United States
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460
Office of Marine
and Estuarine Protection
(WH-556F)
EPA 503/6-90/001
June 1990
Water
oEFA
Report to Congress on
Implementation of Section 403(c)
of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act
no
nnonnnnn
nnnnnnnnnnnnnn
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
Executive Summary
Under the authority of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or its
authorized agencies (certain states) issue National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits to
discharge into navigable waters if the discharge meets^all applicable requirements of the law. Section 403 of the
CWA sets out criteria applicable to discharges into the territorial seas, contiguous zone, and the ocean. For these
dischargers, the permit issued by the Agency must, in addition to other applicable requirements, satisfy the ocean
discharge criteria as set out in 40 CFR 125.120-124.
In section 1007 of the Ocean Dumping Ban Act of 1988 (ODBA), Congress requested a report from EPA on the
implementation of section 403(c) of the CWA. Congress specifically requested the following information about
the program:
(1) an accounting of discharges into the waters of the territorial sea, the contiguous zone, and the ocean,
including -
(A) the total number of discharges;
(B) the location, source, volume, and potential environmental effects of each discharge;
(C) the date of original issuance, review, and reissuance of each discharge permit; and
(D) the number of discharges that have been determined by the Administrator to be in compliance with
the ocean discharge criteria regulations promulgated pursuant to section 403(c) of the CWA;
(2) a schedule for implementing section 403(c) of the CWA and achieving compliance with guidelines
promulgated under section 403(c) as expeditiously as practicable, and an estimate of the resources
required to meet such schedule; and
(3) recommendations for any additional legislative authorities needed to achieve compliance with such
guidelines.
This report, which responds to Congress' request for information, is organized into the following chapters:
The 403(c) Program
Inventory of 403(c) Ocean Dischargers
- 403(c) Status by Region
Overview of Regulations for Discharges to Marine Waters
403(c) Implementation Plan/Schedule
Findings and Conclusions.
There are also appendices which define terms and acronyms, describe categories of discharges, and list each
discharger by location. A summary of each of the chapters follows.
The 403 re) Program; Section 403(c) of the CWA provides that no NPDES permit for discharges to the "territorial
sea, the waters of the contiguous zone, or the oceans" shall be issued except in compliance with the ocean discharge
guidelines. The guidelines are used to determine whether or not a discharge will cause degradation of those waters.
The factors which the Act requires EPA to consider are:
(A) The effect of disposal of pollutants on human health or welfare, including but not limited to plankton,
fish, shellfish, wildlife, shorelines and beaches;
(B) the effect of disposal of pollutants on marine life, including the transfer, concentration, and dispersal of
pollutants or their byproducts through biological, physical, and chemical processes; changes in marine
ecosystem diversity, productivity, and stability, and species and community population changes;
Report to Congress
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
(C) the effect of disposal of pollutants on aesthetic, recreation, and economic values;
(D) the persistence and permanence of the effects of disposal of pollutants;
(E) the effect of the disposal at varying rates, of particular volumes and concentrations of pollutants;
(F) other possible locations and methods of disposal or recycling of pollutants including land based alterna-
tives; and
(G) the effect on alternate uses of the oceans, such as mineral exploitation and scientific study.
Ten factors which the Agency must consider when making a determination of unreasonable degradation (See box
below) were published as part of the Ocean Discharge Criteria regulations in the Federal Register (45 FR 65457,
October 3,1980); 40 CFR Part 125 Subpart M. These regulations hinge on two determinations. The first, derived
directly from the statute, is whether a discharge will or will not cause unreasonable degradation to the marine
environment. If there is insufficient information to make this determination, the permitting agency may evaluate
whether or not irreparable harm will result from the discharge. Before a permit may be issued under the irreparable
harm test, the applicant must also demonstrate that there are no reasonable alternatives to the ocean discharge
and must comply with all permit conditions including effluent toxicity limits, specifications of an ongoing monitoring
program, and other permit limitations.
OCEAN DISCHARGE GUIDELINES
(1) Quantities, composition, and potential bioaccumulation or persistence of the pollutants to be
discharged;
(2) Potential transport of the pollutants by biological, physical, or chemical processes;
(3) Composition and vulnerability of potentially exposed biological communities, including
• unique species or communities,
• endangered or threatened species,
• species critical to the structure or function of the ecosystem;
(4) Importance of the receiving water area to the surrounding biological community, e.g.
• spawning sites,
• nursery/forage areas,
• migratory pathways,
• areas necessary for critical life stages/functions of an organism;
(5) The existence of special aquatic sites, including (but not limited to)
• marine sanctuaries/refuges,
• parks,
• monuments,
• national seashores,
• wilderness areas,
• coral reefs/seagrass beds;
(6) Potential direct or indirect impacts on human health;
(7) Existing or potential recreational and commercial fishing;
(8) Any applicable requirements of an approved Coastal Zone Management Plan (CZMP);
(9) Such other factors relating to the effects of the discharge as may be appropriate;
(10) Marine water quality criteria.
Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
The 403(c) regulations list 10 major criteria permitting authorities must consider when issuing NPDES permits for
direct ocean discharges. These criteria are intended to determine the potential degradation of the territorial seas,
contiguous zone, and oceans. Section 403(c) also provides the Regions and States broad authority to impose
controls on ocean discharges. Significantly, section 403 also requires the evaluation of alternatives to the discharge
and may require changes in process, if necessary to assure no unreasonable degradation to the marine environment.
The implementation of section 403(c) has evolved since its inception in 1972. Initial priorities for implementing
section 403(c) were focused on offshore oil and gas activities because these accounted for the largest number of
direct ocean discharges.
Historically, the Agency has also focused on discharges to fresh water systems where impacts were believed to be
more critical on a national scale. Federally supported research to develop the scientific methods and tools
necessary to assess impacts has also focused on fresh water systems. However, the Agency has also developed a
strategy for the Nation's estuaries and near coastal waters as the importance and sensitivity of these waters has
become more evident than before. These waters tend to receive the bulk of the Nation's pollutants from both point
and nonpoint sources. At the same time, the technical and scientific tools available to assess pollutant behavior
and biological impacts in estuarine and marine waters have evolved substantially over the last decade and continue
to advance.
Inventory of 403 (c) dischargers; To respond to section 1007 of the ODBA, it was necessary to access a variety of
information sources, including:
EPA's Permit Compliance System (PCS);
NOAA's National Coastal Pollutant Discharge Inventory (NCPDI); and
permit information available directly from the 403(c) coordinators in the seven EPA coastal regions.
There are two permit categories under the NPDES program: individual permits and general permits. An
individual permit normally involves one or more stationary outfalls (pipes) discharging from a single facility. A
general NPDES permit, under 40 CFR 122.28, may be written to regulate multiple point sources which have the
same or similar types of operations, discharge the same or similar types of wastes, and require the same or similar
effluent limitations and monitoring conditions. Among the general permits issued by the Agency are permits
covering discharges from offshore oil and gas extraction and seafood processing.
There are approximately 540 individual discharges that are potentially subject to section 403(c). At the time of
this writing, EPA is not able to categorize whether or not approximately 217 of the 540 are subject to 403(c) for
one of two reasons: either the baseline or the latitude and longitude of the outfall are unknown. The baseline is
defined in section 502(a) of the CWA to be the -
"belt of the seas measured from the line of ordinary low water along that point of the coast which is in direct
contact with the open sea and the line marking the seaward limit of inland water...:
Section 403(c) applies to all discharges beyond (seaward of) the baseline. However, the complex coastal geography
of some states, Alaska in particular, prevents an easy determination of the baseline. The State Department makes
determinations for these dischargers on a case-by-case basis. Most of the undetermined 403(c) dischargers are
small village POTWs.
Of the known 323 dischargers under individual permits subject to 403(c), 53% are sewage treatment facilities, 10%
are industrial plants discharging conventional pollutants (biological oxygen demand, total suspended solids, pH,
fecal coliform, and oil and grease), 27% are industrial plants discharging toxic pollutants, and 10% are electric
facilities. Due to sheer dominance by volume and the tendency for POTWs to receive industrial effluent, sewage
treatment accounts for the vast majority of both conventional and toxic pollutants on a national scale.
Report to Confess
ai
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
All the general permits subject to 403(c) requirements, except one which is issued for seafood processing, have
been written for offshore oil and gas activities. There are nine oil and gas exploration permits covering activities
located in the Gulf of Mexico and offshore Alaska and California.
The impact of any discharge depends on a number of factors, among which are the volume and rate of flow, pollutant
types, water depth, current speed, and proximity to sensitive ecological zones. Below is a synopsis of the typical
potential effects of each of the major types of 403(c) dischargers:
Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs): Pollutants: Solids, chlorine, biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD), toxic pollutants, fecal coliform bacteria, and various pathogens. Potential impacts: deterioration
of water quality and aesthetics, alteration of the biocommunity due to nutrient enrichment and degraded
or enriched sediment quality, bioaccumulation of priority pollutants and other toxic substances in commer-
cially and recreationally harvested fish, shellfish, and plants, and restrictions on water contact activities due
to contamination by pathogens.
Offshore Oil and Gas Activities: Pollutants: drilling fluids (chrome or ferrochrome lignosulfonate, sodium
hydroxide, diesel oil, mineral oil, biocides, surfactants and emulsifiers), drill cuttings, and produced waters.
Potential impacts: burial of benthic communities due to settling of drilling muds and cuttings, and uptake
of metals.
Seafood Processors: Pollutants: solids, oil and grease, BOD, chlorine, ammonia, and fecal coliform
bacteria. Potential Impacts: degradation of water quality by oxygen depletion, sulfide production, ammonia
generation, nutrient enrichment, aesthetic degradation, suffocation of benthic communities, benthic infauna
mortality or stress, alteration of the fish communities, and algal blooms.
OfTshore Placer Mining: Pollutants: lead, nickel, arsenic, copper, mercury, solids, and total solids.
Potential Impacts: excessive turbidity, increased bioavailability of toxic metals, burial of benthic com-
munities, and obstruction of anadromous fish migration.
Log Transfer Facilities: Pollutants: wood debris, oil, grease, and small amounts of other petroleum
products, entrained soil and participate matter. Potential impacts: degradation of water quality by
suspended solids, turbidity, settleable solids, floating solids, oil and grease, leachates, increased BOD and
chemical oxygen demand (COD), elevated concentration of toxic degradation products, and reduced
subsurface circulation. Also smothering of bottom plants and animals, elimination of epifauna, and adverse
changes in the communities of the king crab, Dungeness crab, halibut, and salmon.
Seawater Treatment Plants: Pollutants: total suspended solids (TSS), spent coagulants, total residual
chlorine (TRC), chlorine reaction products, and floatable solids. Potential impacts; change in diversity
and abundance of benthic organisms due to altered sediment characteristics (e.g., grain size) or sediment
deposition.
Cane Sugar Mills: Pollutants: TSS, floatable solids, and BOD. Potential impacts; increase in suspended
solids and sedimentation causing mortality of benthic infauna, changes in benthic species composition,
alterations in fish communities, and smothering and/or growth inhibition of coral communities.
Petroleum Refineries: Pollutants: oil and grease, phenolic compounds, TSS, ammonia, sulfide, total and
hexavalent chromium, BOD and COD. Potential impacts: biological community stress due to oxygen
depletion, nutrient enrichment, increased sedimentation or turbidity, and elevated concentrations of oil and
grease and priority pollutants.
Pulp and Paper Mills: Pollutants; suspended solids, BOD, priority pollutants, dioxins, furans, other toxic
substances (resin acids), and high acidity. Potential impacts: oxygen depletion, altered substrate, and
bioaccumulation of toxic substances (resin acids, chlorinated phenolic compounds, and 2378-TCDD
(dioxin)).
IV
Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
Sawmills: Pollutants; cyanide, settleable matter, coliform bacteria, ammonia, BOD, suspended solids, and
oil and grease. Potential imparts; biological stress due to oxygen depletion, nutrient enrichment, increased
sedimentation or turbidity, and elevated concentrations of oil and grease and priority pollutants.
403(c) Program States by Region; Implementation of the 403(c) program is the responsibility of EPA Regional
Offices and NPDES approved States (when authorized by EPA). States using the EPA 403(c) guidelines that are
approved for NPDES permitting are Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland,
Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, California, Hawaii, Oregon, and
Washington. Permit writers generally rely on available information to determine whether or not a discharge would
cause unreasonable degradation and the depth of the evaluation for the ocean discharge criteria depends heavily
on the availability of resources and competing program priorities. In general, highest priorities for compliance
reviews have been for general permits, major discharges, and discharges in or near known ecologically sensitive
zones.
Based on information received from the EPA coastal Regions (I, II, HI, IV, VI, IX, and X) many of the major
ocean dischargers subject to 403(c) reviews are in compliance with the ocean discharge guidelines. However, the
detail and thoroughness of 403(c) reviews and the effectiveness of monitoring programs have varied by Region,
State, and by discharge. A more effective program would include:
(1) Improvements in the "state of science" for addressing the complex issues of biological impacts and toxicity
assessments in the marine environment;
(2) Nationally consistent technical guidance for addressing the ocean discharge criteria.
403 (c) Implementation Strategy/Schedule: The Agency is currently developing a two-phase strategy to continue
to improve the national implementation program for section 403(c). Phase one of this strategy addresses evaluation
procedures for the "next round" of permits subject to 403(c) (those that expire throughout FY94). For these
discharges, applicants will submit information to support a determination of no unreasonable degradation using
the ten ocean discharge criteria found in the regulations. In some cases, additional data collection will be required
prior to permit issuance. The Agency or authorized States will document its decision in an Ocean Discharge
Criteria Evaluation. For the second phase or "subsequent permit round" starting in FY94, the Agency or authorized
State will develop a more detailed ODCE based on the monitoring data collected during the previous permit period
and any other available or required information. It is expected that in phase one many determinations will be based
on "irreparable harm" but that by phase two the monitoring will have generated data to fill in the information gaps
for assessing impacts using the ten 403(c) factors.
As part of this implementation strategy, the Agency plans a number of supporting activities to ensure effective
403(c) implementation, including development of nationally consistent technical and procedural guidance and the
incorporation of new technological advances and criteria.
Findings Recommendations; Section 403(c) is a "forward looking" program emphasizing "in situ" biological
analyses. However, the ability to perform complex evaluations of ocean discharge effects are limited by the "state
of the science" for addressing the complex evaluation of biological impacts and toxicity assessments in the marine
environment. EPA's regulations of marine discharges will emphasize sediment toxicity, aquatic toxicology,
bioaccumulation, and biological integrity. EPA is developing new criteria and guidelines for biological and
sediment quality and improving the scientific tools and protocols for conducting risk assessments for marine
receiving waters. EPA concludes that no statutory changes are considered necessary.
The depth of 403(c) review and level of implementation varies among the Regions and the States. The Agency is
planning the development of technical and procedural guidance to ensure a more consistent implementation of
the 403(c) program.
Report to Congress
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
List of Tables
List of Figures
Introduction
The 403(c) Program
CWA Section 403(c) Requirements
Ocean Discharge Guidelines
Inventory of 403(c) Ocean Discharges
Applicability of Section 403(c) Requirements
Total Number of Ocean Discharges under Individual Permits
Total Number of Ocean Discharges Under General Permits
Location, Source, Volume and Potential Environmental Effects
403(c) Program Status by Region
General Status
Region I
Region II
Region III
Region IV
Region VI
Region IX
Region X
Overview of Regulations for Discharges to Marine Waters
Technology-based NPDES Permits
Water Quality-based NPDES Permits
403(c) Relationship to Other Programs
403(c) Implementation Strategy/Schedule
Next Round 403(c) Permit Review Procedures
Subsequent Round 403(c) Permit Review Procedures
Resource Requirements for Achieving Compliance with Section 403(c)
Implementation Activities
Future Efforts: Integration of 403(c) and Water Quality-Based Toxics Control Approach
Findings and Conclusions
References
Appendix A: Acronyms
Appendix B: Glossary
Appendix C: Fact Sheets on Selected 403(c) Discharge Categories
Appendix D: List of "Definite" 403(c) Discharge Permits
Appendix E: List of General Permits for 403(c) Discharges
Appendix F: List of "Questionable" 403(c) Discharge Permits
Page
i
ix
xi
1
3
3
3
9
9
10
10
13
29
29
32
34
37
37
40
42
46
51
51
52
55
61
61
62
63
69
70
73
75
A-l
B-l
C-l
D-l
E-l
F-l
Report to Congress
vu
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
vtn
Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
Tables
Page
Table 1 Number of 403(c) Ocean Discharges Under Individual Permits 11
Table 2 Estimated Number of 403(c) Ocean Discharges Under General Permits 12
Table 3 403(c) Ocean Discharges Under Individual Permits - Breakdown by State
and Volume of Flow 14
Table 4 Typical Pollutants and Potential Environmental Effects for Ocean Discharges
Under Individual Permits 20
Table 5 Pollutants Included in NOAA's National Coastal Pollutant Discharge Inventory
(NCPDI) 21
Table 6 Estimated Volume of Discharges from Offshore Oil and Gas Activities 25
Table 7 Typical Pollutants and Potential Environmental Effects from Oil and Gas
Dischargers 27
TableS Distribution of 403(c) NPDES Permit Renewals by Discharge Classification 30
Table 9 Status of NPDES Program Authority hi Coastal States 31
Table 10 Potential Analyses to Determine Unreasonable Degradation under 403(c) 66
Table 11 Summary of EPA Resources (in hours) Needed to Implement
the 403(c) Program in FY1991 and FY1992 67
Report to Congress
IX
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
Figures
Figure 1
Figure 2
FigureS
Figure 4
FigureS
Figure 6
Figure?
FigureS
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure 13
Figure 14
Figure 15
Figure 16
Figure 17
Figure C-l
Figure C-2
Figure C-3
403(c) Decision Process
Applicability of Section 403(c) Requirements
National Summary of 403(c) Dischargers Under Individual Permits
Ocean Discharges by Flow and EPA Region
Comparison of Ocean Discharge Categories by Pollutant Loadings
NPDES Offshore Oil and Gas General Permit Areas
Summary of 403(c) Discharges in Region I
Summary of 403(c) Discharges in Region II (New York and New Jersey)
Summary of 403(c) Discharges in Region II (Puerto Rico and the U.S.
Virgin Islands)
Summary of 403(c) Discharges in Region III
Summary of 403(c) Discharges in Region IV
Summary of 403(c) Discharges in Region VI
Summary of 403(c) Discharges in Region IX (California)
Summary of 403(c) Discharges in Region IX (Hawaii)
Summary of 403(c) Discharges in Region X (Washington and Oregon)
Summary of 403(c) Discharges in Region X (Alaska)
Estimate of Regional Resources Required to
Implement 403(c) in FY 1991 and FY 1992
Physical Processes Influencing Submerged Ocean Discharges
Potential Biological Impacts of Municipal Wastewater Discharges
The Rotary Drilling Rig and Its Components
Page
6
10
17
19
23
26
33
35
36
38
39
41
43
44
47
48
68
C-3
C-5
C-8
Report to Cong-ess
XI
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
xti
Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
Introduction
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) presents this
report to Congress on implementation of section 403(c) of the Clean
Water Act (the Act), as required in section 1007 of the Ocean Dump-
ing Ban Act of 1988.
Congress specifically requested the following information regarding
the 403(c) program:
(1) an accounting of discharges into the waters of the territorial sea, the contiguous
zone, and the ocean, including -
(A) the total number of discharges;
(B) the location, source, volume, and potential environmental effects of each
discharge;
(C) the date of original issuance, review, and reissuance of each discharge permit;
and
(D) the number of discharges that have been determined by the Administrator to
be in compliance with the ocean discharge criteria regulations promulgated
pursuant to section 403(c) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act;
(2) a schedule for implementing section 403(c) of such Act and achieving
compliance with guidelines promulgated under such section as expeditiously as
practicable, and an estimate of the resources required to meet such schedule; and
(3) recommendations for any additional legislative authorities needed to achieve
compliance with such guidelines.
This report addresses the above issues based on information currently
available to the Agency. This report also covers the implementation
of the Agency's responsibilities under the Act in carrying out the 403(c)
regulatory program, including activities conducted within EPA Head-
quarters, Regions and the States since enactment of the Act in 1972.
Section 403(c) applies to discharges into the territorial seas, the con-
tiguous zone, and the oceans. The determination of the boundary
delineating the inland waters and the territorial seas is based on a
complex set of principles developed under international law and is the
responsibility of the State Department. In some instances this bound-
ary has not been fully delineated and, consequently, it is uncertain
whether some dischargers are affected by regulations under section
403(c).
In response to a letter (dated 2/8/89) from the U.S. House of Repre-
sentatives' Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries, the Ad-
ministrator responded (letter 4/14/89) that EPA would provide
information on extending the requirements of section 403(c) into the
Nation's estuaries. The response will identify the number and types
and potential environmental effects of estuarine discharges by EPA
Region, State, and waterbody, will compare point source contributions
of pollutants to the total pollutant loads to these estuaries, and discuss
controls that are already in place.
Report to Congress
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Report to Cong-ess
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
The 403 (c) Program
CWA Section 403(c)
Requirements
Ocean Discharge
Guidelines
EPA's regulatory program under section 403(c) is an integral part of
the NPDES permit program for ocean discharges. Section 403 and its
implementing regulations stress assessment of the impact of an ocean
discharge on both the biological community in the area of the discharge
and on surrounding biological communities.
Section 403 of the CWA provides that no NPDES permit (i.e., 402
permit) for discharges to the territorial sea, contiguous zone, or oceans
shall be issued unless in compliance with ocean discharge guidelines.
The Agency is required to promulgate ocean discharge guidelines to
be used to determine whether or not a discharge will cause degradation
of marine waters. The guidelines are to include:
(A) the effect of disposal of pollutants on human health or welfare,
including but not limited to plankton, fish, shellfish, wildlife,
shorelines and beaches;
(B) the effect of disposal of pollutants on marine life, including the
transfer, concentration, and dispersal of pollutants or then-
byproducts through biological, physical, and chemical processes;
changes in marine ecosystem diversity, productivity, and stability;
and species and community population changes;
(C) the effect of disposal of pollutants on aesthetic, recreation, and
economic values;
(D) the persistence and permanence of the effects of disposal of
pollutants;
(E) the effect of the disposal at varying rates, of particular volumes and
concentrations of pollutants;
(F) other possible locations and methods of disposal or recycling of
pollutants including land based alternatives; and
(G) the effect on alternate uses of the oceans, such as mineral exploita-
tion and scientific study.
If insufficient information exists for any proposed discharge to make a
reasonable determination on any of the guidelines, then no permit is
to be issued.
The Ocean Discharge Criteria regulations (45 FR 65942, October 3,
1980, codified at 40 CFR Part 125, Subpart M) establish ocean dis-
charge guidelines from which a permit writer must make a determina-
tion that a discharge will, or will not, cause "unreasonable degradation"
of the marine environment.
Report to Congress
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
A determination of whether or not unreasonable degradation will
occur is based on consideration of the following:
(1) Quantities, composition, and potential bioaccumulation or per-
sistence of the pollutants to be discharged;
(2) Potential transport of the pollutants by biological, physical, or
chemical processes;
(3) Composition and vulnerability of potentially exposed biological
communities, including
• unique species or communities,
• endangered or threatened species,
• species critical to the structure or function of the ecosystem;
(4) Importance of the receiving water area to the surrounding
biological community, e.g.
• spawning sites,
• nursery/forage areas,
• migratory pathways,
• areas necessary for critical life stages/functions of an organism;
(5) The existence of special aquatic sites, including (but not limited
to)
• marine sanctuaries/refuges,
• parks,
• monuments,
• national seashores,
• wilderness areas,
• coral reefs;
(6) Potential direct or indirect impacts on human health;
(7) Existing or potential recreational and commercial fishing;
(8) Any applicable requirements of an approved Coastal Zone
Management Plan (CZMP);
(9) Such other factors relating to the effects of the discharge as may
be appropriate;
(10) Marine water quality criteria.
"Unreasonable degradation" of the marine environment is defined in
the Ocean Discharge Criteria as any of the following:
• significant adverse changes in ecosystem diversity, productivity,
and stability of the biological community within the area of dis-
charge and surrounding biological communities;
• threat to human health through direct exposure to pollutants or
through consumption of exposed aquatic organisms; or
Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
• loss of esthetic, recreational, scientific or economic values which
is unreasonable in relation to the benefit derived from the dis-
charge.
EPA's section 403(c) program stresses consideration of the receiving
water ecosystem, protection of unique, sensitive or ecologically critical
species, and protection of human health and recreational uses. If
technology-based limitations and water quality-based limitations
(which are based on State water quality standards and toxicity) are met
by the discharger, but it is determined that the discharge still will cause
an unreasonable degradation of the marine environment, then permit
writers must impose additional restrictions on the discharge, including
a prohibition of discharge if necessary (s&, seasonal, process, disper-
sion, or schedule of compliance requirements) to ensure that un-
reasonable degradation does not occur.
The regulations implementing section 403(c) leave considerable dis-
cretion for the permitting agency (which may be either an EPA
Regional office or an authorized State) to apply discharger-specific
requirements to prevent degradation of the ocean. As shown hi the
403(c) decision process diagram in Figure 1, the permitting Agency
first considers whether a discharge is likely to cause unreasonable
degradation. If a determination can be made that no "unreasonable
degradation" will result, a permit is issued including appropriate per-
mit conditions to ensure that unreasonable degradation does not take
place. For example, these conditions may include a requirement for
an ongoing monitoring program. If the permitting Agency determines
that a discharge will cause "unreasonable degradation" despite the
application of all possible permit conditions, it may not issue a permit
authorizing the discharge of pollutants.
If, because of insufficient information, a determination cannot be
made, prior to the issuance of a permit, that no unreasonable degrada-
tion will result, then additional conditions must be satisfied, as follows:
• First, the applicant must demonstrate that the discharge will not
cause "irreparable harm" to the marine environment. Irreparable
harm is defined as significant impacts occurring after the date of
permit issuance that will not be reversed after cessation or
modification of the discharge.
• Second, the applicant must demonstrate that there are no
reasonable alternatives to the onsite disposal of the materials to be
discharged. This requirement enables EPA and the States to
require an assessment of all reasonable alternatives to the dis-
charge including land-based disposal and other discharge sites or
methods.
• Third, the applicant must comply with all permit conditions estab-
lished pursuant to 40 CFR 125.123(d), including effluent toxicity
limits, specification of an ongoing monitoring program, and any
other permit provisions based on local conditions. The permit
must include a permit reopener clause.
If the discharger complies with the above additional conditions, then
a discharge permit may be issued (assuming compliance with other
applicable requirements). The permit must require an ongoing
monitoring program to assess the impact of the discharge. If it is
Report to Congress
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Figure 1: 403(c) Decision Process
Applicant submits request for
Issuance/reissuance of permit
40CFR 125.124
Evaluation to determine unreasonable
degradation based on 40 CFR 125.122
Issue/Reissue Permit
May Require
- Limits
- Monitoring
- Special Conditions
Unreasonable
Permit Denied
Degradation?
Not enough
information
Irreparable Harm?
2
Reasonable Alternatives
for Disposal?
Issue/Reissue Permit
Must Have:
- Limits
- Monitoring
- Special Conditions
Permit Expiration
1 Unreasonable Degradation Is:
(1) Significant adverse changes in ecosystem divorsity,productivity and stability of the biological community within the area
of discharge and surrounding biological communities.
(2) Threat to human health through direct exposure to pollutants or through consumption of exposed aquatic organisms, or
(3) Loss of aesthetic, recreational, scientific, or economic values which is unreasonable in relation to benefit derived
from the discharge.
2 Irreparable Harm Is:
- significant undesirable effects which will not be reversed after cessation or modification of the discharge.
3 Assuming other applicable requirements are met.
Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
determined that a particular discharge is causing unreasonable
degradation to the marine environment, the discharge permit must be
modified or revoked or the discharger must undertake a program to
eliminate the source of the degradation.
Section 403, which was passed in the 1972 amendments, addresses the
increasing stress of man's activities in the coastal and offshore zone
(e.g., oil and gas operations, coastal discharges). Section 403
authorizes EPA to include habitat integrity controls, in addition to the
requirements of technology-based and water quality-based permitting.
The regulation of discharges from offshore oil and gas activities on the
outer continental shelf is one example of the implementation of section
403(c). Several general permits, each covering hundreds of petroleum
exploration and production related discharges, have been issued by the
Agency based in part on an assessment of the potential for un-
reasonable degradation of the marine environment. This program has
involved extensive field surveys of discharge characteristics, pollutant
fate and transport, laboratory testing of effluent toxicity, and in situ
biological impact assessments.
EPA has not yet developed many criteria for setting effluent limitations
based on a direct relationship to in situ marine ambient toxicity, and
biological integrity and community response. In part, this is because
the protocols required to measure complex effluent toxicity, ambient
toxicity, and biological community response for marine waters are
being developed or are being refined. In situ biomonitoring methods,
already in use for freshwater systems, are being modified by EPA to
monitor long-term marine discharge impacts. In addition to identify-
ing links between pollutants and biological responses in individual
marine organisms, EPA's goal is ultimately to predict the consequen-
ces of specific pollutants and pollutant mixtures on the more biologi-
cally complex marine population- and community-levels.
The currently developing water quality-based approach for marine
waters, which emphasizes impacts from toxics, addresses many of the
same concerns as the 403(c) Ocean Discharge Criteria. Full im-
plementation of the water quality-based approach is subject to the
same limited scientific and technological capabilities for assessing
ambient toxicity, bioaccumulation, and biological response and the
lack of numeric criteria for these pollution indicators.
In the future, EPA's regulation of marine discharges will emphasize
sediment toxicity, aquatic toxicology, bioaccumulation, and biological
integrity. As technology advances for marine science, EPA will
develop new criteria and guidelines for biological and sediment quality
and improving the scientific tools and protocols for conducting risk
assessments for marine receiving waters.
Report to Congress
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
Inventory of 403 (c)
Ocean Discharges
Applicability of Section
403 (c) Requirements
This section of the report presents summary information on the total
number, location, type, and potential environmental effects of dischar-
ges currently subject to 403(c) ocean discharge criteria regulations and
operating under an NPDES permit. Discharges into the ocean are
permitted under individual or general NPDES permits. Individual
NPDES permits normally involve one (or more) stationary outfall
(pipe) discharges from a single facility. General NPDES permits may
be written to regulate point sources which have the same or similar
types of operations, discharge the same types of wastes, and require
the same effluent limitations and the same or similar monitoring
conditions (40 CFR 122.28). General permits, issued by the Agency
for activities including offshore oil and gas extraction and seafood
processing, may involve large geographic regions and numerous active
(and inactive) stationary or mobile discharges.
To fully respond to section 1007 of the Ocean Dumping Ban Act, the
Agency obtained information from a variety of sources, including
EPA's Permit Compliance System (PCS), NOAA's National Coastal
Pollutant Discharge Inventory (NCPDI), and permit information avail-
able directly from the Regional 403(c) coordinators. Approximately
550 permits potentially subject to 403(c) compliance have been iden-
tified. Appendix D lists the 323 individual discharge permits and
Appendix E lists the 10 general discharge permits that are subject to
403(c) compliance. The status of the remaining 217 individual dis-
charge permits, listed in Appendix F, is uncertain primarily because
the "baseline" has not been clearly established for individual locations
on the irregular coastline in Alaska. (Section 403(c) does not apply to
discharges inside the "baseline.") The discussion throughout the
remainder of this report focuses on the 323 definite 403(c) discharge
permits that have been identified.
Section 403(c) established requirements which are to be applied in
determining conditions for issuing and reissuing National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits for discharges into
the territorial seas, the contiguous zone and the oceans. As illustrated
in Figure 2, section 403(c) requirements apply only to point source
discharges beyond the baseline, represented hi the diagram with a
heavy black line. A general definition of the baseline is the mean
low-tide mark. When the coastline is very irregular, for example, the
coasts of Maine and Alaska, the United States Department of State
applies a set of rules to determine whether a discharge is, or is not,
outside the baseline. In the diagram, discharges from pipes 1-5 would
be subject to 403(c) requirements, but pipes 6 and 7 would not.
Report to Congress
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Figure 2. Applicability of Section 403(c) Requirements.
.1 h^L ™ iVfc
-^>fQlj\^
Di^ixual Well SDWA
Total Number of Ocean
Dischargers under
Individual Permits
Total Number of Ocean
Discharges Under
General Permits
Table 1 summarizes the inventory of ocean dischargers under in-
dividual permits by EPA Region and by discharge category. Included
in this analysis is the U.S., Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, and the Pacific
Islands (i.e.t Guam, Republic of Palau, American Samoa, and North-
em Marianas). Table 1 includes the 323 dischargers identified as
subject to 403(c) compliance. These 323 dischargers are separated
into the general categories of sewage treatment -173 (53%), industrial
plants discharging conventional pollutants - 32 (10%), industrial plants
discharging toxic pollutants - 86 (27%), and electric utilities - 32 (10%).
Of the 173 sewage treatment facilities, 35 are POTWs that have
received tentative or final approval for waivers from secondary treat-
ment under Section 301(h) of the CWA.
General permits are issued in cases where a number of like discharges
with similar effluent are operating under similar discharge conditions.
Of the 12 general permits listed in Appendix E, 11 involve offshore oil
and gas drilling operations. The other permit covers seafood process-
ing activities in Alaska. Table 2 summarizes the inventory of ocean
10
Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
Table 1
NUMBER OF 403(c) OCEAN DISCHARGERS UNDER INDIVIDUAL PERMITS
(See also Appendix D for permit list)
EPA REGIONS
I
Sewage Treatment
POTWs 16(5)*
1 Private 4
Federal 7
Subtotal 27
Industries
Primarily Conventional Pollutants
Sugar Mills &Processing 0
Seafood Processing 5
Distilleries 0
Subtotal 5
Industries
Contains Toxic Pollutants
Lumber/Wood Products 0
Pulp & Paper 0
Petroleum Refining 0
Petroleum Bulk Hand. 0
Oil & Gas Extraction 0
Sulphur Extraction 0
Organic Chemicals 0
Primary Metals 0
Placer (Gold) Mining 0
Seawater Treatment 0
Shipbuilding 0
Brine Disposal 0
Pharmaceutical 0
Miscellaneous Toxics 4
Subtotal 4
Electric Utilities 2
II
50(4)*
7
4
61
1
10
4
15
0
0
3
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
10
16
4
Total 38 96
() No. of POTWs that have received waivers
III
5
2
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
IV
7
7
0
14
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
VI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
'17
0
7 19 17
from secondary treatment
IX
51(18)*
2
9
62
8
2
0
10
1
2
4
15
3
0
0
1
0
0
3
0
0
11
40
23
X
2(8)*
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
1
9
0
TOTAL
131
22
20
173
9
19
4
32
4
2
7
17
4
12
1
1
2
2
3
3
2
26
86
32
135 11 323
under Section 301(h)
Report to Congress
11
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Table 2
ESTIMATED NUMBER OF 403(c) OCEAN DISCHARGES UNDER
GENERAL PERMITS
f See also Appendix E for permit list)
Gulf of Mexico
(EPA Regions
IV and VI)
Oil and Gas
Drilling Activities"
Exploration Wells
drilled in 1286 202
Total Exploration Wells
drilled through
January, 1285 6,930
Production Wells
drilled in 1286 552
Oil and Gas
Production Activities—
Number of Platforms
currently operating 4,333
Number of Produced
Water discharges estimated
in 1283. 729
Seafood Processing
Activities
Number of Active
Processors in 1988 0
Coastal and Offshore Region
Pacific Alaska Atlantic
(EPA Regions (EPA Region (EPA Regions
IX and X)
12
400
123
36
112
X)
100
7
15
11
I, II, III, IV) TOTAL
36
0
216
7,466
682
4,384
852
0
290
0
290
•Note: These estimates are based on the following:
(1) 898 wells drilled in 1986 (production and exploratory) (API, 1988)
(2) 84% (754) of all wells drilled are in the Gulf of Mexico, 15% (135) are drilled in California, 1% (9) are drilled in Alaska (NAS. 1983)
(3) no wells are currently being drilled in the Atlantic
(4) exploratory wells account for about 24% of all offshore wells, although about 91% of all wells drilled in California are production
wells (NAS, 1983)
"Note: These estimates are based on the following:
(l)In 1983, there were an estimated 729 produced water discharges in Federal and state waters in the Gulf of Mexico (Walk, Haydel and
Associates, Inc., 1984)
(2)H is assumed that the number of produced water discharges in a region is proportional to the number of producing wells in the region.
-according to ERG (1988), 85.6% of all producing wells are located in the Gulf of Mexico, 13.2% are located in the Pacific (off California),
and 1.3% are in Alaskan waters
-if there are 729 produced water discharges in the Gulf of Mexico and this represents 85.6% of all offshore discharges, then there are an
estimated 852 total produced water discharges in offshore waters
-If 13.2% of all produced water discharges occur in the offshore waters of California, then there are an estimated 112 discharges in the
region
•if 1.3% of all produced water discharges occur in Alaskan offshore waters, then there are an estimated 11 discharges in the region
12
Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
Location, Source,
Volume and Potential
Environmental Effects
Discharges under
Individual Permits
discharges under general permits by coastal region of the United
States. There are two primary types of discharge activities of interest:
(1) the discharge of drilling muds and cuttings resulting from ex-
ploratory and production well development and drilling operations;
and (2) the discharge of produced water resulting from oil and gas
extraction methods. According to the American Petroleum Institute
(API) (1988), a total of 898 production and exploratory wells were
drilled in 1986. Approximately 7,466 exploratory wells have been
drilled in U.S. offshore waters (Federal and State) through January of
1985 (API, 1988). As shown in Table 2, the vast majority (80%) of
offshore exploratory and production wells drilled are located in the
Gulf of Mexico. Comparatively, only about 6 percent and 1 percent,
respectively, of offshore wells have been drilled in the Pacific region
(west coast United States) and Alaskan waters. A similar pattern
follows for the estimated 4,384 production platforms currently operat-
ing (99 percent of all platforms operate in the Gulf of Mexico) and the
estimated 852 discharges of produced waters from producing wells
operating during 1983 (86 percent in Gulf of Mexico, 13 percent in the
Pacific region, and 1 percent in Alaska).
EPA Region X has issued a general permit for seafood processing
facilities in Alaska. There are currently about 290 of these operations,
including both intermittent mobile and permanent shore-based
facilities. As many as 150 additional processors are covered under the
permit which became effective in October, 1989.
Table 3 summarizes the inventory of 403(c) dischargers under in-
dividual permits (primarily non oil and gas) indicating numbers and
types of dischargers and flows by EPA Region and State/Territory.
Within each EPA Region and State/Territory, sewage treatment sys-
tems have been subcategorized by type of ownership (public, private,
Federal), and industrial facilities have been identified by type of pol-
lutant and industry category. Discharge flow rates are known for most
of these facilities, including all "large" facilities. (NOTE: For purposes
of this report, large POTWs are those with flow greater than or equal to
5.0 mgd. Small POTWs are those with flow less than 5.0 mgd. All other
large dischargers (except electric utilities) are those with flow greater than
or equal to 1.0 mgd. All other small dischargers are those with flows less
than 1.0 mgd.) For approximately 30 percent of the "small" faculties,
flow information was not available. For those small faculties with
unknown flow rates, default flow rates of 1.0 mgd and 0.1 mgd were
specified for POTWs and industrial facilities, respectively. Figure 3
shows the approximate locations of the individually-permitted dis-
chargers and the approximate total discharge flow by State or Ter-
ritory.
Report to Congress
13
-------
Table 3
403(c) OCEAN DISCHARGES UNDER INDIVIDUAL PERMITS - BREAKDOWN BY STATE AND
VOLUME OF FLOW
Sewago Treatment
POTWa
Private
Federal
Subtotal
Industrial
Primarily Conventional Pollutant*
Sugar Mill* A Proceulng
Seafood Preceding
DlBtltlerloB
Subtotal
Contain* Toxlo Pollutant*
Lumber/Wood Product*
Pulp 8. Paper
Petroleum Refining
Petroleum Bulk Handling
OII/Qa* Extraction
Sulphur Extraction
Organic Chemical*
Primary Metal*
Placer Mining
Seawater Treatment
Shipbuilding
•rlne Dltpocal
Pharmaceuticals
Miscellaneous Toxlct
Subtotal
Electric Utilities
Total
ME
NO. T,0°wtal
Plant* mgd
• 2.2
4 0.4
4 0.4
17 3.0
-
6 0.5
_ —
5 0.5
.
.
-
-
-
-
-
-.
.
_
.
-
_ _
2 0.2
2 0.2
Region 1
NH MA Rl
No. T,o°wtal No. Jo°wtal NO. T,o°wtal
Plant* mgd Plant* mgd Plant* mgd
2 2.0 4 2.0 1 0.2
-
1 °'1 1 0.1 1 0.1
3 2.1 6 2.1 2 0.3
-
-
• «• «
-
- - _
-> - .
- - - -
- - - -
- - _
- - - -
-
- - -
- - - .
— - - <• — ..
- - -
-
2 0.2 - -
2 0.2 - -
1 1200.0 1 4.1 -
24 3.7
4 1202.1 8 6.4 2 0.3
Region II
NY NJ PR&VI*
No. T,o°wtal NO. T,o°wtal No. T,o°wtal
Plant* mgd Plant* mgd Plant* mgd
2 77.0 IS 1S9.2 33 172.8
7 0.«
4 2.S
2 77.0 18 189i2 44 176.0
1 31.4
- 1018. 1
4 1.8
18 81.1
3 80.8
- - - - -
-
1 6.0
- - •• - - -
-
— ™ _
~ 2 0.3
10 2.4
1 6.0 16 83.6
4 1977.0
2 77 16 164.2 78 2287.7
• Not* - count does not Include 1 facility with unknown flow and 3 facilitiea with unknown SIC code*
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
—
nil
< £
— -i .=
c _ *"
_O (0
• 51 1
** 1
II
It
O
.Z |
— o «
C — Zflu
| «JTJ
O r~E E
C -J
It Z
u. -
o •
ZQ.
To
< *~^ *
o* S
Z 0.
"S
O^ '
~ L™ ?
c§ .
o «a •£
o> 5?
0 za
cc
(0
31
Ul •
Q c
II
iii i
iii i
iii i
i 'i i i
iii i
iii i
» «- •>
«- O ! "-
10 10
n n
r* t~ > *
e o
K i i ^
o n
N ' ' N
o o ' °*
".b 2
MM1 ^
°. ^
- ' '
O
"5
o
H «
S.IS! 5
« H ? -S U
12^£ 5
(0
i t i i
III!
Ill 1
III 1
III 1
111 1
N N
0 0
, 0 , 0
1 CM i W
III 1
III 1
ill l
111 1
ill l
III 1
0
"c
1?
o. -5
HI
H
Ti^H! «
w >> * o • «->
ill!! I
-| — 10 W O ^
•o "• co
N n w K
iiiri.io. .. ii10.! "
iii i^ii" 'en11*
iiiwi?'"'1 «••'!?
m W
ill l l l l ll ' i J2 l I »-
III l l 1 1 ll ' i N t l M
lit I t l i ii ' l l 1 l l
ill i i i i ii ' i i i i t
ill l l l l it 'till l
ill l l. 1 l t l ' i i l l l
ill l i i l ll 'till l
ill 1 l 1 1 It ' 1 l 1 l l
ill l l l l li * l i l l l
til i i i t li ' l i l i i
ill l l l l li ' l l l l i
ill l l i l Bl ' l l l l l
s 1 I t s
I|«|gc. | x
* "• =*s'gl- S -58^
iifffljitiUiji!
o-J0*ft.a.OttOa.*x
tn
in
o
oc
o
CO
o
z
<
111
u
o
Report to Congress
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
^
o
LL
U.
0
LU
5
Z)
O
>
Q
Z
^
LU
^
H
>•
to
-ZL
$
0
iQ
^
LU
CC
CO
CO
33
CC
LU
Q.
-I
Q
IT
_
Q
CC
LU
Q
CO
LU
CC
Q
•z
LU
0
O
^
CO
o
CO —
T» (0
S •SJ'o
-i 2 ,°J2 «
O
§ < HEE
o) 5 r.
5 IE
ra
of*
~r •
*-* . c
zE
. |l*
« HE E
c »
— • z E
__
x "of s
c
o — .
"cb z . c
CD oi
CC 20L
«
ro
„ HEE
O £
, c
o £
Zo.
0^*7 ^
to ^ *
CM SJ
(M N
*"
*" CM O "
JJ N CM K
III 1
•
CO t 1 t
Oil O
»- 1 1 r-
"> I 1 <0
r- 1 1 r-
eon «'
CM «M
0. ^ N «
N. CM IO *
g °" • 5
" T-
2 - CM 5
n o
V 6 W «
KM 4
T- 1-
* r- ^* c
tit 1
III i
ill 1
III i
lit 1
III 1
0 CD
W M
0 0
^ ' ' 2
^^ ^
I" T-
CO ' ' 00
III 1
"c
"S
= Bl
o c
Q. 9
1st
= 2 5
| * |
If j|| 1
§ | 3 m 5 ^
•o «• co
—
^•>CMoa>r>o^ •>K^j'**'ej o
r^Vri'««M«>«>o'jrOei»0'* <•
CM O <* »• * »" ™ j
.. ' • •
"tcMKK^ji T- T- CM CM n n CM CM o
CO l» O C
. . . • w • • • 5 ° • • • °' S
Itll'-ll i N N I I i 17 «
1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Q* 1 til 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 c
CM C
n i i i i i i i i i i i i i n
01 «- O>
Itlol t 1 1 ftOllO*^
T-
1 1 1 *• 1 1 1 1 1 1 r- t 1 •* J!
t • r r «
-.«« ^.,K«
r>
o to « "> »• o n
W
*
O
»•
CM
CM
*
C*
r SIC eo
o
a
e
>
E
i
|
i
i
i
j ;
: *
= 1
Ti
a
n
«• JE
±
C
C
0.
*
o
o
ra
Report to Congress
-------
•s
I
REGION-X (OR & WA)
24 MGD
5 Plants
REGION IX (CA)
1307 MGD
45 Plants
REGION X (AK)
60 MGD
6 Plants
ALL EPA REGIONS
Total No. 403(c) Discharges - 323
Total 403(c) Discharge Flow = 2844 MGD (not including
electric utilities and oil & gas general permits)
REGION II
241 MGD
18 Plants
REGION III
56 MGD
7 Plants
REGION IX (HI and
Pacific Islands)
329 MGD
67 Plants
..'° *
\
REGION VI
157 MGD
17 Plants
REGION II (PR & VI)
311 MGD
74 Plants
REGION I
8.4 MGD
36 Plants
REGION IV
352 MGD
16 Plants
Figure 3. National Summary of 403(c) Discharges Under Indivdual Permits
(Not including electric ulitites, offshore oil and gas, and seafood processors under general permits)
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Based on flow (excluding electric utilities and offshore oil and gas),
sewage treatment plants account for approximately 80 percent of the
total waste volume of direct discharges to the ocean. Industrial dischar-
ges contribute the remaining 20 percent. Nationally, the total com-
bined waste volume from dkect ocean discharges (excluding electric
utilities and offshore oil and gas) exceeds 2.8 billion gallons per day.
Figure 4 shows that 58 percent of this volume is discharged by facilities
in EPA Region IX (CA, HA, Pacific Islands). About 19 percent is
discharged by facilities in Region II (New Jersey, New York, Puerto
Rico, and Virgin Islands) and 12 percent in Region IV (NC, SC, GA,
FL, AL, MS), while the remaining 11 percent comes from discharges
hi Regions I, III, VI, and X.
Analyses based on flow alone, however, do not necessarily provide an
accurate indication of the contribution of the different types of 403(c)
ocean discharges to environmental impacts. There are other factors
which may determine ultimate impact (i.e., pollutant types, water
depth, current speed, proximity to sensitive ecological zones). Except
for pollutant type, most of these factors are site and pipe-specific, and
while analyzed in detail during the permit application and review
process, have not been included in the present inventory. However,
the effluent pollutant characteristics are probably the most telling
factor in estimating relative impact potential. An industrial plant
discharging a small amount of highly persistent and/or bioaccumulative
toxic pollutants may cause a more severe or irreversible effect on
resident biota and human health than a larger sewage treatment plant
discharging only conventional pollutants.
Table 4 summarizes and compares the major characteristics of the
ocean discharge categories based on pollutant types and primary
concerns for environmental effects. General definitions and com-
ments on the pollutant types listed in Table 4 are given in Table 5
(reprinted from NOAA; 1987). To further aid hi understanding the
potential environmental effects of the 403(c) discharges, Fact Sheets
have been prepared on several discharge categories, listed in Table 4,
including:
• POTWs
• Offshore Oil and Gas Facilities
• Alaskan Seafood Processors
• Offshore Placer Gold Mining
• Log Transfer Facilities
• Seawater Treatment Plants
• Cane Sugar Mills
• Petroleum Refineries
• Pulp and Paper Mills
• Sawmills
These Fact Sheets are presented in Appendix C.
For purposes of this discussion, individually-permitted ocean dis-
chargers are categorized into four primary groups: (1) POTWs (and
other sewage treatment systems); (2) industrial facilities discharging
18
Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
Figure 4
OCEAN DISCHARGES BY FLOW AND EPA REGION
(excluding electric utilities and oilshore oil and gas)
2000
Flow (MGD)
1500 —
1000 —
500 —
0
57.6%
52.7(tOx) 1.9%
145.1 (conv) 5.1%
1437.9(sew) 50.6
Total Flow • 2844.4 MGD
All Regions
88.6
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
V)
i
oc
Ul
o.
O
Z
cc
01
Q
Z
V)
UJ
o
oc
<
o
w
Q
Z
<
UJ
o
o
cc
o
u.
tn
Ul
Z
ui
o
gc
>
ui
H
UI
H
O
Q.
Q
W
Z
O
O.
_J
<
O
*-^
N.
c
CO
0
CL
CO
.H
^
r-
«
2
en
c
Primary Concerns to Receh
o
X
o
r-
(U
C
.S
£
«g
eg
a «
215
ao
•*
5
E
5
a
5
h»
13
S
CL
X
o
OT
CO
o
CL
w
O
x
o
CL
(0
"m
"o
m
o
u.
Q.
z
(/)
O}
Q
O
CO
. 1
' =T>
e a
2
•»
>
.. I
Large POTWs can Impact large areas of receiving w
Typical concerns Include nutrient enrichment, Increa
suspended solids, creation of organically enriched
aedlments, accumulations of toxics bound to sedlmi
resultant Impacts on benthio Infauna and demersal >
through population alteration, bloaccumulatlon of to
diseaae, and Interference In trophio structure.
^
0
^
§
T-
V
T-
r-
O
Q
z
CO
at
10
n '
o
o
a
o
c»
r-
2 5"
*•*
'b
POTWs
avg. all flows
1
5 5 . •!
3 *• • ° •
These Industries discharge pollutants similar to POI
but at typically higher concentrations of solids and
matter but with typically lower or no toxic pollutan
Impacts primarily consist of localized Increases In
suspended aollds, organic enrichment of sediments
smothering of the bottom, reduced light trsnsmltta
reduced diasolved oxygen and resultant stress to t
Infauna and fish populations.
i i i
i i i
i i i
i i i
i i i
f B »
3' •
0 1- «
o C9 ^
0 •* ".
1^ *" "
** » «
5 ? p ~
r. o 6 •
^ -" o *~
at • « *
— •
« a °
i l! i
« « a S i •
£ I I* * 1
"» 1 • ? £ =
= ? s « : s
I J ° " °
§ . ;
= » _ e
• o e t
S = S - r
o £ E • _•
o • ^ J* 5
I" Elg
•s 2 5 1 :-
^gj£ :
r I £ ? :
• o • e -D
; f- 5 5 c-
* « 3 • O
?Ii -^
lii-1 .
Ullsl
S ?^2 S ?
5 §i £= 2
• = ! = >:•
P.lili
H?s|l
iS 2 2 S S £
• 0
II 1 1 III 1 *T 1 1 1
i
II 1 1 II 1 II II1
e - o B • N e
oj'1*"0 z*!? ii«°'
•. 1 « i 9*!Jii5id
i-OO °S -» 0
111 i 9 i i i i iii
e
a
III i^2|n|11 III
a
^ B 5 ^
i w • i § ri i ' ' iii
B«<-0 >-•» Oh-0°.
0««MO Z»0 h- d •» ?
f- <•> o o W _ • 9
a> 1^ o d W S o i ii , i "
O»-^«1>I« B
3^3 °s 2 o~jf§«8o
2122 **21^£23C2«2
*Wt» Jl^JJ'-'-CMNOWCI
^P"l
• ^ w^_ N, ^
•5 a £ Q a „
3 -a e
- •£ 1 5 1 1 1 I | ! | 1 «? 1 1
^|5fl|,2uS5s|s|jS
|||||||!||j]|!|
— K
0
Primary concern* are related to phyalcal Implngeme
fish passing through cooling systems, elevated
temperatures In the "nearfleld," and residual ehlorin
effects.
» *
i i
i i
N
B 0
1- O ,
d d
i i
i • i
o
d '
o
1 1
^
0
B
(M
0) 9
0 £
Electric Utlllt
reeycled cooling
once through coo
assumed to equal 0. 1 mgd.
• E
n •
< c
£ §
1 !
"* 0
• c
e e
e 3
C 3
3 0
0 £
e ><
O (B
2 E
0. £
*•» T a
x ° S
= : t
as 1
^ °* Q.
2 | £ |
i J! o 'o
"S • * S
1 l-i
C • ° a
i o 2 1
l -M
S * o
• £ ° I
— J! e a
±S Q 01 -0
£ 2 « £
•50.0.
•B C > ^.
' ° »
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
Tables
Pollutants included in NOAA's National Coastal Pollutant Discharge Inventory (NCPDI)1
Pollutants
l.QXYGEN-DEMANDING
MATERIALS
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(BODS)
2.PARTICULATE MATTER
Total Suspended Solids
3.NUTRIENTS
a.Total Nitrogen (TN)
b.Total Phosphorus (TP)
4.HEAVY METALS
a.Arsenic (As)
b.Cadmium (Cd)
c.Chromium (Cr)
d.Copper (Cu)
e.Iron (Fe)
f.Lead (Pb)
g.Mercury (Hg)
h.Zinc (Zn)
5.PETROLEUM HYDROCAR-
BONS
(Pet HCs)
6.CHLORINATED
HYDROCARBONS
a.Polychlorinated Biphenyls
(PCBs)
b.Chlorinated Hydrocarbons
other than PCBs (CHP)
7.PATHOGENS
Fecal coliform bacteria (FCB)
Definition
Measure of organic material in a
discharge that can be readily
oxidized through microbial decom-
position.
Measure of suspended solid
material.
Measure of all forms of nitrogen,
i.e., nitrate, nitrite, ammonia-N,
and organic forms.
Measure of all forms of phos-
phorus, i.e., ortho and para-com-
pounds.
A group of elements present in the
environment from natural and
anthropogenic sources that can
produce toxic effects; determinia-
tion based on EPA standard
methods that measure environmen-
tally available "metals."
A mixture of hydrocarbons found
in petroleum comprised of
hundreds of chemical compounds.
A group of aromatic compounds
composed of two fused benzene
rings and two or more chlorine
atoms; used in heat exchange and
insulating fluids.
Includes the chlorinated pesticides,
aromatic, and nonaromatics.
Enteric bacteria which enter water
in fecal material of human or
animal origin; FCB are used as an
indicator of the presence of
pathogens.
Effects
Can result in depletion of dissolved
oxygen concentrations; low con-
centrations can result in death of
marine organisms.
Increase turbidity and bottom
deposition; many toxic compounds
are bound to, carried by, and
deposited with TSS particles.
N & P are major plant nutrients.
Excessive amounts in water over-
stimulate plant growth, resultant
oxygen depletion may have lethal
effects on marine organisms.
Can be toxic to marine organisms,
and potentially to humans, through
consumption of contaminated
water and organisms.
Acute lethal and chronic sublethal
toxicity to marine organisms; inter-
ference with cellular and
physiological processes, e.g., feed-
ing and reproduction.
Toxic to marine organisms, highly
persistent; potential human car-
cinogen through consumption of
contaminated water and organisms.
Varying degree of acute and
chronic aquatic toxicity, persist-
ence, and human carcinogenicity.
Main effects are on public health
quality and safety of seafood.
preprinted from NOAA, 1987. The National Coastal Pollutant Discharge Inventory. Pollutant Discharge Concentrations for Industrial
Report to Congress
21
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
conventional pollutants; (3) industrial facilities discharging effluent
containing conventional and toxic pollutants; and (4) electric utilities
(cooling systems). This grouping facilitates a comparison of the total
pollutant loading by primary discharge categories, as shown in Figure
5. Sewage treatment plants account for the vast majority of both
conventional and toxic pollutants discharged to 403(c) waters on the
National scale. However, even though the category of industries dis-
charging toxic pollutants accounts for only about 13 percent of total
flow, these industries are estimated to contribute a greater relative
proportion of toxic metals (18 percent), while contributing a lesser
proportion of petroleum hydrocarbons (9 percent). In particular, of
the 18 percent contribution of total toxic metals, approximately 9
percent is estimated to come from the lumber and wood products
industries.
POTWs appear to represent nationwide the greatest overall environ-
mental impact to ocean waters for land-based 403(c) facilities. This is
especially the case for those POTWs which have high flows and/or high
proportions of industrial influent with associated toxic pollutants. The
volume of industrial influent to POTWs is a concern because POTWs
were originally designed primarily to remove the conventional pol-
lutants (BOD and TSS), and not the toxic and non-conventional con-
taminants from industrial sources. Also of special interest are those
industries which locally or regionally tend to discharge proportionately
higher levels of toxics (e.g., pulp and paper, petroleum refining, chemi-
cals, mining, wood products).
Industrial wastewater discharges to POTWs are regulated under
provisions of the General Pretr eatment Regulations (40 CFR Part 403)
and National Categorical Pretreatment Standards (40 CFR Parts 405-
471). The General Pretreatment Regulations establish prohibited
discharge standards (e.g., no discharges that are flammable, explosive,
corrosive, obstruct flow, or upset POTW processes), and require
certain POTWs to develop pollutant-specific local limits to implement
the prohibitions. Local limits apply to affected industrial dischargers
in the POTWs service area. Among the POTWs that must develop
local limits, are those that are also required to develop local pretreat-
ment programs. In other words, those POTWs that meet one of the
following criteria: (1) have a design flow greater than five million
gallons per day (mgd) or (2) have a design flow less than 5 mgd but
receive nondomestic (e.g., industrial) wastes that cause treatment plant
upsets, contaminate sludge, or violate NPDES permit limits. Recently,
EPA proposed (53 FR 47632, November 23,1988) amendments to the
General Pretreatment and NPDES regulations to provide more effec-
tive controls on the discharge of hazardous wastes discharged to
POTWs. National Categorical Pretreatment Standards are EPA-
developed, industry specific standards that reflect the amount of pol-
lutant reduction that is both technologically available, and
economically achievable. The standards are applicable to all facilities
within a regulated industry.
22
Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
Rgure 5. COMPAR^ON^OCEAN ^CHARGE CATEGORIES
S*wag* Tr»alm»nt
Induttrlal (Conr««Honal ?oH«la««»)
Induitrlal (Toxic PollatanU)
FLOW
(Not Including Etoetric UUIItlci)
Inaigtrltl
Toxic Pollutants 13 %
Conv. Pollutants 7*
Total Flow
2840 MOD
Sewage Treatment 80 %
BOD & TSS
(5S8J32 toni/T«u)
TOTAL NUTRIENTS (TN & TP)
(82.381 toni/yvct)
15%
2.0% 1.0%
81%
97.0%
PETROLEUM HYDROCARBONS
(53.457 toni/T«ar)
TOXIC METALS
(SM tont/T»ar)
9.0%
18.0%
91,0%
Report to Congress
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Discharges under
General Permits
(Offshore Oil and
Gas)
Table 6 summarizes the estimated discharge volumes from offshore oil
and gas activities by coastal region. Figure 6 shows the approximate
locations of the general permit areas (see Appendix E for list of
permits). Estimates in Table 6 are presented for both drilling opera-
tions, which primarily discharge drilling muds and cuttings, and for
production operations, which discharge primarily produced water. As
shown in this table, approximately 85-90 percent of discharge volume
from oil and gas activities occurs hi the Gulf of Mexico. Table 7
summarizes the major characteristics of effluents from oil and gas
discharges based on pollutant types, typical concentrations, and
primary effects on the marine receiving water environment. To further
aid in understanding the potential environmental effects from offshore
oil and gas discharges, a Fact Sheet has been prepared which sum-
marizes effluent characteristics and behavior and fate of the effluent
in receiving waters, and describes the primary potential impacts. This
Fact Sheet is presented hi Appendix C.
24
Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
UJ
H
>
H
O
a
a
UJ
CC
O
u.
u.
o
_® LL
•g«
ra in
1-0
QC
<
O
(A
a
u.
o
ui
is
a
ui
w
UJ
0)
«
£
*
£
T
T
O
OL
0)
.2
5
u
O)
MM
Q
a n
a '
» T
S 2
•o ^
1 2
UI
*"•
D
w
« S
e 5
2 "
• £
S >
1 f
i2 °
•D
0
a.
M
in
jQ
*J
O)
n
o
5
^
0
•
•o
to
*•
UI
T-
(D
00
CQ
"i
^
5
0
•tlmattd
UI
o>
^
3
U
V
3
C
_O
O
3
•o
O
£
e
ExploratI
0
O)
0)
QC
"5
m
to
o
O
P) - i-
t^ d *f
T* ^
«o to to o
CO 00 O)
00^ CM C0_
CO f^ ^
r«- CM to
*- 0)
to
N CO fv o
10 CM
10 T-
S S! « o
CM
O
u
X
o
"S Ji n C
»- ^ « i
3 BJ J2 S
O QL < <
C
(C
oT
to
eo"
CM
to
00
o
T-
CM
O
^
s-
T"
o_
co"
(0
^
<
o £
o> ui
a e
a s
2
Is
11
o 2
3 I
si
= 09
o, o
• 1
J3 B
•O C
0) «
i o
•o o
£ o
2 5
E -5 S
Hi
• — °
• 15
O X •
f S2
-
x oc
• -o
C C
-
5 3 "S
_ m M
• ^ o>
" • 2
So.-'
* 2 ^
>> 3 3
a
x
1*
,
? " o
a a o
f f =
o o T
i 2 •
o E >
o
Report to Congress
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Permit #
AKG288000
Permit #
AKG287000
Permit
CA0110516
Permit #
AKG284100
Permit #
TX0085651
Permit
LA0060224
Permit #
GMG280000
NPDES Offshore Oil and Gas General Permit Areas
Figure 6.
Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
Table?
Typical Pollutants and Potential Environmental Effects
from Oil and Gas Discharges*
Drilling
Fluids
METALS (mg/1)
Antimony 3.59
Arsenic 12.8
Barium —
Beryllium 32.3
Cadmium 3.31
Chromium 408
Copper 99.4
Lead 55.7
Mercury .487
Nickel 11.5
Selenium .542
Strontium .564
Silver 322
Thallium .313
Zinc 204
ORGANTCS (ug/1)
Acenaphthene
Alkybenzenes 27,100
Alkyfluorene 149,400
Alkylnaphthalenes 124,100
Alkyphenanthrene 18,850
Alkylphenol 146.1
Benzene 154.8
Cyanides —
Ethylbenzene 3,073
Fluorene 12,790
Naphthalene 23,449
Pentachlorophenol —
Phenanthrene 30,350
Phenol 16,560
Phosphorus - —
PAHs 368,900
Toluene —
Total Biphenyls 245.9
Total Dibenzothiophenes 10,210
CONVENTIONALS
BOD 21- 9,553 mg/kg**
COD 420 - 98,300 mg/kg* *
TSS 37 - 498 Ib/bbl
Produced
Water
(mg/1)
.071
—
.003
.218
.065
.103
.0035
.013
.243
—
.027
—
1.31
(mg/1)
.0003
—
2.39
.01
.433
.177
.022
—
2.17
.735
.482
1.97
—
—
300 - 2,000 mg/1
100 - 3,000 mg/1
Effects
Metals represent a pollutant of concern because of
their potential accumulation. Certain metals con-
centrate in surface sediments around platforms. The
enrichment of metals around platforms is distance de-
pendent, with maximum enrichment factors seldom ex-
ceeding ten. In metal accumulation studies maximum
enrichment factors were generally less than 10 with
the exception of barium and chromium, 300 and 36,
respectively. Depuration studies of Ba, Cr, Pb, and Sf
showed 40-90% decreases of excess metal hi tissues
after removal from the contamination. Most of these
studies are with whole muds or mud aqueous fractions
and, therefore, may be over or underestimations of
potential accumulation.
Drilling fluids and produced water impacts are mainly
due to the presence of hydrocarbons. Chronic ex-
posure occurs in areas where the hydrocarbons are
not rapidly removed from the system and where there
is continuous input. Benthic communities are likely to
be subject to chronic exposure as hydrocarbons be-
come associated with the sediments. Organic pol-
lutants eventually impact the benthos even if the
plume does not impact the bottom directly. These
chemical constituents adsorb to suspended matter and
settle to the bottom. It has been noted that com-
ponents at very low concentrations in produced water,
especially substituted naphthalenes, can accumulate to
ligh concentrations in sediments and in biota.
lypersaliniry and low or no DO are common charac-
enstics of produced water. Anoxic or hypersaline
conditions can cause mortality in benthic com-
munities. The duration, volume, and dispersion of the
)lume determines the extent of the effects. BOD and
HOD are dependent on the type of mud used and
whether or not oil was added.
From the 30 Platform Study
* Range covers from spud mud with no oil to generic mud #8 with 5% oil.
Report to Congress
27
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
28
Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
403 (c) Program
Status by Region
General Status
This section of the report presents the current implementation status
of section 403(c) by EPA Region and State. The Regional summaries
include a discussion of the primary discharges of concern, their com-
pliance status with regard to the ocean discharge criteria pursuant to
section 403(c), and a discussion of States' role in the permit program.
The dates of original issuance, reissuance, and expiration of each
NPDES permit are listed in Appendix D for dischargers under in-
dividual permits and in Appendix E for dischargers under general
permits. Table 8 summarizes the overall schedule status for permit
reissuance, based on information presently available. The number of
expiring permits is presented by year and by type of discharge. Dis-
chargers are classified according to size (flow) and type (POTW,
industrial discharging conventional pollutants, industrial discharging
toxic and nonconventional pollutants) to facilitate estimation of
resource requirements for permit reviews as subsequently presented
in this report. All NPDES permits are based on a 5 year cycle.
Although permits may be reopened and modified, if necessary, during
the 5 year period, in practice very few are reopened.
Implementation of the 403(c) ocean discharge criteria is the respon-
sibility of EPA Regional and State (when NPDES authorized - see
Table 9) permit writers under the NPDES program. (Note: NPDES
authorized states do not have authority beyond the territorial sea.) Permit
writers generally rely on available information to perform the necessary
evaluations to make a determination as to whether a discharge would
result in "unreasonable degradation". In general, highest priorities for
compliance reviews have been set for establishing (1) general permits
which regulate a large number of similar activities (e.g., offshore oil
and gas, mobile seafood processors) and (2) major discharges and
discharges in or near known ecologically sensitive zones (fi^., coral
reefs, marine sanctuaries, etc.). As a result of the rapidly evolving
nature of the permits program for marine waters and the limited
availability of resources at the local and Regional levels, the detail of
403(c) reviews, the effectiveness of monitoring programs, and the level
of review performed after permit issuance has varied by Region, by
State, and by discharge. Most of the "large" land-based ocean dischar-
ges subject to 403(c) reviews are in compliance with the ocean dis-
charge criteria, according to reports from the Regional EPA 403(c)
coordinators. In these cases, the permittee, the State, and/or the
Regional EPA office performed, or are performing, studies with rela-
tively extensive data collection and analyses. Examples include the
Miami-area POTWs (Region IV), the salt brine discharges of the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve in Texas and Louisiana (Region VI), the
LA-Hyperion POTW in Southern California (Region IX), seawater
treatment plants, and offshore mining activities in Region X. In other
Regions that show a need for improvement and/or are behind schedule
Report to Congress
29
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Table 8
DISTRIBUTION OF NPDES PERMIT RENEWALS SUBJECT TO 403(c)
BY DISCHARGE CLASSIFICATION
Number of Exoirine Permits
DISCHARGE
CLASSIFICATION EXPIRED
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Large POTW ( > 50 mgd)
POTW(5-50mgd)
Small POTW/Private or
Federal Facility ( < 5mgd)
Large Industrial ( > 5 mgd,
includes priority pollutants
and/or other toxics)
Industrial (0.5-5 mgd,
includes priority pollutants
and/or other toxics)
Small Industrial ( < 0.5 mgd,
includes priority pollutants
and/or other toxics)
Large Industrial ( > 5 mgd,
conventional pollutants only)
Industrial (0.5-5 mgd,
conventional pollutants only)
Small Industrial ( < 0.5 mgd,
conventional pollutants only)
Electric Utilities
Subtotal
General Permits
Oil and Gas
Non Oil and Gas
Total
3
5
47
2
1
9
1
3
3
4
78
0
0
78
1989
0
7
21
5
3
13
0
0
0
11
60
2
1
63
1990
4
12
25
1
3
5
2
1
1
7
61
1
0
62
1991 1992
0
4
13
3
3
7
1
3
2
1
37
2
0
39
2
3 .
9
1
1
1
0
3
0
4
24
0
0
24
1993
1
6
13
0
11
0
0
0
0
4
35
4
0
39
NOTE: Totals do not include facilities which are missing permit expiration date
of information or because permits have not yet been issued for these facilities.
TOTAL
10
37
128
12
22
35
4
10
6
31
295
9
1
305
due to lack
30
Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
Region
I
II
III
IV
VI
IX
Table 9
STATUS OF NPDES PROGRAM AUTHORITY IN COASTAL STATES
Approved State
NPDES Permit Program
Rhode Island
Connecticut
New York
New Jersey
Virgin Islands*
Delaware
Maryland
Virginia
North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
Alabama
Mississippi
California
Hawaii
Oregon
Washington
NPDES Permit
Program Not Authorized
Maine
New Hampshire
Massachusetts
Puerto Rico
Florida
Texas
Louisiana
Palau
Guam, American Samoa,
Northern Marianas
Alaska
* The status of the Virgin Islands is expected to change to the "Not Authorized "category within the next few
years.
Report to Congress
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Region I
in compliance reviews, the Agency is working to achieve more efficient
implementation procedures and plans to accelerate 403(c) reviews
consistent with available resources and priorities. Recommendations
for enabling the Regions and States to more fully implement the
program are presented later in this report.
Region I includes the coastal States of Maine, New Hampshire, Mas-
sachusetts, and Rhode Island (see Figure 7). The coastline of Connec-
ticut lies entirely inside the baseline, and thus is not subject to 403(c)
requirements. Of these States, only Rhode Island is authorized to
administer the NPDES permits program. Most of the 38 ocean dis-
charges in Region I are small public or private sewage treatment
facilities serving small coastal towns. Of these, 17 are in Maine, 3 in
New Hampshire, 5 in Massachusetts, and 2 in Rhode Island. Five of
the Maine discharges are small seafood processing operations. Small
discharges of conventional pollutants to ocean waters such as the above
are not generally expected to cause unreasonable degradation.
The North Atlantic area of Region I is complex not only in its circula-
tion patterns but also in the interrelated manner in which a wide array
of species inhabit the extremely productive waters of the region. The
coastline of Maine, New Hampshire and northern Massachusetts is
composed predominantly of rocky headlands. These exposed rocky
shores support a dense and diverse assemblage of benthic inver-
tebrates with some species densities ranging up to 160,000/m2. The
lower coastline in the North Atlantic is comprised more of moderately
populated, medium grain sandy beaches and densely populated muddy
fine sand/silt wetlands. Near coastal (ocean) water quality appears to
be generally good and shows limited evidence of pollution. Except for
coastal disposal of dredged materials, which results in temporary
degradation of local water quality, no other materials are presently
being dumped in the area. The area provides abundant commercial
and recreational fishing resources.
The unique topography and hydrography of Georges Bank make it one
of the most productive regions per unit of area of any oceanic shelf
region. This area is characterized by vigorous tidal circulation and
turbulence which prevent stratification that might restrict the upward
flow of nutrients to the surface. Productivity is consistently high and
environmental conditions exist which sustain a high biomass of com-
mercially important finfish and shellfish. Not unlike the remainder of
the North Atlantic, water quality in the Georges Bank area shows only
very limited effects of man-made inputs.
Currently there is no oil and gas activity in the Atlantic Ocean. In-
dividual drilling and exploration permits were issued under BPT
limitations off of Regions I and II in 1980. Exploratory wells were
drilled, but never put into production.
Under 403(c) Region I has begun to assess the potential degradation
effect of salmon net pens. These net pens are approximately 90 feet in
diameter and are used to farm commercial salmon. The effects that
32
Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
REGION 1
Flow (MGD)
Sewage Treatment Plants
MA0005916 WOODS HOLE OCEANOGRAPHIC INST. 0.100
MA0090182 NAT. MARINE FISHERIES AQUARIUM 0.100
MA0090654 USCG LS CAPE ANN STP 0.100
MA0100081 GOSNOLD STP 1.000
MA0100145 ROCKPORT STP 0.450
MA0101605 DARTMOUTH STP 0.400
MA0101737 MARSHFIELD STP 0.120
ME0000388 MC6UNDY FISH CO. 0.024
ME0020826 CLIFF HOUSE AND HOTEL 0.100
ME0021229 PINE TREE CONSERVATION SOCIETY 0.100
ME0021563 ISLAND RETREAT ASSOCIATION 0.100
ME0090034 ACADIA NATIONAL PARK STP 0.100
ME0090051 NAVAL SECURITY GROUP STP 0.100
ME0090328 USCG LS BASS HARBOR STP 0.100
ME0090417 USCG LS W. QUADDY HEAD STP 0.100
ME0100200 EASTPORT CITY 0.479
ME0100790 WELLS STP 0.000
ME0100986 OGUNQUIT SEWER DISTRICT 0.000
ME0101052 JONESPORT TOWN STP 0.100
ME0101338 MOUNT DESERT (OTTER CREEK) 0.000
ME0101354 MT. DESERT-SEAL HARBOR STP 0.170
ME0101770 MSAD 08-LINCOLN SCHOOL WTP 0.100
ME0101851 STONINGTON STP 0.'479
ME0102016 LUBEC, LOWN OF
ME0102148 EASTPORT (QUODDY VILLAGE)
ME0102172 KENNEBUNKPORT, TOWN OF
NH0020966 WALLIS SANDS ST. PARK STP
NH0101184 RYE STP
NH0101303 SEABROOK STP
RI0090131 USCG STA PT. JUDITH STP
RI0100196 NEW SHOREHAM STP
1.000
0.100
0.012
0.100
1.000
1.000
0.100
0.190
Industrial (Conventional Pollutants)
ME0000523 A.J. PEACOCK CANNING CO. 0.080
ME0022608 STINSON CANNING 0.061
ME0000795 STONINGTON CANNING 0.270
ME0022632 QUADDY PACKING COMPANY 0.016
Industrial (Toxic Pollutants)
ME0022951 MAIN PEARL ESSENCE
0.100
Electrical Utilities
MA0005118 NANTUCKET GAS & ELECTRIC 4.100
NH0020338 SEABROOK 1 & 2 1200.000
Offshore Oil & Gas
(none)
\ME0000795
ME0101851
E0090271
-*. ,ME0100200
T//ME0022951
ME0090417
ME0022608
ME0101052
ME0090051
ME0090034
ME0101354
ME0090328
ME0021563
The following could not be located:
ME0000388
ME0000523
ME0020826
ME0021229
MEO100986
ME0101770
ME0102016
ME0102148
ME0022632
A0005118
-MA0005916
LMA0090182
Figure 7.
MAO100081
Summary of 403(c) Discharges in Region I.
Report to Congress
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Region II
are of concern are deposition of organic matter and nutrients which
are a component of the fish food.
Region n includes the authorized coastal States of New York and New
Jersey, and the territories of Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands
(see Figures 8 and 9). There are several ocean discharges (primarily
POTWs) in New Jersey (16) and New York (2). Several of these
discharges have flows in excess of 5 mgd. Both States have NPDES
permitting authority, and have performed 403(c) reviews in varying
detail for these discharges as part of the permitting process.
The near-shore Middle Atlantic area of Region H is subject to dramatic
fluctuations in temperature and associated population/species chan-
ges. This area is also characterized by significant commercial and
recreational fishing resources, and is subject to extensive influence
from man's activity in this heavily populated area. Water quality
problems reported in the inner New York Bight include sewage-re-
lated high BOD, excessive bacterial densities, oil and grease, and high
concentrations of heavy metals, PCBs and potentially toxic materials
associated with ocean dumping. As might be expected, this area has
been the subject of much discussion and concern. The New York Bight
Restoration Program is currently underway in Region II to address
these concerns.
Region II EPA retains responsibility for issuing NPDES permits for
Puerto Rico. There are 54 ocean discharges in Puerto Rico and 24 in
the Virgin Islands subject to 403(c). Nine of the Puerto Rico dischar-
ges are major POTWs ( > 5 mgd). To date, no 403(c) reviews have been
performed for these territorial discharges; however, EPA Region H
has completed three 301(h) waiver reviews in Puerto Rico and one in
the Virgin Islands. 301(h) evaluations cover the criteria of a 403(c)
review. EPA Region II is reviewing the remaining discharges as their
NPDES permits come up for reissuance.
The tropical waters of the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico exhibit less
seasonal variation than other regions and biological productivity is
generally lower. Commercial fisheries are locally important, but occur
mainly La deep waters outside the Puerto Rico shelf. Sandy beaches,
coral reefs, and a variety of fish and shellfish provide important recrea-
tional resources. Marine circulation is strongly influenced by
westward-flowing tradewinds, land and sea breezes, and coastal con-
figuration. The north coasts of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands are
relatively exposed and shelf area is limited. Conditions are normally
less severe along the south coast and this area is generally more
productive. Many areas of special concern are located hi the waters
of the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico, including coral reefs,
mangroves, and seagrass beds. These critical habitats provide breed-
big grounds and habitat for a variety of species and are extremely
sensitive to environmental disturbance. Water quality problems, par-
ticularly in areas of reduced circulation or near rivers, are not uncom-
mon.
34
Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
REGION 2 - New York, New Jersey
Sewage Treatment Plants
NJ0024473 ATLANTIC COUNTY STP
NJ0024520 TOWNSHIP OF OCEAN STP
NJ0024562 SOUTH HONMOUTH STP
NJ0024694 MONMOUTH COUNTY STP
NJ0024708 BAYSHORE STP
NJ0024783 LONG BRANCH STP
NJ0024872 TOWNSHIP OF NEPTUNE STP
NJ0025241 CITY OF ASBURY PARK STP
NJ0025356 TOWNSHIP OF MIDDLETOWN STP
NJ0026018 OCEAN COUNTY UTILITIES STP
NJ0026735 NE MONMOUTH CITY STP
NJ0028142 OCEAN COUNTY STP
NJ0029408 OCEAN COUNTY STP
NJ0035343 OCEAN CITY STP
NJ0052990 CAPE MAY CO-7 STP
NY0026859 NASSAU COUNTY STP
NY0104809 SUFFOLK COUNTY STP
Flow (MGD)
18.370
3.640
2.920
33.000
8.000
3.980
3.970
3.000
10.800
20.000
6.590
28.000
2.950
6.300
7.670
76.000
1.000
Industrial (Conventional Pollutants)
(none)
Industrial (Toxic Pollutants)
NJ0004120 TOMS RIVER CHEM CORP
5.000
Electrical Utilities
(none)
Offshore Oil & Gas
(none)
NJ0024783
NJ0024520
NJ0025241
NJ0024872
•NJ0024473
*>NJ0035343
'NJ0052990
Figure 8. Summary of 403(c) Discharges in Region II (New York
and New Jersey).
Report to Congress
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
REGION 2 - Puerto Rico and Virgin Is. Flow (MGD)
Sewage Treatment Plants
PR0020010 ROOSEVELT ROADS STP
PR0020044 U.S. NAVY COMMUNICATION
PR0020231 PRASA MARABELLA I STP
PR0020265 PRASA MARABELLA II STP
PR0020486 PRASA GUANICA
PR0020516 PRASA HATILLO STP
PR0020656 PRASA MAUNABO STP
PR0020788 PRASA RINCON
PR0020931 PRASA VIEQUES
PR0021237 PRASA BARCELONETA STP
PR0021S39 HERITAGE COMMUNITIES STP
PR0021563 PRASA PONCE STP
PR0021776 PRASA RAMEY STP
PR0022055 PRASA GUAYAMA STP
PR0022063 PRASA AQUADILLO STP
PR0022071 PRASA ARECIBO STP
PR0022080 PRASA ISABELLA
PR0022098 PRASA ARROYO STP
PR0022250 PRASA ISABELLA STP
PR0023027 PRASA VILLA TAINA
PR0023116 SECOND UNIT PASTILLO
PR0023710 PRASA ARECIBO
PR0023728 PRASA BAYAMON STP
PR0023736 PRASA AQUADILLA STP
PR0023744 PRASA CANURY STP
PR00237S2 PRASA CAROLINA
PR0023761 PRASA SANTA ISABEL STP
PR0023795 PRASA MAYAGUEZ RWWTP
PR0023850 PRASA DORADO STP
PR0023876 PRASA FAJARDO STP
VI0020036 ST. CROIX STP
VI0020125 NADIR ESTATE STP
VI0020150 FAA STP
VI0039829 FRENCHMAN'S REEF STP
VI0039837 CANEEL BAY-ST JOHN STP
VI0039853 COWPET BAY WEST STP
VI0039870 AMER. YACHT HARBOR STP
VI0039900 COWPET BAY EAST STP
VI0039934 SAPPHIRE BAY WEST STP
VI0039942 CRUZ BAY STP
VI0040126 JOHN MCVIE STP
VI0040134 WATERGATE VILLAS STP
VI0040185 D & C DEVELOPMENT STP
VI0040193 WATER BAY MANAGEMENT STP
VI0040215 K R DEVELOPMENT STP
VI0110027 USN SUPPLY DEPOT STP
PR0023744
PR0000680
2.000
0.170
0.140
3.500
0.330
0.500
0.300
0.280
0.163
8.330
0.100
12.000
500
000
000
000
000
0.700
1.000
0.110
0.010
10.000
25.000
000
020
000
000
500
450
600
000
8
3
45
1
22
250
.010
.000
.265
.035
.100
.000
.000
.100
.004
.066
.000
0.100
0.100
0.370
Industrial (Conventional Pollutants)
PR0000094 NEPTUNE PACKING
PR0000167 CORP AZUCARERA DE PUERTO RICO
PR0000183 BUMBLEBEE
PR0000230 NATIONAL PACKING
PR0000299 STARKIST CAR I BE
PR0000591 BACARDI CORP.
PR0000655 BACARDI CORP.
PR0000680 P.R. DISTILLERS
PR0021105 SUN HARBOR CARIBE
PR0021954 NEPTUNE PACKING CORP
PR0021962 V.C.S. NATIONAL PACKING CO.
PR0022012 STAR KIST CARIBE INC.
PR0022110 BUMBLE BEE PUERTO INC.
PR0023043 MAYAGUEZ WATER TREATMENT CO.
VI0020052 VIRGIN ISLANDS RUM IND.
0.694
31.380
.115
.440
.000
.400
.070
.000
320
0.015
,730
,000
,500
,320
,110
Industrial (Toxic Pollutants)
PR0000342 COMMONWEALTH OIL PETROCHEMICAL 62.000
PR0000345 COMMONWEALTH OIL PETROCHEMICAL 14.900
PR0000400 YABUCOA SUN OIL CO. 4.000
PR0000418 UNION CARBIDE CARIBE INC. N/A
PR0022322 PHILLIPS PUERTO RICO CORE INC. 2.100
PR0022284 SK&F LAB CORP 0.018
PR0024724 AYERST-WYETH PHARMACEUTICALS 0.210
VI0040037 GALLOWS POINT DEVELOPMENT CORP 0.100
VI0040088 YACHT HAVEN HOTEL AND MARINA 0.030
VI0040096 FRANK MCCARTHY 0.004
VI0040177 SEA CLIFF BEACH RESORT 0.020
VI0040291 CORAL WORLD INC 0.001
VI0040312 BAYSIDE RESORT 0.057
Electrical Utilities
PR0001031 PUERTO RICO ELECTRIC
PR0001147 SOUTH COAST 1-6
PR0001660 AGUIRRE
VI0000060 V.I. WATER AND POWER
650.000
665.000
652.000
10.000
Offshore Oil & Gas
(none)
The following could not be locoted:
PR0002385O
PR0022080
PR00222SO
PR0021776.
PRO023736
PR0000655
PR0020231
PR0020265
PR0022322
PR0023116
PR0023710
PR0023795
PR0024724
VI00201SO
VI0039870
VI0039900
VI0039934
VI0040037
VI0040088
VI0040096
,PR0023728
PROQ01031
PR0023752
PR00207880
V10040126
VI0040134
VI0040177
VI0040185
V10040193
V1004021S
V10040312
VI0110027
VI0039837
VI0039942
PR0020656
PR0020486
, VI0020C36
VI002005S4
Figure 9. , Summary of 403(c) Discharges in Region II (Puerto Rico
and Virgin Islands).
35~ Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
Region III
Region IV
Region III includes the authorized coastal States of Delaware,
Maryland and Virginia (see Figure 10). There are seven direct ocean
discharges subject to 4Q3(c). All seven are sewage treatment facilities,
of which three are large POTWs, two are small POTWs, and two are
private facilities. There are no industrial discharges subject to 403(c)
in Region HI. Region in reports that all of these discharges have
received an effluent toxicity review to determine compliance with state
water quality standards as required by the Clean Water Act under
NPDES. However, 403(c) reviews have not yet been conducted.
The mid-Atlantic nearshore area is host to a complex ecosystem
characterized by rapid onshore-offshore changes in water temperature
and associated fauna. The area is an important commercial and
recreational fishing resource. Sensitive coastal habitats in the mid-At-
lantic region include the smaller coastal wetlands located within the
barrier islands (£4^ Assateague Island National Seashore) that form
much of the coastline. Although the health of the mid-Atlantic is
relatively good compared to the New York Bight to the north, the
potential long term effects of pollutants entering these waters are being
studied.
A future 403(c) issue for Region III will be the increasing number of
applications for ocean discharge permits by coastal communities wish-
ing to consolidate several small, backbay (non 403(c)) discharges into
larger facilities with ocean outfalls. These communities may be re-
quired to perform an alternatives analysis (i.e., land application, alter-
native disposal sites) in addition to an extensive monitoring program
as part of the 403(c) review process.
Although Region IV includes six coastal States (see Figure 11), only
Florida and North Carolina have ocean discharges subject to 403(c)
regulation. Florida is also the only State in Region IV not authorized
to administer the NPDES permit program. Most of the major 403(c)
discharges in Florida are large POTWs serving the lower Southeast
area. In addition to these, there are approximately 10 small discharges
located in the Florida Keys. The status of these with respect to 403(c)
is questionable because the location of the baseline in this area is not
clear. For the 6 POTWs in south Florida, EPA Region IV has made a
finding of "insufficient information1' under 403(c) regarding the level
of environmental impact from these facilities. Monitoring studies are
currently underway at these active discharges to assess impacts to the
receiving waters.
Throughout the southern Florida area are vast estuaries, tidal marshes,
seagrass beds, mangrove swamps, shallow mud and sand flats, and
coral reefs which provide breeding, nursery, and feeding grounds for
a range of species. This diversity of natural features along with the
influence of the Gulf Stream produces a variety of marine resources.
The natural features and recreational opportunities in the coastal
south Atlantic create an ideal setting for a major tourist industry.
Southern Florida shelf waters are fairly saline compared to coastal
Report to Congress
37
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
REGION 3
Sewage Treatment Plants
DEOOS0008 SOUTH COASTAL STP
M00020044 WORCHESTER CO. STP
H00021091 OEPT. INTERIOR ASSATEA6UE STP
H00023477 MARYLAND MARINE UTILITIES STP
HD0024911 BERLIN SHOPPING CENTER STP
VA0031917 FORT STORY-US ARMY TRANSPORT STP
VA0062618 HAMPTON ROADS STP
Flow (MGD)
6.000
12.000
0.017
1.000
0.004
1.000
36.000
Industrial (Conventional Pollutants)
(none)
Industrial (Toxic Pollutants)
(none)
Electrical Utilities
(none)
Offshore Oil & Gas
(none)
.DE00500O8
MD0020044
MDO023477
MD002491 1
'MD0021091
VA0031917
VA0062618
Figure 10. Summary of 403(c) Discharges in Region III.
38
Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
NC0007064
REGION 4
Sewage Treatment Plants
FL0024805 VIRGINIA KEY STP
FL0025976 KEY WEST STP
FL0026255 HOLLYWOOD STP
FL0026344 BOCA RATON STP
FL0029289 GEIGER KEY MARINA STP
FL0031771 BROWARD COUNTY STP
FL0032182 MIAHI-OADE NORTH DISTRICT STP
FL0033847 COCONUT GRVE TRAIL. PK STP
FL0033855 WALES EDGE COLONY STP
FL0033901 SEABREEZE TRAILER PARK STP
FL0034924 VENTURE OUT IN AMERICA STP
FL0035025 MAN-0-WAR HOTELS STP
FL0035068 BOYD'S CAMPGROUND STP
FL0035980 DEL RAY BEACH STP
Industrial (Conventional Pollutants)
FL0031186 SINGLETON SHRIMP
FL0035793 MARATHON SEAFOODS
Flow (MGO)
133.000
5.000
31.720
11.800
0.005
66.000
80.000
0.006
0.007
0.007
0.070
0.005
0.020
24.000
0.023
0.000
Industrial (Toxic Pollutants)
(none)
Electrical Utilities
FL0000159 CRYSTAL RIVER 1-3
FL0002208 ST. LUCIE 1
NC0007064 BRUNSWICK 1-2
Offshore Oil & Gas
6MG280000 GENERAL OFFSHORE OIL & GAS (SEE
1970.000
763.000
2000.000
REGION 6)
R0002208
FUX>311S6-.
R0025976
^•F
VOFL0026344
Fl.0031771
R0026255
FL0032182
fT.0024805
FUJ033855
FL00338+7
1035793
FL0029289
Figure 11. Summary of 403(c) Discharges in Region IV.
Report to Congress
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Region VI
waters further north. This high salinity results from low fresh water
runoff and close proximity to the Gulf Stream. Live bottom areas are
of special concern because of their biological productivity as well as
their use as fish habitats. Mangrove swamps, also areas of concern,
serve as nursery grounds for commercially important fin and shellfish
species.
Region IV offshore oil and gas activities hi the Gulf of Mexico are
covered by the NPDES general permit issued with Region VI. Several
individual permits have been issued under the general permit
provisions due to the presence of live bottom areas off of Florida. In
one case, the operator has experienced live bottom conditions that
seem to be associated with drilling platform structures. In North
Carolina, Mobil has submitted an application to drill in Federal off-
shore waters. EPA developed a permit for this activity in FY89. There
are no other oil and gas activities in the Atlantic OCS region.
As in Region III, a growing issue in Region IV concerns the desire of
rapidly growing Gulf coastal communities to consolidate smaller "back
bay" sewage treatment facilities into larger, centralized faculties that
would discharge directly to the Gulf of Mexico via ocean outfalls. The
section 403(c) regulations provide a mechanism to the regulatory
agencies to evaluate potential impacts of these consolidated discharges
by requiring an alternatives analysis to be performed for all new
proposed ocean discharges.
Region VI includes the non-NPDES authorized coastal States of Texas
and Louisiana (see Figure 12). There are 17 ocean dischargers under
individual NPDES permits (2 in TX, 15 in LA) and one general permit
exists for offshore oil and gas activities in the Gulf of Mexico. The
403(c) discharges in Region VI are all industrial related, and include:
several temporary sulphur mine shallow exploratory wells (which ac-
count for 12 of the 17 individual permits); the Louisiana Offshore Oil
Port (LOOP, Inc.), which consists of several minor discharges and a
major brine discharge; and two offshore brine discharges from the
Federal Strategic Petroleum Reserve activities in Texas. All of these
discharge activities have been reviewed with respect to 403(c) criteria.
In particular, EPA prepared a major ODCE on the offshore oil and
gas activity prior to issuing the general permit for the Gulf of Mexico.
This general permit, issued in 1986 and expiring in 1991, covers the
largest number of offshore oil and gas platforms, exploration activities,
and production activities in the Nation.
The Gulf of Mexico is an important national resource; a wealth of both
biological and mineral assets are actively exploited. The coastal es-
tuaries, wetlands, and barrier islands of the Gulf provide critical habitat
for large populations of wildlife, including waterfowl, shorebirds, and
colonial nesting seabirds. The extensive coastal wetlands of the Gulf
comprise approximately one-half of the nation's total Although the
Gulf of Mexico was once viewed as one of the healthiest of our coastal
marine environments, the Gulf has begun to show signs of deteriorating
environmental quality: nutrient over-enrichment, increased con-
40
Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
0LA0078701 „
LA007867I °LA0078689 \
LA0049492
oLA0078654
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Region IX
centrations of toxics and pesticides, habitat degradation, freshwater
diversion, and increasing risk to public health.
Region IX has the most land-based 403(c) discharges both by number
of discharges and by total flow. The coastal States in Region IX are
California, Hawaii, and the Pacific Islands (see Figures 13 and 14).
Both California and Hawaii have authority for NPDES permitting.
EPA retains permit authority for discharges located in the Pacific
Islands (i.e., Guam, American Samoa, Republic of Palau, and North-
ern Marianas). Water quality objectives and effluent quality require-
ments for point source discharges in California territorial waters are
specified in the State standards. California is unique in that it has
specific standards for ocean waters. These are contained in the Water
Quality Control Plan For Ocean Waters of California (California
Ocean Plan) and are the State's water quality standards for ocean
waters. The objective of the California Ocean Plan is to protect the
quality of State ocean waters for the use and enjoyment by the people
of the State. A triennial review of State standards is required by the
CWA. The State Water Resources Control Board reviews the plan at
least every three years to ensure that the current standards are ade-
quate, to prevent degradation to the marine habitat and marine
species, and to minimize threats to public health.
Recent revisions of Hawaii's State water quality standards for ocean
waters have made these standards more protective than before.
Major categories of dischargers that currently discharge beyond the
baseline include POTWs, exploratory oil and gas offshore drilling
operations, oil refineries, power plants, sugar mills, pulp and paper
mills, sawmills, and seafood processors. Therefore, these dischargers
are subject to 403(c) requirements.
POTWs in compliance with 301(h) variance requirements are
presumed not to cause unreasonable degradation of the marine en-
vironment for any specific pollutants or conditions specified in the
variance (40 CFR125). Therefore, these POTWs are considered to be
in compliance with 403(c) criteria. Eighteen of the 51 POTWs subject
to 403(c) in Region IX have received tentative or final approvals for
301(h) waivers. As in every State, California's POTWs that do not
discharge under section 301(h) modified permits must meet secondary
requirements as is mandated by the CWA. All permits are in com-
pliance with State standards unless they have a waiver, e.g., 301(h).
Hence, all California POTWs should be in compliance with all or many
of the provisions of the 403(c) regulations. Currently, EPA Region IX
is overseeing a major Environmental Impact Statement for the Los
Angeles Hyperion POTW. This POTW, with a flow of over 400 mgd,
is one of the Nation's largest POTWs discharging to ocean waters.
A preliminary Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation (ODCE) for off-
shore oil and gas drilling and production operations in southern
California has been completed by EPA (JRB Associates 1984). A
detailed summary of effluent characteristics, transport and fate,
toxicity and bioaccumulation, environmental impacts, and receiving
42
Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
REGION 9 - California Flow (MGD)
Sewage Treatment Plants
CA0022756 CRESCENT CITY STP
CA0022870 MENDOCINO STP
CA0023078 FORT BRAGG STP
CA0024040 MENDOCINO STP
CA0024333 UCLA BODEGA LAB STP
CA0037494 PACIFICA STP
CA0037681 SAN FRA. (RICHMOND STP)
CA0037737 NORTH SAN MATEO STP
CA0047364 CARPINTERIA STP
CA0047830 AVILA STP
CA0047881 MORRO BAY STP
CA0047899 MONTECITO STP
CA0047961 SAN SIMEON STP
CA0047988 MARINA STP
CA0047996 CARMEL STP
CA0048003 SO. SAN LUIS OBISPO STP
CA0048054 SUMMERLAND STP
CA0048143 SANTA BARBARA STP
CA0048151 PISMO BEACH STP
CA0048160 GOLETA STP
CA0048194 SANTA CRUZ STP
CA0053651 SAN BUENAVENTURA STP
CA0053813 L.A. COUNTY STP
CA0053856 L.A. TERMINAL IS. STP
CA0054097 OXNARD STP
CA0054372 AVALON STP
CA0107409 SAN DIEGO STP
CA0107417 SERRA STP
CA0109991 L.A. HYPERION STP
CA01 10078 USN CENTERVILLE STP
CA0110175 USN UNDERSEA STP
CA0110591 USN FUEL & AMMO STP
CA01 10604 ORANGE CO. STP
CA0111015 USN SUPPLY STP
CA0111135 US ARMY NIKE 88S STP
Unassignd US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Industrial (Conventional Pollutants)
CA0048909 SEA PRODUCTS - MOSS BAY
Industrial (Toxic Pollutants)
CA0000051 UNION OIL
CA0000230 CHEVRON
CA0000337 CHEVRON
CA0000761 CONTINENTAL OIL
CA0002305 UNION OIL
CA0005282 CROWN SIMPSON
CA0005304 GEORGIA PACIFIC
CA0005894 LOUISIANA PACIFIC
CA0056201 REYNOLDS METALS
CA0105660 BOATSWAINS LOCKER
1.400
0.300
5.000
0.080
0.250
2.260
21.800
14.000
1.300
0.180
1.650
1.000
0.150
0.780
0.660
2.500
0.080
7 C7n
1.200
6.530
13.400
14 000
351.100
20.000
18.300
0.750
130.900
9.000
404.000
0.025
0.025
0.150
232.200
0.050
0.010
3.510
0.030
0.312
0.680
6.610
0.760
0.080
18.370
0.980
16.400
0.050
0.001
Electrical Utilities
CA0000353 HAYNES 1-6
CA0000361 HARBOR 1-5
CA0000370 SCATTERGOOD 1-3
CA0001139 ALAMITOS 1-6
CA0001147 EL SEGUNDO 1-4
712.500
199.500
319.700
987.900 •
297.170
CA0001163 HUNTINGTON BEACH 1-4 349.900
CA0001171 LONG BEACH 10-11
CA0001180 MANDALAY 1-2
CA0001198 ORMOND BEACH 1-2
CA0001201 REDONDO BEACH 1-8
CA0001228 SAN ONOFRE 1
CA0001350 ENCINA 1-5
CA0001376 SILVERGATE 1-4
CA0001384 STATION B 1-4
CA0003743 MORRO BAY 1-4
CA0003751 DIABLO CANYON 1-2
CA0005622 HUMBOLDT
Offshore Oil & Gas
CAG280605 Draft OFFSHORE OIL
CAG280622 Draft OFFSHORE OIL
1 CA002275S
\
/
»CA0005894
-/CA0005282
S 005622
CA0005304
CA0023075
*SrCA0022870
) CA0024040 —
X,
J CA002433-3
V
CA003768173.
CA0037494JVJ
CA0037737\s'' Q
CAOO48194V-V
CAQ047988J
CA0047996<
\
CA004796lW
CAQ 0037 4oJ C!ATi f) A"
— . nnn -t-tf ;»<—/MJU^-
112.120
245.800
0.475
567.300
461.000
1150.000
170.000
120.000
539.600
782.800
2.200
& GAS
& GAS
Tha following could not be located:
CA0000761
CA0047830
CAOO48909
CAOO53651
CAOO54372
CA0107417
CA01 10078
CA0110175
CAO1 10591
S. CA01 11015
>v CA0111135
N. Unassignd
X.
\
\
i \
* \
x
x
\
X
CA0048
?881 /CA0048143
CAg883$&fcCA004S131 //CA0047899
CA0000051
53856
CA0053813
CAO10999
CAO107409
CA0001376
CA0001384
Figure 13. Summary of 403(c) Discharges in Region IX (California).
Report to Congress
43
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
REGION 9 - Hawaii & Pacific Is.
Flow (HGD)
Sewage Treatment Plants
AS0020001 ASPA, UTULEI STP
AS0020010 ASRA. TAFUNA STP
GU0000035 USM GUAM SHIP STP
GU0020087 PUA6 AGANA BAY STP
GU0020109 PUAG COHHERCIAL PORT ST
GU0020141 PUAG NORTH DISTRICT STP
GU0020222 PUAG AGAT SANTA RITA ST
GU0020257 COCUS ISLAND RESORT STP
GU0110019 USN PUBLIC WORKS STP
HI0000612 HI DEPT OF HEALTH
HI0020109 COUNTY OF HONOLULU STP
HI0020117 HONOLULU CSC STP
HI0020141 HONOLULU C&C STP
HI0020150 HONOLULU CSC STP
HI0020176 CO. OF HAWAII STP
HI0020184 HAUI-LAHAINA STP
HI0020257 KAUAI-WAILUA STP
HI0020265 KAUAI-ELEELE STP
HI0020303 E. HONOLULU COHM. STP
HI0020478 ZIONS SECURITIES STP
HI0020770 HAWAII KULAIMANO STP
HI0020877 HONOLULU C&C STP
HI0110078 USHC KANEO STP
HI0110086 USN FORT KAHEHAHE STP
HI0020010 CUC. SADOL, TASI STP
NI0020028 CUC, AGINGAN STP
TT0020061 OPW, HALAKAL STP
0.570
0.950
0.012
10.000
0.050
12.000
0.750
0.100
200
0.150
1.720
82.000
7.000
4.300
7.000
3.200
0.500
0.400
3.900
0.133
0.500
25.000
000
500
300
000
1.000
Industrial (Conventional Pollutant
AS0000019 STAR-KIST
AS0000027 SAMOA PACKING CO.
HI0000078 PIONEER MILL CO.
HI0000086 KEKAHA SUGAR CO.
HI0000116 OKOKELE SUGAR CO.
HI0000124 LIHUE PLANATION CO.
HI0000159 HAMAKUA SUGAR CO. INC.
HI0000191 HILO COAST PROCESS. CO.
HI0000256 KONOKAA SUGAR CO.
HI0000361 MCBRIDE SUGAR CO.
1.250
0.520
0.500
99.100
2.000
3.000
4.100
20.190
14.000
0.375
Htoooocas
HIOO003S1
HI0000812
HI0020257
HI0000124-
\HIOOOO353
XHI0020265
Industrial (Toxic Pollutants)
AS0020036 MARINE RAILWAY AUTH.
GU0020036 MOBIL CABRAS
GU0020079 ESSO EASTERN INC.
GU0020168 UNIVERSITY OF GUAM
GU0020249 LOCKHEED AIR TERMINAL
GU0110078 NAVAL DEBALL
GU0110124 USN, SUPPLY
HI0000329 CHEVRON
HI0000582 SHELL OIL (HONOLULU)
HI0000663 PACIFIC RESOURCES
HI0020630 WAIKIKI AQUARIUM
HI0020656 HAWAIIAN MILLING CO.
HI0020711 ALA WAI MARINE LTD.
HI0020796 AMEROA HCHD
HI0020834 DEL MARK CORP.
HI0020893 NATURAL ENERGY LAB
HI0020923 CHEVRON HONOLULU MAIN
HI0020931 CHEVRON HONOLULU T
HI0020940 CHEVRON KAPALANA T
HI0020958 LANAI OIL CO.
HI0020991 PAULEY PETROLEUM, INC.
HI0021008 AKONA PETROLEUM
HI0021083 HAWAIIAN CEMENT
HI0021113 CO. OF HAWAII-PAPLKAU PAUKOA
HI0021121 CHEVRON KAHULUI TERRAL
NI0020117 MOBIL OIL. ROTA, CNMI
NI0020125 MOBIL 01. SAIPAN, CNMI
NI0020133 MOBIL OIL, TINIAN, CNMI
NI0020290 HARA ADAI HOTEL, CNMI
TT0020095 MOBIL OIL, PALAU
0.100
0.000
0.000
0.288
0.100
0.370
0.100
5.300
0.023
0.000
0.600
0.100
0.100
0.027
0.050
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.100
0.000
0.000
0.100
0.000
Electrical Utilities
GU0000019 USN, PITI PWR PLT 182.000
GU0000027 TANGUISSON POWER PLANT 99.000
GU0020001 GPA, CABRAS POWER PLANT 173.000
HI0000019 KAHE 1-5 647.000
HI0000027 HONOLULU 5, 7-9 -304.000
HI0000353 CITIZENS UTILITIES 10.800
Offshore 011 & Gas
(none)
HI0020109
HI0110O78
HI0020796 HIO020150
110020303 ef . OHI0020630
HIO020711 HI000011
HI0021083
HI00209S8
0021
HIOOO0078
Tna following could not b« located:
HI002047B
HKXJ20770
HI0020C34
(M, OU. N, TT) net •Down.
HIOOOO1B1
HI0020893
Figure 14. Summary of 403(c) Discharges in Region IX (Hawaii and
Pacific Islands).
7?"~~~Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
water characteristics is presented in that report (see also Fact Sheet
on oil and gas in Appendix C). Operators in southern California are
complying with the BPT conditions under the general permit which
expired in 1984, and is continued under administrative order.
Approximately 10 new dischargers have applied for and received
individual permits with conditions similar to Region IX proposed
BAT/BPJ general permits. Region IX proposed two BAT/BPJ per-
mits. These new general permits, for oil and gas, are expected to be
final this year; one covering exploration and the other covering
development and production operations.
A number of power plants in California also discharge effluent to the
ocean. Provisions regulating the thermal aspects of power plant ef-
fluent are specified in the Water Quality Control Plan for the control
of temperature in the coastal and interstate waters and enclosed bays
and estuaries of California (i.e., California's Thermal Plan).
There are several other categories of industries that discharge to the
open ocean in Region IX. Two oil refineries in California and two in
Hawaii are subject to evaluation under 403(c). Information on the
environmental impacts of these facilities is limited (see Fact Sheet in
Appendix C). Discharges from two pulp and paper mills hi Region IX,
located near Fairhaven, California, have been determined to be in
compliance with section 301(m) of the CWA (see Fact Sheet in Ap-
pendix C). Although pulp and paper effluent can potentially be toxic
to aquatic biota, no adverse impacts on indigenous benthic infauna or
fish in the vicinity of the discharge have been observed. Most effluent
solids appear to be transported out of the immediate discharge area
by strong currents. However, these facilities are reportedly violating
whole effluent chronic toxicity limits in their permits, and are currently
the subject of an enforcement action. There are currently two sugar
mills discharging into the ocean in the State of Hawaii under NPDES
permits. Six other sugar mills have emergency discharge permits. The
major pollutant of concern in sugar mill effluent that adversely impacts
coral communities is suspended solids (see Fact Sheet in Appendix C).
EPA is currently conducting a study on the impacts of two sugar cane
mills on the island of Hawaii. One sawmill, located in Fort Bragg, CA,
discharges effluent into the open ocean (see Fact Sheet in Appendix
C). In addition, two seafood processor currently discharges into the
ocean. One facility recently received an NPDES permit to discharge
seafood processing wastewater from an existing but inactive ocean
outfall (i.e., National Refractories' magnesium processing plant). Ex-
cept for the pulp and paper discharges, however, which are under
enforcement actions, these industrial facilities are reported to be in
compliance with the State standards, as is required hi then- NPDES
permits.
The coastlines of California and Hawaii encompass a wide variety of
physical environments and biological communities. The nearshore
area of California is typically an open coastal environment.
Oceanographic conditions off California are predominantly controlled
by the California Current System which extends seaward off the
Washington-California coast. However, substantial differences exist
in coastal orientation, coastal and submarine topography, wind and
Report to Congress
45
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Region X
wave conditions, and water properties (sjj^, temperature, salinity) that
can influence the local and regional circulatory patterns. The near-
shore environment of the Hawaiian islands is extremely complex and
variable. The receiving waters into which the sugar mills discharge are
exposed to trade winds and are subject to heavy surf. Climatic condi-
tions within the coastal areas of Region IX range from the temperate
climate of northern California to the sub-tropical climate of Hawaii
and Palau. The beneficial uses of the ocean waters of Region IX include
industrial water supply, water contact and non-contact recreation,
including aesthetic enjoyment, navigation, commercial and sport fish-
ing; aquaculture; preservation and enhancement of areas of special
biological significance, rare and endangered species, marine habitat;
fish migration and spawning; and shellfish harvesting.
U.S. EPA Region X includes the coastal States of Oregon, Washington
and Alaska (see Figures 15 and 16). In Oregon and Washington,
responsibility for implementing the 403(c) program has been
authorized to the States as part of the NPDES program. Although
there are many small communities and facilities along these coasts, the
outfalls typically discharge to estuaries or rivers. Currently, there are
only five dischargers subject to 403(c) criteria in Oregon and
Washington. These include three pulp and paper mills in Oregon, and
one small sewage treatment facility in each State. Ocean Discharge
Criteria Evaluations (ODCEs) have not yet been performed for these
dischargers.
U.S. EPA Region X has responsibility for implementing the 403(c)
program in Alaska. There are potentially several hundred 403(c)
dischargers in Alaska but the exact number is uncertain. Not only are
there many more coastal facilities in Alaska, but the baseline delineat-
ing inland waters from the territorial sea has not yet been determined
for much of the complex coastline of southeast Alaska. The ocean
discharge criteria have been considered for many of the confirmed
403(c) dischargers. There is variation in the detail of the analyses, the
effectiveness of monitoring programs, and the amount of review per-
formed after the permits are issued. Most of the permits that EPA
Region X has classified as major hi Alaska are generally hi compliance
with 403(c) requirements. (EPA classifies industrial dischargers as
"major" or "minor9 based on the following criteria: potential for toxic
pollutant discharge, traditional pollutants in the effluent, potential health
impacts, flow rate of the effluent, and various water quality factors.
Municipal dischargers (sewage treatment plants) are classified as major
according to the following criteria: ownership must be public, the facility
must be active, and the flow rate must be 1 million or more gallons per
day or a population of 10,000 must be served or the discharge must cause
significant water quality impacts.)
The initial 403(c) evaluations in Alaska were for exploratory oil and
gas offshore drilling operations. Four of the current NPDES general
permits account for 66 operations. Only 18 of these facilities are
currently operating. In addition, one individual permit has been is-
sued. The second major category of Alaskan ocean discharges are
seafood processing facilities. There are currently 290 of these opera-
46
Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
REGION 10 - Oregon, Washington
Sewage Treatment Plants
OR0022772 CITY OF NEWPORT STP
WA0025585 QUINALT INDIAN NATION STP
Flow (HGO)
2.470
1.000
Industrial (Conventional Pollutants)
(none)
Industrial (Toxic Pollutants)
• OR0000221 INTERNATIONAL PAPER CO
OR0001341 GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORP TOLEDO
OR0023361 WEYERHAEUSER CO
6.970
PAPER 13.300
0.100
Electrical Utilities
(none)
Offshore Oil & Gas
(none)
WA0025585
JR0023361
Figure 15. Summary of 403(c) Discharges in Region X (Oregon and
Washington).
Report to Congress
47
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
REGION 10 - Alaska Flow (M60)
Sewage Treatment Plants
(none)
Industrial (Conventional Pollutants)
(none)
Industrial (Toxic Pollutants)
AK0029840 PRUDHOE BAY WATERFLOOD PROJECT
AK0038661 ENOICOTT DEVELOPMENT
AK0040487 SHEE ATIKA
AK0043192 WEST60LD
AK0043354 KUPARUK WATERFLOOD PROJECT
AK0049379 WESTGOLD
9.000
1.300
0.100
47.800
1.650
0.000
Electrical Utilities
(none)
Offshore Oil & Gas
AKG283000 GEN. OFFSHORE OIL & GAS BERING SEA
AKG284000 GEN. OFFSHORE OIL & GAS BEAUFORT SEA
AKG284100 GEN. OFFSHORE OIL & GAS BEAUFORT II
AKG285000 GEN. OFFSHORE 0&G COOK INLET/GULF OF
AKG287000 GEN. OFFSHORE OIL & GAS NORTON SOUND
AKG288000 GEN. OFFSHORE OIL & GAS CHUKCHI SEA
AKG520000 ALASKA SEAFOOD PROCESSORS
ALASKA
AK0043354
AK003S661
Figure 16. Summary of 403(c) Discharges in Region X (Alaska).
Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
tions under the general permit. These include both mobile and shore-
based facilities, and therefore discharges from a single seafood
processing source may or may not be subject to 403(c) at any given
tune, depending on location (see Fact Sheet in Appendix C). As many
as 150 additional processors may be covered when the general permit
became effective in October 1989. Third, there are currently 30-35
minor individual discharge permits issued to log transfer facilities.
Most of these are located in southeast Alaska and their locations with
respect to territorial waters is uncertain (see Fact Sheet in Appendix
C). Only one facility has been reviewed under 403(c) and Region X is
not currently evaluating any of the other log transfer facilities. Fourth,
403(c) criteria have been applied to discharges from two seawater
treatment plants operating on Alaska's Beaufort Sea coast. These two
permits address seawater treatment plant discharges alone. A third
seawater treatment plant is the Endicott Development Project, the only
production facility currently permitted on the North Slope. Its permit
includes discharges for muds and cuttings as well as seawater treatment
and waterflood. Both facilities are associated with waterflood oil-
recovery operations (see Fact Sheet hi Appendix C). The fifth major
category of Alaskan discharges for which the 403(c) regulations may
be applicable are the placer (dredging) gold mining operations on
Norton Sound. Although there are currently 464 individual NPDES
permits for placer mining, only two of these are to marine waters (both
at the Westgold facility) and a 403(c) evaluation has been completed
for this facility (see Fact Sheet in Appendix C). A few new mining
operations may also be subject to 403(c) criteria. Finally, there are over
200 additional discharges to coastal waters in Alaska for which 403(c)
eligibility will need to be determined on a case-by-case basis (depend-
ing on location with respect to the baseline). These include sewerage
systems, heavy construction, petroleum facilities, fish hatcheries, and
lead and zinc ore operations.
The Region X coastline is several thousand miles long, extending from
42°N to 68°N. This extensive region encompasses a wide variety of
environmental conditions and biological communities. The nearshore
area of Oregon and Washington is typically a high-energy, open coastal
environment. In contrast, the complex coastline of southeast Alaska
encompasses numerous bays, fjords, straits, and channels. Circulation
and topography in this area are highly variable and can produce very
different discharge impacts. Climatic conditions within the region
range from the temperate climate of the northeast Pacific to the
ice-covered Beaufort Sea. These diverse physical environments are
associated with equally diverse biological communities. Beneficial
uses of the receiving waters include navigation, recreation, ocean
commercial and sport fishing, and preservation of rare and endangered
species (s^S» gray whale) and special aquatic habitats (e.g., wildlife
refuges, State parks).
More 403(c) evaluations have been completed in Region X than in any
other Region. Based on this experience, Region X reports that the
403(c) regulations encompass all major aspects of ocean discharge
assessments and provide the Regions and States with the necessary
authority to impose controls. The 4Q3(c) evaluations require a range
of multi-disciplinary expertise, and the effort involved in completing
an ODCE (although it varies greatly depending on the specific project)
Report to Congress
49
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
can be extensive. Additional dischargers will require evaluation as
baselines are determined for Alaskan waters. If the 403(c) require-
ments are extended to all marine and estuarine waters, the number of
affected facilities in all three States will increase dramatically.
50
Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
Overview of
Regulations for
Discharges to
Marine Waters
Technology-based
NPDES Permits
Section 403(c) was enacted as part of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (FWPCA) of 1972 (the Act). Regulations to implement
section 403(c) were promulgated with the ocean dumping regulations
on October 15, 1973. EPA's present implementing regulations (the
Ocean Discharge Criteria) were promulgated in 1980 at 40 CFR Part
125, Subpart M. While 403(c) contains requirements specific to ocean
discharges, it is one part of the overall pollution control strategy under
Section 402 of the Act (NPDES). The following discussion provides a
perspective on the relationship between section 403(c) and the NPDES
program, which is necessary in understanding the future direction of
the permit strategy for marine discharges. Other related Federal
regulatory programs and policies which will influence the implemen-
tation strategy for 403(c), such as 304(1) impaired waterbodies listings,
are also discussed.
In 1972, Congress established the basic framework for Federal water
pollution control regulation by enacting the FWPCA, now amended
and commonly known as the Clean Water Act (CWA), and most
recently revised by the Water Quality Act of 1987 (WQA). The
framework of the Act, then as now, contemplated a two-pronged
approach. First, EPA is to develop national minimum treatment re-
quirements based on an assessment of the achievability of control
technologies by individual categories of dischargers. Second, States
are to set water quality standards to be used in addition to technology-
based controls to achieve water quality objectives for a particular body
of water.
Each effluent limitation in an NPDES permit is established using
technology-based or water quality-based standard methodology.
Generally, technology-based limits define a floor or minimum level of
control and are imposed at the point of discharge, or "end-of-the-pipe."
The FWPCA required the application of "best practicable control
technology" (BPT) by July 1, 1977, for all NPDES permits. For in-
dustry, BPT equates to the "average of the best" waste treatment
performance within an industrial category. Subsequent permits for
industrial discharges required application of a more stringent level of
treatment. For publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs), the Clean
Water Act requires effluent limitations based on a secondary treatment
level. Pollutants are divided into "conventional" (BOD, TSS, fecal
coliform, and oil and grease), "toxic" (65 classes of toxic compounds),
and "nonconventional" (ammonia, chlorine, color, iron, total phenols
and all other pollutants which are not listed as toxic or conventional).
Report to Congress
51
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Water Quality-based
NPDES Permits
Currently, dischargers are separated by industry type and further
divided into "new" or "existing" sources. Effluent limitations for exist-
ing sources are to be based on the "best available technology economi-
cally achievable" (BAT) for toxic and nonconventional pollutants, and
by the "best conventional pollutant control technology" (BCT) for
conventional pollutants. Initially, BAT and BCT limits were required
by July 1,1984, but the WQA extended the deadline to March 31,1989.
Effluent limitations for new sources, "new source performance stand-
ards" (NSPS), are to be based on the "best available demonstrated
control technology, processes, operating methods, or other alterna-
tives" including, where practicable, no discharge of pollutants. NSPS
may be more stringent than BAT or BCT regulations. Where EPA has
not promulgated applicable nationwide effluent limitations guidelines,
the Clean Water Act authorizes EPA to establish technology-based
permitting limitations case-by-case, based on "best professional deter-
mination" (BPJ).
In addition to the technology-based limits that are applicable to all
sources, the CWA requires that all permittees must comply with any
applicable limits derived from additional or more stringent State water
quality standards. This strategy builds on BAT by developing effluent
limitations for all types of pollutants based on State water quality
criteria within State standards (for marine and fresh waters). State
water quality standards are made up of State water quality criteria
(numeric and narrative), a waterbody designated use, and an anti-
degradation statement as is mandated for each State under section 303
of the CWA. Water quality standards, and toxic pollutant effluent
limitations are intended to maintain receiving water quality at a level
sufficient to protect the designated uses established by States for
surface waters of the United States.
Pollution control is achieved through criteria and standards by specify-
ing allowable concentrations of pollutants within and at the edge of any
applicable mixing zone in the receiving water. Given the magnitude of
mixing that is expected to occur, allowable concentrations of pollutants
are back-calculated and included in NPDES permits as allowable
effluent concentrations. Pollutants are regulated on both a chemical-
specific and "whole effluent" basis. In developing pollutant specific
controls, criteria and standards are developed individually for a single
pollutant (or a closely related class of chemicals), or by parameters
such as that for dissolved oxygen. EPA and the states have been
concerned that traditional pollutant-specific regulatory approaches
control only a limited number of substances; therefore, many water
quality standards also address the overall toxicity of wastewater dis-
charges (La» whole effluent toxicity). Water quality criteria and stand-
ards are developed from laboratory toxicity tests, field studies, and/or
epidemiology studies. Standards are designed to protect aquatic life
and prevent significant health risks.
Recognizing the need to focus future effort on controlling the dis-
charge of toxics into receiving waters, and especially for nonconven-
tional pollutants and specific toxics for which no specific criteria or
52
Report to Congvss
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
standards exist, EPA published the Federal Register Nntira "Develop-
ment of Water Quality-Based Permit Limitations for Toxic Pollutants:
National Policy" (49 FR 9016, March 9,1984). This policy emphasizes
EPA's integrated approach of using both biological and chemical
methods for characterizing effluents and developing effluent limits
through the NPDES permit program. Under sections 308 and 402 of
the CWA, NPDES permittees may be required to monitor discharges
to measure pollutants, including toxicity, and to collect receiving water
biological data, to assure compliance with state water quality stand-
ards. To further support EPA's toxics control program, the Agency
also developed two guidance documents: "Technical Support Docu-
ment for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control" (EPA 440/4-85-032,
September 1985) and the "Permit Writer's Guide to Water Quality-
Based Permitting for Toxic Pollutants" (EPA 440/4-87-005, July 1987).
The Technical Support Document provides a technical explanation of
biological and chemical techniques to assess and control toxic pol-
lutants and toxicity. The Permit Writer's Guide gives State and Federal
NPDES permit writers a methodology for deriving water quality-based
effluent limits. The Technical Support Document is presently being
revised.
The national surface water toxics control strategy builds on the BAT
base and includes not only pollutant-specific controls (through estab-
lished criteria and standards) but also control of complex mixtures of
pollutants and pollutants which have no specific numeric criteria and
standards. This is achieved by treating whole effluent toxicity as a
control parameter. Toxicity limitations for complex effluents are
developed in conjunction with biological toxicity testing procedures
(£4k whole effluent toxicity tests) which relate the effluent toxicity to
an expected receiving water impact and therefore allow evaluation of
compliance with the general narrative standard of "no toxics in toxic
amounts". If this standard cannot be achieved, a toxicity reduction
evaluation (TRE) can be implemented to identify and mitigate sources
of effluent toxicity. Chemical, physical, and biological testing con-
ducted by individual discharges are determined on a case-by-case
basis. Factors considered in evaluating an individual discharge include
the degree of impact, complexity and variability of the effluent, receiv-
ing water body characteristics (physical, chemical, biological), poten-
tial for human health impact, existing data, level of certainty desired in
the water quality assessment, and overlapping impacts from other
sources of pollutants.
This dual approach of biological (whole effluent) toxicity and chemi-
cal-specific analyses was re-emphasized by Congress in the Water
Quality Act (WQA) of 1987. EPA was specifically directed to report
to Congress on methods for establishing and measuring water quality
criteria for toxic pollutants through the use of biological monitoring
and assessment methods in addition to pollutant-by-pollutant analyses.
Recently, EPA promulgated regulations (54 FR 23868, June 2,1989)
to reinforce the Agency's surface water toxics control program, and to
interpret Section 308(a) of the WQA, which added section 304(1) to
the CWA. Section 304(1) requires States to identify those waters that
are adversely affected by toxic, conventional, and nonconventional
pollutants, and to prepare individual control strategies that will restrict
Report to Congress
53
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
point source discharges of toxic pollutants. In the regulations, EPA
reiterated that an adequate State regulatory program for developing
water quality-based effluent limits hi NPDES permits should be an
integral part of each approved State's NPDES program. EPA also
emphasized that narrative water quality standards (e^, "no toxics hi
toxic amounts") have the same force and effect as other State water
quality standards, and that these narrative standards must be imple-
mented to achieve the goals of the CWA.
The national surface water toxics control strategy applies to all surface
waters of the United States ~ both fresh and marine. However, the
early development of technical guidance for the water quality-based
toxics control strategy has focused on freshwater systems, in part
because physical and chemical processes controlling pollutant fate
have been more extensively studied hi these systems. Guidance was
provided on the implementation of EPA's 1984 biomonitoring policy,
considering such issues as the development of water quality standards
and criteria, effluent characterization, health hazard assessments, was-
teload allocations, and permit requirements/compliance monitoring.
The whole effluent toxicity approach involved the use of test organisms
(using such marine species s&Arbaciapunculata [an echinoderm] and
Mysidopsis bahia [an arthropod]) exposed to municipal or industrial
effluent to measure acute and chronic toxicity.
Other manuals were issued by EPA for use by EPA Regional and State
programs and NPDES permittees to establish standardized methods
for measuring: for example, (1) the acute toxicity of effluents to
freshwater and marine organisms ("Methods For Measuring the Acute
Toxicity of Effluents to Freshwater and Marine Organisms," EPA
600/4-85-013, March 1985), and (2) the chronic toxicity of effluents to
freshwater organisms ("Short-Term Methods For Estimating the
Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater
Organisms," EPA 600/4-85-014, December 1985).
An evaluation of the fate of pollutants and potential biological impacts
in marine waters, especially for estuaries, usually is more difficult than
for freshwaters as a result of: (1) the higher variability and complexity
of the marine ecosystem; (2) the lack of approved marine pollutant
water quality and sediment criteria; and (3) the importance of both
sediment transport and its interaction with the water column. These
difficulties are being addressed by EPA guidance for determining
marine water quality and biological impacts, and the NPDES water
quality-based permit limitations. The 1987 permit writer's guide (EPA
440/4-87-005, July 1987) is designed to assist State and Federal NPDES
permit writers hi the development of water quality-based permit limits
for pollutants. In addition, as an adjunct to EPA's 1985 manual for
determining acute toxicity of effluents to marine waters, EPA in 1988
released standardized methods for estimating the chronic toxicity of
effluents to marine and estuarine organisms ("Short-Term Methods
For Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters
to Marine and Estuarine Organisms," EPA 600/4-87-028, May 1988).
EPA is continuing its efforts to refine and further develop guidance to
assess effluent toxicity and receiving water quality. In situ biomonitor-
ing methods, already well established for freshwater systems, are being
54
Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
403 (c) Relationship to
Other Programs
301(h) for POTWs
modified to monitor long-term trends of marine impacts. As the
Agency proceeds to develop water quality and sediment criteria, EPA
is considering such factors as: durations of exposures and allowable
frequencies of exceedance to limit acute and chronic biological effects.
EPA is providing guidance for States in their development of water
quality standards, and NPDES effluent permit limitations. In addition,
EPA is developing a Marine/Estuarine Permit Writer's Guide and an
Estuary Waste Load Allocation Assessment Guidance Document.
EPA's future endeavors will be geared not only to developing pollutant
specific NPDES permit limits, but also to the development of effluent
toxicity limitations. The Marine/Estuarine Complex Effluent Toxicity
Testing Program is currently used to provide technical support in the
development of NPDES permits. NPDES dischargers would be re-
quired, where necessary, to conduct a toxicity reduction evaluation
(TRE) to localize effluent toxicity sources and identify control options,
and, if necessary, implement a toxics control program in order to bring
them back into compliance with their permits.
Section 301(h) of the Act provides that the Administrator, with the
concurrence of the State, may issue a NPDES permit for a POTW
which waives the secondary treatment requirements for POTW dis-
charges into certain ocean or estuarine waters. POTWs requesting a
section 301(h) "waiver" must adequately demonstrate that the integrity
of the marine receiving waters, and biota, will not be impaired. Ap-
plicants for a 301(h) "waiver" are required to collect data and perform
an analysis on their discharge in consideration of:
• Compliance with State water quality standards and marine water
quality criteria;
• Near- and farfield transport of pollutants in the water column and
sediments;
• Protection and propagation of balanced indigenous populations
of fish, shellfish, and wildlife, including consideration of:
- commercial and recreational fisheries
- distinctive habitats of limited distribution
- bioaccumulation of toxic substances (including consump-
tion of contaminated seafood by humans);
• Protection of public water supplies and allows recreational ac-
tivities in and on the water;
• Toxic substances control:
- industrial pretreatment program
- nonindustrial source control program;
• Data analysis and monitoring programs:
- effluent, water quality, and biological monitoring.
The 301(h) regulatory requirements summarized above are similar to
the 403(c) Ocean Discharge Criteria in the emphasis on evaluating the
Report to Congress
55
-------
r
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Pretreatment
Programs
impact of a discharge on the marine biological community at risk. In
addition to compliance with water quality standards (a requirement
for every NPDES permit), both programs stress consideration of
special aquatic habitats, impacts on the local and surrounding biologi-
cal communities, and bioaccumulation of toxic substances available to
demersal fishes and shellfish through contact with contaminated sedi-
ments. The Agency policy is to presume that discharges that have
received a 301(h) waiver will not cause unreasonable degradation with
respect to those pollutants and conditions covered by the waiver.
There were 208 waiver applications submitted by POTWs by the
statutory deadline resulting in 48 waiver approvals and 15 determina-
tions yet to be made. The remaining applications were denied by the
EPA or withdrawn by the applicant. Because the potential for environ-
mental impact from a "less-than-secondary" POTW is relatively greater
compared to that from a "secondary" POTW, the 301(h) waivers
typically require extensive analysis of in situ physical, chemical, and
biological conditions. Extensive technical guidance on risk assessment
procedures and monitoring techniques for ocean discharges has been
developed by EPA to implement the 301(h) program, including bioac-
cumulation monitoring methods, fish histopathology methods, analyti-
cal methods for priority pollutants and pesticides in marine sediments,
and quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures. EPA will
consider the use of these technical guidance and tools, where ap-
propriate, in the implementation of the 403(c) program.
The Clean Water Act authorized EPA to establish effluent Umitation
guidelines for existing direct sources, standards of performance for
new direct discharge sources, and pretreatment standards for new and
existing "indirect" discharges to POTWs. Regulations were promul-
gated by EPA to require pollutant dischargers to comply with effluent
guidelines and standards (40 CFR Part 401). Under 40 CFR Part 403
("General Pretreatment Regulations for Existing and New Sources of
Pollution"), EPA established:
(1) general prohibitions to prevent the release of any pollutant from
any non-domestic source into Publicly Owned Treatment Works
(POTWs) which interfered with, passed through untreated, or was
otherwise incompatible with the POTW, and
(2) specific prohibitions against the introduction of pollutants from
any non-domestic source into a POTW which could cause a
fire/explosion hazard, corrosive (pH) damage, or interference
with the POTW, due to obstruction of flow, heat, or other reasons.
In addition, EPA established national categorical pretreatment stand-
ards applicable to specific industrial subcategories (40 CFR 403.6;
406-471), and required POTWs to develop specific local limits. Local
discharge limits could be set by industrial category, by specific pol-
lutant, or by individual industrial facility once industrial discharges
were identified which: contained toxic priority pollutants or prohibited
discharges (i.e., heat, explosive/fire hazards, corrosive agents), inter-
fered with POTW operations, passed through the POTW treatment
56
Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
Section 316 (a),(b) for
Cooling Discharges
and 301(g) Variances
for Nonconventional
Pollutants
National
Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA)
system and adversely affected receiving water quality, contaminated
POTW sludge, or created a health/safety hazard for workers in the
POTW. The local limits developed are deemed to be Federal standards
for the purposes of the prohibition under section 307 of the Clean
Water Act against violating pretreatment standards, and thus are
considered to be Federally enforceable.
The categorical pretreatment standards developed by EPA regulate
pollutants commonly discharged by specific industrial categories. The
categorical industries must comply with technology-based effluent
limitations and monitor discharges to achieve and maintain com-
pliance with the standards. Federal categorical standards therefore
provided a minimum, uniform level of pollution control of all dis-
chargers in similar industrial categories.
Therefore, for categorical industries, pretreatment standards could
consist of a combination of prohibited discharge standards, Federal
categorical pretreatment standards, and local pretreatment limits.
The more stringent of the discharge limits would apply. For non-
categorical industries, pretreatment standards could consist of
prohibited discharge standards and local discharge limits.
Since the majority of 403(c) land-based discharges are POTWs, these
POTWs, to limit the degradation of receiving waters (as required
under Clean Water Act section 403(c)), must ensure that their
pretreatment programs are effectively implemented and enforced so
as to prevent violations of the POTWs' NPDES permit conditions.
Section 316 of the Act provides for waivers from the effluent limitation
for the control of the thermal component of discharges from electric
utilities and other facilities. These discharges typically involve the
passage of large volumes of flow through condenser systems, where the
primary impacts are related to temperature differences and physical
passage of marine organisms through the cooling systems. Section
301(g) of the CWA provides a waiver from BAT for several named
pollutants. Compliance with sections 301(g) and 316 may be used to
presume compliance with 403(c) hi some cases, with respect to those
pollutants and conditions addressed in the waivers.
In issuing new source NPDES permits, EPA prepares an environmen-
tal impact statement (EIS) under NEPA, if the permitted discharge
would significantly affect the quality of the human environment. (If
not, the Agency prepares an environmental assessment and Findings
of No Significant Impact.) The NEPA process can be used to provide
Report to Congress
57
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Section 304(1) for
Impaired Waterbodies
data and information with which to make the necessary 403(c) deter-
minations (and vice versa). However, under section 511 of the CWA,
the NEPA process does not substitute for or override requirements of
section 403(c).
An important part of the 1987 Amendments to the Clean Water Act is
the identification of impaired waterbodies and identification and con-
trol of point sources causing water quality impairment due to toxic
pollutants. Section 304(1) requires EPA to identify and categorize the
nation's impaired waterways on three lists. To briefly summarize these
lists; the "Long List" includes all impaired waterbodies where such
impairment is caused by point or nonpoint sources, or is due to
conventional, nonconventional, or toxic pollutants. The "Mini List" is
a subset of'the Long List and includes those waterbodies where
numeric criteria within state water quality standards for section 307(a)
priority pollutants are expected to be exceeded. The "Short List" is that
subset of the Long List (with some overlap of the Mini List) where
water quality impairment is due entirely or substantially to point source
discharges of section 307(a) pollutants. (NOTE: Section 307(a) of the
Clean Water Act, entitled "Toxic and Pretreatment Effluent Standards,''
refers to a list of toxic pollutants subject to the Act. EPA has identified
one hundred twenty-six of these organic and inorganic individual chemi-
cals and compounds as "prioritypollutants.") Finally, for each water-
body on the Short List, the sources of section 307(a) toxic pollutants
causing impairment must be identified as well as the amounts of each
pollutant discharged.
Facilities which are "entirely or substantially" causing or contributing
to the impairment of waterbodies on the Short List will be required to
develop additional controls on priority pollutants through individual
control strategies. These controls will be established as enforceable
effluent limits in the discharger's NPDES permit. There are no 403(c)
ocean dischargers affected by section 304(1) requirements. For those
discharges located in waterbodies on the Short List, high priority will
be given to evaluating and controlling priority pollutants.
It should be noted that section 304(1) control strategy requirements are
to be completed by June 1990 with full compliance with individual
control strategies by June 1992 or June 1993. After these dates, section
304(1) requirements will no longer apply. Therefore, steps to continue
the process established by section 304(0 are being taken by focusing
on the implementation of section 303(d). Section 303(d) requires that
States identify and prioritize water quality-limited segments (any seg-
ment where water quality does not meet applicable water quality
standards [40 CFR Part 130.2(i)]) needing total maximum daily load
(TMDL) determinations necessary to implement applicable water
quality standards.
EPA's final regulations (54 FR 23868, June 2,1989) are designed to
satisfy the requirements of Section 304(1) of the CWA. These regula-
tions established minimum consistent procedures for States and EPA
to develop and implement water quality-based NPDES permit limits.
58
Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
EPA's National
Coastal and Marine
Policy
The permitting authority must establish appropriate chemical-specific
effluent limits, or whole effluent toxicity limits for pollutants, if the
discharges of the pollutants cause, or have the reasonable potential to
cause, excursions above water quality criteria (including narrative
water quality criteria).
In January, 1989 EPA issued its National Coastal and Marine Policy
for the protection, restoration, and maintenance of the Nation's coastal
and marine waters. The goals of this EPA policy are summarized
below:
• Recovery of full recreational use of shores, beaches, and water by
reducing sources of bacterial and other contamination, plastics,
floatables, and debris.
• Restoration of the Nation's shellfisheries and salt-water fisheries
and protection of marine mammals and living resources by con-
trolling pollution and causes of habitat degradation and loss.
• Minimize the use of coastal and marine waters for waste disposal
by strictly limiting ocean dumping, tightening controls on land-
based sources, and establishing aggressive programs to reduce the
amount of waste generated by our society.
• Greater understanding of the effects of pollution on complex
coastal and marine ecosystems by expanding scientific research
and monitoring programs, and the development of new technol-
ogy.
• Leadership by the United States in protection of the world's
oceans by aggressively promoting international efforts to stop
pollution and protect critical marine habitats and living resources.
The implementation of the policy to achieve these goals includes
increased focus on the control of both offshore and landbased point
sources through analysis of impacts to the marine community, revision
of NPDES permits where necessary, enforcement of NPDES permit
conditions, evaluation of alternatives to ocean disposal, and monitor-
ing of living resources to ensure that permits are protective. This policy
is both consistent with and supportive of the regulations under section
403(c).
Report to Congress
59
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
60
Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
403 (c)
Implementation
Plan / Schedule
Next Reissuance 403 (c)
Permit Review
Procedures
This section of the report outlines the Agency's plan for further im-
plementation of section 403(c) ocean discharge criteria regulations.
This plan reflects the evolving nature of the NPDES permit program
for marine discharges, and improved incorporation of the 403(c)
guidelines into the permitting process. The plan is accompanied by an
implementation schedule and an estimate of resources required to
meet this schedule for FY 1990 and 1991, consistent with the
President's budget. The success of the plan depends on 1) the extent
to which science develops to establish a cause and effect relationship
between discharges and the marine environment, 2) the extent to which
there is information to address the ocean discharge criteria, 3) the
resources that the Agency and NPDES authorized states are able to
commit to the reviews, permit writing, and analysis of data generated
from monitoring requirements in the permits, 4) the development of
methods for sediment and biological criteria for marine receiving
waters, and 5) national technical guidance.
One of the greatest barriers to implementing a national 403(c) review
program has been the cost of performing 403(c) reviews at the Regional
or State level, and monitoring and providing guidance for State ac-
tivities where States are the approved NPDES permitting authority.
Also, ocean discharge criteria evaluations are often complex analyses
that do not lend themselves easily to quantification of specific limits or
engineering techniques. Reviews under section 403(c) typically re-
quire a range of multi-disciplinary talent, including physical oceanog-
raphy, systems modeling, marine biology/toxicology, marine
monitoring, and environmental engineering.
The NPDES permit program is based on a five year cycle. As permits
expire, NPDES permit applicants will be required to submit all avail-
able information pertinent to section 403(c) using information avail-
able from any existing monitoring data, literature reviews and other
information as required by the Agency. In addition to an evaluation
of water quality-based elements, normally required undef the NPDES
program, the Agency will use the information submitted by the ap-
plicant to evaluate the potential effects of the discharge vis-a-vis the 10
ocean discharge guidelines.
The Agency will evaluate the information base submitted by the ap-
plicant and make a determination of unreasonable degradation as
specified in the regulations [40 CFR Part 125.122 (a)], to the extent that
resources will allow. The Agency anticipates that during the next
round of permitting there will be insufficient data to fully describe the
Report to Congress
61
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Subsequent Round
403 (c) Permit Review
Procedures
impact of the discharge on the biocommunity for some applicants.
Thus, it is likely that for some dischargers a determination of the
existence of reasonable or unreasonable degradation will not be pos-
sible due to insufficient information. Consequently, the Agency ex-
pects that many reissued permits will be, as they have been in the past,
issued on the basis of no "irreparable harm."
The focus of the reissuance of permits is on the monitoring require-
ments in the permit. As a permit requirement under 403(c), the
permittee may be required to perform in situ monitoring of the receiv-
ing water, as well as the water quality-based monitoring currently
required. The objective ;f in situ and other monitoring requirements
is to collect data, whenever practicable, for the subsequent round of
permitting when a determination will be made on unreasonable
degradation and to ensure no irreparable harm during the term of the
permit.
The applicant will collect data and perform analyses for the needed
technical evaluations as specified in the permit. The Office of Marine
and Estuarine Protection will begin to develop technical and proce-
dural guidance specific to 403(c) in FY90. The 403(c) program will
also draw on the experiences of other programs as it does presently.
Specific criteria for the ocean discharge guidelines will be provided in
the revised regulations, as well as more detailed technical guidance on
analytical methods and monitoring.
NPDES permits will be issued for a period of five years unless condi-
tions exist such that the permitting Agency believes a shorter time
frame is warranted. This may include cases of discharges into stressed
waters, sensitive areas, or when the toxicity or flow rate of the discharge
is of concern. In these instances, the permitting Agency may impose
conditions protective of the ecosystem in addition to the monitoring
requirements.
Monitoring data can be evaluated at any point during the permit cycle.
Permits based on no irreparable harm will have a reopener clause so
that if the original determination is incorrect, further evaluation can be
conducted. Such cases might involve discharges into or near sensitive
or critical habitats or stressed waters, discharges that exhibit high mass
emission rates of priority pollutants or other toxic substances, or
discharges where threats to public health are suspected or have been
observed.
In the subsequent round of permitting, each permit applicant will be
required to readdress the ocean discharge criteria before the permit is
reissued. This application will focus on effluent characteristics and
impacts, or potential effects, on the biocommunity. Again, as in the
previous round, applications will be reviewed using the 403(c)
guidelines. The difference in this round will be that for many cases the
data used to make the evaluation will not only include generalized
62
Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
Resource Requirements
for Achieving
Compliance with
Section 403 (c)
scientific information from the literature, but will also include the data
specific to the permitted discharge, collected from monitoring re-
quired under the previous permit which was specifically designed to
evaluate the 403(c) guidelines. The EPA or State (NPDES approved)
will review the data and make a determination whether there is un-
reasonable degradation of the marine environment. If it is determined
that the discharge will not cause unreasonable degradation, a permit
will be issued with new or modified monitoring requirements. Dis-
chargers for which irreparable harm is observed will be required to
either use an alternative disposal method or install pollution reduction
technologies.
Data submitted in support of NPDES permit applications may be
reviewed with varying attention to detail. A minimum review typically
involves simple comparisons of the applicant's technical results and
conclusions with applicable criteria and standards. More comprehen-
sive reviews may examine:
• The appropriateness of the assumptions inherent in the design and
execution of the technical studies;
• The adequacy of the study design for demonstrating compliance
with permit specifications;
• The quality of the data that can be expected given the field and
laboratory procedures that were implemented;
• The validity of the applicant's results and conclusions;
• The ability of the applicant's data to demonstrate compliance with
applicable statutes and regulations.
To estimate the resources needed by EPA headquarters and Regional
offices, only those elements that are not included in the permitting
process and that result directly from section 403(c) requirements are
factored into the calculation. The following simplifying assumptions
have been made:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Applicants for a permit to discharge beyond the baseline, whether
new or a renewal, will be required to submit information that will
be used to evaluate the discharge in context of the ten ocean
discharge criteria.
Both major and minor dischargers will be evaluated. [Present
Agency resources necessitate that most minor permits continue in
effect under an administrative order.]
All dischargers to the ocean whose permits are continued under
an administrative order will be evaluated at some tune during the
next five years.
To oversee permits written by an NPDES delegated State, the
Agency (Region) will incur costs of about 25 percent of the State's
cost for each permit. The Regions have estimated between 10 and
Report to Confess
63
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
25% for oversight. For purposes of this report, 25% was chosen.
This higher estimate was chosen because some Regions are less
practiced in 403(c) oversight than others and may initially require
more time and resources. Additionally, some of the evaluations
that are more complex may require significant resources beyond
those usually allocated to oversight.
5. UntilFY94 the major tasks of the Regions and NPDES authorized
States, will be to review monitoring data from existing permits and
permit applications and to develop monitoring requirements as
conditions of the next permit. The depth of the Ocean Discharge
Criteria review will vary with the complexity of the discharge and
the type of near and far field biological communities the discharge
will be expected to affect. A general assumption has been made
that for the next round of permits, readily available information
and existing monitoring data will suffice, in most cases, to deter-
mine whether or not irreparable harm will occur.
6. For a small number of permits (10%), it is assumed that monitoring
and modeling by the Agency will be required before a determina-
tion of unreasonable degradation or irreparable harm. Cases in
which this collection of additional in situ data may be necessary
include:
• Discharges near sensitive habitats (e^, coral reefs), par-
ticularly if those habitats are limited in distribution;
• Discharges near habitats critical for the survival and
reproduction of threatened or endangered species (&&»
seagrass beds);
• Discharges into or near spawning grounds (£&, offshore
gravel beds), nursery grounds (e.g.. mangrove swamps),
major commercial or recreational fishing areas, or marine
sanctuaries;
• Large discharges into coastal receiving environments that are
not influenced by other point or nonpoint sources of pol-
lutants (thus allowing cause and effect relationships to be
more readily evaluated based on in situ data);
• Discharges that exhibit high mass emission rates of priority
pollutants or other toxic substances;
• Discharges where threats to public health (e^g., from contact
with pathogens in the water, from the consumption of con-
taminated fish or shellfish) are suspected or have been ob-
served;
• Discharges where degradation of the shoreline (&£„ organic
matter washed up on beaches) are suspected or have been ob-
served.
• Proposed new discharges.
In these cases, the permit may be issued for a shorter tune period
than five years, or more frequent data evaluations may be war-
ranted.
7. The subsequent round of permitting will require ODC data with
the permit renewal application. EPA, or its authorized agency,
will review the data and develop its ODCE accordingly. The
revised ODCE will contain the analysis of the monitoring data
64
Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
9.
collected during the permitting period. The effort to review the
data is expected to be more resource intensive (an increase of
100% level of effort is estimated) than in the previous round. New,
reduced, or modified monitoring requirements will be added to
the permit based on the review of data.
Table 10 lists some of the effluent characterization, receiving water
quality, and biocommunityimpact analyses which maybe required
to determine unreasonable degradation. This is not a complete
list and the Agency is working to develop marine methods and
criteria to support 403(c) determinations, especially for sediment
quality and biological resource issues.
The procedure for issuing general NPDES permits will be un-
changed. The Agency's cost to prepare an ODCE for general
permits has ranged from 750 professional hours each for several
Alaska oil and gas general permits, to 4000 hours for the southern
California offshore oil and gas permit. Because general permits
typically involve large ocean regions and numerous actual (or
potential) discharge locations, the approach necessarily has relied
on the assumption that observed or predicted effects for a few sites
can be extrapolated to many other (similar) sites. This approach
has been used by the Agency to develop general permits for the
offshore oil and gas and seafood processing industries, which can
involve hundreds of similar, widespread activities.
Compliance costs are subsumed in the existing NPDES program.
Additional enforcement costs for administrative orders, ad-
ministrative penalty orders, and litigation will accrue to the 403(c)
program.
The following is a summary of the resources which EPA's head-
quarters, Regional offices, and the States need to continue to imple-
ment the 403(c) program in FY1990 and 1991. As discussed elsewhere
in this Report, a 403(c) evaluation increases the resources used by the
permitting Agency above those for issuing an NPDES water quality or
technology based permit. This is due to the effort to analyze the
information base, evaluate the data, and produce an ODCE. Also, in
some cases (we have estimated 10% based on past experience), the
Agency finds it necessary to run models or to perform monitoring to
corroborate or supplement information provided by the applicant. In
the analyses of the Ocean Discharge Criteria, the Agency must also
decide the type and frequency of monitoring to be included as part of
the permit conditions to assure that the discharge, hi fact, causes "no
unreasonable degradation." The data generated by the monitoring
requirements are then analyzed and evaluated in preparation for use
in permit renewal.
Table 11 presents the Agency's estimates of Regional (EPA) resource
requirements for implementing the 403(c) program. Figure 17
presents estimates of the Regional resources that will be required to
implement section 403(c) each year.
Contract oversight is the time allocated by an Agency representative
to oversee a task which is contracted out. This is calculated as 25% of
the contract amount ($) converted into level of effort, or hours. For
estimations in this report we assume an average contract cost of
$60/hour. For example, a $700,000 contract, divided by $60/hour, is
Report to Congress
65
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Table 10: Potential Analyses to Determine Unreasonable Degradation under 403(c)
WATER QUALITY
Diffuser Hydraulic Check
Initial Dilution
Farfield Dilution
Concentrations of Dissolved Oxygen, Suspended Solids, and pH in Receiving Environment
Sediment Oxygen Demand
Sediment Oxygen Demand Following Sediment Resuspension
Concentrations of Toxic Substances in Receiving Environment
Light Transmittance
Aesthetic Considerations (Color, Odor, Slicks, etc.)
Fecal Coliform/Enterococci Bacterial Concentrations
SEDIMENT QUALITY .
Conventional Sediment Characteristics (e.g., Grain Size, Organic Content, Redox Potential;
Sediment Transport, Deposition, and Resuspension
Organic and Total Sediment Deposition
Deposition of Toxic Substances Associated with Particulates
Behavior of Settled Effluent Particles in Near Surface Sediments
Concentrations of Toxic Substances in the Sediments
SENSITIVE HABITATS
Presence of Sensitive Habitats (e.g., Coral Reefs, Seagrass Beds, Kelp Forest)
Presence of Habitats Critical for Threatened or Endangered Species
Potential for Impacts to Sensitive and Critical Habitats
Potential for Impacts to Threatened or Endangered Species
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Commercial and Recreational Fisheries
Benthic Infaunal Communities
Demersal Fish and Megainvertebrate Communities
Pelagic Fish Communities
Plankton Communities
Sea Surface Microlayer
Microbial Contamination
AQUATIC TOXICOLOGY
Bioaccumulation of Toxic Substances
Acute and Chronic Toxicity
Histopathology
Toxicant Transport and Fate
Ecological Risk Assessment
Regulatory Toxicology
PUBLIC HEALTH
Pathogens Affecting Water-Contact Activities
Pathogens Affecting Consumption of Fish and Shellfish
Health Risk Assessment of Chemically Contaminated Aquatic Organisms
Health Risk Assessment for Chemical Contaminants in Sediment and Water
66
Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
Table 11. Summary of EPA Resources (in hours)
Implement the 403 (c) Program in
FY 1990 and
Needed to
FY1991
The calculations for this table are based on the following:
Large discharger in a state not approved for NPDES program (LNA) = 76
Small discharger in a state not approved for NPDES program (SNA) = 96
Large discharger in a state approved for the NPDES program (LA) = 55
Small discharger in a state approved for the NPDES program (SA) = 25
ITEM
ODC Evaluations
#LNA
#SNA
#LA
#SA
Monitorinff/Modelirur
a. Review data for active permit
#LNA
#SNA
b. Review data for active permit (FY94)
#LNA
#SNA
c. Additional momtoring/modelling
.10 (#LNA)
.10 (#SNA)
d. Reopeners
.10 (#LNA)
#LNA
#SNA
Evidentiary Hearings
.70 (#LNA)
.70 (#SNA)
Oversight of State Programs
#LA
#SA
Contract Oversight
PRICING FACTOR
(hrsVitem)
200
100
50
25
80
40
160
80
120
60
40
40
520
2,000
1,200
50
25
.25 (n/60), where n = total contract dollars
Enforcement
Administrative Orders
.50 (.10 (#LNA)
.50 (.10 (#SNA)
APOs
.50 (.10 (#LNA)
.40 (.10 (#SNA)
Litigation
.05 (#LNA)
Program Management
Propram Develonment
Total
240
240
500
500
1,760
HOURS
FY1990
3,040
1,920
550
480
1,220
770
—
—
192
120
160
608
9,984
22,400
16,800
550
480
5,400
240
192
500
400
1,760
2 000
mooo
79,766
FY1991
3,040
1,920
550
480
1,220
770
.
„
192
120
160
608
9,984
22,400
16,800
550
480
5,400
240
192
500
400
1,760
2,000
15rOQO
84,766
SUBTOTALS
11,980
4,924
21,184
78,400
2,060
10,800
6,184
4,000
25J1QQ
164,532
Report to Congress
67
-------
Figure 17. Estimates of Regional Resources Required
to Implement -103(c) in FY 1990 and FY 1991
Hours
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
79,766
04,766
2.-162
1990 1991
Fiscal Year
Seriey 3
Kl Series 2
Series 1
1 = Program Development
2 = ODCE Eval.
Permit Writ.
Evident. Hear.
Litigat.
Oversight of State
Contract Oversight
Enforcement
Program Management
3 = Monitoring/Modelling
Total Over 2 Years
164,532 hours
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
Implementation
Activities
approximately 12,000 hours, and 25% of that 12,000 hours is 3000.
Therefore, 3000 hours are needed to manage a $700,000 contract.
Monitoring and modeling includes three areas:
a. Review and evaluate monitoring data during term of active permit
(80 hours/large permit and 40 hours/small permit).
b. Reopeners and modification to permits that are in existence. All
403(c) NPDES permits must have a reopener clause (40 CFR
125.123(d)). This clause gives the Agency the explicit legal right
to reopen and change conditions of a permit, given cause, while
the permit is still in effect. The estimates for this item are made
on the assumption that 10% of the large permits will be reopened
and that this will require and additional 40 hours each.
c. Additional monitoring/modeling. This includes the Agency's cost
to run models or require monitoring to verify data submitted by
the applicant or to determine possible effects of a discharge. This
is in addition to information submitted by the applicant.
Over the next five years, the 403(c) program will concentrate on
program development which includes developing and refining analyti-
cal methods, monitoring methods, and writing guidance for the permit
writers and for the owners and operators of the facilities subject to
403(c) reviews and requirements. Finally, program development in-
cludes training in EPA Regions and States.
The primary function of EPA Headquarters in the 403(c) program will
be to provide policy and guidance on the 403(c) program. Included in
this will be:
• Policy guidance for general permits;
• Policy guidance for individual permits;
• An inventory and critical assessment of available biomonitoring
and ecosystem monitoring and assessment methods;
• Plan of research program needs to support 403(c) implementa-
tion;
• Technical documents
- analytic methods
- monitoring strategies;
• Specific criteria for each of the ten 403(c) guidelines;
• 403(c) training for the State and Regional permit writers;
• Guidance Manual on 403(c) for the applicant.
The States which are authorized by EPA to carry out the NPDES
permit program will incur a comparable cost for 403(c) reviews to that
of the Regions for individual permits.
During the early stages (FY90-92) of this implementation period, the
Agency plans to conduct a number of activities necessary to ensure
Report to Congress
69
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Future Efforts:
Integration of 403 (c)
and Water
Quality-Based Toxics
Control Approach
compliance with 403(c) regulations. These activities are currently
underway and consist of:
1. Completion of the 403(c) discharge inventory, including:
a. Base line determinations where necessary
b. Update of permit status
2. Completion of the 403(c) procedural guidance manual;
3. Development of a technical guidance document on acceptable
analytical methods for 403(c);
4. Development of a long term plan for 403(c) permit review
procedures, including:
a. Integrated review procedures
b. Incorporation of new criteria
c. Incorporation of technological advancements
d. Identification of research needs
The future of the 403(c) implementation approach involves integrating
the present 403(c) procedures into the evolving water quality-based
toxics control approach for marine waters. Most of the 403(c)
guidelines which address effluent pollutant characteristics, pollutant
fate and transport, and biological and human health impacts are
included within the general framework of the water quality-based
approach.
The current water quality-based toxics control approach for marine
waters focuses primarily on achieving compliance with State water
quality criteria and standards by specifying allowable concentrations
of pollutants within and at the edge of a mhring zone in the receiving
water. The approach includes both chemical-specific controls
(through established criteria and standards) and control of complex
mixtures of chemicals and chemicals which have no applicable criteria
and standards, by treating effluent toxicity as a control parameter (see
Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Con-
trol," EPA 440/4-85-032, September, 1985).
This water quality-based approach provides a means for deriving
NPDES discharge limits, while ensuring protection of receiving waters
and compliance with water quality criteria and standards. While the
current water quality-based toxics control approach emphasizes ef-
fluent testing and water quality criteria and standards, flexibility also
exists in the approach to address the 403(c) concerns involving in situ
biological impacts, by site-specific conditions. Such conditions could
include, for example, the proximity of a discharge to sensitive ecologi-
cal zones (e.g., seagrass beds, marine sanctuaries, etc.), the existence
70
Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
of known observed biological stress based on available baseline data
for the area, or discharges that have high mass emission rates of priority
pollutants and other toxic substances. For these situations, additional
requirements including, for example, in situ sediment toxicity tests,
benthic bioaccumulation tests, and benthic biota surveys would be
included in the discharge permit review. Guidance on these technical
analyses would be integrated into the water quality-based approach
from the 403(c) program. Certain specific criteria are unique to
403(c), including determination of unreasonable degradation, ir-
reparable harm, and no reasonable alternatives. These specific criteria
would be added to the water quality-based approach to complete the
integration of these two programs.
Report to Congress
71
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
72
Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
Findings and
Conclusions
The inventory conducted for this report identified 323 "definite" dis-
chargers and 217 "potential" dischargers subject to section 403(c)
requirements under individual NPDES permits (not including general
permits). The status of the potential discharges is pending on a case-
by-case establishment of the location of these discharges with respect
to the baseline of the territorial seas. (Section 403(c) reviews apply
only to dischargers outside the baseline.) The final determination of
the location of the baseline rests with the State Department. The
Agency continues to work with the State Department to delineate the
baseline in order to ensure that section 4Q3(c) implementation is
complete.
Although most dischargers outside the baseline are in compliance with
section 403(c), the detail and extent of the review, the effectiveness of
the monitoring programs, and the amount of review performed after
the permits are issued has varied by Region, State, and discharge. The
Regions and States need procedural and technical guidance to assist
in their review of information and development of Ocean Discharge
Criteria Evaluations. In addition, guidance is needed to assist in
translating the monitoring recommendations developed in the ODCE
into enforceable conditions in a permit. Separate procedural and
technical guidance is needed by the dischargers to prepare the ODCE
and the permit application.
Equally significant barriers to effective implementation are the present
limitations of science to adequately address the complex issues of
biological impacts and toxicity assessments in the marine environment.
There is much that needs to be learned about environmental effects-
based monitoring and assessment of the monitoring data. Criteria and
standards for marine water quality and sediments are limited but are
being addressed by the Agency. Environmental effects-based tests for
marine organisms need further review and approval for inclusion in the
403(c) technical and procedural guidance.
The Agency has developed a two-phase strategy to ensure a more
consistent implementation of section 403(c). This two-phase strategy
will, over the next two rounds of permitting, provide the maximum level
of environmental protection possible given the programmatic, scien-
tific, and resource limitations. As part of the implementation strategy,
the Agency plans a number of supporting activities to ensure effective
403(c) implementation. These activities include development of na-
tional technical and procedural guidance, incorporation of new tech-
nological advances and criteria, and integration of 403(c) procedures
into the Agency's evolving water quality-based toxics control approach
for marine waters.
The Agency believes that current statutory authority [section 403(c)]
is adequate to establish regulations for wastewater dischargers that are
protective of the marine environment. Pursuant to section 403(c) of the
Report to Congress
73
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Clean Water Act, the Ocean Discharge Criteria regulations were
promulgated hi the Federal Register hi 1980 and later codified hi 40
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Section 125.120-124. These
regulations established guidelines to make a determination whether a
discharge is causing "unreasonable degradation" to the environment.
Despite the breadth of the Ocean Discharge Criteria Regulations,
effective implementation has been further limited by the lack of tech-
nical and procedural guidance for making determinations of "no un-
reasonable degradation, "no irreparable harm," and "no reasonable
alternatives to on-site disposal."
The Agency has activities underway and others under development
which are designed to increase the level of implementation of section
403(c). The Agency does not recommend statutory revisions to section
403 of the CWA. The Agency will continue to work on the implemen-
tation activities as described in this report and focus its resources hi
those areas.
74
Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
References
API, 1988. Basic Petroleum Data Book, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, D.C.
Burns and Roe, 1980. Assessment of Existing Data for the Offshore Oil and Gas Extraction Industry. Prepared for
the U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C.
ERG, 1988. Economic Impact Analysis of Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Notice of Data
Availability for Drilling Fluids and Drill Cuttings for the Offshore Oil and Gas Industry. Prepared for the U.S.
EPA Office of Water. Eastern Research Group, Inc., Arlington, VA.
JRB Associates, 1984. Preliminary Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation - South and Central California, for
NPDES Permit No. CA0110516. Prepared for U.S. EPA Office of Water Enforcement and Permits,
Washington, D.C. JRB Associates, Bellevue, WA.
NAS, 1983. Drilling Discharges in the Marine Environment, Natural Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 180 pp.
NOAA, 1987. The National Coastal Pollutant Discharge Inventory - Pollutant Discharge Concentrations for In-
dustrial Point Sources, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.
Tetra Tech, 1989. Amended Section 301 (h) Technical Support Document, Draft Report Under EPA Contract
No. 68-C8-0001, April 1989.
U.S. EPA, 1982a. Data from Verification Study of Produced Water Discharges from Thirty Offshore Platforms in
the Gulf of Mexico. Prepared for the U.S. EPA Effluent Guidelines Division, Washington, D.C.
U.S. EPA, 1982b. Design of301(h) Monitoring Programs for Municipal Wastewater Discharges to Marine Waters,
EPA-430/9-82-010,1982.
U.S. EPA, 1982c. Revised Section 301(h) Technical Support Document, EPA-430/9-82-011,1982.
U.S. EPA, 1982d.Bioaccumulation Monitoring Guidance: 1. Estimating the Potential for Bioaccumulation of
Priority Pollutants and 301 (h) Pesticides Discharged into Marine and Estuarine Waters, EPA-430/9-86-005,
1982.
U.S. EPA, 1985a. Methods For Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents to Freshwater and Marine Organisms,
EPA 600/4-85-013, March 1985.
U.S. EPA, 1985b. Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control, EPA 440/4-85-032, Sep-
tember 1985.
U.S. EPA, 1985c. Short-Term Methods For Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to
Freshwater Organisms, EPA 600/4-85-014, December 1985.
U.S. EPA, 1987a. Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) Procedures for 301(h) Monitoring Programs:
Guidance on Field and Laboratory Methods, EPA-430/9-86-004,1987.
U.S. EPA, 1987b. Framework for 301(h) Monitoring Programs, EPA-430/09-88-002,1987.
U.S. EPA, I987c. Permit Writer's Guide to Water Quality-Based Permitting for Toxic Pollutants, EPA 440/4-87-
005, July 1987.
Report to Congress
75
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
U.S. EPA, 1988a. Spreadsheets for Offshore Oil and Gas Extraction Recosted Proposal Option, Drilling Fluids
BAT/NSPS Least Cost Determination, Industrial Technology Division.
U.S. EPA, 1988b. Spreadsheets for Offshore Oil and Gas Extraction Recosted Proposal Option, Drill Cuttings
BA T/NSPS Least Cost Determination, Industrial Technology Division.
U.S. EPA, 1988c. Short-Term Methods For Estimating the Chronic Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to
Marine andEstuarine Organisms, EPA 600/4-87-028, May 1988.
Walk, Haydel and Associates, 1984. Potential Impact of Proposed EPA BAT/NSPS Standards for Produced Water
Discharges from Offshore Oil and Gas Extraction Industry. Prepared for the Offshore Operators Committee.
Walk, Haydel and Associates, Inc., New Orleans, Louisiana.
76
Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
Appendix A
Acronyms Used in This
Report
API
BACT
BAT
BCT
BOD
BPJ
BPT
CHP
COD
CWA
CZMP
DO
EIS
EPA
FCB
FTE
FWPCA
LOE
LOOP
MOD
MMS
NCPDI
NEPA
NOAA
NPDES
NSPS
ODBA
ODCE
ODES
OW
OWEP
OWRS
PAH
PCB
PCS
PetHCs
POTW
QA
QC
SIC
STP
TCP
TN
TP
TRE
TSS
WQA
WQC .
WQS
WWTP
American Petroleum Institute
Best Available Control and Treatment Technology
Best Available Technology Economically Achievable
Best Conventional Technology
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
Best Professional Determination
Best Practicable Technology
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons other than PCBs
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Clean Water Act
Coastal Zone Management Plan
Dissolved Oxygen
Environmental Impact Statement
Environmental Protection Agency
Fecal Conform Bacteria
Full Time Equivalent
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Level of Effort
Louisiana Offshore Oil Port
Million Gallons Per Day
Minerals Management Service
National Coastal Pollutant Discharge Inventory
National Environmental Policy Act
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
New Source Performance Standards
Ocean Dumping Ban Act
Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation
Ocean Data Evaluation System
Office of Water (EPA)
Office of Water Enforcement and Permits (EPA)
Office of Water Regulations and Standards (EPA)
Polyaromatic Hydrocarbons
Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Permit Compliance System
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Publicly Owned Treatment Works
Quality Assurance
Quality Control
Standard Industrial Classification
Seawater Treatment Plant
Toxics Control Program
Total Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Toxicity Reduction Evaluation
Total Suspended Solids
Water Quality Act of 1987
Water Quality Criteria
Water Quality Standards
Wastewater Treatment Plant
Report to Congress
A-l
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
A-2
Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
Appendix B
Glossary
Acute - involving a stimulus severe enough to rapidly induce a response; in marine and aquatic toxicity tests, a
response observed in 96 hours or less typically is considered acute. An acute effect is not always measured
in terms of lethality; it can measure a variety of effects. Note that acute means "short", not mortality.
Average daily discharge limitation - the highest allowable average of pollutant concentrations over a 24-
hour period, calculated as the sum of all pollutant concentrations measured divided by the number of pol-
lutant concentrations measured that day.
Average monthly discharge limitation - the highest allowable average of "daily discharges" over a calen-
dar month, calculated as the sum of all "daily discharges" measured during a calendar month divided by the
number of discharges measured that month.
Baseline - defines the landward boundary of the territorial seas.
Best professional determination (BPJ) - a permit writer's best determination, reflected in permit limits
developed on a case-by-case industry-specific basis, as to the control techniques to be used to limit was-
tewater discharges, after consideration of pertinent information which forms the basis for the terms and
conditions of a permit.
Bioaccumulation - uptake and retention of substances by an organism from its surrounding medium and
from food.
Bioassay - a test used to evaluate the relative potency of a substance by comparing its effect on a living or-
ganism with the effect of a standard preparation on the same type of organism.
Bioconcentration - uptake of substances from the surrounding medium through gill membranes or other ex-
ternal body surfaces.
Bioavailability - the property of a substance that governs its effect on exposed organisms. A reduced
bioavailability would have a reduced toxic effect.
Blow-out preventer control fluid - fluid used to actuate the hydraulic equipment on the blow-out
preventer.
Boiler blowdown - discharge from boilers necessary to minimize solids building up in the boilers.
Categorical pretreatment standard - standard promulgated under 40 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter N by
EPA for specific industrial categories which specifies quantities or concentrations of pollutants or pollutant
properties which may be discharged to a publicly owned treatment works.
Chronic - involving a stimulus that lingers or continues for a relatively long period of time, often one-tenth of
the life span or more. Chronic should be considered a relative term depending on the life span of an or-
ganism. A chronic effect can be lethality, growth, reduced reproduction, etc. Chronic means "long-term".
Coastal zone - coastal waters and adjacent shorelands strongly influenced by each other (e.g., islands, niter-
tidal areas, salt marshes, wetlands, beaches).
Report to Congress
B-l
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Completion fluids - in oil and gas drilling, any fluid used in a newly drilled oil well to allow safe preparation
of the well for production.
Contiguous zone - the entire zone established or to be established by the United States under Article 24 of
the Convention of the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone. (Section 502(9) of the CWA)
Controlled discharge rate areas - "zones adjacent to areas of biological concern of the territorial seas of
the State of Mississippi" according to the definition in the NPDES general permit covering oil and gas
operations in the Gulf of Mexico OCS. For the territorial seas permits of Texas and Louisiana, depth and
toxicity may also factor into discharge rate limitations.
Conventional pollutants - defined under 40 CFR Part 401.16 pursuant to section 304(a)(4) of the Clean
Water Act. The five conventional pollutants are biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solids
(TSS), pH, fecal coliform, and oil and grease.
Deck drainage - drainage from the deck of oil and gas facilities, including all waste resulting from platform
washings, deck washings, and runoff from curbs, gutters, and drains including drip pans and wash areas.
Desalinization unit discharge - wastewater associated with the process of creating fresh water from
seawater.
Diesel oil - distillate fuel oil, typically used in conventional oil-based drilling fluids, which contains a number
of toxic pollutants.
Domestic waste - discharges from galleys, sinks, showers, and laundries only.
Drill cuttings - in oil and gas drilling, particles generated by drilling into the subsurface geological forma-
tions and carried to the surface with the "drilling fluid."
Drilling fluid - hi oil and gas drilling, any fluid sent down the hole, including drilling muds and any specialty
products, from the time a well is begun until final cessation of drilling in that hole.
Effluent biomonitoring - the measurement of the biological effects of effluents (such as toxicity, biostimula-
tion, and bioaccumulation).
Effluent limitation - any restriction on quantities, rates, or concentrations of chemical, physical, biological
and other constituents which are discharged from point sources into waters of the U.S., including navigable
waters of the contiguous zone or the ocean.
End-of-Well - in oil and gas drilling, the point at which total well depth is reached. (This definition is taken
from the Gulf of Mexico general permit).
Estuary - area where fresh water meets salt water (bays, mouths of rivers, salt marshes, lagoons).
Indirect discharger - a nondomestic discharger introducing pollutants to a publicly owned treatment works.
In-sitU - in the natural or original position.
Invert emulsion drilling fluids - in oil and gas drilling, an oil-based drilling fluid that also contains a large
amount of water. (This definition is taken from the Gulf of Mexico OCS permit.)
B-2
Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
Irreparable harm - significant undesirable effects occurring after the date of permit issuance which will not
be reversed after cessation or modification of the discharge. (40 CFR 125.121(a))
•4
Live bottom areas - those areas that contain biological assemblages consisting of such sessile invertebrates
as sea fans, sea whips, hydroids, anemones, astideians sponges, bryozoans, seagrasses, or corals living upon
and attached to naturally occurring hard or rocky formations with fishes and other fauna. (This definition
is taken from the Gulf of Mexico general permit.)
Marine environment - territorial seas, the contiguous zone and the oceans. (40 CFR 125.121(b))
Maximum hourly rate - in oil and gas drilling, greatest number of barrels of drilling fluids discharged
within one hour, expressed as barrels per hour.
Mixing zone - the zone extending from the sea's surface to seabed and extending laterally to a distance of 100
meters in all directions, from the discharge point(s) or to the boundary of the zone of initial dilution as cal-
culated by a plume model approved by the Regional Administrator or State Director (where there is an ap-
proved NPDES State program), whichever is greater, unless the Regional Administrator or Director
determines that a more restrictive mixing zone or another definition of the mixing zone is more appropriate
for a specific discharge. (40 CFR 125.121(c))
Muds, cuttings, and cement at the seafloor - in oil and gas drilling, discharges which occur at the
seafloor prior to installation of the marine riser.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) - the national program for issuing,
modifying, revoking and reissuing, terminating, monitoring and enforcing permits, and imposing and enforc-
ing pretreatment requirements, under sections 301,307,318,402, and 405 of the Clean Water Act.
New source - any building, structure, facility, or installation from which there is or may be a discharge of pol-
lutants, the construction of which commenced after the publication of proposed regulations prescribing a
standard of performance or pretreatment under sections 306 or 307(c) of die Clean Water Act which will
be applicable to such source if such a standard is thereafter promulgated in accordance with the Clean
Water Act.
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) - performance standards promulgated under section 306
of the Clean Water Act.
No activity zones - in oil and gas drilling, those areas identified by MMS where no structures, drilling rigs, or
pipelines will be allowed.
Nonconventional pollutants - pollutants which are neither toxic (as listed under Section 307(a)(l) of
CWA) nor listed as conventional.
Nonpoint source - causes of water pollution that are not associated with point sources, such as agricultural
fertilizer runoff and sediment from construction.
Ocean Discharge Guidelines - ten narrative guidelines listed at 40 CFR Part 125.122 of the Ocean Dis-
charge Criteria Regulations for determination of unreasonable degradation to the marine environment.
Ocean Discharge Requirements - seven narrative requirements listed at section 403(c)(l)(A)-(G) of the
Clean Water Act for determination of the degradation of the marine environment.
Report to Congress
B-3
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Permit compliance system (PCS) - procedures established to ensure that a source, issued any permit or
requirements to authorize and/or regulate an activity that adds or may add pollutants to the environment,
will meet applicable pollution control requirements, including effluent limits and compliance schedules.
Point source - any discernible, confined, and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe,
ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding
operation, vessel, or other floating craft from which pollutants are or may be discharged.
Pretreatment - the reduction of the amount of pollutants, the elimination of poi ants, or the alteration of
the nature of pollutant properties in wastewater prior to or in lieu of discharge or otherwise introducing
such pollutants into a POTW. The reduction or alteration may be obtained by physical, chemical, or
biological processes, process changes or by other means, except as prohibited by 40 CFR Part 403
Primary treatment - wastewater treatment (such as screening and grit removal) designed to remove
suspended and floating material. As much as 60 percent of the influent suspended solids and 30 percent of
the biochemical oxygen demand may be removed through primary treatment.
Priority pollutants - the 126 toxic pollutants listed in Appendix A to 40 CFR 423. The 126 priority pol-
lutants are derived from the 65 classes of compounds listed at 40 CFR 401.15 pursuant to section 307(a) of
theCWA.
Privately owned sewage treatment plant - a treatment works not owned by the State, municipality, or in-
termunicipal or interstate agency.
Produced sands - in oil and gas drilling, the sands and other solids removed from the produced waters.
Produced waters - in oil and gas drilling, the waters and particulate matter associated with producing forma-
tions. Sometimes the terms "formation waters" or "brine water" are used to describe produced water.
Publicly owned treatment works (POTW) - a treatment works, as defined in section 212(2) of the Clean
Water Act, which is owned by a State, municipality, or intermunicipal or interstate agency.
Risk assessment - the determination of the kind and degree of hazard posed by an agent (e.g., a specific
chemical), the extent to which a particular population has been or may be exposed to the agent, and the
present or potential health or environmental risks that exist due to the agent.
Sanitary waste - liquid and water borne waste from residences, commercial buildings, industrial plants, and
institutions.
Secondary treatment - the level of effluent quality defined in 40 CFR Part 133. Such biological (e.g., ac-
tivated sludge) and/or physical-chemical treatment is designed to reduce the concentrations of dissolved
and colloidal organic matter in wastewater, not removed to any significant degree during primary treatment.
Sewage Treatment Plant - treatment works either publicly or privately owned.
Source water and sand - in oil and gas drilling, water from non-hydrocarbon bearing formations for the
purpose of pressure maintenance or secondary recovery including the entrained solids.
Spotting - in oil and gas, drilling the process of adding a lubricant (spot) downhole to free stuck pipe.
Technology-based treatment requirements - NPDES permit requirements based on the application of
pollution treatment or control technologies including (under 40 CFR Part 125) BPT (best practicable tech-
B-4
Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
nology), BCT (best conventional technology and secondary treatment for POTWs), BAT (best available
technology economically achievable), and NSPS (new source performance standards).
Territorial seas - the belt of the seas measured from the line of ordinary low water along that portion of the
coast which is in direct contact with the open sea and the line marking the seaward limit of inland waters,
and extending seaward a distance of three miles. (Section 502(8) of the CWA)
Toxicity reduction evaluation (TRE) - a study conducted to determine the source(s) of toxicity in a dis-
charge effluent so that these sources can be controlled sufficiently to allow a discharger to comply with
their permit limits.
Toxicity test - the means to determine the toxicity of a chemical or an effluent using living organisms. A
toxicity test measures the degree of response of an exposed test organism to a specific chemical or effluent.
Toxics Control Program - program developed to reduce the toxicity and/or discharge of toxic pollutants
through, for example, effluent limitations or enhanced/upgraded wastewater treatment.
Uncontaminated ballast/bilge water - seawater added or removed to maintain proper draft in vessels.
Uncontaminated seawater - seawater which is returned to the sea without the addition of chemicals. In-
cluded are: (1) Discharges of excess seawater which permit the continuous operation of fire control and
utility lift pumps, (2) excess seawater from pressure maintenance and secondary recovery projects, (3)
water released during the training and testing of personnel hi fire protection, (4) seawater used to pressure
test piping, and (5) once through, noncontact cooling water.
Unreasonable degradation - significant adverse changes in ecosystem diversity, productivity, and stability
of the biological community within the area of discharge and surrounding biological communities; threat to
human health through direct exposure to pollutants or through consumption of exposed aquatic organisms;
loss of aesthetics, recreational, scientific or economic values which is unreasonable in relation to the benefit
derived from the discharge. (40 CFR 125.121(e))
Variance - any mechanism or provision under section 301 or 316 of the Clean Water Act or under 40 CFR
Part 125, or in the applicable effluent limitations guidelines which allows modification to or waiver of the
generally applicable effluent limitation requirements or time deadlines of the Clean Water Act.
Water quality-based toxics control - an integrated strategy used in NPDES permitting to assess and con-
trol the discharge of toxic pollutants to surface waters: the whole effluent approach involving the use of
toxicity tests to measure discharge toxicity, and the chemical specific approach involving the use of water
quality criteria or State standards to limit specific toxic pollutants direcdy.
Water quality criteria - scientifically derived ambient limits developed and updated by EPA, under section
304(a)(l) of the Clean Water Act, for specific pollutants of concern. Criteria are recommended concentra-
tions, levels, or narrative statements which should not be exceeded in a waterbody in order to protect
aquatic life or human health.
Water quality standards - laws or regulations, promulgated under section 303 of the Clean Water Act,
that consist of the designated use or uses of a waterbody or a segment of a waterbody and the water quality
criteria that are necessary to protect the use or uses of that particular waterbody. Water quality standards
also contain an antidegradation statement. Every State is required to develop water quality standards ap-
plicable to the various waterbodies within the State and revise them every three years.
Well treatment fluids - in oil and gas drilling, any fluid used to enhance production by physically altering
oil-bearing strata after a well has been drilled.
Report to Congress
B-5
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Whole effluent toxicity - the aggregate toxic effect of an effluent measured directly by a toxicity test.
Workover fluids - in oil and gas drilling, any fluid used in a producing well to allow safe repair and main-
tenance procedures.
B-6
Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
Appendix C
Fact Sheets on 403(c)
Discharges
Publicly Owned Treatment Works Subject to 403(c)
Offshore Oil and Gas Facilities Subject to 403(c)
Alaskan Seafood Processors Subject to 403(c)
Offshore Placer Mining in Alaska Subject to 403(c)
Log Transfer Facilities in Alaska Subject to 403(c)
Seawater Treatment Plants Subject to 403(c)
Cane Sugar Mills Subject to 403(c)
Petroleum Refineries Subject to 403(c)
Pulp and Paper Mills (Regions IX and X) Subject to 403(c)
Sawmills Subject to 403(c)
Report to Congress
C-l
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
FACT SHEET ON PUBLICLY OWNED TREATMENT WORKS
SUBJECT TO 403(c)
How many are there?
POTWs are owned and operated by municipal
governments for the purpose of treating municipal
sewage and industrial wastes. Excluding offshore oil
wells and power plants, POTWs constitute the largest
group of land-based pipe discharges to marine waters,
both by numbers of discharges and total volume of
effluent discharged. Nationwide, POTWs account for
134 of the 332 ocean outfalls subject to 403(c) Ocean
Discharge Criteria (Table 1). They contribute about 83
percent of the effluent discharged to the ocean.
What are the typical effluent characteristics?
• POTW effluent consists primarily of treated
domestic sewage, but in many cases also treated
industrial wastes. Small POTWs often receive
only domestic sewage. Large POTWs typically
receive industrial wastes from multiple sources.
• POTWs must develop and enforce pretreatment
programs to control toxic industrial wastewater
discharges if the POTWs either have a* design
flow greater than 5 MOD or if nondomestic (e.g.,
industrial) wastes are received that cause treat-
ment plant upsets, contaminate sludge, or violate
NPDES permit limits.
• Effluent flows and mass loadings of pollutants
vary greatly, depending on the size of the service
population; the number, sizes, and types of in-
dustries that contribute influent to the treatment
works; and the level of treatment achieved by the
plant.
• Small POTWs may discharge less than 10,000
gallons per day. The largest POTW effluent
volume currently discharged to the ocean is 400
million gallons per day (MOD), which is dis-
charged by the Los Angeles County Sanitation
Districts.
• Major pollutants are suspended solids, chlorine,
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), priority
pollutants, and other toxic substances. Fecal
coliform bacteria and various pathogens may
also be discharged if the effluent is not
chlorinated.
• Effluent concentrations of suspended solids and
BOD each must be less than or equal to 30 mg/L
to meet secondary treatment requirements. One
exception is for waste stabilization ponds and
trickling filters that qualify for equivalents to
secondary treatment limits (45 mg/1 in BOD,
TSS). Another exception is POTWs holding
Section 301(h)-modified NPDES permits are
permitted to discharge suspended solids and
BOD in excess of 30 mg/L. Some POTWs hold-
ing Section 301(h) modified permits discharge
suspended solids and/or BOD in excess of 100
mg/L.
• Individual priority pollutant metals are, in some
cases, discharged at concentrations in excess of
5 mg/L. Individual priority pollutant organic
compounds and other toxic substances are typi-
cally discharged at much lower'concentrations,
but may reach concentrations of 0.5 mg/L in the
effluent.
What is the behavior and fate of the effluent in the
receiving water environment?
• Effluent is typically discharged at water depths
of 20-200 ft.
• Effluent is positively buoyant (Figure C-l). As it
ascends through the water column, it is diluted
by entrainment of the surrounding receiving
water. The degree of dilution varies with depth
of the discharge, densities of the effluent and
receiving water, height-of-rise of the effluent
plume, and design of the outfall diffuser (if any).
C-2
Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
PYCNOCLINE OR
THERMOCLJNE REGION
(WHICH SETTLE OUT
DRIFT FIELD)
EFFLUENT LEAVING
OIFFUSER PORTS
Figure C-1. Physical processes influencing submerged ocean discharges.
Report to Congress
C-3
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
• The effluent wastefield is transported by cur-
rents and tides. The wastefield is diluted during
transport, but dilution occurs slowly. As the was-
tefield travels, particulates settle out of the water
column and are deposited on the bottom.
• The quantities of effluent-derived materials that
are deposited on the bottom, and their distribu-
tion on the bottom are determined by the mass
emission rates of those materials, the
hydrographic characteristics of the receiving en-
vironment, and the behavior of the effluent was-
tefield.
• Organic materials in the effluent maybe oxidized
or biodegraded in the water column. If suffi-
ciently small, they may be transported great dis-
tances before settling to the bottom. Organic
materials deposited on the bottom may be
oxidized, biodegraded, foraged by benthic or-
ganics, or mixed by organisms into the sediments.
• Priority pollutants and other toxic substances in
the effluent are typically bound to particulates.
These substances may be transported out of the
immediate receiving environment or bioaccumu-
lated by organisms in the water column. Most
are deposited on the bottom and form a reservoir
in the sediments. Priority pollutants and other
toxic substances in the sediments may cause toxic
effects in, or be bioaccumulated by, benthic or-
ganisms and demersal fishes. Priority pollutants
and other toxic substances that are dissolved in
the effluent (that is, not bound to particulates)
may be transported out of the immediate receiv-
ing environment, or may cause toxic effects in, or
be bioaccumulated by organisms found in the
water column.
What are the primary physical, chemical, and biologi-
cal impacts?
• Potential impacts to water quality include in-
creased suspended solids, increased turbidity,
decreased light transmittance, reduced oxygen
concentrations, changes in pH, and nutrient en-
richment. Aesthetic effects (e.g., water dis-
coloration, surface scum, foam, oil, and grease)
may also occur.
• Water quality impacts may occur over a large
area, particularly if the POTW discharges a very
large volume of effluent (i.e., 100 MOD).
• Nutrient enrichment of the water column may
cause alterations in the structure and produc-
tivity of phytoplankton communities, which in
turn may impact zooplankton and fishes in the
water column (Figure 4b).
• Particulates that settle out of the effluent was-
tefield degrade sediment quality. Sediments
may become organically enriched, and, in cases
of severe impacts, deplete the oxygen content of
the sediments. Priority pollutants bound to par-
ticulate matter may contaminate the sediments.
• Organic enrichment of the sediments may cause
abundances of some species of benthic infauna
and bottom-dwelling (demersal) fishes to be
reduced substantially, and may promote the
recruitment and growth of opportunistic and
pollution-tolerant species. Demersal fish com-
munities may also be altered because of changes
in the benthic food base.
• Priority pollutants and other toxic substances
that are bioaccumulated by commercially and
recreationally harvested species offish, shellfish,
and plants may, upon consumption, impact
human health. Impacts include direct sublethal
effects and carcinogenicity.
• Particulate matter from sewage effluent may
contaminate and/or bury shellfish and shellfish
beds, compromise the quality of spawning and
nursery areas, and interfere with fish foraging
activities, thereby impacting recreational, subsis-
tence, and commercial fisheries.
• If the effluent is not chlorinated, pathogens hi the
effluent may contaminate shellfish and result in
restrictions on water contact activities (e.g.,
swimming).
• Environmental impact assessments are usually
required for siting of new POTW outfalls.
Through that process, discharges into areas with
sensitive or unusual biological communities (e.g.,
coral reefs), threatened and endangered species,
special aquatic sites, or areas necessary for criti-
cal life stages or functions of an organism are
avoided or minimised. However, many POTW
outfalls are old, and predate applicable federal
C-4
Report to Congress
-------
SEDIMENTATION
BIOACCUMULATKW
•-.£ •: •«.
v.-r,-^
•$rV.vfc[
'.;!•:•;•- vW
••"•.' ::"'-t'\»
- 'i. -^::. A •
Figure C-2. Potential biological impacts of municipal wastewater discharges.
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
and state statutes. Some of those older outfalls
are located in less desirable (i.e., more vul-
nerable) receiving environments.
• The potential for recovery after cessation of the
discharge is high for the organic materials
deposited in the sediments. However, priority
pollutants and other toxic substances may persist
in the sediments indefinitely. Bioturbation,
erosion, and storm events may re-expose these
substances to the water column and resident
biota.
Other statutory requirements:
• POTWs must meet federal effluent quality
specifications for secondary treatment, unless
they hold a Section 301(h) modified NPDES
permit. Such permits provide alternative effluent
quality specifications. Of the 134 POTWs subject
to Section 403(c), 27 have received tentative or
final approval for 301(h) waivers.
• POTWs must be in compliance with state water
quality standards and B AT/BCT.
• POTWs holding Section 301(h) modified per-
mits must demonstrate compliance with marine
water quality standards as well as applicable
marine water quality criteria (40 CFR Part 125
Subpart G).
• Industries discharging to POTWs must comply
with pretreatment requirements. General
Pretreatment Regulations establish two types of
Federal standards to control toxicindustrialwas-
tewater discharges to POTWs; categorical
pretreatment standards and prohibited dis-
charge standards. The pretreatment regulations
also require POTWs to develop pollutant-
specific local limits (40 CFR Part 403).
REFERENCES
Tetra Tech, Inc. 1982. Revised Section 301(h)
Technical Support Document. EPA-430/9/82-011.
U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1984.
Report on the Implementation of Section 301(h).
EOA-430/9-84-0007. Office of Water Program Opera-
tions (WH-546), U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C. 79 pp.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 1989. Amended Section 301(h)
Technical Support Document. Draft report prepared
for Marine Operations Division, Office of Marine and
Estuarine Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C. 153 pp. plus appendices.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 1984. Technical Review of
Boston's Deer Island and Nut Island Sewage Treat-
ment Plants Section 301(h) Application for Modifica-
tion of Secondary Treatment Requirements for
Discharge into Marine Waters. Prepared for U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
268pp.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 1984. Technical Review of the
Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts' Section
301(h) Application for Modification of Secondary
Treatment Requirements for Discharge into Marine
Water. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C. 259pp.
C-6
Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Xgertcy
FACT SHEET ON OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS FACILITIES
SUBJECT TO 403(c)
How many are there?
Offshore oil and gas operations consist of drilling
and production facilities located either in state waters,
seaward of the baseline, or Federal waters. Wells are
drilled from either single well structures or from multi-
ple well platforms (see Figure C-3). Two major
categories of discharges occur from these structures:
1) drilling fluids and drill cuttings (from exploratory
and development wells), and 2) produced water (from
production facilities).
In most cases, offshore oil and gas facilities in
Federal waters are permitted under an NPDES
General permit. A General permit is issued when
similar facilities with similar effluents are located in
similar receiving waters. Permits are issued for:
• Exploratory facilities which are usually barges,
semi-submersibles or drillships that typically
drill only a few wells from one site. It is estimated
that in recent years, on the average, over 200
exploratory wells have been drilled annually,
• Production facilities are usually fixed platform
structures on which multiple wells are drilled.
During the years 1953 - 1986, 3889 production
platforms were installed and 455 were removed
in Federal waters. Each platform may have any
where from a few wells (1-6) to a large number
of wells (80-120). It is estimated that in recent
years, on the average, approximately 700 produc-
tion wells have been drilled annually.
From 1954 -1986 26,019 wells were drilled in
Federal waters. Approximately 25% of these were ex-
ploratory wells and 75% production. Very little infor-
mation is available for facilities in state waters, however
it is estimated that there are 800 platforms and 1,423
producing wells in the state waters of Louisiana subject
to 403(c). Louisiana has more dischargers within its
state waters than any other single state.
What are the typical effluent characteristics?
• Primary effluents discharged in exploration
operations are drilling fluids and drill cuttings.
The primary effluent discharged in production
operations is produced waters. These are the
most important discharges in terms of impact
and volume.
• Drilling fluids (also known as drilling muds or
simply "muds") are slurries (typically 20-70%
solids by weight) of solids and dissolved
materials in a water or oil base that are used in
rotary drilling operations. They lubricate the
drill bit and help control subsurface pressure.
Five basic components account for approximate-
ly 90 percent by weight of drilling mud materials:
barite, clay, lignosulfonate, lignite, and caustic
soda. Water-based muds have water as the car-
rier phase, although they may contain from 2%
to 6% oil. Oil-based muds are those that have a
water in oil emulsion, have a minimum oil con-
tent of approximately 40%, and are generally
more costly and much more toxic than water-
based muds. They are normally used in more
difficult drilling conditions but are not dis-
charged. Approximately 6,168,000 barrels
(bbls) of drilling fluids are discharged offshore
annually (assuming 10% are barged to shore for
land-based disposal).
• Treatment options for drilling fluids are ex-
tremely limited, with controlling the toxicity of
mud constituents through product substitution
and barging to onshore facilities the only cur-
rently-used alternatives.
• Drilling mud toxicity of 30,000 ppm does not
guarantee that the health criteria for PAH, ar-
senic and beryllium or the acute toxicity criterion
for aquatic life for PAH will be met. In order for
these criteria to be met, additional treatment
may be required.
Report to Congress
C-7
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Figure C-3. The Rotary Rig and Its Components
1. Crown block and watertable
2. Mast
3. Traveling block
4. Hook
5. Elevators
6. Kelly
7. Rotary hose
8. Accumulator unit
9. Pipe ramp
•10. Pipe rack
11. Mud return line
12. Shale shaker
13. Choke manifold
14. Mud-gas separator
15. Degasser
16. Reserve pit
17. Mud pits
18. Desilter
19. Desander
20. Mud pumps
21. Mud discharge lines
22. Bulk mud components storage
23. Water tank
24. Fuel storage
25. Engines and generators
26. Blowout preventer stack
27. Drilling line
From: Fundamentals of Petroleum, 2nd ed. ©Petroleum Extension Service, The University of Texas at Austin (PETEX)
C-8
Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
• Drill cuttings are fragments of the geologic for-
mation broken loose by the drill bit. Drill cut-
tings are carried to the surface by drilling fluids.
Cuttings are then removed from the drilling fluid
by a variety of solids control equipment and most
of the fluids are reused while the cuttings are
discharged near or below the water surface. This
discharge consists of drill cuttings, wash solution,
and drilling muds that still adhere to the cuttings.
These cuttings discharges can contain as much
as 60 percent by volume drilling fluids. Ap-
proximately 1^02,000 bbl of drill cuttings are
discharged annually,
• Treatment options for cuttings include those ap-
plicable to drilling fluids and also include several
technologies for reducing the oil content of cut-
tings from oil-based muds that are at a develop-
ment stage of implementation.
• Produced water (also known as production
water, process water, formation water, or
produced brine) is the water brought up from the
hydrocarbon-bearing strata with the produced
oil and gas. Produced water is primarily forma-
tion water plus injection water and various added
chemicals (biocides, coagulants, corrosion in-
hibitors, etc.). Before the treatment stage,
produced water may contain several hundred to
a thousand or more parts per million of oil.
Produced water is then usually treated hi an
oil-water separator and is discharged into receiv-
ing waters. In some cases, after being treated in
the oil-water separator, it is filtered to remove
solids and is then reinjected for disposal or pres-
sure maintenance. Recent findings have indi-
cated that radioactive materials, such as radium,
from formation waters may be a potential prob-
lem in some produced waters. Treatment op-
tions for produced water associated with
radioactive material inlcude filtration and rein-
jection. A1985 study by the Offshore Operators
Committee indicated that 1.5 million barrels of
produced water per day were discharged into
state and Federal waters of the Gulf of Mexico.
• Benzene and PAH's are present in produced
water and may cause some impacts. Metals
found include lead, copper, nickel, and mercury.
Biocides also contribute to the toxicity of
produced water.
» The amount of in stream dilution necessary to
meet a typical state quality standard for toxicity
(usually .01 x 96-hr LC50 for sensitive marine
species) is about 4:1. Since the human health
criteria for fish consumption for benzene and
PAH and the chronic aquatic criterion for phos-
phorus are generally very low compared to the
water quality toxicity standard, further treatment
of produced water is required to meet these
additional criteria.
»Drilling fluids, cuttings and produced water may
contain substances that exert oxygen demand.
The amount will vary depending on the chemical
composition of the effluent. Comparisons made
of the BOD and COD associated with dis-
charged muds and cuttings have found that the
oxygen demand values were directly related to
the type of mud used and whether or not oil was
present. BOD values ranged from 21mg/kg for
a mud with no oil added, to 9,552 mg/kg for a mud
with 5% oil added. COD values ranged from 420
mg/kg for mud with no oil added to 98,300 mg/kg
for a mud with 5% oil added. BOD and COD can
also be affected by the formation that is being
drilled through. BOD values for cuttings ranged
from zero to 8,567 mg/kg. The COD of cuttings
ranged from zero to 272,000 mg/kg. This will
vary greatly according to the drilling fluid the
cuttings are associated with.
• Secondary effluents are deck drainage,
produced sand, sanitary wastes, domestic was-
tes, completion fluids, cement, workover fluids,
water flood discharges, blowout preventor fluids,
desalinization unit discharges, fire control sys-
tem test water, non-contact cooling water, ballast
and storage displacement water and bilge water.
What is the behavior and fate of the effluent in the
receiving water environment?
• Discharges of drilling fluids and cuttings occur
as both "semi continuous" discharges of drill cut-
tings and periodic bulk discharges of drilling
fluids. Volume discharged will be dependent on
depth of the well and the number of times the
mud system has to be changed to accommodate
drilling conditions.
• Drilling fluid plumes flow through three phases:
Report to Congress
C-9
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
convective descent, dynamic collapse, and pas-
sive diffusion. During convective descent,
larger, denser particles settle out of the plume.
During dynamic collapse, the plume reaches
either the sea floor or neutral buoyancy in the
water column. In the passive diffusion stage, the
plume is made up of less than 10 percent solids
which are dispersed by passive diffusion and
convective mixing.
• Drill cuttings, because of their generally larger
particle sizes, settle out of the water column and
come to rest on the sea floor close to the dis-
charge point. "Close" may mean within 100m in
low energy, shallow depths or it may mean within
1000m in high energy or deep sites; in either case,
cuttings will generally settle out closer than the
associated drilling fluid because of their general-
ly larger particle sizes. They are generally not
subject to much resuspension in low to moderate
energy environments. In certain conditions,
burial of benthic communities is a concern, for
example, sessile benthic communities of concern
(coral, seagrasses, oyster beds, etc.).
• The quantities and salinities of produced waters
discharged vary considerably among platforms.
Produced water can be discharged either above
or below the water surface. Although most
produced waters are brines, the chloride content
may range from less than that of seawater to
several times the chloride concentration of
seawater.
• Specificbehavior and fate of the effluent will vary
according to depth and hydrology of the receiv-
ing water. Transport and dilution of the descend-
ing discharge plume is dependent on discharge
rate, circulation, wind and wave conditions,
water depth, and water column stratification.
Very few data are available on shallow water
transport and fate. Likewise, although short-
term data exist for single well scenarios, no short-
er long-term data yet exist for development
operations (multiple well scenarios of 5-100
wells).
• Depending on specific drilling fluid constituents
and local dispersion conditions, it is possible that
the movement of the effluent plume could cause
violations in water quality standards for certain
pollutants.
What are the primary physical, chemical, and biologi-
cal impacts?
Drilling
f.iitfins
• Biological impacts from discharges of drilling
fluids and cuttings depend on the toxicity of the
discharge, the type and amount discharged and
exposure time. Of the major ingredients hi drill-
ing fluids only a few are considered substantially
toxic to marine organisms; these include chrome
or ferrochrome lignosulfonate and sodium
hydroxide. However, the minor components
(minor on a weight basis) are significant sources
of toxicity. These include diesel oil, mineral oil,
biocides, surfactants and emulsifiers, etc.
- 96 hour LC50 values range from practically
nontoxic (several hundred thousand ppm) to
toxic (500 ppm for a 9:1 mud: seawater slurry).
Permits currently limit toxicity to 30,000 ppm
of a 9:1 mud:seawater slurry as a BPJ deter-
mination of BAT.
- Most metals occur in forms that appear to
have relatively low bioavailability, although
some exceptions occur (i.e.T Cd and As).
Barite (used in most fluids) comes from two
types of geologic formations, with one being
characterized by high levels of many trace
metals. Hg and Cd have been limited in some
BPJ NPDES permits.
- Discharges of muds or cuttings containing
diesel oil have been prohibited in some per-
mits, or their discharge is conditional on use
and removal as a pill to free stuck pipe and not
violating a 30,000 ppm BPJ limitation.
• Primary physical impacts may result from dis-
ruption and/or burial of benthic communities or
incorporation into the sediments by drill cut-
tings. In these cases, recovery of impacted areas
is generally slow.
• Increased concentrations of suspended solids
may cause a varying degree of turbidity accord-
ing to ambient conditions.
Produced Water
• In some areas, produced water creates a poten-
tial for environmental effects due to high salinity,
low dissolved oxygen, and high levels of
C-10
Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
petroleum hydrocarbons and heavy metals.
Radioactivity in produced water is a problem
whose significance is currently under assess-
ment. However, preliminary data indicate sedi-
ment accumulation of radionuclides may be
substantial
• Produced water discharges have shown adverse
benthiic impacts in shallow areas of low energy
(low flushing). Benthic impacts have a highly
limited data base, in more energetic, offshore
areas, but are currently being assessed by in-
dustry.
• Field data on potential impacts are limited to
single well scenarios. Information on field
studies of a multiple well development platform
have been conducted, but the data is not readily
available.
Other statutory requirements:
• Effluent guidelines and new source performance
standards for the offshore subcategory were first
proposed by EPA on August 26,1985. On Oc-
tober 21, 1988, the Agency issued a Notice of
Data Availability with new technical, economic
and environmental assessment information.
NPDES permits for offshore oil and gas must
comply with BPT guidelines and BAT conditions
developed on the basis of the Region's Best
Professional Judgement (BPJ).
* Effluents in state waters should be in compliance
with state water quality standards which are con-
ditions in NPDES permits. The State of
Louisiana is actively requiring State coastal use
permits. California has specific standards for
ocean waters. Other states may follow suit.
• A consistency determination with a state's Coas-
tal Management Plan is required if the state has
one in place.
• Compliance with the Endangered Species Act is
required.
REFERENCES
API. 1988. Basic Petroleum Data Book. Volume VET,
No. 1. American Petroleum Institute, Washington,
DC.
Arthur D. Little, Inc. 1984 Draft Environmental Impact
Report on the Chevron/Texaco Project off Point Ar-
guello, CA. Prepared for Santa Barbara County
Ayers, R.C., Jr., T.C. Sauer, Jr., R.P. Meek, and G.
Bowers. 1980. An Environmental Study to Assess the
Impact of Drilling Discharges hi the Mid-Atlantic.
Report 1, Quantity and Fate of Discharges. In: Sym-
posium - Research on Environmental Fate and Effects
of Drilling Fluids and Cuttings. Sponsored by API,
Lake Buena Vista, FL, January 1980.
Boesch, D.F. and N.N. Rabalais. 1985. The Long-Term
Effects of Offshore Oil and Gas Development: An
Assessment and A Research Strategy. A Report to
NOAA, National Marine Pollution Program Office
prepared by Louisiana Universities Marine Consor-
tium (LUMCON).
CRCPD (Conference of Radiation Control Program
Directors)". 1981. Natural radioactivity contamination
problems. Report No. 2.
EPA. 1988. Spreadsheets for Offshore Oil and Gas
Extraction Recosted Proposal Option, Drilling Fluids
BAT/NSPS Least Cost Determination. Industrial
Technology Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency.
EPA. 1985. Assessment of Environmental Fate and
Effects of Discharges from Offshore Oil and Gas
Operation. Monitoring and Data Support Division,
Office of Water Regulation and Standards, U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
ERG. 1988. Economic Impact Analyses of Effluent
Limitadons Guidelines and Standards for the Notice of
Data Availability for Drilling Fluids and Drill Cuttings
for the Offshore Oil and Gas Industry. Prepared for
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by Eastern
Research Group, Inc., Arlington, MA.
MMS. 1988. Federal Offshore Statistics: 1986. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Minerals Management
Service, Vienna, VA.
Neff, J.M., T.C. Sauer, and N. Maciolek. 1987. Fate and
effects of produced water discharges hi nearshore
marine waters: Vol. I & II. Technical Report to
American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC.
Report to Congress
C-ll
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Technical Resources Inc. 1988. Analysis of Effluent
Dispersion Models Potentially Applicable to Shallow
Water Discharges from Oil and Gas Activities.
Prepared for US EPA Region VI.
C-12
Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
FACT SHEET ON ALASKAN SEAFOOD PROCESSORS
SUBJECT TO 403(c)
How many are there?
There are currently approximately 300 seafood
processing facilities (both mobile and shore-based) in
Alaska that are subject to 403(c) ocean discharge
criteria. EPA issued a general NPDES permit for
seafood processors hi Alaska on June 18,1984, and it
expired on June 18, 1989. On June 18, 1989 EPA
proposed to reissue this general permit. Individual
permits are issued to large facilities in sensitive receiv-
ing environments.
What are the typical effluent characteristics?
• Primarily salmon, crab, herring, halibut, and bot-
tom fish processing wastes.
• Effluent flows range from 450 to 23,000 gal per
1,000 Ibs of raw product.
• Major pollutants are total suspended solids, oil
and grease, and biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD) (Total suspended solids l-3401bs/l,000
Ibs; oil and grease -48 lbs/1,000 Ibs; BOD 2-180
lbs/1,000 Ibs). U.S. EPA effluent guidelines for
fish species processed and type of processing are
provided in 40 CFR 408.
• Seafood processing wastes from remote loca-
tions must be ground to 1.27 cm (0.5 in). Instal-
lation of fine mesh screening for solids
collections is required for waste discharges from
nonremote locations.
• Other pollutants include chlorine, ammonia, and
fecal coliform bacteria.
• Pollutants are considered conventional and non-
toxic.
• Pollutants are biodegradable and do not bioac-
cumulate.
What is the behavior and fate of the effluent in the
receiving water environment?
• Discharge depths are typically 20-70 ft.
• Most seafood waste settles out of the water
column quickly, is deposited in a pile in the
immediate area of the discharge, and typically is
not subject to resuspension, except in locations
with steep bottom slopes and vigorous tidal
scouring resulting in redeposition in adjacent
locations.
• The size of the waste pile is influenced by dis-
charge volume, circulation patterns, and sub-
marine topography.
• Loss of material from the waste pile occurs be-
cause of foraging by organisms, decay, and pile
slumping or dispersion.
• Reduced impacts on water quality and aquatic
habitat occur in areas of adequate circulation
and flushing.
What are the primary physical, chemical, and biologi-
cal impacts?
• Potential water quality impacts include oxygen
depletion, sulfide production, ammonia genera-
tion, nutrient enrichment, and aesthetic effects
(e.g., water discoloration, surface scum and
foam).
• Water quality degradation generally is confined
to areas of ocean bottom near this outfall.
• Biological impacts include covering and suf-
focating benthic communities, benthic infauna
mortality or stress due to low dissolved oxygen or
the production of toxic degradation products
(e.g., hydrogen sulfide, ammonia), alterations in
Report to Congress
C-13
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
fish communities due to changes in food supply,
and algal blooms due to nutrient enrichment.
• The discharge could impact recreational, subsis-
tence, and commercial fishing by covering
(smothering) shellfish beds, interfering with fish
foraging activities, and obliterating spawning
grounds.
• Adverse impacts of human health are not ex-
pected.
• There is potential for recovery after cessation of
discharge, but the length of time to recovery is
still a question.
Other statutory requirements:
• The discharge of primarily conventional, non-
toxic pollutants is expected to be in compliance
with federal marine water quality criteria.
• The State of Alaska has determined that the
discharges authorized by this permit are consis-
tent with the Alaska Coastal Management pro-
gram.
REFERENCES
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1983.
NPDES Permit and Fact Sheet for Alaskan Seafood
Processors. Application No. AL-G-52-0000. U.S.EPA
Region X, Seattle, WA.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Section 74
Seafood Processing Study. Executive Summary.
Washington, D.C. September, 1980.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Developmen-
tal Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
New Source Performance Standards for the Fish
Meal.Salmon, Bottom Fish, Clam, Oyster, Sardine,
Scallop, Herring, and Abalone Segment of the Canned
and Preserved Seafood Processing Point Source
Category. Washington, D.C. September, 1975.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Developmen-
tal Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and
New Source Performance Standards for the Catfish,
Crab, Shrimp, and Tuna Segment of the Canned and
Preserved Seafood Processing Point Source Category,
Washington, D.C. June, 1974.
C-14
Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
FACT SHEET ON OFFSHORE PLACER MINING IN ALASKA
SUBJECT TO 403(c)
How many are there?
Currently there are 474 NPDES individual permits
for gold placer mining in Alaska. Generally, these
operations involve removal of gold ore or gold-bearing
sands from creeks, rivers or beaches. In two unique
cases, placer mining is happening in offshore marine
areas. Region X has determined that some of the new
applications for beach placer mining will be subject to
the provisions of 403(c). The only two offshore gold
dredging operations (both permitted to Westgold) are
in compliance with 403(c) through conditions in in-
dividual NPDES permits. These unique operations
involve dredging gold-bearing sediments for processing
at a separate onshore facility, while the remainder of
dredged material is discharged onto the seafloor.
What are the typical effluent characteristics?
• Effluent from the offshore operation consists of
seawater and natural bottom sediments.
• No substances are added to the process stream.
• The discharge from WestGold will consist of
approximately 13,680 m3 per day of solids and an
additional 55 MOD of associated seawater. The
concentrations of clay, silt, sand, and gravel
range from 0.1-05, 8-21, 56-67, and 21-30 per-
cent, respectively, in the mined sediment.
• Pollutants in the discharge include metals,
suspended solids, and total solids. Arsenic, cop-
per, lead, nickel, and possibly mercury are iden-
tified as potential pollutants in WestGold's
effluent.
• Toxic concentrations of metals in the discharge
have not been observed. However, there is un-
certainty regarding the presence of mercury, and
other potentially toxic and bioaccumulative sub-
stances, in the dredged sediments.
• Discharge of silts and clays produces turbidity
throughout the water column.
• The tailings discharged by the pipe will entrain
ambient water in the descending plume and flow
as a turbidity current in the water column or on
the bottom.
What are the primary physical, chemical, and biologi-
cal impacts?
• Potential water quality impacts include excessive
turbidity and suspended solids, and increased
bioavailability of toxic metals.
• Potential impacts to aquatic biota from the dis-
charge include:
- Burial of benthic communities or habitats
- Obstruction of anadromous fish migration
routes caused by the turbidity.
- Inhibition of benthic infauna recolonization
due to the presence of toxic concentrations of
metals, altered substrate and food supply.
• Fish and mammal species harvested in Norton
Sound are highly mobile and are not likely to be
impacted by the operation.
• Greater impacts on the king crab fishery are
expected from the dredging than from the dis-
charge.
• Because of possible toxicity and bioaccumula-
tion, monitoring for the forms and amounts of
mercury and other trace metals in the effluent
has been required.
• Adverse impacts to human health are not ex-
pected, although the increased bioavailability of
metals that bioaccumulate requires further
evaluation.
Report to Congress
C-15
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
• Authorized discharges are not likely to cause
permanent and significant harm to the marine
environment.
• The potential for recovery after cessation of
dredging and discharges is estimated to be in
excess of 5 years.
Other statutory requirements:
• A consistency determination with the Alaska
Coastal Zone Management Plan, and other ap-
plicable coastal zone plans (e.g., the Nome Coas-
tal Zone Management Plan), is required.
• The discharge of placer mining effluent is
prohibited by the State of Alaska within 100 ft of
mean lower low tide and within 1 mi of
anadromous fish streams.
• The Nome Coastal Zone Management Plan
stipulates that all mining activities must occur
100 ft seaward of mean lower low water. There
is also a one mile zone at the mouths of salmon
streams, where mining or discharge may not
occur. Under that plan, mining is prohibited in
commercial or subsistence fishing areas during
the open fishing season.
• Compliance with federal marine water quality
criteria for metals at the edge of a 100-m mixing
zone must be verified.
• The discharge must comply with the State of
Alaska's water quality standards for turbidity at
the edge of the 500-m mixing zone. Based on a
worst-case analysis of the suspended solids
plume for the WestGold operation, suspended
solids concentrations may cause violations of
these standards.
• U.S. EPA Region X has concluded that dischar-
ges authorized by WestGold's NPDES permit
will neither jeopardize the continued existence
of any threatened or endangered species nor
adversely affect its critical habitat. In addition,
no marine sanctuaries or other special aquatic
habitats exist in the vicinity of WestGold's permit
area.
REFERENCES
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1985.
NPDES Permit and Fact Sheet for Power Resources
Corporation gold placer mining operation (Westgold).
Application No. AK-004319-2. U.S. EPA Region X,
Seattle, WA.
C-16
Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
FACT SHEET ON LOG TRANSFER FACILITIES IN ALASKA
SUBJECT TO 403(C)
How many are there?
Activities associated with log transfer facilities in
Alaska include the transportation, storage, and sorting
of western hemlock, Sitka spruce, and cedar logs. Cur-
rently, there are 30-35 individual NPDES permits for
log transfer facilities in Alaska. These facilities are
located primarily in southeast Alaska and appear to be
subject to 403(c) ocean discharge criteria. However,
only the Shee Atika facility has been reviewed under
403(c) to date.
What are the typical effluent characteristics?
• The effluent generally consists of three classes of
material: 1) bark, leachate, and other wood
debris lost during log storage, sorting, and trans-
fer; 2) oil, grease, and other petroleum products
used for log handling equipment; and 3)
entrained soil and participate matter.
• Because the discharge of wastes from log trans-
fer facilities is via diffuse sources, it is not pos-
sible to determine effluent flows.
• The quantity of wood debris discharged to
receiving waters is site-specific depending on
species of wood, type of transfer process, and
best management practices in effect at the site.
• Wood is composed of cell wall components (e.g.,
cellulose, lignin) and extractable organic com-
pounds (e.g., tannins, resins, terpenes).
• Although wood debris is generally considered
nontoric (except hemlock), wood leachates (e.g.,
tannins) can be toxic to fish at high concentra-
tions.
• Wood wastes have variable rates of degradation.
For' example, refractory material such as cel-
lulose requires more time for breakdown than
extractable components such as carbohydrates.
What is the behavior and fate of the effluent in the
receiving water environment?
• The discharge of wastes from log transfer
facilities into marine waters occurs during
transportation of logs from the upland site to the
storage yard, during transfer of logs from the
storage yard to the water, and during storage of
logs in rafts in the water prior to export.
• Oil, grease, other petroleum products, and
entrained soil and participates can be
transported to the receiving waters via surface
water runoff from the site.
• Physical characteristics of the wood and circula-
tion patterns of the receiving water influence the
transportation and distribution of wood debris
and leachates. Tidal currents, which tend to be
strongest in constricted areas, are an important
transport mechanism.
• The majority of the wood waste initially floats
and then sinks after becoming saturated with
water.
• Once in the water, both logs and bark release
leachates.
• Wood debris accumulates on the ocean floor in
quiescent areas (e.g., bays, coves) where surface
and subsurface currents decrease.
• By causing logs to chafe in the storage area, wind-
and wave-driven currents can dislodge bark
What are the primary physical, chemical and biologi-
cal impacts?
Report to Congress
C-17
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Chemical and Physical Tmnacts
• Potential water quality impacts include in-
creased concentration of suspended solids, tur-
bidity, settleable solids, floating solids and
debris, oil and grease, and leachates.
• The decomposition of wood debris on the ocean
floor can cause increases in BOD and chemical
oxygen' demand (COD), potentially depleting
dissolved oxygen in the interstitial waters of the
waste deposits and in the overlying waters.
• Elevated concentrations of potentially toxic
degradation products (e.g., hydrogen sulfide,
ammonia) may also occur in the interstitial
waters of the waste deposits.
• The presence of bark, log bundles, and log
booms in nearshore waters can reduce subsur-
face circulation in the storage area.
• Log rafts can also shade the water column, in-
hibiting growth of benthic algae and eelgrass and
thereby reducing productivity.
Biological Impacts
• Accumulations of wood debris can cover the
bottom and smother plants and animals (losses
of suspension-feeding bivalves has been ob-
served in deposits thicker than 1 cm, and the
majority of dominant polychaetes are eliminated
in deposits thicker than 5 cm).
• Epifauna are eliminated in areas of extensive
wood debris deposition. However, scattered
deposits may provide additional substrate for
epifauna.
• Reproductive or somatic deficiencies in Dunge-
ness crabs residing in bark deposits have been
reported recently.
• Although wood leachates are toxic to salmon fry,
it is unlikely that leachates kill these or other fish
because they can generally avoid areas of high
leachate concentrations.
• Impacts to the infaunal benthic community may
result in localized but potentially adverse chan-
ges in the food supply of economically important
predators, including king crab, Dungeness crab,
halibut, and salmon.
• Because wood debris wastes are primarily non-
toxic and do not bioaccumulate, adverse impacts
to human health are not expected.
• Based on observations of benthic infauria
recolonization of inactive wood waste deposits,
there is a high potential for recovery following
cessation of discharge.
Other Statutory Requirements
• Before issuance of an NPDES permit for the
discharge of wood debris from log transfer
facilities, a determination that the permitted ac-
tivities are consistent with the Alaska Coastal
Zone Management Plan must be made in ac-
cordance with the Federal Coastal Zone
Management Act.
• Pollutants discharged by log transfer facilities
are expected to be in compliance with federal
marine water quality criteria.
• Best Professional Judgement (BPJ) determina-
tions are used to set discharge limitations and
best management practices to ensure that Alaska
Water Quality Standards are not violated.
REFERENCES
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1985.
NPDES Permit and Fact Sheet for Shee Atika, Inc. log
transfer facility. Application No. AK-0004048-7. U.S.
EPA Region X, Seattle, WA
C-18
Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
FACT SHEET ON SEAWATER TREATMENT PLANTS
SUBJECT TO 403(c)
How many are there?
There are currently three seawater treatment
facilities subject to 403(c) ocean discharge criteria.
These plants are located on the Beaufort Sea coast of
Alaska. These facilities filter, deaerate, and chlorinate
seawater used in the waterflood method of oil recovery.
The waterflood process is used on the North Slope to
increase oil production. Treated seawater is injected
into the oil-producing reservoir, forcing residual oil to
the surface.
What are the typical effluent characteristics?
• Effluent is composed primarily of water used to
backwash the strainers and filters in the seawater
treatment plant. Other discharges include
sanitary wastes and seawater passing through the
Marine Life Return System (MLRS).
• The highest monthly average discharge rate at
the ARCO Prudhoe Bay Waterflood facility,
June 1984-October 1985, was 9.0 million gallons
per day.
• Major pollutants are total suspended solids
(TSS) and total residual chlorine (TRC). The
current NPDES permit authorizes the following
concentrations:
Qnen-Water
IJnder-Tpe
Pollutant
TSS: Maximum daily 170,000 Ib/day 6,000 Ib/day
TRC: Maximum 4-day mean 0.15 mg/L 0.05 mg/L
Maximum 0.35mg/L 0.15mg/L
• Other pollutants include chlorine reaction
products and floatable solids. Receiving water
temperatures may also be increased.
• These constituents include conventional, non-
conventional, and toxic pollutants.
• Chlorine reaction products may bioaccumulate
in marine organisms.
What is behavior and fate of the effluent in the receiv-
ing water environment?
• Water column depths at the discharge are typi-
cally shallow. The ARCO Prudhoe Bay
Waterflood discharge site is 12 ft deep during the
open-water season and as shallow as 5 ft deep
when ice-covered.
• Highly seasonal and extreme conditions in the
receiving environment increase chances of
detrimental effects. Relatively static conditions
exist under the.ice cover during the winter
(November-June) and accumulation of TSS is
expected to be greatest at this time. However,
the discharge has lower quantities of both TSS
and TRC during this period.
• Currents and waves during the open-water
season (July-October) rapidly mix and disperse
discharged effluent.
• Transport and fate of discharged particulates
and chlorine reaction products and their persist-
ence in the sediments has not been well-estab-
lished.
• Because large volumes are discharged over a
long time period, it is possible that even low
concentrations of chlorine reaction products
may accumulate to unacceptable concentrations
in the environment.
What are the primary physical, chemical, and biologi-
cal impacts?
• Water quality variables that could be affected by
the discharge are turbidity, sedimentation rate,
amount of floating solids, temperature, and con-
centrations of total residual chlorine and
Report to Congress
C-19
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
chlorine reaction products.
• Diversity and abundances of benthic organisms
could be affected by changes in sediment char-
acteristics (e.g., grain size) or sediment deposi-
tion rate.
• Although endangered species occur in the
Beaufort Sea (e.g., bowhead and gray whales),
U.S. EPA has concluded that the discharge will
have no effect on any endangered or threatened
species or its critical habitat.
• Impacts on commercial, subsistence and recrea-
tional fisheries in the Beaufort Sea are not ex-
pected.
• The potential for recovery after cessation of dis-
charge is unknown because of a lack of informa-
tion on the forms, quantities, and persistence of
chlorine reaction products.
• U.S. EPA believes that if permit conditions are
met, the discharge is not likely to cause per-
manent and substantial harm to the marine en-
vironment. Monitoring is currently required to
provide early detection of any adverse effects.
• Adverse impacts to human health are not ex-
pected, however, the potential for bioaccumula-
tion of CRPs needs further evaluation.
Other Statutory Requirements:
• A consistency determination with the Alaska
Coastal Zone Management Plan is required.
• The discharge must comply with State of Alaska
water quality standards for total residual
chlorine, total suspended solids, turbidity,
temperature, sediment, and toxic substances.
• Determination of compliance with federal water
quality criteria for priority pollutants, as well as
the nonconventional pollutant chlorine, is re-
quired.
• U.S. EPA has concluded that the discharge will
have no effect on any endangered or threatened
species or its critical habitat and will therefore be
in compliance with the Endangered Species Act.
REFERENCES
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. NPDES
Permit and Fact Sheet for ARCO Alaska, Inc.
Application No. AK-002984-0. U.S. EPA Region X,
Seattle, WA. 17 pp.
C-20
Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
FACT SHEET ON CANE SUGAR MILLS
SUBJECT TO 403(c)
How many are there?
There are approximately 8 cane sugar mills subject
to 403(c) ocean discharge criteria in Hawaii Informa-
tion presented below is based on the Haina and
Pepeekeo sugar mills located on the Hamakua coast of
the island of Hawaii.
What are the typical effluent characteristics?
• Effluent is derived from the cane washing
process and from processing the cane into raw
sugar. This effluent contains primarily soil par-
ticles, grit, rocks, with leafy trash and small
pieces of cane.
• The major pollutant is total suspended solids.
• Other pollutants may include floatable solids
and BOD.
• Pollutants are considered conventional and non-
toxic.
• In 1979, U.S. EPA imposed the following stand-
ards for total suspended solids in sugar mill ef-
fluent for the Hilo Coast and Hamakua
processors:
Daily maximum = 9.9 lb/1,000 Ibs gross cane
processed
Monthly average
processed
3.6 lb/1,000 Ibs gross cane
• From 1965 to 1979, the Haina Sugar Mill dis-
charged approximately 49,410-130,410 tons of
sediment annually. Annual sediment discharge
was reduced to 3,621-5,400 tons hi 1980-1982.
What is the behavior and fate of the effluent in the
receiving water environment?
• Immediate discharge depths are shallow, but fall
off rapidly to great depths (e.g., 500 ft in one
mile).
• Shape and direction of the discharge plume is
variable, depending primarily on tidal stage and
wind. The plumes off both Pepeekeo and Haina
extend southeasterly during ebb tides. The flow
reverses direction and is stronger during flood
tide, resulting in net effluent transport to the
northwest. During periods of strong tradewinds,
the wind-induced longshore current also
transports the effluent plume to the northwest.
• The majority of discharged sediment is expected
to settle within approximately 1 mi of the dis-
charge site. Very fine sediments remain in
suspension and are n'ot expected to settle out
before they reach deep water.
• Effluent treatment for sediment removal cur-
rently includes use of settling ponds (Pepeekeo
Mill) or hydroseparators (Haina Mill).
Polymers to increase sedimentation during treat-
ment may also be added.
What are the primary physical, chemical, and biologi-
cal impacts?
• Potential impacts to ambient water quality in the
immediate vicinity of the discharge include in-
creased temperature by approximately 1.0°C,
decreased salinity by 1 to 5 ppt (parts per
thousand), and decreased oxygen saturation by
0-5 percent. Substantial impacts to marine life
due to these changes are not expected.
• Increased concentrations of suspended solids
(up to 10 times background) has caused consid-
erable impacts on the biota by increasing
sedimentation rates and turbidity.
• Biological impacts include mortality of benthic
infauna, changes in benthic species composition,
and, because of changes in prey species availabi-
Report to Congress.
C-21
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
lity, alterations in fish communities.
• Special aquatic habitats occurring hi the vicinity
of the discharge include coral reef communities.
Coral reefs are particularly sensitive to the ef-
fects of increased sedimentation. Impacts in-
clude mortality due to sedimentation, growth
inhibition due to reduced light availability,
reduced abundance and species diversity, and
recruitment failure.
• Impacts on recreational fisheries are not well
understood. There may be changes in fish abun-
dance and species composition.
• Adverse impacts to human health are not ex-
pected.
» There is the potential for long term recovery (i.e.,
approximately 10 years) after cessation of the
discharge.
Other Statutory Requirements
• As currently permitted, the discharge is ex-
pected to be hi compliance with State of Hawaii
water quality standards at the authorized mixing
zone boundary.
• EPA is currently evaluating compliance with
State water quality standards, including conven-
tionals, metals, and herbicides.
REFERENCES
Andrews, D JR. 14 January 1988. Personal Communica-
tion, (letter to William H. Pierce, U.S. EPA Region
IX). McCutchen, Doyle, Brown and Enersen, Coun-
selors at Law, San Francisco, CA.
Grigg, R.W. 1985. Hamakua Coast Sugar Mill Ocean
Discharges. Sea Grant Technical Report. University of
Hawaii Sea Grant College Program, Honolulu, HI.
TetraTech. 1983. Ecological Impacts of Sewage Dis-
charges on Coral Reef Communities. EPA-430/9-83-
010 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Water Program Operations, Office of Marine Dis-
charge Evaluation. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Developmen-
tal Document for Interim Final Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Proposed New Source Performance
Standards for the Raw Cane Sugar Processing Segment
of the Sugar Processing Point Source Category.
Washington, D.C. February, 1975.
Federal Register. November 6, 1979. Volume 44, p.
64078. Notice of Revised BPT Effluent Limitations for
the Hilo-Hamakua Coast of the Island of Hawaii Sub-
category.
C-22
Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
FACT SHEET ON PETROLEUM REFINERIES
SUBJECT TO 403(c)
How many are there?
There are three major petroleum refineries subject
to 403(c) ocean discharge criteria. The two major
facilities are owned and operated by Chevron USA,
Inc. and are located in El Segundo, CA and Ewa, Oahu,
HI. A third major refinery, Union Oil in Santa Maria,
CA, also discharges to the ocean. The information
presented below was derived primarily from the
NPDES permit for the El Segundo refinery (U.S. EPA
1984) and permit summaries from EPA's Abstracts of
Industrial NPDES Permits (EPA, 1986).
What are the typical effluent characteristics?
• Effluent is derived from processing wastewater,
non-contact cooling water, shallow recovery well
groundwater, brine well water and surface water
runoff containing contaminants. The El Segun-
da refinery also discharges wastewater from a
marine terminal (e.g., ship ballast water, line
displacement water).
• The effluent is treated prior to discharge. Treat-
ment may include sedimentation, floatation,
neutralization, air oxidation and oil/water
separation.
• Average daily dry-weather flow from the El
Segunda refinery is 4.39 million gallons per day
(mgd). Average daily flow from the Ewa refinery
(primary discharge only) is 1348 mgd.
• Major pollutants include oil and grease and
phenolic compounds. Other pollutants that may
be present in the discharge are total suspended
solids (TSS), ammonia, sulfide, and total and
hexavalent chromium. Biological oxygen
demand (BOD), chemical oxygen demand
(COD), total organic carbon, turbidity, and pH
may also be affected.
• Contaminants include conventional, non-con-
ventional, and toxic pollutants.
• The current permit requires weekly and monthly
monitoring of the pollutants listed above. Metal
and pesticide determinations and acute toxicity
fish bioassays must be performed quarterly.
• There is a potential for bioaccumulation of toxic
pollutants (e.g., chromium) in marine organisms.
What is the behavior and fate of the effluent in the
receiving water environment?
• Outfalls extend 500-1000 ft offshore and dis-
charge to shallow water (20-22 ft)
• Transport and dilution of the discharge plume is
dependent on local circulation, wind and wave
conditions, water column stratification and bot-
tom topography of the receiving environment.
Specific information for these facilities was not
available.
What are the primary physical, chemical, and biologi-
cal impacts?
• Beneficial uses of the receiving waters include:
industrial supply, navigation, contact and non-
contact water recreation, commercial and sport
fishing, preservation of rare and endangered
species, marine habitat and fish spawning areas.
• Potential water quality impacts include oxygen
depletion, nutrient enrichment, increased
sedimentation or turbidity, and elevated con-
centrations of oil and grease and priority pol-
lutants.
• Possible impacts on the biological community
include:
- Changes in diversity or abundance of benthic
Report to Congress
C-23
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
organisms due to changes in sediment charac-
teristics(e.g, grain size, TOC) or deposition
rate
. Benthic infauana mortality or stress due to
chemical contamination
- Changes in the plankton community because
of increased turbidity and reduced light
penetration
- Alterations in fish communities due to chan-
ges in food availability
• Discharges are not allowed in areas with sensi-
tive biological communities, threatened and en-
dangered species, special aquatic sites or areas
necessary for critical life stages or functions of an
organism.
Other Statutory Requirements
• Objectives of the State Water Resources Control
Board for Ocean Waters of California (Ocean
Plan) and the Water Quality Control Plan for
Los Angeles River Basin must be achieved.
• Water quality standards for the State of Hawaii
must be achieved.
• Compliance with federal water quality criteria
for priority pollutants and U.S. EPA guidelines
and standards for petroleum-refining point sour-
ces (40 CFR Part 419) is required.
REFERENCES
U.S. EPA. 1984. NPDES Permit and Fact Sheet for
Chevron USA, Inc. Application No. CA0000337.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los
Angeles, CA.
U.S. EPA. 1986. Abstracts of Industrial NPDES Per-
mits. Permits Division, NPDES Technical Support
Branch.
C-24
Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
FACT SHEET ON PULP AND PAPER MILLS
(REGIONS IX AND X)
SUBJECT TO 403(c)
How many are there?
Currently, there are two pulp and paper mills in
Region IX and three in Region X that are subject to
403(c) ocean discharge criteria. The pulp and paper
mills in Region IX include the Simpson Paper
Company's bleached kraft pulp mill near Fairhaven,
CA and the Louisiana-Pacific Company in Samoa, CA.
Region X's pulp and paper mills are Georgia-Pacific's
facility in Toledo, OR; International Paper's plant in
Gardiner, OR; and Weyerhaeuser's facility in North
Bend, OR. The information presented below was
derived primarily from the NPDES permits for each
facility and from Del Green and Associates and Tetra
Tech (1984a,b). Information on the pulp mills in
Region X (other than effluent characteristics) is ex-
tremely limited.
What are the typical effluent characteristics?
• The effluent generally consists of process was-
tewater from kraft pulping, pulp bleaching, and
pulp drying. The effluent from the mill in Region
IX also contains solids from their raw water
treatment plant, power boiler effluent, treated
sanitary sewage, and storm water. Louisiana-
Pacific also discharges saw mill effluent.
* The kraft and sulfite chemical pulping processes
produce effluents containing a wide range of
resin acids, fatty acids, and chlorophenols.
• Effluent flows and mass loadings vary, depend-
ing on the type of operation, size of die facility,
market factors, and the level of treatment
achieved by the mill.
• Annual average effluent flows range from ap-
proximately 2-4 MGD (Weyerhaeuser) to 20
MGD (Simpson facility).
• Major pollutants are suspended solids,
biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), priority
pollutants, and other toxic substances. Pulp mill
effluent is typically strongly acidic.
• The pulp mills in Region X have provided cer-
tification that slimicides containing
trichlorophenol or pentachlorophenol are not
used.
• Pulp mill effluent is composed of conventional
pollutants and toxic pollutants that have variable
rates of persistence in the receiving environment
and that bioaccumulate (e.g., dioxin, mercury,
resin acids)
What is the behavior and fate of the effluent in the
receiving water environment?
• Effluent is discharged at water depths of 20-45
ft.
• Critical initial dilutions for the discharges are
approximately 40-60:1.
• The nearshore environments into which the
Simpson and Louisiana Pacific pulp mills dis-
charge effluent are highly energetic.
• The majority of effluent solids remain suspended
and are transported out of the immediate dis-
charge area.
• Bottom velocities projected by both field and
laboratory studies are adequate to resuspend
sediments, preventing their long-term deposi-
tion. The relatively small increase in percent silt
at stations near the Simpson discharge support
this conclusion (Del Green Associates and Tetra
Tech 1984a,b).
Report to Congress
C-25
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
• The effluents from the Louisiana-Pacific and
Simpson milk create highly visible plumes which
are transported up and down the coast,
entrained into the surf zone and sometimes into
the bay.
What are the primary physical, chemical, and biologi-
cal impacts?
• Potential .impacts to water quality include in-
creased suspended solids, increased turbidity,
decreased light transmittance, reduced oxygen
concentrations, and changes in pH.
• Information on concentrations of resin acids,
fatty acids, and chlorophenols in estuarine and
marine waters is very limited (McLeay and As-
sociates 1987).
• Participates deposited in the effluent wastefield
may degrade water quality by causing oxygen
depletion, altered substrate, or toxic conditions.
• Although most effluent solids are transported
out of the immediate discharge area of the
Region IX mill, higher proportions of silt and
total volatile solids suggest that the effluent may
be modifying sediment characteristics slightly,
despite the rigorous physical environment.
• There is no evidence that pulp mill effluent has
adversely impacted the fish or benthic com-
munities near the discharges subject to 403(c) in
Regions IX and X (see Del Green Associates
and Tetra Tech 1984a,b; Oregon Department of
Ecology NPDES Permits Nos. 3750-J, 3848-J,
and 1000045).
• Acute toxicity is attributed primarily to resin and
fatty acids, chlorinated phenols and, to a lesser
extent a broad group of neutral compounds.
Available data indicate that various types of
treated and untreated effluent are acutely lethal
to juvenile rainbow trout and other test or-
ganisms (D. McLeay and Associates 1987).
• Information concerning the sublethal effects of
pulp mill effluents is extremely limited or absent
(D. McLeay and Associates 1987).
• A variety of recreational and commercial fishing
activities (including surfing, party boat fishing,
trawling, crabbing, and a red-tailed surfperch
fishing) occur in the vicinity of the Simpson out-
fall. The Dungeness crab fishery is most likely to
be affected by mill discharges because of its
proximity to the outfalls.
• Current knowledge concerning the bioac-
cumulation and retention in aquatic life of pulp
mill effluent constituents is sparse. Laboratory
and field studies have demonstrated that resin
acids can accumulate to an appreciable extent in
certain tissues (e.g., blood plasma, liver, kidney,
brain) of aquatic biota. A limited number of
field investigations have also reported elevated
concentrations of chlorinated phenolic com-
pounds in fish and shellfish collected from fresh-
water, estuarine, and marine sites. EPA is
currently conducting a National Bioaccumula-
tion Study including analysis of several bleached
kraft pulp mills. Fish tissue samples collected
downstream of pulp and paper mills have consis-
tently shown 2378-TCDD (i.e., dioxin) con-
tamination.
• Evidence of off-flavors in edible aquatic life at-
tributable to mill discharges were restricted to
receiving waters where effluent mixing and dilu-
tion were minimal. ,
• Extensive receiving water data is available in
reports from the Louisiana and Simpson mills
and can be reviewed for more impact data.
Other Statutory Requirements
• Pulp mills must comply with all state effluent
requirements and water quality standards. Re-
quirements for mills in CA are specified in the
California Ocean Plan. Pulp mills in CA appear
to be in violation with limitations specified in the
1983 Ocean Plan, with the exception of light
transmittance.
• Pulp mill discharges must demonstrate com-
pliance with U.S. EPA water quality criteria. A
definitive conclusion regarding violation of
water quality criteria for some pollutants (e.g.,
mercury, dieldrin) could not be made in the
technical review performed by Del Green As-
sociates and Tetra Tech (1984a,b) for the CA
C-26
Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
pulp mills.
• The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concluded
that the CA pulp mills were in compliance with
the Endangered Species Act. No listed or en-
dangered species are found in the discharge
area. Gray whales may migrate through the dis-
charge area, but are not likely to be adversely
impacted by the discharges.
• Congress amended the Clean Water Act to add
section 301(m) which allows the Louisiana
Pacific and Simpson facilities to discharge
without wastewater treatment. These are the
only two mills in the country which are allowed
to discharge without treatment. Both mills have
been cited for violations of their 301(m) permit.
Upon expiration of the current permits, EPA
must decide whether or not to renew the 301(m)
waivers.
• An additional limitation imposed by the Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality on
Weyerhaeuser's discharge prohibits pulp mill
discharges during the period of April 1 to June
30, except on a case-by-case basis, to provide
further protection to the critical stage of bivalve
larvae.
REFERENCES
Del Green Associates and Tetra Tech. 1984b. Simpson
Paper Company 301(m) application. Draft Technical
Review Report. Prepared for U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
D. McLeay and Associates. 1987. Aquatic toxicity of
pulp and paper mill effluent: a review. Prepared for
Environment Canada, Ontario, Canada. Report E
Report to Confess
C-27
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
FACT SHEET ON SAWMILLS
SUBJECT TO 403(c)
How many are there?
Georgia-Pacific operates a sawmill in Ft. Bragg,
CA that is subject to 403(c) regulations. The informa-
tion presented below was derived primarily from the
NPDES permit for this facility.
What are the typical effluent characteristics?
• The effluent discharge is from millpond over-
flow. Total daily discharge consists of ap-
proximately 1.08 mgd debarker water, 20,000
mgd boiler blowdown, and up to 1.3 mgd
stormwater runoff from log decks and the City of
Fort Bragg.
• Major pollutants include cyanide, settleable
matter, coliform bacteria, and changes in tur-
bidity and pH.
• Other pollutants that may be present in the dis-
charge include ammonia (nitrogen), biological
oxygen demand (BOD), total suspended solids
(TSS), and grease and oil. These contaminants
include both conventional pollutants and toxic
pollutants (i.e., cyanide).
• Current permit limits require that cyanide con-
centrations in the discharge not exceed six-
month median, daily maximum and
instantaneous maximum levels of 0.005 mg/L,
0.020 mg/L, and 0.050 mg/L, respectively. Acute
toxicity fish bioassays are required monthly.
• Stormwater runoff from the City of Fort Bragg is
a possible source of coliform bacteria in the
discharge.
• Discharge of woody debris or process was-
tewater is prohibited.
What is the behavior and fate of the effluent in the
receiving water environment?
• Transport and dilution of the discharge plume is
dependent on circulation, wind and wave condi-
tions, water column stratification and bottom
topography of the receiving environment.
What are the primary physical, chemical, and biologi-
cal impacts?
• Beneficial uses of the receiving waters include:
navigation, contact and non-contact recreation,
commercial and sport fishing, wildlife and
marine habitat, habitat for rare and endangered
species, fish migration and spawning, and
shellfish harvesting.
• Potential water quality impacts include oxygen
depletion, nutrient enrichment, increased
sedimentation or turbidity, and elevated con-
centrations of oil and grease and priority pol-
lutants.
• Possible impacts on the biological community
include:
- Changes in diversity or abundance of benthic
organisms due to changes hi sediment charac-
teristics(e.g, grain size, TOC) or deposition
rate
- Benthic infauana mortality or stress due to
chemical contamination
- Changes hi the plankton community because
of increased turbidity and reduced light
penetration
- Alterations in fish communities due to chan-
ges hi food availability
• Discharges are not allowed hi areas with sensi-
tive biological communities, threatened and en-
dangered species, special aquatic sites or areas
C-28
Report to Confess
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
necessary for critical life stages or functions of an
organism.
* Protection of recreational boating, fishing, and
shellfish harvesting in Fort Bragg Cove requires
effluent limitations for fecal coliform bacteria
that are more restrictive than those specified in
the California Ocean Plan.
• U.S. EPA has determined that there will be no
adverse effects on receiving water quality if the
discharge is in conformance with current permit
limitations.
Other Statutory Requirements
• The discharge must comply with California State
water quality standards (i.e., the California
Ocean Plan).
• Determination of compliance with federal water
quality criteria for priority pollutants (e.g.,
cyanide) is also required.
REFERENCES
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. No date.
NPDES Permit for Georgia-Pacific Corp., Fort Bragg
Lumbermill. Application No. CA 0005304. California
Regional Water Quality Control Board, North Coast
Region, Santa Rosa, CA. 12 pp.
Report to Congress
C-29
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
C-30
Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
Appendix D
List of "Deflnite" 403(c)
Discharges Under
Individual NPDES
Permits
Report to Congress
D-l
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
LIST OF DEFINITE 403
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Aeencv
LIST OF DEFINITE 403 DISCHARGES
EPA NPDES
Region Number Discharge Name and/or Location
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
PR0000400 YABUCOA SUN OIL CO.
PR0000418 UNION CARBIDE CARIBE INC
PR0000591 BACARDI CORP.
PR0000655 BACARDI CORP.
PR0000680 P.R. DISTILLERS
SIC Flow
Code (MGD)
2911 4
2869 .
RUM 0.4
RUM 0.07
RUM 1
PR0001031 PUERTO RICO ELECTRIC PWR AUTHORITY 4911 650
PR0001660 AGUIRRE 4911 652
PR0001147 SOUTH COAST 1-6 4911 665
PR0020010 ROOSEVELT ROADS NAVAL S
PR0020044 U.S. NAVY COMMUNICATION
PR0020231 PRASA MARABELLA I
PR0020265 PRASA MARABELLA II
PR0020486 PRASA GUANICA
PR0020516 PRASA HATILLO
PR0020656 PRASA MAUNABO
PR0020788 PRASA RINCON
PR0020931 PRASA VIEQUES
PR0021105 SUN HARBOR CARIBE
PR0021237 PRASA BARCELONETA
PR0021539 HERITAGE COMMUNITIES
PR0021563 PRASA PONCE STP
PR0021776 PRASA RAMEY STP
PR0021954 NEPTUNE PACKING CORP
PR0021962 V.C.S NATIONAL PACKING CO.
PR0022012 STAR KIST CARIBE INC.
PR0022055 PRASA GUAYAMA
PR0022063 PRASA AQUADILLO
PR0022071 Prasa Arecibo
PR0022080 PRASA ISABELLA
PR0022098 PRASA ARROYO
PR0022110 BUMBLE BEE PUERTO INC.
PR0022250 PRASA ISABELLA
PR0022284 SK&F LAB CORP
PR0022322 PHILLIPS PUERTO RICO CORE INC
PR0023027 PRASA VILLA TAINA
PR0023043 MAYAGUEZ WATER TREATMENT CO. INC.
PR0023116 SECOND UNIT PASTILLO
PR0023710 PRASA ARECIBO
PR0023728 PRASA BAYAMON
PR0023736 PRASA AQUADILLA
PR0023744 PRASA CANURY
PR0023752 PRASA CAROLINA
PR0023761 PRASA SANTA ISABEL
PR0023795 PRASA MAYAGUEZ R W W T P
PR0023850 PRASA DORADO
PR0023876 PRASA FAJARDO
PR0024724 AYERST-WYETH PHARMACEUTICALS
VI 0000060 V. I. WATER AND POWER AUTHORITY
VI0020036 DEPT OF PUB WORKS-ST CROIX
VI0020052 VIRGIN ISLANDS RUM IND.
VI0020125 DEPT OF PUB WORKS-NADIR ESTATE
VI0020150 FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
VI0039829 FRENCHMAN'S REEF-HOLIDAY INN
VI0039837 CANEEL BAY-ST JOHN
" VI 0039853 COWPET BAY WEST
VI0039870 AMERICAN YACHT HARBOR ASSOCIATION
VI0039900 COWPET BAY EAST ASSOCIATION
VI 0039934 SAPPHIRE BAY WEST CONDO ASSOC
VI 0039942 DEPT OF PUB WORKS- CRUZ BAY
VI 0040037 GALLOWS POINT DEVELOPMENT CORP.
VI 0040088 YACHT HAVEN HOTEL AND MARINA
VI0040096 FRANK MCCARTHY
VI0040126 JOHN MCVIE
VI0040134 WATERGATE VILLAS EAST ASSN.
9711 2
9711 0.17
4952 0.14
4952 3.5
4952 0.33
4952 0.5
4952 0.3
4952 0.28
4952 0.163
FRES 1.32
4952 8.33
CAMP 0.1
4952 12
4952 2.5
2091 0.015
2091 1.73
2091 2
4952 1
4952 1
4952 1
4952 1
4952 0.7
2091 2.5
4952 1
2834 0.108
4463 2.1
4952 0.11
2091 4.32
8211 0.01
4952 10
4952 25
4952 8
4952 3.02
4952 45
4952 1
4952 22.5
4952 8.45
4952 6.6
2834 0.21
4911 10
4952 4
2085 0.11
4952 0.25
4582 0.01
4952 2
7011 0.265
7011 0.035
4582 0.1
4952 1
4952 1
4952 0.1
4953 0.1
4953 0.03
4953 0.004
6514 0.004
6514 0.066
Major Original Reissue Expire
Minor Date Date Date
MAJOR 12/31/75 11/01/83 11/30/88
MAJOR 12/31/74 11/30/74 12/31/79
MAJOR 7/31/74 2/28/81 2/28/86
/ / / / / /
MAJOR 10/31/75 12/31/83 1/31/89
MAJOR 11/30/76 12/31/83 1/31/89
/ / / / / /
MINOR 9/30/74 8/30/74 9/30/79
8/30/82 / / 9/30/87
MINOR 5/13/74 8/30/82 9/30/87
MINOR 5/31/74 12/26/84 2/28/90
MINOR 5/31/74 8/30/82 9/30/87
MINOR 4/30/75 8/01/88 9/29/93
, MAJOR 9/30/74 9/30/86 11/30/91
MAJOR 8/01/77 3/31/88 6/01/93
MINOR 7/31/78 6/30/78 7/31/83
MAJOR 9/30/80 9/30/85 10/31/90
MAJOR 8/31/81 7/31/81 8/31/86
MAJOR 7/31/76 9/25/86 11/30/91
MAJOR 6/15/76 9/25/86 11/30/91
MAJOR 10/31/76 9/24/86 11/30/91
MINOR / / / / / /
MINOR / / / / / /
MINOR / / / / / /
MINOR / / / / / /
MINOR 3/27/87 3/27/87 5/14/92
MAJOR 10/31/76 3/27/87 5/31/92
MAJOR 6/30/77 8/01/88 9/29/93
MAJOR 2/28/78 1/28/78 6/30/81
MAJOR 6/30/86 6/30/86 9/01/91
MINOR / / 12/26/84 2/28/90
MAJOR 7/01/77 9/30/86 11/30/91
MINOR 11/30/79 8/12/88 8/31/93
MAJOR 9/30/83 9/30/88 11/29/93
MAJOR 9/30/82 8/01/88 9/29/93
MAJOR 9/30/83 9/30/88 11/29/93
MAJOR 11/30/82 9/30/88 11/29/93
MAJOR 9/30/87 9/30/87 11/29/92
MAJOR 9/30/83 9/30/88 11/29/93
MAJOR 9/30/87 9/30/87 11/29/92
/ / PNI PNI
/ / PNI PNI
MAJOR / / 10/01/84 10/31/89
MAJOR 7/31/76 9/13/85 10/31/90
MAJOR 7/01/79 11/01/88 10/31/93
MAJOR 3/31/75 5/07/86 6/22/91
MINOR 5/01/80 12/18/82 1/17/88
MINOR 8/29/77 10/31/83 11/30/88
MINOR 4/10/79 12/18/82 1/17/88
MINOR 4/10/79 6/22/88 7/13/93
MINOR 9/01/79 9/13/88 9/27/93
MINOR 1/02/80 11/01/83 11/30/88
MINOR 1/18/83 1/18/83 1/17/88
MINOR 1/18/83 12/18/82 1/17/88
MINOR .1/18/83 12/18/82 1/17/88
MINOR / / / / / /
MINOR / / 11/17/84 12/31/89
MINOR / / 11/23/84 1/07/90
MINOR 1/11/85 1/11/85 3/15/90
MINOR 1/11/85 1/11/85 3/15/90
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
LIST OF DEFINITE 403(c) DISCHARGES (continued)
EPA
Region
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
NPDES SI5 f,[™
Nunber Discharge Name and/or Location Code (MGD)
VI0040177 SEA CLIFF BEACH RESORT 4953 0.02
VI0040185 D & C DEVELOPMENT INC 4952 1
VI0040193 WATER BAY MANAGEMENT CORP. BDA 7011 0.1
VI0040215 K R DEVELOPMENT CORP - 9999 0.1
VI0040291 CORAL WORLD INC 4953 0.001
VI0040312 BAYSIDE RESORT 4953 0.057
•VI0110027 U.S. NAVY SUPPLY DEPOT 9711 0.37
DE0050008 SOUTH COASTAL REGIONAL 4952 6
M00020044 WORCHESTER CO. SANITARY COMMIS. 4952 12
MD0021091 US DEPT. OF INTRIOR-ASSATEAQUE 7999 0.017
M00023477 MARYLAND MARINE UTILITIES 4952 1
M00024911 BERLIN SHOPPING CENTER WWTP 5411 0.004
VA0031917 FORT STORY-US ARMY TRANSPORT 4952 1
VA0062618 HAMPTON ROADS SANITARY DISTRICT 4952 36
FL0000159 CRYSTAL RIVER 1-3 4911 1970
FL0002208 ST. LUCIE 1 Ml 763
FL0024805 VIRGINIA KEY 4952 133
FL0025976 KEY WEST 4952 5
FL0026255 HOLLYWOOD 4952 ^.M*
FL0026344 BOCA RATON 4952 11.8
FL0029289 GEIGER KEY MARINA MARI 0.005
FL0031186 SINGLETON SHRIMP FRES 0.023
FL0031771 8ROWARD COUNTY 4952 66
FL0032182 MIAMI-DADE NO. DISTRICT 4952 80
FL0033847 COCONUT GRVE TRAIL. PK TRAI 0.006
FL0033855 WALES EDGE COLONY TRAI 0.0075
FL0033901 SEABREEZE TRAILER PARK TRAI 0.0075
FL0034924 VENTURE OUT IN AMERICA TRAI 0.07
FL0035025 MAN-0-WAR HOTELS TRAI 0.005
FL0035068 BOYD'S CAMPGROUND TRAI 0.02
FL0035793 MARATHON SEAFOODS FRES 0.0001
FL0035980 DEL RAY BEACH 4952 24
NC0007064 BRUNSWICK 1-2 4911 2000
LA0049492 LOOP INC. (LA OFFSHORE OIL PORT) 5171 2.17
LA0049492 LOOP INC. (LA OFFSHORE OIL PORT) BRIN 25.2
LA0053031 HACKBERRY STRATEGIC OIL STORAGE 5171 1
LA0068250 FREEPORT SULPHUR CAMINADA MINE 1477 4.3
LA0078646 FREEPORT SULPHER-SHALLOW EXPL WELL 1477 1
LA0078654 FREEPORT SULPHER-SHALLOW EXPL WELL 1477 1
LA0078662 FREEPORT SULPHER-SHALLOW EXPL WELL 1477 1
LA0078671 FREEPORT SULPHER-SHALLOW EXPL WELL 1477 1
LA0078689 FREEPORT SULPHER-SHALLOW EXPL WELL 1477 1
LA0078697 FREEPORT SULPHER-SHALLOW EXPL WELL 1477 1
LA0078701 FREEPORT SULPHER-SHALLOW EXPL WELL 1477 1
LA0078719 FREEPORT SULPHER-SHALLOW EXPL WELL 1477 1
LA0078727 FREEPORT SULPHER-SHALLOW EXPL WELL 1477 1
LA0078735 FREEPORT SULPHER-SHALLOW EXPL WELL 1477 1
LA0078743 FREEPORT SULPHER-SHALLOW EXPL WELL 1477 1
TX0074012 STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RES BRIN 42.07
TX0092827 BIG HILL STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RES BRIN 71.4
AS0000019 STAR-KIST ' 2091 1.25
AS0000027 SAMOA PACKING CO. 2091 0.52
AS0020001 ASPA, UTULEI STP, AS 4952 0.57
AS0020010 ASRA, TAFUNASTP, A.S 4952 0.95
AS0020036 MARINE RAILWAY AUTH. 3731 0.1
CA0000051 UNION OIL PETR 0.312
CA0000230 CHEVRON OIL °-68
CA0000337 CHEVRON PETR 6.61
CA0000353 HAYNES 1-6 4911 712.5
CA0000361 HARBOR 1-5 4911 199.5
CA0000370 SCATTERGOOD 1-3 4911 319.7
CA0000761 CONTINENTAL OIL OIL 0.76
CA0001139 ALAMITOS 1-6 4911 987.9
CA0001147 EL SEGUNDO 1-4 4911 297.17
Major Original Reissue Expire
Minor Date Date Date
MINOR / / 7/14/88 7/14/93
MINOR / / 3/14/86 3/14/91
MINOR / / 3/14/86 3/14/91
MINOR / / 2/13/87 11/30/87
XINOR 2/12/88 1/12/88 3/01/90
MINOR / / 6/22/88 6/22/93
II It It
MAJOR / / 9/30/86 9/29/91
MAJOR / / 3/20/85 2/28/90
MINOR / / 10/20/87 10/20/92
MINOR / / 9/01/86 7/31/91
MINOR / / 5/12/83 3/31/88
MINOR / / 8/30/85 8/30/90
MAJOR / / 7/12/83 7/12/88
/ / 9/01/88 9/30/93
/ / 9/30/87 10/31/92
MAJOR / / 10/07/88 11/30/93
MAJOR / / 6/22/84 6/30/89
MAJOR / / 9/10/85 9/30/90
MAJOR / / 9/10/85 9/30/90
/ / 3/05/85 6/12/90
/ / 9/29/86 9/30/91
MAJOR / / 9/10/85 9/30/90
MAJOR / / 8/10/87 9/14/92
/ / 8/13/84 8/31/89
/ / 8/13/84 8/31/89
/ / 8/10/84 8/31/89
/ / 2/17/84 2/28/89
/ / 8/10/84 8/31/89
/ / 12/20/83 12/31/88
/ / 9/18/88 9/30/90
MAJOR / / 8/31/88 9/30/93
/ / 4/28/87 3/31/92
5/02/85 N/A 5/01/90
5/02/85 N/A 5/01/90
8/24/84 PENDING 8/21/89
MAJOR
11/03/88 N/A 11/02/93
11/03/88 N/A 11/02/93
11/03/88 N/A 11/02/93
11/03/88 N/A 11/02/93
11/03/88 N/A 11/02/93
11/03/88 N/A 11/02/93
11/03/88 N/A 11/02/93
11/03/88 N/A 11/02/93
11/03/88 N/A 11/02/93
11/03/88 N/A 11/02/93
11/03/88 N/A 11/02/93
6/04/85 PENDING 2/02/89
1/18/84 PENDING 1/18/89
MAJOR 7/16/74 3/ /87 3/ /92
MAJOR 5/10/75 3/- /87 3/ /92
MAJOR 5/22/75 11/ /85 1V /90
MAJOR 5/27/75 6/ /85 6/ /90
MINOR 4/12/76 9/ /83 9/ /88
MAJOR / / 6/12/87 6/30/91
MAJOR / / 1/16/87 1/01/92
MAJOR / / 11/19/84 11/10/89
MAJOR / / 11/19/84 6/10/89
MAJOR / / 11/19/84 6/10/89
MAJOR / / 11/19/84 6/10/89
12/16/74 6/25/84 6/10/89
MAJOR / / 11/19/84 8/10/89
MAJOR 12/26/74 11/19/84 8/10/89
253"
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
LIST OF DEFINITE 403(c) DISCHARGES (continued)
EPA'
Region
9
9
9 '
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9 .
9
9
9
9
9
9
NPDES
Number Discharge Name and/or Location
CA0001163 HUNTIN6TON BEACH 1-4
CA0001171 LONG BEACH 10-11
CA0001180 MANDALAY 1-2
CA0001198 .ORMOND BEACH 1-2
CA0001201 REDONOO BEACH 1-8
CA0001228 SAN ONOFRE 1
CA0001350 ENCINA 1-5
CA0001376 SILVERGATE 1-4
CA0001384 STATION B 1-4
CA0002305 UNION OIL
CA0003743 MORRO BAY 1-4
CA0003751 DIABLO CANYON 1-2
CA0005282 CROWN SIMPSON
CA0005304 GEORGIA PACIFIC
CA0005622 HUMBOLDT
CA0005894 LOUISIANNA PACIFIC
CA0022756 CRESCENT CITY
CA0022870 MENDOCINO
CA0023078 FORT BRAGG
CA0024040 MENDOCINO
CA0024333 UCLA, BODEGA MAIN LAB
CA0037494 PACIFICA
CA0037681 SAN FRANCISCO (RICHMOND
CA0037737 NORTH SAN MATED
CA0047364 CARPINTERIA
CA0047830 AVI LA
CA0047881 MORRO BAY
CA0047899 MONTECITO
CA0047961 SAN SIMEON
CA0047988 MARINA
CA0047996 CARMEL
CA0048003 SOUTH SAN LUIS OBISPO
CA0048054 SUMMERLAND
CA0048143 SANTA BARBARA
CA0048151 PISMO BEACH
CA0048160 GOLETA
CA0048194 SANTA CRUZ
CA0053651 SAN BUENAVENTURA
CA0053813 LOS ANGELES COUNTY SANI
CA0053856 LOS ANGELES (TERMINAL I
CA0054097 OXNARD
CA0054372 AVALON
CA0056201 REYNOLDS METALS
CA0105660 BOATSWAINS LOCKER
CA0107409 SAN DIEGO
CA0107417 SERRA
CA0109991 LOS ANGELES (HYPERION W
CA0110078 U.S. NAVY CENTERVILLE B
CA0110175 U.S. NAVY UNDERSEA CENT
CA01 10591 U.S. NAVY FUEL AND AMMO
CA0110604 ORANGE COUNTY S.D.
CA0111015 U.S. NAVY SUPPLY PT. LO
CA0111135 U.S. ARMY NIKE SITE 88S
GU0000019 USN, PITI PWR PLT
GU0000027 GPA, TANGUISSON POWER PLANT
GU0000035 U.S. NAVY GUAM SHIP REP
GU0020001 GPA, CABRAS POWER PLANT
GU0020036 MOBIL CABRAS
GU0020079 ESSO EASTERN INC.
GU0020087 PUAG AGANA BAY, AGANA
GU0020109 PUAG COMMERCIAL PORT-ST
GU0020141 PUAG NORTH DISTRICT WTP
GU0020168 UNIVERSITY OF GUAM
GU0020222 PUAG AGAT SANTA RITA ST
SIC Flow
Code (MGD)
4911 349.9
4911 112.12
4911 245.8
4911 0.475
4911 567.3
4911 461
4911 1150
4911 170
4911 120
OIL 0.08
4911 539.6
4911 782.8
PULP 18.37
SAW 0.98
4911 2.2
PULP 16.4
4952 1.4
4952 0.3
4952 5
4952 0.08
4952 0.25
4952 2.26
4952 21.8
4952 14
4952 1.3
4952 0.18
4952 1.65
4952 1
4952 0.15
4952 0.78
4952 0.66
4952 2.5
4952 0.08
4952 7.57
4952 1.2
4952 6.53
4952 13.4
4952 14
4952 351.1
4952 20
4952 18.3
4952 0.75
ALUM 0.05
3731 0.003
4952 130.9
4952 9
4952 404
9711 0.025
9711 0.025
9711 0.15
4952 232.2
9711 0.05
9711 0.01
4911 182
4911 99
9711 0.012
4911 173
5171 0.0004
5171 0.0004
4952 10
4952 0.05
4952 12
8421 0.288
4952 0.75
Major Original Reissue Expire
Minor Date Date Date
MAJOR / / 9/11/87 9/01/92
MAJOR /• / 11/19/84 8/10/89
MAJOR / / 11/19/84 8/10/89
MAJOR / / 11/19/84 8/10/89
MAJOR / / 11/19/84 8/10/89
MAJOR 12/09/74 8/02/88 7/01/91
MAJOR 12/19/74 1/28/85 1/28/90
MAJOR 12/09/74 1/28/85 1/28/90
12/09/74 1/28/85 1/28/90
10/10/75 9/16/85 9/01/90
MAJOR / / 2/08/85 2/01/90
MAJOR / / 7/12/85 7/01/90
MAJOR / / 7/19/87 8/18/92
MINOR / / 7/27/84 7/27/89
MAJOR / / 6/24/87 6/24/92
MAJOR 2/02/74 1/19/84 1/19/89
MAJOR 4/06/74 12/09/83 12/09/88
MAJOR 4/06/74 10/25/84 10/25/89
6/24/76 1/30/86 1/30/89
9/28/78 4/23/84 4/23/89
MAJOR 12/10/74 6/20/84 6/20/89
MAJOR 12/16/74 7/18/84 7/18/89
MAJOR 9/27/74 6/20/84 6/20/89
MAJOR 7/12/74 10/12/84 7/01/89
11/08/74 2/14/86 6/01/89
MAJOR 4/20/74 2/24/84 2/24/89
MAJOR 11/18/74 2/06/87 2/01/92
4/19/74 2/06/87 2/01/92
MAJOR 6/14/74 4/20/79 4/30/89
MAJOR 4/29/74 4/12/85 4/01/90
MAJOR 6/24/74 11/14/86 9/02/91
7/12/74 1/08/88 1/01/93
MAJOR 4/29/74 2/14/86 5/18/89
MAJOR 11/18/74 7/10/87 7/18/92
MAJOR 6/24/74 10/30/85 9/06/90
MAJOR 7/22/79 11/18/83 10/01/88
MAJOR 9/28/74 3/19/84 3/10/89
MAJOR 12/26/74 7/07/77 6/10/82
MAJOR 12/26/74 7/07/77 7/01/83
MAJOR 12/16/74 9/28/87 9/10/92
MAJOR 9/16/74 8/26/85 8/10/90
10/21/74 3/25/85 3/10/90
MINOR 6/13/75 5/10/85 5/01/90
MAJOR 11/14/74 3/04/85 6/30/88
MAJOR 9/26/74 8/29/88 8/29/93
MAJOR 12/18/74 7/23/87 7/10/92
2/09/75 7/26/79 7/26/84
3/15/74 7/29/79 7/10/89
10/20/74 10/23/78 7/31/79
MAJOR 6/07/74 2/22/85 2/21/90
10/30/75 10/23/78 9/22/87
10/31/73 10/31/78 10/01/79
MAJOR 2/10/75 ll/ /88 ll/ /93
MAJOR 2/10/75 10/ /88 10/ /93
MINOR 6/16/75 9/27/82 7/31/87
MAJOR 2/10/75 10/ /88 10/ /93
MINOR 5/09/75 9/ /84 5/ /89
MINOR 11/17/75 9/ /82 7/ /87
MAJOR / / 6/ /86 6/ /91
MINOR 3/25/76 9/ /83 9/ /88
MAJOR 9/30/83 6/ /86 6/ /91
MINOR 10/12/77 8/ /83 8/ /88
MAJOR / / 9/ /87 .9/ /92
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
LIST OF DEFINITE 403(c) DISCHARGES (continued)
EPA
Region
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
NPDES
Number
GU0020249
GU0020257
GU0110019
GU01 10078 '
GU0110124
HI 00000 19
HI 0000027
HI 0000078
HI 0000086
HI0000116
HI 00001 24
H 10000159
H 10000191
HI 0000256
HI 0000329
HI 0000353
HI 0000361
HI 0000582
HI 000061 2
HI 0000663
HI0020109
HI0020117
HI0020141
HI 00201 50
HI0020176
HI 0020 184
HI 0020257
HI 0020265
HI 0020303
HI 0020478
HI 0020630
HI 0020656
HI 0020711
HI 0020770
HI 0020796
HI 0020834
HI 0020877
HI 0020893
HI 0020923
HI 0020931
HI 0020940
HI 0020958
HI 0020991
HI 0021 008
HI 0021 083
HI0021113
HI0021121
HI 01 10078
HI 01 10086
N I 0020010
N I 0020028
N 1 00201 17
N I 00201 25
NI0020133
N I 0020290
TT0020061
TT0020095
AK0029840
AK0038661
AK0040487
AK0043192
AK0043354
AK0049379
OR0000221
Discharge Name and/or Location
LOCKHEED AIR TERMINAL
COCUS ISLAND RESORT
U.S. NAVY PUBLIC WORKS
NAVY DEBALL
USN, SUPPLY
KAHE 1-5
HONOLULU 5, 7-9
PIONEER MILL CO.
KEKAHA SUGAR CO.
OKOKELE SUGAR CO.
LI HUE PLANATION CO.
HAMAKUA SUGAR CO. INC.
HILO COAST PROCESS. CO.
KONOKAA SUGAR CO.
CHEVRON
CITIZENS UTILITIES
MCBRIDE SUGAR CO.
SHELL OIL CO. (HONOLULU)
HI DEPT. OF HEALTH
PACIFIC RESOURCES
COUNTY OF HONOLULU WAIA
HONOLULU C&C
HONOLULU C&C
HONOLULU C&C
CO. OF HAWAII
COUNTY OF MAUI-LAHAINA
COUNTY OF KAUAI-WAILUA
COUNTY OF KAUAI-ELEELE
EAST HONOLULU COMMUNITY SERVICE
ZIONS SECURITIES
WAIKIKI AQUARIUM
HAWAIIAN MILLING CO.
ALA WAI MARINE LTD.
COUNTY OF HAWAII KULAIMANO
AMEROA HCHD
DEL MARK CORP.
HONOLULU C&C
NATURAL ENERGY LAB
CHEVRON U.S. A INC. (HONOLULU MAIN)
CHEVRON U.S. A INC. (HONOLULU T)
CHEVRON U.S. A INC. (KAPALANA T)
LANAI OIL CO.
PAULEY PETROLEUM, INC.
AKONA PETROLEUM
HAWAIIAN CEMENT
CO. OF HAWAII (PAPLKAU PAUKOA)
CHEVRON U.S. A INC.dCAHULUI TERRAL)
U.S. MARINE CORPS KANEO
U.S. NAVY FORT KAMEHAME
CUC, SADOL, TASI STP
CUC, AGINGAN STP
MOBIL OIL. ROTA, CNMI
MOBIL 01. SAIPAN, CNMI
MOBIL OIL, TINIAN, CNMI
HARA ADAI HOTEL, CNMI
DPW, MALAKIAL STP, ROP
MOBIL OIL, PALAU
PRUDHOE BAY WATERFLOOD PROJECT
ENDICOTT DEVELOPMENT
SHEE ATIKA
WESTGOLD
KUPARUK WATERFLOOD PROJECT
WESTGOLD
INTERNATIONAL PAPER CO
SIC
Code
5172
7011
9711
5093
5093
4911
4911
REFI
CANE
REFI
REFI
REFI
RAW
REFI
PETR
4911
CANE
5171
8062
5171
4952
4952
4952
4952
4952
4952
4952
4952
4952
4952
8421
2431
3732
4952
1452
0179
4952
7391
5171
5171
5171
5171
5171
5171
5039
8091
2911
9711
9711
4952
4952
5171
5171
5171
7017
4952
5171
1381
1381
2411
1041
1381
1041
2631
Flow
(MGD)
0.1
0.1
3.2
0.37
0.1
647
304
0.5
99.1
2
3
4.1
20.19
14
5.3
10.8
0.375
0.023
0.15
0.0005
1.72
82
7
4.3
7
3.2
0.5
0.4
3.9
0.133
0.6
0.1
0.1
0.5
0.027
0.05
25
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
2
7.5
0.3
1
0.1
0.0005
0.0002
0.1
1
0.0005
9
1.3
47.8
1.65
6.97
Major
Minor
MINOR
MINOR
MAJOR
MINOR
MINOR
MAJOR
MAJOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MAJOR
MAJOR
MAJOR
MAJOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MAJOR
MAJOR
MAJOR
MAJOR
MAJOR
MAJOR
MAJOR
MINOR
MAJOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MAJOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MAJOR
MAJOR
MAJOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MAJOR
MAJOR
MAJOR
MAJOR
MAJOR
MINOR
Original
Date
8/27/82
/ /
1/31/75
2/10/75
6/02/74
12/27/74
11/30/73
11/30/73
11/30/73
11/30/73
10/21/73
10/21/73
10/21/73
3/15/73
12/27/74
11/30/73
10/31/73
1/11/74
10/31/73
5/24/74
8/22/75
6/28/74
12/05/74
3/13/75
12/18/74
4/03/74
12/27/74
4/03/74
3/05/75
10/22/75
4/01/76
2/02/76
6/01/78
8/16/79
12/01/79
10/31/80
4/01/81
6/29/81
6/29/81
6/29/81
6/29/81
7/01/81
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
11/28/74
/ /
1/31/75
1/31/75
1/26/75
1/26/75
1/26/75
2/15/83
1/31/73
1/25/75
12/17/80
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
Reissue
Date
8/ /82
8/ /83
1V /88
2/ /83
8/ /83
6/ /83
6/01/83
8/ /77
10/ /82
10/ /82
10/ /82
3/ /85
3/ /85
3/ /85
5/ /83
6/ /83
10/ /82
10/ /83
1V /83
1V /83
7/ /86
6/ /83
2/ /82
2/ /82
1V /83
9/01/84
8/ /87
5/ /83
V /84
5/ /80
6/ /85
V /86
5/ /86
6/ /83
6/ /84
1V /84
7/ /85
4/ /86
6/ /86
6/ /81
6/ /86
6/ /86
61 /86
1V /82
6/ /86
7/ /86
10/ /86
9/ /84
/ /
9/ /85
9/ /85
9/ /84
9/ /84
9/ /84
2/ /83
9/ /85
9/ /84
9/30/86
1/22/86
6/03/85
9/13/85
9/24/85
6/14/89
3/28/85
Expire
Date
7/ /87
8/ /88
1V /93
2/ /85
8/ /88
3/ /88
2/28/87
8/ /82
8/ /87
8/ /87
8/ /87
2/ /90
21 /90
21 /90
3/ /88
3/ /88
8/ /87
9/ /88
10/ /88
10/ /88
3/ /91
4/ /88
V /87
V /87
6/ /87
8/31/89
V /92
4/ /88
12/ /88
5/ /85
7/ /90
12/ /90
4/ /91
5/ /88
5/ /89
10/ /89
6/ /90
3/ /91
5/ /91
5/ /86
5/ /91
5/ /91
6/ /91
1V /87
5/ /91
6/ /91
5/ /91
8/ /89
/ /
9/ /90
9/ /90
5/ /89
5/ /89
5/ /89
21 /88
9/ /90
5/ /89
10/31/91
2/21/91
7/02/90
10/13/88
10/23/90
6/14/90
11/30/89
t tn Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
LIST OF DEFINITE 403(c) DISCHARGES (continued)
EPA
Region
NPDES
Number
Discharge
Name
and/or
Location
SIC
Code
Flow
(HGD)
Major
Minor
Original
Date
Reissue
Date
Expi re
Date
10 OR0001341 GEORGIA-PACIFIC CORP TOLEDO PAPER 2631 13.3
10 OR0022772 CITY OF NEWPORT 4952 2.47
10 OR0023361 WEYERHAEUSER CO 2421 oil
10 WA0025585 QUINALT INDIAN NATION 4952 1
6/01/84 / / 5/31/89
MINOR / / 5/09/84 4/30/89
MINOR / / 3/27/87 3/31/92
MINOR / / NYI / /
ieport to Congress
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
D-8
Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
Appendix E
List of General 403(c)
NPDES Permits
Report to Congress
E-l
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Permit
Coverage Area
Expiration Date
Region IV & VI
GMG280000 Final NPDES General Permit Coverage area includes 7/1/91
for the Outer Continental facilities located in
Shelf (DCS) of the Gulf of and discharging to the
Mexico (51 FR 24897) Gulf of Mexico seaward
of the outer boundary
of the territorial seas
of the states bordering
the Gulf
TX0085651 General Permit Texas Coverage - Territorial Expired
Coast-Production Existing Sea of Texas 7/15/88
Producers
LA0060224 General Permit - Louisiana Coverage - Territorial Expired
Coast- Production Existing Sea of LA 7/15/88
Producers
Region IX
CAG280605
CAG280622
CA0110516
Draft General NPDES Permit Coverage Area includes Not yet
for Offshore Oil and Gas Federal Waters off issued
Exploration Activities off southern California final.
Southern California (50 FR
34036)
Draft General NPDES Permit Coverage area includes Not yet
for Offshore Oil and Gas Federal waters off is s u e d
Development and Production Southern California final.
Activities off Southern
California (50 FR 34052)
Final General NPDES Permit Coverage Area includes 6/30/84 (but
for oil and gas exploration Federal waters off extended via
and development (48 FR Southern Californa. APA for
55029) facilities
covered as
of June 30,
1984)
Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
Permit
Coverage Area
Expiration Date
Region X
AKG284100
Beaufort II
Final NPDES General Permit
for Oil and Gas Operations Coverage area includes 9/27/93
on the Outer continental Federal and state
Shelf of Alaska: Beaufort waters. Exploratory
Sea II and (Exploration) drilling only.
Proposed modification
for covered area 5/1/89
AKG288000
Chukchi
AKG283000
Bering Sea
AKG285000
Final NPDES General Permit
for Oil and Gas Operations
on the Outer Continental
Shelf of Alaska: Chukchi
Sea
Final NPDES General Permit
for Oil and Gas Operations
on the Outer Continental
Shelf and in State Waters
of Alaska, Bering Sea
(modification, 49 FR 23734;
-original permit, 52 FR
35461)
Final NPDES General Permit
for Oil and Gas Operations
on the Outer Continental
Shelf of Alaska: Cook
Inlet Sea/Gulf of Alaska
(51 FR 35460)
AKG287000 Norton Sound (50 FR 23578)
Coverage area includes 9/27/83
Federal and state
waters. Exploratory
drilling only.
Coverage area includes 5/30/89
Federal and state
waters. Exploratory
drilling only.
Development and 10/10/91
production discharges
are authorized to state
waters north of the
Forelands in Upper Cook
Inlet. Exploratory
facilities are
authorized to discharge
to state and Federal
offshore and state
inland coastal waters.
Receiving waters are
Cook Inlet, Shelikof
Strait, and the Gulf of
Alaska.
Federal Lease Sale 57. 5/29/90
Exploratory drilling
only.
AKG520000 Alaska Seafood Processors.
Mobile and shore-based
facilities.
Waters of the state of
Alaska and adj acent
U.S. waters. Currently
about 290 processors
are covered. As many
as 150 more may be
covered by the reissued
permit.
6/18/89
Report to Congress
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
E-4
Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
Appendix F
List of "Questionable"
403 (c) Discharges
Report to Congress
F-l
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
LIST OF QUESTIONABLE 403(c) DISCHARGES
EPA
Region
9
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
NPDES
Number
MW0110001
AK0000124.
AK0000523
AK0000604
AK0000914
AK0000922
AK0001201
AK0001210
AK0001449
AK0001457
AK0001465
AK0001473
AK0020133
AK0020281
AK0020311
AK0020320
AK0020532
AK0020591
AK0020630
AK0020648
AK0020672
AK0020681
AK0020699
AK0020737
AK0020753
AK0020907
AK0020931
AK0020940
AK0020958
AK0020991
AK0021008
AK0021016
AK0021211
AK0021407
AK0021407
AK0021440
AK0021482
AK0021491
AK0021504
AK0021521
AK0021555
AK0021652
AK0021792
AK0021806
AK0021814
AK0021822
AK0021881
AK0021890
AK0022047
AK0022136
AK0022519
AK0022616
AK0022659
AK0022748
AK0022870
AK0022926
AK0023213
AK0023299
AK0023400
AK0023594
AK0023671
AK0023701
AK0023817
AK0023825
Discharge Name and/or Location
US NAVY, NAVAL AIR FACILITY
CHEVRON USA INC
KETCHIKAN
KODIAK SUPPORT CTR (POWER PLT)
KETCHIKAN SPRUCE MILLS
KETCHIKAN PULP CO
WRANGELL SAWMILL (POWER PLANT)
WRANGELL 6-MILE SAWMILL
SEALSKIN PROCESSING PLANT
POWER PLANT
SEAL CARCASS PROCESSING PLANT
SEAL SKIN PROCESSING PLANT
PETERSBURG LOGGING CAMP
DOO-NA Adak Naval Stati
DOD-NA Naval Security G
DOD-NA Adak Naval Stati
COLD BAY FAA STATION (STP)
ANNETTE ISLAND STP
ATTU LORAN STATION (STP)
KODIAK SUPPORT CENTER (STP)
PETERSBURG MOORINGS (STP)
KETCHIKAN BASE (STP)
ROLAND VILLAGE (STP)
SPRUCE CAPE LORAN STATION (STP)
FIVE FINGER LIGHT STATION (STP)
DOD-AF Shemya AFB
CAPE ROMANZOF AFS (STP)
CAPE NEWENHAM AFS (STP)
KOTZEBUE AFS (STP)
DOD-AF Cold Bay AFS
CAPE LISBURNE AFS (STP)
TIN CITY AFS (STP)
CITY OF KODIAK
AUKE BAY STP
AUKE BAY STP
CITY OF KETCHIKAN
METLAKATLA STP
CITY OF CRAIG
CITY OF KLOWOCK
TATITLEK VILLAGE COUNCIL
SEWAGE SCREENING FACILITY
S & S DEVELOPMENT CO
KETCHIKAN GATEWAY BOROUGH AIRPORT
KUIU ISLAND LOGGING CAMP
HECETA ISLAND LOGGING CAMP
CH1CHAGOF ISLAND LOGGING CAMP
HANUS BAY LOGGING CAMP
LOWELL POINT FACILITY
THORNE BAY ADMIN SITE (STP)
BARLETT COVE RANGER STA. (STP)
CITY OF OLD HARBOR
WRANGELL INSTITUTE
MT. EDGCUMBE SCHOOL (STP)
NEWTOK DAY SCHOOL (STP)
SAVOONGA DAY SCHOOL (STP)
CASCADE CREEK ADMIN SITE(STP)
DOUGLAS WTP
WHITTIER TERMINAL
ZAREMBO ISLAND LOGGING CAMP
AUKE VILLAGE RECREATION (STP)
SUNNY POINT CANNERY-FISH CAMP
NOYES ISLAND PLANT-FISH CAMP
FALSE PASS YACC CAMP (STP)
KAKE LOGGING CAMP
SIC
Code
5171
5171
4911
2421
2611
4911
2421
9512
4911
9512
9512
4952
9711
9711
9711
4952
4952
4952
4952
4952
4952
4952
4952
4952
9711
4952
4952
4952
9711
4952
4952
4941
4952
4952
4952
4952
4952
4952
4952
4952
4952
4582
4952
4952
4952
4952
4952
4952
4952
4952
8211
4952
4952
4952
4952
4952
4011
4952
4952
4952
4952
4952
4952
Flow
(MGD)
0.32
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
1
0.1
0.1
0.1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.1
1
1
1
0.1
1
1
0.1
1
1
5.36
1
1
1
1
2.13
1
0.1
1
1
1
1
0.96
1
1
1
0.1
1
1
1
1
2.76
0.1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Major
Minor
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MAJOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MAJOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MAJOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MAJOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MAJOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
Original Reissue
Date Date
9/29/75 97 782
/ / 6/30/79
/ / 12/17/74
/ / 11/15/74
/ / 5/27/75
/ / 12/28/84
/ / 1/15/75
/ / 1/15/75
/ / 12/17/74
/ / 12/17/74
/ / 12/17/74
/ / 12/17/74
/ / 8/22/75
/ / 12/21/73
/ / 12/28/73
/ / 12/28/73
/ / 1/18/74
/ / 12/13/74
/ / 12/14/73
/ / 9/27/79
/ / 12/14/73
/ / 12/14/73
/ / 12/14/73
/ / 12/14/73
/ / 12/14/73
/ / 12/28/73
/ / 12/28/73
/ / 12/28/73
/ / 12/28/73
/ / 12/28/73
/ / 12/28/73
/ / 12/28/73
/ / / /
/ / 7/10/74
/ / 7/10/74
/ / 7/12/84
/ / 10/11/74
/ / 10/25/74
/ / 10/25/74
/ / 10/25/74
/ / 3/11/88
/ / / /
/ / 12/13/74
/ / 10/10/75
/ / 8/22/75
/ / 10/10/75
/ / 8/22/75
/ / 6/26/86
/ / 12/12/77
/ / 2/20/74
/ / 10/25/74
/ / 1/30/74
/ / 2/27/74
/ / 2/27/74
/ / 2/27/74
/ / 2/27/74
/ / 9/10/85
/ / 1/30/74
/ / 8/22/75
/ / 6/26/74
/ / 12/13/74
/ / 12/13/74
/ / 8/22/75
/ / 10/10/75
Expire
Date
77 787
6/30/79
6/30/79
6/30/79
3/31/80
1/29/90
10/31/79
9/01/79
11/30/79
11/30/79
11/30/79
11/30/79
10/31/79
12/20/78
12/27/78
12/27/78
8/01/77
6/30/77
12/14/78
10/29/84
8/01/77
12/14/78
12/14/78
12/14/78
12/14/78
9/30/78
9/30/78
9/30/78
9/30/78
9/30/78
9/30/78
9/30/78
/ /
12/31/78
12/31/78
8/14/89
6/30/79
6/30/77
6/30/79
12/31/76
4/12/93
/ /
8/31/79
8/31/79
9/30/89
8/31/79
8/31/79
7/29/91
1/12/83
12/31/78 .
12/31/76
6/30/79
8/01/77
12/31/78
11/30/78
8/31/77
10/09/90
8/01/77
8/31/79
12/31/78
6/30/79
6/30/79
8/31/79
8/31/79
Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
LIST OF QUESTIONABLE 403(c) DISCHARGES (continued)
EPA
NPDES
Region Number
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10'
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
AK0023841
AK0023914
AK0023973
AK0024015
AK0024031
AK0024058
AK0024066
AK0024074
AK0024082
AK0024180
AK0024228
AK0024244
AK0024392
AK0024627
AK0024724
AK0024732
AK0024741
AK0024775
AK0024899
AK0024902
AK0024911
AK0025160
AK0025666
AK0025780
AK0025798
AK0025941
AK0026204
AK0026328
AK0026336
AK0026344
AK0026352
AK0026361
AK0026379
AK0026468
AK0026531
AK0026671
AK0026905
AK0027049
AK0027260
AK0027456
AK0027499
AK0027626
AK0027731
AK0027952
AK0028070
AK0028088 •
AK0028118
AK0028291
AK0028312
AK0028525
AK0028568
AK0028690
AK0028703
AK0028975
AK0029017
AK0029149
AK0029220
AK0029254
AK0029327
AK0029424
AK0029432
AK0029441
AK0029459
AK0029777
AK0029785
Discharge Name and/or Location
YAKUTAT FAA STATION (STP)
TUXEKAN PASSAGE LOGGING CAMP
SHRUBBY ISLAND LOGGING CAMP
COFFMAN COVE- KETCHIKAN
WRANGELL LOGGING CAMP
THORNE BAY LOGGING CAMP
KOSCIUSKO ISLAND LOGGING CAMP
TUXEKAN PASSAGE LOGGING CAMP
ORR ISLAND LOGGING CAMP
WHALE PASSAGE LOGGING CAMP
OWENS DRILLING CO
KETCHIKAN LOGGING CAMP
PEKOVICH, ANDREW W
RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
SPRUCE CAPE TRAILER COURT
CITY OF PELICAN HIGH SCHOOL
CITY OF HYDABURG
CITY OF HOONAH
KUIU ISLAND LOGGING CAMP
LABOUCHERE BAY LOGGING CAMP
KELP BAY LOGGING CAMP
WRANGELL LOGGING CAMP
CITY OF PORT LIONS
JENEAU
PETERSBURG
LBR INC
CHILKAT PENINSULA LOGGING CAMP
KELP BAY ADMIN SITE (STP)
SHOAL COVE (FUEL STORAGE)
SHOAL COVE LORAN STATION (STP)
NARROW CAPE (FUEL STORAGE)
NARROW CAPE LORAN STATION(STP)
BARANOF IS. LOGGING CAMP(STP)
JACKSON, TT
GREEN LAKE PROJECT
MARGARET BAY CAMP
RESOURCE FACILITY
INBETWEEN CREEK LOGGING CAMP
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
DIOMEDE DAY SCHOOL (STP)
HOLLIS YACC CAMP (STP)
NORANDA EXPLORATION INC.
HIDDEN FALLS SALMON HATCHERY
PETERSBURG TREE NURSERY
PORT ALICE CAMP
VERSTORIA PARK SUBDIVISION
HERRING COVE HATCHERY
BRUCE NEWLUN
TAMGAS CREEK SALMON MTCY
STARRIGAVAN TRAILER PARK
TENAKEE SPRINGS LOGGING CAMP
WRANGELL 6-MILE SM (REFUSE)
HENDERSON TRAILER COURT
STP FILL
CITY OF ANGOON
CHICHAGOF IS. LOG CAMP (STP)
CITY OF SAND POINT
DIV OF CHROMALLOY AMERICAN COR
CHICHAGOF ISLAND LOGGING CAMP
ROAD CONSTRUCTION CAMP (STP)
KODIAK FACILITY
WRANGELL BULK PLANT
SJ GROVES & SONS CO
ALASKA MARINE HIGHWAY SYSTEM
SIC
Code
4952
4952
4952
1611
4952
4952
4952
4952
4952
4952
1611
4952
4952
4952
6515
8211
4952
4952
4952
4952
4952
4952
4952
5171
5171
6515
4952
4952
4952
9621
4952
9621
4952
4952
4952
1629
3531
0921
4952
4952
4952
4952
1081
0921
0821
2421
4952
0921
4952
0921
7519
4952
4953
7033
4952
4952
4592
4952
1472
4952
4952
5171
5171
1629
4952
Flow
(MGD)
1
1
1
0.1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.
1
1
1
.1
0.1
0.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.
0.
0.
1
1
1
0.
1-
0.
1
1
1
0.
0.
0.
1
1
1
1
0.
0.
0.
0.
1
0.
1
0.
0.
1
1
0.
1
1
0.
1
0.
1
1
0.
0.
0.
1
.1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Major Original Reissue
Minor Date
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR .
MINOR .
MINOR .
MINOR
MINOR ,
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR ,
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR ,
MINOR ,
! t
/ i
/ I
1 I
/ i
1 i
1 i
1 i
1 i
1 i
1 i
1 i
1 i
1 i
1 i
1 i
1 i
1 i
1 /
1 i
/ i
1 /
1 i
1 i
/ j
/ /
1 i
1 l
1 l
/ i
1 i
1 /
1 1
1 /
1 l
1 i
1 i
1 i
1 /
/ /
1 l
1 /
1 l
1 /
1 l
1 i
1 1
1 1
/. /
/' '/
/ 1
l 1
1 1
1 1
I 1
1 1
I 1
Date
6/26/74
10/10/75
8/22/75
10/10/75
10/10/75
8/22/75
10/10/75
10/10/75
8/22/75
10/10/75
8/22/75
8/22/75
/ 1
12/17/74
4/15/75
4/22/75
5/17/76
1/20/78
11/09/76
8/22/75
8/11/76
11/09/76
10/10/75
3/26/76
3/26/76
8/11/76
/ /
11/20/78
/ /
5/07/76
7/14/76
5/07/76
7/14/76
7/29/77
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
11/21/78
/ /
/ /
/ /
1/23/78
7/29/77
10/14/77
/ /
7/29/77
/ /
6/12/78
/ /
/ /
Expire
Date
11/30/78
9/30/79
8/31/79
9/30/79
9/30/79
9/30/79
10/31/79
9/30/79
9/30/79
9/30/79
9/30/79
8/31/79
/ /
8/31/79
8/31/77
1/01/77
11/30/79
2/20/83
10/31/80
7/31/80
9/13/81
9/30/80
6/30/77
4/26/81
4/26/81
9/13/81
/ /
12/20/83
/ /
6/07/81
81/67/80
6/07/81
8/16/81
8/29/82
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
' / /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
12/21/83
/ /
/ /
/ /
2/23/83
8/29/82
11/14/82
/ /
8/29/82
/ /
7/12/83
/ /
/ /
Report-to Congress
f-J
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
LIST OF QUESTIONABLE 403(c) DISCHARGES (continued)
EPA NPDES
Region Number
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
AK0029831
AK0029980
AK0030783
AK0030872
AK0030881
AK0030911
AK003C953
AK0030961
AK0030970
AK0030988
AK0031020
AK0031101
AK0031119
AK0031429
AK0031534
AK0031577
AK0031585
AK0031682
AK0031739
AK0031780
AK0031879
AK0035131
AK0035149
AK0035670
AK0035921
AK0035939
AK0035963
AK0036030
AK0036048
AK0036072
AK0036986
AK0037036
AK0037087
AK0037273
AK0039605
AK0039683
AK0040584
AK0040622
AK0042391
AK0042404
AK0043117
AK0043176
AK0043371
AK0043401
AK0043427
AK0043451
AK0043559
AK0043855
AK0043885
AK0044334
AK0044474
AK0044598
AK0044741
AK0044750
AK0044768
AK0044938
AK0044954
AK0044962
AK0045071
AK0045314
AK0045543
AK0045551
AK0045560
AK0045624
AK0045632
Discharge Name arid/or Location
CHARLES A SMITH
MAIN BAY HATCHERY
KUPERANOF ISLAND LOGGING CAMP
ARCO OIL & GAS CO
SITKA LOGGING CAMP
NORTHWEST ARCTIC SCHOOL DIST
ITT RAYON I ER
PERRY & JULIE COBURN
SHOE INLET
SEALASKA TIMBER CORP.
AMOCO PRODUCTION CO
HOBART BAY
PORT FREDERICK
KODIAK SUPPORT CTR(REFUELING)
SITKA SOUND HATCHERY
SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITY
NATZUHINI LOGGING CAMP
HARBOR VIEW SUBDISION
CHEVRON USA INC
DAVID COX INC
AIRPORT TERMINAL
KOSCIUSKO IS. LOG CAMP (STP)
DBA SITKA SUILDERS
CHEVRON USA INC
CHEVRON USA INC
CHEVERON USA INC.
CHEVRON USA INC.
CHEVRON USA INC
CHEVRON USA INC
CHEVRON USA INC.
CHEVRON USA INC
CHEVRON USA INC
EXXON CORP SEWAGE TREATMENT PL
HOONAH LOGGING CAMP
CHEVRON USA INC
GULF OIL EXPLO & PROD CO
KETCHIKAN GATEWAY BOROUGH
SUNEEL ALASKA CORP.
AUK NU CONDOMINIUMS
COFFMAN COVE ADMIN SITE (STP)
CHANNEL VIEW APARTMENTS
SUNSET DRIVE SUBDIVISION
LOWER THORNE BAY ADMIN (STP)
FRITZ COVE SO HOMEOWNERS ASSOC
CITY OF ST. GEORGE
SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT
BURNETT INLET SALMON HATCHERY
FUTURE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
FUTURE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
CITY OF KING COVE
SOUTH COAST INC
KIC/ASRC WETLANDS
GOLD NUGGET SUBDIVISION
HYDROSTATIC TEST
FAMILY RESIDENCE
CIDS-ICE MELTING TEST
SHOAL COVE ADMIN SITE (STP)
WHALE PASSAGE AMDIN SITE(STP)
NORTH SHORE SUB DIVISION
KODIAK INTERNATIONAL SHIPWORKS
'JET* AERATION TREATMENT PLANT
KNUDSON COVE SUBDIVISION
COMMERCIAL FISHING RESORT
SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITY
JET AERATION TREATMENT PLANT
SIC
Code
4952
0921
4952
1799
4952
8211
4952
4952
4952
4952
1311
4952
4952
4582
0921
4952
4952
4952
1382
4952
5171
4952
1541
5171
5171
5171
5171
5171
5171
5171
5171
5171
4952
4952
5171
1311
4952
4463
1522
4952
6513
1522
4952
1522
4952
4952
0921
4952
4952
4952
4952
1382
4952
1389
4952
1382
4952
4952
1521
3731
4952
6552
7011
4952
4952
Flow
(MGO)
1
0
1
0
1
0
1
1
1
1
.1
.1
.1
0.1
1
1
0.1
0.1
1
1
1
0.1
1
0.1
1
0.1
0.1
0.
1
0.1
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1
1
0.
0.
1
0.
1
0.
0.
1
0.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0.1
1
1
1
1
0.
1
0.
1
0.
1
1
0.
0.
1
0.
0.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Major Original Reissue
Minor Date Date
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MAJOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
MINOR /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ /• /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ 9/26/84
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ 10/19/87
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ 1/21/86
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ 3/31/86
/ 9/22/86
/ 9/22/86
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
Expire
Date
/ /
1 I
1 I
/ I
1 I
1 I
1 I
1 I
1 1
1 I
1 I
1 I
1 I
1 1
1 I
1 I
1 I
1 I
1 I
1 I
1 I
1 1
1 1
1 I
1 1
1 I
1 1
1 I
1 I
1 I
1 1
1 I
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 I
1 1
10/25/89
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
10/19/92
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
2/20/91
/ /
/ /
/ /
6/30/88
10/21/91
10/21/91
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
Report to Congress
-------
Office of Water
Environmental Protection Agency
LIST OF QUESTIONABLE 403{c) DISCHARGES (continued)
EPA
Region
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10-
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
NPDES
Number
AK0045675
AK0045683
AK0046655
AK0046831
AK0046833
AK0046876
AK0046884
AK0047279
AK0047295
AK0047554
AK0047597
AK0047601
AK0047635
AK0047741
AK0047872
AK0048291
AK0048305
AK0048361
AK0048372
AK0048437
AK0048542
AK0048682
AK0048721
Discharge Name and/or Location
KETCHIKAN SHIPYARD DRY DOCK
SEWARD SHIP HAUL OUT/REPAIR
INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE PROJECT
AGRICULTURE, FOREST SERVICE
COMMERCIAL FISHING RESORT
METLAKATLA WATER TREATMENT
JET AERATION STP
SPRING CREEK CORRECTIONAL CTR.
HECETA ISLAND CAMP BARGE (STP)
SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING (STP)
ONSITE ENERGY
PELICAN/MUSSEL HEIGHTS SUBDIVI
SEWERAGE SYSTEMS
FLOAT HOUSE
CONTRACT 52-ABNC 8 00012
THORNE BAY FACILITY (SEWAGE)
KENSINGTON VENTURE (SEWAGE)
BONNIE BRAE SUBDIVISION (STP)
FISH-HANDLING PLANT (SEWAGE)
RESIDENTIAL SEWER OUTFALL
WRANGELL LATTER DAY SAINTS CHURCH
JET AERATION TREATMENT PLANT
SEWER SYSTEM
SIC
Code
3731
3731
4952
4952
4952
4941
4952
4952
4952
4952
4911
4952
4952
4952
8922
4952
4952
4952
4952
4952
4952
4953
4952
Flow
(MGD)
0.1
0.1
1
1
1
0.1
1
1
1
1
0.1
1
1
1
0.1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Major
Minor
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
MINOR
Original Reissue Expire
Date Date Date
/ / / / / /
/ / / / / /
/ / / / / /
/ / / / / /
/ / / / / /
/ / / / / /
/ / / / / /
/ / 9/28/87 9/28/92
/ / / / / /
/ / / / / /
/ / / / / /
/ / / / / /
/ / / / / /
/ / / / / /
/ / / / / /
/ / / / / /
/ / / / / /
/ / / / / /
/ / / / / /
/ / / / / /
/ / / / / /
/ / / / / /
/ / / / / /
*U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1990—271-411/51930
- p-.j
Report to Congress
-------
-------
-------
SEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency (WH-556F)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business Penalty for
Private Use $300
------- |