5068
905R79013
3EFOPJ] THE
2
3
4
5 i
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
IN THE MATTE?. OF:
PUBLIC I-1EARING - ESPHOPOSED
UNDEHGROUND INJECTION CONTR03
FROGRAI1
x
VOLUME I
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
x
North Ballroom
North Park Inn
Dallas, Texas
Monday, July 16, 1979
Met, pursuant to Notice, at 9:00 a.m.
ALAN LEVIN, Chairman RECEIVED
Director, State Programs Division
Office of Drinking Water Auuio'1979
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
PNVIRUi«iiviL,
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
PANEL:
(Continued)
SAM MOKSXAS
Program 2-lanager, Hazardous Waste State Program
State Program Branch
State Programs & Resource Recovery Division
Office of Solid Waste
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
MASK GORDON
Attorney
Office of General Counsel
Environmental Protection Agency
Uashington, D.C. 204SO
MYRON KNUDSON
Director, Water Division
Environmental Protection Agency
Region VI
Dallas, Texas 75270
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-------
N D E X
3
4
5
wmsnrssiis:
DOl'TALD P. SCHNACEE
Executive Vice President
Kansas Independent Oil & Gas
Association
TESTIZIONY
36
6
7
8
A. U. DILLAPD, JR.
President
Permian Basin Petroleum
Association
42
9
10
11
12
13
DR. JAMES MILLER
Assistant Director of Environmental
Affairs
Freeport Minerals Company
testifying on behalf of:
American Mining Congress
Committee on Underground
Injection Control Regulations
55
14 FRANCIS C. WILSON, II
Chairman, Environment & Safety
15 Committee
Independent Petroleum
16 Association of Amorica-
66
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
EE2M&H A. ENGEL
President
East Texas Salt Water
Disposal Coir/cany
JAMES C. F2ANK
Environmental Consultant
DuPont
F.ICEASD L. STAMETS
Technical Support Chief
New Mexico Oil Conservation
Division
71
77
83
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I1TDEX
(Continued)
WITNESSES:
KEN E&NEY
Assistant Supervisor
Alabama Oil & Gas Board
STEVE KELLY
Executive Director
Oklahoma Independent Petroleum
Association
JOE*! E. SOULS
Chief Legal Counsel
Oil & Gas Division
Railroad Commission of Texas
HAROLD E. TTRIGET
Independent Petroleum Producer
Dallas, Texas
KALPE A. DUIiAS
Director
Arkansas Oil & Gas Commission
JERRY MULLICAiT
Chief, Solid Uaste & Underground
Injection Section
Texas Department of Water
Resources
TROY MARTI"
I-lanager of Engineering
Texas American Oil Corporation
BOB HILL
Vice-President
Texas In-Situ Uranium Mining
Environmental Association, Inc
TESTIMONY
93
105
112
113
122
129
135
144
-------
INDEX
(Continued)
2 | WITNESSESt
CLYDE FORD
Texas Gulf
TESTIMONY
153
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ARNOLD E. CEAUVIERE
Assistant Commissioner
Office of Conservation
State of Louisiana
DAVID L. DU3LEP.
Supervisor, Environmental Affairs
Taxas Uranium Operations
U.S. Steel Corporation
JO ANDERSON
Regional Manager
Environmental Affairs
Olen Corporation
162
173
187
-------
CEAIF;MAN: Good morning, Ladies and gentlemen,
my name is Alan Levin. I'm Director of the State Programs
Divisions Office of Drinking Mater, Environmental Protectioi
Agency, Washington, D.C. I will be serving as your Chairmai
for today's hearing.
The first individual I'd like to introduce this
morning is Ms. Fran Phillips, Assistant Administrator,
Region VI, here in Dallas of the Environmental Protection
Agency. I-ls. Phillips.
11 F?AN PHILLIPS: Good morning. Welcome to Dallas
As Alan said, my name is Fran Phillips, and I am the newly
13
appointed Assistant Administrator for EPA Region VI. I'd
like to welcome you to this public hearing on behalf of
15 I'ls. Adelene Harrison, the Regional Administrator, who is no
Ifi
able to be with us this morning.
I am very pleased that this, the first public
18
hearing on EPA's Proposed Underground Injection Control
Program,is being held in Region VI. I think it is appropri
20
ate that the hearings start here. As you may know, our 5
State Region consisting of Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico,
22 Oklahoma and Texas, contain r rrea - number of. the under-
ground injection wells which are covered by these proposed
24 regulations. I'le have estimated that more that 60,000 injec
ge
tion wells exists in Recrion VI. Included in this figure, a
-------
1 more than 1/2 of the nation's total of so-called Class One
2 injection wells. Our 5 States produce nearly 70 percent of
3 the nation's domestic oil, activities associated with this
4 production such as reinjection of brine, advance recovery
5 methods and the petrochemical industry, are major users of
6 injection wells. In addition, Region VI counts for 55 per-
7 cent of the solution mining of salt, nearly all fresh sulphur
8 mining wells, and 30 percent of active uranium leaching
9 op'erations. Each of these activities is closely associated
10 with the use of injection wells.
»
11 How, alsc, I would like to say that I am very
12 pleased that we are having the public hearing here today in
Dallas, the first public hearing that EPA has held since
14 President Carter's energy announcement and energy message
15 last night. He spoke of a crisis in confidence and our
inability to perceive reality. You know 1 think that's true.
\7e bicker and complain and point the finger. One week big
oil is the culprit, the next week big government, we never
19 put the blame on ourselves. I agree with the President that
20 part of the solution to this problem is the ability to accept,
21 not avoid, responsibility. According to President Carter, we
22 are now embarking on a massive program of energy conservation
23 and energy self-reliance. That is a reality. In this effort,
24 we will be balancing energy concerns with environmental
concerns. But we can't forget that environmental concerns
-------
8
1 indeed, environmental responsibility, is ' also a reality..
2 Is we receive public comments today, I'm going tc
3 ask the listeners in the audience, the comnentors and EPA's
Regulation Writers to accept both responsibilities as reali
It's really time to change our attitude now, and start
working together toward solutions to our problems if we are
going to avoid, this crisis in confidence. To this end, I
8 would like to pledge the support of our Regional Staff, Myr
9 Knudson, vTater Division Director-where are you Myron-and
10 Linda Tucker who is in charge of our Underground Injection
11 j Control Program for the Region,to assist you as we work
12 together. Thank you very much.
13 CEAir:iA?T:... _Thank you Fran. The next thing I'c
14 like to do is introduce our Panel. Am I coming through all
15 right? Can you all hear ir.e? Okay, good.
sy far right is Mr. Gam Morekas,—h^
17 Program Manager of the Hazardous Uaste State Program, Stat<
18 Program Branch, State Programs and. P.esouce Recovery Divisi<
19 Office of Solid r:7aste, EPA, Ivashington. Sitting tc Mr.
20 Morekas1 left, to ray right, Mr. Mark Gordon, he's an attor
21 with the Office of General Counsel, EPA in Washington. At
22 r.y far left, is Mr. David Schnapf, he's an attorney with t
23 Permits Division, Office of Enforcement, EPA in Washington
24 "itting next to Mr. Schnapf is Mr. Paul Baltay, he's the
25 Deputy Director, State Programs Division, Office of Drinki
-------
9
r
1 Hater, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington. To my
2 immediate left is :ir. Ilyron Xnudscn, las is the Director of
3 the Water Division, EFA Region VI here in Dallas. At another
4 table to my far right are a number of EPA Staff people, and
5 since I don't know their, all, I would like for their to please
6 stand and introduce themselves.
7 LINDA TUCKER: I'm Linda Tucker, Chief of the Water
8 Supply Branch, Region VI, Dallas EPA.
9 DWIGET HOSNIG: I'm Dwight Hoenig, I am a Geologist
10 here in Region VI, Water.Supply Branch.
11 ERLECE ALLEN: I'm Erlece Allen, Water Supply Branch,
12 here in Region VI.
13 CHARLES SEVER: I'm Charles Sever, Environmental
*4 Scientist, Special Assistant to Mr. Levin in Washington.
15 DAN DURILAS: Dan Durkas with the Hazardous Waste
1 fi
Program, Washington, D.C.
17 GIL STAUFFER: I'm Gil Stauffer, Hazardous Waste
18
Program, Washington.
CHAIRMAN: Ladies and gentlemen, this hearing
^® concerns Part 146, The Technical Criterion Standards, for the
2 Underground Injection Control Program called for by the
22 Safe Drinking Water Act. We are here to receive comments
23 on the reproposed regulations. we are not here to debate the
regulations but to listen to public comments.
25
Regulation setting that impacts peoples lives is a
-------
10
1
2
3
4
5
6 ;
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
very serious and complex matter, and as a result, we also
consider the public's comments very seriously. Some of yov
may recall that these regulations were initially proposed o
August 31, 1976. At that time, we received a voluminous
comments on the regulations. The public played a great par
in developing the package that is out on the street today.
As a result of the public's comments, perhaps some of the
comments of the people in this room, .EPA has undergone 3 ye
of study to try to refine and make these regulations more
responsive to the public's needs. We have hired 4 contract
who have worked diligently on these regulations. As a resr
of that effort, these regulations have been changed.signifd
cantly so that once again we are repropcsing them so the
public may have an opportunity, once again, to comment. Ir
addition/ these regulations do go hand in hand with the EP.:
effort to consolidate procedural regulations under a numbei
of its permit programs. Those hearings will be held tomor:
However, just so you can focus on today's hearinc
the regulations under Fart 146, the Underground Injection
Control Regulations, were reproposed on April 20, 1979. TI
Consolidated Permit Regulations were proposed on June 14, '.
Very briefly about the Consolidated Permit Regulations, Pa:
122 is the Programmatic Description and Requirements where
EPA as primary enforcement responsibility. Part 123, descj
what an acceptable State Program will be. The approval prc
-------
11
I*
and how EPA intends to oversight the State programs. Part
124, concerns permanent issuance process and public partici-
pation. Part 146, which is the part we will be discussing
4 today once again are the Technical Criterion Standard for
5 the Underground Injection Control Program under the State
Drinking Water Act.
Now, there are some over-lapse between Part 146
8 and Parts 122,3, and 4. That was intentional for the sake
9 of comprehensibility since the Underground Injection Control
Regulations were reproposed in advance of the Consolidated
Regulations. However, when the regulations are promulgated
12 and final, those requirements will be consolidated and there
13
will be a single set of regulations if things go well.
14 In order to insure adequate public participation
and that the public is informed about the regulations, there
16
rr.ay be one or two of you in the audience that may not have
17
read Part 146 yet. In that unlikely event, we want to make
18
sure that you do understand what is in these regulations.
1Q
i9 So, therefore, I have asked this morning Ilr. Paul Baltay,
on
*u the Deputy Director of the State Programs Division, Office
21 of Drinking Water, to give you about a 20 to 25 minutes brief-
22 ing before we bagin our formal hearings. !!r. I?alta^.
23 MH. PAUL BALTAY: Thank you. My job is to give
you a quick over-view of what is contained in the UIC program
2*5
as it is currently proposed as cf April 20.
-------
12
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 i
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
As Alan said for those of you who have taken the
trouble to be thoroughly familar with these regulations,
I ask your forbearance, I will try not to be that long or
boring.
The legislative mandate for the Underground In-
jection Control Program is contained in the Safe Drinking
Uater Act of 1974. Host of you also probably know that that
Act was amended in 1977, and at that time Congress essential
reaffirmed the mandate that gave us the basic Act. tthat
the law basically requires is that EPA promulgate minimal
national requirements and that such requirements do a number
of things. First of all, the requirements that EPA is to
promulgate are to insure State Programs which will prohibit
the subsurface impiacement of fluids through wells unless th
are authorized, no unauthorized wells. Beyond that basic
mission, there were a number of special things the law re-
quired the national minimum requirements to do. First of
all, such requirements that EPA set were to try to avoid.
disrupting existing affective State Programs. Such minimal
requirements were to take geologic, hydrolcgic and historica
variations into account. Finally, such national minimum
requirements were to avoid interfering with or impeding with
all the gas production unless necessary to protect undergrou
sources of drinking water.
Under the legislative mandate EPA was also to list
-------
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
13
i-
states, which in the judgment of the Acf.ir.inistra.tcr , required „
UIC program. That judgment was not to term on the question r. :
a report card or whether we thought the states were doing a
good job or a bad job. That question of needing a program
terns on a question of the degree of dependence on underground
sources of drinking water, and on a variety of factors which
I
atteir.pt to measure in a surrogate form the degree of threat
or potential threat to that resource.
As of the 19th of June, EP-~i has now listed 40 states
in jurisdiction as requiring a UIC Program. Cur current inten-
tion is to list the remaining jurisdictions by May of next year
The major reason why we 'have accelerated the schedule of list-
ing the states, during the course of writing the Consolidated
Regulations, it became clear to us that the Hazardous bl
Management Program which potentially, at least, controls some
of the same practices was going to cone on line much more rapid
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
then our original intentions phasing in the UiC Program. This
raised the possibility of allowing in some states, at least, a
possibility where hazardous waste disposal would be forbidden
under the terms of nc?.% but that underground injection would
not be controlled and you would, in fact, create a loophole or
even a positive incentive for people to dispose of underground.
To avoid that possibility, we have now tried to match up the
time in which these two controls would come in ur.parallel.
Cues a state has listed, according to the legislation,
-------
14
i-
I the state has 270 days to develop a program with which it ta
2 the primacy for implementing thesa regulations. That 270 da
3 may be extended for another 270 days. The law also stipulat
4 that SPA may approve a. program, in whole or in part. 3y whic
5 is meant that either all tha types of wells controlled by th
I
6 i regulations would be controlled by the state, and it will ta
7 I primary responsibility in implementing those ccltrcls; or th
8 stata could choose to take responsibility for control of
9 certain types of wells, EFA would promulgate a type of progr
10 to control the wells that the state did not control. If a
11 state chooses not to participate in the program, of if its
12 application is not approved, then under the law EPA must
13 promulgate a UIC program for the listed state. There is als
14 a grant program provided for in the law to support the state
15 implementation of primary enforcement responsibility.
16 Taking this legislative mandate, SPA developed 2. se
17 of regulations proposed on April 20th, where the fundamental
18 concept was one of containment, basically to try to permit
19 injection but to try to assure that the injected fluids stay
20 where they are suppose to stay. There are several terms in
21 here which might be worth mentioning. One of these is that
22 a test of containment, the regulations now offer the term,
23 the migration of fluids into underground sources of drinking
24 water. This is a change from the earlier proposal and corane
25 is recuested in the oreamble on that concent on the test of
-------
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
do ou tell whether endangerment of a drinking water source
occurred.
rhe regulations also propose a definition of under-
ground, source of drinking water and again, comment has been
requested in the preamble on that definition.
Fundamentally, what we've said as a general rule,
anything which, is currently in use as a source of drinking
water, or anything which is capable of yielding water with
fewer then 10,000 parts par million of total dissolved, solids
should, also be designated as a protective underground source
of drinking water. However, if the aquifer is not in use,
and if it meets one of three conditions, it is oil or mineral
or gee-thermal energy producing, it is located in such a fashio
that it is' impractical or dis-economic to use that water, or
if it is already contaminated in some other fashion that aquife
need not be designated as an underground source of drinking
water. Comment is again requested, on that proposed, definition
in the regulations.
That concept of containment that I speak of is to be
achieved in the regulations through the application of techno-
logical requirements, basically good engineering practices
applied by class of weld, to the siding construction operation
and abandonment of these practices.
There is a provision in the proposed, regulations which
say that, if migration of fluid still occurs even after all of
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
these requirements have been applied, the director, the
reponsible official for the program, may apply additional
requirements including the closing of the well if migration
is still occurring.
Let ne quickly turn to the basic program requirement
what are sone of these things that we are talking about? '7e
looked at a number of possible ways of contamination and trie
to fashion various kinds of restrictions or controls to meet
the various pathways of contamination. First of all, one
way in which these fluids can escape into the environment is
through faulty well construction itself. To meet this pathw;
we have proposed a concept of mechanical integrity which
basically says that tha well has to be sound in construction
and there cannot be significant migration in between the out<
casing and the well bore. Comments have again been requeste<
in the preamble on this specific approach, the test that we
suggest in demonstrating mechanical integrity as the over-al
concept.
Another pathway of contamination is nearby wells.
Once the pressure, the incremental pressure in the injection
zone is created there is a possibility of foircing either nat.
fluids or injected fluids back up out of that area through
man made conduits. The concept of meeting this is proposed
as the area of review which may be done either as set as a
flap 1/4 mile Cr other arbitrary distance, or it may bs
-------
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
17
/•
determined on the basis of a. mathematical equation. Once th<
area of review is described, the wells which penetrate, thes<
nay be abandoned wells or active wells, which penetrate the
injection zone within the area of review roust be looked at.
If those wells are faulty or could, serve as conduits for the
pressurized liquids to come up, some appropriate corrective
action must be taken. Continents again are requested on this
approach.
Third possible way in which you could have fluids
move into underground sources of drinking water is through
faulty or fractured confining layers. Here there is a varis
of sighting requirements, control of injection pressure and
various other" operating requirements.
£. further way in which contamination could occur is
throuah the direct injection either into or above the drink:
water source. Basically, we couldn't Ijiiagarie very much to" c
about this engineering practices and essentially there is a
ban or a phase out suggested for these kinds of practices.
Finally, another pathway is the lateral displaceme;
of fluids, and here again a variety of sighting controls,
controls on injection pressure and monitoring requirements
are applied. There is comment sought especially with regar
this fifth class of area, because in order to pick up all o
the wells we can,by lateral displacement create some
kind cf contamination, we also extended the scope of covera
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
18
of these regulations for only those wells which inject 5.nto
above a drinking water source to all injection practices.
That is highlighted for you in the preamble and, again, corair.e:ic
is requested on that extension of scope in the regulations
particularly with respect to any problems that might be creatr/5,
by picking up off-shore wells.
vThat are the tools for control that the regulations
propose? There are basically 5 of them. The law says E?-2.
r.ay set the minimum requirements to control either through
permits, specific case by case permits, or by rules. In the
event we have proposed 5 tools. Certain kinds of wells/
Class I wells/ new Class II and Salt water disposal wells,
Class III wells must be controlled, by permits. There is a
comment requested whether we are using the permit tool in an
appropriate fashion.
One variant of the permit is a concept called the area
permit, wherein if a well is operated under the control of a
single operator, if it is injecting into the same stratum., if
it's for the same purpose, if it's essentially of the same con-
struction, the operator may apply for and obtain the single
area permit to cover an unlimited number of holes in the ground.
The big advantage is that once you obtain that that additional
wells that meet the same criteria of being of the same con-
struction, for the same purpose et cetera, may be granted
administrative!^ and you need not co throuqh the formal oublic
-------
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
19
/•
hearing process. Comment is requested on all aspects of the
area permit concept.
ICe also have interim rules specified here. In the
case of existing wells, the regulations say there are 5 year:
in which the permitting authority must repermit existing v/eli
T7h.il3 a well is waiting for its turn to come up, it will be
authorized by interim rules. There are also permanent rules
Existing under Class II, Class IV and Class V wells are.pro-
posed to be controlled by general rules. The rules are to
apply essentially the same requirement! that would, apply to
that type or class of well under the perr.it.
Finally, we have also recognized in certain instanc
it is required that injection be possible in very quick orde
and so we have propsed the possibility of a temporary author
ization of two types. In cases where you would have signifi
cant risk to the environment, temporary authorization may be
given for injection. The kind of situation this is intended
to cover is, for example, if you have a spill of toxic chemi
and environmentally the soundest way to get rid of that sfcuf
is to put it down the well which could in fact accept that;
but at the moment, no such injection is authorized into that
well. It is desirable to be able to have this toxic chemica
disposed of through that particular well and a temporary
authorization should be possible. Another situation is wher
in eras operations an irretrievable loss of natural resources
-------
20
r
1 might occur unless injection were possible. This is the
2 second type of situation in which temporary authorization wc\.
3 be contemplated. Again, comment is requested on the entire
4 concept of temporary authorization whether it is too strict,or
5 too loose, or whether it is properly formulated.
6 As I mentioned, the requirements are to be applied by
7 classes of wells. T7e have tried to divide the universe of
8 practices into five major groupings to enable us to set reason-
9 ably consistent requirements by type of well.
10 Class I wells are those by definition which involve
11 the industrial, municipal disposal of waste for the nuclear
12 storage disposal, and by definition these are to inject below
13 the deepest source of drinking water in the area. Our best
14 estimate is that thera are approximately 400 of such practices
15 or will be the first 5 years in operation.
16 Class II embraces all of those classes which are
17 related to the production of oil or gas.
18 Class III wells are all cf the special process wells,
19 which may be either the solution mining of chemicals or
20 minerals, in-situ classification and the production of geo-
21 thermal energy. T-Te estimate that approximately 2,000 of those
22 exists as far as we know today.
23 Class IV walls are ones which are strictly defined
24 as shallow wells which inject into or above drinking water
25 sources which are operated, either bv Generators of hazardous
-------
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
21
waste as defined under FCnA, or are operated by hazardous
waster management facilities as defined under r.CPJi. Vie
estimate that approximately 7500 of those exists. I should
point out that when we drafted that particular language, we
did so again to line up with the Hazardous Waste Management
regulations and we were aware when we drew that requirement
that such a formulation could in fact embrace shallow wells
operated by one of these facilities which itself, in fact, m;
not dispose of hazardous waste. And so a comment was put in-
the preamble specifically to elicit information on how often
this would occur and what that particular definition would
cause in the way of problems.
Finally, Class V is the all other wells, this embra<
a broad variety of beneficial practices like intentional
recharge of aquifers to air conditioning return flows, agri-
cultural irrigation wells, etcetera. Our best estimate is
that there are at least about 1/4 of a million of such pract
To turn to the specific requirements class by class
let me first quickly run over the requirements that apply to
Class I, the industrial, and municipal and nuclear wells, an
Classes III, IV and V. Classes I and III are to be controll
by "'err:'.tc, as I ~-i.c before. They are to demonstrate mecha
ca.1 integrity initially and at least once every 5 years ther
after. The area of review must be applied and corrective
action must be taken on faultv wells within the area of revi
-------
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
22
r
Construction requirements are set for these wells, and the
preamble request comments on the appropriateness of those
construction requirements. Abandonment requirements also
apply and there is a financial stipulation that the operator
of that well must demonstrate in some form, not necessarily a
bend, but in some form must demonstrate financial responsibili*
sufficient to abandon the well properly at the end of its
usefulness. Monitoring requirements are applied, orderly
reporting requirements to the permitting authority are applied,
I should point out in this regard, that on Class III in the
early 1976 proposal we did. get extensive comments, we did
make changes in response to those comments but certain others
we want to confess one more time, and so the preamble goes
through a very lengthy explanation of the kinds of consider-
ations that we've looked at, the kinds of alternatives we've
thought about for Class III, and solicit explicit comments
from you, the public, on the appropriateness of what we have
done so far, and what other things we might do in the area
of Class III. The central question here is that given the
diversity of wells which may be covered by Class III whether
we have tried to span too great a diversity of wells with a
single set of controls, and what if anything we should do about
that problem. If indeed a problem exists.
Class IV walls, as I mentioned, are those owned, or
operated either bv a generator of hazardous waste or a
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Hazardous Waste I'lanageraent facility. r,7e could think of no
good engineering practices to apply to these wells to make
them safe if they were injecting into or above a drinking
r source. And so basically, the requirements are that
no new such wells may be constructed, existing ones are to b<
phased out in three years. There are monitoring and reportii
requirements for these wells, but we have chosen not to appl;
either area of review or mechanical integrity requirements.
First, because the construction of these wells may not
be amicable to mechanical integrity tests; secondly, since
they are being phased out in three years, there wasn't very
much, point in making people go to the expense if the final
result was the phase out in any case. The abandonment of su>
wells was to be a part of the enforcement plan developed by
the responsible authority. Comment, of course, is requested
our formulation o£ Class IV.
Finally, on Class V which includes this huge catego
of all other, we did not feel that at this particular time E
had the wisdon or the knowledge to formulate adequate reqiiir
ments for this class. So there is one action requirement fo
these wells which is, that anyone of them which poses a
significant risk to human health must receive immediate
attention, and some kind of appropriate corrective action.
Beyond that, there is a requirement for a two year assessmer
to be supervised by the permitting authority; and based upon
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
24
f
that assessment and the recommendations flowing from their.,
future regulatory requirements may be laid by ZFA. There is
a coirir.ent requested both on the basic approach to Class V,
its appropriateness, as '.veil as the two year assessment, is
it realistic?
Finally, on these particular classes, the cost that
cur contractor estimates is approximately in the neighborhood
of $143,000,000, total cost over the first five years of
program operation. That breaks down roughly about $125 or so
for industry, about $17,000,000 for the states. The biggest
item of cost in there is about $120,000,000 for Class IV wells
and that largely estimates the alternative means of disposal
that we anticipate that Class IV operators will have to go to
once the Class IV well itself is closed.
Let me finally turn now to Class II wells where
virtually everyone of the things I'm going to mention now is—
specifically identified for you in the preamble, discussed
at some length, and comments are requested in detail. The
method of control that we have proposed for Class II, we have
proposed permits for all new Class II wells and all existing
salt water disposal wells. We have proposed that a rule for
existing enhance recovery of hydrocarbon storage wells would.
be appropriate, "'"a felt here to some extent that there was a
greater incentive for the operator of an enhance recovery
well to take care of his well and to make sure that it is
-------
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25
»•
appropriately sound, and so we felt that seine loosening of a
case by case permitting requirement would be accomplished wi"
out an undue loss of environmental benefits. Xachanica-1
integrity is required for all Class II wells. Area of review
requirement is applied to the new wells only in Class II. T<
give us an opportunity to re-think this particular judgment,
we are going to have a raid-course assessment after the first
full year of program operation which will allow us to look a-
actual fuel data to see what we are finding in terns of the
abandoned well problem, and that particular decision will be
reconsidered as part of that ir.id-course evaluation. Comment,
again of course, are requested on all of these specific item,
In terms of casing and cementing requirements; for Class II,
we here, again, varied the requirement from the other classe,
Uells in new injection fields must, in fact, protect all und
ground source of drinking water as defined in the regulation,
"•Jells in existing injection fields whether it be existing we
or new wells, or newly converted wells, as long as they are
an existing injection field, are to protect the historical 1
if the stats has regulated, and if the state has applied som
level of protection that an existing fields that historical
level is acceptable under the way we have proposed it. Comir.
i.3, of course, requested on that.
Finally, the abandonment of financial responsibilit
requirements are tha same as for the other classes. Varvina
-------
26
/•
frequency of monitoring is required, and annual reporting i
required from the operator. The total 5 year cost estimate
for Class II wells alone for the first 5 years of program
4 operation is in the neighborhood of $665,000,000, this breaks
5 down to sorething on the order of $646,000,000 for industry
6 and approximately $19,000,000 for states. One thing that is
7 worth mentioning here is that the way these estimates were
constructed. The contractor tried to estimate the number of
faulty wells that would have to have some kind of corrective
10 action taken on their.. Then multiplied that frequency by an
11 assumed unit cost for that particular kind of operation,
12 recementing or whatever, so the bulk of the cost approximatel
13 $437,000,000 out of the $665 that I was speaking of, directly
14 relates to the size of the environmental problem. To the
15 extent that the contractor was conservative in his assumptions,
16 and there are a great many more leaky or faulty wells cut there
the cost will be higher. To the extent that the contractor
over estimated the problem, and there are many fewer wells
19 that need attention, the cost will not be anywhere near that
20 high. The contractor estimated something on the order of
21 21,000 wells that would need some kind of action on them.
22 Finallv, baned on rp_? ' ~ ^vn "^iv:, ~.~2 hj.ve tentativel ~ looked
23 ?_t and concluded that the possible ir.pact of these regulations
24 would be something on the order of less of production of
25 9,'100 barrels per day, which is a fraction of one percent of
-------
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9-
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
total annual outt^ut of anv of the states.
Let me quickly speak now to one more item, the
relationship to the Hazardous Waste Management Program. I'v
already mentioned the accelerated listing of states, and
comment is requested on the states we have listed, and our
plans for listing the remainder. Basically, the separation
have sought between UIC and Hazardous Waste is that the
Underground Injection Control Program would be the controll
mechanism for regulating the holes in the ground. To the
extent that there are surface facilities associated with an
underground injection control operation, which deals in
hazardous waste, the surface facility generally would have t
obtain permits under the Hazardous ?Jaste Management Program.
But the hole in the ground would be subject only-to an Under
ground, injection Control Program and the requirements in the
UIC program. In cases where no surface facilities exist but
hole in the ground still deals in hazardous waste, the UIC
permit -./ill be the only permit the operator must obtain. He
ever, in the special section 146.09, the RCE.A requirements f
record keeping, reporting and fulfilling the manifest cycle
are applied through the UIC regulations to such people. ?.ll
of this, of course, your specific comments are requested.
I think that pretty much wraps up what I wanted to
say to give you a quick over-view. I apologize if I've been
too long. Let me turn it b^ck to the Chairman, Ilr. Levin.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
23
t*
I1 IP.. LEVO: Thank you, Paul, Ladies and gentlemen,,
because the primary purpose cf. this hearing is to receive
public comment, and because we want to make sure that every-
body who has registered to speak has a chance to do so, we
will not entertain questions froir. the floor. However, for
your convenience, at the end of the day if thsre is sufficient
time we would be happy to respond, to factual questions con-
cerning the regulations which would be off the record and not
part of this official hearing. For that purpose there are
3x5 cards available to you at the registration desk for you to
jot those questions down.
In addition, a guide has been prepared called ,':. Guid.3
to the Underground Injection Control Program. It looks like
this. That covers in summary^ form everything that Mr. Baltay
covered and then some; so, if soir.e of you do not want to go
through the trouble of reading- the regulations fr-nrr. r.nver i-n
cover, this guide is a pretty good way for you to get infor-
mation, I hope there are 'still some available.
Now for some housekeeping rules that I'd like to talk
to you about before we get into the presentations. The room
has besn divided into smokers and non-smokers, which I'm sure
you have already discovered; with smokers to my left and non-
smokers to my right and I would request, for everybody's comfor
that you would adhere to those rules. There will be an evening
session tomorrow evening that will cover both the 146, that's
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
29
f
the Underground Injection Control Regulations that we're goi
to be talking about today, and the Consolidated Permit Regu-
lations that we'll be having a hearing on tomorrow. There
will be a single evening hearing tomorrow evening and that
session is primarily for those who could not attend during t
day sessions. Registration for that hearing will begin at 7
and end at 7:30, and the hearing will begin at 7:30 in this
room.
Comments received at this hearing today and other
hearings that will be held throughout the country, along wit
any written comments will be made part of the official dccke
in this rule making process.
How for your information, I'd like to just review
where the additional hearings will be held. The next hearin
will be in Washington, E.G. en July 23, 24, and 25, with
July 24th designated as an evening session as well as a day
session. The hearing will be held in the HET\ Auditorium,
330 Independence Avenue Southwest, 7!ashingtt>n, D.C. The
next hearing will foe held on July 26, 27, and 28th, with Jul
26th also designated as an evening hearing as well as a day
hearing. That hearing will be held in Chicago at the Water
Tower Ey?.tt, 800 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago, Illinois.
The next hearing will be held July 30, 31, and August 1st, w
the 31st being designated as an evening session. That heari
will be held in Region Ten, 1200 6th Avenue, Seattle, T'Tashin
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 I
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
30
in the auditorium.
Some of you may not be aware, but due to public
request, v:e have no" set a fifth hearing. That fifth hearing
will be held on August 23, 29, and 3Gth, U.S. Post Office
TY-.
Auditorium, Room 269, 1323 Stout Street, Denver, Colorado. J.i
addition to having the fifth hearing, we have also extended
the comment period for the UIC Part 146 regulations to coincide
with the comment period on the Consolidated Permit Regulations
which will now end on September 12, 1979.
The docket or the public record, if you will, may be
seen during normal working hours in P.con 1045, East Tower,
Waterside Mall, 401 !1 Street Southwest, Washington, D.C.,
that's EPA Headquarters.
V'e expect transcripts cf aach hearing within about
two weeks following the close of ths hearing. Transcripts will
be available for reading at any of the EPA Regional Office
Library. A list of those locations is available at the
registration table.
Seine more rules of conduct. Actually, the rules of
conduct will take longer then some of the testimony, but I
have to go through them with you. The focus of the public j
hearing is on the public's response to a regulatory proposal
of the Agency. The purpose of the hearing as announced in the
April 20, 1979, and the June 1, 1979, Federal Register notices,
is to solicit comments on the re;oronosed Fart 146 UIC
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
31
f
regulations. Comments directed to the proposed Consolidated
Regulations will not be covered here today. Persons wishing
to make comments on any portion of the Consolidated Permit
Regulations should do so during the two days following this
hearing. If you are interested in making a statement at the
Consolidated Permit hearing, please see one of our staff at
the registration desk. Mow having said that, often tines tt
way the regulations have been written it is difficult, and
-T T
air. aware that it is, to divorce the parts 122, 123, and 124
from the part 146. In cases where the testimony appears to
be germane to the part 146, I will allow that to continue.
it is strictly a subject that should be covered tomorrow, I
will have to ask the speaker to defer until tomorrow. I wi]
use my judgment in that area.
This hearing is being held, not primarily to infom
the public nor to defina the proposed regulations, but rathe
to obtain the public's response; and thereafter, to revise
them as nay seem appropriate.
All major substantive comments made at this hearinc
and others received throughout the comment period, will be
addressed during the preparation of final regulations. The
Agency response to comments made by the public will b3 pub-
lished as part of the preamble to the final regulations. EC
in mind that these are national haarinrs, there is no need -i
make your comment more then ones. If you speak today, you <
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
32
»•
do not have to repeat yourself in '"ashington next week. Wrix.;:
comments will be given as much weight as oral comments. Lcai
this is not a formal adjudicatcry hearing with the right to
cross examination.
Member of the public are to present their views on
the regulations to the panel, and the panel may ask questions
of individuals presenting statements to clarify any ambiguity
in their presentation. However, the speaker is under no
obligation to answer questions of a broaclsr nature beyond this.
Although within the spirit of this information sharing hearing,
it would be very helpful to the Agency if speakers would
respond to questions. I would appreciate it as each speaker
ctaps up to the rostrum that he indicates to me whether he
will respond to questions. If he forgets to do so, I will
ask him.
Due to time limitations, I do reserve the right to
limit lengthy questions, discussions, or statements. I will
ask those of you who have prepared a statement who are going
to make it orally, please limit yourself to a maximum of 10
minutes. If you have a written statement, I would appreciate
it if you would, try to summarize rather then read the statement
If you have a copy of your statement, please submit it to the
court reporter before beginning your oral presentation. If
you wish to submit a written rather then oral statement, please
make sure the hearing coordinator, L",S . Sharon Gaskin, has a
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
33
»•
copy. ns. Gaskin is sitting at the table and has just raise
her hand. Written comments will be included in their entire
into the record. If from a speaker's comments, it appears
that regulations have been improperly interpreted, I or any
panel member may offer a clarification. Persons wishing to
make an oral statement who have not made an advance request
by telephone or by writing, should indicate their interest o
the registration card. If you have not indicated your inten
to give a statement at either today's hearings on UIC Part 1
or the following days of hearing on the Consolidated Permit
Regulations, and you decide to do so, please return to the
registration table" and fill out a card. As we call upon an
individual to make a statement, he or she should, corae up to
the lecturn after identifying himself or herself to the cour
reporter, and deliver his or her statement. I-fe will break
or lunch about 12 o'clock, and reconvene at_._l:3Q. Then
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
depending on our progress, we will either conclude today's
session or break for dinner at about 5 o'clock and return.
He will make sure that everybody who wants to speak
will have an opportunity to speak today. Phone calls will b
posted on the registration table at the entrance, and restro
are located outside of the main ballroom, I believe its down
stairs. If you wish to be added to our mailing list for fut
regulations or other material, please leave your business ca
or your name and address on a 3x5 card at the registration d
-------
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Finally, just relax, this is an informal hearing, it locks
like its going to be a long day. If anybody wants to tell ar.
Aggie joke depending on the time, I will allow it.
I will now read the names of the people that I have
who have registered and desire to make a statement, in the
order that I will call upon them. If there is any error or
over-sight, please let someone at the registration desk know.
I apologize in advance, for any names I nay mispronounced.
The first speaker, Mr. Don Schnacke, Executive Vice-President,
Kansas Independent Oil and Gas Association; next, Mr. A. VI.
Dillard, President, Permian Basin Petroleum Association; afte
Mr. Dillard, Dr. James Miller, Assistant Director of Environmen
Affairs, testifying on behalf of the American fining Congress,
that's Assistant Director of Environmental Affairs, Freeport
Minerals Company. Hext, Francis C. Wilson, II, Chairman of
Environment and Safety Committee, Independent Petroleum
Association of American. Fifth, Mr. Herman A. Sngel, President
of East Texas Salt Water Disposal Company; sixth, !Ir. James
C. Frank, Environmental Consultant, Dupont; seventh, Mr. Richar
L. Stamets, Technical Support Chief, New Mexico Gil Conserva-
tion Division. Next, Mr. I'en Hanby, Assistant Supervisor,
Alabama Oil and Gas Board. By the way, if I'm going too fast
you don't have to write this down, I'll read them again. Five
at a time probably. Ctave I\elley,Executive Director, Oklahoma
Independent Petroleum Association; next, number lQ, no name but:
-------
1
2
3
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Panhandle Producers and Royalty Owners Association; Mr. Jer
Mulligan, Chief Solid vJaste and Underground Injection Sectio
Texas Department of vTater Resources; Ms. Eabette Hicrgins
Vice-President, Texas Environmental Coalition; Mr. Harold
D. Nright, Chairman, National Energy Policy Committee, Texas
Independent Producers Royalty Owners Association. Mr. Ralph
A. Dumas, Director of Arkansas Gil and Gas Commission;
Mr. James Greco, Director of Government and Industry Affairs
Browning, Farris, Industries, Inc.; Mr. John G. Soule, Chie
Legal Counsel, Texas Railroad Commission; Mr. Troy I'lartiri,
Manager of Engineering, Texas American Oil Corporation. r*e ,
up to number IS. Mr. Charles ~AT. Farmer, Petroleum Engineer,
Wyoming Oil £ Gas Commission; llr. Bob Hill, Vice-Fresiderit,
TISUMZA, Inc., Corpus Christi, Texas. Mr. Clyde D. Ford,
Senior Counsel, Texas Gulf, Inc., Houston, Texas. Arnold C.
""hauviere, Assistant Commissioner of Conservation, Office of
Conservation. !lr. David L. Durler, Supervisor, Environmental
Affairs, Texas Uranium. Operations, U.S. Stell Corporation,
Corpus Christi. llr. Hark Polizi, Planning Engineer, Union
Carbide Corporation, Metals Division, that's in, I'll try to
pronounce this name, Benavides, Texas. One more, Mr. J. R.
Andersen, Manager, Environmental Affairs, Owen Corporation,
Lake Charles, Louisiana.
TJe will now begin with our initial speaker, Mr. Don
5chnacke, Executive Vice-president, I-'ansas Independent Oil ai
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
36
r
Gas Association, who will be followed by A. IT. Dillard, Pres -. -
dent, Permian Basin Petroleum Association. I'Ir. Sclmacke.
XR. DOt-TALB P. SCENACKZ: I am Don Schnacke of
Topeka, Kansas, and I an Executive Vice-President of the
Kansas Independent Oil and Gas Association. And I appreciate
tae opportunity of being put up early in the agenda so that I
can move on to another hearing this afternoon, that has equal
importance to our association.
KIOGA was founded in 1937—
I1 IP,. LEVIN: Mr. Gchnacke, will you answer questions?
MR. SCEEACIS: I will.
. 2£?.. LEVIN: Thank you.
?*P.. SCEMACKE:. QUr association was founded in
1337 primarily to improve the market for the crude oil and
natural gas program, and to promote the welfare of the oil and
gas industry in our state. We represent the voice of the
majority of the oil and gas producers in Kansas.
Our purpose of making these comments today is tc call
attention to the plight of the small stripper oil producers in
Kansas, and to make certain technical comments pertaining to
the proposed rules.
We understand the intent of the Act, and for that
reason it is difficult for us to generally oppose the plan, but
v:e would hope that a moderate posture could be taken to develo;:
so it will not adverslv affect the future of the small oil arse
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
.16_
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
37
t'
gas producers of. our 3tate.
Our Association v;as represented hare in Dallas en
October 13, 1976, where we presented a brief oral statement.
Te followed that with written comments later, and filed with
your Agency. Some of our objections have been met, and we
aave still more objections to the procedures which we will
briefly leave with you.
We again call to your attention under the heading o
the Act, Legal Framework of the Regulations, which states th,
the proposed rules are not to interfere with or impede oil a.
gas underground injection, and that it is further meant to
mean stop or substantially delay such activity.
'7e continue to believe that the proT^osed regulation
•/ill stop and substantially delay injection activity in Kans.
because of the detailed requirements, and economic expenses t
impieme-ntr the- xegulations.
Kansas has nealy 1,900 producers and producing enti
perating nearly 51,000 oil and gas well in 87 counties. Mo
of the oil produced is classed as stripper, averaging 2.7 ba.
of oil per day. The overall production per well throughout
Kansas is only 4 barrels per day. Out of 1,900 Kansas produ
150 of these produce one barrel or less perday and many of t.
down to 0.2 barrels or, you probably haven't heard this befo
but 3.4 gallons per day. The water produced with this produ
is immense, nearly 8 times the amount of water times the oil
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
38
i-
that we produce. I'Te have approximately 13,000 disposal and i-_
injection wells with 2,100 v/aterflood projects.
For that reason, we continue to believe the regula-
tions will stop or substantially delay oil production in
Kansas, Bring on premature abandonment and plugging, because
of tlie increased federal regulation and expense, generally
creating an atmosphere of increased economic burden not justi-
fying the future development of minimum production in our state
In that regard, an'd responding to your request on
page 23743 under Economic Impact, to consider an exemption
for small producers from these requirements, we again refer to
our January 12, 1977, written comments, produced at considerab]
expense to our Association by a competent consulting petroleum
engineer practicing in Kansas. This report reflects economic
impact date, and does justify an exemption for small stripper
operators-,
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I-Ie believe the exemption should be at least limited t<
stripper production, but remain under an approved, recognized
and established state jurisdiction which we have been doing
since 1936 in Kansas.
Additionally, in face of the national urgency of en-
couraging increased domestic production to offset out depen-
dency on foreign crude oil import, these proposed regulations
should be implemented, only in such manner not to disturb the
maximizing of the life of low production wells typically found
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
39
»•
in our state. We believe the regulations should, permit the
substitution of an ongoing effective stats programs for all
or part of the federal program. This would be the least dis
ruptive and the least costly action that could be taken.
Certainly in Kansas, this would be done with minimal difficu
I understand the State of Kansas will probably appear at a
later hearing, public hearing, where they will present their
view.
vie. have made, in the interest of time and the numbe
of witnesses you have, we have prepared through our Environ-
mental Committee 3 technical comments that I'll just put int
the record, if the reporter will put them in the record, I
think you'll pick them up and debate those in due time.
vie do ask that we be permitted to update our 1977
written comments so that we can comment both on this section
and on the permit section which we didn't receive until just
last week, and we haven't had a chance to circulate those
around; however, we'll get those to you by the September 12t
period. Vie will include in that report economic justificati
for establishing an exemption for minimum production which f
the first time you have reacted to in your proposed rules.
I-IP.. LEVIN: Thank you, lir. Schnacke. Questions by
members of the panel, please. ITone? Thank you very much.
(The following are the 8 technical comments offered by KIOG£
Section 146.06 Araa of Review: The commutation of t
-------
40
i <•
1 ! zone of endangering influence on Class II wells using the al--
2 ternative 2(C) formula seems too complex and meaningless. >-7"
3 suggest this alternative be dropped.
4 Section 146.08 (b) Mechanical Integrity: This re-
5 quires a combination of mechanical integrity tests per well.
g We believe one test is all that is needed and the expense of
7 more then one is not justified.
8 Section 146.22 (d) Construction Requirements:
g Apparently, the rules require that old injection and disposal
10 wells must come into compliance with the requirements for
H construction of new wells. In Kansas, this requirement would
12 be difficult to comply if not impossible in may cases. The
13 rules should provide for cases where compliance is impossible
14 so that production can continue without disruption.
15 Section 146.22 (b) Construction Requirements:
16 He believe the number and type of logs and tests should be
17 flexible and left to the discretion of the state director.
18 The cost of these logs and tests are very high and much of
19 these services are not readily available in Kansas.
20 Section 146.23 (b) Abandonment of Class II I'Tells: We
21 believe the requirement for a performance bond should be left
22 to discretion of the states. PJe believe the states should be
23 given broad latitude in establishing one of several acceptable
24 plugging and abandonment procedures. ITe anticipate small
25 operators having difficulty obtaining a performance bond.
-------
41
f
1 , Section 146.24 (b) Monitoring Requirements: Consis
2 tent with our comments of October 13, 1976, we believe weekJ
3 monitoring is unrealistic for salt water disposal. This sho
4 be on a monthly basis, the same as provided for injection we
5 Monitoring of gravity disposal wells is meaningless
6 because this type of injection does not endanger ground wate
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
This monitoring requirement should be dropped from the re-
quirements .
Section 146.24 (b) (4) Reporting Requirements: The
maintenance of the results of monitoring for three years is
impractical for Class II wells because of buying and selling
leases and the short life of these wells. The annual report
required under Section 146.24 (c) (1) could contain this
material.
Section 146.24 (c) Operating, Monitoring and P.eportii
Requirement: I'7e abhor the number of reports and the complexd
thereof. Small Kansas stripper operators, many operating oui
of their homes, do not have-sophisticated staff for engineer:
nd legal reporting. 2-lany do not have secretarial staff and
are overwhelmed by federal reporting requirements at all levs
7e ask that you reduce the reporting requirements and limit
:hem only to that which is absolutely necessary.
Mr. Levin: Next speaker is Mr. A. W. Dillard, Presi
£ent, Permian Basin Petroleum Association, to be followed by
r. James Miller, Assistant Director of Environmental Affairs
-------
42
1 Freeport -lineral Company.
2 MK. A.W.DILLAPD, Jr.: Mr. Levin, thank you, and
3 members of the panel. As Mr. Schnacke said in view of the
4 number of the people testifying, I will skip alot of this
5 but I do wish this whole testimony be put into the record.
6 The Panhandle Producers Association and the West
Texas Oil and Gas Association are joining us in this statement
8 so you can scratch the Panhandle Producers' testimony.
9 Ily name is A. 77. Dillard, Jr., I am President of the
Permian Basin Petroleum Association, representing approximately
11 1,500 members located in Tvest Texas and Southeastern Hew Mexict
12 I am an independent oil and gas operator, with
1 O
I approximately 32 years of experience in drilling for, finding
14 and producing both crude oil and natural gas in Hest Texas,
Hew Mexico, Oklahoma and Mississippi.
16—I — The proposed^-and—re—proposed rules of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency, to carry out and implement the intent
i ft
of Congress, demonstrate major flaws in conception and basic
19 thought.
Firs, the EPA, after 4 years of work in this area,
has not yet detailed an existing problem. In the industry,
we know of very few problems of groundwater contamination, anr!
these were caused by practices that were in affect 20 tc 30
years ago. These practices were changed through cooperative
oc
investigation and problem solving by industry and appropriate
-------
1
2
3
4
5
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
State .Regulatory Agencies. The recent study of the IOCC she
no active sources of groundwater contamination from oil pro-
ducing operations in the major producing areas. And this,
of course, is Texas, Oklahoma, New I-lexico, 'Louisiana and
Arkansas. I believe that report has been submitted to the
EPA a couple of tines already.
Let's go on to Section 146 itself, and I will deal
only X'/ith Class II wells.
In West Texas, we have some water out there in the
neighborhood of 2 to 3,000 ppm TDS. This can be used for
livestock water, but if you do you've got to keep your cattJ
off the salt blocks. Otherwise, you are going to kill your
cattle.
Ue use some water in the neighborhood of 5,000 ppm
TDS for irrigation purposes, but it will ruin the top soil i
you have a very good learihatg sys-hem fny t-.'ne> top sni 1 .
Local waters in our area. Midland has a well watei
supply of 800 to 900, with a surface lake supply that ranges
in 1,500, now this is in ppm TDS. Fort Stockton well water
1,700 to 1,800; Odessa, surface lake water supply is 1,80-0 1
2,300; Monahans is 500 to 750. State recommendations are
1,000 ppm TDC.
Ey dialysis process alone, to treat, waters of 2,50C
ppm TDS to 500 ppm TDS is a cost of $1.25 per 1,000. Labor
cost will add an additional cost of 30C to 40$ per 1,000 ga'l
-------
2
3
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
44
more and this doesn't even taka into consideration the cost
of the plant or the other equipment.
Section 146.06. The formula set forth may be feasib_n..
for certain areas, but it should be left to the operator to
determine whether to use a 1/4 mile radius of review c-r use the
formula. And would somebody please explain to me, and I've
studies hydraulics, what is storage coefficient?
Section 146.07 was misnumbered as 146.01. State
regulatory agencies, having jurisdiction of such matters, pre-
scribe to the operator what corrective action must be taken.
The agencies have the authority to order suspension of oper-
ations of such Class II wells, and order corrective action
followed by inspection during, and after completion of such wor
and approval before recommencement of operations of such wells.
Section 146.08. There appears to be no need to per-
form two tests to prove mechanical integrity of a Class II
well. A simple casing-tubing annular pressure test to some
reasonable pressure should be adequate. Care should be exercis
so that the casing of an older well is not deliberately destroy
by senseless, or stupid pressure test requirements where
exterior corrosion or galvanic action could have weakened the
casing to a point below original specifications.
If a failure is noted in a tubing-packer-casing pressu:
test, the operator then lias a number of options in which to
locate the failure point and take corrective action.
-------
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Section 146.08(c). The cementing information shoul
prove that no vertical migration is possible. Surface casin
cemented by pump and plug method, and the circulation of ceme
to the surface is requirement enough to protect potable
ground waters. The top of cement by temperature survey on a
long string is also enough information. The other listed Ic
are no more conclusive cf an adequate cementing job than a
temperature log. Past experience in an area dictates the
cementing requirements for any type of well.
Section 146.08(d). The administrator should be re-
quired to make the decision on new mechanical integrity test
within 30 days after the same is submitted to him by the
director.
As a note to the EPA. If an operator is drilling a
injection well-for enhanced recovery operations, or a dispos
well for produced waters, he is usually in an area of vast
information and past experience. Therefore, your additional
information requirements are superfluous and would add nothd
except extra expense. The operator has an economic incenti^
to drill and complete either type of well with the best
mechanical integrity possible, because it is his desire to r
such 3. T.rell to last for many years without problems. His
knowledge and experience in this area probably far surpasses
that of any administrator or staff member with no knowledge
oil field operations.
-------
f
46
'"
1 Comment to EPA at the end of 146.08, it would have
2 been better if the EPA had issued the technical guidelines
3 acceptable methods for conducting and evaluating the permissj,::.J
4 test to demonstrate mechanical integrity.
5 Section 146.09. In the event that Congress decides
6 that the EPA must prove that oil production waters are hazar-
7 dous waste, will a Class II well be only subject to the 40 CFP.
8 146 until such time?
9 Section 146.21. Bo you propose to issue forms for a
10 Class II well application?
11 Section 146.22(d)(i). Directional surveys in the
12 State of Texas are only required on those wells which are
purposefully deviated or are in areas of known high deviations
14 due to abnormal formations. V7e use simple inclination tests
which are adequate for this, and we have somewhere in the
neighborhood of a 5 to 3 inclination variance which is all
that is allowed.
Directional surveys are just absolutely not essential
in a case such as this, unless your well's facing is maybe on
20 every 2 acres or something like that, you don't have any
21 possibility of getting cross migration.
22 Section 146.22(d)(2)(i). The logging of a surface
23 hole before casing is run is not only a dangerous situation,
24 due to the possibility of the logging tools getting stuck and
25 be unable to recover sane, but it is a useless and unnecessary
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
41
f
expense and will not provide any material information not
already known.
Section 146.22(d)(2)(ii). The Texas Railroad
Commission requirement to circulate cement by the pump and r
method on all strings of surface casing, at the depth speci-
fied by competent geologists of the Texas Department of Wate
Resources, adequately protects the potable subsurface waters
of the State of Texas. Even those waters which are not potc
at deeper depths, that the state has designated to be prctec
on intermediate or long string cementing jobs, are done by
the Commission's direction.
Other oil and gas producing states adjoining Texas
also have more than adequate rules and regulations for the j
tection of the underground water resources of their state.
These logs as set forth would be of absolutely no
benefit to the EP^r-or- the-opera tor of such-ar welty—and-are
an unnecessary added expense.
Section 146.22(d)(3)(i) and (d)(3)(ii). Again, let
me emphatically emphasized that in the areas of drilling Cla
II wells, the operator has at hand a vast amount of past inf
mation and experience, and these logs proposed by EPA are ju
not all that necessary. Only logging that need be done is t
which the operator deems necessary for his work or informati
Section 146.22(d)(3)(iii). A temperature survey tc
indicate the top of cement outside the casing is adequate.
-------
2
3
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
48
use of cement bond long should be at the discretion of the
operator. The temparator log to determine packer setting
depth would be more then sufficient.
Let me comment here. The other day on PBS I had a
chance to see a Stock Analyst reviewing what he thought was
going to be good stocks for buying. His highest recommendati
was Slumber J. I think he had a look at these proposed rates
before we did.
Section 146.22(e). The information, requested under
this section, is subject to some vide variations by actual
measurement or calculation and/or is subject to interpretation j
i
or extrapolation that again can vary by wide multiples. Some
of this information may have to be determined by coring, a
very expensive operation. Some information may be available
from previous operations in the area, but the cost to obtain
this on each Class II well is ridiculous and of not benefit.
The EPA should prove real need, use, value and cost effective-
ness.
Section 146.23 Abandonment of Class II wells, part (a)
The rules of the Texas Railroad Commission require prior approv
of all plugging operations and, in general 100 percent of the
operations are currently witnessed by the RP.C field inspectors.
This is also the case in New Mexico. Any addition, by other
agencies, to these methods and procedures are unnecessary and
totally wasteful.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
49
Section 146.23(b). The various oil and gas product
states currently have in place either plugging bonds, cr
sufficient means to reach an operator's assets, such that
additional bonds are unnecessary.
Section 146.24 Operating, monitoring and reporting
requirements, part (a)(1). The calculation of fracture
pressure is a somewhat inexact science and variations in thi
range of 267 percent in our part of the country, this fractu
rating can run from a 1.2 to a .4 or .5, so that will give y
your variance there of 267 percent. No arbitrary standard c
be set down that will fit all cases. However, from a oracti
and economic point of view, the cost of high pressure inject
fluids in secondary and tertiary projects is such that every
operator checks all projects and wells constantly to assure
that the fluids are confined to the zone of interest and not
being allowed to escape and be wasted.
Due to the character of most reservois, the horizon
permeability and porosity is greater than the vertical. The
fore, the fluids normally migrate in the horizontal easier
than they do in the vertical. This is where your concern is
is vertical movement and not so much in horizontal.
Section 146.24(c). It is hoped that the manner of
reporting annual data will demonstrate some semblance of bas
intelligence and reasoned thought. A study of the ideaology
methods, and forms used by the DOE for the reserves reportin<
-------
50
demonstrate a great variety of .things not to do. This
2 information can readily be obtained from current state recor
3 Section 146.25 (a). I-Iy only comment there is, what
4 does 122.36 say? I keep getting referred back there all th
5 time and it refers back to 146.
6 Section 146.25(b and c)—
7 MR. LEVIN: TCe do that to see if you've really read
8 the regulations.
9 . MR. DILLAED: Five times. Section 146.25 (b and c).
10 The collection and presentation of these maps and data will be
11 both costly and time consuming to prepare, and represent
12 something that industry has long done on an informal basis.
This data must be confined to public reports.
•
14 Section 146.25(d). Estimates of proposed rates and
15 pressures present no problem to industry, however, detailed
studies of injected fluids are unduly burdensome and serve
no useful purposes. VJhen you're running a secondary operation,
you know what's going into that fluid all the time because
it's a very controlled process. If you have disposal fluids,
20 you know what's coming out and probably a one time analysis
21 of that water is about all you all would need. You wouldn't
22 have tc .'.:-.va it every rr.onca or every 6 months, or anything o
23 that order, it would appear to me.
24 Section 146.25 (e and f) . The requirements proposed
under this section are truly burdensome and may, or may not,
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
51
r
be impossible to ascertain and report.
Section 146.25(h). It could well be construed thai
a registered engineer would have to prepare and submit the
information as required by the statement of the requirements
under this section, and many independent operators are not
registered engineers or do not have one working for them. P.
schematic drawings are more than adequate for such purposes.
The industry probably does not have the personnel available
carry cut this program and this would serve no demcnstratabl
worthwhile purpose. This requirement does illustrate the fa
that EPA has still not become knowledgeable about the indust
whose purported problems it seeks to correct, and illustrate
the fact that, although industry cannot operate with a staff
lacking knowledge and experience, the federal government can
Section 146.25 (i). Normally no formation testing
programs are run on new injection wells, and industry has nc
knowledge of what the Agency is thinking about here.
Section 146.25(1). Books could be written on this
subject. Simply, in case of leaks, shut down, repair, and
start injection again.The Texas Railroad Commission, the Nev;
2'lexico Conservation Commission, the Oklahoma Commission, all
inspect these things. If you have a problem they inspect it
and see to it that mechanically it has the integrity that it
should have and then carries on.
Section 146.25(o). Already handled in producing st
-------
52
j
i
I
1 by appropriate state agencies. Any cash bond will only furl/ -r
2 slow down or stop domestic production. Suggest the agency
3 read current newspapers regarding energy shortage in the U.S.
4 today.
5 Section 146.25 (p) . The statement of this requireraeij.;
g makes the assumption that the applicant will construct the
y facility/ or drill and equip the well, prior to obtaining a
8 permit. No operator of oil and gas properties can afford
9 to make the investment necessary to drill and equip a well, or
10 wells, and then wait on the typical federal agency to issue a
H permit. This statement demonstrates a complete lack of know-
12 ledge of the real economic world we live in. .\gain, how can
13 mechanical integrity be demonstrated prior to completion?
14 Thanh you, gentlemen. I will answer any questions
15 that I may be able to do so.
16 KR. LEVIN: Thank you, Mr. Dill arc5 ._ f/lpgnbers of the
17 panel, any questions?
18 MR. BALTAY: I'm looking at 122.36, and I guess I'm
19 wondering why you were puzzled by that statement.
20 J4E. DILLAFcD: I don't have it in front of me at the
2i present time, and I've been in Washington on another matter fc:
22 about 10 days. when I read that I kept being referred back to
23 something, and I never did figure out what 122.36 was saying.
24 Seems to me I was being referred back to 146, and in 146 I was
25 being referred back to 122.36
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
,53
IIP.. EALTAY: You do understand that 122 will lav tl
fundamental program requirements.
MR. DILLARD: Yes, sir.
MR. BALTAY: So its the requirements of who is to
aPPly for permits, and who may be authorized in other fashic
The definition of the content of application is all
defined for you in 122.
H?,. DILLARD: I think I'm going to be covering 122,
123, and 124 tomorrow. It did appear inappropriate soir.ewhej
because everytime I looked around I was referring back to II
At the time when I started all this, we did not have the 121
23, or 24. We just bearly got those in. I'm like Mr. Schn<
we just bearly got them in. Thank you.
MR. LEVIN: Mr. Dillard, can you stay for a moment.
MR. DILLARD: Yes.
MR. LirviIT: You raised a number of questions in "yox
testimony, and rather than tried to respond to them now, we
will reply to you in writing. For example, what is the sto:
coefficient, et cetera, we will respond to you but not at ti
time.
MR. DILLARD: I appreciate it, because I tried to '.
it up in all sorts of hydraulic books and I never did come
across it.
MR. LZVIN: You also might want to see one of our
technical people here today, who, I think, can explain that
-------
54
i-
1 you as we sea it. Thank you very much.
2 MR. DILLARD: Thank you.
3 (The following 5 paragraphs are copied from. LIr. Dillard':-:.
4 testimony that he wanted included in the record.)
5 "Second, the EFA has ignored 'degree of risk1. Oil
6 field produced brines in no way present the sane dange to life
7 and health as most of the common chemicals to be disposed of
8 from other industries. The fules, as promulgated, indicate
9 great effort to be 'fail-safe' and do not consider that a
10 'risk free1 society is not possible. v7e commend their worth-
11 while dream and laudable theoretical goal.
12 "Third, the EPA apparently has little respect for the
13 value of time or money. All design is a compromise and some
14 trade-offs are inevitable. Economics cannot be ignored, and
15 every activity reaches a point of diminishing returns, at
16 which the prudent operator stops.
17 "Fourth, the EPA regulations, for injection wells, do
18 not reflect the statement that the EPA has, in truth, inter-
19 faced with competent, experienced state agencies in either the
20 oil and gas producing states, or the BLI'1, who have been for
21 years learning about underground waters, and developing operaf
22 rules to protect them.
23 "Fifth, the EPA has thoroughly confused people in man\
i
24 industries by the various conflicts between the UIC regulation
25 and RCRA regulations. These differences must be timely resolve
-------
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
55
to prevent any increased effect on our current economic or
energy supply problems.
"Sixth., the EPA has violated Federal regulations by
setting public hearing dates prior to publication of propose
rules. Thus, industry lacks adequate time to study the pro-
posed regulations and prepare testimony. Surely, the federa
agencies should take the lead in adhering to the 'laws of th
land. ' "
I-1H. LEVIN: Dr. James Miller.
DOCTOR JAMES MILLER: My name is Jim Miller, I'm
Assistant Director of Environmental Affairs, Freeport Minera
Company.
The statement that I'm submitting today will be on
behalf of the American Mining Congress, an industry associat
which encompasses the producers of the bulk of america's coa
uranium, ir.etal, industrial and agricultural minerals; and th
manufacturers which supply mining industry. I'll be glad to
answer any questions after the presentation, and copies of t
written statement will be submitted to EPA later on during t
week.
Today's AMC comments will address a few of the ma
concerns of the UIC regulations p-.rt 145. Of necessity, the
will be some over-lap of part 122. Although, we will presen
those comments tomorrow. Detailed written comments will be
submitted in September.
-------
1
2 will affect all in-situ mineral recovery facilities which
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The proposed Underground Injection Control regulati-'
depend upon injection wells for their operation. These pract:.c
come under the regulations of Class III wells. Examples of.
these types of operations include the solution of mining of
uranium, copper, potash, sale, and the recovery of elemental
sulphur by the Frasch process. In general, in-situ mining of
minerals is the process where fluid is injected underground for
the recovery of valuable mineral or material.
United States depends upon this type of mining for
a majority of its sulphur and sale production, and increasing
amounts of uranium, copper and other mineral production.
Additionally, the use of in-situ mining techniques to
develop new sources of domestic energy reserves, such as oil
shale is quickly moving out of the experimental stage. In
many cases, in-situ mining is the most economical and environ-
mental sound method of developing a mineral resource.
I'd like to address comments to the economic impact
given by EPA. The economic impact of the implementation of
the underground injection control program to operate as a
Class III well have been grossly underestimated by EPA. The
total incremental 5 year cost to Class III regulated industries
presented in the preamble of the regulations is stated to be
between $2,000,000 and $3,000,000. These costs data were
developed by EPA's contractor, Temple, Sa^]< and Sloan, and a
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
report and study in the final analysis of cost of undergroi
injection control regulations. The economic analysis preset
in this study of Class III wells was based on a draft of the
regulations dated August, 1977, and contains numerous assum]
which were not discussed in the preamble by EPA. These
assumptions are critical to the accuracy of the cost of UIC
compliance for Class III industries. The incremental costs
of compliance with geothermal wells and in-situ gasificatioi
is given a zero. It should be pointed out that these indusl
will incur significant cost in complying with the UIC regu-
lations that are'now proposed. These costs were not reporl
because insufficient data existed as to the nature of these
practices. Furthermore, it is assumed that current monitor:
requirements would be sufficient to meet UIC standards. Eov
ever, the amount of additional information required, that is
the mechanical integrity, logging, et cetera, were not con-
sidered.
These requirements will add sufficient cost to ope:
of these wells. And I might make a comment, that due to th«
push now for developing of alternate sources and of domestic
energy reserves, the geothermal and other energy requirement
are going to become more and more ii~.porta;ic. These regular--
will indeed impact them.
The incremental cost for in—situ uranium mining wa.<-
also given a zero. This cost was based on the assumption tl
-------
-------
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
current state regulations governing this practice are such t
the information now submitted to the state would suffice to
obtain a UIC permit. Yet, in the report to the EPA, EPS st?
"It is impossible to predict at this time what the economic
impact would be to operators. The fact that. SPA's contractc
could not quantify the cost of compliance by this industry,
does not mean that significant cost will not be incurred. !
should be pointed out that information requirements of the
proposed UIC regulations, such as well logging, and hydro-
geological studies, and more comprehensive then most state
requirements.
The technical requirements of the regulations also
go far beyond what the state now requires.
Maximum.compliance cost for the Frasch industry is
given as $335. This cost estimate is inordinately low for
Frasch operations carried out in marine environment, the
requirements for five monitoring wells will cost well over
$1,000,000, and that is a very conservative estimate.
The cost of cementing, mechanical integrity testinc
and logging has been estimated by one company to be over
$22,000,000, for that company.
The economic impact associated with the UIC regula-
tions should be re-examined, and refined, based on these prc
posed regulations in order that a more accurate measure of i
potential severe economic disruption to Class III regulated
-------
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
59
c
industries can be quantified.
Area permits. It is imperative that UIC regulation:;
set up a frame work for the granting of true area permits.
It is inconsistent to allow the issuance of area wide permits
in Section 40 CF?>, 122.37, and then structure the procedural
and technical requirements of 40 CFR 146 to encompass only
individual vrells. The purpose of area permitting is to provide
a reasonable permitting procedure in those instances where on-
going operations are limited to a particular geographical or
geological formation, and nust have great flexibility in
drilling new wells to maintain orderly production in that
area of formation. •
In operations suitable for area wide permitting, all
wells are drilled, completed,operated and abandoned using
substantially the same techniques. In these cases, regulations
recognize that the operator should be required to obtain only
one permit covering the area of operations. Furthermore, as it
must be demonstrated that the procedure and techniques currentl
in use are proposed for use and the operation meet the stand-
ards for approval by the administrator or director. Little is
to be gained requiring the submission of duplicate data for
each new well drilled in the area covered by the permit. And
I refer you to 122.37 (c).
The provisions of 122.37 (c) requiring administrative
authorization for each new injection veil covered by the area
-------
1 permit are not consistent with the operation of realities oi
2 Class III projects. Tor example/ Frasch projects are charac
3 ized by numerous short lived wells within a compact area eft
4 on 50 foot space. Vlith the necessity of commencing the re-
5 placement of expired wells within hours after their failure
6 order to maintain formation temperatures, pressures, and pre
7 the irreversible loss of valuable mineral production. Furtr
8 the location and mining design variables from the new wells
9 depend on the very recent characteristic of the producing
10 system. Thereby limiting the operators ability to provide
11 advance information for permitting.
12 The requirement of administrative authorization is
inconsistent with the area permit concept and is counter-
productive to its purpose. So long as new wells are drilled
and operated within the perimeters of the area wide permits,
siinp-le~iiotrif±ca±ri-on—after-drilling, giving pertinent data
would serve administrative purposes and comply with the reqv
ments of the act.
In order for the area wide permitting concept to se
20 its intended purposes, Parts 122 and 146 must be modified ar
self-consistent. This will require that Section 122.37 (a) t
22 rewritten to reflect that once an area permit has been issu«
no additional authorization or permit should be required foa
24 the drilling and operation of new injection wells within the
25 permitted area, except when the new well substantially devia
-------
61
from the condition of the area wide permit.
Area permit application should contain the informati'.
needed to initially permit the well injection practices taking
place, or to take place in the area to be covered by the permi
Because of the dynamic nature of most Class III operations,
it is impossible to specify the exact location, the number of
wells, or where they will be drilled. The requirement for
rapid action for replacement wells prevent loss of valuable
mineral resources and mandates that no further authorization be
" required, and that simple notification be given after the well
^ is drilled. This should satisfy the record keeping requirement
of the Agency.
13
-- - It may—also be -necessary to -add-definitions^, such _a_s_,
existing injection projects, new injection projects, and in-
15
jection project.
16
TO 1.22.3 (c) . The phrase, or project, should be addecr
17
to all instances where permitting procedures, are being discusse
18
in order that area wide permit holders are not required to
19
comply with individual well permitting procedures. The
20
technical requirements of Class III in 40 CFH Part 146, should
21
likewise be changed to include the project concept. For exampl
22
146.31 (c) should read, no new Class II ± wells, and then the
23
addition, or project, may begin to operate after an applicable j
24
underground injection control program becomes effective. Detai
25
comments to be submitted later will indicate specific additions
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
62
and changes that should be made in the proposed regulations
allow self-consistency between 122 and 146.
Sub-classification. Class III presently includes
well injection for the raining of sulphur by the Frasch proce
solution mining, in-situ gasification of fuel sources, reco^
of geothernal energy. Due to the widely different technique
and practices used in Class III injection wells, it is virtx
impossible to structure one consistent set of regulations cc
ing all types of wells in this Class. For this reason, Clas
III should be sub-divided. For example, for Frasch sulphur
wells and other wells which do not inject into an aquifer, t
is no need for a number of the requirements.
EPA has indicated that it is considering not requii
such projects to monitor the injection zones, removing the
requirement for the use of corrosive resistent materials,
requiring formation testing for the project and not each we]
and providing more flexibility in the requirement to demonst
mechanical integrity. 21MC whole heartily supports such effc
On the other hand, the solution mining of uranium z
some other minerals, the mineral deposit normally occurs in
aquifer. In such projects, it is important that the injecti
zone be monitored. Also, thousands of wells may be required
successfully solution mine a single uranium ore deposit.
Requirements for well logging and test data should
therefore, be reduced to a statistically representative numt
-------
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
63
**
which should be retained by the operator and made available
for inspection. This last sentence also encompasses, I think,
most area wide permitted facilities.
Wells for in-situ gasification of fuel sources and
the recovery of geothermal energy are a distinctively differerrc
from either of the two types discussed above.
It thus seems clear that Class III presently includes
apples and oranges. Sub-classification is mandatory to face
the operation or realities of these several industries and
prevent major unnecessary economic burden that would result in
the premature abandonment of valuable mineral reservers, and
failure to initiate those new projects so necessary for the
economic health of our country.
Information has been furnished EPA and EPA's contract
over a period of 3 years that conclusive show a strong similar-
ity between underground injection operations and Class II wells
and Class III wells. The same economic incentive exists in
Class III as in Class II, to conserve fluid characteristics
and maintain wells in good conditions free of leaks in order
to obtain the maximum production of minerals.
There is, therefore, also an apparent economic incenti
to Class III well operators which reduces the need for scrutiny
of these operations to an elaborate system of case by case
permits for existing operations. It is submitted that existing
Class III projects should be regulated by a rule for the life
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
64
r
of the project.
It necessarily follows from the similarity of Class
and Class III injection wells, from the number of wells aril
in Class III projects within a small area, and the fact that
sometimes, particularly in salt domes, thousands of wells ar
drilled in search of other minerals.
Proposal of an area a review should be applied only
to new Class III injection wells. Likewise, the standard fo
casing and cementing of Class III injection wells should not
exceed the prevailing practice in a particular area or type
of formation. If the regulations were cast in such a manner
to provide discretion by tha director in these matters, rath
than as minimum requirements, the local conditions affecting
'such different types of operations could be adequately addre
in the individual area wide permits; thereby, achieve the
purpose of the act, the maximum benefit, and the minimum
economic disruption.
Let me quickly summarize the principal comments the
American Mining Congress with respect to the regulations of
Class III wells. First, the economic impact of the proposed
regulations which are based on a 1977 draft significantly un
estimate the economic impact of these regulations on Class I
wells. This proposal will have major economic impact on
operators of these types of wells.
Second, no further permitting or authorization is
-------
i 65
I
r
1 needed for new wells drilled under and in accordance with an
|
2 area wide permit. Technical requirements of Class III wells
3 i should consider the nature of Class III operations and
4 corrective area wide permitting procedures.
5 Third,subclassification of Class III wells is manda-
Q tory, so that the major differences between types of Class IIIj
7 injection wells can be accommodated.
8 Fourth, there are strong similarities between undar-
9 ground operators of Class II and Class III wells and, there-
10 fore, an owner's treatment of Class II wells should be granted
11 Class III wells, also.
12 "any of the matters brought up in these comments couljd
13 be adequately addressed by granting broader discretion to
14 the director, rather then maintaining the strict minimum re-
15 quirement. The compliance with, which may be either impossible
16 impi-ar-Mr.ai or uneconoTTLLcal^ Thaik. you. _
17 MR. LEVIN: Thank you, Dr. Miller. Questions from
18 the panel, please? Mr. Gordon?
19 I1R. GORDON: I believe, Dr. Miller, you indicated
20 you had data on estimated cost of the proposed regulations.
21 For example, you mentioned a figure, I believe, of $1,000,000 I
22 for Frasch mining.
23 DP.. MILLER: That had to do with one site, the
24 drilling of 5 nonitor wells.
25' MR. GORDON: tlill you be submitting to us as part of
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
66
i'
comments specific data on estimated cost that you've been
talking about?
DR. MILLER: These are estimates that were presentee
I believe, that individual companies when submitting comment:
to EPA, will furnish the economic impact.
MR. GORDON: Thank you.
MR. LEVIN: I have a question. You also mentioned :
your testimony that many of our requirements such as logging,
are more comprehensive than what the states now require.
your company submit any additional data as to which
states these night be, and what specific elements are mere
comprehensive than the states currently require?
DR. DULLER: L. know .that, one of__.th.e provisions of n\\
company, Freeport Sulphur Company, will be submitting differ-
ences, specific differences, between the current practices ar
the additional practices that are required.
MR. LEVIN: Ok, thank you very much, Dr. Miller.
DR. MILLER: Thank you.
MR. LEVIN: Mr. Uilson followed by Mr. Engel.
FRANCIS C. WILSON: I'll be happy to answer any
questions from the panel as they come up.
I4y name is Tug Wilson, and I am appearing today on
behalf of the Independent Petroleum Association of America.
My capacity is the Chairman of the Association's Environment
and Safety Committee. I'm an officer of Wilson Oil Company,
-------
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
*
14
15
16
1'
10
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
67
Santa ?e, New 2-Iexico.
The Independent Petroleum Association of America is
a national organization with 5,QQO domestic explorers producers
of crude oil and natural gas. We appreciate the opportunity :
to be here today and present our general thoughts.
IJhile,individually, the companies of cur association j
i
are not important contributors to the overall energy supply, !
I
but as a group, we draw 90 percent of all the wildcat wells
in this country, and have produced about half of all the oil
and gas produced in this country.
\\e feel that we are the leading edge of our industry
and the specific area is so important to our nation today,
additional supplies. ',7e are part of the solution of the near
term energy problem. I»Ir. Carter, last night, indicated as he
had before, that the solution is three-fold, stands on a tripod
One of the legs is alternative fuels, the other leg is conser-
vation, and the third leg is additional supplies.
If any of those legs fail, the program fails and our
country is in worse shape then it is today. Ne are in the
business to do just that. Explore and produce more oil, we
own no pipelines, we refine no product, and we sell to no
consumer. We are at the source of the pipeline. I-7e are
anxious to find as much petroleum as this country needs, to
meet the demand and avoid an unprecedented vulnerability both
economic and strategic to foreign sources.
-------
68
1 i As a group, producers are frustrated by the ongoing
- -- .
2 j fruitless attempts by government to find political solution:-
i
3 j to essentially economic problems. Additional production is
|
4 the 3:ey to the solution to the near term, and we are the
5 suppliers of that production. We are pragmatists at heart
6 We've a saying in our industry, that if it makes since try i
7 if it works usa it, if it doesn't work, try something else.
8 By accepting the chairmanship of the Environment an
9 Safety Committee, I hope to be helpful in achieving our join
10 goal, protecting the environment.
The industries legitimate goal is producing as much
12 petroleum as possible without unacceptably damaging the en-
vironrnent. The EPA's legitimate goal is to protect our envi
14 ment as much as possible without unacceptably damaging energ;
15 production. I feel that these two goals can be made more
compatible then they have been, and they must be for us both
be successful.
With respect to the nuts and bolts technical commen-
on Part 146 of the Underground Injection Control Program, we
20 will submit in writing our comments and suggestions of reach.
21 our joint objective, protecting the environment we live in
99 t efficient enqineerin: :r~cticas available. We do
23
24
25
rr.c
appreciate the effort of the EPA to make the rules and regu-
lations more workable. Responsiveness and cooperation over
the last few vears in the development of the recmlations is
-------
11
69
i'
encouraging, and xve hope to be able to help further the refine-
ments .
As you well know, the rules will have a serious effect
i
on producer's ability to do our job. We must emphasize that
large companies have staffs, and alternatives that we as in-
deoendsnts do not have. The efforts, to date, have gone a long
f
way towards that efficiency we both need for the success of
the program. But delays and redundancies have to be avoided.
The independent producers competitive edge is its flexibility,
and its ability to take advantage of quick breaking events.
The reduction of that will have a serious effect on independent
12
producers and on their ability to find the sources of petroleuj
13
and gas that we need right now.
14 There are some basic points that must be emphasized,
where existing rule, that is to say, state rules are working
16
and problems are in hand and we do not feel that an overlay of
more rules, paper work and enforcement is necessary. The
18
EPA's general function is to assure that goal of protecting
19 I
underground water, but where there are states that have no
20
such rules, the EPA can be most helpful in providing guidance,
21
and assistance in establishing an efficient program. We feel
22
that the states must have the primary responsibility of
23
administering a workable rsrocram. EPA can increase its effort
to determine if the state programs £0- in fact work, and where
25
they do, allow them to work.
-------
70
«•
, I am not personally an engineer, the other
2 ; volunteers working on this project indicate the proposed
3 i logging and plugging requirements are redundant and in some
4 | places illogical. Detailed comments, as I said, will be for
coming.
Both the EPA and the oil and gas producers are seek.
effective engineering practices for protection of undergroun<
water scurces. Tie, as producers, simply cannot be permitted
to be submerged in complicated, redundant, arid unnecessary
10 testing and reporting requirements.
11 In summary, our position is first, that where the
12 states have adequate rules and regulations for the protectioi
13 of subsurface fresh water, the EPA should monitor those stats
14 to assure continued success of those programs.
15 Second, some of the rules that are proposed are larc
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
anr! nnngotagg^-r-r a-nd—wiil - be -wasteful, and inf latiortai
and will definitely interfer with the expeditious production
oil and gas so desparately needed by this company. The esti
mate loss of only 9,500 barrels a days, would appear on first
blush to be highly conservative, but even at that, based on
current refining abilities,that breaks down to about 200,000
gallons of gasoline a day, and I am not looking forward to
explaining that to our President, and certainly not to an
independent trucker.
Let us refocus our attention on the new and cumberso
-------
71
1 j regulation but on the desire goal of using what works. You'
i
2 | find, the independent producers of this country interested
i
3 ; and supportive of the achievement of our joint goals.
4 i Are there any questions?
MR. LEVI17: Thank you. Questions from the panel.
Thank you very much, we'll look forward to your written
comments on the regulations.
8 zir. Engel followed fay Mr. Frank.
9 HEP2-I&N A. ENGEL: i-Ir. Chairman, I will answer seme
1° questions at the end.
11 For those on the staff who may not be familiar, we
12 did, Ms. Phillips, accept the real responsibility on the East
Texas Salt Watar Disposal Company was formed some 38 years ago
I4 with the primary purpose of protecting the environment in and
15
16
around the largest oil field in the lower 48 states of the
United States. Since inception, the Company, -under the strict
17
supervision of the Texas Railroad Commission, has injected
18
0 approximately six billion barrels of sale water that have been
recovered in association with oil production industry. Curren^l
20 we inject almost 700,000 barrels which is about 1/4 of a
billion barrels each year, and that comes from about 6,000
22 wells that are produced in the largest project of this type
23 of industry.
24 There has never, and I repeat never, been an instance
reported in which these operations have been known to cause
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
damage to, or pollution of, fresh water sources. And if you
want to see what happens if we just get a small break in one
of our pipelines, or somebody breaks it and one of them star
to leak, the Texas Railroad Commission people are there like
a covey quail. They just pounce right on us and make sure w<
keep the environment clean.
New to stay within your time limit, I'll only high-
light a few areas today and submit detailed written report
later. And these comments pertain only to those portions of
the proposed regulations relating to 146 Class II wells.
Despite the statement by the EPA in the Federal
Register of Friday, April 20th that "EPA believes this re-
proposal represents a more flexible and workable regulatory
scheme", the reproposal imposes many costly, non-beneficial
and. duplicative rules and regulations on those state regulat
agencies, such as the Texas Railroad Commission, which have
excellent pollution control programs, and on those who opera
disposal and/or injection facilities in those states. The
East Texas Salt Water Disposal Company then continues to
strenuously object to the imposition of these regulations an
is of the opinion that the objectives of the Clean "ater Act
can adequately be accomplished if the EPA will review the
state's current control programs, such as Texas, and issue
an order for those states with adequate controls saying, "Th
State of is required to maintain a program to prc
-------
73 l
i i
I i-
1 i all underground drinking water sources". That's strictly all
i
2 i we need as far as the Class II wells go.
t
i
3 The cumbersome complexity of the proposed rules must,-
! j
4 in part, be attributed to EPA's efforts to write one rigid set)
5 of regulations applicable for the many thousands fields, oil ,
6 and gas fields, whether they be 1,000 feet deep or 31,000 feet!
7 deep, or whether they happen to be in Alaska or off the coast
8 of Hew England. There are just no two fields alike and
9 | virtually none of the reservoirs have absolutely homogeneity
10 throughout.
11 The same degree of evvective protection of fresh water
12 sources can be attained in a much less costly and complicated
13 manner by providing a bit more flexibility in the decision
14 making role of the various state directors.
15 As an illustration, more that 30,000 wells have been
16 drilled to a depth of about 3,500 feet in the East Texas Field
17 Without fear of contradiction, one can state that no new infor--
18 mation of value in protecting sources of drinking water will
19 be forthcoming from many of the numerous required surveys, loci,
20 tests, et cetera, in the drilling and operation of additional
21 enhanced recovery injection wells. Absolutely no new infor-
22 mat ion.
23 Per haps some of the following specific comments will
24 be useful in considering changes needed to provide this
25 flexibility to the state directors. To be specific, the
-------
74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
following continents are for Part 146, Suparts A and C. And
I do have one question of the panel that I'll ask you to
answer later, 146.03 definition and reference is made to 40
CFR 122.03, and I can't find a .03 in the text anywhere.
Part 146.22, construction requirements. Several
of the logs and other tests listed are certainly not needed
well developed fields such as this or where existing systems
are in operation. For example, (d)(1) deviation surveys wou
certainly be adequate in lieu of -directional surveys in almc
all projects. And, of course, we don't even think that you
need deviation surveys.
In (d)(2)(i) Electric logs and caliper logs in
surface holes are certainly not needed where sufficient deve
rr.ent wells have been drilled and logged.
In (d)(3)(i) Gamma ray logs are unnecessary in alma
all developed fields for this particular purpose. It is
suggested that the last sentence of (d) be revised as follow
The Director shall prescribe which of the following logs and
tests shall be required in each field or project, instead of
all of the following.
In (e) once the information in this sub-paragraph
concerning the injection formation is a matter of record for
the director, the required submission of same for each new
well is superfluous in almost all instances.
It is suggested that the following be added to
-------
75
1 | paragraph (e): "The information required in paragraph (e)
2 of this section may be included by reference if the referenc
i
3 is specific in identifying the information in Question and i,
4 readily available to the direct, or the administrator in cases
where EPA issues the permit."
6 Part 146.23 Abandonment of Class II wells, paragraph
7 (b), what dees EPA mean when it says, operators shall assure,
8 through a performance bond or other appropriate means the
9 availability of resources, et cetera?
1° It is suggested that the item be expanded somewhat so
that the directors as well as the operators will know what is
12 acceptable to EPA. There are other references made to these
bonds, certificate, and other sources throughout the preamble
even in Part 122, and other places; and I suggest that they
all be written with the same wording rather then each one
being •diffeareirb-; -
Under 146.24, operating, monitoring and reporting
18 requirements, (b)(3) mechanical integrity tests. The director
should have sufficient authority to utilize any one of the
20 methods listed under 146.08(b) rather than some combination of
21 tests. These are not only costly tests, but they interrupt oi
22 producing operations, and most of them don't tell you much
23 anyway.
From a practical operating point of view, most of the
25 tests listed under 146.08(b) are utilized to isolate a leak
-------
76
1
2 !
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
once a problem is already known to exist.
Part 146.25, Information to be considered by the
director prior to the issuance of a permit. Much of the
information required in this permit for new wells in an exis
.ing project will be readily available to the director by
reference to previous permits and other sources.
It is suggested that the sentence in the first para
graph, "The information required in paragraphs (b),(c) and
(f) of this section may be included by reference, et cetera.
be expanded to include paragraphs (d)(3), (a) and (h) throuc
(n) .
Paragraph (o), in contract to the requirement,we11
I mentioned that. I think that should be the same as in otl
olaces.
How the following brief comment, I'Ir. Chairman, I
have only one comment with respect to 122.37 and that's bee;
it's an intragal part of this. I'd like to make that.
Under Area Permits, 122.37(a)(1), the term within
a single well fuel project or site in a single space. That
tends to eliminate all projects when you say a single well
field. There are no single well fields where you conduct
injection. The following word is suggested, within the sam
field (or reservoir) and within the same state. I think th
your intent but you've got a single well field and there ju
isn't such a thing.
-------
77
t'
view of the uncertainty as to wh.sth.3r oil fields
2 brlines and drilling fluids will, by any stretch of the imagi"
3 ation, be classified as hazardous waste, I'll defer any relate-.,^.
I
4 comments for the appropriate time.
5 MI>. LEVIN: Thank you, Xr. Engel. Are there any
6 questions from the members of the panel?
7 This is an easy one so I'll clarify. You ara correct
8 122,03 was suppose to be 122.3.
9 I4R. ENGEL: I just wanted to show you that I read it.
10 I'i2. LEVIN: I might add that I recall Xr. Engelfs
testimony 3 years ago, and he was much kinder this time. I
12 might also add, that in case it is not clear, that silence
1 *3
doesn't necessary constitute acquiescence.
14 Mr. Frank followed by Mr. Stamets.
15 JAMES C. FHANK: My name is Jim Frank, and I am
1 fi
employed by Dupont. But today I'm appearing on behalf of the
Texas Chemical Council. I am Chairman of the sub-committee
I O
0 dealing with the use of industrial disposal wells by industry.
19 The Council is an association of 77 cornpanied with
over 62,000 employees in the State of Texas. Over half of the
nation's petrochemicals are produced by member companies in
22 Texas.
23 The Council has a long history of cooperation with.
state and federal agencies in the furtherance of responsible
environmental legislation and regulation. We appreciate this
-------
78
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
opportunity to make an input into the standards setting regi
lations for the UIC rules and regulations.
The TCC, or Texas Chemical Council, has followed tl
development of the UIC rules and regulations under the Safe
Drinking Water Act since their proposal in 1976. Jit that, t:
our concerns were primarily in the area of industrial dispos
wells, although many member companies were also concerned w:
the broader scope of controls ccveered by the recovery of o:
and gas, leachate mining and other well related activities.
At that time, it was obvious to the various experts in these
fields that the regulations were unnecessarily extreme in sc
areas and would cause serious economic impact. The EPA wise
withdraw the regulations for further study and modifications
I did want to state that the member companies of TC
are involved in well activities described in Class I, II,
and III. However, the comments that I want to make are for
Class I wells, or the industrial waste disposal wells.
During the last 2 years, the TCC and others have
participated with EPA in several informal work sessions to
help develop regulation which would meet the practical and
economic objectives of the Safe Drinking ITater Act. General
we believe that Class I regulations as currently proposed ha
achieved these objectives and provide practical and economic
approach to protecting the groundwater without an unreasonab
economic penalty to the country. However, we should qualify
-------
; 79
i
i '•
1 that by saying that this holds true only perhaps because the::.
i
2 are slightly less than 400 wells in this classification. "h-
3 oil and gas industry having hundred of thousands, I can agree
4 with their problems.
5 In this regard, perhaps the most important facture of
6 the control strategy is the concept of separating the wells
7 j into the 5 classes and tailoring the regulations for each
i
8 class. VTe support this concept and believe it allows improved
9 opportunity to work out potential problems in one area, while
10 at the same time moving forward in the implementation of the
11 program in other areas.
12 Overall, we endorse the regulations as they address
13 the permitting procedures. Specifically, the two-step procedure
14 for existing systems, and the concept of area permitting. I'Je
15 also agree with permits for the life of the facility with a 5
I6 year review regulation instead of repenr.itting. We also support
17 the elements of an approvable state UIC program, and particular1
I8 the concept of partial approval of a state program for the
19 various classes.
20 Concerning the various technical aspects of the re-
21 gulations, we believe they are adequate and do not represent
22 excessive limitations. The optional methods for determining
23 area of review are good; however, we believe the states should
24 be authorized to vary the radius by regulation on the basis of
25 geography and/or the type of well. We also believe that
-------
1
2
3
' 4
5
6
7
8
9
10 i
11
12
13
14
15
30
/•
recognizing the potential for overlap between RCPA and the U:
regulation is important, and we agree with the separating
of them at the wellhead. v-Je believe the other technical aspec
such as siting, construction, surface casing, tubing and pacl
and annular injection are acceptable.
There is some question concerning the economic impac
for Class I wells as they apply to industry. We believe the
$5,000 to $35,000 range for testing to be reasonable, althouc
probably or. the low side. However, the cumulative cost shou]
be in the range of $1,500,000 to $10,500,000 or roughtly 5
times the EPA estimate. As mentioned earlier, there are abot
400 wells and if you just do a simple multiplication, you see
-you—are—o£f—OR—your numbers.
It also estimates the cost of remedial work at $15,0
to $100,000 to repair a well and the total impact to be
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to :?2UU,uuu. This apparently assumes only two wells
in the whole nation that's going to be needing seme upgrading
Generally, most of the wells are already built the way the UI
regulations define, but we would say that 2 is too small. Th
apparently, we believe, this to be low by 5 to 10 based on
the upgrading work that is currently being done by companies
having Class I wells.
In closing, we appreciate the way the State of Texas
particularly the Water Resource Department, and the EPA has
worked together with industry and others in the redevelopment
-------
j , 81 '
1 of the Class I regulations. This should serve as an example
2 in the development of other regulations, such as those propos.,
3 under RC5A. SFhere practical solutions to real problems are
_
4 developed, and sufficient flexibility and latitude of engineering
is allowed to deal with the unique characteristics of a system
6 within the environment being impacted.
7 I would try to answer any questions you may have.
j
i
8 MH. LEVIM: Thank you, Mr. Frank. Are there any
I
9 questions from the members of the panel. Ilr. Baltay.
10 I'lH. BALTAY: First of all, could you come and speak
11 at all of our hearings? The serious question that I have is
12 that, you know, as you realized that the estimates are what we
13 believe to be the best national economic estimates that we've
14 got, do you have some specifics that will help us refine those
15 numbers as we go through for the promulgation.
16 XR. FRANK: We could develop some and submit them to
17 you.
18 MR. BALTAY: We would appreciate any help you could
19 give us along those lines because we will want to refine our
20 national estimates.
21 MR. LEVIN: Mr. I-lorekas?
22 I4H. J10REKAS: Your point of comment regarding the
23 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act regulations, would you
24 be able to put forth specifics. Are you addressing to the pro-
25 oosed recrulations or the ones that are in Parts 122 and 123'?
-------
32
f
1 ! MR. FRANK: Basically, the approach., I think, speci.
2 ally I think the way they subdivided to a greater extent the
3 1 areas, like in Class I through Class V, it allows industry
4 , dealing with a special area to key in on that. In general
5 | terms, I think the RCRA rules are trying to solve all the
6 I nations problems with one squeaking set of very complex and
7 I very detailed regulations; and I don't think we're going to
8 '. make any progress in the next 5 to 10 years until we deal wi
I
9 the more serious problems first and not try to regulate ever
i
10 | thing at once.
j
11 j Now that's still just a general statement, but RCR£
12 I think, is headed for the same type of delay and controvars
13 that the UIC regulations did 2 years ago. Everything was, I
14 believe, was an overkill, and then there was a practical
15 approach by EPA and they backed off and people who were beir
16 impacted were able to discuss in non-adversary conditions wi
17 EPA the type of controls.
18 I think the Class II and Class III people still WOT.
19 not agree with me that the UIC regs have reached that degree
20 of practical approach.
21 MR. MOREKAS: I understand you are referring to the
22 over-all designation of hazardous waste as broad definition
23 instead of relying to some form of hazard classification.
24 MR. FRANK: Yes, right.
25 MR. MOREKAS: Okay, thank you.
-------
83
1 j MR. LEVIN: Thank you, Mr. Frank,
i
2 j J. might add because we are no where near half dene o
our list of speakers, 1 do not intend to call a break. So if
anybody feels that they need to leave the room, please do so
5 { when you have to. I've also been asked to scratch Mr. Charles
i
6 Farmer for today of Petroleum Engineer Wyoming Gas and Oil
7 Commission, he'll testify tomorrow.
8 1-Text speaker is llr. Stamets followed by Mr. Hanby of
9 the Alabama Oil and Gas Eoard.
10 RICHARD L. STAMTTS: Thank you, Alan.
11 The only Aggie story I know is about the Aggie who
12 left the State of Texas and joined the EPA Staff thereby, in-
creasing the average intelligence level of both. (Laughter)
14 Up until that time, I wasn't even aware that they had a Law
15 School down there.
I am Dick Stamets, Technical Support Chief, with the
1" Oil Conservation Division of the State of New Mexico. Besides
18 that, I happen to be the Chairman of the Environmental Protectipi
19 Committee of the Interstate Oil Contact Commission, and a
20 member of tha National Drinking Hater Advisory Council. Eow-
21 ever, I am here today representing my position xvith the state.
22 These are preliminary comments that I am submitting
23 here today on the reproposed regulations; and I would expect
24 that our final comments when they are submitted to be somewhat
25 more extensive, and perhaps changed due to clarification of
-------
84
1 issues which we have raised at this hearing today.
2 Further, due to the length and the complexities of
3 regulations, we would request that the extension of comment
4 ] period be made to October 15, 1979. We feel that it is iri-
5 ! appropriate that EPA expect the state oil and gas regulatory
6 : agencies to review and develope comments on this tremendous
7 j package to all 4 sections, and you've got to read all 4 toge
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
i
i
-16—i
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
at a time when we are experiencing the highest drilling rate:
in years, and to do this over the summer when"about half of
staff is on vacation half of the time, it is really a tremem
task and is something that EPA ought not to have dumped on u,
The first three comments are in the preamble of the
UIC Part. T7e concur with EPA's two proposals for aquifer
exemptions. T-Te feel that the states working with, the Region.
offices of EPA can utilize these exemptions to reduce cost t<
the—states and- industry while still protecting usable underg:
sources of drinking water.
V:e agree that the annualus nonitoring is' one of the
better methods of determining continued mechanical integrity
of injection wells. However, some wells cannot be completed
such a manner as to permit such a test to be taken, and it i:
believed that flexibility needs to be provided in this regul<
tion.
Further, we believe that it is useless to report re;
of annulus pressure data which show that there is no problem
-------
35
1 with the injection well, and we certainly hope that is left
2 out of any final regulation.
3 i-Te believe that Class III wells should be subdivided,
4 so that each one is dealt with individually. For example, geo-
thermal wells which return condensed geothermal steam, or hot
6 water, to the originating formation should not be subjected to
7 the same rigorous Class III requirements as a solution mining
8 well. These more properly fit the requirements of Class II
9 wells in that they are normally drilled, produced, and operated
10 in the same general manner.
11 Section 146.04. The shpaes of aquifers and how they
12 interfinger with, underlie or overlie mineral or oil or geo -
thermal producing horizons do not lend themselves to sinrcle
14 geographic description such as by section, township and range.
For example, one may be able to define aquifer and the line
whare it interlinyera with an oil or gas zone as being an
1^ aquifer on one side and a non-aquifer on the other side today.
° But tomorrow, the operators have to drill on the other side
of that line and develop an addition to this oil pool, so that
20 5 months or a year down the line, the line has affectively
21 moved over. At that point, to require the operator to come in
22 and has tc ask the state to change the state's plan and send
23 a new set of maps off to the EPA in Washington, is really
ridiculous. Uhat we need is a definition which allows for the
oc
situation where we have additional development which demonstrate
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that the zone called an aquifer before is no longer an aguif
at that point. I think this can be done, we will be making
some proposals along that line.
l'7e use the 1/2 mile area of review in the state, so
we are not going to have any problem with the EPA's proposal
for the area of review.
Section 146.07, you've already got the misnumbering
thare. It talks about corrective action. In Mew Mexico, we
usually take what the operators subir.it, review it, review ou
records and we find out which are the bad wells in our opini
and which wells need to have some corrective action taken, a
we tell the operator, you must do this.
Apparently 122,38, contemplates that it will be don'
in this manner, whereas 146.07 says the operator will tell u;
At the very least, you should provide that it be either way.
?Ie feel like the director is the one normally who is going t<
say who will do what. Also, if we do it this way—what we d<
is say that now you can't inject until you get this repaired
If we can do it that way then we can get rid of these compli;
schedules which have no place relative to Clciss II vrells. T3
are just too many Class II wells to set up a bunch of compli;
schedule and hire 500 clerks to sit there and see that every-
body files the paper work on time to no particular use.
We noted the mechanical integrity tests, one is enoi
in most cases unless you have an indication there is a probls
-------
87
1 ! and if you would substitute the words "one or more of the
2 following" for the first line of paragraph (b) of this sectior.
3 ! we believe you can resolve that problem.
4 I'm going to skip over my comments relative to 146.12 !
5 and 146.13, because they are going to be essentially identical <
6 to 146.22 and 146.23. i
7 ! There seer.s to be an improper reference in Section ;
8 146.21(f) to 122.42(b). I don't think it cross checks there. \
\ \
9 Section 146.22, the wording of this section seems to :
10 prohibit the use of anything but newly drilled wells for injec-
11 tion after the effective date of these regulations. While the
12 wording of the section is not specific as to this point, the
13 requirements such as logging and directional surveys could not
14 be met, necessarily, by a well which had already been drilled.
15 Now the common practice of disposing of oil field brine is
16 putting in a new waterflood project is to use an existing well
for injection wells. These wells are reviewed for casing,
cementing, construction and must meet essentially the same re
19 quirements as a newly drilled well. Further, new wells are
20 costing anywhere from $100,000 to half a million dollars,for
I
21 wells the depth that we are talking about. Actually, we are
i
22 having quite a few wells drilled now at $1,000,000 to S1,.500,OOJO
23 it would seein highly improper to enact requirements that would
24 prohibit the use of sound old wells for injection. The open-
25 ing paragraph of this section appears to require that existinc
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 I
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
88
i-
enhanced recovery and hydrocarbon storage wells come into
compliance with all the requirements for newly drilled injec
wells; these being requirements for construction, operating,
monitoring, reporting, et cetera. As such wells cannot be
redrilled, recased and recemented, there is a possibility th;
some could not be in such compliance, however, if such wells
are not a threat to underground sources of drinking water, tl
should be allowed to continue to be utilized as injection we!
EPA needs to spell this out clearly in this section of the
regulation.
In paragraph (d) of that same section, the requireme
for directional surveys on new injection wells borders on the
ludicrous. In conducting numerous, literally thousands, of
tests to determine mechanical integrity, we have never seen e
indication of leakage resulting from the diverging holes as
anticipated by this paragraph.. Directional surveys should cr.
be required if excessive hole deviation is encountered. The
requirement for logging of the surface before running of casi
again, is unnecessary. it can result in colapse hole and al
kinds of problems.
In many of our oil and gas areas, there are literall
thousands of wells drilled in the same vicinity and little
significant additional data would be generated by these logs.
Division rules require the circulation of cement on surface
casing, and little valuable information would be gained by th
-------
- 39
1 I proposed logging. The same would hold true for the long
! "" ""
2 | or intermediate casing except for the circulation requirement.
j
3 It is felt that the variety and type of logs run should be
4 left to the discretion of the operator. Except in those cases >
5 j where the director has determined that other logs should be ru/
5 depending on a unique circumstance. Vie do agree with the re-
i
7 quirement that a cement bond log or a temperature survey should
8 be run on the long string or any proposed injection well if
9 j cement is not circulated. SP logs have had no significant usacje
10 in New Mexico oil fields in 20 years. EPA should spell out the
11 information that they seek to determine from such logging and
12 permit the applicant to submit that information in the best forlm
13 available to him. This might include other logs or data derivdd
14 from other sources besides the well itself.
15 Section 146.23. Most injection wells at the time thev
-16 are-to—be plugged-retain—a -considerable amount of formation
17 pressure and can backflow for an extended period of time.
18 Plugging procedures normally require that this zone be shut off
19 by a bridge plug with some kind of cement on ton, or fay squeeze
20 cementing before the well is plugged, before the mud would be
21 put in in this case. In such cases that we are talking about,
22 to obtain a solid mud column from top to bottom before setting
23 this bridge plugger, before squeezing the zone, would be
24 essentially impossible. The regulation might be revised to
25 provide that the injection interval shall be squeeze-cemented on
-------
90
1 ;; otherwise isolated, and that the hold shall be filled from t
i j
2 ij to bottom and equalized with mud if indeed such a recmireir.er.
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
necessary at all.
Section 146.24. Host major oil and'gas producing st
have existing reporting systems for production of oil and ga
injection of water/ and so forth. If EPA now requires signi
cantly different reports, forms, et cetera, the cost to the
states for processing and for industry in reporting could be
increased tremendously. In New Mexico's case, a single repo
provides monthly data on production, injection, injection
pressure, sale of oil, sale of gas, storage, and one time we
got it all.
Paragraph (b)(1) requires monitoring of the nature
injected fluids at, intervals sufficiently frequent to yield
data representative of its characteristics. EPA's comment o
Page 34277-?—following Section 122.14(a)(l)—Jdndicat&s that su
monitoring is not generally required in UIC applications. T:l
concue with EPA's comment in this matter and we feel that th
paragraph, in 146, should be corrected by beginning it with
the words "where appropriate".
Paragraph (c) requires that the owner or operator s
be required to identify the types of tests and methods used
generate the monitoring data. We feel that this should incl
the modifying statement "where appropriate" or "as required
the director". In most instances it is obvious to our field
-------
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1"
i s
10
19
20
21
22
OK
91
personnel what methods are being used and there is no need i::
just simply duplicating this information.
Section 146.25. In paragraph Cb) of this section,
the second sentence, change the word "show the number or name
and location of" to "identify and locate". You are talking
about the wells on the map, most of the maps are so darn small
that if you try to show all that information on there, the
map will be black. The appropriate place for showing this
information is on the tabulation, and the map just needs to
identify the well as closely so that the two can tie together.
Paragraph (c)(3) talks about the chemical analysis ofi
the injected fluid, and we feel like we should also include
the analysis of any additives that are going to be included
with the injection fluid.
Paragraph (f) talks about the applicant showing aqui-
fers on the application. 3y and large, he comes in and asks
us where they are, and this means that we would tell him then
he would tell us. We certainly agree with the gentlemen from
the Texas Water—East Texas Disposal Systems on that, I
thought that was an excellent idea, and I'm certainly going to
include something like that in our final comments. If the
director has the information, the applicant can submit it by
reference, and if the director is happy with that he should be
allowed to go ahead.
Paragraph (n) for consistency needs to have "or
-------
92
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
required by the director" at the end of the paragraph.
Paragraph (p) should be removed from this section
entirely. This talks about mechanical integrity prior to
permit. That mechanical integrity certainly needs to be she
before injection is permitted but not before the permit.
The biggest thing of all, if EPA would accept ongoi
proven state programs in lieu of their rr.ininvuir. requirements,
we could do this whole thing with minimum expense to the
federal government. I know we've had this argument for a
long time, but I see no reason why EPA can't go to Congress
and say, look now, we could do it this way and it would cost
us about half or 1/3 of what we are going to spend otherwise
and they'd probably give you guys a medal. And I will answe
anv Questions.
(Applause)
MR. LEVIN: It sounds like you brought your fan clul
Questions from the panel. I have one.
In discussing the area of review, you indicated thai
in New Mexico that you don't allow an operator to inject unt:
he makes the correction—
MR. STAMETS: I perhaps wasn't thorough or. that poii
r-~e ro c. couols cf ::?/;". One we say no injection or no injec-
tion above hydrostatic pressure until it's fixed. It depends
on the problem.
MR. LEVIN: Is that applicable to new wells as well
-------
93
, I*
1 ; as existing wells?
2 | MR. STAMETS: ??ell, at this point I would say that .'. -
i
3 is essentially only applicable to new wells. Anything since
4 1977 or starting in '77.
liR. LEVIN: Let me clarify once again. If he already
6 has an injection well operation, do you make him shut down if
I
7 he is already injecting?
8 MR. STAMETS: Mo. Now if we find a problem, we might j
9 and in one instance, there was one well within the confines
10 of a very heavily drilled and injected area, and the new well
11 was simply replacing an existing well on the same 40 acre
12 tract. A field investigation showed no indication of ground
13 water contamination or any leaks, and also this was in an area
14 where there was essentially no ground water, and we said to
15 heck with it, we'll wait until its program comes out, go ahead
16 MR. LEVIN: Any other questions from the panel?
17 Thank you very much, Mr. Stamets.
18 MR. STAMETS: Thank you.
19 MR. LEVIN: The next gentlemen is Mr. Hanby followed
20 by Steve Kelley.
21 MR. KEN HANBY: Mr. Chairman, other members of the
22 Environmental Protection Agency, ladies and gentlemen, I am
23 Kan Kanby, Assistant Oil and Gas Supervisor, State Oil and Gas
24 Board, State of Alabama. I do not have a copy of ray prepared
25 talk but I will get it to the clerk before the hearing is over,j
-------
24
and I will address questions.
2 My comments are directed to the proposed regulatior
3 pertaining strongly to salt water disposal wells and inject!
4 wells for enhanced oil or gas recovery.
5 Oil and gas operations in the 30 producing oil and
6 states in this country have been regulated for many years by
the various state regulatory agencies. In this respect, Ala
bama, has adopted rules and regulations which include specif
requirements for permitting of disposal wells and injection
wells for enhanced recovery. Although no two states have
identical regulations, the purpose of the regulations are th
12 same, 'with these wells, it is the intention to drill, to
13
complete and to operate in such a manner that the injected
fluid will not enter an existing or a potential water supply
This is the same purpose that you in EPA have.
46-
Our regulatory staff consists of petroleum engineer:
1 geologists, hydrologists, civil engineers, and biologists am
18
other technical people who have very important responsibilit.
I9 We are proud of our efforts and feel a strong responsibility
the states which we serve, and to the citizens of those stati
and to the need to insure that at all times the fresh water
resources of our state are protected.
The results of the state regulatory efforts speak fc
24 themselves. I will not go into the studies there were conduc
they have been mentioned previously, and EPA is very familiar
-------
14
95
r
1 with these. These were the studies conducted by underground
2 resource management and Lewis R. Reeder and Associates. I
was going to comment and quote from those studies which shox7
4 that pollution was evident from the oil and gas operations in
5 the states studies .
Since EPA's first proposed regulations in 1976, the
regulatory agencies in the various states have insisted that
their programs work. These studies indicate that that is true.
If the proposed EPA program does not result in elimination of
pollution or possible pollution, and if it is not occurring
11 it will now eliminate that, then the only result will be
increased operating costs in the various states and a contri-
13
bution to the spiraling inflation in this country. _EPA has
been urged, and by this statement we are urging again that
15 PA exempt from the EPA regulations, those states which can
1 fi
demonstrate that they have a sound program of administering
and monitoring injection well programs.
18
I will make a few favorable comments since the original
19
regulations were proposed. They are better, there is more
~ ~"
20
flexibility. Existing wells can be permitted by rules, permit^
21
can be issued for the life of the facility, the area of review j
\
has been modified.
90
Going specifically to comments on the sections in
24
146.04, it provides that the director shall designate as under-
25 •
ground sources of drinking water, all aquifers or parts thereof
-------
96
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
which currently serve as sources of drinking water or which
contain fewer than 10,000 milligrams per liter of total di-
solved solids. However, and I will comment on 122 at this
point because I think it is pertinent, it says the director
shall identify all aquifers or parts of aquifers which are n
underground sources of drinking water in accordance with the
criteria contained in 146.04; and then further states that a
aquifers not so identified shall be designated underground
sources of drinking water.
This last section approaches the designation of
underground drinking water sources in the reverse direction
then 146 does. Although it says it is done in accordance
with 146. The method in 122 appears to be an unworkable met
as it approaches the designation of underground drinking sou
by defining first all aquifers that are not underground drin
ing water sources. In areas of states where very little sub
surface information is available this would be practically
impossible. If it was found that in these areas, aquifers w
not underground drinking water sources that had. previously h
been designated because of lack of information, then the sta
program would have to go through the lengthy amending proced
before an oil and gas operator could get approval for an
injection well.
Under Section 146.22(d) minimum requirements for 1C'
and other tests are given. These requirements are rigid and
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
97
/•
parts illogical and do not provide the states with any flexi-
bility. First of all the requirement for directional surveys
to be conducted on all holes to assure that vertical avenues
for fluid migration in the form of diverging holes are not
created. I assume EPA is intending for diverging holes to be
the original bore hole that has been abandoned and the well
has been sidetracked. Due to the normal reason for sidetrack-
ing/ that being junk in the hole, it would not be practical
nor engineeringly sound to attempt running directional survey-
ing equipment in the area of a hole where junk has been lost.
If this is the intention, it appears that this discre-
tion in judgment should be left with the director of the state
program who could require that the entire junked part of the
•
hole be cemented if it was necessary, to prevent possible escapje
of any injected fluids into fresh water aquifers; not by re-
quiring a directional survey.
Further, under this section, specific logs or curves
are required for surface hole and any completed hole. The
intention of these regulations is, I am sure, to insure that
injections are done in such manner that none of the injected
fluids can enter an underground source of drinking water. State
regulatory ^rancies have the sar.e objective, ~:".d Alabama has
required specific well construction standards, and monitoring
procedures for injection wells for years. Vie are not stating |
]
that we are opposed to having the information derived from such]
-------
98
1 . logs if it is necessary. However, we do oppose these condit
||
S
2 ji whereby no flexibility is given to the state director in max
3
4
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
these judgments.
Seventy-five percent of the permitted, salt water
disposal wells or existing wells hava been from conversion o
either abandoned producers or dry holes. Ninety-seven perce
of the converted secondary recovery wells are from conversio
of existing abandoned producers. With the inflexibility tha
these minimum requirements carry, unless an existing well ha
been logged in such fashion to conform to the minimum, requir
ments any use of these wells for injection purposes would be
prohibited. These wells have been drilled, the casing
has been set and cemented, the logs have been run and man:/ °
these wells were drilled years ago when logging techniques a
available tools are not what they are today.
The construction of these wells, and their operatic
has been approved by the State Oil and Gas Board in Alabama
to assure that underground sources of drinking water are pro
tected. "ith deep wells which have been drilled to 12,000 o
greater surface casing has been set at 3,000 and 6,000 feet.
In many cases no logs were run on the surface hole; however,
there are many shallow wells in the area upon which ES and S
logs have been run and these are available for the director
the state program to determine the depth of the fresh water
resources that must be protected. This is once again the ar
-------
99
'•
1 { where flexibility is needed. It should be left up to the sta-:
2 director to determine if sufficient evidence is available to
i
i
3 | determine the depth of fresh water, and if the existing well
i
4 that could be converted to an injection well is properly
i
5 constructed to prevent the migration of fluids into the fresh
6 water zone. If the operator was attempting to convert a well
7 J to an injection well and sufficient information including logs
8 is not available, we would require this information before we
9 would consider issuing a permit.
10 There are a number of oil fields in Alabama which.
11 would be prematurely abandoned if it became impossible to con-
12 vert dry holes or abandoned producers to salt water disposal
13 wells because of a lack of the minimum required laws.
14 The required compliance schedules may be logical re-
15 quirements in construction of a plant or hazardous waste facililt]
16 But as we see it, it only complicates and adds additional paper
17 work in permitting Class II wells.
I8 I know we have time limits and I am about out of time
I9 and I possibly would have additional comments today on Part
20 146 except that I just received Farts 122, 23, and 24 last
21 Monday and these parts are extremely complex and confusing and
22 are t^t^ll^* inter^r I~t3'.f
23 "e appreciate EPA's extension of the comment period
24 on part 146 and as :!r. Stamets said earlier, we would urgently
2^ recuest the comment oeriod on all 4 of these items be extended
-------
100
'•
at least until October 15th..
Finally, to reiterate our main comment, we urgently
request EPA to seriously consider waiving the requirements p
posed in the regulations for states who can demonstrate to
EPA that our programs are adequate in terms of compliance wi
general regulations. Further, if EPA proceeds and fails to
"
allow a state to administer its own program, if deemed adequ.
needless waster of energy, money, time and paper work will
occur. And if the rules remain inflexibility, unnecessary w<
10 will be drilled and production of oil and gas in this couritr;
reduced. A_nd to the member of EPA, you are a part of V-Jashin<
ton, and the government that President Carter was talking ab<
13
last night, we have been and are still trying to reach you.
14 Thank you.
15 MR. LEVIN: Mr. Baltay?
Z'IP.. BALTAY: I have one point of clarification and
a question
18
Your puzzlement on the way we chose to say designate
19
source of underground drinking water, that was motivated by
20 I
the finding that to make the state go through and map all th<
gi
aquifers or the base of the 10,000 zone or whatever, would b«
inordinately expensive and therefore, we chose to do it the
OO
other way seeing that there is a general presumption on proti
ing acceptance specific cases where the director chooses not
designate portion of an aquifer, is that really an unworkab.
-------
14
ioi :
I /•
1 ! system? Doesn't that, in fact, save you time and effort to ;.-...
2 have to specify in detail the ones you will not protect?
3 I-'IR. EANBY: I think it would be easier since public
i
record in most states have the record where zones are producir ;
water into the different counties. There are in public record'-
the depth of the well, the aquifers have been identified by .
the geological survey. To go in and define all cf the zones
that are not underground sources would require to move into
areas in cases where there are mainly municipal supplies.
There is not evidence on enough wells in the area to deferen-
tiate that these are not underground sources. If you say, these
12
* are not underground sources which, in turn, says everything
13
else is underground drinking sources, then when you move into
these areas then you have to mend your state program. You may
find that you included some areas that are not underground
drinking sources.
17
M?.. BALTAY: But then if you use the information you
18
have available to you now, you would not propose not to
1°
designate certain areas. How would you generate the detail to
90
say this portion is exempted from protection.
21 M?.. EANBY: We have the information in each of the
92
^ counties and the aquifers that are currently producing water
23
in the state are all known. T7e feel like this would be a
much easier method to approach it, then by going the other
25
way and designating everything that's not.
-------
1
2
3
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
102
t~
HS. BALTAY: My other question, your major coirnent
on waiving state requirements would seeir. to imply some sort <
process whereby EPA or the administrator would have to make ?
judgment or a determination of what state acts we could waive
or state why we will not waive. What is your thinking on tha
type of process? What can EPA do, what extent would SPA get
into the state's system and files to get the information to
make the kind of judgment?
1*!?,. HANBY: T-7e have just had a recent effort in this
manner and I will expand on those. With the natural Gas PolJ
Act passing FEEC was required to certify gas wells but it COT.
pass on to the states if they supplied their method of certii
ing of gas wells. FERC proposed a set and adopted a set of
general guidelines where they emphasized the lack of disrupts
of state programs whereby the state, using their own procedui
and their own method of gathering data, designing their own
forms to present in a narrative form, not 2,500 pages long, I:
ours was something like 15 legal pages; we could outline our
program, what information we have in our files, how we genera
how a person could make an application according to the state
wide rules, and our notice hearings. Then how we would use t
information to make our judgment. This has been done with
minimal impact on the states, we have taken this responsibili
I will point out that FSRC has no money for us to do it, we t
this on ourselves because we felt like in doina so it was a
-------
103
1 critical point in the industry and failure to do this would
2 ! mean that FEP.C would, certify it, and they may not get around
I
I
3 to it.
4 ME. BALTAY: Do you, for example, foresee any actual
field work by EPA to assess the effectiveness of this thing?
i-IR. EANBY: VTe have, for example, on every disposal
7 well you must supply us with information including logs, identify
8 ing the fresh water zone, your casing program, your cementing
9 program. You must show logs of the proposed injection zone,
10 if you use a nearby well, of course, before you drill a well
11 you don't have a log on that well unless it's a converted well:
I
12 and then we have the logs available when the well was originally
drilled. The aquiface must be identified and then in a public
14 hearing we would respond to that.
15 MR. LEVIN: A follow-up - question similarly related to
that, would you be receptive to an EPA team going into your
state and doing a survey of your state programs?
18 ZIP.. EAHBY: Yes, sir. I-Te- would encourage you to
actually do that. We have supplied our rules and regulations,
20 ue have monitoring requirements, monthly monitoring requirements
I
21 As Nex 2'!exico has, the operator must supply us with production j
22 salt water production, injection, annulus pressure reporting,
23 volume injected, the zone it is injected to, the depth. We
24 have monitor wells in tha fields, in Alabama and oil and gas
rte
producing states these are mainly water supply wells that was
-------
104
were drilled during the drilling of the wells originally.
! We have agents that are in the field that monitor annulus
pressure, every well is monitored only once a month and more
then likely 2 or 3 times a month he goes by, the injection
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
gage is on the well and we carry one with us.
MR. LEVIN: Thank you, I think you have answered ti
question. Are there any other questions from members of the
panel? I-lr. Knudson?
1-1R. KiTODSON: Would you see it acceptable for if th<
EPA approved your system, then EFA would then have those rul«
and regulations would become federal rules and regulations
enforceable in Federal Court also? Would you see that as an
ootion?
IIR. EAN3Y: Let me see if I understand that. If EPJ
allowed us to set up and continue our own program, would we
expect then that EPA could enforce our regulations in Federal
Court.
MR. KNUDSON: Right.
MR. EAHDBY: If legally they can do it, I don't see
any problem with it. Ive can enforce them in the State of
Alabama-.
MR. KHUDSOi-T: v-Je do this in the ?ir or^o::-- -rhere T.:-
accept what the state rules and regulations are, then th'ey be
come Federal rules.
IIR. BALTAY: Expound the ground rules for the state'
-------
105
1 | program.
2 MR. KAH3Y: That's good.
3 MR. 3ALTAY: You would feel comfortable with, some lev^l
4 of EPA on site look at the program and then in fact say we feel
i
i
5 that this is effective. !
6 21R. EANBY: Yes, sir, we've been saying it for 4
7 and we would encourage it.
8 ZIR. BALTAY: We'll be up there.
9 rlP.. LEVIK: Okay, thank you very much. The next
10 gentlemen is Mr. Steve Kelly
11 MR. STEVE KELLY: I am Steve Kelly, Executive Directorj
12 of the Oklahoma Independent Petroleum Association. OIPA is an
association comprised of more then 1,050 members concerned with
14 and working toward the betterment of the Oil and gas industry
15 in Oklahoma. It's members include individuals and corporations!
engaged in all aspects of the independent petroleum industry
within our state. Members of OIPA are vitally concerned with
proposed federal underground injection control program which
19 is being discussed here today.
20 OIPA is encouraged by the many changes the EPA has
21 made and proposed technical standards for underground injection
22 operations over those originally proposed in August of 1976.
23 Nevertheless, we believe the Agency has failed to
24 answer the single most important question underlining the pro- '
25 posed UIC program as it relates to oil and gas operations.
-------
10
I IThy is the federal program necessary in producing
i
2 states with adequate injection programs already in place anc5
3 operational. Production of crude oil and natural gas in Okl
4 hom.a dates back over SO years. Presently, Oklahoma is produ
5 approximately 400,000 barrels of crude oil daily from 74,000
g wells with approximately salt water production of 1,600,000
1 barrels.
o For a number of years, oil field injection and disp
9 operations have been under close scrutiny and control of the
lO Oklahoma Corporation Commission. The OCC will be testifying
H at your hearings in T-Iashi:
12 The effectiveness of this program in safeguarding t
13 state's underground drinking water sources is supported in t
14 study which has been mentioned previously here today. The
15 Federal UIC program assumes the oil and gas production indus
_i3 n-i-il'i ^e-g faulty or at—least less—than optimal.
17 practices. Strict OCC rules and regulations in Oklahoma str
18 refutes such an assumption.
19 Furthermore, poor engineering or bad. operating tech
2o could lead to loss production, which no producer can afford.
2i Khile the OIPA will leave detailed comment of the specific
22 Part 146 to later written submission, we would nevertheless
23 to comment on a few of the requirements, we believe are
24 especially onerous.
25 First of all, the numerous logs and. tests that are
-------
107
I-
required before setting surface casing will be of little
practical benefit while adding unnecessarily to the cost of
oroduction.
4 j Second, the satisfactory showing of mechanical integrity
5 must be made every 5 years. Given the hundreds of wells that
6 : will have to meet this requirement and the associated paper
7 ! work burden, it seems more prudent to require evidence of
]
8 ! mechanical integrity only when the facts suggest there may be
9 a problem present. Furthermore, the OIPA submits financial
10 responsibility provision are accepted.
11 Oklahoma rules current specify that operators have
12 $10,000 surety on file to cover plugging of oil, gas and in-
jection wells. We do not believe the additional reuirement
14 of a performance bond is necessary or useful.
15 Finally, the OIPA would like to address EPA's cost
16 versus loss to oil and gas production figures. Perhaps, more
disturbing then the actual figures themselves, is the Agency's
18 apparent attitude that the cost while running several hundred
19 million dollars for the entire industry are "actually .. sr.all
20 relative to the economic potential of the oil and gas industry']
21 Most of OIPA's members are very small business oper-
22 ations, many consisting of only the producer himself. Many oj
23 our members operate marginally economic oil and gas wells.
24 The addition of even minimal operating cost could force many cif
these wells to be shut down prematurely. ;
-------
108
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The independent producer also plays a significant
role in looking for and developing new supplies in domestic
oil and gas. A venture that is becoming increasingly expens
Cash flow is a significant concern to my membership.
Government programs whether they are state or fader
they add to the paper work endurance contest and the cost of
exploration and production activities have a very significan
impact on the small producer. Increase cost of production a
a result of this program in turn, will impact negatively on
the development of our energy reserves.
In closing, let me state on behalf of the OIPA that
we share the EPA's priority in protecting underground source
of drinking water. After all, most of OIPA's members live i
communities that have oil field injection and disposal opera
nearby. Nevertheless, we believe that our state currently b
adequate rules to assure our drinking water sources will be
protected, "e do not believe the regulations recently propc
by SPA would contribute any additional environmental protect
but would have a significant adverse impact on our continued
ability to produce and meet the domestic petroleum supplies.
In light of these comments, we must again ask the
question, why is a federal program necessary in producing st
with adequate injection programs already in place and operat
al? Thank you.
HP.. LEVIK: I-ir. Baltay?
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
109
f
MR. 3ALTAY: I have several questions. With regard
tc mechanical integrity, there was a specific comment in the
preamble which said that we had thought about sampling technics ,2 s
rather than the universal mechanical integrity. Do you have a
any help for us there? Do you see any possibility for using
their requirement in that direction?
MH. KELLY: vre would like to—we will be addressing
that in our technical comments which we will be submitting..
M3U BALTAY: Ck. Two points of clarification, I've
heard the performance bond mentioned several times and I
think you are aware that the statement is that seme kind of
financial responsibilty, bond is one possible form of that but 1
nothing in the regulations require a bond per se. There is a
variety of ways in which that financial responsibility can be
demonstrated.
The other point that I wanted to mention very quickly,
is the IOCC study which EPA has reviewed. Our general conclu-
sion is that the ICCC report wasn't as helpful as we had hoped
it would be in establishing whether or not there is indeed
contamination related to- oil and gas production. The central
problem is that you've got a large universe' of wells out of
which a relatively small fraction is polluting, and the methcc-
ology used by URN did not have the power to reveal that kind
of marginal statistical problem. So the fundamental conclusion
about the lOCC's study, in our opinion, has got to be that it
-------
1
2
3
4
c what the IOCC study did do was stimulate us to do additional
I
work, which has already begun and will continue during the;
comment period.
MR. SCHHAPF: I'm David Schnapf with the enforceman-
group at EPA. On this bond thing, I want -to make ona point
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
18
19
2o
2i
22
23
24
25
110
really doesn't demonstrate either way. The statistical meth<
dology just wasn't powerful enough to show the kind of probl<
that we think we ' ve got .
MR. LEVI1I: May I add something to that? Kcwever,
clear and I think it raises another point that needs to be
made.
A lot of you have mentioned that the states program:
already requires a bond and that the additional federal bond
would be superfluous. I think it is our understanding that
the state bonds would fulfill the requirement of these regu-
.lations,. and that you wouldn't need to post mere than one bci
I think that goes to a broader issue which is, we're hoping
that these existing state programs will, in fact, implement
these provisions and that there will not be more than one
program in the state. Vie certainly hope that that would be
the case; and we certainly would not like to disrupt those
existing state programs.
Mil. KELLY: What would you propose to do in the cas<
of the Osage Nation in Oklahoma, for instance, where you don
want to have two rograms? The State Corporation Commission
-------
Ill
1 no authority over the Csage Indian land.
2 MR. SCEHJiP?: In that case, we would probably get a
i
3 ! program just for those Indian lands. The rest of the state,
I
4 ! if they assume primacy, the rest of the state would be regulated
5 under the state's program. Now what would be particularly
i i
6 | helpful in your comments, and in all'the comments we receive, :
is to tell us how the existing state program differs from the
8 federal program; and what obstacles arise from your assuming
9 orimacv. Because once the state has assumed orimacy, all
!
:
10 ! injection operators have to comply with are the state rules
11 , and regulations.
12 tip.. LEVIN: We are getting a little bit into Part
13 _12_3 of tomorrovJrj_J''Thich_will discuss the recruirements for an
14 acceptable state program.
15 Thank you, Ilr. Kelly
.ifij 3^
I7 mention to ycu that if you're eating here, and you order from
18 the menu service would be rather slow. They do have a buffet
19 which they recommend for $6.00. This is not an endorsement,
20 I'm just being a messanger in this case.
21 This hearing is adjourned until 1:30. Thank you.
22 (Adjourned for lunch)
23 MR. LEVi:-T: I call the hearing to order, please.
24 vie are ready for the afternoon session. We're going :
25 to give you folks a break this aftarncon. I'rr. not going to go j
-------
112
r
, over the rules once again. You'll just have to remember wha
2 I said this morning. (Applause) That's probably the fd
3 ( applause I've gotten in 3 years.
[
4 : r7e have had our first switch of the afternoon.
5 Mr. ilulligan and Mr. John Soule have switched so/ therefore,
6 our next speaker is Mr. John Soule, Chief Legal Counsel for
7 the Texas Railroad Commission.
8 JOE?! G. SOULS: I-lr. Chairman, and members of the pa
9 Zly name is John Soule, I air. Chief Legal Counsel for the Oil
10 and Gas Division of the Railroad Commission of Texas. The
11 Commissioners have asked that I appear here today and presen
12 comments of the .Railroad. Commission of Texas with regard to
13 the proposed UIC regulations.
14 j The Commission has sole responsibility for the pre-
15 vention of pollution which might result from activities
16 j associated with the exploration, development, and production
17 i oil, gas, and gecthermal resources in Texas. The Commission
18 duties include responsibility for preventing pollution of su.
19 face and subsurface waters in the state. Texas has had an
20 effective underground injection control program for ir.ore tha:
21 50 years.
22 Orders regulating underground injection were issued
23 by the Railroad Commission as early as 1923. Those early on
24 contained casing and well completion requirements in order t<
25 orotect fresh water sands and further made specific provision
-------
113
»•
1 I that the injected fluids must enter no other formation. .Thus,.
2 j the Railroad Commission of Texas was concerned with the ragu-
i
3 lation of injection wells to ensure the protection of fresh
4 water for almost a half century before the U.S.Government or
5 any of its representative conceived of the Safe Drinking vvater
6 Act.
I
7 Almost 700,000 wells have been drilled in Texas in thsj
8 search for oil and gas to supply a fuel-starved nation. More
9 than 200,000 oil and gas wells are now in production. 1'Iore
10 than 41,000 wells in Texas are being used for underground in-
11 jaction in connection with the production of oil and gas.
12 Over the years, there have been very few cases of a
13 alleged contamination, possibly due to oil field operations.
14 In fact, records of the Texas Department of Health show only
15 two cases of alleged contamination over the past 2 years.
16 The Railroad Commission routinely investigates complaints of
17 this nature under its statutory mandate to prevent wast and
18 pollution in connection with the production of oil and gas.
19 When violations are confirmed, immediate remedial action is
20 prescribed. Our experience indicates that eliminating the
21 source generally eliminates the contamination itself.
22 The Safe Drinking /later Act, passed by a majority of
23 the U.S. Congress and signed by the President, requires the
24 Environmental Protection /igency to promulgate regulations for
25 state UIC programs. Those regulations are to contain minimum
-------
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
114
»•
and I stress the word minimum, requirements for the protect!
of drinking water sources. Protection of drinking water sou
requires that underground injection not contaminate undergro
water which supplies or can reasonably be expected to supply
a public water system. The Act further provides that these
regulations may not interfere with oil and gas production,
unless necessary to protect underground sources of drinking
water, and may not unnecessarily disrupt existing state
programs.
The regulations proposed by EPA are unreasonable.
adopted as proposed, the regulations would substantially imp<
the production of oil and gas. They would unnecessarily dis:
a successful and effective U1C program which has been in efft
in Texas for more than 50 years. Adoption of these rules woi
create a severe economic burden on the American consumer. Tl
rules would accelerate the current decline in oil and gas
production in the United States at a time of approaching ecoi
disaster.
The proposed regulations do not provide minimum stai
ards for the protection of drinking water. They impose an
unnecessary, unreasonable, and extremely onerous burden on tl
producers of oil and gas, the ultimate consumer, already bese
by double digit inflation, and the state agencies charged wi1
the responsibility of regulation. This burden is being impos
at a critical time in our history, when a shortage of oil anc
-------
115
r
1 gas tlireatens our very existence as an advanced industrial
2 nation. Uhen the regulations proposed by agencies of the
2 federal government should be striking a reasonable balance
between the protection of our environment and increased produciiic
of our available energy resources, the EPA proposes to dismanu-,3
an effective and long-lived UIC program in Texas, and substitute
7 for it a program of needless and costly overregulation. '
a The Railroad Commission will submit detailed written I
o
technical comments prior to the September, 1979, deadline.
However, by way of further explanation, the following examples
of unnecessary and burdensome regulations are provided.
12 The completion of directional surveys on all injection
13 wells, as required by the proposed regulations, is unnecessary
to ensure protection of drinking water sources.
15 Electrical loc reauirements are more onerous than the;:/
16 [I need to be to insure protection of drinking water_sources.
17 Fracture findling logs are costly and not sufficiently reliable
18 to justify their being run and submitted for all injection
wells.
20 Determination of physical and chemical characteristics
of formation fluids is not necessary to protect fresh water
22 sands.
23 The SPA has earlier agreed that the existing Texas
24 program for control of underground injection meets the require-)
25 ments of the Safe Drinking Nater Act. Yet, with these propose
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 i
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
116
i-
regulations, making provision for "minimum" requirements,
the EPA would require the Texas program to be altered dras-
tically, increasing the cost in both tine and money, without
providing any greater protection for our sources of drinkinc
water.
The Railroad Commission of Texas already requires
protection of fresh water sands in connection with undergrov
injection related to oil, gas, and gee-thermal activities. 1
EPA has gone well beyond the mandate provided by Congress ir
the Act..
These proposed regulations represent yet another Is
of expense to be borne by the ultimate consumer. Gas lines
will be longer. The cost of gas at the pumg will, .increase
further, as will the cost of home heating oil. These regula
tions are ill-conceived and ignore the Congressional mandate
not to impede the production of oil and gas or to disrupt
existing state underground injection programs.
There are sensible ways our environmental regulatic
can be adjusted to take into account our energy needs. Now
the tine to restore balance to our national priorities. The
proposed regulations should be further revised to insure cor
sistency with both our energy and environment needs. The
Railroad Commission of Texas has written a rulebook for a
successful UIC program. EPA would do well to follow the Te>i
lead.
-------
117
r
1 Mr. Chairman, 1 will be happy to answer any questions
2 HP.. LEVIIJ: Are there any questions? Mr. Ealtay?
3 !!?.. 3ALTAY: Did I hear you make reference that EPA
4 has made some kind of finding of definitive statement about
the Texas program?
21Fi. SOULE: Mr. Baltay, we do have a letter from the
7 i then administrator of the EPA, indicating at the time the Safe
8 Drinking vlater Act was being considered by Congress, that he
9 v/as satisfied that the existing program in Texas did satisfy
10 the requirements of the Safe Drinking ifater Act. I understand
11 that that is probably not a binding opinion of the Agency/ but
12 that had been expressed to the members of Congress at the time
13 the Safe Drinking Water Act v.Tas enacted.
14 i MP.. BALTAY: You are referring to the Pickles/Trane
15 exchange of letters, I think the administrator was fairly care-
16 ful to say that as far as he knew, and that it seemed, and et
17 cetera..
18 ME. SOULE: I've been involved in writing letters like
19 that.
20 MR. LEVIN: I have a few questions. You said yo~u
21 would submit specific comments for the record later on, so
22 if you don't wish to address to this today that is perfectly
23 " fine. Can you be more specific where you can tell us where th
24 proposed 146 regulations differ from the Texas regulations,
25 and in what way?
-------
118
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. SCULE: I'd have some difficulty in being very
specific. I am a relative newcomer, and as George Singletar
said several times to me today, I am the mouthpiece here tod
I would suggest those items which I outlined genera
with respect to logging requirements and things like that, a
the areas which I had reference to. I would, prefer to reser
until our written comments those specifics, and we do have
under way specific analysis. But I am assured by our techni
staff there would be a significant change in the program tha
Texas now operates.
MR. LEVIli: That is perfectly fine, we will await y
written comments. Are there any other questions from the pa
Thank you very much.
I forgot to mention that our next speaker was to be
Babette Eiggins. She is Vice-President of Texas Environment
Coalition. I understand Ms Higgins has a virus and won't be
able to be here or at least there is some chance that she mi
not; so, therefore, I will not scratch her at the moment, an
we will come back to 'As. Higgins later on.
Ue will move to ?!r. Earrold S. Wright, Chairman of
the National Energy Policy Committee, Texas Independent Pro-
ducers and r.cy-Altv C'v.ers .^ssociatioii, to be foll.r.;vr by
.Ralph A. Dumas.
EARROLD E. WEIGHT: Ilr. Chairman and members of the
panel: My name is Earrold E. Wright, and I am an independen
-------
119
1 i petroleum producer from Dallas. I'm also a petroleum engine?5::
j
2 and Vice-President of San Juan Exploration Company that does
business primarily in the East Texas area.
I'm here today as Chairman of the National Energy !
Policy Committee of the Texas Independent Producers and Royalt}}
Owners Association. TIPRO is composed of 4,000 members who j
i
have an interest in Texas petroleum production. j
I
8 On behalf of TIPEO, I commend the EPA for its revisions
9 making more realistice the proposed Federal regulation of
10 1976 intended to promulgate the Safe Water Drinking Act passed
by Congress. I'lithout these revisions, there is little doubt
12 that a large portion of domestic crude oil production dependent
10
upon underground injection would, have become uneconomic, and
millions of barrels of reserves would have been lost forever.
Nevertheless, our Association still believes that the
1 fi
revised regulations relating to Class II wells, which include
1 injection wells utilized for enhanced recovery purposes, remaii
18
too stringent and unnecessarily duplicate existing regulation,
particularly in states such as Texas, which have developed
strong anti-pollution requirements over the past 15 years.
21 EPA has estimated that its revised regulations would
cost the petroleum producing industry little more than one-hair
i
23 billion dollars annually and would jeopardize only some 12,000
24 -
barrels of oil production daily. TJ.PRO contends these state-
25
ments are much too modest and tend to mask the fact that un-
-------
120
f
I i necessary environmental protection requirements can result i
2 ! extremely costly burdens for the small producer. There is r
3 ' way to estimate how many current and prospective secondary
4 ; recovery projects would be eliminated by the EPA requirement
still before us concerning injection wells.
6 There remain several valid suggestions for change i
7 EPA's proposed regulations. These will be covered fully in
written testimony by the IPAA next r.onth, which will be endc
9 sed by TIPFsC at that time. And, also, I would like to aclcnc
10 ledge today that we are certainly in a position to endorse
the testimony of Mr. Dillard who represents a number of clos
12 association of TIPP.O, and we would certainly recognize the \
13 fine work that Hr. Herman Engel has done with the Fast Texas
14 Salt water Supply group in handling, for many years, the
15 largest known oil field in the United States under some rath
I.Q trying COndl''"iOT\s wi f-h. ypin j^f-M' on o-F
17 TIPPvO finds it unreasonable to require expensive
18 directional surveys as proposed in Section 146.22. Since th
19 number of these, Mr. Chairman, have already been covered, I1
20 just going to mention them and then we will go on. I don't
21 like 1 should take a great deal of time.
22 ! nR. LEVITT: The Chair appreciates that.
23 I -'!£• V??.IGET: The logging problem we talked about is
24 perhaps v/orn out to some degree under Part 146. 22 (d) (2) and
25 Nhere they require electric logs reading spontaneous potent!
-------
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
. 23
24
and caliper logs, cement evaluation logs, gamma ray neutron
2 ! logs, and the like, we think for the most part are excess re~
3 quirements that really do not serve the purpose that they are
4 intended.
In addition, there is one other requirement of 146.22
(e)(6) where there is a requirement to determine whether the
injected fluids are compatible with the fluids that now exist
in the receiving formation. Ive feel like that is rather un-
necessary if we know that the fluids are not safe drinking
water fluids that need to be protected in the first place.
I believe that's going to cover most of the problems
we had, and in conclusion we strongly urge EPA to make further
revisions in the proposed regulations that will eliminate un-
necessary, costly and duplicatory requirements which threaten
existing and prospective secondary recovery operations in the
field. The State of Texas has already shown that maximization
of oil reserve recovery can be conducted under reasonable rules
protecting fresh water supplies which, at the same time, pre-
serve sound economics for the oil producer.
v'Te think that our State of Texas has done an excellent
job through our Railroad Commission over the past 35 years, and
most particularly in the last 10 years in protecting our fresh
ater. I?e believe we have a workable systsm in this State and
ertainlv we would like to commend our Railroad Commission for
25
:he work they have done. ive feel like it would certainly be
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12]
«•
in order for the EPA to adopt our system to the degree that
they can as now carried out by the Railroad Commission.
Thank you for this opportunity to be heard.
MR. LEVIN: Thank you, Mr. Wright. Will you answer
questions?
MR. WRIGHT: Yes, sir
ME. LEVIN: Any questions from the members of the
panal? I have one.
Your statement addresses our comment on the possibi
of exempting small producers from the regulations, we specif
ally requested a comment on that. Do you have any thoughts
about how such an exer.pt ion might be formulated?
MF.. FRIGHT. Well, I suppose as many ways as that
could be formulated, small exemptions have been made on the
basis of production of an individual operator under other
circumstances. The small producer set-up, as you recall bei
the F3C set a minimum amount of gas, I think we have had
legislation that considers the number of barrels of oil;
possibly could consider growth dollars, there are many ways
to do it. Probably on the amount of oil, I would suppose we
be the more logical approach.
MR. LEVIH: Do you have any particular cut-off in
mind?
MR. WRIGHT: Mo, sir.
MR. LEVIN: Thank you. Mr. Schnapf?
-------
122
/•
1 MH. £CE:TJ?.PF: Yes7 this is a follow-up question,
2 and I'd advise you to ask it of the former speaker. Does the
3 Texas ?.ailroad Commission, have any exemption for small
t
I
4 operators or do you know?
5 I-IR. PTSIGET: No, sir, I do not believe there are any
I
6 exemptions. I think all the rules are applied to everyone
7 uniformly and the same.
i
8 MR. SCENAPF: Ok.
9 MR. LEVIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Wright.
10 The next speaker is Mr. Dumas, I think I pronounced that right
11 on the third try, followed by Mr. James Greco.
12 FALPH A. DUMAS: I appreciate the opportunity to
come up here, I night even say that since I've been Director
14 of Oil and Gas Producers (inaudible).
I won't bore you with, a lot of repitition here, I
would like to say a number of items here pinpointed to point
out but it's been gone over by a number of the other speakers,
18 ^jr-. Dillard really came down on it. In fact, I think I could
endorse most of the statements ir.ade here today. I won't
20 endorse the man from Duoont too closely, I notice he got an
21 invitation to come back before you people, his must have been
22 a little bit too lenient there.
23 But rather than bore you with the various items that
24 i do have notes on that have been touched on, we will submit
25 some written statements at a later date. I'd like to refine
-------
123
4
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
some of those and maybe bear down on a little bit more then
what I have.
we would like to read into the record this little
summary that 1 have that I think really expresses the opinio:
of the members of my Oil and Gas Commission and the staff of
the Oil and Gas Commission.
We feel to impose the proposed UIC regulations on
the states that already have programs that have been in effe;
several years, and have proven that they are effective ,by nol
having any contamination from the injection wells would be a
complete waste.
Our oil and gas statutes, setting up the Oil and Gas
Commission, which is Act 105, 1939 of the Arkansas General
Assembly requires that the Oil and Gas Commission prevent was
To put burdensome, costly, time consuming UIC regulations prc
posed by EPA into effect, would be creating waste and would b
in violation of the Act that puts us into the operation of co
serving oil and gas in the State of Arkansas.
The current regulations we have are effective in pro
tecting the drinking water sources within the state without a
cost to the operators and the regulatory agencies. Vie have
ienied or have no intention of applying for a grant to help u
support this. T\Te've had visits with our operators in the Sta
and they would rather pay more taxes to have us avoid even ge
Involved in a grant program, then to have us go through the
-------
124
1 ! burden of all the bookkeeping and everything that would go
i
2 i along with satisfying accounting and everything that we'd hav
3 to do to justify receiving the grants.
4 I'~e don't believe there would be a thing to be gained
by imposing the new regulations proposed by UIC. vie are
6 already protecting our fresh water in the state and we will
i
7 continue to do so. So to put these regulations in effect would
8 only put a burden on our operators that we feel is unduly
9 necessary. We'd much rather see them spend the money that t
10 will have to lay out to apply for these—to comply with these
11 burdensome regulations.
12 Our independents make up most of the operators in the
state with very few majors, and they would have to go to a
14 consultant, in most cases, to get people to even make an
15 application that could be considered by the Oil and Gas
16 Commission under i-.he ITTC!
17 flTe have a 2 page advocation right now, if you'll take
18 10 days to process and I think our record will stand on its owrt
19 ?Je do not have any contamination of fresh water by injection
20 systems at all. Go, in spite of I!r. Baltay's comments that the
21 study of the IOCC didn't prove to them that there were effective
22 systems in operation.
23 At any rate, we would like to continue to operate undejr
1
24 our current system, which has proven to be effective for some
25 35 to 40 years, at a very minimum cost, and if we can continue
-------
[ ( 12 =
1 r
1 i under that operation, we can see that we need to make some
i
i
2 minor adjustments and we intend to do so. But we believe tr
3 our over-all systeir. will be effective, and we do not see the
4 need for imposing the new UIC regulations on the operators a
5 _the state itself. We are already achieving the goal of pro-
6 tecting the fresh water, so what the heck, what could we do?
7 V7e ask that you consider fully some method of apprc
8 ing the state systems that are in effect. Vie are open to
9 suggestions where we might make improvement, we intend to
10 improve, and we intend to enforce them and we intend to drir
11 go fresh drinking water for a long, long time. Vie will be
12 drinking good water a long time before we get down to that
13 10,000 ppm that you want us to protect without fear that we
14 need to go that far.
15 I'-Tith those few comments, I would ask that it be
16 considered by the EPA to allow the State of Arkansas to
17 continue on its own method of regulation at the present.
i!
18 I'll be glad to answer any questions.
19 MR. LEVIN: Are there any questions? Mr. Schanapf,
20 I think I saw your hand first.
21 MP.. SCI-INAPF: I'd like to ask the same question I
22 asked the previous gentlemen. Does the State of Arkansas ha
23 any exemption for the small operators?
24 MR. DUIIAS: Ilo, we do not.
25
J1R. SCKNAPF: And I just wanted to ask if the basic
-------
126
i '•
i
1 | mechanism that the state uses for controlling these injection
i
i
2 j wells, is it through a permit system, approval by rule, order,
3 how's that done?
4 i i-'IR. DUMAS: Vie have a permit system, yes. And we
5 i have rules and regulations outlining what they must do to appl
6 for a disposal well, or an injection well connected with
7 enhanced recovery operation.
8 MR. SCEI^APF: Thank you.
9 MR. LEVIJJ: Mr. 3altay?
10 MR. BALTAY: I wonder if I could draw you out a little
11 bit more in terms of specifics on your basic point. If I hear
12 you correctly, you're saying the UIC regs would .add nothing
*3 to the process, and that they would be much more costly and
14 burdensome. I'm wondering if I could draw you out for some
15 specific examples.
16 MR. DUMAS: Well, by the increase in cost, we have an
17 ongoing program. To put your program into effect, we would
18 have to hire additional staff, and go into a whole lot more
19 detailed bookkeeping, record keeping and so forth. You are
20 requiring bulky applications which will take considerable time
21 on our part, and the time and the cost to the operators to put
22 these applications to us. To process them and everything, ar.d
23 everybody involved, heck we cpuld drill a million oil well lookl-
24 ing for badly needed crew with the money that would be wasted.
25 in this manner.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
127
TA7e still feel that we are protecting the water, wha
more can we do?
1IR. LEVIN: Ok. I' have a few questions. Again, no
to pin you down this afternoon, we realize there may have be
a short time for review of the regulations, but can you
specifically state either today or in the future, just what
parts of the regulations you find as onerous burdensome that
going to increase your work load that' s going to cause you ti
hire additional personnel?
I-'P. DUMAS: The over-all program, of course, is goij
to take alot of personnel to go through the processing and t3
multitude of papers that will be required to be filed. TTe
realize that you people have given us quite a bit of relief I
giving the director the right to judge whether or not he neec
additional information filed, and gave us considerable reliei
there. Ue've been used to handling a 2 page applications con
pared to what you're going to get under the UJC program, it's
going to take quite a few extra people to go through that moi
of paper. Probably have to hire a new janitor to dispose of
some of it.
MR. LEVIN: As long as you dispose of it safely. I
don't think we consider paper as a hazardous waste yet. The
other question I have is if you could get a little more spsci
about the state's regulatory program. You have mentioned tha
you do have a permit program. Do you have an area of review
-------
128
/•
1 I recruirement whereby you review abandoned walls in the vicinity
2 of the injection wells?
I
3 MR. DUJMAS: At present, we have a half mile radius
4 that we use for the area of review.
5 | I-1R. LEVINE: And do you "actually review each well in
~
6 j that half mile radius?
7 IiR. DUMAS: No necessarily. Vie have a reasonably goocJ!
8 idea of how the wells are completed in the area, and if we could
9 find any well that would lead us to believe that we had a
10 problem there, of course, v/e would be the first ones to turn
11 down an application in that area.
12 MR. LEVINE: Thank you very much. I'm sorry, just
13 a moment. Mr. Gordon?
i
14 MR. GORDON: I would like to ask just one question,
15 I think you mentioned that you saw the need for some minor
16 adjustment and that you would be improving upon your current
17 state program. I wonder if you could tell us as to whether anv
18 of the changes that you plan to make in Arkansas, are based on
19 these proposed regulations and if so, or if not rather, how—
20 what differences there are; and then what kind of changes are
21 you planning?
22 MR. DUMAS: I think some of the review of the UIC
23 regulations brought cut some point there that we might want to
24 adopt and strengthen our existing regulations. Frankly, I thin
25 we could continue operating under the current regulations with-
-------
2
3
4
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
out that but we would be willing to ir.ake some changes, I hat
to admit it, but we do sae some good in some of the points.
MR. LEVIN: Could you state that a little louder?
MR. DUMAS: I should have turned my head, but I
really believe that there are some points that we could impr
after having reviewed the UIC regulations, and we will in-
corporate those changes as time goes by.
MR. LEVIN: Do you intend to submit any further
written comments that we can get some of these specifics.
:••!?.. DUI-IAS: Yes, I will leave a copy of what I had
drafted originally here, and I do intend to submit some
additional comments.
MR. LLVIi-I: Thank you very much, we had to pick on
someone, Mr. Dumas.
MR. DUMAS: Ok, we don't niind.
MR. LEVIN: The next speaker is Mr. Greco, who wilJ
be followed by the long awaited Mr. Ilullican.
Mr. James Greco? Ok, he's not here. Mr. Jerry
Mullican, Chief, Solid Mast and Underground Injection Sectic
Texas Department of T7ater Resources. I know he's here. If
Mr. Greco comes in, would someone please let me know.
JERRY MULLICAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. LEVIN: Sorry, Jerry, can you hold a minute.
Troy Martin, Manager of Engineering Texas Z^erican Oil
Corporation, will be next.
-------
o
3
4
5 .
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1ft
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
130
f
MR. MULLIGAN: You mean now or later?
MR. LEVIN: After you.
MR. MULLIGAN: Ok. I will be glad to answer any
questions after I finish a very brief statement.
I think there have been alot of the regulations hashed
over enough today. I would like to say though, and remind the
people that Congress in its wisdom, or maybe the lack of it,
passed the Safe Drinking Hater Act in 1974. The Safe Drinking
"\ater Act requires the administrator of EPA to promulgate underj-
ground injection control regulations. In doing so, the Congres
gave the administrator of EPA a broad discretionary power in
developing regulations that the administrator felt was necessary
to protect underground drinking water sources.
The record is clear on the hearing preceeding the act
that Congress intended for the states to run their own program,
~arid~protect" tReir own ground work.
We, of the Texas Department of Water Resources, would
like to run our own program, as well as the Railroad Commission
would too, as far as the activities under their jurisdiction.
I would like to compliment Mr. Levin and his staff of the Offie
of Water Supply for the good job, I think they have done in
listening and trying to do what is right, and trying to carry
out the intent of Congress.
Over the last 4 and 1/2 years, I've been following the
activities and the development of the undergound injection
-------
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
_LS_
regulations since January of 1975, and I still have a copy c
the first working papers that were put together. It's pretl
scarey if you compare it with what we have today.
I would, like to' endorse and support Dr. rliller's
comments from the American Mining Congress. I believe they
are completely appropriate, and our written comments that wi
follow will contain much of the substantive type recommendat
that he has recommended. As written, and I believe this has
been expressed, partially by Paul Baltay, that the—or at
least I believe he recognized—that we can't live with the
Class III well requirements as they are written right now.
ITe couldn't promulgate our own state regulations to be consi
with those Federal regulations, because we couldn't enforce
some of the items that are impractical and even impossible.
I would like to asl: permission, if it is all right
, to make one—statement, regarding—item that wi-Ll
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
come up tomorrow in 123, Part 123 discussion.
MH. LEVIN: Is it relevant to the UIC program?
M?.. liULLICAN: v?ell, it's relevant to my department
My department's involvement in the UIC Program, and I'd like
to solicit support from the people in the audience at the
hearings tomorrow.
I'lH. LEVIN: Go ahead and make your statement.
:!?.. MULLIGAN: The proposed 122,123, and 124 regs h
a recuirement in them that penalties—state's statutes—must
-------
13
I
1 have penalties equal to those penalties in the federal laws
2 both UIC solid waste and ITPDES. I'm particularly concerned
with solid waste and underground injection, because that is m;
4 responsibility. If anyone followed our Texas Legislature this j
5 past session, I think you will know that unless there is a
6 change in the atmosphere of our own Legislature where they are
wanting to cut rather than give, and they are not out to create;
8 anymore taxes for the citizens of Texas. In the few areas,
9 one or two areas, I think it will be entirely impossible that i
our Legislature amend our Act again to increase penalties,
11 for either civil or criminal.
12 Our enforcement program in our department is a good
1 "}
enforcement program. Some of the suits for pollution that we
secured have been as large as any in the United States, larger
I5 than any that EPA has, in fact, collected. with our provisions
that we now have, we won't be able to go back to the Legislature
17
even if we wanted to recommend to the Legislature an increase
18
in fines, criminal or civil.
19 So, I'm only stating that if the people in Texas won't.
20 be regulated by the state, then I think it's time for you to
speak up and make your comments to EPA as to how well you feel
22 the enforcement program is now in Texas. That's all I have
23 to say.
i MR. LEVI1S!: Thank you very much, ?!r. Mullican. 'fill
25
you stay and answer questions?
-------
-------
133
»•
MR. MULLIGAN: Yes, sir.
. MR. LEVIN: Mr. Baltay?
I1R. BALTAY: I unclarstand, in Texas you relie on a
pipe line cut-off. Could you quickly describe for us how that
works, and give us an assessment, or your judgment of i
6 effectiveness.
7 I MP.. MULLIGAN: That's the Railroad Commission's
:
8 responsibility.
i-in. BALTAY: Do you apply anything like that in the
10 non-oil and gas areas in Texas?
11 MR. MULLIGAN: Normally, when we have a problem we
12 naturally try to correct that problem administratively. In
I
13
other words, you have a well problem with a possibility or
its actually leaking, we like to get it fixed, and correct it,
15 and stop it right then. Then we worry about, in the event we
•I c
are going to sue somebody and how much we are going to get fron
1 7
them, we have the authority to refer someone directly to the
18
Attorney General. We have the authority to get temporary
i q
restraining orders, injunctions, and what have you. He have
20
^ the authority to sue for criminal damages, but our authority
21 is not quite as immediate as the Railroad Commissions as far
as pipelines are concerned.
Z1R. BALTAY: Just to clarify for the record, does your
24 department have responsibility for regulating oil wells except
25 Class Ii?
-------
134
1
2
3
'4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
-LQ-
MR. MULLIGAN: I'm glad you brought that up, Mr.
Chairman, because I missed part of my notes here. Let me
clarify that our department regulates Class I and most of th<
Class III wells, and Class IV and Class V. T/7e are not
regulations at all with the Class II wells, and,I am sympath*
with the oil and gas industry and the work load that will be
imposed upon the Railroad Commission if there is not a highs:
degree of flexibility built into these regulations.
Our involvement in Class II wells is, I believe, as
the speaker pointed out earlier, is providing recommendation:
on setting of surface pipe.
MR. LEVIK:" Thank you. Any further questions from
the panel? Mr. Schnapf? __ _
MR. SCHNAPF: I just have one. I think this area oJ
penalty is more appropriately discussed tomorrow, but I assun
ynn will "hg 3-nhirH -H-i ng r^cr^ ^etg.il^d CQTmn
-------
135
$5,000 a day, that kind of information.
MR. MULLIGAN: We will
3 MR. SCKNAPF: Good, thank you.
I
4 IIR. LEVIII: Thank you, Mr. Mullican. The next speake.t
is Llr. Troy Martin to be followed by Mr. Bob Hill. !
THOY G. MARTIN: Mr. Chairman, my name is Troy Martin,
I am the Manager of Engineering for Texas American Gil Corpor-
ation, a relatively small publicly owned, Midland, Texas,
based oil and gas producing company. I have the responsibility
10 of determining the economic feasibility of installing Secondary
11 recovery and enhanced recovery projects. Also, I am respon-
12 sible for these projects' design, implementation, and operatior
13 My engineering staff and I have considerable experience with
14 inject procedures and problems related to secondary recovery
15 injection and disposal of produced waters.
16 Protecting our envoronment from underground water
17 injection pollution from Class II wells has been the respon-
18 sibility of the Texas Railroad Commission for over 40 years.
19 For the past 10 years, I have seen substantial improvements in
20 their injection and plugging requirements that more than
21 adequately protect the people of the State of Texas.
22 I sincerely believe that pollution of subsurface water
23 by underground injection practices is not a significant problem
24 in our state because of their efforts, as I understand your own
25 study performed in 1975, has shown. I am convinced that addit-
-------
1'
>•
ional, more complicated procedures and regulations are not
2 needed, and will be counter productive to me performing ray jc
, which is -eliminating a significant problem in our country.
This problem is how we can increase oil and gas production a
c maximize the recovery of these vital resources.
,, I am convinced that my company's efforts to work
toward reducing the energy crisis in America today, will aga
Q be seriousIv hammered bv another aood sounding, well meaning
O - - _
set of regulations that, in reality, simply use up the resou
of experienced technical personnel and funds that we have
1]L desperate need of in other areas of our business. I need to
12 concentrating on such things as drilling new wells, working
13 over existing wells, or installing secondary and enhanced re
covery projects. Instead, I will be bogged down in permitti
studying, and periodically preparing additional unproductive
government status reports.
It would seem prudent to continue to use the expert
18 of our state agencies in this area, and also to minimize the
additional burden you are placing on every oil operator in
2Q this nation.
Specifically, Section 146 sets up concrete regulati
22 that the industry and the state regulatory agencies both
23 recognize, should be flexible to handle specific problems in
24 specific areas. There is no need to burden the oil operator
25 with regulations in areas where problems do not exist.
-------
1 1
6
7
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
137
r
Section 146.04 does not need to be so extreme in its
definition of potable water. At 10,000 parts per million tot?,
dissolved solids, I believe we are protecting a resource that
has no potential value to our state or nation. A reasonable
maximum value of 3,000 to 5,000 parts per million is the quality
of waters we should be concentrating our protection on.
Section 146.06, Area of Review is attempting to elim-
inate any migration of fluids from the oil production zone into1
a possible fresh water strata. There is little flexibility in
the determination of the area of review. A review of all wells
located in this zone of endangering influience or the 1/4 mile
fixed radius will be an unnecessary burden for the operator.
An example is where the operator is attempting to install a
secondary project in an old, shallow oil field developed on
close spacing like 2 acre spacing, where wells are only several
hundred feet apart.
I believe that a reasonable area of endangering
influence should be based on the well density established by
the operator and the state regulatory agency. Horrtally, injectio
wells in a regular waterflcod pattern do not exert significant
influence outside of their pattern. For pattern type waterflooc
projects, a distance somewhat greater than the distance betx-reen
the injector and the producer would seem to be a more reasonable^
measure of the area of influence. TJater disposal wells and
peripheral water injection wells may need to be handled under ari
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
_Ld
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
13
c
arbitray 1/4 mile fixed radius, but a producing wells' drain
age radius generally could be tied into an injection wells
endangering influence radius.
Section 146.07 appears to be tatally unnecessary fc
normal water injection operations. The prudent operator wil
take all necessary corrective action for any pollution probl
he may be involved in because of the states vast authority c
the operator and the possibility of litigation for damages
caused to the surface owner's water resources.
Section 146.03, Mechanical integrity in an injectic
well should relate to preventing fluid movement into a sourc
of drinking water and not non-drinking water zones. Casing
leaks in injection wells will almost always occur in deep
production casing strings as a result of encountering highly
corrosive undrinkable water sections, which are located belc
almost always below- fresh water sections. The fresh water
section by state regulations are cased off and protected by
cement and steel casing and are never contaminated as a resu
of this major type of casing leak.
Paragraph (b) should not be required as a standard
regulation, dual redundant tests to prove mechanical integri
Let me try that again. Paragraph (b) should not require, as
a standard regulation, dual redundant tests to prove mechan'
integrity. Also, a small sampling of weels in fields that 1
experienced limited corrosion problems is recommended.
-------
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
139
r
Flexibility is strongly encouraged in establishing state re-
quirements for mechanical integrity testing, which should be
dependant upon the degree of casing leak problems encountered
in an area.
Paragraph (c) has no value that I can determine as the!
orevious test should conclusively show the absence of fluid I
movement .
Item 1, well records are already available in the state
and they are available to the government and to the public.
Itne 2, cement type logging programs do not tell the
story as effectively as the Railroad Commission Representative,!
the cementing contractor, and the drilling contractor on the
well ^location watchiiag us circulate _cemejat to the surface on
all surface casing or equivalent casing strings, which are set
in this state. The sworn statements of eye witnesses is more
cost efficient -and reliable than the proposed logs-, -
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In problem areas, the industry as a common practice
will measure the cement top on production casing to determine
whether more or less cement should be used on subsequent wells
A reduction in the cement volume is a cost savings, while in-
creasing the cement volume may be necessary to cover potential !
j
problem zones and prevent future possible costly failures.
However, measuring the cement.tops in all wells is not necessarV
Paragraph (d) should allow the state regulatory agency
jurisdiction over handling this program with a periodic review
-------
14
*•
by the administrator. In no way, should the administrator
2 be directly involved in approval of individual routine tests
3 |1 Section 146.22, I believe the state requirements ai
4 more than adequate for new construction of injection veils.
5 Paragraph (d) lists these additional, unnecessary i
6 quirements, which will substantially burden the operator and
7 do nothing to improve the protection of the drinking water
g zones.
9 Item 1 Direction Surveys.
10 Item 2 Logging surface casing hole or logging earner
11 tops cannot increase the protection afforded the drinking WE
12 zones. Since cement is always circulated to surface provid:
13 the best possible protection to the drinking water zones ths
14 is available.
15 Item 3, Logging programs below surface pipe as pro-
i
16 I posed under Rules (i) and Cii) are totally irrelevant to the
17 protection of drinking water sources and should be totally
18 omitted. These type logs should be run at the discretion, oj
19 the operator. Gamma Ray logs can be effectively, and are
20 generally, run inside casing after the casing is set. Rule
21 (iii) , I have previously discussed this rule, under 146.08 (.(.
22 (2) , where I stated that determining the exact cement top 01
23 all wells in most fields is not necessary and increases the
24 and burden to complete new wells.
25 Paragraph (e), Item (1), Obtaining pressure measur
-------
141
1 merits on every new injection well would be unnecessary and
i
2 costly, since each injection project has a state approved
3 maximum injection pressure for all wells permitted to the pro-j
4 | ject.
i
5 | Item £2) Reservoir temperature will not vary from welj;
to well within a project, and is standard information submitted
on each project request for a state injection permit. Also,
a temperature survey is not normally included ina standard
suite of production logs and would require additional invest-
ment .
Item (3) Fracture pressure is not necessary to deter-
12 mine on an individual well basis and requires actual measurement:
13 during fracture treatments. Injection wells are not fracture
14 treated unless absolutely necessary cue to the high cost, and
15 the possible loss of oil recovery due to channeling from the
16 injection well to the producing well, which can result in
17 tremendous oil loss.
18 Items (4), (5), and (6) concerning formation rock and
fluid properties, in my opinion, have no relevance on the
protection of fresh water sources, except in terms of possible
plugging off of the injection well face. The maximum allowable
injection well head pressure allowed under each state permit
23 is designed to prevent the use of excessive pressures. Also,
24 I believe that this type of information is much more relevant [
25 for strata between the fresh water zones and the injection zone:
-------
1
2
3
4
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
,.142
1 certainly hope that expensive coring operations
are not being considered, in these items. Also, again, I
believe developing this type information on each injection
well is ridiculous and unnecessary. Compatibility tests of
fluids on an individual injection well basis for all wells
in a project has never even been attempted, in my knowledge,
for a waterflood project.
Section 146.23, Abandonment of Class II wells in nc
way should be different from the abandonment of any well,
producer or injector. The Texas Railroad Commission has moi
than adequate requirements for plugging and abandonments, wh
are strictly adhered to and witnessed by Commission represen
tatives. This is true in all states that I have been involve
with. Also plugging bonds are not necessary.
Section 146.24, Paragraph (b), Operating an expensi
secondary or enhanced recovery project necessarily involves
enormous amount of monitoring and informal recording of pro-
duction and injection data. Providing the government with
weekly or monthly individual injection well fluid analysis,
injection pressures, injection rates, and injection cumulati'
volumes as listed in items 1 and 2 xvill never prevent poilut
of frest water sources.
I I complement the preparers for item 3. Demonstrate
of mechanical integrity, I believe, is the way to prove that
migration of fluids is not occurring. However, I believe th
-------
143
r
the arbitrary 5 year interval should be flexible and determine
by the experts in the state regulatory agencies. Soine probler
areas nay need raore frequent testing, perhaps on a 2 or 3 year
4 basis and some areas, having no corrosion problems, will never
5 need testing.
Paragraph (c), Item (1), a summary monitory report
should address itself to mechanical integrity testing, instead
8 of monitoring of individual injection well rates, cumulatives,
9 etc., and should be required only after mechanical integrity
10 tests have been run.
11 Section 146.25, paragraph (d.) , item (3), and paragraph
{e} and (f) are basic data required by state agencies for the
10
-° u-initial project injection permit and do not change because a
14 new injection well is drilled. This information should not
be reauired on an individual well basis.
Paragraph (h), Current drilling"forms required" by
1" state agencies for permitting all wells, injection, production,
•j Q
and others, adequately describe the proposed well's construction
details, and an engineering drawing is both burdensome and
20 unnecessary.
Paragraph (i), formation testing programs are
22 generally not planned, since an operator would not drill in-
jection well unless he is reasonably assured the formation
would take injection fluids. This is not necessary for issu-
ance of a permit.
-------
3
4
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
144
»•
Paragraph (1), normal, prudent operating procedures
should be expected of an operator if failures occur, instead
of requiring any contingency plans. This is not necessary
for the issuance of a permit.
Paragraph (p), the construction data discussed abov<
in 146.25 (h) will demonstrate the operator's plan for mecha:
integrity. Any other demonstration of mechanical integrity
would need to be performed after the drilling of the well an<
oil operators will not drill injection wells that, upon com-
pletion, may not be permitted by a director.
Thank you for this opportunity to paresent ny views <
the technical regulations proposed for underground injection
control.
IIP.. LEVIN: Thank you, Kr. :iartin. Any questions
from the members of the panel? If not, we will move on.
Thank you very much.
l-Text speaker, Mr. Bob Kill, Vice-President of TISU11
Inc., Corpus Christi, Texas. I'm sure ?!r. Kill will explain
what that stands for, following Mr. Kill will be Mr. Clyde B
Ford, Senior Counsel, Texas Gulf, Inc., Houston, Texas.
BOB HILL: Mr. Chairman, I will be glad to answer
any questions that I can.
Members of the panel. My name is Bob Hill. I am
Vice-President of the Texas In-Situ Uranium Mining rnvirnr.en
Association, Inc. We are better known by the acronyn TTSUI-ir
-------
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
145
TISUIIEA membership is composed of 11 companies involved in
2 in-situ mining or have expectation of being involved in the
3 near future.
Due to the time constraint, today I am commenting onl}
on items in CFR, 146 UIC Program that establishes policy or
6 major requirements that are important to the uranium industry.
7 The association will submit more detailed comments at
a later date on these regulations. The association believes
the regulations overall have improved since first proposed in
August, 1976. For example, solution mining wells are now
placed in a class separate from waste disposal wells, that is
major industrial waste. However, it appears that the EPA does
not yet understand the in-situ uranium industry and how it
operates.
One of the principal differences between in-situs
uranium mining and other processes, such as the Frasch process,
is the greater number of wells in a confined area. For example
one of the in-situ uranium operators has over 600 monitor wells
which they sample twice a month and operate about 1,000 pro-
duction and injection wells. Back in 1976, I think there were
2 operators with less than a couple of hundred wells. Hope-
fully, comments that you receive on these proposed regulations
will result in adoption of equitable regulations for this
industry.
I want to comment on the preamble of 40 CFR 146.
-------
1
2
4
5
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
146
»•
Subclasses of Class III. We advocate the use of subclasses for
the different types of vrells within Class III. The use of a
subclass for uranium solution mining wells would facilitate
the development of regulations that should be singular suitable
to this industry.
The design and use of uranium solution mining wells
are different from other types of wells in Class III. These
wells differ in greater concentrations per unit area, they are
used to recover ore from an aquifer which in many instances are;
hydrologically connected to a source of drinking water; and
they recover a product that requires a state or federal
license for handling.
The classification of wells within Class III into
subclasses would allow promulgation of generic regulations that.
still could be specific to a subclass. An example of subclass
regulations would be adoption of the concept "permit area" for
a subclass of uranium mining wells. This adoption would
alleviate the permitting process for the use of a permit area
could be utilized for a block of wells and not on an individual
basis.
In the preamble you discussed economic impact. I fine
it incredible that EP.r.. indicates there T..7ould not be any in-
cremental costs, your table 5, to the uranium industry. Per-
haps the agency is unaware that several thousand in-situ
injection wells are presently in existence. These regulations
-------
145
r
TISUMEA membership is composed of 11 companies involved in
2 in-situ mining or have expectation of being involved in the
i
3 near future.
Due to the time constraint, today I am commenting
on items in CFR, 146 UIC Program that establishes policy or
major requirements that are important to the uranium industry.
The association will submit more detailed comments at
a later date on these regulations. The association believes
the regulations overall have improved since first proposed in
August, 1976. For example, solution mining wells are now
placed in a class separate from waste disposal wells, that is
major industrial waste. However, it appears that the EPA, does
not vet understand the in-situ uranium industry and how it
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
operates.
One of the principal differences between in-situs
uranium mining and other processes, such as the Frasch process,
is the greater number of wells in a confined area. For example
one of-the in-situ uranium operators has over 600 monitor wells
which they sample twice a month and operate about 1,000 pro-
duction and injection wells. Back in 1976, I think there were
2 operators with less than a couple of hundred wells. Hope-
fully, comments that you receive on these proposed regulations
will result in adoption of equitable regulations for this
industry.
I want to comment on the preamble of 40 CFE 146.
-------
146
i*
Subclasses of Class III. ?"e advocate the use of subclasses
2 j the different tynes of wells within Class in. The use cf a
I
3 subclass for uranium solution mining wells would facilitate
4 the development cf regulations that should be singular suita
5 j to this industry.
The design and use of uranium solution mining wells
7 are different from other types of wells in Class III. These
8 wells differ in greater concentrations per unit area, they a
,
9 used to recover ore from an aquifer which in many instances
10 hydrologically connected to a source of drinking water; and
11 they recover a product that requires a state or federal
12 license for handling.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The classification of wells within Class III into
subclasses would allow promulgation of generic regulations t
still could be specific to a subclass. An example of subcla
regulations would be adoption of the concept "permit area"1 f
a subclass of uranium mining wells . This adoption would
alleviate the permitting process for the use of a permit are
could be utilized for a block of wells and not on an individ
basis.
In the preamble you discussed economic impact. I f
it incredible that EFJ indicate.? there would not be any in-
cremental costs, your table 5, to the uranium industry. ?e:
haps the agency is unaware that several thousand in-situ
injection wells are presently in existence. These regulati<
-------
147
1 as proposed, would add a considerable cost to each well. One
2 example of the added cost would be the requirement of the
3 installation of a continuous monitoring device on each well,
4 to which, incidentally, we object.
i
5 Because of the great number of wells involved in
g in-situ uranium mining, these regulations could be excessively
7 expensive. Many of the uranium deposits are small in size and
3 cannot support any unnecessarily burdensome requirements. We
9- believe that we can propose monitoring systems which adequately
10 protect the environment and will not be overly expensive. V?e
11 would like to see these requirements have the flexibility to
12 permit us to use our technical capabilities in attempting this
13 type of mining on small uranium deposits.
14 Realistically, the regulations are proposed will add a
15 significant financial burden to the uranium industry. Time
16 delays caused by many of these regulations can be just as cost]
17 as hiring additional personnel or adding new equipment which
18 these regulations will require. 'Te believe the EPA has not
19 done its homework on assessing the economical impact on the
20 uranium solution mining industry.
21 In Section 146.04, Underground Sources of Drinking
22 Water. This section requires the director subject to the
23 approval of the administrator to designate all aquifers as a
24 source of drinking water if they presently serve as sources
25 of drinking water with several exceptions. Based on the
v
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
14 a
exceptions, uranium solution mining could occur in an aquife
if it is "ir.ineral, oil or geothermal energy producting".
Certainly uranium oxide is a mineral. Also, if the aquifer
so contaminated that it would be technologically impractical
to render it fit for human consumption, it would not be
designated a source of drinking water. Here, again, most
aquifers from which uranium is produced are high in radioac-
tivity exceeding the drinking water standards.
This section, does bring up 2 very important questic
1, Must all aquifers that are sources of drinking water be
designated prior to the processing of permit applications?
2, Once all of an aquifer is designated a drinking water sou
_can part of this be declared, a non-source as new information
develops? The regulations in regards to these questions
should be written so there is clear understanding of the int
And—orb—i-s—vexy—important—to—individuals with the mining—op—
erations.
Mr. Chairman, I want to comment on 122.37, Area
Permits, this has been brought up earlier today. The concep
of permitting an area in lieu of individual wells is practic
by the Texas regulatory agency for solution mining. It is a
practical method for an ongoing operation where numerous we
are to be drilled and completed in an area. Because of the
erratic nature of the ore body deposition, it is impossible
determine the exact location of an injection well prior to
-------
149
'"
sequential development of the field.
An area permit concept is vital to uranium solution
mining. It is doubtful that the uranium in-situ industry
could survive were it forced to apply for permits for indi-
vidual wells because of the delay in permit processing. Mr.
Mullican seems to concur with that in his testimony.
" '
In view of the importance of the area permit concept i
to the uranium industry, wa request that the option of its
use should not rest with the director, but instead with the
0 oerator.
11 These regulations in Part 146 are far too specific.
12
They lack the flexibility needed for practical application.
13
Too often the regulations state "as a minimum", then list a
14 series of requirements. Because every injection operation is
ifferent in some respect from all others, it is difficult to
1 R
determine minimum reuirements.
17 _
n-situ uranium mining is a new technology and develor
18
ment. There are many new and different techniques being studied
19
Any regulations that are adopted should permit the continued.
20
development of new methods. The regulations should be
21
flexibility so that the operator may utilize his expertise and
22
knowledge in processing, mining and monitoring systems which
OQ
are suitable to the specific intentions at the site being mined
if the site has different geologic and engineering parameters.
25 _
it is not prudent to specify engineering and geologic require-
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1.50
f
ments without allowing flexibility for considering diffarenc
between sites and states.
fte propose that the regulations must be more gener:
in nature for all types of injection. The operator must ha'
the use of more alternatives in the completion and operatici
the project. Certainly the regulations need more flexibilil
as related to well construction, monitoring and reporting
requirements.
The objective of the regulations under Part 146 is
prevent the degradation of sources of underground drinking
water, and the agency should no lose sight of this objective
in proposing these regulations.
MR. LEVIN: Thanh you, Mr. Hill, would you remain i
questions, please?
ME. KILL: Yes, I will.
MR. LEVI1-T: Any questions? Mr. Baltay.
Mr.. BALTAY: I have 2 questions. If you will recaJ
we made quite a to do in the preamble about the use of the
exemption for oil or mineral producing aquifer portions
MR. HILL: Yes.
MR. BALTAY: It has been argued to us during the
development of the regulations that once you be designate 01
exempt from protection of a portion of an aquifer, you may h
no way of preventing any other disposal into that aquifer
portion, toxic waste, hazardous waste, whatever, and so we
-------
151
requested specific comments there on ways of limiting the
2
exemptions so that production would not be disrupted but that
3
you would not be opening this up as an alternate waste dis-
4 i
I posal sink. I wonder if you've got some help that you could
give us along those lines.
M~. HILL: I don't have today, Mr. Baltay, but it's
a very interesting point and it's a very critical point with
a
us. v?e will in our comments go further into this it has been
Q
brought up today. But I think we really need to talk about
do you confine the injection as forever in this locality, or
do you clean up the aquifer? We will have comments in our i
12 I
detail comments. |
13 i
M?.. BALTAY: You anticipated my second question, which!
i
. i
14 '
was going to be on this question of containment versus clean- I
i
up or renovation of the aquifer, and soliciting your opinions
16
on that.
17
1-in. LEVI1T: To make it more specific, I would request
18
if you could submit proposed specific monitoring requirements
19
in your x-;ritten comments if that is feasible.
20
MR. HILL: Yes, sir, we will to some extent. I must
21
also let you know that of the 11 companies in this organization
22
probably about 6 will be submitting individual jj.-~.ancj frcr.
23
the company, and they will cover this even more in detail.
24
"AP-. LEVIN: One other thing, if the classification of
25
Class III is subdivided, do you have any specific proposal as
-------
15:
i
2 :
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to how they should be regulated?
MH. KILL: !7e could come up with a proposal, we had
not done that. Certainly they would be very similar to the
manner that the Texas Department of vlater Resources is now
handling that with some minor change.
.-IP... LEVIN: Ok, thank you. Mr. Schnaof?
SCEK.LPF : I have one uestion concerning our
comment on the area permits. I gather from your testimony t.
you think area permits are almost necessary for your industr;
!£=l. HILL: That's true.
ME. SCHNAPF: You did, however, state that you thou<
the use of an area permit should ba a matter of the operator
choice rather than the director's choice. I was wondering i:
you could clarify that and elaborate on that a little bit.
I-iH. KILL: Yes. If we could set up a subclass for
in- situ uranium, then I think it would be more or less mandai
that we go into the area permit. I think the two have to go
together. I wouldn't mean this for all Class III, only a sul
class of the in-situ nining. Because, primary, it's an cngo:
operation. ~
-------
153
i
1 CLYDE FORD: Ily name is Clyde Ford, I'm with Texas
2 j Gulf, We produce sulphur by the Frasch process and I appreci:.™
3 the opportunity on behalf of Texas Gulf to be able to make
4 these comments today. I will follov: these oral comments with
5 written comments in more detail on much of our objections to
6 the regulations as they currently exist.
i
j
7 These comments that are made are cumulative all of thsj
8 previous comments which have been made by us, and considering
9 the time and the effort, and the expense that went into pro-
10 dueing those comments; and further, considering the amount of
11 education that went into attempting to teach the ZPA what
12 sulphur mining was, and it's not pollution mining, we think
it would be absolutely necessary that those comments be recon-
14 sidered or at least not ignored as alluded in the regulations
15 For instance, we have had people, 2 to 5 Texas Gulf
16 employees, at Washington, D.C,, at least 4 times, to Denver
once, to Dallas 3 times, to Tampa, Florida, once. Those air-
18 line tickets plus the expenses and salaries of those people
19 xvent toward developing that date, and we consider it much too
20 important to be ignored. Texas Gulf submits its prior cements
21 by reference as part of this being made today.
22 The regulations as strictly applied to Frasch sulphur
23 mining operations would be fatal. We take the position that itj
i
24 is imperative that the regulations provide for area permitting,;
25 which will allow the wells to be drilled without the necessitv
-------
-------
1
2
3
4
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
154
f*
of a prior permit so long as such wells conform to accepted
practices and procedures.
Texas Gulf drills over 300 wells per year in its sulphur
mining operations, and the necessity for having to obtain a
permit for each one of those wells, albeit administratively,
is excessively burdensome.
The well itself, being a short lived type thing, sulphur
wells having an average life of less than 1 year, would probably
be dead, plugged and abandoned by the time the permits got to
the EPA and was considered by. There is no margin for delay in
sulphur operations, it's an ongoing process. Just like the i
1
uranium mining thing. You put heat to the reservoir, the sulphur
is melted and you cannot stop it, when a well dies on you, you've
got to continue going with this operation. You don't have time
i
for getting a permit. So ,we recommend that Part 146 be amended]
to provide for approval by rule rather than by permit as you do
allow for Class II, Class IV and Class V wells.
Texas Gulf has operated a company owned town, known as
New Gulf, in connection with its mining operation since 1929.
The water supply at an average of 300,000 gallons per day for
this town comes from wells drilled en the flanks of Bowling
Dome. The current well that supplies this water was drilled ini
1968. Since that time, we've drilled hundreds of sulphur wells
around it with absolutely no adverse affect on the quality of
that water. "Then considering this extreme longeteVity with fevr
-------
I 155
I"
1 if any problems, the method and procedures currently being u£
2 should be allowed to be continued. Because of the history
3 demonstrated by the Frasch process operations, Texas Gulf
4 recommends to the EFA to declare those aquifers above the mi
5 areas as being non-drinking water sources. The EPA proposes
6 i exempting mineral oil or geothermal producing portions of
7 aquifers from designation as an underground water source, dr
8 ing water source. Since they recognize these certain areas
9 non-drinking water sources, it is suggested that a declaratd
10 of the aquifers above the raining area in Frasch operations c
11 be designated as non-drinking water sources with no adverse
12 effect environmentally.
13 There are only 3 Frasch mining operations in the
14 United States. All 3 of them are in the states of either
15 Louisiana or Texas. All except 1, as been mining for an ex1
_16 o-f—1-0 years with no environmental impact.
17 The Agency requested comment on the technical requ
18 merits of Class III type wells. Under current regulations,
19 sulphur industries have been grouped with solution mining,
20 situ copper and uranium mining, gasification and geother~.al
21 wells. Meeting which have been held with representatives c
22 those subgroups have made it clear that this can no longer
23 continue with common type regulations; and that it must be
24 categorized for each one of those industries. It is our
25 recommendation that wells under suboart (d) Section 146.31
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
is—
14
15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
,- 156
sub-categorized, and as for the sulphur operations because of
the unique method you use in the Frasch method of production,
regulations must be directed specifically toward those practice1;
to insure that the regulations will not interfer with the
production of sulphur. As I said, we can't stop the mining of ;
sulphur. ?Ie can't stop or delay the drilling of wells in a
i
Frasch type operations. j
The Agency in environmental impact, the economics con-
sidered for Class III wells appear to be totally unrealistic,
unless it is assumed that the Agency assumed that many exemptions
from the regulations would be obtained. No cost was assumed
for mechanical integrity test. The tests outlined in the regu-
lations ar-e- ^»^ensive_and_it_can_C:n_ly be assumed that the Agency
— -I -
did not see the necessity for the test. If there is no necessity
for the test, there is no necessity for the regulation.
Further, only $300,000 wab provided, for monitoring by...
the entire industry. ?7hile we calculate these costs to be
$240,000 for Texas Gulf alone. Even more obvious is the failur
to consider the additional cost due to electric and radioactive
logs, and the necessity for cementing, which we calculate will
cost Texas Gulf $22,748,000, a long way from what was presented
The economic impact presented by the Agency, we don't
feel is even in the ballpark. It is noted that the economics
developed by the Agency were under draft regulations dated
August, 1977, which regulations are, in fact, quite different
-------
,. 157
1 1 from those currently being proposed.
2 Much of the regulation was relieved from Class II
3 wells using a reason there for that this industry has an eco
4 interest in being assured that the wells will contain the wa
5 in the formation into which the injected substance are being
6 placed. In the sulphur industry, the extremely high cost of
7 i chemical treatment and heat must be considered when added t
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
'20
21
22
23
24
25
the water being injected into sulphur wells. This water is
used for one purpose only that's only as a vehicle to convey
the heat to the sulphur so that it might be melted, and by t
way the water is fresh water.
If any water leaks away prior to entering the sulph
formation, all of the expense of treating and heating that w
is lost. We suggest that the sulphur industry, in fact, has
a much greater economic interest in utilizing the water that
injected; and therefore, should have the same consideration
were given for Class II wells.
The draft that had been submitted by EPA on March 2
1978r the regulations, draft regulations just prior to the c
that were published, were if not perfect, were headed in the
right direction and could be made workable. These regulatic
were developed after considerable conferences with the EPA.
Much of that effort and time was wasted since the final draf
regulations constitute a radical departure therefrom. Chang
have been made by EPA to the end of totally abrogating'an or
-------
i c 5;
-L-j O
1 public input which had been effective at that time to all
2 j parties.
I
3 , Section 146.03 covering mechanical integrity is not
i
i
4 effective as to Frasch sulphur mining. The test specified woulc
either be impossible to obtain or the results would be totally
6 meaningless. The measurement of pressure on a casing in a
7 sulphur well means absolutely nothing when the annulus area
8 between the tubing and the casing is where you are injecting
9 your water into the formation.
10 Section 146.32, construction practices also cannot
11 apply to Frasch wells. In the case of sulphur mining in the
12 Cappa Salt Domes, the necessity for cement to maintain the
integrity of the well is not required. Section 146.32, on page
i
14 23764 should be amended to provide exception for this type well
15 from the cement requirement.
Secondly, there is no need to require corrosive re-
sistent material in the case of a sulphur mine well. The
18 materials which are used with a very short life are sufficianti*
19 resistent to corrosion to last and to protect for the entire
20 lifa of that well, and therefore, the necessity for having
21 additional type of equipment, as an additional expense, cannot
22 be justified.
23 Directional logs cannot be justified on sulphur wells.
24 Logs on wells drilled less than 2,000 feet where you have littjje
25 if any deviation whatsoever, is nothing but an expense that
-------
159
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
can't be justified, And certainly would do nothing toward
protecting fresh water sands.
The other logs required under this particular sectic
can't be justified because in sulphur operations where the we
last only 3 months to a year, and they're drilled 50 feat ap<
the information obtained from one well to the next is minima]
You could put the Hogs side by side and it would show the sai
thing. So you are causing unnecessary expense with absolute;
nothing being gained from it.
We recommend that the Frasch operation should be
exempt from all of these sections. Sub-section (e) should b<
modified to require monitoring of the wells only where they •
required, 5 wells appear to be an arbitrary number, I don't 3
where it came from. The number of monitored wells, really si
be left to the discretion of the state director. Whatever i:
necessary to do the job, not 5 arbitrary wells to one operat:
nay be totally different from another. Monitoring, particul-
in a case where we mined for over 50 years without any impac-
should be kept to an absolute minimum.
Section 146.33 requires a performance bond to assur<
the wells will be properly abandoned. Sulphur industry is
comprised of companies of substantial means because of the b.
cost of plant expenses, we don't have anybody small in our
busines
All have sufficient financial statute and have
able to satisfy the obligations of properly abandoning wells
-------
3
j_2
13
14
15
46-
17
18
19
20
2i
22
23
24
25
160 !
r
without providing a performance bond.
Section 146.34Ca)(l) requires injection pressure to
be controlled to prevent the migration of fluid into under- ;
i
i
ground aquifers . Cur method of operation precludes any such i
intent. We are controlled by the pressure that is necessary to
get the water into the reservoir to get the heat to melt the
sulphur, lie go no higher, no lower, we've got to go to that
pressure. I will point out, however, that it's never high
enough to be fractured.
Section 146.34(b)(3) requires demonstration of
mechanical integrity at least once every 5 years. Due to the
short life of this kind of well, I kind of feel like the golfer
after he had sprayed 3 of his balls over into the water
hazard, and the caddy said, why don't you get a used ball, he j
said, I would I've never had one. I've never had a 5 year
sulphur well either. _______ . __
Section 146.34(c) requires quartely reporting. 3y the
time data is collected, prepared and reported and the state
analysis the data, sulphur wells having a very short normal
life could have been replaced, and the data could not possibly
aP?ly when the corrective action was attempted by the state.
Information gathered requires instant action on the part of the
operator, and by the time the data could reach the state, we
would have already taken whatever corrective action was
necessary in the interest of a sufficient operation of our own
-------
161
2
3
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
interest. Quartely reports for our sulphur wells should be
totally dispensed with or at most, an annual report substitr
therefor summarizing the results of the operation.
MR. LEVIN: Mr. Ford, excuse me for interrupting.
You are running way over time and in all fairness to additic
people who still have to testify, can you summarize very
quickly .
HR. FORD: Ok. The only thing that we do have to s
is that much of the comment with regard to what I was going
say later will be brought out in our written comments, and I
do appreciate the opportunity of being here today. I will
answer any questions that I can. I have the .Manager of the"
Environmental Affairs with me, if I can't answer it maybe he
can.
MR. LEVIN: That will be fine. You can ask him to
c ome up with you if you lik
3nt let's first see if there
are any questions . Any questions from the members of the
panel? :ir. Baltay?
24R. BALTAY: You mentioned a specific figure as to
estimated cost of Texas Gulf alone. I would gather from the
specificity of the number, that you must have some detail ba
ing that up.
:in. FORD: Yes. It will be in our further comments
later on, but the figures were based on our drilling 337 we
per year. We went to Slumber J and Halliburton, got the co
-------
162
i-
1 logs and the cementing that would be required which is $13,50',;
2 per year, multiplied that times 5 years and you cone up with
3 the $22,743,000 that we feel like it will cost us additionally
I
4 due to the regulations as presented. With regard to the
5 monitoring, that was based on 5 wells for 3 sites arbitrarily
6 1,000 feet as the depth of the well, I don't know what it's
7 going to be, but that's what we used in our figures here.
8 $7.00 a foot for drilling plus $7.00 a foot for the cost of
9 the casing and then you've got 5 sites at $2,000 per well for
10 cementing that comes up to $240,000.
i
11 MH. BALTAY: But detail will be in your written report,
12 M?.. FORD: Yes.
13 MR. BALTAY: Ok, thank you.
14 MR. LEVIN: Any further questions? Thank you very
15 much, Mr. Ford.
16 Mr. Chauviere followed, by Mr. David L. Durler.
17 APJ-TOLD C. CEAUVIEPvE: Xr. Levin and members of the
18 panel, I am Arnold C. Chauviere. I am the Assistant Commissioijie
19 of the Office of Conservation, in the State of Louisiana.
20 Last night we heard the President's plea for help
21 from all of us to solve the energy crisis. He said what I have
22 known for the past several years, that the isolated island,
23 Washington, D.C., so far out of touch with the majority of the,
24 people does not have the answer.
25 In many instances, the stumbling block the bureaucrats
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
163
place in front of our energy efforts and the name of' environ
mental protection has given rise to the energy situation whi
we find ourselves today.
We in Louisiana are willing to do our share but we
cannot if the isolated island representative from VTashingtor
will not allow us to. And Mr. Baltay and I had heard it bef
I think I was privileged to comment also for Victor Kimm,
1 think yall all know who he is. In Mr. Baltay's address
earlier this morning he outlined several parameters which ai
necesssary for the Safe Drinking Water Act for a state to
qualify to regulate his own business. 1 would like you gent
ment know today that Louisiana has, and will, comply with tfc
parameters has defined in PL93523. We are doing it now.
In addition, it was stated, which I've heard before
that the states were listed in the Federal F.egister as needi
an underground injection control program based on the amount
water and the uses of that water. We,in Louisiana, are very-
fortunate, we do have alot of ground water and we do use it.
But I can't see how the uses of ground water is any basis tc
determine whether the state has an adequate program or not.
On the contrary, if the state uses the ground water, it shou
support the position that the state has an adequate injectic
program and is not polluting the water.
I've heard comment today, and in your Federal Regis
and in the rules you asked for corments relative to small
-------
164
»• ••
1 ' operators whether tliey should be exer.pt or not. I think the
2 i small operators should be exanpt, I think the large operators
I
3 | should be exempt and you go out of business and let the state•s
j
4 j regulate their own business. T'e've been doing that for 40 !
5 j years. I've been with the State of Louisiana for 32, ana to
6 my knowledge, there has not been a single instance that we knor..
7 | of that the ground water has been polluted as a result of '
8 injection.
9 And. the gentleman from Dupont who addressed you earlier
10 this morning, I didn't get it if he did say it, but he was
11 giving cost figures as to what the regulations would require;
12 I don't know if he addressed himself to the position where the
13 j area of review is a radius of 2 miles. And most cf the hazar-
14 dous waste disposal wells, are in areas where you do not have
15 much oil and gas activity. But in the State of Louisiana, I
16 would say that just about in every instance where we have
17 hazardous waste disposal wells within that 2 mile radius there
18 are several dry holes drilled within that area. Some are old
19 and some are recent. Now if any of these wells, do not meet
20 the requirements of ZPA and have to be properly plugged, or
21 properly completed, the disposal well permit cannot be issued,
22 unless someone goes into that well and completes it according
23 to the regulations. And I thin]; cf these old wells, and I've
24 heard many instances where people have gone back into old wells
25 and they never could get back into the wells and do what they
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
JLfi_
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
165
i*
wanted to do. And I think that situation will occur again i
any hazardous waste disposal tries to go back into an old we
and the possibility is excellent he trill never accomplish hi
task and, therefore, he will not be issued a permit to dispo
of waste in any new well.
It has come to ray attention, in the last week or so
that some of our political leaders throughout the country, s<
in Congress and 'some in the various states, have been concer:
with the federal rule making and they are frustrated with th<
clear intent of Congress. I'm going to be truthful with you
these were in other areas where rule making by federal agenc:
but they were not directly related to what we are addressing
here today. But I think the point is clear, and I am of the
firm opinion, that EPA and their rule making was circumventii
the intent of Congress in many of these regulations you are
presently making. __
Two different individuals this morning, and. maybe tl
afternoon, report to the study conducted by the IOCC. I
happened to be at that meeting which was held here in Dallas
several months ago, which was before the National Drinking W
Advisory Council, I think that's the correct title. Anyway,
Mr. Johnson, was the Chairman, and the states in Region VI w
presenting their position to the Council, and. EPA was presen
theirs at that time and at other times; and the Chairman ask
he said, it's kind of confusing that the ZPA is contending t
-------
167 i
! •*
1 i the rest of the panel, that you have succeeded in confusing t,:,:/
2 regulating states in ?.evion VI, and I feel sure throughout th-:
3 1 nation, by the consolidation of your permits. But I can assure
i
4 j you, you will not divide and counque. Now with all that ad !
libbing, you can permit that I have about 4 ninutes to read
to you.
t
i
!
7 | MR. LEVI1T: ~'7as that just the introductory? i
; I
8 MR. CEAUVtsnE: First, I would like to have my past I
9 remarks concerning the EPA-UIC proposed regulations made a par
10 of this record, and that's if yall can find them. We still—
11 MP. LEVIN: Excuse me, Mr. Chauviere. Could you be
|
12 specific on what is it ue are suppose to find to make a Dart of
j
13 the record? !
14 MR. CES.UVIEEE: T."?ell, I attended several meetings and i
i
15 have given several statements, and you must have them somewhere;
16 If you can't find them, these will suffice then.
17 MPv. LEVIN: All right. Please continue.
18 M?.. CIIAUVIEPX: We still object to EP£ creating rules
19 unnecessarily for those states which have workable rules and
2o ! regulations now in effect. We contend these proposed rules
2i will interfere with and impede oil and gas production in the
22 State of Louisiana unnecessarily; and, they will have a disrup-
23 tive effect on our existing state program.
24 I think PL93-523 says you shouldn't disrupt a state
25 program.
-------
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
163
In order to salvage a degree of flexibility from, tl
proposed regulations,- it is imperative that only the applica
for a new Class II and Class III -sennits be recruired to com.;;
with the area of review recuirem.ents.
old wells were in-
cluded in this area of review/ it would put an impossible
task on the operator and the state regulatory authority and
would, result in shutting in many oil and gas wells needless!
I would just like to divert from the text a minute
let you know that any new wells, and there is a great possib
ity that no new wells will ever be issued if the area of rev
isn't considered seriously. Because in Louisiana and the re
of the producing' states they've been drilling oil and gas we
since 1900, and you know, and I know, that the regulations o
1900 'or 1910/ 20, or 30, are not like they are today. So I
have no doubt in my mind that someone will find within an an
of review/ a well that doesn't comply with the existing rule;
and regulations as to properly abandonment, and therefore, w<
could not issue a permit. So your answer usually is, go bad
and fix it. Go back and complete it properly. vTell, that's
practical and I just informed you that in most instances whe-
you go back into an oil well/ you'll find junk in the well t1
you cannot co Lac]; anf. accomplish the fete which you are try
to dc. In essence, you are just eliminating any disposal
operations.
In order to obtain EPJ. approval for primacy, the pr
-------
2
3
4
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
oosec rules require that a state must demonstrate the intent
and adequate legal authority to assess maximum civil and
criminal fines, the same as the miximums specified in the ;
federal law. The State of Louisiana does not have this author-'-
ity, and it is very doubtful that it could obtain such authority
t
any time in the near future.
The proposed regulations providing for "area permits" j
where a number of injection veils are within a single parcel
of land and under the control of the sama individual, is still
vague and unclear. Except in a very feu instances an operator,
individual, will have to go through the entire public notice
and hearing process for the vast majority of permits issued
in a field or area, ^hy, why must the permit procedure be this!
wav?
For about 4 years EFA has been involved in writing thej
Iron-
Underground Injection Control regulations to protect the enviro
ment, and there has been tremendous public, private, state and
industry participation. Once the UIC regulations are promul-
gated, any applicant must comply with the rules in their entirej-
ty before a permit or an area permit can be approved and issued
I would like to know why? Why, in the proposed rule draft, is
it still necessary to go through the notice and public hearing
process before a disposal permit or, so-called, poorly defined,
area permit can be issued.
IiPv. LEVIN: Mr. Chauviere, I'rr. going to have to interr-i
-------
'• 170
1 |! you for a moment. First, you are entering into an area tiiat
i
i'
2 ! will be discussed tomorrow; secondly, you are beginning to g
r
3 j, over time. Is there a possibility that you. could summarize
within the next few minutes?
MR. CHAUVIERS: - I have about a page. left.
HH. LZVII-T: I don't know how long it takes to go ov
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
-16-
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a page, but I have to be fair to the speakers you have indi-
cated a desire to speak, and who have tried to keep their
testimony down to the allowable 10 minutes. So, if you woul
please try to summarize it the best you can, we would apprec
it.
MR. CKAUVIE3Z: Yes, sir. Are non-technical commen
basis.-enough- to disallow art applicant permission to dispose
waste if he is complying with all the rules in their entiret
If non-technical objections are sufficient evidence to rejec
a disposal permit ;~we have been wasting""our~~ time these past
years writing technically sound rules. If this be the case,
we can just forget about disposing of waste in the subsurfac
by means of disposal well.
When applying for primacy to the EPA for UIC regula
authority, one of the requirements is that the applying stat
must first hold a public hearing for comments concerning the
application for primacy. If a state seeks primacy in accorc1
ance with all the rules promulgated by EPA, what would be
gained by the hearing? If there are objections by the publi
-------
171
••
1 to the stata seeking primacy under EPA guidelines, does this
2 constitute non-approval of the state's application? If the
i
3 commentors object to the state regulating the program under
I
4 federal guidelines, it stands to reason they would also object
5 to the federal agency regulating the program under those same
I
6 guidelines. If this is the case, who would end up reguland
7 the program—the state, the federal government, or the public?
i
I ,
8 If they object to the state applying for primacy under federal
9 guidelines, but not under state guidelines, will the EPA accept
!
10 their judgment and leave the regulating to the state?
11 EPA's proposed rules contemplate imposing a requirement
12 for testing annular pressure. I am at a loss as to how an i
13 | annular pressure test can be accomplished on an annular injactilor
- |
14 well. EPA guidance is needed in this area. j
15 i feal the proposed regulations will have a crippling i
effect on the small oil and gas producers who have marginal
and stripper wells. However/ I do not have information com-
piled to substantiate this opinion. I hope the impact on the
19 small operators will be known before these regulations are
20 finalized.
21 Section 146.22(d)(1) requires directional surveys be
22 conducted on all holes, including pilot holes, at sufficiently
23 frequent intervals to assure that vertical avenues for fluid
24 migration in the form of diverging holes are not created during
25 drilling. Directional surveys should not be required unless a
-------
1-
»•
hole is directionally drilled intentionally. The director,
2 j at his discretion, should have authority to require direetic
3 ! surveys.
4 In conclusion, if the EPA will allow the State of
5 Louisiana to continue regulating subsurface injection by the
6 state rules and regulations, we will get on with the job of
7 i trying to satisfy the nation'e energy needs. To interfere v
8 : and impede the production of oil and gas in the state un-
9 necessarily is in direct conflict with P.L. 93-523, and wil]
10 result in weakening any possibility we might, have in trying
11 meet our energy demands. Thank you. Sorry I ran over.
j
12 MR. LEVIN: Thank you, sir. we may have a questioi
13 or two?
14 MR. SCEI-7APF: To be fair to you, I've asked several
15 of the other states representatives a question, and I'd liks
16 to ask you the same question. First of all, does the state
17 regulate at all, small operators. You've heard the small
18 operator exemption tossed around, here today.
19 MR. CHAUVIERE; Yes, sir. We regulate them all th
20 same.
21 MR. SCEtfAPF: What is the basic system that the
22 state uses for regulation? Is it a permit system?
23 MR. CKAUVI2RE: Yes, sir, I stated in the text.
24 MR. SCHMAPF: I'r:. sorry.
25 :-IR. CEAUVizRE: You weren't listening.
-------
173
»•
1 I MS.. LEVI1T: I'm going to have to ask you to step
2 | intimidating the panel.
1
3 'I (Laughter)
MR. CHAUVIERE: I'm really not.
4
5
8
9 program.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
:-!R. SCENAPF: The final question I have was with the
area of review. Ue've heard several of the other states say
they do employ the concept of an area of review, and I was
wondering if Louisiana uses that concept at all in its
:iR. CEAUVIEPvE: No, sir. We don't have any specific
area of reviev/. Ue do review in instances where we think it
is necessary. I would like to add at this tii?e, that we have
been injecting in the subsurface in the State of Louisiana for
40 years or more, and as I mentioned, I've been there for 32.
MH. SCEMAPF: I heard that.
HP.. CEAUVIEBE: Atta boy. To my knowledge, and the
other knowledge in the department, the injection has not
resulted in contamination or pollution of our valuable fresh
ground water aquifers. Thank you.
MR. SCI-INAPF: Thank you.
HP.. LEVIN: Any other questions, I have a few.
90 '-!r. Knudson?
23
24
25
:1F«.. KiTUDSCl1-: ICere you talking, in regard to your
area of review, of these holes or wells you are familiar with,
i
is this relating to the oil and gas production that you had sonie
-------
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
174
guidance for us on the area of review, different than the
hazardous waste? Or are you going in and you have wells in
the area that you are unfamiliar with and you are putting a
hazardous waste injection operate differently than.
I-1R. CHAUVIERS: Mr. I'nudson, I didn't mean to iraplj
that we would just have that problem with hazardous waste
disposal wells. The problem will be more inherit with sail
water disposal wells because in a majority of the cases, ths
salt water injection wells are where they are producing the
salt water and that is in the middle of a field in an area
that's been drilled from 1900 to the present time. So agai:
the rules of many, many years ago -are not as they are today
Under the rules today are designed and have been for many y
to protect the fresh ground water. And I would like to add
this time, when I was young and foolish many years ago, we '
protecting ground water and the best information we could g
from the most knowledgeable people in the business in Louis
and that was the U.S.Geological Survey, Ground I'Tater Divisi
which was right across the hall from our office. In those
the ground water was fresh potable water was considered to
250 parts per million chloride. Nhich relates to 500 parts
million total dissolved solids, and we have been protecting
to that depth. Now, I won't say it Mr. Levin, but, EPA cc
along and changes the rules. Our surface casing has been z
taking care of the 250 parts per million, and now you're bi
-------
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
175
»•
it down to 1Q,OQO parts per million and it's kind of difficult
to go back and stretch, that casing.
MR. LEVIN: You've answered the question. Any other
questions before I ask nine? Oh, good.
1 just want to make sure I understood you correctly,
when you were talking about penalties, you indicated, I think
that Louisiana had no penalties. Am I correct.
IIP,. CHAUVIEPJS: No, sir, I didn't indicate that.
MR. LEVIN: Ok, could you restate it then.
MP.. CEAUVIEP-S: What I indicated was that we couldn't
meet yours. >ie do have a penalty. Your maximum penalty is
55,OOQ--$1Q,000, we have several penalties but no criminal.
Cur penalties are $1,000 a day. Now we can exceed the 5 or 10
if the operator is foolish enough to violate the rules enough
days. However, if it is serious, and I have to make the state-)
jnent—the--way I did rela.tjLve___to._penalties_ and fines, if it is
a serious violation for just one day, we can fine him more than
$1,000. So we may like under your rules be $5,000 or $10,000,
so therefore, our regulations in my opinion, are not the same
as yours.
MH. LEVIN: Thank you.
ME. SCI-INAPF: I just want to make one point of clari-
fication. The requirement that the state, and this is probably
what we'll discuss tomorrow, but the requirement that the state
hold a public hearing before submitting, 5FA is directly out of
-------
1 . act itself, something that Congress wanted, not us.
2
3
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MI?.. CEAUVIERE: "ould you go through that again.
MR. SCI-INAPF: You were complaining that we required
a hearing before the state submitted a program for primacy,
that's directly out of the law itself.
M?.. CEAUVIERE: Well, I think the law should be ame
Thank you.
MR. LEVIN: I have a few others.
MR. CHAUVIERE: Mr. Levin, you're sure you are not
exceeding your time.
I-IP.. LEVIN: The comments were cnly for the speakers
There are certain perogatives that the Chair has.
:iP.. CHAUVIEPJE: I've been on that side.
MR. LEVIN: One more question. Several states have
mentioned this, and I'm not picking on you but since you ar;
up here, I'm lust curious why doesn't Louisiana have exempt;
for a small operator?
MR. CEAUVIERE: I don't know why we don't have an
exemption for small operators . I don ' t think we should hav
an exemption for small operators. They can pollute our fre
water aquifer just as well as a large operator.
I-1R. LEVIIT: So you feel they should be treated all
alike.
MR. CEAUVIEPZ
Yes, sir. I said I think they hot
should be exempted.
-------
177
I"
1 ,'IR. LEVIN: Could we have order here, I just have
2 one other thing. This morning, I indicated that if I felt tin..-
3 regulations were clearly being misinterpreted, that we would
4 allow the panel nierobers to offer clarifications. I feel
5 I obligated, to do so even when the law is being misinterpreted.
I
!
6 I So I would like to answer a statement for the record quoting
7 from the House of Representatives, Report 93.1185 or the
8 Safe Drinking Water Act dated July 10, 1974, page 32, which
9 says in part: "The committee was concerned that its definition
10 ! of endangering drinking water sources also be construed
11 liberally. Injection which causes or increases contamination
12 of such sources may fall within this definition, even if the
i
13 amount of contaminent which may enter the water source would
14 not by itself cause the maximum allowable levels to be exceeded!
15 The definition would be met if injected material were not com- |
16 pletely contained within the well, if it may enter either a
17 present or potential drinking water source, and if it, or some
18 form ito which it might be converted, may pose a threat to
19 human health or render the water source unfit for human consumcj-
i
!
20 tion
21 "In this connection, it is important to note, that
22 actual contamination of drinking water is not a prerequisite
23 either for the establishment of regulations or permit require-
24 ments or for the enforcement thereof."
I
25 That concludes our questioning for Ilr. Chauviere, thanjk.
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6 |
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
17
»•
you very much.
MR. CEAUVIE?.!;: Thank you. Hell, do you know what
1422 of the Safe Drinking vlater Act says?
MR. LEVIN: I would hope so, but I would like to rnc
on. Thank you very much.
MR. CliAUVIERE: Thank you and excuse me for exceed:
:av time.
IIR. LEVIN: That's quite all right, I think we hel]
you a little bit.
Mr. Duler to be followed by Mr. Folizi, I'm probab
prouncing that wrong but we will correct it.
DAVID L. DULER: Mr. Chairman, that's going to be
tough act to follow, so I'll try to keep it short.
My name is David L. Durler, I am presently employe
by Texas Uranium Operations, U.S. Steel Corporation, as the
Supervisor of Environmental Affairs. The fcllowing oral pr
entation addresses the recently reproposed regulations for
Underground Injection Control Program.
Since our company operates the largest commercial
situ uranium leach operation in the United States, and as 1
regulations in their presently reproposed form will have s.
22 l cant impact upon cur operation, it is our ho:oe that EPA wi
23 careful consideration to each of the comments set forth in
24 presentation.
25 MV initial statements will address our method of
-------
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
179
1 | and the complexity of our operation, so that those present
2 } can get some ideal of how these regulations will have an imp a
i
3 ! upon us.
i
i
4 ; Texas Uranium Operations currently has 4 in-situ
uranium leach mines in South Texas. In our solution mining
technique, an alkaline solution is injected into fresh water
I
aauifer through injection wells that are screened at the desired
I
ore horizon. Recovery wells are located near the injection weljls
for removal of the uranium enriched solution. Ideally, there
10 is a constant sweeping of leachate solution through the produc-
tion zone aquifer from the injection xvells to the recovery wells
i
12 | Monitor wells surround the production area and are screened in
13 appropriate stratigraphic horizons, both production and non-
14 production zones, to detect any horizontal or vertical migra-
15 tion of leachate.
16 I should point out at this point, that we currently
have over 300 monitoring wells now in operation.
The enriched uranium solution from the recovery wells
is pumped to a processing facility where the uranium is further
concentrated for eventual sale as yellowcake.
As can be seen from this brief description of our
method of mining, it is necessary to inject into a marginal
underground source of drinking water for the extraction of a
needed energy source. From our experience, the groundwater
quality within the immediate vicinity of the ore body does not
-------
-------
8
9
10
11
12
Jl
14
15
180
conform with EPA standards since the radium 226 concentrations
may vary from 100 pCi/1 to over 1,000 pCi/1. However, values
for TDS will range from 800 milligram per liter to over 1,500
milligram, per liter within the limits of the ore horizon.
With this initial information! I would like to now comment
on what Texas Uranium. Operations feels to be our major concerns!
related to 40 CFE 146 and to a small degree CFP. Farts 122.
Our first comment concerns what we consider classifi-
cation of Class III wells. The criteria and standards applica-
ble to Class III in Parts 146.31 through 146.35 cannot for the
most part be rationally applied to our operation. Texas
Uranium Operations currently has approximately 600 injection
wells in operation throughout the four mine sites. Total depth
for each of these wells is no greater than 600 feet and usually
averages approximately 350 feet. Each well is cased, with 4 or
G inch I.D. Schedule 40, PVC pipe; rn injection tubing is uti-
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
lized. Our current drilling program averages about 5 to 8
completed injection wells per week. Therefore, it is inappli-
cable or unnecessarily burdensome for an operator to fulfill
many of the requirements in 40 CFR 146.32 through 146.35.
Examples of some of the more unflexible rules are as follows:
; For example 146.32(d), must we, an operator, submit for
each new injection well the fluid pressure, the fracture pressure
and the ohvsical and chemical characteristics of the injection
I ""* ~
fluids and formation fluids?
-------
131
r
In 146.32(e), it is not possible in the case of our
new Class III wells to determine the natural fluid level, an
3 also the natural water quality prior to operation of an in-
4 jaction well.
5 Section 146.34(b)(2), it is cost prohibitive for
6 operation to install for each, and I'd like to emphasize th;
7 v;e have 600 injection wells at present, to install for each
8 injection well continuous recording devices for the continu
9 monitoring of injection pressure, flow rate and volume. Fo
10 the most part, our operation does not inject under pressure
11 Ue just use photographic flow.
12 These requirements under Subpart D are even more
13 questionable when one remembers that the entire injection v
14 pattern area is surrounded by monitor wells that are screei
15 in appropriate stratigraphic horizons to detect any leacha-i
16 migration that may occur. It is our recorjnendation that C
17 Hi wells be subcategorized in such a way that specific,,
18 although general applicable rules can be applied to the in
19 mining process since it already possesses a subsurface mon
20 well system far superior to any other method found in mini
21 Our second general comment concerns area permits
22 Class III wells.
23 Under 122.37, it states that the director may is:
24 I sennits on a well b-' well or an area basis orovided that :
25
criteria are addressed. Furthermore, it states that afte
-------
182
r
area permit has been issued, the permittee must still seek
2 | administrative approval from the director for additional new
i
3 injection wells. Based on our foregoing comment that injection
|
4 I wells at our sites are installed at a rate of 6 or 7 per wee? ;
it seems unnecessarily burdensome for the director to approve
beforehand their construction and afterward their mechanical
integrity. This is especially unreasonable since the State i
Director as already approved if a monitor well system that
completely surrounds, both horizontally and vertically, the
10 injection well pattern area. It is our recommendation that
11 once an area permit has been issued for an in-situ leach mine,
12 that notification of new injection wells not be required nor
that a demonstration of mechanical integrity be necessary.
14 ' Our third general comment concerns the permitting
15 scheme for Class I wells in particular.
/Then considering rule 145.11 (c) in light of 12 2. 3 6 (b)
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(2) and 122.36(d), it is somewhat confusing as to whether the
applicant must secure a permit to construct an injection well
or a permit to operate an injection well, or both. It is
readily apparent that no permit will be issued if the well
laclcs adequate mechanical integrity. However, in the introductlo-
to 146.12, Construction Requirements, it states that "the owner
or operator of a proposed injection well shall submit plans for
testing, drilling and construction to the director of the initial
plans as a condition of the permit". J-Iy question is, how can tf
-------
133
»•
director approve of initial construction plans as a conditio
2 j of the permit when/ according to 122.36 (d), the well raust a3
ready be in place and mechanical integrity established befor
penr.it is issued?
Texas Uranium Operations currently has 5 deep dispc
6 : wells that serve our South Texas solution mining operation.
7 ! is apparent that the intent of the EPA in permitting Class ]
8 injection wells is to allow for well construction and rtiechai
9 integrity testing prior to any permit issuance. Based on o\
10 experience in Texas, it would not be acceptable for our corn]
11 to have an injection well that is constructed, and has passi
12 an integrity test, to remain inactive while the permit goes
13 through the public hearing process. At a minimum, such an
14 interim period will cause an operational delay of 2 months.
15 company would prefer not to invest money in a waste dispose
16 well system before having all requirements firmly agreed ut:
17 and assurance that, if these requirements are met, injectic
18 can start. We recommend that a permit be issued prior to
19 construction of a Class I injection well, and that drillinc
20 completion, logging, formation tasting, and mechanical int<
21 testing requirements be incorporated into the permit. It ;
22 be recognized that this method of permitting is fundamenta
23 easier to grasp and to implement.
24 It is our concluding recommendation that the Unit
25 States Environmental Protection Agency investigate further
-------
\
11
13
14
1
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
'• 134
technical aspects of the in-situ leach industry and the econor c
impact of the subject regulations prior to their drafting anv
further rules. On behalf of Texas Uranium Operations, I
would like to express our appreciation for the opportunity
to testify today.
MR. LEVIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Burler. Uill
you submit to questions?
MR. DURLER: Yes.
MR. LEVIN: Questions by the panel? I don't think
we're tired, I think we've gotten the grasp so the testimony
on Class III wells pretty much is coming out the same way.
The fact that there are no questions, doesn't indicate that
there is any lack of interest in your statement.
MR. DURLER: I would like to invite anybody from EPA
to come down to see our site. I don't think anybody has to my
knowledge.
MR. LEVIN: ?Je do have plans -of that nature, depending
on our travel vouchers for next year.
MR. DURLER: ?7e wholeheartedly welcome you to come
•down there, we have enough blinders and blindfolds and then
some.
MR. LEVIN: Thank you. Mr. Mark Polizi, please correc
rne on the pronounciation, Planning Engineer Union Carbide
Corporation, Metals Division, Benavides, Texas. Following
Mr. Poliza will be Mr. J. R. Anderson; and Mr. Anderson, unless
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
185
»•
I get anymore request you will be the final speaker.
MARIx PCLIZI: lly name is Hark Polizi, I'm with Unic
Carbide I'etals Division, and again you will hear more on Clc
III wells.
-ly remarks today are directed toward the alicatic
of
f UIC regulations to cur present and protect in-situ uran:
solution mining operations . ?7a endorse the comments made tc
by the American Mining Congress, and the Texas In-Situ Uran:
-•lining and Environmental Association, as they pertain to th<
operations .
Although we have numerous comments which will be d.
cussed in our written statement, today I will only discuss
area wide permit conceot as entered in the proposed UIC rag1
lations. We, as well as other in-situ leach operators, req
numerous injection wells within a small area for our proces
In addition i — Union—Carbide uses — each well as bobh. an ex-brae
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and an injection well. A given well may be used for inject
or extraction or may be left idle depending upon production
requirements. Therefore, every well we drill will have to
considered an injection well for regulation purposes.
Production of uranium during one year from 15 to 2
acres of cur ore bodies requires the drilling and operatior
hundreds of wells. These wells are spaced from 30 to 50 fe
apart. The ore zone under production is treated as an araa
and leachate migration is monitored by area, wide tests and
-------
186
t*
1 ground water monitoring system around the production area.
2 ,
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
In several years of operation, thousands and thousand;:
of wells which have been drilled over only 800 to 1,000 acres,
incidentally, these wells would have all been constructed,
cemented, completed and testes identically. After uranium ha.:.
been recovered, the well is plugged and the aquifer restored
to pre-production levels as required by current state permit
regulations.
Complying with the UIC regulations in their present
form would be redundant and create a costly and meaningless
paper work suffle for the operator and the regulating agency.
For examples, 146(c), Section (146.06, 146.08, 146.31, 146.32,
146.34, 146.35 and 122(a), Section 122.37 employ direct and
indirect use of the well by well philosophy. Items such as
submittal of plans for tasting, drilling, and construction for
each well is equivalent to permitting each well. Also, the
requirement that we report every well as specified in the area
permit definition, is a tremendous burden. Given that formatiob
characteristics and construction techniques are identical for
each.insitu uranium production well.
The main requirement of the area permit should focus
on prevention and detection of leachate migration by area wide
integrity test in a sufficient ground water monitoring system.
Thank you.
MR. LEVIl'7: Than!: you, sir. Are there any questions?
-------
187
I
1 j I have one. You indicated that you have ground water monitor
2 system, there was previous objection to what we have in our
3 '< regulations, that is the 5 monitoring wells. Can you descrJ
i
4 your system as to the number of well, what it looks like, e1
M". DULER: At present we have permitted about 30
acres, a little bit more than that, we have a total of abou-
19 production zone monitoring wells encircling cur area whi<
8 monitors the horizontal migration leachate. r*le also have a.'
9 7 upper aquifer monitoring wells which would monitor the
10 J vertical movement of leachate into our upper aquifer.
11 MR. LEVIH: Thank you. Any other questions? Than
12 you very much.
13 Mr. Anderson?
14 JIM ANDEF.SCN: My name-is Jim Anderson, I'm with t
15 Olen Corporation, Regional Llanager, Environmental Affairs,
16 i have the responsibility for Olen's 5 chemical plants thai
17 in Region VI.
18 My comments will be very brief since I am last.
19 also will address the Class III area, and I would like to
20 describe an operation we have in Louisiana that points up
21 of the deficiencies in the regulations as they are now pro
22 This is a sodium chloride solution mining operati
23 in which fresh potable water is injected into the salt dcm
24 and leaches out the cavity, the brine is forced out by th
25 injection pressure so the integrity is essential to an ef£
-------
133
1 operation, and the brine is piped to a chemical plant which
_ — _
i
2 | uses it.
3 j After awhile, the cavity gets larger and larger as th^
i i
i i
4 | well is used, and soon it becomes an attractive hydrocarbon i
i
5 storage area. As a natter of fact, the government took all of
6 them away that we had down there and created a strategic reser-a
1
7 j But the point of it is, is that it was a Class III well until
8 it was turned over to hydrocarbon storage, and now it becomes j
j
I
9 a Class II well. To repeat, we put fresh potable water down in)
10 there and dissolve the salt and force the brine out. !7hen it
11 becomes a hydrocarbon well, they either puir.pt down into the
I
12 well to displace oil or they pump oil down into the well to
I
13 displace brine.
j
14 In the regulations by transitting from a solution
15 mining well to a hydrocarbon storage well, there are S specific
16 areas in which the regulations are less stringent for the hydrd-
17 carbon storage than they were for the initial solution mining.
18 Including among that less stringent is tha very expensive drili
19 ing of 5 monitoring wells into a salt water strata which could
20 net possibly do anything but detect migration of fluid, even
21 before you started operations.
22 I think the point cf this story is, the drastic need
i
23 for more flexibility in the regulations, and also, the need to
I
24 allow the conduct of the program by knowledgeable people in the1
25 local area such as the state. This concludes bv comment ana trie
-------
1S9
(
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
company will include these among those specific comments in
letter to EPA by the deadline.
MR. LEVIN: Thank you, llr. Anderson. Are there an
questions by members of the panel? Ok, thank you.
Babette Eiggins, has she come in? I-lr. James Grecc
has he come in? Is there anybody else in the audience who
wishes to make a statement?
If not, just a few words, when I adjourn this hea:
there is some time left, and I promised you this morning,
though I have not received any 3x5 cards we will be happ
to answer any factual questions about the regulations for
members of the audience who have not testified today, for
approximately one-half hour or GO.
Secondly, a word about tomorrow hearings. The c«
version will be on Parts 122, 123, and 124. Ue will begii
promptly at 9 o'clock, for those of you who will be happy
this, you will have a new Chairman tomorrow.
I would like to thank all of you for the attenti
you've given us this afternoon and this morning on behalf
the panel. This hearing now stands adjourned.
(^Thereupon, at 3:50 p.m. the hearing was adjourr
-------
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
190
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the attached proceedings
before the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency were had as
therein appears ; and that this is the transcript thereof for
the files of the Agency.
Betty ?Iprgan, Reporter
------- |