Draft NPDES General Permit for Offshore Oil and Gas Operations on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and State Waters of Alaska: Arctic NPDES General Permit

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-5073-7]

Draft NPDES General Permit for Offshore Oil and Gas Operations on

the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and State Waters of Alaska: Arctic

NPDES General Permit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of Draft NPDES General Permit.

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

SUMMARY: The Regional Administrator, Region 10, is proposing to issue a

draft National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) general

permit for oil and gas stratigraphic test and exploration wells on the

Alaskan Outer Continental Shelf and contiguous state waters. The

proposed Arctic general permit will authorize offshore oil and gas

stratigraphic test and exploration wells in the federal and state

waters of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. Development and production

wells are not authorized to discharge by this general permit.

Unlike previous general permits for the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas,

the Arctic general permit will cover a geographic area not defined by

specific state and federal lease sale tracts. Rather, the area of

coverage includes the following:

--Federal waters of the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea planning basins as

defined by the Minerals Management Service (MMS) (see U.S. Dept. of the

Interior, 1992), and

--State waters contiguous to the landward boundary of the Beaufort and

Chukchi Sea planning basins.

The permit will authorize discharges from exploratory operations in

all areas offered for lease by the U.S. Department of the Interior's

Minerals Management Service (MMS) included in previous general permits

issued by EPA for the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas. This includes federal

lease sales 71, 87, 97, and 109; and state lease sales 36, 39, 43, and

43A, Federal/State lease sale BF; and ``contiguous state lease sales''

which were covered by the modification for the Beaufort Sea II NPDES

general permit (54 FR 39574, September 27, 1989). Additional lease sale

areas not previously covered by a permit will include, but are not

limited to, the following: MMS federal lease sales 124 and 126; and

state lease sales 65 and 68.

A brief description of the basis for the conditions and

requirements of the proposed permit is given in the fact sheet

published below.

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: Interested persons may submit written comments

on the draft general permit to the attention of the Director, Water

Division, at the address below. All comments should include the name,

address, and telephone number of the commenter and a concise statement

of the exact basis of any comment and the relevant facts upon which it

is based. Comments must be received by the regional office by November

21, 1994.

PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearings on the proposed general permit are

tentatively scheduled to be held in Anchorage and Barrow, Alaska. The

Barrow hearing will be held at the North Slope Borough Assembly

Chambers on November 2, 1994, from 12 p.m. to 3 p.m. The Anchorage

hearing will be held at the Federal Building, Room 137, 710 ``C''

Street, Anchorage, Alaska on November 3, 1994, from 12 p.m. until 4

p.m. Persons interested in making a statement at the hearing must

contact Debra Packard at the address below or at (206) 553-1266 by 4:00

p.m. on October 24, 1994.

Either or both of the public hearings will be cancelled if

insufficient interest is expressed in them. Interested persons can

contact Debra Packard at (206) 553-1266 during the hours of 8:30 a.m.

and 4 p.m. PDT on October 25, 1994, to confirm that the hearings will

take place. At the hearings, interested persons may submit oral or

written statements concerning the draft general permit.

ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD: The administrative record for the draft permit

is available for public review at EPA, Region 10, at the address listed

below.

ADDRESSES: Public comments and requests for coverage should be sent to:

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, Attn: Ocean Programs

Section WD-137, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:Anne Dailey or Eileen Hileman, both of

Region 10, at the address listed above or telephone (206) 553-2110 or

(206) 553-6513, respectively. Copies of the draft general permit and

today's publication will be provided upon request.

FACT SHEET

I. General Permits and Requests for Individual NPDES Permits

Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act (the Act) provides that the

discharge of pollutants is unlawful except in accordance with the terms

of an NPDES permit. Under EPA's regulations [40 CFR 122.28(a)(2)], EPA

may issue a single general permit to a category of point sources

located within the same geographic area if the regulated point sources:

--Involve the same or substantially similar types of operations;

--Discharge the same types of wastes;

--Require the same effluent limitations or operating conditions;

--Require similar monitoring requirements; and

--In the opinion of the Regional Administrator, are more appropriately

controlled under a general permit than under individual permits.

In addition, under EPA regulations [40 CFR 122.28(c)(1)], the

Regional Administrator shall issue general permits covering discharges

from offshore oil and gas facilities within the Region's jurisdiction.

Where the offshore area includes areas for which separate permit

conditions are required, such as areas of environmental concern, a

separate individual or general permit may be required by the Regional

Administrator. The Regional Administrator has determined that

exploratory oil and gas facilities operating in the area described in

this general NPDES permit are more appropriately controlled by a

general permit than by individual permits.

Any owner and/or operator authorized to discharge under a general

permit may request to be excluded from coverage under the general

permit by applying for an individual permit as provided by 40 CFR

122.28(b). The operator shall submit an application together with the

reasons supporting the request to the Director, Water Division, EPA,

Region 10 (``Director''). A source located within a general permit

area, excluded from coverage under the general permit solely because it

already has an individual permit (i.e., a permit that has not been

continued under the Administrative Procedure Act), may request that its

individual permit be revoked, and that it be covered by the general

permit. Upon revocation of the individual permit, the general permit

shall apply. Procedures for modification, revocation, termination, and

processing of NPDES permits are provided by 40 CFR 122.62-122.64. As in

the case of individual permits, violation of any condition of a general

permit constitutes a violation of the Act that is enforceable under

Section 309 of the Act.

II. Covered Facilities and Nature of Discharges

A. Types of Discharges Authorized

The proposed general permit will authorize the following discharges

from exploratory offshore oil and gas operations: Drilling mud and

drilling cuttings; deck drainage; sanitary wastes; domestic wastes;

desalination unit wastes; blowout preventer fluid; boiler blowdown;

fire control system test water; non-contact cooling water;

uncontaminated ballast water; uncontaminated bilge water; excess cement

slurry; mud, cuttings, and cement at the seafloor; and test fluids.

Drilling muds and cuttings are the major pollutant sources discharged

from exploratory operations. Further description of discharges are

given in Part V below. When issued, the proposed general permit will

establish effluent limitations, standards, prohibitions, and other

conditions on the authorized discharges from the facilities covered.

B. Types of Facilities Covered

The general permit proposed today authorizes the discharge of

specific operational wastewaters from offshore exploratory oil and gas

operations located in federal and state waters. In order to be

authorized to discharge under this permit, the operator of such

exploratory operations must be registered with EPA as the NPDES

permittee. Development and production operations are not covered by

this general permit. Exploratory operations are defined as those

operations involving the drilling of wells to determine the nature of

potential hydrocarbon reserves. Exploration facilities covered by this

general permit are included in the Offshore Subcategory of the Oil and

Gas Extraction Point Source Category (40 CFR part 435, subpart A).

Under the proposed permit, the number of wells from which discharges

may occur is limited to a maximum of five at a single site.

C. Areas Covered

The area of coverage under previous general permits for offshore

oil and gas activities in Alaska was linked directly to federal or

state lease sales. For a variety of reasons, EPA is now planning to tie

the area of coverage to MMS planning basins and all contiguous state

waters. This method of defining the area of coverage will ensure that

all areas likely to be leased during the term of this general permit

will be covered. While the planning basins are generally larger than

the specific sale areas offered for lease by MMS, discharges under this

permit would occur in only those areas successfully leased. EPA

believes that this is a more practicable way of addressing the area of

coverage. Hence, areas covered by the proposed Arctic NPDES general

permit include the Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea planning basins as

defined by MMS (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1992), and state

waters contiguous to the landward boundary of the Beaufort Sea and

Chukchi Sea planning basins. The general permit does not authorize

discharges into any wetlands adjacent to the territorial waters of

Alaska or from facilities in the Onshore or Coastal Subcategories as

defined in 40 CFR Part 435.

III. Statutory Basis for Permit Conditions

Sections 301(b), 304, 306, 307, 308, 401, 402, 403, and 501 of the

Clean Water Act (The Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of

1972, as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977 and the Water Quality

Act of 1987), 33 U.S.C. 1311, 1314 (b), (c), and (e), 1316, 1317, 1318

and 1361; 86 Stat. 816, Public Law 92-500; 91 Stat. 1567, Public Law

95-217; 101 Stat. 7, Public Law 100-4 (``the Act'' or ``CWA''), and the

U.S. Coast Guard regulations (33 CFR Part 151), provide the basis for

the permit conditions contained in the permit. The general requirements

of these Sections fall into three categories, which are described

below. A discussion of the basis for specific permit conditions follows

in Section V of this fact sheet.

A. Technology-Based Effluent Limitations

1. BPT Effluent Limitations

The Act requires particular classes of industrial dischargers to

meet effluent limitations established by EPA. EPA promulgated effluent

limitations guidelines requiring Best Practicable Control Technology

Currently Available (BPT) for the Offshore Subcategory of the Oil and

Gas Extraction Point Source Category (40 CFR part 435, subpart A) on

April 13, 1979 (44 FR 22069).

BPT effluent limitations guidelines require ``no discharge of free

oil'' for discharges of deck drainage, drilling muds, drill cuttings,

and well treatment fluids. This limitation requires that a discharge

shall not cause a film or sheen upon or discoloration on the surface of

the water or adjoining shorelines, or cause a sludge or emulsion to be

deposited beneath the surface of the water or upon adjoining shorelines

[40 CFR 435.11(d)]. The BPT guidelines for sanitary waste require that

the concentration of chlorine be maintained as close to 1 milligrams/

liter as possible in discharges from facilities housing ten or more

persons. For facilities continuously staffed by nine or fewer persons

or only intermittently staffed by any number of persons, the BPT

guideline for sanitary waste require no discharge of floating solids. A

``no floating solids'' guideline also applies to domestic waste.

2. BAT and BCT Effluent Limitations

As soon as practicable but in no case later than March 31, 1989,

all permits are required by Section 301(b)(2) of the Act to contain

effluent limitations for all categories and classes of point sources

which: (1) Control toxic pollutants (40 CFR 401.15) and nonconventional

pollutants through the use of Best Available Technology Economically

Achievable (BAT), and (2) represent Best Conventional Pollutant Control

Technology (BCT). BCT effluent limitations apply to conventional

pollutants (Ph, BOD, oil and grease, suspended solids, and fecal

coliform). In no case may BCT or BAT be less stringent than BPT.

BAT and BCT effluent limitations guidelines and New Source

Performance Standards (NSPS) for offshore oil and gas operations were

proposed on August 26, 1985 (50 FR 34592) and signed on January 15,

1993 (58 FR 12454, March 4, 1993). The new guidelines were established

under the authority of Sections 301(b), 304, 306, 307, 308, and 501 of

the Act. The new guidelines were also established in response to a

Consent Decree entered on April 5, 1990 (subsequently modified on May

28, 1992) in NRDC v. Reilly, D. D.C. No. 79-3442 (JHP) and are

consistent with EPA's Effluent Guidelines Plan under Section 304(m) of

the CWA (57 FR 41000, September 8, 1992). This permit incorporates BAT

and BCT effluent limitations based upon the BAT and BCT effluent

limitations guidelines.

New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) are not incorporated in

this general permit. Per the guidelines, NSPS are not applicable to

exploratory oil and gas operations (58 FR 12457, March 4, 1993).

Exploratory operations are defined in the preamble to the guidelines as

``new dischargers'' (rather than ``new sources'') on the basis that

they do not constitute ``significant site preparation''. NSPS do apply

to certain development and production, but not exploratory, operations.

This will be the first oil and gas general permit issued by Region

10 incorporating the new effluent limitation guidelines. Offshore

exploratory oil and gas wastestreams for which there are new BAT and

BCT effluent guidelines include: Drilling fluids and cuttings, deck

drainage, sanitary waste, and domestic wastes. This permit incorporates

BAT and BCT effluent limitations from the guidelines for the

aforementioned wastestreams (see also Sections IV and V below). Based

upon EPA's best professional judgement, limitations on test fluids have

been established to reflect guidelines applicable to produced water.

The new effluent guidelines do not specifically address other

wastestreams controlled by this permit (e.g., desalination unit wastes;

blowout preventer fluid; boiler blowdown; fire control system test

water; non-contact cooling water; uncontaminated ballast water;

uncontaminated bilge water; excess cement slurry; and muds, cuttings,

cement at seafloor). In the absence of effluent limitation guidelines

for these wastestreams, permit conditions must be established using

Best Professional Judgement (BPJ) procedures (40 CFR Sections 122.43,

122.44, and 125.3). As with previous oil and gas general permits issued

by Region 10, this permit incorporates BAT and BCT effluent limitations

based on the Agency's Best Professional Judgement.

As required by Section 304(b)(2)(B) of the Act, in developing the

BPJ/BAT permit conditions, the Agency considered the age of equipment

and facilities involved, the process employed, the engineering aspects

of the application of various types of control techniques, process

changes, the cost of achieving such effluent reduction, non-water

quality environmental impact (including energy requirements), and such

other factors as the Director deemed appropriate.

The types of equipment and processes employed in exploratory

drilling operations are well known to the Agency. Region 10 has issued

numerous general and individual permits for exploratory oil and gas

operations. The records for this permit and those earlier permits

thoroughly discuss the types of equipment, facilities and processes

employed in exploratory drilling operations.

With regard to the engineering aspects of the application of

various types of control techniques, there are no BAT permit

limitations based on installation of control equipment. BAT permit

limitations based on the newly issued guidelines can be achieved

through product substitution for drilling muds and cuttings. Any costs

of achieving the effluent limitations and any non-water quality

environmental impacts were also evaluated by the Agency where the

guidelines are applicable. A discussion of such evaluations is

presented below with respect to any limitation where applicable.

As required by Section 304(b)(4)(B) of the Act, the same factors as

in BAT are considered in determining BCT permit conditions, with one

exception. Rather than considering ``the cost of achieving such

effluent reduction,'' any BCT determination includes ``consideration of

the reasonableness of the relationship between the costs of attaining a

reduction in effluents and the effluent reduction benefits derived, and

the comparison of the cost and level of reduction of such pollutants

from publicly owned treatment works to the cost and level of reduction

of such pollutants from a class or category of industrial sources.''

BCT effluent limitations cannot be less stringent than BPT; therefore,

if the candidate industrial technology fails the BCT ``cost test'', BCT

effluent limitations are set equal to BPT.

B. Ocean Discharge Criteria

Section 403 of the Act requires that an NPDES permit for a

discharge into marine waters located seaward of the inner boundary of

the territorial seas be issued in accordance with guidelines for

determining the degradation of the marine environment. These

guidelines, referred to as the Ocean Discharge Criteria (40 CFR part

125, subpart M), and section 403 of the Act are intended to ``prevent

unreasonable degradation of the marine environment and to authorize

imposition of effluent limitations, including a prohibition of

discharge, if necessary, to ensure this goal.'' (45 FR 65942, October

3, 1980)

If EPA determines that the discharge will cause unreasonable

degradation, an NPDES permit will not be issued. If a determination of

unreasonable degradation cannot be made because of a lack of sufficient

information, EPA must then determine whether a discharge will cause

irreparable harm to the marine environment and whether there are

reasonable alternatives to on-site disposal. To assess the probability

of irreparable harm, EPA is required to make a determination that the

discharger, operating under appropriate permit conditions, will not

cause permanent and significant harm to the environment during a

monitoring period in which additional information is gathered. If data

gathered through monitoring indicate that continued discharge may cause

unreasonable degradation, the discharge must be halted or additional

permit limitations established.

The Director has concluded that there is sufficient information to

determine that exploratory oil and gas facilities operating under the

effluent limitations and conditions in this general permit will not

cause unreasonable degradation of the marine environment pursuant to

the Ocean Discharge Criteria guidelines as long as discharge does not

occur shoreward of the 5 meter isobath (Tetra Tech, 1994a) as discussed

in Section V.B.4. of this fact sheet. Conditions imposed under Section

403(c) of the Act are discussed in Section V.B.4. below.

C. State of Alaska Standards and Limitations

All dischargers to State waters must ensure compliance with water

quality standards and with limitations imposed by the state as part of

its certification of NPDES permits under Section 401 of the Act. The

state waters of the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas have been classified by

the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) as marine

waters with water use classes 2A through 2D (water supply; water

recreation; growth and propagation of fish, shellfish, other aquatic

life, and wildlife; and harvesting for consumption of raw mollusks or

other raw aquatic life). In the best professional judgement of Region

10, the requirements and discharge limitations in the proposed permit

will ensure compliance with the state water quality standards.

In issuing this permit, EPA has considered Alaska's antidegradation

policy (18 AAC 70.010(c)). The exploratory discharges authorized under

this proposed permit are expected to have minimal impact because:

--The relatively short duration of exploratory activities,

--The intermittent nature of the discharges,

--The limited areal extent of the discharges relative to the total area

of coverage, and

--The controls placed on the discharges via the proposed NPDES permit.

Given the above, and since the project is not expected to result in any

violations of state water quality criteria, EPA believes the project

complies with the state's antidegradation policy.

D. Section 308 of the Clean Water Act

Section 308 of the Act and 40 CFR 122.44(i) authorizes the Director

to require a discharger to conduct monitoring to determine compliance

with effluent limitations and to assist in the development of effluent

limitations. EPA has included several monitoring requirements in this

permit, as listed in the table below in Section V.

IV. Summary of New or Changed Permit Conditions

This section of the fact sheet is intended to provide readers with

a brief summary of the parts of the general permit which are

substantively different from the previous general permits for offshore

oil and gas exploratory activities in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas.

For detailed discussion of the requirements and their bases, please

refer to Section V of this fact sheet. Many of the new and changed

requirements are a consequence of the final Effluent Limitations

Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Offshore

Subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category

promulgated by EPA (see 40 CFR part 435, subpart A).

Drilling Muds and Drilling Cuttings

--Combination of wastestreams: In accordance with the guidelines,

drilling muds, drilling cuttings and washwater have been combined into

a single discharge wastestream called drilling fluids and drilling

cuttings (Discharge 001). Washwater had previously been combined with

drilling cuttings in a separate wastestream but washwater is now

covered as an intrinsic component of the drilling muds and cuttings

wastestream.

--Discharge prohibitions: Under Section 403(c) of the Act, discharge of

drilling muds and cuttings is prohibited to waters shallower than 5

meters depth in accordance with computer modeling done in preparation

for this proposed permit. Previously discharge had been prohibited in

waters shallower than 2 meters.

--Toxicity limit: A toxicity limit of a minimum of 30,000 ppm suspended

particulate phase (SPP) has been applied to the discharge in accordance

with the guidelines.

--Oil content: In accordance with the guidelines, EPA has eliminated

the 10% by weight maximum oil limitation on cuttings in favor of the no

free oil limitation.

--Barite: EPA has maintained the limitations on the mercury and cadmium

content of stock barite but has eliminated the case-by-case waiver

option present in previous permits. This waiver option has been

eliminated to ensure consistency with the effluent guidelines.

--Mud Plan: EPA has included a requirement that a mud plan be developed

by operators to encourage operators to estimate in advance the toxicity

of the drilling muds and cuttings to ensure compliance with the

toxicity limitation. The individual NPDES permit recently issued to

Arco Alaska for operations in Cook Inlet contains a similar

requirement.

--Area and Seasonal Restrictions: In addition to several continued

restrictions, based on Section 403(c) of the Act the proposed permit

also prohibits discharges within 3 miles of Kasegaluk Lagoon and its

passes.

--Environmental monitoring: The requirements for environmental

monitoring are more specific and detailed. These changes reflect the

current level of specificity present in other NPDES permits issued by

Region 10.

Domestic Wastes

--Garbage (``All other domestic waste''): Under the Coast Guard

Regulations, discharges of garbage, including plastics, are prohibited

with one exception. Victual or food waste can be discharged with

restrictions. This requirement reflects the new offshore guidelines (58

FR 12506, March 4, 1993). Several definitions have been included to

clarify this new effluent parameter.

Test Fluids

--Oil and grease: Per EPA's best professional judgement and the new

guidelines, the oil and grease limitation on test fluids has been made

more stringent. The limitations are now 29 mg/l monthly average and 42

mg/l daily maximum.

Discharge Limitations for All Wastestreams

--Rubbish, Trash and Other Refuse: As proposed the permit will prohibit

the discharge of ``garbage'' including food wastes within 12 nautical

miles of nearest land. With restrictions, comminuted food waste may be

discharged further than 12 nautical miles from nearest land. Under the

proposed permit these limitations, which are already effective under

the Coast Guard regulations, will be incorporated into the Arctic

general permit for consistency purposes.

Best Management Practice Plan Requirement

--The proposed general permit requires permittees to develop and

implement a Best Management Practices (BMP) Plan which prevents or

minimizes the generation of pollutants, their release, and potential

release from the permitted facilities to the waters of the United

States.

V. Specific Permit Conditions

A. Approach

The determination of appropriate conditions for each discharge was

accomplished through:

(1) consideration of technology-based effluent limitations to

control conventional pollutants under BCT;

(2) consideration of technology-based effluent limitations to

control toxic and nonconventional pollutants under BAT; and

(3) evaluation of the Ocean Discharge Criteria for discharges,

assuming conditions in (1) and (2), above, were in place.

Discussions of the specific effluent limitations and monitoring

requirements derived from (1) through (3) appear below in sections B.

through G. For convenience, these conditions and the regulatory basis

for each are cross-referenced by discharge in the following table:

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

Discharge and permit conditions Statutory basis

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

Drilling Muds and Drilling Cuttings:

Toxicity limit............................................................ BAT.

No diesel................................................................. BAT.

Cadmium & mercury in barite............................................... BAT.

No free oil............................................................... BAT, BCT.

No oil-based muds & cuttings.............................................. BAT, BCT.

Chemical analysis......................................................... Section 308.

Inventory of added substances............................................. Section 308.

Monitoring volume discharged.............................................. Section 308.

Mud plan.................................................................. Section 308.

Flow rate limitations..................................................... Section 403(c).

Depth related limitations................................................. Section 403(c).

Area and seasonal requirements............................................ Section 403(c).

Environmental monitoring requirements..................................... Sect. 403(c), WQS.

Deck Drainage:

No free oil............................................................... BAT, BCT, BPT.

Monitor flow rate......................................................... Section 308.

Sanitary Wastes:

No floating solids........................................................ BCT.

Chlorine (facilities > 10 people)......................................... BCT.

Monitor flow rate......................................................... Section 308.

Domestic Wastes:

No foam................................................................... BAT.

No floating solids........................................................ BCT.

All other domestic waste (garbage)........................................ BCT.

Monitor flow rate......................................................... Section 308.

Miscellaneous Discharges (as defined in permit):

No free oil............................................................... BCT.

Monitor flow rate......................................................... Section 308.

Test Fluids:

pH........................................................................ BCT.

No free oil............................................................... BCT.

Oil and grease limit...................................................... BAT/BPJ.

No discharge oil-based fluids............................................. BAT.

Monitor volume............................................................ Section 308.

All Discharges:

No floating solids, foam or oily waste.................................... BCT.

Surfactants, dispersants, and detergents.................................. BAT.

Rubbish, trash and other refuse........................................... BCT.

Other toxic/non-conventional pollutants................................... BAT/BCT.

Best Management Practices Plan............................................ 402(a)(1).

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

B. Drilling Muds and Drill Cuttings

The term ``drilling fluid'' generally includes all compositions of

fluids used to aid the production and removal of cuttings (particles

from geological formations) from a borehole in the earth. The essential

functions of drilling fluids are:

--To carry cuttings to the surface,

--To cool and clean drill bit,

--To reduce friction in the borehole,

--To maintain pressure balance between formation and borehole in

uncased sections of hole, and

--To assist in collection and interpretation of information available

from cuttings, cores, electrical logs, etc.

All drilling fluids fall into one of three classes: gas-based

(e.g., mist or foam), water-based, or oil-based. When the main

component of the drilling fluid is liquid (i.e., water or oil), it is

referred to as ``mud''. All of Region 10's previous permits address

only the discharge of muds, as gas fluids are not used in Alaskan

offshore or coastal drilling operations. As discussed below in

subsections 1 and 2, the discharge of oil-based muds (with oil as the

continuous phase and water as the dispersed phase) is prohibited

because they do not comply with the no free oil limitation.

The Agency understands that non-petroleum hydrocarbon organic

liquids are being developed as an alternate to gas, water or

hydrocarbon (e.g., diesel or mineral) oil-based drilling muds. The

Agency invites comments on the applicability and feasibility of such

muds to exploratory drilling operations in the offshore Arctic.

1. BCT Limitations on Drilling Muds and Cuttings

Free oil and oil-based muds: No discharge of free oil is permitted

from the discharge of drilling mud and drill cuttings, based upon the

guidelines. The technology basis for this limitation is substitution of

water-based drilling fluids in place of oil-based muds, non-petroleum

oil-containing additives, and minimization of the use of mineral oil.

When this substitution is not possible, the guidelines contemplated

that the technology basis was also transportation and discharge

onshore. Free oil is being regulated under BAT as an ``indicator''

pollutant for the control of toxic pollutants. Although it is not a

listed conventional pollutant, as is oil and grease, free oil is also

limited as a surrogate for oil and grease under BCT.

The discharge of oil-based drilling fluids is prohibited since

discharge of oil-based fluids would violate the effluent limitations of

no discharge of free oil.

Compliance with the free oil limitation will be monitored by use of

the Static Sheen Test (see 40 CFR part 435, appendix 1 to subpart A)

daily and before bulk discharges. Region 10 has required the use of the

Static Sheen Test in previous permits because visual observation of the

discharge for sheen upon the receiving water will not prevent

violations of the standard. This test is also appropriate for the harsh

weather and extended periods of darkness common in Alaska.

Previous Region 10 permits have contained an oil content limitation

on drill cuttings. However, this approach has been rejected in favor of

the no free oil limitation contained in the guidelines. As discussed at

56 FR 10682 and 56 FR 10685 (March 13, 1991), the Agency rejected an

oil content limitation based on cuttings washing treatment technologies

because limitations on other parameters (diesel oil, free oil, and

toxicity) are sufficient to reduce toxics from drilling wastes. Because

the no free oil limitation is more stringent than the 10% by weight

limitation on the oil content of cuttings, this change does not invoke

antibacksliding provisions (see 40 CFR 122.44(l)(2)).

2. BAT Limitations on Drilling Muds and Cuttings

Toxicity: Region 10 is proposing to incorporate an effluent

toxicity limit of minimum 96-hour LC50 of 30,000 ppm suspended

particulate phase (SPP) on discharged drilling muds and cuttings. This

limit is designed to be a technology-based control on toxicity, as well

as toxic and nonconventional pollutants. The 30,000 ppm SPP limitation

is based on the Agency's evaluation that it constitutes an economically

and technically achievable level of performance and is both

technologically feasible and economically achievable and reflects BAT

level of control (U.S. EPA, 1993a) on a national basis. This limitation

is present in the general permit for the Western Gulf of Mexico (57 FR

54652, November 19, 1992). The toxicity limit is also present in a

recently issued individual NPDES permit for ARCO Alaska operations in

Cook Inlet.

The purpose of this limitation is to encourage the use of water-

based or other low toxicity drilling fluids and additives. This

toxicity criterion became BAT when the final effluent guidelines were

signed January 15, 1993 (58 FR 12469, March 4, 1993).

The toxicity limit is an end-of-pipe discharge limit; and

represents a different approach to controlling this wastestream than

has been applied in previous general permits issued by Region 10. When

the Region issued its first general permits under the proposed

guidelines, it developed a case-by-case approach to limiting the

toxicity of discharged mud/additive systems as BPJ determination of BAT

until guidelines could be promulgated. Region 10 used the 30,000 ppm

SPP value as a criterion in evaluating available bioassay data for the

proposed discharges. The process of evaluating each mud/additive system

with respect to the discharge toxicity constituted BPJ determination of

BAT. Since the guidelines have now been promulgated with a toxicity

limitation for drilling muds and cuttings, Region 10 will be

discontinuing the mud preapproval process in favor of the end-of-pipe

limitation.

Compliance with the drilling mud toxicity limit will be determined

by using the Drilling Fluids Toxicity Test (see appendix 2 to subpart A

of part 435, 58 FR 12507, March 4, 1993). At a minimum, monitoring is

to be done on a monthly basis for each well. When the end-of-well is

reached, a final bioassay analysis will be required (see Part II.A.1.k.

of permit). The last monthly bioassay may constitute the end-of-well

bioassay. If a mineral oil pill is required (Part II.A.1.g. of permit),

the mud shall be sampled for bioassay prior to application of the pill

and after removal of the pill. Complete bioassay reports are required

as part of the regulatory record for each well.

Diesel oil: The discharge of drilling muds and cuttings which have

been contaminated by diesel oil is prohibited by the Agency, in

accordance with the offshore oil and gas effluent guidelines (58 FR

12469, March 4, 1993). The prohibition on the discharge of diesel oil

has been part of all of the general NPDES permits issued by Region 10

for the Offshore and Coastal Subcategories. Diesel oil, which is

sometimes added to a water-based mud system, is a complex mixture of

petroleum hydrocarbons, known to be highly toxic to marine organisms

and to contain numerous toxic and nonconventional pollutants. The

pollutant ``diesel oil'' is being used as an ``indicator'' of the

listed toxic pollutants present in diesel oil which are controlled

through compliance with the effluent limitation (i.e., no discharge).

The technology basis for this limitation is product substitution of

less toxic mineral oil for diesel oil.

Mercury and Cadmium in Barite: In accordance with the offshore oil

and gas effluent guidelines (58 FR 12469, March 4, 1993), the proposed

permit contains limitations of 1 mg/kg mercury and 3 mg/kg cadmium in

barite. Barite is a major constituent of drilling muds. These

restrictions on drilling fluid influent are designed to limit the

discharge of mercury, cadmium, and other potentially toxic metals in

the drilling fluid effluent, since these metals can occur as

contaminants in some sources of barite. The justification for the

limitation under BAT is product substitution or transportation and

disposal of the waste onshore. That is, operators can substitute

``clean'' barite, which meets the above limitations, for contaminated

barite, which does not meet the limitations. Numerous offshore

exploratory wells and the production wells drilled under permits

previously issued by Region 10 have been drilled subject to this

requirement. Chemical analyses have shown that the barite used has not

exceeded the limitations. Further discussion on the mercury and cadmium

limits in barite is presented in the offshore oil and gas guidelines

(58 FR 12479-80, March 4, 1993) and in the development document (U.S.

EPA, 1993a).

EPA has eliminated a waiver provision for the barite limits which

was in the previous permits. The waiver stipulated that if a permittee

was unable to comply with the barite limitations due to the lack of

availability of barite which meets the limitation, then the permittee

could request a case-by-case waiver allowing the discharge of barite

which exceeded the limits (53 FR 37858, September 28, 1988). As a part

of the effluent guidelines development, EPA investigated the

availability of domestic and foreign supplies of barite to meet the

cadmium and mercury limits. The Agency also considered the potential

for the increased demand for clean barite stocks resulting from this

rule to cause a rise in the cost of barite. (See the Development

Document (U.S. EPA, 1993a) and the Economic Impact Analysis (U.S. EPA,

1993d) for detailed discussion on the availability and economic

availability.) EPA concluded that ``there are sufficient supplies of

barite capable of meeting the limits of this rule to meet the needs of

offshore drilling operations (58 FR 12480, March 4, 1993). Hence, the

waiver provision has not been included in this proposed general permit.

3. Section 308 Documentation and Monitoring Requirements for Muds and

Cuttings

The following reporting and discharge monitoring requirements are

based on Section 308 of the Act and 40 CFR 122.44(i). These

requirements serve to determine compliance with, or the possible future

need for, effluent limitations in the permit.

--Chemical analysis

--Chemical inventory

--Monitoring volume discharged

--Mud plan

The requirement of a mud plan is new and is explained below. The

first three requirements have been present in previous NPDES general

permits for all coastal and offshore operations in Region 10. The

chemical analysis requirement has been expanded to require analysis of

total recoverable metal concentration, in addition to total metal

concentration. Analyses are to be conducted on split samples. This

requirement has been included to enable the Agency to better evaluate

the impact of metals in the mud discharges.

Mud Plans: As previously noted, Region 10 plans to discontinue

authorization of mud/additive systems. Instead EPA is shifting the

responsibility of case-by-case evaluations from the Region to the

operator. Resources do not allow Region 10 to continue to perform case-

by-case evaluations or to issue discharge authorizations for each

drilling mud/additive system. Hence, the proposed permit contains a

requirement that the permittee develop, have on-site, and available

upon request a plan for discharge of drilling muds and additives

(hereafter called ``mud plan''). This requirement is analogous to

analyses that the region has been performing in development of drilling

mud authorizations.

The basis for the mud plan requirement is Section 308(a)(A) of the

Act which provides that EPA may require the permittee to establish and

maintain records and/or reports that will assist the Region to

determine compliance with other requirements and effluent limitations

of the permit. The mud plan is one component of the Best Management

Practices Plan (see Part II.F.4.d.(4) of the permit). The mud plan

requirement is also based upon the Pollution Prevention Act and its

policy of prevention, reduction, recycling, and treatment of wastes

(PPA Section 102(b)) through measures which include process

modification, materials substitution, and improvement of management

(PPA Section 107(b)(3)).

The goal of requiring development of a mud plan is to ensure that

personnel on-site are knowledgeable about the information needed and

the methods required to formulate the mud/additive systems in order to

meet the effluent toxicity limit. Simply put, the mud plan is intended

to be a written guide to planning for, and using, a mud/additive system

in compliance with the permit.

Region 10's case-by-case approach to evaluating discharge of mud/

additive systems coupled with use of worst case cumulative toxicity

estimates as bases for authorization, has been conducive to the

discharge of muds with lower toxicity than elsewhere in the OCS. To

date Alaskan operators have demonstrated that thorough planning and

evaluation of mud/additive systems with respect to possible cumulative

toxicity does consistently result in discharge of muds that are less

toxic than the 30,000 ppm SPP limit.

The mud plan is intended to demonstrate that the discharged mud/

additive system for the well in question will meet the effluent limit

of 30,000 ppm SPP based on the following decision criteria:

--Estimates of worst case cumulative discharge toxicity (either

calculated or actual toxicity test results);

--Estimates of toxicity of discharged mud when a mineral oil pill has

been used; and

--Use of less toxic alternatives where possible.

The mud plan shall also include a clearly stated procedure for

dealing with situations in which additives not originally planned for

are needed at the ``last minute.'' This procedure should enable

drilling and mud personnel to determine whether an additive or mud

component may be added to the circulating mud system without

significant effect upon the discharge toxicity. Criteria for reaching

this type of ``last minute'' additive decision shall be clearly

specified in the mud plan.

In addition to developing the mud plan, the operator is also

required to certify that the mud plan is complete, on-site, and

available upon request (see Part II.A.1.f. of the permit).

Certification is due no later than submission of their written

notice of intent to commence discharge (see Part I.C. of the permit).

4. Section 403(c) Requirements for Muds and Cuttings

Depth-related Restrictions: Additional restrictions on these

discharges are necessary to ensure no unreasonable degradation of the

environment. The area of coverage includes water depths from 5 to about

3,000 meters deep. Discharge rate limitations on total muds and

cuttings have been established in the ocean discharge criteria

evaluation process in order to allow adequate dispersion of the

discharges. These maximum rates are:

--No discharge in waters less than 5 meters deep,

--500 bbl/hr for discharges into waters greater than 5 meters but not

more than 20 meters in depth,

--750 bbl/hr for discharges into waters greater than 20 meters but not

more than 40 meters in depth, and

--1,000 bbl/hr for discharges into waters greater than 40 meters in

depth.

These limits are necessary because for any given discharge rate,

the dilution of drilling muds and cuttings is not as great in shallow

waters as in deeper waters. However, at any particular water depth,

greater dilution close to the discharge point will be achieved with a

lower discharge rate. These maximum rates will ensure that the water

quality standards will not be exceeded at the edge of the 100 meters

mixing zone (Tetra Tech, 1994a).

Previous permits have allowed the discharge of drilling muds and

cuttings between 2 and 5 meters depth. However, computer modeling of

the dispersion of the drilling muds conducted for this permit in 2-5

meters depth did not perform adequately (Tetra Tech, 1994a). The

maximum depth of mud accumulation for these cases was 10-20 times

greater than the water depth. Mud accumulations of this magnitude would

effectively bury the drilling mud outfall, making any calculation of

dilution values meaningless. Accordingly, EPA is proposing zero

discharge of muds and cuttings in waters less than 5 meters deep.

Areal Restrictions: Discharge of muds and cuttings are prohibited

in the following four areas:

(a) Between the shore (mainland and barrier islands) and the 5

meters isobath,

(b) within 1000 meters of river mouths or deltas during unstable or

broken ice or open water conditions,

(c) Within 1000 meters of the Stefansson Sound Boulder Patch, and

(d) Within 3 miles of Kasegaluk Lagoon or the passes of Kasegaluk

Lagoon.

For the specific requirements, see Parts II.A.3. of the permit. In

accordance with 40 CFR 125.123 (c), the Director has prohibited these

discharges because the Region has determined they may cause

unreasonable degradation of the marine environment. Prohibition (a) has

changed from previous permits as described in the previous section of

this fact sheet. Prohibitions (b) and (c) are contained in the previous

Beaufort Sea NPDES general permits (49 FR 23734, June 7, 1984 and 53 FR

37846, September 28, 1988). This is the first time that a provision

concerning Kasegaluk Lagoon has been included in a general permit for

offshore oil and gas exploration since the area has never been covered

by an NPDES permit for exploratory oil and gas operations.

With regard to (a) and (b) above, EPA has extensively studied the

nearshore zone of the Alaskan Beaufort Sea in several Ocean Discharge

Criteria Evaluations (Tetra Tech, 1994a; Jones & Stokes, 1983, 1984).

These evaluations have clearly shown that these nearshore areas provide

important feeding and migratory habitat for a large number of species

including fish, waterfowl, and mammals. Further, these areas provide

essential feeding and preferred habitat for species of major importance

for subsistence and commercial fisheries.

Concerning (c) above, the proposed permit does not authorize

discharges within 1000 meters of the Stefansson Sound Boulder Patch as

defined by Dunton et al. (1982). The ``Patch'' is a rare and unique

biological community that is susceptible to adverse effects caused by

discharged drilling muds and cuttings.

As noted in (d) above, the proposed permit restricts activity near

Kasegaluk Lagoon and its barrier island system. Specifically discharge

is prohibited within Kasegaluk Lagoon and in the waters within 3 miles

of the following passes intensively used by the beluga whales:

Kukpowruk Pass, Akunik Pass, Utukok Pass, Icy Cape Pass, and

Alokiakatat Pass. This restriction is in accordance with the North

Slope Borough's Coastal Management Program (NSB, 1988). The NSB

recognizes Kasegaluk Lagoon as a Candidate Area Meriting Special

Attention (AMSA) and imposes the above restrictions.

Kasegaluk Lagoon extends for approximately 140 miles along the

Chukchi Sea coast. About 90 miles of the lagoon is south of Icy Cape

and the rest is north of Icy Cape. Kasegaluk Lagoon is located in state

waters of the Chukchi Sea and provides important habitat for spotted

seals and beluga whales. Beluga whales are known to feed, calve and may

molt in this lagoon (North Slope Borough, 1988; Frost and Lowry, 1993;

Tetra Tech, 1994a). Spotted seals also calve in Kasegaluk Lagoon (NSB,

1988). The lagoon also provides important feeding, migrating, and

rearing areas for marine and anadromous fish, as well as migratory

birds.

Kasegaluk Lagoon, the barrier islands, and the nearshore waters

seaward of the barrier islands are an important subsistence area for

the villagers of Point Lay (NSB, 1988). Subsistence activities that

occur seasonally in the Kasegaluk Lagoon Candidate AMSA area include

egg gathering, waterfowl hunting, sealing, fishing, walrus hunting, and

whaling for belugas. This proposed permit and the Borough's management

program recognizes the importance of the area for marine mammals,

seabirds, and subsistence activities.

Environmental Monitoring: Environmental monitoring is required in

two areas which are of particular concern to Region 10: discharge of

drilling muds and cuttings below-ice to water depths shallower than 20

meters and within 1000 meters of an area of biological concern (i.e., a

unique biological community or habitat). The Director has determined

that controlled discharges to these areas, in accordance with 40 CFR

125.123(a) and the limitations and conditions in the draft permit, will

not cause unreasonable degradation of the marine environment.

Environmental monitoring is required to verify that discharges to these

areas will not produce conditions in the future that would lead to

unreasonable degradation.

C. Deck Drainage (Discharge 002)

Deck drainage includes all waste resulting from deck washings,

spillage, rainwater, and run-off from gutters and drains including drip

pans and work areas. Oil and grease are the primary pollutants

identified in deck drainage. In addition to oil, various other

chemicals used in drilling operations may be present. Specific

conventional, toxic, and non-conventional pollutants found in deck

drainage are controlled by the prohibition on the discharge of free

oil. Deck drainage discharges are not continuous and can vary

significantly in volume.

Free oil: EPA is controlling pollutants found in deck drainage by

the prohibition on the discharge of free oil. This limit is the current

BPT level of control and is also the appropriate level of control under

BCT and BAT. No free oil is permitted from the discharge of deck

drainage in accordance with the offshore oil and gas effluent

guidelines (58 FR 12506, March 4, 1993). Deck drainage was subject to

this limitation in the previous permits issued by Region 10 and past

practices have not resulted in violations of this limit.

Compliance with the free oil limitation for deck drainage will be

by visual observation for a sheen on the receiving water as mandated by

the offshore oil and gas guidelines (58 FR 12506, March 4, 1993),

except under the conditions described below. The Static Sheen Test will

also be required for the monitoring of deck drainage during unstable or

broken ice and stable ice conditions. Use of the Static Sheen Test will

prevent a violation of the free oil limitation in those discharges most

likely to be contaminated with oil. This would not be possible with an

after-the-fact visual observation of a sheen on the receiving water.

This requirement is similar to requirements in the Region's previous

permits and will not result in any additional costs to the industry.

Flow Rate: Flow rate is required to be estimated monthly. The basis

for this requirement is Section 308 of the Act.

D. Sanitary Wastes (Discharge 003)

The sanitary wastes from offshore oil and gas facilities are made

up of human body wastes from the toilets and urinals. The volume and

concentrations of these wastes vary widely with time, occupancy,

platform characteristics, and operational status (U.S. EPA, 1993a).

Floating Solids: The prohibition on floating solids is mandated by

the offshore oil and gas guidelines for facilities intermittently

manned or continuously manned by fewer than 10 persons (58 FR 12470,

March 4, 1993). This requirement does not specifically apply to

facilities continuously manned by 10 or more persons (however, the

method of compliance with the residual chlorine limit effectively

limits floating solids for these facilities). Since previous permits

for exploratory operations in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas have

prohibited the discharge of floating solids for all facilities

regardless of staffing, Region 10 is continuing the requirement in this

permit based upon antibacksliding provisions [40 CFR 122.44(l)(2)].

This BCT prohibition on the discharge of floating solids is equivalent

to the current level of control for sanitary wastes in previous

permits.

Residual Chlorine: Chlorine is regulated by the Agency in the

offshore oil and gas effluent guidelines as a conventional pollutant.

Chlorine is added to the wastestream to control fecal coliforms in the

discharge. Facilities continuously manned by 10 or more persons are

required to have a residual chlorine content of 1 milligram per liter

(and maintained as close to the limit as possible). This limitation has

been in previous Region 10 permits and is in the proposed permit as

well.

For facilities with fewer than 10 persons or intermittently staffed

by any number of persons (i.e., M91M facilities), the proposed permit

prohibits the discharge of floating solids only, with no chlorine

limitation.

E. Domestic Wastes (Discharge 004)

Domestic wastes refers to materials discharged from sinks, showers,

laundries, safety showers, eyewash stations, and galleys. Because

domestic wastes do not contain fecal coliform, chlorination is not

required.

Floating Solids: Under BCT, EPA is prohibiting the discharge of

floating solids. The limitation is included in the offshore oil and gas

guidelines (58 FR 12487, March 4, 1993) and is equivalent to the

current level of control for sanitary wastes in the previous permits.

Visible Foam: Discharges of visible foam are prohibited under BAT

in the offshore oil and gas guidelines (58 FR 12487, March 4, 1993).

This limitation is equivalent to the current level of control for

domestic wastes in existing permits and past practices have not

resulted in violations of this limitation.

All other domestic waste: This permit includes requirements

limiting the discharge of all other domestic waste (garbage) as

included in U.S. Coast Guard regulations at 33 CFR part 151. These

limitations are a new feature in EPA offshore oil and gas permits for

Beaufort and Chukchi Seas operators and reflect the offshore oil and

gas effluent guidelines (58 FR 12487, March 4, 1993). The requirements

on garbage are currently included in the most recent reissuance of the

Western Gulf of Mexico general permit (57 FR 54654, November 19, 1992).

As proposed, the reissued permit will prohibit the discharge of

garbage including food wastes within 12 nautical miles from nearest

land. Comminuted food waste which is able to pass through a screen with

a mesh size no larger than 25 mm (approximately 1 inch) may be

discharged 12 or more nautical miles from nearest land. Incineration

ash and non-plastic clinkers that can pass through a 25 mm mesh screen

may be discharged beyond 3 miles from nearest land, otherwise ash and

non-plastic clinkers can only be discharged beyond 12 nautical miles

from nearest land.

Since this BCT limitation already exists in Coast Guard regulations

and other NPDES permits, it will not result in any additional

compliance cost, or additional non-water quality environmental impacts.

There are no incremental costs associated with the limitation.

F. Miscellaneous Discharges:

Desalination unit wastes (005), blowout preventer fluid (006),

boiler blowdown (007), fire control system test water (008), non-

contact cooling water (009), uncontaminated ballast water (010),

uncontaminated bilge water (011), excess cement slurry (012), and mud,

cuttings, and cement at the seafloor (013).

No free oil: Region 10 has determined that no free oil shall be

discharged. The no free oil limitation is Region 10's best professional

judgement determination of BPT controls for these discharges.

Compliance with the free oil limitation for miscellaneous discharges

will be by visual observation for a sheen on the receiving water,

except for bilge water under the conditions described below. All of

these discharges have been subject to this limitation in the previous

permits issued by Region 10 and past practices have not resulted in

violations of this limit.

G. Discharge 014 (Test Fluids)

Limited volumes of formation waters which are encountered during

testing of the well are authorized for discharge as test fluids.

Formation waters are encountered during well testing and are similar in

composition to produced waters.

Free oil: As previously discussed, no discharge of free oil is

permitted from discharges authorized by this permit. In previous

general permits, Region 10 has determined that the BCT effluent

limitations guideline of no discharge of free oil from the discharge of

deck drainage, drilling muds, drill cuttings, and well treatment fluids

should apply to other discharges, including test fluids. The no free

oil limitation is Region 10's best professional judgement determination

of BCT controls for the test fluids discharge. Operators have been

subject to a no free oil limitation in previous permits issued by

Region 10, and past practices have not resulted in violations of this

limitation. In accordance with Section 308, the Static Sheen Test will

be required for the monitoring of test fluids.

Oil and grease: Although oil and grease is a conventional pollutant

subject to BCT, it also serves as BAT (i.e., as an indicator of toxic

pollutants) for produced water. Specifically, the toxic pollutants

which are controlled by limiting oil and grease include phenol,

naphthalene, ethylbenzene, and toluene (U.S. EPA 1993a). EPA has

determined that it is not technically feasible to control these toxic

pollutants individually so that the limitation on oil and grease

controls discharge these pollutants in produced water at the BAT level

(U.S. EPA 1993a).

The promulgated BAT for oil and grease in produced water as 29 mg/l

monthly average and 42 mg/l daily maximum based upon the improved

operating performance of gas flotation technology (58 FR 12506, March

4, 1993). Based upon the chemical similarity of test fluids and

produced water, Region 10 Agency has determined that it is reasonable

to apply the produced water provisions to test fluids. Accordingly, the

proposed permit limits on oil and grease in test fluids are 29 mg/l

monthly average and 42 mg/l daily maximum.

pH: The pH of discharged test fluids (which may have a

substantially different pH from that of the ambient receiving water)

has been limited to a range of 6.5-8.5 at the point of discharge. In

Region 10's best professional judgement, this limitation appropriately

equals a BPT level of control. No more stringent standard has been

identified by the Region at this time. Therefore, Region 10 is setting

a BCT effluent limitation for the pH of test fluids equal to that of

BPT. This limitation will ensure that pH changes greater than 0.2 pH

unit will not occur beyond the edge of the 100-meter mixing zone [40

CFR Sec. 125.121(c)]. This requirement has been and is routinely

complied with by operations under previous BPT permits and thus,

reflects no cost incremental to BPT.

H. Other Discharge Limitations

No Floating Solids, or Visible Foam, or Oily Wastes: Region 10 has

determined that the BCT effluent limitations guideline of no discharge

of floating solids from the discharge of sanitary wastes should apply

to all other discharges as well. Operators have been subject to a

visible foam limit and an oily waste limit in previous permits issued

by Region 10 and past practices have not resulted in violations.

Surfactants, Dispersants, and Detergents: The draft permit contains

a provision that the discharge of surfactants, dispersants, and

detergents shall be minimized except as necessary to comply with the

safety requirements of the Occupational Health and Safety

Administration and the Minerals Management Service. These products

contain primarily nonconventional pollutants. This provision previously

appeared in the permits for the Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea, Norton

Sound, Bering Sea, and Cook Inlet.

Rubbish, Trash, or Other Refuse: The discharge of any solid

material not authorized by this permit (as described above) is

prohibited. This permit includes limitations set forth by the U.S.

Coast Guard in 33 CFR part 151 for domestic waste disposal from all

fixed or floating offshore platforms and associated vessels engaged in

exploration of seabed mineral resources. These limitations, as

specified by Congress apply to all navigable waters of the United

States.

This permit prohibits the discharge of ``garbage'' including food

wastes, within 12 nautical miles from nearest land. Comminuted food

waste (able to pass through a screen with a mesh size larger than 25

mm, approximately 1 inch) may be discharged from operations located 12

nautical miles or more from land. Graywater, drainage from dishwater,

shower, laundry, bath and washbasins are not considered ``garbage''

within the meaning of the Coast Guard regulations. Incineration ash and

non-plastic clinkers that can pass through a 25 mm mesh screen may be

discharged greater than 3 miles from the nearest land; otherwise, ash

and non-plastic clinkers can only be discharged beyond 12 nautical

miles from nearest land.

Other Toxic and Non-conventional Compounds: Under the proposed

permit, prohibitions on discharges of the following pollutants are

retained: halogenated phenol compounds, trisodium nitrilotriacetic

acid, sodium chromate, and sodium dichromate. The class of halogenated

phenol compounds includes toxic pollutants, and sodium chromate and

sodium dichromate contain chromium, also a toxic pollutant. Trisodium

nitrilotriacetic acid is a nonconventional pollutant. The discharge of

these compounds was previously prohibited in the general permits for

the Beaufort Sea, Chukchi Sea, Norton Sound, Bering Sea, and Cook

Inlet.

I. Best Management Practice Plan Requirement

It is national policy that, whenever feasible, pollution should be

prevented or reduced at the source, that pollution which cannot be

prevented should be recycled in an environmentally safe manner, and

that disposal or release into the environment should be employed only

as a last resort and should be conducted in an environmentally safe

manner (Pollution Prevention Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. 13101). Section

402(a)(1) authorizes EPA to include miscellaneous requirements in

permits on a case-by-case basis which are deemed necessary to carry out

the provisions of the Act. Best Management Practices (BMPs), in

addition to numerical effluent limitations, are required to control or

abate the discharge of pollutants in accordance with 40 CFR 122.44(k).

Pursuant to Section 402(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act and Region 10

policy (EPA Region 10, 1992), development and implementation of a Best

Management Practices Plan is included as a condition of this NPDES

general permit.

The proposed general permit requires the development and

implementation of a BMP Plan which prevents or minimizes the generation

of pollutants, their release, and/or potential release from the

facility to the waters of the United States through normal operations

and ancillary activities. Relevant operations and activities include

material storage areas, site runoff, storm water, in-plant transfer,

process and material handling areas, loading or unloading operations,

spillage or leaks, sludge and waste disposal, or drainage from raw

material storage.

In addition to developing and implementing the BMP Plan, the

operator is also required to certify that the BMP Plan is complete, on-

site, and available upon request (see Part II.F.1. of the permit).

Certification is required no later than submission of their written

notice of intent to commence discharge (see Part I.C. of the permit).

These certification requirements are similar to the requirements for a

mud plan.

The BMP Plan must be amended whenever there is a change in the

facility or in the operation of the facility which materially increases

the potential for an increased discharge of pollutants. The BMP Plan

will become an enforceable condition of the permit; a violation of the

BMP Plan is a violation of the permit.

VI. Other Legal Requirements

A. Oil Spill Requirements

Section 311 of the Act prohibits the discharge of oil and hazardous

materials in harmful quantities. Routine discharges specifically

controlled by the permit are excluded from the provisions of Section

311. However, this permit does not preclude the institution of legal

action or relieve permittees from any responsibilities, liabilities, or

penalties for other, unauthorized discharges of oil and hazardous

materials which are covered by Section 311 of the Act.

B. Endangered Species Act

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) allocates authority to and

administers requirements upon Federal agencies regarding endangered

species of fish, wildlife, or plants and habitat of such species that

have been designated as critical. Its implementing regulations (50 CFR

Part 402) require EPA to ensure, in consultation with the Secretary of

the Interior or Commerce, that any action authorized, funded or carried

out by EPA is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any

endangered or threatened species or adversely affect its critical

habitat. [40 CFR 122.49(c)].

In compliance with Section 7 of the ESA, an endangered species list

was requested by EPA and received from both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for

the affected area. The following threatened, endangered and/or

candidate species are reported to potentially occur in the vicinity of

the discharges associated with oil and gas operations proposed by the

permit: arctic peregrine falcon, spectacled eider, stellars eider, and

bowhead whale.

A draft biological evaluation was prepared by Tetra Tech under

contract to EPA to determine whether the discharges authorized by this

proposed general permit are likely to adversely affect any endangered

or threatened species or its critical habitat (Tetra Tech, 1994b).

Based upon the available information, it is not expected that the

exploratory oil and gas permitted discharges and related activities

will not adversely affect any of the listed species or their habitat.

EPA has informally consulted with the USFWS and the NMFS pursuant

to Section 7 consultation of the Endangered Species Act. The EPA shared

the draft biological evaluation with USFWS at their request. Comments

raised by the USFWS have been addressed. EPA has forwarded the revised

document to both Services for their review. EPA will consider the

Services' comments in developing the final permit.

C. Coastal Zone Management Act

EPA has determined that the activities authorized by this general

permit are consistent with local and state Coastal Management Plans.

The proposed permit and consistency determination will be submitted to

the State of Alaska for state interagency review at the time of public

notice. The requirements for State Coastal Zone Management Review and

approval must be satisfied before the general permit may be issued.

D. Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act

No marine sanctuaries as designated by this Act exist in the

vicinity of the permit areas.

E. State Water Quality Standards and State Certification

Since state waters are involved in the proposed general permit

area, the provisions of Section 401 of the Act apply. In accordance

with 40 CFR 124.10(c)(1), public notice of the draft permit has been

provided to the State of Alaska agencies having jurisdiction over fish,

shellfish, and wildlife resources (see section II.C. above).

F. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action from

the review requirements of Executive Order 12866 pursuant to Section

8(b) of that order.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

EPA has reviewed the requirements imposed on regulated facilities

in this draft general permit under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980,

44 USC 3501 et seq. Most of the information collection requirements

have already been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

in submissions made for the NPDES permit program under the provisions

of the Clean Water Act. In addition, the environmental monitoring

requirements pursuant to Section 403(c) of the Clean Water Act in Part

II.B.4 of this permit are similar to the monitoring requirements that

were approved by OMB for the previously issued Beaufort Sea II and

Chukchi Sea general permits (September 28, 1988, 53 FR 37846) and the

modification of the Beaufort Sea II NPDES general permit (September 27,

1989, 54 FR 39574). The final general permit will explain how the

information collection requirements respond to any OMB or public

comments.

H. The Regulatory Flexibility Act

After review of the facts presented in the notice of intent printed

above, I hereby certify, pursuant to the provisions of 5 USC 605(b),

that this general permit will not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities. This certification is based on

the fact that the regulated parties have greater than 500 employees and

are not classified as small businesses under the Small Business

Administration regulations established at 49 FR 5024 et seq. (February

9, 1984). These facilities are classified as Major Group 13--Oil and

Gas Extraction SIC 1311 Crude Petroleum and Natural Gas.

Dated: August 31, 1994.

Chuck Clarke,

Regional Administrator, Region 10.

VII. References

Bigham, G., L. Hornsby, and G. Wiens. 1984. Technical support

document for regulating dilution and deposition of drilling muds on

the Outer Continental Shelf. Prepared for U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 10, and Jones and Stokes Associates,

Bellevue, WA, by Tetra Tech, Inc. November 1984. 68 pp. plus

appendices.

Dunton, K., E. Reimnitz, and S. Schonberg. 1982. An arctic kelp

community in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Arctic 35(4): 465-484.

Frost, K.J. and L.F. Lowry. 1993. Distribution and Abundance of

Beluga Whales and Spotted Seals in the Chukchi Sea, Including Recent

Findings at Kasegaluk Lagoon. In, Alaska OCS Region Fifth

Information Transfer Meeting Conference Proceedings. U.S. Dept. of

the Interior, Minerals Management Service. OCS Study MMS 93-0043.

Jones & Stokes Associates. 1983. Final ocean discharge criteria

evaluation, Diapir Field, OCS lease sale 71. Prepared for U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10. March 21, 1983. 160 pp.

plus appendices.

Jones & Stokes Associates. 1984. Final ocean discharge criteria

evaluation, Diapir Field, OCS lease sale 87 and state lease sales

39, 43, and 43a. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 10, July 24, 1984. 137 pp. plus appendices.

North Slope Borough. 1988. North Slope Borough Coastal Management

Program.

Tetra Tech, Inc. 1994a. Ocean discharge criteria evaluation for

Arctic state and federal waters. Draft. Prepared for the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, July 1994.

Tetra Tech, Inc. 1994b. Effects of oil and gas exploration

activities in the area of coverage under the Arctic NPDES General

Permit on threatened and endangered species. Draft. Prepared for the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, March 1994. Revised by EPA on

8/8/94.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1992. Outer Continental Shelf

Natural Gas and Oil Resource Management: Comprehensive Program

(1992-1997). Proposed Final. Minerals Management Service.

U.S. EPA. 1984. Final General NPDES Permits for Oil and Gas

Operations on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and in State Waters

of Alaska; Bering Sea and Beaufort Sea; Notice. (49 FR 23734, June

7, 1984).

U.S. EPA. 1985. Assessment of environmental fate and effects of

discharges from offshore oil and gas operations. EPA 440/4-85/002.

U.S. EPA. 1988. Final General NPDES Permits for Oil and Gas

Operations on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) of Alaska: Beaufort

Sea II and Chukchi Sea; Notice. (53 FR 37846, September 28, 1988).

U.S. EPA. 1989. Final Modifications of the NPDES General Permit for

Oil and Gas Operations on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and

State Waters of Alaska; Beaufort Sea II. (54 FR 39574, September 27,

1989).

U.S. EPA. 1993a. Development Document for Effluent Limitations

Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Offshore

Subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category:

Final. Office of Water. EPA 821-R-93-003.

U.S. EPA. 1993b. 40 CFR Part 135. Oil and gas extraction point

source category offshore subcategory effluent limitations guidelines

and new source performance standards. (58 FR 12454, March 4, 1993).

U.S. EPA. 1993c. Response to Public Comments on Proposed Effluent

Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the

Offshore Subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source

Category (January 15, 1993). Offshore Rulemaking Record Document No.

VIII.B.(3)1, Volumes 151, 152, and 154 (Excerpts only).

U.S. EPA. 1993d. Economic Impact Analysis of Final Effluent

Limitations Guidelines and Standards of Performance for the Offshore

Oil and Gas Industry. Office of Water. EPA-821-R-93-003.

U.S. EPA, Region 10. 1992. Region 10 Guidance: Best Management

Practices Plans in NPDES Permits. June 1992.

[FR Doc. 94-23419 Filed 9-19-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P