[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 200 (Friday, October 16, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55718-55762]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-27701]


      

[[Page 55717]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part III





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



Final National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES); Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 200 / Friday, October 16, 1998 / 
Notices  

[[Page 55718]]



ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-6176-8]


Final National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 
General Permits for the Eastern Portion of Outer Continental Shelf 
(OCS) of the Gulf of Mexico (GMG280000) and Record of Decision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final Issuance of NPDES General Permits.

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

SUMMARY: The Regional Administrator (RA) of EPA Region 4 (the 
``Region'') is today issuing final National Pollutant Discharge 
Elimination System (NPDES) general permits for the Eastern Portion of 
the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) of the Gulf of Mexico (General Permit 
No. GMG280000), published at 61 FR 64876 on December 9, 1996, revised 
on January 7, 1998, at 63 FR 846, for discharges in the Offshore 
Subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category (40 CFR 
part 435, subpart A). The existing permit, jointly issued by Regions 4 
and 6 and published at 51 FR 24897 on July 9, 1986, authorizes 
discharges from exploration, development, and production facilities 
located in and discharging to all Federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico 
seaward of the outer boundary of the territorial seas. Region 6 issued 
a final permit (General Permit No. GMG290000) for the Western portion 
of the OCS of the Gulf of Mexico, published at 57 FR 54642 on November 
19, 1992, for facilities in Federal waters seaward of Louisiana and 
Texas Waters. This notice constitutes the Agency's Record of Decision 
in accordance with Council on Environmental Quality regulations 40 CFR 
1505.2 and EPA regulations 40 CFR 6.606. Draft and Final EISs were 
issued December 4, 1996 and August 14, 1998, respectively, that 
considered the range of permitting options available to EPA. 
Alternative A is the issuance of a general permit to cover the entire 
Region 4 geographic permitting area in the Gulf; Alternative B is 
limiting a general permit to the area seaward of the 200 meter isobath; 
and Alternative C is withholding general permit coverage entirely and 
conducting individual permit reviews for each application filed. The 
EIS process defined the affected environment and assessed the potential 
impacts of the alternatives on the natural and man-made environments. A 
broad spectrum of mitigation measures were considered in the EIS. To 
assist in the selection of alternatives, EPA considered different types 
and degrees of environmental survey information, different review 
procedures and discharge options. Key to the decision to extend general 
permit coverage to the Region 4 portion of the Central Planning Area 
(CPA) offshore Mississippi and Alabama, was to exclude from such 
coverage four Areas of Biological Concern. Additionally, EPA found it 
necessary to require Notices of Intent for coverage submitted to the 
Agency to include geohazards and photodocumentation surveys. While 
substantial oil and gas activity has occurred and continues, EPA 
determined that there was inadequate site-specific marine habitat 
information for the CPA to draw on in making decisions on permit 
coverage. Today's final NPDES permits cover existing and new source 
facilities in the Eastern Planning Area (Alternative B of the 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)) with operations on Federal leases 
occurring in water depths seaward of 200 meters, occurring offshore the 
coasts of Florida and Alabama, and existing and new source facilities 
in the Central Planning Area (Alternative A of the EIS), with 
operations located in and discharging pollutants to federal waters in 
lease blocks located seaward of the outer boundary of the territorial 
seas offshore Mississippi and Alabama. The western boundary of the 
coverage area is demarcated by Mobile and Viosca Knoll leases located 
seaward of the outer boundary of the territorial seas from the coasts 
of Mississippi and Alabama in the Central Planning Area; except 
specific areas in the Central Planning Area which may be designated by 
EPA as Areas of Biological Concern (See Fact Sheet published on January 
7, 1998 at 63 FR 846 and Final Environmental Impact Statement, issued 
August 14, 1998). The eastern boundary of the coverage area is 
demarcated by the Vernon Basin leases north of the 26 deg. parallel and 
in water depths seaward of 200 meters.
    All permittees holding leases on which a discharge has taken place 
within 2 years of the effective dates of the new general permits 
(operating facilities) in these areas must file a written notice of 
intent to be covered by either the new general permit for existing 
sources or the new general permit for new sources within 60 days after 
November 16, 1998 of the final determination on this action. Non-
operational leases, i.e., those on which no discharges have taken place 
in the 2 years prior to the effective date of November 16, 1998, are 
not eligible for coverage under either general permit, and their 
coverage under the old general permit will terminate on the effective 
date of the new general permits. No NOI's will be accepted on non-
operational or newly acquired leases until such time as an exploration 
plan or development production plan has been prepared for submission to 
EPA. The notice of intent must contain the information set forth in 40 
CFR Sec. 122.28(b)(2)(ii) and Part I, Section A.4 of the NPDES general 
permit. In accordance with Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source 
Category; Offshore Subcategory Effluent Guidelines and New Source 
Performance Standards published at 58 FR 12454 on March 4, 1993, EPA 
Region 4 made an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) available with 
the general permits for review during the public comment period that 
addresses potential impacts from facilities that may be defined as new 
sources in the context of a comprehensive offshore permitting strategy. 
As set forth in Section 2.4.2 of the EIS and information received, the 
Regional Administrator has determined that the area in the Eastern 
Planning Area shoreward of the 200 meter depth and certain designated 
areas in the Central Planning Area includes or is likely to include 
valuable marine habitats, including extensive live bottom and other 
valuable marine habitats that have not been adequately located nor 
fully characterized and which may be more sensitive to the discharges 
from oil and gas exploration and production activities. These resources 
potentially qualify and includes areas of biological concern, which are 
subject to more stringent review based on the ocean discharge criteria 
under Section 403 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and findings of the 
Final EIS. Accordingly, individual permits reviews will be conducted 
for facilities on lease blocks traversed by and shoreward of the 200 
meter water depth in the Eastern Planning Area and certain designated 
areas of biological concern in the Central Planning Area. Owners or 
operators of those leases will be notified in writing that an 
individual permit is required. A brief statement of the reasons for 
this decision will be provided, together with an application form and a 
deadline for filing the application. If a timely application is 
received, general permit coverage will continue and shall automatically 
terminate on the date final action is taken on the individual NPDES 
permit application, in accordance with 40 CFR Sec. 122.28(b)(3)(ii). No 
application will be accepted for non-operational leases until such time 
as an exploration plan

[[Page 55719]]

or development production plan has been prepared for submission to EPA. 
Owners of non-operational leases and operators who neither file a 
notice of intent nor an individual permit application will lose 
coverage under the old general permit on the effective date of the new 
general permits, which is on November 16, 1998.
    These final NPDES general permits include BPT, BCT, and BAT 
limitations for existing sources and NSPS limitations for new sources 
as recently promulgated in the effluent guidelines for the offshore 
subcategory at 58 FR 12454 (March 4, 1993) and codified at 40 CFR Part 
435, subpart A. The permits also address a decision of the Ninth 
Circuit Court of Appeals by establishing limits on cadmium and mercury 
and by removing references to Alternative Toxicity Requests. In 
addition, the permits delete references to the Diesel Pill Monitoring 
Program, incorporate a new limitation on garbage discharges consistent 
with the regulations of the U.S. Coast Guard, clarify the applicability 
of some of the permit's effluent limitations and reporting 
requirements, establish aquatic toxicity limitations for produced 
water, and include a reopener clause.

DATES: This NPDES General Permit is effective on November 16, 1998. 
This NPDES General Permit shall expire on October 31, 2003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Contact Mr. Roosevelt Childress, Chief, 
Surface Water Permits Section, telephone (404) 562-9279, Ms. Kay Crane, 
Environmental Scientist, telephone (404) 562-9299, or Mr. Larry Cole, 
Environmental Engineer, telephone (404) 562-9474 or at the following 
address: Water Management Division, Surface Water Permits Section, U.S. 
EPA, Region 4, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, S.W., 
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960.

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

    The Regional Administrator for EPA Region 4 is today reissuing in 
part the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 
general permits for the Outer Continental Shelf of the Gulf of Mexico 
(General Permit No. GMG280000) under Region 4 jurisdiction. This 
previous permit, published at 51 FR 24897 (July 9, 1986), issued 
jointly for the Eastern and Western Gulf of Mexico by Regions 4 and 6, 
expired on July 1, 1991. Region 6 reissued a final existing permit for 
the Western Portion of the Outer Continental Shelf (General Permit No. 
GMG290000), published at 57 FR 54642 (November 19, 1992) with a 
modification published at 58 FR 63964 (December 3, 1993). Region 4, 
continued coverage under the previous OCS general permit to permittees 
that requested to be covered before the previous general permit expired 
on July 1, 1991. Region 4 proposed draft NPDES general permits for the 
Eastern Gulf of Mexico at 61 FR 64876 on December 9, 1996, regulating 
existing source and new source oil and gas OCS discharges. Region 4 
revised the draft NPDES general permits for the Eastern Gulf of Mexico 
at 63 FR 846 on January 7, 1998. Today's final Eastern Gulf of Mexico 
OCS revised general permits regulate existing source and new source OCS 
discharges throughout the Gulf of Mexico for offshore areas under the 
jurisdiction of Region 4.
    For reference, Region 4 published a detailed fact sheet with the 
proposed draft permit in 61 FR 64876 on December 9, 1996 and a revised 
fact sheet in 63 FR 846 on January 7, 1998. The Region is incorporating 
by reference the original fact sheet and revised fact sheet as part of 
the final fact sheet for today's final permit. The discussions 
presented in these fact sheets should be consulted in reviewing the 
applicability and scope of the final permit conditions.

II. Procedures For Reaching a Final Permit Decision

    EPA has prepared draft and final EISs that evaluated the potential 
impacts of the proposed federal action (issuance of the general 
permits) within the context of a comprehensive NPDES permitting 
strategy for the Region 4 jurisdictional area of the Gulf of Mexico. 
The process was conducted in accordance with the regulations 
implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The findings 
of the EIS, the CWA Section 403(c) Evaluation and agency and public 
comments were utilized in reaching the decision to issue the general 
permits with the conditions and geographic limitation described herein. 
Important interagency coordination occurred between EPA and MMS, as 
prescribed by a Memorandum of Understanding. A significant amount of 
information and assistance was obtained from MMS. Further, a 
preliminary draft EIS was reviewed by MMS and that agency's comments 
were fully considered. Since EPA will be conducting individual 
permitting outside the General Permit area of new source development /
production projects, EPA intends to coordinate its efforts with MMS on 
the environmental reviews required of each agency by NEPA.
    EPA initially proposed to limit general permit coverage to waters 
outside the 200 meter isobath, thereby excluding all of the Central 
Planning Area (CPA). Extensive comments on this preferred alternative 
in the Draft EIS and the draft General Permit were received. EPA 
investigated whether general permit coverage could be appropriate for 
the CPA. The Minerals Management Service was consulted to determine 
whether significant bottom habitats have been documented adequately 
within the CPA. EPA determined that insufficient information on the 
location and characterization of habitats exists; and therefore, the 
geohazards and photodocumentation surveys have been added as conditions 
on the general permits.
    EPA has considered all written comments submitted on the Final EIS, 
403(c) Evaluation, the notice of revised draft general permit published 
on January 7, 1998, as well as all written comments submitted pursuant 
to the December 9, 1996 draft general permit and all comments received 
during the four (4) public hearings in January and February of 1997. A 
summary of these comments follow and are available to the public, state 
agencies and local governments as part of Region 4's administrative 
record.
    A formal hearing is available to challenge any NPDES permit issued 
according to the regulations at 40 CFR 124.15 except for a general 
permit as cited at 40 CFR 124.71. Within 120 days following notice of 
EPA Region 4 final permit decision under 40 CFR 124.15, any interested 
person may appeal this general NPDES permit in the Federal Court of 
Appeals in accordance with 509(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act. Persons 
affected by a general permit may not challenge the conditions of a 
general permit as a right in further Agency proceedings. They may 
instead either challenge the general permit in court, or apply for an 
individual permit as specified at 40 CFR 122.21 as authorized at 40 CFR 
122.28, and then request a formal hearing on the issuance or denial of 
an individual permit. Additional information regarding these procedures 
is available by contacting Mr. David M. Moore, Associate Regional 
Counsel at (404) 562-9547.

III. Procedures For Obtaining General Permit Coverage

    Notice of Intent (NOI) requirements for obtaining coverage for 
operating facilities under both permits are stated in Part I Section 
A.4 of the general permit. Coverage under the new general permit is 
effective upon receipt of notification of inclusion from the

[[Page 55720]]

Director of the Water Management Division. EPA will act on the NOI 
within a reasonable period of time.

IV. Exclusion of Non-Operational Leases

    These permits do not apply to non-operational leases, i.e., those 
on which no discharge has taken place in the 2 years prior to November 
16, 1998, the effective date of the new general permits. EPA will not 
accept NOI's for such leases, and these general permits will not cover 
such leases. Non-operational leases will lose coverage under the old 
general permit on the effective date of the new general permits which 
is November 16, 1998. No subsequent exploration, development or 
production activities may take place on these leases until and unless 
the lessee has obtained coverage under one of the new general permits 
or an individual permits. EPA will not accept NOI's or individual 
permit applications for non-operational or new acquired leases until 
such time as an exploration plan or development production plan has 
been prepared for submission to EPA.
    The new permitting requirements for leases covered under the old 
general permits are summarized in Table 1.

              Table 1.--New Permitting Requirements for Leases Covered Under the Old General Permit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Coverage        Date old  general    Type of permit
         Lease location            Discharge  status     requirements       permit expires         coverage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Central Planning Area & Outside   (1) Operational...  File an NOI within  Date EPA Notifies   New General
 200 meter Isobath in Eastern                          60 days of          Lessee of New       Permit, except
 Planning Area.                                        effective date of   Coverage Decision.  near an Area of
                                                       new general                             Biological
                                                       permit.                                 Concern.
                                  (2) Leases With     File NOI At Time    Effective Date of   New General
                                   Imminent Projects.  Exploration Plan    New General         Permit, except
                                                       or Development      Permit.             near an Area of
                                                       Production Plan                         Biological
                                                       Exists.                                 Concern.
                                  (3) Non-            No NOI will be      Effective Date of   None.
                                   Operational.        accepted;           New General
                                                       Ineligible for      Permit.
                                                       General Permit
                                                       Coverage.
Inside 200 meter Isobath in       (1) Operational...  File an individual  Date EPA notifies   Individual Permit.
 Eastern Planning Area & certain                       permit              lessee of
 designated areas in the Central                       application         Individual permit
 Planning Area.                                        within 120 days     decision.
                                                       of effective date
                                                       of new general
                                                       permit.
                                  (2) Lessees with    File an Individual  Effective date of   Individual Permit.
                                   Imminent Projects.  Permit              New General
                                                       Application when    Permit.
                                                       Lessee has
                                                       Exploration Plan
                                                       or Development
                                                       Production Plan.
                                  (3) Non-            Ineligible For      Effective Date of   None.
                                   Operational.        General Permit      New General
                                                       Coverage.           Permit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. State Water Quality Certification

    Because state waters are not included in the area covered by the 
OCS general permit, its effluent limitations and monitoring 
requirements are not subject to state water quality certification under 
CWA Section 401.

VI. State Consistency Determination

    Region 4 is required under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) 
to provide all necessary information for the States of Mississippi, 
Alabama and Florida to review this action for consistency with their 
approved Coastal Management Programs. A copy of the consistency 
determination on the proposed activities was sent to each affected 
State, along with draft copies of the draft NPDES general permit, Fact 
Sheet, preliminary Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation, and Draft 
Environmental Impact Statement. Each state concurred with EPA's finding 
of consistency. Because of the proposed change in the General Permit 
coverage, EPA reviewed again the three state plans and found the 
revised permit coverage consistent. Accordingly, a second CZM 
coordination with the states occurred with the review of the Final EIS, 
and concurrences with Region 4's revised action were received from the 
three states.

VII. Administrative Record

    The final NPDES general permits, fact sheet, 403(c) determination, 
Final EIS, public comments received, public hearing transcripts and 
other relevant documents on today's action are on file and may be 
inspected any time between 8:15 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday at the address shown below. Copies of the final NPDES general 
permits, fact sheet, 403(c) determination, Final EIS, public comments 
received, public hearing transcripts and other relevant documents may 
be obtained by writing the U.S. EPA, Region 4, Atlanta Federal Center, 
61 Forsyth Street, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960, Attention: Ms. 
LaShon Blakely, or calling (404) 562-9276.

VIII. Other Legal Requirements

Oil Spill Requirements

    Section 311 of the Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of oil 
and hazardous materials in harmful quantities. Routine discharges that 
are in compliance with NPDES permits are excluded from the provisions 
of section 311. However, the permits do not preclude the institution of 
legal action or relieve permittees from any responsibilities, 
liabilities, or penalties for other, unauthorized discharges of oil and 
hazardous materials that are covered by section 311 of the Act.

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 that have been

[[Page 55721]]

designated as critical. Its implementing regulations (50 CFR Part 402) 
require the RA to ensure, in consultation with the Secretaries of 
Interior and 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 issues and concerns of both the National Marine Fisheries 
Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 
collectively are addressed. The NMFS and USFWS have responded to EPA's 
initiation of the coordination process under the regulations set forth 
by section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The 36 species identified 
by NMFS and USFWS as threatened or endangered species within the permit 
coverage area have been assessed for potential effects from the 
activities covered by the proposed permit in a biological assessment 
incorporated in the Draft EIS. This biological assessment was submitted 
to the NMFS and USFWS along with the proposed permit for consistency 
review and concurrence on the Region's finding of no adverse effect. 
This coordination is appended to the Final EIS. Concurrence from USFWS 
was received on 7/30/98, with EPA's findings that the permits would not 
affect the continued existence or critical habitat of federal listings 
of endangered or threatened species. The NMFS having provided comments 
on the Draft EIS, provided concurrence on the modification of the 
project.

Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation

    For discharges into waters located seaward of the inner boundary of 
the territorial seas, the Clean Water Act at section 403, requires that 
NPDES permits consider guidelines for determining the potential 
degradation of the marine environment. The guidelines, or Ocean 
Discharge Criteria (40 CFR part 125, subpart M), are intended to 
``prevent unreasonable degradation of the marine environment and to 
authorize imposition of effluent limitations, including a prohibition 
of discharge, if necessary, to ensure this goal'' (45 FR 65942, October 
3, 1980).
    An Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation (ODCE) determination of no 
unreasonable degradation has been made by Region 4 based on an analysis 
by Avanti Corporation (1998a). The potential effects of discharges 
under the proposed permit limitations and conditions are assessed in 
this revised document available from Region 4. The ODCE states that, 
based on the available information, the permit limitations are 
sufficient to determine that no unreasonable degradation should result 
from the permitted discharges.

Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act

    No marine sanctuaries as designated by the Marine Protection, 
Research, and Sanctuaries Act exist in the area to which the OCS permit 
applies.

Executive Order 12866

    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. Guidance on Executive Order 12866 contain the same 
exemptions on OMB review as existed under Executive Order 12291. In 
fact, however, EPA prepared a regulatory impact analysis in connection 
with its promulgation of guidelines on which a number of permit's 
provisions are based and submitted it to OMB for review. See 58 FR 
12494.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection required by these permits has been 
approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., in 
submission made for the NPDES permit program and assigned OMB control 
numbers 2040-0086 (NPDES permit application) and 2040-0004 (discharge 
monitoring reports).
    All facilities affected by these permits must submit a notice of 
intent to be covered under the eastern Gulf of Mexico OCS general 
permit GMG280000. EPA estimates that it will take an affected facility 
three hours to prepare the request for coverage.
    All affected facilities will be required to submit discharge 
monitoring reports (DMRs). EPA estimated DMR burden for the existing 
permit to be 36 hours per facility per year. The DMR burden for these 
proposed permits is expected to increase slightly due to the additional 
reporting required for calculating the critical dilution for produced 
water discharges. While this permit requires some increased monitoring 
and reporting of that data, the DMR burden for the proposed permits is 
estimated to increase slightly and facilities affected by this permit 
reissuance were subject to similar information collection burdens under 
the existing Gulf of Mexico OCS general permit that this proposed 
reissuance will replace.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), Public Law 
104-4, generally requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of 
their ``regulatory actions'' on State, local, and tribal governments 
and the private sector. UMRA uses the term ``regulatory actions'' to 
refer to regulations. (See, e.g., UMRA section 201, ``Each agency shall 
* * * assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions * * * (other 
than to the extent that such regulations incorporate requirements 
specifically set forth in law)'' (emphasis added)). UMRA section 102 
defines ``regulation'' by reference to section 658 of Title 2 of the 
U.S. Code, which in turn defines ``regulation'' and ``rule'' by 
reference to section 601(2) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA). 
That section of the RFA defines ``rule'' as ``any rule for which the 
agency publishes a notice of proposed rulemaking pursuant to section 
553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA, or any other law * * * 
''
    NPDES general permits are not ``rules'' under the APA and thus not 
subject to the APA requirement to publish a notice of proposed 
rulemaking. NPDES general permits also not subject to such a 
requirement under the CWA. While EPA publishes a notice to solicit 
public comments on draft general permits, it does so pursuant to the 
CWA section 402(a) requirement to provide an ``opportunity for a 
hearing.'' Thus, NPDES general permits are not ``rules'' for RFA or 
UMRA purposes.
    EPA has determined that the proposed permit would not contain a 
Federal requirement that may result in expenditures of $100 million or 
more for State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the 
private sector in any one year.
    The Agency also believes that the permit would not significantly 
nor uniquely affect small governments. For UMRA purposes, ``small 
governments'' is defined by reference to the definition of ``small 
government jurisdiction'' under the RFA. (See UMRA section 102(1), 
referencing 2 U.S.C. 658, which references section 601(5) of the RFA.) 
``Small governmental jurisdiction'' means government of cities, 
counties, towns, etc. with a population of less than 50,000, unless the 
agency establishes an alternative definition.
    The permit, as proposed, also would not uniquely affect small 
governments because compliance with the proposed permit conditions 
affects small governments in the same manner as any other entities 
seeking coverage under the permit. Additionally, EPA does not

[[Page 55722]]

expect small government to operate facilities authorized to discharge 
by this permit.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq, requires that 
EPA prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for regulations that have 
a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. As 
indicated above, the permit issued today is not a ``rule'' subject to 
the Regulatory Flexibility Act. EPA prepared a regulatory flexibility 
analysis, however, on the promulgation of the Offshore Subcategory 
guidelines on which many of the permit effluent limitations are based. 
That analysis shows that issuance of this permit will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    Dated: October 7, 1998.
John H. Hankinson, Jr.,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 4.

Summary of Public Comments

    Public notice of the draft permit reissuance was published at 61 FR 
64876 (December 9, 1996) with a notice to hold public hearings on the 
Region's proposal. 4 public hearings were held on the proposed NPDES 
General permit, Fact sheet, Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation and 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement on January 28, 1997 in Ocean 
Springs, MS, January 29, 1997 in Gulf Shores, Alabama, January 30, 1997 
in Pensacola, Florida and February 4, 1997 in St. Petersburg, Florida. 
Additionally, the Region published a revised general permit at 63 FR 
846 (January 7, 1998). The Region also received comments on the Final 
Environmental Impact Statement which Notice of Availability was 
published at 63 FR 43698 (August 14, 1998). Copies of comments received 
during this action from interested parties have been considered in a 
formulation of a final determination regarding Region 4's final action 
today on the reissuance of NPDES Permit No. GMG280000. A summary of 
only the permit related comments are summarized below; however, other 
comments on the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Ocean 
Discharge Criteria Evaluation were received by the Region and taken 
into consideration in the formulation of the Region final decision on 
reissuance of the general permit and are part of Region 4's 
administrative record.

Summary of Comments on the Final EIS and Permit Related Comments

Summary of Final EIS Comments

    Sixteen comment letters were received during the Final EIS comment 
period from the following: US Fish and Wildlife Service; C.A. Wise 
Elementary School, Pensacola, FL; Rosie Heindl, Pensacola, FL; 
Mississippi Department of Marine Resources; Linda G. Sherman, 
Cantonment, FL; Barbara and Lex Mohon, Gulf Breeze, FL; D.E. Walgis, 
Pensacola, FL; Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council; Town of 
North Redington Beach, FL; Lois Silberstein, Pensacola, FL; Marsha 
King, Cantonment, FL; Wendy Tennant, Cantonment, FL; City of Gulf 
Shores, AL; Chevron U.S.A., Inc.; Alabama Department of Environmental 
Management; and Florida Department of Community Affairs.
    The following comments raise new concerns or are of a substantive 
nature needing further response. Otherwise, the letters present issues 
already addressed adequately by EPA in the text and response to 
comments printed in the Final EIS and in the responses set forth below.

Comment 1: Comments by the City of Gulf Shores

    Waters offshore Alabama should be treated with the same 
environmental sensitivity as waters offshore Florida; individual 
permitting should be conducted rather than easier blanket general 
permitting; EPA has placed little or no value on the visual pollution 
caused by towers as close as 3 miles offshore; believe the local 
economy, dependent on beaches, clean water and visual aesthetics, was 
not adequately or accurately assessed by EPA.
    Response: In general, the waters offshore Mississippi and Alabama 
have less hard bottom areas that increase marine life diversity. Most 
scientists consider this a natural condition related to the geology of 
the bottom and the influx of sediment loads from major rivers. With the 
required submittal of geohazard and photodocumentation surveys with 
application for General Permit coverage, EPA believes impacts of 
wastewater discharges on potential sensitive habitats offshore Alabama 
can be minimized or avoided. If state or federal water monitoring shows 
near-shore Gulf water quality decreasing, EPA can reconsider the 
adequacy of the general permit effluent limits. The near-shore state 
and federal waters off the Ft. Morgan peninsula and Dauphin Island have 
oil and gas industry structures visible from the peninsula. The EIS 
states that structure visibility to beach communities is an aesthetic 
factor but not likely to decrease tourist visits. EPA is unaware of 
accepted methods to relate aesthetic impacts to coastal community 
economics. While the EIS assessed the impact of the offshore oil and 
gas industry on the local economy, that economy is changing. The 
Alabama coast is becoming heavily developed and the economic value of 
its tourist and retirement-based economy is growing rapidly in 
comparision to the presently depressed market value of the offshore oil 
and gas. It should be noted that the area seaward of the City of Gulf 
Shores and eastward is within the Eastern Planning Area and subject to 
EPA individual permitting. All environmental issues and public concerns 
will be considered in making decisions on issuances of individual 
permits.

Comment 2: Comment by the Town of North Redington Beach, FL

    Permitting oil and gas facilities within the area known as the Dead 
Zone near the outlet of the Mississippi River would not be ecologically 
rehabilitative.
    Response: The Region 4 permitting is presently not within this area 
where scientists have documented a 6000 to 7000 square mile area of the 
Gulf offshore Louisiana with extremely low dissolved oxygen during the 
hot months of recent years. However, bottom waters not far from the 
Alabama coast have infrequent seasonal episodes of lowered dissolved 
oxygen.

Comment 3: Comments by Barbara and Lex Mohon, Gulf Breeze, FL

    Permitting decisions for projects should await completion of socio-
economic studies available after year 2002; EPA should not continue to 
support extracting small amounts of fossil fuel at the end of the 
fossil fuel era.
    Response: EPA is aware of the socio-economic studies being 
conducted by MMS. However, EPA does not control oil and gas activity 
and must be prepared to consider applications for NPDES permits 
resulting from MMS lease sales. The agency will consider any relevant 
information available at the time of permit applications. EPA must 
remain objective when it considers permit applications on the issue of 
hydrocarbon vs. alternative energy sources and must refer to the 
National Energy Policy authored by the Department of Energy.

Comment 4: Comments by David Duplantier, Chevron U.S.A., Inc.

    Questions whether EPA included into the project record all of 
Chevron's comments, provided to EPA as attachments to their letter.
    Response: There are over 200 commenters, with 105 of these in 
written form. Some letters had attachments. EPA followed the rule of

[[Page 55723]]

reason in the decision to print only the main comment letters and not 
attachments, and also to condense and group comments by topic in order 
to keep the Final EIS document and this final permit issuance notice 
from becoming excessive in size. Chevron's attachments were reviewed 
and the subject of those lengthy attachments responded to Section 5.5 
of the Final EIS and the responses set forth below. Accordingly, 
readers are referred to comment/response subject groups and may not see 
their comments responded to item after item. All letters with any 
attachments have been included in the project record.

Comment 5: Comment by James Murley, Florida Department of Community 
Affairs

    Indicates the State will continue to review both general permit 
coverage and individual permits for consistency with the State plan.
    Response: EPA acknowledges the State's desire to review proposed 
General Permit coverage. It is important to note that EPA's action of 
granting such coverage for specific projects is not subject to formal 
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) consistency review procedures. 
However, EPA intends to coordinate with the State thereby providing 
opportunity to offer comments. Issuance of an individual NPDES permit 
is an indirect federal action that requires applicants to submit a 
consistency determination of their project to the State for review 
under CZMA procedures. Therefore, the State of Florida would have a 
review of a project, whichever permitting mechanism applies.

Comment 6: Comment by James Murley

    The State appreciates the opportunity to work with EPA to further 
define resources as ``areas of biological concern''.
    Response: Defining ``areas of biological concern'' is a valuable 
process for minimizing or avoiding adverse impacts. The State of 
Florida has a strong marine research program and expertise in 
evaluating maring ecosystems. EPA would entertain nominations from the 
State and undertake coordination with MMS and other federal agencies 
leading to potential designations relevant to the NPDES permitting 
program.

Summary of Permit Related Comments

    Comment 1: The commenters state the ``because the Gulf cannot 
withstand further pollution, a ``zero discharge'' stipulation must be 
added to option B.''
    Response: While the stated goal of the CWA is to eliminate the 
discharge of pollutants into navigable waters, it also specifies a 
progressive step-wise approach for technology-based limitations (i.e., 
BPT, BAT, and NSPS limitations); water quality criteria are developed 
on a chemical-by-chemical basis and are intended to be protective for 
both human health and aquatic organisms; Section 403 for marine 
dischargers requires EPA to assess ten specific factors and only issue 
a permit if ``no unreasonable degradation'' will occur (or where 
information is insufficient, EPA determines the discharge will not 
cause irreparable harm, there are no reasonable alternatives to the on-
site disposal of the materials, and the discharger complies with other 
conditions including monitoring and adequate effluent limitations). The 
Agency does not believe that the health of the Gulf of Mexico is 
jeopardized by the permit with the limitations and conditions developed 
by the Region. Additionally, EPA may require any discharger authorized 
by this general permit to apply for and obtain an individual permit as 
specified in this permit and in EPA regulations, including in instances 
where the discharge is a significant contributor of pollutants. See 40 
CFR Sec. 122.28(c), 122.28(b)(3). One such instance may arise where 
water quality standards, or criteria may be exceeded by a discharge 
which would otherwise be subject to this general permit. The permit and 
regulations provide that under these circumstances EPA may exercise its 
discretion to require an individual permit.
    Comment 2: The commenter stated his support for deep well injection 
of drilling muds and cuttings as a permitting option for disposing of 
this wastestream.
    Response: EPA investigated deep well injection as a method of 
disposal of drilling muds and cuttings during the development of the 
Offshore Effluent Guidelines (EPA, 1993). EPA agrees with the commenter 
that the technology of deep well injection of drilling wastes currently 
exists. However, not all facilities located in the offshore regions are 
able to inject. Subsurface injection requires different formation zones 
with appropriate characteristics (e.g., porosity and permeability) that 
are separate from the production formation. In some instances, there is 
significant risk that the injected material could interfere with 
hydrocarbon recovery (EPA, 1996). EPA concluded for the Offshore 
Effluent Guidelines that this technology did not constitute the Best 
Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) for the offshore 
industry or for coastal facilities in Cook Inlet, Alaska.
    Comment 3: The commenter stated his support for those technologies 
that are designed to reduced the amount of drilling mud that is 
discharged and also the toxicity of that mud. The commenter opposes any 
regulation that promotes hauling of cuttings and stagnates improvements 
on drilling mud technology. Some of the consequences that may result 
from hauling cuttings to shore are: increased air pollution, decreased 
landfill space, and potentially encouraging the use of more toxic, 
older drilling fluids technologies.
    Response: EPA agrees with the commenter and considers drilling mud 
innovations that reduce waste volumes and are less toxic to be positive 
technological developments in promoting environmental protection. 
However, EPA's mandate is to evaluate the environmental impacts of 
discharges resulting from the use of new technologies. The evaluation 
considers current industry practices and the best available technology 
economically achievable in reducing pollutant concentrations from the 
discharged wastestream. In some cases, such as for oil-based drilling 
fluids (OBM), the toxicity and environmental impacts of OBM discharge 
cannot be sufficiently mitigated in any way other than by a discharge 
prohibition based upon current information. EPA evaluated the 
consequences of prohibiting OBM discharges, including its technological 
feasibility and economic achievability, increased air pollution from 
boat traffic, and landfill space capacity, and found that these 
consequences result in substantially lower environmental impacts than 
the continued discharge of OBM.
    For this general permit, EPA is not authorizing the discharge of 
synthetic drilling muds or synthetic oils. EPA is currently considering 
the environmental impacts from the use of these substances and 
appropriate effluent limitations for their use and discharge. 
Applicants who wish to discharge synthetic drilling muds or oils should 
submit an individual permit application to EPA.
    Comment 4: The commenters question the use of monitoring to 
determine the need for additional regulation given that harmful effects 
may be discovered too late to prevent irrevocable harm. Also, how is 
the data tracked and monitored by EPA?
    Response: For permitted discharges, with all of the limitations and 
conditions imposed under this permit, and with specified monitoring, 
the Agency feels that the danger of

[[Page 55724]]

irrevocable harm is not at issue. Monitoring allows the Agency to 
assure that its assumptions about effluent and operational 
characteristics used to develop a permit that results in ``no 
unreasonable degradation'' are continuously tested and verified through 
compliance monitoring data submitted by operators on Discharge 
Monitoring Reports (DMRs). Monthly DMR data submitted, is entered into 
an enforcement data base that is programmed to identify violations. The 
data are also reviewed by enforcement staff in cases where the data are 
not readily obtained from a data base (e.g., monitoring reports). This 
information is available to the public and other entities for many 
purposes, including assessment of potentially harmful effects of 
discharges.
    Comment 5: Many commenters requested 24-hour on-site monitoring by 
Minerals Management Service or EPA inspectors, to avoid further illegal 
discharges of toxic waste, and a practice of manifesting all supplies 
and chemicals transported to and from rigs.
    Response: The Clean Water Act, the primary law passed by the U.S. 
Congress to protect the waterways of the U.S., defines the National 
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) as the mechanism by 
which EPA may grant permits to industries that discharge effluent into 
U.S. waters. Per the Clean Water Act, the NPDES was designed to be an 
industry self-monitoring system with enforcement conducted by EPA. In 
compliance with NPDES permit requirements, EPA requires industry to 
monitor numerous pollutant concentrations and toxicity of discharges 
from oil and gas exploration and production operations. Discharge 
monitoring reports (DMRs) and laboratory data from independent 
laboratories are sent to EPA. EPA enforcement personnel review the DMRs 
and, if deemed necessary, will inspect the facility to take samples for 
verification or to review on-site operations and documentation. EPA has 
the authority to visit any industrial facility to which it grants a 
NPDES permit.
    The Minerals Management Service (MMS) and the U.S. Coast Guard 
(USCG) also have jurisdiction in regulating oil and gas operations and 
discharges. Because both of these agencies' purview is different than 
the EPA's, MMS and the USCG frequently inspect oil and gas facilities. 
EPA has coordinated inspections with MMS and USCG and has shared 
information to minimize duplicative inspection efforts.
    In addition, 24-hour monitoring by either MMS, USCG, or EPA is not 
feasible because the U.S. Congress does not provide any of these 
agencies the funding to conduct such a labor intensive effort. In fact, 
if EPA conducted 24-hour monitoring for each oil and gas facility under 
NPDES permits, they would also have to conduct the same level of 
monitoring for all industries discharging under the NPDES permit 
program. For Region 4, this constitutes thousands of facilities.
    The CWA provides for a self-monitoring permitting program, with 
civil penalties for failure to comply with the Act. Criminal penalties 
may result in situations where a facility fails to comply with permit 
provisions, falsifies information submittals, or in the case of other 
more egregious violations of the Act.
    Comment 6: The commenter suggests that the toxicity test references 
be updated to refer to the newer EPA methodology.
    Response: The permit has been updated to refer to the 1993 document 
``Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving 
Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms'' EPA/600/4-90/027F, August 
1993.
    Comment 7: The commenter suggests that the Region 4 general permit 
incorporate the produced water toxicity monitoring frequency 
requirements that are in the Region 6 permit for the territorial seas 
of Louisiana. The frequency is based on the critical dilution achieved 
at each facility and is reduced to once per year if discharger has met 
the toxicity limit for 12 consecutive months.
    Response: Since produced water limitations based on available 
technology are currently being required to be reported on a monthly 
basis, the Region agrees that some frequency reduction should be 
considered for facilities that consistently meet the produced water 
limitation. The Region has decided to reduce the frequency from once/
month to once/2 months for the first year; similar to other industrial 
facilities toxicity requirements in the Region. Facilities that pass 
six consecutive produced water toxicity tests for six will be allowed 
to change to a frequency of once/every six months; otherwise bimonthly 
testing shall continue. This frequency is adequate to ensure compliance 
with the produced water toxicity limitation is being achieved for the 
life of permit.
    Comment 8: The commenter suggests that monitoring the oil content 
of drilling fluids is not necessary with the other restrictions in 
place (i.e., no free oil, static sheen test, no diesel). If the 
monitoring is necessary, a method should be specified.
    Response: EPA Region 4 agrees with the commenter that the permit is 
incorrect and has deleted requirements under the last sentence in Part 
I. Section B.1(c) for monitoring for the oil content of drilling fluids 
in final issuance of the permit, since the static sheen test requires 
testing for compliance with the no free oil limitation before discharge 
can occur.
    Comment 9: The commenter asks that the oil content monitoring 
requirement be added to Tables 2 and 3 for completeness.
    Response: EPA agrees with the commenter since the and deleted these 
requirements from the final NPDES general permit, Part I. Section 
B.1(c), since the static sheen test requires testing for compliance 
with the no free oil limitation before discharge can occur.
    Comment 10: The commenter requests that Region 4 adopt the same 
notification response approach as Region 6. That is that the operator 
must notify EPA at least 14 days before commencement of discharge. 
Unless the operator is otherwise notified by EPA prior to discharge, he 
may assume he is covered by the general permit. Region 4's permit does 
not allow operators to plan operations until notification is received.
    Response: Based on different informational requirements that the 
Region is requiring in the NOI's, Region 4 has elected to maintain 
these notification requirements in the final permit. General permit 
coverage for these leases shall be upon receipt of notification of 
coverage from Region 4.
    Comment 11: The commenter recommends that monitoring requirements 
for parameters not limited by the permit be deleted from the permit 
(e.g., volumes of drilling fluids, cuttings, and deck drainage). They 
were previously monitored for development of offshore guidelines but 
their continued monitoring is a burden on operators.
    Response: In accordance with Section 402(o)(1) of the Clean Water 
Act, the Region must consider more stringent conditions of the existing 
NPDES general permit. Since Effluent Guidelines place limits and 
monitoring requirements on this wastestream and the monitoring 
requirements were included in the previous general permit, Region 4 has 
decided to maintain these requirements in the reissued NPDES general 
permit. The monitoring requirements referenced constitute valid 
measurements of pollutant discharge, frequency and/or concentration and

[[Page 55725]]

accordingly are appropriate monitoring and reporting requirements under 
the CWA.
    Comment 12: The commenter recommends that the monitoring frequency 
of drilling fluids, drill cuttings, and miscellaneous wastes for free 
oil be reduced from once per day to once per week.
    Response: Because these discharges are intermittent, and may differ 
substantially from day to day, the Region believes that daily 
monitoring, also a condition of the previous general permit is 
appropriate. Therefore, Region 4 will maintain the proposed monitoring 
frequencies for compliance purposes in the reissued NPDES general 
permit.
    Comment 13: The commenter points out that the general permit issued 
by Region 6 covering the western Gulf of Mexico uses the Inland 
silverside minnow instead of the sheepshead minnow for produced water 
toxicity testing requirements.
    Response: The Agency agrees with the commenter and has changed the 
toxicity test vertebrate species requirements for produced water from 
sheepshead minnows (Cyprinodon variegatus) to the Inland silverside 
minnow (Menidia beryllina). The standard test method is 1006.0 as is 
found in ``Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and 
Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms' Fourth Edition. 
EPA/600/4-90/027F.
    Comment 14: The commenters state that EPA does not ``have enough 
information to issue permits for offshore drilling near Florida 
shores.'' Mentioned statements in the EIS regarding impacts of 
discharges and that by allowing industry to drill for oil and gas in 
the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, the government ignores huge gaps in 
information on the effects of drilling.
    Response: EPA has noted the commenters statements regarding impacts 
of discharges into the Gulf of Mexico and agrees that in some instances 
information may not be available regarding the environmental effects of 
drilling for portions of the Gulf. For this reason, EPA chose the 
alternative set forth in the draft EIS consistent with available 
information. In addition, EPA acknowledges that all environmental 
effects of discharges into marine waters cannot be measured and known 
with absolute certainty. However, Section 403(c) of the Clean Water Act 
provides EPA with the authority to make the determination at 40 CFR 
125.122, based on existing information if EPA determines that the 
discharge will cause no unreasonable degradation of the marine 
environment under the NPDES permit.
    EPA has evaluated available data, including information submitted 
pursuant to public comment on the draft EIS and permit, and has found 
it to be adequate to assess the potential impacts to marine waters, 
endangered species, marine life including the benthos for dischargers 
in compliance with permit conditions to those areas of the Gulf of 
Mexico covered by this general permit. EPA has determined that, though 
some impact may occur, ``unreasonable degradation'' will not result due 
to the permit issuance, based upon the analysis set forth in the Ocean 
Discharge Criteria Evaluation and all information submitted by 
commenters to the draft permit, EIS, and other information set forth in 
the administrative record.
    Comment 15: The commenter expressed the desire for public input 
into the permitting of ``each and every well that you intend to force 
on us.''
    Response: The current National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 
System (NPDES) permitting process was determined by the U.S. Congress 
and is outlined in the Clean Water Act. According to the NPDES 
regulations, EPA is allowed to promulgate general permits for 
discharges into federal waters. The Minerals Management Service of the 
Department of the Interior issues permits for oil and gas drilling 
operations. EPA is authorized to issue permits for the discharges 
generated from these drilling and production operations, where 
appropriate and consistent with the requirements of the CWA. Use of a 
general permit does not prohibit public input on each and every 
potential operation, which can be provided to the Agency at any time. 
The general permit merely provides an administrative mechanism for 
regulating a category of discharge sources which involve substantially 
similar operations, discharge the same types of waste, require similar 
monitoring and effluent limits, and which are more appropriately 
controlled under a general permit rather than individual permits, 40 
CFR 122.28. For general permits, EPA solicits public input regarding 
the entire category of discharge sources to be addressed via formal 
public notice and comment procedures for the general permit, as set 
forth at 40 CFR 124.10.
    EPA has identified regions within the Gulf of Mexico for which less 
information regarding potential impacts are available, or that are more 
sensitive and require discharges to be reviewed on a case by case 
basis. These areas are within the 200 meter isobath in the Eastern 
Planning Region and within 1,000 meters of areas of biological concern. 
The general permit does not cover these areas and instead EPA is 
requiring operators to submit an application for an individual permit.
    Additionally, there are 4 features that are described in the 
revised permit and Fact Sheet that may warrant case-by-case review and 
will be subject to a public notice comment period. Therefore, the 
Regional Administrator has the authority to issue individual permits 
after proper notice has been provided to the permittee and public input 
is solicited on these individual permits during the public notice 
comment period.
    Comment 16: The commenter states that ``there is a lack of 
scientific data regarding impacts to live bottom areas from oil and gas 
discharges within 1,000 m of the areas. A prohibition on these 
discharges is not warranted at a distance of 1,000 m as this is too 
conservative.''
    Response: The prohibition does not apply to discharges, but refers 
to an exclusion of coverage under the general permit. Operators may 
apply for an individual NPDES permit that will allow EPA to determine 
the appropriate conditions and monitoring for each site. EPA also 
believes there are adequate data to assess potential benthic effects 
within 1,000 m of discharge from permitted dischargers.
    Comment 17: The commenter feels that authorization of discharge of 
drill cuttings from synthetic-based drilling mud systems should be 
added to the general permit. In the final Coastal Effluent Guidelines, 
the Agency recognized that additional categories of drilling fluids, 
specifically Synthetic Based Mud (SBM) and Enhanced Mineral Oil (EMO), 
were warranted. The eastern OCS general permit should do the same.
    Response: EPA is aware that the oil and gas industry has developed 
additional drilling fluid types, including synthetic fluid-based muds 
(SBM) and has acknowledged this new technology within the permit. EPA 
Headquarters is currently developing effluent limitations guidelines 
(ELGs) for SBMs. Once the final ELGs are published, EPA Region 4 may 
consider modifying the existing permit to incorporate SBMs per the 
limitations of the guidelines. For this permit, however, SBMs are not 
authorized for discharge. As stated above, persons who wish to 
discharge SBMs should submit an individual permit application.
    Comment 18: The commenter states that because EPA has determined 
that the discharge will not cause unreasonable degradation of the 
marine environment, the permit should be a

[[Page 55726]]

general permit covering facilities discharging to water of all depths.
    Response: The Region has determined that the most effective manner 
in which to manage the effects of discharges to more shallow waters 
(<200 m) in the Eastern Planning Area is to require operators to obtain 
individual permits. Additionally, the revised January 7, 1998 Federal 
Register publication of the general permit proposed to extend permit 
coverage into the Central Planning Area. This revision is based on 
additional information submitted by the public pursuant to the December 
9, 1996 proposed permit that Region 4 considered and responded to.
    EPA has examined the available literature on the distribution of 
important benthic communities, fisheries habitats, and marine mammal 
habitats and has found that the areas over the continental shelf and 
shelf transitional zone (approximated by the area out to the 200 meter 
isobath) contain an abundance of sensitive biological resources, 
particularly offshore Florida and Alabama in the Eastern Planning Area 
and in the excluded features identified in the Central Planning Area. 
Consistent with the literature review noted above, EPA concludes that 
due to the abundance and sensitivity of the biological resources in the 
area offshore Florida and Alabama in the Eastern Planning Area, and 
features identified in the Offshore Central Planning Area, extra 
protection can be afforded by the thorough, case-by-case review 
possible with individual permits in these areas.
    Comment 19: The commenter states ``EPA has many years of experience 
regulating and observing impacts from offshore oil and gas facilities 
located in waters shallower than 200 meters in Region 4 as well as 
other regions. EPA has the ability to impose various restrictions on 
discharges in specific areas that are determined to be of high habitat 
or resource value. The draft permit contains one such restriction--a 
prohibition of discharges within 1000 meters of areas of biological 
concern. By placing such high value areas off limits, EPA has greatly 
reduced its uncertainty about causing unreasonable degradation.''
    Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that the current permit 
contains discharge limitations, such as the requirement to apply for an 
individual permit for facilities located within 1,000 m of areas of 
biological concern, ensure no unreasonable degradation of marine waters 
will occur within the permit coverage area. EPA has examined the 
available literature on the distribution of important benthic 
communities, fisheries habitats, and marine mammal habitats and has 
found that the areas over the continental shelf and shelf transitional 
zone (approximated by the area out to the 200 meter isobath) contain an 
abundance of sensitive biological resources, particularly offshore 
Florida and Alabama in the Eastern Planning Area and in the Excluded 
features identified in the Central Planning Area. Consistent with the 
literature review noted above, EPA concludes that due to the abundance 
and sensitivity of the biological resources in the area offshore 
Florida and Alabama in the Eastern Planning Area, and features 
identified in the Offshore Central Planning Area, extra protection can 
be afforded by the thorough, case-by-case review possible with 
individual permits in these areas. EPA has reached this conclusion 
based on the ODCE. The ODCE outlined potential environmental impacts 
resulting from the permit and found that the permit will not cause 
unreasonable degradation.
    Comment 20: The commenter finds no rationale for excluding 
facilities located in depths of 200 meters or less from the general 
permit based on the lack of significant environmental or biological 
impacts from discharges.
    Response: EPA has examined the available literature on the 
distribution of important benthic communities, fisheries habitats, and 
marine mammal habitats and has found that the areas over the 
continental shelf and shelf transitional zone (approximated by the area 
out to the 200 meter isobath) contain an abundance of sensitive 
biological resources, particularly offshore Florida/Alabama Eastern 
Planning Area and in the excluded features identified in the Central 
Planning Area. Consistent with the literature review noted above and 
the EIS, EPA concludes that due to the abundance and sensitivity of the 
biological resources in the area offshore Florida and Alabama in the 
Eastern Planning Area, and features identified in the Offshore Central 
Planning Area, extra protection can be afforded by the thorough, case-
by-case review possible with individual permits in these areas.
    Comment 21: The commenter recommends that the general permit be 
modified to require toxicity monitoring for produced water but not 
place limits on the waste stream. Produced water can have a salinity as 
high as 300 ppt and the test organisms may be adversely affected given 
their limited salinity tolerance range (cultured at 20-30 ppt).
    Response: EPA has statutory and regulatory requirements to comply 
with CWA Section 403 and 40 CFR 125 Part M (Ocean Discharge Criteria) 
which require a waste stream to not exceed 0.01 x LC50 at the edge of 
the mixing zone. Because a standard toxicity test methodology exists 
for this waste stream, EPA is utilizing it to ensure compliance with 
the statute.
    The commenter is correct in that the salinity of produced water may 
adversely affect the test organisms. However, the toxicity of salinity 
is integrated into the test protocol for produced water. Also, the 
dilution required to achieve a specified toxicity, including the 
dilution of salinity effects, is accommodated in the CORMIX surface 
water quality model. Therefore, the commenter's concern is correct in 
that salinity effects occur; however, dilution of produced water in 
salt water media during effluent toxicity testing accounts for the 
dilution of this salinity effect.
    Comment 22: If EPA elects to maintain toxicity limits for produced 
water, the commenter supports establishing site-specific toxicity 
limits.
    Response: The commenter's approval is noted. For produced water 
outfalls, each operator will be required to test for compliance with a 
site-specific toxicity limit after wells begin to produce water from 
reservoirs.
    Comment 23: The commenter claims that the equation used to develop 
toxicity limits for produced water is inconsistent in the proposed 
permit.
    Response: The Agency has reviewed the equations provided in the 
permit and they are correct. The toxicity limitation (applied at the 
end of the pipe) is derived to represent the effluent concentration at 
the edge of the mixing zone times 0.01 (as required by CWA Section 403 
and 40 CFR Part 125, Ocean Discharge Criteria). This calculation of an 
end-of-pipe limitation requires the estimation of the number of 
dilutions achieved by the edge of the mixing zone. The toxicity 
limitation is calculated as 0.01 * effluent concentration at 100 m 
(i.e., 0.01 * effluent concentration/no. of dilutions at 100 m).
    Comment 24: Over the past several years, the industry has developed 
new types of synthetic-based drilling fluids that combine the superior 
drilling performance of oil-based fluids with the low environmental 
impacts of water-based fluids. Other new drilling fluids utilize 
enhanced mineral oils as the base fluid. Although the discussion group 
has not yet focused on enhanced mineral oil, the technology offers good 
potential. EPA agreed to include new explanatory information and 
definitions concerning synthetics and enhanced mineral oils in its 
final coastal oil and

[[Page 55727]]

gas effluent limitations, which were published on December 16, 1996. 
The commenter recommends that Region 4 incorporate the effluent 
limitations guidelines definitions for drilling fluid, enhanced mineral 
oil, and synthetic material (40 CFR 435.11 (I), (j) and (x)) in the 
general permit.
    Response: EPA acknowledges the offshore oil and gas exploration and 
production industry use of synthetic-based drilling fluid and is 
currently developing effluent limitations guidelines for this new 
technology. The EPA Region 4 general permit for the Eastern Gulf of 
Mexico region will not authorize discharges of synthetic based drilling 
fluids. However, after the SBM effluent limitations guidelines have 
been promulgated, EPA Region 4 may consider modification of the 
existing general permit to incorporate the limitation of the 
guidelines.
    Comment 25: To avoid any unnecessary prohibition on the use of 
improved drilling fluid technology due to uncertainty about what 
constitutes an inverse emulsion, the commenter recommends that the 
prohibition of oil-based drilling fluids be modified by deleting ``and 
inverse emulsion drilling fluids.'' Likewise, the prohibition of 
cuttings from oil-based drilling fluids should be modified by deleting 
``or invert emulsion''. Alternatively, the definition of inverse 
emulsion drilling fluids could be modified to specifically exclude 
synthetic-based fluids.
    Response: Inverse emulsion drilling fluids are drilling fluids in 
which an oil, including synthetic oils, is the continuous phase and 
water is the dispersed phase. Synthetic drilling fluids (SBMs) are 
considered a type of inverse emulsion drilling fluid. EPA Region 4 will 
not authorize discharge of synthetic-based drilling fluids within the 
general permit for the Eastern Gulf of Mexico region at this time. 
However, EPA acknowledges the use and benefits of SBMs and is currently 
developing effluent limitation guidelines. After the SBM effluent 
limitations guidelines have been promulgated, EPA Region 4 may consider 
modification of the existing permit to incorporate the cuttings 
limitations of the guidelines.
    Comment 26: The permit should be modified to specifically recognize 
the additional categories of drilling muds that have been defined by 
EPA, and to authorize their discharge. In the final Coastal Effluent 
Guidelines, EPA recognizes that additional categories of drilling 
fluid, specifically Synthetic Based Mud (SBM) and Enhanced Mineral Oil 
(EMO), are warranted due to the pollution prevention opportunities 
presented by these new technologies. The commenter recommends that 
Region 4 participate in the task force to help expedite completion of 
this effort--in a time frame that will allow for inclusion of permit 
provisions in this general permit clearly defining the appropriate 
effluent limitations for these mud systems.
    Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that synthetic based 
drilling fluids (SBMs) are a new drilling technology and in the Coastal 
Effluent Guidelines recognized the potential pollution prevention 
opportunities presented by this new technology (61 FR 66086). SBMs are 
most often used under difficult drilling condition such as deep wells 
where traditionally oil-based drilling fluids were used (Burke and 
Veil, 1995). In fact, SBMs were developed in response to the discharge 
ban of OBM in the North Sea in the early 1990s and not as a substitute 
for traditional water based drilling fluids, as the commenter states 
(EPA, 1996). Water-based drilling fluids are still the most cost 
effective drilling fluid type for most normal drilling situations.
    The commenter is correct that SBMs are currently under 
investigation by the Engineering and Analysis Division of EPA 
Headquarters. The investigation is in support of a presumptive rule 
(i.e., expedited rule) for the development of effluent limitation 
guidelines for SBMs. EPA Region 4 disagrees with the commenters 
statements that the Region is not involved in the ELG process. The 
Region is both informed and participating in EPA's work group 
developing ELG for SBMs.
    Comment 27: The commenter states that the permit should eliminate 
the acute toxicity limitation for produced water and require the 
chronic test for compliance instead. The commenter states that the 
chronic endpoint may be more appropriate due to the fact that produced 
water dilutes rapidly in the offshore environment.
    Response: The Region believes that for compliance purposes of this 
5-year permit, that the acute toxicity test meets the requirements of 
the Clean Water Act to prevent toxic discharges from facilities 
discharging produced water.
    Comment 28: The commenter states that the ``Agency should allow the 
use of diffusers, dilution or split discharges to achieve compliance 
with the produced water toxicity limitation.''
    Response: The Agency determines the produced water toxicity 
limitation based on a facility's site-specific water column conditions 
and discharge configuration. An operator can utilize any number of 
methods to increase the dilution of their discharge in configuring 
their effluent discharge. The configuration chosen utilized will be 
used to model the facility-specific toxicity limitation. Commingling or 
diluting wastestreams prior to discharging effluent, however, cannot be 
used as a method to achieve NPDES permit compliance.
    Comment 29: The commenter asks that the definition of ``Areas of 
Biological Concern'' be rewritten. It is very broad, without criteria 
that could help define the agency's intent. For example, it includes 
all ``. . . features or functions that are potentially sensitive to 
discharges associated with the oil and gas industry.'' The MMS 
requirement for live bottom surveys specifies 200 meter line spacing 
(See MMS ``Revised Guidelines for Photodocumentation Surveys,'' January 
31, 1989). This suggests a minimum area of coverage of live bottom 
should be greater than 200 meters in at least one dimension. A value of 
5% cover has been used as a minimum percent cover to classify an area 
as live bottom in various studies. The commenter recommends that EPA 
incorporate this kind of standard into the definition of ``Areas of 
Biological Concern.''
    Response: EPA's definition of area of biological concern is found 
in Part IV.B.3. EPA regularly confers with MMS regarding such 
environmentally sensitive areas and will consider MMS policies and 
information in making determinations regarding Areas of Biological 
Concern (ABCs). ABCs are locations identified by MMS as ``no activity'' 
or ``live bottom.'' ``Live bottom'' areas are defined as ``areas in the 
eastern Gulf, having seafloors characterized by sparsely distributed 
rocky outcrops a few meters in relief . . . [which] contain biological 
assemblages consisting of sessile flora and fauna which tend to attract 
or accumulate turtles and fish; such areas are richer and more diverse 
and productive than the surrounding sea bottom and thus considered 
worthy of protection . . .'' (USDOI, 1979). With respect to this 
general permit, Congress has given EPA responsibility for the 
determination regarding areas appropriate for the issuance of NPDES 
permits. While EPA will continue to work closely with MMS regarding 
activities covered by this general permit, EPA is responsible for 
designation of Areas of Biological Concern and regulation of discharges 
that may affect such areas. In this permit, EPA has specifically 
designated such areas and additional areas may be designated in the 
future.
    Comment 30: The commenter asks that the 1,000 m prohibition on 
discharges near Areas of Biological

[[Page 55728]]

Concern be reconsidered. Produced water discharges dilute rapidly (100-
fold within a few meters of discharge) and rate limitations and/or 
shunting could be used for drilling fluids in areas of concern.
    Response: The Region is requiring that operators obtain individual 
permits for discharges in these areas so that appropriate limitations 
(e.g., rate limitations and/or shunting) can be determined on a case-
by-case basis rather than determining all possible solutions for 
inclusions in this general permit.
    Comment 31: The commenter suggests that a new category of 
miscellaneous discharges be added: ``hydrotest and other treated 
water.'' The proposed definition is ``seawater or freshwater which has 
been treated, typically to control fouling, corrosion, and scaling, 
before it is discharged. Included are effluent wastestreams such as:
    (1) Excess seawater which permits the continuous operation of fire 
control and utility lift pumps;
    (2) Excess seawater from pressure maintenance and secondary 
recovery projects;
    (3) Water released during fire system tests and training, including 
AFFF (light-water systems);
    (4) Seawater used to pressure test piping;
    (5) Ballast/bilge water;
    (6) Non-contact cooling water;
    (7) Desalinization unit discharge.
    The effluent would be limited by ``no free oil'' and include a 
footnote that states ``Treatments to these waste streams (when 
discharge is planned) shall be made in accordance with product 
registration labeling, (for EPA-registered products), and 
manufacturers' maximum recommended dosages.''
    Response: While EPA does not disagree with the commenter, EPA 
received minimal information regarding this type of proposed 
miscellaneous discharge from the public on which to assess the 
appropriateness of including the proposed provision. Based upon this 
minimal information, and EPA's belief that not all permittees will 
necessarily seek authorization to make these types of discharges. 
Accordingly, discharges who anticipate the discharge of miscellaneous 
materials within the category of ``hydrotest and other treated water'' 
will be addressed on a case by case basis. If EPA determines in the 
future, based upon applications for NPDES permit coverage, that this 
category of miscellaneous discharges is necessary and appropriate for 
inclusion in the general permit, EPA will modify the permit to include 
such provision.
    Comment 32: The permit should allow the use of the partial toxicity 
test to minimize cost and burden to the operator. The partial test 
allows for the test organisms to be exposed to only a single 
concentration, the permit limitation, to determine pass or fail of the 
limitation.
    Response: EPA has specified testing methodology set forth in 58 FR 
12507, which is defined in the applicable effluent guidelines at 40 CFR 
part 435. These provisions allow partial toxicity tests. See Appendix 
2.
    Comment 33: The commenter suggests that Region 4 adopt the same 
notification requirements as are in the Region 6 permit: ``permittees 
who are located in lease blocks that are either in or adjacent to ``no 
activity'' areas or require live bottom surveys are required to submit 
both a notice of intent to be covered that specifies they are located 
in such a lease block. In addition they are required to submit a notice 
of commencement of operations. Permittees located in lease blocks 
either in or immediately adjacent to MMS defined ``no activity'' areas, 
shall be responsible for determining whether a controlled discharge 
rate is required.''
    Response: Based on new information, which is discussed in the Ocean 
Discharge Criteria Evaluation, and unique areas in the Eastern Gulf of 
Mexico, as indicated in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, 
Region 4 believes the current Notice of Intent (NOI) requirements are 
appropriate. The Region revised the NOI requirements to include 
additional information, specifically in the Central Planning Area.
    Comment 34: The commenters request that the permit contain produced 
water toxicity limitations tables for various pipe configurations and 
flow rates.
    Response: Because discharge rates change over the producing life of 
a well, Region 4 believes this approach allows the operators 
flexibility in complying with limitation. It also allows the use of 
diffusers should more mixing be required to meet the produced water 
limitation. Therefore, EPA will not add tables for compliance, but will 
allow the operator to calculate a limit based on flow and comply with 
that limit.
    Comment 35: The language concerning non-operational facilities 
should be deleted from Part I.A.4 of the permit. The sentences are 
contradictory and an operator should not have to submit its exploration 
or development production plan for permit coverage.
    Response: Non-Operational leases, which are leases on which a 
discharge has not taken place within 2 years prior to the effective 
date of the new general permits will lose coverage under the previous 
existing general permit on the effective date of the new general 
permits. However, upon submittal of an exploration plan or development 
production plan to EPA, plus the required information in the Notice of 
Intent (NOI) these non-operational leases would be eligible for 
coverage under the new general permits and will be notified for 
inclusion of coverage from the Director of the Water Management 
Division. Regarding submittal of an exploration or development 
production plan, EPA included this submittal in an effort to determine 
the scope and geographic area of potential discharges. While the same 
type of information could be provided in many different forms, EPA 
determined that exploration and developmental plans are preexisting 
documents which are regularly prepared by potential permittees that 
contain the necessary information for EPA to make permit coverage 
decisions, and their submittal for permit coverage would avoid the need 
to create additional paperwork and burden to obtain coverage. The 
commenter provides no persuasive reason for EPA to deviate from the 
proposal to submit exploration and development plans for permit 
coverage.
    Comment 36: EPA should eliminate the requirements to submit a 
Notice to Drill (NTD) and Notice of Commencement of Operations (NCO). 
This is another instance of EPA proposing permitting notification 
requirements which create unnecessary burdens on the operator. EPA has 
not provided a rationale for the increased burden of making these 
notifications, except in areas of special significance, and the 
operator is placed in a position of non-compliance or interruption of 
operation if notifications are missed.
    Response: In response to the commentors concern about NCO 
requirements concerning accurately measuring produced water, Region 4 
did revise the submittal timeframes of the NCO notices. The NTD and NCO 
are necessary for EPA to carry out statutory authorities regarding 
discharges to the Gulf of Mexico and are substantially similar to the 
requirements of other EPA Regions. The information is required so that 
EPA is aware of the location of discharges or potential discharges, 
even though they may be temporary, for the purpose of ensuring 
compliance with permit provisions, including inspection. The notices 
provide information necessary for the Agency to make determinations 
regarding the impact of discharges to the environment. The required 
notices provide EPA with basic

[[Page 55729]]

information necessary to effective regulation of discharges, including 
information necessary for calculation of toxicity limitations for 
produced water discharges. EPA would like to emphasize that the 
submittal of these notifications consists of simply sending a form to 
the Region containing information which should be readily available to 
the permittee well before the time the notices are required to be sent 
to EPA. EPA does not consider these submittals a significant 
``burden.''
    Comment 37: The commenter points out that the permit establishes a 
discharge rate limitation for drilling fluids in the units of bbl/hr 
but requires reporting as average daily discharge rate in bbl/day. In 
addition, the discharge rate limitation should not apply before 
installation of the marine riser because these discharges cannot be 
accurately estimated.
    Response: The Region revised the once/day reporting frequency to 
once/hr to be consistent with the limitation requirement and has 
included an exception to the discharge rate limitation that excludes 
discharges at the seafloor before installation of the marine riser in 
Part I, Section B.1(c) of the permit.
    Comment 38: The commenter recommends that the parenthetical 
information, ``* * * (this includes any spill that requires reporting 
to the state regulatory authority) * * *,'' be deleted from the 
requirement to report noncompliances which may endanger health or the 
environment. A ``spill'' subject to Section 311 of the Clean Water Act 
is not considered to be a noncompliance with the terms of the NPDES 
discharge permit, but rather is subject to Coast Guard jurisdiction. 
Also, the permit applies only to areas far removed from any State 
jurisdiction, so it would be unreasonable to assume that a 
noncompliance situation would impact a State.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter. Any discharge is 
required to be reported as set forth in the permit. The commenter is 
incorrect with respect to jurisdiction over oil spills pursuant to 
Section 311 of the CWA, which is enforceable by the Administrator.
    Comment 39: The commenter states that EPA should change the 
requirement to submit DMRs on a facility basis. Instead, such reporting 
should be averaged for each lease block.
    Response: EPA does not agree with the commenter that a change to 
the requirement of DMR submittal on a facility basis is needed. EPA 
considers each facility as a point source, (in fact, one facility 
commonly has several point sources of pollution, based on the waste 
streams that are discharged). EPA sees no compelling rationale for 
aggregating discharges for the purposes of averaging activities within 
a lease block. Unlike in the Western Gulf of Mexico, the Eastern Gulf 
has few facilities per lease block. EPA does not find any benefit in 
consolidating the reports from different facilities within the permit 
coverage area or any burden to permittees under the approach set forth 
herein.
    Comment 40: The commenter suggests that EPA should change the 
proposed DMR reporting requirement from a monthly to an annual 
requirement.
    Response: The commenter is correct that EPA has the right to enter 
a facility at any time and inspect its monitoring reports. However, 
since monitoring data is compiled on a monthly basis, EPA does not 
consider it a burden for industry to submit the compiled information 
and considers this submission as an important record of recent data. 
Such information is crucial to EPA enforcement and compliance efforts.
    Comment 41: The commenter requests that the Agency delete the 
requirement to submit a copy of laboratory reports with the DMR.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter regarding deletion of 
the requirement to submit a copy of laboratory reports with the DMR. 
EPA considers the laboratory reports important and pertinent discharge 
monitoring information. EPA does not believe that the photocopying of 
the lab reports, and their inclusion in the operator's DMR package, 
represents a significant additional burden, and these reports provide a 
great deal of information to EPA.
    Comment 42: The commenter states that EPA should remove the 
requirement to notify the Regional Director upon cessation of discharge 
or modify the wording to read: ``If, during the term of this permit, 
the facility permanently ceases discharge to surface waters, the 
Regional Director shall be notified within 60 days.''
    Response: EPA agrees with the commenter's suggested wording for the 
permit regarding the notification of the Regional Director upon 
cessation of discharge. EPA has revised the language of the permit 
accordingly.
    Comment 43: To the definition of Daily Maximum Discharge 
Limitation, the commenter asks that EPA insert the word ``daily'' 
between ``allowable'' and ``discharge rate or concentration, such that 
it would now read: ``Daily Maximum discharge limitations are the 
highest allowable daily discharge rate or concentration measured during 
a calendar day.''
    Response: EPA agrees with the comment regarding the definition of 
Daily Maximum Discharge Limitation. EPA has changed the language in the 
permit accordingly.
    Comment 44: The commenter asks that EPA define Diesel Oil as 
``distillate fuel oil, as specified in the ASTM Specification D975-81, 
that is typically used as the continuous phase in conventional oil-
based drilling fluids.''
    Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that clarification by 
identifying ASTM Specification D975-81 is appropriate. The general 
permit prohibits discharge of Diesel Oil, as defined, including Diesel 
Oil (and other oils) which may contain toxic pollutants as contaminants 
not otherwise identified as a constituent of ASTM D975-81. The 
definition will be amended to include the commenter's suggested 
language and to ensure consistency with offshore effluent guidelines 
(58 FR 12454; 40 CFR Part 435).
    Comment 45: The commenter asks that EPA use the definition of 
Drilling Fluids in the current effluent guidelines (FR 61, page 66124).
    Response: EPA agrees with the commenter and has changed the 
definition of drilling fluids. The current definition in the permit is 
the same as that used in the coastal effluent guidelines (61 FR 66086) 
and includes the four classes of drilling fluids: water-based, oil-
based, enhanced mineral oil, and synthetic-based. As stated above, the 
discharge of oil-based and synthetic based fluids are not authorized by 
the general permit.
    Comment 46: The commenter states that EPA should delete the 
definition of ``Free Oil'' or reword it to clarify that it is a test 
result obtained by the test method specified in the permit for the 
particular effluent stream.
    Response: EPA agrees with the commenter and has changed the 
definition of free oil. The definition in the permit is the same as 
that used in the offshore effluent guidelines (58 FR 12454).
    Comment 47: The commenter asks that EPA change the definition of 
Garbage such that it would read as it does in the Region 6 offshore 
permit: ``means all kinds of food waste, wastes generated in living 
areas on the facility, and operational waste, excluding fresh fish and 
parts thereof, generated during the normal operation of the facility 
and liable to be disposed of continuously or periodically, except 
dishwater, graywater, and those substances that are defined or listed 
in other Annexes to MARPOL 73/78.''

[[Page 55730]]

    Response: EPA has reviewed the definition of garbage found in the 
Region 6 general permit (GMG290000). Region 4 agrees with the commenter 
to the extent that the definition does not exclude components of 
domestic waste from effluent limitation and monitoring requirements set 
forth in Part I., Section A of the general permits. The definition of 
domestic waste in the general permits will continue to include 
discharges from galleys, sinks, showers, safety showers, eye wash 
stations, fish cleaning stations, and laundries. EPA has modified the 
definition in the general permit so that it is the same as that found 
in GMG290000 (61 FR 41609).
    Comment 48: The commenter requests that the reference to an MMS 
Environmental Impact Statement in the definition of No Activity Zones 
(Part IV,B,38) be deleted. The commenter stated that by referencing a 
specific lease sale EIS, the proposed definition would be outdated by 
subsequent lease sales. The MMS lease stipulation is the formal 
mechanism for that agency to specify No Activity Zones. MMS procedures 
will not permit or allow a rig or structure to be installed in a No 
Activity Zone stipulated in the lease agreement.
    Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that MMS lease stipulations 
are the formal mechanism for that agency to specify No Activity Zones. 
However, EPA does not agree that the proposed permit's definition of No 
Activity Zones needs to be changed to delete the reference to an MMS 
Environmental Impact Statement. The definition would not be outdated by 
subsequent lease sales because it contains the contingent clause that, 
``additional no activity zones may be identified by MMS during the life 
of this permit.''
    Comment 49: The commenter requests that the final sentence dealing 
with states and the territorial seas in the definition of No Activity 
Zones (Part IV,B.38) be deleted.
    Response: EPA does not agree with the commenter that the reference 
to Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida territorial waters within the 
definition of No Activity Zones should be deleted. EPA has determined 
that if these states identify no activity zones within their 
territorial waters, it may affect the discharge scenarios of the 
facilities located close to the boundary between federal and state 
waters. In fact, there are several facilities that are currently in 
located close to the Alabama state territorial waters.
    Comment 50: The commenter requests that EPA delete the definition 
of No Discharge Areas (Part IV,B.39) within the permit.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter and has kept the 
definition of No Discharge Areas within the permit, since EPA has 
authority under the CWA to prohibit pollutant discharges to surface 
waters for specified areas. When EPA determines a discharge is not 
allowable because of proximity to an Area of Biological Concern, a ``no 
discharge area'' is affectively defined.
    Comment 51: The commenter requested that the definition of Non-
Operational Leases (Part IV.B.40) would be deleted or revised. The 
commenter's rationale for the deletion is that leases that are covered 
by the existing (1986) general permit should continue to be covered by 
the 1986 permit until they receive final permit coverage under a 
replacement permit. There will be no need for a non-operational 
classification.
    Response: EPA does not agree with the commenter's rationale that 
leases covered by the existing (1986) general permit should continue to 
be covered by the 1986 permit until final permit coverage is received. 
In the proposed permit, EPA states that leases from which discharges 
did not occur two years prior to the effective date of the new general 
permit are considered Non-Operational Leases. EPA believes that a two 
year period of time during which no discharge has taken place is a 
reasonable temporal delineation for permit coverage. Furthermore, 
environmental impacts from discharging facilities are likely to differ 
substantially from non-discharging operations. Accordingly, EPA is 
updating the notification requirements and reevaluate the permits of 
those leases that have not discharged 2 years prior to the effective 
date of the new general permit. This approach is also consistent with 
the procedures that must be followed for new leases, or new 
dischargers. Another reason this approach is reasonable and necessary 
is some permittees had applied for and received general permit coverage 
many years ago without having conducted any exploration or production 
activities.
    In addition, according to the NPDES Program (40 CFR Sec. 122.6) the 
existing general permit is in force until the effective date of the new 
permit. Therefore, coverage under the existing permit expires the 
effective date of the new permit, except for Operational Leases which 
shall be administratively continued under the previous permit until 
coverage is granted under the reissued OCS general permit by Region 4 
to permittees who comply with the requirements to obtain general permit 
coverage.
    Comment 52: The commenter requested that the definition of 
Operating Facilities (Part IV,B.41) would be deleted or revised. The 
commenter's rationale for the deletion is that leases that are covered 
by the existing (1986) general permit should continue to be covered by 
the 1986 permit until they receive final permit coverage under a 
replacement permit, regardless of whether discharges have occurred. If 
this recommendation is adopted, there will be no need for a definition 
of Operating Facilities.
    Response: EPA does not agree with the commenter's rationale that 
leases covered by the existing (1986) general permit should continue to 
be covered by the 1986 permit until final permit coverage is received. 
In the proposed permit, EPA states that leases from which discharges 
have occurred two years prior to the effective date of the new general 
permit are considered Operational Leases. EPA has intended to update 
the notification requirements and to reevaluate the permits of those 
leases that have not discharged greater than 2 years prior to the 
effective date of the new general permit.
    In addition, according to the NPDES Program (40 CFR Sec. 122.6) the 
existing general permit is in force until the effective date of the new 
permit. Therefore, coverage under the existing permit expires the 
effective date of the new permit, except for Operational Leases, which 
shall be administratively continued under the previous permit until 
coverage by Region 4 is granted under the reissued general permit to 
permittees who comply with the requirements to obtain general permit 
coverage.
    Comment 53: The commenter states that the definition of 
Uncontaminated Ballast/Bilge Water (Part IV,B.53), should be changed to 
be consistent with the Region 6 permit definition which reads: ``means 
seawater added or removed to maintain proper draft.''
    Response: EPA has determined that the commenter's requested 
amendment is appropriate and Region 4 agrees with the recommended 
definition change and has revised it in the final permit
    Comment 54: The commenter asks that a new definition be added for 
Uncontaminated Freshwater: ``freshwater which is discharged without the 
addition of chemicals; examples include: (1) discharges of excess 
freshwater that permit the continuous operation of fire control and 
utility lift pumps, (2) excess freshwater from pressure maintenance and 
secondary recovery projects, (3) water

[[Page 55731]]

released during fire protection tests and training, and (4) water used 
to pressure test piping.''
    Response: The Region included this wastestream with a limitation in 
the fact sheet under minor waste streams and inadverently left it out 
of the permit conditions. These wastestreams will be included in the 
final permit along with definitions from the offshore Effluent 
Guidelines and will be mentioned in the Ocean Discharge Criteria 
Evaluation.
    Comment 55: The commenter suggests that the permit should cover all 
facilities located in the offshore subcategory and discharging to the 
federal waters. Any prohibition against discharges to the federal 
waters from facilities located in the territorial seas should be 
deleted.
    Response: This discharges of drilling muds, drill cuttings in 
territorial seas are controlled by State's administering their own 
NPDES programs. The State's guidelines are often more stringent than 
applicable Federal criteria, therefore, movement of a discharge from 
territorial seas into Federal Waters should not be an option for 
complying with more stringent State Criteria, developed by each State's 
NPDES program. Region 4 believes that since their would possibly be a 
low percentage of territorial facilities discharging to Federal Waters, 
these facilities would be properly handled on a case-by-case approach 
through individual permits and are prohibited under Region 4's final 
general permit issued today.
    Comment 56: The commenter believes that the first paragraph in Part 
I,A,2, should be deleted. Alternatively, it should be reworded as 
follows: ``Discharges within 1000 meters of an area of biological 
concern are not eligible for coverage.'' According to the commenter, 
EPA's proposed language would--in the event an operator merely sought 
authorization to discharge within 1000 meters of an area of biological 
concern--deny coverage under the permit to the operator, instead of 
just to the area in question. Though it may not have been EPA's intent, 
this language could be interpreted to deny coverage to an operator for 
the entire general permit area, not just for areas within the 1000 
meter buffer zone. This would be totally unjustified. The commenter 
raises similar issues with respect to the 26 parallel currently under 
moratorium.
    Response: The comment represents an unreasonable interpretation of 
the general permit provisions. The general permit language clearly 
prohibits discharges within 1000 meters of an Area of Biological 
Concern and operations below the 26 parallel, and excludes from general 
permit coverage operations of any operator who seeks to discharge 
drilling fluid within the 1000 meter buffer zone and below the 26 
parallel. The language should be read in context of the section in 
which the language is placed.
    Comment 57: The commenter requested that the sentence ``Wastes must 
be hauled to shore for treatment and disposal'' in Section I.B.5 of the 
draft permit would be deleted. Although the permit may establish a zero 
discharge limitation for produced sand, it should not specify treatment 
and disposal options. Other options may be available to allow an 
operator to meet the zero discharge limitation. The commenter 
identified no other method of treatment and disposal.
    Response: EPA is unaware of methods of disposal of produced sand 
which would be in compliance with the terms of the general permits but 
would not involve the hauling of wastes to shore for treatment and 
disposal. The discharge of produced sand is prohibited under the 
general permits. The commenter has not provided EPA with any 
identification of the ``other options [which] may be available to allow 
an operator to meet the zero discharge limitation.'' EPA cannot at this 
time assess such options and make the determination necessary to 
entertain the requested language changes.
    Comment 58: The commenter requested that in section I.B.10 of the 
draft permit, uncontaminated freshwater and excess cement slurry would 
be added to the list of miscellaneous discharges.
    Response: The Region included these wastestreams with a limitation 
in the fact sheet under minor waste streams and inadverently left it 
out of the permit conditions. These wastestreams will be included in 
the final permit along with definition of uncontaminated freshwater 
from the offshore Effluent Guidelines.
    Comment 59: In Section I.B.10(a) of the draft permit, monitoring of 
miscellaneous discharges for free oil should be required only when 
discharging and the facility is manned. Also in this section, the 
permit requires that static sheen testing be performed when visual 
observation of a sheen is not possible. The permit should also include 
the statement ``Static sheen testing is not required for discharges at 
the sea floor.''
    Response: The Region concurs with the commentor and has revised 
Section I.B.10(a) of the permit.
    Comment 60: Section I.B.10(a) of the draft permit requires that the 
static sheen test be used to determine the presence of free oil in 
miscellaneous discharges when visual observation of a sheen is not 
possible. The commenter states that the ``permit should also include 
the statement `Static sheen testing is not required for discharges at 
the sea floor.' ''
    Response: The Region concurs and has included revised language in 
the permit Section I.B.10(a).
    Comment 61: The commenter suggests that in Table 3 of the permit, 
under Miscellaneous Discharges, ``Muds, Cuttings & Cement at the Sea 
floor'' should be listed separately from ``Uncontaminated Ballast/Bilge 
Water.''
    Response: EPA agrees with the commenter's editorial comment and has 
made the corresponding revision of Table 3 in the permit. These are 
separate wastestreams.
    Comment 62: The commenter recommends that the existing end of well 
sample definition be retained instead of the proposed change to require 
the sample to be taken within 48 hours prior to discharge. The change 
would require operators to discharge without toxicity test results.
    Response: Region 4 concurs with the commentors rationale and will 
retain the current definition as proposed. The definition will remain 
unchanged from the previous NPDES general permit.
    Comment 63: According to the commenter, within the Draft 
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), EPA admits that discharges from 
rigs and production platforms have the potential to damage or destroy 
fish eggs, larvae, and juvenile fish. Nevertheless, EPA's proposed 
general permits will merely require ``the dilution of discharges to 
reduce the levels of toxics'' to avoid unreasonable degradation. 
Species that feed on benthic organisms may be subject to pollutant 
bioaccumulation. Dilution of toxic discharges will not eliminate the 
potential for bioaccumulation. Thus, dilution is not the solution to 
the problems posed by these discharges, and will not sufficiently 
protect the vital resources of the Gulf of Mexico.
    Response: EPA agrees that dilution is not an appropriate method for 
treating discharges. EPA disagrees with the commenter's statement that 
the general permit only requires ``the dilution of discharges to reduce 
the level of toxics'' to avoid unreasonable degradation.
    The conditions and limitations in the general permit for the 
eastern Gulf were determined to protect water quality and preserve the 
health of benthic and other marine organisms. These permit conditions 
and limitations include no discharge of free oil, no discharge of oil-
based muds, no discharge of diesel oil, no discharge of produced sand, 
no discharge within 1,000 meters of areas

[[Page 55732]]

of biological concern, oil and grease limitation on produced water, 
cadmium and mercury concentration limitation in barite, discharge rate 
limitations around live-bottom areas, and limitations on the whole 
effluent toxicity of both drilling fluids and produced water.
    The NPDES permits also require water quality-based analyses, and 
for marine dischargers, must include a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 
403 ``Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation'' (ODCE). The ODCE is a 
document published by EPA to evaluate the environmental impact of the 
NPDES general permit of discharges from the offshore oil and gas 
industry. The ODCE determined that the conditions and limitations in 
the general permit protected the water quality of the eastern Gulf of 
Mexico and preserved the health of the aquatic life.
    Comment 64: Commentor disappointed that EPA did not consider Gulf 
Coast Environmental defense previous suggestions: 1) No drilling 
landward of the 200meter isobath, or 100 miles from shore, whichever is 
greater.
    All wells in the Gulf of Mexico should be zero discharge. The Gulf 
of Mexico not an infinite resource and we can't continue dumping wastes 
into the water & expect it to be healthy.
    Response: EPA considered these comments and provided a response to 
this concern on Pages 5-25 and 5-26 of the Final Environmental Impact 
Statement which was available for a 30 day public comment and review 
period starting on August 14, 1998 thru September 14, 1998. Additional 
response to this comment is provided throughout the responses herein 
regarding the scope of general permit coverage.
    Comment 65: Commenter questions at what point does damage become 
irreversible, referring to report of Elliot Norse, a marine ecologist 
founder of the Marine Conservation Biology Institute in Redmond. 
Washington declaring that the sea is in real trouble for a variety of 
reasons, including the effect of oil and gas exploration and production 
activities as governed by the CWA and Endangered Species Act. Commenter 
also stated that EPA should eliminate drilling from near shores areas 
completely, and do not allow any discharges into the Gulf of Mexico.
    Response: EPA provided a more comprehensive response and analysis 
of the commenters concerns in the EIS, agreeing with the comment that 
the world's oceans are facing problems as a result of human activities. 
EPA believes, however, that the discharges that result from oil and gas 
exploration and development activities can be successfully managed to 
prevent any significant environmental harm and that no irreparable harm 
will occur as a result. EPA is aware of the commentor's concern and 
discusses impacts to existing or potential recreational fisheries or 
commercial fisheries in the EIS and ODCE. EPA has no authority to 
regulate fisheries or the use of artificial reefs in state and federal 
waters nor does EPA have authority to prohibit the development of oil 
and gas resources. Section 402 of the Clean Water Act provides EPA with 
the authority to regulate discharges that result from such activities. 
Both the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Ocean Discharge 
Criteria Evaluation documents are available as part of the Region's 
administrative record and will be made available upon request.
    Comment 66: Requested EPA to extend deadline for comments on its 
draft NPDES general permit concerning offshore drilling activities, 
since they have just been notified and need more time to prepare 
comments.
    Response: EPA notified all hearing participants and persons who 
provided input during the public hearings, and believes the 45 day 
comment period on the revised NPDES general permit was sufficient to 
provide adequate response. EPA notes that this commenter did provide 
written comment to these permits and EPA's response is included herein.
    Comment 67: U.S. Department of Energy made comments on EPA 
revisions supporting extending coverage of General Permit into the 
Central Planning Area and previous comments that focused on 4 areas: 
(1) Exclusion of facilities located in less than 200 meters of water 
depth from coverage under the General Permit. (2) Produced Water 
Toxicity requirements. (3) Synthetic-based and enhanced mineral oil-
based drilling fluids. (4) Oil Content testing requirement.
    Response: Previous comment responses respond to these issues, as 
well as analysis in the EIS and ODCE. After receiving initial comments 
on the Regions Alternative B, which proposed general permits seaward of 
the 200-meter isobath for the entire Eastern Gulf of Mexico and 
reviewing additional information, the Region decided to revise the 
permitting strategy for the Central Planning Area, and selected 
Alternative A with certain exclusions based on unique features in the 
area of offshore Mississippi and Alabama. The Region elected to 
maintain Alternative B for the Eastern Planning Area which proposed 
general permits seaward of the 200-meter isobath which is noted in 
Final Environmental Impact Statement.
    EPA believes that the Eastern Planning area is relatively 
unexplored for the purpose of oil and gas activities and that the 
probability of encounter with areas of biological concern is greater in 
the Eastern Planning Area. The EPA believes that individual permitting 
in water depths of less than 200 meters will provide the agency with 
the information needed to detect and adequately protect sensitive 
marine habitat.
    Comment 68: 
    Chevron mentioned that EPA has not considered previous comments, 
and careful consideration should be given to March 1997 comments and 
comments submitted by the OOC in February 1998.
    Response: 
    EPA considered all comments and responds in writing at this time, 
the time of final issuance which is appropriate. While the revised 
general permits did propose revisions consistent with this and other 
commenter's concerns, EPA did not respond in writing at that time as 
EPA is responding herein after all comments to the permit and EIS have 
been submitted and analyzed.
    Comment 69: Delete permit requirement to submit photo documentation 
for every facility in 100 meters or less in the Central Planning Area. 
Stated photo documentation should only be required on new facilities 
where an analysis of geohazards survey data suggest that significant 
hard bottoms may be present. Data in area suggests that very few 
facilities will be near significant hard bottom areas. Mentioned that 
for facilities already discharging this requirement provides no 
benefit, since EPA has determined that the discharge is acceptable.
    Response: EPA will require photo-documentation survey information 
to be submitted with all notices of intents (NOI) for coverage under 
the general permit for existing source and new source discharges in 
less than 100 meters (water depth). The EPA believes that the photo-
documentation in the Central Planning Area (CPA) will provide the level 
of information to the agency necessary to make determinations for 
permit coveraged as required by law and are consistent with MMS 
requirements in the Eastern Planning Area. The EPA does not agree that 
adequate site-specific information exists in the Central Planning Area 
to assure that all types of potentially sensitive habitat have been 
identified.
    EPA does not limit it's concern with the protection of living 
marine resources

[[Page 55733]]

only to those communities that may be identified as ``significant hard 
bottom areas''. The EPA agrees that seafloor imaging provided by the 
geohazard survey may detect high relief (hard bottom) habitat, 
depending on how the survey was conducted. The data collected during 
such surveys do not allow for the detection of biota (plants and 
animals) that may comprise high-relief hard bottom community 
assemblages and would provide no evidence of any communities not 
associated with high relief benthic structure.
    The EPA concurs with the commentators concerns regarding the need 
for photo-documentation for continuing discharges of either existing 
source or new source categories that were covered under the previous 
permit (no photo-documentation requirement) and has modified the NOI 
requirement in the final permit to reflect these concerns. The Region 
agrees that currently active discharges were permitted under a previous 
permit without a photo-documentation requirement. The Region further 
agrees that photo-documentation of the seafloor around currently active 
discharges will not provide additional protection to the environment. 
The Region has provided an exception to the photo-documentation 
requirement for submission of the NOI for new and existing source 
discharges permitted under the previous permit, which are currently 
active on the effective date of the new general permit. The exception 
is limited only to the currently active discharges, for the life of 
those discharges. The modification to the photo-documentation 
requirement does not exempt the platform or rig from which the 
discharge originates nor does it exempt the geographic area around the 
discharge point from any new discharge which occurs after the effective 
date of the general permit.
    Comment 70: API commented on the EPA revised Oil & Gas Permit and 
mentioned that EPA has not gone far enough in expanding coverage under 
this permit since it excludes a significant percentage of the Gulf. 
Stated that the issuance of this permit will force many operators to go 
through the time consuming and burdensome process of obtaining 
individual permits and does not believe EPA has provided a rationale 
for restricting coverage of general permits in this manner. Stated that 
the OOC has submitted detailed comments on various aspects of the 
revised draft permit.
    Response: EPA considered all comments in the formulation of a final 
determination on the final NPDES General permit for the Eastern Gulf of 
Mexico. EPA has examined the available literature on the distribution 
of important benthic communities, fisheries habitats, and marine mammal 
habitats and has found that the areas over the continental shelf and 
shelf transitional zone (approximated by the area out to the 200 meter 
isobath) contain an abundance of sensitive biological resources, 
particularly in the Eastern Planning Area and in the Excluded features 
identified in the Central Planning Area. Consistent with the literature 
review noted above, EPA concludes that due to the abundance and 
sensitivity of the biological resources in the area offshore Florida 
Alabama Eastern Planning Area and features identified in the Offshore 
Central Planning Area, extra protection can be afforded by the 
thorough, case-by-case review possible with individual permits in these 
areas and considers this to be the more reasonable approach based on 
current information.
    Comment 71: Commentor stated that the draft NPDES permit rescinds a 
general permit which was in effect in the area of the Gulf under Region 
4's jurisdiction for years with no demonstrated adverse effect, and 
fails to follow executive orders and VP Gores's Reinvention of 
Government program designed to make government less complicated. Stated 
that Region 4 has failed to follow Congress's direct instructions that 
it abandon its emphasis on requiring individual permits for each OCS 
oil and gas project and propose an NPDES general permitting regime 
which is substantially the same as that used since 1986 by both EPA 
Regions 4 and 6, which has been successful on regulating OCS oil and 
gas operations in the Gulf of Mexico. Stated that Region 6 has the most 
experience in dealing with a high level of OCS oil and gas activity, 
with true biological sensitive areas and with results of scientific 
studies looking for potential adverse impacts on the marine environment 
over the years. Stated that there were no problems under the general 
permit previously administered by Region 4 and there would be none if 
the old general permit was renewed or Region 6 general permit adopted.
    Response: At the time of issuance of a permit, EPA considers all 
data and information as required by the various applicable statutes and 
regulations, including, inter alia, the CWA, NEPA, ESA, and, as the 
commenter points out, executive orders, public comment, and other 
applicable guidance from the Executive, Legislative and Judicial 
branches of government. All of this information is not static, is 
subject to change, and has in fact changed since Region 4's issuance in 
1986 of the previous general permit covering these activities. Many of 
comment responses above explain the current status of data and 
information and full data and information is provided in the 
administrative record.
    The level of exploration and development activity for the areas in 
Region 4's jurisdiction has increased since the issuance of the 
previous general permit in 1986. Determinations regarding these general 
permits is based upon updated projections for oil and gas exploration 
and development activities for the duration of this permit, based 
primarily upon MMS' estimated OCS Development Scenario, (see also EIS 
at Section 1.4.1.; Table 2-7), and MMS' planned lease sales for the 
Gulf of Mexico area under Region 4's jurisdiction. These projections 
provide, in summary, that the majority of activity will continue to 
take place within the Central Planning Area. While a portion of the 
Eastern Planning Area will be offered for lease sale, projections 
indicate that a relatively low number of blocks offered for lease sale 
are expected to be purchased and require NPDES permits, based upon 
historical trends and MMS projections. Accordingly, EPA's determination 
regarding the scope of general permit coverage is supported by 
exploration and development activity projections, as well as the 
analysis of potentially sensitive biological resources, statutory, and 
legal requirements set forth in response to previous comments.
    The commenter is incorrect regarding Region 4's oil and gas 
permitting activities. Region 4 has in fact for the last seven (7) 
years issued streamlined individual permits on exploratory drilling and 
production activity on new leases acquired in lease sales, since 
expiration of the former general permit expired in July 1991. The 
Region has required new leases to obtain individual permits and has 
conducted expeditious permitting reviews on each proposed activity and 
considers this to be environmentally sound inside 200 meters. This is 
an effective, streamlined way to deal with the increased level of 
activity that has been experienced in this area, while providing 
optimal environmental protection and is consistent with the approach 
being taken in these general permits issued today. Based upon these 
seven years experience, Region 4's expedited individual permit review 
processes, and the projections for actual exploration and development 
activity in the Eastern Planning Area, EPA believes that the

[[Page 55734]]

commenter will experience no burdensome.
    Following concerns expressed in language inserted into the United 
States House of Representative's Appropriations Committee (July 11, 
1997), and Senate/House Conference Report (Oct. 6, 1997), Region 4 
reviewed the concerns raised and on Jan 7, 1998, Region 4 issued a 
revised draft general permit which EPA believes addresses the concerns 
raised in those reports and complies with statutory and other legal 
requirements. The revised permit incorporates general permit 
procedures, terms and conditions which are substantially similar and in 
some cases identical to those found in the Region 6 general permit. In 
addition, the individual permit issuance process which will apply to 
those areas outside the general permit coverage have been streamlined 
so as to avoid unnecessary cost and delay.
    With respect to the commenter's concern that the border between the 
Central and Eastern Planning Areas as the demarcation for general 
permit coverage is political and not scientific, the border between 
these areas was established by DOI and has long been used for lease 
sales. The border is not, as the commenter states, a political border 
between Alabama and Florida but actually is a distance West of the 
Alabama and Florida line. It should be noted that MMS also recognizes 
the distinction between the areas and has instituted additional 
requirements for leases in the Eastern Planning Area for the purpose of 
environmental protection, using the same border for demarcation. 
Because MMS uses this border for lease sales, resulting in the 
historical and projected level of activity between these two areas 
differing substantially, and scientific information available between 
the two areas differing substantially, the border is also an 
appropriate border for general permit coverage.
    Comment 72: OOC stated that photodocumentation surveys should not 
be required prior to, but only after that data from the geohazards 
survey has been interpreted, and that for one of the areas designated 
as areas of biological concern, the Pinnacle Trend, this area is also 
recognized by the MMS as a habitat that should be protected by lease 
stipulation and that Region 4's disgnation of the area as an Area of 
Biological Concern conflicts with protective measures of EPA Region 6 
and MMS. Regarding other Areas of Biological Concern, the commenter 
stated that these areas (Southeast Banks, Southwest Rocks and 17 Fathom 
Hole) are common on the inner and middle shelf off South Carolina , as 
well as Central Western and Louisiana, suggesting that the 
invertebrates seen here have a wide tolerance of fluctuating 
environmental conditions such as temperature and turbidity. Further, 
the commenter claims these assemblages of organisms are the same as 
those seen growing on petroleum platforms in similar water depths and 
are not sufficiently unique or so ecologically sensitive tht they 
require special protection from oil and gas operations. The commenter 
believes that designating these areas as Areas of Biological Concern is 
inconsistent with both the policies of both MMS and EPA Region 4, by 
designating these areas as areas of biological concern.
    Response: The Region notes that the commentor is aware that these 
unique features exist in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. NPDES General 
Permits for the Eastern Gulf of Mexico provides reasonable assurances 
that these unique areas identified will be protected for the duration 
of the 5-year permit. EPA believes it is most expeditious for the 
industry to provide EPA adequate survey information up front for before 
granting coverage under the general permit. The term ``live bottom'' is 
confused with high relief hardbottom habitat. EPA is concerned with the 
protection of any living marine communities regardless of the 
geomorphology of the benthos. The data provided by the geohazard survey 
may detect high relief habitat if the sidescan sonar was set to obtain 
the highest possible resolution, depending on how the survey was 
conducted. It cannot detect communities not associated with relatively 
high relief benthic structure. Sub-bottom profiling will do neither. 
Regarding comments about communities on the Southeast Banks, Southwest 
Rocks and 17 Fathom Hole: all communities are variable over different 
space and time scales due to natural environmental factors. These facts 
do not preclude their protection from anthropogenic impacts. Biological 
productivity is only one of many community characteristics to be 
considered when making a judgement regarding its value and the level of 
protection afforded to it.
    Comment 73: Stated that General Permit would prohibit discharges of 
drilling fluids within 1000-meters of areas of biological concern. 
Mentioned MMS lease stipulations have prevented drilling muds from 
reaching ABC's , and consequently there are very few studies that have 
investigated the effects of drilling muds and cuttings discharges on 
live bottom within 1000 meters. Stated in Destin Dome 57, investigators 
found that shunted drilling discharges 480 meters from a high relief 
feature, did reach the hard bottom feature, but that there was no 
measurable effect of the discharges on the epibiota.
    A prohibition of cuttings and produced water discharges within 1000 
meters is not justified.
    Mentioned studies and numerous studies including produced water 
bioaccumulation study.
    Response: Based on the Region's information concerning drilling 
muds, cuttings, and produced water discharges the no discharge of these 
wastestreams within 1000 meters of an ABC is justified. As the 
commentor mentioned, shunted discharges based on data reviewed did not 
reach certain ABC's that were closer than 1000 meters. However, the 
general permit must provide adequate protection based on current 
environmental data for these discharges. Discharges that must be 
shunted based on data that reveals potential hard bottoms closer than 
1000 meters, may also require individual permits and require site 
specific monitoring programs designed to address impacts related to 
that discharge based on communities involved, the frequency and volumes 
of discharges plus prevailing oceanographic conditions at the time of 
discharge, since shunting may only be a temporary mitigative 
alternative and not consider long term impacts. The singular case of 
the Destin Dome Block 57 project cannot lead to the conclusion that no 
impacts can occur as a result of drilling discharges within 1000 
meters.
    Comment 74: Workover and abandonment operations should be added to 
the listing of operations covered.
    Response: The Region has added this category of operations, since 
workover fluids are used in this category and allowed to be discharged 
under the general permit.
    Comment 75: Stated that a provision to the permit should be added 
requiring permittees to inform all contractors of the discharge 
limitations of their permit. Particularly important in the case of 
individual permits where discharge limitations may be imposed more 
stringent than those of the General permit.
    Response: The operator is liable and responsible that the 
information on monitoring requirements, limitations and conditions 
comply with the general permit.
    Comment 76: Stated that EPA should change its proposed 
identification system and use API's and MMS coding system. Stated that 
MMS will be analyzing DMR's as part of its initiatives

[[Page 55735]]

to meet the requirements of Government and Performance Results Act and 
to take full advantage of the DMR information submitted to EPA, we ask 
that operators link discharge information to discharge locations by 
using API and MMS codes.
    Response: The current structure of EPA data fields does not allow 
the Region the flexibility to implement the American Petroleum 
Institute/Minerals Management Service numbers and currently are not 
amenable to change.
    Comment 77: Stated that they disagree with the newly proposed site-
specific photodocumentation surveys for the Central Planning Area, 
since enough information exists on areas of biological concerning the 
CPA to make a pre-determination of their location without requiring the 
applicant to conduct the surveys and would lead to increased operator 
costs without significant benefit. Clarify issue of synthetic mud use 
as it applies to the definitions of Drilling Fluids and Drill Cuttings 
and address whether drilling muds and drilling cuttings discharged at 
the seafloor in substantial quantities using riserless drilling would 
be included in the definition of Muds, Cuttings and Cement at the 
seafloor.
    Response: The EPA does not agree that adequate site-specific 
information exists in the Central Planning Area (CPA) to assure that 
all types of potentially sensitive habitat have been identified. The 
EPA believes that the proposed photodocumentation requirement in the 
CPA will provide that same level of information to the agency made 
available to it in the Eastern Planning Area where photodocumentation 
is mandated by the MMS. The Region has clarified the synthetics mud 
issue in response to comments. While synthetic muds are included under 
the revised definition of drilling fluids and can be used if needed in 
drilling operations, these synthetic fluids cannot be discharged. The 
Region also believes the current definition of Muds, Cuttings and 
Cement at the seafloor is adequate as proposed and will not be revised.
    Comment 78: EPA should select Alternative A (general permits for 
the entire Eastern Gulf OCS) because: (1) most, if not all, operations 
are located shoreward of the 200-meter isobath and would thus be 
burdened with individual permitting which is cumbersome, uncertain, and 
causes costly delays; (2) the MMS program already offers adequate 
protections to Gulf resources; (3) EPA has not proven that general 
permits could not be adequately protective of Gulf resources, and in 
fact the ODCE has determined that the discharges will not cause 
unreasonable degradation of the marine environment; (4) EPA could 
simply design alternative, more restrictive general permit limits and 
requirements for areas requiring special protection.
    Response: EPA has carefully considered the comments of MMS and 
several industry commenters regarding applying (Alternative A) general 
permit coverage for the entire Region 4 jurisdiction. EPA has decided 
to extend General Permit coverage to its jurisdictional portion of the 
MMS Central Planning Area, with the exclusion of the 11 lease blocks 
subject to the MMS Pinnacles Stipulation and three other natural 
structural bottom features. Please refer to EIS Figure 3-2 for the 
location of these features. Section 2.4 of the Final EIS and the permit 
Fact Sheet contain complete descriptions of the permitting strategy.
    EPA is comfortable extending General Permit coverage to the MMS 
Central Planning Area for several reasons. First, the Central Planning 
Area has been extensively surveyed for the locations of numerous (past 
and present) drilling and production sites, and few features that EPA 
would define as Areas of Biological Concern have been documented. 
Second, scientific survey literature of the Mississippi-Alabama shelf 
notes the general lack of firm bottom substrate for attachment of 
bottom life, high water column turbidity in much of the east-central 
inner shelf, and a trend of increased water clarity and light 
penetration eastward (Vittor 1985). The area is not normally under the 
influence of the sub-tropical Loop Current that elsewhere stabilizes 
water temperatures more suitable to increased epifaunal diversity. It 
has also been documented that the bottom area offshore Mississippi-
Alabama experiences substantial deposition of fine particle sediments 
emanating from coastal rivers (Rabalais and Boesch 1987) that would 
tend to cover previously exposed hard substrate. Third, those features 
that the Region is now defining as Areas of Biological Concern are 
pronounced in terms of topography and are fairly well discernable by 
survey. Brooks and Giammona (1991) found predominately soft sediments 
punctuated in some areas with rock outcrops and topographic (the 
pinnacle trend) high features. EPA Region 4 believes that the condition 
requiring applicants seeking General Permit coverage to provide photo 
documentation and geohazards surveys will allow the agency to clear 
specific project sites for General Permit coverage fairly quickly, 
because EPA will require the same survey procedures as specified by 
MMS. The photo documentation survey procedures are found in the MMS 
``Revised Guidelines for Photo documentation Surveys'' dated January 
31, 1989; the geohazards survey requirement is in the MMS Notice to 
Lessees 88-3 ``Outer Continental Shelf Shallow Hazards Requirements for 
the Gulf of Mexico OCS Region'' of September 7, 1983. EPA concludes 
that its decision for NPDES permitting in the CPA is basically 
consistent with that preferred by MMS.
    Due to the reasons and attached permit conditions explained above, 
EPA Region 4 is able to make the ``no unreasonable degradation'' 
determination for OCS waters off Mississippi and Alabama, and for 
waters outside the 200-meter depth contour of the Eastern Planning 
Area. In contrast, EPA is not able to make this determination for the 
Eastern Planning Area waters shoreward of the 200-meter isobath. EPA 
believes that the exclusion of general permit coverage for these waters 
in the Eastern Planning Area is entirely suitable considering the 
unknowns about the presence of significant environmental resources, and 
the unknown sensitivity of the area to oil and gas activities. This 
approach is corroborated by the MMS consideration of the Destin Dome as 
a frontier area, requiring production projects to receive full EIS 
review.
    Exclusion of certain OCS areas from General Permit coverage is not 
expected to cause operator delays, lost jobs, or reduced royalty 
revenues because the individual permitting process fits nicely with the 
MMS review times. Region 4 has recently issued several individual 
permits for exploratory drilling and one for production in the Central 
Planning Area. In all cases, the applicants have been cooperative. When 
industry is aware of the time frames needed for review and issuance of 
permits, the experience has been satisfactory to both the Agency and 
the applicant. One commentor pointed out that drill rigs are quite 
expensive and their use must be scheduled well in advance. This fact 
should then allow the permit applicant adequate time within which to 
accommodate the permitting process. It is important to note that EPA 
would not normally prepare an Environmental Assessment for an 
exploratory well, so the individual permitting time would be normally 
2-3 months. EPA does not believe that the type of NPDES permit needed 
would have any bearing on industry's decisions whether to proceed with 
production.
    Moreover, because there are historically few lease applications for 
the Eastern Planning Area, the delay, if any, of individual permitting 
will be

[[Page 55736]]

minimal. Regardless of the permitting mechanism, EPA is required to 
make a 403(c) ocean discharge criteria determination regarding the 
discharge. Where information necessary for the ocean discharge criteria 
determination is provided, there should be no delay in permit issuance 
where appropriate. With respect to this general permit, extension of 
the general permit coverage area would not expedite the permitting 
process, as there is currently little information regarding the marine 
environment and associated impacts from offshore oil and gas facilities 
in the Eastern Planning Area to make area wide determinations regarding 
Ocean Discharge Criteria at this time. Rather than delay the issuance 
of this general permit until sufficient information is available, EPA 
has determined that general permit coverage as provided herein is 
appropriate. Any person discharging from offshore oil and gas 
facilities may apply for and obtain an individual NPDES permit. This 
approach enables EPA to prescribe conditions to assure compliance with 
Ocean Discharge Criteria, as required by Sections 402 and 403 of the 
Act, and comports with EPA's general discretion regarding the issuance 
of permits. Individual permits may contain the same effluent 
limitations and conditions as the general permit, or may contain 
additional conditions based upon specific determinations regarding a 
facility as necessary to comply with the requirements of federal law.
    EPA is aware of the type of environmental documentation MMS 
requires in applicants' development and exploration plans. EPA expects 
to utilize this same information in most cases for its permit review 
needs. Of the three NEPA documentation levels used by MMS, the 
categorical exclusion has minimal public review opportunities but is 
used much more than either the EA or EIS process. EPA believes that 
increased public review and a careful review of applicants' survey 
information by EPA could be a good check and balance to ensure 
activities are not damaging significant marine resources.
    The modified two-tiered general permitting procedure suggested by 
two commenters is in EPA's opinion inconsistent with its guidelines for 
instituting a general permit. In places where site conditions are 
uncertain, greater scrutiny is needed to consider site-specific permit 
conditions. Regulations call for an individual permit review for such 
situations. EPA is striving for a maximum level of certainty on the 
part of industry. EPA Region 4 is researching literature and other 
information sources about live bottom and other significant fish 
habitat and designating them areas of biological concern, in order to 
have these features identified prior to potential applicants seeking 
permits.
    Comment 79: Several commenters opined that general permit coverage 
should be extended to the entire OCS in the Eastern Gulf, stating that 
EPA regulations favor the issuance of general permits.
    Response: Pursuant to Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, EPA 
retains discretionary authority to issue permits for the discharge of 
pollutants (Dedham Water Co. v. Cumberland Farms Dairy, 805 F.2d 1074; 
1st Cir. 1986). As the commenters pointed out, EPA's regulation 
governing General Permits at 40 CFR 122.28 provides that the 
Administrator shall, except as provided below, issue general permits 
covering discharges from offshore oil and gas exploration and 
production facilities ``within the Region's jurisdiction.'' However, 
the commenters are incorrect that EPA must extend coverage of the 
general permit for offshore oil and gas exploration and production 
facilities to the entire Eastern Gulf. The regulations do not support 
such an interpretation, but rather state that for federally leased 
lands, the general permit area should ``generally be no less extensive 
than the lease sale area defined by the Department of Interior.'' 
Consistent with the provisions of the Clean Water Act and decisions by 
the federal courts, EPA interprets this language as providing the 
Agency with discretion in the establishment of the appropriate 
geographical limitations for the general permit. In the preamble to the 
final regulation, EPA states, ``EPA is committed to the issuance of all 
permits when, and only when, an adequate amount of information has been 
gathered with which to determine permit conditions.'' Final Rulemaking, 
48 FR. At 39,617 (Sept. 1, 1983). Additionally, the commenters have 
failed to note that the Department of Interior has not offered in many 
years (if at all) the entire Eastern Gulf OCS area for lease sale. DOI 
has previously offered only limited areas in the Eastern Gulf OCS for 
lease sale, and many potential lease blocks offered for sale were not 
actually leased. DOI has identified only limited areas which will be 
offered for lease sale in the Eastern Planning Area during the pendency 
of this General Permit. There is therefore no rationale supported by 40 
CFR 122.28 under which general permit coverage would be extended to the 
entire Eastern Gulf. As the commenters themselves point out, EPA's 
regulations authorize the issuance of individual permits for offshore 
oil and gas facilities, which is the approach EPA has selected as most 
appropriate for the area shoreward of the 200-meter isobath in the 
Eastern Planning Area.
    EPA's decision regarding general permit coverage area is based upon 
the analysis set forth in NEPA documentation and requirements set forth 
in the CWA. In issuing NDPES permits for offshore discharges, EPA has 
an obligation under section 403(c) of the CWA to determine whether or 
not unreasonable degradation of the marine environment will occur as a 
result of the discharge. In accordance with guidelines published 
pursuant to Section 403(c), the Agency must make this determination 
prior to permit issuance, which often includes a complex analysis to 
develop adequate permit limitations. No permit can be issued if 
unreasonable degradation will occur. If there is insufficient 
information to make a determination as to unreasonable degradation, no 
NPDES permit can be issued unless the Agency determines such discharge 
will not cause irreparable harm to the marine environment. CWA 
Sec. 403; 40 CFR Sec. 122.124; See Natural Resources Defense Council, 
Inc. v. EPA, 19 Env. L. Rep. 20225 (9th Cir. 1988); American Petroleum 
Institute v. EPA, 787 F.2d 956 (5th Cir. 1986). In developing the 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and other documentation required 
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, EPA analyzed the 
alternative of extending general permit coverage to the entire Eastern 
Gulf. In the draft EIS, EPA determined that issuance of general permits 
seaward of the 200 meter isobath (alternative B) will not cause 
unreasonable degradation of the marine environment. As stated in the 
draft EIS, EPA is not able to make such a determination regarding 
discharges to any and all areas shoreward of the 200 meter isobath due 
to uncertainties about the presence of and impacts to sensitive and 
valuable marine resources. Draft EIS at ES-13 (Dec. 1996). With respect 
to the Eastern Planning Area, as the commenters point out, there are 
relatively few leases on which exploratory activities have taken place. 
Accordingly, there is little information regarding the marine 
environment and associated impacts from offshore oil and gas facilities 
in the Eastern Planning Area, as EPA stated in the EIS and fact sheets 
for the general permit. In support of their comment that general permit 
coverage should be extended to the entire Eastern Gulf, the commenters 
cite the variability of conditions encountered in oil and gas 
exploration.

[[Page 55737]]

This same variability and uncertainty, due to a lack of available 
information, makes a general permit for the entire Eastern Gulf 
inadvisable.
    Comment 80: Regarding the Central Planning Area, several commenters 
pointed out that previous lease sales and ongoing activities have 
resulted in additional information regarding discharges from offshore 
oil and gas facilities for this region.
    Response: EPA has confirmed, in consultation with the MMS, that 
EIS's prepared pursuant to these activities in the Central Planning 
Area have resulted in analysis of degradation to the marine environment 
from offshore oil and gas activities in this region, and inclusion of 
appropriate conditions and limitations in permits issued for offshore 
oil and gas discharges in the Central Planning Area. With respect to 
the Central Planning Area within Region 4's jurisdiction, EPA agrees 
that general permit coverage should be extended to the Central Planning 
Area with the exception of areas of biological concern (ABC's). EPA has 
identified in the general permit four ABCs for which general permit 
coverage is not provided, and reserves the right to identify additional 
ABCs in the future. As set forth in the general permit, ABCs are 
excluded from general permit coverage and therefore no discharges from 
offshore oil and gas facilities may commence without an individual 
permit.
    Comment 81: Two commenters contended that this general permit 
violates interagency agreements between EPA and the Department of the 
Interior.
    Response: The provisions of the interagency agreements cited by the 
commenters clearly establish, however, that EPA will issue permits 
``whenever possible,'' and the agreements themselves do not abrogate 
EPA's discretion in issuing NPDES permits and do not confer rights upon 
third parties. Furthermore, the interagency agreements specifically 
state that the types and timing of NPDES permits are dependent upon the 
development and exchange of information sufficient to address CWA 
section 403(c) Ocean Discharge Criteria. EPA is required by the CWA and 
its regulations to certify that any ocean discharge allowed by its 
permit will not cause an unreasonable degradation of the marine 
environment. In this situation, the issuance of general permits for the 
entire Eastern Gulf is clearly inappropriate. EPA's fact sheet for this 
general permit sets forth the basis and rationale for the geographic 
delineation of general permit coverage.
    Comment 82: EPA does not sufficiently justify its selection of the 
200 meter isobath as a general permit cutoff line. Studies conducted on 
facilities located in depths less than 200 meters, which are cited in 
both the EIS and ocean discharge evaluation report, indicated no 
widespread or long-term degradation to marine resources.
    Response: EPA has extensively examined the available literature on 
the distribution of important benthic communities, fisheries habitats, 
and marine mammal habitats and has found that the areas over the 
continental shelf and shelf transition zone (approximated by the area 
out to the 200 meter isobath) contain an abundance of sensitive 
biological resources, particularly offshore Florida and Alabama in the 
Eastern Planning Area and in the excluded features offshore 
Mississippi. Consistent with its authorities noted above, EPA concludes 
that the abundance and sensitivity of the biological resources in the 
area offshore Florida and Alabama in the Eastern Planning Area warrant 
the extra protection afforded by the thorough, case-by-case review 
possible with individual permitting.
    The absence of study results is not sufficient grounds for 
concluding that facilities in water depths less than 200 meters would 
cause no widespread or long-term degradation to marine resources in the 
eastern Gulf. Few, if any, studies have been conducted in the waters of 
the Florida Shelf. Moreover, the effects of produced water discharges, 
particularly the potential for bioaccumulation, are neither well 
studied nor well understood.
    While the 100 meter isobath may account for most or all live bottom 
communities, waters up to 200 meters appear important for some fish 
species. Moreover, MMS' live bottom protections cannot be solely relied 
upon because they are not attached to all lease sales and because the 
determination of what protective measures to require is at the 
discretion of the MMS Director, in consideration of what would be 
``environmentally, economically, and technically appropriate''. 
Therefore, EPA's selected alternative allows no activities in the 
Mobile or Viosca Knoll lease areas before the operator documents the 
absence of a live bottom through a bottom survey.
    Comment 83: Many commenters expressed a preference for Alternative 
C--No issuance of general permits. A few of these commenters explained 
that individual permitting is preferred because it allows for a more 
thorough review of impacts. Other comments noted uncertainties about 
impacts. One commenter expressed a desire for public input into the 
permitting of each well.
    Response: The current National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 
System (NPDES) permitting process was determined by the U.S. Congress 
and is outlined in the Clean Water Act. According to the NPDES 
regulations, EPA is allowed to promulgate general permits for 
discharges into federal waters. The Minerals Management Service of the 
Department of the Interior issues permits for oil and gas drilling 
operations. EPA is authorized to consider whether permits for the 
discharges generated from these drilling and production operations 
should be issued.
    EPA however, has identified regions within the Gulf of Mexico that 
are more sensitive and require discharges to be reviewed on a case by 
case basis. These areas are within the 200 meter isobath in the MMS 
Eastern Planning Area and within 1,000 meters of areas of biological 
concern. The general permit does not cover these areas and instead EPA 
is requiring operators to submit an application for an individual 
permit. Additionally, there are 4 features that are described in the 
Revised permit and Fact Sheet that may warrant case-by-case review and 
will be subject to a public notice comment period. Therefore, the 
Regional Administrator has the authority to issue individual permits 
after proper notice has been provided to the permittee and solicit 
public input on these individual permits during the public notice 
comment period.
    While EPA has concerns about activities near areas of biological 
concern, we believe that the standards that would be imposed on 
operators are adequate to protect most marine environments. Based on 
the factors and considerations required under the Ocean Discharge 
Criteria regulations (40 CFR 125) the ODCE evaluated available 
information and, under these regulations, has concluded there is 
sufficient information to determine there will be no unreasonable 
degradation of the marine environment from permitted discharges with 
all permit conditions, limitations, and monitoring in place. While 
there are areas of outstanding data needs, these needs are not 
considered sufficient to materially affect this determination. For 
example, although data are insufficient to ``conclude that regional-
scale impacts are not occurring,'' the impacts referred to are low 
magnitude, chemical alterations in sediments that are not expected to 
result in any appreciable ecological or human health impacts. Although 
impacts on deep water

[[Page 55738]]

communities are not known with a high degree of certainty, no 
appreciable impacts are foreseeable based on knowledge of impacts in 
shallow environments.
    Information gathered from the required monitoring will be used, 
along with other new information that becomes available, to determine 
whether and how to modify permit conditions in the future permit 
reissuances that occur every five years. Most hydrocarbon resources are 
anticipated to be in the form of natural gas. EPA would consider 
additional conditions specific to an oil discovery. In addition, MMS 
stipulations and regulations, and the EPA option to exercise its own 
live bottom stipulation, are in place to protect sensitive benthic 
resources. EPA does not have the authority to not issue permits without 
a reasonable certainty that proposed actions would violate 
environmental quality standards.
    EPA agrees that the individual permitting strategy for the MMS 
Eastern Planning Area provides for much greater public awareness and 
involvement. However, the Agency regulations encourage the 
implementation of general permitting where suitable. Environmental 
safeguards are being put in place with the proposed General Permit.
    Comment 84: Alternative B provides special protection for shallow 
water through Individual Permits at the expense of deep water 
protection that only require General Permits. This is a double 
standard.
    Response: Regulations promulgated under the Clean Water Act (40 CFR 
122.28(C)(1)) require EPA to issue general permits unless the area 
includes areas, ``such as areas of biological concern, for which 
separate permit conditions are required.'' EPA has determined that the 
Gulf OCS offshore Florida and Alabama in the Eastern Planning Area 
within water depths shallower than 200 meters includes extensive live 
bottom and other particularly valuable marine habitats that have not 
been adequately located nor fully characterized. In addition, greater 
dilutions are generally achieved in deeper waters and discharges must 
cover greater distances to reach sensitive resources. For these 
reasons, EPA has decided to require individual permits inside the 200-
meter isobath within the MMS Eastern Planning Area. In contrast to the 
areas shoreward of the 200 meter isobath, the biological communities at 
greater depths are widely scattered, protected by an MMS notice-to 
lessees (NTL 88-11) that applies to all leases, and is of localized 
significance only. The Gulf OCS offshore Mississippi (with the 
exception of the excluded areas), does not have the physiographic 
characteristics making it likely to have an abundance of live bottoms. 
Nevertheless, EPA is requiring operators in this area to undertake a 
live bottom survey as a condition of EPA approval before conducting 
activities in the Mobile and northeast Viosca Knoll lease areas.
    For these various reasons stated above, EPA considers that the 
conditions in the general permit, along with existing measures, are 
adequately protective of these resources.
    Comment 85: There is an absence of evidence showing that there is 
no irreplaceable or irrevocable harm to the environment. Alternative C 
is the only acceptable option.
    Response: The effluent discharge criteria allow a certain degree of 
adverse impact to sensitive life stages of organisms within the zone of 
mixing, so virtually every wastewater discharge will have some limited 
impact to the marine environment. Regarding the sufficiency of 
environmental impact data, EPA is stating that it is able to make a 
finding of ``no unreasonable degradation'' in accordance with Clean 
Water Act Section 403(c), the Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation, for 
its portion of the MMS Central Planning Area, and seaward of the 200-
meter isobath of the MMS Eastern Planning Area. The agency is not 
comfortable with such a blanket determination in shallower waters.
    Comment 86: Persons commented that EPA should require zero 
discharge of effluent for some or all facilities. Some persons 
commented that EPA should not issue any permits.
    Response: Based on its reviews and impact evaluations conducted in 
support of the Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation and the draft EIS, 
EPA concludes that the proposed permits offer the fullest protection 
allowed by law. Allowing no discharges would place an unreasonable 
burden on operators, one that is not justified by the incremental 
environmental protection. EPA understands the public concern about 
drilling and the recommendation for no discharges within 100 miles of 
shore. EPA cannot support that broad of a constraint but does preclude 
general permit coverage of discharges within 1000 meters of areas of 
biological concern. EPA evaluates during permit reviews whether 
discharges are acceptable in a given location. Unless areas of 
biological concern are present, or the proposed discharge would violate 
water quality standards, discharges are usually approved since the 
effluent limitations are set to minimize adverse impacts. At any time, 
an applicant could elect to undertake a no-discharge project; ``no 
discharge'' is therefore not equivalent to ``no drilling''. There is 
thus no difference in the risk of an oil spill between a facility 
having a no-discharge limitation for wastewater and facilities with 
permitted discharges.
    Comment 87: Many persons commented variously that there should be 
no drilling in the Eastern Gulf, no drilling off of Florida, or no 
drilling within a certain distance of the coast. Some commenters noted 
that Congress and/or the President should place a moratorium on 
offshore drilling. One commentor suggested collection of tax money on 
various energy uses and use of the revenues to buy back the leases.
    Response: EPA has no authority to prohibit offshore hydrocarbon 
exploration or production. Such authority lies to a limited extent with 
U.S. DOI's MMS, which manages the Outer Continental Shelf leasing 
program, and ultimately with the U.S. Congress and the President, which 
can enact and declare leasing and drilling moratoria and can authorize 
the buying back of outstanding leases. The only alternatives available 
to EPA to consider are issuance of general permits (various versions of 
such permits are possible) and No Action, which is non-issuance of 
general permits. EPA must accept and act upon applications for NPDES 
and air permits. Further, even if EPA would deny an NPDES permit to an 
applicant, that entity could possibly elect to operate without 
discharging any effluent, and therefore not require an NPDES permit.
    Persons who own or wish to operate facilities which may discharge 
any pollutant must submit a complete application for such permit as 
provided in 40 CFR Part 122, or comply with the requirements for 
application for coverage by a general permit. EPA's decision regarding 
permit issuance and/or conditions of permits would be subject to the 
requirements of the Clean Water Act and regulations. EPA does not 
expect applications for individual permits (or general permit coverage) 
to be made where the activity is prohibited by federal law or the laws 
of other sovereign entities. However, CWA regulations do not preclude a 
person from making application for an NPDES or air permit for discharge 
for an activity which is prohibited by federal law or other sovereign 
entities. Pursuant to Section 511 of the Clean water Act, 33 U.S.C. 
Sec. 1371, nothing in the Clean Water Act may be construed as limiting 
the authority or functions of any officer or agency of the United 
States under any

[[Page 55739]]

other law or regulation. Accordingly, should such federal moratoria or 
lease-buy back be enacted, EPA actions with respect to any permit 
application would not supersede or override such moratoria or lease buy 
back.
    EPA evaluates during permit reviews whether discharges are 
acceptable in a given location. Such review includes the assessment of 
environmental impacts as set forth in the Clean Water Act and 
regulations, including 40 CFR Part 122, 124, 125, 129, 130, 131, 132, 
and 133. EPA may impose conditions for permits on a general or case-by-
case basis, to provide for and assure compliance with all applicable 
requirements of the Clean Water Act and regulations or as the 
Administrator determines are necessary to carry out the provisions of 
the Clean Water Act. CWA Sec. 402, 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1342. Conditions 
applicable to all NPDES permits are set forth in, inter alia, 40 CFR 
Part 122-133. When applicable, EPA includes effluent limitations and 
standards as provided in the Clean Water Act and regulations. Such 
conditions, effluent limitations, and standards would be established to 
minimize any adverse impacts which may result from the proposed 
discharge of pollutants, including conditions necessary due to the 
presence of areas of biological concern, or necessary to protect or 
achieve water quality standards. At any time, an applicant could elect 
to undertake a no-discharge project. EPA may also deny issuance of a 
permit where the discharge fails to comply with the Clean Water Act and 
regulations.
    The EIS identifies one moratorium area (Eastern Planning Area, 
south of 26 N latitude) as being excluded from proposed General Permit 
coverage. According to the MMS, that area has been under a moratorium 
for oil and gas activity and leasing imposed by President Bush in 1990. 
The MMS has since then bought back the leases in that moratorium area. 
While there have been annual leasing moratoria imposed by the President 
and/or Congress pertaining to MMS new lease sales in the entire Eastern 
Planning Area since 1992, the only moratorium relevant to the EPA and 
therefore excluded from any NPDES permitting is that area south of 26 N 
latitude. Leasing moratoria are prohibitions against offering the 
covered area in a lease sale; they do not affect those lessees holding 
valid leases and seeking permits. EPA believes there are no leases held 
in OCS areas within EPA Region 4 jurisdiction presently under any 
exploration or production activity moratoria.
    Comment 88: By allowing industry to drill for oil and gas in the 
Eastern Gulf of Mexico, the government ignores huge gaps in information 
on the effects of drilling.
    Response: EPA has noted the commenters statements regarding impacts 
of discharges into the Gulf of Mexico and agrees that in some instances 
information may not be available regarding the environmental effects of 
drilling for portions of the Gulf. For this reason, EPA chose the 
alternative set forth in the draft EIS consistent with available 
information. In addition, EPA acknowledges that all environmental 
effects of discharges into marine waters cannot be measured and known 
with certainty. However, Section 403(c)of the Clean Water Act provides 
EPA with the authority to make the determination based on existing 
information if EPA determines that the discharge will cause no 
unreasonable degradation of the marine environment under the NPDES 
permit.
    EPA has evaluated available data, including information submitted 
pursuant to public comment on the draft EIS and permit, and has found 
it to be adequate to assess the potential impacts to marine waters, 
endangered species, marine life including the benthos for those areas 
of the Gulf of Mexico covered by this general permit. EPA has 
determined that, though some impact may occur, ``unreasonable 
degradation'' will not result due to the permit issuance, which is the 
preliminary determination of the Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation.
    Comment 89: EPA should revise Alternative B to include general 
permits seaward of the 200 meter isobath line or a distance of 100 
miles, whichever is greater. In a similar vein, two commenters offered 
that general permit coverage should begin at some (unspecified) minimum 
distance from the coast.
    Response: EPA considered various distances from important coastal 
resources for suitability of a general permit, including several 
distances from coastal barrier islands. EPA Region 4 selected the 200-
meter depth contour because it has scientific basis.
    Regulations promulgated under the Clean Water Act (40 CFR 
122.28(C)(1)) require EPA to issue general permits unless the area 
includes areas, ``such as areas of biological concern, for which 
separate permit conditions are required.'' EPA has extensively examined 
the available literature on the distribution of important benthic 
communities, fisheries habitats, and marine mammal habitats and has 
found that, particularly offshore Florida and Alabama in the Eastern 
Planning Area, the areas over the continental shelf and shelf 
transition zone (approximated by the area out to the 200 meter isobath) 
contains an abundance of sensitive biological resources. Consistent 
with its authorities noted above, EPA concludes that the abundance and 
sensitivity of the biological resources in this area warrant the extra 
protection afforded by individual permitting in waters offshore Florida 
and Alabama in the Eastern Planning Area and a live bottom survey 
requirement in the Mobile and Viosca Knoll lease areas. In contrast, 
demarcating a 100-mile cutoff for a permitting decision has no 
scientific, ecological basis, and as such is not supported by EPA's 
regulatory authority.
    Comment 90: Areas of Biological Concern warrant the use of 
individual permits. These communities are scattered throughout the 
eastern Gulf and their exact locations are not known. The use of 
individual permits will allow the state (Florida) to work with EPA to 
adequately define resource issues and areas of biological concern.
    Response: EPA believes that the potential for areas of biological 
concern in the Mobile and Viosca Knoll lease areas warrants the 
requirement for operators to conduct a live bottom survey before 
hydrocarbon exploration and development activities can take place in 
these areas. EPA has concluded that, because the resources in the Gulf 
offshore Florida and Alabama in the Eastern Planning Area are less well 
known, and somewhat different than the resources to the west, 
individual permits (for activities in waters less than 200 meters 
depth) are appropriate. See Section 2.4 of the Final EIS.
    Comment 91: EPA does not have enough information to issue permits 
for offshore drilling near Florida shores.
    Response: The Agency has reviewed available information and has 
determined that there is sufficient information to issue the general 
permit for the areas covered. The analyses are presented in the ODCE.
    Comment 92: There should be a process to provide transition 
coverage to leases that would lose general permit coverage so that 
activities can proceed uninterrupted while a new permit is being 
developed and issued. EPA could grant non-operational leases the same 
interim coverage proposed for operational leases.
    Response: EPA appreciates lessees' concern about when the old 
General Permit coverage expires and the new General Permit becomes 
effective. In the proposed new General Permit area (Region 4 Central 
Planning Area

[[Page 55740]]

jurisdiction and outside the 200-meter isobath of the Eastern Planning 
Area) EPA would accept from a lessee a Notice of Intent for coverage 
under the new general permit within 60 days of the new General Permit 
becoming effective. The lessee's project would be considered 
operational if the Notice of Intent received indicates a discharge has 
occurred within 2 years of the effective date of the new General 
Permit, and may proceed with old General Permit coverage if that lease 
had old permit coverage. New General Permit coverage commences when EPA 
notifies the operator of such coverage. Otherwise, non-operational 
projects have no coverage until EPA grants coverage following filing of 
an Exploration Plan with MMS. Please also refer to Table 1 in the 
Supplemental Information Section IV.
    Comment 93: The draft general permits will have a deleterious 
effect on drilling and workover operations by requiring a new permit 
for each rig moved to a new drilling location or to work over an 
existing well, and the permitting process would take six months. 
Workover rigs may be needed immediately to secure and safeguard 
operational problems.
    Response: The NPDES regulations allow such activities to be covered 
in a single permit. Further, EPA customarily follows the MMS procedure 
of ``unitizing'' a project having multiple site (lease block) 
activities where the activities are part of one development and 
production plan and thus subject to a single NPDES permit.
    Comment 94: The permit should allow transfer for coverage from one 
operator to another. This provision would be consistent with the Region 
6 permit.
    Response: The previous current existing general permit allows 
transfer of coverage upon proper notification to EPA Region 4, but due 
to the confusion in agreements and leases sometimes changing hands a 
few times every year, Region 4 has now placed the burden of giving 
proper notification to the agency in the hands of the operator. This 
will allow general permit coverage to be updated on all leases by the 
agency as they occur in EPA's permit compliance system. Additionally, 
it will give EPA more information at the time the notice is filed on 
drilling proposals of development plans that are being developed for 
the proposed areas in question and whether the facility is eligible for 
coverage under either the new source or existing source general permit. 
The Region believes that filing these notices for transfer of leases by 
the operator fulfills the requirement under minor modifications (40 CFR 
122.63) when transfers do occur and allows the Region to have an 
accurate record of transfers as they occur in the Region 4 
jurisdictional area.
    Comment 95: The second paragraph in Part I.A.2 of the permit should 
be revised to say: ``leases occurring below the 26 degree parallel 
which are currently under moratorium are excluded from coverage under 
these general permits.'' The existing permit language would deny an 
operator the benefits of the permit--even for leases outside of the 
moratorium area if he merely held leases in the moratorium area. It was 
EPA's intent to deny coverage to the leases in the moratorium area, 
instead of the operator. A similar concern applies to ineligibility for 
coverage within 1,000 meters of an area of biological concern.
    Response: The comment represents an unreasonable interpretation of 
the general permit provisions. The general permit language clearly 
prohibits discharges within 1000 meters of an Area of Biological 
Concern and operations below the 26 parallel, and excludes from general 
permit coverage operations of any operator who seeks to discharge 
within the 1000 meter buffer zone and below the 26 parallel. The 
language should be read in context of the section in which the language 
is placed.
    Comment 96: EPA has the ability to impose various restrictions on 
discharges in specific areas that are determined to be of high habitat 
or resource value. By placing Areas of Biological Concern off limits, 
EPA has greatly reduced its uncertainty about causing unreasonable 
degradation.
    Response: EPA agrees with that the current permit contains 
discharge limitations, such as the requirement to apply for an 
individual permit for facilities located within 1,000 m of areas of 
biological concern, that ensure no unreasonable degradation of marine 
waters will occur within the permit coverage area. EPA has reached this 
conclusion in the process of conducting the Ocean Discharge Criteria 
Evaluation (ODCE) for the proposed permit. The ODCE outlined potential 
environmental impacts resulting from the permit and found that the 
permit will not cause unreasonable degradation of the marine 
environment.
    Comment 97: EPA has the ability to impose various restrictions on 
discharges in specific areas that are determined to be of high habitat 
or resource value. By placing Areas of Biological Concern off limits, 
EPA has greatly reduced its uncertainty about causing unreasonable 
degradation.
    Response: EPA agrees with that the current permit contains 
discharge limitations, such as the requirement to apply for an 
individual permit for facilities located within 1,000 m of areas of 
biological concern, that ensure no unreasonable degradation of marine 
waters will occur within the permit coverage area. EPA has reached this 
conclusion in the process of conducting the Ocean Discharge Criteria 
Evaluation (ODCE) for the proposed permit. The ODCE outlined potential 
environmental impacts resulting from the permit and found that the 
permit will not cause unreasonable degradation of the marine 
environment.
    Comment 98: Metals are tightly bound to drilling fluid solids and 
do not readily leach off into the aqueous phase of the mud following 
discharge to the ocean (Trefry et al., 1986).
    Response: Metals found in the drilling fluid discharges are 
predominantly associated with drilling fluid solids. However, a small 
fraction of the metals bound to the drilling fluid solids is known to 
solubilize into the water column and sediment pore water. This fraction 
is expressed as the leach percentage. The ODCE drilling mud dilution 
analysis has been revised to include the leach percentage factor of the 
corresponding metal for two scenarios: mean seawater leach and pH5/7.8 
maximum seawater leach. The leach percentages used in the ODCE are 
derived from Liss et al. (1980), Kramer et al. (1980), McCulloch et al. 
(1980), and Trefry et al. (1986).
    Comment 99: [ODCE Comment] No information is given about whether 
the concentrations of metals reported in Table 3-2 of the ODCE for 
barite are ``typical'', mean, or upper limit concentrations for 
drilling mud grade barite. Some of the concentrations seem high, 
particularly those for chromium, nickel, and tin, when compared to the 
data presented in EPA (1985a), Table 2-3. However, the mercury and 
cadmium concentrations listed in Table 3-2 are below permit limits.
    Response: Stock barite that meets metals limitations is referred to 
by EPA as ``clean'' barite (EPA, 1993b). The data presented in Table 3-
2 of the ODCE represent mean metals concentrations for ``clean'' 
barite. These barite characterization data are found in the Offshore 
Oil and Gas Effluent Guidelines Development public record and were 
provided by industry as EPA Region 10 Discharge Monitoring Report Data.
    Comment 100: [ODCE Comment] The use of diesel fuel in drilling 
fluid destined for ocean disposal is prohibited and the use has 
therefore

[[Page 55741]]

decreased. Thus the discussion in the ODCE may not be completely 
representative of current practice in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico.
    Response: The use of diesel fuel has decreased since the early 
1980s and alternatives, such as synthetic based muds, have increased. 
Although drilling fluids containing diesel are not permitted to be 
discharged, there is no prohibition on their use. The ODCE was drafted 
prior to promulgation of final offshore effluent limitations guidelines 
and has been updated to reflect current drilling fluid usage trends.
    Comment 101: [ODCE Comment] Regarding the ODCE, the inclusion of a 
paragraph on oil-based drilling muds without any qualifications leaves 
the impression that oil-based drilling fluids and oily cuttings are 
discharged to U.S. waters.''
    Response: EPA agrees and has noted in the ODCE the discharge 
prohibition of oil-based muds.
    Comment 102: [ODCE Comment] The commenter requests clarification on 
the characterization of pollutant concentrations for drilling fluids as 
presented in the ODCE.
    Response: The ODCE used pollutant concentrations as developed for 
the final offshore effluent limitations guidelines.
    Comment 103: [ODCE Comment] Drill cuttings do not contain up to 60 
percent by volume adhering drilling fluids as is documented in the 
draft ODCE. The amount of drilling fluid that remains attached to 
cuttings after treatment in the mud and cuttings treatment system on 
the platform varies. According to Neff, et al. (1987), a typical 
cuttings discharge contains 5 to 10 percent drilling fluids solids. The 
60 percent estimate is attributable to Ayers et al. (1980a) by EPA 
(1985a), but this estimate could not be found in Ayers et al. Also, the 
concentration units in Table 3-4 of the ODCE are not g/l as 
reported, but rather percent by weight.
    Response: EPA stands by the technical accuracy of its statement in 
the ODCE. The statement in USEPA (1985a) could have been better 
structured to more clearly reflect its intention to state that the 
``other data'' as presented in Ayers et al. (1980a) is the source of 
the 40% to 60% estimate of adherent fluids, not Ayers et al. 
themselves. EPA's estimate of adherent fluids is based on the data 
presented in Table 10 of Ayers et al. (1980a).
    With regard to Table 3-4 of the draft ODCE, the commenter is 
correct that the units of the table should be percent by weight. This 
has been corrected in the final document.
    Comment 104: [ODCE Comment] The commenter questioned the source of 
the data presented in Table 3-5 of the ODCE and whether the 
concentrations listed represent means, typical concentrations, or 
highest expected concentrations. Lower values are given in Table 3-5 of 
the EIS and are based on BCT/BAT/NSPS-level treatment with improved gas 
flotation. In order to meet the new effluent standards for oil and 
grease in produced water (42/29 mg/L), operators will have to adopt the 
advanced produced water treatment technology (Otto and Arnold, 1996). 
Therefore, the concentrations in Table 3-5 of the EIS (EPA, 1996) are 
more appropriate to represent likely chemical concentrations in 
``typical'' produced water, rather than the overall ``average'' values 
listed in Table 3-5 of the ODCE document. The commenter also questioned 
the concentrations of several pollutants in Table 3-5 namely, 
benzo(a)pyrene, chlorobenzene, di-n-butylphthalate, and p-chloro-m-
cresol .
    Response: The commenter is correct that current offshore produced 
water discharges must meet oil and grease limitations of 42 mg/l daily 
maximum and 29 mg/l monthly average based on improved performance gas 
flotation. The ODCE was drafted prior to promulgation of final offshore 
effluent limitation guidelines (ELG). EPA revised Table 3-5 of the 
final ODCE to reflect the current characteristics of offshore produced 
water effluent. Data presented in Table 3-5 are consistent with those 
provided in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The 
characterizations of produced water effluent from improved gas 
flotation were obtained through ``a statistical analysis of data 
collected by EPA and submitted by industry'' and was used in the 
offshore ELG development (EPA, 1993). Pollutant concentrations, 
including benzo(a)pyrene, chlorobenzene, di-n-butylphthalate, and p-
chloro-m-cresol are significantly lower in produced water discharged 
after treatment using improved gas flotation.
    Comment 105: [ODCE Comment] The high concentration of organic 
carbon in produced water is not attributable primarily to volatile 
aromatic hydrocarbons and aliphatic hydrocarbons as stated in the ODCE. 
Most of the organic matter in produced water is in solution and 
consists of a mixture of low molecular weight carboxylic acids which 
are common in marine sediments and are not toxic to marine organisms. 
Also Gulf produced waters also contain phenols which, although toxic to 
marine organisms, biodegrade rapidly in the marine environment.
    Response: The information submitted by the commenter is noted and 
the ODCE has been updated to reflect the additional information. 
Although it is true that many of the constituents present in effluent 
discharges are also common in marine sediments, some are not. While it 
is true that phenol biodegrades rapidly, it is phenol (not any 
metabolic product) that is discharged in the permitted effluent and 
which must be evaluated against water quality criteria.
    Comment 106: [ODCE Comment] Two comment letters expressed the 
opinion that the text of the ODCE misrepresents the volumes of produced 
water discharged by individual platforms.
    Response: The ODCE presents the range of produced water volume 
discharged from offshore facilities in the central and western Gulf of 
Mexico as rates between 134 bbl/day to 150,000 bbl/day. The 
distribution of produced water discharges for offshore platforms has 
been studied and published by EPA in the Offshore ELG Development 
Document (EPA, 1993b). Information presented in the ODCE regarding 
produced water volumes discharged in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico has 
been updated.
    Comment 107: The modeling of drilling fluid dispersion as presented 
in the ODCE is not representative of drilling fluid discharge 
conditions that might occur in the eastern Gulf of Mexico.
    Response: EPA agrees that a 5-meter depth scenario is not realistic 
for conditions in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. However, the general 
permit must be adequately protective in all areas of its coverage. 
Therefore, drilling fluid dilution modeling must assess the shallowest 
area under the maximum permit allowable discharge rate, high mud 
weight, (ie., worst-case) scenario.
    EPA has revised the presentation of the drilling fluid dilution 
model data in the ODCE and EIS. Several different water depths are used 
to represent different depth ranges of the permit coverage area. In 
addition, dilution at the edge of the 100m mixing zone is used for 
water quality analyses as opposed to dispersions as presented in the 
previous version of the ODCE.
    The water depths and corresponding mean dilutions selected from the 
OOC Model results are: 15m (mean dilution = 562), 40m (mean dilution = 
787), and 70m (dilution = 1,721). All other parameters, that is, the 
discharge rate, the mud weight, and the current speed were not changed 
in any of the chosen model scenarios. The discharge rate at each of the 
above-mentioned depths was 1,000 bbl/hr as in the original ODCE

[[Page 55742]]

since this parameter is the maximum allowable discharge rate under the 
permit. Using this high discharge rate as well as the OOC model mud 
weight and current speed, EPA presents in the ODCE the results of 
dilutions under the most conservative conditions provided by the 
permit. EPA has noted in the current ODCE that the results are 
conservative and that normal operations in the Gulf of Mexico would 
result in greater dilutions of solids at the edge of the 100m mixing 
zone.
    Comment 108: Several of the human health criteria (fish 
consumption) are unrealistic or inappropriate based on comparison to 
ambient concentrations (arsenic) or to carcinogenic PAHs (anthracene 
vs. benzo[a]pyrene).
    Response: The water quality criteria used for the water quality 
analysis have been updated to include the most recently published 
criteria. Water quality criteria are proposed and subject to public 
comment as with any EPA rulemaking. For the purpose of the water 
quality analysis, the criteria are used as guidelines for determining 
potential effects.
    Comment 109: [ODCE Comment] In discussing physical fate, the ODCE 
refers to ``dilution'' and ``dispersion.'' Unfortunately, 
``dispersion'' is commonly used to refer to the far-field mixing that 
occurs under the influence of turbulent eddies, a quite different usage 
than that in the ODCE. The phrase ``differential settling and removal 
to the bottom'' should be used instead of ``dispersion'' in the ODCE.
    Response: The discussion in the ODCE has been revised to clarify 
the terms ``dilution'' and ``dispersion.''
    Comment 110: [ODCE Comment] In several places, the ODCE refers to 
horizontal distances at which some amount of drilling effluent 
deposition occurred. These distances are only for the specific 
literature citations mentioned. For example, the results in Ayers, et 
al. (1980) were for a total settling distance of 20 meters. In general, 
the greater the settling distance (discharge pipe to bottom) the 
greater the time for settling and the distance traveled. Also, 
dispersion increases. These factors may lead to greater or lesser 
amounts of deposition at specific distances, depending on currents and 
particle settling velocities.
    Response: EPA agrees that, in general, the greater the drilling 
effluent settling distance (i.e., discharge pipe to bottom) the greater 
the time for settling and the distance traveled. The ODCE describes in 
detail the processes or pathways that affect both the upper and lower 
plumes. The ODCE was revised to include settling distance as a factor 
affecting the physical transport processes.
    Comment 111: [ODCE Comment] The following ODCE statement should be 
restated: ``Density stratification contributes to the dissipation of 
dynamic forces in the dynamic collapse phase of the plume, which 
represents the point at which passive diffusion and settling of the 
individual particle become the predominant dispersive mechanisms.'' If 
a plume is trapped in a stratified water column, the density is the 
mechanism that drives the collapse of the plume (the spreading out of 
the plume at its level of neutral buoyancy). After sufficient 
spreading, the spreading rate caused by dynamic forces declines to the 
spreading rate that occurs from turbulent dispersion (the so called 
far-field dispersion that dominates thereafter).
    Response: EPA agrees with the commenter's restatement of the 
dynamic of plume collapse. The clarifications have been incorporated 
into the discussions of the ODCE as appropriate.
    Comment 112: [ODCE Comment] Sediment reworking by bioturbation, if 
it has any effect at all on the environmental impacts of deposited 
drilling fluid solids, will tend to decrease their impacts by mixing 
and diluting the solids in the sediment column.
    Response: EPA has noted in the ODCE that bioturbation is the 
process by which organisms rework the sediment, thereby mixing surface 
material and deeper sediment layers. This process incorporates drilling 
fluid solids into the sediment and disperses drilling fluid solids. 
However, this process also may resuspend previously settled solids and 
may expose more benthic organisms to drilling fluid solids.
    Comment 113: [ODCE Comment] Contrary to statements in the ODCE, 
metals do not ``always increase in sediments near drilling rigs due to 
deposition of drilling fluids (Boothe and Presely, 1985)''
    Response: The ODCE does not suggest that several metals always 
increase in sediments near drilling rigs. The ODCE states clearly ``the 
only two metals clearly associated with drilling fluids that appear to 
be elevated are barium and chromium.''
    Comment 114: [ODCE Comment] The data source presented in the ODCE 
to demonstrate that mercury and other metals from drilling fluids are 
likely to accumulate in sediments and organisms near drilling 
operations were subsequently found to attribute the mercury source to 
erosion (Crippen et al., 1980) or to be proven erroneous (Mariani et 
al., 1980; Gillmore et al., 1985).
    Response: The comment is noted and the final ODCE contains updated 
information and revisions.
    Comment 115: The area of potential effects of water-based drilling 
fluid discharges on the benthos nearly always is less than 1,000 m from 
the discharge, except in very shallow waters with restricted mixing and 
circulation. There have been no documented cases where petroleum 
hydrocarbons accumulated from water-based drilling muds or produced 
water in sediments to high enough concentrations to cause substantial 
adverse effects over a wide area. While the effects of oil-based muds 
may extend out to 1,000 meters or so, the discharge of such muds and 
cuttings is prohibited.
    Response: The current ODCE has been revised to discuss the impact 
of water-based drilling fluid discharge on the benthos rather than 
impacts of oil-based mud discharge.
    Comment 116: [ODCE Comment] Most of the studies reviewed concerning 
the fate of produced water are for shallow coastal waters, not 
representative of most of the OCS of the eastern Gulf of Mexico. 
Several more recent references are also available.
    Response: The comment is noted and the final ODCE contains updated 
information and revisions.
    Comment 117: Two comment letters questioned the application of the 
CORMIX model to analyze the fate of produced water discharges. They 
also contended that the statement of Brook's equation for the 4/3 law 
farfield dilution is wrong in the ODCE.
    Response: In developing the final general permit for the Eastern 
Gulf of Mexico, EPA Region 4 has used the most recent CORMIX model 
(Version 3.20), which is supported by EPA Headquarters. The produced 
water discharge scenarios were rerun with updated facility discharge 
data (i.e., produced water discharge rates) using this revised version 
of CORMIX. Brooks' 4/3 power is not used in the updated CORMIX version.
    Comment 118: Chronic effects of produced water discharges are 
extremely unlikely in the water column. In all but the most poorly 
mixed enclosed water bodies, mixing is sufficient to prevent a chronic 
increase in concentrations of hydrocarbons and metals in the water 
column near the discharge. Environmentally significant accumulation of 
hydrocarbons in sediments near produced water discharges occurs only in 
shallow coastal and enclosed waters, such as

[[Page 55743]]

Trinity Bay, TX (2-3 m deep) (Armstrong et al., 1979).
    Response: EPA agrees and notes that the ODCE and EIS have 
statements to the effect of those made by the commenters.
    Comment 119: The source of the high radium concentrations in 
coastal and offshore waters of west Florida is runoff from phosphate 
mining and natural phosphate deposits, rich in radium isotopes, in the 
area (Fanning et al., 1982; Miller et al., 1990).
    Response: The permit coverage area does not cover the cited Florida 
coastal waters and radium concentrations found in open Gulf waters are 
more appropriate for comparison with discharges occurring under the 
permit.
    Comment 120: The products used in drilling are toxic. Spills, small 
and large will occur and the toxins will ruin our beaches and waters. 
[72]
    Response: The effects of discharges of drilling fluids were 
examined in the DEIS and Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation.
    Comment 121: The environmental consequences summarized in the ODCE 
should be consistent with those summarized in the DEIS (e.g., number of 
pollutant discharges in drilling fluids that exceed AWQC). [112]
    Response: The commenter is correct that the DEIS and the draft ODCE 
contain different conclusions of water quality criteria exceedences 
from drilling fluids discharges. Both conclusions are based on the same 
Offshore Operators Committee Muds Model data and water quality 
compliance criteria. The difference is attributable to selecting and 
summarizing results of the water quality analysis and not in the 
methods or criteria used to determine water quality compliance. Both 
analyses are derived from data used and presented for the development 
of the effluent limitations guidelines for the offshore subcategory. 
The model results (presented in Table 4-5 of the original ODCE) were 
used for both analyses. The DEIS used results as presented in the RIA 
for the Effluent Limitations Guidelines rulemaking (U.S. EPA, 1993a, as 
extracted from Avanti, 1993). This analysis presented effluent 
concentrations at the edge of a 100-meter mixing zone based on the 
average dispersions attained at water depths of 5 m, 19.8 m, and 50 m 
using two leachability assumptions (mean seawater extraction and pH 5 
extraction). The results reported in the DEIS are based on the results 
of the mean seawater leach condition at a 50-meter water depth. The 
discussion in the ODCE reports a more conservative case--using the pH 5 
extraction--at a 20-meter depth.
    Both the FEIS and Revised ODCE present a revised and consistent 
methodology for the water quality analysis, using two commonly accepted 
extraction factors (the maximum seawater pH and pH 5/7.8), and dilution 
estimates for three water depths (15, 40, and 70 meters) which 
represent the range of depths in the central planning area portion of 
the permit coverage area. The FEIS text reflects these changes and the 
Revised ODCE presents the detailed methodology. Also, some changes have 
occurred to the Federal Water Quality Criteria and these are reflected 
in the water quality analyses of the FEIS and ODCE.
    Comment 122: The proposed NPDES general permits are an improvement 
over prior regulations, but Alternative B does not sufficiently protect 
water quality. The Gulf is already receiving a large amount of the 
nation's toxic pollutants (the five Gulf states rank high among the top 
10 states with the largest Toxic Release Inventory releases). The 
present regulatory programs do not protect nor improve water quality.
    Response: In preparing for its Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation 
(ODCE), EPA examined existing studies of water quality and toxicity 
effects of drilling and production discharges and has conducted 
discharge modeling of drilling fluids and produced water. EPA has made 
the ODCE determination that, based on the available information, the 
permit limitations are sufficient to determine that no unreasonable 
degradation should result from the permitted discharges. The potential 
impacts of effluent discharges would be minimized by the effluent 
discharge limits established in the permits and dispersion of surface 
discharges. Short-term biological effects are expected to be limited to 
less than 1,000 meters from drilling and production sites. Monitoring 
parameters would be applied to determine concentrations in discharges 
and surrounding waters as a basis to adjust limitations in the future.
    Comment 123: Pollutants are having a cumulative impact on the Gulf, 
affecting marine mammals, causing red tides, creating dead zones, 
increasing fecal coliform counts, decreasing the seafood harvest, and 
causing mercury contamination of seafood. Human exposure via swimming 
in contaminated waters is also a concern.
    Response: Pollutant modeling results have shown pollutant 
concentrations associated with produced water discharges are diluted to 
levels below federal and state water quality standards within 100 
meters of the discharge. Concentrations of certain pollutants in 
drilling fluids (arsenic, beryllium, chromium, copper, lead, and 
mercury) do exceed some of the federal and state water quality 
standards when measured at the edge of a 100-meter mixing zone. 
However, the exceedances are not great, such that concentrations would 
reduce to background levels at least several miles (for discharges at 
the shoreward limit of federal OCS waters) from where any swimming 
would be taking place.
    Comment 124: Routine offshore drilling operations and pipeline 
installation dumps thousands of pounds of toxic drilling muds into the 
ocean.
    Response: The effects of the toxic constituents in offshore 
drilling discharges have been examined in the Ocean Discharge Criteria 
Evaluation and draft EIS. EPA concludes that the discharges will not 
result in an unreasonable degradation of the marine environment. The 
potential impacts of these discharges are minimized by the effluent 
discharge limits established in the permits, including the ``clean 
barite'' requirement, the prohibition on the discharge of cuttings 
contaminated with oils, and the aquatic toxicity limitation.
    Comment 125: Siltation is briefly mentioned in the EIS, but it 
needs its own study.
    Response: The EIS mentions that localized impacts of siltation may 
occur from trenching related to pipeline emplacements. Because of its 
highly localized nature, this effect is not considered as a substantial 
impact on Gulf of Mexico resources. The effects of drilling mud 
discharges and resuspension of sediments are examined at various points 
throughout chapter three of the draft EIS and are concluded to not have 
a substantial impact.
    Comment 126: Support vessels also affect offshore waters since 
discharges occur from these sources.
    Response: Recent MARPOL regulations pertaining to ships are 
applicable to service vessels, and these regulations place much tighter 
restrictions on bilge discharges. The issue of course is enforcement 
and the U.S. Coast Guard has this responsibility but MMS also does 
limited inspection of barges at rigs and platforms.
    Comment 127: Most of the major bays experience hypoxic conditions 
during the summer, and Mobile Bay is experiencing hypoxic conditions 
during the winter. Panama City Waters, Choctawhatchee Bay and Mobile 
Bay contain shellfish with high organic compounds. These valuable 
resources can't be further degraded.
    Response: One of the most severe environmental stresses to the Gulf 
that the Commentor mentions is hypoxia, or

[[Page 55744]]

depressed dissolved oxygen. The Gulf of Mexico Program has identified 
excess nutrient loadings primarily of river discharge origin as the 
source of this over-enrichment. Nitrogen and phosphorus loading and 
organic material reaching the Gulf have increased dramatically in 
recent years. Scientists believe this over-enrichment causes excessive 
primary productivity in the form of algal blooms. Organic loadings from 
riverine sources coupled with the organic production within the Gulf 
exert massive biological oxygen demand. The result is an area of 
severely depressed oxygen levels in Gulf bottom waters that is 
increasing in size but varying seasonally. All major wastewater 
components of offshore operations (muds and cuttings, produced waters, 
and domestic wastewater) have oxygen consuming components. The domestic 
wastewater discharge from the sewage treatment facility yields organic 
wastes that exert a biological oxygen demand, but all of these wastes 
are negligible compared to the riverine and other coastal inputs. The 
estuarine hypoxia problems in Mobile and other bays, mentioned by the 
Commentor, is pronounced. The sediments of confined inland waters act 
as sinks for the nutrient and organic inputs. Wave action and currents 
plus the almost continual dredging activities within estuaries tend to 
increase the resuspension of these pollutants. While offshore supply 
boat traffic contributes turbidity, the industry collectively has 
little impact to this problem in the estuary.
    Comment 128: Minimizing the impacts of effluent discharges by 
establishing limits in General Permits is certainly no solution to the 
problems. Dispersion of surface discharges into deeper waters is a 
deplorable practice. The only environmentally-friendly practice for 
discharging effluents into the sea can be the purification of the 
waste-water prior to discharge. Solids need to be disposed of 
separately on land. Dilution and dispersion are not solutions to 
pollution.
    Response: EPA's goal and Congressional mandate per the Clean Water 
Act is to reduce pollution in the nation's waters. In order to achieve 
this mandate, EPA promulgates regulations, the effluent limitations 
guidelines, for all industrial sources, including the oil and gas 
industry. The effluent guidelines are implemented through the NPDES 
permitting process. In 1993, EPA promulgated effluent guidelines for 
the offshore subcategory of the oil and gas industry. During the 
process of developing these guidelines, EPA evaluated the treatment 
technologies as well as disposal options available to the oil and gas 
industry.
    NPDES permits require water quality-based analyses, and for marine 
dischargers, must include a CWA Section 403 ``Ocean Discharge Criteria 
Evaluation (ODCE). The ODCE is a document published by EPA to evaluate 
the environmental impact of the NPDES general permit of discharges from 
the offshore oil and gas industry. The ODCE determined that the 
conditions and limitations in the general permit protected the water 
quality of the eastern Gulf of Mexico and preserved the health of the 
aquatic life.
    For the offshore subcategory, treatment of produced water effluent 
using improved gas flotation and limitations on drilling fluid 
discharges were determined to be both economically achievable and 
providing significant reduction in pollutants compared to existing 
regulations. Therefore, treatment of effluent to municipal wastewater 
levels is not a currently feasible technologically nor economically. 
Disposing drilling solids on land was considered by EPA in 1993, but 
was determined not to be feasible for the offshore oil and gas industry 
given the large distances and costs associated with land disposal.
    EPA agrees that dilution is not an appropriate method for treating 
discharges. However, the general permit does not rely on ``the dilution 
of discharges to reduce the level of toxics'' to avoid unreasonable 
degradation.
    The conditions and limitations in the general permit for the 
eastern Gulf were determined to protect water quality and preserve the 
health of benthic and other marine organisms. These permit conditions 
and limitations include no discharge of free oil, no discharge of oil-
based muds, no discharge of diesel oil, no discharge of produced sand, 
no discharge within 1,000 meters of areas of biological concern, oil 
and grease limitation on produced water, cadmium and mercury 
concentration limitation in barite, discharge rate limitations around 
live-bottom areas, and limitations on the whole effluent toxicity of 
both drilling fluids and produced water.
    Comment 129: Estimates of dilution 100 meters from discharges and 
areas receiving drilling effluents at specified criteria or more can be 
generated in a form suitable for a general permit.
    Response: While it is technically possible to construct a table of 
estimated dilutions for various operational and environmental 
parameters, EPA does not believe this approach offers any significant 
administrative or regulatory relief to operators and would require 
substantial Agency resources. EPA does believe such an approach is an 
entirely feasible option for operators, given published criteria, 
should they decide they have an individual requirement, to further 
control their water quality impacts based on available environmental 
and operational data.
    Comment 130: The proposed current speed of 4 cm/sec represents the 
median of data collected from offshore Alabama using a current meter 
placed at a 10 meter water depth in 30 meters of total water depth. EPA 
should evaluate the relevancy of this constant parameter, since the 
model will be applied to discharges in water depths for 200 meters or 
greater. This will result in more accurate projection of the effluent 
concentration at 100 meters (edge of mixing zone) which is used to 
calculate the toxicity limitations for each production platform 
modeled.
    Response: EPA believes that Gulf currents at depths more than 200 
meters deep are nil. The modeling performed relative to the issuance of 
new source performance standards and the revisions to best available 
technology evaluated the water currents in waters much shallower and 
under greater current magnitudes and fluctuations, representing worst 
case potential concentrations at the edge of a 100-meter mixing zone.
    Comment 131: EPA should consider existing compliance levels in 
deciding whether to issue more NPDES permits.
    Response: EPA regulations do not allow the Agency to consider an 
applicants's track record when deciding on new permits for a facility.
    Comment 132: There should be a requirement for adequate emergency 
response.
    Response: The MMS requires on-site containment capabilities as well 
as rapid response from shore bases.
    Comment 133: EPA should consider the level of toxicity of the 
discharged material and should strongly consider a prohibition on toxic 
discharges.
    Response: The effluent limitations prohibit toxic concentrations 
beyond a 100-meter zone of mixing.
    Comment 134: The State of Florida must have the ability to opt for 
more stringent discharge conditions, if warranted, based on resources 
at a specific site. There must be a formal mechanism for State 
participation in general permit decisions.
    Response: EPA is willing to enter into an agreement (Memorandum of 
Understanding) with the State of Florida regarding input to decisions 
on NPDES permitting review.

[[Page 55745]]

Other Changes to General Permit at the Time of Final Permit 
Issuance.

    Based on comments received or review of draft permit, changes were 
made to the Fact Sheet and Permit as noted below prior to final 
issuance.

Fact Sheet Changes

Section 1.D(1)

    The Phrase ``therefore sites where exploration has occurred are not 
considered existing sources'', is changed to ``therefore, sites where 
exploration has occurred are not considered new sources.''

Section I.H

    The phrase ``one in Block 990 discharging approximately 160 BPD; 
and one in Block 821 discharging approximately 240 BPD.'' should be 
updated. Following this sentence, the Region has incorporated an update 
into the final Fact Sheet which reads as: Based on a 1998 survey, the 
Region gained information that Mobile Block 990 produced water 
discharge has increased to 450 BPD and Mobile Block 821 produced water 
has increased to 1500 BPD and incorporated this revised information in 
the Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation.

Section I.i

    Cormix Expert System (v. 1.4; Doneker and Jirka, 1990) has been 
revised to use the most recent Cormix Model (Version 3.2). Since Brooks 
4/3 power law is not used in the revised version of Cormix references 
using the Brooks 4/3 power law should also be deleted. The reference 
manual (EPA/600/4-85/013) was changed to (EPA/600/4-90/027F). The 
phrase ``The LC 50s must be reported monthly, accompanied by a copy of 
the full laboratory report'' is changed to `` The LC50s must be 
reported bi-monthly, accompanied by a copy of the full laboratory 
report. The reference to using sheepshead minnows for conducting 
toxicity tests is changed to inland silverside.
    Part III,--1st Paragraph,--the wastestream, ``Uncontaminated 
Freshwater'' was added and has been included in the final permit under 
``Miscellaneous Discharges'.

Section V.N--Clarifications

    End-of-Well Sample--The previous definition will not be changed as 
proposed, and can be located in the definition Section of the Final 
NPDES General Permit.

Permit Changes

Part I. Section A.1

    Added well workover and abandonment operations as a category of 
operations covered.

Part I. Section A.4

    Under Notification Requirements, Item No. 4, 10 and Item No. 11were 
revised based on regulations and to exempt initial photo-documentation 
for certain facilities. NCO requirements were changed from 30 days 
prior to placement to 30 days after placement. NCO requirements for 
produced water discharge was changed from within 30 days prior to 
initiation of produced water to within 90 days after initiation of 
produced water discharge.

Part I. Section B.3.b

    The reference to Cormix1(Version 1.4) is changed to Cormix (Version 
3.2)The reference to (EPA/600/4-85/013) is changed to (EPA/600/4-90/
027F). The phrase ``The results for both species shall be reported on 
the monthly DMR'' has been changed to `` The results for both species 
shall be reported on the monthly DMR, once every 2-months.

Part II. Section D.3

    Transfers reference Part I.A.3 has been is changed to Part I.A.4. 
Tables 2 & 3--For the Discharge parameter for Produced Water, the 
Toxicity requirement was changed from once/month to once-every two 
months, and one species was changed from sheepshead minnows to inland 
silverside minnow.
    Appendix A--The type of species was revised based on comments. EPA 
added another parameter that may be used in the CORMIX toxicity 
calculation and will be reported by the operator.

General Permit Table of Contents

Part I. Requirements for NPDES Permits

Section A. Permit Applicability and Coverage Conditions
    1. Operations Covered
    2. Operations Excluded
    3. General Permit Applicability
    4. Notification Requirements
    5. Termination of Operations
    6. Intent to be Covered by a Subsequent Permit
Section B. Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements
    1. Drilling Fluids
    2. Drill Cuttings
    3. Produced Water
    4. Deck Drainage
    5. Produced Sand
    6. Well Treatment Fluids, Completion Fluids, and Workover Fluids
    7. Sanitary Waste (Facilities Continuously Manned by 10 or More 
Persons)
    8. Sanitary Waste (Facilities Continuously Manned by 9 or Fewer 
Persons or Intermittently by Any Number)
    9. Domestic Waste
    10. Miscellaneous Discharges (Desalination Unit Discharge, 
Blowout Preventer Fluid, Uncontaminated Ballast Water, 
Uncontaminated Bilge Water, Mud, Cuttings, and Cement at the 
Seafloor, Uncontaminated Seawater, Boiler Blowdown, Source Water and 
Sand, Uncontaminated Freshwater, Excess Cement Slurry and 
Diatomaceous Earth Filter Media)
Section C. Other Discharge Limitations
    1. Floating Solids or Visible Foam
    2. Halogenated Phenol Compounds
    3. Dispersants, Surfactants, and Detergents
    4. Rubbish, Trash, and Other Refuse
    5. Areas of Biological Concern

Part II. Standard Conditions for NPDES Permits

Section A. Introduction and General Conditions
    1. Duty to Comply
    2. Penalties for Violations of Permit Conditions
    3. Duty to Mitigate
    4. Permit Flexibility
    5. Toxic Pollutants
    6. Civil and Criminal Liabilities
    7. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability
    8. State Laws
    9. Property Rights
    10. Onshore or Offshore Construction
    11. Severability
    12. Duty to Provide Information
 Section B. Proper Operation and Maintenance of Pollution Controls
    1. Proper Operation and Maintenance
    2. Need to Halt or Reduce not a Defense
    3. Bypass of Treatment Facilities
    4. Upset Conditions
    5. Removed Substances
 Section C. Monitoring and Records
    1. Representative Sampling
    2. Discharge Rate/Flow Measurements
    3. Monitoring Procedures
    4. Penalties for Tampering
    5. Retention of Records
    6. Record Contents
    7. Inspection and Entry
 Section D. Reporting Requirements
    1. Planned Changes
    2. Anticipated Noncompliance
    3. Transfers
    4. Monitoring Reports
    5. Additional Monitoring by the Permittee
    6. Averaging of Measurements
    7. Twenty-four Hour Reporting
    8. Other Noncompliance
    9. Other Information
    10. Changes in Discharges of Toxic Substances
    11. Duty to Reapply
    12. Signatory Requirements
    13. Availability of Reports

Part III. Monitoring Reports and Permit Modification

 Section A. Monitoring Reports
 Section B. Permit Modification

Part IV. Test Procedures and Definitions

 Section A. Test Procedures
    1. Samples of Wastes

[[Page 55746]]

    2. Drilling Fluids Toxicity Test
    3. Static (Laboratory) Sheen Test
    4. Visual Sheen Test
    5. Produced Water Acute Toxicity Test
    6. Retort Test
 Section B. Definitions
Table 2. Effluent Limitations, Prohibitions, and Monitoring 
Requirements for the Eastern Gulf of Mexico NPDES General Permit 
(Existing Sources)
Table 3. Effluent Limitations, Prohibitions, and Monitoring 
Requirements for the Eastern Gulf of Mexico NPDES General Permit 
(New Sources)
Appendix A
Table A-1. CORMIX Input Parameters for Toxicity Limitation 
Calculation
Appendix B. Map identifying Areas of Biological Concern in the 
Central Planning Area.

Authorization To Discharge Under the National Pollutant Discharge 
Elimination System

    In compliance with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as 
amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et. seq.), operators of lease blocks located in 
OCS Federal waters seaward of 200 meters in the Eastern Planning Area 
and seaward of the outer boundary of the territorial seas in the 
Central Planning Area with existing source or new source discharges 
originating from exploration or development and production operations 
are authorized to discharge to receiving waters in accordance with 
effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set 
forth in parts I, II, III, and IV hereof.
    Operators of operating facilities within the proposed NPDES general 
permit area must submit written notification to the Regional 
Administrator, prior to discharge, that they intend to be covered by 
either the existing source general permit or the new source general 
permit (See part I.A.4). Upon receipt of notification of inclusion by 
the Regional Administrator, owners or operators requesting coverage are 
authorized to discharge under either the existing source or new source 
general permit. Operators of lease blocks within the general permit 
area who fail to notify the Regional Administrator of intent to be 
covered by this general permit are not authorized under the general 
permit to discharge pollutants from their potential new or existing 
source facilities. This permit does not apply to non-operational 
leases, i.e., those on which no discharge has taken place in 2 years 
prior to the effective date of the new general permits. EPA will not 
accept Notice of Intents (NOI's) from such leases, and these general 
permits will not cover such leases. Non-operational leases will lose 
general permit coverage on the effective date of these new general 
permits.
    This permit shall become effective at midnight, Eastern Standard 
Time, on November 16, 1998.
    For operational facilities, coverage under the old general permit 
shall terminate on the effective of this permit, unless the owner/
operator submits an notice of intent (NOI) to be covered within 60 days 
thereafter, or an application for an individual permit within 120 days 
thereafter. If an NOI is filed, coverage under the old general permit 
terminates upon receipt of notification of inclusion by letter from the 
Director of the Water Management Division, Region 4. If a permit 
application is filed, the old general permit terminates when a final 
action is taken on the application for an individual permit.
    This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at 
midnight, Eastern Standard Time, on October 31, 2003.

    Signed this 7th day of October, 1998.
John H. Hankinson, Jr.,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 4.

Part I. Requirements for NPDES Permits

Section A. Permit Applicability and Coverage Conditions

1. Operations Covered
    These permits establish effluent limitations, prohibitions, 
reporting requirements, and other conditions for discharges from oil 
and gas facilities engaged in production, field exploration, drilling, 
well completion, well workover and abandonment operations, and well 
treatment operations from potential new sources and existing sources.
    The permit coverage area includes Federal waters in the Gulf of 
Mexico seaward of the 200 meter water depth for offshore Alabama and 
Florida in the Eastern Planning Area, and seaward of the outer boundary 
of the territorial seas for offshore Mississippi and Alabama in the 
Central Planning Area. This permit only covers facilities located in 
and discharging to the Federal waters listed above and does not 
authorize discharges from facilities in or discharging to the 
territorial sea (within 3 miles of shore) of the Gulf coastal states or 
from facilities defined as ``coastal'' or ``onshore'' (see 40 CFR, part 
435, subparts C and D).
2. Operations Excluded
    Any operator who seeks to discharge drill fluids, drill cuttings or 
produced water within 1000 meters of an area of biological concern is 
ineligible for coverage under these general permits and must apply for 
an individual permit.
    Any operator with leases occurring below the 26 deg. parallel which 
are currently under moratorium are excluded from inclusion under these 
general permits.
    No coverage will be extended under either of the new general 
permits to non-operational leases.
3. General Permit Applicability
    In accordance with 40 CFR 122.28(b)(3) and 122.28(c), the Regional 
Administrator may require any person authorized by this permit to apply 
for and obtain an individual NPDES permit when:
    (a) The discharge(s) is a significant contributor of pollution;
    (b) The discharger is not in compliance with the conditions of this 
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 sources;
    (d) Effluent limitation guidelines are promulgated for point 
sources covered by this permit;
    (e) A Water Quality Management Plan containing requirements 
applicable to such point source is approved;
    (f) It is determined that the facility is located in an area of 
biological concern.
    (g) Circumstances have changed since the time of the request to be 
covered so that the discharger is no longer appropriately controlled 
under the general permit, or either a temporary or permanent reduction 
or elimination of the authorized discharge is necessary.
    The Regional Administrator may require any operator authorized by 
this permit to apply for an individual NPDES permit only if the 
operator has been notified in writing that a permit application is 
required. Any operator authorized by this permit may request to be 
excluded from the coverage of this general permit by applying for an 
individual permit. The operator shall submit an application together 
with the reasons supporting the request to the Regional Administrator 
no later than 180 days before an activity is scheduled to commence on 
the lease block. When an individual NPDES permit is issued to an 
operator otherwise subject to this permit, the applicability of this 
permit to the owner or operator is automatically terminated on the 
effective date of the individual permit.
    A source excluded from coverage under this general permit solely 
because it already has an individual permit may request that its 
individual permit be

[[Page 55747]]

revoked, and that it be covered by this general permit. Upon revocation 
of the individual permit, this general permit shall apply to the source 
after the notification of intent to be covered is filed (see I.A.4, 
below).
4. Notification Requirements (Existing Sources and New Sources)
    Written notification of intent (NOI) to be covered in accordance 
with the general permit requirements shall state whether the permittee 
is requesting coverage under the existing source general permit or new 
source general permit, and shall contain the following information:
    (1) The legal name and address of the owner or operator;
    (2) The facility name and location, including the lease block 
assigned by the Department of Interior, or if none, the name commonly 
assigned to the lease area;
    (3) The number and type of facilities and activity proposed within 
the lease block;
    (4) The waters into which the facility is or will be discharging; 
including a map with longitude and latitude of current or proposed 
outfall locations. Current produced water discharges shall also include 
Appendix A.
    (5) The date on which the owner/operator commenced on-site 
construction, including:
    (a) Any placement assembly or installation of facilities or 
equipment; or
    (b) The clearing, excavation or removal of existing structures or 
facilities;
    (6) The date on which the facility commenced exploration activities 
at the site;
    (7) The date on which the owner/operator entered into a binding 
contract for the purchase of facilities or equipment intended to be 
used in its operation within a reasonable time (if applicable);
    (8) The date on which the owner/operator commenced development; and
    (9) The date on which the owner/operator commenced production.
    (10) Technical information on the characteristics of the sea bottom 
within 1000 meters of the discharge point, including but not limited to 
information regarding geohazards (Notice To Lessees 88-3, Outer 
Continental Shelf Shallow Hazards Requirements for the Gulf of Mexico 
OCS Region dated September 7, 1983), topographical formations, live 
bottom, and chemosynthetic communities.
    (11) MMS photo documentation survey according to most current MMS 
guidelines, (Revised Guidelines for Photodocumentation Surveys dated 
January 31, 1989), for facilities in less than 100 meters water depth 
in the Central Planning Area. (Exception: Current active discharging 
facilities on the effective date of the new general permit will be 
exempt from photo-documentation surveys for the life of that discharge: 
(Refer to Comment No. 69 for clarification)
    All notices of intent shall be signed in accordance with 40 CFR 
Sec. 122.22.
    EPA will act on the NOI in a reasonable period of time.
    For operating leases, the NOI shall be submitted within sixty (60) 
days after publication of the final determination on this action. Non-
operational facilities are not eligible for coverage under these new 
general permits. No NOI will be accepted from either a non-operational 
or newly acquired lease until such time as an exploration plan or 
development production plan has been prepared for submission to EPA. 
Operators obtaining coverage under the existing source general permit 
for exploration activities must send a new NOI for coverage of 
development and production activities under the new source general 
permit sixty (60) days prior to commencing such operations. All NOI's 
requesting coverage should be sent by certified mail to: Director, 
Water Management Division, Surface Water Permits & Facilities Branch, 
U.S. EPA, Region 4, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, S.W., 
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960.
    For drilling activity, the operator shall submit a Notice to Drill 
(NTD) sixty (60) days prior to the actual move-on date. This NTD shall 
contain: (1) the assigned NPDES general permit number assigned to the 
lease block, (2) the latitude and longitude of the proposed discharge 
point, (3) the water depth, and (4) the estimated length of time the 
drilling operation will last. This NTD shall be submitted to Region 4 
at the address above, by certified mail to: Director, Water Management 
Division, U.S. EPA, Region 4, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth 
Street, S.W., Atlanta, GA 30303-8960.
    In addition, a notice of commencement of operations (NCO) is 
required to be submitted for each of the following activities: placing 
a production platform in the general permit coverage area (within 30 
days after to placement); and discharging waste water within the 
coverage area (within 90 days after initiation of produced water 
discharges). The NCO required for discharging waste water shall be 
accompanied by the information requested in Appendix A for calculation 
of the toxicity limitation for produced water discharges. Within ninety 
(90) days after produced water discharge begins, the permittee shall 
perform adequate tests to establish a bbl/day estimate to be used in 
the Cormix model. This information must then be provided to EPA in the 
Notice of Commencement of Operations for produced water discharges.
    All NOIs, NTDs, NCOs, and any subsequent reports required under 
this permit shall be sent by certified mail to the following address: 
Director, Water Management Division, Surface Water Permits Section, 
U.S. EPA, Region 4, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, S.W., 
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960.
5. Termination of Operations
    Lease block operators shall notify the Director (at the address 
above) within 60 (sixty) days after the permanent termination of 
discharges from their facility.
6. Intent To Be Covered by a Subsequent Permit
    This permit shall expire on October 31, 2003. However, an expired 
general permit continues in force and effect until a new general permit 
is issued. Lease block operators authorized to discharge by this permit 
shall by certified mail notify the Director, Water Management Division, 
U.S. EPA, Region 4, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, S.W., 
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960, on or before April 30, 2003, that they intend 
to be covered by a permit that will authorize discharge from these 
facilities after the termination date of this permit on October 31, 
2003.
    Permittees must submit a new NOI in accordance with the 
requirements of this permit to remain covered under the continued 
general permit after the expiration of this permit. Therefore, 
facilities that have not submitted an NOI under the permit by the 
expiration date cannot become authorized to discharge under any 
continuation of this NPDES general permit. All NOI's from permittees 
requesting coverage under a continued permit should be sent by 
certified mail to: Director, Water Management Division, U.S. EPA, 
Region 4, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, S.W., Atlanta, GA 
30303-8960.

Section B. Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements

1. Drilling Fluids
    The discharge of drilling fluids shall be limited and monitored by 
the permittee as specified in both tables and below.

    Note: The permit prohibitions and limitations that apply to 
drilling fluids, also apply to fluids that adhere to drill cuttings. 
Any permit condition that applies to the

[[Page 55748]]

drilling fluid system, therefore, also applies to cuttings 
discharges.

    (a) Prohibitions. Oil-Based Drilling Fluids. The discharge of oil-
based drilling fluids and inverse emulsion drilling fluids is 
prohibited.
    Oil-Contaminated Drilling Fluids. The discharge of drilling fluids 
to which waste engine oil, cooling oil, gear oil or any lubricants 
which have been previously used for purposes other than borehole 
lubrication have been added, is prohibited.
    Diesel Oil. Drilling fluids to which any diesel oil has been added 
as a lubricant or pill may not be discharged.
    No Discharge Near Areas of Biological Concern. For those facilities 
within 1000 meters of an area of biological concern the discharge of 
drilling fluids is not allowed.
    (b) Limitations. Mineral Oil. Mineral oil may be used only as a 
lubricity additive or pill. If mineral oil is added to a water-based 
drilling fluid, the drilling fluid may not be discharged unless the 96-
hr LC50 of the drilling fluid is greater than 30,000 ppm SPP and it 
passes the static sheen test for free oil.
    Cadmium and Mercury in Barite. There shall be no discharge of 
drilling fluids to which barite has been added if such barite contains 
mercury in excess of 1.0 mg/kg (dry weight) or cadmium in excess of 3.0 
mg/kg (dry weight).
    The permittee shall analyze a representative sample of each supply 
of stock barite prior to drilling each well and submit the results for 
total mercury and cadmium in the Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR). If 
more than one well is being drilled at a site, new analyses are not 
required for subsequent wells, provided that no new supplies of barite 
have been received since the previous analysis. In this case, the 
results of the previous analysis should be used for completion of the 
DMR.
    Alternatively, the permittee may provide certification, as 
documented by the supplier(s), that the barite being used on the well 
will meet the above limits. The concentration of the mercury and 
cadmium in the barite shall be reported on the DMR as documented by the 
supplier.
    Analyses shall be conducted by absorption spectrophotometry (see 40 
CFR Part 136, flame and flameless AAS) and the results expressed in mg/
kg (dry weight).
    Toxicity. Discharged drilling fluids shall meet both a daily 
minimum and a monthly average minimum effluent toxicity limitation of 
at least 30,000 ppm, (v/v) of a 9:1 seawater:mud suspended particulate 
phase (SPP) based on a 96-hour test using Mysidopsis bahia. The method 
is published in the final effluent guidelines at 58 FR 12507. 
Monitoring shall be performed at least once per month for both the 
daily minimum and the monthly average minimum. In addition, an end-of-
well sample is required (see definitions). The type of sample required 
is a grab sample, taken from beneath the shale shaker. Results of 
toxicity tests must be reported on the monthly DMRs. Copies of the 
laboratory reports also must be submitted with the DMRs.
    Free Oil. No free oil shall be discharged. Monitoring shall be 
performed prior to discharges and on each day of discharge using the 
static (laboratory) sheen test method in accordance with the method 
provided in Part IV.A.3, as published in the final effluent guidelines 
(58 FR 12506). The discharge of drilling fluids that fail the static 
sheen test is prohibited. The results of each sheen test must be 
recorded and the number of observations of a sheen must be reported on 
each monthly DMR.
    Maximum Discharge Rate. All facilities are subject to a maximum 
discharge rate of 1,000 barrels per hour. Discharge rates must be 
recorded and the hourly discharge rate reported on the monthly DMR in 
barrels/hour.
    (c) Monitoring Requirements. In addition to the above limitations, 
the following monitoring and reporting requirements also apply to 
drilling fluids discharges.
    Drilling Fluids Inventory. The permittee shall maintain a precise 
chemical inventory of all constituents and their total volume or mass 
added downhole for each well. Information shall be recorded but not 
reported unless specifically requested by EPA.
    Volume. Once per month, the total monthly volume (bbl/month) of 
discharged drilling fluids must be estimated and recorded. The volume 
shall be reported on the monthly DMR.
    Oil Content. There is no numeric limitation on the oil content of 
discharged drilling muds (except that muds containing any waste oil, or 
diesel oil as a lubricity agent shall not be discharged). However, note 
that the oil added shall not cause a violation of either the toxicity 
or free oil limitations discussed above.
    All discharged drilling fluids, including those fluids adhering to 
cuttings must meet the limitations of this section except that 
discharge rate limitations do not apply before installation of the 
marine riser.
2. Drill Cuttings
    The discharge of drill cuttings shall be limited and monitored by 
the permittee as specified in both tables and below.

    Note: The permit prohibitions and limitations that apply to 
drilling fluids also apply to fluids that adhere to drill cuttings. 
Any permit condition that applies to the drilling fluid system, 
therefore, also applies to cuttings discharges. Monitoring 
requirements, however, may not be the same.

    (a) Prohibitions. Cuttings from Oil-Based Drilling Fluids. 
Prohibitions that apply to drilling fluids, set forth above in B.1(a), 
also apply to drill cuttings. Therefore, the discharge of cuttings is 
prohibited when they are generated while using an oil-based or invert 
emulsion mud.
    Cuttings from Oil Contaminated Drilling Fluids. The discharge of 
cuttings that are generated using drilling fluids that contain waste 
engine oil, cooling oil, gear oil or any lubricants which have been 
previously used for purposes other than borehole lubrication is 
prohibited.
    Cuttings generated using drilling fluids which contain diesel oil. 
Drill cuttings generated using drilling fluids to which any diesel oil 
has been added as a lubricant may not be discharged.
    Cuttings generated using mineral oil. The discharge of cuttings 
generated using drilling fluids which contain mineral oil is prohibited 
except when the mineral oil is used as a carrier fluid (transporter 
fluid), lubricity additive, or pill.
    No Discharge Near Areas of Biological Concern. For those facilities 
within 1000 meters of an area of biological concern discharge of 
drilling cuttings is not allowed.
    (b) Limitations. Mineral Oil. Limitations that apply to drilling 
fluids also apply to drill cuttings. Therefore, if mineral oil pills or 
mineral oil lubricity additives have been introduced to a water-based 
mud system, cuttings may be discharged if they meet the limitations for 
toxicity and free oil.
    Free Oil. No free oil shall be discharged. Monitoring shall be 
performed prior to bulk discharges and on each day of discharge using 
the static (laboratory) sheen test method in accordance with the method 
provided in Part IV.A.3. The discharge of cuttings that fail the static 
sheen test is prohibited. The results of each sheen test must be 
recorded and the number of observations of a sheen must be reported on 
each monthly DMR.
    Toxicity. Discharged cuttings generated using drilling fluids with 
a daily minimum or a monthly average minimum 96-hour LC50 of less than

[[Page 55749]]

30,000 ppm, (v/v) of a 9:1 seawater to drilling fluid suspended 
particulate phase (SPP) volumetric ratio using Mysidopsis bahia shall 
not be discharged.
    (c) Monitoring Requirements. Volume. Once per month, the monthly 
total discharge must be estimated and recorded. The estimated volume of 
cuttings discharged (bbl/month) shall be reported on the DMR.
3. Produced Water
    The discharge of produced water shall be limited and monitored by 
the permittee as specified in both tables and below.
    (a) Prohibitions. No Discharge Near Areas of Biological Concern. 
For those facilities within 1000 meters of an area of biological 
concern discharge of produced water is not allowed.
    (b) Limitations. Oil and Grease. Produced water discharges must 
meet both a daily maximum limitation of 42 mg/l and a monthly average 
limitation of 29 mg/l for oil and grease. A grab sample must be taken 
at least once per month. The daily maximum samples may be based on the 
average concentration of four grab samples taken within the 24-hour 
period. If only one sample is taken for any one month, it must meet 
both the daily and monthly limits. If more samples are taken, they may 
exceed the monthly average for any one day, provided that the average 
of all samples taken meets the monthly limitation. The gravimetric 
method is specified at 40 CFR part 136. The highest daily oil and 
grease concentration and the monthly average concentration shall be 
reported on the monthly DMR.
    Toxicity. Produced water discharges must meet a toxicity limitation 
projected to be the limiting permissible concentration (0.01 x LC50) at 
the edge of a 100-meter mixing zone. The toxicity limitation will be 
calculated by EPA based on each facility's site-specific water column 
conditions and discharge configuration. The methods for this 
determination are presented in Appendix A of this permit using the 
Cornell Mixing Zone Expert System (CORMIX). The CORMIX (Version 3.2), 
which is explained in Chapter 4, Section 4.4 of the Ocean Discharge 
Criteria Evaluation will be used to evaluate the toxicity of the 
produced water outfalls.
    Compliance with the toxicity limitation shall be demonstrated by 
conducting 96-hour toxicity tests each month using Mysidopsis bahia and 
inland silverside minnow. The method is published in ``Methods for 
Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents to Freshwater and Marine 
Organisms'' (EPA/600/4-90/027F). The results for both species shall be 
reported on the monthly DMR, once every two months. The operator shall 
also submit a copy of all laboratory reports with the DMR.
    (c) Monitoring Requirements. Flow. Once per month, an estimate of 
the total flow (bbl/month) must be reported on the DMR.
4. Deck Drainage
    The discharge of deck drainage shall be limited and monitored by 
the permittee as specified in both tables and below.
    (a) Limitations. Free Oil. No free oil shall be discharged. 
Monitoring shall be performed on each day of discharge using the visual 
sheen test method in accordance with the method provided at Part 
IV.A.4. The discharge of deck drainage that fails the visual sheen test 
is prohibited. The results of each sheen test must be recorded and the 
number of observations of a sheen must be reported on each monthly DMR.
    (b) Monitoring Requirements. Volume. Once per month, the monthly 
total discharge (bbls/month) must be estimated and reported on the DMR.
5. Produced Sand
    The discharge of produced sand is prohibited under this general 
permit. Wastes must be hauled to shore for treatment and disposal.
6. Well Treatment Fluids, Completion Fluids, and Workover Fluids
    The discharge of well treatment fluids, completion fluids, and 
workover fluids shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as 
specified in both tables and below.
    (a) Limitations. Free Oil. No free oil shall be discharged. 
Monitoring shall be performed prior to discharge and on each day of 
discharge using the static (laboratory) sheen test method in accordance 
with the method provided at Part IV.A.3. The discharge of well 
treatment, completion, or workover fluids that fail the static sheen 
test is prohibited. The results of each sheen test must be recorded and 
the number of observations of a sheen must be reported on each monthly 
DMR.
    Oil and Grease. Well treatment fluids, completion fluids, and 
workover fluids discharges must meet both a daily maximum of 42 mg/l 
and a monthly average of 29 mg/l limitation for oil and grease. A grab 
sample must be taken at least once per month when discharging. The 
daily maximum concentration may be based on the average of four grab 
samples taken within the 24-hour period. If only one sample is taken 
for any one month, it must meet both the daily and monthly limits. If 
more samples are taken, they may exceed the monthly average for any one 
day, provided that the average of all samples taken meets the monthly 
limitation. The analytical method is the gravimetric method, as 
specified at 40 CFR part 136.
    Priority Pollutants. For well treatment fluids, completion fluids, 
and workover fluids, the discharge of priority pollutants is prohibited 
except in trace amounts. Information on the specific chemical 
composition of any additives containing priority pollutants shall be 
recorded.

    Note: If materials added downhole as well treatment, completion, 
or workover fluids contain no priority pollutants, the discharge is 
assumed not to contain priority pollutants except possibly in trace 
amounts.

    (b) Monitoring Requirements. Volume. Once per month, an estimate of 
the total volume discharged (bbls/month) shall be reported on the DMR.
7. Sanitary Waste (Facilities Continuously Manned by 10 or More 
Persons)
    The discharge of sanitary waste shall be limited and monitored by 
the permittee as specified in both tables and below.
    (a) Prohibitions. Solids. No floating solids may be discharged. 
Observations must be made once per day, during daylight in the vicinity 
of sanitary waste outfalls, following either the morning or midday 
meals and at the time during maximum estimated discharge. The number of 
days solids are observed shall be recorded.
    (b) Limitations. Residual Chlorine. Total residual chlorine is a 
surrogate parameter for fecal coliform. Discharges of sanitary waste 
must contain a minimum of 1 mg residual chlorine/l and shall be 
maintained as close to this concentration as possible. The approved 
analytical method is Hach CN-66-DPD. A grab sample must be taken once 
per month and the concentration reported.
    (Exception) Any facility which properly maintains a marine 
sanitation device (MSD) that complies with pollution control standards 
and regulations under Section 312 of the Act shall be deemed in 
compliance with permit limitations for sanitary waste. The MSD shall be 
tested annually for proper operation and the test results maintained at 
the facility. The operator shall indicate use of an MSD on the monthly 
DMR.
    (c) Monitoring Requirements. Flow. Once per month, the average flow 
(MGD) must be estimated and recorded for the flow of sanitary wastes.

[[Page 55750]]

    8. Sanitary Waste (Facilities Continuously Manned by 9 or Fewer 
Persons or Intermittently by Any Number).
    The discharge of sanitary waste shall be limited and monitored by 
the permittee as specified in both tables and below.
    (a) Prohibitions. Solids. No floating solids may be discharged to 
the receiving waters. An observation must be made once per day when the 
facility is manned, during daylight in the vicinity of sanitary waste 
outfalls, following either the morning or midday meal and at a time 
during maximum estimated discharge. The number of days solids are 
observed shall be recorded.
    (Exception) Any facility which properly maintains a marine 
sanitation device (MSD) that complies with pollution control standards 
and regulations under Section 312 of the Act shall be deemed in 
compliance with permit limitations for sanitary waste. The MSD shall be 
tested annually for proper operation and the test results maintained at 
the facility. The operator shall indicate use of an MSD on the monthly 
DMR.
    9. Domestic Waste. The discharge of domestic waste shall be limited 
and monitored by the permittee as specified in both tables and below.
    (a) Prohibitions. Solids. No floating solids shall be discharged. 
In addition, food waste, comminuted or not, may not be discharged 
within 12 nautical miles from nearest land.
    (b) Limitations. Solids. Comminuted food waste which can pass 
through a 25-mm mesh screen (approximately 1 inch) may be discharged 12 
or more nautical miles from nearest land.
    (c) Monitoring Requirements. Solids. An observation must be made 
during daylight in the vicinity of domestic waste outfalls following 
either the morning or midday meal and at a time during maximum 
estimated discharge. The number of days solids are observed must be 
recorded.
    10. Miscellaneous Discharges. Desalination Unit Discharge; Blowout 
Preventer Fluid; Uncontaminated Ballast Water; Uncontaminated Bilge 
Water; Mud, Cuttings, and Cement at the Seafloor; Uncontaminated 
Seawater; Boiler Blowdown; Source Water and Sand; Uncontaminated 
Freshwater, Excess Cement Slurry, Diatomaceous Earth Filter Media.
    The discharge of miscellaneous discharges shall be limited and 
monitored by the permittee as specified in both tables and below.
    (a) Limitations. Free Oil. No free oil shall be discharged. 
Monitoring shall be performed using the visual sheen test method once 
per day when discharging on the surface of the receiving water or by 
use of the static sheen method at the operator's option. Both tests 
shall be conducted in accordance with the methods presented at IV.A.3 
and IV.A.4. Discharge is limited to those times that a visual sheen 
observation is possible. The number of days a sheen is observed must be 
recorded.
    (Exception): Miscellaneous discharges may be discharged from 
platforms that are on automatic purge systems without monitoring for 
free oil when the facility is not manned. Discharge is not restricted 
to periods when observation is possible; however, the static 
(laboratory) sheen test method must be used during periods when 
observation of a sheen is not possible, such as at night or during 
inclement conditions. Static sheen testing is not required for 
miscellaneous discharges occurring at the sea floor.

Section C. Other Discharge Limitations

1. Floating Solids or Visible Foam
    There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam from 
any source other than in trace amounts.
2. Halogenated Phenol Compounds
    There shall be no discharge of halogenated phenol compounds as a 
part of any waste streams authorized in this permit.
3. Dispersants, Surfactants, and Detergents
    The facility operator shall minimize the discharge of dispersants, 
surfactants, and detergents except as necessary to comply with the 
safety requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration and MMS. This restriction applies to tank cleaning and 
other operations which do not directly involve the safety of workers. 
The restriction is imposed because detergents disperse and emulsify 
oil, potentially increasing toxic impacts and making the detection of a 
discharge of free oil more difficult.
4. Rubbish, Trash, and Other Refuse
    The discharge of any solid material not authorized in the permit 
(as described above) is prohibited.
    This permit includes limitations set forth by the U.S. Coast Guard 
in regulations implementing Annex V of MARPOL 73/78 for domestic waste 
disposal from all fixed or floating offshore platforms and associated 
vessels engaged in exploration or exploitation of seabed mineral 
resources (33 CFR 151). These limitations, as specified by Congress (33 
U.S.C. 1901, the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships), apply to all 
navigable waters of the United States.
    This permit prohibits the discharge of ``garbage'' including food 
wastes, within 12 nautical miles from nearest land. Comminuted food 
waste (able to pass through a screen with a mesh size no larger than 25 
mm, approx. 1 inch) may be discharge when 12 nautical miles or more 
from land. Graywater, drainage from dishwater, shower, laundry, bath, 
and washbasins are not considered garbage within the meaning of Annex 
V. Incineration ash and non-plastic clinkers that can pass through a 
25-mm mesh screen may be discharged beyond 3 miles from nearest land. 
Otherwise, ash and non-plastic clinkers may be discharged beyond 12 
nautical miles from nearest land.
5. Areas of Biological Concern
    There shall be no discharge of drilling muds, drill cuttings and 
produced water within 1000 meters of Areas of Biological Concern. If at 
any time it is determined that a facility is located within 1000 meters 
of an area of biological concern, the operator shall immediately cease 
discharge from these outfalls in the area and shall file an application 
for an individual permit as provided in 40 CFR 122.28(b)(3). The 
operator may not resume discharging from these outfalls until an 
individual permit has been issued.

Part II. Standard Conditions for NPDES Permits

Section A. Introduction and General Conditions

    In accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR Part 122.41, et. seq., 
this permit incorporates by reference ALL conditions and requirements 
applicable to NPDES permits set forth in the Clean Water Act, as 
amended, as well as ALL applicable regulations.
1. Duty To Comply
    The permittee must comply with all conditions of this permit. Any 
permit noncompliance constitutes a violation of the Act and is grounds 
for enforcement action or for requiring a permittee to apply and obtain 
an individual NPDES permit.
2. Penalties for Violations of Permit Conditions--33 USC Sec. 1319(c)
    (a) Criminal Penalties. (1) Negligent Violations. The Act provides 
that any person who negligently violates permit conditions implementing 
Section 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of the Act is subject to 
criminal penalties of not less $2,500 nor more than $25,000

[[Page 55751]]

per day of violation, or by imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or 
both.
    (2) Knowing Violations. The Act provides that any person who 
knowingly violates permit conditions implementing Sections 301, 302, 
306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of the Act is subject to criminal penalties 
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 both.
    (3) Knowing Endangerment. The Act provides that any person who 
knowingly violates permit conditions implementing Sections 301, 302, 
303, 306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of the Act and who knows at that time 
that he is placing another person in imminent danger of death or 
serious bodily injury is subject to a fine of not more than $250,000 
per day of violation for individuals or up to $1 million for 
organizations, or by imprisonment for not more than 15 years, or both.
    (4) False Statements. 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 the Act or who 
knowingly falsifies, tampers with, or renders inaccurate, any 
monitoring device or method required to be maintained under the Act, 
shall upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000, 
or by imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or by both. If a 
conviction of a person is for a violation committed after a first 
conviction of such person under this paragraph, punishment shall be by 
a fine of not more than $20,000 per day of violation, or by 
imprisonment of not more than 4 years, or by both. (See Section 309(c) 
of the Clean Water Act).
    (b) Civil Penalties--33 USC Sec. 1319(d). The Act provides that any 
person who violates a permit condition implementing Sections 301, 302, 
306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of the Act is subject to a civil penalty not 
to exceed $25,000 per day for such violation. A single operational 
upset which leads to simultaneous violations of more than one pollutant 
parameter shall be treated as a single violation.
    (c) Administrative Penalties. The Act at Section 309 allows that 
the Regional Administrator may assess a Class I or Class II civil 
penalty for violations of Sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 318, or 405 of 
the Act. A Class I penalty may not exceed $10,000 per violation nor 
shall the maximum amount exceed $25,000. A Class II penalty may not 
exceed $10,000 per day for each day during which the violation 
continues except that the maximum amount shall not exceed $125,000. An 
upset that leads to violations of more than one pollutant parameter 
will be treated as a single violation.
3. Duty to Mitigate
    The permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize or 
prevent any discharge in violation of this permit which has a 
reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the 
environment.
4. Permit Flexibility
    These permits may be modified, revoked and reissued for the causes 
set forth at 40 CFR Sec. 122.62. The permits may be terminated for the 
following reasons (see 40 CFR 122.62):
    (a) Violation of any terms or conditions of this permit;
    (b) Obtaining this permit by misrepresentation or failure to 
disclose fully all relevant facts;
    (c) A change in any condition that requires either a temporary or a 
permanent reduction or elimination of the authorized discharge; or
    (d) A determination that the permitted activity endangers human 
health or the environment and can only be regulated to acceptable 
levels by permit modification or termination.
    The filing of a request for a permit modification, revocation and 
reissuance, or termination, or a notification of planned changes or 
anticipated noncompliance does not stay any permit condition.
5. Toxic Pollutants
    Notwithstanding Part II.A.4, if any toxic effluent standard or 
prohibition (including any schedule of compliance specified in such 
effluent standard or prohibition) is promulgated under Section 307(a) 
of the Act for a toxic pollutant which is present in the discharge and 
that standard or prohibition is more stringent than any limitation on 
the pollutant in this permit, this permit shall be modified or revoked 
and reissued to conform to the toxic effluent standard or prohibition 
and the permittee so notified.
    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 established those standards 
or prohibitions, even if the permit has not yet been modified to 
incorporate the requirement.
6. Civil and Criminal Liability
    Except as provided in permit conditions on ``Bypassing'' and 
``Upsets'' (see II.B.3 and II.B.4), nothing in this permit shall be 
construed to relieve the permittee from civil or criminal penalties for 
noncompliance with permit conditions. Any false or misleading 
representation or concealment of information required to be reported by 
the provisions of the permit, the Act, or applicable CFR regulations, 
which avoids or effectively defeats the regulatory purpose of the 
permit may subject the permittee to criminal enforcement pursuant to 18 
U.S.C. Section 1001.
7. 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 Clean Water Act.
8. 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 Clean Water Act.
9. Property Rights
    The issuance of this permit does not convey any property rights of 
any sort, any exclusive privileges, authorize any injury to private 
property, any invasion of personal rights, nor any infringement of 
Federal, state, or local laws or regulations.
10. Onshore or Offshore Construction
    This permit does not authorize or approve the construction of any 
onshore or offshore physical structure of facilities or the undertaking 
of any work in any waters of the United States.
11. 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.
12. Duty to Provide Information
    The permittee shall furnish to the Regional Administrator, within a 
reasonable time, any information which the Regional Administrator may 
request to determine whether cause exists for modifying, revoking and 
reissuing, or terminating this permit, or to determine compliance with 
this permit. The

[[Page 55752]]

permittee shall also furnish to the Regional Administrator upon 
request, copies of records required to be kept by this permit.

Section B. Proper Operation and Maintenance of Pollution Controls

1. 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 this permit. Proper operation and maintenance also 
includes adequate laboratory controls and appropriate quality assurance 
procedures. This provision requires the operation of backup or 
auxiliary facilities or similar systems which are installed by a 
permittee only when the operation is necessary to achieve compliance 
with the conditions of this permit.
2. Need To Halt or Reduce not a Defense
    It shall not be a defense for a 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.
3. Bypass of Treatment Facilities
    (a) Definitions. (1) Bypass means the intentional diversion of 
waste streams from any portion of a treatment facility.
    (2) Severe property damage means substantial physical damage to 
property, damage to the treatment facilities that causes them to become 
inoperable, or substantial and permanent loss of natural resources that 
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.
    (b) 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 Section B.3(c) and 3(d) below.
    (c) Notice. (1) Anticipated bypass. If the permittee knows in 
advance of the need for a bypass, it shall submit prior notice, if 
possible at least ten days before the date of the bypass.
    (2) Unanticipated bypass. The permittee shall, submit notice of an 
unanticipated bypass as required in Section D.7 (24-hour reporting).
    (d) Prohibition of bypass. (1) Bypass is prohibited and the 
Regional Administrator may take enforcement action against a permittee 
for bypass, unless:
    (a) Bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal 
injury, or severe property damage;
    (b) 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 should have 
been installed in the exercise of reasonable engineering judgement to 
prevent a bypass that occurred during normal periods of equipment 
downtime or preventive maintenance; and,
    (c) The permittee submitted notices as required under Section 
B.3(c).
    (2) The Regional Administrator may approve an anticipated bypass 
after considering its adverse effects, if the Regional Administrator 
determines that it will meet the three conditions listed above in 
Section B.3(d)(1).
4. Upset Conditions
    (a) Definition. 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.
    (b) 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 requirements of Section B.4(c) are 
met. 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.
    (c) Conditions Necessary for a Demonstration of Upset. A permittee 
who wishes to establish the affirmative defense of upset shall 
demonstrate, through properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs, 
or other relevant evidence that:
    (1) An upset occurred and that the permittee can identify the 
cause(s) of the upset;
    (2) The permitted facility was at the time being properly operated;
    (3) The permittee submitted notice of the upset as required by 
Section D.7 below; and,
    (4) The permittee complied with any remedial measures required by 
Section A.3, above.
    (d) Burden of proof. In any enforcement proceeding, the permittee 
seeking to establish the occurrence of an upset has the burden of 
proof.
5. Removed Substances
    Solids, sewage sludges, filter backwash, or other pollutants 
removed in the course of treatment or control of wastewaters shall be 
disposed of in a manner such as to prevent any pollutant from such 
materials from entering navigable waters. Any substance specifically 
listed within this permit may be discharged in accordance with 
specified conditions, terms, or limitations.

Section C. Monitoring and Records

1. Representative Sampling
    Samples and measurements taken as required herein shall be 
representative of the volume and nature of the monitored discharge.
2. Discharge Rate/Flow Measurements
    Appropriate flow measurement devices and methods consistent with 
accepted scientific practices shall be selected, maintained, and used 
to ensure the accuracy and reliability of measurements of the volume of 
monitored discharges. The devices shall be installed, calibrated, and 
maintained to insure that the accuracy of the measurements is 
consistent with the accepted capability of that type of device. Devices 
selected shall be capable of measuring flows with a maximum deviation 
of less than 10% from true discharge rates throughout the 
range of expected discharge volumes.

3. Monitoring Procedures

    Monitoring must be conducted according to test procedures approved 
under 40 CFR Part 136, unless other test procedures have been specified 
in this permit in Part IV, below.
4. Penalties for Tampering
    The Clean Water Act provides that any person who falsifies, tampers 
with, or knowingly renders inaccurate, any monitoring device or method 
required to be maintained under this permit shall, upon conviction, be 
punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 per violation, or 
imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or both.
5. Retention of Records
    The permittee shall retain records of all monitoring information, 
including all calibration and maintenance records and all original 
strip chart recordings for

[[Page 55753]]

continuous monitoring instrumentation, and copies of all reports 
required by this permit for a period of at least 3 years from the date 
of the sample, measurement, or report. This period may be extended by 
request of the Regional Administrator at any time. The operator shall 
maintain records at development and production facilities for 3 years, 
wherever practicable and at a specific shore-based site whenever not 
practicable.
6. Record Contents
    Records of monitoring information shall include:
    (a) The date, exact place, and time of sampling or measurements;
    (b) The individual(s) who performed the sampling or measurements;
    (c) The date(s) analyses were performed;
    (d) The individual(s) who performed the analyses;
    (e) The analytical techniques or methods used; and
    (f) The results of such analyses.
7. Inspection and Entry
    The permittee shall allow the Regional Administrator or an 
authorized representative, upon the presentation of credentials and 
other documents as may be required by the law, to:
    (a) 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;
    (b) Have access to and copy, at reasonable times, any records that 
must be kept under the conditions of this permit;
    (c) Inspect at reasonable times any facilities, equipment 
(including monitoring and control equipment), practices, or operations 
regulated or required under this permit; and
    (d) 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.

Section D. Reporting Requirements

1. Planned Changes
    The permittee shall give notice to Regional Administrator as soon 
as possible of any planned physical alterations or additions to the 
permitted facility. Notice is required only when:
    (a) The alteration or addition to a facility permitted under the 
existing source general permit may meet one of the criteria for 
determining whether a facility is a new source in 40 CFR Part 122.29(b) 
(58 FR 12454; final effluent guidelines for the offshore subcategory); 
or
    (b) The alteration or addition could significantly change the 
nature or increase the quantity of pollutants discharged. This 
notification applies to pollutants which are subject neither to 
effluent limitations in the permit, nor to notification requirements 
under 40 CFR 122.42(a)(1) (48 FR 14153, April 1, 1963, as amended at 49 
FR 38049, September 26, 1984).
2. Anticipated Noncompliance
    The permittee shall give advance notice to the Regional 
Administrator of any planned changes in the permitted facility or 
activity which may result in noncompliance with permit requirements.
3. Transfers
    This permit is not transferable to any person. Any new owner or 
operator shall submit a notice of intent to be covered under this 
general permit according to procedures presented at Part I.A.4.
4. Monitoring Reports
    See Part III.A of this permit.
5. Additional Monitoring by the Permittee
    If the permittee monitors any pollutant more frequently than 
required by this permit, using test procedures approved under 40 CFR 
Part 136 or as specified in this permit, the results of this monitoring 
shall be included in the calculation and reporting of the data 
submitted in the DMR. Such increased monitoring frequency also shall be 
indicated on the DMR.
6. Averaging of Measurements
    Calculations for all limitations which require averaging of 
measurements shall utilize an arithmetic mean unless otherwise 
specified by the Regional Administrator in the permit.
7. Twenty-Four Hour Reporting
    The permittee shall report any noncompliance which may endanger 
health or the environment (this includes any spill that requires 
reporting to the state regulatory authority). Information shall be 
provided orally within 24 hours from the time the permittee becomes 
aware of the circumstances. A written submission shall be provided 
within 5 days of the time the permittee becomes aware of the 
circumstances. The written submission shall contain a description of 
the noncompliance and its cause; the period of noncompliance including 
exact dates and times, and if the noncompliance has not been corrected, 
the anticipated time it is expected to continue; and, steps taken or 
planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent recurrence of the 
noncompliance. The director may waive the written report on a case-by-
case basis if the oral report has been received within 24 hours.
    The following shall be included as information which must be 
reported within 24 hours:
    (a) Any unanticipated bypass which exceeds any effluent limitation 
in the permit;
    (b) Any upset which exceeds any effluent limitation in the permit;
    (c) Violations of a maximum daily discharge limitation for any of 
the pollutants listed by the Director in Part II of the permit to be 
reported within 24 hours.
    The reports should be made to Region 4 by telephone at (404) 562-
9746. The Regional Administrator may waive the written report on a 
case-by-case basis if the oral report has been received within 24 
hours.
8. Other Noncompliance
    The permittee shall report all instances of noncompliance not 
reported under Part II.D.7 at the time monitoring reports are 
submitted. The reports shall contain the information listed at II.D.7.
9. Other Information
    When the permittee becomes aware that it failed to submit any 
relevant facts in a permit application, or submitted incorrect 
information in a permit application or in any report to the Regional 
Administrator, it shall promptly submit such facts or information.
10. Changes in Discharges of Toxic Substances
    For any toxic pollutant that is not limited in this permit, either 
as an additive itself or as a component in an additive formulation, the 
permittee shall notify the Regional Administrator as soon as he knows 
or has reason to believe that:
    (a) Any activity has occurred or will occur which would result in 
the discharge of such toxic pollutants on a routine or frequent basis, 
if that discharge will exceed the highest of the ``notification 
levels'' described at 40 CFR 122.42(a)(1)(i) and (ii);
    (b) Any activity has occurred or will occur which would result in 
any discharge of such toxic pollutants on a non-routine or infrequent 
basis, if that discharge will exceed the highest of the ``notification 
levels'' described at 40 CFR 122.42(a)(2)(i) an (ii).
11. Duty To Reapply
    If the permittee wishes to continue an activity regulated by this 
permit after

[[Page 55754]]

the expiration date of this permit, the permittee must submit an NOI to 
be covered or must apply for a new permit. Continuation of expiring 
permits shall be governed by regulations at 40 CFR Part 122.6 and any 
subsequent amendments.
12. Signatory Requirements
    All NOIs, applications, reports, or information submitted to the 
Director shall be signed and certified as required at 40 CFR 122.22.
    (a) All permit applications shall be signed as follows: (1) For a 
corporation: By a responsible corporate officer. For the purpose of 
this section, a responsible corporate officer means:
    (i) A president, secretary, treasurer, or vice-president of the 
corporation in charge of a principal business function, or any other 
person who performs similar policy or decision making functions for the 
corporation; or,
    (ii) The manager of one or more manufacturing, production, or 
operating facilities employing more than 250 persons or having gross 
annual sales or expenditures exceeding $25 million (in second-quarter 
1980 dollars), if authority to sign documents has been assigned or 
delegated to the manager in accordance with corporate procedures.
    (2) For a partnership or sole proprietorship--by a general partner 
or the proprietor, respectively.
    (b) Authorized Representative. All reports required by the permit 
and other information requested by the Regional Administrator 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:
    (1) The authorization is made in writing by a person described 
above;
    (2) 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, or position of equivalent 
responsibility, or an individual or position having overall 
responsibility for environmental matters for the company. A duly 
authorized representative may thus be either a named individual or an 
individual occupying a named position; and,
    (3) The written authorization is submitted to the Regional 
Administrator.
    (c) Changes to Authorization. If an authorization under paragraph 
(b) of this section 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 (b) of this section must be submitted to the Director prior 
to or together with any reports, information, or application to be 
signed by an authorized representative.
    (d) Certification. Any person signing a document under this section 
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 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.
13. Availability of Reports
    Except for data determined to be confidential under 40 CFR Part 2, 
all reports prepared in accordance with the terms of this permit shall 
be available for public inspection at the Regional Office. As required 
by the Act, the name and address of any permit applicant or permittee, 
permit applications, permits, and effluent data shall not be considered 
confidential.

Part III. Monitoring Reports and Permit Modification

Section A. Monitoring Reports

    The operator of each lease block shall be responsible for 
submitting monitoring results for each facility within each lease 
block. If there is more than one facility in each lease block 
(platform, drilling ship, semi-submersible), the discharge shall be 
designated in the following manner: 101 for the first facility; 201 for 
the second facility; 301 for the third facility, etc.
    Monitoring results obtained for each month shall be summarized for 
that month and reported on a Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) form 
(EPA No. 3320-1), postmarked no later than the 28th day of the month 
following the completed calendar month. (For example, data for January 
shall be submitted by February 28.) Signed copies of these and all 
other reports required by Part II.D shall be submitted to the following 
address: Director, Water Management Division, Clean Water Act 
Enforcement Section, U.S. EPA, Region 4, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 
Forsyth Street, S.W., Atlanta, GA 30303-8960.
    All laboratory reports submitted with DMRs should clearly indicate 
the permit number, outfall number, and any other identification 
information necessary to associate the report with the correct 
facility, waste stream, and outfall.
    If no discharge occurs during the reporting period, sampling 
requirements of this permit do not apply. The statement ``No 
Discharge'' shall be written on the DMR form. If, during the term of 
this permit, the facility ceases discharge to surface waters, the 
Regional Director shall be notified (at the address above) within 60 
(sixty) days after the permanent termination of discharges from their 
facility. This notification shall be in writing.

Section B. Permit Modification

    This permit shall be modified, or alternatively, revoked and 
reissued, to comply with any applicable effluent standard or 
limitation, or sludge disposal requirement issued or approved under 
sections 301(b)(2) (C) and (D), 307(a)(2), and 405(d)(2)(D) of the Act, 
as amended, if the effluent standard or limitation, or sludge disposal 
requirement so issued or approved:
    (a) Contains different conditions or is otherwise more stringent 
than any conditions 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.

Part IV. Test Procedures and Definitions

Section A. Test Procedures

1. Samples of Wastes
    If requested, the permittee shall provide EPA with a sample of any 
waste in a manner specified by the Agency.
2. Drilling Fluids Toxicity Test
    The approved sampling and test methods for permit compliance are 
provided in the final effluent guidelines published at 58 FR 12507 on 
March 4, 1993 as Appendix 2 to Subpart A of Part 435.
3. Static (Laboratory) Sheen Test
    The approved sampling and test methods for permit compliance are 
provided in the final effluent guidelines published at 58 FR 12506 on 
March 4, 1993 as Appendix 1 to Subpart A.
4. Visual Sheen Test
    The visual sheen test is used to detect free oil by observing the 
surface of the receiving water for the presence of a sheen while 
discharging. A sheen is defined as a ``silvery'' or ``metallic''

[[Page 55755]]

sheen, gloss, or increased reflectivity; visual color; iridescence; or 
oil slick on the surface (see 58 FR 12507). The operator must conduct a 
visual sheen test only at times when a sheen could be observed. This 
restriction eliminates observations at night or when atmospheric or 
surface conditions prohibit the observer from detecting a sheen (e.g., 
during rain or rough seas, etc.). Certain discharges can only occur if 
a visual sheen test can be conducted.
    The observer must be positioned on the rig or platform, relative to 
both the discharge point and current flow at the time of discharge, 
such that the observer can detect a sheen should it surface down 
current from the discharge. For discharges that have been occurring for 
at least 15 minutes previously, observations may be made any time 
thereafter. For discharges of less than 15 minutes duration, 
observations must be made both during discharge and 5 minutes after 
discharge has ceased.
5. Produced Water Acute Toxicity Test
    The method for determining the 96-hour LC50 for effluents is 
published in ``Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents to 
Freshwater and Marine Organisms'' (EPA/600/4-90/027F). The species to 
be used for compliance testing for this permit are Mysidopsis bahia and 
inland silverside minnows (Menidia beryllina)

Section B. Definitions

    1. Act means the Clean Water Act (CWA), as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 
et. seq.).
    2. Administrator means the Administrator of EPA, Region 4, or an 
authorized representative.
    3. Areas of Biological Concern for waters within the territorial 
seas (shoreline to 3-miles offshore) are those defined as ``no activity 
zones'' for biological reasons by the states of Alabama, Florida or 
Mississippi. For offshore waters seaward of three miles, areas of 
biological concern include ``no activity zones'' defined by the 
Department of the Interior (DOI) for biological reasons, or identified 
by EPA in consultation with the DOI, the states, or other interested 
federal agencies, as containing biological communities, features or 
functions that are potentially sensitive to discharges associated with 
the oil and gas industry. Areas of Biological Concern include, but are 
not limited to, the following: Southwest Rock (30 06.1'N, 88 12.3'W), 
Southeast Banks (30 00.9'N; 87 57.1'W); 17 Fathom Hole (29 55.6''N 88 
03.4'W) and lease blocks with Pinnacle Trend Features. These areas are 
geographically and in greater detail in Appendix B. EPA may, from time 
to time, identify additional Areas of Biological Concern.
    4. Applicable Effluent Standards and Limitations means all state 
and Federal effluent standards and limitations to which a discharge is 
subject under the Act, including, but not limited to, effluent 
limitations, standards of performance, toxic effluent standards and 
prohibitions, and pretreatment standards.
    5. Average Daily Discharge Limitation means the highest allowable 
average of discharges over a 24-hour period, calculated as the sum of 
all discharges or concentrations measured divided by the number of 
discharges or concentrations measured that day.
    6. 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 discharges measured that month. The limitation 
may be the average of discharge rates or concentrations.
    7. Batch or Bulk Discharge is any discharge of a discrete volume or 
mass of effluent from a pit, tank, or similar container that occurs on 
a one-time, infrequent, or irregular basis.
    8. Blowout-Out Preventer Control Fluid means fluid used to actuate 
the hydraulic equipment on the blow-out preventer or subsea production 
wellhead assembly.
    9. Boiler Blowdown means discharges from boilers necessary to 
minimize solids build-up in the boilers, including vents from boilers 
and other heating systems.
    10. Bulk Discharge means any discharge of a discrete volume or mass 
of effluent from a pit tank or similar container that occurs on a one-
time, infrequent, or irregular basis.
    11. Bypass means the intentional diversion of waste streams from 
any portion of a treatment facility.
    12. Clinkers are small lumps of residual material left after 
incineration.
    13. 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. Drilling muds remaining in the wellbore 
during logging, casing, and cementing operations or during temporary 
abandonment of the well are not considered completion fluids and are 
regulated by drilling fluids requirements.
    14. Daily Average Discharge (also known as monthly average) 
limitations means the highest allowable average daily discharge(s) over 
a calendar month, calculated as the sum of all daily discharge(s) 
measured during a calendar month divided by the number of daily 
discharge(s) measured during that month.
    15. 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 terms of mass, the daily discharge is 
calculated as the total mass of the pollutant or waste stream 
discharged over the sampling 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 
sampling day. Daily discharge determination of concentration made using 
a composite sample shall be the concentration of the composite sample. 
When grab samples are used, the daily discharge determination of 
concentration shall be the average (weighted by flow value) of all 
samples collected during that sampling day.
    16. Daily Maximum discharge limitations are the highest allowable 
daily discharge rate or concentration measured during a calendar day.
    17. Deck Drainage is all waste resulting from platform washings, 
deck washings, deck area spills, equipment washings, rainwater, and 
runoff from curbs, gutters, and drains, including drip pans and wash 
areas.
    18. Desalination Unit Discharge means waste water associated with 
the process of creating freshwater from seawater.
    19. Development Drilling means the drilling of wells required to 
efficiently produce a hydrocarbon formation or formations.
    20. Diatomaceous Earth Filter Media is the filter media used to 
filter seawater or other authorized completion fluids and subsequently 
washed from the filter.
    21. Diesel Oil is the distillate fuel oil, as specified in the 
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM ) Specification 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 any particular operation under this permit, diesel oil 
shall refer to the fuel oil present on the facility.
    22. Domestic Waste is the discharge from galleys, sinks, showers, 
safety showers, eye wash stations, hand

[[Page 55756]]

washing stations, fish cleaning stations, and laundries.
    23. Drill Cuttings are particles generated by drilling into the 
subsurface geological formations including cured cement carried to the 
surface with the drilling fluid.
    24. Drilling Fluids are any fluids sent down the hole used in 
rotary drilling of wells to clean and condition the hole and 
counterbalance formation pressure, from the time a well is begun until 
final cessation of drilling in that hole and includes the four classes 
of drilling fluids: water-based, oil-based, enhanced mineral oil, and 
synthetic-based. (1) A water-based drilling fluid has water as the 
continuous phase and the suspending medium for solids, whether or not 
oil is present. (2) An oil-based drilling fluid has diesel oil, mineral 
oil, or some other oil, but neither a synthetic material nor enhanced 
material oil, as its continuous phase with water as the dispersed 
phase. (3) An enhanced mineral oil-based drilling has an enhanced 
mineral oil as its continuous phase with water as the dispersed phase. 
(4) A synthetic-based drilling fluid has a synthetic material as its 
continuous phase with water as the dispersed phase.
    25. End of well Sample means the sample taken after the final log 
run is completed and prior to bulk discharge.
    26. Excess Cement Slurry means the excess mixed cement, including 
additives and wastes from equipment washdown after a cementing 
operation.
    27. Existing Sources are facilities conducting exploration 
activities and those that have commenced development or production 
activities that were permitted as of the effective date of the Offshore 
Guidelines (March 4, 1993).
    28. Free Oil is oil that causes a sheen, streak, or slick on the 
surface of the test container or receiving water; which methodology for 
compliance is determined in the permit.
    29. Garbage ``means all kinds of food waste, wastes generated in 
living areas on the facility, and operational waste, excluding fresh 
fish and parts thereof, generated during the normal operation of the 
facility and liable to be disposed of continuously or periodically, 
except dishwater, graywater, and those substances that are defined or 
listed in other Annexes to MARPOL 73/78.''
    30. Grab Sample means an individual sample collected in less than 
15 minutes.
    31. Graywater is drainage from dishwater, shower, laundry, bath, 
and washbasin drains and does not include drainage from toilets, 
urinals, hospitals, and drainage from cargo areas (see MARPOL 73/78 
regulations).
    32. Inverse Emulsion Drilling Fluids are oil-based drilling fluids 
which also contain large amounts of water.
    33. Live Bottom Areas are those areas that contain biological 
assemblages consisting of such sessile invertebrates as sea fans, sea 
whips, hydroids, anemones, ascideians sponges, bryozoans, seagrasses, 
or corals living upon and attached to naturally occurring hard or rocky 
formations with fishes and other fauna.
    34. Maximum Hourly Rate is the greatest number of barrels of 
drilling fluids discharged within one hour, expressed as barrels per 
hour.
    35. Muds, Cuttings, and Cement at the Seafloor means discharges 
that occur at the seafloor prior to installation of the marine riser 
and during marine riser disconnect, well abandonment, and plugging 
operations.
    36. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) means 
the national program for issuing, modifying, revoking and reissuing, 
terminating, monitoring, and enforcing permits, and imposing and 
enforcing pretreatment requirements under sections 307, 318, 402, 403, 
and 405 of the Act.
    37. New Source means any facility or activity of this subcategory 
that meets the definition of ``new source'' under 40 CFR 122.2 and 
meets the criteria for determination of new sources under 40 CFR 
122.29(b) applied consistently with all of the following definitions: 
(i) The term water area as used in the term ``site'' in 40 CFR 122.29 
and 122.2 shall mean the water area and ocean floor beneath any 
exploratory, development, or production facility where such facility is 
conducting its exploratory, development or production activities, (ii) 
the term significant site preparation work as used in 40 CFR 122.29 
shall mean the process of surveying, clearing, or preparing an area of 
the ocean floor for the purpose of constructing or placing a 
development or production facility on or over the site.
    38. No Activity Zones include those areas identified by MMS where 
no structures, drilling rigs, or pipelines will be allowed. These zones 
are identified as lease stipulations in U.S. Department of the 
Interior, MMS, August 1990, Environmental Impact Statement for Sales 
131, 135, and 137 Western, Central, and Eastern Gulf of Mexico. 
Additional no activity zones may be identified by MMS during the life 
of this permit, and by the States of Alabama, Mississippi and Florida 
within their territorial waters (up to 3 miles offshore) where no 
structures, drilling rigs, or pipelines will be allowed.
    39. No Discharge Areas are areas specified by EPA where discharge 
of pollutants may not occur.
    40. Non-Operational Leases are those leases on which no discharge 
has taken place within 2 years prior to the effective date of the new 
general permits.
    41. Operating Facilities are leases on which a discharge has taken 
place within 2 years of the effective date of the new general permits.
    42. Packer Fluids are low solids fluids between the packer, 
production string, and well casing. They are considered to be workover 
fluids.
    43. Priority Pollutants are the 126 chemicals or elements 
identified by EPA, pursuant to section 307 of the Clean Water Act and 
40 CFR 401.15.
    44. Produced Sand is slurried particles used in hydraulic 
fracturing, the accumulated sands and scales particles generated during 
production. Produced sand also includes desander discharge from 
produced water waste stream and blowdown of water phase from produced 
water treating systems.
    45. Produced Water is water and particulate matter associated with 
oil and gas producing formations. Produced water includes small volumes 
of treating chemicals that return to the surface with the produced 
fluids and pass through the produced water treating system.
    46. Sanitary Waste means human body waste discharged from toilets 
and urinals.
    47. Severe Property Damage means substantial physical damage to 
property, damage to the treatment facilities which cause 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.
    48. Sheen means a silvery or metallic sheen, gloss, or increased 
reflectivity; visual color; iridescence; or oil slick on the water 
surface.
    49. Source Water and Sand are the water and entrained solids 
brought to the surface from non-hydrocarbon bearing formations for the 
purpose of pressure maintenance or secondary recovery.
    50. Spotting means the process of adding a lubricant (spot) 
downhole to free stuck pipe.
    51. Territorial Seas means the belt of the seas measured from the 
line of ordinary low water along that portion of the coast which is in 
direct contact with the open sea and the line marking the seaward limit 
of inland waters, and extending seaward a distance of three miles.

[[Page 55757]]

    52. Trace Amounts means that if materials added downhole as well 
treatment, completion, or workover fluids do not contain priority 
pollutants then the discharge is assumed not to contain priority 
pollutants except possibly in trace amounts.
    53. Uncontaminated Ballast/Bilge water means seawater added or 
removed to maintain proper draft.
    54. Uncontaminated Seawater means seawater that is returned to the 
sea without the addition of chemicals. Included are (1) discharges of 
excess seawater that permit the continuous operation of fire control 
and utility lift pumps, (2) excess seawater from pressure maintenance 
and secondary recovery projects, (3) water released during the training 
and testing of personnel in fire protection, (4) seawater used to 
pressure test piping, and (5) once through non-contact cooling water.
    55. Uncontaminated Freshwater ``freshwater which is discharged 
without the addition of chemicals; examples include: (1) discharges of 
excess freshwater that permit the continuous operation of fire control 
and utility lift pumps, (2) excess freshwater from pressure maintenance 
and secondary recovery projects, (3) water released during fire 
protection tests and training, and (4) water used to pressure test 
piping.''
    55. 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.
    56. Well treatment fluids are any fluid used to restore or improve 
productivity by chemically or physically altering hydrocarbon-bearing 
strata after a well has been drilled. These fluids move into the 
formation and return to the surface as a slug with the produced water. 
Stimulation fluids include substances such as acids, solvents, and 
propping agents.
    57. Workover fluids are salt solutions, weighted brines, polymers, 
and other specialty additives used in a producing well to allow safe 
repair and maintenance or abandonment procedures. High solids drilling 
fluids used during workover operations are not considered workover 
fluids by definition and therefore must meet drilling fluid effluent 
limitations before discharge may occur. Packer fluids, low solids 
fluids between the packer, production string, and well casing are 
considered to be workover fluids and must meet only the effluent 
requirements imposed on workover fluids.
    58. The term MGD means million gallons per day.
    59. The term mg/l means milligrams per liter or parts per million 
(ppm).
    60. The term ug/l shall means micrograms per liter or part per 
billion (ppb).

Existing Sources

              Table 2.--Effluent Limitations, Prohibitions, and Monitoring Requirements for the Eastern Gulf of Mexico NPDES General Permit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                             Monitoring requirement
                                    Regulated & monitored     Discharge limitation/   ------------------------------------------------------------------
             Discharge               discharge parameter           prohibition              Measurement                              Recorded/ reported
                                                                                             frequency         Sample type/ method          value
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drilling Fluids...................  Oil-based Drilling     No discharge..............
                                     Fluids.
                                    Oil-contaminated       No discharge..............
                                     Drilling Fluids.
                                    Drilling Fluids to     No discharge..............
                                     Which Diesel Oil has
                                     been Added.
                                    Mercury and Cadmium    No discharge of drilling    Once per new source    Flame and flameless   mg Hg and mg Cd/kg
                                     in Barite.             fluids if added barite      of barite used.        AAS.                  in stock barite.
                                                            contains Hg in excess of
                                                            1.0 mg/kg or Cd in excess
                                                            of 3.0 mg/kg (dry wt).
                                    Toxicity a...........  30,000 ppm daily minimum..  Once/month...........  Grab/96-hr LC50       Minimum LC50 of
                                                           30,000 ppm monthly average  Once/end of well b...   using Mysidopsis      tests performed and
                                                            minimum.                   Once/month...........   bahia; Method at 58   monthly average
                                                                                                               FR 12507.             LC50.
                                    Free Oil.............  No free oil...............  Once/day prior to      Static sheen; Method  Number of days sheen
                                                                                        discharge.             at 58 FR 12506.       observed.
                                    Maximum Discharge      1,000 barrels/hr..........  Once/hour............  Estimate............  Max. hourly rate in
                                     Rate.                                                                                           bbl/hr
                                    Mineral Oil..........  Mineral oil may be used
                                                            only as a carrier fluid,
                                                            lubricity additive, or
                                                            pill.
                                    Drilling Fluids        Record....................  Once/well............  Inventory...........  Chemical
                                     Inventory.                                                                                      constituents.
                                    Volume...............  Report....................  Once/month...........  Estimate............  Monthly total in bbl/
                                                                                                                                     month.

[[Page 55758]]

                                    Within 1000 Meters of  No discharge..............
                                     an Areas of
                                     Biological Concern
                                     (ABC).
Drill Cuttings....................    Note: Drill cuttings are subject to the same limitations/prohibitions as drilling fluids except Maximum Discharge
                                                                                            Rate.
                                    Free Oil.............  No free oil...............  Once/day prior to      Static sheen; Method  Number of days sheen
                                                                                        discharge.             at 58 FR 12506.       observed
                                    Volume...............  Report....................  Once/month...........  Estimate............  Monthly total in bbl/
                                                                                                                                     month
Produced Water....................  Oil and Grease.......  42 mg/l daily maximum and   Once/month c.........  Grab/Gravimetric....  Daily max. and
                                                            29 mg/l monthly average.                                                 monthly avg.
                                    Toxicity.............  Acute toxicity (LC50);      Once/2 months........  Grab/96-hour LC50     Minimum LC50 for
                                                            critical dilution as                               using Mysidopsis      both species and
                                                            specified by the                                   bahia and inland      full laboratory
                                                            requirements at Part                               silverside minnow     report
                                                            I.B.3(b) and Appendix A                            (Method in EPA/600/
                                                            of this permit.                                    4-90/027F).
                                    Flow (bbl/month).....                              Once/month...........  Estimate............  Monthly rate
                                    Within 1000 meters of  No discharge..............
                                     an Area of
                                     Biological Concern
                                     (ABC).
Deck Drainage.....................  Free Oil.............  No free oil...............  Once/day when          Visual sheen........  Number of days sheen
                                                                                        discharging d.                               observed
                                    Volume (bbl/month)...                              Once/month...........  Estimate............  Monthly total
Produced Sand.....................  No Discharge.........
Well Treatment, Completion, and     Free Oil.............  No free oil...............  Once/day when          Static sheen........  Number of days sheen
 Workover Fluids (includes packer                                                       discharging.                                 observed
 fluids) e.
                                    Oil and Grease.......  42 mg/l daily maximum and   Once/month...........  Grab/Gravimetric....  Daily max. and
                                                            29 mg/l monthly average.                                                 monthly avg.
                                    Priority Pollutants..  No priority pollutants....                         Monitor added
                                                                                                               materials.
                                    Volume (bbl/month)...                              Once/month...........  Estimate............  Monthly total
Sanitary Waste (Continuously        Solids...............  No floating solids........  Once/day, in daylight  Observation.........  Number of days
 manned by 10 or more persons) f.                                                                                                    solids observed
                                    Residual Chlorine....  At least (but as close to)  Once/month...........  Grab/Hach CN-66-DPD.  Concentration
                                                            1 mg/l.
                                    Flow (MGD)...........                              Once/month...........  Estimate............
Sanitary Waste (Continuously        Solids...............  No floating solids........  Once/day, in daylight  Observation.........  Number of days
 manned by 9 or fewer persons or                                                                                                     solids observed
 intermittently by any) f.
Domestic Waste....................  Solids...............  No floating solids; no      Once/day following     Observation.........  Number of days
                                                            food waste within 12        morning or midday                            solids observed
                                                            miles of land; comminuted   meal at time of
                                                            food waste smaller than     maximum expected
                                                            25-mm beyond 12 miles.      discharge.

[[Page 55759]]

Miscellaneous Discharges--          Free Oil.............  No free oil...............  Once/day when          Visual sheen........  Number of days sheen
 Desalination Unit; Blowout                                                             discharging.                                 observed
 Preventer Fluid; Uncontaminated
 Ballast/Bilge Water, Mud,
 Cuttings, and Cement at the
 Seafloor; Uncontaminated
 Seawater; Boiler Blowdown; Source
 Water and Sand; Uncontaminated
 Fresh Water; Excess Cement
 Slurry; Diatomaceous Earth Filter
 Media.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Toxicity test to be conducted using suspended particulate phase (SPP) of a 9:1 seawater:mud dilution. The sample shall be taken beneath the shale
  shaker, or if there are no returns across the shaker, the sample must be taken from a location that is characteristic of the overall mud system to be
  discharged.
b Sample shall be taken after the final log run is completed and prior to bulk discharge.
c The daily maximum concentration may be based on the average of up to four grab sample results in the 24 hour period.
d When discharging and facility is manned. Monitoring shall be accomplished during times when observation of a visual sheen on the surface of the
  receiving water is possible in the vicinity of the discharge.
e No discharge of priority pollutants except in trace amounts. Information on the specific chemical composition shall be recorded but not reported
  unless requested by EPA.
f Any facility that properly operates and maintains 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 permit limitations for sanitary waste. The MSD shall be tested yearly for proper
  operation and test results maintained at the facility.

New Sources

             Table 3.-- Effluent Limitations, Prohibitions, and Monitoring Requirements for the Eastern Gulf of Mexico NPDES General Permit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                             Monitoring requirement
                                    Regulated & monitored     Discharge limitation/   ------------------------------------------------------------------
             Discharge               discharge parameter           prohibition                                                        Recorded/reported
                                                                                       Measurement frequency   Sample type/method           value
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drilling Fluids...................  Oil-based Drilling     No discharge..............
                                     Fluids.
                                    Oil-contaminated       No discharge..............
                                     Drilling Fluids.
                                    Drilling Fluids to     No discharge..............
                                     Which Diesel Oil has
                                     been Added.
                                    Mercury and Cadmium    No discharge of drilling    Once per new source    Flame and flameless   mg Hg and mg Cd/kg
                                     in Barite.             fluids if added barite      of barite used.        AAS.                  in stock barite.
                                                            contains Hg in excess of
                                                            1.0 mg/kg or Cd in excess
                                                            of 3.0 mg/kg (dry wt).
                                    Toxicity a...........  30,000 ppm daily minimum..  Once/month...........  Grab/96-hr LC50       Minimum LC50 of
                                                           30,000 ppm monthly average  Once/end of well b...   using Mysidopsis      tests performed and
                                                            minimum.                   Once/month...........   bahia; Method at 58   monthly average
                                                                                                               FR 12507.             LC50.
                                    Free Oil.............  No free oil...............  Once/day prior to      Static sheen; Method  Number of days sheen
                                                                                        discharge.             at 58 FR 12506.       observed.
                                    Maximum Discharge      1,000 barrels/hr..........  Once/hour............  Estimate............  Max. hourly rate in
                                     Rate.                                                                                           bbl/hr.
                                    Mineral Oil..........  Mineral oil may be used
                                                            only as a carrier fluid,
                                                            lubricity additive, or
                                                            pill.
                                    Drilling Fluids        Record....................  Once/well............  Inventory...........  Chemical
                                     Inventory.                                                                                      constituents.
                                    Volume...............  Report....................  Once/month...........  Estimate............  Monthly total in bbl/
                                                                                                                                     month.

[[Page 55760]]

                                    Within 1000 Meters of  No discharge..............
                                     an Areas of
                                     Biological Concern
                                     (ABC).
Drill Cuttings....................    Note: Drill cuttings are subject to the same limitations/prohibitions as drilling fluids except Maximum Discharge
                                                                                            Rate.
                                    Free Oil.............  No free oil...............  Once/day prior to      Static sheen; Method  Number of days sheen
                                                                                        discharge.             at 58 FR 12506.       observed
                                    Volume...............  Report....................  Once/month...........  Estimate............  Monthly total in bbl/
                                                                                                                                     month
Produced Water....................  Oil and Grease.......  42 mg/l daily maximum and   Once/month c.........  Grab/Gravimetric....  Daily max. and
                                                            29 mg/l monthly average.                                                 monthly avg.
                                    Toxicity.............  Acute toxicity (LC50);      Once/2 months........  Grab/96-hour LC50     Minimum LC50 for
                                                            critical dilution as                               using Mysidopsis      both species and
                                                            specified by the                                   bahia and inland      full laboratory
                                                            requirements at Part                               silverside minnow     report
                                                            I.B.3(b) and Appendix A                            (Method in EPA/600/
                                                            of this permit.                                    4-90/027F).
                                    Flow (bbl/month).....                              Once/month...........  Estimate............  Monthly rate
                                    Within 1000 meters of  No discharge..............
                                     an Area of
                                     Biological Concern
                                     (ABC).
Deck Drainage.....................  Free Oil.............  No free oil...............  Once/day when          Visual sheen........  Number of days sheen
                                                                                        discharging d.                               observed
                                    Volume (bbl/month)...                              Once/month...........  Estimate............  Monthly total
Produced Sand.....................  No Discharge.........
Well Treatment, Completion, and     Free Oil.............  No free oil...............  Once/day when          Static sheen........  Number of days sheen
 Workover Fluids (includes packer                                                       discharging.                                 observed.
 fluids) e.
                                    Oil and Grease.......  42 mg/l daily maximum and   Once/month...........  Grab/Gravimetric....  Daily max. and
                                                            29 mg/l monthly average.                                                 monthly avg.
                                    Priority Pollutants..  No priority pollutants....                         Monitor added
                                                                                                               materials.
                                    Volume (bbl/month)...                              Once/month...........  Estimate............  Monthly total.
Sanitary Waste (Continuously        Solids...............  No floating solids........  Once/day, in daylight  Observation.........  Number of days
 manned by 10 or more persons) f.                                                                                                    solids observed.
                                    Residual ChlorineAt    Once/month................  Grab/Hach CN-66-DPD..  Concentration.......
                                     least (but as close
                                     to) 1 mg/l.
                                    Flow (MGD)...........                              Once/month...........  Estimate............
Sanitary Waste (Continuously        Solids...............  No floating solids........  Once/day, in daylight  Observation.........  Number of days
 manned by 9 or fewer persons or                                                                                                     solids observed.
 intermittently by any) f.
Domestic Waste....................  Solids...............  No floating solids; no      Once/day following     Observation.........  Number of days
                                                            food waste within 12        morning or midday                            solids observed.
                                                            miles of land; comminuted   meal at time of
                                                            food waste smaller than     maximum expected
                                                            25-mm beyond 12 miles.      discharge.

[[Page 55761]]

Miscellaneous Discharges            Free Oil.............  No free oil...............  Once/day when          Visual sheen........  Number of days sheen
 Desalination Unit; Blowout                                                             discharging.                                 observed.
 Preventer Fluid; Uncontaminated
 Ballast/Bilge Water, Mud,
 Cuttings, and Cement at the
 Seafloor; Uncontaminated
 Seawater; Boiler Blowdown; Source
 Water and Sand; Uncontaminated
 Freshwater, Excess Cement Slurry,
 Diatomaceous Earth Filter Media.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Toxicity test to be conducted using suspended particulate phase (SPP) of a 9:1 seawater:mud dilution. The sample shall be taken beneath the shale
  shaker, or if there are no returns across the shaker, the sample must be taken from a location that is characteristic of the overall mud system to be
  discharged.
b Sample shall be taken after the final log run is completed and prior to bulk discharge.
c The daily maximum concentration may be based on the average of up to four grab sample results in the 24 hour period.
d When discharging and facility is manned. Monitoring shall be accomplished during times when observation of a visual sheen on the surface of the
  receiving water is possible in the vicinity of the discharge.
e No discharge of priority pollutants except in trace amounts. Information on the specific chemical composition shall be recorded but not reported
  unless requested by EPA.
f Any facility that properly operates and maintains 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 permit limitations for sanitary waste. The MSD shall be tested yearly for proper
  operation and test results maintained at the facility.

Appendix A

    Effluent concentrations at the edge of a 100-m mixing zone will 
be modeled by EPA for each produced water outfall listed in an 
operator's notice of commencement of production operations. This 
projected effluent concentration will be used to calculate the 
permit limitation for produced water toxicity (0.01 x projected 
effluent concentration). The discharge will be modeled using each 
facility's measured water column conditions and discharge 
configurations as input for the CORMIX expert system for 
hydrodynamic mixing zone analysis.
    The notice of commencement of production operations will be 
accompanied by a completed CORMIX input parameter table presented as 
Table A-1. The input parameters required are the following.

Anticipated average discharge rate (bbl/day)
Water depth (meters)
Discharge pipe location in the water column (meters from surface or 
bottom)
Discharge pipe orientation with respect to the prevailing current 
(degrees; 0 deg. is coflowing)
Discharge pipe opening diameter (meters)
Discharge horizontal angle between port direction in the horizontal 
plane and the direction of ambient flow: (sigma)

    These parameters are site-specific parameters that the operator 
must determine through monitoring or measurement and certify as true 
to the best of their knowledge. All other input parameters for the 
CORMIX model are established as the following.

Discharge density: 1070.2 kg/m \3\
Discharge concentration: 100%
Legal mixing zone: 100 meters
Darcy-Wiesbach constant: 0.2
Current speed: 5 cm/sec
Discharge pipe orientation: Coflowing with current
Linear water column density profile;
    Surface density: 1,023.0 kg/m \3\
    Density gradient: 0.163 kg/m \3\/m

    The Region will conduct the model using the operator's input 
parameters and report the toxicity limitation to the operator. If 
the parameters supplied by the operator change during the life of 
the permit (e.g., average discharge rate increases or decreases, a 
change in discharge pipe orientation, etc.), the operator should 
submit the new input parameters to the Region so that a new toxicity 
limitation can be calculated.
    Compliance with the toxicity limitation will be demonstrated by 
conducting 96-hour toxicity tests using mysids (Mysidopsis bahia) 
and the Inland silverside minnow (Menidia beryllina) once every two 
months. The LC50 for each species will be reported on the DMR and a 
copy of the complete laboratory report shall be submitted.
    Facilities that pass six consecutive produced water toxicity 
tests for six will be allowed to change to a frequency of once/every 
six months; otherwise bimonthly testing shall continue.

Table A-1. CORMIX (Version 3.2) Input Parameters for Toxicity 
Limitation Calculation

Permit number:---------------------------------------------------------
GMG28------------------------------------------------------------------
Company:---------------------------------------------------------------
Contact name/Phone number:---------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lease block/number:----------------------------------------------------
Facility name:---------------------------------------------------------
Parameter
    Discharge Rate
    Water depth
Units
    ____ Average bbl/day
    ____ meters
Discharge pipe location in the water column
----------------------------------------------------------------------
meters from------------------------------------------------------------
water surface, or------------------------------------------------------
seafloor---------------------------------------------------------------
    Discharge pipe orientation (vertical angle) with respect to the 
seafloor: Theta
----------------------------------------------------------------------

degrees
(90 deg. is directed toward the surface)
(-90 deg. is directed toward the seafloor)
    Discharge pipe opening diameter:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

meters
    Discharge horizontal angle between port direction in the 
horizontal plane and the direction of ambient flow: (sigma)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

degrees
 (0 deg. is coflowing with ambient current)
(90 deg. is perpendicular to ambient flow)
Billing Code 6560-50-P

[[Page 55762]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16OC98.001



[FR Doc. 98-27701 Filed 10-15-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C