[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 181 (Tuesday, September 20, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-23419]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: September 20, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-5073-7]
Draft NPDES General Permit for Offshore Oil and Gas Operations on
the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and State Waters of Alaska: Arctic
NPDES General Permit
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Notice of Draft NPDES General Permit.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Regional Administrator, Region 10, is proposing to issue a
draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general
permit for oil and gas stratigraphic test and exploration wells on the
Alaskan Outer Continental Shelf and contiguous state waters. The
proposed Arctic general permit will authorize offshore oil and gas
stratigraphic test and exploration wells in the federal and state
waters of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Development and production
wells are not authorized to discharge by this general permit.
Unlike previous general permits for the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas,
the Arctic general permit will cover a geographic area not defined by
specific state and federal lease sale tracts. Rather, the area of
coverage includes the following:
--Federal waters of the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea planning basins as
defined by the Minerals Management Service (MMS) (see U.S. Dept. of the
Interior, 1992), and
--State waters contiguous to the landward boundary of the Beaufort and
Chukchi Sea planning basins.
The permit will authorize discharges from exploratory operations in
all areas offered for lease by the U.S. Department of the Interior's
Minerals Management Service (MMS) included in previous general permits
issued by EPA for the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. This includes federal
lease sales 71, 87, 97, and 109; and state lease sales 36, 39, 43, and
43A, Federal/State lease sale BF; and ``contiguous state lease sales''
which were covered by the modification for the Beaufort Sea II NPDES
general permit (54 FR 39574, September 27, 1989). Additional lease sale
areas not previously covered by a permit will include, but are not
limited to, the following: MMS federal lease sales 124 and 126; and
state lease sales 65 and 68.
A brief description of the basis for the conditions and
requirements of the proposed permit is given in the fact sheet
published below.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: Interested persons may submit written comments
on the draft general permit to the attention of the Director, Water
Division, at the address below. All comments should include the name,
address, and telephone number of the commenter and a concise statement
of the exact basis of any comment and the relevant facts upon which it
is based. Comments must be received by the regional office by November
21, 1994.
PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearings on the proposed general permit are
tentatively scheduled to be held in Anchorage and Barrow, Alaska. The
Barrow hearing will be held at the North Slope Borough Assembly
Chambers on November 2, 1994, from 12 p.m. to 3 p.m. The Anchorage
hearing will be held at the Federal Building, Room 137, 710 ``C''
Street, Anchorage, Alaska on November 3, 1994, from 12 p.m. until 4
p.m. Persons interested in making a statement at the hearing must
contact Debra Packard at the address below or at (206) 553-1266 by 4:00
p.m. on October 24, 1994.
Either or both of the public hearings will be cancelled if
insufficient interest is expressed in them. Interested persons can
contact Debra Packard at (206) 553-1266 during the hours of 8:30 a.m.
and 4 p.m. PDT on October 25, 1994, to confirm that the hearings will
take place. At the hearings, interested persons may submit oral or
written statements concerning the draft general permit.
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD: The administrative record for the draft permit
is available for public review at EPA, Region 10, at the address listed
below.
ADDRESSES: Public comments and requests for coverage should be sent to:
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Attn: Ocean Programs
Section WD-137, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Anne Dailey or Eileen Hileman, both of
Region 10, at the address listed above or telephone (206) 553-2110 or
(206) 553-6513, respectively. Copies of the draft general permit and
today's publication will be provided upon request.
FACT SHEET
I. General Permits and Requests for Individual NPDES Permits
Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act (the Act) provides that the
discharge of pollutants is unlawful except in accordance with the terms
of an NPDES permit. Under EPA's regulations [40 CFR 122.28(a)(2)], EPA
may issue a single general permit to a category of point sources
located within the same geographic area if the regulated point sources:
--Involve the same or substantially similar types of operations;
--Discharge the same types of wastes;
--Require the same effluent limitations or operating conditions;
--Require similar monitoring requirements; and
--In the opinion of the Regional Administrator, are more appropriately
controlled under a general permit than under individual permits.
In addition, under EPA regulations [40 CFR 122.28(c)(1)], the
Regional Administrator shall issue general permits covering discharges
from offshore oil and gas facilities within the Region's jurisdiction.
Where the offshore area includes areas for which separate permit
conditions are required, such as areas of environmental concern, a
separate individual or general permit may be required by the Regional
Administrator. The Regional Administrator has determined that
exploratory oil and gas facilities operating in the area described in
this general NPDES permit are more appropriately controlled by a
general permit than by individual permits.
Any owner and/or operator authorized to discharge under a general
permit may request to be excluded from coverage under the general
permit by applying for an individual permit as provided by 40 CFR
122.28(b). The operator shall submit an application together with the
reasons supporting the request to the Director, Water Division, EPA,
Region 10 (``Director''). A source located within a general permit
area, excluded from coverage under the general permit solely because it
already has an individual permit (i.e., a permit that has not been
continued under the Administrative Procedure Act), may request that its
individual permit be revoked, and that it be covered by the general
permit. Upon revocation of the individual permit, the general permit
shall apply. Procedures for modification, revocation, termination, and
processing of NPDES permits are provided by 40 CFR 122.62-122.64. As in
the case of individual permits, violation of any condition of a general
permit constitutes a violation of the Act that is enforceable under
Section 309 of the Act.
II. Covered Facilities and Nature of Discharges
A. Types of Discharges Authorized
The proposed general permit will authorize the following discharges
from exploratory offshore oil and gas operations: Drilling mud and
drilling cuttings; deck drainage; sanitary wastes; domestic wastes;
desalination unit wastes; blowout preventer fluid; boiler blowdown;
fire control system test water; non-contact cooling water;
uncontaminated ballast water; uncontaminated bilge water; excess cement
slurry; mud, cuttings, and cement at the seafloor; and test fluids.
Drilling muds and cuttings are the major pollutant sources discharged
from exploratory operations. Further description of discharges are
given in Part V below. When issued, the proposed general permit will
establish effluent limitations, standards, prohibitions, and other
conditions on the authorized discharges from the facilities covered.
B. Types of Facilities Covered
The general permit proposed today authorizes the discharge of
specific operational wastewaters from offshore exploratory oil and gas
operations located in federal and state waters. In order to be
authorized to discharge under this permit, the operator of such
exploratory operations must be registered with EPA as the NPDES
permittee. Development and production operations are not covered by
this general permit. Exploratory operations are defined as those
operations involving the drilling of wells to determine the nature of
potential hydrocarbon reserves. Exploration facilities covered by this
general permit are included in the Offshore Subcategory of the Oil and
Gas Extraction Point Source Category (40 CFR part 435, subpart A).
Under the proposed permit, the number of wells from which discharges
may occur is limited to a maximum of five at a single site.
C. Areas Covered
The area of coverage under previous general permits for offshore
oil and gas activities in Alaska was linked directly to federal or
state lease sales. For a variety of reasons, EPA is now planning to tie
the area of coverage to MMS planning basins and all contiguous state
waters. This method of defining the area of coverage will ensure that
all areas likely to be leased during the term of this general permit
will be covered. While the planning basins are generally larger than
the specific sale areas offered for lease by MMS, discharges under this
permit would occur in only those areas successfully leased. EPA
believes that this is a more practicable way of addressing the area of
coverage. Hence, areas covered by the proposed Arctic NPDES general
permit include the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea planning basins as
defined by MMS (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1992), and state
waters contiguous to the landward boundary of the Beaufort Sea and
Chukchi Sea planning basins. The general permit does not authorize
discharges into any wetlands adjacent to the territorial waters of
Alaska or from facilities in the Onshore or Coastal Subcategories as
defined in 40 CFR Part 435.
III. Statutory Basis for Permit Conditions
Sections 301(b), 304, 306, 307, 308, 401, 402, 403, and 501 of the
Clean Water Act (The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972, as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977 and the Water Quality
Act of 1987), 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314 (b), (c), and (e), 1316, 1317, 1318
and 1361; 86 Stat. 816, Public Law 92-500; 91 Stat. 1567, Public Law
95-217; 101 Stat. 7, Public Law 100-4 (``the Act'' or ``CWA''), and the
U.S. Coast Guard regulations (33 CFR Part 151), provide the basis for
the permit conditions contained in the permit. The general requirements
of these Sections fall into three categories, which are described
below. A discussion of the basis for specific permit conditions follows
in Section V of this fact sheet.
A. Technology-Based Effluent Limitations
1. BPT Effluent Limitations
The Act requires particular classes of industrial dischargers to
meet effluent limitations established by EPA. EPA promulgated effluent
limitations guidelines requiring Best Practicable Control Technology
Currently Available (BPT) for the Offshore Subcategory of the Oil and
Gas Extraction Point Source Category (40 CFR part 435, subpart A) on
April 13, 1979 (44 FR 22069).
BPT effluent limitations guidelines require ``no discharge of free
oil'' for discharges of deck drainage, drilling muds, drill cuttings,
and well treatment fluids. This limitation requires that a discharge
shall not cause a film or sheen upon or discoloration on the surface of
the water or adjoining shorelines, or cause a sludge or emulsion to be
deposited beneath the surface of the water or upon adjoining shorelines
[40 CFR 435.11(d)]. The BPT guidelines for sanitary waste require that
the concentration of chlorine be maintained as close to 1 milligrams/
liter as possible in discharges from facilities housing ten or more
persons. For facilities continuously staffed by nine or fewer persons
or only intermittently staffed by any number of persons, the BPT
guideline for sanitary waste require no discharge of floating solids. A
``no floating solids'' guideline also applies to domestic waste.
2. BAT and BCT Effluent Limitations
As soon as practicable but in no case later than March 31, 1989,
all permits are required by Section 301(b)(2) of the Act to contain
effluent limitations for all categories and classes of point sources
which: (1) Control toxic pollutants (40 CFR 401.15) and nonconventional
pollutants through the use of Best Available Technology Economically
Achievable (BAT), and (2) represent Best Conventional Pollutant Control
Technology (BCT). BCT effluent limitations apply to conventional
pollutants (Ph, BOD, oil and grease, suspended solids, and fecal
coliform). In no case may BCT or BAT be less stringent than BPT.
BAT and BCT effluent limitations guidelines and New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) for offshore oil and gas operations were
proposed on August 26, 1985 (50 FR 34592) and signed on January 15,
1993 (58 FR 12454, March 4, 1993). The new guidelines were established
under the authority of Sections 301(b), 304, 306, 307, 308, and 501 of
the Act. The new guidelines were also established in response to a
Consent Decree entered on April 5, 1990 (subsequently modified on May
28, 1992) in NRDC v. Reilly, D. D.C. No. 79-3442 (JHP) and are
consistent with EPA's Effluent Guidelines Plan under Section 304(m) of
the CWA (57 FR 41000, September 8, 1992). This permit incorporates BAT
and BCT effluent limitations based upon the BAT and BCT effluent
limitations guidelines.
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) are not incorporated in
this general permit. Per the guidelines, NSPS are not applicable to
exploratory oil and gas operations (58 FR 12457, March 4, 1993).
Exploratory operations are defined in the preamble to the guidelines as
``new dischargers'' (rather than ``new sources'') on the basis that
they do not constitute ``significant site preparation''. NSPS do apply
to certain development and production, but not exploratory, operations.
This will be the first oil and gas general permit issued by Region
10 incorporating the new effluent limitation guidelines. Offshore
exploratory oil and gas wastestreams for which there are new BAT and
BCT effluent guidelines include: Drilling fluids and cuttings, deck
drainage, sanitary waste, and domestic wastes. This permit incorporates
BAT and BCT effluent limitations from the guidelines for the
aforementioned wastestreams (see also Sections IV and V below). Based
upon EPA's best professional judgement, limitations on test fluids have
been established to reflect guidelines applicable to produced water.
The new effluent guidelines do not specifically address other
wastestreams controlled by this permit (e.g., desalination unit wastes;
blowout preventer fluid; boiler blowdown; fire control system test
water; non-contact cooling water; uncontaminated ballast water;
uncontaminated bilge water; excess cement slurry; and muds, cuttings,
cement at seafloor). In the absence of effluent limitation guidelines
for these wastestreams, permit conditions must be established using
Best Professional Judgement (BPJ) procedures (40 CFR Sections 122.43,
122.44, and 125.3). As with previous oil and gas general permits issued
by Region 10, this permit incorporates BAT and BCT effluent limitations
based on the Agency's Best Professional Judgement.
As required by Section 304(b)(2)(B) of the Act, in developing the
BPJ/BAT permit conditions, the Agency considered the age of equipment
and facilities involved, the process employed, the engineering aspects
of the application of various types of control techniques, process
changes, the cost of achieving such effluent reduction, non-water
quality environmental impact (including energy requirements), and such
other factors as the Director deemed appropriate.
The types of equipment and processes employed in exploratory
drilling operations are well known to the Agency. Region 10 has issued
numerous general and individual permits for exploratory oil and gas
operations. The records for this permit and those earlier permits
thoroughly discuss the types of equipment, facilities and processes
employed in exploratory drilling operations.
With regard to the engineering aspects of the application of
various types of control techniques, there are no BAT permit
limitations based on installation of control equipment. BAT permit
limitations based on the newly issued guidelines can be achieved
through product substitution for drilling muds and cuttings. Any costs
of achieving the effluent limitations and any non-water quality
environmental impacts were also evaluated by the Agency where the
guidelines are applicable. A discussion of such evaluations is
presented below with respect to any limitation where applicable.
As required by Section 304(b)(4)(B) of the Act, the same factors as
in BAT are considered in determining BCT permit conditions, with one
exception. Rather than considering ``the cost of achieving such
effluent reduction,'' any BCT determination includes ``consideration of
the reasonableness of the relationship between the costs of attaining a
reduction in effluents and the effluent reduction benefits derived, and
the comparison of the cost and level of reduction of such pollutants
from publicly owned treatment works to the cost and level of reduction
of such pollutants from a class or category of industrial sources.''
BCT effluent limitations cannot be less stringent than BPT; therefore,
if the candidate industrial technology fails the BCT ``cost test'', BCT
effluent limitations are set equal to BPT.
B. Ocean Discharge Criteria
Section 403 of the Act requires that an NPDES permit for a
discharge into marine waters located seaward of the inner boundary of
the territorial seas be issued in accordance with guidelines for
determining the degradation of the marine environment. These
guidelines, referred to as the Ocean Discharge Criteria (40 CFR part
125, subpart M), and section 403 of the Act are intended to ``prevent
unreasonable degradation of the marine environment and to authorize
imposition of effluent limitations, including a prohibition of
discharge, if necessary, to ensure this goal.'' (45 FR 65942, October
3, 1980)
If EPA determines that the discharge will cause unreasonable
degradation, an NPDES permit will not be issued. If a determination of
unreasonable degradation cannot be made because of a lack of sufficient
information, EPA must then determine whether a discharge will cause
irreparable harm to the marine environment and whether there are
reasonable alternatives to on-site disposal. To assess the probability
of irreparable harm, EPA is required to make a determination that the
discharger, operating under appropriate permit conditions, will not
cause permanent and significant harm to the environment during a
monitoring period in which additional information is gathered. If data
gathered through monitoring indicate that continued discharge may cause
unreasonable degradation, the discharge must be halted or additional
permit limitations established.
The Director has concluded that there is sufficient information to
determine that exploratory oil and gas facilities operating under the
effluent limitations and conditions in this general permit will not
cause unreasonable degradation of the marine environment pursuant to
the Ocean Discharge Criteria guidelines as long as discharge does not
occur shoreward of the 5 meter isobath (Tetra Tech, 1994a) as discussed
in Section V.B.4. of this fact sheet. Conditions imposed under Section
403(c) of the Act are discussed in Section V.B.4. below.
C. State of Alaska Standards and Limitations
All dischargers to State waters must ensure compliance with water
quality standards and with limitations imposed by the state as part of
its certification of NPDES permits under Section 401 of the Act. The
state waters of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas have been classified by
the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) as marine
waters with water use classes 2A through 2D (water supply; water
recreation; growth and propagation of fish, shellfish, other aquatic
life, and wildlife; and harvesting for consumption of raw mollusks or
other raw aquatic life). In the best professional judgement of Region
10, the requirements and discharge limitations in the proposed permit
will ensure compliance with the state water quality standards.
In issuing this permit, EPA has considered Alaska's antidegradation
policy (18 AAC 70.010(c)). The exploratory discharges authorized under
this proposed permit are expected to have minimal impact because:
--The relatively short duration of exploratory activities,
--The intermittent nature of the discharges,
--The limited areal extent of the discharges relative to the total area
of coverage, and
--The controls placed on the discharges via the proposed NPDES permit.
Given the above, and since the project is not expected to result in any
violations of state water quality criteria, EPA believes the project
complies with the state's antidegradation policy.
D. Section 308 of the Clean Water Act
Section 308 of the Act and 40 CFR 122.44(i) authorizes the Director
to require a discharger to conduct monitoring to determine compliance
with effluent limitations and to assist in the development of effluent
limitations. EPA has included several monitoring requirements in this
permit, as listed in the table below in Section V.
IV. Summary of New or Changed Permit Conditions
This section of the fact sheet is intended to provide readers with
a brief summary of the parts of the general permit which are
substantively different from the previous general permits for offshore
oil and gas exploratory activities in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas.
For detailed discussion of the requirements and their bases, please
refer to Section V of this fact sheet. Many of the new and changed
requirements are a consequence of the final Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Offshore
Subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category
promulgated by EPA (see 40 CFR part 435, subpart A).
Drilling Muds and Drilling Cuttings
--Combination of wastestreams: In accordance with the guidelines,
drilling muds, drilling cuttings and washwater have been combined into
a single discharge wastestream called drilling fluids and drilling
cuttings (Discharge 001). Washwater had previously been combined with
drilling cuttings in a separate wastestream but washwater is now
covered as an intrinsic component of the drilling muds and cuttings
wastestream.
--Discharge prohibitions: Under Section 403(c) of the Act, discharge of
drilling muds and cuttings is prohibited to waters shallower than 5
meters depth in accordance with computer modeling done in preparation
for this proposed permit. Previously discharge had been prohibited in
waters shallower than 2 meters.
--Toxicity limit: A toxicity limit of a minimum of 30,000 ppm suspended
particulate phase (SPP) has been applied to the discharge in accordance
with the guidelines.
--Oil content: In accordance with the guidelines, EPA has eliminated
the 10% by weight maximum oil limitation on cuttings in favor of the no
free oil limitation.
--Barite: EPA has maintained the limitations on the mercury and cadmium
content of stock barite but has eliminated the case-by-case waiver
option present in previous permits. This waiver option has been
eliminated to ensure consistency with the effluent guidelines.
--Mud Plan: EPA has included a requirement that a mud plan be developed
by operators to encourage operators to estimate in advance the toxicity
of the drilling muds and cuttings to ensure compliance with the
toxicity limitation. The individual NPDES permit recently issued to
Arco Alaska for operations in Cook Inlet contains a similar
requirement.
--Area and Seasonal Restrictions: In addition to several continued
restrictions, based on Section 403(c) of the Act the proposed permit
also prohibits discharges within 3 miles of Kasegaluk Lagoon and its
passes.
--Environmental monitoring: The requirements for environmental
monitoring are more specific and detailed. These changes reflect the
current level of specificity present in other NPDES permits issued by
Region 10.
Domestic Wastes
--Garbage (``All other domestic waste''): Under the Coast Guard
Regulations, discharges of garbage, including plastics, are prohibited
with one exception. Victual or food waste can be discharged with
restrictions. This requirement reflects the new offshore guidelines (58
FR 12506, March 4, 1993). Several definitions have been included to
clarify this new effluent parameter.
Test Fluids
--Oil and grease: Per EPA's best professional judgement and the new
guidelines, the oil and grease limitation on test fluids has been made
more stringent. The limitations are now 29 mg/l monthly average and 42
mg/l daily maximum.
Discharge Limitations for All Wastestreams
--Rubbish, Trash and Other Refuse: As proposed the permit will prohibit
the discharge of ``garbage'' including food wastes within 12 nautical
miles of nearest land. With restrictions, comminuted food waste may be
discharged further than 12 nautical miles from nearest land. Under the
proposed permit these limitations, which are already effective under
the Coast Guard regulations, will be incorporated into the Arctic
general permit for consistency purposes.
Best Management Practice Plan Requirement
--The proposed general permit requires permittees to develop and
implement a Best Management Practices (BMP) Plan which prevents or
minimizes the generation of pollutants, their release, and potential
release from the permitted facilities to the waters of the United
States.
V. Specific Permit Conditions
A. Approach
The determination of appropriate conditions for each discharge was
accomplished through:
(1) consideration of technology-based effluent limitations to
control conventional pollutants under BCT;
(2) consideration of technology-based effluent limitations to
control toxic and nonconventional pollutants under BAT; and
(3) evaluation of the Ocean Discharge Criteria for discharges,
assuming conditions in (1) and (2), above, were in place.
Discussions of the specific effluent limitations and monitoring
requirements derived from (1) through (3) appear below in sections B.
through G. For convenience, these conditions and the regulatory basis
for each are cross-referenced by discharge in the following table:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discharge and permit conditions Statutory basis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drilling Muds and Drilling Cuttings:
Toxicity limit............................................................ BAT.
No diesel................................................................. BAT.
Cadmium & mercury in barite............................................... BAT.
No free oil............................................................... BAT, BCT.
No oil-based muds & cuttings.............................................. BAT, BCT.
Chemical analysis......................................................... Section 308.
Inventory of added substances............................................. Section 308.
Monitoring volume discharged.............................................. Section 308.
Mud plan.................................................................. Section 308.
Flow rate limitations..................................................... Section 403(c).
Depth related limitations................................................. Section 403(c).
Area and seasonal requirements............................................ Section 403(c).
Environmental monitoring requirements..................................... Sect. 403(c), WQS.
Deck Drainage:
No free oil............................................................... BAT, BCT, BPT.
Monitor flow rate......................................................... Section 308.
Sanitary Wastes:
No floating solids........................................................ BCT.
Chlorine (facilities > 10 people)......................................... BCT.
Monitor flow rate......................................................... Section 308.
Domestic Wastes:
No foam................................................................... BAT.
No floating solids........................................................ BCT.
All other domestic waste (garbage)........................................ BCT.
Monitor flow rate......................................................... Section 308.
Miscellaneous Discharges (as defined in permit):
No free oil............................................................... BCT.
Monitor flow rate......................................................... Section 308.
Test Fluids:
pH........................................................................ BCT.
No free oil............................................................... BCT.
Oil and grease limit...................................................... BAT/BPJ.
No discharge oil-based fluids............................................. BAT.
Monitor volume............................................................ Section 308.
All Discharges:
No floating solids, foam or oily waste.................................... BCT.
Surfactants, dispersants, and detergents.................................. BAT.
Rubbish, trash and other refuse........................................... BCT.
Other toxic/non-conventional pollutants................................... BAT/BCT.
Best Management Practices Plan............................................ 402(a)(1).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Drilling Muds and Drill Cuttings
The term ``drilling fluid'' generally includes all compositions of
fluids used to aid the production and removal of cuttings (particles
from geological formations) from a borehole in the earth. The essential
functions of drilling fluids are:
--To carry cuttings to the surface,
--To cool and clean drill bit,
--To reduce friction in the borehole,
--To maintain pressure balance between formation and borehole in
uncased sections of hole, and
--To assist in collection and interpretation of information available
from cuttings, cores, electrical logs, etc.
All drilling fluids fall into one of three classes: gas-based
(e.g., mist or foam), water-based, or oil-based. When the main
component of the drilling fluid is liquid (i.e., water or oil), it is
referred to as ``mud''. All of Region 10's previous permits address
only the discharge of muds, as gas fluids are not used in Alaskan
offshore or coastal drilling operations. As discussed below in
subsections 1 and 2, the discharge of oil-based muds (with oil as the
continuous phase and water as the dispersed phase) is prohibited
because they do not comply with the no free oil limitation.
The Agency understands that non-petroleum hydrocarbon organic
liquids are being developed as an alternate to gas, water or
hydrocarbon (e.g., diesel or mineral) oil-based drilling muds. The
Agency invites comments on the applicability and feasibility of such
muds to exploratory drilling operations in the offshore Arctic.
1. BCT Limitations on Drilling Muds and Cuttings
Free oil and oil-based muds: No discharge of free oil is permitted
from the discharge of drilling mud and drill cuttings, based upon the
guidelines. The technology basis for this limitation is substitution of
water-based drilling fluids in place of oil-based muds, non-petroleum
oil-containing additives, and minimization of the use of mineral oil.
When this substitution is not possible, the guidelines contemplated
that the technology basis was also transportation and discharge
onshore. Free oil is being regulated under BAT as an ``indicator''
pollutant for the control of toxic pollutants. Although it is not a
listed conventional pollutant, as is oil and grease, free oil is also
limited as a surrogate for oil and grease under BCT.
The discharge of oil-based drilling fluids is prohibited since
discharge of oil-based fluids would violate the effluent limitations of
no discharge of free oil.
Compliance with the free oil limitation will be monitored by use of
the Static Sheen Test (see 40 CFR part 435, appendix 1 to subpart A)
daily and before bulk discharges. Region 10 has required the use of the
Static Sheen Test in previous permits because visual observation of the
discharge for sheen upon the receiving water will not prevent
violations of the standard. This test is also appropriate for the harsh
weather and extended periods of darkness common in Alaska.
Previous Region 10 permits have contained an oil content limitation
on drill cuttings. However, this approach has been rejected in favor of
the no free oil limitation contained in the guidelines. As discussed at
56 FR 10682 and 56 FR 10685 (March 13, 1991), the Agency rejected an
oil content limitation based on cuttings washing treatment technologies
because limitations on other parameters (diesel oil, free oil, and
toxicity) are sufficient to reduce toxics from drilling wastes. Because
the no free oil limitation is more stringent than the 10% by weight
limitation on the oil content of cuttings, this change does not invoke
antibacksliding provisions (see 40 CFR 122.44(l)(2)).
2. BAT Limitations on Drilling Muds and Cuttings
Toxicity: Region 10 is proposing to incorporate an effluent
toxicity limit of minimum 96-hour LC50 of 30,000 ppm suspended
particulate phase (SPP) on discharged drilling muds and cuttings. This
limit is designed to be a technology-based control on toxicity, as well
as toxic and nonconventional pollutants. The 30,000 ppm SPP limitation
is based on the Agency's evaluation that it constitutes an economically
and technically achievable level of performance and is both
technologically feasible and economically achievable and reflects BAT
level of control (U.S. EPA, 1993a) on a national basis. This limitation
is present in the general permit for the Western Gulf of Mexico (57 FR
54652, November 19, 1992). The toxicity limit is also present in a
recently issued individual NPDES permit for ARCO Alaska operations in
Cook Inlet.
The purpose of this limitation is to encourage the use of water-
based or other low toxicity drilling fluids and additives. This
toxicity criterion became BAT when the final effluent guidelines were
signed January 15, 1993 (58 FR 12469, March 4, 1993).
The toxicity limit is an end-of-pipe discharge limit; and
represents a different approach to controlling this wastestream than
has been applied in previous general permits issued by Region 10. When
the Region issued its first general permits under the proposed
guidelines, it developed a case-by-case approach to limiting the
toxicity of discharged mud/additive systems as BPJ determination of BAT
until guidelines could be promulgated. Region 10 used the 30,000 ppm
SPP value as a criterion in evaluating available bioassay data for the
proposed discharges. The process of evaluating each mud/additive system
with respect to the discharge toxicity constituted BPJ determination of
BAT. Since the guidelines have now been promulgated with a toxicity
limitation for drilling muds and cuttings, Region 10 will be
discontinuing the mud preapproval process in favor of the end-of-pipe
limitation.
Compliance with the drilling mud toxicity limit will be determined
by using the Drilling Fluids Toxicity Test (see appendix 2 to subpart A
of part 435, 58 FR 12507, March 4, 1993). At a minimum, monitoring is
to be done on a monthly basis for each well. When the end-of-well is
reached, a final bioassay analysis will be required (see Part II.A.1.k.
of permit). The last monthly bioassay may constitute the end-of-well
bioassay. If a mineral oil pill is required (Part II.A.1.g. of permit),
the mud shall be sampled for bioassay prior to application of the pill
and after removal of the pill. Complete bioassay reports are required
as part of the regulatory record for each well.
Diesel oil: The discharge of drilling muds and cuttings which have
been contaminated by diesel oil is prohibited by the Agency, in
accordance with the offshore oil and gas effluent guidelines (58 FR
12469, March 4, 1993). The prohibition on the discharge of diesel oil
has been part of all of the general NPDES permits issued by Region 10
for the Offshore and Coastal Subcategories. Diesel oil, which is
sometimes added to a water-based mud system, is a complex mixture of
petroleum hydrocarbons, known to be highly toxic to marine organisms
and to contain numerous toxic and nonconventional pollutants. The
pollutant ``diesel oil'' is being used as an ``indicator'' of the
listed toxic pollutants present in diesel oil which are controlled
through compliance with the effluent limitation (i.e., no discharge).
The technology basis for this limitation is product substitution of
less toxic mineral oil for diesel oil.
Mercury and Cadmium in Barite: In accordance with the offshore oil
and gas effluent guidelines (58 FR 12469, March 4, 1993), the proposed
permit contains limitations of 1 mg/kg mercury and 3 mg/kg cadmium in
barite. Barite is a major constituent of drilling muds. These
restrictions on drilling fluid influent are designed to limit the
discharge of mercury, cadmium, and other potentially toxic metals in
the drilling fluid effluent, since these metals can occur as
contaminants in some sources of barite. The justification for the
limitation under BAT is product substitution or transportation and
disposal of the waste onshore. That is, operators can substitute
``clean'' barite, which meets the above limitations, for contaminated
barite, which does not meet the limitations. Numerous offshore
exploratory wells and the production wells drilled under permits
previously issued by Region 10 have been drilled subject to this
requirement. Chemical analyses have shown that the barite used has not
exceeded the limitations. Further discussion on the mercury and cadmium
limits in barite is presented in the offshore oil and gas guidelines
(58 FR 12479-80, March 4, 1993) and in the development document (U.S.
EPA, 1993a).
EPA has eliminated a waiver provision for the barite limits which
was in the previous permits. The waiver stipulated that if a permittee
was unable to comply with the barite limitations due to the lack of
availability of barite which meets the limitation, then the permittee
could request a case-by-case waiver allowing the discharge of barite
which exceeded the limits (53 FR 37858, September 28, 1988). As a part
of the effluent guidelines development, EPA investigated the
availability of domestic and foreign supplies of barite to meet the
cadmium and mercury limits. The Agency also considered the potential
for the increased demand for clean barite stocks resulting from this
rule to cause a rise in the cost of barite. (See the Development
Document (U.S. EPA, 1993a) and the Economic Impact Analysis (U.S. EPA,
1993d) for detailed discussion on the availability and economic
availability.) EPA concluded that ``there are sufficient supplies of
barite capable of meeting the limits of this rule to meet the needs of
offshore drilling operations (58 FR 12480, March 4, 1993). Hence, the
waiver provision has not been included in this proposed general permit.
3. Section 308 Documentation and Monitoring Requirements for Muds and
Cuttings
The following reporting and discharge monitoring requirements are
based on Section 308 of the Act and 40 CFR 122.44(i). These
requirements serve to determine compliance with, or the possible future
need for, effluent limitations in the permit.
--Chemical analysis
--Chemical inventory
--Monitoring volume discharged
--Mud plan
The requirement of a mud plan is new and is explained below. The
first three requirements have been present in previous NPDES general
permits for all coastal and offshore operations in Region 10. The
chemical analysis requirement has been expanded to require analysis of
total recoverable metal concentration, in addition to total metal
concentration. Analyses are to be conducted on split samples. This
requirement has been included to enable the Agency to better evaluate
the impact of metals in the mud discharges.
Mud Plans: As previously noted, Region 10 plans to discontinue
authorization of mud/additive systems. Instead EPA is shifting the
responsibility of case-by-case evaluations from the Region to the
operator. Resources do not allow Region 10 to continue to perform case-
by-case evaluations or to issue discharge authorizations for each
drilling mud/additive system. Hence, the proposed permit contains a
requirement that the permittee develop, have on-site, and available
upon request a plan for discharge of drilling muds and additives
(hereafter called ``mud plan''). This requirement is analogous to
analyses that the region has been performing in development of drilling
mud authorizations.
The basis for the mud plan requirement is Section 308(a)(A) of the
Act which provides that EPA may require the permittee to establish and
maintain records and/or reports that will assist the Region to
determine compliance with other requirements and effluent limitations
of the permit. The mud plan is one component of the Best Management
Practices Plan (see Part II.F.4.d.(4) of the permit). The mud plan
requirement is also based upon the Pollution Prevention Act and its
policy of prevention, reduction, recycling, and treatment of wastes
(PPA Section 102(b)) through measures which include process
modification, materials substitution, and improvement of management
(PPA Section 107(b)(3)).
The goal of requiring development of a mud plan is to ensure that
personnel on-site are knowledgeable about the information needed and
the methods required to formulate the mud/additive systems in order to
meet the effluent toxicity limit. Simply put, the mud plan is intended
to be a written guide to planning for, and using, a mud/additive system
in compliance with the permit.
Region 10's case-by-case approach to evaluating discharge of mud/
additive systems coupled with use of worst case cumulative toxicity
estimates as bases for authorization, has been conducive to the
discharge of muds with lower toxicity than elsewhere in the OCS. To
date Alaskan operators have demonstrated that thorough planning and
evaluation of mud/additive systems with respect to possible cumulative
toxicity does consistently result in discharge of muds that are less
toxic than the 30,000 ppm SPP limit.
The mud plan is intended to demonstrate that the discharged mud/
additive system for the well in question will meet the effluent limit
of 30,000 ppm SPP based on the following decision criteria:
--Estimates of worst case cumulative discharge toxicity (either
calculated or actual toxicity test results);
--Estimates of toxicity of discharged mud when a mineral oil pill has
been used; and
--Use of less toxic alternatives where possible.
The mud plan shall also include a clearly stated procedure for
dealing with situations in which additives not originally planned for
are needed at the ``last minute.'' This procedure should enable
drilling and mud personnel to determine whether an additive or mud
component may be added to the circulating mud system without
significant effect upon the discharge toxicity. Criteria for reaching
this type of ``last minute'' additive decision shall be clearly
specified in the mud plan.
In addition to developing the mud plan, the operator is also
required to certify that the mud plan is complete, on-site, and
available upon request (see Part II.A.1.f. of the permit).
Certification is due no later than submission of their written
notice of intent to commence discharge (see Part I.C. of the permit).
4. Section 403(c) Requirements for Muds and Cuttings
Depth-related Restrictions: Additional restrictions on these
discharges are necessary to ensure no unreasonable degradation of the
environment. The area of coverage includes water depths from 5 to about
3,000 meters deep. Discharge rate limitations on total muds and
cuttings have been established in the ocean discharge criteria
evaluation process in order to allow adequate dispersion of the
discharges. These maximum rates are:
--No discharge in waters less than 5 meters deep,
--500 bbl/hr for discharges into waters greater than 5 meters but not
more than 20 meters in depth,
--750 bbl/hr for discharges into waters greater than 20 meters but not
more than 40 meters in depth, and
--1,000 bbl/hr for discharges into waters greater than 40 meters in
depth.
These limits are necessary because for any given discharge rate,
the dilution of drilling muds and cuttings is not as great in shallow
waters as in deeper waters. However, at any particular water depth,
greater dilution close to the discharge point will be achieved with a
lower discharge rate. These maximum rates will ensure that the water
quality standards will not be exceeded at the edge of the 100 meters
mixing zone (Tetra Tech, 1994a).
Previous permits have allowed the discharge of drilling muds and
cuttings between 2 and 5 meters depth. However, computer modeling of
the dispersion of the drilling muds conducted for this permit in 2-5
meters depth did not perform adequately (Tetra Tech, 1994a). The
maximum depth of mud accumulation for these cases was 10-20 times
greater than the water depth. Mud accumulations of this magnitude would
effectively bury the drilling mud outfall, making any calculation of
dilution values meaningless. Accordingly, EPA is proposing zero
discharge of muds and cuttings in waters less than 5 meters deep.
Areal Restrictions: Discharge of muds and cuttings are prohibited
in the following four areas:
(a) Between the shore (mainland and barrier islands) and the 5
meters isobath,
(b) within 1000 meters of river mouths or deltas during unstable or
broken ice or open water conditions,
(c) Within 1000 meters of the Stefansson Sound Boulder Patch, and
(d) Within 3 miles of Kasegaluk Lagoon or the passes of Kasegaluk
Lagoon.
For the specific requirements, see Parts II.A.3. of the permit. In
accordance with 40 CFR 125.123 (c), the Director has prohibited these
discharges because the Region has determined they may cause
unreasonable degradation of the marine environment. Prohibition (a) has
changed from previous permits as described in the previous section of
this fact sheet. Prohibitions (b) and (c) are contained in the previous
Beaufort Sea NPDES general permits (49 FR 23734, June 7, 1984 and 53 FR
37846, September 28, 1988). This is the first time that a provision
concerning Kasegaluk Lagoon has been included in a general permit for
offshore oil and gas exploration since the area has never been covered
by an NPDES permit for exploratory oil and gas operations.
With regard to (a) and (b) above, EPA has extensively studied the
nearshore zone of the Alaskan Beaufort Sea in several Ocean Discharge
Criteria Evaluations (Tetra Tech, 1994a; Jones & Stokes, 1983, 1984).
These evaluations have clearly shown that these nearshore areas provide
important feeding and migratory habitat for a large number of species
including fish, waterfowl, and mammals. Further, these areas provide
essential feeding and preferred habitat for species of major importance
for subsistence and commercial fisheries.
Concerning (c) above, the proposed permit does not authorize
discharges within 1000 meters of the Stefansson Sound Boulder Patch as
defined by Dunton et al. (1982). The ``Patch'' is a rare and unique
biological community that is susceptible to adverse effects caused by
discharged drilling muds and cuttings.
As noted in (d) above, the proposed permit restricts activity near
Kasegaluk Lagoon and its barrier island system. Specifically discharge
is prohibited within Kasegaluk Lagoon and in the waters within 3 miles
of the following passes intensively used by the beluga whales:
Kukpowruk Pass, Akunik Pass, Utukok Pass, Icy Cape Pass, and
Alokiakatat Pass. This restriction is in accordance with the North
Slope Borough's Coastal Management Program (NSB, 1988). The NSB
recognizes Kasegaluk Lagoon as a Candidate Area Meriting Special
Attention (AMSA) and imposes the above restrictions.
Kasegaluk Lagoon extends for approximately 140 miles along the
Chukchi Sea coast. About 90 miles of the lagoon is south of Icy Cape
and the rest is north of Icy Cape. Kasegaluk Lagoon is located in state
waters of the Chukchi Sea and provides important habitat for spotted
seals and beluga whales. Beluga whales are known to feed, calve and may
molt in this lagoon (North Slope Borough, 1988; Frost and Lowry, 1993;
Tetra Tech, 1994a). Spotted seals also calve in Kasegaluk Lagoon (NSB,
1988). The lagoon also provides important feeding, migrating, and
rearing areas for marine and anadromous fish, as well as migratory
birds.
Kasegaluk Lagoon, the barrier islands, and the nearshore waters
seaward of the barrier islands are an important subsistence area for
the villagers of Point Lay (NSB, 1988). Subsistence activities that
occur seasonally in the Kasegaluk Lagoon Candidate AMSA area include
egg gathering, waterfowl hunting, sealing, fishing, walrus hunting, and
whaling for belugas. This proposed permit and the Borough's management
program recognizes the importance of the area for marine mammals,
seabirds, and subsistence activities.
Environmental Monitoring: Environmental monitoring is required in
two areas which are of particular concern to Region 10: discharge of
drilling muds and cuttings below-ice to water depths shallower than 20
meters and within 1000 meters of an area of biological concern (i.e., a
unique biological community or habitat). The Director has determined
that controlled discharges to these areas, in accordance with 40 CFR
125.123(a) and the limitations and conditions in the draft permit, will
not cause unreasonable degradation of the marine environment.
Environmental monitoring is required to verify that discharges to these
areas will not produce conditions in the future that would lead to
unreasonable degradation.
C. Deck Drainage (Discharge 002)
Deck drainage includes all waste resulting from deck washings,
spillage, rainwater, and run-off from gutters and drains including drip
pans and work areas. Oil and grease are the primary pollutants
identified in deck drainage. In addition to oil, various other
chemicals used in drilling operations may be present. Specific
conventional, toxic, and non-conventional pollutants found in deck
drainage are controlled by the prohibition on the discharge of free
oil. Deck drainage discharges are not continuous and can vary
significantly in volume.
Free oil: EPA is controlling pollutants found in deck drainage by
the prohibition on the discharge of free oil. This limit is the current
BPT level of control and is also the appropriate level of control under
BCT and BAT. No free oil is permitted from the discharge of deck
drainage in accordance with the offshore oil and gas effluent
guidelines (58 FR 12506, March 4, 1993). Deck drainage was subject to
this limitation in the previous permits issued by Region 10 and past
practices have not resulted in violations of this limit.
Compliance with the free oil limitation for deck drainage will be
by visual observation for a sheen on the receiving water as mandated by
the offshore oil and gas guidelines (58 FR 12506, March 4, 1993),
except under the conditions described below. The Static Sheen Test will
also be required for the monitoring of deck drainage during unstable or
broken ice and stable ice conditions. Use of the Static Sheen Test will
prevent a violation of the free oil limitation in those discharges most
likely to be contaminated with oil. This would not be possible with an
after-the-fact visual observation of a sheen on the receiving water.
This requirement is similar to requirements in the Region's previous
permits and will not result in any additional costs to the industry.
Flow Rate: Flow rate is required to be estimated monthly. The basis
for this requirement is Section 308 of the Act.
D. Sanitary Wastes (Discharge 003)
The sanitary wastes from offshore oil and gas facilities are made
up of human body wastes from the toilets and urinals. The volume and
concentrations of these wastes vary widely with time, occupancy,
platform characteristics, and operational status (U.S. EPA, 1993a).
Floating Solids: The prohibition on floating solids is mandated by
the offshore oil and gas guidelines for facilities intermittently
manned or continuously manned by fewer than 10 persons (58 FR 12470,
March 4, 1993). This requirement does not specifically apply to
facilities continuously manned by 10 or more persons (however, the
method of compliance with the residual chlorine limit effectively
limits floating solids for these facilities). Since previous permits
for exploratory operations in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas have
prohibited the discharge of floating solids for all facilities
regardless of staffing, Region 10 is continuing the requirement in this
permit based upon antibacksliding provisions [40 CFR 122.44(l)(2)].
This BCT prohibition on the discharge of floating solids is equivalent
to the current level of control for sanitary wastes in previous
permits.
Residual Chlorine: Chlorine is regulated by the Agency in the
offshore oil and gas effluent guidelines as a conventional pollutant.
Chlorine is added to the wastestream to control fecal coliforms in the
discharge. Facilities continuously manned by 10 or more persons are
required to have a residual chlorine content of 1 milligram per liter
(and maintained as close to the limit as possible). This limitation has
been in previous Region 10 permits and is in the proposed permit as
well.
For facilities with fewer than 10 persons or intermittently staffed
by any number of persons (i.e., M91M facilities), the proposed permit
prohibits the discharge of floating solids only, with no chlorine
limitation.
E. Domestic Wastes (Discharge 004)
Domestic wastes refers to materials discharged from sinks, showers,
laundries, safety showers, eyewash stations, and galleys. Because
domestic wastes do not contain fecal coliform, chlorination is not
required.
Floating Solids: Under BCT, EPA is prohibiting the discharge of
floating solids. The limitation is included in the offshore oil and gas
guidelines (58 FR 12487, March 4, 1993) and is equivalent to the
current level of control for sanitary wastes in the previous permits.
Visible Foam: Discharges of visible foam are prohibited under BAT
in the offshore oil and gas guidelines (58 FR 12487, March 4, 1993).
This limitation is equivalent to the current level of control for
domestic wastes in existing permits and past practices have not
resulted in violations of this limitation.
All other domestic waste: This permit includes requirements
limiting the discharge of all other domestic waste (garbage) as
included in U.S. Coast Guard regulations at 33 CFR part 151. These
limitations are a new feature in EPA offshore oil and gas permits for
Beaufort and Chukchi Seas operators and reflect the offshore oil and
gas effluent guidelines (58 FR 12487, March 4, 1993). The requirements
on garbage are currently included in the most recent reissuance of the
Western Gulf of Mexico general permit (57 FR 54654, November 19, 1992).
As proposed, the reissued permit will prohibit the discharge of
garbage including food wastes within 12 nautical miles from nearest
land. Comminuted food waste which is able to pass through a screen with
a mesh size no larger than 25 mm (approximately 1 inch) may be
discharged 12 or more nautical miles from nearest land. Incineration
ash and non-plastic clinkers that can pass through a 25 mm mesh screen
may be discharged beyond 3 miles from nearest land, otherwise ash and
non-plastic clinkers can only be discharged beyond 12 nautical miles
from nearest land.
Since this BCT limitation already exists in Coast Guard regulations
and other NPDES permits, it will not result in any additional
compliance cost, or additional non-water quality environmental impacts.
There are no incremental costs associated with the limitation.
F. Miscellaneous Discharges:
Desalination unit wastes (005), blowout preventer fluid (006),
boiler blowdown (007), fire control system test water (008), non-
contact cooling water (009), uncontaminated ballast water (010),
uncontaminated bilge water (011), excess cement slurry (012), and mud,
cuttings, and cement at the seafloor (013).
No free oil: Region 10 has determined that no free oil shall be
discharged. The no free oil limitation is Region 10's best professional
judgement determination of BPT controls for these discharges.
Compliance with the free oil limitation for miscellaneous discharges
will be by visual observation for a sheen on the receiving water,
except for bilge water under the conditions described below. All of
these discharges have been subject to this limitation in the previous
permits issued by Region 10 and past practices have not resulted in
violations of this limit.
G. Discharge 014 (Test Fluids)
Limited volumes of formation waters which are encountered during
testing of the well are authorized for discharge as test fluids.
Formation waters are encountered during well testing and are similar in
composition to produced waters.
Free oil: As previously discussed, no discharge of free oil is
permitted from discharges authorized by this permit. In previous
general permits, Region 10 has determined that the BCT effluent
limitations guideline of no discharge of free oil from the discharge of
deck drainage, drilling muds, drill cuttings, and well treatment fluids
should apply to other discharges, including test fluids. The no free
oil limitation is Region 10's best professional judgement determination
of BCT controls for the test fluids discharge. Operators have been
subject to a no free oil limitation in previous permits issued by
Region 10, and past practices have not resulted in violations of this
limitation. In accordance with Section 308, the Static Sheen Test will
be required for the monitoring of test fluids.
Oil and grease: Although oil and grease is a conventional pollutant
subject to BCT, it also serves as BAT (i.e., as an indicator of toxic
pollutants) for produced water. Specifically, the toxic pollutants
which are controlled by limiting oil and grease include phenol,
naphthalene, ethylbenzene, and toluene (U.S. EPA 1993a). EPA has
determined that it is not technically feasible to control these toxic
pollutants individually so that the limitation on oil and grease
controls discharge these pollutants in produced water at the BAT level
(U.S. EPA 1993a).
The promulgated BAT for oil and grease in produced water as 29 mg/l
monthly average and 42 mg/l daily maximum based upon the improved
operating performance of gas flotation technology (58 FR 12506, March
4, 1993). Based upon the chemical similarity of test fluids and
produced water, Region 10 Agency has determined that it is reasonable
to apply the produced water provisions to test fluids. Accordingly, the
proposed permit limits on oil and grease in test fluids are 29 mg/l
monthly average and 42 mg/l daily maximum.
pH: The pH of discharged test fluids (which may have a
substantially different pH from that of the ambient receiving water)
has been limited to a range of 6.5-8.5 at the point of discharge. In
Region 10's best professional judgement, this limitation appropriately
equals a BPT level of control. No more stringent standard has been
identified by the Region at this time. Therefore, Region 10 is setting
a BCT effluent limitation for the pH of test fluids equal to that of
BPT. This limitation will ensure that pH changes greater than 0.2 pH
unit will not occur beyond the edge of the 100-meter mixing zone [40
CFR Sec. 125.121(c)]. This requirement has been and is routinely
complied with by operations under previous BPT permits and thus,
reflects no cost incremental to BPT.
H. Other Discharge Limitations
No Floating Solids, or Visible Foam, or Oily Wastes: Region 10 has
determined that the BCT effluent limitations guideline of no discharge
of floating solids from the discharge of sanitary wastes should apply
to all other discharges as well. Operators have been subject to a
visible foam limit and an oily waste limit in previous permits issued
by Region 10 and past practices have not resulted in violations.
Surfactants, Dispersants, and Detergents: The draft permit contains
a provision that the discharge of surfactants, dispersants, and
detergents shall be minimized except as necessary to comply with the
safety requirements of the Occupational Health and Safety
Administration and the Minerals Management Service. These products
contain primarily nonconventional pollutants. This provision previously
appeared in the permits for the Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea, Norton
Sound, Bering Sea, and Cook Inlet.
Rubbish, Trash, or Other Refuse: The discharge of any solid
material not authorized by this permit (as described above) is
prohibited. This permit includes limitations set forth by the U.S.
Coast Guard in 33 CFR part 151 for domestic waste disposal from all
fixed or floating offshore platforms and associated vessels engaged in
exploration of seabed mineral resources. These limitations, as
specified by Congress apply to all navigable waters of the United
States.
This permit prohibits the discharge of ``garbage'' including food
wastes, within 12 nautical miles from nearest land. Comminuted food
waste (able to pass through a screen with a mesh size larger than 25
mm, approximately 1 inch) may be discharged from operations located 12
nautical miles or more from land. Graywater, drainage from dishwater,
shower, laundry, bath and washbasins are not considered ``garbage''
within the meaning of the Coast Guard regulations. Incineration ash and
non-plastic clinkers that can pass through a 25 mm mesh screen may be
discharged greater than 3 miles from the nearest land; otherwise, ash
and non-plastic clinkers can only be discharged beyond 12 nautical
miles from nearest land.
Other Toxic and Non-conventional Compounds: Under the proposed
permit, prohibitions on discharges of the following pollutants are
retained: halogenated phenol compounds, trisodium nitrilotriacetic
acid, sodium chromate, and sodium dichromate. The class of halogenated
phenol compounds includes toxic pollutants, and sodium chromate and
sodium dichromate contain chromium, also a toxic pollutant. Trisodium
nitrilotriacetic acid is a nonconventional pollutant. The discharge of
these compounds was previously prohibited in the general permits for
the Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea, Norton Sound, Bering Sea, and Cook
Inlet.
I. Best Management Practice Plan Requirement
It is national policy that, whenever feasible, pollution should be
prevented or reduced at the source, that pollution which cannot be
prevented should be recycled in an environmentally safe manner, and
that disposal or release into the environment should be employed only
as a last resort and should be conducted in an environmentally safe
manner (Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. 13101). Section
402(a)(1) authorizes EPA to include miscellaneous requirements in
permits on a case-by-case basis which are deemed necessary to carry out
the provisions of the Act. Best Management Practices (BMPs), in
addition to numerical effluent limitations, are required to control or
abate the discharge of pollutants in accordance with 40 CFR 122.44(k).
Pursuant to Section 402(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act and Region 10
policy (EPA Region 10, 1992), development and implementation of a Best
Management Practices Plan is included as a condition of this NPDES
general permit.
The proposed general permit requires the development and
implementation of a BMP Plan which prevents or minimizes the generation
of pollutants, their release, and/or potential release from the
facility to the waters of the United States through normal operations
and ancillary activities. Relevant operations and activities include
material storage areas, site runoff, storm water, in-plant transfer,
process and material handling areas, loading or unloading operations,
spillage or leaks, sludge and waste disposal, or drainage from raw
material storage.
In addition to developing and implementing the BMP Plan, the
operator is also required to certify that the BMP Plan is complete, on-
site, and available upon request (see Part II.F.1. of the permit).
Certification is required no later than submission of their written
notice of intent to commence discharge (see Part I.C. of the permit).
These certification requirements are similar to the requirements for a
mud plan.
The BMP Plan must be amended whenever there is a change in the
facility or in the operation of the facility which materially increases
the potential for an increased discharge of pollutants. The BMP Plan
will become an enforceable condition of the permit; a violation of the
BMP Plan is a violation of the permit.
VI. Other Legal Requirements
A. Oil Spill Requirements
Section 311 of the Act prohibits the discharge of oil and hazardous
materials in harmful quantities. Routine discharges specifically
controlled by the permit are excluded from the provisions of Section
311. However, this permit does not preclude the institution of legal
action or relieve permittees from any responsibilities, liabilities, or
penalties for other, unauthorized discharges of oil and hazardous
materials which are covered by Section 311 of the Act.
B. Endangered Species Act
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) allocates authority to and
administers requirements upon Federal agencies regarding endangered
species of fish, wildlife, or plants and habitat of such species that
have been designated as critical. Its implementing regulations (50 CFR
Part 402) require EPA to ensure, in consultation with the Secretary of
the Interior or Commerce, that any action authorized, funded or carried
out by EPA is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
endangered or threatened species or adversely affect its critical
habitat. [40 CFR 122.49(c)].
In compliance with Section 7 of the ESA, an endangered species list
was requested by EPA and received from both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for
the affected area. The following threatened, endangered and/or
candidate species are reported to potentially occur in the vicinity of
the discharges associated with oil and gas operations proposed by the
permit: arctic peregrine falcon, spectacled eider, stellars eider, and
bowhead whale.
A draft biological evaluation was prepared by Tetra Tech under
contract to EPA to determine whether the discharges authorized by this
proposed general permit are likely to adversely affect any endangered
or threatened species or its critical habitat (Tetra Tech, 1994b).
Based upon the available information, it is not expected that the
exploratory oil and gas permitted discharges and related activities
will not adversely affect any of the listed species or their habitat.
EPA has informally consulted with the USFWS and the NMFS pursuant
to Section 7 consultation of the Endangered Species Act. The EPA shared
the draft biological evaluation with USFWS at their request. Comments
raised by the USFWS have been addressed. EPA has forwarded the revised
document to both Services for their review. EPA will consider the
Services' comments in developing the final permit.
C. Coastal Zone Management Act
EPA has determined that the activities authorized by this general
permit are consistent with local and state Coastal Management Plans.
The proposed permit and consistency determination will be submitted to
the State of Alaska for state interagency review at the time of public
notice. The requirements for State Coastal Zone Management Review and
approval must be satisfied before the general permit may be issued.
D. Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act
No marine sanctuaries as designated by this Act exist in the
vicinity of the permit areas.
E. State Water Quality Standards and State Certification
Since state waters are involved in the proposed general permit
area, the provisions of Section 401 of the Act apply. In accordance
with 40 CFR 124.10(c)(1), public notice of the draft permit has been
provided to the State of Alaska agencies having jurisdiction over fish,
shellfish, and wildlife resources (see section II.C. above).
F. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action from
the review requirements of Executive Order 12866 pursuant to Section
8(b) of that order.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
EPA has reviewed the requirements imposed on regulated facilities
in this draft general permit under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980,
44 USC 3501 et seq. Most of the information collection requirements
have already been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
in submissions made for the NPDES permit program under the provisions
of the Clean Water Act. In addition, the environmental monitoring
requirements pursuant to Section 403(c) of the Clean Water Act in Part
II.B.4 of this permit are similar to the monitoring requirements that
were approved by OMB for the previously issued Beaufort Sea II and
Chukchi Sea general permits (September 28, 1988, 53 FR 37846) and the
modification of the Beaufort Sea II NPDES general permit (September 27,
1989, 54 FR 39574). The final general permit will explain how the
information collection requirements respond to any OMB or public
comments.
H. The Regulatory Flexibility Act
After review of the facts presented in the notice of intent printed
above, I hereby certify, pursuant to the provisions of 5 USC 605(b),
that this general permit will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities. This certification is based on
the fact that the regulated parties have greater than 500 employees and
are not classified as small businesses under the Small Business
Administration regulations established at 49 FR 5024 et seq. (February
9, 1984). These facilities are classified as Major Group 13--Oil and
Gas Extraction SIC 1311 Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas.
Dated: August 31, 1994.
Chuck Clarke,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
VII. References
Bigham, G., L. Hornsby, and G. Wiens. 1984. Technical support
document for regulating dilution and deposition of drilling muds on
the Outer Continental Shelf. Prepared for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 10, and Jones and Stokes Associates,
Bellevue, WA, by Tetra Tech, Inc. November 1984. 68 pp. plus
appendices.
Dunton, K., E. Reimnitz, and S. Schonberg. 1982. An arctic kelp
community in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Arctic 35(4): 465-484.
Frost, K.J. and L.F. Lowry. 1993. Distribution and Abundance of
Beluga Whales and Spotted Seals in the Chukchi Sea, Including Recent
Findings at Kasegaluk Lagoon. In, Alaska OCS Region Fifth
Information Transfer Meeting Conference Proceedings. U.S. Dept. of
the Interior, Minerals Management Service. OCS Study MMS 93-0043.
Jones & Stokes Associates. 1983. Final ocean discharge criteria
evaluation, Diapir Field, OCS lease sale 71. Prepared for U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10. March 21, 1983. 160 pp.
plus appendices.
Jones & Stokes Associates. 1984. Final ocean discharge criteria
evaluation, Diapir Field, OCS lease sale 87 and state lease sales
39, 43, and 43a. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 10, July 24, 1984. 137 pp. plus appendices.
North Slope Borough. 1988. North Slope Borough Coastal Management
Program.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 1994a. Ocean discharge criteria evaluation for
Arctic state and federal waters. Draft. Prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, July 1994.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 1994b. Effects of oil and gas exploration
activities in the area of coverage under the Arctic NPDES General
Permit on threatened and endangered species. Draft. Prepared for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, March 1994. Revised by EPA on
8/8/94.
U.S. Department of the Interior. 1992. Outer Continental Shelf
Natural Gas and Oil Resource Management: Comprehensive Program
(1992-1997). Proposed Final. Minerals Management Service.
U.S. EPA. 1984. Final General NPDES Permits for Oil and Gas
Operations on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and in State Waters
of Alaska; Bering Sea and Beaufort Sea; Notice. (49 FR 23734, June
7, 1984).
U.S. EPA. 1985. Assessment of environmental fate and effects of
discharges from offshore oil and gas operations. EPA 440/4-85/002.
U.S. EPA. 1988. Final General NPDES Permits for Oil and Gas
Operations on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) of Alaska: Beaufort
Sea II and Chukchi Sea; Notice. (53 FR 37846, September 28, 1988).
U.S. EPA. 1989. Final Modifications of the NPDES General Permit for
Oil and Gas Operations on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and
State Waters of Alaska; Beaufort Sea II. (54 FR 39574, September 27,
1989).
U.S. EPA. 1993a. Development Document for Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Offshore
Subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category:
Final. Office of Water. EPA 821-R-93-003.
U.S. EPA. 1993b. 40 CFR Part 135. Oil and gas extraction point
source category offshore subcategory effluent limitations guidelines
and new source performance standards. (58 FR 12454, March 4, 1993).
U.S. EPA. 1993c. Response to Public Comments on Proposed Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the
Offshore Subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source
Category (January 15, 1993). Offshore Rulemaking Record Document No.
VIII.B.(3)1, Volumes 151, 152, and 154 (Excerpts only).
U.S. EPA. 1993d. Economic Impact Analysis of Final Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards of Performance for the Offshore
Oil and Gas Industry. Office of Water. EPA-821-R-93-003.
U.S. EPA, Region 10. 1992. Region 10 Guidance: Best Management
Practices Plans in NPDES Permits. June 1992.
[FR Doc. 94-23419 Filed 9-19-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P