vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office Of Water
(4303)
EPA821-R-95-011
February 1995
Water Quality Benefit Analysis
For The Proposed Effluent
Guidelines For The Coastal
Subcategory Of The Oil And
Gas Extraction Industry
-------
-------
EPA 821-R-95-011
WATER QUALITY BENEFITS ANALYSIS FOR
THE PROPOSED EFFLUENT GUIDELINES
FOR THE COASTAL SUBCATEGORY OF THE
OIL AND GAS EXTRACTION INDUSTRY
Final Report
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Office of Science and Technology
Standards and Applied Science Division
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
February 1995
-------
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed and approved for publication by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Standards and Applied Science Division, Office of Science and Technology,
Office of Water. This report was prepared with the support of Avanti Corporation (contract 68-
C4-0051) under the direction and review of the Office of Science and Technology. Neither the
United States Government nor any of its employees, contractors, subcontractors, or then-
employees make any warranty, expressed or implied, or assumes any legal liability or
responsibility for any third party's use of or the results of such use of any information, apparatus,
product, or process discussed in this report, or represents that its use by such party would not
infringe on privately owned rights.
-------
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION
This Water Quality Benefit Analysis (WQBA) assesses die effects of current discharges and the projected
benefits of proposed effluent guidelines limitations for the coastal subcategory of the oil and gas extraction
industry. The WQBA considers two separate geographic areas: the Gulf of Mexico (Louisiana and Texas) and
Cook Inlet, Alaska. The WQBA examines potential impacts from current produced water discharges in both
geographic areas, and potential impacts from drilling fluids and drill cuttings discharges in Cook Inlet. Drilling
fluids and drill cutting discharges are not assessed for Gulf of Mexico coastal operations because they are
prohibited by state authorities and existing NPDES permits. Three types of benefits are analyzed: quantified
and non-monetized benefits, quantified and monetized benefits, and non-quantified and non-monetized benefits.
The coastal waters that these proposed guidelines cover maintain diverse ecosystems. These ecosystems
serve as spawning grounds, nurseries, and habitat for important estuarine and marine finfish and shellfish
species. Many commercial species depend on coastal ecosystems for portions of their life cycle. For example,
the commercial fisheries in Texas and Louisiana (finfish, shrimp, crabs, and oysters) were valued at $476
million in 1992; 92% and 98% of the landings in these two states, respectively, consist of species that spend a
significant portion of their life cycle in estuaries and bays. Coastal waters also serve as critical habitats for
numerous federally-designated endangered and threatened species, including 32 species in coastal areas of Texas
and Louisiana.
The regulatory options considered for produced water and evaluated in the WQBA are:
Option 1: (BPT All) - Effluent limitations are equal to existing BPT requirements; oil and grease
limited in effluent to 48 mg/1 (monthly average) and 72 mg/1 (daily maximum).
Option 2: (Gas Flotation All) - All discharges of produced water are required to meet limitations on oil
and grease content of 29 mg/1 monthly average and a daily maximum of 42 mg/1. The
technology basis for these limits is improved operating performance of gas flotation.
Option 3: (Zero Discharge; Cook Inlet BPT) - With the exception of facilities in Cook Inlet, Alaska,
all coastal oil and gas facilities are prohibited from discharging produced water; coastal
facilities in Cook Inlet are required to comply with existing BPT effluent limitations for oil
and grease (48/72 mg/1 daily average/daily maximum).
Option 4: (Zero Discharge; Cook Inlet Gas Flotation) - With the exception of facilities hi Cook Inlet,
Alaska, all coastal oil and gas facilities are prohibited from discharging produced water;
coastal facilities in Cook Inlet are required to comply with the oil and grease limitations of 29
mg/1 (monthly average) and 42 mg/1 (daily maximum) based on improved operating
performance of gas flotation.
-------
11
Option 5: (Zero Discharge All) - Prohibits all discharges of produced water based on reinjection of the
produced water.
The options considered for drilling fluids and evaluated in the WQBA are:
Option 1: Zero discharge for all areas except Cook Inlet, Alaska, where discharge limitations require
toxicity of no less than 30,000 ppm (SPP); no discharge of free oil and diesel oil; and no
more than 1 mg/1 mercury and 3 mg/1 cadmium in the stock barite.
Option 2: Zero discharge for all areas except for Cook Met, Alaska, where discharge limitations are
the same as Option 1, except toxicity would meet a limitation of 1 million ppm (SPP).
Option 3: Zero discharge of drilling fluids in all areas.
Although all the above options were evaluated, this Executive Summary presents findings developed for the
current baseline and the selected options only. For produced water, the selected option is Option 4 (Zero
Discharge; Cook Inlet Gas Flotation). For drilling fluids and cuttings, the two co-selected options are Options 2
(Zero Discharge, except Cook Inlet) and Option 3 (Zero Discharge). Results for other considered options are
presented in the main body of this report.
QUANTIFIED, NON-MONETIZED BENEFITS, GULF OF MEXICO
Review of Case Studies
A total of 25 case study sites (12 sites in Louisiana and 13 sites in Texas) are summarized. Of these 25
study sites, 13 sites are in relatively low energy locations (marshes, canals) and 12 sites are in relatively high
energy areas (bayous, river distributaries, open bays/lakes). Also, 12 wetlands locations were included in the
25 study sites, 6 saltmarsh sites and 6 fresh or brackish marsh sites. Water depth is reported for 19 study sites;
15 sites are located in water depths less than 3 meters; 4 sites are located in waters greater than 3 meters.
Documented impacts show elevated hydrocarbons and metals in water column and sediments, and reveal
impacts on biota up to 1,000 meters from the produced water discharge site. Salinity effects are typically
detected up to 300 meters from the discharge, and up to 800 meters in dead-end canals. Benthic dead zones
(i.e., areas with no benthic fauna) are documented out to 15 meters from discharges. Severely depressed
benthic communities (>75% reductions) are noted to 150 meters from produced water outfalls.
Radiochemical impacts were variable, but generally of limited spatial scale. Indigenous biota were
generally found to have detectable levels of Ra-226 and Ra-228. Background levels in these studies were
generally not known and not easily estimated. No pre- versus post-discharge sampling has been conducted to
establish temporal relationships between the discharge of produced water radium and sediment or biotic
accumulations. Spacial data are ambiguous and not easily interpreted, in terms of establishing background
-------
Ill
levels in sediments or biota. However, caged organisms deployed for 14 days have been shown to
bioaccumulate radium as far as 350 meters from a produced water discharge.
Water Quality Benefits
la this WQBA, plume dispersion modeling is performed to project in-stream concentrations of 66
pollutants (representing subcategory-wide produced water discharge) at the edge of the state-prescribed mixing
zones for Texas and Louisiana at one- and three-meter water depths. Texas has standards for 12 of these
pollutants, while Louisiana has standards for 14. For both of the Gulf of Mexico states analyzed, three
discharge rate scenarios are modeled: mean discharge rate by outfall; median discharge rate by outfall (i.e.,
50% of outfall flows are greater or less than the median flow); and median discharge rate by flow (i.e., 50% of
the total produced water volume is discharged at greater or lesser flow rates). Assessment of compliance with
state standards was conducted in accordance with state implementation guidance of both Texas and Louisiana.
At the mean discharge rate, one pollutant (silver) in Texas exceeds its chronic standard at the one meter
depth. In Louisiana at the one meter depth, one pollutant (copper) exceeds two acute standards (daily average
and maximum), two pollutants (copper and lead) exceed two chronic standards, and one pollutant (benzene)
exceeds two human health standards at the one meter depth, and at three meter depth one pollutant (copper)
exceeds its acute standard, and one pollutant (benzene) exceeds two human health standards. The proposed
BAT zero discharge option would eliminate all projected exceedances.
Reduction of Point Source Toxic Loadings to Texas and Louisiana
The watershed pollutant loadings from produced water are compared to other industrial and municipal
point sources (i.e., excluding pollutant loadings from nonpoint sources and atmospheric deposition) for Texas
and Louisiana estuarine drainage systems. Produced water loadings are calculated and compared to estimates
for other industrial and municipal point sources using the same methodology presented in a report prepared by
EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) for the Gulf of Mexico Program. At the current (BPT)
discharge level, and only considering the 34 pollutants found in produced water that also were identified in this
ORD report, produced water in Texas contributes about 17 % and in Louisiana about 58 % of total point source
pollutant loadings into their respective watersheds. Toxic unit loadings also were assessed. For the 34 current
BPJ pollutants assessed, produced water toxic unit loadings approximated 94% in Texas and 87% in Louisiana
of the total point source toxic unit loadings. The proposed zero discharge option would eliminate produced
water pollutant loading contributions to Texas and Louisiana coastal watersheds.
-------
QUANTIFIED AND MONETIZED BENEFITS, GULF OF MEXICO
Projected Cancer Risk Reduction Benefits
A first-order assessment of potential human health impacts from ingestion of seafood contaminated with
radium from discharged produced water is developed. Upper bound individual cancer risks from consuming
fish contaminated with Ra226 and Ra228 from current produced water discharges are estimated for recreational
and subsistence anglers. Risks are estimated using two types of data: (1) measured field seafood data (i.e.,
because background radium levels could not be adequately determined, average Ra and Ra levels were
used, based on field samples of fish, crabs, and oysters collected within 3,000 meters of produced water
discharges in coastal subcategory areas of Louisiana), and (2) modeled effluent data (i.e., using current
subcategory-wide produced water concentrations of Ra226 and Ra228 and plume dispersion modeling to estimate
Ra22^ and Ra228 levels in seafood). Risks are calculated using standard EPA methodology. Resulting
carcinogenic risks from all seafood categories are adjusted, also as per EPA methodology, by factors of 0.20
and 0.75, to account for ingestion of seafood from locations that are not contaminated. These reductions are
applied to both field data and modeling approaches.
Projected individual cancer risks for both risk assessment approaches are at 10"5 and 10"4 level for
subsistence anglers (147 grams per day seafood consumption), and at 10"6 level for recreational anglers (15
grams per day seafood consumption). The proposed zero discharge of produced water will eliminate these
estimated cancer risks over time. Using a range of $2 million to $10 million per lifetime and measured field
data, the monetized benefits from cancer cases avoidance for the selected BAT option are projected to range
from $2.3 to $43 million, with a range of midpoint values of $7 million to $26 million. Using the same lifetime
cost range and the modeling approach, the selected BAT option is projected to result hi monetized benefits of
$2.4 to $46 million per year with a range of midpoint values of $7 million to $26 million.
The temporal dynamics of both impacts and benefits assessments is relevant to the human health risk
assessment. For the assessments of cancer reduction benefits, the methodology is consistent with estimating
costs for the rule, using a one-year, "snap-shot" approach. Allocating the full value of annual benefits within
one year following cessation of produced water discharges may appear to over-estimate potential annual benefits
in cases where incomplete recovery has occurred. However, in such cases where impacts are incompletely
recovered, a consideration of total impact would need to include any impacts expected to occur beyond that
year. This analysis does not attempt to identify or allocate benefits on a year-by-year basis, but merely
averages total benefits so that monetized benefits may be compared to costs that are developed using the same
approach.
Projected Ecological Benefits
A potential ecological benefit of zero discharge of produced water in Texas and Louisiana coastal areas is
projected from a Trinity Bay case study. Assuming that zero discharge of produced water would result in a
recovery of ecosystems around platforms, a monetary value could be assigned to the estimated acreage impacted
-------
around the study platform currently affected by produced water discharges. A case study of a produced water
outfall to a coastal embayment is used to develop estimates of ecological impact associated with this outfall.
Sediment benthic community analyses and sediment total naphthalenes analyses were performed monthly for 21
months. The sieve size used for benthic infaunal sorting was changed during the course of the study, so two
sets of analyses are performed, one for each sieve size.
For 0.50 mm mesh size data, benthic abundance and species richness are respectively reduced 23 % and
21 % within a 3,963-meter impact radius, amounting to 2,817 and 2,501 equivalent acres affected. For
0.25 mm mesh size data, species richness was reduced 7% within a 3,963-meter impact radius for 814
equivalent acres affected; benthic abundance was reduced 9% within a 1,677-meter impact radius for 200
equivalent acres affected. A Galveston Bay National Estuary Program study that monetized recreational values
to create a range of total values and the estimated acreage of Galveston Bay is used to estimate per-acre
ecological values ($336 to $730 per acre, with a midpoint value of $533/acre) for the Trinity Bay case study.
These per-acre ecological values are applied to the Trinity Bay case study's estimates of equivalent area
affected to estimate the monetized ecological benefit of the zero discharge option for this case study. The
estimated ecological benefits for the Trinity Bay study based on the minimum impact area and resource
valuation estimate and the maximum impact area and resource valuation estimate range from $67,200 to
$2,056,410.
To estimate benefits on a Gulf-wide basis, a review conducted for MMS of wetland valuations that
includes Louisiana valuations is used. Based on this review, wetland values range from $57 to $940 per acre
per year (median value of $410 per acre per year) in 1990 dollars. Based on those estimations, the projected
monetized ecological benefits for the preferred regulatory option is $0.8 million to $184 million for Gulf of
Mexico coastal area in 1990 dollars ($1.0 million to $210 million in 1994 dollars). Value estimates used in this
analysis are net estimates, and do not include resource costs.
To project Gulf of Mexico benefits on a subcategory-wide basis, the approach scaled the data available
for the Trinity Bay case study assuming a linear relationship among all parameters (i.e., flow, environmental
impact, and costs). The total current BPT flow for the coastal subcategory in Texas is projected at 73,318 bpd
(10.4-fold greater than the Trinity Bay case study flow). For Louisiana, the total BPT flow is projected
415,919 bpd (59-fold greater than the Trinity Bay case study flow). Thus, the total Texas and Louisiana
acreage affected ranges from 11,799 acres to 166,191 acres, with a midpoint of 89,024 acres.
QUANTIFIED, NON-MONETIZED BENEFITS, COOK INLET, ALASKA
Produced Water
In this WQBA, plume dispersion modeling is performed to project in-stream concentrations of 20
pollutants at the edge of the mixing zones for the eight outfalls currently discharging produced water to Cook
Inlet. Facility specific flow and environmental data were used in the model scenarios evaluated. Alaska state
-------
VI
requirements do not have spatially-defined mixing zones, so the WQBA assessed the extent of the mixing zone
required for compliance with all applicable state standards. For the eight outfalls modeled, the distance from
each facility where all state standards are met ranges from within 15.2 meters (50 feet) to 2,500 meters at the
current (BPT) pollutant level, and from within 15.2 meters (50 feet) to 2,000 meters at the proposed BAT
pollutant level.
Drilling Fluids and Drill Cuttings
Discharges of drilling fluids and drill cuttings are modeled using in-stream concentrations of 17 pollutants
in the water column at the edge of a 100-meter mixing zone. The discharge rates are modeled in accordance
with the maximum discharge rates allowable under the existing NPDES general permit for Cook Inlet. The
modeling results show two standards are exceeded (drinking water standards for aluminum and iron) at the 40
meter water depth and at the 20 meters water depth; and three standards are exceeded at the 10 meters water
depth (drinking water standards for aluminum, antimony, and iron) at both current BPT discharge and the
alternative BAT Option 2 which would allow discharge of drilling fluids and drill cuttings with certain
limitations. The co-proposed zero discharge option (BAT Option 3) will eliminate all projected exceedances.
NON-QUANTIFIED BENEFITS, GULF OF MEXICO AND COOK INLET, ALASKA
The WQBA attempts to quantify, and whenever appropriate, to monetize specific environmental benefits
that may result from the options proposed for this rule. However, some potential benefits could not be
quantified or monetized because of a lack of data or insufficient information to define causal relationships
between coastal oil and gas production activities and environmental effects.
Environmental Equity Issues
An analysis of potential exposure among socioeconomic and ethnic groups in coastal areas of Texas and
Louisiana, indicates that subsistence and personal use of fisheries may be appreciable. This subsistence usage
indicates potential environmental equity concerns for low income subsistence and personal use anglers. Zero
discharge limits and standards for produced water would eliminate concern for these users.
Threatened and Endangered Species
The proposed regulation may also have beneficial effects on 32 threatened and endangered species in
coastal areas of Texas and Louisiana. Zero discharge of produced water would eliminate these concerns.
Revisions to the WQBA hi Response to EPA Region 6 Final NPDES Permits
EPA Region 6 has recently published final NPDES general permits covering oil and gas production
facilities discharging to the coastal subcategory in the States of Louisiana and Texas (60 FR 2387; January 9,
-------
Vll
1995). These permits prohibit the discharge of produced water and produced sand derived from these facilities
to waters of the U.S., with the exception of produced water discharges derived from offshore subcategory
sources that are discharged into certain deltaic passes of the Mississippi or Atchafalaya River. These excluded
facilities, however, are covered under the proposed effluent guidelines. Because of the close timing of the
publication of these final permits and the proposed effluent guidelines, little opportunity for re-analysis of
impacts and benefits developed in this WQBA occurred. The approach used to revise the WQBA in response to
the publication of the final permits is to proportionate impacts and benefits based on a simple flow proportion,
based on the 29% share of produced water flow attributable to the facilities excluded from coverage under the
final general permits.
This is a simplistic approach that is required because of the lack of time to react to the changes in the
industry profile used to develop the coastal subcategory effluent guidelines. This approach entails the continuing
use of a number of assumptions that, although defensible for the analyses developed for the entire coastal
subcategory in Louisiana and Texas may not be fully applicable to only the facilities excluded from coverage by
the Region 6 general permit in Louisiana. For the final rule a new WQBA will be conducted that is based on a
revised industry profile.
Preliminary estimates of environmental benefits revised analyses to address the Region 6 final general
permits are as follows:
• Produced water flows in Louisiana are reduced to 52 million barrels per year; flows in Texas are reduced
to zero.
Revised Louisiana watershed mass loadings from produced water discharges from facilities excluded from
coverage under the Region 6 final general permit are projected to be 2.0 million pounds per year or 17%
of the mass load from industrial and municipal point sources (includes ORD report pollutants only) to 6.0
million pounds per year or 23 % of Louisiana's point source mass load (all produced water pollutants
included).
Reduced toxic unit loadings from produced water discharges from facilities excluded from coverage under
the Region 6 final permit are estimated to represent 25% of the point source toxic loadings in Louisiana.
Revisions to water quality compliance, resource valuations, and exposed population estimates cannot be
projected at this time for the reduced flow that results from issuance of the Region 6 NPDES permits.
Based on a reduced flow estimate of 29% of the original flow estimate, the monetized benefit estimate is
reduced to potential benefits due to cancer risk reductions. For these proposed effluent guidelines those
benefits range from $0.7 to $13.3 million annually.
-------
vm
Based on a reduced flow estimate of 29 % of the pre-permit flow estimate, the monetized ecological
benefit due to ecological improvement from these proposed effluent guidelines is $1.4 to $41.5 million
annually.
-------
IX
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary i
1. Introduction
1.1 Background 1-1
1.2 Purpose 1-1
1.3 Geographic Scope 1-2
1.4 Waste Streams 1-3
1.5 Regulatory History 1-3
1.6 BAT Regulatory Options 1-4
1.6.1 Produced Water 1-4
1.6.2 Drilling Wastes 1-5
2. Produced Water Characterizations
2.1 Background 2-1
2.2 Characterization of Produced Water Discharge Volumes 2-1
2.2.1 Texas 2-1
2.2.2 Louisiana 2-5
2.2.3 Alaska 2-8
2.3 Produced Water Pollutant Characterization 2-8
2.3.1 Texas and Louisiana 2-8
2.3.2 Alaska 2-8
2.4 Produced Water Toxicity 2-13
2.4.1 Texas 2-13
2.4.2 Louisiana 2-13
2.4.3 Alaska 2-13
3. Produced Water Watershed Loadings and Quantified Benefits, Texas and Louisiana
3.1 Methodology 3-1
3.2 Current BPT Produced Water Effluent 3-10
3.2.1 Mass Loadings 3-10
3.2.2 Toxic Unit Loadings 3-10
3.3 Gas Flotation Produced Water Effluent (BAT Option 2) 3-20
33.1 Mass Loadings 3-20
3.3.2 Toxic Unit Loadings 3-20
3.4 Contributions of Produced Water Loadings to Total Watershed Loadings 3-20
3.4.1 Current BPT Effluent 3-20
3.4.2 Gas Flotation Effluent (BAT Option 2) 3-30
4. Water Quality Compliance Assessments for Produced Water
4.1 Methodology 4-1
4.1.1 Surface Water Modeling 4-1
4.1.2 State Water Quality Standards 4-2
4.2 Texas Water Quality Compliance Assessment 4-6
4.3 Louisiana Water Quality Compliance Assessment 4-33
4.4 Cook Inlet, Alaska Water Quality Compliance Assessment 4-33
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
45 Summary of Water Quality Compliance Assessments for Produced Water 4-33
45.1 Gulf of Mexico - Current BPT 4-33
452. Gulf of Mexico - Gas Flotation (BAT Option 2) 4-70
453 Gulf of Mexico - Zero Discharge Options 4-72
45.4 Cook Inlet, Alaska Water Quality Analyses 4-72
5. Cook Inlet Drilling Waste Water Quality Analysis
5.1 Characterization of Drilling Discharges 5-1
52 Dilution Modeling 5-1
53 Water Quality Analysis, Cook Inlet Drilling Discharges 5-3
6. Valuation of Resources at Risk in the Gulf of Mexico
6.1 Review of Coastal Wetland Values 6-1
6.2 Recreational Fisheries, Galveston Bay 6-7
63 Nonconsumptive and Other Recreational Values, Galveston Bay 6-8
6.4 Total Recreational Value, Galveston Bay 6-8
65 Commercial Fisheries, Texas and Louisiana 6-10
6.6 Endangered and Threatened Species .' 6-10
7. Populations Exposed to Coastal Produced Water Discharges
7.1 Recreational Anglers 7-1
7.2 Coastal Demographics 7-3
73 Consumption Rates and Patterns 7-3
8. Radium Risk Assessment and Monetization of Human Health Benefits 8-1
8.1 Methodology 8 - *
82 Results 8 - *
83 Evaluation of the Assessment 8-8
9. Trinity Bay Case Study of Ecological Impacts and Monetized Benefits
9.1 Description of the Trinity Bay Study 9-1
92 Case Study Approach 9-5
93 Trinity Bay Texas Case Study Assessment 9-13
9.4 Gulf of Mexico-wide Assessment 9-15
95 Evaluation of the Assessment 9-18
10. Produced Water Literature Review
10.1 Summary of the Produced Water Literature Review 10-1
102 Summary of Coastal Studies Cited 10-12
-------
XI
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
11. Addendum to the WQBA in Response to EPA Region 6 Final NPDES Permits
11.1 Produced Water Characterizations
11.2 Watershed Loadings
11.3 Water Quality Compliance Assessment
11.4 Valuation of Resources at Risk
11.5 Populations Exposed to Produced Water Discharges
11.6 Radium Risk Assessment
11.7 Ecological Benefits
11-1
11^2
11-2
11-2
11-2
11-3
11-3
12. References 12-1
-------
-------
XIII
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit 2-1. Texas Coastal Produced Water Outfalls 2-2
Exhibit 2-2. Louisiana Coastal Produced Water Outfalls 2-6
Exhibit 2-3. Cook Inlet Produced Water Outfalls 2-9
Exhibit 2-4. Produced Water Pollutant Concentrations for Texas and Louisiana Analyses 2-10
Exhibit 2-5. Produced Water Pollutant Concentrations for Alaska Analyses 2-12
Exhibit 2-6. Texas Coastal Produced Water Toxicity Data 2-14
Exhibit 2-7. Louisiana Coastal Produced Water Toxicity Data 2-15
Exhibit 2-8. Cook Inlet Produced Water Toxicity Data 2-16
Exhibit 3-1. EPA Office of Research and Development Report Estuarine Drainage Systems
for Texas and Louisiana 3-2
Exhibit 3-2. Map of Gulf of Mexico Estuarine Drainage Systems 3-3
Exhibit 3-3. Texas Outfalls Used for Watershed Loadings Analyses Sorted by EDS 3-4
Exhibit 3-4. Louisiana Outfalls Used for Watershed Loadings Analyses Sorted by EDS 3-7
Exhibit 3-5. Pollutants Included in the EPA ORD Report 3-9
Exhibit 3-6. Toxic Criteria for Produced Water Effluent Pollutants 3-11
Exhibit 3-7. Total Industrial and Municipal Loadings for the Gulf of Mexico by Estuarine
Drainage System 3-13
Exhibit 3-8. Texas Produced Water Mass Loadings - Current BPT Effluent 3-14
Exhibit 3-9. Louisiana Produced Water Mass Loadings - Current BPT Effluent 3-16
Exhibit 3-10. Texas Produced Water Toxic Unit Loadings - Current BPT Effluent 3-18
Exhibit 3-11. Louisiana Produced Water Toxic Unit Loadings - Current BPT Effluent 3-19
Exhibit 3-12. Texas Produced Water Mass Loadings - Gas Flotation Effluent (BAT Option 2) ... 3-21
Exhibit 3-13. Louisiana Produced Water Mass Loadings - Gas Flotation Effluent (BAT Option 2) . 3-23
Exhibit 3-14. Texas Produced Water Toxic Unit Loadings -
Gas Rotation Effluent (BAT Option 2) 3-25
Exhibit 3-15. Louisiana Produced Water Toxic Unit Loadings -
Gas Rotation Effluent (BAT Option 2) 3-26
Exhibit 3-16. Summary of Relative Contribution of Produced Water Mass and Toxic Unit Loadings
to Total Watershed Loadings from ORD Report 3-27
Exhibit 3-17. Texas Industrial, Municipal, and Produced Water Pollutant Mass Loadings -
Current BPT Effluent 3-28
Exhibit 3-18. Louisiana Industrial, Municipal, and Produced Water Pollutant Mass Loadings -
Current BPT Effluent 3-29
Exhibit 3-19. Texas Industrial, Municipal, and Produced Water Pollutant Toxic Unit Loadings -
Current BPT Effluent 3-31
Exhibit 3-20. Louisiana Industrial, Municipal, and Produced Water Pollutant Toxic Unit Loadings -
Current BPT Effluent 3-32
Exhibit 3-21. Texas Industrial, Municipal, and Produced Water Pollutant Mass Loadings -
Gas Flotation Effluent (BAT Option 2) 3-33
Exhibit 3-22. Louisiana Industrial, Municipal, and Produced Water Pollutant Mass Loadings -
Gas Flotation Effluent (BAT Option 2) 3-34
Exhibit 3-23. Texas Industrial, Municipal, and Produced Water Pollutant Toxic Unit Loadings -
Gas Flotation Effluent (BAT Option 2) 3-35
Exhibit 3-24. Louisiana Industrial, Municipal, and Produced Water Pollutant Toxic Unit Loadings -
Gas Flotation Effluent (BAT Option 2) 3-36
Exhibit 4-1. Texas Water Quality Standards 4-3
Exhibit 4-2. Calculation of the Fraction of Dissolved Metal 4-4
Exhibit 4-3. Louisiana Water Quality Standards 4-5
Exhibit 4-4. Alaska Water Quality Standards 4-7
-------
nv
LIST OF EXHIBITS (Continued)
Exhibit 4-5. Connix Results for Texas Produced Water Discharges
Exhibit 4-6. Waste Load Allocation Calculations for Texas Water Quality Analysis -
1 Meter Water Depth, Current BPT; Median Discharge Rate by Outfall
Exhibit 4-7. Waste Load Allocation Calculation for Texas Water Quality Analysis -
1 Meter Water Depth, Current BPT; Mean Discharge Rate
Exhibit 4-8. Waste Load Allocation Calculation for Texas Water Quality Analysis -
1 Meter Water Depth, Current BPT; Median Discharge Rate by Flow
Exhibit 4-9. Waste Load Allocation Calculation for Texas Water Quality Analysis -
3 Meter Water Depth, Current BPT; Median Discharge Rate by Outfall
Exhibit 4-10. Waste Load Allocation Calculation for Texas Water Quality Analysis -
3 Meter Water Depth, Current BPT; Mean Discharge Rate
Exhibit 4-11. Waste Load Allocation Calculation for Texas Water Quality Analysis -
3 Meter Water Depth, Current BPT; Median Discharge Rate by Flow
Exhibit 4-12. Waste Load Allocation Calculation for Texas Water Quality Analysis - 1 Meter
Water Depth, Gas Flotation (BAT Option 2); Median Discharge Rate by Outfall . ..
Exhibit 4-13. Waste Load Allocation Calculation for Texas Water Quality Analysis - 1 Meter
Water Depth, Gas Flotation (BAT Option 2); Mean Discharge Rate
Exhibit 4-14. Waste Load Allocation Calculation for Texas Water Quality Analysis - 3 Meter
Water Depth, Gas Flotation (BAT Option 2); Median Discharge Rate by How
Exhibit 4-15. Waste Load Allocation Calculation for Texas Water Quality Analysis - 3 Meter
Water Depth, Gas Flotation (BAT Option 2); Median Discharge Rate by Outfall ..
Exhibit 4-16. Waste Load Allocation Calculation for Texas Water Quality Analysis - 3 Meter
Water Depth, Gas Flotation (BAT Option 2); Mean Discharge Rate
Exhibit 4-17. Waste Load Allocation Calculation for Texas Water Quality Analysis - 3 Meter
Water Depth, Gas Flotation (BAT Option 2); Median Discharge Rate by Flow
Exhibit 4-18. Connix Results for Louisiana Produced Water Discharges
Exhibit 4-19. Waste Load Allocation Calculation for Louisiana Water Quality Analysis -
1 Meter Water Depth, Current BPT; Median Discharge Rate by Outfall
Exhibit 4-20. Waste Load Allocation Calculation for Louisiana Water Quality Analysis -
1 Meter Water Depth, Current BPT; Mean Discharge Rate
Exhibit 4-21. Waste Load Allocation Calculation for Louisiana Water Quality Analysis -
1 Meter Water Depth, Current BPT; Median Discharge Rate by Flow
Exhibit 4-22. Waste Load Allocation Calculation for Louisiana Water Quality Analysis -
3 Meter Water Depth, Current BPT; Median Discharge Rate by Outfall
Exhibit 4-23. Waste Load Allocation Calculation for Louisiana Water Quality Analysis -
3 Meter Water Depth, Current BPT; Mean Discharge Rate
Exhibit 4-24. Waste Load Allocation Calculation for Louisiana Water Quality Analysis -
3 Meter Water Depth, Current BPT; Median Discharge Rate by Flow
Exhibit 4-25. Waste Load Allocation Calculations for Louisiana Water Quality Analysis •-1 Meter
Water Depth, Gas Flotation (BAT Option 2); Median Discharge Rate by Outfall ..
Exhibit 4-26. Waste Load Allocation Calculation for Louisiana Water Quality Analysis - 1 Meter
Water Depth, Gas Flotation (BAT Option 2); Mean Discharge Rate
Exhibit 4-27. Waste Load Allocation Calculation for Louisiana Water Quality Analysis -1 Meter
Water Depth, Gas Flotation (BAT Option 2); Median Discharge Rate by How ...
Exhibit 4-28. Waste Load Allocation Calculation for Louisiana Water Quality Analysis - 3 Meter
Water Depth, Gas Hotation (BAT Option 2); Median Discharge Rate by Outfall ..
Exhibit 4-29. Waste Load Allocation Calculation for Louisiana Water Quality Analysis - 3 Meter
Water Depth, Gas Hotation (BAT Option 2); Mean Discharge Rate
. 4-8
. 4-9
4-11
4-13
4-15
4-17
4-19
4-21
4-23
4-25
4-27
4-29
4-31
4-34
4-35
4-37
4-39
4-41
4-43
4-45
4-47
4-49
4-51
4-53
4-55
-------
XV
LIST OF EXHIBITS (Continued)
Exhibit 4-30. Waste Load Allocation Calculation for Louisiana Water Quality Analysis - 3 Meter
Water Depth, Gas Flotation (BAT Option 2); Median Discharge Rate by Flow 4-57
Exhibit 4-31. Assessment of Compliance with Louisiana Oil and Gas Effluent Limitations 4-59
Exhibit 4-32. Cormix Results for Alaska Produced Water Discharges 4-60
Exhibit 4-33. Water Quality Analysis for Trading Bay 4-61
Exhibit 4-34. Water Quality Analysis for East Foreland 4-62
Exhibit 4-35. Water Quality Analysis for Platform Dillon 4-63
Exhibit 4-36. Water Quality Analysis for Platform Anna 4-64
Exhibit 4-37. Water Quality Analysis for Granite Point 4-65
Exhibit 4-38. Water Quality Analysis for Phillips NCIU 4-66
Exhibit 4-39. Water Quality Analysis for Platform Bruce 4-67
Exhibit 4-40. Water Quality Analysis for Platform Baker 4-68
Exhibit 4-41. Summary of Pollutant Limitations Exceeded in Texas and Louisiana,
Current BPT 4-69
Exhibit 4-42. Summary of Pollutant Limitations Exceeded in Texas and Louisiana,
Gas Flotation (BAT Option 2) 4-71
Exhibit 4-43. Mixing Zones Required for Alaska Outfalls 4-73
Exhibit 5-1. Pollutant Concentrations in Drilling Fluid Effluent 5-2
Exhibit 5-2. Summary of OOC Model Results from Region 10 Permit Development 5-4
Exhibit 5-3 Water Quality Analysis for Drilling Discharges to Cook Inlet 5-5
Exhibit 6-1. Summary of Literature Review of Wetlands Values 6-3
Exhibit 6-2. Summary of Galveston Bay Recreational Values 6-9
Exhibit 6-3. Threatened and Endangered Species of the Gulf of Mexico 6-11
Exhibit 7-1. Recreational Angler Characterization for Texas and Louisiana 7-2
Exhibit 7-2. Demographics for Texas and Louisiana Coastal Counties 7-4
Exhibit 8-1. Estimated Increased Lifetime Cancer Risk - EPA Modeling Methodology 8-2
Exhibit 8-2. Projected Excess Cancers in Texas and Louisiana Populations - EPA
Modeling Methodology 8-4
Exhibit 8-3. Estimated Increased Lifetime Cancer Risk - Field
Sampling Methodology 8-5
Exhibit 8-4. Projected Excess Cancers in Texas and Louisiana Populations - Field
Sampling Methodology 8-6
Exhibit 8-5. Estimated Lifetime Excess Cancer for Recreational Anglers and Then- Households ... 8-7
Exhibit 8-6. Annual Monetized Benefits of Cancer Case Avoidance for Recreational Anglers
and Their Households 8-9
Exhibit 9-1. Map of Trinity Bay Showing Location of C-2 Separator Platform and Extent
of Transects 9-2
Exhibit 9-2. Scatter Plot: Sediment Naphthalene vs. Distance from Outfall 9-3
Exhibit 9-3. Mean Sediment Naphthalene vs. Distance from Outfall, Distance-Averaged 9-4
Exhibit 9-4. Log Mean Sediment Naphthalene vs. Log Distance from Outfall, Distance Averaged .9-6
Exhibit 9-5. Fractional Benthic Abundance and Species Richness vs. Sediment Naphthalenes 9-7
Exhibit 9-6. Trinity Bay, Texas Produced Water Outfall Fractional Abundance and
Species Richness Data 9-8
Exhibit 9-7. Fractional Abundance/Species Richness vs. Distance, 0.50 mm Mesh Sieve Size 9-9
Exhibit 9-8. Fractional Abundance/Species Richness vs. Distance, 0.25 mm Mesh Sieve Size .... 9-10
Exhibit 9-9. Fractional Abundance vs. Distance, 0.25 mm and 0.50 mm Mesh Sieve Size 9-11
Exhibit 9-10. Fractional Species Richness vs. Distance, 0.25 mm and 0.50 mm Mesh Sieve Size ... 9-12
Exhibit 9-11. Total Abundance and Species Richness for 0.25 mm and 0.50 mm Mesh Size Data . . 9-14
-------
LIST OF1 EXHIBITS (Continued)
Exhibit 9-12. Summary of Trinity Bay Case Study Compliance Costs and Monetized
Ecological Benefits ......................................
Exhibit 9-13. Summary of Gulf-wide Projected Monetized Ecological Benefits,
Zero Discharge Option ...................................
Exhibit 10-1. Summary of Organics and Metals Impacts Found in Studies of Coastal
Subcategory Discharges of Produced Water ....................
Exhibit 10-2. Summary of Radiochemical Impacts Found in Studies of Coastal
Subcategory Discharges of Produced Water ....................
9-16
9-17
10-2
10-8
-------
1-1
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
This water quality benefits analysis (WQBA) is part of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) rulemaking package for proposed effluent guidelines for the coastal subcategory of the oil and gas
extraction industry. EPA developed proposed guidelines based on a variety of data collected and analyzed by
the Agency, including a Request for Comments (54 FR 46919; November 8, 1989), an Information Collection
Request (ICR) conducted by the Agency during July of 1993, and information collected in response to a
public meeting on this rulemaking held on July 19, 1994 hi New Orleans, Louisiana. As part of the
rulemaking package, EPA seeks to describe and assess the potential ecological and human health impacts
associated with current ("baseline") discharges from coastal oil and gas operations and the benefits associated
with the regulatory options under consideration.
On January 9, 1995, Region 6 issued final NPDES general permits covering discharges from
production facilities in coastal Louisiana and Texas (60 FR 2387). Those permits require that all coastal
produced water be reinjected, thereby significantly changing the facility characterization for this analysis upon
which all further analyses are based. Because of the short time between issuance of those permits and
finalization of this analysis, revisions to this WQBA were not possible. A preliminary, first order assessment
of the impact of these Region 6 permits has been developed and is included in Section 11 of this document
based solely on linear estimations of flow reduction attributable to these permits. The remainder of this
document reflects the original facility characterizations and subsequent assessments. Any changes resulting
from the issuance of these permits and from comments received as a result of the proposal will be reflected
in the final WQBA.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this WQBA is to quantify and to monetize, wherever possible, the benefits that are
projected to accrue from the regulatory options under consideration in the proposed rule. The WQBA
presents several types of characterizations and assessments for this purpose:
• Waste stream characterizations of produced water discharge volumes, pollutant composition, and
toxicity (Section 2)
• A watershed assessment that compares produced water pollutant mass loadings and toxic loadings
from coastal oil and gas operations to other industrial and municipal point source loadings for
individual estuarine drainage systems in Texas and Louisiana (Section 3)
• Water quality compliance assessments for produced water for Texas, Louisiana, and Cook Inlet,
Alaska that compare receiving water pollutant concentrations projected from surface water
dispersion modeling for state mixing zones to state numeric water quality standards (Section 4)
-------
1-2
• Water quality compliance assessments for drilling fluids discharged to Cook Inlet that compare
receiving water pollutant concentrations projected from surface water dispersion modeling to state
numeric water quality standards (Section 5)
• Valuations of resources at risk in the Gulf of Mexico, including recreational and commercial
fisheries, non-consumptive and other recreational uses, and endangered and threatened species
(Section 6)
• Analyses of populations indirectly exposed to produced water pollutants and environmental equity
issues, i.e., estimates of exposed low income and subsistence populations, as well as seafood
consumption rates and patterns (Section 7)
• A carcinogenic risk assessment for produced water radionuclides for average rate and high rate
seafood consumption, based on seafood radionuclide contamination levels observed in field data
and projected from modeling (Section 8)
• A case study of projected, monetized ecological benefits resulting from regulation of produced
water, based on a field study in Trinity Bay, Texas and acreage valuations.derived in Section 6 for
Gulf of Mexico coastal areas (Section 9)
• A literature review of field studies of produced water impacts in Texas and Louisiana (Section 10)
• A preliminary discussion of revised analyses as a result of the recently issued Region 6 NPDES
general permits covering coastal production discharges (Section 11).
13 Geographic Scope
The WQBA considers operations and impacts in two geographic areas: the Gulf of Mexico (primarily
analyses for Texas and Louisiana) and Upper Cook Inlet, Alaska. The overwhelming majority of operations
affected by this rule (i.e., those still discharging after July, 1996, which is the projected final promulgation
date of these effluent guidelines) are located hi Texas and Louisiana. EPA projects that 96% of coastal oil
and gas production facilities (216 facilities) are located in these two coastal Gulf of Mexico states; the
remaining 8 facilities are located hi Cook Met, Alaska. The WQBA does not consider any environmental
impacts associated with coastal oil and gas operations hi Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, California, or North
Slope of Alaska because these facilities are currently controlled under state regulations that require zero
discharge for both drilling and production wastes.
-------
1-3
1.4 Waste Streams
Gulf of Mexico Operations
Drilling fluids and cuttings associated with Gulf of Mexico coastal operations are currently prohibited
from discharge by state authorities and existing NPDES permits. Therefore, drilling wastes are not
considered for Gulf of Mexico operations in this WQBA. The only waste stream considered in this WQBA
for Gulf of Mexico operations is produced water. Produced water volumes are based on individual outfall
flow data, aggregated to state-wide estimates for both Texas and Louisiana. These volume estimates include
consideration of compliance schedules for attaining zero discharge limitations under existing state permits.
Produced water pollutant concentrations for the current baseline condition (i.e., the Best Practicable
Treatment, or BPT level of treatment technology) are average values for Texas and Louisiana facilities based
on an EPA sampling and analysis survey of ten coastal facilities in these states. Produced water pollutant
concentrations for gas flotation (Best Available Technology Economically Achievable, or BAT) options are
based on pollutant levels in produced water effluent from this treatment technology based on facilities in the
offshore subcategory of this industry. Produced water toxicity for Gulf of Mexico operations is based on data
obtained from effluent studies conducted for both Texas and Louisiana facilities.
Cook Inlet, Alaska Operations
Produced water volumes for Cook Inlet operations are based on the individual flows from the eight
currently authorized outfalls. Produced water BPT pollutant concentrations for the baseline condition are
flow-weighted averages, based on data supplied by Cook Inlet operators. Gas flotation (BAT) produced
water pollutant concentrations are the same as those used for Gulf of Mexico operations.
Prilling fluid pollutant concentrations are based on data developed for the offshore guidelines
rulemaking. Specific pollutant concentrations have been adjusted to reflect actual Cook Inlet practices.
1.5 Regulatory History
The proposed effluent guidelines apply to discharges from coastal oil and gas extraction facilities,
including exploration, development and production operations. The processes and operations of the coastal
oil and gas subcategory are currently regulated under 40 CFR Part 435, Subpart D. The regulations are
being proposed pursuant to a Consent Decree entered in Natural Resouces Defense Council (NRDC) et al.
v. Reilly (DDC No. 89-2980, January 31, 1992) and are consistent with EPA's latest Effluent Guidelines Plan
under section 304(m) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). (See 59 FR, 44234, August 24, 1994)
The existing effluent limitations guidelines are based on the achievement of best practicable control
technology currently available (BPT). Coastal subcategory effluent limitations were proposed on October 13,
1976 (41 FR 44943). On April 13, 1979 (44 FR 22069) BPT effluent limitations guidelines were promulgated
-------
1-4
for all subcategories voider the oil and gas category, but action on Best Available Technology (BAT) and
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) regulations was deferred. On November 8, 1989, EPA
published a notice of information and request for comments on the Coastal Oil and Gas subcategory effluent
limitations guidelines (54 ER 46919). The notice presented the current information about control and
treatment technologies applicable to oil and gas wastes, and the Agency's anticipated approach to effluent
limitations guidelines development for BAT, BCT, and NSPS. EPA solicited comments on the information
presented and the limitations development approach and also requested additional information where
available.
To further public participation on this rule, on July 19,1994, EPA held a public meeting about the
content and status of the proposed regulation. The meeting was announced in the Federal Register (59 FR
31186; June 17,1994) and gave interested parties an opportunity to provide information, data, and ideas to
EPA on key issues. EPA will assess all comments and data received at that public meeting, all comments
and data received as a result of this proposal, and any information submitted hi response to the 1989 Notice
of Information, prior to promulgation of the final regulation.
During the development of the proposed coastal guidelines, EPA also sent a questionnaire to industry
under authority of section 308 of the CWA. During its design, EPA met with industry trade associations (on
March 19, 1992) to discuss its plans to issue a questionnaire. Following the March meeting, EPA distributed
a draft of the questionnaire to NRDC, industry representatives, and trade associations for review and
comment. A final questionnaire was subsequently completed, reviewed, approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and sent to coastal oil and gas operators on August 30, 1993. Results of
that questionnaire have been used for development of the proposed regulations and supporting analyses
wherever applicable.
1.6 BAT Regulatory Options
1.6.1 Produced Water
EPA considered five BAT options for regulating produced water in the development of this
rulemaMng package. These options are the following:
Option Jf: BPTAIL This option is the least onerous on the industry, requiring all facilities to continue to
meet the exisitng BPT level of treatment for oil and grease in produced water (48 mg/1 oil and grease as a
monthly average and 72 mg/1 oil and grease as a daily maximum).
Option 2: Gas Flotation All. This option requires all coastal facilities to meet the same BAT (gas flotation
technology) oil and grease limitations for produced water that were promulgated for the offshore subcategory
of this industry (29 mg/1 oil and grease as a monthly average and 42 mg/1 oil and grease as a daily
maximum).
-------
1-5
Option 3: Zero Discharge All, except BPT Limits for All Cook Inlet Facilities. This option requires zero
discharge of produced water for all operators except those in Cook Inlet, Alaska, who would be required to
comply with the BPT level of treatment (48/72 mg/1 oil and grease, monthly average/daily maximum).
Option 4: Zero Discharge All, except Gas Flotation for All Cook Inlet Facilities. This option is the preferred
option for these proposed effluent guidelines. This option requires zero discharge of produced water for all
operators except those in Cook Inlet, Alaska, who would be required to comply with the offshore level of
treatment (29/42 mg/1 oil and grease monthly average/daily maximum).
Option 5: Zero Discharge All This option requires all facilities to comply with a zero discharge limitation on
produced water.
1.62 Drilling Wastes
EPA considered three options for drilling wastes in the development of this rulemaking package. All
three options include a zero discharge of dewatering effluent that is sometimes produced from drilling fluids
solids control systems. The three options considered are:
Option 1: Zero Discharge All, except Offshore Limits for Cook Inlet Facilities. This option requires no
additional regulatory requirements beyond those already in place.
Option 2: Zero Discharge All, except Offshore Limits and a More Stringent Toxidty Limit for Cook Inlet
Facilities. This option retains the existing zero discharge requirement for Gulf of Mexico operations, but
imposes a more stringent toxicity limit (1,000,000 ppm Suspended Particulate Phase, or SPP) on Cook Inlet
facilities compared to the current toxicity limitation in the BAT offshore guidelines (30,000 ppm SPP).
Option 3: Zero Discharge All. This option requires all operators to achieve a zero discharge standard,
including Cook Inlet operations.
-------
-------
2-1
2. PRODUCED WATER CHARACTERIZATIONS
2.1 Background
The discharge volume and pollutant concentration data used for this water quality benefits analysis
(WQBA) were derived from state and NPDES permit data and from data collected by the Engineering and
Analysis Division (HAD) of EPA's Office of Science and Technology for this proposed rulemaking. Then-
collection, derivation, and analyses are presented in greater detail in the Development Document for this
proposed rule (EPA, 1994a).
The discharge volume data used to characterize those operators in Texas, Louisiana, and Cook Inlet
who are affected by the proposed guidelines were obtained by BAD from state and EPA Regional permits
issued to oil and gas production facilities. Discharge monitoring reports (DMRs) from facilities in Texas and
Louisiana were used to document the location and volume of those discharges. Discharge volume data are
presented separately for Texas, Louisiana, and Cook Inlet operators.
The pollutant concentration data used for this analysis also are presented in greater detail in the
Development Document for the proposed rulemaking. These data were collected from state regulatory
agencies, EPA sampling and analysis efforts, and industry documents. Produced water pollutant data are
presented in this document for both current (BPT) technologies and for improved gas flotation (BAT)
technology. Pollutant data are presented separately for Gulf of Mexico facilities and Cook Inlet facilities.
The volume, pollutant, and toxicity data summarized and presented in this chapter are used for the
further analyses that are conducted and presented in this WQBA.
2.2 Characterization of Produced Water Discharge Volumes
2.2.1 Texas
The Texas Railroad Commission is the state agency charged with regulating the discharge of wastes
from oil and gas exploration and production facilities ha Texas. Tidal disposal permits issued for produced
water discharges require monthly monitoring and quarterly reporting of discharge volumes and oil and grease
concentrations. The permit data are tracked by a database maintained at the Railroad Commission
Headquarters in Austin. This database was used for the characterization of Texas coastal discharges.
For BPT analyses, Texas facilities include those current discharges that are permitted by the Railroad
Commission to discharge after June, 1996. For gas flotation BAT options, small dischargers (defined for
Texas as discharges of less than 80 barrels of produced water per day) are assumed to haul their produced
water to commercial disposal facilities rather than investing in improved technology. The list of Texas
operators and discharge volumes for both the BPT baseline and BAT options are presented in Exhibit 2-1.
-------
2-2
Exhibit 2—1. Texas Coastal Produced Water Outfalls
Permit No./
Outfall
1
4
8
13
14
19 A
19 B
19 C
20
26
47
60
64
68 A
68 B
68 D
68 E
71
80
81
85
89
90
102
104
105 A
105 B
105 C
105 D
105 E
105 G
111
113
119
122
124 A
124 B
127
132
134
136
152
155
156
157
163
Operator
Neumin Production Co.
PI Energy Inc.
Brown, Cliff ordL., Jr.
Ensenjay Petroleum Corp.
PI Energy, Inc.
Apache Corp.
Apache Corp.
Apache Corp.
Texaco Exploration and Production Inc.
Exxon Corp. - Houston
United Texas Corp. (A)
Cedar Point Oil Co.
Coastal Oil & Gas Corp.
Orange Petroleum Co.
Orange Petroleum Co.
Orange Petroleum Co.
Orange Petroleum Co.
Ebb Tide OH Co.
Exxon Corp.
Exxon Co. U.SA.
Texaco Producing Co.
Goodrich Operating Co., Inc.
Brown, George R., Parnership
Karbuhn Oil Co.
Ebb Tide OH Co.
Brown, Clifford!,., Jr.
Brown, Clifford L., Jr.
Brown, Clifford L., Jr.
Brown, Clifford L., Jr.
Brown, Clifford L., Jr.
Brown, Clifford L., Jr.
Marshall Petroleum, Inc.
Brown, George R., Parnership
M.K. McDaniel
Kilmarnock Oil Co.
S&S Energy, Inc.
S&S Energy, Inc.
Shelton, Charles H.
Shelton, Charles H.
Headington Oil Co.
American Exploration Co.
Keplinger Operating Co.
Texaco, Inc.
Texaco Exploration and Production Inc.
Texaco Exploration and Production Inc.
Ace Productions
Volume (bpd)
Current BPT Gas Flot'n (BAT)
88
75
25
1,193
20
440
685
560
275
7,495
150
1,200
40
2,900
696
151
2,012
4
1,948
888
112
137
3,670
46 .
55
1,300
90
130
430
170
250
10
3,000
44
200
404
379
420
154
400
4,476
80
1,660
2,746
479
450
88
1,193
440
685
560
275
7,495
150
1,200
2,900
696
151
2,012
1,948
888
112
137
3,670
1,300
90
130
430
170
250
3,000
200
404
379
420
154
400
4,476
80
1,660
2,746
479
450
-------
2-3
Exhibit 2-1. Texas Coastal Produced Water Outfalls (Continued)
Permit No./
Outfall
165
166
167
170
176
177
184
189
195
197
201
202
206
207
214
219
238
241
242
249
264
276
282
547
552
577
580
582
587
590 A
590 B
590 C
590 D
590 E
590 F
590 G
590 H
5901
590 J
590 K
595
605
613
616
627
628
Volume (bpd)
Operator
Unocal
Petro Vest, Inc.
Petro Vest, Inc.
Westland Oil Development Corp.
S.S.C. Gas Producing Co.
Texas Petroleum Co.
La Parrita Oil & Gas, Inc.
Tierra Mineral Development
Bristol Resources Corp.
Bristol Resources Corp.
Tierra Mineral Development
Fort Worth Oil and Gas, Inc.
Midcon Offshore, Inc.
Miresco, Inc.
Brown, George R. Partnership
Zinn Petroleum Co.
Merrico Resources, Inc.
Dewbre Petroleum Corp.
PI Energy Inc.
KillamOilCo.
Live Oak Reserves, Inc.
Pearl, Bill H. Production, Inc.
Redfish Bay Operating Corp.
Wainoco Oil & Gas Co.
Wilson Hydrocarbon, Inc.
Paton Oil Corp.
Lundy Vacuum Service, Inc.
Lamar Oil & Gas, Inc.
Linda Production, Inc.
BKN Oil & Gas, Inc.
BKNOil&Gas,Inc.
BKN Oil & Gas, Inc.
BKN Oil & Gas, Inc.
BKN Oil & Gas, Inc.
BKN Oil & Gas, Inc.
BKN Oil & Gas, Inc.
BKN Oil & Gas, Inc.
BKN Oil & Gas, Inc.
BKN Oil & Gas, Inc.
BKN OH & Gas, Inc.
Poynor Corp.
Whittington Operating Co.
Redfish Bay Operating Corp.
Crest Resources & Exploration
Haps Oil & Gas Corp.
Convest Energy Corp.
Current BPT
144
100
400
1
60
1,500
12
2,045
16
32
1
84
10
1,033
22
300
34
155
600
3,755
775
375
110
2
60
682
100
70
80
32
775
13
375
35
40
68
1,200
86
43
50
72
245
600
400
185
15
Gas Flot'n (BAT)
144
100
400
1,500
2,045
84
1,033
300
155
600
3,755
775
375
110
682
100
80
775
375
1,200
86
245
600
400
185
-------
2-4
Exhibit 2—1. Texas Coastal Produced Water Outfalls (Continued)
Permit No./
Outfall Operator
632 Kansas Oil & Gas Co.
635 Gulf Vacuum Service
637 Denovo Oil & Gas, Inc.
638 Pinell, H.P. Trustee
645 Oil Lease Operating Co.
649 Dynamic Production, Inc.
655 Bay Operating Co., Inc.
659 Lone Oak Disposal Co.
663 Amoco Production Co.
666 American Exploration Co.
672 King Oil
673 BWS Vacuum Sevice, Inc.
674 TD Operating Co.
675 Chain Oil & Gas, Inc.
680 Zflka Energy Co.
684 Brandes Petroleum Inc.
685 SNR Oilfield Services, Inc.
693 Brymer Contracting Co.
694 Crest Resources & Exploration
708 Corpus Christi Oil & Gas Co.
710 Dan J. Harrison III & F.H. Bruce
723 B Corpus Christi Oil & Gas Co.
739 Graham Royalty, Ltd.
744 Scana Exploration Co.
747 Cavalla Energy Exploration Co.
752 Houston Oil Production Enterprises, Inc.
753 Houston Oil Production Enterprises, Inc.
789 Pax Petroleum Corp.
792 Corpus Christi Leaseholds, Inc.
822 Poynor Corp.
854 Texana Operating Co.
857 Claron Corp.
885 Houston Oil & Minerals Corp.
904 Coastal Oil & Gas Corp.
905 Coastal Oil & Gas Corp.
Facility Count
Total Texas Volume (bpd)
Total Texas Volume (bpy)
Average Texas Discharge Rate (bpd)
Median Flow by Outfall (bpd)
Median Flow by Flow (bpd)
Volume (bpd)
Current BPT
904
1,290
652
24
10
80
15
248
15
335
120
130
200
210
110
250
600
436
180
8
150
15
330
1,200
43
10
29
350
4
1,000
185
175
168
4,839
74
127
73,318
26,761,070
577
162
1,957
Gas Flot'n (BAT)
904
1,290
652
80
248
335
120 •
130
200
210
110
250
600
436
180
150
330
1,200
350
1,000
185
175
168
4,839
86
72,064
26,303,360
838
379
1,978
Source: EPA, 1994a.
-------
2-5
For the current BPT baseline, there are 127 produced water outfalls documented in coastal Texas with
a total discharge of 73,318 barrels per day (bpd), or 26.8 million barrels per year (bpy). Discharge rates
range from 1 bpd to 7,495 bpd. The average discharge rate is 577 bpd; the median discharge rate by outfall
(i.e., 50% of the outfalls discharge at a greater rate) is 162 bpd; and the median discharge rate by flow (i.e.,
50% of the volume is discharged at a greater rate) is 1,957 bpd.
For the gas flotation option (BAT Option 2), there are 86 outfalls documented as discharging at
greater than the 80 bpd minimum discharge limit, with a total discharge of 72,064 bpd, or 26.3 million bpy.
Discharge rates range from 80 bpd to 7,495 bpd. The average discharge rate is 838 bpd; the median
discharge rate by outfall is 379 bpd; and the median discharge rate by flow is 1,978 bpd.
222 Louisiana
The Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) also issues permits for discharges of oil
and gas production wastes in state waters. Through these permits, state regulations require that produced
water discharges be phased out. The state has identified a series of termination dates that group and order
permits by receiving water type. Fresh water areas were phased out earliest and brackish/saline water areas
are phased out last. Nearly all discharges must cease by 1997, with only a few facilities discharging to main
passes of the Mississippi and Atchafalaya Rivers permitted to continue discharging.
Discharge data for this rulemaking were collected from state files, verified by responses to EAD's
Section 308 questionnaire, and compiled for analysis. Those outfalls scheduled to cease discharge prior to
June, 1996 were removed from the database for analyses for the proposed rulemaking. For gas flotation
(BAT Option 2), small dischargers (defined in Louisiana as discharges of less than 70 bpd) are assumed to
haul their waste to commercial disposal facilities. The final list of operators and discharge volumes
presented in Exhibit 2-2 were supplied by BAD for this analysis.
For current BPT discharges, there are 94 produced water outfalls documented in coastal Louisiana
with a total discharge of 415,919 bpd, or 152 million barrels per year (bpy). Discharge rates range from
1 bpd to 144,000 bpd. The average discharge rate is 4,425 bpd; the median discharge rate by outfall (i.e.,
50% of the outfalls discharge at a greater rate) is 950 bpd; and the median discharge rate by flow (i.e., 50%
of the volume is discharged at a greater rate) is 15,100 bpd.
For gas flotation (BAT Option 2), there are 84 outfalls documented as discharging at greater than the
70 bpd minimum discharge limit, with a total discharge of 415,740 bpd, or 152 million bpy. Discharge rates
range from 72 bpd to 144,000 bpd. The average discharge rate is 4,949 bpd; the median discharge rate by
outfall is 1,125 bpd; and the median discharge rate by flow is 15,100 bpd.
-------
2-6
Exhibit 2—2. Louisiana Coastal Produced Water Outfalls
Permit No./
Outfall
3040 001
3650 001
3408 001
2184 001
2184 002
2184 003
3795 001
3795 002
2858 001
3686 001
3870 001
3086 001
1901 001-2
Operator
Alliance Operating Corp.
Alltex Exploration, Inc.
Amerada Hess Corp.
Ashlawn Energy, Inc.
Ashlawn Energy, Inc. '
Ashlawn Energy, Inc.
Atlas Production Services, Inc.
Atlas Production Services, Inc.
BKE-A, LLC
Bois d'Arc Operating Corp.
Bois d'Arc Operating Corp.
Burk Royalty Co.
Gallon Offshore Production, Inc.
1901 001-3a Gallon Offshore Production, lac.
1901 002-2
1901 002-3
1934 001-1
2142 001-1
2672 001-2
2859 001
2860 003
2699 001
3074 001
1863 001
1896 001
1857 001
1857 003
1857 004
1857 005
1857 006
1857 008
1857 009
1857 010
1857 Oil
1861 001
2945 001
3853 001
3038 001
3067 000
3459 000
3133 001
2185 001
2785 001
2779 001
4029 001
4467 001
2368 001
2368 002
2368 003
2368 005
2368 006
Gallon Offshore Production, Inc.
Gallon Offshore Production, Lie.
Gallon Offshore Production, Inc.
Gallon Offshore Production, Inc.
Gallon Offshore Production, Inc.
Gallon Offshore Production, Inc.
Gallon Offshore Production, Inc.
Carl Oil & Gas Co.
Cashco Oil Co.
Chevron U.SA., Inc.
Chevron U.SA., Lie.
Chevron U.S.A., Lie.
Chevron U.S.A., Lie.
Chevron U.SA., Lie;
Chevron U.SA., Lie.
Chevron U.SA., Lie.
Chevron U.SA., Inc.
Chevron U.SA., Lie.
Chevron U.SA., Inc.
Chevron U.SA., Inc.
Chevron U.SA., Inc.
Claron Corp.
Cliffs Oil & Gas Co.
CXY Energy, Inc.
Denovo Oil and Gas, Inc.
Desco Oil Co.
DKM Resources, Lie.
Energy Development Corp.
Energy Development Corp.
Graham Royalty, Ltd.
Hilcorp Energy Co.
Houma Production Co.
Hunt Petroleum Co.
Hunt Petroleum Co.
Hunt Petroleum Co.
Hunt Petroleum Co.
Hunt Petroleum Co.
Volume (bpd)
Current BPT Gas Flot'n (BAT)
1,678
465
3,662
3,143
3,143
3,143
152
152
1
925
1,010
450
15,100
15,100
15,100
15,100
14,443
12,076
9,175
11,290
7,120
30
72
27,856
35,652
2,073
2,073
2,073
2,073
2,073
2,073
2,073
2,073
2,073
4,600
15
245
500
200
34
22
700
250
950
3,522
400
1,125
1,125
1,125
1,125
1,125
1,678
465
3,662
3,143
3,143
3,143
152
152
925
1,010
450
15,100
15,100
15,100
15,100
14,443
12,076
9,175
11,290
7,120
72
27,856
35,652
2,073
2,073
2,073
2,073
2,073
2,073
2,073
2,073
2,073
4,600
245
500
200
700
250
950
3,522
400
1,125
1,125
1,125
1,125
1,125
-------
2-7
Exhibit 2-2. Louisiana Coastal Produced Water Outfalls (Continued)
Permit No./
Outfall Operator
. 2704001 Hunt Petroleum Co.
3008 001 Hunt Petroleum Co.
3029 001 James A. Whitson, Jr.
2956 000 Japex (U.S.) Corp.
3081 001 Konantz, Inc.
2408 001 Linder Oil Co. .
2710 001 Linder Oil Co.
1853 001 LLECO Holdings, Inc.
3746 001 Marblehead Energy Corp.
2164 001-1 Oryx Energy Co.
3223001 Pel -Tex Oil Co.
3407 001 Pennzoil Exploration & Production Co.
2838 001 Petro Corp.
2227 001 Quintana
2299 001 Quintana
2626 001 Samedan Oil Corp.
2071 001 Shell
2084 001 .Texaco, Inc.
2084 003 - 1 Texaco, Inc.
2084 005 Texaco, Inc.
2084 012 Texaco, Inc.
2084 015 Texaco, Inc.
2084 016 Texaco, Inc.
2816 Oil Texaco, Inc.
2825001-2 Texaco, Inc.
2825 002-2 Texaco, Inc.
2825 003-2 Texaco, Inc.
2882 001 Texaco, Inc.
2882 002 Texaco, Inc.
2970 001 Texaco, Inc.
2971001-2 Texaco, Inc.
2971 002 Texaco, Inc.
3032 001 Texoil Co.
2547 001 Torch Operating Co.
2708 001 Torch Operating Co.
1950 001 Warren Petroleum Co.
2138 001 Whiting Petroleum Co.
2138 002 Whiting Petroleum Co.
3039 001 Wichita River Oil Corp.
2909001 WRT Energy Corp.
2118 001 W.W.F. Oil Corp.
2118 002 W.W.F. Oil Corp.
2118 003 W.W.R Oil Corp.
Facility Count
Total Louisiana Volume (bpd)
Total Louisiana Volume (bpy)
Average Louisiana Discharge Rate (bpd)
Median Flow by Outfall (bpd)
Median Flow by Flow (bpd)
Volume (bpd)
Current BPT
75
266
300
13
613
20
904
324
1,250
150
186
6,300
1,500
600
2
100
144,000
1,716
1,716
1,716
1,716
1,716
1,716
291
666
666
666
747
747
500
2,650
2,650
939
109
278
1,680
21
21
270
3,252
370
370
370
94
415,919
151,810,581
4,425
950
15,100
Gas Flot'n (BAT)
75
266
300
613
904
324
1,250
150
186
6,300
1,500
600
100
144,000
1,716
1,716
1,716
1,716
1,716
1,716
291
666
666
666
747
747
500
2,650
2,650
939
109
278
1,680
270
3,252
370
370
370
84
415,740
151,745,246
4,949
1,125
15,100
Source: EPA, 1994a.
-------
2-8
222, Alaska
Discharges of produced water to Cook Inlet are covered by a NPDES general permit issued by EPA
Region 10. Because there are only eight produced water outfalls in Cook Inlet, individual facility discharge
volumes were used to assess loadings and water quality impacts for individual outfalls rather than average
values, as were used for Gulf of Mexico analyses. The discharge volumes of the eight outfalls are presented
in Exhibit 2-3.
Alaska discharges from eight outfalls average 16,748 bpd with a total discharge volume of 133,982 bpd,
or 48.9 million bpy. The discharge-rates range from 30 bpd to 126,072 bpd for the eight outfalls. These
volumes and flow rates are used for Cook Inlet operations in analyses for all options considered.
2.3 Produced Water Pollutant Characterization
23.1 Texas and Louisiana
Pollutant data for current BPT discharges were provided by EAD for Gulf of Mexico facilities based
on sampling conducted on coastal facilities in Texas and Louisiana. BAT effluent concentrations for gas
flotation technology also were provided by EAD based on sampling of offshore produced water discharges.
Because the sampling and analyses for BPT and BAT were conducted independently, the list of poEutants for
each technology differ. The concentrations of the 68 pollutants for the current BPT level of treatment and
the proposed gas flotation technology (BAT Option 2) are presented in Exhibit 2-4.
BPT pollutant concentrations represent the average concentration of the ten facilities sampled.
Pollutants reported at less than the detection limit are treated as one-hall of the detection limit reported.
Only pollutants detected in one or more samples are included in the analysis. Gas Flotation (BAT) pollutant
concentrations are based on samples taken at offshore facilities using gas flotation technology. The
derivation of these values is presented in the development document for the proposed coastal effluent
guidelines (EPA, 1994a).
232 Alaska
Pollutant concentration data for current BPT discharges from Cook Inlet facilities were provided by
EAD based on an EPA study of the six produced water outfalls over one year. Current BPT and gas
flotation (BAT) pollutant data for Alaska are presented in Exhibit 2-5.
-------
2-9
Exhibit 2-3. Cook Inlet Produced Water Outfalls
Operator
Marathon
Shell Western
Amoco
Unocal
Marathon
Phillips
Unocal
Unocal
Discharge Distance Average
from Shore Discharge
Facility (miles) (bpd)
Trading Bay 1.9
East Foreland 0.15
Dillon 3.7
Anna 2.5
Granite Point 1.9
NCIUTyonekA 5.5
Bruce 1.5
Baker 7.5
Facility Count
Total Alaska Volume (bpd)
Total Alaska Volume (bpy)
Average Alaska Discharge Rate (bpd)
126,072
3,100
2,650
1,500
300
170
160
30
8
133,982
48,903,430
16,748
Source: EPA, 1994a.
-------
2-10
Exhibit 2—4. Produced Water Pollutant Concentrations for Texas and Louisiana Analyses
Mean Concentration Tug/1)
Pollutant
1,2:3,4— Diepoxybutane
2— Butanone
2— Hexanone
2— Methylnaphthalene
2,4— Dimethylphenol
Acetone
Aluminum
Ammonia, as Nitrogen
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Benzene
BenzoicAcid
Benzyl Alcohol
Beryllium
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Carbon Disulfide
Chlorides
Chloromethane
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Di-n-butyl Phthalate
Ethylbenzene
HexanoicAcid
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Methylene Chloride
Molybdenum
Naphthalene
n— Decane
n— Docosane
n— Dodecane
n— Eicosane
n— Hexadecane
Current
BPT
71.1
122
35.81
67.2
117
913
1,072
65,773
166
10.8
52,573
4,285
3,813
49.5
5.56
46.0
20,244
22.8
2,501,000
8.48
65,111,000
28.6
128
83.6
180
36.6
115
790
15,492
515
615,699
1,301
170
86.9
144
139
38.0
225
68.0
283
Gas Flotation
(BAT Option 2)
71.1
122
35.81
67.2
117
913
49.93
65,773
166
10.8
35,560.8
1,22:5.9
3,813
49.5
5.56
46.0
16,473.8
14.47
2,501,000
8.48
65,111,000
28.6
128
83.6
180
6.43
62.18
790
3,146.2
124.86
615,699
74.16
170
86.9
92.02
139
38.0
225
68.0
283
-------
2-11
Exhibit 2-4. Produced Water Pollutant Concentrations for Texas andLouisiana Analyses (Continued)
Mean Concentration fug/1)
Pollutant
n— Hexosane
Nickel
n— Octacosane
n— Octadecane
n— Tetracosane
n— Tetradecane
n— Triacontane
o— Cresol
Oil and Grease
p- Cresol
Phenol
Radium 226
Radium 228
Selenium
Silver
Strontium
Sulfur
Thallium
Tin
Titanium
Toluene
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
Total Xylenes
Trichlorofluoromethane
Vanadium
Vinyl Acetate
Yttrium
Zinc
Current
BPT
36.1
109
35.2
82.9
38.2
119
35.0
121
52,956
149
553
0.000172
0.000228
250
252
205,500
9,683
180
305
32.4
3,370
133,063
222.1
294
96.6
29.4
25.0
329
Gas Flotation
(BAT Option 2)
36.1
109
35.2
82.9
38.2
119
35.0
121
23500
149
536
0.000204
0.000249
250
252
205,500
9,683
180
305
4.48
827.8
30,000
222.1
294
96.6
29.4
25.0
133.85
Source: EPA, 1994a.
-------
2-12
Exhibit 2-5. Produced Water Pollutant Concentrations for Alaska Analyses
Mean Concentration (us/I)
Pollutant
2— Butanone
2,4— Dimethylphenol
Aluminum
Anthracene
Arsenic
Barium
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Boron
Cadmium
Chlorobenzene
Copper
Di— n— butylphthalate
Ethylbenzene
Iron
Lead
Manganese
n— Alkanes
Naphthalene
Nickel
p— Chloro— m— cresol
Phenol
Radium-226
Radium-228
Steranes
Titanium
Toluene
Total Xylenes
Triterpanes
Zinc
Current
BPT
1,029.0
514.7
78.0
25.3
114.2
55,563.8
3,386.1
10.6
25,740.3
22.6
8.05
444.7
16.1
157.7
4,915.9
195.1
115.9
1,641.5
933.5
1,705.5
25.2
431.5
0.00000139
0.00000312
77.5
7.00
1,507.4
5423
78.0
44.8
Gas Flotation
(BAT)
411.6
250.0
49.9
7.40
73.1
35,560.8
1,225.9
4.65
16,473.8
14.5
7.79
284.6
6.43
62.2
3,146.2
124.9
74.2
656.6
92.0
1,091.5
10.1
536.0
0.000204
0.000249
31.0
4.48
827.8
378.0
31.2
133.9
Source: EPA, 1994a.
-------
2-13
2.4 Produced Water Toxicity
2.4.1 Texas
Texas Railroad Commission produced water discharge permits do not require toxicity testing.
Therefore, whole effluent toxicity data for Texas coastal outfalls were obtained from literature sources. The
toxicity data identified for Texas are summarized in Exhibit 2-6.
Texas lethal toxicity values range from 2.7% to 80% effluent (48-hr LCSOs) for silverside minnows and
grass shrimp, respectively. The mean 48-hour LC50 value for all species is 22.7% effluent for 10 reported
values. The mean 96-hour LC50 is 42% effluent for 7 reported values. Chronic values (ECSOs) range from
<2.7% to 27.2% effluent for 3 reported tests.
23.2 Louisiana
Louisiana coastal discharge permits require that operators conduct acute and chronic toxicity tests
using mysids and sheepshead minnows and submit the results within six months of initiating produced water
discharges. These toxicity data for coastal outfalls were compiled from the DEQ permit files and are
summarized for 222 outfalls in Exhibit 2-7.
Louisiana produced water toxicity tests report an average acute toxicity of 12.4% effluent for mysids
(range of 0.048% to 100% effluent) and 27.4% effluent for sheepshead minnows (range of 1.17% to 100%
effluent). The average chronic EC50 values range from 4.69% to 6.23% effluent for mysids and 8.25% to
8.54% effluent for sheepshead minnows.
2.43 Alaska
As part of a study conducted for Alaska oil and gas companies and EPA (Ebasco Environmental,
1990), six production facilities were sampled in winter and summer. The toxicity data are presented in
Exhibit 2-8. The mean seasonal 96-hour LCSOs range from 0.91% effluent to 63.39% effluent, with an
overall mean of 23.6% effluent for the six facilities.
-------
2-14
Exhibit 2-6. Texas Coastal Produced Water Toxicity Data
Species
Sheepshead minnow
Pinfish
Atlantic croaker
White mullet
Brown shrimp
White shrimp
Microtox
Mysids
Sea urchin
Brown shrimp
White shrimp
Crab megalops
Grass shrimp
Silverside minnows
Fathead minnows
Ceriodaphnia
Pin perch
Test Endpoint
96-hour LC50
EC50
N/A
EC50
(fertilization)
EC50
(normal development)
48-hour LC50
48-hour LC50
24-hour LC50
48-hour LC50
Produced Water
Concentration
52% (with seawater)
35% (with DI water)
51%
46%
37%
37%
36%
15%
3% - 30%
<2.7% - 17.7%
7.3% - 27.2%
24.5% - 26.5%
18% - 21.5%
26% - 30%
13.5%
21%
15%
80%
2.7%
10%
17% (1-day old sample)
35% (2-day old sample)
8% (1-day old sample)
11% (2-day old sample)
11.5%
Reference
Andreason and Spears,
1983
Cain, undated
Caudle, 1993
Chapman, undated
Heffernan, 1971
Mackin and Conte,
1971
Sauer et al., 1992
Spears, 1960
-------
2-15
oo
IT)
^H
C5
o\
>n
o
1
>o
ts
00
3
o
o\
>n
C3
55
a
a
s
O
o
en
O
o
CO
VO
§
o
1
a
s
13
I
6
1
1
s
t
S S
S
11
55
oo
o
a
a
s
!
s
s
1
S
i
1
a
O
'S
o
2
I
1
CO
-------
2-16
Exhibit 2-8. Cook Inlet Produced Water Toxicity Data
Facility
Amoco Platform Bruce
Winter
Summer
Marathon Granite Point
Winter
Summer
Marathon Trading Bay
Winter
Summer
Shell East Forelands
Winter
Summer
Amoco Platform Baker
Winter
Summer
Winter
Summer
Phillips Platform A
Winter
Summer
Mean 96-hour LC50
for Mysidopsis bahia
(% Effluent)
1.5
0.3
8.5
18.5
12.1
23.9
13.9
29.4
20.5
29.3
32.4
13.8
78.2
49.2
Annual Mean LC50
(% Effluent)
0.91
13.5
18.0
21.66
23.99
63.69
Source: Ebasco Environmental, 1990.
-------
3-1
3. PRODUCED WATER WATERSHED LOADINGS AND
QUANTIFIED BENEFITS, TEXAS AND LOUISIANA
As one assessment of the potential impact of coastal produced water discharges and the potential
benefit of their regulation, an analysis of the relative contribution of this waste stream to the total pollutant
loadings to Texas and Louisiana watersheds has been conducted for this water quality benefits analysis
(WQBA). To conduct such an analysis, an assessment of loadings from other point sources is needed. Such
an assessment has been developed for the Gulf of Mexico Program for the five Gulf of Mexico coastal states.
Data developed for Texas and Louisiana serve as the basis for the analysis developed in this WQBA.
3.1 Methodology
Watershed loadings from both produced water and other industrial and municipal sources are derived
for 14 Texas and Louisiana estuarine drainage systems (EDSs). The delineation of EDSs and the estimated
loadings for industrial and municipal point sources were developed in the EPA Office of Research and
Development (ORD) report entitled: "Comparison of Gulf of Mexico Drainage Systems: Input of Toxic
Chemicals and Potential Ecological Effects" (EPA, 1994b). For Texas and Louisiana, the names and physical
extent of these EDSs are provided in Exhibit 3-1; a map is provided as Exhibit 3-2. Coastal subcategory
produced water dischargers have been assigned to these EDSs, located according to information obtained in
Texas and Louisiana permit files.
Flow and effluent pollutant data for produced water, based on the EPA characterizations described in
Section 2 of this WQBA, are used to derive produced water pollutant loading estimates. As was also
developed in the ORD report for other point sources, produced water pollutant loadings are developed for
both mass loadings (total pounds of pollutants) and toxic unit loadings (a measure of the relative toxic
potentials of pollutants, derived from the mass loading of an individual pollutant divided by an estimate of its
relative toxicity). Mass loadings are calculated as the product of flow and pollutant concentration data on an
EDS-specific basis, and aggregated for state-wide total loadings. The mass loadings of produced water-
derived pollutants are then compared to estimates of mass loadings from other industrial and municipal point
sources developed hi the ORD report. EDS-specific produced water flows are developed from individual
outfall flow and location data, and are presented for Texas and Louisiana discharges in Exhibits
3-3 and 3-4, respectively.
In deriving mass loading estimates, the pollutants identified and included in the loadings calculations in
the ORD report and those observed in coastal produced water are not the same. Total mass loadings for
other industrial and municipal point sources, as identified in the ORD report, include 189 pollutants (Exhibit
3-5), of which 34 were found in current BPT and gas flotation (BAT Option 2) produced water effluent.
Based on the pollutant data for produced water, 32 pollutants detected in the production effluent are not
included in the mass or toxic unit loadings calculations of the ORD report.
-------
3-2
Exhibit 3-1. EPA Office of Research and Development Report Estuarine Drainage Systems
for Texas and Louisiana
EDS
No.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
13a
13b
EDS Name
Laguna Madre
Corpus Christi Bay
Aransas Bay
San Antonio Bay
Matagorda Bay
Brazos River
Galveston Bay
Sabine Lake
Calcasieu Lake
Atchafalaya/Vermilion Bays
Mississippi Delta Region
Mississippi Sound
Lake Pontchartrain
Lake Borgne
Volume
(acre-ft)
2,998,376
1,281,814
1,097,464
531,428
2,627,112
15,015
2,196,773
351,433
610,137
15,087,793
9,815,891
5,298,075
5,249,662
1,546,866
Surface Area
(acres)
519,060
120,155
111,528
120,820
278,510
1,930
342,275
61,253
101,198
430,980
1,330,793
555,938
470,928
189,005
Source: EPA, 1994b.
-------
3-3
.0
I
-------
3-4
Exhibit 3-3. Texas Outfalls Used for Watershed Loadings Analyses Sorted by EDS
Permit EDS
No. No. Operator
241 2 Dewbre Petroleum Corp.
627 2 Haps Oil & Gas Corp.
184 2LaParritaOil&Gas,Inc.
582 2LamarOil&Gas,Inc.
638 2 Pinell, H.P. Trustee
176 2 S.S.C. Gas Producing Co.
547 2 Wainoco OH & Gas Co.
605 2 Whittington Operating Co.
680 2 Zflka Energy Co.
219 2 Zinn Petroleum Co.
EDS 2 Subtotal
655 3 Bay Operating Co., Inc.
195 3 Bristol Resources Corp.
197 3 Bristol Resources Corp.
214 3 Brown, George R. Partnership
792 3 Corpus Christi Leaseholds, Inc.
202 3 Fort Worth Oil and Gas, Inc.
249 SKfflamOilCo.
238 3 Merrico Resources, Inc.
206 3 Midcon Offshore, Inc.
577 SPatonOilCorp.
242 3 PI Energy Inc.
4 3 PI Energy Inc.
282 3 Redfish Bay Operating Corp.
613 3 Redfish Bay Operating Corp.
685 3 SNR Oilfield Services, Inc.
177 3 Texas Petroleum Co.
189 3 Tierra Mineral Development
201 3 Tierra Mineral Development
EDS 3 Subtotal
693 4 Brymer Contracting Co.
628 4 Convest Energy Corp.
264 4 Live Oak Reserves, Inc.
207 4 Miresco, Inc.
276 4 Pearl, Bfll H. Production, Inc.
EDS 4 Subtotal
747 5 Cavalla Energy Exploration Co.
708 5 Corpus Christi Oil & Gas Co.
14 5 PI Energy, Inc.
20 5 Texaco Exploration and Production Inc.
EDS 5 Subtotal
19 A 6 Apache Corp.
19 B 6 Apache Corp.
19 C 6 Apache Corp.
590 A 6BKNOil&Gas,Inc.
Volume (bpd)
Current BPT
155
185
12
70
24
60
2
245
110
300
1,163
15
16
32
22
4
84
3,755
34
10
682
600
75
110
600
600
1,500
2,045
1
10,185
436
15
775
1,033
375
2,634
43
8
20
275
346
440
685
560
32
Gas Flotation
155
185
245
110
300
84
3,755
682
600
110
600
600
1,500
2,045
436
775
1,033
375
275
440
685
560
(BAT)
995
9,976
2,619
275
-------
3-5
Exhibit 3-3. Texas Outfalls Used for Watershed Loadings Analyses Sorted by EDS (Continued)
Permit EDS
No. No. Operator
590 B 6 BKN Oil & Gas, Inc.
590 C 6 BKN Oil & Gas, Inc.
590 D 6 BKN Oil & Gas, Inc.
590 E 6 BKN OH & Gas, Inc.
590 F 6 BKN Oil & Gas, Inc.
590 G 6 BKN Oil & Gas, Inc.
590 H 6 BKN Oil & Gas, Inc.
590 I 6 BKN Oil & Gas, Inc.
590 J 6 BKN Oil & Gas, Inc.
590 K 6 BKN Oil & Gas, Inc.
673 6 BWS Vacuum Sevice, Inc.
723 B 6 Corpus Christi Oil & Gas Co.
13 6 Ensenjay Petroleum Corp.
26 6 Exxon Corp. - Houston
739 6 Graham Royalty, Ltd.
885 6 Houston Oil & Minerals Corp.
580 6 Lundy Vacuum Service, Inc.
1 6 Neumin Production Co.
85 6 Texaco Producing Co.
552 6 Wilson Hydrocarbon, Inc.
EDS 6 Subtotal
663 7 Amoco Production Co.
152 7 Keplinger Operating Co.
EDS 7 Subtotal
163 8 Ace Productions
136 8 American Exploration Co.
666 8 American Exploration Co.
684 8 Brandes Petroleum Inc.
60 8 Cedar Point Oil Co.
675 8 Chain Oil & Gas, Inc.
857 8 Claron Corp.
904 8 Coastal Oil & Gas Corp.
905 8 Coastal Oil & Gas Corp.
64 8 Coastal Oil & Gas Corp.
616 8 Crest Resources & Exploration
694 8 Crest Resources & Exploration
710 8 Dan J. Harrison III & F.H. Bruce
637 8 Denovo Oil & Gas, Inc.
649 8 Dynamic Production, Inc.
104 8 Ebb Tide Oil Co.
71 8 Ebb Tide Oil Co.
80 8 Exxon Corp.
81 8 Exxon Co. U.S.A.
635 8 Gulf Vacuum Service
134 8 Headington Oil Co.
753 8 Houston Oil Production Enterprises, Inc.
632 8 Kansas Oil & Gas Co.
Volume (bpd)
Current BPT Gas Flotation (BAT)
775
13
375
35
40
68
1,200
86
43
50
130
15
1,193
7,495
330
168
100
88
112
60
15
80
450
4,476
335
250
1,200
210
175
4,839
74
40
400
180
150
652
80
55
4
1,948
888
1,290
400
29
904
775
375
1,200
86
130
1,193
7,495
330
168
100
88
112
14,093 13,737
80
95 80
450
4,476
335
250
1,200
210
175
4,839
400
180
150
652
80
1,948
888
1,290
400
904
-------
3-6
Exhibit 3-3. Texas Outfalls Used for Watershed Loadings Analyses Sorted by EDS (Continued)
Permit EDS
No. No. Operator
587 8 Linda Production, Inc.
659 8 Lone Oak Disposal Co.
Ill 8 Marshall Petroleum, lac.
119 8M.K.McDaniel
645 8 Oil Lease Operating Co.
789 8 Pax Petroleum Corp.
167 8 Petro Vest, Inc.
166 8 Petro Vest, Inc.
822 8 Poynor Corp.
595 8 Poynor Corp.
744 8 Scana Exploration Co.
127 8 Shelton, Charles H.
132 8 Shelton, Charles H.
124 A 8 S&S Energy, Inc.
124 B 8 S&S Energy, Inc.
674 8 TD Operating Co.
854 8 Texana Operating Co.
165 8 Unocal
47 8 United Texas Corp. (A)
EDS 8 Subtotal
105 A 9 Brown, Clifford L., Jr.
105 B 9 Brown, Clifford L., Jr.
105 C 9 Brown, Clifford L., Jr.
105 D 9 Brown, Clifford L., Jr.
105 E 9 Brown, Clifford L., Jr.
105 G 9 Brown, Clifford L., Jr.
8 9 Brown, Clifford L., Jr.
90 9 Brown, George R., Parnership
113 9 Brown, George R., Parnership
89 9 Goodrich Operating Co., Inc.
752 9 Houston Oil Production Enterprises, Inc.
102 9 Karbuhn Oil Co.
122 9 Kilmamock Oil Co.
672 9 King Oil
68 A 9 Orange Petroleum Co.
68 B 9 Orange Petroleum Co.
68 D 9 Orange Petroleum Co.
68 E 9 Orange Petroleum Co.
156 9 Texaco Exploration and Production Inc.
157 9 Texaco Exploration and Production Inc.
155 9 Texaco, Inc.
170 9 Westland Oil Development Corp.
EDS 9 Subtotal
Facility Count
Total Texas Volume (bpd)
Total Texas Volume (bpy)
Average Texas Discharge Rate (bpd)
Volume (bpd)
Current BPT Gas Flotation
80
248
10
44
10
350
400
100
1,000
72
1,200
420
154
404
379
200
185
144
150
1,300
90
130
430
170
250
25
3,670
3,000
137
10
46
200
120
2,900
696
151
2,012
2,746
479
1,660
1
127
73,318
26,761,070
577
80
248
350
400
100
1,000
1,200
420
154
404
379
200
185
144
150
24,579
1,300
90
130
430
170
250
3,670
3,000
137
200
120
2,900
696
151
2,012
2,746
479
1,660
20,223
86
72,064
26,303,360
838
(BAT)
24,241
20,141
-------
3-7
Exhibit 3-4. Louisiana Outfalls Used for Watershed Loadings Analyses Sorted by EDS
Permit
No. EDS Operator
3040 001
3650 001
3853 001
2909 001
2118 003
2118002
2118 001
10 Alliance Operating Corp.
10 Alltex Exploration, Inc.
10 Cliffs Oil & Gas Co.
10 WRT Energy Corp.
10 W.W.F. Oil Corp.
10 W.W.F. Oil Corp.
10 W.W.F. Oil Corp.
EDS #10 Subtotal
3408001
3074 001
2956 000
3223 001
2838 001
2626 001
2971 002
2971 001-2
2882 002
2882 001
2825 001-2
2825 002-2
2825 003-2
2970 001
11 Amerada Hess Corp.
11 Cashco Oil Co.
11 Japex (U.S.) Corp.
11 Pel -Tex Oil Co.
11 Petro Corp.
11 Samedan Oil Corp.
11 Texaco, Inc.
11 Texaco, Inc.
11 Texaco, Inc.
11 Texaco, Inc.
11 Texaco, Inc.
11 Texaco, Inc.
11 Texaco, Inc.
11 Texaco, Inc.
EDS #11 Subtotal
2184 001
2184002
2184 003
3795 001
3795 002
2858 001
3686 001
3870 001
3086 001
1901 001-2
1901 001- 3a
1901 002-2
1901 002-3
1934 001-1
2142 001- 1
2672 001-2
2859 001
2860 003
2699 001
1857 001
1857 003
1857 004
1857 005
1857 006
1857 008
1857 009
1857 010
12 Ashlawn Energy, Inc.
12 Ashlawn Energy, Inc.
12 Ashlawn Energy, Inc.
12 Atlas Production Services, Inc.
12 Atlas Production Services, Inc.
12 BKE-A, LLC
12 Bois d'Arc Operating Corp.
12 Bois d'Arc Operating Corp.
12 Burk Royalty Co.
12 Gallon Offshore Production, Inc.
12 Gallon Offshore Production, Inc.
12 Gallon Offshore Production, Inc.
12 Gallon Offshore Production, Inc.
12 Gallon Offshore Production, Inc.
12 Gallon Offshore Production, Inc.
12 Gallon Offshore Production, Inc.
12 Gallon Offshore Production, Inc.
12 Gallon Offshore Production, Inc.
12 Carl Oil & Gas Co.
12 Chevron U.S.A., Inc.
12 Chevron U.S.A., Inc.
12 Chevron U.S.A., Inc.
12 Chevron U.S.A., Inc.
12 Chevron U.S.A., Inc.
12 Chevron U.S.A., Inc.
12 Chevron U.S.A., Inc.
12 Chevron U.S.A., Inc.
Volume (bpd)
Current BPT Gas Flotation (BAT)
1,678
465
245
3,252
370
370
370
6,750
3,662
72
13
186
1,500
100
2,650
2,650
747
747
666
666
666
500
14,826
3,143
3,143
3,143
152
152
1
925
1,010
450
15,100
15,100
15,100
15,100
14,443
12,076
9,175
11,290
7,120
30
2,073
2,073
2,073
2,073
2,073
2,073
2,073
2,073
1,678
465
245
3,252
370
370
370
6,750
3,662
72
186
1,500
100
2,650
2,650
747
747
666
666
666
500
14,813
3,143
• 3,143
3,143
152
152
925
1,010
450
15,100
15,100
15,100
15,100
14,443
12,076
9,175
11,290
7,120
2,073
2,073
2,073
2,073
2,073
2,073
2,073
2,073
-------
3-8
Exhibit 3-4. Louisiana Outfalls Used for Watershed Loadings Analyses Sorted by EDS (Continued)
Permit
No. EDS Operator
1857 Oil 12 Chevron U.S.A., Inc.
1861001 12 Chevron U.S.A., Inc.
1863 001 12 Chevron U.S.A., Inc.
1896 001 12 Chevron U.S.A., Inc.
2945 001 12 Claron Corp.
3038 001 12 CXY Energy, Inc.
3067 000 12 Denovo Oil and Gas, Inc.
3459 000 12 Desco Oil Co.
3133 001 12 DKM Resources, Inc.
2185 001 12 Energy Development Corp.
2785 001 12 Energy Development Corp.
2779 001 12 Graham Royalty, Ltd.
4029 001 12 Hilcorp Energy Co.
4467 001 12 Houma Production Co.
2368 001 12 Hunt Petroleum Co.
2368 002 12 Hunt Petroleum Co.
2368 003 12 Hunt Petroleum Co.
2368 005 12 Hunt Petroleum Co.
2368 006 12 Hunt Petroleum Co.
2704 001 12 Hunt Petroleum Co.
3008 001 12 Hunt Petroleum Co.
3029 001 12 James A. Whitson, Jr.
3081 001 12 Konantz, Inc.
2408 001 12 Linder Oil Co.
2710 001 12 Linder Oil Co.
1853001 12 LLECO Holdings, Inc.
3746 001 12 Marblehead Energy Corp.
2164 001- 1 12 Oryx Energy Co.
3407 001 12 Pennzoil Exploration & Production Co.
2227 001 12 Quintana
2299 001 12 Quintana
2071 001 12 Shell
2084 001 12 Texaco, Inc. ,
2084 003- 1 12 Texaco, Inc.
2084 005 12 Texaco, Inc.
2084 012 12 Texaco, Inc.
2084 015 12 Texaco, Inc.
2084 016 12 Texaco, Inc.
2816011 12 Texaco, Inc.
3032 001 12 Texoil Co.
2547 001 12 Torch Operating Co.
2708 001 12 Torch Operating Co.
1950 001 12 Warren Petroleum Co.
2138 001 12 Whiting Petroleum Co.
2138 002 12 Whiting Petroleum Co.
3039 001 12 Wichita River Oil Corp.
EDS #12 Subtotal
Facility Count
Total Louisiana Volume (bpd)
Total Louisiana Volume (bpy)
Average Louisiana Discharge Rate (bpd)
Volume (bpd)
Current BPT Gas Flotation (BAT)
2,073
4,600
27,856
35,652
15
500
200
34
22
700
250
950
3,522
400
1,125
1,125
1,125
1,125
1,125
75
266
300
613
20
904
324
1,250
150
6,300
600
2
144,000
1,716
1,716
1,716
1,716
1,716
1,716
291
939
109
278
1,680
21
21
270
94
415,919
151,810,581
4,425
2,073
4,600
27,856
35,652
500
200
700
250
950
3,522
400
1,125
1,125
1,125
1,125
1,125
75
266
300
613
904
324
1,250
150
6,300
600
144,000
1,716
1,716
1,716
1,716
1,716
1,716
291
939
109
278
1,680
270
394,343 394,177
84
415,740
151,745,246
4,949
-------
3-9
Exhibit 3-5. Pollutants Included in the EPA ORD Report
1,1,1-Trichloroethane
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
1,1,2-Trichloroethane
1,1-Dimethyl Hydrazine
1,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
1,2-Butylene Oxide
1,2-Dibromoethane
1,2-Dichlorobenzene
1,2-Dichloroethane
1,2-Dichloroethylene
1,2-Dichloropropane
1,3-Butadiene
1,3-Dichlorobenzene
1,3-Dichloropropylene
1,4-Dichlorobenzene
1,4-Dioxane
2,4-D
2,4-Dichlorophenol
2,4-Dimethylphenol
2,4-Dinitrophenol
2,4-Dinitrotoluene
2,6-Dinitrotoluene
2-Ethoxyethanol
2-Methyloxyethanol
2-Nitropropane
4,4'-Isopropylidenediphenol
4,4'-Methylenebis(2-CMoianiline)
4,4'-Methylenedianiline
4,6-Dinitro-o-cresol
4-Nitrophenol
Acetaldehyde
Acetone
Acetonitrile
Acrolein
Acrylamide
Acrylic Acid
Acrylonitrile
Aluminum
Aluminum Oxide
Ammonia
Ammonium Nitrate
Ammonium Sulfate
Aniline
Anthracene
Antimony
Arsenic
Asbestos
Barium
Benzene
Benzoyl Chloride
Benzoyl Peroxide
Benzyl Chloride
Bis(2-Chloro-l-Methylethyl) Ether
Bis(2-Chloroethyl) Ether
Bromoform
Bromoethane
Butyl Acrylate
Butyl Benzyl Phthalate
Butylaldehyde
Cadmium
Captan
Carbaryl
Carbon Disulfide
Carbon Tetrachloride
Carbonyl Sulfide
Catechol
Chloramben
Chlorodane
Chlorine
Chlorine Dioxide
Chloroacetic Acid
Chlorobenze
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
Chlorophenols
Chloroprene
Chlorothalonil
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Cresol
Cumene
Cumene Hydroperoxide
Cupferron
Cyclohexane
Decabromodiphenyl Oxide
Di(2-Ethylhexyl) Phthalate
Diaminotoluene
Dibenzofuran
Dibutyl Phthalate
Dichlorobenzene
Dichloromethane
Dichlorovos
Diiethanolamine
Diethyl Phthalate
Diethyl Sulfate
Dimethyl Phthalate
Epichlorohydrin
Ethyl Acrylate
Ethyl Chloroformate
Ethylbenzene
Ethylene
Ethylene Glycol
Ethylene Oxide
Formaldehyde
Freon 113
Glycol Ethers
Hexachloro-l,3-Butadiene
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclopentadiene
Hexachloroethane
Hydrazine
Hydrazine Sulfate
Hydrochloric Acid
Hydrogen Cyanide
Hydrogen Flouride
Hydroquinone
Isobutyraldehyde
Isopropyl Alcohol
Lead
Lindane
m-Xylene
Maleic Anhydride
Manganese
Mercury
Methanol
Methyl Acrylate
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methyl Iodide
Methyl Isobutyl Ketone
Methyl Isocyanate
Methyl Methacrylate
Methyl tert-Butyl Ether
Mehtylenebis(Phenylisocyanate)
Molybdenum Trioxide
N,N-Dimethylaniline
n-Butyl Alcohol
n-Dioctyl Phthalate
Naphthalane
Nickel
Nitric Acid
Nitrilotriacetic Acid
Nitrobenzene
Nitroglycerin
o-Anisidine
o-Cresol
o-Toluidine
o-Xylene
p-Cresol
p-Phenylenediamine
p-Xylene
Parathion
Pentachlorophenol
Phenol
Phosgene
Phosphoric Acid
Phosphorus
Phthalic Anhydride
Picric Acid
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Propionaldehyde
Propoxur
Propylene
Propylene Oxide
Pyridine
Quinoline
Quionone
sec-Butyl Alcohol
Silver
Styrene
Sulfuric Acid
Terephthalic Acid
tert-Butyl Alcohol
Tetrachloroethylene
Titanium Tetrachloride
Toluene
Toluene-2,4-Diisocyanate
Toluene-2,6-Diisocyanate
Trichloroethylene
Urethane
Vanadium
Vinyl Acetate
Vinyl Chloride
Vinylidene Chloride
Xylene
Zinc
Zineb
-------
3-10
To develop the estimates of relative watershed mass loadings of produced water pollutants in this
WQBA, all of the pollutants identified in the ORD report are included in pollutant loadings for other
industrial and municipal point sources. However, for produced water loadings estimates, the loadings are
calculated both using all of the produced water pollutants and using only produced water pollutants that are
included in the ORD report.
The relative contribution of produced water toxic unit loadings also are analyzed in this WQBA using
the same methodology as the ORD report. Mass loadings of the 34 individual produced water pollutants
found in the ORD report are divided by their respective toxicity criterion to obtain toxic units (TU) per year.
These toxicity criteria (Exhibit 3-6), developed according to a scheme defined in the ORD report, are based
on demonstrated or estimated criterion continuous concentrations (ccc) from federal ambient water quality
criteria. A toxicity index (TI) is obtained by dividing the total TUs for each EDS by the EDS volume (acre
feet). An adjusted TI is obtained by dividing the final TI by 1,000. Although mass loadings are developed
for produced water pollutants not on the list of pollutants identified in the ORD report, because of the
potential time and effort required to develop toxic criteria for these pollutants, no toxicity criteria or toxic
unit loadings are developed for the 32 produced water pollutants not included in the ORD report.
Exhibit 3-7 presents the mass and toxic unit loadings developed in the ORD report. These loadings
are the industrial and municipal loadings to EDSs in Texas and Louisiana to which produced water loadings
are compared.
3.2 Current BPT Produced Water Effluent
3.2.1 Mass Loadings
For 34 produced water pollutants identified in the ORD report, projected mass loadings for Texas
current BPT produced water effluent are 1.25 million pounds (Exhibit 3-8), ranging from 1,621 to 345,101
pounds on an EDS-specific basis. Projected pollutant mass loadings for Louisiana current BPT produced
water effluent are 7.10 million pounds, ranging from 115,187 to 6.73 million pounds on an EDS-specific basis
(Exhibit 3-9).
Mass loadings of produced water pollutants not included in the ORD report amounted to 2.42 million
pounds annually in Texas (Exhibit 3-8) and 13.7 million pounds annually in Louisiana (Exhibit 3-9), nearly
double the loadings of produced water pollutants included in the ORD report.
322 Toxic Unit Loadings
Projected toxic unit loadings for current BPT produced water effluent pollutants amount to a total
adjusted TI of 11,721 in Texas (Exhibit 3-10), ranging from 92 to 7,002 on an EDS-specific basis. Projected
toxic unit loadings for current BPT produced water effluent pollutants amount to a total adjusted TI of 6,358
in Louisiana, ranging from 120 to 4,891 on an EDS-specific basis (Exhibit 3-11).
-------
Exhibit 3-6. Toxic Criteria for Produced Water Effluent Pollutants
3-11
Chemical
2-Butanone
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Acetone
Aluminum
Ammonia
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Benzene
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Cadmium
Carbon Disulfide
Chloromethane
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Di-n-butylphthalate
Ethylbenzene
Lead
Manganese
Methylene chloride
Molybdenum
Naphthalene
Nickel
Toxic
Criteria
(ppb)
19,500
21.2
41,000
87.0
340
160
36.0
2,600
109
3,000
930
2,100
2,700
50.0
100
2.90
6.00
4.30
5.60
3,100
4,830
540
23.5
8.30
Comments3
LC50 (Brine shrimp)
Fresh water c.c.c./FAWQC
LC50 (Bay Shrimp)
Freshwater c.c.c./FAWQC
Salt water c.c.c./FAWQC
Salt water c.c.c./FAWQC
Salt water c.c.c./FAWQC
EC50 (Duckweed)
Salt water c.c.c./FAWQC
LC50 (Harpacticoid copepod)
Salt water c.c.c./FAWQC
EC50 (Green algae)
LC50 (Inland silverside)
Salt water c.c.c./FAWQC
LC50 (Sticklebacks)
Salt water c.c.c./FAWQC
LC50 (Dinoflagellate)
Salt water c.c.c./FAWQC
Salt water c.c.c./FAWQC
EC50 (Duckweed)
"No effect" (30 day chronic level)
Molybdenum trioxide LC50; USFWS, 1985
Salt water c.c.c./FAWQC
Salt water c.c.c./FAWQC
c.c.c: criterion continuous concentration
FAWQC: Federal Ambient Water Quality Criteria
Where criteria are not available, the lowest observed chronic value divided by a factor of 10 was used
and the test organism reported.
-------
3-12
Exhibit 3-6. Toxic Criteria for Produced Water Effluent Pollutants (Continued)
Chemical
o-Cresol
o-Xylene
p-Cresol
p-Xylene
Phenol
Selenium
Silver
Toluene
Vanadium
Vinyl acetate
Zinc
Toxic
Criteria
(Ppb)
0.300
41.0
50.0
20.0
58.0
71.0
0.230
37.0
180
450
86.0
Comments3
Fresh water c.c.c./FAWQC
LC50 (Sea urchin)
Fresh water c.c.c./FAWQC
LC50 (Bay shrimp)
Salt water c.c.c./FAWQC
Salt water c.c.c./FAWQC
Salt water c.c.c./FAWQC
Salt water c.c.c./FAWQC
EC50 (Dinoflagellate)
LC50 (Brine shrimp)
Salt water c.c.c./FAWQC
Source: EPA, 1994b.
-------
3-13
Exhibit 3-7. Total Industrial and Municipal Loadings for the Gulf of Mexico by Estuarine Drainage System
Mass Loadings (Ib/vr) a Toxic Indices fTU/EDS Vol) *> b
EDS
No. EDS Name
2 Laguna Madre
3 Corpus Christi Bay
4 Aransas Bay
5 San Antonio Bay
6 Matagorda Bay
7 Brazos River
8 GalvestonBay
9 Sabine Lake
10 Calcasieu Lake
11 Atchafalaya/Vermilion Bays
12 Mississippi Delta Region
13 Mississippi Sound
13a Lake Pontchartrain
13b Lake Borgne
14 Mobile Bay
15 Perdido Bay
16 Escambia Bay
17 Choctawhatchee Bay
18 St Andrew Bay
19 Apalachicola Bay
20 Apalachee Bay
21 Suwannee River
22 Withlacoochee Bay
23 Tampa Bay
24 Charlotte Harbour
25 Ten Thousand Islands
Gulf of Mexico Total (Ib/yr)
Louisiana Subtotal (Ib/yr)
Texas Subtotal (Ib/yr)
Louisiana and Texas Total (Ib/yr)
Industrial
Sources
0
796,573
0
11,332
7,731
886,005
2,068,545
1,149,277
3,180,119
563,160
1,352,090
610,181
1,000
1,080
843,317
224,500
343,750
0
0
0
22,927
0
5,767
3,433
0
0
12,070,787
5,707,630
4,919,463
10,627,093
Municipal
Sources c
0
237
0
0
0
0
1,170,582
0
98
0
13,167
904
0
0
1,307
0
1,119
0
103,204
74,648
0
0
0
32,907
0
0
1^98,173
14,169
1,170,819
1,184,988
Total Industrial
Sources Sources
0
796,810
0
11,332
7,731
886,005
3,239,127
1,149,277
3,180,217
563,160
1,365,257
611,085
1,000
1,080
844,624
224,500
344,869
0
103,204
74,648
22,927
0
5,767
36340
0
0
13,468,960
5,721,799
6,090,282
11,812,081
0
176.04
0
0.99
0.04
387.63
62.60
172.24
939.81
2.85
0.36
0.46
0
0.01
5.39
3.83
18.29
0
0
0
0.04
0
0.76
0.01
0
0
1,771.35
943.49
799.54
1,743.03
Municipal
Sources c
0
0
0
0
0
0
15.01
0
0
0
0
0.02
0
0
0.02
0
0.02
0
0.08
0.01
0
0
0
0.04
0
0
15.20
0.02
15.01
15.03
Total
Sources
0
176.0
0
0.99
0.04
387.6
77.6
172.2
939.8
2.85
0.36
0.48
0
0.01
5.41
3.83
18.3
0
0.08
0.01
0.04
0.76
0.05
0
0
1,786.55
943.51
81455
1,758.06
a Source: EPA, 1994b.
b TU/EDS Volume derived as: 10~3 x mass load/toxic criterion/EDS volume.
c Reduced loadings based on influent loadings and engineering estimates of POTW treatment efficiencies.
-------
3-14
5^3
«H
- g^
si-l
W
Po
c\Mi-H^i/S«3vot-^t-^eococoeocococoo\c\a\o\o\a\o\c\o\o\oso\o!
TfOOO\C\O\O\O\O\O\O\O\ONO\O\C\O\O\O\O\ONONG\O\O\ONO\O\O\O\
3\ o\ ^ "i °i °? ^'^ ^•^19'r!'~JT~iT^H'^T^'^r^HH'-2^Jc?<^
oi'^T^vo,c>l^x'T*~l0o.<-it's.c/"iv!t'J.c'iT~lT"i
vo'coo'i-Tcs'cS'co'irr'rfc'fcfcs'c-jT-H'T-Ti-H'rH'i-Ti-i 1-1
iH OV ^ m r-i ^
i-iC^C3c-^coic-iPXTi;cnTi--^t-M-com
c^o\C;iS°'-|£?£2':1"~;^'r^
o OJC^'-H'-I
o\ c~ r~- >n CM c T~1
c5 c5 c5 cs c5 o o
s
S
ON
c^,"T,lrlplV£5,c
-------
3-15
I
8
i
w
d
i
.s
•3
I
•a
8
t°f
1*3
°s-
*|3
SP'
I.S i
S
1*
.S "
$
w
a g*s,
a) S3 CO
S(3e
^cs^cMvovovoo\coc^^^cooo\voCSOSuH^co^jocococooC3C3<
;£2T:l"'t~''-<'^if-:Hddddddddddddddddodooot
vo T-t co ir» oo •*—) cv
P% CM co vp o vo >n
=, ^ooSo\cMcovoQvo>n>«rtooeTH
\ ^ »ri t"^ oo^ co^ oo^ t^ ^ oo^ c*^ vo^ *-^ vo^ c*^ ^
5;
>OTHcoo>n-^-OQO
:OOCOVOt^CN*OCO^H
•g-
CM
ov>noop~o\r-ooooo\r>copo
oo *o T—i oo c^° oo ^~< vo CM o\ oo vo
I
I
.9
u
IS
°o CM «-< S
vSPi ^^
rt ^T !/-> VI C3 >0 O\
'-i o 'H o c-i T-I
T1'J1 *° f
•a
S "§
??
O O
VO g
d d
?2 G :
o o
CO i
oq OO Ov ^£ r~ ^H VH
S TH i-l OO vH g g
d d
o d
d d
T-I OO C~ Ov
^* vo vo ^t-
T-J oo
o o
i §
M 3
I S 8 ^§-3 S fi g
olltst-sSassal
vo m
VO T)-
VO 1^1
1 vo"
i 00
V) 00
en >n
vo vo
1313
S S
H E"
O
I
I
13
•a
£
-------
3-16
Table 3-9. Louisiana Produced Water Mass Loadings - Current BPT Effluent
Mean
Cone. Mass Loadings by Watershed (lbs/yr)
Pollutant
Pollutants identified in the
Ammonia
Barium
Benzene
Toluene
Manganese
Aluminum
Acetone
Phenol
Lead
Zinc
Sflver
Selenium
Xylenes
Copper
Methylene Chloride
Antimony
p— Cresol
Naphthalene
Chromium
2— Butanone
o— Cresol
2,4— Dimethylphenol
Bthylbenzene
Nickel
Vanadium
Molybdenum
Cobalt
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Di-n-butylphthalate
Vinyl Acetate
Chloromethane
Cadmium
Arsenic
Carbon Bisulfide
(ug/1) EDS #10 EDS #11
EDS #12
Total
Loading
(lbs/yr)
% Cum'ltive
of Total % of
Loading Loading
EPA ORD Report:
65,773
52,573
4,285
3,370
1,301
1,072
913
553
515
329
252
250
222
180
170
166
149
144
128
122
121
117
115
109
96.6
86.9
83.6
46.0
36.6
29.4
28.6
22.8
10.8
8.48
Total for 34 ORD Pollutants (Ib/yr)
56,802
45,403
3,700
2,911
1,124
926
788
478
445
284
217
216
192
156
147
143
128
125
110
105
105
101
99
94
83
75
72
40
32
25
25
20
9.3
7.3
115,187
124,763
99,724
8,128
6,393
2,468
2,034
1,732
1,049
977
624
477
473
421
342
322
314
282
274
242
231
230
221
218
206
183
165
158
87
69
56
54
43
20
16
253,000
3,318,473
2,652,488
216,185
170,043
65,646
54,108
46,064
27,901
25,997
16,609
12,693
12,591
11,206
9,098
8,563
8,351
7,495
7,290
6,439
6,155
6,125
5,885
5,805
5,477
4,873
4,385
4,216
2,323
1,847
1,485
1,442
1,150
544
428
6,729,378
3,500,038
2,797,615
228,013
179,346
69,238
57,069
48,584
29,427
27,419
17,517
13,388
13,280
11,819
9,596
9,031
8,807
7,905
7,689
6,792
6,492
6,460
6,207
6,123
5,776
5,139
4,625
4,446
2,450
1,948
1,566
1,521
1,213
574
451
7,097,566
49.3%
39.4%
3.21%
2.53%
0.98%
0.80%
0.68%
0.41%
0.39%
0.25%
0.19%
0.19%
0.17%
0.14%
0.13%
0.12%
0.11%
0.11%
0.10%
0.09%
0.09%
0.09%
0.09%
0.08%
0.07%
0.07%
0.06%
0.03%
0.03%
0.02%
0.02%
0.02%
0.008%
0.006%
49.3%
88.7%
91.9%
94.5%
95.4%
96.2%
96.9%
97.3%
97.7%
98.0%
98.2%
98.4%
98.5%
98.7%
98.8%
98.9%
99.0%
99.1%
99.2%
99.3%
99.4%
99.5%
99.6%
99.7%
99.7%
99.8%
99.9%
99.9%
99.9%
99.9%
100%
100%
100%
100%
-------
3-17
Exhibit 3-9. Louisiana Produced Water Mass Loadings - Current BPT Effluent (Continued)
Pollutant
Pollutants not identified
Chloride
Calcium
Magnesium
Strontium
Boron
Iron
Sulfur
Benzoic Acid
Hexanoic Acid
Tin
Trichlorofluoromethane
n-Hexadecane
n— Dodecane
Thallium
n— Decane
n — Tetradecane
n— Octadecane
l,2:3,4-Diepoxybutane
n— Eicosane
2-Methylnaphthalene
Benzyl Alcohol
n — Tetracosane
n— Docosane
n— Hexosane
2-Hexanone
n— Octacosane
n— Triacontane
Titanium
Yttrium
Beryllium
Radium 228
Radium 226
Mean
Cone.
(ug/1)
Mass Loadings by Watershed (Ibs/yr)
EDS #10
EDS #11
EDS #12
Total
Loading
(Ibs/yr)
% of Cum'ltive
ORD Tot; %of
Loading Loading
in the EPA ORD Report:
65,111,000
2,501,000
615,699
205,500
20,244
15,492
9,683
3,813
790
305
294
283'
225
. 180
139
119
82.9
71.1
68.0
67.2
49.5
38.2
38.0
36.1
35.8
35.2
35.0
32.4
25.0
5.56
0.000228
0.000172
Total for Non ORD Pollutants (Ib/yr) a
Total for All Pollutants (Ib/yr)
56,230,906
2,159,904
531,728
177,473
17,483
13,379
8,363
3,293
682
263
254
244
195
155
120
103
71.6
61.4
58.7
58.1
42.7
33.0
32.8
31.2
30.9
30.4
30.3
28.0
21.6
4.80
0.00020
0.00015
222,542
59,260,267
123,507,228
4,744,077
1,167,902
389,807
38,400
29,386
18,368
7,232
1,498
579
558
536
428
342
264
226
157
135
129
128
93.8
72.5
72.1
68.5
67.9
66.7
66.4
61.4
47.5
10.5
0.00043
0.00033
488,798
130,161,006
3,285,080,339
126,184,300
31,064,193
10,368,202
1,021,362
781,612
488,548
192,366
39,846
15,390
14,840
14,266
11,374
9,084
7,015
6,013
4,182
3,587
3,431
3,393
2,495
1,929
1,917
1,821
1,805
1,774
1,767
1,634
1,263
280
0.0115
0.0087
13,001,200
3,462,059,410
3,464,818,473
133,088,280
32,763,823
10,935,482
1,077,244
824,376
515,278
202,891
42,026
16,232
15,652
15,047
11,997
9,581
7,398
6,342
4,411
3,784
3,619
3,578
2,632
2,035
2,022
1,921
1,904
1,871
1,864
1,724
1,332
296
0.012
0.0092
13,712,541
3,651,480,683
48817%
1875%
462%
154%
15.2%
11.6%
7.26%
2.86%
0.59%
0.23%
0.22%
0.21%
0.17%
0.13%
0.10%
0.09%
0.06%
0.05%
0.05%
0.05%
0.04%
0.03%
0.03%
0.03%
0.03%
0.03%
0.03%
0.02%
0.02%
0.004%
0.0000%
0.0000%
a Total excludes the three common ions Cl , Ca++, and Mg++.
-------
3-18
c
o
a
w
CJ
I
i
••3
I
I
.a
I
"8
£
I
o
V"4
fl
i
i
•" — w
I* g
O --5
•— 60
2 n
=
a
£o
sa
o
CW
OOOOOOOOOOOOCDO
000000C3C>ddcDC3C5C3
OOOOOOOOOOOOO\O\O\O\O\O>OOOOODt~t~t~t~t~
^(t-l^-HTHrHTHTH^-l^-ls-Ht-lt-IOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
•cf»Jodtntoc>J'-5»-5Q[i^P4aEQPQaa
ooooooooooooooo
Sf^ f^ ^^ ^^
o o o o
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
\oc^^v^vSenc>i^^t^\dv^cncncnc^^^^-^'-5*'FiTfoic4^-5odcn^-H'-Hod
S -s
S 4J
g «
S -2
_
o
2 ."S
« o ^
^eS
«>
-i vo CM ol
rri
>-l •* Os O
1-H *-< O l-<
OO T »H
"
ollutants (TUs/yr
e feet
TIs = TUs/BDS Vol
y Indices (TIs/1,000)
D
cr
(
ty
Total for 34 OR
EDS Volume
Toxicity Indice
Adjusted Toxic
-------
3-19
Exhibit 3-11. Louisiana Produced Water Toxic Unit Loadings - Current BPT Effluent
Mean Toxicity
Cone. Criterion
Pollutant
Silver
o-Cresol
Ammonia
Lead
Toluene
Copper
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Barium
Nickel
Aluminum
Phenol
Naphthalene
Di— n— butylphthalate
2,4-Dimethylphenol
Zinc
Selenium
Xylenes
p-Cresol
Chromium
Cadmium
Antimony
Cobalt
Vanadium
Manganese
Arsenic
Molybdenum
Vinyl Acetate
Methyl ene Chloride
Acetone
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloromethane
2— Butanone
Carbon Bisulfide
(ug/1) (ug/1)
252
121
65,773
515
3,370
180
4,285
115
52,573
109
1,072
553
144
36.6
117
329
250
222
149
128
22.8
166
83.6
96.6
1,301
10.8
86.9
29.4
170
913
46.0
28.6
122
8.48
0.23
0.30
340
5.6
37
2.9
109
4.3
2,600
8.3
87
58
23.5
6.0
21.2
86
71
74
50
50
9.3
160
100
180
3,100
36
540
450
4,830
41,000
3,000
2,700
19,500
2,100
Total for 34 ORD Pollutants (TUs/yr)a
EDS Volume (acre feet)
Toxicity Indices (Us = TUs/EDS Vol)
Adjusted Toxicity Indices (TIs/1,000)
Toxic Unit Loading
by Watershed fTU/vrt
EDS #10
4.28E+11
1.59E+11
7.58E+10
3.60E+10
3.57E+10
2.44E+10
1.54E+10
1.05E+10
7.92E+09
5.12E+09
4.83E+09
3.74E+09
2.41E+09
2.39E+09
2.16E+09
1.50E+09
1.38E+09
1.18E+09
1.16E+09
l.OOE+09
9.60E+08
4.05E+08
3.27E+08
2.10E+08
1.64E+08
1.17E+08
6.31E+07
2.56E+07
1.38E+07
8.72E+06
6.01E+06
4.15E+06
2.45E+06
1.58E+06
8.22E+11
610,137
1,346,997
1,347
EDS #11
9.41E+11
3.48E+11
1.66E+11
7.92E+10
7.84E+10
5.35E+10
3.38E+10
2.30E+10
1.74E+10
1.13E+10
1.06E+10
8.21E+09
5.29E+09
5.25E+09
4.73E+09
3.29E+09
3.02E+09
2.58E+09
2.56E+09
2.20E+09
2.11E+09
8.90E+08
7.19E+08
4.62E+08
3.61E+08
2.58E+08
1.38E+08
5.63E+07
3.02E+07
1.92E+07
1.32E+07
9.11E+06
5.38E+06
3.47E+06
1.81E+12
15,087,793
119,643
119.6
EDS #12
2.50E+13
9.26E+12
4.43E+12
2.11E+12
2.08E+12
1.42E+12
9.00E+11
6.12E+11
4.63E+11
2.99E+11
2.82E+11
2.18E+11
1.41E+11
1.40E+11
1.26E+11
8.76E+10
8.04E+10
6.87E+10
6.80E+10
5.84E+10
5.61E+10
2.37E+10
1.91E+10
1.23E+10
9.61E+09
6.86E+09
3.68E+09
1.50E+09
8.04E+08
5.10E+08
3.51E+08
2.42E+08
1.43E+08
9.24E+07
4.80E+13
9,815,891
4,891,422
4,891
Total % Cum'ltive
Loading of Total % of
(TU/yr) Loading Loading
2.64E+13
9.77E+12
4.67E+12
2.22E+12
2.20E+12
1.50E+12
9.49E+11
6.46E+11
4.88E+11
3.16E+11
2.98E+11
2.30E+11
1.48E-H1
1.47E+11
1.33E+11
9.24E+10
8.48E+10
7.24E+10
7.17E+10
6.16E+10
5.92E+10
2.50E+10
2.02E+10
1.30E+10
1.01E+10
7.23E+09
3.89E+09
1.58E+09
8.48E+08
5.38E+08
3.70E+08
2.56E+08
1.51E+08
9.75E+07
5.06E+13
25,513,821
6,358,061
6,358
52.1%
19.3%
9.22%
4.39%
4.34%
2.96%
1.87%
1.28%
0.96%
0.62%
0.59%
0.45%
0.29%
0.29%
0.26%
0.18%
0.17%
0.14%
0.14%
0.12%
0.12%
0.05%
0.04%
0.03%
0.02%
0.01%
0.008%
0.003%
0.002%
0.001%
0.001%
0.001%
0.000%
0.000%
52.1%
71.4%
80.6%
85.0%
89.4%
92.3%
94.2%
95.5%
96.5%
97.1%
97.7%
98.1%
98.4%
98.7%
99.0%
99.1%
99.3%
99.5%
99.6%
99.7%
99.8%
99.9%
99.9%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
a Calculated as: pollutant concentration * EDS produced water volume/toxicity criterion.
-------
3-20
3.3 Gas Flotation Produced Water Effluent (BAT Option 2)
33.1 Mass Loadings
For the 34 produced water pollutants identified in the ORD report, projected mass loadings for Texas
gas flotation (BAT Option 2) effluent are 993,658 pounds (Exhibit 3-12), ranging from 1,103 to 334,248
pounds on an EDS-specific basis. Projected pollutant mass loadings for Louisiana gas flotation (BAT Option
2) effluent are 15,705 pounds, ranging from 255 to 14,891 pounds on an EDS-specific basis (Exhibit 3-13).
Mass loadings of gas flotation (BAT Option 2) produced water pollutants not included in the ORD
report total 233 million pounds in Texas and 35,200 pounds in Louisiana. Again, this amount is nearly
double the mass loading reported for those pollutants found in the ORD report.
332 Toxic Unit Loadings
Projected toxic unit loadings for produced water gas flotation (BAT Option 2) effluent pollutants
amount to an adjusted total TI of 10,344 in Texas (Exhibit 3-14), ranging from 66 to 6,287 on an EDS-
specific basis. Projected toxic unit loadings for produced water gas flotation (BAT Option 2) effluent
pollutants amount to an adjusted total TI of 5,729 in Louisiana, ranging from 108 to 4,407 total toxic unit
loadings on an EDS-specific basis (Exhibit 3-15).
3.4 Contributions of Produced Water Loadings to Total Watershed Loadings
Based on the loadings estimates for industrial and municipal point sources presented in the ORD
report, comparisons of both current BPT baseline and gas flotation (BAT Option 2) produced water
pollutant mass loadings and toxic unit loadings are developed on a watershed and state-wide basis for Texas
and Louisiana. Results are summarized in Exhibit 3-16 and discussed further in sections 3.4.1 and 3.4.2
below.
3.4.1 Current BPT Effluent
Considering only the loadings of pollutants listed in the ORD report, the mass loading of 34 current
BPT produced water pollutants in Texas approximates 17% of the total point source mass load of pollutants;
on a watershed basis, current BPT produced water pollutants range from 0.2% to 100% (Exhibit 3-17).
Based on loadings of all 66 toxic pollutants detected in current BPT produced water discharges, the mass
loadings represent 38% of the total loadings; on a watershed basis, current BPT produced water pollutant
loadings range from 0.5% to 100%.
The mass loading of 34 current BPT produced water pollutants in Louisiana that are listed in the
ORD report approximates 58% of the total point source mass loadings; on a watershed basis, current BPT
produced water pollutants range from 0% to 83% (Exhibit 3-18). The mass loading of all current BPT
-------
3-21
^£i
w
8S8S
•^j- OO £TJ
vo
I
'-I C~ O\ f. f. T-I O\
ON f, >n «n c* f^-t (^» M# _-
* ^ 3 &3 -8 I
<*&> &SuS
S «? ^ a
?lgl
•&|e-&s|
3 .S2 .9 3 a
^« > U O
3 .a
&
% "5 I
^33
a
•a
-------
3-22
|
a-
I
£ CO
i-si
S3
•a
f, °o
t&S
0^
g>x-s
£J&
*C
"S
%
I*
"S&
.s*
•8»
*
w
a g c£
«J5l
s o ^
I
I
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^fe°^^^gS
\*) t—( ^—4 t—t CO OO ^t" C^ CO OO t** O ^H f^« CO ^H OO C^ JO )O ^O JT s" CO CO CO C1 Cy T—( ^" O O
dl
o o
co co ON
" "
CO_O_ vo^ OO^i
tOCOVOCOT-ICNVOC;
ON CO O\ *n In IO CN ^?
1
Q
8
CD
o
5
.9
i
'is
u
O
a
ta
i
*j
I
i in
• ON
OO ^* OO CN '
F- •* in m
CN^C-^ <
• o •*}• oo
!8i$
TH t^ S\ in co '
O\ 00 VO >O •<*• (
o o
.
CO >O CO T-<
S
|S
^* co co co co co c<-, c5
C3 O
CO H T-H r-H CO "^
-
f •<#• TH
r-
vo
co
ON vo
oo ON
oo ON
O O
OOQinoo-*mcNinoo->
1
f
S 5
S 1
33SSS
1
•I'l
co n
T3
1
O
"S
Affi
o
1
fll
o
§ o
U »
«l
S^.a
??1
e e H
i
(» U
ail
5 i
III
S S
I
c
53 "5
KO
op
CN
cs
i a
i I i .111
1 'g f 111
13
"*• CN
?fs"
vo C^
oo cs"
$
CO
CM
ON
-oo"
£5
r~ o
cS cf
CO CO
|=§,
(2 1
§
t
I
I
s
"S
-------
3-23
Exhibit 3-13. Louisiana Produced Water Mass Loadings - Gas Flotation Effluent (BAT Option 2)
Mean
Cone. Mass Loading
Pollutant
Total
by Watershed (lb/yr) Loading
(ug/l) EDS #10 EDS #11 EDS #12
% Cum'ltive
of Total %of
(Ibs/yr) Loading Loading
Pollutants identified in the EPA ORD report:
Ammonia
Barium
Benzene
Acetone
Toluene
Phenol
Silver
Selenium
Xylenes
Copper
Methylene Chloride
Antimony
p— Cresol
Zinc
Chromium
Lead
2— Butanone
o— Cresol
2,4— Dimethylphenol
Nickel
Vanadium
Naphthalene
Molybdenum
Cobalt
Manganese
Ethylbenzene
Aluminum
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Vinyl Acetate
Chloromethane
Cadmium
Arsenic
Carbon Bisulfide
Di— n— butylphthalate
65,773
35,561
1,226
913
828
536
252
250
222
180
170
166
149
134
128
125
122
121
117
109
96.6
92.0
86.9
83.6
74.2
62.2
49.9
46.0
29.4
28.6
14.5
10.8
8.48
6.43
Total for 34 ORD Pollutants (Ib/yr)
156
84.1
2.90
2.16
1.96
1.27
0.60
0.59
0.53
0.43
0.40
0.39
0.35
0.32
0.30
0.30
0.29
0.29
0.28
0.26
0.23
0.22
0.21
0.20
0.18
0.15
0.12
0.11
0.070
0.068
0.034
0.026
0.020
0.015
255
342 •
185
637
4.74
430
2.78
131
130
1.15
0.93
0.88
0.86
0.77
0.69
0.66
0.65
0.63
0.63
0.61
0.57
0.50
0.48
0.45
0.43
0.39
032
0.26
0.24
0.15
0.15
0.075
0.056
0.044
0.033
560
9,088
4,913
169
126
114
74.1
34.8
34.5
30.7
24.9
23.5
22.9
20.6
18.5
17.7
173
16.9
16.7
16.2
15.1
133
12.7
12.0
11.6
10.2
8.59
6.90
636
4.06
3.95
2.00
1.49
1.17
0.89
14,891
9,585
5,182
178.7
133.1
120.6
78.1
36.7
36.4
32.4
26.2
24.8
24.2
21.7
19.5
18.7
18.2
17.8
17.6
17.1
15.9
14.1
13.4
12.7
12.2
10.8
9.06
7.28
6.70
4.28
4.17
2.11
157
1.24
0.94
15,705
61.03%
33.00%
1.14%
0.85%
0.77%
0.50%
0.23%
0.23%
0.21%
0.17%
0.16%
0.15%
0.14%
0.12%
0.12%
0.12%
0.11%
0.11%
0.11%
0.10%
0.09%
0.09%
0.08%
0.08%
0.07%
0.06%
0.05%
0.04%
0.03%
0.03%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
0.01%
61.0%
94.0%
95.2%
96.0%
96.8%
973%
97.5%
97.7%
97.9%
98.1%
98.3%
98.4%
98.6%
98.7%
98.8%
98.9%
99.0%
99.2%
993%
99.4%
99.4%
99.5%
99.6%
99.7%
99.8%
99.8%
99.9%
99.9%
99.9%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
-------
3-24
Exhibit 3-13. Louisiana Produced Water Mass Loadings - Gas Flotation Effluent (BAT Option 2; Continued)
Pollutant
Mean
Cone.
0»g/l)
Mass Loading by Watershed (Ib/yr)
EDS #10
EDS #11
EDS #12
Total
% of Cum'ltive
Loading ORD Total %of
(Ibs/yr)
Loading Loading
Pollutants not identified in the EPA ORD Report:
Chloride
Calcium
Magnesium
Strontium
Boron
Sulfur
BenzoicAcid
Iron
HexanoicAcid
Tin
Trichlorofluoromethane
n— Hexadecane
n— Dodecane
Thallium
n— Decane
n— Tetradecane
n— Octadecane
1,23,4— Diepoxybutane
n— Eicosane
2— Methylnaphthalen
Benzyl Alcohol
n— Tetracosane
n— Docosane
n— Hexosane
2— Hexanone
n— Octacosane
n— Triacontane
Yttrium
Beryllium
Titanium
Radium 226
Radium 228
65,111,000
2,501,000
615,699
205,500
16,474
9,683
3,813
3,146
790
305
294
283
225
180
139
119
82.9
71.1
68.0
67.2
49.5
38.2
38.0
36.1
35.8
35.2
35.0
25.0
5.56
4.48
0.000249
0.000204
Total of Non ORD Pollutants (Ib/yr) a
Total for All Pollutants (Ibyyr)
154,057
5,918
1,457
486
39.0
22.9
9.02
7.44
1.87
0.72
0.70
0.67
053
0.43
033
0.28
0.20
0.17
0.16
0.16
0.12
0.090
0.090
0.085
0.085
0.083
0.083
0.059
0.013
0.011
0.0000006
0.0000005
572
162,258
338,079
12,986
3,197
1,067
855
50.3
19.8
16.3
4.10
158
153
1.47
1.17
0.93
0.72
0.62
0.43
037
0.35
0.35
026
0.20
020
0.19
0.19
0.18
0.18
0.13
0.029
0.023
0.000001
0.000001
1,254
356,076
8,996,431
345565
85,072
28,394
2,276
1,338
527
435
109
42.1
40.6
39.1
31.1
24.9
19.2
16.4
11.5
9.82
9.40
9.29
6.84
5.28
5.25
4.99
4.95
4.86
4.84
3.45
0.77
0.62
0.00003
0.00003
33,374
9,475,333
9,488,568
364,469
89,725
29,947
2,401
1,411
556
458
115
44.4
42.8
41.2
32.8
26.2
20.3
17.3
12.1
10.4
9.91
9.79
7.21
5.57
5.54
5.26
5.22
5.13
5.10
3.64
0.81
0.65
0.00004
0.00003
35,200
9,993,667
60416%
2321%
571%
191%
15.3%
8.98%
3.54%
2.92%
0.73%
0.28%
0.27%
0.26%
0.21%
0.17%
0.13%
0.11%
0.08%
0.07%
0.06%
0.06%
0.05%
0.04%
0.04%
0.03%
0.03%
0.03%
0.03%
0.02%
0.01%
0.004%
0.0000%
0.0000%
1 Total excludes the three common ions Cl , Ca++, and Mg"1
-------
3-25
CM
s
.2
0.
o
Sc
«
en
d
t4^
w
o
E
w
«
o
I
w
s>
c
D
o
I
a
•o
o
Texa
3-
Exh
I*. =
111
o J
•3 M
^£!
CM
O
eo /
II:
H,3?
M
« -2 &>
1|!
II!
by
e6o\o\eM'*i-*n-<'H^t~'^:cj'J
,_i*-i*-l*-lT-lT-<*-l*-<*-ioOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOC>
OO\o\oooooooooooooooot~t~t^t~t~t~t~t~t~t~t~NOvovovovoV5vjv5V2tn^
«-iOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCiO
»-
^ST-HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
ooooooooooooooooooo
o o o o o o
OOOOvo\c\oooooooooooooooooooooo^c-c^t— C~c~c^c~>ovovovovo,
ume/
d wa
odu
EDS
e
I
"o
o.
Calculated a
-------
3-26
Exhibit 3-15. Louisiana Produced Water Toxic Unit Loadings - Gas Flotation Effluent (BAT Option 2)
Mean Toxicity
Cone. Criterion
Pollutant
Silver
o-Cresol
Ammonia
Copper
Toluene
Lead
Ethylbenzene
Barium
Nickel
Benzene
Phenol
2,4— Dimethylphenol
Naphthalene
Selenium
Xylenes
p— Cresol
Chromium
Zinc
Cadmium
Di-n-butylphthalate
Antimony
Cobalt
Aluminum
Vanadium
Arsenic
Molybdenum
Vinyl Acetate
Methylene Chloride
Manganese
Acetone
Bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate
Chloromethane
2— Butanone
Carbon Disulfide
Total for 34 ORD Pollutants
EDS Volume (acre feet)
(ug/1)
252
121
65,773
180
828
125
62.2
35,561
109
1,226
536
117
92.0
250
222
149
128
134
14.5
6.43
166
83.6
49.9
96.6
10.8
86.9
29.4
170
74.2
913
46.0
28.6
122
8.48
(TU/yr)a
(ngfl)
0.23
0.30
340
2.9
37
5.6
4.3
2,600
8.3
109
58.0
21.2
23.5
71.0
74.0
50.0
50.0
86.0
9.3
6.0
160
100
87.0
180
36.0
540
450
4,830
3,100
41,000
3,000
2,700
19,500
2,100
Toxicity Indices (TIs = TU/EDS Vol)
Adjusted Toxicity Indices (TIs/1,000)
Toxic Unit Loading
by Watershed fTU/yf)
EDS #10
4.29E+11
1.58E+11
7.58E+10
2.43E+10
8.76E+09
8.73E+09
5.66E+09
5.36E+09
5.14E+09
4.41E+09
3.62E+09
2.16E+09
1.53E+09
1.38E+09
1.18E+09
1.17E+09
l.OOE+09
6.10E+08
6.10E+08
4.20E+08
4.06E+08
3.27E+08
2.25E+08
2.10E+08
1.18E+08
6.30E+07
2.56E+07
1.38E+07
9.37E+06
8.72E+06
6.01E+06
4.15E+06
2.45E+06
1.58E+06
7.40E+11
610,137
1,213,623
1,214
EDS #11
9.43E+11
3.47E+11
1.66E+11
5.34E+10
1.93E+10
1.92E+10
1.24E+10
1.18E+10
1.13E+10
9.68E+09
7.95E+09
4.75E+09
3.37E+09
3.03E+09
2.58E+09
2.56E+09
2.20E+09
1.34E+09
1.34E+09
9.22E+08
8.93E+08
7.19E+08
4.94E+08
4.62E+08
2.58E+08
1.38E+08
5.62E+07
3.03E+07
2.06E+07
1.92E+07
1.32E+07
9.11E+06
5.38E+06
3.47E+06
1.63E+12
15,087,793
107,796
108
EDS #12
2.51E+13
9.23E+12
4.43E+12
1.42E+12
5.12E+11
5.10E+11
3.31E+11
3.13E+11
3.01E+11
2.57E+11
2.11E+11
1.26E+11
8.96E+10
8.06E+10
6.87E+10
6.82E+10
5.86E+10
3.56E+10
3.56E+10
2.45E+10
2.37E+10
1.91E+10
1.31E+10
1.23E+10
6.87E+09
3.68E+09
1.50E+09
8.06E+08
5.47E+08
5.10E+08
3.51E+08
2.42E+08
1.43E+08
9.24E+07
4.33E+13
9,815,891
4,407,093
4,407
Total
Loading
(TU/Yr)
2.64E+13
9.74E+12
4.67E+12
1.50E+12
5.40E+11
5.38E+11
3.49E+11
3.30E+11
3.17E+11
2.71E+11
2.23E+11
1.33E-M1
9.45E+10
8.50E+10
7.24E+10
7.19E+10
6.18E+10
3.76E+10
3.76E+10
2.59E+10
2.50E+10
2.02E+10
1.39E+10
1.30E+10
7.24E+09
3.88E+09
1.58E+09
8.50E+08
5.77E+08
5.38E+08
3.70E+08
2.56E+08
1.51E+08
9.75E+07
4.56E+13
25,513,821
5,728,512
5,729
%
of Total
Loading
58.0%
21.3%
10.2%
3.28%
1.18%
1.18%
0.77%
0.72%
0.69%
0.59%
0.49%
0.29%
0.21%
0.19%
0.16%
0.16%
0.14%
0.08%
0.08%
0.06%
0.05%
0.04%
0.03%
0.03%
0.02%
0.01%
0.003%
0.002%
0.001%
0.001%
0.001%
0.001%
0.0003%
0.0002%
Cum'ltive
%of
Loading
58.0%
79.3%
89.5%
92.8%
94.0%
95.2%
95.9%
96.7%
97.4%
98.0%
98.4%
98.7%
98.9%
99.1%
99.3%
99.5%
99.6%
99.7%
99.8%
99.8%
99.9%
99.9%
99.9%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
a Calculated as: pollutant concentration * EDS produced water volume/toxicity criterion.
-------
3-27
Exhibit 3-16. Summary of Relative Contribution of Produced Water Mass and
Toxic Unit Loadings to Total Watershed Loadings from ORD Report
Current Produced
Water (BPT)
ORD Pollutants
All Pollutants
Gas Flotation Effluent
(BAT Option 2)
ORD Pollutants
All Pollutants
Texas
Mass Toxic Unit
Load Load
17%
38%
14%
35%
94%
-
93%
-
Louisiana
Mass Toxic Unit
Load Load
58%
80%
0.31%
1.0%
87%
—
86%
—
-------
3-28
.1
"O
«
3
I
1
I
"O
I
•a
rt
"«
a
I
S
rt
3
Q
S
o
"S
I
CO
§
o
of"
'a 8
"S a
s o
S «
f C
s 5
si
a> -5
CO B V
0|g
1
g
CO
w V
Q5
C<", T-l f- OO "5 »H
vo
oo"
a\
t—
OS
C/
O ON O.«
O t 00 O
of
ON
ON
ll-S'SsJ
ON
«o
VI
co"
Tota
Te
-------
3-29
03
s
^
A
£
S
.«*
1
•o
I
•o
a
C3
i
II
^§
Sfc
J.2
ii §
a
i
a
>• 13
f "
CQ
Q
os
o
I
2
§
o
« §
3 O
^CO
1 s
•s«
§ ^
M ^
3 "S
>5 3
I
^
1
CO
VO OS V) O O
•^r >/•> m cs oo
o\ o^ oq^ C5, o_
C^* ^f V^ ^™< T-H
•^H O OS
l/^ p*^ CD
§
co
o >n o o
vo c
-------
3-30
produced water toxic pollutants represents 80% of the total point source mass loadings; on a watershed basis,
current BPT produced water pollutants range from 0% to 94%.
Toxic unit loadings are compared only for 34 produced water pollutants listed in the ORD report.
The toxic unit loading of current BPT produced water pollutants in Texas approximates 94% of the total
toxic unit loadings; on a watershed basis, current BPT produced water pollutants range from 67% to 100%
(Exhibit 3-19). la Louisiana, the toxic unit loading of current BPT produced water pollutants approximates
87% of the total toxic unit loading; on a watershed basis, current BPT produced water pollutants range from
0% to 100% (Exhibit 3-20).
3.4.2 Gas Flotation Effluent (BAT Option 2)
The mass loading of 34 pollutants in gas flotation effluent (BAT Option 2) pollutants that are listed in
the ORD report approximates 14% of the total point source mass loading in the state of Texas; on a
watershed basis, gas flotation effluent pollutants range from 0.12% to 100% (Exhibit 3-21). For all 66 toxic
pollutants detected in gas flotation effluent, the mass loading represents 35% of the total loading; on a
watershed basis, gas flotation effluent loadings range from 0.40% to 100%. In Louisiana, mass loading of 34
gas flotation (BAT Option 2) pollutants listed in the ORD report approximates 0.31% of the total point
source mass loading; on a watershed basis, produced water BAT pollutants range from 0% to 1.08% of the
EDS totals (Exhibit 3-22). For all pollutants detected in gas flotation effluent, the mass loading represents
1.0%; on a watershed basis, produced water BAT pollutants range from 0% to 3.41% of the EDS totals.
The toxic unit loading of gas flotation (BAT Option 2) produced water pollutants in Texas
approximates 93% of the total toxic unit load of pollutants; on a watershed basis, produced water pollutants
range from 60% to 100% of the EDS totals (Exhibit 3-23). In Louisiana, toxic unit loading of gas flotation
produced water pollutants approximates 86% of the total toxic unit load of pollutants; on a watershed basis,
produced water gas flotation pollutants range from 0% to 100% of the EDS totals (Exhibit 3-24).
-------
3-31
Exhibit 3-19. Texas Industrial, Municipal, and Produced Water Pollutant Toxic Unit Loadings
Current BPT Effluent
EDS
No. EDS Name
2 Laguna Madre
3 Corpus Christi Bay
4 Aransas Bay
5 San Antonio Bay
6 Matagorda Bay
7 Brazos River
8 Galveston Bay
9 Sabine Lake
Texas Totals
EDS
Toxic Unit Loadings fTU/vf)a
Volume Industrial Municipal
(acre feet) Sources
1,281,814
1,097,464
531,428
458,215
2,627,112
15,015
2,196,773
351,433
8,559,254
0.0
176.0
0.0
0.99
0.04
387.6
62.6
172.2
800
Sources
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
15.0
0.0
15.0
Produced Water All Point
Sources0
110
1,129
603
91.9
653
770
1,362
7,002
11,721
100%
87%
100%
99%
100%
67%
95%
98%
93.5%
Sources
110
1,305
603
92.9
653
1,158
1,439
7,175
12,536
a The EPA ORD report (EPA, 1994b) estimates based on mass loadings (lbstyr)/toxicity criterion (ug/l)/
EDS Volume (acre feet)/l,000.
b Source: EPA ORD report; reduced loadings based on influent loadings and engineering estimates of
POTW treatment efficiencies.
0 Toxic units are calculated only for pollutants in the EPA ORD report.
-------
3-32
Exhibit 3—20. Louisiana Industrial, Municipal, and Produced Water Pollutant Toxic Unit Loadings
Current BPT Effluent
EDS Toxic Unit Loadings (TU/yf)a
EDS
No.
10
11
12
13a
13b
Volume Industrial Municipal
EDS Name
CalcasieuLake
Atchafalaya/Vennilion Bays
Mississippi Delta Region
Lake Pontchartrain
Lake Borgne
Louisiana Total
(acre feet) Sources Sources
610,137
15,087,793
9,815,891
5,249,662
1,546,866
32,310,349
940
2.9
036
0.01
0.01
943
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Produced Water All Point
Sources0
1,347
120
4,891
0.0
0.0
6,358
59%
98%
100%
0.0%
'0.0%
87.1%
Sources
2,287
122
4,892
0.01
0.01
7,301
a From, the EPA ORD report estimates based on mass loadings (lbs/yr)/toxicity criterion (ug/1)/
EDS volume (acre feet)/l,000.
b Source: EPA ORD report; reduced loadings based on influent loadings and engineering estimates of
POTW treatment efficiencies.
0 Toxic units are calculated only for pollutants included in the EPA ORD report.
-------
. 3-33
CO
£
.> T3
•Hg
Sj
a
g
5 3
3 o
g co
•§ I
«c§
w
g
O\ O rr, v-i
VO
t> re
OOO-
00
o to o o o o to o
o to
ot>oooocao
8
o «o o >n os o oo ^H
oo c~- o «ri oo
VO i-H f» \O OO OS
OS *-H OO VO •<*
f- OO O i-l
os
O
1
VI •«* VO
c-f
«-< fS
es .
CQ rt*
(D "3 CD
*H Ti ^^
lilii
OS
o^
cf
OS
oo
o
oo
to
OS
OS
OS
T-H
oo
OS
V5
•O,
OO
Texas Tota
on
"§ 'll
-------
3-34
!
o
H"i
y,
CS
1
ta
3
1
<-i
o
^^
1
d Produced
a
CS
"«
.&,
.a
a
S^
5g
•« .2
'£ a,
w O
•5 H
~§
S&
-22. Louisia
tionEffluenI
' CS
2 0
;§E
«*^ CO
>3 C3
tS o
C3
I
1
a
§
i-i
•a
1
J3
^?
(2
0%
o
M
o
CO
1
3
55
1
Jj
•,*•»
CS
•o
1
T3
2
£
,
cS
.O.
"S
1
_*
"C
to
1
i
c
1
S
w
-
<
CQ
—3
"^
Q
§
.£2
S
3
j^
fi
1
W
^
• C O O
tSJ i-l VO
oo oq_ co_
00 O OO O O
CS i— 1 C3
O VO O\
es vr> oo
^f
^ ^ ^ ^ ^
m o cj o o
o
oo o c~ o o
o\ vo
S
t? IS fc5 J^ >S
O CS OO O O
T—l T-l 1— 1 1— 1
o\ o o o o
r-j VO CT\ O OO
o* cc* c^r I-H* i— r
OO VO «O
C^T T— £
t^ CO i— 1 C^ VO
CO O\ O\ VO VD
i-l r~ OO VD OO
O f- «O O\ VO
i— 1 OO I—I 'd' "f
*D ON *n T—I
T-l
50
CS
CQ g
r! "Sb
ll-l
jsl^ 1
6 1 i 3 3
S33<22
o\
T—l
vq.
1— 1
VD
1"^
v->
0\
T—l
T—l
*/"5
^
T— H
1
I—I
o
1
^
o
>n
T— i
t-5
o\
r>"
o\
C5,
*o
1
cT
1— 1
CO
uisiana Total
,3
.
(O
o
S8
^ '3
C^ s
to .2
r(D Q .
a> «M *O
g
11-
52^
§*S<
OT ^ o\"
W o --3
1^1
^s£
o us o
•a g ^
JJ ••§ S3
•U « 3
rj » CS
r. w) s
.-^.S ts
•8 s 8
S « a
<-|'S
^§&
" -rt <0
el|
l|«
l^'-i
o «* S
^^•3
W •*-» CJ
sis
li!
•o s -S
o o *•»
CO w .«
el •& +
,0 ^
•Sac
"« 53 cs
2T-2 + ~
S1 *o ,°5
§; 8U
^ •§ • "
^"20
HM _ r«
PQ iT g
^ o .2
|2|
sol
S«l
°2I
^Wg>
w « -^
fi si
2 gl
to co U
rt JD o
-------
3-35
Exhibit 3-23. Texas Industrial, Municipal, and Produced Water Pollutant Toxic Unit Loadings
Gas Flotation Effluent (BAT Option 2)
EDS
No. EDS Name
2 Laguna Madre
3 Corpus Christi Bay
4 Aransas Bay
5 San Antonio Bay
6 Matagorda Bay
7 Brazos River
8 Galveston Bay
9 Sabine Lake
Texas Total
EDS
Volume Industrial
(acre feet) Sources
1,281,814
1,097,464
531,428
458,215
2,627,112
15,015
2196773
351433
8,559,254
0.0
176.0
0.0
0.99
0.04
387.6
62.6
1722
800
Toxic Unit Loadings (TU/yf) a
Municipal
Sources b
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
15.0
0.0
15.0
Produced Water
Sources
85
997
541
66
574
584
1,211
6,287
10,344
c
100%
85%
100%
99%
100%
60%
94%
97%
93%
All Point
Sources
85
1,173
541
67
574
972
1,288
6,459
11,159
a The EPA ORD report (EPA, 1994b) estimates based on mass loadings (lbs/yr)/toxicity criterion (ug/1)/
EDS volume (acre feet)/l,000.
b Source: EPA ORD reduced loadings based on influent loadings and engineering estimates of POTW
treatment efficiencies.
0 Toxic units are calculated only for pollutants in the EPA ORD report.
-------
3-36
Exhibit 3-24. Louisiana Industrial, Municipal, and Produced Water Pollutant Toxic Unit Loadings
Gas Flotation Effluent (BAT Option 2)
EDS Toxic Unit Loadings (TU/yr)a
EDS
No.
10
11
12
13a
13b
Basin Industrial Municipal
EDS Name
CalcasieuLake
Atchafalaya/Vermilion Bays
Mississippi Delta Region
Lake Pontchartrain
LakeBorgne
Louisiana Total
(acre feet) Sources Sources
610,137
15,087,793
9,815,891
5,249,662
1,546,866
32,310,349
940
2.9
036
0.01
0.01
943
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Produced Water All Point
Sources0
1,214
108
4,407
0.0
0.0
5,729
56%
97%
100%
0%
0%
86%
Sources
2,153
111
4,407
0.01
0.01
6,672
& From the EPA ORD report estimates based on mass loadings (lbs/yr)/toxicity criterion (ug/1)/
EDS volume (acre feet)/l,000.
b Source: EPA ORD report; reduced loadings based on influent loadings and engineering estimates of
POTW treatment efficiencies.
c Toxic units are calculated only for pollutants included in the EPA ORD report.
-------
4-1
4. WATER QUALITY COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENTS FOR PRODUCED WATER
4.1 Methodology
The current BPT and BAT pollutant concentrations for the produced water waste stream are
compared to the water quality standards of Texas, Louisiana, and Alaska to determine compliance with those
standards. State water quality implementation guidance documents are followed in applying waste load
allocation models for calculating the appropriate daily average and daily maximum limitations for the Texas
and Louisiana state standards. Because Alaska does not require application of a waste load allocation
model, standards are compared to the effluent concentrations projected by the modeling at the edge of
various mixing zones comparable to those of Texas and Louisiana.
4.1.1 Surface Water Modeling
Water quality assessments are conducted separately for Texas, Louisiana, and Cook Inlet operations.
Plume dispersion modeling was performed using the CORMIX expert system (Version 2.10; Doneker and
Jirka, 1993). For both of the Gulf of Mexico states, three discharge rate scenarios are modeled: mean
discharge rate by outfall; median discharge rate by outfall (i.e., 50% of outfall flows are greater or lesser
than the median flow); and median discharge rate by flow (i.e., 50% of the total produced water volume is
discharged at greater or lesser flow rates). The median rate by outfall is useful in assessing the number or
fraction of outfalls or facilities complying with water quality standards, whereas the median rate by flow is
more useful for assessing the fraction or proportion of produced water being discharged that is complying
with state standards. Because only a few outfalls account for most of the discharge volume, the median
discharge by flow is higher than the mean or median rate by outfall. For Cook Inlet operations, outfall-
specific flows are modeled for the eight outfalls currently discharging. Effluent pollutant concentrations used
in these analyses are those presented previously in Section 2 (Exhibits 2-4 and 2-5).
The modeling input parameters for the Gulf of Mexico facilities are derived from published
literature and DMR data from coastal operators. The water depths used are 1 and 3 meters with ambient
current speeds of 5 cm/sec; an average determined from published literature for the Gulf of Mexico (Texas
A&M, 1991). Ambient density data also are derived from temperature and salinity data in published
literature (Temple et al., 1977). For Texas, ambient densities of 1,000 kg/m3 (summer) and 1,004 kg/m3
(winter) are modeled; for Louisiana, 1,005 kg/m3 is used. The water column is assumed to be mixed
because of the shallow depths.
The discharge configurations simulated for the Gulf of Mexico outfalls are surface discharges from a
5-inch diameter pipe. These two configuration parameters were determined by responses to the Section 308
questionnaire submitted to EPA by coastal operators. The produced water effluent density is determined
from temperature and chlorides data submitted on DMRs. For Texas, only chlorides data are available, so
the Louisiana temperature data are used for both states. The resulting effluent densities are 1,031 kg/m3 for
Texas and 1,020 kg/m3 for Louisiana.
-------
4-2
The discharge configurations simulated for Cook Inlet outfalls are based on site-specific data
collected for each outfall. Ambient density and current data, outfall configurations, and effluent density data
were provided by a Region 10 modeling study for the same outfalls (Schurr, 1986). Most discharges are
from submerged pipes. Where site-specific data are not provided in the Region 10 study, averages are used
(e.g., pipe diameter and pipe depth).
4.12, State Water Quality Standards
For Texas, waste load allocations and soluble metal transformations are applied in the analysis of
water quality at 50 feet (the acute standard mixing zone); at 200 feet (the chronic standard mixing zone); and
at 400 feet (the human health standard mixing zone). The waste load allocation model uses the predicted
mixing that will occur in the water column and the state standards to calculate allowable end-of-pipe
limitations. The effluent pollutant concentrations presented in Chapter 2 of this document are compared to
those calculated limitations to determine compliance with state standards. The standards used to calculate
the Texas water quality-based, end-of-pipe limitations are presented hi Exhibit 4-1.
In accordance with the Texas implementation guidance, the waste load allocation was calculated hi
the following manner. First, as part of the state waste load allocation model, four metals require calculation
of a dissolved fraction to determine the amount that may be present in the water column. The calculation of
these dissolved fractions is presented in Exhibit 4-2. For all other metals and organic pollutants, the
dissolved fraction is assumed to be 1 for the calculations. To calculate the waste load allocation (WLA),
each state standard is divided by the fractional percentage of effluent at the edge of the prescribed mixing
zone (I/number of dilutions predicted by the model) and multiplied by the dissolved fraction appropriate to
each specific pollutant.
This waste load allocation is then used to calculate the long-term average (LTA) limitations for each
pollutant (032 x WLA for acute limits, 0.61 x WLA for chronic limits, and 0.93 x WLA for human health
limits). From these LTA limitations, daily average and daily maximum limitations are calculated for acute,
chronic, and human health standards (daily average limitations are 1.47 x LTA and daily maximum
limitations are 3.11 x LTA). For water quality compliance analyses, these daily average and daily maximum
limitations are used as end of pipe limitations. These limitations are compared to average produced water
pollutant concentrations for current BPT and gas flotation (BAT Option 2) produced water effluents to
assess compliance with state water quality standards.
For Louisiana, similar waste load allocations and soluble metal transformations are applied in the
analysis of water quality at 50 feet (the acute standard mixing zone) and at 200 feet (the chronic and human
health standard mixing zone). The Louisiana standards used to calculate the state water quality limitations
are presented in Exhibit 4-3.
The waste load allocation model required for Louisiana is the same as Texas with a few variations.
The Louisiana soluble metal transformations are the same as Texas. However, Louisiana standards do not
-------
4-3
Exhibit 4-1. Texas Water Quality Standards
Parameter
Arsenic
Benzene
Cadmium
Chromium (hex)
Copper
Cresols
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Zinc
2-Butanone
Water Quality Standards (ug/1)
Marine Acute
149
45.62
1,100
16.27
140
2.1
119
564
7.2
98
Marine
Chronic
78
10.02
50
4.37
5.6
1.1
13.2
136
0.92
89
Human Health
208
31,111
3.85
0.025
591,111
Source: Texas Water Commission, 1991.
-------
4-4
Exhibit 4-2. Calculation of the Fraction of Dissolved Metal
Metal
Copper
Lead
Silver
Zinc
Slope
(m)
-0.72
-0.85
-0.74
-0.52
Texas Linear Partition
Coefficients
Partition
Coefficient (K^
70,000
1,150,000
720,000
230,000
V
13,330
162,000
131,000
69,500
Louisiana Linear Partition
Coefficients
Intercept
(b)
4.86
6.06
5.36
K b
*D
13,804
162,181
69,183
KD - 10b x TSSm
Where TSS = 10 mg/1 for both Texas and Louisiana; as recommended for bays in the
Texas Implementation Guidance (Louisiana guidance does not specify TSS)
Fraction of Dissolved Metal =
1 + (Kp or KD x TSS x 10'6 )
Metal
Copper
Lead
Silver
Zinc
Dissolved Fraction
Texas
0.882
0382
0.433
0.590
Louisiana
0.878
0.381
NAa
0.591
a No dissolved fraction for silver in Louisiana
-------
4-5
Exhibit 4-3. Louisiana Water Quality Standards
Parameter
Arsenic
Benzene
Cadmium
Chloromethane
Chromium (tri)
Chromium (hex)
Copper
Ethylbenzene
Lead
Mercury
Methylene Chloride
Nickel
Phenol
Toluene
Zinc
Radium
Chlorides
Oil and grease
TOG
TSS
Surface Water Quality Standards (ug/1)
Marine Acute
69
2,700
45.62
515
1,100
4.37
8,760
220
2.1
25,600
75
580
950
95
Marine Chronic
36
1,350
10.0
103
50
4.37
4,380
8.5
0.025
12,800
8.3
290
475
86
Human Health
12.5
70
8,100
87
50
69,300
Range of 835 - 1,600 mg/1 for estuarine water bodies
Oil and Gas
Standards (ug/1)
12.5
4,380
475
60 pCi/1
10-fold dilution
15 mg/1
50 mg/1
45 mg/1
Source: Louisiana DEQ, 1991.
-------
4-6
require use of a dissolved fraction for silver; it is assumed to be 1. The waste load allocation (W1A) is
calculated the same as for Texas and the long term average (LTA) limitation is calculated in the same
manner as Texas with different multipliers (1.31 x WLA for acute; 0.53 x WLA for chronic; and 1.0 x WLA
for human health). The daily average and daily maximum limitations also are calculated the same as Texas
with different multipliers (131 x LTA for acute, 3.11 x LTA for chronic, and 1.0 x LTA for human health
daily average and 2.38 x LTA for human health daily maximum). In addition to state water quality
standards, Louisiana has performance-based effluent standards for oil and gas exploration and production
facilities. These standards are also presented in Exhibit 4-3 and represent effluent limitations that must be
met prior to any dilution of the effluent.
Water quality assessments for Cook Inlet are conducted according to state standards for Alaska
(ADEC, 1989; 1994). The Alaska marine water quality standards for toxics and,other deleterious organic
and inorganic substances in discharges to waters used for growth and propagation of fish, shellfish, aquatic
life, and wildlife require compliance with EPA Quality Criteria for Water and Alaska Drinking Water
Standards. The water quality limitations used for this analysis are presented in Exhibit 4-4.
The approach to assess compliance with state standards for Alaska fundamentally differs from that
of Texas and Louisiana. Alaska regulations do not specify spatially-defined mixing zones. Rather, the extent
of the mixing zone needed to achieve compliance with water quality standards is determined and evaluated
for reasonableness. Thus, for this analysis the spatial extent of mixing zones needed for each outfall to meet
all of the state standards is calculated. However, to assess Alaskan water quality compliance in a manner
that would allow comparison with Gulf of .Mexico operations, the analysis performed for Cook Inlet facilities
also uses 50-foot and 200-foot mixing zones.
4.2 Texas Water Quality Compliance Assessment
The results of the CORMIX modeling for both the current BPT and BAT (Option 2) discharges in
Texas coastal waters are presented in Exhibit 4-5 for both 1- and 3-meter water depths for the mean, median
by outfall, and median by flow discharge rates. The results are expressed as the number of dilutions
projected by the model at the edge of the specified mixing zone in 1- and 3-meter water depths.
The projected dilutions at the edge of the mixing zones for each discharge rate and water depth are
used as input in the waste load allocation models. The results of these waste load allocation calculations are
used to calculate the long term average limitations and the daily average and daily maximum limitations that
are then compared to effluent concentrations. The mean produced water pollutant concentrations are
presented on the exhibits and effluent values that exceed the calculated limitations are outlined.
Exhibits 4-6 through 4-8 present the waste load allocation and limitations calculations for current
BPT discharges for 1-meter water depths and Exhibits 4-9 through 4-11 present calculations for discharges to
3-meter water depths. For gas flotation (BAT Option 2), the waste load allocation and limitations
calculations are presented in Exhibits 4-12 through 4-14 for discharges to 1-meter water depths and in
Exhibits 4-15 through 4-17 for discharges to 3-meter water depths.
-------
4-7
Exhibit 4-4. Alaska Water Quality Standards3
Drinking
Water
Parameter Standards (ug/1)
Aluminum
Anthracene
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Beryllium
Cadmium
Chlorobenzene
Chromium
Copper
Di— n— butylphthalate
Ethylbenzene
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Mercury
Naphthalene
Nickel
Phenol
Radium- 226 and -228
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Toluene
Xylenes (total)
Zinc
200
6.0
50
2,000
5.0
4.0
5.0
100
1,000
700
300
50
100
100
5 pCi/1 (total)
(5E-6ug/l)
50
100
2.0
1,000
10,000
5,000
Federal Water Quality
Criteria (ug/1)
Acute Chronic HH
- . 0.0311
1.4
5,100 700 710
0.311
43 9.3
- 21,000
2.9
- 12,000
430 - 29,000
220 5.6
2,350
75 83 100
5,800
_ _ _
6,300 5,000 424,000
95 86
a Alaska state water quality standards for marine waters - growth and propagation of fish,
shellfish, aquatic life, and wildlife - requre that toxic and other deleterious organic and
inorganic substances not exceed criteria cited in EPA Quality Criteria for Water or Alaska
Drinking Water Standards.
-------
4-8
Exhibit 4—5. Cormix Results for Texas Produced Water Discharges
Current (BPT)
Discharge
Rate
(bpd)
1 Meter Wa
162
577
1,957
3 Meter Wa
162
577
1,957
Number of Dilutions at Edge of Mixing Zone
Acute Chronic Human Health
(50ft) (200ft) (400ft)
iter Depth
Summer Winter Average
157 159 158
40.7 40.8 40.8
155 155 15.5
tter Depth
Summer Winter Average
895 911 .- 903
304 247 276
82.6 83.4 83.0
Summer Winter Average
357 352 354
81.7 80.4 81.1
25.1 24.8 25.0
Summer Winter Average
1,313 1,325 1,319
418 334 376
106 107 107
Summer Winter Average
1,054 1,017 1,036
210 203 206
49.9 48.4 49.2
Summer Winter Average
2,126 2,111 2,118
591 499 545
145 144 144
Median discharge by outfall 162 bpd
Mean discharge 577 bpd
Median discharge by flow 1,957 bpd
Gas Flotation (BAT Option 2)
Discharge
Rate
(bpd)
1 Meter Wa
379
838
1,978
3 Meter Wa
379
838
1,978
Number of Dilutions at Edge of Mixing Zone
Acute Chronic Human Health
(50ft) (200ft) (400ft)
iter Depth
Summer Winter Average
58.1 58.4 583
29.9 30.1 30.0
15.4 15.4 15.4
ter Depth
Summer Winter Average
431 439 435
175 176 176
107 108 108
Summer Winter Average
127 125 126
55.9 55.2 55.6
24.9 24.6 24.8
Summer Winter Average
605 612 608
233 234 234
136 136 136
Summer Winter Average
355 341 348
134 129 131
49.3 47.8 48.6
Summer Winter Average
891 890 890
342 338 340
177 176 177
Median discharge by outfall
Mean discharge
Median discharge by flow
379 bpd
838 bpd
1,978 bpd
-------
4-9
1
!
s
o
•g
I
55
CD Q
3.8
.a
•4-*
ctt
S'g
2^
> c
"1
•a 2
Po
O •"*
••a- oo
o 0 tf.
o •*
\0
CS
O <7\
\o cs o\
CO O\ OO
cs oo
i> r- o
C7\ O\ O\
O G5 O
O\
o
O\
o
o\ o\ o\
C5 O O
ooo ooo ooo ooo
o o o
prj frj tr.
ff. ff. ff,
vo VO >O
cs cs cs
oo oo oo
cs cs cs
o o o
cs cs cs cs cs cs
oo oo oo oo oo oo
cs cs cs cs cs cs
ooo ooo
ooo ooo
CO CO CO
NO so vo
O C5 C5
CO CO CO
CO CO CO
NO NO NO
O O C5
OO
oo
OO
I-H CO ON
O C5
a
CS O
3 '3
< CQ
•
1 1 a
O •** V E! «^
s I ^ I jg j
C/3
ity
t at
oo
a
-
O "O
I CO O,
ooo
v> o o
cs "*
o
1
I
GO
.2
•+-»
5
-------
4-10
.2
O
§
•i
s3*.J3
2 Q
1.1
« -a
as
Is
IB
• *£J
S «
CJ
®
o
ll
si
^^ ^-»
"1? *S
*« "S
("^ **'*
"-1
II
% *~*
rs 5
Q J
^J
o>
00
5 C5
O O
1 ,2
toO'S
& c
,3 >J
o
1
a
CD
i*
3
O
•fi
*rt
0
H^
C
S
J3
o
o
g
— ]
•4-*
1
ffl
ao
rt
0
i*
JH
u
J.
•5
3
y^
•«^t
13
0
K
o
*S
1
o
s
g
II Pollutant
CM oq vi
"*
i i
co^ CM"
VO CM
o"
c**
r-T
^?
vf
ON
?Q
t- rH
f~ VJ
vq_ -^
V) •»*
CN S
vo"
S3
•^
^
f^^
2>
^~*
vo O
00" CS"
oi c*i
vf
i
T— (
C**
*o.
K
u
2-Butanon
Arsenic
Benzene
OO 00 O
Csj g 00
ON vo O
co CM •^r
c-xvp^co.
VO CO* CO*
CO VO t^
f- vo o
r-^ON^O^
f-
vi ^f ON
00 ON f-
r-^OO^ Vl^
CO* vT rH~
T"H
rH VO •
ON OO
ON OO
rH CM
CO rH
ON r--
f- 00
VI rH
ON CO
CM ••*
c-^co.
rH Ti*
C5,
•^J-
VI VO
OO ON
VO_rH^
T* 'f
CM •<*
OO TT
CO 00^
r-^ oo
CM
C5 C~-
VO VI
co_c~x
C3* ON*
VO
ON^
ON*
CM
OO VI
r-l°O,
CO* CM*
f- t~
CM rH
VO O
00* VO*
l-oji
O c8 "3
O CM ON
Vi V) CM
CM CM CO
co ON oo
VO CO TT
*T ^r ^
rH rH rH
ON O
rH
•* co oo
OO CO rH
VO VO rH
OO CM VO
00 CM
CM O rH
CO OO VI
CM_ VO O\_
co" t~*
oo ••* vi
rH -«a- -rj-
O^CM^CO,
rH rH CM
^J- rH
ON CO O
O vo CM
*^f "^f ^O
ON* CM*
CM CO
VO t~ OO
rH ^ ON
V) OO CO
a" °°"
111
en K N
« -O 33
•o .2J "°
^^ rt t™^
os a • &<
J| gig
^ 8 i
)^>^> S, s
-------
4-11
I
•a
I
-CS
55
I
K
S3
a
8
6
-2S
" N
o .^
II
8*
•Su^
Po
\o
\o
oo
00
3
oo
CM"
vo f»
VO OO
00,0,
OO CM
§
oo o.
TH O
vo oo
oo oo
TH o •<*• rf
r- co c~ to
. 0 o -1 <^i
TH TH CM
\c
CM V> TH
w^ "*3" to
TH CM
to c-»
00 O
^O p1^
TH OO
TH O
o\
TH VI
TH OO
CM
VO CM \O CM OS
^ ft! CO OS OO
' TH *•< O
O OS "* CM 00
^ $ 2?
O C5 C5
OO OO OO
O C5 C>
^^*
C> O C5
o o o
%
co
c -2 S °
;
ta
edg
din
of
Z
s-B
.1^
S 8 -2
iSl.1
oo
C3 O O
CM ••*
o _«
«
2
w
« P •
-s
-------
4-12
•s
"3 E
03
1^
la
§•5
g.s
VI
|3
O
ooooo
O\
CO C~
vb" vo"
V)
CO
v>\or-
O Ol VI *—I
\f^ V% ^D I'"!
O OO VO t"
VO" 1-fTf
? S
VO CO t>l (N
ON" CM >H O
ON OO ON VO
3"^ of
o
ol
Tt
vo"
cs>
vo
VD
?2
n
OO
T-I CO
vo in
VO
06"
^
V)
§
OO
of
O» CO VO
» VO CO
CO
OO
OO
0\
ON
cT
T}-»-I
«Mr4
goo cs ojoo
tS"of
&
CO
o
«rT
ON
«O
OO
O\
VO
ON
Tj-
Tt V
'*<
Ol
ONCO
tM«n
I>VO
s««
C3VO
'
vo
I
I
§
M
a
«
S
s
e
S-l
& •>-> CS
); and 0.93 "
i human heal
nd human he
.$J S e«
n « tj
2. a" '3
•S g 2
"••' 2 -g
< rfS °
S ° ®
^ 3 i
^ o
* g «
T-H C3 *•<
^ * «S
o«a g
til
?? £ Q>
W »"« CT
S
co a J2
C5 ^ #
«* S
•s^^
•*-* ^— 4 CO
erages calcula
calculated as
n calculated a
1994a.
> a> = f
«! So 3 .^
•3 &
•o 2
§05
^
CS
ations ex
the daily
: concentr
• exceeds 1
c 53
§£
C3 «°
33 t»-<
4> O
II
C «3
lean BPT Cur
:ent concentra
•rt ^*^
a
-------
4-13
-3
a,
•o
^Z
3
a
o
•s
3
o
3
es
Q
0
CO
S3
0
1
i
55
'S
1
S
a
8
OS
1
•CJ £"
"*"* ^5
8°-
E s
^^^
^^
.^ £5
S o
!§
u «
s~-
£ Q
gN
d JS
as •*-*
3 4)
fflK
« 2
•§'§
« ^
JS
a s
0
p
ll
"«
i«
.«SJ
§ s
"«
cr
R «i
os «r
"Sla
£ .£
o •«
co i;
•S3 2
<_,
J£
1
^ -*
vq, CM,
CM O
§ -
cT
o o o •*
Os CM CM £2
TH ^>
o t~ o r-
i-t O V> OO
CO C"^ CS CM
T— (
*-l OO
TH O
of
>Ti
OO CM O C*-
c~ c> >n co
S "*
ON c^ o r^«
^t" VO O C^J
^" v-5 *""t vo
^f ^^ ^H
000 000
CM CM CM CMCMCM
O O O O O O
o o o o o o
«n >r> co
T-l
OOS
T-( 1-t
000
CMCMCM
O O O
0 0 O
**•>*•<*
u-> «o ui
VO VO VO
^-i OO r-H
CO
o
CO,
g -a .S
4) o! "3
032
O V5 »-l
§ CO |^
CO CO
CM O V)
"* VO t~
C~ CM >^>
06" CM"
VO CM OS
CO O\ OO
"-1 cj
•* CM OO
v>
sss
c4 CM CM
o o o
o o o
•<*•*•<*
333
VO vo VO
1-1 CO O\
0 CS
s
.3
111
co co N
1
II
« £J)
1:1
'S a
||
sfS
§ £ s
58 oo-2
If! SI
O CM
o o o
8 I S a •!
s 11 -S «
^ O 43 H o g
*T^ Q) ^f rK *<^ Q
.2
83
Q
•«
s 5 <3
5
-------
4-14
I
oo
t~-
°X
TH
1
s
£>
2
'«
on
o
s»
(Continued)
Median Discha
-e
Exhibit 4-
CurrentB
*T3
§ 3
i^
w g
E
m
•*•*
a
IH
3
O o
If
II
JS3 .t*
03 ^
Qa
tr^
)aily Average
litation (ug/1)
3
&
§?«
K -—
O Q
<£
S a
&•&
*T3
"r"
5
o3
£
.0
'3
2
r^
w
«
"3
"3
Chronic
o
*"•
s
s
as
ffi
.a
a
g
y
!
*•*
a
3
2
.. , gfl
CM oo v> OOOQO o»n
£3 o g°, CM "q oo £3 '•"'
rf
1 — 1 1 —
TH ON TH CM
oo ON co ^r
vT oC !•»" TH"
TH ^*
OO
ON 1O TH VO ON
ON t~ t^ CO ON
VO ^i" CO CM VO
co" CM"
oo •* oo v> co
ON CO VO 00 OO
CM_ C~ ON, CM V£5_
^^ ^O ^O
TH
VO O C— TH
co ON vo oo
ON ON v> vo
06" co" CM"
v> »H ON
t~ O
oC CM"
CO
ON IT} TH TH O
C-^ CM TH ,_| fT)
VO CO O IT) VO
00 CO CM CO 00
0> CO 0, TH V0_
TH OO CM
»-^ •
JO C"*" V"s ^2"
C** TH TH VO
oq, V) »/-2 -«3-
vo" ON" co"
O Tt
CM ""*"
VM
o co co r- v.
ON "S
8 'u
CL, 0)
2 I4
^H qj
TH CO^
•O «0
'Z2 TH '"j
S4 a •s 2
1 ll 1
ctf s '™ • y
S § >%^ tM
3 *n ^ '-H >>
e | a's-S
^ » O H H
i ja "2 *3 2 .2
fr ja 2 s « t> *2
* ^ S
8 o S -S ts -s S *^'SeM
<*5S SouuO
jgs SdSig
f s T «sS2|
co e1 J s g'^ s| ^
|^s 1|1 gf
ts^Jg tJ'S'cs'w-S
gg.SPHW^MOg
SogW.Saca'R
O ^ ^J o tfl .1? rf pCi cfl
, 1 Q Q OO C^ fn c^ fc™* *O
« JD OT) Uiu 60 J=
-------
4-15
ffl
_- ^ <«
»«-H ^D
il?
5, 'cS
a
_g
S .a S
|l|
cS s-
a ^
o a) Q
1 IN
a js
81
M Qj
^>KM
1
-E « a
^•g §
S cs jg
a
es
On 0
"C "S
es y
SCT
N ,£>
•w C5
S °
JS ^ ^,
"S rt
^ Q ^
W ^ r
•O cs
II
w C-
§3 ea
Qfi
<_,
5
I
oo •<*
ON Tj-
c?r o"
5 5
CM
,-T
i
s
TH
tj
v^
^
T-H
TH |
ON
og
n
in
o o o
!§§
o o o
o o o
TH- TH TH
CD
8
1 0 «
ii i
CM!«
OO ON
c?rTH
°°,
VO
vo o o oo TH
TH \S ^ TH TH
ON 0 ON 00 ?5
TH ^fi \O NO ^f
TH tn \o CM" r^
Tj- O\ TH ffi O
TH V5
TH oq
r. C*.
TH
CO
SO t> \0 CM
f.tf. V^ fT
O •* TH
TH
• v— | -^ TH TH
^^^ ^5:^
o o o o o o
o o o o o o
VO vo vo vo vo vo
C-- t~- t> t~ C~- t>
o o o o o o
O O O O O 0
o o o o o o
TH TH OO TH OO TH
OO ff.
O 0
si
.3 '3 is ^
*yH E flj P«H ^M
1 § | S-ej^
"O *-i DH Qi ett ^1
a-G O *-i o **
0 0 U J 2
n- CM oo
OO CM VO
CO OO ON
oC CM" o6~
C^ ON
T— 1 TH
CM O O
ON CM ON
CM TH ON
O\ vi ON
O TH Tj-
VO CM ON
tn ON OO
T"1 O
•<* CM OO
o o o
o o o
000
o o o
o o o
TH ty, ON
O C3
a
it.
•2 > a
cB S3 «
e/3 C/D N
1
s>
JO
tS >•—
S^ §
-t. -a
a o a
.2 fc «
co H
.a Xv S
i «5
l-B'S ^
o^ 1 §
§2§ 1
'•§ ° S £
§ 0 M ij
S-s-g ^
8§-| -§
r9ES S
U *3 23
^-1 Wv4 ««J
Sol •»
2 -5 o o
S s O ^ A
§ ^0 es ^ *
P^ cu ts '^ ij
"g ^ -g s s
S 0 g 0. bO
1 H6:i
ted according to Texas
the edge of the mixing
dilution (ZID); chronic
ater Quality Standards
% effluent at edge of n
.3 •£ --. 5s ^
13 rt « ^ a
11111
inn
lilies
SSf*!
3 is 81
as « S-g
**•* t*-* -4~> ft ™
Q & « o -o
fC ON OO
O TH TH
°" TH~CM~
C3 43 rj O o
CM *5T
i
i
1
i
Q
-------
4-16
^
a.
J3
8
i— i
3
o
£>
•2
'«
PS
a>
1*
*o
«3*.S3
» Q
a s
•5 .2
a -a
ao>
_s
Exhibit 4-9. |
Current BPT;
•a
*•• "^v
§ 3
C o
* ' — ^T
o
If
X ^
CS 0
£1
11
-O
QJ ^J1
fl
-TermAveraj
itation (ug/1) a
M E
J3
o
B*
M
1
M
b4
3
0
5
CS
CD
S3
f*
1
U
*s*
8
<
5
*«
!§
.0
1
fl
o
1
I
35
Chronic
•22
II Pollutant
oo in
s%
"^
i— i in
o\ oo
IM ^"
oo r-
cl
^
J^
a"
o
cc*
2
PJ OO
^f ^1
g 1
T-H
*x
rH
S
of
g
2"
i-< VD
OO O
^1" O\
vo
oo
£r
vo
O
s?
2-Butanone
Arsenic
Benzene
oq oo o
co ** vq
CJ^i-J,1*,
>n m O)
t^ Cl Vl
O\ CO i-l
o co vo"
Tt 00 i-l
!-* t- CO
in co t-
OO^ i-^ OO^
t™H in
oo oo co
C— '^r m
o\ t^ C*^
CM O VO
^D C^ ^^
O C$ O\
00 cf c*r
•<-< oq^ c<^
P S
3 -5
C O D-c
•a c o-i
o «n o\
t> i-( 0
CM in i— i
r- in
O VO
VO^ C3,
OO VO
1
VO O
oo o
88
£3
o o\
1-H VO
CO O
CO i-l
•* VO
vn co
^T CO
c>f oC
oo CM
o.
o\
O CM
CO i— 1
T^- vo
1— C 1-H
in oo
o\ ^r
vo o
1— 1
i— 1 F~
oo m
o" oT
l-H1
VO
r^ *™i
oq^vq^
o\ vo
in oo
"t.**!
O CO
i— i
Jhl
O CM OS
N CN CO
o\ •** c^>
o in vo
CO CO "*
o m r~
rr c-
CO CO
c-» c~ o
i* rt r-
oo o c^
vo in o\
o i— i rf
in i-<
•* ^H rl-
in co •<-<
oo m •<*
O CM OO
vo r-
i-H i-(
«H CM in
in i— < in
o\ r- o
co t>
cs
Tf T— 1 O
CM CS f^
•<* t- co
oC I-H" I-H"
0 CS
l-H l-H
CO OO t-
C** CO O\
o\ oo o\
of-<* t-
vo •<*
1
III
00 OT N
45 co
* 2
u -^
•2 *
d *a
C8 S
s a
_2 g
«S 3
^^^ 1
* "«* _§ 2
* a> - —
s^ffi i
°ft> 8
1? a I
a cs 13 53
4a 13 w «
Ill^l
^•l s§; 1
S 3 s -H S
§ &2< S
S 2 •§ OH CJ
Illyj
M^T> >. " B
B *3 :3 S °
^QQcg^
« ^ O T3 O
-------
4-17
^ ja ^^
13 CJ "cs
OS v—
Q
SS
•s *
ca «>
I«5I
jjo -w o
1 «G
5- -^"^
Q 'S
i— i q\
N "i
•>-> 0
OS VI
•O rt
C
*S "*H
M g
Q £
Pollutant
VI O
Ojv VO
vf 2
s~ ^
CO
g
8
,-j.
JH
1— H
3 1
S"
?a
^
7—1
CO O t>
CO'OO'TH'
T— 1 O CO
O\ CO CO
"1 ^ *"!
CS CO V^
TH O
es o C-
o •<*
cs o i>
VJ ^vo
u- es
os es
V~i
II
•* Tf
oo •^-
VO OO
•rH CS
O CO
r-4
i-t U-i
1-1 oq
CO
vo es
V} CO
T— 1
CO ON
^J" i~^
vo •* O\
^t i— I Tf
vo es ^r
vo vo OO
V^ Tl" V>
VI TJ-
\o es o\
CO O\ OO
^ co
•* cs oo
>0
CO OO CO
o o o
vo vo vo
8^
O O C3
C^ C*l C*Q
CO CO CO
C> G5 C5
T— 1 T-< T-l
O
2-Butanon
Arsenic
Benzene
CO OO OO
o o o
vo vo vo
vo vo VO
es es es
000
es es es
O O C5
TH ,-H 00
OO
C5
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
oo oo oo
o o o
\O VO VO
vo vo vo
cs cs cs
o o o
es es es
VO VO vo
CO CO CO
000
i-l 00 *-H
CO
C3
"o 13
CO OO OO
o o o
\o \o vo
vo vo vo
es es es
O 0 O
cs es es
vo VO vo
CO CO CO
o o o
i-l CO O\
•^t trt
0 0
1
III
c/3 on N
si
o\
1— 1
.2
"1
S
o
0
d
_g
4«»
ca
rce Conserv
s
1
(S
*C8
3
t«
:ons). For bays and estuaries, acute criteria must be mel
d human health criteria at a 400 -ft mixing zone.
•*-*
g
•o
«-H
O
i
0
T-H
1
*3
«
CS
I
« 60
S G
ll
sj
60^
a
*3
f?
S
CS
CO
d fraction calculati
aj
1
Q
rt
f[ t
o
QJ
feO
*S
to
JS
concentration at t
1
w
B
cs
CO"
8
O
N
.«
4j
O
CS
•«_»
CS
•s
S3
•'5
o
1
^2
M
'*^^'
^
.2
S
ft zone of initial d
rt
•*-*
Vft
l>
CO
•§
a.
6
Standards
>^
•t*
"«
»
a
Ui
^5
Texas Surface Wa
1
o
C/3
— i
_2
13
cs
,H
e dissolved 1
^
*rf
o
I
toJO
1
s
*o
t
-------
4-18
OOOQO OV5 OO-JOJ
rj^00 t-^-HO irjioc^
g
3
OO
ec
.0
CM
OO O
c- P»
c? vT
-<3- i-<
« o
OO
rrs
u-
"1 ^"i.
rH T— ( ^— ICJO
o~ o t- t-
T-< O\ O
Q3
o
1
O\ OO
C3 CO
c- r»
t> o\
tn
**
oq, vq,
£
c-i
oT
>« ro CM T-<
i— i O CM
1-
I
0}
21'
R
55
O VI
i-< CM
^O ^1"
o\
CM
o
OO
v^
tf.
.
•SQ
*e
I*
t^ cj
«1
3^
O OOOOON
O\ O\VOf.
OO CM ^ '-I
C CM ^4- ^r
OOO
OOCM
CO O
a\o
C<~, T-< OO
vq,
o\
§
(2
u
a
§ o
^ u 2
3 B &
981
0 S
§ 3
* ^
C ft}
la
I«
*
|
'S S o
-§
* a>! >> S c
C " ^3 3 O
o -a
-------
4-19
TS
&
Q
S
OS
^
K
I
CO
I
.23
£
ctf
I
t
«
a
2
I
CO
II
^5;
a °x
1?
C^ f
"3 Q
^ S
3
o
ri 05
*3
si
11
1.1
I "8
^S
T&"
^S
i!
•o
I
s
.2
S
o
1
cs
Q
w
1
o
i
3
S
s
•S
a
CS
55
-,
o
W
vg
S5-
0
1
•^
|JO
ffi *•
v™*
.a£
1§
S cs
Uts
0 Q
|N
a ^a
||
fli ^
S "8
C o
CS >-
i ®
«l
Q 13
N jj
•S^
2 ^
§ ^
N ««
•aS
s °
^* cs
«
Q "S
i-> 0
OS V^
•O cd
o c
*~^ »S
S «
•S3 g
Q ^
•*-*
c
1
§
oo «n
ON ON
ON ON
oo
vo cs o *H
^* r^ v^ co
CO C3 CO V^
06" '-T vT
C~ VO O VI
VO OO O CO
rH *** ON ^
•»-( OO
ON
oo cs o c->
l"» C5 V, CO
S "*
ON CS O t—
^ vq g cs
^f ^t* *^f ^^ ^^ ^^
ON ON o\ ON ON ON
\o vo vo vo vo vo
o o o o o o
tn m v> »o 10 «o
ON ON ON ON ON ON
000 000
cs cs cs cs cs cs
T-4 ^-H ^-H i— ( T-H OO
^J
G>
a g
9 055*
C3 O r3 7 "2 ^
s -s | 'llg,
?J1 111
cs < 03 U CJ CJ
•* ON
oo
v^ oo
O ON
CO
*-» oq
CO
vq cs
^
C5 ON
Tt T-H
1— 1 *H
ON ON ON
VO VO VO
000
in vi vi
CO CO CO
ON ON ON
O O O
o o o
cs cs cs
*-* OO '-I
CO
f-^
43 _
O u^-1 fli
es ON T-H
>n cs •*
«n cs r*
•*" vo"
T— i 7—1
cs o vo
rH ON OO
oo co r-»
* "
VO CS ON
CO ON OO
1—1 C3
•<* CS 00
ON ON ON
VO VO VO
O O O
«n J
c« K SJ
2^ «
o o o
•- o —
cs
N—P' "^—' •—
V.OO
o 43
-------
4-20
I
rt
(35
§>
cs
•S
.£9
ts
.li
I1
^e
s«
ii
W § 6
<3<5
o
§|
eg o
}i
2 sE
a> v—
2; a
<.2
f |
Q
«'
£^
^.S1
I-I
^1
feo G
ic
C
3
Pollutant
CO VI OOOOO O«T)0\ O
GJOQ pjC^OO t-; T-H O >0
S<^ cvj ^ T~l fM V) T-I CN
%
oo o
o\
oo
oo
o
c4"
r-C
en n-
oooir--
vo \o c^i
r--oo>/->
o\
O\_
VO
cT
CO CO OO OO O4
r£ oq^ wj^ co, P"^
cToT vo" T-T co"
•<*•
o\
00 0\
c-T
VO
SO O\
r-l 00 C^l
oo •* c
co in oo
o vo "*.
co" vo
co
oo
VO
u-i
oo
t-T
1/1 C—
oo «n
VO rH
VD
o\
U-)
o\
co"
-*3- ri- •*
in vo CM
vo CN co
co"
CM vo
T-I T-I
o
CN
co co t- o vo
vo vo r~ •<* •
-------
4-21
1
1
s
u
s
i
-5
w
S
o
Q> Q
•*-* n
g N
o
•cl
« tJ
•He
Jfi
S3 3,
N ,«.
ll
H*
«< O
a
vo
,
VO
c^i
tc vo
n- vo i«- i—i o
oq^ vp^ -<
oo
p O >rj
vo co r»
VC5_ r-4^ C5_
VO
VO OO
VO f,
CM
OO O •<*
CO CM OO
ON •* VO
\f> ON
£
CM o r~
p 10 co
O •<*
O
0
VO
O ON
VO CM ON
CO ON OO
CM OO
£•* t^. f** c** f^ f** c^ C** C**
CJC3O OC5CS C5OCJ OC5C5
OO OO OO
CM
rt •<* •«*
C3 O O
o o o
ON ON ON ON
t~; C-; C-; t";
O C5 CS G5
T-I ^ 00
00
e»
•r* OO '-I
O
•O i-t ON
* vj
3 O
i ^ ..
! --S O
(S
' ** L-N i= a
lllil
1-S
OO
•<*
o o o
u
1
03
.2
(5
-------
4-22
•o
JS-
ON
1
O
.53
Q
a
•3
I
?M*
fl
35
*X *3
tS o
a'S
o 3;
3 v—
S »
I"5
« a
If
^«
« -3
Q J
<^
S a
i •
u>
e •
u
Pollutant
(Sco
X
O\
«0
«*l
ON
OO i-l
en o
T-H 1—<
•«*
oo1
Tj-
oo
OO
r-
oo
o
NO1
o
NO, do. £;,
NO
io_ rl- NO_
«/-T ON"
10 ON
i-T 06"
CM ON
OO
O
oo
ON O
^ VO
06 TH"
NO
OO
0
T~^ ^^^
8S
F» NO
NO O
IT)
ON
i-H CTi
>r> NO
O CM
O cc"
t~
OO
>n
ON
O
K
SP
NO
o
CO
ON
oo
NO
o
ON
ON
vT
O
OO
f-
OO
i-l CM
>/1 CM
OO >n
r- v>
CM T-(
i-< o
f- 0
C4% CM
OO CM
"
^r ^-^ («F\
'-Ir^ "1
0
O
l-o
I
CO
I
•a
s
a
a.
8 s-i
111!
O w fl T—(
-------
4-23
a,
OO O
co n
r^ vo o m
•«*_ co_ o^ »/•>
^S
l-H OO
'•* c^l
i
t~- O >T) CO
C5 •*
ON CO O t~-
•<* \q o co
sss sss
o o o o o o
CO CO CO CO CO ^^
oq oq oq oq oq oq
CO CO CO CO CO CO
CO CO CO CO CO CO
T— 1 T-H TH ^^ 1— 1 OO
o
C3
2 s S
S to S s
| .a | -| -| ss
all 1 S &
«!,|4 3S3
^ co
•« n
{0. '"'
°r
i-l CO
oo c~
CO O
°^ "1
^
s^
'T.co
1— <
CO
xq co
vo ^5 oo
i>'>0 oo*1
o \o co
CO i-H 00
ON^ CO ON^
^
\o co ON
CO ON 00
1-1 cs
** CO OO
CO CO CO
l> t-» t~
o o o
o o o
oq oq oq
CO CO CO
CO CO CO
CO CO CO
i— I i— 1 ON
10
o
1
III
v) oo N
1
II
"Si
i§
E tJ
cs ea
2.S
8.11
.3
-
>.a 2 a
* 2 A^-S 5
^2as«
•g o N S •g
| a^s I
I'S-sO's
•e » s g o
to •£ ^S « vg
*- ** -a cs *s^
•g«-a^W
O fi 'J3 to O
s -B :i 1 s
e es ^ T2 .-5
.1 § S ^ s
11III
T3 3 4J E-i to
£S
C5
Vi
to
i
s
O VO »-H
o' vi $2
to «r»
M—I M—<
O O
^^ ^~^
QW
-------
4-24
I
CO
§,
o
I
I
.a
Q
a
.2
BO
Si S
1 ^
s
Ga
Sg
w a
•B'S
I a
cs
Q
MO
N
<&
g§
,O 'S
E-1 _cj
I *3
ta
Po
es co \o
o o in o\
OO t^-CSO
•<*
CO
t-f O
co co
vrf co
vo c~-
C7\
%%
CO ***
CM
O\
oo
o\
m
in
o\
CO
CM
vo
00
CT\
co
co
in co
c^i *n
r~ vo
c
TH O\ O\
c<« \o
>n CM
"
O\
o n
co
<0
§
a
cs
s
.s aaa u^-l &&$
f «|
$11
S i I
a g ^
cs
•O
.
3 «
3 es ^
3 2
-^ -a »
os a> TS
« •a -3
.§
1
2
§ *O
w "S
!>«
g M
§.a
£8
» "2
C g
*O Sr'O
« 2 3
,2
•i « •§
*p§
2|
II
d &
.S a-i
111
-------
4-25
a
.g
is o
•8S
OS
« Q
IN
•S §
cs ja
ss
*C 9
CS W
es
S
o
o"
oo o re
o
"* f. VO
f» ce oo
vq^oo^ vq^
irTi-T 06"
OO
IT)
55
3-2
r^
o
o t>
in re
vq
VO (S OS
j^ ff. OS OO
^H '"H O
vo
oo
g
«s
VO \O
0 C=>
vo vo vo
cs o c;
cs es cs
cs c> c;
•* •* •*
rr; ff. cc tf. f. ff,
C5 O O C5 p p
^" ^" ^t* ^^ ^f ^t ^f ^f ^f
888
5^^
§§§
°^^^
°^°^^
vo vo vo vo vo vo
rH 00
oq
o
^ 00
o
fi
3
s
*
a
363
i—I ^—< OS
o
I
^§ g o
"3 S3 ~a
C/3 C/3 N
jo 3>
js a
:B J
S3 w>.S CQ S
S a a ^ 1-1
fail*
° g ^-2 o
w>-5 Q"^ «
.S «W M >^ ««
•P o N 3 3
o ft,^2 §
*8
42 -a
^§
si
§1
11
51
2fe^
~a& ^
1 l-g
.S (2 S
"8 Sf
e
CO O
Q W
<8 J3
g cs 15
Sl-3
VH s
Oflj^
Jrt O 3
Uc O
-e!3
rf oq
o o o
b'
1
I
03
I
'S
Q
-------
4-26
I
§.
»•<
1
E
•o
o
s
Pi
o
£?
mtinued)
T Option 2); Median Discha
^S
iibit4-14.
s Flotation
ScS
*?—
'a *si
S -5
S o
"3
0
g s
li
.&._«
"S 'S
0 J
II
IB
Si
C3 -tS
C5 E
Q3
Long- Term Average
Limitation (ug/1) a
0
p
/•} OQ O O V> ON O
oi <— ; 01 _» 01 oo ix ol o >o
TH
— I
O\ OO OJ J*
o\_ oJ. '"J.'^.
O\ ON ff* TH
oo OJ l>
?r 5"
oo
O TH Ol Tj' ff. TH O\
VO ^ C^ Ol VO VO fl
c •^r i>
C^ 00_ C5.VO
Ol O_
oC of
«o re Ol O oo •<*•'*
ff, Ol TH TH OJ ON OJ
c-x ol TH ^ ff. 01 o,
TH TH rf.
ON O ON ^ ON Ol VO
r~ ff, vo tr> vo vo oo
O ff. ON TH VO 00 O
TH C-" Of ^"
V> n-H VI CO
G> ^^ ^^ M'
l> ON VO
vo" TH"
^ Ol VO TH C<-, CS l>
oo «o «o ,x ol o MI
TH TH t^ JG 01 01 o,
TH" of
*s- «n TH TH vo vo o\
ff, Ol Ol _J TH OO l>
c- 01 •<* 5; oo »/i r-
•" TH" 01
a
§ o §§ a
I'll i|| lil |
0^n
TH
1
33
Tj-
TH
o
o"
5?
>n
of
iri
o
T-T
a
oo
N
o
6
•d
si. *
li
II
U<4 W
2 8-
vo: 2
1—4 *v
*^^ ^S
1 S c
^ 2 »H oq
^S "S *® '*
w s £2 o
s I«S •§
S *3 ix-,J?%
*^ S § *^^
<" ^3 "S -B |
^ •*-» 03 Q) *a ^
* S j*t ^ jS "c
"> -C a O a !§
§ fl 2 5s "3 o
2 2 g >» S "3
1 1 5 f -3 8 j*
fl -a -o "° -a •§ g
/r?"2 S *° B «c t '-S
a a ^ o> 03 2^ o
a o» y- a a) g e« £5
•« *t! « O ni •?? °
1? ••§ ja ^ 52
** 60 2 etf *3 8-| O
115 £-9*1
sS g S g « ^| i2
"^ C B *" S S i»
rages calculated as 0.32 * WI
alculatedas 1.47 * long- ten
calculated as 3.11 * long-te
994a.
*an BAT Option 2 effluent a
:nt concentration of copper e
nt concentration of silver exe
tcute and chronic limitations
5uc'-iaa!<:!!!!
|| 1 w j 1 1 1
rt .0 o *o o o u-i
-------
4-27
I
Q
05
a
I
CO
I
.a
&
t*
II
Sa
|
5,
J
•*•*
g
••3
•o
0
^rf
so
0
1
5-
1
e
CS
•*•*
00
.0
'S
5
a
a
a
ctt
U
ja S
-3 °
OS ^2
*••*
VO VO VO
o o o
o o o
O O C5
»— 1 T-H T— 1
(3
1.2 §
sc«
PQ a> S
1 -3 U
CM
vq o CM
-
»— 1
SS3
T-T
ff.
VO i T5
CO T-I CM
JO CO «
VO CM O\
CO Os OO
"""' C5
"•I- CM OO
CM CM CM
O 0 O
•* ** ••*
' VO VO VO
o o o
o o o
C5 0 CS
-— 1 T— 1 OS
>Ti
e>
_--,
o-) K N
a) ij-j
s
-a
"i3- a"-55 -2
.a «-i n >.«»
"O o sj -S -g
^r* *\ **H*S -« t?
">
ca •« "
-
U-i OO O
CO O Os
•tt VO 00
43 43 CH
O C3 C3
)
"rj C fli *'-* -—•••
tS flj S «° *• *-°
Js O 5? m w ^
2 C g K cs rS
<*-< O Ij rt> T-) «8
T3 o 43 E-H 5 >
Q B
C3 ^
« •»
-S rg o
o *a
.2
S
Q
-------
4-28
^
£
o\
a
1
1
^.,_
£*
0
S
05
§>
1
.53
I); Median D
(Continued)
BAT Option 2
>*—'
,« cd
Exhibit 4- If
Gas Flotatio:
"%«•
§ 3
a v_
a g
wa
g^
la
il
*C3 *g
^J
j.
!
H
fl
Q J
arm Average
ion (ug/1) a
P
0
1
N"-'
%
E
en
5
1
i«2
ffi
BO
8
2
a
a}
i*^
§
•^
5
u
a
.2
1
S
o
1
J3
"s
ffl
*3
1
II Pollutant
fsj QQ J/-J
****
1 9
vo" vT
O CO
vo^ vi
^^
CM
-T
oo
vo
I
^.
o
vo
>Ti OO
oo r~
»q ?:
oi c^
g"
"l
0\
X.
CO
c** vo
\o c^-
1
1
o
2-Butanon
Arsenic
Benzene
pq CM OO t~ T-I C5
f- O
OO OO
00 CM
CJ,
o
oo
t~ CM oo oo «n
V) C~ CM O\ CM
X & "" S S
o\ c^< ^* ^t* r*
•^t- ^ cs o\ i— i
C"^ O^l ^3 ^5r ^f*t
oC vo" od" o\" i-T
""-a- -<
•* CM
co" CM"
«n 1-1
oq_
CO
VT" t--1 CM" 06" l>"
CM
VI VO CO OO O
CO OO OO OO VI
CO ^5 C"* CO CO
ON V^ CO V} **^
CM C-- CM
CM
VI vo
t-- oo
0 »
f*»
\o ^f c^ vo vo
^-4 ^* ^f VD ON
' T-l
o o g ^52
C<^ ^H Vl C^ *f\
vo* cc* c4* '"^ vo*
V^ VI ^-1
si
.3 -a g jg ^
S o »• S 13 S
•o c o< « « *3
O CM ON
CM CM CO
t~ i— 1 CO
VO VO ON
OO O ON
VO i-H CO
CM r^ t~*
VO »— 1 O
1— C i— 1 ON
^f co'pf
CM
£S^
i— I V> CM
•^f CM"
c^ oo
IS8
a-a
5 ^ ^
cT vT
ON CM I-H
0 0 CM
06" ^co"
C~ CM
1
1 £ S
0 S3 -S
O) 173 N
f I
13 «
^ .-
a M
i §
A §
.S
^^ • *?3
•! ^cj 55
^5^ S
• 8.S S
^ a S 1
0 § S 2
-0 g 3 g
S § •* §
05 ,0 -O SL
>f-o s .-a
•2 fl °» J
a «s tf ^
2. a" a ^
f|! t
J " S «
fc> aj = »
l> | g T3
* 5 eu <0
1-1 5 is 8
S.S'! 8
f&» §
3 2^g ^
^ g 5 M
\_/ > W to
II! i
**^ -*-5 | •*->
* 1 t<0 C
^.i1! 1
°" -2 * §
eg * ^ «
^ C- '-' S3
^^^' §
a ** « «
JS BJ » 53
S C8 -O O
J2 T3 » CM
S 25 «
Ipll
fi » S "1 H
2 P. 3 JT <<
™ w> g •<, rs
c « B BL! CQ
S g x M a
f % 1 g I
W)^> >> C e
a 53 "S 3 o
Q « CQ Q J^
_1 Q Q w H
nj JD o -O o
-------
4-29
I
g
*S O
ft O
W
d
S
U
II
s •«
££
U
•s'i
cs y
5|
03
.B
4-. O
e«
S «
S£
c-
o"
o
o
o\ o •<*
c<« o v>
oo
ON
QQ
CO
\O
v-> oo
«-H O\
C^ CO
vo vo co
co co co
OC»-TOS
os co
rH OO
o\
o
o
OO
VO
iri
O t>
<=> 01
VO CO OS
CO O\ OO
'-' o
CO 00
Ox O\ O\
c<) c>> c<»
cJ c> o
o\ o\ o\
N o c^>
000
Tt •* •*
OS OS O\
cvj ca ca
odd
o o o
^
f^ ^^ c^ c*^ c*^ t*^ t*^ c^ r*^ -C*^ c*^
T^^?^? ''t'*'^: "^ "^t ^ •'t'^:'5':
csoo d d o o o o o o o
CO CO OO
VO
OO OO CO
VO VO vo
_ vo vo
*f} V> >/^ W~i W~> V~l
odd odd
CO OO OO
vo vo vo
CO
vo
CO
vo
o o o o o o
•^ T-H CO T-H OO
o" d
0
• s.\
111
^
vo
r-
"* O
CO ^"
CO CO
§-a
o
s
o) co
s<3
-------
4-30
9
&
00
CO
S2>
charge Rate
.a
Q
a
OS
t
^
_ „ rf
*?§
-16. (Continue
tion(BATOpti
4|
.tj .3
S E
.-i en
&e CJ
w o
o
•a
If "s1
H^
w g
o
§
m
.g
o
E
CO
cB
_ 0
S s
1 »
*s *"^
31
£3
CS g
03
.0
H
^* .S
J>> *J
oj
l-l
Si
cij rt
S ^*
Sr ftj
3-5
i-l
£-• 2
j^
ja
1
ffi
0
"S
2
s
o
1
*«
£
c
6
1
o
"*^
03
.»
ffi
*S
2
S
1
a
OS
|
PH
c-J oo »n oq oo vo o v> ON o
*•* T-I ^. 04 "-1 ^ ^*^^
r** w t** cc
Y-K ^J* O\ \O
O\ i/*i ON ON
co O ON
S" i;
VO OO VO •* CM O CO
CM -5T ON O •* VO f-
CO CM *" VO
OO TH TH OO TH CO OO
ON ON t— CO CO ••* OO
O ON VO CM V5, OO, C-^
vo~ P^'CM'CO' -*" o" od"
CM ON vo CM ON
t—l
oo TH oo ON
VO OO CM O
vo vo oo t->
vo" vo" o ••*
j5 ON vo.
CM
C~ CM TH c« ON
co c^ c3 v^ io oo vo
CM CO TH TH O ON vo
TH ON co •>*
oo o oo **
ON t-» ON O
CM, C-^ CM, CM,
ON W} t^ CO
O VO CO
<=i, «l
vo ON
TH
^* co t^> ON ^HT ^f co
CO CO CO O O OO TH
TH" TH" c~" CM" TH" ON
vH ^H
CM ON CM TH ON CM •<*
ON VO VI ^* ^ O VO
co »o, ON, o, r*^ r^, r^,
§
§ S | g
cM<,PQ CJUU UJZ aj
CM
CM
"
0
^*
TH
VO
1-1
I!
VO
ON
TH
T-i
i
1
C/D
ON
CO
•<*
vo
ON,
vo
•<*
o
?5
51
vo.
T^
CO
CM
co"
TH
CM
co
T-T
CM
1/1
CO
ON
o
N
to
.2
^ s
^ 1
s 1
J3 S
1 1 •
s -g
J3 CQ
•^ s
«2
g s 5 § c«
88 J3 -a -3 >>
/^•a o -a -0
.a a « o a
c « o" a .2
III i
s O -?1 •*-* O
^ ®" "3 "§ 'a
* g « |1
TH « I- >S 53
o-^ i|
t&i 11
ill |i
<5 i § !•§
i 1^ 8^
>^ 2 i tj *^
* i a> § -3
CM toO S s W
2 g-2 S 8
^ " * ° H
a * s ^2
•§S;S : § 1
+-* *—) «) "-^3 nd
CQ u CQ QH ^
1^"S 0 >r> a ° B
a ss «3 s u
,300^^^
« ^> o-o « «-
-------
4-31
S
a
2
to
s
iS o
to .a
'E O
to
•B a
O
*O «e
q> C3
3- O
g'-S
.a
Q
Pollutant
vo
^
vo_
O
OO
vo"
t~- tf.
•& ON
VO O
I
o
VO
VO
vo
O t~
o o\
OO ON
"
O
O
"
ON (S
oo »n
c^ oo
vo in in
ON Ol T—I
e>4 oo ON
r-i f- m
ON t~- ON
cs r?
vo 1-1
9P
O C-
O
o
VO O OJ
vi ^ vo
vo e*i vo c^ ON
»X n* ^* ^ GO
O ON •* CS OO
«O
VO
VO VO
«n >o in
VO VO VO
ooo o o o
VO VO VO
in in in
VO VO VO
m vi in
minm inmv> m«nm minm
OOO OOO OOO C5C5C5
vo vo vo vo
cs
j
-------
4-32
*S"
Jg-
6
JH
^«x
5
f
O
c»
n Discharge R
03
(Continued)
BAT Option 2); Medi
N^
55 J
i ^^
4-|
^* o
IE
,1^ W
So
o
•o
O 3
3 v_
S 2
W g
O
1
>— '
ja
E
C/3
03
O
. 0
11
a a
S-S
^— * ,0^
••••7* •*•»
"3 "g
°a
A
81^
2 3
|j
03 •'3
'J
s>
1*4 «4
Long-Term Ave
Limitation (ua
M
*03
O
ffi
.2
1
2
3
*^
.a
03
CO t** OO
V£5 ^f oO^ T^
T-r vo vo vi
«-H O CM
VO i—l Os,
^5 i— I
CO
^t" ^^^ C3 ^H C^J ^O &\
CM OO O OO O O OO
cT CM'CM'I-T co'co' vT
CM TH CO
Vj CO O C^* OO ^ ^
i— 1 O CO OO OS OS CM
vd" "(f 06" T-7 os~ CM" cT
T-l i-l CO i-< VO
^
Os i— I t^ CM
OO CO CO JO
vT cT oC^
S """ v>
^ 0
CM CM oo vo r** <— ^ vi
i-H CM OS O Os T— 1 OO
VJ CMC^VO t^.^ "J.
os" i-T vo i-< r-i vo
O OO •* Os t^ VO CO
r-^ CM" vT 06" vo" 06"
«n 1-1 CM
CM Os CM 00
CO CO OO VO
C-^ CM, *"i "*£.
CM" '*' T-Ti-T
0 CO CM
«*! '"i
&
i-H r-l OO CM CO V> CO
t-» CO Ti- i— 1 CM OS OO
•^ OO i-J.'* CM_ C^ CM
t-H
OS C~ VO Os CO CO CM
^ C~ i— 1 CO CO i— 1 OS
vT i-Tob" CM"-'*' oT
CO i— 1 i"^
J . gg s
111 III 111 1
i
___
f-
—
ct
c—
CM
1— 1
vo
vo
CO
s
1
33
Os
CM
CO
Os
Os
06"
CO
CO
V)
oq,
i— <
06"
T-H
oo
06"
T— 1
CM"
T— 1
vT
i
N
•
(11
.1
ts
0)
1*
1-4
i-T
i-3
• "O
1 §
.2 ««
•S co
^ 2 «
VT ZZ <4-4
s i °
1 11
| §£
s •?? >.
3 03 J3
e a §
3 ^ 1-B
H ,4 S * <«
^ |1 a|
* | -S g I
3 * g g .8
o pj a 03 a
•o c s ^ 2
g § -a -s .§
* js -o -3 u
/jf -o g .73 S
.2 e w aj 3
a w jT He
S.sf'1 fl
S-ll |9
st! It
fe « 3 ^ "0
P* -a S S >a
* g os 8 S
T-I 03 g g 03
if « |> -S s
g^l |S
1 g 03 § .f
<5 a § !•§
i|s s^
^ -s i •g ^
* | M § .g
^ a°| S S
_• ft ^"^ **-< Q
o ^ » w a
iverages calculated as
;e calculated as 1.47 *
urn calculated as 3.11
^, 19?4a.
mean BAT Option 2
ncentration of silver e
2r a -^| 13 Q
a 2 .s o-i o o
G 5 B W .S a
« > w 5 «
i , a o S
5a2l3l
ctf *O O "O O *<-4
-------
4-33
4.3 Louisiana Water Quality Compliance Assessment
The results of the CORMTX modeling for both the current BPT and gas flotation (BAT Option 2)
discharges in Louisiana coastal waters are presented in Exhibit 4-18 for 1- and 3-meter water depths for the
mean, median by outfall, and median by flow discharge rates. The results are expressed as the number of
dilutions projected by the model at the edge of the specified mixing zones.
The projected dilutions at the edge of the mixing zones are used as input in the waste load
allocation models. The results of these waste load allocation calculations are used to calculate the long term
average limitations and the daily average and daily maximum limitations that are then compared to effluent
concentrations. The mean produced water pollutant concentrations are presented on the exhibits and effluent
values that exceed the calculated limitations are outlined.
Exhibits 4-19 through 4-21 present the waste load allocation and limitations calculations for current
BPT discharges for 1-meter water depths and Exhibits 4-22 through 4-24 present calculations for discharges
to 3-meter water depths. For gas flotation (BAT Option 2), the waste load allocation and limitations
calculations are presented in Exhibits 4-25 through 4-27 for discharges to 1-meter water depths and in
Exhibits 4-28 through 4-30 for discharges to 3-meter water depths.
The Louisiana oil and gas rule limitations are compared to the current BPT and gas flotation (BAT
Option 2) effluent concentrations in Exhibit 4-31. These are end-of-pipe limitations that must be met before
any dilution has occurred.
4.4 Cook Inlet, Alaska Water Quality Compliance Assessment
The results of the surface water modeling for Cook Inlet are presented in Exhibit 4-32 as the
number of dilutions projected at the edge of each mixing zone. The current BPT and gas flotation (BAT
Options 2 and 4) mean pollutant concentrations are divided by these predicted dilutions to determine the
pollutant concentrations at the edge of the mixing zones modeled. For the eight outfalls, the water quality
analyses are presented in Exhibits 4-33 through 4-40. The resulting pollutant concentrations for current BPT
and gas flotation (BAT Options 2 and 4) effluent at the edge of the mixing zones are compared to the state
standards. On each table, those pollutant concentrations that exceed state standards are outlined.
4.5 Summary of Water Quality Compliance Assessments for Produced Water
4.5.1 Gulf of Mexico - Current BPT
The summary of the water quality analyses for Texas and Louisiana current BPT discharges in
1 meter and 3 meters of water are presented hi Exhibit 4-41. The median discharge rate by outfall results in
5 exceedances (all in Louisiana) at the 1 meter depth (3 daily average limitations - copper acute, copper
chronic, and benzene human health; and 2 daily maximum limitations - copper acute and benzene human
-------
4-34
Exhibit 4—18. Cormix Results for Louisiana Produced Water Discharges
Current (BPT)
Discharge
Rate
(bpd)
Number of Dilutions at Edge
Mixing Zone
of
50 ft 200 ft
1 Meter Water Depth
950
4,425
15,100
27.6
11.1
530
3 Meter Water Depth
950
4,425
15,100
166
48.1
12.7
40.7
13.9
7.00
208
52.9
16.2
Median discharge by outfall
Mean discharge
Median discharge by flow
Gas Flotation (BAT Option 2)
950 bpd
4,425 bpd
15,100 bpd
Discharge
Rate
(bpd)
Number of Dilutions at Edge
Mixing Zone
of
50 ft 200 ft
1 Meter Water Depth
1,125
4,949
15,100
24.5
9.90
530
3 Meter Water Depth
1,125
4,949
15,100
142
41.0
12.7
393
12.4
7.00
181
47.7
16.2
Median discharge by outfoll
Mean discharge
Median discharge by flow
1,125 bpd
4,949 bpd
15,100 bpd
-------
4-35
•si
I
8
3
I
A
I
o
» Q
gN
£>
I
i
w
5
Q I
•*-» ^
Q
II
x.2
Pollutant
10
1
s
1
oC
s
CM \Q O
o vS *-H
CM CM ON
••* co
"T. ^
CO C<1
O OO CO
VO CO O
ON CO OO
"
OO
CO CO
a"
o\
•«* o
r-t \O
CM CO
O
O OO O
\O
^'
O O
o o
OO U-l
O CO O
§°°"c^
CM"
o
o
CO
oC
t-« O
co \o
o\
O\
CM CM CM
vo vo vo
CO CO CO
o
CM CM CM CM CM CM CM
CO CO CO CO CO CO CO
CM CM CM CM
CM CM CM
CO CO CO
CM CM
\o vo
CO CO
oq co
o o
^
o
i
til
o
u
zo
3 « <
^1
to
«
o
•o
§o5
"o
u c
' § r^ <5
i co w K
•8
1
Q
-------
4-36
i
i
o
o
"«
!
ti
IS
p
§,%
*£
^2
111
*%£
§^
Is
t
ox
I
Pollutant
oo
S3
o o\ co
t> o «n
O ON
CO CO
CO
CM
m vo TH
£88
OO TH CM
§8
o •<*
T-I in
O\ CO
\o
«n
TH
VO
CO VO TH
CO CO O
co op^in^
CO" T-T
OS
CM
55
oo"
i
OO
os
VO
oo"
«n
OO
V) •
oo
CM"
TH
r^
VO ON
VO C—
<-! co
«n CM
T-I C3
os
VO
o
VO
O
co
CM
•
o\
oo
8
OO ON
os co
C- CM^
TH~
CO
CM"
m
8
O\
of
o\ r-
U1
o CM
r« co
|> VO
co"
CM
co ui in
o co ON
f-
°°-
c-f
S
os
VO
CO
oo co -*
CM OO O OO T-l
«n os CT\ vo T-I
CO VO TH OO t-
T-Tvo" vo" vo~
O OS
TH CM
as
OS
'
>n
TH VO
CM TH
TH CM
OS"
CM
VO CO
oS ?
OJ
VO
os"
CM
CO
T-I >n
Tj" CO
,
CM
s
O\
OS OS VO VO
O C~ V> •<*
vo"
CM
^ ^ ^
vo" cT co"
in t>
CO TH O VO TH^ CO^ ^
t-^vT vo" vf o6"T-T
III
J«s<3
Chlorides (mg/1)
Chloromethane
Chromium (tri)
Chromium (hex
g
§
!
g
Ill
d -
t 3
8
III
111
O ^ a
>
-------
4-37
VI
ON
-S
3
S
3
a\
O C
\0
S 08 S
3 £§?§
H _f r- «N
t--
00
r-f
O V5 O
0 l> 00
o
O
oC
O V-,
V5 ON
ON
t- !>• t-
ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON
r-H *—t t-H T—I T—I T-^ T—I 1—< ^H T-^ ^—(
c** c^ c^ c** r^ c*" r** c— c^- t**- c*-
o o o
ON ON ON
p o
-------
4-38
,YK
«
1
33
a
£
O
1
S
§
ffi
I
•a
o
SP«
ja
73
fS
U
JJ
I
1
oo
oo
vo
in
O ON CO
t> o «/i
O ON
t» co
CO CO
O ON
olSJ
CO NO •^h
vp CO O
O oo vi
oC
co
ON
S"
s
CO
oo
co"
NO
NO
CO
^- CO 0
^- OO Tfr
VO OO CO
S £
O\ i-l
OO VI
ON
ON
O\
C- CO
o?^"
CO"
a
£-• 0\
ctS
i—I CO CO
CO NO TH
CO JX CO
a"
\o oo
ON rH
co v
a
•co"
CO
IT)
CO"
o^
NO
ON
ON
t~
CO"
o
co
ct"
•«* r-
OO O
•* i-H
O ON ON
CO ^ ON
i-H CO NO
oT co"
O
CN
-
ON
1
s
i'
oC
CM
ol
NO
co
s
ON
y-> o
^r ON
co «n
oT
ON OO
>O NO
C- CO
ON
OO i-H NO
ON NO CO
CO i-H
•^f co"
ON
ON •»*
ON
-*.
ON f-
.C5,
NO NO NO
J5^o
^i-r co-
co
eo
ON
co~
n- co
t~ f"»
CO >T!
I
III
II
a
£
Si
I
I
*i a rt c,-13 55
S .2 .2 g< S -o
1 « 8 ^
• SB 8 S '•S "^ O
« PQ g 8 2 S '3
•* a u " i 3 S
ON S3 -^i s3 ;3 r\ *•*
ON
ON
-------
4-39
I
Q
I
3
I
I
I
a
z
I
3
5
.s
I a
E
£>
(D
|&
ll
»l
*i
5?e
i-
^S S
2 S
la
1
•8
0 .
a
w
a
,tg n
Po
ON
ss
o o
»/•> o
CO i—I
V?
s
1-1 O
o o
£88
O 00
oo ON
\O CO
>O CO
SS3
o
o
eo"
t> o
CO «O
•§,
<=>. s
C^ C3 V) CJ C'S
3 g od god
Tf CM
ON
V> NO
t> CO
SI CO u-> O C~
O CO i-H O CO
«
CO CO CO CO CO
ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON
coodcd ododcood odcdod ododod odod
^^Hpi ,_!,_! ^H 1—| ^4^_|^H ^|i-ll-( i-
-------
4-40
a a
i.
s
Pollutant
CO
oo
as
OS
ITi
I
oo
vo
OO
oo
vo
00
«/•} •** O\ vo O\
O V) CS ON. v>
vp~ fT
-------
4-41
a,
CO
O O . _ - .
ON O CO VO O
^f VO OO T—' i—I
GO CO
OOO O ON
vq^^ co^ t"x i>,
oC co~ vcT c-^ vb"
•^" T-H ON V} CO
•s,
VO O O g
^ <** s °
ON o co **••
vo o vo oo
r-- o
p~ o o
OO in O
ON
vo
O f<~. 0
§«a
co"
V)
»-l
IT!
o ff. vo
o o «/•> o o «n
CO
OO V> ON
in ON
•^ 00
o o o
Op OO GO OO OO OO OO OO OO OO OO OO
O O O O OOO OOO O O
VO VO VO
O O C3
ssss
VO vo vo VO
O O C5 O
co co co
OOO
vq vq vq
C5 C5 O
CO CO CO CO CO
OOO O O
vo vo vo vo vo
O O O C5 O
oo
00
C5 O
OO i-l i-l
T-l 1—I ON
«n
C3
g o g :
« -g S •
2 §
-
a) JD
— c
§
I lla geea all III
Is
1
£
•a
-------
4-42
e
*
I
i
8
£
o
I
§
rt
fl
.S a
l«
^S
^e
4m
S «
r2 g
S g
w g
m
0
23
1^
<.2
cs -a
°l
11
S'a
«
F
I
n -*5
o «-l
o
a
a
§
3
1
CO
o
VI
vooo
o>o»n
oo T-I t-i
OONCO
r-o>r>
O ON
f- 01
CO CO
co"
oo
oo
co^oq,
T-H VO
o\ ON
CO ^^
T-Tvo"
a
vo-
CO
oo
vo
aC
C3
O
S g
n.
T-HTt ovovo
00
CO
a\ \o
o ••*
CO O)
CO 00
O O "* Ol O CO CO
Ol OO ^ O ON T-H T*
OO i"H NO f^sj ^f} CO ON
c*^ in ON ol in vo
5 OJ T-H
§
CO,
oo
T-T
C7V
O\
O\
OO
oo
oo
OOCM
t— vo
co ^r
oo^in^
in" vo"
VO O
§ §
06" o
c^ CT\ oo o\ in
in T-I oo in o_
OO" T-T T-T OO" T-H
VO
TT
cooo
com?!
o
c
--4-
io
NO
"*!.
°i°i
NO T-H
O
of
C3N •* «SJ
NO CN O
ON OO T—<
CO'OO'T-H'
in •* co
NO c-> «N
NO ^* ^*
S
in
O
o
°p»
CO
ND
NO
§
06"
O
§
n"!
T-H in
of of
^
in co NO co in
co ^ o» co, t^
t^~ co" in'cs'
CM in NO co
C"- T-H C^*
O^ON ON,
T-H CO
l> CO T-H
OO^ON, CO,
o\" co"o"
in co
o
§
3
01 NO
in T-H
NO in
•*a^ in^
o oo
in
t
.a 8 J
" a-i
O CS
m o
OJ Q
*If
.2.2 S
M -a ja
•8
|
1
g
tl
g
Jl
a
o
a
•B
S
X™*'
3
£
II
£ .
J <
s $
cs x
-fv«a
ia ifl es
13 rt >.
a o -o
111
1—4 Q rt
ii^
fl 1
-S-g 8
13 § &
S as
•Ja 3 g
s-13 I
o 83^
« rt «S
-go
•3^8)
iu s? a
8'S 2
® -o S
II-
|I1
IM Qi O
1 S 2
8 8g
« SS
11^
« «" "H
0 O O
a § §
fi-B-a
edmeanBFTCuri
effluent concentra'
effluent concentra
•Sag
•3 ea cs
111
O Q) <« eo
-------
4-43
-3
X
Q
LJ
5
OS
£
is
.2
0}
1
re
1
.3
f
£>
1
a
1
1
i^
c«
1
£
«
1^
l§
-^
S ^
~*
CQ 03
U (^
C3 «)
< §*
"O 2
S3
o Q
to g
«S «
Exhibit 4-23. W
Current BPT; Me
•o
*§
^
a
•B
j|
S
£
o
ol
vS
^
S
«
^^
5
S
E
.u
|
tj
1
9
I
e
i
o
aa
•^
§
fc
|| Pollutant
\o o
vo c-^
*^
Tj* Vj ^\ ^\ V^ C^5
C3 ^^ C*l TJ* -rj* \o
r— 1 i-H IO C^J
vH C^ ON t** *-H CC
^ °°« ^"1 ^ °V ^
^ S ^ S S
T-(
\f\ ^^
c4 t
0
_
vo o o S re o t>
"* JR. S o S ^ ^
r-T
I
1
o o t--
vo C5 vo oo *~H ^ re
«^«n Tl •*
O> •«* T— 1
ON ON ON ON ON ON ON ON
cq co cq cq cq oo oq oq
oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo
OIO1O) O1OIO1CN O>
0°.
o
s
•<*
§
sg
rH"^r
oi
VO C~
**e "^J*
re oo
S c5
o
o
vH
00
I3
sa
F- Ol
OO
ON ON
oq oq
oo oo
o o
0» 04
^3
o
•
III g
•*^ ^* ^ o
^ crt c a N
« S 1 Ilii ^5
'111 Ilii If-s
^ QJ CO J5 J3 J3 J3 O ^r* Qi
•<«O uuuo oaj
o ^
vo vo
•«*" of
<= ON TH
Ol re "^r
H" jo"
VO *^
O OO OO
NO O ON
re \o oo
'-i re t—
**!
t> o
CO V>
§re o
od ^
?f
r-<
o oo
vo «D
of
SSS
OO CO OO
o o o
OJ Ol O)
^^^
IS
o
6
i
^m"!
'S 0 W
R
ON,
NO
re"
OO TH
of ^
i§
J$ »
o
0
re
oT
\o
gs
o >o
«T5 ON
. ON
ON ON
CO CO
OO CO
O O
01 01
~&
o
i
.2 H
o -2
.
CO
ON
ON
<— 1
Q
a
a
*•*
03
•«-»
so IS
>-» r*
5? a
.O <->
w ^
|i
*S
W CS
. of dilutiol
t be met at
£1
& a
S-2
^1
•s s
S J3
H2 *^
e after d;
nan heal
M
W5^
? 1 1
3 1 §
JfS*
1
03
"O
U
*i
03
1
s
c
Q
a Dissolved fract!
0 A^
SoS
"S&
« 8
« .2
1|
•g -s
S .t3
"S a
b Effluent concei
50— ft zone of i
's?
.2
1
^*~4
1
• O
T™4 t-1
'-i *3
SN *
S 0
o, a
OS o
sa
•Si
^ a
03 "S
& &
*f
1 « S2
0^ £
s|!
03 £j aj
fe «> a
«E'i
O ^^ S
«« a t?
S .2 S
w S S
«•*-* c2
.^ """* ^^
§ o .2
c Source: Louisi;
d Calculated as:
e Range of criter
<=i
OJ
1
CS
T-H
CO
1
o
. .
o
Dilutions availab]
-------
4-44
s|
i
5.2
>L«
«1
03
ea •;
Qa
o
CM
CM
c-^
co"
CM""
CM
o
vo
^
CM
p
o\
CM CO f~
CM OO VD
co in co
o\
CO VD
OO CO
•<* 0
oo oo
CO i— 1
oof~cM «om ^in
i-H OO OO i-l CO VD •* CO
cT cT o" r- >n
VO C^- i—1 i—<
CM
CO
vo
f-
S^^
m
«0
o\
^ *~3.°i
vo 1-1 1-1 O\ co
VD
vo
o\ o o
O OO CM
CM OO CM
vo in o
o m c--
co
O
S
CM
VO
in
vo
OO CJ
oo o
00 "3-
O\ CM t";
CO O CM
i-< OO VD
sf
^ co i— i
6s- CO CO
R
°v
in"
VD
vq,
CO
oo r~-
i-H 00
oo
m
CO
.,
oo co •«*
co
OO
1-1 in ••* t~-
i-< co in CM
O\ O i-l O\
vo
CO
oo
c^l oo
CM t>
VO 1)"
•*"ri
tO ^N^?
_ s'5 ^
^^ijJZX
Q> § S fi 53 P
•ll| ^Iss
1 gl .2.2 S 8
^^a aaaa
vSa
a
^J S
ill
g
So
II
^*^ T~^ *
ea co co
U i-l co
f
8
cu
c«
Tr! ^ a> •*
ill!
3 m fi «
)
< , -
sl s
lll
-------
a
4-45
1
Q
1
*H
ai
1
CO
1
.a
t
Jr>
a
«
J^
rt
"1 ^
If
||
.2 2.
1 *
3 .3
-fjE
a^
8 s>
II
J S)
<] 2
•o-S
Exhibit 4-24. Waste Lo
Current BPT; Median Di
•o
fj
4i
.2
•*•*
cJ
^2
^3
^^
•e
CS
1
^
o
^
1
•§
1
00
"l
i
^^
fi
1
.jj
•CS **~*
Jin ^S
S3 **
^
O "^
"fi r-s
Jg^
*o
vSS
^
oj C3
^^
« 5
ll
« .u
s s
Js
•!•!
§c
||
'«
Q "S
^s
•O C8
II
I Pollutant
«s •*
O CO
CS r-^
^
CO O CS OS
CO t"^ VO VO
in co *••* vo
r* r-4
cs
VO O OS O
t^ ON IS ^"
oo cs in v^
in c^
VO CJ O 8 CO
co in r-f w o
CO 2 O T=i
-J ,33
vq,
1
1
-i
o
o
0
T— 1
•t
f-
VO
CO
T— t
Chromium (hex)
S
cs
T-T
r~l
•«* vo cs
e-5 m vo
oo °Xtri
0
t>
i-l CS CO
_x *^ "^
-^ CS rT"
VO *v Si
T— 1
o
co"
t~- O »r>
CO OO QQ
CO VO CS
"* 00
t-- r- r-
VO VO VO
CO CO CO
CO i-l CO
OO CO
o o
Copper
Ethylbenzene
Lead
§
^
^
v^5 &i
c*^ ?-^
t^>
^5
c^
Q O3
01 »T)
S"0"
CO
[«•»
oo
^5 C'*
§00
cs
O
vp^
t~ o
VO vo
CO CO
^
Methylene Chloride
Nickel
o
00
CO
os
VO^
T^
vo
vo
t>~
o
0
1
t>
VO
CO
t-
-
"o
^ ri
S 1
If
CO .£j
>> e
tT S
i i->
i- *<
Ii
S,°
^
2 o
a a
•81
^ s
8 «H
es O
i-v^ Q)
OO gn
^"3
.t;
> "S g
^ "^
0 Source: Louisiana Sun
d Calculated as: criterio
e Range of criteria fores
l
-------
4-46
t3
#
iQ
Sw*
I
^
O
"8
tt
§
C3
?!
IQ
••§ §
a .3
&i
sfc-
iS
a g
"3—
al
<3 3
s **~
S o
"6
o
ily Maximum
litation (ug/1]
es ^g
«> a
2!
CJ ^"*
S fl
<5.2
ilpS
Ij
&-
i S
G ^Q
|l
c
CQ
f*
8
1
1
S
Chronic
S
S
^c
fft
§
a
.52
1
S
1
1
£
.Si
c
£
1
o
Pollutant
«-i eo j: ._ .— ,
oo
S
TH
VO
o\
CM
OO
in
o
CO
o
CO
c
1
—
1
o.
VO
CO
CM
5r
co
8
vN
OO
T-<
•>
T-H
1
S
CM
T—
TH
§
C
Oi **
C^ ^
W
VI
c
- s
CM »
V
c
0
c- «
f»
•n
t
CM
T—l
§
o\
oo
in
00
H Sj ^^ ^"^
•»
3
1-1
—
in it
T-l J,
ON •«*
S S
-CM" CM
!
! ^^
i ^^
i
0
0
i ON CO
S O O
o ""I.0**
5 vo co
a '-'
•9
tf
CO
CO
1-1
00
vo
2 §
c?
co"
o\, in r^,
TH CO
00 t
T— H f
- ON
-i in
o
T-<
CM
OO
t~ CO in ON
cTt-^ c TH ••*
in vo m
CO CO VO
CM" co
ill llil 1.1 jhfs 1
ill aau in in ii
^ ' ' *4-4
is 2
£g § 2
"I-8 8
2 a «a
« « c«
-o S >-.
t= P -o
C8 J5 OT
fl
CM
.2 2g
« S-a
J£ CO
c« >>
•511
111|5I
ja h *" 21"; .a
. 43 aj TTJ
1.8*3
2 s ^
a 3 *
H 53 'g « .3 S
g g 5 S ^3 -g
is Jr5 _e o.ts ?a
1-^ *t* \* — - w
1 is a 9 S -2 si
» H R -3 w
•B -3 -3 1 -2.
Sill H
illll
8 8 8 | 8
§ O g «4 §
s s
C (U
bfl^> >p
32iSc
-------
4-47
Q
a
1
d
i
o
"
a
3
in
5g
^H O
.a «
II
x-^
O t- OO
-* CM ON '-
vq, i^
OO VI
o o oo
O\ «r> T— i
o CM o •«*• o r~ o in V5
ON ^H \O *••* CM OO CM CM ON
oo
oo
o o
o\ o e^J
\o o vo
o
I
o
mo
o vi
r; o
l> O O
o
0
ON
VO
«n \o
c~ oo
O V5
in ON
ON
•* •* Tt -<3- ^ rr Tf
^
"O
^4
•«
n
OO OO
o o
-- §§
O
leg
OO
o
T-< ON
v>
S
3
,
(13 .0
'
Ar
Be
Ca
saas
O
a
g
i
C
^31 ^
s
ON ns *i
S -3 'S g *
_S Ui 03 <-• U
dar
ording to
e of the
D); chro
lated
on at the
dilution
a
cal
a
Louisian
ed as: cri
f criteria
So
C
R
-------
4-48
.§•
a
1
6
^
2
^3
I
•8
•a
Q
o
.2
t3
O
J*
a H
&t
*s? cs
W O
•a
S'S
*"* 3
SI *~~
S §
(3
s ^
9 fil
g 3
P
S '•§
"a "a
"nS a
a 3
^_
Si's
I5
5; .g
^i *"J
_P^> ^S
* '§
Q J
&
« a
ji
< 3
g^
,8.2
^1
n°J
M
O
1
tj
E
CO
1
ffi
£_)
1
.a
O
o
1
<
^
^l*
S
o
1
£
A
u
1
3
^
£j
1
•1
o
a
•a
g
<
II Pollutant
C5
1-H
Ol
CO
0>
oo
vo.
^
01
o\
<=>
82
*— 4
v^
1
1
a
^
1
1
^^
xo
C-T
oo
CM
oo
vf
vo
1-1
^4i
"vo
CO
oo
\o"
CO
o
&
^
o>
o\
1-j,
of
oo
vo
T-7
CM
Benzene
u
9 p
u
y
t
V
oo *•
*3r
u
Cl
o
u
<
s <
1-H '
T-T |
B
CO
CM
o\
VO
0
oo
CO
g
1
• i
Cadmium
r
0
^
5 .
B. ?5cM
^ "T.00^
3 C^ VO
^^
v^
t"^
oT
0 •*
1-H VO
oq.co.
CM T— (
o\ r^
OO O\
«rT r-T
T-H
1-1
of
T-< O
of T-T
oo **
CO CM
O vo
••* oo
?• o ^tZ'
9IZ&
v^iuuiuu/a ^
Chloromet
Chromium
Chromium
j:
[g
01
CM
CO
s
1— 1
V)
CO
i— i
o
2
ON
c^
o
1
oJ >n o o\ vo oo •»*•
rj oa c~ o co oi co
J/^ C"* IT^ VO
01 co r- cs
vo^ i-i vo, ON.
t~" 06" "*" i-T
f> CO
VO"
00 ON i-H OO VO O Ol
CM Tf VO CO OO •> Si
co" T-T cjT 06" cT o\
OO CM i-H CO
CN OO
O VO O\ O\ CM CO VO
O\ T-H OO Ol •<* VO CM
VI T-I 1-H OO T-I 1-H O\
co ^* rt T-H rf co co
T-H TH CM T-H CM
CM vo
O O\ VJ O
CO T-H \O O\
06" co" T-T co"
CO t»
of
CO ^ T-H \O CO T-H t—
I-H T-H vo 01 T— i vo r~-
oC oT c~" of co"
I-H rt- T-H
1-H CO
ON vo CM o r- t-- •<*
vo ^ CM r~ u^ ir> ID
oC «rT of vT oC r-T
OO VO
O ON V-> O
CO -T-H VO ON
06" co" T-T co"
T-H CM
CO C-.
CM
1— 1 VO T-H CO O Tf VO
CO VO i—l C~ •»* ON CO
CM TT VO T-H O OO O
T-T \O vo" ON CO
ON VO
01
OO ON -* OO C~ 00 O>
r- co o oo ** •* vo
OO ''^ ^^ i;J* ^^ i^
1
o
s S
1 «
fl til |s
ajs s'gg #H
t
r
•§
C3
•0
CM
•s
52
•£' t2
I
>»
a^ I -5
CTt CJ .O fl
«l 3 -g 2
II
H W •—
3 g .y
-Si
g
2 s
?1
O 05
2
Hill!
-------
4-49
.a as
03
,3
•8
6/3
le
6
03
CS
N
Q £
a
1
1
CO
\o
oo
a
NO
ON
00
C !>, ft U\ OO, CO,
TJ-" OO f? V$ r-4
oo
\o
vc
o
O
T—I
co"
r~ o o
oo u-, o
ON
NO
^>
O O
a\ o
vo
mo t^o«n cscco O O>ri
^ od" «rT
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO
CO CO CO CO OO CO CO CO CO" CO CO CO CO' CO CO"
OOO OOOO OOO OOO OO
i-H OO r-( OO
oo cc
T-H T-H T—i vH ON
N
lity St
edge
g o
•§ °^
, « ON
2 I
ti
3
utions ava
-------
4-50
ll
tZ o
G ca
o
I-
|i
< ^
II
o°:
ic
Po
oq
CO
O Vi
O
vo
CO
oo
CM
oo »-<
VO
•O "*
3S O
n co
55
O CO OS
oo o ••*•
vo VD ••*
vo
VD
CO
S
ff.
CS
in «^l
sg
-
•«*
t~
O
oo
CO
OO
o
OO ^
O O
VO
oo
oo
vo
co
CO OS
CO CO
s"^
CO
S
CO
OO OS
os"co"
O VO
VO OO
co, >TI
oC r-7
00
vo
oo
5
o
VO
s
CO
VD
CO
co
n *&
°~
l> O
OO ff.
oo •«*
r- >n
cc vo
00
VO
CT\ CO
O OS
f- i— 1
"
°J, ^.
vo co
CO
OS
OS
"
CO
OS
oo
OO VI
o co
•
co" •*• -r
£3 ^ E; S 82
*T^ T-H C5 ^T VO
co co rr os vo
vo" co" co"
oo
s
£S£
CO 00 IQ
oo
25 •*;
co m i
06"
O\
CO
•
o
o
VO VI t>
,0 00 •*
OS O O
t~ co co
O VO CO
i-H OS
CO
5§ S8R
2, OS rH OS
•*
00
CM
;H 00 £- 00
O CO CO T-H TH
»-^ co oo^ C5_ in
«-T T-H" co"
oo
x
15 S S
§
^
S
W J S el
*rt CU t«
-------
4-51
•o
f
a
.2
•*•*
S
£
^!
"S
CO
e
o
1
•g
•§
a
oo
.0
a
o
S
U
^
03
o
_fi *t"1
13 o
JJ S
^^
o •*•*
|s
a§
.2 Q
|9
11
sIS
11
s ja
^
«
•9 **
|l
g^
N J
•i o
•a^
Q-*-»
o
»-M flj
N *
*- o
•O a
JJ
§ ts
.S3 "
1 Pollutant
VI O
f~ 2
OO "
OJ O O
o5g«
VO O n Q a
**! 1-1 o
i-H*
1
S § S oo
t^ u?
04Tf
333 33
O\ O\ O\ ON O\
oo oo oo oo oo
_^ ^^
CJ
C3
g «f
•a § 1 ^ i
a g g JH g
S S •§ ^ ^
^
o"
?5Sg
•s *\
0
1— 1
06"
o >/~,
0 0
t^ 01
oo
ON ON
oo oo
i-l 00
"5
o
a
CD
tl
W i-J
ON
o
oC
oo
o
oo
»^r
CO
t— 1
ss
oo
of
1— (
o
NO^
of
ON
oo
-
ID
r°
"C
o
s
I
'S
s
1— 1
K
oo
ON
"•
oo
jn
ON
oo
-
I
o
o
s
of
o
co"
o
o
0
m
ON
OO
i— 1
I
OH
O
O
'r^H
K-T
v^
co"
CO
C5_
0
ON"
NO
t>
0
<£
ON
OO
-
Toluene
^5
§.
oo
NO
OO
ON
1— 1
ON
OO
ON
O
1
lution (100/no. of dilutions). For bays and estuaries, acute criteria must be met at a
:h criteria must be met at a 200 -ft mixing zone.
ing to Louisiana DEQ, 19
f the mixing zone after di!
chronic and human heall
•a
a
Dissolved fraction calculated ;
a ,
o
•1
«
Effluent concentration at the
f,
cT
t—H
StaJ'
50 -ft zone of initial dilution i
the dissolved fraction).
uality Standards Chapter
at edge of mixing zone *
'S.
0
&
Source: Louisiana Surface W
o
a
1
Calculated as: criterion/(% e:
T3
S
ts
At
Range of criteria for estuarinc
o
0
o
1
a
o
8
ilutions available: 50 ft - 5.30
Q
-------
4-52
I
g
?5
•a
ll
3 .
s §
W6
o
1
ri
^g
E
EA
03
O
O
S^
ll
ll
'« .S
*""
XI
ll
i
^"k ^
«1
-1
2a
ji
£-1
1 ^
a°l
k2
5
"a
o
K
8
|
6
1
^
$
*«
sS
1
,c
0
1
*
1
. . eO
OO VO VO T-l
C3 CM T* »-<
S «M rH »H
T— ( vj
vo
oo] 1
O _^
<* ^
s
o
o
1 1 \o
551 la vi,
co
00
<4H
Q
•* rH rH .
\o TJ- •<* ft
CO CM, CM g
s «
Pi
«n
S
VO rH VO
vo"
CO ON rH
VO ON O
. rH ON rH
vo"
S5
Tj* ON rH
t^ ON **^
rH VO, E^
.e
|SS
T-l
s
s ii
TH, ON,
CO
oo t-~
oo r-
r-^VO
rH
VO CM
rH O
*"* °°~
CM"VO"
CO
VO
CM
vo
es
vo
s
° 0
•^ r~
VO
vo
rH CO
rH "^
rH CM"
T-j
q
^H
rH
CM
i
o\
rH
1 1
vo
vo
CM vo Tf O
OO OO oo VO
CO rH 00 CN
«
rH
OO
a
o.
o
rH
VO
OC
r-^
s§
?
rH
— »
1
X.
VO
CO
VO
CS CO
OO rH
!
oo
oo
§
o\
C3,
vo"
CO
rH
o\
o
VO
CM
VO
£
oq
VO
o\
VO
oo
OC
CO vo CM t> CM OC
00 <». 2 *>.
, °^
'T
00
CO
CO
5
CO
§8
5?
CO,
CO
vo
co"
o
vo
CO
0\
o
rH
OO
CO
vo
^•1
rH~
rH CM
00 00
T3" VO
vo" r-T
rH ON
^H *^3*
o oo
vrT
o
<=>
rH,
vo" •
oo
ON OO
o o
CO f-
CM"
t~ O\ rH OO
VO OO rH IO
rH CM. rH_CO
C3
. CO
T— 4
o
s
1
CM
o
o
rH
Xf
9
CM rH
VO •«*
r^. vo
rH
f~ •* rH CO
CM 00 rH t>
ON
VO, CM
TjT rH ^t" CO rH
•o
_ 'a
a G N
O CM S 5S M
ogs -aS'S'S it0
*S Q 'S 'S S S S « S ^
S a £ S S P P g"^^
Si a T3 wS — 5 w H &1JC «
G o ca js js js js o ~ a.
co eg g Q
O C3 ^* 35 O
q) .S o ^ o
s B 1^-s
D,'?J * T3 a
11^^^
8 o JJ S e-
,y
-§^™282-g2
s|l^^-si^
•a § | g as I
*E | s §a -
8 « o
d
03
-------
a
4-53
3
O
•o
^
53
a
o
***
3
•o
,3
O
"go
rt
Ji
1
5
1
a
CO
*-»
a
«>
a
O
2^
^*
jjjj %M
^ o
rt o
^5 ^*
3,
^^
O "*^
*3 «
w ^3
u ^
^^
J5 ^1
[3 N^
y M
a
11
.83 2
Pollutant
CO
VO
CM
CM"
vo O
i-< in
"O,^*.
VO TC
. .
O\ r^i
r^i
in
CM
'"'
vo o
T-T
o\ o
\O a
CM"
CM CM
in in
m in
o o
gg
0 0
Enic
:ene
o
r— 1
oq,
«-T
00
^j*
VO*
C5
^
CM
vo.
^§
CM
in
in
o
g
o
Cadmium
o
VO
CM"
T-l
0
^
O
1
o
0
VO,
1
1
m
CO
00
CM CM
in m
in m
o o
ii
f- C^
o o
1
Chlorides
Chloromet
CO O
•** in
VO O
otToC
0 0
'"i *S,
co* vo"
C"* V}
r-t
CO O
o m
in o
£S
i— i
CM CM
in m
in in
o o
gg
o o
si
Chromium
Chromium
o\
c^
OO
0
l>
f-
CO
CO
CM
m
m
O
g
o
oq
o
o
1
o
C3
i— 1
vo"
VO
•<*,
T-H
CO C7\
oo n-
c-» o
CM •<*
0 r-j
CT\ CM
CO CM
CM
'""'
0
C3
06"
O in
•*"
§S
C- CM
06"
CM CM
m m
«n m
o o
gg
0 0
o
c
ll
W 3
•<*
vf
OO
s
CM"
0
CM
in
VO
CO
^
OO
o
3
o
o
vq.
CM"
CM
O
s
o
Chloride
Methylene
O1^
t^2
\/~l
«-H
O
\s
o
~
1>
CM
O
s
o
I
o
o
oC
^5
^^
T4"
cs
0
CO
CM
oo
o
0
?1
o
OO
in
CM
m
in
o
1
0
1
o
o
o
55"
in
CM"
in to
c~ oo
O\ CO
V) VO
OO CM
O VO
O\ OO
••* CM
CO CM
«— 1
0
co
oT
VO
^^
"*
o in
in c?\
CM CM
in in
in in
O O
ss
o o
m
o
i «
^
O\
S
ct
Q
ing to Louisiana
Dissolved fraction calculated accord
s ,
[100/no. of dilutions). For bays and estuaries, acute criteria must be mel
a
•S
a
T3
Q)
C3
fll
ria must be met at a 200 -ft mixing zone.
«
S
«••{
1
.2
1
f the mixing zon<
chronic and hur
Effluent concentration at the edge o
50-ft zone of initial dilution (ZID);
•
i
£
CU
es
6
solved fraction).
.S3
•o
«
J3
*
£H
s
60
uality Standards
at edge of mixin
'S.
Source: Louisiana Surface Water Q
Calculated as: criterion/(% effluent
D OT3
Range of criteria for estuarine water
o
T— 1
OO
T-H
1
(ilutions available: 50 ft - 142; 200 ft
u
-------
4-54
« 0
II
S g
fi
^:
.a
4-1
I
I
oo vo «n
VO
oX
CO
OC4
O
c-
O\VO
oco
OO'*
in
oo
oo oo
T-l t>
ON t— CM ON CO T-I
VOON
08
f. f^
T-IOO
t-^
cT-*" «-< vcvo" ao
C<5 T-I O T— 1
er-, 00
c^o
OO
ON O CM ON vo T-<
£•-,•5;, ^ ON,OO, f^
^ IS CM VO
m
tN
o o
ON CO
ON CM vo ^>t" OO in **^ ^li" vo CO
CM"VO" cTcM" offi-Tvo" oC 06"
T-I in o co in TH
VO
o\
co vo
m vo f- vo CM m oo
^f •<* oo ^ m m in
•» .^ ^^* .•* .•* tl^ j—^*
T—1 TT fO ^J ^4 VO OV
CM co CM co in
co
cc vo o\
>o o xo
oo m
oo t-~
VO O
VO
CM
»
1
o\
o\
vocovo n-voo
r^r^'S- cno\c4
•«* '-t'^t ov^oo.
cTesf "
CM
CM
01
.
i>"
CM
oo
SQ
ass
g?s"
CO
QO in
om
cocovo
vo CM
o
o
CO,
co"
U-i
i>co
vooo
>n co
•<* 1-1
vo
Arsenic
Benzene
Cadmium
ISA
sill
iln
6
*.
a
g
o
£
g
§
g
J2
a
ea
G
9
e
^
£
ii
g ^
•a E-1
S J
cs x
:-?<$
§^H
2 J n
-S H js
<**
iP
? 4S a
* S §
8 I i
?:.§U
ff!
o g ^
f1!
*s -o a
>-4 £3 «
fe W tl)
a> t<
* -s 3
CM § «
*^ * fe
O t, £
S§«2<
•a < H
S H J
rt i-l X
S X TH
O ,_, T-I
32^
gs§^
H T3 W
tis js
M — S
« ^ ,H
11^
•is
'5
•k^
"3
*3 T— ^
c •*
a «_i
§ °
B 1-1
•1 2
C8 W
S 42
•O ««
g^
as
2 .2
d daily ave
concentrat
1-a
11
o S
o
13
•0 ^
Si O
8 SP
g |
S S
J«
si
^2
1 1
Scfl
O
«-> *O
a •§
2 o
a?
U u-i
CM 0
a g
*!
S- 2
0 -3,
H §'
cs n o
-
-------
4-55
-3
&
Q
.
*
CO
a
03
0
"
II
J* .59
vS 1
si
o .^
i^
H
It
fl
_L «
ffl «
o >•»
•a **
a o
U
f
i"3
Pollutan
.<*!.
VO
OS O O
CM O l>
VO
OO
i-5 OO re CM vo
OS ce CM OS *~^
•ef CM" 06" i-T
>n o ** o
i-l O O vo
vo
o\
8
00 ce
VO OS
CM vo
CM
CM
o
>/•> o
i> oo
O F- OS
ce"f<-. OO VO'
vo o o g
m S 2 8
I
Os ^ CM re *n ^
VO O VO OO i-H O
o
o
oo
ce o t-- o
^? V^ CO OO
E5
o o
/•> VO
t^ 00
CM"
O O >O
oo >n o\
>n os
1-H 00
ooo oooo ooo ooo oo
I-HI-HT-H *-H,T-j*~J'"'i i~J'~i'~i T~i^'~i ^""J
CMCM.CM CMCMCMCM CMCMCM CMCMCM CMCM
22 2322 222 222 22
^I ^I ^I ^I ^. ^» ^I ^; ^1 ^. ^1 ^1 ^» ^.
CMCM CMCMCMCM CMCMCM CMCMCM CMCM
00 ^ 00
oq cc
O C5
Arsenic
Benzene
um
Ca
1
1°
I
.2 _
•
4)
Q)
•-
I
.3
•£*
o I
fcg
5§ S .2
I*H to O
•a
-S •-! '
O « J
*
§
Q S SO w
I Mil
1P1I
•3li?J,
i!
laf?
s'Seis^
*w« fll __> ^>
r Qu
uent
waters.
§
.
^—I
si:
!-B £
•s .2 ^ « o
a 2 -S S •"? ^
•2 | IS J 6 -S
I l-s^Sl
! a S'
> § CJ
llo
1 W ^ i
. -5
"3
•>:
sj
I
I
b'
i
i
1
js
S
-------
4-56
£
an Discharg
co
fl
let
a H
&&
fl
*§
«5
.o b
1"
Ga
•o
-1
I'd
Q a
C! O
WO
o
If
•4s .2
>,!
« 5
03
^
|f
|g
^ *J3
M
*J
O
CB *^
li
<5
S g
?!
•IP
o
1
„«
1
<5
€
*<3
s
C3
1
o
o
§
—
1
53
.0
a
8
a
i
s
1
SB
i
8
J3
O
o
1
II Pollutant
CO
o
S3
co"
in
1-H
CO
co"
CO
r-T
VO
CO
i-7
o
1— 1
OS
OS
Arsenic
u-, ei
volm fi
S3 I
\
Os
TJ-
"H" t
«
5?S 5
?" V
I
f
0
Os i-H «
VO vo
'-J.n Os in ^J*
*~"
O O OS OS CO t--
vo m co vo co vo
m os co os co t—
" co co
1— 1 1-H
i— 1
1-H \O ^" O "*d- CO
CO OS CO i-l VO i-H
os in os vq. rr. I-H.
•rf t>~ l> co CO
1— I i-H
1— (
1
§ 8
I 8
4-s til 1 g
'5 S ° •» .S "3 -S
m ii?i
H 'R c3
.e c«
2
Long
Daily
Daily
Source:
Tne
The
The
The
a
b
c
d
8
f
g
h
-------
4-57
-S
G*
0
Q
tH
5
CS
£
5
CD
S
cc
1
.a
•£j*
a
<£
^/*
^
••se
s a,
^o
£s
i5 *^
> TH
^ N— '
c8 fe
*J5 ry .
-S3 "
Jf
££
P
3 "8
.S -S
c3 ^
a I
!«
1?.
5^
^» 9
S O
. Waste Loa
i (BAT Opti
Exhibit 4-30
Gas Flotation
*O
x~s
^
cd
•2
J2
^Tj
•d
eS
3
5
W
03
£
i
^
•a
V*
jj
*o
1
"i
to
w
a
a!
CO
^3
1
"S
Q
UM
U
1
•3
a
5
0
o
.S
cS
^^
I
«
a
1
•^-»
Q
N
ts
•d
J
o
^.^
*•*
(*-<
^-*
d
§
"-J.
es •«*• »-<
t^ c^ t^ ^ i> r~ i>
VO vo VO VO vo vo vo
CO CO CO CO CO CO CO
t> t> r«- f» r> r- r-
a TT ®
0 g | | | ||
'S § 'S -a 8 S E
111 33 a s
333 aesa
o o\ o o
CS O ' *H VO
cs_ ^ oo vq,
TH T-H
'—'
•^fVOCS O^CO >T)TH
cT f~" -"a-1 t-^ cs"
C^ c^5
THcSf. ocsvo v)«n
f*Z V} V*i CS V5 VO VO ^f
T-l CS »— 1
o f~ o o
O CO V> O
oo" oT
VO
f»OW1 Of.O V»VO
fCCOoQ OQQOS t-»OO
^J ^ «
TH
t~oo o«oo ow~,
ccvots or~oo viov
.' f^ ^s^ \Q |^J {J\
co1 vf
t^t^t- t-r~t^ i>c-
VO VO vo VO vo VO VO VO
CO CO CO CO CO CO COCO
c-t-r- i>t>t> i>t>
OO '"^ CO ^"^ *™H ^™ "^ *™^ ^^
oo fC >ri
o o o
!
w ^5
a v.)
t- 4> .2 ^^ _ g
o^
o\
T— 1
E?
Q
.ouisiana
i— i
o
4-*
60
a
•3
h
CS
•d
S
JS
raction calcu
a Dissolved fi
eg
•t-*
w
i3
CS
o
a
S
6D
1
U-l
O
&
T3
U
5
•**
•»->
a
ncentration :
0 Effluent co
a
S
.«
.B
^_*
e?
i
o
<=
CS
CS
4^
CS
2
S
u
A
^**
CO
CS
• »H
g
•a
u
*-*
CS
u
J3
«
g
S
•d
a
CS
_o
1
JS
o
^^
Q
S
a
.2
Is
[a
U-l
o
1
T
o
TH
u
*»
e-
S
tandards
V)
.£>
0
\J
S
1
8
OS
uisiana Surf
1
§
VJ
u
-£
_o
§
CS
43
•d
J
o
•d
o
M
•*^
*
U
1
5?
_e
^t~i
o
*
(U
•*-*
- If
a s
C3 ^
53 o
® J
SI
^5- S
as: criterion
•iteria for esl
a Calculated
e Range of ci
cs
i
i
«
es
1
o
S
Dilutions ava:
-------
4-58
O
•o
'a 3
§ >—
S o
S §
«6
o
II
M
•M
cs S
C5 * '
&
II
§'l
(0
C5J **
11
gcd
.0
1 -3
bo g
^"^
o
g
_«
•g
£
*3
.0
"a
I
[J
o
3
Q
^£3
"3
o
ffi
.0
"a
2
6
1
3
1
ffi
"c
c
t
5"
Pollutant
oo
O
'H
VO
ON
s
«n
o
rr
§
ON
o
CO
c
£
"£
a
£
<
IM
vo
V
—
CO
o.
a
T— I
i—
£^J
S
oo
rH
vn
§
g
CM
rH
ON
V,
r^
c<-
ON
C
rH
•1
fc
£
Iff
ec
in i-
^ !•
V
VI
t
e
5 5
CM !•
V
P
0
t-~ «
[-»
t
rH
1—4
.8
\O
OO
^^1
oo
Cadmium
.
nlvo oo oo
H 5.X CM CM
1
3
ON
VO
r
s
I o m
m ^O C^
H t- CO
1 ^^
1
f>
0
H ON co
3 o o
u vj.oi,
a vo co
a ^
•9
*
^-
cc
^— I
^T*
ON CM
in vo
CM vo
•<* in
«><»
CM in
CO
rH_
•* ON
§8$
||
CM"-*"
isl
illl
Hogg
2-222
6666
s
o
oo
—
-
CO
CO
CO
CM
vo
I
^
VO
<^
a
1
^ CM ^
VO
o m
co^ co^
CM" co
TH
CO
t» t~ I—1
in ON ON
ON in c*^
VO" rH~
rH I^-
rH CO
oo r> ON
t-^co, in_
rH CO
C? O\
CM ^
rH^ [
CO
rH
in CM o
vo m r~
CM^CM ON,
rH
t— CM «n
CO OO ON
VO^O, CM
CM O
rH rH
rH
r» CM I—
c-^ o\
CO O
rH
rH CO OO
^ in co
VO CO C
in" CM" ^l*
CO 0
1
s e
i g
§ 4
,0 £
tf 1 1
S3 S
-
ON
o
—
CM
1
s
0\
ON
CO
<*•
rH
l>
ID
%l
X
2
CO CM CO
in OO rH
=5 rH
r-T r-T
CM"
•* •«* CM
Tt oo ON
t~" CM" co"
rH
rH r~ in
co o co
CO 0 C5,
t~- CM CM
O O
rH VO
CO VO
CM"
CM
rH
r-7
CM CO ON
VO •"* CO
CM, co^vq,
CO in rH
CO OO t—
co in m
o, 0,°°
rH VO
OO VO
CM"
CM
r-T
O OO CM
ON t- m
"5. ^'"i
CM" Tf rH~
in vo in
CO OO VO
CM" co"
CD
1 §
§ .3 g
fc H N
^r co vw
< os -a
H -o «
dS «
vo
•o
§ s«-| I
* J -3 .•§ ^S
i"s 8 1 «
lilt -^
1 i 2 1 ^ §
•S 8 3 2 g -S
1 a I -s | a
o^-l-s Sg
^^^ S fr»
IflPl
* « 2 w> S o
2 <3 o 2 « SP
5 ? ja 0 ON 2
••" rt ** S CM "
2 £"& s^'S «
lilllt
-------
4-59
Exhibit 4-31. Assessment of Compliance with Louisiana Oil and Gas Effluent Limitations
Parameter
Benzene (ug/1)
Ethylbenzene (ug/l)
Toluene (ug/1)
Radium (pCi/1)
Oil and Grease (mg/1)
TOC (mg/1)
TSS (mg/1)
Current
Oil and Gas BPT
Standards Concentration
125 a
4,380
475 b
60 c
15 d
50
45 e
4,285
115
3,370
400
53.0
NA
133
Gas Flotation
(BAT Option 2)
Concentration
1,226
62.2
828
453
23.5
NA
30.0
a The benzene oil and gas standard is exceeded by the BPT concentration by a factor of 343; and
by the BAT Option 2 concentration by a factor of 98.
The toluene oil and gas standard is exceeded by the BPT concentration by a factor of 7.1; and by
the BAT Option 2 concentration by a factor of 1.7.
c The radium oil and gas standard is exceeded by the BPT concentration by a factor of 6.7; and by
the BAT Option 2 concentration by a factor of 7.6.
d The oil and grease standard is exceeded by the BPT concentration by a factor of 3.5; and by
the BAT Option 2 concentration by a factor of 1.6.
e The TSS oil and gas standard is exceeded by the BPT concentration by a factor of 3.0.
-------
r
4-60
Exhibit 4—32. Connix Results for Alaska Produced Water Discharges
Operator
Facility
Water Discharge
Depth Rate
(ft) (bpd)
Number of Dilutions
at Edge of Mixing Zone (m)
15.2 61 100 500 750 1,000 2,000 2,500
Marathon
Shell Western
Amoco
Unocal
Marathon
Phillips
Unocal
Unocal
Trading Bay
East Foreland
Dillon
Anna 77
Granite Point 45
NdUTyonekA 70
Bruce 62
Baker 102
35 126,072
35 3,100
92 2,650
1,500
300
170
160
30
4.2 16.9 27.7 139 244 477
4.0 16 26.3 132 708 1,286
83 332 544 2,720
11 43 71 356 2,873
1.9 7.9 13.1 65.1 119 173 479 671
39 156 256 1,282
538 2,154
9,120
-------
4-61
S
vo"
CM
OH
•i
t
e
i
o
«
co
co
•<*
•«.»
2
'o
.3
O
1-8
Q
ffi
ffi
•<-• a
a o
Q) •*£
ca >-•
K
H
fc
03
Pollutan
g
CO O,
CD T-T
CM
o o
cM"oT
T—i CM
o
o
0
o
o o o o
f<~. >/-, O C3
CM
VO
co vo
oo
oo
Os
CM
VO
o
O
o o
CD CD
o o
rH~0~
o wi o
CM" T-H~
o
V)
O i—I
<=>. o.
o o
0 0
_J C~ T-I t-- CM
« I
o M
CO OO
gg
do CD
CM O IT! VO
OS VO
_J CO
T-H Ttf. W, T-< VO
r- _: i—i vo co
<=. ^ 00
vo
vq
o
CM Os
m co
o o
OO P- VO T— <
f; VO CM »H
^ !Q CM S
O t-
_: vi
CM
v~,
O
vo
vo
tr. tr> V, CM
TH t-- c<~, CM
CM
vo
CM
o o co c~« CM
CM « C % C
CM TH 1-1 os vo «n
^. «« 0 S $ J5
oo
s?
oq
VC
tf)
VO
vo
vo
OS
00
vo
o
a
CM
OO
o
a
vq
o
a
a
VO
O
I
a
CS"*VOt--OO "•^-CMCMVOOOOOCOi-t"***-!
osSHTTir-: vdVOONKS5?l>'iS'H?S
OS
OO V} VO r-t
t~- CM OO *-<
VO OO •* i-l t-- CO
T-H to CO CO O "^-
T—i os *3r *n *n
§4 go
S ^ 13
•!l|§lpj
mOOijSz^
§§
i i
aa
CD *r>
CM CM
vo vo
O CD
I I
a a
vo oo
CM CM
CM CM
I 1
^••3
« «
<& &<
CM
CM
CM
-edances:
t
A
a
5
a
of
To
CM CM CO CO
CM CM "*
CM CM ** ui
CM CO U-l
I
lil"
1
a-
-2
I
CQ
5!
1|
CM -8
11
OH -
o
H
-------
4-62
S
a
t
•a
c
t
.&»
"3
a
I
§0
o
•a
!>
tS
Cl
o
$
s
-
o
m
Pol
TH O TH O
TH TH TH O
s^ss
c c
TH cs
o o
co in
10
•* c*! oo, co
CM in" vo"
co
Ov
CO OV
^" ro
vq
in
ss
3^
IT
O m
O o TH
8 in 3; •* t~; j
. =J °. O C3
00 O
O TH CM CM TH CO
s s s ^ ^ rf
o o
in o\ TH
m vo TH
rf CM Q
vo CO O
VO
o
w
CO
C^ TH t^
S CM in
o ^ o
00 O
O C5
T-H T-I o n
O O
O O
CN
vo
O o\ oo
t CO Vi
o
O O OO
^ T-I in
O O\ CO
to
CM in
82
CO
2
CO
00
in oo
'-§
CO
CM
CO
VO
CM
CM
vo
^ 8
g
H
co
i
w
co
o *
-
S <> oo.
ON CO ?4 ^^ t^ VO TH OO ^" CM C^ O\ CO
inooco in CMTHTH OTH
in" co" TH
oomvorHTH vooo'*r-ir~co'^J-'*coinvoin
"• cMooTH^: THincocoOTt-THvocMTt-THON
co °° THG\-*inmTHin -*ONTH
C-- CM oo TH
co
co
m
in
E§
3
§
O g
S
-------
4-63
^
O
• *s
.g
&1
s
•*-»
1
rs]
^™i'
d
1
Q
C
S
.3
^*— 1
t!
.59
t
O
J
a
1-1
s
1
>ri
CO
"*
1
ffl
^*1
HI
0
l-(
o
rt
^
1-4
2
1
•+-»
a
t> O.C^ 0KlnOKCO ^O^SC!
^-< O O4 T-I ir> iT^
b a
CXu-)
»n
t~-OO COCOCOONO'*t~-ONCOO'— IVIC^-OON VO
C3C5 CSCSCSOCJOCS^OOQCSCSOCS I
oo o § § o o" o o. o 0- g o. o g w
O C3 O O "^
oo ooooooo-sjooSoooo I
§8 8§oooo§^§o°g§o§i
000 "^
^H
^^ t-.u-i^-ivor-u-)oooo«>foONOONeMTH \o
V"s o\ r^* c^- ^~H "^ o\ v^ co c^i *™n ^^ f«^ *o oo ^? vo ^3
^^ G3o^H>do\^G3^*'c>f*;covHo2'-^ I
00 0 « - ^
Vl
§8 5§'3SS2Si§^S§So-2 ff
1=5 ""* ^ W o
^1 ^"t
*o
C*1* OO *^^ O^ C^ ^D 00 OO c^ ^"^ *^t" V^ VO V"l ^^ ^^ ^^ *^^ ^^
VT CO" T-T rjj [Tl
*** o K
^5 ^aiiiiSi^iss^^^ ff
'—i «o ^* '"' BQ H
*-H CO
0 « x^
1,1 -a s s ? ^
K4 H -C* O *-< C3 03 O O O M *^ *^ ^ 33
CQUQ WZSpH><
CQ ^ ri fl
05 (D S c« "3
-*^ O fl p
*W ^* ^^ h^ ^^
CT«
Breakdown of Sti
^
tJ
rt
BAT Options 2 £
«
-------
r
4-64
*o
J5-
8-
•o
I
e
a
i
C3
5
t
"3
a
^
'•i
3
a
1
£
•g
o
•a
&
t-«
CO
_B
.5
Q
1
B
O
N
tt
B
5
i( ...
0
*n
S
6
.2
E
U
U
B
-3
'a
u
3
5
M
*;
§
3
S
M
i
o
3
•s
a
•a
B
C3
oo
S
I
S
m
S
1
o
o
i
1
i
.0
ed
2
B
O
1
a
K
o
'§
8
0
3
€
5,
ff!
H
eu
M
H
^
PH
fc
ffl
5
«
£,
P^
^^
PQ
H
PH
BJ
PH
H
PL«
Pollutant
1
T-H
0
CM
d
o
S
VO
TH
T~l
co
T-H
a
•^t-
o\
o
8
CO
t-
Aluminum
3
o
d
CM
O
d
.
&
d
S
^
d
j^
TH
O
d
v5
o
o
5
in
Anthracene
o
TH
t-
o
o
r-
I
in
o
5
CO
TH
VJ
OV
CO
t-
5?
.
o
o
1
m
vo
d
T-H
TH
TH
o
CM
d
§
o
Q
5
T-H
T-H
O
O
K
a
^—«
•*«•
1
pq
o o o o
O O C3 O
0 C3 O CJ,
CM SH CM CM
g
C3_
•n
o o o o
co in o o
•* co co co
CM in vo
o o o
o o o
c~ o o
TH d
TH
CM CO C— VO TH CO vo
CM TH TH CM In CO O
q q d d T-H CM TH
o o
co in ^J- CM TH co CM
CM TJ- rt- vo CM CM in
q °. d CM TH •* TH
0 0
TH TH co o in c^ CM
TH cv co co »n ,_; co
O
TH CO CM TH CO CM •*
TH CM CM ^ C3 ^ vq
d d CM TH vo CM f-
co m in •* m co ov
Ov t-* F"- C^ O TH vo
*"J *} *°. TH d in CM
O O CO CM TH CO TH
TH co in t^ c~ co •*
t-; in vq co ^ ^; ^:
CO VO CO O\ CM t~ CO
O TH TH CO CO *""" •*
CO •* CM CM VO OO CO
fC vd « « $ g £
TH vo co •* TH r~ co
„; TH in co co o •*
00 TH o\ •* in m
2 i d
g 1 n
o
TH
VO
"1
in
CO
VO
in"
in
Barium
CO
Ov
3
o
in
TH
o
d
^.j.
VO
o
d
8
o
CM
CO
d
^j.
co
d
CO
in
d
8
TH
VO
TH
CO
CM
Cadmium
Ov
CM
O
TH
i
o
in
TH
TH
O
VO
CM
VO
VO
CO
d
Ov
CM
Tf
in
co
CM
in
IH
C
Q.
O
U
8
co
co
CO
CO
TH
CO
CM
Ov
VO
CM
CO
TH
TH
VO
co
CM
5
VO
••a-
TH
CO
vo
TH
4
4 B
vo
in
CM
CO
o
m
in
d
VO
f~
in
r-
CM
o
Ov
CM
S
^
TH
g
in
CM
TH
TH
•s
s
TH
CM
0
CO
CO
d
o
CO
vq
TH
CM
IS
TH
Ov
VO
CM
?
VO
in
d
TH
s
T-H
O
i
ei
B
a
O
O
TH
CO
co
in
o
o
TH
g
CO
Ov
5
t
T»H
o
^*
V?
C*
t~
ol
OV
X-l
TH
TH
Ov
TH"
in
TH
1
z
VO
CO
in
ov
o
o
in
CO
CO
0
CO
TH
d
Ov
co
TH
CO
VO
d
TH
TH
CO
TH
CM
CM
TH
o-
CO
TH
.3
0
B
N
"«
•4-*
•=1
U
ft
in
vo
O
1
W
T-H
OO
W
TH
VO
O
1
VO
CO
O
W
VO
1/1
O
1
TH
o
w
TH
VI
o
1
LxJ
^?
B
u
0
W
o
CM
VO
O
1
T-
VO
r>J
Radium-2:
i
3
VO
W
in_
•<*•
o
W
m
CM
VO
o
I
W
TH
CO
co
ro
Radium-2:
0
CM
in
in
vo
in
0
TH
CM
TH
3
o
"O
1
"•3
3
O
T-l
Total Wate
I I 1 I
1 1 ,_|,_|
TH TH TH CM
TH TH CM TH
TH TH CM CM
TH TH CM TH
CM CM CO CO
CM CM •* •*
"8
"8 £ S
1 II
cS KM
•I « -I s -|
-i 3 s | .s
l^eSfi
55
o
1
CJ
t-t
I
i
CM T3
l?
& 2
O S
H S
oj
-------
4-65
•a
a,
Z5
f
-8
II
a
*?
CO
•I
O 1O
^ CM °*
S
o
*"
If
S?
O
NO CO
0 o
to
to
o o
S3
d c>
M
W
ON
W
ON
ss
o d
ON t- O
•* ^j! p^ •
o
CO ON
vo CM
\O
0 tH
CO CM »-l CO V-> T-H
CM T-H t~ CO •<-!•*
ON r-l ON CM OO in
ON oq [>; '-H vo o
TH
O O O OO >0 r-i ON
_! _.! CM i-H U-> ON NO
"" CN
CO OO CM NO ON
"
NO
CM m co •r-i r~ co NO
co
Irt
VI
CM
a
CM
to
vO
CM
Vl
NO
o\
NO
s
&
I
CO
U
co
I
U
o
U
NO
s
13
VI
CO
814
< < CQ PQ u Q H-;sS p x < m u u A J Sz N
SS
\ i
w w
CM CM
NO NO
O O
W W
I \
s e
.5 .5
•a -3
cs cs
B5 A
•3
a
1
To
I I I I
C4 CO CO
cs CM •* to
CM CM •
CM CM •
II 1
1 1
I
§
1
fc
03
W or)
CM -9
-------
4-66
g
-8
O
ss
5
o
P4
&
.3
es
a
Uc
O
I
CO
CO
rt
fl
y~ 2,
15
"O
.<&
.a
a
o
&
o
t~:
vo
o o
Sin
o
o o
oo cs
O G3
000
CO
f^j
es
VO
in
oo
o
o
^H
o
o
oo.
o
^
C3
C-1O
^ «>>
o o
C5 CJ
O\
0\
OS
ID OO
es
^ C3
es
cs
">
o
1-H CS OS
00 CO ^H
VO O O
OS
^
O
w
I
ca
CO
CO
w
Os
t-oo
vo
in
in vo
CS co
r-t t-t VOOO-<*'-i
'-'co ^-coc~* **
£
SjSTatwaeSS^icI
S2 a as o o
-------
4-67
t
£
a\
•rH
•s»x
1
.a
i
t
1
a
c\
;£>
I
•o
V
0
1
1
o
81
•a
a
8
w
1.2
S "^*
t*-( •£?
«g
V-,
CQ
CQ
Pollutan
T-1 O T-l O
T—I *—I T—I O
O ° CM
O O
O O
O O
CM OS
*-< CM
o
o
o
cf
^t
o\
o
o
od
o
o
CM
CM >/•
o
O
oooopoo ooo .g
*H~cT CM" ^H~ «rT ^
O
°. °. o °. °. °. P. P. o d o o P. o ^ P. P o P. I
CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO rrl
r-1
CM
fTi T—I _J O CO
O O rt C3 O
o o o co
OO
CM
«*i •<*
s
CM
tf.
CM
O O
o o
o o
OO
32
^ H
oo ^
r~Z CM ««I i**!
«r
V-, \O
CM OO
o
00
* ri-rf
O OO
CM CM
oo
JO
10
-
-------
r
4-68
•a
£
o
CO
• •»
3
8-
t»
S
1
E
ft
&
1
«
1
£
.S3
£
(3
3
£»
a
«
o
I
O
TT
•*
C? .«
o
tL,
ffi
ffi
a
-8
^ *-<
00
«•§,
§f
« a
^i3^
8 oo'r
1
i-1
Is
pq a
ffi
CQ
ant
Pol
Y-H O rH O
i—I i—I i—I O
ff. t- ff) O
°. d T-T
o e>a
o o
p»°»
C<) O\
C3OC3C3
COV1OO
of
VO f<~, VO
«n oo °°
OO\
O O
O »/1 C3
'o" c <=>'=> ^Joooo ^
oooo o
00
O
^
O
2 o .
oo o
OO
O
«r
oo
w
I
a
s
•es
«
^
ffi o
a
CS
•a
-------
4-69
Exhibit 4—41. Summary of Pollutant Limitations Exceeded in Texas and Louisiana
Current BPT
Discharge Acute
Scenario State Standards
Chronic Human Health Total
Standards Standards Exceeded
1 Meter Water Depth
Median by Outfall
Mean
Median by Flow
Texas No standards are exceeded
Louisiana Copper (Avg & Max)
Texas
Louisiana Copper (Avg & Max)
Copper (Avg) Benzene (Avg & Max)
Silver (Avg)
Copper (Avg) Benzene (Avg & Max)
Lead (Avg)
Texas Copper (Avg)
Silver (Avg)
Louisiana Copper (Avg & Max)
Toluene (Avg)
Copper (Avg)
Lead (Avg)
Silver (Avg & Max)
Copper (Avg & Max) Benzene (Avg & Max)
Lead (Avg & Max) Phenol (Avg)
Nickel (Avg & Max)
Toluene (Avg)
0
5
1
6
6
13
3 Meter Water Depth
Median by Outfall
Mean
Median by Flow
Texas No standards are exceeded
Louisiana
Benzene (Avg)
Texas No standards are exceeded
Louisiana Copper (Avg)
Texas
Louisiana Copper (Avg & Max)
Benzene (Avg & Max)
Silver (Avg)
Copper (Avg & Max) Benzene (Avg & Max)
Lead (Avg)
Nickel (Avg)
0
1
0
3
1
8
Avg = State Daily Average Limitation;
Max = State Daily Maximum Limitation
-------
4-70
health) and 1 exceedance (in Louisiana) at the 3 meter depth (daily average limitation for benzene human
health).
The mean discharge rate results in 7 exceedances (1 in Texas; 6 in Louisiana) at the 1-meter depth
(5 daily average limitations - copper acute, copper chronic, lead chronic, silver chronic, and benzene human
health; and 2 daily maximum limitations - copper acute and benzene human health) and 3 exceedances (all in
Louisiana) at the 3-meter depth (2 daily average limitations - copper acute and benzene human health; and 1
daily maximum limitation - benzene human health).
The median discharge rate by flow results in 19 exceedances (6 in Texas; 13 in Louisiana) at the 1-
meter depth (13 daily average limitations - copper acute, copper chronic, lead chronic, nickel chronic, silver
acute, silver chronic, benzene human health, phenol human health, toluene acute, and toluene chronic; and 5
daily maximum limitations - copper acute, copper chronic, lead chronic, nickel chronic, silver chronic, and
benzene human health) and 9 exceedances (1 in Texas; 8 in Louisiana) at the 3-meter depth (6 daily average
limitations - copper acute, copper chronic, lead chronic, nickel chronic, silver chronic, and benzene human
health; and 3 daily maximum limitations - copper acute, copper chronic, and benzene human health).
The current BPT discharges also exceed 5 Louisiana oil and gas effluent limitations required at the
point of discharge (see Exhibit 4-31). The benzene, toluene, radium, oil and grease, and TSS concentrations
reported for current BPT discharges exceed the oil and gas limitations.
45.2 Gulf of Mexico - Gas Flotation (BAT Option 2)
The results of the water quality analyses for Texas and Louisiana BAT discharges in 1 meter and 3
meters of water are presented in Exhibit 4-42. The median discharge rate by outfall results in 8 exceedances
(3 in Texas; 5 in Louisiana) at the 1-meter water depth (5 daily average limitations - copper acute, copper
chronic, silver acute, silver chronic, and benzene human health; and 3 daily maximum limitations copper
acute, silver chronic, and benzene human health) and no exceedances at the 3-meter depth.
The mean discharge rate results in 11 exceedances (4 hi Texas; 7 in Louisiana) at the 1-meter depth
(6 daily average limitations - copper acute, copper chronic, nickel chronic, silver acute, silver chronic, and
benzene human health; and 5 daily maximum limitations - copper acute, copper chronic, silver acute, silver
chronic, and benzene human health) and 4 exceedances (1 in Texas; 3 in Louisiana) at lie 3-meter depth
(4 daily average limitations - copper acute, copper chronic, silver chronic, and benzene human health).
The median discharge rate by flow results in 16 exceedances (6 in Texas; 10 hi Louisiana) at the 1-
meter depth (10 daily average limitations - copper acute, copper chronic, lead chronic, nickel chronic, silver
acute, silver chronic, benzene human health, and phenol human health; and 6 daily maximum limitations -
copper acute, copper chronic, nickel chronic, silver acute, silver chronic, and benzene human health) and 9
exceedances (2 in Texas; 7 in Louisiana) at the 3-meter depth (5 daily average limitations - copper acute,
-------
4-71
Exhibit 4—42. Summary of Pollutant Limitations Exceeded in Texas and Louisiana
Gas Flotation (BAT Option 2)
Discharge
Scenario State
Acute
Standards a
Chronic Human Health Total
Standards a Standards a Exceeded
1 Meter Water Depth
Median by Outfall
Mean
Median by Flow
Median by Outfall
Mean
Median by Flow
Texas
Louisiana
Silver
(Avg)
Copper (Avg & Max)
Silver (Avg & Max)
Copper (Avg) Benzene (Avg & Max)
Texas
Louisiana
Silver (Avg & Max)
Copper (Avg & Max)
Silver (Avg & Max)
Copper (Avg & Max) Benzene (Avg & Max)
Nickel (Avg)
Texas
Louisiana
Texas
Louisiana
Texas
Louisiana
Texas
Louisiana
Copper (Avg)
Silver (Avg & Max)
Copper (Avg & Max)
3
Copper (Avg)
Silver (Avg & Max)
Copper (Avg & Max) Benzene (Avg & Max)
Lead (Avg) Phenol (Avg)
Nickel (Avg & Max)
Meter Water Depth
No standards are exceeded
No standards are exceeded
Copper (Avg)
Copper (Avg & Max)
Silver (Avg)
Copper (Avg) Benzene (Avg)
Silver (Avg & Max)
Copper (Avg & Max) Benzene (Avg & Max)
Nickel (Avg)
3
5
4
7
6
10
0
0
1
3
2
7
Avg = State Daily Average Limitation;
Max = State Daily Maximum Limitation
-------
4-72
copper chronic, nickel chronic, silver chronic, and benzene human health; and 4 daily maximum limitations -
copper acute, copper chronic, silver chronic, and benzene human health).
The gas flotation (BAT Option 2) discharges also exceed 4 Louisiana oil and gas effluent limitations
at the point of discharge (see Exhibit 4-31). The benzene, toluene, radium, and oil and grease
concentrations reported for gas flotation (BAT Option 2) discharges exceed the oil and gas limitations.
4.5.3 Gulf of Mexico - Zero Discharge Options
There are three BAT options that require all facilities in the coastal subcategory of Gulf of Mexico
states to meet zero discharge of produced water. Under these options (Options 3 through 5), all state water
quality standards would be met due to cessation of discharges.
4.5.4 Cook Inlet, Alaska Water Quality Analyses
Because Alaska state standards do not specify mixing zones for enforcement of the numerical
standards, results of the Alaska water quality analysis are presented in Exhibit 4-43 as the distance from each
facility's discharge point where all of the standards are met. This distance for the eight facilities ranges from
within 50 feet to 25 km for Current BPT and from within 50 feet to 2.0 km for gas flotation (BAT Options 2
and 4).
-------
4-73
Exhibit 4—43. Mixing Zones Required for Alaska Outfalls
Facility
Trading Bay
Granite Point
Anna
East Foreland
Phillips NCIU
Dillon
Bruce
Baker
Mixing Zone Needed to Achieve
Standards (m)
Current BPT Gas Flotation (BAT Option 2)
2,500
2,500
1,000
1,000
500
61
61
<15
2,000
2,000
500
750
100
61
<15
<15
-------
-------
5-1
5. WATER QUALITY COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENTS
FOR COOK INLET DRILLING WASTE
Cook Inlet, Alaska is the only coastal area in which the discharge of drilling muds are currently
authorized. Under the proposed effluent guidelines, EPA has developed options for their regulation. To
evaluate these options, this WQBA has included the following water quality assessment for drilling fluids
discharges in Cook Inlet.
5.1 Characterization of Drilling Discharges
The pollutant concentrations for drilling fluids, the most significant waste stream from drilling
operations, are provided in Exhibit 5-1. Metals data are from the offshore subcategory of the Gulf of
Mexico with the exception of barium, which is calculated for average weight muds for Cook Inlet. Organic
pollutant concentrations are based on the presence of 0.02% mineral oil by volume. These concentration
data are presented and discussed in further detail in EPA, 1994a.
For the purposes of the water quality compliance assessments, the pollutant concentrations do not
change from current BPT practices (BAT Option 1) to BAT Option 2 practices. EPA (1994a) provides
pollutant concentrations based on a basic drilling fluid formulation and only the whole effluent toxicity is
assumed to change from current BPT (BAT Option 1) to BAT Option 2. BAT Option 3 for Cook Inlet
drilling discharges is zero discharge.
5.2 Dilution Modeling
Modeling of drilling fluid discharges was not conducted as part of this WQBA. The modeling results
used for this water quality assessment of Cook Inlet discharges is from dilution modeling conducted for EPA
Region 10 for the issuance of a general permit for Cook Inlet operations. The modeling was conducted as
part of the Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation (TetraTech, 1994) using the Offshore Operator's Committee
(OOC) Mud Discharge Model (version 1.0; Brandsma et al., 1983).
Because drilling fluid dispersion had been found to be dependent to a large degree on water depth,
modeling was conducted for three depth ranges. These ranges are: 40 to 300 meters; 20 to 40 meters; and
10 to 20 meters. For the 40 to 300 meter water depth range, discharge rates of 1,000 bph (the maximum
allowable rate under the Region 10 permit for this depth) and 500 bph were modeled for current speeds
from 2 to 150 cm/sec. For the 20 to 40 meter water depth range, discharge rates of 750 bph (the maximum
allowable rate under the Region 10 permit for this depth) and 500 bph were modeled for current speeds
from 10 to 150 cm/sec. For the 10 to 20 meter water depth range, discharge rates of 500 bph (the maximum
allowable rate under the Region 10 permit for this depth) and 250 bph were modeled for current speeds
from 2 to 30 cm/sec. Discharges are prohibited in waters between the shore and the 5 meter isobath.
Although Alaska standards do not specify spatially-defined mixing zones, Region 10's approach to
assessing water quality impacts for the general permit used modeling to predict the number of dilutions for
-------
5-2
Exhibit 5-1. Pollutant Concentrations in Drilling Fluid Effluent
Average Average
Concentration in Concentration in
Dry Drilling Waste Drilling Effluent
Pollutant (mg/l) (mgA)a
Metals Qbs/MM Ibs dry mud)
Cadmium
Mercury
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Tin
Titanium
Zinc
Organics (Ibs/bbl mud)
Naphthalene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Alkylated benzenes
Alkylated naphthalenes
Alkylated fluorenes
Alkylated phenenthrenes
Total biphenyls
Total dibenzothiophenes
1.1
0.1
9,069.9
5.7
7.1
120,000
0.7
240
18.7
15,3443
35.1
135
1.1
0.7
1.2
14.6
875
200.5
0.0000035
0.0000563
0.0000084
0.0021017
0.0000344
0.0001218
0.0000143
0.0001360
0.0000004
035
0.03
2,920
1.84
2.29
38,632
0.23
77.26
6.02
4,940
11.30
4.35
0.35
0.23
039
4.70
28.17
64.55
0.010
0.161
0.024
6.00
0.098
0348
0.041
0388
0.001
Source: EPA, 1994a.
a Metals calculated as: Cono/1,000,000 Ib dry wgt. * 454,000 (mg/lb)*0.7091 (Ib dry mud/1)
Organic pollutants calculated as: Cone. * 454,000 (mg/lb)/159 (1/bbl)
-------
5-3
the solids and dissolved portions of drilling fluids discharges at 100 meters from the discharge point assuming
a discharge of 1 hour duration. The results of the modeling are summarized in Exhibit 5-2.
5.3 Water Quality Analysis, Cook Inlet Drilling Discharges
The concentrations of pollutants in drilling fluid effluent are divided by the number of dilutions at the
edge of the mixing zone to determine the pollutant concentration in the water column. For metals, the
effluent concentration is first multiplied by a teachability factor (see Exhibit 5-3) that represents the portion
that will exist in the effluent in a dissolved form. The number of dilutions used are those projected for the
dissolved portion of the discharge plume at the edge of a 100-meter mixing zone. These calculated
concentrations of effluent pollutants at the edge of the mixing zone are compared to the state water quality
standards to determine if the standards are met by current BPT and BAT effluent discharges. The results of
the water quality analysis are presented in Exhibit 5-3.
For current BPT and BAT Options 1 and 2, a 1,000 bph discharge at the 40 meter water depth
exceeds 2 standards (drinking water standards for aluminum and iron). A 750 bph discharge at the 20 meter
water depth also exceeds 2 standards (drinking water standards for aluminum and iron). A 500 bph
discharge at the 10 meter water depth exceeds 3 standards (drinking water standards for aluminum,
antimony, and iron). For BAT Option 3, zero discharge, no water quality standards would be exceeded in
Cook Inlet.
-------
5-4
Exhibit 5—2. Summary of OOC Model Results from Region 10 Permit Development
Current
Speed
(cm/sec)
2
10
30
100
150
Number of Dilutions at Edge of 100 -m Mixing Zone
1,000 bph/40 m depth
Solids
2,156
1,039
3,957
3,995
4,025
Dissolved
1,660
1,012
886
6,024
6,061
750 bph/20 m depth
Solids Dissolved
—
1,329 747
1,252 700
4,810 7,143
— —
500 bph/10 m depth
Solids Dissolved
— .
3,323 420
2,126 269
— —
—
Source: TetraTech, 1994.
-------
5-5
i
HM
44
_0
CA
1
o
•S9
Q
bO
1
£
.S3
£
1
>->
3
§
a
a
1
Exhibit 5 -3.
W)
d t-<
•H q)
Q CQ
*VH ^£
Q ^
.j*
O ®
iL "H.
•2 **
"es 'S
^ -2*
•38
S
•o
(JH
a-0,)
.2 fi
es vj
*ti tef
a ^*
8 a
*VM
a|
Is i
[rl H-*
^^ 03
I
"o
C/3
l|
||
"w ftj)
A 2
CS ^-^
•^-*
00
es 5
S "rt
p o
ffi K
o
'a
2
JS
O
*J
3
o
i-l Q CM OO vo t-
P oo ^J JD CM 25
o o P Q.
o o
vo t~- o 10 t~- o\
^3c"w^cn
vo i— < co T-H -rf en
^ CM o i— i ^ vo
C5 '~< ' O
o o o o o o
o\ eo en vo vo CM
CM_ c^ CM en CM, o^
CM" CM" t>" vo"
en c**
VO
06"
***.
>-i es CJ e« JS O
< «CQ U U U
o
0
1
1
1
f^
oo
3
^
ON
00
in
en
o
en
0
o
o_
1
1
| o o o o o o |
0 0 10 O fvj 0
1 1 o I | I 1 |
o
"(^
\o | en | | | vo |
vo oo °°
o | to | | | vo o
CM en
CM"
OT-HVOOVOVO-* CM
ogo^o^o g
C5
en i-< l> o o\ t-- oo en
en r- CM vo en vo en T-H
cjgocsooo" P
o
§gS|§S§ |
ogooooo g
P 0
0
vOOf-OOOVO O
CM vo 1-1 en c-4 en CM
0
CM oq en o cs o i— i o
C5OOOOOO O
en_ en^ en CM en vo_
i-H \0
1
-sSIJbla |
4>i^KO^f=>'-3 iS
J^^WDCflHN Z
fli
j£
-t-»
^^
es
•O
53
2
o<
g
g
•a
•a
9)
^
4)
es
.a
CO
^
es
»< a
1 !
*±i ^H
:|£
g 13
^ |
2 Z
rt a
..V S
B .2
S •S
It -3
es "3
if
ti
1^1
^•BJ
i-^ §
-§ig
> o P
— * O
M CO ^ ,
Q flj ti_l M
11 II II
2 I- es na 3 a
fi g ^ is a S
2 &- es ^j -8 'S
•2 g ^^^"2
Sl'Sj-l'll
S « | ^ J J -1
« § 2 e^-S -o |
•si aogsj
^s ?
Isfsll-!
e* a O J-i *~< *H s
O
"S a S w ^w w es
S t- 0 § «-> o 3
J> r° § o 0 0 lH
PH CJ a ;=i en en CJ
rt xi o *a u <«
-------
-------
6- 1
6. VALUATION OF RESOURCES AT RISK IN THE GULF OF MEXICO
6.1 Review of Coastal Wetland Values
A literature review for wetland value estimates was conducted for MMS (MMS, 1991). The literature
review contains many different ways to value wetlands, depending on the different uses of these wetlands.
Demonstrating the difficulty in estimating the value of wetlands, MMS (1991) establishes three broad types of
wetland use values. These values include on-site use values, off-site use values, and nonuse values. On-site use
values of wetlands are the easily recognized and priceable benefits that come from wetlands. On-site use values
include hunting, trapping, and hay and peat production. Off-site use values of wetlands are not as easily
recognized because these use values do not occur at the wetlands. Rather, they are recognized as values
associated with other geographic areas. For example, wetlands are breeding, nesting, and nursery grounds for
many species of animals, especially fish and birds, that occur outside of wetlands. Off-site use values of
wetlands include sport and commercial fisheries, waterfowl, and fur-bearing animals. Values can be assigned to
such off-site uses of wetlands after the wetlands dependence of these end uses is established. Nonuse values of
wetlands are benefits that are the most difficult to quantify. It is difficult, and in some cases even impossible,
to put a price on the nonuse values of wetlands. Nonuse values of wetlands include:
• Biological productivity
• Biological diversity
• Ecosystem stability
• Flood control
• Climate control
• Water purification
• Pollution filtration
• Aesthetic values.
Different methods of valuing wetlands are identified by MMS (1991). The following briefly
suTrnnari7.es the different methods of valuing wetlands.
Market Price Method. Estimates the economic value of commercially traded products and services from
wetlands (e.g., peat, hay, hunting rights) on the basis of their market prices. This method does not deduct
market value of other resources used to bring wetland products to market.
Net Factor Income Method. Estimates the value of wetland resources in commercial production by estimating
the profits of wetland-dependent commercial activities after payments are made to other factors of production.
Travel Cost (TC) Method. Used to estimate the value of recreational benefits generated by wetlands. Assumes
that the value of a site is reflected in how much people are willing to pay to get there.
-------
6-2
Hedonic Pricing - Property Value (PV) Analysis. Hedonic techniques assume that the price paid for a
commodity is directly related to the supply of the commodity's attributes. Most common is the PV approach,
which uses variations in property values to reveal implicit values and demand for environmental amenities.
Contingent Valuation (CV) Method. The only available technique for estimating most nonuse values. This
method questions individuals directly about their willingness to pay (WTP) or willingness to accept payment.
Valuation (Benefit) Transfer: The Activity Day Method. Simple transfer: an activity day valued at one site is
used to value the same activity at the study site. Values are usually site/location/user specific, but transfers can
be useful for gross estimates of recreational values.
Replacement Cost (RC) Method. Estimates the value of a non-market service based on the cost of substitution.
This involves three steps: estimate level of service provided, identify least cost alternative, and establish public
demand for this alternative.
Damage Cost (DC) Method. Estimates the value of a service based on the cost of damage that may result from
its loss. Steps include: assess service level, estimate potential damage, translate to dollar terms, and identify
possible substitute.
Energy Analysis/Biological Productive Method. Assumes that the value of a good is reflected in the energy
required to produce it. Values wetlands on the basis of their biological productivity [(kilo calories of biomass) x
(energy price)].
Opportunity Cost Method. Proxy value for uncertain wetland functions/services calculated on the basis of the
cost of foregone development values and appropriate least-cost substitutes.
In the literature reviewed in MMS (1991), generalized unit wetland values range from $424 to over
$200,000 per acre. MMS (1991) states that the "emerging consensus" for appropriate wetland values ranges
from $7,000 to $20,000 per acre. However, the value of certain specific uses and products of wetlands covers
a much broader range. Exhibit 6-1 gives a complete list of wetland value estimates for the Gulf of Mexico.
The following summary provides ranges of wetland value estimates for different products and uses of wetlands.
-------
6-3
VO
•w
JD
1
|
2
Value Updated
to 1990
03
S*
1
>
Basis of Estimate
.
H"
1
1
•2
I
g
•3
«
r
j=
i
$268/acre/yr
o\
Ox
N— '
>»
es
S
**
"&
i
•5°
1
•g
i
a
c
*i
3
^t* "*f OO OO
Ox Ox Ox Ox
PH t> tj t)
; it
1 J^
"3
09
0
O
$416/acre/yr
$608/acre/yr
$939/acre/yr
$399/acre/yr
S\ S\ & &?
Ox O\ O\ Ox
N O- ^ ^
>* &L >!» &L
2 2~2 2
a a § a
~ ?» 5 ~
V* V> V*
e?
|
1
O
Gross benefits (fish and fur harvests; recreati
and fishing)
"1
1
1
c
.5
*53
"I
i
fcT
and Farbe
!
O
1
O^
Ox
^
bi
2
S
v>
Net benefits
1
1
6
§
5
.3
oo
Ox
b?
and Farbe:
1
u
vo
OO
6^
Ox
1-- 1
§
S
Replacement Value
n
05
1
0
S
03
1
V>
tT
and Farbe
1
u
00
•— <
>o
oT"
o\
^J,
^i
1
1
V*
Biological Productivity
i
S
1
a
§
S
3
^
ti*
Loch mi He:
£§
bi b«
-£* -^!*
i^ jS
t^ ^
>,O vO
^i c*;
CO C4
C
o
00
•cf
ff
Survey of duck hunters; WTP for duck hunt!
ponds
•o
1
I
-a
!!
.2
oo
H
K
S
$818/acre
2
O
OO
CO
v&
Embodied energy analysis
I1
i
i
2
*
d
•0
•c
g
tT
Schuelei
$64 million/yr
$107 million
£>
"a 1
.2 S
ll
«^
Commercial fishing
Recreational value - estimate
e
'1
•O
CQ
<3
5
C3
C
.S
"5
1 §
J3
«8
f
1
i
*"^
$4.60/ marginal
marsh acre
2
O
(3
J5
i
g
— .
.1
1
o
en
&
3
Value of march contribution to the blue crab
- present value
•5
1
•§
1
§
*"^
1
O
$126/acre
2
o
oo
OJ
o "3
§>
2
'i «•
H .
Used a logit analysis for estimating hunter p;
a function of waterfowl habitat and other var
costs), then considered a 10% loss in habitat,
- average value for duck hunting
1
1
I
J5
1
.2
.2
2
ill
o T"H
111
55 1
•e °
« w
>>
•O
2
CO
o § i
2 o 2 r~ ^j » ®
******** **?§
« 2
vo a 8 1
s r* ^* o S « -5
. O O OO " J^ Vj
^000^^^**.
^ «» ** -^ j> t** °°
^s
•o
«
I
rS
Two Methods: willingness to pay applied to
contributions
1 . Commercial fishing and trapping values
5.17 Ibs/acre shrimp - Marsh
2.30 Ibs/acre blue crab - Saltmarsh
6.00 Ibs/acre oyster - Estuary
145.00 Ibs/acre menhaden - Estuary
1.86 Ibs/acre trapping - Wetlands
Total annual value
- present value at (8%)
S
2 §£•
i-S-S
o S<2
b
CJ
C
-S
3
-------
6-4
g
1
o
K
ts
io
CXi O\
D 25
Is
.5
>•
If
5)
o
3
o
•s
.**
M
o
J?
•H
C
i
*2
1
if
i §,
u
o
•E
£
2 1 22
o ^ o o
si 23 03 «
^ O CO CO
t"*» ^r ^3 Ov
"£
oo o oo
25 22
O a O o
l§ 1*
O ~"* "* t"-
s~ s
f J
C B tin
« § s1
S « -
i i!
§ 11
S g o
00 "O t5
e » o
'. i5
•S| aS
11 «il *
S i 2 i ° .2
§'S egs -js.
1 ^ J J 1 | § J
.1 « * 5 s ^ „ 1 £
1 111 s S.H1-
il!Mj!!M
C4 W , •*
=3-
o S
1 "i
•= ,°
g y,
o o*
g
.s
<0
1
S^ . «) ..V
^5 ?S f** ?5
2 la.l
^5 oo" ^*^ oo"
6ft *^ «ft *^
1 l| §
1 III
°° S 2 ^
*» t~i^ **
1
"S 03
c ^
1 ^
•S s
- -o
e S
o t
•K S>
-present value (at 8%)
. Energy analysis evaluation
- Estimate gross primary produi
fuel equivalent values, and com
- salt marsh present value
- brackish marsh present value
- fresh marsh
ff>
!§§£
'•i S *^ «»
*|-I
00
c
S3 \o ^
^J* o So
.2 oo rr J2
i^^
1 C*l ^^ ^
S
S3 *
g*2
S M
0 0
•o 5
g >
°s 1
3 «
ollow up to the previous entry.
nalysis methodologies to develoj
'etlands in coastal Louisiana
• WTP based:
- commericial fishery
- trapping
- recreation
[i, a f
a
CO
O
U
S R. S.
ii|
«s«
^s=§
>n o\ S.
Kw^
J~J
S ^ §
J*8"»
f
- storm protection (wind and fl<
-Total
• EA-based GPP conversion
• "Best estimate"
1
!
.
l
o
1
O
O
1
i
i
i
oo
^
3
CM
0
e?
I?
g
'resent value/acre life support (e
fr*4
e
c
D
C8
•o
1
v> o * A O
»B*18
n£ fe s;^-
f||| |
|if II
C*l e*i *^ ® OO
Marginal productivity theory
- sport fishing
- non-consumptive recreation
- trapping of fur bearers
- commercial fishing
Total
*=4
-------
6-5
i
2
Value Updated
to 1990
a
4)
1
Basis of Estimate
•a
i
e
w
Q
13
g -S
Ss-
$413/acre
$l,355/acre
Value of marginal project; capitalization 8.625%
- ex-vessel for for commercial fisheries
- retail value
Saltwater
a
0
"O
"C to
O N1>
H.SE
$144,225,434
14,704,971 (1984)
«*
•g
Ex-vessel Value of Estuary-Dependent Commerc
Landings, Florida W. Coast
D
•3
o
(b
$34.55/acre
27.48/acre (1984)
1
S
0
Marginal value of product of salt marsh (Joint C
Species)
Salt Marshes
•g
•c
o
(LI
a\
II
•g
e
Estimate of wetland value for fisheries productio
on:
a) Lyonne acreage
b) NOAA acreage
Salt Marshes
West Coast
•S
o
tf.
O
§
a
"8
Present value/acre
Value on ex-vessel level to commercial fishing ii
Salt Marshes
•§
•c
o
U<
o
co
.i
en
5
$162/acre/yr
$5.99/acre/yr
$20.94/acre/yr
$94/acre/yr
$3.47/acre/yr
$12.13/acre/yr
Commercial Fishing
Commercial trapping
Sport fishing
cesh, Salt Water,
and Brackish
Marsh
ft
* —
o
13
S "* °
S Tj" an o
S £ ~ «
- i
^C'S
^H O ^H* ^
W
a, s
g « •S
Value of storm protection based on hurricane da
estimates
1) assumption of a 1 mile caveat of the wetlan
2) assuming loss of a 207 ft. strip
3) present value of 1 acute at 8% discount in t
strip
4) same as #3, assuming 1.3% population grov
•S
1
1
ea
a
"S 8
<~ 3
U S
•^-
2 2 2 g 2 2
O fc* t> g o o
S
1
i
D3
•s
f
O
§
'a
1
"ft 0
O u
CM ^
3 0
OS
-------
6-6
0
g
1
s
•p O
§ o
Value (year)
Basis of Estimate
«3
£
|
r;
:jj
_o
1
cj
q
CO
S
oo
$25.36 (1983)
CM 03
S g-c
O ^3 H
H S IS
143
H G 5>
B« r>- M
J^* U
•° M §
i
1
IS
Sum of aesthetic, commercial
wildlife values
§ O tO
111
-------
6-7
Product or Use
Estimated Value
Commercial fishing
Recreational fishing
Fur trapping/hunting
Water fowl
Shellfish (blue crab, shrimp, or oyster)
Nonconsumptive recreation
Storm protection
Sum of the above products and uses
Various total intrinsic/extrinsic wetlands values
(energy analysis, life support, biological
productivity, replacement value)
$34.55 - $l,775/acre
$21 - $559/acre
$6 - $524/acre
$178 - $299/acre
$0.88 - $14/acre
$8 - $270/acre
$0.58 - $767/acre
$48.96 - $18,700/acre
$818 - $209,100/acre
Based on the information in this review for Louisiana wetlands values, a range of $57 to $940 per acre
per year (1990 dollars) is identified; the median value is $410 per acre per year. The studies reviewed are
Costanza and Farber, 1985; Farber and Costanza, 1987; Gosselink et al., 1974; Gosselink, 1980; Mumphrey et
al., 1978; and Vora, 1974. These values are used for the monetization of ecological benefits for the Gulf-wide
assessment presented in Section 9.4 of this WQBA. These values were selected because of the greater
proportion of produced water discharges to Louisiana and their applicability to Louisiana resource valuations.
6.2 Recreational Fisheries, Galveston Bay
The draft document prepared for the Galveston Bay National Estuary Program (GBNEP; Whittington et
al., 1994), using contingent valuation and benefit transfer, estimated the annual economic value of recreational
fishing to the Houston-Galveston area using two different data sets: Texas Parks and Wildlife Department
(TPWD) data, and data collected from a mail-only survey performed by the authors of the report. The mail-
only survey was performed in a five-county region around Galveston Bay. This survey did not include people
who travel to the bay and are not from these counties, and therefore under-represents the actual value of the
recreational fishery. This survey estimated 4.5 million recreational fishing days in Galveston Bay, based on the
mean number of fishing days per household. The mail survey only had a 49% response rate. Thus, the authors
assumed that nonrespondents ranged from zero to half the usage rate of respondents. Using the range of $25 to
$38 (1993 dollars) as the value for a fishing day (Walsh et al., 1992 as cited by Whittington et al., 1994), the
value of recreational fishing in the Galveston Bay ranges from $75 million to $150 million per year.
The second data set used to estimate the value of recreational fishing in Galveston Bay was site-intercept
data collected by TPWD. The authors state that this data also may underestimate the recreational fishery value
because not all boats are accessible. The authors indicate that this number could be up to 25% higher
(McEachron and Green, 1984 as cited in MMS, 1991). This estimate also does not take into account fishing
-------
6-8
done from shore, which could account for an additional 33 % to 36 % of the recreational landings along the
Texas coast (Campbell et al, 1991 as cited in MMS, 1991). Finally, this estimate does not include night fishing
from private- and party-boats. Using the TPWD data, the estimated value of recreational fishing in the
Galveston Bay in 1993 was $44 million to $60 million per year. The authors assume that their survey was a
more accurate estimate of the number of recreational fishing days in the Galveston Bay. However, when $44
million is increased by 25% to account for boat access and 35% to account for shore fishing, the resulting range
of values is $74 million to $101 million. This range is not far from the estimate by Whittington et al. (1994),
especially because night fishing is not included in this calculation.
6.3 Nonconsumptive and Other Recreational Values, Galveston Bay
The draft document prepared for the GBNEP presents a survey of the value of recreational boating in the
Galveston Bay, not including the economic value of recreational fishing from a boat (Whittington et al., 1994).
Using benefit transfer, the value of a boating day was assumed to be $15 to $33 (1993 dollars; Walsh et al.,
1992 as cited in Whittington et al., 1994). The estimate of the number of boater days is based on boat
registration, commercial marina, and wet slip data for the area of Galveston Bay. Data on the frequency of
boat use is based on a TPWD report entitled 1990 Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan. The resulting
value of recreational boating in this Galveston Bay study was estimated to be $25 million to $50 million per
year.
The same document estimates the value of other land-based recreational activities hi Galveston Bay.
These activities include swimming, hiking, picnicking, camping, hunting, and trail walking/jogging. A mail-
only survey was used to estimate that there were 1,620,000 use days in the Houston-Galveston area in 1993.
This survey assumed that the use by non-respondents was one-half that of the respondents. The value of land-
based recreational activities was estimated to be $15 million to $50 million per year.
6.4 Total Recreational Value, Galveston Bay
The draft document prepared for the GBNEP presents a range of values for all recreational uses of
Galveston Bay. These values were developed by adding the estimates of the values for recreational fishing, the
value of boating to users of the bay, and the value of other recreational uses of the bay. These valuations are
summarized in Exhibit 6-2. For all recreational uses, the estimated value of the bay ranges from $115 million
to $250 million per year. Based on Galveston Bay acreage of 342,275 acres, derived from an EPA ORD
document (EPA, 1994b), this represents a range of $336 to $730 per acre, with a midpoint value of $533 per
acre. These range and midpoint values are used to develop estimates of monetized ecological benefits developed
for the Trinity Bay case study, presented in Section 9.3 of this WQBA.
Nonconsumptive wildlife uses in Texas and Louisiana were estimated by USFWS (1993a; 1993b). These
uses include observing wildlife, feeding wildlife, and photographing wildlife. In Texas, in 1991, 5.5 million
participants over the age of 16, spent up to $878 million on nonconsumptive wildlife uses. In Louisiana, in
1991, 1.4 million participants over the age of 16, spent $22 million in nonconsumptive wildlife activities.
_
-------
6-9
Exhibit 6-2. Summary of Galveston Bay Recreational Values
Activity
Recreational Fishing
Recreational Boating
Other Recreation
Total Recreational Value
Galveston Bay Acreage
Recreational Value of Galveston Bay
Midpoint Value
Value
$75 - $150 million
$25 - $50 million
$15 - $50 million
$115 -$250 million
342,275 acres
$336 - $730 per acre
$533 per acre
-------
6-10
6.5 Commercial Fisheries, Texas and Louisiana
Most commercial fishery species spend a significant portion of their life cycle in bays and estuaries. Of
26 commercial species caught in Louisiana (NOAA, 1985; NMFS, 1993a), 18 species spend a significant
portion of their life cycle in the estuary. These 18 species made up 98% of the total weight landed in
Louisiana, in 1992. Similarly, of 18 commercial species caught in Texas (NOAA, 1985; NMFS, 1993a), 12
species spend a significant portion of their life cycle in the estuary. These 12 species made up 92% of the total
commercial landings in Texas, in 1992. Therefore, the water and sediment quality of coastal subcategory
waters may affect the early life stages of the important commercial species, and affect both coastal and offshore
*
fisheries.
The commercial fisheries in Texas and Louisiana (finfish and shellfish) were together valued at $476
million (ex-vessel value) in 1992 (NMFS, 1993b). This value represents 75% of the entire value of the Gulf of
Mexico fishery. Louisiana's commercial fishery was valued at $295 million, while the Texas commercial
fisheries brought in $181 million (NMFS, 1993b). It is not possible to reliably quantify the benefits of these
proposed coastal oil and gas regulations to these fisheries. However, the mass and toxic loadings estimated to
derive from produced water discharges to the estuarine drainage systems of Texas and Louisiana are appreciable
(17-67% of the current BPT point source mass load and 80-94% of the current point source toxic load). A
reasonable assumption is that such reductions in these loadings, or their elimination through zero discharge, will
improve water and sediment quality for commercial species, even if these improvements cannot be accurately
quantified at present.
6.6 Endangered and Threatened Species
There are 51 endangered and threatened species within coastal areas of the Gulf of Mexico (Carmody,
1993; Stevens, 1993; Francesco, 1994; USFWS, 1992). Thirty-two threatened or endangered species occur in
Louisiana and Texas. These 32 species include:
• 12 endangered and 1 threatened species of birds
• 3 endangered and 4 threatened species of reptiles
• 4 endangered and 1 threatened species of mammals
• 1 endangered and 1 threatened species of fish
• 1 endangered and 1 threatened species of mollusks
• 3 endangered species of plants.
Exhibit 6-3 presents a complete list of the threatened and endangered species that occur hi the coastal areas of
the Gulf of Mexico.
-------
6- 11
Exhibit 6-3. Threatened and Endangered Species of the Gulf of Mexico
Listed Species
BIRDS
Brown Pelican
Arctic Peregrine Falcon
Bald Eagle
Piping Plover
Interior Least Tern
Attwater's Prairie Chicken
Ivory-billed Woodpecker
Red-cockaded Woodpecker
Black-capped Vireo
Aplomado Falcon
Eskimo Curlew
Bachman's Warbler
Whooping Crane
Wood Stork
Roseate Tern
Cape Sable Sparrow
REPTILES
Green Sea Turtle
Hawksbille Sea Turtle
Leatherback Sea Turtle
Loggerhead Sea Turtle
Kemp's (Atlantic) Ridley Sea Turtle
Ringed Sawback Turtle
American Alligator
MAMMALS
Jaguarundi
Ocelot
Florida
—
T
E
T
— .
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
E
T
E, CH
E
E
E
T
E
—
E, CH
~
—
Alabama
E
T
E
T
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
E
—
—
T
E
E
T
E
—
—
—
—
Mississippi
—
T
E
T
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
T
E
~
T
E
—
—
. —
—
Louisiana
E
T
E
T
E
—
E
E
E
E
E
E
—
—
—
—
T
E
E
T
E
T
T*
—
—
Texas
E
E
E
T
E
E
—
—
—
—
—
—
E
—
—
—
T
E
E
T
E
—
E
E
E = Endangered
C = Candidate
T - Threatened CH = Critical Habitat
* Classified as "Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance"
-------
6-12
Exhibit 6-3. Threatened and Endangered Species of the Gulf of Mexico (Continued)
Listed Species
Louisiana Black Bear
Florida Panther
Red Wolf
Key Deer
Florida Salt Marsh Bole
St. Andrew Beach Mouse
Santa Rosa Beach Mouse
Choctawhatchee Beach Mouse
Perdido Key Beach Mouse
Alabama Beach Mouse
Key Largo Cotton Mouse
Key Largo Woodrat
Lower Keys Rabbit
Florida Manatee
FISH
Gulf Sturgeon
Pallid Sturgeon
MOLLUSKS
Louisiana Pearlshell Mussell
Pink Mucket Mussell
Stock Island Tree Snail
INSECTS
Schaus' Swallowtail Butterfly
PLANTS
Texas Prairie Dawn
Slender Rush-pea
Louisiana Quillwort
Key Tree Cactus
Garber's Spurge
Florida
—
E
—
E
E
C
C
E, CH
E
—
E
E
E
E, CH
T
—
—
—
T
T
—
~
—
E
T
Alabama
—
E
—
—
—
—
—
—
E, CH
E, CH
—
—
—
E
T
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
Mississippi
—
:E
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
T
—
-
—
' —
—
—
—
—
—
-
Louisiana
T
E
E
—
-
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
T
E
T
E
—
—
—
—
E
—
-
Texas
—
--
—
-
—
—
-
—
—
—
-
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
E
E
—
—
—
E » Endangered
C = Candidate
T - Threatened CH = Critical Habitat
* Classified as "Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance"
-------
7-1
7. POPULATIONS EXPOSED TO COASTAL PRODUCED WATER DISCHARGES
Analyses of potentially exposed populations, including various socioeconomic and ethnic groups, were
performed to conduct exposure assessments for the risk assessment presented in Section 8 of this WQBA
and to address environmental equity issues related to produced water discharges from coastal oil and gas
facilities. Information on seafood consumption patterns is based on work performed for the Galveston Bay
Estuary Program (GBNEP) and includes data on high-rate consumers, assumed to be frequent recreational
fishermen and subsistence fishermen. This GBNEP study determined cumulative risk potentials at each of
four Galveston Bay sampling sites, which demonstrated contamination by several metals and PAHs found in
coastal oil and gas-derived produced water.
7.1 Recreational Anglers
Demographic data from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) are used to characterize the
number and proportion of recreational fishermen in Texas and Louisiana (USFWS, 1993a; 1993b). This
characterization includes those with low income levels (i.e., below $20,000) who may consume seafood at
higher than average rates. Exhibit 7-1 presents these demographic data for recreational fishermen in Texas
and Louisiana. These data indicate there is a total of 801,200 recreational anglers in the state of Louisiana.
There are 246,900 "recreational" anglers in Louisiana who have annual incomes below $20,000 (31% of all
recreational anglers in Louisiana; USFWS, 1993a). In the state of Texas, there are 2.65 million recreational
anglers; 372,600 of these recreational anglers have annual incomes below $20,000 (14% of all recreational
anglers in Texas). These low income recreational fishermen, and members of their households, are assumed
to consume much of then- catch. For the risk assessment in Section 8, these individuals are assumed to
consume seafood products at approximately the subsistence, or high-rate consumption level.
To calculate the population of these recreational anglers and their household members (see also
Exhibit 7-1), the number of recreational anglers was multiplied by the county-weighted average of persons
per household for the coastal counties of Texas and Louisiana (See Section 7-2, below). In Texas and
Louisiana, the total population of recreational anglers and their household members is estimated at 9,724,155
people. The population of low income recreational anglers and their households (annual incomes below
$20,000) in Texas and Louisiana is estimated at 1,758,033. The estimated population of middle and high
income recreational anglers and then- households (i.e., with annual incomes above $20,000) is 7,966,122.
These population estimates are used in the radium risk assessment and the monetization of human health
benefits presented in Section 8 of this document. Low income recreational anglers and their household
members constitute the estimated population of high-rate seafood consumers. Recreational anglers with
annual incomes greater than $20,000 and their household members constitute the estimated population of
average-rate consumers.
-------
7-2
Exhibit 7—1. Recreational Angler Characterization for Texas and Louisiana
State
Texas
Louisiana
Total
Recreational Anglers Average Estimated
Income Number % of Persons per Exposed
Range by Income3 State Anglers Household15 Population0
Under $20,000
Over $20,000
Entire State
Under $20,000
Over $20,000
Entire State
Under $20,000
Over $20,000
Both States
Total Texas Populationd
Total Louisiana Population*1
Total Texas and Louisiana Population
372,600
2,277,100
2,649,700
246,900
554,300
801,200
619,500
2,831,400
3,450,900
17,950,285
4,298,609
22,248,894
14%
86%
31%
69%
18%
82%
2.79 1,039,554
2.79 6,353,109
2.79 7,392,663
2.91 718,479
2.91 1,613,013
2.91 2,331,492
1,758,033
7,966,122
9,724,155
a Source: USFWS, 1993a; 1993b.
b County-weighted average (CACI, 1993); see Exhibit 7-2 for derivation.
0 Recreational anglers and household members.
d Source: 1993 population from CACI, 1993.
-------
7-3
7.2 Coastal Demographics
Census and demographic data could also be used to estimate exposed populations that may rely more
heavily on subsistence fishing and consume seafood products at a higher than average level. One potential
subpopulation of higher than average-rate seafood consumers are households below the poverty line ($12,674
annually for a family of four). Census and demographic data also are used to identify the number of
households in coastal parishes or counties of Louisiana and Texas and the average number of individuals per
household, from which estimates of total consumer populations are derived.
Exhibit 7-2 presents the demographic data for the coastal counties of Texas and Louisiana.
Approximately 84,000 family and non-family households are below the poverty level ($12,674 annual income
for a family of 4) in coastal Louisiana parishes (CACI, 1993). Based on the average persons per household
in each Louisiana coastal parish, a population of 243,461 persons may consume contaminated seafood at a
higher than average consumption rate. For all Texas coastal counties there are 587,126 households below the
poverty line (CACI, 1993), which, when multiplied by the average number of persons per household for each
coastal county, yields a total of 1,641,208 people below the poverty line. For coastal counties bordering
Galveston Bay in Texas (Chambers, Harris, Galveston, and Liberty), the same analysis yields approximately
363,498 households and 980,373 persons below the poverty line that may consume seafood at a higher than
average consumption rate. Another demographic group that has a cultural pattern of high seafood
consumption is Asians. There are approximately 139,00 persons of Asian ethnicity residing in the four
counties surrounding Galveston Bay.
Within the recreational fishing and demographic data sets, different income levels are used to group
subpopulations (i.e., $10,000 or $20,000 for the recreational angler data vs. $12,674 for the demographic
data). Also, an overlap in the subpopulation members occurs (i.e., recreational anglers with incomes below
$12,674) that cannot be adjusted for, resulting in a double counting of individuals in a combined data set.
Therefore, for the estimates of exposed populations used in the risk assessment, the data on recreational
anglers are used as the basis for exposed population estimates. This choice was made because it was
believed more compelling to assume high-rate seafood consumers to be both low income and recreational
angler households than to be low income households at large.
7.3 Consumption Rates and Patterns
A basic population exposure parameter in environmental health risk assessment methodologies is
exposure from ingestion of food. Thus, consumption rates of seafood potentially contaminated by produced
water pollutants were identified for this WQBA and used to estimate the potential risk to exposed
populations. A study for the Galveston Bay National Estuary Program is the basis for seafood consumption
estimates used in this WQBA. The GBNEP study estimates that the average consumer of Galveston Bay
seafood eats 15 grams per day (g/d). This is an aggregate of 12.3 g/d of finfish, 1.6 g/d of oysters, and
1.1 g/d of crabs (Brooks et al., 1992). The high rate consumer is defined as the 95th percentile of the
seafood consuming population, and is assumed to be the frequent recreational fisherman or the subsistence
-------
7-4
a
rt
"O
a
a
I
Q
c4
t-
C3
e
o
31
^i
CL,
^f
H!
25-§
CQ
ill
U1
i 73
I
l-i
°s
as«
I
i
— o
-•§
J§
I
I
•a
£
t
a
C5C5C3OOC5OOOOC5
OOC3O
CJ
OOOC3OOOO
•"3-f-ONOqi-HOONt-;
O'-HOOl'-HoiO'-l
CN
o,
CO
'ln>l>'ri~';fcr
vo f- oo 01 vo in o m
oo
oo
CO CO Ol C3 Ol CO OO "*
<-H ON 01 01 ON r- i—its
ON oi i-j, in^
' o vo" co" ^f o\
•*t ** i-4 Ol Ol
CO
§
OOt—
O CO O CS CO Ol O f-
ON ON ON CD co ON o r^
oi oi oi co oi oi co 01
ON co _
ON CO t- ON VO
5
cooxcsvocoON'— i
r-t«nOlC^
CO
rj- vo co cN •* o\
OO
o\
f * o i->
co o\ o co »/-, co
i-HO)
ss
1-4 VO
_ — CD
ON_ ON_ CO^ VC^ C3_ i-4^ CO
^H" co" in" ^ oo o co
oo •* vo co vo
CO ON 1-4 CO OO
T—i c^ in ol ^~
CO CO ON CO
01 01
ON co OO
i—I CO i—I
ojcoONcooolcocoooNvqol'-odn-oic^i-Hcoco
co in in in co in in vo
Ol ON C3 *-j
co C^ in ^
ol co co co
a
ol f; oo
ON co ON
Ol CO CO
o^
^^S^^^i^^iM^H^i^^OlOl^CO
CO ON O I""* Ov
^ O O\ CO ^^
r-H C**! *~4 ^"^ ^•"*
ra c^
o co
CM C^
CO
oo
3
|S
•E
ON-
S
a
« 00
-------
7-5
fisherman. The high-rate seafood consumer is estimated to consume 147.3 g/d. This is an aggregate of
94.5 g/d of finfish, 31.3 g/d of oysters, and 21.5 g/d of crabs (Brooks et al., 1992).
The GBNEP study also determined that an individual eating Galveston Bay seafood at the high-rate
consumption level would exceed an EPA benchmark risk level of 1 x 10"4 at each of four Galveston Bay
study sampling sites. (This benchmark has been used by EPA Headquarters for carcinogenic risk and by
EPA Region 6 for noncarcinogenic risk.) This determination is based on potential, cumulative risks from a
number of carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic substances identified at these sampling sites, including several
contaminants also detected in produced water effluent analyses (e.g. metals and PAHs). The average-rate
consumer exceeded the benchmark risk level of 1 x 10"4 at each of the four sampling sites for
noncarcinogenic substances, and at two of the four sampling sites for carcinogenic substances.
No population-specific consumption data were available for coastal Louisiana subsistence cultures
(i.e., Cajun/Creole) or for those ethnic groups in coastal Texas that are believed to maintain their cultural
and community-based, high-rate seafood consumption patterns (e.g., Asians; particularly Vietnamese).
-------
-------
8-1
8. RADIUM RISK ASSESSMENT AND MONETIZATION OF
POTENTIAL HUMAN HEALTH BENEFITS
8.1 Methodology
An assessment of the potential human health impacts from ingestion of seafood contaminated with
radium from discharged produced water is presented in this section. This assessment is an initial, first-order
assessment, based on both field data and plume dispersion modeling approaches to estimate seafood radium
contaminant levels. For the field data approach, organism radium levels are based on the average of
midpoints of the ranges of values detected in studies conducted in coastal Louisiana waters near produced
water outfalls. For the modeling approach, produced water dilutions are estimated from Texas and
Louisiana water quality modeling, based on mean flow rates and the average of mixing zone dilutions
available at 1- and 3-meter water depths (see Section 4 of this WQBA). Produced water radium
concentrations are based on EPA sampling data as described in Section 2.3.1, Exhibit 2-4, above.
Bioconcentration factors (BCFs) are obtained from an earlier EPA risk assessment of potential radium
health effects conducted for the offshore subcategory (EPA, 1993).
These estimated seafood radium levels are then combined with high-rate (147.3 g/d) and average-rate
(15 g/d) seafood consumption levels (disaggregated for fish, crab, and oyster consumption levels) that were
developed for the Galveston Bay National Estuary Program (Brooks et al., 1992). As per EPA methodology
(EPA, 1989; 1993), an exposure duration of 30 years for average-rate consumers, an exposure duration of 70
years for high-rate consumers, and carcinogenicity potency factors for radium 226 (1.2 x 10"10) and radium
228 (1.0 x 10~10) are used. Resulting individual carcinogenic risks from all seafood categories are adjusted,
also as per EPA methodology (EPA, 1993), by factors of 0.20 and 0.75, to account for ingestion of seafood
from various locations, some of which are not contaminated. These reductions are performed for both field
data and modeling approaches.
The estimated total exposed population used for this assessment is recreational anglers and their
household members in Texas and Louisiana (presented in Section 7, Exhibit 7-1). The total population of all
recreational anglers and their household members is 9.7 million. The population of recreational anglers and
their households in Texas and Louisiana with incomes below $20,000 is considered as a high-rate seafood
consumer group. This population totals 1.8 million individuals in coastal Texas and Louisiana. The
population of recreational anglers and their households with incomes above $20,000 is assumed to be
average-rate seafood consumers. This population totals 8.0 million individuals in coastal Texas and
Louisiana.
8.2 Results
Exhibit 8-1 presents the complete calculations and results of estimated increases of lifetime cancer
risks for high-rate and average-rate consumers using the modeling approach. The range presented for
-------
8-2
ogy
^=1
^-»
|
I
o
I
&
8
a
a
o
,^5
•o
a>
ea
•o
o
•s
I
oo
•O
0-
•§
eg
e
.0
•3
s
"0
,3
fi C3
3 O
•Rig
.P? -a
^-S j5
"3 uj
o .5
'S i§
3H
a>
•o
=3 frg
s a 2
S| 8
Hjjfi*
n
o d
5.2
« *J
o 2
& =
(SO
.1
•*•*
S
CO
C
a
tLc
^J
pa
0>
i
-*^
£
^ 1
J5 O
vo vo VO V) >O •*
«o^
c*;
s,
—
CM
2'
•»
S
Ix
8
a
a
^
CO
5
u,
8
a
M
•§•
1
»3
•*••<
O
IT
1
^^
-1
^SS'
'«>
§t
a
£
.2
*•*
3
s
§
>&
1
a
d
0 0
1 1
W W
VO 00.
C^ 0s!
t** t"**
^3 ^5
i |
w w
oo «/•>
vd t>
vo vo
0 0
1 1
W W
CO CO
o o o o o o
III III
WWW WWW
^5 *^J* O\ O*4 ^^ ^~f
^5 '^ C^ C1^ ^f" *™^
o o o o o o
T™4 f""( T™4 ^^ ^^ ^"^
III III
WWW WWW
o o o o o o
*T*S
§§§ 333
vo 13 oo S
1 (i< O O ' w O O
o
1
^*
*o
vo
o
1
W
^S;
T-C
VO
O
1
l>
8
\
VO
CS
1
05
•a
Combinei
O =2
1 1
W W
V> CM
C~ OO
>O If)
0 0
1 1
W W
C3 C4
CM tN
ir> rf
O O
1 1
W W
o\ i-5
o o o o o o
III III
WWW WWW
Vi CD( ^5j^ ON CM O\
co c^ Tf cc CM ^i*
I
* s s s ss s
£L i i i 111
JT W W W WWW
S O O O CD C3 C3
O CM CM CM O C5 C3
O
M
<*s
t-Z o o o o o o
it f~ C~ C- t> O l>
1
3
g «n oq ri; *r> oq ••*
rj co i— i co *•- *
1
d
o
•4^
.£3
05 O O O O O O
£ 00 O 0 • OO O 0
a cs co cs co
00
M
<4-l
rt
1 T-l T— 1 r-l TH 1-H T-H
JS T-l r-( T-l i-( ^H *-(
60
• f-T
E
CM CM CM OO OO OO
C — C — C-- CM CM CM
^H J-H ?-i CM CM CM
\o o oo o
o
1
W
*s
'*
•<*
o
1
W
^™4
CM
8
i
C3
CM
1
Oi
•n
Combine
1
o
co
a
I
es «o O ^3
O e8 o OS
S i ^.§
1111
O j*< «-4
w oo '2
S55g
-------
8-3
modeling estimates of risk (and also for field data estimates discussed below) result from the application of a
factor of 0.2 and 0.75 to the maximum lifetime excess cancer risk. The application of these factors accounts
for seafood consumption from noncontaminated sources. For the average-rate seafood consumer, the
estimated increased lifetime cancer risk, based on the modeling approach, ranges from 1.4 x 10"6 to 5 x 10 .
Estimated increased lifetime cancer risk due to Ra226+228 for the high-rate consumer (147.3 g/d) based on
the modeling approach ranges from 4.2 x 10"5 to 1.6 x 10"4.
Exhibit 8-2 presents projected excess lifetime cancer cases in Texas and Louisiana for estimated
exposed populations based on modeled data. Assuming that the population of 8.0 million middle and high
income recreational anglers and their households (i.e., with incomes above $20,000) are average-rate seafood
consumers, there are 11 to 43 excess lifetime cancer cases projected. Assuming that the population of Texas
and Louisiana recreational anglers and their households with incomes below $20,000 (1.8 million people) are
high-rate seafood consumers, there are 74 to 276 excess lifetime cancer cases projected. Thus, there is a
total of 85 to 319 lifetime excess cancer cases projected for Texas and Louisiana for combined average- and
high-rate seafood consumer populations using the modeling methodology.
Exhibit 8-3 presents the calculations for estimated increased lifetime cancer risks for high-rate and
average-rate consumers based on the average of midpoints of the ranges of radium contamination levels in
field samples of various organisms (fish, crabs, and oysters) hi coastal Louisiana. Estimated increased
lifetime cancer risk due to Ra226+228 ranges from 1.2 x 10"6 to 4.3 x 10"6 for the average-rate seafood
consumer (15 g/d) and from 4.0 x 10"5 to 1.5 x 10"4 for the high-rate seafood consumer (147.3 g/d). As per
EPA methodology (EPA, 1993b), this range is a result of the application of the factors of 0.2 and 0.75 to
account for consumption of seafood from noncontaminated sources.
Exhibit 8-4 presents the projected excess lifetime cancers for Louisiana and Texas populations of
recreational anglers and then- households, based on field measurements of radium contamination levels. If
the population of 1.8 million recreational anglers and then- households who have incomes below $20,000 are
considered to be high-rate seafood consumers, there will be an increase of 70 to 264 lifetime excess cancer
cases. Recreational anglers and their households in Texas and Louisiana with incomes above $20,000, who
are considered to be average-rate consumers, have a projected 10 to 34 excess lifetime cancer cases. The
projected increase of cancer cases for the entire population of recreational anglers and their household
members in Texas and Louisiana ranges from 80 to 298 excess lifetime cases.
Table 8-5 presents a summary of estimated lifetime excess cancer cases and the projected annual
lifetime cancer cases (based on a 70-year life span) for the populations of recreational anglers and then-
household members in the states of Texas and Louisiana. Using the modeling methodology, there will be an
increase of 1.06 to 3.94 cancer cases per year for high-rate seafood consumers. Using the field sample data,
there will be an increase of 1.00 to 3.80 cancer cases per year for high-rate consumers. For average-rate
consumers, there will be an excess of 0.16 to 0.61 cancer cases per year using the modeling methodology.
Using the field sample data, there will be 0.14 to 0.49 excess cancer cases per year for the average-rate
-------
8-4
.0
8
a
IH
a
S3
8
O
o
^"
§
CO
*rt ^
aj *O 2
«- W .3
05 CO «3
S ° "3
||1
a> O w
> 52 3
<*i
III
S S C!
t£2 3 ^C
rjj ^** Q
•I
V-. CLi
t* fr*
CO CO VO
VO ^H f-
1-* »H CO
CO O -«3-
••* co r--
•* ON CO
ON CO ^H
"^" ON CO ON CO CO
>O C~- CO O i-l CO
oCo6"o6" co"co"vo"
_T *j vo" 1-4- 1>
O\ ^H O\ ^H
C*; ON C-: C\
f™^ g™^ f^ <—% ^^ f^^
VO ON in r-l CO '*'
co"vo"oC t^"rf i-T
C-- Tl" i— t C^* *O CO
CO CO VO CO >O OO
co" co"
w w
O O
co co
*v *%
i i
8 8
a a
* :?
S2 S3
ID O
VO ON U-)
vo^-^t, i-^
co" 1-5" •^f
ON CO CO
r^c-foC
giS
co co
1
tjQ ^^ ^^ ^^
^j C^C^GX
«—4 O\ t— 1 O
ci5 ^r ^3 *o
C \^ oo ^?t*
.2 ci e*f
"3
o
^
si
^
^
CO
A
+
1
y
o C
G 03
•*->
-------
8-5
^v
ethodolog
S
tJD
•M
CL,
1
V3
2
jg
1—4
1
a
os
8
c
<3
.1
•*-*
s§
hJ
•o
u
CO
«
V
J
13
«
s
i§
<^i
Exhibit 8-
.0
g
•g
rrt
CU
a
•s
S
1
S "g
1.1
|i
H *
w g
•S v3
j§ «a
3 3
"*•
•S
•** *i^
"3 D* g
S3 fl) t>
1^^
2 §
5 *f?
o ^
& s
DJ ^5
§
S-*i
|C
O
^_^
s,
CO
S
1
•52
OS
j^
8
d
Q
1
"-S
^^
^
CS
gL
^— '
|¥
a
,v
*§ -2
O fed
£ s
a 2
*3
la
11
CO M
.1 m
Si
en
>>
i
§
T*
*-*
^
u
>a
1
o
o o
? T
a a
•* p
C1^ C^
t- r~
0 0
a a
0 0
1 1
a a
i-5 i-5 \o
^
•3
S o o o o o o
"2 a a a a a a
2 o o o o o o
lg CM CM CM O O O
I
"
•
^ 0 0 ooo
\~s
j^
2
S
a
a
Q in oq i* in oq •*
^* ff, l-H f^l 1-H
1
5
J
,5 0 0 0 OOO
»3 O O O O O O
£ S'S'S1 2~°r°r
A
1
1
ja
.£P
£
t- CM OO t» CM OO
^2 C5 O *"5 O C5
0 .. 0
^o o oo ^
ol OS
g
1
a
in
T-5
0
1
a
o
o
1
a
o
CM
00
CM
1
ol
CM
1
CS
OS
13
Combine
-------
8-6
"Is
CO
6
l-c
1
o
.§
13
s
s
1
1
^^ vO
o ^
'•S ^2
§
i
S^
is-
°ri
a f*
B
CO
a
!>§
« CO
•a a
•2 a> *3
i °-f
sd'i'
*4 H-4
•0 . £2
•2 S> J2
d *B "So
j|4?
W *o
a
^*
•>-> C3
I*"!,
j.C3 O
H P«
\o oo •»*
VI O VO
t-H T-l CO
CO Os O
•* co r-
co cc
oo co o
Tf OS ff, OS C<5 CO
>O tS r*% O. TH C0» .
oCoo'oo' c
co* T-T Ti"1
os tr> co
f<~. CO C-
t> CO Os
OS T-l
F- Os
co co
o o o
O O CD
t-^ co_ o\
^* O VI
S2
If
^^
e
.2 **
1 1 i 3
0} Q) O O
3
o
&
-------
8-7
.s
s
I
•§
es
52
I
OO
•2 r^
g^
•§•8
£ »
W
o
vs
o
c*
u
U
««U
a 8 Sa
x es U
cs .J5 8 S
a
&®
3
a
«'•§j
U*5
•o
o
c
&
r> T-H ON
fi o o
vo o vo "^
o o i-J '•"!
TH T-! O O
VO
VO
O fC
T-l OO
10 C-J,
"ffi'ffl
S
ON ON
F- >T)
ss a
od'oo'
If
•O V)
S S
•ee- ^e-
V A
§ § I i
gji Q <^> Q
"too o "eb 2
CM C C3
*3 i_< 5 i—i
§•3
-2o |S
ON 00
*-< ON
ff. CM
O V) O
i-< OO OO
ON
OO •*
too too — —<
eS cS 22
a> o ro -O
33 HH
cs
-------
8-8
consumers. For the total population of recreational anglers (low and middle/high income) and their
household members, there will be an increase of 1.21 to 4.56 cancer cases per year in Texas and Louisiana
due to radium contamination using the modeling methodology. There will be a total increase of 1.14 to 4.3
cancer cases per year due to radium contamination in Texas and Louisiana using the field measurements of
contamination levels.
Table 8-6 presents the annual monetized benefits for cancer case avoidance assuming the lifetime cost
of each cancer case ranges from $2 million to $10 million. The annual monetized benefits of cancer case
avoidance for high-rate consumers in Texas and Louisiana, based on the modeling methodology, range from
$2.1 million to $39 million, with a range of midpoint values from $6.4 million to $24 million. Using field
sample measurements, the annual monetized benefits of cancer case avoidance for high-rate consumers in
Texas and Louisiana is valued at $2.0 million per year to $38 million per year, with a range of midpoint
values from $6.0 million per year to $23 million per year.
The annual monetized benefits of cancer case avoidance in Texas and Louisiana for the average-rate
seafood consumers, using the modeling methodology, are valued at $0.3 million to $6.1 million, with a range
of midpoint values from $1.0 million, to $3.7 million. Using field sample measurements, projected cancer
case avoidance for average-rate seafood consumers is valued at $0.3 million per year to $4.9 million per year,
with range of a midpoint values from $0.8 million per year to $3.0 million per year.
Using the modeling methodology, the total annual monetized benefits for cancer case avoidance in
Texas and Louisiana is $2.4 million to $46 million, with a range of midpoint values from $7 million to
$27 million. For field data, total annual cancer case avoidance is valued at $23 million to $43 million, with a
range of midpoint values from $7 million to $26 million.
83 Evaluation of the Assessment
The assessment and monetized risk reductions projected for the selected option is; a first-order analysis
based on available data. The assessment is qualified both by the paradigm used in its conceptual approach
and the extent and quality of the data used as input to the risk assessment. This assessment uses two
approaches to estimating tissue levels of radium in seafood products consumed by humans — a modeling
approach and a field sampling and analysis approach. For the field sampling approach, tissue radium levels
are based on the midpoint of maximum and minimum tissues levels derived from available data. These data
are adequate for the assessment. However, field data on collected organisms is not extensive.
For the modeling approach, data and analytical requirements include: effluent radium levels, surface
water dispersion modeling, and aquatic biocencentration factors. Data on effluent radium levels in produced
water are sufficient for this assessment. Input data and the surface water model used to estimate available
dilution are adequate for this assessment. Modeling is based on operational and environmental data (e.g.,
discharge rate, effluent density, pipe diameter, port location, water depth, current speed, salinity, etc.)
representing average or typical conditions. Thus, only a subset of the subcategory-wide variation in these
-------
8-9
"g
S
a
8
a
a
§
I
§
a
o
I
w
I
I
I
.1
&
I
£
oo
ON
ON V>
t> t>
•60- •
It
2 g
II
g-S
3 5
T-J IT;
ON OO
•6"* -SO-
S3 2
o E
fi
It
.a o •»
•*-* s >^
C3
§
0 0
o oq r- f-
T-H C5 -6^-60
a> a
§."§> ft? 1-1
II
e°& fff- g'f
^3 C iS C
0> C3 O es
•O W5 13 CO
2 [3 2 [3
C3
2
c
0
§
S
S
•4-*
s is valued a
1
e8
T3
1
CD
w
S
§,
CO
S
a
U4
1
a
0
S
1
(•^
1
.1
«
•a
8
other than <
I
-------
8-10
parameters are modeled. However, the parameters selected are believed to adequately represent the
industry as a whole. The model selected (CORMK Version 2.1) is considered satisfactory without any
further modification for the type of discharge conditions that are thought to represent the typical case,
specifically, where the discharge plume impacts the bottom of the receiving water body.
Human exposure assessments are then based on assumption patterns of these seafood product types
(fish, crabs, and oysters) and projected radium levels in finfish, crustaceans, and bivalves. Field data were
available and analyzed within these three categories. Tissue levels of radium in seafood from model
projections are based on available BCF data specific to these three seafood groups. Average and upper 95th
percentile values were used for this assessment. Limitations on these data are that field data are limited in
their extent. BCFs are available for all three seafood groups, but supporting data also are not extensive. In
addition, BCFs only apply to water-mediated bioaccumulation. Produced water impacts are largely sediment-
related, and the BCFs used do not account for sediment routes of exposure (ingestion; higher pore water
concentrations than projected by surface water dilution models) or ingestion of contaminated food by finfish,
crabs, or oysters.
Consumption data are derived from consumption patterns in the Gulf of Mexico region. These data
are applicable and sufficient for this assessment. The methodology for risk estimation and risk reduction
monetizations are based on standard EPA methodologies. Agency specified carcinogenic potency factors,
exposure durations, and valuations of life estimates are used. Discussion of these factors are found the EPA
guidance that is cited previously in this section of the WQBA.
One consideration that requires more data than are currently available relates to the time-course of
recovery after produced water discharges have ceased. The physical and biological response kinetics of
Ra226 and Ra228 are not known in sufficient detail to assess the rate of recovery of affected ecosystems.
Dispersion and decay of these pollutants; and sedimentation, capping, and complexation phenomena will
reduce their availability to consumed species. Depuration in formerly exposed organisms will occur.
However, the rates of these processes are largely unknown. For this rule, total impacts and recovery are
calculated and averaged as a snap-shot, i.e., assumed to occur over a one year time period. This renders the
ecological and human health benefits assessment comparable to the technology and economic assessments as
all use annualized (i.e., average) costs. This issue is discussed further in Section 9.5 of the WQBA.
-------
9-1
9. TRINITY BAY CASE STUDY OF ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS
AND MONETIZED BENEFITS
A case study of a produced water outfall to a coastal embayment in Texas is presented in this section.
This study has sufficiently developed spatial and temporal data on benthic community measures to develop
estimates of ecological impact associated with this outfall. Based on estimates of produced water flow at this
facility and EAD estimates of average, industry-wide unit compliance costs (Le., costs of compliance in terms
of $ per barrel of produced water disposed) for reinjection of produced water, compliance costs for the zero
discharge option are estimated for this case study facility. Based on the ecological valuation developed in
Section 6 of this report and estimates of ecological impacts developed in this section, monetized ecological
benefits also are estimated for the zero discharge option for this case study facility. Using this case study as
an estimator for the industry, linear projections of Gulf of Mexico-wide compliance costs and monetized
ecological benefits for the zero discharge option are projected.
9.1 Description of the Trinity Bay Study
A study of a coastal subcategory oil and gas production facility located in Trinity Bay, Texas has been
performed (Armstrong et al., 1977). This 21-month study was conducted at the C-2 separator platform
located in Trinity Bay, Texas from April of 1974 to December of 1975. The separator platform was located
in 8 feet of water, with a range in the bay of 6 feet to 9 feet. The authors noted that during the study, the
platform discharged 4,100-10,000 bpd of produced water (midpoint = 7,050 bpd). The outfall was located
3 feet from the bottom. Sediment texture in the study area was uniform, with all stations classified as silty-
clay except one that was classified as sandy-silty-clay. From November of 1974 to April of 1975, a temporary
second outfall was used, located 900 feet NW of the C-2 separator outfall. This outfall was located within
400 feet of sampling station A-l.
Sediment benthic community analyses and sediment total naphthalenes (naphthalene through dimethyl
naphthalenes) analyses were performed monthly (except for April and November of 1975). Benthic grab
samples (0.023 m2) were obtained at 15 stations located from 50 feet to 19,000 feet from the C-2 separator
along 3 transects (Exhibit 9-1). Benthic total abundance and species richness were assessed. A 0.5 mm sieve
was used to separate benthic organisms from April to November of 1974, when the sieve size was reduced to
0.25 mm for the remainder of the study. Sediment naphthalene analyses also were performed using two
methods. From April to November of 1974, sediment was obtained by scooping the top layer of sediment
from the grab sampler; a 5°C/24-hour, n-hexane static extraction protocol was used. Beginning in
December of 1974, a core sampler was used for obtaining sediment samples, and in addition to the 5°C/24-
hour static extraction, a 20°C/72-hour extraction with continuous shaking was performed. Total
naphthalenes were determined by UV spectrophotometry.
The authors observed a distance-dependent decrease in total sediment naphthalenes. Exhibit 9-2
presents a scatter plot of sediment naphthalenes concentrations versus distance for 20°C/72-hour extraction
data. Exhibit 9-3 presents a plot of mean sediment naphthalene concentrations versus distance for both
-------
9-2
Exhibit 9-1. Map of Trinity Bay Showing Location of C-2 Separator Platform and Extent of Transects
LAKE • •
'•• ANAHUAC.'-V'
T R I N I T Y
-------
9-3
Exhibit 9-2. Scatter Plot: Sediment Naphthalene vs Distance from Outfall, All Samples, 20° C/72hr
Extraction
100
S 10
8
£
13
•a
a>
CO
0.1
n
[
i
[
1
i
1
1 E
E
9 j
[
I
t
]
, [
' t
1 i
i i
1
] E
3 d
]
i
i T
fl fc! T
1 t] ;;
IS r
3 t] ME
1 1 I
] . F! E
i
a c
]
1
r
]
i
1
!
t
[
1
i
i
I
! E
3 !
f
[
[
p |
] "
t it j
E )
1 EJE)
5" .
5
]
a
i
i
10 100
_ Mean concentrations
1000 10000
Distance (m)
_e_ All Stations, 20C/72h Extraction
-------
9-4
Exhibit 9-3. Mean Sediment Naphthalene vs Distance from Outfall, Distance-Averaged
25
WO
I15
CC
8-
10
a
o
G
•i—i
•a
a>
CO
0
0
3 4
Thousands
Distance (m)
5C/24h Extraction
20C/72h Extraction
-------
9-5
5°C/24-hour and 20°C/72-hour extractions. Exhibit 9-4 presents these same data for both extraction
protocols in a log:log format. The authors noted a reasonably consistent, 3- to 5-fold higher level of
extracted naphthalenes in samples treated at 20 °C for 72 hours. GC-MS analyses indicated the 20°C/72-
hour extraction method recovered 90-95% of the total naphthalenes.
Benthic abundance and species richness were found to be correlated with total sediment naphthalenes
(Exhibit 9-5). The 50-foot station was devoid of biota, and stations within 500 feet were severely depressed
(< 25% peak levels for both community parameters). These observations were thought surprising because
analysis of receiving water samples at the 50-foot station indicated a 2,000-fold dilution of naphthalene
compared to effluent levels. However, although effluent samples showed a total naphthalenes level of 1.62
ppm while the 50-foot station water column samples showed 1.6 ppb total naphthalenes, the 50-foot station
sediment samples showed total naphthalenes of 18.7 ppm.
The authors also observed that the temporary second outfall produced a rapid buildup of sediment
naphthalenes at Station A-l, which remained unusually high at least 6 months after the discharge from this
outfall ceased. The authors noted the use of this second outfall may have created an additional depressed
area equal to that of the single platform outfall, rather than minimising the effect of the single outfall.
9.2 Case Study Approach
This study site had sufficient temporal and spatial data, both field and operational, to assess benthic
community impacts from this facility. Spatial impact assessments are developed for benthic abundance and
species richness. Because the sieve size was changed during the course of the study, two sets of analyses are
performed, one for the 0.25 mm mesh size sieve and one for the 0.50 mm mesh size sieve. Based on field
measurements of benthic abundance and species richness at various distances from the outfall (Exhibit 9-6),
linear interpolations of reductions in these community parameters are derived for the study area. Exhibits
9-7 and 9-8 present benthic abundance and species richness versus distance for the 0.50 mm sieve and the
0.25 mm sieve sizes, respectively. Exhibit 9-9 presents the results of both sieve sizes for abundance versus
distance; Exhibit 9-10 presents the same data for species richness versus distance.
The reductions in benthic abundance and species richness are expressed as an aggregate, normalized,
percentage reduction hi benthic abundance and species richness within the observed impact radius. The
impact radius is defined as the minimum distance at which stations exhibit 100% benthic abundance or
species richness. This normalized percentage reduction in benthic abundance or species richness, when
applied to the total area circumscribed within the impact radius, determines the reduction in area!
productivity. This reduction in area! productivity is expressed as the number of equivalent acres affected
(i.e., a 10% reduction over 500 acres would result in 50 equivalent acres affected). Based on the different
sieve sizes used and the differences in benthic abundance and species richness as community impact
measures, a range of equivalent acreage affected is developed.
-------
9-6
Exhibit 9-4. Log Mean Sediment Naphthalene vs Log Distance from Outfall, Distance-Averaged
100
s 10
^o
"«
we
• v»*
•o
CO
0.1
10
100
1000
Distance (m)
. 5C/24h Extraction _B_ 20C/72h Extraction
10000
-------
9- 7
Exhibit 9-5. Fractional Benthic Abundance and Species Richness vs Sediment Naphthalenes
1.2
0
10 15
Sediment Naphthalene (mg/kg)
20
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
25
m Fractional Species Richness D Fractional Abundance
Annual averages, 1.0 = max avg annual value
All stations included
-------
9-8
Exhibit 9-6. Trinity Bay, Texas Produced Water Outfall Fractional Abundance and Species Richness Data
Distance
Station (m)
Total Abundance and Species Richness —
1 15.2
AO 76.2
X 76.2
Al 152
A 152
1.5 183
2 457
B 457
A2 686
C 915
3 915
4 1,677
D 3,963
5 5,183
A3 5,793
Total Abundance and Species Richness —
1 15.2
X, AO 76.2
A, Al 152
1.5 183
B,2 457
A2 686
3, C 915
4 1,677
D 3,963
5 . 5,183
A3 5,793
Relative Abundance and Species Richness
1 15.2
X, AO 76.2
A, Al 152
1.5 183
B,2 457
A2 686
3, C 915
4 1,677
D 3,963
5 5,183
A3 5,793
Area @ unit (100%) biol. density
(m*x 100% relative biol. density)
Area @ fractional biol. density
(m2x 100% fractional density)
Areally-reduced biol. density
Acres within impact radius
Acre— equivalents affected
0.50 mm
Average
Abundance
All Stations
7
10
1
6
7
8
21
17
18
39
26
23
43
28
19
Sieve
Average
Spp Richness
1.78
1.11
0.56
2.22
2.00
1.56
2.56
3.78
3.00
4.11
4.00
3.22
5.33
3.33
2.00
0.25 mm Sieve
Average
Abundance
58
110
87
106
182
253
472
462
677
684
592
703
491
510
596
Average
Spp Richness
4.09
9.27
6.36
6.18
9.55
11.36
10.45
13.00
13.91
15.45
12.82
12.45
14.55
10.36
11.00
Distance — Averaged Stations •
7
5
7
8
19
18
33
23
43
28
19
1.78
0.83
2.11
1.56
3.17
3.00
4.06
3.22
5.33
3.33
2.00
58
98
144
253
467
677
638
703
491
510
596
4.09
7.82
7.86
11.36
11.73
13.91
14.14
12.45
14.55
10.36
11.00
- Distance — Averaged Stations
0.16
0.12
0.16
0.20
0.44
0.43
0.77
0.55
1.00
0.66
0.44
49,364,647
37,958,835
23.1%
12,192
2,817
0.33
0.16
0.40
0.29
0.59
0.56
0.76
0.60
1.00
0.62
0.38
49,364,647
39,237,664
20.5%
12,192
2,501
0.08
0.14
0.21
0.36
0.66
0.96
0.91
1.00
0.70
0.73
0.85
8,830,713
8,021,322
9.2%
2,181
200
0.28
0.54
0.54
0.78
0.81
0.96
0.97
0.86
1.00
0.71
0.76
49,364,648
46,070,207
6.7%
12,192
817
-------
9-9
Exhibit 9-7. Fractional Abundance/Species Richness vs. Distance, 0.50 mm Mesh Sieve Size
1.2
C*
I
•s
80.8
'§
t
u r> c.
a o.o
8
3 0.4
I
0.2
34
Thousands
Distance from Outfall (m)
. Abundance, 0.50mm mesh sieve
Species Richness, 0.50mm mesh sieve
-------
9-10
Exhibit 9-8. Fractional Abundance/Species Richness vs. Distance, 0.25 mm Mesh Sieve Size
12
3 4
Thousands
Distance from Outfall (m)
. Abundance, 0.25mm mesh sieve
Species Richness, 0.25mm mesh sieve
-------
9-11
Exhibit 9-9. Fractional Abundance vs. Distance, 0.25 mm and 0.50 mm Mesh Sieve Size
1.2
3 4
Thousands
Distance from Outfall (m)
. Abundance, 0.50mm mesh sieve
Abundance, 0.25mm mesh sieve
-------
9-12
Exhibit 9-10. Fractional Species Richness vs. Distance, 0.25 mm and 0.50 mm Mesh Sieve Size
12
12345 6
Thousands
Distance from Outfall (m)
. Species Richness, 0.50mm mesh sieve 0 Species Richness, 0.25mm mesh sieve
-------
9-13
To examine the compliance costs for this case study facility, compliance costs for this facility are
derived from the estimated flow at the facility and the average, industry-wide estimate of per barrel
compliance costs for reinjection of produced water. The range for total recreational and commercial value
derived for Galveston Bay, developed for the Galveston Bay National Estuary Program (see Section 6.4), and
the estimated acreage of Galveston Bay are used to estimate the range of per-acre ecological values. These
ecological values per acre are then applied to the case study's estimates of the equivalent area affected by the
produced water discharge to estimate the monetized ecological benefit of reinjecting the discharge for this
case study.
The results of this analysis are also scaled to an industry-wide, coastal subcategory level for the Gulf of
Mexico. This projection is based on the assumption of industry-wide impacts proportional to those observed
in this case study. Thus the acreage affected, as determined for this case study, is proportionated to the
estimated flow for this study, and then expanded to the total flow for all operators in the coastal subcategory
in the Gulf of Mexico. The Galveston Bay ecological value per acre is then applied to the estimated total
acreage affected for the coastal subcategory to determine the Gulf-wide ecological cost of produced water
discharges. Industry-wide costs for coastal operations in the Gulf of Mexico are provided by EAD.
9.3 Trinity Bay, Texas Case Study Assessment
Differences in distance-to-background estimates occur between two benthic sieve mesh sizes used in
the study. The larger mesh size (0.50 mm) results in clear impacts to about 4,000 m for both total benthic
abundance and species richness (see Exhibit 9-7). The smaller mesh size (0.25 mm, which captures smaller
and earlier life stage forms) shows a faster recovery for both benthic abundance and species richness and, for
abundance, suggests an impact radius of only 1,677 meters (see Exhibit 9-8). Projections of benthic impact
are, therefore, run for all four scenarios (both total abundance and species richness for both 0.25 mm and
0.50 mm mesh size data) and are summarized hi Exhibit 9-11. For 0.50 mm mesh size data, benthic
abundance/species richness are respectively reduced 23% and 21% within a 3,963-m impact radius,
amounting to 2,817 and 2,501 equivalent acres affected. For 0.25 mm mesh size data, species richness was
reduced 7% within a 3,963-meter impact radius, for 814 equivalent acres affected; benthic abundance was
reduced 9% within a 1,677-meter impact radius for 200 equivalent acres affected. Thus, the equivalent
acreage affected at this case study facility ranges from 200 to 2,817 acres (midpoint of the extremes = 1,509
acres; mean = 1,583 acres).
The Trinity Bay facility discharged produced water at an average, estimated rate of 7,050 bpd over 21
months. Based on the coastal effluent guidelines cost analysis for Gulf of Mexico facilities of $20,291,749 and
an estimated 489,237 bbl per day of produced water generated, and average cost of $0.11 per bbl disposed is
derived. Based on this per bbl disposal cost and an average flow of 7,050 bpd at the Trinity Bay facility, the
projected annual compliance cost for this operator is $283,058. An assessment of Galveston Bay (of which
Trinity Bay is a part) suggests the annual economic value of all recreational uses of Galveston Bay ranges
from $115 million - $250 million (see Section 6.4). The area of Galveston Bay is 342,275 acres, resulting in
annual recreational value ranging from $336 to $730 per acre with a midpoint value of $533/acre. A study
-------
9-14
Exhibit 9-11. Total Abundance and Species Richness for 0.25 mm and 0.50 mm Mesh Size Data
Sampling Period
Sieve Size (mm)
Community Metric
Impact Radius (m)
Reduction in Biological Density (%)
Equivalent Acres Affected
4/74 - ll/74a
0.50
Abundance
3,963b
23.1%
2,817°
0.50
Species
Richness
3,963b
20.5%
2,501°
12/74 - 12/75a
0.25
Abundance
l,677b
9.2%
200°
0.25
Species
Richness
3,963b
6.7%
814C
* Samples taken monthly, except 6/75 and 11/75
b Based on the maximum, distance-averaged community metric
0 Acre equivalents based on a linear proportionation of percentage affected and area of the impact radius
(i.e., a 10% reduction in abundance over 2,000 acres results in 200 acre-equivalents affected)
-------
9-15
conducted for MMS (1991) estimates the value of wetlands (NOTE: not open bays) ranging from $9,000 to
$17,000 per acre.
The range of projected compliance costs and monetized ecological benefits for this case study facility
are summarized in Exhibit 9-12. At the extremes (minimum ecological value/acre and equivalent acres
affected; maximum ecological value/acre and maximum equivalent acres affected), the monetized ecological
benefits range from $67,200 to $2,056,410 for this facility. At an estimated compliance costs of $283,058,
these extremes are approximately 4.2-fold higher than the minimum ecological benefit and about 7.3-fold
lower than the maximum ecological benefit. Using the midpoint of the projected impact area (1,509
equivalent acres affected) and the full range of ecological value/acre ($336-$730/acre), monetized ecological
benefits of $507,024 to $1,101,570 result (midpoint = $804,297). Using this intermediate range, projected
ecological benefits range from 1.2-fold to 2.7-fold greater than compliance costs (2-fold at the midpoint of
this range). Using a different range of intermediate values, based on the midpoint of ecological value
($533/acre) and the full range of equivalent areas affected (200-2,817 acres), monetized ecological benefits
range from $106,600 to $1,501,461 (the midpoint value = $804,297). Thus for this analysis projected
ecological benefits range from 25% of projected compliance costs to 3.6-fold greater than compliance costs
(also 2-fold greater at the midpoint of the range).
9.4 Gulf of Mexico-wide Assessment
One approach to scaling up the data available for the Trinity Bay case study is to assume a linear
relationship among all parameters (i.e., flow, environmental impact, and costs). Although sparse data exist to
assess this assumption, the few impact and cost data available indicate this to be a plausible assumption.
Using this assumption of impacts proportional to the Trinity Bay study (Exhibit 9-13), the total current BPT
flow for the coastal subcategory in Texas is projected at 73,318 bpd (10.4-fold greater than the Trinity Bay
case study flow). The range of acreage affected, therefore is 2,080 to 29,297 acres, with a midpoint of 15,694
acres. For Louisiana, the total BPT flow is projected at 415,919 bpd (59-fold greater than the Trinity Bay
case study flow). The range of acreage affected is 11,799 to 166,191 acres, with a midpoint of 89,024 acres.
Total Texas and Louisiana acreage affected ranges from 14,607 acres to 195,488 acres, with a midpoint of '
104,718 acres.
To estimate resource values for the Gulf-wide assessment, a different approach was used. Because the
majority of produced water flows occur in Louisiana, and Galveston Bay resource values may not reflect
Louisiana values, more appropriate resource values were used. A review of wetland valuations conducted for
MMS (MMS, 1991) that includes Louisiana resources was used instead of the Galveston Bay study cited
above. Based on this MMS study, wetland values range from $57 to $940 per acre per year (with a median
value of $410 per acre per year) in 1990 dollars).
Assuming the median ecological value estimate of $410/acre and the full range of ecological impact
areas affected (i.e., using the 200- to 2,817-acre estimates from the Trinity Bay study as the basis for the
Gulf-wide assessment), ecological benefits of the zero discharge option range from $6.0 million to $80
-------
9-16
Exhibit 9-12. Summary of Trinity Bay Case Study Compliance Costs and Monetized Ecological Benefits
Compliance Costs
Estimated How: 7,050 bbl/d; 2,573,250 bbl/yr @ $0.11/bbl reinjected
Estimated Annual Compliance Cost: $283,058
Ecological Benefits
Estimated Recreational Value, per acrea: minimum - $336
midpoint - $533
maximum - $730
Estimated Equivalent Acres Affected*5: minimum - 200
midpoint - 1,509
maximum - 2,817
a: Based on Galveston Bay total recreational values of $115-$250 million and 342,275 acres
b: See Exhibit 9-11
Estimated Ecological Benefit
of Zero Discharge Option
Minimum value/acre ($336)
Midpoint value/acre ($533)
Maximum value/acre ($730)
Impact Area
Minimum
(200 acre)
$67,200
$106,600
$146,000
Midpoint
(1,509 acre)
$507,024
$804,297
$1,101,570
Maximum
(2,817 acre)
$946,512
$1,501,461
$2,056,410
-------
9-17
Exhibit 9-13. Summary of Gulf-Wide Projected Monetized Ecological Benefits, Zero Discharge Option
Trinity Bay Case Study Flow, bpd:
Total Texas Flow, bpd:
Total Louisiana Flow, bpd:
7,050
73,318 = 10.4x Trinity Bay Flow
415,919 = 59.0x Trinity Bay How
Trinity Bay Estimated Impacts
(equivalent acres)
Projected Texas Impacts
Projected Louisiana Impacts
Projected Total Impacts
(equivalent acres)
Minimum
200
2,808
11,799
14,607
Midpoint
1,509
15,694
89,024
104,718
Maximum
2,817
29,297
166,191
195,488
Projected Monetized Ecological Benefits,
Zero Discharge Option, $ million
(Galveston Bay Ecological Values)
$57/acrea
$410 acre
$940/acre
Minimum
Impact Area
$0.83
$6.0
$13.7
Midpoint
Impact Area
$6.0
$42.9
$98.4
Maximum
Impact Area
$11.1
$80.2
$184
a in 1990 dollars
-------
9-18
million, with a midpoint of $43 million (1990 dollars). Assuming the midpoint impact area estimate of 1,509
equivalent acres and the full range of ecological valuations per acre (i.e., the $57 to $910/acre estimates from
the GBNEP study), ecological benefits of the zero discharge option range from $6.0 million to $98 million,
with the same estimate of $43 million using the midpoints for both valuation and impact ranges. At the
minimum and maximum resource valuations of the MMS study ($57 and $940 per acre, respectively) and
impact area estimates (200 and 2,817 equivalent acres as the basis for the Gulf-wide assessment,
respectively), monetized ecological benefits range from $0.8 million to $184 million (1990 dollars).
9.5 Evaluation of the Assessment
The Trinity Bay study represents an extensive and useful examination of point source impacts of a
produced water discharge presenting a reasonably coherent collection of chemical and biological impact data.
The study includes several methodological alterations (changes in extraction protocols and benthic sieve mesh
sizes). These alterations generate uncertainty over the exact extent of potential impacts (i.e., the distance to
a background or reference condition). The approach used to mitigate this uncertainty in the WQBA is to
present the analysis in terms of a range of possible impacts.
An issue with respect to the subcategory-wide impact estimate is the central assumption that impacts
will be linearly related to flow. This assumption cannot be readily tested with available data. However, the
case study presented data that indicated when the discharge flow was separated to two outfall locations, a
second focus of impact quickly developed and did not quickly attenuate. These data support the assumption
that impacts are proportional to flow, although they do not unequivocally prove the validity of this
assumption. This case study appears to be a reasonable basis for assuming impact from outfalls in Texas,
based on the general nature of receiving waters in Texas (i.e., shallow bays). Its reasonableness for
estimating impacts in certain receiving waters in Louisiana (e.g., canals and marshes) may be is less certain.
With respect to the monetization of ecological impacts, a factor not explicitly considered is
benthiawater column coupling. The assumption of this WQBA is that the total recreational use value is
applied to benthic acreage that is 100% affected. This probably is not the case for certain recreational
values, e.g., for hiking or bird-watching values.
EPA lacks data to estimate how quickly biological resources would recover following implementation
of controls, but calculates total benefits assuming they are fully realized. The temporal dynamics of both
impacts and benefits assessments are an issue relevant to the human health risk assessment (and to the
projected ecological benefits assessment, discussed below, as well). For the assessments of benefits in this
WQBA, the methodology uses a one year "snap-shot" to be consistent with the methodology for estimating
the costs of the rule. However, this approach can be interpreted to imply that all benefits are restored within
a one-year time-frame. While this assumption may be true in some cases, it will not be valid in all cases.
Few data on recovery times exist on produced water impacts. However, some data indicate recovery times
(as measured by sediment chemistry alterations) may be as long as several years. Thus, allocating the full
value of annual monetized benefits within one year following cessation of produced water discharges may
-------
9-19
appear to overestimate the potential annual benefits in cases where incomplete recovery has occurred. This
analysis does not attempt to identify or allocate benefits on a yearly basis, but merely averages total benefits
so that benefits may be compared to costs that are developed using the same approach.
The temporal dynamics of produced water impacts are complicated, and data scant. For cases in
which impacts are incompletely recovered within one year (and benefits commensurately reduced to the level
of recovery which has occurred), a logical conclusion is that impacts are likewise extended beyond the one-
year time-frame. Thus, a consideration of total impact would include impacts not only occurring during the
one-year period at issue, but also include any impacts occurring that year from previous discharges, as well as
impacts from discharges during this period that may be expected to occur beyond the year. Thus, the two
processes of impact and recovery are coupled, move in opposite directions to each other, and have very large
uncertainties associated with their understanding for produced water discharges.
-------
-------
10-1
10. PRODUCED WATER LITERATURE REVIEW
10.1 Summary of the Produced Water Literature Review
A review of the literature is presented to identify field studies for assessing impacts from coastal
produced water discharges. Queries from electronic databases, trade associations, and personal contacts with
state and federal agencies and sources were used to identify potential citations. Studies were obtained and
reviewed to characterize the nature, extent, and duration of potential impacts from coastal discharges of
produced water. From this review, impacts from organic and metal pollutants (Exhibit 10-1) and
radiochemical pollutants (Exhibit 10-2) are summarized. Abstracts of the selected studies follow the
summary tables.
A total of 25 study sites (12 sites in Louisiana and 13 sites in Texas) are summarized. Of these 25
study sites, 13 sites (3 in Texas and 10 in Louisiana) are in relatively low energy locations (marshes, canals,
etc.) and 12 sites (9 in Texas and 3 in Louisiana) are in relatively high energy areas (bayous, river
distributaries, open bays/lakes, etc.). Also, 12 wetlands locations are included in the 25 study sites reviewed.
Of these 12 wetlands sites, 6 are saltmarsh sites and 6 are fresh or brackish marsh sites. For both groups of
saltmarsh and fresh/brackish marsh sites, 5 sites are located in Louisiana and one site is located in Texas.
Water depth is reported for 19 study sites; 15 are in depths less than 3 meters. Of these 15 shallow water
study sites, 7 sites are in Texas, and 8 sites are in Louisiana. The remaining 4 sites, located in waters greater
than 3 meters, are all in Louisiana.
Most studies that examined impacts of produced water discharges on normal estuarine salinity
gradients have documented effects. Typical salinity effects were detected between 100 and 300 meters from
the discharge(s). However, in one dead-end canal, a salinity effect was detected to 800 meters from the
discharge.
Water column hydrocarbon and metals effects were generally apparent near the discharges, often
elevated as far as 1,000 meters or more, and in one instance to 1,800 meters. Sediment hydrocarbon impacts
typically were detected as far as 100 to 300 meters from the discharge, and were detected at distances over
1,000 meters from discharges at several sites. Sediment metals impacts also showed a distance-dependent
relationship.
Impacts to biota usually showed a spatial correlation to the discharge (i.e., depressed community
structure such as abundance or diversify). Sediments near outfalls (< 50 feet) have been shown to be
virtually devoid of organisms; within 500 feet of outfalls, benthic fauna have been shown to be severely
depressed (< 25% peak abundance at farther distances). Caged organism studies had highly variable results,
including high control mortality. Statistically significant benthic biotic impacts were detected from 80 meters
to over 1,000 meters from the discharge(s).
Radiochemical impacts on water column and sediments were variable, but generally limited to close
proximity to the discharge (background levels were often unknown at the study sites). Indigenous biota were
generally found to have detectable levels, but again, background levels were generally not known. Caged
organisms (deployed for 14 days) showed bioaccumulation occurring as far as 350 meters from the discharge.
-------
10-2
•o §
» li
« -a
S 8.
•S §
*t
a. 3
*|
- 8 S
S "S
•§|1
3 g, ^
.2 '3 §
!a s i
a ^ -a
a ^ §
« IS <2
ted
thi
es
of
un
ty
Be
bra
oli
gas
°
2
S
v
ID
eo
00
ear
to
13
T3 S
.
•«
_o en
^^ *-^
vati
to 30
have no cle
relationship
discharge
ele
ed
detect
.s
•3 "S
^2
•So g |
j& a •§ ,2
D-i o
.s "S
•cl
u -^
;ga
Q
z
1
V
1
*
•8
Study Site
Characteristics
number of fac
-3
•8
°
-
» -
0,
S f? &•
§
oa co
4.- -S o
3 1 1* «"
eu co S o •
•a s "S
« •« £
W CO 13 Q CO
Q
fr, Q
-------
10-3
1
logic
Biota
o
"x
ilil
e
stic
y Si
racte
mber
tu
Ch
S
m
ite;
of
Q
Z
1
Q
6
°
5
! 1*1
PH ^ & Q ^
Cag
E£"3
_ vo SB
3 0 «
s
-2
tfl
* H
0u ^2
ll s
S ^ *3<
ca
oo "5
Z
•I
c^
s
2 «?
, •§ -1
3*3
.§ 2 &
_) QQ Q
&,
Cag
il?
13 « «
Sili
EB ^ S »
— M 60 "S
% c4 -g i
oj
ffiS
K a
^
S j2
00 "5
o
o
co
ed
Biota not Eval
„ 4)
3-a
S .2
oo o
Z
-------
10-4,
•2 -C
.§ S,
*o o
fl ryi
~§
os
O ,OJ
*5> o
.8 3
*5
i i
IP
g w
O t3
o S
ca ^
o 73
Sfl
t
6.J2 <
•= PL,
Hi
II c ^
8-S "I
^ ^ a
« ,3 «
«* a w
O 3 CO
at
ed
Cag
Bioac
Vol
j2* en
« CO
CQ ?3
•8 «
S "
tected,
m
det
^ 5
o .tt -g
II gZ
52-2 II
S ^ O
S. 2 hr<
>> a w
° I JJ
8P.I J
u « >
Q
Z
Q
Z
fill
1 ts « «
, «
H II -o
i
•o
— o
g "?
« o x
Dista dependent
elevations of oil &
ce
grease from
discharge to 500m
s y
11 §1
ill-
«_• V4 W
^1
„ ^
jrt
^§ >S 85
§ S "E,
S *o S
w § S
•S
1 | « -I 1
11 111
Q
Z
P
.a ii
1°
CQ
8 £
co o
Q
Z
Q
Z
Q
Z
52,
I
Q
Z
Q
z
1
CD
§
Z
es
Study Site
Characteristics
number of faci
s-
1
-------
10-5
I
^
•2 s
;s &1
T3 a>
a pi
ll
"3 'c5
w 'S
g J8
13 1"
8j
S >
^ K
^,
1 |
^
fr« ^
.3 s * "D
Study Site
Characteristics
(number of facilities)
B
^_, TJ
Distance dependeni
elevations of Hg an
oil & grease from
discharge to 500m
Q
Z
g
1 '1 i
•a J> 3
1-1 1
Petroleum
hydrocarbons and
strontium levels
elevated above
background at all
stations
Q
Z
o
1°
s i 1
111
B
2 | s .2 Jj ob * *"S
M
Q
Z
S
1 °
CO
Q
Z
S ^
8* & .2
tl§.l
co
-------
10-6
I!
11
o o*
"Si o
Is
k4 £
1 ^
•ft
*52 w
lp
! j
o *o
•s i-i
fls "
IT w
s |w
?i i^
§ *a
;| |
i» o . §
«§|U«A
a
i d
w S 5
0 u ^ 1 Q
Ijkiii
o 2 « 3 .a S
l|
•s S
1^
•g s
g-ts
•2 £?
? ^
-22 &
Ǥ *
1 '•§
ll
Q
Z
Q
Z
Q
Z
w
£
*
oi
Menefee Lake-Lavac
River8
Low energy, tidally-
influenced; 14,402
bpd; Depth < 1m
1
•o
1
Q
Z
Q
Z
§
EL,
£
Z
•3 1
S to "°
•§ " s
OS -0 CLi
"8
i
-a
1
•8
g
g
Z
Q
Z
11 ft |?
?&B|A
i
\o ^
00 g "&(
< f°.
ca O S V
-------
•o
.3
"S3
•i
« if- *-*
'35 53 -
rs co
•O .!
•c
£ 1
.S s -3 -a
10-7
00
CO
a I"
~ s
oo
f-
I
^3 C4
-r ^i^
« S 13
•s g -s " ^
^^1*1
H co
rS
•s
W
S
fc, O-
c
Is
-------
10-8
of Biota (pCi/g)
(226+228Ra)
ise indicated
es
ampl
Radi
ther
e S
• • en
3|
1^3
p
"g a ~g R
A CM -t» CM
/\ •* e8 **
0 a °
IfSf
CM *i C; *•»
•• CB O as
i— 1 w ,— 1 w
o
o
•S S
SUES
^ -2 .2
| §•§ g
OQ U PH PH
5 S 43
.S 2 13
en U &
11-8
1*1-
Ilia
8 <2 § §
_, d -5 '-S
1-2 S 8
.5 tS «° -S
•S 3.S-3
"-1 «> &c ID
f i£
1 " £
•a s «3 5
1|
vri 13
C3 rH
II
12
oo
oj os
i-c O
C3 O
« «
<> t- o
<=> ^6
««
CM CO
f
vg CM
¥1
TO es
OO ^,
r~
13
VO
I IS
52 13 V
(A 2
^^
vo r^
SS
CS CN
>/•> .
2%
q CM
o co
VO CO
I . >. u>
,§ E? S -a
'"So
1
60
O
CO t-
-4
. en
CS CO
-------
10-9
60
ill
as '2
<4-it^L'.2
S 1 1
ill
i 1 "a
2
5
"8
I
1
I
1
1
0
•«-»
g
O
CQ
I
1
I
3
8
CO
53
111
£S 2
IS §
u ? I
8 |
i 1
°» i
« 8
OcS o
?1!S
•9
S2
.?? n-i "a3
O 0 .0
"feO
oo -*
o -a
as
sa
•S3 tS
as.
• o
1.
^ o
d
•- -l
C8 0
>n «
0 — S
s s a
O\
a a g
o o o
<_, in o
fit
o E
V «
o
8$ 88
« « I! ~
03 - * t«
^ <=> !C ^
3 °' • ^
o v ^ o
00
«2
•- s
9
^
d
n
1
•o
53
w
C-; «« "!
^"J \O ON
°. «
CS O
o\
00
oo
°i ^
o o
"J O
o\ o
t~;
d
0\
U-i
I 03
. I
3 «
«
c«
PA
S
"2
1
S e
III
^ -a
d ^
D. 5*, \O
a a>«>.
3 §r.
^Sa
"3 5 «7
M hJ -i<
-------
10-10
^
Q ''3" oi
Tissue Samples of Biota (p
Total Radium (226+22%
Unless otherwise indicat
1?
"3. Q,
M "^
.1* tj G-
1^
le
IS
W ^^
1 4>
^1
« §
Study Site
Characteristics
Biota not evaluated
g s a
*., CS en
ts IS
vd °i o
0\ Tf
1
IT)
vg5
C4
c^ n3
5" ^
d, «
"3 § co
Q nS -
CO
8.1
J 2
^3 Qi
03 g
03 fi
ysters deployed for 33 days
from the outfall had 226Ra
e lower level of detection
-S 6f
'§>£ I
u'S.S
a s a
°. 0 «
g 00 1
a
•O
*
o\
c«
«N
Lake Washington
(LA)3 Low energy
l-2m; 1,600 bpd
2
o S
0 _0
* &
13 «
ysters deployed for 30 days
226Ra concentrations below
detection
•*3 S °
5 J3 _
M «> g
u -a .2
° ^J
eg *-* co ^^
O "g CD es
SO vi vo
. VO
CO IO <-<
CS
-o
52
VO O
CtJ CTj
pX p^
VO OO
«s
^>.l
*2 8 fl1
"S >
-jj 1 2
cate concentr
m from each
"X" indicates
ction of the s
repli
15.2
An
dire
ay i
d C)
C
S
f
,
3
It
Si if £3
ili|i
t8*1S
a c"3 s^
1 i -I I «
§ =3 § 2 -2
s -g * J3 -js
2 ^-Ha «
^1^-8*
'•s l^'St
S
S «,
« §
J|
§* fl
« c
lilll
I ^ »"li
111 ^|
<4-l '•* ° 'i S
O S f? ^ .22
a> «> $£, to -O
U)
S J3
*5i
a •§
' ^3 Cfi
1=
o ft
Pll JJ
»H VO
?* o
^
ts
>• o
H 3
fi£
*T3
W -4-*
s
I
^ "8 ^
•S I* §
« ^&l Si'*
•§ w "-1 S 2 S "
. g 4)
u~t do j
-------
S
J
t
1
>
ta
O
1
1
*-H
£
"S
•M
O
8-
j
"w
4)
8
£
CO
1
e
1
-S?
%
*— t
o
0
. A
.1
o 22
is
«! O
1
>
•"
I
5
!
s
C
.2
a
|
j
1
1
•3
•a
£
10-11
HI!
"
.a .3 &,
&
1 .1 8 2 I I
«IJI * H
<15 _. T> « ® C4
t« a g a ts ^
S vo S * S -H
1 i 11 ! I
£ "eL, & S. a,
•M £ S 5
1, ° § < 'S "s
>^ -is .2 *.« o •*-*
"S? >i "Is t; s o
Sill's 1
— 50 *O **< t*H to
.2 2 a? "3 0 S
-s
lliiii
3
*s*j •a*"3c8-sj->
S 'g S &®0^^0^ f^^jg^
-------
10-32
10.2 Summary of Coastal Studies Cited
Author and Title: Rabalais, N.N., B. McKee, and D. Reed. 1991. Fate and Effects of Nearshore
Discharges of OCS Produced Waters. Prepared for the U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals
Management Service, Gulf of Mexico OCS Regional Office. Three Volumes - Executive Summary, 337 p.
Technical Report, and Appendices.
Study Overview An extensive chemical and biological assessment of seven produced water discharges in
coastal Louisiana was conducted. The produced water that is generated by oil and gas production activities
on the outer continental shelf (OCS) was the specific target of the study. This study expanded on the initial
assessment by Boesch and Rabalais (1989) by increasing the temporal and spatial studies of three areas and
also studied different areas (including an abandoned site) representing a larger cross section of discharge
types and configurations.
At each study area, produced water and the near bottom water of the receiving water column were examined
for contaminants, including salinity, hydrocarbons, trace metals, radionuclides and sulfides. The top 10
centimeters (cm) of surficial sediments were sampled at all stations along a gradient away from the discharge
for interstitial salinity, hydrocarbons, trace metals, and radionuclides (sediment cores were also taken at some
of the stations). Studies of bioaccumulation of selected contaminants (including total radium activity,
expressed as 226+228Ra) in oysters (Crassostra virginicd) that had been deployed at known distances from
the discharges for known periods of time were conducted for two of the study sites.
Summary of Results The study included a data synthesis of the fates and effects of OCS produced water
discharged into coastal waters based on the field assessments. The data synthesis resulted in the discussion
of a variety of issues, including a comparison of effluents, receiving waters/environments, dispersion of the
brine effluent, sediment contamination, and biological effects. Maximum impacts found in this study include
elevated PAH and volatile hydrocarbon levels in sediments at distances up to 1,300 m from the discharge.
No spatial trends in trace metal elevations were noted hi sediments, but maximum levels of Ba, Zn, and Ni
were found as far as 600 m from a discharge to a dead-end canal (the Pass Fourchon site). Water column
volatile hydrocarbon levels were detected as far as 1,000 m from the Pass Fourchon site; and water column
PAH levels were elevated as far as 800 m from the same discharge (along with a clearly recognizable density
(i.e., salinity) plume).
The most severely depressed benthic macroinfaunal communities (abundance and diversity) were found
within 800 m of one of the discharges to the Pass Fourchon site. Benthic infauna were essentially absent or
substantially reduced at 400, 500, 600, and 800 m from the discharge point for most of lie sampling periods.
Bioaccumulation of produced water origin contaminants (alkylated PAH, total hydrocarbons, and total
radium activity) was documented near discharges at both sites and up to 200 m from one site (the Pass
Fourchon site) where oysters were deployed (the other site is the Bayou Rigaud site). Clear potential for
uptake was demonstrated both in close proximity to the discharge and to great distances from the discharge.
-------
10-13
Author and Title: St. Pe, KM. (Editor). 1990. An Assessment of Produced Water Impacts to Low-Energy,
Brackish Water Systems in Southeast Louisiana. Prepared by the Louisiana Department of Environmental
Quality. 199 p.
Study Overview: The objectives of this study were to further evaluate past observations made by the
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality staff and other investigators and to add to the available data
base with respect to produced water discharges to low-flow systems. Four sites were examined at which
produced water was being discharged in coastal Louisiana. These sites (Lirette, Bully Camp, Delta Farms,
and Lake Washington) all discharge to canals or passes and are located in the coastal subcategory.
At each study site, the hydraulic behavior of the produced water was evaluated by tracking the chloride
concentrations in the receiving water and surficial sediments. A produced water effluent sample was
collected as well as sediment samples and water quality data along three transects radiating from a point
near each discharge. In addition, caged oysters were used to assess the potential for uptake of 226Ra
(among other pollutants) at three of the four sites.
Summary of Results: Results indicated that produced water influences on chloride concentrations of the
receiving water body are much more apparent in the sediments than in the water column. A recognizable
salinity plume was recorded at distances at least 300 m from the discharge point at all four study sites.
Toxicity testing was conducted on produced water effluents and sediments and indicated that acute toxicity
was attributable to produced water components other than salinity.
High levels of metals and organics were found in the produced water effluent samples as well as elevated
levels of total hydrocarbon homologs in sediment samples up to 1,000 m from the discharge at one of the
sites (the Lirette site - background levels were achieved at 600 m from the discharges at the other three
study sites).
With respect to radionuclides, the study found that 226Ra levels were elevated at all of the sites, ranging
from a low of 355 pCi/1 at Delta Farms to 567 pCi/1 at Bully Camp. The top 10 cm of sediment from the
sample stations nearest the outfalls on each transect contained 226Ra concentrations of 182 pCi/g at Bully
Camp to 533 pCi/g at Lirette. Levels of 226Ra were noted as being above background levels as far as 500 m
from the outfalls at the Lirette, Bully Camp, and Lake Washington sites. Sediment accumulation of 226Ra
did not follow the same pattern at the Delta Farms site. The authors attributed this to the predominantly
organic nature of the sediments at that site.
Among caged oysters deployed (at all of the sites except Delta Farms), increased 226Ra levels were found
only at the Lirette site (3.1 pCi/g with an error of 0.3). Sediment hydrocarbon contamination resulting in
decreased filtering rates was offered as a possible explanation. An additional point of particular interest in
this study is the hydraulic behavior of the produced water effluent in a receiving water body and underlying
sediments. The study found that the high density/salinity water did not mix with receiving waters (at some
-------
10-14
stations) and penetrated the sediments to a depth of up to 30 cm. Interstitial chlorinity values were greatest
near the discharge points and decreased with distance.
Author and Title: Stiemle and Associates. 1991. Lirette Field Sediment Radionuclide Sampling Survey
February 21, 1991. Prepared for the Louisiana Division of the Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association.
23 p. + Tables, Figures, and Appendices.
Study Overview: The Lirette site from the St. P<§ (1990) study was revisited and the anEilytical methods used
in that study were verified by comparing the 226Ra content of collected sediment samples to the results from
this site in the St. P
-------
10- 15
Study Overview: A study was conducted to determine if produced water discharged from Texaco's oil and
gas operation in Lake Salvador has a measurable impact on the infauna and epifauna in the area. Chemical
and biological surveys were conducted to determine the distribution of petroleum hydrocarbons and salinity,
and indigenous organisms in the area around the discharge.
Summary of Results Volatile hydrocarbons (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and total xylenes - BTEX)
were detected in the water column to distances up to 90 m from the discharge. Paraffinic hydrocarbons were
detected in the water column to distances of up to 1,800 m from the discharge.
PAH and BTEX were detected in sediments near the discharge and paraffinic hydrocarbons were detected in
the sediment up to 90 m from the discharge. Metals were present in essentially all sediment samples but did
not exhibit a spatial correlation to the discharge.
Benthic infauna and epifauna community distribution and abundance were negatively impacted within 90 m
of the discharge. The salinity effects appear to be partly responsible, relative to reference sites. The
community structures present are representative of typical oligohaline Louisiana estuaries.
Author and Title: Roach, R.W., R. Carr, C. Howard, and B. Cain. 1993. An Assessment of Produced
Water Impacts in the Galveston Bay System. Prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the
University of Houston-Clear Lake, Biology Department. 56 p.
Study Overview: This study provides a general assessment of adverse environmental effects resulting from
tidal disposal of produced water. Three parameters were used in making this assessment: (1) documenting
any alteration to the benthic macroinvertebrate communities; (2) physically and chemically characterizing
impacted and unimpacted sediments; and (3) assessing the sediment toxicity caused by these discharges.
Summary of Results Petroleum hydrocarbons and strontium levels were elevated above background at all
sample stations at one of the study sites (the Cow Bayou site). Petroleum hydrocarbons, strontium, and
barium levels were elevated above background at all sample stations up to 364 m from the discharge at the
other study site (the Tabbs Bay site).
Reduced abundance, species richness, and species diversity of the benthic macroinvertebrate community was
documented up to 1,030 m from the discharge at the Cow Bayou site. Reduced abundance, species richness,
and species diversity of the benthic macroinvertebrate community was documented up to 82 m from the
discharge at the Tabbs Bay site.
Author and Title: Caudle, C.S. 1993. An Impact Assessment of the Waters Discharging into Nueces Bay.
Prepared by the Texas Water Commission. 30 p. + Appendices.
Study Overview: The purpose of this project was to: (1) develop data concerning location, quantity, and
quality of produced water discharges into Nueces Bay and the Nueces River Tidal and (2) to examine the
-------
10-16
physical, chemical, and lexicological properties of these produced water discharges. A total of 16 produced
water discharges were found to be active in Nueces Bay and the Nueces River Tidal and were responsible for
discharging a total volume of 654,537.6 gallons/day of produced water to the Nueces estuary.
Summary of Results: The produced water effluents characteristically had low dissolved oxygen
concentrations, high water temperatures, and elevated levels of salinity and conductivity. Additionally the
effluents contained inordinate amounts of salts, ammonia, and oil and grease, as well as, varied levels of
aromatic hydrocarbons and metals known to be toxic. The discharges were all found to be acutely and
chronically toxic to mysid shrimp.
Advanced degradation of the aesthetic quality of the aquatic environment was observed at all outfall sites.
Impacts observed included highly stained and discolored sediments, extensive oil sheens on the surface of the
discharges, denuded areas within and around the discharge streams in which vegetation, organisms and birds
were absent The resultant compounding impact of these discharges is a noticeable degradation of valuable
habitats and biological communities in Nueces Bay and the Nueces River Tidal, as well as a reduction in the
ecological suitability of this system as a high quality estuary. These findings have implications concerning the
future permitting of produced water discharges to these areas and in the future management decisions of the
Nueces Estuary.
Author and Title: Continental Shelf Associates. 1991. Measurements of naturally Occurring Radioactive
Materials (NORM) at Three Produced water Outfalls. Final Report. Prepared for Mid-Continent Oil and
Gas Association. 41 p. + Appendices.
Study Overview: The objective of this study was to provide information concerning concentrations of radium
(Ra226 and Ra228) in water, sediment, and biological tissue in the immediate vicinity of three produced
water outfalls known to contain varying levels of NORM. The receiving waters at each of the discharge sites,
located in coastal Louisiana, were generally low energy, brackish water, canal environments. Discharges at
each of the sites have been occurring for several years with rates that are typical of produced water outfalls
(3,000 to 5,000 bbl/d).
Summary of Results The results of the study included produced water effluent Ra226 values ranging from
199.4 to 2583 pCi/1; and Ra228 values of 233.6 to 380.0 pCi/1 at the three sites. Receiving water
concentrations of Ra226 ranged from 0.1 pCi/1 at 15.2 m from the discharge at two of lie sites to 5.6 pCi/1
at a distance of 7.6 m from the discharge at another site. Concentrations of Ra228 in the receiving water
ranged from zero near the discharge at all three of the sites (but not all replicate samples were zero values)
to as high as 26.9 pCi/1 at a distance of 7.6 m from the discharge at on of the sites.
Sediment Ra226 values ranged from 0.5 pCi/1 to 23.5 pCi/1 near the discharge at two of the sites to 3.2 pCi/1
at a distance of 7.6 m from one of the sites. Sediment Ra228 values ranged from zero near the discharge
(for certain replicates at all three of the sites) to 2.6 pCi/1 near the discharge at one of the sites; and ranged
from 0.1 pCi/1 to 1.7 pCi/1 at distances of 15.2 m from two of the sites.
-------
10-17
Tissue samples of total radium (226+228Ra) in bivalves ranged, from 0.004 pCi/g near the discharge at one
site to 0.4 pCi/g at a distance of 1,200 m from the discharge at another site. Total radium (226+228Ra) in
crustacean tissue samples ranged from 0.041 pCi/g near the discharge at one site to 0.197 pCi/g at a distance
of 3,000 m from the discharge at another site. Total radium (226+228Ra) in fish tissue samples ranged from
zero to 0.107 pCi/g near the discharge at two sites to as much as 0.202 pCi/g at a distance of 3,000 m from
the discharge at another site. Tissue samples of total radium (226+228Ra) taken from plants ranged from
0.032 to 0.639 pCi/g near the discharge at two sites to 0.520 pCi/g at a distance of 2,000 m from the
discharge at another site.
Author and Title: Mackin, J.G. 1971. A Study of the Effects of Oil Field Brine Effluents on Biotic .
Communities in Texas Estuaries. Texas A&M Research Foundation Project 735. 73 p. + Figures and
Tables.
Study Overview: The objective of this study was to measure the effect on the estuarine and marine
communities of Texas bays caused by the discharge of produced water effluents. Six oil field areas were
targeted for study primarily based on the differing salinity of the receiving water to test the effects of such
discharges on as wide a range of natural environments as possible.
Summary of Results The results of this study indicated that, based mostly on the evaluation of benthic
macroinvertebrate communities, effects varied considerably with the nature of the receiving environment.
Effects were detected up to 1,000 m from the discharge of one effluent dominated creek (the Cow Bayou
site); about 800 m from the discharge in a large, shallow (<1 m) lake; less than 100 m from the discharge in
two of the open bay systems studied (zones of stimulation were also observed at these sites); and no effects
were detected at two other open bay study sites.
Author and Title: Armstrong, H.W., K. Fucik, J. Anderson, and J. Neff. 1979. Effects of Oilfield Brine
Effluent on Sediments and Benthic Organisms in Trinity Bay, Texas. j[n Marine Environmental Resources, pp.
55-69. Prepared by the Department of Biology, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX.
Study Overview: Field studies have established the concentration of naphthalenes in bay sediments and
water in the vicinity of an oil separator platform and their effects on the benthic fauna. Fifteen stations were
occupied monthly, from July, 1974 to December, 1975, along three transects extending from the separator
platform outward for a distance of 4.0 to 5.6 km. A lesser number of stations were occupied from April,
1974 to June, 1974. Bottom sediments at each station were analyzed for total naphthalenes content and for
number of species and individuals.
Trinity Bay, Texas, the site of this investigation, has a mean depth of 2.5 m (all stations were located in 2 to
3 m of water). Bay waters are highly turbid due to the presence of a high concentration of clay-sized
particulate matter. The brine outfall was located approximately 1 m above the bay bottom. These special
conditions undoubtedly contributed significantly to the observed impact of the brine. Therefore
-------
10-18
extrapolations from the results of this study to offshore oil production and brine disposal should be made
with extreme caution.
Summary of Results There was a definite correlation between sediment naphthalenes concentration and
number of species and individuals. As expected, the first station, located 15 m from the outfall, had the
highest concentration of naphthalenes of all stations sampled. The naphthalenes levels dropped sharply from
the outfall to the stations located 75 m from the platform where levels were about 20-50% of those found 15
m from the outfall. Naphthalenes concentrations then decreased gradually to near background levels at
stations farther out. Hydrocarbon concentrations in bottom water 15 m from the outfall were three orders of
magnitude lower than those in the full strength effluent, but sediments 15 m from the outfall had
hydrocarbon concentrations four times as great as in the full strength effluent. There were approximately
four orders of magnitude more hydrocarbons in the sediment than in the overlying water.
The bay bottom was almost completely devoid of organisms within 15 m of the effluent outfall. Stations
located 150 m from the outfall had severely depressed benthic faunas but not to the extent of stations nearer
the outfall. Stations located 455 m from the platform were unaffected. Both numbers of species and
individuals increased with distance from the platform and reached a peak at the first station medial to the
control on each transect (685 to 1,675 m from the platform) and then dropped at the control station.
Physical environmental factors such as temperature, salinity, water depth, and sediment type were essentially
the same at all stations.
The temporary use of a second outfall located 275 m from the main platform outfall resulted in a rapid build
up of naphthalenes in surrounding sediments which persisted for at least six months following the
termination of use of the second outfall. The benthic fauna was also severely depressed in the vicinity of the
second outfall. The use of multiple outfalls, located some distance apart, appears to be more harmful than
the use of a single outfall.
-------
11-1
11. ADDENDUM TO THE WQBA IN RESPONSE TO
EPA REGION 6 FINAL NPDES PERMITS
EPA Region 6 has recently published final NPDES general permits covering oil and gas production
facilities discharging to the coastal subcategory in the States of Louisiana and Texas (60 FR 2387; January 9,
1995). These permits prohibit the discharge of produced water and produced sand derived from these facilities
to waters of the U.S. Much of the industry covered by these proposed effluent guidelines for the coastal
subcategory are covered under these general permits. However, one difference between the coverage of the
general permits and the guidelines is that the permits do not cover produced water discharges derived from
offshore subcategory sources that are treated and discharged into certain coastal subcategory waters. Those
receiving waters are the main deltaic passes of the Mississippi River or the Atchafalaya River below Morgan
City including Wax Lake Outlet. These excluded facilities are covered under the proposed effluent guidelines.
The impacts and benefits presented in this WQBA are based on discharge volumes and locations that were
projected for the proposed effluent guidelines absent these final NPDES general permits. Because of the close
timing of the publication of these final permits and the proposed effluent guidelines, little opportunity for re-
analysis occurred. Thus, the approach selected to respond to the publication of the final permits is to
proportionate impacts and benefits based on a simple flow proportion. That is, the final permits are known to
cover approximately 71 % of the discharge volume projected for these guidelines. The remaining 29 %,
excluded from coverage under the final permits but covered by these guidelines, is derived from offshore
subcategory-derived produced waters discharged into main deltaic passes in the coastal subcategory.
Due to the short timeline for revision of the WQBA for the purpose of proposed guidelines, this
addendum provides only a simplistic estimate of the proportion of impacts and benefits based on this 29 % share
of produced water flow. A series of qualifications result from this approach. These concerns are discussed,
with respect to the types of analyses included in this WQBA, in detail below. For the final guideline, a new
WQBA will be conducted that is based on a revised industry profile.
The effect of these final general permits on the analyses conducted in this WQBA, the qualifications to the
approach taken in order to respond to these permits, and the revised benefits are discussed below.
11.1 Produced Water Characterizations
Current flow estimates are revised downward to include only facilities excluded from the general permits.
Existing data are sufficient for a reasonably accurate projection of flows for the excluded facilities. Produced
water flows for Texas are revised to zero. Produced water flows in Louisiana are revised to 52 million barrels
per year, representing 29% of the total Texas and Louisiana flow of 180 million barrels per year (see Section 2
of this WQBA). The flow estimates for produced water will be revised and confirmed for the final WQBA.
The chemical characterization of produced water continues to be based on the 10-facility survey conducted
for this rulemaking. However, only a handful of dischargers will be covered under these guidelines if the final
permits are not altered upon any potential judicial review. A more selective approach to waste stream
characterization, focused on just these facilities, may be possible for the final rule.
-------
11-2
11.2 Watershed Loadings
This portion of the WQBA (see Section 3) can be reasonably well projected to account for the effect of
the final permits because flow data are reasonably accurate. Because produced water flows in Texas will be
zero, watershed mass and toxic unit loading likewise will be zero. Based on a simple proportionation of flow in
Louisiana, revised watershed mass loadings (see Table 3-18) are projected to range from 2.0 million pounds per
year or 17% of Louisiana's mass load from industrial and municipal point sources (29% of 7.1 million pounds
and 58%, respectively; includes OKD report pollutants only) to 6.0 million pounds per year or 23 % of
Louisiana's point source mass load (29% of 21 million pounds and 80%, respectively; all produced water
pollutants included). Revised toxic unit loadings from produced water discharges from facilities excluded from
coverage under the Region 6 final general permit are estimated to represent 25% of the point source toxic unit
loadings in Louisiana (29% of 87.1%; see Table 3-20).
The accuracy of this proportionation depends on effluent characterization data as well as flow data,
however. Thus, this projection may change if effluent characterization data are revised for the final rule.
11.3 Water Quality Compliance Assessment
Revisions to this portion of the WQBA (see Section 4) cannot be accurately determined at this time. One
factor that can be projected with some confidence is that the discharge rates used for compliance assessments
will increase for these facilities, based on their known flow rates. This factor would tend to increase
noncompliance with state standards, compared to the analyses conducted in this WQBA, because of diminished
available dilution at higher flow rates. This conclusion, however, assumes all other factors remain equal, which
is possibly not the case. For example, site-specific receiving water characteristics may change in a direction
that would tend to increase dilution ( e.g., increased current speeds, such as one might expect in river passes)
and counter the effects of increased flow. Therefore, no preliminary projections on the impact of the final
permits can be made with respect to water quality compliance with any degree of confidence.
11.4 Valuation of Resources at Risk
The valuation of resources at risk (see Section 6), for these revised projections, are assumed to remain
unchanged. This assumption will need further re-evaluation after proposal of the guidelines. The site specific
characteristics of receiving waters for facilities excluded from coverage under the final Region 6 NPDES
general permits will need to be evaluated in comparison to the basis used in this WQBA (Galveston Bay).
Based on this re-evaluation, resource values may increase or decrease.
11.5 Populations Exposed to Produced Water Discharges
The estimate of exposed populations for these revised projections also are be assumed to remain
unchanged because the time limitation for this analysis did not allow for reanalysis of this parameter (see
Section 7). This assumption will need further re-evaluation after proposal, but will be assumed to remain the
same for the purpose of the revised radium risk assessment presented below. Factors that may affect potentially
-------
11-3
exposed populations will need to be reviewed in the context of the site- and location-specific findings for
facilities excluded from coverage under the final general permits;
11.6 Radium Risk Assessment
Based on a reduced flow estimate of 29% of the pre-permit flow estimate, the number of reduced cancer
cases and the monetized benefits from risk reductions due to the rule are commensurately reduced (see Section
8). Monetized benefits have been reduced to 29 % of the estimate developed previously in this WQBA, resulting
in a range of potential benefits due to cancer risk reductions from these proposed effluent guidelines of $0.7 to
$13.3 million annually.
This assessment will need to be revised for the final rule in light of several considerations. These
considerations include: whether radium tissue data on existing field-collected specimens are appropriate to the
excluded facilities; whether surface water modeling analyses are appropriate; and whether exposed populations
are appropriate. The combined influence of alterations in these factors is impossible to predict with any
confidence at this time.
11.7 Ecological Benefits
Based on a revised flow estimate of 29 % of the pre-permit flow estimate, the monetized ecological benefit
estimate is reduced to 29 % of the estimate developed previously in this WQBA (see Section 9). Thus, the range
of potential benefits due to ecological improvement from these proposed effluent guidelines is $1.4 to $41.5
million annually.
This assessment will need to be revised for the final rule in light of several considerations. These
considerations include: whether data on existing field impacts are appropriate to the excluded facilities; and
whether resource valuations are appropriate to the excluded facilities. Alterations in these factors may serve to
increase or decrease projected benefits.
-------
-------
12-1
12. REFERENCES
Andreasen, J.K. and R.W. Spears. 1983. Toxicity of Texan Petroleum Well Brine to the Sheepshead
Minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus) a Common Estuarine Fish. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 30:277-
283.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC). 1994. Alaska Administrative Code Drinking
Water Regulations. (18 Alaska Administrative Code 80)
ADEC. 1989. Water Quality Standards. (18 Alaska Administrative Code 70)
Armstrong, H.W., K. Fucik, J.W. Anderson and J.M. Neff. 1977. Effects of Oil Field Brine Effluent on
Benthic Organisms in Trinity Bay, Texas. Submitted by the Center for Marine Resources Texas A&M
University to the API, Department of Environmental Affairs.
Brandsma, M.G., T.C. Sauer, Jr., and R.C. Ayers, Jr. 1983. OOC mud discharge model, report, and user's
guide, model version 1.0. Exxon Production Research Co., Houston, TX.
Brooks, J.M, Wade, T.L., M.C. Dennicut II, DA. Wiesenburg, D. Wilkinson, TJ. McDonald, and SJ.
McDonald. 1992. Toxic Contaminant Characterization of Aquatic Organisms in Galveston Bay: A
Pilot Study. In: The Galveston Bay National Estuary Program Publication GBNEP-20.
CACI Marketing Systems. 1993. The Sourcebook of County Demographics. Sixth Edition.
ISBN 0-918417-04-X.
Cain, B.W. Undated. Contamination of Brine Discharge Dominated Bayou. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Clear Lake, TX. Draft. 7 pp.
Carmody, GA. 1993. Endangered Species in Florida. Letter from G. Carmody, USFWS, Panama City, FL
to H. Mueller, EPA Region 4 Federal Activities Branch, Atlanta, GA. April 23, 1993.
Caudle, C.S. 1993. An Impact Assessment of Produced Water Discharge to Nueces Bay. Texas Water
Commission, Near Coastal Waters Program.
Chapman, D. undated. Nueces Bay Produced Waters: A Preliminary Investigation of Toxicity and
Chemistry. USFWS, National Fisheries Contaminant Research Center.
Continental Shelf Associates, Inc. 1991. Measurement of Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials
(NORM) at Three Produced Water Outfalls. Prepared for Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association.
Doneker, R.L. and G.H. Jirka. 1993. Cornell Mixing Zone Expert System (CORMIX v. 2.10). Prepared by
Cornell University for U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens, GA. May 1993.
Ebasco Environmental. 1990. Cook Inlet Discharge Monitoring Study: Produced Water. Summary Report.
Prepared for the Anchorage, Alaska Offices of Amoco Production Co., ARCO Alaska, Inc., Marathon
Oil Co., Phillips Petroleum Co., Shell Western E&P Inc., and Unocal Corporation, and EPA Region
10, Seattle, WA.
-------
12-2
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1994a. Development Document for Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Coastal Subcategory of the Oil and Gas
Extraction Point Source Category - Proposed. Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
EPA. 1994b. Comparison of Gulf of Mexico Drainage Systems: Input of Toxic Chemicals and Potential for
Ecological Effects. Prepared by the Office of Research and Development for the Gulf of Mexico
Program, Toxics and Pesticide Subcommittee.
EPA. 1993. Produced Water Radioactivity Study. Final Draft. Office of Science and Technology and
Office of Water, Washington, D.C.
EPA. 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund. Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part
A). Interim final. OSWER Directive 9285.7-Ola. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
Washington, D.C. EPA Library Call No. 9285.8-Ola.
Francesco, J. 1994. Endangered species in Louisiana. Fax from J. Francesco, USFWS, Atlanta, GA to V.
Whalon, Avanti Corporation, Vienna, VA. June 16, 1994.
Knecht, A.T. and MA. Poirrier. 1988. Final Report, A Survey to Determine the Impact of Produced Water
Discharge on the Estuarine Environment of Lake Salvador. Prepared for Texaco, Inc. New Orleans.
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. 1993. Permitting Guidance Document for Implementing
Louisiana Surface Water Quality Standards. Office of Water Resources. February 5, 1993.
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality. 1991. Louisiana Administrative Code Title 33
Environmental Quality, Part IX. Water Quality Regulations Chapter 7. Effluent Standards, Chapter
11. Surface Water Quality Standards. (LA DEQ 33:IX.705-711 and 33:K.1101-1117)
MacKn, J.G. 1971. A Study of the Effect of Oil Field Brine Effluents on Biotic Communities in Texas
Estuaries. Texas A&M Research Foundation. Sponsored by Humble Oil & Refining Co., Baffin Bay
Study. Co-sponsored by Amoco Production Co., and Texaco, Inc. 72 pp plus appendices.
MacMn, J.G. and F.S. Conte. 1971. Bioassay studies of effects of brine and crude oils on fishes and shrimp.
In: Harper, D.E., Jr. 1986. A Review and Synthesis of Unpublished and Obscure Published
Literature Concerning Produced Water Fate and Effects. Prepared for OOC.
Minerals Management Service (MMS). 1991. Estimating the Environmental Costs of OCS Oil and Gas
Development and Marine Oil Spills: A General Purpose Model. Volume I-Economic Analysis of
Environment Costs. Prepared by A.T. Kearney. OCS Study, MMS 91-043.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1993a. Unpublished Fisheries Statistics, 1992 Landings by
Species for the U.S. Provided by B. O'Bannon, NOAA, NMFS, Fisheries Statistics Division, Silver
Spring, MD.
NMFS. 1993b. Fisheries of the United States, 1992. NOAA, NMFS. Current Fishery Statistics No. 9200.
115pp.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 1985. Gulf of Mexico Coastal and Ocean
Zones Strategic Assessment: Data Atlas. NOAA, National Ocean Service.
-------
12-3
Rabalais, N.N., B.A. McKee, DJ. Reed, and J.C. Means. 1991. Fate and Effects of Nearshore Discharges
of OCS Produced Waters, Volume I: Executive Summary, Volume II: Technical Report, Volume HI:
Appendices. MMS, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region Office. OCS Study MMS 91-0006.
Roach, R.W., R.S. Carr, and C.L. Howard. 1992. An Assessment of Produced Water Impacts at Two Sites
in the Galveston Bay System. 16 pp.
St. P6, K., (Ed.). 1990. Assessment of Produced Water Impacts to Low-Energy, Brackish Water Systems in
Southeast Louisiana. Submitted by Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality and Louisiana
State University Institute for Environmental Studies.
Sauer, T.C., Jr., TJ. Ward, J.S. Brown, S. O'Neill, and MJ. Wade. 1992. Identification of Toxicity in Low-
TDS Produced Waters. In: J.P. Ray and F.R. Engelhardt (Eds.) Produced Water, Technical Issues
and Solutions. Plenum Press, pp. 209-222.
Schurr, K. 1986. Computer Modeling of Produced Water Discharges hi Cook Inlet. U.S. EPA, Region 10.
Southwest Research Institute. 1978. Effect of Oil Field Produced Water Discharge on Water and Sediment
Quality at Five Selected Sites in Copano, Nueces, and Corpus Christi Bays, Texas. Part 1, Final
Report. Prepared for Corpus Christi Area Operators.
• Spears, R.W. 1960. An Investigation of Pollution in Chiltipin Creek. Texas Game and Fish Project
Reports, No. MP2-R-2, Job No. F-3.
Steimle and Associates, Inc. 1991. Lirette Field Sediment Radionuclide Sampling Survey. Submitted with
API Comments to EPA on Proposed Offshore Oil and Gas Guidelines.
Stevens, L. 1993. Endangered Species in Florida. Letter from L. Stevens, NMFS, St. Petersburg, FL to H.
Mueller, EPA Region 4 Office of Federal Activities, Atlanta, GA. March 25, 1993.
Temple, R.F., D.L. Harrington, and J.A. Martin. 1977. Monthly Temperature and Salinity Measurements of
Continental Shelf Waters of the Northwestern Gulf of Mexico. NOAA Tech. Rep., SSRF-707. 29 pp.
TetraTech. 1994. Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation for Cook Inlet (Oil and Gas Lease Sale 149) and
Shelikof Strait. Final Draft. Prepared for EPA Region 10, Seattle, Washington.
Texas A&M University. 1991. Mississippi-Alabama Shelf Ecosystem Study Data Summary and Synthesis,
Volume I: Executive Summary, Volume II: Technical Narrative, Volume IH: Appendices Part 1,
Volume HI: Appendices Part 2. J.M. Brooks and GA. Wolff (Eds.). MMS, GOM OCS Region
Office, New Orleans, LA. OCS Studies MMS 91-0062, MMS 91-0063, and MMS 91-00064.
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC). 1993. Implementation of the Texas Natural
Resource Conservation Commission Standards Via Permitting.
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 1991. Trends in Finfish Landings, and Social and Economic
Characteristics of Sport-Boat Fishermen in Texas Marine Waters, May 1974-May 1989. Fisheries
Division.
Texas Parks and Wildlife Department. 1971. Effect of Oilfield Brine on Marine Organisms An Ecological
Evaluation of the Aransas Bay Area, Job No. 1. Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Project Report.
-------
r
12-4
Texas Water Commission. 1991. Texas Water Commission Permanent Rule Changes, Texas Water Code
Chapter 307 Texas Water Quality Standards, Sections 307.2-307.10.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Bureau of the Census. 1993a. 1991 National Survey of Fishing,
Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, Texas. USFWS and U.S. Department of Commerce,
Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census. GPO Washington, D.C.
USFWS and Bureau of the Census. 1993b. 1991 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-
Associated Recreation, Louisiana. USFWS and U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and
Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census. GPO Washington, D.C.
USFWS. 1992. Threatened and Endangered Species of Texas. U.S. DOI, USFWS, Ecological Field
Services Field Offices in Austin, Arlington, Corpus Christi, and Houston, TX.
Whittington, D., G. Cassidy, D. Amarai, E. McClelland, H. Wang, and C. Poulos. 1994. The Economic
Value of Improving the Environmental Quality of Galveston Bay. A Report to the Galveston Bay
National Estuary Program. Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
-------
|