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

- M22

RTC

– OCS

- EPA

- R4008

- M2 07/11/13 I. Introduction

On May 24, 2013, t he 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

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

P reliminary D etermination 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 (PM 10 ), p articulate matter with a diameter of equal to or less than 2.5 microns (PM 2.5 ), volatile organic compounds (VOC), and greenhouse gases (GHG) as equivalent carbon dioxide (CO 2 e) 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 not ice 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. T he public comme nt period was extended to midnight C entral D aylight T ime 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 f act sheet available during the public hearing.

In accordance with the applicable procedural regulations [ Title 40

, C ode of F ederal R egulations (CFR), § § 71.11(j) and 124.17 ]

, the EPA must issue a response to comments that : (1) s pecifies whi ch provisions, if any of the draft permit have been changed in the final permit decision, and reasons for the change; and (2) b riefly describe s and respond s to all significant comments on the draft permit revisions raised during the public comment period o r 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 description s 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 all3

RTC

– OCS

- EPA

- R4008

- M2 07/11/13 comm ents

, 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 R ecord can be

accessed online at www.regulations.gov and through the EPA’s website at:
http://www.epa.go v/region4/air/permits/ocspermits/ocspermits.html

,

1. Comments regarding “ n o offshore drilling ” & “ n o drilling offs hore Florida ”

Comment: Numerous comments

, more than 60, explicitly opposed off shore drilling and/or drilling offshore Florida, or expressed sentiments t hat could be interpreted as general opposition to offshore drilling , including, but not limited to, the following statements :

“ Do not d rill in the gulf off of Florida

. ”

“ I am strictly against drilling in our beautiful waters and killing off ou r 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 S hores 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! ”

C o mments cited numerous reasons for opposition to drilling. M ost concerns were related to the Deepwater Horizo n incident, (also referred to as the “ BP oil spill ” ), c iting oil, oily foam, and toxic dispersants being was hed 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 th e ban of toxic dispersants was submitted for the record. Several comment s raised concerns regardin g the harm or death of dolphins and other animals related to the Deepwater

Horizon incident

, and expressed concerns that a similar event c ould 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 “renewable s. ” A few of these

comments mentioned global warming and President Obama’s recent speech/ statements on global4

RTC

– OCS

- EPA

- R4008

- M2 07/11/13 warming and expressed general concerns about carbon or pollutants that may come fro m offshore drilling.

Many comment s made statements or expressed concerns about rig safety and “risk y drilling.” One hearing comment indicated that the permit did not include adequate information on rig abandon ment, bonding , and financial obligations for oil drilling . One comment indicated that drilling in this area of

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

Station. In addition, a few comment s made general statements that drilling w ould impact tourism and fishing.

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

comments asked the EPA to reconsid er or d eny 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 environme ntal impact caused by t he 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 rem ain concern ed that such an incident c ould occur again . The full transcript and all of the comments relating to the above issues have been included in

the Administrative Record , which is avai lable to any interested person.

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

the air quality permit that the EPA originally issued in May 2012

. The above c omments, as heartfelt as they a re, do not address the proposed changes or identify any error in finding of fa ct 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 iden tified by the applicable federal OCS air qua lity regulations ( 40 CFR part 55 )

. O ur OCS air quality permi tting authority does not

extend to non

- air quality impacts related to bon ding, drill rig safety, and chemical dispersants, as raised by the comments . Th ese 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. Depart ment of Interior’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) , speci fically, during the development of the Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) under the National Environmental Policy Act for proposed lease sales (see: http://www.boem.gov/Oi l

- and

- Gas

- Energy

Program/Leasing/Leasing.aspx ). W ater qual ity impacts are considered by the EPA under a separate permitting action during the de velopment of National Pollution Discharge E limination S ystem (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 a ir q uality

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

standards or r egulations . Many of the comments incl uded 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 comment s 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

se venth

- worst air quality. One comm enter 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 regulation s tha t the commenter believed EPA proposed to waive

. Several commenters indicated

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

EPA was “ waiving ” th e CAA or air quality standards in this action

. Non etheless, no CAA provisions, air quality standards, or regulations were waived in this permit action. The EPA followed the applicable permit modification procedures of 40 C F R § 7 1

. 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, t itle V operating permit requirement s, New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) and applicable N ational E mission S tandards for H azardous A ir P ollutant s (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 revi sions 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 nitroge n (NO X )

, carbon monoxide (CO)

, PM/PM 10 /PM 2.5 , VOC, and GHG (as CO 2 e) emissions. As such, t he 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 env ironmental impacts and the public health impacts ,” the commenter did not provide any substanti ve information or data related to the environmental or public health impacts of the proposed permit

action , but rather generally referred to the health concerns r aised 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 wi ll not be significantly dif ferent6

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 PM 10 and PM 2.5 , 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 commente r 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 prog rams 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, t his information is available at www.airnow.gov

.

3. Comments regarding r equest s for a p ublic h earing or m eeting

3.1 Comment: Thirty

- two comments were received requesti ng a public hearing. During th e public hearing, two comment er s asked if or when the EPA c ould 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 th e 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.

R espons e: 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 a pprovals 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 t o 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 r egarding m onitoring and i nspection

Comment: Several comment s inquired about who inspects the OCS source, when they are inspec ted, 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 operat ors 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 un der term s 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 inf

ormation 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 p ermit 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 requir ed to comply with all conditions of the permit, including monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping

.

Compliance monitoring for NO X , CO, VOC, CO 2 and PM/PM 10 /PM 2.5 emissions from the main

gen erator diesel units is required by one of three EPA approved metho ds 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 p ressure, temperature, and humidity; generator load; and NO X , CO, VOC, CO 2 , sulfur dioxide ( SO 2 )

, oxygen ( O 2 ) and PM/PM 10 /PM 2.5 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 NO X , CO, VOC, CO 2 , SO 2 , O 2 and

PM/PM 10 /PM 2.5 emissions on a continuous bas is for 24 hours a day. Stack testing monitors NO X , CO, VOC, CO 2 and PM/PM 10 /PM 2.5 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 en gine. 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 si ze 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 establis hed in regulations. Emissions monitoring required by the permit is

conducte d on the rig, not on the land. One of t he most effective method s 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 freq uency 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 implem entation 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 emissio ns (in tons per year), are documented in the Administrative

R ecord. 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 atte mpting 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 comment er’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 subje ct to the same air regula tions 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 draf t permit revision and requested that it be issued as proposed.

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