-------
-------
CONTENTS
Page
SECTION ONE INTRODUCTION 1-1
SECTTONTWO BACKGROUND METHODOLOGY 2-1
2.1 Pollutants of Concern 2-3
2.2 Toxic Weighting Factors 2-3
2.3 Pollution Control Options 2-4
2.4 Pollutant Removals 2-7
2.5 Annualized Costs of Compliance 2-7
2.6 Calculations of the Cost-Effectiveness Values 2-9
2.7 Comparisons of Cost-Effectiveness Values 2-11
SECTION THREE CURRENT REGULATORY BASELINE RESULTS 3-1
3.1 Produced Water/TWC BAT Options 3-1
3.2 Drilling Waste BAT Options 3-3
SECTIONFOUR ALTERNATIVE BASELINE RESULTS 4-1
SECTION FIVE COMPARISON OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS VALUES
WITH PROMULGATED RULES 5-1
APPENDIX A SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR COST-
EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS: POLLUTANT
LOADINGS ANALYSIS A-l
APPENDIX B SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR COST-
EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS: COST ANALYSIS B-l
APPENDIX C COST EFFECTIVENESS RESULTS INCLUDING
PRODUCTION LOSSES IN COMPLIANCE COST
ESTIMATES C-l
-------
-------
SECTION ONE
INTRODUCTION
This report supports the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Coastal Oil and Gas
Industry ("Coastal Guidelines"). The report analyzes the cost-effectiveness of five regulatory options for three
wastestreams organized into two wastestream groups under the current regulatory baseline and under an
alternative baseline. In this document, EPA compares the total annualized cost of each regulatory option to the
corresponding effectiveness of that option in reducing the discharge of pollutants for each wastestream. EPA
evaluates the effectiveness in terms of costs per pound of pollutant removed, weighted by the relative toxicity of
the pollutant The rationale for this measure, referred to as "pound equivalents removed," is described later in
this document
Section Two discusses EPA's cost-effectiveness methodology and identifies the pollutants included in
the analysis. This section also presents EPA's toxic weighting factors for each pollutant and considers the
removal efficiency of each option. Section Three presents the results of an analysis comparing the considered
options to the current regulatory baseline (see the Final Economic Impact Analysis [FEIA]).1 Section Four
compares the options considered to an alternative baseline (see the FEIA, Chapter Ten). In Section Five, cost-
effectiveness values for selected coastal options are compared to cost-effectiveness values for other promulgated
rules. Appendix A presents data on pollutants and pollutant removals and Appendix B presents data on
annualized costs for each of the regulatory options. Appendix C presents an analysis of cost-effectiveness using
total annualized dollar losses as calculated in the FEIA. These total dollar losses incorporate the values of all
production losses as well as compliance costs for all affected producing units that do not shut in in the baseline
or first year.
1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. Economic Impact Analysis for Final Effluent Limitations
Guidelines and Standards for the Coastal Subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category.
October.
1-1
-------
-------
SECTION TWO
BACKGROUND METHODOLOGY
The cost-effectiveness (CE) of the Coastal Guidelines is evaluated as the average and incremental
annualized cost of a pollution control option in an industry or industry subcategory per total and incremental
pound equivalent of pollutant (ie., pound of pollutant adjusted for toxicity) removed by that control option. The
cost-effectiveness analysis primarily enables EPA to compare the removal efficiencies of regulatory options under
consideration for a rule. A secondary and less effective use is to compare the cost-effectiveness of the options
for the Coastal Guidelines to that of Effluent Guidelines for other industries. By ranking the options in order of
decreasing cost-effectiveness (higher cost per pound equivalent removed), EPA can identify the point at which
options cease to be cost-effective.
EPA ranks options in order of decreasing cost-effectiveness (increasing cost per pound equivalent
removed) in order to identify the point at which increased removal of pollutants is no longer cost-effective.
Generally, EPA determines this to be where costs (per pound equivalent removed) increase sharply, that is, where
relatively few incremental pounds are removed for steady increases in cost The accompanying figure (Figure
2-1) shows this point as Point A, where the cost-effectiveness curve becomes nearly vertical. Increases in
removals beyond this point come only at relatively high unit costs, which, in many cases, EPA will determine
exceeds the benefit of the increased removals to society.
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 amuialiVed cost of each pollution control option.
2-1
-------
I
cr
CD
g.
"g
o
Range of
noncost-
effective
removals
Range of
cost-effective
removals
0
Percentage of pound equivalents removed.
Figure 2-1. Cost effectiveness
2-2
-------
All of these factors are used in tMe calculation of die cost-effectiveness values, which can then be
compared for each regulatory option under consideration. The following sections discuss the five preliminary
steps and the cost-effectiveness calculation and comparison methodologies.
2.1 POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN
Under the Effluent Limitation Guidelines and Standards for the Coastal Oil and Gas Industry, a number
of priority and other nonconventional pollutants are regulated. Some of the factors considered in selecting
pollutants for regulation include toxicity, frequency of occurrence in wastestream effluent, and amount of
pollutant in the wastestream. The list of regulated pollutants for each regulatory option is presented in
Appendix A.
23 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. la cases
where a human health criterion has also been established for the consumption of fish, then the sum of bom the
human and aquatic criteria are used to derive toxic weighting factors. The factors are standardized by relating
them to a ''benchmark" toxicity value that was based on the toxicity of copper when the methodology was
developed.2 Appendix A presents the toxic weighting factors used for the regulated pollutants in the cost-
effectiveness analysis of the coastal oil and gas industry. Where possible, EPA derived toxic weighting factors
2 Although me water quality criterion has been revised (to 12.0 ug/l), all cost-effectiveness analyses for
effluent guideline regulations continue to use the "old" criterion of 5.6 ug/l as a benchmark so mat cost-
effectiveness values can continue to be compared to those for other effluent guidelines. Where copper is present
in the effluent, the revised higher criterion for copper results in a toxic weighting factor for copper of 0.467 rather
than 1.0.
2-3
-------
for pollutants discharged to saltwater, since most discharges by the industry are to salt or brackish waters.3 In
general, saltwater toxic weighting factors are lower (i.e., less toxic) for pollutants in saltwater than in freshwater.
Only where no saltwater toxic weighting factors are available are freshwater factors used.
Examples of the effects of different aquatic and human health criteria on freshwater toxic weighting
factors ate presented in Table 2-1. As shown in this table, the toxic weighting factor is the sum of two criteria-
weighted ratios: the "benchmark/old" copper criterion divided by the human health criterion for the particular
pollutant and the ltbenchmark/old" copper criterion divided by the aquatic chronic criterion. For example, using
the values reported in Table 2-1,11 pounds of the benchmark chemical (copper) pose lie 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).
2.3 POLLUTION CONTROL OPTIONS
This cost-effectiveness analysis was performed on pollution control options proposed for two
wastestream groups: 1) produced water/treatment, workover, and completion fluids (TWC); and 2) drilling
wastes. The produced water/TWC measures include both costs and loadings for produced water and TWC, which
were treated separately at proposal. Table 2-2 presents a summary of the options proposed by wastestream. In
all there are five separate options: three produced water/TWC options and two drilling waste options under two
regulatory baselines. For all wastestreams, a zero-discharge option is considered New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) options are not specifically covered because they are identical to Best Available Technology
(BAT) options. The relative cost-effectiveness for new sources will not be different than 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
3 This is true for Main Passes and CookMet as well as for discharges associated with the .alternative baseline
(See Section Four.)
2-4
-------
TABLE 2-1
EXAMPLES OF TOXIC WEIGHTING FACTORS
BASED ON COPPER FRESHWATER CHRONIC CRITERIA
Pollutant
Copper
Cadmium
Naphthalene
Human Health
Criteria
(lig/1)
•«•
84
41,026
Aquatic
Chronic
Criteria (us/I)
12.0
1.1
370
Weighting Calculation
5.6/12.0
5.6/84 + 5.6/1.1
5.6/41,026 + 5.6/370
Toxic
Weighting
Factor
0.467
5.16
0.015
Notes: Human health and aquatic chmnic criteria are maximum contamination thresholds. Units for criteria
are micrograms of pollutant per liter of water.
Source: 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.
2-5
-------
TABLE 2-2
REGULATORY OPTIONS CONSIDERED IN THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS
Type of
Wastestream
Produced
Water/TWC
Drilling
Wastes
Option
Option #1
Option #2
Option #3
Option #1
Option #2
Description
Zero discharge except eight outfalls of produced water into deltaic
passes of the Mississippi River and Cook Inlet — discharge limitations
Zero discharge all except Cook Met — discharge limitations
Zero discharge all
Discharge limitations
Zero discharge all
2-6
-------
2.4 POLLUTANT REMOVALS
The pollutant loadings have been calculated for each facility under each regulatory option for comparison
with baseline (i.e., current practice, 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 ate then calculated by summing the removals for all pollutants under each option. Total pollutant
and pound equivalent removals estimated to be achieved under each regulatory option are presented by
wastestream in Table 2-3.
2.5 ANNUALIZED COSTS OF COMPLIANCE
Under each regulatory option, anmialized costs of compliance have been developed (see the FEIA). The
derivation of these costs is summarized briefly below.
For produced water and TWC, EPA derived the pretax costs (including the state and federal governments'
share of compliance costs)4 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 for
each of the treatment facilities not yet required to meet zero discharge in 1996 in the Gulf of Mexico and for each
of the treatment facilities in Cook Inlet Where capital costs are incurred, EPA annualized them at 7 percent5 over
10 years (the estimated realistic worst-case lifetime of production) and added to the annual costs of operating the
pollution control equipment Commercial disposal costs were computed on the basis of barrels per year disposed.
4 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 post-tax.
5 Source of real cost of capital: Office of Management and Budget Economic Analysis of Federal
Regulations Under Executive Order 12866. January 11,1996.
2-7
-------
TABLE 2-3
TOTAL POLLUTANT REMOVALS BY REGULATORY OPTION
CURRENT REGULATORY BASELINE
Type of
Wastestream
Produced
Water/TWC
Drilling Waste
Option
Option #1
Option #2
Option #3
Option #1
Ontion #2
Total Annual
Pollutant Removals
5,165,181
1,497,541,244
2,552,583,264
0
95 ?87 965
Total Pound
Equivalent Removals
489,305
712,335
1,213,725
0
8,536
2-8
-------
For drilling wastes (which are only of concern in Cook Inlet), EPA estimated the costs of landfilling (in
an existing landfill, so to accrue annual costs only) versus using dedicated disposal wells (including the capital
costs of installing wells and retrofitting platforms). Based on a drilling schedule supplied by Cook Inlet
operators, EPA distributed operating costs over time. EPA then derived the net present value of this uneven
stream of capital and operating cost outlays annualized at 7 percent over a 7-year period of drilling.
Hie aggregate annual costs by option are presented in Table 2-4. Appendix B presents the calculations
used to arrive at the aggregate annual costs figures. Appendix C presents costs and cost-effectiveness for an
alternative analysis incorporating production losses into the cost of regulatory compliance.
2.6 CALCULATION OF THE COST-EFFECTIVENESS VALUES
Cost-effectiveness values are calculated separately for each wastestream. This approach leads to the
following two analytical groupings: produced water/TWC options and drilling waste 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 incremental cost-effectiveness value for a particular control option is calculated
as the ratio of the incremental annual cost to the incremental pound equivalents removed. Average cost-
effectiveness values are calculated as total dollars divided by total pound equivalents. The incremental
effectiveness may be viewed primarily in comparison to the baseline scenario and to other regulatory options.
Cost-effectiveness values are reported in units of dollars per pound equivalent 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 Records Construction Cost Index (CCI). This adjustment factor is calculated as follows:
Adjustment factor = 1981 CCI/1995 CCI = 3,535/5,471 = 0.646
2-9
-------
TABLE 2-4
AGGREGATE ANNUAL COSTS BY REGULATORY OPTION
CURRENT REGULATORY BASELINE
(1981 $)
Type of Wastestream
Produced Water/TWC
Drilling Wastes
Option
Option #1
Option #2
Option #3
Option #1
Option #2
Aggregate Annual Cost
$2,386,206
$10,081,484
$30,935,664
$0
$5,969,728
2-10
-------
The equation to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness is:
ATCk-ATCk.1
where:
ATCk=
PEk=
Cost-effectiveness of Option k
Total annualized treatment cost under Option k
Pound equivalents removed by Option k
The numerator of the equation, ATQ. minus ATC^, 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 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 .
Average cost-effectiveness values can also be derived by setting ATC,.., to zero and by setting the
pollutant loadings (PE^) to the current loading. These values can be used, with caution, 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 in terms of their incremental cost-
effectiveness values and are considered viable options for regulatory consideration.
2-11
-------
-------
SECTION THREE
CURRENT REGULATORY BASELINE RESULTS
The cost-effectiveness analysis is based on the Agency's estimates of the cost of compliance and
wastewater pollution removals associated with five BAT options for two wastestream groups—produced
water/TWC and drilling waste. NSPS options are also established but are not separately investigated because
they are the same as BAT options and the relative cost-effectiveness is the same. A total of five options
organized into the two wastestream groups under the current regulatory baseline are analyzed (see Section Two
for more details).
The following sections, present a brief description of the technologies used in each of the 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/TWC BAT OPTIONS
Three BAT options were evaluated for produced water/TWC. Option #1 requires oil and grease limits
based on the use of improved gas flotation technology (currently required of all offshore oil and gas operations).
Option #2 requires all operations to achieve zero discharge, with the exception of Cook Inlet and main pass
operations, where limits based on improved gas flotation must be achieved. Option #3 requires all coastal oil
and gas operations to achieve zero discharge, regardless of location.
Table 3-1 presents the cost-effectiveness data and results under the current regulatory baseline. As
shown in the table, the incremental cost-effectiveness values range from $5 to $42 per pound equivalent removed.
The selected option is Option #2, zero discharge with improved gas flotation in Cook Inlet The
incremental cost-effectiveness of this option is $35 per pound equivalent removed and the average cost-
effectiveness is $14 per pound equivalent removed.
3-1
-------
5-1
3
3
Is
O os
i
W
§
8
8
00
t—
s
*
o
PI
o
S
vo
vo
8
oo
o
o"
ft
tn
"
I
"rt
&.
u
So
a
S
3-2
-------
3.2 DRILLING WASTE BAT OPTIONS >
f
Drilling waste requirements only apply to Code Met because the remainder of the subcategory is subject
to zero discharge. Two BAT options were evaluated for drilling waste. Option #1 specifies zero discharge in
all coastal areas and offshore oil and gas industry limitations for Cook Inlet. This option corresponds to current
practices. Option #2 requires zero discharge in all regions.
Table 3-2 presents the cost-effectiveness data and results for this group of options. The incremental
cost-effectiveness values range from $0 to $699 per pound equivalent removed.
EPA selected Option #1. As shown in Table 3-2, this option has no costs or loading reductions
associated with it
3-3
-------
S
W5 !_'
t/5 ^^^ *"" •*
la|Pl
CO x-».
"3 *° ^^
o> O "8 ON ~.
b {g o^
_
1
2
u
5
•a
3
•a
0
O OO
o 2
*a M ^ /->
||li
^^
! v
CO 1-H
O OO
O «*
»— • *
ills
A
0
1
o
69
69
3
o
S
o
CO
§
ttf
eel
•*S
"S
V
1
W3
• «H
Q
5fc'
C3
5
1
ON
ON
VO
69
ON
i
oo
s
69
VO
oo"
oo
N
oC
VO
o\
«£
VO
en
oo"
^3
w
^
o
a
o
N
^
gN
0
1-
3-4
-------
SECTION FOUR
ALTERNATIVE BASELINE RESULTS
Undo- the current regulatory baseline, EPA assumes that only certain operators discharging to the major
passes of the Mississippi River and operators in Cook Met are affected by the regulation. Under the alternative
baseline, EPA assumes that, in addition to those dischargers affected under the current regulatory baseline,
operators defined as Louisiana Open Bay Dischargers and Texas Individual Permit Applicants also are affected
by the regulation (see the FEIA).
Table 4-1 shows the total pollutants removed under the alternative regulatory baseline and Table 4-2
shows the aggregate annualized costs. The results are presented in Tables 4-3 and 4-4. As Table 4-3 shows,
the incremental cost-effectiveness values for the produced water/TWC BAT options under the alternative baseline
range fiom $22 to $42. EPA selected Option #2, zero discharge with limits based on improved gas flotation in
Cook Inlet The incremental cost-effectiveness of tins option is $42 per pound equivalent removed and the
average cost-effectiveness is $26 per pound equivalent removed.
Table 4-4 presents the cost-effectiveness data and results for the drilling waste BAT options. The cost-
effectiveness for drilling waste options is the same for the current regulatory baseline and the alternative baseline.
Therefore, as in the results presented previously, the incremental cost-effectiveness values for the alternative
baseline range fiom $0 to $699 per pound equivalent removed. The selected option is Option #1. As shown in
Table 4-4, this option has no costs or loading reductions associated with it
4-1
-------
TABLE 4-1
TOTAL POLLUTANT REMOVALS BY REGULATORY OPTION
ALTERNATIVE BASELINE
Type of
Wastestream
Produced
Waste/TWC
Drilling Waste
Option
Option #1
Option #2
Option #3
Option #1
Onrion #2
Total Annual
Pollutant Removals
3,114,043,653
4,606,419,716
5,661,461,736
0
25 287 965
Pound Equivalent Removals
1,091,754
1,314,784
1,816,174
0
^536
4-2
-------
TABLE 4-2
AGGREGATE ANNUAL COSTS BY REGULATORY OPTION
ALTERNATIVE BASELINE
(1981 $)
Type of Wastestream
Produced Water/TWC
Drilling Wastes
Option
Option #1
Option #2
Option #3
Option #1
Option #2
Aggregate Annual Cost
$24,502,620
$33,781,413
$54,635,592
$0
&c n/rn '700
4-3
-------
S
:£«?
w
3 |^.?
§ ts s ^- §•
g O .g 00
-------
a
a
to i—i
O 00
O ~
—
o oo
o 2
I
ON
ON
vo
VO
O
OO
ON
*
v*
VO
CO
X
o\
00
to
§
1
D
i
4-5
^
3
-------
-------
SECTION FIVE
COMPARISON OF COST-EFFECTIVENESS VALUES WITH
PROMULGATED RULES
Table 5-1 presents the cost-effectiveness values far Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards issued
for direct dischargers under BAT in other industries. The numbers presented here for this rulemaking are pretax
costs, whereas many of the numbers presented for other effluent guidelines are post-tax costs—that is, the costs
actually faced by the firms, not the total cost of the equipment (which is subsidized by reductions in taxable
income). Thus direct comparisons between this rulemaking and others cannot be made easily. An equivalent
post-tax 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 $35 per pound equivalent removed for produced
water/TWC is well within the range of cost-effectiveness values seen for other rules. For drilling waste, BAT
is zero discharge in the coastal subcategory, except in Cook Inlet, where BAT is equal to current practice (BAT
limits established in permits on a best professional judgment basis) and thus results in no costs.
5-1
-------
TABLE 5-1
INDUSTRY COMPARISON OF BAT COST-EFFECTIVENESS FOR DIRECT DISCHARGERS
(Toxic and Nonconventional Pollutants Only; Copper-Based Weights"; 1981 $)
Industry
Aluminum Forming
Canmaking
Coal Mining
Coastal Oil and Gas
Produced Water/TWC"
Drilling Waste
Coa Coating •__
Copper Forming
Electronics I
Electronics H
Foundries
Inorganic Chemicals I
Inorganic Chemicals H
Iron and Steel
Leather Tanning
Metal Finishing
Nonferrous Metals Forming
Nonferrous Metals
Manufacturing I
Nonferrous Metals
Manufacturing H
Offshore Oil and Gas
OCSPSF1
Pesticides
Petroleum Refining
B/D
Plastics Molding and Forming
PE Currently Discharged
(thousands)
1340
4,126
12
BATHBPT -
951
BAT=Current Practice
2,239
70
9
NA
2308
32,503
605
40,746
259
3305
34
6,653
1,004
3,628
54,225
2,461
BAT=BPT
897
90
44
PE Remaining at Selected
Option
(thousands)
90
5
0.2
BAT=BPT
239
BAT=Current Practice
9
8
3
NA
39
1,290
27
1,040
112
3,268
2
313
12
2,218
9,735
371
BAT-BPT
47
0.5
41
Cost-Effectiveness of
Selected Option(s)
(S/PE removed)
121
2
10
BAT=BPT
35
BAT=Current Practice
49
27
404
NA '
84
<1
6
2
BAT=BPT
12
69
4
6
34C
5
15
BAT=BPT
47
96
BAT=BPT
5-2
-------
TABLE 5-1 (continued)
. Industry
Porcelain Enameling
Pulp and Paper1
Textile Mills
PE Currently Discharged
(thousands)
1,086
U30
BAT=BPT
PE Remaining at Selected
Option
(thousands)
63
748
BAT=BPT
Cost-Effectiveness of
Selected Option(s)
(S/PE removed)
6
18
BAT=BPT
"Although toxic weighing factors for priority pollutants varied across these rules, this table reflects the cost-
effectiveness at die time of regulation. .
bTWC loadings and reductions are for Gulf of Mexico only. Produced water loadings and reductions include
TWC discharges in Cook Met
"For produced water only; for produced sand and drilling fluids and drill cuttings under Offshore Oil and Gas,
BAT=NSPS.
''Reflects costs and removals of both air and water pollutants.
'Proposed.
*PCB control for Deink subcategory only.
5-3
-------
-------
APPENDIX A
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR
COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS:
POLLUTANT LOADINGS ANALYSIS
A-l
-------
TABLE A-l
Potlatamt Losdlap Audysl* tor Pnxtaeed Water
G«tf sfMoko M»l» That, OfOo* 1: Dbckuxe Limitation Based OB I approved G»» Flottttoa
FeUatutNuK
. : ; - ••;/s\5 ,'*••.'• -,<5
Oil sod Grease
ISS
ratal CMrratioub
,4-Dimothylphoool
Beoaoe
Esthylboozano
SephtBikce
Phenol
bhione
retal Priority Ortuks
'•- *\ V.-, .. "-\ ^ •>•••••• x-^.. •• f*
3aomium
Copper
Lead
Bckst
Silver
Ziac
•.^.s •, ,f ^'s, tfo»
Ahaniaum
kzocoonia
Barium
Joazoicacid
loroa
rm^na.
CUoridM
Cobah
EteuDoicAcid
2-HoxacoEo
Iroa ~
Magaoshira
lianzacoae
I'Metayl&achthalono
^oK-Monum
i-Dccaco
i-Dodecano
t-Eicoaane
i-Bexadecarte
tOctadeeaae
fTetndecane
>-Qesol
i-Cresol
Jttoathm
Salfirr
Tm
ntannm
a-Xykn«
»+p-3^1ene
Vsoadhmi
Yttrium
red! N**-CMVe*t!ou!s
Auaal
Poondi Reawved
14,833
531,100
545^33
0
19,015
229
440
895
16,661
37,240
81
0
0
2,876
0
0
1,570
4,528
-CwvcerttoMifoJIirtMl* ,
6,508
0
82,484
0
30^69
0
0
0
0
0
66,286
0
7,683
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
188
0
0
0
0
193,419
TWF
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
2.40E-03
1.60E-02
130E-01
4.70E-02
2^0E-01
1.10E-03
6.70E-01
1.10E-01
1JOE+00
6.60E-01
6.80E-01
6.10E+00
6.50&02
Povad
EqatvaltaO
0
0
0
0
304
30
21
197
18
570
55
0
0
1,898
0
0
102
2,055
6.40E-02
8.10E-03
2.00&03
330E4M
1.80E-01
2.80E-OS
2.40E-05
5.60E-01
3.40E-04
1JOE-04
2.IOE-03
8.70E44
5.60E-01
9JOE-02
2.00E-01
1.10E-04
4.30&03
4JOE-03
430E^)3
430B-03
4JOE-03
5.70&03
1.80E-04
5.50E-06
5.60E-06
3.00E-01
2SOE-02
1.70E-02
3JOE-02
6JOE-01
O.OOE+00
416
0
165
0
5,448
0
0
0
0
0
139
0
4,303
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
•o
10,477
-•?,"• •• •••, " '"'-, .. RKtt»»cU
-------
TABLE A-2
Pollitant Loading! Analysis for Produced Water
Gmltot Mexico Main Pass, Options 2 and 3: Zero Discharge
PoUiitantNaBM
Annul
PMDd*Reaioved
TWF
Poand
Eqiivalenti
CEBVtnttoo»lPoU«t««a ' '' ' '
Oil and Grease
rss
Total Convcntionals
589^83
1^65335
1,855^19
O.OOB+00
O.OOEHX)
0
0
o
-:: ' ' ' I>riority¥CRSOl
ittootiuni
Sulfti
In
Titanium
n-Xyla>e
»fp-Xyicne
Taoadium
Ttnium
Total Noo-Coovmtionab
7,730
1,025,481
952,817
131,183
433,456
60,941,494
1,404,836,049
2,864
27,167
844
143,287
14,709,172
9,498
1,902
2^61
3,720
7,049
1,929
7,734
W29
2#12
3,720
4,014
7,024,180
298^89
10424
298
3498
2,692
3304
864
M90,602£«l
6.70EO1
1.10E-01
1JOBHX)
6.60B-01
6.80B4)!
6.10EKW
630E-02
6.40&02
8.10E-03
ZOOR03
3.30E-04
1.80B-01
2.80B-05
2.40B-05
5.60B-01
3.40B04
1.30E-04
2.10E-03
8.70E-O4
5.60E-01
9.30&02
2.00&01
1.10E-04
4.30B-03
4.30&03
4.30E-03
4.30E-03
4.30E-03
5.70E-03
1.80&04
5JO&06
5.60E-06
3.00E-01
2JO&02
1.70B-02
3.30E-02
SJOE-01
O.OOE+00
292
485
10,974
3^15
2413
53497
315
72,091
'
495
8406
1,906
43
78,022
1,706
33,716
1,604
9
0
301
12,797
5319
177
592
0
30
g
33
8
13
21
1
39
2
3,157
9
61
89
2,049
0
150,513
-- '- ' ' ' " RadtDBceHclcs
Lead 210
tadium226
!adiun22S
Total KadioracUdes
*«tat»i«wvaU ,
1.34&05
4.67E-03
239ROS
4.71E-Q3
.t4SS«l»,t7S
O.OO&HX)
1JOBWS
340B+O8
0
701
8369
9,070
23534$
Source for Annual Poundi Removed: US. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. Development Document for Final
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards tct me Coastal Subcategory of the Oil and Gaa Extraction Point Source
Category. September.
Source for TWF: VCTMT, Inc. 1994. Toxic Weighting Factoti for Coastal Subcategory of UK Oil and Gas Extraction
Industry Proposed Effluent Guidelines. November.
A-3
-------
TABLE A-3
PoDuUnti Loading! Analytic for Produced Water
Cook fillet, Options 1 and 2: Dfacharte Limit«tion«
PoDotantName
Annual
Poundc Removed
TWF
Pound
Equivalent!
•",* r ' J*s ' '! <**'' !: ~"\ O«v«tflonll*iaBfc«n<* _ '
CKlandGteaee
rss
fatal ConvenUonab
Priority OrganfcPoBntinti
2,4-Dimemylphenol
Anthracene
Benzene
Bcnzo(a)pyiene
Slhylbenzenc
Kaphinalcnc
Paenol
Toluene
Fatal Priority Organic*
205,975
649,079
855,054
4,582
309
37^91
102
1,654
14,566
0
11,764
70367
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
2.40E-03
3.50E-01
1.60E-02
4.20E+03
130E-01
4.70E-02
220E-01
1.10E-03
0
0
0
11
108
598
429,639
215
685
0
13
431,269
; s !^^o^l«. *
-------
TABLE A-4
Pollutant Loading* Anafysi* for Frodaccd Water
Cook Inlet, Option 3: Zero Discharge
Pollutant Name
Annual
Ponndi Removed
TWF
Pound
Equivalents
, CoBvettftonalPoSatairf* 'V ! ;
Oil and Create
rss
Total Conventionaif
612,731
1,168343
1,781,074
O.OOE+OO
O.OOE-KW
0
0
0
: ; . . . Priority £«8iitantiO5riank! , ' :
2,4-DimemylphenoI
Anthracene
Benzene
Benzo(a)pyKoe
sthylbenzene
Naphthalene
Phenol
Toluene
Total Priority Organic*
8,909
437
58,610
183
2,730
16,158
7,469
26,092
120487
2.40E-03
340E-01
1.60E-02
420E-HJ3
130E-01
4.70E-02
220B-01
1.10E-03
21
153
938
767,679
355
759
1,643
29
771477
Priority PoSatant* Metal* „ - :
Cadmium
Chromium*
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Silver*
Zinc
Total Priority Metab
392
3,116
7,697
3377
29419
6214
775
51,08*
6.70E-01
1.10&01
1.90E-KW
6.60E-01
6.80E-01
6.10E+00
640&02
262
343
14,623
2,229
20,073
37,905
50
75,485
:. - - *fe»«wM8w^!*art«rt»
Aluminum
Ammonia*
iaiiuin
Senzoicacid*
loron
Calchnn*
Chlorides*
Cobalt*
Icxanoic Acid*
2-Hexanone*
ron
Magnesium*
&ngane0e
2-Methytaaphmalene*
Molybdenum*
KABtano
o-Cresol*
p-CttKl*
Stomne*
Strontium*
SulfiB*
Tin*
[Itanium
Triterpanes
TotalXylenes
Vanadium*
fttrium*
tadhira226
Radium 228
Total Non-Conventtonab
*«t**StiK&>K
1350
725,238
961,742
92,775
445432
43,098,875
993424,272
2,025
19,213
597
85,088
10,402480
2,006
1345
2,094
17,873
2,631
2,839
1341
4,967,621
211,167
7,443
121
1350
9389
2337
611
449E-05
5.19E-07
1,054489,456
, tM6£&M6
6.40E-02
8.10E-03
2.00E-03
330E-04
1.80E-01
2.80E-05
2.40E-05
5.60E-01
3.40E-04
130E-04
2.1QB-03
8.7(8-04
S.60E-01
930E-02
2.00E-01
430E-03
5.70E-03
1.80E-04
430E-03
S40B-06
5.60E-06
3.00E-01
2.90E-02
430E-03
1.70&02
6.20E-01
O.OOE+OO
140E-1O5
340B408
'
86
5,874
1,923
31
80,196
1,207
23,845
1,134
7
0
179
9,050
1,123
125
419
77
15
1
6
27
1
2233
4
6
160
1,449
0
7
182
129,176
9K3SH
Source for Annual Pounds Removed: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. Development Document for Final
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Coastal Subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source
Category. September.
Source for TWF: Versar, Inc. 1994. Toxic Weighting Factors for Coastal Subcategory of tbeOa and Gas Extraction
Industry Proposed Effluent Guidelines, November.
A-5
-------
TABLE A-S
r— — N—
OaiGreMe
SoJik, Total SMjovW
ruijciii""'" "'
" s**'^ ^-s tit
Saacae
EthySxnzmo
Methyl OJoici:
rdoene
Rooroc
Ktf&thtlem
fcenMiBstne
Pbrool
riuiriUiitjr " "•"O-i"1 j
\ 4^^ -.,, - ft
^din^aiy
tocac
BeryEon
r^Aninm
aiuiim
Copper
Ltad
MfrM
SdeiiuQ
She
Ifr-Tp — .
Znc
riumiuEj ri»i'i"" niioii
/ s, >.•:-'«' »•
AloDimn
Buna
Bonn
-A^m
Cobrit
CyMJde.Tobl
(ton
Mn«n*e
Mtgnenm
Molybdoma
Sodiota
Strcdira
Solfir
r«
[Jtnoa
VKwfcia
Vttrinm
Acetooe
Mcfeyl Ethyl Kricn:
(Zaatnone)
roblXykm
«.Mrthyl-2-PCTb«X)«
n3,.,.,,f..o
Kbasoeaophaie
H4}ecne(K-C10)
H-Doco««e (N-C22)
N-Dodoa»»(N-C12)
N.Ejoom»:(N-C20)
K-Hexxome (K-C26)
N-Hcodoaoc(K-ClS)
H-OcdconDe (K-C2S)
H°Oc^deone (K^18)
N-Tetnccanc (N^24)
M.Tctndeane(K-C14)
PX^roca:
wit^^sr^
2.Mc«k>-fci^itb4lme
p— ^HLw
•i.ii^ii.iirii^ixi
14J>57
33,711
4*Xt
»/ft^liiBii'-'O'g^«lirl
81
75
2
54
4
34
4
16
27*
I»Hjl"»-'"*-M«tJg •
2
11
1
2
37
17
89
7
3
0
1
23
1»J
i rt« i«a
-------
TABLE A-*
Mate Pan Ofenton =
Othen - Zen Dtocharp Vat iBjcctta er CMUMRM Db>«eal
P*-N«
Oil&Qease
Solids, Total Suspended
ret^Corrallml
PlS
Benzene
Bmy&enzene
Mdhyl Chloride
(Chloromelhane)
Toluene
Fluorene
Naphthalene
Phenanmrene
Phenol
Fatal PriarilTPalmili Orgaato
Antimony
Arsenic
Boyffium
Cadmium
duuuiiuai
Copper
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
saver
Hufiuni
Zinc
Mai Prterir/ PiaMiili Meteb
^^•SiS^KSS^-^KwS^sSSJ^SiiS^iisiSil
Mrnnjmim
Barium
Boron
Calcium
Cobalt
Cyanide, Total
iron
Manganeie
Magnesium
Molybdenum
Sodium
Strontium
Sulfur
Fm
ntaniuin
Vanadhim
yttrium
Acetone
Mdhyl Ethyl Ketone
(2-Butanone)
Total Xyienea
4Jrfemyi-2-Peatanone
Dttieinuflaan
Mbemothiophene
N-Decane(N-C10)
N-Docoane(N<32)
N-Dodecene(N-C12)
>I-Ekoiane(N-C20)
N-Hexacosane (N-C26)
N-Hendectne(N-C16)
NOctacosane (N-C28)
NOcladecaneOI-C18)
N-Te!raco»ane(N-C24) .
N-Tetndecane (ti-Clf)
'•Cyrnms
[•Mefln/uluofeue
rilllTIia ri»r««llml Fdataatft
tttttHMtrntt
AMNMl
5,074
11,437
Itfll
28
25
1
19
1
12
1
6
>3
1
4
0
1
13
6
30
3
1
0
0
8
«7
*&miMHut:V#**tt
143
10
307
209,725
0
1
8.481
114
103,033
1
385,148
2^10
5,003
1
2
24
1
147
1
58
62
3
2
6
16
12
5
10
8
5
22
17
25
2
1
2
17
7I&325
MEW*
TWF
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
1.60E-02
UOE-01
220E-03
l.IOE-03
5.60E-01
4.70E42
1JOE+01
2JOE-01
130E-02
4JOE+00
4J20E+00
6.70E-01
1.10E41
150E+00
S.SOE-01
6.80E-01
7.90E-02
6.10E+00
Z60E42
6JOE42
«.40&02
iOOEJJS
1.80E-01
180E-05
5.60E-01
1.10E+00
2.10E-03
5.60E-01
8.70E-04
2.00&01
5JOE-06
5JOE-06
5.60E-06
3.00E-01
2JOE-02
650E-01
O.OOE+00
5.60E-04
4JOE-04
1.70E-02
1JOB-04
ZOOEJ52
4.60E-02
1.10E-04
1.10&04
4JOE-03
430E-03
8.20E-05
4JOE-03
S20&OS
430E-03
&20E-05
430E-03
430E-02
2^0E4)1
9JOE-02
E^±L,
0
0
«
••
0
3
0
0
I
1
19
I
2S
0
17
0
1
1
11
20
2
0
0
0
1
53
9
0
55
6
0
1
18
64
90
0
2
0
0
0
0
15
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
0
2
2C4
342
Source for Annual Pounds Removed: U.S. Eir
alPrc
n Agency. 1996. Development Da
nt for Final
bbcategory of me On and QaExtuctioa Point Source
EflhMQt Limitations Guidelines and Standtzds (or the Coi
Category. September.
Source foe TWF: Vectar, Inc. 1994. Toxic Weighting Factors for Cofttial Subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction
Industry Propond Effluent Gukklines. November.
A-7
-------
TABLEA-7
WMf*
oixenc
Methyl CUcciae
(aionodfane)
Ibkxne
Fixxtne
KtpbSakw
taanthrcnc
Pfaaxi
T«tllFri«rtlTf ,t*ati Orf»»tc»
¥ % sV' '••••> i J ft
Antacny
aerie
Bay&xn
•^t ._^,
j.,^^11
Copjx*
U»d
Idanci
Svtr
bdbxn
Zbe
r*ttiPliirilTNMiit>M><^«
,' ' • •; «^^ in ~* ••»«
Numam
texza
loroa
Calenxs
CoUk
Cy*ifc,Totil
too
UteMnae
^y^ri-^T,
Moiybdenum
SoiSam
SSoatimn
(MB^
Ha
rtejan
Vmdiam
YthiD
Acetcns
Mclh>l Ethyl Kriooe
(2-Butawn:)
ibtdXyJoK*
(•MefiijW-PaiBiooe
KxBzo&m
JSxneofiaopime
M-Do«:(N-ClCO
{^occfMe (K-C22)
N^3odo«:(N-C12)
^^oocane C^C20)
4-KecKome (rW2S)
!MfcxidcciDc(N-C16)
^Octaeonne (^C28)
K-Octntaa:(N-C15)
'{-TetlKOCKK (IW24)
4-Tdndccne (N-C14)
P^ymra:
T~frv^uj'
Z-M«!iyir*pJ]fcifcnc
TetrfNi>C«t«tli«ilt
PMd.RiMVMl
.„_
34,068
96
75
2
64
4
35
5
19
3M
JMtt£P*0M&M&M«M*
2
11
1
2
44
20
90
8
3
0
1
25
217
t-n^i^ri.iiTiniiiiiJi
421
36
1,061
738^935
1
4
25,038
335
363,021
5
1357/113
UV255
17,626
2
5
83
3
518
4
177
218
10
g
20
55
41
16
35
29
15
77
58
89
4
i
6
59
2JIUM
TWF
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
1.60E-02
130E-01
2.20E-03
1.10E-03
5.60E41
4.70E-02
1JOE401
120E-01
1JOE-02
420E+00
420E+00
6.70E-01
1.1CE-OI
1.90E440
6.60E41
6.80E-01
7JOE-02
6.10E+00
2.60E-02
6JOE-02
6.40E-02
100&03
1.80E-01
2JOE-05
5.60E41
1.10E+OO
Z10E-03
5.60E-01
8.70E-04
ZOOE-01
5-50E-06
5JOE-06
5.60E-06
3.00E-01
290E-02
630E-01
O.OOE400
5.60E44
4JOE-04
1.70E42
l^OE^M
2.00E-02
4.60E-02
1.10E-04
l.IOE-04
430E-03
430EJJ3
820E45
4JOE-03
820E-05
430E-03
820E-05
430E-03
430E-02
190E-01
850E-02
9JOE-02
. E«l«H^t „
0
0
2
10
0
0
2
2
95
4
114
0
46
4
1
5
38
59
5
0
0
0
2
1C1
27
0
195
21
1
4
53
188
316
I
7
0
0
1
0
51
0
0
0
;
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
5
nt
' " ' His;
. 1996. DevelopmentDoaimmtforFiml
indSaiidirrfjrocthoCoctd
Otcjory. Sepuxaber.
SomofotTWRVrar.Inc. 1994. Tatfc Weighting F«aoaf«O!elilSubcaUigoty of the OamdajBctnc«ion
lDduiayftt>p3»d Effluent GuiMix*. November.
A-8
-------
TABLE Art
CMTef Main M«ta Pan, OpUei* 2 «•* 3: Z«r» Dbcfcirc>
riiuaiKTTiai
oa&GKue
SoKds,Tot«l Suspended
r«tslC«R«*lM»b
- - v tii
Benzene
Sutylbcnzcne
Mdhyi Chloride
(Chloromethane) •
toluene
Ftaorene
Nsphthdene
Phemnthrene
Phenol
retal Priority P«M»t> OrfMics
, ' , ,, »
AntoDonjr
Aisenic
BaySSam
Pj/hmmn
Chromium
Copper
Lad
Kicfcd
•ffjfflpm^
Silver
nuffium
Zinc
F«fcd Frfaritr ?•••«••! i Metalc
^ -. s s % ^ *• •* -flfa
Ahmmoum
Atrium
Boron
""ikllF"
Coodt
Cynide, Total
ton
Mmgmete
vfttneszim
Molybdenum
Sodium
itiulUltllll
Sulfiir
Pm
ntmhml
/tntdioni
fttrom]
Acetone
Meftyl Ethyl Ketone
(2-Butmone)
ToblXyfanes
4-MefliyI-2-FentinoDe
Dibenzofimn
Tibenzounophcnc
N-Dec«ne(N-C10)
N-Doco«ine(N-C22)
N-Dodec«ne(N-CI2)
N-Eicoane(N-C20)
ti-WaacotmeQK36)
N-HeMdectne(N-C16)
4-Octecosane (N-C2^
N-Od»deanc(N-ClS)
N-Te6»coMne(N-C24)
N-Tetndeone (N-C14)
>-Cymene
Porttmetnylbenzene
1-MeBiyifluoienc
2-Metiiylnu*thifcne
T«MNi»C«nn
r«ad««Mnb . ,
• — •
PIMIac
i
4
0
1
15
7
31
3
1
0
0
g
74
i'Cg!i'"*^ft'i«''*fT'"'rt'i'" 1 1 1
143
12
367
251,069
0
1
S,4»3
114
123344
2
461,074
3,484
5,989
1
2
28
1
176
1
60
74
3
3
7
19
14
6
12
10
5
26
20
30
2
1
2
20
157,222
I7S.TC3
TWF
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
PMB1
4.70E-02
150E+01
2^0E-01
1JOE-O2
420E-HW
420E+00
6.70E-01
1.10E-01
150E-HX1
6.60E-01
6.80E-01
7JO&02
6.10E+00
2.60E-02
6JOE-02
6.40E-02
2.00E-03
l.SOE-01
Z80E-05
5.60E-01
1.10E+00
Z10E-03
5.60E-01
8.70E-04
2.00E-01
5JOE-06
5JOE-06
J.60E-06
3.00E-01
X90E-02
6.20E-01
O.OOE+00
5.60E-O4
4JOE-04
1.70E-02
1.20E-04
2.00E-02
4.60E-02
1.10E-04
1.10E-04
430E-03
4JOE-03
8J20E-05
430E-03
8JOE-05
4JOE-03
8J20E-OJ
4JOE-03
430E-02
2JOE-01
&90E-02
930E-02
1
i
0
0
1
1
30
1
3*
0
16
1
0
2
13
20
2
0
0
0
1
55
f
9
0
66
7
0
1
18
64
107
0
3
0
0
0
0
17
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
»7
_ , ,^,. 3»
Source for AimiM Pounds R«xnoved:U& Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. Development Document lor Final
EffluertUmititxmsGiiiMDcrodSsiKbitefortboCoajM
Citegoiy. September.
Source for TWF: Verar, Inc. 1994. Toxic Weighting Ftctcn for Cental Subcmjory of the CM md Gu Function
Industzy Proposed Effluent Guidelines. November.
A-9
-------
TABLE A-9
Louisiana Open Bay PW Pollutant Removals for Zero Discharge
Volua* - 32M14.4 hblMiy
PoHmamt Faiuuter
Coaeealnlia* f«x/l) 1
j SclUUt
1 Efflenc
ZeroDsca !
La*41at
-------
TABLE A-10
Texas Open Bay PW Pollutant Removals for Zero Discharge
Volume
Polldaat Paiaautar
Oil aid Grease
TSS
Total Conventional*
Priority Orguic PoDitasa
2.4-Dimethylpliesol
.Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Naphthalene
Phenol
. Toluene
Total Priority Organic!
Priority Metajfollntuti
Cadmmm
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Nickel
SBver
Zioe
Tool Priority M*****« <
Concetttntkra f*tyX)
Settling ;
Effloeat Zero D^efc
i
26.600.03 : 0.00
ui.ooaoo • 0.00
148.00 0.00
5.200.00 0.00
110.00 0.00
184.00 0.00
723.00 0.00
4.310.00 0.00
31.50 0.00
180.00
236.00
72S.OO
151.00
359.00
462.00
Noa— Co»vemtio*al PoHniaati
Aluminum . 1,410.00
Ammonia 41.900.03
Barium
Benzoieaeid
Boron
Calcium
Chlorite!
Cobalt
52,800.00
' 5,360.00
22.800.00
0.00
0.00
T j**A\mfi (P<«lliii4«^
SeaUnc
Efflment
ZeroDIseh
t
230.620 i 0
1.222.461 ! 0
1.453.081' 0.00
1.233
U
45.08*; 0
954 0
1.595 0
6.268 0
37,367 i 0
9ZSS1J 0
273
1561
2.046
0.00 i .6.294
0.00 i 1J09
0.00: 3.113
0.00 : 4.006
18.602
i
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.490.000.00 : 0.00
57,400.000.00 0.00
•117.00
HexanofcAcid ' 1.110.00
2-HeJonone 34.50
lion 17,000.00
Magnesium
Manganese
2- Metayiasphtinleae
Molybdenum
n— Decaiue
n-Dodecane
n— Bicotane
601, 000.00
1.680.00
77.70
121.00
0.00
11225
363,270
457.773
46,471
197.675
Incremental
Removal
(pounds}
230.620
L222.461
1.453.081
1.283
45.084
954
1,595
6.268
37.367
9iS51
Toxic i Removal
Weixktmg; 1 (Ib— eqahr.)
Factor
O.OOE+OOi 0
O.OOE+OOJ 0
0
2.40E-03 3
1.60E-02 721
1.30E-01 124
4.70E-02: 75
2.20E-01 1 1.379
1.10E-03 ! 41
i 2J43
|
OJ 273 6.70E-01
0 j 1,561 i 1.10E-01
Oi 2,046; 1.90EtOO
0 i 6.294 ! 6.60E-01
Ot 1.309 6.80E-01
0. 3.113 6.10E+00
0 • 4.006 6 .50E-02
Q* f • £ni
0
0
0
0
0
21,588.1+5 0
IZ225
363,270
457.773
46.471
197.675
21388.145
6.4QE-Q2
183
172
3.887
4.154
890
18.989
260,
782:
3.10E-03 ': 2.942
ZOOE-03 : 916 '
3.30E-04 i 15
1.80E-01 35.582
2.SOE-05 . 604
407.654.424: 0 497,654,424i 2.40E-05
1.014: 0; 1.014 5.60E-01
0.00 ! 9.624
0.00 299
0.00 i 147,389
0.00
0X0
0.00
0.00
152.00 ; aoo
288.00 , 0.00
78.80
0— Hexadecane ' 316.00
n— Octadecue '. 78.80
n— Tetradeeane
o— Cieiol
p-Creso!
• Strontium
Sullui
Tin
Titanium
m— Xyicoe
IO+P— Xylene
Vanadium
119.00
152.00
164.00
5^10.633
14.565
674
1.049
0 9,624 3.40E-04
0 299 1.30E-04
0 147.389 2.IOE-03
0 ; 5.210.633
0
0
0
uiai o
14,565
674
1.049
8.70E-04
11.944
568
3
0
310
4.533 '
S.60E-01 8.156
9.30E-02 1 63 j
ZOOE-01 : 210
1.318 ; 1.10E-04! 0
2.497! ,0{ 2.4.97 4.30E-03
0.001 683
0.00
0.00
0.00
aoo
0.00
287.000.00 0.00
12.200.00
430.00
43.80
147.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
110.00 0.00
135.00
Yttrium ' 35.30
T ul N n r* r itlnmjlM
Tottl No>"~CmivfrntftMuUf
l=sCa.a.Mg
Lead 210
Radium 226
5.WE-07
:.9iu-o«
Radium 228 ' 9.77E-07
Total Radionclidei |
2.740
683
1.032
U1S
0 i 683 4.30E-03
0: Z740- 4JOE-03
0
0
0
1.422 : 0
2.488J72 0
105.773
3.728
380
1.274
683
1.032
1.318
1.422
11
3-
12'
4.30E-03; 3
4.30E-03 i 4
5.70E-03 ; 8
1.80E-04
2.4M.272 5 50E-06
0 105.773 5.60E-06
ft
0
0
954! 0
0.00'! U7°
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
306
528,318,780
3.865^78
4.76E-06
1.66E-03
8.47E-06
3.723
380
1,274
3.00E-01
0
14
1
1.118
2.90E-02 11
1.70E-02
954 330E-02
0! 1.170: 6.20E-01
0
0
306
528,318,780
fli 3.86S.S7S
0
4.76E-06
O.OOE-t-00
22
31
725;
0!
68,591
O.OOE+00 ; 0
O' 1.66E-03 IJOE+05
0. S.47R-Oli 3.SOS*08
248
2.96S
1.67E-03 | 3.213
i Total Rednetioa 529.SS3.0I* S29.8S3.014 102.684
Source: Development Document, 1996.
A-ll
-------
TABLE A-ll
Pollutant Loadings Analysis for Drilling Waste
Cumulative Reduction in Pollutant Loadings for Operators in Cook Inlet, Alaska
Zero Discharge Option
Pollutant Name
Annual
Pounds Removed
TWF
Pound
Equivalents
vr , \ »/•."' "'/^- '- ~^Coiw«ntional Pollutant* - '
TSS (Associated with Muds)
TSS (Associated with Cuttings)
rss (Total)
Total Oil (In MudstCuttings)
Total Conventional
8,264,001.0
15,820,788.9
24,084,789.9
4,368.4
24,089,1583
O.OOE-KX)
O.OOE-KX)
O.OOE+00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
• , ,/^f-^AuV, r^PriorftyPofiutaat* 0fg*ak* -, : -.- ,.
Naphthalene
Huorene
?hcnanthtene
FoUl Priority Pollutants Organics
0.3
4.1
0.6
5.0
4.70E-02
5.60E-01
1.90E+01
0.0
2.3
11.7
14.0
.•:-;• ' H * x\-f>-'>''f-Ars;'/f Priority Polutaats Metak --,,::,
Cadmium
Mercury
Antimony
Arsenic
Beryllium
Chromium
kroner
i^upjjd
Lead
Nickel
Selenium
Silver
Thallium
Zinc
Total Priority Pollutants Metals
9.1
0.8
47.1
58.7
5.8
1,983.4
154.5
290.1
111.6
9.1
5.8
9.9
1,656.9
4342.7
6.70E-01
2.60E+02
1.30E-02
4.20E-KX)
4.20E-KX)
1.10E-01
1.90E+00
6.60E-01
6.80E-01
7.90E-02
6.10E-KX)
2.60E-02
6.50E-02
. , ^ - *,'?.•• '* ; ^ -Noia^on^HiiJibWaliiEoIluliiBfe- ' ''.. '
Aluminum
Barium
Iron
Tin
Titanium
Alkylated benzenes
Alkylated naphthalenes
Alkylated fluorenes
Alkylated phenanthrenes
Total biphenyl
Total dibenzothiophenes
Total Non-Conventional Pollutants
74,953.7
991,680.1
126,805.3
120.7
723.1
154.0
2.5
8.9
1.0
10.0
0.0
1,194,459.4
-.,.> , ' - 25^87^65*4
6.40E-02
2.00E-03
2.10E-03
3.00E-01
2.90E-02
5.60E-03
6.20E-02
8.90E-02
1.40E-01
3.70E-02
4.60E-02
-
6.1
214.9
0.6
246.4
24.3
218.2
293.6
191.4
. 75.9
0.7
35.3
0.3
107.7
1,415.4
^ '
4,797.0
1,983.4
• 266.3
36.2
21.0
0.9
0.2
0.8
0.1
0.4
0.0
7,106.2
Source for Annual Pounds Removed: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. Development Document for Final
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Coastal Subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source
Category. September.
Source for TWF: Versar, Inc. 1994. Toxic Weighting Factors for Coastal Subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction
Industry Proposed Effluent Guidelines. November.
A-12
-------
APPENDIX B
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR
COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS:
COST ANALYSIS
B-l
-------
TABLE B -1
ANNUAL COSTS
PRODUCED WATER: COOK INLET AND GULF OF MEXICO COMBINED
CURRENT REGULATORY BASELINE
Costs
Capital Cost Gulf (1995$)
Capital Cost Cook (1995 $)
Total Capital Cost (1995 $)
Annual O&M Cost Gulf (1995 $)
Annual O&M Cost Cook (1995 $)
Total Annual O&M Cost (1995 $)
Total Annualized Capital Cost (1995 $)
Total Annual Cost (1995 $)
Deflator (c)
Option 1
$1,818,604
$9,232,461
$11,051,065
$286,259
$1,168,826
$1,455,085
$1,573,423
$3,028,508
0.646
$1.956.416
Option 2
$23,089,994
$9,232,461
$32,322,455
$9,165,013
$1,168,826
$10,333,839
$4,601,990
$14,935,829
0.646
$9.648.546
Option 3
$23,089,994
$96,956,093
$120,046,087
$9,165,013
$20,960,966
. $30,125,979
$17,091,862
$47,217,841
0.646
$30.502,725
Source for Annual Pounds Removed: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996 Development Document for Final Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Coastal Subeategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category.
September.
B-2
-------
TABLEB-2
ANNUAL COSTS
PRODUCED WATER: COOK INLET AND GULF OF MEXICO COMBINED
ALTERNATIVE BASELINE
Costs
Capital Cost Gulf (1995 $)
Capital Cost Cook (1995 $)
Total Capital Cost (1995 $)
Annual O&M Cost Gulf (1995 $)
Annual O&M Cost Cook (1995 $)
Total Annual O&M Cost (1995 $)
Total Annualized Capital Cost (1995 $)
Total Annual Cost (1995 $)
Deflator (c)
Total Cost (1981 $)
Option #1
$1,818,604
$9,232,461
$11,051,065
$286,259
$1,168,826
$1,455,085
$1,573,423
$3,028,508
0.646
$1,956,416
Option #2
$27,150,372
$9,232,461
$36,382,833
$11,038,169
$1,168,826
$12,206,995
$5,180,097
$17,387,092
0.646
$11.232.061
Option #3
$27,150,372
$96,956,093
$124,106,465
$11,038,169
$20,960,966
$31,999,135
$17,669,969
$49,669,104
0.646
$32.086.241
Source for Annual Pounds Removed: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. Development Document for Final Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Coastal Subcategoiy of the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category.
September.
B-3
-------
TABLE B-3
ANNUAL COSTS
TREATMENT, WORKOVER, AND COMPLETION FLUIDS
COOKINLET AND GULF OF MEXICO COMBINED
Costs
Annual Cost (1995$)
Deflator
Annual Cost (1981 $)
Option 1
$665,310
0.646
$429,790
Option 2
$670,183
0.646
$432,938
Option 3
$670,183
0.646
$432,938
Source for Annual Pounds Removed: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996.
Development Document for Final Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the
Coastal Subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category. September.
B-4
-------
TABLE B-4
ANNUAL COSTS
PRODUCED WATER/TWC: LOUISIANA OPEN BAY AND TEXAS INDIVIDUAL PERMIT OPERATORS
Costs
Capital Cost LA (1995 $)
Capital Cost TX (1995 $)
Total Capital Cost (1 995 $)
Annual O&M Cost LA (1995 $)
Annual O&M Cost TX (1995 $)
Total Annual O&M Cost (1995 $)
Total Annualized Capital Cost (1995 $)
Total Annual Cost (1995 $)
Deflator (c)
Total Cost (1981$)
Option 1
$49,864,657
$12,379,593
$62,244,250
$21,021,582
$4,352,171
$25,373,753
$8,862,181
$34,235,934
0.646
$22,116,413
Option 2
$49,864,657
$12,379,593
$62,244,250
$21,021,582
$4,352,171
$25,373,753
$8,862,181
$34,235,934
0.646
$22 116413
Option3
$49,864,657
$12,379,593
$62,244,250
$21,021,582
$4,352,171
$25,373,753
$8,862,181
$34,235,934
0.646
$22 116413
Source for Annual Pounds Removed: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1996. Development Document for Final Effluent
Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Coastal Subcategory of the Oil and Gas Extraction Point Source Category. September.
B-5
-------
TABLE B-5
ANNUAL COSTS FOR DRILLING FLUIDS
Costs
Annual Cost (1995$)
Deflator
Annual Cost (1981$)
Option 1
$0
0.646
$0
Option 2
$9,241,065
0.646
$5,969,728
Source for Annual Pounds Removed: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. 1996. Development Document for Final Effluent Limitation
Guidelines and Standards for the Coastal Subcategory of the Oil and
Gas Extraction Point Source Category. September.
B-6
-------
APPENDIX C
COST-EFFECTIVENESS RESULTS
INCLUDING PRODUCTION LOSSES
IN COMPLIANCE COST ESTIMATES
C-l
-------
APPENDIX C
COST-EFFECTIVENESS RESULTS
INCLUDING PRODUCTION LOSSES IN COMPLIANCE COST ESTIMATES
In this appendix, EPA assesses the cost-effectiveness of the Coastal Guidelines using the total dollar
losses calculated for each modeled well, facility, or platform in the economic impact analysis (see the FEIA) for
produced water/TWC options. (Drilling options are not associated with production losses and thus are not
addressed here.) These losses include capital and O&M expenditures on compliance equipment among
production units that do not shut in in the baseline or first year (these production units would not install the
equipment), the tax shields on that equipment (taxes foregone by state and federal governments), the value of
production losses to the firm and state and federal governments (income and severance taxes), and mineral rights
owners (royalties).
The pollutant loadings remain the same, but the annual costs of compliance in some cases tend to be less
(leadingto an overall slightly lower annual cost over all options) because the production loss modeling is more
sophisticated than the approach used to calculate total compliance costs. Using the production loss model
(described in the FEIA), EPA can determine which operators will choose to install equipment and produce and
which operators will choose to shut in and incur production losses instead of incurring compliance costs, thereby
reducingtheir total losses. In many cases, the total value of production lost is less than the cost of compliance.
Table C-l shows the present value losses (costs) in 1995 dollars, the annualized cost, and the annualized cost
in 1981 dollars for all options under the current regulatory baseline and the alternative regulatory baseline.
Table C-2 presents the cost-effectiveness using total dollar losses under the current regulatory baseline.
As shown in the table, the incremental cost-effectiveness values range from $5 to $41 per pound equivalent
removed. EPA selected Option #2, zero discharge with improved gas flotation in Cook Inlet The incremental
cost-effectiveness of this option is $31 per pound equivalent removed and the average cost-effectiveness is $ 13
per pound equivalent removed.
Table C-3 presents the cost-effectiveness using total dollar losses under the alternative regulatory
baseline. As shown in the table, the incremental cost-effectiveness values range from $20 to $44 per pound
C-2
-------
5?
&
8
B
SK
OJ ^
H 3
t« Sj
GO K
- sl
§ If
'^ M5 ^*
1 8s
a!
eg
p^
PT
&
A
o
g
W'
CO
S3
^O
Q
O
ts
J
o.
O
»— t
|
o.
O
^"^
o
s
•a
a
••
:••'•
|
1
|
1
1
••
-
'
ON
oo
VO
o"
l
(N
oo"
f*
o
es
&
1
a
1
1
£,
Os
C<1
VC
^f
ffi
oo
ON
VO
^T
^^
**
CO
°°«
3s
3
i
1
ON
es
OS
ON
CM
in
ON
^
ON
VO
tsi
1-H
X
o
1
^
*
*
s
1
CB
1
5|
'
- |
-:
j
' ;
«r>
ON
O
o'
vo
Os
ON
r— <
c°
cfl
•&
8
"S.
.a
13
included in ai
i
e costs but
s
"S
>
*j
e
tg
a.
.S
"8
•o
•1
1
03
O
s
2
C-3
-------
1
ofi
' 00
"X
$
I
o
o\
vo
I
en
TC
8"
S
o oo
®
c\
00
&
rf
oo
s
oC
cs
»»
8
o
<§•
Q S
if
•Ifl'
C-4
-------
•a
S
s
1
Jg
3
o
n"
0
s
**«
o
•
«*
55
C-
\o
ft
oo
o\
s
t~-,,
n
oo
•<*•
vo"
a s
- &.
C-5
-------
equivalent removed The selected option is Option #2, zero discharge with improved gas flotation in Cook Inlet.
The incremental cost-effectiveness of this option is $37 per pound equivalent removed and the average cost-
effectiveness is $23 per pound equivalent removed.
C-6
-------
-------
------- |