INFORMATION
COLLECTION
REQUEST
SUPPORTING
STATEMENT
FOR
BEST
MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES
ALTERNATIVES,
EFFLUENT
LIMITATIONS
GUIDELINES
AND
STANDARDS,
OIL
AND
GAS
EXTRACTION
POINT
SOURCE
CATEGORY
(
40
CFR
PART
435)

November
27,
2000
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Office
of
Water
Office
of
Science
and
Technology
Engineering
and
Analysis
Division
(
4303)
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW
Washington,
DC
20460
Page
2
of
21
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
1.
IDENTIFICATION
OF
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTION
1(
a)
Title
of
the
Information
Collection
1(
b)
Short
Characterization/
Abstract
2.
NEED
FOR
AND
USE
OF
THE
COLLECTION
2(
a)
Need/
Authority
for
the
Collection
2(
b)
Practical
Utility/
Users
of
the
Data
3.
NONDUPLICATION,
CONSULTATIONS,
AND
OTHER
COLLECTION
CRITERIA
3(
a)
Nonduplication
3(
b)
Public
Notice
Required
Prior
to
ICR
Submission
3(
c)
Consultations
3(
d)
Effects
of
Less
Frequent
Data
Collection
3(
e)
General
Guidelines
3(
f)
Confidentiality
3(
g)
Sensitive
Questions
4.
THE
RESPONDENTS
AND
THE
INFORMATION
REQUESTED
4(
a)
Respondents
and
SIC
Codes
4(
b)
Information
Requested
4(
c)
Respondent
Activities
5.
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTED:
AGENCY
ACTIVITIES,
COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY,
AND
INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT
5(
a)
Agency
Activities
5(
b)
Collection
Methodology
and
Management
5(
c)
Small
Entity
Flexibility
5(
d)
Collection
Schedule
6.
ESTIMATING
THE
BURDEN
AND
COST
OF
THE
COLLECTION
6(
a)
Estimating
Respondent
Burden
6(
b)
Estimating
Government
Burden
6(
c)
Bottom
Line
Burden
and
Cost
Table
6(
d)
Reasons
for
Change
of
Burden
6(
e)
Burden
Statement
7.
REFERENCES
Attachment
A:
Input
Data
and
Assumptions
Used
to
Develop
the
ICR
Burden
Estimate
Attachment
B:
Facility,
State,
and
EPA
Burden
and
Cost
Estimates
Page
3
of
21
1.
IDENTIFICATION
OF
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTION
1(
a)
Title
of
the
Information
Collection
ICR:
Best
Management
Practices
Alternatives,
Effluent
Limitations
Guidelines
and
Standards,
Oil
and
Gas
Extraction
Point
Source
Category
(
40
CFR
Part
435),
EPA
ICR
No.
1953.01
1(
b)
Short
Characterization/
Abstract
EPA
is
promulgating
final
regulations
for
the
effluent
limitations
guidelines
and
standards
for
the
discharge
of
pollutants
from
oil
and
gas
drilling
operations
associated
with
the
use
of
synthetic­
based
drilling
fluids
(
SBFs)
and
other
non­
aqueous
drilling
fluids
into
waters
of
the
United
States.
This
regulation
establishes
technology­
based
effluent
limitations
guidelines
for
the
discharge
of
pollutants
into
waters
of
the
United
States
by
existing
and
new
facilities
that
perform
oil
and
natural
gas
extraction
drilling
in
offshore
and
coastal
waters
(
40
CFR
part
435).

Oil
and
gas
extraction
facilities
generate
cuttings
wastes
from
drilling
operations.
The
final
rule
allows
a
controlled
discharge
of
SBF­
cuttings
in
offshore
waters
and
in
coastal
Cook
Inlet
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
The
final
rule
prohibits
the
discharge
of
whole
or
neat
SBFs
into
all
waters
of
the
United
States.

EPA
selected
the
use
of
Best
Management
Practices
(
BMPs)
as
an
alternative
to
more
frequent
monitoring
to
control
the
SBF
retention
on
cuttings
(
ROC).
In
the
final
regulation,
EPA
allows
operators
to
either:
(
1)
fully
monitor
their
SBF­
cuttings
and
demonstrate
compliance
with
a
ROC
numeric
effluent
limitation
or
standard;
or
(
2)
partially
monitor
their
SBF­
cuttings
and
demonstrate
compliance
with
a
ROC
numeric
effluent
limitation
or
standard
while
using
the
same
BMPs
and
drilling
fluid
throughout
the
drilling
operation.

This
Information
Collection
Request
(
ICR)
presents
estimates
of
the
burden
and
costs
to
the
regulated
community
(
approximately
67
SBF
well
drilling
facilities
annually)
and
EPA
(
the
NPDES
permit
control
authority)
for
data
collection
and
record
keeping
associated
with
implementation
of
the
BMP
alternative.
These
information
collection
requirements
include,
for
example:
(
1)
training
personnel;
(
2)
analyzing
spills
that
occur;
(
3)
identifying
equipment
items
that
might
need
to
be
maintained,
upgraded,
or
repaired;
(
4)
identifying
procedures
for
waste
minimization;
(
4)
performing
monitoring
(
including
the
operation
of
monitoring
systems)
to
establish
equivalence
with
a
numeric
cuttings
retention
limitation
and
to
detect
leaks,
spills,
and
intentional
diversion;
and
(
5)
generally
to
periodically
evaluate
the
effectiveness
of
the
BMP
alternative.
This
is
a
new
ICR.

Since
about
1990,
the
oil
and
gas
extraction
industry
developed
SBFs
with
synthetic
and
non­
synthetic
oleaginous
(
oil­
like)
materials
as
the
base
fluid
to
provide
the
drilling
performance
characteristics
of
traditional
oil­
based
fluids
(
OBFs)
based
on
diesel
and
mineral
oil,
but
with
lower
environmental
impact
and
greater
worker
safety
through
lower
toxicity,
elimination
of
Page
4
of
21
polynuclear
aromatic
hydrocarbons
(
PAHs),
faster
biodegradability,
lower
bioaccumulation
potential,
and,
in
some
drilling
situations,
less
drilling
waste
volume.

EPA's
information
to
date,
including
limited
seabed
surveys
in
the
Gulf
of
Mexico,
indicate
that
the
effect
zone
of
the
discharge
of
certain
SBFs
is
within
a
few
hundred
meters
of
the
discharge
point.
These
surveys
also
indicate
that
the
sea
floor
may
significantly
recover
in
one
to
two
years.
EPA
believes
that
impacts
are
primarily
due
to
smothering
by
the
drill
cuttings,
changes
in
sediment
grain
size
and
composition
(
physical
alteration
of
habitat),
and
anoxia
(
absence
of
oxygen)
caused
by
the
decomposition
of
the
base
fluid.
The
benthic
smothering
and
changes
in
grain
size
and
composition
from
the
cuttings
are
effects
that
are
also
associated
with
the
discharge
of
water­
based
drilling
fluids
(
WBFs)
and
associated
cuttings.
Based
on
the
record
to
date,
EPA
finds
that
these
impacts,
which
are
believed
to
be
of
limited
duration,
are
less
harmful
to
the
environment
than
the
non­
water
quality
environmental
impacts
associated
with
the
option
of
prohibiting
the
discharge
of
all
SBF­
wastes.
Moreover,
EPA
prefers
SBFs
over
OBFs
as
there
are
operational
accidents
that
lead
to
spills
and
loss
of
drilling
fluid
to
the
environment.

EPA
published
a
proposed
rule
(
February
3,
1999;
64
FR
5488)
and
notice
of
data
availability
(
NODA)
(
April
21,
2000;
65
FR
21548)
which
identified
possible
methods
to
control
SBF
discharges
associated
with
cuttings
(
SBF­
cuttings)
in
a
way
that
reflects
the
appropriate
level
of
technology.
EPA
is
promulgating
stock
limitations
and
discharge
limitations
in
a
two
part
approach
to
control
SBF­
cuttings
discharges
under
BAT.
The
first
part
is
based
on
product
substitution
through
use
of
stock
limitations
(
e.
g.,
sediment
toxicity,
biodegradation,
PAH
content,
metals
content)
and
discharge
limitations
(
e.
g.,
diesel
oil
prohibition,
formation
oil
prohibition,
sediment
toxicity,
aqueous
toxicity).
The
second
part
is
the
control
of
the
quantity
of
SBF
discharged
with
SBF­
cuttings.
As
previously
stated
in
the
April
2000
NODA,
EPA
finds
that
the
second
part
is
particularly
important
because
limiting
the
amount
of
SBF
content
in
discharged
cuttings
controls:
(
1)
the
amount
of
SBF
discharged
to
the
ocean;
(
2)
the
biodegradation
rate
of
discharged
SBF;
and
(
3)
the
potential
for
SBF­
cuttings
to
develop
cuttings
piles
and
mats
which
are
detrimental
to
the
benthic
environment.

2.
NEED
FOR
AND
USE
OF
THE
COLLECTION
2(
a)
Need/
Authority
for
the
Collection
BMPs
are
inherently
pollution
prevention
practices.
BMPs
may
include
the
universe
of
pollution
prevention
encompassing
production
modifications,
operational
changes,
material
substitution,
materials
and
water
conservation,
and
other
such
measures.
BMPs
include
methods
to
prevent
toxic
and
hazardous
pollutants
from
reaching
receiving
waters.
Because
BMPs
are
most
effective
when
organized
into
a
comprehensive
facility
BMP
Plan,
EPA
is
requiring
operators
to
complete
a
BMP
Plan
when
they
select
the
BMP
alternative.

The
BMP
alternative
requires
operators
to
develop
and,
when
appropriate,
amend
plans
specifying
how
operators
will
implement
the
specified
BMP
alternative,
and
to
certify
to
the
Page
5
of
21
permitting
authority
that
they
have
done
so
in
accordance
with
good
engineering
practices
and
the
requirements
of
the
regulation.
The
purpose
of
those
provisions
is,
respectively,
to
facilitate
the
implementation
of
BMP
alternative
on
a
site­
specific
basis
and
to
help
the
regulating
authorities
to
ensure
compliance
without
requiring
the
submission
of
actual
BMP
Plans.
Finally,
the
recordkeeping
provisions
are
intended
to
facilitate
training,
to
signal
the
need
for
different
or
more
vigorously
implemented
BMPs,
and
to
facilitate
compliance
assessment.

Sections
304(
e),
308(
a),
402(
a),
and
501(
a)
of
the
Clean
Water
Act
authorize
the
Administrator
to
prescribe
BMPs
as
part
of
effluent
limitations
guidelines
and
standards
or
as
part
of
a
permit.
EPA's
BMP
regulations
are
found
at
40
CFR
122.44(
k).
Section
304(
e)
of
the
CWA
authorizes
EPA
to
include
BMPs
in
effluent
limitation
guidelines
for
certain
toxic
or
hazardous
pollutants
for
the
purpose
of
controlling
"
plant
site
runoff,
spillage
or
leaks,
sludge
or
waste
disposal,
and
drainage
from
raw
material
storage."
Section
402(
a)(
1)
and
NPDES
regulations
[
40
CFR
122.44(
k)]
also
provide
for
best
management
practices
to
control
or
abate
the
discharge
of
pollutants
when
numeric
limitations
and
standards
are
infeasible.
In
addition,
section
402(
a)(
2),
read
in
concert
with
section
501(
a),
authorizes
EPA
to
prescribe
as
wide
a
range
of
permit
conditions
as
the
Administrator
deems
appropriate
in
order
to
ensure
compliance
with
applicable
effluent
limitations
and
standards
and
such
other
requirements
as
the
Administrator
deems
appropriate.
The
BMP
alternative
to
numeric
limitations
and
standards
is
consistent
with
the
Pollution
Prevention
Act
of
1990,
42
U.
S.
C.
13101.
et.
seq.

2(
b)
Practical
Utility/
Users
of
the
Data
The
primary
users
of
the
information
generated
through
the
implementation
of
the
BMP
alternative
requirements
will
be
the
oil
and
gas
extraction
companies
who
use
SBFs
and
EPA
(
the
NPDES
permit
controlling
authority)
who
determines
compliance
with
the
regulations.

3.
NONDUPLICATION,
CONSULTATIONS,
AND
OTHER
COLLECTION
CRITERIA
3(
a)
Nonduplication
Implementation
of
the
BMP
alternative
compliance
method
requires
the
development,
review,
and
certification
of
a
BMP
Plan
document.
The
BMP
Plan
requirements
are
intended
to
control
discharges
of
SBF
wastes
which
contain
harmful
and
toxic
substances.
Many
of
the
same
environmental
controls
promoted
as
part
of
a
BMP
Plan
currently
may
be
used
by
industry
in
storm
water
pollution
prevention
plans;
spill
prevention
and
response
plans
(
30
CFR
254);
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
(
OSHA)
safety
plans;
fire
protection
programs;
insurance
requirements;
federal,
state,
or
local
requirements;
or
standard
operating
procedures.
Additionally,
permittees
may
have
already
developed
pollution
prevention
programs
or
controls
such
as
source
reduction,
recycling,
and
reuse
which
may
be
similar
to
those
promoted
as
part
of
a
BMP
Plan.

When
a
BMP
issue
is
already
addressed
via
a
separate
regulatory
program,
the
BMP
Plan
Page
6
of
21
is
expected
to
reference
those
efforts,
not
duplicate
them.
Where
operating
manuals,
standard
operating
plans,
or
other
documents
have
been
developed
to
address
other
regulatory
requirements
(
e.
g.,
OSHA,
RCRA,
etc.)
these
may
be
cross­
referenced
in
the
BMP
Plan.
EPA
does
not
intend
for
permittees
to
attempt
to
duplicate
or
repeat
practices
more
fully
described
in
other
documents.
However,
EPA
(
the
NPDES
permit
controlling
authority)
will
review
the
plan
and
will
retain
the
authority
to
recommend
additional
or
incremental
BMPs
as
necessary
to
ensure
that
implementation
of
the
identified
BMPs
is
the
best
available
technology
economically
achievable.

EPA
has
examined
all
other
reporting
requirements
contained
in
the
Clean
Water
Act
and
40
CFR
Parts
122,
123,
124,
125,
501,
and
503.
The
Agency
has
also
consulted
other
sources
of
information
to
determine
if
similar
or
duplicative
information
is
available
elsewhere.
There
are
no
additional
duplicative
reporting
requirements
as
the
BMPs
are
an
alternative
to
numeric
limitations
and
standards
and
the
BMP
Plan
format
allows
for
cross
referencing
of
similar
efforts.

3(
b)
Public
Notice
Required
Prior
to
ICR
Submission
In
compliance
with
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
(
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et.
seq.),
the
EPA
solicited
comments
on
this
information
collection
in
a
Federal
Register
notice
(
April
21,
2000;
65
FR
21548)
prior
to
submitting
the
ICR
to
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget.

3(
c)
Consultations
EPA
has
had
discussion
with
the
following
organizations
regarding
development
of
the
SBF
regulation
and
SBF
BMP
alternative
requirements:


American
Petroleum
Institute
(
API)


National
Ocean
Industries
Association
(
NOIA)


U.
S.
Department
of
Energy
(
DOE)


U.
S.
Department
of
Interior's
Minerals
Management
Service
(
MMS)


Other
States;
and

Industry
Representatives.

3(
d)
Effects
of
Less
Frequent
Data
Collection
The
Permittee
must
maintain
a
copy
of
the
BMP
Plan
and
related
documentation
(
e.
g.,
training
certifications,
summary
of
the
monitoring
results,
records
of
SBF­
equipment
spills,
repairs,
and
maintenance)
at
the
facility
and
must
make
the
BMP
Plan
and
related
documentation
available
to
EPA,
the
NPDES
Permit
controlling
authority,
upon
request.
Submission
of
the
BMP
Plan
and
related
documentation
shall
be
at
the
frequency
established
by
the
NPDES
permit
control
authority
(
i.
e.,
Permit
monitoring
reports),
but
in
no
case
less
than
once
per
five
years.
As
NPDES
permits
are
normally
revised
every
five
years,
any
less
frequent
submission
of
the
BMP
Plan
and
related
documentation
would
lead
to
outdated
and
ineffective
BMP
Plans.
Page
7
of
21
The
BMP
alternative
requires
re­
fresher
training
to
ensure
the
proper
implementation
of
the
BMP
Plan.
EPA
estimates
that
re­
fresher
training
will
take
place
twice
a
year
with
each
training
course
lasting
4
hours.
Less
frequent
review
of
the
BMP
Plan
will
lead
to
inadequate
implementation
of
the
associated
beneficial
BMPs.

3(
e)
General
Guidelines
This
information
collection
is
consistent
with
OMB
guidelines
contained
in
5
CFR
1320.5(
d)(
2).

3(
f)
Confidentiality
EPA
does
not
expect
that
any
confidential
business
information
or
trade
secrets
will
be
required
from
oil
and
gas
extraction
operators
as
part
of
this
ICR.
If
information
submitted
in
conjunction
with
this
ICR
were
to
contain
confidential
business
information,
the
respondent
has
the
authority
to
request
that
the
information
be
treated
as
confidential
business
information.
All
data
so
designated
will
be
handled
by
EPA
pursuant
to
40
CFR
part
2.
This
information
will
be
maintained
according
to
procedures
outlined
in
EPA's
Security
Manual
Part
III,
Chapter
9,
dated
August
9,
1976.
Pursuant
to
Section
308(
b)
of
the
CWA,
effluent
data
may
not
be
treated
as
confidential.

3(
g)
Sensitive
Questions
The
reporting
requirements
addressed
in
this
ICR
do
not
include
sensitive
questions.

4.
THE
RESPONDENTS
AND
THE
INFORMATION
REQUESTED
4(
a)
Respondents
and
SIC
Codes
The
respondents
for
this
ICR
will
be
approximately
67
offshore
SBF
well
drilling
facilities.
These
operations
fall
under
SIC
code
13
and
North
American
Classification
System
codes
211111
and
213111.
Government
respondents
are
expected
to
be
EPA
Regions
IV,
VI,
IX,
and
X
who
will
revise
NPDES
permits
for
implementation
of
the
BMP
alternative.
EPA
Region
X
will
revise
the
general
NPDES
permit
for
the
coastal
State
waters
of
Cook
Inlet,
Alaska,
as
EPA
has
not
yet
delegated
NPDES
authority
to
the
State
of
Alaska.

4(
b)
Information
Requested
SBF
well
drilling
operations
that
elect
to
control
their
SBF­
cuttings
discharges
through
the
use
of
BMPs
are
required
to
prepare
the
following
information:
(
1)
certification
of
BMP
completion
and
a
copy
of
the
most
current
BMP
Plan;
(
2)
records
demonstrating
periodic
review
of
the
BMP
Plan
(
at
a
minimum
once
every
five
years);
(
3)
monitoring
reports
(
including
the
operation
of
monitoring
systems)
to
establish
equivalence
with
a
numeric
cuttings
retention
Page
8
of
21
limitation
and
to
detect
leaks,
spills,
and
intentional
diversion;
and
(
4)
training
reports
to
document
re­
fresher
training
necessary
to
ensure
the
effectiveness
of
the
BMP
Plan.

4(
c)
Respondent
Activities
SBF
well
drilling
operations
that
elect
to
use
BMPs
to
control
their
SBF
discharges
will
be
involved
in
the
following
tasks:


BMP
Plan
Development,
Review,
and
Certification:
The
BMP
Plan
must
be
documented
in
narrative
form,
and
must
include
any
necessary
plot
plans,
drawings
or
maps,
and
must
be
developed
in
accordance
with
good
engineering
practices.
At
a
minimum,
the
BMP
Plan
must
contain
the
planning,
development
and
implementation,
and
evaluation/
reevaluation
components.
Examples
of
these
components
are
contained
in
"
Guidance
Document
for
Developing
Best
Management
Practices
(
BMP)"
(
EPA
833­
B
B
93
B
004,
U.
S.
EPA,
1993).
The
BMP
Plan
may
reflect
requirements
within
spill
response
plans
required
by
the
Minerals
Management
Service
(
see
30
CFR
254)
or
other
Federal
or
State
requirements
and
incorporate
any
part
of
such
plans
into
the
BMP
Plan
by
reference.
The
BMP
Plan
must
also
contain
a
statement
that
the
BMP
Plan
fulfills
the
requirements
of
40
CFR
Part
435.
The
statement
must
be
certified
by
the
dated
signatures
of
the
individuals
responsible
for
development
and
implementation
of
the
BMP
Plan.


Periodic
Review
and
Revision
of
BMP
Plan:
For
those
SBF­
cuttings
discharges
controlled
through
the
BMP
alternative,
the
Permittee
must
amend
the
BMP
Plan
whenever
there
is
a
change
in
the
facility
or
in
the
operation
of
the
facility
which
materially
increases
the
generation
of
SBF­
cuttings
or
their
release
or
potential
release
to
the
receiving
waters.
At
a
minimum
the
BMP
Plan
must
be
reviewed
once
every
five
years
and
amended
within
three
months
if
warranted.
Any
such
changes
to
the
BMP
Plan
must
be
consistent
with
the
objectives
and
specific
requirements
in
40
CFR
Part
435.
All
changes
in
the
BMP
Plan
must
be
reviewed
by
the
permittee's
drilling
engineer
and
offshore
installation
manager.


Additional
Monitoring
Reports:
Respondents
that
elect
to
use
the
BMP
alternative
to
control
SBF­
cuttings
discharges
will
be
required
to
document
additional
monitoring
activities.
These
additional
monitoring
activities
and
the
related
documentation
activities
are
required
to
demonstrate
a
well­
ordered
and
working
BMP
program.
Additional
monitoring
activities
include
establishing
equivalence
with
a
numeric
cuttings
retention
limitation
and
detecting
SBF­
cuttings
leaks,
spills,
and
intentional
diversions.


Re­
fresher
Training:
Such
review
and
endorsement
may
be
performed
by
the
establishment
of
a
program
of
documented
initial
and
annual
refresher
training
of
drilling
equipment
operators,
maintenance
personnel,
and
other
technical
and
supervisory
personnel
who
have
responsibility
for
operating,
maintaining,
or
supervising
the
operation
and
maintenance
of
drilling
equipment..
Page
9
of
21
5.
THE
INFORMATION
COLLECTED:
AGENCY
ACTIVITIES,
COLLECTION
METHODOLOGY,
AND
INFORMATION
MANAGEMENT
5(
a)
Agency
Activities
Upon
approval
of
this
ICR,
permittees
must
maintain
records
as
described
in
40
CFR
435.
For
example,
the
Permittee
must
maintain
a
copy
of
the
BMP
Plan
and
related
documentation
(
e.
g.,
training
certifications,
summary
of
the
monitoring
results,
records
of
SBF­
cuttings
spills,
repairs,
and
maintenance)
at
the
facility
and
must
make
the
BMP
Plan
and
related
documentation
available
to
EPA,
the
NPDES
Permit
controlling
authority,
upon
request.
Submission
of
the
BMP
Plan
and
related
documentation
shall
be
at
the
frequency
established
by
the
NPDES
permit
control
authority
(
i.
e.,
permit
monitoring
reports),
but
in
no
case
less
than
once
per
five
years.
Review
of
monitoring
records
by
EPA,
the
permit
controlling
authority,
may
also
be
helpful
to
permit
writers
in
the
development
of
future
NPDES
permit
conditions.

5(
b)
Collection
Methodology
and
Management
The
data
collection
and
management
methodology
for
SBF
well
drilling
operations
that
elect
to
use
BMPs
will
include
the
submission
of
the
BMP
Plan
to
the
NPDES
permit
control
authority
at
the
frequency
established
by
the
NPDES
permit
control
authority
(
i.
e.,
permit
monitoring
reports),
but
in
no
case
less
than
once
per
five
years.
The
NPDES
permit
control
authority
may
also
requested
BMP
implementation
documentation
(
e.
g.,
training
certifications,
maintenance
records).
The
NPDES
permit
control
authority
will
also
review
cases
where
operators
are
unable
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
numeric
cuttings
retention
limitations.

5(
c)
Small
Entity
Flexibility
Pursuant
to
section
605(
b)
of
the
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act,
the
EPA
Administrator
certified
that
this
final
regulation
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.

5(
d)
Collection
Schedule
The
information
collection
activities
included
in
this
ICR
are
anticipated
to
occur
under
the
following
schedule:


The
operator
shall
certify
that
its
BMP
Plan
is
complete,
on­
site,
and
available
upon
request
to
EPA
or
the
NPDES
Permit
controlling
authority.
This
certification
shall
identify
the
NPDES
permit
number
and
be
signed
by
an
authorized
representative
of
the
operator.
This
certification
shall
be
kept
with
the
BMP
Plan.
For
new
or
modified
NPDES
permits,
the
certification
shall
be
made
no
later
than
the
effective
date
of
the
new
or
modified
permit.
For
existing
NPDES
permits,
the
certification
shall
be
made
within
one
year
of
1EPA
estimates
that
all
40
deep
water
rigs
(
e.
g.,
semi­
submersible,
drill
ships)
will
use
SBFs
and
therefore
be
likely
candidates
to
use
BMPs.
EPA
also
estimates
that
14%
of
the
194
(
or
27)
total
shall
water
rigs
(
e.
g.,
jack­
ups,
platform
rigs)
will
use
SBFs
and
therefore
be
likely
candidates
to
use
BMPs.

Page
10
of
21
permit
issuance.


Submission
of
records
to
the
permit
control
authority
demonstrating
periodic
review
of
the
BMP
Plan
are
due
at
a
minimum
once
every
five
years.


Monitoring
reports
demonstrating
compliance
with
the
BMP
Plan
are
due
to
the
permit
control
authority
at
the
frequency
set
by
the
permit
control
authority
(
e.
g.,
monthly
or
annually)
and
may
be
requested
by
the
permit
control
authority
on
demand.


Re­
fresher
training
certifications
demonstrating
compliance
with
the
BMP
Plan
are
due
to
the
permit
control
authority
at
the
frequency
set
by
the
permit
control
authority
(
e.
g.,
semi­
annually)
and
may
be
requested
by
the
permit
control
authority
on
demand.

6.
ESTIMATING
THE
BURDEN
AND
COST
OF
THE
COLLECTION
6(
a)
Estimating
Respondent
Burden
and
Costs
Attachment
A
presents
all
of
the
input
data
and
assumptions
used
to
develop
the
ICR
burden
estimate.
Attachment
B
presents
eight
tables
of
burden
and
cost
estimates,
organized
into
three
categories:
Initial
Burden
and
Costs
(
Tables
1­
3);
Recurring
Annual
Burden
and
Costs
(
Tables
4­
6);
and
Summary
Burden
and
Costs
(
Tables
7­
8).

6(
a)(
1)
Estimate
of
the
Number
of
Respondents
EPA
estimates
that
67
facilities
annually
will
be
affected
by
this
ICR
(
Angelle
and
Scott,
2000).
1
These
SBF
wells
are
outlined
in
Table
2.
EPA
also
estimates
that
each
SBF
well
drilling
facility
will
drill,
on
average,
three
SBF
wells
per
year
(
Johnston,
2000).
Therefore
the
annual
number
of
SBF
wells
per
year
is
201
[
i.
e.,
(
67
fac./
year)
x
(
3
SBF
wells/
fac.)
=
201
SBF
wells/
year].
The
duration
of
this
ICR
is
three
years.
The
maximum
number
of
potential
respondents
over
the
three
year
time
frame
is
67
as
operators
may
elect
not
to
use
the
BMP
alternative
to
reduce
SBF­
cuttings
monitoring.
EPA
also
estimates
that
no
drilling
operations
in
Offshore
California
will
use
SBFs
(
Henry,
2000).
EPA
is
also
promulgating
a
zero
discharge
requirement
for
SBF­
cuttings
in
Coastal
Cook
Inlet,
Alaska
with
an
exemption
for
those
operators
that
are
technically
unable
to
perform
zero
discharge
operations
for
their
SBF­
cuttings.
EPA
estimates
that
Coastal
Cook
Inlet
operators
will
be
able
to
perform
zero
discharge
operators
based
on
current
technical
capabilities.
Therefore,
EPA
estimates
no
additional
respondents
in
either
Offshore
California
or
Cook
Inlet,
Alaska.
Page
11
of
21
EPA
expects
that
virtually
all
SBF­
cuttings
discharges
will
take
place
in
offshore
areas
(
i.
e.,
Federal
waters).
EPA
estimates
that
SBF­
cuttings
discharges
in
Coastal
Cook
Inlet,
Alaska,
will
be
a
rare
occurrence
due
to
technical
limitations
prohibiting
operators
from
performing
zero
discharge.
EPA
has
not
yet
delegated
NPDES
permitting
authority
to
the
State
of
Alaska.
There
are
four
EPA
Regions
(
i.
e.,
Regions
IV,
VI,
IX,
and
X)
estimated
to
be
impacted
by
the
BMP
ICR
requirements.

Table
2:
Number
of
SBF
Facilities
Affected
by
ICR
Burden
Estimate
Rig
Type
Number
Shallow
Water
Rigs:

Jackup
Rigs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Platform
Rigs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

SUBTOTAL
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Shallow
Water
Rigs
using
SBFs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
152
42
194
(
194)(
0.14)
=
27
Deep
Water
Rigs:

Floating
Rigs
(
Semi­
submersible
and
Drill
Ships)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Deep
Water
Rigs
using
SBFs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
40
40
TOTAL
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
67
Source:
Angelle
and
Scott,
2000
6(
a)(
2)
Estimating
Respondent
Initial
Burden
and
Costs
Initial
Contractor
Labor
Hours:
Operators
are
assumed
to
use
specialty
contractors
to
assist
them
in
developing
their
BMP
Plans.
These
specialty
contractors
are
expected
to
perform
site
screening
analyzes
and
summarize
their
findings
for
operators.
After
consultation
with
operators,
the
contractors
are
expected
to
prepare
a
draft
BMP
Plan
for
operators
to
review,
modify,
and
certify.
Contractor
labor
hours
dedicated
to
the
development,
review,
and
certification
of
the
BMP
Plan
are
estimated
to
be
150
hours
per
facility.
For
all
contractor
hours,
75%
is
engineering
labor
($
65/
hr)
and
25%
is
senior
management
labor
($
100/
hr).
Page
12
of
21
Initial
Facility
Engineering
Labor
Hours:
Facility
engineering
labor
hours
dedicated
to
the
development,
review,
and
certification
of
the
BMP
Plan
are
estimated
to
be
100
hours
per
facility.
For
all
in­
hours
facility
hours,
75%
is
engineering
labor
($
65/
hr)
and
25%
is
senior
management
labor
($
100/
hr).

6(
a)(
3)
Estimating
Respondent
Recurring
Burden
and
Costs
The
facility
burden
and
cost
estimates
for
amendment
and
review
of
the
BMP
Plan,
reporting,
monitoring,
record
keeping,
and
training
BMP
requirements
are
detailed
in
this
section.
Tables
4,
5,
and
6
in
Attachment
B
summarize
all
burden
and
cost
estimates
for
the
BMP
Plan
alternative.

BMP
Plan
Amendment
and
Review:
Annual
facility
labor
estimates
are
30
hours
per
facility.
For
all
in­
hours
facility
hours
for
BMP
Plan
amendment
and
review,
75%
is
engineering
labor
($
65/
hr)
and
25%
is
senior
management
labor
($
100/
hr).

Reporting
of
SBF
Spills:
EPA
estimates
that
there
are
3
SBF
spills
per
SBF
well
and
that
each
spill
requires
4
hours
of
labor
for
reporting
and
documenting
the
spill
details.
Therefore
the
annual
burden
per
SBF
facility
is
36
hours:
[
i.
e.,
(
3
SBF
spills/
SBF
well)(
4
hr/
SBF
spill)(
3
SBF
wells/
SBF
fac.)
=
36
hours/
SBF
fac.].
Inhouse
engineering
labor
($
65/
hr)
is
expected
to
complete
each
SBF
spill
report.

Additional
Monitoring
and
Reporting:
Four
elements
of
the
SBF
BMPs
require
additional
monitoring
and
reporting.
These
elements
are:

S
The
establishment
of
operating
and
maintenance
procedures
for
solids
control
equipment:
3
hr/
day,
and
S
Daily
retort
analyses:
3
hr/
day.

EPA
assumes
that
equipment
operators
($
20/
hr)
perform
these
additional
monitoring
and
reporting
requirements.
The
total
industry
burden
for
additional
monitoring
and
reporting
requirement
is
36,180
hours:

[
i.
e.,
(
201
SBF
wells/
yr)(
1
month/
SBF
well)(
30
days/
month)(
3
hr/
day
+
3
hr/
day)
=
36,180
hr],

where
3
hours
per
day
are
spent
on
identifying,
documenting,
and
repairing
leaking
SBFequipment
and
3
hours
per
day
are
spent
on
daily
retort
analyses.

Record
Keeping:
Estimates
are
based
on
2
hours
per
month
for
operators/
shift
supervisors
over
current
shift
log
record
keeping
($
20/
hr),
2
hours
per
month
for
engineering
technicians
($
65/
hr),
and
2
hours
per
month
for
clerical
support
($
15/
hr).
Therefore
the
total
burden
is
estimated
at
1,206
hours
per
year:
[
i.
e.,
(
201
SBF
wells/
year)(
1
month/
SBF
well)(
6
hours/
month)
=
1,206
hours/
year].
Applying
the
labor
rates
above,
the
total
cost
across
the
industry
per
year
is
$
40,200
Page
13
of
21
for
this
record
keeping.

Refresher
Training:
EPA
estimates
that
re­
fresher
training
takes
place
twice
a
year
and
each
training
session
is
4
hours
long.
Each
training
session
includes
nine
operators
($
20/
hr)
and
one
consultant
acting
as
trainer
($
65/
hr).
The
total
annual
burden
per
SBF
facility
for
refresher
training
is
72
hours
of
operator
effort
and
8
hours
of
consultant
effort.
Therefore
the
total
burden
across
the
industry
is
5,360
hours
and
$
131,320.

6(
b)
Estimating
Agency
Burden
Attachment
B
presents
eight
tables
of
burden
and
cost
estimates,
organized
into
three
categories:
Initial
Burden
and
Costs
(
Tables
1­
3);
Recurring
Annual
Burden
and
Costs
(
Tables
4­
6);
and
Summary
Burden
and
Costs
(
Tables
7­
8).
EPA
estimates
the
initial
burden
to
EPA
Regional
NPDES
permitting
authorities
at
8
hours
per
facility
for
preparation
of
NPDES
permit
provisions,
and
an
annual
burden
of
3
hours
per
year
for
reviewing
(
e.
g.,
annual
or
semi­
annual)
monitoring
reports
and
conducting
compliance
reviews.
The
cost
of
this
burden
is
estimated
to
be
$
32
per
hour,
based
on
recent
estimates
of
government
labor
rates
(
EPA,
1998).

6(
c)
Bottom
Line
Burden
and
Cost
Table
Table
8
of
Attachment
B
presents
the
bottom
line
initial
and
recurring
burden
hours
and
costs
for
respondents,
States,
and
EPA.

6(
d)
Reasons
for
Changes
in
Burden
Since
this
is
a
new
information
collection,
there
is
no
change
in
burden
for
this
collection.

6(
e)
Burden
Statement
EPA
estimates
the
public
reporting
burden
for
the
selected
BMP
option
as
787
hours
per
respondent
per
year
[
i.
e.,
(
16,750
initial
hours/
3
years
+
47,168
annual
hours/
year)
/
67
SBF
well
operators].
EPA
also
estimated
the
annual
burden
for
EPA
Regions,
the
NPDES
permit
controlling
authorities,
to
review
BMPs
and
ensure
compliance.
EPA
estimates
that
essentially
all
of
the
SBF
discharges
will
occur
in
Federal
offshore
waters
or
in
Cook
Inlet,
Alaska,
where
EPA
Region
X
retains
NPDES
permit
controlling
authority.
The
EPA
Regional
burden
for
reviewing
BMP
Plans
is
estimated
at
380
hours
per
year
[
i.
e.,
(
536
initial
hours/
3
years
+
201
annual
hours/
year)].

EPA
estimates
the
public
reporting
costs
as
$
24,058
per
respondent
per
year
[
i.
e.,
($
1,235,313
initial
costs/
3
years
+
$
1,200,138
annual
costs/
year)
/
67
SBF
well
operators].
The
EPA
Regional
costs
for
reviewing
BMP
Plans
is
estimated
at
approximately
$
12,149
per
year
[
i.
e.,
($
17,152
initial
costs/
3
years
+
$
6,432
annual
costs/
year)].
Page
14
of
21
Burden
means
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,
maintain,
retain,
or
disclose
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
Agency.
This
includes
the
time
needed
to:


review
instructions;


develop,
acquire,
install,
and
utilize
technology
and
systems
for
the
purposes
of
collecting,
validating,
and
verifying
information,
processing
and
maintaining
information,
and
disclosing
and
providing
information;


adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements;


train
personnel
to
be
able
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information;


search
data
sources;


complete
and
review
the
collection
of
information;
and

transmit
or
otherwise
disclose
the
information.

An
Agency
may
not
conduct
or
sponsor,
and
a
person
is
not
required
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information
unless
it
displays
a
currently
valid
OMB
control
number.
The
OMB
control
numbers
for
EPA's
regulations
are
listed
in
40
CFR
Part
9
and
48
CFR
Chapter
15.
The
OMB
control
number(
s)
for
the
information
collection
requirements
in
this
rule
will
be
listed
in
an
amendment
to
[
40
CFR
part
9
or
48
CFR
Chapter
15]
in
a
subsequent
Federal
Register
document
after
OMB
approves
the
ICR.

The
information
collection
requirements
in
this
rule
have
been
submitted
for
approval
to
the
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB)
under
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.
An
Information
Collection
Request
(
ICR)
document
has
been
prepared
by
EPA
(
ICR
No.
1953.01)
and
a
copy
may
be
obtained
from
Sandy
Farmer
by
mail
at
Collection
StrategiesDivision;
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
2822);
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,
DC
20460,
by
email
at
farmer.
sandy@
epamail.
epa.
gov,
or
by
calling
(
202)
260­
2740.
A
copy
may
also
be
downloaded
off
the
internet
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
icr.
The
information
requirements
are
not
enforceable
until
OMB
approves
them.
Page
15
of
21
7.
REFERENCES
Angelle,
Richard,
and
Paul
Scott,
2000,
Rig
Survey
Update
Focusing
on
the
Number
of
Rigs/
platforms
Where
Cuttings
Dryers
Could
Not
Be
Installed,
SBF
Rulemaking
Record,
Section
IV.
B.
b.
34,
November
9,
2000.

Henry,
Larry,
Response
to
EPA
Request
for
Additional
Input
Parameter
for
EPA
Modeling,
SBF
Rulemaking
Record,
Section
IV.
B.
a.
9,
September
11,
2000.

Johnston,
Carey
A.,
Initial
Burden
and
Cost
Estimates
for
SBF
BMP
Information
Collection
Request,
SBF
Rulemaking
Record,
Section
III.
H.(
2),
February
28,
2000.

U.
S.
EPA,
Information
Collection
Request
Supporting
Statement
for
Best
Management
Practices
Alternatives,
Effluent
Limitations
Guidelines
and
Standards,
Oil
and
Gas
Extraction
Point
Source
Category
(
40
CFR
Part
435),
EPA
ICR
No.
1953.01,
SBF
Rulemaking
Record,
Section
III.
H.(
5),
April
11,
2000.

U.
S.
EPA,
Development
Document
for
Proposed
Effluent
Limitations
Guidelines
and
Standards
for
Synthetic­
Based
Drilling
Fluids
and
Other
Non­
Aqueous
Drilling
Fluids
in
the
Oil
and
Gas
Extraction
Point
Source
Category,
EPA­
821­
B­
98­
021,
February
1999.

U.
S.
EPA,
Information
Collection
Request
Supporting
Statement
for
Best
Management
Practices
for
the
Bleached
Papergrade
Kraft
and
Soda
Subcategory
and
the
Papergrade
Sulfite
Subcategory
of
the
Pulp,
Paper,
and
Paperboard
Point
Source
Category
(
40
CFR
Part
430),
December
1,
1998.

U.
S.
EPA,
Guidance
Document
for
Developing
Best
Management
Practices
(
BMP),
EPA
833­
B
B
93
B
004,
October
1993.
Page
16
of
21
Attachment
A
­
Input
Parameters
for
ICR
Burden
Estimate
Input
Parameters
Value
ID
No.

SBF
Usage
Assumptions:
Total
Number
of
SBF
Wells
(
SBF
wells/
yr.):
201
1
Number
of
SBF
Wells
per
SBF
Facility
(
SBF
wells/
fac.):
3
2
Number
of
SBF
Facilities
per
Year
(
fac./
yr.):
67
3
Length
of
SBF
Drilling
Operation
(
months/
SBF­
well):
1
4
Days
in
month
(
days/
month):
30
5
Labor
Rate
Assumptions:
Contractor
Engineering
Labor
Rate
($/
hr):
65
6
Contractor
Senior
Management
Labor
Rate
($/
hr):
100
7
In­
house
Engineering
Labor
Rate
($/
hr):
65
8
In­
house
Senior
Management
Labor
Rate
($/
hr):
100
9
In­
house
Operators/
Shift
Supervisors
Labor
Rate
($/
hr):
20
10
In­
house
Engineering
Technicians
Labor
Rate
($/
hr):
65
11
In­
house
Clerical
Support
Labor
Rate
($/
hr):
15
12
Labor
rate
for
contractor
teaching
Re­
fresher
training
($/
hr):
65
13
State
NPDES
controlling
authority
labor
rate
($/
hr):
32
14
EPA
Regional
labor
rate
($/
hr):
32
15
Labor
Assumptions
(
Development
and
Annual
Review):
Initial
Facility
Contract
Labor
Hours
Required
(
2
SBF
wastestreams)
(
hours):
200
16
Initial
Facility
Contract
Labor
Hours
Required
(
1
SBF
wastestream)
(
hours):
150
17
%
of
Initial
Facility
Contract
Labor
Hours
that
are
Engineering
Labor
(%
of
total):
75
18
%
of
Initial
Facility
Contract
Labor
Hours
that
are
Senior
Management
(%
of
total):
25
19
Initial
Facility
In­
house
Labor
Hours
Required
(
2
SBF
wastestreams)
(
hours):
150
20
Initial
Facility
In­
house
Labor
Hours
Required
(
1
SBF
wastestream)
(
hours):
100
21
%
of
Initial
Facility
In­
house
Labor
Hours
that
are
Engineering
Labor
(%
of
total):
75
22
%
of
Initial
In­
house
Labor
Hours
that
are
Senior
Management
(%
of
total):
25
23
Annual
Facility
In­
house
Lab.
Hrs.
for
BMP
Plan
Review
(
2
SBF
wastestreams)
(
hours):
40
24
Annual
Facility
In­
house
Lab.
Hrs.
for
BMP
Plan
Review
30
25
Input
Parameters
Value
ID
No.

Page
17
of
21
(
1
SBF
wastestream)
(
hours):
%
of
Annual
Facility
In­
house
Lab.
Hrs.
for
BMP
Review
that
are
Eng.
Staff
(%
of
total):
75
26
%
of
Annual
Facility
In­
house
Lab.
Hrs.
for
BMP
Review
that
are
Snr.
Mgmt.
(%
of
total):
25
27
Labor
Assumptions
(
Spills):
In­
house
Eng.
Lab.
Hrs.
per
SBF
spill
(
hr./
spill):
4
28
Number
of
SBF
spills
per
SBF
well
(
SBF
spills/
SBF
well):
3
29
Labor
Assumptions
(
Recordkeeping):
Number
of
Recordkeeping
Hours
by
Operators/
Shift
Sup.
per
month
(
hr./
month):
2
30
Number
of
Recordkeeping
Hours
by
Engineering
Technicians
per
month
(
hr/
month):
2
31
Number
of
Recordkeeping
Hours
by
Clerical
Staff
per
month
(
hr/
month):
2
32
Labor
Assumptions
(
Re­
fresher
training):
Number
of
Operators
in
Re­
fresher
training:
9
33
Number
of
Re­
fresher
training
sessions
per
year:
2
34
Number
of
hours
per
Re­
fresher
training
session:
4
35
Number
of
consultants
teaching
re­
fresher
training:
1
36
Labor
Assumptions
(
Additional
Monitoring
and
Reporting):
Inspection
of
SBF­
Equipment
(
but
not­
solids
control
equipment)
for
spills/
leaks
(
hrs/
day):
3
37
Inspection
of
SBF­
Equipment
(
but
not­
solids
control
equipment)
for
malfunctions
(
hrs/
day):
3
38
Inspection
of
solids
control
equipment
for
O&
M
(
hrs/
day):
3
39
Daily
Retort
analysis
(
hr/
day):
3
40
Labor
Assumptions
(
State):
Number
of
initial
hours
by
State
NPDES
controlling
authority
(
hr/
yr­
facility):
a
0
41
Number
of
annual
hours
by
State
NPDES
controlling
authority
(
hr/
yr­
facility):
a
0
42
Labor
Assumptions
(
EPA
Regions):
Number
of
initial
hours
by
EPA
Region
(
hr/
yr­
facility):
8
43
Number
of
annual
hours
by
EPA
Region
(
hr/
yr­
facility):
3
44
Page
18
of
21
a
EPA
has
not
yet
delegated
NPDES
permitting
authority
to
the
State
of
Alaska
where
these
discharges
are
likely
to
occur.
Page
19
of
21
Attachment
B
­
Burden
and
Costs
Estimates
Table
1:
Facility
Consultant
Burden
and
Costs
for
Development,
Review,
and
Certification
of
BMP
Plans
Labor
Hours
Labor
Costs
(
1998$)

Engineering
Management
Total
Engineering
Management
Total
7,538
2,513
10,050
489,938
251,250
741,188
Table
2:
Facility
In­
house
Burden
and
Costs
for
Development,
Review,
and
Certification
of
BMP
Plan
Labor
Hours
Labor
Costs
(
1998$)

Engineering
Management
Total
Engineering
Management
Total
5,025
1,675
6,700
326,625
167,500
494,125
Table
3:
Total
Facility
Initial
Burden
and
Costs
Labor
Hours
Labor
Costs
(
1998$)

16,750
1,235,313
Page
20
of
21
Table
4:
Facility
Labor
Hours
for
Amendment
and
Review
of
BMP
Plan,
Reporting,
Monitoring,
Record
Keeping,
and
Training
Amend.
&

Rvw
BMP
Plan
Reporting
of
Spills
Add'l
Monit.

and
Rpting
Record
Keeping
Refresher
Training
Total
Hours
2,010
2,412
36,180
1,206
5,360
47,168
Table
5:
Facility
Costs
(
1998$)
for
Amendment
and
Review
of
BMP
Plan,
Reporting,
Monitoring,
Record
Keeping,

and
Training
Amend.
&

Rvw
BMP
Plan
Reporting
of
Spills
Add'l
Monit.

and
Rpting
Record
Keeping
Refresher
Training
Total
Costs
(
1998$)

148,238
156,780
723,600
40,200
131,320
1,200,138
Table
6:
Total
Recurring
Facility
Respondent
Burden
and
Costs
Labor
Hours
Labor
Costs
(
1998$)

47,168
1,200,138
Page
21
of
21
Table
7:
Summary
of
Burden
Hours
to
Respondents
and
EPA
TOTAL
LABOR
HOURS
Respondents:
Facilities
Respondents:
States
EPA
Initial
Annual
Initial
Annual
Initial
Annual
16,750
47,168
0
0
536
201
Table
8:
Summary
of
Costs
(
1998$)
to
Respondents
and
EPA
TOTAL
COSTS
(
1998$)

Respondents:
Facilities
Respondents:
States
EPA
Initial
Annual
Initial
Annual
Initial
Annual
1,235,313
1,200,138
0
0
17,152
6,432
