[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 200 (Friday, October 16, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55718-55762]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-27701]
[[Page 55717]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
Final National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES); Notice
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 200 / Friday, October 16, 1998 /
Notices
[[Page 55718]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-6176-8]
Final National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
General Permits for the Eastern Portion of Outer Continental Shelf
(OCS) of the Gulf of Mexico (GMG280000) and Record of Decision
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final Issuance of NPDES General Permits.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Regional Administrator (RA) of EPA Region 4 (the
``Region'') is today issuing final National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) general permits for the Eastern Portion of
the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) of the Gulf of Mexico (General Permit
No. GMG280000), published at 61 FR 64876 on December 9, 1996, revised
on January 7, 1998, at 63 FR 846, for discharges in the Offshore
Subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category (40 CFR
part 435, subpart A). The existing permit, jointly issued by Regions 4
and 6 and published at 51 FR 24897 on July 9, 1986, authorizes
discharges from exploration, development, and production facilities
located in and discharging to all Federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico
seaward of the outer boundary of the territorial seas. Region 6 issued
a final permit (General Permit No. GMG290000) for the Western portion
of the OCS of the Gulf of Mexico, published at 57 FR 54642 on November
19, 1992, for facilities in Federal waters seaward of Louisiana and
Texas Waters. This notice constitutes the Agency's Record of Decision
in accordance with Council on Environmental Quality regulations 40 CFR
1505.2 and EPA regulations 40 CFR 6.606. Draft and Final EISs were
issued December 4, 1996 and August 14, 1998, respectively, that
considered the range of permitting options available to EPA.
Alternative A is the issuance of a general permit to cover the entire
Region 4 geographic permitting area in the Gulf; Alternative B is
limiting a general permit to the area seaward of the 200 meter isobath;
and Alternative C is withholding general permit coverage entirely and
conducting individual permit reviews for each application filed. The
EIS process defined the affected environment and assessed the potential
impacts of the alternatives on the natural and man-made environments. A
broad spectrum of mitigation measures were considered in the EIS. To
assist in the selection of alternatives, EPA considered different types
and degrees of environmental survey information, different review
procedures and discharge options. Key to the decision to extend general
permit coverage to the Region 4 portion of the Central Planning Area
(CPA) offshore Mississippi and Alabama, was to exclude from such
coverage four Areas of Biological Concern. Additionally, EPA found it
necessary to require Notices of Intent for coverage submitted to the
Agency to include geohazards and photodocumentation surveys. While
substantial oil and gas activity has occurred and continues, EPA
determined that there was inadequate site-specific marine habitat
information for the CPA to draw on in making decisions on permit
coverage. Today's final NPDES permits cover existing and new source
facilities in the Eastern Planning Area (Alternative B of the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)) with operations on Federal leases
occurring in water depths seaward of 200 meters, occurring offshore the
coasts of Florida and Alabama, and existing and new source facilities
in the Central Planning Area (Alternative A of the EIS), with
operations located in and discharging pollutants to federal waters in
lease blocks located seaward of the outer boundary of the territorial
seas offshore Mississippi and Alabama. The western boundary of the
coverage area is demarcated by Mobile and Viosca Knoll leases located
seaward of the outer boundary of the territorial seas from the coasts
of Mississippi and Alabama in the Central Planning Area; except
specific areas in the Central Planning Area which may be designated by
EPA as Areas of Biological Concern (See Fact Sheet published on January
7, 1998 at 63 FR 846 and Final Environmental Impact Statement, issued
August 14, 1998). The eastern boundary of the coverage area is
demarcated by the Vernon Basin leases north of the 26 deg. parallel and
in water depths seaward of 200 meters.
All permittees holding leases on which a discharge has taken place
within 2 years of the effective dates of the new general permits
(operating facilities) in these areas must file a written notice of
intent to be covered by either the new general permit for existing
sources or the new general permit for new sources within 60 days after
November 16, 1998 of the final determination on this action. Non-
operational leases, i.e., those on which no discharges have taken place
in the 2 years prior to the effective date of November 16, 1998, are
not eligible for coverage under either general permit, and their
coverage under the old general permit will terminate on the effective
date of the new general permits. No NOI's will be accepted on non-
operational or newly acquired leases until such time as an exploration
plan or development production plan has been prepared for submission to
EPA. The notice of intent must contain the information set forth in 40
CFR Sec. 122.28(b)(2)(ii) and Part I, Section A.4 of the NPDES general
permit. In accordance with Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source
Category; Offshore Subcategory Effluent Guidelines and New Source
Performance Standards published at 58 FR 12454 on March 4, 1993, EPA
Region 4 made an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) available with
the general permits for review during the public comment period that
addresses potential impacts from facilities that may be defined as new
sources in the context of a comprehensive offshore permitting strategy.
As set forth in Section 2.4.2 of the EIS and information received, the
Regional Administrator has determined that the area in the Eastern
Planning Area shoreward of the 200 meter depth and certain designated
areas in the Central Planning Area includes or is likely to include
valuable marine habitats, including extensive live bottom and other
valuable marine habitats that have not been adequately located nor
fully characterized and which may be more sensitive to the discharges
from oil and gas exploration and production activities. These resources
potentially qualify and includes areas of biological concern, which are
subject to more stringent review based on the ocean discharge criteria
under Section 403 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and findings of the
Final EIS. Accordingly, individual permits reviews will be conducted
for facilities on lease blocks traversed by and shoreward of the 200
meter water depth in the Eastern Planning Area and certain designated
areas of biological concern in the Central Planning Area. Owners or
operators of those leases will be notified in writing that an
individual permit is required. A brief statement of the reasons for
this decision will be provided, together with an application form and a
deadline for filing the application. If a timely application is
received, general permit coverage will continue and shall automatically
terminate on the date final action is taken on the individual NPDES
permit application, in accordance with 40 CFR Sec. 122.28(b)(3)(ii). No
application will be accepted for non-operational leases until such time
as an exploration plan
[[Page 55719]]
or development production plan has been prepared for submission to EPA.
Owners of non-operational leases and operators who neither file a
notice of intent nor an individual permit application will lose
coverage under the old general permit on the effective date of the new
general permits, which is on November 16, 1998.
These final NPDES general permits include BPT, BCT, and BAT
limitations for existing sources and NSPS limitations for new sources
as recently promulgated in the effluent guidelines for the offshore
subcategory at 58 FR 12454 (March 4, 1993) and codified at 40 CFR Part
435, subpart A. The permits also address a decision of the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals by establishing limits on cadmium and mercury
and by removing references to Alternative Toxicity Requests. In
addition, the permits delete references to the Diesel Pill Monitoring
Program, incorporate a new limitation on garbage discharges consistent
with the regulations of the U.S. Coast Guard, clarify the applicability
of some of the permit's effluent limitations and reporting
requirements, establish aquatic toxicity limitations for produced
water, and include a reopener clause.
DATES: This NPDES General Permit is effective on November 16, 1998.
This NPDES General Permit shall expire on October 31, 2003.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Contact Mr. Roosevelt Childress, Chief,
Surface Water Permits Section, telephone (404) 562-9279, Ms. Kay Crane,
Environmental Scientist, telephone (404) 562-9299, or Mr. Larry Cole,
Environmental Engineer, telephone (404) 562-9474 or at the following
address: Water Management Division, Surface Water Permits Section, U.S.
EPA, Region 4, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, S.W.,
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
The Regional Administrator for EPA Region 4 is today reissuing in
part the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
general permits for the Outer Continental Shelf of the Gulf of Mexico
(General Permit No. GMG280000) under Region 4 jurisdiction. This
previous permit, published at 51 FR 24897 (July 9, 1986), issued
jointly for the Eastern and Western Gulf of Mexico by Regions 4 and 6,
expired on July 1, 1991. Region 6 reissued a final existing permit for
the Western Portion of the Outer Continental Shelf (General Permit No.
GMG290000), published at 57 FR 54642 (November 19, 1992) with a
modification published at 58 FR 63964 (December 3, 1993). Region 4,
continued coverage under the previous OCS general permit to permittees
that requested to be covered before the previous general permit expired
on July 1, 1991. Region 4 proposed draft NPDES general permits for the
Eastern Gulf of Mexico at 61 FR 64876 on December 9, 1996, regulating
existing source and new source oil and gas OCS discharges. Region 4
revised the draft NPDES general permits for the Eastern Gulf of Mexico
at 63 FR 846 on January 7, 1998. Today's final Eastern Gulf of Mexico
OCS revised general permits regulate existing source and new source OCS
discharges throughout the Gulf of Mexico for offshore areas under the
jurisdiction of Region 4.
For reference, Region 4 published a detailed fact sheet with the
proposed draft permit in 61 FR 64876 on December 9, 1996 and a revised
fact sheet in 63 FR 846 on January 7, 1998. The Region is incorporating
by reference the original fact sheet and revised fact sheet as part of
the final fact sheet for today's final permit. The discussions
presented in these fact sheets should be consulted in reviewing the
applicability and scope of the final permit conditions.
II. Procedures For Reaching a Final Permit Decision
EPA has prepared draft and final EISs that evaluated the potential
impacts of the proposed federal action (issuance of the general
permits) within the context of a comprehensive NPDES permitting
strategy for the Region 4 jurisdictional area of the Gulf of Mexico.
The process was conducted in accordance with the regulations
implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The findings
of the EIS, the CWA Section 403(c) Evaluation and agency and public
comments were utilized in reaching the decision to issue the general
permits with the conditions and geographic limitation described herein.
Important interagency coordination occurred between EPA and MMS, as
prescribed by a Memorandum of Understanding. A significant amount of
information and assistance was obtained from MMS. Further, a
preliminary draft EIS was reviewed by MMS and that agency's comments
were fully considered. Since EPA will be conducting individual
permitting outside the General Permit area of new source development /
production projects, EPA intends to coordinate its efforts with MMS on
the environmental reviews required of each agency by NEPA.
EPA initially proposed to limit general permit coverage to waters
outside the 200 meter isobath, thereby excluding all of the Central
Planning Area (CPA). Extensive comments on this preferred alternative
in the Draft EIS and the draft General Permit were received. EPA
investigated whether general permit coverage could be appropriate for
the CPA. The Minerals Management Service was consulted to determine
whether significant bottom habitats have been documented adequately
within the CPA. EPA determined that insufficient information on the
location and characterization of habitats exists; and therefore, the
geohazards and photodocumentation surveys have been added as conditions
on the general permits.
EPA has considered all written comments submitted on the Final EIS,
403(c) Evaluation, the notice of revised draft general permit published
on January 7, 1998, as well as all written comments submitted pursuant
to the December 9, 1996 draft general permit and all comments received
during the four (4) public hearings in January and February of 1997. A
summary of these comments follow and are available to the public, state
agencies and local governments as part of Region 4's administrative
record.
A formal hearing is available to challenge any NPDES permit issued
according to the regulations at 40 CFR 124.15 except for a general
permit as cited at 40 CFR 124.71. Within 120 days following notice of
EPA Region 4 final permit decision under 40 CFR 124.15, any interested
person may appeal this general NPDES permit in the Federal Court of
Appeals in accordance with 509(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act. Persons
affected by a general permit may not challenge the conditions of a
general permit as a right in further Agency proceedings. They may
instead either challenge the general permit in court, or apply for an
individual permit as specified at 40 CFR 122.21 as authorized at 40 CFR
122.28, and then request a formal hearing on the issuance or denial of
an individual permit. Additional information regarding these procedures
is available by contacting Mr. David M. Moore, Associate Regional
Counsel at (404) 562-9547.
III. Procedures For Obtaining General Permit Coverage
Notice of Intent (NOI) requirements for obtaining coverage for
operating facilities under both permits are stated in Part I Section
A.4 of the general permit. Coverage under the new general permit is
effective upon receipt of notification of inclusion from the
[[Page 55720]]
Director of the Water Management Division. EPA will act on the NOI
within a reasonable period of time.
IV. Exclusion of Non-Operational Leases
These permits do not apply to non-operational leases, i.e., those
on which no discharge has taken place in the 2 years prior to November
16, 1998, the effective date of the new general permits. EPA will not
accept NOI's for such leases, and these general permits will not cover
such leases. Non-operational leases will lose coverage under the old
general permit on the effective date of the new general permits which
is November 16, 1998. No subsequent exploration, development or
production activities may take place on these leases until and unless
the lessee has obtained coverage under one of the new general permits
or an individual permits. EPA will not accept NOI's or individual
permit applications for non-operational or new acquired leases until
such time as an exploration plan or development production plan has
been prepared for submission to EPA.
The new permitting requirements for leases covered under the old
general permits are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1.--New Permitting Requirements for Leases Covered Under the Old General Permit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coverage Date old general Type of permit
Lease location Discharge status requirements permit expires coverage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Central Planning Area & Outside (1) Operational... File an NOI within Date EPA Notifies New General
200 meter Isobath in Eastern 60 days of Lessee of New Permit, except
Planning Area. effective date of Coverage Decision. near an Area of
new general Biological
permit. Concern.
(2) Leases With File NOI At Time Effective Date of New General
Imminent Projects. Exploration Plan New General Permit, except
or Development Permit. near an Area of
Production Plan Biological
Exists. Concern.
(3) Non- No NOI will be Effective Date of None.
Operational. accepted; New General
Ineligible for Permit.
General Permit
Coverage.
Inside 200 meter Isobath in (1) Operational... File an individual Date EPA notifies Individual Permit.
Eastern Planning Area & certain permit lessee of
designated areas in the Central application Individual permit
Planning Area. within 120 days decision.
of effective date
of new general
permit.
(2) Lessees with File an Individual Effective date of Individual Permit.
Imminent Projects. Permit New General
Application when Permit.
Lessee has
Exploration Plan
or Development
Production Plan.
(3) Non- Ineligible For Effective Date of None.
Operational. General Permit New General
Coverage. Permit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. State Water Quality Certification
Because state waters are not included in the area covered by the
OCS general permit, its effluent limitations and monitoring
requirements are not subject to state water quality certification under
CWA Section 401.
VI. State Consistency Determination
Region 4 is required under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
to provide all necessary information for the States of Mississippi,
Alabama and Florida to review this action for consistency with their
approved Coastal Management Programs. A copy of the consistency
determination on the proposed activities was sent to each affected
State, along with draft copies of the draft NPDES general permit, Fact
Sheet, preliminary Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation, and Draft
Environmental Impact Statement. Each state concurred with EPA's finding
of consistency. Because of the proposed change in the General Permit
coverage, EPA reviewed again the three state plans and found the
revised permit coverage consistent. Accordingly, a second CZM
coordination with the states occurred with the review of the Final EIS,
and concurrences with Region 4's revised action were received from the
three states.
VII. Administrative Record
The final NPDES general permits, fact sheet, 403(c) determination,
Final EIS, public comments received, public hearing transcripts and
other relevant documents on today's action are on file and may be
inspected any time between 8:15 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday at the address shown below. Copies of the final NPDES general
permits, fact sheet, 403(c) determination, Final EIS, public comments
received, public hearing transcripts and other relevant documents may
be obtained by writing the U.S. EPA, Region 4, Atlanta Federal Center,
61 Forsyth Street, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960, Attention: Ms.
LaShon Blakely, or calling (404) 562-9276.
VIII. Other Legal Requirements
Oil Spill Requirements
Section 311 of the Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of oil
and hazardous materials in harmful quantities. Routine discharges that
are in compliance with NPDES permits are excluded from the provisions
of section 311. However, the permits do not preclude the institution of
legal action or relieve permittees from any responsibilities,
liabilities, or penalties for other, unauthorized discharges of oil and
hazardous materials that are covered by section 311 of the Act.
Endangered Species Act
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) allocates authority to, and
administers requirements upon, federal agencies regarding endangered
species of fish, wildlife, or plants that have been
[[Page 55721]]
designated as critical. Its implementing regulations (50 CFR Part 402)
require the RA to ensure, in consultation with the Secretaries of
Interior and Commerce, that any action authorized, funded or carried
out by EPA is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
endangered or threatened species or adversely affect its critical
habitat (40 CFR 122.49(c)). Implementing regulations for the ESA
establish a process by which agencies consult with one another to
ensure that issues and concerns of both the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
collectively are addressed. The NMFS and USFWS have responded to EPA's
initiation of the coordination process under the regulations set forth
by section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. The 36 species identified
by NMFS and USFWS as threatened or endangered species within the permit
coverage area have been assessed for potential effects from the
activities covered by the proposed permit in a biological assessment
incorporated in the Draft EIS. This biological assessment was submitted
to the NMFS and USFWS along with the proposed permit for consistency
review and concurrence on the Region's finding of no adverse effect.
This coordination is appended to the Final EIS. Concurrence from USFWS
was received on 7/30/98, with EPA's findings that the permits would not
affect the continued existence or critical habitat of federal listings
of endangered or threatened species. The NMFS having provided comments
on the Draft EIS, provided concurrence on the modification of the
project.
Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation
For discharges into waters located seaward of the inner boundary of
the territorial seas, the Clean Water Act at section 403, requires that
NPDES permits consider guidelines for determining the potential
degradation of the marine environment. The guidelines, or Ocean
Discharge Criteria (40 CFR part 125, subpart M), are intended to
``prevent unreasonable degradation of the marine environment and to
authorize imposition of effluent limitations, including a prohibition
of discharge, if necessary, to ensure this goal'' (45 FR 65942, October
3, 1980).
An Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation (ODCE) determination of no
unreasonable degradation has been made by Region 4 based on an analysis
by Avanti Corporation (1998a). The potential effects of discharges
under the proposed permit limitations and conditions are assessed in
this revised document available from Region 4. The ODCE states that,
based on the available information, the permit limitations are
sufficient to determine that no unreasonable degradation should result
from the permitted discharges.
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
No marine sanctuaries as designated by the Marine Protection,
Research, and Sanctuaries Act exist in the area to which the OCS permit
applies.
Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action from
the review requirements of Executive Order 12291 pursuant to section
8(b) of that order. Guidance on Executive Order 12866 contain the same
exemptions on OMB review as existed under Executive Order 12291. In
fact, however, EPA prepared a regulatory impact analysis in connection
with its promulgation of guidelines on which a number of permit's
provisions are based and submitted it to OMB for review. See 58 FR
12494.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection required by these permits has been
approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., in
submission made for the NPDES permit program and assigned OMB control
numbers 2040-0086 (NPDES permit application) and 2040-0004 (discharge
monitoring reports).
All facilities affected by these permits must submit a notice of
intent to be covered under the eastern Gulf of Mexico OCS general
permit GMG280000. EPA estimates that it will take an affected facility
three hours to prepare the request for coverage.
All affected facilities will be required to submit discharge
monitoring reports (DMRs). EPA estimated DMR burden for the existing
permit to be 36 hours per facility per year. The DMR burden for these
proposed permits is expected to increase slightly due to the additional
reporting required for calculating the critical dilution for produced
water discharges. While this permit requires some increased monitoring
and reporting of that data, the DMR burden for the proposed permits is
estimated to increase slightly and facilities affected by this permit
reissuance were subject to similar information collection burdens under
the existing Gulf of Mexico OCS general permit that this proposed
reissuance will replace.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Section 201 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), Public Law
104-4, generally requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their ``regulatory actions'' on State, local, and tribal governments
and the private sector. UMRA uses the term ``regulatory actions'' to
refer to regulations. (See, e.g., UMRA section 201, ``Each agency shall
* * * assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions * * * (other
than to the extent that such regulations incorporate requirements
specifically set forth in law)'' (emphasis added)). UMRA section 102
defines ``regulation'' by reference to section 658 of Title 2 of the
U.S. Code, which in turn defines ``regulation'' and ``rule'' by
reference to section 601(2) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA).
That section of the RFA defines ``rule'' as ``any rule for which the
agency publishes a notice of proposed rulemaking pursuant to section
553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA, or any other law * * *
''
NPDES general permits are not ``rules'' under the APA and thus not
subject to the APA requirement to publish a notice of proposed
rulemaking. NPDES general permits also not subject to such a
requirement under the CWA. While EPA publishes a notice to solicit
public comments on draft general permits, it does so pursuant to the
CWA section 402(a) requirement to provide an ``opportunity for a
hearing.'' Thus, NPDES general permits are not ``rules'' for RFA or
UMRA purposes.
EPA has determined that the proposed permit would not contain a
Federal requirement that may result in expenditures of $100 million or
more for State, local and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any one year.
The Agency also believes that the permit would not significantly
nor uniquely affect small governments. For UMRA purposes, ``small
governments'' is defined by reference to the definition of ``small
government jurisdiction'' under the RFA. (See UMRA section 102(1),
referencing 2 U.S.C. 658, which references section 601(5) of the RFA.)
``Small governmental jurisdiction'' means government of cities,
counties, towns, etc. with a population of less than 50,000, unless the
agency establishes an alternative definition.
The permit, as proposed, also would not uniquely affect small
governments because compliance with the proposed permit conditions
affects small governments in the same manner as any other entities
seeking coverage under the permit. Additionally, EPA does not
[[Page 55722]]
expect small government to operate facilities authorized to discharge
by this permit.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq, requires that
EPA prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for regulations that have
a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. As
indicated above, the permit issued today is not a ``rule'' subject to
the Regulatory Flexibility Act. EPA prepared a regulatory flexibility
analysis, however, on the promulgation of the Offshore Subcategory
guidelines on which many of the permit effluent limitations are based.
That analysis shows that issuance of this permit will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Dated: October 7, 1998.
John H. Hankinson, Jr.,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 4.
Summary of Public Comments
Public notice of the draft permit reissuance was published at 61 FR
64876 (December 9, 1996) with a notice to hold public hearings on the
Region's proposal. 4 public hearings were held on the proposed NPDES
General permit, Fact sheet, Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation and
Draft Environmental Impact Statement on January 28, 1997 in Ocean
Springs, MS, January 29, 1997 in Gulf Shores, Alabama, January 30, 1997
in Pensacola, Florida and February 4, 1997 in St. Petersburg, Florida.
Additionally, the Region published a revised general permit at 63 FR
846 (January 7, 1998). The Region also received comments on the Final
Environmental Impact Statement which Notice of Availability was
published at 63 FR 43698 (August 14, 1998). Copies of comments received
during this action from interested parties have been considered in a
formulation of a final determination regarding Region 4's final action
today on the reissuance of NPDES Permit No. GMG280000. A summary of
only the permit related comments are summarized below; however, other
comments on the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Ocean
Discharge Criteria Evaluation were received by the Region and taken
into consideration in the formulation of the Region final decision on
reissuance of the general permit and are part of Region 4's
administrative record.
Summary of Comments on the Final EIS and Permit Related Comments
Summary of Final EIS Comments
Sixteen comment letters were received during the Final EIS comment
period from the following: US Fish and Wildlife Service; C.A. Wise
Elementary School, Pensacola, FL; Rosie Heindl, Pensacola, FL;
Mississippi Department of Marine Resources; Linda G. Sherman,
Cantonment, FL; Barbara and Lex Mohon, Gulf Breeze, FL; D.E. Walgis,
Pensacola, FL; Southwest Florida Regional Planning Council; Town of
North Redington Beach, FL; Lois Silberstein, Pensacola, FL; Marsha
King, Cantonment, FL; Wendy Tennant, Cantonment, FL; City of Gulf
Shores, AL; Chevron U.S.A., Inc.; Alabama Department of Environmental
Management; and Florida Department of Community Affairs.
The following comments raise new concerns or are of a substantive
nature needing further response. Otherwise, the letters present issues
already addressed adequately by EPA in the text and response to
comments printed in the Final EIS and in the responses set forth below.
Comment 1: Comments by the City of Gulf Shores
Waters offshore Alabama should be treated with the same
environmental sensitivity as waters offshore Florida; individual
permitting should be conducted rather than easier blanket general
permitting; EPA has placed little or no value on the visual pollution
caused by towers as close as 3 miles offshore; believe the local
economy, dependent on beaches, clean water and visual aesthetics, was
not adequately or accurately assessed by EPA.
Response: In general, the waters offshore Mississippi and Alabama
have less hard bottom areas that increase marine life diversity. Most
scientists consider this a natural condition related to the geology of
the bottom and the influx of sediment loads from major rivers. With the
required submittal of geohazard and photodocumentation surveys with
application for General Permit coverage, EPA believes impacts of
wastewater discharges on potential sensitive habitats offshore Alabama
can be minimized or avoided. If state or federal water monitoring shows
near-shore Gulf water quality decreasing, EPA can reconsider the
adequacy of the general permit effluent limits. The near-shore state
and federal waters off the Ft. Morgan peninsula and Dauphin Island have
oil and gas industry structures visible from the peninsula. The EIS
states that structure visibility to beach communities is an aesthetic
factor but not likely to decrease tourist visits. EPA is unaware of
accepted methods to relate aesthetic impacts to coastal community
economics. While the EIS assessed the impact of the offshore oil and
gas industry on the local economy, that economy is changing. The
Alabama coast is becoming heavily developed and the economic value of
its tourist and retirement-based economy is growing rapidly in
comparision to the presently depressed market value of the offshore oil
and gas. It should be noted that the area seaward of the City of Gulf
Shores and eastward is within the Eastern Planning Area and subject to
EPA individual permitting. All environmental issues and public concerns
will be considered in making decisions on issuances of individual
permits.
Comment 2: Comment by the Town of North Redington Beach, FL
Permitting oil and gas facilities within the area known as the Dead
Zone near the outlet of the Mississippi River would not be ecologically
rehabilitative.
Response: The Region 4 permitting is presently not within this area
where scientists have documented a 6000 to 7000 square mile area of the
Gulf offshore Louisiana with extremely low dissolved oxygen during the
hot months of recent years. However, bottom waters not far from the
Alabama coast have infrequent seasonal episodes of lowered dissolved
oxygen.
Comment 3: Comments by Barbara and Lex Mohon, Gulf Breeze, FL
Permitting decisions for projects should await completion of socio-
economic studies available after year 2002; EPA should not continue to
support extracting small amounts of fossil fuel at the end of the
fossil fuel era.
Response: EPA is aware of the socio-economic studies being
conducted by MMS. However, EPA does not control oil and gas activity
and must be prepared to consider applications for NPDES permits
resulting from MMS lease sales. The agency will consider any relevant
information available at the time of permit applications. EPA must
remain objective when it considers permit applications on the issue of
hydrocarbon vs. alternative energy sources and must refer to the
National Energy Policy authored by the Department of Energy.
Comment 4: Comments by David Duplantier, Chevron U.S.A., Inc.
Questions whether EPA included into the project record all of
Chevron's comments, provided to EPA as attachments to their letter.
Response: There are over 200 commenters, with 105 of these in
written form. Some letters had attachments. EPA followed the rule of
[[Page 55723]]
reason in the decision to print only the main comment letters and not
attachments, and also to condense and group comments by topic in order
to keep the Final EIS document and this final permit issuance notice
from becoming excessive in size. Chevron's attachments were reviewed
and the subject of those lengthy attachments responded to Section 5.5
of the Final EIS and the responses set forth below. Accordingly,
readers are referred to comment/response subject groups and may not see
their comments responded to item after item. All letters with any
attachments have been included in the project record.
Comment 5: Comment by James Murley, Florida Department of Community
Affairs
Indicates the State will continue to review both general permit
coverage and individual permits for consistency with the State plan.
Response: EPA acknowledges the State's desire to review proposed
General Permit coverage. It is important to note that EPA's action of
granting such coverage for specific projects is not subject to formal
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) consistency review procedures.
However, EPA intends to coordinate with the State thereby providing
opportunity to offer comments. Issuance of an individual NPDES permit
is an indirect federal action that requires applicants to submit a
consistency determination of their project to the State for review
under CZMA procedures. Therefore, the State of Florida would have a
review of a project, whichever permitting mechanism applies.
Comment 6: Comment by James Murley
The State appreciates the opportunity to work with EPA to further
define resources as ``areas of biological concern''.
Response: Defining ``areas of biological concern'' is a valuable
process for minimizing or avoiding adverse impacts. The State of
Florida has a strong marine research program and expertise in
evaluating maring ecosystems. EPA would entertain nominations from the
State and undertake coordination with MMS and other federal agencies
leading to potential designations relevant to the NPDES permitting
program.
Summary of Permit Related Comments
Comment 1: The commenters state the ``because the Gulf cannot
withstand further pollution, a ``zero discharge'' stipulation must be
added to option B.''
Response: While the stated goal of the CWA is to eliminate the
discharge of pollutants into navigable waters, it also specifies a
progressive step-wise approach for technology-based limitations (i.e.,
BPT, BAT, and NSPS limitations); water quality criteria are developed
on a chemical-by-chemical basis and are intended to be protective for
both human health and aquatic organisms; Section 403 for marine
dischargers requires EPA to assess ten specific factors and only issue
a permit if ``no unreasonable degradation'' will occur (or where
information is insufficient, EPA determines the discharge will not
cause irreparable harm, there are no reasonable alternatives to the on-
site disposal of the materials, and the discharger complies with other
conditions including monitoring and adequate effluent limitations). The
Agency does not believe that the health of the Gulf of Mexico is
jeopardized by the permit with the limitations and conditions developed
by the Region. Additionally, EPA may require any discharger authorized
by this general permit to apply for and obtain an individual permit as
specified in this permit and in EPA regulations, including in instances
where the discharge is a significant contributor of pollutants. See 40
CFR Sec. 122.28(c), 122.28(b)(3). One such instance may arise where
water quality standards, or criteria may be exceeded by a discharge
which would otherwise be subject to this general permit. The permit and
regulations provide that under these circumstances EPA may exercise its
discretion to require an individual permit.
Comment 2: The commenter stated his support for deep well injection
of drilling muds and cuttings as a permitting option for disposing of
this wastestream.
Response: EPA investigated deep well injection as a method of
disposal of drilling muds and cuttings during the development of the
Offshore Effluent Guidelines (EPA, 1993). EPA agrees with the commenter
that the technology of deep well injection of drilling wastes currently
exists. However, not all facilities located in the offshore regions are
able to inject. Subsurface injection requires different formation zones
with appropriate characteristics (e.g., porosity and permeability) that
are separate from the production formation. In some instances, there is
significant risk that the injected material could interfere with
hydrocarbon recovery (EPA, 1996). EPA concluded for the Offshore
Effluent Guidelines that this technology did not constitute the Best
Available Technology Economically Achievable (BAT) for the offshore
industry or for coastal facilities in Cook Inlet, Alaska.
Comment 3: The commenter stated his support for those technologies
that are designed to reduced the amount of drilling mud that is
discharged and also the toxicity of that mud. The commenter opposes any
regulation that promotes hauling of cuttings and stagnates improvements
on drilling mud technology. Some of the consequences that may result
from hauling cuttings to shore are: increased air pollution, decreased
landfill space, and potentially encouraging the use of more toxic,
older drilling fluids technologies.
Response: EPA agrees with the commenter and considers drilling mud
innovations that reduce waste volumes and are less toxic to be positive
technological developments in promoting environmental protection.
However, EPA's mandate is to evaluate the environmental impacts of
discharges resulting from the use of new technologies. The evaluation
considers current industry practices and the best available technology
economically achievable in reducing pollutant concentrations from the
discharged wastestream. In some cases, such as for oil-based drilling
fluids (OBM), the toxicity and environmental impacts of OBM discharge
cannot be sufficiently mitigated in any way other than by a discharge
prohibition based upon current information. EPA evaluated the
consequences of prohibiting OBM discharges, including its technological
feasibility and economic achievability, increased air pollution from
boat traffic, and landfill space capacity, and found that these
consequences result in substantially lower environmental impacts than
the continued discharge of OBM.
For this general permit, EPA is not authorizing the discharge of
synthetic drilling muds or synthetic oils. EPA is currently considering
the environmental impacts from the use of these substances and
appropriate effluent limitations for their use and discharge.
Applicants who wish to discharge synthetic drilling muds or oils should
submit an individual permit application to EPA.
Comment 4: The commenters question the use of monitoring to
determine the need for additional regulation given that harmful effects
may be discovered too late to prevent irrevocable harm. Also, how is
the data tracked and monitored by EPA?
Response: For permitted discharges, with all of the limitations and
conditions imposed under this permit, and with specified monitoring,
the Agency feels that the danger of
[[Page 55724]]
irrevocable harm is not at issue. Monitoring allows the Agency to
assure that its assumptions about effluent and operational
characteristics used to develop a permit that results in ``no
unreasonable degradation'' are continuously tested and verified through
compliance monitoring data submitted by operators on Discharge
Monitoring Reports (DMRs). Monthly DMR data submitted, is entered into
an enforcement data base that is programmed to identify violations. The
data are also reviewed by enforcement staff in cases where the data are
not readily obtained from a data base (e.g., monitoring reports). This
information is available to the public and other entities for many
purposes, including assessment of potentially harmful effects of
discharges.
Comment 5: Many commenters requested 24-hour on-site monitoring by
Minerals Management Service or EPA inspectors, to avoid further illegal
discharges of toxic waste, and a practice of manifesting all supplies
and chemicals transported to and from rigs.
Response: The Clean Water Act, the primary law passed by the U.S.
Congress to protect the waterways of the U.S., defines the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) as the mechanism by
which EPA may grant permits to industries that discharge effluent into
U.S. waters. Per the Clean Water Act, the NPDES was designed to be an
industry self-monitoring system with enforcement conducted by EPA. In
compliance with NPDES permit requirements, EPA requires industry to
monitor numerous pollutant concentrations and toxicity of discharges
from oil and gas exploration and production operations. Discharge
monitoring reports (DMRs) and laboratory data from independent
laboratories are sent to EPA. EPA enforcement personnel review the DMRs
and, if deemed necessary, will inspect the facility to take samples for
verification or to review on-site operations and documentation. EPA has
the authority to visit any industrial facility to which it grants a
NPDES permit.
The Minerals Management Service (MMS) and the U.S. Coast Guard
(USCG) also have jurisdiction in regulating oil and gas operations and
discharges. Because both of these agencies' purview is different than
the EPA's, MMS and the USCG frequently inspect oil and gas facilities.
EPA has coordinated inspections with MMS and USCG and has shared
information to minimize duplicative inspection efforts.
In addition, 24-hour monitoring by either MMS, USCG, or EPA is not
feasible because the U.S. Congress does not provide any of these
agencies the funding to conduct such a labor intensive effort. In fact,
if EPA conducted 24-hour monitoring for each oil and gas facility under
NPDES permits, they would also have to conduct the same level of
monitoring for all industries discharging under the NPDES permit
program. For Region 4, this constitutes thousands of facilities.
The CWA provides for a self-monitoring permitting program, with
civil penalties for failure to comply with the Act. Criminal penalties
may result in situations where a facility fails to comply with permit
provisions, falsifies information submittals, or in the case of other
more egregious violations of the Act.
Comment 6: The commenter suggests that the toxicity test references
be updated to refer to the newer EPA methodology.
Response: The permit has been updated to refer to the 1993 document
``Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving
Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms'' EPA/600/4-90/027F, August
1993.
Comment 7: The commenter suggests that the Region 4 general permit
incorporate the produced water toxicity monitoring frequency
requirements that are in the Region 6 permit for the territorial seas
of Louisiana. The frequency is based on the critical dilution achieved
at each facility and is reduced to once per year if discharger has met
the toxicity limit for 12 consecutive months.
Response: Since produced water limitations based on available
technology are currently being required to be reported on a monthly
basis, the Region agrees that some frequency reduction should be
considered for facilities that consistently meet the produced water
limitation. The Region has decided to reduce the frequency from once/
month to once/2 months for the first year; similar to other industrial
facilities toxicity requirements in the Region. Facilities that pass
six consecutive produced water toxicity tests for six will be allowed
to change to a frequency of once/every six months; otherwise bimonthly
testing shall continue. This frequency is adequate to ensure compliance
with the produced water toxicity limitation is being achieved for the
life of permit.
Comment 8: The commenter suggests that monitoring the oil content
of drilling fluids is not necessary with the other restrictions in
place (i.e., no free oil, static sheen test, no diesel). If the
monitoring is necessary, a method should be specified.
Response: EPA Region 4 agrees with the commenter that the permit is
incorrect and has deleted requirements under the last sentence in Part
I. Section B.1(c) for monitoring for the oil content of drilling fluids
in final issuance of the permit, since the static sheen test requires
testing for compliance with the no free oil limitation before discharge
can occur.
Comment 9: The commenter asks that the oil content monitoring
requirement be added to Tables 2 and 3 for completeness.
Response: EPA agrees with the commenter since the and deleted these
requirements from the final NPDES general permit, Part I. Section
B.1(c), since the static sheen test requires testing for compliance
with the no free oil limitation before discharge can occur.
Comment 10: The commenter requests that Region 4 adopt the same
notification response approach as Region 6. That is that the operator
must notify EPA at least 14 days before commencement of discharge.
Unless the operator is otherwise notified by EPA prior to discharge, he
may assume he is covered by the general permit. Region 4's permit does
not allow operators to plan operations until notification is received.
Response: Based on different informational requirements that the
Region is requiring in the NOI's, Region 4 has elected to maintain
these notification requirements in the final permit. General permit
coverage for these leases shall be upon receipt of notification of
coverage from Region 4.
Comment 11: The commenter recommends that monitoring requirements
for parameters not limited by the permit be deleted from the permit
(e.g., volumes of drilling fluids, cuttings, and deck drainage). They
were previously monitored for development of offshore guidelines but
their continued monitoring is a burden on operators.
Response: In accordance with Section 402(o)(1) of the Clean Water
Act, the Region must consider more stringent conditions of the existing
NPDES general permit. Since Effluent Guidelines place limits and
monitoring requirements on this wastestream and the monitoring
requirements were included in the previous general permit, Region 4 has
decided to maintain these requirements in the reissued NPDES general
permit. The monitoring requirements referenced constitute valid
measurements of pollutant discharge, frequency and/or concentration and
[[Page 55725]]
accordingly are appropriate monitoring and reporting requirements under
the CWA.
Comment 12: The commenter recommends that the monitoring frequency
of drilling fluids, drill cuttings, and miscellaneous wastes for free
oil be reduced from once per day to once per week.
Response: Because these discharges are intermittent, and may differ
substantially from day to day, the Region believes that daily
monitoring, also a condition of the previous general permit is
appropriate. Therefore, Region 4 will maintain the proposed monitoring
frequencies for compliance purposes in the reissued NPDES general
permit.
Comment 13: The commenter points out that the general permit issued
by Region 6 covering the western Gulf of Mexico uses the Inland
silverside minnow instead of the sheepshead minnow for produced water
toxicity testing requirements.
Response: The Agency agrees with the commenter and has changed the
toxicity test vertebrate species requirements for produced water from
sheepshead minnows (Cyprinodon variegatus) to the Inland silverside
minnow (Menidia beryllina). The standard test method is 1006.0 as is
found in ``Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and
Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms' Fourth Edition.
EPA/600/4-90/027F.
Comment 14: The commenters state that EPA does not ``have enough
information to issue permits for offshore drilling near Florida
shores.'' Mentioned statements in the EIS regarding impacts of
discharges and that by allowing industry to drill for oil and gas in
the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, the government ignores huge gaps in
information on the effects of drilling.
Response: EPA has noted the commenters statements regarding impacts
of discharges into the Gulf of Mexico and agrees that in some instances
information may not be available regarding the environmental effects of
drilling for portions of the Gulf. For this reason, EPA chose the
alternative set forth in the draft EIS consistent with available
information. In addition, EPA acknowledges that all environmental
effects of discharges into marine waters cannot be measured and known
with absolute certainty. However, Section 403(c) of the Clean Water Act
provides EPA with the authority to make the determination at 40 CFR
125.122, based on existing information if EPA determines that the
discharge will cause no unreasonable degradation of the marine
environment under the NPDES permit.
EPA has evaluated available data, including information submitted
pursuant to public comment on the draft EIS and permit, and has found
it to be adequate to assess the potential impacts to marine waters,
endangered species, marine life including the benthos for dischargers
in compliance with permit conditions to those areas of the Gulf of
Mexico covered by this general permit. EPA has determined that, though
some impact may occur, ``unreasonable degradation'' will not result due
to the permit issuance, based upon the analysis set forth in the Ocean
Discharge Criteria Evaluation and all information submitted by
commenters to the draft permit, EIS, and other information set forth in
the administrative record.
Comment 15: The commenter expressed the desire for public input
into the permitting of ``each and every well that you intend to force
on us.''
Response: The current National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permitting process was determined by the U.S. Congress
and is outlined in the Clean Water Act. According to the NPDES
regulations, EPA is allowed to promulgate general permits for
discharges into federal waters. The Minerals Management Service of the
Department of the Interior issues permits for oil and gas drilling
operations. EPA is authorized to issue permits for the discharges
generated from these drilling and production operations, where
appropriate and consistent with the requirements of the CWA. Use of a
general permit does not prohibit public input on each and every
potential operation, which can be provided to the Agency at any time.
The general permit merely provides an administrative mechanism for
regulating a category of discharge sources which involve substantially
similar operations, discharge the same types of waste, require similar
monitoring and effluent limits, and which are more appropriately
controlled under a general permit rather than individual permits, 40
CFR 122.28. For general permits, EPA solicits public input regarding
the entire category of discharge sources to be addressed via formal
public notice and comment procedures for the general permit, as set
forth at 40 CFR 124.10.
EPA has identified regions within the Gulf of Mexico for which less
information regarding potential impacts are available, or that are more
sensitive and require discharges to be reviewed on a case by case
basis. These areas are within the 200 meter isobath in the Eastern
Planning Region and within 1,000 meters of areas of biological concern.
The general permit does not cover these areas and instead EPA is
requiring operators to submit an application for an individual permit.
Additionally, there are 4 features that are described in the
revised permit and Fact Sheet that may warrant case-by-case review and
will be subject to a public notice comment period. Therefore, the
Regional Administrator has the authority to issue individual permits
after proper notice has been provided to the permittee and public input
is solicited on these individual permits during the public notice
comment period.
Comment 16: The commenter states that ``there is a lack of
scientific data regarding impacts to live bottom areas from oil and gas
discharges within 1,000 m of the areas. A prohibition on these
discharges is not warranted at a distance of 1,000 m as this is too
conservative.''
Response: The prohibition does not apply to discharges, but refers
to an exclusion of coverage under the general permit. Operators may
apply for an individual NPDES permit that will allow EPA to determine
the appropriate conditions and monitoring for each site. EPA also
believes there are adequate data to assess potential benthic effects
within 1,000 m of discharge from permitted dischargers.
Comment 17: The commenter feels that authorization of discharge of
drill cuttings from synthetic-based drilling mud systems should be
added to the general permit. In the final Coastal Effluent Guidelines,
the Agency recognized that additional categories of drilling fluids,
specifically Synthetic Based Mud (SBM) and Enhanced Mineral Oil (EMO),
were warranted. The eastern OCS general permit should do the same.
Response: EPA is aware that the oil and gas industry has developed
additional drilling fluid types, including synthetic fluid-based muds
(SBM) and has acknowledged this new technology within the permit. EPA
Headquarters is currently developing effluent limitations guidelines
(ELGs) for SBMs. Once the final ELGs are published, EPA Region 4 may
consider modifying the existing permit to incorporate SBMs per the
limitations of the guidelines. For this permit, however, SBMs are not
authorized for discharge. As stated above, persons who wish to
discharge SBMs should submit an individual permit application.
Comment 18: The commenter states that because EPA has determined
that the discharge will not cause unreasonable degradation of the
marine environment, the permit should be a
[[Page 55726]]
general permit covering facilities discharging to water of all depths.
Response: The Region has determined that the most effective manner
in which to manage the effects of discharges to more shallow waters
(<200 m) in the Eastern Planning Area is to require operators to obtain
individual permits. Additionally, the revised January 7, 1998 Federal
Register publication of the general permit proposed to extend permit
coverage into the Central Planning Area. This revision is based on
additional information submitted by the public pursuant to the December
9, 1996 proposed permit that Region 4 considered and responded to.
EPA has examined the available literature on the distribution of
important benthic communities, fisheries habitats, and marine mammal
habitats and has found that the areas over the continental shelf and
shelf transitional zone (approximated by the area out to the 200 meter
isobath) contain an abundance of sensitive biological resources,
particularly offshore Florida and Alabama in the Eastern Planning Area
and in the excluded features identified in the Central Planning Area.
Consistent with the literature review noted above, EPA concludes that
due to the abundance and sensitivity of the biological resources in the
area offshore Florida and Alabama in the Eastern Planning Area, and
features identified in the Offshore Central Planning Area, extra
protection can be afforded by the thorough, case-by-case review
possible with individual permits in these areas.
Comment 19: The commenter states ``EPA has many years of experience
regulating and observing impacts from offshore oil and gas facilities
located in waters shallower than 200 meters in Region 4 as well as
other regions. EPA has the ability to impose various restrictions on
discharges in specific areas that are determined to be of high habitat
or resource value. The draft permit contains one such restriction--a
prohibition of discharges within 1000 meters of areas of biological
concern. By placing such high value areas off limits, EPA has greatly
reduced its uncertainty about causing unreasonable degradation.''
Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that the current permit
contains discharge limitations, such as the requirement to apply for an
individual permit for facilities located within 1,000 m of areas of
biological concern, ensure no unreasonable degradation of marine waters
will occur within the permit coverage area. EPA has examined the
available literature on the distribution of important benthic
communities, fisheries habitats, and marine mammal habitats and has
found that the areas over the continental shelf and shelf transitional
zone (approximated by the area out to the 200 meter isobath) contain an
abundance of sensitive biological resources, particularly offshore
Florida and Alabama in the Eastern Planning Area and in the Excluded
features identified in the Central Planning Area. Consistent with the
literature review noted above, EPA concludes that due to the abundance
and sensitivity of the biological resources in the area offshore
Florida and Alabama in the Eastern Planning Area, and features
identified in the Offshore Central Planning Area, extra protection can
be afforded by the thorough, case-by-case review possible with
individual permits in these areas. EPA has reached this conclusion
based on the ODCE. The ODCE outlined potential environmental impacts
resulting from the permit and found that the permit will not cause
unreasonable degradation.
Comment 20: The commenter finds no rationale for excluding
facilities located in depths of 200 meters or less from the general
permit based on the lack of significant environmental or biological
impacts from discharges.
Response: EPA has examined the available literature on the
distribution of important benthic communities, fisheries habitats, and
marine mammal habitats and has found that the areas over the
continental shelf and shelf transitional zone (approximated by the area
out to the 200 meter isobath) contain an abundance of sensitive
biological resources, particularly offshore Florida/Alabama Eastern
Planning Area and in the excluded features identified in the Central
Planning Area. Consistent with the literature review noted above and
the EIS, EPA concludes that due to the abundance and sensitivity of the
biological resources in the area offshore Florida and Alabama in the
Eastern Planning Area, and features identified in the Offshore Central
Planning Area, extra protection can be afforded by the thorough, case-
by-case review possible with individual permits in these areas.
Comment 21: The commenter recommends that the general permit be
modified to require toxicity monitoring for produced water but not
place limits on the waste stream. Produced water can have a salinity as
high as 300 ppt and the test organisms may be adversely affected given
their limited salinity tolerance range (cultured at 20-30 ppt).
Response: EPA has statutory and regulatory requirements to comply
with CWA Section 403 and 40 CFR 125 Part M (Ocean Discharge Criteria)
which require a waste stream to not exceed 0.01 x LC50 at the edge of
the mixing zone. Because a standard toxicity test methodology exists
for this waste stream, EPA is utilizing it to ensure compliance with
the statute.
The commenter is correct in that the salinity of produced water may
adversely affect the test organisms. However, the toxicity of salinity
is integrated into the test protocol for produced water. Also, the
dilution required to achieve a specified toxicity, including the
dilution of salinity effects, is accommodated in the CORMIX surface
water quality model. Therefore, the commenter's concern is correct in
that salinity effects occur; however, dilution of produced water in
salt water media during effluent toxicity testing accounts for the
dilution of this salinity effect.
Comment 22: If EPA elects to maintain toxicity limits for produced
water, the commenter supports establishing site-specific toxicity
limits.
Response: The commenter's approval is noted. For produced water
outfalls, each operator will be required to test for compliance with a
site-specific toxicity limit after wells begin to produce water from
reservoirs.
Comment 23: The commenter claims that the equation used to develop
toxicity limits for produced water is inconsistent in the proposed
permit.
Response: The Agency has reviewed the equations provided in the
permit and they are correct. The toxicity limitation (applied at the
end of the pipe) is derived to represent the effluent concentration at
the edge of the mixing zone times 0.01 (as required by CWA Section 403
and 40 CFR Part 125, Ocean Discharge Criteria). This calculation of an
end-of-pipe limitation requires the estimation of the number of
dilutions achieved by the edge of the mixing zone. The toxicity
limitation is calculated as 0.01 * effluent concentration at 100 m
(i.e., 0.01 * effluent concentration/no. of dilutions at 100 m).
Comment 24: Over the past several years, the industry has developed
new types of synthetic-based drilling fluids that combine the superior
drilling performance of oil-based fluids with the low environmental
impacts of water-based fluids. Other new drilling fluids utilize
enhanced mineral oils as the base fluid. Although the discussion group
has not yet focused on enhanced mineral oil, the technology offers good
potential. EPA agreed to include new explanatory information and
definitions concerning synthetics and enhanced mineral oils in its
final coastal oil and
[[Page 55727]]
gas effluent limitations, which were published on December 16, 1996.
The commenter recommends that Region 4 incorporate the effluent
limitations guidelines definitions for drilling fluid, enhanced mineral
oil, and synthetic material (40 CFR 435.11 (I), (j) and (x)) in the
general permit.
Response: EPA acknowledges the offshore oil and gas exploration and
production industry use of synthetic-based drilling fluid and is
currently developing effluent limitations guidelines for this new
technology. The EPA Region 4 general permit for the Eastern Gulf of
Mexico region will not authorize discharges of synthetic based drilling
fluids. However, after the SBM effluent limitations guidelines have
been promulgated, EPA Region 4 may consider modification of the
existing general permit to incorporate the limitation of the
guidelines.
Comment 25: To avoid any unnecessary prohibition on the use of
improved drilling fluid technology due to uncertainty about what
constitutes an inverse emulsion, the commenter recommends that the
prohibition of oil-based drilling fluids be modified by deleting ``and
inverse emulsion drilling fluids.'' Likewise, the prohibition of
cuttings from oil-based drilling fluids should be modified by deleting
``or invert emulsion''. Alternatively, the definition of inverse
emulsion drilling fluids could be modified to specifically exclude
synthetic-based fluids.
Response: Inverse emulsion drilling fluids are drilling fluids in
which an oil, including synthetic oils, is the continuous phase and
water is the dispersed phase. Synthetic drilling fluids (SBMs) are
considered a type of inverse emulsion drilling fluid. EPA Region 4 will
not authorize discharge of synthetic-based drilling fluids within the
general permit for the Eastern Gulf of Mexico region at this time.
However, EPA acknowledges the use and benefits of SBMs and is currently
developing effluent limitation guidelines. After the SBM effluent
limitations guidelines have been promulgated, EPA Region 4 may consider
modification of the existing permit to incorporate the cuttings
limitations of the guidelines.
Comment 26: The permit should be modified to specifically recognize
the additional categories of drilling muds that have been defined by
EPA, and to authorize their discharge. In the final Coastal Effluent
Guidelines, EPA recognizes that additional categories of drilling
fluid, specifically Synthetic Based Mud (SBM) and Enhanced Mineral Oil
(EMO), are warranted due to the pollution prevention opportunities
presented by these new technologies. The commenter recommends that
Region 4 participate in the task force to help expedite completion of
this effort--in a time frame that will allow for inclusion of permit
provisions in this general permit clearly defining the appropriate
effluent limitations for these mud systems.
Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that synthetic based
drilling fluids (SBMs) are a new drilling technology and in the Coastal
Effluent Guidelines recognized the potential pollution prevention
opportunities presented by this new technology (61 FR 66086). SBMs are
most often used under difficult drilling condition such as deep wells
where traditionally oil-based drilling fluids were used (Burke and
Veil, 1995). In fact, SBMs were developed in response to the discharge
ban of OBM in the North Sea in the early 1990s and not as a substitute
for traditional water based drilling fluids, as the commenter states
(EPA, 1996). Water-based drilling fluids are still the most cost
effective drilling fluid type for most normal drilling situations.
The commenter is correct that SBMs are currently under
investigation by the Engineering and Analysis Division of EPA
Headquarters. The investigation is in support of a presumptive rule
(i.e., expedited rule) for the development of effluent limitation
guidelines for SBMs. EPA Region 4 disagrees with the commenters
statements that the Region is not involved in the ELG process. The
Region is both informed and participating in EPA's work group
developing ELG for SBMs.
Comment 27: The commenter states that the permit should eliminate
the acute toxicity limitation for produced water and require the
chronic test for compliance instead. The commenter states that the
chronic endpoint may be more appropriate due to the fact that produced
water dilutes rapidly in the offshore environment.
Response: The Region believes that for compliance purposes of this
5-year permit, that the acute toxicity test meets the requirements of
the Clean Water Act to prevent toxic discharges from facilities
discharging produced water.
Comment 28: The commenter states that the ``Agency should allow the
use of diffusers, dilution or split discharges to achieve compliance
with the produced water toxicity limitation.''
Response: The Agency determines the produced water toxicity
limitation based on a facility's site-specific water column conditions
and discharge configuration. An operator can utilize any number of
methods to increase the dilution of their discharge in configuring
their effluent discharge. The configuration chosen utilized will be
used to model the facility-specific toxicity limitation. Commingling or
diluting wastestreams prior to discharging effluent, however, cannot be
used as a method to achieve NPDES permit compliance.
Comment 29: The commenter asks that the definition of ``Areas of
Biological Concern'' be rewritten. It is very broad, without criteria
that could help define the agency's intent. For example, it includes
all ``. . . features or functions that are potentially sensitive to
discharges associated with the oil and gas industry.'' The MMS
requirement for live bottom surveys specifies 200 meter line spacing
(See MMS ``Revised Guidelines for Photodocumentation Surveys,'' January
31, 1989). This suggests a minimum area of coverage of live bottom
should be greater than 200 meters in at least one dimension. A value of
5% cover has been used as a minimum percent cover to classify an area
as live bottom in various studies. The commenter recommends that EPA
incorporate this kind of standard into the definition of ``Areas of
Biological Concern.''
Response: EPA's definition of area of biological concern is found
in Part IV.B.3. EPA regularly confers with MMS regarding such
environmentally sensitive areas and will consider MMS policies and
information in making determinations regarding Areas of Biological
Concern (ABCs). ABCs are locations identified by MMS as ``no activity''
or ``live bottom.'' ``Live bottom'' areas are defined as ``areas in the
eastern Gulf, having seafloors characterized by sparsely distributed
rocky outcrops a few meters in relief . . . [which] contain biological
assemblages consisting of sessile flora and fauna which tend to attract
or accumulate turtles and fish; such areas are richer and more diverse
and productive than the surrounding sea bottom and thus considered
worthy of protection . . .'' (USDOI, 1979). With respect to this
general permit, Congress has given EPA responsibility for the
determination regarding areas appropriate for the issuance of NPDES
permits. While EPA will continue to work closely with MMS regarding
activities covered by this general permit, EPA is responsible for
designation of Areas of Biological Concern and regulation of discharges
that may affect such areas. In this permit, EPA has specifically
designated such areas and additional areas may be designated in the
future.
Comment 30: The commenter asks that the 1,000 m prohibition on
discharges near Areas of Biological
[[Page 55728]]
Concern be reconsidered. Produced water discharges dilute rapidly (100-
fold within a few meters of discharge) and rate limitations and/or
shunting could be used for drilling fluids in areas of concern.
Response: The Region is requiring that operators obtain individual
permits for discharges in these areas so that appropriate limitations
(e.g., rate limitations and/or shunting) can be determined on a case-
by-case basis rather than determining all possible solutions for
inclusions in this general permit.
Comment 31: The commenter suggests that a new category of
miscellaneous discharges be added: ``hydrotest and other treated
water.'' The proposed definition is ``seawater or freshwater which has
been treated, typically to control fouling, corrosion, and scaling,
before it is discharged. Included are effluent wastestreams such as:
(1) Excess seawater which permits the continuous operation of fire
control and utility lift pumps;
(2) Excess seawater from pressure maintenance and secondary
recovery projects;
(3) Water released during fire system tests and training, including
AFFF (light-water systems);
(4) Seawater used to pressure test piping;
(5) Ballast/bilge water;
(6) Non-contact cooling water;
(7) Desalinization unit discharge.
The effluent would be limited by ``no free oil'' and include a
footnote that states ``Treatments to these waste streams (when
discharge is planned) shall be made in accordance with product
registration labeling, (for EPA-registered products), and
manufacturers' maximum recommended dosages.''
Response: While EPA does not disagree with the commenter, EPA
received minimal information regarding this type of proposed
miscellaneous discharge from the public on which to assess the
appropriateness of including the proposed provision. Based upon this
minimal information, and EPA's belief that not all permittees will
necessarily seek authorization to make these types of discharges.
Accordingly, discharges who anticipate the discharge of miscellaneous
materials within the category of ``hydrotest and other treated water''
will be addressed on a case by case basis. If EPA determines in the
future, based upon applications for NPDES permit coverage, that this
category of miscellaneous discharges is necessary and appropriate for
inclusion in the general permit, EPA will modify the permit to include
such provision.
Comment 32: The permit should allow the use of the partial toxicity
test to minimize cost and burden to the operator. The partial test
allows for the test organisms to be exposed to only a single
concentration, the permit limitation, to determine pass or fail of the
limitation.
Response: EPA has specified testing methodology set forth in 58 FR
12507, which is defined in the applicable effluent guidelines at 40 CFR
part 435. These provisions allow partial toxicity tests. See Appendix
2.
Comment 33: The commenter suggests that Region 4 adopt the same
notification requirements as are in the Region 6 permit: ``permittees
who are located in lease blocks that are either in or adjacent to ``no
activity'' areas or require live bottom surveys are required to submit
both a notice of intent to be covered that specifies they are located
in such a lease block. In addition they are required to submit a notice
of commencement of operations. Permittees located in lease blocks
either in or immediately adjacent to MMS defined ``no activity'' areas,
shall be responsible for determining whether a controlled discharge
rate is required.''
Response: Based on new information, which is discussed in the Ocean
Discharge Criteria Evaluation, and unique areas in the Eastern Gulf of
Mexico, as indicated in the Final Environmental Impact Statement,
Region 4 believes the current Notice of Intent (NOI) requirements are
appropriate. The Region revised the NOI requirements to include
additional information, specifically in the Central Planning Area.
Comment 34: The commenters request that the permit contain produced
water toxicity limitations tables for various pipe configurations and
flow rates.
Response: Because discharge rates change over the producing life of
a well, Region 4 believes this approach allows the operators
flexibility in complying with limitation. It also allows the use of
diffusers should more mixing be required to meet the produced water
limitation. Therefore, EPA will not add tables for compliance, but will
allow the operator to calculate a limit based on flow and comply with
that limit.
Comment 35: The language concerning non-operational facilities
should be deleted from Part I.A.4 of the permit. The sentences are
contradictory and an operator should not have to submit its exploration
or development production plan for permit coverage.
Response: Non-Operational leases, which are leases on which a
discharge has not taken place within 2 years prior to the effective
date of the new general permits will lose coverage under the previous
existing general permit on the effective date of the new general
permits. However, upon submittal of an exploration plan or development
production plan to EPA, plus the required information in the Notice of
Intent (NOI) these non-operational leases would be eligible for
coverage under the new general permits and will be notified for
inclusion of coverage from the Director of the Water Management
Division. Regarding submittal of an exploration or development
production plan, EPA included this submittal in an effort to determine
the scope and geographic area of potential discharges. While the same
type of information could be provided in many different forms, EPA
determined that exploration and developmental plans are preexisting
documents which are regularly prepared by potential permittees that
contain the necessary information for EPA to make permit coverage
decisions, and their submittal for permit coverage would avoid the need
to create additional paperwork and burden to obtain coverage. The
commenter provides no persuasive reason for EPA to deviate from the
proposal to submit exploration and development plans for permit
coverage.
Comment 36: EPA should eliminate the requirements to submit a
Notice to Drill (NTD) and Notice of Commencement of Operations (NCO).
This is another instance of EPA proposing permitting notification
requirements which create unnecessary burdens on the operator. EPA has
not provided a rationale for the increased burden of making these
notifications, except in areas of special significance, and the
operator is placed in a position of non-compliance or interruption of
operation if notifications are missed.
Response: In response to the commentors concern about NCO
requirements concerning accurately measuring produced water, Region 4
did revise the submittal timeframes of the NCO notices. The NTD and NCO
are necessary for EPA to carry out statutory authorities regarding
discharges to the Gulf of Mexico and are substantially similar to the
requirements of other EPA Regions. The information is required so that
EPA is aware of the location of discharges or potential discharges,
even though they may be temporary, for the purpose of ensuring
compliance with permit provisions, including inspection. The notices
provide information necessary for the Agency to make determinations
regarding the impact of discharges to the environment. The required
notices provide EPA with basic
[[Page 55729]]
information necessary to effective regulation of discharges, including
information necessary for calculation of toxicity limitations for
produced water discharges. EPA would like to emphasize that the
submittal of these notifications consists of simply sending a form to
the Region containing information which should be readily available to
the permittee well before the time the notices are required to be sent
to EPA. EPA does not consider these submittals a significant
``burden.''
Comment 37: The commenter points out that the permit establishes a
discharge rate limitation for drilling fluids in the units of bbl/hr
but requires reporting as average daily discharge rate in bbl/day. In
addition, the discharge rate limitation should not apply before
installation of the marine riser because these discharges cannot be
accurately estimated.
Response: The Region revised the once/day reporting frequency to
once/hr to be consistent with the limitation requirement and has
included an exception to the discharge rate limitation that excludes
discharges at the seafloor before installation of the marine riser in
Part I, Section B.1(c) of the permit.
Comment 38: The commenter recommends that the parenthetical
information, ``* * * (this includes any spill that requires reporting
to the state regulatory authority) * * *,'' be deleted from the
requirement to report noncompliances which may endanger health or the
environment. A ``spill'' subject to Section 311 of the Clean Water Act
is not considered to be a noncompliance with the terms of the NPDES
discharge permit, but rather is subject to Coast Guard jurisdiction.
Also, the permit applies only to areas far removed from any State
jurisdiction, so it would be unreasonable to assume that a
noncompliance situation would impact a State.
Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter. Any discharge is
required to be reported as set forth in the permit. The commenter is
incorrect with respect to jurisdiction over oil spills pursuant to
Section 311 of the CWA, which is enforceable by the Administrator.
Comment 39: The commenter states that EPA should change the
requirement to submit DMRs on a facility basis. Instead, such reporting
should be averaged for each lease block.
Response: EPA does not agree with the commenter that a change to
the requirement of DMR submittal on a facility basis is needed. EPA
considers each facility as a point source, (in fact, one facility
commonly has several point sources of pollution, based on the waste
streams that are discharged). EPA sees no compelling rationale for
aggregating discharges for the purposes of averaging activities within
a lease block. Unlike in the Western Gulf of Mexico, the Eastern Gulf
has few facilities per lease block. EPA does not find any benefit in
consolidating the reports from different facilities within the permit
coverage area or any burden to permittees under the approach set forth
herein.
Comment 40: The commenter suggests that EPA should change the
proposed DMR reporting requirement from a monthly to an annual
requirement.
Response: The commenter is correct that EPA has the right to enter
a facility at any time and inspect its monitoring reports. However,
since monitoring data is compiled on a monthly basis, EPA does not
consider it a burden for industry to submit the compiled information
and considers this submission as an important record of recent data.
Such information is crucial to EPA enforcement and compliance efforts.
Comment 41: The commenter requests that the Agency delete the
requirement to submit a copy of laboratory reports with the DMR.
Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter regarding deletion of
the requirement to submit a copy of laboratory reports with the DMR.
EPA considers the laboratory reports important and pertinent discharge
monitoring information. EPA does not believe that the photocopying of
the lab reports, and their inclusion in the operator's DMR package,
represents a significant additional burden, and these reports provide a
great deal of information to EPA.
Comment 42: The commenter states that EPA should remove the
requirement to notify the Regional Director upon cessation of discharge
or modify the wording to read: ``If, during the term of this permit,
the facility permanently ceases discharge to surface waters, the
Regional Director shall be notified within 60 days.''
Response: EPA agrees with the commenter's suggested wording for the
permit regarding the notification of the Regional Director upon
cessation of discharge. EPA has revised the language of the permit
accordingly.
Comment 43: To the definition of Daily Maximum Discharge
Limitation, the commenter asks that EPA insert the word ``daily''
between ``allowable'' and ``discharge rate or concentration, such that
it would now read: ``Daily Maximum discharge limitations are the
highest allowable daily discharge rate or concentration measured during
a calendar day.''
Response: EPA agrees with the comment regarding the definition of
Daily Maximum Discharge Limitation. EPA has changed the language in the
permit accordingly.
Comment 44: The commenter asks that EPA define Diesel Oil as
``distillate fuel oil, as specified in the ASTM Specification D975-81,
that is typically used as the continuous phase in conventional oil-
based drilling fluids.''
Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that clarification by
identifying ASTM Specification D975-81 is appropriate. The general
permit prohibits discharge of Diesel Oil, as defined, including Diesel
Oil (and other oils) which may contain toxic pollutants as contaminants
not otherwise identified as a constituent of ASTM D975-81. The
definition will be amended to include the commenter's suggested
language and to ensure consistency with offshore effluent guidelines
(58 FR 12454; 40 CFR Part 435).
Comment 45: The commenter asks that EPA use the definition of
Drilling Fluids in the current effluent guidelines (FR 61, page 66124).
Response: EPA agrees with the commenter and has changed the
definition of drilling fluids. The current definition in the permit is
the same as that used in the coastal effluent guidelines (61 FR 66086)
and includes the four classes of drilling fluids: water-based, oil-
based, enhanced mineral oil, and synthetic-based. As stated above, the
discharge of oil-based and synthetic based fluids are not authorized by
the general permit.
Comment 46: The commenter states that EPA should delete the
definition of ``Free Oil'' or reword it to clarify that it is a test
result obtained by the test method specified in the permit for the
particular effluent stream.
Response: EPA agrees with the commenter and has changed the
definition of free oil. The definition in the permit is the same as
that used in the offshore effluent guidelines (58 FR 12454).
Comment 47: The commenter asks that EPA change the definition of
Garbage such that it would read as it does in the Region 6 offshore
permit: ``means all kinds of food waste, wastes generated in living
areas on the facility, and operational waste, excluding fresh fish and
parts thereof, generated during the normal operation of the facility
and liable to be disposed of continuously or periodically, except
dishwater, graywater, and those substances that are defined or listed
in other Annexes to MARPOL 73/78.''
[[Page 55730]]
Response: EPA has reviewed the definition of garbage found in the
Region 6 general permit (GMG290000). Region 4 agrees with the commenter
to the extent that the definition does not exclude components of
domestic waste from effluent limitation and monitoring requirements set
forth in Part I., Section A of the general permits. The definition of
domestic waste in the general permits will continue to include
discharges from galleys, sinks, showers, safety showers, eye wash
stations, fish cleaning stations, and laundries. EPA has modified the
definition in the general permit so that it is the same as that found
in GMG290000 (61 FR 41609).
Comment 48: The commenter requests that the reference to an MMS
Environmental Impact Statement in the definition of No Activity Zones
(Part IV,B,38) be deleted. The commenter stated that by referencing a
specific lease sale EIS, the proposed definition would be outdated by
subsequent lease sales. The MMS lease stipulation is the formal
mechanism for that agency to specify No Activity Zones. MMS procedures
will not permit or allow a rig or structure to be installed in a No
Activity Zone stipulated in the lease agreement.
Response: EPA agrees with the commenter that MMS lease stipulations
are the formal mechanism for that agency to specify No Activity Zones.
However, EPA does not agree that the proposed permit's definition of No
Activity Zones needs to be changed to delete the reference to an MMS
Environmental Impact Statement. The definition would not be outdated by
subsequent lease sales because it contains the contingent clause that,
``additional no activity zones may be identified by MMS during the life
of this permit.''
Comment 49: The commenter requests that the final sentence dealing
with states and the territorial seas in the definition of No Activity
Zones (Part IV,B.38) be deleted.
Response: EPA does not agree with the commenter that the reference
to Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida territorial waters within the
definition of No Activity Zones should be deleted. EPA has determined
that if these states identify no activity zones within their
territorial waters, it may affect the discharge scenarios of the
facilities located close to the boundary between federal and state
waters. In fact, there are several facilities that are currently in
located close to the Alabama state territorial waters.
Comment 50: The commenter requests that EPA delete the definition
of No Discharge Areas (Part IV,B.39) within the permit.
Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter and has kept the
definition of No Discharge Areas within the permit, since EPA has
authority under the CWA to prohibit pollutant discharges to surface
waters for specified areas. When EPA determines a discharge is not
allowable because of proximity to an Area of Biological Concern, a ``no
discharge area'' is affectively defined.
Comment 51: The commenter requested that the definition of Non-
Operational Leases (Part IV.B.40) would be deleted or revised. The
commenter's rationale for the deletion is that leases that are covered
by the existing (1986) general permit should continue to be covered by
the 1986 permit until they receive final permit coverage under a
replacement permit. There will be no need for a non-operational
classification.
Response: EPA does not agree with the commenter's rationale that
leases covered by the existing (1986) general permit should continue to
be covered by the 1986 permit until final permit coverage is received.
In the proposed permit, EPA states that leases from which discharges
did not occur two years prior to the effective date of the new general
permit are considered Non-Operational Leases. EPA believes that a two
year period of time during which no discharge has taken place is a
reasonable temporal delineation for permit coverage. Furthermore,
environmental impacts from discharging facilities are likely to differ
substantially from non-discharging operations. Accordingly, EPA is
updating the notification requirements and reevaluate the permits of
those leases that have not discharged 2 years prior to the effective
date of the new general permit. This approach is also consistent with
the procedures that must be followed for new leases, or new
dischargers. Another reason this approach is reasonable and necessary
is some permittees had applied for and received general permit coverage
many years ago without having conducted any exploration or production
activities.
In addition, according to the NPDES Program (40 CFR Sec. 122.6) the
existing general permit is in force until the effective date of the new
permit. Therefore, coverage under the existing permit expires the
effective date of the new permit, except for Operational Leases which
shall be administratively continued under the previous permit until
coverage is granted under the reissued OCS general permit by Region 4
to permittees who comply with the requirements to obtain general permit
coverage.
Comment 52: The commenter requested that the definition of
Operating Facilities (Part IV,B.41) would be deleted or revised. The
commenter's rationale for the deletion is that leases that are covered
by the existing (1986) general permit should continue to be covered by
the 1986 permit until they receive final permit coverage under a
replacement permit, regardless of whether discharges have occurred. If
this recommendation is adopted, there will be no need for a definition
of Operating Facilities.
Response: EPA does not agree with the commenter's rationale that
leases covered by the existing (1986) general permit should continue to
be covered by the 1986 permit until final permit coverage is received.
In the proposed permit, EPA states that leases from which discharges
have occurred two years prior to the effective date of the new general
permit are considered Operational Leases. EPA has intended to update
the notification requirements and to reevaluate the permits of those
leases that have not discharged greater than 2 years prior to the
effective date of the new general permit.
In addition, according to the NPDES Program (40 CFR Sec. 122.6) the
existing general permit is in force until the effective date of the new
permit. Therefore, coverage under the existing permit expires the
effective date of the new permit, except for Operational Leases, which
shall be administratively continued under the previous permit until
coverage by Region 4 is granted under the reissued general permit to
permittees who comply with the requirements to obtain general permit
coverage.
Comment 53: The commenter states that the definition of
Uncontaminated Ballast/Bilge Water (Part IV,B.53), should be changed to
be consistent with the Region 6 permit definition which reads: ``means
seawater added or removed to maintain proper draft.''
Response: EPA has determined that the commenter's requested
amendment is appropriate and Region 4 agrees with the recommended
definition change and has revised it in the final permit
Comment 54: The commenter asks that a new definition be added for
Uncontaminated Freshwater: ``freshwater which is discharged without the
addition of chemicals; examples include: (1) discharges of excess
freshwater that permit the continuous operation of fire control and
utility lift pumps, (2) excess freshwater from pressure maintenance and
secondary recovery projects, (3) water
[[Page 55731]]
released during fire protection tests and training, and (4) water used
to pressure test piping.''
Response: The Region included this wastestream with a limitation in
the fact sheet under minor waste streams and inadverently left it out
of the permit conditions. These wastestreams will be included in the
final permit along with definitions from the offshore Effluent
Guidelines and will be mentioned in the Ocean Discharge Criteria
Evaluation.
Comment 55: The commenter suggests that the permit should cover all
facilities located in the offshore subcategory and discharging to the
federal waters. Any prohibition against discharges to the federal
waters from facilities located in the territorial seas should be
deleted.
Response: This discharges of drilling muds, drill cuttings in
territorial seas are controlled by State's administering their own
NPDES programs. The State's guidelines are often more stringent than
applicable Federal criteria, therefore, movement of a discharge from
territorial seas into Federal Waters should not be an option for
complying with more stringent State Criteria, developed by each State's
NPDES program. Region 4 believes that since their would possibly be a
low percentage of territorial facilities discharging to Federal Waters,
these facilities would be properly handled on a case-by-case approach
through individual permits and are prohibited under Region 4's final
general permit issued today.
Comment 56: The commenter believes that the first paragraph in Part
I,A,2, should be deleted. Alternatively, it should be reworded as
follows: ``Discharges within 1000 meters of an area of biological
concern are not eligible for coverage.'' According to the commenter,
EPA's proposed language would--in the event an operator merely sought
authorization to discharge within 1000 meters of an area of biological
concern--deny coverage under the permit to the operator, instead of
just to the area in question. Though it may not have been EPA's intent,
this language could be interpreted to deny coverage to an operator for
the entire general permit area, not just for areas within the 1000
meter buffer zone. This would be totally unjustified. The commenter
raises similar issues with respect to the 26 parallel currently under
moratorium.
Response: The comment represents an unreasonable interpretation of
the general permit provisions. The general permit language clearly
prohibits discharges within 1000 meters of an Area of Biological
Concern and operations below the 26 parallel, and excludes from general
permit coverage operations of any operator who seeks to discharge
drilling fluid within the 1000 meter buffer zone and below the 26
parallel. The language should be read in context of the section in
which the language is placed.
Comment 57: The commenter requested that the sentence ``Wastes must
be hauled to shore for treatment and disposal'' in Section I.B.5 of the
draft permit would be deleted. Although the permit may establish a zero
discharge limitation for produced sand, it should not specify treatment
and disposal options. Other options may be available to allow an
operator to meet the zero discharge limitation. The commenter
identified no other method of treatment and disposal.
Response: EPA is unaware of methods of disposal of produced sand
which would be in compliance with the terms of the general permits but
would not involve the hauling of wastes to shore for treatment and
disposal. The discharge of produced sand is prohibited under the
general permits. The commenter has not provided EPA with any
identification of the ``other options [which] may be available to allow
an operator to meet the zero discharge limitation.'' EPA cannot at this
time assess such options and make the determination necessary to
entertain the requested language changes.
Comment 58: The commenter requested that in section I.B.10 of the
draft permit, uncontaminated freshwater and excess cement slurry would
be added to the list of miscellaneous discharges.
Response: The Region included these wastestreams with a limitation
in the fact sheet under minor waste streams and inadverently left it
out of the permit conditions. These wastestreams will be included in
the final permit along with definition of uncontaminated freshwater
from the offshore Effluent Guidelines.
Comment 59: In Section I.B.10(a) of the draft permit, monitoring of
miscellaneous discharges for free oil should be required only when
discharging and the facility is manned. Also in this section, the
permit requires that static sheen testing be performed when visual
observation of a sheen is not possible. The permit should also include
the statement ``Static sheen testing is not required for discharges at
the sea floor.''
Response: The Region concurs with the commentor and has revised
Section I.B.10(a) of the permit.
Comment 60: Section I.B.10(a) of the draft permit requires that the
static sheen test be used to determine the presence of free oil in
miscellaneous discharges when visual observation of a sheen is not
possible. The commenter states that the ``permit should also include
the statement `Static sheen testing is not required for discharges at
the sea floor.' ''
Response: The Region concurs and has included revised language in
the permit Section I.B.10(a).
Comment 61: The commenter suggests that in Table 3 of the permit,
under Miscellaneous Discharges, ``Muds, Cuttings & Cement at the Sea
floor'' should be listed separately from ``Uncontaminated Ballast/Bilge
Water.''
Response: EPA agrees with the commenter's editorial comment and has
made the corresponding revision of Table 3 in the permit. These are
separate wastestreams.
Comment 62: The commenter recommends that the existing end of well
sample definition be retained instead of the proposed change to require
the sample to be taken within 48 hours prior to discharge. The change
would require operators to discharge without toxicity test results.
Response: Region 4 concurs with the commentors rationale and will
retain the current definition as proposed. The definition will remain
unchanged from the previous NPDES general permit.
Comment 63: According to the commenter, within the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), EPA admits that discharges from
rigs and production platforms have the potential to damage or destroy
fish eggs, larvae, and juvenile fish. Nevertheless, EPA's proposed
general permits will merely require ``the dilution of discharges to
reduce the levels of toxics'' to avoid unreasonable degradation.
Species that feed on benthic organisms may be subject to pollutant
bioaccumulation. Dilution of toxic discharges will not eliminate the
potential for bioaccumulation. Thus, dilution is not the solution to
the problems posed by these discharges, and will not sufficiently
protect the vital resources of the Gulf of Mexico.
Response: EPA agrees that dilution is not an appropriate method for
treating discharges. EPA disagrees with the commenter's statement that
the general permit only requires ``the dilution of discharges to reduce
the level of toxics'' to avoid unreasonable degradation.
The conditions and limitations in the general permit for the
eastern Gulf were determined to protect water quality and preserve the
health of benthic and other marine organisms. These permit conditions
and limitations include no discharge of free oil, no discharge of oil-
based muds, no discharge of diesel oil, no discharge of produced sand,
no discharge within 1,000 meters of areas
[[Page 55732]]
of biological concern, oil and grease limitation on produced water,
cadmium and mercury concentration limitation in barite, discharge rate
limitations around live-bottom areas, and limitations on the whole
effluent toxicity of both drilling fluids and produced water.
The NPDES permits also require water quality-based analyses, and
for marine dischargers, must include a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section
403 ``Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation'' (ODCE). The ODCE is a
document published by EPA to evaluate the environmental impact of the
NPDES general permit of discharges from the offshore oil and gas
industry. The ODCE determined that the conditions and limitations in
the general permit protected the water quality of the eastern Gulf of
Mexico and preserved the health of the aquatic life.
Comment 64: Commentor disappointed that EPA did not consider Gulf
Coast Environmental defense previous suggestions: 1) No drilling
landward of the 200meter isobath, or 100 miles from shore, whichever is
greater.
All wells in the Gulf of Mexico should be zero discharge. The Gulf
of Mexico not an infinite resource and we can't continue dumping wastes
into the water & expect it to be healthy.
Response: EPA considered these comments and provided a response to
this concern on Pages 5-25 and 5-26 of the Final Environmental Impact
Statement which was available for a 30 day public comment and review
period starting on August 14, 1998 thru September 14, 1998. Additional
response to this comment is provided throughout the responses herein
regarding the scope of general permit coverage.
Comment 65: Commenter questions at what point does damage become
irreversible, referring to report of Elliot Norse, a marine ecologist
founder of the Marine Conservation Biology Institute in Redmond.
Washington declaring that the sea is in real trouble for a variety of
reasons, including the effect of oil and gas exploration and production
activities as governed by the CWA and Endangered Species Act. Commenter
also stated that EPA should eliminate drilling from near shores areas
completely, and do not allow any discharges into the Gulf of Mexico.
Response: EPA provided a more comprehensive response and analysis
of the commenters concerns in the EIS, agreeing with the comment that
the world's oceans are facing problems as a result of human activities.
EPA believes, however, that the discharges that result from oil and gas
exploration and development activities can be successfully managed to
prevent any significant environmental harm and that no irreparable harm
will occur as a result. EPA is aware of the commentor's concern and
discusses impacts to existing or potential recreational fisheries or
commercial fisheries in the EIS and ODCE. EPA has no authority to
regulate fisheries or the use of artificial reefs in state and federal
waters nor does EPA have authority to prohibit the development of oil
and gas resources. Section 402 of the Clean Water Act provides EPA with
the authority to regulate discharges that result from such activities.
Both the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Ocean Discharge
Criteria Evaluation documents are available as part of the Region's
administrative record and will be made available upon request.
Comment 66: Requested EPA to extend deadline for comments on its
draft NPDES general permit concerning offshore drilling activities,
since they have just been notified and need more time to prepare
comments.
Response: EPA notified all hearing participants and persons who
provided input during the public hearings, and believes the 45 day
comment period on the revised NPDES general permit was sufficient to
provide adequate response. EPA notes that this commenter did provide
written comment to these permits and EPA's response is included herein.
Comment 67: U.S. Department of Energy made comments on EPA
revisions supporting extending coverage of General Permit into the
Central Planning Area and previous comments that focused on 4 areas:
(1) Exclusion of facilities located in less than 200 meters of water
depth from coverage under the General Permit. (2) Produced Water
Toxicity requirements. (3) Synthetic-based and enhanced mineral oil-
based drilling fluids. (4) Oil Content testing requirement.
Response: Previous comment responses respond to these issues, as
well as analysis in the EIS and ODCE. After receiving initial comments
on the Regions Alternative B, which proposed general permits seaward of
the 200-meter isobath for the entire Eastern Gulf of Mexico and
reviewing additional information, the Region decided to revise the
permitting strategy for the Central Planning Area, and selected
Alternative A with certain exclusions based on unique features in the
area of offshore Mississippi and Alabama. The Region elected to
maintain Alternative B for the Eastern Planning Area which proposed
general permits seaward of the 200-meter isobath which is noted in
Final Environmental Impact Statement.
EPA believes that the Eastern Planning area is relatively
unexplored for the purpose of oil and gas activities and that the
probability of encounter with areas of biological concern is greater in
the Eastern Planning Area. The EPA believes that individual permitting
in water depths of less than 200 meters will provide the agency with
the information needed to detect and adequately protect sensitive
marine habitat.
Comment 68:
Chevron mentioned that EPA has not considered previous comments,
and careful consideration should be given to March 1997 comments and
comments submitted by the OOC in February 1998.
Response:
EPA considered all comments and responds in writing at this time,
the time of final issuance which is appropriate. While the revised
general permits did propose revisions consistent with this and other
commenter's concerns, EPA did not respond in writing at that time as
EPA is responding herein after all comments to the permit and EIS have
been submitted and analyzed.
Comment 69: Delete permit requirement to submit photo documentation
for every facility in 100 meters or less in the Central Planning Area.
Stated photo documentation should only be required on new facilities
where an analysis of geohazards survey data suggest that significant
hard bottoms may be present. Data in area suggests that very few
facilities will be near significant hard bottom areas. Mentioned that
for facilities already discharging this requirement provides no
benefit, since EPA has determined that the discharge is acceptable.
Response: EPA will require photo-documentation survey information
to be submitted with all notices of intents (NOI) for coverage under
the general permit for existing source and new source discharges in
less than 100 meters (water depth). The EPA believes that the photo-
documentation in the Central Planning Area (CPA) will provide the level
of information to the agency necessary to make determinations for
permit coveraged as required by law and are consistent with MMS
requirements in the Eastern Planning Area. The EPA does not agree that
adequate site-specific information exists in the Central Planning Area
to assure that all types of potentially sensitive habitat have been
identified.
EPA does not limit it's concern with the protection of living
marine resources
[[Page 55733]]
only to those communities that may be identified as ``significant hard
bottom areas''. The EPA agrees that seafloor imaging provided by the
geohazard survey may detect high relief (hard bottom) habitat,
depending on how the survey was conducted. The data collected during
such surveys do not allow for the detection of biota (plants and
animals) that may comprise high-relief hard bottom community
assemblages and would provide no evidence of any communities not
associated with high relief benthic structure.
The EPA concurs with the commentators concerns regarding the need
for photo-documentation for continuing discharges of either existing
source or new source categories that were covered under the previous
permit (no photo-documentation requirement) and has modified the NOI
requirement in the final permit to reflect these concerns. The Region
agrees that currently active discharges were permitted under a previous
permit without a photo-documentation requirement. The Region further
agrees that photo-documentation of the seafloor around currently active
discharges will not provide additional protection to the environment.
The Region has provided an exception to the photo-documentation
requirement for submission of the NOI for new and existing source
discharges permitted under the previous permit, which are currently
active on the effective date of the new general permit. The exception
is limited only to the currently active discharges, for the life of
those discharges. The modification to the photo-documentation
requirement does not exempt the platform or rig from which the
discharge originates nor does it exempt the geographic area around the
discharge point from any new discharge which occurs after the effective
date of the general permit.
Comment 70: API commented on the EPA revised Oil & Gas Permit and
mentioned that EPA has not gone far enough in expanding coverage under
this permit since it excludes a significant percentage of the Gulf.
Stated that the issuance of this permit will force many operators to go
through the time consuming and burdensome process of obtaining
individual permits and does not believe EPA has provided a rationale
for restricting coverage of general permits in this manner. Stated that
the OOC has submitted detailed comments on various aspects of the
revised draft permit.
Response: EPA considered all comments in the formulation of a final
determination on the final NPDES General permit for the Eastern Gulf of
Mexico. EPA has examined the available literature on the distribution
of important benthic communities, fisheries habitats, and marine mammal
habitats and has found that the areas over the continental shelf and
shelf transitional zone (approximated by the area out to the 200 meter
isobath) contain an abundance of sensitive biological resources,
particularly in the Eastern Planning Area and in the Excluded features
identified in the Central Planning Area. Consistent with the literature
review noted above, EPA concludes that due to the abundance and
sensitivity of the biological resources in the area offshore Florida
Alabama Eastern Planning Area and features identified in the Offshore
Central Planning Area, extra protection can be afforded by the
thorough, case-by-case review possible with individual permits in these
areas and considers this to be the more reasonable approach based on
current information.
Comment 71: Commentor stated that the draft NPDES permit rescinds a
general permit which was in effect in the area of the Gulf under Region
4's jurisdiction for years with no demonstrated adverse effect, and
fails to follow executive orders and VP Gores's Reinvention of
Government program designed to make government less complicated. Stated
that Region 4 has failed to follow Congress's direct instructions that
it abandon its emphasis on requiring individual permits for each OCS
oil and gas project and propose an NPDES general permitting regime
which is substantially the same as that used since 1986 by both EPA
Regions 4 and 6, which has been successful on regulating OCS oil and
gas operations in the Gulf of Mexico. Stated that Region 6 has the most
experience in dealing with a high level of OCS oil and gas activity,
with true biological sensitive areas and with results of scientific
studies looking for potential adverse impacts on the marine environment
over the years. Stated that there were no problems under the general
permit previously administered by Region 4 and there would be none if
the old general permit was renewed or Region 6 general permit adopted.
Response: At the time of issuance of a permit, EPA considers all
data and information as required by the various applicable statutes and
regulations, including, inter alia, the CWA, NEPA, ESA, and, as the
commenter points out, executive orders, public comment, and other
applicable guidance from the Executive, Legislative and Judicial
branches of government. All of this information is not static, is
subject to change, and has in fact changed since Region 4's issuance in
1986 of the previous general permit covering these activities. Many of
comment responses above explain the current status of data and
information and full data and information is provided in the
administrative record.
The level of exploration and development activity for the areas in
Region 4's jurisdiction has increased since the issuance of the
previous general permit in 1986. Determinations regarding these general
permits is based upon updated projections for oil and gas exploration
and development activities for the duration of this permit, based
primarily upon MMS' estimated OCS Development Scenario, (see also EIS
at Section 1.4.1.; Table 2-7), and MMS' planned lease sales for the
Gulf of Mexico area under Region 4's jurisdiction. These projections
provide, in summary, that the majority of activity will continue to
take place within the Central Planning Area. While a portion of the
Eastern Planning Area will be offered for lease sale, projections
indicate that a relatively low number of blocks offered for lease sale
are expected to be purchased and require NPDES permits, based upon
historical trends and MMS projections. Accordingly, EPA's determination
regarding the scope of general permit coverage is supported by
exploration and development activity projections, as well as the
analysis of potentially sensitive biological resources, statutory, and
legal requirements set forth in response to previous comments.
The commenter is incorrect regarding Region 4's oil and gas
permitting activities. Region 4 has in fact for the last seven (7)
years issued streamlined individual permits on exploratory drilling and
production activity on new leases acquired in lease sales, since
expiration of the former general permit expired in July 1991. The
Region has required new leases to obtain individual permits and has
conducted expeditious permitting reviews on each proposed activity and
considers this to be environmentally sound inside 200 meters. This is
an effective, streamlined way to deal with the increased level of
activity that has been experienced in this area, while providing
optimal environmental protection and is consistent with the approach
being taken in these general permits issued today. Based upon these
seven years experience, Region 4's expedited individual permit review
processes, and the projections for actual exploration and development
activity in the Eastern Planning Area, EPA believes that the
[[Page 55734]]
commenter will experience no burdensome.
Following concerns expressed in language inserted into the United
States House of Representative's Appropriations Committee (July 11,
1997), and Senate/House Conference Report (Oct. 6, 1997), Region 4
reviewed the concerns raised and on Jan 7, 1998, Region 4 issued a
revised draft general permit which EPA believes addresses the concerns
raised in those reports and complies with statutory and other legal
requirements. The revised permit incorporates general permit
procedures, terms and conditions which are substantially similar and in
some cases identical to those found in the Region 6 general permit. In
addition, the individual permit issuance process which will apply to
those areas outside the general permit coverage have been streamlined
so as to avoid unnecessary cost and delay.
With respect to the commenter's concern that the border between the
Central and Eastern Planning Areas as the demarcation for general
permit coverage is political and not scientific, the border between
these areas was established by DOI and has long been used for lease
sales. The border is not, as the commenter states, a political border
between Alabama and Florida but actually is a distance West of the
Alabama and Florida line. It should be noted that MMS also recognizes
the distinction between the areas and has instituted additional
requirements for leases in the Eastern Planning Area for the purpose of
environmental protection, using the same border for demarcation.
Because MMS uses this border for lease sales, resulting in the
historical and projected level of activity between these two areas
differing substantially, and scientific information available between
the two areas differing substantially, the border is also an
appropriate border for general permit coverage.
Comment 72: OOC stated that photodocumentation surveys should not
be required prior to, but only after that data from the geohazards
survey has been interpreted, and that for one of the areas designated
as areas of biological concern, the Pinnacle Trend, this area is also
recognized by the MMS as a habitat that should be protected by lease
stipulation and that Region 4's disgnation of the area as an Area of
Biological Concern conflicts with protective measures of EPA Region 6
and MMS. Regarding other Areas of Biological Concern, the commenter
stated that these areas (Southeast Banks, Southwest Rocks and 17 Fathom
Hole) are common on the inner and middle shelf off South Carolina , as
well as Central Western and Louisiana, suggesting that the
invertebrates seen here have a wide tolerance of fluctuating
environmental conditions such as temperature and turbidity. Further,
the commenter claims these assemblages of organisms are the same as
those seen growing on petroleum platforms in similar water depths and
are not sufficiently unique or so ecologically sensitive tht they
require special protection from oil and gas operations. The commenter
believes that designating these areas as Areas of Biological Concern is
inconsistent with both the policies of both MMS and EPA Region 4, by
designating these areas as areas of biological concern.
Response: The Region notes that the commentor is aware that these
unique features exist in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. NPDES General
Permits for the Eastern Gulf of Mexico provides reasonable assurances
that these unique areas identified will be protected for the duration
of the 5-year permit. EPA believes it is most expeditious for the
industry to provide EPA adequate survey information up front for before
granting coverage under the general permit. The term ``live bottom'' is
confused with high relief hardbottom habitat. EPA is concerned with the
protection of any living marine communities regardless of the
geomorphology of the benthos. The data provided by the geohazard survey
may detect high relief habitat if the sidescan sonar was set to obtain
the highest possible resolution, depending on how the survey was
conducted. It cannot detect communities not associated with relatively
high relief benthic structure. Sub-bottom profiling will do neither.
Regarding comments about communities on the Southeast Banks, Southwest
Rocks and 17 Fathom Hole: all communities are variable over different
space and time scales due to natural environmental factors. These facts
do not preclude their protection from anthropogenic impacts. Biological
productivity is only one of many community characteristics to be
considered when making a judgement regarding its value and the level of
protection afforded to it.
Comment 73: Stated that General Permit would prohibit discharges of
drilling fluids within 1000-meters of areas of biological concern.
Mentioned MMS lease stipulations have prevented drilling muds from
reaching ABC's , and consequently there are very few studies that have
investigated the effects of drilling muds and cuttings discharges on
live bottom within 1000 meters. Stated in Destin Dome 57, investigators
found that shunted drilling discharges 480 meters from a high relief
feature, did reach the hard bottom feature, but that there was no
measurable effect of the discharges on the epibiota.
A prohibition of cuttings and produced water discharges within 1000
meters is not justified.
Mentioned studies and numerous studies including produced water
bioaccumulation study.
Response: Based on the Region's information concerning drilling
muds, cuttings, and produced water discharges the no discharge of these
wastestreams within 1000 meters of an ABC is justified. As the
commentor mentioned, shunted discharges based on data reviewed did not
reach certain ABC's that were closer than 1000 meters. However, the
general permit must provide adequate protection based on current
environmental data for these discharges. Discharges that must be
shunted based on data that reveals potential hard bottoms closer than
1000 meters, may also require individual permits and require site
specific monitoring programs designed to address impacts related to
that discharge based on communities involved, the frequency and volumes
of discharges plus prevailing oceanographic conditions at the time of
discharge, since shunting may only be a temporary mitigative
alternative and not consider long term impacts. The singular case of
the Destin Dome Block 57 project cannot lead to the conclusion that no
impacts can occur as a result of drilling discharges within 1000
meters.
Comment 74: Workover and abandonment operations should be added to
the listing of operations covered.
Response: The Region has added this category of operations, since
workover fluids are used in this category and allowed to be discharged
under the general permit.
Comment 75: Stated that a provision to the permit should be added
requiring permittees to inform all contractors of the discharge
limitations of their permit. Particularly important in the case of
individual permits where discharge limitations may be imposed more
stringent than those of the General permit.
Response: The operator is liable and responsible that the
information on monitoring requirements, limitations and conditions
comply with the general permit.
Comment 76: Stated that EPA should change its proposed
identification system and use API's and MMS coding system. Stated that
MMS will be analyzing DMR's as part of its initiatives
[[Page 55735]]
to meet the requirements of Government and Performance Results Act and
to take full advantage of the DMR information submitted to EPA, we ask
that operators link discharge information to discharge locations by
using API and MMS codes.
Response: The current structure of EPA data fields does not allow
the Region the flexibility to implement the American Petroleum
Institute/Minerals Management Service numbers and currently are not
amenable to change.
Comment 77: Stated that they disagree with the newly proposed site-
specific photodocumentation surveys for the Central Planning Area,
since enough information exists on areas of biological concerning the
CPA to make a pre-determination of their location without requiring the
applicant to conduct the surveys and would lead to increased operator
costs without significant benefit. Clarify issue of synthetic mud use
as it applies to the definitions of Drilling Fluids and Drill Cuttings
and address whether drilling muds and drilling cuttings discharged at
the seafloor in substantial quantities using riserless drilling would
be included in the definition of Muds, Cuttings and Cement at the
seafloor.
Response: The EPA does not agree that adequate site-specific
information exists in the Central Planning Area (CPA) to assure that
all types of potentially sensitive habitat have been identified. The
EPA believes that the proposed photodocumentation requirement in the
CPA will provide that same level of information to the agency made
available to it in the Eastern Planning Area where photodocumentation
is mandated by the MMS. The Region has clarified the synthetics mud
issue in response to comments. While synthetic muds are included under
the revised definition of drilling fluids and can be used if needed in
drilling operations, these synthetic fluids cannot be discharged. The
Region also believes the current definition of Muds, Cuttings and
Cement at the seafloor is adequate as proposed and will not be revised.
Comment 78: EPA should select Alternative A (general permits for
the entire Eastern Gulf OCS) because: (1) most, if not all, operations
are located shoreward of the 200-meter isobath and would thus be
burdened with individual permitting which is cumbersome, uncertain, and
causes costly delays; (2) the MMS program already offers adequate
protections to Gulf resources; (3) EPA has not proven that general
permits could not be adequately protective of Gulf resources, and in
fact the ODCE has determined that the discharges will not cause
unreasonable degradation of the marine environment; (4) EPA could
simply design alternative, more restrictive general permit limits and
requirements for areas requiring special protection.
Response: EPA has carefully considered the comments of MMS and
several industry commenters regarding applying (Alternative A) general
permit coverage for the entire Region 4 jurisdiction. EPA has decided
to extend General Permit coverage to its jurisdictional portion of the
MMS Central Planning Area, with the exclusion of the 11 lease blocks
subject to the MMS Pinnacles Stipulation and three other natural
structural bottom features. Please refer to EIS Figure 3-2 for the
location of these features. Section 2.4 of the Final EIS and the permit
Fact Sheet contain complete descriptions of the permitting strategy.
EPA is comfortable extending General Permit coverage to the MMS
Central Planning Area for several reasons. First, the Central Planning
Area has been extensively surveyed for the locations of numerous (past
and present) drilling and production sites, and few features that EPA
would define as Areas of Biological Concern have been documented.
Second, scientific survey literature of the Mississippi-Alabama shelf
notes the general lack of firm bottom substrate for attachment of
bottom life, high water column turbidity in much of the east-central
inner shelf, and a trend of increased water clarity and light
penetration eastward (Vittor 1985). The area is not normally under the
influence of the sub-tropical Loop Current that elsewhere stabilizes
water temperatures more suitable to increased epifaunal diversity. It
has also been documented that the bottom area offshore Mississippi-
Alabama experiences substantial deposition of fine particle sediments
emanating from coastal rivers (Rabalais and Boesch 1987) that would
tend to cover previously exposed hard substrate. Third, those features
that the Region is now defining as Areas of Biological Concern are
pronounced in terms of topography and are fairly well discernable by
survey. Brooks and Giammona (1991) found predominately soft sediments
punctuated in some areas with rock outcrops and topographic (the
pinnacle trend) high features. EPA Region 4 believes that the condition
requiring applicants seeking General Permit coverage to provide photo
documentation and geohazards surveys will allow the agency to clear
specific project sites for General Permit coverage fairly quickly,
because EPA will require the same survey procedures as specified by
MMS. The photo documentation survey procedures are found in the MMS
``Revised Guidelines for Photo documentation Surveys'' dated January
31, 1989; the geohazards survey requirement is in the MMS Notice to
Lessees 88-3 ``Outer Continental Shelf Shallow Hazards Requirements for
the Gulf of Mexico OCS Region'' of September 7, 1983. EPA concludes
that its decision for NPDES permitting in the CPA is basically
consistent with that preferred by MMS.
Due to the reasons and attached permit conditions explained above,
EPA Region 4 is able to make the ``no unreasonable degradation''
determination for OCS waters off Mississippi and Alabama, and for
waters outside the 200-meter depth contour of the Eastern Planning
Area. In contrast, EPA is not able to make this determination for the
Eastern Planning Area waters shoreward of the 200-meter isobath. EPA
believes that the exclusion of general permit coverage for these waters
in the Eastern Planning Area is entirely suitable considering the
unknowns about the presence of significant environmental resources, and
the unknown sensitivity of the area to oil and gas activities. This
approach is corroborated by the MMS consideration of the Destin Dome as
a frontier area, requiring production projects to receive full EIS
review.
Exclusion of certain OCS areas from General Permit coverage is not
expected to cause operator delays, lost jobs, or reduced royalty
revenues because the individual permitting process fits nicely with the
MMS review times. Region 4 has recently issued several individual
permits for exploratory drilling and one for production in the Central
Planning Area. In all cases, the applicants have been cooperative. When
industry is aware of the time frames needed for review and issuance of
permits, the experience has been satisfactory to both the Agency and
the applicant. One commentor pointed out that drill rigs are quite
expensive and their use must be scheduled well in advance. This fact
should then allow the permit applicant adequate time within which to
accommodate the permitting process. It is important to note that EPA
would not normally prepare an Environmental Assessment for an
exploratory well, so the individual permitting time would be normally
2-3 months. EPA does not believe that the type of NPDES permit needed
would have any bearing on industry's decisions whether to proceed with
production.
Moreover, because there are historically few lease applications for
the Eastern Planning Area, the delay, if any, of individual permitting
will be
[[Page 55736]]
minimal. Regardless of the permitting mechanism, EPA is required to
make a 403(c) ocean discharge criteria determination regarding the
discharge. Where information necessary for the ocean discharge criteria
determination is provided, there should be no delay in permit issuance
where appropriate. With respect to this general permit, extension of
the general permit coverage area would not expedite the permitting
process, as there is currently little information regarding the marine
environment and associated impacts from offshore oil and gas facilities
in the Eastern Planning Area to make area wide determinations regarding
Ocean Discharge Criteria at this time. Rather than delay the issuance
of this general permit until sufficient information is available, EPA
has determined that general permit coverage as provided herein is
appropriate. Any person discharging from offshore oil and gas
facilities may apply for and obtain an individual NPDES permit. This
approach enables EPA to prescribe conditions to assure compliance with
Ocean Discharge Criteria, as required by Sections 402 and 403 of the
Act, and comports with EPA's general discretion regarding the issuance
of permits. Individual permits may contain the same effluent
limitations and conditions as the general permit, or may contain
additional conditions based upon specific determinations regarding a
facility as necessary to comply with the requirements of federal law.
EPA is aware of the type of environmental documentation MMS
requires in applicants' development and exploration plans. EPA expects
to utilize this same information in most cases for its permit review
needs. Of the three NEPA documentation levels used by MMS, the
categorical exclusion has minimal public review opportunities but is
used much more than either the EA or EIS process. EPA believes that
increased public review and a careful review of applicants' survey
information by EPA could be a good check and balance to ensure
activities are not damaging significant marine resources.
The modified two-tiered general permitting procedure suggested by
two commenters is in EPA's opinion inconsistent with its guidelines for
instituting a general permit. In places where site conditions are
uncertain, greater scrutiny is needed to consider site-specific permit
conditions. Regulations call for an individual permit review for such
situations. EPA is striving for a maximum level of certainty on the
part of industry. EPA Region 4 is researching literature and other
information sources about live bottom and other significant fish
habitat and designating them areas of biological concern, in order to
have these features identified prior to potential applicants seeking
permits.
Comment 79: Several commenters opined that general permit coverage
should be extended to the entire OCS in the Eastern Gulf, stating that
EPA regulations favor the issuance of general permits.
Response: Pursuant to Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, EPA
retains discretionary authority to issue permits for the discharge of
pollutants (Dedham Water Co. v. Cumberland Farms Dairy, 805 F.2d 1074;
1st Cir. 1986). As the commenters pointed out, EPA's regulation
governing General Permits at 40 CFR 122.28 provides that the
Administrator shall, except as provided below, issue general permits
covering discharges from offshore oil and gas exploration and
production facilities ``within the Region's jurisdiction.'' However,
the commenters are incorrect that EPA must extend coverage of the
general permit for offshore oil and gas exploration and production
facilities to the entire Eastern Gulf. The regulations do not support
such an interpretation, but rather state that for federally leased
lands, the general permit area should ``generally be no less extensive
than the lease sale area defined by the Department of Interior.''
Consistent with the provisions of the Clean Water Act and decisions by
the federal courts, EPA interprets this language as providing the
Agency with discretion in the establishment of the appropriate
geographical limitations for the general permit. In the preamble to the
final regulation, EPA states, ``EPA is committed to the issuance of all
permits when, and only when, an adequate amount of information has been
gathered with which to determine permit conditions.'' Final Rulemaking,
48 FR. At 39,617 (Sept. 1, 1983). Additionally, the commenters have
failed to note that the Department of Interior has not offered in many
years (if at all) the entire Eastern Gulf OCS area for lease sale. DOI
has previously offered only limited areas in the Eastern Gulf OCS for
lease sale, and many potential lease blocks offered for sale were not
actually leased. DOI has identified only limited areas which will be
offered for lease sale in the Eastern Planning Area during the pendency
of this General Permit. There is therefore no rationale supported by 40
CFR 122.28 under which general permit coverage would be extended to the
entire Eastern Gulf. As the commenters themselves point out, EPA's
regulations authorize the issuance of individual permits for offshore
oil and gas facilities, which is the approach EPA has selected as most
appropriate for the area shoreward of the 200-meter isobath in the
Eastern Planning Area.
EPA's decision regarding general permit coverage area is based upon
the analysis set forth in NEPA documentation and requirements set forth
in the CWA. In issuing NDPES permits for offshore discharges, EPA has
an obligation under section 403(c) of the CWA to determine whether or
not unreasonable degradation of the marine environment will occur as a
result of the discharge. In accordance with guidelines published
pursuant to Section 403(c), the Agency must make this determination
prior to permit issuance, which often includes a complex analysis to
develop adequate permit limitations. No permit can be issued if
unreasonable degradation will occur. If there is insufficient
information to make a determination as to unreasonable degradation, no
NPDES permit can be issued unless the Agency determines such discharge
will not cause irreparable harm to the marine environment. CWA
Sec. 403; 40 CFR Sec. 122.124; See Natural Resources Defense Council,
Inc. v. EPA, 19 Env. L. Rep. 20225 (9th Cir. 1988); American Petroleum
Institute v. EPA, 787 F.2d 956 (5th Cir. 1986). In developing the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and other documentation required
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, EPA analyzed the
alternative of extending general permit coverage to the entire Eastern
Gulf. In the draft EIS, EPA determined that issuance of general permits
seaward of the 200 meter isobath (alternative B) will not cause
unreasonable degradation of the marine environment. As stated in the
draft EIS, EPA is not able to make such a determination regarding
discharges to any and all areas shoreward of the 200 meter isobath due
to uncertainties about the presence of and impacts to sensitive and
valuable marine resources. Draft EIS at ES-13 (Dec. 1996). With respect
to the Eastern Planning Area, as the commenters point out, there are
relatively few leases on which exploratory activities have taken place.
Accordingly, there is little information regarding the marine
environment and associated impacts from offshore oil and gas facilities
in the Eastern Planning Area, as EPA stated in the EIS and fact sheets
for the general permit. In support of their comment that general permit
coverage should be extended to the entire Eastern Gulf, the commenters
cite the variability of conditions encountered in oil and gas
exploration.
[[Page 55737]]
This same variability and uncertainty, due to a lack of available
information, makes a general permit for the entire Eastern Gulf
inadvisable.
Comment 80: Regarding the Central Planning Area, several commenters
pointed out that previous lease sales and ongoing activities have
resulted in additional information regarding discharges from offshore
oil and gas facilities for this region.
Response: EPA has confirmed, in consultation with the MMS, that
EIS's prepared pursuant to these activities in the Central Planning
Area have resulted in analysis of degradation to the marine environment
from offshore oil and gas activities in this region, and inclusion of
appropriate conditions and limitations in permits issued for offshore
oil and gas discharges in the Central Planning Area. With respect to
the Central Planning Area within Region 4's jurisdiction, EPA agrees
that general permit coverage should be extended to the Central Planning
Area with the exception of areas of biological concern (ABC's). EPA has
identified in the general permit four ABCs for which general permit
coverage is not provided, and reserves the right to identify additional
ABCs in the future. As set forth in the general permit, ABCs are
excluded from general permit coverage and therefore no discharges from
offshore oil and gas facilities may commence without an individual
permit.
Comment 81: Two commenters contended that this general permit
violates interagency agreements between EPA and the Department of the
Interior.
Response: The provisions of the interagency agreements cited by the
commenters clearly establish, however, that EPA will issue permits
``whenever possible,'' and the agreements themselves do not abrogate
EPA's discretion in issuing NPDES permits and do not confer rights upon
third parties. Furthermore, the interagency agreements specifically
state that the types and timing of NPDES permits are dependent upon the
development and exchange of information sufficient to address CWA
section 403(c) Ocean Discharge Criteria. EPA is required by the CWA and
its regulations to certify that any ocean discharge allowed by its
permit will not cause an unreasonable degradation of the marine
environment. In this situation, the issuance of general permits for the
entire Eastern Gulf is clearly inappropriate. EPA's fact sheet for this
general permit sets forth the basis and rationale for the geographic
delineation of general permit coverage.
Comment 82: EPA does not sufficiently justify its selection of the
200 meter isobath as a general permit cutoff line. Studies conducted on
facilities located in depths less than 200 meters, which are cited in
both the EIS and ocean discharge evaluation report, indicated no
widespread or long-term degradation to marine resources.
Response: EPA has extensively examined the available literature on
the distribution of important benthic communities, fisheries habitats,
and marine mammal habitats and has found that the areas over the
continental shelf and shelf transition zone (approximated by the area
out to the 200 meter isobath) contain an abundance of sensitive
biological resources, particularly offshore Florida and Alabama in the
Eastern Planning Area and in the excluded features offshore
Mississippi. Consistent with its authorities noted above, EPA concludes
that the abundance and sensitivity of the biological resources in the
area offshore Florida and Alabama in the Eastern Planning Area warrant
the extra protection afforded by the thorough, case-by-case review
possible with individual permitting.
The absence of study results is not sufficient grounds for
concluding that facilities in water depths less than 200 meters would
cause no widespread or long-term degradation to marine resources in the
eastern Gulf. Few, if any, studies have been conducted in the waters of
the Florida Shelf. Moreover, the effects of produced water discharges,
particularly the potential for bioaccumulation, are neither well
studied nor well understood.
While the 100 meter isobath may account for most or all live bottom
communities, waters up to 200 meters appear important for some fish
species. Moreover, MMS' live bottom protections cannot be solely relied
upon because they are not attached to all lease sales and because the
determination of what protective measures to require is at the
discretion of the MMS Director, in consideration of what would be
``environmentally, economically, and technically appropriate''.
Therefore, EPA's selected alternative allows no activities in the
Mobile or Viosca Knoll lease areas before the operator documents the
absence of a live bottom through a bottom survey.
Comment 83: Many commenters expressed a preference for Alternative
C--No issuance of general permits. A few of these commenters explained
that individual permitting is preferred because it allows for a more
thorough review of impacts. Other comments noted uncertainties about
impacts. One commenter expressed a desire for public input into the
permitting of each well.
Response: The current National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permitting process was determined by the U.S. Congress
and is outlined in the Clean Water Act. According to the NPDES
regulations, EPA is allowed to promulgate general permits for
discharges into federal waters. The Minerals Management Service of the
Department of the Interior issues permits for oil and gas drilling
operations. EPA is authorized to consider whether permits for the
discharges generated from these drilling and production operations
should be issued.
EPA however, has identified regions within the Gulf of Mexico that
are more sensitive and require discharges to be reviewed on a case by
case basis. These areas are within the 200 meter isobath in the MMS
Eastern Planning Area and within 1,000 meters of areas of biological
concern. The general permit does not cover these areas and instead EPA
is requiring operators to submit an application for an individual
permit. Additionally, there are 4 features that are described in the
Revised permit and Fact Sheet that may warrant case-by-case review and
will be subject to a public notice comment period. Therefore, the
Regional Administrator has the authority to issue individual permits
after proper notice has been provided to the permittee and solicit
public input on these individual permits during the public notice
comment period.
While EPA has concerns about activities near areas of biological
concern, we believe that the standards that would be imposed on
operators are adequate to protect most marine environments. Based on
the factors and considerations required under the Ocean Discharge
Criteria regulations (40 CFR 125) the ODCE evaluated available
information and, under these regulations, has concluded there is
sufficient information to determine there will be no unreasonable
degradation of the marine environment from permitted discharges with
all permit conditions, limitations, and monitoring in place. While
there are areas of outstanding data needs, these needs are not
considered sufficient to materially affect this determination. For
example, although data are insufficient to ``conclude that regional-
scale impacts are not occurring,'' the impacts referred to are low
magnitude, chemical alterations in sediments that are not expected to
result in any appreciable ecological or human health impacts. Although
impacts on deep water
[[Page 55738]]
communities are not known with a high degree of certainty, no
appreciable impacts are foreseeable based on knowledge of impacts in
shallow environments.
Information gathered from the required monitoring will be used,
along with other new information that becomes available, to determine
whether and how to modify permit conditions in the future permit
reissuances that occur every five years. Most hydrocarbon resources are
anticipated to be in the form of natural gas. EPA would consider
additional conditions specific to an oil discovery. In addition, MMS
stipulations and regulations, and the EPA option to exercise its own
live bottom stipulation, are in place to protect sensitive benthic
resources. EPA does not have the authority to not issue permits without
a reasonable certainty that proposed actions would violate
environmental quality standards.
EPA agrees that the individual permitting strategy for the MMS
Eastern Planning Area provides for much greater public awareness and
involvement. However, the Agency regulations encourage the
implementation of general permitting where suitable. Environmental
safeguards are being put in place with the proposed General Permit.
Comment 84: Alternative B provides special protection for shallow
water through Individual Permits at the expense of deep water
protection that only require General Permits. This is a double
standard.
Response: Regulations promulgated under the Clean Water Act (40 CFR
122.28(C)(1)) require EPA to issue general permits unless the area
includes areas, ``such as areas of biological concern, for which
separate permit conditions are required.'' EPA has determined that the
Gulf OCS offshore Florida and Alabama in the Eastern Planning Area
within water depths shallower than 200 meters includes extensive live
bottom and other particularly valuable marine habitats that have not
been adequately located nor fully characterized. In addition, greater
dilutions are generally achieved in deeper waters and discharges must
cover greater distances to reach sensitive resources. For these
reasons, EPA has decided to require individual permits inside the 200-
meter isobath within the MMS Eastern Planning Area. In contrast to the
areas shoreward of the 200 meter isobath, the biological communities at
greater depths are widely scattered, protected by an MMS notice-to
lessees (NTL 88-11) that applies to all leases, and is of localized
significance only. The Gulf OCS offshore Mississippi (with the
exception of the excluded areas), does not have the physiographic
characteristics making it likely to have an abundance of live bottoms.
Nevertheless, EPA is requiring operators in this area to undertake a
live bottom survey as a condition of EPA approval before conducting
activities in the Mobile and northeast Viosca Knoll lease areas.
For these various reasons stated above, EPA considers that the
conditions in the general permit, along with existing measures, are
adequately protective of these resources.
Comment 85: There is an absence of evidence showing that there is
no irreplaceable or irrevocable harm to the environment. Alternative C
is the only acceptable option.
Response: The effluent discharge criteria allow a certain degree of
adverse impact to sensitive life stages of organisms within the zone of
mixing, so virtually every wastewater discharge will have some limited
impact to the marine environment. Regarding the sufficiency of
environmental impact data, EPA is stating that it is able to make a
finding of ``no unreasonable degradation'' in accordance with Clean
Water Act Section 403(c), the Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation, for
its portion of the MMS Central Planning Area, and seaward of the 200-
meter isobath of the MMS Eastern Planning Area. The agency is not
comfortable with such a blanket determination in shallower waters.
Comment 86: Persons commented that EPA should require zero
discharge of effluent for some or all facilities. Some persons
commented that EPA should not issue any permits.
Response: Based on its reviews and impact evaluations conducted in
support of the Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation and the draft EIS,
EPA concludes that the proposed permits offer the fullest protection
allowed by law. Allowing no discharges would place an unreasonable
burden on operators, one that is not justified by the incremental
environmental protection. EPA understands the public concern about
drilling and the recommendation for no discharges within 100 miles of
shore. EPA cannot support that broad of a constraint but does preclude
general permit coverage of discharges within 1000 meters of areas of
biological concern. EPA evaluates during permit reviews whether
discharges are acceptable in a given location. Unless areas of
biological concern are present, or the proposed discharge would violate
water quality standards, discharges are usually approved since the
effluent limitations are set to minimize adverse impacts. At any time,
an applicant could elect to undertake a no-discharge project; ``no
discharge'' is therefore not equivalent to ``no drilling''. There is
thus no difference in the risk of an oil spill between a facility
having a no-discharge limitation for wastewater and facilities with
permitted discharges.
Comment 87: Many persons commented variously that there should be
no drilling in the Eastern Gulf, no drilling off of Florida, or no
drilling within a certain distance of the coast. Some commenters noted
that Congress and/or the President should place a moratorium on
offshore drilling. One commentor suggested collection of tax money on
various energy uses and use of the revenues to buy back the leases.
Response: EPA has no authority to prohibit offshore hydrocarbon
exploration or production. Such authority lies to a limited extent with
U.S. DOI's MMS, which manages the Outer Continental Shelf leasing
program, and ultimately with the U.S. Congress and the President, which
can enact and declare leasing and drilling moratoria and can authorize
the buying back of outstanding leases. The only alternatives available
to EPA to consider are issuance of general permits (various versions of
such permits are possible) and No Action, which is non-issuance of
general permits. EPA must accept and act upon applications for NPDES
and air permits. Further, even if EPA would deny an NPDES permit to an
applicant, that entity could possibly elect to operate without
discharging any effluent, and therefore not require an NPDES permit.
Persons who own or wish to operate facilities which may discharge
any pollutant must submit a complete application for such permit as
provided in 40 CFR Part 122, or comply with the requirements for
application for coverage by a general permit. EPA's decision regarding
permit issuance and/or conditions of permits would be subject to the
requirements of the Clean Water Act and regulations. EPA does not
expect applications for individual permits (or general permit coverage)
to be made where the activity is prohibited by federal law or the laws
of other sovereign entities. However, CWA regulations do not preclude a
person from making application for an NPDES or air permit for discharge
for an activity which is prohibited by federal law or other sovereign
entities. Pursuant to Section 511 of the Clean water Act, 33 U.S.C.
Sec. 1371, nothing in the Clean Water Act may be construed as limiting
the authority or functions of any officer or agency of the United
States under any
[[Page 55739]]
other law or regulation. Accordingly, should such federal moratoria or
lease-buy back be enacted, EPA actions with respect to any permit
application would not supersede or override such moratoria or lease buy
back.
EPA evaluates during permit reviews whether discharges are
acceptable in a given location. Such review includes the assessment of
environmental impacts as set forth in the Clean Water Act and
regulations, including 40 CFR Part 122, 124, 125, 129, 130, 131, 132,
and 133. EPA may impose conditions for permits on a general or case-by-
case basis, to provide for and assure compliance with all applicable
requirements of the Clean Water Act and regulations or as the
Administrator determines are necessary to carry out the provisions of
the Clean Water Act. CWA Sec. 402, 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1342. Conditions
applicable to all NPDES permits are set forth in, inter alia, 40 CFR
Part 122-133. When applicable, EPA includes effluent limitations and
standards as provided in the Clean Water Act and regulations. Such
conditions, effluent limitations, and standards would be established to
minimize any adverse impacts which may result from the proposed
discharge of pollutants, including conditions necessary due to the
presence of areas of biological concern, or necessary to protect or
achieve water quality standards. At any time, an applicant could elect
to undertake a no-discharge project. EPA may also deny issuance of a
permit where the discharge fails to comply with the Clean Water Act and
regulations.
The EIS identifies one moratorium area (Eastern Planning Area,
south of 26 N latitude) as being excluded from proposed General Permit
coverage. According to the MMS, that area has been under a moratorium
for oil and gas activity and leasing imposed by President Bush in 1990.
The MMS has since then bought back the leases in that moratorium area.
While there have been annual leasing moratoria imposed by the President
and/or Congress pertaining to MMS new lease sales in the entire Eastern
Planning Area since 1992, the only moratorium relevant to the EPA and
therefore excluded from any NPDES permitting is that area south of 26 N
latitude. Leasing moratoria are prohibitions against offering the
covered area in a lease sale; they do not affect those lessees holding
valid leases and seeking permits. EPA believes there are no leases held
in OCS areas within EPA Region 4 jurisdiction presently under any
exploration or production activity moratoria.
Comment 88: By allowing industry to drill for oil and gas in the
Eastern Gulf of Mexico, the government ignores huge gaps in information
on the effects of drilling.
Response: EPA has noted the commenters statements regarding impacts
of discharges into the Gulf of Mexico and agrees that in some instances
information may not be available regarding the environmental effects of
drilling for portions of the Gulf. For this reason, EPA chose the
alternative set forth in the draft EIS consistent with available
information. In addition, EPA acknowledges that all environmental
effects of discharges into marine waters cannot be measured and known
with certainty. However, Section 403(c)of the Clean Water Act provides
EPA with the authority to make the determination based on existing
information if EPA determines that the discharge will cause no
unreasonable degradation of the marine environment under the NPDES
permit.
EPA has evaluated available data, including information submitted
pursuant to public comment on the draft EIS and permit, and has found
it to be adequate to assess the potential impacts to marine waters,
endangered species, marine life including the benthos for those areas
of the Gulf of Mexico covered by this general permit. EPA has
determined that, though some impact may occur, ``unreasonable
degradation'' will not result due to the permit issuance, which is the
preliminary determination of the Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation.
Comment 89: EPA should revise Alternative B to include general
permits seaward of the 200 meter isobath line or a distance of 100
miles, whichever is greater. In a similar vein, two commenters offered
that general permit coverage should begin at some (unspecified) minimum
distance from the coast.
Response: EPA considered various distances from important coastal
resources for suitability of a general permit, including several
distances from coastal barrier islands. EPA Region 4 selected the 200-
meter depth contour because it has scientific basis.
Regulations promulgated under the Clean Water Act (40 CFR
122.28(C)(1)) require EPA to issue general permits unless the area
includes areas, ``such as areas of biological concern, for which
separate permit conditions are required.'' EPA has extensively examined
the available literature on the distribution of important benthic
communities, fisheries habitats, and marine mammal habitats and has
found that, particularly offshore Florida and Alabama in the Eastern
Planning Area, the areas over the continental shelf and shelf
transition zone (approximated by the area out to the 200 meter isobath)
contains an abundance of sensitive biological resources. Consistent
with its authorities noted above, EPA concludes that the abundance and
sensitivity of the biological resources in this area warrant the extra
protection afforded by individual permitting in waters offshore Florida
and Alabama in the Eastern Planning Area and a live bottom survey
requirement in the Mobile and Viosca Knoll lease areas. In contrast,
demarcating a 100-mile cutoff for a permitting decision has no
scientific, ecological basis, and as such is not supported by EPA's
regulatory authority.
Comment 90: Areas of Biological Concern warrant the use of
individual permits. These communities are scattered throughout the
eastern Gulf and their exact locations are not known. The use of
individual permits will allow the state (Florida) to work with EPA to
adequately define resource issues and areas of biological concern.
Response: EPA believes that the potential for areas of biological
concern in the Mobile and Viosca Knoll lease areas warrants the
requirement for operators to conduct a live bottom survey before
hydrocarbon exploration and development activities can take place in
these areas. EPA has concluded that, because the resources in the Gulf
offshore Florida and Alabama in the Eastern Planning Area are less well
known, and somewhat different than the resources to the west,
individual permits (for activities in waters less than 200 meters
depth) are appropriate. See Section 2.4 of the Final EIS.
Comment 91: EPA does not have enough information to issue permits
for offshore drilling near Florida shores.
Response: The Agency has reviewed available information and has
determined that there is sufficient information to issue the general
permit for the areas covered. The analyses are presented in the ODCE.
Comment 92: There should be a process to provide transition
coverage to leases that would lose general permit coverage so that
activities can proceed uninterrupted while a new permit is being
developed and issued. EPA could grant non-operational leases the same
interim coverage proposed for operational leases.
Response: EPA appreciates lessees' concern about when the old
General Permit coverage expires and the new General Permit becomes
effective. In the proposed new General Permit area (Region 4 Central
Planning Area
[[Page 55740]]
jurisdiction and outside the 200-meter isobath of the Eastern Planning
Area) EPA would accept from a lessee a Notice of Intent for coverage
under the new general permit within 60 days of the new General Permit
becoming effective. The lessee's project would be considered
operational if the Notice of Intent received indicates a discharge has
occurred within 2 years of the effective date of the new General
Permit, and may proceed with old General Permit coverage if that lease
had old permit coverage. New General Permit coverage commences when EPA
notifies the operator of such coverage. Otherwise, non-operational
projects have no coverage until EPA grants coverage following filing of
an Exploration Plan with MMS. Please also refer to Table 1 in the
Supplemental Information Section IV.
Comment 93: The draft general permits will have a deleterious
effect on drilling and workover operations by requiring a new permit
for each rig moved to a new drilling location or to work over an
existing well, and the permitting process would take six months.
Workover rigs may be needed immediately to secure and safeguard
operational problems.
Response: The NPDES regulations allow such activities to be covered
in a single permit. Further, EPA customarily follows the MMS procedure
of ``unitizing'' a project having multiple site (lease block)
activities where the activities are part of one development and
production plan and thus subject to a single NPDES permit.
Comment 94: The permit should allow transfer for coverage from one
operator to another. This provision would be consistent with the Region
6 permit.
Response: The previous current existing general permit allows
transfer of coverage upon proper notification to EPA Region 4, but due
to the confusion in agreements and leases sometimes changing hands a
few times every year, Region 4 has now placed the burden of giving
proper notification to the agency in the hands of the operator. This
will allow general permit coverage to be updated on all leases by the
agency as they occur in EPA's permit compliance system. Additionally,
it will give EPA more information at the time the notice is filed on
drilling proposals of development plans that are being developed for
the proposed areas in question and whether the facility is eligible for
coverage under either the new source or existing source general permit.
The Region believes that filing these notices for transfer of leases by
the operator fulfills the requirement under minor modifications (40 CFR
122.63) when transfers do occur and allows the Region to have an
accurate record of transfers as they occur in the Region 4
jurisdictional area.
Comment 95: The second paragraph in Part I.A.2 of the permit should
be revised to say: ``leases occurring below the 26 degree parallel
which are currently under moratorium are excluded from coverage under
these general permits.'' The existing permit language would deny an
operator the benefits of the permit--even for leases outside of the
moratorium area if he merely held leases in the moratorium area. It was
EPA's intent to deny coverage to the leases in the moratorium area,
instead of the operator. A similar concern applies to ineligibility for
coverage within 1,000 meters of an area of biological concern.
Response: The comment represents an unreasonable interpretation of
the general permit provisions. The general permit language clearly
prohibits discharges within 1000 meters of an Area of Biological
Concern and operations below the 26 parallel, and excludes from general
permit coverage operations of any operator who seeks to discharge
within the 1000 meter buffer zone and below the 26 parallel. The
language should be read in context of the section in which the language
is placed.
Comment 96: EPA has the ability to impose various restrictions on
discharges in specific areas that are determined to be of high habitat
or resource value. By placing Areas of Biological Concern off limits,
EPA has greatly reduced its uncertainty about causing unreasonable
degradation.
Response: EPA agrees with that the current permit contains
discharge limitations, such as the requirement to apply for an
individual permit for facilities located within 1,000 m of areas of
biological concern, that ensure no unreasonable degradation of marine
waters will occur within the permit coverage area. EPA has reached this
conclusion in the process of conducting the Ocean Discharge Criteria
Evaluation (ODCE) for the proposed permit. The ODCE outlined potential
environmental impacts resulting from the permit and found that the
permit will not cause unreasonable degradation of the marine
environment.
Comment 97: EPA has the ability to impose various restrictions on
discharges in specific areas that are determined to be of high habitat
or resource value. By placing Areas of Biological Concern off limits,
EPA has greatly reduced its uncertainty about causing unreasonable
degradation.
Response: EPA agrees with that the current permit contains
discharge limitations, such as the requirement to apply for an
individual permit for facilities located within 1,000 m of areas of
biological concern, that ensure no unreasonable degradation of marine
waters will occur within the permit coverage area. EPA has reached this
conclusion in the process of conducting the Ocean Discharge Criteria
Evaluation (ODCE) for the proposed permit. The ODCE outlined potential
environmental impacts resulting from the permit and found that the
permit will not cause unreasonable degradation of the marine
environment.
Comment 98: Metals are tightly bound to drilling fluid solids and
do not readily leach off into the aqueous phase of the mud following
discharge to the ocean (Trefry et al., 1986).
Response: Metals found in the drilling fluid discharges are
predominantly associated with drilling fluid solids. However, a small
fraction of the metals bound to the drilling fluid solids is known to
solubilize into the water column and sediment pore water. This fraction
is expressed as the leach percentage. The ODCE drilling mud dilution
analysis has been revised to include the leach percentage factor of the
corresponding metal for two scenarios: mean seawater leach and pH5/7.8
maximum seawater leach. The leach percentages used in the ODCE are
derived from Liss et al. (1980), Kramer et al. (1980), McCulloch et al.
(1980), and Trefry et al. (1986).
Comment 99: [ODCE Comment] No information is given about whether
the concentrations of metals reported in Table 3-2 of the ODCE for
barite are ``typical'', mean, or upper limit concentrations for
drilling mud grade barite. Some of the concentrations seem high,
particularly those for chromium, nickel, and tin, when compared to the
data presented in EPA (1985a), Table 2-3. However, the mercury and
cadmium concentrations listed in Table 3-2 are below permit limits.
Response: Stock barite that meets metals limitations is referred to
by EPA as ``clean'' barite (EPA, 1993b). The data presented in Table 3-
2 of the ODCE represent mean metals concentrations for ``clean''
barite. These barite characterization data are found in the Offshore
Oil and Gas Effluent Guidelines Development public record and were
provided by industry as EPA Region 10 Discharge Monitoring Report Data.
Comment 100: [ODCE Comment] The use of diesel fuel in drilling
fluid destined for ocean disposal is prohibited and the use has
therefore
[[Page 55741]]
decreased. Thus the discussion in the ODCE may not be completely
representative of current practice in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico.
Response: The use of diesel fuel has decreased since the early
1980s and alternatives, such as synthetic based muds, have increased.
Although drilling fluids containing diesel are not permitted to be
discharged, there is no prohibition on their use. The ODCE was drafted
prior to promulgation of final offshore effluent limitations guidelines
and has been updated to reflect current drilling fluid usage trends.
Comment 101: [ODCE Comment] Regarding the ODCE, the inclusion of a
paragraph on oil-based drilling muds without any qualifications leaves
the impression that oil-based drilling fluids and oily cuttings are
discharged to U.S. waters.''
Response: EPA agrees and has noted in the ODCE the discharge
prohibition of oil-based muds.
Comment 102: [ODCE Comment] The commenter requests clarification on
the characterization of pollutant concentrations for drilling fluids as
presented in the ODCE.
Response: The ODCE used pollutant concentrations as developed for
the final offshore effluent limitations guidelines.
Comment 103: [ODCE Comment] Drill cuttings do not contain up to 60
percent by volume adhering drilling fluids as is documented in the
draft ODCE. The amount of drilling fluid that remains attached to
cuttings after treatment in the mud and cuttings treatment system on
the platform varies. According to Neff, et al. (1987), a typical
cuttings discharge contains 5 to 10 percent drilling fluids solids. The
60 percent estimate is attributable to Ayers et al. (1980a) by EPA
(1985a), but this estimate could not be found in Ayers et al. Also, the
concentration units in Table 3-4 of the ODCE are not g/l as
reported, but rather percent by weight.
Response: EPA stands by the technical accuracy of its statement in
the ODCE. The statement in USEPA (1985a) could have been better
structured to more clearly reflect its intention to state that the
``other data'' as presented in Ayers et al. (1980a) is the source of
the 40% to 60% estimate of adherent fluids, not Ayers et al.
themselves. EPA's estimate of adherent fluids is based on the data
presented in Table 10 of Ayers et al. (1980a).
With regard to Table 3-4 of the draft ODCE, the commenter is
correct that the units of the table should be percent by weight. This
has been corrected in the final document.
Comment 104: [ODCE Comment] The commenter questioned the source of
the data presented in Table 3-5 of the ODCE and whether the
concentrations listed represent means, typical concentrations, or
highest expected concentrations. Lower values are given in Table 3-5 of
the EIS and are based on BCT/BAT/NSPS-level treatment with improved gas
flotation. In order to meet the new effluent standards for oil and
grease in produced water (42/29 mg/L), operators will have to adopt the
advanced produced water treatment technology (Otto and Arnold, 1996).
Therefore, the concentrations in Table 3-5 of the EIS (EPA, 1996) are
more appropriate to represent likely chemical concentrations in
``typical'' produced water, rather than the overall ``average'' values
listed in Table 3-5 of the ODCE document. The commenter also questioned
the concentrations of several pollutants in Table 3-5 namely,
benzo(a)pyrene, chlorobenzene, di-n-butylphthalate, and p-chloro-m-
cresol .
Response: The commenter is correct that current offshore produced
water discharges must meet oil and grease limitations of 42 mg/l daily
maximum and 29 mg/l monthly average based on improved performance gas
flotation. The ODCE was drafted prior to promulgation of final offshore
effluent limitation guidelines (ELG). EPA revised Table 3-5 of the
final ODCE to reflect the current characteristics of offshore produced
water effluent. Data presented in Table 3-5 are consistent with those
provided in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The
characterizations of produced water effluent from improved gas
flotation were obtained through ``a statistical analysis of data
collected by EPA and submitted by industry'' and was used in the
offshore ELG development (EPA, 1993). Pollutant concentrations,
including benzo(a)pyrene, chlorobenzene, di-n-butylphthalate, and p-
chloro-m-cresol are significantly lower in produced water discharged
after treatment using improved gas flotation.
Comment 105: [ODCE Comment] The high concentration of organic
carbon in produced water is not attributable primarily to volatile
aromatic hydrocarbons and aliphatic hydrocarbons as stated in the ODCE.
Most of the organic matter in produced water is in solution and
consists of a mixture of low molecular weight carboxylic acids which
are common in marine sediments and are not toxic to marine organisms.
Also Gulf produced waters also contain phenols which, although toxic to
marine organisms, biodegrade rapidly in the marine environment.
Response: The information submitted by the commenter is noted and
the ODCE has been updated to reflect the additional information.
Although it is true that many of the constituents present in effluent
discharges are also common in marine sediments, some are not. While it
is true that phenol biodegrades rapidly, it is phenol (not any
metabolic product) that is discharged in the permitted effluent and
which must be evaluated against water quality criteria.
Comment 106: [ODCE Comment] Two comment letters expressed the
opinion that the text of the ODCE misrepresents the volumes of produced
water discharged by individual platforms.
Response: The ODCE presents the range of produced water volume
discharged from offshore facilities in the central and western Gulf of
Mexico as rates between 134 bbl/day to 150,000 bbl/day. The
distribution of produced water discharges for offshore platforms has
been studied and published by EPA in the Offshore ELG Development
Document (EPA, 1993b). Information presented in the ODCE regarding
produced water volumes discharged in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico has
been updated.
Comment 107: The modeling of drilling fluid dispersion as presented
in the ODCE is not representative of drilling fluid discharge
conditions that might occur in the eastern Gulf of Mexico.
Response: EPA agrees that a 5-meter depth scenario is not realistic
for conditions in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. However, the general
permit must be adequately protective in all areas of its coverage.
Therefore, drilling fluid dilution modeling must assess the shallowest
area under the maximum permit allowable discharge rate, high mud
weight, (ie., worst-case) scenario.
EPA has revised the presentation of the drilling fluid dilution
model data in the ODCE and EIS. Several different water depths are used
to represent different depth ranges of the permit coverage area. In
addition, dilution at the edge of the 100m mixing zone is used for
water quality analyses as opposed to dispersions as presented in the
previous version of the ODCE.
The water depths and corresponding mean dilutions selected from the
OOC Model results are: 15m (mean dilution = 562), 40m (mean dilution =
787), and 70m (dilution = 1,721). All other parameters, that is, the
discharge rate, the mud weight, and the current speed were not changed
in any of the chosen model scenarios. The discharge rate at each of the
above-mentioned depths was 1,000 bbl/hr as in the original ODCE
[[Page 55742]]
since this parameter is the maximum allowable discharge rate under the
permit. Using this high discharge rate as well as the OOC model mud
weight and current speed, EPA presents in the ODCE the results of
dilutions under the most conservative conditions provided by the
permit. EPA has noted in the current ODCE that the results are
conservative and that normal operations in the Gulf of Mexico would
result in greater dilutions of solids at the edge of the 100m mixing
zone.
Comment 108: Several of the human health criteria (fish
consumption) are unrealistic or inappropriate based on comparison to
ambient concentrations (arsenic) or to carcinogenic PAHs (anthracene
vs. benzo[a]pyrene).
Response: The water quality criteria used for the water quality
analysis have been updated to include the most recently published
criteria. Water quality criteria are proposed and subject to public
comment as with any EPA rulemaking. For the purpose of the water
quality analysis, the criteria are used as guidelines for determining
potential effects.
Comment 109: [ODCE Comment] In discussing physical fate, the ODCE
refers to ``dilution'' and ``dispersion.'' Unfortunately,
``dispersion'' is commonly used to refer to the far-field mixing that
occurs under the influence of turbulent eddies, a quite different usage
than that in the ODCE. The phrase ``differential settling and removal
to the bottom'' should be used instead of ``dispersion'' in the ODCE.
Response: The discussion in the ODCE has been revised to clarify
the terms ``dilution'' and ``dispersion.''
Comment 110: [ODCE Comment] In several places, the ODCE refers to
horizontal distances at which some amount of drilling effluent
deposition occurred. These distances are only for the specific
literature citations mentioned. For example, the results in Ayers, et
al. (1980) were for a total settling distance of 20 meters. In general,
the greater the settling distance (discharge pipe to bottom) the
greater the time for settling and the distance traveled. Also,
dispersion increases. These factors may lead to greater or lesser
amounts of deposition at specific distances, depending on currents and
particle settling velocities.
Response: EPA agrees that, in general, the greater the drilling
effluent settling distance (i.e., discharge pipe to bottom) the greater
the time for settling and the distance traveled. The ODCE describes in
detail the processes or pathways that affect both the upper and lower
plumes. The ODCE was revised to include settling distance as a factor
affecting the physical transport processes.
Comment 111: [ODCE Comment] The following ODCE statement should be
restated: ``Density stratification contributes to the dissipation of
dynamic forces in the dynamic collapse phase of the plume, which
represents the point at which passive diffusion and settling of the
individual particle become the predominant dispersive mechanisms.'' If
a plume is trapped in a stratified water column, the density is the
mechanism that drives the collapse of the plume (the spreading out of
the plume at its level of neutral buoyancy). After sufficient
spreading, the spreading rate caused by dynamic forces declines to the
spreading rate that occurs from turbulent dispersion (the so called
far-field dispersion that dominates thereafter).
Response: EPA agrees with the commenter's restatement of the
dynamic of plume collapse. The clarifications have been incorporated
into the discussions of the ODCE as appropriate.
Comment 112: [ODCE Comment] Sediment reworking by bioturbation, if
it has any effect at all on the environmental impacts of deposited
drilling fluid solids, will tend to decrease their impacts by mixing
and diluting the solids in the sediment column.
Response: EPA has noted in the ODCE that bioturbation is the
process by which organisms rework the sediment, thereby mixing surface
material and deeper sediment layers. This process incorporates drilling
fluid solids into the sediment and disperses drilling fluid solids.
However, this process also may resuspend previously settled solids and
may expose more benthic organisms to drilling fluid solids.
Comment 113: [ODCE Comment] Contrary to statements in the ODCE,
metals do not ``always increase in sediments near drilling rigs due to
deposition of drilling fluids (Boothe and Presely, 1985)''
Response: The ODCE does not suggest that several metals always
increase in sediments near drilling rigs. The ODCE states clearly ``the
only two metals clearly associated with drilling fluids that appear to
be elevated are barium and chromium.''
Comment 114: [ODCE Comment] The data source presented in the ODCE
to demonstrate that mercury and other metals from drilling fluids are
likely to accumulate in sediments and organisms near drilling
operations were subsequently found to attribute the mercury source to
erosion (Crippen et al., 1980) or to be proven erroneous (Mariani et
al., 1980; Gillmore et al., 1985).
Response: The comment is noted and the final ODCE contains updated
information and revisions.
Comment 115: The area of potential effects of water-based drilling
fluid discharges on the benthos nearly always is less than 1,000 m from
the discharge, except in very shallow waters with restricted mixing and
circulation. There have been no documented cases where petroleum
hydrocarbons accumulated from water-based drilling muds or produced
water in sediments to high enough concentrations to cause substantial
adverse effects over a wide area. While the effects of oil-based muds
may extend out to 1,000 meters or so, the discharge of such muds and
cuttings is prohibited.
Response: The current ODCE has been revised to discuss the impact
of water-based drilling fluid discharge on the benthos rather than
impacts of oil-based mud discharge.
Comment 116: [ODCE Comment] Most of the studies reviewed concerning
the fate of produced water are for shallow coastal waters, not
representative of most of the OCS of the eastern Gulf of Mexico.
Several more recent references are also available.
Response: The comment is noted and the final ODCE contains updated
information and revisions.
Comment 117: Two comment letters questioned the application of the
CORMIX model to analyze the fate of produced water discharges. They
also contended that the statement of Brook's equation for the 4/3 law
farfield dilution is wrong in the ODCE.
Response: In developing the final general permit for the Eastern
Gulf of Mexico, EPA Region 4 has used the most recent CORMIX model
(Version 3.20), which is supported by EPA Headquarters. The produced
water discharge scenarios were rerun with updated facility discharge
data (i.e., produced water discharge rates) using this revised version
of CORMIX. Brooks' 4/3 power is not used in the updated CORMIX version.
Comment 118: Chronic effects of produced water discharges are
extremely unlikely in the water column. In all but the most poorly
mixed enclosed water bodies, mixing is sufficient to prevent a chronic
increase in concentrations of hydrocarbons and metals in the water
column near the discharge. Environmentally significant accumulation of
hydrocarbons in sediments near produced water discharges occurs only in
shallow coastal and enclosed waters, such as
[[Page 55743]]
Trinity Bay, TX (2-3 m deep) (Armstrong et al., 1979).
Response: EPA agrees and notes that the ODCE and EIS have
statements to the effect of those made by the commenters.
Comment 119: The source of the high radium concentrations in
coastal and offshore waters of west Florida is runoff from phosphate
mining and natural phosphate deposits, rich in radium isotopes, in the
area (Fanning et al., 1982; Miller et al., 1990).
Response: The permit coverage area does not cover the cited Florida
coastal waters and radium concentrations found in open Gulf waters are
more appropriate for comparison with discharges occurring under the
permit.
Comment 120: The products used in drilling are toxic. Spills, small
and large will occur and the toxins will ruin our beaches and waters.
[72]
Response: The effects of discharges of drilling fluids were
examined in the DEIS and Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation.
Comment 121: The environmental consequences summarized in the ODCE
should be consistent with those summarized in the DEIS (e.g., number of
pollutant discharges in drilling fluids that exceed AWQC). [112]
Response: The commenter is correct that the DEIS and the draft ODCE
contain different conclusions of water quality criteria exceedences
from drilling fluids discharges. Both conclusions are based on the same
Offshore Operators Committee Muds Model data and water quality
compliance criteria. The difference is attributable to selecting and
summarizing results of the water quality analysis and not in the
methods or criteria used to determine water quality compliance. Both
analyses are derived from data used and presented for the development
of the effluent limitations guidelines for the offshore subcategory.
The model results (presented in Table 4-5 of the original ODCE) were
used for both analyses. The DEIS used results as presented in the RIA
for the Effluent Limitations Guidelines rulemaking (U.S. EPA, 1993a, as
extracted from Avanti, 1993). This analysis presented effluent
concentrations at the edge of a 100-meter mixing zone based on the
average dispersions attained at water depths of 5 m, 19.8 m, and 50 m
using two leachability assumptions (mean seawater extraction and pH 5
extraction). The results reported in the DEIS are based on the results
of the mean seawater leach condition at a 50-meter water depth. The
discussion in the ODCE reports a more conservative case--using the pH 5
extraction--at a 20-meter depth.
Both the FEIS and Revised ODCE present a revised and consistent
methodology for the water quality analysis, using two commonly accepted
extraction factors (the maximum seawater pH and pH 5/7.8), and dilution
estimates for three water depths (15, 40, and 70 meters) which
represent the range of depths in the central planning area portion of
the permit coverage area. The FEIS text reflects these changes and the
Revised ODCE presents the detailed methodology. Also, some changes have
occurred to the Federal Water Quality Criteria and these are reflected
in the water quality analyses of the FEIS and ODCE.
Comment 122: The proposed NPDES general permits are an improvement
over prior regulations, but Alternative B does not sufficiently protect
water quality. The Gulf is already receiving a large amount of the
nation's toxic pollutants (the five Gulf states rank high among the top
10 states with the largest Toxic Release Inventory releases). The
present regulatory programs do not protect nor improve water quality.
Response: In preparing for its Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation
(ODCE), EPA examined existing studies of water quality and toxicity
effects of drilling and production discharges and has conducted
discharge modeling of drilling fluids and produced water. EPA has made
the ODCE determination that, based on the available information, the
permit limitations are sufficient to determine that no unreasonable
degradation should result from the permitted discharges. The potential
impacts of effluent discharges would be minimized by the effluent
discharge limits established in the permits and dispersion of surface
discharges. Short-term biological effects are expected to be limited to
less than 1,000 meters from drilling and production sites. Monitoring
parameters would be applied to determine concentrations in discharges
and surrounding waters as a basis to adjust limitations in the future.
Comment 123: Pollutants are having a cumulative impact on the Gulf,
affecting marine mammals, causing red tides, creating dead zones,
increasing fecal coliform counts, decreasing the seafood harvest, and
causing mercury contamination of seafood. Human exposure via swimming
in contaminated waters is also a concern.
Response: Pollutant modeling results have shown pollutant
concentrations associated with produced water discharges are diluted to
levels below federal and state water quality standards within 100
meters of the discharge. Concentrations of certain pollutants in
drilling fluids (arsenic, beryllium, chromium, copper, lead, and
mercury) do exceed some of the federal and state water quality
standards when measured at the edge of a 100-meter mixing zone.
However, the exceedances are not great, such that concentrations would
reduce to background levels at least several miles (for discharges at
the shoreward limit of federal OCS waters) from where any swimming
would be taking place.
Comment 124: Routine offshore drilling operations and pipeline
installation dumps thousands of pounds of toxic drilling muds into the
ocean.
Response: The effects of the toxic constituents in offshore
drilling discharges have been examined in the Ocean Discharge Criteria
Evaluation and draft EIS. EPA concludes that the discharges will not
result in an unreasonable degradation of the marine environment. The
potential impacts of these discharges are minimized by the effluent
discharge limits established in the permits, including the ``clean
barite'' requirement, the prohibition on the discharge of cuttings
contaminated with oils, and the aquatic toxicity limitation.
Comment 125: Siltation is briefly mentioned in the EIS, but it
needs its own study.
Response: The EIS mentions that localized impacts of siltation may
occur from trenching related to pipeline emplacements. Because of its
highly localized nature, this effect is not considered as a substantial
impact on Gulf of Mexico resources. The effects of drilling mud
discharges and resuspension of sediments are examined at various points
throughout chapter three of the draft EIS and are concluded to not have
a substantial impact.
Comment 126: Support vessels also affect offshore waters since
discharges occur from these sources.
Response: Recent MARPOL regulations pertaining to ships are
applicable to service vessels, and these regulations place much tighter
restrictions on bilge discharges. The issue of course is enforcement
and the U.S. Coast Guard has this responsibility but MMS also does
limited inspection of barges at rigs and platforms.
Comment 127: Most of the major bays experience hypoxic conditions
during the summer, and Mobile Bay is experiencing hypoxic conditions
during the winter. Panama City Waters, Choctawhatchee Bay and Mobile
Bay contain shellfish with high organic compounds. These valuable
resources can't be further degraded.
Response: One of the most severe environmental stresses to the Gulf
that the Commentor mentions is hypoxia, or
[[Page 55744]]
depressed dissolved oxygen. The Gulf of Mexico Program has identified
excess nutrient loadings primarily of river discharge origin as the
source of this over-enrichment. Nitrogen and phosphorus loading and
organic material reaching the Gulf have increased dramatically in
recent years. Scientists believe this over-enrichment causes excessive
primary productivity in the form of algal blooms. Organic loadings from
riverine sources coupled with the organic production within the Gulf
exert massive biological oxygen demand. The result is an area of
severely depressed oxygen levels in Gulf bottom waters that is
increasing in size but varying seasonally. All major wastewater
components of offshore operations (muds and cuttings, produced waters,
and domestic wastewater) have oxygen consuming components. The domestic
wastewater discharge from the sewage treatment facility yields organic
wastes that exert a biological oxygen demand, but all of these wastes
are negligible compared to the riverine and other coastal inputs. The
estuarine hypoxia problems in Mobile and other bays, mentioned by the
Commentor, is pronounced. The sediments of confined inland waters act
as sinks for the nutrient and organic inputs. Wave action and currents
plus the almost continual dredging activities within estuaries tend to
increase the resuspension of these pollutants. While offshore supply
boat traffic contributes turbidity, the industry collectively has
little impact to this problem in the estuary.
Comment 128: Minimizing the impacts of effluent discharges by
establishing limits in General Permits is certainly no solution to the
problems. Dispersion of surface discharges into deeper waters is a
deplorable practice. The only environmentally-friendly practice for
discharging effluents into the sea can be the purification of the
waste-water prior to discharge. Solids need to be disposed of
separately on land. Dilution and dispersion are not solutions to
pollution.
Response: EPA's goal and Congressional mandate per the Clean Water
Act is to reduce pollution in the nation's waters. In order to achieve
this mandate, EPA promulgates regulations, the effluent limitations
guidelines, for all industrial sources, including the oil and gas
industry. The effluent guidelines are implemented through the NPDES
permitting process. In 1993, EPA promulgated effluent guidelines for
the offshore subcategory of the oil and gas industry. During the
process of developing these guidelines, EPA evaluated the treatment
technologies as well as disposal options available to the oil and gas
industry.
NPDES permits require water quality-based analyses, and for marine
dischargers, must include a CWA Section 403 ``Ocean Discharge Criteria
Evaluation (ODCE). The ODCE is a document published by EPA to evaluate
the environmental impact of the NPDES general permit of discharges from
the offshore oil and gas industry. The ODCE determined that the
conditions and limitations in the general permit protected the water
quality of the eastern Gulf of Mexico and preserved the health of the
aquatic life.
For the offshore subcategory, treatment of produced water effluent
using improved gas flotation and limitations on drilling fluid
discharges were determined to be both economically achievable and
providing significant reduction in pollutants compared to existing
regulations. Therefore, treatment of effluent to municipal wastewater
levels is not a currently feasible technologically nor economically.
Disposing drilling solids on land was considered by EPA in 1993, but
was determined not to be feasible for the offshore oil and gas industry
given the large distances and costs associated with land disposal.
EPA agrees that dilution is not an appropriate method for treating
discharges. However, the general permit does not rely on ``the dilution
of discharges to reduce the level of toxics'' to avoid unreasonable
degradation.
The conditions and limitations in the general permit for the
eastern Gulf were determined to protect water quality and preserve the
health of benthic and other marine organisms. These permit conditions
and limitations include no discharge of free oil, no discharge of oil-
based muds, no discharge of diesel oil, no discharge of produced sand,
no discharge within 1,000 meters of areas of biological concern, oil
and grease limitation on produced water, cadmium and mercury
concentration limitation in barite, discharge rate limitations around
live-bottom areas, and limitations on the whole effluent toxicity of
both drilling fluids and produced water.
Comment 129: Estimates of dilution 100 meters from discharges and
areas receiving drilling effluents at specified criteria or more can be
generated in a form suitable for a general permit.
Response: While it is technically possible to construct a table of
estimated dilutions for various operational and environmental
parameters, EPA does not believe this approach offers any significant
administrative or regulatory relief to operators and would require
substantial Agency resources. EPA does believe such an approach is an
entirely feasible option for operators, given published criteria,
should they decide they have an individual requirement, to further
control their water quality impacts based on available environmental
and operational data.
Comment 130: The proposed current speed of 4 cm/sec represents the
median of data collected from offshore Alabama using a current meter
placed at a 10 meter water depth in 30 meters of total water depth. EPA
should evaluate the relevancy of this constant parameter, since the
model will be applied to discharges in water depths for 200 meters or
greater. This will result in more accurate projection of the effluent
concentration at 100 meters (edge of mixing zone) which is used to
calculate the toxicity limitations for each production platform
modeled.
Response: EPA believes that Gulf currents at depths more than 200
meters deep are nil. The modeling performed relative to the issuance of
new source performance standards and the revisions to best available
technology evaluated the water currents in waters much shallower and
under greater current magnitudes and fluctuations, representing worst
case potential concentrations at the edge of a 100-meter mixing zone.
Comment 131: EPA should consider existing compliance levels in
deciding whether to issue more NPDES permits.
Response: EPA regulations do not allow the Agency to consider an
applicants's track record when deciding on new permits for a facility.
Comment 132: There should be a requirement for adequate emergency
response.
Response: The MMS requires on-site containment capabilities as well
as rapid response from shore bases.
Comment 133: EPA should consider the level of toxicity of the
discharged material and should strongly consider a prohibition on toxic
discharges.
Response: The effluent limitations prohibit toxic concentrations
beyond a 100-meter zone of mixing.
Comment 134: The State of Florida must have the ability to opt for
more stringent discharge conditions, if warranted, based on resources
at a specific site. There must be a formal mechanism for State
participation in general permit decisions.
Response: EPA is willing to enter into an agreement (Memorandum of
Understanding) with the State of Florida regarding input to decisions
on NPDES permitting review.
[[Page 55745]]
Other Changes to General Permit at the Time of Final Permit
Issuance.
Based on comments received or review of draft permit, changes were
made to the Fact Sheet and Permit as noted below prior to final
issuance.
Fact Sheet Changes
Section 1.D(1)
The Phrase ``therefore sites where exploration has occurred are not
considered existing sources'', is changed to ``therefore, sites where
exploration has occurred are not considered new sources.''
Section I.H
The phrase ``one in Block 990 discharging approximately 160 BPD;
and one in Block 821 discharging approximately 240 BPD.'' should be
updated. Following this sentence, the Region has incorporated an update
into the final Fact Sheet which reads as: Based on a 1998 survey, the
Region gained information that Mobile Block 990 produced water
discharge has increased to 450 BPD and Mobile Block 821 produced water
has increased to 1500 BPD and incorporated this revised information in
the Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation.
Section I.i
Cormix Expert System (v. 1.4; Doneker and Jirka, 1990) has been
revised to use the most recent Cormix Model (Version 3.2). Since Brooks
4/3 power law is not used in the revised version of Cormix references
using the Brooks 4/3 power law should also be deleted. The reference
manual (EPA/600/4-85/013) was changed to (EPA/600/4-90/027F). The
phrase ``The LC 50s must be reported monthly, accompanied by a copy of
the full laboratory report'' is changed to `` The LC50s must be
reported bi-monthly, accompanied by a copy of the full laboratory
report. The reference to using sheepshead minnows for conducting
toxicity tests is changed to inland silverside.
Part III,--1st Paragraph,--the wastestream, ``Uncontaminated
Freshwater'' was added and has been included in the final permit under
``Miscellaneous Discharges'.
Section V.N--Clarifications
End-of-Well Sample--The previous definition will not be changed as
proposed, and can be located in the definition Section of the Final
NPDES General Permit.
Permit Changes
Part I. Section A.1
Added well workover and abandonment operations as a category of
operations covered.
Part I. Section A.4
Under Notification Requirements, Item No. 4, 10 and Item No. 11were
revised based on regulations and to exempt initial photo-documentation
for certain facilities. NCO requirements were changed from 30 days
prior to placement to 30 days after placement. NCO requirements for
produced water discharge was changed from within 30 days prior to
initiation of produced water to within 90 days after initiation of
produced water discharge.
Part I. Section B.3.b
The reference to Cormix1(Version 1.4) is changed to Cormix (Version
3.2)The reference to (EPA/600/4-85/013) is changed to (EPA/600/4-90/
027F). The phrase ``The results for both species shall be reported on
the monthly DMR'' has been changed to `` The results for both species
shall be reported on the monthly DMR, once every 2-months.
Part II. Section D.3
Transfers reference Part I.A.3 has been is changed to Part I.A.4.
Tables 2 & 3--For the Discharge parameter for Produced Water, the
Toxicity requirement was changed from once/month to once-every two
months, and one species was changed from sheepshead minnows to inland
silverside minnow.
Appendix A--The type of species was revised based on comments. EPA
added another parameter that may be used in the CORMIX toxicity
calculation and will be reported by the operator.
General Permit Table of Contents
Part I. Requirements for NPDES Permits
Section A. Permit Applicability and Coverage Conditions
1. Operations Covered
2. Operations Excluded
3. General Permit Applicability
4. Notification Requirements
5. Termination of Operations
6. Intent to be Covered by a Subsequent Permit
Section B. Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements
1. Drilling Fluids
2. Drill Cuttings
3. Produced Water
4. Deck Drainage
5. Produced Sand
6. Well Treatment Fluids, Completion Fluids, and Workover Fluids
7. Sanitary Waste (Facilities Continuously Manned by 10 or More
Persons)
8. Sanitary Waste (Facilities Continuously Manned by 9 or Fewer
Persons or Intermittently by Any Number)
9. Domestic Waste
10. Miscellaneous Discharges (Desalination Unit Discharge,
Blowout Preventer Fluid, Uncontaminated Ballast Water,
Uncontaminated Bilge Water, Mud, Cuttings, and Cement at the
Seafloor, Uncontaminated Seawater, Boiler Blowdown, Source Water and
Sand, Uncontaminated Freshwater, Excess Cement Slurry and
Diatomaceous Earth Filter Media)
Section C. Other Discharge Limitations
1. Floating Solids or Visible Foam
2. Halogenated Phenol Compounds
3. Dispersants, Surfactants, and Detergents
4. Rubbish, Trash, and Other Refuse
5. Areas of Biological Concern
Part II. Standard Conditions for NPDES Permits
Section A. Introduction and General Conditions
1. Duty to Comply
2. Penalties for Violations of Permit Conditions
3. Duty to Mitigate
4. Permit Flexibility
5. Toxic Pollutants
6. Civil and Criminal Liabilities
7. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability
8. State Laws
9. Property Rights
10. Onshore or Offshore Construction
11. Severability
12. Duty to Provide Information
Section B. Proper Operation and Maintenance of Pollution Controls
1. Proper Operation and Maintenance
2. Need to Halt or Reduce not a Defense
3. Bypass of Treatment Facilities
4. Upset Conditions
5. Removed Substances
Section C. Monitoring and Records
1. Representative Sampling
2. Discharge Rate/Flow Measurements
3. Monitoring Procedures
4. Penalties for Tampering
5. Retention of Records
6. Record Contents
7. Inspection and Entry
Section D. Reporting Requirements
1. Planned Changes
2. Anticipated Noncompliance
3. Transfers
4. Monitoring Reports
5. Additional Monitoring by the Permittee
6. Averaging of Measurements
7. Twenty-four Hour Reporting
8. Other Noncompliance
9. Other Information
10. Changes in Discharges of Toxic Substances
11. Duty to Reapply
12. Signatory Requirements
13. Availability of Reports
Part III. Monitoring Reports and Permit Modification
Section A. Monitoring Reports
Section B. Permit Modification
Part IV. Test Procedures and Definitions
Section A. Test Procedures
1. Samples of Wastes
[[Page 55746]]
2. Drilling Fluids Toxicity Test
3. Static (Laboratory) Sheen Test
4. Visual Sheen Test
5. Produced Water Acute Toxicity Test
6. Retort Test
Section B. Definitions
Table 2. Effluent Limitations, Prohibitions, and Monitoring
Requirements for the Eastern Gulf of Mexico NPDES General Permit
(Existing Sources)
Table 3. Effluent Limitations, Prohibitions, and Monitoring
Requirements for the Eastern Gulf of Mexico NPDES General Permit
(New Sources)
Appendix A
Table A-1. CORMIX Input Parameters for Toxicity Limitation
Calculation
Appendix B. Map identifying Areas of Biological Concern in the
Central Planning Area.
Authorization To Discharge Under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System
In compliance with the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et. seq.), operators of lease blocks located in
OCS Federal waters seaward of 200 meters in the Eastern Planning Area
and seaward of the outer boundary of the territorial seas in the
Central Planning Area with existing source or new source discharges
originating from exploration or development and production operations
are authorized to discharge to receiving waters in accordance with
effluent limitations, monitoring requirements, and other conditions set
forth in parts I, II, III, and IV hereof.
Operators of operating facilities within the proposed NPDES general
permit area must submit written notification to the Regional
Administrator, prior to discharge, that they intend to be covered by
either the existing source general permit or the new source general
permit (See part I.A.4). Upon receipt of notification of inclusion by
the Regional Administrator, owners or operators requesting coverage are
authorized to discharge under either the existing source or new source
general permit. Operators of lease blocks within the general permit
area who fail to notify the Regional Administrator of intent to be
covered by this general permit are not authorized under the general
permit to discharge pollutants from their potential new or existing
source facilities. This permit does not apply to non-operational
leases, i.e., those on which no discharge has taken place in 2 years
prior to the effective date of the new general permits. EPA will not
accept Notice of Intents (NOI's) from such leases, and these general
permits will not cover such leases. Non-operational leases will lose
general permit coverage on the effective date of these new general
permits.
This permit shall become effective at midnight, Eastern Standard
Time, on November 16, 1998.
For operational facilities, coverage under the old general permit
shall terminate on the effective of this permit, unless the owner/
operator submits an notice of intent (NOI) to be covered within 60 days
thereafter, or an application for an individual permit within 120 days
thereafter. If an NOI is filed, coverage under the old general permit
terminates upon receipt of notification of inclusion by letter from the
Director of the Water Management Division, Region 4. If a permit
application is filed, the old general permit terminates when a final
action is taken on the application for an individual permit.
This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at
midnight, Eastern Standard Time, on October 31, 2003.
Signed this 7th day of October, 1998.
John H. Hankinson, Jr.,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 4.
Part I. Requirements for NPDES Permits
Section A. Permit Applicability and Coverage Conditions
1. Operations Covered
These permits establish effluent limitations, prohibitions,
reporting requirements, and other conditions for discharges from oil
and gas facilities engaged in production, field exploration, drilling,
well completion, well workover and abandonment operations, and well
treatment operations from potential new sources and existing sources.
The permit coverage area includes Federal waters in the Gulf of
Mexico seaward of the 200 meter water depth for offshore Alabama and
Florida in the Eastern Planning Area, and seaward of the outer boundary
of the territorial seas for offshore Mississippi and Alabama in the
Central Planning Area. This permit only covers facilities located in
and discharging to the Federal waters listed above and does not
authorize discharges from facilities in or discharging to the
territorial sea (within 3 miles of shore) of the Gulf coastal states or
from facilities defined as ``coastal'' or ``onshore'' (see 40 CFR, part
435, subparts C and D).
2. Operations Excluded
Any operator who seeks to discharge drill fluids, drill cuttings or
produced water within 1000 meters of an area of biological concern is
ineligible for coverage under these general permits and must apply for
an individual permit.
Any operator with leases occurring below the 26 deg. parallel which
are currently under moratorium are excluded from inclusion under these
general permits.
No coverage will be extended under either of the new general
permits to non-operational leases.
3. General Permit Applicability
In accordance with 40 CFR 122.28(b)(3) and 122.28(c), the Regional
Administrator may require any person authorized by this permit to apply
for and obtain an individual NPDES permit when:
(a) The discharge(s) is a significant contributor of pollution;
(b) The discharger is not in compliance with the conditions of this
permit;
(c) A change has occurred in the availability of the demonstrated
technology or practices for the control or abatement of pollutants
applicable to the point sources;
(d) Effluent limitation guidelines are promulgated for point
sources covered by this permit;
(e) A Water Quality Management Plan containing requirements
applicable to such point source is approved;
(f) It is determined that the facility is located in an area of
biological concern.
(g) Circumstances have changed since the time of the request to be
covered so that the discharger is no longer appropriately controlled
under the general permit, or either a temporary or permanent reduction
or elimination of the authorized discharge is necessary.
The Regional Administrator may require any operator authorized by
this permit to apply for an individual NPDES permit only if the
operator has been notified in writing that a permit application is
required. Any operator authorized by this permit may request to be
excluded from the coverage of this general permit by applying for an
individual permit. The operator shall submit an application together
with the reasons supporting the request to the Regional Administrator
no later than 180 days before an activity is scheduled to commence on
the lease block. When an individual NPDES permit is issued to an
operator otherwise subject to this permit, the applicability of this
permit to the owner or operator is automatically terminated on the
effective date of the individual permit.
A source excluded from coverage under this general permit solely
because it already has an individual permit may request that its
individual permit be
[[Page 55747]]
revoked, and that it be covered by this general permit. Upon revocation
of the individual permit, this general permit shall apply to the source
after the notification of intent to be covered is filed (see I.A.4,
below).
4. Notification Requirements (Existing Sources and New Sources)
Written notification of intent (NOI) to be covered in accordance
with the general permit requirements shall state whether the permittee
is requesting coverage under the existing source general permit or new
source general permit, and shall contain the following information:
(1) The legal name and address of the owner or operator;
(2) The facility name and location, including the lease block
assigned by the Department of Interior, or if none, the name commonly
assigned to the lease area;
(3) The number and type of facilities and activity proposed within
the lease block;
(4) The waters into which the facility is or will be discharging;
including a map with longitude and latitude of current or proposed
outfall locations. Current produced water discharges shall also include
Appendix A.
(5) The date on which the owner/operator commenced on-site
construction, including:
(a) Any placement assembly or installation of facilities or
equipment; or
(b) The clearing, excavation or removal of existing structures or
facilities;
(6) The date on which the facility commenced exploration activities
at the site;
(7) The date on which the owner/operator entered into a binding
contract for the purchase of facilities or equipment intended to be
used in its operation within a reasonable time (if applicable);
(8) The date on which the owner/operator commenced development; and
(9) The date on which the owner/operator commenced production.
(10) Technical information on the characteristics of the sea bottom
within 1000 meters of the discharge point, including but not limited to
information regarding geohazards (Notice To Lessees 88-3, Outer
Continental Shelf Shallow Hazards Requirements for the Gulf of Mexico
OCS Region dated September 7, 1983), topographical formations, live
bottom, and chemosynthetic communities.
(11) MMS photo documentation survey according to most current MMS
guidelines, (Revised Guidelines for Photodocumentation Surveys dated
January 31, 1989), for facilities in less than 100 meters water depth
in the Central Planning Area. (Exception: Current active discharging
facilities on the effective date of the new general permit will be
exempt from photo-documentation surveys for the life of that discharge:
(Refer to Comment No. 69 for clarification)
All notices of intent shall be signed in accordance with 40 CFR
Sec. 122.22.
EPA will act on the NOI in a reasonable period of time.
For operating leases, the NOI shall be submitted within sixty (60)
days after publication of the final determination on this action. Non-
operational facilities are not eligible for coverage under these new
general permits. No NOI will be accepted from either a non-operational
or newly acquired lease until such time as an exploration plan or
development production plan has been prepared for submission to EPA.
Operators obtaining coverage under the existing source general permit
for exploration activities must send a new NOI for coverage of
development and production activities under the new source general
permit sixty (60) days prior to commencing such operations. All NOI's
requesting coverage should be sent by certified mail to: Director,
Water Management Division, Surface Water Permits & Facilities Branch,
U.S. EPA, Region 4, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, S.W.,
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960.
For drilling activity, the operator shall submit a Notice to Drill
(NTD) sixty (60) days prior to the actual move-on date. This NTD shall
contain: (1) the assigned NPDES general permit number assigned to the
lease block, (2) the latitude and longitude of the proposed discharge
point, (3) the water depth, and (4) the estimated length of time the
drilling operation will last. This NTD shall be submitted to Region 4
at the address above, by certified mail to: Director, Water Management
Division, U.S. EPA, Region 4, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth
Street, S.W., Atlanta, GA 30303-8960.
In addition, a notice of commencement of operations (NCO) is
required to be submitted for each of the following activities: placing
a production platform in the general permit coverage area (within 30
days after to placement); and discharging waste water within the
coverage area (within 90 days after initiation of produced water
discharges). The NCO required for discharging waste water shall be
accompanied by the information requested in Appendix A for calculation
of the toxicity limitation for produced water discharges. Within ninety
(90) days after produced water discharge begins, the permittee shall
perform adequate tests to establish a bbl/day estimate to be used in
the Cormix model. This information must then be provided to EPA in the
Notice of Commencement of Operations for produced water discharges.
All NOIs, NTDs, NCOs, and any subsequent reports required under
this permit shall be sent by certified mail to the following address:
Director, Water Management Division, Surface Water Permits Section,
U.S. EPA, Region 4, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, S.W.,
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960.
5. Termination of Operations
Lease block operators shall notify the Director (at the address
above) within 60 (sixty) days after the permanent termination of
discharges from their facility.
6. Intent To Be Covered by a Subsequent Permit
This permit shall expire on October 31, 2003. However, an expired
general permit continues in force and effect until a new general permit
is issued. Lease block operators authorized to discharge by this permit
shall by certified mail notify the Director, Water Management Division,
U.S. EPA, Region 4, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, S.W.,
Atlanta, GA 30303-8960, on or before April 30, 2003, that they intend
to be covered by a permit that will authorize discharge from these
facilities after the termination date of this permit on October 31,
2003.
Permittees must submit a new NOI in accordance with the
requirements of this permit to remain covered under the continued
general permit after the expiration of this permit. Therefore,
facilities that have not submitted an NOI under the permit by the
expiration date cannot become authorized to discharge under any
continuation of this NPDES general permit. All NOI's from permittees
requesting coverage under a continued permit should be sent by
certified mail to: Director, Water Management Division, U.S. EPA,
Region 4, Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth Street, S.W., Atlanta, GA
30303-8960.
Section B. Effluent Limitations and Monitoring Requirements
1. Drilling Fluids
The discharge of drilling fluids shall be limited and monitored by
the permittee as specified in both tables and below.
Note: The permit prohibitions and limitations that apply to
drilling fluids, also apply to fluids that adhere to drill cuttings.
Any permit condition that applies to the
[[Page 55748]]
drilling fluid system, therefore, also applies to cuttings
discharges.
(a) Prohibitions. Oil-Based Drilling Fluids. The discharge of oil-
based drilling fluids and inverse emulsion drilling fluids is
prohibited.
Oil-Contaminated Drilling Fluids. The discharge of drilling fluids
to which waste engine oil, cooling oil, gear oil or any lubricants
which have been previously used for purposes other than borehole
lubrication have been added, is prohibited.
Diesel Oil. Drilling fluids to which any diesel oil has been added
as a lubricant or pill may not be discharged.
No Discharge Near Areas of Biological Concern. For those facilities
within 1000 meters of an area of biological concern the discharge of
drilling fluids is not allowed.
(b) Limitations. Mineral Oil. Mineral oil may be used only as a
lubricity additive or pill. If mineral oil is added to a water-based
drilling fluid, the drilling fluid may not be discharged unless the 96-
hr LC50 of the drilling fluid is greater than 30,000 ppm SPP and it
passes the static sheen test for free oil.
Cadmium and Mercury in Barite. There shall be no discharge of
drilling fluids to which barite has been added if such barite contains
mercury in excess of 1.0 mg/kg (dry weight) or cadmium in excess of 3.0
mg/kg (dry weight).
The permittee shall analyze a representative sample of each supply
of stock barite prior to drilling each well and submit the results for
total mercury and cadmium in the Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR). If
more than one well is being drilled at a site, new analyses are not
required for subsequent wells, provided that no new supplies of barite
have been received since the previous analysis. In this case, the
results of the previous analysis should be used for completion of the
DMR.
Alternatively, the permittee may provide certification, as
documented by the supplier(s), that the barite being used on the well
will meet the above limits. The concentration of the mercury and
cadmium in the barite shall be reported on the DMR as documented by the
supplier.
Analyses shall be conducted by absorption spectrophotometry (see 40
CFR Part 136, flame and flameless AAS) and the results expressed in mg/
kg (dry weight).
Toxicity. Discharged drilling fluids shall meet both a daily
minimum and a monthly average minimum effluent toxicity limitation of
at least 30,000 ppm, (v/v) of a 9:1 seawater:mud suspended particulate
phase (SPP) based on a 96-hour test using Mysidopsis bahia. The method
is published in the final effluent guidelines at 58 FR 12507.
Monitoring shall be performed at least once per month for both the
daily minimum and the monthly average minimum. In addition, an end-of-
well sample is required (see definitions). The type of sample required
is a grab sample, taken from beneath the shale shaker. Results of
toxicity tests must be reported on the monthly DMRs. Copies of the
laboratory reports also must be submitted with the DMRs.
Free Oil. No free oil shall be discharged. Monitoring shall be
performed prior to discharges and on each day of discharge using the
static (laboratory) sheen test method in accordance with the method
provided in Part IV.A.3, as published in the final effluent guidelines
(58 FR 12506). The discharge of drilling fluids that fail the static
sheen test is prohibited. The results of each sheen test must be
recorded and the number of observations of a sheen must be reported on
each monthly DMR.
Maximum Discharge Rate. All facilities are subject to a maximum
discharge rate of 1,000 barrels per hour. Discharge rates must be
recorded and the hourly discharge rate reported on the monthly DMR in
barrels/hour.
(c) Monitoring Requirements. In addition to the above limitations,
the following monitoring and reporting requirements also apply to
drilling fluids discharges.
Drilling Fluids Inventory. The permittee shall maintain a precise
chemical inventory of all constituents and their total volume or mass
added downhole for each well. Information shall be recorded but not
reported unless specifically requested by EPA.
Volume. Once per month, the total monthly volume (bbl/month) of
discharged drilling fluids must be estimated and recorded. The volume
shall be reported on the monthly DMR.
Oil Content. There is no numeric limitation on the oil content of
discharged drilling muds (except that muds containing any waste oil, or
diesel oil as a lubricity agent shall not be discharged). However, note
that the oil added shall not cause a violation of either the toxicity
or free oil limitations discussed above.
All discharged drilling fluids, including those fluids adhering to
cuttings must meet the limitations of this section except that
discharge rate limitations do not apply before installation of the
marine riser.
2. Drill Cuttings
The discharge of drill cuttings shall be limited and monitored by
the permittee as specified in both tables and below.
Note: The permit prohibitions and limitations that apply to
drilling fluids also apply to fluids that adhere to drill cuttings.
Any permit condition that applies to the drilling fluid system,
therefore, also applies to cuttings discharges. Monitoring
requirements, however, may not be the same.
(a) Prohibitions. Cuttings from Oil-Based Drilling Fluids.
Prohibitions that apply to drilling fluids, set forth above in B.1(a),
also apply to drill cuttings. Therefore, the discharge of cuttings is
prohibited when they are generated while using an oil-based or invert
emulsion mud.
Cuttings from Oil Contaminated Drilling Fluids. The discharge of
cuttings that are generated using drilling fluids that contain waste
engine oil, cooling oil, gear oil or any lubricants which have been
previously used for purposes other than borehole lubrication is
prohibited.
Cuttings generated using drilling fluids which contain diesel oil.
Drill cuttings generated using drilling fluids to which any diesel oil
has been added as a lubricant may not be discharged.
Cuttings generated using mineral oil. The discharge of cuttings
generated using drilling fluids which contain mineral oil is prohibited
except when the mineral oil is used as a carrier fluid (transporter
fluid), lubricity additive, or pill.
No Discharge Near Areas of Biological Concern. For those facilities
within 1000 meters of an area of biological concern discharge of
drilling cuttings is not allowed.
(b) Limitations. Mineral Oil. Limitations that apply to drilling
fluids also apply to drill cuttings. Therefore, if mineral oil pills or
mineral oil lubricity additives have been introduced to a water-based
mud system, cuttings may be discharged if they meet the limitations for
toxicity and free oil.
Free Oil. No free oil shall be discharged. Monitoring shall be
performed prior to bulk discharges and on each day of discharge using
the static (laboratory) sheen test method in accordance with the method
provided in Part IV.A.3. The discharge of cuttings that fail the static
sheen test is prohibited. The results of each sheen test must be
recorded and the number of observations of a sheen must be reported on
each monthly DMR.
Toxicity. Discharged cuttings generated using drilling fluids with
a daily minimum or a monthly average minimum 96-hour LC50 of less than
[[Page 55749]]
30,000 ppm, (v/v) of a 9:1 seawater to drilling fluid suspended
particulate phase (SPP) volumetric ratio using Mysidopsis bahia shall
not be discharged.
(c) Monitoring Requirements. Volume. Once per month, the monthly
total discharge must be estimated and recorded. The estimated volume of
cuttings discharged (bbl/month) shall be reported on the DMR.
3. Produced Water
The discharge of produced water shall be limited and monitored by
the permittee as specified in both tables and below.
(a) Prohibitions. No Discharge Near Areas of Biological Concern.
For those facilities within 1000 meters of an area of biological
concern discharge of produced water is not allowed.
(b) Limitations. Oil and Grease. Produced water discharges must
meet both a daily maximum limitation of 42 mg/l and a monthly average
limitation of 29 mg/l for oil and grease. A grab sample must be taken
at least once per month. The daily maximum samples may be based on the
average concentration of four grab samples taken within the 24-hour
period. If only one sample is taken for any one month, it must meet
both the daily and monthly limits. If more samples are taken, they may
exceed the monthly average for any one day, provided that the average
of all samples taken meets the monthly limitation. The gravimetric
method is specified at 40 CFR part 136. The highest daily oil and
grease concentration and the monthly average concentration shall be
reported on the monthly DMR.
Toxicity. Produced water discharges must meet a toxicity limitation
projected to be the limiting permissible concentration (0.01 x LC50) at
the edge of a 100-meter mixing zone. The toxicity limitation will be
calculated by EPA based on each facility's site-specific water column
conditions and discharge configuration. The methods for this
determination are presented in Appendix A of this permit using the
Cornell Mixing Zone Expert System (CORMIX). The CORMIX (Version 3.2),
which is explained in Chapter 4, Section 4.4 of the Ocean Discharge
Criteria Evaluation will be used to evaluate the toxicity of the
produced water outfalls.
Compliance with the toxicity limitation shall be demonstrated by
conducting 96-hour toxicity tests each month using Mysidopsis bahia and
inland silverside minnow. The method is published in ``Methods for
Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents to Freshwater and Marine
Organisms'' (EPA/600/4-90/027F). The results for both species shall be
reported on the monthly DMR, once every two months. The operator shall
also submit a copy of all laboratory reports with the DMR.
(c) Monitoring Requirements. Flow. Once per month, an estimate of
the total flow (bbl/month) must be reported on the DMR.
4. Deck Drainage
The discharge of deck drainage shall be limited and monitored by
the permittee as specified in both tables and below.
(a) Limitations. Free Oil. No free oil shall be discharged.
Monitoring shall be performed on each day of discharge using the visual
sheen test method in accordance with the method provided at Part
IV.A.4. The discharge of deck drainage that fails the visual sheen test
is prohibited. The results of each sheen test must be recorded and the
number of observations of a sheen must be reported on each monthly DMR.
(b) Monitoring Requirements. Volume. Once per month, the monthly
total discharge (bbls/month) must be estimated and reported on the DMR.
5. Produced Sand
The discharge of produced sand is prohibited under this general
permit. Wastes must be hauled to shore for treatment and disposal.
6. Well Treatment Fluids, Completion Fluids, and Workover Fluids
The discharge of well treatment fluids, completion fluids, and
workover fluids shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as
specified in both tables and below.
(a) Limitations. Free Oil. No free oil shall be discharged.
Monitoring shall be performed prior to discharge and on each day of
discharge using the static (laboratory) sheen test method in accordance
with the method provided at Part IV.A.3. The discharge of well
treatment, completion, or workover fluids that fail the static sheen
test is prohibited. The results of each sheen test must be recorded and
the number of observations of a sheen must be reported on each monthly
DMR.
Oil and Grease. Well treatment fluids, completion fluids, and
workover fluids discharges must meet both a daily maximum of 42 mg/l
and a monthly average of 29 mg/l limitation for oil and grease. A grab
sample must be taken at least once per month when discharging. The
daily maximum concentration may be based on the average of four grab
samples taken within the 24-hour period. If only one sample is taken
for any one month, it must meet both the daily and monthly limits. If
more samples are taken, they may exceed the monthly average for any one
day, provided that the average of all samples taken meets the monthly
limitation. The analytical method is the gravimetric method, as
specified at 40 CFR part 136.
Priority Pollutants. For well treatment fluids, completion fluids,
and workover fluids, the discharge of priority pollutants is prohibited
except in trace amounts. Information on the specific chemical
composition of any additives containing priority pollutants shall be
recorded.
Note: If materials added downhole as well treatment, completion,
or workover fluids contain no priority pollutants, the discharge is
assumed not to contain priority pollutants except possibly in trace
amounts.
(b) Monitoring Requirements. Volume. Once per month, an estimate of
the total volume discharged (bbls/month) shall be reported on the DMR.
7. Sanitary Waste (Facilities Continuously Manned by 10 or More
Persons)
The discharge of sanitary waste shall be limited and monitored by
the permittee as specified in both tables and below.
(a) Prohibitions. Solids. No floating solids may be discharged.
Observations must be made once per day, during daylight in the vicinity
of sanitary waste outfalls, following either the morning or midday
meals and at the time during maximum estimated discharge. The number of
days solids are observed shall be recorded.
(b) Limitations. Residual Chlorine. Total residual chlorine is a
surrogate parameter for fecal coliform. Discharges of sanitary waste
must contain a minimum of 1 mg residual chlorine/l and shall be
maintained as close to this concentration as possible. The approved
analytical method is Hach CN-66-DPD. A grab sample must be taken once
per month and the concentration reported.
(Exception) Any facility which properly maintains a marine
sanitation device (MSD) that complies with pollution control standards
and regulations under Section 312 of the Act shall be deemed in
compliance with permit limitations for sanitary waste. The MSD shall be
tested annually for proper operation and the test results maintained at
the facility. The operator shall indicate use of an MSD on the monthly
DMR.
(c) Monitoring Requirements. Flow. Once per month, the average flow
(MGD) must be estimated and recorded for the flow of sanitary wastes.
[[Page 55750]]
8. Sanitary Waste (Facilities Continuously Manned by 9 or Fewer
Persons or Intermittently by Any Number).
The discharge of sanitary waste shall be limited and monitored by
the permittee as specified in both tables and below.
(a) Prohibitions. Solids. No floating solids may be discharged to
the receiving waters. An observation must be made once per day when the
facility is manned, during daylight in the vicinity of sanitary waste
outfalls, following either the morning or midday meal and at a time
during maximum estimated discharge. The number of days solids are
observed shall be recorded.
(Exception) Any facility which properly maintains a marine
sanitation device (MSD) that complies with pollution control standards
and regulations under Section 312 of the Act shall be deemed in
compliance with permit limitations for sanitary waste. The MSD shall be
tested annually for proper operation and the test results maintained at
the facility. The operator shall indicate use of an MSD on the monthly
DMR.
9. Domestic Waste. The discharge of domestic waste shall be limited
and monitored by the permittee as specified in both tables and below.
(a) Prohibitions. Solids. No floating solids shall be discharged.
In addition, food waste, comminuted or not, may not be discharged
within 12 nautical miles from nearest land.
(b) Limitations. Solids. Comminuted food waste which can pass
through a 25-mm mesh screen (approximately 1 inch) may be discharged 12
or more nautical miles from nearest land.
(c) Monitoring Requirements. Solids. An observation must be made
during daylight in the vicinity of domestic waste outfalls following
either the morning or midday meal and at a time during maximum
estimated discharge. The number of days solids are observed must be
recorded.
10. Miscellaneous Discharges. Desalination Unit Discharge; Blowout
Preventer Fluid; Uncontaminated Ballast Water; Uncontaminated Bilge
Water; Mud, Cuttings, and Cement at the Seafloor; Uncontaminated
Seawater; Boiler Blowdown; Source Water and Sand; Uncontaminated
Freshwater, Excess Cement Slurry, Diatomaceous Earth Filter Media.
The discharge of miscellaneous discharges shall be limited and
monitored by the permittee as specified in both tables and below.
(a) Limitations. Free Oil. No free oil shall be discharged.
Monitoring shall be performed using the visual sheen test method once
per day when discharging on the surface of the receiving water or by
use of the static sheen method at the operator's option. Both tests
shall be conducted in accordance with the methods presented at IV.A.3
and IV.A.4. Discharge is limited to those times that a visual sheen
observation is possible. The number of days a sheen is observed must be
recorded.
(Exception): Miscellaneous discharges may be discharged from
platforms that are on automatic purge systems without monitoring for
free oil when the facility is not manned. Discharge is not restricted
to periods when observation is possible; however, the static
(laboratory) sheen test method must be used during periods when
observation of a sheen is not possible, such as at night or during
inclement conditions. Static sheen testing is not required for
miscellaneous discharges occurring at the sea floor.
Section C. Other Discharge Limitations
1. Floating Solids or Visible Foam
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam from
any source other than in trace amounts.
2. Halogenated Phenol Compounds
There shall be no discharge of halogenated phenol compounds as a
part of any waste streams authorized in this permit.
3. Dispersants, Surfactants, and Detergents
The facility operator shall minimize the discharge of dispersants,
surfactants, and detergents except as necessary to comply with the
safety requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration and MMS. This restriction applies to tank cleaning and
other operations which do not directly involve the safety of workers.
The restriction is imposed because detergents disperse and emulsify
oil, potentially increasing toxic impacts and making the detection of a
discharge of free oil more difficult.
4. Rubbish, Trash, and Other Refuse
The discharge of any solid material not authorized in the permit
(as described above) is prohibited.
This permit includes limitations set forth by the U.S. Coast Guard
in regulations implementing Annex V of MARPOL 73/78 for domestic waste
disposal from all fixed or floating offshore platforms and associated
vessels engaged in exploration or exploitation of seabed mineral
resources (33 CFR 151). These limitations, as specified by Congress (33
U.S.C. 1901, the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships), apply to all
navigable waters of the United States.
This permit prohibits the discharge of ``garbage'' including food
wastes, within 12 nautical miles from nearest land. Comminuted food
waste (able to pass through a screen with a mesh size no larger than 25
mm, approx. 1 inch) may be discharge when 12 nautical miles or more
from land. Graywater, drainage from dishwater, shower, laundry, bath,
and washbasins are not considered garbage within the meaning of Annex
V. Incineration ash and non-plastic clinkers that can pass through a
25-mm mesh screen may be discharged beyond 3 miles from nearest land.
Otherwise, ash and non-plastic clinkers may be discharged beyond 12
nautical miles from nearest land.
5. Areas of Biological Concern
There shall be no discharge of drilling muds, drill cuttings and
produced water within 1000 meters of Areas of Biological Concern. If at
any time it is determined that a facility is located within 1000 meters
of an area of biological concern, the operator shall immediately cease
discharge from these outfalls in the area and shall file an application
for an individual permit as provided in 40 CFR 122.28(b)(3). The
operator may not resume discharging from these outfalls until an
individual permit has been issued.
Part II. Standard Conditions for NPDES Permits
Section A. Introduction and General Conditions
In accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR Part 122.41, et. seq.,
this permit incorporates by reference ALL conditions and requirements
applicable to NPDES permits set forth in the Clean Water Act, as
amended, as well as ALL applicable regulations.
1. Duty To Comply
The permittee must comply with all conditions of this permit. Any
permit noncompliance constitutes a violation of the Act and is grounds
for enforcement action or for requiring a permittee to apply and obtain
an individual NPDES permit.
2. Penalties for Violations of Permit Conditions--33 USC Sec. 1319(c)
(a) Criminal Penalties. (1) Negligent Violations. The Act provides
that any person who negligently violates permit conditions implementing
Section 301, 302, 306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of the Act is subject to
criminal penalties of not less $2,500 nor more than $25,000
[[Page 55751]]
per day of violation, or by imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or
both.
(2) Knowing Violations. The Act provides that any person who
knowingly violates permit conditions implementing Sections 301, 302,
306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of the Act is subject to criminal penalties
of not less than $5,000 nor more than $50,000 per day of violation, or
by imprisonment for not more than 3 years, or both.
(3) Knowing Endangerment. The Act provides that any person who
knowingly violates permit conditions implementing Sections 301, 302,
303, 306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of the Act and who knows at that time
that he is placing another person in imminent danger of death or
serious bodily injury is subject to a fine of not more than $250,000
per day of violation for individuals or up to $1 million for
organizations, or by imprisonment for not more than 15 years, or both.
(4) False Statements. The Act provides that any person who
knowingly makes any false material statement, representation, or
certification in any application, record, report, plan, or other
document filed or required to be maintained under the Act or who
knowingly falsifies, tampers with, or renders inaccurate, any
monitoring device or method required to be maintained under the Act,
shall upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than $10,000,
or by imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or by both. If a
conviction of a person is for a violation committed after a first
conviction of such person under this paragraph, punishment shall be by
a fine of not more than $20,000 per day of violation, or by
imprisonment of not more than 4 years, or by both. (See Section 309(c)
of the Clean Water Act).
(b) Civil Penalties--33 USC Sec. 1319(d). The Act provides that any
person who violates a permit condition implementing Sections 301, 302,
306, 307, 308, 318, or 405 of the Act is subject to a civil penalty not
to exceed $25,000 per day for such violation. A single operational
upset which leads to simultaneous violations of more than one pollutant
parameter shall be treated as a single violation.
(c) Administrative Penalties. The Act at Section 309 allows that
the Regional Administrator may assess a Class I or Class II civil
penalty for violations of Sections 301, 302, 306, 307, 318, or 405 of
the Act. A Class I penalty may not exceed $10,000 per violation nor
shall the maximum amount exceed $25,000. A Class II penalty may not
exceed $10,000 per day for each day during which the violation
continues except that the maximum amount shall not exceed $125,000. An
upset that leads to violations of more than one pollutant parameter
will be treated as a single violation.
3. Duty to Mitigate
The permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize or
prevent any discharge in violation of this permit which has a
reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the
environment.
4. Permit Flexibility
These permits may be modified, revoked and reissued for the causes
set forth at 40 CFR Sec. 122.62. The permits may be terminated for the
following reasons (see 40 CFR 122.62):
(a) Violation of any terms or conditions of this permit;
(b) Obtaining this permit by misrepresentation or failure to
disclose fully all relevant facts;
(c) A change in any condition that requires either a temporary or a
permanent reduction or elimination of the authorized discharge; or
(d) A determination that the permitted activity endangers human
health or the environment and can only be regulated to acceptable
levels by permit modification or termination.
The filing of a request for a permit modification, revocation and
reissuance, or termination, or a notification of planned changes or
anticipated noncompliance does not stay any permit condition.
5. Toxic Pollutants
Notwithstanding Part II.A.4, if any toxic effluent standard or
prohibition (including any schedule of compliance specified in such
effluent standard or prohibition) is promulgated under Section 307(a)
of the Act for a toxic pollutant which is present in the discharge and
that standard or prohibition is more stringent than any limitation on
the pollutant in this permit, this permit shall be modified or revoked
and reissued to conform to the toxic effluent standard or prohibition
and the permittee so notified.
The permittee shall comply with effluent standards or prohibitions
established under Section 307(a) of the Act for toxic pollutants within
the time provided in the regulations that established those standards
or prohibitions, even if the permit has not yet been modified to
incorporate the requirement.
6. Civil and Criminal Liability
Except as provided in permit conditions on ``Bypassing'' and
``Upsets'' (see II.B.3 and II.B.4), nothing in this permit shall be
construed to relieve the permittee from civil or criminal penalties for
noncompliance with permit conditions. Any false or misleading
representation or concealment of information required to be reported by
the provisions of the permit, the Act, or applicable CFR regulations,
which avoids or effectively defeats the regulatory purpose of the
permit may subject the permittee to criminal enforcement pursuant to 18
U.S.C. Section 1001.
7. Oil and Hazardous Substance Liability
Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the
institution of any legal action or relieve the permittee from any
responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties to which the permittee is
or may be subject under Section 311 of the Clean Water Act.
8. State Laws
Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the
institution of any legal action or relieve the permittee from any
responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties established pursuant to any
applicable State law or regulation under authority preserved by Section
510 of the Clean Water Act.
9. Property Rights
The issuance of this permit does not convey any property rights of
any sort, any exclusive privileges, authorize any injury to private
property, any invasion of personal rights, nor any infringement of
Federal, state, or local laws or regulations.
10. Onshore or Offshore Construction
This permit does not authorize or approve the construction of any
onshore or offshore physical structure of facilities or the undertaking
of any work in any waters of the United States.
11. Severability
The provisions of this permit are severable. If any provision of
this permit or the application of any provision of this permit to any
circumstance is held invalid, the application of such provision to
other circumstances, and the remainder of this permit, shall not be
affected thereby.
12. Duty to Provide Information
The permittee shall furnish to the Regional Administrator, within a
reasonable time, any information which the Regional Administrator may
request to determine whether cause exists for modifying, revoking and
reissuing, or terminating this permit, or to determine compliance with
this permit. The
[[Page 55752]]
permittee shall also furnish to the Regional Administrator upon
request, copies of records required to be kept by this permit.
Section B. Proper Operation and Maintenance of Pollution Controls
1. Proper Operation and Maintenance
The permittee shall at all times properly operate and maintain all
facilities and systems of treatment and control (and related
appurtenances) that are installed or used by the permittee to achieve
compliance with this permit. Proper operation and maintenance also
includes adequate laboratory controls and appropriate quality assurance
procedures. This provision requires the operation of backup or
auxiliary facilities or similar systems which are installed by a
permittee only when the operation is necessary to achieve compliance
with the conditions of this permit.
2. Need To Halt or Reduce not a Defense
It shall not be a defense for a permittee in an enforcement action
that it would have been necessary to halt or reduce the permitted
activity in order to maintain compliance with the conditions of this
permit.
3. Bypass of Treatment Facilities
(a) Definitions. (1) Bypass means the intentional diversion of
waste streams from any portion of a treatment facility.
(2) Severe property damage means substantial physical damage to
property, damage to the treatment facilities that causes them to become
inoperable, or substantial and permanent loss of natural resources that
can reasonably be expected to occur in the absence of a bypass. Severe
property damage does not mean economic loss caused by delays in
production.
(b) Bypass not exceeding limitations. The permittee may allow any
bypass to occur that does not cause effluent limitations to be
exceeded, but only if it also is for essential maintenance to assure
efficient operation. These bypasses are not subject to the provisions
of Section B.3(c) and 3(d) below.
(c) Notice. (1) Anticipated bypass. If the permittee knows in
advance of the need for a bypass, it shall submit prior notice, if
possible at least ten days before the date of the bypass.
(2) Unanticipated bypass. The permittee shall, submit notice of an
unanticipated bypass as required in Section D.7 (24-hour reporting).
(d) Prohibition of bypass. (1) Bypass is prohibited and the
Regional Administrator may take enforcement action against a permittee
for bypass, unless:
(a) Bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal
injury, or severe property damage;
(b) There were no feasible alternatives to the bypass, such as the
use of auxiliary treatment facilities, retention of untreated wastes,
or maintenance during normal periods of equipment downtime. This
condition is not satisfied if adequate back-up equipment should have
been installed in the exercise of reasonable engineering judgement to
prevent a bypass that occurred during normal periods of equipment
downtime or preventive maintenance; and,
(c) The permittee submitted notices as required under Section
B.3(c).
(2) The Regional Administrator may approve an anticipated bypass
after considering its adverse effects, if the Regional Administrator
determines that it will meet the three conditions listed above in
Section B.3(d)(1).
4. Upset Conditions
(a) Definition. Upset means an exceptional incident in which there
is unintentional and temporary noncompliance with technology-based
permit effluent limitations because of factors beyond the reasonable
control of the permittee. An upset does not include noncompliance to
the extent caused by operational error, improperly designed treatment
facilities, inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventive
maintenance, or careless or improper operation.
(b) Effect of an Upset. An upset constitutes an affirmative defense
to an action brought for noncompliance with such technology-based
permit effluent limitations if the requirements of Section B.4(c) are
met. No determination made during administrative review of claims that
noncompliance was caused by upset, and before an action for
noncompliance, is final administrative action subject to judicial
review.
(c) Conditions Necessary for a Demonstration of Upset. A permittee
who wishes to establish the affirmative defense of upset shall
demonstrate, through properly signed, contemporaneous operating logs,
or other relevant evidence that:
(1) An upset occurred and that the permittee can identify the
cause(s) of the upset;
(2) The permitted facility was at the time being properly operated;
(3) The permittee submitted notice of the upset as required by
Section D.7 below; and,
(4) The permittee complied with any remedial measures required by
Section A.3, above.
(d) Burden of proof. In any enforcement proceeding, the permittee
seeking to establish the occurrence of an upset has the burden of
proof.
5. Removed Substances
Solids, sewage sludges, filter backwash, or other pollutants
removed in the course of treatment or control of wastewaters shall be
disposed of in a manner such as to prevent any pollutant from such
materials from entering navigable waters. Any substance specifically
listed within this permit may be discharged in accordance with
specified conditions, terms, or limitations.
Section C. Monitoring and Records
1. Representative Sampling
Samples and measurements taken as required herein shall be
representative of the volume and nature of the monitored discharge.
2. Discharge Rate/Flow Measurements
Appropriate flow measurement devices and methods consistent with
accepted scientific practices shall be selected, maintained, and used
to ensure the accuracy and reliability of measurements of the volume of
monitored discharges. The devices shall be installed, calibrated, and
maintained to insure that the accuracy of the measurements is
consistent with the accepted capability of that type of device. Devices
selected shall be capable of measuring flows with a maximum deviation
of less than 10% from true discharge rates throughout the
range of expected discharge volumes.
3. Monitoring Procedures
Monitoring must be conducted according to test procedures approved
under 40 CFR Part 136, unless other test procedures have been specified
in this permit in Part IV, below.
4. Penalties for Tampering
The Clean Water Act provides that any person who falsifies, tampers
with, or knowingly renders inaccurate, any monitoring device or method
required to be maintained under this permit shall, upon conviction, be
punished by a fine of not more than $10,000 per violation, or
imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or both.
5. Retention of Records
The permittee shall retain records of all monitoring information,
including all calibration and maintenance records and all original
strip chart recordings for
[[Page 55753]]
continuous monitoring instrumentation, and copies of all reports
required by this permit for a period of at least 3 years from the date
of the sample, measurement, or report. This period may be extended by
request of the Regional Administrator at any time. The operator shall
maintain records at development and production facilities for 3 years,
wherever practicable and at a specific shore-based site whenever not
practicable.
6. Record Contents
Records of monitoring information shall include:
(a) The date, exact place, and time of sampling or measurements;
(b) The individual(s) who performed the sampling or measurements;
(c) The date(s) analyses were performed;
(d) The individual(s) who performed the analyses;
(e) The analytical techniques or methods used; and
(f) The results of such analyses.
7. Inspection and Entry
The permittee shall allow the Regional Administrator or an
authorized representative, upon the presentation of credentials and
other documents as may be required by the law, to:
(a) Enter upon the permittee's premises where a regulated facility
or activity is located or conducted, or where records must be kept
under the conditions of this permit;
(b) Have access to and copy, at reasonable times, any records that
must be kept under the conditions of this permit;
(c) Inspect at reasonable times any facilities, equipment
(including monitoring and control equipment), practices, or operations
regulated or required under this permit; and
(d) Sample or monitor at reasonable times, for the purpose of
assuring permit compliance or as otherwise authorized by the Act, any
substances or parameters at any location.
Section D. Reporting Requirements
1. Planned Changes
The permittee shall give notice to Regional Administrator as soon
as possible of any planned physical alterations or additions to the
permitted facility. Notice is required only when:
(a) The alteration or addition to a facility permitted under the
existing source general permit may meet one of the criteria for
determining whether a facility is a new source in 40 CFR Part 122.29(b)
(58 FR 12454; final effluent guidelines for the offshore subcategory);
or
(b) The alteration or addition could significantly change the
nature or increase the quantity of pollutants discharged. This
notification applies to pollutants which are subject neither to
effluent limitations in the permit, nor to notification requirements
under 40 CFR 122.42(a)(1) (48 FR 14153, April 1, 1963, as amended at 49
FR 38049, September 26, 1984).
2. Anticipated Noncompliance
The permittee shall give advance notice to the Regional
Administrator of any planned changes in the permitted facility or
activity which may result in noncompliance with permit requirements.
3. Transfers
This permit is not transferable to any person. Any new owner or
operator shall submit a notice of intent to be covered under this
general permit according to procedures presented at Part I.A.4.
4. Monitoring Reports
See Part III.A of this permit.
5. Additional Monitoring by the Permittee
If the permittee monitors any pollutant more frequently than
required by this permit, using test procedures approved under 40 CFR
Part 136 or as specified in this permit, the results of this monitoring
shall be included in the calculation and reporting of the data
submitted in the DMR. Such increased monitoring frequency also shall be
indicated on the DMR.
6. Averaging of Measurements
Calculations for all limitations which require averaging of
measurements shall utilize an arithmetic mean unless otherwise
specified by the Regional Administrator in the permit.
7. Twenty-Four Hour Reporting
The permittee shall report any noncompliance which may endanger
health or the environment (this includes any spill that requires
reporting to the state regulatory authority). Information shall be
provided orally within 24 hours from the time the permittee becomes
aware of the circumstances. A written submission shall be provided
within 5 days of the time the permittee becomes aware of the
circumstances. The written submission shall contain a description of
the noncompliance and its cause; the period of noncompliance including
exact dates and times, and if the noncompliance has not been corrected,
the anticipated time it is expected to continue; and, steps taken or
planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent recurrence of the
noncompliance. The director may waive the written report on a case-by-
case basis if the oral report has been received within 24 hours.
The following shall be included as information which must be
reported within 24 hours:
(a) Any unanticipated bypass which exceeds any effluent limitation
in the permit;
(b) Any upset which exceeds any effluent limitation in the permit;
(c) Violations of a maximum daily discharge limitation for any of
the pollutants listed by the Director in Part II of the permit to be
reported within 24 hours.
The reports should be made to Region 4 by telephone at (404) 562-
9746. The Regional Administrator may waive the written report on a
case-by-case basis if the oral report has been received within 24
hours.
8. Other Noncompliance
The permittee shall report all instances of noncompliance not
reported under Part II.D.7 at the time monitoring reports are
submitted. The reports shall contain the information listed at II.D.7.
9. Other Information
When the permittee becomes aware that it failed to submit any
relevant facts in a permit application, or submitted incorrect
information in a permit application or in any report to the Regional
Administrator, it shall promptly submit such facts or information.
10. Changes in Discharges of Toxic Substances
For any toxic pollutant that is not limited in this permit, either
as an additive itself or as a component in an additive formulation, the
permittee shall notify the Regional Administrator as soon as he knows
or has reason to believe that:
(a) Any activity has occurred or will occur which would result in
the discharge of such toxic pollutants on a routine or frequent basis,
if that discharge will exceed the highest of the ``notification
levels'' described at 40 CFR 122.42(a)(1)(i) and (ii);
(b) Any activity has occurred or will occur which would result in
any discharge of such toxic pollutants on a non-routine or infrequent
basis, if that discharge will exceed the highest of the ``notification
levels'' described at 40 CFR 122.42(a)(2)(i) an (ii).
11. Duty To Reapply
If the permittee wishes to continue an activity regulated by this
permit after
[[Page 55754]]
the expiration date of this permit, the permittee must submit an NOI to
be covered or must apply for a new permit. Continuation of expiring
permits shall be governed by regulations at 40 CFR Part 122.6 and any
subsequent amendments.
12. Signatory Requirements
All NOIs, applications, reports, or information submitted to the
Director shall be signed and certified as required at 40 CFR 122.22.
(a) All permit applications shall be signed as follows: (1) For a
corporation: By a responsible corporate officer. For the purpose of
this section, a responsible corporate officer means:
(i) A president, secretary, treasurer, or vice-president of the
corporation in charge of a principal business function, or any other
person who performs similar policy or decision making functions for the
corporation; or,
(ii) The manager of one or more manufacturing, production, or
operating facilities employing more than 250 persons or having gross
annual sales or expenditures exceeding $25 million (in second-quarter
1980 dollars), if authority to sign documents has been assigned or
delegated to the manager in accordance with corporate procedures.
(2) For a partnership or sole proprietorship--by a general partner
or the proprietor, respectively.
(b) Authorized Representative. All reports required by the permit
and other information requested by the Regional Administrator shall be
signed by a person described above or by a duly authorized
representative of that person. A person is a duly authorized
representative only if:
(1) The authorization is made in writing by a person described
above;
(2) The authorization specifies either an individual or a position
having responsibility for the overall operation of the regulated
facility or activity, such as the position of plant manager, operator
of a well or a well field, superintendent, or position of equivalent
responsibility, or an individual or position having overall
responsibility for environmental matters for the company. A duly
authorized representative may thus be either a named individual or an
individual occupying a named position; and,
(3) The written authorization is submitted to the Regional
Administrator.
(c) Changes to Authorization. If an authorization under paragraph
(b) of this section is no longer accurate because a different
individual or position has responsibility for the overall operation of
the facility, a new authorization satisfying the requirements of
paragraph (b) of this section must be submitted to the Director prior
to or together with any reports, information, or application to be
signed by an authorized representative.
(d) Certification. Any person signing a document under this section
shall make the following certification:
I certify under penalty of law that this document and all
attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in
accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel
properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my
inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those
persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the
information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief,
true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant
penalties for submitting false information, including the
possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.
13. Availability of Reports
Except for data determined to be confidential under 40 CFR Part 2,
all reports prepared in accordance with the terms of this permit shall
be available for public inspection at the Regional Office. As required
by the Act, the name and address of any permit applicant or permittee,
permit applications, permits, and effluent data shall not be considered
confidential.
Part III. Monitoring Reports and Permit Modification
Section A. Monitoring Reports
The operator of each lease block shall be responsible for
submitting monitoring results for each facility within each lease
block. If there is more than one facility in each lease block
(platform, drilling ship, semi-submersible), the discharge shall be
designated in the following manner: 101 for the first facility; 201 for
the second facility; 301 for the third facility, etc.
Monitoring results obtained for each month shall be summarized for
that month and reported on a Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) form
(EPA No. 3320-1), postmarked no later than the 28th day of the month
following the completed calendar month. (For example, data for January
shall be submitted by February 28.) Signed copies of these and all
other reports required by Part II.D shall be submitted to the following
address: Director, Water Management Division, Clean Water Act
Enforcement Section, U.S. EPA, Region 4, Atlanta Federal Center, 61
Forsyth Street, S.W., Atlanta, GA 30303-8960.
All laboratory reports submitted with DMRs should clearly indicate
the permit number, outfall number, and any other identification
information necessary to associate the report with the correct
facility, waste stream, and outfall.
If no discharge occurs during the reporting period, sampling
requirements of this permit do not apply. The statement ``No
Discharge'' shall be written on the DMR form. If, during the term of
this permit, the facility ceases discharge to surface waters, the
Regional Director shall be notified (at the address above) within 60
(sixty) days after the permanent termination of discharges from their
facility. This notification shall be in writing.
Section B. Permit Modification
This permit shall be modified, or alternatively, revoked and
reissued, to comply with any applicable effluent standard or
limitation, or sludge disposal requirement issued or approved under
sections 301(b)(2) (C) and (D), 307(a)(2), and 405(d)(2)(D) of the Act,
as amended, if the effluent standard or limitation, or sludge disposal
requirement so issued or approved:
(a) Contains different conditions or is otherwise more stringent
than any conditions in the permit; or
(b) Controls any pollutant or disposal method not addressed in the
permit.
The permit as modified or reissued under this paragraph shall also
contain any other requirements of the Act then applicable.
Part IV. Test Procedures and Definitions
Section A. Test Procedures
1. Samples of Wastes
If requested, the permittee shall provide EPA with a sample of any
waste in a manner specified by the Agency.
2. Drilling Fluids Toxicity Test
The approved sampling and test methods for permit compliance are
provided in the final effluent guidelines published at 58 FR 12507 on
March 4, 1993 as Appendix 2 to Subpart A of Part 435.
3. Static (Laboratory) Sheen Test
The approved sampling and test methods for permit compliance are
provided in the final effluent guidelines published at 58 FR 12506 on
March 4, 1993 as Appendix 1 to Subpart A.
4. Visual Sheen Test
The visual sheen test is used to detect free oil by observing the
surface of the receiving water for the presence of a sheen while
discharging. A sheen is defined as a ``silvery'' or ``metallic''
[[Page 55755]]
sheen, gloss, or increased reflectivity; visual color; iridescence; or
oil slick on the surface (see 58 FR 12507). The operator must conduct a
visual sheen test only at times when a sheen could be observed. This
restriction eliminates observations at night or when atmospheric or
surface conditions prohibit the observer from detecting a sheen (e.g.,
during rain or rough seas, etc.). Certain discharges can only occur if
a visual sheen test can be conducted.
The observer must be positioned on the rig or platform, relative to
both the discharge point and current flow at the time of discharge,
such that the observer can detect a sheen should it surface down
current from the discharge. For discharges that have been occurring for
at least 15 minutes previously, observations may be made any time
thereafter. For discharges of less than 15 minutes duration,
observations must be made both during discharge and 5 minutes after
discharge has ceased.
5. Produced Water Acute Toxicity Test
The method for determining the 96-hour LC50 for effluents is
published in ``Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents to
Freshwater and Marine Organisms'' (EPA/600/4-90/027F). The species to
be used for compliance testing for this permit are Mysidopsis bahia and
inland silverside minnows (Menidia beryllina)
Section B. Definitions
1. Act means the Clean Water Act (CWA), as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251
et. seq.).
2. Administrator means the Administrator of EPA, Region 4, or an
authorized representative.
3. Areas of Biological Concern for waters within the territorial
seas (shoreline to 3-miles offshore) are those defined as ``no activity
zones'' for biological reasons by the states of Alabama, Florida or
Mississippi. For offshore waters seaward of three miles, areas of
biological concern include ``no activity zones'' defined by the
Department of the Interior (DOI) for biological reasons, or identified
by EPA in consultation with the DOI, the states, or other interested
federal agencies, as containing biological communities, features or
functions that are potentially sensitive to discharges associated with
the oil and gas industry. Areas of Biological Concern include, but are
not limited to, the following: Southwest Rock (30 06.1'N, 88 12.3'W),
Southeast Banks (30 00.9'N; 87 57.1'W); 17 Fathom Hole (29 55.6''N 88
03.4'W) and lease blocks with Pinnacle Trend Features. These areas are
geographically and in greater detail in Appendix B. EPA may, from time
to time, identify additional Areas of Biological Concern.
4. Applicable Effluent Standards and Limitations means all state
and Federal effluent standards and limitations to which a discharge is
subject under the Act, including, but not limited to, effluent
limitations, standards of performance, toxic effluent standards and
prohibitions, and pretreatment standards.
5. Average Daily Discharge Limitation means the highest allowable
average of discharges over a 24-hour period, calculated as the sum of
all discharges or concentrations measured divided by the number of
discharges or concentrations measured that day.
6. Average Monthly Discharge Limitation means the highest allowable
average of ``daily discharges'' over a calendar month, calculated as
the sum of all ``daily discharges'' measured during a calendar month
divided by the number of discharges measured that month. The limitation
may be the average of discharge rates or concentrations.
7. Batch or Bulk Discharge is any discharge of a discrete volume or
mass of effluent from a pit, tank, or similar container that occurs on
a one-time, infrequent, or irregular basis.
8. Blowout-Out Preventer Control Fluid means fluid used to actuate
the hydraulic equipment on the blow-out preventer or subsea production
wellhead assembly.
9. Boiler Blowdown means discharges from boilers necessary to
minimize solids build-up in the boilers, including vents from boilers
and other heating systems.
10. Bulk Discharge means any discharge of a discrete volume or mass
of effluent from a pit tank or similar container that occurs on a one-
time, infrequent, or irregular basis.
11. Bypass means the intentional diversion of waste streams from
any portion of a treatment facility.
12. Clinkers are small lumps of residual material left after
incineration.
13. Completion Fluids are salt solutions, weighted brines, polymers
and various additives used to prevent damage to the well bore during
operations which prepare the drilled well for hydrocarbon production.
These fluids move into the formation and return to the surface as a
slug with the produced water. Drilling muds remaining in the wellbore
during logging, casing, and cementing operations or during temporary
abandonment of the well are not considered completion fluids and are
regulated by drilling fluids requirements.
14. Daily Average Discharge (also known as monthly average)
limitations means the highest allowable average daily discharge(s) over
a calendar month, calculated as the sum of all daily discharge(s)
measured during a calendar month divided by the number of daily
discharge(s) measured during that month.
15. Daily Discharge means the discharge of a pollutant measured
during a calendar day or any 24-hour period that reasonably represents
the calendar day for purposes of sampling. For pollutants with
limitations expressed in terms of mass, the daily discharge is
calculated as the total mass of the pollutant or waste stream
discharged over the sampling day. For pollutants with limitations
expressed in other units of measurement, the daily discharge is
calculated as the average measurement of the pollutant over the
sampling day. Daily discharge determination of concentration made using
a composite sample shall be the concentration of the composite sample.
When grab samples are used, the daily discharge determination of
concentration shall be the average (weighted by flow value) of all
samples collected during that sampling day.
16. Daily Maximum discharge limitations are the highest allowable
daily discharge rate or concentration measured during a calendar day.
17. Deck Drainage is all waste resulting from platform washings,
deck washings, deck area spills, equipment washings, rainwater, and
runoff from curbs, gutters, and drains, including drip pans and wash
areas.
18. Desalination Unit Discharge means waste water associated with
the process of creating freshwater from seawater.
19. Development Drilling means the drilling of wells required to
efficiently produce a hydrocarbon formation or formations.
20. Diatomaceous Earth Filter Media is the filter media used to
filter seawater or other authorized completion fluids and subsequently
washed from the filter.
21. Diesel Oil is the distillate fuel oil, as specified in the
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM ) Specification D975-
81, that is typically used as the continuous phase in conventional oil-
based drilling fluids, which contains a number of toxic pollutants. For
the purpose of any particular operation under this permit, diesel oil
shall refer to the fuel oil present on the facility.
22. Domestic Waste is the discharge from galleys, sinks, showers,
safety showers, eye wash stations, hand
[[Page 55756]]
washing stations, fish cleaning stations, and laundries.
23. Drill Cuttings are particles generated by drilling into the
subsurface geological formations including cured cement carried to the
surface with the drilling fluid.
24. Drilling Fluids are any fluids sent down the hole used in
rotary drilling of wells to clean and condition the hole and
counterbalance formation pressure, from the time a well is begun until
final cessation of drilling in that hole and includes the four classes
of drilling fluids: water-based, oil-based, enhanced mineral oil, and
synthetic-based. (1) A water-based drilling fluid has water as the
continuous phase and the suspending medium for solids, whether or not
oil is present. (2) An oil-based drilling fluid has diesel oil, mineral
oil, or some other oil, but neither a synthetic material nor enhanced
material oil, as its continuous phase with water as the dispersed
phase. (3) An enhanced mineral oil-based drilling has an enhanced
mineral oil as its continuous phase with water as the dispersed phase.
(4) A synthetic-based drilling fluid has a synthetic material as its
continuous phase with water as the dispersed phase.
25. End of well Sample means the sample taken after the final log
run is completed and prior to bulk discharge.
26. Excess Cement Slurry means the excess mixed cement, including
additives and wastes from equipment washdown after a cementing
operation.
27. Existing Sources are facilities conducting exploration
activities and those that have commenced development or production
activities that were permitted as of the effective date of the Offshore
Guidelines (March 4, 1993).
28. Free Oil is oil that causes a sheen, streak, or slick on the
surface of the test container or receiving water; which methodology for
compliance is determined in the permit.
29. Garbage ``means all kinds of food waste, wastes generated in
living areas on the facility, and operational waste, excluding fresh
fish and parts thereof, generated during the normal operation of the
facility and liable to be disposed of continuously or periodically,
except dishwater, graywater, and those substances that are defined or
listed in other Annexes to MARPOL 73/78.''
30. Grab Sample means an individual sample collected in less than
15 minutes.
31. Graywater is drainage from dishwater, shower, laundry, bath,
and washbasin drains and does not include drainage from toilets,
urinals, hospitals, and drainage from cargo areas (see MARPOL 73/78
regulations).
32. Inverse Emulsion Drilling Fluids are oil-based drilling fluids
which also contain large amounts of water.
33. Live Bottom Areas are those areas that contain biological
assemblages consisting of such sessile invertebrates as sea fans, sea
whips, hydroids, anemones, ascideians sponges, bryozoans, seagrasses,
or corals living upon and attached to naturally occurring hard or rocky
formations with fishes and other fauna.
34. Maximum Hourly Rate is the greatest number of barrels of
drilling fluids discharged within one hour, expressed as barrels per
hour.
35. Muds, Cuttings, and Cement at the Seafloor means discharges
that occur at the seafloor prior to installation of the marine riser
and during marine riser disconnect, well abandonment, and plugging
operations.
36. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) means
the national program for issuing, modifying, revoking and reissuing,
terminating, monitoring, and enforcing permits, and imposing and
enforcing pretreatment requirements under sections 307, 318, 402, 403,
and 405 of the Act.
37. New Source means any facility or activity of this subcategory
that meets the definition of ``new source'' under 40 CFR 122.2 and
meets the criteria for determination of new sources under 40 CFR
122.29(b) applied consistently with all of the following definitions:
(i) The term water area as used in the term ``site'' in 40 CFR 122.29
and 122.2 shall mean the water area and ocean floor beneath any
exploratory, development, or production facility where such facility is
conducting its exploratory, development or production activities, (ii)
the term significant site preparation work as used in 40 CFR 122.29
shall mean the process of surveying, clearing, or preparing an area of
the ocean floor for the purpose of constructing or placing a
development or production facility on or over the site.
38. No Activity Zones include those areas identified by MMS where
no structures, drilling rigs, or pipelines will be allowed. These zones
are identified as lease stipulations in U.S. Department of the
Interior, MMS, August 1990, Environmental Impact Statement for Sales
131, 135, and 137 Western, Central, and Eastern Gulf of Mexico.
Additional no activity zones may be identified by MMS during the life
of this permit, and by the States of Alabama, Mississippi and Florida
within their territorial waters (up to 3 miles offshore) where no
structures, drilling rigs, or pipelines will be allowed.
39. No Discharge Areas are areas specified by EPA where discharge
of pollutants may not occur.
40. Non-Operational Leases are those leases on which no discharge
has taken place within 2 years prior to the effective date of the new
general permits.
41. Operating Facilities are leases on which a discharge has taken
place within 2 years of the effective date of the new general permits.
42. Packer Fluids are low solids fluids between the packer,
production string, and well casing. They are considered to be workover
fluids.
43. Priority Pollutants are the 126 chemicals or elements
identified by EPA, pursuant to section 307 of the Clean Water Act and
40 CFR 401.15.
44. Produced Sand is slurried particles used in hydraulic
fracturing, the accumulated sands and scales particles generated during
production. Produced sand also includes desander discharge from
produced water waste stream and blowdown of water phase from produced
water treating systems.
45. Produced Water is water and particulate matter associated with
oil and gas producing formations. Produced water includes small volumes
of treating chemicals that return to the surface with the produced
fluids and pass through the produced water treating system.
46. Sanitary Waste means human body waste discharged from toilets
and urinals.
47. Severe Property Damage means substantial physical damage to
property, damage to the treatment facilities which cause them to become
inoperable, or substantial and permanent loss of natural resources
which can reasonably be expected to occur in the absence of a bypass.
Severe property damage does not mean economic loss caused by delays in
production.
48. Sheen means a silvery or metallic sheen, gloss, or increased
reflectivity; visual color; iridescence; or oil slick on the water
surface.
49. Source Water and Sand are the water and entrained solids
brought to the surface from non-hydrocarbon bearing formations for the
purpose of pressure maintenance or secondary recovery.
50. Spotting means the process of adding a lubricant (spot)
downhole to free stuck pipe.
51. Territorial Seas means the belt of the seas measured from the
line of ordinary low water along that portion of the coast which is in
direct contact with the open sea and the line marking the seaward limit
of inland waters, and extending seaward a distance of three miles.
[[Page 55757]]
52. Trace Amounts means that if materials added downhole as well
treatment, completion, or workover fluids do not contain priority
pollutants then the discharge is assumed not to contain priority
pollutants except possibly in trace amounts.
53. Uncontaminated Ballast/Bilge water means seawater added or
removed to maintain proper draft.
54. Uncontaminated Seawater means seawater that is returned to the
sea without the addition of chemicals. Included are (1) discharges of
excess seawater that permit the continuous operation of fire control
and utility lift pumps, (2) excess seawater from pressure maintenance
and secondary recovery projects, (3) water released during the training
and testing of personnel in fire protection, (4) seawater used to
pressure test piping, and (5) once through non-contact cooling water.
55. Uncontaminated Freshwater ``freshwater which is discharged
without the addition of chemicals; examples include: (1) discharges of
excess freshwater that permit the continuous operation of fire control
and utility lift pumps, (2) excess freshwater from pressure maintenance
and secondary recovery projects, (3) water released during fire
protection tests and training, and (4) water used to pressure test
piping.''
55. Upset means an exceptional incident in which there is
unintentional and temporary noncompliance with technology-based permit
effluent limitations because of factors beyond the reasonable control
of the permittee. An upset does not include noncompliance to the extent
caused by operational error, improperly designed treatment facilities,
inadequate treatment facilities, lack of preventive maintenance, or
careless or improper operation.
56. Well treatment fluids are any fluid used to restore or improve
productivity by chemically or physically altering hydrocarbon-bearing
strata after a well has been drilled. These fluids move into the
formation and return to the surface as a slug with the produced water.
Stimulation fluids include substances such as acids, solvents, and
propping agents.
57. Workover fluids are salt solutions, weighted brines, polymers,
and other specialty additives used in a producing well to allow safe
repair and maintenance or abandonment procedures. High solids drilling
fluids used during workover operations are not considered workover
fluids by definition and therefore must meet drilling fluid effluent
limitations before discharge may occur. Packer fluids, low solids
fluids between the packer, production string, and well casing are
considered to be workover fluids and must meet only the effluent
requirements imposed on workover fluids.
58. The term MGD means million gallons per day.
59. The term mg/l means milligrams per liter or parts per million
(ppm).
60. The term ug/l shall means micrograms per liter or part per
billion (ppb).
Existing Sources
Table 2.--Effluent Limitations, Prohibitions, and Monitoring Requirements for the Eastern Gulf of Mexico NPDES General Permit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitoring requirement
Regulated & monitored Discharge limitation/ ------------------------------------------------------------------
Discharge discharge parameter prohibition Measurement Recorded/ reported
frequency Sample type/ method value
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drilling Fluids................... Oil-based Drilling No discharge..............
Fluids.
Oil-contaminated No discharge..............
Drilling Fluids.
Drilling Fluids to No discharge..............
Which Diesel Oil has
been Added.
Mercury and Cadmium No discharge of drilling Once per new source Flame and flameless mg Hg and mg Cd/kg
in Barite. fluids if added barite of barite used. AAS. in stock barite.
contains Hg in excess of
1.0 mg/kg or Cd in excess
of 3.0 mg/kg (dry wt).
Toxicity a........... 30,000 ppm daily minimum.. Once/month........... Grab/96-hr LC50 Minimum LC50 of
30,000 ppm monthly average Once/end of well b... using Mysidopsis tests performed and
minimum. Once/month........... bahia; Method at 58 monthly average
FR 12507. LC50.
Free Oil............. No free oil............... Once/day prior to Static sheen; Method Number of days sheen
discharge. at 58 FR 12506. observed.
Maximum Discharge 1,000 barrels/hr.......... Once/hour............ Estimate............ Max. hourly rate in
Rate. bbl/hr
Mineral Oil.......... Mineral oil may be used
only as a carrier fluid,
lubricity additive, or
pill.
Drilling Fluids Record.................... Once/well............ Inventory........... Chemical
Inventory. constituents.
Volume............... Report.................... Once/month........... Estimate............ Monthly total in bbl/
month.
[[Page 55758]]
Within 1000 Meters of No discharge..............
an Areas of
Biological Concern
(ABC).
Drill Cuttings.................... Note: Drill cuttings are subject to the same limitations/prohibitions as drilling fluids except Maximum Discharge
Rate.
Free Oil............. No free oil............... Once/day prior to Static sheen; Method Number of days sheen
discharge. at 58 FR 12506. observed
Volume............... Report.................... Once/month........... Estimate............ Monthly total in bbl/
month
Produced Water.................... Oil and Grease....... 42 mg/l daily maximum and Once/month c......... Grab/Gravimetric.... Daily max. and
29 mg/l monthly average. monthly avg.
Toxicity............. Acute toxicity (LC50); Once/2 months........ Grab/96-hour LC50 Minimum LC50 for
critical dilution as using Mysidopsis both species and
specified by the bahia and inland full laboratory
requirements at Part silverside minnow report
I.B.3(b) and Appendix A (Method in EPA/600/
of this permit. 4-90/027F).
Flow (bbl/month)..... Once/month........... Estimate............ Monthly rate
Within 1000 meters of No discharge..............
an Area of
Biological Concern
(ABC).
Deck Drainage..................... Free Oil............. No free oil............... Once/day when Visual sheen........ Number of days sheen
discharging d. observed
Volume (bbl/month)... Once/month........... Estimate............ Monthly total
Produced Sand..................... No Discharge.........
Well Treatment, Completion, and Free Oil............. No free oil............... Once/day when Static sheen........ Number of days sheen
Workover Fluids (includes packer discharging. observed
fluids) e.
Oil and Grease....... 42 mg/l daily maximum and Once/month........... Grab/Gravimetric.... Daily max. and
29 mg/l monthly average. monthly avg.
Priority Pollutants.. No priority pollutants.... Monitor added
materials.
Volume (bbl/month)... Once/month........... Estimate............ Monthly total
Sanitary Waste (Continuously Solids............... No floating solids........ Once/day, in daylight Observation......... Number of days
manned by 10 or more persons) f. solids observed
Residual Chlorine.... At least (but as close to) Once/month........... Grab/Hach CN-66-DPD. Concentration
1 mg/l.
Flow (MGD)........... Once/month........... Estimate............
Sanitary Waste (Continuously Solids............... No floating solids........ Once/day, in daylight Observation......... Number of days
manned by 9 or fewer persons or solids observed
intermittently by any) f.
Domestic Waste.................... Solids............... No floating solids; no Once/day following Observation......... Number of days
food waste within 12 morning or midday solids observed
miles of land; comminuted meal at time of
food waste smaller than maximum expected
25-mm beyond 12 miles. discharge.
[[Page 55759]]
Miscellaneous Discharges-- Free Oil............. No free oil............... Once/day when Visual sheen........ Number of days sheen
Desalination Unit; Blowout discharging. observed
Preventer Fluid; Uncontaminated
Ballast/Bilge Water, Mud,
Cuttings, and Cement at the
Seafloor; Uncontaminated
Seawater; Boiler Blowdown; Source
Water and Sand; Uncontaminated
Fresh Water; Excess Cement
Slurry; Diatomaceous Earth Filter
Media.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Toxicity test to be conducted using suspended particulate phase (SPP) of a 9:1 seawater:mud dilution. The sample shall be taken beneath the shale
shaker, or if there are no returns across the shaker, the sample must be taken from a location that is characteristic of the overall mud system to be
discharged.
b Sample shall be taken after the final log run is completed and prior to bulk discharge.
c The daily maximum concentration may be based on the average of up to four grab sample results in the 24 hour period.
d When discharging and facility is manned. Monitoring shall be accomplished during times when observation of a visual sheen on the surface of the
receiving water is possible in the vicinity of the discharge.
e No discharge of priority pollutants except in trace amounts. Information on the specific chemical composition shall be recorded but not reported
unless requested by EPA.
f Any facility that properly operates and maintains a marine sanitation device (MSD) that complies with pollution control standards and regulations
under Section 312 of the Act shall be deemed to be in compliance with permit limitations for sanitary waste. The MSD shall be tested yearly for proper
operation and test results maintained at the facility.
New Sources
Table 3.-- Effluent Limitations, Prohibitions, and Monitoring Requirements for the Eastern Gulf of Mexico NPDES General Permit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monitoring requirement
Regulated & monitored Discharge limitation/ ------------------------------------------------------------------
Discharge discharge parameter prohibition Recorded/reported
Measurement frequency Sample type/method value
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Drilling Fluids................... Oil-based Drilling No discharge..............
Fluids.
Oil-contaminated No discharge..............
Drilling Fluids.
Drilling Fluids to No discharge..............
Which Diesel Oil has
been Added.
Mercury and Cadmium No discharge of drilling Once per new source Flame and flameless mg Hg and mg Cd/kg
in Barite. fluids if added barite of barite used. AAS. in stock barite.
contains Hg in excess of
1.0 mg/kg or Cd in excess
of 3.0 mg/kg (dry wt).
Toxicity a........... 30,000 ppm daily minimum.. Once/month........... Grab/96-hr LC50 Minimum LC50 of
30,000 ppm monthly average Once/end of well b... using Mysidopsis tests performed and
minimum. Once/month........... bahia; Method at 58 monthly average
FR 12507. LC50.
Free Oil............. No free oil............... Once/day prior to Static sheen; Method Number of days sheen
discharge. at 58 FR 12506. observed.
Maximum Discharge 1,000 barrels/hr.......... Once/hour............ Estimate............ Max. hourly rate in
Rate. bbl/hr.
Mineral Oil.......... Mineral oil may be used
only as a carrier fluid,
lubricity additive, or
pill.
Drilling Fluids Record.................... Once/well............ Inventory........... Chemical
Inventory. constituents.
Volume............... Report.................... Once/month........... Estimate............ Monthly total in bbl/
month.
[[Page 55760]]
Within 1000 Meters of No discharge..............
an Areas of
Biological Concern
(ABC).
Drill Cuttings.................... Note: Drill cuttings are subject to the same limitations/prohibitions as drilling fluids except Maximum Discharge
Rate.
Free Oil............. No free oil............... Once/day prior to Static sheen; Method Number of days sheen
discharge. at 58 FR 12506. observed
Volume............... Report.................... Once/month........... Estimate............ Monthly total in bbl/
month
Produced Water.................... Oil and Grease....... 42 mg/l daily maximum and Once/month c......... Grab/Gravimetric.... Daily max. and
29 mg/l monthly average. monthly avg.
Toxicity............. Acute toxicity (LC50); Once/2 months........ Grab/96-hour LC50 Minimum LC50 for
critical dilution as using Mysidopsis both species and
specified by the bahia and inland full laboratory
requirements at Part silverside minnow report
I.B.3(b) and Appendix A (Method in EPA/600/
of this permit. 4-90/027F).
Flow (bbl/month)..... Once/month........... Estimate............ Monthly rate
Within 1000 meters of No discharge..............
an Area of
Biological Concern
(ABC).
Deck Drainage..................... Free Oil............. No free oil............... Once/day when Visual sheen........ Number of days sheen
discharging d. observed
Volume (bbl/month)... Once/month........... Estimate............ Monthly total
Produced Sand..................... No Discharge.........
Well Treatment, Completion, and Free Oil............. No free oil............... Once/day when Static sheen........ Number of days sheen
Workover Fluids (includes packer discharging. observed.
fluids) e.
Oil and Grease....... 42 mg/l daily maximum and Once/month........... Grab/Gravimetric.... Daily max. and
29 mg/l monthly average. monthly avg.
Priority Pollutants.. No priority pollutants.... Monitor added
materials.
Volume (bbl/month)... Once/month........... Estimate............ Monthly total.
Sanitary Waste (Continuously Solids............... No floating solids........ Once/day, in daylight Observation......... Number of days
manned by 10 or more persons) f. solids observed.
Residual ChlorineAt Once/month................ Grab/Hach CN-66-DPD.. Concentration.......
least (but as close
to) 1 mg/l.
Flow (MGD)........... Once/month........... Estimate............
Sanitary Waste (Continuously Solids............... No floating solids........ Once/day, in daylight Observation......... Number of days
manned by 9 or fewer persons or solids observed.
intermittently by any) f.
Domestic Waste.................... Solids............... No floating solids; no Once/day following Observation......... Number of days
food waste within 12 morning or midday solids observed.
miles of land; comminuted meal at time of
food waste smaller than maximum expected
25-mm beyond 12 miles. discharge.
[[Page 55761]]
Miscellaneous Discharges Free Oil............. No free oil............... Once/day when Visual sheen........ Number of days sheen
Desalination Unit; Blowout discharging. observed.
Preventer Fluid; Uncontaminated
Ballast/Bilge Water, Mud,
Cuttings, and Cement at the
Seafloor; Uncontaminated
Seawater; Boiler Blowdown; Source
Water and Sand; Uncontaminated
Freshwater, Excess Cement Slurry,
Diatomaceous Earth Filter Media.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Toxicity test to be conducted using suspended particulate phase (SPP) of a 9:1 seawater:mud dilution. The sample shall be taken beneath the shale
shaker, or if there are no returns across the shaker, the sample must be taken from a location that is characteristic of the overall mud system to be
discharged.
b Sample shall be taken after the final log run is completed and prior to bulk discharge.
c The daily maximum concentration may be based on the average of up to four grab sample results in the 24 hour period.
d When discharging and facility is manned. Monitoring shall be accomplished during times when observation of a visual sheen on the surface of the
receiving water is possible in the vicinity of the discharge.
e No discharge of priority pollutants except in trace amounts. Information on the specific chemical composition shall be recorded but not reported
unless requested by EPA.
f Any facility that properly operates and maintains a marine sanitation device (MSD) that complies with pollution control standards and regulations
under Section 312 of the Act shall be deemed to be in compliance with permit limitations for sanitary waste. The MSD shall be tested yearly for proper
operation and test results maintained at the facility.
Appendix A
Effluent concentrations at the edge of a 100-m mixing zone will
be modeled by EPA for each produced water outfall listed in an
operator's notice of commencement of production operations. This
projected effluent concentration will be used to calculate the
permit limitation for produced water toxicity (0.01 x projected
effluent concentration). The discharge will be modeled using each
facility's measured water column conditions and discharge
configurations as input for the CORMIX expert system for
hydrodynamic mixing zone analysis.
The notice of commencement of production operations will be
accompanied by a completed CORMIX input parameter table presented as
Table A-1. The input parameters required are the following.
Anticipated average discharge rate (bbl/day)
Water depth (meters)
Discharge pipe location in the water column (meters from surface or
bottom)
Discharge pipe orientation with respect to the prevailing current
(degrees; 0 deg. is coflowing)
Discharge pipe opening diameter (meters)
Discharge horizontal angle between port direction in the horizontal
plane and the direction of ambient flow: (sigma)
These parameters are site-specific parameters that the operator
must determine through monitoring or measurement and certify as true
to the best of their knowledge. All other input parameters for the
CORMIX model are established as the following.
Discharge density: 1070.2 kg/m \3\
Discharge concentration: 100%
Legal mixing zone: 100 meters
Darcy-Wiesbach constant: 0.2
Current speed: 5 cm/sec
Discharge pipe orientation: Coflowing with current
Linear water column density profile;
Surface density: 1,023.0 kg/m \3\
Density gradient: 0.163 kg/m \3\/m
The Region will conduct the model using the operator's input
parameters and report the toxicity limitation to the operator. If
the parameters supplied by the operator change during the life of
the permit (e.g., average discharge rate increases or decreases, a
change in discharge pipe orientation, etc.), the operator should
submit the new input parameters to the Region so that a new toxicity
limitation can be calculated.
Compliance with the toxicity limitation will be demonstrated by
conducting 96-hour toxicity tests using mysids (Mysidopsis bahia)
and the Inland silverside minnow (Menidia beryllina) once every two
months. The LC50 for each species will be reported on the DMR and a
copy of the complete laboratory report shall be submitted.
Facilities that pass six consecutive produced water toxicity
tests for six will be allowed to change to a frequency of once/every
six months; otherwise bimonthly testing shall continue.
Table A-1. CORMIX (Version 3.2) Input Parameters for Toxicity
Limitation Calculation
Permit number:---------------------------------------------------------
GMG28------------------------------------------------------------------
Company:---------------------------------------------------------------
Contact name/Phone number:---------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Lease block/number:----------------------------------------------------
Facility name:---------------------------------------------------------
Parameter
Discharge Rate
Water depth
Units
____ Average bbl/day
____ meters
Discharge pipe location in the water column
----------------------------------------------------------------------
meters from------------------------------------------------------------
water surface, or------------------------------------------------------
seafloor---------------------------------------------------------------
Discharge pipe orientation (vertical angle) with respect to the
seafloor: Theta
----------------------------------------------------------------------
degrees
(90 deg. is directed toward the surface)
(-90 deg. is directed toward the seafloor)
Discharge pipe opening diameter:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
meters
Discharge horizontal angle between port direction in the
horizontal plane and the direction of ambient flow: (sigma)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
degrees
(0 deg. is coflowing with ambient current)
(90 deg. is perpendicular to ambient flow)
Billing Code 6560-50-P
[[Page 55762]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN16OC98.001
[FR Doc. 98-27701 Filed 10-15-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C