U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4

July 11, 2013

Responses to Public Comments on the Draft Revision of the Outer Continental Shelf 

Air Permit for BHP – Billiton Petroleum, Inc., Sake Prospect Drilling Project

Permit #OCS-EPA-R4008-M2
2

RTC – OCS-EPA-R4008-M2 07/11/13 

I. Introduction

On May 24, 2013, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 (EPA) submitted for public 

comment a draft Clean Air Act (CAA) Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) air permit revision for the BHP –

Billiton Petroleum, Inc. (BHPB) Sake Prospect Drilling Project. The draft permit revision and the EPA’s 

Preliminary Determination are available on www.regulations.gov and the EPA’s website at:

http://www.epa.gov/region4/air/permits/ocspermits/ocspermits.html. 

The EPA previously issued an OCS air permit for the BHPB Sake Prospect Project on May 30, 2012, 

after an opportunity for notice and comment. The draft permit revision revises the best available control 

technology (BACT) emission limits for total particulate matter (PM), particulate matter with a diameter 

of equal to or less than ten microns (PM10), particulate matter with a diameter of equal to or less than 2.5 

microns (PM2.5), volatile organic compounds (VOC), and greenhouse gases (GHG) as equivalent carbon 

dioxide (CO2e) for the main engines of the semi-submersible drilling rig Development Driller 1. A 

detailed explanation of the change is contained in the EPA’s Preliminary Determination for this action.

The EPA announced the public comment period and opportunity for public hearing (beginning 

May 24, 2013, and ending June 24, 2013) via a public notice published in the Florida Weekly Register, 

Mobile Press Register, Panama City News, and Pensacola News Journal, in emails to the OCS public 

notice list, and on www.regulations.gov and the EPA Region 4’s website. During the public comment 

period, 32 requests for a public hearing were received via email. As a result, a public hearing was held 

on June 27, 2013, at the West Florida Public Library located at 239 N. Spring Street in Pensacola, 

Florida. The public comment period was extended to midnight Central Daylight Time on July 27, 2013. 

A total of 88 comments were received (via email, letter, and orally at the public hearing) during the 

public comment period.

The Administrative Record for the draft permit revision was made available at the EPA’s Region 4 

office and on the EPA’s website and www.regulations.gov during the public comment period. The EPA 

also made the draft permit revision, statement of basis, and fact sheet available during the public 

hearing.

In accordance with the applicable procedural regulations [Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 

§§71.11(j) and 124.17], the EPA must issue a response to comments that: (1) specifies which provisions, 

if any of the draft permit have been changed in the final permit decision, and reasons for the change; and 

(2) briefly describes and responds to all significant comments on the draft permit revisions raised during 

the public comment period or during any hearing.

No provisions of the proposed draft permit revisions have been changed in the final permit. The EPA’s 

description of and response to the public comments are below. For the purpose of clarity and public 

information, the EPA has summarized and/or provided a response to some issues raised during the 

comment period and hearing that do not directly address the proposed revisions.

II. Brief descriptions of comments and EPA responses.

As indicated in the public notice, the EPA is not responding to individual comments, but, per the 

applicable procedural regulations, is providing a brief description of the comments, arranged by topic. 

Even though the EPA has summarized the comments below, the EPA reviewed the full text of all 
3

RTC – OCS-EPA-R4008-M2 07/11/13 

comments, and all comments related to the permit revision were considered in making the final decision. 

The full text of all comments and the hearing transcript are included in the Administrative Record, as 

well as, many other documents relevant to the permit decision. The Administrative Record can be 

accessed online at www.regulations.gov and through the EPA’s website at: 

http://www.epa.gov/region4/air/permits/ocspermits/ocspermits.html, 

1. Comments regarding “no offshore drilling” & “no drilling offshore Florida”

Comment: Numerous comments, more than 60, explicitly opposed offshore drilling and/or drilling 

offshore Florida, or expressed sentiments that could be interpreted as general opposition to offshore 

drilling, including, but not limited to, the following statements:

“Do not drill in the gulf off of Florida.”

“I am strictly against drilling in our beautiful waters and killing off our wildlife.”

“No to offshore drilling!”

“Did you learn nothing from the BP oil spill?”

“I would like to state my strong opposition to offshore drilling near the Florida Coast.”

“Leave our clean waters alone!”

“Fossil fuel exploration is not sustainable and we need to switch to renewables now!”

“We cannot allow corporate greed to take over our already damaged delicate environment.”

“Just the idea of additional drilling in the gulf coast causes us to cringe in fear!”

“Do not allow an additional oil platform to be built anywhere near our area!”

“Florida citizens have fought long & hard to keep oil rigs off our coasts.”

“I do not want any type of exploration performed in any waterway within 500 miles of the entire

U.S.”

“Don’t take the chance on another Gulf Shores disaster!!”

“Please do not allow offshore drilling off our beautiful beaches in Florida. Our economy depends 

on pristine beaches for tourism.”

“The disaster of the Deepwater Horizon, the lies, cover-ups, & manipulation of America (for the 

profit of a few) must STOP!”

“We must invest in solar, wave and wind power now. No drilling!”

“Offshore drilling in Florida would be a crime against humanity.”

“Drilling for oil in Florida is not the answer to anything. We need to start using alternative fuels 

now!”

Comments cited numerous reasons for opposition to drilling. Most concerns were related to the 

Deepwater Horizon incident, (also referred to as the “BP oil spill”), citing oil, oily foam, and toxic 

dispersants being washed onshore. Several comments raised concerns regarding the toxicity of the 

dispersants or Corexit, asthma like symptoms from the dispersants, and general concern that their 

health and that of their families has been compromised by the spill or use of the dispersants. A 

brochure advocating the ban of toxic dispersants was submitted for the record. Several comments 

raised concerns regarding the harm or death of dolphins and other animals related to the Deepwater 

Horizon incident, and expressed concerns that a similar event could happen again or that the BHPB 

project would “malfunction.”

Several comments indicated that the use of alternative energy sources is more appropriate, and 

expressed a preference for “sustainable practices” and use of “renewables.” A few of these 

comments mentioned global warming and President Obama’s recent speech/statements on global 
4

RTC – OCS-EPA-R4008-M2 07/11/13 

warming and expressed general concerns about carbon or pollutants that may come from offshore 

drilling.

Many comments made statements or expressed concerns about rig safety and “risky drilling.” One 

hearing comment indicated that the permit did not include adequate information on rig abandonment,

bonding, and financial obligations for oil drilling. One comment indicated that drilling in this area of 

the Gulf was not safe due to training for low level fighter bombers from the Boca Chica Naval Air 

Station. In addition, a few comments made general statements that drilling would impact tourism and 

fishing.

Many of the above comments indicated that the EPA should not allow BHPB to drill. A few 

comments asked the EPA to reconsider or deny the original permit issued in 2012. A couple of 

comments expressed concern that that this project would lead to additional drilling. A few comments

questioned the EPA’s integrity in allowing offshore drilling in general. One comment expressed 

general support for drilling.

Response: The EPA is aware that many people strongly oppose offshore oil drilling for a number of 

reasons, including those cited above. We are also aware of the significant environmental impact 

caused by the Deepwater Horizon incident. Staff from our Region 4 office served for months as 

incident coordinators in the Gulf. We understand that there are many individuals and families in the 

Gulf affected by this incident, and that they remain concerned that such an incident could occur

again. The full transcript and all of the comments relating to the above issues have been included in 

the Administrative Record, which is available to any interested person. 

As stated in the preliminary determination, the EPA solicited comments on the proposed revisions to 

the air quality permit that the EPA originally issued in May 2012. The above comments, as heartfelt 

as they are, do not address the proposed changes or identify any error in finding of fact or law related 

to the EPA’s draft permit revision. In addition, the EPA does not have the authority to revoke the 

previously issued permit as part of this action.

As discussed in the public notice and preliminary determination, the EPA is responsible for 

implementing and enforcing CAA requirements. Our permit review is limited in scope by the CAA 

requirements as defined for OCS sources in the Gulf of Mexico that are east of 87.5 degrees 

longitude, and then to CAA requirements and air pollutants as identified by the applicable federal 

OCS air quality regulations (40 CFR part 55). Our OCS air quality permitting authority does not 

extend to non-air quality impacts related to bonding, drill rig safety, and chemical dispersants, as 

raised by the comments. These aspects of offshore drilling, as well as many others, including 

offshore spills, spill response, and water quality are considered during the leasing and review process 

of the U.S. Department of Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), specifically, 

during the development of the Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) under the National 

Environmental Policy Act for proposed lease sales (see: http://www.boem.gov/Oil-and-Gas-EnergyProgram/Leasing/Leasing.aspx). Water quality impacts are considered by the EPA under a separate 

permitting action during the development of National Pollution Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) permits (see: http://www.epa.gov/region4/water/permits/oil_gas.html), as well as, by the 

BOEM during the EIS process for the lease sales. The development of the EIS and NPDES permits 

both provide separate opportunities for public comment on the issues under consideration for those 

actions.
5

RTC – OCS-EPA-R4008-M2 07/11/13 

2. Comments regarding air quality

2.1. Comment: Numerous comments requested that the EPA not “waive” the CAA or air quality 

standards or regulations. Many of the comments included similar or identical statements 

indicating: 

“The Clean Air Act has protected the air we breathe for four decades. Now is 

not the time to waive this important law. With our climate changing and our 

environment constantly being impacted negatively by fossil fuel use, it makes 

little sense to waive standards to pursue more oil and gas. Now is not the time 

to waive regulations that have been put in place to protect our health.”

In addition, a few comments made statements about the Pensacola area having bad air quality, 

typically associating this with the Deepwater Horizon incident. One commenter indicated the 

region had the eleventh-worst air quality in the country and another indicated that it had the 

seventh-worst air quality. One commenter indicated that the EPA should deny BHPB’s request 

because of “the environmental impacts and the public health implications.” 

Response: None of the comments identified the CAA provisions, air quality standards, or 

regulations that the commenter believed EPA proposed to waive. Several commenters indicated 

that these statements were in response to a citizen’s Facebook post or flyer indicating that the 

EPA was “waiving” the CAA or air quality standards in this action. Nonetheless, no CAA 

provisions, air quality standards, or regulations were waived in this permit action. The EPA 

followed the applicable permit modification procedures of 40 CFR § 71.7(e)(3). 

The existing air quality permit, while not the subject of this action, contains provisions to ensure 

compliance with federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements, including 

BACT, title V operating permit requirements, New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and 

applicable National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP). As described 

in the preliminary determination for the original permit, the permit requires recordkeeping, 

reporting, monitoring and testing requirements to ensure all emissions limits in the permit are 

met, and to ensure compliance with the CAA. The revised permit does not change the 

applicability of these requirements.

As discussed in the preliminary determination, the proposed revisions do not constitute a 

modification of the source nor a change in the proposed drilling operations and do not trigger 

PSD review for any New Source Review regulated pollutants. The source continues to be 

subject to PSD requirements for oxides of nitrogen (NOX), carbon monoxide (CO), 

PM/PM10/PM2.5, VOC, and GHG (as CO2e) emissions. As such, the revisions do not change any 

of the control technology or compliance requirements.

With respect to the comment that the EPA deny BHPB’s request because of “the environmental 

impacts and the public health impacts,” the commenter did not provide any substantive 

information or data related to the environmental or public health impacts of the proposed permit 

action, but rather generally referred to the health concerns raised by other speakers that were 

generally attributed to the Deepwater Horizon incident. EPA’s analysis included a review of 

the updated testing results and a revised impact analysis. We concluded that the environmental 

impact of the project, with the updated emission estimates will not be significantly different 
6

RTC – OCS-EPA-R4008-M2 07/11/13 

under the revised permit. This analysis was conservatively based on a worst-case analysis of 

the project’s potential emissions. The Federal Land Manager also opined, with respect to PM10

and PM2.5, that the project is not expected to have air quality impacts on sensitive Class I areas.

A more detailed explanation of our review and the proposed revisions is contained in the EPA’s 

Preliminary Determination for this action.

2.2 Comment: One commenter requested that the EPA answer the following air quality related 

question:

“As far as anything for air quality for any city in the United States, where do you find it?”

Response: This question does not appear to be related to the draft permit revision, nor is the 

EPA clear what the commenter is requesting. However, the EPA’s website, at www.epa.gov

provides detailed descriptions of federal air quality programs and data. Likewise, all state air 

quality agencies maintain websites that include links to their applicable air quality regulations. 

If the commenter is referring to air quality data, this information is available at 

www.airnow.gov.

3. Comments regarding requests for a public hearing or meeting

3.1 Comment: Thirty-two comments were received requesting a public hearing. During the public 

hearing, two commenters asked if or when the EPA could hold a public meeting. 

Response: Notice of the opportunity for a public hearing was provided on May 24, 2013. Based 

on requests received, a hearing was held on June 27, 2013, from 3 to 7 p.m., at the West Florida 

Public Library located at 239 N. Spring Street in Pensacola, Florida.

The applicable procedural regulations provide for an opportunity for a formal public hearing, as 

opposed to a public meeting. As indicated in the hearing record, the EPA is providing this 

response to comments, and the public may contact our office at any time to request additional 

information regarding the OCS permitting process.

3.2. Comment: One commenter, from Delaware, requested the EPA to hold a public hearing and 

urged the EPA to provide the public more time to review “BP’s” permit to drill off the coast.

Response: The EPA would like to clarify that BHPB is not the same company as BP, and that 

the proposed action for public comment is a revision to an existing air quality permit, not a new 

permit or general approval for exploratory drilling. Drilling plan approvals are under the 

authority of the BOEM.

The EPA provided more than 30 days for the public to review the preliminary determination 

and proposed permit revisions, as required by the applicable procedural regulations. No 

justification was provided as to why the commenter believed the public needed more time to 

review the permit revision. A 30-day public comment period was also provided when the 

original permit was issued in 2012. Only one comment was received, which was from the 

applicant.
7

RTC – OCS-EPA-R4008-M2 07/11/13 

4. Comments regarding monitoring and inspection

Comment: Several comments inquired about who inspects the OCS source, when they are

inspected, how they are monitored, how frequently they are monitored, and whether the monitoring 

will be available to the public. One commenter inquired, “Are they inspected any more than BP was 

inspected?” A few commenters indicated that they did not trust the rig operators to monitor 

themselves and “not go higher.” One commenter asked whether the monitoring would be just out on 

the platform or if it would be on the land for residents too.

Response: BHPB’s permit, which was originally issued in May 2012, requires the rig operators to 

allow EPA personnel, or our authorized representative (such as a source testing expert) access to 

inspect the OCS source and drilling premises during drilling operations that trigger the permit or 

where any records are required to be kept under terms of the permit. The EPA has authority to

inspect the OCS source, support vessels, equipment, practices, or operations described under the 

permit. The permit specifies that the EPA may review and make copies of any records, including but 

not limited to information relating to the OCS source, support vessels, monitoring data, or 

compliance/noncompliance with the permit. In addition, the EPA can sample or monitor any 

substances or parameters at any location reasonable necessary to assure compliance with the permit 

or with EPA rules and regulations. As stated in the permit, all terms and conditions of the permit are 

enforceable by the EPA and citizens under the CAA, including but not limited to sections 113, 114, 

120, and 304 of the CAA. The permittee is required to comply with all conditions of the permit, 

including monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping.

Compliance monitoring for NOX, CO, VOC, CO2 and PM/PM10/PM2.5 emissions from the main 

generator diesel units is required by one of three EPA approved methods in the BHPB permit. The 

methods are parametric monitoring, continuous monitoring, stack testing, or a combination of these. 

Parametric monitoring records parameters such as charge air pressure and temperature; exhaust air 

temperature; engine air inlet pressure, temperature, and humidity; generator load; and NOX, CO, 

VOC, CO2, sulfur dioxide (SO2), oxygen (O2) and PM/PM10/PM2.5 emission concentrations. These 

parameters are to be recorded every 30 seconds for 30 minutes twice a day. Continuous monitoring 

operates a continuous emission monitoring system for NOX, CO, VOC, CO2, SO2, O2 and 

PM/PM10/PM2.5 emissions on a continuous basis for 24 hours a day. Stack testing monitors NOX, 

CO, VOC, CO2 and PM/PM10/PM2.5 emissions using EPA approved methods and protocols. The 

stack test data is used to prepare a graph of engine load versus emission rates in grams per kilowatt 

hour for each engine. The engine load averaged over each hour is interpolated on the graph to 

determine the emission rate for each pollutant. Engines subject to NSPS and NESHAP requirements 

have additional monitoring, testing and reporting requirements dependant on the size and age of the 

engine. In addition to direct measurement of emissions, recordkeeping and reporting requirements 

require, among other parameters, analysis of fuel composition, and monitoring of fuel use and hours 

of operation. Compliance data and reports are available to the public.

Independent source testing companies are typically contracted for source testing and to design and 

maintain monitoring equipment, as this is a highly specialized field that requires compliance with 

rigorous protocols established in regulations. Emissions monitoring required by the permit is 

conducted on the rig, not on the land. One of the most effective methods of determining compliance 

with emissions limits is direct monitoring of the emissions source. 
8

RTC – OCS-EPA-R4008-M2 07/11/13 

Ambient air quality monitoring is conducted by state and local agencies onshore. These monitors are 

used to determine compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Escambia County is 

currently in attainment with these standards.

The EPA cannot speak to the frequency of inspection on the Deepwater Horizon, as this rig was 

located west of 87.5 degrees longitude and was outside of the EPA’s jurisdiction with respect to 

implementation of the CAA. West of 87.5 degrees longitude, the BOEM is responsible for the

implementation of air quality requirements. To date, the BOEM requirements and plan approvals do 

not generally require direct emissions monitoring or source testing of exploratory rigs, as described 

above.

5. Additional Comments

5.1. Comment: One commenter asked about the amount of emissions that would be emitted from 

the engines.

Response: The respective emission limits (for the subject air pollutants), as well as the 

corresponding annual emissions (in tons per year), are documented in the Administrative 

Record. These values appear in multiple documents contained in the record, including the 

application, permit, statement of basis, and fact sheet. Since this represents a significant amount 

of data, the EPA refers the commenter to these documents rather than attempting to reproduce 

that information in the response to comments.

5.2. Comment: The same commenter asked whether a contractor in town would be able to do the 

same as what the applicant is being allowed to do out there.

Response: The true nature of the commenter’s question is unclear. Nonetheless, it appears to be 

more of a question of whether a land-based operation would be subject to the same 

requirements as an offshore operation. The answer is yes...onshore and offshore air emission 

sources are generally subject to the same air regulations and, thus, must similarly demonstrate 

compliance with such regulations. The applicable air quality regulations onshore and offshore 

allow for changes to the permit. In fact, permit modifications are required when facilities make 

a change to their operation, or when the data upon which a permit limit was based is determine 

not to be accurate.

5.3. Comment: A comment was received from BHPB in support of EPA’s draft permit revision and 

requested that it be issued as proposed.

Response: No additional information was submitted by BHPB as part of this comment