Document ID: EPA_FRDOC_0001-13447
Agency: epa
Document Type: Notice
Title: Proposed National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permits: Offshore Oil and Gas Exploration, Development and Production Operations off Southern California
Posted Date: 2012-12-20T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 245 (Thursday, December 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75429-75432]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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: 
bromley.eugene@epa.gov.

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