EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office Of Water
(WH-552)
EPA821-R-93-005
January 1993
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Of
Final Effluent Limitations
Guidelines And Standards
For The Offshore
Oil And Gas Industry
-------
-------
COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS OF FINAL EFFLUENT
LIMITATIONS GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS OF PERFORMANCE
FOR THE OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY
Prepared for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Water
Office of Science and Technology
Engineering and Analysis Division
Economic and Statistical Analysis Branch
Washington, DC 20460
Prepared by:
Eastern Research Group, Inc.
110 Hartwell Avenue
Lexington, MA 02173
January 1993
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
LIST OF TABLES iii
LIST OF FIGURES vii
SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION 1-1
SECTION 2 BACKGROUND METHODOLOGY 2-1
SECTION 3 COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY 3-1
FOR THE OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY
3.1 REGULATORY OPTIONS 3-1
3.1.1 Drilling Fluids and Drill Cuttings 3-1
3.1.2 Produced Water 3-2
3.1.3 Produced Sand 3-3
3.2 ANALYTICAL APPROACH 3-3
SECTION 4 COST-EFFECTIVENESS RESULTS . 4-1
4.1 COST-EFFECTIVENESS FOR DRILLING FLUIDS 4-1
AND DRILL CUTTINGS
4.2 COST-EFFECTIVENESS FOR BAT PRODUCED WATER 4-1
4.3 COST-EFFECTIVENESS FOR NSPS PRODUCED WATER ... 4-6
4.4 PRODUCED SAND 4-6
4.5 SUMMARY 4-6
APPENDIX A
POLLUTANT REMOVAL CALCULATIONS DRILLING
FLUIDS AND DRILL CUTTINGS
-i-
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
APPENDIX B
POLLUTANT REMOVAL CALCULATIONS
BAT PRODUCED WATER
APPENDIX C
POLLUTANT REMOVAL CALCULATIONS
NSPS PRODUCED WATER
-11-
-------
LIST OF TABLES
2-1 List of Pollutants Considered and Toxic Weighting Factors 2-2
Risk Level at 10-5
Drilling Fluids and Drill Cuttings
2-2 List of Pollutants Considered and Toxic Weighting Factors 2-3
Produced Water
2-3 Weighting Factors Based on Copper Freshwater Chronic Criteria ... 2-4
10-5 Risk Level
3-1 Produced Water BAT Regulatory Options 3.4
3-2 Produced Water NSPS Regulatory Options 3.5
3-3 Annual Pollutant Removals (Unweighted and Weighted) 3.7
Drilling Fluids and Drill Cuttings
Zero Discharge
4-1 Cost-Effectiveness for Offshore Oil and Gas 4_2
Drilling Fluids and Drill Cuttings
4-2 Cost-Effectiveness for Offshore Oil and Gas 4.4
BAT Produced Water
4-3 Cost-Effectiveness for Offshore Oil and Gas 4.7
NSPS Produced Water
4-4 Industry Comparison of Cost-Effectiveness for Direct Dischargers 4-9
Toxic and Nonconventional Pollutants Only
Copper-Based Weights
1981 Dollars
4-5 Industry Comparison of Cost-Effectiveness for New Source 4-10
Performance Standards
Toxic and Nonconventional Pollutants Only
Copper-Based Weights
1981 Dollars
A-l Annual Regionalized Pollutant Removals A-l
Drilling Fluids & Drill Cuttings
3 Mile Gulf/California
Unweighted Removals
-111-
-------
LIST OF TABLES (cont.)
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
B-l
B-2
Annual Regionalized Pollutant Removals
Drilling Fluids & Drill Cuttings
4 Mile Gulf/California
Unweighted Removals
Annual Regionalized Pollutant Removals
Drilling Fluids & Drill Cuttings
8 Mile Gulf/California
Unweighted Removals
Annual Regionalized Pollutant Removals
Drilling Fluids & Drill Cuttings
Zero Discharge Gulf/California
Unweighted Removals
Annual Regionalized Pollutant Removals
Drilling Fluids & Drill Cuttings
3 Mile Gulf/California
Weighted Removals
Annual Regionalized Pollutant Removals
Drilling Fluids & Drill Cuttings
4 Mile GultfCalifomia
Weighted Removals
Annual Regionalized Pollutant Removals
Drilling Fluids & Drill Cuttings
8 Mile Gulf/California
Weighted Removals
Annual Regionalized Pollutant Removals
Drilling Fluids & Drill Cuttings
Zero Discharge Gulf/California
Weighted Removals
Annual Regionalized Pollutant Removals
BAT Produced Water
Flotation All
Unweighted Removals
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
B-l
Annual Regionalized Pollutant Removals
BAT Produced Water
Zero 3 Miles Gulf (Pacific and Gulf Ib = Flotation All)
Unweighted Removals
B-2
-IV-
-------
LIST OF TABLES (cont.)
B-3
B-4
B-5
B-6
B-7
B-8
C-l
C-2
C-3
Annual Regionalized Pollutant Removals
BAT Produced Water
Zero Discharge Gulf (Pacific and Gulf Ib = Flotation All)
Unweighted Removals
B-3
Annual Regionalized Pollutant Removals
BAT Produced Water
Filter 4 Miles
Unweighted Removals
Annual Regionalized Pollutant Removals
BAT Produced Water
Flotation All
Weighted Removals
Annual Regionalized Pollutant Removals
BAT Produced Water
Zero 3 Miles Gulf (Pacific and Gulf Ib = Flotation All)
Weighted Removals
B-4
B-5
B-6
Annual Regionalized Pollutant Removals
BAT Produced Water
Zero Discharge Gulf (Pacific and Gulf Ib = Flotation All)
Weighted Removals
B-7
Annual Regionalized Pollutant Removals
BAT Produced Water
Filter 4 Miles
Weighted Removals
Annual Regionalized Pollutant Removals
NSPS Produced Water
Flotation All
Unweighted Removals
Annual Regionalized Pollutant Removals
NSPS Produced Water
Zero 3 Miles Gulf and Alaska (Pacific = Flotation All)
Unweighted Removals
B-8
C-l
C-2
Annual Regionalized Pollutant Removals
NSPS Produced Water
Zero Discharge Gulf and Alaska (Pacific = Flotation All)
Unweighted Removals
C-3
-v-
-------
C-4
C-5
C-6
C-7
C-8
LIST OF TABLES (cont.)
Annual Regionalized Pollutant Removals
NSPS Produced Water
Filter 4 Miles
Unweighted Removals
Annual Regionalized Pollutant Removals
NSPS Produced Water
Flotation All
Weighted Removals
C-4
C-5
Annual Regionalized Pollutant Removals
NSPS Produced Water
Zero 3 Miles Gulf and Alaska (Pacific = Flotation All)
Weighted Removals
C-6
Annual Regionalized Pollutant Removals
NSPS Produced Water
Zero Discharge Gulf and Alaska (Pacific = Flotation All)
Weighted Removals
C-7
Annual Regionalized Pollutant Removals
NSPS Produced Water
Filter 4 Miles
Weighted Removals
C-8
-VI-
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
4-1 Cost-Effectiveness Drilling Fluids and Drill Cuttings 4-3
4-2 Cost-Effectiveness BAT Produced Water 4.5
4-3 Cost-Effectiveness NSPS Produced Water 4.8
-Vll-
-------
-------
SECTION ONE
INTRODUCTION
The EPA proposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards for the offshore
segment of the oil and gas industry on August 26, 1985. The proposed regulations covered
produced water, drilling fluids, drill cuttings, produced sand, deck drainage, and well treatment
fluids, as well as sanitary and domestic wastes discharges. A Notice of Data Availability and
Request for Comments relating to the discharge of drilling fluids and drill cuttings was
published on October 21,1988. On November 26,1990, and March 13, 1991, the Agency
reproposed effluent limitations guidelines and standards for both drilling and production wastes.
This cost-effectiveness analysis (ce) is in support of the promulgation of final effluent
limitations guidelines and standards for the offshore oil and gas industry. Incremental pollution
control options are considered for several waste streams:
• Drilling fluids and drill cuttings. Drilling fluids are liquids used to lubricate the
drill bit and carry away cut rock to the surface in a well drilling operation. Drill
cuttings are fragments of the host rock removed by the drilling operation.
• Produced water. The production of oil and gas results in the generation,
separation, and discharge of waters and sand associated with hydrocarbons in the
subsea reservoirs (i.e., produced waters and produced sand, respectively).
• Produced sand.1
These options include effluent limitations guidelines and standards based on BAT (Best
Available control Technology economically achievable) and NSPS (New Source Performance
Standards), that are being considered under authority of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, as amended (the Clean Water Act). EPA has identified several pollution control options,
Other effluents are included in the rulemaking, e.g., domestic wastes, sanitary wastes, deck
drainage, and treatment, workover and completion fluids. No toxic pollutant removals were quantified
for incremental pollution controls on these waste streams; therefore they do not appear in the cost-
effectiveness analysis.
1-1
-------
each with different levels of pollution abatement and compliance cost. The ce analysis is a
useful tool for comparing the costs of the regulatory options with their relative ability to remove
toxic pollutants. EPA's cost-effectiveness methodology is not intended to analyze the removal
of conventional pollutants (oil and grease, BOD, TSS, fecal coliform, and pH). The removal of
conventional pollutants is not addressed in this report.
This report is primarily concerned with the total annualized cost incurred by the offshore
oil and gas industry in complying with the regulations. The effectiveness measure used is
pounds of pollutant removed weighted by an estimate of their relative toxicity. The rationale
for this measure, referred to as "pound equivalents (pe) removed," is described later in this
report.
Section Two discusses the background of the cost-effectiveness methodology employed in
this report. Section Three describes the alternative options under consideration, explains how
the ce was calculated, and lists the pollutants included in the analysis. Section Four presents the
findings. Appendices A through C contain tables of pollutants removed (in pounds and pound-
equivalents) for drilling fluids and drill cuttings, BAT produced water, and NSPS produced
water options, respectively.
1-2
-------
SECTION TWO
BACKGROUND METHODOLOGY
Cost-effectiveness (ce) is defined as the incremental annualized cost of a pollution
control option in an industry or industry subcategory per incremental pound equivalent of
pollutant removed annually by that control option.
Cost-effectiveness analyses account for differences in toxicity among the pollutants with
toxic weighting factors. These factors are necessary because different pollutants have different
potential effects on human and aquatic life. For example, a pound of zinc in an effluent stream
has a significantly different potential effect than a pound of PCBs. Toxic weighting factors for
pollutants are derived using ambient water quality criteria and toxicity values. For most
industries, toxic weighting factors are derived from chronic freshwater aquatic criteria. In cases
where a human health criterion has also been established for the consumption of fish, then the
sum of both the human and aquatic criteria are used in deriving toxic weighting factors.
However, in this study of an industry that discharges into the ocean, chronic saltwater aquatic
criteria are used wherever available. Chronic saltwater aquatic criteria are available for most of
the pollutants considered in the analysis (see Tables 2-1 and 2-2). These toxic weighting factors
are then standardized by relating them to a particular pollutant.
Copper was selected as the standard pollutant for developing weighting factors since it is
a toxic metal pollutant and is commonly detected and removed from industrial effluents.1
Some examples of the effect of different aquatic and human health criteria on weighting factors
are shown in Table 2-3.
As indicated in Table 2-3,1 pound of copper poses the same relative hazard as 2.9
pounds of nickel in the marine environment, since copper has a salt water toxic weight
*EPA uses the old freshwater quality criterion for copper (5.6 ug/1) as the standardization factor to
retain comparability of the new ce results with values derived for previously regulated industries. The
toxic weighing factor for copper itself reflects the newer water quality criterion for this pollutant.
2-1
-------
TABLE 2-1
LIST OF POLLUTANTS CONSIDERED AND TOXIC WEIGHTING FACTORS
RISK LEVEL AT 10A-5
DRILLING FLUIDS AND DRILL CUTTINGS
Pollutant
Toxic
Weighting
Factor
Saltwater/
Freshwater
Criteria
DIRECT REMOVALS:
Benzene
Napthalene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Cadmium
Mercury
0.0298
0.6597
0.5604
1.3211
0.0193
0.6351
262.3562
Salt
Salt
Salt
Salt
Salt
Salt
Salt
INCIDENTAL REMOVALS:
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Si Iver
Thallium
Zinc
Alum rum
Barium
Iron
Tin
Titanium
Organics (Alkylated Benzenes)
0.0125
4.1556
4.2424
0.0109
1.9310
0.6588
0.6759
0.0797
6.0871
1.1518
0.0651
0.0644
0.0020
0.0170
0.3011
0.0293
0.3025
Salt
Salt
Salt
Salt
Salt
Salt
Salt
Salt
Salt
Salt
Salt
Fresh
Fresh
Salt
Fresh
Fresh
Salt
Source: Versar, 1992.
"Toxic Weighting Factors for Offshore Oil and
Gas Extraction Industry Pollutants," Submitted
to Alexandra Tarney, U.S. EPA, 15 October.
2-2
M&C TUFS.WK3
23-Oet-92
-------
TABLE 2-2
LIST OF POLLUTANTS CONSIDERED AND TOXIC WEIGHTING FACTORS
PRODUCED WATER
Risk Level is 10-5
Pollutant
2-Butanone
2-4-Dimethylphenol
Anthracene
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
Chlorobenzene
Di-N-Butylpthalate
Ethylbenzene
N-Alkanes
Napthalene
P-Chloro-M-Cresol
Phenol
Steranes
Toluene
Triterpanes
Total Xylenes
Aluminum
Arsenic
Barium
Boron
Cadmium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Manganese
Nickel
Titanium
Zinc
Radium- 226
Radium- 228
Toxic
Weighting
Factor
0.0001
0.0024
0.3510
0.0298
18.5600
0.0110
0.0663
0.2607
0.0740
0.6597
3.7300
0.0193
0.0741
0.0018
0.0741
1.1429
0.0644
4.1556
0.0020
0.1770
0.6351
1.9310
0.0170
0.6588
0.0560
0.6759
0.0293
0.0651
1.3E+06
1.3E+06
Saltwater/
Freshwater
Criteria
Salt
Salt
Salt
Salt
Salt
Salt
Salt
Salt
Fresh
Salt
Fresh
Salt
Fresh
Salt
Fresh
Salt
Fresh
Salt
Fresh
Fresh
Salt
Salt
Salt
Salt
Salt
Salt
Fresh
Salt
Salt
Salt
Source: Versar, 1992.
"Toxic Weighting Factors for Offshore Oil and
Gas Extraction Industry Pollutants," Submitted
to Alexandra Tarney, U.S. EPA, 15 October.
2-3
PW_TWFS.WK3 23-Oct-92
-------
TABLE 2-3
WEIGHTING FACTORS BASED ON COPPER FRESHWATER CHRONIC CRITERIA
10-5 RISK LEVEL
Aquatic Aquatic
Human Chronic Chronic
Pollutant
Copper
Zinc
Nickel
Cadmium
Benzene
Titanium
Health Saltwater Freshwater
Criteria Criteria Criteria
(ug/l) (ug/l) (ug/l)
2.9
86
4600 8.3
170 9.3
710 255
..
12
110
160
1.1
265
191
Weighting
Calculation
5.6/2.9
5.6/86
(5.6/4,600)+(5.6/8.3>
(5.6/170)+(5.6/9.3)
(5.6/710)+(5.6/255)
5.6/191
Final
Weight
1.9310
0.0651
0.6759
0.6351
0.0298
0.0293
Note: Based on ingestion of 6.5 grams of fish products per day.
-- Not available.
2-4
TWF CALC.WK3 12-Oct-92
-------
approximately 2.9 times as large as the toxic weight of nickel (i.e., 1.931 •*- .6759). As shown in
Tables 2-1 and 2-2, mercury, arsenic, beryllium, silver, benzo(a)pyrene, p-chloro-m-cresol, and
radium have toxic weighting factors larger than that of copper.
The final weights are used to calculate the "pound equivalent" unit — a standard measure
of toxicity. Pound equivalents are calculated as the number of pounds of pollutant multiplied by
the weighting factor. Thus, in ce analysis, the amount of pollutant removed by a control option
is weighted by its relative toxicity. Cost-effectiveness is calculated as the ratio of incremental
annual cost of an option to the incremental pound equivalents removed by that option.
The pollutants included in ce analysis are the regulated pollutants and selected non-
regulated ones. Non-regulated pollutants are included because they can be removed incidentally
as a result of a particular treatment technology, even though they are not specifically limited.
(For example, when drilling fluids and drill cuttings are barged and disposed in an onshore
landfill, some toxic metals such as arsenic are removed from the marine environment, even
though there is no specific limitation on arsenic; the cost-effectiveness reflects the removal of
arsenic.) Some of the factors considered in selecting non-regulated pollutants include toxicity,
frequency of occurrence, and amount of pollutant in the waste stream.
The data set for an industry-specific ce analysis contains the following information:
• Wastewater pollutants;
• The pollution control approaches identified by the Office of Science and
Technology, Engineering and Analysis Division;
• Annual volume of loadings by pollutant - currently, and at each BAT/NSPS
control level;
• Toxic weighting factor for each pollutant;
• Annualized costs for each control option (where results are adjusted to 1981
dollars to enable comparison among all industries).
Criteria or toxicity values have been developed for the priority pollutants and were taken
from data in the 1980 Ambient Water Quality Criteria Document (EPA 440/5-80 Series), and
2-5
-------
updated criteria documents in the EPA 440/5-85 and EPA 440/5-87 series. Criteria for a few of
the nonconventional pollutants were taken from the 1976 Quality Criteria for Water, EPA-
440/9-76-023.
2-6
-------
SECTION THREE
COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
FOR THE OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY
3.1 REGULATORY OPTIONS
The cost-effectiveness report for the March 1991 reproposal of effluent guidelines and
standards of performance for the offshore oil and gas industry investigated three oil price
scenarios and two development scenarios for NSPS projections. In order to focus on the new
information for estimating the costs and associated pollutant removals, only one development
scenario is analyzed in this report. This is the $21/bbl restricted, or constrained, development
scenario presented in the proposal. Given the long time frame for the projections (15 years),
recent oil prices, and the volatility of oil prices, the $21/bbl oil price assumption was the most
reasonable of the three possibilities. Given current Presidential and State restrictions on
offshore activity, the restricted, or constrained, development scenario was chosen.
3.1.1 Drilling Fluids and Drill Cuttings
Four options for BAT and NSPS were developed for the control of drilling fluids and
drill cuttings. The following requirements are included in some combination in the various
options:
• No discharge of diesel oil.
• No discharge of "free oil" as measured by the static sheen test.
• Toxicity limitation as measured by a 96-hour LC50 test.
• Limitations on cadmium and mercury in the stock barite.
• Zero discharge of drilling fluids and drill cuttings based on distance from shore.
The technology basis for the zero discharge requirement is onshore treatment
and/or disposal.
3-1
-------
These requirements have been combined into four options:
3 Mile GultfCalifornia — For all regions except Alaska, drilling wastes from wells
located within three miles of shore must meet zero discharge requirements. In
these regions, the disposal of drilling wastes from wells located beyond three
miles of shore must meet limitations on toxicity, no discharge of diesel oil, no
discharge of free oil as determined by the static sheen test, and limitations on
mercury (1 mg/kg) and cadmium (3 mg/kg) content in the stock barite. Alaska is
excluded from the zero discharge requirement, but all discharges must meet the
requirements for toxicity, free oil, diesel oil,.cadmium, and mercuiy.
8 Mile Gulf/ 3 Mile California — Zero discharge for all wells in the Gulf of
Mexico located within eight miles from shore and zero discharge for all wells
offshore California located within three miles of shore. All wells located beyond
eight miles of shore in the Gulf of Mexico, beyond three miles of shore off
California, and all wells drilled offshore Alaska permitted to discharge drilling
fluids and drill cuttings that are in compliance with the requirements for toxicity,
free oil, diesel oil, cadmium, and mercuiy.
Zero Discharge Gull/California — Zero discharge for all wells located in the
Gulf of Mexico and offshore California. All wells being drilled offshore Alaska
permitted to discharge drilling fluids and drill cuttings that are in compliance
with the requirements for toxicity, free oil, diesel oil, cadmium, and mercury.
4 Mile GuUyCalifornia — The requirements are the same as in the 3 Mile
Gulf/California option, except that the boundary determining the zero discharge
requirement is set at 4 miles from shore. This option is comparable to the
preferred option in the March 1991 proposal.
3.1.2 Produced Water
Three disposal technologies are considered for produced water:
• Zero discharge of produced water (technologically based on reinjection).
• Filtration of produced water prior to discharge. The costs and removals for this
alternative are based on updated information for granular filtration.
• Improved performance of gas flotation.
3-2
-------
Five disposal options are considered in the economic impact for BAT and NSPS produced water
regulations. The options for BAT are summarized in Table 3-1, while those for NSPS are listed
in Table 3-2. BAT options are distinguished by the exclusion of existing Gulf of Mexico single-
well structures with their own production equipment from zero discharge requirements; these
structures must meet flotation limitations. No exclusion from zero discharge requirements is
made under NSPS for these structures. The BAT Rotation All option includes costs for two
years of monitoring for radium in produced water, however, no monitoring requirement is
included in the BAT limitation; the NSPS Rotation All option includes no costs for radium
monitoring. BAT and NSPS options for Alaska are distinguished in the costing efforts because
existing offshore Alaskan structures (BAT) are already required to meet zero discharge
requirements by State permit conditions (so they will incur no BAT costs), but costs for
projected structures in Alaskan waters are included in the calculation of NSPS costs. The
limitations for Alaska, however, are the same under BAT and NSPS. All existing structures off
California (BAT) are excluded from meeting zero discharge requirements and instead must
comply with improved gas flotation limitations.
3.1.3 Produced Sand
Produced sand consists of the slurried particles used in hydraulic fracturing and the
accumulated formation sands and other particles (including scale) generated during production.
This waste stream also includes sludges generated in the produced water system, such as tank
bottoms from oil/water separators and solids removed in filtration. The option considered in
this analysis is zero discharge of all produced sand.
3.2 ANALYTICAL APPROACH
For each of the options considered here, the pound equivalents of pollutants removed
were obtained by multiplying the pounds of each pollutant removed annually by that pollutant's
toxic weighting factor and summing the pound equivalents for each approach. Regional totals
were then summed to obtain the national totals. Removals were calculated relative to the
3-3
-------
TABLE 3-1
PRODUCED WATER
BAT REGULATORY OPTIONS
Regulatory Option
Short Form of Title
BPT - All Structures
Improved Gas Flotation - All Structures
Filter (Granular) and Discharge
- All Structures Within 4 Miles
BPT - All Structures
Beyond 4 Miles
Gulf of Mexico
Zero Discharge Within 3 Miles
(Gulf Ib Structures = Rotation)
Flotation Beyond 3 Miles
California: Flotation - All Structures
Gulf of Mexico
Zero Discharge
(Gulf Ib Structures = Flotation)
California: Flotation - All Structures
BPT All
Flotation All
Filter 4 Miles
Zero 3 Miles Gulf aind Alaska
Zero Discharge Gulf and Alaska
-------
TABLE 3-2
PRODUCED WATER
NSPS REGULATORY OPTIONS
Regulatory Option
Short Form of Title
BPT - All Structures
Improved Gas Flotation
- All Structures
Filter (Granular) and Discharge
All Structures Within 4 Miles
BPT - All Structures Beyond 4 Miles
Gulf of Mexico and Alaska
Zero Discharge Within 3 Miles
Rotation Beyond 3 Miles
California: Flotation - All Structures
Gulf of Mexico and Alaska
Zero Discharge - All Structures
California: Flotation - All Structures
BPT All
Flotation All
Filter 4 Miles
Zero 3 Miles Gulf and Alaska
Zero Discharge Gulf and Alaska
3-5
-------
baseline defined by current practices, i.e. they represent the incremental quantities of pollutants
which would be removed as a result of this rule.
Table 3-3 shows the removals for the zero discharge option for drilling fluids and drill
cuttings from the Gulf of Mexico. Appendix A contains the tables showing pounds and pound-
equivalents removed for drilling fluids and drill cuttings; Appendix B contains the tables for the
BAT produced water options; and tables for NSPS produced water options are jgiven in
Appendix C. To enable comparisons between industries, these costs were converted to 1981
dollars by dividing by a factor of 1.21 (based on the change in the Construction Cost Index from
1981 to 1986; see Engineering News Record March 17, 1988).
Following standard procedures for the Agency's cost-effectiveness analyses, the options
were ranked in order of increasing stringency (i.e., increasing pound equivalents removed). The
incremental cost-effectiveness of each option was calculated by the following equation:
cek =
pek - petl
where:
cek
T
pek
cost-effectiveness of Option K;
annualized treatment cost of Option K;
pound equivalent removed at Option K.
3-6
-------
TABLE 3-3
ANNUAL POLLUTANT REMOVALS (UNWEIGHTED AND WEIGHTED)
DRILLING FLUIDS AND DRILL CUTTINGS
ZERO DISCHARGE
GULF OF MEXICO
Pounds Removed
Pollutant
DIRECT REMOVALS:
Benzene
Napthalene
Fluorene
Phenanthrene
Phenol
Cadmium
Mercury
INCIDENTAL REMOVALS:
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Si Iver
Thallium
Zinc
Aluminum 7,
Barium 280,
Iron 11,
Tin
Titanium
Organ ics
TOTALS 300,
Sources: Pounds Removed:
Muds
0
565
0
0
0
1,795
546
4,447
9,364
546
438,044
31,133
52,044
10,533
858
546
937
156,444
076,979
700,100
972,710
11,392
68,274
344,643
881,900
EPA, EAD.
Cuttings
0
233
0
0
0
107
32
254
555
32
25,974
1,846
3,086
624
51
32
56
9,276
421,278
16,709,487
712,711
678
4,058
142,031
18,032,401
Total
Removals
0
798
0
0
0
1,902
578
4,701
9,919
578
464,018
32,979
55,130
11,157
909
578
993
165,720
7,498,257
297,409,587
12,685,421
12,070
72,332
486,674
318,914,301
Toxic
Weighting
Factor
(10A-5)
0.0298
0.6597
0.5604
1.3211
0.0193
0.6351
262.3562
0.0125
4.1556
4.2424
0.0109
1.9310
0.6588
0.6759
0.0797
6.0871
1.1518
0.0651
0.0644
0.0020
0.0170
0.3011
0.0293
0.3025
Pounds
Muds
0
373
0
0
0
1,140
143,246
56
38,913
2,316
4, 767
60,119
34,288
7,119
68
3,324
1,079
10,187
455,530
558,806
203,173
3,430
2,000
104,269
1,634,202
Equivalent Removed
Cuttings
0
154
0
0
0
68
8,395
3
2,306
136
283
3,565
2,033
422
4
195
65
604
27,117
33,265
12,094
204
119
42,970
134,001
Total
Removals
0
526
0
0
0
1,208
151,642
59
41,219
2,452
5,050
63,684
36,321
7,541
72
3,518
1,144
10,791
482,646
592,070
215,268
3,634
2,119
147,239
1,768,203
Toxic Weighting Factors: Versar, 1992 (See Tables 2-1 and 2-2).
REM CALC.WK3 23-Oct-92
3-7
-------
-------
SECTION FOUR
COST-EFFECTIVENESS RESULTS
Cost-effectiveness (ce) analysis was performed for each of the incremental pollution
control options for each waste stream. Section 4.1 discusses ce for drilling fluids and drill
cuttings. Section 4.2 discusses ce for BAT produced water while Section 4.3 considers ce for
NSPS produced water. The cost-effectiveness of the regulatory option for produced sand is
discussed in Section 4.4.
4.1 COST-EFFECTIVENESS FOR DRILLING FLUIDS AND DRILL CUTTINGS
Table 4-1 and Figure 4-1 show the cost-effectiveness analysis for drilling fluids and drill
cuttings. The costs and removals are based on the $21/bbl oil price, restricted development
scenario. The ce report for the March 1991 proposal investigates the sensitivity of the ce
analysis for this waste stream to changes in oil price and development assumptions.
Cost-effectiveness for the 3 Mile Gulf/California option is $44 per pound equivalent (pe)
removed. The incremental ce for the other options is approximately $72-$73 per pound
equivalent. Appendix A contains the tables for the pounds and pound equivalents removed for
the drilling waste options.
4.2 COST-EFFECTIVENESS FOR BAT PRODUCED WATER
Cost-effectiveness analysis was performed for each of the five options for BAT produced
water. Table 4-2 and Figure 4-2 summarize the results of this analysis. The BPT All option is
the same as current practices; there are no costs or removals associated with this option.
Incremental cost-effectiveness ranges from $33/pe for the Flotation All option to $653/pe for the
Filter 4 Miles option. The incremental cost-effectiveness for the two options where the Gulf Ib
projects are excluded from the Zero Discharge requirement ranges from $244/pe to $573/pe.
4-1
-------
TABLE 4-1
COST-EFFECTIVENESS FOR OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS
DRILLING FLUIDS AND DRILL CUTTINGS
Total Annual
Option
current
3 Mile Gulf/ California
4 Mile Gulf/ California
8 Mile Gulf/ 3 Mile California
Zero Discharge Gulf/ California
PE
Removed
357
383
521
1.822
0
.955
,702
.490
.906
Cost
(1986 $)
($000)
$0
$18,954
$21,217
$33,291
$148,421
Cost
(1981 $)
($000)
$15,
$17,
$27.
$122,
$0
664
535
513
662
Incremental
PE
Removed
357
25
137
1,301
--
.955
,747
,789
.415
Incremental
Cost-
Cost Effectiveness
(1981 $) $/PE
($000) (1981 $)
$15,
$1,
$9,
$95.
--
664
870
979
149
$43
$72
$72
$73
--
.76
.64
.42
.11
Note:
Factor for converting 1986 dollars to 1981 dollar 1.21 . •
The cost-effectiveness is standardized in 1981 dollars to facilitate companion among
numerous regulated industries. ,--..,.•
Projects in Alaska are excluded from the zero discharge limitation.
CE HSC.WK3
28-Dec-92
4-2
-------
o
I-
i- UJ DC
4 > Q
m Q Q
£ UJ ^
7? "•
O ii. (0
E UJ Q
O
DC
Q
4-3
-------
TABLE 4-2
COST-EFFECTIVENESS FOR OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS
BAT PRODUCED WATER
Total Annual
Option
Current
Filter
(BPT All)
4 Miles
Flotation All
Zero 3
Miles Gulf (Gulf 1b * Flotation)
Zero Discharge Gulf (Gulf 1b = Flotation)
PE
Removed
0
48,887
1.480,176
1,507,861
3,334,240
Cost
(1986 $)
($000)
0
$38,635
$96,290
$115,474
$654,217
Incremental
Cost
(1981 $)
($000)
$0
$31,930
$79
$95
$540
.578
,433
,675
PE
Removed
48,
1,431,
27,
--
887
289
685
1,826,379
Cosl:
(1981 $)
($000)
$31,
$47,
$15,
--
930
i&49
iB55
$445,242
Incremental
Cost-
Effectiveness
$/PE
(1981 $)
$653
--
.13
$33.29
$572
$243
.67
.78
Hotes: Factor for converting 1986 dollars to 1981 dollars is
CE BAT.WK3 23-Oct-92
$1.21
4-4
-------
CO
CO
LLJ
UJ
LU
I
£ Q
s*
4-5
-------
43 COST-EFFECTIVENESS FOR NSPS PRODUCED WATER
The cost-effectiveness information for NSPS produced water is summarized in Table 4-3
and Figure 4-3. As with BAT produced water, the BPT All option under NSPS has no costs or
removals associated with it. The Filter 4 Miles option does not appear because it has lower
removals and higher costs than the Flotation All option. Under these circumstances, the Filter
4 Miles option is considered dominated by the Flotation All option, and is removed from the
analysis. The cost-effectiveness of the remaining options range from $17/pe for the Flotation
All option to $295/pe for the Zero Discharge Gulf and Alaska option.
4.4 PRODUCED SAND
Zero discharge of produced sand is estimated to remove 3.8 million microcuries (3.8
grams) of Radium-226 and Radium-228 (see Development Document for details). Given a
conversion factor of 453.6 grams to a pound, and a toxic weighting factor of 1,300,000 for
radium, an estimated 10,842 pound-equivalents of radium are removed by the zero discharge
requirement. Toxic removals associated with other pollutants, such as organics, were not
quantified for this waste stream.
The cost associated with the zero discharge requirement for produced sand is $3.814
million dollars (1986 dollars; $3.152 million in 1981 dollars). Hence, the cost-effectiveness for
the zero discharge requirement for produced sand is $291/pe.
4J SUMMARY
Table 4-4 summarizes the range in cost-effectiveness for the offshore oil and gas industry
effluent controls to the cost-effectiveness of BAT regulations for other industries. Table 4-5
summarizes the same information for NSPS regulations. All costs are shown in 1981 dollars.
The effect of combined costs on the regulated industry has been examined in the economic
impact analysis.
4-6
-------
TABLE 4-3
COST-EFFECTIVENESS FOR OFFSHORE OIL AMD GAS
NSPS PRODUCED WATER
Total Annual
Option
PE
Removed
Cost Cost
(1986 $> (1981 $)
($000) ($000)
Incremental
PE
Removed
Cost
(1981 $)
($000)
Incremental
Cost-
Effectiveness
$/PE
(1981 $)
Current (BPT All)
Flotation All
Zero 3 Miles Gulf and Alaska
Zero Discharge Gulf and Alaska
0 0 $0
601,169 $12,085 $9,987
747,489 $61,893 $51,151
1,546,775 $346,974.$286,756
601,169 $9,987
146,320 $41,163
799,286 $235,605
$16.61
$281.32
$294.77
Notes: Factor for converting 1986 dollars to 1981 dollars is
CE_NSPS.WK3 12-Oct-92
$1.21
4-7
-------
DC
HI
UJ
CO Ul -
» > o
T -- 111
iut: o
CC ^
uu
-•» U_ •"""•
O t O
U. UJ CC
|1 OL
S W
O a,
o w
00
CD
CO
c
o
(0
O
O
"ca
4-8
-------
TABLE 4-4
INDUSTRY COMPARISON OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS FOR DIRECT DISCHARGERS
TOXIC AND NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS ONLY
COPPER-BASED WEIGHTS
1981 DOLLARS
INDUSTRY
Aluminum Forming
Battery Manufacturing
Canmaking
Coal Mining
Coil Coating
Copper Forming
Electronics I
Electronics II
Foundries
Inorganic Chemicals II
Inorganic Chemicals II
Iron and Steel
Leather Tanning
Metal Finishing
Nonferrous Metals Forming
Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing I
Nonferrous Metals Manufacturing II
Offshore Oil and Gas
- Drilling Fluids and Drill Cuttings
- Produced Water
- Produced Sand
Organic Chemicals, and Plastics and
Synthetics'1
Pesticides
Pharmaceuticals
Plastics Molding and Forming
Porcelain Enameling
Petroleum Refining
Pulp and Paper0
Steam Electric
Textile Mills
T I ml*M*v
Timber
POUNDS
EQUIVALENT
CURRENTLY
DISCHARGED
(OOO's)
1,340
4,126
12
BAT=BPT
2,289
70
9
NA
2,308
32,503
605
40,746
259
3,305
34
6,653
1,004
3,808
54,225
2,461
208
44
1,086
BAT=BPT
1,330
BAT=BPT
POUNDS EQUIVALENT
REMAINING AT COST-EFFECTIVENESS
SELECTED OPTION OF SELECTED OPTION(S)
OOP'S) ($/POUND EQUIVALENT)
90
5
0.2
BAT=BPT
9
8
3
NA
39
1,290
27
1,040
112
3,268
2
313
12
2,328
9,735
371
4
41
63
BAT=BPT
748
BAT=BPT
1?1
i£ i
10
BAT=BPT
AO
*»T
O7
tf
AflA
•*U*f
UA
NA
RL
o*»
a
f.
o
2
BAT=BPT
12
AO
07
I.
t
5
BAT=NSPSd
33
BAT=NSPSd
•1C
\J
4
BAT=BPT
£
BAT=BPT
1A
10
BAT=BPT
b Less than a dollar.
Reflects costs and removals of both air and water pollutants.
d PCB control for Deink subcategory only.
The major impact of the regulation on drilling fluids and drill cuttings will occur under NSPS
Impacts for produced sand are also estimated on a combined BAT/NSPS basis.
4-9
-------
TABLE 4-5
INDUSTRY COMPARISON OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS FOR
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
TOXIC AND NONCONVENTIONAL POLLUTANTS ONLY
COPPER-BASED WEIGHTS
1981 DOLLARS
INDUSTRY
INCREMENTAL*
POUNDS EQUIVALENT
REHOVED
COST-EFFECTIVENESS
OF SELECTED OPTION
(S/POUND EQUIVALENT)
Aluminum Forming
Battery Manufacturing
Canmaking
Coal Mining
Coil Coating
Copper Forming
Electronics I
Electronics II
Foundries
Inorganic Chemicals I
Inorganic Chemicals II
Iron and Steel
Leather Tanning
Hetal Finishing
Nonferrous Metals
Manufacturing I
Honferrous Metals
Manufacturing II
Offshore Oil and Gas
- Drilling Fluids and Drill Cuttings
- Produced Water
- Produced Sand
Organic Chemicals, Plastics
and Synthetics
Pesticides
Petroleum Refining
Pharmaceuticals
Plastics Holding and Forming
Porcelain Enameling
Pulp and Paper0
Steam Electric
Textile Hills0
Timber
509
1,612
NA
5,004
216
NA
427
NA
26,208
NA
32,570
357,955
601,169
10,842
NA
NA
NA
NA
2,500
NA
NA
190
47
NA
13
132
NA
183
NA
b
NA
44
17
291
NA
NA
NA
NA
38
NA
NA
m Incremental pound equivalent removed from next less stringent option considered.
" Less than a dollar .... .. •
8 Incremental treatment required for conventional pollutants only.
HA NSPS not promulgated or NSPS equal to BAT.
4-10
-------
APPENDIX A
POLLUTANT REMOVAL CALCULATIONS
DRILLING FLUIDS AND DRILL CUTTINGS
-------
-------
CO
1
Ul CO
ac «9
z™ ^
o>
c
tJ
?j
1
^
POLLUTAN'
o~ooooir.ro
«- om
^~
ooooo 01
11 f i—
"o.-Sg^ gx
Sg52io.2^
U N 4-* O C C E= O
£ CO Z Uu£ £ O X
r*. t£ ro in o «- *- CM ro o ** o«->oincoin CM
** in^ ^0*^ o eo o oo o o «4- in c
oo *"~ CM w™ K- rvi >i* o* c
oj ^o r^- ^~ c
*o *— c
CM CM
w^ 55? i"** CM "^ >o co ^3 ip^> *~ \o co f^ M O1* oo ro u
*«J CO ^O "4* >O ^~ «•" ^~ s^ |\| fo O* CM XJ O M
^O«-«- T- o-» into «-
>O«-CM r- Omo CM CM
CM in in o i/
ro«- it
CM CM
CM «— o ^ r»- ^ o
K-* -* $
O «-OIMCMCMCM«-OOCO O O O •- CO x* CO
CM *- o *— ,N. N± o*
cov-ro^ o K
CM «- «- m
ro ro
o o o o o o o o o o o oooooo o
OO.rO^CMO.OC* ^RpN.R CM
ro ro
00^^^0^00. o^^^oo.n
*~ ™^^. ® "\
ro ro
ooooooooooo oooooo o
r>» jo CM o ?>• >o h^ «~ CM cs h» CM o* in CM CM *o CM
** rococo **• CM ro »N- *— *o ro N-
oo T- CM ^ r^-*Oro o CM
CM *O ^O «— O*.
*o*-? ocT
CM f\J
^S^fjifi^^^^l KiK^Rl 3
>o»-»- «- cor-rj .* >o
*~ r^ o ro -o o
"^*~ "*
ro" ro"
KS'SSslK^^S feleisls 5
S*"*^ «~ Omo ""CM cxi
CM in in o in
ro «- in
CM CM
••
3?
|
UJ
.J
a 1 'E ^ '§ fe U 'c oi — .H S 'E 'E 2
— — oi X S fi/o J2o!>— o i-^c <5o3 «
cj*>Mi-c.S;3o— •— • a c S i- o c S at S
zci-oj:o£."a).-^.;: ^<3°.5.t-? o
~«mo o_i zto co I-IM
-------
SJ
•§
fj
o *— o o o «— o
o o o o o o
I —• I O«-OOO
o^-ooooo
ooooooo
! —• i oinooc
8!
•i
gooor^w
K5iS
£
S
PO
A-2
-------
P5o S
3 H: z
£3 O 111 CO
I
£
DC
s
C9
i
?»-OKt«-»- «-
•* O»-CM
0 tMM
•:* 3
S
T-W Oj O> O> Kl »q o CO in o> min «-
Kl OCMO«- >o eo >» N-«-*- in in
CM OCMCM "-|£J ">
OKJ
fO
^ in
o«-ooo«-o
S ft
1«- «- in
ooooooo ooooooooooo oooooo o
O«-OOOOO OO«-KI«-m CMO»-Ot>
« s
ooooooo ooooooooooo oooooo o
ocoooo
RS
£S~3S5fc.fc~£s, sssfegc 5
«— CM CM
OCMM M
j-4- o» in
*~ ro ^^
«— in
SCO CO CO fO in ^f %f CO ^O CO ^3 IO CO ^3 in CO ""J"
^— *o oj «~ fw «•— «— oo "d" Kfc ^5 o* to «~ ^~
KI Otf\JO*«- in t— co eo«—«— co in
N.«-^W^ c\r co*
Sc98: ^R 8
ot
oo
01
s
S^rJc. -Jt.s I
i|s.iil-§E c^llbll-slJUg II;
•~*&ta~^.c.c6S9t zci-
-------
05*000535
O
g
—f I O «— O O O ^- O
00000000000 000000
— i ocvioooroto r°~*
o i «- f> tr;
oroooorjo
- mCM
Sr^ ru ** *o o
in *- O» «~
oo>ooo j-r
_. i OCOOOOM
ST- O*
PJT
«-OCM J* ^
o •
I U I
I U- I
i O I
O K) O O O ^- CM
ro ^ ro
oinoooin
-------
CO
< «
g 1—
UJ CO J
°^ S 3
h- ^* 2
it i
53 "*
o Hj 2 ^
§0
UJ UL. **
Nee •-> co
< a u 5
o:5-*+ §
« _IU. UJ
CS u. _l fK
in uj o
' Of C9 (9 o
< Z UJ
-J •-• 111 1—
in <_i" E
m ids? 2
™ IS1 u
i- < QM S
: -s : °s00
i *• i i=
i O i
i »— i
i i
i i
i i
i i
i i
i i
t i
i en i ocvioo
i aj i hZ
i C i
i *p- i
1 4J 1
1 4-* 1
: 5:
i i
i i
i i
CO i CO i O *- O O
o : U : M
»-* i Z i
Oil
UJ i I
or i i
i i
_i i i
-i i i
i
i
i
i i
: o : °-°°<
i -M i
i 0 i
i 1— i
i i
I t
i i
i i
i i
{ a, ! °*"" oo<
* C i
1 4-» 1
1 3 1
i CJ i
1 1
1 1
i •§ I oo ooc
i 3 i
< i X '
£2 i i
CO i i
2| |
1
1
1 1
j-j O^OOC
1 o !
1 1- t
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
I CO i O«-OOC
* O) i
i C i
1 «— 1
1 4-* 1
1 +J 1
i CJ i
1 1
1 tfi • o o o o a
i T3 i
CJ i Z i
••* 1 1
U. 1 |
U i i
< 1 1
CL 1 i
1
1
1
1 1
< — • i OCXJOOO
• to * o
• •Ml ^
i O i
1 1— 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
i §> i O j^ OOO
i C i
1 ••- 1
1 *» 1
i 4-» 1
i CJ i
s: :
is : -s : °KOO°
i Z i
i I !
1 1
U_ i |
-J 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1
1
1
1
1
i CO
1 _J
* <
t— i UJ C t-
Z I 0£ 0) O.C
< I 00
> oo oc
oooc
88
rn
*~
5s00
1^
•-ONOO
^J NO
*
rS
»-
CO
<
O
UJ
§x x
C_ m
FO 2
5 " u
01 01 ac
DZ '
O CM O in O* *O fO «— O
O W'GCQ
«- *-CM«- ^**~JI
^- CXJ «-
CO *— O M K* IT* (M GO
N- oj »*N.
o-j-oo***-*— ooo«—
O^-sJOQ^^^— Q^Q^
3OOOOOOOOOOO
OO*tf-OCMCMv-Oooooooooooo
In5~|f|g'0fc||
ST M"S2*
»- «-CM«- fO«-J-
«- c\r^
mroinoh.ONtN.NOo«—m
«j^ t^r^r^m CM co
fN* CM Sf hN-
«- M«-
roJi^ § §
C — ' £ 01 OICO)-^
— 01 X O Q.T2 ^t Ot > — » o
4-> CO I. (_ SIS 0----1' CO c
c t- o>j= ctoi-" a> — j2.£
«mUU_j2co(ol_N
km IN- rN. a o m
«~ ^" CM ON o
INfTlo" ON" tO
«-(>epONMO
I«NO CM" cT N<
CM vj-
£|i°.3£°. S
COlNOfN- 03 *^
10
CM ~* Kl o O NO ON
inQjCM i- \
KI ^a-
_.
in «O CM r- N
10 >
ooooo o o
jojgin^-oo co
CM ro
SSKS^Q2 S
CM trt
OO OOO O O
S|gggg fe
MM" ON" co" sT
sj-m «- CM in
ro
-SfeSRfNJSi K5
O «~ CM NO NO
inNO CM* ON" in"
«- vf
•Osl-OCOfN-0 CM
OJ^CO O CM *r- ^ >^-
CO NO fN. CQ* ,^
ro>ar«- ,-
|S c'E 2
§r§c5a s
— • CD «_ — .^ L. o
«tm — t-t- o i-
A-5
-------
fO «- CM O I
CM o CM «- -»<
-
'fcBS
,- *-tnCM
in«-ooo«-<
K 5
oooooooooooooooooooc
oooooo
_> I o «~ O O O O O
OO«*O€MCM«-O
t 3 I
I U i
ooooooooooooooooooc
i U i Z
%
«*«- »»
CM in in
CM in co
> — >*«- O t
is
.; o :
i i C9 i
s:
I U I
CMCMOin —o
I^N- in ** o o
CO IM sf Kl rvj in
in
g
CM
o.
8
CM
Sc>3
<5*f
: 3 s «
I O C
I £ 01 (U -J
»— t HI C «- S-^.
1 ! "o-S c5 EX afi1
Sil-CloSc—-St. UlO
SiGSjc'-oo— 3 a e
3SS*3oCCEO .-•-
j!ScQ.3«>
c c
§>f~ C CO CO
t. O C*» O)
_, OJ !_•—•— 1-
< m •-• H- i— o
si
A-6
-------
CO
_J
UJ CO
O£ CD
f— M 2
2 J— Z
2^O
Z3 CJ U-
— 1 — J -J
2^2
Of
S ° !3
r>j oo *•«
J CO
«r oro
*-• _J u.
i a: tao
_J •-• UJ
Ul < — 1 _!
m z — i
4 Z O£
t- < 000
CO
z
UJ
_J
<
2
UJ
g
o.
CO
^
1
UJ
QC
u,
h-
z
o
i
1 1
i CD I
I o I
1 1— 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 t
1 1
i CO i
i O) i
i C i
1 4-* 1
1 3 1
i CJ *
1 1
1 1
1 1
CO 1 CO 1
§' "5 '
_• ' * '
Ul i i
UJ i i
an i i
_j i i
_j i i
i
i
i *
i CO I
i O i
1 t— 1
1 t
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
i CO I
i en i
i C i
I -M I
i CJ i
i i
i i
J|
~ . :
CO t i
_j i i
< i i
i
t
i i
i — • i
i CD i
I 4-* I
i 0 !
1 H- 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
i CO i
i .gi
1 4-* f
1 4J 1
: 3 :
i t
i i
LJ i BE i
"2 \ I
j i i
x I *
*
I CD I
i -M i
i O i
i 1— i
i i
i i
i i
i i
i i
i i
i i
i CO i
i O) i
* C i
1 4V i
i 4-» I
O I i
U i i
•— « t I
X i CO i
u i *o i
L 1 3 1
- t i
O i i
i i
U. l i
3 i i
3 i i
i
i
i
i
i
i »•
j ^
t >
i XI
1— I UJ
< : "
h= i r-
=> 1 U
—1 i Ul
— J 1 O£
Q. i O
°K000||
ro
*-
o «— o o o in *o
oo srs
o*- oooo-co
•^ ifc
a.
o«-ooo «-o
o ^~ o o o *™ o o
OOOOOOOO4
OT-00000
O^OOOOOOC
ooooooooc
ogooogg
ro
^~
0§0005SOC
r^
^- if:
ta
CM
V.
^
>
X
01 a:
«.lg| x 1
S5 o § §"5 3 2
c Q. 3 cu a> ~D c. cj
GJ to — • .c ^: to cu ac
m z u_a. a. oz £
^ISsliS^SSI
*- ro o o *- «M
CM rOCM
«— ^oco«o^.ino«— moo«-
CMroo*o*otM in *- N.
«~j^«~^cM*ostroroinco
o rofw(>^. ^«
o^too-**«-«— ooo»-
00^00^^-^000-
3OOOOOOOOOOO
OO^OCMCM<-0<00-
SOOvfOCVJCM-O-OO-
30000^0^00^0
-ssssss-sas
CM MK!CM"~ ~
*~CMM§!o~S2-5«9g
»- CM«-
^ f: 5 «- o r«- S J2 [o o S
CM^sT «^fO^*^IO ^O CM O*
o ro s-o->- ,-
coSS § §
E= c -j E ey o E b o CLTI .^ — ^ O
4-* CO L.C-ZLCO O — ' — CDC
c c- CD ,c o S •" a> -p- ^ -5
«oacjo^z(ocoi-rsj
RSS-PSJ § :
to i1*- CD r«-. ->4- *o ^f *
O »i— *4" sr CM i
«- in *
1
CM^OCOsTO in I
^•^Osrinroin o i
n* sr s^- co tn i
CM in i
i
i
i
i
*O CM ^O *Q to CO OO t
S82S ^ 3!
i
J
i
i
Ul >O CM *— ^O '
ro s* i
i
i
i
in NO CM v- NO i
1
1
1
1
1
OOOOOO O i
1
1
1
1
1
1
in NO CM v- r- I
CM ro i
i
i
.NOOUI«— oo eo i
1/1 CM fo 1
1
1
O O O O O CD O i
1
1
1
1
*— O» f1- o ro NO fo i
in v™* ro T™ ^~ NO xf i
CM NO o r- sj- T- NO i
sj-in CM CM O i
Or-sf sj- CM i
«- in i
i
i
i
sf oo CM r^ ro ro oo !
N- O IO CM in i
CM in i
i
i
i
]S(>5incofo c> I
*O CM NO NO PO CO 00 i
vpNO CO O sf I
*~ sj- 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5 _ So I
C E •*- ••— co i
•-5 c c ™ 1
g •— C (Q CD < i
3 J- p C*- 0> ? .
-^ <0 t- •»- >^ L. O I
4m .- >- t- o t- •
A-7
-------
I:
oinooo <
K !
o O O O
">-?. S52R
in-O IM
o i
te I
CM
l*1"
C\T IO"CM
CM <0 «-
BO-tfCM
c\iro»-
** CM i
«- CO •
3
-3
— ^ooo—
a
4J
O
oooooooooooooooo
>«— CM ^* ro o o *o
in-ocxi «-
OOOO OOOOOO OI
I —. I OCOOOO'-
i —. I 0-OO<
I §
5!
o.
1 . I
!eisi-ii
CJ OIJC &• O O ••-
LJ N« o c ce i
S c 0.3
-------
APPENDIX B
POLLUTANT REMOVAL CALCULATIONS
BAT PRODUCED WATER
-------
-------
«
5
—' O
Q. s-^
TJ ca
cu <- —•
M 0> CD
— ffl O
C? 3 C U
O ••- .c
§^2 '5
CD CO
V >
O O
—• C
z c
3
o ro -a- in C
in
sj-
> CM o - CM
CO O CO in O«- «™«— *O T- «— CM CM *O O CM »- •»* «—CD O
HJ «—10 ro *^ ^- co ^o >o CM *4-
r^ro"
CMCM<3inincMcqcMC>or^<-|nro<- >o
r""* fir:^* r~.cM coP-ororoo N± <-^o <> CM h> CM co CM o K. *? >o CMN.CO^o ?i
f^in ocoin CMin inoi-o " CM
«o ro
-~ *oo ,,
N-M
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o
CM,**-*'
•*«
K" §
St £T SQ t- ^ f*1 m "* ** ° •*• ^- ^ "> IT> o in co «- «- »n fM CM oo r- »o o (M in
fo o g h- ro oj in «- o PJ in T- eo ro F- t\j CM ro ro ~* OS o o in ro KI m V-i 1-
-o >o S 10 ^ in ^ ro rj eo CM in S in in in c\j ed >o 3 -Z eo co KJ K! J- 5- o o
«-«veM»- eoinro tvro
in in CM eooSRoo
O in «—
i o
~
cNj«-incoc\ir^c>oo
SSffi^S
~, D1 53 JT
eo N. CM o> »- CM
^) «3 o cC
o o o o
«- fVJOO •r-
o
oo ooooo ooo ooo oo oooooo oo oo o ooo o
00
00
-COIV^O^-^-^^4-^',— O*O*4-CMCM*O«—- «-^CM in CM «-«-CM »-N- co «-ro CM ?- 3 o
«- in in in o
ro
0>»
.
I
ro
M
CO
_J
Of
ce
§
B-l
-------
CM
I
m
H-
'-^ to 3
O 3«3
OT) 0)
.X K 0)
S-^IE
1-:
"S
•g
— • CD
••- 4J
Z 0
4-1
M-P
H «
s
ooooooooooo o
o o
O 0
000000000000000000000
000
O 0
o o
o .3 co || in jo-
- I- o to
j* ~« «° ^ o o »
_
-
LU
g
2
„,
81
o
o
B-2
-------
"8
"8
X O
4
A 0
O —
—• CO
aE o
K,|
M CO
eo«
2 8
BlSiSSinSSSKligaisSBSii
eoeo »
a
OOOOO OO OOO OOO OOOOOOC3O OOOOO OOO O O 1
O O i
§8 :
§
R1
u
R
g
m
^*"^ *~>*
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
inooio N.
m CM rxioo
oooooo^oooo
II
s
,noM o j^
«
CM
s
S
S!
|
CM
8
ui
Z>
ui
IU
io.
>-IM_IIU 111
UJ m
,n I
O i
S
CO
—
B-3
-------
•g
8
£
B-4
I
-------
55
o o
ino in «- CM o *- co CM >o«--a- o
«- to o «o «— inoro ro
CM CM fO CM K. -O»-&. »-«-.- in- CM«-«— CO
«- in «- «- to
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo o
"S
u
(9
g
5
1
N 0)
*^ 4^
—' CO
V g-g g §•
m &••- ui
UJ CD O. CD "D
s
an
-
S.2
m u.
F^!O«»wo"eS°cS:*in§>"3M«-«-»-eo CM «- N. CM K. ^ in «- »» S-ino co
in o-cvicp >o«-«\T c\T KI"»-^«-^ -*"
ru eo «- CM o
CM
(MCMc\J '-rvjN.T-
*— »O O «— CM w— N- »O «™ «—CO IO CM O w—>O O ** O «— o* «— eo
«--* CMCMro«- ^- in»-^ 8! «i KJ CM «- Rl
-OT-ofo-o-ocgcMt
osfj- <-^-4*o
«— ro i*> N- co in *
«-«-CM«-
•4-co<->?K.cMCMronJS.c3«oro >o ui CM m
CM ft o O «- O> K- «— >O N.N.CX o
.CM «a-«-«\r i^r «-^ c^ «-^ o" co ^ NT
l*O r«-
,^^ S
UJ
ac
a.
ui
_i
UJ <
Z UJ S=
UJ Z I— UJ
a: uia-z
—
1— Z-IMC/>
o<
o
o
*oco
UJ CMCM
co z C\IN
UJ =
—
m-d-h-zz-i i ae-iz5z~uj
>-ii-Sca
>!-.•-. CD
a:ui<«»~
«_j£zi— Ni
o:
i
CO
B-5
-------
-o
i
m
ui
€
II
CO J2
g s
£ u
o u
CL ra
o.
I 3C3
!:?
oe
CO
g
1
'1
Ul
•g
0.
£
o
.c
CO
•s
CO
1
e>
m
Located
CO
Facilit
cu
o
JZ
CO
o
CO
01
ro
3
-8
4-*
CO
cv
'o
a
u.
,
oa
0 0
a:
z o
A CO
CO
CO
CD
«*•
8
a.
"3
C9
^2
Z 0
HCO
CO
CO
a
u
4-
"i
a.
"3
o
4-1
§
3
"o
CL.
s
- ^fe
V- Ki r\j o>> -o in -o o
^.6>'-l2°S K K}°P 3
«•• v* ' ro
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo o
ro
co
a
CM
o ** o o «—«—»- co CM «— Is- CM
in
«- CM N-«- m o o in o •* in c
CM J- l>-
•"°S
ro" in"«-in o«-«-
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo o
co i>- «
ro^s^o^o-^i
^^"CM"^
. r- to t^ in to o «-
P- •* co in
ro
-*^
eb* -^
5^c\ii-cMrocMc>;ro?-*inocMror>- -„
t^ o cMino «-^«*>o in_ roro--J
Inn CO
B-6
8
Sf
<
-------
a
4-*
o
CO
111
N 01 3 CO
—' ta c
to 3 Of 01
OT> 2? "3
•- 0) <0 >
O) U JC
01 3 O
ec T? co
-2S
'1
co a
•M >
o o
ro-g
A CO
0) — *
— • » s
«- K
ro
!*-«-«- coo in
•j-*-tn«o^->j-»-rN.cMCMco r~- rj tvi
r^ inroo COCM^- r>-
fM «- •* CM ro
S! g
«r- CM
>oooooooo o
in OCMOO •O'CM"
CM CO «-
ir^ ro
it? «
r-~ i
) «-*oK«-cMr
* ^ * ^ «
>O f»* O* O* O* *
CM tO-» CM
•«— in «—
CM
^o^in^^mocMin >^oo ^±
>*ioo >o CM ro in CMO»- o
«- >* CM Kl
-------
ca
1
os
1
Is
-
o
Q.
TABLE B-8
Annual Regionalized
BAT Produced Water
Filter 4 Miles
"S
5
i
Pound Equivalents Ri
CU
o
j:
UJ
ca
01
X
si-
CD
m
•8
4-1
5
O
_J
to
V
4-i
•r-
•^
•*•
O
£
4>
t_
o
•s
ca
w
JC
3
4J
O
8
j
ca
OJ
4-*
^:
u
£
CO CO
4-1 >
Of
•Sin
'£S
"S
A CO
eo
.*:
8
o
'o
CO
Q.
1
—•"to
^s
sf Jg
II CO
CO
ta
o
"c
0
Q.
S
S
Pollutant
°-*S5S'"inMg5cxj3cM^
*~ "^
oooooooooooooc
OOOOOOOOC3OOOOC
oooooooooooooc
oooooooooooooc
ffi i^ *• N «J iLU UJ X
O UJ 5 »^ 5 1— Z UI Ul O CO
-l£^z£Si^§^S-.z
g?lsssi>ilsg§s
CD Sf l~ ^ ^ — J * S_T_
^SPSScMS^oS
~ * - •""
>oooooooooo
)OOOOOOOOOO
5OOOOOOOOOO
3OOOOOOOOOO
5aR&SSi323iK
^ 0; «- CM^»-
3OOOOOOOOOC
[°'~§"PcMSco3SP
«-^ »-^ «-
^~
./* ^<« |^_ ^k .-- ^K
""S-ONin^-incMinosrj
00 «~
111
to z
Ul UJ
zl^iSx 5«
^^^xu^ioxciiz
c!££3£SEg§g;S
in o CM »* dJ «-
*~CM P3K
•-
o o o o o o
o o o o o o
o o o o o o
ooooo o
i-l^sE?^
. ,_ ^.^^
>oo ooo o
2 §_ «SSS_
>o «-
h \O (\l ^~ >O CQ< C3
S Er in Ri
^
UJ Oi CM
CO Z CM CM
luiz i:§
slgg^H
r^
3
*
o
0
o
o
i
0
o
R
«
h.
£
CM
"
•
CM
o
1
4-*
o
o
t
(M
«—
i
l(
I—
CO
CO
[OOUCED WATER REMOVAL
Q.
B-8
-------
APPENDIX C
POLLUTANT REMOVAL CALCULATIONS
NSPS PRODUCED WATER
-------
-------
"8
4) i O —
C- 1 — (0
O 1 ••- i
£1 U
1 fp-
O 1 »#-
•p 1 «
w i a.
'I:
5
ocated Within
SS*BH»KiSS*as8afe5as|teggg»8-g§§ 5i
~ m «««•-- .30 « ^ M-°2 „-:
000000000000000000000000
000000 0
I
,
,
8
C-l
-------
a
4-1
o
2 -g
T3 i- ra
o o? to
" "rtM
III O
B" °
I
•§
">•§
A CO
)^liooNbc\i o o o o o o
o o
o o
RiSSKJS
s10 a
O.CM co ro
inOCM^-o. •*••
in -> —• n S'
I
I
1
en
a.
cn
C-2
-------
CO —
> o
O CD
CO
CO 0)
§-??
•S3.g
ttl •Q O
a: o ai
«-•- .C
—* Q. O O)
00
C 0. L.
C CO O
< Z FM
"8
"8
CO CO
** >
o C
— CO
xS
m
8
CM Kl »-
>*-N; CO<
CM «-
coevi c\io«- CM CM 10 o CM m t> o -o in o o
io»* o straro o»- ir>«- o«-»-oin tr>^<\iT-rvj moo
- CM CM CM »»»»• •* CM «-
«- Nf
OCM*-CM CMCMr
in
>* CMOO
a
0 w co ^^
I- CM OC
CM «-o o in
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
o o
gg
00
S!
(Mm o
«- to
u
o
IOO\(M co in oo «--*CM inocM«-o <* . .
«" «- CM fe*~ "" ^ »~OO
I
ui
ae
at
B
i
Q.
C-3
-------
CO
"ffl
1
Of
1
jj
n
s.
TI L.
N +2
•^» a
— * Z3E
a co
|!|
< =e ij^
a
vx
{1
"o
;
I
a
3
.*
'<
j
§
01
u
o
to •
«jj
en
01
'£
1
01
CO
3
m
u
o
_J
en
01
H
o
CO
u.
01
o
o
8
c
3
"S
4-*
a
J
CO
gj
4-1
S
ca a
O Q
01— •
— • CO
• r- 4-1
z o
3
A C/>
CO
CO
CO
o
H-
U
CO
a.
^
3
C3
CM —
^ S
z £
3
^ w
eg
1
o
H-
'o
CO
a.
»4-
"3
C3
llutant
o
a.
g§5gSKQ^SgS|feR§t|S3|~|^g
CM rJ <*«-* «* M* -evigio j*^
oooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooa
ooo^oooooooooo^ooooooooc
oooooooooooooooooooooooc
0. N- CMA T- CM 10 ^ in $• 00 0»N- Kl CO N- M CO M O - IO [^ C
S. 3 t*. i^r*i^« ^CM o^r>i co *r^***g*x^^,T~ ^ ^c
CxT CM > 3^ rninr^oco^ io^s
oooooooooooooooooooooooc
*-CMf
58incM*8*-c35Mr^**in^c5>^2^Kir\jocoONor^-O!
^ ^. ^ K)fO9« v-^^-«— *4-NO*tf"^O Kl ITM
^T ^T CM CM* CM* ""S^ *
_J 111
o i- =J
01 Zr w
^_ ^C •" Q.'z ' C/3 Z
UJZIU >_N-II1> I11E UJ UJ
cMC\l5ScnejQiijizD.£c/j°£i— <«tcncnScj>->
££sffi§8
* *2«
o o o o o o
o o
o o
0 0
o o o o o o
o o
o o
O'O
00
>00 000 0
o o
o o
o o
JOOOOOO
o o
0 0
o o
o o
"K^Minoo
L*~ *"1 "lo O
c> o
^-h-tninroro
•* *2d
3 OO OO O O
O O
a o
o o
do
v. »- in IN- CM K» «*
n co *O *— o 01 o
^ °^ *~*o o
•* '"od
UJ CM CM
t/> Z t\J CM
UJ ^ II
olsio^l
< z cj i- z e> g
_1 S Z I— M OC S
g
c>
o
o
0
o
in
o
o
t>
NO
r«-
o
o
o
*£
f\
C
"
<
h-
t?
1
g S!
L. 1
4J O
I I
V
8-
"5
>r- fO
0 3
Z
§ £
to z
4-»
o
c co
>- <
1 §
ca UJ
§C£
ae
— » UJ
o *z
g
•• o
o> uj
z S
a.
CO
a.
C-4
-------
X O
+
A 5
Po
g
in osr in
«o «-
^-fw»»in«»»-cMxforvi<
OOPO^CM
Nino «j
CM
_-_«-«-
in
5
CMOM«-«Ot
•* s *•"
(a:
O i
si
s
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ir o o to in"
CO
8s
CO
_j
Of
oc
UI
s
I
CO
Q.
CO
C-5
-------
a
'o
**-
i 8
DC a.
!si
M 4-* **-
»- OJ->
5 5 ta ~
i O£ O
0 -ctw
'£ i
111
en
i co o
: a. c.
2?
o o
s
a --s
S 5
CO
o
in
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo o
«=<^m«- m
s
(M
Ri
oooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooo o
CM
K
Ul
UJ
8
UJ 1C O£
UJ Zh-UJ U
OC UJ O. Z I
>- rJ -J ui ui z
a. z >r N co z i
111 ui ^^ ui i—z ui ui o
XCJUI
-------
n
u
u
CD
a.
3
u>
CD
g-
Ui
?
41 —
— • o to CMC
S «^*~'
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
1C :
CM i
K? IT tf •* 'O •*
o.KiK.<- «-
in»-v
oT >
ro
**
ro
T-fM v-^-fxj,.
*-^ 0«-»-
u
o
>inio »-
• -a
i!
to
a.
co
C-7
-------
«
flj
Of
i
3
Z*
o
OL.
TJ «-
ju Q»
M *•
•*- CD
—•3:
f M
•g_«
co si*
i «£^
— » a. £-
Uf OJ O
_J S3 4-»
§c a.-—
- is=
(
•
i
i
i
•
i
i
t
i
i
i
t
i
i
i
i t-
l O
I JC
1
1 CO
i W
1 •«*•
i X
il
1 CO
i c5
I 4^
i a
i 5
i
: 8
' —
: i
1 U.
t
1
1
1
1
1
i 0)
i t-
i O
1 *O
i
1 01
I OJ
1 — »
il
i ZK
i
1 4-*
t CO
I U
I O
1
I M
I CU
1 *f-
t 4-1
| m-J
t ••-
I U
I O
1 U.
1
1
1
CO t
CD I
> i
I
4-* 1
C 1
e> i
1i
&S
U i
li
s.\
a CD
•U >
O 0
t— p
«- tj*Seg u\ 5jj»g> g
*" ° *~ OJ
is^ K- «no*oins*o-*«-o^^ico o
jo *o co in >sr fo (o jj ^* j^ ^^ s* *^* *s i^ yj ^Q j^j ^^ ^^ |^
m CM CM
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 0
in" to j*
_l "" _I
5 2 to
ft_ ^ 111 2C C^ C/J
Zi iu a: h- ui u 111
g
I
t- 1
1 J y
c o
01 '
? CM
§•
0 3
CU 111
3 0£
~° in
§Q.
CO
4->
o
c «
i 1
CO Ul
c ot
3 of
—* 111
o ^:
s
•• o
at ui
V U
o =>
z g
^
a.
in
a.
CO
C-8
-------
-------
-------
-------
ti>. W -J- ~
™ ™, tJl CJ
-4 XJ •M
-j- CD
CO
O 92-
O -D
ro 3
o *
O TV
------- |