OCS EIS/EA 

 BOEMRE 

Increased Safety Measures for Energy 

Development on the Outer Continental 

Shelf, for 30 CFR Part 250 

Environmental Assessment and 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Herndon,VA 

Regulation and Enforcement September 2010 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................................1

1.1 Background and Overview ................................................................................................1

1.2 Purpose and Need.................................................................................................................2

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES........................................................................................2

2.1 Proposed Action.....................................................................................................................2

2.2 No Action Alternative...........................................................................................................5

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT.....................................................................................................................5

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES...................................................................................................6

4.1 Proposed Action.....................................................................................................................6

4.2 No Action Alternative.........................................................................................................14

5.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................16

6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS..............................................................................................................................17
U.S. Department of the Interior 30 CFR Part 250 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement Environmental Assessment

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

This environmental assessment is based on the latest version of the Interim Final Rule, Increased 

Safety Measures for Energy Development on the Outer Continental Shelf as of 2:21 p.m., 

September 29, 2010. 

1.1 Background and Overview 

The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA) directs the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) 

to manage the orderly leasing, exploration, development, and production of mineral resources on 

the Federal Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). The Secretary has designated the Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE) as the agency responsible for the 

mineral leasing of OCS lands and for the supervision of offshore oil and gas operations after 

lease issuance. The regulations governing OCS exploration, development, and production 

activities are codified at 30 CFR Part 250 (Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations in the Outer 

Continental Shelf). 

This Interim Final Rule, Increased Safety Measures for Energy Development on the Outer 

Continental Shelf, will implement certain safety measures outlined in the report entitled, 

“Increased Safety Measures for Energy Development on the Outer Continental Shelf” (Safety 

Measures Report), dated May 27, 2010. The President directed the Department of the Interior to 

develop this report as a result of the Deepwater Horizon incident on April 20, 2010. On June 2, 

2010, the Secretary of the Interior directed the former Minerals Management Service, (now 

BOEMRE), to adopt the recommendations contained in the Safety Measures Report and to 

implement them as soon as possible. The measures from the report promulgated in this rule are 

intended to improve the safety of offshore oil and gas drilling operations by improving well 

control technology and procedures. This rule also addresses certain other requirements 

considered necessary to assure the safety of offshore oil and gas drilling operations. 

The Interim Final Rule incorporates best practices for well control into the regulations at 30 CFR 

Part 250 governing operations on the OCS. It introduces new inspection, training, maintenance, 

and equipment requirements that will improve well control reliability. As a result of 

improvements in well control reliability, the likelihood of the occurrence of oil spills will be 

reduced. In particular, this EA finds that the rule will reduce the likelihood of the occurrence of, 

and impacts from, catastrophic OCS oil spills, such as the Deepwater Horizon spill. 

With the awareness that the promulgation of the rule will reduce the likelihood of occurrence of 

the environmental impacts from another catastrophic oil spill such as Deepwater Horizon, this 

EA also evaluates whether promulgation of the rule could introduce other environmental impacts 

by requiring new technologies or operational procedures, or from technological uncertainties 

associated with the rule that could compromise well control protection provided under current 

regulations. 

 

1 
U.S. Department of the Interior 30 CFR Part 250 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement Environmental Assessment

1.2 Purpose and Need 

The purpose of the proposed Federal action is to promulgate regulations under 30 CFR Part 250 

to improve the reliability of well control procedures and ensure safe OCS oil and gas operations. 

Pursuant to the OCSLA, the BOEMRE is to administer oil and gas operations on the OCS in a 

manner that is safe for the human, marine, and coastal environment. The Deepwater Horizon 

incident resulted in the death of 11 workers and an oil spill of national significance. This Interim 

Final Rule will therefore amend drilling regulations related to well control and well control 

equipment to increase the safety and reliability of drilling operations on the OCS. This includes 

requirements related to blowout preventers, well casing and cementing, secondary intervention, 

recordkeeping, training, and certification. The purpose of this rulemaking is to assure increased 

well control reliability so as to reduce the likelihood of occurrence of catastrophic and other oil 

spills on the OCS. Implementation of these regulations is of high importance for improving 

future environmentally safe drilling operations on the OCS. 

2.0 PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES 

This chapter describes the proposed action and the no action alternative, as required by Council 

on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA). 

The BOEMRE is evaluating other actions prescribed in the Safety Report. These 

recommendations will be addressed in future rulemakings and are not appropriate to identify as 

alternatives to be analyzed in this assessment. 

2.1 Proposed Action 

The proposed action is the promulgation of the Increased Safety Measures for Energy 

Development on the Outer Continental Shelf Interim Final Rulemaking. This rulemaking will 

modify the regulations under 30 CFR Part 250, to include 20 new or revised sections that will 

clarify policy and procedures and incorporate improved drilling and safety standards. The new 

regulations are intended to improve the reliability of well control procedures and reduce the 

occurrence of associated oil spills. This rule will not affect the likelihood of occurrence of OCS 

oil spills from other sources such as pipeline or vessel accidents. Catastrophic oil spills, 

however, are most likely to occur as a result of loss of well control that can result in a blowout 

and uncontrolled releases of gas, condensate, oil, drilling fluids, or water into the environment 

until well control is restored, which, as the Deepwater Horizon incident demonstrated, can be 

several months. 

This rule specifically introduces new well control requirements to ensure that there are adequate 

physical barriers in the well to prevent oil and gas from escaping into the environment. These 

well control requirements address casing and cementing design and installation, tighter 

cementing practices, the displacement of kill-weight fluids, and the testing of independent well 

barriers. The rule also includes requirements for subsea blowout preventers (BOP) that will help 

2 
U.S. Department of the Interior 30 CFR Part 250 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement Environmental Assessment

ensure that they will operate in the event of an emergency and that remotely operated vehicles 

(ROV) are capable of activating. These increased requirements for well control are expected to 

decrease the likelihood of a loss of well control (USDOI, 2010.) 

Table 1 lists the revised portions of 30 CFR Part 250 as they appear in the Increased Safety 

Measures for Energy Development on the Outer Continental Shelf Interim Rule. The sections 

listed as “analyzed” in the table below were subjected to additional analysis for environmental 

effects in this Environmental Assessment. 

Table 1. Changed or Added Sections to 40 CFR Part 250 

Section Name Subsection 

Part 250.198 Documents Incorporated by 

Reference. 

(a) previously codified 

(3) informational/advisory 

(h) previously codified 

(63) previously codified/subsection 

analyzed 

(79) subsection analyzed 

Part 250.415 What must my casing and 

cementing programs include? 

(c) previously codified 

(d) previously codified 

(e) previously codified 

(e)(2) previously codified 

(f) subsection analyzed 

Part 250.416 What must I include in the 

diverter and BOP descriptions? 

(d) previously codified 

(e) subsection analyzed 

(f)(1) subsection analyzed 

(f)(2) subsection analyzed 

(f)(3) subsection analyzed 

(g) informational/advisory 

(g)(1) informational/advisory 

(g)(2)(i) informational/advisory 

(g)(2)(ii) administrative 

Part 250.418 What additional information must 

I submit with my APD? 

administrative 

 Part 250.420 What well casing and cementing 

requirements must I meet? 

(a) previously codified 

(a)(4) previously codified 

(a)(5) previously codified 

(a)(6) subsection analyzed 

(b) previously codified 

(b)(3) subsection analyzed 

Part 250.423 What are the requirements for 

pressure testing casing? 

(a) previously codified 

(b) subsection analyzed 

(c) subsection analyzed 

Part 250.442 What are the requirements for a 

subsea BOP system? 

(a) previously codified/subsection analyzed 

(b) previously codified 

(c) previously codified 

(d) subsection analyzed 

(e) subsection analyzed 

3 
U.S. Department of the Interior 30 CFR Part 250 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement Environmental Assessment

Section Name Subsection 

(f) subsection analyzed 

(g) subsection analyzed 

(h) administrative 

(i) administrative 

(j) administrative 

(k) previously codified 

(l) subsection analyzed 

Part 250.446 What are the BOP maintenance 

and inspection requirements? 

previously codified/administrative 

Part 250.449 What additional BOP testing 

requirements must I meet? 

(h) previously codified 

(i) previously codified 

(j) subsection analyzed 

(j)(1) subsection analyzed 

(j)(2) administrative 

(k) subsection analyzed 

(k)(1) administrative 

(k)(2) administrative 

Part 250.451 What must I do in certain 

situations involving BOP equipment or 

systems? 

(i) subsection analyzed 

Part 250.456 What safe practices must the 

drilling fluid program follow? 

(i) previously codified 

(j)(1-4) subsection analyzed 

Part 250.515 Blowout prevention equipment. (b) previously codified 

(b)(5) this section analyzed in 250.442(a) 

(e) this section analyzed in 250.442(a) 

Part 250.516 Blowout preventer system tests, 

inspections, and maintenance. 

(d) previously codified 

(d)(6) previously codified 

(8) subsection analyzed 

(8)(i) subsection analyzed 

(8)(ii) administrative 

(9) subsection analyzed 

(9)(i)(ii) administrative 

(g)(1)(2) previously codified 

(h) previously codified/administrative 

Part 250.615 Blowout prevention equipment. (b) previously codified 

(b)(5) this section analyzed in 250.442(a) 

(e) this section analyzed in 250.442(a) 

Part 250.616 Blowout preventer system testing, 

records, and drills. 

(h) subsection analyzed 

(h)(1) subsection analyzed 

(h)(1)(i) subsection analyzed 

(h)(1)(ii) administrative 

(h)(2) subsection analyzed 

(h)(2)(i) administrative 

(h)(2)(ii) administrative 

(h)(3) subsection analyzed 

4 
U.S. Department of the Interior 30 CFR Part 250 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement Environmental Assessment

Section Name Subsection 

Part 250.617 What are my BOP inspection and 

maintenance requirements? 

Section analyzed 

Part 250.1500 Definitions. informational/advisory 

Part 250.1503 What are my general 

responsibilities for training? 

administrative 

Part 250.1712 What information must I submit 

before I permanently plug a well or zone? 

(e) previously codified 

(f) previously codified 

(f)(14) previously codified 

(g) subsection analyzed 

Part 250.1721 If I temporarily abandon a well 

that I plan to re-enter, what must I do? 

section analyzed 

2.2 No Action Alternative 

This alternative would keep the existing 30 CFR Part 250 regulations that apply to well control 

in place. Any updated policies and practices in this Interim Final Rule to reduce the risk of 

accidents and oil spills resulting from loss of well control would not be promulgated. This 

alternative would result in regulations that fail to reflect measures determined by BOEMRE to be 

necessary for both increased safety of oil and gas operations on the OCS and better protection of 

the environment by improving the reliability of well control procedures and reducing the 

likelihood of the occurrence of associated oil spills. 

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

Well control accidents can result in immediate local impacts from explosions, fires, and 

discharges, which can cause human injury and mortality and impacts to the biota and water and 

air quality. The Deepwater Horizon incident has shown that a catastrophic oil spill resulting 

from a well control accident can affect biologic, physical, socioeconomic, and sociocultural 

resources over extensive coastal and offshore areas (i.e. the marine, terrestrial, and atmospheric 

environments). The Deepwater Horizon spill, for example, contacted over 500 miles of shoreline 

with light to heavy oiling. Examples of environmental resources that would be exposed to the 

affects of a catastrophic OCS oil spill include: 

Biologic 

Marine Mammals 

Marine and Coastal Birds 

Fish Resources and Essential Fish Habitat 

Marine Turtles 

Coastal Habitats 

Seafloor Habitats 

5 
U.S. Department of the Interior 30 CFR Part 250 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement Environmental Assessment

Physical 

Air Quality 

Water Quality 

Socioeconomic 

Areas of Special Concern 

Population, Employment, and Regional Income 

Tourism and Recreation 

Commercial and Recreational Fisheries 

Sociocultural 

Environmental Justice 

Archeological Resources 

Subsistence 

Descriptions and analyses of the effects of oil spills on these environmental resources are 

included in the following documents: 

MMS, 2007, Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing Program: 2007-2012, Final 

Environmental Impact Statement, 2 vols. 

MMS, 2007, Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2007-2012, Final Environmental 

Impact Statement, 2 vols. 

MMS, 2008, Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas, Oil and Gas Lease Sales 209, 212, 

217, and 221, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, 4 vols. 

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

4.1 Proposed Action 

The proposed action promulgates interim rules for increased well control safety measures. The 

purpose of the rule is to reduce the likelihood of occurrence of catastrophic OCS oil spills such 

as the Deepwater Horizon spill by reducing the likelihood of occurrence of blowouts and other 

well control accidents. At the same time, the implementation of the requirements of the rule 

creates the potential for other environmental impacts to occur as a result of new technologies and 

procedures that may be needed to implement the requirements of the rule, or if the rule 

requirements jeopardize well control protection provided under existing regulations. This 

section evaluates whether any of these impacts can be reasonably expected to occur. A 

discussion is provided first of the expected environmental benefits of the rule that will result 

from a reduction in the likelihood of occurrence of a catastrophic oil spill. 

Environmental Benefits 

The primary environmental benefit of the interim rule will result from reducing the likelihood of 

occurrence of catastrophic oil spills. The Deepwater Horizon spill resulted in geographically 

6 
U.S. Department of the Interior 30 CFR Part 250 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement Environmental Assessment

widespread immediate direct impacts to numerous marine and coastal environmental resources, 

as well as anticipated longer term effects associated with the recovery, restoration, and ongoing 

re-release of oil into the environment from oiled shorelines. The occurrence of sequential 

catastrophic spills could result in a non-linear accumulation of effects as a result of a spill 

affecting an existing stressed baseline environment. The environmental impacts of one or more 

catastrophic spills would likely be aggravated by ongoing environmental stresses occurring from 

human use and climate change effects. The intent of the rule is to implement requirements that 

reduce the likelihood of occurrence of these scenarios by improving well control reliability. 

A representative estimate of the environmental and other costs from a deepwater catastrophic 

blow out oil is approximately $16.3 billion (USDOI Interim Final Rule 2010, 65). BOEMRE has 

estimated the recurrence interval of a catastrophic spill on the OCS to be 26 years based on the 

occurrence of a single deepwater catastrophic blowout and oil spill (Deepwater Horizon) out of 

4,123 deepwater wells drilled to date in the Gulf of Mexico, and a forecasted future drilling 

activity rate in the Gulf of Mexico of 160 wells per year. 

The actual amount of increased reliability of well control operations brought about by 

promulgation of the interim rule is uncertain at this time. While the amount of improvement in 

well control reliability cannot be quantified at this time, it is reasonable to expect that a 

measurable improvement in well control reliability will result from promulgation of this rule 

because the rule modifies existing regulations to mandate adherence to established industry and 

government well control best practices. For example, although the causes of the blowout at the 

Deepwater Horizon facility are not fully known at this time, preliminary information suggests 

failure to follow best cementing and casing practice was a factor in the blowout. It is reasonable 

therefore to assume that uniform adherence to these best practices will make the occurrence of 

related catastrophic oil spills statistically less likely to occur by some as yet undetermined 

amount. 

While the magnitude of the impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill are still being assessed, 

substantial impacts to the resources listed in Chapter 3 are expected to occur (for example, the 

following links describe preliminary impacts to and concerns about endangered marine turtles:

Southeast, Florida, NPS Oil Spill Response.) The analysis of the No Action Alternative in 

Section 4.2 presents existing information on the magnitude and kinds of impacts to many of the 

environmental resources listed in Chapter 3 from the Deepwater Horizon spill. 

Potential Environmental Impacts 

Economic Impacts

The BOEMRE estimates that the rule will cost $183 million annually for operators to implement 

for as long as these regulations are in force (DOI, 2010, 63). BOEMRE estimates that these 

regulations will increase the cost of drilling a deepwater well by 2% (USDOI, 2010, p. 71). The 

costs of the revised safety requirements will be borne by the OCS lessees who explore for and 

produce oil and gas and will be dependent on the number of wells drilled. The costs will occur 

for equipment, inspections, maintenance, training, reporting and other requirements of the rule. 

These extra costs could reduce investments in marginal oil fields, resulting in reduced 

employment and income from OCS development. 

7 
U.S. Department of the Interior 30 CFR Part 250 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement Environmental Assessment

Biologic, Physical, and Sociocultural Impacts

This section considers whether environmental impacts could be associated with promulgating the 

rule. While the rule’s purpose is to maintain environmental conditions in marine and coastal 

areas by reducing the likelihood of the occurrence of catastrophic and other oil spills on the 

OCS, this section considers whether or not the rule introduces inspections, maintenance, testing, 

or equipment configurations that require new procedures, materials, or discharges expected to 

result in environmental impacts. Impacts from discharges or accidents associated with testing 

and maintenance could affect human health and safety, local water and air quality, and biota and 

habitats near the drilling activity. The section also evaluates whether or not the regulatory 

changes from the rule could jeopardize well control protection provided under existing 

regulations potentially resulting in oil spills that could affect diverse environmental resources 

over large areas. This section does not consider the economic impacts of implementing the rule, 

which were evaluated separately above. 

Rule subsections not warranting detailed analysis 

The Interim Rule includes 20 sections and numerous subsections. Some subsections of this rule 

address strictly administrative and informational/advisory matters that would not have any 

significant environmental impacts, or requirements that have been previously codified into 

regulation. Examples include definitions of terms, requirements for training, and developing 

written procedures. No harmful environmental impacts are anticipated as a result of these parts 

of the Interim Rule and further analysis is not warranted. Other parts of the Interim Rule address 

the implementation, maintenance, and inspection of enhanced barriers, pressure tests, BOP 

systems, and seafloor ROV function checks that could introduce procedures, materials, 

discharges, or new technologies possibly resulting in harmful environmental effects. These parts 

of the rule underwent further analysis. 

Activities which are informational or advisory in nature

250.198 (a)(3) Documents Incorporated by Reference 

Section 250.198(a)(3) of the Interim Rule, “Documents Incorporated by Reference,” states that 

documents incorporated by reference into the regulations are requirements. As a result, all 

recommendations in American Petroleum Institute (API) Recommended Practices (RP) 

documents that are incorporated by reference become rule requirements to which operators must 

adhere (there is an exception if the relevant regulation incorporates only a part of the 

incorporated document or provides that strict compliance is not required). The API RP 

documents are created with input from oil and gas operators, drilling contractors, service 

companies, consultants, and regulators and are intended to facilitate the broad availability of 

proven and sound engineering and operating practices. The incorporation of these documents by 

reference requires that all OCS well control technology, testing, inspection and maintenance 

components and procedures and their certifications will be based on and evaluated against these 

recommended practices. Although documents incorporated by reference have always been 

requirements, this section clarifies that effect. 

8 
U.S. Department of the Interior 30 CFR Part 250 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement Environmental Assessment

250.1500 Definitions. 

The revision of this section (previously codified) clarifies several terms in reference to well 

control to ensure that rig personnel are trained in deepwater well control and in the specific 

duties, equipment, and techniques associated with deepwater drilling. These definitions only 

clarify existing industry terminology. 

Updates and revisions to 30 CFR Part 250 that are requirements previously codified into 

regulation

250.198 (a), (h) (63) Documents Incorporated by Reference 

250.415 (c), (d), (e)(2) What must my casing and cementing programs include? 

250.416 (d) What must I include in the diverter and BOP descriptions? 

250.420 (a)(4),(5) What well casing and cementing requirements must I meet? 

250.423 (a) What are the requirements for pressure testing casing? 

250.442 (a),(b),(c),(k) What are the requirements for a subsea BOP system? 

250.446 What are the BOP maintenance and inspection requirements? 

250.449 (h), (i) What additional BOP testing requirements must I meet? 

250.456 (i) What safe practices must the drilling fluid program follow? 

250.1712(e), (f)(14) What information must I submit before I permanently plug a well or zone? 

The following are illustrative discussions of two sections from this list: 

250.442 (a),(b),(c) What are the requirements for a subsea BOP system?

The language in this section already exists in federal regulations under Section 250.442, for 

example, “subsection b” can be found under existing “subsection d” and “subsection k” can be 

found under the existing “subsection e”, etc. This is no more than a reorganization of the 

existing language found in federal regulations. 

250.446 What are the BOP maintenance and inspection requirements? 

The language in this section already exists in federal regulations under Section 250.446. The 

section has been revised to include the requirement, “You must document the procedures used, 

record the results, and make available to BOEMRE upon request.” This requirement is purely 

administrative and does not warrant further analysis. 

 Regulations for which the impacts are limited to administrative effects

250.418 What additional information must I submit with my APD? 

250.423 (b)(3),(4) What are the requirements for pressure testing casing? 

250.423 (c)(1),(2) What are the requirements for pressure testing casing? 

250.442 (h),(i),(j) What are the requirements for a subsea BOP system? 

250.446 What are the BOP maintenance and inspection requirements? 

250.449 (j)(2),(k)(1),(2) What additional BOP testing requirements must I meet? 

250.516 (d)(8)(ii), (d)(9)(i),(ii) Blowout preventer system tests, inspection, and maintenance 

250.616 (h)(1)(ii), (h)(2)(i),(ii) Blowout preventer system testing, records, and drills. 

250.1500 through 250.1510 [AMEND] 

9 
U.S. Department of the Interior 30 CFR Part 250 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement Environmental Assessment

The following are illustrative discussions of two sections from this list: 

250.616 (h)(1)(ii) Blowout preventer system testing, records, and drills. 

This subsection simply requires documentation of test results and does not warrant further 

analysis. 

 

250.418 What additional information must I submit with my APD? 

This section requires that the BOEMRE receive a request for approval, certification that all 

requirements of subsection 250.420 (a)(6) of this regulation have been met, and a description of 

the qualifications required by subsection 250.416 (f). This requirement is for purely 

administrative processes and does not warrant further analysis. 

Rule subsections analyzed for potential environmental impacts 

Subsections of the rule related directly or indirectly to the following topics are considered for 

further analysis: 

BOP Systems 

Cementing. Casing and Mechanical Barriers 

Well Plugging and Abandonment 

Fluid Displacements 

Each topic will be evaluated to determine whether the promulgation of the rule could introduce 

the potential for harmful environmental impacts. The rule includes requirements for well control 

systems and their inspection, maintenance, testing, and requirements for independent third-party 

certification that the requirements of the rule have been followed. 

Most of the rule’s requirements that pertain to the topics listed above are to provide 

documentation in Applications for Permit to Drill (APDs) and Applications for Permit to Modify 

(APMs) to BOEMRE for review and approval prior to initiating well drilling activities, and to 

use an appropriate selection of best practices for drilling conditions that exist at the site. 

BOEMRE will have the opportunity then to evaluate whether or not the selection of best 

practices described in an APD or APM is appropriate for drilling at the site. The rule also 

requires verification by a third party that best practices are being used, that the proposed 

combination of best practices is appropriate for the drilling conditions at the site, and that the 

tests and inspections required by the rule had been done. 

BOP Systems 

The following Interim Rule sections and subsections apply to BOP systems and their testing and 

maintenance: 

250.198 (h)(63) Documents Incorporated by Reference 

250.416 (g)(2)(ii) What must I include in the diverter and BOP descriptions? 

250.442 (d),(e),(f),(g),(l) What are the requirements for a subsea BOP system? 

10 
U.S. Department of the Interior 30 CFR Part 250 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement Environmental Assessment

250.449 (j)(1), (k) What additional BOP testing requirements must I meet? 

250.451 What must I do in certain situations involving BOP equipment or systems? 

250.515 (b)(5), (e) Blowout prevention equipment. 

250.516 What are the Blowout preventer system tests, inspection, and maintenance 

requirements? 

250.615 Blowout prevention equipment. 

250.616 Blowout preventer system testing, records, and drills 

250.617 What are my BOP inspection and maintenance requirements? 

BOP System Requirements 

Section 250.442 adds requirements to existing regulations that specify the configuration of 

annular and pipe BOPs and shear rams to assure adequate capacity, redundancy, and shearing 

capacity to protect against loss of well control. It also adds requirements for Remotely Operated 

Vehicle (ROV) intervention capability into a subsea BOP stack to close pipe and shear rams and 

unlatch the Lower Marine Riser Package (LMRP), as well as requirements for ROV availability 

at the well site and ROV training. The Impacts of Research Activities states: 

“The use of ROVs has greater potential for disturbing the water column and the benthos 

than surface-deployed samplers or divers. These vehicles use mechanical propulsion 

systems which stir up the water column. Further, ROVs can be in the water for long 

periods of time, use umbilical cords which can disturb the benthos, and are difficult to 

control, thereby creating the probability of benthos destruction if operated near the 

bottom.” (Wharton, 1999). 

Research has shown that these disturbances can be reduced, 

“...by using quieter thruster motors and either infrared illumination or low-light 

cameras.” (Spanier, 1993). 

The section requires autoshear and deadman systems on dynamically positioned rigs to shut in 

the wellbore automatically in cases of accidents. Other parts of this section address training, 

management systems, and failsafe control interfaces. This section adds additional protections to 

those required by existing regulations. It does not eliminate, replace, or jeopardize any of the 

protections provided under existing regulations. The requirements will therefore help to 

maintain marine and coastal environmental conditions by improving well control reliability and 

decreasing the likelihood of occurrence of catastrophic and other oil spills. 

BOP Inspection and Testing 

The BOP inspection and testing requirements are contained in sections 250.449, 250.516, 

250.616, and 250.617. These tests and inspections will assure that ROV intervention 

capabilities, rams, LMRP disconnect and other components of the BOP stack function correctly. 

These inspections and test will be done during either the stump or initial test. The stump test is 

performed on the facility surface before the BOP stack is connected to the wellbore. Mishaps 

that occur during the stump test could potentially affect the BOP stack, rig personnel safety and 

the facility itself. The initial test is conducted after the BOP stack is connected to the wellbore 

prior to drilling the wellbore below the conductor or surface casing so an accidental oil spill 

11 
U.S. Department of the Interior 30 CFR Part 250 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement Environmental Assessment

during the test is highly unlikely. For subsea BOP systems, the initial test will take place on the 

seafloor over the wellbore. Existing BOEMRE environmental review procedures require that the 

area of the seafloor potentially affected by drilling operations be determined to be free of cultural 

and biologic resources prior to approving drilling operations, and they require the application of 

appropriate mitigations if bottom disturbing activities have the potential to affect benthic habitats 

and features. Therefore the initial test will be done on an area of the seafloor already approved 

for drilling activity under BOEMRE NEPA review procedures, perhaps with specified 

mitigations. 

Section 250.451 requires the operator to inspect and perform a full pressure test of the BOP stack 

when the blind–shear rams or casing shear rams are used in an emergency after the situation is 

fully controlled. This will ensure the integrity of the BOP and that the BOP will fully function 

and hold pressure after the incident. Tests and inspections will be done after BOEMRE review 

and concurrence to assure the well is fully under control and the wellbore is adequately sealed 

prior to removing the BOP stack from the wellhead. The BOP stack must be disconnected from 

the wellhead and brought to the facility surface for inspection. 

In conclusion, no harmful environmental impacts are anticipated as a result of the BOP 

inspection and testing requirements of the Interim Rule. 

Cementing, Casing, and Mechanical Barriers 

Cementing, casing, and mechanical barriers are considered together because they provide for the 

physical integrity of the wellbore. The following Interim Rule sections and subsections apply to 

cementing, casing, and mechanical barriers: 

250.198(h)(79) Documents Incorporated by Reference. 

250.415 What must my casing and cementing programs include? 

250.420 What well casing and cementing requirements must I meet? 

250.423 What are the requirements for pressure testing casing? 

Cementing and casing protect the physical integrity of the wellbore and prevent uncontrolled 

flow of fluids into the wellbore. Mechanical barriers are seals achieved by mechanical means 

that isolate all potential flowing zones below the well head, BOP, or diverter. Section 250.415, 

“What must my casing and cementing programs include?” requires operators to submit in their 

APD to BOEMRE an evaluation of the best practices identified in API RP 65-Part 2, Isolating 

Flow Zones During Well Construction. The operator must also document how they evaluated 

and applied required best practices for cementing and the factors affecting cementing in the well. 

Section 250.423 requires operators to perform a pressure test on the casing seal assembly to 

ensure proper installation of casing or liner in the subsea wellhead or liner hanger, and a negative 

pressure test to ensure proper installation of casing for the intermediate and production casing 

strings to ensure that the casing, along with the cement, provides a seal. BOEMRE will review 

the APD to determine that best practices will be used to perform any of these requirements and 

that the best practices selected are appropriate for the conditions that exist for the well. 

12 
U.S. Department of the Interior 30 CFR Part 250 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement Environmental Assessment

Cementing and installation of casing are ordinary drilling procedures that are described and 

approved in an operator’s APD. The Interim Rule will mandate that these practices be done 

according to current industry best practices. No harmful environmental impacts are expected to 

occur from the cementing and casing operations done as a result of the rule because none have 

been observed in those operations that voluntarily employ this practice. 

Well Plugging and Abandonment 

250.1712 What information must I submit before I permanently plug a well or zone? 

250.1721 If I temporarily abandon a well that I plan to re-enter, what must I do? 

These sections add requirements that a professional engineer certify that there are at least two 

independent tested barriers, including one mechanical barrier, across each flow path during 

abandonment activities. These certifications will be submitted to BOEMRE with the operator’s 

APM. This section requires certification that well control procedures required by other sections 

of the rule were applied to a well abandonment operation. No harmful environmental effects 

would occur as a result of the certification. 

Fluid Displacements 

The following Interim Rule section addressed fluid displacements: 

250.456 What safe practices must the drilling fluid program follow? 

A new requirement was added that requires approval from BOEMRE before displacing killweight drilling fluid from the wellbore. The high density of kill-weight drilling fluid 

counterbalances flow into the well. The operator must submit the reasons for displacing the killweight drilling fluid and provide detailed step-by-step procedures describing how the operator 

will safely displace these fluids. The step-by-step displacement procedures must address the 

following: 

(1) Number and type of independent barriers that are in place for each flow path; 

(2) Tests to ensure integrity of independent barriers; 

(3) BOP procedures used while displacing kill weight fluids; and 

(4) Procedures to monitor fluids entering and leaving the wellbore. 

These new requirements better ensure that well control is not compromised when displacing killweight fluid out of the wellbore, and that the discharge/removal of fluids is done according to 

appropriate regulations and mitigations. These requirements add an additional review and 

evaluation by BOEMRE prior to an operator’s initiating kill-weight displacements to assure that 

best practices will be used during the process. Adherence to best practices during these 

operations will contribute to the improvements in well reliability. This section of the rule does 

not introduce requirements for new materials, procedures or technologies that could have 

harmful effects on the environment. The OCS Oil & Gas 2007-2012 Final Environmental 

Impact Statement addresses drilling fluids and mud and is hereby incorporated by reference (IV40) 

13 
U.S. Department of the Interior 30 CFR Part 250 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement Environmental Assessment

 

No harmful environmental impacts are expected as a result of this section of the rule. 

 Conclusion 

The sections of the rule that were analyzed for potential environmental impacts add additional 

inspections, certifications, and system requirements to improve well control reliability without 

replacing or jeopardizing the well control protections that exist under current regulations, or 

without introducing the potential for additional impacts from new technologies, materials and 

procedures required by the rule. No significant harmful environmental impacts are expected to 

be associated with promulgation of the Interim Rule. 

4.2 No Action Alternative 

To take “no action” would mean that the revisions to 30 CFR Part 250 would not be incorporated 

into Federal regulation. The costs to OCS operators that would result from this rule would be 

avoided if no action is taken. However, if the revisions to 30 CFR Part 250 regulations are not 

implemented, the intended benefits of improving well control reliability to reduce the likelihood 

of occurrence of catastrophic and other oil spills will not be realized. Under the No Action 

Alternative a reduction in risk of additional OCS oil spills affecting coastal and marine 

environments would not be realized. 

The risks of well blowouts, including catastrophic blowouts, under the no action alternative 

would be greater than the risk under the proposed action. The Deepwater Horizon blowout on 

April 20, 2010 in the Gulf of Mexico resulted in 11 fatalities and was the largest oil spill in U.S. 

waters (4.9 million barrels1). The following are examples of the most significant of impacts that 

have occurred or could have occurred from the Deepwater Horizon incident and response 

activities. Implementing the No Action Alternative will fail to reduce the risk of impacts such as 

those described below. 

Biological Resources: Unlike impacts from smaller spills that have occurred in the Gulf of 

Mexico whose effects are localized and short-term, the Deepwater Horizon spill has 

demonstrated that a high volume, extended spill resulting from a blowout has the potential to 

result in impacts that could affect the long-term population status of biological resources over 

extended areas. In addition, multiple federally and state-listed, threatened and endangered 

species have been impacted.2

 

Marine Mammals: Marine mammals have been observed swimming in oil after spills.3

Therefore, it cannot be assumed they would avoid the impacted area. The oil could harm 

marine mammals through several ways, including, but not limited to, the breathing of 

fumes from the oil (and possibly dispersants), persistence on their skin, and the 

consumption of oiled food sources. In addition, the large number of response vessels could 

place marine mammals at a greater risk of vessel collisions, which could cause fatal 

1

 http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/doc/2931/840475/ 2

 http://www.fws.gov/home/dhoilspill/pdfs/NewWildlifeOfGulf.pdf; 

http://www.fws.gov/home/dhoilspill/pdfs/FedListedBirdsGulf.pdf 3 http://mmc.gov/oil_spill/welcome.html 

14 
U.S. Department of the Interior 30 CFR Part 250 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement Environmental Assessment

 

injuries. 

Sea Turtles: The majority of the sea turtles impacted by the Deepwater Horizon incident have 

been Kemp's ridleys, listed as endangered under the ESA.4

 Shoreline oiling and response efforts 

may affect future population levels and reproduction.5

 Nests could also be disturbed or destroyed 

by cleanup efforts. Further, sea turtles take many years to reach sexual maturity. Deaths of subadult and adult sea turtles may also significantly reduce the future population numbers and 

viability. 

Coastal and Marine Birds: The Gulf coastal habitats are essential to the annual cycles of 

many species of breeding, wintering and migrating waterfowl, wading birds, shorebirds, 

and songbirds. The spill and response activities could interfere with migration. The worst 

impacts to oiled birds, or those which have ingested oil with their prey, would be if the oil 

spill occurs during the nesting season. An oil spill could result in the loss of entire 

colonies of breeding birds on barrier islands surrounded by oil, along with the loss of all 

eggs and nestlings. 

Fisheries: A catastrophic spill has the potential to cause the loss of a year class, effecting future 

stock populations. In addition to impacts of oil in coastal waters on shellfish, oyster beds have 

been damaged by freshwater diversions releasing tens of thousands of cubic feet of freshwater 

per second for months in an effort to keep oil out of the marshes. These actions were taken by 

the State to protect against perceived greater coastal oil spill impacts that would occur without 

the freshwater release. These oyster beds could take 2-5 years to recover.6

Coastal Habitats: During the spill, over 500 miles of shoreline were impacted, varying from 

light to moderate to heaving oiling. The majority of the Gulf coast is sensitive shoreline types 

(i.e., sheltered tidal flats; vegetated low banks; salt/brackish-water marshes; freshwater 

marshes/swamps; scrub-shrub wetlands) that tend to accumulate oil and are difficult to clean 

causing oil to persist in coastal and estuarine areas. 7 Loss of vegetation could lead to erosion and 

permanent land loss. 

Terrestrial Mammals: Critical habitat is specific geographic areas that are essential for the 

conservation of a threatened or endangered species. With the oiling over 500 miles of shoreline, 

it is foreseeable that an entire critical habitat for a species with a relatively small critical habitat 

could have been completely oiled. For example, the endangered Alabama beach mouse 

(Peromyscus polionotus ammobates) only has 1,211 acres of frontal dunes covering just 10 miles 

of shoreline designated as critical habitat.8

4 http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/health/oilspill.htm; 

http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/go/doctype/2931/55963/&offset=0) 5

http://www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com/posted/2931/Managing_Sea_Turtles_During_the_Oil_Spill_Response.

786623.pdf 6

http://www.nola.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/index.ssf/2010/07/widespread_oyster_deaths_found.html; 

http://www.wwltv.com/news/gulf-oil-spill/Concerns-Raised-About-Health-Of-Oyster-Beds-Impacted-By-FreshWater-Diversions-98867889.html 7 http://www.BOEMREre.gov/5-year/PDFs/PRP2007-2012.pdf 8 http://www.fws.gov/daphne/abm/pdf/ABM-FactSheet-finalCH-1-30-07.pdf 

15 
U.S. Department of the Interior 30 CFR Part 250 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement Environmental Assessment

 

Economics: It is estimated that the economic consequences of the Deepwater Horizon incident 

will lead to a net loss of just under $20 billion for the U.S. economy in 2010, which will lower 

U.S. economic growth in 2010 by roughly 0.1 percent and will lower growth in the most affected 

Gulf states. For example, the fishing industry, including seafood processing and related 

wholesale and retail businesses, supports over 200,000 jobs with related economic activity of 

$5.5 billion.9 Other immediate economic impacts include a decline in tourism. Jobs related to 

cleanup activities would not fully mitigate job losses in the fishing, tourism and oil and gas 

industries. 

Commercial and Recreational Fishing: While various (and varied) tests have shown no 

detectable oil or dispersant odors or flavors, and the results of sensitive chemical analyses have 

shown concentrations well below the levels of concern (i.e. background levels), the NOAA 

Fisheries Service closed large portions of the Gulf of Mexico during the spill as a precautionary 

measure to ensure public safety and assure consumer confidence in Gulf seafood.10,11 Up to 

36.6% of the Gulf of Mexico Exclusive Economic Zone was closed to recreational and 

commercial fishing at one time.12 This could represent 50-75% of the Gulf seafood production.13

Portions of the Gulf state waters were also closed to commercial and recreational fishing. 

5.0 REFERENCES 

American Petroleum Institute. Isolating Potential Flow Zones During Well Construction. 

Upstream Segment. API Recommended Practice 65—Part 2 First Edition. May 2010. 

American Petroleum Institute. Recommended Practices for Blowout Prevention Equipment 

Systems for Drilling Wells. API Recommended Practice 53 Third Edition. March 1997 

Reaffirmed, September 1, 2004. 

MMS, 2007, Outer Continental Shelf Oil & Gas Leasing Program: 2007-2012, Final 

Environmental Impact Statement, 2 vols. 

MMS, 2007, Gulf of Mexico OCS Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2007-2012, Final Environmental 

Impact Statement, 2 vols. 

MMS, 2008, Beaufort Sea and Chukchi Sea Planning Areas, Oil and Gas Lease Sales 209,212, 

217, and 221, Draft Environmental Impact Statement, 4 vols. 

9 http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41262.pdf 10 http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/20100722_reopening.html 11 http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/ClosureSizeandPercentCoverage.htm 12 http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/sf/deepwater_horizon/FB_Closure%20info_Eng.pdf 13 http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2010/05/noaa-closes-spill-area-to-fishing/ 

16 
U.S. Department of the Interior 30 CFR Part 250 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement Environmental Assessment

17 

Spanier, Ehud , J. Stanley Cobb, Michael Clancy. Impacts of Remotely Operated Vehicles 

(ROVs) on the behavior of marine animals: an example using American lobsters. Marine 

Ecology Progress Series. Vol. 104: 257-266, 1994. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, (USDOI) Minerals Management Service. 2010. Oil and Gas 

and Sulphur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf—Increased Safety Measures for 

Energy Development on the Outer Continental Shelf—Interim Final Rule. U.S. Dept. of the 

Interior, Minerals Management Service, Headquarters, Herndon, VA. 

Wharton, R.A., Jr. and P.T. Doran (eds.) 1999. McMurdo Dry Valley Lakes: Impacts of 

Research Activities. Desert Research Institute, University and Community College System 

of Nevada, USA, special publication, 54 p. 

6.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 

Norman Froomer – Environmental Protection Specialist 

Keely Hite – Environmental Protection Specialist
U.S. Department of the Interior 30 CFR Part 250 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement Environmental Assessment

U.S. Department of the Interior 30 CFR Part 250 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement Environmental Assessment

The Department of the Interior Mission

As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the Interior has responsibility 

for most of our nationally owned public lands and natural resources. This includes fostering 

sound use of our land and water resources; protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological diversity; 

preserving the environmental and cultural values of our national parks and historical places; 

and providing for the enjoyment of life through outdoor recreation. The Department assesses 

our energy and mineral resources and works to ensure that their development is in the best 

interests of all our people by encouraging stewardship and citizen participation in their care. 

The Department also has a major responsibility for American Indian reservation communities 

and for people who live in island territories under U.S. administration. 

The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement Mission 

As a bureau of the Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation 

and Enforcement’s (BOEMRE’s) primary responsibilities are to manage the mineral resources located 

on the Nation's Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), collect revenue from the Federal OCS and onshore 

Federal and Indian lands, and distribute those revenues. 

Moreover, in working to meet its responsibilities, the Offshore Minerals Management Program 

administers the OCS competitive leasing program and oversees the safe and environmentally 

sound exploration and production of our Nation's offshore natural gas, oil and other mineral 

resources. The BOEMRE Minerals Revenue Management meets its responsibilities by ensuring the 

efficient, timely and accurate collection and disbursement of revenue from mineral leasing and 

production due to Indian tribes and allottees, States and the U.S. Treasury. 

The BOEMRE strives to fulfill its responsibilities through the general guiding principles of: (1) being 

responsive to the public's concerns and interests by maintaining a dialogue with all potentially 

affected parties and (2) carrying out its programs with an emphasis on working to enhance the 

quality of life for all Americans by lending BOEMRE assistance and expertise to economic 

development and environmental protection.

1 

As a bureau of the Department of the Interior, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation 

and Enforcement’s (BOEMRE’s) primary responsibilities are to manage the mineral resources located 

on the Nation's Outer Continental Shelf (OCS), collect revenue from the Federal OCS and onshore 

Federal and Indian lands, and distribute those revenues. 

1