# Draft	Environmental Assessment

BSEE	BOP/Well	Control	Proposed	Rule

– AA11

4/8/ 20151



## 1 **. INTRODUCTION**  **1.1 Background and Overview**  The Department of the Interior is mandated under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) to manage the orderl y leasing, exploration, development, and production of mineral resources on the Federal Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). The Secretary of the Interior oversees the OCS oil and gas program and is required to balance orderl y resource extraction with protection of human safety and marine and coastal environment s . The BSEE proposes to revise portions of existing regulatory subparts concerning offshore operations, incorporate cert ain industry standards, and create a new subpart , 30 CFR 250, Subpart G

– Well Operations and Equipment, in order to consolidate existing regulations concerning common equipment and operations covering drilling, completions, workovers, and decommissioning on the OCS. This proposed rulemaking would create new subpart G, which would focus on blowout preventer (BOP) requirements , including incorporation of the latest industry standard document on BOP s , API Standard 53 , Blowout Prevention Equipment Systems for Drilling Wells

– Fourth Edition (2012) . This proposed rule would address and implement multiple recommendations from the various Deepwater Horizon (DWH) investigations and invite public comment. Additional discussion on the background of this rulemaking is included in the preamble of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Blowout Preventer Sy stems and Well Control, RI N 1014

- AA11 (Docket ID: BSEE

- 2012

- 0016). This environmental assessment (EA) discusses the purposes of and need for this proposed rulemaking, alternatives to this proposed rulemaking, and this proposed rulemaking’s reasonabl y foreseeable environmental impacts in order to determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EI S) should be prepared

. This EA was prepared in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality

(CEQ) regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

. BSEE welcomes any comments on this EA and on any other documents associated with th ese proposed regulations. 

### 1.2 **Purpose and Need** The purpose of the proposed F ederal action is to amend and update regulations under 30 CFR Part 250 regarding oil and gas well

- control operations o n the OCS, including those concerning BOP sy stems. Ensuring the integrity of the wellbore and maintaining control over well pressure and fluids during operations are critical aspects of ensuring human safety and protecting the environment. In particular, BOP s ys tems can be the last defense against an uncontrolled discharge of oil or volatile gas into the environment. The proposed rule is needed to ensure that BSEE’s regulations governing OCS oil and gas well operations , including drilling, completions, workovers, and decommissioning , require technology and practices that enhance safety and environmental protection

. Following the April 20, 2010 DWH explosion, blowout, and oil spill , multiple entities initiated investigations to determine the causes of the event and to make recommendations to reduce the likelihood of a similar event in the future.2

The investigative bodies included:

• D epartment of the Interior and U.S. Coast Guard Joint Investigation Team

• National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling

• Chief Counsel for the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling

• National Academ y of Engineering

• Chemical Safety Board Each investigation outlined several recommendations to improve offshore safety. The requirements in this proposed rule are based, in part, on recommendations from these investigations. The proposed rule includes reforms in the areas of well design, well control, casing, cementing, real

- time well monitoring, and subsea containment. It also incorporate s guidance from several Notices to Lessees and Operators (NTLs) and revise s existing regulations related to drilling, workover, completion, and decommissioning operations to enhance safety and e nvironmental protection. Man y of the changes proposed in this rulemaking are designed specificall y to improve wellbore integrity and well control in order to prevent incidents involving loss of well control. 

## 2 **. PROPOSED**  **ACTION AND**  **AL TERNA**  **TIVES** This EA evaluates three alternatives , including a No Action Alternative, for amending and updating regulations under 30 CFR Part 250 regarding oil and gas well

- control operations on the OCS, including those concerning BOP sy stems. 

### 2.1 **Alternative 1: No Action Alternative**  This alternative would forgo an y changes to the 30 CFR Part 250 regulations that apply to blowout preventer s ys tems and other well

- control practices. BSEE would continue to rel y on existing regulations in combination with permit conditions, Deep w ater Operations Plans (DWOPs), operator prudence, and industry standards

. 

### 2. **2 Alternative**  **2 :**  **Preferred Alternative and Proposed Action** The proposed action is the promulgation of the proposed rule entitled Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations on the Outer Continental Shelf

– Oil and Gas Blowout Preventer Sy stems and Well Control , which would modify and/or consolidate the existing requirements under 30 CFR Part 250 Subparts A, B, D

- G, P, and Q, to include 89 new or revised sections that would impose new requirements and incorporate new or improved industry standards. By

improving safety, this rule has the potential to reduce the number and/or severity of oil spills on the OCS and , as a result , reduce the environmental impacts of oil spills on the OCS. In summary , the proposed rulemaking would improve well control through the following:3

1. In corporat e industry

standards related to improving wellbore integrity and well control. Although the industry

generall y follows the published standards, compliance with those standards is not enforceable unless they are incorporated into regulations. Incorporating standards into regulations make s those standards requirements. The proposed rule would incorporate the following industry standards:

a. American Petroleum Institute (API) Standard 53, Blowout Prevention Equipment Sy stems for Drilling Wells , 4th Edition ; b. American National Standards Institute (ANSI)/API Specification (Spec.) 11D1, Packers and Bridge Plugs , 2 nd Edition; c. API Recommended Practice (RP) 17H, Remotel y Operated Tools and Interfaces on Subsea Production Sy stems , 1 st Edition; d. APIRP 2RD, Design of Risers for Floating Production Sy stems (FPSs) and Tension

Leg Platforms (TLPs), 1 st Edition; e. ANSI/API Spec. 6A, Specification for Wellhead and Christmas Tree Equipment , 19 th Edition; f. ANSI/API Spec. 16A, Specification for Drill

- through Equipment , 3 rd Edition; g. APISpec. 16C, Specification for Choke and Kill Systems , 1 st Edition; h. APISpec. 16D, Specification for Control Sy stems for Drilling Well Control Equipment and Control Systems for Diverter Equipment , 2 nd Edition; i. ANSI/API Spec. 17D, Design and Operation of Subsea Production Sy stems

– Subsea Wellhead and Tree Equipment , 2 nd Edition; and j. ANSI/API Spec. Q1, Specification for Quality Programs for the Petroleum, Petrochemical and Natural Gas Industry , 8 th Edition

. 2. Revise the requirements for DWOP s to require free

- standing hy brid risers (FSHR) for use with floating production, storage, and offloading ( FPSO ) unit s . The proposed rule would require the operator to provide additional information and to submit additional documentation on a proposed FSHR. This additional detail and documentation would include the following :

a. D etailed descriptions and drawings of the FSHR and its buoy and tether sy stem ; b. Information on the design, fabrication, and installation of the FSHR and its buoy and tether s ys tem, including pressure ratings, fatigue life, and yield strengths; c. A description of how the operator complied with APIRP 2RD, Recommended Practice for Design of Risers for Floating Production Sy stems (FPSs) and Tension Leg Platforms ( TLPs); d. D etailed information regarding the tether s ys tem used to connect the FSHR to a buoyancy air can; e. D escriptions of the monitoring s ys tem and a monitoring plan to monitor the pipeline FSHR and tether for fatigue, stress, and an y other abnormal conditio n (e.g., corrosion) that may

negatively

impact the riser or tether; and f. D ocumentation that the tether s ys tem and connection accessories for the pipeline FSHR have been certified by an approved classification society or equivalent , and verified b y the Certi fied Verification Agent (CVA) , as currentl y required by BSEE.4

3. Revise sections currently in existing 30 CFR Part 250 subpart D

– Oil and Gas Drilling Operations to include the following requirements:

a. Submittal of equivalent circulating density ( ECD ) for wellbore fluid with the Application for Permit to Drill . The ECD is the effective fluid density exerted by a circulating fluid against the formation that takes into account the pressure drop in the annulus. The ECD is an important parameter in avoid ing kicks and losses, particularl y in wells that have a narrow window between the fracture gradient and pore pressure. This information is necessary for proper well drilling design and for BSEE to better review the drilling program. b. Improved safe drilling margin requirements. The planned safe drilling margins would be required to be between the proposed drilling fluid weights and the estimated pore pressures , and the lesser of estimated fracture gradients or casing shoe pressure integrity test. The safe drilling margins would need to ensure that : 1. T he s tatic downhole mud weight is greater than the estimated pore pressure; 2. S tatic downhole mud weight is a minimum of one

- half pound per gallon below the lesser of the casing shoe pressure integrity test or the lowest estimated fracture gradient; 3. T he ECD is below the lesser of the casing shoe pressure integrity test or the lowest estimated fracture gradi ent; and 4. Related hole behavior ( e.g ., pressures, influx/loss of fluids, and fluid ty pes) is considered when determining the pore pressure and lowest estimated fracture gradient for a specific interval.

c. A wellhead description that include s the ty pe of wellhead and liner hanger sy stems and a descriptive schematic. The descriptive schematic would include pressure ratings, dimensions, valves, load shoulders, and locking mechanism s , if applicable. d. Adequate casing or liner centralization to h elp ensure proper cementation

. e. For operations using a subsea BOP or a surface BOP on a floating facility, the operator would be required to demonstrate the ability to control or contain a blowout event at the sea floor. The operator must have access to, and the ability to deploy , all equipment necessary

to regain control of the well. Source Control and Containment Equipment (SCCE) means the capping stack, cap and flow sy stem, containment dome, and/or other subsea and surface devices, equipment, and vesse ls whose collective purpose is to control a spill source and stop the flow of fluids into the environment or to contain fluids escaping into the environment. 4. Revise provisions in 30 CFR Part 250 subparts E and F to include requirements for:

a. Adherence to newl y incorporated API Spec. 11D1, Packers and Bridge Plugs , 2 nd Edition; b. Production packer setting depth to allow for a sufficient column of weighted fluid for hydrostatic control of the well ; and5

c. A description , with calculations , of how the production packer setting depth was determined

. 5. Revise provisions currently in existing 30 CFR Part 250 subpart Q to include requirement s for packer and bridge plug design, casing bridge plugs, and decommissioning applications and reports , inc luding the requirement that all packers and bridge plugs would have to comply with API Spec. 11D1 , Packers and Bridge Plugs, 2 nd Edition

. 6. Create new Subpart G , and move common existing requirements from subparts D, E, F, and Q into this new subpart . This would create consistency among the requirements related to well operations (drilling, completion, workover, and decommissioning) ; i.e ., regardless of the ty pe of operation being performed, the same basi c requirements would apply

. In cluded within this section, BSEE would revise the existing 7

- day BOP pressure testing interval for well workovers and decommissioning operations to be consistent with the 14

- day interval for drilling and completions. 7. In clude additional or revised requi rements in new Subpart G , such as the following :

a. Rig and equipment movement reports for Mobile Offshore Drilling Units ( MODUs ) , platform rigs, snubbing units, wire

- line units used for non

- routine operations, and coiled tubing units ; b. Real

- time monitoring b y onshore personnel of the BOP sy stem, fluid handling s ys tem of the rig, and downhole conditions. Having the real

- time data available to onshore personnel would increase the level of oversight throughout operations. Onshore personne l could review data and help rig personnel better conduct operations in a safe manner. Also, onshore personnel would be able to assist the rig crew in identifying and evaluating abnormalities or unusual conditions while conducting operations. This sectio n would require that BSEE be provided access to the real

- time monitoring facility , upon request. c. BOP requirements for the following: i. Design and manufacture/quality assurance ; ii. Accumulator s ys tem capabilities and calculations ; iii. BOP and remotely

operated ve hicle capabilities such as : the remotel y operated vehicle would have to be able to perform critical BOP functions, including opening and closing each shear ram, choke and kill side outlet valves, all pipe rams, and the L ower M arine Riser P latform disconnect under Maximum Anticipated Surface Pressure ( MASP ) conditions ; iv. BOP shearing functions , including the installation of shear rams that center drill pipe during shearing operations , and two shear rams, one of which must be capable of sealing the wel lbore under MASP after shearing ; v. Increased maintenance and inspection requirements and qualifications and training for personnel that work on BOPs; vi. Failure reporting procedures per APIstandards, within timeframes specified by BSEE;6 vii. Third

- party verification of the design, maintenance, inspection, testing, and repair of BOP s ys tems and equipment; and viii. Additional submittals to BSEE including up

- to
- date schematics of the BOP and BOP control s ys tems. 8. In corporate guidance from several Notice s to Lessees into a new subpart for the following :

a. G lobal p osition ing s ys tems (GPS) for MODUs , which would provid e a robust and reliable means of monitoring the position and tracking the path , in real

- time , o f MODU s or jack

- up rigs that may move during a severe storm ; b. Ocean Current Monitoring , which would provide ocean current data needed for planning, designing, and operating MODUs, floating production platforms, an d ancillary equipment , and ensure the sharing of ocean current data to deve lop a better understanding of ocean currents and bath ym etry ; c. Alternate Compliance in Safety S ys tems for Subsea Production Operations , which would allow the use of the Barrier Concept as the basis for using procedures or equipment in the safety s ys tems for subsea production operations ; d. Dropped Objects Plan for floating MODUs , which would help avoid prolonged damage to subsea infrastructure and aid the res ponse of operators and BSEE to a dropped object ; e. Standard Reporting Period for Well Activity Reports (WAR s ) , which clarifies when to submit the WARs (Form BSEE

- 0133) and accompanying Form BSEE

- 0133S, Open Hole Data Report ; and f. In formation to be include d in WARs and End of Operation Reports , including : i. information describing the operations conducted, any abnormal or significant events that affect the permitted operation ; ii. verbal approvals ; iii. the wells as

- built drawings ; iv. casing fluid weights ; v. shoe tests ; vi. test pressures at surface conditions ; and vii. status of the well at the end of the reporting period. 

### 2. **3 Alternative**  **3 :**  **Proposed Action Plus Change in Frequency of Pressure**  **Testing from 14 to 21 Days** This alternative would promulgate the requirements contained within the proposed rule with a change to the required frequency of BOP pressure testing from the existing regulatory requirements ( i.e., once every 7 or 14 day s depending upon the type of operation) to once every 21 day s for all ope rations.7



### 2.4 **Alternative s**  **Considered but not Carried Forward for**  **Further Analysis**  1. BSEE also considered another alternative that would eliminate certain proposed requirements in the following provisions of the proposed rulemaking (as described in part 2.2 above), which could result in small increases in vessel traffic and in associated environmental consequences (as discussed in part 4.2 below) : § 250. 462 What are the source control requirements ? § 250.7 34 What are the requirements for a subsea BOP sy stem? Compliance with those proposed provisions could require some additional vessel traffic to and from OCS well sites ( e.g ., to ensure that SCCE and BOP equipment meet the proposed new requirements), and e xclusion of those provisions c ould avoid the potential ly negligible adverse environmental effects ( e.g ., increased air emissions, noise levels) that could result from additional vessel traffic

. Exclusion of those provisions c ould also result in some potential cost savings for OCS operators . However, exclusion of those provisions under such an alternative would substantially reduce the potential beneficial environmental consequences that would result from Alternative 2 ( and Alternative 3 ) and would fall far short of achieving the main purpose and need of the proposed rule; i.e ., to prevent loss of well control and prevent or minimize potentially catastrophic oil spills. 2. Additionally within § 250.7 34, BSEE considered including requirements for industry that would be associated with the installation of technology capable of severing any

components of the drill string (excluding drill bits). Including such a severing requirement would provide additional protection against the potential loss of we ll control by requiring that operators install supplemental technology that ensures all components of a drill string, including those components that cannot be sheared with current shear rams, could be severed in an emergency

to allow the well to be safel y shut

- in, thereby reducing the risk of a loss of well control. BSEE provides extensive and robust discussion of severing in the preamble of the rulemaking, including seeking input on whether such a provision should be included in the final rule. Although th ese requirement s were not included within the proposed regulatory text, BSEE nonetheless considered them and determined that they would not result in operational changes and would likely have no adverse environmental impacts as a result. Given this analy sis, BSEE determined that a separate alternative was not needed to assess the impacts of including this requirement in the final rule. 

## 3 **. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT**  The vast majority

of active OCS oil and gas operations take place in the Gulf of Mexico OCS region, while fewer but still significant operations are conducted in the Pacific OCS region (BOEM 2012) . Although there is relativel y little current operational activity in the Alaska OCS region, especially

in the Arctic areas of that region, there is the potential for significant future operations in that region. Moreover, the environment and ecos ys tems in the Arctic areas and other parts of the Alaska region are particularly sensitive (BOEM 2012) . Thus, while the coastal and marine environments of the Pacific and Gulf of Mexico regions a re proportionally

most relevant to this proposed rulemaking in the near term, this EA also considers the potential8

impacts of the proposed action on the Arctic OCS. Descriptions of baseline environmental and socioeconomic conditions of the Gulf of Mexico, Pacific, and Alaska OCS planning areas may be found in the BOEM 2012

- 2017 OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program programmatic environmental impact statement (BOEM 2012) and the Minerals Management Service programmatic environmental impact statement for alternative energy development and alternative use of facilities on the OCS (MMS 2007). In these regions , an oil spill following a loss of well control could affect :

 Air quality ;  Water q

uality ;
 Marine and t errestrial m ammals ;  Marine and coastal b irds ;
 Sea turtles ;  Fish and shellfish ;  Coastal, nearshore, and seafloor habitats;
 Areas of special concern, including essential fish habitat;
 Sociocultural sy stems and environmental justice;
 Population, employ

ment, and regional income;
 Tourism and recreation ;
 Commercial and recreational fisheries;
 Subsistence hunting and fishing;
 Land use and existing infrastructure; and
 Archeological resources.


## 4 **. ENVIRONMENT** 

**AL CONSEQUENCES**  **4.1 Alternative 1: No Action Alternative**  Adopting the N o A ction alternative would mean that the proposed revisions to 30 CFR Part 250 would not be incorporated into federal regulation , and thus the intended benefits of the rulemaking would not be realized. The underlying purpose of the proposed rulemaking is to enhance the safety of o il and gas operations on the OCS, thereby reducing the likelihood of a loss of well control and a discharge of oil into the environment . This, in turn, would also reduce the likelihood of potential injury , loss of life, and environmental and socioeconomic impacts

. Conversel y , under the No Action Alternative, no reduction would be expected in the likeli hood of a loss of well control and any subsequent discharge of oil

. A l oss of well control during well operations on an OCS facil ity can cause human injury or loss of life , as well as adverse economic and environmental impacts. The volume of oil resulting from a worst case discharge at a well may exceed volumes from other potential spill sources, such as pipelines or vessels (BOEM 2012)

. For example, a spill from a pipeline at or near the seafloor is accessible for repairs, and9

the flow into the pipeline can be shut

- in. In contrast, a loss of well control and a failure of the BOP sy stem may

result in the discharge of gas, c ondensate, oil, sand, or water that is more difficult to contain and shut

- in, potentially compromising safety and resulting in a significant oil spill

. A catastrophic oil spill resulting from a loss of well control and BOP failure can affect a variety of biological, socioeconomic, and sociocultural resources over extensive coastal and offshore areas. Impacts that may

occur include :

 Air Quality : Impacts on air quality may result from the emission of pollutants from the oil and from in situ burning , and from the dispersant mist resulting from the application of chem ical dispersants on the oil (BOEM 2012)

. Evaporation of spilled oil also would cause increases in volatile organic compounds (VOCs ) . T he magnitude and extent of any air quality

impacts would depend on the size, location, and duration of the spill , and on local meteorological conditions such as wind speed and direction

. Spreading of spilled oil and action by

wind, waves, and currents would act to disperse and thus reduce VOC conc entrations

. Over time, air quality would return to pre

- spill conditions. The in situ burning of spilled oil would generate a plume of black smoke and emissions of nitrogen oxides 1 (NO x ) , sulfur dioxide ( SO 2 ) , carbon monoxide ( CO ) , and particulate matter2 ( PM 10 , and PM 2.5 ) that would temporarily affect air quality. Smoke from burning crude oil also would contain polycyclic aromatic h ydrocarbons ( PAHs )

. After the burn, air quality would return to pre

- burn conditions.

 Water Quality : An oil spill will adversely affect water quality b y introducing hydrocarbons into the water column. Weathering processes that transform oil, such as volatilization, emulsification, dissolution, chemical oxidation, photo

- oxidation, and microbial oxidation, may reduce water quality impacts o f oil spills (NRC 2003 ; NOAA 2005). Because oil is generall y less dense than water, it would tend to float on the sea surface , and l ighter oil fractions containing BTEX 3 would evaporate from the surface and , therefore, w ould not be a continuing source of potential water contamination. Following a spill, light crude oils can lose as much as 75% of their initial volume to evaporation as the lighter components ( e.g ., BTEX) change from the liquid to the gas phase; medium

- weight crude oils can lose as much as 40% (NRC 2003b). In the event of a spill occurring under ice cover, oil would be trapped and essentiall y remain unchanged until ice breakup occurred and the ice began to melt. The volatile compounds from such a spill would be more likely to freeze into the ice within hours to day s , rather than dissolve or disperse into the water below the ice

. The i mpacts on water quality will depend upon the ty

pe of oil spille d ; the size, location, and duration of the spills ; weather conditions in the spill area ; and remediation activities. Small spills would likely

result in short

- term, localized impacts , while i mpacts from large spills could persist for an extended period of time (BOEM 2012)

. The potential for more

1 The combination of nitrogen oxide (NO) and nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ) is referred to as NO x . 2 PM 10 and PM 2.5 refer to particulate matter of 10 micrometer and 2.5 micrometer mean aerodynamic diameter, or less, respectively. 3 BTEX refers to a mixture of benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xy lene

.10

widespread and long

- term water quality impacts may be expected to be greater in Alaskan waters, especially under ice

- cover conditions. On the Alaska OCS , winter conditions ( e.g ., complete ice cover and extremely cold conditions) could substantially complicate spill response, given current spill control and remediation technologies. The speed of natural recovery in the Alaska OCS, as compared to GOM waters, could be slowed b y the persistence of oil in cold water temperatures and under ice cover. Additional effects on water quality would occur from response and cleanup vessels, in situ burning of oil, dispersant use, discharges and seafloor disturbance from relief well drilling, and activities on shorelines associated with cleanup, booming, beach cleaning, and monitoring (BOEM 2012)

.

 Marine and Terrestrial Mammals : O il spills may resu lt in the direct and indirect exposure of mammals and their habitats to oil (BOEM 2012, NOAA 2012)

. Marine mammals can be exposed to chemicals in oil or dispersants in several way s , such as internal exposure (b y consuming oil or contaminated prey , or inhaling volatile oil and dispersant

- related compounds); external exposure (by swimming in oil or dispersants , and having oil or dispersants directl y on the skin and body); and maternal transfer of contaminants to embryos. Fouling of fur of some speci es ( e.g ., sea otter, polar bear, and fur seal) could affect thermoregulation and reduce survival. Terrestrial species may be exposed if a spill reaches their terrestrial and aquatic habitats. When oil reaches land, it can severel y impact coastal and estu arine habitats such as marshes, mudflats, mangrove stands, and beaches (BOEM 2012, NOAA 2012) . Terrestrial mammals that use these habitats (such as beach mice in the GOM ) are at risk from direct fouling b y the oil, as well as exposure via consumption of p rey contaminated b y the oil spill

. The magnitude of effects to marine and terrestrial mammals from oil spills would depend on the location, magnitude, duration, timing, and volume of the spills; the habitats affected by the spills ( e.g ., m arine, coastal, and estuarine habitats); and the species exposed. Overall, impacts on marine mammals from an oil spill could include phy sical injury or death; behavior disturbances; lethal or sublethal toxic effects; and loss of reproductive, nursery , fee ding, and resting habits ( BOEM 2012 ). Specificall y, i n Alaska, the greatest risk to marine mammals would be associated with large spills reaching rookeries and haul out locations where large numbers of individuals could be exposed and populatio n - level imp acts could occur (BOEM 2012)

. R esponse activities, such as collecting and burning oil at sea, skimmer operations, boom deploy ment, the use of dispersants, berm construction , and boat traffic also could directl y injure marine mammals or cause behavioral ch anges. Terrestrial habitats used by some species may

be negatively

impacted by response activities , such as shoreline cleanup efforts, placement of boom s, and siting of land

- based staging areas (BOEM 2012)

. In addition, the discharge of condensate, oil, sand, or water from a loss of well control could result in increased turbidity and concentrations of total suspended solids in the water column, which could displace marine mammals from the drill sites and could adversel y affect habitat an d prey within and around the drill site. Such an effect could be of particular concern i n the Arctic and other areas of the Alaska OCS

. In the Arctic, s ubsistence hunters, who rely on traditional ecological knowledge, have expressed11

concern that whales, particularly migrating bowhead whales, are capable of detecting the odors from discharges and will avoid areas where these discharges occur , which in turn would significantl y impact subsistence whale hunting (BOEM 2012)

.

 Marine and Coastal Birds: Birds may be exposed to, and affected b y, oil or dispersants in a number of way s (BOEM 2012, NOAA 2012) . External exposure may occur if the birds swim or dive through floating oil, or utilize oiled beaches and marshes

. External exposure results in the oiling of feathers , and o iled birds can lose the ability to fl y, dive for food , or float on the water, which can lead to drowning. Oiling of feathers interferes with the water repellency of feathers and can lead to hy pothermia . Internal exposure may occur through the incidental ingestion of oil as the birds preen and try to clean their feathers , through ingestion of contaminated food and media , and through inhalation of volatile oil

- related compounds. M aternal transfer of contaminants from exposed adult females to embryos and eggs may also occur. Internal exposure may result in a variety of lethal and sublethal phy siological, metabolic, developmental, and behavioral effects

. Internal exposure may

lead to reduced survival and reproductive success ( e.g ., reduce d hatching of eggs and survival of hatchlings ) (BOEM 2012, NOAA 2012)

. The magnitude and ecological importance of any effects to marine and coastal birds would depend upon the size, location, duration, and timing of the spill; the species and life stages of the exposed birds; and the size of the local bird population (BOEM 2012)

. Exposure to spills in deep water would be largel y limited to pelagic birds. Spills that reach coastal habitats could affect the greatest variety and number of birds, including shorebirds, waterfowl, wading birds, gulls, and terns. Spills reaching onshore locations have the greatest potential for affecting the greatest number of birds, especially if a spill occurs in or reaches an area where birds have co ngregated and are carrying out important activities (such as nesting, molting, and staging areas for some waterfowl and shorebirds)

.

 Sea Turtles: Oil spills may expose one or more sea turtle life stages to oil or its weathering products (BOEM 2012, NOAA 2012)

. Internal exposure may occur through the incidental ingestion of oil , feeding on contaminated food, or inhaling volatile oil and dispersant

- related compounds , as well as maternal transfer from exposed adults to eggs. E xternal expo sure may

occur as juveniles and adults swim in oil or dispersants which then adhere directly to the skin and body , while eggs and hatchlings may be exposed if nest sites become oiled. Exposed hatchlings, juveniles, and adults may incur a variety

of lethal or sublethal effects. Oil reaching nests may reduce egg hatching and hatchling survival and inhibit hatchling access to water, while the presence of oil on nesting beaches may

affect nest site access and use b y adult turtles (BOEM 2012, NOAA 2012)

. The magnitude of effects from an oil spill will depend on the location, timing, duration, and volume of the spill; the environmental settings of the spills; and the species and life stages of sea turtle exposed to the spills. A catastrophic spill could af fect the greatest number of individuals, life stages, and habitats , and result in major impacts to the affected species and potentially lead to population

- level effects (BOEM 2012)

. In addition to chemical exposure , response activities such as the use of dispersants,12

collecting and burning oil at sea , skimmer operations , boom deploy ment , berm construction , and onshore equipment use and increased light at night on or near nesting beaches , could directly

injure sea turtles, block access to turtle nesting bea ches , and/or cause behavioral changes. Furthermore, BSEE recognizes that most species of potentially impacted sea turtles are listed under Endangered Species Act , and BSEE considered this when evaluating the potential impacts described above.

 Fish and Shellfish : Fish and shellfish may be exposed to oil and dispersants through a variety of pathways, including direct dermal contact ( e.g. , swimming through oil and dispersants or waters with elevated dissolved h ydrocarbon concentrations and other constituents), ingestion ( e.g. , feeding on contaminated food and filter

- feeding in contaminated water) , and respiration ( e.g. , elevated dissolved contaminant concentrations in water passing over the gills). Recent results from studies looking at potential sy nergetic effects of dispersants in oil exposure have suggested that the dispersants make it easier to move h ydrocarbons across membranes , and thus may enhance exposure (see BOEM 2012, NOAA 2012). Hydrocarbons can have a range of effects on fish dependi ng on the concentration, the length of exposure, and the life history stage of the fish involved (BOEM 2012, NOAA 2012)

. Exposure to an oil spill could affect fish populations by causing mortality

of eggs, larvae, juveniles, or adults; triggering abnormal development; impeding the access of migratory fishes ( e.g ., salmon and herring) to spawning habitat; altering behaviors; displacing individuals from preferred habitat; reducing or eliminating prey populations available for consumption; impairing feeding, growth, or reproduction; causing adverse phy siological responses; increasing susceptibility to predation, parasitism, diseases, or other environmental perturbations; and increasing or introducing genetic abnormalities. W ater quality

changes resulting from an oil spill can also adversel y affect habitat quality and qu antity

for fish and shellfish. A catastrophic spill has the potential to cause the loss of a year class, a ffecting future stock populations. A l arge oil spill in Alaskan waters may have greater ecological consequences than a comparable spill in temperate areas because oil is likely to persist longer in Alaska due to the colder water temperatures (BOEM 2012). In addition , i n the Alaska OCS region in winter , fish must contend with reduced light, seasonal darkness, prolonged low temperatures and ice cover, and scarcer food resources , which affect primary and secondary productivity

. Thus, most of a fish’s yearly energy needs must be satisfied during the brief Arctic summer , and an uncontrolled discharge of oil in such areas during the summer drilling season c ould have even greater effects than in other regions where seasonal differences in environmental conditions do not affect food resources and productivity as dramatically as in the Arctic

.

 Coastal, Nearshore, and Seafloor Habitats : O il and dispersants are transported on the surface of the water column by wind and currents. For oil to become incorporated into bottom sediment, oil particles must either weather to a dense asphaltic material that can then sink , or absorb or adhere to heavier particle s and sink. Such particles may include marine detritus (non

- living particulate organic material) or inorganic sediment ( e.g. ,13

sediment particulate introduced to the Gulf from the Mississippi River). O il that has been deposited onshore and mixed with sand and sediment may be resuspended and washed back out via tidal action, eventuall y settling to the bottom (BOEM 2012, NOAA 2012). Coastal, nearshore, and benthic habitats exposed to an oil spill may incur minor to major impacts associated with reduction in habitat quality and service ( e.g ., loss of use as spawning grounds, reduced ability to provide food resources) and secondary impacts to the biota that re ly

on affected services

. The magnitude of potential impacts to exposed habitats would depend on a variety of factors, including the location, size, timing, and duration of the spill; the specific type of habitat exposed ; the effectiveness of remediation e fforts; existing environmental conditions ( e.g ., vegetation, substrate type, ice cover); and natural localized erosion and depositi on patterns. The effects of small spills would generall y be localized and relativel y short

- term. In the event of a large or catastrophic spill , however, habitats over a much greater geographic area may be affected and may incur more severe impacts where oil is concentrated

. Insome cases, full recovery of oiled habitats could take many years , and habitats such as coastal wetl ands may not full y rec over even following remediation (BOEM 2012, NOAA 2012).

 Areas of Special Concern, Including Essential Fish Habitat : Areas of Special Concern include Marine Protected Areas, National Marine Sanctuaries, and National Seashores, Reserves, and Refuges (see BOEM 2012) . Areas of Special Concern also include military use areas and areas designated as essential fish habitat (EFH). An oil spill reaching sensitive coastal habitats could affect n ational p arks, national wildlife refuges, n ational estuarine research reserves, or national estuary p rogram sites (BOEM 2012)

. Impacts could result from both oiling of the shoreline and mechanical damage during the cleanup process. Potential e ffects include reduced ecological services, impacts t o habitats and resident biota, and reduced human use ( e.g ., subsistence use, recreation and tourism, commercial and recreational fisheries, and military training). The magnitude of the potential effects would depend on the location, size, duration, and timing of a spill; ty pe of area affected (national seashore vs. military training area) ; the weather conditions at the time of the spill; the nature and effectiveness of response operations; and other envi ronmental conditions ( e.g ., wave conditions or presence of sea ice) at the time of the spill (BOEM 2012)

.

 Sociocultural Systems and Environmental Justice : Humans can be affected by an oil spill through contact with the contaminants (via inhalation, skin contact, or intake of contaminated foods ) ; through reduced availability of subsistence resources; through interference with subsistence harvest patterns; and by stress due to fears of long

- term implications of the spill . Phy siological ef fects may include a variety

of respiratory sy mptoms; irritation of the eyes and mucous membranes; and increased incidence of headaches, nausea, and dizziness. L ow - income and minority populations , and especially Native Alaskan communities on the Arctic coast, could be affected to a greater extent than the general population because of their dietary

reliance on marine mammals and wild coastal resources, their reliance on these resources for other subsistence purposes such as sharing and bartering, their l imited14

flexibility in substituting wild resources with those purchased, and their spiritual and cultural beliefs and practices

. Thus, any significant environmental impacts on fish and mammal subsistence resources from oil spills would have major sociocultural impacts , primarily associated with disruption of subsistence activities (BOEM 2012).

 Population, Employment, and Regional Income : The immediate impact of a large oil spill may include the loss of employ ment and income, reduced property value s , increased cost of public service provision, and possible shortages of commodities or services. Longer

- term impacts could affect commercial and recreational fisheries , and/or tourism if these activities were to suffer due to the real or perce ived impacts of the spill

. Expenditures associated with potential spill response and cleanup activities c ould create short

- term emplo ym ent and income in some parts of the affected coastal region(s) (BOEM 2012).

 Tourism and Recreation : Potential impacts on recreation and tourism resulting from an oil spill would likely

include direct impacts ( e.g ., oil contamination of a beach), access restrictions to a particular area ( e.g ., no diving or fishing while cleanup is being conducted), and aesthetic impacts. These impacts could persist for several months or longer, pending cleanup completion and any required habitat restoration. The extent and duration of impacts would depend on the location, size, duration, and timing of the spill and associated cleanup activities, and o n the effectiveness of response operations. Because oiled coastal sediments are often removed via mechanical means, such shoreline activity would effectively

close the area to public use for the duration of cleanup operations. If restoration is required ( i.e. , to restore the proper beach profile), additional time may be required b efo re public access is allowed (BOEM 2012).

 Commercial and Recreational Fish eries : The effects of oil spill s on commercial and recreational fisheries would depend on the location, timing, duration, and volume of spills, in addition to other environmental factors. Small spills would be unlikely to have a large effect before dilution and weathering reduce d concentrations and therefore would not have long

- term effects on commercial and recreational fisheries. If a large oil spill were to occur, commercial and recreati onal fisheries could incur costlier and more long

term effects

. The potential for oil

- soaked fishing gear and p otentially contaminated fish may reduce commercial and recreational fishing efforts. Very large spills could also indirectly affect fisheries by

degrading habitats that are critical for the survival of target species, but would only

be serious if they

led to severe declines in target species populations. Highly

mobile fish species (tunas, sharks, and billfish) could move away from surface oil spills in deep water, disrupting fishing efforts (BOEM 2012, NOAA 2012).

 Land Use and Existing Infrastructure : A large oil spill c ould at least temporaril y alter land use in areas where the spill contacts the shore , but may not result in long

- term changes (BOEM 2012)

. There could be an immediate but temporary change in existing land use at the impacted areas associ ated with beach closures, coastal access restrictions, and restrictions on visitation, hunting, and fishing during spill containment and cleanup, as well as during an y post
- spill habitat restoration efforts

. The magnitude and duration of15

impacts would dep end upon the location, size, timing, and duration of the spill and the existing land use at the spill location

.

 Archeological Resources : Oil spills could affect coastal historic and prehistoric arch eo logical resources and could result in an unavoidable loss of information and phy sical damage of oiled artifacts and sites (BOEM 2012)

. The level of this impact would depend on the significance and uniqueness of the information lost. P rehistoric sites in all regions occur frequentl y along the m ainland coast and barrier islands , and along the margins of estuaries, bay s, and lagoons; thus, any spill that contacts these areas could involve a potenti al impact on a prehistoric site. 

### 4. **2 Alternative**  **2 : Preferred Alternative and Proposed Action**  The potential environmental consequences of a loss of well control discussed above in A lternative 1 also appl y t o A lternative 2. However, d ue to the additional safety and reliability provisions in Alternative 2 , the likelihood and/or severity of a loss of well control and discharge of hydrocarbon s under Alternative 2 is expected to be less than that under Alternative 3 and further less than that under Alternative 1

. Accordingl y, o ver time, the resulting adverse human health , socioeconomic, and environment al effects described in section 4.1 above would be expected to be less under Alternative 2 than under Alternative 3 , and further less than under Alternative 1 , due to fewer incidents of loss of well control. Implementi ng certain provisions of the proposed rule has the potential to lead to environmental impacts. For example, implementi ng the proposed SCCE requirements may lead to an increase in vessel traffic required to support such capabilities and to the potential envi ronmental consequences of such traffic ; e.g ., an y increase in v essel traffic may lead to some additional air emissions and increased noise levels (BOEM 2012)

. However, BSEE estimates that any increase in vessel traffic would be de minimis due to operators scheduling routine operations in conjunction with these requirements in order to optimize time and minimize costs. Consequently , any

increase in vessel traffic resulting from the provisions of the proposed regulations requiring SCCE woul d be a minor fraction of ongoing traffic levels in each of the three BSEE OCS regions

. ( For example, the 2012

- 2017 OCS L easing Program estimated traffic of 300

- 600 vessels/week in support of routine operations in the Gulf of Mexico ) (BOEM 2012). Since any additional SCCE

- related vessel traffic would represent a very small incremental increase over routine vessel traffic, it would have negligible effects on the potential env i ronmental consequences, such as air emissions and noise levels

. H owever , we welcome comments on the potential impa cts of the proposed provisions o n any of the regions. BSEE has also examined whether the proposed reduction in BOP testing frequency for workover and decommissioning operations

— from once every 7 day s to once eve ry

14 day s

—

potentially could lead to an increase in the likelihood of a loss of well contro l, and an increase in the associated potential environmental impacts , should the reduced testing lead to a BOP failing to operate properl y when actually needed

. On the other hand, reduc ing the BOP testing frequency for workovers and decommissioning potentially could increase equipment durability somewhat, through a reduction of the number of times the BOP is subjected to repetitive testing during those16

operations . Increased durability might partially offset the potential risk that the equipment will not perform properl y when needed due to decreased testing frequency

. In addition, any potential increase in the risk that a BOP would fail to operate properl y when needed could be offset to some degree because reducing the frequency of BOP testing could reduce the risk of potential environmental consequences (such as a non

- catastrophic oil spill) directly related to performance of the tests themselves. For example, each time such a test is performed, there is some risk that an error could occur or that some piece of equipment could fail ; reducing the frequency of such tests (and, thus, the number of tests) would decrease the number of possible opportunities for such hazards to occur. Of importance , the proposed testing interval of 14 day s for workover and decommissioning operations simply

brings those activities into alignm ent with the 14

- day testing interval that has long been required for all other well operations ( e.g., drilling and completions). Given the extensive experience with a 14

- day BOP testing requirement for those well operations, BSEE does not expect that aligning the workov er and decommissioning BOP testing interval with the testing interval for all other operations would result in a heightened risk of the loss of well control or entail other significant environmental consequences. Many of the other changes proposed in Alternative 2 are designed specifically to improve wellbore integrity and well control , with the intent of prevent ing incidents involving loss of well control. Although it is not possible to estimate the level of reduction in BOP failure rates that could result with adoption of the proposed rulemaking, implementation of Alternative 2 is expected to reduce the likelihood of well control incidents and spills (catastrophic or otherwise) compared to the likelihood under Alternative 3 and to reduce such likelihood even further compared to Alternative 1

. A doption of A lternative 2 is expected to benefit environmental health to a greate r degree than A lternative 1 through the avoidance of potential adverse effects associated with losses of well control and discharges of hydrocarbons that might otherwise occur . 

### 4.3 **Alternative 3 :**  **Proposed Action Plus Change**  **in Frequency of Pressure**  **Testing from 14 to 21 Days** This alternative would promulgate the requirements contained within the proposed rule but would chang e the required frequency of BOP pressure testing from the existing regulatory requirements ( i.e., once every 7 or 14 day s depending upon the type of operation) to once every 21 day s for all operations

. T he only variation from A lternative 2 would be the longer interval between BOP pressure test s . This variation could potentially affect the risk of a loss of well control and discharge of hydrocarbons , as compared to Alternatives 1 and 2 , in several way s. D ue to the additional safety and reliabi lity

provisions in Alternative 3 , the likelihood of a loss of well control and discharge of h ydrocarbons ( e.g ., from failure of a BOP to operate correctl y when need ed to prevent a blowout) under Alternative 3 is lower than that under Alternative 1

. However , a s compared to Alternative 2, the reduced frequency of BOP testing under Alternative 3 potentially could increase the likelihood of a loss of well contro l and catastrophic discharge of hydrocarbons ( and an increase in the associated potential environmental impacts ) should the17

reduced testing lead to a BOP failing to operate properly when actuall y needed

. On the other hand, reduced pressure testing frequen cy potentially could increase equipment durability somewhat , through a reduction of the number of times the BOP is subjected to repetitive testing , and thus might partiall y offset the potential risk that the equipment will not perform properl y when needed. In addition, under Alternative 3 , the potential increase in the risk that a BOP would fail to operate properl y when needed , due to decreased testing frequency , could be offset to some degree because reducing the frequency of BOP testing could reduce the risk of potential environmental consequences directly related to performance of the tests themselves (as discussed under Alternative 2)

. In the preamble to the proposed rule, BSEE has requested additional information on these issues associated with testing frequency , operational safety, and equipment durability

. Overall, however, based on our existing data, the potential positive consequences of reduced testing frequency under Alternative 3 do not outweigh (as compared to Alternative 2) the po tential increased risk and related consequences of a blowout and catastrophic oil spill that might occur if a BOP fails to operate, when needed, as a result of reduced testing. 

## 5 **. REFERENCES**  API

- American Petroleum Institute. American Petroleum Institute , 2012 . APIStandard 53 , Blowout Prevention Equipment Systems for Drilling Wells

- Fourth Edition (November) BSEE, 2015. Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf

– Blowout Preventer S ys tems and Well Control , Initial Regulatory Impact Analy sis, RI

N: 1014

- AA11. BOEM

- Bur eau of Ocean Energy Management. Bureau of Ocean Energy

Management, 2012. Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program: 2012

- 2017, Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. OCS EI S/EA, BOEM 2012

- 030. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Herndon, Virginia. MMS

– Minerals Management Service. Minerals Management Service, 2007. Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Alternative Energy Development and Production and Alternate Use of Facilities on the Outer Continental Shelf, Final Environmental Impact Statement. OCS EI S/EA MMS 2007

- 046. U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, Herndon, Virginia. NOAA

- National Oc eanographic and Atmospheric Administration. NOAA, 20 05. Trajectory Analy sis Handbook. Office of Response and Restoration, Hazardous Materials Response Division, Seattle, Wash. Available at http://response.restoration.noaa.gov

.18

NOAA, 2012. Natural Resource Damage Assessment Status Update for the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill , April. Electronically available at: http://www.gulfspillrestoration.noaa.gov/wp

content/uploads/FINAL_NRDA_StatusUpdate_April2012.pdf

. NRC

- National Research Council. NRC, 2003 . Oil in the Sea III: Inputs, Fates, and Effects, Committee on Oil in the Sea: Inputs, Fates, and Effects, Ocean Studies Board and Marine Board, Divisions of Earth and Life Studies and Transportation Research Board, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C.