[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 183 (Wednesday, September 22, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56761-56764]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-21286]



[[Page 56761]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-7817-2]


Final 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), Region 9.

ACTION: Notice of final permit issuance.

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

SUMMARY: EPA, Region 9 is today issuing a final 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. The general permit 
establishes effluent limitations, prohibitions, and other conditions 
for discharges from platforms that engage in such operations within the 
geographic coverage area of the general permit. The general permit 
applies to 22 existing development and production platforms as well as 
to any new exploratory drilling operations located in and discharging 
to specified lease blocks on the Pacific Outer Continental Shelf 
offshore Southern California.
    EPA is issuing this general permit to replace existing permits for 
the 22 platforms, some of which have been in place for many years. 
Today's general permit will achieve significant environmental benefits 
compared to the existing permits. In particular, the permit 
incorporates effluent limitation guidelines promulgated by EPA in 1993 
for this industry, which have already been implemented for other 
offshore oil and gas platforms in the United States. In addition, the 
permit provides for a one-year study which will be used by EPA to 
determine whether additional limits are necessary in the future to 
ensure compliance with water quality standards.

DATES: The permit is being issued pursuant to 40 CFR 124.15 on 
September 22, 2004. The effective date of the permit is December 1, 
2004, which is the first day of the month that begins at least 45 days 
after the date of the Federal Register notice of final permit issuance.

ADDRESSES: The final 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 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays, 
at the following address: U.S. EPA, Region 9, CWA Standards and Permits 
Office (WTR-5), 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eugene Bromley, EPA, Region 9, CWA 
Standards and Permits Office (WTR-5), 75 Hawthorne Street, San 
Francisco, California 94105-3901, or telephone (415) 972-3510. Copies 
of the final general permit, Addendum to Fact Sheet and the Response to 
Public Comments will be provided upon request and are also available at 
EPA, Region 9's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/region09/water/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Proposed General Permit

    On July 20, 2000, EPA proposed to issue a general permit for 
discharges from oil and gas exploration, development, and production 
operations in Federal waters offshore of the State of California. The 
proposed permit contained effluent limitations based on EPA's 1993 
effluent limitation guidelines for the offshore subcategory of the oil 
and gas extraction point source category (40 CFR part 435) as well as 
other terms and conditions, including a provision that would require 
permittees to sample produced water discharges for purposes of a future 
determination whether the discharges had the reasonable potential to 
cause or contribute to an exceedance of Federal water quality criteria 
(adopted under Clean Water Act section 304(a)) applied 100 meters from 
the platform's point of discharge. As required by the Coastal Zone 
Management Act (CZMA), EPA submitted a certification to the California 
Coastal Commission (CCC) that the general permit was consistent with 
the California Coastal Management Plan (CMP) approved by the National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) in 1978.
    After reviewing the proposal and EPA's consistency determination, 
the CCC requested that, for purposes of analyzing samples of produced 
water discharges to determine reasonable potential to exceed a water 
quality standard, dilution be calculated based on Federal water quality 
criteria and California Ocean Plan (COP) objectives (both applied at 
the boundary of the 100-meter mixing zone). Additionally, the CCC 
requested that EPA revise the scope and timing of the study 
requirements in the permit for alternative disposal for certain 
discharges and include in the fact sheet a description of a commitment 
by EPA regarding third party monitoring. On the condition that EPA made 
these changes in the final general permit and fact sheet, the CCC 
concurred that the permit was consistent with the CMP.
    On December 10, 2003, EPA submitted a revised proposed general 
permit to the CCC, along with a certification by EPA that the revised 
proposed permit was consistent with the CMP. For produced water 
discharges, EPA proposed a revision to the requirement that each 
permittee sample produced water discharges for certain, specified 
constituents in order to determine whether the discharges cause, have 
the reasonable potential to cause, or contribute to an exceedance above 
the applicable water quality criteria. For each constituent, EPA 
proposed that the facility include a determination of the minimum 
dilution limit required for each discharge location to ensure no 
reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the 
Federal water quality criteria at a point 100 meters from the 
platform's point of discharge or the California Ocean Plan (COP) 
criteria (adopted by California under Clean Water Act section 303(c)) 
at the seaward boundary of California's territorial seas. EPA would 
then review the results of each facility's sampling, evaluate the 
information for the potential to cause an exceedance of the applicable 
water quality criteria, and propose any appropriate new limits for the 
general permit pursuant to the procedures in 40 CFR part 124. On March 
17, 2004, the CCC objected to EPA's consistency certification. On April 
8, 2004, EPA proposed a revised general permit consistent with the 
December 10, 2003, certification to the CCC.
    The CCC objected to EPA's proposed revision of the reasonable 
potential study provision and recommended that, after EPA received and 
reviewed the results of the study, the permit should be modified to 
require produced water discharges to comply with either the COP 
criteria or EPA's CWA section 304(a) criteria, whichever was determined 
to be more stringent, at a point of compliance located 100 meters from 
each platform's point of discharge. In today's action, EPA is issuing 
the general permit with the changes requested by the CCC, for the 
reasons described in this notice.

B. Final Permit Provisions

    EPA proposed the general permit on July 20, 2000 (65 FR 45063), and 
solicited public comment from July 20, 2000, through September 5, 2000. 
In addition, EPA held a public hearing on the proposed permit on August 
23, 2000. On April 8, 2004, EPA proposed certain modifications to the 
July 2000 proposed permit and sought public

[[Page 56762]]

comment on such modifications (69 FR 18570). EPA has included 
additional relevant documents in the administrative record for this 
permit, including responses to comments received on the July 20, 2000, 
proposed permit as well as the revisions proposed in April 2004.

1. Reasonable Potential Study/Point of Compliance

    EPA is revising the reasonable potential study provisions proposed 
in April 2004. Specifically, today's permit requires each permittee to 
sample produced water discharges for certain, specified constituents in 
order to determine whether the discharges cause, have the reasonable 
potential to cause, or contribute to an exceedance above the more 
stringent of the Federal and COP criteria, compared at a point of 
compliance 100 meters from each facility's point of discharge. For each 
constituent, the minimum dilution must be calculated for each discharge 
location to ensure no reasonable potential to cause or contribute to a 
water quality standard exceedance and submit the results to EPA.
    EPA will then review the results of each facility's sampling and 
evaluate the information, and following such review, EPA intends to 
propose appropriate modifications to the general permit pursuant to the 
procedures in 40 CFR part 124 to establish new effluent limitations 
based on the review of the study results.\1\ EPA is including this 
reasonable potential study point of compliance provision in the general 
permit as a consequence of the CCC's March 17, 2004, objection to EPA's 
proposed decision to apply the COP criteria at the seaward boundary of 
State waters for purposes of the reasonable potential study dilution 
calculation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Part I.A.4 of the final permit provides that the permit may 
be modified at any time if new data would have justified different 
permit conditions at the time of issuance. Any permit modification 
would be conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 122.62 and 122.63 and 
40 CFR part 124.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA will, at the time of permit modification after completion of 
the study, consider new information relevant to the provision in the 
final general permit for produced water discharges which requires that 
each permittee use a point 100 meters from its platform's point of 
discharge to determine whether there is reasonable potential to cause 
or contribute to exceedances of either EPA or COP criteria. The final 
permit provides that EPA will reopen the permit after completion of the 
reasonable potential study and will modify the permit to establish 
permit conditions based on the outcome of that study. EPA will provide 
the public with notice and an opportunity to comment on any such 
modification, as required by 40 CFR 124.5. If, as a result of the 
study, or for other reasons, there is new information relevant to the 
new limits proposed at that time, EPA will consider such information 
and determine whether and how the general permit should be modified.
    The CZMA prohibits Federal agencies from granting a license or 
permit that is subject to the CZMA consistency certification 
requirement until the State has concurred with the certification. CZMA 
section 307(c)(3). Even though EPA continues to believe the permit 
proposed in April 2004 was fully consistent with the enforceable 
policies of the CMP, as described in our comments on the CCC Staff 
Report of March 2004, the CCC's objection to EPA's consistency 
certification effectively prevented EPA from issuing the permit under 
CZMA section 307(c)(3). Further, for the reasons described below, EPA 
is concerned that issuing the permit under CZMA section 307(c)(1) with 
a delayed effective date, as proposed in April 2004, could result in 
considerable delay in implementing the new permit. Moreover, issuing 
the permit under CZMA section 307(c)(3) is consistent with EPA's long-
standing practice and the NOAA regulations.\2\ As described in more 
detail below, EPA is including the requirement requested by the CCC in 
order to issue the permit now, make it effective on December 1, 2004, 
and thus ensure that the environmental benefits of the new permit are 
achieved as soon as possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The regulations governing Federal consistency review under 
the CZMA provide that general permit programs proposed by Federal 
agencies are subject to the regulations governing review of Federal 
agency activities, unless a Federal agency chooses to subject its 
general permit program to review under the regulations governing 
license or permit activities. See 15 CFR 930.31(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is including this provision in the permit in order to implement 
the more stringent permit limits as soon as possible. However, EPA 
continues to believe that the permit proposed in April 2004 would be 
consistent with the California CMP. EPA recognizes that the Federal 
consistency provisions of the CZMA apply to licenses for activities 
outside State waters, such as those addressed by today's General 
Permit, if it is reasonably foreseeable that such activities will 
affect the uses or resources of the State's coastal zone. However, EPA 
disagrees that the CZMA authorizes California to require that the 
discharges at issue in this General Permit comply with the COP criteria 
at the point of discharge in Federal waters. Moreover, EPA continues to 
believe that the permit proposed in April 2004 would be fully 
protective of California's coastal resources. As described in more 
detail in EPA's December 2003 consistency certification, EPA concluded 
that the proposed discharges would not cause unreasonable degradation 
of the marine environment, including its biological resources, or other 
adverse effects in California's coastal zone. See ``Demonstration of 
Consistency of the Revised Draft General Permit with the California 
CMP,'' Enclosure D (enclosure with letter from Alexis Strauss, Water 
Division Director, EPA Region 9, to Peter Douglas, Executive Director, 
California Coastal Commission) Dec. 10, 2003.
    EPA notes that the Agency cannot at this time predict whether any 
particular permittee's discharges will be found to have reasonable 
potential to cause or contribute to an exceedance of the applicable 
water quality criterion, nor can it predict the specific nature of any 
potential future permit modifications based on the results of the 
reasonable potential analysis described in today's permit, including 
whether the COP criteria or the Federal criteria will apply for any 
particular constituent. EPA will provide public notice of and seek 
public comment on any proposed permit modification, including permit 
limitations based on the Federal water quality criteria or COP 
criteria. 40 CFR 124.5 and 124.6.

2. Effective Date

    Today's general permit will be effective on December 1, 2004, which 
is the first day of the month that begins at least 45 days after the 
date of the Federal Register notice of final permit issuance. Because 
of the significant and important environmental benefits that will be 
achieved by the general permit, EPA has determined that it is critical 
to make the permit effective as soon as possible and therefore is not 
finalizing the delayed effective date proposed on April 8, 2004. 
Instead, EPA is issuing the permit with an effective date of December 
1, 2004.
    In April 2004, EPA proposed to treat the permit as a Federal agency 
activity under CZMA Section 307(c)(1) and to modify the proposed 
effective date to allow the Agency to issue the permit but delay its 
effectiveness for a given facility until the facility sought and 
obtained from the CCC concurrence with the facility's certification 
that its discharges pursuant to the permit would be consistent with the 
CMP. As described above, the CCC objected to the permit as

[[Page 56763]]

proposed at that time. Thus, pursuant to regulations implementing the 
CZMA, the permit would not have become effective for a particular 
discharger until after a considerable delay. Under the proposed 
approach, each facility would first prepare an individual certification 
that its discharges under the general permit would be consistent with 
the CMP. Each facility would then seek concurrence with its 
certification from the CCC. The CCC would consider each certification 
and, under the requirements of the State law governing the CCC's 
procedures, would hold a public hearing on each certification. See 
California Public Resources Code sections 30315 and 30320. After 
considering comments received, the CCC would decide whether to concur 
with or object to each certification. If the CCC objected to a 
facility's certification, the facility could appeal the objection to 
the Secretary of Commerce. See 15 CFR part 930, subpart H. In that 
event, the Secretary of Commerce would hear and decide the appeal under 
the procedures described at 15 CFR 930.125-930.130. The entire process 
described above, including a potential appeal to the Secretary of 
Commerce, could take as long as two to three years. In the meantime, 
the terms and conditions of the existing permits would continue in 
effect and the environmental benefits of the new permit conditions 
would be further postponed.
    After considering the time involved in such a process and the 
potential delay in implementing the new general permit, EPA concludes 
that the approach proposed on April 8, 2004, would delay significant 
environmental benefits that will be achieved by the effluent 
limitations in today's general permit. In particular, the permit 
implements technology-based effluent limitations for conventional, non-
conventional, and toxic pollutants based on EPA's effluent guidelines 
promulgated in March 1993, and EPA wants to avoid any further delay in 
achieving the environmental benefits of these effluent limitations. See 
58 FR 12504 (March 4, 1993). Today's general permit offers substantial 
improvements over the present discharge requirements for the 22 
platforms because it incorporates the more stringent 1993 EPA effluent 
limitations guidelines. For example, the 1993 guidelines reduce 
allowable discharges of oil and grease in produced water to 42 mg/l 
(daily maximum) and 29 mg/l (monthly average). In comparison the 
existing general permit includes a daily maximum limit of 72 mg/l and 
no monthly average limit.
    The CCC has concurred with EPA's determination that today's general 
permit is consistent with the CMP. The CCC Executive Director confirmed 
in a letter to EPA dated July 19, 2004, that the January 9, 2001, CCC 
concurrence is still valid as long as EPA includes in the permit and 
the addendum to the fact sheet all the changes which EPA agreed to in 
2001. Today's permit includes those changes. Therefore, permittees need 
not seek and obtain the CCC's concurrence with individual consistency 
certifications under 15 CFR 930.31(d) before applying for coverage 
under the general permit.

3. Other Issues

    The April 8, 2004, proposed permit included a number of other 
proposed changes from the July 20, 2000, permit. These changes have 
been retained with no significant changes in the final permit. As 
proposed on April 8, 2004, today's final permit accelerates the 
schedule for produced water sampling for determining reasonable 
potential to exceed applicable water quality criteria. The final permit 
requires a total of 12 samples taken during the first year of the 
permit rather than 10 samples taken during the first 2\1/2\ years, as 
was required by the proposed permit of July 20, 2000. The final permit 
also retains the revised maximum discharge volumes for Platforms 
Harvest, Hermosa and Hidalgo (based on updated information from the 
operator) which had been proposed on April 8, 2004. Further, the final 
permit uses EPA's revised CWA 304(a) water quality criteria found in 
``National Recommended Water Quality Criteria: 2002 (EPA-822-R-02-047) 
and 68 FR 75507 (December 31, 2003) for purposes of the reasonable 
potential study's dilution calculation. The April 8, 2004, proposed 
permit also included a number of minor editorial changes, 
clarifications and other revisions based on comments which had been 
received since the proposal of July 20, 2000. These revisions have been 
retained in the final permit.

C. 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 in the federal Court of Appeals in accordance with section 
509(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act (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).

D. Executive Order 12866

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993)) the 
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' 
and therefore subject to Office of Management and Budget (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: (1) 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; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere 
with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter 
the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan 
programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) 
raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the 
President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive 
Order. OMB has exempted review of NPDES general permits under the terms 
of Executive Order 12866.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedure Act (APA) or any other statute unless the agency certifies 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    Issuance of an NPDES general permit is not subject to rulemaking 
requirements, under APA section 553 or any other law, and is thus not 
subject to the RFA requirements. The APA defines two broad, mutually 
exclusive categories of agency action--``rules'' and ``orders.'' Its 
definition of ``rule'' encompasses ``an agency statement of general or 
particular applicability and future effect designed to implement, 
interpret, or prescribe law or policy or describing the organization, 
procedure, or practice requirements of an agency * * *'' APA section 
551(4). Its definition of ``order'' is residual: ``a final disposition 
* * * of an agency in a

[[Page 56764]]

matter other than rule making but including licensing'' APA section 
551(6). The APA defines ``license'' to ``include * * * an agency permit 
* * *'' APA section 551(8). The APA thus categorizes a permit as an 
order, which by the APA's definition is not a rule. Section 553 of the 
APA establishes ``rule making'' requirements. The APA defines ``rule 
making'' as ``the agency process for formulating, amending, or 
repealing a rule'' APA section 551(5). By its terms, then, section 553 
applies only to ``rules'' and not also to ``orders,'' which include 
permits.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for 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 2 U.S.C. 658 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)[we only need parentheses around APA], or any other 
law * * *.''
    As discussed in the RFA section of this notice, NPDES general 
permits are not ``rules'' under the APA and thus not subject to the APA 
requirement to publish a notice of proposed rule making. NPDES general 
permits are also 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.

G. 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 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: September 15, 2004.
Alexis Strauss,
Director, Water Division, EPA Region 9.
[FR Doc. 04-21286 Filed 9-21-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P