[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 140 (Thursday, July 20, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45063-45066]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-17750]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-6734-9]


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: The Regional Administrator, EPA, Region 9, is proposing to 
issue an NPDES general permit (permit No. CAG280000) for discharges 
from oil and gas exploration, development and production operations in 
Federal waters offshore of the State of California. This document 
announces the availability of the proposed general permit and fact 
sheet for public comment. When issued, the proposed permit will 
establish effluent limitations, prohibitions, and other conditions on 
discharges from facilities in the general permit area. These conditions 
are based on the administrative record.
    This document also announces the availability of the following 
documents

[[Page 45064]]

for public review: (1) Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation (``ODCE'') 
which evaluates the proposed discharges for compliance with the 
requirements of section 403(c) of the Clean Water Act (``CWA''), (2) 
two biological assessments (``BAs'') (for two different groups of 
species) which evaluate the proposed discharges for compliance with the 
requirements of the Endangered Species Act, and (3) an essential fish 
habitat (``EFH'') assessment which evaluates the proposed discharges 
for compliance with the 1996 amendments to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act.

DATES: Comments on the proposed general permit must be received or 
postmarked no later than September 5, 2000.
    Public Hearing: A public hearing to receive public comment 
concerning the proposed general permit will be held at the time and 
location provided below:

Date: August 23, 2000.
Time: 2 p.m.
Place: Santa Barbara County Administration Building, 105 E. Anapamu 
Street, Santa Barbara, CA 93101

ADDRESSES: Public comments and requests for coverage should be sent to: 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, Attn: CWA Standards and 
Permits Office, WTR-5, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 
94105-3901.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eugene Bromley, EPA, at the address 
listed above or telephone (415) 744-1906. Copies of the proposed 
general permit and fact sheet will be provided upon request and are 
also available at EPA, Region 9's website at http://www.epa.gov/region09/water/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: State Consistency Review: This document will 
also serve as Public Notice of the intent of the State of California, 
California Coastal Commission (``CCC''), to review this action for 
consistency with the approved California Coastal Management Program 
(``CCMP''). Persons wishing to comment on the issue of consistency with 
the CCMP should submit written comments to the California Coastal 
Commission, 45 Fremont Street, Suite 2000, San Francisco, CA 94105-
2219. Comments should be addressed to the attention of California 
Coastal Management Program Consistency Review. Comments may be 
submitted to the CCC from the date of publication of this notice in the 
Federal Register until the CCC has conducted its review of this action 
(which will occur as soon as possible after close of the 45-day comment 
period announced by this notice, but in no event later than 180 days 
after commencement of the CCC's review).
    Administrative Record: The proposed NPDES general 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 addresses shown below. U.S. 
EPA, Region 9, CWA Standards and Permits Office (WTR-5), 75 Hawthorne 
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

Summary of Terms and Conditions of Proposed General Permit

    A. Facility Coverage. 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 83 
specified lease blocks in Federal waters on the Pacific Outer 
Continental Shelf (``OCS''), offshore Southern California. There are 
currently 22 existing production platforms on the Pacific OCS. New 
source production platforms would not be covered by the proposed permit 
and would require individual permits.
    All dischargers requesting coverage under the permit would be 
required to submit a Notice of Intent (``NOI''). Information to be 
provided includes the legal name and address of the owner or operator, 
the facility name and location, type of facility and discharges, lease 
block, previous permits, and the receiving water. EPA may require any 
person authorized by the general permit to apply for and/or obtain an 
individual NPDES permit if the terms of the general permit are 
determined to not be appropriate for a particular facility.
    B. Types of Discharges Authorized. The proposed general permit 
would authorize the following discharges (subject to the terms and 
conditions of the permit) in all areas of coverage: drilling fluids and 
drill cuttings; produced water; well treatment, completion and workover 
fluids; deck drainage; domestic and sanitary waste; blowout preventer 
fluid; desalination unit discharge; fire control system test water; 
non-contact cooling water; ballast and storage displacement water; 
bilge water; boiler blowdown; test fluids; diatomaceous earth filter 
media; bulk transfer material overflow; uncontaminated freshwater; 
water flooding discharges; laboratory wastes; excess cement slurry; 
hydrotest water; and hydrogen sulfide gas processing waste water.
    C. Effluent Limitations. The proposed general permit includes 
effluent limitations based on Best Conventional Pollutant Control 
Technology (``BCT'') for the control of conventional pollutants, Best 
Available Treatment Economically Achievable (``BAT'') for the control 
of toxic and nonconventional pollutants and (3) additional effluent 
limitations based on section 403(c) (ocean discharge requirements) of 
the CWA. BAT and BCT effluent limitations guidelines were promulgated 
by EPA on March 4, 1993 (58 FR 12454) for the Offshore Subcategory of 
the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category. These BAT/BCT 
effluent limitations have been included in the proposed permit, along 
with certain additional effluent limitations based on section 403(c) of 
the CWA. In addition, monitoring requirements have been included to 
ensure compliance with the effluent limitations.
    EPA currently lacks sufficient information to establish appropriate 
final effluent limitations for certain pollutants (primarily heavy 
metals and toxic organics) in produced water discharges. For these 
pollutants, the proposed permit would require monitoring to evaluate 
whether the discharges have a reasonable potential to cause or 
contribute to exceedances of marine water quality criteria. Based on 
the results of the monitoring (which would be available approximately 
2\1/2\ years into the term of the permit), the permit may be reopened 
to include additional effluent limitations.
    In view of the variety of pollutants in produced water, the 
proposed permit also requires chronic whole effluent toxicity (``WET'') 
monitoring to measure the aggregate toxic effects of the pollutants. If 
toxicity is detected, accelerated testing would be required by the 
permit, and if the toxicity persists, a Toxicity Reduction Evaluation 
(``TRE'') would be required along with a Toxicity Identification 
Evaluation (``TIE'') to identify the specific chemical(s) causing the 
toxicity.
    D. Ocean Discharge Criteria Evaluation (ODCE). 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. Guidelines for evaluating proposed 
discharges are found at 40 CFR part 125, subpart M (Ocean Discharge 
Criteria regulations).
    An ODCE has been prepared entitled ``Ocean Discharge Criteria 
Evaluation South and Central California for NPDES

[[Page 45065]]

Permit No. CAG280000'' dated January 2000, which evaluates the 
discharges which would be authorized by the proposed general permit. 
After review of the ODCE, and other available data and studies in the 
administrative record for the permit, EPA has tentatively concluded 
that the proposed discharges would not cause unreasonable degradation 
of the marine environment. However, this conclusion will be re-
evaluated based on comments received on the proposed permit.
    E. Endangered Species Act. The area covered by the proposed permit 
potentially includes species under the jurisdiction of both the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service (``USFWS'') and the National Marine Fisheries 
Service (``NMFS''). As such, EPA prepared separate BAs to assess the 
potential impacts of the permit reissuance on listed species under the 
jurisdiction of the USFWS and NMFS. Both BAs concluded that there would 
be no effect on listed species. EPA is providing copies of the draft 
permit and fact sheet along with the appropriate BA to the Long Beach 
office of the NMFS and the Ventura Field Office of the USFWS for review 
and comment on EPA's conclusions concerning the effects of the proposed 
discharges on listed species.
    F. 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 with a 
certification that the activities authorized by the permit are 
consistent with the CZP (CZMA section 307(c)(3)(A)). In California, the 
CZMA authority is the CCC. In this case, EPA will be preparing and 
submitting to the CCC the required certification. Since the necessary 
consistency concurrence has not been obtained, the proposed permit 
provides that the permit will not become effective until the required 
concurrence of the CCC is obtained.
    G. Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. In 
accordance with the requirements of the 1996 amendments to the 
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, EPA prepared 
an assessment of the effects of the proposed discharges on EFH in the 
area covered by the permit. The assessment concludes that while there 
may be effects on EFH from certain discharges near an outfall, these 
effects should be minor overall given the small area which may be 
affected relative to the size of the EFH off the Pacific Coast, and the 
mitigation provided by the various effluent limitations which are 
proposed for the permit. EPA has provided a copy of the assessment to 
NMFS to initiate a consultation. Upon completion of the consultation, 
NMFS will provide conservation recommendations to EPA based on its 
review of the EFH assessment. Although NMFS's recommendations are non-
binding on Federal agencies, the final permit may nevertheless include 
additional or modified requirements based on NMFS's review.
    H. Permit Effective Date and Appeal Procedures. To ensure smooth 
transition and allow current operators time to apply and prepare for 
the new requirements, the effective date of the general permit is 
proposed as the first day of the month that begins at least 45 days 
after the CCC concurs with the certification provided by EPA that the 
discharges authorized by the permit are consistent with the approved 
California CMP.
    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 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 as modified on May 15, 2000, 65 FR 30886).
    I. Paperwork Reduction Act. The information collection required by 
this 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 submission made for the NPDES permit program 
and assigned OMB control numbers 2040-0086 (NPDES permit application) 
and 2040-0004 (discharge monitoring reports).
    J. Economic Impact (Executive Order 12866). Under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993)), the Agency must determine whether 
the regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to OMB 
review and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Order defines 
``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a 
rule that may have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or 
more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities; create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with 
an action taken or planned by another agency; materially alter the 
budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs 
or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or raise novel 
legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's 
priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
    EPA has determined that this proposed general permit is not a 
``significant regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 
12866.
    K. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Section 201 of the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act (``UMRA''), Public Law 104-4, generally requires 
Federal agencies to assess the effects of their ``regulatory actions'' 
on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. UMRA 
uses the term ``regulatory actions'' to refer to regulations. (See, 
e.g., UMRA section 201, ``Each agency shall * * * assess the effects of 
Federal regulatory actions * * * (other than to the extent that such 
regulations incorporate requirements specifically set forth in law)''). 
UMRA section 102 defines ``regulation'' by reference to section 658 of 
Title 2 of the U.S. Code, which in turn defines ``regulation'' and 
``rule'' by reference to section 601(2) of the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act (``RFA''). That section of the RFA defines ``rule'' as ``any rule 
for which the agency publishes a notice of proposed rulemaking pursuant 
to section 553(b) of [the Administrative Procedure Act (``APA'')], or 
any other law. * * *''
    As discussed in the RFA section of this document, NPDES general 
permits are not ``rules'' under the APA and thus not subject to the APA 
requirement to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking. NPDES general 
permits are not subject to such a requirement under the CWA. While EPA 
publishes a notice to solicit public comment on draft general permits, 
it does so pursuant to the CWA section 402(a) requirement to provide 
``an opportunity for a hearing.'' Thus, NPDES general permits are not 
``rules'' for RFA or UMRA purposes.
    EPA has determined that the proposed general permit does not 
contain a Federal requirement that may result in expenditures of $100 
million or more for State, local and tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or the private sector in any one year.
    EPA also believes that the proposed general permit will not 
significantly nor uniquely affect small governments. For UMRA purposes, 
``small governments''

[[Page 45066]]

is defined by reference to the definition of ``small governmental 
jurisdiction'' under the RFA. (See UMRA section 102(1), referencing 2 
U.S.C. 658, which references section 601(5) of the RFA.) ``Small 
governmental jurisdiction'' means governments of cities, counties, 
towns, etc., with a population of less than 50,000, unless the agency 
establishes an alternative definition.
    The proposed general permit also will not uniquely affect small 
governments because compliance with the permit conditions affects small 
governments in the same manner as any other entities seeking coverage 
under the proposed general permit.
    L. Regulatory Flexibility Act. Under the Regulatory Flexibility 
Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., EPA is required to prepare a Regulatory 
Flexibility Analysis to assess the impact of rules on small entities. 
Under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), no Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is required 
where the head of the Agency certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    EPA takes the position that NPDES general permits are not subject 
to rulemaking requirements under APA section 553 or any other law. The 
requirements of APA section 553 apply only to the issuance of 
``rules,'' which the APA defines in a manner that excludes permits. See 
APA section 551(4), (6) and (8). The CWA also does not require 
publication of a general notice of proposed rulemaking for general 
permits. EPA publishes draft general NPDES permits for public comment 
in the Federal Register in order to meet the applicable CWA procedural 
requirement to provide ``an opportunity for a hearing.'' CWA section 
402(a), 33 U.S.C. 1342(a).
    M. Signature. Accordingly, I hereby find consistent with the 
provisions of the RFA, that this proposed general permit will not have 
a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

    Authority: CWA, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.

    Dated: July 5, 2000.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 9.
[FR Doc. 00-17750 Filed 7-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P