P. 1



# RCRA Box 321 Prepped by Ryan Dugan



## Document

Number: 

# 219)OGRC-S0016. D

Docket Number: 

# F-93-OGRC-FFFF F

Printed 5/8/2007 3:36:32 PM

Sheet 219of 2591 1 i I

I 

# I , i 1

I

' I l : P. 2 

# OG^C-ScoKo.y

Reques t b

y Wast e Crud

e Oi l Reclaimer s Septembe r 18 , 199 0 Pag e -33 - ^



### Appendi xC . TH E REGULATOR Y DETERMINATIO NP. 3 

# oGRC-sooi&r D

Wednesda y Jul y 6 , 198 8



# Par t VI I 

# Environmenta l Protectio n Agency Regulator y Determinatio n fo r Oi l an d Ga s an d Geotherma l Exploration , '•-„.-.••.• ' Developmen t an d Productio n Wastes ; . Regulator y Determinatio n jP. 4

2544 6 Federa l Registe r / Vol . 53 , No . 12 9 /

Wednesday . Jul

y 6 . 198 8 /

Notice s ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y [FRL-3403-9 1



# f Regulator y Determinatio n fo r Oi l an d

Ga s an d Geotherma l Exploration , Developmen t an d Productio n Waste s ACTION : Regulator y determination . SUMMARY : Sectio n 3001(b)(2)(B ) o f th e Resourc e Conservatio n an d Recover y Ac t(RCRA ) require s th e Administrato r t o determin e whethe r t o promulgat e regulation s unde r RCR A Subtitl e C fo r waste s fro m th e exploration , development , an d productio n o f crud e oil , natura l gas , an d geotherma l energy . Th e Adminstrato r mus tmak e thi s determinatio n n o late r tha n si x month s afte r completin g a Repor tt o Congres s o n thes e waste s an d afte r providin g a n opportunit y fo r publi c commen tTh e Agenc y ha s complete d thes e activitie s an d ha s decide d tha tregulatio n unde r RCR A Subtitl e C i s no twarranted . Rather . EP A wil l implemen ta three pronge d strateg y t o addres s th e divers e environmenta l an d programmati c issue s pose d b y thes e waste s by : (1 ) Improvin g Federa l program s unde r existin g authoritie s i n Subtitl e D o f RCRA . th e Clea n Wate r Act . an d Safe Drinkin g Wate r Act : (2 ) workin g wit h State s t o encourag e change s i n thei r regulation s an d enforcemen tt o improv e som e programs : an d (3 ) workin g wit h Congres s t o develo p an y additiona l statutor y authoritie s tha tma y b e required . FO R FURTHE R INFORMATIO N CONTACT : Fo r furthe r informatio n o n th e regulator y determination , contac tth e RCRA / Superfun d hotlin e a t(800 ) 424-934 6 (tol l free ) o r (202 ) 382-3000 . SUPPLEMENTAR

Y INFORMATION: Preambl e Outlin e I . Summar y II. Backgroun d A . Technica l Summar

y o f Repor tt o Congres s B . Lega l Authorit y C Conclusion s of

th e Repor tt o Congres s an d Respons e to Comment s D . Determinatio n o f

th e Scop e o f

th e Temporar y RCR A Exemptio n III. Factor s Considere d in Regulator y Determinatio n IV . Regulator

y Determinatio n fo

r Crude Oi l an d Natural Ga s Waste s A . Hazar d Assessmen t B . Economi c Impac

tAnalysi s C . Adequac y o

f Stat e an d Federa

l Regulatory Program s D . Conclusion s V . Effort s t o Improve Stat e an d Federal Programs A . Federal Progra

m Improvements Withi n Existin g Authoritie s B . Additiona l Federal Authoritie s C . Improvement s i n Stat e Program

s VI . Regulator

y Determinatio n fo

r Geothermal Energ y Waste s A . Hazard Assessmen t B . Adequac y o

f Slat e an d Federal Regulation s C . Conclusion s VII. Research . Development , an d Demonstratio n Pla

n VIII. EP A RCR A Docke t I . Summar y Thi s actio n present s th e Agency' s regulator y determinatio n require d b y sectio n 3001(b)(2)(B ) o f

th e Resourc e Conservatio n an d Recover y Ac t(RCRA ) fo r drillin g fluids , produce d waters , an d othe r waste s associate d wit h th e -...•• . exploration , development , o r productio n o f crud e oil . natura l gas , o r geotherma l energy . RCRA require s th e • • Administrato r t o determin e eithe r t o promulgat e regulation s unde r Subtitl e C fo r waste s fro m oil , gas . an d geotherma l exploration , development , an d production , o r tha tsuc h regulation s ar e unwarranted . I n makin g thi s determination , th e Administrato r i s : ; require d t o utiliz e informatio

n • •"•

, •-: develope d an

d accumulated b

y the Agency pursuan

tt o a study required unde r RCR A sectio n 8002(m) . Th e .. '.. . . _ Agency complete d thi s stud y and • ~'- V publishe d it

s result s i n December . 198

7 i n a Repor

tt o Congres s entitle d "Managemen

to f Waste s fro

m th e Exploration , Development, and Productio n o f Crud e Oil . Natura

l Gas , ,.-•: ; and Geotherma

l Energy. " ' :>v . I n completin g th

e Repor tt o Congres s and thi s determination . EP A gathere d and evaluate d informatio

n o n all o f th e issue s raise d in sectio n 8002(m) . including thre

e key factor

s pertaining t

o waste s fro

m the exploration , development , and production of oil . gas , and geotherma

l energy : (1 ) Th e : characteristics , managemen tpractices . •

. an d resulting impact

s o f thes e waste s o n huma n healt h an d th e environment : (2) th e adequacy of

existin g State and Federa l regulator

y programs : and (3

) th e economi c impact

s o f an y additional regulator y control s o n industry . . * • • I n considerin g th

e firstfactor . EP

A foun d tha ta wid e variet

y o f managemen

tpractice s ar

e utilize d fo

r thes e wastes , and tha

tman y alternative s t

o thes e curren

tpractice s ar e notfeasibl e o

r applicabl e a

t individua l sites . EP A foun d tha toil . gas . and geotherma

l waste s originat

e i n ver y divers e ecologi c setting s an d contai n a wid e variet

y o f hazardous constituents . EP A rloci'.mente

d 6 2 damag e case s resultin g fro

m th e managemen

to f thes e wastes , bu

tfoun d tha tman y o f thes e were in violatio n o

f existin g State and Federa l requirements . A s t o th e secon d factor, EP

A foun d tha texistin g Stat

e an d Federa l regulations ar

e generally adequate t

o contro l th e managemen

to f oi l and ga s 7 ; § wastes . Certai

n regulator

y gap s d o exist^j» £ however , an

d enforcemen

to f existin g /$f

s ~ t ' regulations i

n som e State s i s inadequat e " Fo r example , some State s hav e •:•%& insufficien tcontrol s o n th e us e o f ..^j= [ landfarming . roadspreadirg . pi t. ^V* ? .constructio n an d surfac e wate r discharg e practices . Som e State s lac k ^ sufficien tcontrol s fo r centra l disposa l an d treatmen tfacilitie s an d fo r '•"*$* associate d wastes. 1 Th e existin g --V^f S Federa l standard s unde r Subtitl e D o f RCR A provid e genera l environmenta l performanc e standard s fo r disposa l o f v j soli d wastes , includin g oil . gas . an d geotherma l wastes , bu tthes e standards ' d o no tfull y addres s th e specifi c .Sjj j concern s pose d b y oi l an d ga s wastes . v$ 3 Nevertheless . EP A ha s authorit y unde r ^ ' Subtitl e D t o promulgat e mor e tailore d 4J ? criteria . I n addition , th e authoritie s . 'j p • ' availabl e unde r th e Clea n Wate r Ac t:s * (CWA ) o r Saf

e Drinkin g Wate r Ac t:'J*,$5 I ; (SDWA ) ca n b e mor e broadl y utilized , ^ an d effort s ar e alread y underwa y t o fil l gap s unde r thes e programs . - - ; '£s 3 ; . .EPA' s revie w o f

th e thir d facto r foun d v 3

• tha timpositio n o f

Subtitl e C regulations^ } fo r al l oi l an d ga s waste s coul d subject - ~

. billion s o f

barrel s o f

wast e t o regulation * unde r Subtitl e C a s hazardou s waste s

. an d woul d caus e a sever e economi c .'impac to n th e industr y an d o n oi l an d ' ga s productio n i n th e U.S . Additionally.- ^ becaus e a larg e par to f

thes e waste s is* ?

• manage d i n off-sit e commercia l facilities , remova l o f

th e exemptio n coul d caus e sever e short-ter m strain s on^ J th e capacit y o f

Subtitl e C Treatment . Storage , an d Disposa l Facilitie s (TSDFs). ^ an d a significan tincreas e i n th e Subtitle ^ C permittin g burde n fo r Stat e an d fjj j Federa l hazardou s wast e programs . *_•!& £

• A s explaine d i n mor e detai l i n Section^ /

• I V o f thi s notice . EP A foun d tha t'' : ''£*%i-' regulatio n unde r Subtitl e C present s *ff&?> . severa l seriou s problems . First . Subtitl e "H, ' C contain s a n unusuall y larg e numbe r of;,.£_ " highl y detaile d statutor y requirements . 1 1 j f offer s littl e flexibilit y t o tak e int o ;-'?$•> • accoun tth e varyin g geological . : '">?*^ r climatological . geographic , an d othe r *".-.*2 : difference s characteristi c o f oi l an d ga s ' • v drillin g an d productio n site s acros s th e X\ . country . A tth e sam e time , i tdoe s no t1~\ provid e th e Agenc y wit h th e flexibilit y t o conside r cost s whe n applyin g thes e requirement s t o oi l an d ga s wastes .

• Associate d waste s ar

e thos e waste s othe r

tha n . produce d water, drillin

g mud s an d cutting

. an d rigwts h tha

tar e intrinsic l o exploration . developmen

tan d productio

n o f crud e oi l an d natura l gu v Se e Section I

I 0 belo wP. 5

Federa l Registe r /

Vol . 53 . No . 12 9 /

Wednesday . )ul y 6 , 198 8 / Notice s 2544 7

• i Consequently . EP

A woul d no

tb e abl e t o craf ta regulator

y progra m t o reduc e o r eliminat e the seriou s economi c impact s tha ti thas predicted . Furthermore , sinc e existin g State an

d Federa l program s alread y contro l oil an d ga s waste s in man y wast e managemen

tscenarios . EP A need s t o impos e onl y a limited numbe r o f additiona l control s targete

d t o fil l th e gap s i n th e existin g programs . Subtitl e C. wit

h its comprehensive "cradl e t o grave " managemen

t requirement

, i s no twel l suited t

o thi s type o f gap-filling regulation . EP A conclude d tha

ti twoul d b e mor

e efficientan

d appropriat

e t o fil l th e gap s b y strengthenin g unde

r th e Clea n Wate r Ac tand UI C program

s an d promulgatin

g th e remainin

g rules neede d unde

r RCR A unde r the less prescriptive statutor y authoritie s se tou

ti n Subtitl e D . Thi s narrower approac

h woul d als o reduce disruption o

f existin g Stat

e an d Federa l contro l programs . Thus , th e Agency ha s decide d no tt o promulgat

e regulations unde

r Subtitl e C fo r waste s generate d by th

e exploration , development , and productio n of crud e oil . natura l gas , an d geotherma

l energ y fo r th e followin g reasons : (1 ) Subtitl e C doe s notprovid e sufficientflexibilit

y t o conside r cost s an d avoi d th e seriou s economi c impact s tha tregulatio n woul d creat

e fo r the industry' s exploratio n an

d production operations : (2 ) Existin g State and Federa l regulator y program

s ar e generally adequate fo

r controllin g oil . gas , and geotherma

l wastes . Regulator

y gap s i n th e Clea n Wate r Ac

tan d UI C progra m ar e alread y bein g addressed , and th e remaining gap s i

n State an

d Federa l regulator y program

s ca n b e effectivel y addresse d b y formulatin

g requirement

s unde r Subtitl e D o

f RCR A an d by working wit

h the States ; (3 ) Permittin

g delay s woul d hinde r ne w facilities , disrupting the searc h fo r ne w oi l an

d ga s deposits ; (4 ) Subtitl e C regulatio n of

thes e waste s coul d severel y strain existin g Subtitl e C facilit

y capacity ; (5 ) I ti s impractica

l an d inefficientt o implemen tSubtitl e C fo

r al l o r som e of thes e waste s becaus e o f

th e disruption and . i n som e cases , duplicatio n o f State authoritie s tha

tadministe r program

s throug h organizationa

l structure

s tailore d t o th e oi l an

d ga s industry : and (6 ) I ti s impractica

l an d inefficien

tt o implemen tSubtitl e C fo

r al l o r some o f thes e waste s becaus e o

f th e permittin

g burde n tha tthe regulator

y agencie s woul d incu

r i f eve n a small-percentage o f thes e site s wer e considere d Treatment

, Storage an

d Disposa l Facilitie s (TSDFs) . The Agenc y plan s a three-pronge

d approac h towar d filling the gap s i n existin g Stat

e an d Federa l regulators program s by : (1 ) Improvin

g Federa l program s under existin g authorities i

n Subtitl e D of RCRA . th e Clea n Wate r Act . an

d Saf e Drinkin g Water Act ; (2 ) Workin g wit h State s t o encourag e changes i n thei r regulations and enforcemen

tt o improv e som e programs ; an d (3) Workin

g wit h th e Congres s t

o develo p any additiona

l statutor y authorit y tha tma y b e required . EP A plan s t o revis e its existin g standard s unde

r Subtitl e D o f

RCRA . tailorin g thes e standard s t

o addres s di e special problem

s pose d by oi l gas . and geotherma

l waste s an

d filling th e regulator y gaps . Also , the Agenc y i s movin g ahea d wit h improvement

s i n it s NPDE S and UI C program

s unde r th e Clea n Wate r Ac tan d th e Saf e Drinkin g Water Ac tEP

A als o plan s t

o wor k wit h Congres s t

o obtain any additional authorities tha

tma y b e required . Fo

r example , Subtitl e D o

f RCR A currentl

y doe s no tprovide EP

A wit h th e authorit

y t o addres s treatmen

to r transportatio n of wastes . Throughou

tth e proces s of improvin g the Federa

l regulator

y program , EP A wil l wor

k closel y wit

h State s t o encourage improvement s i n their regulator

y programs . II. Backgroun

d Sectio n 3001(b)(2)(A) o

f th e Soli d Waste Disposa

l Ac to f 198 0 (Pub . L 96 - 480) , whic h amended the Resourc e Conservation an

d Recover y Ac to f 197 6 (RCRA). prohibit

s EP A fro m regulatin g unde r RCR A Subtitl e C "drillin

g fluids , produce d waters , and other waste s associate d wit

h exploration , development, o r production o f crud e oi l o r natura l ga s o r geotherma

l energy " unti l a tleas t6 month

s afte r th e Agenc y complete s an

d submit s t o Congres s a comprehensive stud

y require d b y sectio n 8O02(m

) (als o adde d b y th e 1980 amendments) . Sectio n 8O02(m ) direct s EP A t o conduc t [A ] detaile d an d comprehensiv

e stud y an d submi ta repor to n th e advers e effects , i f any . o f drillin g fluids , produce d waters , an d othe r waste s associate d wit h th e exploration

, development

, o r productio n o f crud e oi l o r natura l ga s o r geotherma

l energ y o n huma n healt h an d th e environment

, including , bu t no tlimite d to. th e effect s o f suc h waste s o n humans , water , air . health , welfare , an d natura l resource s an d o n th e adequac y o f mean s an d measure s currentl y employe d b y th e oi l an d ga s an d geotherma

l energ y drillin g an d productio

n industry . Governmen

t agencies, an

d other s t o dispos e o f an d utiliz e suc h waste s t o preven to r substantiall

y mitigat e suc h advers e effects. Th e study wa y t o includ e a

n analysi s of t 1 . The source s an

d volume s o

f discarde d materia

l generate d pe

r yea r fro m such wastes ; 2 . Presen tdisposa l practices ; ' 3 . Potentia

l dange r t o huma n healt h an d th e environmen

tfro m surface runof

f o r leachate ; 4 . Documented case s tha

tprov e o r hav e cause d dange r t

o huma n healt h and , the environmen

tfro m surface runof

f o r leachate ; 5 . Alternative s t

o curren tdisposa l methods ; 6 . The cos tof

suc h alternatives ; and 7 . Th e impac

to f thos e alternative s o

n

. th e exploratio n for

. an d developmen t and production of

, crude oi l and natura

l ga s o r geotherma

l energy . Th e 198 0 amendment

s als o adde d sectio n 3001(b)(2)(B) . whic h require s th e Administrato r t

o mak e a "regulator

y determination " regardin

g th e wast e exclude d fro

m RCR A Subtitl e C regulation . Specifically , withi n 8 months after submitting th

e Repor tt o Congress , an d after th e opportunit

y fo r publi c

. hearing s an

d publi c commen

to n the report , the Administrato r mus

t "determine t

o promulgat

e regulations " under RCR

A Subtitl e C fo

r oil . gas , an

d geotherma

l energ y waste , "o

r tha tsuc h regulation s are unwarranted. " Sectio n 3001(b)(2)(C ) als o specifie s tha tan y ne w regulation s unde

r RCR A Subtitl e C fo

r th e crude oil . natura

l gas , o r geotherma

l energy industr

y woul d nottake effec

t unti l authorized b y a

n Ac tof Congres s EP A wa s required t o complet e the stud y and submiti

tt o Congres s by Octobe r 1982 . I

n August1985 , th e Alask a Center fo

r th e Environmen

tsue d th e Agency fo

r its failur

e t o complet e th e stud y b y th e statutor

y deadline . EP

A entere d int

o a consen torde

r obligatin g i

t t o submi tth e final Repor

tt o Congres s o n o r before Augus t31,1987 , and t o make its regulator

y determinatio n b

y Februar y 29,1988 . I

n Apri l 1987 . th e court-ordered schedul e wa s modified , extendin g the deadlin e o r submitta l o f th e final Repor

tt o Congres s t

o Decembe r 31,1987 , and requirin g the regulator y determinatio n t

o b e made b

y Jun e 30,1988 . I

n accordanc e wit

h thi s schedule , EP

A complete d th e technical repor to n methodology i

n Octobe r 1986. th e technica

l repor to n the wast e samplin g and analysi s in Januar y 1987. th e interi m repor ti n Apri l 1907 . th e draf t repor ti n August1987 . an

d th e final repor ti n Decembe r 1987 . EPA' s Repor

tt o Congress . "Managemen

tof Waste s fro

m the Exploration . Development , an d Productio n o f Crud e Oil . Natur.i

l C;ts . and Ceotherma

l Energy. " wa sP. 6

2544 8 Federa l Registe r / Vol . 53 . No . 12 9 /

Wednesday . Jul y 6 , 198 8 / Notice s

E l A I F R C 

### c transmitte

d t o Congres s o n December - 28,1987 . A notic e announcing th e availabilit

y o f the report

, a s wel l a s the date s and location s of

publi c hearings , wa s publishe d o n Januar

y 4.198 8 (53 F

R 82) . EP A hel d publi c hearing s o n th e repor ti n Washington , DC o n Februar y 23.1988 ; Denver . Colorado , o n Februar y 25,1988 ; San Francisco , California , o n Marc h 1.1988 ; Anchorage . Alaska , on . Marc h 3,1988 : an

d Dallas , Texas , o n Marc h 8,1988 . Th

e commen tperiod o n th e repor tclose d o n Marc

h 15.1988 . EPA' s Repor

tt o Congres s provide s information o n all o f

th e stud y area s mandated b y RCR

A sectio n 8002(m) . The Agency receive d approximately 15 0 written comment

s o n th e repor

tan d heard testimon y a

tth e hearings fro

m 10 5 individuals . Al l individua l comment

s and transcript

s fro m th e publi c hearings ar e availabl e for publi c inspectio n in th e docket . Th e docke tals o contain s a summar y of al l the comment

s presente d a tth e hearing s o

r submitte d in writing , alon g wit h EPA' 3 respons e t

o thes e comments . A. Technical

Summary of

Report to Congress 1 . Definitio n o f

ExemptWaste s Sectio n 3001(b)(2)(A ) exempts produced water , drilling fluids , an d "othe r waste s associated " wit

h th e exploration , development , and . production activities . Thes e are genera l term s tha td o no tidentif

y al l o f th e specifi c wast e stream s t

o b e exempte d and studied . Fo

r stud y purposes , EP

A broadl y define d the scop e of th e exemptio n fo

r oil . gas . and geotherma

l energy waste s t

o includ e notonl y produced water s an

d drilling fluids , bu

t als o relate d waste s (referre d t o herein a s "associate d wastes") , generate d durin g the exploration , development , an d production o f

crud e oil . natura

l gas . an d geotherma

l energy resources . Th e Agenc y exclude d fro

m it s stud y thos e waste s notuniquel y associate d wit h exploration , development , an d productio n o f

crud e oi l an d natura

l ga s whic h ar e no texemp tfro m Subtitl e C regulatio n (e.g. , use d batterie s an d wast e solvents) . Fo rgeotherma

l energy , th e definitio n o f drilling-relate d waste s wa s identical t o tha tof crude oi l and natura

l ga s wastes . Exemp

twaste s unique t

o geotherma

l energy production operation s included : Wast e stream s produced fro

m material s passin g throug h th e turbine i n dry-stea

m powe r generation ; wast e stream s resultin g fro m a geotherma

l energy flui

d o r ga s tha

t' passe d throug

h th e turbin

e in flashed streu m and binar

y powe r plant's : wast e stream s resultin g fro

m the geotherma

l energ

y product s passin g throug

h onl y the hea texchange r in binar

y operation s o r throug h th e flash separato r in th e flas h process ; an

d mos tdirectus e wast e streams . A mor

e detaile d descriptio n o f th e scop e of

th e exemptio n and stud y appears i n sectio n IV.D . below . 2 . Waste Quantitie s and Characterization I n th e Repor tt o Congress , EP

A estimate d tha

t36 1 millio n barrel s o f drilling wast e were generate d i n 198 5 fro m abou t70,00 0 crude oi l an d natura

l ga s wells , and tha

tove r 800.00 0 activ e ; production site s generate d 20. 9 billio n - barrel s (including produced wate r ' " injecte d fo

r enhance d oi l recover y (EOR) ) of produce d wate r durin

g tha t year . Associate d waste , suc h a s workove r fluid s an

d tan k bottoms , ar e produced atthe rat

e o f 1 1 millio n barrel s per year . Fo

rgeotherma

l energy wastes . EP A estimate d tha

tapproximatel y 111,00 0 barrels of

geotherma

l energy relate d drilling waste s wer e generate d in 1985 , alon g wit

h 5 6 billio n gallon s o f liqui d waste s (geotherma

l flui d an d condense d steam ) fro

m bot h binary an d flash proces s plants , and 8 billio n gallon s of liquid wast e fro

m direc tus e o f geotherma

l energy . Fo r crud e oi l an d natura l ga s wastes, . EP A sampled liquids and sludge s fro m severa l locations . Drillin

g fluid s wer e sample d atdrilling operation s whil e , , produced wate r and tan

k bottom s wer e sample d atproduction operations . Sample s fro

m centra l treatmentan d disposa l facilitie s and centra l pit s containe d mixtures o f

al l waste s includin g associate d wastes . Th e Agenc y foun

d tha torgani c pollutant s at level s o f potentia l concer n (level s tha

t excee d 10 0 times EPA' s health-base d standards ) include d the hydrocarbon s benzen e and phenanthrene . Inorgani c constituents a

tlevel s o f potentia l concern included lead , arsenic , barium , antimony , fluoride, an

d uranium . Tan k bottoms , a

n associate d wast e sample d and analyze d b y th e Agency , containe d significantlevel s o f

. contaminant

s of concern , wit

h som e level s exceedin g th e referenc e dose s (RfDs) fo r noncarcinogen s o r th e risk-

. specifi c dose s (RSDs ) fo r carcinogen s (health-base d standards ) fo r thes e contaminants. * Analysi s of the constituents olsevcr.t l geotherma

l energ y wast e stream

s indicate d tha

tsom e of the productio

n waste s exhibite d the corrosivity" ' characteristi c and extractio n procedur e (EP ) toxicit y fo r certai n metals..Factor

s such a s managemen

tpractices^dilulion an d attenuatio n of

th e contaminant

, am ) hydrogeological characteristics,"airfe(: t th e risk t o huma n healt h and the } environmentpresente d b y theje' ^ chemicals . . ••'•.'sJH&j ' 3 . Curren tan d Alternativ e Managemun t 'Practice s •'••'?•%*£'

•' ; • >"-;5".

- • • A wid e rang

e o f management ^ •

/ practice s are employe d for crud e oil an d

• natura l ga s wastes . Th e technologica l "diversit y i s th e resultof

widel y varyin

g geological , climatological , ecological . topographic , economic , geographi c an d ag e difference s amon

g drilling an

d productio n site s acros s th e countr y an d partiall y accountfor varying State regulator y requirements . Ther

e are . however , variation s fro

m Slat e t o State in th e stringency of

management.. . practice s whic

h ar e notwholl y -r. : ' : attributabl e t

o the varying physica

l setting s of

the operations . '.*&•>.;".

• Curren tpractice s includ e the us e o f reserv e pit s for drilling wastes ; •; landspreadin g of

reserv e pitcontents : : disposa l o f

produced water s throug

h Clas s I I undergroun

d injectio n wells : disposa l o f

produced wate r in unlirie d

- . pits ; discharg e of

produced wate r t

o surfac e waters ; roadspreading ; us e of

. commercia

l facilitie s fo

r treatmen

tan d ' disposa l o f

drilling waste s and produce d wate r and som e practice s unique t o the Alask a Nort

h Slope , suc

h a s th e us e of semipermanentproduction-relate d reserv e pits , and discharge s t o th e tundra . Les s frequentl

y use d curren

t

* I ti s th e Agency' s polic

y t o conside r Maximu

m Contaminan

tlevel s (MCLs).(establishe d by th e Offic e o f Drinkin g Water ) whe n available . Wher

e a n MC L has no tbee n developed . RfD

s fo r noncarcinogen

s an d RSD s fo r carcinogens will b e use d t o se thealth-based limits . Thes e term s are defined a s follows : • Maximu m Contaminan

tLeve l (MCL ) i s th e enforceabl e drinkin

g water standard , base d o n healt h an d technica l feasibility , attained a

tth e tap . Thi s measur e i s used whe

n groun d wate r i s th

e mai n exposur e pathway .

. • Referenc

e Dos e (RID ) i s a n estimat e (wit h uncertaint

y spanning perhap s a

n orde r of

. magnitude) of

adail y exposure t

o the huma

n populatio n (includin g sensitiv e subgroups) tha ti s likel y l o b e withouta

h appreciabl e ris

k of deleteriou s effects durin

g a lifetime. " (Integrate

d Ris k Informatio

n Syste m (IRIS ) Vol. 1 . Supplementar

y Documentatio

n Appendi

x A . EPA / ' 600/8-86/032A. )

• Risk-Specifi c Dos e (RSD ) i s th e dail y dos e o

f a carcinogen receive d ove r a lifetime tha twil l resul

t in a n incidenc e o

f cancer equa

l l o th e specifi c risk level . Th e risk leve l o f

A an d B carcinogens i s 10E' * ( 1 i n 1 million) an

d forC carcinogens i

ti s 10 E >( ' i n 100.000) . |5 l F

R21667. Jun

e 13.1986. ) Th e classe s o

f carcinogen s are : Clas s A - huma n carcinogen . Clas s 8 = probabl e huma n carcinogen . Clas s C =

>

. possibl e huma

n carcinogen . (Dot

h RfD s an d RSDs ar e converte d into mediu

m specifi c concentration s usin g intake assumption s fo r selecte d routes o

f

• exposure . The

y are expresse d i

n mg/kg/d.iy . Surface an

d groun d water (ingestion) : 2 lilers/d» > for a 70-k g adul tfo r a70-yea r exposure . Ai

r ' (inhalation) : 2

0 cubi c meter

s air/da y fo

r a 70-!. ^ adul tfo r a 70-year exposure. ! 

# 4

r '



# - 3P. 7

Federa l Registe r

/ Vol

. 53

. No

. 12 9 /

Wednesday

. Jul y 6

. 198 8 / Notice s 2544 9 practice s discusse d i

n th e report

ar e closed-cycl e drillin g mud systems , annular disposa l o

f produce d wate r

an d drillin g fluid, an d trenchin g o f reserv e pit s l o dispos e o

f rescr\- e pi t

fluids. Thes e practice s vary substantiall y in the protectio n the y provid e t o th e environment

. Whil e change s i n Stat e regulator y requirement s ove r

th e year s hav e le d generall y t o th e us e o f mor e environmentall y protectiv e technologie s an d managemen t

practices , ther e i s a nee d fo r increase d movemen t

t o mor e protectiv e approache s fo

r discharg e t o ephemera l streams , surfac e wate r discharge s in estuarie s i

n th e Gul f Coas t region , roa d applications o f reserv e pi t content s an d discharg e t o tundr ai n th e Arctic , an d annula r

disposa l o

f produce d waters

. Fo r th e majo r wast e streams

. EP

A wa s unabl e t o identif

y an y ne w technologie s i

n th e researc h an d developmen t

stag e tha t

offe r promis e for wid e applicatio n in th e nea r term

. Mor e widesprea d us e o

f th e bes t existin g technologies , however , woul d provid e substantia l additiona l protectio n fo r th e environmen t

in man y areas . Wast e managemen t

practice s uniqu e to geotherma l powe r

generatio n waste s includ e closed-cycl e ponding , reinjectio n into th e producin g zon e o r a nonproducin g zone , an d consumptiv e secondar y use . I

n California , productio n waste s ar e teste d fo

r hazardousness

. usin g th e Californi atest s fo r hazardousness , befor e disposa l t o determin e th e appropriat e disposa l method

. Afte

r direc t us e o f geotherma l energ y fluid fo

r heatin g purposes , thes e fluids ca n b e discharge d t o surfac e waters , injecte d int o th e producin g zon e o r anonproducin g zone , an d consume d by secondar y uses . 4

. Evidenc e of

Damage s T o determin e th e type s an d severit y of damage s cause d b y crud e oi l an d natura l ga s wastes

. EP

A assemble d informatio n o n asubstantia l numbe r o f damag e cases . 6 2 o

f whic h wer e full

y documente d an d passe d EPA' s "test s o f proof. " Thes e case s wer e base d o n recen t informatio n gathere d fro mth e Slate s o f Alaska

. Arkansas

. California

. Kansas

. Kentucky

. Louisiana

. Michigan

. Ne w Mexico

. Ohio

. Oklahoma

. Pennsylvania

. Texas

. Wes t Virginia , an d Wyoming

. Thes e damag e case s wer e extensivel y reviewe d b y th e States , industry , an d thir d parties

. O n th e basi s o f al l availabl e information , th e stud y foun d tha t waste s fro

mcrud e oi l an d natura l ga s operation s hav e endangere d huma n healt h an d cause d environmenta l damag e whe n manage d in violatio n o f Slat e an d Federa l requirements

. I n soni c instance s dnrrwg c occurre d wher e waste s ar e manage d i n accordanc e with currentl y applicabl e Stat e an d Federa l requirements

. Th e majo r categorie s o f

wastes' 1 responsibl e for damage s includ e reserv e pi twastes , fracturin g and acidizin g fluids , stimulatio n chemicals , wast e crud e oi l produce d water , an d othe r miscellaneou s waste s generate d b y th e exploration , development , an d productio n o

f crud e oi l an d natura l gas . Th e variou s categorie s o

f damage s to

. o r endangermen t

of

. human healt h an d th e environmen t

containe d i n th e Report

t o Congres s include :

• Damag e t o agricultura l land , crops, ephemera l streams , livestock , an d threat s t o endangere d species , fish , an d othe r aquati c lif

e in estuarie s an d bay s fromproduce d wate r

an d drillin g fluids;

• Degradatio n o

f soi l an d groun d wate r fro mrunof f an d leachat e fro

m centra l treatmen t

an d disposa l facilities , reserv e pits , an d unline d disposa l pits ; • Potentia l contaminatio n o f aquati c an d bir d lif

e in estuarie s an d bay s b y metal s an d polycycli c aromati c hydrocarbon s resultin g fro mth e discharg e o

f drillin g fluids an d produce d waters ; • Potentia l fo

r endangermen t

o f huma n healt h fro

mconsumptio n o f contaminate d fis h an d shellfis h an d fro mgroun d wate r

contaminate d b y seepag e fro

mstorag e an d disposa l pits ; • Potentia l damag e t o tundr ao n th e Alask aNort

h Slop e fro

mroadspreadin g an d seepag e an d discharge s from reserv e pits ; • Damag e to groun d water , agricultura l land , an d domesti c an d irrigatio n wate r

cause d b y seepag e of nativ e brine s fro

mimproperl y plugge d an d unplugge d abandone d wells ; an d

• Ground-wate r

degradatio n from improper functionin g o

f injectio n wells

. 5

. Ris k Modelin g EP A use d quantitativ e modelin g an d a revie w o f th e scientifi c literatur e t o evaluat e th e healt h an d environmenta l risks associate d with managemen t o f oil

. gas , an d geotherma l energ y waste s in orde r t o evaluat e risks to human healt h an d th e environmen t

unde r avariet y o

f conditions

. Th e Agenc y characterize d selecte d majo r

risk-influencing factor s associate d wit

h curren t operations : Estimate d th e managemen t of drillin g wast e i n reserv e pits , th e undergroun d injectio n of

produce d water , an d th e surfac e wate r

discharg e o

f produce d wate r fro mstrippe r

wells

. Th e ris k analysi s di d no t

conside r annula r disposal , storag e o

f produce d wate r

i n surfac e impoundments , migratio n o f produce d wate r

contaminant s throug h fractures , unplugge d o r

improperl y plugge d an d abandone d wells

. landsprcading

. roadspreading

. o r ; disposa l of

associate d wastes

. Fo r th e selecte d practices

. EP A estimate d distribution s of thes e risk

influencin g factor s acros s th e populatio n o f crud e oi l an d natura l ga s facilities : evaluate d thes e factor s i n term s o f thei r relativ e effect

o n risks: an d develope d initia l quantitativ e estimate s o f th e possibl e rang e o

f baselin e healt

h an d environmenta l risk s fo

r th e variety o

f condition s found

. Risk s wer e analyze d unde r assumption s that

wer e broadl y consisten t wit h baselin e requirement s o f existin g Federa l an d Stat e programs . Fo r th e specifi c subse t

o f curren t practices , EP

A modele d th e potentia l effect s o f arsenic , benzene , boron

. "

. sodium , chloride , cadmium , chromium , an d tota l mobil e ion s a t

concentration s observe d i n sample d produce d wate r an d drillin g waste

. Th e stud y focuse d heavil y o n groun d wate r

an d indicate d that , fo r th e vas t majorit y of th e scenario s modeled , risks fro mth e disposa l o f

drillin g wast e i n onsit e reserv e pit s an d th e disposa l o f produce d wate r

b y undergroun d injectio n wer e small

. Onl y afew chemical s fro

meithe r sourc e appea r

t o b e of majo r concern relativ e to health o r environmenta l risk. Th e actua l huma n healt h an d environmenta l threat s pose d b y an y o f thes e release s i s largel y dependen t

upo n site-specifi c factors , includin g geophysica l condition s an d a site' s proximity t o human populations o r sensitiv e ecosystems

. Estimate d impact s o n huma n healt h varie d widely , an d " " ther e wer e typicall y afew combination s o f environmenta l setting s an d hig h sampl e toxi c constituen t

concentration s wher e moderat e risks wer e projected

. Quantitativ e risk

modelin g indicate s th e potentia l in som e situation s fo r carcinogeni c risks i n exces s o f 1 in 10.00 0 an d sodiu mlevel s in drinkin g wate r i n exces s of

recommende d level s for publi c drinkin g wate r

supplies

. Modelin g o

f resourc e damage s t

o groun d an d surfac e wate r

generall y di d no t sho w significan t

risks a t lo w release ' rate s typica l o

f individua l strippe r

well s althoug h multipl e stripper s dischargin g int o commo n wate r

course s wer e no t modeled

. 6

. Cost s an d Economi c Impact s EP A develope d thre e estimate s o f th e complianc e cost s an d economi c impact s of implementin g alternativ e wast e managemen t

practice s fo

r th e large

volum e drillin g waste s an d produce d water s in th e crud e oi l an d natura l ga s industries : (1 ) a"baseline " scenari o reflectin g curren t

wast e managemen t practices : (2

) a n "intermediate " scenario , in whic h somewha t stricte rP. 8

2545 0 Federa l Registe r / Vol . 53 . No . 12 9 /

Wednesday . Jul

y 6 , 198 8 /

Notice s control s o n wast e disposa l practice s ar e assumed ; an

d (3) a "Subtitle C " scenario , i

n whic h virtually ful

l RCR A hazardou s wast e requirement s woul d b e met . EP A estimate d tota

l annua l cost s fo r each scenari o and the

n evaluate d th e projecte d economi c impact s o f thes e cost s o n the oi l industr

y a s a whole . Assumin g produced water s reinjecte d fo r enhance d production woul d notb e regulated , total annua

l cost s fo r additional managemen

trequirement

s ranged fro

m approximately $5 0 millio n t o ove r S6.7 billion , dependin g o n th e scenari o and o n assumption s regardin g the fraction o

f waste s (1 0 t

o 7 0 percent ) tha twoul d b e handle d a s RCRAhazardou s unde

r each scenario . Estimate d cost s fo

r the Subtitl e C scenari o range

d betwee n $ 1 billio n and $6. 5 billio n withoutincluding land-ban an d correctiv e actio n costs . - Production decline s relate d t o thes e increase d wast e managemen tcost s coul d rang

e u p t o 1 2 percenti

n th e yea r 2000 . Other impacts als o varie d greatl y under differen

tscenari o assumptions . Netimpacts o

n oi l price s pe

r barre l coul d rang

e u p t o $0.76 per barrel , with projecte d maximu

m cost s t o consumers o f $4. 5 billio n per year , and increase s i n th e U.S . balanc e of

payment s defici to f u p t o $1 1 billion . A significan tpar

to f an y overal l economi c impactof

ne w requirement

s woul d b e thei r effect s o n stripper wells . Stripper operation s (generally , well s producing 1 0 o r fewe r barrel s of oi l pe r da y durin g th e declinin g phas e o

f thei r productio n cycle ) cumulativel y contribut e about1 4 percento

f total

. domesti c oi l production . Generatio n of productio n waste s b y strippers i s mor e significan ttha

n woul d b e expected , however , becaus e man

y stripper s produce ver

y hig h ratio s o f wate r t o oil . Man y strippe r operation s ar

e economicall y margina

l and are thus highly sensitiv e t o smal l fluctuation s i n marke tprice s an d canno teasil y absorb additional cost s fo

r wast e management . Stripper operations , therefore , constitut e a specia l subcategory of

the crud e oi l and natura

l ga s industr

y and shoul d b e give n specia l consideratio n whe n developin g recommendation s fo r improvement

s i n th e managemen

tof crud e oi l and natura

l ga s wastes . A tthe sam e time , an y additional regulation s mus trecogniz e the grea

tdiversit y that exist s withi n th

e strippe r industry . Th e natur e o f strippe r operation s i s dependen to

n the volum e o

f crud e oil . natura l ga s and waste s generated , th e age o f the well , th

e technology i

n use , geological , environmental , and economi c considerations , and type s o f ownership . Fo r example , a family-owne d strippe r wel l i n a century-ol d field i

n Appalachi a bear s littl e resemblanc e t o a field o f strippe r well s owne d b

y a singl e larg

e petrochemica

l compan y i n California . Regulation s governing waste s generate d b y stripper well s mus

tb e tailored t

o mee tthi s grea

tdiversity . B. Legal Authority Sectio n 3001(b)(2)(B ) o

f RCR A require s EP

A t o determine eithe r t

o promulgat

e regulation s under Subtitl e C for oi l gas , and geotherma l energ y wastes , o r tha

tsuch regulation s ar

e "unwarranted. " Thi s sectio n thu s give s EP A broad discretio n bot

h t e identif

y wha tfactor s t

o conside r and t

o determin e whatbalanc e o f factors permitth e conclusio n tha tSubtitl e C regulation s ar

e unwarranted . EP A ha s conclude d tha

tit s decisio n whethe r t o regulat e oil . ga s and geothermal energ

y wast e under Subtitl e C shoul d b e base d notjusto n whethe r thatwast e i s hazardou s (a s currentl y define d b y EP

A regulations ) bu

tals o o n a consideratio n o

f the othe r factors sectio n 8002(m

) require d EP A t o study . Th e basi s o

f thi s conclusio n i s the languag e o

f sectio n 3001(b)(2)(B) , which states tha tin makin

g the regulator

y determinatio n "th

e Administrato r shal l utiliz e the information develope d o r accumulate d pursuan

tt o th e stud y require d under sectio n 8002(m). " Clearly . Congres s envisione d tha tth e

. determinatio n woul d b e base d o n al l the consideration s state d i n sectio n 8O02(m). I n reviewin g section s 3001(b ) and 8002(m) . togethe r wit

h th e legislativ e history o f thes e provisions , EP

A ha s conclude d tha

tCongres s believe d certai n consideration s t

o b e particularly importantt

o th e regulator

y determination . First

, Congres s instructe d EP A t o stud y th e potential dangers t o huma n healt h and the environmen

tfro m 'oil , ga s and geotherma

l energ y waste , indicatin g tha

tan y decisio n t

o regulat e unde r Subtitl e C mus

tb e base d o n a findin g o f such danger . Second , sectio n 8002(m ) require d EP A t o study "th

e adequac y o

f mean s and measure s currently employe d b y * * * Governmentagencie s * * * t o dispos e of and utiliz e suc

h waste s and t

o preven to r substantiall y mitigat e suc h advers e effects. " The sectio n als o permit s EP A t o revie w the action s of othe r Federa

l agencies , "wit

h a vie w toward avoidin g duplicatio n o f effort, " and requires the Agency t o includ e i

n it s repor tof the study "recommendations fo r Federa l an d non-Federa

l action s - concerning " the effect

s o f oil . ga s and geotherma

l energ y waste s o

n healt h and environment . Thus . Congres s wa3 concerne d tha

tregulation s unde

r Subtitl e C shoul d no

tb e promulgate

d "unti

l furthe r informatio

n i s develope d t o determine whether a sufficien tdegre e ' ? o f hazar d exist s t o warran tadditiona

l ~~y*2 regulation s an

d whethe r existin g Stat

e ""w " o r Federa l program s adequately contro

l :^ X such hazards. " S . Rep . No . 172.96t h •••;* % Cong. . 1s tSess . (1979) . a

t8 : Congres s "^fc * apparently believe d tha

tEP A should noP^r . impos e Subtitl e C regulation unles s 'Jrfi< othe r program

s could no tadequatel y y.-j^-

J contro l an y hazard s identified . " V^aSii: ' I n addition . Congres s instructed EPA.rsf : t o analyz e full

y th e disposal practice s o

f ^ the industry , including presen tpractices, ^ alternatives , the cos to

f alternatives, "' " and th e impac tof alternative s o n the j?

_ exploratio n for

, an d developmentan

d , " production of

. crud e oil an d natura l gas '

_ . . and geotherma

l energy . Thus . EP

A wasja^k " require d t o conside r th

e impac to f . j'j§3S"£ - Subtitl e C regulations o

n existin g V^rf* ? hazardou s wast e facilities , an d bot h theT_ £ cos tan d impac to f suc h regulations onT^ - the oil , ga s and geotherma l industries , ^^s . Clearly . Congres s believe d tha tSubtitle . >

£ C regulation woul d b e unwarrante d i f it^ . . had sever e impact

s o n the nation' s Ifjsjfe ; futur e energ y production capabilities . *gji£'. C. Conclusions of

the Report

to ' ' :? *r>i„ i V Congress and

Response to Comments '?fej* ? Base d o n the stud y don e b y EPA

, th e \&$. • Repor tt o Congres s develope d a number ^

. o f initia l genera l conclusions . Extensive^!"- ' comment s wer e receive d o

n thes e •.. : jjjsjj3jj" - conclusions . A summar

y o f the i^^g^i ; • comment s an d EPA' s respons e follows'^f;. . eac h conclusio n (underlined statements ) *£ . below . - ...... . »*•;$&£ ' 1 . Available waste management • i>zi-£ ' practices vary in theirenvironmental ^-"f ; performance. Some individual s argue d •;£* . tha tsinc e crud

e oil an d natura

l ga s ; *^f

§ operation s ver

y significantly acros s the . v: - - country . Federa

l regulations coul d no t££y , b e effectivel y enforced o

r applied , an

d J£ v woul d therefor

e notb e beneficial . Other ' ? commenter

s focuse d o

n local issue s an

d

_ regiona l environmenta

l problems . •*•*'."**;•?.'

' callin g fo r increase d Federa

l regulations t o solv e them. Stil l other

s observe d that

^ • th e crude oil and natura

l ga s industr

y •' • * ' doe s notmanag

e it s "hazardous " waste s i n the sam e manne

r a s other industries . manage simila r hazardous wastes . '•':', ' Th e Agency acknowledge s tha tther e ar e vali d reason s fo

r difference s i

n ' ' * practice s amon

g areas . Thi s point

s t o a nee d fo r individual , tailored regulations a tthe Stat e an d loca l leve l fo r the "••'' " managemen

to f thes e wastes , rathe

r tha n a RCR A Subtitl e C program

. Th e Agency als o agrees , however , tha tther e ma y b e a nee d fo

r minimu m Federa l standard s coverin g basi c wast e managemen

tpractices . The Agenc

y agree s tha

tbecaus e o

f th e larg e volume s o f thes e wastes , along wit

h th e othe rP. 9

Federa l Registe r

/ Vol

. 53

. No

. 12 9 /

Wednesday

. Jul y 6 , 198 8 / Notice s 2545 1



## M*£ r

.****

. factor s discusse d in th e report , som e

crud e oi l an d natura l ga s waste s requir e differen t disposa l method s tha n ma y b e use d fo r managemen t

o f waste s generate d b y othe r

industries

. 2. Any program to improve management

of oil and gas wastes in the near term will be based largely on technologies and

practices in current use. Commenter s agreein g wit h thi s conclusio n asserte d tha t

existin g technologie s ar e adequat e an d that ne w technologie s woul d b e economicall y infeasibl e an d woul d serv e n o vali d purpose . Others , especiall y thos e concerne d wit

h issue s i n Alaska , believ e tha t man y ne w technologie s ar e availabl e bu t

seldo muse d an d calle d fo r thei r increase d use . A few Stat e regulator y agencie s calle d fo r increase d technica l assistanc e an d guidanc e fro m EPA

. Th e Agenc y continue s t o believ e tha t ther e ar e very fe

w technique s tha t

ar e no t in us e unde r

som e conditions

. Ther e is

. however , anee d t o disseminat e knowledg e an d encourag e o r perhap s requir e adoptio n o

f improve d method s nationwide

. State s an d th e industr y shoul d continu e to develop , refine , an d encourag e th e implementatio n o f ne w an d improve d wast e managemen t techniques

. 3 . IrtcreasedtK8tegatforiofwa$temay^ help imprwetnanagementoy oil emdgoa) wastes. Man y commenter s strongl y oppose d th e proposa l fo

r segregatio n of waste s an d believe d tha t th e scop e o

f th e exemptio n i

n RCR A sectio n 300 1 shoul d b e construe d t o include , an d shoul d b e maintaine d for , al l associate d waste s i n additio n t o th e currentl y exemp t large-volum e wastes

. Man y commenter s asserte d tha t mixin g variou s waste s with produce d wate r prio r t o injectio n i s environmentall y saf e an d economicall y beneficia l Othe r commenter s argue d tha t

eac h wast e strea mgenerate d b y th e crud e oi l an d natura l ga s industr y shoul d b e teste d separatel y t o determin e it s RCR A characteristic s an d tha t

waste s determine d t o b e hazardou s accordin g t o RCR A definition s shoul d remai n segregate d an d b e dispose d o f accordin g t o RCR A regulations

. aHB-ttti^uai r claime d tha

tiMB-pKji..,-.^- . ..„„._ , generate d b y Uwoud^oUan d natura l ga s industry are commingle d with * nonhazardou s waste s prio r t o landspreadin g or.injection . causing ^ significan tenvironmental damage. . Th e Agenc y believe s tha tunde r certai n circumstance s wast e segregatio n i s technicall y an d economicall y feasibl e an d environmentall y desirable

. 4

. Stripper

operations constitute a special subcategory of

the oil and gas industry. Man y commenter s strongl y agree d wit h thi s conclusion , statin g tha t ne w o r additiona l Federal regulation s woul d b e financially harmful to alread y economicall y ailin g strippe r wel l operators

. Othe r

commenter s wer e o

f

. th e opinio n tha t

som e strippe r

well s ca n caus e significant

environmenta l damage , whic h mus t

ultimatel y b e pai d fo

r throug h genera l taxes

. Some commenter s urge d tha t

strippe r operation s shoul d b e treate d in th e sam e manne r a s th e res t

o f th e crud e oi l an d natura l ga s industry

. A s previousl y described , th e agenc y recognize s tha t

many , thoug h no t

all , strippe r operation s ar e economicall y vulnerabl e t o an y ne w regulator y burdens

. Strippe r

well s in man y part s o

f th e country ar e als o associate d wit h smaller , independen t

oil an d ga s companie s that

d o no t hav e flexibility in pricin g an d ma

y suffe r disproportionat e economi c impact s fro

man y additiona l regulation

. Th e Agenc y i s require d unde r th e Regulator

y Flexibilit

y Ac t t o evaluat e impact s of

an y ne w regulation s o n smal l busines s enterprises

. - 5

. Documented

damage cases and quantitative modeling results indicate that, when managed

in accordance with State and Federal requirements, exempt oil and gas wastes rarely pose significant

threats to human health and the environment. Opinio n o n thi s conclusio n wa s sharpl y divided

. Some commenter s strongl y agreed , saying tha t Stat e regulation s ar e full

y adequat e t o contro l crud e oil an d natura l ga s operation s an d challenge d th e validit y o f afe w selecte d damag e cases . Other s strongl y oppose d thi s conclusion , saying tha t Stat e an d Federa l regulation s ar e inadequat e an d seldo menforced

. A numbe r o f commenter s state d tha t

man y documente d damag e case s wer e omitte d fro mth e final Repor

t t o Congress

. Som e commenter s provide d studie s an d

. analytica l dat aallegin g environmenta l damag e fro

mcrud e oi l an d natura l ga s wastes ; other s claime d that th e risk modelin g conducte d fo

r th e Repor

t underestimate d damag e t o th e environmen t

an d di d no t

adequatel y characteriz e th e significanc e o f human healt h risks fro

mcrud e oil an d natura l ga s wastes

. A numbe r o f comment s wer e receive d o n th e quantitativ e risk

modelin g o n whic h thi s conclusio n i s partl y based

. Criticism s included : • Th e quantitativ e ris k

modelin g shoul d no t

hav e bee n performe d at

al l becaus e o f th e sever e lac k

o f suitabl e data

. • Th e ris k

analysi s i s fatall y flawe d becaus e i t use d nonconscrvativ e assumptions

. • Value s fo

r input parameter s use d in th e line r locatio n mode l (LLM

) hav e bee n develope d o n th e basi s o f limite d data , worst-cas e assumptions , o r modelin g limitations

. • Th e stud y underestimate s toxicity becaus e to o muc h o

f th e samplin g wa s performe d o n dilute d an d weathere d crud e oi l an d natura l ga s wastes

. • Ver y few o f th e contaminant s a t

th e wast e site s wer e analyzed

. • EP A mad e n o effor

t t o correlat e it s quantitativ e ris k

mode l with th e actua l damag e cases . • Th e health-base d standard s incorporate d in th e mode l ar e insufficientl y documented

. • TCL P extraction s use d i n risk modelin g fo

r reserv e pit s misrepresen t condition s a t

pits

. • Ris k i s overestimate d i n th e risk analysis

. Th e Agenc y believe s th e damag e case s in di e Repor

t to Congres s demonstrat e tha t

violation s o

f existin g Stat e an d Federa l requirement s lea d to mos t observe d damages , althoug h som e damage s hav e bee n show n t o resul t fro mpractice s currentl y allowabl e i n som e States

. Th e risk

assessmen t

als o showe d littl e risk

a t mos t location s fro

m th e managemen t

practice s tha t

wer e analyzed

. Th e Agenc y believe s fro mth e availabl e evidenc e tha t

Stat e regulation s ar e generall y bu t no t entirel y adequat e fo

r management

o f crud e oi l an d natura l ga s wastes

. Additionally , enforcemen t

o f an d complianc e with Stat e regulation s vary widel y fro mStat e .t o State

. . With respec t

t o th e specifi c criticism s o f th e risk modeling , th e Agenc y disagree s tha t

th e modelin g shoul d no t hav e bee n performe d becaus e o f a sever e lac k

o f suitabl e data

. Extensiv e dat awer e gathere d fro

mavariet y o

f sources , includin g EP

A field investigatio n an d wast e samplin g study , numerou s Federa l an d Stat e agencies , a n industr y surve y conducte d b y /*vPI , comment s submitte d o n interi mreport s an d give n durin g pee r

revie w meetings

. ove r 30 0 topographi c maps , automate d dat abases , an d agenera l literatur e review

. Th e Agenc y believe s thes e dat a ar e th e bes t

availabl e an d tha t

the y adequatel y support

arisk assessment

. A s wit h an y detaile d modelin g study , a numbe r o f assumption s i n th e ris k assessmen t

ha d t o b e made , sometime s wit h respec t

to

. value s use d fo

r mode l inputs

. Th e Agenc y reject s th e notion , however , tha t

th e assumption s mad e wer e generall y worst-case , significantl y nonconservative , o r

drive n onl y b y modelin g limitations

. Fo r

mos t variables , severa l realisti c representativ e value s wer e selecte d to evaluat e avariet y o f circumstances

. Wheneve r assumption s wer e made , bes t

availabl e dat aan dP.1 0

2545 2 Federa l Registe r / Vol . 53 , No . 12 9 /

Wednesday . Jul y 6 . 198 8 / Notice s

•Xprofessiona l judgmen twer e used an d proposed approaches were subjected t o pee r review, an

d ofte n outsid e publi c review . A s note d i

n th e abov e comments , som e o

f th e assumptions tended t o resulti n either overestimate s o r underestimate s o

f risk. While over an d underestimate s ar

e inevitabl e i

n an y predictiv e modeling , the Agenc y believe s thei r impact

s o n this stud

y hav e bee n minimize

d b y (1 ) analyzing risks unde

r a wid e rang

e o f condition s acros s the industr

y a s a whole , i

n a n attemp tt o eve n ou tover - an d underestimate s o

f risk fo r an y singl e scenario ; and (2

) full y documentin

g each assumptio n and it s likely effec to n ris k estimates . The Agency disagree s tha tth e wast e characterizatio n use d i

n th e risk assessmen twa s inappropriate . Man y o f EPA' s sample s o

f drillin g wast e were taken fro m open reserve pit

s wher e the wast e coul d hav e been "weathered" , bu t thes e sample s wer e no

tpurposefull

y dilute d an d ar e believe d t

o b e representativ e o

f drillin g wast e a s i

t exist s in a reserve pit. Contrar y t o the abov e comment, all

o f the contaminant

s detecte d i n drilling pi

twast e an

d produced wate r were reviewe d an d considere d a s candidate s fo r th e risk assessmen tTh e eightconstituent s selecte d fo

r quantitative modelin

g were the constituents judge

d mos tlikely t o contribut e mos tsignificandy t

o risk t o healt h o r th e environment

. Th e selectio n o f contaminant

s fo r quantitative modelin g wa s base d o

n their frequenc

y o f detection , concentration , inheren t toxicity , and mobilit

y an d persistenc e i n th e environment. Finally , th e Agenc y use d TCL P extractio n result

s onl y t o mode l leachat e fro

m close d reserve pits (notfro m operating pits) . Whil e uncertaintie s concerning the applicabilit

y o f TCL P test s t o teachabilit

y o f reserv e pitwaste s are acknowledged , the Agenc y believe s th e TCL P results wer e th e bes tdat a availabl e fo

r modeling thi s leachate . The Agency di d notattemptt o correlat e th e risk modeling wit

h the damage case s becaus e the risk assessmen twa s intende d t o complementthe damag

e case s b y focusin g o

n differen tissues . Specifically , th e risk assessmen tanalyze d potentia l curren tan d futur e effect s assuming complianc e wit

h a limited subseto

f typica l existin g regulations, wherea s the damage case s covere d pastan d curren t effects , man

y o f whic h were fo r incidents involvin g regulator y .violations . The risk assessmen tals o focuse d o n mor e subtl e o r ver y long ter m impacts , som e o

f whic h possibl y woul d no tb e evidence d i

n th e contemporar y damag e cas e file . I

n addition , several o

f th e damage case s represented situation s (e.g. . releases throug h abandoned boreholes ) tha t could no tb e modeled adequatel y give n existin g dat

a an d modeling techniques . Other scenario s no

tmodele d includ e annula r deposits , storage o

f produce d wate r i n surfac e impoundments , migratio n o f produce d wate r contaminant

s throug h fractures , and landspreading . (Us e o

f impoundment

s fo r produce d waters an

d landspreadin g ar e bot h stil l frequentl

y practiced. ) Th e Agenc

y believe s tha

tth e health base d standard s incorporate d i n the risk mode l incorporate

d th e bes tavailabl e scientifi c knowledg e a

tdi e tim e o f the study . Thes e standard s and the studie s tha tsuppor tthe m were summarize

d onl y briefl

y i n the Repor

tt o Congress ; readers ar

e referre d t o th e two-volum e technica l backgroun

d reporto n ris k assessmen tfo

r mor e detail. 3 8 . Damages may occurin some instances even where wastes are managed in accordance with currently applicable State and

Federal requirements. No comment s specificall y addresse d mi s conclusion , bu t comment s o n the previou s conclusio n relate i n par

tt o th e substanc e of

thi s one . The quantitative ris

k modelin g showe d tha

tfo r th e specifi c managemen

tpractice s and scenario s modeled , a few crud

e oi l and natura

l ga s site s (les s tha

n five percent

) coul d pos e significantrisks eve n i

f drilling wast e and produce

d wate r wer e managed in accordanc e wit

h existin g regulations . I

n addition , th e damag

e cas e results indicat e tha tsome wast e management practice s permitte

d i n som e State s ca n hav e undesirabl e environmenta l impacts . Thes e practice s includ e landspreadin g o

f hig h chlorid e drilling mud, annula

r disposa l o

f produced water , discharge o f

produced wate r an d drilling fluids t

o tidally affecte d wetlands , discharge o

f produced wate r t o liv e streams , an

d discharg e o

f reserv e pitcontents t

o tundra . 7 . Unplugged

and improperly plugged abandoned

wells can pose significant environmental

problems. Opinion o n thi s conclusio n wa s divided . Man y of th e commenter

s asserte d tha

tther e i s n o evidenc e t

o suppor tthi s conclusion , and tha tStat e regulations adequatel y addres s the potentia

l problems associate d wit

h unplugge

d and improperl y plugge d an d abandone d wells . Other

s felttha ti ti s economicall y • S*?io»4» *

1 U.S . EPA . Decembe r 1987 . Offic e o f Soli d Waste . Onshor e Oi l an d Ca s Exploration . Developmen tan d Production : Huma n Healt h an d Environmenta l Ris k Assessment . infeasibl e t o plu g o r re-plu g abandone d 'Ai. well s properly . Conversely , commenters , : i|S . agreeing wit

h thi s conclusio n mentione d ^& : specifi c instance s i

n whic h unplugge

d H^ : well s hav e cause d significan t'A&- & contaminatio n o

f ground-wate r supplies . "'£$£• Some State regulatory agencie s : ^r^^ i commente d tha

tinadequate fund

s ar e "Va*-^ . availabl e t

o properl y plu g al l abandone d "*" A " wells . The Agency believe s ther e i s adequat e evidenc e t

o indicate a potential threa

tt o groun d wate r fro

m unplugged and improperl

y plugged abandone d well s base d o n th e larg e numbe r of unplugge d o r improperl

y plugged abandone d wells , th e difficult y __ i n observin g pluggin

g o f abandone d 4j*£p$ wells , and th

e difficult y in enforcing [x ' '' **"

' State regulation s o

n plugging o

f i~.!Jt: abandone d wells . Th

e damag e case s *•*•$.. collecte d an

d the information presente d '$£$ t o th e /Vgenc y suppor tthi s conclusion . .;;V«r ^ Th e Agenc

y recognize s tha

tthe ful l .yi/s K exten to f the proble

m i s notwel l ••

• •.yV^SgJ.Tdefined . The Agency als o recognize s i^&fi thathig h cost s coul d b e incurred i f al l <^ ~ unplugged o

r improperl

y plugged ^ abandone d well s were required t o b e plugged , and tha

tsuch a requiremen

t ma y notb e necessary , a s no tal l LCHS&I J unplugged o

r Improperl

y plugge d ^'i^teg ? abandone d well s pos e a problem . .s.bisjgfe . 8 . Discharges of

drilling muds and

:i$g?b produced waters to surface waters have.j£jg caused locally significant

- -v'T^sS s environmental

damage where —sW5 ? discharges are not

in compliance with :

t*2>&; - State and Federal statutes and

" '^ ^ regulations orwhere NPDES permits [•? \& have not been issued. Comment

s wer e '~j§~ . divide d o n thi s issu e eve n among thos e •'ry— j wh o wer e critica

l o f simila r conclusions ; ^ som e agreed , whil e other s state d tha tfftyther e i s n o evidenc e tha

tdrillin g mud

s ''SCrX o r produced wate r caus e environmenta l ^j . damage . Som e state d tha tbot h drilling '•&% mud s an d produced wate r ar e relatively ~£.,A nonhazardou s and nontoxic . Several Vtji comment s specifi c t o Alask a state d tha t"vT ; th e Clea n Wate r Ac tadequatel y ; "?; f regulate s the managemento f large - •'•'}? \ • volum e waste s in Alaska . • ' • ' *•'• » >• * Thos e agreein g wit h thi s conclusio n • . '•'.:: 'ofte n argue d tha tcurren tStat e an d Federa l regulation s ar e no tadequat e o r- ar e no tenforce d properly . The y als o asserte d tha tdrillin g mud s an d " • produce d water s contai n RCR A hazardou s constituent s an d hav e cause d significan tenvironmenta l damage . Documente d damag e case s indicat e tha tdisposa l o f

drillin g mud s an d produce d water s i n violatio n o f Stat e regulation s an d wher e NPDE S permit s hav e no tbee n issued , ha s clearl y cause d damage s t o th e environmen tan d endangere d huma n health , particularl yP.1 1

Federa l Registe r

/ Vol

. 53

. No

. 12 9 /

Wednesday

. Jul y 6

. 198 8 / Notice s 2545 3

«« ;

IP's 

# '£" • i

n Alaska , th e Gulf

Coas t an d di e Appalachia n States

. Also , discharge s o f produce d wate r

fro mstrippe r

wel l t o surfac e water s wer e estimate d t o caus e cance r risks greate r

tha n on e i n on e hundre d thousan d in roughly 1 7 percen t o f th e conservativ e case s studie d i n th e quantitativ e ris k

modelin g for90l h percentil e produce d wate r constituen t concentrations

. 9 . Forthe nation as a whole. Kg u la Hon of

allot'} and

gas field wastes underunmodified

Subtitle C

of RCRA would have a substantial

impact on the U.S. economy. Thos e agreein g wit h thi s conclusio n di d s o strongly , statin g tha t RCR A regulations applie d to th e crud e oi l an d natura l ga s industry woul d caus e th e los s o f asignifican t

numbe r o f jobs

. Some sai d tha t

RCR A regulatio n woul d increas e oi l import s an d pos e athrea t t o nationa l security

. Other s claime d tha t th e potentia l cost s l o industr y hav e bee n underestimated

. Thos e in favo r

o f regulatin g waste s determine d to b e RCRA-hazardou s generall y recognize d th e potential economi c impact s o f

regulation, bu t nevertheles s believe d tha t suc h waste s shoul d b e dispose d o

f consisten t

wit h RCR A Subtitl e C requirements

. I n specifi c comment s o n th e methodologie s use d t o analyz e thes e issues , som e commenter s believe d tha t th e lowe r 4 8 Stat e mode l mask s o r understate s cost s an d impact s i n som e regions , an d tha t

dat alimitation s an d exclusion s o f

som e cost s lea d t o understate d economi c impact s i n al l scenarios

. Som e commenter s state d tha t th e numbe r

o f economicall y margina l well s tha t woul d b e force d t o shu t

dow n i f RCR A Subtitl e C regulation s wer e impose d ha s bee n underestimated , an d tha t certai n assumption s i n th e mode l ar e unrealisti c Some commente d tha t th e analysi s ignore s impact s o n undiscovere d energ y reserve s an d ga s production

. Takin g th e opposite poin t o f view , othe r commenter s argue d tha t th e cos t analysi s ignore s publi c healt h cost s associate d wit

h continue d imprope r disposa l of

crud e oi l an d natura l ga s wastes , an d tha t

th e repor t

doe s no t tak e int o accoun t

th e financia l consequence s o

f contaminatio n o f groun d wate r

an d othe r

natura l resources . Som

e claime d tha t

long-term financia l burden s t o taxpayer s t o mitigat e environmenta l damage , t o provid e health care , an d to sustain

financia l burde n fro

mlos t productivity , wil l b e greate r

tha n th e cos t

t o th e crud e oil an d natura l ga s industry to preven t that damage

. Th e Agenc y believe s tha t it s estimate s o f impact s t o th e industr y o f ful l regulatio n unde r

RCR A Subtitl e Cor e reasonabl e an d tha t suc h impact s woul d b e substantia l Th e Agenc y acknowledge s tha i cost s relate d t o publi c health effect s an d contaminatio n o f groun d wate r

an d othe r

natura l resource s becaus e o

f imprope r disposa l o f crud e oi l an d natura l ga s waste s hav e no t bee n determined

. 10 . Regulation of

all exempt wastes under full, unmodified

RCRA Subtitle C appears unnecessary and impractical

at this time. Opinio n wa s divide d o n thi s conclusion

. Thos e agreein g di d s o strongly , whil e thos e oppose d generall y state d tha t

if awast e i s RCR

A hazardous , i t

shoul d b e treate d unde r RCR A regulation s regardles s o f it

origin

. Man y of

thos e i n disagreemen t with thi s conclusio n argue d tha t th e crud e oi l an d natura l ga s industr y ca n afford th e financia l burde n o f RCR A regulation

. Fo r reason s describe d i n Sectio n I V of thi s regulator y determination , th e Agenc y continue s t o believ e tha t regulatio n of

al l crud e oi l an d natura l ga s waste s unde r

RCR A Subtitl e C i s unnecessar y an d impractica l Th e Agenc y believe s tha t

thes e waste s ca n b e manage d i n amanne r

s o a s t o protec t huma n healt h an d th e environmen t withou t regulatin g the munde r

RCR A Subtide C 11 . States have adopted

variable approaches to waste management. Mos t commenter s agree d with thi s conclusion , ba t ther e wa s considerabl e disagreemen t

ove r whethe r curren t Stat e regulations ar e adequatel y designe d an d enforced

. Variabl e approache s t o wast e management

ar e partl y th e resul t

o f varyin g environmenta l conditions , geology , an d economic s amon g th e producin g States

. EP

A believes , however , tha t

ther e ar e man y case s wher e mor e stringen t

requirement s ar e bot h feasibl e an d desirable , an d tha t man y State s hav e recognize d thi s i n change s mad e t o thei r

regulation s i n th e las t fe w years . Som

e State s hav e take n significan t

leadershi p role s i n th e developmen t

of mor e environmentall y protectiv e requirements

. 12 . Implementation of

existing State and Federal requirements is a central issue in formulating recommendations in response to section 8002(m). Opinio n wa s divide d o n thi s conclusion

. Som e commenter s urge d that

existin g Stat e an d Federa l regulation s ar e adequat e an d tha t additiona l Stat e o r

Federa l regulation s ar e unnecessar y an d impractical

. Other s argue d tha t existin g Stat e an d Federa l regulations hav e no t bee n adequatel y enforce d an d tha t additiona l Federa l regulation s ar e necessary . Th e Agenc y believe s tha t th e desi-grt, enforcement , an d implementatio n of existin g Stat e an d Federa l regulation s ca n clearl y b e improved

. Public comments on the Geothermol Energy Portion of

Report to Congress.- Onl y tw o comment s specificall y addresse d geotherma l energ y wastes

. On e commente r

presente d additiona l Informatio n relatin g to damage s resultin g fro

mth e offsit

e disposa l o f geotherma l energ y productio n waste s (suc h a s hydroge n sulfid e abatemen t waste s whic h tes t

nonhazardbu s b y Californi astandards ) in commercia l ' facilities : Th e informatio n allege d potentia l damage s and

for risk b y contaminatio n o

f surfac e an d groun d wate r fro mth e disposa l o

f hydroge n sulfid e abatemen t

waste s In centralize d o r commercia l disposa l facilitie s hi California

. Thes e facilitie s ar e designate d strictl y fo

r th e disposa l of geotherma l energ y productio n waste s determine d t o b e nonhazardou s b y Californi astandards

. Th e othe r commente r

specificall y addressin g geotherma l energy , full y supporte d th e conclusion s o f th e repor t an d state d tha t

th e Californi astatute s regardin g th e managemen t o f geotherma l energ y waste s ar e comprehensiv e an d effective

. Th e Agenc y continue s t o belrev e tha t geotherma l energ y waste s ar e generall y wel l regulate d unde r

existin g Stat e an d Federa l programs . However , th e Agenc y acknowledge s tha t

a t leas t on e significan t

undesirabl e disposa l practic e i s Occurrin g an d ha s take n thi s int o consideratio n i n makin g thi s final regurator y determination

. 

### RB^rn.inatkmoft1iatScopettfthe , Tavmp^JfaayRCJjfc'&aaptkut Base d o n th e languag e o f RCR A sectio n 3001(b)(2)(A ) of

th e 19K T amendment s t o RCRA , revie w o f th e statute , an d supportin g legislativ e history

. tl_

r Agenc y beheve s tha t

th e foDbwin f waste s wer e fincfuded i n th e Kinpofsr** * *fBWHpWfr

r se t fort h i n th e statute . • Produce d water

. • Drillin g fluids;

• Dril l cuttings ;

• Rigwash ;

• Drillin g fluids an d cutting s fro m offshore operation s dispose d o f onshore ; • Geotherma l productio n fluids ; an d

• Hydroge n sulfid e abatemen t waste s fro mgeotherma l energ y production

. • Wel l completion , treatmen t an d stimulatio n Quids ; • Basi c sedimen t

an d wate r

an d othe r tank bottom s fromstorag e facilitie s tha t hol d produc t

an d exemp t

waste :2545 4 Federa l Registe r / Vol . 53 . No . 12 9 /

Wednesday . Jul y 6 . 198 8 / Notice s

• - Accumulitt«d^Mterials»uch . hydrbca^boaa^McS^imWQiitnd^- . emulsio n fro m producliim^ptuatbrs j fluid treatin g vessels , an^goductioi v Impoundments ; • Pi tsludge s an d contaminate d bottom s fro m storag e o r disposa l o f exemp twastes ; • Workove r wastes ; • Ga s plan tdehydratio n wastes , includin g glycol-base d compounds , glyco l filters, filte r media , backwash , an d molecula r sieves ; • Ga s plan tsweetenin g waste s fo r sulfu r removal , includin g amines , amin e filters, amin e filter media , backwash , precipitate d amin e sludge , iro n sponge , an d hydroge n sulfid e scrubbe r liqui d an d sludge ; • Coolin g towe r blowdown ; • Spen tfilters, filter media , an d backwas h (assumin g th e filter itsel f i s no thazardou s an d th e residu e i n i ti s fro m a n exemp twast e stream) ; • Packin g fluids;

• Produce d sand : • Pip e scale , hydrocarbo n solids , hydrates , an d othe r deposit s remove d fro m pipin g an d equipmen tprio r t o transportation : - '

• Hydrocarbon-bearin g soil ; • Piggin g waste s fro m gatherin g lines ; • Waste s fro m subsurfac e ga s storag e an d retrieva l excep tfo r th e nonexemp t waste s liste d below ;

- • Constituent s remove d fro m produce d wate r befor e i ti s injecte d o r otherwis e dispose d of : • Liqui d hydrocarbon s removed fro m th e productio n strea m bu tno tfro m oi l refining;

• Gase s fro m th e productio n stream , suc h a s hydroge n sulfid e an d carbo n dioxide , an d volatilize d hydrocarbons ; • Material s ejecte d fro m a producin g wel l durin g th e proces s know n a s blowdown ; • Wast e crud e oi l fro m primar y field operation s an d production ; an d

• Ligh torganic s volatilize d fro m exemp twaste s i n reserv e pit s o r impoundment s o r productio n equipmen t Th e Agency / followin g i di e origina l exeih p • Unuse d fracturin g fluid s o r acids ; • Ca s plan tcoolin g towe r cleanin g wastes : • Paintin g wastes : • Oi l an d ga s servic e compan y wastes , suc h a s empt y drums , dru m rinsate . vacuu m truc k rinsate, sandblas t media , paintin g wastes , spen tsolvents , spille d chemicals , an d wast e acids : • Vacuu m truc k an d dru m rinsate fro m truck s an d drum s transportin g o r containin g non-exemp twaste : • Refiner y wastes ; • Liqui d an d soli d waste s generate d b y crud e oi l an d tan k botto m reclaimers ^

• Use d equipmen tlubricatio n oils : • Wast e compresso r oil , filters, an d blowdown : • Use d hydrauli c fluids:

• Wast e solvents ; • Wast e i n transportatio n pipeline relate d pits : ; • . Causti c o r aci d cleaners ; • Boile r cleanin g wastes :

. • Boile r refractor y bricks : • • Boile r scrubbe r fluids , sludges , an d

• ash : . .

. . . __ . . _' ; • Incinerato r ash ; • Laborator y wastes ; • Sanitar y wastes ; • Pesticid e wastes : • Radioactiv e trace r wastes ;

. * Drums, ' insulation , an d miscellaneou s solids . I n orde r t o determin e th e scop e o f th e exemption , th e Agenc y reviewe d th e statut e an d legislativ e history . Th e Agenc y interpret s th e ter m "other* ? waste * associated " to inchtd * rigwastt dril l cuttings , an d waste s create d b y ^ agent s use d to facilitating th e extraction , developmen tan d productio n o f th e • resource , an d waste s produce d b y f remmins amtaminant s prio r t o th e " transportatio n o r refinin g o f th e i '•*• • resource. ; Dril l cutting s an d rigwash ar e ; generall y co-mingle d wit h drillin g muds , an d th e Agenc y therefor e ha s groupe d the m wit h large-volum e waste s fo r purpose s o f

discussio n i n thi s

. determination . Th e remainin g waste s o n th e abov e lis to f

exemp twaste s ar e considere d "associate d wastes " fo r purpose s o f

thi s determination . I n e Agenc y ha s determine d tha t produce d wate r injecte d fo r enhance d recover y i s no ta wast e fo r purpose s o f RCR A regulatio n an d therefor e i s no t. subjec tt o contro l unde r RCR A Subtitl e C o r RCR A Subtitl e D . Produce d wate r use d i n enhance d recover y i s beneficiall y recycle d an d i s a n integra l ' par to f som e crud e oi l an d natura l ga s productio n processes . Produce d wate r Injecte d i n thi s manne r i s alread y regulate d b y th e Undergroun d Injectio n Contro l progra m unde r th e Saf e Drinkin g Wate r Act . Th e Agenc y notes , however , tha ti f th e produce d wate r i s store d i n surfac e impoundment s prio r t o injection , i tma y b e subjec tt o RCR A Subtitl e D regulations . III . Factor s Considere d i n Regulator y Determinatio n Sectio n 3001(b)(2)(B ) o f

RCR A state s tha ti n makin g th e regulatory determination , th e Agenc y mus t"utiliz e th e informatio n develope d o r accumulate d pursuan tt o th e stud y require d unde r sectio n 8002(m). " Clearly , Congres s envisione d tha tth e ?::'•" determinatio n woul d b e base d o n al l j ..*..;'* factor s specificall y enumerate d i n ...';••£"• . sectio n 8002(m) . a s wel l a s genera l . . r r <-C;.;: ; issue s raise d b y th e tex to f sectio n ••-, £.•;•>•* " 8002(m ) a s a whole . Therefore , i n .•.;. ; ~.; : *- ''y : makin g today' s determination . EP A "£$•*•; . considere d no tjus tth e impac to f thes e Jv^^jSw;. . waste s o n huma n healt h an d th e .„ • .•>':»_:!"2£? . _ environment , bu tals o th e othe r factor s • ;'£$, £ tha tRCR A sectio n 8002(m ) require d ^^JJ . EP A t o study . • • >'.\.Xi%i : -. ' Specifically . EPA considere d thre e -;<-ii^fcV ; majo r factor s i n developin g thi s * , .: ' , »:'.-tt;*»i»r3'.

- T determination : (1 ) Th e characteristics ; rw^T^Vi } managemen tpractices , an d impact s o f ---.T^yijl . oil . gas . ari d geotherma l waste s o n '.:•">['/&£'• huma n healt h an d th e environment : (2 ) > , i"" ^ ' th e adequac y o f

existin g Stat e an d '• : '-*'ii2£ t "• Federa l regulatory program s fo r ••.•• T.^ifr ; controllin g thes e wastes : an d (3)-th e '•*>•»*;«?» £ economi c impact s o f

an y additiona l . --"'••• : >^* . regulation s o n th e exploratio n for , an d \^{J&1> developmen tan d productio n of . crud e •_".

• l^ V o i l natura l gas . andgeotherma tenergy . . '.,~j*$m, ' Sectio n 8002(m ) require d EP A t o stud y /':.*&" , eac h o f thes e factors . •'. ••'-••* ,-.$£. TV . Regulator y Determinatio n fo r Crud e ..'«j£ f !•-' * Oi l an d Natura l Ga s Waste s '.- • ".-> M -iffir.

. Th e followin g discussio n summarizes,^*^,,^ . informatio n o n th e thre e majo r factor s '^££«?•*.' < (discusse d above ) use d i n makin g thi s -;;• vjj;^_ - regulator y determinatio n an d the n :^;r?r,^*,&j: present s EPA' s conclusion s an d v V&L^ii&'i^'. ; rational e fo r th e regulatory •• • •'*"' • *^\v#»f; . determinatio n fo r crud e oi l an d nationa l •. 'Ht^.' - ga s wastes . Th e informatio n \. :..^;\'5>.*Uv summarize d her e incorporate s •''•;••-'•-v^»- ' informatio n receive d durin g th e publi c : ?•'>'[•.% commen tperio d an d additiona l • !.'•;-;,:\.^i ' - refinemen to f

th e dat a presente d i n .';'. . .'.v ; . * EPA' s Decembe r 198 7 Repor tt o . ,^*;?i| ; rr r .v > Congress . '-.' • • •'**'• . ^-M-v A . Hazard Assessment Fo r th e Repor

tt o Congress , EP

A .•'•v f '_ . >'.-*•* ; conducte d a limite d analysi s whic h ;.';-: : . '

• modele d th e potential effects o f disposal . - o f drillin g wast e in reserv e pit s an d the H

: disposa l of

produced wate r b y MT " *v : underground injectio n an d foun d tha t th e potentia l risk s t

o huma n healt h an d . . th e environmentwer e small . Onl y a fe w constituent s appeared t

o b e of majo r .] -/\ concer n whe n thes e waste s are :'•'•>. - manage d i n accordanc e wit h existin g Stat e an d Federa l regulations . Th e actua l threat s pose d wer e largel y dependen tupo n site-specifi c factor s suc h a s population s o r sensitiv e ecosystems . Othe r managemen t practice s suc h a s storag e o f produce d wate r i n unline d pit s wer e no tmodele d an d ma y pos e highe r risks . Analysi s o f

field dat a collecte d b y EP A an d presente d i n th e Januar y 198 " technica l repor tshow s tha ta portio n o f oi l an d ga s waste s contai n constituent s ' • ••=•4'.'"*"?

.P.1 3

Federa l Registe r /

Vol . 53 . No . 12 9 /

Wednesday . Juf

y 8 , 198 8 /

Notice s 2545 3

o f concern abov e EP

A health - o r environmental-base d standards . Fo r example , waste s a

t7 percento

f th e site s generatin g drilling fluids and 2 3 percen t o f th e statisticall y weighte d sampl e site s generatin g produced wate r contai n on e o r mor e of th e toxi c constituent s of concern a tlevel s greate r tha

n 100 time s th e health-base d standards . The constituent s typicall y exceedin g th e standard s in drilling fluids ar e fluoride, lead , cadmium , an d chromium . Th e constituent s exceedin g th e standard s i n produced wate r ar e benzene ! arsenic , barium , an d boron . I

n addition , waste s a t78 percentof

th e sampl e site s generatin g drilling fluids, an d 75 percent o f th e sampl e site s generatin g produce d water , contai n chloride s a tlevel s greate r tha n 1.00

0 time s th e EP

A secondary maximu

m contaminantleve l for chloride . Lik

e large-volum e wastes , assodate d waste s contai n a wid e • variet y o f hazardou s constituents . Man y associate d waste s contai n constituents tha tar e simila r m chemica l composition * and/o r toxicit y t o othe r waste s currentl y regulate d under RCR

A Subtitl e C . The presenc e o

f constituent s i n concentration s exceedin g health - o r environmental-base d standard s doe s notnecessaril y mea

n thatthes e waste s pos e significan trisks t o huma n health an d the environment . I

n evaluatin g th e risks t o human healt

h and th e environment , severa l factor s beyon d th e toxicit y o f th e wast e shoul d b e considered . Thes e factor s includ e th e rat e o f release o f contaminant

s fro m differentmanagementpractices , th e fate an d transpor

to f thes e contaminants i n th e environment , an d th e potential for huma n health o r ecologica l exposur e t o th e contaminants . On th e basi s o f

availabl e data . EP

A ca n onl y roughl y estimat e ho w muc h currentl y exemp toi l an d ga s wast e woul d b e considere d hazardou s unde r curren to r propose d RCR

A Subtitl e C standards . I

ti s clea r thatsom e portion s o f bot h th e large-volum e an d associate d wast e woul d hav e t o b e treate d a s hazardou s i

f th e Subtitl e C exemptio n wer e lifted . EP

A estimate s tha

t approximatel y 1 0 t o 7 0 percen to f large volum e waste s an d 40

" t o 6 0 percen tof associate d waste s coul d potentiall y exhibi tRCR

A hazardou s wast e characteristic s under EPA' s regulator y tests . EP A ha s documente d 6 2 damage case s cause d b y crud e oi l and natura l ga s wastes . Becaus e large-volum e waste s an d associate d waste s are - ofte n manage d and dispose d o f together, i

ti s often difficul tt

o isolat e th

e specifi c wast e strea m tha

tcontribute d greates t t o the-damage . However , availabl e dat a doe s notindicat e tha

tsignificant damage ca

n occu r fro

m mismanagemen t of bot h farge-vofum

e waste s an d associate d wastes . EP

A believe s that mosto f thes e damage s coul d hav e been prevente d i f

th e waste s ha

d bee n manage d in accordanc e wit h existin g Stat e an d Federa

l requirements . However , becaus e o f

certai n regulator

y gaps , damage s hav e occurred eve n wher e waste s ar e managed in complianc e wit

h existin g requirements . B. Economic Impact

Analysis. Applicatio n o

f RCR A Subtitl e C t o exploration , development , an d production waste s coul d b e extremel y costl y i f larg e portion s of

thes e waste s wer e hazardous . Th e Agenc y estimate s tha timplementatio n o

f RCR A Subtitl e C o n 1 0 t o 7 0 percen to

f th e large-volum e drilling wast e and non-EO Rproduce d wate r woul d cos tth e industr y an d consumer s S i billio n t o S& 7 billio n pe r yea r i n complianc e cost s (no tincludin g cost s fo r lan d ba n o r correctiv e action ; regulation s mandate d b y Congress) . Thi s woul d red_c e domesti c productio n b y a s muc

h a s 1 2 percent . i n respons e t o question s raise d subsequen tt o th e Repor

tof Congress , th e Agency als o conducte d a preliminar

y evaluatio n o f

th e likel y rang e o f potential complianc e cost s an d industr y impact s thatcoul d resul tfro m removal o f th e RCR A Subtitl e C exemptio n for associate d wastes . Th e Agency' s preliminar

y estimat e i s tha t th e cos tt o di e crude oi l an d natura l ga s industr y o f RCR A Subtitl e C managemen

tfo r associate d waste s woul d rang

e betwee n S20

0 millio n an d S55 0 millio n pe r year . Thes e cos t estimate s ar

e base d o n America n Petroleu m Institut e survey estimate s o n th e quantitie s of

associate d waste s produce d and thei r curren tmanagemen t practices , togethe r with th e Agenc y assumptio n tha

t4 0 t o 6 0 percento

f thes e waste s migh

trequire managementunde r RCR A Subtitl e C , and Agency estimate s of the probabl e rang

e o f uni tcost s fo r managing thes e variou s wast e types . However , i ti s importan

tt o not e that thes e estimate s d o notinclud e the cos t of correctiv e action . Th e applicatio n o f correctiv e actio n requirement s t o facilitie s tha

tmanage associate d waste s on-sit e woul d impos e substantia l cost s o n th e unit

s managin

g th e associate d waste s a s wel l a s any othe r soli d wast e managementunit

s tha texis twithi n th e facilit y boundarie s t

o th e exten ttha

tth e waste s continu e t

o b e managed on-site . Sinc e nearl y half

o f the associate d waste s ar e currentl

y manage d on-site , thi s coul d resul ti

n significan tcost s t

o th e industry . Th e cos testimate s als o assum e tha

t"land-ban " treatmen

tof hazardou s solid s and sludge s consist s o f recyclin g and resource recovery . I ti s . likel y tha tsom e fractio

n o f thes e waste s woul d nee d t

o b e incinerate d i n complianc e with, th

e treatmen

t standard s establishe d by the "land ban.' * implyin g highe

r cost s o f regulatin g

. th e associate d waste s unde r Subtitl e C C. Adequacy of

State and Federal Regulatory Programs

. EP A evaluate d Stat

e regulations pertaining t

o large-volume waste s an d associate d wastes . Often , som e o f thes e waste s ar e co-mingled an d dispose d of together . Consequently , the y ar e usuall y managed together unde

r on e regulator

y progra m atth e State level . Wit h regar d t o large-volume wastes . EP A found mos texistin g State regulations ar e generall y adequat e fo r protectin g huma

n healt h and th e environment . Mos

tState s hav e requirement

s specificall y controllin g th e managemen

to f drilling muds an d produced waters . However , certain gap s d o exis tin Stat e regulations fo r large volum e wastes . Fo

r example , som e - State s d o nothav e adequate requirement

s controllin g roadspreadin g o r landspreadin g o

f large-volume wastes , desig n o

r maintenanc e rules fo

r reserve, pits , orhav e insufficient managemen

tspecification s fo r centralize d an d commercia l disposa l facilities . A s note d previously . EP A als o foun d damage s whic h occurre d du e t o surfac e discharge s notprohibited b y Stat e regulation . • - Anothe r regulator

y gap fo r som e State s ar e control s fo

r associate d wastes . MostStat e regulation s d o not includ e specifi c control s fo r the managementof

thes e wastes . Genera) standard s ar e ofte n difficul tt o enforc e unles s a specifi c pollutio n inciden ti s discovere d an d ca n b e attribute d t o a particular wast e disposa l event . However , a fe w State s such a s Texa s d o specificall y addres s assodate d waste s and other State s hav e genera l standard s tha tprovid e partia

l contro l o

f thes e wastes . The Agency ha s examine d change s inStat e regulator

y program

s ove r th e pas t tw o years . Some State s hav e improve d thei r regulations , whit

e other State s hav e relaxed specifi c wast e managemen

trequirements. Fo

r example , whil e reserv e pitmanagemen tha s bee n strengthene d in som e States , othe r State s hav e relaxe d control s pertaining ; ' t o land applicatio n o

f large-volume wastes . Problems als o remai n regarding adequat e State implementation an d enforcemen

to f existin g regulations . Th e Agency als o evaluate d the Federa f Undergroun

d Injection Contro

lP.1 4

2545 6 Federa l Registe r / Vol . 53 . No . 12 9 /

Wednesday . Jul

y 6 . 198 8 /

Notice s (UIC ) progra m unde r th e Saf e Drinkin g Wate r Ac tan

d regulator

y program

s unde r the Clea n Wate r Act . Th e UI

C progra m effectivel y control s undergroun

d injectio n fro

m th e poin

tof th e wellhead , whil e th e NPDE S progra m addresse s poin

tsourc e discharge s t

o surfac e wate r bodies . Thes e program s ar e particularl

y importan

tin controllin g managemen

to f large-volum e wastes . However , EP

A ha s identifie d certai n gap s i n thes e programs . Fo

r example . UI C regulation s currently allo w th e practic e o f annula r disposa l an

d lac k unifor m mechanica

l integrit y testin g standards . The Clea

n Wate r Act regulator y progra m gap s includ e the lac

k of nationa l effluen tlimitation s a

tthe Bes tAvailabl e Technolog y Economicall y Achievabl e (BAT ) and Bes tConventiona

l Pollutan tContro l Technolog y (BCT

) levels . Thes e national limitation s ar

e neede d t

o mor e effectivel y dea

l wit h discharge s fro

m facilitie s i n th e onshore and coasta l subcategorie s of

th e industry . EP

A als o foun d tha timprovement

s arc neede d regarding implementatio n and enforcemento

f existin g regulations . Th e Agenc y ha s already undertaken step s t o addres s thes e deficiencies : thes e are discusse d i

n Sectio n V of

today' s notice . Finally , EP

A evaluate d th e existin g Federa l criteria unde

r Subtitl e D o

f \ '. RCRA . Thes e criteri a (40 CF

RPar t257 ) includ e genera

l environmental performanc

e standard s applicabl e t

o th e disposa l of

any soli d waste , includin g oi l gas . and geotherma

l wastes . Thes e criteri a includ e among othe r tilings, standard s related t

o surfac e wate r discharges , ground-wate r .-.... ' contamination , and endangere d species . Becaus e the programs ' criteri a are aimed principall y a

tmunicipa

l soli d waste , EP A believe s the

y d o notno w full

y addres s oi l and ga s wast e concerns . I n addition , man

y o f thes e criteria , such a s control of diseas e vector s an d aviatio n hazards , ar

e no tappropriat

e for oi l and ga s waste . Nevertheless . EP A ha s authorit y unde r Subtitl e D t o tailo r requirement

s appropriat

e for th e disposa l o

f oi l and ga s wastes . D. Conclusions Th e Agency ha s decide d nott o promulgat

e regulation s unde

r Subtitl e C fo r large-volum e and associate d waste s generate d b

y the exploration , developmen tand productio n of crud e oi l and natura

l gas . The Agency decisio n i s buse d o n th e followin g reasons : (1 ) Subtitl e C contain s a

n unusually large numbe

r o f highly detaile d statutor

y requirements , som e o

f which ar e no t only extremel y costly , bu tals o are unnecessary fo

r th e saf e managemen

to f oil an d ga s wastes . Subtitl e C doe s not . however , allo w the Agenc y t o conside r cost s wher e applying thes e requirement s t o oi l and ga s wastes . Consequently . EP A woul d no

tb e abl e t

o craf ta regulator y progra m t o reduc e o r eliminate th e seriou s economi c impact s tha ti tha s predicted . Thus , i

n ligh to f Congress ' concern fo

r the protectio n o

f the nation' s futur

e energ y supply , Subtitl e C regulations mus tb e considere d unwarranted . A tailored Subtitl e D program

, b y contrast, wil l enabl e th e Agency t

o appl y all necessar y requirement

s t o the ' l managemento

f thes e wastes , whil e ensurin g tha

teconomi c impact

s ar e minimized . (2) A s discusse d i

n Sectio n II

. B. . Congres s ha s indicate d tha tSubtitl e C regulation s ar

e unwarrante

d wher e existin g program

s ca n b e employe d t

o protecthuma

n healt h an d th e

. environmentfro

m th e problem s create d b y oi l and ga s wastes . EP A ha s conclude d that

, i n fact , existin g Stat

e and Federa

l program s ar e generall y adequate , and tha

tremainin

g gap s ca n b e filled b y modifyin

g thes e programs . Subtitl e C regulation is . therefore , unwarranted . Moreover, Subtitl e C , wit h it s comprehensiv e "cradle t o grave " managementrequirement , simply i s no

t wel l suite d t

o thi s typ e of

gap-fillin g regulation . I

ti s thu s bot h mor e efficient an d appropriat

e t o fill the gap s b y strengthenin g regulations unde r the Clean Wate r Actan

d UI C progra m and promulgating the remainin g rules neede d unde r RCR

A unde r th e les s prescriptive statutory authoritie s se tou tin Subtitl e D . (3 ) Sinc e th e State s and EP A hav e consistentl y require

d lon g period s o

f tim e t o proces s Subtitl e C permits , regulatio n unde

r Subtitl e C coul d delay : th e starto

f operation s a

tne w facilities . • Thes e delay s woul d b e particularl y disruptiv e t

o the exploratio n phas e o f oil an d ga s development . (4) Subtitl e C regulation o f thes e waste s woul d subjectthe m t o al l o f th e lan d disposa l restrictio n requirements , includin g BDAT . an

d thu s could severel y strai n existin g Subtitl e C facilit y capacity . (5 ) Th e Agenc y believe s tha titi s impractica

l and inefficien

tt o implemen

t Subtitl e C for al l o

r som e o f thes e waste s becaus e o

f the disruption and . i

n som e cases , duplicatio n o f State authoritie s tha

tadminister program

s throug h organizationa

l structures tailore d t o th e oil an

d ga s industry . (6 ) I ti s impractica

l an d inefficientt

o implementSubtitl e C fo

r all o r som e o f thes e waste s becaus e o

f th e permittin

g burde n tha tth e regulator

y agencie s woul d incu

r i f eve n a smal

l percentag e o

f thes e site s were considere d Treatment

. Storag e an d Disposal Facilitie s (TSDFs) . V . Effort s t o Improv e Stat e an d Federa l Program s The Agenc

y plan s a three-pronge

d approac h towar d filling th e gap s i

n existin g Stat

e an d Federa l program s tha t'-_) ? regulat e th e managemen

to f waste s fro

m % th e crud e oil . and natura

l gas , industries . J ^ Thi s effor twill include : 1 . Improvin

g Federa l program s using , ; existin g authorities unde

r Subtitl e D o

f " • RCR A an d the Clea

n Water an

d Saf e ••* : Drinkin g Water Acts : 2 . Workin g wit h th e State s t

o '• t •'•• encourag e change s i

n their regulation s " and enforcemen

tprogram s t o achiev e £ mor e uniformit

y i n th e administratio n of

' their programs ; an

d - '•."•

- 3 . Workin g wit h Congres s t

o develo p "'-*•

. an y additiona

l statutor y authorit y tha t may b e required . '-* ^"Kjjrfc r A. Federal

Program improvements . •;.;s r ;^v'^ ? Within Existing Authorities . - . .'U^SS T

• • • . •—.*-f>Vi*s""st . 1 . Clean Water an

d Saf e Drinkin g Wate r ^/j^g* ^ ActProgram

s . - . ,„, , .. ; ; . ^ J~Jj$i£*jj£ Th e Agenc

y believe s certai n • •'<.-*^\£&yf*8k! r : improvement

s i n th e Saf e Drinkin g -ix\<i'^x ' Wate r and Clea

n Water Act s are ;

• .- > ' * - desirabl e wit

h respec tt o their • -

v _ ^ applicatio n t

o crud e oil an d natura l gas . r^,-

• wastes . I

n th e cas e o f the UI C program, : C

A ' th e Agency ha

d previously determined • ."> . tha ta critica l examinatio n o

f th e overall -fj^t\". progra m wa s in order

. Th e progra m has fr-ftiiV ; no w bee n i

n effectfo r approximately 5. ; <-J5ji- V year s o r more , depending o n when a v';*?;kvr<rK» - State progra

m wa s approved o r a , >4-'>.-.'-!?3if&*J i Federa l progra m wa s promulgate

d i n a .. : f"^54 ' State . Thi s examination , currentl y ;;:'.?•'$j'*;p»^

V underway , include s a revie w o f the <'£i'£*Ji£i£y * adequacy o

f the regulations and policie s ^^' ^ governin g the progra

m an d o f th e way i n •' fc *^'K ^ which State s and EP

A Regions are

. .•'£?£{£%&!'- implementing and enforcing th e •:*•.:***"«s*'^iVr : program. The revie w o

f th e adequac y o f > / ' "~ State implementation i s complex •- • &V-*h becaus e approva

l o f Stat e program

s ; *<>• was . b y statute , governed by a •- ' determinatio n o

f thei r effectivenes s i

n ,-.; ' protectin g undergroun

d source s of

r -.- " drinking water , rathe

r tha n b y thei r ...' . • conformit y wit h minimu m Federa l ; ' - regulations , : '" ! Implementation o

f th e UI C progra m b y th e EP A Regions i s undergoin

g a peer revie w process , whic

h will b e complete d by the fal l o f 1988 . Implementation o

f Ih e Slat e program

s i s reviewe d routinel

y b y the EP A Regions . I

n addition , th

e EPA' s Office o f Drinkin g Water ha s undertaken a cycl e o

f in-dept h review s o f th e UI C program. Th

e California . Texas , an d Kansa s program s were 

# JP.1 5

Federa l Registe r /

Vol . 53 , No . 12 9 /

Wednesday . Jul

y 6 . 198 8 /

Notice s 2545 7 reviewed i

n 1987. A revie w o

f Wyomin g an d a tleas ton e other State , no tye t selected , will b e conducte d i n 1988 . Th

e State s have als o undertake n a pee r review projec

tdirected by th

e Undergroun

d Injection Practice s - Council . Th e Agenc y has forme

d a workgroup , whic h will includ e participation b y th e State s an d other Federa

l agencies , t

o revie w issue s pertinen

tt o th e UI C regulations . The stateg y fo r thi s revie w i s availabl e i n th e RCR

A docket . A final repor tan d the recommendations o f th e workgrou p ar e expecte d t

o b e availabl e i n th e winte r o f 1988-89 . .. . . . I n conjunctio n wit

h th e Clea

n Wate r Act . th e Agency i s currentl

y developin g nationa l discharg e regulation s fo r the offshor e crude oil an

d natura l ga s . . industr y an d i s planning fo

r th e developmento

f nationa l discharg e regulation s fo

r th e coasta l oil an

d ga s industry . Th e coasta l segmentgenerall y include s exploration , developmen tan d production facilitie s tha

tar e locate d i

n o r adjacentt

o tidal wetlands . Thes e regulation s wil l cove r th e discharge s o f produce d water , drilling fluids , dril l cutting s and variou s low-incom e wast e stream s t o surface water s o

f th e U.S . Th e regulation s wil l addres s the bes t availabl e technology (BAT) , bes t conventional technology (BCT ) an d ne w sourc e performanc

e standard s (NSPS ) level s of control . Thes e regulation s ma y resulti n a prohibition o n th e discharg e of a significan tportion of

hig h volum e drilling waste s (drilling fluids an d cuttings ) into U.S . offshor e waters . A s such , thes e waste s wil l b e transported t o shore b y th e offshor

e operators fo

r lan d disposal . Thes e waste s woul d the n b e subjectt

o regulation unde

r RCR A Subtitl e D . Th e Agency i s als o plannin g t o begi n developmen tof

national effluen

t regulation s fo

r onshore stripper oi l and ga s production . Th e onshore strippe r wel l regulation s wil l cove r the discharge s of

produced wate r and wel l treatmen twaste s t

o surfac e water s o f th e U.S . Thes e regulation s wil l b e establishe d atincreasin g level s of stringency compare d t

o th e bes t practicabl e technology (BPT ) leve l o f control . Non-strippe r well s locate d onshor e ar

e alread y subjectt

o a "zero discharge " requiremen

tunder NPDES . 22 . RCRA Subtitle D Approach (a) General

Approach. EP

A believe s i

t ca n desig n and implemen ta progra m specifi c t o crude oi l an

d natura l ga s waste s unde

r Subtitl e D o

f RCR A tha t effectivel y addresse s the risk s associate d wit

h thes e wastes . EP

A i s alread y in th e proces s of

developin g revise d Subtitl e D criteri a fo r facilitie s tha

tma y receive hazardous househol d wast e o r smal l quantit y generato r hazardou s waste s a s wel l a s fo

r minin g waste disposa

l facilities . Th

e Agenc y intend s t o augmen tth e Subtitl e D progra m b y developin g appropriat

e standard s an

d takin g other action s a s appropriat

e fo r crud e oi l an d natura l ga s wastes . I n developing thes e tailored Subtitl e D standard s fo

r crud e oil and natura

l ga s wastes . EP

A will focus o

n gap s i n existin g Stat

e and Federa

l regulation s an d develo p appropriat

e standard s that . ar e protective o

f huma n healt h an d th e environmentGaps i n existin g program s - . includ e adequat

e control s specifi c t

o associate d waste s and certai n - .. . managemen

tpractice s and facilitie s for . . . large-volume wastes , including roadspreading . landspreading , an d impoundments . EP

A i s particularl

y concerned abou

tcentralize d and . -.-- - commercia

l facilitie s tha

ttreat, store , o r dispos e o f oil field waste s i n ..;.: • concentrated form

. Pit s or-...-. . impoundment

s a tthes e facilitie s often contain hazardous constituents i n hig h j concentrations . I

n addition , centralize d facilitie s ar

e responsibl e for som e of

th e mostsignifican

tdamage s th e Agency documented . • ; .-'- ~ •••.-' • T o ensur e prope r contro l ove r oil and ga s disposal facilitie s and practices , EP A wil l conside r requirement s unde r Subtitl e D suc

h as : (1 ) Engineerin

g an d operating practices , including run-of f controls , t o minimize release s t o surface wate r an d groundwater : (2

) prope r procedures fo

r closin g facilities ; (3 ) monitorin g tha taccommodate s site specifi c variability ; and (4 ) clean-u p provisions . EP

A wil l tailo r thes e standard s t

o the special problems pose d b y oi l an d ga s wast e disposa l facilities , a s wel l a s incorporat

e appropriat

e flexibilit y t o addres s site-specifi c variability . • " ' I n developin g a tailore d Subtitl e D progra m fo r oi l an d ga s wastes , EP

A wil l us e it s RCR

A sectio n 300

7 authorit y t o collec tan y additiona

l information neede d o n the characteristic s an d managemen

tpractice s o

f oi l and ga s wastes . EP

A believe s thi s authorit

y doe s no tlimi tinformatio

n collectio n t

o "hazardous " wast e identifie d unde r Subtitl e C , bu tals o authorize s the collectio n o

f informatio

n o n an y soli d wast e tha tth e Agency reasonabl y believe s ma

y pos e a hazar

d whe n improperl y managed . (EP

A ma y als o us e thi s authorit

y i n preparin

g enforcemen

t actions. ) I n specifying the appropriat e standards . EP

A als o will furthe

r analyz e existin g Federa

l an d State authoritie s an d program

s an d determine futur

e plans fo r administering their oil an d ga s wast e programs . Additionally . EP A wil l . perfor m analyse s o

f costs , impacts , and benefit s an d wil l compl

y full y wit h Executiv e Order

s 1229 1 an d 12498 . the Regulator y Flexibilit

y Act . an d the Paperwor k Reduction Act . < Th e Agenc y wil l specificall y conside r th e impac to f futur e regulations o

n small busines s operation s i

n the proces s o

f regulator y developmentunde

r the - ' v Agency guideline s wit

h respectt

o th e : f Regulator y Flexibilit

y Act . Th e Agency '•

• believe s tha

tthe tailore d RCR

A Subtitl e D regulations ca n provide th e flexibility - necessar y t

o reflectth e margina

l •'-•-•"• - economi c natur

e o f certai n segment

s o f - th e industry , whil e a

tth e sam e time • -. affordin g improve

d environmenta

l - v» - protection . Fo

r example , th e Agency ••'•- . recognize s tha

tman y stripper :..'.; • operation s are , b y thei r nature , mor e vulnerabl e t

o regulator

y burdens - impose d b y an

y ne w control s ove r crud e oi l an d natura l ga s wastes , an

d tha t

• man y strippe r well s ar

e associate d wit

h - small , non-integrated producers . Thi s i s particularly significantin certai n . • • • '• * producin

g region s suc

h a s Appalachia . • "

' (b) Alaska's North Slope. Tailored : standard s unde

r Subtitl e D wil l

• specificall y addres s control s necessar y '

. t o protec

tfragile o r sensitiv e environments ; on e suc

h sensitiv e " environmen

ti s the Arcti c Nort

h Slope . EP A i s particularl

y concerne d abou

tthe • managemen

to f crud e oi l an d natura l ga s waste s i n thi s area , where oil extractio n • i s performe

d o n a ver y larg e scale .

- accountin g fo

r roughly 2

0 percen to f total U.S . production . Ther e als o exist s • ~ th e likelihoo d fo

r futur e developmento

f potentiall y significantcrude oi l and natura l ga s reserve s o n the Nort h Slop e i n area s surroundin

g Prudho e Ba y and area s i n the Arcti c Nationa l Wildlif e Refuge . ; Th e Arcti c Nort

h Slop e i s particularly sensitiv e and fragile , with unique geographi c and climati c condition s tha t make it s environmentfundamentally differen tfro m the lowe r 4 8 States . The area i s primaril

y a n arcti c desert , froze

n • for abou

t9 months ou

to f th e yea r and underlain by u

p t o 2,00 0 fee to f permafrost. Durin

g the summe

r months .

- surfac e wate r exist s i

n th e for m o f interconnecte d tundr

a ponds , whic

h exhibi tlittl e o

r n O flow durin

g th e summe r season . This , in additio n t o th e severit y o f the climat

e and th e shortnes s of th e growing season , make s the area particularl

y vulnerabl e t

o ecological impacts , o

r impact s fro m less tha

n rigorous wast e managemen tpractices . Ther e i s a lack o

f long-ter m historical dat a o n impact

s o f crud e oil an d natura l ga s industr

y activitie s o n the Nort

h Slope . Base d o n preliminar y studies .P.1 6

2345 8 Federa l Registe r / Vol . 53 , No . 12 9 /

Wednesday , Jul y 6 . 198 8 / Notice s

curren twast e managemen tpractice s se d o n th e Nort h Slop e pos e th e potentia l fo r environmenta l degradation . ( ' } state d i n th e Repor tt o Congress , a ^ 8 3 U.S . Fis h an d Wildlif e Servic e stud y foun d chromium , arseni c cadmium , nickel , an d bariu m t o b e presen ti n tundr a pond s adjacen tt o reserv e pit s a tlevel s significantl y greate r tha n i n contro l ponds . Level s o f chromiu m i n adjacen tpond s wer e als o foun d t o excee d EPA chroni c toxicit y criteria , an d affecte d distan tpond s wer e foun d t o contai n chromiu m level s significantl y highe r tha n backgroun d levels . Th e author s o f

thi s stud y caution , however , tha tthes e findings canno tb e extrapolate d t o present-da y oi l field practice s o n th e Nort h Slop e becaus e som e industr y practice s hav e change d an d th e State' s regulation s hav e becom e increasingl y mor e stringen tsinc e 1983 . Historically , enforcemen to f environmenta l control s o n th e Nort h Slop e ha s bee n inadequate . EP A believe s thi s inadequac y ha s • contribute d t o di e us e o f

undesirabl e wast e managemen tpractice s i n som e cases . Fo r example , a s discusse d i n th e Repor tt o Congress , a n inciden t develope d involvin g a n oi l field servic e compan y tha twa s disposin g o f drum s an d wast e chemical s i n a n inappropriat e nner . Th e Agenc y believe s tiiata ^ate r enforcemen tpresenc e i n tio n t o improve d regulation s coul d

. en tsuc h incident s fro m recurring. Recently , th e Stat e o f

Alask a ha s improve d wast e managemen t regulation s pertainin g t o th e Nort h Slope . I n addition , som e operator s pla n t o implemen tmor e desirabl e wast e managemen tpractices , includin g th e possibilit y o f

phasin g ou treserv e pit s throug h th e us e o f

close d drillin g system s an d injectio n fo r wast e drillin g mud s an d cuttings . I

f implemented , thes e change s woul d b e majo r .improvement s i n wast e managemen tpractice s o n th e Nort h Slope . B. Additional

Federal Authorities EP A is.concerne d ove r th e lac k o f Federa l authorit y unde r Subtitl e D o f RCR A t o addres s treatmen tan d transportatio n o f

oi l an d ga s wastes . Th e Administrato r therefor e wil l wor k wit h Congres s t o develo p an y additiona l legislativ e authoritie s tha tma y b e neede d t o addres s thes e issues . I n th e interim . EP A wil l us e sectio n 700 3 o f RCR A an d section s 10 4 an d 10 6 o f CERCL A t o see k relie f

i n thos e case s wher e waste s fro m oi l an d ga s site s pos e substantia l threat s o r imminen t h -rd s t o huma n healt h an d th e onment . Oi l an d ga s wast e pi - 'rn s ca n als o b e addresse d unde r R 1

. sectio n 700 2 whic h authorize s citize n lawsuit s fo r violation s o f Subtitl e D requirement s i n 4 0 CFRPar t257 . C. Improvement

in State Programs Whil e i n th e proces s o f

completin g improvement s i n th e Federa l programs , EPA plan s t o wor k wit h th e State s t o improv e th e content , implementation , an d enforcemen to f

existin g Stat e regulations . Thi s wil l b e a cooperativ e effor twit h voluntar y Stat e participation . Fo r example , th e Interstat e Oi l Compac t Commissio n ha s alread y begu n wor k i n thi s are a an d ha s expresse d a n interes t i n cooperatin g wit h EP A i n thi s regard . Specifically , th e Agenc y plan s t o encourag e State s t o tak e step s t o fill th e followin g gap s (wher e present ) i n thei r existin g regulatory programs : (1 ) Control s fo r roadspreadin g an d landspreading ; (2 ) Surfac e impoundmen t(i.e. . pit ) location , design , an d maintenance ; (3 ) Control s fo r associate d wastes ; an d (4 ) Pluggin g abandone d oi l an d ga s wells . Accordin g t o Stat e officials , man y State s hav e ten s o f

thousand s o f unplugge d o r improperl y plugge d abandone d wells . EPA' s Decembe r 198 7 Repor tt o Congres s documente d ground wate r contaminatio n wit h chloride s fro m unplugge d o r improperl y plugge d abandone d crud e oi l an d natura l ga s well s an d indicate d tha tStat e requirement s fo r pluggin g an d abandonin g crud e oi l an d natura l ga s well s vary , wit h inadequacie s apparen t i n som e Stat e programs . Fo r example , man y State s d o no trequir e a pluggin g bon d fro m operator s wh o dril l crud e oi l an d natura l ga s wells . Wher e bondin g i s required , th e amoun ti s ofte n no t adequat e t o provid e fo r prope r pluggin g onc e a wel l i s abandoned . EP A encourage s State s t o develo p program s t o addres s abandone d wells . However , th e Agenc y recognizes tha t locatin g an d identifyin g thes e well s i s difficult , an d sometime s impossible , becaus e o f

poo r recor d keepin g o r th e absenc e o f

records . Becaus e man y unplugge d well s ar e severa l decade s old , th e owne r o r operato r ofte n canno t b e identified . Som e State s hav e pluggin g fund s t o us e i n suc h circumstances , som e d o no t Th e Agenc y wil l als o wor k wit h State s t o improv e implementatio n an d enforcemen to f

existin g Stat e regulations . EP A believe s tha t improvement s i n enforcemen to f existin g regulation s wil l significantl y increas e protectio n u f

huma n healt h an d th e environment . EP A wil l als o wor k closel y wit h th e Stat e o f Alask a o n addressin g problem s associate d wit h managemen to f crud e oi l an d natura l ga s waste s o n th e Arcti c - '; ' .

Nort h Slope . Becaus e o f

th e remotenes s •-•.£._

• . an d sever e climati c conditions . • % -'-.- ' enforcemen ti s particularl y difficul ti n '•'-' • .••,-. . thi s area . Th e Agenc y wil l explor e wit h ••':-.. .«. th e Stat e o f

Alask a an d th e Departmen t;• ' .•' " o f th e Interio r way s t o improv e ''.'.• ? ••-*.'.5-".- enforcemen ti n thi s area . Th e Agenc y .. , *' - • believe s operator s shoul d continu e . ' : ^\ •>_; • researc h int o impact s o n th e ; • ' - >>,.'•'.'• . environmen to f

thei r wast e managemen t• y>/£- £ . practices . Th e Agenc y wil l develo p a lis t? ^-c£ » o f recommende d area s fo r researc h i n a : : : -'".'':'•] th e research , demonstration , an d " ;.*•'"'"''/'.'?.**? - developmen tpla n require d b y RCR A .'^:.- - "?-" . sectio n 8002(m)(2) . ;''* ' * :"£fi: y V L Regulator y Determinatio n fo r ; „ * .>A.'.; ~^~ •:; Geotherma l Energ y Waste s ..:.:>»•:.-in . .-••*. * -•" •

- . .....-iVjJfi - •:..-. " A . Hazard Assessment

- ' •*•

' •„'- . w.'i S

• ••.- ' .•il'ji.r'i'f V **' • Ther e i s onl y a limite d recor d o f . : -4.yl<'."-

f ' damage s o r dange r t o huma n healt h o r \sV-V>*£ V th e environmen tresultin g fro m th e -;0>:u,vjv y exploration , development , an d • M. r -i n .^ : " '" • productio n o f

geotherma l energy . Base d [ ' ~'~!> o n th e limite d informatio n available , th e . ' '£&•"' Agenc y ha s determine d tha tth e risk t o .<>'- ; ;rf . huma n healt h an d th e environmen t: : J>—<{M •% - resultin g fro m th e exploration . •• ; r.y^M'^J^-'-jdevelopmen tan d productio n o f - c-r.V'u.' r •*£•?•'; : geotherma l energ y i s relativel y low . Th e .'^.'-.j; - 1 . geotherma l energ y industr y i s MK-'..r. '^y£l.•". comparativel y small , wit h a^ota l o f 39 5 .±£%i±\ wildcat , production , an d injectio n well s .\;=,,' ; ; M . drille d betwee n 198 1 an d 1985 . Mos tJ ^^_*V; : geotherma l energ y productio n i s i n ,'o- . J T -Z-<. Californi a (32 1 ou to f

39 5 wells ) an d i l-J-,.- r Nevada . I ti s unlikel y tha tther e wil l b e * J ..«•; > furthe r large-scal e developmen to f - : :JJ»£ J geotherma l energ y resource s outsid e o f *,V : th e Stat e o f

Californi a becaus e th e ^ f <"| ' . occurrenc e o f

accessibl e geotherma l •• " ' energ y i s extremel y limited . B. Adequacy of

State and Federal ,.. xri- •«_

> Regulations .-.-.., : •. > •?•>'&.$• Jr~4£S. A s indicate d i n th e Repor tt o '*?;*<;I . ;'" . Congress , th e Agenc y believe s tha t-" I ? :•'-'. . existin g Stat e an d Federa l regulation s •••".'• / ar e generall y adequat e fo r controllin g *^ waste s fro m geotherma l energ y ;;,'.' ! production . However , on e publi c •'••'! *\ commen to n th e Repor tt o Congres s ^ ' ^ suggest s a possibl e ga p i n California' s ' regulator y progra m addressin g thes e wastes . Th e commente r documente d v ^" ' potentia l endangermen to f huma n healt h an d damag e t o th e environmen tbecaus e o f th e disposa l o f

geotherma l energ y hydroge n sulfid e abatemen twaste s i n commercia l facilitie s i n California . C. Conclusions EP A ha s decide d no tt o regulat e waste s generate d b y th e exploratio n sn d developmen to f

geotherma l energ y resource s unde r RCRA Subtitl e C EP A believe s tha tSubtitl e C contro l fo r thes e •s a •*!• * « *'.'iu!i "P.1 7

Federa l Registe r /

Vol . 53 . No . 12 9 /

Wednesday . Jul y 6 . 198 8 / Notice s 2545 9

waste s i s unwarrante

d becaus e o f

th e relatively lo w ris

k o f thes e waste s and th e presenc e o

f generally effectiv e State an d Federa l regulator

y programs . Becaus e thes e waste s ar

e largely confine d t o Californi

a and Nevada . EP

A wil l wor k closel y wit

h thes e State s t

o . addres s an

y gap s i n thei r regulator

y program s fo r th e managemen

to f hydroge n sulfid e abatementwastes . VII . Research , Development , an d Demonstration Pla

n Th e Agency wil l develo p a research , development , an

d demonstratio n pla

n base d o n th e findings o

f the Repor

tt o Congres s and subsequentpubli c comment s o n th e report . Thi s pla n wil l outlin e variou s topics tha tthe Federa

l and State government

s and/o r industr

y coul d pursue . This pla

n wil l includ e the followin g topics :

• Alternativ e wast e managemen t technologies ; • Waste minimization techniques ; • Material s substitution : • Recycling an

d reuse : • Reserv e pi

tconstructio n (percolation , leaching , and erosio n contro l issues) ; • Pluggin g an d abandonmen

to f crud e oi l an d natura

l ga s wells ; • Better characterizatio n o f produce d water s an d associate d waste s generate d b y strippe r crude oi l and natura l ga s wells : an d

• Field monitorin

g t o evaluat e th e adequacy o

f wast e containmen t practices . VIII. EP A RCR A Docket The EP A RCR A docketi s locate d at : United State s Environmenta l Protection Agency , EP

A RCR A Docke t (Sub-basement) . 40 1 M Street . SW. , Washington . D

C 20460. . ' ' ' • The docketi s ope n fro

m 9:3 0 a.m . t o 3:3 0 p.m. . Monda

y throug h Friday . excep tfor Federa l holidays . Th e publi c mustmake a

n appointmen

tt o revie w docke tmaterials . Cal

l the docketcler

k a t(202 ) 475-9327 fo

r appointments . Th e followin g document

s related t

o thi s regulator

y determination ar

e availabl e for inspectio n in the docket : : . • Repor tt o Congres s o n Managemen t o f Waste s fro

m th e Exploration . Development , an

d Productio

n of Crud e Oil . Natura

l Gas , an d Geotherma

l Energy : • Al l supporting documentatio n for : th e regulator

y determination , includin g publi c comment

s o n the Repor

tt o . Congres s and EP

A response t

o comments ; and

• Transcript

s fro m the publi c hearing s o n di e Repor

tt o Congress . Dated : Jun

e 29.19843 . '•••.' • A . )ame s Barnes . Acting Administrator. |F RDo c 843-1509

7 File d 7-5-88 : 8:4

5 am )

. BILLIN G COO tM4JO-S0-* !