United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office Of Water
(4303)
EPA821-R-95-010
February 1995
vvEPA
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis For
Proposed Effluent Limitations
Guidelines And Standards For
The Coastal Subcategory Of The
Oil And Gas Extraction
Point Source Category
-------
-------
COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS FOR PROPOSED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS FOR THE COASTAL SUBCATEGORY OF THE
OIL AND GAS EXTRACTION POINT SOURCE CATEGORY
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 Ave
Lexington, MA 02173
January, 1995
-------
-------
CONTENTS
Page
SECTION ONE INTRODUCTION 1-1
SECTION TWO BACKGROUND METHODOLOGY 2-1
2.1 Pollutants of Concern 2-2
2.2 Toxic Weighting Factors 2-2
2.3 Pollution Control Options < 2-6
2.4 Pollutant Removals 2-6
2.5 Annualized Costs of Compliance 2-8
2.6 Calculations of the Cost-Effectiveness Values 2-11
2.7 Comparisons of Cost-Effectiveness Values . 2-12
SECTION THREE RESULTS 3-1
3.1 Produced Water BAT Options 3.1
3.2 Drilling Waste BAT Options !.. 3-2
3.3 TWC BAT Options 3_2
SECTION FOUR COMPARISON OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS VALUES
WITH PROMULGATED RULES 4-1
SECTION FIVE REFERENCES 5-1
APPENDIX A SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR COST-
EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS: ANALYSIS
OF ALL POLLUTANTS ; A-l
-------
-------
SECTION ONE
INTRODUCTION
This analysis is submitted in support of the effluent limitations jguidelines and standards for
the Coastal Oil and Gas Industry. The report analyzes the cost-effectiveness of 10 regulatory options
organized by three wastestreams. This document compares the total annualized cost incurred for
each of the regulatory options within each wastestream to the corresponding effectiveness of that
option in reducing the discharge of pollutants. The effectiveness measure used is pounds of
pollutant removed weighted by an estimate of the relative toxicity of tide pollutant. The rationale
for this measure, referred to as "pound equivalents (PE) removed,11 is described later in this
document.
Section Two discusses the cost-effectiveness methodology used and identifies the pollutants
included in the analysis, presenting their toxic weighting factors and removal efficiencies. Section
Three presents the results of the analysis. In Section Four, the cost-effectiveness values are
compared to cost-effectiveness values for other promulgated rules. Appendix A presents data on
pollutants, pollutant removals, annualized costs, and other, more detailed information.
1-1
-------
-------
SECTION TWO
BACKGROUND METHODOLOGY
Cost-effectiveness (CE) is defined as the incremental annualized cost of a pollution control
option in an industry or industry subcategoiy per incremental pound-equivalent of pollutant (i.e.,
pound of pollutant adjusted for toxicity) removed by that control option. A cost-effectiveness
analysis is used to analyze effluent limitation guidelines to enable various regulatory options to be
compared either among options or to other benchmarks such as guidelines for other industries. The
cost-effectiveness value derived in the analysis represents the unit cost of removing the next pound-
equivalent of pollutant.
A number of steps must be undertaken before a cost-effectiveness analysis can be performed.
There are five steps that define the analysis or generate data for use in the cost-effectiveness
calculation:
• Determine the wastewater pollutants of concern (priority and other pollutants).
• Estimate the relative toxic weights (the adjustments to pounds of pollutants to reflect
toxicity) of the pollutants of concern.
• Define the regulatory pollution control options.
•. Calculate pollutant removals for each pollution control option.
• Determine the annualized cost of each pollution control option.
All of these factors are used in the calculation of the cost-effectiveness values, which can then
be compared for each of the regulatory options under consideration. The following sections discuss
the five preliminary steps and the cost-effectiveness calculation and comparison methodologies.
2-1
-------
2.1 POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
• Under the effluent limitation guidelines for the coastal oil and gas industry, 95 priority and
other nonconventional pollutants are regulated. Some of the factors considered in selecting
pollutants for regulation include toxidty, frequency of occurrence, and amount of pollutant in the
wastestream. The list of regulated pollutants is presented in Table 2-1.
TOXIC WEIGHTING FACTORS
Cost-effectiveness analyses account for differences in toxicity among the pollutants using 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 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 offish, then the sum of both the human and aquatic
criteria are used to derive toxic weighting factors. The factors are standardized by relating them to
the water quality criterion for copper. Although this criterion has been revised (to 12.0 ug/1), all
cost-effectiveness analyses for effluent guideline regulations use the "old" criterion of 5.6ug/l so that
cost-effectiveness values can continue to.be compared to those for other effluent guidelines. The
revised higher criterion for copper results in a toxic weighting factor for copper of 0.467 rather than
1.0. Table 2-1 presents the toxic weighting factors used for the regulated pollutants in the cost-
effectiveness analysis of the coastal oil and gas industry. Where possible, factors are derived for
pollutants discharged to saltwater, since most discharges by the industry are to salt or brackish
waters. In general, saltwater toxic weighting factors are lower for pollutants in saltwater than in
freshwater. Only where no saltwater toxic weighting factors are available are freshwater factors used.
Table 2-1 also shows the source of the toxic weighting factor if it is not a saltwater toxic weighting
factor and whether the pollutant is a priority pollutant.
Examples of the effects of different aquatic and human health criteria on freshwater toxic
weighting factors are presented in Table 2-2. As shown in this table, the toxic weighting factor is
2-2
-------
TABLE 2-1
TOXIC WEIGHTING FACTORS AND REMOVAL EFFICIENCIES
FOR REGULATED POLLUTANTS
Pollutant
Code
3
9
10
11
12
15
22
25
26
27
29
35
37
39
43
48
51
55
58
60
61
62
63
64
66
67
70
71
77
79
80
82
83
84
87
93
94
. 95
96
97
Pollutant
Name
Cyanide
Acetonitrile
Ammonium Hydroxide
N-Amyl Acetate
Amyl Alcohol (1-Pentanol)
Aniline
Benzene
Bis(chloromethyl)ether
2-Butanone(Methyl Ethyl Ketone (MEK))
Butyl acetate,n-
N-Butyl Alcohol (1-Butanol)
Tert-Butyl Alcohol (2-Methyl-2-Propanol)
Chlorobenzene
Chloroform (Trichloromethane)
Chloromethane
Cyclohexane
O-Dichlorobenzene (1,2-Dicholorobenzene)
Dichloroethane.,1,2-
Diethylamine
Diethyl ether
Dimethylacetamide^N^N-
Dimethylamine
N^N-Dimethylaniline
Dimethylcarbamyl chloride
Dimethylformamide, N,N-
Dimetihyl sulfoxide
Dioxane,l,4-
Bthanol
Ethyl acetate
Ethylene glycol
Formaldehyde
Formamide
Furfural
Glycol Ethers (Ethylene Glycol Monoethyl Ethe
Heptane,n-
Hexane,n-
[sobutyraldehyde (2-Methyl Propanol)
[sopropanol
Isopropyl Acetate
tsopropyl Ether
Methanol
Tceric
Weighting
Factor
1
0.00009
0.0933
0.000862
0.000155
1.41
0.0185
7.18
0.0000316
0.00311
0.0000782
0.0000316
0.00293
0.00208
0.00205
0.009
0.0105
0.00617
0.00028
0.0000774
0.00000209
0.000622
0.00336
0.00000236
0.00000165
0.000228
0.000583
0.000582
0.0000838
0.00233
0.0134
0.00000717
0.0615
0.0287
0.00214
0.0056
0.000069
0.000611
0.00000892
Removal
Efficiency
0.5
0.83
NA
0.9
0.904
0.85
0.941
0.79
0.5
0.9
0.9
0.904
0.995
0.676
0.974
0.95
0.918
0.554
0.79
0.75
0.79
0.9
0.85
0.554
0.79
0.75
0.5
0.5658
0.9
0.5658
0.85
0.79
0.5
NA
0.95
0.95
0.85
0.904
0.9
0.75
0.95
2-3
-------
TABLE 2-1 (cont.)
Pollutant
Code
99
101
102
103
105
106
113
114
115
117
118
124
129
130
134
136
139
Pollutant
Name
Methylamine
Methyl Cellusolve (2-Methoxyethanol)
Methylene Chloride (Dichloromethane)
Methyl formate
MIBK (Methyl Isobutyl Ketone)
2-Methylpyridine (2-Picoline)
Petroleum Naphtha
Phenol
Polyethylene Gfycol 600
N-Propanol (1-Propanol)
Acetone
Pyridine
Tetrahydrofuran
Toluene
Trichlorofliioromethane
Triethylamine
Xylenes
Toxic
Weighting
Factor
0.000344
0.0000287
0.000418
0.00000891
0.000125
0.000136
0.0667
0.028
0.000056
0.0000273
0.0000076
0.00126
0.0000404
0.00563
0.000958
0.000147
0.00423
Removal
Efficiency
0.8
NA
0.87
0.9
0.5
0.15
0.95
0.967
0.5658
0.904
0.944
0.15
0.75
0.976
0.979
0.9
0.87
2-4
-------
TABLE 2-2
EXAMPLES OF TOXIC WEIGHTING FACTORS
BASED ON COPPER FRESHWATER CHRONIC CRITERIA
Pollutant
Copper3
Cadmium
Naphthalene
Human Health
Criteria
fefl)
—
84
41,026
Aquatic
Chronic
Criteria (jig/I)
12.0
1.1
370
Weighting
Calculation
5.6/12.0
5.6/84 + 5.6/1.1
5.6/41,026 Hr 5.6/370
Toxic
Weighting
Factor
0.467
5.16
0.015
"Although the water quality criterion for copper has been revised (to 12.0 /tg/I), the cost effectiveness
analysis used the previous criterion (5.6 /tg/l) to facilitate comparisons with cost-effectiveness values
for other effluent limitations guidelines. The revised higher criteria for copper results in a toxic
weighting factor for copper equal to 0.467 instead of 1.0, which was the result of the previous
criterion.
Notes: Human health and aquatic chronic criteria are maximum contamination thresholds.
Units for criteria are micrograms of pollutant per liter of water.
Sources: Versar, Inc. 1991. Toxic weighting factors for oil and gas ejctraction industry pollutants.
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, October 1992.
2-5
-------
the sum of two criteria-weighted ratios: the "old" copper criterion divided by the human health
criterion for the particular pollutant and the "old" copper criterion divided by the aquatic chronic
criterion. For example, using the values reported in Table 2-2,11 pounds of copper pose the same
relative hazard in freshwater as one pound of cadmium because cadmium has a freshwater toxic
weight 11 times as large as the toxic weight of copper (5.16/0.467=11.05).
23 POLLUTION CONTROL OPTIONS
This cost-effectiveness analysis was performed on pollution control options proposed for a
number of wastestreams, including: produced water; drilling wastes; and treatment, workover, and
completion fluids (TWC). Table 2-3 presents a summary of the options proposed by wastestream.
In all there are 10 separate options: 5 for produced water, 3 for drilling waste, and 2 for TWC. For
all three wastestreams, a zero-discharge option is considered. New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS) options are not specifically covered because they are either identical .to Best Available
Technology (BAT) options or because there are no new sources projected in certain coastal areas.
The relative cost-effectiveness for new sources will not be different from that shown for the BAT
options. Pretreatment Standards for Existing Sources (PSES) and Pretreatment Standards for New
Sources (PSNS) options identical to NSPS options are also proposed. Because no PSES or PSNS
projects are anticipated, however, the cost effectiveness of these options is not discussed.
2.4 POLLUTANT REMOVALS
The pollutant loadings have been calculated for each facility under each regulatory option
for comparison with baseline (i.e., current, without the regulation) loadings. The postregulatory
removals for each wastestream affected under each regulatory option are presented in Appendix A.
Pollutant removals are calculated directly as the difference between current and post-
treatment discharges. Removals are then weighted using the toxic weighting factors and are reported
in pound-equivalents (see Appendix A for pound-equivalent removals for all pollutants by
wastestream and option). Total removals for each option are then calculated by summing the
2-6
-------
TABLE 2-3
REGULATORY OPTIONS CONSIDERED IN THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
Type of
Wastestream
Produced
Water
Name
Option #1
Option #2
Option #3
Option #4
Option #5
Descriptiion
Best Practicable Control Technology
regulatory requirement
(BPT)— current
Gas flotation
Zero discharge/BPT Cook Inlet
Zero discharge/Oil and grease limits
gas flotation Cook Inlet
based on improved
Zero discharge
-
Drilling
Wastes
Option #1
Option #2
Option #3
Zero discharge/offshore limitations Cook Inlet
Zero discharge/offshore limitatioms plus 1 million ppm
toxicity limit Cook Inlet
Zero discharge
r, '
TWC
Option #1
Option #2
BPT
Zero discharge/Oil and grease limits
gas flotation Cook Inlet
based on improved
2-7
-------
removals for each pollutant under each option. Total pollutant removals and pound-equivalent
removals estimated to be achieved under each regulatory option, by wastestream, are presented in
Table 2-4.
2.5 ANNUALIZED COSTS OF COMPLIANCE
Under each regulatory option, annualized costs of compliance have been developed (see
Economic Impact Analysis of Effluent Guidelines and Limitations on the Coastal Oil and Gas Industry
[EPA, 1995]). The derivation of these costs is summarized briefly below.
For produced water and TWO, the pretax costs (including the state and federal governments'
share of compliance costs)1 of purchasing, installing, and operating injection wells or improved gas
flotation systems, or alternatively, transportation and disposal at a commercial facility, depending
on size of operation, were derived for each of the treatment facilities determined still to be
discharging in 1996 in the Gulf of Mexico and for each of the treatment facilities in Cook Inlet.
Where capital costs are incurred, capital costs were annualized at 8 percent2 over 10 years (the
estimated realistic worst-case lifetime of production) and added to the cost of operating the pollution
control equipment. Commercial disposal was computed on a barrels per year disposed (i.e., annual)
basis.
For drilling wastes (which are only of concern in Cook Inlet), costs of landfilling (in an
existing landfill—annual costs only) or using dedicated disposal wells (including the capital costs of
installing wells and retrofitting platforms) were determined. A drilling schedule, supplied by Cook
Inlet operators, was used to distribute operating costs over time. A net present value of this uneven
stream of capital and operating cost outlays was then derived and annualized at 8 percent over a
7-year period of drilling.
The aggregate annual costs by option are presented in Table 2-5.
'Every dollar spent on compliance can be applied against a firm's taxable income. Due to
various tax mechanisms such as accelerated depreciation, this reduction means that firms face only
about 60 to 70 percent of compliance costs posttax.
2Average real cost of capital as estimated from Section 308 survey.
2-8
-------
TABLE 2-4
TOTAL POLLUTANT REMOVALS BY REGULATORY OPTIONS'
Type of Wastestream
Produced Water
Option
Number
Option #1
Option #2
Option #3,
Option #4
Option #5
Total Pollutant
Removals
0
12,439,274
4,306,800,606b
4,308,303,172C
5,484,799,119d
Drilling Wastes
Option #1
Option #2
Option #3
0
3,868,896e
22,739,018f
TWC
Option #1
Option #2
0
3,463,013
Pound-
Equivalent
Removals
0
610,053
5,000,458
5,491,731
5,988,082
0
1,264
7,375
0
2,143
=—
"Counting all pollutants under total removals and all nonconventional pollutants
under pound-equivalent removals.
"Includes 2,355,274,655 Ib of chlorides from Gulf (95% of total removals).
Includes 2,392,845,231 Ib of chlorides from Gulf and Cook Inlet (96%).
"Includes 3,471,412,322 Ib of chlorides from Gulf and Cook Inlet (95%).
'Includes 2,585,260 Ib of'TSS (93%).
Includes 15,207,413 Ib of TSS (94%).
2-9
-------
TABLE 2-5
AGGREGATE ANNUAL COSTS BY REGULATORY OPTIONS ($1981)
Type of Wastestream
Produced Water
Option
Number
Option #1
Option #2
Option #3
Option #4
Option #5
Aggregate Annual Cost
0
$8,773,233
$20,291,749
$21,885,327
$35,210,507
Drilling Wastes
Option #1
Option #2
Option #3
0
$971,990
$2,758,070
TWC
Option #1
Option #2
0
$429,479
2-10
-------
2.6 CALCULATION OF THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS VALUES
Cost-effectiveness values are calculated separately for each wastestream. This scheme leads
to the following three analytical groupings: produced water options, drilling waste options, and TWC
options. Within each of these groups, the options are ranked in ascending order of pound-
equivalents of pollutants removed. Under each of these analytical groupings, the cost-effectiveness
value for a particular control option is calculated as the ratio of incremental annual cost of that
option to the incremental pound equivalents removed by that option. ITie incremental effectiveness
may be viewed both in comparison to the baseline scenario and to another regulatory option. Cost-
effectiveness values are reported in units of dollars per pound-equivsilent of pollutant removed.
For the purpose of comparing cost-effectiveness values of options under review to those of
other promulgated rules, compliance costs used in the cost-effectiveness analysis are adjusted to 1981
dollars using Engineering News Record'?, Construction Cost Index (CO). This adjustment factor is
calculated as follows:
Adjustment factor = 1981 CCI/1992 CCI = 3,535/4,835 = 0.71
The equation to calculate cost-effectiveness is:
ATq-ATC,..
where:
CEj=
ATCk=
Cost-effectiveness of Option k
Total annualized treatment cost under Option k
Pound-equivalents removed by Option k
The numerator of the equation, ATC,, minus ATQ^, is simply the incremental annualized
treatment cost in going from Option k-1 (an option that removes fewer pound^equivalent pollutants)
to Option k (an option that removes more pound-equivalent pollutants). The denominator is
2-11
-------
similarly the incremental removals achieved in going from Option k-1 to k. Thus, cost-effectiveness
measures the incremental unit cost of pollutant removal of Option k (in pound-equivalents) in
comparison to Option k-1.
Nonmcremental cost-effectiveness values can also be derived by setting ATC^ to zero and
by setting the pollutant loadings (EE^) to the current loading. These values are used to compare
an option to previously promulgated effluent limitations guidelines.
2.7 COMPARISONS OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS VALUES
Because the options are ranked in ascending order of pound-equivalents of pollutants
removed, any option that has higher costs but lower removals than another option immediately can
be identified (the cost-effectiveness value for the next option becomes negative). When negative
values are computed for Option k, Option k-1 will be noted as "dominated" (having a higher cost
and lower removals than Option k). Option k-1 is then removed from the cost-effectiveness
calculations, and all cost-effectiveness values within a regulatory grouping are then recalculated
without the "dominated" option. This process continues until all "dominated" options are eliminated.
The remaining options can then be presented hi terms of their incremental cost-effectiveness values
and are considered viable options for regulatory consideration.
2-12
-------
SECTION THREE
RESULTS
The cost-effectiveness analysis is based on the Agency's estimates of the cost of compliance
and wastewater pollution removals associated with 10 BAT options for three
wastestreams—produced water, drilling waste, and TWC. NSPS options are also proposed but are
not separately investigated because they are the same as BAT options and the relative cost-
effectiveness is the same. A total of 10 options organized into three regulatory groupings are
analyzed (see Section Two for more details).
The following sections present a brief description of the technologies used in each of the
three regulatory groupings, and, for each grouping, cost-effectiveness data and results are presented
in a table. Note that the incremental data for the first option in each group is determined against
baseline values (i.e., no removals and no cost). Cost-effectiveness results are presented for priority
and other nonconventional pollutants combined.
3.1 PRODUCED WATER BAT OPTIONS
Five BAT options were evaluated for produced water. Option #1 is Best Practicable Control
Technology (BPT) and is the current regulatory requirement. Option #2 involves oil and grease
limits based on the use of gas flotation technology (currently required of all offshore oil and gas
operations). Option #3 requires all operations to achieve zero discharge, with the exception of Cook
Inlet, where BPT must be achieved. Option #4 requires zero discharge, with the exception of Cook
Inlet where oil and grease limits based on improved gas flotation will be needed to achieve the
proposed requirements. Finally, Option #5 requires all coastal oil and gas operations to achieve
zero discharge, regardless of location.
3-1
-------
Table 3-1 presents the cost effectiveness data arid results for this group of options. As shown
in Table 3-1, the incremental cost-effectiveness values (not including Option #1) range from $3 to
$27 per pound equivalent removed.
The selected option is Option #4, zero discharge with improved gas flotation in Cook Inlet.
The incremental cost effectiveness of this option is $3 per pound equivalent removed. Average cost
effectiveness of this option from current levels of pollutant loadings is $4 per pound equivalent
removed.
3.2 DRILLING WASTE BAT OPTIONS
Three BAT options were evaluated for drilling waste. Option #1 specifies zero discharge
in all coastal areas and offehore oil and gas industry limitations for Cook Inlet. This option
corresponds to current practices. Option #2 requires zero discharge, with the exception of offshore
limits plus a more stringent 1 million ppm toxicity limit in Cook Inlet. Finally Option #3 requires
zero discharge regardless of location.
Table 3-2 presents the cost-effectiveness data and results for this group of options. As shown
in Table 3-2, the incremental cost-effectiveness values (not including Option #1) range from $292
to $769 per pound equivalent removed.
All three options are co-proposed. The most costiy option is Option #3, zero discharge.
The incremental cost effectiveness of this option is $292 per pound equivalent removed. Average
cost effectiveness of this option from current levels of pollutant loadings is $374 per pound
equivalent removed.
33 TWC BAT OPTIONS
Two BAT options were evaluated for TWC. Option #1 specifies BPT (current regulatory)
requirements. Option #2 requires TWC fluids to be disposed of in the same way as produced water
3-2
-------
H 12
fcfl * ^- ^*. **i_. ^™( FT*
Ctt ^i »Ct r^^ ^^^ OO rt^
j^ 2? *•* v*"*^- r^ o\ •
^T r— .^ Q^ %^_^x'C^J'
jjjlf
S3
fi
§
^
£3
>— i
•s
c
•^r
«
p
02 CO
6-
se-
oa
"ii *O
*a S °
£2 t;*^ ^ •/^**
»3 cC O ^
O -K C *S
P^ 3 O ^"^
w^
^^v
o ^
°£
CO
•o S "^
i||t
0
•s
o.
O
o
•se
•se
E
o
•se-
o
H
PQ
^
1
si,
o
•rH
«e-
3
en
e!
OO
«e-
CO
«n
o
cT
1T-H
en
O3
P
oo
•se
en
o
o"
T— I
VO
c
.0
"•12
,0
CO
CQ
O
oi
c
o
•^3
<§•
Tj-
•se
•se-
VO
T— 1
OO"
T-l
"I
^.^
T— i
•se-
»o
0
cT
ON
en^
ON
c^*
ON
i
•se
oo
^
CD
0
o_
^
Q^
1— (
o
o
O r.
«?•
G rt
Q..S
OQ
se
en
•se
oo
i
T-T
•se
en
C~
r^
T-H"
ON
Si
en
v-T
oo
T-T
•se
T— 1
en
T-T
ON
O
O
U
CO
1
0>
2|
N jg
^.q
.1 -i *-
"p| co Jj
oSfi
•S=r
•se-
ON
C5
^r
T-H
•se
rH
en
vo"
ON
s
ON
I
en
•se
CM
OO
o
oo
%:
— 1
•a
U
o
1
CO
C
^H
"cS
cr
i>
•o
«
o
a.
I
•o
•o
1
I
13
s
c
cS
13
-M
^
3-3
-------
r
2
Si
I •**
I o
a £
CO WG
CO
I
CO fa
co s*
H CO
z. ••-»
r i •"*
p3 5
O "o
63 P«
fej 5
63 <
1/5 «
P 3
- 8
c c
1 1 $
§ u •§
T-I cr
oo OO
O ON
O ^
ff*
c "°
§1-15
£ 3 s r"-
•o § g
111
*» ^ ^^
PL<
.
a.
O
O
€«•
0
•W3-
t>
§ G
D >-J
S! 0
0,
O O 0
vo
t-
ON
VO
r-
•ee-
cs
o
ON
ON,
T-T
S;
(U "
6JO.S
co O
5 CU
N o
.. o ^_,
o Q.
"43 iS "c
0, 3 O
O O O
•6C3-
CO
•ee-
o
oo
o_
oo
es
T— i
T— 1
«\
VO
o
06"
CO
•6/3-
6J
S3
•§
S
i
K
CO
o*
"S
o
I
s • a
•o
o
cu
1
0>
I
I
T3
1
CO
8
C
1
.1
o*
(D
G
O
OH
'S
1
eS
3-4
-------
under the preferred produced water regulatory option. Thus Option #2 is zero discharge in the Gulf
of Mexico,3 to be achieved through a combination of injection and commercial disposal. Both
options are co-proposed.
Tables 3-3 presents the cost-effectiveness data and results for this group of options. As
shown in Table 3-3, the incremental cost-effectiveness values are $0 or $200 per pound equivalent
removed.
3In Cook Inlet TWC is not a separate wastestream and gas flotation will be required given the
preferred option for that region. A separate cost-effectiveness analysis is not performed for TWC
in Cook Inlet.
3-5
-------
to
S
I
S ,e
02
1 Ifcg^
bo-^ _ 25 j£
2 « S =3.
VI
13 S '— »
I?;2
o t« tS'-ae-
>-< w ^
2
1
o
"
"«
s
a
•*-*
r^T
« »
6-
vS'
CO
•§11
S 13 o
S.B s
Q_. 3
^^
^ ^7"
5^-
t^
s ^
"O ti>
§1"S
o -S >
p^
es
.2
a.
O
o
o
o
0
o
o
*
c
.2 r,
ptn.
oS
o
o
^
o\
oC
•ae-
CO
o\
r-
a\
•ae-
CO
•<*
r-H
I3
eS
g|
c'p
•B 2
0,8
O si
•a
I
CO
•o
c
o
CU
*«
1
1
•a
(U
r3
§
S
T3
-------
SECTION FOUR
COMPARISON OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS VALUES WITH
PROMULGATED RULES
Table 4-1 presents the cost-effectiveness values for effluent limitations guidelines and
standards issued for direct dischargers under BAT in other industries. IChe numbers presented here
for this rulemaking are pretax costs, whereas many of the numbers presented for other effluent
guidelines are posttax costs—that is, the costs faced by the firms, not the total cost of the equipment.
Thus direct comparisons between this rulemaking and others cannot be made easily. An equivalent
posttax cost, however, might be at least 60 to 70 percent of pretax costs. The number reported for
the Coastal Oil and Gas Industry is for the selected produced water option, the most costly drilling
waste option, and the most costly TWC option listed separately. As the table shows, the $3 per
pound equivalent removed for produced water is well within the range of cost-effectiveness values
seen for other rules. For TWC and drilling waste, the $200 and $292 per pound equivalent removed
are also within the range shown.
4-1
-------
TABLE 4-1
INDUSTRY COMPARISON OF BAT COST-EFFECTIVENESS FOR DIRECT DISCHARGERS
(Toxic and Nonconventional Pollutants Only; Copper-Based Weights"; $ 1981)
Industry
Aluminum Forming
Batteiy Manufacturing
Canm akLag
Coal Mining
Coastal Oil and Gas
Produced Water
Drilling Waste
TWC?
Cofl Coating
Copper Forming
Electronics I
Electronics n
Foundries
Inorganic Chemicals I
Inorganic Chemicals II
Iron and Steel
Leather Tanning
Metal Finishing
Nonferrous Metals Forming
Nonferrous Metals
Manufacturing I
Nonferrous Metals
Manufacturing K
Ofishore Oil and Gas
OCSPSP1
Pesticides
Petroleum Refining
Pharmaceuticals
PE Currently
Discharged
(thousands)
1340
4,126
12
BAT=BPT
5,998
7
2
2^89
70
9
NA
2^08
32^03
605
40,746
259
3,305
34
6,653
1,004
3,628
54,225
2,461
BAT=BPT
PE Remaining at
.Selected Option
(thousands)
90
5
0.2
BAT=BPT
506
0
0
9
8
3
NA
39
1,290
27
1,040
112
3,268
2
313
12
2£18
9,735
371
BAT=BPT
Cost-Effectiveness of
Selected Option(s)
($/PE removed)
121
2
10
BAT=BPT
: s
292
200
49
27
404
NA
.84
<1 -
6
2
BAT=BPT
12
69
4
6
34C
5
15
BAT=BPT
4-2
-------
TABLE 4-1 (continued)
Industry
Plastics Molding and
Forming
Porcelain Enameling
Pulp and Paper6
Textile Mills
PE Currently
Discharged
(thousands)
44
1,086
1330
BAT=BPT
PE Remaining at
Selected Option
(thousands)
41
63
748
BAT=BPT
Cost-Effectiveness of
Selected Option(s)
($/PE removed)
BAT=BPT
6
18
BAT=BPT
"Although toxic weighing factors for priority pollutants varied across these rules, this table reflects
the cost-effectiveness at the time of regulation.
TWC loadings and reductions are for Gulf of Mexico only. Produced water loadings and reductions
include TWC discharges in Cook Inlet.
Tor produced water only; for produced sand and drilling fluids and drill cuttings under Offshore Oil
and Gas, BAT=NSPS.
dReflects costs and removals of both air and water pollutants.
ePCB control for Deink subcategory only.
4-3
-------
-------
SECTION FIVE
REFERENCES
U.S. EPA. 1995. Economic Impact Analysis of Effluent Guidelines and Limitations on the Coastal
Oil and Gas Industry.
Versar, Inc. 1991. Toxic Weighting Factors for Oil and Gas Extraction Industry Pollutants.
Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, October 1992.
5-1
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR
COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS:
ANALYSIS OF ALL POLLUTANTS
-------
-------
COST-EFFECTIVENESS
PRODUCED WATER
COOK INLET AND GULF OF MEXICO COMBINED
(1) Cos
Captial Cost Gulf ($1992) (a) '
Capita] Cost Cook ($1992) (b)
Total Capital Cost ($1992)
Annual O&M Cost Gulf ($1992Xa)
Annual O&M Cost Cook ($1992)(b)
Total Annual O&M Cost ($1992)
Total Annualized Capital Cost ($1992)
Total Annual Cost ($1992)
Deflator (c)
Total Cost ($1981)
Option #2 Option #3 Option #4
Gas Flotation Guy Zero-Discharge Gulf Zero-Discha,-ge GuW
Gas Flotation Cook Gas-FTotat^nCoH
$36,783,691 580,423,518 $80,423,518
$8,113,475 N/A $8,113,475
544,897,166 580,423,518 $88,536,993
54,642,779 $16,629,622 $16,629,622
51,035,110 N/A 51,035,110
55,677,889 516,629,622 $17,664,732
56,691,002 511,985,476 513,194,623
$12,368,891 528,615,098 530,859,355
°-"l 0.71 o.71
58,771,119 520,291,749 $21,883,213
Option #5
Zero-Discharge Gul/7
Zero-Discharge Cook
580,423,518
$84,349,749
$164,773,267
$16,629,622
$9,507,483
$26,137,105
$24,556,076
550,693,181
0.71 '
$35,947,923
(2) Pounds and Pound-Equivalent (PE) of Pollutants Removed
See Attached Pages
C9 £*£»*«.
AVERAGE:
Total Cost ($1981)
Total Pound-Equivalents (PE)
Cost per PE ($1981)
INCREMENTAL:
Total Cost ($1981)
Total Pound-Equivalents (PE)
Cost per PE(S1981)
BPT to Option #2 BPT to Option #3 BPT to Option #4
Gas Flotation Gutf Zero-Discharge Gulf Zero-Discharge Gulff
Gas Flotation Cook Gas-Flotation Cook
58,771,119 $20,291,749 521,883,213
590,876 5,636,864 6,108,960
515 54 54
to Option #2 to Option #3 to Option #4
58,771,119 511,520,630 Sl,591,;464
590,876 5,045,989 472,095
515 52 , 53
1
BPT to Option #5
Zero-Discharge Gulff
Zero-Discharge Cook
535,947,923
6,625,724
$5
to Option #5
$14,064,709
516,764
$27
A-l
-------
COST-EFFECTIVENESS
PRODUCED WATER
COOK INLET AND GULF OF MEXICO COMBINED
(4)
. Memorandum to Allison Wiedeman, EPA-EAD, regarding "Revised Produced Water Discharge Volumes
(5)
WaterOptf (Version 2),", June 17, 1994. See Development Document,
Draft Report, November 2, 1994
A-2
-------
COST-EFFECTIVENESS
PRODUCED WATER
COOK INLET AND GULF OF MEXICO COMBINED
(2) Pounds and Pound-Equivalent Removed
(Combined, Produced Water)
CAS Pollutant
7429905 Aluminum
7664417 * Ammonia
7440360 * Antimony
7440382 Arsenic
7440393 Barium
71432 Benzene
65850 * Benzoic Acid
100516 * Benzyl alcohol
7440417 * Beryllium
117817 * Bis(2-ethylhexyl)ph1halate
7440428 Boron
7440439 Cadmium
7440702 * Calcium
75 150 * Carbon disulfide
16887006 * Chlorides
74873 * Chloromemane
7440473 * Chromium
7440484 * Cobalt
7440508 Copper
84742 Di-n-butylphmalate
100414 Ethylbenzene
na * Gross alpha (pCi/1)
na * Gross beta (pCi/1)
142621 * Hexanoic acid
7439896 Iron
na * Lead 210 (pCi/1)
7439921 Lead
7439954 * Magnesium
7439965 Manganese
7439976 Mercury
75092 *Metfaylene chloride
7439987 * Molybdenum
108383 m-Xylene
91203 Naphthalene
124185 * n-Decane
629970 * n-Docosane
112403 *n-Dodecane
112958 *n-Eicosane
630013 * n-Hexacosane
544763 * n-Hexadecane
630024 * n-Octacosane .
593453 * n-Octadecane
646311 » n-Tetracosane
629594 * n-Tetradecane
638686 » n-Triacontane
7440020 Nickel
opxylenes o+p Xylene
95487 * o-Cresol
na Oil and Grease
106445 » p-Cresol
108952 Phenol
13982633 Radium 226 (pCi/1)
15262201 Radium 228 (pCi/1)
7782492 « Selenium
7440224 » Silver
7440246 * Strontium
Option #2
Gas Flotation Gulf
Gas Flotation Cook
(Pounds) (d,e)
64,455.95
0.00
0.00
703.00
1,406,983.17
228,429.19
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
394,483.26
660.41
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2,738.00
2,641.86
4,940.24
0.00
0.00
0.00
803,050.23
0.00
25,621.62
0.00
77,506.43
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
17,646.66
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10,501.00
0.00
0.00
2,047,674.41
0.00
1,064.11
O.OOOE+00
O.OOOE+00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Option #3
Option #4
Zero-Discharge Gulf Zero-Discharge Gut/7
(Pounds) (f)
67,101.30
4,117,027.63
10,390.69
676.02
3,290,780.32
268,217.41
238,672.80
3,098.43
348.03
2,879.35
1,267,162.93
1,427.15
156,548,828.65
530.80
4,075,590,076.80
1,790.20
8,012.10
5,232.90
11,267.01
2,290.94
7,19837
0.02
0.02
49,449.65
969,713.90
0.00
32,236.16
38,539,367.15
81,435.44
0.00
10,641.06
5,439.46
8,512.85
9,013.61
8,700.63
2,378.59
14,083.76
4,256.43
2,259.66
17,714.24
2,203.33
5,189.08
2,391.11
7,448.74
2,190.81
6,822.80
5,389.39
7,573.93
3,314,754.01
9,326.58
34,614.75
1.076E-02
1.427E-02
15,648.62
15,773.81
12,863,168.45
Gas-Flotation Cook
(Pounds) (f.e)
67,581.30
4,117,027.63
10,390.69
1,379.02
3,632,895.32
305,164.41
238,672.80
3,098.43
348.03
2,879.35
1,425,649.93
1,566.15
156,548,828.65
530.80
4,075,590,076.80
1,790.20
; 8.012.10
5,232.90
14,005.01
2,455.94
8,832.37
0.02
0.02
49,449.65
999,981.90
0.00
33,437.16
38,539,367.15
82,148.44
0.00
10,641.06
: 5,439.46
8,512.85
23,406.61
8,700.63
2,378.59
, 14,083.76
' 4,256.43
2,259.66
17,714.24
2,203.33
5,189.08
2,391.11
7,448.74
2,190.81
17,323.80
5,389.39
7,573.93
3.,518,645.01
9,326.58
34,614.75
1.076E-02
1.427E-02
15,648.62
15,773.81
12,863,168.45
Option #S
Zero-Discharge Gulj?
Zero-Discharge Cook
(Pounds) (f,e)
68,435.30
5,244,513.35
13,236.27
2,629.02
4,241,098.32
326,131.41
304,035.54
3,946.96
443.34
3,667.88
1,707,402.93
1,814.15
199,421,158.97
676.17
5,191,727,741.66
2,280.47
10,206.28
6,665.98
18,872.01
2,565.94
9,896.37
0.02
0.02
62,991.89
1,053,790.90
0.00
35,573.16
49,093,725.77
83,417.44
0.00
13,555.22
6,929.11
8,512.85
24,980.61
11,08338
3,029.99
17,940.73
5,422.09
2,878.49
22,565.45
2,806.73
6,610.16
3,045.94
9,488.65
2,790.78
35,991.80
5,389.39
9,648.12
3,920,570.01
11,880.75
41,994.75
1.078E-02
1.432E-02
19,934.14
20,093.62
16,385,864.92
A-3
-------
COST-EFFECTIVENESS
PRODUCED WATER
COOK INLET AND GULF OF MEXICO COMBINED
(2)
Enirfvaknt f?E1 Rtmovcd
(Combined, Produced W.ter)
CAS Pollutant
Option #2 Option #3 Option #4
GOJ Flotation Gui/7 Zero-Discharge Gulf Zero-Discharge Guy Zero-Discharge Gulf
Gas Flotation Cook Gas-Flotation Cook Zero-Discharge Cook
(Pounds) (d,e) (Pounds) (Q (Pounds) (f,e) (Pounds) (f.e)
7704349
7440280
7440315
7440326
108883
TP
D&
na
75694
7440622
108054
7440655
7440666
78933
591786
91576
67641
105679
1464535
AUcancs
Steranes
riterpancs
xyloses
120127
108907
50328
59507
* Sulfur
* Thallium
»Tin
Titanium
Toluene
* Total phenols (*)
* Total dis. sol. (*)
Total susp. sol.
* Trichlorofluorometbane
* Vanadium
* Vinyl acetate
* Yttrium
Zinc
2-Butanone
* 2-Hexanone
* 2-Methylnaphthalene
* 2-Propanone (Acetooe)
2,4-Dimethylphenol
* 1,2,3,4-Diepoxybutane
n-Alkanes
Steranes
Triterpanes
Total Xylenes
Anthracene
Chlorobenzene
Benzo(a)pyrene
p-Chloto-m-cresol _
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,790.64
170,751.72
0.00
0.00
7,092,546.30
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
12,215.32
10,559.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4,527.00
0.00
44,561.84
795.00
800.00
2,813.00
305.00
4.00
101.00
259.00
606,102.48
11,267.01
19,091.32
2,028.06
210,943.44
0.00
0.00
8,329,011.11
18,402.78
6,046.63
1,840.28
1,564.86
20,593.59
7,636.53
2,240.88
4,206.35
57,148.77
7,323.56
4,450.47
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
606,102.48
11,267.01
19,091.32
2,071.06
222,567.44
0.00
0.00
8,970,381.11
18,402.78
6,046.63
1,840.28
1,564.86
20,593.59
18,195.53
2,240.88
4,206.35
57,148.77
11,850.56
4,450.47
16,845.00
795.00
800.00
2,813.00
305.00
4.00
101.00
259.00
772,089.20
14,352.58
24,319.65
2,148.06
236,725.44
0.00
n tv\
\j.\j\j
9,483,476.11
23,442.55
7,702.55
2,344.26
1,993.41
21,359.59
25,235.53
2,854.57
5,358.30
72,799.49
16,126.56
5,669.27
28,075.00
1,325.00
1,334.00
9,278.00
432.00
138.00
181.00
432.00
12,431,128
4,306,800,606
4,308^95,026
5,484,799,117
A-4
-------
COST-EFFECTIVENESS
PRODUCED WATER
COOK INLET AND GULF OF MEXICO COMBINED
(2)
(Combined, Produced Water)
CAS Pollutant
7429905 Aluminum
7664417 * Ammonia
7440360 * Antimony
7440382 Arsenic
7440393 Barium
71432 Benzene
65850 * Benzoic Acid
100516 * Benzyl alcohol
7440417 * Beryllium
117817 * Bis(2H!*hylhcxyl)phthalate
7440428 Boron
7440439 Cadmium
7440702 * Calcium
75150 * Carbon disulfide
16887006 * Chlorides
74873 * Chloromcthane
7440473 * Chromium
7440484 * Cobalt
7440508 Copper
84742 Di-n-butylphthalate
100414 Ethylbenzene
na * Gross alpha (pCi/1)
na * Gross beta (pCi/1)
142621 «Hexanoicacid
7439896 Iron
na » Lead 210 (pCi/1)
7439921 Lead
7439954 » Magnesium
7439965 Manganese
7439976 Mercury
75092 « Methylene chloride
7439987 * Molybdenum
108383 m-Xylene
91203 Naphthalene
124185 * n-Decane
629970 » n-Docosane
112403 «n-Dodccane
112958 « n-Eicosane
630013 * n-Hexacosane
544763 » n-Hexadecane
630024 * n-Octacosane
593453 » n-Octadecane
646311 * n-Tetracosane
629594 * n-Tetradccane
638686 * n-Triacontane
7440020 Nickel
opxylenes o+p Xylene
95487 » o-Cresol
na Oil and Grease
106445 » p-Cresol
108952 Phenol
13982633 Radium 226 (pCi/1)
15262201 Radium 228 (pCi/1)
7782492 * Selenium
7440224 » Silver
7440246 * Strontium
7704349 * Sulfur
7440280 * Thallium
7440315 * Tin
7440326 Titanium
Toiic Option #2 Option #3 Option #4 Option #5
Weighting Oca Flotation Gulf? Zero-Discharge Gulf Zero-Discharge Gulf! Zero-Discharge Gulf!
Factor Gas Flotation Cook Gas-Flotation Cook Zero-Discharge Cook
TWF(g) (Pound-Equivalents) (Pound-Equivalents) (Pound-Equivalents) (Pound-Equivalents)
6.40E-02
8.10E-03
1.30E-02
4.20E+00
2.00E-03
1.60E-02
3.30E-04
5.60E-03
4.20E-HX)
9.50E-02
1.80E-01
6.70E-01
2.80E-OS
6.00E-05
2.40E-05
2.20E-03
1.10E-01
5.60E-01
1.90E+00
1.60E+00
1.30E-01
O.OOE-H)0
O.OOE+00
3.40E-04
2.10E-03
O.OOE+00
6.60E-01
8.70E-04
5.60E-01
2.60E+02
2.SOE-03
2.00E-01
1.70E-02
4.70E-02
1.10E-04
1.10E-04
4.30E-03
4.30E-03
8.20E-05
4.30E-03
8.20E-05
4.30E-03
8.20E-05
4.30E-03
8.20E-05
6.80E-01
3.30E-02
5.70E-03
O.OOE+00
1.80E-04
2.20E-01
1.50E+05
3.50E+08
7.90E-02
6.10E+00
5.50E-06
5.60E-06
2.60E-02
3.00E-01
2.90E-02
4,125.18
0.00
0.00
2,952.60
2,813.97
3,654.87
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
71,006.99
442.48
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5,20Z20
4,226.98
642.23
0.00
0.00
0.00
1,686.41
0.00
16,910.27
0.00
43,403.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo •
829.39
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
7,140.68
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
234.10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
51.93
4,294.48 '
33,347.92
135.08
2,839.29
6,581.56
4,291.48
78.76
17.35
1,461.71
273.54
228,089.33
956.19
4,383.37
0.03
97,814.16
3.94
881.33
2,930.42
21,407.32
3,665.51
935.79
0.00
0.00
16.81
2,036.40
0.00
21,275.87
33,529.25
45,603.84
0.00
26.60
1,087.89
144.72
423.64
0.96
0.26
60.56
18.30
0.19
76.17
0.18
22.31
0.20
3Z03
0.18
4,639.50
177.85
43.17
0.00
1.68
7,615.25
1,614.00
4,994,500.00
1,236.24
96,220.26
70.75
3.39
292.94
5,727.40
58.81
4,325.20
33,347.92
135.08
5,791.89
7,265.79
4.88Z63
78.76
17.35
1,461.71
273.54
256,616.99
1,049.32
4,383.37
0.03
97,814.16
3.94
881.33
2,930.42
26,609.52
3,929.51
1,148.21
0.00
0.00
16.81
2,099.96
0.00
22,068.53
33,529.25
46,003.12
0.00
26.60
1,087.89
144.72
1,100.11
0.96
0.26
60.56
18.30
0.19
76.17
0.18
22.31
0.20
32.03
0.18
11,780.18
177.85
43.17
0.00
1.68
7,615.25
1,614.00
4,994,500.00
1,236.24
96,220.26
70.75
3.39
292.94
5,727.40
60.06
4379.86
42,480.56
172.07
11,041.89
8.48Z20
5,218.10
100.33
22.10
1,862.01
348.45
307,33X53
1,215.48
5,583.79
0.04
124,601.47
5.02
1,122.69
3,732.95
35,856.82
4,105.51
1,286.53
0.00
0.00
21.42
2,212.96
0.00
23,478.29
42,711.54
46,713.76
0.00
33.89
1,385.82
144.72
1,174.09
1.22
0.33
77.15
23.31
0.24
97.03
0.23
28.42
0.25
40.80
0.23
24,474.42
177.85
54.99
0.00
2.14
9,238.85
1,617.58
5,013,235.50
1,574.80
122,571.05
90.12
4.32
373.17
7,295.90
62.29
A-5
-------
COST-EFFECTIVENESS
PRODUCED WATER
COOK INLET AND GULF OF MEXICO COMBINED
(2) (Con«0 Pound-Equlvaknt fPRt RemoYtd
(Combined, Produced Water)
CAS Pollutant
Toric Option #2 Option #3 Option #4 Option #5
Weighting Gas Flotation Gulf? Zero-Discharge Gulf Zero-Discharge Gulf? Zero-Discharge Gulf?
Factor Gas Flotation Cook Gas-Flotation Cook Zero-Discharge Cook
TWF(g) (Pound-Equivalents) (Pound-Equivalents) (Pound-Equivalents) (Pound-Equivalents)
108883
TP
na
na
75694
7440622
1080S4
7440655
7440666
78933
591786
91576
67641
105679
1464535
Alfcanes
Steranci
Tritopanej
xylenes
120127
108907
50328
59507
Toluene
•Total phenols (*)
• Total dis. sol. (»)
Total sasp. sol.
* Trichlorofluoromethane
» Vanadium
• Vinyl acetate
• Yttrium
Zinc
2-Butanone
•2-Hcxanonc
* 2-Methylnaphthalene
• 2-Propanonc (Acetone)
2,4-DimethyIphenol
• 1,2^,4-Diepoxybutanc
n-Alkanes
Sterancs
Tritopsnes
Total Xylenes
Anthracene
Chlorobcnzeno
Benzo(a)pyrenc
p-Chloro-m-cresol
1.10E-03
Z80E-02
O.OOE-MX)
O.OOE-HIO
9.60E-04
6.20E-01
4.00E-03
O.OOE+00
6.50E-02
4.50E-04
1.30E-04
9.30E-02
5.60E-04
Z40E-03
Z90E-02
4.30E-03
4.30E-03
4.30E-03
1.70E-02
3.50E-01
1.10E-02
4.20E+03
4.30E-03
187.83
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
794.00
4.75
0.00
0.00
0.00
10.86
0.00
191.62
3.42
3.44
47.82
106.75
0.04
424,200.00
1.11
232.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
17.67
3,748.91
7.36
0.00
1,338.58
3.44
0.29
391.19
3ZOO
17.58
129.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
244.82
0.00.
0.00
0.00
17.67
3,748.91
7.36
0.00
1,338.58
8.19
0.29
391.19
32.00
28.44
129.06
72.43
3.42
3.44
47.82
106.75
0.04
424,200.00
1.11
260.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
22.50
4,775.58
9.38
0.00
1,388.37
11.36
0.37
498.32
40.77
38.70
164.41
120.72
5.70
5.74
157.73
151.20
1.52
760,200.00
1.86
TOTALS:
590,876
5,636^64
6,108^60
6,625,724
A-6
-------
COST-EFFECTIVENESS
DRILLING WASTES
COOK INLET
(1) Cost of TMsno-ml
Annual Cost ($1992) (a)
Deflator (b)
Cost ($1981)
Option #2 Option #3
1 Million ppm toxicity Zero Discharge
$1370,685
0.71
$971,990
$3,889^86
0.71
$2,738,070
Pounds and Ponnd-Kgirfvafent, rPF> R^mnv^
CAS Pollutant
Option #2 Option #3
1 Million ppm toxicity (c) Zero Discharge (d)
Pounds Pounds
Option #2 Option #3
1 Million ppm toxicity Zero Discharge
TWF(a) Pound-Equivalents Pound-Eauiv.
7440439
7439976
7429905
7440360
7440382
7440393
7440417
7440473
7440508
7439896
7439921
7440020
7782492
7440224
7440280
7440315
7440326
7440666
91203
86737
85018
AB
AN
AF
AP
TB
TO
na
na
Cadmium
Mercury
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Tin
Titanium
Zinc
Naphthalene
Fluorene
Pbeaanthrene
Alkylated benzenes
Alkylated naphthalenes
Alkylated fluoreoes
Alkylated pbenanthrenes
Total biphenyls
Total dibenzothiophenes
TSS
Total Oil
1.33
0.11
11,010.17
6.91
8.61
145,670.99
0.84
29134
22.70
18,626.83
42.61
16.39
1.33
0.84
1.46
17.73
106.21
24339
0.23
3.57
0.53
133.10
2.19
7.71
0.90
8.61
0.03
3,688,894.81
3,774.70
7.86
0.71
64,765.74
40.70
50.70
856,888.16
5.00
1,713.77
133.53
109,569.57
250.64
96.40
7.86
5.00
8.57
104.26
624.81
1,431.71
0.23
3.57
0.53
133.10
2.19
7.71
0.90
8.61
0.03
21,699,381.23
3,774.61
6.70E-OH
2.60E+02
6.40E-02
1.30E-02
4.20E+00
2.00E-03
4.20E+00
1.10E-01
1.90E+00
2.10E-03
6.60E-01
6.80E-01
7.90E-02
6.10E+00
2.60E-02
3.00E-01
2.90E-02
6.50E-02
4.70E-02
5.60E-01
1.90E+01
5.60E-03
6.20E-02
8.90E-02
1.40E-01
3.70E-02
4.60E-02
O.OOE-KX)
O.OOE-KX)
0.89
29.71
704.65
0.09
36.18
291.34
3.54
32.05
43.13
39.12
28.13
11.14
0.10
5.14
0.04
5.32
3.08
15.82
0.01
2.00
10.04
0.75
0.14
0.69
0.13
0.32
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.26
185.71
4,145.01
0.53
212.94
1,713.78
21.00
188.51
253.70
230.10
165.42
65.55
0.62
30.50
0.22
31.28
18.12
93.06
0.01
2.00
10.04
0.75
0.14
0.69
0.13
0.32
A AA
\J,\J\J
0.00
0.00
(3) Cost-Effggtiveneg.i
AVERAGE:
Total Cost ($1981)
Total Pound-Equivalents (PE)
Cost per PE ($1981)
TOTALS: 3,868^96.18 22,739,017.72
OptiontfZ OptfoatfJ
1 Million ppm toxicity Zero Discharge
1,263.54
INCREMENTAL:
$971,990
1,264
S769
$2,758,070
7375
S374
737539
Option #2 to
Option #3
$1,786,080
6,112
$292
A-7
-------
COST-EFFECTIVENESS
DRILLING WASTES
COOK INLET
(4)
(i) Option 1 (30,000 ppm toxicity limitation option) has no incremental costs or removals over BPT, so it is not considered here.
Gil Costs were amualized over the lifetime of drilling (7 years) at 8% real interest rate.
(in) Sec EPA, 1995. Economic Impact Analysis of Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Coastal Oil and
Gas Industry for more information on the cost armualization methodology based on capital and operating costs.
(iv) Deflator is based on source (b) below and is equal to 0.71, the ratio of 1981 dollars to 1992 dollars (S3535/S4985)
(5) gonrctai
fa} Cost for Option 3 calculated from worksheets in Safavi, Behzad, SAIC. Memorandum to Allison Wiedeman, EPA-EAD,
regarding "Zero-Discharge and Toxicity Limitation Compliance Cost Estimates for Disposal of Drilling Wastes in Cook Inlet,
Alaska, Coastal Oil & Gas Operations," August 30, 1994. See Development Document, Section X.
tt>) ENR Deflator from Engineering News Record, "First Quarterly Cost Report," March 28, 1994. „ ~ ..
(c) Loadings for Option 2 from Worksheet 11, September 7, 1994, "1,000,000 ppm SPP Toxicity Limitation Option", faxed by
Behzad Safavi SAIC, to ERG on September 7, 1994. See Development Document, Section X. „ u _, o , . _ „„ ,
(d) Loadings for Option 3 fiom Worksheet 10, September 7, 1994, "Zero Discharge Option," faxed by Behzad Safavi, SAIQ to
ERGonScpt.7, 1994. The loadings in the worksheets are 7-year cumulative loadings. The numbers here have been reduced to
annual levels. See Development Document, Section X. .„-,_.
(e) Vosar, too, Toxic Weighting Factors for Coastal Subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction Industry Proposed Effluent
Guidelines", Draft Report, November 2, 1994
A-8
-------
COST-EFFECTIVENESS
TREATMENT, WORKOVER, AND COMPLETION (TWQ FLUIDS
GULF OF MEXICO
(1) Cost of Disposal
Option #2a Option #2b
Gas Flotation Zero-Discharge
Annual Cost ($1992) (a) $591,538
Deflator (b) 0.71
Cost ($1981) $419,476
(2) Pounds and Pound-Equivalents Removed
CAS Pollutant
na Oil & Grease
na Solids, Total Suspended
Cyanide Cyanide, Total
7440360 Antimony
7440382 Arsenic
7440417 Beryllium
7440439 Cadmium
7440473 Chromium
7440508 Copper
7439921 Lead
7440020 Nickel
7782492 Selenium
7440224 Silver
7440280 Thallium
7440666 Zinc
7429905 Aluminium
7440393 Barium
7440428 Boron
7440702 Calcium
7440484 Cobalt
7439896 Ion
7439965 Manganese
7439954 Magnesium
7439987 Molybdenum
7440235 Sodium
7440246 Strontium
7704349 Sulfur
7440315 Tin
7440326 Titanium
7440622 Vanadium
7440655 Yttrium
67641 Acetone
71432 Benzene
100414 Ethylbenzene
74873 Methyl Chloride
78933 Methyl Ethyl Ketone
108383 m-Xylene
opxylenes o-, p- Xylene
108883 Toluene
Option #2a
Pounds (c)
20,562
47,871
11
0
1
7
123
3
25
619
11
333
36,773
490
7
39
106
24
$605,645
0.71
$429,479
Option #2b
Pounds (d)
22,303
50,094
5
3
16
1
3
59
27
133
11
4
0
1
35
623
48
1,448
990,004
1
37,006
496
486,365
7
1,818,087
13,739
23,615
3
7
111
4
694
129
111
3
5
172
16,466
86
TWF(e)
O.OOE+00
' O.OOE+00
1.10E+00
1.30E-02
4.20E+00
4.20E+00
6.70E-01
1.10E-01
1.90E-HX)
6.60E-01
6.80E-01
7.90E-02
6.10E+00
2.60E-02
6.50E-02
6.40E-02
2.00E-03
1.80E-01
2.80E-05
5.60E-01
2.10E-03
5.60E-OI
8.70E-04
2.00E-01
5.50E-06
5.50E-06
5.60E-06
3.00E-01
2.90E-02
6.20E-01
O.OOE+00
5.60E-04
1.60E-02
1.30E-01
2.20E-03
4.50E-04
1.70E-02
3.30E-02
1.10E-03
Option #2a Option #2b
'ound-Equiv. Pound-Equiv.
0.00
0.00
0.00
. 0.00
46.20
0.00
0.67
0.00
13.30
81.18
2.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.63
39.62
0.02
59.94
0.00
0.00
77.22
274.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.62
13.78
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
5.50
0.04
67.20
4.20
2.01
6.49
51.30
87.78
7.48
0.32
0.00
0.03
2.28
39.87
0.10
260.64
27.72
0.56
77.71
277.76
423.14
1.40
10.00
0.08
0.13
0.90
0.20
68.82
0.00
0.39
2.06
14.43
0.01
0.00
2.92
543.38
0.09
A-9
-------
COST-EFFECTIVENESS
TREATMENT, WORKOVER, AND COMPLETION (TWQ FLUIDS
GULF OF MEXICO
44
5
229
292
13
11
6
51
27
74
55
22
47
39
20
103
78
119
7
5
7
25
8
79
—
1.20E-04
2.00E-02
4.60E-02
5.60E-01
4.70E-02
1.10E-04
1.10E-04
4.30E-03
4.30E-03
8.20E-05
4.30E-03
8.20E-05
4.30E-03
8.20E-05
4.30E-03
4.30E-02
2.90E-01
1.90E+01
2.20E-01
8.90E-02
9.30E-02
1.70E-02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.10
0.00
0.00
3.89
0.04
0.26
0.51
3.36
2.40
0.00
0.01
0.24
0.09
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.44
0.01
0.51
0.30
1.45
133.00
5.50
0.71
7.35
0.00
107,283
3,463,013
Option #2a Option #2b
Gas Flotation Zero-Discharge
$419,476
618
S679
$429,479
2,143
S200
617.91
2,143.28
108101 4-Metliyl-2-Pentanone
132649 Dibenzofuran
132650 Dibenzothiophene
86737 Fluorene
91203 Naphthalene
124185 N-Decane (N-C10)
629970 N-Docosane (N-C22)
112403 N-Dodecane (N-C12)
112958 N-Eicosane(N-C20)
630013 N-Hexacosane (N-C26)
544763 N-Hexadecane (N-C16)
630024 N-Octacosane(N-C28)
593453 N-Octadecane(N-C18)
646311 N-Tetracosane (N-C24)
629594 N-Tetradecane (N-C14)
99876 P-Cymene
700129 Pentamethylbenzene
85018 Phenanthrene
108952 Phenol
1730376 1-Methylfluorene-
91576 2-Methylnaphthalene
xylenes Total Xylenes
TOTALS:
(3) Cpst-EfTectiveness
AVERAGE (And Incremental):
Total Cost (S1981)
Total Pound-Equivalents (PE)
Cost per PE ($1981)
(4) Notes/Assumptions:.
Costs were annualized over a 10-year lifetime at 8% real interest rate.
Deflator is based on source (b) below and is equal to 0.71, the ratio of 1981 dollars to 1992 dollars (S3535/S4985)
(5) Sources:
MMdhtwe Jamie SAIC. Fax to Anne Jones, ERG, regarding "Summary Results From TWC Costs and Pollutant
Removal Analyses, Annual Compliance Cost Estimates." November 2,1994. See Development Document, Section XIL
(b)Engineering News Record, "First Quarterly Cost Report," March 28,1994.
(c) Mclntyre Jamie, SAIC. Fax to Anne Jones, ERG, regarding "Total Annual BAT Pollutant Removals for Discharge
Option", 11/2/94. Tables XII-?? (BAT Annual Workover/Treatment Fluids and Completion Fluids - Discharge Option)
See Development Document, Section XH
(d)Mdntyre, Jamie, SAIC. Fax to Anne Jones, ERG, regarding "Total Annual BAT Pollutant Removals for Zero Discharge
Option",! 1/2/94. Tables XH-?? (BAT Annual Workover/Treatment Fluids and Completion Fluids - Zero Discharge)
See Development Document, Section Xtt.
(e) Versar, Inc., "Toxic Weighting Factors for Coastal Subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction Industry Proposed Effluent
Guidelines", Draft Report, November 2,1994
A-10
-------
-------
-------
-------
------- |