l«
570979502
A GUIDE TO THE
UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM
(C-2)
Office of Drinking Water
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington/ D.C.
June 1979
EP 570/9
79-502
U. S.
EOISOH,
-------
[Inside Front Cover]
ABOUT THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS
This Guide discusses the significant
features of EPA's revised proposals for the
Underground Injection Control program under
the Safe Drinking Water Act. The proposed
technical criteria and standards were
published on April 20, 1979, in the Federal
Register (44 FR 23738) to be codified as Part
146 of Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations.
Other pertinent requirements have been
proposed as part of the Consolidated Permit
Regulations intended as revisions to 40 CFR
Parts 122, 123 and 124.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. THE UIC PROGRAM IN PERSPECTIVE
II. MAJOR CONCEPTS AND REQUIREMENTS
OF THE UIC PROGRAM
III. PERMITS AND RULES - TOOLS FOR 25
REGULATION
IV. PARTICIPATION IN THE STATE 30
UIC PROGRAM
V. ABOUT PUBLIC COMMENTS AND 33
PARTICIPATION IN HEARINGS
-------
I. THE UIC PROGRAM IN PERSPECTIVE
The Concern for Ground Water
Most areas of the United States are
underlain by geological formations or strata
that are capable of yielding usable quantities
of water. Such geological formations are
called aquifers.
People have long relied on aquifers as the
source of high-quality water. Today, about
half of the American population uses ground
water for its domestic needs.
In the drier areas of the country,
aquifers are often the only source of water
available. National reliance on ground water
is expected to increase as the consumption and
usage of water increase in the future.
Ground water is also a vital link in the
water cycle. Aquifers are replenished by
rainfall or other surface water percolating
through the soil. In turn, ground water
supplies the base flow of many streams and
feeds lakes through underground springs.
Recent years have seen a growing concern
for the quality of ground water. Pollutants
in surface waters or substances deposited on
the soil (e.g., pesticides and fertilizers)
may be carried into aquifers in the
replenishment process. The land disposal of
wastes (e.g., into land fills, surface
impoundments and injection wells) can also
cause contaminants to enter ground water.
Injection wells are a major problem in
this regard. It is estimated that perhaps as
many as 500,000 injection wells are in
operation nationwide. These wells involve a
broad variety of practices from beneficial
purposes (e.g., aquifer recharge) to the '*
-------
production of oil, gas and minerals, to the
disposal of toxic and hazardous wastes.
The contamination of ground water is a
matter of grave concern. Ground water is
usually assumed to be of high quality and is
often used with little or no treatment.
Contamination is usually discovered when the
consumer is taken ill and, in many cases, the
only practical solution is to search for
another source. Because of the slow movement
of ground water, it may be decades or even
centuries before the aquifer is once more
usable. In some cases, the contamination can
never be reversed and the resource may be lost
forever. Finally, the effort to clean up the
nation's surface waters is hampered if the
base flow of streams is already contaminated.
Congress Acts
Congress recognized these potential
threats to ground water when, in the Safe
Drinking Water Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-523), it
instructed the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to establish a national program to
prevent underground injections which endanger
drinking water sources. More specifically,
the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) requires
EPA to:
Publish minimum national requirements
for effective State Underground
Injection Control (UIC) programs.
List States that need UIC programs.
Make grants to States for developing
and implementing UIC programs.
Review proposed State programs and
approve or disapprove them.
Promulgate and enforce UIC programs in
-------
listed States if/the State chooses not
to participate or does not develop and
operate an approvable program.
Several points are worth noting about the
statutory mandate. First, the SDWA was
intended to head off what Congress perceived
as an emerging problem. The committee report
accompanying the Act (H. Kept. 93-1185, p. 32)
makes clear that no burden is laid on EPA or
the State to prove actual contamination before
establishing regulations or enforcing them.
Second, UIC is clearly to remain a State
program. States are expected to assume
primary responsibility for fashioning and
operating effective programs in their States.
Federal facilities are subject to applicable
State programs. EPA is required to step in
only if a State chooses not to participate in
the program or fails to administer its program
effectively. EPA also has direct
responsibility on Indian lands. Third,
Congress enjoined EPA to observe three
provisos in establishing regulations. The
regulations:
Are not to interfere with or impede
oil and gas production unless
necessary to protect underground
sources of drinking water.
Are not to disrupt effective existing
State programs unnecessarily.
Are to take local variations in
geology, hydrology and history into
account.
Background of the Reproposed Regulations
EPA proposed a set of UIC regulations for
public comment on August 31, 1976 (41 Federal
Register 36730). Almost 500 comments were
received from the public and other interested
-------
parties. In response to the many helpful
suggestions, EPA undertook an extensive effort
to acquire additional information on the
practice and economics of well injection.
During this period, Congress amended the
Act (P.L. 95-190, November 16, 1977) and added
several new requirements. Moreover, EPA
decided to consolidate the procedural
requirements for several of its major permit
programs, including the UIC program; the
Hazardous Waste Management (HWM) program under
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA); and the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) or Dredge and Fill
program under the Clean Water Act (CWA).
Thus, public comments, further study,
amended legislation and internal management
improvements are the principal foundations of
the revised UIC program proposals.
II. MAJOR CONCEPTS OF THE UNDERGROUND
INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM
Congress intended the UIC program to
protect not only the ground water which
already serves as a source of drinking water
but also the ground water that could
potentially serve as a source of drinking
water in the future. The regulations propose,
therefore, that all aquifers or portions of
aquifers (See Figure 1 for a definition of the
more important technical terms) currently
serving as drinking water sources be
designated for protection. Furthermore, any
other aquifer or portion of it which is
capable of yielding water containing 10,000 or
fewer milligrams per liter of total dissolved
solids should also be designated. However,
not all underground water sources are suitable
for providing drinking water. Some aquifers
are used for producing minerals, oil and gas,
or geothermal energy. Others are so *
-------
contaminated or located in such a manner that
recovery of water for drinking purposes is
neither economically practical nor
technologically feasible. Such sources need
not be designated unless they already serve as
sources of drinking water.
FIGURE l
Significant Terms Used in the
UIC Program Regulations
Aquifer - any geologic formation which is
capable of yielding usable quantities of
ground water.
Well injection - the emplacement of
fluids into the ground (except drilling muds
and similar materials used in well
construction) through a bored, drilled,
driven or dug well.
Fluids - materials or substances which
flow or move, whether semi-solid, liquid,
sludge, or any other form or state.
Mechanical integrity - a general standard
for injection wells which signifies that
there is no: (1) significant leakage in the
well's casing, tubing or packer; and (2)
significant movement of fluids between the
outermost casing and the well bore.
Migration of fluids - the movement of
fluids^ from the well or the injection zone
into underground sources of drinking water.
Area of review - the area on the surface
surrounding an injection well within which
all wells that penetrate the injection zone
must be reviewed and, if necessary, repaired.
It may be defined in terms of a fixed radius
of not less than 1/4 mile from the injection
well. Alternatively, the area of review may
be computed by the use of a mathematical
formula which predicts the lateral distance
over which the incremental pressure generated
by the injection may cause the upward
migration of fluids from the injection zone
through faults, improperly abandoned wells,
or improperly completed producing wells.
-------
Potential Pathways of Contamination
The basic concept of the proposed UIC
program is to prevent the contamination of
underground sources of drinking water by
keeping injected fluids within the well and in
the intended injection zone. There are five
major ways in which injection practices can
cause fluids to migrate into underground
drinking water sources. The following
discussion describes each pathway and
summarizes the technical requirements proposed
in the regulations to prevent migration
through that pathway.
-------
Pathway - Faulty Well Construction
Leaks through the well casing or fluid
forced back up between the well's outer casing
and the well bore, as illustrated in Figure 2.
Preventive Requirement^
The regulations require adequate casing to
protect drinking water sources, and cementing
to isolate the injection zone. The absence of
significant leaks and fluid movement in the
well bore must be demonstrated initially and
every five years thereafter.
FIGURE 2
OUTER CASING
WELL BORE
~^V\J
INJECTION ZONE
FAULTY WELL CONSTRUCTION
-------
Pathway - Nearby Wells
Fluids from the pressurized, area in the
injection zone may be forced upward through
nearby wells that penetrate the zone of
endangering influence, as illustrated in
Figure 3.
Preventive Requirement
Wells that penetrate the injection zone in
the zone of endangering influence must be
reviewed to assure that they are properly
completed or plugged. Corrective action must
be taken if they are not completed or plugged
to prevent fluid migration. Newly abandoned
wells must be plugged to conform with EPA or
State procedures.
FIGURE 3
INJECTION
WELL
NEARBY WELLS
t" ^~
\
r"^x
\\\x
i'
i
/
^ ,
LAND SURFACE
UNDERGROUND SOURCE
OF DRINKING WATER
-^ ^^PRESSURE
*^^ -^f CURVE
W CONFINING STRATA
IM icf^TinM yrL*ic ^
INJECTION ZONE
—7?r^
NEARBY WELLS
X.%r
////
-------
Pathway - Faulty or Fractured
Confining Strata
Fluids may be forced upward out of the
pressurized area through faults or fractures
in the confining beds, as illustrated in
Figure 4.
Preventive Requirements
Wells must generally be sited so that they
inject below a confining bed that is free of
known open faults or fractures.' Injection
pressure must be controlled so that fractures
are not propagated, in the injection zone or
initiated in the confining bed.
FIGURE 4
\ \\\
LAND SURFACE
UNDERGROUND SOURCE\\\\
OF DRINKING WATER . N \ \
\N\
CONFINING STRATA
MIL
INJECTION ZONE
-7777777
FAULTY OR FRACTURED CONFINING STRATA
-------
Pathway - Direct Injection
Wells may be designed to inject into or
above underground sources of drinking water,
as illustrated in Figure 5.
Preventive Requirement
Wells injecting hazardous materials into
or above underground sources of drinking water
would be illegal: new ones would be
prohibited, and old ones are to be phased out
in three years. Wells that inject
non-hazardous materials will be regulated in
the future based on recommendations to be
formulated by the States.
FIGURE 5
LAND SURFACE
;\\
UNDERGROUND SOURCE
OF DRINKING WATER
DIRECT INJECTION
10
-------
Pathway - Lateral Displacement
Fluid may be displaced from the injection
zone into hydraulically connected underground
sources of drinking water, as illustrated in
Figure 6.
Preventive Requirement
The proximity of injection wells to
underground sources of drinking water will be
considered in future siting of such wells.
Well operators will be required to control
injection pressure and conduct other
monitoring activities to prevent the lateral
migration of fluids illustrated in Figure 6.
FIGURES
LAND SURFACE
UNDERGROUND SOURCE OF DRINKING WATER
INTERFACE
LATERAL DISPLACEMENT
11
-------
Requirements for Injection Well Classes
To implement its proposed technological
controls, EPA categorized well injection
activities into five classes defined in Figure
7. Each class includes wells with similar
functions and construction and operating
features so that technical requirements can be
applied consistently to the class. A brief
summary of the general underground injection
controls proposed for each class are
highlighted in Figure 8.
FIGURE 7
FIVE CLASSES OF INJECTION WELLS
Class I wells are those used to inject
industrial, nuclear, and municipal
wastes beneath the deepest stratum
containing an underground drinking
water source.
Class II wells are used to dispose of
fluids which are brought to the
surface in connection with oil and gas
production, to inject fluids for the
enhanced recovery of oil or gas, or to
store hydrocarbons.
Class III wells are those used to
injectFluids for the solution mining
of minerals, for in situ gasification
of oil shale and coal, and to recover
geothermal energy.
Class IV wells are those used by
generators of hazardous wastes or by
owners and operators of hazardous
waste management facilities to inject
into or above strata that contain
underground drinking water sources.
Class V wells include all wells not
incorporated in Classes I-IV. Typical
examples of such wells are recharge
wells and air conditioning return flow
wells.
12
-------
FIGURE 8
TYPE OF CONTROLS APPLICABLE TO INJECTION WELL CLASSES
TYPE OF CONTROL
AREA OF REVIEW
* MECHANICAL INTEGRITY
REQUIREMENTS
CONSTRUCTION
REQUIREMENTS
MONITORING
REPORTING
FORM OF REGULATION
CLASS I
Yes
Yes -
Strict
Contin-
uous
Quarterly
By
Permit
CLASS II
New Hells
Yes
Flexible
Periodic
Annual
By Rule or
Permit
CLASS III
Yes
Yes
Moderate
Contin-
uous
Quarterly
By
Permit
CLASS IV
N/A
N/A
Banned
Varied
Quarterly
By
Rule
CLASS V
NO
No
To be
Defined
To be
Defined
N/A
By
Rule
Requirements for Class I
Class I wells are likely to inject
potentially dangerous fluids, and will,
therefore, have to meet strict construction
and operating requirements.
Class I wells must inject into strata that
are below the deepest underground source of
drinking water and must have an adequate
confining layer above the injection zone. All
Class I wells must be cased and cemented to
prevent fluid migration and must inject
through tubing with a suitable packer set
immediately above the injection zone (or an
equivalent alternative).
Technical integrity must be demonstrated
initially and every five years thereafter, and
corrective action must be taken on improperly
plugged or completed wells within the area of
review.
13
-------
Class I well operators are required to
monitor continuously and measure volumes, as
well as annular pressures. Class I operators
must also test the composition of injected
fluids periodically and provide the permitting
authority with quarterly operating reports.
Requirements for Class II
Requirements for Class II wells (those
injection wells associated with oil and gas
production) have been fashioned in light of
the congressional injunction that the UIC
regulations are not to interfere with or
impede oil and gas production unless necessary
to protect underground drinking water sources.
These proposed regulations attempt to
balance measures necessary for the protection
of the environment against burdens imposed on
the regulated community.
Class II injection wells are to have
casing and cementing adequate to protect
underground sources of drinking water.
However, wells in existing injection fields
need only meet the standards historically
applicable to that field. All Class II wells
will also have to demonstrate mechanical
integrity initially and every five years
thereafter. However, only the applicants for
new Class II permits must review nearby wells
in the area of review and take corrective
action on those improperly completed or
plugged.
Operators of Class II wells are subject to
limitations on the pressure and rate of
injection. They must also monitor the
injection pressure and volume, and the quality
of the injection fluids at intervals depending
on the type of operation. Annual reports to
the control authority would be required.
14
-------
Class II wells would also be subject to a
special requirement. After the first full
year of program operation, the requirements
for Class II, especially those for area of
review and mechanical integrity, will be
reviewed to assess their appropriateness.
Requirements for Class III
Construction, monitoring, and reporting
requirements for these wells will resemble
those for Class I wells. Class III wells must
be cased and cemented to prevent fluid
migration. All Class III wells must comply
with area of review requirements and
demonstrate mechanical integrity. Class III
wells will have the same monitoring
requirements as Class I wells, except that
more frequent monitoring will be required of
drinking water supply wells adjacent to the
injection sites. The Agency has considered
easing requirements for some Class III wells
(e.g., Frasch process wells). The Preamble to
proposed Part 146 discusses these in detail.
Requirements for Class IV
Existing Class IV wells used by generators
of hazardous waste and operators of hazardous
waste management facilities will be closed as
soon as possible, but in no event later than
three years from the effective date of the
program. No new Class IV wells will be
authorized or pemitted. EPA considers these
wells to be a significant danger to
underground drinking water sources.
Operators of Class IV wells will be
required to monitor injected fluid
characteristics and volumes, as required for
hazardous wastes under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act. Weekly
monitoring of the impact of injections on
drinking water supply wells will also be »
15
-------
necessary. Class IV well operators must
submit quarterly reports of operating results
and immediate reports of changes in the
characteristics of water supply wells in the
vicinity of Class IV wells.
Requirements for Class V
At present EPA has too little information
on the extent, operation, and impact of Class
V wells to propose a suitable regulatory
approach. The proposed regulation, therefore,
would require States to conduct an assessment
of such wells and submit recommendations to
EPA within two years. Specific regulatory
requirements will be fashioned after the
completion of the assessments.
In the meanwhile, States are required to
take immediate action on any Class V well that
poses a significant risk to human health.
The Cost Impact on Industry and Government
Over the first five years of the program,
total costs of compliance are expected to be
$808 million. Of this, $772.5 million will
fall on well owners/operators, and $35.3 on
States. On the average, there costs will be
$154.5 million for well owners/operators and
$7 million for States each year in the first
five years.
Some costs (e.g., repair of a leaky well)
will only have to be incurred once. There
non-recurring costs total $677.5 million or
$135.5 million annually. Other activities
will have to be performed repeatedly (e.g.,
monitoring and reporting). Recurring costs
total $130.3 million or $26 million annually.
It is important to note that the cost
estimates are largely driven by the size of
the environmental problem, i.e., the numb&r of
16
-------
faulty wells. These costs estimate that about
$601 million or $120 million annually will
have to be spent to take corrective action on .
an estimated 21,000 wells. If the number of
faulty wells turns out to be higher or lower,
the costs will vary as well.
Only $207 million over five years or $41
million annually represent "fixed"costs —
the costs of permitting, monitoring, reporting
and enforcing.
FIGURE 9
SUMMARY OF FIVE-YEAR INCREMENTAL COSTS OF UIC REGULATION*
(thousands of 1977 dollars)
Non-recurring Recurring Total
2,300 290 2 590
."its •«• 4 r
• ' 6'°°° 114,000 12l'"oo
Subt0tai 653,921 118,630 772,551
State
«—xV 2,950°09 ^i50 • *>«•
clas3V 7,200 .- J;!o°o0
Subtotal 23,576
TOTAL 677,497
1 Numbers show maximum of ranges for all but Class II wells.
2 Includes reporting costs for hydrocarbon storage wells.
17
-------
Ill. Permits and Rules - Tools for
Regulation
Under the Act, EPA has the discretion to
specify whether the minimum national
requirements are to be applied, through rules
or pemits. A rule is a law, ordinance or
regulation that sets forth the standards and
conditions under which an activity may be
conducted. A permit is a specific
authorization to an individual to carry on an
activity under the conditions and limitations
specified in the permit.
Each method of control is appropriate in
certain situations. Although the
requirements imposed are equally enforceable
under either method, permits are generally
considered to make possible a greater degree
of control. On the other hand, permits are
more resource and time intensive since they
require: (1) the individual to file an
application containing information about his
proposed activity; (2) the effective
participation of the public in the review
process; and (3) State or EPA personnel to
review, write and process each permit.
In the UIC program EPA proposes to
specify the use of permits, permanent rules
and temporary rules in different situations.
These are minimum requirements and States may
choose to adopt stricter standards.
Who Must Obtain a Permit
Owners/operators of Class I, Class II
(except existing enhanced recovery and
existing hydrocarbon storage), and Class III
wells must obtain a permit to inject. New
wells (those that begin to inject after the
effective date of a program in a State) must
be authorized by a permit before injection
may begin. For existing wells, the »
18
-------
permitting authority (State Director or EPA)
will develop a schedule not to exceed five
years, based on appropriate priorities, for
issuing or reissuing the permits. Until the
application of the owner/operator of an
existing well has been processed, the
injection may be authorized by a rule.
A permit may be sought either for an
individual well or for a group of wells in an
area. An area permit may be issued for a
group of wells if they are:
Under the control of a single
individual.
Within a single field, project or site
within a State.
Of the same type and construction.
Injecting into the same aquifer or
zone.
Under an area permit, additional wells that
meet the above criteria may be authorized
administratively by the permitting authority.
Who May Be Authorized By Rule
Class II existing enhanced recovery and
existing hydrocarbon storage wells, may be
authorized by rule for the remaining life of
the well. New Class IV wells are banned.
Existing ones may be authorized by rule until
they are closed but in no case for more than
three years after the effective date of the
program. Class V wells may be authorized by
rule until such a time as further regulations
issued by EPA become effective. All of these
rules must apply the requirements specified
for the appropriate well Class in the UIC
regulations.
19
-------
As mentioned above, owners/operators of
existing wells waiting to file their
applications and have them processed may be
authorized to inject by rule in the interim.
Such rules must incorporate the appropriate
monitoring, reporting and abandonment
requirements for each well class.
Finally, in the case of imminent and
substantial hazard to human health or the
environment, or if substantial and
irretrievable loss of oil and gas resources
will occur, injection not otherwise
authorized may be desirable. In such cases,
a temporary authorization to inject may be
granted administratively, subject to certain
1 imitations.
Basic Permit Requirements
UIC permits may be issued for the life of
the well. However, each permit must be
reviewed at least every five years for
possible modification or revocation. In
addition, if a facility holds multiple
permits under more than one EPA-administered
program, all permits must be reviewed
whenever any permit is changed, revoked or
reissued.
Each permit must be enforceable in the
jurisdiction in which it is issued. It must
specify construction, abandonment, operating,
monitoring and reporting requirements
appropriate to the well class (see Section II
above). In addition, permits must
incorporate appropriate compliance schedules
if any corrective action is to be taken by
the well owner/operator. Finally, permits
must recognize the right of the permitting
authority to have access to the well and the
related records to assure compliance with
permit terms.
20
-------
How To Obtain a Permit
Applications for new injection wells
should be filed in time to allow for the
review and issuance of the permit prior to
operation. Applications for existing wells
will be filed according to the schedule
established in each State, but in no case
later than four years after the effective
date of the program. Permit applications
must be signed by a policy level officer of
the company except in the case of Class II
wells where applications may be made by
individuals authorized by their companies in
writing to do so. Applications must contain
a statement that the signing official has
satisfied himself that the information
provided is correct.
The information that must be available to
the permitting authority is specified for
each well class in Part 146. Generally, such
information should include the surface and
subterranean features of the injection area,
the location of underground sources of
drinking water in the vicinity, the results
of tests in the proposed injection formation,
construction features of the well, and the
nature of the proposed injection operation.
To the extent that such information is
already available to the permitting authority
(e.g., in the case of a well already under a
State license), in an accessible and accurate
form, it need not be submitted again.
The review of a permit application begins
with the receipt of a complete application by
the permitting authority. The permitting
authority considers the application, gathers
such additional information as it needs, and
prepares a draft permit. The draft permit
must be presented for public comment for at
least 30 days with a fact sheet that provides
enough information that the public can make
21
-------
informed judgments about the proposed action.
If there is sufficient interest, a public
hearing should be held and announced at least
30 days in advance.
Public comments must be taken into
account in preparing the final permit, and
the permitting authority must prepare a
summary of the comments and its disposition
of them. A final permit is then prepared and
issued. Figure 10 presents a schematic
summary of the process.
Where EPA is the permitting authority,
certain other requirements must be met.
First, EPA must prepare an administrative
record that documents its decision making for
both the draft and final permit. Second, if
sufficient interest is expressed, EPA may,
after a public hearing, hold a further
hearing with an opportunity for cross
examination. Third, if sufficient new
information becomes available during the
public comment period, EPA may prepare a
revised draft permit and solicit further
public comment. Finally, a final EPA permit
does not become effective for 30 days after
it is issued. During that time, a permit may
be appealed. Appeals will be considered in
an established EPA process. Where the State
is the permitting authority, State law will
govern the appeal process.
It is estimated that a State could
process a straightforward permit in about 60
days. A controversial permit issued by EPA
could take well over a year.
22
-------
FIGURE .10
THE UIC PERMIT PROCESS
Action
Required:
Action by:
?
/
/
/
/
Revise
Draft,
Reopen
Comment
Period
JEPA Onl^
\
\
\
\
Prepare and Submit
Permit Application
Well Operator
V
Review and Analyze
Permit Application
State or EPA
V
Prepare Draft Permit
and Fact Sheet
State or EPA
V'
Give Pub! ic Notice of
Draft Permit,
Solicit Comments
State or EPA
V
Give Pub! ic Notice of
Hearings, Hold Hearings
State or EPA
I
Hold Cross-Exam Hearings
If Required
(EPA Process Only)
EPA
Review Publii
Hearing Tr
State or
: Comments,
anscripts
EPA
1
Prepare Final Permit,
Respond to Comments
State or EPA
\
' 1 ?—j
Issue Final Permit
State or
\
EPA
I
Prepare Final
Administrative Record
(EPA Process Only)
EPA
I
Appeal Decision
(EPA Process Only)
Interested Party
.
Rule on Appeal
(EPA Process Only)
EPA Administrator
tna
State
Process!
End
EPA
Process
23
-------
IV. State Participation in the UIC Program
UIC programs must be established in each
State listed by the Administrator as needing
a program. To date, 40 States have been
listed. It is expected that the remaining
States and jurisdictions will be listed by
May 1980.
The Safe Drinking Water Act clearly
intends the States to have the primary
responsibility for developing and
implementing UIC programs. In fashioning
these regulations, EPA has attempted to
minimize the disruption of existing effective
State programs and to encourage States to
assume primary responsibility (primacy).
States have the authority to regulate
well injection at Federal facilities.
Injection on Indian lands, however, remains a
Federal responsibility.
After these regulations become final or
after a State has been listed by the
Administrator, the State has 270 days to
develop a program and apply to EPA for
approval. This period may be extended by 270
days for good cause.
Elements of An Approvable State Program
To qualify for EPA approval, a State
program must, first of all, be based on State
law adequate to implement and enforce the
program. Furthermore, while a State program
may be stricter, it should at least
incorporate the minimum requirements
established in proposed 40 CFR 123
regulations for authorization of wells,
permit issuance processes, and requirements
for construction, abandonment, operation,
monitoring and reporting. State programs
must also contain enforcement mechanisms,*
24
-------
more specifically: (1) procedures for
inspection and surveillance of authorized
facilities; (2) authority to seek injunctive
relief and to assess civil and criminal
fines; and (3) authority to assess maximum
civil and criminal fines in amounts the same
as Federal maximums. Finally, States must
demonstrate the commitment of resources to
carry out the program.
A State need not develop a regulatory
program for a type of injection well that
does not exist in that State. However, it
must, in such cases, adopt a rule to regulate
that type of well to preclude the possibility
of unregulated injection should such wells
seek to opeate in the State in the future.
Content of the State Application
In general, the State must submit a
reasonably complete description of the scope,
structure, and procedures of its proposed
program. Formally, the submission should
contain the following five elements:
A letter from the Governor requesting
approval.
A statement from the State Attorney
General demonstrating that the State
has the necessary legal authorities.
A full description of the program
includ ing:
- the proposed organization,
staffing and financing for the
program;
- the designation of underground
sources of drinking water;
- initial inventories of wells »
25
-------
- plans and procedures for
regulating by permit or rule;
- a phased priority plan for
reissuing permits to existing
wells; and
- plans for implementing Class IV
and V requirements.
Copies of the relevant State
regulations, statutes, and program
forms.
A memorandum of agreement between the
State and EPA which details the
respective rights and responsibilities
(e.g., Federal oversight) in
implementing a State UIC program.
The Approval Process
The Act specifies that a State is to
submit its application to EPA after a public
hearing and comments. EPA is given 90 days
from the receipt of a complete application to
approve or disapprove the program.
These regulations propose to reserve the
approval of a State program for the
Administrator. Approval of subsequent
program modifications may be delegated to
Regional Administrators in the future. In
its review of a State application, EPA will
provide the opportunity for public hearing
and comment. The process is similar to the
one outlined for the review of permit
applications.
If EPA approves the State program, the
State has primary enforcement responsibility,
(primacy), and EPA's role will be to exercise
an appropriate level of oversight. *
26
-------
If a listed State fails to submit an
application, of if the application is
disapproved, or if the State subsequently
fails to enforce its program adequately, EPA
must promulgate the UIC program for that
State and assume primary enforcement
responsibility for enforcing it.
Under the Act, EPA may approve a State
program in part. At present, the Agency's
intention is to approve only a complete
program by type of well. In other words, EPA
would authorize a State to regulate, for
example, Frasch process wells. However, the
Agency does not intend to approve a State
program if it provides only for partial
regulation, i.e., if it provided for issuing
permits for Frasch process wells but left the
enforcement of the permits to EPA. A State
with partial approval would not have primacy
for the UIC program and would not be eligible
for UIC program grants.
To assist the States in developing and
implementing UIC programs, EPA is authorized
to make grants to States with primacy.
States working toward primacy are also
eligible for grants, but must obtain primacy
within two years of the first grant to remain
eligible. There are $6.0 million available
in FY 1979 and $7.6 million in FY 1980.
V. About Public Comments and Participation
in Hearings
To Make Comments
EPA welcomes public comments on the
proposed UIC program and the Part 146
regulations. Please forward them by August
20, 1979, to:
27
-------
Comment Clerk - UIC Program Regulations
Office of Drinking Water (WH-550)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
About Public Hearings
Interested parties may present their
views during the public hearings on these
regulations. EPA has scheduled joint
informal public hearings on 40 CFR 146 (the
technical standards and criteria for the UIC
program), 40 CFR Parts 122, 123 and 124 (the
consolidated permit regulations), and the
consolidated permit application form.
The public hearings will be held in
Dallas, Texas; Washington, D.C.; Chicago,
Illinois; and Seattle, Washington over a
three-day period in each location, starting
at 8:30 a.m.
Persons desiring to make oral statements
on the consolidated regulations during the
hearings should contact:
Ms. Judith Shaffer
Office of Water Enforcement (EN-336)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Persons desiring to make oral statements
on the proposed UIC program technical
criteria and standards (40 CFR Part 146)
should mail requests to:
Ms. Sharon Gascon
Office of Drinking Water (WH-550)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
28
-------
Schedule of Hearings
Date
(H79)
July 16
UIC Program
Regulations
July 17* Consolidated
and 18 Regulations
Location
Northpark Inn
9300 North Central Expressway
Dallas, Texas
July 23 UIC Program
Regulations
July 24* .. Consolidated
and 25 __- Regulations
July 26* UIC Program
Regulations
July 27 Consolidated
and 28 Regulations
July 30
UIC Program
Regulations
HEW Auditorium
330 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C.
Water Tower Hyatt
800 North Michigan Avenue
Chicago, Illinois
EPA - Region X
1200 6th Avenue
Seattle, Washington
July 31* Consolidated
and Regulations
August 1
* On these days, evening sessions will also be held on all
three topics.
29
-------
[INSIDE BACK COVER]
ABOUT THE GUIDE
This Guide is intended to familiarize the
public with the revised proposals for the
Underground Injection Control Program's
technical criteria and standards contained in
40 CFR Part 146, as well as proposed
procedural requirements for conducting UIC
Permit Programs (40 CFR Part 122), for
approving State UIC permit programs (40 CFR
Part 123), and for issuing UIC permits (40
CFR Part 124). It is one in a series of
pamphlets which describes various EPA permit
programs. The full series includes:
A Guide to New Regulations for NPDES (C-l)
A Guide to the Underground Injection
Control Program (C-2)
A Guide to the Proposed Consolidated
Permit Regulations (C-3)
A Guide for States on the Proposed
Consolidated Permit Regulations (C-4)
A Guide to the Hazardous Waste Management
Program (C-5)
A Guide to the Dredge or Fill Permit
Program (C-6)
A Guide to the Consolidated Application
Form (C-7)
TO OBTAIN COPIES OF THE REGULATIONS OR GUIDES
Write to:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Public Information Center (PM-215)
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460 »
------- |