Document ID: EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0359-0053
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Revisions to State Implementation Plans: California; San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District
Posted Date: 2012-10-22T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 204 (Monday, October 22, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64427-64430]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25810]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0359; FRL-9732-5]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San 
Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of revisions to the San Joaquin 
Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) portion of the 
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This action was proposed in 
the Federal Register on June 13, 2012 and concerns volatile organic 
compound (VOC) emissions from crude oil production sumps and refinery 
wastewater separators. We are approving local rules that regulate these 
emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

DATES: These rules will be effective on November 21, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0359 for 
this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are 
available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While 
all documents in the docket are listed at http://www.regulations.gov, 
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy 
location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, multi-volume 
reports), and some may not be available in either location (e.g., 
confidential business information (CBI)). To inspect the hard copy 
materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours 
with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nicole Law, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-
4126, law.nicole@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and 
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Action

[[Page 64428]]

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

    On June 13, 2012 (77 FR 35329), EPA proposed to approve the 
following rules into the California SIP.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Rule
               Local agency                             Rule title               Amended     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SJVUAPCD.................................       4402  Crude Oil Production Sumps......     12/15/11     02/23/12
SJUVAPCD.................................       4625  Wastewater Separators...........     12/15/11     02/23/12
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We proposed to approve these rules because we determined that they 
comply with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action contains 
more information on the rules and our evaluation.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. 
During this period, we received comments from the following party.
    1. Adenike Adeyeye, Earthjustice; letter dated July 13, 2012 and 
received July 13, 2012.
    The comments and our responses are summarized below.
    Comment #1: Earthjustice stated that Rule 4402 continues to include 
limits that are less stringent than those in other California 
districts. Specifically, the SJVUAPCD defines clean produced water as 
water with a VOC concentration of 35 mg/L or less while other 
California districts such as South Coast Air Quality Management 
District (SCAQMD) limit the VOC concentration in wastewater to 5 mg/L. 
Earthjustice provided more detailed arguments supporting a 5 mg/L limit 
in Rule 4402 in comments 2-4 below.
    Response #1: As explained in our technical support document (TSD) 
accompanying the proposed action, sources in the SCAQMD have greater 
options for disposal of the produced water than sources in the 
SJVUAPCD. Specifically, produced water in the SCAQMD can be disposed of 
into the sanitary sewer or reinjected into the ground without 
processing to meet a 5 mg/L VOC limit. Discussions with the California 
Department of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources confirmed that in the 
Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) there is no VOC 
concentration limit for reinjection \1\ and the Los Angeles County 
Sanitation District confirmed the VOC concentration limits for 
wastewater discharged into a municipal sewage system are above 
SJVUAPCD's 35 mg/L limit.\2\ See also response to comments 2-4 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Phone conversation with Steve Fields (California Department 
of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources), August 1, 2012.
    \2\ Phone conversation with Kai Kuo (Los Angeles County 
Sanitation District), August 3, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment #2: Earthjustice stated that SJVUAPCD's assertion that 
wastewater is not treated in SCAQMD is false and that EPA did not 
confirm SJVUAPCD's claim. EPA's TSD states that oil production 
facilities in SCAQMD can dispose of their wastewater in sanitary sewage 
systems or existing injection wells, but did not confirm that operators 
use non-treatment disposal options. Earthjustice has confirmed with 
SCAQMD staff that operators can and do comply with the 5 mg/L limit 
through wastewater treatment, in addition to wastewater disposal via 
injection wells and municipal sewer systems.
    Response #2: Most SCAQMD operators treat their wastewater to meet 
standards of the sanitation district or standards for reinjection, 
which are less stringent than the 5 mg/L VOC limit. \3\ \4\ For 
example, the Los Angeles County Sanitation District allows wastewater 
with 60-75 mg/L of non-polar oil and grease to be discharged into the 
sewer system from oil field producers.\5\ Staff at Ventura County APCD 
similarly explained that 90-95% of the oil production facilities in 
VCAPCD do not treat the wastewater but instead transfer it to 
wastewater treatment facilities or reinject the wastewater into the 
ground.\6\ For reinjection, the fluid deposited back into the ground 
does not need to meet any VOC concentration limits.\7\ EPA's discussion 
with SCAQMD staff confirmed that a few operators in SCAQMD are able to 
meet the 5 mg/L VOC limit in the wastewater without any treatment other 
than gravity separation. However, SCAQMD staff also noted that 
properties of wastewater (including VOC content) vary widely with the 
geological properties of the oil wells and the fact that a few SCAQMD 
operators can meet 5 mg/L with only gravity separation does not mean 
that all wells subject to SCAQMD Rule 1176, much less all wells subject 
to SJVUAPCD Rule 4402, can do the same.\8\ Thus, we have no evidence 
that oil producers in Los Angeles routinely treat their wastewater to 5 
mg/L.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Phone conversation with Victor Juan (SCAQMD), July 31, 2012 
and April 26, 2012.
    \4\ Phone conversation with Eugen Teszler (SCAQMD), August 2, 
2012.
    \5\ Phone conversation with Kai Kuo (Los Angeles County 
Sanitation District), August 3, 2012.
    \6\ Phone conversation with Eric Wetherbee (VCAPCD), July 31, 
2012.
    \7\ Phone conversation with Steve Fields (California Department 
of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources), August 1, 2012.
    \8\ Phone conversation with Victor Juan (SCAQMD), July 31, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment #3: Earthjustice stated that EPA did not confirm that 
wastewater treatment technologies are too expensive to be used to 
comply with the 5 mg/L limit. Earthjustice confirmed with SCAQMD staff 
that wastewater treatment can be a more cost effective option. 
Operators in SCAQMD use Wemco[supreg] units as well as filters and 
other technologies to treat wastewater. The treatment methods have been 
found to be cost-effective in 1989. An analysis that explains why 
SJVUAPCD operators cannot adopt similar treatment is absent from EPA's 
TSD and SJVUAPCD's staff report.
    Response #3: EPA reviewed materials related to the adoption of 
SCAQMD Rule 1176 in 1989 and found that in fact the cost effectiveness 
of treating produced water to a 5 mg/L VOC limit was not analyzed. 
Rather, the costs evaluated in the 1989 SCAQMD staff report related to 
the installation of covers on secondary and tertiary sumps and ranged 
from an average of $8,000 to $18,900 per ton of VOC reduced 
respectively.\9\ Since secondary and tertiary sumps generally contain 
liquid with much higher VOC content than a clean produced water pond, 
installing a cover on a clean produced water pond would have much 
higher cost per ton of VOC reduced. Additionally, as mentioned in our 
response to comment 2 above, SCAQMD staff have confirmed to EPA that 
many operators in SCAQMD do not treat their wastewater to the 5 mg/L 
limit; rather these operators typically dispose of wastewater in the 
sanitary sewage system and are required to meet a 60 mg/L oil and 
grease limit

[[Page 64429]]

for the Los Angeles County Sanitation District or dispose of wastewater 
through reinjection and are not required to meet any VOC concentration 
limits.\10\ \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ SCAQMD Staff Report Proposed Rule 1176 Sumps and Wastewater 
Separators September 20, 1989.
    \10\ Phone conversation with Kai Kuo (Los Angeles County 
Sanitation District), August 3, 2012.
    \11\ Phone conversation with Steve Fields (California Department 
of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources), August 1, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, we note that SJVUAPCD's staff report, which was 
prepared as part of the District's adoption of Rule 4402, includes a 
cost effectiveness analysis at Appendix B, Section II, Analysis of 
Clean Produced Water Compliance Options. The District's analysis 
describes the types of control technology needed to treat wastewater 
from a 35 mg/L VOC concentration down to a 5 mg/L concentration. 
According to the District's analysis, ``a Wemco[supreg] will generally 
only get the VOC content down to about 20 mg/L;'' therefore, additional 
water polishing equipment such as nut shell filters would be necessary 
to further reduce VOC levels down to 5 mg/L. This additional processing 
step adds to the overall capital and operational costs to further 
polish the clean produced water.\12\ EPA contacted SCAQMD staff 
regarding this point. SCAQMD staff have indicated that Wemcos[supreg] 
and other treatment equipment alone are generally not able to treat the 
wastewater down to a 5 mg/L VOC concentration.\13\ SJVUAPCD determined 
that the cost associated with installing the above equipment with the 
additional filters was approximately $54M/ton VOC reduced. This 
unusually high cost effectiveness value is heavily influenced by the 
low estimated emissions from clean produced water, 0.12 tons/year. 
Another more conservative cost analysis done by the District assumes an 
annualized cost of $4M/year and a higher tonnage of VOC reduced per 
pond. The resulting cost effectiveness would be about $70,000/ton VOC 
reduced, which exceeds reasonable costs under RACT.\14\ Based on our 
review of the District's analysis and our discussions with SCAQMD, we 
found no basis to conclude that 5 mg/L is RACT. Moreover, we note that 
the commenter did not provide information sufficient to support such a 
conclusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ SJVUAPCD Final Staff Report Revised Proposed Amendments to 
Rule 4402 December 15, 2011.
    \13\ Email correspondence with Victor Juan (SCAQMD), August 28, 
2012.
    \14\ SCAQMD Staff Report Proposed Rule 1176 Sumps and Wastewater 
Separators September 20, 1989.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment #4: Earthjustice states that EPA requires SJVUAPCD to 
compare its rules not only to federal guidance, but also to current 
rules in other California air districts including SCAQMD, Bay Area 
AQMD, Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD, and Ventura County APCD. 
Earthjustice stated that it is not reasonable to claim that a 
technology which was deemed cost-effective in 1989 to comply with a 
5mg/L VOC limit is not cost-effective today. The SJVUAPCD must explain 
why the technologies are now prohibitively expensive.
    Response #4: As discussed above, compliance with a 5 mg/L VOC limit 
was not shown to be cost-effective in 1989 and has been shown to exceed 
RACT in SJVUAPCD today. Most operators in South Coast AQMD and Ventura 
County APCD do not treat their wastewater to meet 5 mg/L, but instead 
dispose of the water through the sanitary sewer system or by 
reinjection. These options are not generally available in San Joaquin 
due to the remote locations of its oil production wells in relation to 
a municipal sewer system and the unavailability of reinjection 
wells.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Technical Support Document for EPA's Proposed Notice on 
Rule 4402, Crude Oil Production Sumps, EPA Region IX, May 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. EPA Action

    No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the rules 
as described in our proposed action. Therefore, as authorized in 
section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving these rules into 
the California SIP.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and 
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with 
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive 
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in 
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 21, 2012. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of

[[Page 64430]]

this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the 
purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a 
petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the 
effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged 
later in proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 
307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 7, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
    Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(411)(i)(B)(2) and 
(3) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (411) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (B) * * *
    (2) Rule 4402, ``Crude Oil Production Sumps,'' amended on December 
15, 2011.
    (3) Rule 4625, ``Wastewater Separators,'' amended on December 15, 
2011.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-25810 Filed 10-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P