[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 20, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48796-48841]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-23207]
[[Page 48795]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part V
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
Alaskan Outer Continental Shelf; Draft National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System General Permit; Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 20, 1995 /
Notices
[[Page 48796]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-5297-3]
Alaskan Outer Continental Shelf; Draft National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System General Permit
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10.
ACTION: Notice of Draft NPDES General Permit (Reissuance), Notice of
State of Alaska Certification and Notice of State of Alaska
Determination of Consistency with the Alaska Coastal Management
Program.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Regional Administrator, Region 10, is proposing to issue a
draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general
permit for oil and gas stratigraphic test and exploration wells on the
Alaskan Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) in addition to exploration,
production and development wells in offshore and coastal waters of the
State of Alaska. A general NPDES permit (51 FR 35460, 10/03/86) was
issued September 4, 1986, for all areas offered for lease by the U.S.
Department of the Interior's Minerals Management Service (MMS) in
Federal Lease Sales 55 (Gulf of Alaska) and 60 (Cook Inlet) and all
Cook Inlet blocks offered for lease by the State of Alaska in Lease
Sales 32, 33, 35, 40, 46A, and 49. The permit issued in 1986 also
covered areas offered under state lease sales held during the effective
period of the permit (i.e., 10/10/86-10/10/91). The permit proposed
today will not cover areas outside of Cook Inlet (i.e., Federal Lease
Sale 55).
When issued, the proposed permit will establish effluent
limitations, standards, prohibitions, and other conditions on
discharges from facilities in the general permit area. These conditions
are based on the administrative record. EPA regulations and the permit
contain a procedure which allows the owner or operator of a point
source discharge to apply for an individual permit instead. A total of
23 facilities were covered under the previous general permit. Of those
23 facilities, 16 are currently active. All of those permittees have
complied with the reissuance application procedures and have indicated
preference to be covered under this general permit as well. Therefore,
Region 10 hereby announces its intention to cover these facilities
under this general permit. If any individual objects to this automatic
coverage, that objection should be submitted in writing during the
public comment period.
A brief description of the basis for the conditions and
requirements of the proposed permit is given in the fact sheet
published below.
Dates: Interested persons may submit comments of the draft general
permit by 4 pm on November 30, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Public comments and requests for coverage should be sent to:
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Attn: Ocean Programs
Section, WD-137, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kris Flint, Region 10, at the address
listed above or telephone (206) 553-8155. Copies of the draft general
permit and today's publication will provided upon request.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
State Certification
This Notice will also serve as Public Notice of the intent of the
State of Alaska, Department of Environmental Conservation to consider
certifying that the subject discharge will comply with the applicable
provisions of Section 208(e), 301, 303, 306 and 307 of the Clean Water
Act. The NPDES permit will not be issued until the certification
requirements of Section 401 have been met. Persons wishing to comment
on State Certification should submit written comments within this 60
day period to the State of Alaska, Southcentral Regional Office, Alaska
Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC), 555 Cordova Street,
Anchorage, Alaska 99501.
State Consistency Determination
This Notice will also serve as Public Notice of the intent of the
State of Alaska, Office of Management and Budget, Division of
Governmental Coordination, to review this action for consistency with
the approved Alaska Coastal Management Program. Persons wishing to
comment on the State Determination of Consistency with the Alaska
Coastal Management Program should submit written comments within this
60 day period, to the State of Alaska, Office of Management and Budget,
Division of Governmental Coordination at the Joint Pipeline Office, 411
West 4th Street, Anchorage, Alaska 99501. Comments should be addressed
to the attention of Alaska Coastal Management Program Consistency
Review.
Public Hearing
Public hearings on the proposed general permit are tentatively
scheduled to be held in Anchorage and Soldotna, Alaska. The Anchorage
hearing will be held in Room 154 of the Anchorage Federal Building at
222 West Seventh on November 28, 1995, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. The
Soldotna hearing will be held in the Assembly Chambers of the Kenai
Peninsula Borough at 144 North Binkley Road on November 29, 1995, from
4 p.m. until all persons have been heard. Either or both of the public
hearings will be cancelled if insufficient interest is expressed in
them. People interested in making a statement at either hearing must
contact Kris Flint at the address below or at (206) 553-8155 by 4 pm on
November 16, 1995, to confirm that the hearing will take place. At the
hearings, interested people may submit oral or written statements
concerning the draft general permit.
Request for Coverage
Written request for authorization to discharge under the general
permit shall be provided, as described in Part I.A. of the permit, to
EPA, Region 10, at least 60 days prior to initiation of discharges.
Authorization to discharge requires written notification from EPA that
coverage has been granted and that a specific permit number has been
assigned to operations at the discharge site. The permit also requires
permittees to notify EPA no more than seven (7) days prior to the
initiation of discharges at the site, and prior to the initiation of
discharges from each new well at a given site.
Administrative Record
The proposed NPDES permit and other related documents are on file
and may be inspected any time between 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday
through Friday at the addresses shown below.
U.S. EPA, Anchorage Operations Office, Anchorage Operations Office,
Room 537, Federal Building, 222 West Seventh Avenue, #19, Anchorage,
Alaska 99513-7588
U.S. EPA, Region 10, Office of Water, WD-137, Ocean Programs Section,
1200 6th Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101
Table of Contents
I. General Permits and Requests for Individual Permits
II. Covered Facilities and Nature of Discharges
A. Types of Discharges Authorized
B. Existing Facilities
C. Discharges Not Authorized
D. Areas of Coverage
E. Nature of Discharges
III. Basis for Permit Conditions
A. Technology Bases
B. Ocean Discharge Criteria
C. Section 308 of the Clean Water Act
D. State of Alaska Standards and Limitations
[[Page 48797]]
E. Water Quality-based Permit Limit Derivatio
F. Mixing Zones
IV. Summary of New and Changed Permit Conditions
V. Specific Permit Conditions
A. Approach
B. Area and Depth-Related Requirements
C. Discharge 001 (Drilling Muds and Cuttings)
D. Discharge 002 (Deck Drainage)
E. Discharges 003 and 004 (Sanitary and Domestic Wastes)
F. Discharges 005-014 (Miscellaneous Discharges)
G. Discharge 015 (Produced Water)
H. Discharges 016-019 (Completion Fluids, Workover Fluids, Well
Treatment
Fluids, and Test Fluids)
I. Other Discharge Limitations
J. Best Management Practice Plan Requirement
VI. Other Legal Requirements
A. Oil Spill Requirements
B. Endangered Species Act
C. Coastal Zone Management Act
D. Maritime Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
E. Annex V of MARPOL (73/78 and 33 CFR 155.73)
F. Executive Order 12291
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
Fact Sheet
I. General Permits and Requests for Individual Permits
Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act (the ``Act'') provides that
the discharge of pollutants is unlawful except in accordance with the
terms of an NPDES permit. The Regional Administrator has determined
that oil and gas facilities operating in the areas described in the
proposed general NPDES permit are more appropriately controlled by a
general permit than by individual permits. This decision is based on 40
CFR 122.28, 40 CFR 125 (Subpart M) and the Agency's previous permit
decisions in other areas of the Alaskan Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).
Any owner and/or operator authorized to discharge under a general
permit may request to be excluded from coverage under the general
permit by applying for an individual permit as provided by 40 CFR
122.28(b). The operator shall submit an application together with the
reasons supporting the request to the Director, Water Division, EPA,
Region 10 (``Director'').
A source located within the general permit area, excluded from
coverage under the general permit solely because it already has an
individual permit (i.e., a permit that has not been continued under the
Administrative Procedures Act), may request that its individual permit
be revoked, and that it be covered by the general permit. Upon
revocation of the individual permit, the general permit shall apply.
Procedures for modification, revocation, termination, and processing of
NPDES permits are provided by 40 CFR 122.62-122.64. As in the case of
individual permits, violation of any condition of a general permit
constitutes a violation of the Act that is enforceable under section
309 of the Act.
II. Covered Facilities and Nature of Discharges
A. Types of Discharges Authorized
The proposed permit will authorize discharges from exploratory
operations in all areas, and from development and production operations
only in state waters of Upper Cook Inlet, north of the Forelands (see
Part II.D. below). The Agency considers it appropriate to include
exploration discharges with development and production discharges in
this permit because, although some development and production
discharges vary from exploration discharges, all exploratory discharges
are a subset of those occurring in development and production.
Exploratory operations involve drilling to determine the nature of
potential hydrocarbon reserves. Under the permit, exploratory
operations would be limited to a maximum of five wells per site.
Development operations are engaged in the drilling and completion of
production wells. Development operations may occur prior to, or
simultaneously with, production operations, which are engaged in active
recovery of hydrocarbons from producing formations.
The proposed general permit will authorize the following discharges
in all areas of coverage: drilling mud; drill cuttings and washwater;
deck drainage; sanitary wastes; domestic wastes; desalination unit
wastes; blowout preventer fluid; boiler blowdown; fire control system
test water; non-contact cooling water; uncontaminated ballast water;
uncontaminated bilge water; excess cement slurry; and mud, cuttings,
and cement at the seafloor. Waterflooding discharges, produced water
discharges, and well treatment fluids (other than test fluids) will
also be authorized for Upper Cook Inlet development and production
operations. Descriptions of discharges are given in Part V. of this
fact sheet.
Operators of existing facilities are encouraged to consider whether
the above discharge categories will cover all discharges at their
facilities. If additional categories are necessary, notification should
be given to Region 10 during the public comment period.
B. Existing Facilities
Oil and gas are extracted from drilling operations on the
production platforms. The oil and gas are in emulsion with water and
must be separated for sale. There are various ways in which oil and gas
(``products'') are separated from the water (``produced water''). Some
of the production platforms are equipped to separate product from
produced water onboard and discharge produced water directly to Cook
Inlet. Other production platforms perform initial oil/water separation
and route their produced water to onshore facilities for further
treatment. In these cases, produced water is discharged from the
onshore facility. Platforms that send produced water to shore-based
facilities for treatment are not authorized to discharge produced
water. Produced water is an authorized discharge from the following
facilities: (Unocal) Granite Point Treatment Facility, (Unocal) Trading
Bay Facility, (SWEPI) East Forelands Treatment Facility, and platforms
(Unocal) Anna, (Unocal) Baker, (Unocal) Bruce, Phillips Tyonek A, SWEPI
A, SWEPI C, and (Marathon) Spark. The shore-based produced water
treatment facilities are authorized to discharge only produced water.
The proposed permit lists 23 operations which may, or may not, all
be operating and discharging at any given time during the course of the
proposed permit. Occasionally, operators may decide to ``close in'' a
platform, ceasing production and subsequent discharges for some period
of time. These facilities may resume production and discharging during
the effective period of the proposed permit and, if so, will be subject
to requirements at Part I.B.3 of the proposed permit. ``Inactive''
refers to operations which are complete, such as exploration operations
from mobile units. Previous ``inactive'' operations are listed in the
proposed permit simply to ensure that the NPDES permit numbers assigned
to those operations are not reassigned to future operations.
C. Discharges Not Authorized
During the effective period of the general permit issued in 1986
(``1986 permit''), permittees identified several discharges that were
not authorized. Region 10 has reviewed the questioned wastestreams and
has determined that they cannot be covered by this permit. The bases
for excluding the following wastestreams are listed below:
Paint chips, paint overspray, or wastes from paint removal
resulting from maintenance of platforms--
[[Page 48798]]
MARPOL, Annex V (see Part VI.E. below)
Water resulting from the cleaning of contaminated soils--
40 CFR 122.28(a)(2)
Wastes resulting from the treatment of contaminated
groundwaters--40 CFR 122.28(a)(2)
D. Areas of Coverage
It is important to understand the differences among ``federal'' and
``state'' waters, and the Offshore and Coastal subcategories of
discharges. ``Federal'' and ``state'' waters do not coincide with the
Coastal and Offshore discharge subcategories. Figure 1 illustrates the
differences among these terms, and the way in which they apply to oil
and gas operations in general.
``State'' waters or ``territorial seas'' are the waters extending 3
miles seaward from the baseline. The ``baseline'' typically follows the
line of ordinary low water along the portion of the coast that is in
direct contact with the open sea, although closing lines may be drawn
straight across the mouth of bays. These closing lines, or baselines,
are established by the U.S. Department of State and NOAA. In Cook
Inlet, the primary baseline runs across the southern end of Kalgin
Island (see Figure 1). Federal waters extend seaward from the
territorial seas. All operations north of the baseline in Cook Inlet
are part of the Coastal Subcategory of oil and gas operations, while
all operations south of the baseline are part of the Offshore
Subcategory. In Cook Inlet, all waters north of the Kalgin Island
baseline are state and Coastal, while waters south of the baseline are
Offshore only, but include state and federal properties.
1. Areas of Coverage in Federal Waters
As discussed above, federal waters are located three miles from the
ordinary low tide mark along the shoreline. The permit proposed today
will cover a smaller area than the 1986 permit (i.e., only Cook Inlet
v. Cook Inlet & Gulf of Alaska). The 1986 general permit authorized
discharges in all areas offered for lease by MMS in Federal Lease Sales
55 (Gulf of Alaska) and 50 (Cook Inlet). No federal lease sales were
held during the effective period of the 1986 permit. At this time, MMS
has tentatively scheduled Lease Sale 149 (Cook Inlet/Shelikof Strait)
for late 1996. To the knowledge of Region 10, specific development and
production operations are not planned and do not presently exist in
federal waters in Cook Inlet; therefore, the proposed permit will cover
only exploratory operations in federal waters.
2. Areas of Coverage in State Waters
The proposed permit will authorize discharges from all Cook Inlet
blocks previously offered for lease by the State of Alaska, or offered
under state lease sales held during the effective period of the 1986
permit. State sales that have occurred and will be covered under the
proposed permit are 67A (Cook Inlet Exempt, held January 1991) and 74
(Cook Inlet, held September 1991). The proposed permit will also
authorize discharges from blocks offered for lease during the effective
period of the permit. Lease sales planned for state waters within the
next five years include Sale 85, 85A and 90 (based on Alaska's proposed
5-year state leasing program (ADNR/O&G 1994)). For the purposes of the
proposed permit, the southern boundary of Cook Inlet is defined to be
the line between Cape Douglas on the west and Port Chatham on the east.
Discharges from new exploratory operations would be allowed in all
state waters in Cook Inlet. These include operations in both the
Coastal and Offshore Subcategories (40 CFR Part 435, Subparts A and D).
Operations in the Offshore Subcategory in state waters would be located
within either three miles of the ordinary low tide mark along the
shoreline, or of closure lines.
Discharges from development and production operations would be
allowed only for Coastal Subcategory operations north of the Forelands
in Upper Cook Inlet, where the existing production platforms are
located. The proposed permit covers discharges from three shore-based
facilities which discharge produced water extracted at several of the
platforms. Region 10 has excluded potential development and production
in other areas from this permit for two reasons. First, the number and
precise nature of such future operations is unknown, in contrast to
existing operations in Upper Cook Inlet. Second, other areas are
generally richer in biota and more sensitive to discharges than Upper
Cook Inlet.
The proposed permit will not authorize discharges into any wetlands
adjacent to territorial waters of the State or from facilities in the
Onshore Subcategory as defined in 40 CFR Part 435, Subpart C.
E. Nature of Discharges
The Agency has established that drilling muds and cuttings are the
major pollutant sources discharged from exploratory and development
drilling operations. Produced water and well treatment fluids are the
major pollutant sources discharged from production operations. The 1986
permit required the permittees, singly or jointly, to provide
information on the composition, quantities, and in some cases the
toxicity, of development and production discharges. Region 10
encouraged Cook Inlet operators to participate in a joint study with a
single contractor to ensure uniform sampling, analyses, and data
compilation. Permittees participating in the study, known as the Cook
Inlet Discharge Monitoring Study (CIDMS), included the following:
Amoco Production Company.
Marathon Oil Company.
Shell Western E&P, Inc.
ARCO Alaska, Inc.
Phillips Petroleum Company.
Unocal Corporation.
The CIDMS yielded the following six reports:
Deck Drainage,
Non-Contact Cooling Water and Desalination Wastes,
Blowout Preventer Fluid, Boil Blowdown, Fire Control
System Test Water, Uncontaminated Ballast Water, Uncontaminated Bilge
water, and Waterflooding Discharges,
Excess Cement Slurry and Mud, Cuttings, Cement at the
Seafloor,
Well Treatment Fluids, and
Produced Water.
The pollutants present in the discharges, as reported in the CIDMS,
discharge monitoring reports and Agency documents, are summarized
below. The toxic pollutants (defined at 40 CFR 401.15) are also known
as priority pollutants. Conventional pollutants are defined at 40 CFR
401.16 as pH, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD5), oil and grease,
total suspended solids (TSS), and fecal coliform. The category of
nonconventional pollutants includes all pollutants not included in
either of the other categories.
1. Conventional Pollutants. pH, BOD5, oil and grease, TSS and
fecal coliform.
2. Toxic Pollutants. Benzene; ethylbenzene; naphthalene; toluene;
phenol; 2,4-dimethylphenol; bis (2-ethylhexyl) phthalate; anthracene;
phenanthrene; and zinc. The pollutants listed here have been reported
as components of produced water discharges in both Cook Inlet and the
Gulf of Mexico.
3. Nonconventional Pollutants. Nonconventional pollutants comprise
the remaining pollutants and parameters for which the Agency has
determined that effluent limits or monitoring is necessary in NPDES
permits. These include: chemical oxygen demand (COD), toxicity, total
organic carbon (TOC), salinity, temperature, and chlorine.
[[Page 48799]]
In developing the proposed permit conditions, EPA has evaluated the
concentrations of these pollutants relative to the levels allowed under
federal regulations and state water quality standards. The pollutants
and discharge parameters limited in each waste stream are summarized in
section V.A., and discussed in sections V.C--IV.H.
III. Basis for Permit Conditions
Sections 301(b), 304, 306, 307, 308, 401, 402, 403, and 501 of the
Clean Water Act (The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972, as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977 and the Water Quality
Act of 1987), 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314 (b), (c), and (e), 1316, 1317, 1318
and 1361; 86 Stat. 816, Pub. L. 92-500; 91 Stat. 1567, Pub. L. 95-217;
101 Stat. 7, Pub. L. 100-4 (``the Act'' or ``CWA''), and the U.S. Coast
Guard regulations (33 CFR Part 151), provide the basis for the permit
conditions contained in the permit. The general requirements of these
sections fall into four categories, which are described in sections A-D
below. In section E, the way in which water quality based permit
limitations are derived from the Alaska water quality standards is
described. In section F, mixing zones are discussed.
A. Technology Bases
1. BPT Effluent Limitations
The Act requires particular classes of industrial discharges to
meet effluent limitations established by EPA. EPA promulgated effluent
limitations guidelines requiring Best Practicable Control Technology
Currently Available (BPT) for the Offshore and Coastal Subcategories of
the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category (40 CFR Part 435,
Subparts A and D) on April 13, 1979 (44 FR 22069).
BPT effluent limitations guidelines require ``no discharge of free
oil'' for discharges of deck drainage, drilling muds, drill cuttings,
and well treatment fluids. This limitation requires that a discharge
shall not cause a film or sheen upon, or discoloration on, the surface
of the water or adjoining shorelines, or cause a sludge or emulsion to
be deposited beneath the surface of the water or upon adjoining
shorelines (40 CFR 435.11(d)). The BPT effluent limitation guideline
for sanitary waste required that the concentration of chlorine be
maintained as close to 1 mg/l as possible in discharges from facilities
housing ten or more persons. No floating solids are allowed as a result
of sanitary waste discharges from facilities continuously staffed by
nine or fewer persons or intermittently staffed by any number. A ``no
floating solids'' guideline also applies to domestic waste. BPT
limitations on oil and grease in produced water allowed a daily maximum
of 72 mg/l and a monthly average of 48 mg/l.
2. BAT and BCT Effluent Limitations
As of March 31, 1989, all permits are required by section 301(b)(2)
of the Act to contain effluent limitations for all categories and
classes of point sources which: (1) Control toxic pollutants (40 CFR
401.15) and nonconventional pollutants through the use of Best
Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT), and (2) represent
Best Conventional Pollutant Control Technology (BCT). BCT effluent
limitations apply to conventional pollutants (pH, BOD, oil and grease,
suspended solids, and fecal coliform). In no case may BCT or BAT be
less stringent than BPT.
BAT and BCT effluent limitations guidelines and New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) for the Offshore Subcategory were proposed
on August 26, 1985 (50 FR 34592) and signed on January 15, 1993 (58 FR
12454, March 4, 1993). The new guidelines were established under the
authority of sections 301(b), 304, 306, 307, 308, and 501 of the Act.
The new guidelines were also established in response to a Consent
Decree entered on April 5, 1990 (subsequently modified on May 28, 1993)
in NRDC v. Reilly, D. D.C. No. 79-3442 (JHP) and are consistent with
EPA's Effluent Guidelines Plan under section 304(m) of the CWA (57 FR
41000, September 8, 1992). This permit incorporates BAT and BCT
effluent limitations based upon the BAT and BCT effluent limitations
guidelines.
BAT and BCT effluent limitations guidelines and NSPS for the
Coastal Subcategory were proposed on February 17, 1995 (60 FR 9428). In
the absence of final BAT and BCT effluent limitations guidelines for
the Coastal Subcategory, permit conditions must be established using
Best Professional Judgment (BPJ) procedures (40 CFR 122.43, 122.44, and
125.3). The proposed permit incorporates BAT and BCT effluent
limitations for the Coastal Subcategory based on the Agency's BPJ and
previous permit actions for similar discharges. Previous BPJ
determinations for the Coastal Subcategory were incorporated into the
1986 permit for Cook Inlet/Gulf of Alaska (51 FR 35460, October 10,
1986) and the individual permit issued to ARCO Alaska, Inc. for
exploration discharges in upper Cook Inlet (EPA 1993b). Best
Professional Judgement (BPJ) procedures are also used to establish
permit conditions for wastestreams not addressed in the offshore
effluent guidelines (e.g., desalination unit wastes, blow out preventer
fluid, boiler blowdown; fire control system test water; non-contact
cooling water; uncontaminated ballast water; uncontaminated bilge
water; excess cement slurry; and muds, cuttings, cement at seafloor).
As required by section 304(b)(2)(B) of the Act, in developing the
BPJ/BAT permit conditions, the Agency considered the age of equipment
and facilities involved, the process employed, the engineering aspects
of the application of various types of control techniques, process
changes, the cost of achieving such effluent reduction, non-water
quality environmental impact (including energy requirements), and such
other factors as the Director deemed appropriate.
The types of equipment and processes used in exploratory,
development, and production operations are well known to the Agency.
Region 10 has issued numerous individual permits for such operations,
as well as the general permits referenced above. The records for this
permit and those earlier permits thoroughly discuss the types of
equipment, facilities and processes used in exploratory, development,
and production operations. With regard to the engineering aspects of
the application of various types of control techniques, there are no
BAT permit limitations based on installation of control equipment. All
proposed BAT permit limitations can be achieved through product
substitution. Any costs of achieving the effluent limitations and any
non-water quality environmental impacts were also evaluated. Such
evaluations are discussed below with respect to any limitation where
applicable.
As required by section 304(b)(4)(B) of the Act, the same factors as
in BAT are considered in determining BCT permit conditions, with one
exception. Rather than considering ``the cost of achieving such
effluent reduction,'' any BCT determination includes ``consideration of
the reasonableness of the relationship between the costs of attaining a
reduction in effluents and the effluent reduction benefits derived and
the comparison of the cost and level of reduction of such pollutants
from publicly owned treatment works to the cost and level of reduction
of such pollutants from a class or category of industrial sources.''
BCT effluent limitations cannot be less stringent than BPT; therefore,
if the candidate industrial technology fails the BCT
[[Page 48800]]
``cost test,'' BCT effluent limitations are set equal to BPT.
The Agency's evaluation of the BAT factors, as discussed above, is
also applicable to BCT, as well as to the Agency's BPJ determinations
of BPT in cases where there is no BPT effluent limitation guideline for
a particular wastestream. There is one BCT limitation based on
installation of control equipment: oil and grease limits for produced
water are based on the use of oil-water separators. With respect to the
BCT ``cost test,'' all BCT limitations are equal to the BPT effluent
limitations guidelines or to Region 10's BPJ determinations of BPT.
Therefore, no incremental cost will be incurred.
B. Ocean Discharge Criteria
Section 403 of the Act requires that an NPDES permit for a
discharge into marine waters located seaward of the inner boundary of
the territorial seas (i.e., state and federal offshore waters) be
issued in accordance with guidelines for determining the potential
degradation of the marine environment. These guidelines, referred to as
the Ocean Discharge Criteria (40 CFR Part 125, Subpart M), and section
403 of the Act are intended to ``prevent unreasonable degradation of
the marine environment and to authorize imposition of effluent
limitations, including a prohibition of discharge, if necessary, to
ensure this goal'' (49 FR 65942, October 3, 1980).
If EPA determines that the discharge will cause unreasonable
degradation, an NPDES permit will not be issued. If a definitive
determination of no unreasonable degradation cannot be made because of
insufficient information, EPA must then determine whether a discharge
will cause irreparable harm to the marine environment and whether there
are reasonable alternatives to on-site disposal. To assess the
probability of irreparable harm, EPA is required to make a
determination that the discharger, operating under appropriate permit
conditions, will not cause permanent and significant harm to the
environment during a monitoring period in which additional information
is gathered. If data gathered through monitoring indicate that
continued discharge may cause unreasonable degradation, the discharge
shall be halted or additional permit limitations established.
Preliminary Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluations for Sale 60, and a
Revised Preliminary Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation for Sale 88 and
state lease sales located in Cook Inlet, were completed for discharges
from operations in these lease sale areas covered under the current
permit. For the proposed permit, the Region recently updated the
existing ODCE information in the ODCE for Cook Inlet (Oil & Gas Lease
Sale 149) and Shelikof Strait (Tetra Tech 1995). The Region has
determined that discharges occurring under the proposed permit will not
cause unreasonable degradation as long as the depth-related conditions
and environmental monitoring requirements imposed under section 403 of
the Act are met.
C. Section 308 of the Clean Water Act
Under section 308 of the Act and 40 CFR 122.44(i), the Director
must require a discharger to conduct monitoring to determine compliance
with effluent limitations and to assist in the development of effluent
limitations. EPA has included several monitoring requirements in the
permit, as listed in the table in section V.A. of this fact sheet.
D. State of Alaska Standards and Limitations
Permits for discharges to state waters must ensure compliance with
water quality standards and limitations imposed by the State as part of
its certification of NPDES permits under section 401 of the Act. The
state waters of Cook Inlet and the Gulf of Alaska have been classified
by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) as marine
water with water use classes 2A through 2D (water supply; water
recreation; growth and propagation of fish, shellfish, other aquatic
life, and wildlife; and harvesting for consumption of raw mollusks or
other raw aquatic life).
The NPDES regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(d) require that permits
include limits on all pollutants or parameters which ``are or may be
discharged at a level which will cause, have the reasonable potential
to cause, or contribute to an excursion above any state water quality
standard, including state narrative criteria for water quality'' (54 FR
23868-23899, June 2, 1989). The regulations require that this
evaluation be made using procedures which account for existing controls
on point and nonpoint sources of pollution, the variability of the
pollutant in the effluent, species sensitivity (for toxicity), and
where appropriate, dilution in the receiving water. The limits must be
stringent enough to ensure that water quality standards are met, and
must be consistent with any available wasteload allocation.
The regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(d) also specifically address when
toxicity and chemical-specific limits are required. A toxicity limit is
required whenever toxicity is at a level of concern relative to either
a numeric or narrative standard for toxicity. The only exception is
where chemical-specific limits will fully achieve the narrative
standard. A chemical-specific limit is required whenever an individual
pollutant is at a level of concern relative to the numeric standard for
that pollutant. The regulations also provide three options for
developing a chemical-specific limit needed to control a pollutant
which does not have a numeric standard, but is contributing to a
problem with achieving the narrative standard.
In proposing to reissue this permit, EPA has considered Alaska's
antidegradation policy (18 Alaska Administrative Code (AAC) 70.101(c)).
The reissuance of this permit will not result in additional pollutant
loading to the receiving water; therefore, this action complies with
the State's antidegradation policy.
E. Water Quality-based Permit Limit Derivation
Water quality-based permit limits have been derived for state
waters only. In deriving permit limits, reported effluent values are
compared to wasteload allocations to determine if limits are needed for
individual pollutants. The wasteload allocation is the concentration
(or loading) of a pollutant that may be discharged by a permittee
without causing or contributing to a violation of water quality
standards in the receiving water. It is calculated based on the
available dilution, if appropriate, and the water quality standard. As
discussed above, 40 CFR 122.44(d)(1) requires consideration of existing
controls on all point or nonpoint sources of pollutants when
establishing water quality-based limits on point sources.
Under 40 CFR 122.44(d)(1), water quality-based effluent limits must
be included in a permit if the discharge shows ``reasonable potential''
to exceed water quality standards. EPA's Technical Support Document for
Water Quality-based Toxics Control (EPA 1991b) (``TSD'') defines
``reasonable potential'' as being within a percentage of the wasteload
allocation. The percentage increases as the uncertainty decreases.
Uncertainty decreases with increased numbers of samples. The percentage
is also based on the coefficient of variation (a measure of the
variability) of the data. When there are not enough data to reliably
determine a coefficient of variation, the TSD
[[Page 48801]]
recommends using 0.6 as a default value.
In deriving the water quality-based permit limits, Region 10
applied the statistical permit limit derivation approach described in
the EPA guidance documents, Permit Writer's Guide to Water Quality-
Based Permitting for Toxic Pollutants (EPA 1987), and the TSD. This
approach takes into account effluent variability, as well as the
difference in timeframes between the water quality standards and
monthly average and daily maximum limits, and sampling frequency. In
addition to the wasteload allocation values, EPA used the following
values in deriving limits using the formulas in the guidance documents:
Probability value for long-term average calculation: 99%
Probability value for monthly average limit calculation: 95%
Probability value for daily maximum limit calculation (for parameters
with greater than monthly monitoring): 99%
Probability value for daily maximum limit calculation (for parameters
with monthly or less frequent monitoring): 95%
Coefficient of Variation: 0.6
The water quality-based limits proposed in the draft permit are
further discussed in section V.
F. Mixing Zones
The State has issued a preliminary mixing zone determination for
produced water that specifies mixing zones and dilutions for eight
facilities discharging produced water to Cook Inlet. The State has
notified EPA that the mixing zone request submitted by Unocal,
Marathon, Phillips and Shell is adequate for incorporation into the
draft permit (ADEC 1995). At each of the eight facilities, individual
mixing zones are proposed for metals (acute, chronic & human health),
total aromatic hydrocarbons (TAH) and total aqueous hydrocarbons
(TAqH), and toxicity (see section V.G.). Wasteload allocations for
produced water pollutants are calculated using the dilutions modeled by
the permittees; permit limits are then calculated based on the
wasteload allocation (see section III.E.).
As part of the state's certification under section 401 of the Act,
the mixing zones will either be approved or modified. A mixing zone for
total residual chlorine in the sanitary waste stream may also be added
to the final permit, as discussed in section V.E.
The state's preliminary mixing zone determination includes mixing
zones for arsenic and benzene (as a subset of TAH), both of which are
human carcinogens. The state water quality standards at 18 AAC 70.032
state that
``(a) * * * The department will not authorize a mixing zone if it
finds that available evidence reasonably demonstrates that * * *
(1) pollutants discharged could * * *
(B) be expected to cause carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic
effects on biota or human health, so that significant human health
risks could occur to consumers of water, fish, or shellfish when
evaluated using reasonable assumptions about exposure pathways,
including exposure duration of affected aquatic organisms in the
proposed mixing zone and the patterns of fisheries use and consumption
in the area; * * *
[4](b) * * * Human health and chronic aquatic life criteria apply
at and beyond the boundaries of the mixing zone. Acute aquatic life
criteria apply at and beyond the boundaries of a smaller initial zone
surrounding the outfall. * * *''
As part of the proposal for arsenic and TAH mixing zones,
permittees evaluated the potential risks to aquatic life and human
health at the edge of each site-specific mixing zone. The results of
the aquatic life risk assessment indicate that produced water
discharged to Cook Inlet from the oil and gas facilities is not
expected to be acutely or chronically toxic at the edge of the mixing
zones. Similarly, the human health risk assessment results indicate
that produced waters are not expected to pose significant risks to
human health from the consumption of fish and shellfish in Cook Inlet.
Public comments to EPA on the proposed mixing zone and other water
quality standards issues will be copied to the state of Alaska for its
review. If the mixing zone approved by the state is different from the
mixing zones used to calculate the limits for the draft permit, the
limits in the final permit will reflect these changes.
IV. Summary of New and Changed Permit Conditions
The following discussion is intended to provide a summary of the
parts of the proposed permit which are substantively different from the
1986 permit. For a detailed discussion of requirements and their bases,
please refer to section V of this fact sheet. Many of the new and
changed requirements result from promulgation of the final Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the
Offshore Subcategory in March, 1993 (see 40 CFR Part 435, Subpart A).
As discussed above, the promulgated offshore guidelines apply directly
to dischargers in the Offshore segment of Cook Inlet (i.e., the lower
inlet). For the Coastal segment of Cook Inlet (i.e., the upper inlet),
the Offshore rule is the primary basis for Region 10's best
professional judgement regarding technology-based control of pollutant
discharge (see section III.A.2., above); although, the proposed Coastal
guidelines (60 FR 9428, February 17, 1995) are also referenced
throughout this fact sheet.
The balance of new and changed requirements in the proposed permit
are the result of the inclusion of water-quality based effluent limits
for the produced water and any wastestreams which may be commingled
with it. Water-quality based effluent limits were developed based on
data collected as part of the Cook Inlet Discharge Monitoring Study
(Envirosphere 1988-1990).
For drilling muds and drill cuttings:
Combined wastestreams: In accordance with the Offshore
guidelines, drilling muds, drilling cuttings and washwater are combined
and addressed in the proposed permit as a single wastestream (Discharge
001). Previously, washwater and cuttings were considered as a separate
wastestream; they are now considered by the Agency to be an intrinsic
component of the drilling wastes discharge.
Toxicity limit for drilling muds: In accordance with the
Offshore guidelines, a toxicity limit of 30,000 ppm SPP is proposed.
Oil content on cuttings: In accordance with the Offshore
guidelines, Region 10 has removed the 10% by weight limitation of the
oil content of cuttings.
Barite: In previous permits, Region 10 had an option for a
case-by-case waiver for stock barite not meeting mercury and cadmium
limits. This waiver has been eliminated to ensure consistency with the
Offshore guidelines.
Mud Plan and Authorized Muds & Specialty Additives: Region
10 is discontinuing the case-by-case evaluation and authorization
process developed under previous permits. Subsequently, discussions of
authorized muds and additives and tables of approved mud formulations
and specialty additives are not included in the proposed permit. The
Region is proposing a requirement for operators to develop a Mud Plan
to plan for compliance with the toxicity limit. Mud Plan requirements
were also part of an individual NPDES permit issued to ARCO Alaska for
exploratory operations
[[Page 48802]]
in Cook Inlet (EPA 1993b) and in the general NPDES permit for the
Arctic (60 FR 27508, May 24, 1995).
For other wastes:
Elimination of wastestream: In accordance with the
Offshore guidelines and the proposed Coastal guidelines, Region 10 is
prohibiting the discharge of produced sands. This prohibition is listed
with limitations on produced water (Discharge 015).
Oil and grease: In accordance with the Offshore
guidelines, Region 10 is proposing oil and grease limits for produced
water discharges of 29 mg/l as a monthly average and 42 mg/l as a daily
maximum. (The numerical oil and grease limits are also applied to the
discharge of workover, completion, well treatment and test fluids.)
Limits in the previous permit were 42 mg/l and 72 mg/l (for all
operators except Phillips Petroleum, which has more stringent limits).
Best Management Practices: The proposed general permit
requires permittees to develop and implement a Best Management
Practices (BMP) plan which prevents or minimizes the generation of
pollutants, their release, and potential release from the permitted
facilities to waters of the United States.
Produced Water: Water-quality based effluent limitations
have been added for metals, total aromatic hydrocarbons, total aqueous
hydrocarbons, and chronic toxicity. Not all metals are limited at all
locations; monthly monitoring for metals for which compliance
monitoring will not already be done, is required for one year.
Produced Water Mixing Zones: The 1986 permit contained
produced water mixing zones for Marathon Granite Point (450 m),
Marathon Trading Bay (750 m) and Shell East Foreland (750 m); and
interim mixing zones for Amoco platforms Anna, Baker Bruce and Dillon
(625 m) and Phillips Tyonek-A (150 m). The interim mixing zones were
never finalized; and none of the mixing zones was used to calculate
wasteload allocations for produced water pollutants.
The State has issued a preliminary mixing zone determination for
produced water that specifies mixing zones and dilutions for eight
facilities discharging produced water to Cook Inlet. Chemical specific
mixing zones are proposed to meet water quality criteria for metals,
total aromatic hydrocarbons (TAH), total aqueous hydrocarbons (TAqH),
and chronic toxicity.
Sanitary: Chlorine limits have been changed to more
accurately reflect the Alaska water quality standards pending section
401 certification of the final permit.
V. Specific Permit Conditions
A. Approach
The determination of appropriate conditions for each discharge was
accomplished through:
(1) Consideration of technology-based effluent limitations to
control conventional pollutants under BCT,
(2) Consideration of technology-based effluent limitations to
control toxic and nonconventional pollutants under BAT,
(3) For state waters, inclusion of permit terms necessary to ensure
compliance with state water quality standards and stipulations of state
lease sales.
(4) Evaluation of the Ocean Discharge Criteria for discharges in
the Offshore Subcategory (given conditions 1 and 2 are in place), and,
EPA first determines which technology-based limits are required and
then evaluates the effluent quality expected to result from these
controls. If water quality standards could occur as a result of
discharge, EPA must include water quality-based limits in the permit.
The permit limits will thus reflect whichever limits (technology-based
or water quality-based) are most stringent. Finally, Ocean Discharge
Criteria are evaluated to identify any areal or depth-related discharge
requirements.
General area and depth related requirements are discussed in
section V.B. of this fact sheet. Specific effluent limitations and
monitoring requirements derived from 1 through 4 above are discussed
separately for each wastestream in sections V.C. through H. Additional
monitoring requirements based on 1 and 2 are also discussed in section
III., above. For convenience, these conditions and the regulatory basis
for each are cross-referenced by discharge in the following table.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statutory basis
Discharge and permit condition ---------------------------------------------------------------------
Coastal Offshore
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drilling Muds and Cuttings (001):
Flow rate limitations................. Sec. 403......................... Sec. 403.
Depth related limits.................. Sec. 403......................... Sec. 403.
Volume................................ Sec. 308......................... Sec. 308.
Mud plan.............................. CWA Secs. 308, 304, 402, PPA Sec. CWA Secs. 308, 304, 402, PPA Sec.
107. 107.
Toxicity.............................. BPJ/BAT.......................... BAT.
No free oil........................... BPT, BPJ/BCT, BPJ/BAT............ BPT, BCT, BAT.
No oil-based fluids................... BPT, BPJ/BCT, BPJ/BAT............ BPT, BCT, BAT.
No diesel............................. BPJ/BAT.......................... BAT.
Mercury and cadmium in barite......... BPJ/BAT.......................... BAT.
Monitor metals........................ Sec. 308......................... Sec. 308.
Inventory of added substances......... Sec. 308......................... Sec. 308.
Environmental monitoring requirement.. Sec. 403......................... Sec. 403.
Deck Drainage (002):
No free oil........................... BPT, BPJ/BCT, BPJ/BAT............ BPT, BCT, BAT.
Monitor free oil...................... Sec. 308......................... Sec. 308.
Monitor whole effluent toxicity Sec. 308......................... Sec. 308.
(direct discharge only).
Sanitary Wastes (003):
Chlorine (facilities >10 people)...... BPJ/BCT.......................... BCT.
Biological oxygen demand (BOD)........ Sec. 401/AK WQS.................. not applicable.
Suspended solids (SS)................. Sec. 401/AK WQS.................. not applicable.
Floating solids....................... BPJ/BAT.......................... BPJ/BAT.
Monitor flow rate..................... Sec. 308......................... Sec. 308.
Marine Sanitation Devices (fecals, Sec. 312, Sec. 308............... Sec. 312, Sec. 308.
solids, chlorine).
Domestic Wastes (004):
No foam............................... BPJ/BAT.......................... BAT.
[[Page 48803]]
No floating solids.................... BPJ/BCT.......................... BCT.
Monitor flow rate..................... Sec. 308......................... Sec. 308.
Miscellaneous Discharges (005-014):
Monitor flow rate (all)............... Sec. 308......................... Sec. 308.
No free oil (006, 010, 011, 012, 013, BPJ/BPT.......................... BPJ/BPT.
014).
Inventory chemicals added (005, 009, Sec. 308......................... Sec. 308.
014).
Produced Water (015)...................... ................................. No Discharge.
Flow rate............................. Sec. 308......................... Do.
Produced sands........................ BCT, BAT......................... Do.
Oil and grease........................ BPJ/BAT.......................... Do.
pH.................................... BPJ/BCT.......................... Do.
Zinc.................................. AK WQS........................... Do.
Total aromatic hydrocarbons (TAH)..... AK WQS........................... Do.
Whole effluent toxicity (WET)......... AK WQS........................... Do.
Total aqueous hydrocarbons (TAqH)..... Sec. 308......................... Do.
Completion, Workover, Well Treatment ................................. No Discharge.
Fluids (016-018).
Frequency & flow rate................. Sec. 308......................... Do.
No free oil........................... BPT, BPJ/BCT..................... Do.
No oil-based fluids................... BPT, BPJ/BCT..................... Do.
Oil and grease........................ BPJ/BCT, BPJ/BAT................. Do.
pH.................................... AK WQS........................... Do.
Monitor metals........................ Sec. 308......................... Do.
Test Fluids (019):
No free oil........................... BPJ/BPT, BPJ/BCT................. BPT, BCT.
Oil and grease limits................. BPJ/BAT, BPJ/BCT................. BCT, BAT.
No oil-based fluids................... BPJ/BCT, BPJ/BAT................. BCT, BAT.
pH.................................... BPJ/BPT, BPJ/BCT................. BPJ/BPT, BPJ/BCT.
Monitor frequency and flow rate....... Sec. 308......................... Sec. 308.
All Discharges (001-019):
No halogenated phenol compounds, BPJ/BAT.......................... BAT.
diesel oil trisodium nitrilo-
triacetic acid, sodium chromate, or
sodium dichromate.
Sufactants, detergents, dispersants... BPJ/BAT.......................... BPJ/BAT.
No floating solids, visible foam...... BPJ/BCT.......................... BCT.
No oily wastes........................ BPJ/BCT.......................... BCT.
Area and depth related requirements... Sec. 403, AK WQS................. Sec. 403, AK WQS.
Best Management Plan.................. Sec. 402(a)...................... Sec. 402(a).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Area and Depth-Related Requirements
The discharge restrictions and requirements listed below are
necessary to ensure that unreasonable degradation of these areas will
not occur as discussed above in part III.B. of this fact sheet (Ocean
Discharge Criteria) and are largely unchanged from the 1986 permit to
the proposed permit. Discharge within the area described below for
Shelikof Strait is prohibited because of the recent determination by
the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) which establishes this
area as a special aquatic foraging area for the Stellar Sea Lion (58 FR
45278, September, 27, 1993: 50 CFR 226.12(c)(1)).
Pertaining to all discharges, no discharge is allowed:
In water depths less than 5 m (as measured from mean lower
low water).
Within the boundaries or within 1000 m of a coastal marsh,
river delta, river mouth designated Area Meriting Special Attention
(AMSA), game refuge, game sanctuary, or critical habitat area. The
seaward edge of a coastal marsh is defined as the seaward edge of
emergent wetland vegetation.
In Kamishak Bay west of a line from Cape Douglas to
Chinitna Point.
In Chinitna Bay inside of the line between the points of
the shoreline at latitude 59 deg.52'45'' N, longitude 152 deg.48'18'' W
on the north and latitude 59 deg.46'12'' N, longitude 153 deg.00'24'' W
on the south (Figure 1).
In Tuxedni Bay inside of the lines on either side of
Chisik Island (Figure 1)
--from latitude 60 deg.04'06'' North, longitude 152 deg.34'12'' West on
the mainland to the southern tip of Chisik Island (latitude
60 deg.05'45' North, longitude 152 deg.33'30'' West).
--from the point on the mainland at latitude 60 deg.13'45'' North,
longitude 152 deg.32'42'' West to the point on the north side of Snug
Harbor on Chisik Island (latitude 60 deg.06'36'' North, longitude
152 deg.32'54'' West).
In Shelikof Strait south of a line between Cape Douglas
(at 58 deg.51' North, 153 deg.15' West) on the west and the
northernmost tip of Shuyak Island on the east (at 58 deg.37' North,
152 deg.22' West).
Within 20 nautical miles of Sugarloaf Island as measured
from a centerpoint at 58 deg.53' North and 152 deg.02' West.
Discharges are prohibited in waters shallower than 5 m because
shallow nearshore waters in Lower Cook Inlet are an important habitat
for many species. In addition, dilution and dispersion of drilling mud
discharges in waters less than 5 m deep is uncertain given that the
field data are limited and that the available models of mud dilution
and dispersion are not field-verified for shallow depths. Chinitna,
Tuxedni, and Kamishak Bays are, or are continuous with, areas of high
resource value. In addition, Kamishak Bay is a known net depositional
environment where accumulation of drilling mud solids and other
pollutants would be likely to occur if allowed to be discharged in this
area.
The condition restricting discharges within 1,000 m of coastal
marshes, river deltas, and other areas is necessary to comply with
local and state Coastal Zone Management Plan prohibitions on discharges
of silt materials in these areas, or on activities that may alter the
protected biological resources of these areas. The following state game
refuges (SGR), game sanctuaries (SGS), critical habitat areas (CHA),
and areas meriting
[[Page 48804]]
special attention (AMSA) are located in the area covered by this
permit.
Palmer Bay Flats SGR
Goose Bay SGR
Potter Point SGR
Susitna Flats SGR
McNeil River SGS
Redoubt Bay CHA
Trading Bay SGR
Kalgin Island CHA
Clam Gulch CHA
Kachemak Bay CHA
Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge
Port Graham/Nanwalek AMSA
The legal descriptions of these state specialty areas are found in
Alaska Statute (AS) 16.20. The present boundaries of these state
special areas are described in ``State of Alaska Game Refuges, Critical
Habitat Areas, and Game Sanctuaries.'' Further information may also be
obtained from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Habitat Division,
Regional Supervisor, 333 Raspberry Road, Anchorage, Alaska 99518-1599;
phone (907) 267-2284 or (907) 267-2342.
C. Discharge 001 (Drilling Muds and Cuttings)
The term ``drilling fluid'' generally includes all compositions of
fluids used to aid the production and removal of cuttings (particles
from geological formations) from a borehole in the earth. The essential
function of drilling fluids are:
to carry cuttings to the surface,
to cool and clean drill bit & reduce friction in the
borehole,
to maintain pressure balance between formation and
borehole in uncased sections of hole, and
to assist in collection and interpretation of information
available from cuttings, cores, electrical logs, etc.
All drilling fluids fall into one of three classes based on their
principal components: gas (e.g., mist or foam), water, or oil. When the
main component of the drilling fluid is liquid (i.e., water or oil), it
is referred to as ``mud.'' All of Region 10's previous permits only
cover the discharge of muds because gas fluids are not used for most
offshore or coastal drilling operations.
As discussed in subsections 1 and 2 below, the discharge of oil-
based muds is limited because they do not comply with the no free oil
limitation. Furthermore, the discharge of diesel oil as a mud base or
as part of an additive is strictly prohibited. The basis for the diesel
prohibition is substitution of mineral oil (which is less toxic) when
lubrication is required.
As discussed in section III.A. and as shown on Table 1, the
following BCT- and BAT-based permit requirements are based on the
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards
for the Offshore Subcategory, promulgated by the Agency in March, 1993
(40 CFR Part 435, Subpart A). In the absence of promulgated rules for
coastal (i.e., upper) Cook Inlet, EPA has used Best Professional
Judgement in applying BCT and BAT Offshore requirements to all
applicable Coastal operations although the acronyms ``BPJ/BCT'' and
``BPJ/BAT'' are not added in the discussion below. To simplify the
discussion, the bases for establishing permit limits are discussed in
terms of the applicable Offshore Guidelines, BCT and BAT.
1. BCT Limitations on Drilling Muds and Cuttings
Free oil & oil-based muds: No free oil is permitted from the
discharge of drilling mud, drill cuttings, or washwater, based on BPT
guidelines. The discharge of oil-based drilling fluids is prohibited
since oil-based fluids would violate the BCT effluent limitations of no
discharge of free oil. These discharges have been subject to a no free
oil limitation in previous permits issued by Region 10 and past
practices have not resulted in violations of the limitation. No
technology performance data available to Region 10 indicate that more
stringent standards are appropriate at this time. Region 10 has,
therefore, set BCT limitations equal to the BPT level of control. As
such, these limitations impose no incremental costs.
Compliance with the free oil limitation will be monitored by year-
round use of the Static Sheen Test daily and before bulk discharges.
Region 10 requires use of the Static Sheen Test because visual
observation of the discharge for sheen upon the receiving water will
not prevent violations of the standard. This test is also appropriate
for the harsh weather and extended periods of darkness common in
Alaska.
Previous permits issued by Region 10 contained a limit on the oil
content of cuttings (not to exceed 10% (wt), based on use of cuttings
washers). In the proposed permit, however, the 10% (wt) limit has been
rejected in favor of the no free oil limitation contained in the
Offshore guidelines (58 FR 12454, March 4, 1993). The Agency rejected
an oil content limit because limitations on other pollutant parameters
(diesel oil, free oil and toxicity) are sufficient to reduce toxics
from drilling wastes (at 56 FR 10682 and 56 FR 10685, March 13, 1991).
Because the no free oil limitation is more stringent than the 10% (wt)
limitation on the oil content of cuttings, this change does not invoke
antibacksliding provisions (see 40 CFR 122.44(1)(2)).
Oil content of cuttings: The proposed permit limits the discharge
of oil-contaminated drill cuttings by prohibiting the discharge of free
oil, which is BCT (see Part III.B. of the permit). The proposed permit
requires an analysis of cuttings for oil content daily when oil-based
drilling fluids or mineral oil additives are used. In addition,
analysis is required immediately on any sample that has failed the
daily Static Sheen Test if a discharge has occurred. Two alternative
analytical methods for determining the oil content of drill cuttings
are specified in the permit: (1) the soxhlet extraction procedure for
oil and grease (as specified in 40 CFR Part 136), and (2) the American
Petroleum Institute (API) retort distillation procedure for oil
(Recommended Practice 13B, 1990).
2. BAT Limitations on Drilling Muds and Cuttings
Diesel oil: The discharge of drilling muds and cuttings which have
been contaminated by diesel oil is prohibited by the Agency, in
accordance with the offshore oil and gas effluent guidelines (58 FR
12469, March 4, 1993). The prohibition on the discharge of diesel oil
has been part of all of the general NPDES permits issued by Region 10
for the Offshore and Coastal Subcategories. Diesel oil, which is
sometimes added to a water-based mud system, is a complex mixture of
petroleum hydrocarbons, known to be highly toxic to marine organisms
and to contain numerous toxic and nonconventional pollutants. The
pollutant ``diesel oil'' is being used as an ``indicator'' of the
listed toxic pollutants present in diesel oil which are controlled
through compliance with the effluent limitation (i.e., no discharge).
The technology basis for this limitation is product substitution of
less toxic mineral oil for diesel oil.
Mercury and Cadmium in Barite: In accordance with the offshore oil
and gas effluent guidelines (58 FR 12569, March 4, 1993), the proposed
permit contains limitations of 1 mg/kg mercury and 3 mg/kg cadmium in
barite. Barite is a major constituent of drilling muds. These
restrictions are designed to limit the discharge of mercury, cadmium,
and other potentially toxic metals which can occur as contaminants in
some sources of barite. The justification for the limitation under BAT
is product substitution. That is, Alaskan operators can substitute
``clean'' barite, which meets the above limitations, for contaminated
barite, which does not meet the limitations. Numerous offshore
[[Page 48805]]
exploratory wells and the production wells drilled under permits
previously issued by Region 10 have been drilled subject to this
requirement. Chemical analyses have shown that the barite used has not
exceeded the limitations. Given that ``clean'' barite is available and
that operators have been complying with this limitation in previously
issued permits, Region 10 believes that this limitation is both
technologically feasible and economically achievable.
EPA has eliminated a waiver provision for the barite limits which
was in the previous permits. The waiver stipulated that if a permittee
was unable to comply with the barite limitations due to the lack of
availability of barite which meets the limitation, then the permittee
could request a case-by-case waiver allowing the discharge of barite
which exceeded the limits (53 FR 37858, September 28, 1988). As a part
of the effluent guidelines development, EPA investigated the
availability of domestic and foreign supplies of barite to meet the
cadmium and mercury limits. The Agency also considered the potential
for the increased demand for clean barite stocks resulting from this
rule to cause a rise in the cost of barite. (See the Development
Document (EPA, 1993a) and the Economic Impact Analysis for detailed
discussion on the availability and economic availability.) EPA
concluded that ``there are sufficient supplies of barite capable of
meeting the limits of this rule to meet the needs of offshore drilling
operations (58 FR 12480, March 4, 1993). As a result, the waiver
provision was not in the general NPDES permit for the Arctic (60 FR
27508, May 24, 1995), nor is it proposed here.
Discharge Toxicity: Region 10 is proposing a toxicity limit of
30,000 ppm on the suspended particulate phase (``SPP'') (a 96-hour
LC50) on discharged drilling muds as a technology-based control on
toxicity and toxic and nonconventional pollutants. The numeric effluent
limit is based on the BAT as promulgated for the Offshore Subcategory
(48 FR 1254, March 4, 1993). Compliance with the drilling mud toxicity
limit will be monitored on a monthly basis for each well. When the end-
of-well is reached, a final bioassay analysis will be required (see
permit Part III.B.2.g.). In cases where mineral oil pills are used near
the end-of-well, the Region will accept the bioassay reports required
for pills as the end-of-well report (see permit Part III.B.2.g.).
It is important to note the inverse relationship between the 96-hr
LC50 value of 30,000 ppm SPP and toxicity. The 30,000 ppm limit is the
concentration (of mud in the suspended particulate phase) at which 50%
mortality of the tested organisms (Mysidopsis bahia) occurs. As the 96-
hr LC50 value increases, higher concentrations of mud are required to
reach 50% mortality within the 96-hr test period; in other words,
toxicity decreases as 96-hr LC50 values increase. Thus, the permit
limit of 30,000 ppm SPP (96-hr LC50) is actually a minimum LC50 value
used to represent the maximum toxicity allowed for drilling mud
discharges.
The toxicity limit is an end-of-pipe discharge limit and represents
a different approach to controlling this wastestream than the Region
used previously. When the first general permits were issued during
development of the Offshore guidelines, Region 10 developed a case-by-
case approach to limiting the toxicity of discharged mud/additive
systems as BPJ determination of BAT. In this approach, Region 10 used
the 96-hr LC50 value of 30,000 ppm SPP value as a criterion in
evaluating available bioassay data for the proposed mud/additive
discharges. Now, Region 10 is discontinuing the mud preapproval process
in favor of the end-of-pipe limitation based on promulgation of BAT for
the Offshore subcategory (48 FR 1254, March 4, 1993). The end-of-pipe
toxicity limitation for muds/additives was first applied in an
individual NPDES permit issued for exploratory drilling in 1993 (EPA
1993d), followed by the general NPDES permit for the Arctic (59 FR
48314, September 20, 1994, and 60 FR 27508, May 24, 1995).
Drilling Mud Formulation: The proposed permit requires permittees
to develop and implement a ``Mud Plan'' for each well drilled. The
proposed permit does not authorize specific drilling fluid formulations
or specialty additives in the way that past general NPDES permits
issued for Alaskan operations have done. As discussed above, the
discharge of oil-based drilling fluids or diesel oil is prohibited.
Region 10 believes that an end-of-pipe toxicity limit for drilling muds
in conjunction with implementation of a Mud Plan (containing specific
mud/additive formulations) for each well constitutes BAT and ensures
that the principles of best management practices and pollution
prevention are met. The Mud Plan is discussed below as a permit
requirement based on section 308 of the Act.
Oil-based Drilling Muds: As in all previous general oil and gas
permits, and is discussed above under BCT for control of free oil, the
proposed permit prohibits the discharge of ``oil based muds.'' Previous
permits, however, have not defined ``oil-based'' other than in terms of
aqueous and dispersed phases. Based on comments Region 10 received on
the general NDPES permit for the Arctic (EPA 1995d) and on interagency-
industry studies in which EPA is involved, the proposed permit defines
``oil-based'' mud as a drilling mud with fossil-derived petroleum
hydrocarbons as the continuous phase, and prohibits discharge of such a
fluid. Discharges of ``non-petroleum'' or ``non-fossil-derived''
(hereinafter ``synthetic'') fluids (where the continuous phase consists
of non-petroleum hydrocarbons) may be discharged and are required to
meet all of the effluent limitations for drilling muds (e.g., toxicity,
free oil (sheen), no diesel).
Synthetic-based drilling muds are currently used in offshore
drilling outside of the United States and have potential for reducing
the amount of cuttings generated and fluids discharged because they are
frequently employed with slim-hole or coiled-tube drilling
technologies. Preliminary data indicate that the toxicity of synthetic
muds compares favorably with drilling fluids discharged under Region
10's various general NPDES permits. At a national level, the Agency is
involved in a joint industry-agency group which is reviewing synthetic
fluids with respect to toxic and nonconventional pollutants and
appropriate analytical methods for monitoring these muds (EPA 1995d).
Until such time as the joint industry-agency workgroup completes its
evaluation of synthetic fluids and issues findings, Region 10 proposes
the revised definition of ``oil-based'' muds to accommodate the
discharge of synthetic muds as long as all other effluent limitations
are met, including no discharge of free oil determined by the Static
Sheen Test.
In cases where the discharge of cuttings from synthetic muds may
fail the static sheen test, the Agency has determined such a discharge
would not be in accordance with 40 CFR 122.28(2)(ii)(B), (C), and (D)
requirements for coverage under the proposed general permit.
Specifically, such a discharge may exhibit a higher free oil content
(albeit from a non-petroleum based oil) and require unique effluent
limitations and monitoring requirements such as those being evaluated
by the joint industry-agency workgroup. Dischargers in this situation
should contact Region 10 to submit an application for an individual
NPDES permit.
[[Page 48806]]
3. Section 308 Requirements for Muds and Cuttings
Mud Plan: As mentioned above, Region 10 is discontinuing
authorization of individual mud/additive systems. Instead EPA is
shifting the responsibility of case-by-case evaluations from the Region
to the operator. Resources no longer allow Region 10 to perform case-
by-case evaluations or to issue discharge authorizations for each
drilling mud/additive system. Hence, the proposed permit contains a
requirement that the permittee develop, have on-site, and available
upon request a plan for discharge of drilling muds and additives
(hereafter called ``Mud Plan''). Permit requirements for the Mud Plan
make it analogous to analyses that the Region conducted in the past in
development of drilling mud authorizations.
The basis for the Mud Plan requirement is section 308(a)(A) of the
Act which provides that EPA may require the permittee to establish and
maintain records and/or reports that will assist the Region to
determine compliance with other requirements and effluent limitations
of the permit. Since the mud plan is one component of the Best
Management Practices Plan, additional authority for the mud plan is
implicit in the authority to include BMP plans in NPDES permits.
Pursuant to sections 304(e) and 402(a) of the Act, BMP plans may be
included as conditions in NPDES permits. The mud plan requirement is
also based upon the Pollution Prevention Act (section 107(b)(3)) and
its policy of prevention, reduction, recycling, and treatment of wastes
(PPA section 102(b)) through measures which include process
modification, materials substitution, and improvement of management
(PPA section 107(b)(3)).
The goal of requiring development of a mud plan is to ensure that
personnel on-site are knowledgeable about the information needed and
the methods required to formulate the mud/additive systems in order to
meet the effluent toxicity limit. Simply put, the mud plan is intended
to be a written guide for planning, and using, a mud/additive system in
compliance with the permit.
Region 10's case-by-case approach to evaluating discharge of mud/
additive systems coupled with use of worst-case cumulative toxicity
estimates as bases for authorization, has been conducive to the
discharge of muds with lower toxicity than elsewhere in the OCS. To
date Alaskan operators have demonstrated that thorough planning and
evaluation of mud/additive systems with respect to possible cumulative
toxicity does consistently result in discharge of muds that are less
toxic than the 30,000 ppm SPP limit.
The mud plan is intended to demonstrate that the discharged mud/
additive system for the well in question will meet the effluent limit
of 30,000 ppm SPP based on the following decision criteria:
--Estimates of worst case cumulative discharge toxicity (either
calculated or actual toxicity test results);
--Estimates of toxicity of discharged mud when a mineral oil pill has
been used; and
--Use of less toxic alternatives where possible.
The mud plan shall also include a clearly stated procedure for
dealing with situations in which additives not originally planned for
are needed at the ``last minute.'' This procedure should enable
drilling and mud personnel to determine whether an additive or mud
component may be added to the circulating mud system without
significant effect upon the discharge toxicity. Criteria for reaching
this type of ``last minute'' additive decision shall be clearly
specified in the mud plan. In addition to developing the mud plan, the
operator is also required to certify that the mud plan is complete, on-
site, and available upon request (see Part III.B.1.c. of the permit).
Certification is due no later than submission of their written notice
of intent to commence discharge (see Parts I.A.3., I.B.3., I.C.3. and
II.C.3.c. of the permit).
Region 10 first proposed requirements for a Mud Plan in the
individual NPDES permit written and issued for exploratory operations
in upper Cook Inlet in 1993 (EPA 1993d). Permit requirements for a Mud
Plan were next proposed in the draft general NPDES permit for the
Arctic (59 FR 48314, September 20, 1994) and garnered many comments.
Region 10 responded to comments on the Mud Plan by modifying the final
Arctic general permit (60 FR 27508, May 24, 1995) and by developing an
example Mud Plan, which is available upon request.
Other: In addition to the Mud Plan, the discharge monitoring
requirements listed below are based on section 308 of the Act and 40
CFR 122.44(i) to determine compliance with, or the possible need for,
effluent limitations in the permit. All of the data below have been
required in general permits previously issued by Region 10.
(1) Chemical analysis (barium, cadmium, chromium, copper, mercury,
zinc and lead).
(2) Chemical inventory (discharged mud composition and toxicity
test results).
(3) Volume discharged.
In both the proposed permit and in the final Arctic permit (60 FR
27508, May 24, 1995) permittees must draw a sample of mud of sufficient
size to allow for analyses of both total and total recoverable metals;
whereas, permits issued prior to 1994 required analyses only for total
metals. This requirement will enable the Region to better evaluate the
impact of metals in the mud discharge.
4. Section 403(c) Requirements for Muds and Cuttings
Flow rates: In addition to restrictions on all discharges imposed
under section 403(c) of the Act and discussed in section III.B. of this
fact sheet, muds and cuttings discharges are limited to the following
maximum rates. These limitations are identical to those contained in
the 1986 general permit.
1,000 bbl/hr on total muds and cuttings in waters greater
than 40 m deep.
750 bbl/hr on total muds and cuttings in waters deeper
than 20 m but not deeper than 40 m.
500 bbl/hr in waters deeper than 5 m but not deeper than
20 m.
no discharge in waters shallower than 5 m.
These limits were established because, for any given discharge
rate, the dilution of drilling muds and cuttings is not as great in
shallow waters as in deeper waters. At any particular water depth,
however, dilution near the point of discharge will increase as the rate
of discharge decreases. Limiting maximum discharge rates will ensure
that acceptable toxicity limits will not be exceeded at the edge of the
100 mixing zone (EPA 1986a, Tetra Tech 1995). (The 100 m mixing zone is
defined in regulations for section 403 of the Act at 40 CFR Subpart M,
125.121(c)).
D. Discharge 002 (Deck Drainage)
Deck drainage includes all waste resulting from deck washings,
spillage, rainwater, and run-off from gutters and drains including drip
pans and work areas. Oil and grease are the primary pollutants
identified in deck drainage. In addition to oil, various other
chemicals used in drilling operations may be present, as discussed
below.
1. BPT, BCT and BAT Limitations on Free Oil in Deck Drainage
As discussed in section III.A. and as shown on Table 1, the
following discussion of BCT- and BAT-based permit requirements is based
on the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance
Standards for
[[Page 48807]]
the Offshore Subcategory, promulgated by the Agency in March, 1993 (40
CFR Part 435, Subpart A). In the absence of promulgated rules for
coastal (i.e., upper) Cook Inlet, EPA has used Best Professional
Judgement in applying BCT and BAT Offshore requirements to all
applicable Coastal operations, although the acronyms ``BPJ/BCT'' and
``BPJ/BAT'' are not discussed above.
No free oil is permitted from the discharge of deck drainage. This
limit is the current BPT level of control, and is also the appropriate
level of control under BCT and BAT. Deck drainage was subject to this
limitation in the previous permits issued by Region 10, and past
practices have not resulted in violations of this limit. Monitoring of
free oil to determine compliance with this limitation is required under
section 308 of the Act.
2. Section 308 Requirements for Deck Drainage
Monitoring and analyses of deck drainage is warranted based on the
prevalence of both aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons, and inorganics,
as explained below.
The Cook Inlet Discharge Monitoring Study (CIDMS) required
participants to inventory and report the various products that comprise
the deck drainage wastestream. The CIDMS addressed deck drainage
specifically because little was understood about the wastestream when
the 1986 general permit was written. As stated in the response to
comments issued with the final 1986 permit, EPA intended to use the
chemical information on products contained in deck drainage to
determine whether or not further monitoring and analysis of the
wastestream was warranted (51 FR 35460, October 3, 1986).
From April 1987 through April 1988, operators reported product
names, product uses and estimated application rates (e.g., gal/month).
The CIDMS report identifies 35 types of cleaners and solvents, none of
which are used more frequently than any other product. Material safety
data sheets and product information on all of the identified products
are included in the CIDMS report; some product components are not
revealed, however, because they have been identified as proprietary
trade information. The following product components, identified in
CIDMS, are likely to be present in deck drainage and are of particular
interest with respect to water quality.
Terpene hydrocarbon
Nonylphenols
Pine oil
Ethylene glycol
Polyglycol
Aromatic naphtha
Heavy aliphatic naphtha
Alkyl & oxyalkyated phenols
(Sodium) hypochlorite
Gluteraldehyde
Butylated Hydroxytoluene
Isopropyl alcohol
Alkyldimethylbenzyl ammonium chlorides
Methanol
Phosphate
In addition, aluminum, barium, iron, manganese, magnesium and
titanium may also be found in deck drainage, according to the Agency's
Development Documents for both the final Offshore and the proposed
Coastal guidelines (EPA 1993a, EPA 1995a).
The proposed permit requires whole effluent toxicity (WET) tests to
measure the chronic toxicity of deck drainage using the analytical
methods required for produced water (see Part III.F. of permit). The
proposed WET monitoring applies only to platforms that do not commingle
deck drainage and produced water, because commingled deck drainage/
produced water discharges are subject to produced water WET limitations
(permit Part III.F.). WET sampling and protocols are discussed in more
detail in section V.G.3. of this fact sheet. Monitoring is required
twice each year at the beginning of the wettest times of the year
during peak deck drainage flow; contaminant concentrations are likely
to be highest at these times. Finally, the proposed monitoring
requirements do not apply to exploratory platforms because exploratory
operations are short-lived and may not occur in the Inlet during wet
weather, when deck drainage flows are expected to be highest. The
production platforms are permanent and have some existing qualitative
data (Envirosphere 1989a) which may be useful when Region evaluates the
WET monitoring.
E. Discharges 003 and 004 (Sanitary and Domestic Wastes)
Sanitary and domestic wastestreams include the wastes collected
from toilets, urinals, showers, sinks, eye- and hand-wash stations,
fish-cleaning stations, galleys and laundries. The pollutants in these
wastestreams are: fecal coliforms (FC), residual chlorine (from
treatment for coliforms), suspended solids (SS), biochemical oxygen
demand (BOD), floating solids and visible foam.
1. BCT, BAT, and Water Quality-based Limitations for Sanitary and
Domestic Wastes
As discussed in section III.A. in the absence of promulgated rules
for coastal (i.e., upper) Cook Inlet, EPA has used Best Professional
Judgement in applying BCT Offshore requirements to all applicable
Coastal operations, although the acronym ``BPJ/BCT'' is not added to
the discussion below. To simplify the discussion, the bases for
establishing permit limits are discussed in terms of the applicable BCT
or BAT Offshore Guidelines.
Floating Solids: The BCT prohibition on floating solids is
equivalent to the current level of control for sanitary wastes in
existing permits. Region 10 has determined that the BCT effluent
limitations guideline of no discharge of floating solids from the
discharge of sanitary wastes should apply to all other discharges as
well. Other discharges have been subject to this limitation in previous
permits and past practices have not resulted in violations of this
limitation. No technology performance data available to Region 10
indicate that a more stringent standard is appropriate at this time.
Therefore, Region 10 has determined that the BCT effluent limitation on
floating solids from these discharges is equal to the BPT level of
control. As such, the extension of this limitation to all discharges
will involve no incremental cost.
Any facility using a marine sanitation devise (MSD) that complies
with pollution control standards and regulations under section 312 of
the Act in considered to be in compliance with the prohibition of
floating solids.
Visible Foam: The promulgated Offshore guidelines set BAT for
domestic wastes equal to no discharge of visible foam. Region 10 has
determined this limitation is also appropriate for discharges occurring
in the Coastal subcategory as well as for the discharge of sanitary
wastes.
Chlorine: Chlorine is added to the sanitary waste stream to control
fecal coliforms in the discharge, and is regulated by the Agency in the
offshore oil and gas effluent guidelines as a conventional pollutant.
In the 1986 Cook Inlet and other oil and gas permits, BCT for total
residual chlorine (TRC) required that TRC levels be maintained as close
as possible to, but no less than, 1 mg/l in sanitary waste discharges
for facilities staffed by ten or more people. The intent of this
standard is to ensure adequate disinfection of waste through
chlorination, while minimizing the addition of excess chlorination to
the environment. In the proposed permit,
[[Page 48808]]
this BCT limit applies to federal waters. In state waters, the BCT
chlorine limit has been proposed, but may be changed by ADEC's
application of state water quality standards when the final permit is
certified under section 401 of the Act. Water quality-based limits for
TRC are discussed in section V.E.2., below. Weekly monitoring for TRC
during peak periods of sanitary system flow is proposed. Any facility
using a marine sanitation devise (MSD) that complies with pollution
control standards and regulations under section 312 of the Act is
considered to be in compliance with the TRC limitation.
For state waters, the proposed BCT end-of-pipe limit is based on
the assumption that a mixing zone will be added to the final permit by
ADEC as part of its certification under section 401 of the Act. If a
mixing zone is added to the permit, it is anticipated that the Alaska
water quality standard of 2.0 g/l will apply at the edge of
the mixing zone. The ``as close as possible to 1 mg/l'' portion of the
BCT standard will still apply end-of-pipe, which effectively places an
upper limit on the amount of chlorine that can be added to the sanitary
wastestream and limits the size of a mixing zone.
If a mixing zone is not added to the final permit by ADEC, state
water quality standards for TRC and fecal coliform will be added to the
permit for state waters only. The Alaska water quality standard of 2.0
g/l is the applicable criterion for a TRC end-of-pipe
limitation, since the Alaska water quality standard is more protective
than the BCT standard against the toxic effects of chlorine. Based on
the method for deriving permit limits recommended in the TSD (EPA
1991b), the TRC limit will be changed in the final permit to a 1.0
g/l monthly average and 2.0 g/l daily maximum at the
point of discharge. In order to ensure adequate treatment of fecal
coliform, a fecal coliform limit of 43 FC/100 ml (daily maximum) and 14
FC/100 ml (monthly median) will also be added to the final permit. The
Alaska standard for fecal coliform states that the median ``most
probably number'' (MPN) shall not exceed 14 FC/100 ml, and not more
than 10% of the samples shall exceed a FC MPN of 43 FC/100 ml. The
proposed monthly median limitation of 14 FC/100 ml is derived directly
from the Alaska standard. The proposed daily maximum of 43 FC/100 ml
reflects the Alaska standard as long as the number of samples collected
per month does not exceed ten. Since weekly sampling would be required,
Region 10 has determined that 43 FC/100 ml appropriately reflects the
Alaska standard.
3. Technology-based Limitation Based on Section 401 Certification of
Prior Permit
Suspended Solids (SS) and Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD): The
following SS and BOD limits are proposed for state waters only.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SSeffluent limit BOD limit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SSintake + 60 mg/l..................... 60 mg/l................................ Daily maximum.
SSintake + 45 mg/l..................... 45 mg/l................................ Weekly average.
SSintake + 30 mg/l..................... 30 mg/l................................ Monthly average.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed limits for BOD are identical to those contained in the
1986 permit while the proposed SS limits have been changed from the
1986 permit. Monitoring frequency has increased from monthly to weekly.
The 1986 permit contained BOD and SS limitations of 60 mg/l (24-
hours), 45 mg/l (7 consecutive days), and 30 mg/l (30 consecutive
days). These limits were required by the State in its section 401
certification (for discharges to state waters only), and were more
stringent than EPA's BCT-based limitations for the sanitary
wastestream. These numeric limits are required by state law under the
Alaska definition of secondary treatment (18 AAC 72.990 (42)). In
reissuing this permit, EPA must include the State's section 401-based
limits on sanitary BOD and SS from the previous permit (40 CFR
122.44(l)). To not include these limits for discharge would constitute
backsliding.
Note that the proposed permit addresses these numeric limits in
terms of weekly and monthly averages rather than in terms of
consecutive days. Standard NPDES reporting for weekly averages (i.e.,
sum of all daily discharges divided by the number of daily discharges)
and monthly averages (i.e., the average of daily discharges calculated
over a monitoring month) is different than the reporting required for
limits based on -24 ``consecutive days'' (i.e., a rolling average).
Region 10 anticipates that using standard NPDES terms in the proposed
permit will alleviate some of the confusion and reporting complications
generated by use of ``consecutive days'' in the 1986 permit.
The SS standard is technology-based and comes from the State's
definition of secondary treatment (18 AAC 72.990(42)). Under 40 CFR
122.45(g)(1)(ii), technology-based effluent limitations may be adjusted
to reflect credit for pollutants in the intake water if dischargers
demonstrate control systems would meet effluent limits in the absence
of pollutants in intake waters. Furthermore, credit for intake
pollutants may only be granted under the following conditions:
Constituents of the generic measure (i.e., SS in this
case) in the effluent are substantially similar to constituents of the
generic measure in the intake water, and
intake water comes from the same body of water into which
discharge occurs.
A review of past compliance data indicates that operators are not
consistently meeting the technology-based SS limits in the current
permit. At the request of SWEPI, Marathon, and Unocal, Region 10 has
reviewed the nature of sanitary waters, their makeup and treatment
prior to use in the system as well as sanitary treatments used on
platforms. SS in the effluent is substantially similar to SS in the
intake: there is no other source of SS in the effluent except in cases
where domestic wastes are commingled with sanitary wastes. In these
cases, domestic solids are removed by final sanitary treatment. In all
cases, the source of sanitary intake water is Cook Inlet, which is also
the discharge receiving water.
Region 10 has determined that high concentrations of SS in effluent
are most likely due to high SS concentrations in the intake water used
in sanitary systems. To understand how high SS in intake affects SS
concentrations in the discharge, the process of taking water onboard
and treating it is described as follows. Water is required on platforms
for many purposes, of which two tolerate saline water (i.e., waterflood
injection and sanitary systems). The general practice to provide water
for waterflood and sanitary systems is to take water directly from Cook
Inlet and treat it for either application. Primary treatment is solids
removal with filters or varying screen sizes. In many cases, water
destined for use in sanitary systems is diverted directly to the
[[Page 48809]]
system after primary screening and/or filtration. Water used for
waterflooding injection receive further treatment to remove both solids
and oxygen.
Ideally, sanitary makeup water should also receive further
treatment to remove solids before entering the sanitary system.
Platforms are capable of removing SS; however, the technology for
further solids removal is so closely associated with oxygen stripping
for waterflood that considerable retro-fitting would be needed to
divert water to the sanitary system before oxygen is removed. (Water
with low oxygen is corrosive and not generally suitable for use in
sanitary systems.) Furthermore, there is limited space available to
install the additional filters and/or screens that would be needed to
treat sanitary makeup water for SS to the same degree that waterflood
makeup is treated.
Under 40 CFR 122.45(g)(1)(ii), Region 10 has determined that it is
appropriate to propose effluent limitations for SS based on intake (or
makeup) water plus ADEC's technology-based, secondary treatment limits.
The effluent limits proposed for SS are based on the SS concentration
of intake water after the water has received primary treatment for SS
removal.
Permittees are required to monitor makeup water at a point
immediately prior to the water entering the sanitary system. These
values shall be reported on DMRs and labelled as SSintake.
Effluent shall be monitored and reported as the sums shown above.
Eighteen months after the effective date of the permit, Region 10 will
evaluate the DMR data to determine whether the SS limits should be
modified.
Region 10 proposes to increase monitoring frequency from monthly to
weekly in order to address compliance concerns. The overall increased
monitoring for SS will enable Region 10 to determine (1) the nature of
past noncompliance with numeric limits in the 1986 permit and (2)
appropriate numeric SS limits based on the nature of Cook Inlet makeup
water. Under section 308 of the Act and 40 CFR 122.44(i), the proposal
for increased monitoring of BOD and SS in make-up water and the
sanitary discharge is both reasonable and necessary. Region 10 does not
propose any change to BOD limits other than monitoring and reporting
frequency.
For the discharges to federal waters (i.e., operations on blocks
leased under federal sales), any facility using a marine sanitation
device (MSD) that complies with pollution control standards and
regulations under section 312 of the Act shall be deemed to be in
compliance with a limit of no floating solids, until the device is
replaced or found not to comply with such standards and regulations.
4. Section 308 and Section 312 Requirements for Sanitary and Domestic
Wastes
Based on section 308 of the Act, the proposed permit requires
Permittees to estimate and report flow for each of these wastestreams.
In addition, for platforms using U.S. Coast Guard certified marine
sanitation devices (MSDs), the proposed permit requires Permittees to
monitor the sanitary wastestream twice each month and submit the
following information:
FC and the estimated number of persons aboard for the 5
days preceding the sample.
SS.
TRC.
The information and data on FC and SS will be used for comparison
with standards set forth at 40 CFR 140.3(d) for MSDs. (These
regulations are based on section 312 of the Act.) As mentioned above,
the proposed permit assumes that a Coast Guard certified MSD will
comply with the BCT-based limits for TRC of ``as close as possible to
but no less than 1 mg/l'' and the requirement for ``no floating
solids.'' While these assumptions are consistent with all offshore
general permits issued previously by Region 10, TRC monitoring data
required by the proposed permit will allow Region 10 to reassess its
assumption for this pollutant.
F. Discharges 005-014 (Miscellaneous Discharges)
1. General Descriptions
Miscellaneous discharges are: desalination unit wastes (005);
blowout preventer fluid (006); boiler blowdown (007); fire control
system test water (008); non-contact cooling water (009);
uncontaminated ballast water (010); uncontaminated bilge water (011);
excess cement slurry (012); mud, cuttings and cement at seafloor (013);
waterflooding discharges (014). The wastestream characterizations below
are based on the Development Document for the Offshore guidelines (pp.
X-38-42, EPA 1995b and Envirosphere 1989b, 1989c, 1989d), the 1986
general permit, and CIDMS reports.
Desalination unit wastes: This is wastewater associated with the
process of creating fresh water from saltwater. The process itself is
generally either distillation or reverse osmosis. The wastewater is a
high-concentration brine very similar to seawater in composition but
with higher concentrations of anions and cations.
Blowout preventer (BOP) fluid: These are fluids used to actuate the
hydraulic equipment on blowout preventers. The fluid itself is
generally an oil (vegetable or mineral) or antifreeze solution (e.g.,
glycol). The blowout preventer equipment may be located on the seafloor
or on a platform and is designed to maintain the pressure in a well
that cannot be controlled by drilling mud. Small quantities of BOP
fluid are discharged when BOPs are tested.
Ballast: This is seawater added or removed to maintain proper draft
for the purpose of platform stabilization. Unlike tank ballast water,
uncontaminated ballast water is taken from waters adjacent to the
platform (i.e., Cook Inlet) and will, at worst, be contaminated with
oily slop water.
Bilge water: This is seawater which collects in the lower internal
parts of a drilling vessel's hull and may be contaminated with oil &
grease or rust. Bilge water is directed to an oil/water separator
before discharge, which occurs intermittently.
Muds, cuttings and cement at the sea-floor: These wastes result
from marine riser disconnect and well abandonment and plugging.
Compared to discharge of muds and cuttings (Discharge 001), these
volumes are small.
Boiler blowdown: The discharge of circulation water and minerals
from boilers necessary to minimize solids build-up in the boilers. This
is another intermittent discharge.
Excess cement slurry: This wastestream is the result of equipment
washdown after a cementing operation.
Waterflooding: These discharges are associated with the treatment
of seawater prior to its injection into a hydrocarbon-bearing formation
to improve the flow of hydrocarbons from production wells. Seawater is
taken aboard and treated to remove solids and dissolved oxygen,
additional treatment may include flocculants, scale inhibitors, oxygen
scavengers, and biocides. This wastestream also includes strainer and
filter backwash water and excess treated water not injected. Of all the
miscellaneous wastestreams discussed here, waterflood varies most
widely in terms of volumes discharged--ranging from 6,300 to 1,793,820
gallons per day (gpd) (estimated daily averages, (Envirosphere 1989c)).
Fire control system test water: This is treated seawater which is
released during the training of personnel in fire protection and the
testing and maintenance of fire protection equipment.
[[Page 48810]]
Non-contact cooling water: This is water which circulates across
crude oil or produced water tanks, power generators or other machinery
for the purpose of cooling. As implied by the name, this water does not
come in contact with product, produced water or the machinery it cools;
although it may be treated with biocide to prevent fouling in heat
exchangers.
2. BPJ/BPT Effluent Limitation
Neither the promulgated Offshore guidelines nor the proposed
Coastal guidelines address the wastestreams described above. The
Agency's basis for not addressing these wastestreams in either
guideline is that they are more appropriately controlled by regionally
issued NPDES permits such as the one proposed today. As discussed in
section III.A., above, Region 10 has used Best Professional Judgement
(BPJ) in applying permit limits and requirements for these
miscellaneous wastestreams in the absence of promulgated technology-
based guidelines.
No free oil: Region 10 has determined that no free oil shall be
discharged in those wastestreams that are likely to be oil-
contaminated. That is, a no free oil limitation is proposed for bilge
water, uncontaminated ballast water, blowout preventer fluid, excess
cement slurry and the discharge of muds, cuttings and excess cement at
the seafloor. The proposed permit also requires bilge and ballast water
to be processed through an oil-water separator prior to discharge. If
bilge or ballast water are discharged during broken or unstable ice
conditions, or during stable ice conditions, the static sheen test will
be used to determine compliance with the no free oil limitation. In
addition, the no free oil limit is also proposed for waterflooding
discharges in the event that chemicals in preparation of seawater for
injection may cause free oil. This limitation is Region 10's best
professional judgement determination of BPT controls for these five
miscellaneous wastestreams. Compliance with the free oil limitation
will be by the visual sheen test. This no free oil limit has been
applied in previous permits issued by Region 10 and past practices has
not been violated.
The proposed permit does not limit free oil/sheen for desalination
unit wastes, boiler blowdown, fire control system test water, or non-
contact cooling water because these are ``non-contact'' wastestreams.
That is, they do not come in contact with either the production stream
(i.e., oil/water/gas from formation) or machinery surfaces where oily
wastes are likely to contaminate them.
3. Section 308 Requirements
Flow Rate: Based on section 308 of the Act, the proposed permit
requires estimated flow rates to be reported on a monthly basis for all
of the miscellaneous wastestreams (Discharges 005-014). In addition,
the proposed permit requires permittees to maintain an inventory of the
quantities and rates of chemicals (other than fresh or seawater) added
to the waterflooding (Discharge 014), noncontact cooling water
(Discharge 009), and desalination (Discharge 005) systems. Reports
shall be submitted monthly attached to DMRs. This reporting requirement
is consistent with previous permits.
G. Discharge 015 (Produced Water)
Produced water is the total water generated from the oil and gas
extraction process, and is the highest volume waste source in the
offshore oil and gas industry. As discussed in section II of this fact
sheet, the discharge of produced water is only authorized in state
waters of Upper Cook Inlet, north of the Forelands. Produced water
includes: the formation water brought to surface with the oil and gas,
the injection water used for secondary oil recovery that has broken
through the formation, and various well treatment chemicals added
during production and the oil/water separation process. Formation
water, which comprises the bulk of produced water, is found in the same
rock formation as the crude oil and gas. There are currently five
platforms that discharge directly into Cook Inlet (after physical
separation of hydrocarbons), while the remaining nine pipe their
combined production fluids (hydrocarbon and water) to one of the three
shore-based separation/treatment facilities. Effluent flow rates vary
from less than 0.2 ft\3\ per second at the platforms, to 4 ft\3\ per
second at the Trading Bay Production Facility. The Cook Inlet Discharge
Monitoring Study (``CIDMS'') and the mixing zone application
(Parametrix, 1995) identifies numerous organic and inorganic
contaminants that are typically found in produced water, as discussed
below.
1. BPJ/BCT Limitations for Produced Water
pH: It is proposed that the pH of discharged produced water be
limited to a range of 6-9 at the point of discharge. These proposed
limits are equal to the pH limitations in the 1986 permit. In the
Agency's best professional judgement, this limitation appropriately
equals a BPT level of control. No more stringent standard has been
identified by the Agency at this time. Therefore, the Agency is setting
a BPJ/BCT effluent limitation for the pH of produced water equal to
that of BPT. Since previous permits have contained a limitation of pH
6-9, the requirement will not incur an incremental cost. The draft
permit requires weekly monitoring of pH.
2. BPJ/BAT Limitations for Produced Water
Oil and Grease: It is proposed that oil and grease concentrations
in discharges of produced water from all facilities (except Phillips
Tyonek-A) be limited to a 29 mg/l monthly average and a 42 mg/l maximum
daily. These oil and grease limits were promulgated as BAT for offshore
facilities (40 CFR 435.15) as indicators of toxic and nonconventional
pollutants, and are proposed in this permit as BPJ/BAT for coastal
facilities (40 CFR 122.43, 122.44, and 125.3). Oil and grease
limitations for Phillips Tyonek-A, a gas production platform, will be
set at 15 mg/l monthly average and 20 mg/l daily maximum. The
limitations for Tyonek-A are equal to those in the 1986 general permit
for that facility, and are limitations with which Tyonek-A is currently
in compliance. Note that while BPT oil and grease limitations have been
promulgated for coastal facilities (40 CFR 435.42), the BPT limitations
are less stringent than the limitations proposed above and have
therefore not been used to establish permit limitations. The draft
permit requires weekly monitoring of oil and grease.
Produced Sands: In the proposed permit, Region 10 prohibits the
discharge of produced sands (formerly called ``produced solids'') as
BPJ/BCT and BPJ/BAT based on the Agency's guidelines for both Offshore
(promulgated) and Coastal (proposed) subcategories. Promulgated BAT
(Offshore) for ``produced sand'' is no discharge based on the Agency's
determination that these ``sands'' are sent on-shore on barges trips
during regularly scheduled maintenance trips. In 1995, the Agency
proposed Coastal guidelines in which BPT, BCT, BAT and NSPS are
proposed to be equal to no discharge. The proposed Coastal guideline
for produced sand is based on information from Cook Inlet operators
stating that no produced sand discharges occur in this area (60 FR
9454, February 17, 1995).
The 1986 general permit defined ``produced solids'' as sands and
other solids deposited from produced water which collect in vessels and
lines and which must be removed to maintain adequate vessel and line
capacities. In 1993, the promulgated Offshore rule (40 CFR 435.11(r))
defined ``produced sand''
[[Page 48811]]
as slurried particles used in hydraulic fracturing, the accumulated
formation sands and scales particles generated during production,
desander discharge from the produced water wastestream, and blowdown of
the water phase from the produced water treatment system.
3. Water Quality-Based Limitations for Produced Water
The State has issued a preliminary mixing zone determination for
produced water that specifies mixing zones and dilutions for eight
facilities discharging produced water to Cook Inlet. The State has
notified EPA that the mixing zone request submitted by the permittees
is adequate for incorporation into the draft permit (ADEC 1995). At
each of the eight facilities, individual mixing zones have been
proposed for metals (acute, chronic and human health), total aromatic
hydrocarbons (TAH), total aqueous hydrocarbons (TAqH), and toxicity.
As part of the mixing zone application (Parametrix 1995), produced
water discharges from production facilities in Cook Inlet were sampled
at each of 8 facilities currently discharging produced water into Cook
Inlet. Samples were analyzed for a broad range of potential pollutants,
including metals, monoaromatic hydrocarbons (such as benzene),
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (such as naphthalene), and chronic
toxicity.
The 1995 sampling effort supplements the 1988-89 sampling effort
documented in the CIDMS. The CIDMS provided data for ten organic
pollutants, zinc, and acute toxicity for 6 of the 8 facilities
currently discharging produced water into Cook Inlet. The way in which
available data were used to calculate water quality-based permit limits
is discussed in part III.E. of this fact sheet, and below.
Metals: The 1986 permit did not limit metals in produced water.
Data submitted by the permittees in the mixing zone application
(Parametrix 1995) show exceedances of the water quality criteria for
arsenic, copper, zinc and silver at numerous facilities. The following
is a summary of the maximum concentrations reported, and applicable
aquatic life and human health criteria. The applicable metals criteria
for Alaska are written in terms of total recoverable metals; one total
recoverable sample was analyzed at each facility.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criteria
Pollutant -------------------------------------------------------- Maximum reported discharge
Health Acute Chronic
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arsenic.......... 1.4 g/l. 69 g/l.. 36 g/l. 230 g/l (East Forelands).
Silver........... ................. 2.3 g/l. ................ 80 g/l (Bruce).
Copper........... ................. 2.9 g/l. 2.9 g/l 64 g/l (Dillon).
Zinc............. ................. 95 g/l.. 86 g/l. 2700 g/l (Baker).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acute, chronic and human health mixing zones have been proposed by
the Permittees at each of the eight discharge locations. The following
is a summary of the proposed acute and chronic mixing zones, and the
associated dilution factors at each location. Where modeling results
yielded a mixing zone with a radius less than 20 meters, a 20-meter
mixing zone is proposed. The dilution factor represents the dilution
that is predicted to occur at the edge of the mixing zone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed acute Proposed
Location mixing zone Dilution chronic mixing Dilution
(m) factor zone (m) factor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Granite Point PF................................ 20 82 99 282
Trading Bay..................................... 300 4900 300 4900
East Foreland................................... 20 42 109 632
Tyonek A........................................ 20 20 20 278
Bruce........................................... 37 327 46 336
Baker........................................... 22 174 37 300
Dillon.......................................... 20 84 43 274
Anna............................................ 20 65 36 274
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the method for deriving permit limits recommended in the
TSD (EPA 1991b), individual effluent limitations have been calculated
for each of the platforms. If the final mixing zone approved by the
state is different from the one used to calculate the limits for the
draft permit, the limits in the final permit will reflect these
changes. The following is a comparison of wasteload allocations,
effluent limits, proposed mixing zone size and dilution factors for
each location. Effluent limitations have not been imposed for every
metal constituent at every facility. In some cases, the size of the
proposed mixing zone diminishes the potential for exceedances of water
quality standards at the edge of the mixing zone. In accordance with
the TSD, limits are included only when there is a ``reasonable
potential'' to exceed water quality criteria. At Trading Bay and Bruce,
for example, a reasonable potential to exceed water quality criteria at
the edge of the mixing zone was not found; therefore effluent
limitations are not proposed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effluent limitations
Wasteload ---------------------------
allocation Monthly
Location Pollutant (g/ Daily max average
l) (g/ (g/
l) l)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Granite Point..................... Copper............................ 238 238 119
East Foreland..................... Copper............................ 122 122 60.7
Arsenic........................... 885 1780 885
Tyonek A.......................... Copper............................ 58 58 29
Baker............................. Arsenic........................... 420 843 420
Zinc.............................. 16500 16500 8240
Dillon............................ Copper............................ 244 244 121
[[Page 48812]]
Zinc.............................. 7980 7980 3980
Anna.............................. Copper............................ 189 189 94
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weekly monitoring for metals is required in the draft permit.
Additional monitoring requirements for metals are discussed below in
V.G.4.
Total Aromatic Hydrocarbons (TAH) and Total Aqueous Hydrocarbons
(TAqH): TAH and TAqH were not limited in the 1986 general permit. The
state of Alaska water quality standard for protection of aquatic life
is 10 g/l for TAH, and 15 g/l for TAqH. TAH is
defined as the sum of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and the xylene
isomers (usually referred to as BETX). TAqH is defined as the sum of
TAH and polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). All analytical
requirements are specified in the Alaska standards (18 AAC 70.020(b).
Data submitted by the permittees in the CIDMS (Envirosphere 1990a)
and the mixing zone application (Parametrix 1995) indicate that current
TAH and TAqH levels are above the standard at numerous facilities. For
example, maximum concentrations of 70,000 g/l TAH and 70,500
g/l TAqH were detected at the Bruce platform in 1995. Mixing
zones have been proposed for TAH and TAqH at each of the eight
discharge locations. The following is a summary of the maximum TAH and
TAqH concentrations detected at each location, the proposed mixing
zones, and the associated dilution factors. Where a mixing zone with a
radius less than 20 meters (Tyonek-A) is needed, a 20-meter mixing zone
is proposed. The dilution factor represents the dilution that is
predicted to occur at the edge of the mixing zone.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TAH max TAqH max Proposed
Location (g/ (g/ mixing zone Dilution
l) l) (m) factor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Granite Point............................................. 14,400 15,029 955 3877
Trading Bay............................................... 6,970 7,330 300 4900
East Foreland............................................. 15,360 16,313 412 3762
Tyonek A.................................................. 49 68 20 17
Bruce..................................................... 70,000 70,536 867 18,164
Baker..................................................... 20,550 21,006 555 5409
Dillon.................................................... 20,000 13,300 405 3609
Anna...................................................... 17,510 20,428 363 5233
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the method for deriving permit limits recommended in the
TSD (EPA 1991b), individual effluent limitations have been calculated
for each of the dischargers. The following is a comparison of wasteload
allocations and effluent limits for each location. If the final mixing
zone approved by the state is different from the one used to calculate
the limits for the draft permit, the limits in the final permit will
reflect these changes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effluent Limitations
Wasteload ---------------------------
allocation Monthly
Location Pollutant (g/ Daily max average
l) (g/ (g/
l) l)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Granite Point....................................... TAH 38,800 38,800 19,300
Prod Facility....................................... TAqH 58,200 58,200 29,000
Trading Bay......................................... TAH 49,000 49,000 24,400
TAqH 73,500 73,500 36,600
East Forelands...................................... TAH 37,600 37,600 18,800
TAqH 56,400 56,400 28,100
Tyonek A............................................ TAH 170 170 85
TAqH 255 255 127
Bruce............................................... TAH 182,000 182,000 90,500
TAqH 272,000 0272,000 136,000
Baker............................................... TAH 54,100 54,100 27,000
TAqH 81,100 81,100 40,400
Dillon.............................................. TAH 36,100 36,100 18,000
TAqH 54,100 54,100 27,000
Anna................................................ TAH 52,300 52,300 26,100
TAqH 78,500 78,500 39,100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The draft permit requires weekly monitoring for TAH and TAqH.
Submittal of an annual report summarizing the concentrations of the
individual TAH (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene isomers) and
TAqH components is also required.
[[Page 48813]]
The draft permit does not contain individual limitations for
benzene, as the total aromatic hydrocarbon (TAH) criterion is
significantly more protective than the benzene criterion. The benzene
criterion of 710 g/l is applicable for the protection of human
health from potential carcinogenic effects due to benzene exposure
through ingestion of contaminated aquatic organisms. This criterion
represents an incremental increase of cancer risk of 10-5 over a
lifetime. Existing data indicates that this criterion is exceeded in
the 36 CIDMS samples, and all samples of all discharges (except Tyonek-
A) in the mixing zone application; benzene concentrations range from 15
g/l at Tyonek-A to 53,000 g/l at Bruce. As part of
their mixing zone application to the State, the permittees performed a
human health assessment to evaluate potential carcinogenic risks to
humans who consume fish and shellfish that inhabit Cook Inlet.
The results of the human health assessment indicate that produced
waters are not expected to pose significant risks to human health from
the consumption of fish and shellfish in Cook Inlet at the edge of
mixing zone.
Whole Effluent Toxicity: Whole effluent toxicity (WET) tests are
used to measure the acute and/or chronic toxicity of an effluent. Acute
toxicity tests determine the effluent concentration that produces an
adverse effect (i.e., death) on a group of test organisms during a
short-term exposure. The LC50 is the concentration of effluent
that would cause death in 50 percent of the organisms exposed. Acute
toxicity units (TUa) are defined as (100/LC50).
Chronic toxicity measures a sublethal effect (e.g., reduced growth,
reproduction) in an effluent compared to that of the control organism.
When conducting a chronic toxicity test, the highest concentration of
an effluent at which no adverse effects are observed on the aquatic
test organisms is defined as the no observed effect concentration
(NOEC). Chronic toxicity units (TUc) are defined as (100/NOEC).
Alaska's water quality standard for toxicity is expressed as a
measure of chronic, rather than acute toxicity. The Alaska standard
states that substances must impart no chronic toxicity to aquatic
organisms, expressed as 1.0 chronic toxic unit (TUc) at the edge
of the mixing zone, or end of pipe if there is no mixing zone. The
relationship between TUc and TUa is usually expressed as the
acute-to-chronic ratio (ACR). In the absence of site-specific data, the
TSD recommends that an ACR of 10 be used.
Produced water toxicity was not limited in the 1986 general permit.
Toxicity monitoring was, however, a requirement of the 1986 permit and
was discussed in the CIDMS (Envirosphere 1990a). Produced water samples
from three platforms and three shore-based facilities were tested for
acute toxicity to the marine invertebrate Mysidopsis bahia using a 96-
hour acute toxicity test. Chronic toxicity was measured at eight
facilities currently discharging produced water to Cook Inlet as part
of the mixing zone application (Parametrix 1995). For all locations,
the mean TUc exceeds the state water quality standard of 1.0
TUc.
Mixing zones have been proposed for whole effluent toxicity at each
of the eight discharge locations. The 1995 TUc data (based on NOEC
growth and survival), mixing zones and dilution factors are summarized
below. Note that while the proposed mixing zones are based on the NOEC
(survival), it is anticipated that the mixing zones will be
recalculated prior to issuance of the final permit based on the NOEC
(growth).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed
Dilution TUc chronic
factor Location TUc (growth) (survival) mixing zone
(m)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Granite Point PF 21.28 7 2026
Trading Bay..... > 22 10 3004,900
East Foreland... > 18 11 2040
Tyonek A........ > 5 2 206.2
Bruce........... > 143 21 2082
Baker........... > 17 10 2036
Dillon.......... > 28 16 2057
Anna............ 77 29 20110
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the method for deriving permit limits recommended in the
TSD (EPA 1991b), individual effluent limitations have been calculated
for each of the dischargers. The following is a comparison of wasteload
allocations and effluent limits for each location. If the final mixing
zone approved by the state is different from the one used to calculate
the limits for the draft permit, the limits in the final permit will
reflect these changes. Limitations have not been calculated for the
Trading Bay facility. In accordance with the TSD, limits are included
only when there is a ``reasonable potential'' to exceed water quality
criteria.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Effluent limitations
Wasteload -------------------------------
Location allocation Daily max Monthly avg
(TUc) (TUc) (TUc)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Granite Point................................................... 26 43 29
East Forelands.................................................. 40 66 45
Tyonek A........................................................ 6 10 7
Bruce........................................................... 82 135 92
Baker........................................................... 36 59 40
Dillon.......................................................... 57 94 64
Anna............................................................ 110 181 124
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 48814]]
Monthly chronic toxicity monitoring using grab effluent samples is
proposed. The permit requires tests using a vertebrate and two
invertebrates, as follows:
Vertebrate: Inland silverside, Menidia beryllina
Invertebrate: Atlantic mysid, Mysidopsis bahia survival, growth and
fecundity test and one of the following two bivalve species tests:
Mytilis sp. or Crassostrea gigas larval development test, depending
upon seasonal availability.
The level of chronic toxicity shall be estimated as specified in
Short-Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and
Receiving Waters to Marine and Estuarine Organisms, Second Edition,
EPA/600/4-90/003. For the bivalve species, chronic toxicity shall be
estimated as specified in Short-Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic
Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Water To West Coast Marine and
Estuarine Organisms (Chapman and Denton 1995)
If chronic toxicity is detected above the permit limits, the
permittee shall conduct four more tests, bi-weekly, over an eight-week
period. In accordance with EPA/600/2-88/070, a toxicity reduction
evaluation (TRE) must be initiated within fifteen days of the
exceedance in order to expeditiously locate the source(s) of toxicity
and evaluate the effectiveness of pollution control actions and/or
inplant modifications toward attaining compliance. If chronic toxicity
is detected in any of the four bi-weekly tests, the permittee shall
initiate a toxicity identification evaluation (TIE) to identify the
specific chemical(s) causing toxicity according to the EPA protocols
listed below. If none of the four bi-weekly tests indicate toxicity
above the permit limit, then the permittee may return to the normal
testing frequency.
USEPA Toxicity Identification Evaluation: Characterization
of Chronically Toxic Effluents, Phase I (EPA/600/6-91/005F),
USEPA Methods for Aquatic Toxicity Identification
Evaluations: Phase II Toxicity Identification Procedures for Samples
Exhibiting Acute and Chronic Toxicity (EPA/600/R-92/080), and
USEPA Methods for Aquatic Toxicity Identification
Evaluations, Phase III Toxicity Confirmation Procedures (EPA-600/R-92/
081).
4. Section 308 Requirements for Produced Water
In addition to the effluent monitoring discussed above, the draft
permit requires additional effluent monitoring of flow rate, metals,
and total aqueous hydrocarbons.
Flow Rate: Measurement of the produced water flow rate is required
daily. This requirement serves to determine compliance with, or the
possible future need for, effluent limitations in the permit. The basis
for this requirement is section 308 of the Act.
Metals: Monthly monitoring of total recoverable arsenic, cadmium,
copper, lead, nickel, silver and zinc is required for one year. Because
weekly effluent limitations for metals are not imposed at Bruce and
Trading Bay, monthly monitoring of each of the seven metals is
required. The remainder of the facilities discharging produced water to
Cook Inlet must submit monthly monitoring results for those metals not
limited in the permit at that facility. Method detection levels must be
less than one-tenth the aquatic life criteria listed below. The minimum
detection level required for arsenic is 1 g/l.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aquatic life
Pollutant chronic
criteria
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cadmium................................................. 9.3 g/
l
Copper.................................................. 2.9 g/
l
Lead.................................................... 8.5 g/
l
Nickel.................................................. 8.3 g/
l
Silver.................................................. 2.3 g/
l
Zinc.................................................... 86 g/
l
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing Cook Inlet data are not sufficient to determine whether or
not a reasonable potential to exceed water quality standards exists for
these five metals at numerous discharge locations. Baseline effluent
characteristics from the Thirty Platform Study (EPA 1993a) conducted in
the Gulf of Mexico, however, found each of these priority metal
pollutants to be above water quality standards in produced water. The
basis for this requirement is section 308 of the Act.
H. Discharges 016-019 (Completion Fluids, Workover Fluids, Well
Treatment Fluids, and Test Fluids)
Based on the promulgated Offshore guidelines and proposed Coastal
guidelines, Region 10 is proposing the definitions shown below for
workover, completion and treatment fluids. The proposed definitions are
more specific than those in the 1986 permit.
Workover fluids: salt solutions, weighted brines,
polymers, or other specialty additives used in a producing well to
allow safe repair and maintenance or abandonment procedures. Workover
fluids used in drilling are considered to be drilling muds. Packer
fluids (low solid fluids between the packer, production string, and
well casing) are considered to be workover fluids.
Completion fluids: salt solutions, weighted brines,
polymers, and various additives used to prevent damage to the wellbore
during operations which prepare the drilled well for hydrocarbon
production.
Well treatment fluids: any fluid used to restore or
improve productivity by chemically or physically altering hydrocarbon-
bearing strata after a well has been drilled.
Workover fluids and completion fluids may be broadly divided into
two classes: water-based and oil-based. The proposed permit prohibits
the discharge of oil-based fluids. According to the Offshore
Development Document (EPA 1993a), water-based workover and completion
fluids may be further classified as a brine water solution, a modified
drilling fluid or a specialty drilling fluid, depending upon its
purpose in the borehole. Brine solutions (e.g., potassium chloride,
sodium chloride or bromide, calcium chloride or bromide) are used
because they are low solid fluids with densities sufficient to control
sub-surface pressures in the well. Modified drilling fluids are
typically inorganic brines with polymers acids or oil-soluble materials
needed to yield a fluids with properties necessary to inhibit clays,
keep solids in suspension, control corrosion, or otherwise control or
maintain downhole stability. Note that, as in the 1986 general permit,
the proposed permit regulates the discharge of a drilling fluid as a
drilling fluid, subject to limitations discussed earlier in this fact
sheet for Discharge 001, regardless of its use downhole in an existing
production well.
Well treatment is a multi-stage process involving a variety of
solutions with specialty chemical additives that vary with the chemical
reactions desired downhole and in the formation. Well treatment fluids
may include: hydrochloric or hydrofluoric acid, EDTA, ammonium
chloride, nitrogen, methanol, xylene, toluene or additives for
inhibiting corrosion, neutralizing acids, reducing leak off rate,
reducing friction, preventing aggregation and deposition of solids (p.
X-14-15, EPA 1993a). In Cook Inlet, both acid and non-acid well
treatments occur. Treatment, workover and completion fluids may be
discharged either directly to the Inlet (in compliance with 1986 permit
limits) or commingled with the production stream and discharged with
produced water (Envirosphere 1988). In fact, the Agency has determined
that
[[Page 48815]]
treatment, workover, and completion fluids are routinely commingled
with produced water discharges in the Cook Inlet area (60 FR 9457,
February 17, 1995).
The proposed permit defines test fluids as shown below. This same
definition appeared in the 1986 Cook Inlet and 1995 Arctic general
NPDES permits.
Test Fluids: the discharge which would occur should
hydrocarbons be located during exploratory drilling and tested for
formation pressure and content. The discharge consists of fluids sent
downhole during testing, and formation water.
The 1986 Cook Inlet permit limited ``well treatment'' (i.e.,
treatment, workover and completion) fluids in conjunction with test
fluids and Region 10 is using the same approach in the proposed permit.
1. BPJ/BCT Limitations for TWC and Test Fluids
pH: For the discharge of test fluids and well treatment, workover
and completion fluids, the proposed permit limits pH to a range of 6.5-
8.5 at the point of discharge. In Region 10's best professional
judgement this appropriately equals a BPT level of control. No more
stringent standard has been identified at this time. Therefore Region
10 is setting a BCT effluent limit for pH equal to BPT. This pH limit
will ensure that pH changes greater than 0.2 pH unit will not occur
beyond the edge of the 100 m mixing zone (40 CFR 125.121(c)). This
requirement has been, and is, routinely complied with in previous
permits and thus reflects no cost incremental to BPT.
Free oil: No discharge of free oil is permitted from any of the
wastestreams authorized by the proposed permit. In the 1986 permit,
Region 10 determined that the no free oil limitation and no discharge
of oil-based fluids were appropriate levels of BCT control on the
discharge of TWC and test fluids, establishing BPJ/BCT based on BPT. In
1993, the Agency promulgated BCT for the Offshore subcategory as no
free oil; therefore, the no free oil limit for the discharge of test
fluid from exploratory operations in lower Cook Inlet (i.e., Offshore
subcategory) is BCT. For TWC and test fluids, the no free oil limit is
BPJ/BCT for all operations in upper Cook Inlet (i.e., Coastal
subcategory). All previous permits issued by Region 10 for either
exploratory or production and development operations contained the no
free oil limitation and past practices have not resulted in violations
of the limit. In accordance with promulgated Offshore BCT and section
308 of the Act, the static sheen test is required to monitor compliance
with the limitation.
2. BPJ/BAT Limitations for TWC and Test Fluids
Oil and grease: Although oil and grease is a conventional pollutant
subject to BCT, it is also an indicator of toxic pollutants (thus
serving BAT as well). Promulgated (offshore) BAT limitations for oil
and grease in TWC are 29 mg/l monthly average and 42 mg/l daily maximum
(58 FR 12506, March 4, 1993). It is the best professional judgement of
Region 10 that these oil and grease limits are also appropriate levels
of control for TWC discharges in the Coastal subcategory of Upper Cook
Inlet. These limits in the proposed permit are also consistent with
effluent limitations guidelines proposed for the Coastal subcategory
(60 FR 9429-9430, February 17, 1995). Note that while BPT oil and
grease limitations are promulgated for the Coastal subcategory (no free
oil, 40 CFR 435.42), they are less stringent than those proposed and
are therefore not used as a basis for the proposed permit. For the
discharge of test fluids, the proposed oil and grease limits are Region
10's best professional judgement of BAT because no BAT effluent
guidelines are promulgated or proposed for the Offshore or Coastal
subcategories. Region 10 is using this same approach in the Arctic
general NPDES permit (60 FR 27508, May 24, 1995).
3. Section 308 Requirements for TWC and Test Fluids
Flow Rate: Based on section 308 of the Act, the proposed permit
requires estimated flow rates to be reported on a monthly basis for the
discharge of each wastestream: this monitoring was required in the 1986
permit as well.
Metals: The proposed permit also requires analyses of each
discharge of treatment, workover, and completion that is characterized
as an acid job for the following metals (dissolved and total
recoverable): cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel and zinc. The
CIDMS conducted under the 1986 permit indicates that these metals are
likely to be present in TWC jobs involving treatment with acids. If
these wastestreams are commingled with produced water prior to
discharge, then they need not be monitored because similar monitoring
is also required for the produced water discharge. In accordance with
section 308 of the Act, and 40 CFR 122.44(i), monitoring for metals and
flow are required to determine compliance with, or the possible need
for, effluent limitations in the permit.
I. Other Discharge Limitations
1. No Floating Solids, Visible Foam or Oily Wastes
Region 10 has determined that the Offshore BCT effluent limitations
of no discharge of floating solids from the discharge of sanitary
wastes should apply to all other discharges as well. This requirement
is consistent with the recently issued general NPDES permit for the
Arctic (60 FR 27508, May 24, 1995). The limitations on discharge of
visible foam and oily wastes have been applied (based on BCT) in
previous permits issued by the Region and past practices have not
resulted in violations.
2. Surfactants, Dispersants and Detergents
The proposed permit requires the discharge of surfactants,
dispersants, and detergents to be minimized except as necessary to
comply with the safety requirements of the Occupational Health and
Safety Administration and the MMS. These products contain primarily
nonconventional pollutants. This provision has appeared in general
NPDES permits for the Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea, Norton Sound, Bering
Sea and the Arctic Ocean as well as in the 1986 Cook Inlet permit.
3. Other Toxic and Non-conventional Compounds
Discharge of the following pollutants is prohibited under the
proposed permit: halogenated phenol compounds, trisodium
nitrilotriacetic acid, sodium chromate, and sodium dichromate. The
class of halogenated phenol compounds includes toxic pollutants while
sodium chromate and dichromate contain chromium, which is also a toxic
pollutant. Trisodium nitrilotriacetic acid is a nonconventional
pollutant. Past permits prohibiting the discharge of these compounds
are the Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea, Norton Sound, Bering Sea, Arctic
Ocean and the 1986 Cook Inlet.
J. Best Management Practice Plan Requirement
It is national policy that, whenever feasible, pollution should be
prevented or reduced at the source, that pollution which cannot be
prevented should be recycled in an environmentally safe manner, and
that disposal or release into the environment should be employed only
as a last resort and should be conducted in an environmentally safe
manner (Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. 13101). Section
402(a)(1) authorizes EPA to include miscellaneous requirements in
permits on a case-by-case basis which are deemed necessary
[[Page 48816]]
to carry out the provisions of the Act. Best Management Practices
(BMPs), in addition to numerical effluent limitations, are required to
control or abate the discharge of pollutants in accordance with 40 CFR
122.44(k).
Pursuant to section 402(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act and Region 10
policy (EPA 1992), development and implementation of a Best Management
Practices Plan is included as a condition of this NPDES general permit.
The proposed general permit requires the development and
implementation of a BMP Plan which prevents or minimizes the generation
of pollutants, their release, and/or potential release from the
facility to the waters of the United States through normal operations
and ancillary activities. Relevant operations and activities include
material storage areas, site runoff, storm water, in-plant transfer,
process and material handling areas, loading or unloading operations,
spillage or leaks, sludge and waste disposal, or drainage from raw
material storage. EPA does not intend for permittees to duplicate
practices more fully described in other documents. Therefore, when a
BMP issue is already addressed via a separate regulatory program, the
BMP is expected to reference those efforts, not duplicate them.
In addition to developing and implementing the BMP Plan, the
operator is also required to certify that the BMP Plan is complete, on-
site, and available upon request (see Part III.I.1. of the permit).
Certification is required no later than submission of their written
notice of intent to commence discharge (see Parts I.A., I.B., and I.C.
of the permit). These certification requirements are similar to the
requirements for a mud plan.
The BMP Plan must be amended whenever there is a change in the
facility or in the operation of the facility which materially increases
the potential for an increased discharge of pollutants. The BMP Plan
will become an enforceable condition of the permit; a violation of the
BMP Plan is a violation of the permit.
VI. Other Legal Requirements
A. Oil Spill Requirements
Oil spill requirements in the proposed permit reflect Executive
Order 12777 which implements provisions of the Oil Pollution Act of
1990. EO 12777 removed offshore facilities from jurisdiction under EPA
and placed them under the jurisdiction of the Department of Interior
(DOI), Minerals Management Service (MMS). Offshore operators are
required to submit Oil Spill Contingency Plans to MMS for review.
Additionally, operators in state waters are required to submit Oil
Discharge Prevention and Contingency Plans to the ADEC for review.
The net effect of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and EO 12777 is
that operators in state or federal waters are no longer required by
section 311 of the Clean Water Act to develop Spill Prevention, Control
and Contingency (SPCC) plans.
B. Endangered Species Act
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) allocates authority to, and
administers requirements upon, federal agencies regarding endangered
species of fish, wildlife, or plants and habitat of such species that
have been designated as critical. Its implementing regulations (50 CFR
Part 402) require EPA to ensure, in consultation with the Secretary of
the Interior or Commerce, that any action authorized, funded or carried
out by EPA is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
endangered or threatened species or adversely affect its critical
habitat (40 CFR 122.49(c)).
Implementing regulations for the ESA establish a process by which
agencies consult with one another to ensure that the concerns of both
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) (``Services'' collectively) are addressed.
Briefly, the process is as follows: (a) The Services provide list(s) of
species or habitats which coincide with the permit area or activity at
the request of the licensing agency (in this case EPA Region 10), (b)
the licensing agency develops a scientific or other report addressing
listed species and/or habitats, and (c) the Services consult (either
formally or informally) with the licensing agency. Region 10 is
requesting comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the
National Marine Fisheries Service and will consider their comments in
making the final permit decision. The Region will initiate consultation
should new information reveal impacts not previously considered, should
the activities be modified in a manner beyond the scope of the original
opinion, or should the activities affect a newly listed species.
In compliance with section 7 of the ESA, Region 10 obtained lists
of critical habitat areas and threatened and endangered species from
the Alaska regional offices of the Services. The Agency contracted with
Avanti, Inc. to prepare a draft/preliminary biological evaluation (BE)
for threatened, endangered and candidate species reported in the area
covered by the proposed general permit (Avanti 1992). In addition to
the preliminary BE prepared by Avanti, Region 10 also considered a BE
prepared for ARCO for development of an individual NPDES permit for
exploratory drilling in upper Cook Inlet (EPA 1993c). These two BEs
address the species listed below:
Gray whale (Eschrichtius robustus, removed from list but
continues to be monitored--USFWS),
Humpback whale (Megaptera novaengliae, endangered--USFWS),
Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus, endangered--USFWS),
Sei whale (Balaenpetera borealis, endangered--USFWS),
Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus and habitat,
threatened--USFWS),
American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum,
threatened--USFWS)
Arctic peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus tundrius,
threatened--USFWS),
Beluga whale (Delphinapterus leucas, candidate--NMFS), and
Steller's eider (Polysticta stelleri, mentioned as
Category 1 candidate species--USFWS).
In March of 1995 in response to the Region's request for updated
status on species in the area of the permit, USFWS provided additional
information as shown below. NMFS had no additional or new information
to provide at the time of Region 10's request.
Short-tailed albatross (Diomeda albatrus, added as
endangered),
Harelquin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus, mentioned as
Category 2 candidate species)
Kittlitz's murrelet (Brachyramphus brevirostris, mentioned
as Category 2 candidate species)
Marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus, mentioned as
Category 2 candidate species)
Arctic peregrine falcon (F. p, tundrius, removed from list
but continues to be monitored)
Based on BE reports, information in the Preliminary Ocean Discharge
Criteria Evaluations (PODCEs) for OCS Sales 55 and 60, the Revised
PODCE for Sale 88 and state lease sales in Cook Inlet, the revised
PODCE for Sale 149 and on information in the Environmental Impact
Statements (EISs) prepared for the federal lease sale areas, EPA has
concluded that the discharges authorized by this general permit will
not jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species. The BEs, PODCEs, and EISs do not address the species added to
the Region's list in March of 1995, nor are resources available to
modify existing
[[Page 48817]]
reports at this time. For the short-tailed albatross, Region 10
references the DEIS for Sale 149 (p. III.B.20 and p. IV.B.1.-60, MMS
1995) which states that this species rarely appears in the area of Sale
149 or state lease sales, and is therefore not likely to be affected by
the discharges authorized in the proposed permit. For recently added
species of murrelets and the Harelquin duck, Region 10 is deferring a
determination until the species are listed, and more information is
available.
Region 10's determinations under section 7 of the ESA are discussed
below for each wastestream. Pursuant to the ESA, Region 10's
determinations are either for no effect or may effect: findings of may
effect are further categorized as may beneficially affect, not likely
to adversely affect, or may adversely affect.
1. Muds, Cuttings & Washwater (Discharge 001)
The discharge of muds and cuttings may affect all of the listed
species, but is not likely to adversely affect the peregrine falcons or
the Steller's eider. Disturbances caused by drilling mud discharge
occurring during whale migration through the discharge area or in the
critical habitat area designated for Steller's sea lions (Avanti 1992)
are beyond the scope of the proposed general permit. Issues such as
noise and disturbance are considered twice by MMS (for federal leases)
and/or the Alaska Department of Natural Resources Division of Oil and
Gas (for state leases). The first time such issues are considered is
for the whole sale area as part of the initial environmental impact
statement or environmental assessment which requires public and
interagency review. The second consideration for the specific location
as when a lessee submits plans of exploration and operation required by
the lease. These documents also undergo public and inter-agency review.
The scope of the proposed NPDES permit is limited to controlling the
discharge of pollutants in specific wastestreams rather than the
presence or absence of an operation. With respect to the critical
habitat designated for Steller sea lions, the proposed permit prohibits
any discharge in, or within 1000 m of, the critical habitat area
designated by USFWS (58 FR 45269-45285, August 27, 1993).
2. Produced Water (Discharge 015)
The discharge of produced water may affect, but is not likely to
adversely affect, all of the considered species except the Beluga whale
(a candidate species). This determination is based on the fact that the
proposed permit authorizes discharges from production operations (i.e.,
produced water) to upper Cook Inlet and, since all of the species
except Beluga whales occur most frequently in the lower Inlet,
potential exposure is therefore reduced. The Beluga whales, which
frequent the upper Inlet, may be adversely affected by pollutants in
produced water. This species may be affected either directly (through
exposure) or indirectly (through ingestion and bioaccumulation) (Avanti
1992). The Beluga whale is a candidate for listing; consequently,
Region 10's determination of ``may adversely affect'' is based on lack
of conclusive evidence regarding the actual impact of produced water
discharges upon the species.
3. All Other Wastestreams
Discharge of the remaining wastestreams addressed by the proposed
permit is determined to have either no effect or as not likely to
adversely affect the species considered. These determinations are based
on the relatively small amounts discharged (e.g., waterflood,
completion, workover, treatment and test fluids), the absence of
harmful pollutants (e.g., sanitary wastes), or the lack of potential to
cause effects (e.g., domestic, desalination, blowout preventer fluid)
(Ch.6, Avanti 1992).
C. Coastal Zone Management Act
The State of Alaska will be reviewing this permit to determine
consistency with the Coastal Zone Management Act.
D. Maritime Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
No marine sanctuaries, as designated by this Act, exist in the
vicinity of the permit area. Since state waters are involved in the
proposed general permit area the provisions of section 401 of the Act
apply. In accordance with 40 CFR 124.10(c)(1), public notice of the
draft permit has been provided to the State of Alaska agencies having
jurisdiction over fish, shellfish, and wildlife resources.
E. Annex V of MARPOL (73/78 and 33 CFR 155.73)
Under Annex V of the International Convention for the Prevention of
Pollution from Ships, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) has issued interim
final regulations under 33 CFR 151.73 to control the disposal of
garbage and domestic wastes from fixed or floating platforms. These
regulations include those platforms involved in the exploration and
exploitation of oil and gas resources, such as oil drilling rigs and
production platforms. These regulations apply to all such vessels when
in navigable waters of the U.S. or within the 200 mile Exclusive
Economic Zone. This proposed permit will prohibit the discharge of
garbage (as defined at 33 CFR 151) within 12 miles of the nearest land.
The term garbage, as it is applied here, includes operational and
maintenance wastes. Further amplification of wastes covered under these
regulations can be found at 33 CFR 151. Beyond 12 miles from the
nearest land, the discharge of food wastes which are ground so as to
pass through a 25 millimeter mesh screen, incinerator ash, and non-
plastic clinkers will be permitted. Incinerator ash and non-plastic
clinkers that can pass through a 25 millimeter mesh screen will be
permitted to be discharged beyond 3 miles from the nearest land. These
requirements are already part of the Coast Guard regulations and are
incorporated into the permit for consistency.
F. Executive Order 12291
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action from
the review requirements of Executive Order 12291 pursuant to section
8(b) of that order.
G. Paperwork Reduction Act
EPA has reviewed the requirements imposed on regulated facilities
in the proposed general permit under the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Most of the information collection
requirements have already been approved by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) in submissions made for the NPDES permit program under the
provisions of the Clean Water Act and assigned OMB control numbers
2040-0086 for the NPDES permit application and 2040-0004 for the
discharge monitoring report form. In addition, the environmental
monitoring requirements pursuant to section 403(c) of the Clean Water
Act in Part III.B.3. of the proposed permit are similar to the notice
of intent to be covered and monitoring requirements that were approved
by OMB for the previously issued Beaufort Sea general permit (49 FR
23734, June 7, 1984) and Norton Sound general permit (50 FR 23578, June
4, 1985). While this permit requires some increased monitoring and
reporting of that data, the region estimates that the additional burden
will be similar to that projected for discharges covered under the most
recent Gulf of Mexico general NPDES permit. The final general permit
will explain how the information collection requirements respond to any
OMB or public comments.
[[Page 48818]]
H. Regulatory Flexibility Act
After review of the facts presented in the notice of intent printed
above, I hereby certify, pursuant to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 605(b),
that this general permit will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities. This certification is based on
the fact that the regulated parties have greater than 500 employees and
are not classified as small businesses under the Small Business
Administration regulations established at 49 FR 5023 et seq. (February
9, 1984). These facilities are classified as Major Group 13-Oil and Gas
Extraction SIC 1311 Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas.
Dated: September 8, 1995.
Charles Findley,
Acting Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA, Region 10.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 48819]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN20SE95.000
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
[[Page 48820]]
ADEC 1995.
Dolan, Robert C. For Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation re: preliminary mixing zone proposal for general NPDES
permit AKG285100.
ADNR/O&G 1994.
State of Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Division of Oil
& Gas. ``Proposed Five Year Leasing Plan--Public Notice''. July 7,
1994.
Avanti 1992.
Avanti Corporation. Biological Evaluation for the Proposed NPDES
General Permit for Oil and Gas Exploration, Development, and
Production Activities in Cook Inlet/Gulf of Alaska. Prepared for
U.S. EPA, Region 10 by Avanti Corp., Vienna, VA. August 3, 1992.
Chapman and Denton 1995.
Chapman, Gary and Denton, Debra. Short-Term Methods for
Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Water To
West Coast Marine and Estuarine Organisms (Draft).
Envirosphere 1988.
Cook Inlet Discharge Monitoring Study: Workover, Well Completion
and Well Treatment Fluids. Prepared for: Amoco Production Co.; ARCO
Alaska, Inc.; Marathon Oil Company; Phillips Petroleum Company;
Shell Western E&P, Inc.; Texaco, Inc.; Unocal Corp.; U.S. EPA Region
10. Envirosphere Company, Bellevue, WA. January 1988.
Envirosphere 1989a.
Cook Inlet Discharge Monitoring Study: Deck Drainage. Prepared
for: Amoco Production Co.; ARCO Alaska, Inc.; Marathon Oil Company;
Phillips Petroleum Company; Shell Western E&P, Inc.; Texaco, Inc.;
Unocal Corp.; U.S. EPA Region 10. Envirosphere Company, Bellevue,
WA. January 1989.
Envirosphere 1989b.
Cook Inlet Discharge Monitoring Study: Non-Contact Cooling Water
and Desalination Waste. Prepared for: Amoco Production Co.; ARCO
Alaska, Inc.; Marathon Oil Company; Phillips Petroleum Company;
Shell Western E&P, Inc.; Texaco, Inc.; Unocal Corp.; U.S. EPA Region
10. Envirosphere Company, Bellevue, WA. January 1989.
Envirosphere 1989c.
Cook Inlet Discharge Monitoring Study: Blowout Preventer Fluid,
Boiler Blowdown, Fire Control System Test Water, Uncontaminated
Ballast Water, Uncontaminated Bilge Water, and Waterflooding.
Prepared for: Amoco Production Co.; ARCO Alaska, Inc.; Marathon Oil
Company; Phillips Petroleum Company; Shell Western E&P, Inc.;
Texaco, Inc.; Unocal Corp.; U.S. EPA Region 10. Envirosphere
Company, Bellevue, WA. April 1989.
Envirosphere 1989d.
Cook Inlet Discharge Monitoring Study: Excess Cement Slurry and
Mud, Cuttings and Cement at the Seafloor. Prepared for: Amoco
Production Co.; ARCO Alaska, Inc.; Marathon Oil Company; Phillips
Petroleum Company; Shell Western E&P, Inc.; Texaco, Inc.; Unocal
Corp.; U.S. EPA Region 10. Envirosphere Company, Bellevue, WA.
November 1989.
Envirosphere 1990a.
Cook Inlet Discharge Monitoring Study: Produced Water. Prepared
for: Amoco Production Co.; ARCO Alaska, Inc.; Marathon Oil Company;
Phillips Petroleum Company; Shell Western E&P, Inc.; Texaco, Inc.;
Unocal Corp.; U.S. EPA Region 10. Envirosphere Company, Bellevue,
WA. July 1990.
Envirosphere 1990b.
Cook Inlet Discharge Monitoring Study: Comprehensive Report.
Prepared for: Amoco Production Co.; ARCO Alaska, Inc.; Marathon Oil
Company; Phillips Petroleum Company; Shell Western E&P, Inc.;
Texaco, Inc.; Unocal Corp.; U.S. EPA Region 10. Envirosphere
Company, Bellevue, WA. August 1990.
EPA 1985b.
U.S. EPA, Region 10. Proposed General NPDES Permit AKG285000 for
Cook Inlet/Gulf of Alaska. 50 Federal Register 28974, July 17, 1985.
EPA 1986a.
U.S. EPA, Region 10. Final Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation
for NDPES General Permit No. AKG285000, Cook Inlet/Gulf of Alaska.
Prepared by Ocean Programs Branch, Seattle, WA. September 1986.
EPA 1986b.
U.S. EPA, Region 10. Final General NPDES Permit AKG285000 for
Cook Inlet/Gulf of Alaska. 51 Federal Register 35460, October 3,
1986.
EPA 1987.
Permit Writers' Guide to Water Quality-based Permitting for
Toxic Substances. EPA 440/4-87-005. Office of Water. Washington,
D.C., July 1987.
EPA 1988.
Short-Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of
Effluents and Receiving Waters to Marine and Estuarine Organisms.
EPA/600/4-87/028. Environmental Science & Monitoring Laboratory,
Cincinnati, OH. May, 1988.
EPA 1991a.
Toxicity Identification Evaluation: Characterization of
Chronically Toxic Effluents, Phase I. EPA/600/6-91/005F.
Environmental Research Laboratory, Duluth, MN.
EPA 1991b.
Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics
Control. Office of Water, EPA/505/2-90-001, PB91-127415. Washington
D.C., March 1991.
EPA 1992a.
Methods for Aquatic Toxicity Identification Evaluations: Phase
II Toxicity Identification Procedures for Samples Exhibiting Acute
and Chronic Toxicity. EPA/600/R-92/080. Environmental Research
Laboratory, Duluth, MN.
EPA 1992b.
Methods for Aquatic Toxicity Identification Evaluations: Phase
III Toxicity Confirmation Procedures. EPA/600/R-92/081.
Environmental Research Laboratory, Duluth, MN.
EPA 1992c.
U.S. EPA, Region 10. Region 10 Guidance: Best Management
Practices Plans in NPDES Permits. Prepared by Water Division,
Wastewater Management and Enforcement Branch, Seattle, WA. June
1992.
EPA 1993a.
Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
Standards for the Offshore Subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction
Point Source Category (Final). Office of Water, EPA #921-R-93-003.
U.S. EPA, Washington, DC. January 1993.
EPA 1993b.
40 CFR 435. Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category;
Offshore Subcategory Effluent Guidelines and New Source Performance
Standards; Final Rule. 48 Federal Register 1254, March 4, 1993.
EPA 1993c.
U.S. EPA, Region 10. Memorandum and attachments to NPDES File
AK-005205-1 for ARCO, Cook Inlet. Review os Scientific Report on
Threatened and Endangered Species, Cook Inlet, Alaska. April 8,
1993.
EPA 1993d.
U.S. EPA, Region 10. Final NPDES Permit No. AK-005205-1, ARCO/
Phillips Cook Inlet 1993. May 24, 1993, Seattle, WA.
EPA 1995a.
``Effluent Limitation Guidelines, Pretreatment Standards and New
Source Performance Standards: Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source
Category, Coastal Subcategory; Proposed Rule.'' Office of Water,
U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C. 60 Federal Register, pp. 9428-9481.
February 17, 1995.
EPA 1995b.
Development Document for Effluent Limitation Guidelines and
Standards for the Coastal Subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction
Point Source Category. Office of Water, EPA #821-R-95-009. U.S. EPA,
Washington, D.C. February 1995.
EPA 1995d.
U.S. EPA, Region 10. Response to Comments Received on the
Proposed Issuance of the Arctic General NPDES Permit [AKG28400]. Pp.
27-29. Prepared by Water Division, Wastewater Management and
Enforcement Branch, Seattle, WA. May 1995.
Jones & Stokes 1983a.
Preliminary Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation, Northeast Gulf
of Alaska OCS Lease Sale 55. Prepared for EPA, Region 10 by Jones &
Stokes Associates, Inc., Bellevue, WA. May 4, 1983.
Jones & Stokes 1983b.
Preliminary Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation, Cook Inlet-
Shelikof Strait OCS Lease Sale 60. Prepared for EPA, Region 10 by
Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc., Bellevue, WA. May 6, 1983.
Jones & Stokes 1984.
Revised Preliminary Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation, Gulf of
Alaska-Cook Inlet, OCS Lease Sale 99 and State Lease Sales Located
in Cook Inlet. Prepared for EPA, Region 10 by Jones & Stokes
Associates, Inc. and Tetra Tech, Inc., Bellevue, WA. September 28,
1984.
MMS 1995.
U.S. Minerals Management Service, Alaska OCS Region. Alaska
Outer Continental
[[Page 48821]]
Shelf, Cook Inlet Planning Area Oil and Gas Lease Sale 140. Draft EIS,
Vol. 1. U.S. Dept. Of Interior, Minerals Management Service. OCS
EIS/EA MMS-94-0066. January 1995.
Parametrix 1995.
Mixing Zone Application for the Cook Inlet Oil and Gas Operators
(NPDES No. AKG-285100). Prepared for Unocal Corp.; Marathon Oil Co.;
Phillips Petroleum Co.; Shell Western E&P, Inc. by Parametrix Inc.,
Kirkland, WA. August 23, 1995.
Tetra Tech 1994.
Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation for Cook Inlet (Oil and Gas
Lease Sale 149) and Shelikof Strait (Final Draft Report). Prepared
for the U.S. EPA, Region 10, by Tetra Tech, Redmond, WA. September
9, 1994 (as amended by EPA, Region 10, January 1995).
Permit No.: AKG285100
Cook Inlet
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 Sixth
Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101
Authorization to Discharge Under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System for Oil and Gas Exploration, Development, and
Production Facilities
In compliance with the provisions of the Clean Water Act, 33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq., the ``Act'', the following discharges are
authorized in accordance with this National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (``NPDES''):
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discharge
Discharge No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drilling Mud & Cuttings.................................... 001
Deck Drainage.............................................. 002
Sanitary Wastes............................................ 003
Domestic Wastes............................................ 004
Desalination Unit Wastes................................... 005
Blowout Preventer Fluid.................................... 006
Boiler Blowdown............................................ 007
Fire Control System Test Water............................. 008
Non-Contact Cooling Water.................................. 009
Uncontaminated Ballast Water............................... 010
Bilge Water................................................ 011
Excess Cement Slurry....................................... 012
Mud, Cuttings, Cement at Seafloor.......................... 013
Waterflooding Discharges................................... 014
Produced Water............................................. 015
Completion Fluids.......................................... 016
Workover Fluids............................................ 017
Well Treatment Fluids...................................... 018
Test Fluids................................................ 019
------------------------------------------------------------------------
from oil and gas development and production facilities to state
waters north of the Forelands in Upper Cook Inlet. These development
and production facilities are classified in the Coastal Subcategory
of the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category, as defined in
40 CFR Part 435, Subpart D. Discharges are also authorized from
exploratory facilities to all state and federal waters addressed by
this permit. Exploratory facilities are classified in the Offshore
and Coastal Subcategories as defined in 40 CFR Part 435, Subparts A
and D. The receiving waters, state and federal, are Cook Inlet.
Discharges shall be in accordance with effluent limitations,
monitoring and reporting requirements, and other conditions set
forth in Parts I through VI herein. The discharge of pollutants not
specifically set out in this permit is not authorized.
Permittees who are not granted coverage under this general
permit as described in Part I are not authorized to discharge to the
specified waters unless an individual permit has been issued to the
Permittee by EPA, Region 10. Discharges from facilities in the
Onshore Subcategory (40 CFR Part 435, Subpart C), or to wetlands
adjacent to the territorial seas and inland coastal waters of the
State of Alaska, are not authorized under this permit.
During the effective period of this permit, operators authorized
to discharge under the general permit are authorized to discharge
the enumerated pollutants subject to the restrictions set forth
herein. This permit does not authorize the discharge of any waste
streams, including spills and other unintentional or non-routine
discharges of pollutants, that are not part of the normal operation
of the facility, or any pollutants that are not ordinarily present
in such waste streams, unless specifically authorized by EPA prior
to discharge.
The authorized discharge sites include all blocks offered for
lease by the US Department of the Interior's Minerals Management
Service (MMS) in Federal Lease Sales 50 and 149. Additionally, the
authorized discharge sites include all Cook Inlet blocks previously
offered for lease by the State of Alaska (including blocks offered
in Sales 32, 33, 35, 40, 46A, 49, 67A, and 74) or offered under
state lease sales held during the effective period of this permit.
For the purposes of this permit, the southern boundary of Cook Inlet
is defined to the line between Cape Douglas on the west and Port
Chatham on the east.
The facilities listed below are authorized to discharge under
this permit. The conditions of the previous permit become null and
void upon the effective date of this permit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operator Facility NPDES permit No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unocal.......... Granite Point Treatment Facility (formerly Marathon)... AGK285001
Unocal.......... Trading Bay Treatment Facility (formerly Marathon)..... AKG285002
Shell........... East Foreland Treatment Facility....................... AKG285003
Unocal.......... Platform Anna (formerly Amoco)......................... AKG285004
Unocal.......... Platform Baker (formerly Amoco)........................ AKG285005
Unocal.......... Platform Bruce (formerly Amoco)........................ AKG285006
Unocal.......... Platform Dillon (formerly Amoco)....................... AKG285007
Unocal.......... King Salmon Platform (formerly ARCO)................... AKG285008
Unocal.......... Dolly Varden Platform (formerly Unocal)................ AKG285009
Marathon........ Spark Platform......................................... AKG285010
Phillips........ Platform A (Tyonek Platform)........................... AKG285011
Shell........... Platform A............................................. AKG285012
Shell........... Platform C (Middle Ground Shoal)....................... AKG285013
Marathon........ Spurr Platform (formerly Texaco's Superior A Platform). AKG285014
Unocal.......... Granite Point Platform................................. AKG285015
Unocal.......... Grayling Platform...................................... AKG285016
Unocal.......... Monopod Platform....................................... AKG285017
ARCO............ Fire Island (Exploratory Well)......................... AKG285018 - INACTIVE
Unocal.......... Steelhead Platform..................................... AKG285019
Marathon........ Steelhead (Blowout Relief Well)........................ AKG285020 - INACTIVE
ARCO............ Sturgeon (Exploratory Well)............................ AKG285021 - INACTIVE
ARCO............ Sunfish (Exploratory Well)............................. AKG285022 - INACTIVE
ARCO............ North Forelands (Exploratory Well)..................... AKG285023 - INACTIVE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This permit may be modified or revoked at any time if, on the
basis of any new data, the Director determines that this information
would have justified the application of different permit conditions
at the time of issuance. Permit modification or revocation will be
conducted in accordance with 40 CFR, sections 122.62, 122.63, and
122.64. In addition to any other grounds specified herein, this
permit shall be modified or revoked at any time if, on the basis of
any new data, the Director determines that
[[Page 48822]]
continued discharges may cause unreasonable degradation of the marine
environment.
This permit does not authorize discharges from ``new sources''
as defined in 40 CFR 122.2.
This permit shall become effective
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at
midnight,
Signed this day of
DRAFT
Chuck Clarke,
Regional Administrator, U.S. EPA, Region 10.
Table of Contents
I. Notification Requirements
A. New Exploration Facilities
B. New Development and Production Facilities
C. Existing Facilities
D. All Facilities Covered by the Permit
E. Changes from Coverage under General Permit to Coverage under
Individual Permit
II. Prohibited Areas of Discharge and Depth-Related Requirements
A. Produced Water
B. Other Discharges
III. Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements
A. Representative Sampling (Routine and Non-Routine Discharges)
B. Drilling Mud, Drill Cuttings (Discharge 001)
C. Deck Drainage (Discharge 002)
D. Sanitary Wastes and Domestic Wastes (Discharges 003, 004)
E. Miscellaneous Discharges (Discharges 005-014)
F. Produced Water (Discharge 015)
G. Completion Fluids, Workover Fluids, Well Treatment Fluids,
and Test Fluids (Discharges 016-019)
H. Other Discharge Limitations
I. Best Management Practices Plan Requirement
IV. Recording and Reporting Requirements
A. Reporting of Monitoring Results.
B. Additional Monitoring by Permittee
C. Records Contents
D. Retention of Records
E. Twenty-four Hour Notice of Noncompliance Reporting
F. Other Noncompliance Reporting
G. Changes in Discharge of Toxic Substances
V. Compliance Responsibilities
A. Duty to Comply
B. Penalties for Violations of Permit Conditions
C. Need to Halt or Reduce Activity not a Defense
D. Duty to Mitigate
E. Proper Operation and Maintenance
F. Removed Substances
G. Bypass of Treatment Facilities
H. Upset Conditions
I. Toxic Pollutants
J. Planned Changes
K. Anticipated Noncompliance
VI. General Provisions
A. Permit Actions
B. Duty to Provide Information
C. Other Information
D. Signatory Requirements
E. Availability of Reports
F. Inspection and Entry
G. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability
H. Property Rights
I. Severability
J. Transfers
K. State Laws
L. Reopener Clause
VII. Definitions.
Figures
1. Area of No Discharge Chinitna Bay & Chisik Island
2. Area of No Discharge in Shelikof Strait
References
I. Notification Requirements
A. New Exploration Facilities
1. Requests to be Covered by General Permit
Written request to be covered by this permit shall be provided to
EPA at least 60 days prior to initiation of discharges. The request
shall include the following information:
a. Name and address of the Permittee.
b. General location (lease and block numbers) of operations and
discharges.
c. Any discharge or operating conditions which are subject to the
special monitoring requirements (Part III.B.3.).
d. Any plans of exploration or operation that are submitted to MMS
or the State of Alaska in application to drill.
2. Authorization to Discharge
The Permittee is not authorized to discharge without written
notification from EPA that operations at the discharge site have been
assigned an NPDES permit number under this general permit. A permit
number cannot be assigned until the following information is received.
This information shall be provided to EPA in the request for coverage,
but in no case less than 30 days prior to commencement of discharges.
a. Name and location of discharge site, including lease block
number and latitude and longitude.
b. Range of water depths (below mean lower low water) in the lease
block(s), and the depth(s) of discharge(s).
c. Initial date(s) and expected duration of operations.
3. Commencement of Discharges
The Permittee shall notify EPA during the 7-day period prior to
initiation of discharges from the platform and from each well. The
notification shall include the exact, final latitude and longitude and
water depth of the discharge site, as well as written certification
that a Mud Plan (Part III.B.1.b.) is complete, on site and available to
the Agency upon request. Similar notification is required for a Best
Management Practices Plan (Part III.I.1). This notification may be oral
or in writing; if notification is given orally, written confirmation
must follow within 7 days.
B. New Development and Production Facilities
1. Requests to be Covered by General Permit
Written request to be covered by this permit shall be provided to
EPA at least 60 days prior to initiation of discharges. Facilities
wishing to start discharging within 60 days of the final effective date
of this permit need not comply with the 60-day requirement, but shall
provide the request for coverage as soon as possible prior to
initiation of discharges. The request shall include the following
information:
a. Name and address of the Permittee.
b. Name of facility.
c. Specific location (including latitude and longitude, and
section, range, and township) of operations and discharges.
d. Water depth at site and depth of discharge(s) with respect to
MLLW.
e. Date of commencing discharge and expected duration of
operations.
f. Any discharge or operating conditions which are subject to the
special monitoring requirements (Part III.B.3)
2. Authorization to Discharge
The Permittee is not authorized to discharge without written
notification from EPA that operations at the discharge site have been
assigned an NPDES permit number under this general permit.
3. Commencement of Discharges
The Permittee shall notify EPA within the 7-day period prior to
initiation of discharges from the new facility. The notification shall
include written certification that a Mud Plan (Part III.B.1.b.) is
complete, on site and available to the Agency upon request. Drilling
operators shall also notify EPA within the 7-day period prior to
initiation of discharges from each new well thereafter. Similar
notification is required for a Best Management Practices Plan (Part
III.I.1). The notification may be oral or in writing: if notification
is given orally, written confirmation must follow within 7 days.
C. Existing Facilities
1. Facilities authorized to discharge under the preceding general
NPDES permit (AKG285000) are automatically authorized to discharge by
this general permit as of its effective date. These facilities are
listed on page 2 of the
[[Page 48823]]
permit. These permittees need not submit a formal request for
authorization to discharge prior to commencement of discharges under
this permit.
2. Commencement of Discharges from New Wells
The Permittee shall notify EPA within the 7-day period prior to
initiation of discharges from each new well. The notification may be
oral or in writing: if notification is given orally, written
confirmation must follow within 7 days.
3. Commencement of Discharges from Closed In Platforms
The Permittee shall notify EPA in writing within the times
specified below prior to initiation of discharges from a ``closed in''
platform. Notification shall include a list of discharges that will
occur (as listed on page 1 of this permit) and information required in
Part I.B.1.b-e., above.
a. If discharges have not changed with respect to treatment of
wastestreams or effluent limits, written notification shall be provided
within 30 days of initiation of discharge.
b. If any discharge is different from the past due to changes in
treatment or operations on the platform, the Permittee shall notify
EPA, Region 10 as early as possible, but in no case less than 90 days
prior to initiation of discharge. See also Part V.J. (Planned Changes)
c. If drilling mud discharges are planned, the Permittee shall
provide written notification, within 7 days of discharge, that a Mud
Plan (Part III.B.1.b.) is complete, on-site and available to the Agency
upon request.
d. The Permittee shall provide written notification, within 7 days
of discharge, that a Best Management Practices Plan (Part III.I.1.) is
complete, on-site, and available to the Agency upon request.
D. All Facilities Covered by the Permit
1. Submission of Plans of Operation, Environmental Reports, and
Biological Surveys
The Permittee is responsible for providing EPA with final copies of
any plans of operations, environmental reports, and biological surveys
required by the Alaska Department of Natural Resources (ADNR), or by
the Regional supervisor, Field Operations, of MMS, for the
identification and/or protection of biological populations or habitats.
The Permittee may provide these directly to EPA or ensure that ADNR or
MMS have provided them to EPA. If final plans and environmental reports
submitted to MMS are identical to review copies received by EPA, the
Permittee need not submit them under this permit provision.
2. Duty To Reapply and/or Notice of Intent To Continue Activity
If the Permittee wishes to discharge under the authority of this
permit after its expiration date, the Permittee must submit a notice of
intent to EPA to do so. The Notice of Intent shall be submitted at
least 180 days before the expiration date of this permit. An NPDES
permit application (EPA Form 3510-2C, Wastewater Discharge Information,
Consolidated Permits Program (revised February 1985)) shall constitute
a complete Notice of Intent. Timely receipt of a complete Notice of
Intent by EPA shall qualify the Permittee for an administrative
extension of its authorization to discharge under this permit pursuant
to 5 U.S.C. Section 558(c).
3. Termination of Discharges
The Permittee shall notify EPA within 30 days following cessation
of discharges from each well and from the discharge site. The
notification may be provided in a Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) or
under separate cover.
4. Submission of Requests To Be Covered and Other Reports
Reports and notifications required herein shall be submitted to the
following addresses.
All requests for coverage--Director, Water Division, U.S. EPA, Region
10, Attn: Ocean Programs Section, WD-137, 1200 6th Avenue, Seattle,
Washington 98101, Phone: (206) 553-8155
All monitoring reports and notifications of non-compliance--Director,
Water Division, U.S. EPA, Region 10, Attn: Water Compliance Section,
WD-135, 1200 6th Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101, Phone: (206) 553-
1846
For discharges to state waters only: copies of all requests, reports,
and notifications--Regional Environmental Supervisor, South Central
Regional Office, Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, 555
Cordova, Anchorage, Alaska 99501, Phone: (907) 269-7564
E. Changes From Coverage Under General Permit to Coverage Under
Individual Permit
1. The Director may require any permittee discharging under the
authority of this permit to apply for and obtain an individual NPDES
permit when any one of the following conditions exist:
a. The discharge(s), including stormwater, is a significant
contributor of pollution.
b. The Permittee is not in compliance with the conditions of this
general permit.
c. A change has occurred in the availability of the demonstrated
technology or practices for the control or abatement of pollutants
applicable to the point source.
d. Effluent limitation guidelines are promulgated for point sources
covered by this permit.
e. The point sources covered by this permit no longer:
(1) Involve the same or substantially similar types of operations,
(2) Discharge the same types of wastewaters,
(3) Require the same effluent limitations or operating conditions,
or
(4) Require the same or similar monitoring.
g. In the opinion of the Director, the discharges are more
appropriately controlled under an individual permit than under a
general NPDES permit.
2. The Director may require any permittee authorized by this permit
to apply for an individual NPDES permit only if the Permittee has been
notified in writing that an individual permit application is required.
3. Any permittee authorized by this permit may request to be
excluded from the coverage of this general permit by applying for an
individual permit. The owner or operator shall submit an application
together with the reasons supporting the request to the Director no
later than 90 days after the effective date of the permit.
4. When an individual NPDES permit is issued to a permittee
otherwise subject to this general permit, the applicability of this
general permit to that owner or operator is automatically terminated on
the effective date of the individual permit.
II. Prohibited Areas of Discharge and Depth-Related Requirements
Discharges from operations in Cook Inlet are prohibited in the
cases listed below. Permit applicants should contact EPA if they are
uncertain whether or not their discharges will be located in a
prohibited area. The Agency will also provide a map showing the
approximate location of prohibited areas upon request.
A. Produced Water
The discharge of produced water from new facilities is prohibited
in intertidal areas. New discharges (as defined at 40 CFR 122.2) are
also prohibited from discharging produced water shoreward
[[Page 48824]]
of the 10 m isobath (as measured from mean lower low water).
B. Other Discharges
The discharge of all effluents other than those discussed in
paragraph A, above, is prohibited shoreward of the 5 m isobath (as
measured from mean lower low water) including intertidal areas.
All discharges are prohibited in the following areas:
1. Shoreward of the 5.5 m isobath adjacent to a either (1) the Clam
Gulch Critical Habitat Area (Sales 32, 40, 46A, and 49) or (2) from the
Crescent River northward to a point one-half mile north of Redoubt
Point (Sales 35 and 49).
2. Within the boundaries or within 1,000 m of a coastal marsh,
river delta, river mouth, designated Area Meriting Special Attention
(AMSA), game refuge, game sanctuary, or critical habitat area. (The
seaward edge of a coastal marsh is defined as the seaward edge of
emergent wetland vegetation.)
The following State Game Refuges (SGR), Game Sanctuaries (SGS),
Critical Habitat Areas (CHA), and AMSAs are located in the area covered
by this permit:
Palmer Hay Flats SGR
Goose Bay SGR
Potter Point SGR
Susitna Flats SGR
McNeil River SGS
Redoubt Bay CHA
Trading Bay SGR
Kalgin Island CHA
Clam Gulch CHA
Kachemak Bay CHA
Anchorage Coastal Wildlife Refuge
Port Graham/Nanwalek AMSA
The legal descriptions of these state specialty areas are found in
AS 16.20 The present boundaries of these state special areas are
described in ``State of Alaska Game Refuges, Critical Habitat Areas,
and Game Sanctuaries,'' Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Habitat
Division, March 1991. Further information can be obtained from the
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Habitat Division, Regional
Supervisor, 333 Raspberry Road, Anchorage, Alaska 99518-1599; phone
(907) 267-2284 or (907) 267-2342.
3. In Kamishak Bay west of line from Cape Douglas to Chinitna
point.
4. In Chinitna Bay inside of the line between the points on the
shoreline at latitude 59 deg.52'45'' N, longitude 152 deg.48'18'' W on
the north and latitude 59 deg.46'12'' N, longitude 153 deg.00'24'' W on
the south (Figure 1).
5. In Tuxedni Bay inside of the lines on either side of Chisik
Island (Figure 1).
a. From latitude 60 deg.04'06'' North, longitude 152 deg.34'12''
West on the mainland to the southern tip of Chisik Island (latitude
60 deg.05'45'' North, longitude 152 deg.33'30'' West).
b. From the point on the mainland at latitude 60 deg.13'45'' North,
longitude 152 deg.32'42'' West to the point on the north side of Snug
Harbor on Chisik Island (latitude 60 deg.06'36'' North, longitude
152 deg.32'54'' West).
4. In Shelikof Strait south of a line between Cape Douglas (at
58 deg. 51' North, 153 deg. 15' West) on the west and the northernmost
tip of Shuyak Island on the east (at 58 deg. 37' North, 152 deg. 22'
West) (Figure 2).
5. Within 20 nautical miles of Sugarloaf Island as measured from a
centerpoint at 58 deg. 53' North and 152 deg. 02' West. (Figure 2)
III. Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements
The operators shall limit discharges as specified in the permit
below. All figures represent maximum effluent limits unless otherwise
indicated. The Permittee shall comply with the following effluent
limits at all times unless provided for by this permit (e.g.,
unanticipated bypass) regardless of the frequency of monitoring or
reporting required by other provisions of this permit.
A. Representative Sampling (Routine and Non-Routine Discharges)
The operators shall collect all effluent samples from the effluent
stream prior to discharge into the receiving waters. Samples and
measurements shall be representative of the volume and nature of the
monitored discharge.
In order to ensure that the effluent limits set forth in this
permit are not violated at times other than when routine samples are
taken, the operators shall collect additional samples at the
appropriate outfall(s), and analyze them for the parameters appropriate
to that waste stream, limited in Parts III.B.-III.I. of this permit,
whenever any discharge occurs that may reasonably be expected to cause
or contribute to a violation that is unlikely to be detected by a
routine sample.
The Permittee shall collect such additional samples as soon as
possible after the spill or discharge. The samples shall be analyzed in
accordance with the monitoring requirements in Parts III.B.-III.I. of
this permit. In the event of an anticipated bypass, as defined in Part
V of this permit, the Permittee shall collect and analyze additional
samples as soon as the bypassed effluent reaches the outfall. The
Permittee shall report all additional monitoring in accordance with
Part IV.B., below.
B. Drilling Mud, Drill Cuttings (Discharge 001)
1. Effluent Limitations
In addition to the restrictions set out in Parts III.A., III.B.2-3.
and IV, the Permittee shall comply with the following effluent
limitations and monitoring requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitoring requirements
Effluent Discharge limitation -------------------------------------------------------------------
characteristic Measurement frequency Sample type/method Reported values
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flow Rate1 (Water
Depth)
> 40 m........... 1,000 bbl/hr......... Continuous during Estimate............. Maximum hourly rate.
discharge.
> 20-40 m........ 750 bbl/hr...........
5-20 m........... 500 bbl/hr...........
< 5="" m............="" no="" discharge.........="" total="" volume.........="" see="" note="" 2...........="" daily................="" estimate.............="" monthly="" total.="" mud="" plan.............="" part="" iii.b.1.b.......="" prior="" certification..="" n/a..................="" n/a.="" toxicity="" of="" drilling="" 30,000="" ppm="" spp="" monthly="" and="" end-of-="" grab/drilling="" fluids="" 96-hr="" lc50="" (part="" mud.="" minimum.="" well.="" toxicity="" test.="" iii.b.2.g.).="" free="" oil.............="" no="" discharge.........="" daily="" and="" before="" bulk="" grab/static="" sheen="" number="" of="" days="" sheen="" discharges.="" test="" part="" iii.b.2.c.="" observed.="" oil-based="" fluids.....="" no="" discharge.........="" n/a..................="" n/a..................="" n/a.="" oil="" content..........="" n/a..................="" daily="" during="" parts="" iii.b.2.c.,="" 2.f="" n/a.="" discharge,="" prior="" to="" bulk="" discharge.="" [[page="" 48825]]="" diesel="" oil="" content...="" no="" discharge.........="" n/a..................="" grab/gc="" part="" presence="" or="" absence.="" iii.b.2.b.="" mercury="" and="" cadmium="" 1="" mg/kg="" hg="" 3="" mg/kg="" cd="" once="" per="" well........="" aas..................="" mg/kg="" dry="" wt.="" in="" barite.="" chemical="" inventory...="" n/a..................="" once="" per="" mud="" system..="" part="" iii.b.2.a.......="" n/a.="" once="" per="" bioassay....="" part="" iii.b.2.g.......="" n/a.="" metal="" analyses.......="" n/a..................="" once="" per="" mud="" system..="" part="" iii.b.2.e.......="" n/a.="" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------="" \1\maximum="" flow="" rate="" of="" total="" muds="" and="" cuttings="" includes="" predilutant="" water;="" water="" depths="" are="" measured="" from="" mean="" lower="" low="" water.="" \2\report="" total="" volumes="" for="" all="" types="" of="" operations="" (exploratory,="" production="" and="" development).="" for="" exploratory="" operations,="" drilling="" discharges="" are="" limited="" to="" no="" more="" than="" five="" wells="" at="" a="" single="" drilling="" site.="" if="" a="" step-="" out="" or="" sidetracked="" well="" is="" drilled="" from="" a="" previously="" drilled="" hole,="" the="" step-out="" well="" is="" counted="" as="" new="" well.="" requests="" to="" discharge="" from="" more="" than="" five="" wells="" per="" site="" will="" be="" considered="" by="" the="" water="" division="" director="" on="" a="" case-by-case="" basis.="" a.="" drilling="" mud="" and="" additive="" formulations.="" only="" those="" drilling="" muds,="" specialty="" additives,="" and="" mineral="" oil="" pills="" that="" meet="" the="" criteria="" of="" this="" permit="" and="" are="" contained="" in="" the="" operator's="" mud="" plan="" (see="" part="" iii.b.1.b.="" below)="" may="" be="" discharged.="" in="" no="" case="" shall="" toxicity="" of="" the="" discharged="" mud="" exceed="" the="" toxicity="" limit="" of="" 30,000="" ppm="" spp="" (see="" part="" iii.b.1.="" above)="" b.="" mud="" plan--planned="" discharge="" of="" drilling="" muds="" and="" additives.="" the="" permittee="" shall="" develop="" and="" have="" on-site="" at="" all="" times="" a="" written="" procedural="" plan="" for="" the="" formulation="" and="" control="" of="" drilling="" mud/="" additive="" systems="" (the="" ``mud="" plan'').="" the="" mud="" plan="" must="" specify="" which="" mud/additive="" systems="" will="" be="" used.="" the="" mud="" plan="" shall="" be="" implemented="" during="" drilling="" operations.="" the="" mud="" plan="" shall="" be="" available="" to="" the="" agency="" upon="" request.="" prior="" to="" commencement="" of="" discharges="" from="" a="" given="" well,="" the="" permittee="" shall="" provide="" epa="" with="" written="" certification="" that="" a="" mud="" plan="" does="" exist="" for="" the="" well="" and="" is="" available="" to="" the="" agency.="" (see="" parts="" i.a.3.,="" i.b.3.="" and="" i.c.3.).="" at="" a="" minimum,="" the="" mud="" plan="" shall="" provide="" the="" following="" information:="" (1)="" the="" well="" name,="" well="" number,="" npdes="" permit="" number,="" and="" the="" types="" of="" mud/additive="" systems="" proposed="" for="" use="" as="" basic="" identification="" of="" the="" mud="" plan="" for="" each="" well="" drilled.="" (2)="" specific="" for="" use="" at="" each="" well="" and="" for="" each="" mud/additive="" system,="" a="" list="" including="" commercial="" product="" names,="" descriptions="" of="" the="" products,="" and="" the="" maximum="" proposed="" discharge="" concentrations="" for="" each="" product.="" concentrations="" shall="" be="" stated="" in="" terms="" of="" ``lb/bbl''="" or="" ``gal/bbl'';="" although,="" ``%="" (wt)''="" or="" ``%="" (vol)''="" may="" be="" appropriate="" in="" some="" instances.="" each="" mud/additive="" system="" shall="" be="" clearly="" labelled="" (e.g.,="" kcl/polymer="" mud,="" freshwater="" lignosulfonate="" mud,="" spud="" mud).="" components="" of="" the="" basic="" mud="" shall="" be="" listed="" separately="" from="" specialty="" or="" contingency="" additives="" that="" may="" be="" used.="" (3)="" a="" record="" of="" the="" operator's="" determination="" of="" how="" discharge="" is="" expected="" to="" comply="" with="" the="" 30,000="" ppm="" spp="" toxicity="" limitation.="" operator's="" determination="" must="" be="" based="" upon,="" but="" necessarily="" limited="" to,="" the="" following="" criteria:="" (a)="" estimates="" of="" worst-case="" cumulative="" discharge="" toxicity="" (e.g.,="" based="" on="" additive="" toxicity="" estimates="" or="" commercially="" calculated="" discharge="" toxicity="" estimates).="" (b)="" estimates="" of="" discharge="" toxicity="" based="" on="" the="" use="" of="" mineral="" oil="" pills="" (and="" subsequent="" discharge="" of="" residual="" mineral="" oil="" concentrations="" (see="" part="" iii.b.1.g.="" below))="" must="" be="" shown="" separately="" from="" the="" estimate="" for="" the="" basic="" mud="" with="" other="" additives.="" (c)="" where="" possible,="" overall="" toxicity="" shall="" be="" minimized.="" (4)="" a="" clearly="" stated="" procedure="" for="" determining="" whether="" or="" not="" an="" additive="" not="" originally="" planned="" for="" or="" included="" in="" toxicity="" estimations="" discussed="" above="" may="" be="" used="" and="" discharged.="" (5)="" an="" outline="" of="" the="" mud="" planning="" process="" which="" shall="" be="" consistent="" with="" other="" permit="" requirements.="" names="" and="" titles="" of="" personnel="" responsible="" for="" the="" mud="" planning="" process="" shall="" be="" included.="" c.="" certification="" of="" mud="" plan.="" for="" each="" well="" the="" operator="" shall="" submit="" written="" certification="" stating="" that="" a="" mud="" plan="" is="" complete,="" on-="" site,="" and="" available="" upon="" request.="" in="" addition,="" each="" certification="" shall="" identify="" the="" well="" it="" pertains="" to="" by="" well="" name,="" well="" number="" and="" npdes="" permit="" number.="" written="" certification="" shall="" be="" submitted="" no="" later="" than="" the="" written="" notice="" of="" intent="" to="" commence="" discharge="" (see="" parts="" i.a.3.,="" i.b.3.="" and="" i.c.3.).="" if="" the="" operator="" elects="" to="" use="" a="" particular="" sequence="" of="" mud/additive="" systems="" on="" subsequent="" wells,="" a="" previous="" mud="" plan="" may="" be="" re-used.="" information="" identifying="" the="" mud="" plan,="" however,="" must="" reflect="" use="" of="" the="" plan="" for="" the="" current="" well="" (see="" part="" iii.b.1.e(1),="" above).="" d.="" restrictions="" on="" the="" use="" of="" mineral="" oil="" pills="" in="" drilling="" muds.="" the="" discharge="" of="" residual="" amounts="" of="" mineral="" oil="" pills="" (mineral="" oil="" plus="" additives)="" is="" authorized="" by="" the="" permit="" provided="" that="" the="" mineral="" oil="" pill="" and="" at="" least="" a="" 50="" bbl="" buffer="" of="" drilling="" fluid="" on="" either="" side="" of="" the="" pill="" are="" removed="" from="" the="" circulating="" drilling="" fluid="" system="" and="" not="" discharged="" to="" waters="" of="" the="" united="" states.="" in="" the="" event="" that="" more="" than="" one="" pill="" is="" applied="" to="" a="" single="" well,="" the="" previous="" pill="" and="" buffer="" shall="" be="" removed="" prior="" to="" application="" of="" a="" subsequent="" pill.="" residual="" mineral="" oil="" concentration="" in="" the="" discharged="" mud="" shall="" not="" exceed="" 2%="" v/v="" (api="" recommended="" practice="" 13-1,="" 1990)="" (see="" part="" iii.b.2.b.="" below).="" the="" discharged="" mud="" must="" comply="" with="" all="" permit="" conditions,="" including="" no="" discharge="" of="" free="" oil.="" should="" drilling="" mud="" containing="" residual="" mineral="" oil="" pill="" (after="" pill="" and="" buffer="" removal)="" be="" discharged="" the="" following="" information="" shall="" be="" reported="" with="" 60="" days="" of="" the="" discharge:="" (1)="" dates="" of="" pill="" application,="" recovery,="" and="" discharge;="" (2)="" results="" of="" the="" drilling="" fluids="" toxicity="" test="" on="" samples="" of:="" (a)="" the="" mud="" before="" each="" pill="" is="" added="" and="" (b)="" the="" mud="" after="" removal="" of="" each="" pill="" and="" buffer="" (taken="" when="" residual="" mineral="" oil="" pill="" concentration="" is="" expected="" to="" greatest);="" (3)="" name="" of="" spotting="" compound="" and="" mineral="" oil="" product="" used;="" (4)="" volumes="" of="" spotting="" compound,="" mineral="" oil,="" water,="" and="" barite="" in="" the="" pill;="" (5)="" total="" volume="" of="" mud="" circulating="" prior="" to="" pill="" application,="" volume="" of="" pill="" formulated,="" and="" volume="" of="" pill="" circulated;="" (6)="" volume="" of="" pill="" recovered,="" volume="" of="" mud="" buffer="" recovered,="" and="" volume="" of="" mud="" circulating="" after="" pill="" and="" buffer="" recovery;="" (7)="" percent="" recovery="" of="" the="" pill="" (include="" calculations);="" (8)="" estimated="" concentrations="" of="" residual="" spotting="" compound="" and="" [[page="" 48826]]="" mineral="" oil="" in="" the="" sample="" of="" mud="" discharged,="" as="" determined="" from="" amounts="" added="" and="" total="" mud="" volume="" circulating="" prior="" to="" pill="" application;="" (9)="" measured="" oil="" content="" of="" the="" mud="" samples,="" as="" determined="" by="" the="" api="" retort="" method;="" and="" (10)="" an="" itemization="" of="" other="" drilling="" fluid="" components="" and="" specialty="" additives="" contained="" in="" the="" discharged="" mud="" with="" concentrations="" reported="" in="" gal/bbl="" or="" lb/bbl.="" 2.="" monitoring="" requirements="" monitoring="" must="" be="" conducted="" according="" to="" test="" procedures="" approved="" under="" 40="" cfr="" 136,="" unless="" other="" test="" procedures="" are="" specified="" here="" or="" elsewhere="" in="" this="" permit.="" representative="" sampling="" requirements="" are="" discussed="" in="" part="" iii.a.="" a.="" chemical="" inventory.="" for="" each="" mud="" system="" discharged,="" the="" permittee="" shall="" maintain="" a="" precise="" chemical="" inventory="" of="" all="" constituents="" added="" downhole,="" including="" all="" drilling="" mud="" additives="" used="" to="" meet="" specific="" drilling="" requirements.="" the="" permittee="" shall="" report="" the="" following="" for="" each="" mud="" system:="" (1)="" base="" mud="" type="" (as="" identified="" in="" the="" mud="" plan);="" (2)="" name="" and="" total="" amount="" (volume="" or="" weight)="" of="" each="" constituent="" in="" discharged="" mud;="" (3)="" the="" total="" volumes="" of="" mud="" created="" and="" added="" downhole;="" and="" (4)="" the="" maximum="" concentration="" of="" each="" constituent="" in="" the="" discharged="" mud.="" in="" addition,="" for="" each="" mud="" system="" discharged,="" the="" permittee="" shall="" report="" the="" following:="" (5)="" the="" total="" volumes="" of="" mud="" discharged;="" and="" (6)="" the="" estimated="" amount="" of="" each="" constituent="" discharged.="" the="" inventory="" shall="" be="" submitted="" within="" 45="" days="" of="" well="" completion.="" b.="" diesel="" oil.="" compliance="" with="" the="" limitation="" on="" diesel="" oil="" shall="" be="" demonstrated="" by="" gas="" chromatography="" (gc)="" analysis="" of="" drilling="" mud="" collected="" from="" the="" mud="" used="" at="" the="" greatest="" well="" depth="" (``end-of-well''="" sample)="" and="" of="" any="" muds="" or="" cuttings="" which="" fail="" the="" daily="" static="" sheen="" test="" (part="" iii.b.2.c.="" below).="" in="" all="" cases,="" the="" determination="" of="" the="" presence="" or="" absence="" of="" diesel="" oil="" shall="" be="" based="" on="" a="" comparison="" of="" the="" gc="" spectra="" of="" the="" sample="" and="" of="" diesel="" oil="" in="" storage="" at="" the="" facility.="" the="" method="" for="" gc="" analysis="" shall="" be="" that="" described="" in="" ``analysis="" of="" diesel="" oil="" in="" drilling="" fluids="" and="" drill="" cuttings''="" (centec,="" 1985)="" available="" from="" epa,="" region="" 10.="" gas="" chromatography/mass="" spectrometry="" (gc/ms)="" may="" be="" used="" if="" an="" instance="" should="" arise="" where="" the="" operator="" and="" epa="" determine="" that="" greater="" resolution="" of="" the="" drilling="" mud="" ``fingerprint''="" is="" needed="" for="" a="" particular="" drilling="" mud="" sample.="" the="" end-of-well="" analysis="" for="" diesel="" oil="" shall="" be="" done="" in="" conjunction="" with="" the="" end-of-well="" chemical="" analyses="" required="" in="" part="" iii.b.2.e.="" the="" results="" and="" raw="" data,="" including="" the="" spectra,="" from="" the="" gc="" analysis="" shall="" be="" provided="" to="" the="" director="" by="" written="" report="" (1)="" within="" 30="" days="" of="" a="" positive="" result="" with="" the="" static="" sheen="" test="" when="" a="" discharge="" has="" occurred,="" or="" (2)="" for="" the="" end-of-well="" analysis,="" within="" 45="" days="" of="" well="" completion.="" c.="" static="" sheen="" test.="" the="" permittee="" shall="" perform="" the="" static="" sheen="" test="" on="" separate="" samples="" of="" drilling="" muds="" and="" cuttings,="" as="" required="" in="" appendix="" 1="" to="" subpart="" a="" of="" 40="" cfr="" part="" 435.="" samples="" shall="" be="" collected="" on="" each="" day="" of="" discharge="" and="" prior="" to="" bulk="" discharges.="" the="" test="" shall="" be="" conducted="" in="" accordance="" with="" ``approved="" methodology:="" laboratory="" sheen="" tests="" for="" the="" offshore="" subcategory,="" oil="" and="" gas="" extraction="" industry''="" which="" is="" appendix="" 1="" to="" subpart="" a="" of="" 40="" cfr="" part="" 435.="" for="" discharge="" below="" ice="" or="" during="" periods="" of="" unstable="" or="" broken="" ice,="" water="" temperature="" for="" the="" static="" sheen="" test="" shall="" approximate="" surface="" water="" temperatures="" at="" ice="" breakup.="" the="" discharge="" of="" drilling="" muds="" or="" cuttings="" which="" fail="" the="" static="" sheen="" test="" is="" prohibited.="" whenever="" muds="" or="" cuttings="" fail="" the="" static="" sheen="" test="" and="" a="" discharge="" has="" occurred="" in="" the="" past="" 24="" hours,="" the="" permittee="" is="" required="" to="" analyze="" an="" undiluted="" sample="" of="" the="" material="" which="" failed="" the="" test="" to="" determine="" the="" presence="" or="" absence="" of="" diesel="" oil.="" the="" determination="" and="" reporting="" of="" results="" shall="" be="" performed="" according="" to="" part="" iii.b.2.b.="" above.="" d.="" mercury="" and="" cadmium="" content="" of="" barite.="" the="" permittee="" shall="" analyze="" a="" representative="" sample="" of="" stock="" barite="" once="" prior="" to="" drilling="" each="" well="" and="" submit="" the="" results="" for="" total="" mercury="" and="" total="" cadmium="" in="" the="" dmr="" upon="" well="" completion.="" analyses="" shall="" be="" conducted="" by="" absorption="" spectrophotometry="" and="" results="" expressed="" as="" mg/kg="" (dry="" weight)="" of="" barite.="" if="" more="" than="" one="" well="" is="" drilled="" at="" a="" site,="" new="" analyses="" are="" not="" required="" for="" subsequent="" wells="" if="" no="" new="" supplies="" of="" barite="" have="" been="" received="" since="" the="" previous="" analysis.="" in="" this="" case,="" the="" dmr="" should="" state="" that="" no="" new="" barite="" was="" received="" since="" the="" last="" reported="" analysis.="" operators="" may="" provide="" certification,="" as="" documented="" by="" the="" supplier(s),="" that="" the="" barite="" meets="" the="" above="" limits.="" the="" concentration="" of="" mercury="" and="" cadmium="" in="" stock="" barite="" shall="" be="" reported="" on="" the="" dmr="" as="" documented="" by="" the="" supplier.="" e.="" metals="" analysis.="" the="" permittee="" shall="" analyze="" each="" discharged="" mud="" system="" containing="" a="" mineral="" oil="" lubricity="" and/or="" spotting="" agent="" in="" the="" mud="" discharge="" for="" the="" following="" metals:="" barium,="" cadmium,="" chromium,="" copper,="" mercury,="" zinc,="" and="" lead.="" analyses="" for="" total="" and="" total="" recoverable="" concentrations="" shall="" be="" conducted="" on="" split="" samples="" and="" reported="" for="" each="" metal="" utilizing="" the="" methods="" specified="" in="" 40="" cfr="" 136.="" the="" results="" shall="" be="" reported="" in="" ``mg/kg="" of="" whole="" mud="" (dry="" weight),''="" and="" the="" moisture="" content="" (percent="" by="" weight)="" of="" the="" original="" drilling="" mud="" sample="" shall="" be="" reported.="" samples="" shall="" be="" collected="" when="" the="" residual="" mineral="" oil="" concentration="" is="" at="" its="" maximum="" value="" (see="" part="" iii.b.1.d.,="" above).="" if="" no="" mineral="" oil="" is="" used,="" the="" analysis="" shall="" be="" done="" on="" a="" drilling="" mud="" sample="" collected="" from="" the="" mud="" system="" used="" at="" the="" greatest="" well="" depth.="" all="" samples="" shall="" be="" collected="" prior="" to="" any="" predilution.="" each="" drilling="" mud="" sample="" shall="" be="" of="" sufficient="" size="" to="" allow="" for="" both="" the="" chemical="" testing="" described="" here="" and="" toxicity="" testing="" described="" below="" in="" part="" iii.b.2.g.="" results="" of="" metals="" analyses="" shall="" be="" submitted="" within="" 45="" days="" of="" well="" completion.="" results="" shall="" be="" submitted="" with="" the="" end-of-well="" chemical="" inventory="" and="" shall="" identify="" the="" corresponding="" mud="" system="" from="" the="" end-of-well="" inventory.="" f.="" oil="" content.="" permittees="" shall="" analyze="" mud="" and="" cuttings="" samples="" for="" oil="" content="" (percent="" by="" weight="" and="" volume)="" using="" the="" retort="" distillation="" method="" for="" oil="" (american="" petroleum="" industry,="" recommended="" practice="" 13-b,="" 1990)="" or="" by="" procedures="" described="" at="" 40="" cfr="" 136="" (soxhlet="" extraction="" for="" oil="" and="" grease).="" g.="" toxicity="" test="" for="" drilling="" fluids.="" if="" no="" mineral="" oil="" is="" used="" (part="" iii.b.1.d.),="" a="" toxicity="" test="" shall="" be="" conducted="" monthly="" to="" determine="" compliance="" with="" the="" drilling="" fluid="" toxicity="" limit.="" at="" the="" end-of-well,="" a="" sample="" shall="" be="" collected="" for="" toxicity="" testing.="" this="" sample="" can="" also="" serve="" as="" the="" monthly="" monitoring="" sample.="" the="" sample="" shall="" be="" a="" representative="" subsample="" of="" that="" collected="" for="" metals="" analysis="" (see="" part="" iii.b.2.e.,="" above).="" the="" permittee="" shall="" complete="" a="" minimum="" of="" two="" toxicity="" tests="" on="" each="" mud="" system="" where="" a="" mineral="" oil="" lubricity="" or="" spotting="" agent="" is="" used.="" one="" sample="" shall="" be="" collected="" before="" applying="" the="" pill="" and="" one="" after="" removing="" the="" pill="" (see="" part="" iii.b.1.d.(2)).="" the="" ``after="" pill''="" sample="" test="" results="" can="" be="" used="" as="" the="" monthly="" monitoring="" sample.="" if="" the="" well="" is="" completed="" within="" 96="" hours="" of="" collection="" of="" the="" ``after="" pill''="" drilling="" mud="" sample,="" then="" these="" test="" results="" can="" also="" serve="" as="" the="" end-of-well="" test.="" [[page="" 48827]]="" the="" testing="" and="" reporting="" of="" drilling="" fluid="" toxicity="" test="" results="" shall="" be="" in="" accordance="" with="" appendix="" 2="" to="" subpart="" a="" of="" 40="" cfr="" part="" 435="" (drilling="" fluids="" toxicity="" test).="" results="" of="" drilling="" fluid="" toxicity="" tests="" (in="" terms="" of="" the="" 96-hr="" lc50="" value)="" shall="" be="" reported="" on="" the="" dmrs.="" complete="" copies="" of="" the="" test="" reports="" shall="" be="" attached="" to="" the="" dmr="" and="" be="" accompanied="" by="" an="" inventory="" of="" all="" of="" the="" drilling="" mud="" components="" and="" specialty="" additives="" present="" in="" the="" sampled="" mud="" (including="" the="" concentrations="" of="" each).="" 3.="" environmental="" monitoring="" requirements="" a.="" within="" 1500="" m="" of="" sensitive="" areas.="" monitoring="" of="" the="" fate="" and="" effects="" of="" drilling="" muds="" and/or="" cuttings="" discharges="" shall="" be="" required="" for="" new="" exploration,="" development="" and="" production="" facilities="" or="" when="" the="" location="" of="" the="" discharges="" is="" within="" 1500="" m="" of="" an="" area="" such="" as="" a="" coastal="" marsh,="" river="" delta,="" river="" mouth,="" designated="" amsa,="" game="" refuge,="" game="" sanctuary,="" or="" critical="" habitat="" area.="" discharges="" are="" prohibited="" within="" 1000="" m="" of="" sensitive="" areas="" (see="" part="" ii.b).="" b.="" environmental="" monitoring="" study.="" the="" permittee="" shall="" submit="" a="" plan="" of="" study="" for="" environmental="" monitoring="" to="" epa="" for="" review="" with,="" or="" prior="" to,="" submission="" of="" a="" written="" request="" for="" authorization="" to="" discharge="" (parts="" i.a.2.="" and="" i.b.1-2.).="" the="" objectives="" of="" the="" monitoring="" shall="" be="" to:="" (1)="" monitor="" for="" discharge-related="" impacts,="" (2)="" determine="" statistically="" significant="" changes="" in="" sediment="" pollutant="" concentrations="" and="" sediment="" toxicity="" with="" time="" and="" distance="" from="" the="" discharge,="" (3)="" monitor="" for="" discharge="" related="" impacts="" to="" the="" benthic="" community,="" (4)="" assess="" whether="" any="" impacts="" warrant="" an="" adjustment="" of="" the="" monitoring="" program,="" and="" (5)="" provide="" information="" for="" permit="" reissuance.="" the="" monitoring="" shall="" include,="" but="" not="" be="" limited="" to,="" relevant="" hydrographic,="" sediment="" hydrocarbon,="" and="" heavy="" metal="" data="" from="" surveys="" conducted="" before="" and="" during="" drilling="" mud="" disposal="" and="" up="" to="" a="" least="" one="" year="" after="" drilling="" operations="" cease.="" the="" monitoring="" plan="" shall="" address:="" (1)="" the="" monitoring="" objectives,="" (2)="" appropriate="" null="" and="" alternate="" test="" hypotheses,="" (3)="" a="" statistically="" valid="" sampling="" design,="" (4)="" all="" monitoring="" procedures="" and="" methods,="" (5)="" a="" quality="" assurance/quality="" control="" program,="" (6)="" a="" detailed="" discussion="" of="" how="" data="" will="" be="" used="" to="" meet,="" test="" and="" evaluate="" the="" monitoring="" objectives,="" and="" (7)="" a="" summary="" of="" the="" results="" of="" previous="" environmental="" monitoring="" as="" they="" apply="" to="" the="" proposed="" program="" plan.="" c.="" reporting="" and="" data="" submission="" requirements.="" the="" permittee="" shall="" analyze="" the="" data="" and="" submit="" a="" draft="" report="" by="" within="" 180="" days="" following="" the="" completion="" of="" sample="" collection.="" the="" report="" shall="" address="" the="" environmental="" monitoring="" objectives="" by="" using="" appropriate="" descriptive="" and="" analytical="" methods="" to="" test="" for="" and="" to="" describe="" any="" impacts="" of="" the="" effluent="" on="" sediment="" pollutant="" concentrations,="" sediment="" quality,="" water="" quality="" and/or="" the="" benthic="" community.="" the="" report="" shall="" include="" all="" relevant="" quality="" assurance/quality="" control="" (qa/qc)="" information,="" including="" but="" not="" limited="" to="" instrumentation,="" laboratory="" procedures,="" detection="" limits/precision="" requirements="" of="" the="" applied="" analyses,="" and="" sample="" collection="" methodology.="" epa="" will="" review="" the="" draft="" report="" in="" accordance="" with="" the="" environmental="" monitoring="" objectives="" and="" evaluate="" it="" for="" compliance="" with="" the="" requirements="" of="" the="" permit.="" if="" revisions="" to="" the="" report="" are="" required,="" the="" permittee="" shall="" complete="" them="" and="" submit="" the="" final="" report="" to="" epa="" within="" two="" months="" of="" the="" director's="" request.="" the="" permittee="" will="" be="" required="" to="" correct,="" repeat="" and/or="" expand="" environmental="" monitoring="" programs="" which="" have="" not="" fulfilled="" the="" requirements="" of="" the="" permit.="" d.="" modification="" of="" monitoring="" program.="" the="" monitoring="" program="" may="" be="" modified="" if="" epa="" determines="" that="" it="" is="" appropriate.="" the="" modified="" program="" may="" include="" changes="" in="" (1)="" sampling="" stations,="" (2)="" sampling="" times,="" and/or="" (3)="" parameters.="" e.="" exemption.="" region="" 10="" will="" grant="" an="" exemption="" to="" this="" requirement="" if="" the="" permittee="" can="" satisfactorily="" demonstrate="" that="" information="" on="" the="" fate="" and="" effects="" of="" the="" discharge="" is="" available="" and/or="" the="" discharge="" will="" not="" have="" significant="" impacts="" on="" the="" area="" of="" biological="" significance.="" an="" exemption="" to="" post-drilling="" monitoring="" will="" be="" granted="" if="" no="" impact="" was="" indicated="" during="" drilling.="" c.="" deck="" drainage="" (discharge="" 002)="" 1.="" effluent="" limitations.="" in="" addition="" to="" the="" restrictions="" set="" out="" in="" parts="" iii.a.,="" iii.c.2-4.="" and="" iv,="" the="" permittee="" shall="" comply="" with="" the="" following="" effluent="" limitations="" and="" monitoring="" requirements.="" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------="" monitoring="" requirements="" effluent="" discharge="" limitation="" -------------------------------------------------------------------="" characteristic="" measurement="" frequency="" sample="" type/method="" reported="" values="" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------="" exploratory="" and="" production="" operations:="" flow="" rate="" (mgd)..="" n/a..................="" monthly..............="" estimate.............="" monthly="" avg.="" free="" oil.........="" no="" discharge.........="" daily,="" during="" visual/sheen="" on="" number="" of="" days="" sheen="" discharge.="" receiving="" water\1\.="" observed.="" production="" operations:="" whole="" effluent="" n/a..................="" twice="" per="" year\3\....="" part="" iii.f.3.b.......="">c4.
toxicity\2\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\If discharge occurs during broken or unstable ice conditions, or during stable ice conditions, the sample
type/method shall be ``Grab/Static Sheen Test.''
\2\Applies only to production platforms where deck drainage is not commingled with produced water discharges.
Contaminated deck drainage shall be processed through an oil-water separator prior to discharge and samples
for that portion of the deck drainage collected from the separator effluent and shall be sampled for WET
testing. If deck drainage is mixed with produced water flow, then effluent limitations and monitoring
requirements for produced water shall apply. (See Part III.F.).
\3\Once during the first significant rainfall (to capture first flush of surfaces after the dry season) and once
during snowmelt.
\4\With final report for each test, the following shall also be reported: date and time of sample, the type of
sample (i.e., rainfall or snowmelt), estimate of daily flow and basis for the estimate (e.g., turbine meters,
monthly precipitation, estimated washdown).
[[Page 48828]]
2. Drains.
Area drains for either washdown or rainfall that may be
contaminated with oil and grease shall be separated from those area
drains that would not be contaminated. The contaminated deck drainage
shall be processed through an oil-water separator prior to discharge
and samples for that portion of the deck drainage collected from the
separator effluent shall be tested for sheen.
3. Commingled Wastestreams.
Any deck drainage which is commingled with other wastes prior to
discharge shall be subject at the point of discharge to the most
stringent of the limitations on the individual effluents.
4. Monitoring Requirements.
Monitoring must be conducted according to test procedures approved
under 40 CFR 136, unless other test procedures are specified here or
elsewhere in this permit. Representative sampling requirements are
discussed in Part III.A.
D. Sanitary Wastes and Domestic Wastes (Discharges 003, 004)
1. Effluent Limitations
In addition to the restrictions set out in Parts III.A., III.D.2-3.
and IV, the Permittee shall comply with the following effluent
limitations and monitoring requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitoring requirements
Effluent Discharge limitation -------------------------------------------------------------------
characteristic Measurement frequency Sample type/method Reported values
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sanitary and Domestic
Wastes:
Flow rate (MGD).. ..................... Monthly.............. Estimate............. Monthly Average.
Floating No discharge......... Daily................ Observation\2\....... Number of days
solids\1\. solids observed.
Sanitary Wastes\3\:
Total residual As close as possible Weekly............... Grab................. Concentration in mg/
chlorine to, but no less l.
(TRC)\1\\4\\5\. than, 1 mg/l\6\.
BOD (mg/l)\7\.... 60 mg/l.............. Weekly\8\............ Grab................. Daily Maximum.
45 mg/l Weekly Average.
30 mg/l Monthly Average.
SS (mg/l)\1\\7\.. SSintake + 60 mg/l... Weekly\8\............ Grab................. Daily maximum.
SSintake + 45 mg/l Weekly Average.
SSintake + 30 mg/l Monthly Average.
MSDs (FC, SS, ..................... Twice/month.......... Grab................. Estimated # persons
TRC)\9\. aboard.\8\
Domestic Wastes:
Foam............. No discharge......... Daily................ Observation\10\...... Number of days foam
observed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Any facility using a marine sanitation device (MSD) that complies with pollution control standards and
regulations under Section 312 of the Act shall be deemed to be in compliance with these limitations until such
time as the device is replaced or found not to comply with such standards and regulations. The MSD shall be
tested yearly for proper operations and test results maintained at the facility.
\2\For state waters, permittee shall monitor by observing the surface of the receiving water in the vicinity of
the outfall(s) during daylight at the time of maximum estimated discharge. For domestic waste, observations
shall follow either the morning or midday meal.
\3\In cases where sanitary and domestic wastes are mixed prior to discharge, and sampling of the sanitary waste
component stream is infeasible, the discharge may be sampled after mixing. In such cases, the discharge
limitations for sanitary wastes shall apply to the mixed waste stream.
\4\Limit applies only to facilities continuously staffed by ten or more people.
\5\Limit applies to those facilities discharging a chlorinated treatment water in state or federal waters.
\6\If a mixing zone is not designated during the 401 certification, the TRC discharge limit will be changed to
2.0 g/l (daily maximum) and 1.0 g/l (monthly average) to reflect Alaska water quality
standards; a fecal coliform limit of 43 FC/100 ml (daily maximum) and 14 FC/100 ml (monthly median) will also
be added to the permit.
\7\The numeric limits for BOD and SS apply only to discharges to state waters. Influent samples shall be taken
with the same frequency that effluent samples are taken. If enough water is taken on-board to create several
days' supply for the sanitary system, then the SS value shall be reported as ``carried over'' from the date of
intake and sampling.
When reported on DMRs, actual intake SS concentrations shall be labelled SSintake. Actual effluent SS
concentrations shall be labelled SSeffluent. Effluent limits for SS concentrations (SSlimit) shall be
calculated as the sum of SSintake plus 60, 45, or 30 mg/l to report daily maximum, weekly average, or 30 day
maximum effluent concentrations, respectively.
\8\Based on weekly sampling and depending on the length of the calendar month, a total of 3-4 samples will be
analyzed per month. The reported monthly average value shall be the average of all weekly samples taken during
the month. Each weekly sample value will then be subject to both the daily maximum and weekly average
criteria.
\9\Applies to facilities with MSDs only. Sample the effluent twice each month and report the following: date of
sample, estimated number of persons aboard for 5 days preceding the sample, the number of FC/100 ml, TRC and
SS.
\10\Monitoring by visual observation of the surface of the receiving water in the vicinity of the outfall(s)
shall be done during daylight at a time of maximum estimated discharge.
2. Discharge Below Water Surface
Domestic and sanitary wastes shall be discharged below the water
surface.
3. Monitoring Requirements
Monitoring must be conducted according to test procedures approved
under 40 CFR 136, unless other test procedures are specified here or
elsewhere in this permit. Representative sampling requirements are
discussed in Part II.B.
[[Page 48829]]
a. Residual Chlorine. Residual chlorine shall be monitored using a
40 CFR 136 method which obtains an MDL of at least 10 g/l.
b. Sanitary Wastes. Sanitary waste grab samples shall be collected
during periods of sanitary system peak flow.
E. Miscellaneous Discharges (Discharges 005-014)
1. Effluent Limitations
In addition to the restrictions set out in Parts III.A., III.E.2-4.
and IV, the discharge of desalination unit wastes (005); blowout
preventer fluid (006); boiler blowdown (007): fire control system test
water (008); non-contact cooling water (009); uncontaminated ballast
water (010); bilge water (011); excess cement slurry (012); mud,
cuttings, cement at the seafloor (013); and waterflooding (014) shall
comply with the following effluent limitations and monitoring
requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitoring requirements
Effluent ---------------------------------------------------------------------
characteristic Discharge limitation Measurement
frequency Sample type/method Reported values
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Miscellaneous:
Flow (MGD)...... N/A................. Monthly............. Estimate............ Monthly average.
Blowout Preventer,
Excess Cement
Slurry,
Waterflooding:
Muds, Cuttings No discharge........ Once/discharge for Visual/Sheen on Number or days sheen is
and Cement at discharges lasting receiving water\1\. observed.
Seafloor, < 24="" hrs.="" ballast,="" bilge="" free="" oil.="" once/24-hrs="" for="" discharges="" lasting="">< 24="" hrs.="" waterflooding,="" non-="" contact="" cooling="" water,="" desalination="" wastestreams:="" chemical="" n/a.................="" monthly.............="" part="" iii.e.2........="" part="" iii.e.2.="" inventory.="" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------="" \1\for="" uncontaminated="" ballast="" water="" (010)="" and="" bilge="" water="" (011)="" only:="" uncontaminated="" ballast="" and="" bilge="" water="" shall="" be="" processed="" through="" an="" oil-water="" separator="" prior="" to="" discharge.="" if="" discharge="" of="" bilge="" water="" occurs="" during="" broken,="" unstable,="" or="" stable="" ice="" conditions,="" the="" sample="" type/method="" used="" to="" determine="" compliance="" with="" the="" no="" free="" oil="" limitation="" shall="" be="" ``grab="" static="" sheen="" test''="" (appendix="" 1="" to="" subpart="" a="" of="" 40="" cfr="" part="" 435).="" for="" discharges="" above="" stable="" ice,="" below="" ice,="" to="" unstable="" or="" broken="" ice,="" a="" water="" temperature="" that="" approximates="" surface="" water="" temperatures="" after="" breakup="" shall="" be="" used.="" 2.="" desalination="" unit="" wastes="" (005),="" non-contact="" cooling="" water="" (009)="" and="" waterflooding="" (014)="" the="" permittee="" shall="" maintain="" an="" inventory="" of="" the="" quantities="" and="" application="" rates="" of="" chemicals="" (other="" than="" fresh="" or="" seawater)="" added="" to="" waterflooding,="" cooling="" water="" and="" desalination="" systems.="" the="" inventory(ies)="" shall="" be="" submitted="" with="" the="" monthly="" dmr.="" 3.="" monitoring="" requirement="" monitoring="" must="" be="" conducted="" according="" to="" test="" procedures="" approved="" under="" 40="" cfr="" 136,="" unless="" other="" test="" procedures="" are="" specified="" here="" or="" elsewhere="" in="" this="" permit.="" representative="" sampling="" requirements="" are="" discussed="" in="" part="" iii.a.="" f.="" produced="" water="" (discharge="" 015)="" 1.="" effluent="" limitations="" in="" addition="" to="" the="" restrictions="" set="" out="" in="" parts="" iii.a.,="" iii.f.2-="" 3.,="" iv,="" the="" permittee="" shall="" comply="" with="" the="" following="" effluent="" limitations="" and="" monitoring="" requirements.="" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------="" monitoring="" requirements="" effluent="" ---------------------------------------------------------------------="" characteristic="" discharge="" limitation="" measurement="" frequency="" sample="" type/method="" reported="" values="" ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------="" flow="" rate="" (mgd).....="" n/a.................="" daily...............="" estimate............="" daily="" avg="" and="" monthly="" average.="" produced="" sands......="" no="" discharge........="" oil="" and="" grease:="" phillips="" a/="" 20="" mg/l="" daily="" max...="" weekly..............="" composite...........="" daily="" maximum.="" tyonek.="" 15="" mg/l="" monthly="" avg.="" ....................="" ....................="" monthly="" average.="" all="" other="" 42="" mg/l="" daily="" max...="" weekly..............="" composite...........="" daily="" maximum.="" facilities.="" 29="" mg/l="" monthly="" avg.="" ....................="" ....................="" monthly="" average.="" ph..................="" 6-9.................="" weekly..............="" grab................="" ph.="" copper:="" granite="" point...="" 238="">g/l.... Weekly.............. Grab................ Daily Maximum.
AKG285101....... 119 g/l.... .................... .................... Monthly Average.
East Forelands.. 122 g/l.... Weekly.............. Grab................ Daily Maximum.
60.7 g/l... .................... .................... Monthly Average.
Anna............ 189 g/l.... Weekly.............. Grab................ Daily Maximum.
94 g/l..... .................... .................... Monthly Average.
Dillon.......... 244 g/l.... Weekly.............. Grab................ Daily Maximum.
121 g/l.... .................... .................... Monthly Average.
Phillips A/ 58 g/l..... Weekly.............. Grab................ Daily Maximum.
Tyonek.
29 g/l..... .................... .................... Monthly Average.
Arsenic:
East Forelands.. 1780 g/l... Weekly.............. Grab................ Daily Maximum.
885 g/l.... .................... .................... Monthly Average.
[[Page 48830]]
Baker........... 843 g/l.... Weekly.............. Grab................ Daily Maximum.
420 g/l.... .................... .................... Monthly Average.
Zinc:
Baker........... 16,500 g/l. Weekly.............. Grab................ Daily Maximum.
8,240 g/l.. .................... .................... Monthly Average.
Dillon.......... 7,980 g/l.. Weekly.............. Grab................ Daily Maximum.
3,980 g/l.. .................... .................... Monthly Average.
Total Aromatic
Hydrocarbons (TAH)
\1\:
Granite Point PF 38,800 g/l. Weekly.............. Grab................ Daily Maximum.
AKG285101....... 29,000 g/l. .................... Part III.F.3.a...... Monthly Average.
Trading Bay..... 49,000 g/l. Weekly.............. Grab................ Daily Maximum .
24,400 g/l. .................... Part III.F.3.a...... Monthly Average.
East Forelands.. 37,600 g/l. Weekly.............. Grab................ Daily Maximum.
18,800 g/l. .................... Part III.F.3.a...... Monthly Average.
Anna............ 52,300 g/l. Weekly.............. Grab................ Daily Maximum.
26,100 g/l. .................... Part III.F.3.a...... Monthly Average.
Baker........... 54,100 g/l. Weekly.............. Grab................ Daily Maximum.
27,000 g/l. .................... Part III.F.3.a...... Monthly Average.
Bruce........... 182,000 g/l Weekly.............. Grab................ Daily Maximum.
90,500 g/l. .................... Part III.F.3.a...... Monthly Average.
Dillon.......... 36,100 g/l. Weekly.............. Grab................ Daily Maximum.
18,000 g/l. .................... Part III.F.3.a...... Monthly Average.
Phillips A/ 170 g/l.... Weekly.............. Grab................ Daily Maximum.
Tyonek.
85 g/l..... .................... Part III.F.3.a...... Monthly Average.
Total Aqueous
Hydrocarbons
(TAqH)\1\1:
Granite Point PF 58,200 g/l. Weekly.............. Grab................ Daily Maximum.
AKG285101....... 19,300 g/l. Monthly............. Part III.F.3.a...... Monthly Average.
Trading Bay..... 73,500 g/l. Weekly.............. Grab................ Daily Maximum.
36,600 g/l. Monthly............. Part III.F.3.a...... Monthly Average.
East Forelands.. 56,400 g/l. Weekly.............. Grab................ Daily Maximum.
28,100 g/l. Monthly............. Part III.F.3.a...... Monthly average.
Anna............ 78,500 g/l. Weekly.............. Grab................ Daily Maximum.
39,100 g/l. Monthly............. Part III.F.3.a...... Monthly Average.
Baker........... 81,100 g/l. Weekly.............. Grab................ Daily Maximum.
40,400 g/l. Monthly............. Part III.F.3.a...... Monthly Average.
Bruce........... 272,000 g/l Weekly.............. Grab................ Daily Maximum.
136,000 g/l Monthly............. Part III.F.3.a...... Monthly Average.
Dillon.......... 54,100 g/l. Weekly.............. Grab................ Daily Maximum.
27,000 g/l. Monthly............. Part III.F.3.a...... Monthly Average.
Phillips A/ 255 g/l.... Weekly.............. Grab................ Daily Maximum.
Tyonek.
127 g/l.... Monthly............. Part III.F.3.a...... Monthly Average.
Whole Effluent
Toxicity:
Granite Point PF 43 TUc.............. Monthly............. Grab................ Daily Maximum.
AKG285101....... 29 TUc.............. .................... Parts III.F.2., 3.b. Monthly Average Parts
III.F.2., 3.b.
East Forelands.. 66 TUc.............. Monthly............. Grab................ Daily Maximum.
45 TUc.............. .................... Parts III.F.2., 3.b. Monthly Average Parts
III.F.2., 3.b.
Anna............ 181 TUc............. Monthly............. Grab................ Daily Maximum.
124 TUc............. .................... Parts III.F.2., 3.b. Monthly Average Parts
III.F.2., 3.b.
Baker........... 59 TUc.............. Monthly............. Grab................ Daily Maximum.
40 TUc.............. .................... Parts III.F.2., 3.b. Monthly Average Parts
III.F.2., 3.b.
Bruce........... 135 TUc............. Monthly............. Grab................ Daily Maximum.
92 TUc.............. .................... Parts III.F.2., 3.b. Monthly Average Parts
III.F.2., 3.b.
Dillon.......... 94 TUc.............. Monthly............. Grab................ Daily Maximum.
64 TUc.............. .................... Parts III.F.2., 3.b. Monthly Average Parts
III.F.2., 3.b.
Phillips A/ 10 TUc.............. Monthly............. Grab................ Daily Maximum.
Tyonek.
7 TUc............... Parts III.F.2., 3.b. Monthly Average..... Parts III.F.2., 3.b.
Metals\2\........... N/A................. Monthly for one year Part III.F.3.c .....
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Submittal of an annual report summarizing the concentrations of the individual TAH components (benzene,
toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene isomers) and individual TAqH components is required.
\2\Monthly monitoring of total recoverable arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, nickel, silver and zinc is required
for one year. Because weekly effluent limitations for metals have not been imposed at Bruce and Trading Bay,
monthly monitoring of each of the seven metals is required. The remainder of the facilities discharging
produced water to Cook Inlet must submit monthly monitoring results for those metals not limited in the permit
at that facility.
[[Page 48831]]
2. Commingled Wastestreams
If workover, completion, well treatment or test fluids are mixed
with produced water, then all of the effluent limitations and
requirements applied to produced water shall apply (Part III.G.2) and
supersede limits for the separate wastestreams. Likewise, if deck
drainage is commingled with produced water, then all of the effluent
limitations and requirements applied to produced water shall apply
(Part III.C.1) and supersede limits for the separate discharge of deck
drainage.
If deck drainage, workover, completion, well treatment or test
fluids are commingled with produced water, ``commingled'' shall be
reported on the DMRs for both produced water and the wastestream mixed
with it.
3. Monitoring Requirements
Monitoring must be conducted according to test procedures approved
under 40 CFR 136, unless other test procedures are specified here or
elsewhere in this permit. Representative sampling requirements are
discussed in Part III.A.
a. Total Aromatic Hydrocarbons (TAH) and Total Aqueous Hydrocarbons
(TAqH). For analysis of TAH and TAqH, all analytical requirements cited
in the Alaska Standards, 18 AAC 70.020(b) are applicable.
b. Whole Effluent Toxicity. Produced water samples shall be
collected at least once per month. The Permittee shall conduct tests on
grab effluent samples with one vertebrate and two invertebrate species,
as follows:
Vertebrate (survival and growth): Inland silverside, Menidia
beryllina Invertebrate: Atlantic myside Mysidopsis bahia (survival,
growth and fecundity test) and one of the following two bivalve species
tests: Mytilis sp. or Crassostrea gigas (larval development test,
depending upon seasonal availability).
Results shall be reported in TUc, where TUc=100/NOEC.
The presence of chronic toxicity shall be estimated as specified in
USEPA Short-Term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of
Effluents and Receiving Waters to Marine and Estuarine Organisms,
Second Edition, EPA/600/4-90/003. For the bivalve species, chronic
toxicity shall be estimated as specified in Short-Term Methods for
Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Water to
West Coast Marine and Estuarine Organisms (Draft Chapman and Denton,
1995)
The following quality assurance procedures shall be followed:
A series of five dilutions and a control will be tested. The series
shall include the instream waste concentration (IWC), two dilutions
above the IWC, and two dilutions below the IWC. The IWC is the
concentration of effluent at the edge of the mixing zone.
Concurrent testing with reference toxicants shall be conducted. If
either of the reference toxicant tests or the effluent tests do not
meet all test acceptability criteria as specified in the test methods
manual, then the permittee must re-sample and re-test as soon as
possible.
Control and dilution water should be receiving water, or salinity
adjusted lab water. If the dilution water used is different from the
culture water, a second control, using culture water shall also be
used.
If chronic toxicity is detected above the permit limits, the
permittee shall conduct four more tests, bi-weekly, over an eight-week
period. In accordance with EPA/600/2-88/070, a toxicity reduction
evaluation (TRE) must be initiated within fifteen days of the
exceedance in order to expeditiously locate the source(s) of toxicity
and evaluate the effectiveness of pollution control actions and/or
inplant modifications toward attaining compliance. If chronic toxicity
is detected in any of the four bi-weekly tests, the permittee shall
initiate a toxicity identification evaluation (TIE) to identify the
specific chemical(s) responsible for toxicity (EPA/600/6-91/005F (Phase
I), EPA/600/R-92/080 (Phase II), and EPA-600/R-92/081 (Phase III)). If
none of the four bi-weekly tests indicate toxicity above the permit
limit, then the Permittee may return to the normal testing frequency of
once per month.
c. Metals. The minimum detection level for arsenic must be 1
g/l. For the remainder of the metals, method detection levels
must be less than one-tenth the aquatic life criteria listed below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aquatic life
chronic
Pollutant criteria
(g/l)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cadmium................................................. 9.3
Copper.................................................. 2.9
Lead.................................................... 8.5
Nickel.................................................. 8.3
Silver.................................................. 2.3
Zinc.................................................... 86
------------------------------------------------------------------------
G. Completion Fluids, Workover Fluids, Well Treatment Fluids, and Test
Fluids (Discharges 016-019)
1. Effluent Limitations
In addition to the restrictions set out in Parts III.A., III.G.2-
3., IV, the Permittee shall comply with the following effluent
limitations and monitoring requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitoring requirements
Effluent Discharge limitation -------------------------------------------------------------------
characteristic Measurement frequency Sample type/method Reported values
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All Wastestreams:
Discharge N/A.................. Once/discharge\1\.... Count................ Type & total number
frequency. of discharges.\1\
Flow rate (MGD).. N/A.................. Daily\1\............. Estimate............. Monthly average.
Oil-based fluids. No discharge......... Included in free oil ..................... ....................
monitoring, below\2\.
Free oil\3\...... No free oil.......... Once/discharge\1\.... Grab/Static Sheen Number of times
Test. sheen observed.
Oil and grease\3\ 42 mg/l max. daily, Weekly............... Composite............ Daily max. and
29 mg/l monthly avg. monthly average.
pH............... 6.5-8.5.............. Weekly............... Grab................. pH.
Treatment, Workover,
Completion:
Metals........... ..................... Once per discharge\1\ Part III.G.2.a. ....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The type of discharge (i.e., completion, workover, treatment, test fluid, or any combination) shall be
reported. Discharge of individual wastestreams shall reported separately from the discharge of commingled
wastestreams.
\2\Discharge of oil-based fluids is prohibited.
\3\No free oil and oil and grease limits apply to each discharge, whether these wastestreams are discharged
individually or are commingled. All fluids shall be processed through an oil-water separator prior to
discharge. Samples shall be collected after the final step of treatment.
[[Page 48832]]
2. Commingled Wastestreams
If workover, completion, well treatment or test fluids are mixed
with produced water, then all of the effluent limitations and
requirements applied to produced water (Part III.F.) shall also apply
to these wastestreams.
3. Monitoring Requirements
Monitoring must be conducted according to test procedures approved
under 40 CFR 136, unless other test procedures are specified here or
elsewhere in this permit. Representative sampling requirements are
discussed in Part III.A.
Metals. For each discharge of well treatment, completion or
workover fluids which is characterized as an acid job (strong or weak,
including but not limited to hydrochloric or hydrofluoric acid, EDTA),
samples of effluent shall be taken for analyses of the following:
cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel and zinc. Analyses for total
recoverable concentrations shall be conducted and reported for each
metal.
H. Other Discharge Limitations
1. Floating Solids, Visible Foam, or Oily Wastes. There shall be no
discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace
amounts, nor of oily wastes which produce a sheen on the surface of the
receiving water.
2. Surfactants, Dispersants, and Detergents. The discharge of
surfactants, dispersants, and detergents shall be minimized except as
necessary to comply with the safety requirements of the Occupational
Health and Safety Administration and the Minerals Management Service.
The discharge of dispersants to marine waters in response to oil or
other hazardous spills is not authorized this permit.
3. Applicable Marine Water Quality Criteria. There shall be no
discharge of any constituent in concentrations which results in an
exceedence of applicable marine water quality criteria at the edge of
any permitted mixing zone.
4. Other Toxic and Non-conventional Compounds. There shall be no
discharge of diesel oil, halogenated phenol compounds, trisodium
nitrilotriacetic acid, sodium chromate or sodium dichromate.
I. Best Management Practices Plan Requirement
1. Implementation. The Permittee shall develop and implement a Best
Management Practices (BMP) Plan which achieves the objectives and the
specific requirements listed below. The BMP Plan shall be implemented
as soon as possible but no later than 7 days prior to initiation of
discharges from the facility and from each well.
The Permittee shall certify that its BMP Plan is complete, on-site,
and available upon request to EPA. This certification shall identify
the well it pertains to by well name, well number, and the NPDES permit
number and be signed by an authorized representative of the Permittee.
The certification shall be submitted no later than the written notice
of intent to commence discharge (see Parts I.A.3, I.B.3., and I.C.3.)
and the Certification of Mud Plan (see Part III.B.1.b.).
2. Purpose. Through implementation of the BMP Plan the Permittee
shall prevent or minimize the generation and the potential for the
release of pollutants from the facility to the waters of the United
States through normal operations and ancillary activities.
3. Objectives. The Permittee shall develop and amend the BMP Plan
consistent with the following objectives for the control of pollutants.
a. The number and quantity of pollutants and the toxicity of
effluent generated, discharged or potentially discharged at the
facility shall be minimized by the Permittee to the extent feasible by
managing each influent waste stream in the most appropriate manner.
b. Under the BMP Plan, and any Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)
included in the Plan, the Permittee shall ensure proper operation and
maintenance of the treatment facility.
c. The Permittee shall establish specific objectives for the
control of pollutants by conducting the following evaluations.
(1) Each facility component or system shall be examined for its
waste minimization opportunities and its potential for causing a
release of significant amounts of pollutants to waters of the United
States due to equipment failure, improper operation, natural phenomena
such as rain or snowfall, etc. The examination shall include all normal
operations and ancillary activities including material storage areas,
site runoff, in-plant transfer, process and material handling areas,
loading or unloading operations, spillage or leaks, sludge and waste
disposal, or drainage from raw material storage.
(2) Where experience indicates a reasonable potential for equipment
failure (e.g., a tank overflow or leakage), natural condition (e.g.,
precipitation), or other circumstances to result in significant amounts
of pollutants reaching surface waters, the program should include a
prediction of the direction, rate of flow and total quantity of
pollutants which could be discharged from the facility as a result of
each condition or circumstance.
4. Requirements. The BMP Plan shall be consistent with the
objectives in Part 3 above and the general guidance contained in the
publication entitled ``Guidance Document for Developing Best Management
Practices (BMP)'' (EPA Document Number EPA 833-B-93-004, U.S. EPA,
1993) or any subsequent revisions to the guidance document. The BMP
Plan shall:
a. Be documented in narrative form, and shall include any necessary
plot plans, drawings or maps, and shall be developed in accordance with
good engineering practices. The BMP Plan shall be organized and written
with the following structure:
(1) Name and location of the facility or operation (including
identification by latitude/longitude).
(2) Statement of BMP policy.
(3) Description of the person(s) and/or staff position responsible
for developing and overseeing implementation of the BMP Plan; and
procedures for BMP approval.
(4) Specific management practices and standard operating procedures
to achieve the above objectives, including, but not limited to, the
following:
(a) modification of equipment, facilities, technology, processes,
and procedures,
(b) reformulation or redesign of products,
(c) substitution of materials, and
(d) improvement in management, inventory control, materials
handling or general operational phases of the facility.
(5) Risk identification and assessment.
(6) Reporting of BMP incidents.
(7) Materials compatibility.
(8) Good housekeeping.
(9) Preventative maintenance.
(10) Inspections and records.
(11) Security.
(12) Employee training.
b. Include the following provisions concerning BMP Plan review:
(1) Be reviewed by plant engineering staff and the plant manager as
warranted by changes in the operation or at the facility which are
covered by the BMP.
(2) Be reviewed and endorsed by the individuals responsible for
development and implementation of the BMP Plan.
(3) Include a statement that the above reviews have been completed
and that the BMP Plan fulfills the requirements set forth in this
permit. The statement shall be certified by the dated signatures of the
individuals responsible for development and implementation of the BMP
Plan.
c. Establish specific best management practices to meet the
objectives
[[Page 48833]]
identified in Part 3 this section, addressing each component or system
capable of generating or causing a release of significant amounts of
pollutants, and identifying specific preventative or remedial measures
to be implemented.
d. Establish specific best management practices or other measures
which ensure that the following specific requirements are met:
(1) Ensure proper management of solid and hazardous waste in
accordance with regulations promulgated under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Alaska Solid Waste Management
Regulations (18 AAC 60). Management practices required under RCRA
regulations shall be referenced in the BMP Plan.
(2) Reflect requirements within Oil Spill Contingency Plans
required by the Minerals Management Service (see 30 CFR 254).
Permittees in state waters must also reflect the requirements within
Oil Discharge Prevention and Contingency Plans as required by ADEC.
Permittees may incorporate any part of such plans into the BMP Plan by
reference.
(3) Reflect requirements for storm water control under Section
402(p) of the Act and the regulations at 40 CFR 122.26 and 122.44, and
otherwise eliminate to the extent practicable, contamination of storm
water runoff.
(4) Reflect the development and implementation of the Mud Plan (see
Part III.B.1.b.) for the formulation and control of drilling mud
systems.
5. Documentation. The Permittee shall maintain a copy of the BMP
Plan at the facility and shall make the plan available to EPA upon
request. All offices of the Permittee which are required to maintain a
copy of the NPDES permit shall also maintain a copy of the BMP Plan.
6. BMP Plan Modification. The Permittee shall amend the BMP Plan
whenever there is a change in the facility or in the operation of the
facility which materially increases the generation of pollutants or
their release or potential release to the receiving waters. The
Permittee shall also amend the Plan, as appropriate, when plant
operations covered by the BMP Plan change. Any such changes to the BMP
Plan shall be consistent with the objectives and specific requirements
listed above. All changes in the BMP Plan shall be reviewed by the
plant engineering staff and plant manager and shall be reported to EPA
in writing.
7. Modification for Ineffectiveness. At any time, if the BMP Plan
proves to be ineffective in achieving the general objective of
preventing and minimizing the generation of pollutants and their
release and potential release to the receiving waters and/or the
specific requirements above, the permit and/or the BMP Plan shall be
subject to modification to incorporate revised BMP requirements.
IV. Recording and Reporting Requirements
A. Reporting of Monitoring Results
The Permittee shall summarize monitoring results each month on the
Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) form (EPA No. 3320-1). The Permittee
shall submit reports monthly, postmarked by the 10th day of the
following month. The Permittee shall sign and certify all DMRs, and all
other reports, in accordance with the requirements of Part VI.D. of
this permit (``Signatory Requirements'').
The Permittee shall submit the legible originals of these documents
to the Director, Water Division, with copies to ADEC, at the following
addresses:
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, 1200 Sixth
Avenue, WD-135, Seattle, Washington 98101
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, Attn: Water Quality &
Wastewater Programs, 411 W. 4th Ave., suite 2C, Anchorage, Alaska
99501.
B. Additional Monitoring by Permittee
If the Permittee monitors any pollutant more frequently than
required by this permit, using test procedures approved under 40 CFR
136 or as specified in this permit, the Permittee shall include the
results of this monitoring in the calculation and reporting of the data
submitted in the DMR. The Permittee shall indicate on the DMR whenever
it has performed additional monitoring, and shall explain why it
performed such monitoring.
Upon request by the Director, the Permittee shall submit results of
any other sampling, regardless of the test method used.
C. Records Contents
All effluent monitoring records shall bear the hand-written
signature of the person who prepared them. In addition, all records of
monitoring information shall include:
1. The date, exact place, and time of sampling or measurements;
2. The names of the individual(s) who performed the sampling or
measurements;
3. The date(s) analyses were performed;
4. The names of the individual(s) who performed the analyses;
5. The analytical techniques or methods used; and
6. The results of such analyses.
D. Retention of Records
The Permittee shall retain records of all monitoring information,
including, but not limited to, all calibration and maintenance records
and all original strip chart recordings for continuous monitoring
instrumentation, copies of all reports required by this permit, copies
of DMRs, a copy of the NPDES permit, and records of all data used to
complete the application for this permit, for a period of at least five
years from the date of the sample, measurement, report or application,
or for the term of this permit, whichever is longer. This period may be
extended by request of the Director at any time.
A copy of the final permit shall be maintained at the drilling
site.
E. Twenty-four Hour Notice of Noncompliance Reporting
1. The Permittee shall report the following occurrences of
noncompliance by telephone within 24 hours from the time the Permittee
becomes aware of the circumstances:
a. Any noncompliance that may endanger health or the environment;
b. Any unanticipated bypass that results in or contributes to an
exceedance of any effluent limitation in the permit (see Part V.G.,
``Bypass of Treatment Facilities'');
c. Any upset that results in or contributes to an exceedance of any
effluent limitation in the permit (see Part V.H., ``Upset
Conditions''); or
d. Any violation of a maximum daily discharge limitation for any of
the pollutants listed in the permit .
2. The Permittee shall also provide a written submission within
five days of the time that the Permittee becomes aware of any event
required to be reported under subpart 1 above. The written submission
shall contain:
a. A description of the noncompliance and its cause;
b. The period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times;
c. The estimated time noncompliance is expected to continue if it
has not been corrected; and
d. Dteps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent
reoccurrence of the noncompliance.
e. The results of any monitoring data required under Paragraph
III.C., above.
3. The Director may, at her or his sole discretion, waive the
written report on a case-by-case basis if the oral report has been
received within 24 hours by the
[[Page 48834]]
Water Compliance Section in Seattle, Washington, by telephone, (206)
553-1846.
4. Reports shall be submitted to the addresses in Part IV.A.
(``Reporting of Monitoring Results'').
F. Other Noncompliance Reporting
The Permittee shall report all instances of noncompliance, not
required to be reported within 24 hours, at the time that monitoring
reports for Part III.A. are submitted. The reports shall contain the
information listed in Part IV.E.2. of this permit.
G. Changes in Discharge of Toxic Substances
The Permittee shall notify the Director as soon as it knows, or has
reason to believe:
1. That any activity has occurred or will occur that would result
in the discharge, on a routine or frequent basis, of any toxic
pollutant that is not limited in the permit, if that discharge will
exceed the highest of the following ``notification levels'':
a. One hundred micrograms per liter (100 g/l);
b. Two hundred micrograms per liter (200 g/l) for acrolein
and acrylonitrile; five hundred micrograms per liter (500 g/l)
for 2,4-dinitrophenol and for 2-methyl-4, 6-dinitrophenol; and one
milligram per liter (1 mg/l) for antimony;
c. Five (5) times the maximum concentration value reported for that
pollutant in the permit application in accordance with 40 CFR
122.21(g)(7); or
d. The level established by the Director in accordance with 40 CFR
122.44(f).
2. That any activity has occurred or will occur that would result
in any discharge, on a non-routine or infrequent basis, of any toxic
pollutant that is not limited in the permit, if that discharge will
exceed the highest of the following ``notification levels'':
a. Five hundred micrograms per liter (500 g/l);
b. One milligram per liter (1 g/l) for antimony;
c. Ten (10) times the maximum concentration value reported for that
pollutant in the permit application in accordance with 40 CFR
122.21(g)(7); or
d. The level established by the Director in accordance with 40 CFR
122.44(f).
V. Compliance Responsibilities
A. Duty to Comply
The Permittee shall comply with all conditions of this permit. Any
permit noncompliance constitutes a violation of the Act and is grounds
for enforcement action, for permit termination, revocation and
reissuance, or modification, or for denial of a permit renewal
application. The Permittee shall give reasonable advance notice to the
Director of any planned changes in the permitted facility or activity
that may result in noncompliance with permit requirements.
B. Penalties for Violations of Permit Conditions
1. Civil and Administrative Penalties. Sections 309(d) and 309(g)
of the Act provide that any person who violates a permit condition
implementing Sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of the Act
shall be subject to a civil or administrative penalty, not to exceed
$25,000 per day for each violation.
2. Criminal Penalties:
a. Negligent Violations. Section 309(c)(1) of the Act provides that
any person who negligently violates a permit condition implementing
Sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of the Act shall be
punished by a fine of not less than $2,500 nor more than $25,000 per
day of violation, or by imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or by
both.
b. Knowing Violations. Section 309(c)(2) of the Act provides that
any person who knowingly violates a permit condition implementing
Sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of the Act shall be
punished by a fine of not less than $5,000 nor more than $50,000 per
day of violation, or by imprisonment for not more than 3 years, or by
both.
c. Knowing Endangerment. Section 309(c)(3) of the Act provides that
any person who knowingly violates a permit condition implementing
Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of the Act, and who
knows at that time that he thereby places another person in imminent
danger of death or serious bodily injury, shall, upon conviction, be
subject to a fine of not more than $250,000 or imprisonment of not more
than 15 years, or both. A person that is an organization shall be
subject to a fine of not more than $1,000,000.
d. False Statements. Section 309(c)(4) of the Act provides that any
person who knowingly makes any false material statement,
representation, or certification in any application, record, report,
plan, or other document filed or required to be maintained under this
Act or who knowingly falsifies, tampers with, or renders inaccurate any
monitoring device or method required to be maintained under this Act,
shall be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000, or by
imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or by both.
Except as provided in permit conditions in Part V.G., (``Bypass of
Treatment Facilities'') and Part V.H., (``Upset Conditions''), nothing
in this permit shall be construed to relieve the Permittee of the civil
or criminal penalties for noncompliance.
C. Need to Halt or Reduce Activity not a Defense
It shall not be a defense for the Permittee in an enforcement
action that it would have been necessary to halt or reduce the
permitted activity in order to maintain compliance with the conditions
of this permit.
D. Duty to Mitigate
The Permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize or
prevent any discharge in violation of this permit that has a reasonable
likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the environment.
E. Proper Operation and Maintenance
The Permittee shall at all times properly operate and maintain all
facilities and systems of treatment and control (and related
appurtenances) that are installed or used by the Permittee to achieve
compliance with the conditions of this permit. Proper operation and
maintenance also includes adequate laboratory controls and appropriate
quality assurance procedures. This provision requires the operation of
back-up or auxiliary facilities or similar systems only when the
operation is necessary to achieve compliance with the conditions of the
permit.
F. Removed Substances
Solids, sludges, filter backwash, or other pollutants removed in
the course of treatment or control of water and wastewaters shall be
disposed of in a manner such as to prevent any pollutant from such
materials from entering navigable waters, except as specifically
authorized in Part II.
G. Bypass of Treatment Facilities
1. Bypass not exceeding limitations. The Permittee may allow any
bypass to occur that does not cause effluent limitations to be
exceeded, but only if it also is for essential maintenance to assure
efficient operation. These bypasses are not subject to the provisions
of paragraphs 2 and 3 of this Part.
2. Notice.
a. Anticipated bypass. If the Permittee knows in advance of the
need for a bypass, it shall submit prior notice, if possible at least
10 days before the date of the bypass.
[[Page 48835]]
b. Unanticipated bypass. The Permittee shall submit notice of an
unanticipated bypass as required under Part IV.E. (``Twenty-four Hour
Notice of Noncompliance Reporting'').
3. Prohibition of bypass.
a. Bypass is prohibited, and the Director may take enforcement
action against the Permittee for a bypass, unless:
(1) The bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal
injury, or severe property damage;
(2) There were no feasible alternatives to the bypass, such as the
use of auxiliary treatment facilities, retention of untreated wastes,
or maintenance during normal periods of equipment downtime. This
condition is not satisfied if adequate back-up equipment shall have
been installed in the exercise of reasonable engineering judgment to
prevent a bypass that occurred during normal periods of equipment
downtime or preventive maintenance; and
(3) The Permittee submitted notices as required under paragraph 2
of this Part.
b. The Director may approve an anticipated bypass, after
considering its adverse effects, if the Director determines that it
will meet the three conditions listed above in paragraph 3.a. of this
Part.
H. Upset Conditions
1. Effect of an upset. An upset constitutes an affirmative defense
to an action brought for noncompliance with such technology-based
permit effluent limitations if the Permittee meets the requirements of
paragraph 2 of this Part. No determination made during administrative
review of claims that noncompliance was caused by upset, and before an
action for noncompliance, is final administrative action subject to
judicial review.
2. Demonstration of an upset. To establish the affirmative defense
of upset, the Permittee shall demonstrate, through properly signed,
contemporaneous operating logs, or other relevant evidence that:
a. An upset occurred and that the Permittee can identify the
cause(s) of the upset;
b. The permitted facility was at the time being properly operated;
c. The Permittee submitted notice of the upset as required under
Part IV.E., Twenty-four Hour Notice of Noncompliance Reporting; and
d. The Permittee complied with any remedial measures required under
Part V.D., Duty to Mitigate.
3. Burden of proof. In any enforcement proceeding, the Permittee
seeking to establish the occurrence of an upset has the burden of
proof.
I. Toxic Pollutants
The Permittee shall comply with effluent standards or prohibitions
established under Section 307(a) of the Act for toxic pollutants within
the time provided in the regulations that establish those standards or
prohibitions, even if the permit has not yet been modified to
incorporate the requirement.
J. Planned Changes
The Permittee shall give notice to the Director as soon as possible
of any planned physical alterations or additions to the permitted
facility whenever:
1. The alteration or addition to a permitted facility may meet one
of the criteria for determining whether a facility is a new source as
determined in 40 CFR 122.29(b); or
2. The alteration or addition could significantly change the nature
or increase the quantity of pollutants discharged. This notification
applies to pollutants that are subject neither to effluent limitations
in the permit, nor to notification requirements under Part IV.G.
The Permittee shall give notice to the Director as soon as possible
of any planned changes in process or chemical use whenever such change
could significantly change the nature or increase the quantity of
pollutants discharged.
K. Anticipated Noncompliance
The Permittee shall also give advance notice to the Director of any
planned changes in the permitted facility or activity that may result
in noncompliance with this permit.
VI. General Provisions
A. Permit Actions
This permit may be modified, revoked and reissued, or terminated
for cause. The filing of a request by the Permittee for a permit
modification, revocation and reissuance, or termination, or a
notification of planned changes or anticipated noncompliance, does not
stay any permit condition.
B. Duty To Provide Information
The Permittee shall furnish to the Director, within the time
specified in the request, any information that the Director may request
to determine whether cause exists for modifying, revoking and
reissuing, or terminating this permit, or to determine compliance with
this permit. The Permittee shall also furnish to the Director, upon
request, copies of records required to be kept by this permit.
C. Other Information
When the Permittee becomes aware that it failed to submit any
relevant facts in a permit application, or that it submitted incorrect
information in a permit application or any report to the Director, it
shall promptly submit the omitted facts or corrected information.
D. Signatory Requirements
All applications, reports or information submitted to the Director
shall be signed and certified.
1. All permit applications shall be signed as follows:
a. For a corporation: by a responsible corporate officer.
b. For a partnership or sole proprietorship: by a general partner
or the proprietor, respectively.
c. For a municipality, state, federal, or other public agency: by
either a principal executive officer or ranking elected official.
2. All reports required by the permit and other information
requested by the Director shall be signed by a person described above
or by a duly authorized representative of that person. A person is a
duly authorized representative only if:
a. The authorization is made in writing by a person described above
and submitted to the Director, and
b. The authorization specifies either an individual or a position
having responsibility for the overall operation of the regulated
facility or activity, such as the position of plant manager, operator
of a well or a well field, superintendent, position of equivalent
responsibility, or an individual or position having overall
responsibility for environmental matters for the company.
3. Changes to authorization. If an authorization under Part VI.D.2.
is no longer accurate because a different individual or position has
responsibility for the overall operation of the facility, a new
authorization satisfying the requirements of paragraph VI.D.2. must be
submitted to the Regional Administrator prior to or together with any
reports, information, or applications to be signed by an authorized
representative.
4. Certification. Any person signing a document under this Part
shall make the following certification:
``I certify under penalty of law that this document and all
attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in
accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel
properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my
inquiry of the person or persons who
[[Page 48836]]
manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering
the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my
knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that
there are significant penalties for submitting false information,
including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing
violations.''
E. Availability of Reports
Except for data determined to be confidential under 40 CFR 2, all
reports prepared in accordance with this permit shall be available for
public inspection at the offices of the state water pollution control
agency and the Director. As required by the Act, permit applications,
permits, Best Management Practices Plans, Mud Plans, and effluent data
shall not be considered confidential.
F. Inspection and Entry
The Permittee shall allow the Director, or an authorized
representative (including an authorized contractor acting as a
representative of the Administrator), upon the presentation of
credentials and other documents as may be required by law, to:
1. Enter upon the Permittee's premises where a regulated facility
or activity is located or conducted, or where records must be kept
under the conditions of this permit;
2. Have access to and copy, at reasonable times, any records that
must be kept under the conditions of this permit;
3. Inspect at reasonable times any facilities, equipment (including
monitoring and control equipment), practices, or operations regulated
or required under this permit; and
4. Sample or monitor at reasonable times, for the purpose of
assuring permit compliance or as otherwise authorized by the Act, any
substances or parameters at any location.
G. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability
Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the
institution of any legal action or relieve the Permittee from any
responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties to which the Permittee is
or may be subject under Section 311 of the Act.
H. Property Rights
The issuance of this permit does not convey any property rights of
any sort, or any exclusive privileges, nor does it authorize any injury
to private property or any invasion of personal rights, nor any
infringement of federal, state or local laws or regulations.
I. Severability
The provisions of this permit are severable. If any provision of
this permit, or the application of any provision of this permit to any
circumstance, is held invalid, the application of such provision to
other circumstances, and the remainder of this permit, shall not be
affected thereby.
J. Transfers
This permit may be automatically transferred to a new Permittee if:
1. The current Permittee notifies the Director at least 30 days in
advance of the proposed transfer date;
2. The notice includes a written agreement between the existing and
new Permittees containing a specific date for transfer of permit
responsibility, coverage, and liability between them; and
3. The Director does not notify the existing Permittee and the
proposed new Permittee of his or her intent to modify, or revoke and
reissue the permit.
If the notice described in paragraph 3 above is not received, the
transfer is effective on the date specified in the agreement mentioned
in paragraph 2 above.
K. State Laws
Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the
institution of any legal action or relieve the Permittee from any
responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties established pursuant to any
applicable state law or regulation under authority preserved by Section
510 of the Act.
L. Reopener Clause
1. This permit shall be modified, or alternatively, revoked and
reissued, to comply with any applicable effluent standard or limitation
issued or approved under Sections 301(b)(2)(C) and (D), 304(b)(2), and
307(a)(2) of the Act, as amended, if the effluent standard, limitation,
or requirement so issued or approved:
a. Contains different conditions or is otherwise more stringent
than any condition in the permit; or
b. Controls any pollutant or disposal method not addressed in the
permit.
The permit as modified or reissued under this paragraph shall also
contain any other requirements of the Act then applicable.
2. This permit may be reopened to adjust any effluent limitations
if future water quality studies, waste load allocation determinations,
or changes in water quality standards show the need for different
requirements.
VII. Definitions
1. ``AAS'' means atomic absorption spectrophotometry.
2. ``Acute toxic unit (TUa)'' is a measure of acute toxicity.
The number of acute toxic units in the effluent is calculated as 100/
LC50, where the LC50 is measured in percent effluent.
3. ``ADEC'' means the Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation.
4. ``Average monthly discharge limitation'' means the highest
allowable average of ``daily discharges'' over a calendar month,
calculated as the sum of all ``daily discharges'' measured during a
calendar month divided by the number of ``daily discharges'' measured
during that month.
5. ``Ballast water'' means harbor or seawater added or removed to
maintain the proper ballast floater level and ship draft.
6. ``bbl/hr'' means barrels per hour. One barrel equals 42 gallons.
7. ``Bilge water'' means water which collects in the lower internal
parts of the drilling vessel hull.
8. ``Biocide'' means any chemical agent used for controlling the
growth of or destroying nuisance organisms (e.g., bacteria, algae, and
fungi).
9. ``Blowout preventer fluid'' means fluid used to actuate
hydraulic equipment on the blowout preventer.
10. ``BOD'' means biochemical oxygen demand.
11. ``Boiler blowdown'' means the discharge of water and minerals
drained from boiler drums.
12. ``Bulk discharge'' means the discharge of more than 100 barrels
in a one-hour period.
13. ``Bypass'' means the intentional diversion of waste streams
from any portion of a treatment facility.
14. ``Cd'' means cadmium.
15. ``Chronic toxic unit (TUc)'' is a measure of chronic
toxicity. The number of chronic toxic units in the effluent is
calculated as 100/NOEC, where the NOEC is measured in percent effluent.
16. ``COD'' means chemical oxygen demand.
17. ``Completion fluid'' means salt solutions, weighted brines,
polymers, and various additives used to prevent damage to the wellbore
during operations which prepare the drilled well for hydrocarbon
production.
18. ``Composite sample'' for oil and grease analysis means a set of
four individual grab samples taken a minimum of two hours apart within
a 24-hour period. The samples shall be of equal size and of not less
than 100 ml each. They shall be collected and stored
[[Page 48837]]
in accordance with procedures in 40 CFR 136. Samples shall be analyzed
separately and the results of the four analyses averaged to provide a
single value for the composite sample.
19. ``Cooling water'' means once-through non-contact cooling water.
20. ``Daily discharge'' means the discharge of a pollutant measured
during a calendar day or any 24-hour period that reasonably represents
the calendar day for purposes of sampling. For pollutants with
limitations expressed in units of mass, the ``daily discharge'' is
calculated as the total mass of the pollutant discharged over the day.
For pollutants with limitations expressed in other units of
measurement, the ``daily discharge'' is calculated as the average
measurement of the pollutant over the day.
21. ``Deck drainage'' means all waste resulting from platform
washings, deck washings, spillage, rainwater, and runoff from curbs,
gutters, and drains including drip pans and wash areas within
facilities subject to this permit.
22. ``Desalination unit wastes'' means wastewater associated with
the process of creating freshwater from seawater.
23. ``Development'' operations are those operations that are
engaged in the drilling and completion of production wells. These
operations may occur prior to or simultaneously with production
operations.
24. ``Diesel oil'' means the grade of distillate fuel, as specified
in the American Society for Testing and Materials Standard
Specifications D975-81, that is typically used as the continuous phase
in conventional oil-based drilling fluids, which contains a number of
toxic pollutants. For the purpose of this permit, ``diesel oil''
includes the fuel oil present at the facility.
25. ``Director'' means the Regional Administrator or delegated
authority for administration of the NPDES program in EPA, Region 10.
26. ``Domestic wastes'' means materials discharged from showers,
sinks, safety showers, eye-wash stations, hand-wash stations, fish-
cleaning stations, galleys and laundries.
27. ``Drill cuttings'' means particles generated by drilling into
subsurface geological formations and carried to the surface with the
drilling fluid.
28. ``Drilling fluid'' means the circulating fluid (mud) used in
the rotary drilling of wells to clean and condition the hole and to
counterbalance formation pressure. A water-based drilling fluid is the
conventional drilling mud in which water is the continuous phase and
the suspended medium for solids, whether or not oil is present. See
also ``oil-based drilling mud'', below.
29. ``Drilling Fluids Toxicity Test'' means a toxicity test
conducted and reported in accordance the following approved toxicity
test methodology: ``Drilling Fluids Toxicity Test,'' as defined in
Appendix 2 to Subpart A of 40 CFR 435, or other methods approved in
advance by Region 10 that produce results which will assure equivalent
protection levels.
30. ``Drilling mud'' means any fluid sent down the hole, including
any specialty products, from the time a well is begun until final
cessation of drilling in that hole. It also includes fluids used in
workover operations involving drilling. A water-base drilling fluid is
the conventional drilling mud in which water is the continuous phase
and the suspending medium for solids, whether or not oil is present.
For the purposes of this permit, an oil-based drilling fluid has a
petroleum-based hydrocarbon oil as its continuous phase with water as
the dispersed phase. See ``oil-based drilling mud'', below.
31. ``Excess cement slurry'' means the excess cement and wastes
from equipment washdown after a cementing operation.
32. ``Exploratory'' operations are limited to those operations
involving drilling to determine the nature of potential hydrocarbon
reserves and does not include drilling of wells once a hydrocarbon
reserve has been defined. Discharges from exploratory operations are
limited to five wells per site.
33. ``Fire control system test water'' means the water released
during the training of personnel in fire protection and the testing and
maintenance of fire protection equipment.
34. ``GC'' means gas chromatography. ``GC/MS'' means gas
chromatography/mass spectrometry.
35. A ``Grab'' sample is a single sample or measurement taken at a
specific time or over as short a period of time as is feasible.
36. ``Hg'' means mercury.
37. ``lb/bbl'' means pounds per barrel.
38. ``LC50'' means the concentration of effluent that is
acutely toxic to 50 percent of the test organisms exposed.
39. ``Maximum daily discharge limitation'' means the highest
allowable ``daily discharge.''
40. ``Maximum hourly rate'' as applied to drilling mud, cuttings,
and washwater means the greatest number of barrels of drilling fluids
discharged within one hour, expressed as barrels per hour.
41. ``Method Detection Limit (MDL)'' means the minimum
concentration of an analyte that can be measured and reported with 99
percent confidence that the analyte concentration is greater than zero
as determined by a specific laboratory method.
42. ``MGD'' means million gallons per day.
43. ``mg/kg'' means milligrams per kilogram.
44. ``mg/l'' means milligrams per liter.
45. ``Mineral oil'' means a class of low volatility petroleum
product, generally of lower aromatic hydrocarbon content and lower
toxicity than diesel oil.
46. ``Mineral oil pills'' (also called mineral oil spots) are
formulated and circulated in the mud system as a slug in attempt to
free stuck pipe. Pills generally consist of two parts: a spotting
compound and mineral oil.
47. ``Minimum daily'' discharge limitation means the lowest
allowable ``daily discharge.
48. ``Monitoring month'' means the period consisting of the
calendar weeks which end in a given calendar month.
49. ``Monthly average'' means the average of ``daily discharges''
over a monitoring month, calculated as the sum of all ``daily
discharges'' measured during a monitoring month divided by the number
of ``daily discharges'' measured during that month.
50. ``MSD'' means marine sanitation device.
51. ``Muds, cuttings, cement at sea floor'' means the materials
discharged at the surface of the ocean floor in the early phases of
drilling operations, before the well casing is set, and during well
abandonment and plugging.
52. ``NAA'' means neutron activation analysis.
53. ``No discharge of free oil'' means that waste streams may not
be discharged when they would cause a film or sheen upon or a
discoloration of the surface of the receiving water or fail the static
sheen test defined in Appendix 1 to 40 CFR 435, Subpart A.
54. ``No discharge of diesel oil'' in drilling mud means a
determination that diesel oil is not present based on a comparison of
the gas chromatogram from an extract of the drilling mud and from
diesel oil obtained from the drilling rig or platform. GC/MS may also
be used.
55. ``NOEC'' means no observable effect concentration. The NOEC is
the highest tested concentration of an effluent at which no adverse
effects are observed on the test organisms at a specific time of
observation.
56. ``Non-contact cooling water''--see ``cooling water.''
57. ``Oil-based drilling mud'' means a drilling mud with fossil-
derived petroleum hydrocarbons as the continuous phase.
[[Page 48838]]
58. ``Open water'' means less than 25 percent ice coverage within a
one mile radius of the discharge site.
59. ``Produced solids'' means sands and other solids deposited from
produced water which collect in vessels and lines and which must be
removed to maintain adequate vessel and line capacities
60. ``Produced water'' means fluid extracted from a hydrocarbon
reserve during development or production. The fluid is generally a
mixture of oil, water, and natural gas. This may include formation
water, injection water, and any chemicals added downhole or during the
oil/water separation process.
61. ``Production'' operations are those operations involving active
recovery of hydrocarbons from production formations. These operations
may occur simultaneously with or following development operations.
62. ``Sanitary wastes'' means human body waste discharged from
toilets and urinals.
63. ``Severe property damage'' means substantial physical damage to
property, damage to the treatment facilities which causes them to
become inoperable, or substantial and permanent loss of natural
resources which can reasonably be expected to occur in the absence of a
bypass. Severe property damage does not mean economic loss caused by
delays in production.
64. ``Site'' means the single, specific geographical location where
a mobile drilling facility (jackup rig, semi-submersible, or arctic
mobile rig) conducts its activity, including the area beneath the
facility, or to a location of a single gravel island.
65. ``Slush ice'' occurs during the initial stage of ice formation
when unconsolidated individual ice crystals (frazil) form a slush layer
at the surface of the water column.
66. ``Stable ice'' means ice that is stable enough to support
discharged muds and cuttings.
67. ``Static Sheen Test'' means the standard test procedures that
has been developed for this industrial subcategory for the purpose of
demonstrating compliance with the requirement of no discharge of free
oil. The methodology for performing the static sheen test is presented
in Appendix 1 to Subpart A of 40 CFR 435.
68. ``Test fluid'' means the discharge which would occur should
hydrocarbons be located during exploratory drilling and tested for
formation pressure and content. This would consist of fluids sent
downhole during testing along with water from the formation.
69. ``TOC'' means total organic carbon.
70. A ``24-hour composite'' sample shall mean a flow-proportioned
mixture of not less than 8 discrete aliquots. Each aliquot shall be a
grab sample of not less than 100 ml and shall be collected and stored
in accordance with procedures prescribed in the most recent edition of
Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater.
71. ``Unstable or broken ice conditions'' means greater than 25%
ice coverage within a one mile radius of the discharge site after
spring breakup or after the start of slush ice formation in the fall,
but not stable ice.
72. ``Upset'' means an exceptional incident in which there is
unintentional and temporary noncompliance with technology-based permit
effluent limitations because of factors beyond the reasonable control
of the Permittee. An upset does not include noncompliance to the extent
caused by operational error, improperly designed treatment facilities,
inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventive maintenance, or
careless or improper operation.
73. ``Waste stream'' means any non-de minimus stream of pollutants
within the Permittee's facility that enters any permitted outfall or
navigable waters. This includes spills and other unintentional, non-
routine or unanticipated discharges.
74. ``Waterflooding discharges'' means discharges associated with
the treatment of seawater prior to its injection into a hydrocarbon-
bearing formation to improve the flow of hydrocarbons from production
wells. These discharges include strainer and filter backwash water, and
treated water in excess of that required for injection.
75. ``Weekly average'' means the average of daily discharges over a
calendar week, calculated as the sum of all daily discharges measured
during a calendar week divided by the number of daily discharges
measured during that week. For fecal coliform bacteria, the weekly
average is calculated as the geometric mean of all daily discharges
measured during a calendar week.
76. ``Well completion fluids'' are salt solutions, weighted brines,
polymers and various additives used to prevent damage to the well bore
during operations which prepare the drilled well for hydrocarbon
production. These fluids move into the formation and return to the
surface as a slug with the produced water.
77. A ``well treatment fluid'' is any fluid used to restore or
improve productivity by chemically or physically altering hydrocarbon
bearing strata after a well has been drilled.
78. ``Workover fluids'' are salt solutions, weighted brines,
polymers, or other specialty additives used in a producing well to
allow for maintenance, repair of abandonment procedures. Drilling
fluids used during workover operations are not considered workover
fluids by definition. Packer fluids (low solid fluids between the
packer, production string, and well casing) are considered to be
workover fluids.
79. ``XFA'' means x-ray fluorescence analysis.
80. ``96-hour LC50'' means the concentration of a test material
that is lethal to 50 percent of the test organisms in a toxicity test
after 96 hours of constant exposure.
81. ``g/l'' means micrograms per liter.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 48839]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN20SE95.001
[[Page 48840]]
[GRAPHIC][TIFF OMITTED]TN20SE95.002
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C
[[Page 48841]]
References
1. EPA Form 3510-2C, Wastewater Discharge Information,
Consolidated Permits Program (revised 2/85).
2. State of Alaska. State of Alaska Game Refuges, Critical
Habitat Areas, and Game Sanctuaries, Alaska Department of Fish and
Game, Habitat Division. March 1991.
3. EPA. Drilling Fluids Toxicity Test. Appendix 2 to Subpart A
of 40 CFR Part 435.
4. EPA. Analysis of Diesel Oil in Drilling Fluids and Drill
Cuttings. CENTEC 1985.
5. EPA. Approved Methodology: Laboratory Sheen Tests for the
Offshore Subcategory, Oil and Gas Extraction Industry. Appendix 1 to
Subpart A of 40 CFR Part 435.
6. EPA. Short-term Methods for Estimating the Chronic Toxicity
of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Marine and Estuarine Organisms
(2nd edition). EPA/600/4-90/003.
7. Chapman, Gary, and Denton, Debra. Standard Practice for
Conducting Static Acute Toxicity Tests With Larvae of Four Species
of Bivalve Molluscs. Designation: E 724-89. ASTM 1989.
8. EPA. Toxicity Reduction Evaluation Protocol for Industrial
Treatment Plants. EPA/600/2-88/070.
9. EPA. Toxicity Identification Evaluation: Characterization of
Chronically Toxic Effluent, Phase I. EPA/600/6-91/005F.
10. EPA. Methods for Aquatic Toxicity Identification
Evaluations: Phase II Toxicity Identification Procedures for Samples
Exhibiting Acute and Chronic Toxicity. EPA/600/R-92/080.
11. EPA. Methods for Aquatic Toxicity Identification
Evaluations: Phase III Toxicity Confirmation Procedures. EPA/600/R-
92/081.
[FR Doc. 95-23207 Filed 9-19-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
