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

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

(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

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.