[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 245 (Thursday, December 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75429-75432]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-30696]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-9762-3]
Notice of Availability of Proposed National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Offshore Oil and Gas
Exploration, Development and Production Operations off Southern
California
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of availability of proposed NPDES general permit
(reissuance).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA Region 9 is proposing to reissue its general NPDES permit
(permit No. CAG280000) for discharges from offshore oil and gas
exploration, development and production facilities located in Federal
waters off the coast of Southern California. This permit was issued on
September 22, 2004, and modified on November 30, 2009.
This notice announces the availability of the proposed general
permit and fact sheet for public comment. For the most part, the
proposed permit is very similar to the 2004 permit. The major changes
from the 2004 permit include the following: (1) Reduced geographic area
of coverage reflecting a reduction in the number of lease blocks
considered active by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM); (2)
revised effluent limits and monitoring requirements for produced water
based on an updated reasonable potential analysis; (3) revised whole
effluent toxicity (WET) requirements for produced water; (4) study
requirement for cooling water intake structures; and (5) new
requirements for an on-line oil and grease monitor for produced water.
These changes are discussed in more detail below, and in the fact sheet
accompanying the proposed general permit.
DATES: Comments on the proposed permit must be received or postmarked
no later than February 4, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Public comments on the proposed permit may be submitted by
U.S. Mail to: Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, Attn: Eugene
Bromley, NPDES Permits Office (WTR-5), 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, California 94105-3901, or by email to:
[email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eugene Bromley, EPA Region 9, NPDES
Permits Office (WTR-5), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California
94105-3901, or telephone (415) 972-3510. A copy of the proposed permit
and fact
[[Page 75430]]
sheet will be provided upon request and are also available on Region
9's Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/region09/water/npdes/pubnotices.html. The 2004 general permit and fact sheet are available
on Region 9's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/region09/water/.
Administrative Record: The proposed permit and other related
documents in the administrative record are on file and may be inspected
any time between 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays, at the following address: U.S. EPA Region 9,
NPDES Permits Office (WTR-5), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Summary of Proposed Changes From the 2004 General Permit
1. Facility Coverage. Like the 2004 general permit, the proposed
general permit would apply to existing development and production
platforms, and new exploratory drilling operations in the Offshore
Subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category,
located in and discharging to specified lease blocks in Federal waters
on the Pacific Outer-Continental Shelf (OCS), offshore Southern
California.
There are currently 23 production platforms which are authorized to
discharge by the 2004 permit, and the proposed permit would continue to
authorize discharges from these 23 platforms; discharges from any new
platforms would require separate individual permits. The geographic
area of coverage for the proposed permit would be the 49 lease blocks
currently considered active by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
(BOEM) off Southern California; this would be a reduction from the 83
lease blocks considered active in 2004 and included in the 2004 general
permit.
2. Updated Reasonable Potential Analysis for Produced Water
Discharges. On November 30, 2009 (74 FR 64074) Region 9 modified the
2004 general permit to incorporate additional effluent limits and
monitoring requirements based on a study submitted in 2006 by
permittees of the reasonable potential of the discharges to cause or
contribute to exceedances of marine water quality criteria. For the new
proposed permit, Region 9 re-evaluated this matter using monitoring
data collected in 2009-2012. The new analysis showed that many of the
previous effluent limits in the 2009 modification are no longer needed
and would not be included in the 2012 proposed permit. For such
constituents, however, Region 9 is proposing an annual monitoring
requirement to ensure no unreasonable degradation of the marine
environment pursuant to section 403 of the Clean Water Act (CWA).
3. Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET). The 2004 permit required monthly
WET testing for produced water discharges (for the first year of the
permit) using the red abalone (Haliotis rufescens) larval development
test, and then annual screening with a plant (giant kelp, Macrocystis
pyrifera), a vertebrate (topsmelt, Atherinops affinis) and an
invertebrate (red abalone). In 2010, EPA published a new guidance
manual \1\ which Region 9 believes improves regulatory decision-making
with regards to WET test results. For the proposed 2012 general permit,
Region 9 is proposing WET effluent limits for certain platforms based
on the WET test results collected during the term of the 2004 permit.
Region 9 is also proposing continuation of chronic toxicity testing for
all platforms to ensure no unreasonable degradation of the marine
environment, using the three above species, and the 2010 protocol for
analysis of the results.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ U.S. EPA. 2010. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System Test of Significant Toxicity Implementation Document, EPA
833-R-10-003, June 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Cooling Water Intake Structure Requirements. Section 316(b) of
the CWA requires that the location, design, construction and capacity
of cooling water intake structures (CWISs) reflect the application of
the best technology available to minimize adverse environmental
impacts. On June 16, 2006 (71 FR 35006), EPA promulgated final
regulations for new offshore oil and gas facilities. Region 9 believes
that all facilities potentially covered by the proposed permit
(including new exploratory operations) would not be considered ``new
facilities'' as defined in the 2006 regulations and therefore are not
categorically subject to the 2006 regulations.
Although the 2006 regulations did not include specific requirements
for existing offshore oil and gas facilities, the preamble notes that
requirements for existing facilities may be developed on a case-by-case
basis using best professional judgment (71 FR 35006). Region 9 is
proposing a study requirement (due within one year) for the 2012
general permit which would require the following for all platforms with
cooling water discharges: (1) Description of current CWIS and existing
measures to minimize entrainment/impingement; (2) assessment of the
environmental impacts from entrainment/impingement given current
practices; and (3) practicality of additional measures to reduce
environmental impacts from entrainment/impingement.
5. On-Line Oil and Grease Monitors. The 2004 general permit
required each permittee (jointly or separately) to investigate and
submit a report evaluating the availability and practicality of on-line
monitoring devices for oil and grease in produced water discharges. The
practicality of such devices for produced water was unclear at the time
of the 2004 general permit issuance, but it was Region 9's intent to
re-evaluate this matter when the permit was reissued. These devices
have the potential to provide more timely information concerning upset
conditions and potential exceedances of permit limits, and thereby
provide improved protection of the marine environment.
The permittees submitted three different reports evaluating this
matter, and Region 9 believes they show the technology is now available
and practical for use at California offshore platforms. Furthermore, in
discussions with operators and as noted in the reports, some platforms
have already installed devices of this nature. As such, the proposed
2012 general permit would require within one year of the permit's
effective date that operators do either of the following: (1) Install
on-line monitoring equipment capable of providing the operator with
rapid information concerning potential noncompliance with the effluent
limits for oil and grease for produced water in the permit, or (2)
provide information to Region 9 demonstrating that the operator has
already installed monitoring equipment which meets the above objective.
B. Ocean Discharge Criteria
Section 403 of the CWA requires that an NPDES permit for a
discharge into marine waters located seaward of the inner boundary of
the territorial seas be issued in accordance with guidelines for
determining the potential degradation of the marine environment. These
guidelines, referred to as the Ocean Discharge Criteria (40 CFR part
125, subpart M) and section 403 of the CWA are intended to ``prevent
unreasonable degradation of the marine environment and to authorize
imposition of effluent limitations, including a prohibition of
discharge, if necessary, to ensure this goal'' (45 FR 65942, October 3,
1980).
To support the issuance of the 2004 general permit, Region 9
prepared an Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation
[[Page 75431]]
(ODCE) \2\ which evaluated the proposed discharges in relation to the
requirements of the Ocean Discharge Criteria regulations. After review
of the ODCE, and numerous other studies and data in the administrative
record for the 2004 permit, Region 9 concluded that the discharges
authorized by the permit would not cause unreasonable degradation of
the marine environment. For the proposed 2012 permit reissuance, Region
9 re-evaluated this conclusion through a review of new study results
that have become available subsequent to the 2004 permit issuance, such
as new reports from the environmental studies program conducted by the
Pacific OCS Office of BOEM. After considering such new information,
Region 9 again concludes that the proposed discharges from the
platforms would not cause unreasonable degradation of the marine
environment. As stated above, the proposed permit has water quality and
toxicity monitoring to ensure compliance with CWA Section 403.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Science Applications International Corporation. 2000. Ocean
Discharge Criteria Evaluation South and Central California for NPDES
Permit No. CAG28000, Submitted to U.S. EPA Region 9, September 29,
2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Endangered Species Act
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) allocates authority to and
administers requirements upon Federal agencies regarding threatened or
endangered species of fish, wildlife, or plants and habitat of such
species that have been designated as critical. Its implementing
regulations (50 CFR part 402) require EPA to ensure, in consultation
with the Secretary of the Interior or Commerce, that any action
authorized, funded or carried out by EPA is not likely to jeopardize
the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species or
adversely affect its critical habitat (40 CFR 122.49(c)). Implementing
regulations for the ESA establish a process by which Federal agencies
consult with one another to ensure that the concerns of both the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) (collectively ``Services'') are addressed. EPA prepared
separate biological assessments (BAs) 3 4 to assess the
potential impacts of the 2004 permit issuance on listed species under
the jurisdiction of the USFWS and NMFS. Both BAs concluded that there
would be no effect on listed species. The BAs were provided to the
Services for review but no comments were received.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Science Applications International Corporation. 2000.
Biological Assessment for Endangered Species in Outer Continental
Shelf Waters of South and Central California for Consultation with
the National Marine Fisheries Service, Submitted to EPA, February
10, 2000.
\4\ Science Applications International Corporation. 2000.
Biological Assessment for Endangered Species in Outer Continental
Shelf Waters of South and Central California for Consultation with
the Unites States Fish and Wildlife Service, Submitted to EPA,
February 10, 2000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the 2012 general permit reissuance, Region 9 reconsidered the
potential effects of the discharges on listed species and critical
habitat. Both NMFS and the USFWS maintain current information and lists
of threatened and endangered species and critical habitat for these
species at: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/ and http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/. After reconsidering this matter, Region 9
believes the proposed discharges would not affect these species.\5\
However, we will forward the draft permit and fact sheet to the
Services to solicit comments on this tentative conclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ In letters dated August 29, 2012, Region 9 also requested
species lists from the Services to ensure that appropriate species
are considered for reissuance of the final general permit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Coastal Zone Management Act
The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) provides that a Federal
license or permit for activities affecting the coastal zone of a state
may not be granted until a state with an approved Coastal Management
Plan (CMP) concurs that the activities authorized by the permit are
consistent with the CMP (CZMA section 307(c)(3)(A)). In California, the
CZMA authority is the California Coastal Commission (CCC).
Since Region 9 issued the general permit in 2004, the CZMA
regulations specifying Federal agencies' obligations under CZMA
sections (c)(1) and (c)(3) have been revised. In accordance with the
revised regulations (71 FR 788, January 5, 2006), the issuance of a
general NPDES permit by EPA is considered a ``Federal agency activity''
subject to the consistency determination requirements of CZMA section
307(c)(1). 15 CFR 930.31(d). Region 9 believes the permit would be
consistent with the CMP, and will be submitting the required
determination to the CCC pursuant to CZMA section 307(c)(1) prior to
final permit issuance. If the relevant state agency's conditions are
not incorporated into the general permit or the state agency objects to
the general permit, then the general permit is not available for use in
that state unless the applicant or person who wants to use the general
permit provides the state agency with a consistency determination and
the state agency concurs. Essentially, if EPA does not include a state
agency's conditions or if the state agency objects, then the applicable
CZMA consistency determination requirements shift from those in CZMA
section 307(c)(1) into those in CZMA section 307(c)(3).
E. Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act
The Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary was designated in
1980 and encompasses approximately 4,296 km\2\ in the Southern
California Bight. Sanctuary regulations (15 CFR 922.71) provide a list
of activities that are prohibited and thus unlawful for any person to
conduct or to cause to be conducted within the Sanctuary. No operations
authorized by this proposed permit are within the Sanctuary boundaries.
F. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
The 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation
and Management Act set forth a number of new mandates for NMFS,
regional fishery management councils, and Federal agencies to identify
and protect important marine and anadromous fish habitat. Regional
fishery management councils, with assistance from NMFS, are required to
delineate essential fish habitat (EFH).
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires that Federal agencies consult
with NMFS on all actions undertaken by the agency which may adversely
affect EFH. In accordance with these requirements, for the 2004 general
permit, EPA prepared an assessment \6\ of the effects of the proposed
discharges on EFH in the area covered by the permit. The assessment
concluded that while there may be effects on EFH from certain
discharges near an outfall, these effects should be minor overall.
Region 9 also initiated a consultation with NMFS in 2000 which led to a
requirement for a 2005 study \7\ to address certain concerns which NMFS
raised regarding produced water discharges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Science Applications International Corporation. 2000.
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment for NPDES Permit No. CAG280000,
Submitted to EPA Region 9. October 2, 2000.
\7\ Western States Petroleum Association. 2005. The Effects of
Produced Water Discharges on Federally Managed Fish Species along
the California Outer Continental Shelf, Submitted to EPA Region 9,
June 2005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the 2012 permit reissuance, Region 9 reconsidered the effects
of the discharges on EFH. NMFS provides updated information concerning
EFH in Southern California ocean waters on its Web site at http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/hcd/HCD_webContent/EFH/index_EFH.htm. After review
of the
[[Page 75432]]
information on the NMFS Web site, Region 9 believes the previous
conclusion is still valid that the discharges would not have a
significant adverse effect on EFH. However, Region 9 will forward the
draft permit and fact sheet to NMFS for any comments on Region 9's
tentative conclusion concerning the potential effects on EFH.
G. Permit Appeal Procedures
Within 120 days following notice of EPA's final decision for the
general permit under 40 CFR 124.15, any interested person may appeal
the permit decision in the Federal Court of Appeals in accordance with
Section 509(b)(1) of the CWA. Persons affected by a general permit may
not challenge the conditions of a general permit as a right in further
Agency proceedings. They may instead either challenge the general
permit in court, or apply for an individual permit as specified at 40
CFR 122.21 (and authorized at 40 CFR 122.28), and then petition the
Environmental Appeals Board to review any condition of the individual
permit (40 CFR 124.19).
H. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires that
EPA prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for regulations that have
a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The
permit renewal proposed today is not a ``rule'' subject to the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. EPA prepared a regulatory flexibility
analysis, however, on the promulgation of the Offshore Subcategory
guidelines on which many of the permit's effluent limitations are
based. That analysis has shown that issuance of this permit would not
have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
I. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection required by this proposed permit has
been approved by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., in
submissions made for the NPDES permit program and assigned OMB control
numbers 2040-0086 (NPDES permit application) and 2040-0004 (discharge
monitoring reports).
Authority: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.
Dated: December 6, 2012.
John Kemmerer,
Acting Director, Water Division, EPA Region 9.
[FR Doc. 2012-30696 Filed 12-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P