1586 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

bearing from the airport and within a 6.6- 

mile radius of Mid-State Airport extending 

clockwise from the 098° bearing to the 183° 

bearing from the airport, and within a 8.3- 

mile radius of Mid-State Airport extending 

clockwise from the 183° bearing to the 261° 

bearing from the airport and within 3.1 miles 

each of the Philipsburg VORTAC 067° radial 

extending from the VORTAC to 10 miles 

northeast of the VORTAC, and within 3.5 

miles each side of the 327° bearing from a 

point at lat. 40°53′09′′ N, long. 78°05′06′′ W, 

extending from said point to a point 7.4 miles 

northwest, and within 2.2 miles each side of 

the Philipsburg VORTAC 330° radial 

extending from the VORTAC to 5.3 miles 

northwest of the VORTAC and within 3.1 

miles each side of the Philipsburg VORTAC 

301° radial extending from the VORTAC to 

10 miles northwest of the VORTAC. 

Issued in College Park, Georgia, on January 

4, 2018. 

Ryan W. Almasy, 

Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern 

Service Center, Air Traffic Organization. 

[FR Doc. 2018–00395 Filed 1–11–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DELAWARE RIVER BASIN 

COMMISSION 

18 CFR Parts 401 and 440 

Administrative Manual and Special 

Regulations Regarding Natural Gas 

Development Activities; Additional 

Clarifying Amendments 

AGENCY: Delaware River Basin 

Commission. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of public 

hearing. 

SUMMARY: The Commission proposes to 

amend its Special Regulations by the 

addition of a section on hydraulic 

fracturing in shale and other rock 

formations, including: The prohibition 

of high volume hydraulic fracturing in 

such formations; provisions related to 

water use for hydraulic fracturing; and 

provisions related to the management of 

produced water from hydraulic 

fracturing. The Commission also 

proposes to amend its Administrative 

Manual—Rules of Practice and 

Procedure by the addition of project 

review classifications and fees related to 

the management of produced water from 

hydraulic fracturing of hydrocarbon 

bearing rock formations. Minor 

amendments to the project review 

classifications unrelated to hydraulic 

fracturing are also proposed. 

DATES: Written comments: Written 

comments will be accepted through 5 

p.m. on March 30, 2018. 

Public hearings: 

1. January 23, 2018, 1:00 p.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Waymart, Wayne County, PA 

2. January 23, 2018, 6:00 p.m. to as late 

as 9:30 p.m., Waymart, Wayne 

County, PA 

3. January 25, 2018, 1:00 p.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Philadelphia, PA 

4. January 25, 2018, 6:00 p.m. to as late 

as 9:30 p.m., Philadelphia, PA 

5. February 22, 2018, 3 p.m. to as late 

as 7 p.m., Schnecksville, PA 

6. March 6, 2018, 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m., 

via telephone. 

Registration to attend hearings: 

Online registration to attend hearings 

will remain open until 5 p.m. the day 

prior to the hearing. (On-site registration 

will also be available at in-person 

venues.) Registrants will be afforded 

opportunities to request speaking time. 

ADDRESSES: Written submissions: 

Written comments will be accepted 

through the Commission’s online public 

comment collection system at: http://

dockets.drbc.commentinput.com. To 

request an exception to use of the online 

system based on lack of access to the 

internet, please contact: Commission 

Secretary, DRBC, P.O. Box 7360, West 

Trenton, NJ 08628. 

The hearing locations are: 

• Ladore Camp, Retreat and Conference 

Center, 287 Owego Turnpike, 

Waymart, PA 18472 (Jan. 23) 

• DoubleTree by Hilton Hotel 

Philadelphia Airport, 4509 Island 

Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19153 (Jan. 

25) 

• LCCC Community Services Center, 

4525 Education Park Drive, 

Schnecksville, PA 18078 (Feb. 22) 

• By telephone 866–831–8713 (Mar. 6) 

Registration to attend hearings: To 

register to attend one or more public 

hearings, use the links posted on the 

Commission’s website at http://

www.nj.gov/drbc/meetings/proposed/ 

notice_hydraulic-fracturing.html 

(strongly recommended). On-site 

registration will also be available at inperson hearing venues. Registrants will 

be afforded opportunities to request 

speaking time. 

See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for 

important details regarding the 

substance of requested comments, 

registration to attend public hearings, 

and other aspects of the public process. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate 

Schmidt, 609–477–7205, kate.schmidt@

drbc.nj.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Delaware River Basin Commission 

(DRBC or ‘‘Commission’’) is a regional 

interstate and federal agency formed by 

concurrent compact legislation of the 

four basin states and the federal 

government in 1961 to manage the water 

resources of the Delaware River Basin 

without regard to political boundaries. 

Its members are, ex officio, the 

governors of the basin states (Delaware, 

New Jersey, New York, and 

Pennsylvania) and the commander of 

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers North 

Atlantic Division, who represents the 

federal government. Most actions of the 

Commission, including the adoption of 

rules to effectuate, apply and enforce 

the compact, require a majority vote of 

the Commission’s five members. 

Background 

On September 13, 2017, the 

Commissioners by a Resolution for the 

Minutes directed the Executive Director 

to prepare and publish for public 

comment a revised set of draft 

regulations, to include: ‘‘(a) prohibitions 

relating to the production of natural gas 

utilizing horizontal drilling and 

hydraulic fracturing within the basin; 

(b) provisions for ensuring the safe and 

protective storage, treatment, disposal 

and/or discharge of wastewater within 

the basin associated with horizontal 

drilling and hydraulic fracturing for the 

production of natural gas where 

permitted; and (c) regulation of the 

inter-basin transfer of water and 

wastewater for purposes of natural gas 

development where permitted.’’ 

In accordance with the 

Commissioners’ September 13 directive, 

the Commission is proposing 

amendments to its regulations and 

comprehensive plan to better provide 

for the planning, conservation, 

utilization, development, management 

and control of the basin’s water 

resources in connection with the 

hydraulic fracturing of shale and other 

hydrocarbon bearing formations to 

produce oil and gas. The Commission 

proposes to prohibit high volume 

hydraulic fracturing within the basin to 

effectuate the comprehensive plan for 

the immediate and long-term 

development and use of the water 

resources of the basin, and to conserve, 

preserve and protect the quality and 

quantity of the basin’s water resources 

for uses in accordance with the 

comprehensive plan. 

Through a series of policies and 

regulations establishing and amending 

its comprehensive plan, the 

Commission over the past half-century 

has established in-stream water quality 

standards throughout the basin, 

prohibited degradation of groundwater, 

and provided special protection to the 

non-tidal segment of the Delaware River 

to preserve its exceptionally high water 

quality and water supply values. As the 

agency through which the five signatory 

parties to the Compact collectively 

manage the basin’s water resources on a 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 1587 

1See New Jersey v. New York, 347 U.S. 995 

(1954). 

2See generally, New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation, Final Supplemental 

Generic Environmental Impact Statement on the 

Oil, Gas and Solution Mining Regulatory Program— 

Regulatory Program for Horizontal Drilling and 

High-Volume Hydraulic Fracturing to Develop the 

Marcellus Shale and Other Low-Permeability Gas 

Reservoirs, May 2015 (hereinafter, NYS Final 

SGEIS). Available at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/ 

75370.html. 

3 Delaware River Basin Water Code (hereinafter, 

‘‘Water Code’’) (18 CFR part 410), § 3.10.3 A.2. 

4 James L. Richenderfer et al., Water Use 

Associated with Natural Gas Development: An 

Assessment of Activities Managed by the 

Susquehanna River Basin Commission—July 2008– 

December 2013, Pub. No. 299, April 2016 

(hereinafter, ‘‘SRBC NG Water Use 2016’’), p.39. 

Available at: http://www.srbc.net/pubinfo/techdocs/ 

NaturalGasReport/docs/SRBC_Full_Gas_Report_

fs306397v1_20160408.pdf. 

5United States Environmental Protection Agency, 

Hydraulic Fracturing for Oil and Gas: Impacts from 

the Hydraulic Fracturing Water Cycle on Drinking 

Water Resources in the United States, Dec. 2016 

(EPA–600–R–16–236Fa) (hereinafter, ‘‘EPA HF 

Study 2016’’). Exec. Sum., p. 23, n.3 (explaining 

that in a multi-stage hydraulic fracturing operation, 

specific parts of the well are isolated and 

hydraulically fractured until the total desired length 

of the well has been hydraulically fractured.) 

Available at: https://www.epa.gov/hfstudy. Also see, 

18 CFR 806.3 (SRBC regulations for review and 

approval of projects, defining ‘‘hydrocarbon 

development project’’ as including ‘‘all other 

activities and facilities associated with . . . the 

production, maintenance, operation, closure, 

plugging and restoration of [unconventional natural 

gas development] wells or drilling pad sites that 

require water for purposes including but not limited 

to, re-stimulation and/or re-completion of such 

wells . . .’’ (emphasis added)). 

6See e.g., Alex K. Manda et al., Evolution of 

multi-well pad development and influence of well 

pads on environmental violations and wastewater 

volumes in the Marcellus shale (USA), J. Environ. 

Manage, Sep. 1, 2014, 142:36–45. Available at 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24814546. 

7See NYS Final SGEIS 2016, supra n.1. 

8See EPA HF Study 2016, supra n.5. 

9The term ‘‘hydraulic fracturing water cycle’’ is 

used by the EPA to describe the five stages of this 

water-intensive activity: water acquisition, 

chemical mixing, well injection, produced water 

handling, wastewater disposal and reuse. EPA HF 

Study 2016, Exec. Sum., pp. 7–9. Extracted at: 

https://www.epa.gov/hfstudy/hydraulic-fracturingwater-cycle. 

10See United States Environmental Protection 

Agency, Technical Development Document for the 

Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for 

the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category, 

June 2016 (EPA–820–R–16–003) (hereinafter ‘‘EPA 

TDD 2016’’). Available at: https://www.epa.gov/ 

sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/uog_oiland-gas-extraction_tdd_2016.pdf. 

11SRBC NG Water Use 2016, p. 39. 

12 Id. 

13EPA HF Study 2016, Exec. Sum., p. 11 (Table 

ES–1). 

14 Id. 

15EPA TDD 2016, p. 43 (Table C–1). 

regional basis, the Commission has 

taken these steps to meet public and 

private needs for, among other things, 

drinking water, recreation, power 

generation, and industrial activity, and 

to accommodate large out-of-basin 

diversions by the City of New York and 

the State of New Jersey that are 

authorized by the 1954 decree of the 

U.S. Supreme Court in the matter of 

New Jersey v. New York.1

Portions of Pennsylvania and New 

York comprising about 40 percent of the 

basin’s geographic area are underlain by 

the Marcellus and Utica shales, geologic 

strata known to contain natural gas. 

Although the presence of commercially 

viable natural gas from these formations 

within the basin is not known, in 

regions of Pennsylvania west of the 

basin divide, oil and natural gas are 

extracted from the Marcellus and Utica 

formations by means of directional 

drilling and hydraulic fracturing using 

large volumes of water in a process 

referred to commonly in the region as 

‘‘high volume hydraulic fracturing’’ 

(HVHF).2 The South Newark Basin 

formation, which underlies portions of 

Pennsylvania and New Jersey, may also 

contain oil and gas deposits capable of 

development by HVHF. All of the basin 

areas underlain by the Marcellus and 

Utica shales, with the exception of a 

small area of Schuylkill County, 

Pennsylvania, drain to waters the 

Commission has designated as ‘‘Special 

Protection Waters’’, due to their 

exceptionally high scenic, recreational, 

ecological, and/or water supply values. 

The Commission’s water quality 

management policy objective for Special 

Protection Waters is ‘‘that there be no 

measurable change [in the quality of 

these waters] except toward natural 

conditions.’ ’’ 3

During hydraulic fracturing, hydraulic 

fracturing fluid consisting primarily of 

water and recycled wastewater mixed 

with chemicals is injected through a 

well bore into the target rock formation 

under pressures great enough to fracture 

the rock. The fracturing fluid typically 

includes proppants (usually sand), 

which hold open the newly created 

fractures, allowing the gas to flow back 

through them and up the well to the 

surface. After a well is ‘‘stimulated’’ 

through hydraulic fracturing, much of 

the injected fracturing fluid, together 

with brines that were trapped within the 

target formation, is conveyed to the 

surface, where these fluids are collected 

and managed. The returned fluids, 

known as ‘‘flowback’’ and ‘‘produced 

water,’’ contain chemicals used in the 

fracturing mixture, as well as salts, 

metals, radionuclides, and 

hydrocarbons from the target rock 

formation. As discussed in greater detail 

below, in the Marcellus region in 

Pennsylvania, the median quantity of 

water required to stimulate a natural gas 

well exceeds 4 million gallons for each 

fracturing event.4 A single well may be 

fractured in multiple stages and/or 

multiple times,5 and as many as twelve 

wells may be installed on a single well 

pad.6 The volume of water and 

wastewater involved is thus significant. 

The use of HVHF to extract oil and 

natural gas from tight shale formations 

presents risks, vulnerabilities and 

impacts to the quality and quantity of 

surface and ground water resources that 

have been documented extensively, 

including in comprehensive reports by 

the New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation 

(NYSDEC) 7 and the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA),8 among others. These reports 

identify the risks to water resources 

associated with each of the steps in the 

‘‘hydraulic fracturing water cycle,’’ 9 as 

summarized below. At times, these 

steps or portions thereof may be 

identified by the Commission as 

separate projects. In addition, an EPA 

technical background document 

describes industry processes, pollutants 

generated, risks, and available treatment 

technologies for produced water from 

oil and gas extraction.10 A significant 

number of data points in this document 

are provided for the Marcellus 

formation. 

Water acquisition. The acquisition of 

water for use in HVHF may result in 

modifications to groundwater levels, 

surface water levels, and stream flows. 

The Susquehanna River Basin 

Commission (SRBC) has reported that 

for the period 2008 through 2013 an 

average of 4.3 million gallons of water 

were injected per fracturing event in 

natural gas wells within the 

Susquehanna Basin.11 During the same 

period, 84 percent of injected water was 

‘‘fresh’’ water from surface water and 

groundwater sources, and the remaining 

16 percent was recycled produced water 

or flowback water.12 According to EPA, 

the median volume of water used per 

well fracturing event in Pennsylvania 

between January 2011 and February 

2013 was 4.18 million gallons.13 EPA 

further reports that in at least 10 percent 

of cases, the water use in Pennsylvania 

during the same period was over 6.6 

million gallons per well.14 EPA has 

reported that in the Marcellus formation 

in Pennsylvania, 82 to 90 percent of the 

base fluid used for hydraulic fracturing 

is fresh water that is naturally occurring 

and that the remaining base fluids (10 

to 18 percent) are reused and recycled 

produced water.15 Advances in 

horizontal drilling technology are 

leading to longer drill paths and the 

need for more fracturing fluid volumes 

for each path. According to SRBC, when 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
1588 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

16SRBC NG Water Use 2016, p. 43. 

17EPA HF Study 2016, Exec. Sum., p. 10. 

18 Id., p. 12 (Fig. ES–4(a)). 

19SRBC NG Water Use 2016, p. 38. 

20For comparison with climatically similar areas 

and the world, see Kimberly H. Schaffer and Donna 

L. Runkle, Consumptive Water-Use Coefficients for 

the Great Lakes Basin and Climatically Similar 

Areas, U.S. Geological Survey Scientific 

Investigations Report 2007–5197, p. 13 (Fig. 7). 

Available at: https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2007/5197/. 

21EPA HF Study 2016, Exec. Sum., p.16. 

22 Id. A comprehensive review of chemical 

additives is provided in EPA TDD 2016, pp. 43–47 

(Sec. 1.2). 

23EPA HF Study 2016, p. 5–20 (Text Box 5–2). 

24 Id., Exec. Sum., p. 1. 

25U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Review 

of State and Industry Spill Data: Characterization 

of Hydraulic Fracturing-Related Spills, May 2015 

(EPA/601/R–14/001) (hereinafter ‘‘EPA HF Spill 

Data 2015’’), p. 1. Available at: https://

www.epa.gov/hfstudy/review-state-and-industryspill-data-characterization-hydraulic-fracturingrelated-spills-1. 

26EPA HF Study 2016, p. 5–42. 

27 Id. 

28See generally, NYS Final SGEIS, Ch. X. 

Available at: http://www.dec.ny.gov/docs/ 

materials_minerals_pdf/fsgeis2015ch10.pdf. 

29EPA HF Study 2016, Exec. Sum., p. 24. 

30 Id. 

the industry began lengthening its 

lateral well bores in 2013, the average 

amount of water used per fracturing 

event increased to approximately 5.1 to 

6.5 million gallons per fracturing 

event.16

Withdrawals from surface and ground 

water in the amounts required for HVHF 

may adversely affect aquatic ecosystems 

and river channel and riparian resources 

downstream, including wetlands, and 

may diminish the quantity of water 

stored in an aquifer or a stream’s 

capacity to assimilate pollutants. 

Because HVHF operations may 

significantly increase the volume of 

water withdrawn in a localized area, 

they may ultimately upset the balance 

between the demand on water resources 

and the availability of those resources 

for uses protected by the Commission’s 

comprehensive plan, particularly during 

periods of low precipitation or drought. 

Consumptive use. In contrast with 

most domestic and commercial water 

use, most water used for HVHF is used 

‘‘consumptively,’’ meaning it is not 

returned to the basin’s usable ground or 

surface waters. According to the EPA, 

water accounts for 90 to 97 percent of 

all hydraulic fracturing fluids injected 

into a well for the purpose of extracting 

natural gas.17 EPA reports further that 

produced water, or water that flows 

from and through oil and gas wells to 

the surface as a by-product of oil and 

gas production over a ten-year 

operations period, makes up only 10 to 

30 percent of the fluid injected. 

Accordingly, EPA estimates that 70 to 

90 percent of the water used in high 

volume hydraulic fracturing is 

permanently removed from the water 

cycle.18 The SRBC’s estimate is higher. 

SRBC reports that approximately 96 

percent of water withdrawn by the 

natural gas industry is consumptively 

used in the hydraulic fracturing process 

and that the balance of the water is 

consumptively used for other activities 

at the drilling pads, such as well 

drilling, preparation of drilling muds 

and grout, dust control, maintenance 

operations, and site reclamation.19 In 

contrast, the DRBC estimates that 90 

percent of water withdrawn for 

domestic and commercial uses in the 

Delaware River Basin is returned to 

basin waters, either by infiltration into 

aquifers or by discharge to surface 

waters after treatment at a wastewater 

treatment facility.20

Chemical use. Although chemical 

additives generally make up the 

smallest proportion of the overall 

composition of hydraulic fracturing 

fluids, they pose a comparatively high 

risk to ground and surface water quality 

relative to proppants and base fluids.21

Additives, which can be a single 

chemical or a mixture of chemicals, are 

combined with the base fluid to change 

its properties, including, for example, to 

adjust pH, increase fluid thickness, 

reduce friction, or limit bacterial 

growth. The EPA has identified 1,084 

chemicals reported to have been added 

to hydraulic fracturing fluids between 

2005 and 2013.22 The choice of which 

additives to use depends on the 

characteristics of the targeted rock 

formation, and in some cases chemical 

information is considered Confidential 

Business Information and not disclosed 

by the fracturing operator.23 Based upon 

EPA’s analysis, the combination of 

activities and factors more likely than 

others to result in more frequent or more 

severe impacts to water resources are 

spills during the management of 

hydraulic fracturing fluids and 

chemicals that result in large volumes or 

high concentrations of chemicals 

reaching groundwater resources.24 In 

May 2015, an EPA study compiled data 

on and characterized 457 hydraulic 

fracturing related spills that occurred 

between January 2006 and April 2012 in 

eleven states.25 The study attributed 

these to equipment failure, human error, 

failure of container integrity, and other 

causes, including but not limited to well 

communication, weather and 

vandalism.26 Storage, equipment, well 

or wellhead, hose or line, and 

‘‘unknown’’ were among the identified 

sources.27 Spills can affect both surface 

and groundwater resources, both locally 

and regionally, within the host state and 

in adjoining states. Pollution from spills 

and from hydraulic fracturing has 

occurred in parts of Pennsylvania 

outside the basin where high volume 

hydraulic fracturing is occurring.28

Well drilling and construction. Well 

drilling, well construction and well 

stimulation associated with HVHF also 

carry risks for groundwater and surface 

water resources. These risks include 

turbidity or other disruptions in local 

ground water formations and local 

groundwater wells, and contamination 

of aquifers by fluids pumped into or 

flowing from rock formations penetrated 

by the drilling of the well, particularly 

in the event of a compromised well 

casing. Typically, the developable shale 

formations are vertically separated from 

potential freshwater aquifers by 

thousands of feet of sandstones and 

shales of moderate to low permeability. 

High-volume hydraulic fracturing is 

engineered to target the prospective 

hydrocarbon-producing zone. Although 

the induced fractures create a pathway 

to the intended wellbore, they typically 

do not create a discharge mechanism or 

pathway beyond the fractured zone 

where none existed before. However, 

because the well bore penetrates 

groundwater aquifers and can be a 

pathway for fluid movement to existing 

drinking water and other groundwater 

resources, the mechanical integrity of 

the well is an important factor that 

affects the frequency and severity of 

potential water resource impacts from 

pollutants. A well with insufficient 

mechanical integrity can increase the 

risk of impacts and allow unintended 

fluid movement, including into drinking 

water aquifers. Such defects can arise 

from inadequate well design or 

construction or can develop over the 

well’s lifetime, including during 

hydraulic fracturing.29 In particular, 

casing and cement can degrade over the 

life of the well because of exposure to 

corrosive chemicals, formation stresses, 

and operational stresses (e.g., pressure 

and temperature changes during 

hydraulic fracturing).30 Gas migration 

can also potentially occur as a result of 

poor well construction (i.e., casing and 

cement problems), or through existing 

abandoned wells or faults, which may 

be intersected inadvertently by a new 

oil or natural gas well. The EPA 

examined these types of pathways for 

the migration of hydraulic fracturing 

fluids and liquids and/or gases that exist 

in the subsurface to affect the quality of 

subsurface drinking water resources and 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 1589 

31 Id., pp. 23–29. Also see Main Report, Ch. 6. 

32See generally, EPA TDD 2016, pp. 59–81 (part 

C.3) for a comprehensive characterization of 

produced water that includes a significant number 

of data points for the Marcellus formation. 

33United States Environmental Protection 

Agency, Effluent Limitations Guidelines and 

Standards for the Oil and Gas Extraction Point 

Source Category, Final Rule, 81 FR 41845, 41847c. 

34William D. Burgos et al., Watershed-Scale 

Impacts from Surface Water Disposal of Oil and Gas 

Wastewater in Western Pennsylvania. Environ. Sci. 

Technol., 2017, 51 (15), pp. 8851–8860. 

Available at: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ 

acs.est.7b01696. 

35 Kimberly M. Parker et al., Enhanced formation 

of disinfection byproducts in shale gas wastewaterimpacted drinking water supplies. Environ Sci 

Technol. 2014 Oct 7; 48 (19), pp. 11161–9. 

Available at: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ 

es5028184. 

36 Id., pp. 41485–41857. 

37See Water Code, § 3.10.3 A.2, 18 CFR part 410. 

38 Id. 

39See DRBC map at: http://www.nj.gov/drbc/ 

library/documents/maps/SPW-MarcellusShale.pdf. 

40E.T. Slonecker et al., Landscape Consequences 

of Natural Gas Extraction in Allegheny and 

Susquehanna Counties, Pennsylvania, 2004–2010; 

U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological 

Survey, Open-File Report 2013–1025, p. 19 (Table 

2) (converted to acres). 

reported on failures and impacts to 

water resources in detail.31

Wastewater handling and disposal. 

‘‘Produced water’’ (including 

‘‘flowback’’ water) refers to any water or 

fluid returned to the surface through the 

production well as a waste product of 

hydraulic fracturing. This material may 

be stored in tanks or other containers on 

the pad site before it is transferred for 

off-site treatment and/or disposal. The 

composition of produced water depends 

on the composition of the injected 

hydraulic fracturing fluid and the 

composition of the target formation. In 

the Marcellus region, produced water is 

generated in large quantities and often 

contains high concentrations of total 

dissolved solids (TDS or ‘‘salts’’) and 

constituents that may be harmful to 

human health and the environment. 

Produced water from HVHF in the 

Marcellus formation has been found to 

contain: 32

• Salts, including chloride, bromide, 

sulfate, sodium, magnesium, and 

calcium; 

• Metals, including barium, 

manganese, iron, and strontium; 

• Naturally-occurring organic 

compounds, including benzene, 

toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes (BTEX), 

and oil and grease; 

• Radioactive materials, including 

radium; and 

• Hydraulic fracturing chemicals and 

their chemical transformation products. 

The disposal of produced water poses 

a significant risk to the water resources 

of the basin if the wastewater is not 

properly managed. The concentration of 

TDS in produced water can be high 

enough that if discharged untreated to 

surface water, the potential exists to 

adversely affect designated uses of 

surface water, including drinking water, 

aquatic life support, livestock watering, 

irrigation, and industrial use. Because 

produced water contains high TDS and 

dissolved inorganic constituents that 

most publicly owned treatment works 

and other municipal wastewater 

treatment facilities are not designed to 

remove, these constituents can be 

discharged untreated from such 

facilities; can disrupt treatment 

processes, for example by inhibiting 

biological treatment; can accumulate in 

biosolids (sewage sludge), limiting their 

beneficial use; and can facilitate the 

formation of harmful disinfection 

byproducts.33 Where produced water 

has been discharged to domestic 

wastewater treatment facilities in the 

past, elevated concentrations of chloride 

and bromide have been documented in 

the receiving waters.34 The discharge of 

bromide upstream of drinking water 

intakes has led in documented instances 

to the formation of carcinogenic 

disinfection by-products at drinking 

water utilities.35

The EPA since 1979 has required zero 

discharge of pollutants to waters of the 

United States from onshore oil and gas 

extraction wastewater. In 2016 EPA 

finalized a rule establishing 

pretreatment standards for discharges of 

wastewater from onshore 

unconventional oil and gas extraction 

facilities to municipal sewage treatment 

plants (also known as ‘‘publicly owned 

treatment works’’ or POTWs).36 The 

recent EPA rule will protect POTWs 

from disruptions in their operations that 

can be caused by these wastewaters. 

However, the rule does not extend to 

commercially owned treatment works 

that primarily treat domestic and 

commercial wastewater, and it does not 

address the discharge to POTWs of 

produced water that has been partially 

treated at centralized waste treatment 

facilities. Thus, significant risks 

associated with the treatment and 

discharge of produced water remain 

outside the scope of current federal 

regulations. 

Siting and Landscapes. Certain water 

resources in the basin have high water 

resource value because of their excellent 

water quality or their exceptional ability 

to perform water supply, ecological, 

recreational or other water-related 

functions. The Commission has 

classified certain of these waters as 

Special Protection Waters through 

provisions of its Water Code 

incorporated in the comprehensive 

plan.37 The Water Code seeks to 

maintain or improve the condition of 

these water resources through regulatory 

requirements such as prevention of 

measurable change to existing water 

quality, evaluation of natural 

wastewater treatment system 

alternatives, conditions or limitations 

on wastewater treatment facilities and 

control of non-point sources.38

Many high value water resources are 

associated with and dependent on their 

surrounding landscapes. Special 

Protection Waters are located in the 

upper portion of the basin where 

forested headwater areas and riparian 

buffers slow the rate and volume of 

stormwater runoff, replenish 

groundwater that serves as a source of 

drinking water and sustains stream 

flow, and control the introduction of 

pollutants into streams. These 

landscape features are particularly 

effective at controlling non-point source 

pollution that may occur following 

precipitation events. 

High volume hydraulic fracturing and 

the related alteration of landscapes 

required to support that activity pose 

risk to high value water resources. It is 

expected that practically all of the 

development and related disturbances 

from high volume hydraulic fracturing 

would occur in the drainage area of 

Special Protection Waters.39

Approximately 70 percent of the basin 

area underlain by the Marcellus and 

Utica shales (largely in the drainage area 

of Special Protection Waters) is forested. 

The average total disturbance associated 

with a single well pad, including 

associated access roads and utility 

corridors, is estimated at 7.7 acres.40

Off-site facilities such as gathering lines 

involve additional disturbances. These 

landscape changes will reduce forested 

areas and potentially vegetated buffers, 

increase non-point source pollution, 

diminish groundwater infiltration, and 

risk adversely affecting water quality 

and quantity in surface and 

groundwater. Because high volume 

hydraulic fracturing would most likely 

occur in headwater areas in the drainage 

area to Special Protection Waters, the 

risks of degrading water resources and 

impairing the effectuation of the 

comprehensive plan are of particular 

concern. 

Uncertainty. The comprehensive EPA 

and New York DEC studies cited above 

report multiple instances of damage to 

water resources associated with all 

stages of the natural gas development 

process, and importantly, both sources 

emphasize the degree of uncertainty 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
1590 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

41EPA HF Study 2016, Exec. Sum., p. 2. 

42NYS Final SGEIS 2016, pp. 1, 13. 

43United States Public Law 87–328, Approved 

Sept. 27, 1961, 75 Statutes at Large 688; 53 

Delaware Laws, Ch. 71, Approved May 26, 1961; 

New Jersey Laws of 1961, Ch. 13, Approved May 

1, 1961; New York Laws of 1961, Ch. 148, 

Approved March 17, 1961; Pennsylvania Acts of 

1961, Act. No. 268, Approved July 7, 1961. 

44See Delaware River Basin Compact (hereinafter, 

‘‘Compact’’), Part I, 1st Whereas clause. 

45See id., 8th Whereas clause. 

46See id., § 5.2. 

47See Water Code, § 2.30.2. 

48See id. 

49See Id., § 2.30.6. 

50See DRBC Resolution No. 2000–4, ‘‘Be it 

resolved’’ par. 4. 

51See id., ‘‘Be it resolved’’ par. 1. 

52See Water Code, §§ 3.10.3. A.2. and A.2.e. 

53 Id., § 2.20.6. 

54See id., § 3.40.5 B.1. 

55See id., § 3.40.5 B.3. 

regarding potential future effects. The 

EPA report states: 

Cases of impacts were identified for all 

stages of the hydraulic fracturing water cycle. 

Identified impacts generally occurred near 

hydraulically fractured oil and gas 

production wells and ranged in severity, from 

temporary changes in water quality to 

contamination that made private drinking 

water wells unusable . . . However, 

significant data gaps and uncertainties in the 

available data prevented us from calculating 

or estimating the national frequency of 

impacts on drinking water resources from 

activities in the hydraulic fracturing water 

cycle. The data gaps and uncertainties 

described in this report also precluded a full 

characterization of the severity of impacts.41

The New York State DEC study 

asserts: 

. . . a broad range of experts from academia, 

industry, environmental organizations, 

municipalities, and the medical and public 

health professions commented and/or 

provided their analyses of high-volume 

hydraulic fracturing. The comments 

referenced an increasing number of ongoing 

scientific studies across a wide range of 

professional disciplines. These studies and 

expert comments evidence that significant 

uncertainty remains regarding the level of 

risk to public health and the environment 

that would result from permitting highvolume hydraulic fracturing in New York, 

and regarding the degree of effectiveness of 

proposed mitigation measures. In fact, the 

uncertainty regarding the potential 

significant adverse environmental and public 

health impacts has been growing over time. 

. . . . 

Potential significant adverse impacts on 

water resources exist with regard to potential 

degradation of drinking water supplies; 

impacts to surface and underground water 

resources due to large water withdrawals for 

high-volume hydraulic fracturing; cumulative 

impacts; stormwater runoff; surface spills, 

leaks and pit or surface impoundment 

failures; groundwater impacts associated 

with well drilling and construction and 

seismic activity; [and] waste disposal. . . .’’42

Additional detail regarding damages 

to water resources and the risks, 

vulnerabilities and impacts to surface 

and ground water resources associated 

with HVHF can be found in the cited 

reports. 

Related Statutory and Regulatory 

Provisions 

The proposed rules regarding 

hydraulic fracturing arise from clauses 

of the Commission’s organic statute, the 

Delaware River Basin Compact 

(‘‘Compact’’),43 and from provisions of 

the Delaware River Basin Water Code, 

comprehensive plan and past 

determinations. 

The Compact recognizes the water 

and related resources of the Delaware 

River Basin as regional assets vested 

with local, state, and national interests, 

for which the signatory parties have 

shared responsibility.44 The Compact 

further recognizes that the economic 

development of the region as a whole 

and the health, safety, and general 

welfare of its population will remain 

vitally affected by management of these 

resources.45 Through the Compact, the 

signatory parties expressly provided 

that ‘‘[t]he commission may assume 

jurisdiction to control future pollution 

and abate existing pollution in the 

waters of the basin, whenever it 

determines after investigation and 

public hearing upon due notice that the 

effectuation of the comprehensive plan 

so requires.’’ 46

By regulation, the Commission has 

determined that the basin’s waters are 

limited in quantity and that frequent 

drought warnings and drought 

declarations are needed due to limited 

water supply, storage and streamflow 

during dry periods. For these reasons, 

the Commission has adopted a policy of 

discouraging exportations of water from 

the basin.47 The Commission also has 

recognized that the basin’s waters have 

limited assimilative capacity and in 

particular, limited capacity to accept 

conservative substances without 

significant impacts. On this basis and on 

grounds that the assimilative capacity of 

the basin’s waters should be reserved for 

in-basin users, the Commission has 

adopted a policy of discouraging the 

importation of wastewater into the basin 

when it would significantly reduce the 

assimilative capacity of the receiving 

stream.48 No credit toward meeting 

wastewater treatment requirements is 

granted for wastewater imported into 

the basin when wasteload allocations 

have been established.49 The 

Commission in 2000 determined by 

resolution that allocations of the waste 

assimilative capacity of the Delaware 

River Estuary are necessary to maintain 

stream quality objectives in Zones 2, 3, 

4 and 5 for acute and chronic toxicity 50

and in Zones 2 and 3 for the chemicals 

1, 2 dichloroethane and 

tetrachloroethene.51

The Commission’s Special Protection 

Waters program establishes a water 

quality objective of no measurable 

change in existing water quality except 

towards natural conditions in waters 

that the Commission has designated as 

of exceptionally high scenic, 

recreational, ecological, and/or water 

supply value. The Commission has so 

designated virtually all of the non-tidal 

main stem, as well as the portions of 

tributaries to the main stem located 

within the Delaware Water Gap National 

Recreation Area.52

The Commission has determined that 

the basin’s underground water resources 

are to be ‘‘used, conserved, developed, 

managed, and controlled in view of the 

need of present and future generations.’’ 

To that end, it has provided by rule that 

interference, impairment, penetration, 

or artificial recharge of groundwater 

may be subject to the Commission’s 

review.53 In accordance with 

Commission regulations, substances or 

properties in harmful or toxic 

concentrations or that produce color, 

taste, or odor of the water may not be 

‘‘permitted or induced by the activities 

of man to become ground water.’’ 54 The 

Commission has asserted by rule that it 

may establish requirements, conditions, 

or prohibitions that in its judgment are 

necessary to protect ground water 

quality.55

Summary of Proposed Rules 

Prohibition. Section 5.2 of the 

Compact authorizes the Commission to 

‘‘assume jurisdiction to control future 

pollution . . . in the waters of the basin, 

whenever it determines after 

investigation and public hearing upon 

due notice that the effectuation of the 

comprehensive plan so requires.’’ It 

further authorizes the Commission to 

control pollution from industrial or 

other waste originating within a basin 

state so that the pollution does not 

‘‘injuriously affect the waters of the 

basin as contemplated by the 

comprehensive plan.’’ The Commission 

may also adopt rules, regulations and 

standards to control future pollution. 

Considering the totality of the risks that 

HVHF poses to basin water resources, 

the Commission proposes in Section 

440.3(b) of the draft rule to determine 

that controlling pollution by prohibiting 

high volume hydraulic fracturing in the 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 1591 

56United States Environmental Protection 

Agency, Final 2014 Effluent Guidelines Program 

Plan, July 2015 (EPA–821–R–15–002), p. 5–4 (sec. 

5.3.2). Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/ 

production/files/2015-09/documents/final-2014- 

effluent-guidelines-program-plan_july-2015.pdf. A 

detailed EPA study of the CWT industry focused on 

facilities accepting oil and gas extraction 

wastewaters is ongoing. See Preliminary 2016 

Effluent Guidelines Program Plan, June 2016 (EPA– 

821–R–16–001), p. 6–1 (sec. 6.1). 

57See EPA TDD 2016, pp. 59–81 (Part C.3). 

basin is required to effectuate the 

comprehensive plan, avoid injury to the 

waters of the basin as contemplated by 

the comprehensive plan and protect the 

public health and preserve the waters of 

the Basin for uses in accordance with 

the comprehensive plan. 

Water Exports. The transfer of surface 

water, groundwater, treated wastewater 

or mine drainage water, at any rate or 

volume, for utilization in hydraulic 

fracturing to produce oil and gas outside 

the Delaware River Basin is proposed to 

require Commission approval. 

Currently, exports of water from the 

basin of less than the daily average 

quantity of 100,000 gallons are deemed 

to have no substantial effect on the 

basin’s water resources and are thus not 

reviewed by the Commission under 

section 3.8 of the Compact. The 

Commission has a longstanding policy 

of discouraging exportations of water on 

the grounds that the availability of water 

to meet in-basin needs is limited and 

low-flow and drought conditions are 

frequent. Unlike regulated withdrawals 

for domestic, commercial and industrial 

water supplies, withdrawals of large 

quantities of water for hydraulic 

fracturing to produce oil and gas have 

the potential, if unregulated, to occur 

through de-centralized, periodic and 

transient means and thus to adversely 

affect headwater streams and minimum 

flows of surface and groundwater, and 

to impair uses protected by the 

Commission’s comprehensive plan. The 

proposed rule will make all proposed 

exports of water for oil and gas 

extraction subject to the requirement 

that alternatives involving no 

exportation be analyzed and that the 

water resource, economic and social 

impacts of the proposal be evaluated. 

Wastewater. As set forth above, the 

data available on produced water 

(including flowback) from hydraulically 

fractured wells in the Marcellus 

formation indicate that this waste 

stream is unlike other industrial and 

domestic waste streams treated and 

discharged in the Delaware River Basin, 

and that it poses significant risks to 

human health and the environment if 

improperly handled. Under the 

proposed rules, the ‘‘produced water’’ 

from the hydrocarbon-bearing strata 

during oil and gas extraction is broadly 

defined to include untreated produced 

water, diluted produced water, and 

produced water mixed with other 

wastes. The rule provides that this 

material may not be transferred to, 

treated by or discharged from or to a 

new or existing wastewater treatment 

facility located within the Delaware 

River Basin, at any volume or rate, 

except in accordance with an approval 

in the form of a docket issued by the 

Commission to the owner or operator of 

the wastewater treatment facility or in 

accordance with a state permit issued 

pursuant to a duly adopted 

administrative agreement between the 

Commission and the host state. The rule 

further provides that produced water 

may not be treated within the basin 

except at a centralized waste treatment 

facility (CWT) as that term is defined by 

the EPA in 40 CFR part 437 and may not 

be discharged within the basin without 

treatment at a CWT. Because current 

EPA regulations governing treatment by 

CWTs do not include limitations for 

pollutants commonly found in 

produced water, such as total dissolved 

solids, barium, bromide, radium and 

strontium,56 the proposed rule also 

places conditions on the treatment and 

discharge of wastewater or effluent 

resulting from the treatment of 

produced water by a CWT (‘‘CWT 

wastewater’’) before the CWT 

wastewater can be discharged to basin 

waters or to another treatment facility 

within the basin. 

The Commission already has in place 

a policy to discourage the importation of 

wastewater into the basin due to the 

limited capacity of the basin’s waters to 

assimilate waste. Proposals to import 

produced water and CWT wastewater 

into the basin will be subject to this 

policy and to the requirements that 

alternatives involving no importation be 

analyzed and that the water resource, 

economic and social impacts of the 

proposal be evaluated. 

Under the proposed rules, projects 

involving the treatment and discharge of 

produced water within the basin must 

meet the more stringent of applicable 

federal, state and DRBC requirements. 

Additional effluent limitations are 

proposed to apply to such projects for 

TDS, whole effluent toxicity, and a set 

of ‘‘pollutants of concern’’ identified on 

the basis of produced water 

characterizations provided by EPA in a 

2016 technical document.57 The 

majority of the EPA’s primary and 

secondary drinking water standards are 

also proposed as treatment levels for 

produced water discharged to a 

receiving waterbody designated for use 

as a public water supply. Treatability 

studies will be required to ensure that 

pollutant loads from natural gas 

wastewater are thoroughly characterized 

and that treatment ensures these 

pollutants are effectively reduced or 

eliminated, such that applicable effluent 

limits, stream quality objectives, 

protected uses, and in the case of 

Special Protection Waters, the ‘‘no 

measurable change’’ objective, are 

attained. Because the proposed rule 

requires treatment to ‘‘background 

concentrations’’ for pollutants of 

concern in many instances, the 

Commission is simultaneously 

publishing draft guidance on acceptable 

methods for determining background 

concentrations of these pollutants. 

Other changes. Revisions to the 

Commission’s thresholds for review set 

forth at 18 CFR 401.35 are proposed to 

establish that certain activities relating 

to hydraulic fracturing in hydrocarbonbearing formations are deemed to 

constitute projects having a substantial 

effect on water resources of the basin 

and are thus subject to review under 

Section 3.8 of the Compact. These 

include: the importation, treatment, or 

discharge to basin land or water of 

‘‘produced water’’ as defined by the 

rule; and the exportation of water from 

the basin for uses related to hydraulic 

fracturing. Although certain additional 

activities and facilities on a well pad 

site could be separately identified by the 

Commission as projects, in light of the 

proposed prohibition, no changes to 

existing rules are proposed in this 

regard at this time. Minor changes are 

concurrently proposed to existing 

thresholds for the Commission’s review 

of leachate discharges and wetlands. 

To provide for appropriate fees to 

cover the cost of reviews of new classes 

of projects deemed to require the 

Commission’s approval, changes are 

also proposed to section 401.43 

(regulatory program fees). 

Executive Director Determinations 

The final regulations relating to 

natural gas development when adopted 

will supersede and replace the 

Executive Director’s Determinations 

issued on May 19, 2009, June 14, 2010 

and July 23, 2010. 

Public Process 

Substance of comments: The 

Commission expressly seeks comment 

on the effects the proposed rules may 

have within the basin on: Water 

availability, the control and abatement 

of water pollution, economic 

development, the conservation and 

protection of drinking water supplies, 

the conservation and protection of 

aquatic life, the conservation and 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
1592 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

protection of water quality in Special 

Protection Waters, and the protection, 

maintenance and improvement of water 

quantity and quality basinwide. 

Comment is also requested on whether 

use of base fluids other than water for 

HVHF is practical within the basin and 

if so, how it should be addressed in 

these rules, and on any alternatives to 

the proposed rules that the commenters 

would like the Commission to consider, 

as well as on draft guidance published 

simultaneously with the rules for 

determining background concentrations 

of certain pollutants. The Commission 

welcomes and will consider any other 

comments that concern the potential 

effects of the draft rules on the 

conservation, utilization, development, 

management and control of the water 

and related resources of the Delaware 

River Basin. Comments on matters not 

within this scope may not be 

considered. 

Non-digitized voluminous materials 

such as books, journals or collected 

letters/petitions will not be accepted. 

Digital submissions of these, as well as 

articles and websites, must be 

accompanied by a statement containing 

citations to the specific findings or 

conclusions the commenter wishes to 

reference. 

Submission of written comments. 

Written comments along with any 

attachments may be submitted 

through the Commission’s web-based 

comment system (http://

dockets.drbc.commentinput.com) until 

5 p.m. on March 30, 2018. All materials 

should be provided in searchable 

formats, preferably in .pdf searchable 

text. Notably, a picture scan of a 

document may not result in searchable 

text. Comments received through any 

method other than the designated online method, including via email, fax, 

postal/delivery services or hand 

delivery, will not be considered or 

included in the rulemaking record 

unless an express exception has been 

granted. Requests for exceptions to the 

web-based-submissions-only policy 

based on lack of access to the web-based 

comment system may be addressed to: 

Commission Secretary, DRBC, P.O. Box 

7360, West Trenton, NJ 08628. 

Public hearings. To reduce 

uncertainty on the part of attendees 

about whether they will have a seat and 

an opportunity to speak at a public 

hearing, and to provide for a safe and 

orderly process, the Commission is 

requiring registration online or on-site 

to attend each public hearing. Use of the 

online, web-based registration system is 

encouraged, as this system will track 

and publish in real time the available 

capacity for each hearing. Key dates, 

times and addresses are set forth at the 

top of this notice. Key elements of the 

procedure are as follows: 

• Online or on-site registration is 

required to attend each public hearing. 

• Online registration to attend will 

remain open until 5 p.m. the day prior 

to each hearing. 

• On-site registration will be available 

at all in-person hearing venues. 

• Available capacity for each inperson hearing will be posted on the 

web-based registration system. When 

users access the system, they will see 

the number of seats still available or if 

the venue is at capacity. 

• If capacity has been reached for a 

specific hearing, online registrants will 

be placed on a waiting list. 

• Those who do not register to attend 

a hearing in advance are advised to 

check the availability of seats BEFORE 

planning travel to a hearing. 

• Public hearing registrants will be 

afforded opportunities to request 

speaking time. 

• If more people request to speak than 

time allows, those not assigned time 

will be placed on a waiting list. 

• If fewer people request to speak 

than time allows, additional 

opportunities to request time will be 

provided on or before the hearing date. 

• Elected government officials and 

their staff will have the opportunity to 

identify themselves when registering to 

attend a hearing. 

• Written and oral comment will 

receive equal consideration. 

The Commission appreciates the 

public’s participation and input on this 

important matter. In order to provide as 

many individuals who wish to speak as 

possible with an opportunity to do so, 

each person will be limited to one time 

slot at one hearing location. Depending 

on the number who wish to be heard, 

speakers will be limited to two or three 

minutes. To ensure that scheduled 

public hearings meet the objectives of 

the Commission and the interested 

public in a safe and orderly process, it 

is essential that public hearing 

procedures are understood and 

followed. Participants are asked to 

review all DRBC public hearing 

procedures at: http://www.state.nj.us/ 

drbc/library/documents/procedures_

public-hearings050317.pdf. The 

Commission’s policies related to 

speaker conduct, audience conduct, 

safety, security, signs, placards and 

banners will be in effect at these public 

hearings. The public is reminded that 

oral and written comments will receive 

the same consideration. 

More Information Available. Detailed 

and up-to-date information about the 

public process, including a version of 

the proposed rule text that shows 

proposed additions and deletions to 18 

CFR part 401, draft guidance concerning 

the calculation of background pollutant 

concentrations (associated with 

proposed 18 CFR part 440) and links for 

online registration to attend each of the 

scheduled public hearings can be found 

on the DRBC website, drbc.net, at http:// 

www.nj.gov/drbc/meetings/proposed/ 

notice_hydraulic-fracturing.html. 

List of Subjects 

18 CFR Part 401 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Penalties, Water pollution 

control, Water resources. 

18 CFR Part 440 

Water pollution control, Water 

resources, Water supply, Waste 

treatment and disposal. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, the Delaware River Basin 

Commission proposes to amend title 18, 

chapter III of the Code of Federal 

Regulations as follows: 

PART 401—RULES OF PRACTICE AND 

PROCEDURE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 401 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Delaware River Basin Compact 

(75 Stat. 688), unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 401.35 by: 

■ a. Revising introductory text to 

paragraph (a) and paragraphs (a)(2), (4), 

(5), (15), (16) and (18); 

■ b. Redesignating paragraph (a)(19) as 

(a)(20); 

■ c. Adding a new paragraph (a)(19); 

■ d. Removing paragraph (b)(14); 

■ e. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(15) 

through (18) as (b)(14) through (17); 

■ f. Revising newly redesignated 

paragraph (b)(14); 

■ g. Revising newly redesignated 

paragraph (b)(17); 

■ h. Adding new paragraphs (b)(18) and 

(19); 

■ i. Revising paragraph (c); 

■ j. Removing paragraph (d). 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 401.35 Classification of projects for 

review under section 3.8 of the Compact. 

(a) Except as the Commission may 

specially direct by notice to the project 

owner or sponsor, a project in any of the 

following classifications will be deemed 

not to have a substantial effect on the 

water resources of the Basin and is not 

required to be submitted under section 

3.8 of the Compact: 

* * * * * 

(2) A withdrawal from ground water 

when the daily average gross 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 1593 

1Consumer Price Index—U/Series ID: 

CWURA102SA0/Not Seasonally Adjusted/Area: 

Philadelphia-Wilmington-Atlantic City, PA-NJ-DEMD/Item: All items/Base Period: 1982–84=100. 

withdrawal during any 30 consecutive 

day period does not exceed 100,000 

gallons; 

* * * * * 

(4) Except as provided at paragraph 

(b)(18) of this section, the construction 

of new domestic sewage treatment 

facilities or alteration or addition to 

existing domestic sewage treatment 

facilities when the design capacity of 

such facilities is less than a daily 

average rate of 10,000 gallons per day in 

the drainage area to Outstanding Basin 

Waters and Significant Resource Waters 

or less than 50,000 gallons per day 

elsewhere in the Basin; and all local 

sewage collector systems and 

improvements discharging into 

authorized trunk sewage systems; 

(5) Except as provided at paragraph 

(b)(18) of this section, the construction 

of new facilities or alteration or addition 

to existing facilities for the direct 

discharge to surface or ground waters of 

industrial wastewater having design 

capacity of less than 10,000 gallons per 

day in the drainage area to Outstanding 

Basin Waters and Significant Resource 

Waters or less than 50,000 gallons per 

day elsewhere in the Basin; except 

where such wastewater contains toxic 

concentrations of waste materials; 

* * * * * 

(15) Draining, filling or otherwise 

altering marshes or wetlands when the 

area affected is less than 25 acres; 

provided; however, that areas less than 

25 acres shall be subject to Commission 

review and action where neither a state 

nor a federal level review and permit 

system is in effect; 

(16) Except as provided at paragraph 

(b)(19) of this section, the diversion or 

transfer of water from the Delaware 

River Basin (exportation) whenever the 

design capacity is less than a daily 

average rate of 100,000 gallons; 

* * * * * 

(18) Except as provided at paragraph 

(b)(18) of this section, the diversion or 

transfer of wastewater into the Delaware 

River Basin (importation) whenever the 

design capacity is less than a daily 

average rate of 50,000 gallons; and 

(19) To the extent allowed in the 

basin (see prohibition at § 440.3(b) of 

this title), projects involving hydraulic 

fracturing, unless no state-level review 

and permit system is in effect; 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(14) Leachate treatment and disposal 

projects associated with landfills and 

solid waste disposal facilities in the 

basin; 

* * * * * 

(17) Any other project that the 

Commission may specially direct by 

notice to the project sponsor or land 

owner as having a potential substantial 

water quality impact on waters 

classified as Special Protection Waters. 

(18) The importation, treatment, or 

discharge to basin land or water of 

‘‘produced water’’ or CWT wastewater 

as those terms are defined in § 440.2 of 

this chapter. 

(19) The transfer, diversion or 

exportation of water from the basin at 

any volume or rate for uses related to 

‘‘hydraulic fracturing’’ as that term is 

defined in § 440.2 of this chapter. 

(c) Regardless of whether expressly 

excluded from review by paragraph (a) 

of this section, any project or class of 

projects that in the view of the 

Commission could have a substantial 

effect on the water resources of the 

basin may, upon special notice to the 

project sponsor or landowner, be subject 

to the requirement for review under 

section 3.8 of the Compact. 

■ 3. Amend § 401.43 by: 

■ a. Revising paragraphs (b)(1) 

introductory text, (b)(1)(iii) introductory 

text and (b)(2)(i); 

■ b. Adding paragraph (b)(3)(v); 

■ c. Revising paragraphs (b)(4)(iii) and 

(c); 

■ d. Revising Tables 1 and 2. 

The revisions and additions read as 

follows: 

§ 401.43 Regulatory program fees. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(1) Application fee. Except as set forth 

in paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section, 

the application fee shall apply to: 

* * * * * 

(iii) Exemptions. The application fee 

shall not apply to: 

* * * * * 

(2) Annual monitoring and 

coordination fee. (i) Except as provided 

in paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section, an 

annual monitoring and coordination fee 

shall apply to each active water 

allocation or wastewater discharge 

approval issued pursuant to the 

Compact and implementing regulations, 

regardless of whether the approval was 

issued by the Commission in the form 

of a docket, permit or other instrument, 

or by a Signatory Party Agency under 

the One Permit Program rule (§ 401.42). 

(3) * * * 

(v) A project involves treatability 

studies for the discharge of wastewater. 

(4) * * * 

(iii) Modification of a DRBC approval. 

Following Commission action on a 

project, each project revision or 

modification that the Executive Director 

deems substantial shall require an 

additional application fee calculated in 

accordance with paragraph (e) of this 

section and subject to an alternative 

review fee in accordance with paragraph 

(b)(3) of this section. 

* * * * * 

(c) Indexed adjustment. On July 1 of 

every year, beginning July 1, 2017, all 

fees established by this section will 

increase commensurate with any 

increase in the annual April 12-month 

Consumer Price Index (CPI) for 

Philadelphia, published by the U.S. 

Bureau of Labor Statistics during that 

year.1 In any year in which the April 12- 

month CPI for Philadelphia declines or 

shows no change, the application fee 

and annual monitoring and 

coordination fee will remain 

unchanged. Following any indexed 

adjustment made under this paragraph 

(c), a revised fee schedule will be 

published in the Federal Register by 

July 1 and posted on the Commission’s 

website. Interested parties may also 

obtain the fee schedule by contacting 

the Commission directly during 

business hours. 

* * * * * 

TABLE 1 TO § 401.43—APPLICATION FEES

Project type Application fee Fee maximum 

Water Allocation ........................ $405 per million gallons/month of allocation,1 not to 

exceed $15,190.1 Fee is doubled for any portion to 

be exported from the basin.

Greater of: $15,190 1 or Alternative Review Fee. 

Wastewater Discharge .............. Private projects: $1,013.1 Public projects: $506.1

Projects involving wastewater treatability studies: 

$5,000.1

Alternative Review Fee. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
1594 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1 TO § 401.43—APPLICATION FEES—Continued 

Project type Application fee Fee maximum 

Other ......................................... 0.4% of project cost up to $10,000,000 plus 0.12% of 

project cost above $10,000,000 (if applicable), not 

to exceed $75,951.1

Greater of: $75,951 1 or Alternative Review Fee. 

1Subject to an annual adjustment in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section. 

TABLE 2 TO § 401.43—ANNUAL

MONITORING AND COORDINATION FEE

Annual fee Allocation 

Water Allocation 

$304 1 ............. <4.99 mgm. 

$456 1 ............. 5.00 to 49.99 mgm. 

$658 1 ............. 50.00 to 499.99 mgm. 

$835 1 ............. 500.00 to 9,999.99 mgm. 

$1,013 1 .......... > or = to 10,000 mgm. 

Wastewater Discharge 

Annual fee Discharge design capacity 

$304 1 ............. <0.05 mgd. 

$618 1 ............. 0.05 to 0.99 mgd. 

$830 1 ............. 1 to 9.99 mgd. 

$1,013 1 .......... > or = to 10 mgd. 

1Subject to annual adjustment in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Add Part 440 to Subchapter B— 

Special Regulations to read as follows: 

PART 440—HYDRAULIC FRACTURING 

IN SHALE AND OTHER FORMATIONS 

Sec. 

440.1 Purpose, authority and relationship to 

other requirements. 

440.2 Definitions. 

440.3 High volume hydraulic fracturing 

(HVHF). 

440.4 Exportation of water for hydraulic 

fracturing. 

440.5 Produced water. 

Authority: Delaware River Basin Compact 

(75 Stat. 688). 

§ 440.1 Purpose, authority and 

relationship to other requirements. 

(a) Purpose. The purpose of this part 

is to protect and conserve the water 

resources of the Delaware River Basin. 

To effectuate this purpose, this section 

establishes standards, requirements, 

conditions and restrictions to prevent or 

reduce depletion and degradation of 

surface and groundwater resources and 

to promote sound practices of water 

resource management. 

(b) Authority. This part implements 

sections 1.5, 3.6(b), 3.8, 4.1, 5.2, 7.1, 

13.1 and 14.2(a) of the Delaware River 

Basin Compact. 

(c) Comprehensive plan. The 

Commission has determined that the 

provisions of this part are required for 

the immediate and long-range 

development and use of the water 

resources of the Basin and are therefore 

incorporated into the Commission’s 

comprehensive plan. 

(d) Relationship to other Commission 

requirements. (1) The provisions of this 

part are in addition to all applicable 

requirements in other Commission 

regulations, dockets and permits. 

(2) Upon the effective date of this 

rule, the Executive Director 

Determinations dated May 19, 2009, 

June 14, 2010 and July 23, 2010, to the 

extent not already superseded by the 

Commission’s Resolution dated 

December 8, 2010, are no longer 

operative. 

(e) Severability. The provisions of this 

part are severable. If any provision of 

this part or its application to any person 

or circumstances is held invalid, the 

invalidity will not affect other 

provisions or applications of this part, 

which can be given effect without the 

invalid provision or application. 

(f) Coordination and avoidance of 

duplication. In accordance with and 

pursuant to section 1.5 of the Delaware 

River Basin Compact, to the fullest 

extent it finds feasible and advantageous 

the Commission may enter into an 

Administrative Agreement (Agreement) 

with any basin state or the federal 

government to coordinate functions and 

eliminate unnecessary duplication of 

effort. Such Agreements will be 

designed to: Effectuate 

intergovernmental cooperation, 

minimize the efforts and duplication of 

state and Commission staff resources 

wherever possible, ensure compliance 

with Commission-approved 

requirements, enhance early notification 

of the general public and other 

interested parties regarding proposed 

activities in the basin, indicate where a 

host state’s requirements satisfy the 

Commission’s regulatory objectives and 

clarify the relationship and project 

review decision making processes of the 

states and the Commission for projects 

subject to review by the states under 

their state authorities and by the 

Commission under section 3.8 and 

articles 6, 7, 10 and 11 of the Compact. 

§ 440.2 Definitions. 

For purposes of this part, the 

following terms and phrases have the 

meanings provided. Some definitions 

differ from those provided in 

regulations of one or more agencies of 

the Commission’s member states and 

the federal government. 

Basin—The area of drainage into the 

Delaware River and its tributaries, 

including Delaware Bay. 

Centralized waste treatment facility 

(CWT)—As defined by EPA at 40 CFR 

437.2(c), any facility that treats (for 

disposal, recycling or recovery of 

material) any hazardous or nonhazardous industrial wastes, hazardous 

or non-hazardous industrial wastewater, 

and/or used material received from offsite. ‘‘CWT facility’’ includes both a 

facility that treats waste received 

exclusively from off-site and a facility 

that treats wastes generated on-site as 

well as waste received from off-site. 

Commission—The Delaware River 

Basin Commission (DRBC) created and 

constituted by the Delaware River Basin 

Compact. 

Conservative substances—Pollutants 

that undergo no or minimal 

transformation or decay in a water body 

or groundwater, except by dilution. 

CWT wastewater—For purposes of 

this part, ‘‘CWT wastewater’’ means any 

wastewater or effluent resulting from 

the treatment of produced water by a 

CWT. 

Docket—A legal instrument issued by 

the Commission approving, or 

approving as modified, a project having 

a substantial effect on water resources of 

the basin. The approval may modify the 

project by imposing conditions to 

prevent the project from substantially 

impairing or conflicting with the 

Commission’s comprehensive plan. 

Domestic wastewater—Liquid waste 

that contains pollutants produced by a 

domestic residence or residences or by 

a non-residential facility that generates 

wastewater with the same 

characteristics as residential 

wastewater. 

Executive Director—The Executive 

Director of the Delaware River Basin 

Commission. 

Flowback—Fluids returned to the 

surface through an oil or gas well once 

hydraulic fracturing pressure is 

released. Flowback can also refer to the 

stage of well completion in which fluids 

are returned to the surface through the 

well after fracturing is performed. 

Groundwater—Includes all water 

beneath the surface of the ground. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 1595 

High-volume hydraulic fracturing 

(HVHF)—Hydraulic fracturing using a 

combined total of 300,000 or more 

gallons of water during all stages in a 

well completion, whether the well is 

vertical or directional, including 

horizontal, and whether the water is 

fresh or recycled and regardless of the 

chemicals or other additives mixed with 

the water. 

Hydraulic fracturing—A technique 

used to stimulate the production of oil 

and natural gas from a well by injecting 

fracturing fluids down the wellbore 

under pressure to create and maintain 

induced fractures in the hydrocarbonbearing rock of the target geologic 

formation. 

Fracturing fluid(s)—A mixture of 

water (whether fresh or recycled) and/ 

or other fluids and chemicals or other 

additives, which are injected into the 

subsurface and which may include 

chemicals used to reduce friction, 

minimize biofouling of fractures, 

prevent corrosion of metal pipes or 

remove drilling mud damage within a 

wellbore area, and propping agents such 

as silica sand, which are deposited in 

the induced fractures. 

Person—Any natural person, 

corporation, partnership, association, 

company, trust, federal, state or local 

governmental unit, agency, or authority, 

or other entity, public or private. 

Pollutants—Any substance which 

when introduced into water resources, 

including surface water or groundwater, 

degrades natural or existing water 

quality, including but not limited to: 

Dredge spoils, solid waste, incinerator 

residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, 

munitions, chemicals and chemical 

wastes, biological materials, radioactive 

materials, methane, heat, wrecked or 

discarded equipment, rock, sand, 

sediment, cellar dirt, and industrial, 

municipal or agricultural waste as well 

as any substance defined as a pollutant, 

contaminant or hazardous substance by 

any federal or state statute or regulation. 

Pollutants of concern—Conservative, 

radioactive, toxic or other substances 

that are potentially present in produced 

water, consisting of all parameters listed 

in the EPA Technical Development 

Document for the Effluent Limitations 

Guidelines and Standards for the Oil 

and Gas Extraction Point Source 

Category (June 2016), specifically all 

pollutants for produced water listed in 

Tables C–11, C–13, C–15, C–17, and C– 

19. 

Produced water—The water that flows 

out of an oil or gas well, typically 

including other fluids and pollutants 

and other substances from the 

hydrocarbon-bearing strata. Produced 

water may contain ‘‘flowback’’ fluids, 

fracturing fluids and any chemicals 

injected during the stimulation process, 

formation water, and constituents 

leached from geologic formations. For 

purposes of §§ 401.35(b)(18) and 440.5, 

the term ‘‘produced water’’ 

encompasses untreated produced water, 

diluted produced water, and produced 

water mixed with other wastes. 

Wastewater treatment facility—Any 

facility treating and discharging 

wastewater. 

Water resource(s)—Water and related 

natural resources in, on, under, or above 

the ground, including related uses of 

land, which are subject to beneficial 

use, ownership or control within the 

hydrologic boundary of the Delaware 

River Basin. 

§ 440.3 High volume hydraulic fracturing 

(HVHF) 

(a) Determination. The Commission 

has determined that high volume 

hydraulic fracturing poses significant, 

immediate and long-term risks to the 

development, conservation, utilization, 

management, and preservation of the 

water resources of the Delaware River 

Basin and to Special Protection Waters 

of the basin, considered by the 

Commission to have exceptionally high 

scenic, recreational, ecological, and/or 

water supply values. Controlling future 

pollution by prohibiting such activity in 

the basin is required to effectuate the 

comprehensive plan, avoid injury to the 

waters of the basin as contemplated by 

the comprehensive plan and protect the 

public health and preserve the waters of 

the basin for uses in accordance with 

the comprehensive plan. 

(b) Prohibition. High volume 

hydraulic fracturing in hydrocarbon 

bearing rock formations is prohibited 

within the Delaware River Basin. 

§ 440.4 Exportation of water for hydraulic 

fracturing 

As set forth in section 2.30 of the 

Delaware River Basin Water Code 

(‘‘Water Code’’) (incorporated by 

reference at part 410 of this chapter), it 

is the policy of the Commission to 

discourage the exportation of water from 

the Delaware River Basin. Accordingly, 

the diversion, transfer or exportation of 

water from sources within the basin to 

support hydraulic fracturing outside the 

basin is discouraged. The transfer of 

surface water, groundwater, treated 

wastewater or mine drainage water, at 

any rate or volume, for utilization in 

hydraulic fracturing of hydrocarbon 

bearing rock formations outside the 

basin requires Commission approval in 

the form of a docket and shall be subject 

to the evaluation described by section 

2.30.4 of the Water Code. 

§ 440.5 Produced water. 

(a) Related Commission policies. (1) It 

is the policy of the Commission to 

discourage the importation of 

wastewater into the basin (see section 

2.30.2 of the Delaware River Basin 

Water Code, incorporated by reference 

at part 410 of this chapter). 

(2) It is the policy of the Commission 

to give no credit toward meeting 

wastewater treatment requirements for 

wastewater imported into the Basin (see 

section 2.30.6 of the Delaware River 

Basin Water Code incorporated by 

reference at part 410 of this chapter). 

(3) The Commission has determined 

by Resolution No. 2000–4 that 

allocations of the waste assimilative 

capacity of the Delaware River Estuary 

are necessary to maintain stream quality 

objectives for acute toxicity and chronic 

toxicity in Water Quality Zones 2, 3, 4 

and 5 and for 1,2 dichloroethane and 

tetrachloroethene in Water Quality 

Zones 2 and 3. 

(4) It is the policy of the Commission 

that there be no measurable change in 

existing water quality except towards 

natural conditions in waters considered 

by the Commission to have 

exceptionally high scenic, recreational, 

ecological, and/or water supply values. 

Waters with exceptional values may be 

classified by the Commission as either 

Outstanding Basin Waters or Significant 

Resource Waters. (See section 3.10.3.2 

of the Delaware River Basin Water Code, 

incorporated by reference at part 410 of 

this chapter). 

(5) Effluents shall not create a menace 

to public health or safety at the point of 

discharge. (See section 3.10.4 of the 

Delaware River Basin Water Code, 

incorporated by reference at part 410 of 

this chapter). 

(6) The underground water resources 

of the Basin shall be used, conserved, 

developed, managed, and controlled in 

view of the needs of present and future 

generations, and in view of the 

resources available to them. To that end, 

interference, impairment, penetration, 

or artificial recharge shall be subject to 

review and evaluation under the 

Compact. (See section 2.20.6 of the 

Delaware River Basin Water Code, 

incorporated by reference at part 410 of 

this chapter). 

(b) Approval required. Produced 

water and CWT wastewater as defined 

in this part may not be imported into 

the Basin except by a new or existing 

wastewater treatment facility located 

within the Basin, and may not be 

transferred to, treated by or discharged 

from or to a new or existing wastewater 

treatment facility located within the 

Basin, at any volume or rate, except in 

accordance with an approval in the form 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
1596 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 9 / Friday, January 12, 2018 / Proposed Rules 

of a docket issued by the Commission to 

the owner or operator of the wastewater 

treatment facility pursuant to section 3.8 

of the Compact or in accordance with a 

state permit issued pursuant to a duly 

adopted administrative agreement 

between the Commission and the host 

state. 

(c) Alternatives and impact 

assessment. Any project involving the 

importation of produced water or CWT 

wastewater into the Basin shall be 

subject to the requirement that 

alternatives involving no importation 

must be analyzed and the water 

resource, economic and social impacts 

of the project evaluated, as described in 

section 2.30.4 of the Commission’s 

Water Code. 

(d) Compliance with existing rules. In 

addition to the requirements in this 

part, all discharges within the Basin of 

produced water and CWT wastewater as 

defined in this part must comply with 

applicable DRBC Water Quality 

Regulations (incorporated by reference 

at part 410 of this chapter), state 

regulations and federal regulations. If a 

conflict exists among the applicable 

regulations, the more stringent 

requirement shall apply to these 

discharges. 

(e) Treatment facilities. (1) Produced 

water as defined in this part: 

(i) May not be treated within the 

Basin except at a centralized waste 

treatment facility (CWT) as that term is 

defined by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency in 40 CFR part 437 

(to convert it to CWT wastewater); and 

pursuant to an approval issued in 

accordance with § 440.5(b). 

(ii) May not be discharged within the 

basin without treatment at a CWT. 

(2) CWT wastewater as defined in this 

part may be discharged only: 

(i) Directly by the CWT pursuant to an 

approval issued in accordance with 

section 440.5(b); or 

(ii) Indirectly by a CWT to a 

wastewater treatment facility within the 

Basin (via sewer, truck or other means) 

pursuant to an approval issued in 

accordance with § 440.5(b), 

(iii) Provided that the discharge meets 

the requirements of § 440.5(f) through 

(h). 

(f) Treatability studies. The 

Commission shall not issue any 

required docket or approval for the 

treatment of produced water or the 

discharge of CWT wastewater unless the 

project sponsor has identified each 

proposed source of the produced water 

or CWT wastewater and has submitted 

to the Commission a treatability study 

(or studies) prepared by a professional 

engineer licensed in the state(s) in 

which the treatment and discharge 

facilities are located, demonstrating 

that: 

(1) An analysis, characterization and 

quantification of all pollutants of 

concern, as that term is defined in 

§ 440.2, has been conducted and the 

results submitted to the Commission; 

(2) The acute and chronic toxicity of 

the waste, measured as Whole Effluent 

Toxicity (WET), have been evaluated; 

(3) The treatment technologies and 

applicable design criteria to be used to 

meet all requirements of § 440.5(g) have 

been identified; 

(4) The produced water (or CWT 

wastewater) will not pass through or 

interfere with the facility’s treatment 

process, and the resulting effluent will 

meet all applicable limits; 

(5) The classification, treatment and 

disposal of residuals from the facility, if 

any, will not be adversely affected; and 

(6) The discharge will not cause or 

contribute to an exceedance of 

applicable water quality criteria or 

stream quality objectives or impair the 

existing or protected use of the receiving 

water. 

(g) Additional effluent requirements. 

Except as provided in paragraph (h) of 

this section, the following requirements 

shall apply within the Basin to effluent 

resulting from the treatment of 

produced water or CWT wastewater. In 

any instance in which these 

requirements are deemed to conflict, the 

more stringent shall apply: 

(1) For total dissolved solids (TDS): 

(i) The effluent shall not exceed 

background or 500 mg/l, whichever is 

less, 

(ii) Provided, however, that in waters 

that drain to Delaware River Water 

Quality Zones 4 through 6, the resulting 

effluent shall not exceed 1,000 mg/l, or 

a concentration established by the 

Commission that is compatible with 

designated water uses and stream 

quality objectives. 

(iii) The Commission will publish 

guidance on acceptable methods for 

determining background TDS 

concentrations. 

(2) For waters for which the protected 

or designated uses include ‘‘public 

water supplies’’ or ‘‘drinking water’’, the 

effluent shall not exceed the more 

stringent of EPA’s or the host state’s 

(i) Primary drinking water standards 

for inorganic chemicals, organic 

chemicals (excluding acrylamide and 

epichlorohydrin) and disinfection 

byproducts; and 

(ii) Secondary drinking water 

standards (excluding color, corrosivity, 

and odor). 

(3) For whole effluent toxicity (WET), 

the effluent shall not exceed: 0.3 toxic 

units (acute) and 1.0 toxic units 

(chronic). 

(4) For pollutants of concern as 

defined in section 440.2 of this part: 

(i) For waters that drain to Special 

Protection Waters, the effluent shall not 

exceed the background concentration of 

each pollutant in the receiving water. 

(ii) For waters that do not drain to 

Special Protection Waters: 

(A) If pollutant-specific numeric 

water quality criteria exist, the effluent 

concentration for the pollutant shall not 

exceed the numeric criteria. 

(B) If pollutant-specific numeric water 

quality criteria do not exist, the effluent 

shall not exceed the background 

concentration of the pollutant in the 

receiving water or cause an exceedance 

or violation of any existing narrative 

criteria. 

(C) The Commission will publish 

guidance on acceptable methods for 

determining background concentrations 

for pollutants of concern. 

(5) The Commission may require the 

discharger to perform such monitoring 

and reporting as the Commission deems 

necessary to ensure compliance with 

established numeric effluent limits and 

to support the development of 

additional numeric limits if needed. 

(h) Point of compliance. (1) The 

effluent limitations are to be met at the 

point of discharge to basin waters. 

(2) To ensure that all conditions, 

requirements and standards under this 

rule are met, the Commission may 

impose additional monitoring 

requirements or other conditions on any 

CWT within the basin that discharges 

CWT wastewater as defined in this part 

to another wastewater treatment facility 

in the basin. 

(3) A mixing zone may be considered 

for any pollutant for which a mixing 

zone is permitted in the Delaware River 

Estuary by the DRBC Water Quality 

Regulations (incorporated by reference 

at part 410 of this chapter). 

Dated: January 5, 2018. 

Pamela M. Bush, 

Commission Secretary/Assistant General 

Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2018–00344 Filed 1–11–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6360–01–P 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS