TECHNICAL
PROGRAM
OVERVIEW:
UNDERGROUND INJECTION
CONTROL REGULATIONS
-------
Office of Water 4606
EPA816-R-02-025
http://www.epa.gov
Revised July 2001
Technical Reference December 2002
r:%,
%A>a^ Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Acknowledgment
Paul Osborne, National Ground Water Expert of the EPA Region 8 office
collected, edited and integrated large amounts of information to create this
technical reference document. During development of the original overview in 1991, the
detailed editorial/technical assistance of Tom Belk (Office of Drinking Water), Marc Herman
(Superfund Branch, Region VIII) and Marion Yoder (Office of Regional Counsel, Region VIII)
helped to improve the readability of this document. Virginia Rose (Drinking Water
Branch) made the original document possible by retyping numerous drafts containing
never-ending changes.
Special thanks to Douglas Minter (Region VIII Class V Program), Steven Moores
(Region VIII ORC), Nathan Wiser (Region VIIIUIC Enforcement), Steve Souders
(HQ OSW), James Curtin (HQ OGC), Don Olson (HQ OECA), Tom Belk (HQ
OGWDW), Mario Salazar (HQ OGWDW), Robyn Delehanty (HQ OGWDW), Steve
Platt (Region III UIC Program), Talib Syed (UIC Contractor), and Professor L. G.
Wilson (Shallow recharge well researcher, University of Arizona) for their detailed
assistance in peer reviewing the update of this overview. The final complete edit of
this document was carried out by Harriet Hubbard (HQ OGWDW). Thanks is also
extended to many others who provided technical suggestions and proofreading
assistance, especially Valois Shea and Laura Clutts.
Technical Reference December 2002
r:%,
%A>a^ Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
DISCLAIMER: This document provides information to the States, tribes, underground
injection well owners and operators, and the general public concerning how the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) interprets the minimum
federal requirements for the Underground Injection Control (UIC) program
regulations authorized by the Safe Drinking Water Act. This document does not,
however, substitute for the UIC regulations, nor is it a regulation itself. Thus, it
cannot impose legally-binding requirements on EPA, States, tribes, or injection well
owners or operators, and may not apply to a particular situation. This document is not
intended, nor can it be relied upon, to create any rights enforceable by any party in
litigation with the United States. EPA may decide to follow the interpretation
provided in this document, or to act at variance with the interpretation based on its
analysis of the specific facts present. This document maybe revised without public
notice to reflect EPA's revisions to existing UIC regulations, changes in EPA's
approach to interpreting UIC regulations, or to clarify and update text.
Read the regulations thoroughly to ensure that you are in compliance. The
UIC regulations are in the Code of Federal Regulations under Chapter 40, Parts 144,
145, 146, 147, and 148.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Abbreviations 1
Introduction 2
Purpose and Coverage of the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program 3
UIC Program Well Classification 7
Figure 1. Illustration of Class I and IV Wells 8
Table 1. Summary of Regulation Requirements by Class of Injection Well 11
Authorization of Injection Wells 12
Figure 2. Area of Endangering Influence 13
UIC Regulatory Framework - Technical Criteria 14
Figure 3. Means of Demonstrating Absence of Mechanical Integrity 15
Figure 4. Basic Design Elements of a Typical Class II Injection Well 16
UIC Permitting Process 17
Class I Land Disposal Restrictions 18
Summary of Revisions to UIC Regulations 19
Underground Injection Control Delegation Status 21
Table 2. Authorized Underground Injection Control Programs for States Regulating all
Classes of Wells 22
Table 3. Status of Underground Injection Control Programs in States with Partial
Authorization 26
Overview Summary 27
Appendix A - References Relating to the UIC Program 29
General Information 29
Risk Analysis 32
U.S. EPA UIC
Program Overview
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Mechanical Integrity 32
Well Construction 34
Plugging and Abandonment 35
Operation of Deep Injection Wells 35
Class V Wells 38
National UIC Program Guidance 42
UIC Specific Regulations 45
U.S. EPA Regulatory Citations 46
_Appendix B - Major UIC Program Definitions 52
Appendix C - Injection Well Classes 61
_Appendix D - Description of Common Class II Fluids 63
Appendix E - Minimum Federal Technical Requirements for State UIC Programs 65
Appendix F - Typical Issues and Questions that Permit Applications Must Address 75
Appendix G - Class V Injection Well Types Identified in the 1987 Repot to Congress ... 78
U.S. EPA UIC
Program Overview
-------
Abbreviations
AOR Area of Review
BLM U.S. Bureau of Land Management
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CMA Chemical Manufacturers Association
CWA Clean Water Act
DI Direct Implementation
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
GAO General Accounting Office
GWPC Ground Water Protection Council
HSWA Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
HWIR Hazardous Waste Identification Rule
LDR Land Disposal Restriction
LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tank
MI Mechanical Integrity
MIT Mechanical Integrity Test
OAL Oxygen Activation Log
OGWDW Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
OSWER Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
PWS Public Water System
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RIA Regulatory Impact Analysis
RTS Radioactive Tracer Survey
SDWA Safe Drinking Water Act
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
UIC Underground Injection Control
UIPC Underground Injection Practices Council
USDW Underground Source of Drinking Water
USFW U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USFS U.S. Forest Service
UST Underground Storage Tank
UTS Universal Treatment Standards
Page 1 of 81
U.S. EPA UIC
Program Overview
-------
INTRODUCTION
This document provides an overview of the minimum regulations which are the basis of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program.
Development of these minimum standards by EPA, was required by Federal statute (Safe Drinking
Water Act, signed into law December 17, 1974 ). Congress intended for EPA to establish a Federal-
State system of regulation to assure that drinking water sources, actual and potential, are not
rendered unfit for such use by underground injection of contaminants1.
The main text and Appendices describe the major classes of injection wells, important
definitions, the associated technical and administrative requirements, and an extensive list of UIC
Program related references. The intended audience includes operators, UIC program staff, Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) program staff, and other individuals who are interested
in an overview of the UIC Program requirements, without spending a great deal of time studying the
regulations. However, it is necessary to read the applicable State or EPA regulations and, if
available, the site specific UIC permit itself to fully understand the specific requirements for a
given injection well facility. The general technical and regulatory requirements presented here
represent the minimum Federal requirements that apply to UIC programs being implemented by
States as well as those programs directly implemented (DI) by EPA.
This document is not a regulation. Thus, it cannot impose legally-binding requirements on
EPA, States, Territories, authorized Tribes or the public. To the extent this document summarizes
statutory or regulatory requirements, and anything in that summary is in conflict with the statutes or
the regulations, the statutes and regulations control. The Reader of this Program Overview should
remember that decision makers retain the discretion to adopt approaches on a case-by-case basis that
differ from this document where appropriate. As necessary and appropriate, EPA may change this
Program Overview in the future.
The Appendices contain supplemental information for those persons who want more details
on the specific aspects of the regulations and technical criteria for individual well types. Appendix
A, for instance, provides a broad list of specific references relating to the injection of fluids. These
references range from general background information to reports on specific topics, such as
mechanical integrity, well construction, Class V wells, etc. The remaining Appendices provide
specific technical details regarding underground injection:
1. Appendix A - Provides a broad list of specific UIC related references and guidance;
2. Appendix B - Defines the major program definitions;
3. Appendix C - Describes classes of injection wells;
1 For more information on Congressional intent, see House Report No. 93-1185, July 10,
1974, Section 1421, in A Legislative History of the Safe Drinking Water Act. February 1982,
Serial No. 97-9.
U.S. EPA UIC
Page 2 of 81 Program Overview
-------
4. Appendix D - Describes the fluids that might be injected into Class II wells;
5. Appendix E - Describes the major technical requirements by injection well class;
6. Appendix F - Typical issues and questions that Permit applications must address; and
7. Appendix G - Lists the types of Class V wells identified by the 1987 Report to
Congress.
PURPOSE AND COVERAGE OF THE UIC PROGRAM
Over the past 50 to 60 years, the practice of underground injection has become diverse in its
many applications and is essential to many human activities, including petroleum production,
chemical production, food production, manufacturing, mining, and many small specialty plants and
related businesses. The use of underground injection has expanded from disposal of mainly
produced brine from oil production 60 years ago to include more than 50 percent of the liquid
hazardous waste and a large percentage of the non-hazardous industrial liquid waste generated in the
United States (US). Facilities across the United States and in Indian Country discharge a variety of
hazardous and nonhazardous fluids into more than 375,000 injection wells (FY 2000 National
Injection Well inventory identifies about 375,000 known wells in all five categories, but experts
believe there may be an additional 400,000 to 500,000 Class V wells not yet counted). While water
and specific chemical treatment technologies exist, it would be very costly to treat and release to
surface waters the billions and trillions of gallons of wastes that industries produce each year.
Agribusiness and the chemical and petroleum industries all make use of underground injection for
waste disposal. It is also a key component in the recovery of some natural resources, such as
uranium (over 80% of the Nation's production) and salt (over 90% of the Nation's production), and
in the remediation of shallow ground-water contamination at numerous mining, RCRA, CERCLA
and leaking underground storage tank (LUST) sites.
Within the last few decades, the realization that subsurface placement of fluids could
contaminate ground water prompted the Federal government, many States, and now Indian Tribes to
develop programs and methods to protect underground sources of ground water being used for
drinking water purposes. This threat to ground water is demonstrated by a 1968 incident associated
with the over pressurization of the formation caused by an injection well at the Hammermill paper
company. This incident may have resulted in ground-water contamination in an area about five
miles from the injection well. In 1967, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) determined that a deep, hazardous waste disposal well at the Rocky Mountain
Arsenal was causing significant seismic events in the vicinity of Denver, Colorado. In 1975, a deep
injection well at an unnamed chemical company was closed because a casing leak resulted in
contamination of an underground source of drinking water (USDW). More recently, contamination
of shallow aquifers as a result of disposal of wastes into shallow injection systems, such as drain
fields and drywells, has led to further concern and the development of regulations to attempt to
address those identified problems. This was the case regarding the contamination in an unsewered
residential area north of Boulder, Colorado, where a large area with a number of shallow drinking
U.S. EPA UIC
Page 3 of 81 Program Overview
-------
water wells was found to have been contaminated. The contamination was linked to disposal of
industrial wastes into a drainfield from a circuit board manufacturing plant. In the 1980s, drywells
associated with runoff control for parking lots at several electronics plants in the Phoenix, Arizona
were identified by State and Federal investigators as having received large quantities of spent
solvent. This activity resulted in significant ground-water contamination of the shallow aquifer.
Such problems can, however, be avoided. When wells are properly sited, constructed, and operated,
underground injection is an effective and environmentally safe method to dispose of wastes.
Due to disparate levels of protection afforded ground water under the State injection well
programs at the time, Congress passed the SDWA of 1974 (as amended in 1976, 1977, 1980, 1984,
1986 and most recently re-authorized and amended in 1996) requiring EPA to establish a Federal -
State system of regulation of injection activities2. Several documents (see Appendix A, General
Information) have been published that provide a general picture of the need, use, operation, and
regulation of injection wells, including the Statement of Basis and Purpose of Underground
Injection Control Regulations (1979)3. The regulations written by EPA to implement the statutory
requirements of the SDWA establish minimum requirements for State, Tribal and Federal UIC
programs4 for controlling all injection activities and provide mechanisms for implementation and
authorization of primary enforcement authority. State and Tribal governments can apply for
primary enforcement authority (primacy) for the UIC Program under the procedures provided in
Federal regulations (Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 145). For a State to assume
primacy and receive implementation funding, the State must demonstrate (Section 1422 of the
SDWA) that it has authority over injection activities on Federal lands (except for Indian Country5).
Should States or Tribes decide not to seek primacy, EPA implements the program (See House
Report No. 93-1185, July 10, 1974 and Section 1421 of the SDWA).
2 See Administrator's Statement #5 (39FR12923, Tuesday, April 9,1974) that
established the Agency's position on injection and described data operators must provide
regulatory agencies and Section 1421 of the SDWA, December 16, 1974, as amended.
3 This document was published as part of the effort for the 1979 reproposal of the UIC
regulations. When the regulations were finalized in 1980 an expanded Statement of Basis and
Purpose was published.
4 In those areas where the Federal program is being Directly Implemented by EPA under
applicable regulations, there also may be separate State, other Federal Agencies or Tribal
regulations that establish additional requirements. Operators are required to comply with all the
Federal, Tribal, State and Local requirements. On Federal leases administrated by the U.S. BLM
and the U.S. Forest Service, Operators are required to comply with both sets of Federal
regulations (See Appendix A, UIC Specific Regulations, items 9 and 10).
5 "Indian Country" is defined at 18 U.S.C. 1151. The DI program regulates all wells
within the external boundaries of the Reservation (Indian Country-See 40 CFR 144.3). This
includes wells on private land and private mineral rights if the location is "Indian Country."
U.S. EPA UIC
Page 4 of 81 Program Overview
-------
The goal of Federal regulations is to prevent contamination of "underground sources of
drinking water" (USDW). A USDW is defined as an aquifer, or its portion, which serves as a
source of drinking water for human consumption, or contains a sufficient quantity of water to
supply a public water system, and contains fewer than 10,000 mg/liter of total dissolved solids.
Appendix B, Item 25, provides the regulatory definition of a USDW6. The broad definition of a
USDW was mandated by Congress in Section 1421 (d) (2) of SDWA (See House Report No. 93-
1185, July 10, 1974) to ensure that future USDWs would be protected, even where those aquifers
were not currently being utilized as a drinking water source or could not be used without some
form of water treatment.7
Because some aquifers or parts of aquifers (which would otherwise meet the regulatory
definition of a USDW) may not reasonably be expected to serve as a source of drinking water, the
regulations are written to allow EPA to exempt portions of an aquifer from definition as a USDW
and thus allow continued or future injection into them. These aquifers are generally associated with
in-situ mining and enhanced recovery of oil. Appendix B, Item 2, provides the criteria for the
exemption process. If an operator wishes to dispose of produced waters or inject for the purpose of
enhanced recovery or for the recovery of minerals into a USDW, a demonstration must be made that
the proposed aquifer meets at least one of the exemption criteria. EPA has issued two guidance
(Ground-Water Protection Guidance #34 and an unnumbered guidance memo from the Director of
the Office of Drinking Water to all Regional offices dated Septembers, 1986) that provide details
on the information which should be developed for an aquifer exemption request (See Appendix A,
National UIC Program Guidance, section 1).
Regulations mandate the consideration of a variety of measures to assure that injection wells
will not jeopardize (endanger) USDWs. The concept of endangerment is explicitly defined at 40
CFR 144.12 as the construction or operation of an injection activity that allows movement of fluid
containing any contaminant8 into USDWs if the presence of that contaminant may cause a violation
of any primary drinking water regulation under 40 CFR Part 14lor may otherwise adversely affect
the health of persons. Part 141 establishes drinking water standards for various constituents (i.e.,
maximum contaminant levels [MCLs]) found in water.
6 The determination as to whether an aquifer meets the definition of a USDW as outlined
in Appendix B, item 25 depends on the amount of water (significant) that can be produced. EPA
has developed a policy for defining the term significant (See Appendix B, item 22).
7 The use of advanced water treatment of ground water by existing and future water
systems was discussed during the 1980 litigation of the UIC regulations. Information on some
systems in use at the time of promulgation is provided in Desalination of Brackish Ground Water
by Claire M. Gesalman: U.S. EPA, Office of Drinking Water, 4 pages; no date (Material
prepared for the 1980 UIC Promulgation Litigation).
8 Contaminant means any physical, chemical, biological, or radiological substance or
matter in water.
U.S. EPA UIC
Page 5 of 81 Program Overview
-------
Exceeding an MCL (See 40 CFR 141) at the point injected fluids enter a USDW would be
cause for the Director9 to determine if the prohibition of fluid movement has been violated. This is
an especially critical issue for injection wells disposing of non-hazardous waste (fluids that contain
contaminants not defined as hazardous under 40 CFR Part 261) directly into a USDW (See 40 CFR
144.12[c]). Operators of such wells could be required to obtain an injection well permit, modify the
injection procedure to reduce contaminant levels, or cease injection and close the well.
The endangerment of USDWs can occur via any combination of at least six avenues -
described here as "pathways of contamination" - ways in which fluids can escape the well or
injection horizon and enter USDWs. These "pathways" are the following:
1. Migration of fluids through a faulty injection well casing (See Figure 3);
2. Migration of fluids upward through the annulus located between the casing and the
drilled hole (See Figure 3);
3. Migration of fluids from an injection horizon through the confining zone (strata);
4. Vertical migration of fluids through improperly abandoned or completed wells (See
Figure 2);
5. Lateral migration of fluids from within an injection zone into a protected portion of
that stratum (a portion that is defined as a USDW); and
6. Direct injection of fluids into or above an underground source of drinking water (See
Figure 1).
The extent to which a USDW is threatened will depend on the nature of the fluids being
injected, the volume of the fluid being injected the hydraulics of the flow system (pressure in the
injection zone and overlying USDWs), and the amount of fluid that may enter the USDW via one or
more of the pathways. The injection of a hazardous waste into a poorly constructed well would
pose a high potential threat of endangerment to USDWs, while the injection of high quality river
water directly into a USDW using a recharge well may represent a low threat. Regardless, however,
of the level of threat, all owners and operators of all injection wells fall under the regulatory control
of the UIC Program, and are authorized either by rule (See appendix B, ) or by Permit, except for
those activities specifically excluded from regulation by 40 CFR 144.1 (g) (2), such as injection
wells used for injection of hydrocarbons which are of pipeline quality and are gases at standard
temperature and pressure for the purpose of storage [See 40 CFR 144.1(g)(l)(iv)]. Individual or
single family residential waste disposal systems are also excluded from the UIC Program [See 40
CFR 144.1(g)(2)(ii) and House Report No. 93-1185, July 10, 1974].
UIC regulations separate injection wells into distinct categories to assure that wells with
common design and operating technique are covered by similar or identical performance criteria.
The sections of the CFR applicable to the UIC Program are listed in Appendix A, UIC Specific
Regulations.
UIC PROGRAM WELL CLASSIFICATION
9 Director means the Regional Administrator, the State Director as the context requires,
or an authorized representative for the Primacy or DI UIC Program.
U.S. EPA UIC
Page 6 of 81 Program Overview
-------
EPA's UIC Program creates five classes of injection wells each based principally on
potential for the injection to (type of activity and the depth of injection) to result in endangerment of
a USDW. Appendix C provides the regulatory definitions of all five classes of wells along with
examples of each. The principal factor used to define each class is the type of activity and general
nature of the fluids associated with that activity (except for Class V): a) injection of hazardous,
industrial, and municipal waste; b) injection related to the production of oil and gas; c) injection
related to the recovery of minerals; and d) other injection related to activities where data are
insufficient to evaluate the threat to ground water (where fluids are not hazardous, but may still pose
a threat). A secondary factor used in classification is the location (depth) of the injection relative to
USDWs.
Class I wells, for example, inject hazardous, non-hazardous industrial or municipal waste,
and radioactive waste, below the lowermost formation containing a USDW within one quarter mile
of the wellbore. Class II wells inject, for the purpose of disposal, fluids produced from downhole
that are associated with oil and gas production as well as fluids associated with the operation of
natural gas storage operation, methane gas dehydration and sweetening plants. The Class II
category also includes wells used for the enhanced recovery of oil and gas and the storage of
hydrocarbons that are liquids at standard temperature and pressure. Class III wells are for in-situ
extraction of minerals. Class IV wells inject hazardous or radioactive waste fluids into or above
USDWs and are prohibited except in specific cases. The Class V category includes all other wells
not covered in Classes I-IV.
As of 1999, the Class I category consisted of about 532 active wells which inject hazardous
and nonhazardous industrial and municipal waste. This total included 406 non-hazardous Class I
wells. Of the total number of Class I wells, 126 wells inject large volumes of hazardous fluids. For
instance, in 1994, these Class I hazardous waste wells injected approximately 9 billion gallons of
waste. As of 1999, there were 84 Class I wells injecting municipal waste at a rate of about 350
million gallons per day. These well numbers compare to a total of 485 Class I wells in 1991 (310
were non-hazardous).
A large number of injection wells are associated with disposal of fluids from oil and gas
production and injection to enhance oil and gas production (secondary and tertiary recovery
injection wells). These wells (See Appendix D) are defined as Class II wells. The injected fluids
are either: waste fluids produced from downhole in connection with primary production of oil and
gas, some fluids generated in the field in connection with oil and gas production (such as gas
sweetening), or fluids used for enhanced recovery of oil or gas. Appendix D provides a list of the
general categories
U.S. EPA UIC
Page 7 of 81 Program Overview
-------
U.S. EPAUIC
Page 8 of 81 Program Overview
-------
of Class II fluids. It should be emphasized that unused oil field chemicals, waste motor oil from
field equipment or offsite waste fluids are not defined as oil field fluids that are produced from
downhole and cannot be disposed of in a Class II well. The two largest injection well groups are the
Class II (oil production related activities) and the Class V (shallow injection) activities. As of 1999,
there were approximately 154,000 Class II wells in 32 states, including those wells on Tribal Lands.
As a means of providing some sense of the fluctuation in Class II well numbers, the National
inventory indicated 175, 464 wells in 1991, 166,771 in 1995, and about 148,000 in 2000.
Wells injecting fluids for mineral extraction are defined as Class III wells. This includes:
solution mining of salts; in situ extraction of metals, such as uranium; and mining of sulphur by the
Frasch process. Solution mining of metals within a conventional mine (such as stopes leaching) is
not considered to be a Class III operation. Wells associated with mineral extraction within a
conventional mine are regulated as Class V wells. At present, most active Class III facilities are
associated with the solution mining of uranium, and the solution mining of salt. At this time, there
has been a significant decline in the number of wells used for the extraction of sulphur. The Class
III category included about 15,000 wells in 1999, at approximately 148 facilities. This increased
slightly in 2000 with 16,577 wells at 164 sites, but is greatly reduced from 1991 when there were
30,027 wells at 207 facilities
An important factor for classifying wells is the source and chemical makeup of the fluid
injected. A key factor is whether the fluid is hazardous. The definition of a hazardous waste is set
forth in RCRA regulations under 40 CFR 261. A fluid may be hazardous if it exhibits one of four
characteristics (corrosive, reactive, ignitable or toxic) or if it is a listed waste as defined in 40 CFR
Part 261 Subpart D. If a well is injecting hazardous fluids into a USDW, it would be defined as
Class IV and would be subject to immediate closure. Class IV wells used in remedial cleanups at
EPA or State approved CERCLA and RCRA sites, however, are allowed as long as the final
cleanup standards are protective of human health and the environment (See Appendix A, National
Program Guidance-Section 3.g.).
According to the regulatory definition (See 40 CFR 144.80(e) and 144.81), Class V wells are
any injection wells that: 1) emplace fluids into the subsurface; and 2) do not meet the definitions of
a Class I-IV well (See 40 CFR 146.5). This category is predominantly shallow injection wells and
includes infiltration galleries, drainfields and any other subsurface fluid distribution system or
improved sinkhole. Class V does include a few deep wells (including one injecting at a depth of
14,000 feet). Any septic system, cesspool, or other well used by a multiple dwelling,
community, or regional system for the injection of wastes is covered by the UIC Program
unless the system has the capacity to serve fewer than 20 persons a day and is used solely for
the disposal of sanitary wastes [See 40 CFR 144.1(g)(l)(iii) and 40 CFR 144.1(g)(2)(iii)].
Figure 1 illustrates the UIC well classification system by diagraming a situation at an old
existing facility (constructed and commenced operation prior to implementation of EPA's UIC
Program) involving Class I, and IV disposal wells. While the Class I well could be permitted under
the UIC program, the disposal of a hazardous waste into or above a USDW is specifically prohibited
by the regulations and by provisions of RCRA. Existing Class IV wells were required to cease
operating and close within six months of implementation of the UIC Program. Failure to comply
U.S. EPA UIC
Page 9 of 81 Program Overview
-------
with the operating, reporting, or closure requirements would subject the owner/operator to the
enforcement and penalty stipulations of SDWA. Construction and operation of new Class IV wells
is not allowed except for remedial cleanup wells associated with EPA or State approved CERCLA
and RCRA cleanup activities (see Appendix E, Item 5).
If the shallow wells (described in the situation above) injecting into or above USDWs (as
shown in Figure 1) are, however, injecting non-hazardous fluids, they would be defined as Class V.
Class V wells are located in virtually every State, especially in unsewered areas where the
population is likely to depend on onsite waste disposal for their wastewater and ground water for
their drinking water. Frequently, these wells are designed as no more than shallow low-tech
(gravity drainage) systems, such as dry wells (also referred to as vadose zone wells) or septic tank
and leachfield combinations intended solely for sanitary waste disposal. Generally both large and
small towns handle their storm runoff by the use of large numbers of drywells. This practice is not
limited to unsewered areas. The drywells are used as a less costly alternative to the installation of
storm water collection systems. While such designs may be adequate for disposal of general storm
water or sanitary waste, they are not appropriate for the disposal of many other fluids, such as
service station wastes or some industrial complex runoff. Sometimes these systems are
inappropriately used for this purpose. Federal, State and local regulators have identified ground-
water contamination that is linked to improper disposal of industrial wastes into drywells and
drainfields around the country.
Under the Federal regulations, all Class V wells (with the exception of large capacity
cesspools and motor vehicle waste disposal wells) are "authorized by rule" (40 CFR 144), which
means they are allowed to inject if they comply with the minimum Federal requirements. The most
important of these requirements is that Class V wells are not allowed to endanger USDWs. Existing
and new Class V wells are allowed if the operator complies with the notification and inventory
requirements, and the Director determines that injection will not endanger USDWs. The changes to
the Class V regulations (See 40 CFR 144.88) published in 64FR68456, December 7,1999, require
the closing of all large-capacity cesspools by April 5, 2005, and the closure or permitting of existing
motor vehicle waste disposal wells no later than Jan. 2008. New construction of these two well
types is prohibited.
The Class V injection well category includes drainfields and other subsurface distribution
systems, except those disposing of sanitary waste that serve single family homes. The 2000
regulatory ban/phase-out of motor vehicle waste disposal wells applies to residential homes if
vehicle maintenance waste is being discharged into a septic or other subsurface system. The
drainfield is a single or multiple trench system filled with gravel that is covered at the surface.
Water is introduced to the drainfield through a pipe system from the waste stream source. The Class
V category is a catch-all for numerous types of allowable subsurface emplacement practices. The
1987 Report to Congress on Class V Injection Wells-Current Inventory, Effects on Ground Water
and Technical Recommendations ( See appendix A for specific references on Class V wells)
identifies 32 different types of Class V injection wells found throughout the country. Appendix G is
Table 1
SUMMARY OF MINIMUM FEDERAL REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
BY CLASS OF INJECTION WELL
U.S. EPAUIC
Page 10 of 81 Program Overview
-------
Class Permit Required Life of Permit Area of Review Mechanical Integrity Test required
Other Tests
Monitoring
Reporting
Parti
(Internal)
Part II
(External)
IH
INK
II
III
IV
V
Yes + Land Ban
Petition (see 40
CFR 148)
Yes
Yes except for
existing EOR
wells authorized
by rule
Yes
Banned except for
those authorized
under 40 CFR
144.13(c)
Authorized by rule
unless Permit
required by 40
CFR 144.12(c)
and (d) or 144.84,
144.88 and
144.89.
Up to 10 years
Up to 10 years
Specific Period-
may be for life of
well
Specific period-
may be for life of
project
Closed upon
identification
unless authorized
cleanup projects
2 mile
minimum for
hazardous waste
wells.
1/4 mile
minimum
New wells- 1/4
mile fixed
radius or radius
of
endangerment
Yes- either 1/4
mile fixed
radius or radius
of
endangerment
Pressure test
annually and after
each workover
Pressure test or
alternative at least
once every five
years
Pressure test/at least
once every five
years
initially and every
five years for salt
wells
A temperature,
noise or other
approved log at
least every five
years
Each 5 yrs
Adequate
Cement records
may be used in
lieu of logs
Adequate
cement records
and RTS, noise,
or Temperature
unless limited
by construction
Yearly radioactive tracer survey,
yearly Fall-off test, casing
inspection log after each
workover, continuous corrosion
testing
Fall-off - Annually
annual fluid chemistry and other
tests as needed/required by permit
As needed/required by permit
Continuous injection
pressure, flow rate, volume,
temperature, and annukis
pressure + fluid chemistry +
ground-water Monitoring as
needed
Continuous injection
pressure, flow rate, volume,
and annulus pressure + fluid
chemistry and yearly
pressure falloff test
Injection Pressure, flow rate
and cumulative volume,
observed weekly for
disposal and monthly for
enhanced recovery
Continuous injection
pressure, flow rate, volume,
and fluid chemistry
+Ground- water monitoring
as required
No new wells are allowed except those that are part of an EPA or State approved RCRA orCERCLA cleanup and meets the
criteria of Section 70 10(b) of HWSA (1984). EPA must review and approve technical plans. Monitoring for system performance
may be necessary. The cleanup plan must be designed to be protective of human health.
Following an assessment of Class V wells in 1987 (See Report to Congress Class V Injection Wells-Current Inventory, Effects on Ground Water and
Technical Recommendations by Office of Water: September 1987, 435 pages (main text); EPA 570/9-87-006), EPA commenced an effort to develop
regulations covering certain types of wells, such as large-capacity cess pools and motor vehicle waste disposal wells. This effort included a more
detailed assessment of certain well types which was published in 1999 (See Class V Underground Injection Control Study. Office of Water: EPA/8 16-
R-99-014, September 1999; 23 volumes and 5 Appendices [see http://www.epa.gov/saf ewater/uic/cl5studv.html)1 The new Class V regulations were
published in the Federal Register on December 7, 1999, and were effective on April 5, 2000. The new rules include new definitions for wells;
clarifies the Class V inventory requirements (40 CFR 144.83); moves a Class V subclass into another class; bans new large capacity cesspools and new
motor vehicle waste disposal wells; and establishes a phase-out process for existing large capacity cesspools and motor vehicle waste disposal wells.
Quarterly
Quarterly
Annual
Quarterly
Closure or
compliance
report on
schedule
Required for
permitted wells.
All wells must be
inventoried per
40 CFR 144.83
a list of these well types. This report was followed up by a 23 volume study of certain Class V wells completed in 1999. The subsequent
regulations relating to Class V wells (64FR68546, December 7,1999) was based in large part on the Report to Congress. The follow up
Page 11 of
U.S. EPAUIC
! 1 Program Overview
-------
studies will be utilized to determine if further Class V Rules are needed.
The Class V group officially contained more than 200,000 wells in 1999. This is a far from
complete number partially because of the shortage of funding to locate existing facilities. Experts
familiar with inventory efforts believe that the Class V well numbers could approach 500,000 tol
million wells when the a consistent National inventory is completed.
AUTHORIZATION OF INJECTION WELLS
The UIC regulations at 40 CFR Part 144 establish two methods for authorization to site,
construct, operate, monitor and close an injection well - authorization by rule or by permit. Rule
authorization is a regulatory mechanism established by 40 CFR 144.21 through 40 CFR 144.28 that
provides a means of authorizing the operation of some injection wells. These sections cover Class I
II and III injection wells existing when the UIC program was implemented by either a State or EPA
and Class V wells for which there are no specific operational requirements other than a need to
provide inventory information. Wells authorized by rule are subject to the specific requirements set
by the regulations, but the operator is not subject to the public participation and other procedures
that are necessary to obtain a Permit. Unless authorized by rule or by Permit, any underground
injection is unlawful and is in violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). All wells existing
on the effective date of State primacy or EPA implementation received authorization by rule;
however, the UIC Director may revoke this authorization for failure to comply with any UIC
regulation, including requests for information under 40 CFR 144.27. Appendix B, Item 6 provides
specific details on the regulations relating to rule authorization.
All Class I wells, Class n disposal wells, and Class III wells existing on the effective date
were required to apply for a permit during the first five years of UIC program implementation.
Class II enhanced recovery wells existing at the effective date of implementation of the UIC
Program maintain rule authorization for the life of the well, provided the owner/operator complies
with regulations relating to rule authorization. Every new Class I well, Class II (including enhanced
recovery) well, and Class III well is required to apply for and receive a Permit prior to construction
or injection.
Although Class V wells have generally been authorized by rule, the owner/operator of a
Class V well must notify the UIC Director of the proposed or existing activity and provide certain
inventory information. This includes remedial cleanup wells being proposed for LUST, CERCLA,
or RCRA sites. The Director may, based on this information, determine that a permit is needed to
assure protection of USDWs (40 CFR 144.12[c]-[d]). Additional regulations specific to Class V
wells became effective April 2000, and are presently being implemented. These additional rules
require the phase-out of existing large capacity cesspools and existing motor vehicle wells and a ban
on new large capacity cesspools and motor vehicle waste disposal wells.
U.S. EPA UIC
Page 12 of 81 Program Overview
-------
Oil. f 4! 11
F'MfMh h.Hi
We I i
WAitfi rfthlf
si'fir AC r
, 'SOW
f A:
i UMT f
LARAMJE-fOX HIU3
( I
Flguie 2
OF PEVIEW
/yri>» (if I'liitusi^fkiy »<.'!LMI"I, ;
q^ 4s"ti*" 'fjj'1!" ^»yij wf?^i-'J '^F r^^^t^W
s
X
X
f
IWECTICW
CURVE
w o
o
(50
8
PH
CO
m
o
oo
tn
m
CM
I'm- .'i
a, Ll'SDW
-------
UIC REGULATORY FRAMEWORK - TECHNICAL CRITERIA
The UIC regulations establish specific performance criteria for each well class to assure that
drinking water sources, actual and potential, are not rendered unfit for such use by underground
injection of the fluids common to that particular category. Table 1 summarizes the minimum
Federal requirements for the five classes of wells. As shown on Table 1, Class I, II and III
permitted wells have two major technical requirements that are similar 1) a mechanical integrity
testing requirement is established to assure that leaks do not result in significant movement of fluids
into a USDW (pathways one and two, as defined previously); and 2) an area of review requirement
is established for new wells to assure that existing, improperly completed, and abandoned wells or
transmissive faults or fractures within that area [area of endangering influence] do not provide
avenues for vertical migration into USDWs (pathways three and four).
Although the technical requirements for Class I, II, and III wells are similar, there are
differences warranted by the nature of the waste, well design, and operational characteristics. The
specific regulations which address each well class are found in 40 CFR 146, 147, and 148.
Appendix E summarizes the major technical criteria for all classes of wells. This appendix covers
requirements common to all permitted wells and those specific requirements associated with each of
the five well classes.
Figure 2 is an illustration of the potential problems associated with improperly plugged
wells or other well bores that penetrate the injection zone within the area of endangering influence
(area of review) of the injection well10 (See Appendix A, General Information and Appendix B, Item
3). The zone of endangering influence defines the area where the injection reservoir pressure under
the influence of injection activity could cause fluid to move into a USDW. The radius of
endangering influence is defined as the point where the injection pressure curve intersects the base
of the lowermost USDW. The injection pressure curve represents the level to which fluids from the
injection zone would rise in a hypothetical well at a given location. As shown on Figure 2, it is
possible that the area of endangering influence may exceed the minimum fixed radius for the area of
review established in the regulations. In such cases, the calculated zone of endangering influence
becomes the area of review, within which all wells penetrating the confining zone must be
identified.
10 The area of review concept as applied to Industrial disposal is discussed in an Master
of Science Thesis: Determining the Area of Review for Industrial Waste Disposal Wells by
Stephen Eugene Barker: The University of Texas at Austin, December 1981. The U.S. EPA also
had a Guidance Document for the Area of Review prepared under the UIC Level of Effort
contract: Guidance Document for the Area of Review Requirement by Engineering Enterprises:
U.S. EPA, Drinking Water Branch, May 1985. This was followed by a compendium of
memorandums and associated information on the development of the Area of Review concept:
Area of Review Material assembled by A. Roger Anzzolin: U.S. EPA Drinking Water Branch,
April 4, 1985.
U.S. EPA UIC
Page 14 of 81 Program Overview
-------
Wei!
:•=
Casing
Formation
In
Casing
Cement
Formation
In
by
a lack of
3
Page 15 of 81
U.S. EPAUIC
Program Overview
-------
U.S. EPAUIC
Page 16 of 81 Program Overview
-------
Figure 3 illustrates the other principal pathways of contamination (pathways 1 and 2): failure
of a well's mechanical integrity. A well does not have mechanical integrity if: 1) there are
significant leaks in the casing; or 2) there is significant fluid movement into a USDW adjacent to
the well casing. Item 15 of Appendix B provides a detailed discussion of the principles behind the
mechanical integrity requirement. Figure 4 illustrates the typical design elements of a standard
Class II injection well which are utilized to assure protection of USDWs. The absence of leaks in
the tubing, casing, and packer can be determined by pressure testing the casing/tubing armulus while
the well is shut-in. The references in Appendix A, Well Construction section and Mechanical
Integrity and Formation Testing section, also provide extensive information on the topic.
UIC PERMITTING PROCESS
To obtain a permit for a new Class I, II or III well, the owner/operator must file an
application with the UIC Director containing specific information listed in 40 CFR 146 or in the
applicable State requirements. The information must provide sufficient data to demonstrate that
USDWs will be protected. The key areas of information are: 1) geological considerations used in
the well siting and design, especially information on all USDWs penetrated by the injection well; 2)
the structural integrity of the well; 3) the specific operational considerations used in well design; 4)
information on the status of wells in the area of review that penetrate the injection zone; and 5) the
proposed monitoring of the facility. The monitoring program must consider quantity and quality of
injected fluids and existing reservoir conditions. Operators must submit data on all existing and
abandoned wells that penetrate the injection zone within the area of review of all newly drilled or
converted injection wells. Information that would allow calculation of the injection pressure curve
must be submitted. This submittal must detail the casing and cementing information for all wells in
the area of review. The Director uses this information to determine if wells in the area of review
require corrective action prior to commencement of injection. The applicant must also provide an
appropriate demonstration of financial responsibility for operation and closure of the facility.
Appendix F provides a list of typical issues and questions that must be addressed by the application
for each of these four well categories. It should be noted that the Director may require the
owner/operator of any existing or proposed Class V well to apply for a permit if injection might
exceed any drinking water MCL or endanger human health.
Once the application has been reviewed, the applicant will be notified of the items needed
for a complete application, if any. When the complete application is on hand, a draft permit
decision to issue or deny the permit will be prepared and published with appropriate public notice
and participation. The public notice period is a minimum of 30 days. Any one may request that the
Director hold a public hearing to provide further opportunity for commentors to provide objections
or information regarding the proposed permit. If the Director determines that there is sufficient
reason for a hearing, a notice of the hearing must be issued for minimum period of 30 days. Any
comments received during this period will be addressed in the final permit decision. When the Final
Permit is prepared, it may be issued effective immediately if there have been no comments during
the Public Comment period.
If there have been comments , including any from the applicant, the Permit will have an
U.S. EPA UIC
Page 17 of 81 Program Overview
-------
effective date of 30 days after issuance. This provides time for an appeal to be filed. Only those
parties commenting on the draft decision have legal standing to appeal the final decision, and must
limit their grounds for appeal to those matters brought forth during the public comment period.
Owners/operators obtaining UIC permits from an EPA or state program for wells on
Federal leases must obtain the necessary approval stipulated by the lease and by appropriate
BLM on-shore oil and gas orders. Although the technical requirements of EPA's UIC
Program (as implemented by the State, Indian tribe, or EPA) establish requirements for
construction, operation, and abandonment of all injection wells, the BLM has authority to
assure compliance with all lease restrictions and other requirements of its regulations relating
to oil and gas production. The operator must, however, have an effective State or EPA UIC
permit prior to actually drilling or converting a well which has BLM authorization. The
BLM policy regarding the interaction of the UIC Program with its onshore oil and gas
program is articulated by Instruction Memorandum No. 83-631 (Appendix A, National UIC
Program Guidance), section 1 (f).
CLASS I LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS
In addition to the normal and customary UIC permitting process, which may be done by the
Regional office for direct implementation programs, or by the States in Primacy programs, injection
of hazardous waste into Class I injection wells requires a significant additional step implemented
only at the Regional EPA level. The owner/operator must apply for both a UIC Class I Hazardous
Permit and an exemption to the requirements of the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments
(HSWA) to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). This process, commonly
referred to as "land ban" petition, is implemented under the 40 CFR Part 148 regulations
promulgated in response to HSWA. The HSWA amendments imposed significant restrictions to
land disposal of hazardous waste11. Under a public noticed procedure, EPA has and continues to
place specific types of hazardous waste identified in Part 261 on a schedule for compliance with
HSWA land ban restrictions. After the specific scheduled date, the continued land disposal of said
hazardous waste is illegal (a so-called "ban date"), unless EPA grants an exemption to the "land
ban." Injection is specifically included as a form of land disposal, so after a "ban date" is
established for any given hazardous waste, the only manner in which that hazardous waste can be
allowed to be injected is under a land ban exemption. To qualify for such an exemption, the
owner/operator must demonstrate to a reasonable degree of certainty, that there will be no migration
of hazardous constituents from the injection zone for as long as the waste remains hazardous.
For the UIC program, the additional Part 148 requirements specify that an operator must
11 Material defined as hazardous in 40 CFR Part 261 is either a characteristic waste or a
specific listed waste. The four characteristic tests are: a) ignitability as defined by 261.21 (a); b)
corrosivity as defined by 40 CFR 261.22(a); c) reactivity as defined by 40 CFR 261.23(a); and d)
toxicity as defined by 261.24(a). The listed hazardous wastes are described in 40 CFR 261,
Subpart D as non-specific sources (F-codes), specific sources (K-codes), actively hazardous off-
specification discarded product (P-codes), or toxic off-specification discarded product (U-codes).
U.S. EPA UIC
Page 18 of 81 Program Overview
-------
submit a land ban petition (no-migration demonstration) to demonstrate, i.e., simulate through
sophisticated computer models either (1) that the injected hazardous waste will not migrate to a
USDW within at least 10,000 years, or (2) that the injected hazardous waste will be rendered non-
hazardous through attenuation, transformation, or immobilization. The first of these demonstrations
is what is popularly referred to as a "containment" demonstration, while the second is known as a
"fate-of-waste" demonstration. As of this date, only one facility in the country has passed a "fate-
of-waste" demonstration, while all other sites have relied on the "containment" demonstration.
Across the country, there have been 47 successful demonstrations (Regional Approval) at deep
Class I hazardous injection sites. In addition, there have been about 5 failed demonstrations.
Key factors that must be considered in the modeling demonstration include the pressure,
permeability, and porosity of both the injection zone and confining layers, as well as mobility of
hazardous constituents (e.g. their coefficients of dispersion and diffusion). For modeling the
geochemical "fate-of-waste," an analysis of the chemical reaction(s) that will render the waste non-
hazardous must be considered as well. Operators must conservatively estimate their projected
injection volume, rate, and pressure, taking into consideration key factors, and produce an estimate
of their plume dimensions forecast into the future, paying close attention to how much reduction in
concentration is likely over both the operational period and any long-range non-operational period
(e.g. 10,000 year "containment" demonstration).
For the purpose of public notice, EPA must publish its decision of whether to approve or
deny a land ban no-migration demonstration in the Federal Register. Approvals of land ban
demonstrations are not synonymous with UIC permit approval, nor do they necessarily carry the
same approval duration that an accompanying permit might have. Much of this is dependent upon
what geologic, hydrological, and operational assumptions were made in the computer modeling
exercise. The authority to make a land ban determination is delegated to each Region's Water
Program Division Director. Hence, an operator wishing to inject banned hazardous waste in a
Primacy State needs to seek approval from the appropriate EPA Regional office with respect to the
land ban determination.
SUMMARY OF REVISIONS TO UIC REGULATIONS
The December 1999 revisions to the UIC Regulations for Class V Injection Wells moves a
subclass to another well class and adds new requirements for two categories of Class V wells to
ensure protection of USDWs:
1. Motor vehicle waste disposal wells. These are generally floor drains and sinks connected to
dry wells or septic tank and leachfield combinations that receive or have received fluids
from vehicular repair or maintenance activities, such as an auto body repair shop,
automotive repair shop, new and used car dealership, specialty repair shop (e.g.,
transmission and muffler repair shop), or any facility that does any vehicular repair work.
Fluids disposed in these wells may contain organic and inorganic chemicals in
concentrations that exceed the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) established by the
primary drinking water regulations (see 40 CFR Part 141). These fluids also may include
waste petroleum products and may contain contaminants, such as heavy metals and volatile
U.S. EPA UIC
Page 19 of 81 Program Overview
-------
organic compounds, which pose risks to human health.
2. Large-capacity cesspools. Cesspools are typically dry wells that receive untreated sanitary
waste, and which sometimes have an open bottom and/or perforated sides. The UIC
requirements do not apply to single-family residential cesspools or to non-residential
cesspools that receive solely sanitary waste and have the capacity to serve fewer than 20
persons a day.
In particular, the Class V Rule bans new motor vehicle waste disposal wells and new and
existing large-capacity cesspools nationwide. The Rule also bans existing motor vehicle waste
disposal wells in ground water protection areas and other sensitive ground water areas but includes a
waiver provision that will allow well owners and operators to seek a permit. The rule includes
minimum Permit conditions. For the purpose of the Class V Rule, ground water protection areas are
source water protection areas delineated in accordance with the 1996 SDWA Amendments for
community water systems (CWSs) and non-transient non-community water systems (NTNCWSs)
that use ground water as a source. Other sensitive ground water areas include areas delineated by
States that are critical for the protection of USDWs.
The new requirements for existing motor vehicle waste disposal wells will be phased-in over
approximately seven years. The first wells to be affected will be those located in ground water
protection areas. The effective date of the rule is April 2000.
Motor vehicle waste disposal wells in Ground Water Protection Areas
• Owners and operators in ground water protection areas must close their well or obtain a
Permit within one year of completion of a local source water protection area assessment.
States could grant a one year extension under certain conditions.
• States must complete all source water assessments by January 1, 2004. If they do not, three
things could occur:
1. The Class V rule (published December 7, 1999) would apply statewide, and owners
and operators would have until January 1, 2005, to close their wells or obtain a
permit;
2. States could apply to EPA for a one year extension to complete their assessments.
Owners and operators would have one year from the completion of their local source
water protection area assessment to close their well or obtain a permit.
3. If States get an extension and fail to complete their assessments, the rule would apply
statewide and owners and operators would have until January 1, 2006, to close their
wells or obtain a permit.
U.S. EPA UIC
Page 20 of 81 Program Overview
-------
Motor vehicle waste disposal wells in Other Sensitive Ground Water Areas
• States must designate other sensitive ground water areas by January 1, 2004. Owners and
operators of existing wells in these sensitive ground water areas have until January 1, 2007,
to comply with the requirements.
• If States do not designate sensitive ground water areas by January 1, 2004, three things could
occur:
1. The rule would apply statewide and owners and operators would have until January
1, 2007, to close their wells or obtain a permit;
2. States could apply to EPA for a one year extension to complete the designation.
Owners and operators in designated sensitive ground water areas would have until
January 2008 to close their well or obtain a permit; and
3. If States get an extension and fail to complete their designation, the rule would then
apply statewide and owners and operators would have until January 2008 to close
their wells or obtain a permit.
UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL
PRIMACY STATUS
The UIC program is one of the major focal points of the EPA's ground water protection
efforts. Authorized by the SDWA in 1974, the program is being implemented by various
combinations of agencies at the state level and by the EPA for States and Indian Tribes that have not
been granted primary enforcement authority (primacy)for the UIC Program. The latest regulatory
revisions relating to Indian program implementation were promulgated in the Federal Register on
November 25, 1988. These regulations established the EPA Direct Implementation (DI) Program
for Indian Country12 in primacy States.
Initially, EPA's UIC program emphasized assisting states to develop programs to enable
them to qualify for primary enforcement authority (primacy). The first State program to achieve
primacy did so in December of 1981 (Oklahoma). As of 2001, the last State to be approved for
primary enforcement authority to regulate Class II wells on non-Indian country was Montana, on
November 22, 1996. Nationwide, EPA has authorized primacy for all well classes on non-Indian
TABLE 2
AUTHORIZED UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAMS
FOR STATES REGULATING
12 "Indian Country" is defined at 18 U.S.C. 1151. EPA regulates all wells within the
external boundaries of the Reservation (Indian Country-See 40 CFR 144.3). This includes wells
on private land and private mineral rights if the location is considered as "Indian Country."
U.S. EPA UIC
Page 21 of 81 Program Overview
-------
ALL CLASSES OF WELLS
State or
Territory
Alabama
Arkansas
Connecticut
Delaware
Georgia
Idaho
Illinois
Kansas
Louisiana
State or
Territory
Class II Program
Agency
State Oil and
Gas Board of
Alabama
Reserved
Class I Agency
Administers all
Classes
Class I Agency
Administers all
Classes
Class I Agency
Administers all
Classes
Class I Agency
Administers all
Classes
Class I Agency
Administers all
Classes
Kansas Corp.
Comm.
Class I Agency
Administers all
Classes
Effective Date
Aug. 2, 1982
40 CFR 147.50
40 CFR 147.701
Feb. 8, 1984
40 CFR 147.851
Class II Program
Agency
Effective Date
Class I, III, IV, and V Program
Agency
Alabama Dept. of
Environmental
Management
Arkansas Dept. of
Pollution Control
and Ecology
Conn. Dept. of
Environ.
Protection
Del. Dept. of Nat
Res. and Environ.
Control
Georgia Dept. of
Nat. Resources,
Environmental
Protect. Div
Idaho Dept. of
Water Resources
Illinois
Environmental
Protection Agen.
Kansas Dept. of
Health and
Environment
Louisiana Dept.
of Nat. Resources
Effective Date
Aug. 25, 1983
40 CFR 147.51
July 6, 1982
40 CFR 147.200
Mar. 26, 1984
40 CFR 147.350
May 7. 1984
40 CFR 147.400
May 21, 1984
40 CFR 147.550
July 22, 1985
40 CFR 147.650
Mar. 3, 1984
40 CFR 147.700
Dec. 2, 1983
40 CFR 147.850
Mar. 23, 1982
40 CFR 147.950
Class I, III, IV, and V Program
Agency
Effective Date
Page 22 of 81
U.S. EPAUIC
Program Overview
-------
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
Nevada
New
Hampshire
New Jersey
State or
Territory
Class I Agency
Administers all
Classes
Class I Agency
Administers all
Classes
Class I Agency
Administers all
Classes
State Oil and
Gas Board of
Miss.
Class I Agency
Administers all
Classes
Nebraska Oil
and Gas
Conservation
Comm.
Class I Agency
Administers all
Classes
Class I Agency
Administers all
Classes
Class I Agency
Administers all
Classes
Mar. 2, 1989
40 CFR 147.1251
June 25, 1984
40 CFR 147. 1400
Class II Program
Agency
Effective Date
Maine Dept. of
Environmental
Protection
Maryland
Department of
the Environment
Mass.
Department of
Environmental
Protection
Miss. Dept. of
Nat Resources
Missouri Dept. of
Nat. Resources
Nebraska
Department of
Environmental
Protection
Nevada Division
of Environmental
Protection
New Hampshire
Department of
Environmental
Protection
New Jersey
Department of
Environmental
Protection
Sept. 26, 1983
40 CFR 147.1000
June 4, 1984
40 CFR 147.1050
Dec. 23, 1982
40 CFR 147.1 100
Sept. 26, 1983
40 CFR 147.1250
Dec. 2, 1983
40 CFR 147.1300
June 26, 1984
40 CFR 147.1401
Oct. 5, 1988
40 CFR 147.1450
Oct. 21,1982
40 CFR 147.1500
Aug. 15, 1983
40 CFR 147.1550
Class I, III, IV, and V Program
Agency
Effective Date
Page 23 of 81
U.S. EPAUIC
Program Overview
-------
Oklahoma
Oregon
So. Carolina
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Washington
West Virginia
State or
Territory
Wisconsin
Oklahoma Corp.
Comm.
Class I Agency
Administers all
Classes
Class I Agency
Administers all
Classes
Texas Railroad
Commission
Utah Dept of
Natural
Resources,
Division of Oil
Gas and Mining
Class I Agency
Administers all
Classes
Class I Agency
Administers all
Classes
West Virginia
Office of Oil and
Gas
Dec 2, 1981
40 CFR 147. 1851
May 23, 1982
40 CFR 147.2201
Nov. 7, 1982
40 CFR 147.2251
Dec. 9, 1983
No CFR
reference
Class II Program
Agency
Class I Agency
Administers all
Classes
Effective Date
Oklahoma State
Dept. of Health
Oregon Dept. of
Environmental
Quality
So. Carolina
Dept. of Health
and
Environmental
Control
Texas
Department of
Water Resources
and the Texas
Railroad
Commission
Utah Dept. of
Environmental
Quality
Vermont Dept. of
Environmental
Quality
Washington
Dept. of Ecology
West Virg. Dept.
of Natural
Resources
July 24, 1982
40 CFR 147. 1850
Oct. 9, 1984
40 CFR 147.1900
July 24, 1984
40 CFR 147.2050
Feb. 7, 1982
40 CFR 147.2200
Feb. 10, 1983
40 CFR 147.2250
July 6, 1984
40 CFR 147.2300
Sept. 24, 1984
40 CFR 147.2400
Dec 9, 1983
No CFR reference
Class I, III, IV, and V Program
Agency
Wisconsin Dept.
of Nat. Resources
Effective Date
Nov. 30, 1983
40 CFR 147.2500
Page 24 of 81
U.S. EPAUIC
Program Overview
-------
Wyoming
Commonwealt
h of the No.
Marianna
Islands
Guam
Puerto Rico
Wyoming Oil
and Gas
Conservation
Comm.
Class I Agency
Administers all
Classes
Class I Agency
Administers all
Classes
Class I Agency
Administers all
Classes
Dec. 23, 1983
40 CFR 147.2551
Wyoming Dept.
of Environmental
Quality
Commonwealth
of the No.
Marianna Islands
Div. of
Environmental
Quality
Guam
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Puerto Rico
Environmental
Quality Board
Aug. 17, 1983
40 CFR 147.2550
Aug. 30, 1985
40 CFR 147.2800
June 1, 1983
40 CFR 147.2600
July 29, 1992
40 CFR 147.2650
Country to 33 States and shares responsibility for certain well classes in 7 States. EPA implements
a program for all well classes in 10 states and all Indian Lands. The Agency has also authorized
primacy to 3 territories and implements a DI Program in 4 U.S. jurisdictions. Table 2 provides
information (name of Agency, effective date of Program, and CFR citations) for those States that
are authorized to regulate all classes of wells. Table 3 provides information on those jurisdictions
where EPA and States share jurisdiction. EPA regulates all Classes of wells in the following states
and U.S. Jurisdictions: Arizona, Hawaii, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, New York,
Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, Indian Country, American Samoa, District of Columbia, and
Virgin Islands. For more information regarding the various State and DI programs, please refer to
the OGWDW Web page at: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic.html.
TABLE 3
STATUS OF UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAMS
IN STATES WITH
PARTIAL AUTHORIZATION
STATE
Classes I, III, IV, AND V WELLS
CLASS II WELLS
Page 25 of 81
U.S. EPAUIC
Program Overview
-------
Alaska
EPA has implemented a direct implementation
program for all lands (See 40 CFR 1 47.101)
Primary enforcement authority was granted to
Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (See
40 CFR 147.100) for Non-Indian Lands, effective
on June 19, 1986.
California
EPA has implemented a direct implementation
program for all lands (See 40 CFR 1 47.251)
.Primary enforcement authority was granted to
California Division of Oil and Gas (See 40 CFR
147.250) for Non-Indian Lands, effective on June
25, 1984.
Colorado
EPA has implemented a direct implementation
program for all lands (See 40 CFR 1 47.301)
Primary enforcement authority was granted to
Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
(See 40 CFR 147.300) for Non-Indian Lands,
effective on April 2, 1984.
Florida
Primary enforcement authority was granted to
the Florida Dept. of Environmental Regulations
(See 40 CFR 147.500) for Non-Indian Lands,
effective on March 9, 1983.
EPA has implemented a direct implementation
program for all lands (See 40 CFR 1 47.501)
Indiana
EPA has implemented a direct implementation
program for all lands (See 40 CFR 1 47.751)
Primary enforcement authority was granted to
Indiana Dept. of Nat. Resources (See 40 CFR
147.750) for Non-Indian Lands, effective on
August 19, 1991.
Montana
EPA has implemented a direct implementation
program for all lands (See 40 CFR 144.1351),
including Indian Lands..
Primary enforcement authority was granted to the
Montana Board of Oil and Gas Conservation (See
40 CFR 147.300) for Non-Indian Lands, effective
on November 22, 1996
South
Dako ta
EPA has implemented a direct implementation
program for alllands (See40 CFR 147.2101)
Primary enforcement authority was granted to the
South Dakota Department of Water and Natural
Resources (See 40 CFR 147.2100) for Non-Indian
Lands, effective on October 24, 1984.
Primacy for Class II wells is possible in those states where oil and gas production and
injection operations are regulated by a separate state agency, and that agency chooses to make a
statutory showing of equivalency under Section 1425 of the SDWA13. Partial primacy can also be
13 As part of the demonstration for primacy under Section 1425 of the SDWA, the State
Agency must show that their program meets the requirements of subparagraphs (A) through (D)
of section 1421(b)(l) and represents an effective program.
Page 26 of 81
U.S. EPAUIC
Program Overview
-------
established when a State can demonstrate that no underground injection exists or can exist within
the State for any class of injection wells subject to the SDWA that is not covered by the State
program. The State must demonstrate that such injections cannot legally occur in that State (40
CFR 145.21(e)). EPAmay then approve a partial primacy program.
EPA began to focus on DI activity in states which did not assume primacy by promulgation
in 1984 of 40 CFR 147, which implemented the provisions of 40 CFR 124, 144, and 146 for states
without primacy. The DI UIC regulations were promulgated by EPA for 22 States and Territories
(including most Indian Country, except for some areas, such as lands controlled by the Navajo
Nation within those jurisdictions) on May 11, 1984 with an effective date of June 25, 1984.
Promulgation of the UIC program by EPA for additional States, including Indian Country in some
States with Primacy for all Classes of wells of wells (except on Indian Country), such Kansas,
Minnesota and the Osage Mineral Reserve was effective on December 30, 1984. The remaining
Indian Country within State jurisdictions not covered in the 1984 actions was promulgated October
25, 1988. The effective date of these programs was November 25, 1988. As of 2001, EPA
implements Programs for all well classes on Indian lands although several Tribal Governments are
working on obtaining primary enforcement responsibility. The Agency is currently viewing
applications requesting primacy authorization of the Class II program on the Ft. Peck Indian
Reservation and on the Navajo Reservation by their respective Tribal Governments.
OVERVIEW SUMMARY
It should be obvious after reading this Technical Overview, Part C of the SDWA, and the
associated UIC Regulations that the program has many facets. The UIC program has interfaces with
many other EPA programs, such as the Source Water Protection program, the RCRA program, the
Drinking Water program, the Sole Source Aquifer program, the Emergency Powers section (1431)
of the SDWA, etc. There are also links with other Federal programs, such as the oil and gas
programs operated by the BLM and theUSFS. Additionally, the UIC Regulations were written with
significant latitude that has been addressed, where necessary, with guidance and/or policy
documents.
For the individual who is planning on day-to-day involvement with the UIC program from
either the regulatory program side or from the well operations side, additional reading is
recommended. In addition to the SDWA and the UIC regulations, the following documents (listed
in Appendix A) are recommended: 1) House Report (93rd Congress. 2nd Session) No. 93-1185. dated
July 10. 1974. and House Report (96th Congress. 2nd session) No. 96-1348. dated September 19.
1980. in A Legislative History of the Safe Drinking Water Act. February 1982, Serial No. 97-9; 2)
the UIC program specific guidance listed in Appendix A, National UIC Program Guidance and
those additional guidance deemed relevant after a review of the web page of the Office of Water:
http://www.epa.gOv/safewater/uic//uicguid.html; 3) the Preambles to the proposed and final UIC
rules (See Appendix A, U.S. EPA UIC Regulatory Citations); and 4) any of the many technical
references listed in Appendix A. Copies of these references should be requested from either the HQ
or Regional UIC staffer from the GWPC library. If there are questions as a result of the
recommended reading, it is recommended that questions be raised to experienced Regional and/or
State UIC and Source Water staff.
U.S. EPA UIC
Page 27 of 81 Program Overview
-------
U.S. EPAUIC
Page 28 of 81 Program Overview
-------
APPENDIX A
REFERENCES RELATING TO THE
UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM
A very basic reference for theUIC Program and associated regulations is House Report (93rd
Congress. 2nd Session) No. 93-1185. dated July 10. 1974. This document details Congressional
intent in establishing the UIC Program as part of the SDWA. Also important to an understanding of
changes to the SDWA and subsequent UIC rule making is House Report (96th Congress. 2nd session)
No. 96-1348. dated September 19. 1980. This report provides Congressional intent regarding the
modifications to the SDWA to allow State Oil and Gas Programs to apply for primacy for regulation
of Class II injection wells under Section 1425 of the SDWA. It also explains the rationale for
removing the injection of hydrocarbon gas (at standard temperature and pressure) for underground
storage from regulation under the SDWA. Both of these reports are reproduced in A Legislative
History of the Safe Drinking Water Act. February 1982, Serial No. 97-9.
A very important EPA document that established the Agency's initial position on injection
and described data that operators must provide regulatory agencies is: Administrator's Statement #5.
39FR12923, April 9,1974. This document was developed and published prior to finalization of the
SDWA under the authority of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended.
General Information
1. Geochemical Effects and Movement of Injected Industrial Waste in a Limestone Aquifer by
Donald A. Goolsby: U.S. Geological Survey; April 1972.
2. "Underground Waste Management and Environmental Implications." Memoir 18 .
Proceedings of the Symposium on Underground Waste Management and Environmental
Implications by The American Association of Petroleum Geologists, T.D. Cook, ed.:
Houston, Texas, December 6-9, 1971. AAPG. 1972.
3. "Underground Waste Management and Environmental Implications." Papers Presented at
the Second International Symposium on Underground Waste Management and Artificial
Recharge by The American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Jules Braunstein, ed.: New
Orleans, Louisiana, September 26-30, 1973. Vol. 1 and Vol. 2, AAPG. 1973.
4. Feasibility of Microbial Decomposition of Organic Wastes Under Conditions Existing in
Deep Wells by M.M. Grula and E.A. Grula: Final Report. U.S. Bureau of Mines. December
31, 1975.
5. Potential Environmental Consequences of Tertiary Oil Recovery by Energy Resources Co.
Inc.: 229 pages; U.S. EPA, Office of Planning and Evaluation, Contract No. 68-01-1912,
July 1976.
6. The Report to Congress-Waste Disposal Practices and Their Effects on Ground Water by
Office of Water Supply and Office of Solid Waste Management Program: 512 pages; U.S.
U.S. EPA UIC
Page 29 of 81 Program Overview
-------
EPA, Jan. 1977.
7. Injection Wells. An Introduction To Their Use. Operation and Regulation: Underground
Injection Practices Council (no date).
8. Class I Deep Subsurface Injection - An Option for Responsible Disposal of Liquid Wastes:
Underground Injection Practices Council (no date).
9. The Shallow Injection Well Program - A Ground Water Protection Approach: Underground
Injection Practices Council (no date).
10. An Introduction to the Technology of Subsurface Waste Water Injections by Don L. Warner
and Jay H. Lehr: 345 pages; U.S. EPA, Robert S. Kerr Research Center, EPA 600/2-77-240,
Dec. 1977.
11. Active Waste-Injection Systems in Florida. 1976 by John Vecchioli, D.J. McKenzie, C.A.
Pascale, and W.E. Wilson: Open-File Report 79-1296; U.S. Department of the Interior,
Geological Survey, 1979.
12. Statement of Basis and Purpose of Underground Injection Control Regulations by U.S. EPA.
Office of Drinking Water: 23 pages, June 1979.
13. Radius of Pressure Influence of Injection Wells by Don L. Warner, et al.: 204 pp, U.S. EPA,
Robert S. Kerr Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development; EPA-600/2-79-
170, August 1979.
14. Statement of Basis and Purpose of Underground Injection Control Regulations by U.S. EPA.
Office of Drinking Water: 42 pages, June 1980.
15. Determining the Area of Review for Industrial Waste Disposal Wells by Stephen Eugene
Barker: The University of Texas at Austin, December 1981.
16. Results of Deep-Well Injection Testing at Mulberry. Florida by John J. Hickey and William
E. Wilson: USGS/WRI 81-75. PB82-193004. Tallahassee, Florida: U.S. Geological
Survey, Water Resources Division, February 1982.
17. Underground Injection Operations in Texas: A Classification and Assessment of
Underground Injection Activities compiled by Ben Knape: Report 291; Texas Department of
Water Resources, Austin, Texas, December 1984.
18. "Subsurface Injection of Liquid Waste with Emphasis on Injection Practices in Florida." by
John J. Hickey and John Vecchioli: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2281,
1984.
19. Area of Review Material assembled by A. Roger Anzzolin: U.S. EPA Drinking Water
U.S. EPAUIC
Page 30 of 81 Program Overview
-------
Branch, April 4, 1985.
20. Guidance Document for the Area of Review Requirement by Engineering Enterprises: U.S.
EPA, Drinking Water Branch, May 1985.
21. Underground Injection Control Program - Annual Report: U.S. EPA. Office of Water. Dec.
1991.
22. Mid-Course Evaluation of the Class II Underground Injection Control Program - Final
Report of the Workgroup: 68 pages; Underground Injection Control Branch, U.S. EPA,
Office of Drinking Water, August 22, 1989.
23. Inspection and Enforcement Program and Selected Related Activities Bureau of Land
Management by Office of Inspector General: 55 pages; Audit report No. 90-18. November
1989.
24. GAP Report-Safeguards Are Not Preventing Contamination From Injected Oil and Gas
Wastes by U. S. General Accounting Office: 47 pages; GAO/RCED-89-9, July 1989.
25. An Introduction to Deepwell Disposal by E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., DuPont Deepwell
Training Committee: Injection Well Operator Training Series, Vol. 1. Beaumont, Texas:
Tele-Con Productions (Videocassette),1989.
26. Well Operations and Diagnostic Procedures by E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., DuPont
Deepwell Training Committee: Injection Well Operator Training Series, Vol. 2. Beaumont,
Texas: Tele-Con Productions (Videocassette), 1989.
27. CERCLA Compliance with the CWA and SDWA by U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response: EPA 9234 2-06, FS, February 1990.
28. Class I Underground Injection Wells: Responsible Management of Chemical Wastes by
Chemical Manufacturers Association (Pamphlet), 1994.
29. Deep Well Injection: An Option for Responsible Management of Chemical Wastes by
Chemical Manufacturers Association (Pamphlet), 1994.
30. Class I Injection Wells and Your Drinking Water by U.S. EPA, Office of Water: EPA 813-
F-94-002, July 1994.
31. Underground Injection Wells and Your Drinking Water by U.S. EPA, Office of Water: EPA
813-F-94-001,July 1994.
32. Injection Well Bibliography by Ground Water Protection Council, Third Edition; Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma: Ground Water Protection Council. August 1995.
U.S. EPAUIC
Page 31 of 81 Program Overview
-------
Risk Analyses
1. Risk Analyses for Underground Injection of Hazardous Wastes. Prepared by Industrial
Economics, Inc. for U.S. EPA, Office of Drinking Water: May 1987.
2. OSWER Comparative Risk Project: Executive Summary and Overview by U.S. EPA, Office
of Emergency and Remedial Response: EPA/540/1-89/003, November 1989.
3. Numerical Simulation for Waste Injection in Deep Wells: Phase 1 — Potential Failure
Scenarios. Texas Gulf Coast Prepared by Ward, D.S., D.R. Buss, T.D. Wadsworth, J.
Rosenblum, and S.T. Shaw for U.S. EPA, Office of Drinking Water: Herndon, Virginia:
GeoTrans, Inc., January 1986.
4. A Numerical Evaluation of Class I Injection Wells for Waste Confinement Performance by
Ward, D.S., D.R. Buss, and J.W. Mercer: Final Report. Prepared by Engineering
Enterprises, Inc., Norman, Oklahoma, and Industrial Economics, Inc., Cambridge,
Massachusetts. Herndon, Virginia: GeoTrans, Inc. for U.S. EPA, Office of Drinking Water,
Underground Injection Control Program: September 30, 1987.
Mechanical Integrity and Formation Testing
1. Mechanical Integrity Testing of Injection Wells by Geraghty and Miller, Inc.: 59 pages; U.S.
EPA, Office of Drinking Water, Contract No. 68-01-5971, April 1980.
2. Guidance Document on Mechanical Integrity Testing of Injection Wells by Geraghty and
Miller, Inc: 30 pages; EPA Contract No. 68-01-5971; U.S. EPA, Office of Drinking Water,
April 1982.
3. Methods for Determining the Mechanical Integrity of Class II Injection Wells by David
Nielsen and Linda Alien 263 pages; National Water Well Association, U.S. EPA-600/2-84-
121 (available fromNTIS as #PB84-215755), July 1984.
4. Guidance Document on Evaluation of Injection Well Manifold Monitoring Systems by
Woodward-Clyde Consultants: 35 pages; U.S. EPA, Office of Drinking Water, Control 4W-
2548 NTSX, July 1984.
5. Technical Manual on Borehole Geophysical Tests in the UIC Program by SMC Martin Inc.:
Final Draft Report; EPA Contract 8423-040-94001; U.S. EPA, Office of Drinking Water,
March 1985.
6. Radioactive Tracer Survey - Cement Bond Log Study as Related to the Mechanical Integrity
Testing of Injection Wells by Don Boniol, Louisiana Geological Survey: Louisiana Office of
Conservation, 1986.
U.S. EPA UIC
Page 32 of 81 Program Overview
-------
7. Comparison Test Between A Bradenhead Test and Pressure Test by Oil Conservation
Division, New Mexico Energy and Minerals Department: EPA Grant No. X811232-01-3;
U.S. EPA, Office of Drinking Water, June 1986.
8. Oklahoma Saltwater Enhanced Recovery Well Annulus Monitoring and Pressure Test Study
by UIC Staff, Oklahoma Corporation Commission: U.S. EPA, Office of Drinking Water,
July 1986.
9. Analysis of Mechanical Integrity Tests and Permit File Reviews by Engineering Enterprises,
Inc.: Prepared for U.S. EPA, Office of Drinking Water, Groundwater Protection Branch;
September 1986.
10. "Integrity Testing of Class I Hazardous Injection Wells—Related Experience in the Great
Lakes Region." by Jarrell, Malcolm D: Proceedings of the International Symposium on
Subsurface Injection of Liquid Waste, New Orleans, Louisiana, March 3-5, 1986: National
Water Well Association, Dublin, Ohio, 1986.
11. "Mechanical Integrity of Class I Injection Wells." by Whiteside, Robert F., and Stuart F.
Raef: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Subsurface Injection of Liquid Waste.
(New Orleans, Louisiana, March 3-5, 1986); National Water Well Association, Dublin,
Ohio, 1986.
12. Technical Assistance Document-Corrosion. Its Detection and Control in Injection Wells by
SMC Martin: 51 pages; EPA 570/9-87-002; U.S. EPA, Office of Drinking Water, August
1987.
13. Underground Injection Control Inspection Manual by Engineering Enterprises, Inc.: 272
pages; EPA Contract No. 68-03-3416; U.S. EPA, Office of Drinking Water, February 1988.
14. Oxygen Activation Logging - Hydrology Service Technical Manual by Atlas Wireline: 66
pages, March 1988,.
15. Technical Assistance Document: Formation Testing Procedures. Applications. Equipment
and Specifications Relating to Injection Wells edited by Viking System International: 121
pages; EPA 57019-87-004; U.S. EPA, Office of Drinking Water, July 1988.
16. Survey of Methods to Determine Total Dissolved Solids Concentrations by Ken E. Davis
Associates: 80 pages; Contract No. 68-03-3416; U.S. EPA, Office of Drinking water,
September 1989.
17. Injection Well Mechanical Integrity by Jerry Thornhill and Bobby G. Benefield: 123 pages;
EPA/625/9-89/007, U.S. EPA, Robert S. Kerr Research Center, Feb. 1990.
18. Improved Method for Determining Water Flow Behind Casing Using Oxygen Activation by
Schlumberger Research Staff: pages 591-603, SPE Paper 20586, Sept. 1990.
U.S. EPA UIC
Page 33 of 81 Program Overview
-------
19. Mechanical Integrity Test Failure Analysis by Larry Browning, The Cadmus Group, Inc.:
U.S. EPA, Office of Groundwater Protection, UIC Branch; Contract No. 68-CO-0020, work
assignment No. 0-0-15, September 1991.
20. Temperature. Radioactive Tracer, and Noise Logging for Injection Well Integrity by R. M.
McKinley: 161 pages; EPA/600/R-94/124; U.S. EPA, Robert S. Kerr Research Center, July
1994.
21. Cement Evaluation Notes Compiled for the MIT Workgroup by Jerry T. Thornhill: U.S.
EPA, Robert S. Kerr Research Center; Edited by Paul S. Osborne, U.S. EPA, Region VIII,
13 pages, January 17, 2001.
Well Construction
1. Radius of Pressure Influence of Injection Wells by Don L. Warner, et al.: 204 pp, U.S. EPA,
Robert S. Kerr Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development; EPA-600/2-79-
170, August 1979.
2. Injection Well Construction Practices and Technology by Geraghty and Miller, Inc. and
Booz, Allen and Hamilton: 309 pages; Contract No. 68-01-5971; U.S. EPA, Office of
Drinking Water, Oct. 1982.
3. Design. Construction and Development of In Situ Mining Wells by D.L. Shuck and J.N.
Brooks: 133 pages; U.S. Bureau of Mines Contract JO218018, Oct. 1982.
4. Confining Layer Study by Don L. Warner and Talib Syed: 148 pages; EPA Contract No. 68-
01-6389; U.S. EPA, Region V, Dec. 1984.
5. Packerless Completions By Engineering Enterprises: 54 pages; EPA Contract No. 68-01-
7011; U.S. EPA, Region V, January 1987.
6. Analysis of Casing and Cementing Compliance Policy for Class II Wells by Engineering
Enterprises: 300 pages; EPA Contract No. 68-03-3416; U.S. EPA, Office of Drinking Water,
Oct. 1987.
7. Development of a Methodology for Regional Evaluation of a Confining Bed Integrity by
Gary Stewart and Wayne Pettyjohn: 119 pages; EPA/600/2-89/038; U.S. EPA, Office of
Research and Development, July 1989.
Plugging and Abandonment
1. Technical Manual on Plugging and Abandonment by Geraghty and Miller: 45 pages;
Contract No. 65-01-5971; U.S. EPA, Office of Drinking Water, No date.
2. Financial Responsibility For Well Plugging and Abandonment by Booz, Allen and
Hamilton: 40 pages; EPA Contract No. 68-01-6425; U.S. EPA, Office of Drinking Water,
U.S. EPA UIC
Page 34 of 81 Program Overview
-------
March 1983.
3. Methods for Determining the Location of Abandoned Wells by Linda Alien 175 pages;
National Water Well Assn., EPA Contract No. CR-809353; U.S. EPA, Office of Research
and Development, May 1983.
4. Guidance Document for the Area of Review Requirement by Engineering Enterprises: 73
pages; U.S. EPA, Office of Drinking Water, May 1985.
5. Pressure Effects of the Static Mud Column in Abandoned Wells by Orville C. Johnston and
BenK. Knape. LP86-06. Texas Water Commission, Austin, Texas. September 1986.
6. Federal Financial Responsibility Demonstrations for Owners and Operators of Class II Oil
and Gas Related Injection Wells by USEPA Office of Water: 25 pages; EPA 570/9-90-003,
May 1990.
7. Guidance for State Regulatory Programs: Well Plugging Prioritization Schedule: Interstate
oil and Gas Compact Commission, December 1993.
8. BLM Oil and Gas Program: Bonding/unfunded Liability Review from Robert M. Anderson
and Howard Lemm: U.S. BLM, Bonding/Unfunded Liability Team, March 27, 1995.
Operation of Deep Injection Wells
1. Compilation of Industrial and Municipal Injection Wells in the United States by USEPA
Office of Water Program Operations: EPA-520/9-74-020, 2 volumes, October 1974.
2. Physical. Chemical, and Biological Aspects of Subsurface Organic Waste Injection Near
Wilmington. North Carolina .by R.L Leenheer,. Malcolm and W.R. White: U.S. Geological
Survey Professional Paper 987; 1976.
3. Review and Assessment of Deep-Well Injection of Hazardous Waste by Louis R. Reeder
and Associates for U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development: EPA-600/2-77-029 a
thru d, 4 volumes, June 1977.
4. Interactions of Aquifer Flora and Industrial Waste in a Model Deep Well Disposal System
by Edward Horvath: Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Microbiology, North Carolina State
University at Raleigh; 1977.
5. Geochemical Aspects of Industrial Waste Injection Systems by Underground Resource
Management, Inc.: 1982.
6. "Subsurface Injection of Liquid Waste with Emphasis on Injection Practices in Florida." by
Hickey, John J., and John Vecchioli: U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 2281,
1984.
U.S. EPAUIC
Page 35 of 81 Program Overview
-------
7. Site Visit Report for the Report to Congress on the Injection of Hazardous Waste by the U.S.
EPA Office of Drinking Water: May 1985.
8. Report to Congress on Injection of Hazardous Waste by U.S. EPA, Office of Drinking
Water; EPA 57019-85-003, March 1985.
9. A Class I Injection Well Survey Phase I Report: Survey of Selected Sites by CH2M Hill for
Underground Injection Practices Council: 329 pages, April 1986.
10. Deep Well Injection of Hazardous Waste In Michigan by Michigan Department of Natural
Resources: May 1986.
11. Evaluation of Current Under ground Injection of Industrial Waste in Illinois by Ross Brown,
et al: 188 pages; Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources, March 1986.
12. Class I Hazardous Waste Injection Wells Evaluation of Non-compliance Incidents by
Engineering Enterprises, Inc. for U.S. EPA, Office of Drinking Water: UIC Contract No. 68-
01-7011, September 1986.
13. State-of-the-Art Report: Injection of Hazardous Wastes Into Deep Wells by Strycker, Arden,
and A. Gene Collins: Prepared by National Institute for Petroleum and Energy Research for
U.S. Department of Energy and U.S. EPA, Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research
Laboratory, December 15, 1986.
14. Earthquake Hazard Associated with Deep Well Injection by Robert L. Weisen and Craig
Nicholson, US Geological Survey: 100 pages; Open File Report 87-331, Report for U.S.
EPA, Office of Drinking Water, June 1987.
15. Hazardous Waste: Controls Over Injection Well Disposal Operations: Report to the
Chairman. Environment. Energy, and Natural Resources Subcommittee. Committee on
Government Operations. House of Representatives by U.S. General Accounting Office:
GAO/RCED-87-170, August 1987.
16. Management of Hazardous Wastes by Deep-Well Disposal by Moffett, Tola B., Philip E.
LaMoreaux, Janet Y. Smith, and M. Ben Dismukes: Open File Report No. 11. Tuscaloosa,
Alabama; University of Alabama, Environmental Institute for Waste Management Studies,
1987.
17. Assessment of Treatment Technologies Available to Attain Acceptable Levels For
Hazardous Waste in Deep Injection Wells by Engineering Enterprises for U.S. EPA,
Underground Injection Control Branch: UIC Contract No. 68-03-3416,October 1987.
18. Laboratory Protocol for Determining Fate of Waste Disposed in Deep Wells: Project
Summary by Collins, A. Gene and M.E. Crocker: EPA/600/S8-88/008. Ada, Oklahoma:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory,
U.S. EPA UIC
Page 36 of 81 Program Overview
-------
April 1988.
19. Surface-Based Electrical Surveys For Injection Well Fluids by Roy B. Evans, and others:
130 pages; U.S. EPA, Cooperative Agreement CR 812189-01; U.S. EPA, Office of Research
and Development, August 1988.
20. Deep Well Injection: Chemical Wastes Disposed and Their Subsurface Reactions by Regina
M. Capuano, et al: The University of Texas at Austin for the U.S. EPA, Office of Drinking
Water; Cooperative Agreement No. CR-814056-01-0, December 1989.
21. Assessing the Geochemical Fate of Deep Well Injected Hazardous Waste - A Reference
Guide: 183 pages; EPA/625/6-89/025a, June 9, 1990.
22. Underground Injection Control Program: Operational Status of Class I HW Wells: 1984-
1991. by Bryan, Cave, McPheeters & McRoberts for Chemical Manufacturers Association:
Washington, DC; February 1991.
23. Interaction. Compatibilities and Long-Term Environmental Fate of Deep-Well-Injected EOR
Fluids and/or Waste Fluids with Reservoir Fluids and Rocks-State-of-the-Art by Gene
Collins and Marshall B. Kaiser: 103 pages; DOE Contract No. FC19-83FE60149, NEPER-
70, no date.
24. Investigation of Possible Contamination of Shallow Ground Water by Deeply Injected
Liquid Industrial Wastes by Suzanne Lesage, and others: pages 151-159; Ground Water
Monitoring Review, Winter 1991.
25. Analysis of the Effects of EPA Restrictions on the Deep Injection of Hazardous Waste: U.S.
EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water; EPA 570/9-91-031, October 1991.
26. Current Geochemical Models to Predict the Fate of Hazardous Wastes in the Injection Zones
of Deep Injection Wells by John A. Apps, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory for U.S. EPA,
Office of Drinking Water: April 1992.
27. Sorption Processes As An Attenuation Mechanism in Class I Hazardous Waste Injection
Zones by Dennis R Prezbindowski and James A. Lopez, International Petrology Research
for U.S. EPA, Office of Drinking Water: Contract 68-CO-0020, December 1992.
28. Class I Well Failure Analysis: 1988-1991. Prepared in response to Question 4 in
Congressman John D. Dingell's letter to William K. Reilly. dated October 22. 1992.
regarding disposal of hazardous wastes, deep injection, and underground wells at 42 U.S.C.
section 6924 (F) - (G) by the Cadmus Group; Principal Investigator, Larry Browning: U.S.
EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Underground Injection Control Branch,
March 5, 1993.
29. Land Disposal Restrictions: Court Decision on Characteristic Hazardous Wastes by U. S.
U.S. EPAUIC
Page 37 of 81 Program Overview
-------
EPA, Office of Water Briefing for Administrator Carol Browner: March 1993.
30. Information on EPA's Underground Injection Control Program: Report to The Honorable
John D. Dingell. Chairman. Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. Committee on
Energy and Commerce. House of Representatives by U.S. General Accounting Office:
GAO/RCED-95-21; December 5, 1994.
31. Deep Injection Disposal of Hazardous and Industrial Waste (Scientific and Engineering
Aspects), edited by John A. Apps and Chin-Fu Tsang: 1996, 775 pages; Academic Press
32. Underground Injection Control Program: Information Collection Request by the Cadmus
Group, Inc.: U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water; June 1998.
33. 1999 Status Report-Paradox Valley Seismic Network Paradox Valley Project (Paradox
Injection Well No.l) Southwestern Colorado by Jon Ake, Ken Mahrer, and Lisa Block: U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Service Center; Technical Memorandum No. D8330-
2000-012, April 2000.
34. 2000 Status Report-Paradox Valley Seismic Network Paradox Valley Project (Paradox
Injection Well No.l) Southwestern Colorado by Ken Mahrer, Lisa Block, and Jon Ake: U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation, Technical Service Center; Technical Memorandum No. D8330-
2001-007, April 2001.
35. Class I Underground Injection Control Program: Study of the Risks Associated with Class I
Under Ground Injection Wells: U.S. EPA, Office of Water; EPA 816-R-01-007, March
2001.
Class V Wells
1. The Design of an Experimental Artificial Recharge Well at Tucson. Arizona by L.G.
Wilson., M.M. Fogel, K.J. DeCook, and P.S. Osborne: In Annals of Arid Zone. The Arid
Zone Research Association of India Jodhpur (Rajasthan), Vol. 8, No. 2. pp. 267-274,1968.
2. The Analysis of Well Losses Pertaining to Artificial Recharge by P.S. Osborne: M.S. Thesis,
University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, February 1969.
3. Analysis of Costs Underground Injection Control Regulations Class I and Class III Wells.
Class IV and Class V Wells by Temple, Barker and Sloane, Inc.: 167 pages; EPA Contract
No. 68-01-4778.6, May 1979.
4. An Analysis of Feasible Alternatives to Current Irrigation Disposal Well Practices by
William G. Graham and others: 169 pages; Idaho Department of Water Resources, May
1983.
5. A Case Study of Dry Well Recharge by L.G. Wilson: 55 pages; Dept. of Interior Contract
U.S. EPAUIC
Page 38 of 81 Program Overview
-------
No. 14-34-0001-1103; University of Arizona, September 1983.
6. Impact of Agricultural Drainage Wells on Ground Water Quality by James L. Baker and T.
A. Austin: 838 pages; EPA Region VII Grant No. G007228010; Iowa State University,
December 1984.
7. Results of Dry Well Monitoring Project for a Commercial Site in the Phoenix Urban Area
by Kenneth D. Schmidt, Ground Water Quality Consultant: 60 pages; Contract with
Maricopa Association of Governments, July 1985.
8. Urban Storm water Injection Via Dry Wells in Tucson. Arizona, and its Effect on Ground-
Water Quality by Olson, Kevin Laverne: Unpublished M.S. Thesis; University of Arizona,
Department of Hydrology, 1987.
9. Study of the Effects of Storm water Injection by Class V Wells on a Potable Ground Water
System by William N. Woessner and Karen L. Wogsland: 109 pages; Region VIII Grant;
University of Montana, August 11, 1987.
10. Report to Congress Class V Injection Wells-Current Inventory. Effects on Ground Water
and Technical Recommendations by Office of Water: 435 pages (main text); EPA 570/9-87-
006, September 1987.
11. Simulations of Dry Well recharge in the Tucson Basin. Arizona, by R.F. Bandeen:
Unpublished M.S. Thesis, Department of Hydrology, 1988.
12. The Ground-Water Pollution Potential of Dry Wells in Pima County, Arizona by L.G.
Wilson and others: 142 pages; University of Arizona, Report for the City of Tucson Water
Department, June 1989.
13. Report of Class V Task Force on Trial Implementation of Analytical Process - Motor
Vehicle Repair and Maintenance Waste Disposal Wells by Engineering Enterprises, Inc:
prepared under Contract No. 68-03-3416; USEPA Office of Drinking Water, August 1989.
14. An Assessment of the Impact of Industrial and Commercial Septic Systems on Ground
Water Quality in New Jersey by E Charles: New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection. 37pp., April 1989.
15. The Ground Water Recharge and Pollution Potential of Dry Wells in Pima County. Arizona by
L.G. Wilson, L.G., M.D. Osborn, K.L. Olson, S.M. Maida, and L.T. Katz: In Ground Water
Monitoring Review, v. 10, No. 3, pp. 114-121, 1990.
16. Basis of Pump and Treat Ground-Water Remediation Technology by Go Trans, Inc: 56 pages;
EPA/600/8-90/003 Office of Solid Waste, March 1990.
U.S. EPAUIC
Page 39 of 81 Program Overview
-------
17. "An Investigation of the Volatile Organic Content of Sludges. Sois and Liquids Entering the
Missoula Aquifer from Selected Sources." prepared by the Missoula City-County Health
Department, Environmental Health Division: Contributors: Tom Barger and Alan English, .
16pp,July27, 1990..
18. Background Information titled "5X28 Service Station. Gilford. NH.": U.S. EPA Region 1, 8pp,
May 1990.
19. Development of Guidelines for regulating Depths of Storm-Water Wells to Minimize Ground-
Water Pollution by L.G. Wilson, R..L. Basset, and R.W. Walling: Final report to The United
states Environmental protection Agency, Under the Shallow Well Injection Well Initiative
Program, The Department of Hydrology and Water Resources, The University of Arizona,
Tucson, AZ, 1992.
20. Handling Water Discharges from Automotive Service Facilities Located at Petroleum
Marketing Operations by American Petroleum Institute (API): API Recommended Practice
1633, First Edition, 22 pp.,. January 1992.
21. A Demonstration of Local/Federal Implementation of the EPA Shallow Injection Well
Program in Missoula County. Montana. Inventory. Inspection, and Closure of Class V
Injection Wells by Alan English: Prepared for USEPA Region VIII, 298 pp, February 1992.
22 Underground Injection Control Demonstration Project in Millis Massachusetts by Ron
Stelline, et al: Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, 47 pp., August 1992.
23. Expert Panel on Water Quality Impacts of Agricultural Drainage Practices, September 24-25,
1991 Meeting Summary: U.S. EPA, Underground Injection Control Branch, September 28,
1992.
24. Best Management Practices for the Protection of Ground Water: Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection; 131 pp. + 2 pp. cover letter from Oswala Inglese, Jr., November 4,
1992.
25. Class V Non-Sanitary Septic Systems: A Case Study of Prince William Health District in
Virginia by Kathryn Sevebeck: 39 pp., December 1992.
26. Field Investigation Report for the Lang Creek Brewery: Department of Environmental Quality,
Permitting & Compliance Division. Helena, Montana, 41 pp.
27. Innovative Site Remediation Technology: Bioremediation. edited by W.C. Anderson: One of
Eight Volumes. Prepared by WASTECH; including ASTM Method Designation: E 1739-95,
1995.
28. Sierra Club v. Carol M. Browner, Administrator, U.S. EPA. Consent Decree. For the
proposed rulemaking for high risk Class V wells: United States District Court, District of
U.S. EPAUIC
Page 40 of 81 Program Overview
-------
Columbia, 11 pp., January 28, 1997.
29. Community Water System Survey - Volume I: Overview: U.S. EPA, Office of Water; EPA
815-R-97-001a. 40 pp., January 1997.
30. State Source Water Assessment and Protection Programs Guidance. Final Guidance. Source
Water Protection: U.S. EPA, Office of Water; EPA 816-R-97-009, 144 pp., August 1997.
31. Possible Changes to the Class V UIC Requirements: Information for Owners and Operators of
Class V Injection Wells: U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, 22 pp.,
December 1997.
32. Septic System Treatment Studies of Funeral Home Wastewater: National Funeral Directors
Association, 96 pp. + 2 pp. cover letter from Bryan Cave LLP., March 18, 1998.
33. Distribution of Organic Contaminants in Automotive Waste Disposal Drywell Systems by
Fred H. Bowers and Gregory Cunningham: New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection and Energy, 24 pp.
34. Analysis of Data from the National Administrative Order on Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal
Wells: U.S. EPA, 4pp, March 1998.
35. Final Report of the SBREFA Small Business Advocacy Review Panel on EPA's Planned
Proposed Rule for Revisions to the Underground Injection Control Regulations for Class V
Injection Wells: U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water., 505 pp.. April 17,
1998.
36. Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Underground Injection Control
Regulation for Class V Injection Wells: Volume 2. Prepared by Cadmus Group, Inc.: U.S.
EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. 639 pp., May 12, 1998.
37. Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Underground Injection Control
Regulation for Class V Injection Wells: Addendum 1 Draft Prepared by Cadmus Group, Inc.:
U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, 283 pp., May 12, 1998.
38. Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to the Underground Injection Control
Regulation for Class V Injection Wells: Addendum 2 Draft Prepared by Cadmus Group, Inc.:
U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, 341 pp., May 12, 1998.
39. Site Description Printout for the Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Site from Teresa Hattan: Kansas
Department of Health and Environment, 3 pp, July 15, 1998.
40. Economic Analysis for the Proposed Revisions to Underground Injection Control Regulations
for Class V Injection Wells. Volume 1 Prepared by Cadmus Group, Inc.: U.S. EPA, Office of
U.S. EPA UIC
Page 41 of 81 Program Overview
-------
Ground Water and Drinking Water, 86 pp., July 22, 1998.
41. Dry Wells - Solution or Pollution? An Arizona Status Report by Jeanmarie Haney and others:
24 pages, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality: No date.
42. The Problem with Shallow Disposal Systems by U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water: 15 minute video, available is Spanish; EPA 816-V-97-001, November 1998.
43. Resource Shortfalls for State Class V Underground Injection Control Programs, by Ground-
Water Protection Council: 17 pages; U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water,
February 1999.
44. Shallow Disposal Wells are Everyone's Business by U.S. EPA, Region VIIL15 minute video:
EPA-V-98-001, March 2000.
45. Class V Underground Injection Control Study, by U.S. EPA, Office of Water: EPA/816-R-99-
014; 23 volumes and 5 Appendices, September 1999. For on-line access (as of March 2001)
See http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/cl5study.html.
National UIC Program Guidance
The following is a partial list of the important UIC guidance that are not generally part of the
numbered series put out by the National UIC Program Office. There are a large number of official,
numbered Ground-Water Program Guidance documents not listed in this document. The titles of these
documents can be accessed by going to the web page of the Office of Water:
http://www.epa.gOv/safewater/uic//uicguid.html. Copies of any of the listed guidance can be obtained
from the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water.
1. Aquifer Exemptions and State Program Delegation and Modifications -
a. Desalination of Brackish Ground Water by Claire M. Gesalman: U.S. EPA, Office of
Drinking Water, 4 pages; no date (Material prepared for the 1980 UIC Promulgation
Litigation).
b. State Underground Injection Control Programs: Interim Final Guidance for 1425
Programs and Request for Public Comment: U.S. EPA, OFFICE of Drinking Water,
Ground-Water Protection Branch; 46FR27333, May 19, 1981.
c. Comments on UIC Issues: Memo to all Water Division Directors from Office of
Drinking Water Director, Vic Kimm: April 1983.
d. Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program. State of Calif-BLM Instruction
Memorandum No. 83-63: June 10, 1983; memorandum from Director of BLM to all
State Directors.
U.S. EPA UIC
Page 42 of 81 Program Overview
-------
e. Guidance for Review and Approval of State Underground Injection Control Programs
and Revisions of Approved State Programs: GWPG #34, July 9, 1984.
f. Aquifer Exemption Manual: Preliminary Report for U.S. EPA. Region IX by
Engineering Enterprises: Contract No, 68-01-6389, Assignment No. 18, September
1984.
g. Determination of Aquifer Exemption Requests: Memorandum from Office of
Drinking Water Director, Mike Cook to Region V Water Division Director, Charles H.
Sutfm, August 9, 1986.
h. Assistance on Compliance of 40 CFR Part 191 with Ground-Water Protection
Standards: June 4, 1993, memorandum from James R. Elder, Director, OGWDW to
Margo T. Oge, Director Office of Radiation and Indoor Air.
2. Mechanical Integrity and Casing and Cementing -
a. Justifying Alternative Methods to Prove Mechanical Integrity Pursuant to 40 CFR
Section 146.8(d): Memo to Water Division Directors from Director, Office of
Drinking Water, Mike Cook, April 21, 1988, UIC Guidance No. 61.
b. UIC Program Definition of Significant Non-compliance: Memo to Water Management
Division Directors from Director Office of Drinking Water, Mike Cook,
December 4, 1986.
c. Procedure for Interpreting Whether or Not an MIT Failure or Excess Injection Pressure
is Reported as Significant Non-compliance: Memo to Water Management Division
Directors from Director, Office of Drinking Water, Mike Cook,
September 9, 1987, UIC Guidance No. 58.
d. Casing and Cementing Requirements for Existing Class II Wells: Memo to Water
Division Directors from Director, Office of Drinking Water, Vic Kimm, July 27, 1981,
GWPG #25.
e. Casing and Cementing Requirements for Class II Wells: Memo to Water Management
Division Directors from Director, Office of Drinking Water, Mike Cook, October 16,
1987.
3. Classification of Wells Injecting Certain Fluids -
a. Classification of Wells Used to Inject a Scrubber Waste or Water Softener
Regeneration Brine Associated With Oil Field Operations: Memo to Water Supply
Branch Chiefs from Mike Cook, Director, Office of Drinking Water, July 31, 1987.
b. Regulatory Determination for Oil and Gas and Geothermal Exploration. Development
U.S. EPA UIC
Page 43 of 81 Program Overview
-------
and Production Wastes: Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response; 53FR25446,
July 6, 1988.
c. Applicability of Land Disposal Restrictions to RCRA and CERCLA Ground Water
Treatment Reinjection Superfund Management Review: December 27, 1989, 6 pages;
OSWER Directive 9234.1-06.
d. Definition of a Class II Fluid: Letter to C. V. Chatterton, Director, Alaska Oil and Gas
Conservation Commission from Region X Water Division Director (approved by
ODW), February 26, 1990.
e. Classification of Injection Fluid from a National Gas Processing Plant: Memorandum
to Edward P. Walters, Region V from UIC Branch Chief (ODW), Francoise Brasier,
March 8, 1990.
f. Classification of Waste Fluids Associated with Clean up of Crude Oil Leaks in Active
Oil Fields: Memorandum from the Director of the Office of Solid Waste U.S. EPA to
the Region VIII, Water Management Division Director, May 21, 1991.
g. Classification of Septic System Drain Fields and Infiltration Galleries as Underground
Injection Wells: Memorandum from Susan G. Lepow, Associate General Counsel U.S.
EPA to Wendell Ray Cunningham, Director, Water Management Division Region IV.
January 23, 1992.
h. Classification of Infiltration Galleries under the UIC and RCRA Programs:
Memorandum fro James R. Elder, Director Office of Ground Water and Drinking
Water and Sylvia K. Lowrance, Director Office of Solid Waste to all Regional Water
Management and Hazardous Waste Division Directors, February 4, 1992.
i. Clarification of the Regulatory Determination for Wastes from the Exploration,
Development, and Production of Crude Oil. Natural Gas and Geothermal Energy: U.S.
EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response; 58FR15284, March 22, 1993.
j. Marysvaille Underground Storage Terminal Request for Exclusion from UIC
Regulations: Memorandum from Francoise M. Brasier, Chief UIC Branch, OGWDW
to Richard J. Zdanowicz, Chief UIC Section, Region V, February 2, 1994.
k. Crude Oil and Natural Gas Exploration and Production Wastes: Exemption from
RCRA Subtitle C Regulation: U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response, 30 pages; EPA530-K-95-003, May 1995.
U.S. EPA UIC
Page 44 of 81 Program Overview
-------
,14
UIC Specific Regulations'
1. 40 CFR Part 124 — Outlines the procedures for issuing, modifying, revoking and reissuing,
terminating or appealing UIC permits.
2. 40 CFR Part 144 — Sets the regulatory framework for the program.
3. 40 CFR Part 145 — Defines the elements for an approvable state program and the processes for
EPA approval and subsequent modification of a state program (referred to as a "primacy
program" after approval).
4. 40 CFR Part 146 — Establishes the technical standards to be used by the State or EPA in
implementing the program.
5. 40 CFR Part 146 Subpart G — Establishes the technical standards for Class I hazardous waste
injection wells.
6. 40 CFR Part 147 — Establishes state specific requirements.
7. 40 CFR Part 148 — Establishes regulatory framework for restricted wastes and criteria for
demonstrating "no migration" out of the injection zone per land disposal ban
(HSWA Section 3004[f-h]).
8. 40 CFR Part 261 — Establishes definitions for hazardous waste.
9. 36 CFR Parts 228 and 261—Contains procedures and requirements for managing oil and gas
leasing, including bonding and reclamation on lands under U.S. Forest Service
jurisdiction.
10. 43 CFR Parts 3160 through 3487-Contains procedures and requirements for managing oil and
gas leasing, including bonding and reclamation on lands under the jurisdiction of the U.S.
Bureau of Land Management.
U.S. EPA UIC Regulatory Citations
A key element to developing an understanding of the UIC rules themselves is the Preamble of
the various UIC rule proposals and final actions. The Preambles provide some insight into the
Agency's intent behind some of the regulations. The interested reader should consult the following:
14 The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) is updated on a yearly basis to incorporate
new changes but the CFR does not contain the preambles which are published when regulations
are proposed and implemented. The CFR does, however, give the Federal Register date for each
specific rule. Individuals desiring information on the intent of EPA regarding specific
regulations should consult the specific Federal Register and review the related preamble.
U.S. EPA UIC
Page 45 of 81 Program Overview
-------
1. Grants for State Underground Water Source Protection Programs; State Underground Injection
Control Program; Proposed Regulations, 40 CFR Parts 35 and 146 (41FR36730, August 31,
1976);
2. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System; Proposed Revision of Existing Regulations,
40 CFR Parts 6, 122, 123, 124, and 125 (43FR37078, Aug. 21,1978);
3. Water Programs; State Underground Injection Control Programs; Reproposal of rules, 40 CFR
Part 146 (44FR23738, April 20,1979);
4. Underground Injection Control; List of States Requiring Programs (45FR17632, March 19,
1980);
5. Consolidated Permit Regulations: RCRA Hazardous Waste; SDWA Underground Injection
Control; CAA Prevention of Significant Deterioration; CWA National Discharge Elimination
System; and Section 404 Dredge or Fill Programs; Proposed Rule, 40 CFR Parts 122, 123, and
124 (44FR34244, June 14,1979);
6. Consolidated Permit Regulations: RCRA Hazardous Waste; SDWA Underground Injection
Control; CWA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System; CWA Section 404 Dredge or
Fill Programs; and CAA Prevention of Significant Deterioration: Final Rule, codified at 40
CFR Parts 122, 123, 124, and 125 (45FR33290, May 19,1980);
7. Water Programs; Consolidated Permit Regulations and Technical Criteria and Standards; State
Underground Injection Control Programs; Final Rule, Final codified as 40 CFR Part 146 and
amendments to Part 122 (45FR42472, June 24,1980);
8. Hazardous Waste Management System; Standards Applicable to Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities and EPA Administered Permit
Programs; Reproposal of Proposed Rule and Proposed Amendments to Rule, 40 CFR Parts
122, 260, and 264 (46 FR11126, February 5,1981);
9. Interim Final Rule and Request for Comment; Interim Standards for Owners and Operators of
New Hazardous Waste Land Disposal Facilities and EPA Administered Permit Programs: The
Hazardous Waste Permit Program, 40 CFR Parts 122 and 267 (46FR12414, February 13,
1981);
10. Interim Final Guidance and Request for Public Comment; State Underground Injection
Control, SDWA Section 1425 Class II Programs, 40 CFR Ch. I (46FR27333, May 19,1981);
11. Underground Injection Control Program Criteria and Standards; Technical amendments to
final regulations, 40 CFR Parts 122 and 146 (46FR43156, August 27,1981);
U.S. EPAUIC
Page 46 of 81 Program Overview
-------
12. Underground Injection Control Program Criteria and Standards, Proposed amendments, 40
CFR Parts 122 and 146 (46FR48243, October 1,1981);
13. Underground Injection Control Program Criteria and Standards; Final rule, codified at 40 CFR
Parts 122 and 146 (47FR4992, February 3,1982);
14. Underground Injection Control Program, Final rule, effective date for information collection
requirements (47FR32129, July 26,1982);
15. Hazardous Waste Management System; Standards Applicable to Owners and Operators of
Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities; and EPA Administered Permit
Programs; Interim Final Rule With Request for Comments, 40 CFR Parts 122, 260, 264, and
265 (47FR32274, July 26,1982);
16. Environmental Permit Regulations: RCRA Hazardous Waste; SDWA Underground Injection
Control; CWA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System; CWA Section 404 Dredge or
Fill Programs; and CAA Prevention of Significant Deterioration; Final rule, 40 CFR Parts 122,
123, 124, 125, 144, 145, 146, 233, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 270, and 271 (48FR14146,
April 1,1983);
17. State Underground Injection Control Program: Permitting Procedures, Technical Criteria and
Standards; Availability of Guidance Documents (48FR27039, June 13,1983);
18. Permit Revisions; Revision in Accordance with Settlement; Final rule, 40CFR Parts 122, 123,
124, 144, 145, 233, 270, and 271 (48FR39611, September 1,1983);
19. Underground Injection Control Program: Federally Administered Programs; Proposed rule, 40
CFR Parts 124, 144, 146, and 147 (48FR40098, September 2,1983);
20. Underground Injection Control Program: Federally Administered Programs; Final rule,
codified at 40 CFR Parts 124, 144, 146, and 147 (49FR20138, May 11,1984);
21. Underground Injection Control Program: Federally Administered Programs; Final rule,
codified at 40 CFR Parts 124, 144, 146, and 147 (49FR45292, November 15,1984);
22. Hazardous Waste Management System; Final Codification Rule; Final Rule, 40 C.F.R. Parts
260, 261, 262, 264, 265, 266, 270, 271, and 280 (50FR28702, July 15,1985);
23. Notice Requirements for Citizen Suits Under the Safe Drinking Water Act; Proposed Rule, 40
C.F.R. Part 135 (51 Fed. Reg. 29426, August 15,1986);
24. Hazardous Waste Management System; Land Disposal Restrictions; Final Rule, 40 C.F.R.
Parts 260, 261, 262, 264, 265, 268, 270, and 271 (51FR40572, November 7,1986);
U.S. EPAUIC
Page 47 of 81 Program Overview
-------
25. Technical Amendment, Underground Injection Control Programs on Indian Lands in Direct
Implementation States; Final Rule (52FR17680, May 11,1987);
26. Water Pollution Control; Underground Injection Control Programs on Indian Lands; Proposed
Rule, 40 C.F.R. Part 147 (52FR17684, May 11,1987);
27. Underground Injection Control Programs-for Certain Indian Lands; Proposed Rule, 40 CFR
Part 147 (52 FR17696, May 11,1987;
28. Water Pollution Control; National Primary Drinking Water Regulations; Final Rule, codified
at 40 C.F.R. Parts 141, 142, and 144 (52FR20672, June 2,1987);
29. Underground Injection Control Program; Extension of Water-in-Annulus Mechanical Integrity
Test; Interim Approval, 40 C.F.R. Part 146 (52FR26342, July 14,1987);
30. Indian Lands; National Primary Drinking Water and Underground Injection Control
Regulations; Proposed Rule, 40 C.F.R. Parts 35, 124, 141, 142, 143, 144, and 146
(52FR28112, July 27,1987);
31. Underground Injection Control Program; Hazardous Waste Disposal Injection Restrictions;
Amendments to Technical Requirements for Class I Hazardous Waste Injection Wells; and
Additional Monitoring Requirements Applicable to All Class I Wells; Proposed Rule, 40
C.F.R. Parts 124, 144, 146, and 148 (52FR32446, August 27,1987);
32. Codification Rule for 1984 RCRA Amendments; Final Rule, 40 C.F.R. Parts 144, 264, 265,
270, and 271 (52FR45788, December 1,1987);
33. Underground Injection Control Program; Radioactive Tracer Survey; Final Approval, Notice
of Final Approval and Response to Comments, 40 CFR 146 (52FR46837, December 10,
1987);
34. Hazardous Waste Miscellaneous Units; Standard; Applicable to Owners and operators; Final
Rule, codified at 40 C.F.R. Parts 144, 260, 264 and 270 (52FR46946, December 10,1987);
35. Underground Injection Control Program; Hazardous Waste Disposal Injection Restrictions,
Phase Two; Proposed Rule, 40 C.F.R. Part 148 (53FR14892, April 26,1988);
36. Regulatory Determination for Oil and Gas and Geothermal Exploration, Development and
Production Wastes; RCRA Regulatory Determination (53FR25446, July 6,1988);
37. Underground Injection Control Program: Hazardous Waste Disposal Injection Restrictions;
Amendments to Technical Requirements for Class I Hazardous Waste Injection Wells; and
Additional Monitoring Requirements Applicable to All Class I Wells; Final Rule, codified at
40 CFR Parts 124, 144, 146, and 148 (53FR28118, July 26,1988);
U.S. EPAUIC
Page 48 of 81 Program Overview
-------
38. Underground Injection Control Program; Hazardous Waste Disposal Injection Restrictions,
Phase Two; California List and Certain "First Third" Wastes; Final Rule, codified at 40 C.F.R.
Part 148 (53FR30908 (Aug. 16,1988);
39. Interim Approval With Request for Comments; Underground Injection Control Program:
Oxygen Activation Method Mechanical Integrity Test for Injection Well Classes I-V; Notice of
Alternative Method, 40 CFR Part 146 (52FR37294, September 26,1988);
40 Notice of Alternative Method; Extension of Interim Approval; Underground Injection Control
Program; Extension of Water-In-Annulus Mechanical Integrity Test, 40 CFR 146
(53FR37296, September. 26,1988);
41. Underground Injection Control Program: Hazardous Waste Disposal Injection Restrictions;
Phase Two; California List and Certain "First Third" Wastes; Final Rule; Correction, codified
at 40 CFR Part 148 (53FR41601,October 24,1988);
42. Underground Injection Control Programs on Indian Lands; Final Rule, codified at 40 CFR Part
147 (53FR43084, October 25,1988;
43. Underground Injection Control Program; Hazardous Waste Disposal Injection Restrictions;
Additional Effective Dates; First Third Wastes; Proposed Rule, 40 CFR Part 148 (53FR43400,
October 26,1988);
44. Land Disposal Restrictions for Second Third Scheduled-Wastes; Proposed Rule, 40 C.F.R.
Parts 148, 268, and 271 (54FR1056, January 11,1989);
45. Request for Comments; Underground Injection Control Program; Casing Cementing
Pressure/Single Point Resistivity Log Mechanical Integrity Test for Class III In-Situ Uranium
Injection Wells; Notice of Alternative Method, 40 CFR Part 146 (54FR4903, January 31,
1989);
40. Revisions to the Safe Drinking Water Act Underground Injection Control Regulations;
Proposed Rule, 40 CFR Parts 144 and 146 (55FR26462, June 28, 1990); 47) Safe Drinking
Water Act; Administrative Enforcement Regulations; Final Rule, 40 CFR Parts 22 and 142
(56FR3752, January 30,1991);
48. Underground Injection Control Program; Approval of Oxygen Activation Method Mechanical
Integrity Test for Injection Well Classes I-V: Notice of Alternative Method, 40 CFR Part 146
(56FR4063, February 1, 1991);
49. Underground Injection Control Program; State Administered Programs; Incorporation by
Reference Update; Final Rule, codified at 40 CFR Part 147 (56FR9408, March 6,1991);
50. Non-APA, Consolidated Rules of Practice for Administrative Assessment of Civil Penalties;
Proposed Rule, 40 CFR Part 28 (56FR29996, July 1,1991);
U.S. EPAUIC
Page 49 of 81 Program Overview
-------
51. Underground Injection Control Program; Hazardous Waste Disposal Injection Restrictions;
Notice of Intent to Grant a Case-by-Case Extension, (56FR33288, July 19,1991);
52. Final Approval; Underground Injection Control Program; Water-Brine Interface Mechanical
Integrity-Test for Class III Salt Solution Mining Injection Wells; Notice of Alternative
Method, 40 CFR Part 146 (57FR1109, January 10,1992);
53. Final Approval; Underground Injection Control Program; Approval of Oxygen Activation
Method for Mechanical Integrity Testing of Injection Well Classes I-V: Notice of Alternative
Method, 40 CFR Part 146 (57FR1176, January 10,1992);
54. Hazardous Waste Management System; Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR); DOE Mixed
Wastes Extension application; Notice of Proposed Decision on Request for an Extension of the
LDR Effective Date for Certain Mixed Wastes, 40 CFR Part 268 (57FR22024, May 26,
1992);
55. Underground Injection Control Program; Hazardous Waste Disposal Injection Restrictions and
Requirements for Class I Wells; Revision of Testing and Monitoring Requirements; Final
Rule, codified at 40 CFR Part 146 (57FR46292, October 7,1992);
56. Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for the Management and Disposal of Spent
Nuclear Fuel, High Level and Transuranic Radioactive Wastes, Proposed Rule, 40 CFR Parts
141 and 191 (58FR7924, February 10,1993);
57. Revisions to the Safe Drinking Water Act Underground Injection Control Regulations; Final
and interim rule and request for comments, codified at 40 CFR Parts 144 and 146
(58FR63890, December 3,1993);
58. Standards Applicable to Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage, and
Disposal Facilities, Underground Storage Tanks and Underground Injection Control Systems;
Financial Assurance; Letter of Credit; Final rule; amendment, codified at 40 CFR Parts 144,
264, and 280 (59FR29958, June 10,1994);
59. Indian Tribes; Eligibility for Program Authorization; Final rule, codified at 40 CFR Parts 123,
124, 131, 142, 144, 145, 253, and 501 (59FR64339, December 14,1994);
60. Class V Wells - Regulatory Determination and Minor Revisions to the Underground Injection
Control Regulations; Technical Corrections to the Regulations for Class I Wells; Proposed
rule, 40 CFR Parts 144 and 146 (60FR44652, August 28,1995);
61. Revisions to the Underground Injection Control Regulations for Class V Injection Wells;
Proposed Rule, 40 CFR Part 146 (63FR40586, July 29,1998);
62. Revisions to the Underground Injection Control Regulations for Class V Injection Wells; Final
U.S. EPAUIC
Page 50 of 81 Program Overview
-------
Rule, codified at 40 CFR Part 146 (64FR68546, December 7,1999)
U.S. EPAUIC
Page 51 of 81 Program Overview
-------
APPENDIX B
MAJOR UIC PROGRAM DEFINITIONS
The following definitions are some of the more important utilized by the UIC Program. The
regulations themselves should be referred to for a more complete understanding of the program
definitions.
1. Aquifer (40 CFR 144.3)
An aquifer is a geological "formation," group of formations, or part of a formation that is
capable of yielding a significant amount of water to a well or spring.
2. Aquifer Exemption (40 CFR 146.4)
Injection into a USDW for the purpose of industrial waste disposal (Class I), oil and gas related
activity (Class II), or in situ recovery of metals or salt (Class III) is not allowed. In order for
Class II and III activities to be permitted for injection, it is necessary for the reservoir in
question to be exempted from classification as a USDW. An exemption for the purpose of
injection of hazardous waste disposal is not feasible because of siting restrictions. An aquifer
exemption does not relieve the owner/operator from any construction or permitting
requirements established by 40 CFR Part 144 and 146.
In reading the preamble to the original UIC technical regulations and other documents, it can
be interpreted that the purpose for creating the aquifer exemption process was to allow for the
production of oil, gas and other minerals contained in the formation by injection of various
fluids.15 It was also to allow for disposal of wastes into formations which are determined to be
unlikely future sources of drinking water. These pages of the preambles point out that the
exemption process was created to allow for the development and production (and possible
15 For more insight into the intent of aquifer exemptions, the reader should review the
appropriate FR preambles and a HQ guidance Memorandum that provides some information on
the Agency's intent to restrict the granting of exemptions to the injection zone: Comments on
UIC Issues: Memo to all Water Division Directors from Office of Drinking Water Director, Vic
Kimm: April 1983. The relevant preambles are: 1) 44FR23743 part of the preamble for the
proposal of part 146 (4/20/79); 2) 45FR42481 part of the final publication of part 146 (6/24/80);
and 3) 46FR48245 part of the settlement agreement conditions to resolve the litigation issues on
the publication of the UIC program.
U.S. EPA UIC
Page 52 of 81 Program Overview
-------
degradation) of the formations that contain minerals16; even though the formations are
classified as USDWs. There is no mention of intent to allow an exemption from the definition
of a USDW solely to decrease the requirements of a well operator. The inclusion of the
exemption criteria in 40 CFR 144.7 for USDWs overlying a Frasch sulphur mining project
provides important insight into the intended purpose of an exemption. This criterion is the
only allowance in the regulations that specifically provides for exemptions of zones into which
injection is not intended. The inclusion of the Frasch exclusion combined with the absence of
criteria for other non-injection zones points to a general policy for not exempting zones into
which there is not injection. The injection reservoir itself can be exempted if certain conditions
are met.
An aquifer or portion thereof, meeting the definition of a USDW, can be exempted for the
purpose of injection into the zone in question if it meets the following criteria:
a) It does not currently serve as a source of drinking water; and
b) It cannot now and will not in the future serve as a source of drinking water because:
1) It is mineral, hydrocarbon, or geothermal energy producing;
2) It is situated at a depth or location which makes recovery of water economically
or technologically impractical;
3) It is so contaminated that it would be impractical to make the water fit for
consumption;
4) It is located over a Class III well mining area subject to subsidence or
catastrophic collapse; or
c) The total dissolved solids content of the ground water is more than 3000 mg/liter and
less than 10,000 mg/liter and it is not reasonably expected to serve a public water
system.
3. Area of Review (40 CFR 146.6).
This is a specific radial distance around an injection well, or in the case of an area permit, the
project area plus a circumscribing area (See references in Appendix A, General Information,
16 In the case of mining by the Frasch process, exemptions for overlying formations were
allowed since the possibility of subsidence of overlying formations exists even if the operator
complies with all technical requirements for the well. The Agency discussed the impact of
exemptions associated with Frasch sulphur mining in Ground Water Program Guidance No. 27,
Requirements applicable to wells injecting into or through or above an aquifer which has been
exempted pursuant to 40 CFR 146.04 (b) (4).
U.S. EPAUIC
Page 53 of 81 Program Overview
-------
Items 13, 15, 19, and 20). At present, wells that were rule authorized at the start of Program
implementation are not routinely subject to the area of review requirement. A recent review of
data on area of review activities relating to existing Class II wells indicates that there are cases
where the Director is warranted in requiring an area of review analysis due to the presence of
wells adjacent to rule authorized wells that may require corrective action17. The area of review
is defined by either of the following criteria:
a) Fixed radius - a radius of not less than 1/4 mile around the well or project area for all
wells other than Class I hazardous waste injection wells, which have a minimum radius
of 2 miles;
b) Zone of endangering influence - that area, the radius of which is a lateral distance from
the wellbore in which the pressures in the injection zone may cause the migration of the
injection and/or formation fluid into a USDW. The concepts of area of review and
zone of endangering influence are illustrated by Figure 2. The zone of endangering
influence may be computed using various analytical hydrologic models18, such as the
Theis equation (See 40 CFR Part 146.6[a][2]). If the zone of endangering influence is
computed to be greater than the fixed area of review, the applicant must supply
information on all wells penetrating the injection reservoir within the computed zone of
influence.
4. Authorization by Rule (40 CFR 144.21, 144.22, 144.23, 144.24, 144.26, 144.27 and 144.28).
The UIC Program regulates all injection wells used for the subsurface emplacement of fluids,
except those specifically excluded under 40 CFR 144.1 (g) (2). Although most new wells are
required to obtain permits prior to construction, some new wells and some existing wells
(those in use when either the State received primacy or EPA promulgated a program) may not
be covered by a specific permit. Authorization-by-rule is permissible with nearly equal
protection as permits. The UIC regulations (40 CFR 144.28) contain the operating
requirements for wells authorized by rule, and the only other type of authorization requires a
permit. The rules which authorize certain types of existing and new wells, are as follows:
a) Injection into existing Class I, II (except existing enhanced recovery and hydrocarbon
17 There is some discussion relating to the area of review/corrective action requirements
in Mid-Course Evaluation of the Class II Underground Injection Control Program: Final Report
of the Mid-Course Evaluation Workgroup: U.S. EPA, Office of Drinking Water UIC Branch,
August 22, 1989.
18 Using information on the reservoir properties, the future pressure buildup curves
associated with a well can be estimated using a number of models. An example of a simple
pressure model is provided in: Radius of Pressure Influence of Injection Wells by Don L.
Warner, et al.: 204 pp, U.S. EPA, Robert S. Kerr Research Laboratory, Office of Research and
Development; EPA-600/2-79-170, August 1979.
U.S. EPA UIC
Page 54 of 81 Program Overview
-------
storage) and Class III wells is authorized (40 CFR 144.2 l[a]-[c]) for up to five years
after the effective date of primacy or DI. Except for the recently implemented DI
program on some Indian Country, the five year period has long since expired. Owners
or operators of such wells were required to comply with the applicable requirements of
40 CFR 144.28 and 40 CFR Part 147 no later than one year after implementation of a
program in a specific state. These requirements establish financial responsibility,
monitoring, reporting, plugging and abandonment, and other technical requirements;
b) Injection into existing Class II enhanced recovery and hydrocarbon storage wells may
be authorized for the life of the well or project (40 CFR 144.22[a]-[b]). Owners and
operators of a well authorized under this rule must comply with the applicable
stipulations of 40 CFR 144.28 and Part 147; and
c) Injection into most Class V wells is authorized by rule until additional requirements
under future regulations become applicable, unless the Director determines that a
permit is necessary to prevent endangerment of USDWs (See 40 CFR 144.12 and 40
CFR 144 Subpart G).
The Director may require any Class I, II, III, or V injection well, authorized by rule, to
apply for and obtain an individual or area UIC permit. (See 40 CFR 144.25[a] and [b]
for cases where UIC permits may be required).
5. Cesspool (40 CFR 144.3)
A drywell that receives untreated sanitary waste containing human excreta, and which
sometimes has an open bottom and/or perforated sides.
6. Considerations under Federal law (40 CFR 144.4)
There are other Federal laws that may apply to the issuance of UIC Permits. If applicable, the
procedures or requirements in these laws must be followed: a) The Wild and Scenic Rivers
Act; b) The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966; c)The Endangered Species Act, d) The
Coastal Zone Management Act; and e) The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act.
7. Director (40 CFR 144.3)
The UIC Director is the Regional Administrator, the State Director or the Tribal Director, as
the context requires, or an authorized representative. When there is no approved State or
Tribal program, and there is an EPA administered program, "Director" means the Regional
Administrator. When there is an approved program, "Director" normally means the State or
Tribal director. In some circumstances, however, EPA retains the authority to take certain
actions even when there is an approved State or Tribal program. In such cases, the term
"Director" means the Regional Administrator and not the State or Tribal Director.
8. Drywell (40 CFR 144.3)
U.S. EPA UIC
Page 55 of 81 Program Overview
-------
A well other than an improved sinkhole or subsurface fluid distribution system, completed
above the water table so that its bottom and sides are typically dry except when receiving fluids
(often referred to as a vadose zone well).
9. Endangerment [Section 1421 (d)(2)]
Underground injection endangers drinking water sources if such injection may result in the
presence in underground water which supplies or can reasonably be expected to supply any
public water system of any contaminant, and if the presence of such contaminant may result in
the system's not complying with any national primary drinking water regulation or may
otherwise adversely affect the health of persons.
10. Existing injection well (40 CFR 144.3)
An "injection well" other than a "new injection well." This term is generally applied to wells
which were in existence prior to the effective date of an authorized program.
11. Fluid (40 CFR 144.3)
Any material or substance which flows or moves whether in a semisolid, liquid, sludge, gas, or
any other form or state.
12. Hazardous waste.
Material defined as hazardous in 40 CFR Part 261 is either a characteristic waste or a specific
listed waste. The four characteristic tests are: a) ignitability as defined by 261.21 (a); b)
corrosivity as defined by 40 CFR 261.22(a); c) reactivity as defined by 40 CFR 261.23(a); and
d) toxicity as defined by 261.24(a). The listed hazardous wastes are described in 40 CFR 261,
Subpart D as non-specific sources (F-codes), specific sources (K-codes), actively hazardous
off-specification discarded product (P-codes), or toxic off-specification discarded product (U-
codes).
13. Improved sinkhole (40 CFR 144.3)
A naturally occurring karst depression or other natural crevice found in volcanic terrain and
other geologic settings which have been modified by man for the purpose of directing and
emplacing fluids into the subsurface.
14. Indian Country (40 CFR 144.3)
Indian lands as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. That section defines Indian Country as:
(a) All land within the limits of any Indian reservation under the jurisdiction of the
United States government, notwithstanding the issuance of any patent and, including
rights of way running through the reservation;
U.S. EPAUIC
Page 56 of 81 Program Overview
-------
(b) All dependent Indian communities within the borders of the U.S. whether within
the original or subsequently aquired territory therof, and whether within or without the
limits of a State; and
(c) All Indian allotments, the Indian titles to which have not been extinguished,
including rights-of-way through the same.
15. Injection well (40 CFR 144.3)
A well into which fluids are being injected.
16. Injection Zone (40 CFR 144.3)
A geological "formation", group of formations, or part of a formation receiving fluids through
a "well."
19
17. Mechanical Integrity (40 CFR 146.8).
One means of measuring the adequacy of the construction of an injection well is by requiring a
demonstration that a well has mechanical integrity. A well is deemed to have mechanical
integrity if:
a) There is no significant leak in the casing, tubing, or packer; and
b) There is no significant fluid movement into a USDW through vertical channels
adjacent to the injection wellbore.
Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the basic design elements of an injection well and the
problems which may interfere with mechanical integrity (i.e. leaks in the casing and
fluid movement through vertical channels in the casing/wellbore annulus as shown in
the two circular sections on the right). It should be noted that interformational flow
into or between USDWs where there is no connection with the injection zone may
result in significant contamination of a USDW. Guidance indicates that the potential
for such movement must be addressed when a demonstration of mechanical integrity is
made.
The absence of leaks may be determined by:
19 For a more detailed insight regarding discussion of the various technical issues and
methods involved in demonstrating mechanical integrity, the MIT references in Appendix A
should be consulted. MIT reference Nos. 1, 2, 3, 20, and 21 are especially noteworthy for
outlining the technical aspects of mechanical integrity. Information on field experience with
MIT in the field can be obtained from MIT reference Nos. 6, 7, 8, and 9.
U.S. EPAUIC
Page 57 of 81 Program Overview
-------
1. Monitoring the annulus pressure while maintaining a positive pressure on the
annulus, after an initial pressure test;
2. Pressure testing with liquid or gas;
3. Radioactive tracer testing in cases where the procedure is valid for leak
detection; or
4. Alternative testing approved by the permitting agency after EPA approval (40
CFR 146.8[d]).
The absence of vertical movement may be determined by using:
1. A temperature log, noise log, radioactive tracer survey in certain cases; and an
oxygen activation survey20(also known as a water flow log).
2. An alternative test or combination of tests approved by the permitting agency
and concurred on by EPA (40 CFR 146.8[d]).
3. Cementing records or cement evaluation logs which show the existence of
adequate cement to prevent fluid migration (only for Class II wells and Class
III wells with plastic casing). For Class II wells, the use of a valid cement bond
log is essential as a means of verifying the cement record. At a minimum, the
cement record must contain the job tickets from the contractor verifying the
number of sacks used and the method of placement.
18. New injection well (40 CFR 144.3)
An "injection well" which began injection after a UIC program for the State applicable to the
well is approved or prescribed (effective date). The effective date of most of the approved
program is 30 days after the date of approval.
19. Point of Injection (40 CFR 144.3)
The last accessible sampling point prior to waste fluids being released into the subsurface
environment through a Class V injection well. For example, the point of injection of a Class V
20 A proposal for the approval of the oxygen activation log and a request for comment
was authorized for use on a nationwide basis by publication in the Federal Register in the Federal
Register on February 1, 1991 (56FR4063). The final approval was issued in the Federal Register
on January 10, 1992 57FR1176.
U.S. EPA UIC
Page 58 of 81 Program Overview
-------
septic system might be the distribution box - the last accessible sampling point before the
waste fluids drain into the underlying soils. For a dry well, it is likely to be the well bore itself.
20. Sanitary waste (40 CFR 144.3)
Liquid or solid wastes originating solely from humans and human activities, such as wastes
collected from toilets, showers, wash basins, sinks used for cleaning domestic areas, sinks used
for food preparation, clothes washing operations, and sinks or washing machines where food
and beverage serving dishes, glasses, and utensils are cleaned. Sources of these wastes may
include single or multiple residences, hotels and motels, restaurants, bunkhouses, schools,
ranger stations, crew quarters, guard stations, campgrounds, picnic grounds, day-use recreation
areas, other commercial facilities and industrial facilities provided the waste is not mixed
with industrial waste.
21. Septic system (40 CFR 144.3)
A well that is used to emplace sanitary waste below the surface and is typically comprised of a
septic tank and subsurface fluid distribution system or disposal system.
22. Significant amount of water
For the purpose of defining a USDW, the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water uses 1
gallon per minute as the threshold value for determining if an aquifer produces a significant
amount of water21.
23. Subsurface fluid distribution system (40 CFR 144.3)
An assemblage of perforated pipes, drain tiles, or other similar mechanisms intended to
distribute fluids below the surface of the ground.
24. Total dissolved solids (40CFR 144.3)
The total dissolved (filtrated) solids as determined by use of the method specified in 40 CFR
136.
25. Underground Source of Drinking Water (USDW) (40 CFR 146.3).22
21 The definition of a USDW and EPA's present policy for determining if an aquifer
produces a significant amount of water is discussed in: Assistance on Compliance of 40 CFR
Part 191 with Ground water Protection Standards, from James R. Elder, Director OGWDW to
Margo T. Oge, Director Office of Radiation and Indoor Air: June 4, 1993.
22 The broadness of the definition of a USDW was based on Congressional intent (See
House Report (93rd Congress. 2nd Session) No. 93-1185. dated July 10. 1974) that the definition
U.S. EPAUIC
Page 59 of 81 Program Overview
-------
An aquifer or portion of an aquifer which:
a) Supplies any Public Water System; or
b) Contains a sufficient quantity of ground water (See definition number 20 and footnote
number 15) to supply a Public Water System; and
1) currently supplies drinking water for human consumption; or
2) contains fewer than 10,000 mg/1 total dissolved solids unless exempted by the
following provisions.
26. Well (40 CFR 144.3)
A bored, drilled or driven shaft whose depth is greater than the largest surface dimension; or, a
dug hole whose depth is greater than the largest surface dimension; or, an approved sinkhole;,
or, a subsurface distribution system.
27. Well Injection (40 CFR 144.3)
The subsurface emplacement of fluids through a well.
use 10,000 mg/liter as an upper limit. Congress also indicated that EPA develop a program that
provided protection to existing and future sources of drinking water (Also see Section 1421 (d)
(2) of the SDWA). Further, EPA has followed a policy assuming that for the purpose of defining
a USDW, the term significant amount of water is any amount over 1 gallon per minute (See
Assistance on Compliance of 40 CFR Part 191 with Ground water Protection Standards, from
James R. Elder, Director OGWDW to Margo T. Oge, Director Office of Radiation and Indoor
Air: June 4, 1993.)
U.S. EPAUIC
Page 60 of 81 Program Overview
-------
APPENDIX C
UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM
WELL CLASSES
CLASS
DEFINITION
EXAMPLE
a) Injection of industrial and municipal waste
below the lowermost formation containing,
within 1/4 mile of the wellbore an underground
source of drinking water (USDW);
b) Injection of hazardous waste, as defined by
40 CFR 261 below the lowermost formation
containing, within 1/4 mile of the wellbore a
USDW; and
c) Injection of radioactive waste below
lowermost aquifer containing, within 1/4 mile
of the wellbore a USDW.
-Chemical Company disposal of
nonhazardous fertilizer below lowermost
USDW.
-Disposal of secondary treated municipal
waste below lowermost USDW.
-Rocky Mtn. Arsenal deep disposal of
pesticide and nerve gas waste (hazardous) at a
depth of 12,000+ ft.. Plugged and abandoned
after induced seismic events.
II
a) disposal of fluids brought to the surface in
connection with natural gas storage operations
or conventional production of oil and gas
which may be commingled with waste waters
from gas plants that are an integral part of
production operations;
b) Injection of fluids for enhanced recovery of
oil or gas; and
c) Injection for storage of hydrocarbons that
are liquid at standard temperature and pressure.
-Disposal of produced water, drilling waste,
spent well workover fluids, gathering line
pigging fluid, etc., often commingled with gas
plant wastes that are not defined as hazardous
at the point of injection.
-Injection of gas for pressure maintenance.
-Secondary water flood in a depressurized
reservoir.
-Micellar Polymer tertiary flood in a depleted
oil reservoir.
-Injection of oil into a salt dome for storage.
Ill Injection of fluids for extraction of minerals
including:
a) solution mining of copper and uranium from
areas which have not been conventionally
mined;
b)solution mining of potash, or salts; and
c) steam injection using the Frasch Process for
recovery of sulphur.
-Uranium solution mining of a shallow
"rollfront" deposit in a potable water aquifer
using multiple injection and extraction wells..
-In-situ potash recovery using multiple
injection and extraction wells.
-Steam injection using the Frasch process to
recover sulphur from bedded deposits in the
gulf coast region.
CLASS
DEFINITION
EXAMPLE
Page 61 of 81
U.S. EPAUIC
Program Overview
-------
IV
a) Disposal of hazardous or radioactive waste
into or above a formation which contains an
underground source of drinking water.
Construction and maintenance is banned unless
approved under provisions of 40 CFR
144.13(c);and
b) Injection of waste water containing
hazardous waste into or above a USDW, as
part of an EPA or State approved CERCLA or
RCRA cleanup which meets the criteria outline
in Section 7010(b) of HSWA.23
-Release of solvents (a listed hazardous waste)
from the electronics manufacturing process
into a runoff control well for a parking lot.
(Banned)
-Regular disposal of wastes from an industrial
process into shallow disposal wells where
wastes are defined as hazardous because they
exhibit one of the characteristics at 40 CFR
261.21, 261.22, 261.23, or 261.24. (Banned)
-Injection of wastewater pumped from
cleanup of railroad tie treatment facility back
into the contaminated area as part of RCRA
approved cleanup.
V
All other types of injection wells. This well
class may include, but is not limited to:
irrigation return flow wells, cesspools, non-
hazardous industrial disposal systems into
USDWs, storm water control wells, mining
sand backfill wells, recharge wells, brine
extraction wells, etc. A national study
identified 32 different types of wells. Most of
these wells are shallow and penetrate only the
surficial aquifer
-Dry wells in parking lots or areas of towns
and cities with no storm sewers for runoff
control, where runoff is not hazardous.
-Recharge of treated sewage to prevent
subsidence or sea water intrusion.
-Drainfields associated with multi-family
dwellings, serving more than 20 people per
day.
-Recharge wells associated with reinjection of
treated water at LUST, RCRA, and CERCLA
sites* where fluid is not hazardous under 40
CFR 261.
*NOTE: LUST - Leaking Underground Storage Tank (The LUST Program mandates cleanup of sites
where leaks have occurred). RCRA - Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (This law
sets requirements for programs regulating the generation, treatment, and disposal of solid
and hazardous waste and the installation and cleanup of underground storage tanks).
CERCLA - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(This law establishes the criteria for listing, investigating and cleaning up sites using a fund
set up by law [Superfund]).
23 Additional detail is available in OSWER Directive 9234.1-06: Applicability of Land
Disposal Restrictions to RCRA and CERCLA Ground-Water Treatment Reinjection Superfund
Management Review: Recommendation No. 26: U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response; Memo from Don R Clay, Assistant Administrator Office of Solid Waste
and Emergency Response, December 27, 1989. Information on the interface between CERCLA
and the CWA and SDWA can be found in the fact sheet, CERCLA Compliance with the CWA
and SDWA by U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response: EPA 9234 2-06, FS,
February 1990.
Page 62 of 81
U.S. EPAUIC
Program Overview
-------
APPENDIX D
DESCRIPTION OF COMMON CLASS II FLUIDS
Class II Injection Wells Include:
1) Salt Water Disposal (SWD) wells are those disposing of fluids brought to the surface
that may be commingled with waste streams from natural gas (methane) sweetening
and dehydration plants as long as the fluid is not hazardous at the point of injection.24
These wells also receive fluids produced during the recovery of methane stored in
underground reservoirs, such as salt domes.
2) Enhanced Recovery (ER) wells, including wells used for maintenance of reservoir
pressure and for tertiary recovery of oil and gas.
3) Hydrocarbon Storage (HC) wells inject hydrocarbon product that are liquid at standard
temperature and pressure.
The above type wells are authorized to inject under the Underground Injection Control (UIC)
Program, either by rule or by permit. The general categories considered to be Class II fluids are25:
1) Produced water from oil and gas production;
2) Waste fluids from the actual drilling operation;
3) Pigging fluids from the cleaning of collection and injection lines within the field;
4) Used workover and stimulation fluids recovered from production, injection, and
exploratory wells;
5) Gas, such as methane, CO2 or nitrogen used for enhanced recovery/pressure
maintenance of production reservoirs;
6) Brine reject from water softeners associated with enhanced recovery;
24 Only certain fluids can be injected into Class II wells as discussed in Classification of
Wells Used to Inject a Scrubber Waste or Water Softener Regeneration Brine Associated With
Oil Field Operations: Memo to Water Supply Branch Chiefs from Mike Cook, Director, Office
of Drinking Water, July 31, 1987.
25 Additional Clarification regarding the scope of fluids acceptable for disposal into a
Class II SWD well is provided in the following documents: 1) Definition of a Class II Fluid:
Letter to C. V. Chatterton, Director, Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission from Region
X Water Division Director (approved by ODW), February 26, 1990; 2) Classification of
Injection Fluid from a National Gas Processing Plant: Memo to Edward P. Walters, Region V
from UIC Branch Chief (ODW), Francoise Brasier, March 8, 1990; and 3) Classification of
Waste Fluids Associated with Clean up of Crude Oil Leaks in Active Oil Fields: Memo from the
Director of the Office of Solid Waste to the Region VIII, Water Management Division Director,
May 21, 1991.
U.S. EPA UIC
Page 63 of 81 Program Overview
-------
7) Waste fluids from methane sweetening and dehydration, which is blended with
produced water, as long as it is not hazardous at the point of injection;
8) Waste sour gas from the methane sweetening process;
9) Waste fluids from circulation during well cementing;
10) Waste oil and fluids from cleanup associated with primary production (but not the
transportation) of oil within the oil field;
11) Fresh water used for enhanced recovery makeup;
12) Water containing chemicals such as polymers for the purpose of enhanced recovery;
and
13) Drill cuttings from wells associated with oil and gas production.
It should be emphasized that unused chemicals (such as stimulation fluids, acid, paint,
solvents, etc.), used motor oil, and field-generated sanitary waste are not exempt for Subtitle C of
RCRA26 and also are not Class II wastes. They do not fall in either the produced at the surface or the
gas plant waste category. This waste (be it hazardous RCRA waste or non-hazardous waste) must be
disposed of in an approved facility, probably off-site. The UIC Program Director should be consulted
regarding the eligibility of specific waste streams.
26 The exemption of oil and gas production waste from Subtitle C of RCRA is explained
in the following notice published in the Federal Register Regulatory Determination for Oil and
Gas and Geothermal Exploration. Development and Production Wastes. U.S. EPA, Office of
Solid Waste and Emergency Response: 53FR25446, July 6, 1988. This determination was
clarified to include the status of gas plant wastes with a Federal Register Notice: Clarification of
the Regulatory Determination for Wastes from the Exploration. Development, and Production of
Crude Oil. Natural Gas and Geothermal Energy: U.S. EPA, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response; 58FR15284, March 22, 1993. A question and answer document which
provides additional information regarding the determination is: Crude Oil and Natural Gas
Exploration and Production Wastes: Exemption from RCRA Subtitle C Regulation: U.S. EPA,
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response report, 30 pages; EPA530-K-95-003, May
1995.
U.S. EPA UIC
Page 64 of 81 Program Overview
-------
APPENDIX E
MINIMUM FEDERAL TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS FOR STATE UIC PROGRAMS
The following discussion summarizes the major program requirements stipulated in the UIC
regulations. The regulations themselves describe all the legal requirements that apply to each well
class and should be consulted for the definitive version of applicable requirements.
PERMITTING REQUIREMENTS common to Class I, II and III WELLS.
All Permits will contain the following elements:
o Demonstration that casing and cementing are adequate to prevent movement of fluid
into or between USDWs. Cement bond logs are often needed to evaluate the adequacy
of the cementing records, especially for Class II wells27.
o Financial assurances (bond, letter of credit, or other adequate assurance) that the owner
or operator will maintain financial responsibility to properly plug and abandon the
wells.
o A maximum operating pressure calculated to avoid initiating and/or propagating
fractures that would allow fluid movement into a USDW.
o Monitoring and reporting requirements.
o Requirement that all permitted (and rule authorized) wells which fail mechanical
integrity be shut in immediately. The well may not resume injection until mechanical
integrity has been demonstrated.
o Schedule for demonstrating mechanical integrity (at least every 5 years for Class I non-
hazardous28, II, and Class III salt recovery wells).
o All permitted injection wells, which have had the tubing disturbed, must have a
27 To determine if the cement has been placed to adequately isolate the injection zone, an
adequate cement bond or other evaluation log must be run as a means of verifying the cementing
records. Cement records by themselves give no information on the condition or location of the
actual cement. There are numerous references relating to cement evaluation, but Cement
Evaluation Notes Compiled for the MIT Workgroup by Jerry T. Thornhill: U.S. EPA, Robert S.
Kerr Research Center; Edited by Paul S. Osborne, U.S. EPA, Region VIII, 13 pages, January 17,
2001, is a good, concise field guide.
28 Class I hazardous wells must demonstrate mechanical integrity once a year.
U.S. EPA UIC
Page 65 of 81 Program Overview
-------
pressure test to demonstrate mechanical integrity.
o Plans for plugging and abandonment. All Class I to III wells shall be plugged with
cement.
1. CLASS I WELLS. Those that involve: a) disposal of non-hazardous industrial or municipal
waste below an underground source of drinking water (USDW); and b) disposal of hazardous
waste, as defined by 40 CFR Part 261, below an underground source of drinking water (See
Figure 3). The reservoir in the case of hazardous waste must be separated from the
lowermost USDW by two confining zones an intervening porous zone containing fluids in
excess of 10,000 mg/liter (See 40 CFR 146.62 for minimum siting criteria).
Conditions for Operation
o All new injection wells require a Permit prior to construction.
o Area of review for non-hazardous injection wells is a minimum of 1/4 mile, except for
some Indian Country.
o Area of review for hazardous waste injection wells is a minimum of 2 miles.
o Injection between the outermost casing and the wellbore is prohibited.
o All injection wells must be tested for mechanical integrity prior to operation. This
includes both a pressure test to demonstrate the absence of casing, tubing, or packer
leaks and a valid temperature, oxygen activation or noise log or approved alternative
log to demonstrate the absence of vertical fluid movement.
o Hazardous waste injection wells must have surface casing set through all USDWs.
This casing must be cemented to the surface.
o Permit issued for up to ten years.
o Injection pressure must be limited such that no fracturing of the injection zone occurs
during operation.
o Hazardous waste injection wells must have an annual Radioactive Tracer Survey to
demonstrate integrity of bottom-hole cement.
o Hazardous waste injection wells are subject to the land disposal restrictions of 40 CFR
148. Submittal of a petition demonstrating there will be "no migration out of the
injection zone" as required by Sections 3004(f)-(h) of HSWA (1984), must either
precede the permitting process or run concurrently with the permit application review
process. This demonstration must show, through computer modeling, that the
hazardous constituents injected will not migrate out of the injection zone for as long as
U.S. EPAUIC
Page 66 of 81 Program Overview
-------
they remain hazardous.
o Area Permits are allowed only for non-hazardous injection wells.
Monitoring Requirements.
o Continuous monitoring of annulus pressure, injection pressure, flow rate, and volume
is required.
o An annual pressure falloff test of the injection reservoir must be performed in each
Class I injection well. The results must be analyzed, including a comparison with
previous tests, for major reservoir characteristics to determine if significant changes are
occurring within the reservoir, especially immediately adjacent to the wellbore.
o Class I hazardous waste injection wells require a written waste analysis plan.
o The UIC Director may require Class I wells to obtain, interpret and submit seismic data
for the site.29
o The UIC Director may require Class I wells to have ground-water monitoring in the 1st
aquifer overlying the injection zone with quarterly sampling.
o Class I hazardous waste injection wells must have an annual RTS to test the adequacy
of the bottom hole cement.
o Class I hazardous waste injection wells must have a casing inspection log whenever
there is a well workover.
Non-hazardous waste injection wells must demonstrate mechanical integrity at least
once every five years unless the Director waives the requirement.
29 The following reports provide information on situations where seismic activity has
been associated with injection operations: 1) Earthquake Hazard Associated with Deep Well
Injection by Robert L. Weisen and Craig Nicholson, US Geological Survey: 100 pages; Open
File Report 87-331, Report for U.S. EPA, Office of Drinking Water, June 1987; 2) 1999 Status
Report-Paradox Valley Seismic Network Paradox Valley Project (Paradox Injection Well No.l)
Southwestern Colorado by Jon Ake, Ken Mahrer, and Lisa Block: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation,
Technical Service Center; Technical Memorandum No. D8330-2000-012, April 2000; and 3)
2000 Status Report-Paradox Valley Seismic Network Paradox Valley Project (Paradox Injection
Well No.l) Southwestern Colorado by Ken Mahrer, Lisa Block, and Jon Ake: U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation, Technical Service Center; Technical Memorandum No. D8330-2001-007, April
2001.
U.S. EPA UIC
Page 67 of 81 Program Overview
-------
o Hazardous waste injection wells must demonstrate internal mechanical integrity
(pressure test to demonstrate no leaks in casing, tubing, or packer) once per year.
o Class I hazardous wells are subject to post-closure monitoring requirements.
Reporting Requirements
o Any noncompliance with UIC regulations must be reported orally to EPA within 24
hours of discovery and in writing within five (5) days.
o For all hazardous waste injection wells, the Director must be notified within 24 hours
of any well alarm or well shutdown.
o Submit Quarterly Report (EPA Form 7520-11 is suggested) containing: 1) the physical,
chemical and other relevant characteristics of injected fluid: 2) observations of monthly
average, maximum and minimum values for injection pressure, flow volume and rate
and the pressure on the casing/tubing annulus; and 3) the results of any on-site ground-
water monitoring.
o The first quarterly report after completion shall contain the results of periodic MIT, any
well workover, and any other tests required by the Director.
3. CLASS II WELLS. Those wells are utilized for injection for the purpose of: a) enhanced
recovery of oil and gas; b) injection for storage of hydrocarbons liquid, at standard temperature
and pressure; and c) the disposal of fluids which are brought to the surface in connection with
natural gas storage operations or conventional production of oil and gas. Produced water may
be commingled with waste waters from gas plants that are an integral part of production
operation, unless those waters are classified as a hazardous waste at the point of injection. This
does not include waste fluids from CO2 production plants.
Conditions for Operation:
o New injection wells require a Permit for construction or conversion.
o An existing hydrocarbon storage or enhanced recovery well may be authorized by rule
for the life of the well.
o Permits are issued for a limited period of time, that may be up to the operating life of
the facility.
o New injection wells must be tested for mechanical integrity prior to operation.
o Once in operation, injection wells must have a mechanical integrity test at least once
every five years.
U.S. EPA UIC
Page 68 of 81 Program Overview
-------
o Existing rule authorized injection wells, which have had the tubing disturbed
(workover), must have a pressure test to demonstrate mechanical integrity.
o Injection pressure shall not exceed that which would initiate and/or propagate fractures
in the confining zone adjacent to a USDW.
o A review of the Permit is required at least once every five years, including review of
the most recent mechanical integrity test.
o Area Permits are allowed for wells within the same well field, project or reservoir
operated by a single owner or operator..
o Area of review for newly permitted injection wells is a minimum of 1/4 mile radius.
This radius will be greater if the radius of endangering influence is found to exceed the
fixed radius.
o Authorization by rule is granted for existing enhanced recovery wells subject to
applicable construction, operating, reporting, monitoring, plugging, and financial
assurance requirements listed in 40 CFR 144.28. Successful mechanical integrity tests
must be conducted at least once every five years30.
o Emergency Permits are allowed if they meet the stipulations of 40 CFR 144.34..
o Operator must conduct monitoring of injection pressure, flow rate, and volume.
Continuous monitoring may, in specific situations, be required.
Monitoring Requirements:
o The operator must obtain a sample of the injection fluid and analyze it for specified
parameters at least once within the first year of authorization, and thereafter when
changes are made to the injection fluid.
o The operator shall observe the injection pressure, flow rate, and cumulative volume at
least weekly for SWD wells; monthly for ER wells; and daily for HC and cyclic steam
wells. At least one observation of each of the above parameters is to be recorded at
intervals no greater than 30 days.
o The operator must perform a mechanical integrity test (MIT) on the well at least once
every five (5) years during the life of the well, and following any workover operation.
30 Generally, wells which are authorized by Permit (i.e., new wells, conversion wells,
and some formerly rule-authorized SWD wells) have monitoring requirements that differ from
those listed in 40 CFR 144.28 for rule-authorized wells. Monitoring requirements for permitted
wells are established on a case-by-case basis; therefore, the permittee should be guided by the
specific monitoring conditions stated in each Permit.
U.S. EPAUIC
Page 69 of 81 Program Overview
-------
Reporting Requirements
o If a well is temporarily abandoned (TA), the operator must notify the UIC Director
notification within 30 days. A well may remain TA for a period of two (2) years, after
which the operator must plug and abandon the well unless an extension is requested
and subsequently granted by the UIC Director. An extension will only be granted if the
operator can demonstrate that no endangerment to USDWs will take place during the
period of the TA.
o The operator must report any noncompliance with UIC regulations orally to EPA
within 24 hours of discovery and in writing within five (5) days.
o Submit an Annual Disposal/Injection Well Monitoring Report (EPA Form 7520-11 or
State equivalent) summarizing observations of injection pressure and cumulative
volume. Submit the report to the UIC Director by January 31 of each year covering the
observations for the previous year. This requirement may be different for permitted
wells; refer to the permit for appropriate date and requirements.
o If a change of ownership occurs for rule-authorized wells, the operator must notify
EPA within 30 days of such transfer. Permitted wells require 30 days notice in
advance of the proposed transfer date. An Application to Transfer Permit (EPA Form
7520-7or State equivalent).
o Notify the UIC Director of company change of address at least 15 days prior to the
effective date.
o Submit Well Rework Record (EPA Form 7520-12 or State equivalent) within 60 days
of any well workover.
o Notify EPA at least 30 days prior to performing a mechanical integrity test (MIT). A
shorter notice is permissible if sufficient time is allotted for EPA to witness the test.
The operator must provide the UIC Director with test results within 30 days, unless a
MIT failure occurs (pressure change of 10% or greater within 30 minutes), in which
case notification must be within 5 days.
o Notify the UIC Director at least 45 days prior to initiating plugging and abandonment
of a well. A shorter notice is permissible if sufficient time is allotted for the UIC
Director to witness the operation.
o Submit a Plugging Record (EPA Form 7520-13 or State equivalent) within 60 days of
plugging and abandonment of a well, specifying the manner in which the well was
plugged.
4. CLASS III WELLS. Injection of fluids for extraction of minerals including solution mining of
U.S. EPA UIC
Page 70 of 81 Program Overview
-------
copper and uranium, solution mining of salts, evaporites, or potash, and Frasch sulfur process.
Operating Conditions:
o All new operations require a permit.
o Existing operations may be authorized by rule for up to five years after approval of a
UIC program. (1 year for EPA administered programs).
o Permit may be for up to the life of the well or project.
o The UIC Director must review the Permit at least once every five years.
o Area permits may be issued for multi-well projects.
o Area of review is a minimum of 1/4 mile from the boundary of the permitted project
area or wellbore if this is not an area permit.
o The operator must monitor overlying or underlying underground sources of drinking
water, if injection occurs into a formation containing water with a TDS of less than
10,000 mg/liter (See 40 CFR 146.32(e)).
o New injection wells must demonstrate mechanical integrity.
o Injection wells constructed with PVC casing (used primarily for shallow uranium
solution mining) may demonstrate part II of mechanical integrity, the absence of
significant flow adjacent to the casing, by circulating cement to the surface.
o Salt/Evaporite solution mining injection wells must demonstrate mechanical integrity
every five years.
o Injection wells utilized for salt extraction that are constructed with metal casing must
demonstrate Part II of mechanical integrity (the absence of significant flow adjacent to
the casing) by use of a temperature or noise log or oxygen activation log every five
years. All Class III wells so constructed must demonstrate Part II of MI when initially
constructed.
Monitoring Requirements:
o The operator must obtain a sample of the injection fluid and analyze it for specified
parameters with sufficient frequency to yield representative data on its characteristics,
and thereafter when changes are made to the injection fluid.
U.S. EPA UIC
Page 71 of 81 Program Overview
-------
o The operator shall observe the injection pressure and flow rate or volume, semi-
monthly or metering and daily recording of injected and produced fluid volumes as
appropriate.
o The operator must perform a mechanical integrity test (MIT) on the well at least once
every five (5) years during the life of the well for salt solution mining wells..
o The operator must monitor any required ground-water monitoring wells quarterly.
Reporting Requirements
o The operator must report any noncompliance with UIC regulations orally to EPA
within 24 hours of discovery and in writing within five (5) days.
o Submit quarterly Monitoring Report (EPA Form 7520-11 or State equivalent) on
required monitoring to the UIC Director.
o If a change of ownership occurs for rule-authorized wells, the operator must notify
EPA within 30 days of such transfer. Permitted wells require 30 days notice in
advance of the proposed transfer date. An Application to Transfer Permit (EPA Form
7520-7or State equivalent).
o Notify the UIC Director of company change of address at least 15 days prior to the
effective date.
o Submit Well Rework Record (EPA Form 7520-12 or State equivalent) within 60 days
of any well workover.
o Notify EPA at least 30 days prior to performing a mechanical integrity test (MIT). A
shorter notice is permissible if sufficient time is allotted for EPA to witness the test.
The operator must provide the UIC Director with test results within 30 days, unless a
MIT failure occurs (pressure change of 10% or greater within 30 minutes), in which
case notification must be within 5 days.
o Notify the UIC Director at least 45 days prior to initiating plugging and abandonment
of a well. A shorter notice is permissible if sufficient time is allotted for the UIC
Director to witness the operation.
o Submit a Plugging Record (EPA Form 7520-13 or State equivalent) within 60 days of
plugging and abandonment of a well, specifying the manner in which the well was
plugged.
5. CLASS IV WELLS. Injection of hazardous or radioactive waste into or above a formation
which is a USDW (See Figure 1).
U.S. EPA UIC
Page 72 of 81 Program Overview
-------
Conditions for Operation:
o Construction and operation of these injection wells, for the purpose of hazardous waste
disposal, is prohibited (HSWA, 1984 and 40 CFR 144.13).
o Wells used to inject contaminated ground water that has been treated back into the
same formation as a part of an EPA or State approved RCRA or CERCLA project may
be constructed and may continue to operate for the life of the project. Once approved,
these wells are authorized by rule for the life of the project (See 40 CFR 144.23(c)). In
evaluating the proposal the State or EPA would determine if the following conditions
are met: 1) reinjected ground water is treated to substantially reduce hazardous
constituents prior to reinjection; and 2) the final response action or corrective action
will, upon completion, be sufficient to protect human health and the environment.
o Existing injection wells not included as part of an approved RCRA or CERCLA
project must be closed within 6 months of promulgation of a state program (for EPA
administered programs, that is December 25, 1984).
o Class IV injection wells which are part of a CERCLA or RCRA cleanup must be
approved by EPA or the State prior to operation and are subject to necessary
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Standards, Limitations, Criteria, and
Requirements (ARARs) to ensure that such wells meet the criteria of Section 3020 of
RCRA.31
6. CLASS V WELLS. All other types of injection wells including, but not limited to: injection of
geothermal water produced for heating; heat pumps; service station sumps; cooling return flow
wells; dry wells (such as French drains along highways); drainage wells and irrigation return
flow wells; in-situ oil shale; wells for leaching of existing underground mines for the recovery
of minerals, such as copper; mine backfill wells to emplace tailing or other material for the
purpose of either disposal and/or the control of mine subsidence; large-capacity cesspools;
motor vehicle waste disposal wells; and non-hazardous industrial or municipal wells injecting
into or above a USDW. The formal definition includes any injection wells which emplace
fluids into the subsurface that do not meet the definitions of a class I-IV well per 40 CFR
146.5. As can be noted from the examples Class V wells have a variety of uses including
disposal, recharge, subsidence control and mineral recovery. Although Class V wells are
mainly shallow injection wells, they range in complexity from shallow drainage to
sophisticated deep reinjection wells.
A report to Congress dated September 1987, identified 32 types of Class V wells. Subsequent
31 Such projects must be approved by the applicable State or EPA program with
jurisdiction. The project must meet the criteria outlined in Applicability of Land Disposal
Restrictions to RCRA and CERCLA Ground Water Treatment Reinjection Superfund
Management Review: December 27, 1989, 6 pages; OSWER Directive 9234.1-06.
U.S. EPAUIC
Page 73 of 81 Program Overview
-------
to the report to Congress, EPA commenced an effort to develop regulations for certain types of
Class V wells which have been identified as having a significant threat to shallow ground
water. The actual promulgation of new rules covering certain well categories was preceded by
a study of Class V well types. This study was released in September 1999: Class V
Underground Injection Control Study. Office of Water: EPA/816-R-99-014, September 1999;
23 volumes and 5 Appendices. This study can be accessed on-line (as of March 2001) by
going to the following web page: http://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/cl5study.html. The new
additions to the Class V rules were published on December 7, 1999.
Conditions for Operation:
o Operators of existing wells are required to notify primacy or direct implementation
(DI) program of location and type of well (See 40 CFR 144.83 and 144.84).
o Construction and operation of Class V wells will be authorized by rule unless a permit
is determined to be necessary to protect USDWs or is required for specific categories.
o State or EPA may permit or close Class V wells deemed to threaten the ground water if
injection will result in violating a primary drinking water Maximum Contaminant
Level (MCL) (as defined by 40 CFR 141) or will result in a threat to human health.
The quality of fluids at the point of injection is used to assess whether endangerment is
a potential problem.
o No new large-capacity cesspools or motor vehicle waste disposal wells are allowed as
of April 5, 2000 and existing large-capacity cesspools and motor vehicle waste disposal
wells must be closed by April 5, 2005 (Operators of motor vehicle waste disposal wells
may apply for a waiver from the ban and obtain a permit).
Failure to comply with any of the monitoring and reporting UIC requirements
constitutes a violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and is grounds for
enforcement action. Under the SDWA, operators are liable for administratively assessed
penalties of up to $137,500.00, or judicially imposed penalties of up to $25,000.00/day of
violation, with no penalty cap.
Reports and requests for information should be directed to the appropriate State or EPA
contacts.
U.S. EPA UIC
Page 74 of 81 Program Overview
-------
APPENDIX F
Typical Issues and Questions That Permit Applications Must Address
1. GEOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS.
What is the stratigraphy?
What are the potential injection formation characteristics, such as water quality, initial
pressure, permeability, porosity, thickness, areal extent, etc?
What are the geologic and hydrologic characteristics of the confining zone (lithology,
permeability, porosity, etc)?
What is the potential for fluid movement out of the injection zone?
Are there other wells penetrating the injection zone within the area of review?
What is the potential for fracturing injection or confining formations?
Are there major faults or shear zones in the area which may be influenced by pressure
changes in the reservoir? Will the faults be transmissive or sealing faults?
What are the corrosive characteristics of the formation fluids?
What is the formation water quality of all water bearing zones above and immediately
below the injection zone?
What are the current uses of all USDWs?
What are the potential uses of all USDWs?
Are native reservoir fluids and reservoir rock compatible with proposed injected fluids?
2. STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF AN INJECTION WELL.
What forces (burst, collapse, and tension) will the injection well be subjected to?
What casing size and characteristics (weight, composition, surface coating, and
strength) are needed?
What type and placement of cement is needed to assure isolation of the injection zone
and USDWs?
What hole deviation is acceptable?
U.S. EPAUIC
Page 75 of 81 Program Overview
-------
What type of tubing and packer (size, composition, burst strength, and coating) will be
needed.
What special design considerations are needed to assure that the injection well works as
expected?32
EPA or primacy agency performs its review to assure that environmental considerations are
properly addressed.
3. OPERATIONAL CONSIDERATIONS
Is the injected fluid consistent with well design and authorization?
Does the injection well have mechanical integrity?
Are injection fluid volumes within established limits?
Can the injection well cause contamination through nearby wells?
Is the plugging and abandonment plan complete?
Has the operator made a satisfactory demonstration of financial responsibility?
Will injection pressures initiate new fractures and/or propagate existing fractures
thereby providing potential pathways for fluid migration?
Will injection pressures be limited so as to prevent contamination of USDWs?
4. MONITORING CONSIDERATIONS
QUALITY OF INJECTED FLUIDS
o Monitor often enough to indicate change in quality.
o Waste stream must be analyzed to adequately define its nature.
FLUID QUANTITY
o Injection pressure, volume, rate, and annulus pressure must be monitored
32 The operator will usually design the injection well to assure that these considerations
are resolved relative to the expected use of the injection well.
U.S. EPAUIC
Page 76 of 81 Program Overview
-------
continuously for Class I wells.
o Injection pressure, cumulative volume and rate must be monitored at least
weekly for Class II disposal wells and monthly for Class II enhanced recovery
wells.
RESERVOIR CONDITIONS
o Class I wells must perform a yearly reservoir pressure falloff test to determine
if abnormal buildup is occurring.
o Operation of a Class I well must be limited so pressures do not exceed that
which would initiate fractures in the injection zone.
U.S. EPAUIC
Page 77 of 81 Program Overview
-------
APPENDIX G
CLASS V INJECTION WELL TYPES
IDENTIFIED IN THE 1987 REPORT TO CONGRESS
WELL
CODE NAME OF WELL TYPE AND DESCRIPTION
DRAINAGE WELLS (a.k.a. DRY WELLS)
5F1 Agricultural Drainage Wells - receive irrigation tailwaters, other field drainage, animal
yard, feedlot, or dairy runoff, etc.
5D2 Storm Water Drainage Wells - receive storm water runoff from paved areas, including
parking lots, streets, residential subdivisions, building roofs, highways, etc.
5D3 Improved Sinkholes - receive storm water runoff from developments located in karst
topographic areas.
5D4 Industrial Drainage Wells - wells located in industrial areas which primarily receive
storm water runoff but are susceptible to spills, leaks, or other chemical discharges.
5G30 Special Drainage Wells - used for disposing water from sources other than direct
precipitation. Four types were reported: landslide control drainage wells (Montana),
potable water tank overflow drainage wells (Idaho), swimming pool drainage wells
(Florida), and lake level control drainage wells (Florida).
WELL
CODE GEOTHERMAL REINJECTION WELLS
5A5 Electric Power Reinjection Wells - reinject geothermal fluids used to generate electric
power - deep wells.
5A6 Direct Heat Reinjection Wells - reinject geothermal fluids used to provide heat for
large buildings or developments - deep wells.
5A7 Heat Pump/Air Conditioning Return Flow Wells - reinject groundwater used to heat or
cool a building in a heat pump system - shallow wells.
5A8 Groundwater Aquaculture Return Flow Wells - reinject groundwater or geothermal
fluids used to support aquaculture. Non-geothermal aquaculture disposal wells are also
included in this category (e.g. Marine aquariums in Hawaii use relatively cool sea
water).
U.S. EPAUIC
Page 78 of 81 Program Overview
-------
WELL
CODE
5W9
5W10
5W11
5W31
5W32
5W12
WELL
CODE
5X13
5X14
DOMESTIC WASTEWATER DISPOSAL WELLS
Untreated Sewage Waste Disposal Wells - receive raw sewage wastes from pumping
trucks or other vehicles which collect such wastes from single or multiple sources. (No
treatment)
Cesspools33 - including multiple dwelling, community or regional cesspools, or other
devices that receive wastes and which must have an open bottom and sometimes have
perforated sides. Must serve greater than 20 persons per day if receiving solely
sanitary wastes. (Settling of solids)
Septic Systems (Undifferentiated disposal method) - used to inject the waste or effluent
from a multiple dwelling, business establishment, community, or regional business
establishment septic tank. Must serve greater than 20 persons per day if receiving
solely sanitary wastes. (Primary Treatment)
Septic Systems (Well Disposal Method) - examples of wells include actual wells,
seepage pits, cavitettes, etc. The largest surface dimension is less than or equal to the
depth dimension. Must serve greater than 20 persons per day if receiving solely
sanitary wastes. (Less treatment per square area than 5W32)
Septic Systems (Drainfield Disposal Method) - examples of drainfields include drain or
tile lines, and trenches. Must serve more than 20 persons per day if receiving solely
sanitary wastes. (More treatment per square area than 5W31)
Domestic Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent Disposal Wells - dispose of treated
sewage or domestic effluent from small package plants up to large municipal treatment
plants. (Secondary or further treatment)
MINERAL AND FOSSIL FUEL RECOVERY RELATED WELLS
Mining, Sand, or Other Backfill Wells - used to inject a mixture of water and sand, mill
tailings, and other solids into mined out portions of subsurface mines whether what is
injected is a radioactive waste or not. Also includes special wells used to control mine
fires and acid mine drainage wells.
Solution Mining Wells - used for in situ solution mining in conventional mines, such
as slopes leaching.
33 This well name has been modified by Class V rule making, 64FR68546, December 7,
1999 [See 40 CFR 144.81 (2)].
Page 79 of 81
U.S. EPAUIC
Program Overview
-------
5X15 In situ Fossil Fuel Recovery Wells - used for in situ recovery of coal, lignite, oil shale,
and tar sands.
5X16 Spent-Brine Return Flow Wells - used to reinject spent brine into the same formation
from which it was withdrawn after extraction of halogens or their salts.
WELL
CODE OIL FIELD PRODUCTION WASTE DISPOSAL WELLS
5X17 Air Scrubber Waste Disposal Wells - inject waste from air scrubbers used to remove
sulfur from crude oil which is burned in steam generation for thermal oil recovery
projects. (If injection is used directly for enhanced recovery and not just disposal it is a
Class II well.)
5X18 Water Softener Regeneration Brine Disposal Wells - inject regeneration waste from
water softeners which are used to improve the quality of brines used for enhanced
recovery. (If injection is used directly for enhanced recovery and not just disposal it is
a Class II well.)
WELL
CODE INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL/UTILITY DISPOSAL WELLS
5A19 Cooling Water Return Flow Wells - used to inject water which was used in a cooling
process, both open and closed loop processes.
5W20 Industrial Process Water and Waste Disposal Wells - used to dispose of a wide variety
of wastes and wastewater from industrial, commercial, or utility processes. Industries
include refineries, chemical plants, smelters, pharmaceutical plants, Laundromats and
dry cleaners, tanneries, carwashes, laboratories, etc. Industry and Waste stream must
be specified (e.g. Petroleum Storage Facility - storage tank condensation waste;
Electric Power Generation Plant - mixed waste stream of laboratory drainage, fireside
water, and boiler blowdown; Car Wash - Mixed waste stream of detergent, oil and
grease, and paved area wash down; Electroplating Industry - spent solvent wastes; etc.)
5X28 Automobile Service Station Disposal Wells - repair bay drains connected to a disposal
well. Suspected of disposal of dangerous or toxic wastes34.
34 The name of this category has been modified to motor vehicle waste disposal well by
rulemaking, 64FR68546, December 7, 1999 (See 144.81 (16).
U.S. EPAUIC
Page 80 of 81 Program Overview
-------
WELL
CODE RECHARGE WELLS
5R21 Aquifer Recharge Wells - used to recharge depleted aquifers and may inject fluids from
a variety of sources such as lakes, streams, domestic wastewater treatment plants,
other aquifers, etc.
5B22 Saline Water Intrusion Barrier Wells - used to inject water into fresh water aquifers to
prevent intrusion of salt water into fresh water aquifers.
5S23 Subsidence Control Wells - used to inject fluids into a non-oil or gas producing zone to
reduce or eliminate subsidence associated with overdraft of fresh water and not used
for the purpose of oil or natural gas production.
WELL
CODE MISCELLANEOUS WELLS
5N24 Radioactive Waste Disposal Wells - all radioactive waste disposal wells other than
Class IV wells35.
5X25 Experimental Technology Wells - wells used in experimental or unproven technologies
such as pilot scale in situ solution mining wells in previously unmined areas.
5X26 Aquifer Remediation Related Wells - wells used to prevent, control, or remediate
aquifer pollution, including but not limited to Superfund sites.
5X29 Abandoned Drinking Water Wells - used for disposal of waste.
5X27 Other Wells - any other unspecified Class V wells. Well type/purpose and injected
fluids must be specified.
35 Radioactive disposal wells injecting below the lowermost USDW are no longer Class
V wells. These wells have been moved to the Class I category (64FR68546, December 7,
1999).
U.S. EPAUIC
Page 81 of 81 Program Overview
------- |