40 C.F.R. § 125.130

What are the purpose and scope of this subpart?

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) This subpart establishes requirements that apply to the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures at new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities. The purpose of these requirements is to establish the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact associated with the use of cooling water intake structures at these facilities. These requirements are implemented through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits issued under section 402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA).

(b) This subpart implements section 316(b) of the CWA for new offshore oil and gas extraction facilities. Section 316(b) of the CWA provides that any standard established pursuant to sections 301 or 306 of the CWA and applicable to a point source shall require that the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact.

(c) New offshore oil and gas extraction facilities that do not meet the threshold requirements regarding amount of water withdrawn or percentage of water withdrawn for cooling water purposes in § 125.131(a) must meet requirements determined by the Director on a case-by-case, best professional judgement (BPJ) basis.

(d) Nothing in this subpart shall be construed to preclude or deny the right of any State or political subdivision of a State or any interstate agency under section 510 of the CWA to adopt or enforce any requirement with respect to control or abatement of pollution that is more stringent than those required by Federal law.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 2010–2010 · leading case: ConocoPhillips Co. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 612 F.3d 822 (5th Cir. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

ConocoPhillips Co. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 612 F.3d 822 (5th Cir. 2010). “40 C.F.R. § 125.130 et seq. 56 . 71 Fed.Reg.”

ConocoPhillips Co v. EPA (5th Cir. 2010). “8 million,60 that the economic impact would pose no barrier to entry, and that the industry could reasonably bear the costs of compliance because no new facilities would be prevented from operating and no new operations would be forced to cease operations because of the costs of…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.