[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 20, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48796-48841]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-23207]




[[Page 48795]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part V





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



Alaskan Outer Continental Shelf; Draft National Pollutant Discharge 
Elimination System General Permit; Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 20, 1995 / 
Notices   

[[Page 48796]]


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-5297-3]


Alaskan Outer Continental Shelf; Draft National Pollutant 
Discharge Elimination System General Permit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10.

ACTION: Notice of Draft NPDES General Permit (Reissuance), Notice of 
State of Alaska Certification and Notice of State of Alaska 
Determination of Consistency with the Alaska Coastal Management 
Program.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 (OCS) in addition to exploration, 
production and development wells in offshore and coastal waters of the 
State of Alaska. A general NPDES permit (51 FR 35460, 10/03/86) was 
issued September 4, 1986, for all areas offered for lease by the U.S. 
Department of the Interior's Minerals Management Service (MMS) in 
Federal Lease Sales 55 (Gulf of Alaska) and 60 (Cook Inlet) and all 
Cook Inlet blocks offered for lease by the State of Alaska in Lease 
Sales 32, 33, 35, 40, 46A, and 49. The permit issued in 1986 also 
covered areas offered under state lease sales held during the effective 
period of the permit (i.e., 10/10/86-10/10/91). The permit proposed 
today will not cover areas outside of Cook Inlet (i.e., Federal Lease 
Sale 55).
    When issued, the proposed permit will establish effluent 
limitations, standards, prohibitions, and other conditions on 
discharges from facilities in the general permit area. These conditions 
are based on the administrative record. EPA regulations and the permit 
contain a procedure which allows the owner or operator of a point 
source discharge to apply for an individual permit instead. A total of 
23 facilities were covered under the previous general permit. Of those 
23 facilities, 16 are currently active. All of those permittees have 
complied with the reissuance application procedures and have indicated 
preference to be covered under this general permit as well. Therefore, 
Region 10 hereby announces its intention to cover these facilities 
under this general permit. If any individual objects to this automatic 
coverage, that objection should be submitted in writing during the 
public comment period.
    A brief description of the basis for the conditions and 
requirements of the proposed permit is given in the fact sheet 
published below.

Dates: Interested persons may submit comments of the draft general 
permit by 4 pm on November 30, 1995.

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: Kris Flint, Region 10, at the address 
listed above or telephone (206) 553-8155. Copies of the draft general 
permit and today's publication will provided upon request.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

State Certification

    This Notice will also serve as Public Notice of the intent of the 
State of Alaska, Department of Environmental Conservation to consider 
certifying that the subject discharge will comply with the applicable 
provisions of Section 208(e), 301, 303, 306 and 307 of the Clean Water 
Act. The NPDES permit will not be issued until the certification 
requirements of Section 401 have been met. Persons wishing to comment 
on State Certification should submit written comments within this 60 
day period to the State of Alaska, Southcentral Regional Office, Alaska 
Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), 555 Cordova Street, 
Anchorage, Alaska 99501.

State Consistency Determination

    This Notice will also serve as Public Notice of the intent of the 
State of Alaska, Office of Management and Budget, Division of 
Governmental Coordination, to review this action for consistency with 
the approved Alaska Coastal Management Program. Persons wishing to 
comment on the State Determination of Consistency with the Alaska 
Coastal Management Program should submit written comments within this 
60 day period, to the State of Alaska, Office of Management and Budget, 
Division of Governmental Coordination at the Joint Pipeline Office, 411 
West 4th Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501. Comments should be addressed 
to the attention of Alaska Coastal Management Program Consistency 
Review.

Public Hearing

    Public hearings on the proposed general permit are tentatively 
scheduled to be held in Anchorage and Soldotna, Alaska. The Anchorage 
hearing will be held in Room 154 of the Anchorage Federal Building at 
222 West Seventh on November 28, 1995, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. The 
Soldotna hearing will be held in the Assembly Chambers of the Kenai 
Peninsula Borough at 144 North Binkley Road on November 29, 1995, from 
4 p.m. until all persons have been heard. Either or both of the public 
hearings will be cancelled if insufficient interest is expressed in 
them. People interested in making a statement at either hearing must 
contact Kris Flint at the address below or at (206) 553-8155 by 4 pm on 
November 16, 1995, to confirm that the hearing will take place. At the 
hearings, interested people may submit oral or written statements 
concerning the draft general permit.

Request for Coverage

    Written request for authorization to discharge under the general 
permit shall be provided, as described in Part I.A. of the permit, to 
EPA, Region 10, at least 60 days prior to initiation of discharges. 
Authorization to discharge requires written notification from EPA that 
coverage has been granted and that a specific permit number has been 
assigned to operations at the discharge site. The permit also requires 
permittees to notify EPA no more than seven (7) days prior to the 
initiation of discharges at the site, and prior to the initiation of 
discharges from each new well at a given site.

Administrative Record

    The proposed NPDES permit and other related documents are on file 
and may be inspected any time between 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday 
through Friday at the addresses shown below.

U.S. EPA, Anchorage Operations Office, Anchorage Operations Office, 
Room 537, Federal Building, 222 West Seventh Avenue, #19, Anchorage, 
Alaska 99513-7588
U.S. EPA, Region 10, Office of Water, WD-137, Ocean Programs Section, 
1200 6th Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101

Table of Contents

I. General Permits and Requests for Individual Permits
II. Covered Facilities and Nature of Discharges
    A. Types of Discharges Authorized
    B. Existing Facilities
    C. Discharges Not Authorized
    D. Areas of Coverage
    E. Nature of Discharges
III. Basis for Permit Conditions
    A. Technology Bases
    B. Ocean Discharge Criteria
    C. Section 308 of the Clean Water Act
    D. State of Alaska Standards and Limitations 

[[Page 48797]]

    E. Water Quality-based Permit Limit Derivatio
    F. Mixing Zones
IV. Summary of New and Changed Permit Conditions
V. Specific Permit Conditions
    A. Approach
    B. Area and Depth-Related Requirements
    C. Discharge 001 (Drilling Muds and Cuttings)
    D. Discharge 002 (Deck Drainage)
    E. Discharges 003 and 004 (Sanitary and Domestic Wastes)
    F. Discharges 005-014 (Miscellaneous Discharges)
    G. Discharge 015 (Produced Water)
    H. Discharges 016-019 (Completion Fluids, Workover Fluids, Well 
Treatment
    Fluids, and Test Fluids)
    I. Other Discharge Limitations
    J. Best Management Practice Plan Requirement
VI. Other Legal Requirements
    A. Oil Spill Requirements
    B. Endangered Species Act
    C. Coastal Zone Management Act
    D. Maritime Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
    E. Annex V of MARPOL (73/78 and 33 CFR 155.73)
    F. Executive Order 12291
    G. Paperwork Reduction Act

Fact Sheet

I. General Permits and Requests for Individual 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. The Regional Administrator has determined 
that oil and gas facilities operating in the areas described in the 
proposed general NPDES permit are more appropriately controlled by a 
general permit than by individual permits. This decision is based on 40 
CFR 122.28, 40 CFR 125 (Subpart M) and the Agency's previous permit 
decisions in other areas of the Alaskan Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).
    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 the 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 Procedures 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 permit will authorize discharges from exploratory 
operations in all areas, and from development and production operations 
only in state waters of Upper Cook Inlet, north of the Forelands (see 
Part II.D. below). The Agency considers it appropriate to include 
exploration discharges with development and production discharges in 
this permit because, although some development and production 
discharges vary from exploration discharges, all exploratory discharges 
are a subset of those occurring in development and production.
    Exploratory operations involve drilling to determine the nature of 
potential hydrocarbon reserves. Under the permit, exploratory 
operations would be limited to a maximum of five wells per site. 
Development operations are engaged in the drilling and completion of 
production wells. Development operations may occur prior to, or 
simultaneously with, production operations, which are engaged in active 
recovery of hydrocarbons from producing formations.
    The proposed general permit will authorize the following discharges 
in all areas of coverage: drilling mud; drill cuttings and washwater; 
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; and mud, cuttings, 
and cement at the seafloor. Waterflooding discharges, produced water 
discharges, and well treatment fluids (other than test fluids) will 
also be authorized for Upper Cook Inlet development and production 
operations. Descriptions of discharges are given in Part V. of this 
fact sheet.
    Operators of existing facilities are encouraged to consider whether 
the above discharge categories will cover all discharges at their 
facilities. If additional categories are necessary, notification should 
be given to Region 10 during the public comment period.

B. Existing Facilities

    Oil and gas are extracted from drilling operations on the 
production platforms. The oil and gas are in emulsion with water and 
must be separated for sale. There are various ways in which oil and gas 
(``products'') are separated from the water (``produced water''). Some 
of the production platforms are equipped to separate product from 
produced water onboard and discharge produced water directly to Cook 
Inlet. Other production platforms perform initial oil/water separation 
and route their produced water to onshore facilities for further 
treatment. In these cases, produced water is discharged from the 
onshore facility. Platforms that send produced water to shore-based 
facilities for treatment are not authorized to discharge produced 
water. Produced water is an authorized discharge from the following 
facilities: (Unocal) Granite Point Treatment Facility, (Unocal) Trading 
Bay Facility, (SWEPI) East Forelands Treatment Facility, and platforms 
(Unocal) Anna, (Unocal) Baker, (Unocal) Bruce, Phillips Tyonek A, SWEPI 
A, SWEPI C, and (Marathon) Spark. The shore-based produced water 
treatment facilities are authorized to discharge only produced water.
    The proposed permit lists 23 operations which may, or may not, all 
be operating and discharging at any given time during the course of the 
proposed permit. Occasionally, operators may decide to ``close in'' a 
platform, ceasing production and subsequent discharges for some period 
of time. These facilities may resume production and discharging during 
the effective period of the proposed permit and, if so, will be subject 
to requirements at Part I.B.3 of the proposed permit. ``Inactive'' 
refers to operations which are complete, such as exploration operations 
from mobile units. Previous ``inactive'' operations are listed in the 
proposed permit simply to ensure that the NPDES permit numbers assigned 
to those operations are not reassigned to future operations.

C. Discharges Not Authorized

    During the effective period of the general permit issued in 1986 
(``1986 permit''), permittees identified several discharges that were 
not authorized. Region 10 has reviewed the questioned wastestreams and 
has determined that they cannot be covered by this permit. The bases 
for excluding the following wastestreams are listed below:
     Paint chips, paint overspray, or wastes from paint removal 
resulting from maintenance of platforms--

[[Page 48798]]
MARPOL, Annex V (see Part VI.E. below)
     Water resulting from the cleaning of contaminated soils--
40 CFR 122.28(a)(2)
     Wastes resulting from the treatment of contaminated 
groundwaters--40 CFR 122.28(a)(2)

D. Areas of Coverage

    It is important to understand the differences among ``federal'' and 
``state'' waters, and the Offshore and Coastal subcategories of 
discharges. ``Federal'' and ``state'' waters do not coincide with the 
Coastal and Offshore discharge subcategories. Figure 1 illustrates the 
differences among these terms, and the way in which they apply to oil 
and gas operations in general.
    ``State'' waters or ``territorial seas'' are the waters extending 3 
miles seaward from the baseline. The ``baseline'' typically follows the 
line of ordinary low water along the portion of the coast that is in 
direct contact with the open sea, although closing lines may be drawn 
straight across the mouth of bays. These closing lines, or baselines, 
are established by the U.S. Department of State and NOAA. In Cook 
Inlet, the primary baseline runs across the southern end of Kalgin 
Island (see Figure 1). Federal waters extend seaward from the 
territorial seas. All operations north of the baseline in Cook Inlet 
are part of the Coastal Subcategory of oil and gas operations, while 
all operations south of the baseline are part of the Offshore 
Subcategory. In Cook Inlet, all waters north of the Kalgin Island 
baseline are state and Coastal, while waters south of the baseline are 
Offshore only, but include state and federal properties.
1. Areas of Coverage in Federal Waters
    As discussed above, federal waters are located three miles from the 
ordinary low tide mark along the shoreline. The permit proposed today 
will cover a smaller area than the 1986 permit (i.e., only Cook Inlet 
v. Cook Inlet & Gulf of Alaska). The 1986 general permit authorized 
discharges in all areas offered for lease by MMS in Federal Lease Sales 
55 (Gulf of Alaska) and 50 (Cook Inlet). No federal lease sales were 
held during the effective period of the 1986 permit. At this time, MMS 
has tentatively scheduled Lease Sale 149 (Cook Inlet/Shelikof Strait) 
for late 1996. To the knowledge of Region 10, specific development and 
production operations are not planned and do not presently exist in 
federal waters in Cook Inlet; therefore, the proposed permit will cover 
only exploratory operations in federal waters.
2. Areas of Coverage in State Waters
    The proposed permit will authorize discharges from all Cook Inlet 
blocks previously offered for lease by the State of Alaska, or offered 
under state lease sales held during the effective period of the 1986 
permit. State sales that have occurred and will be covered under the 
proposed permit are 67A (Cook Inlet Exempt, held January 1991) and 74 
(Cook Inlet, held September 1991). The proposed permit will also 
authorize discharges from blocks offered for lease during the effective 
period of the permit. Lease sales planned for state waters within the 
next five years include Sale 85, 85A and 90 (based on Alaska's proposed 
5-year state leasing program (ADNR/O&G 1994)). For the purposes of the 
proposed permit, the southern boundary of Cook Inlet is defined to be 
the line between Cape Douglas on the west and Port Chatham on the east.
    Discharges from new exploratory operations would be allowed in all 
state waters in Cook Inlet. These include operations in both the 
Coastal and Offshore Subcategories (40 CFR Part 435, Subparts A and D). 
Operations in the Offshore Subcategory in state waters would be located 
within either three miles of the ordinary low tide mark along the 
shoreline, or of closure lines.
    Discharges from development and production operations would be 
allowed only for Coastal Subcategory operations north of the Forelands 
in Upper Cook Inlet, where the existing production platforms are 
located. The proposed permit covers discharges from three shore-based 
facilities which discharge produced water extracted at several of the 
platforms. Region 10 has excluded potential development and production 
in other areas from this permit for two reasons. First, the number and 
precise nature of such future operations is unknown, in contrast to 
existing operations in Upper Cook Inlet. Second, other areas are 
generally richer in biota and more sensitive to discharges than Upper 
Cook Inlet.
    The proposed permit will not authorize discharges into any wetlands 
adjacent to territorial waters of the State or from facilities in the 
Onshore Subcategory as defined in 40 CFR Part 435, Subpart C.

E. Nature of Discharges

    The Agency has established that drilling muds and cuttings are the 
major pollutant sources discharged from exploratory and development 
drilling operations. Produced water and well treatment fluids are the 
major pollutant sources discharged from production operations. The 1986 
permit required the permittees, singly or jointly, to provide 
information on the composition, quantities, and in some cases the 
toxicity, of development and production discharges. Region 10 
encouraged Cook Inlet operators to participate in a joint study with a 
single contractor to ensure uniform sampling, analyses, and data 
compilation. Permittees participating in the study, known as the Cook 
Inlet Discharge Monitoring Study (CIDMS), included the following:
     Amoco Production Company.
     Marathon Oil Company.
     Shell Western E&P, Inc.
     ARCO Alaska, Inc.
     Phillips Petroleum Company.
     Unocal Corporation.
    The CIDMS yielded the following six reports:
     Deck Drainage,
     Non-Contact Cooling Water and Desalination Wastes,
     Blowout Preventer Fluid, Boil Blowdown, Fire Control 
System Test Water, Uncontaminated Ballast Water, Uncontaminated Bilge 
water, and Waterflooding Discharges,
     Excess Cement Slurry and Mud, Cuttings, Cement at the 
Seafloor,
     Well Treatment Fluids, and
     Produced Water.
    The pollutants present in the discharges, as reported in the CIDMS, 
discharge monitoring reports and Agency documents, are summarized 
below. The toxic pollutants (defined at 40 CFR 401.15) are also known 
as priority pollutants. Conventional pollutants are defined at 40 CFR 
401.16 as pH, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), oil and grease, 
total suspended solids (TSS), and fecal coliform. The category of 
nonconventional pollutants includes all pollutants not included in 
either of the other categories.
    1. Conventional Pollutants. pH, BOD5, oil and grease, TSS and 
fecal coliform.
    2. Toxic Pollutants. Benzene; ethylbenzene; naphthalene; toluene; 
phenol; 2,4-dimethylphenol; bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate; anthracene; 
phenanthrene; and zinc. The pollutants listed here have been reported 
as components of produced water discharges in both Cook Inlet and the 
Gulf of Mexico.
    3. Nonconventional Pollutants. Nonconventional pollutants comprise 
the remaining pollutants and parameters for which the Agency has 
determined that effluent limits or monitoring is necessary in NPDES 
permits. These include: chemical oxygen demand (COD), toxicity, total 
organic carbon (TOC), salinity, temperature, and chlorine. 

[[Page 48799]]

    In developing the proposed permit conditions, EPA has evaluated the 
concentrations of these pollutants relative to the levels allowed under 
federal regulations and state water quality standards. The pollutants 
and discharge parameters limited in each waste stream are summarized in 
section V.A., and discussed in sections V.C--IV.H.

III. 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, Pub. L. 92-500; 91 Stat. 1567, Pub. L. 95-217; 
101 Stat. 7, Pub. L. 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 four categories, which are described in sections A-D 
below. In section E, the way in which water quality based permit 
limitations are derived from the Alaska water quality standards is 
described. In section F, mixing zones are discussed.

A. Technology Bases

1. BPT Effluent Limitations
    The Act requires particular classes of industrial discharges to 
meet effluent limitations established by EPA. EPA promulgated effluent 
limitations guidelines requiring Best Practicable Control Technology 
Currently Available (BPT) for the Offshore and Coastal Subcategories of 
the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category (40 CFR Part 435, 
Subparts A and D) 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 effluent limitation guideline 
for sanitary waste required that the concentration of chlorine be 
maintained as close to 1 mg/l as possible in discharges from facilities 
housing ten or more persons. No floating solids are allowed as a result 
of sanitary waste discharges from facilities continuously staffed by 
nine or fewer persons or intermittently staffed by any number. A ``no 
floating solids'' guideline also applies to domestic waste. BPT 
limitations on oil and grease in produced water allowed a daily maximum 
of 72 mg/l and a monthly average of 48 mg/l.
2. BAT and BCT Effluent Limitations
    As of 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 the Offshore Subcategory 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, 1993) 
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.
    BAT and BCT effluent limitations guidelines and NSPS for the 
Coastal Subcategory were proposed on February 17, 1995 (60 FR 9428). In 
the absence of final BAT and BCT effluent limitations guidelines for 
the Coastal Subcategory, permit conditions must be established using 
Best Professional Judgment (BPJ) procedures (40 CFR 122.43, 122.44, and 
125.3). The proposed permit incorporates BAT and BCT effluent 
limitations for the Coastal Subcategory based on the Agency's BPJ and 
previous permit actions for similar discharges. Previous BPJ 
determinations for the Coastal Subcategory were incorporated into the 
1986 permit for Cook Inlet/Gulf of Alaska (51 FR 35460, October 10, 
1986) and the individual permit issued to ARCO Alaska, Inc. for 
exploration discharges in upper Cook Inlet (EPA 1993b). Best 
Professional Judgement (BPJ) procedures are also used to establish 
permit conditions for wastestreams not addressed in the offshore 
effluent guidelines (e.g., desalination unit wastes, blow out 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).
    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 used in exploratory, 
development, and production operations are well known to the Agency. 
Region 10 has issued numerous individual permits for such operations, 
as well as the general permits referenced above. The records for this 
permit and those earlier permits thoroughly discuss the types of 
equipment, facilities and processes used in exploratory, development, 
and production 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. All 
proposed BAT permit limitations can be achieved through product 
substitution. Any costs of achieving the effluent limitations and any 
non-water quality environmental impacts were also evaluated. Such 
evaluations are discussed 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 

[[Page 48800]]
``cost test,'' BCT effluent limitations are set equal to BPT.
    The Agency's evaluation of the BAT factors, as discussed above, is 
also applicable to BCT, as well as to the Agency's BPJ determinations 
of BPT in cases where there is no BPT effluent limitation guideline for 
a particular wastestream. There is one BCT limitation based on 
installation of control equipment: oil and grease limits for produced 
water are based on the use of oil-water separators. With respect to the 
BCT ``cost test,'' all BCT limitations are equal to the BPT effluent 
limitations guidelines or to Region 10's BPJ determinations of BPT. 
Therefore, no incremental cost will be incurred.

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 (i.e., state and federal offshore waters) be 
issued in accordance with guidelines for determining the potential 
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'' (49 FR 65942, October 3, 1980).
    If EPA determines that the discharge will cause unreasonable 
degradation, an NPDES permit will not be issued. If a definitive 
determination of no unreasonable degradation cannot be made because of 
insufficient 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 
shall be halted or additional permit limitations established.
    Preliminary Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluations for Sale 60, and a 
Revised Preliminary Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation for Sale 88 and 
state lease sales located in Cook Inlet, were completed for discharges 
from operations in these lease sale areas covered under the current 
permit. For the proposed permit, the Region recently updated the 
existing ODCE information in the ODCE for Cook Inlet (Oil & Gas Lease 
Sale 149) and Shelikof Strait (Tetra Tech 1995). The Region has 
determined that discharges occurring under the proposed permit will not 
cause unreasonable degradation as long as the depth-related conditions 
and environmental monitoring requirements imposed under section 403 of 
the Act are met.

C. Section 308 of the Clean Water Act

    Under section 308 of the Act and 40 CFR 122.44(i), the Director 
must 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 the 
permit, as listed in the table in section V.A. of this fact sheet.

D. State of Alaska Standards and Limitations

    Permits for discharges to state waters must ensure compliance with 
water quality standards and limitations imposed by the State as part of 
its certification of NPDES permits under section 401 of the Act. The 
state waters of Cook Inlet and the Gulf of Alaska have been classified 
by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) as marine 
water 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).
    The NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(d) require that permits 
include limits on all pollutants or parameters which ``are or may be 
discharged at a level which will cause, have the reasonable potential 
to cause, or contribute to an excursion above any state water quality 
standard, including state narrative criteria for water quality'' (54 FR 
23868-23899, June 2, 1989). The regulations require that this 
evaluation be made using procedures which account for existing controls 
on point and nonpoint sources of pollution, the variability of the 
pollutant in the effluent, species sensitivity (for toxicity), and 
where appropriate, dilution in the receiving water. The limits must be 
stringent enough to ensure that water quality standards are met, and 
must be consistent with any available wasteload allocation.
    The regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(d) also specifically address when 
toxicity and chemical-specific limits are required. A toxicity limit is 
required whenever toxicity is at a level of concern relative to either 
a numeric or narrative standard for toxicity. The only exception is 
where chemical-specific limits will fully achieve the narrative 
standard. A chemical-specific limit is required whenever an individual 
pollutant is at a level of concern relative to the numeric standard for 
that pollutant. The regulations also provide three options for 
developing a chemical-specific limit needed to control a pollutant 
which does not have a numeric standard, but is contributing to a 
problem with achieving the narrative standard.
    In proposing to reissue this permit, EPA has considered Alaska's 
antidegradation policy (18 Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) 70.101(c)). 
The reissuance of this permit will not result in additional pollutant 
loading to the receiving water; therefore, this action complies with 
the State's antidegradation policy.

E. Water Quality-based Permit Limit Derivation

    Water quality-based permit limits have been derived for state 
waters only. In deriving permit limits, reported effluent values are 
compared to wasteload allocations to determine if limits are needed for 
individual pollutants. The wasteload allocation is the concentration 
(or loading) of a pollutant that may be discharged by a permittee 
without causing or contributing to a violation of water quality 
standards in the receiving water. It is calculated based on the 
available dilution, if appropriate, and the water quality standard. As 
discussed above, 40 CFR 122.44(d)(1) requires consideration of existing 
controls on all point or nonpoint sources of pollutants when 
establishing water quality-based limits on point sources.
    Under 40 CFR 122.44(d)(1), water quality-based effluent limits must 
be included in a permit if the discharge shows ``reasonable potential'' 
to exceed water quality standards. EPA's Technical Support Document for 
Water Quality-based Toxics Control (EPA 1991b) (``TSD'') defines 
``reasonable potential'' as being within a percentage of the wasteload 
allocation. The percentage increases as the uncertainty decreases. 
Uncertainty decreases with increased numbers of samples. The percentage 
is also based on the coefficient of variation (a measure of the 
variability) of the data. When there are not enough data to reliably 
determine a coefficient of variation, the TSD 

[[Page 48801]]
recommends using 0.6 as a default value.
    In deriving the water quality-based permit limits, Region 10 
applied the statistical permit limit derivation approach described in 
the EPA guidance documents, Permit Writer's Guide to Water Quality-
Based Permitting for Toxic Pollutants (EPA 1987), and the TSD. This 
approach takes into account effluent variability, as well as the 
difference in timeframes between the water quality standards and 
monthly average and daily maximum limits, and sampling frequency. In 
addition to the wasteload allocation values, EPA used the following 
values in deriving limits using the formulas in the guidance documents:

Probability value for long-term average calculation: 99%
Probability value for monthly average limit calculation: 95%
Probability value for daily maximum limit calculation (for parameters 
with greater than monthly monitoring): 99%
Probability value for daily maximum limit calculation (for parameters 
with monthly or less frequent monitoring): 95%
Coefficient of Variation: 0.6

    The water quality-based limits proposed in the draft permit are 
further discussed in section V.

F. Mixing Zones

    The State has issued a preliminary mixing zone determination for 
produced water that specifies mixing zones and dilutions for eight 
facilities discharging produced water to Cook Inlet. The State has 
notified EPA that the mixing zone request submitted by Unocal, 
Marathon, Phillips and Shell is adequate for incorporation into the 
draft permit (ADEC 1995). At each of the eight facilities, individual 
mixing zones are proposed for metals (acute, chronic & human health), 
total aromatic hydrocarbons (TAH) and total aqueous hydrocarbons 
(TAqH), and toxicity (see section V.G.). Wasteload allocations for 
produced water pollutants are calculated using the dilutions modeled by 
the permittees; permit limits are then calculated based on the 
wasteload allocation (see section III.E.).
    As part of the state's certification under section 401 of the Act, 
the mixing zones will either be approved or modified. A mixing zone for 
total residual chlorine in the sanitary waste stream may also be added 
to the final permit, as discussed in section V.E.
    The state's preliminary mixing zone determination includes mixing 
zones for arsenic and benzene (as a subset of TAH), both of which are 
human carcinogens. The state water quality standards at 18 AAC 70.032 
state that
    ``(a) * * * The department will not authorize a mixing zone if it 
finds that available evidence reasonably demonstrates that * * *
    (1) pollutants discharged could * * *
    (B) be expected to cause carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic 
effects on biota or human health, so that significant human health 
risks could occur to consumers of water, fish, or shellfish when 
evaluated using reasonable assumptions about exposure pathways, 
including exposure duration of affected aquatic organisms in the 
proposed mixing zone and the patterns of fisheries use and consumption 
in the area; * * *
    [4](b) * * * Human health and chronic aquatic life criteria apply 
at and beyond the boundaries of the mixing zone. Acute aquatic life 
criteria apply at and beyond the boundaries of a smaller initial zone 
surrounding the outfall. * * *''
    As part of the proposal for arsenic and TAH mixing zones, 
permittees evaluated the potential risks to aquatic life and human 
health at the edge of each site-specific mixing zone. The results of 
the aquatic life risk assessment indicate that produced water 
discharged to Cook Inlet from the oil and gas facilities is not 
expected to be acutely or chronically toxic at the edge of the mixing 
zones. Similarly, the human health risk assessment results indicate 
that produced waters are not expected to pose significant risks to 
human health from the consumption of fish and shellfish in Cook Inlet.
    Public comments to EPA on the proposed mixing zone and other water 
quality standards issues will be copied to the state of Alaska for its 
review. If the mixing zone approved by the state is different from the 
mixing zones used to calculate the limits for the draft permit, the 
limits in the final permit will reflect these changes.

IV. Summary of New and Changed Permit Conditions

    The following discussion is intended to provide a summary of the 
parts of the proposed permit which are substantively different from the 
1986 permit. For a detailed discussion of requirements and their bases, 
please refer to section V of this fact sheet. Many of the new and 
changed requirements result from promulgation of the final Effluent 
Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the 
Offshore Subcategory in March, 1993 (see 40 CFR Part 435, Subpart A). 
As discussed above, the promulgated offshore guidelines apply directly 
to dischargers in the Offshore segment of Cook Inlet (i.e., the lower 
inlet). For the Coastal segment of Cook Inlet (i.e., the upper inlet), 
the Offshore rule is the primary basis for Region 10's best 
professional judgement regarding technology-based control of pollutant 
discharge (see section III.A.2., above); although, the proposed Coastal 
guidelines (60 FR 9428, February 17, 1995) are also referenced 
throughout this fact sheet.
    The balance of new and changed requirements in the proposed permit 
are the result of the inclusion of water-quality based effluent limits 
for the produced water and any wastestreams which may be commingled 
with it. Water-quality based effluent limits were developed based on 
data collected as part of the Cook Inlet Discharge Monitoring Study 
(Envirosphere 1988-1990).
    For drilling muds and drill cuttings:
     Combined wastestreams: In accordance with the Offshore 
guidelines, drilling muds, drilling cuttings and washwater are combined 
and addressed in the proposed permit as a single wastestream (Discharge 
001). Previously, washwater and cuttings were considered as a separate 
wastestream; they are now considered by the Agency to be an intrinsic 
component of the drilling wastes discharge.
     Toxicity limit for drilling muds: In accordance with the 
Offshore guidelines, a toxicity limit of 30,000 ppm SPP is proposed.
     Oil content on cuttings: In accordance with the Offshore 
guidelines, Region 10 has removed the 10% by weight limitation of the 
oil content of cuttings.
     Barite: In previous permits, Region 10 had an option for a 
case-by-case waiver for stock barite not meeting mercury and cadmium 
limits. This waiver has been eliminated to ensure consistency with the 
Offshore guidelines.
     Mud Plan and Authorized Muds & Specialty Additives: Region 
10 is discontinuing the case-by-case evaluation and authorization 
process developed under previous permits. Subsequently, discussions of 
authorized muds and additives and tables of approved mud formulations 
and specialty additives are not included in the proposed permit. The 
Region is proposing a requirement for operators to develop a Mud Plan 
to plan for compliance with the toxicity limit. Mud Plan requirements 
were also part of an individual NPDES permit issued to ARCO Alaska for 
exploratory operations 

[[Page 48802]]
in Cook Inlet (EPA 1993b) and in the general NPDES permit for the 
Arctic (60 FR 27508, May 24, 1995).
    For other wastes:
     Elimination of wastestream: In accordance with the 
Offshore guidelines and the proposed Coastal guidelines, Region 10 is 
prohibiting the discharge of produced sands. This prohibition is listed 
with limitations on produced water (Discharge 015).
     Oil and grease: In accordance with the Offshore 
guidelines, Region 10 is proposing oil and grease limits for produced 
water discharges of 29 mg/l as a monthly average and 42 mg/l as a daily 
maximum. (The numerical oil and grease limits are also applied to the 
discharge of workover, completion, well treatment and test fluids.) 
Limits in the previous permit were 42 mg/l and 72 mg/l (for all 
operators except Phillips Petroleum, which has more stringent limits).
     Best Management Practices: 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 waters of the United States.
     Produced Water: Water-quality based effluent limitations 
have been added for metals, total aromatic hydrocarbons, total aqueous 
hydrocarbons, and chronic toxicity. Not all metals are limited at all 
locations; monthly monitoring for metals for which compliance 
monitoring will not already be done, is required for one year.
     Produced Water Mixing Zones: The 1986 permit contained 
produced water mixing zones for Marathon Granite Point (450 m), 
Marathon Trading Bay (750 m) and Shell East Foreland (750 m); and 
interim mixing zones for Amoco platforms Anna, Baker Bruce and Dillon 
(625 m) and Phillips Tyonek-A (150 m). The interim mixing zones were 
never finalized; and none of the mixing zones was used to calculate 
wasteload allocations for produced water pollutants.
    The State has issued a preliminary mixing zone determination for 
produced water that specifies mixing zones and dilutions for eight 
facilities discharging produced water to Cook Inlet. Chemical specific 
mixing zones are proposed to meet water quality criteria for metals, 
total aromatic hydrocarbons (TAH), total aqueous hydrocarbons (TAqH), 
and chronic toxicity.
     Sanitary: Chlorine limits have been changed to more 
accurately reflect the Alaska water quality standards pending section 
401 certification of the final permit.

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,
    (3) For state waters, inclusion of permit terms necessary to ensure 
compliance with state water quality standards and stipulations of state 
lease sales.
    (4) Evaluation of the Ocean Discharge Criteria for discharges in 
the Offshore Subcategory (given conditions 1 and 2 are in place), and,
    EPA first determines which technology-based limits are required and 
then evaluates the effluent quality expected to result from these 
controls. If water quality standards could occur as a result of 
discharge, EPA must include water quality-based limits in the permit. 
The permit limits will thus reflect whichever limits (technology-based 
or water quality-based) are most stringent. Finally, Ocean Discharge 
Criteria are evaluated to identify any areal or depth-related discharge 
requirements.
    General area and depth related requirements are discussed in 
section V.B. of this fact sheet. Specific effluent limitations and 
monitoring requirements derived from 1 through 4 above are discussed 
separately for each wastestream in sections V.C. through H. Additional 
monitoring requirements based on 1 and 2 are also discussed in section 
III., above. For convenience, these conditions and the regulatory basis 
for each are cross-referenced by discharge in the following table.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Statutory basis                          
      Discharge and permit condition       ---------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Coastal                            Offshore            
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drilling Muds and Cuttings (001):                                                                               
    Flow rate limitations.................  Sec. 403.........................  Sec. 403.                        
    Depth related limits..................  Sec. 403.........................  Sec. 403.                        
    Volume................................  Sec. 308.........................  Sec. 308.                        
    Mud plan..............................  CWA Secs. 308, 304, 402, PPA Sec.  CWA Secs. 308, 304, 402, PPA Sec.
                                             107.                               107.                            
    Toxicity..............................  BPJ/BAT..........................  BAT.                             
    No free oil...........................  BPT, BPJ/BCT, BPJ/BAT............  BPT, BCT, BAT.                   
    No oil-based fluids...................  BPT, BPJ/BCT, BPJ/BAT............  BPT, BCT, BAT.                   
    No diesel.............................  BPJ/BAT..........................  BAT.                             
    Mercury and cadmium in barite.........  BPJ/BAT..........................  BAT.                             
    Monitor metals........................  Sec. 308.........................  Sec. 308.                        
    Inventory of added substances.........  Sec. 308.........................  Sec. 308.                        
    Environmental monitoring requirement..  Sec. 403.........................  Sec. 403.                        
Deck Drainage (002):                                                                                            
    No free oil...........................  BPT, BPJ/BCT, BPJ/BAT............  BPT, BCT, BAT.                   
    Monitor free oil......................  Sec. 308.........................  Sec. 308.                        
    Monitor whole effluent toxicity         Sec. 308.........................  Sec. 308.                        
     (direct discharge only).                                                                                   
Sanitary Wastes (003):                                                                                          
    Chlorine (facilities >10 people)......  BPJ/BCT..........................  BCT.                             
    Biological oxygen demand (BOD)........  Sec. 401/AK WQS..................  not applicable.                  
    Suspended solids (SS).................  Sec. 401/AK WQS..................  not applicable.                  
    Floating solids.......................  BPJ/BAT..........................  BPJ/BAT.                         
    Monitor flow rate.....................  Sec. 308.........................  Sec. 308.                        
    Marine Sanitation Devices (fecals,      Sec. 312, Sec. 308...............  Sec. 312, Sec. 308.              
     solids, chlorine).                                                                                         
Domestic Wastes (004):                                                                                          
    No foam...............................  BPJ/BAT..........................  BAT.                             

[[Page 48803]]
                                                                                                                
    No floating solids....................  BPJ/BCT..........................  BCT.                             
    Monitor flow rate.....................  Sec. 308.........................  Sec. 308.                        
Miscellaneous Discharges (005-014):                                                                             
    Monitor flow rate (all)...............  Sec. 308.........................  Sec. 308.                        
    No free oil (006, 010, 011, 012, 013,   BPJ/BPT..........................  BPJ/BPT.                         
     014).                                                                                                      
    Inventory chemicals added (005, 009,    Sec. 308.........................  Sec. 308.                        
     014).                                                                                                      
Produced Water (015)......................  .................................  No Discharge.                    
    Flow rate.............................  Sec. 308.........................      Do.                          
    Produced sands........................  BCT, BAT.........................      Do.                          
    Oil and grease........................  BPJ/BAT..........................      Do.                          
    pH....................................  BPJ/BCT..........................      Do.                          
    Zinc..................................  AK WQS...........................      Do.                          
    Total aromatic hydrocarbons (TAH).....  AK WQS...........................      Do.                          
    Whole effluent toxicity (WET).........  AK WQS...........................      Do.                          
    Total aqueous hydrocarbons (TAqH).....  Sec. 308.........................      Do.                          
Completion, Workover, Well Treatment        .................................  No Discharge.                    
 Fluids (016-018).                                                                                              
    Frequency & flow rate.................  Sec. 308.........................      Do.                          
    No free oil...........................  BPT, BPJ/BCT.....................      Do.                          
    No oil-based fluids...................  BPT, BPJ/BCT.....................      Do.                          
    Oil and grease........................  BPJ/BCT, BPJ/BAT.................      Do.                          
    pH....................................  AK WQS...........................      Do.                          
    Monitor metals........................  Sec. 308.........................      Do.                          
Test Fluids (019):                                                                                              
    No free oil...........................  BPJ/BPT, BPJ/BCT.................  BPT, BCT.                        
    Oil and grease limits.................  BPJ/BAT, BPJ/BCT.................  BCT, BAT.                        
    No oil-based fluids...................  BPJ/BCT, BPJ/BAT.................  BCT, BAT.                        
    pH....................................  BPJ/BPT, BPJ/BCT.................  BPJ/BPT, BPJ/BCT.                
    Monitor frequency and flow rate.......  Sec. 308.........................  Sec. 308.                        
All Discharges (001-019):                                                                                       
    No halogenated phenol compounds,        BPJ/BAT..........................  BAT.                             
     diesel oil trisodium nitrilo-                                                                              
     triacetic acid, sodium chromate, or                                                                        
     sodium dichromate.                                                                                         
    Sufactants, detergents, dispersants...  BPJ/BAT..........................  BPJ/BAT.                         
    No floating solids, visible foam......  BPJ/BCT..........................  BCT.                             
    No oily wastes........................  BPJ/BCT..........................  BCT.                             
    Area and depth related requirements...  Sec. 403, AK WQS.................  Sec. 403, AK WQS.                
    Best Management Plan..................  Sec. 402(a)......................  Sec. 402(a).                     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



B. Area and Depth-Related Requirements

    The discharge restrictions and requirements listed below are 
necessary to ensure that unreasonable degradation of these areas will 
not occur as discussed above in part III.B. of this fact sheet (Ocean 
Discharge Criteria) and are largely unchanged from the 1986 permit to 
the proposed permit. Discharge within the area described below for 
Shelikof Strait is prohibited because of the recent determination by 
the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) which establishes this 
area as a special aquatic foraging area for the Stellar Sea Lion (58 FR 
45278, September, 27, 1993: 50 CFR 226.12(c)(1)).
    Pertaining to all discharges, no discharge is allowed:
     In water depths less than 5 m (as measured from mean lower 
low water).
     Within the boundaries or within 1000 m of a coastal marsh, 
river delta, river mouth designated Area Meriting Special Attention 
(AMSA), game refuge, game sanctuary, or critical habitat area. The 
seaward edge of a coastal marsh is defined as the seaward edge of 
emergent wetland vegetation.
     In Kamishak Bay west of a line from Cape Douglas to 
Chinitna Point.
     In Chinitna Bay inside of the line between the points of 
the shoreline at latitude 59 deg.52'45'' N, longitude 152 deg.48'18'' W 
on the north and latitude 59 deg.46'12'' N, longitude 153 deg.00'24'' W 
on the south (Figure 1).
     In Tuxedni Bay inside of the lines on either side of 
Chisik Island (Figure 1)

--from latitude 60 deg.04'06'' North, longitude 152 deg.34'12'' West on 
the mainland to the southern tip of Chisik Island (latitude 
60 deg.05'45' North, longitude 152 deg.33'30'' West).
--from the point on the mainland at latitude 60 deg.13'45'' North, 
longitude 152 deg.32'42'' West to the point on the north side of Snug 
Harbor on Chisik Island (latitude 60 deg.06'36'' North, longitude 
152 deg.32'54'' West).

     In Shelikof Strait south of a line between Cape Douglas 
(at 58 deg.51' North, 153 deg.15' West) on the west and the 
northernmost tip of Shuyak Island on the east (at 58 deg.37' North, 
152 deg.22' West).
     Within 20 nautical miles of Sugarloaf Island as measured 
from a centerpoint at 58 deg.53' North and 152 deg.02' West.
    Discharges are prohibited in waters shallower than 5 m because 
shallow nearshore waters in Lower Cook Inlet are an important habitat 
for many species. In addition, dilution and dispersion of drilling mud 
discharges in waters less than 5 m deep is uncertain given that the 
field data are limited and that the available models of mud dilution 
and dispersion are not field-verified for shallow depths. Chinitna, 
Tuxedni, and Kamishak Bays are, or are continuous with, areas of high 
resource value. In addition, Kamishak Bay is a known net depositional 
environment where accumulation of drilling mud solids and other 
pollutants would be likely to occur if allowed to be discharged in this 
area.
    The condition restricting discharges within 1,000 m of coastal 
marshes, river deltas, and other areas is necessary to comply with 
local and state Coastal Zone Management Plan prohibitions on discharges 
of silt materials in these areas, or on activities that may alter the 
protected biological resources of these areas. The following state game 
refuges (SGR), game sanctuaries (SGS), critical habitat areas (CHA), 
and areas meriting 

[[Page 48804]]
special attention (AMSA) are located in the area covered by this 
permit.

Palmer Bay Flats SGR
Goose Bay SGR
Potter Point SGR
Susitna Flats SGR
McNeil River SGS
Redoubt Bay CHA
Trading Bay SGR
Kalgin Island CHA
Clam Gulch CHA
Kachemak Bay CHA
Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge
Port Graham/Nanwalek AMSA

    The legal descriptions of these state specialty areas are found in 
Alaska Statute (AS) 16.20. The present boundaries of these state 
special areas are described in ``State of Alaska Game Refuges, Critical 
Habitat Areas, and Game Sanctuaries.'' Further information may also be 
obtained from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Habitat Division, 
Regional Supervisor, 333 Raspberry Road, Anchorage, Alaska 99518-1599; 
phone (907) 267-2284 or (907) 267-2342.

C. Discharge 001 (Drilling Muds and 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 
function of drilling fluids are:
     to carry cuttings to the surface,
     to cool and clean drill bit & 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 based on their 
principal components: gas (e.g., mist or foam), water, or oil. 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 only 
cover the discharge of muds because gas fluids are not used for most 
offshore or coastal drilling operations.
    As discussed in subsections 1 and 2 below, the discharge of oil-
based muds is limited because they do not comply with the no free oil 
limitation. Furthermore, the discharge of diesel oil as a mud base or 
as part of an additive is strictly prohibited. The basis for the diesel 
prohibition is substitution of mineral oil (which is less toxic) when 
lubrication is required.
    As discussed in section III.A. and as shown on Table 1, the 
following BCT- and BAT-based permit requirements are based on the 
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards 
for the Offshore Subcategory, promulgated by the Agency in March, 1993 
(40 CFR Part 435, Subpart A). In the absence of promulgated rules for 
coastal (i.e., upper) Cook Inlet, EPA has used Best Professional 
Judgement in applying BCT and BAT Offshore requirements to all 
applicable Coastal operations although the acronyms ``BPJ/BCT'' and 
``BPJ/BAT'' are not added in the discussion below. To simplify the 
discussion, the bases for establishing permit limits are discussed in 
terms of the applicable Offshore Guidelines, BCT and BAT.
1. BCT Limitations on Drilling Muds and Cuttings
    Free oil & oil-based muds: No free oil is permitted from the 
discharge of drilling mud, drill cuttings, or washwater, based on BPT 
guidelines. The discharge of oil-based drilling fluids is prohibited 
since oil-based fluids would violate the BCT effluent limitations of no 
discharge of free oil. These discharges 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 the limitation. No 
technology performance data available to Region 10 indicate that more 
stringent standards are appropriate at this time. Region 10 has, 
therefore, set BCT limitations equal to the BPT level of control. As 
such, these limitations impose no incremental costs.
    Compliance with the free oil limitation will be monitored by year-
round use of the Static Sheen Test daily and before bulk discharges. 
Region 10 requires use of the Static Sheen Test 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 permits issued by Region 10 contained a limit on the oil 
content of cuttings (not to exceed 10% (wt), based on use of cuttings 
washers). In the proposed permit, however, the 10% (wt) limit has been 
rejected in favor of the no free oil limitation contained in the 
Offshore guidelines (58 FR 12454, March 4, 1993). The Agency rejected 
an oil content limit because limitations on other pollutant parameters 
(diesel oil, free oil and toxicity) are sufficient to reduce toxics 
from drilling wastes (at 56 FR 10682 and 56 FR 10685, March 13, 1991). 
Because the no free oil limitation is more stringent than the 10% (wt) 
limitation on the oil content of cuttings, this change does not invoke 
antibacksliding provisions (see 40 CFR 122.44(1)(2)).
    Oil content of cuttings: The proposed permit limits the discharge 
of oil-contaminated drill cuttings by prohibiting the discharge of free 
oil, which is BCT (see Part III.B. of the permit). The proposed permit 
requires an analysis of cuttings for oil content daily when oil-based 
drilling fluids or mineral oil additives are used. In addition, 
analysis is required immediately on any sample that has failed the 
daily Static Sheen Test if a discharge has occurred. Two alternative 
analytical methods for determining the oil content of drill cuttings 
are specified in the permit: (1) the soxhlet extraction procedure for 
oil and grease (as specified in 40 CFR Part 136), and (2) the American 
Petroleum Institute (API) retort distillation procedure for oil 
(Recommended Practice 13B, 1990).
2. BAT Limitations on Drilling Muds and Cuttings
    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 12569, 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 are designed to limit the discharge of mercury, cadmium, 
and other potentially toxic metals which can occur as contaminants in 
some sources of barite. The justification for the limitation under BAT 
is product substitution. That is, Alaskan operators can substitute 
``clean'' barite, which meets the above limitations, for contaminated 
barite, which does not meet the limitations. Numerous offshore 

[[Page 48805]]
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. Given that ``clean'' barite is available and 
that operators have been complying with this limitation in previously 
issued permits, Region 10 believes that this limitation is both 
technologically feasible and economically achievable.
    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 (EPA, 1993a) and the Economic Impact Analysis 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). As a result, the waiver 
provision was not in the general NPDES permit for the Arctic (60 FR 
27508, May 24, 1995), nor is it proposed here.
    Discharge Toxicity: Region 10 is proposing a toxicity limit of 
30,000 ppm on the suspended particulate phase (``SPP'') (a 96-hour 
LC50) on discharged drilling muds as a technology-based control on 
toxicity and toxic and nonconventional pollutants. The numeric effluent 
limit is based on the BAT as promulgated for the Offshore Subcategory 
(48 FR 1254, March 4, 1993). Compliance with the drilling mud toxicity 
limit will be monitored on a monthly basis for each well. When the end-
of-well is reached, a final bioassay analysis will be required (see 
permit Part III.B.2.g.). In cases where mineral oil pills are used near 
the end-of-well, the Region will accept the bioassay reports required 
for pills as the end-of-well report (see permit Part III.B.2.g.).
    It is important to note the inverse relationship between the 96-hr 
LC50 value of 30,000 ppm SPP and toxicity. The 30,000 ppm limit is the 
concentration (of mud in the suspended particulate phase) at which 50% 
mortality of the tested organisms (Mysidopsis bahia) occurs. As the 96-
hr LC50 value increases, higher concentrations of mud are required to 
reach 50% mortality within the 96-hr test period; in other words, 
toxicity decreases as 96-hr LC50 values increase. Thus, the permit 
limit of 30,000 ppm SPP (96-hr LC50) is actually a minimum LC50 value 
used to represent the maximum toxicity allowed for drilling mud 
discharges.
    The toxicity limit is an end-of-pipe discharge limit and represents 
a different approach to controlling this wastestream than the Region 
used previously. When the first general permits were issued during 
development of the Offshore guidelines, Region 10 developed a case-by-
case approach to limiting the toxicity of discharged mud/additive 
systems as BPJ determination of BAT. In this approach, Region 10 used 
the 96-hr LC50 value of 30,000 ppm SPP value as a criterion in 
evaluating available bioassay data for the proposed mud/additive 
discharges. Now, Region 10 is discontinuing the mud preapproval process 
in favor of the end-of-pipe limitation based on promulgation of BAT for 
the Offshore subcategory (48 FR 1254, March 4, 1993). The end-of-pipe 
toxicity limitation for muds/additives was first applied in an 
individual NPDES permit issued for exploratory drilling in 1993 (EPA 
1993d), followed by the general NPDES permit for the Arctic (59 FR 
48314, September 20, 1994, and 60 FR 27508, May 24, 1995).
    Drilling Mud Formulation: The proposed permit requires permittees 
to develop and implement a ``Mud Plan'' for each well drilled. The 
proposed permit does not authorize specific drilling fluid formulations 
or specialty additives in the way that past general NPDES permits 
issued for Alaskan operations have done. As discussed above, the 
discharge of oil-based drilling fluids or diesel oil is prohibited. 
Region 10 believes that an end-of-pipe toxicity limit for drilling muds 
in conjunction with implementation of a Mud Plan (containing specific 
mud/additive formulations) for each well constitutes BAT and ensures 
that the principles of best management practices and pollution 
prevention are met. The Mud Plan is discussed below as a permit 
requirement based on section 308 of the Act.
    Oil-based Drilling Muds: As in all previous general oil and gas 
permits, and is discussed above under BCT for control of free oil, the 
proposed permit prohibits the discharge of ``oil based muds.'' Previous 
permits, however, have not defined ``oil-based'' other than in terms of 
aqueous and dispersed phases. Based on comments Region 10 received on 
the general NDPES permit for the Arctic (EPA 1995d) and on interagency-
industry studies in which EPA is involved, the proposed permit defines 
``oil-based'' mud as a drilling mud with fossil-derived petroleum 
hydrocarbons as the continuous phase, and prohibits discharge of such a 
fluid. Discharges of ``non-petroleum'' or ``non-fossil-derived'' 
(hereinafter ``synthetic'') fluids (where the continuous phase consists 
of non-petroleum hydrocarbons) may be discharged and are required to 
meet all of the effluent limitations for drilling muds (e.g., toxicity, 
free oil (sheen), no diesel).
    Synthetic-based drilling muds are currently used in offshore 
drilling outside of the United States and have potential for reducing 
the amount of cuttings generated and fluids discharged because they are 
frequently employed with slim-hole or coiled-tube drilling 
technologies. Preliminary data indicate that the toxicity of synthetic 
muds compares favorably with drilling fluids discharged under Region 
10's various general NPDES permits. At a national level, the Agency is 
involved in a joint industry-agency group which is reviewing synthetic 
fluids with respect to toxic and nonconventional pollutants and 
appropriate analytical methods for monitoring these muds (EPA 1995d). 
Until such time as the joint industry-agency workgroup completes its 
evaluation of synthetic fluids and issues findings, Region 10 proposes 
the revised definition of ``oil-based'' muds to accommodate the 
discharge of synthetic muds as long as all other effluent limitations 
are met, including no discharge of free oil determined by the Static 
Sheen Test.
    In cases where the discharge of cuttings from synthetic muds may 
fail the static sheen test, the Agency has determined such a discharge 
would not be in accordance with 40 CFR 122.28(2)(ii)(B), (C), and (D) 
requirements for coverage under the proposed general permit. 
Specifically, such a discharge may exhibit a higher free oil content 
(albeit from a non-petroleum based oil) and require unique effluent 
limitations and monitoring requirements such as those being evaluated 
by the joint industry-agency workgroup. Dischargers in this situation 
should contact Region 10 to submit an application for an individual 
NPDES permit. 

[[Page 48806]]

3. Section 308 Requirements for Muds and Cuttings
    Mud Plan: As mentioned above, Region 10 is discontinuing 
authorization of individual mud/additive systems. Instead EPA is 
shifting the responsibility of case-by-case evaluations from the Region 
to the operator. Resources no longer allow Region 10 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''). Permit requirements for the Mud Plan 
make it analogous to analyses that the Region conducted in the past 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. Since the mud plan is one component of the Best 
Management Practices Plan, additional authority for the mud plan is 
implicit in the authority to include BMP plans in NPDES permits. 
Pursuant to sections 304(e) and 402(a) of the Act, BMP plans may be 
included as conditions in NPDES permits. The mud plan requirement is 
also based upon the Pollution Prevention Act (section 107(b)(3)) 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 for planning, 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 III.B.1.c. of the permit). 
Certification is due no later than submission of their written notice 
of intent to commence discharge (see Parts I.A.3., I.B.3., I.C.3. and 
II.C.3.c. of the permit).
    Region 10 first proposed requirements for a Mud Plan in the 
individual NPDES permit written and issued for exploratory operations 
in upper Cook Inlet in 1993 (EPA 1993d). Permit requirements for a Mud 
Plan were next proposed in the draft general NPDES permit for the 
Arctic (59 FR 48314, September 20, 1994) and garnered many comments. 
Region 10 responded to comments on the Mud Plan by modifying the final 
Arctic general permit (60 FR 27508, May 24, 1995) and by developing an 
example Mud Plan, which is available upon request.
    Other: In addition to the Mud Plan, the discharge monitoring 
requirements listed below are based on section 308 of the Act and 40 
CFR 122.44(i) to determine compliance with, or the possible need for, 
effluent limitations in the permit. All of the data below have been 
required in general permits previously issued by Region 10.
    (1) Chemical analysis (barium, cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury, 
zinc and lead).
    (2) Chemical inventory (discharged mud composition and toxicity 
test results).
    (3) Volume discharged.
    In both the proposed permit and in the final Arctic permit (60 FR 
27508, May 24, 1995) permittees must draw a sample of mud of sufficient 
size to allow for analyses of both total and total recoverable metals; 
whereas, permits issued prior to 1994 required analyses only for total 
metals. This requirement will enable the Region to better evaluate the 
impact of metals in the mud discharge.
4. Section 403(c) Requirements for Muds and Cuttings
    Flow rates: In addition to restrictions on all discharges imposed 
under section 403(c) of the Act and discussed in section III.B. of this 
fact sheet, muds and cuttings discharges are limited to the following 
maximum rates. These limitations are identical to those contained in 
the 1986 general permit.
     1,000 bbl/hr on total muds and cuttings in waters greater 
than 40 m deep.
     750 bbl/hr on total muds and cuttings in waters deeper 
than 20 m but not deeper than 40 m.
     500 bbl/hr in waters deeper than 5 m but not deeper than 
20 m.
     no discharge in waters shallower than 5 m.
    These limits were established because, for any given discharge 
rate, the dilution of drilling muds and cuttings is not as great in 
shallow waters as in deeper waters. At any particular water depth, 
however, dilution near the point of discharge will increase as the rate 
of discharge decreases. Limiting maximum discharge rates will ensure 
that acceptable toxicity limits will not be exceeded at the edge of the 
100 mixing zone (EPA 1986a, Tetra Tech 1995). (The 100 m mixing zone is 
defined in regulations for section 403 of the Act at 40 CFR Subpart M, 
125.121(c)).

D. Discharge 002 (Deck Drainage)

    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, as discussed 
below.
1. BPT, BCT and BAT Limitations on Free Oil in Deck Drainage
    As discussed in section III.A. and as shown on Table 1, the 
following discussion of BCT- and BAT-based permit requirements is based 
on the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance 
Standards for 

[[Page 48807]]
the Offshore Subcategory, promulgated by the Agency in March, 1993 (40 
CFR Part 435, Subpart A). In the absence of promulgated rules for 
coastal (i.e., upper) Cook Inlet, EPA has used Best Professional 
Judgement in applying BCT and BAT Offshore requirements to all 
applicable Coastal operations, although the acronyms ``BPJ/BCT'' and 
``BPJ/BAT'' are not discussed above.
    No free oil is permitted from the discharge of deck drainage. This 
limit is the current BPT level of control, and is also the appropriate 
level of control under BCT and BAT. 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. Monitoring of 
free oil to determine compliance with this limitation is required under 
section 308 of the Act.
2. Section 308 Requirements for Deck Drainage
    Monitoring and analyses of deck drainage is warranted based on the 
prevalence of both aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons, and inorganics, 
as explained below.
    The Cook Inlet Discharge Monitoring Study (CIDMS) required 
participants to inventory and report the various products that comprise 
the deck drainage wastestream. The CIDMS addressed deck drainage 
specifically because little was understood about the wastestream when 
the 1986 general permit was written. As stated in the response to 
comments issued with the final 1986 permit, EPA intended to use the 
chemical information on products contained in deck drainage to 
determine whether or not further monitoring and analysis of the 
wastestream was warranted (51 FR 35460, October 3, 1986).
    From April 1987 through April 1988, operators reported product 
names, product uses and estimated application rates (e.g., gal/month). 
The CIDMS report identifies 35 types of cleaners and solvents, none of 
which are used more frequently than any other product. Material safety 
data sheets and product information on all of the identified products 
are included in the CIDMS report; some product components are not 
revealed, however, because they have been identified as proprietary 
trade information. The following product components, identified in 
CIDMS, are likely to be present in deck drainage and are of particular 
interest with respect to water quality.

Terpene hydrocarbon
Nonylphenols
Pine oil
Ethylene glycol
Polyglycol
Aromatic naphtha
Heavy aliphatic naphtha
Alkyl & oxyalkyated phenols
(Sodium) hypochlorite
Gluteraldehyde
Butylated Hydroxytoluene
Isopropyl alcohol
Alkyldimethylbenzyl ammonium chlorides
Methanol
Phosphate

    In addition, aluminum, barium, iron, manganese, magnesium and 
titanium may also be found in deck drainage, according to the Agency's 
Development Documents for both the final Offshore and the proposed 
Coastal guidelines (EPA 1993a, EPA 1995a).
    The proposed permit requires whole effluent toxicity (WET) tests to 
measure the chronic toxicity of deck drainage using the analytical 
methods required for produced water (see Part III.F. of permit). The 
proposed WET monitoring applies only to platforms that do not commingle 
deck drainage and produced water, because commingled deck drainage/
produced water discharges are subject to produced water WET limitations 
(permit Part III.F.). WET sampling and protocols are discussed in more 
detail in section V.G.3. of this fact sheet. Monitoring is required 
twice each year at the beginning of the wettest times of the year 
during peak deck drainage flow; contaminant concentrations are likely 
to be highest at these times. Finally, the proposed monitoring 
requirements do not apply to exploratory platforms because exploratory 
operations are short-lived and may not occur in the Inlet during wet 
weather, when deck drainage flows are expected to be highest. The 
production platforms are permanent and have some existing qualitative 
data (Envirosphere 1989a) which may be useful when Region evaluates the 
WET monitoring.

E. Discharges 003 and 004 (Sanitary and Domestic Wastes)

    Sanitary and domestic wastestreams include the wastes collected 
from toilets, urinals, showers, sinks, eye- and hand-wash stations, 
fish-cleaning stations, galleys and laundries. The pollutants in these 
wastestreams are: fecal coliforms (FC), residual chlorine (from 
treatment for coliforms), suspended solids (SS), biochemical oxygen 
demand (BOD), floating solids and visible foam.
1. BCT, BAT, and Water Quality-based Limitations for Sanitary and 
Domestic Wastes
    As discussed in section III.A. in the absence of promulgated rules 
for coastal (i.e., upper) Cook Inlet, EPA has used Best Professional 
Judgement in applying BCT Offshore requirements to all applicable 
Coastal operations, although the acronym ``BPJ/BCT'' is not added to 
the discussion below. To simplify the discussion, the bases for 
establishing permit limits are discussed in terms of the applicable BCT 
or BAT Offshore Guidelines.
    Floating Solids: The BCT prohibition on floating solids is 
equivalent to the current level of control for sanitary wastes in 
existing permits. 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. Other discharges have been subject to this limitation in previous 
permits and past practices have not resulted in violations of this 
limitation. No technology performance data available to Region 10 
indicate that a more stringent standard is appropriate at this time. 
Therefore, Region 10 has determined that the BCT effluent limitation on 
floating solids from these discharges is equal to the BPT level of 
control. As such, the extension of this limitation to all discharges 
will involve no incremental cost.
    Any facility using a marine sanitation devise (MSD) that complies 
with pollution control standards and regulations under section 312 of 
the Act in considered to be in compliance with the prohibition of 
floating solids.
    Visible Foam: The promulgated Offshore guidelines set BAT for 
domestic wastes equal to no discharge of visible foam. Region 10 has 
determined this limitation is also appropriate for discharges occurring 
in the Coastal subcategory as well as for the discharge of sanitary 
wastes.
    Chlorine: Chlorine is added to the sanitary waste stream to control 
fecal coliforms in the discharge, and is regulated by the Agency in the 
offshore oil and gas effluent guidelines as a conventional pollutant. 
In the 1986 Cook Inlet and other oil and gas permits, BCT for total 
residual chlorine (TRC) required that TRC levels be maintained as close 
as possible to, but no less than, 1 mg/l in sanitary waste discharges 
for facilities staffed by ten or more people. The intent of this 
standard is to ensure adequate disinfection of waste through 
chlorination, while minimizing the addition of excess chlorination to 
the environment. In the proposed permit, 

[[Page 48808]]
this BCT limit applies to federal waters. In state waters, the BCT 
chlorine limit has been proposed, but may be changed by ADEC's 
application of state water quality standards when the final permit is 
certified under section 401 of the Act. Water quality-based limits for 
TRC are discussed in section V.E.2., below. Weekly monitoring for TRC 
during peak periods of sanitary system flow is proposed. Any facility 
using a marine sanitation devise (MSD) that complies with pollution 
control standards and regulations under section 312 of the Act is 
considered to be in compliance with the TRC limitation.
    For state waters, the proposed BCT end-of-pipe limit is based on 
the assumption that a mixing zone will be added to the final permit by 
ADEC as part of its certification under section 401 of the Act. If a 
mixing zone is added to the permit, it is anticipated that the Alaska 
water quality standard of 2.0 g/l will apply at the edge of 
the mixing zone. The ``as close as possible to 1 mg/l'' portion of the 
BCT standard will still apply end-of-pipe, which effectively places an 
upper limit on the amount of chlorine that can be added to the sanitary 
wastestream and limits the size of a mixing zone.
    If a mixing zone is not added to the final permit by ADEC, state 
water quality standards for TRC and fecal coliform will be added to the 
permit for state waters only. The Alaska water quality standard of 2.0 
g/l is the applicable criterion for a TRC end-of-pipe 
limitation, since the Alaska water quality standard is more protective 
than the BCT standard against the toxic effects of chlorine. Based on 
the method for deriving permit limits recommended in the TSD (EPA 
1991b), the TRC limit will be changed in the final permit to a 1.0 
g/l monthly average and 2.0 g/l daily maximum at the 
point of discharge. In order to ensure adequate treatment of fecal 
coliform, a fecal coliform limit of 43 FC/100 ml (daily maximum) and 14 
FC/100 ml (monthly median) will also be added to the final permit. The 
Alaska standard for fecal coliform states that the median ``most 
probably number'' (MPN) shall not exceed 14 FC/100 ml, and not more 
than 10% of the samples shall exceed a FC MPN of 43 FC/100 ml. The 
proposed monthly median limitation of 14 FC/100 ml is derived directly 
from the Alaska standard. The proposed daily maximum of 43 FC/100 ml 
reflects the Alaska standard as long as the number of samples collected 
per month does not exceed ten. Since weekly sampling would be required, 
Region 10 has determined that 43 FC/100 ml appropriately reflects the 
Alaska standard.
3. Technology-based Limitation Based on Section 401 Certification of 
Prior Permit
    Suspended Solids (SS) and Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD): The 
following SS and BOD limits are proposed for state waters only.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            SSeffluent limit                            BOD limit                                               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SSintake + 60 mg/l.....................  60 mg/l................................  Daily maximum.                
SSintake + 45 mg/l.....................  45 mg/l................................  Weekly average.               
SSintake + 30 mg/l.....................  30 mg/l................................  Monthly average.              
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed limits for BOD are identical to those contained in the 
1986 permit while the proposed SS limits have been changed from the 
1986 permit. Monitoring frequency has increased from monthly to weekly.
    The 1986 permit contained BOD and SS limitations of 60 mg/l (24-
hours), 45 mg/l (7 consecutive days), and 30 mg/l (30 consecutive 
days). These limits were required by the State in its section 401 
certification (for discharges to state waters only), and were more 
stringent than EPA's BCT-based limitations for the sanitary 
wastestream. These numeric limits are required by state law under the 
Alaska definition of secondary treatment (18 AAC 72.990 (42)). In 
reissuing this permit, EPA must include the State's section 401-based 
limits on sanitary BOD and SS from the previous permit (40 CFR 
122.44(l)). To not include these limits for discharge would constitute 
backsliding.
    Note that the proposed permit addresses these numeric limits in 
terms of weekly and monthly averages rather than in terms of 
consecutive days. Standard NPDES reporting for weekly averages (i.e., 
sum of all daily discharges divided by the number of daily discharges) 
and monthly averages (i.e., the average of daily discharges calculated 
over a monitoring month) is different than the reporting required for 
limits based on -24 ``consecutive days'' (i.e., a rolling average). 
Region 10 anticipates that using standard NPDES terms in the proposed 
permit will alleviate some of the confusion and reporting complications 
generated by use of ``consecutive days'' in the 1986 permit.
    The SS standard is technology-based and comes from the State's 
definition of secondary treatment (18 AAC 72.990(42)). Under 40 CFR 
122.45(g)(1)(ii), technology-based effluent limitations may be adjusted 
to reflect credit for pollutants in the intake water if dischargers 
demonstrate control systems would meet effluent limits in the absence 
of pollutants in intake waters. Furthermore, credit for intake 
pollutants may only be granted under the following conditions:
     Constituents of the generic measure (i.e., SS in this 
case) in the effluent are substantially similar to constituents of the 
generic measure in the intake water, and
     intake water comes from the same body of water into which 
discharge occurs.
    A review of past compliance data indicates that operators are not 
consistently meeting the technology-based SS limits in the current 
permit. At the request of SWEPI, Marathon, and Unocal, Region 10 has 
reviewed the nature of sanitary waters, their makeup and treatment 
prior to use in the system as well as sanitary treatments used on 
platforms. SS in the effluent is substantially similar to SS in the 
intake: there is no other source of SS in the effluent except in cases 
where domestic wastes are commingled with sanitary wastes. In these 
cases, domestic solids are removed by final sanitary treatment. In all 
cases, the source of sanitary intake water is Cook Inlet, which is also 
the discharge receiving water.
    Region 10 has determined that high concentrations of SS in effluent 
are most likely due to high SS concentrations in the intake water used 
in sanitary systems. To understand how high SS in intake affects SS 
concentrations in the discharge, the process of taking water onboard 
and treating it is described as follows. Water is required on platforms 
for many purposes, of which two tolerate saline water (i.e., waterflood 
injection and sanitary systems). The general practice to provide water 
for waterflood and sanitary systems is to take water directly from Cook 
Inlet and treat it for either application. Primary treatment is solids 
removal with filters or varying screen sizes. In many cases, water 
destined for use in sanitary systems is diverted directly to the 

[[Page 48809]]
system after primary screening and/or filtration. Water used for 
waterflooding injection receive further treatment to remove both solids 
and oxygen.
    Ideally, sanitary makeup water should also receive further 
treatment to remove solids before entering the sanitary system. 
Platforms are capable of removing SS; however, the technology for 
further solids removal is so closely associated with oxygen stripping 
for waterflood that considerable retro-fitting would be needed to 
divert water to the sanitary system before oxygen is removed. (Water 
with low oxygen is corrosive and not generally suitable for use in 
sanitary systems.) Furthermore, there is limited space available to 
install the additional filters and/or screens that would be needed to 
treat sanitary makeup water for SS to the same degree that waterflood 
makeup is treated.
    Under 40 CFR 122.45(g)(1)(ii), Region 10 has determined that it is 
appropriate to propose effluent limitations for SS based on intake (or 
makeup) water plus ADEC's technology-based, secondary treatment limits. 
The effluent limits proposed for SS are based on the SS concentration 
of intake water after the water has received primary treatment for SS 
removal.
    Permittees are required to monitor makeup water at a point 
immediately prior to the water entering the sanitary system. These 
values shall be reported on DMRs and labelled as SSintake. 
Effluent shall be monitored and reported as the sums shown above. 
Eighteen months after the effective date of the permit, Region 10 will 
evaluate the DMR data to determine whether the SS limits should be 
modified.
    Region 10 proposes to increase monitoring frequency from monthly to 
weekly in order to address compliance concerns. The overall increased 
monitoring for SS will enable Region 10 to determine (1) the nature of 
past noncompliance with numeric limits in the 1986 permit and (2) 
appropriate numeric SS limits based on the nature of Cook Inlet makeup 
water. Under section 308 of the Act and 40 CFR 122.44(i), the proposal 
for increased monitoring of BOD and SS in make-up water and the 
sanitary discharge is both reasonable and necessary. Region 10 does not 
propose any change to BOD limits other than monitoring and reporting 
frequency.
    For the discharges to federal waters (i.e., operations on blocks 
leased under federal sales), any facility using a marine sanitation 
device (MSD) that complies with pollution control standards and 
regulations under section 312 of the Act shall be deemed to be in 
compliance with a limit of no floating solids, until the device is 
replaced or found not to comply with such standards and regulations.
4. Section 308 and Section 312 Requirements for Sanitary and Domestic 
Wastes
    Based on section 308 of the Act, the proposed permit requires 
Permittees to estimate and report flow for each of these wastestreams. 
In addition, for platforms using U.S. Coast Guard certified marine 
sanitation devices (MSDs), the proposed permit requires Permittees to 
monitor the sanitary wastestream twice each month and submit the 
following information:
     FC and the estimated number of persons aboard for the 5 
days preceding the sample.
     SS.
     TRC.
    The information and data on FC and SS will be used for comparison 
with standards set forth at 40 CFR 140.3(d) for MSDs. (These 
regulations are based on section 312 of the Act.) As mentioned above, 
the proposed permit assumes that a Coast Guard certified MSD will 
comply with the BCT-based limits for TRC of ``as close as possible to 
but no less than 1 mg/l'' and the requirement for ``no floating 
solids.'' While these assumptions are consistent with all offshore 
general permits issued previously by Region 10, TRC monitoring data 
required by the proposed permit will allow Region 10 to reassess its 
assumption for this pollutant.

F. Discharges 005-014 (Miscellaneous Discharges)

1. General Descriptions
    Miscellaneous discharges are: 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); mud, cuttings and cement at seafloor (013); 
waterflooding discharges (014). The wastestream characterizations below 
are based on the Development Document for the Offshore guidelines (pp. 
X-38-42, EPA 1995b and Envirosphere 1989b, 1989c, 1989d), the 1986 
general permit, and CIDMS reports.
    Desalination unit wastes: This is wastewater associated with the 
process of creating fresh water from saltwater. The process itself is 
generally either distillation or reverse osmosis. The wastewater is a 
high-concentration brine very similar to seawater in composition but 
with higher concentrations of anions and cations.
    Blowout preventer (BOP) fluid: These are fluids used to actuate the 
hydraulic equipment on blowout preventers. The fluid itself is 
generally an oil (vegetable or mineral) or antifreeze solution (e.g., 
glycol). The blowout preventer equipment may be located on the seafloor 
or on a platform and is designed to maintain the pressure in a well 
that cannot be controlled by drilling mud. Small quantities of BOP 
fluid are discharged when BOPs are tested.
    Ballast: This is seawater added or removed to maintain proper draft 
for the purpose of platform stabilization. Unlike tank ballast water, 
uncontaminated ballast water is taken from waters adjacent to the 
platform (i.e., Cook Inlet) and will, at worst, be contaminated with 
oily slop water.
    Bilge water: This is seawater which collects in the lower internal 
parts of a drilling vessel's hull and may be contaminated with oil & 
grease or rust. Bilge water is directed to an oil/water separator 
before discharge, which occurs intermittently.
    Muds, cuttings and cement at the sea-floor: These wastes result 
from marine riser disconnect and well abandonment and plugging. 
Compared to discharge of muds and cuttings (Discharge 001), these 
volumes are small.
    Boiler blowdown: The discharge of circulation water and minerals 
from boilers necessary to minimize solids build-up in the boilers. This 
is another intermittent discharge.
    Excess cement slurry: This wastestream is the result of equipment 
washdown after a cementing operation.
    Waterflooding: These discharges are associated with the treatment 
of seawater prior to its injection into a hydrocarbon-bearing formation 
to improve the flow of hydrocarbons from production wells. Seawater is 
taken aboard and treated to remove solids and dissolved oxygen, 
additional treatment may include flocculants, scale inhibitors, oxygen 
scavengers, and biocides. This wastestream also includes strainer and 
filter backwash water and excess treated water not injected. Of all the 
miscellaneous wastestreams discussed here, waterflood varies most 
widely in terms of volumes discharged--ranging from 6,300 to 1,793,820 
gallons per day (gpd) (estimated daily averages, (Envirosphere 1989c)).
    Fire control system test water: This is treated seawater which is 
released during the training of personnel in fire protection and the 
testing and maintenance of fire protection equipment. 

[[Page 48810]]

    Non-contact cooling water: This is water which circulates across 
crude oil or produced water tanks, power generators or other machinery 
for the purpose of cooling. As implied by the name, this water does not 
come in contact with product, produced water or the machinery it cools; 
although it may be treated with biocide to prevent fouling in heat 
exchangers.
2. BPJ/BPT Effluent Limitation
    Neither the promulgated Offshore guidelines nor the proposed 
Coastal guidelines address the wastestreams described above. The 
Agency's basis for not addressing these wastestreams in either 
guideline is that they are more appropriately controlled by regionally 
issued NPDES permits such as the one proposed today. As discussed in 
section III.A., above, Region 10 has used Best Professional Judgement 
(BPJ) in applying permit limits and requirements for these 
miscellaneous wastestreams in the absence of promulgated technology-
based guidelines.
    No free oil: Region 10 has determined that no free oil shall be 
discharged in those wastestreams that are likely to be oil-
contaminated. That is, a no free oil limitation is proposed for bilge 
water, uncontaminated ballast water, blowout preventer fluid, excess 
cement slurry and the discharge of muds, cuttings and excess cement at 
the seafloor. The proposed permit also requires bilge and ballast water 
to be processed through an oil-water separator prior to discharge. If 
bilge or ballast water are discharged during broken or unstable ice 
conditions, or during stable ice conditions, the static sheen test will 
be used to determine compliance with the no free oil limitation. In 
addition, the no free oil limit is also proposed for waterflooding 
discharges in the event that chemicals in preparation of seawater for 
injection may cause free oil. This limitation is Region 10's best 
professional judgement determination of BPT controls for these five 
miscellaneous wastestreams. Compliance with the free oil limitation 
will be by the visual sheen test. This no free oil limit has been 
applied in previous permits issued by Region 10 and past practices has 
not been violated.
    The proposed permit does not limit free oil/sheen for desalination 
unit wastes, boiler blowdown, fire control system test water, or non-
contact cooling water because these are ``non-contact'' wastestreams. 
That is, they do not come in contact with either the production stream 
(i.e., oil/water/gas from formation) or machinery surfaces where oily 
wastes are likely to contaminate them.
3. Section 308 Requirements
    Flow Rate: Based on section 308 of the Act, the proposed permit 
requires estimated flow rates to be reported on a monthly basis for all 
of the miscellaneous wastestreams (Discharges 005-014). In addition, 
the proposed permit requires permittees to maintain an inventory of the 
quantities and rates of chemicals (other than fresh or seawater) added 
to the waterflooding (Discharge 014), noncontact cooling water 
(Discharge 009), and desalination (Discharge 005) systems. Reports 
shall be submitted monthly attached to DMRs. This reporting requirement 
is consistent with previous permits.

G. Discharge 015 (Produced Water)

    Produced water is the total water generated from the oil and gas 
extraction process, and is the highest volume waste source in the 
offshore oil and gas industry. As discussed in section II of this fact 
sheet, the discharge of produced water is only authorized in state 
waters of Upper Cook Inlet, north of the Forelands. Produced water 
includes: the formation water brought to surface with the oil and gas, 
the injection water used for secondary oil recovery that has broken 
through the formation, and various well treatment chemicals added 
during production and the oil/water separation process. Formation 
water, which comprises the bulk of produced water, is found in the same 
rock formation as the crude oil and gas. There are currently five 
platforms that discharge directly into Cook Inlet (after physical 
separation of hydrocarbons), while the remaining nine pipe their 
combined production fluids (hydrocarbon and water) to one of the three 
shore-based separation/treatment facilities. Effluent flow rates vary 
from less than 0.2 ft\3\ per second at the platforms, to 4 ft\3\ per 
second at the Trading Bay Production Facility. The Cook Inlet Discharge 
Monitoring Study (``CIDMS'') and the mixing zone application 
(Parametrix, 1995) identifies numerous organic and inorganic 
contaminants that are typically found in produced water, as discussed 
below.
1. BPJ/BCT Limitations for Produced Water
    pH: It is proposed that the pH of discharged produced water be 
limited to a range of 6-9 at the point of discharge. These proposed 
limits are equal to the pH limitations in the 1986 permit. In the 
Agency's best professional judgement, this limitation appropriately 
equals a BPT level of control. No more stringent standard has been 
identified by the Agency at this time. Therefore, the Agency is setting 
a BPJ/BCT effluent limitation for the pH of produced water equal to 
that of BPT. Since previous permits have contained a limitation of pH 
6-9, the requirement will not incur an incremental cost. The draft 
permit requires weekly monitoring of pH.
2. BPJ/BAT Limitations for Produced Water
    Oil and Grease: It is proposed that oil and grease concentrations 
in discharges of produced water from all facilities (except Phillips 
Tyonek-A) be limited to a 29 mg/l monthly average and a 42 mg/l maximum 
daily. These oil and grease limits were promulgated as BAT for offshore 
facilities (40 CFR 435.15) as indicators of toxic and nonconventional 
pollutants, and are proposed in this permit as BPJ/BAT for coastal 
facilities (40 CFR 122.43, 122.44, and 125.3). Oil and grease 
limitations for Phillips Tyonek-A, a gas production platform, will be 
set at 15 mg/l monthly average and 20 mg/l daily maximum. The 
limitations for Tyonek-A are equal to those in the 1986 general permit 
for that facility, and are limitations with which Tyonek-A is currently 
in compliance. Note that while BPT oil and grease limitations have been 
promulgated for coastal facilities (40 CFR 435.42), the BPT limitations 
are less stringent than the limitations proposed above and have 
therefore not been used to establish permit limitations. The draft 
permit requires weekly monitoring of oil and grease.
    Produced Sands: In the proposed permit, Region 10 prohibits the 
discharge of produced sands (formerly called ``produced solids'') as 
BPJ/BCT and BPJ/BAT based on the Agency's guidelines for both Offshore 
(promulgated) and Coastal (proposed) subcategories. Promulgated BAT 
(Offshore) for ``produced sand'' is no discharge based on the Agency's 
determination that these ``sands'' are sent on-shore on barges trips 
during regularly scheduled maintenance trips. In 1995, the Agency 
proposed Coastal guidelines in which BPT, BCT, BAT and NSPS are 
proposed to be equal to no discharge. The proposed Coastal guideline 
for produced sand is based on information from Cook Inlet operators 
stating that no produced sand discharges occur in this area (60 FR 
9454, February 17, 1995).
    The 1986 general permit defined ``produced solids'' as sands and 
other solids deposited from produced water which collect in vessels and 
lines and which must be removed to maintain adequate vessel and line 
capacities. In 1993, the promulgated Offshore rule (40 CFR 435.11(r)) 
defined ``produced sand'' 

[[Page 48811]]
as slurried particles used in hydraulic fracturing, the accumulated 
formation sands and scales particles generated during production, 
desander discharge from the produced water wastestream, and blowdown of 
the water phase from the produced water treatment system.
3. Water Quality-Based Limitations for Produced Water
    The State has issued a preliminary mixing zone determination for 
produced water that specifies mixing zones and dilutions for eight 
facilities discharging produced water to Cook Inlet. The State has 
notified EPA that the mixing zone request submitted by the permittees 
is adequate for incorporation into the draft permit (ADEC 1995). At 
each of the eight facilities, individual mixing zones have been 
proposed for metals (acute, chronic and human health), total aromatic 
hydrocarbons (TAH), total aqueous hydrocarbons (TAqH), and toxicity.
    As part of the mixing zone application (Parametrix 1995), produced 
water discharges from production facilities in Cook Inlet were sampled 
at each of 8 facilities currently discharging produced water into Cook 
Inlet. Samples were analyzed for a broad range of potential pollutants, 
including metals, monoaromatic hydrocarbons (such as benzene), 
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (such as naphthalene), and chronic 
toxicity.
    The 1995 sampling effort supplements the 1988-89 sampling effort 
documented in the CIDMS. The CIDMS provided data for ten organic 
pollutants, zinc, and acute toxicity for 6 of the 8 facilities 
currently discharging produced water into Cook Inlet. The way in which 
available data were used to calculate water quality-based permit limits 
is discussed in part III.E. of this fact sheet, and below.
    Metals: The 1986 permit did not limit metals in produced water. 
Data submitted by the permittees in the mixing zone application 
(Parametrix 1995) show exceedances of the water quality criteria for 
arsenic, copper, zinc and silver at numerous facilities. The following 
is a summary of the maximum concentrations reported, and applicable 
aquatic life and human health criteria. The applicable metals criteria 
for Alaska are written in terms of total recoverable metals; one total 
recoverable sample was analyzed at each facility.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Criteria                                                              
    Pollutant     --------------------------------------------------------       Maximum reported discharge     
                         Health             Acute             Chronic                                           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsenic..........  1.4 g/l.  69 g/l..  36 g/l.  230 g/l (East Forelands).   
Silver...........  .................  2.3 g/l.  ................  80 g/l (Bruce).             
Copper...........  .................  2.9 g/l.  2.9 g/l  64 g/l (Dillon).            
Zinc.............  .................  95 g/l..  86 g/l.  2700 g/l (Baker).           
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Acute, chronic and human health mixing zones have been proposed by 
the Permittees at each of the eight discharge locations. The following 
is a summary of the proposed acute and chronic mixing zones, and the 
associated dilution factors at each location. Where modeling results 
yielded a mixing zone with a radius less than 20 meters, a 20-meter 
mixing zone is proposed. The dilution factor represents the dilution 
that is predicted to occur at the edge of the mixing zone.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Proposed acute                     Proposed                   
                    Location                        mixing zone      Dilution     chronic mixing     Dilution   
                                                        (m)           factor         zone (m)         factor    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Granite Point PF................................              20              82              99             282
Trading Bay.....................................             300            4900             300            4900
East Foreland...................................              20              42             109             632
Tyonek A........................................              20              20              20             278
Bruce...........................................              37             327              46             336
Baker...........................................              22             174              37             300
Dillon..........................................              20              84              43             274
Anna............................................              20              65              36             274
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the method for deriving permit limits recommended in the 
TSD (EPA 1991b), individual effluent limitations have been calculated 
for each of the platforms. If the final mixing zone approved by the 
state is different from the one used to calculate the limits for the 
draft permit, the limits in the final permit will reflect these 
changes. The following is a comparison of wasteload allocations, 
effluent limits, proposed mixing zone size and dilution factors for 
each location. Effluent limitations have not been imposed for every 
metal constituent at every facility. In some cases, the size of the 
proposed mixing zone diminishes the potential for exceedances of water 
quality standards at the edge of the mixing zone. In accordance with 
the TSD, limits are included only when there is a ``reasonable 
potential'' to exceed water quality criteria. At Trading Bay and Bruce, 
for example, a reasonable potential to exceed water quality criteria at 
the edge of the mixing zone was not found; therefore effluent 
limitations are not proposed.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Effluent limitations   
                                                                          Wasteload  ---------------------------
                                                                         allocation                    Monthly  
             Location                            Pollutant              (g/    Daily max      average  
                                                                             l)       (g/  (g/
                                                                                           l)            l)     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Granite Point.....................  Copper............................           238           238         119  
East Foreland.....................  Copper............................           122           122          60.7
                                    Arsenic...........................           885          1780         885  
Tyonek A..........................  Copper............................            58            58          29  
Baker.............................  Arsenic...........................           420           843         420  
                                    Zinc..............................         16500         16500        8240  
Dillon............................  Copper............................           244           244        121   

[[Page 48812]]
                                                                                                                
                                    Zinc..............................          7980          7980        3980  
Anna..............................  Copper............................           189           189          94  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Weekly monitoring for metals is required in the draft permit. 
Additional monitoring requirements for metals are discussed below in 
V.G.4.
    Total Aromatic Hydrocarbons (TAH) and Total Aqueous Hydrocarbons 
(TAqH): TAH and TAqH were not limited in the 1986 general permit. The 
state of Alaska water quality standard for protection of aquatic life 
is 10 g/l for TAH, and 15 g/l for TAqH. TAH is 
defined as the sum of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and the xylene 
isomers (usually referred to as BETX). TAqH is defined as the sum of 
TAH and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). All analytical 
requirements are specified in the Alaska standards (18 AAC 70.020(b).
    Data submitted by the permittees in the CIDMS (Envirosphere 1990a) 
and the mixing zone application (Parametrix 1995) indicate that current 
TAH and TAqH levels are above the standard at numerous facilities. For 
example, maximum concentrations of 70,000 g/l TAH and 70,500 
g/l TAqH were detected at the Bruce platform in 1995. Mixing 
zones have been proposed for TAH and TAqH at each of the eight 
discharge locations. The following is a summary of the maximum TAH and 
TAqH concentrations detected at each location, the proposed mixing 
zones, and the associated dilution factors. Where a mixing zone with a 
radius less than 20 meters (Tyonek-A) is needed, a 20-meter mixing zone 
is proposed. The dilution factor represents the dilution that is 
predicted to occur at the edge of the mixing zone.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               TAH max      TAqH max      Proposed              
                         Location                           (g/  (g/  mixing zone    Dilution 
                                                                 l)            l)           (m)         factor  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Granite Point.............................................        14,400        15,029          955         3877
Trading Bay...............................................         6,970         7,330          300         4900
East Foreland.............................................        15,360        16,313          412         3762
Tyonek A..................................................            49            68           20           17
Bruce.....................................................        70,000        70,536          867       18,164
Baker.....................................................        20,550        21,006          555         5409
Dillon....................................................        20,000        13,300          405         3609
Anna......................................................        17,510        20,428          363         5233
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the method for deriving permit limits recommended in the 
TSD (EPA 1991b), individual effluent limitations have been calculated 
for each of the dischargers. The following is a comparison of wasteload 
allocations and effluent limits for each location. If the final mixing 
zone approved by the state is different from the one used to calculate 
the limits for the draft permit, the limits in the final permit will 
reflect these changes.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Effluent Limitations   
                                                                          Wasteload  ---------------------------
                                                                         allocation                    Monthly  
                      Location                            Pollutant     (g/    Daily max      average  
                                                                             l)       (g/  (g/
                                                                                           l)            l)     
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Granite Point.......................................  TAH                     38,800        38,800        19,300
Prod Facility.......................................  TAqH                    58,200        58,200        29,000
Trading Bay.........................................  TAH                     49,000        49,000        24,400
                                                      TAqH                    73,500        73,500        36,600
East Forelands......................................  TAH                     37,600        37,600        18,800
                                                      TAqH                    56,400        56,400        28,100
Tyonek A............................................  TAH                        170           170            85
                                                      TAqH                       255           255           127
Bruce...............................................  TAH                    182,000       182,000        90,500
                                                      TAqH                   272,000      0272,000       136,000
Baker...............................................  TAH                     54,100        54,100        27,000
                                                      TAqH                    81,100        81,100        40,400
Dillon..............................................  TAH                     36,100        36,100        18,000
                                                      TAqH                    54,100        54,100        27,000
Anna................................................  TAH                     52,300        52,300        26,100
                                                      TAqH                    78,500        78,500        39,100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The draft permit requires weekly monitoring for TAH and TAqH. 
Submittal of an annual report summarizing the concentrations of the 
individual TAH (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene isomers) and 
TAqH components is also required. 

[[Page 48813]]

    The draft permit does not contain individual limitations for 
benzene, as the total aromatic hydrocarbon (TAH) criterion is 
significantly more protective than the benzene criterion. The benzene 
criterion of 710 g/l is applicable for the protection of human 
health from potential carcinogenic effects due to benzene exposure 
through ingestion of contaminated aquatic organisms. This criterion 
represents an incremental increase of cancer risk of 10-5 over a 
lifetime. Existing data indicates that this criterion is exceeded in 
the 36 CIDMS samples, and all samples of all discharges (except Tyonek-
A) in the mixing zone application; benzene concentrations range from 15 
g/l at Tyonek-A to 53,000 g/l at Bruce. As part of 
their mixing zone application to the State, the permittees performed a 
human health assessment to evaluate potential carcinogenic risks to 
humans who consume fish and shellfish that inhabit Cook Inlet.
    The results of the human health assessment indicate that produced 
waters are not expected to pose significant risks to human health from 
the consumption of fish and shellfish in Cook Inlet at the edge of 
mixing zone.
    Whole Effluent Toxicity: Whole effluent toxicity (WET) tests are 
used to measure the acute and/or chronic toxicity of an effluent. Acute 
toxicity tests determine the effluent concentration that produces an 
adverse effect (i.e., death) on a group of test organisms during a 
short-term exposure. The LC50 is the concentration of effluent 
that would cause death in 50 percent of the organisms exposed. Acute 
toxicity units (TUa) are defined as (100/LC50).
    Chronic toxicity measures a sublethal effect (e.g., reduced growth, 
reproduction) in an effluent compared to that of the control organism. 
When conducting a chronic toxicity test, the highest concentration of 
an effluent at which no adverse effects are observed on the aquatic 
test organisms is defined as the no observed effect concentration 
(NOEC). Chronic toxicity units (TUc) are defined as (100/NOEC).
    Alaska's water quality standard for toxicity is expressed as a 
measure of chronic, rather than acute toxicity. The Alaska standard 
states that substances must impart no chronic toxicity to aquatic 
organisms, expressed as 1.0 chronic toxic unit (TUc) at the edge 
of the mixing zone, or end of pipe if there is no mixing zone. The 
relationship between TUc and TUa is usually expressed as the 
acute-to-chronic ratio (ACR). In the absence of site-specific data, the 
TSD recommends that an ACR of 10 be used.
    Produced water toxicity was not limited in the 1986 general permit. 
Toxicity monitoring was, however, a requirement of the 1986 permit and 
was discussed in the CIDMS (Envirosphere 1990a). Produced water samples 
from three platforms and three shore-based facilities were tested for 
acute toxicity to the marine invertebrate Mysidopsis bahia using a 96-
hour acute toxicity test. Chronic toxicity was measured at eight 
facilities currently discharging produced water to Cook Inlet as part 
of the mixing zone application (Parametrix 1995). For all locations, 
the mean TUc exceeds the state water quality standard of 1.0 
TUc.
    Mixing zones have been proposed for whole effluent toxicity at each 
of the eight discharge locations. The 1995 TUc data (based on NOEC 
growth and survival), mixing zones and dilution factors are summarized 
below. Note that while the proposed mixing zones are based on the NOEC 
(survival), it is anticipated that the mixing zones will be 
recalculated prior to issuance of the final permit based on the NOEC 
(growth).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Proposed 
  Dilution                                          TUc        chronic  
   factor         Location       TUc (growth)    (survival)  mixing zone
                                                                 (m)    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Granite Point PF        21.28               7         2026
              Trading Bay.....         > 22              10     3004,900
              East Foreland...         > 18              11         2040
              Tyonek A........          > 5               2        206.2
              Bruce...........        > 143              21         2082
              Baker...........         > 17              10         2036
              Dillon..........         > 28              16         2057
              Anna............           77              29        20110
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the method for deriving permit limits recommended in the 
TSD (EPA 1991b), individual effluent limitations have been calculated 
for each of the dischargers. The following is a comparison of wasteload 
allocations and effluent limits for each location. If the final mixing 
zone approved by the state is different from the one used to calculate 
the limits for the draft permit, the limits in the final permit will 
reflect these changes. Limitations have not been calculated for the 
Trading Bay facility. In accordance with the TSD, limits are included 
only when there is a ``reasonable potential'' to exceed water quality 
criteria.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       Effluent limitations     
                                                                     Wasteload   -------------------------------
                            Location                                allocation       Daily max      Monthly avg 
                                                                       (TUc)           (TUc)           (TUc)    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Granite Point...................................................              26              43              29
East Forelands..................................................              40              66              45
Tyonek A........................................................               6              10               7
Bruce...........................................................              82             135              92
Baker...........................................................              36              59              40
Dillon..........................................................              57              94              64
Anna............................................................             110             181             124
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 48814]]

    Monthly chronic toxicity monitoring using grab effluent samples is 
proposed. The permit requires tests using a vertebrate and two 
invertebrates, as follows:
    Vertebrate: Inland silverside, Menidia beryllina
    Invertebrate: Atlantic mysid, Mysidopsis bahia survival, growth and 
fecundity test and one of the following two bivalve species tests: 
Mytilis sp. or Crassostrea gigas larval development test, depending 
upon seasonal availability.
    The level of chronic toxicity shall be estimated as specified in 
Short-Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and 
Receiving Waters to Marine and Estuarine Organisms, Second Edition, 
EPA/600/4-90/003. For the bivalve species, chronic toxicity shall be 
estimated as specified in Short-Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic 
Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Water To West Coast Marine and 
Estuarine Organisms (Chapman and Denton 1995)
    If chronic toxicity is detected above the permit limits, the 
permittee shall conduct four more tests, bi-weekly, over an eight-week 
period. In accordance with EPA/600/2-88/070, a toxicity reduction 
evaluation (TRE) must be initiated within fifteen days of the 
exceedance in order to expeditiously locate the source(s) of toxicity 
and evaluate the effectiveness of pollution control actions and/or 
inplant modifications toward attaining compliance. If chronic toxicity 
is detected in any of the four bi-weekly tests, the permittee shall 
initiate a toxicity identification evaluation (TIE) to identify the 
specific chemical(s) causing toxicity according to the EPA protocols 
listed below. If none of the four bi-weekly tests indicate toxicity 
above the permit limit, then the permittee may return to the normal 
testing frequency.
     USEPA Toxicity Identification Evaluation: Characterization 
of Chronically Toxic Effluents, Phase I (EPA/600/6-91/005F),
     USEPA Methods for Aquatic Toxicity Identification 
Evaluations: Phase II Toxicity Identification Procedures for Samples 
Exhibiting Acute and Chronic Toxicity (EPA/600/R-92/080), and
     USEPA Methods for Aquatic Toxicity Identification 
Evaluations, Phase III Toxicity Confirmation Procedures (EPA-600/R-92/
081).
4. Section 308 Requirements for Produced Water
    In addition to the effluent monitoring discussed above, the draft 
permit requires additional effluent monitoring of flow rate, metals, 
and total aqueous hydrocarbons.
    Flow Rate: Measurement of the produced water flow rate is required 
daily. This requirement serves to determine compliance with, or the 
possible future need for, effluent limitations in the permit. The basis 
for this requirement is section 308 of the Act.
    Metals: Monthly monitoring of total recoverable arsenic, cadmium, 
copper, lead, nickel, silver and zinc is required for one year. Because 
weekly effluent limitations for metals are not imposed at Bruce and 
Trading Bay, monthly monitoring of each of the seven metals is 
required. The remainder of the facilities discharging produced water to 
Cook Inlet must submit monthly monitoring results for those metals not 
limited in the permit at that facility. Method detection levels must be 
less than one-tenth the aquatic life criteria listed below. The minimum 
detection level required for arsenic is 1 g/l.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Aquatic life 
                        Pollutant                             chronic   
                                                             criteria   
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cadmium.................................................  9.3 g/
                                                           l            
Copper..................................................  2.9 g/
                                                           l            
Lead....................................................  8.5 g/
                                                           l            
Nickel..................................................  8.3 g/
                                                           l            
Silver..................................................  2.3 g/
                                                           l            
Zinc....................................................  86 g/
                                                           l            
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Existing Cook Inlet data are not sufficient to determine whether or 
not a reasonable potential to exceed water quality standards exists for 
these five metals at numerous discharge locations. Baseline effluent 
characteristics from the Thirty Platform Study (EPA 1993a) conducted in 
the Gulf of Mexico, however, found each of these priority metal 
pollutants to be above water quality standards in produced water. The 
basis for this requirement is section 308 of the Act.

H. Discharges 016-019 (Completion Fluids, Workover Fluids, Well 
Treatment Fluids, and Test Fluids)

    Based on the promulgated Offshore guidelines and proposed Coastal 
guidelines, Region 10 is proposing the definitions shown below for 
workover, completion and treatment fluids. The proposed definitions are 
more specific than those in the 1986 permit.
     Workover fluids: salt solutions, weighted brines, 
polymers, or other specialty additives used in a producing well to 
allow safe repair and maintenance or abandonment procedures. Workover 
fluids used in drilling are considered to be drilling muds. Packer 
fluids (low solid fluids between the packer, production string, and 
well casing) are considered to be workover fluids.
     Completion fluids: salt solutions, weighted brines, 
polymers, and various additives used to prevent damage to the wellbore 
during operations which prepare the drilled well for hydrocarbon 
production.
     Well treatment fluids: any fluid used to restore or 
improve productivity by chemically or physically altering hydrocarbon-
bearing strata after a well has been drilled.
    Workover fluids and completion fluids may be broadly divided into 
two classes: water-based and oil-based. The proposed permit prohibits 
the discharge of oil-based fluids. According to the Offshore 
Development Document (EPA 1993a), water-based workover and completion 
fluids may be further classified as a brine water solution, a modified 
drilling fluid or a specialty drilling fluid, depending upon its 
purpose in the borehole. Brine solutions (e.g., potassium chloride, 
sodium chloride or bromide, calcium chloride or bromide) are used 
because they are low solid fluids with densities sufficient to control 
sub-surface pressures in the well. Modified drilling fluids are 
typically inorganic brines with polymers acids or oil-soluble materials 
needed to yield a fluids with properties necessary to inhibit clays, 
keep solids in suspension, control corrosion, or otherwise control or 
maintain downhole stability. Note that, as in the 1986 general permit, 
the proposed permit regulates the discharge of a drilling fluid as a 
drilling fluid, subject to limitations discussed earlier in this fact 
sheet for Discharge 001, regardless of its use downhole in an existing 
production well.
    Well treatment is a multi-stage process involving a variety of 
solutions with specialty chemical additives that vary with the chemical 
reactions desired downhole and in the formation. Well treatment fluids 
may include: hydrochloric or hydrofluoric acid, EDTA, ammonium 
chloride, nitrogen, methanol, xylene, toluene or additives for 
inhibiting corrosion, neutralizing acids, reducing leak off rate, 
reducing friction, preventing aggregation and deposition of solids (p. 
X-14-15, EPA 1993a). In Cook Inlet, both acid and non-acid well 
treatments occur. Treatment, workover and completion fluids may be 
discharged either directly to the Inlet (in compliance with 1986 permit 
limits) or commingled with the production stream and discharged with 
produced water (Envirosphere 1988). In fact, the Agency has determined 
that 

[[Page 48815]]
treatment, workover, and completion fluids are routinely commingled 
with produced water discharges in the Cook Inlet area (60 FR 9457, 
February 17, 1995).
    The proposed permit defines test fluids as shown below. This same 
definition appeared in the 1986 Cook Inlet and 1995 Arctic general 
NPDES permits.
     Test Fluids: the discharge which would occur should 
hydrocarbons be located during exploratory drilling and tested for 
formation pressure and content. The discharge consists of fluids sent 
downhole during testing, and formation water.
    The 1986 Cook Inlet permit limited ``well treatment'' (i.e., 
treatment, workover and completion) fluids in conjunction with test 
fluids and Region 10 is using the same approach in the proposed permit.
1. BPJ/BCT Limitations for TWC and Test Fluids
    pH: For the discharge of test fluids and well treatment, workover 
and completion fluids, the proposed permit limits pH to a range of 6.5-
8.5 at the point of discharge. In Region 10's best professional 
judgement this appropriately equals a BPT level of control. No more 
stringent standard has been identified at this time. Therefore Region 
10 is setting a BCT effluent limit for pH equal to BPT. This pH limit 
will ensure that pH changes greater than 0.2 pH unit will not occur 
beyond the edge of the 100 m mixing zone (40 CFR 125.121(c)). This 
requirement has been, and is, routinely complied with in previous 
permits and thus reflects no cost incremental to BPT.
    Free oil: No discharge of free oil is permitted from any of the 
wastestreams authorized by the proposed permit. In the 1986 permit, 
Region 10 determined that the no free oil limitation and no discharge 
of oil-based fluids were appropriate levels of BCT control on the 
discharge of TWC and test fluids, establishing BPJ/BCT based on BPT. In 
1993, the Agency promulgated BCT for the Offshore subcategory as no 
free oil; therefore, the no free oil limit for the discharge of test 
fluid from exploratory operations in lower Cook Inlet (i.e., Offshore 
subcategory) is BCT. For TWC and test fluids, the no free oil limit is 
BPJ/BCT for all operations in upper Cook Inlet (i.e., Coastal 
subcategory). All previous permits issued by Region 10 for either 
exploratory or production and development operations contained the no 
free oil limitation and past practices have not resulted in violations 
of the limit. In accordance with promulgated Offshore BCT and section 
308 of the Act, the static sheen test is required to monitor compliance 
with the limitation.
2. BPJ/BAT Limitations for TWC and Test Fluids
    Oil and grease: Although oil and grease is a conventional pollutant 
subject to BCT, it is also an indicator of toxic pollutants (thus 
serving BAT as well). Promulgated (offshore) BAT limitations for oil 
and grease in TWC are 29 mg/l monthly average and 42 mg/l daily maximum 
(58 FR 12506, March 4, 1993). It is the best professional judgement of 
Region 10 that these oil and grease limits are also appropriate levels 
of control for TWC discharges in the Coastal subcategory of Upper Cook 
Inlet. These limits in the proposed permit are also consistent with 
effluent limitations guidelines proposed for the Coastal subcategory 
(60 FR 9429-9430, February 17, 1995). Note that while BPT oil and 
grease limitations are promulgated for the Coastal subcategory (no free 
oil, 40 CFR 435.42), they are less stringent than those proposed and 
are therefore not used as a basis for the proposed permit. For the 
discharge of test fluids, the proposed oil and grease limits are Region 
10's best professional judgement of BAT because no BAT effluent 
guidelines are promulgated or proposed for the Offshore or Coastal 
subcategories. Region 10 is using this same approach in the Arctic 
general NPDES permit (60 FR 27508, May 24, 1995).
3. Section 308 Requirements for TWC and Test Fluids
    Flow Rate: Based on section 308 of the Act, the proposed permit 
requires estimated flow rates to be reported on a monthly basis for the 
discharge of each wastestream: this monitoring was required in the 1986 
permit as well.
    Metals: The proposed permit also requires analyses of each 
discharge of treatment, workover, and completion that is characterized 
as an acid job for the following metals (dissolved and total 
recoverable): cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel and zinc. The 
CIDMS conducted under the 1986 permit indicates that these metals are 
likely to be present in TWC jobs involving treatment with acids. If 
these wastestreams are commingled with produced water prior to 
discharge, then they need not be monitored because similar monitoring 
is also required for the produced water discharge. In accordance with 
section 308 of the Act, and 40 CFR 122.44(i), monitoring for metals and 
flow are required to determine compliance with, or the possible need 
for, effluent limitations in the permit.

I. Other Discharge Limitations

1. No Floating Solids, Visible Foam or Oily Wastes
    Region 10 has determined that the Offshore BCT effluent limitations 
of no discharge of floating solids from the discharge of sanitary 
wastes should apply to all other discharges as well. This requirement 
is consistent with the recently issued general NPDES permit for the 
Arctic (60 FR 27508, May 24, 1995). The limitations on discharge of 
visible foam and oily wastes have been applied (based on BCT) in 
previous permits issued by the Region and past practices have not 
resulted in violations.
2. Surfactants, Dispersants and Detergents
    The proposed permit requires the discharge of surfactants, 
dispersants, and detergents to be minimized except as necessary to 
comply with the safety requirements of the Occupational Health and 
Safety Administration and the MMS. These products contain primarily 
nonconventional pollutants. This provision has appeared in general 
NPDES permits for the Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea, Norton Sound, Bering 
Sea and the Arctic Ocean as well as in the 1986 Cook Inlet permit.
3. Other Toxic and Non-conventional Compounds
    Discharge of the following pollutants is prohibited under the 
proposed permit: halogenated phenol compounds, trisodium 
nitrilotriacetic acid, sodium chromate, and sodium dichromate. The 
class of halogenated phenol compounds includes toxic pollutants while 
sodium chromate and dichromate contain chromium, which is also a toxic 
pollutant. Trisodium nitrilotriacetic acid is a nonconventional 
pollutant. Past permits prohibiting the discharge of these compounds 
are the Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea, Norton Sound, Bering Sea, Arctic 
Ocean and the 1986 Cook Inlet.

J. 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 

[[Page 48816]]
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 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. EPA does not intend for permittees to duplicate 
practices more fully described in other documents. Therefore, when a 
BMP issue is already addressed via a separate regulatory program, the 
BMP is expected to reference those efforts, not duplicate them.
    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 III.I.1. of the permit). 
Certification is required no later than submission of their written 
notice of intent to commence discharge (see Parts I.A., I.B., and 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

    Oil spill requirements in the proposed permit reflect Executive 
Order 12777 which implements provisions of the Oil Pollution Act of 
1990. EO 12777 removed offshore facilities from jurisdiction under EPA 
and placed them under the jurisdiction of the Department of Interior 
(DOI), Minerals Management Service (MMS). Offshore operators are 
required to submit Oil Spill Contingency Plans to MMS for review. 
Additionally, operators in state waters are required to submit Oil 
Discharge Prevention and Contingency Plans to the ADEC for review.
    The net effect of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and EO 12777 is 
that operators in state or federal waters are no longer required by 
section 311 of the Clean Water Act to develop Spill Prevention, Control 
and Contingency (SPCC) plans.

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)).
    Implementing regulations for the ESA establish a process by which 
agencies consult with one another to ensure that the concerns of both 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine 
Fisheries Service (NMFS) (``Services'' collectively) are addressed. 
Briefly, the process is as follows: (a) The Services provide list(s) of 
species or habitats which coincide with the permit area or activity at 
the request of the licensing agency (in this case EPA Region 10), (b) 
the licensing agency develops a scientific or other report addressing 
listed species and/or habitats, and (c) the Services consult (either 
formally or informally) with the licensing agency. Region 10 is 
requesting comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the 
National Marine Fisheries Service and will consider their comments in 
making the final permit decision. The Region will initiate consultation 
should new information reveal impacts not previously considered, should 
the activities be modified in a manner beyond the scope of the original 
opinion, or should the activities affect a newly listed species.
    In compliance with section 7 of the ESA, Region 10 obtained lists 
of critical habitat areas and threatened and endangered species from 
the Alaska regional offices of the Services. The Agency contracted with 
Avanti, Inc. to prepare a draft/preliminary biological evaluation (BE) 
for threatened, endangered and candidate species reported in the area 
covered by the proposed general permit (Avanti 1992). In addition to 
the preliminary BE prepared by Avanti, Region 10 also considered a BE 
prepared for ARCO for development of an individual NPDES permit for 
exploratory drilling in upper Cook Inlet (EPA 1993c). These two BEs 
address the species listed below:
     Gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus, removed from list but 
continues to be monitored--USFWS),
     Humpback whale (Megaptera novaengliae, endangered--USFWS),
     Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus, endangered--USFWS),
     Sei whale (Balaenpetera borealis, endangered--USFWS),
     Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus and habitat, 
threatened--USFWS),
     American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum, 
threatened--USFWS)
     Arctic peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus tundrius, 
threatened--USFWS),
     Beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas, candidate--NMFS), and
     Steller's eider (Polysticta stelleri, mentioned as 
Category 1 candidate species--USFWS).
    In March of 1995 in response to the Region's request for updated 
status on species in the area of the permit, USFWS provided additional 
information as shown below. NMFS had no additional or new information 
to provide at the time of Region 10's request.
     Short-tailed albatross (Diomeda albatrus, added as 
endangered),
     Harelquin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus, mentioned as 
Category 2 candidate species)
     Kittlitz's murrelet (Brachyramphus brevirostris, mentioned 
as Category 2 candidate species)
     Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus, mentioned as 
Category 2 candidate species)
     Arctic peregrine falcon (F. p, tundrius, removed from list 
but continues to be monitored)
    Based on BE reports, information in the Preliminary Ocean Discharge 
Criteria Evaluations (PODCEs) for OCS Sales 55 and 60, the Revised 
PODCE for Sale 88 and state lease sales in Cook Inlet, the revised 
PODCE for Sale 149 and on information in the Environmental Impact 
Statements (EISs) prepared for the federal lease sale areas, EPA has 
concluded that the discharges authorized by this general permit will 
not jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened 
species. The BEs, PODCEs, and EISs do not address the species added to 
the Region's list in March of 1995, nor are resources available to 
modify existing 

[[Page 48817]]
reports at this time. For the short-tailed albatross, Region 10 
references the DEIS for Sale 149 (p. III.B.20 and p. IV.B.1.-60, MMS 
1995) which states that this species rarely appears in the area of Sale 
149 or state lease sales, and is therefore not likely to be affected by 
the discharges authorized in the proposed permit. For recently added 
species of murrelets and the Harelquin duck, Region 10 is deferring a 
determination until the species are listed, and more information is 
available.
    Region 10's determinations under section 7 of the ESA are discussed 
below for each wastestream. Pursuant to the ESA, Region 10's 
determinations are either for no effect or may effect: findings of may 
effect are further categorized as may beneficially affect, not likely 
to adversely affect, or may adversely affect.
1. Muds, Cuttings & Washwater (Discharge 001)
    The discharge of muds and cuttings may affect all of the listed 
species, but is not likely to adversely affect the peregrine falcons or 
the Steller's eider. Disturbances caused by drilling mud discharge 
occurring during whale migration through the discharge area or in the 
critical habitat area designated for Steller's sea lions (Avanti 1992) 
are beyond the scope of the proposed general permit. Issues such as 
noise and disturbance are considered twice by MMS (for federal leases) 
and/or the Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Oil and 
Gas (for state leases). The first time such issues are considered is 
for the whole sale area as part of the initial environmental impact 
statement or environmental assessment which requires public and 
interagency review. The second consideration for the specific location 
as when a lessee submits plans of exploration and operation required by 
the lease. These documents also undergo public and inter-agency review. 
The scope of the proposed NPDES permit is limited to controlling the 
discharge of pollutants in specific wastestreams rather than the 
presence or absence of an operation. With respect to the critical 
habitat designated for Steller sea lions, the proposed permit prohibits 
any discharge in, or within 1000 m of, the critical habitat area 
designated by USFWS (58 FR 45269-45285, August 27, 1993).
2. Produced Water (Discharge 015)
    The discharge of produced water may affect, but is not likely to 
adversely affect, all of the considered species except the Beluga whale 
(a candidate species). This determination is based on the fact that the 
proposed permit authorizes discharges from production operations (i.e., 
produced water) to upper Cook Inlet and, since all of the species 
except Beluga whales occur most frequently in the lower Inlet, 
potential exposure is therefore reduced. The Beluga whales, which 
frequent the upper Inlet, may be adversely affected by pollutants in 
produced water. This species may be affected either directly (through 
exposure) or indirectly (through ingestion and bioaccumulation) (Avanti 
1992). The Beluga whale is a candidate for listing; consequently, 
Region 10's determination of ``may adversely affect'' is based on lack 
of conclusive evidence regarding the actual impact of produced water 
discharges upon the species.
3. All Other Wastestreams
    Discharge of the remaining wastestreams addressed by the proposed 
permit is determined to have either no effect or as not likely to 
adversely affect the species considered. These determinations are based 
on the relatively small amounts discharged (e.g., waterflood, 
completion, workover, treatment and test fluids), the absence of 
harmful pollutants (e.g., sanitary wastes), or the lack of potential to 
cause effects (e.g., domestic, desalination, blowout preventer fluid) 
(Ch.6, Avanti 1992).

C. Coastal Zone Management Act

    The State of Alaska will be reviewing this permit to determine 
consistency with the Coastal Zone Management Act.

D. Maritime Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act

    No marine sanctuaries, as designated by this Act, exist in the 
vicinity of the permit area. 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.

E. Annex V of MARPOL (73/78 and 33 CFR 155.73)

    Under Annex V of the International Convention for the Prevention of 
Pollution from Ships, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) has issued interim 
final regulations under 33 CFR 151.73 to control the disposal of 
garbage and domestic wastes from fixed or floating platforms. These 
regulations include those platforms involved in the exploration and 
exploitation of oil and gas resources, such as oil drilling rigs and 
production platforms. These regulations apply to all such vessels when 
in navigable waters of the U.S. or within the 200 mile Exclusive 
Economic Zone. This proposed permit will prohibit the discharge of 
garbage (as defined at 33 CFR 151) within 12 miles of the nearest land. 
The term garbage, as it is applied here, includes operational and 
maintenance wastes. Further amplification of wastes covered under these 
regulations can be found at 33 CFR 151. Beyond 12 miles from the 
nearest land, the discharge of food wastes which are ground so as to 
pass through a 25 millimeter mesh screen, incinerator ash, and non-
plastic clinkers will be permitted. Incinerator ash and non-plastic 
clinkers that can pass through a 25 millimeter mesh screen will be 
permitted to be discharged beyond 3 miles from the nearest land. These 
requirements are already part of the Coast Guard regulations and are 
incorporated into the permit for consistency.

F. Executive Order 12291

    The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action from 
the review requirements of Executive Order 12291 pursuant to section 
8(b) of that order.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    EPA has reviewed the requirements imposed on regulated facilities 
in the proposed general permit under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 
1980, 44 U.S.C. 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 and assigned OMB control numbers 
2040-0086 for the NPDES permit application and 2040-0004 for the 
discharge monitoring report form. In addition, the environmental 
monitoring requirements pursuant to section 403(c) of the Clean Water 
Act in Part III.B.3. of the proposed permit are similar to the notice 
of intent to be covered and monitoring requirements that were approved 
by OMB for the previously issued Beaufort Sea general permit (49 FR 
23734, June 7, 1984) and Norton Sound general permit (50 FR 23578, June 
4, 1985). While this permit requires some increased monitoring and 
reporting of that data, the region estimates that the additional burden 
will be similar to that projected for discharges covered under the most 
recent Gulf of Mexico general NPDES permit. The final general permit 
will explain how the information collection requirements respond to any 
OMB or public comments.

[[Page 48818]]


H. 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 U.S.C. 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 5023 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: September 8, 1995.
Charles Findley,
Acting Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA, Region 10.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 48819]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN20SE95.000


BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

[[Page 48820]]

ADEC 1995.
    Dolan, Robert C. For Alaska Department of Environmental 
Conservation re: preliminary mixing zone proposal for general NPDES 
permit AKG285100.
ADNR/O&G 1994.
    State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil 
& Gas. ``Proposed Five Year Leasing Plan--Public Notice''. July 7, 
1994.
Avanti 1992.
    Avanti Corporation. Biological Evaluation for the Proposed NPDES 
General Permit for Oil and Gas Exploration, Development, and 
Production Activities in Cook Inlet/Gulf of Alaska. Prepared for 
U.S. EPA, Region 10 by Avanti Corp., Vienna, VA. August 3, 1992.
Chapman and Denton 1995.
    Chapman, Gary and Denton, Debra. Short-Term Methods for 
Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Water To 
West Coast Marine and Estuarine Organisms (Draft).
Envirosphere 1988.
    Cook Inlet Discharge Monitoring Study: Workover, Well Completion 
and Well Treatment Fluids. Prepared for: Amoco Production Co.; ARCO 
Alaska, Inc.; Marathon Oil Company; Phillips Petroleum Company; 
Shell Western E&P, Inc.; Texaco, Inc.; Unocal Corp.; U.S. EPA Region 
10. Envirosphere Company, Bellevue, WA. January 1988.
Envirosphere 1989a.
    Cook Inlet Discharge Monitoring Study: Deck Drainage. Prepared 
for: Amoco Production Co.; ARCO Alaska, Inc.; Marathon Oil Company; 
Phillips Petroleum Company; Shell Western E&P, Inc.; Texaco, Inc.; 
Unocal Corp.; U.S. EPA Region 10. Envirosphere Company, Bellevue, 
WA. January 1989.
Envirosphere 1989b.
    Cook Inlet Discharge Monitoring Study: Non-Contact Cooling Water 
and Desalination Waste. Prepared for: Amoco Production Co.; ARCO 
Alaska, Inc.; Marathon Oil Company; Phillips Petroleum Company; 
Shell Western E&P, Inc.; Texaco, Inc.; Unocal Corp.; U.S. EPA Region 
10. Envirosphere Company, Bellevue, WA. January 1989.
Envirosphere 1989c.
    Cook Inlet Discharge Monitoring Study: Blowout Preventer Fluid, 
Boiler Blowdown, Fire Control System Test Water, Uncontaminated 
Ballast Water, Uncontaminated Bilge Water, and Waterflooding. 
Prepared for: Amoco Production Co.; ARCO Alaska, Inc.; Marathon Oil 
Company; Phillips Petroleum Company; Shell Western E&P, Inc.; 
Texaco, Inc.; Unocal Corp.; U.S. EPA Region 10. Envirosphere 
Company, Bellevue, WA. April 1989.
Envirosphere 1989d.
    Cook Inlet Discharge Monitoring Study: Excess Cement Slurry and 
Mud, Cuttings and Cement at the Seafloor. Prepared for: Amoco 
Production Co.; ARCO Alaska, Inc.; Marathon Oil Company; Phillips 
Petroleum Company; Shell Western E&P, Inc.; Texaco, Inc.; Unocal 
Corp.; U.S. EPA Region 10. Envirosphere Company, Bellevue, WA. 
November 1989.
Envirosphere 1990a.
    Cook Inlet Discharge Monitoring Study: Produced Water. Prepared 
for: Amoco Production Co.; ARCO Alaska, Inc.; Marathon Oil Company; 
Phillips Petroleum Company; Shell Western E&P, Inc.; Texaco, Inc.; 
Unocal Corp.; U.S. EPA Region 10. Envirosphere Company, Bellevue, 
WA. July 1990.
Envirosphere 1990b.
    Cook Inlet Discharge Monitoring Study: Comprehensive Report. 
Prepared for: Amoco Production Co.; ARCO Alaska, Inc.; Marathon Oil 
Company; Phillips Petroleum Company; Shell Western E&P, Inc.; 
Texaco, Inc.; Unocal Corp.; U.S. EPA Region 10. Envirosphere 
Company, Bellevue, WA. August 1990.
EPA 1985b.
    U.S. EPA, Region 10. Proposed General NPDES Permit AKG285000 for 
Cook Inlet/Gulf of Alaska. 50 Federal Register 28974, July 17, 1985.
EPA 1986a.
    U.S. EPA, Region 10. Final Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation 
for NDPES General Permit No. AKG285000, Cook Inlet/Gulf of Alaska. 
Prepared by Ocean Programs Branch, Seattle, WA. September 1986.
EPA 1986b.
    U.S. EPA, Region 10. Final General NPDES Permit AKG285000 for 
Cook Inlet/Gulf of Alaska. 51 Federal Register 35460, October 3, 
1986.
EPA 1987.
    Permit Writers' Guide to Water Quality-based Permitting for 
Toxic Substances. EPA 440/4-87-005. Office of Water. Washington, 
D.C., July 1987.
EPA 1988.
    Short-Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of 
Effluents and Receiving Waters to Marine and Estuarine Organisms. 
EPA/600/4-87/028. Environmental Science & Monitoring Laboratory, 
Cincinnati, OH. May, 1988.
EPA 1991a.
    Toxicity Identification Evaluation: Characterization of 
Chronically Toxic Effluents, Phase I. EPA/600/6-91/005F. 
Environmental Research Laboratory, Duluth, MN.
EPA 1991b.
    Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics 
Control. Office of Water, EPA/505/2-90-001, PB91-127415. Washington 
D.C., March 1991.
EPA 1992a.
    Methods for Aquatic Toxicity Identification Evaluations: Phase 
II Toxicity Identification Procedures for Samples Exhibiting Acute 
and Chronic Toxicity. EPA/600/R-92/080. Environmental Research 
Laboratory, Duluth, MN.
EPA 1992b.
    Methods for Aquatic Toxicity Identification Evaluations: Phase 
III Toxicity Confirmation Procedures. EPA/600/R-92/081. 
Environmental Research Laboratory, Duluth, MN.
EPA 1992c.
    U.S. EPA, Region 10. Region 10 Guidance: Best Management 
Practices Plans in NPDES Permits. Prepared by Water Division, 
Wastewater Management and Enforcement Branch, Seattle, WA. June 
1992.
EPA 1993a.
    Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and 
Standards for the Offshore Subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction 
Point Source Category (Final). Office of Water, EPA #921-R-93-003. 
U.S. EPA, Washington, DC. January 1993.
EPA 1993b.
    40 CFR 435. Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category; 
Offshore Subcategory Effluent Guidelines and New Source Performance 
Standards; Final Rule. 48 Federal Register 1254, March 4, 1993.
EPA 1993c.
    U.S. EPA, Region 10. Memorandum and attachments to NPDES File 
AK-005205-1 for ARCO, Cook Inlet. Review os Scientific Report on 
Threatened and Endangered Species, Cook Inlet, Alaska. April 8, 
1993.
EPA 1993d.
    U.S. EPA, Region 10. Final NPDES Permit No. AK-005205-1, ARCO/
Phillips Cook Inlet 1993. May 24, 1993, Seattle, WA.
EPA 1995a.
    ``Effluent Limitation Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards and New 
Source Performance Standards: Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source 
Category, Coastal Subcategory; Proposed Rule.'' Office of Water, 
U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C. 60 Federal Register, pp. 9428-9481. 
February 17, 1995.
EPA 1995b.
    Development Document for Effluent Limitation Guidelines and 
Standards for the Coastal Subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction 
Point Source Category. Office of Water, EPA #821-R-95-009. U.S. EPA, 
Washington, D.C. February 1995.
EPA 1995d.
    U.S. EPA, Region 10. Response to Comments Received on the 
Proposed Issuance of the Arctic General NPDES Permit [AKG28400]. Pp. 
27-29. Prepared by Water Division, Wastewater Management and 
Enforcement Branch, Seattle, WA. May 1995.
Jones & Stokes 1983a.
    Preliminary Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation, Northeast Gulf 
of Alaska OCS Lease Sale 55. Prepared for EPA, Region 10 by Jones & 
Stokes Associates, Inc., Bellevue, WA. May 4, 1983.
Jones & Stokes 1983b.
    Preliminary Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation, Cook Inlet-
Shelikof Strait OCS Lease Sale 60. Prepared for EPA, Region 10 by 
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc., Bellevue, WA. May 6, 1983.
Jones & Stokes 1984.
    Revised Preliminary Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation, Gulf of 
Alaska-Cook Inlet, OCS Lease Sale 99 and State Lease Sales Located 
in Cook Inlet. Prepared for EPA, Region 10 by Jones & Stokes 
Associates, Inc. and Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA. September 28, 
1984.
MMS 1995.
    U.S. Minerals Management Service, Alaska OCS Region. Alaska 
Outer Continental 

[[Page 48821]]
Shelf, Cook Inlet Planning Area Oil and Gas Lease Sale 140. Draft EIS, 
Vol. 1. U.S. Dept. Of Interior, Minerals Management Service. OCS 
EIS/EA MMS-94-0066. January 1995.
Parametrix 1995.
    Mixing Zone Application for the Cook Inlet Oil and Gas Operators 
(NPDES No. AKG-285100). Prepared for Unocal Corp.; Marathon Oil Co.; 
Phillips Petroleum Co.; Shell Western E&P, Inc. by Parametrix Inc., 
Kirkland, WA. August 23, 1995.
    Tetra Tech 1994.
Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation for Cook Inlet (Oil and Gas 
Lease Sale 149) and Shelikof Strait (Final Draft Report). Prepared 
for the U.S. EPA, Region 10, by Tetra Tech, Redmond, WA. September 
9, 1994 (as amended by EPA, Region 10, January 1995).

Permit No.: AKG285100

Cook Inlet

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 Sixth 
Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101

Authorization to Discharge Under the National Pollutant Discharge 
Elimination System for Oil and Gas Exploration, Development, and 
Production Facilities

    In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act, 33 
U.S.C. 1251 et seq., the ``Act'', the following discharges are 
authorized in accordance with this National Pollutant Discharge 
Elimination System (``NPDES''):

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Discharge 
                         Discharge                               No.    
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drilling Mud & Cuttings....................................          001
Deck Drainage..............................................          002
Sanitary Wastes............................................          003
Domestic Wastes............................................          004
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
Bilge Water................................................          011
Excess Cement Slurry.......................................          012
Mud, Cuttings, Cement at Seafloor..........................          013
Waterflooding Discharges...................................          014
Produced Water.............................................          015
Completion Fluids..........................................          016
Workover Fluids............................................          017
Well Treatment Fluids......................................          018
Test Fluids................................................          019
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    from oil and gas development and production facilities to state 
waters north of the Forelands in Upper Cook Inlet. These development 
and production facilities are classified in the Coastal Subcategory 
of the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category, as defined in 
40 CFR Part 435, Subpart D. Discharges are also authorized from 
exploratory facilities to all state and federal waters addressed by 
this permit. Exploratory facilities are classified in the Offshore 
and Coastal Subcategories as defined in 40 CFR Part 435, Subparts A 
and D. The receiving waters, state and federal, are Cook Inlet. 
Discharges shall be in accordance with effluent limitations, 
monitoring and reporting requirements, and other conditions set 
forth in Parts I through VI herein. The discharge of pollutants not 
specifically set out in this permit is not authorized.
    Permittees who are not granted coverage under this general 
permit as described in Part I are not authorized to discharge to the 
specified waters unless an individual permit has been issued to the 
Permittee by EPA, Region 10. Discharges from facilities in the 
Onshore Subcategory (40 CFR Part 435, Subpart C), or to wetlands 
adjacent to the territorial seas and inland coastal waters of the 
State of Alaska, are not authorized under this permit.
    During the effective period of this permit, operators authorized 
to discharge under the general permit are authorized to discharge 
the enumerated pollutants subject to the restrictions set forth 
herein. This permit does not authorize the discharge of any waste 
streams, including spills and other unintentional or non-routine 
discharges of pollutants, that are not part of the normal operation 
of the facility, or any pollutants that are not ordinarily present 
in such waste streams, unless specifically authorized by EPA prior 
to discharge.
    The authorized discharge sites include all blocks offered for 
lease by the US Department of the Interior's Minerals Management 
Service (MMS) in Federal Lease Sales 50 and 149. Additionally, the 
authorized discharge sites include all Cook Inlet blocks previously 
offered for lease by the State of Alaska (including blocks offered 
in Sales 32, 33, 35, 40, 46A, 49, 67A, and 74) or offered under 
state lease sales held during the effective period of this permit. 
For the purposes of this permit, the southern boundary of Cook Inlet 
is defined to the line between Cape Douglas on the west and Port 
Chatham on the east.
    The facilities listed below are authorized to discharge under 
this permit. The conditions of the previous permit become null and 
void upon the effective date of this permit.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Operator                              Facility                                    NPDES permit No.          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unocal..........  Granite Point Treatment Facility (formerly Marathon)...  AGK285001                            
Unocal..........  Trading Bay Treatment Facility (formerly Marathon).....  AKG285002                            
Shell...........  East Foreland Treatment Facility.......................  AKG285003                            
Unocal..........  Platform Anna (formerly Amoco).........................  AKG285004                            
Unocal..........  Platform Baker (formerly Amoco)........................  AKG285005                            
Unocal..........  Platform Bruce (formerly Amoco)........................  AKG285006                            
Unocal..........  Platform Dillon (formerly Amoco).......................  AKG285007                            
Unocal..........  King Salmon Platform (formerly ARCO)...................  AKG285008                            
Unocal..........  Dolly Varden Platform (formerly Unocal)................  AKG285009                            
Marathon........  Spark Platform.........................................  AKG285010                            
Phillips........  Platform A (Tyonek Platform)...........................  AKG285011                            
Shell...........  Platform A.............................................  AKG285012                            
Shell...........  Platform C (Middle Ground Shoal).......................  AKG285013                            
Marathon........  Spurr Platform (formerly Texaco's Superior A Platform).  AKG285014                            
Unocal..........  Granite Point Platform.................................  AKG285015                            
Unocal..........  Grayling Platform......................................  AKG285016                            
Unocal..........  Monopod Platform.......................................  AKG285017                            
ARCO............  Fire Island (Exploratory Well).........................  AKG285018 - INACTIVE                 
Unocal..........  Steelhead Platform.....................................  AKG285019                            
Marathon........  Steelhead (Blowout Relief Well)........................  AKG285020 - INACTIVE                 
ARCO............  Sturgeon (Exploratory Well)............................  AKG285021 - INACTIVE                 
ARCO............  Sunfish (Exploratory Well).............................  AKG285022 - INACTIVE                 
ARCO............  North Forelands (Exploratory Well).....................  AKG285023 - INACTIVE                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This permit may be modified or revoked at any time if, on the 
basis of any new data, the Director determines that this information 
would have justified the application of different permit conditions 
at the time of issuance. Permit modification or revocation will be 
conducted in accordance with 40 CFR, sections 122.62, 122.63, and 
122.64. In addition to any other grounds specified herein, this 
permit shall be modified or revoked at any time if, on the basis of 
any new data, the Director determines that 

[[Page 48822]]
continued discharges may cause unreasonable degradation of the marine 
environment.
    This permit does not authorize discharges from ``new sources'' 
as defined in 40 CFR 122.2.
    This permit shall become effective
    This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at 
midnight,

    Signed this                day of

DRAFT

Chuck Clarke,
Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA, Region 10.

Table of Contents

I. Notification Requirements
    A. New Exploration Facilities
    B. New Development and Production Facilities
    C. Existing Facilities
    D. All Facilities Covered by the Permit
    E. Changes from Coverage under General Permit to Coverage under 
Individual Permit
II. Prohibited Areas of Discharge and Depth-Related Requirements
    A. Produced Water
    B. Other Discharges
III. Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements
    A. Representative Sampling (Routine and Non-Routine Discharges)
    B. Drilling Mud, Drill Cuttings (Discharge 001)
    C. Deck Drainage (Discharge 002)
    D. Sanitary Wastes and Domestic Wastes (Discharges 003, 004)
    E. Miscellaneous Discharges (Discharges 005-014)
    F. Produced Water (Discharge 015)
    G. Completion Fluids, Workover Fluids, Well Treatment Fluids, 
and Test Fluids (Discharges 016-019)
    H. Other Discharge Limitations
    I. Best Management Practices Plan Requirement
IV. Recording and Reporting Requirements
    A. Reporting of Monitoring Results.
    B. Additional Monitoring by Permittee
    C. Records Contents
    D. Retention of Records
    E. Twenty-four Hour Notice of Noncompliance Reporting
    F. Other Noncompliance Reporting
    G. Changes in Discharge of Toxic Substances
V. Compliance Responsibilities
    A. Duty to Comply
    B. Penalties for Violations of Permit Conditions
    C. Need to Halt or Reduce Activity not a Defense
    D. Duty to Mitigate
    E. Proper Operation and Maintenance
    F. Removed Substances
    G. Bypass of Treatment Facilities
    H. Upset Conditions
    I. Toxic Pollutants
    J. Planned Changes
    K. Anticipated Noncompliance
VI. General Provisions
    A. Permit Actions
    B. Duty to Provide Information
    C. Other Information
    D. Signatory Requirements
    E. Availability of Reports
    F. Inspection and Entry
    G. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability
    H. Property Rights
    I. Severability
    J. Transfers
    K. State Laws
    L. Reopener Clause
VII. Definitions.

Figures

    1. Area of No Discharge Chinitna Bay & Chisik Island
    2. Area of No Discharge in Shelikof Strait

References

I. Notification Requirements

A. New Exploration Facilities

1. Requests to be Covered by General Permit
    Written request to be covered by this permit shall be provided to 
EPA at least 60 days prior to initiation of discharges. The request 
shall include the following information:
    a. Name and address of the Permittee.
    b. General location (lease and block numbers) of operations and 
discharges.
    c. Any discharge or operating conditions which are subject to the 
special monitoring requirements (Part III.B.3.).
    d. Any plans of exploration or operation that are submitted to MMS 
or the State of Alaska in application to drill.
2. Authorization to Discharge
    The Permittee is not authorized to discharge without written 
notification from EPA that operations at the discharge site have been 
assigned an NPDES permit number under this general permit. A permit 
number cannot be assigned until the following information is received. 
This information shall be provided to EPA in the request for coverage, 
but in no case less than 30 days prior to commencement of discharges.
    a. Name and location of discharge site, including lease block 
number and latitude and longitude.
    b. Range of water depths (below mean lower low water) in the lease 
block(s), and the depth(s) of discharge(s).
    c. Initial date(s) and expected duration of operations.
3. Commencement of Discharges
    The Permittee shall notify EPA during the 7-day period prior to 
initiation of discharges from the platform and from each well. The 
notification shall include the exact, final latitude and longitude and 
water depth of the discharge site, as well as written certification 
that a Mud Plan (Part III.B.1.b.) is complete, on site and available to 
the Agency upon request. Similar notification is required for a Best 
Management Practices Plan (Part III.I.1). This notification may be oral 
or in writing; if notification is given orally, written confirmation 
must follow within 7 days.

B. New Development and Production Facilities

1. Requests to be Covered by General Permit
    Written request to be covered by this permit shall be provided to 
EPA at least 60 days prior to initiation of discharges. Facilities 
wishing to start discharging within 60 days of the final effective date 
of this permit need not comply with the 60-day requirement, but shall 
provide the request for coverage as soon as possible prior to 
initiation of discharges. The request shall include the following 
information:
    a. Name and address of the Permittee.
    b. Name of facility.
    c. Specific location (including latitude and longitude, and 
section, range, and township) of operations and discharges.
    d. Water depth at site and depth of discharge(s) with respect to 
MLLW.
    e. Date of commencing discharge and expected duration of 
operations.
    f. Any discharge or operating conditions which are subject to the 
special monitoring requirements (Part III.B.3)
2. Authorization to Discharge
    The Permittee is not authorized to discharge without written 
notification from EPA that operations at the discharge site have been 
assigned an NPDES permit number under this general permit.
3. Commencement of Discharges
    The Permittee shall notify EPA within the 7-day period prior to 
initiation of discharges from the new facility. The notification shall 
include written certification that a Mud Plan (Part III.B.1.b.) is 
complete, on site and available to the Agency upon request. Drilling 
operators shall also notify EPA within the 7-day period prior to 
initiation of discharges from each new well thereafter. Similar 
notification is required for a Best Management Practices Plan (Part 
III.I.1). The notification may be oral or in writing: if notification 
is given orally, written confirmation must follow within 7 days.

C. Existing Facilities

    1. Facilities authorized to discharge under the preceding general 
NPDES permit (AKG285000) are automatically authorized to discharge by 
this general permit as of its effective date. These facilities are 
listed on page 2 of the 

[[Page 48823]]
permit. These permittees need not submit a formal request for 
authorization to discharge prior to commencement of discharges under 
this permit.
2. Commencement of Discharges from New Wells
    The Permittee shall notify EPA within the 7-day period prior to 
initiation of discharges from each new well. The notification may be 
oral or in writing: if notification is given orally, written 
confirmation must follow within 7 days.
3. Commencement of Discharges from Closed In Platforms
    The Permittee shall notify EPA in writing within the times 
specified below prior to initiation of discharges from a ``closed in'' 
platform. Notification shall include a list of discharges that will 
occur (as listed on page 1 of this permit) and information required in 
Part I.B.1.b-e., above.
    a. If discharges have not changed with respect to treatment of 
wastestreams or effluent limits, written notification shall be provided 
within 30 days of initiation of discharge.
    b. If any discharge is different from the past due to changes in 
treatment or operations on the platform, the Permittee shall notify 
EPA, Region 10 as early as possible, but in no case less than 90 days 
prior to initiation of discharge. See also Part V.J. (Planned Changes)
    c. If drilling mud discharges are planned, the Permittee shall 
provide written notification, within 7 days of discharge, that a Mud 
Plan (Part III.B.1.b.) is complete, on-site and available to the Agency 
upon request.
    d. The Permittee shall provide written notification, within 7 days 
of discharge, that a Best Management Practices Plan (Part III.I.1.) is 
complete, on-site, and available to the Agency upon request.

D. All Facilities Covered by the Permit

1. Submission of Plans of Operation, Environmental Reports, and 
Biological Surveys
    The Permittee is responsible for providing EPA with final copies of 
any plans of operations, environmental reports, and biological surveys 
required by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR), or by 
the Regional supervisor, Field Operations, of MMS, for the 
identification and/or protection of biological populations or habitats. 
The Permittee may provide these directly to EPA or ensure that ADNR or 
MMS have provided them to EPA. If final plans and environmental reports 
submitted to MMS are identical to review copies received by EPA, the 
Permittee need not submit them under this permit provision.
2. Duty To Reapply and/or Notice of Intent To Continue Activity
    If the Permittee wishes to discharge under the authority of this 
permit after its expiration date, the Permittee must submit a notice of 
intent to EPA to do so. The Notice of Intent shall be submitted at 
least 180 days before the expiration date of this permit. An NPDES 
permit application (EPA Form 3510-2C, Wastewater Discharge Information, 
Consolidated Permits Program (revised February 1985)) shall constitute 
a complete Notice of Intent. Timely receipt of a complete Notice of 
Intent by EPA shall qualify the Permittee for an administrative 
extension of its authorization to discharge under this permit pursuant 
to 5 U.S.C. Section 558(c).
3. Termination of Discharges
    The Permittee shall notify EPA within 30 days following cessation 
of discharges from each well and from the discharge site. The 
notification may be provided in a Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) or 
under separate cover.
4. Submission of Requests To Be Covered and Other Reports
    Reports and notifications required herein shall be submitted to the 
following addresses.

All requests for coverage--Director, Water Division, U.S. EPA, Region 
10, Attn: Ocean Programs Section, WD-137, 1200 6th Avenue, Seattle, 
Washington 98101, Phone: (206) 553-8155
All monitoring reports and notifications of non-compliance--Director, 
Water Division, U.S. EPA, Region 10, Attn: Water Compliance Section, 
WD-135, 1200 6th Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101, Phone: (206) 553-
1846
For discharges to state waters only: copies of all requests, reports, 
and notifications--Regional Environmental Supervisor, South Central 
Regional Office, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, 555 
Cordova, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, Phone: (907) 269-7564

E. Changes From Coverage Under General Permit to Coverage Under 
Individual Permit

    1. The Director may require any permittee discharging under the 
authority of this permit to apply for and obtain an individual NPDES 
permit when any one of the following conditions exist:
    a. The discharge(s), including stormwater, is a significant 
contributor of pollution.
    b. The Permittee is not in compliance with the conditions of this 
general permit.
    c. A change has occurred in the availability of the demonstrated 
technology or practices for the control or abatement of pollutants 
applicable to the point source.
    d. Effluent limitation guidelines are promulgated for point sources 
covered by this permit.
    e. The point sources covered by this permit no longer:
    (1) Involve the same or substantially similar types of operations,
    (2) Discharge the same types of wastewaters,
    (3) Require the same effluent limitations or operating conditions, 
or
    (4) Require the same or similar monitoring.
    g. In the opinion of the Director, the discharges are more 
appropriately controlled under an individual permit than under a 
general NPDES permit.
    2. The Director may require any permittee authorized by this permit 
to apply for an individual NPDES permit only if the Permittee has been 
notified in writing that an individual permit application is required.
    3. Any permittee authorized by this permit may request to be 
excluded from the coverage of this general permit by applying for an 
individual permit. The owner or operator shall submit an application 
together with the reasons supporting the request to the Director no 
later than 90 days after the effective date of the permit.
    4. When an individual NPDES permit is issued to a permittee 
otherwise subject to this general permit, the applicability of this 
general permit to that owner or operator is automatically terminated on 
the effective date of the individual permit.

II. Prohibited Areas of Discharge and Depth-Related Requirements

    Discharges from operations in Cook Inlet are prohibited in the 
cases listed below. Permit applicants should contact EPA if they are 
uncertain whether or not their discharges will be located in a 
prohibited area. The Agency will also provide a map showing the 
approximate location of prohibited areas upon request.

A. Produced Water

    The discharge of produced water from new facilities is prohibited 
in intertidal areas. New discharges (as defined at 40 CFR 122.2) are 
also prohibited from discharging produced water shoreward 

[[Page 48824]]
of the 10 m isobath (as measured from mean lower low water).

B. Other Discharges

    The discharge of all effluents other than those discussed in 
paragraph A, above, is prohibited shoreward of the 5 m isobath (as 
measured from mean lower low water) including intertidal areas.
    All discharges are prohibited in the following areas:
    1. Shoreward of the 5.5 m isobath adjacent to a either (1) the Clam 
Gulch Critical Habitat Area (Sales 32, 40, 46A, and 49) or (2) from the 
Crescent River northward to a point one-half mile north of Redoubt 
Point (Sales 35 and 49).
    2. Within the boundaries or within 1,000 m of a coastal marsh, 
river delta, river mouth, designated Area Meriting Special Attention 
(AMSA), game refuge, game sanctuary, or critical habitat area. (The 
seaward edge of a coastal marsh is defined as the seaward edge of 
emergent wetland vegetation.)
    The following State Game Refuges (SGR), Game Sanctuaries (SGS), 
Critical Habitat Areas (CHA), and AMSAs are located in the area covered 
by this permit:

Palmer Hay Flats SGR
Goose Bay SGR
Potter Point SGR
Susitna Flats SGR
McNeil River SGS
Redoubt Bay CHA
Trading Bay SGR
Kalgin Island CHA
Clam Gulch CHA
Kachemak Bay CHA
Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge
Port Graham/Nanwalek AMSA

    The legal descriptions of these state specialty areas are found in 
AS 16.20 The present boundaries of these state special areas are 
described in ``State of Alaska Game Refuges, Critical Habitat Areas, 
and Game Sanctuaries,'' Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Habitat 
Division, March 1991. Further information can be obtained from the 
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Habitat Division, Regional 
Supervisor, 333 Raspberry Road, Anchorage, Alaska 99518-1599; phone 
(907) 267-2284 or (907) 267-2342.
    3. In Kamishak Bay west of line from Cape Douglas to Chinitna 
point.
    4. In Chinitna Bay inside of the line between the points on the 
shoreline at latitude 59 deg.52'45'' N, longitude 152 deg.48'18'' W on 
the north and latitude 59 deg.46'12'' N, longitude 153 deg.00'24'' W on 
the south (Figure 1).
    5. In Tuxedni Bay inside of the lines on either side of Chisik 
Island (Figure 1).
    a. From latitude 60 deg.04'06'' North, longitude 152 deg.34'12'' 
West on the mainland to the southern tip of Chisik Island (latitude 
60 deg.05'45'' North, longitude 152 deg.33'30'' West).
    b. From the point on the mainland at latitude 60 deg.13'45'' North, 
longitude 152 deg.32'42'' West to the point on the north side of Snug 
Harbor on Chisik Island (latitude 60 deg.06'36'' North, longitude 
152 deg.32'54'' West).
    4. In Shelikof Strait south of a line between Cape Douglas (at 
58 deg. 51' North, 153 deg. 15' West) on the west and the northernmost 
tip of Shuyak Island on the east (at 58 deg. 37' North, 152 deg. 22' 
West) (Figure 2).
    5. Within 20 nautical miles of Sugarloaf Island as measured from a 
centerpoint at 58 deg. 53' North and 152 deg. 02' West. (Figure 2)

III. Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements

    The operators shall limit discharges as specified in the permit 
below. All figures represent maximum effluent limits unless otherwise 
indicated. The Permittee shall comply with the following effluent 
limits at all times unless provided for by this permit (e.g., 
unanticipated bypass) regardless of the frequency of monitoring or 
reporting required by other provisions of this permit.

A. Representative Sampling (Routine and Non-Routine Discharges)

    The operators shall collect all effluent samples from the effluent 
stream prior to discharge into the receiving waters. Samples and 
measurements shall be representative of the volume and nature of the 
monitored discharge.
    In order to ensure that the effluent limits set forth in this 
permit are not violated at times other than when routine samples are 
taken, the operators shall collect additional samples at the 
appropriate outfall(s), and analyze them for the parameters appropriate 
to that waste stream, limited in Parts III.B.-III.I. of this permit, 
whenever any discharge occurs that may reasonably be expected to cause 
or contribute to a violation that is unlikely to be detected by a 
routine sample.
    The Permittee shall collect such additional samples as soon as 
possible after the spill or discharge. The samples shall be analyzed in 
accordance with the monitoring requirements in Parts III.B.-III.I. of 
this permit. In the event of an anticipated bypass, as defined in Part 
V of this permit, the Permittee shall collect and analyze additional 
samples as soon as the bypassed effluent reaches the outfall. The 
Permittee shall report all additional monitoring in accordance with 
Part IV.B., below.

B. Drilling Mud, Drill Cuttings (Discharge 001)

1. Effluent Limitations
    In addition to the restrictions set out in Parts III.A., III.B.2-3. 
and IV, the Permittee shall comply with the following effluent 
limitations and monitoring requirements.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Monitoring requirements                     
       Effluent         Discharge limitation -------------------------------------------------------------------
    characteristic                            Measurement frequency    Sample type/method      Reported values  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flow Rate1 (Water                                                                                               
 Depth)                                                                                                         
    > 40 m...........  1,000 bbl/hr.........  Continuous during      Estimate.............  Maximum hourly rate.
                                               discharge.                                                       
    > 20-40 m........  750 bbl/hr...........                                                                    
    5-20 m...........  500 bbl/hr...........                                                                    
    < 5 m............  No discharge.........                                                                    
Total volume.........  See note 2...........  Daily................  Estimate.............  Monthly total.      
Mud Plan.............  Part III.B.1.b.......  Prior Certification..  N/A..................  N/A.                
Toxicity of drilling   30,000 ppm SPP         Monthly and End-of-    Grab/Drilling Fluids   96-hr LC50 (Part    
 mud.                   minimum.               Well.                  Toxicity Test.         III.B.2.g.).       
Free oil.............  No discharge.........  Daily and before bulk  Grab/Static Sheen      Number of days sheen
                                               discharges.            Test Part III.B.2.c.   observed.          
Oil-based fluids.....  No discharge.........  N/A..................  N/A..................  N/A.                
Oil content..........  N/A..................  Daily during           Parts III.B.2.c., 2.f  N/A.                
                                               discharge, prior to                                              
                                               bulk discharge.                                                  

[[Page 48825]]
                                                                                                                
Diesel oil content...  No discharge.........  N/A..................  Grab/GC Part           Presence or absence.
                                                                      III.B.2.b.                                
Mercury and cadmium    1 mg/kg Hg 3 mg/kg Cd  Once per well........  AAS..................  mg/kg dry wt.       
 in barite.                                                                                                     
Chemical inventory...  N/A..................  Once per mud system..  Part III.B.2.a.......  N/A.                
                                              Once per bioassay....  Part III.B.2.g.......  N/A.                
Metal analyses.......  N/A..................  Once per mud system..  Part III.B.2.e.......  N/A.                
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Maximum flow rate of total muds and cuttings includes predilutant water; water depths are measured from mean 
  lower low water.                                                                                              
\2\Report total volumes for all types of operations (exploratory, production and development). For exploratory  
  operations, drilling discharges are limited to no more than five wells at a single drilling site. If a step-  
  out or sidetracked well is drilled from a previously drilled hole, the step-out well is counted as new well.  
  Requests to discharge from more than five wells per site will be considered by the Water Division Director on 
  a case-by-case basis.                                                                                         


    a. Drilling mud and additive formulations. Only those drilling 
muds, specialty additives, and mineral oil pills that meet the criteria 
of this permit and are contained in the operator's Mud Plan (see Part 
III.B.1.b. below) may be discharged. In no case shall toxicity of the 
discharged mud exceed the toxicity limit of 30,000 ppm SPP (see Part 
III.B.1. above)
    b. Mud Plan--Planned discharge of drilling muds and additives. The 
Permittee shall develop and have on-site at all times a written 
procedural plan for the formulation and control of drilling mud/
additive systems (the ``Mud Plan''). The Mud Plan must specify which 
mud/additive systems will be used. The Mud Plan shall be implemented 
during drilling operations.
    The Mud Plan shall be available to the Agency upon request. Prior 
to commencement of discharges from a given well, the Permittee shall 
provide EPA with written certification that a Mud Plan does exist for 
the well and is available to the Agency. (See Parts I.A.3., I.B.3. and 
I.C.3.).
    At a minimum, the Mud Plan shall provide the following information:
    (1) The well name, well number, NPDES permit number, and the types 
of mud/additive systems proposed for use as basic identification of the 
Mud Plan for each well drilled.
    (2) Specific for use at each well and for each mud/additive system, 
a list including commercial product names, descriptions of the 
products, and the maximum proposed discharge concentrations for each 
product. Concentrations shall be stated in terms of ``lb/bbl'' or 
``gal/bbl''; although, ``% (wt)'' or ``% (vol)'' may be appropriate in 
some instances. Each mud/additive system shall be clearly labelled 
(e.g., KCl/polymer mud, freshwater lignosulfonate mud, spud mud). 
Components of the basic mud shall be listed separately from specialty 
or contingency additives that may be used.
    (3) A record of the operator's determination of how discharge is 
expected to comply with the 30,000 ppm SPP toxicity limitation. 
Operator's determination must be based upon, but necessarily limited 
to, the following criteria:
    (a) Estimates of worst-case cumulative discharge toxicity (e.g., 
based on additive toxicity estimates or commercially calculated 
discharge toxicity estimates).
    (b) Estimates of discharge toxicity based on the use of mineral oil 
pills (and subsequent discharge of residual mineral oil concentrations 
(see Part III.B.1.g. below)) must be shown separately from the estimate 
for the basic mud with other additives.
    (c) Where possible, overall toxicity shall be minimized.
    (4) A clearly stated procedure for determining whether or not an 
additive not originally planned for or included in toxicity estimations 
discussed above may be used and discharged.
    (5) An outline of the mud planning process which shall be 
consistent with other permit requirements. Names and titles of 
personnel responsible for the mud planning process shall be included.
    c. Certification of Mud Plan. For each well the operator shall 
submit written certification stating that a Mud Plan is complete, on-
site, and available upon request. In addition, each certification shall 
identify the well it pertains to by well name, well number and NPDES 
permit number. Written certification shall be submitted no later than 
the written notice of intent to commence discharge (see Parts I.A.3., 
I.B.3. and I.C.3.).
    If the operator elects to use a particular sequence of mud/additive 
systems on subsequent wells, a previous Mud Plan may be re-used. 
Information identifying the Mud Plan, however, must reflect use of the 
plan for the current well (see Part III.B.1.e(1), above).
    d. Restrictions on the use of mineral oil pills in drilling muds. 
The discharge of residual amounts of mineral oil pills (mineral oil 
plus additives) is authorized by the permit provided that the mineral 
oil pill and at least a 50 bbl buffer of drilling fluid on either side 
of the pill are removed from the circulating drilling fluid system and 
not discharged to waters of the United States. In the event that more 
than one pill is applied to a single well, the previous pill and buffer 
shall be removed prior to application of a subsequent pill. Residual 
mineral oil concentration in the discharged mud shall not exceed 2% v/v 
(API Recommended Practice 13-1, 1990) (see Part III.B.2.b. below). The 
discharged mud must comply with all permit conditions, including no 
discharge of free oil.
    Should drilling mud containing residual mineral oil pill (after 
pill and buffer removal) be discharged the following information shall 
be reported with 60 days of the discharge:
    (1) Dates of pill application, recovery, and discharge;
    (2) Results of the Drilling Fluids Toxicity Test on samples of:
    (a) the mud before each pill is added and
    (b) the mud after removal of each pill and buffer (taken when 
residual mineral oil pill concentration is expected to greatest);
    (3) Name of spotting compound and mineral oil product used;
    (4) Volumes of spotting compound, mineral oil, water, and barite in 
the pill;
    (5) Total volume of mud circulating prior to pill application, 
volume of pill formulated, and volume of pill circulated;
    (6) Volume of pill recovered, volume of mud buffer recovered, and 
volume of mud circulating after pill and buffer recovery;
    (7) Percent recovery of the pill (include calculations);
    (8) Estimated concentrations of residual spotting compound and 

[[Page 48826]]
    mineral oil in the sample of mud discharged, as determined from amounts 
added and total mud volume circulating prior to pill application;
    (9) Measured oil content of the mud samples, as determined by the 
API retort method; and
    (10) An itemization of other drilling fluid components and 
specialty additives contained in the discharged mud with concentrations 
reported in gal/bbl or lb/bbl.
2. Monitoring Requirements
    Monitoring must be conducted according to test procedures approved 
under 40 CFR 136, unless other test procedures are specified here or 
elsewhere in this permit. Representative sampling requirements are 
discussed in Part III.A.
    a. Chemical inventory. For each mud system discharged, the 
Permittee shall maintain a precise chemical inventory of all 
constituents added downhole, including all drilling mud additives used 
to meet specific drilling requirements. The Permittee shall report the 
following for each mud system:
    (1) Base mud type (as identified in the Mud Plan);
    (2) Name and total amount (volume or weight) of each constituent in 
discharged mud;
    (3) The total volumes of mud created and added downhole; and
    (4) The maximum concentration of each constituent in the discharged 
mud.
    In addition, for each mud system discharged, the Permittee shall 
report the following:
    (5) The total volumes of mud discharged; and
    (6) The estimated amount of each constituent discharged.
    The inventory shall be submitted within 45 days of well completion.
    b. Diesel Oil. Compliance with the limitation on diesel oil shall 
be demonstrated by gas chromatography (GC) analysis of drilling mud 
collected from the mud used at the greatest well depth (``end-of-well'' 
sample) and of any muds or cuttings which fail the daily Static Sheen 
Test (Part III.B.2.c. below). In all cases, the determination of the 
presence or absence of diesel oil shall be based on a comparison of the 
GC spectra of the sample and of diesel oil in storage at the facility. 
The method for GC analysis shall be that described in ``Analysis of 
Diesel Oil in Drilling Fluids and Drill Cuttings'' (CENTEC, 1985) 
available from EPA, Region 10. Gas chromatography/mass spectrometry 
(GC/MS) may be used if an instance should arise where the operator and 
EPA determine that greater resolution of the drilling mud 
``fingerprint'' is needed for a particular drilling mud sample.
    The end-of-well analysis for diesel oil shall be done in 
conjunction with the end-of-well chemical analyses required in Part 
III.B.2.e. The results and raw data, including the spectra, from the GC 
analysis shall be provided to the Director by written report (1) within 
30 days of a positive result with the Static Sheen Test when a 
discharge has occurred, or (2) for the end-of-well analysis, within 45 
days of well completion.
    c. Static Sheen Test. The Permittee shall perform the Static Sheen 
Test on separate samples of drilling muds and cuttings, as required in 
Appendix 1 to Subpart A of 40 CFR Part 435. Samples shall be collected 
on each day of discharge and prior to bulk discharges. The test shall 
be conducted in accordance with ``Approved Methodology: Laboratory 
Sheen Tests for the Offshore Subcategory, Oil and Gas Extraction 
Industry'' which is Appendix 1 to Subpart A of 40 CFR Part 435. For 
discharge below ice or during periods of unstable or broken ice, water 
temperature for the Static Sheen Test shall approximate surface water 
temperatures at ice breakup. The discharge of drilling muds or cuttings 
which fail the Static Sheen Test is prohibited.
    Whenever muds or cuttings fail the Static Sheen Test and a 
discharge has occurred in the past 24 hours, the Permittee is required 
to analyze an undiluted sample of the material which failed the test to 
determine the presence or absence of diesel oil. The determination and 
reporting of results shall be performed according to Part III.B.2.b. 
above.
    d. Mercury and cadmium content of barite. The Permittee shall 
analyze a representative sample of stock barite once prior to drilling 
each well and submit the results for total mercury and total cadmium in 
the DMR upon well completion. Analyses shall be conducted by absorption 
spectrophotometry and results expressed as mg/kg (dry weight) of 
barite.
    If more than one well is drilled at a site, new analyses are not 
required for subsequent wells if no new supplies of barite have been 
received since the previous analysis. In this case, the DMR should 
state that no new barite was received since the last reported analysis. 
Operators may provide certification, as documented by the supplier(s), 
that the barite meets the above limits. The concentration of mercury 
and cadmium in stock barite shall be reported on the DMR as documented 
by the supplier.
    e. Metals analysis. The Permittee shall analyze each discharged mud 
system containing a mineral oil lubricity and/or spotting agent in the 
mud discharge for the following metals: barium, cadmium, chromium, 
copper, mercury, zinc, and lead. Analyses for total and total 
recoverable concentrations shall be conducted on split samples and 
reported for each metal utilizing the methods specified in 40 CFR 136. 
The results shall be reported in ``mg/kg of whole mud (dry weight),'' 
and the moisture content (percent by weight) of the original drilling 
mud sample shall be reported.
    Samples shall be collected when the residual mineral oil 
concentration is at its maximum value (see Part III.B.1.d., above). If 
no mineral oil is used, the analysis shall be done on a drilling mud 
sample collected from the mud system used at the greatest well depth. 
All samples shall be collected prior to any predilution. Each drilling 
mud sample shall be of sufficient size to allow for both the chemical 
testing described here and toxicity testing described below in Part 
III.B.2.g.
    Results of metals analyses shall be submitted within 45 days of 
well completion. Results shall be submitted with the end-of-well 
chemical inventory and shall identify the corresponding mud system from 
the end-of-well inventory.
    f. Oil content. Permittees shall analyze mud and cuttings samples 
for oil content (percent by weight and volume) using the retort 
distillation method for oil (American Petroleum Industry, Recommended 
Practice 13-B, 1990) or by procedures described at 40 CFR 136 (soxhlet 
extraction for oil and grease).
    g. Toxicity test for drilling fluids. If no mineral oil is used 
(Part III.B.1.d.), a toxicity test shall be conducted monthly to 
determine compliance with the drilling fluid toxicity limit. At the 
end-of-well, a sample shall be collected for toxicity testing. This 
sample can also serve as the monthly monitoring sample. The sample 
shall be a representative subsample of that collected for metals 
analysis (see Part III.B.2.e., above).
    The Permittee shall complete a minimum of two toxicity tests on 
each mud system where a mineral oil lubricity or spotting agent is 
used. One sample shall be collected before applying the pill and one 
after removing the pill (see Part III.B.1.d.(2)). The ``after pill'' 
sample test results can be used as the monthly monitoring sample. If 
the well is completed within 96 hours of collection of the ``after 
pill'' drilling mud sample, then these test results can also serve as 
the end-of-well test. 

[[Page 48827]]

    The testing and reporting of drilling fluid toxicity test results 
shall be in accordance with Appendix 2 to Subpart A of 40 CFR Part 435 
(Drilling Fluids Toxicity Test). Results of drilling fluid toxicity 
tests (in terms of the 96-hr LC50 value) shall be reported on the DMRs. 
Complete copies of the test reports shall be attached to the DMR and be 
accompanied by an inventory of all of the drilling mud components and 
specialty additives present in the sampled mud (including the 
concentrations of each).
3. Environmental Monitoring Requirements
    a. Within 1500 m of sensitive areas. Monitoring of the fate and 
effects of drilling muds and/or cuttings discharges shall be required 
for new exploration, development and production facilities or when the 
location of the discharges is within 1500 m of an area such as a 
coastal marsh, river delta, river mouth, designated AMSA, game refuge, 
game sanctuary, or critical habitat area. Discharges are prohibited 
within 1000 m of sensitive areas (see Part II.B).
    b. Environmental Monitoring Study. The Permittee shall submit a 
plan of study for environmental monitoring to EPA for review with, or 
prior to, submission of a written request for authorization to 
discharge (Parts I.A.2. and I.B.1-2.).
    The objectives of the monitoring shall be to:
    (1) Monitor for discharge-related impacts,
    (2) Determine statistically significant changes in sediment 
pollutant concentrations and sediment toxicity with time and distance 
from the discharge,
    (3) Monitor for discharge related impacts to the benthic community,
    (4) Assess whether any impacts warrant an adjustment of the 
monitoring program, and
    (5) Provide information for permit reissuance.
    The monitoring shall include, but not be limited to, relevant 
hydrographic, sediment hydrocarbon, and heavy metal data from surveys 
conducted before and during drilling mud disposal and up to a least one 
year after drilling operations cease.
    The monitoring plan shall address:
    (1) The monitoring objectives,
    (2) Appropriate null and alternate test hypotheses,
    (3) A statistically valid sampling design,
    (4) All monitoring procedures and methods,
    (5) A quality assurance/quality control program,
    (6) A detailed discussion of how data will be used to meet, test 
and evaluate the monitoring objectives, and
    (7) A summary of the results of previous environmental monitoring 
as they apply to the proposed program plan.
    c. Reporting and Data Submission Requirements. The Permittee shall 
analyze the data and submit a draft report by within 180 days following 
the completion of sample collection. The report shall address the 
environmental monitoring objectives by using appropriate descriptive 
and analytical methods to test for and to describe any impacts of the 
effluent on sediment pollutant concentrations, sediment quality, water 
quality and/or the benthic community. The report shall include all 
relevant quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) information, 
including but not limited to instrumentation, laboratory procedures, 
detection limits/precision requirements of the applied analyses, and 
sample collection methodology.
    EPA will review the draft report in accordance with the 
environmental monitoring objectives and evaluate it for compliance with 
the requirements of the permit. If revisions to the report are 
required, the Permittee shall complete them and submit the final report 
to EPA within two months of the Director's request. The Permittee will 
be required to correct, repeat and/or expand environmental monitoring 
programs which have not fulfilled the requirements of the permit.
    d. Modification of Monitoring Program. The monitoring program may 
be modified if EPA determines that it is appropriate. The modified 
program may include changes in (1) sampling stations, (2) sampling 
times, and/or (3) parameters.
    e. Exemption. Region 10 will grant an exemption to this requirement 
if the Permittee can satisfactorily demonstrate that information on the 
fate and effects of the discharge is available and/or the discharge 
will not have significant impacts on the area of biological 
significance. An exemption to post-drilling monitoring will be granted 
if no impact was indicated during drilling.

C. Deck Drainage (Discharge 002)

1. Effluent Limitations.
    In addition to the restrictions set out in Parts III.A., III.C.2-4. 
and IV, the Permittee shall comply with the following effluent 
limitations and monitoring requirements.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Monitoring requirements                     
       Effluent         Discharge limitation -------------------------------------------------------------------
    characteristic                            Measurement frequency    Sample type/method      Reported Values  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exploratory and                                                                                                 
 Production                                                                                                     
 Operations:                                                                                                    
    Flow rate (MGD)..  N/A..................  Monthly..............  Estimate.............  Monthly avg.        
    Free oil.........  No discharge.........  Daily, during          Visual/Sheen on        Number of days sheen
                                               discharge.             receiving water\1\.    observed.          
Production                                                                                                      
 Operations:                                                                                                    
    Whole effluent     N/A..................  Twice per year\3\....  Part III.F.3.b.......  TUc4.               
     toxicity\2\.                                                                                               
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\If discharge occurs during broken or unstable ice conditions, or during stable ice conditions, the sample    
  type/method shall be ``Grab/Static Sheen Test.''                                                              
\2\Applies only to production platforms where deck drainage is not commingled with produced water discharges.   
  Contaminated deck drainage shall be processed through an oil-water separator prior to discharge and samples   
  for that portion of the deck drainage collected from the separator effluent and shall be sampled for WET      
  testing. If deck drainage is mixed with produced water flow, then effluent limitations and monitoring         
  requirements for produced water shall apply. (See Part III.F.).                                               
\3\Once during the first significant rainfall (to capture first flush of surfaces after the dry season) and once
  during snowmelt.                                                                                              
\4\With final report for each test, the following shall also be reported: date and time of sample, the type of  
  sample (i.e., rainfall or snowmelt), estimate of daily flow and basis for the estimate (e.g., turbine meters, 
  monthly precipitation, estimated washdown).                                                                   


[[Page 48828]]

2. Drains.
    Area drains for either washdown or rainfall that may be 
contaminated with oil and grease shall be separated from those area 
drains that would not be contaminated. The contaminated deck drainage 
shall be processed through an oil-water separator prior to discharge 
and samples for that portion of the deck drainage collected from the 
separator effluent shall be tested for sheen.
3. Commingled Wastestreams.
    Any deck drainage which is commingled with other wastes prior to 
discharge shall be subject at the point of discharge to the most 
stringent of the limitations on the individual effluents.
4. Monitoring Requirements.
    Monitoring must be conducted according to test procedures approved 
under 40 CFR 136, unless other test procedures are specified here or 
elsewhere in this permit. Representative sampling requirements are 
discussed in Part III.A.

D. Sanitary Wastes and Domestic Wastes (Discharges 003, 004)

1. Effluent Limitations
    In addition to the restrictions set out in Parts III.A., III.D.2-3. 
and IV, the Permittee shall comply with the following effluent 
limitations and monitoring requirements.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Monitoring requirements                     
       Effluent         Discharge limitation -------------------------------------------------------------------
    characteristic                            Measurement frequency    Sample type/method      Reported values  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sanitary and Domestic                                                                                           
 Wastes:                                                                                                        
    Flow rate (MGD)..  .....................  Monthly..............  Estimate.............  Monthly Average.    
    Floating           No discharge.........  Daily................  Observation\2\.......  Number of days      
     solids\1\.                                                                              solids observed.   
Sanitary Wastes\3\:                                                                                             
    Total residual     As close as possible   Weekly...............  Grab.................  Concentration in mg/
     chlorine           to, but no less                                                      l.                 
     (TRC)\1\\4\\5\.    than, 1 mg/l\6\.                                                                        
    BOD (mg/l)\7\....  60 mg/l..............  Weekly\8\............  Grab.................  Daily Maximum.      
                       45 mg/l                                                              Weekly Average.     
                       30 mg/l                                                              Monthly Average.    
    SS (mg/l)\1\\7\..  SSintake + 60 mg/l...  Weekly\8\............  Grab.................  Daily maximum.      
                       SSintake + 45 mg/l                                                   Weekly Average.     
                       SSintake + 30 mg/l                                                   Monthly Average.    
    MSDs (FC, SS,      .....................  Twice/month..........  Grab.................  Estimated # persons 
     TRC)\9\.                                                                                aboard.\8\         
Domestic Wastes:                                                                                                
    Foam.............  No discharge.........  Daily................  Observation\10\......  Number of days foam 
                                                                                             observed.          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Any facility using a marine sanitation device (MSD) that complies with pollution control standards and       
  regulations under Section 312 of the Act shall be deemed to be in compliance with these limitations until such
  time as the device is replaced or found not to comply with such standards and regulations. The MSD shall be   
  tested yearly for proper operations and test results maintained at the facility.                              
\2\For state waters, permittee shall monitor by observing the surface of the receiving water in the vicinity of 
  the outfall(s) during daylight at the time of maximum estimated discharge. For domestic waste, observations   
  shall follow either the morning or midday meal.                                                               
\3\In cases where sanitary and domestic wastes are mixed prior to discharge, and sampling of the sanitary waste 
  component stream is infeasible, the discharge may be sampled after mixing. In such cases, the discharge       
  limitations for sanitary wastes shall apply to the mixed waste stream.                                        
\4\Limit applies only to facilities continuously staffed by ten or more people.                                 
\5\Limit applies to those facilities discharging a chlorinated treatment water in state or federal waters.      
\6\If a mixing zone is not designated during the 401 certification, the TRC discharge limit will be changed to  
  2.0 g/l (daily maximum) and 1.0 g/l (monthly average) to reflect Alaska water quality       
  standards; a fecal coliform limit of 43 FC/100 ml (daily maximum) and 14 FC/100 ml (monthly median) will also 
  be added to the permit.                                                                                       
\7\The numeric limits for BOD and SS apply only to discharges to state waters. Influent samples shall be taken  
  with the same frequency that effluent samples are taken. If enough water is taken on-board to create several  
  days' supply for the sanitary system, then the SS value shall be reported as ``carried over'' from the date of
  intake and sampling.                                                                                          
  When reported on DMRs, actual intake SS concentrations shall be labelled SSintake. Actual effluent SS         
  concentrations shall be labelled SSeffluent. Effluent limits for SS concentrations (SSlimit) shall be         
  calculated as the sum of SSintake plus 60, 45, or 30 mg/l to report daily maximum, weekly average, or 30 day  
  maximum effluent concentrations, respectively.                                                                
\8\Based on weekly sampling and depending on the length of the calendar month, a total of 3-4 samples will be   
  analyzed per month. The reported monthly average value shall be the average of all weekly samples taken during
  the month. Each weekly sample value will then be subject to both the daily maximum and weekly average         
  criteria.                                                                                                     
\9\Applies to facilities with MSDs only. Sample the effluent twice each month and report the following: date of 
  sample, estimated number of persons aboard for 5 days preceding the sample, the number of FC/100 ml, TRC and  
  SS.                                                                                                           
\10\Monitoring by visual observation of the surface of the receiving water in the vicinity of the outfall(s)    
  shall be done during daylight at a time of maximum estimated discharge.                                       

2. Discharge Below Water Surface
    Domestic and sanitary wastes shall be discharged below the water 
surface.
3. Monitoring Requirements
    Monitoring must be conducted according to test procedures approved 
under 40 CFR 136, unless other test procedures are specified here or 
elsewhere in this permit. Representative sampling requirements are 
discussed in Part II.B. 

[[Page 48829]]

    a. Residual Chlorine. Residual chlorine shall be monitored using a 
40 CFR 136 method which obtains an MDL of at least 10 g/l.
    b. Sanitary Wastes. Sanitary waste grab samples shall be collected 
during periods of sanitary system peak flow.

E. Miscellaneous Discharges (Discharges 005-014)

1. Effluent Limitations
    In addition to the restrictions set out in Parts III.A., III.E.2-4. 
and IV, the discharge of 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); bilge water (011); excess cement slurry (012); mud, 
cuttings, cement at the seafloor (013); and waterflooding (014) shall 
comply with the following effluent limitations and monitoring 
requirements.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Monitoring requirements                      
      Effluent                             ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   characteristic     Discharge limitation       Measurement                                                    
                                                  frequency        Sample type/method        Reported values    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Miscellaneous:                                                                                              
    Flow (MGD)......  N/A.................  Monthly.............  Estimate............  Monthly average.        
Blowout Preventer,                                                                                              
 Excess Cement                                                                                                  
 Slurry,                                                                                                        
 Waterflooding:                                                                                                 
    Muds, Cuttings    No discharge........  Once/discharge for    Visual/Sheen on       Number or days sheen is 
     and Cement at                           discharges lasting    receiving water\1\.   observed.              
     Seafloor,                               < 24 hrs.                                                          
     Ballast, Bilge                                                                                             
     Free Oil.                                                                                                  
                                            Once/24-hrs for                                                     
                                             discharges lasting                                                 
                                             < 24 hrs.                                                          
Waterflooding, Non-                                                                                             
 Contact Cooling                                                                                                
 Water, Desalination                                                                                            
 Wastestreams:                                                                                                  
    Chemical          N/A.................  Monthly.............  Part III.E.2........  Part III.E.2.           
     Inventory.                                                                                                 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\For Uncontaminated Ballast Water (010) and Bilge Water (011) only: uncontaminated ballast and bilge water    
  shall be processed through an oil-water separator prior to discharge. If discharge of bilge water occurs      
  during broken, unstable, or stable ice conditions, the sample type/method used to determine compliance with   
  the no free oil limitation shall be ``Grab Static Sheen Test'' (Appendix 1 to Subpart A of 40 CFR Part 435).  
  For discharges above stable ice, below ice, to unstable or broken ice, a water temperature that approximates  
  surface water temperatures after breakup shall be used.                                                       

2. Desalination Unit Wastes (005), Non-Contact Cooling Water (009) and 
Waterflooding (014)
    The Permittee shall maintain an inventory of the quantities and 
application rates of chemicals (other than fresh or seawater) added to 
waterflooding, cooling water and desalination systems. The 
inventory(ies) shall be submitted with the monthly DMR.
3. Monitoring Requirement
    Monitoring must be conducted according to test procedures approved 
under 40 CFR 136, unless other test procedures are specified here or 
elsewhere in this permit. Representative sampling requirements are 
discussed in Part III.A.

F. Produced Water (Discharge 015)

1. Effluent Limitations
    In addition to the restrictions set out in Parts III.A., III.F.2-
3., IV, the Permittee shall comply with the following effluent 
limitations and monitoring requirements.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Monitoring requirements                      
      Effluent                             ---------------------------------------------------------------------
   characteristic     Discharge limitation       Measurement                                                    
                                                  frequency        Sample type/method        Reported values    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flow rate (MGD).....  N/A.................  Daily...............  Estimate............  Daily avg and monthly   
                                                                                         average.               
Produced sands......  No discharge........                                                                      
Oil and Grease:                                                                                                 
    Phillips A/       20 mg/l daily max...  Weekly..............  Composite...........  Daily Maximum.          
     Tyonek.                                                                                                    
                      15 mg/l monthly avg.  ....................  ....................  Monthly Average.        
    All other         42 mg/l daily max...  Weekly..............  Composite...........  Daily Maximum.          
     facilities.                                                                                                
                      29 mg/l monthly avg.  ....................  ....................  Monthly Average.        
pH..................  6-9.................  Weekly..............  Grab................  pH.                     
Copper:                                                                                                         
    Granite Point...  238 g/l....  Weekly..............  Grab................  Daily Maximum.          
    AKG285101.......  119 g/l....  ....................  ....................  Monthly Average.        
    East Forelands..  122 g/l....  Weekly..............  Grab................  Daily Maximum.          
                      60.7 g/l...  ....................  ....................  Monthly Average.        
    Anna............  189 g/l....  Weekly..............  Grab................  Daily Maximum.          
                      94 g/l.....  ....................  ....................  Monthly Average.        
    Dillon..........  244 g/l....  Weekly..............  Grab................  Daily Maximum.          
                      121 g/l....  ....................  ....................  Monthly Average.        
    Phillips A/       58 g/l.....  Weekly..............  Grab................  Daily Maximum.          
     Tyonek.                                                                                                    
                      29 g/l.....  ....................  ....................  Monthly Average.        
Arsenic:                                                                                                        
    East Forelands..  1780 g/l...  Weekly..............  Grab................  Daily Maximum.          
                      885 g/l....  ....................  ....................  Monthly Average.        

[[Page 48830]]
                                                                                                                
    Baker...........  843 g/l....  Weekly..............  Grab................  Daily Maximum.          
                      420 g/l....  ....................  ....................  Monthly Average.        
Zinc:                                                                                                           
    Baker...........  16,500 g/l.  Weekly..............  Grab................  Daily Maximum.          
                      8,240 g/l..  ....................  ....................  Monthly Average.        
    Dillon..........  7,980 g/l..  Weekly..............  Grab................  Daily Maximum.          
                      3,980 g/l..  ....................  ....................  Monthly Average.        
Total Aromatic                                                                                                  
 Hydrocarbons (TAH)                                                                                             
 \1\:                                                                                                           
    Granite Point PF  38,800 g/l.  Weekly..............  Grab................  Daily Maximum.          
    AKG285101.......  29,000 g/l.  ....................  Part III.F.3.a......  Monthly Average.        
    Trading Bay.....  49,000 g/l.  Weekly..............  Grab................  Daily Maximum .         
                      24,400 g/l.  ....................  Part III.F.3.a......  Monthly Average.        
    East Forelands..  37,600 g/l.  Weekly..............  Grab................  Daily Maximum.          
                      18,800 g/l.  ....................  Part III.F.3.a......  Monthly Average.        
    Anna............  52,300 g/l.  Weekly..............  Grab................  Daily Maximum.          
                      26,100 g/l.  ....................  Part III.F.3.a......  Monthly Average.        
    Baker...........  54,100 g/l.  Weekly..............  Grab................  Daily Maximum.          
                      27,000 g/l.  ....................  Part III.F.3.a......  Monthly Average.        
    Bruce...........  182,000 g/l  Weekly..............  Grab................  Daily Maximum.          
                      90,500 g/l.  ....................  Part III.F.3.a......  Monthly Average.        
    Dillon..........  36,100 g/l.  Weekly..............  Grab................  Daily Maximum.          
                      18,000 g/l.  ....................  Part III.F.3.a......  Monthly Average.        
    Phillips A/       170 g/l....  Weekly..............  Grab................  Daily Maximum.          
     Tyonek.                                                                                                    
                      85 g/l.....  ....................  Part III.F.3.a......  Monthly Average.        
Total Aqueous                                                                                                   
 Hydrocarbons                                                                                                   
 (TAqH)\1\1:                                                                                                    
    Granite Point PF  58,200 g/l.  Weekly..............  Grab................  Daily Maximum.          
    AKG285101.......  19,300 g/l.  Monthly.............  Part III.F.3.a......  Monthly Average.        
    Trading Bay.....  73,500 g/l.  Weekly..............  Grab................  Daily Maximum.          
                      36,600 g/l.  Monthly.............  Part III.F.3.a......  Monthly Average.        
    East Forelands..  56,400 g/l.  Weekly..............  Grab................  Daily Maximum.          
                      28,100 g/l.  Monthly.............  Part III.F.3.a......  Monthly average.        
    Anna............  78,500 g/l.  Weekly..............  Grab................  Daily Maximum.          
                      39,100 g/l.  Monthly.............  Part III.F.3.a......  Monthly Average.        
    Baker...........  81,100 g/l.  Weekly..............  Grab................  Daily Maximum.          
                      40,400 g/l.  Monthly.............  Part III.F.3.a......  Monthly Average.        
    Bruce...........  272,000 g/l  Weekly..............  Grab................  Daily Maximum.          
                      136,000 g/l  Monthly.............  Part III.F.3.a......  Monthly Average.        
    Dillon..........  54,100 g/l.  Weekly..............  Grab................  Daily Maximum.          
                      27,000 g/l.  Monthly.............  Part III.F.3.a......  Monthly Average.        
    Phillips A/       255 g/l....  Weekly..............  Grab................  Daily Maximum.          
     Tyonek.                                                                                                    
                      127 g/l....  Monthly.............  Part III.F.3.a......  Monthly Average.        
Whole Effluent                                                                                                  
 Toxicity:                                                                                                      
    Granite Point PF  43 TUc..............  Monthly.............  Grab................  Daily Maximum.          
    AKG285101.......  29 TUc..............  ....................  Parts III.F.2., 3.b.  Monthly Average Parts   
                                                                                         III.F.2., 3.b.         
    East Forelands..  66 TUc..............  Monthly.............  Grab................  Daily Maximum.          
                      45 TUc..............  ....................  Parts III.F.2., 3.b.  Monthly Average Parts   
                                                                                         III.F.2., 3.b.         
    Anna............  181 TUc.............  Monthly.............  Grab................  Daily Maximum.          
                      124 TUc.............  ....................  Parts III.F.2., 3.b.  Monthly Average Parts   
                                                                                         III.F.2., 3.b.         
    Baker...........  59 TUc..............  Monthly.............  Grab................  Daily Maximum.          
                      40 TUc..............  ....................  Parts III.F.2., 3.b.  Monthly Average Parts   
                                                                                         III.F.2., 3.b.         
    Bruce...........  135 TUc.............  Monthly.............  Grab................  Daily Maximum.          
                      92 TUc..............  ....................  Parts III.F.2., 3.b.  Monthly Average Parts   
                                                                                         III.F.2., 3.b.         
    Dillon..........  94 TUc..............  Monthly.............  Grab................  Daily Maximum.          
                      64 TUc..............  ....................  Parts III.F.2., 3.b.  Monthly Average Parts   
                                                                                         III.F.2., 3.b.         
    Phillips A/       10 TUc..............  Monthly.............  Grab................  Daily Maximum.          
     Tyonek.                                                                                                    
                      7 TUc...............  Parts III.F.2., 3.b.  Monthly Average.....  Parts III.F.2., 3.b.    
Metals\2\...........  N/A.................  Monthly for one year  Part III.F.3.c .....                          
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Submittal of an annual report summarizing the concentrations of the individual TAH components (benzene,      
  toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene isomers) and individual TAqH components is required.                         
\2\Monthly monitoring of total recoverable arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, silver and zinc is required  
  for one year. Because weekly effluent limitations for metals have not been imposed at Bruce and Trading Bay,  
  monthly monitoring of each of the seven metals is required. The remainder of the facilities discharging       
  produced water to Cook Inlet must submit monthly monitoring results for those metals not limited in the permit
  at that facility.                                                                                             



[[Page 48831]]

2. Commingled Wastestreams
    If workover, completion, well treatment or test fluids are mixed 
with produced water, then all of the effluent limitations and 
requirements applied to produced water shall apply (Part III.G.2) and 
supersede limits for the separate wastestreams. Likewise, if deck 
drainage is commingled with produced water, then all of the effluent 
limitations and requirements applied to produced water shall apply 
(Part III.C.1) and supersede limits for the separate discharge of deck 
drainage.
    If deck drainage, workover, completion, well treatment or test 
fluids are commingled with produced water, ``commingled'' shall be 
reported on the DMRs for both produced water and the wastestream mixed 
with it.
3. Monitoring Requirements
    Monitoring must be conducted according to test procedures approved 
under 40 CFR 136, unless other test procedures are specified here or 
elsewhere in this permit. Representative sampling requirements are 
discussed in Part III.A.
    a. Total Aromatic Hydrocarbons (TAH) and Total Aqueous Hydrocarbons 
(TAqH). For analysis of TAH and TAqH, all analytical requirements cited 
in the Alaska Standards, 18 AAC 70.020(b) are applicable.
    b. Whole Effluent Toxicity. Produced water samples shall be 
collected at least once per month. The Permittee shall conduct tests on 
grab effluent samples with one vertebrate and two invertebrate species, 
as follows:
    Vertebrate (survival and growth): Inland silverside, Menidia 
beryllina Invertebrate: Atlantic myside Mysidopsis bahia (survival, 
growth and fecundity test) and one of the following two bivalve species 
tests: Mytilis sp. or Crassostrea gigas (larval development test, 
depending upon seasonal availability).
    Results shall be reported in TUc, where TUc=100/NOEC.
    The presence of chronic toxicity shall be estimated as specified in 
USEPA Short-Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of 
Effluents and Receiving Waters to Marine and Estuarine Organisms, 
Second Edition, EPA/600/4-90/003. For the bivalve species, chronic 
toxicity shall be estimated as specified in Short-Term Methods for 
Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Water to 
West Coast Marine and Estuarine Organisms (Draft Chapman and Denton, 
1995)
    The following quality assurance procedures shall be followed:
    A series of five dilutions and a control will be tested. The series 
shall include the instream waste concentration (IWC), two dilutions 
above the IWC, and two dilutions below the IWC. The IWC is the 
concentration of effluent at the edge of the mixing zone.
    Concurrent testing with reference toxicants shall be conducted. If 
either of the reference toxicant tests or the effluent tests do not 
meet all test acceptability criteria as specified in the test methods 
manual, then the permittee must re-sample and re-test as soon as 
possible.
    Control and dilution water should be receiving water, or salinity 
adjusted lab water. If the dilution water used is different from the 
culture water, a second control, using culture water shall also be 
used.
    If chronic toxicity is detected above the permit limits, the 
permittee shall conduct four more tests, bi-weekly, over an eight-week 
period. In accordance with EPA/600/2-88/070, a toxicity reduction 
evaluation (TRE) must be initiated within fifteen days of the 
exceedance in order to expeditiously locate the source(s) of toxicity 
and evaluate the effectiveness of pollution control actions and/or 
inplant modifications toward attaining compliance. If chronic toxicity 
is detected in any of the four bi-weekly tests, the permittee shall 
initiate a toxicity identification evaluation (TIE) to identify the 
specific chemical(s) responsible for toxicity (EPA/600/6-91/005F (Phase 
I), EPA/600/R-92/080 (Phase II), and EPA-600/R-92/081 (Phase III)). If 
none of the four bi-weekly tests indicate toxicity above the permit 
limit, then the Permittee may return to the normal testing frequency of 
once per month.
    c. Metals. The minimum detection level for arsenic must be 1 
g/l. For the remainder of the metals, method detection levels 
must be less than one-tenth the aquatic life criteria listed below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Aquatic life 
                                                              chronic   
                        Pollutant                            criteria   
                                                          (g/l)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cadmium.................................................             9.3
Copper..................................................             2.9
Lead....................................................             8.5
Nickel..................................................             8.3
Silver..................................................             2.3
Zinc....................................................              86
------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Completion Fluids, Workover Fluids, Well Treatment Fluids, and Test 
Fluids (Discharges 016-019)

1. Effluent Limitations
    In addition to the restrictions set out in Parts III.A., III.G.2-
3., IV, the Permittee shall comply with the following effluent 
limitations and monitoring requirements.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Monitoring requirements                     
       Effluent         Discharge limitation -------------------------------------------------------------------
    characteristic                            Measurement frequency    Sample type/method      Reported values  
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Wastestreams:                                                                                               
    Discharge          N/A..................  Once/discharge\1\....  Count................  Type & total number 
     frequency.                                                                              of discharges.\1\  
    Flow rate (MGD)..  N/A..................  Daily\1\.............  Estimate.............  Monthly average.    
    Oil-based fluids.  No discharge.........  Included in free oil   .....................  ....................
                                               monitoring, below\2\.                                            
    Free oil\3\......  No free oil..........  Once/discharge\1\....  Grab/Static Sheen      Number of times     
                                                                      Test.                  sheen observed.    
    Oil and grease\3\  42 mg/l max. daily,    Weekly...............  Composite............  Daily max. and      
                        29 mg/l monthly avg.                                                 monthly average.   
    pH...............  6.5-8.5..............  Weekly...............  Grab.................  pH.                 
Treatment, Workover,                                                                                            
 Completion:                                                                                                    
    Metals...........  .....................  Once per discharge\1\  Part III.G.2.a.        ....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The type of discharge (i.e., completion, workover, treatment, test fluid, or any combination) shall be       
  reported. Discharge of individual wastestreams shall reported separately from the discharge of commingled     
  wastestreams.                                                                                                 
\2\Discharge of oil-based fluids is prohibited.                                                                 
\3\No free oil and oil and grease limits apply to each discharge, whether these wastestreams are discharged     
  individually or are commingled. All fluids shall be processed through an oil-water separator prior to         
  discharge. Samples shall be collected after the final step of treatment.                                      


[[Page 48832]]

2. Commingled Wastestreams
    If workover, completion, well treatment or test fluids are mixed 
with produced water, then all of the effluent limitations and 
requirements applied to produced water (Part III.F.) shall also apply 
to these wastestreams.
3. Monitoring Requirements
    Monitoring must be conducted according to test procedures approved 
under 40 CFR 136, unless other test procedures are specified here or 
elsewhere in this permit. Representative sampling requirements are 
discussed in Part III.A.
    Metals. For each discharge of well treatment, completion or 
workover fluids which is characterized as an acid job (strong or weak, 
including but not limited to hydrochloric or hydrofluoric acid, EDTA), 
samples of effluent shall be taken for analyses of the following: 
cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel and zinc. Analyses for total 
recoverable concentrations shall be conducted and reported for each 
metal.

H. Other Discharge Limitations

    1. Floating Solids, Visible Foam, or Oily Wastes. There shall be no 
discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace 
amounts, nor of oily wastes which produce a sheen on the surface of the 
receiving water.
    2. Surfactants, Dispersants, and Detergents. 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. 
The discharge of dispersants to marine waters in response to oil or 
other hazardous spills is not authorized this permit.
    3. Applicable Marine Water Quality Criteria. There shall be no 
discharge of any constituent in concentrations which results in an 
exceedence of applicable marine water quality criteria at the edge of 
any permitted mixing zone.
    4. Other Toxic and Non-conventional Compounds. There shall be no 
discharge of diesel oil, halogenated phenol compounds, trisodium 
nitrilotriacetic acid, sodium chromate or sodium dichromate.

I. Best Management Practices Plan Requirement

    1. Implementation. The Permittee shall develop and implement a Best 
Management Practices (BMP) Plan which achieves the objectives and the 
specific requirements listed below. The BMP Plan shall be implemented 
as soon as possible but no later than 7 days prior to initiation of 
discharges from the facility and from each well.
    The Permittee shall certify that its BMP Plan is complete, on-site, 
and available upon request to EPA. This certification shall identify 
the well it pertains to by well name, well number, and the NPDES permit 
number and be signed by an authorized representative of the Permittee. 
The certification shall be submitted no later than the written notice 
of intent to commence discharge (see Parts I.A.3, I.B.3., and I.C.3.) 
and the Certification of Mud Plan (see Part III.B.1.b.).
    2. Purpose. Through implementation of the BMP Plan the Permittee 
shall prevent or minimize the generation and the potential for the 
release of pollutants from the facility to the waters of the United 
States through normal operations and ancillary activities.
    3. Objectives. The Permittee shall develop and amend the BMP Plan 
consistent with the following objectives for the control of pollutants.
    a. The number and quantity of pollutants and the toxicity of 
effluent generated, discharged or potentially discharged at the 
facility shall be minimized by the Permittee to the extent feasible by 
managing each influent waste stream in the most appropriate manner.
    b. Under the BMP Plan, and any Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) 
included in the Plan, the Permittee shall ensure proper operation and 
maintenance of the treatment facility.
    c. The Permittee shall establish specific objectives for the 
control of pollutants by conducting the following evaluations.
    (1) Each facility component or system shall be examined for its 
waste minimization opportunities and its potential for causing a 
release of significant amounts of pollutants to waters of the United 
States due to equipment failure, improper operation, natural phenomena 
such as rain or snowfall, etc. The examination shall include all normal 
operations and ancillary activities including material storage areas, 
site runoff, 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.
    (2) Where experience indicates a reasonable potential for equipment 
failure (e.g., a tank overflow or leakage), natural condition (e.g., 
precipitation), or other circumstances to result in significant amounts 
of pollutants reaching surface waters, the program should include a 
prediction of the direction, rate of flow and total quantity of 
pollutants which could be discharged from the facility as a result of 
each condition or circumstance.
    4. Requirements. The BMP Plan shall be consistent with the 
objectives in Part 3 above and the general guidance contained in the 
publication entitled ``Guidance Document for Developing Best Management 
Practices (BMP)'' (EPA Document Number EPA 833-B-93-004, U.S. EPA, 
1993) or any subsequent revisions to the guidance document. The BMP 
Plan shall:
    a. Be documented in narrative form, and shall include any necessary 
plot plans, drawings or maps, and shall be developed in accordance with 
good engineering practices. The BMP Plan shall be organized and written 
with the following structure:
    (1) Name and location of the facility or operation (including 
identification by latitude/longitude).
    (2) Statement of BMP policy.
    (3) Description of the person(s) and/or staff position responsible 
for developing and overseeing implementation of the BMP Plan; and 
procedures for BMP approval.
    (4) Specific management practices and standard operating procedures 
to achieve the above objectives, including, but not limited to, the 
following:
    (a) modification of equipment, facilities, technology, processes, 
and procedures,
    (b) reformulation or redesign of products,
    (c) substitution of materials, and
    (d) improvement in management, inventory control, materials 
handling or general operational phases of the facility.
    (5) Risk identification and assessment.
    (6) Reporting of BMP incidents.
    (7) Materials compatibility.
    (8) Good housekeeping.
    (9) Preventative maintenance.
    (10) Inspections and records.
    (11) Security.
    (12) Employee training.
    b. Include the following provisions concerning BMP Plan review:
    (1) Be reviewed by plant engineering staff and the plant manager as 
warranted by changes in the operation or at the facility which are 
covered by the BMP.
    (2) Be reviewed and endorsed by the individuals responsible for 
development and implementation of the BMP Plan.
    (3) Include a statement that the above reviews have been completed 
and that the BMP Plan fulfills the requirements set forth in this 
permit. The statement shall be certified by the dated signatures of the 
individuals responsible for development and implementation of the BMP 
Plan.
    c. Establish specific best management practices to meet the 
objectives 

[[Page 48833]]
identified in Part 3 this section, addressing each component or system 
capable of generating or causing a release of significant amounts of 
pollutants, and identifying specific preventative or remedial measures 
to be implemented.
    d. Establish specific best management practices or other measures 
which ensure that the following specific requirements are met:
    (1) Ensure proper management of solid and hazardous waste in 
accordance with regulations promulgated under the Resource Conservation 
and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Alaska Solid Waste Management 
Regulations (18 AAC 60). Management practices required under RCRA 
regulations shall be referenced in the BMP Plan.
    (2) Reflect requirements within Oil Spill Contingency Plans 
required by the Minerals Management Service (see 30 CFR 254). 
Permittees in state waters must also reflect the requirements within 
Oil Discharge Prevention and Contingency Plans as required by ADEC. 
Permittees may incorporate any part of such plans into the BMP Plan by 
reference.
    (3) Reflect requirements for storm water control under Section 
402(p) of the Act and the regulations at 40 CFR 122.26 and 122.44, and 
otherwise eliminate to the extent practicable, contamination of storm 
water runoff.
    (4) Reflect the development and implementation of the Mud Plan (see 
Part III.B.1.b.) for the formulation and control of drilling mud 
systems.
    5. Documentation. The Permittee shall maintain a copy of the BMP 
Plan at the facility and shall make the plan available to EPA upon 
request. All offices of the Permittee which are required to maintain a 
copy of the NPDES permit shall also maintain a copy of the BMP Plan.
    6. BMP Plan Modification. The Permittee shall amend the BMP Plan 
whenever there is a change in the facility or in the operation of the 
facility which materially increases the generation of pollutants or 
their release or potential release to the receiving waters. The 
Permittee shall also amend the Plan, as appropriate, when plant 
operations covered by the BMP Plan change. Any such changes to the BMP 
Plan shall be consistent with the objectives and specific requirements 
listed above. All changes in the BMP Plan shall be reviewed by the 
plant engineering staff and plant manager and shall be reported to EPA 
in writing.
    7. Modification for Ineffectiveness. At any time, if the BMP Plan 
proves to be ineffective in achieving the general objective of 
preventing and minimizing the generation of pollutants and their 
release and potential release to the receiving waters and/or the 
specific requirements above, the permit and/or the BMP Plan shall be 
subject to modification to incorporate revised BMP requirements.

IV. Recording and Reporting Requirements

A. Reporting of Monitoring Results

    The Permittee shall summarize monitoring results each month on the 
Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) form (EPA No. 3320-1). The Permittee 
shall submit reports monthly, postmarked by the 10th day of the 
following month. The Permittee shall sign and certify all DMRs, and all 
other reports, in accordance with the requirements of Part VI.D. of 
this permit (``Signatory Requirements'').
    The Permittee shall submit the legible originals of these documents 
to the Director, Water Division, with copies to ADEC, at the following 
addresses:

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 Sixth 
Avenue, WD-135, Seattle, Washington 98101
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Attn: Water Quality & 
Wastewater Programs, 411 W. 4th Ave., suite 2C, Anchorage, Alaska 
99501.

B. Additional Monitoring by Permittee

    If the Permittee monitors any pollutant more frequently than 
required by this permit, using test procedures approved under 40 CFR 
136 or as specified in this permit, the Permittee shall include the 
results of this monitoring in the calculation and reporting of the data 
submitted in the DMR. The Permittee shall indicate on the DMR whenever 
it has performed additional monitoring, and shall explain why it 
performed such monitoring.
    Upon request by the Director, the Permittee shall submit results of 
any other sampling, regardless of the test method used.

C. Records Contents

    All effluent monitoring records shall bear the hand-written 
signature of the person who prepared them. In addition, all records of 
monitoring information shall include:
    1. The date, exact place, and time of sampling or measurements;
    2. The names of the individual(s) who performed the sampling or 
measurements;
    3. The date(s) analyses were performed;
    4. The names of the individual(s) who performed the analyses;
    5. The analytical techniques or methods used; and
    6. The results of such analyses.

D. Retention of Records

    The Permittee shall retain records of all monitoring information, 
including, but not limited to, all calibration and maintenance records 
and all original strip chart recordings for continuous monitoring 
instrumentation, copies of all reports required by this permit, copies 
of DMRs, a copy of the NPDES permit, and records of all data used to 
complete the application for this permit, for a period of at least five 
years from the date of the sample, measurement, report or application, 
or for the term of this permit, whichever is longer. This period may be 
extended by request of the Director at any time.
    A copy of the final permit shall be maintained at the drilling 
site.

E. Twenty-four Hour Notice of Noncompliance Reporting

    1. The Permittee shall report the following occurrences of 
noncompliance by telephone within 24 hours from the time the Permittee 
becomes aware of the circumstances:
    a. Any noncompliance that may endanger health or the environment;
    b. Any unanticipated bypass that results in or contributes to an 
exceedance of any effluent limitation in the permit (see Part V.G., 
``Bypass of Treatment Facilities'');
    c. Any upset that results in or contributes to an exceedance of any 
effluent limitation in the permit (see Part V.H., ``Upset 
Conditions''); or
    d. Any violation of a maximum daily discharge limitation for any of 
the pollutants listed in the permit .
    2. The Permittee shall also provide a written submission within 
five days of the time that the Permittee becomes aware of any event 
required to be reported under subpart 1 above. The written submission 
shall contain:
    a. A description of the noncompliance and its cause;
    b. The period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times;
    c. The estimated time noncompliance is expected to continue if it 
has not been corrected; and
    d. Dteps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent 
reoccurrence of the noncompliance.
    e. The results of any monitoring data required under Paragraph 
III.C., above.
    3. The Director may, at her or his sole discretion, waive the 
written report on a case-by-case basis if the oral report has been 
received within 24 hours by the 

[[Page 48834]]
Water Compliance Section in Seattle, Washington, by telephone, (206) 
553-1846.
    4. Reports shall be submitted to the addresses in Part IV.A. 
(``Reporting of Monitoring Results'').

F. Other Noncompliance Reporting

    The Permittee shall report all instances of noncompliance, not 
required to be reported within 24 hours, at the time that monitoring 
reports for Part III.A. are submitted. The reports shall contain the 
information listed in Part IV.E.2. of this permit.

G. Changes in Discharge of Toxic Substances

    The Permittee shall notify the Director as soon as it knows, or has 
reason to believe:
    1. That any activity has occurred or will occur that would result 
in the discharge, on a routine or frequent basis, of any toxic 
pollutant that is not limited in the permit, if that discharge will 
exceed the highest of the following ``notification levels'':
    a. One hundred micrograms per liter (100 g/l);
    b. Two hundred micrograms per liter (200 g/l) for acrolein 
and acrylonitrile; five hundred micrograms per liter (500 g/l) 
for 2,4-dinitrophenol and for 2-methyl-4, 6-dinitrophenol; and one 
milligram per liter (1 mg/l) for antimony;
    c. Five (5) times the maximum concentration value reported for that 
pollutant in the permit application in accordance with 40 CFR 
122.21(g)(7); or
    d. The level established by the Director in accordance with 40 CFR 
122.44(f).
    2. That any activity has occurred or will occur that would result 
in any discharge, on a non-routine or infrequent basis, of any toxic 
pollutant that is not limited in the permit, if that discharge will 
exceed the highest of the following ``notification levels'':
    a. Five hundred micrograms per liter (500 g/l);
    b. One milligram per liter (1 g/l) for antimony;
    c. Ten (10) times the maximum concentration value reported for that 
pollutant in the permit application in accordance with 40 CFR 
122.21(g)(7); or
    d. The level established by the Director in accordance with 40 CFR 
122.44(f).

V. Compliance Responsibilities

A. Duty to Comply

    The Permittee shall comply with all conditions of this permit. Any 
permit noncompliance constitutes a violation of the Act and is grounds 
for enforcement action, for permit termination, revocation and 
reissuance, or modification, or for denial of a permit renewal 
application. The Permittee shall give reasonable advance notice to the 
Director of any planned changes in the permitted facility or activity 
that may result in noncompliance with permit requirements.

B. Penalties for Violations of Permit Conditions

    1. Civil and Administrative Penalties. Sections 309(d) and 309(g) 
of the Act provide that any person who violates a permit condition 
implementing Sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of the Act 
shall be subject to a civil or administrative penalty, not to exceed 
$25,000 per day for each violation.
    2. Criminal Penalties:
    a. Negligent Violations. Section 309(c)(1) of the Act provides that 
any person who negligently violates a permit condition implementing 
Sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of the Act shall be 
punished by a fine of not less than $2,500 nor more than $25,000 per 
day of violation, or by imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or by 
both.
    b. Knowing Violations. Section 309(c)(2) of the Act provides that 
any person who knowingly violates a permit condition implementing 
Sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of the Act shall be 
punished by a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than $50,000 per 
day of violation, or by imprisonment for not more than 3 years, or by 
both.
    c. Knowing Endangerment. Section 309(c)(3) of the Act provides that 
any person who knowingly violates a permit condition implementing 
Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of the Act, and who 
knows at that time that he thereby places another person in imminent 
danger of death or serious bodily injury, shall, upon conviction, be 
subject to a fine of not more than $250,000 or imprisonment of not more 
than 15 years, or both. A person that is an organization shall be 
subject to a fine of not more than $1,000,000.
    d. False Statements. Section 309(c)(4) of the Act provides that any 
person who knowingly makes any false material statement, 
representation, or certification in any application, record, report, 
plan, or other document filed or required to be maintained under this 
Act or who knowingly falsifies, tampers with, or renders inaccurate any 
monitoring device or method required to be maintained under this Act, 
shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by 
imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or by both.
    Except as provided in permit conditions in Part V.G., (``Bypass of 
Treatment Facilities'') and Part V.H., (``Upset Conditions''), nothing 
in this permit shall be construed to relieve the Permittee of the civil 
or criminal penalties for noncompliance.

C. Need to Halt or Reduce Activity not a Defense

    It shall not be a defense for the Permittee in an enforcement 
action that it would have been necessary to halt or reduce the 
permitted activity in order to maintain compliance with the conditions 
of this permit.

D. Duty to Mitigate

    The Permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize or 
prevent any discharge in violation of this permit that has a reasonable 
likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the environment.

E. Proper Operation and Maintenance

    The Permittee shall at all times properly operate and maintain all 
facilities and systems of treatment and control (and related 
appurtenances) that are installed or used by the Permittee to achieve 
compliance with the conditions of this permit. Proper operation and 
maintenance also includes adequate laboratory controls and appropriate 
quality assurance procedures. This provision requires the operation of 
back-up or auxiliary facilities or similar systems only when the 
operation is necessary to achieve compliance with the conditions of the 
permit.

F. Removed Substances

    Solids, sludges, filter backwash, or other pollutants removed in 
the course of treatment or control of water and wastewaters shall be 
disposed of in a manner such as to prevent any pollutant from such 
materials from entering navigable waters, except as specifically 
authorized in Part II.

G. Bypass of Treatment Facilities

    1. Bypass not exceeding limitations. The Permittee may allow any 
bypass to occur that does not cause effluent limitations to be 
exceeded, but only if it also is for essential maintenance to assure 
efficient operation. These bypasses are not subject to the provisions 
of paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Part.
    2. Notice.
    a. Anticipated bypass. If the Permittee knows in advance of the 
need for a bypass, it shall submit prior notice, if possible at least 
10 days before the date of the bypass.

[[Page 48835]]

    b. Unanticipated bypass. The Permittee shall submit notice of an 
unanticipated bypass as required under Part IV.E. (``Twenty-four Hour 
Notice of Noncompliance Reporting'').
    3. Prohibition of bypass.
    a. Bypass is prohibited, and the Director may take enforcement 
action against the Permittee for a bypass, unless:
    (1) The bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal 
injury, or severe property damage;
    (2) There were no feasible alternatives to the bypass, such as the 
use of auxiliary treatment facilities, retention of untreated wastes, 
or maintenance during normal periods of equipment downtime. This 
condition is not satisfied if adequate back-up equipment shall have 
been installed in the exercise of reasonable engineering judgment to 
prevent a bypass that occurred during normal periods of equipment 
downtime or preventive maintenance; and
    (3) The Permittee submitted notices as required under paragraph 2 
of this Part.
    b. The Director may approve an anticipated bypass, after 
considering its adverse effects, if the Director determines that it 
will meet the three conditions listed above in paragraph 3.a. of this 
Part.

H. Upset Conditions

    1. Effect of an upset. An upset constitutes an affirmative defense 
to an action brought for noncompliance with such technology-based 
permit effluent limitations if the Permittee meets the requirements of 
paragraph 2 of this Part. No determination made during administrative 
review of claims that noncompliance was caused by upset, and before an 
action for noncompliance, is final administrative action subject to 
judicial review.
    2. Demonstration of an upset. To establish the affirmative defense 
of upset, the Permittee shall demonstrate, through properly signed, 
contemporaneous operating logs, or other relevant evidence that:
    a. An upset occurred and that the Permittee can identify the 
cause(s) of the upset;
    b. The permitted facility was at the time being properly operated;
    c. The Permittee submitted notice of the upset as required under 
Part IV.E., Twenty-four Hour Notice of Noncompliance Reporting; and
    d. The Permittee complied with any remedial measures required under 
Part V.D., Duty to Mitigate.
    3. Burden of proof. In any enforcement proceeding, the Permittee 
seeking to establish the occurrence of an upset has the burden of 
proof.

I. Toxic Pollutants

    The Permittee shall comply with effluent standards or prohibitions 
established under Section 307(a) of the Act for toxic pollutants within 
the time provided in the regulations that establish those standards or 
prohibitions, even if the permit has not yet been modified to 
incorporate the requirement.

J. Planned Changes

    The Permittee shall give notice to the Director as soon as possible 
of any planned physical alterations or additions to the permitted 
facility whenever:
    1. The alteration or addition to a permitted facility may meet one 
of the criteria for determining whether a facility is a new source as 
determined in 40 CFR 122.29(b); or
    2. The alteration or addition could significantly change the nature 
or increase the quantity of pollutants discharged. This notification 
applies to pollutants that are subject neither to effluent limitations 
in the permit, nor to notification requirements under Part IV.G.
    The Permittee shall give notice to the Director as soon as possible 
of any planned changes in process or chemical use whenever such change 
could significantly change the nature or increase the quantity of 
pollutants discharged.

K. Anticipated Noncompliance

    The Permittee shall also give advance notice to the Director of any 
planned changes in the permitted facility or activity that may result 
in noncompliance with this permit.

VI. General Provisions

A. Permit Actions

    This permit may be modified, revoked and reissued, or terminated 
for cause. The filing of a request by the Permittee for a permit 
modification, revocation and reissuance, or termination, or a 
notification of planned changes or anticipated noncompliance, does not 
stay any permit condition.

B. Duty To Provide Information

    The Permittee shall furnish to the Director, within the time 
specified in the request, any information that the Director may request 
to determine whether cause exists for modifying, revoking and 
reissuing, or terminating this permit, or to determine compliance with 
this permit. The Permittee shall also furnish to the Director, upon 
request, copies of records required to be kept by this permit.

C. Other Information

    When the Permittee becomes aware that it failed to submit any 
relevant facts in a permit application, or that it submitted incorrect 
information in a permit application or any report to the Director, it 
shall promptly submit the omitted facts or corrected information.

D. Signatory Requirements

    All applications, reports or information submitted to the Director 
shall be signed and certified.
    1. All permit applications shall be signed as follows:
    a. For a corporation: by a responsible corporate officer.
    b. For a partnership or sole proprietorship: by a general partner 
or the proprietor, respectively.
    c. For a municipality, state, federal, or other public agency: by 
either a principal executive officer or ranking elected official.
    2. All reports required by the permit and other information 
requested by the Director shall be signed by a person described above 
or by a duly authorized representative of that person. A person is a 
duly authorized representative only if:
    a. The authorization is made in writing by a person described above 
and submitted to the Director, and
    b. The authorization specifies either an individual or a position 
having responsibility for the overall operation of the regulated 
facility or activity, such as the position of plant manager, operator 
of a well or a well field, superintendent, position of equivalent 
responsibility, or an individual or position having overall 
responsibility for environmental matters for the company.
    3. Changes to authorization. If an authorization under Part VI.D.2. 
is no longer accurate because a different individual or position has 
responsibility for the overall operation of the facility, a new 
authorization satisfying the requirements of paragraph VI.D.2. must be 
submitted to the Regional Administrator prior to or together with any 
reports, information, or applications to be signed by an authorized 
representative.
    4. Certification. Any person signing a document under this Part 
shall make the following certification:
    ``I certify under penalty of law that this document and all 
attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in 
accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel 
properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my 
inquiry of the person or persons who 

[[Page 48836]]
manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering 
the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my 
knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that 
there are significant penalties for submitting false information, 
including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing 
violations.''

E. Availability of Reports

    Except for data determined to be confidential under 40 CFR 2, all 
reports prepared in accordance with this permit shall be available for 
public inspection at the offices of the state water pollution control 
agency and the Director. As required by the Act, permit applications, 
permits, Best Management Practices Plans, Mud Plans, and effluent data 
shall not be considered confidential.

F. Inspection and Entry

    The Permittee shall allow the Director, or an authorized 
representative (including an authorized contractor acting as a 
representative of the Administrator), upon the presentation of 
credentials and other documents as may be required by law, to:
    1. Enter upon the Permittee's premises where a regulated facility 
or activity is located or conducted, or where records must be kept 
under the conditions of this permit;
    2. Have access to and copy, at reasonable times, any records that 
must be kept under the conditions of this permit;
    3. Inspect at reasonable times any facilities, equipment (including 
monitoring and control equipment), practices, or operations regulated 
or required under this permit; and
    4. Sample or monitor at reasonable times, for the purpose of 
assuring permit compliance or as otherwise authorized by the Act, any 
substances or parameters at any location.

G. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability

    Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the 
institution of any legal action or relieve the Permittee from any 
responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties to which the Permittee is 
or may be subject under Section 311 of the Act.

H. Property Rights

    The issuance of this permit does not convey any property rights of 
any sort, or any exclusive privileges, nor does it authorize any injury 
to private property or any invasion of personal rights, nor any 
infringement of federal, state or local laws or regulations.

I. Severability

    The provisions of this permit are severable. If any provision of 
this permit, or the application of any provision of this permit to any 
circumstance, is held invalid, the application of such provision to 
other circumstances, and the remainder of this permit, shall not be 
affected thereby.

J. Transfers

    This permit may be automatically transferred to a new Permittee if:
    1. The current Permittee notifies the Director at least 30 days in 
advance of the proposed transfer date;
    2. The notice includes a written agreement between the existing and 
new Permittees containing a specific date for transfer of permit 
responsibility, coverage, and liability between them; and
    3. The Director does not notify the existing Permittee and the 
proposed new Permittee of his or her intent to modify, or revoke and 
reissue the permit.
    If the notice described in paragraph 3 above is not received, the 
transfer is effective on the date specified in the agreement mentioned 
in paragraph 2 above.

K. State Laws

    Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the 
institution of any legal action or relieve the Permittee from any 
responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties established pursuant to any 
applicable state law or regulation under authority preserved by Section 
510 of the Act.

L. Reopener Clause

    1. This permit shall be modified, or alternatively, revoked and 
reissued, to comply with any applicable effluent standard or limitation 
issued or approved under Sections 301(b)(2)(C) and (D), 304(b)(2), and 
307(a)(2) of the Act, as amended, if the effluent standard, limitation, 
or requirement so issued or approved:
    a. Contains different conditions or is otherwise more stringent 
than any condition in the permit; or
    b. Controls any pollutant or disposal method not addressed in the 
permit.
    The permit as modified or reissued under this paragraph shall also 
contain any other requirements of the Act then applicable.
    2. This permit may be reopened to adjust any effluent limitations 
if future water quality studies, waste load allocation determinations, 
or changes in water quality standards show the need for different 
requirements.

VII. Definitions

    1. ``AAS'' means atomic absorption spectrophotometry.
    2. ``Acute toxic unit (TUa)'' is a measure of acute toxicity. 
The number of acute toxic units in the effluent is calculated as 100/
LC50, where the LC50 is measured in percent effluent.
    3. ``ADEC'' means the Alaska Department of Environmental 
Conservation.
    4. ``Average monthly discharge limitation'' means the highest 
allowable average of ``daily discharges'' over a calendar month, 
calculated as the sum of all ``daily discharges'' measured during a 
calendar month divided by the number of ``daily discharges'' measured 
during that month.
    5. ``Ballast water'' means harbor or seawater added or removed to 
maintain the proper ballast floater level and ship draft.
    6. ``bbl/hr'' means barrels per hour. One barrel equals 42 gallons.
    7. ``Bilge water'' means water which collects in the lower internal 
parts of the drilling vessel hull.
    8. ``Biocide'' means any chemical agent used for controlling the 
growth of or destroying nuisance organisms (e.g., bacteria, algae, and 
fungi).
    9. ``Blowout preventer fluid'' means fluid used to actuate 
hydraulic equipment on the blowout preventer.
    10. ``BOD'' means biochemical oxygen demand.
    11. ``Boiler blowdown'' means the discharge of water and minerals 
drained from boiler drums.
    12. ``Bulk discharge'' means the discharge of more than 100 barrels 
in a one-hour period.
    13. ``Bypass'' means the intentional diversion of waste streams 
from any portion of a treatment facility.
    14. ``Cd'' means cadmium.
    15. ``Chronic toxic unit (TUc)'' is a measure of chronic 
toxicity. The number of chronic toxic units in the effluent is 
calculated as 100/NOEC, where the NOEC is measured in percent effluent.
    16. ``COD'' means chemical oxygen demand.
    17. ``Completion fluid'' means salt solutions, weighted brines, 
polymers, and various additives used to prevent damage to the wellbore 
during operations which prepare the drilled well for hydrocarbon 
production.
    18. ``Composite sample'' for oil and grease analysis means a set of 
four individual grab samples taken a minimum of two hours apart within 
a 24-hour period. The samples shall be of equal size and of not less 
than 100 ml each. They shall be collected and stored 

[[Page 48837]]
in accordance with procedures in 40 CFR 136. Samples shall be analyzed 
separately and the results of the four analyses averaged to provide a 
single value for the composite sample.
    19. ``Cooling water'' means once-through non-contact cooling water.
    20. ``Daily discharge'' means the discharge of a pollutant measured 
during a calendar day or any 24-hour period that reasonably represents 
the calendar day for purposes of sampling. For pollutants with 
limitations expressed in units of mass, the ``daily discharge'' is 
calculated as the total mass of the pollutant discharged over the day. 
For pollutants with limitations expressed in other units of 
measurement, the ``daily discharge'' is calculated as the average 
measurement of the pollutant over the day.
    21. ``Deck drainage'' means all waste resulting from platform 
washings, deck washings, spillage, rainwater, and runoff from curbs, 
gutters, and drains including drip pans and wash areas within 
facilities subject to this permit.
    22. ``Desalination unit wastes'' means wastewater associated with 
the process of creating freshwater from seawater.
    23. ``Development'' operations are those operations that are 
engaged in the drilling and completion of production wells. These 
operations may occur prior to or simultaneously with production 
operations.
    24. ``Diesel oil'' means the grade of distillate fuel, as specified 
in the American Society for Testing and Materials Standard 
Specifications D975-81, that is typically used as the continuous phase 
in conventional oil-based drilling fluids, which contains a number of 
toxic pollutants. For the purpose of this permit, ``diesel oil'' 
includes the fuel oil present at the facility.
    25. ``Director'' means the Regional Administrator or delegated 
authority for administration of the NPDES program in EPA, Region 10.
    26. ``Domestic wastes'' means materials discharged from showers, 
sinks, safety showers, eye-wash stations, hand-wash stations, fish-
cleaning stations, galleys and laundries.
    27. ``Drill cuttings'' means particles generated by drilling into 
subsurface geological formations and carried to the surface with the 
drilling fluid.
    28. ``Drilling fluid'' means the circulating fluid (mud) used in 
the rotary drilling of wells to clean and condition the hole and to 
counterbalance formation pressure. A water-based drilling fluid is the 
conventional drilling mud in which water is the continuous phase and 
the suspended medium for solids, whether or not oil is present. See 
also ``oil-based drilling mud'', below.
    29. ``Drilling Fluids Toxicity Test'' means a toxicity test 
conducted and reported in accordance the following approved toxicity 
test methodology: ``Drilling Fluids Toxicity Test,'' as defined in 
Appendix 2 to Subpart A of 40 CFR 435, or other methods approved in 
advance by Region 10 that produce results which will assure equivalent 
protection levels.
    30. ``Drilling mud'' means any fluid sent down the hole, including 
any specialty products, from the time a well is begun until final 
cessation of drilling in that hole. It also includes fluids used in 
workover operations involving drilling. A water-base drilling fluid is 
the conventional drilling mud in which water is the continuous phase 
and the suspending medium for solids, whether or not oil is present. 
For the purposes of this permit, an oil-based drilling fluid has a 
petroleum-based hydrocarbon oil as its continuous phase with water as 
the dispersed phase. See ``oil-based drilling mud'', below.
    31. ``Excess cement slurry'' means the excess cement and wastes 
from equipment washdown after a cementing operation.
    32. ``Exploratory'' operations are limited to those operations 
involving drilling to determine the nature of potential hydrocarbon 
reserves and does not include drilling of wells once a hydrocarbon 
reserve has been defined. Discharges from exploratory operations are 
limited to five wells per site.
    33. ``Fire control system test water'' means the water released 
during the training of personnel in fire protection and the testing and 
maintenance of fire protection equipment.
    34. ``GC'' means gas chromatography. ``GC/MS'' means gas 
chromatography/mass spectrometry.
    35. A ``Grab'' sample is a single sample or measurement taken at a 
specific time or over as short a period of time as is feasible.
    36. ``Hg'' means mercury.
    37. ``lb/bbl'' means pounds per barrel.
    38. ``LC50'' means the concentration of effluent that is 
acutely toxic to 50 percent of the test organisms exposed.
    39. ``Maximum daily discharge limitation'' means the highest 
allowable ``daily discharge.''
    40. ``Maximum hourly rate'' as applied to drilling mud, cuttings, 
and washwater means the greatest number of barrels of drilling fluids 
discharged within one hour, expressed as barrels per hour.
    41. ``Method Detection Limit (MDL)'' means the minimum 
concentration of an analyte that can be measured and reported with 99 
percent confidence that the analyte concentration is greater than zero 
as determined by a specific laboratory method.
    42. ``MGD'' means million gallons per day.
    43. ``mg/kg'' means milligrams per kilogram.
    44. ``mg/l'' means milligrams per liter.
    45. ``Mineral oil'' means a class of low volatility petroleum 
product, generally of lower aromatic hydrocarbon content and lower 
toxicity than diesel oil.
    46. ``Mineral oil pills'' (also called mineral oil spots) are 
formulated and circulated in the mud system as a slug in attempt to 
free stuck pipe. Pills generally consist of two parts: a spotting 
compound and mineral oil.
    47. ``Minimum daily'' discharge limitation means the lowest 
allowable ``daily discharge.
    48. ``Monitoring month'' means the period consisting of the 
calendar weeks which end in a given calendar month.
    49. ``Monthly average'' means the average of ``daily discharges'' 
over a monitoring month, calculated as the sum of all ``daily 
discharges'' measured during a monitoring month divided by the number 
of ``daily discharges'' measured during that month.
    50. ``MSD'' means marine sanitation device.
    51. ``Muds, cuttings, cement at sea floor'' means the materials 
discharged at the surface of the ocean floor in the early phases of 
drilling operations, before the well casing is set, and during well 
abandonment and plugging.
    52. ``NAA'' means neutron activation analysis.
    53. ``No discharge of free oil'' means that waste streams may not 
be discharged when they would cause a film or sheen upon or a 
discoloration of the surface of the receiving water or fail the static 
sheen test defined in Appendix 1 to 40 CFR 435, Subpart A.
    54. ``No discharge of diesel oil'' in drilling mud means a 
determination that diesel oil is not present based on a comparison of 
the gas chromatogram from an extract of the drilling mud and from 
diesel oil obtained from the drilling rig or platform. GC/MS may also 
be used.
    55. ``NOEC'' means no observable effect concentration. The NOEC is 
the highest tested concentration of an effluent at which no adverse 
effects are observed on the test organisms at a specific time of 
observation.
    56. ``Non-contact cooling water''--see ``cooling water.''
    57. ``Oil-based drilling mud'' means a drilling mud with fossil-
derived petroleum hydrocarbons as the continuous phase. 

[[Page 48838]]

    58. ``Open water'' means less than 25 percent ice coverage within a 
one mile radius of the discharge site.
    59. ``Produced solids'' means sands and other solids deposited from 
produced water which collect in vessels and lines and which must be 
removed to maintain adequate vessel and line capacities
    60. ``Produced water'' means fluid extracted from a hydrocarbon 
reserve during development or production. The fluid is generally a 
mixture of oil, water, and natural gas. This may include formation 
water, injection water, and any chemicals added downhole or during the 
oil/water separation process.
    61. ``Production'' operations are those operations involving active 
recovery of hydrocarbons from production formations. These operations 
may occur simultaneously with or following development operations.
    62. ``Sanitary wastes'' means human body waste discharged from 
toilets and urinals.
    63. ``Severe property damage'' means substantial physical damage to 
property, damage to the treatment facilities which causes them to 
become inoperable, or substantial and permanent loss of natural 
resources which can reasonably be expected to occur in the absence of a 
bypass. Severe property damage does not mean economic loss caused by 
delays in production.
    64. ``Site'' means the single, specific geographical location where 
a mobile drilling facility (jackup rig, semi-submersible, or arctic 
mobile rig) conducts its activity, including the area beneath the 
facility, or to a location of a single gravel island.
    65. ``Slush ice'' occurs during the initial stage of ice formation 
when unconsolidated individual ice crystals (frazil) form a slush layer 
at the surface of the water column.
    66. ``Stable ice'' means ice that is stable enough to support 
discharged muds and cuttings.
    67. ``Static Sheen Test'' means the standard test procedures that 
has been developed for this industrial subcategory for the purpose of 
demonstrating compliance with the requirement of no discharge of free 
oil. The methodology for performing the static sheen test is presented 
in Appendix 1 to Subpart A of 40 CFR 435.
    68. ``Test fluid'' means the discharge which would occur should 
hydrocarbons be located during exploratory drilling and tested for 
formation pressure and content. This would consist of fluids sent 
downhole during testing along with water from the formation.
    69. ``TOC'' means total organic carbon.
    70. A ``24-hour composite'' sample shall mean a flow-proportioned 
mixture of not less than 8 discrete aliquots. Each aliquot shall be a 
grab sample of not less than 100 ml and shall be collected and stored 
in accordance with procedures prescribed in the most recent edition of 
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater.
    71. ``Unstable or broken ice conditions'' means greater than 25% 
ice coverage within a one mile radius of the discharge site after 
spring breakup or after the start of slush ice formation in the fall, 
but not stable ice.
    72. ``Upset'' means an exceptional incident in which there is 
unintentional and temporary noncompliance with technology-based permit 
effluent limitations because of factors beyond the reasonable control 
of the Permittee. An upset does not include noncompliance to the extent 
caused by operational error, improperly designed treatment facilities, 
inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventive maintenance, or 
careless or improper operation.
    73. ``Waste stream'' means any non-de minimus stream of pollutants 
within the Permittee's facility that enters any permitted outfall or 
navigable waters. This includes spills and other unintentional, non-
routine or unanticipated discharges.
    74. ``Waterflooding discharges'' means discharges associated with 
the treatment of seawater prior to its injection into a hydrocarbon-
bearing formation to improve the flow of hydrocarbons from production 
wells. These discharges include strainer and filter backwash water, and 
treated water in excess of that required for injection.
    75. ``Weekly average'' means the average of daily discharges over a 
calendar week, calculated as the sum of all daily discharges measured 
during a calendar week divided by the number of daily discharges 
measured during that week. For fecal coliform bacteria, the weekly 
average is calculated as the geometric mean of all daily discharges 
measured during a calendar week.
    76. ``Well completion fluids'' are salt solutions, weighted brines, 
polymers and various additives used to prevent damage to the well bore 
during operations which prepare the drilled well for hydrocarbon 
production. These fluids move into the formation and return to the 
surface as a slug with the produced water.
    77. A ``well treatment fluid'' is any fluid used to restore or 
improve productivity by chemically or physically altering hydrocarbon 
bearing strata after a well has been drilled.
    78. ``Workover fluids'' are salt solutions, weighted brines, 
polymers, or other specialty additives used in a producing well to 
allow for maintenance, repair of abandonment procedures. Drilling 
fluids used during workover operations are not considered workover 
fluids by definition. Packer fluids (low solid fluids between the 
packer, production string, and well casing) are considered to be 
workover fluids.
    79. ``XFA'' means x-ray fluorescence analysis.
    80. ``96-hour LC50'' means the concentration of a test material 
that is lethal to 50 percent of the test organisms in a toxicity test 
after 96 hours of constant exposure.
    81. ``g/l'' means micrograms per liter.

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 48839]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN20SE95.001



[[Page 48840]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN20SE95.002


BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

[[Page 48841]]


References

    1. EPA Form 3510-2C, Wastewater Discharge Information, 
Consolidated Permits Program (revised 2/85).
    2. State of Alaska. State of Alaska Game Refuges, Critical 
Habitat Areas, and Game Sanctuaries, Alaska Department of Fish and 
Game, Habitat Division. March 1991.
    3. EPA. Drilling Fluids Toxicity Test. Appendix 2 to Subpart A 
of 40 CFR Part 435.
    4. EPA. Analysis of Diesel Oil in Drilling Fluids and Drill 
Cuttings. CENTEC 1985.
    5. EPA. Approved Methodology: Laboratory Sheen Tests for the 
Offshore Subcategory, Oil and Gas Extraction Industry. Appendix 1 to 
Subpart A of 40 CFR Part 435.
    6. EPA. Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity 
of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Marine and Estuarine Organisms 
(2nd edition). EPA/600/4-90/003.
    7. Chapman, Gary, and Denton, Debra. Standard Practice for 
Conducting Static Acute Toxicity Tests With Larvae of Four Species 
of Bivalve Molluscs. Designation: E 724-89. ASTM 1989.
    8. EPA. Toxicity Reduction Evaluation Protocol for Industrial 
Treatment Plants. EPA/600/2-88/070.
    9. EPA. Toxicity Identification Evaluation: Characterization of 
Chronically Toxic Effluent, Phase I. EPA/600/6-91/005F.
    10. EPA. Methods for Aquatic Toxicity Identification 
Evaluations: Phase II Toxicity Identification Procedures for Samples 
Exhibiting Acute and Chronic Toxicity. EPA/600/R-92/080.
    11. EPA. Methods for Aquatic Toxicity Identification 
Evaluations: Phase III Toxicity Confirmation Procedures. EPA/600/R-
92/081.
[FR Doc. 95-23207 Filed 9-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P