishery.
DATES: Effective July 5, 2019. Comments
must be received by August 5, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by NOAA–NMFS–2019–0031,
by either of the following methods:
• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: Go to
www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-20190031, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon,
complete the required fields, and enter
or attach your comments.
• Mail: Submit written comments to
Barry A. Thom, Regional Administrator,
West Coast Region, NMFS, 7600 Sand
Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115–0070.
Instructions: NMFS may not consider
comments if they are sent by any other
method, to any other address or
individual, or received after the
comment period ends. All comments
received are a part of the public record
and NMFS will post for public viewing
on www.regulations.gov without change.
All personal identifying information
(e.g., name, address, etc.), confidential
business information, or otherwise
sensitive information submitted
voluntarily by the sender is publicly
accessible. NMFS will accept
anonymous comments (enter ‘‘N/A’’ in
the required fields if you wish to remain
anonymous).
Electronic copies of the Regulatory
Impact Review (RIR) and the Categorical
Exclusion prepared for this rule may be
obtained from https://
www.regulations.gov or from the West
Coast Region website at https://
westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Keeley Kent, phone: 206–526–4655, or
email: keeley.kent@noaa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
This interim final rule creates
a Federal requirement for vessels using
trawl gear in the Pacific Coast
Groundfish fishery to complete and
submit the trawl logbook form.
Historically, the states of Washington,
Oregon, and California each
administered state logbook form
requirements. However, the California
Fish and Game Commission repealed its
trawl logbook reporting requirement,
effective July 1, 2019. In order to not
lose data reporting coverage from
vessels in California, NMFS is
Background
Currently, the states of Washington,
Oregon, and California require the
reporting of trawl fishery data in the
trawl logbook form. The states use a
single, identical logbook form the
Pacific Fishery Management Council
(Council) developed to collect
information necessary to effectively
manage the groundfish fishery on a
coastwide basis. While each state has its
own requirement for vessels to complete
the trawl logbook form, each state
transmits the logbooks or logbook data
Dated: June 20, 2019.
David P. Ross,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Water.
[FR Doc. 2019–14361 Filed 7–3–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 660
[Docket No. 190214113–9522–01]
RIN 0648–BI74
Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions;
Fisheries Off West Coast States;
Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery;
Trawl Logbook
AGENCY:
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00082
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\05JYR1.SGM
05JYR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 129 (Friday, July 5, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32094-32096]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14361]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 435
[EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0598; FRL-9995-74-OW]
Decision on Supplemental Information on the Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source
Category
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notification of decision.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing notice
of its decision to not revise the final rule establishing pretreatment
standards for discharges of pollutants into publicly owned treatment
works (POTWs) from onshore unconventional oil and gas (UOG) extraction
facilities. In 2016, the EPA promulgated the final rule, Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Oil and Gas Extraction
Point Source Category (the unconventional oil and gas or UOG rule),
based on record information indicating that all facilities subject to
the rule were meeting the zero discharge of pollutants requirement in
the rule. After promulgation, the EPA received information indicating
that certain facilities subject to the final rule were not meeting the
rule's zero discharge of pollutants requirement. This notice provides
new data and information, the EPA's analyses of that data and announces
the Agency's decision to not revise the final UOG rule in response to
the remand in Pennsylvania Grade Crude Oil Coalition v. EPA, No. 16-
4064 (3rd Cir., August 31, 2017), requiring the EPA to consider further
information and take any appropriate action with regard to the final
rule.
DATES: This decision shall be considered issued for purposes of
judicial review at 1 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on July 19, 2019.
Section 509(b)(1) of the CWA, judicial review of this decision can be
had only by filing a petition for review in the U.S. Court of Appeals
within 120 days after the decision is considered issued for purposes of
judicial review.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For more information, see the EPA's
website: https://www.epa.gov/eg/unconventional-oil-and-gas-extraction-effluent-guidelines. For technical information, contact Karen Feret,
Engineering and Analysis Division (4303T), Office of Water,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460-0001; telephone: 202-566-1915; email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. General Information
A. Does this notice apply to me?
Entities potentially affected by this action include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
North American
Example of Industry
Category regulated entity Classification
System (NAICS) code
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry....................... Crude Petroleum 211111
and Natural Gas
Extraction.
Industry....................... Natural Gas 211112
Liquid
Extraction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Obtaining Copies of This Document and Related Information
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OW-2016-0598. All documents in the docket are listed on the
https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available electronically through https://www.regulations.gov.
II. Why is EPA issuing this decision?
The EPA promulgated the UOG rule on June 28, 2016. 81 FR 41845. The
UOG rule regulates wastewater pollutants from unconventional oil and
gas extraction activities under Subpart C (Onshore Subcategory) of the
oil and gas extraction effluent guidelines. The UOG rule is a national
rule that prohibits onshore unconventional oil and gas extraction
operations from discharging pollutants in wastewater to publicly owned
treatment works (POTWs), in other words, a ``zero discharge''
requirement. The UOG rule defines the term ``unconventional oil and gas
operations'' to include operations involving ``crude oil and natural
gas produced by a well drilled into a shale and/or tight formation
(including, but not limited to, shale gas, shale oil, tight gas, and
tight oil).'' See 40 CFR 435.33(a)(2)(i). In promulgating the rule, the
EPA explained that UOG wastewaters are not typical of POTW influent
wastewater, and as a result some UOG extraction wastewater pollutants:
Can be discharged untreated from a POTW to the receiving stream (i.e.,
the POTW is not designed to treat the pollutant); can cause the
disruption of the POTW treatment operations (e.g., biological treatment
is inhibited); can accumulate in biosolids, limiting their
[[Page 32095]]
use; and can cause the formation of harmful disinfection by-products.
The EPA's record at the time of promulgation indicated that all UOG
extraction facilities were meeting the zero discharge requirement, and
the EPA received no comments at proposal indicating otherwise. However,
after the UOG rule was promulgated, several interested parties notified
the EPA that a number of oil and gas operations in Pennsylvania covered
by the rule were in fact discharging wastewater to POTWs. These parties
stated that their operations are ``conventional'' under Pennsylvania
definitions, although they appear to meet the definition of
``unconventional'' in the UOG rule.
Based on this post-promulgation information, the EPA extended the
compliance date for existing sources that were lawfully discharging to
POTWs on or between April 7, 2015, and June 28, 2016, to three years
from the effective date of the rule--to August 29, 2019, (compliance
date postponement rule). See 81 FR 88126-88127. That rule did not
change the compliance date for all other facilities subject to the
final UOG rule.
Pennsylvania Grade Crude Oil Coalition (PGCC) also filed a petition
for review of the rule in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit. PGCC indicated that the EPA incorrectly found that there were
no existing discharges to POTWs by facilities that meet the definition
of ``unconventional'' in the UOG rule. In response, the EPA filed a
motion (unopposed by PGCC) for voluntary remand without vacatur which
was granted by the Court in October, 2017. Pennsylvania Crude Oil
Coalition v. EPA, No. 16-4064 (3rd Cir., Aug. 31, 2017). In the motion,
the EPA discussed the post-promulgation information referenced above,
acknowledging that this new information was inconsistent with the
record for the rule. The EPA explained that the Agency requested the
remand to consider any additional evidence relevant to the UOG rule,
develop the record, and take any follow-up action as appropriate. This
notice provides the EPA's decision in accordance with this remand.
As explained in this notice, the EPA recently gathered new data and
information and performed supporting analyses to update the 2016 record
for the final UOG rule. The scope of the data collection and analyses
discussed in this notice pertains only to those oil and gas extraction
facilities in the United States that the EPA has identified to be
discharging UOG wastewater to POTWs at the time it finalized the UOG
rule--in other words, those facilities defined as conventional by
Pennsylvania that meet the definition of unconventional in the UOG rule
and are thus likely subject to the EPA's 2016 UOG pretreatment standard
rule.
EPA staff also met with producers in Pennsylvania to further
understand their concerns. As a result of this interaction, the EPA
learned that the scope of the Agency's 2016 UOG pretreatment standard
rule may not have been clear to certain producers. To clarify the scope
of the UOG rule, the UOG rule is not applicable to activities regulated
under the Stripper Subcategory (40 CFR 435 Subpart F). The UOG rule
applies to onshore unconventional oil and gas extraction facilities
regulated under Subpart C. Subpart C excludes facilities regulated
under Subpart F.
III. Summary of Analysis and Results
A detailed description of the data sources, methodology, and
associated analyses can be found at: https://www.epa.gov/eg/unconventional-oil-and-gas-extraction-effluent-guidelines. This section
summarizes that information and provides results.
First, the EPA conducted additional analyses to determine whether
wells discharging to POTWs in Pennsylvania would meet the definition of
``unconventional'' and thus be subject to the EPA's 2016 UOG rule. Oil
and gas operators in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania must report to
the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection information on
their wells, such as wastewater management and formation type. During
development of the 2016 UOG rule, the EPA used this Commonwealth-
compiled data to support the Agency's finding that there were no UOG
extraction facilities discharging wastewater to POTWs. However, based
on the information submitted to the EPA after promulgation of the rule,
the Agency came to understand that some facilities that would meet the
definition of unconventional in the 2016 UOG rule were categorized as
conventional in the Pennsylvania data that the EPA relied on, based on
the Commonwealth's narrower definition of unconventional. Accordingly,
the EPA has re-evaluated the available data. In particular, the EPA
used information that the oil and gas extraction facilities reported to
Pennsylvania for 2016 and well formation information from multiple
sources to identify those oil and gas extraction facilities that
discharged any wastewater to POTWs and that are defined as conventional
under Pennsylvania's definition, but are defined as unconventional
under the UOG rule's definition.\1\ As described above, oil and gas
extraction activities regulated under the Stripper Subcategory (Subpart
F) are not included in this rule, and therefore were not included in
the scope of analyses discussed in this notice. In the analysis of the
data, the EPA excluded any well that had less than a ratio of 15,000
cubic feet of gas per 1 barrel of oil and had less than an average of
10 barrels per day of oil over the year's reported production and
number of producing days. Based on the 2016 Commonwealth data, the EPA
determined that out of 879 oil and gas extraction entities reporting to
Pennsylvania in 2016 (and over 6,000 entities nationwide), 22 entities
discharged at least some portion of their wastewater to a POTW from UOG
operations as defined by the 2016 UOG rule. Based on the 2016 data, the
EPA concludes that this subset of entities may need to make changes to
comply with the 2016 UOG rule (and would incur any associated costs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The EPA defines unconventional as: 40 CFR 435.33(a)(2)(i)
Unconventional oil and gas means crude oil and natural gas produced
by a well drilled into a shale and/or tight formation (including,
but not limited to, shale gas, shale oil, tight gas, tight oil).
Pennsylvania defines an unconventional formation as: A geological
shale formation existing below the base of the Elk Sandstone or its
geologic equivalent stratigraphic interval where natural gas
generally cannot be produced at economic flow rates or in economic
volumes except by vertical or horizontal well bores stimulated by
hydraulic fracture treatments or by using multilateral well bores or
other techniques to expose more of the formation to the well bore
(See DCN SGE01486).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For each well that generated wastewater that was sent to a POTW
from these 22 entities, the EPA determined the nearest wastewater
management alternative (centralized waste treatment (CWT) facility or
Class II underground injection control (UIC) well). The EPA found that
wastewater management alternatives were available to all of these
entities as many of them reported using another wastewater management
alternative in addition to a POTW in 2016. To estimate the potential
incremental costs of this rule to these entities (which represent the
only entities in the U.S. that may incur costs associated with the
nationally applicable rule), the EPA calculated any incremental
wastewater management costs for these entities to send their wastewater
to the nearest wastewater management alternative as well as any
associated incremental transportation costs. The EPA added incremental
wastewater management and transportation costs to determine the total
incremental costs to these entities to comply with the 2016 UOG rule.
The EPA also evaluated incremental non-water quality environmental
[[Page 32096]]
impacts associated with alternative wastewater management approaches.
These include changes in air emissions, solid waste generation, and
energy consumption. The incremental change depends on the alternative
wastewater management approach. For example, sludge generation would
likely decrease if a UOG facility sends its wastewater to a UIC well
and would likely increase if it sends its wastewater to a CWT facility.
Even if each UOG operator that currently sends its wastewater to a POTW
elected to use a wastewater management approach that incrementally
increased air emissions, sludge generation or energy usage, these
changes would be small relative to U.S. totals for this industry as a
whole.
The EPA then conducted a discounted cash flow analysis (modeled
future revenue and operation costs) over 10 years to estimate the
potential financial impacts on these entities. Based on this analysis,
the EPA determined that seven of the 22 entities would have negative
profits irrespective of the UOG rule's incremental costs. For the
remaining entities, when adding in the incremental costs of the rule,
the EPA's analysis shows that none of the 15 entities would be at risk
of closure as a result of complying with the UOG rule.
In light of the model predictions based on 2016 reported data that
some of these entities would have negative profits irrespective of the
UOG rule's incremental costs, the EPA also reviewed oil and gas
production data for all 22 entities as reported to Pennsylvania in
2017. All 22 entities continued to report oil and gas production to
Pennsylvania, demonstrating that they remain in business. Therefore,
the EPA is reporting cost information as a range with the lower value
representing information for the 15 modeled profitable entities and the
upper value representing information for all 22 entities. The EPA's
analysis shows that for 2016, the median incremental costs would be
$131 to $279 per entity and the total costs of the UOG rule for 2016
would be approximately $33,000 to $65,000 (in 2016$).
IV. Findings
At the time the EPA promulgated the 2016 UOG rule, it established a
zero discharge of pollutant pretreatment standard for UOG extraction
facilities based on alternative wastewater management approaches.
Consistent with the factors identified in the Clean Water Act and
described in the preamble to the 2016 rule, the EPA found these
alternatives to be available, have acceptable non-water quality
environmental impacts, and be economically achievable, based in part on
its findings that no existing UOG facilities were discharging
pollutants to POTWs at the time of the 2016 rule. The EPA concluded
that such standards would prevent some UOG extraction wastewater
constituents from largely ``passing through'' the POTW untreated, and
then discharged from the POTW to the receiving stream.
The EPA has supplemented that rulemaking record to account for the
UOG facilities in Pennsylvania that were in fact discharging wastewater
to POTWs at the time of the rulemaking. Based on the EPA's analysis of
the new information described above, the EPA concludes that the zero
discharge of pollutants standard is technologically available,
economically achievable, and has acceptable non-water quality
environmental impacts. Based on this information, the EPA will not
revise the 2016 UOG rule.
Dated: June 20, 2019.
David P. Ross,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Water.
[FR Doc. 2019-14361 Filed 7-3-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
