800D76101
             DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
  STATE UNDERGROUND INJECTION
       CONTROL PROGRAM
        PROPOSED REGULATIONS
          (40 CFR PART 146)
             Prepared by
        OFFICE OF WATER SUPPLY
  U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

-------
                    DRAFT

       ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

              ON UNITED STATES

       ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
             (40 CFR PART 146)

STATE UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM

            PROPOSED REGULATIONS
                Prepared by

           OFFICE OF WATER SUPPLY

   U.  S.  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION  AGENCY
/£Z
           I*"**
               Victor J.  Kimm
       Deputy Assisstant  Administrator
            Office of Water  Supply

-------

-------
                            SUMMARY
             DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT,
                ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1.  Type of Action;

    Regulatory.

2.  Brief Description of Action;

    The proposed action prescribes a new set of regulations which
    sets minimal standards for State programs to prevent under-
    ground injection which endangers underground sources of public-
    water supplies.  The regulations have been issued in conform-
    ance with the requirements of P.L.  93-523 (the Safe Drinking
    Water Act), which amends the Public Health Service Act.

3.  Summary of Beneficial and Adverse Environmental Effects;

    a.   Improved protection of public health is provided by bring-
        ing dangerous sources of contamination of underground
        drinking-water sources under minimal nationwide require-
        ments for control.

    b.   High flexibility allowed States in developing programs
        which would be consistent in part with present regulatory
        procedures.

    c.   Implementation of the program should not be excessively
        costly to the States and most injectors.

    d.   Differences in programs from State to State will result
        in some lack of uniformity in procedures across the nation.

    e.   Some injectors will encumber increased costs in meeting
        the regulatory requirements or in developing alternative
        methods of disposal of contaminated fluids.

    f.   Further degradation of the quality of ground water will
        occur where it cannot be demonstrated that injection en-
        dangers drinking-water supplies.

4.  Alternatives Considered;

    a.   No action.

    b.   Non-restrictive regulations.

    c.   Restrictive regulations.

-------
5.   Federal, State/ and Local Agencies from Which Comments Have
    Been Requested;

    See Attachment I.

6.   Date to CEQ and Public:

    Draft:
                                11

-------
                          Attachment I

Federal

Department of Agriculture
  Soil Conservation Service

Department of Commerce

Department of Defense
  Army Corp of Engineers

Department of Interior
  Bureau of Indian Affairs
  Bureau of Land Management
  Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
  Geological Survey
  Office of Oil and Gas
  Office of Saline Water

Energy Research and Development Administration

Federal Energy Agency

Federal Power Commission

^kter Resources Council

State

Ronald B. Robie, California Department of Water Resources

Michael A. Apgar, Deleware Department of Natural Resources and
  Environmental Central

Frank Andrews,  Florida Department of Pollution Control

R. Keith Higginson, Idaho Department of Natural Resources

Ira Markwood, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Bruce Latta,  Kansas Department of Health and Environment

Arnold Schiffman, Maryland Department of Natural Resources

-------
Ray Ellison, Michigan Department of Natural Resources

Helen Gram, New Mexico Environmental Improvement Agency

Ted DeBrosse, Ohio Department of Natural Resources

John Osgood,  Pennsylvania Bureau  of Water Quality Management

F. Kenneth Ay cock, South Carolina Department of Health and
  Environmental Control

Gerry Mullican,  Texas Water Quality Board

John H. Hall, West Virginia Department of Natural Resources

Interested Parties

Timothy Dowd, Interstate Oil  Compact Commission

Arne Gubrud, American Petroleum Institute

Seth Abbott, American Petroleum Institute

Frank Wood, Salt Institute

Richard Nalesnik, National Association of Manufacturers

James Miller, Freeport Sulfur

George Hugo, Texasgulf Sulfur

Stanley Kath,  National Association of State Departments of
  Agriculture

Richard Pearl, National Water Well Association

Robert Harris, Environmental Defense Fune

Diane L. Donley, Natural Resources Defense Council

Linda M. Billings, Sierra Club

-------
Peter L. Sullivan, National Wildlife Federation



Robert Balmer, Dupont de Nemours



Manufacturing Chemists Association



Ohio River Sanitation Commission



American Mining Congress



League of Women Voters

-------
                            PREFACE





     For many years, a wide variety of underground injection



practices have been allowed throughout the country that in one



way or another have introduced contaminants into aquifer systems



used for drinking-water supplies.  Control of these practices,



which include the disposal of fluid wastes into shallow and deep



wells, pits, lagoons, and other kinds of excavations, has not been



dealt with adequately by prior State or Federal laws and regula-



tions.  Consequently, although some States have attempted to



exercise some form of control over these practices, there is no



uniformity across the nation in coping with the magnitude and



effects of the problem.





     Public Law 93-523, known as the Safe Drinking Water Act,



was enacted by Congress on December 16, 1974, to insure minimum



protection of underground drinking-water sources from contamination



by well injection practices.  Under the terms of the Act,  the



Environmental Protection Agency was instructed to issue a set of



regulations specifying minimum requirements for State programs



to control underground injection of fluids that threaten the



quality of water in aquifers used for public  supply.





     This Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared by



EPA to explain the background of the proposed action and the



rationale that was used in developing the regulations.  It dis-



cusses in detail the anticipated benefits that will result from
                              111

-------
implementation of the regulations and compares them with the



adverse impacts that cannot be avoided.  In developing the regu-



lations, EPA considered a number of alternative approaches and



rejected those whose environmental, physical, economic, or



legal consequences were unacceptable.






     Although total control and elimination of all ground-water



contamination is not practicable at this time and also is not



specifically called for under the language of P.L. 93-523, the



present regulations constitute a first major step toward bring-



ing under control many practices and sources of ground-water



contamination that endanger public health.






    This Environmental Impact Statement was prepared during the



period July through November  1975 by EPA with assistance from




ground-water consultants experienced in the field of ground-water



contamination.  An extensive review was made of relevant Congres-



sional hearing documents, previous laws and regulations, and



published reports and articles relating to ground-water contami-



nation problems.  Contacts were made with selected State agencies



and with private organizations for preliminary, responses and re-



actions to the early drafts of the regulations and to provide




background information on the types of impacts that might be



anticipated.  Limitation of time and funds made it impossible to



make a quantitative analysis of all the impacts of the regulations,



particularly the economic effects.  Substantial reliance on judg-



ment, assumptions, and experience was necessary where data were



either nonexistent or were not readily available.
                                IV

-------
     Benefits to public health from improved protection of



 ground-water quality  are  anticipated  from  implementation of




the regulations and, in addition, individual States will acquire



greater capability in controlling sources of underground contam-



ination.  Implementation of the regulations will also be instru-



mental in abating the problem of contamination of the nation's



underground drinking-water supplies by directing the attention of



injectors and of various levels of government to the serious



potential danger of uncontrolled underground injection.

-------
                           CONTENTS
I. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION ....      1
    A. Introduction	      1
        1. General Comments and Public Health Considera-
             tions 	      1
        2. Purposes of Underground Injection 	      5
        3. The Current Situation	      6
    B. Summary of Prior Federal Legislation	      9
        1. Drinking Water Standards, 1914-62 	      9
        2. Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments
             of 1972 (P.L. 92-500)	     11
        3. Administrator's Decision Statement No. 5	     13
        4. Safe Drinking Water Act (P.L.  93-523)	     16
            a. Legislative Background	     16
            b. Basic Provisions Pertaining to Underground
                 Injection	     18
            c. State Permit Programs 	     19
            d. Temporary Permits	     20
            e. Interim Permits for Sole-Source Aquifers. .  .     21
        5. House Report No. 93-1185, July 1974	     22
    C. Conditions Upon Which the Regulations Are Based ...     22
        1. Status of Well-Injection Practices	     22
            a. Waste Disposal and Engineering Wells	     24
            b. Injection Wells Related to Oil and Gas
                 Production	     41
            c. Other Underground Injection 	     47
        2. Use of Ground Water	     48
        3. Existing State Injection Regulations and
             Programs	     57
            a. Variation in Scope and Type of Regulatory
                 Controls	     57
            b. State Water and Water-Pollution Laws	     60
                (1) Water-Well Regulations 	     64
                (2) Disposal Wells	     64
                (3) Oil, Gas, and Brine-Disposal Wells ...     67
                (4) Solution-Mining Wells	     68
                (5) Other Injection Facilities 	     69
            c. Institutional Framework and Problems	     71
    D. Description of the Proposed Regulations 	     74
        1. Background Interpretations	     74
            a. Definition of Well Injection	     75
            b. Endangerment of Drinking-Water Sources. ...     76
            c. Rules and Permits	     77
                               VI

-------
                        CONTENTS  -  continued
          2. Summary of Major Control Elements of the
               Underground Injection Regulations	   78
              a. Three-Tier Control 	   78
                   (1) Requirements Applicable to Waste-
                         Disposal Wells and Engineering
                         Wells (Subpart C)	   78
                   (2) Requirements Applicable to In-
                         jection Wells Related to Oil
                         and Gas Production (Subpart D) .  .  .  .   79
                   (3) Requirements Applicable to
                         Drainage Wells
                         (Subpart E)	   81
              b. State Institutional Requirements 	   82
              c. Control by Federal Agencies	   82
              d. Control on Federal Lands	   83
 II. ALTERNATIVES	   84
      A. Issues and Options	   84
          1. Definition of Well Injection	   84
          2. Levels of Water-Quality Protection 	   91
          3. Endangerment of Drinking-Water Sources 	   96
          4. Types of Regulations	   98
               a. "All-Permit" Program	100
               b. "All-Rule" Program	101
               c. Combination "Permits and Rules" Program .  .  .  102
          5. Program Implementation 	  103
               a. Listing of States	103
               b. Program Staging	105
          6. Documentation by States	108
          7. State Personnel Requirements 	  112
      B. Procedural Alternatives	114
          1. Take No Action	115
          2. Promulgate Restrictive Federal Regulations ....  115
               a. Beneficial Impacts	116
               b. Adverse Impacts	116
               c. Action Taken	117
          3. Promulgate Non-Restrictive Federal Regulations .  .  118
               a. Beneficial Impacts	118
               b. Adverse Impacts	119
               c. Action Taken	119
          4. Promulgate Intermediate Federal Regulations.  .  .  .  119
               a. Beneficial Impacts	122
               b. Adverse Impacts	123
               c. Action Taken	124
      C. Summary	124
III. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 	  128
      A. Effects on Water	128
          1. Underground Sources of Drinking Water	128
                                vn

-------
                       CONTENTS - continued
          2.  All Other Waters	     130
               a. Fresh Surface Water	     130
               b. Coastal Waters	     131
               c. Wetlands	     132
      B.  Effects on the Non-Water Environment	     133
          1.  Air	     133
          2.  Land	     134
          3.  Recreation, Solid Wastes,  and Pesticides	     134
               a. Recreation	     134
               b. Solid Wastes	     135
               c. Pesticides and Herbicides	     135
          4.  Miscellaneous Activities	     135
               a. Wildlife	     135
               b. Scenic and Historic Places 	     136
      C.  Effects on Non-Federal Governmental Agencies	     137
          1.  Effects on State Institutions 	     137
               a. Initial Preparation of the State
                    Program	     137
               b. Permitting Procedures and Recordkeeping.  ...     139
               c. Monitoring and Enforcement 	     140
               d. Staffing Requirements	     141
                   (1) Manpower Study for P.L.  92-500	     142
                   (2) The Model Ground Water Law Study	     143
          2.  Effects on Local Government	     144
          3.  Effects on Interstate Agencies	     145
      D.  Effects on Federal Agencies 	     147
          1.  Environmental Protection Agency 	     147
               a. Office of Water Supply	     147
               b. Other EPA Offices	     147
          2.  Other Federal Agencies	     148
      E.  Effects on Well-Injection Practices 	     148
          1.  Waste-Disposal Wells and Engineering Wells	     148
          2.  Injection Wells'Related to Oil and Gas
              Production	     153
          3.  Drainage Wells .........  	     I55
      F.  summary . .	     156
IV. ADVERSE IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED SHOULD THE
     PROPOSAL  BE IMPLEMENTED	     162
      A,  Effects on Water	     162
      B.  Effects on the Non-Water Environment	     162
      C.  Effects on Governmental Institutions	     163
      D.  Effects on Underground Injection Practices	     164
                                vin

-------
                      CONTENTS - continued
 V. RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S
      ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF
      LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY	    167
VI. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES
      WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD
      IT BE IMPLEMENTED	    171
  SELECTED REFERENCES 	    175
  APPENDIX TABLES I - IV	    184
  DRAFT REGULATIONS	    208
  ECONOMIC ANALYSES 	    316
                                IX

-------
                         ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure                                                         Pa9e

  1.  Diagram of a Conventional Industrial Injection
      Well Completed in Sandstone	25

  2.  Distribution and Status of Conventional Industrial
      and Municipal Injection Wells in the United States ....   26

  3.  Geologic Suitability of Formations for Convention-
      al Injection of Waste Fluids 	   27

  4.  Growth of Operating Injection Wells in the United
      States	29

  5.  Sketch of the West Coast Basin Barrier, Los Angeles,
      California	35

  6.  Operation of a Sulfur Well During Solution Mining
      of Sulfur by the Frasch Process	   37

  7.  Sketch of the Earth's Water Cycle	49

  8.  Depth to Saline Ground Water (Total Dissolved Solids
      1000 mg/1 or more	51

  9.  Major Aquifers of the United States. 4	52

 10.  Narrow Aquifers Related to River Valleys in the
      United States	53

 11.  Ground-Water Withdrawals and Surface-Water With-
      drawals in Millions Gallons Per Day, by States, 1970 .  .  .   55

 12.  Ground-Water Use as Percent of Total Water Use, 1970 ...   56

 13.  Types of Ground-Water Laws, by States	58

 14.  Conventional Injection Well Laws, by States	59

 15.  Organizational Flow Charts for Dealing with Brine Dis-
      posal Applications in New Mexico and Colorado	72

 16.  Sketch of Protective Zones for Ground-Water Supplies ...   99

-------
                          TABLES

Table                                                       Page


  1.  Known Incidents Of Waterborne Disease In The United
        States Due To Contamination Of Public-Water Supplies
2.

•J •
4.
5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.


11.

12.

13.
Estimated Number Of Underground Injection Facilities
In The United States 	
Disposition Of Produced Oilfield Water In 1963 	
Common Impurities In Brine 	
Undesirable Waste Characteristics In Brine And Removal
Operations 	
Selected Provisions Of State Water And Water-Pol-
lution Laws, 1972 	
Summary Of Selected Provisions Of Water-Well Regula-
tions By State, 1972 	
Issues And Alternatives Considered In The Development
Of The UIC Regulations 	
Estimated Number And Categories Of Underground In-
jection Facilities Included In The Broad Definition .
Summary Of The Alternative Regulatory Procedures
Considered During Development Of The UIC Reg-
ulations 	
Impacts On The Environment For The Restrictive Al-
ternative 	
Impacts On The Environment For The Non-Restrictive
Alternative 	
Summary Of Impacts Of The Proposed Action 	

23
42
43

45

62

65

85

87


125

126

127
159
                             XI

-------
                        APPENDIX TABLES
Table                                                         Page

  I.   Colorado Rules And Regulations For Subsurface
        Disposal Systems 	    185

 II.   Policy Statement Of Orsanco On Underground
        Injection	    194

III.   State Agencies Regulating Brine Disposal 	    195

 IV.   Illinois Outline Of Statutory Authority And Regula-
        tions Relating To Pollution Control And Waste
        Disposal	    201
                            xii

-------
I-  BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION





A.  Introduction



    1.  General Comments and Public Health Considerations.  On



December 16,  1974, the Safe Drinking Water Act  (P.L. 93-523) to



amend the Public Health Service  Act  (the Act) was signed into



law.  Section 1421 of the Act authorizes the Environmental Pro-



tection Agency  (EPA) to issue Federal regulations  (see draft in



Appendix) concerning State Underground Injection Control Programs



(UIC Programs), and requires the programs implemented by the



States to meet certain minimal criteria specified by EPA.  Each



State is to exercise primary responsibility for the protection



of underground sources of drinking water, and is to prohibit,



within three  years after the date of the enactment of the Act,



any underground injection which is not authorized by a permit



or rule issued by the State.





        The entire thrust of the Safe Drinking Water Act and of



Section 1421  is to minimize or prevent threats to public health



from underground drinking water sources contaminated by man's



activities.   The Act applies only to public water-supply systems



having at least 15 service connections or serving at least 25



persons.  Thus,  the Act and the underground injection control



regulations do not have as objectives protection from contamina-



tion of all ground-water sources.  Rather, the goal is to protect



and improve the quality of drinking water for the large number of



people who are served by public water-supply systems, and it is



expected that the provisions of the regulations will go far toward



accomplishing this goal.




                             — T —

-------
        As the program becomes fully implemented, the States, with



EPA guidance, will focus attention on facilities now injecting



                 fluids into aquifers that are now or will be



used in the future as public water-supply sources.  This new



level of control should greatly reduce incidences of waterborne



diseases and other threats to public health, and will result in



an improved standard of drinking-water quality for all people




served by public-supply systems.






        The specific contents of contaminated ground water that



can affect public health can be grouped into five categories:



bacteria, parasites, viruses, inorganic chemicals, and organic



chemicals.  Some recent waterborne epidemics of bacterial origin



in the United States that involved a significant number of people



were caused by Salmonella typhimurium.  Numerous other bacterial



diseases have been transmitted by water, but usually the incidence



of resulting cases is relatively limited.  Parasites are rarely



responsible for waterborne diseases in the United States, and



indicator bacteria are generally used to determine the quality of



water with respect to parasite content or threat to health.  The



tolerance for numbers of viruses present in water is probably



lower than for bacteria.  Virus monitoring is difficult and little



has been done in actual field situations to date.  Advances in



water virology, however, suggest that methods for detection and



understanding of the significance of viruses in relation to health



problems is improving.






        The types of waterborne diseases that have resulted in
                              - 2 -

-------
the United States from contamination of public-water supplies

include:  gastroenteritis, infectious hepatitis, shigellosis,

and chemical poisoning  (AWWA Water Quality Div. Comm., 1975) .

An idea of the magnitude of waterborne diseases in the nation

can be obtained from Table 1 , which lists known outbreaks and

cases due only to contamination of public-water supplies from

ground-water sources.  These data are drawn from two recent

studies of waterborne diseases  (Craun and McCabe, 1973; Craun

and Hughes, 1975).


        Table 1.  KNOWN INCIDENTS OF WATERBQRNE DISEASE
      IN THE UNITED STATES DUE TO CONTAMINATION OF PUBLIC-
            WATER SUPPLIES FROM GROUND-WATER SOURCES
   (after Craun and McCabe, 1973 and Craun and Hughes, 1975)


Period                     Outbreaks                   Cases

1946-70                       13                       24,251

1971-74                       _5_                       	74_

Total                         18                       24,325


        Numerous inorganic chemicals found in ground water

affect human health.  These include, for example, toxic substances

such as arsenic, heavy metals such as chromium, cadmium, lead

and zinc, and nitrates.  The sodium content of water is of concern

to persons with hypertension problems.  Finally, in the case of

organic chemicals, the presence of even small amounts in ground

water is a matter of great concern to health officials.  Gross

indicators of organic contamination of water, such as Biochemical

Oxygen Demand (BOD)  and Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD), provide

only preliminary information compared to detailed analyses which
                              -  3  -

-------
give specific names and concentrations of organic constituents.



Public attention has recently been focused, for example, on car-



cinogens in drinking water as a result of surveys by EPA of



selected municipal water supplies (Office of Toxic Substances,



1975).  There are hundreds of chemicals (mostly organic) that



are presumed to be carcinogenic to man because they are carcino-



genic to animals (Harris, 1975).   Sources of these carcinogens



in water include effluents from the organic chemical industry



(benzene, aromatic amines, etc.)r inorganic chemical industry



(arsenic, asbestos, etc.), petroleum and coal products industry



(coal, tar, PAH, benzene, etc.),  nuclear reactors and uranium



mining, agricultural use of pesticides (dieldrin, arsenic, chlor-



dane, etc.), urban runoff (asbestos, PAH, oils, benzene, etc.),



and sanitary landfills  (PCB, selenium, and other heavy metals).






     The draft regulations are based on an interpretation of the



meaning of the term "underground injection" indicated by the con-



tent of the hearings and working sessions  (House Reports 92-24,



93-11, 93-1135) preceding the final version of P.L. 93-523.  From



these documents, it is clear that Congress intended to protect



ground-water sources against certain but not all types of under-



ground injection practices.  Under the present interpretation  of



the language of P.L. 93-523, as indicated by the UIC Regulations,



underground injection is the introduction into the ground of




fluids through waste disposal and engineering wells, injection



wells related to oil and gas production, and urban runoff and



agricultural drainage wells, as listed in Table 2, and discussed



in later sections of this report.

-------
     This Environmental Impact Statement  (EIS) has been prepared



to evaluate  (a) the intent and purpose of the regulations pertain-



ing to State UIC programs, (b) the reasoning process that was



followed in developing the language of the regulations, and  (c)



the beneficial and adverse impacts that are expected to follow



from implementation of the regulations.  The EIS gives special



emphasis to the impact of underground injection control on public



health, state institutions, the owners and operators of injec-



tion facilities, and the natural environment.





     2.  Purposes of Underground Injection.  Injection of fluids



into underground water sources is practiced widely in the United



States.  In many instances, the injection is deliberate, in the



sense that it is intended as a means of getting rid of fluids at



a lower cost than by other methods or is an environmentally safer



alternative.





         The principal categories of underground injection that



are specifically required to be brought under control by the



regulations, (a) through  (e), are listed below:





         (a) disposal of brines and injection of brines or other



fluids for secondary recovery purposes in connection with the



production of oil and gas;



         (b) disposal of storm runoff water, typically from paved



urban areas;



         (c) disposal of industrial waste fluids through wells,



generally into deep brackish or saline-water zones;
                               - 5 -

-------
         (d) subsurface injection of fluids through wells for



such purposes as control of salt-water intrusion, artificial re-



charge, solution mining of ore bodies, and control of land sub-



sidence;



         (e) underground storage of natural gas or other sub-



stances.





     3.  The Current Situation.  Contamination of ground water



stemming from man's activities on or below the land surface is



widespread in the United States, according to results of completed



or on-going regional summary studies of contaminated ground water



by EPA  (Miller and others, 1974; Van der Leeden and others,  1975;



Fuhriman and Barton, 1971; and Scalf and others, 1973) .  Many activities



of man generate contaminants, which ultimately move down through



the soils and rocks into underground drinking-water sources.



From an overall national viewpoint, ground-water contamination



results from seepage into aquifers of contaminated ground water



from millions of individual  local point sources such as injec-



tion wells and industrial lagoons or basins, and a much smaller



number of non-point or regional sources such as return flows or



irrigation water, intrusion of salty ground water in coastal



areas, and urban runoff.





         There are two major differences between ground-water and



surface-water contamination.  First, contaminated surface water



can move at velocities measured in terms of several feet per



second or more, whereas contaminated ground water moves at velo-



cities that range from only several feet per day to less than a
                             - 6 -

-------
fraction of a foot per day.  Consequently, surface-water contam-



ination may be of short duration, if the source of the contamina-



tion is eliminated or brought under control, but ground-water



contamination may persist for decades or longer because of the



generally slow rate of movement of contaminated ground water.



Moreover, contaminated surface water is generally easily recog-



nizable, either by visible effects, such as changes in color and



the killing off of fish and benthic organisms, or it can be



readily detected by analytical techniques, whereas ground water,



which is hidden from view and is difficult to study, may have



undergone contamination for many years before the problem is



detected, perhaps at a down-gradient well where the contamination



shows up in a pumped water sample.





         In recent years, with the growing emphasis by State and



Federal agencies on control of surface-water contamination, there



has been a tendency on the part of producers of wastes to resort



more to underground injection which, as a consequence, has in-



creased the amount of ground-water contamination.  The sources and



causes of this contamination include not only the underground in-



jection practices listed previously, but a variety of other ac-



tivities or facilities of man such as the following:



         (a) disposal, storage, or treatment of hazardous, toxic,



or otherwise objectionable fluids into pits, basins, or lagoons



at industrial or municipal sites;



         (b) disposal of partly treated sewage from industrial



and municipal septic systems;
                           - 7 -

-------
         (c) seepage of leachates from municipal and industrial



landfills;



         (d) leaks in underground facilities such as oil pipe-



lines, sanitary sewers, and buried gasoline tanks;



         (e) generation of acidic leachates as a result of min-



ing activities;



         (f) migration of poor quality ground water into fresh-



water aquifers as a result of overpumping of wells;



         (g) interchange of ground water from one water-bearing



zone to another through boreholes and wells;



         (h) wastepiles and stockpiles, which are leached by



precipitation;



         (i) animal feed lots and dairies that produce large



quantities of wastes which commonly percolate into the ground;



         (j) fertilizers applied to agricultural areas;



         (k) pesticides used in gardens and rural areas;



         (1) accidental spills of hazardous or toxic substances;



         (m) applications of salt on highways to melt ice; and



         (n) land spreading of sewage effluent and sludge for



fertilizer use.
                               - 8 -

-------
B.  Summary of Prior Federal Legislation.



    1.  Drinking Water Standards, 1914-62.  The earliest Federal



legislative concern with protecting public health through con-



trol of the quality of water supplies was expressed in the Inter-




state Quarantine Act of 1893 and the Interstate Quarantine



Regulations of 1894 in which Congress authorized the U. S. Public




Health Service to make and enforce regulations to prevent the



spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into States



or from State to State.  A problem of special concern in the late



1800's and early 1900's was the incidence of typhoid in the



major cities of the United States, which came to be recognized



as a largely waterborne disease mainly attributable to contami-



nated streams and some contaminated aquifers, which were sources




of water for public supplies.  Congress enacted the first laws



dealing with pollution of navigable streams and lakes in 1912.



By 1914, the first official drinking water standard, to protect



the traveling public, was  adopted by the U. S. Public Health



Service.  The standard was based on bacterial content and was



applicable to any water system that supplied an interstate common



carrier.  In 1925, the standards were revised to include certain



chemical and physical characteristics of the water.  The stan-



dards were revised again in 1942 to improve requirements for



bacterial examination and to establish maximum permissible limits



for a variety of chemical constituents in the water.  The standards



were revised slightly in 1946, mainly to make the standards
                              -  9  -

-------
generally acceptable to all public-water supplies in the United



States.






        During the period from about 1915 to 1948, water




pollution control was largely in the hands of State agencies,



mainly State Health Departments, with research and technical ad-




visory assistance being provided to the States by the Public



Health Service.  In 1962, the Drinking Water Standards were



updated to include requirements for qualified personnel, maximum



limiting concentrations for additional heavy metals, certain



organic chemicals, fluoride, and radioactivity.  The standards



were again mandatory only for water systems supplying interstate



common carriers and others subject to Federal quarantine regu-



lations.  However, the American Water Works Association (U. S.



Public Health Service, 1962), adopted a resolution endorsing



the Drinking Water Standards as recommended minimum standards



for all public water supplies.





        McDermott (1973) points out that the Public Health



Service Advisory Committee on Drinking Water Standards, which



was appraising the need for pesticide standards, was reminded



in 1967 that the legislative basis for the Drinking Water Stan-




dards was control of communicable diseases.  Therefore, the



Public Health Service had no legal authority to establish



drinking-water standards based only on chemical content.  Clearly,




there was a need for further legislation to assure safe drink-



ing water supplies from public water-supply systems.
                             - 10 -

-------
    2.  Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972




 (P.L. 92-500).



        Further progress in water pollution control was made



through passage of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amend-




ments of 1972  (P.L. 92-500).  This Act replaced the Federal Water



Pollution Control Acts of 1948 and 1956 and amendments in 1965,



1966, and 1970 which were intended to control and abate pollution



of streams and lakes by promulgation of State water-quality




standards and encouragement of construction of sewage and waste-



treatment facilities.






        The 1972 Act, which is the first major piece of Federal



legislation that deals directly with ground-water quality pro-



tection, specifies that "the Administrator shall, in cooperation



with Federal, State, and local agencies and industries, develop




comprehensive programs for preventing, reducing, or eliminating



pollution of navigable waters and ground water and improving the



sanitary conditions of surface and underground water."






        The Act requires establishment of ground-water quality



monitoring programs.  The Administrator is also required to



issue guidelines for disposal of pollutants in wells or in sub-




surface excavations.  P.L. 92-500  specifies in addition that States



should operate permit programs to "control the disposal of



pollutants into wells."  Under the National Pollutant Discharge



Elimination System (Section 402), EPA is required to review
                            -  11  -

-------
State applications to operate such permit systems and may dis-



approve such applications if the requirements of the Act are



not met.  However, while it appears that EPA may be authorized



to prescribe its own program to control the disposal of pollu-



tants into wells if it does not approve a State's program, this



authorization has not been established by any judicial decision.





        EPA has interpreted the NPDES section of P.L. 92-500 to



mean that an operator of a disposal well must have an NPDES



permit under the following conditions:



        (1) If there is also a surface discharge on the



property that requires an NPDES permit; in this case, both



discharges will be under one permit;



        (2) If there was a surface discharge in the past,



which has been replaced by the disposal well; and



        (3) If the injector never had a surface discharge, and



all wastes are being injected, then no NPDES permit is required.



In such a case, if the injector initiates a surface discharge



in the future that does require a permit, then the injection



well will also have to be permitted at that time.





        P.L. 92-500 states that no permit or authorization is



required for "...water, gas, or other material which is injected



into a well to facilitate production of oil or gas, or water de-



rived in association with oil or gas production and disposed of



in a well, if the well used either to facilitate production or
                              - 12  -

-------
for disposal purposes is approved by authority of the State in



which the well is located, and if such State determines that



such injection or disposal will not result in the degradation of



ground- or surface-water resources."






        The restrictive definition of a pollutant in P.L. 92-500



(includes dredged soil, solid waste, incinerator residue, sewage,



garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, biological and radioactive



materials, heat, rock, sand, cellar dirt, and industrial,



municipal, and agricultural waste) tends to weaken the Federal



government's ability to adequately protect underground drinking-



water sources.





    3.  Administrator's Decision Statement No. 5.  In April



1974, the Administrator of EPA issued a policy statement on sub-



surface emplacement of fluids.  This statement was partly an



outgrowth of a policy statement by the Federal Water Quality



Administration in October 1970, and partly an outgrowth of



Section 402 in P.L. 92-500 dealing with the disposal of contami-



nants into wells.  It was designed to establish EPA's concern



with the techniques used in fluid storage and disposal, and to



express EPA's position of approving such fluid emplacement only



where it is demonstrated to be the most environmentally accept-



able available method of handling fluid storage or disposal.



The policy sets forth EPA's position on deep-well disposal and



provides guidance to Federal agencies,  the States, and other



interested parties.
                            - 13 -

-------
        Administrator's Decision Statement No. 5 (ADS-5) is



designed to (a) protect the subsurface from contamination or



other environmental hazards attributable to improper injection



or poorly sited injection wells, (b)  insure that engineering



and geological safeguards adequate to protect the integrity of



the subsurface environment are adhered to in the preliminary



investigations, design, construction, operation, monitoring,



and abandonment phases of injection well projects, and  (c)



encourage development of alternative means of disposal which



afford greater environmental protection.





        To insure accomplishment of the goals established by



the subsurface protection policy, the statement specifies that



(a) EPA will oppose emplacement of materials by subsurface in-



jection without strict control and without a clear demonstration



that such emplacement will not interfere with present or potential



use of the subsurface environment, contaminate ground-water re-



sources, or otherwise damage the environment, (b) all proposals



for subsurface injection should be critically evaluated to



determine that the various provisions, measures, and technical



guidelines in the statement have been followed,  (c) where sub-



surface injection is practiced for waste disposal, it is to be



recognized as only a temporary means of disposal until new



technology becomes available, and  (d) where subsurface injection



is practiced for underground storage or for recycling of natural
                             - 14 -

-------
fluids, such practice will cease or will be modified when a



hazard to natural resources or the environment appears imminent.





         Accompanying the policy statement are recommended data



requirements for environmental evaluation of subsurface emplace-



ment of fluids by well injection.  These data relate to the kinds



of information needed to evaluate prospective injection well



systems and to protect the environment.  They list certain types



of information that should be provided by the injector, includ-



ing maps, geological cross sections, descriptions of the hydro-



logical environment of the area in which the injection is taking



place, the chemical, physical, and biological properties of the



fluids to be injected, the nature and composition of the under-



ground geologic formations, the chemistry of the natural waters,



the pressure increases expected as a result of the injection,



and engineering data on the wells, their method of construction,



and the control devices installed to insure against contamina-



tion of water resources.





         Much of the philosophy of ADS-5 has been incorporated



in the proposed regulations for UIC programs, and it is intended



that the States will utilize some of the data requirement pro-



visions of the Statement in connection with certain types of



underground injection facilities to be specified in the State



programs.
                             - 15 -

-------
    4.  Safe Drinking Water Act  (P.L. 93-523).  Because prior



Federal legislation, except for  scattered statements in P.L. 92-



500, did not deal directly or in detail with the protection



of underground drinking-water sources from contamination by



uncontrolled subsurface injection of fluids, Congress recognized



the need for further legislation in this area.  The principal



objectives of the new legislation  (P.L. 93-523) are stated con-



cisely in the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce



Report (93-1185, July 1974, p. 1) as follows:   ". . .to assure that



water-supply systems serving the public meet minimum national



standards for protection of public health.  At  present, the



Environmental Protection Agency  is authorized to prescribe



Federal drinking-water standards only for water supplies used by



interstate carriers.  Furthermore, these standards may only be



enforced with respect to contaminants capable of causing communi-



cable disease.  In contrast, this bill would:   (1) authorize the



Environmental Protection Agency  to establish Federal standards



for protection from all harmful  contaminants, which standards



would be applicable to all public-water systems, and  (2) establish



a joint Federal-State system for assuring compliance with these



standards and for protecting underground sources of drinking water."





        a.  Legislative Background.  During the 92nd Congress,



the Subcommittee on Public Health  and Environment of the Committee



on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representatives,



held two sets of hearings on bills relating to  protection of
                              - 16 -

-------
public health through assurance of safe community drinking-



water supplies.  On May 24, 25, and 26, 1971, the Subcommittee



held hearings on H.R. 1093, H.R. 5454, and H.R. 437.  On May 10,



1972, a clean bill, H.R. 14899 was introduced.  Supplemental



hearings on that bill were conducted on June 7 and 8, 1972.



None of the aforementioned bills were ordered reported by the




full committee during the 92nd Congress.






            During the 93rd Congress, several bills dealing



with the protection of community water supplies were under con-



sideration.  On January 3, 1973, H.R. 1059—the "Safe Drinking




Water Act"—was introduced.  The Administration's bill, H.R. 5368,



was introduced on March 7, 1973.  An identical bill, H.R. 5395,



was introduced on March 8, 1973.






            Hearings on these bills were held before the Subcom-



mittee on March 8 and 9, 1973.  Subsequently, the Subcommittee



ordered reported as clean bills, H.R. 9726 and H.R. 10955.  Each



of these represented modified versions of H.R. 1059.  Finally,



on February 21, 1974, a new clean bill, H.R. 13002, was intro-



duced and was ordered reported by the Subcommittee to the Com-



mittee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce.  On June 20, 1974,



the Committee by voice vote ordered reported H.R.  13002, as



amended.  Comparable legislation (S.433) was passed by voice vote



of the Senate on June 22, 1974.  P.L. 93-523 was enacted by



Congress, December 16, 1974.
                             - 17 -

-------
        b.  Basic Provisions Pertaining to Underground Injection. Sec-



tion 1421 (a)(1) of the Safe Drinking Water Act provides that




the Administrator of EPA "shall publish proposed regulations for



State underground injection control programs within 180 days after



enactment of this title.  Within 180 days after publication of



such proposed regulations, he shall promulgate such regulations



with such modifications as he deems appropriate.  Any regulation



under this subsection may be amended from time to time."






            Section 1421(b)(1) provides that the "regulations



for State UIC programs shall contain minimum requirements for



effective programs to prevent underground injection which en-



dangers drinking-water sources.  Such regulations shall require



that a State program, in order to be approved under Section 1422,



shall:



             (a) prohibit, effective three years after the date



of the enactment of this title, any underground injection in



such State which is not authorized by a permit issued by the State



(except that the regulations may permit a State to authorize



underground injection by rule),



             (b) require (1) in the case of a program which pro-



vides for authorization of underground injection by permit, that



the applicant for the permit to inject must satisfy the State



that the underground injection will not endanger drinking-water



sources and  (2) in the case of a program which provides for such



an authorization by rule, that no rule may be promulgated which
                             - 18 -

-------
authorizes any underground injection which endangers drinking-



water sources,



             (c) include inspection, monitoring, recordkeeping,



and reporting requirements, and



             (d) apply  (1) as prescribed by Section 1447(b) to



underground  injections by Federal agencies, and (2) to underground



injections by any other person whether or not occurring on




property owned or leased by the United States."






             Section 1421(b)(2) provides that "regulations of the




Administrator under this section for State UIC programs may not



prescribe requirements which interfere with or impede:



             (a) the underground injection of brine or other



fluids which are brought to the surface in connection with oil




or natural gas production, or



             (b) any underground injection for the secondary or



tertiary recovery of oil or natural gas, unless such requirements



are essential to assure that underground sources of drinking




water will not be endangered by such injection."





        c.  State Permit Programs.  The intent of the Act is to



establish a Federal-State system of regulation to assure that



drinking-water sources are not rendered unfit for use as a result



of underground injection of contaminants.  The guidelines for the



State regulatory programs are to be promulgated by the Adminis-



trator of EPA within 360 days after passage of the Act.  Prior
                             -  19  -

-------
to that time, the proposed regulations will have been submitted



to the States for review and will have been presented at public



hearings so that EPA can make changes or modifications before



the deadline for the actual promulgation of the regulations.





            In summary, the Administrator's guidelines for



State UIC programs require States, as a minimum, to (a)  prohibit



unauthorized underground injection effective three years after



enactment of the bill, (b) require the applicant for an under-



ground injection permit to bear the burden of proving to the



State that the injection will not endanger drinking-water sources,



(c) refrain from adopting regulations which, if applied, would



authorize injection that endangers underground drinking-water



sources, (d) adopt inspection, monitoring, recordkeeping, and



reporting requirements for the purpose of controlling injection,



and (e) apply their injection control programs to Federal agencies



as well as to other persons, whether or not the injection is



occurring on Federally-owned or leased property.





        d.  Temporary Permits.  The Act recognizes that some



States may not be able to process all permit applications for



new and existing underground injection wells within the three-



year deadline established by the Act.  Consequently, upon appli-



cation by the Governor of a State, the Administrator may, at his



discretion, allow the State to issue temporary permits for one



additional year.  The Administrator may allow the issuance of



such temporary permits only under the following conditions:
                             - 20 -

-------
 (&) the State must bear the burden of proving that it cannot



process all permit applications in time,  (b) the temporary



permit may be issued only for unprocessed permit applications



for underground injection facilities in operation at the time



of EPA's approval of the State program, (c) the temporary



permit must provide that generally available techniques be



utilized to minimize the likelihood of contaminating drinking-



water sources, and (d) the Administrator must determine that



the issuance of temporary permits is warranted, notwithstanding



the adverse environmental or public-health effects.





        e.  Interim Permits for Sole-Source Aquifers.  Section



1424(a) of the Act deals with problems that may have to be



addressed during the three-year period before State underground



injection control programs become effective under Section 1421.



Such a problem could arise, for example, in places where there



is only a single aquifer that is the sole, or principal, drinking-



water source, and where contamination of that aquifer would pose



a significant hazard to public health.





            In such a case, the Administrator is authorized, upon



petition of any person, to designate such an area as one in



which no new underground injection wells may be operated unless



he has issued a permit for such operation.  The Administrator's



authority to make such an interim designation terminates on the



date on which the applicable UIC program for that area becomes



effective.
                             -  21 -

-------
    5.  House Report - No.  93-1185, July 1974.  One of the most



important definitions in the Safe Drinking Water Act is that for



"underground injection."  It was the intent of Congress, as



interpreted from the committee hearings and reports at the time



the provisions of the Act were under discussion, that underground



injection was limited to deliberate subsurface emplacement by



wells, either permanently or temporarily, of any contaminant



that flows or moves, whether the contaminant is in a semi-solid,



liquid, sludge, or any other form or state.  The definition also



was intended to apply to the injection of brine or other fluids



for secondary recovery in oil and gas fields, solution extraction



of minerals, artificial recharging operations, injection of



fluids to control salt-water intrusion, and similar practices



listed in Table 2.





        Congress included in the Act a specific amendment



expressing its desire not to authorize needless interference



with oil or gas production.  This amendment prohibits State



UIC programs from prescribing requirements that would interfere



with production of oil and natural gas or disposal of by-



products associated with such production, except that such



requirements are authorized if they are essential to insure



that underground sources of drinking water will not be endangered



by such activities.





C.  Conditions Upon Which the Regulations are Based.



    1.  Status of Well Injection Practices.  No statistical inven-



tory of all of the types of underground injection included in the









                                -  22  -

-------
        Table 2. - ESTIMATED NUMBER OF UNDERGROUND INJECTION
                   FACILITIES IN THE UNITED STATES
                      Category
 Number
  I.  Waste Disposal and Engineering Wells

      (1)  Conventional industrial wells	     360
      (2)  Conventional municipal wells 	      30
      (3)  Municipal shallow wells	   1,000
      (4)  Industrial shallow wells 	   1,000
      (5)  Barrier wells	     100
      (6)  Recharge wells for aquifer augmentation	     200
      (7)  Solution mining wells	     500
      (8)  Gas storage wells	14,500
      (9)  Geothermal wells 	      10
 II.  Injection Wells  Related to Oil and Gas  Production
      (1)  Brine disposal wells .  .
      (2)  Secondary recovery wells
10,000
60,000
III.  Other Underground Injection

      (1)  Drainage  wells (agricultural  and  urban  runoff)
50,000
                                 - 23 -

-------
UIC regulations has ever been made, although there are some



scattered data relating to certain types of underground injection.



Table 2 is a list showing the estimated numbers of such facilities,



based partly on factual information and partly on the judgment



of professionals working in the field.  Each of the injection



practices for which controls are mandatory is discussed below:





        a.  Waste Disposal and Engineering Wells.



             (1) Conventional municipal and industrial disposal



wells injecting wastes and effluent into deep saline-water



aquifers generally range in depth from a few hundred to several



thousand feet.  The typical construction of such industrial and



municipal wells and a hypothetical body of contaminated fluids



in the injection zone are shown in Figure 1.  As of mid-1975,



284 industrial and municipal waste injection wells were in



operative condition in 25 States  (after Reeder and others, 1975).



Only 20 of the wells inventoried were municipal, and these were



in Florida, Hawaii, Louisiana, and Texas.  Also as of mid-1975,



there were about 360 conventional industrial wells and 30 con-



ventional municipal wells which have been constructed  (including



operational and abandoned wells) or are in the planning stage.





            Figure 2 shows the general distribution of operating



industrial and municipal disposal wells in 1975, and Figure 3



shows the geologic suitability of the receiving formations for
                                 -  24  -

-------
                                 ZZ

FRESH-WATER-BEARING • ° ''
SURFACE SANDS AND   ° '  °'-
GRAVEL
IMPERMEABLE SHALE —ET^-^——--
CONFINED FRESH-WATER- ;
BEARING SANDSTONE
                                        PRESSURE GAUGE
                                        WELLHEAD PRESSURE
m
                                  u
                                        PRESSURE
                                        GAUGE Opsi
DOMESTIC WELL

     .PUBLIC-SUPPLY
      WELL
                                           ^0.:
                                      --SURFACE CASING SEATED "
                                     sf^BELOW FRESH WATER AND
                                     ^-CEMENTED TO SURFACE
IMPERMEABLE SHALE -
                                        INNER CASING SEATED IN OR
                                        •ABOVE INJECTION ZONE
                                        AND CEMENTED TO SURFACE '.
                                        •INJECTION TUBING ~^—~~:
                                        ANNULUS FILLED WITH"	
                                        NONCORROSIVE FLUID ^^H:
                                        PACKERS TO PREVENT FLUID -
                                        CIRCULATION IN ANNULUS
PERMEABLE SALT-WATER
BEARING SANDSTONE-
INJECTION ZONE
IMPERMEABLE SHALE
                                       ^OPEN-HOLE COMPLETION-
                                       [.IN COMPETENT STRATA
                                                ^INJECTED CONTAMINATED"^
                                                = FLUID -LHH—	-=1_^-
  Figure 1.
              Diagram of a Conventional Industrial Injection
              Well  Completed  in  Sandstone  .modified in  part
              from  Warner, 1965) .

-------
 CO
 
 -P
 a
 g
 •H
 •P
 W
 CD

 CD
 G
 O
•H
-P
   CO
  -P
   C
   CD
   CO
   CD
  CD
                    T)  T3
                     a  a
                     n3  CD
                    •H  n3
                     M  0)
                    -P  CD
                     M  OS
                     C  CD
                    H  -P
                     C
                     O  co
                    •H  CD
                    -P  -P
                     C  (0
                     CD  -P
                     >  CO
                     G  '
                     O  73
                    U  CD
                        -P
                    4-1  -H
                     O  C
                        D
                    -P .£
                    13 -P
                    ^-)
                    CO  C
                       •H
                    T)
                    C  co
                    
                    -P rH  rH
                    3  (0
                    X!  a  -
                    •H -H  CO
                    SH  U  (H
                    -P -H  0)
                    co  c  x;
                    •H
Q



CN

 1)
                    CP
                   •H
                   fc,
                           -p
                           o

(MJPO

-------
                                                                      w

                                                                   i
                                                                  U  -P


                                                                   0  (0
                                                                  4-1  H
                                                                      0)
                                                                   M  O
                                                                   c
                                                                   O  M
                                                                  •H  
                                                                   n3  g: H
                                                                  4J
                                                                  •H  IH  «.
                                                                   3  O w
                                                                  10     rtj
                                                                      C H
                                                                   O  O -P
                                                                  •H  -H <
                                                                   tn-P
                                                                   o  o ^
                                                                  H  QJ (U
                                                                   O  T-I4J
                                                                   a)  fl nj
                                                                  O  H 5
                                                                  ro

                                                                   (U
                                                                   M
                                                                   3
                                                                   Cn
                                                                  •H
-   27   -

-------
conventional injection of waste fluids.






            The historical trend in construction of industrial



and municipal disposal wells is shown  in Figure 4.  Between



1967 and 1973, an average of about 28  industrial and municipal




injection wells per year were constructed.  If this average rate



is extrapolated into the future, about 614 such wells will have




been constructed by 1985 and 1,034 such wells by the year'2000.






            Warner and others  (1975) estimated that the average



continuous injection rate in 1973 was  100 gpm per well and the



injected volume of waste in that year was about 24 mgd.  If, as



in 1973, about 60 percent of the constructed wells were to be



in operation in 1985 and 2000, and if  the average injection rate



were to remain at 100 gpm, the estimated daily injected volumes




would be 53 mgd and 89 mgd, respectively, in those years.






            In addition to gathering information on existing



wells during the study made by Warner  and Orcutt  (1973), Warner



made a brief assessment of the probable environmental impact of



each of the wells that has been constructed and operated.  Tan-



gible results of waste water injection that can be predicted



to occur in every case are:   (1) modification of the ground-water



system; and  (2) introduction into the  subsurface of fluids with



a chemical composition different from  that of the natural fluids.



Tangible impacts that could occur in individual cases are:
                             - 28 -

-------
CO
Ul
ISO


170


160


150


140


130


120


110


100


90


80


70


60


50


40


30


20


 10
              J	I
                      1
                                          I  I  I
I
                                                          l   I  I
       5O 51  52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73
                                YEAR

     Figure 4.   Growth of Operating Injection Wells  in  U.. S.
                 (Environmental Protection  Agency, 1974).
                           - 29 -

-------
(1) degradation of high-quality ground water;  (2) contamination



of other resources, e.g., petroleum, coal, or chemical brines;



(3) stimulation of earthquakes; (4) chemical reaction between



waste water and natural water; and  (5) chemical reaction between



waste water and rocks in the injection interval.






            The impact of greatest concern to most regulatory



agencies is that of direct contamination of potable ground water



by the injected waste water.  This can occur where a well, de-



signed to inject into a saline-water aquifer, fails to operate



properly because of:  (1) escape of waste water through the



well bore into a fresh-water aquifer as a result of insufficient



casing, corrosion, or other failure of the injection-well casing;



(2) vertical escape of injected waste water outside the well



casing from the injection zone into a fresh-water aquifer;  (3)



vertical escape of injected waste water from the injection zone



through confining beds that are inadequate because of high primary



permeability, solution channels, joints, faults, or induced



fractures; (4) vertical escape of injected waste water from the



injection zone through nearby wells that are improperly cemented



or plugged or that have insufficient or corroded casing; and



(5) lateral migration of waste water, originally injected into



a saline-water zone, into a fresh ground-water zone at the same



depth as the injection interval.





            Indirect contamination of fresh ground water can



occur when injected waste water displaces salty formation water
                             - 30 -

-------
vertically, causing it to flow upward into a fresh-water aquifer.



The vertical flow of the saline water could be through paths of



natural or induced permeability in confining beds or through



inadequately cased wells drilled through the fresh water-salt



water interface.





         In most existing wells, the potential for contamination



of fresh ground water is small because of the construction of



these wells and because of the large horizontal and vertical dis-



tances between the injection zones and fresh-water aquifers.  The



belief that the potential for this type of contamination is small



is supported by the few instances of direct contamination that



have been documented.  For example, in the hearings on the Safe



Drinking Water Act, only three cases of ground-water contamina-



tion from conventional industrial injection wells were cited.  No



instance of contamination of other subsurface resources by in-



jected industrial waste water has been reported to date.  The



fact that little evidence of degradation of potable ground water



and other resources by this type of injected waste water has been



found should not be cause for relaxation of vigilance in regulat-



ing and operating such disposal wells.





         (2)  Industries and municipalities are injecting fluids



of all kinds into shallow fresh-water aquifers through drilled,



bored, or driven cased wells.





         Modification of the existing quality of the native ground



water caused by subsurface disposal of fluids through a well
                                 -  31

-------
depends on a variety of factors, including the composition of the



native water, the amount and composition of the injected fluid,



the rate at which the injection takes place, the permeability of



the aquifer, the type of construction and life expectancy of the



well, and the kinds of biological and chemical degradation that



may take place within the well and the aquifer.  In general, for



economic reasons, wells used for disposal of contaminated liquids



in fresh-water aquifers tap the shallowest available aquifer.



Commonly, this is a water-table aquifer.  Some wells, however,



are terminated at greater depths in confined fresh-water aquifers.





         Initially, injection of contaminated liquids through



wells into fresh-water aquifers causes degradation of the chemical



and bacteriological quality of the ground water in the immediate



vicinity of the injection facilities.  Eventually, the degradation



spreads over a wider region and may ultimately extend into sur-



face waters that are hydraulically connected with the receiving



aquifer.  If the cones of depression in the water levels of near-



by operating water-supply wells are large enough to include the



injection site, or if the wells are down-gradient along natural



flow lines from the injection site, contamination of these wells



may take place.  Another potential effect in some hydrogeologic



environments is movement of the contaminated water from the injec-



tion zone into overlying or underlying fresh-water aquifers.
                              - 32 -

-------
         Fuhriman and Barton  (1971), referring to ground-water



pollution in the southwestern United States, stated that  "oc-



casionally, industries or others have used shallow injection



wells to dispose of liquid wastes," and cited as an example



electronic industries that disposed of metal-plating wastes by



means of injection wells in Arizona.  In the Snake River  Plain



of Idaho, wells are also used to dispose of industrial and



sewage wastes into shallow aquifers (Abegglen and others,



1970).  An estimated 1,000 industrial wells injecting fluids



into shallow fresh-water aquifers exist today (Table 2 ).





         Industrial wastes injected through wells range widely



in composition and toxicity, depending on the particular  indus-



trial operation and the degree of treatment of the wastes before



disposal.  Plating wastes, pickling wastes, and acids are some



of the more toxic fluids disposed of through wells into fresh-



water aquifers.





         Partly treated or untreated sewage is disposed of



through municipal shallow wells in parts of the country.   It is



estimated that about 1,000 such wells are in operation.





         (3)  Subsidence control wells are used to repressure



aquifers to counteract the subsidence induced by the previous



removal of oil, gas, or water.  Poland (1972)  describes existing



operations of this type, the largest of which,  in this country,



is in the vicinity of Wilmington oil field in the Long Beach,
                                - 33 -

-------
California, area.  By 1969,  1.1 million barrels of water per day



were being injected in the Wilmington oil field area.  It is



estimated that 500 wells of this type may exist.





         Ground-water contamination from subsidence control wells



could occur in the same ways described previously in the case



of industrial disposal wells.  This would only be a significant



hazard where sea water, saline ground water, or other poor-



quality water is being injected.





          (4) Barrier or sea-water intrusion control wells are



used in coastal areas to provide a hydraulic barrier to the move-



ment of sea water into heavily pumped fresh-water-bearing aquifers,



Perhaps 100 such wells exist, almost entirely in California.  A



sketch of such a well is given in Figure 5 .  Such wells are for



a beneficial purpose but may be injecting water of lower quality



than the native ground water and, therefore, their construction



and operation need to be controlled.





          (5) Artificial recharge wells used to  inject water



underground for augmentation of water supplies  in aquifers where



the ground water has been depleted by heavy pumping can become



conduits for movement of contaminated ground water, if not care-



fully controlled.  A partial, probably conservative inventory



of such injection devices in 1968  (International Association of



Scientific Hydrology, 1970), gave information on 184 recharge



wells and 56 basins.  The contamination potential of such
                                - 34 -

-------
                                           ater Bearing (Sitverario) Zone
                                        Sandi and Gravel! Open lo the Sea
Figure 5.  Sketch of West Coast Basin Barrier, Los  Angeles,
            California  (after West  Coast Basin Water Association)

-------
underground injection practices is similar to that described




previously for barrier and industrial wells and depends largely



on the quality of the injected water and careful control of



the injection procedures.  For example, augmentation of an



aquifer by underground injection of river or lake water or



water from another aquifer can cause chemical or bacterial con-



tamination of the receiving aquifer.  Similarly, recharge of



deep aquifers through connector wells by gravity flow from



overlying contaminated shallow aquifers may introduce contami-



nants into the receiving aquifers.






          (6) Solution-mining wells have been used for many



years to extract sulfur, salt, and other minerals from the



subsurface by injection of water and extraction of the minerals



in solution.  Figure 6 depicts a well for solution mining of



sulfur.  In many cases, the residual brine from such operations



is disposed of througn injection wells.  A similar type of



operation, widely practiced in areas where salt deposits exist,



is the construction of solution caverns for storage of liquid



petroleum gas.  In this procedure, water is injected into the



salt beds and a cavern is developed as the salt is dissolved



and the brine is pumped out.  The extracted brine is then disposed



of by injection into  a suitable aquifer.  A relatively new but




growing practice is the in-situ mining of metals, particularly




copper and uranium, by injection of acid through wells into an



ore body or a tailings pile.  This  is  followed by extraction of
                              - 36 -

-------
                          AIR
                 SULFUR AND AIR
                                              SURFACE
                                              CASING
                   GROUND SURFACE
                             •rt
                                                 BARREN
                                                 CAPROCK
                            BUBBLES
                          LIFT SULFUR
                                                SULFUR
                                                BEARING
                                                FORMATION
                       HOT WATER
                       MELTS SULFUR
                  LIQUID SULFUR
                  FLOWS TO WELL
                  AND COLLECTS
                  AS A POOL
                                      BARREN ROCK (ANHYDRITE)
                                ..Mi;
                                            »  *
                                                   SALT
Figure 6.   Operation of a Sulfur Well During Solution  Mining of
             Sulfur by the Frasch Process  (Conner  and Wornat,  1973)
                                 - 37  -

-------
the solution containing the metal through pumping wells or



as seepage.  It is estimated that there are as many as 500



solution-mining wells in the country, mostly in New York,



Ohio, Michigan, Texas, and Louisiana, where salt and sulfur



mining are practiced.  Metal mining by leaching is primarily



practiced in the western States, but the number of wells



presently used for that purpose is small.





         The potential for ground-water contamination from



solution mining of sulfur, salt, and other water-soluble



minerals is similar to that described for industrial and munici-



pal disposal wells.  Solution mining of metallic minerals presents



a different problem, in that the mining will, in most cases,



be in geologic strata containing usable water.  Therefore, the



mining itself may need to be carefully managed to avoid ground-



water contamination.  Disposal of the spent acid solutions by



injection would be similar to other underground industrial in-



jection practices.





          (7) Underground gas storage may be defined as storage



in rock of synthetic gas or of natural gas not native to the



location.  Storage can be in depleted oil or gas reservoirs,



in ground-water aquifers, in mined caverns, or in dissolved salt



caverns.  Gas may be stored in gaseous or liquid form.  The



largest quantities of gas are stored in the gaseous form in



depleted oil or gas reservoirs or in deep artesian aquifers.  In



1971, there were 333 underground gas storage fields in 26 States.
                                - 38 -

-------
About 60 percent of the storage capacity was located in Illinois,



Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, and West Virginia.  The number



of wells per field ranges from less than 10 to more than 100,



depending on the size of the structure in which the gas is



being stored (American Gas Association, 1971).  As of 1971,



about 14,500 gas storage wells existed (op. cit.).  Probably



several hundred such wells are constructed each year.






         Underground gas storage fields present a potential for



contamination of usable ground water by upward leakage of gas



through the cap rock, through abandoned improperly plugged wells,



or through inadequately constructed gas injection or withdrawal



wells.  Gas could also escape from an overfilled field and



migrate laterally in the storage aquifer, which in some cases



contains usable water.  A case history of a leaky storage field




in Illinois was documented by Hallden  (1961).  In that instance,



it was not possible to conclusively determine whether the leakage



was from faulty well cementing, lack of an adequate cap rock,



faulting of the cap rock, or unplugged abandoned wells.  Some



leakage from storage fields is common; but, since the gas is a



valuable commodity, operating companies have a strong interest



in minimizing such losses.  In addition,  storage fields are subject



to State or Federal licensing and regulation, the engineering



characteristics of a field must be carefully determined prior to



licensing, and the fields must be monitored during operation.






         (8) Geothermal wells are potential sources of ground-



water contamination.  In the United States, about 1.8 million
                                - 39 -

-------
acres are designated as known geothermal resource areas and an



additional 95.7 million acres have prospective value (U. S.



Department of the Interior, 1971).  Of the known areas, 90



percent lie in the thirteen western States and Alaska.   Geothermal



reservoirs may contain either dry steam or hot brines,  with the



latter predominating.  Both condensed steam and cooled brines



commonly are reinjected through wells into the geothermal struc-



ture  (U. S. Department of the Interior, 1971).  The total number



of geothermal injection wells is unknown but is estimated to be



not less than 10.





         The United States Bureau of Reclamation and others



have proposed major developments of geothermal energy from the



hot brine reservoirs underlying the Imperial Valley in California.



The Bureau of Reclamation concept contemplates production of



2.5 million acre-feet of fresh water per year from 3 to 4



million acre-feet of brines.  The desalted water would be re-



placed with water from the Pacific Ocean, the Salton Sea, or



other sources; mixed with residual brines, the replacement water



would be injected through approximately 100 wells on the periphery



of the geothermal field, to maintain reservoir pressures and



preclude land subsidence and lowering of the overlying fresh



water table  (Bureau of Reclamation, 1972).  The high pressures



and temperatures and the corrosiveness of the injected fluid



are special sources of problems in such injection wells.
                                 - 40 -

-------
         b.  Injection Wells Related to Oil and Gas Production.



Oil-field brines are introduced into the subsurface through wells



used for secondary recovery by water flooding and through wells



that are for disposal only, with no economic purpose.  Some



brine-disposal pits are also still used, although this practice



has been greatly limited in recent years.






         Table 3  shows the disposition of produced oil-field




waters in 1963.  It can be seen from Tables  that about 72 per-



cent of produced brine was reinjected in 1963, about 12 percent



was disposed to unlined pits, and 16 percent by other methods.



The percent injected would be expected to be greater today




because, since 1963, several major oil-producing States, including



Texas, have virtually banned unlined pits.  Recent information



obtained by EPA shows that a total of about 40,000 secondary




recovery wells and 8,000 brine-disposal wells exist in Arkansas,



Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas.  Perhaps another



20,000 secondary recovery wells and 2,000 brine-disposal wells



exist in other States.





         The mechanisms for potential contamination of ground



water from oil-field brine injection wells are essentially the



same as those discussed for other industrial disposal wells.



Table 4 shows the types of dissolved and suspended solids in



brines.  Incompatibility of these constituents with the soils



and native aquifer waters can cause chemical precipitation and
                             - 41 -

-------
























ro
CT»

1 i


~f^\
H

K
W
EH
rf*
3

Q

W
H
ft,
t-3
H
O

Q
W
U
D
Q
O
CM

0

2
0
M
^
M
CO
O
CM
LO
M
Q



1


»



Q)


•$
r i













































>^
nJ
TJ
^
(U
Q-t

CO
rH
Q)
!q
la
X!
c
•H
CO
0)
}_l
d
JT>
-rH
[V)
*--

























































n
^o
O-i
r-|


C
O
•H
in
CO
-H
£
g
O
O

4J
O
rtf
0,
E
O
U
r-l
-H
O

01
-P
fd
4J
Cfi
0)
-P
C
M






































tn
T3
O
5
•?







UJ

0)
>

03





en

•H
04








m

CL,






>•
c
rH
C/
O
0.
0)
c
o
tn


1
c
r^
t-i
OJ
i.
^
o
f**








q
t

o
l-i







O oO r^ CM CM

. co
^-v ^v s~, ^ s-^
I-H CM CO n  -J-Om









0 so ON ^ o

O r- \O \o t~-

r—t CO ON CO
-^ CO f*»
rH
--N ^-s x-s x-V x-v
rH vo m m co






CO •£ ^O
r^. m o

rH LO tO
ON rH rH
f-H >sO ^H






O CM ON O rH LO O ^O CO ^ ^
O COCM OrH CM O CO M3 "^ j£

•s n n n *> n n •* «
S r^^SS^^ 3

^





cy\ o
CM S
CO u™l








§ 3S §5 3 g S
O 00 03 J- O O I — uocoo vDcM
i-H rH r-
CO CM






O r~*. c3N O r*» -H o CO »—* sj 00
O CO r** O O CM O rH CO *-O ^- f^ *-Q


\f\ ON O O »H ^O iH rH rH P"- rH U~l
CO"






r^
o
^-r
c^J
00
rJ

^
T3
O
03

fxl ^4
r^ 
c
o
C_J

c
o

r-l
o

4J
c
o
U
4_l
W
3
Q
T>
C



C
o
U
™

0.
o
OJ
™
OJ
>J
,^
^











^
U
c
W)
<;
x
o

'fl
3
OJ
K
•°
QJ

O
U
O.
0.
^



-H

TJ
C
c
o
•H
oj
00
j_,
±4
rH

^j
O C
4H O

T3 4-1
QJ *H
CO CO
Cu
M CO
QJ -H
U Q
3 P

X O
to C

-------
             Table 4 . - COMMON IMPURITIES IN BRINE
                   (After Reid and others, 1974)
                         Type of
                         Material
               Form of
               Material
Material
Dissolved
Material
               Solids
                         Inorganic
                         Material
           calcium &
           magnesium


           sodium
             ("bicarbonate
             \ carbonate
             )sulfate
              chloride
L
             rbicarbonate
             \ carbonate
             < sulfate
             / fluoride
             (-chloride
                                         iron
                                         manganese
Organic
Material
Vegetab le material
               Gases
hydrogen sulfide
carbon dioxide
oxygen
nitrogen
Suspended Solids
                         Inorganic
                iron
                silica
                clay
                silt
                mud
                         Organic
                bacteria
                algae
                protozoa
                animal & vegetable matter
                oil
                              - 43 -

-------
clogging of aquifers during underground injection.  Table 5



lists some of the treatment methods for removing or reducing



the harmful effects of undesirable constituents in brine



before injection.  Spillage problems can be handled in part



by suitable "housekeeping" procedures.  Because oil-field



brine is a natural water and does not normally contain chemicals



that are extremely toxic in small quantities, in some respects



it may be less of a concern as a source of contaminants from



a public-health viewpoint than some other more toxic industrial



waste waters.  However, the extremely high content of dissolved



solids that are found in many brines and the volumes involved,



present the potential for degradation of very large amounts of



fresh ground water if brine disposal operations are not properly



managed.






         It is generally believed that most brine is returned



to the same geologic formation from which it was pumped.  The



relative amount returned to the same formation as compared with



that injected into shallower formations is not known, but sub-



stantial amounts are injected into formations that have not been



depressured by petroleum production.  An example of this is the



injection of oil-field brines into the Glorieta Sandstone in



the Oklahoma Panhandle and adjacent areas  (Irwin and Morton,



1969).  The hazard from this practice is from interaquifer flow



of brine, or alteration of the position of the fresh water-salt



water interface.
                                 - 44 -

-------
          Table  5. - UNDESIRABLE WASTE CHARACTERISTICS
                 IN BRINE AND REMOVAL OPERATIONS
                   (After Reid and others, 1974)
Undesirable Characteristics

1.  Suspended Material:

    a.  Oils and other floating
        material.
    b.  Solids, colloids, etc.
    c.   Biological growths
         (e.g.,  slime-forming
         algae  and bacteria)
Treatment Operations
A.P.I. Separator
Skimming
Flotation

Chemical coagulation
Sedimentation
Centrifugation
Gravity Sand Filtration
Pressure Sand Filtration
Diatomite Filtration

Chlorination
Filtration
2.  Dissolved  Substances:

    a.   Gases



    b.   Undesirable  ions
Aeration
Purging
Vacuum Degasifer

pH Adjustment
Neutralization
Precipitation, Chemical
  Coagulation
Ion Exchange
Membrane Process
 3.   Corrosiveness:
                                         Removal of Gases
                                         pH Control
                                - 45 -

-------
         The widespread existence of ground-water contamination

by oil-field brine is indicated by the results of a recent

survey of the Interstate Oil Compact Commission in which it was

found that 22 of the oil-producing States reported having some

ground-water contamination problems (Interstate Oil Compact

Commission, 1974).  The reply from the State of New Mexico

is quoted below, because it was the most descriptive given:


         "(1) The primary problem related to salt-water
     production in New Mexico is the volume of such pro-
     duction.  Salt-water production has increased from
     43,170,000 barrels in 1955 to 219,378,000 barrels
     in 1973, off 28,379,000 barrels from 1970, the year
     of highest production.  About 90% of this water pro-
     duction is from pools in Southeast New Mexico where
     it is most often produced in areas having shallow
     fresh water.  Surface disposal of such produced waters
     can adversely affect fresh water and its use for human
     consumption, stock watering, or industrial purposes.

          (2) Operators of some salt-water disposal wells
     have permitted equipment to deteriorate and fail in
     such wells without notification to the Commission,
     without attempting repair work, and without suspending
     disposal operations.  In situations such as this,
     contamination of fresh waters could result, the well
     can be rendered in such condition as to prevent proper
     plugging of the same, and formations other than the
     injection zone may be pressured up with salt water.

          (3) Some operations are carried out in non-compliance
     with Commission rules prohibiting surface disposal of
     salt water.  These range from plain sloppy operations
     to outright knowing violations of the rules.

          (4) In some older areas where surface disposal
     of substantial volumes of salt water took place prior
     to its prohibition, certain domestic and stock wells
     have exhibited signs of salt-water contamination months
     or years after discontinuance of surface-disposal."
                              - 46 -

-------
         c.  Drainage Wells






         In the Snake River Plain of Idaho and in parts of



Florida and elsewhere, wells are commonly used to dispose of



urban runoff drainage and excess irrigation or agricultural



drainage water to shallow aquifers.  In Table 2, it is



indicated that there may be 50,000 drainage wells used for




disposal mainly of storm-water runoff, and agricultural waste



waters.






         Storm-water runoff generally has a low dissolved-



solids content.  However, the initial slug of storm water




may be contaminated with animal excrement, traces of pesticides,



fertilizer nitrate from lawns, organics from combustion of



petroleum products, rubber from tires, bacteria, viruses,



and other miscellaneous contaminants.  Where deicing salts



are applied to roads in the winter, the chloride content of



storm-water runoff may rise temporarily to as much as several



thousand milligrams per liter.






         Efforts have been made for many years to discourage



the use of wells that inject municipal, industrial, and agri-



cultural wastes into fresh-water aquifers.  Therefore, it is



anticipated that the number of such wells will diminish with



time.
                              -  47  -

-------
    2.  Use of Ground Water.  Ground water is obtained almost
entirely from wells that penetrate permeable unconsolidated
sediments or rocks known as aquifers.  A relatively small amount
of ground water issues directly from springs or seeps fed by such
aquifers.  The most prolific aquifers in the nation are composed
of the beds of sand and gravel, and of rocks such as limestone,
lava, and sandstone.  Dense rocks like granite and gneiss gener-
ally yield relatively small amounts of water to wells, but are
of considerable importance for domestic supplies in areas where
other aquifers are not present.  Most water wells are less than
a few hundred feet deep,  but some in Atlantic Coastal Plain areas,
for example, extend to depths of 2,500 feet.


        Almost all ground water originates from precipitation
and is part of the hydrologic cycle  (Figure 7 ) . Initially, the
water percolates downward through soil and rock layers until it
reaches the water table, which is the upper surface of the saturated
7,one.  This water then moves slowly  (generally at rates of a few feet
per day to a few feet per year), either to a natural discharge
outlet such as a stream, a spring, a lake, or the sea, or to
a man-made outlet, such as a drain or well.

        Typically, natural ground water contains some dissolved
salts, which originate mainly  in the source water  (precipitation)
and by solution of the rocks through which the ground water moves.
                              - 48 -

-------
 r-i
 u
 >1
 u
 0)

 •P
 (0
 U
-P
00



  •

r^


 QJ
 cn
•H

-------
Limestone aquifers, for example, contribute high concentrations



of calcium and magnesium that cause water to be hard and, there-



fore, undesirable for domestic and industrial water use without



treatment.  Other aquifers may contribute salts, such as sulfate



and chloride, traces of metals, silica, and a host of other con-



stituents, but generally in small amounts.  Except for some dis-



solved constituents, such as high concentrations of fluoride




and iron, deep brine  (Fig.  8  ),  and salty ground water bordering



coastal areas, the quality of most natural ground water is gener-



ally suitable for drinking water.  Only the activities of man,



such as disposal of fluids  underground and overpumping of fresh-



water aquifers, introduce large quantities of poor quality fluids



that cause degradation of ground-water quality.  One of the major



objectives of the proposed regulations is to bring under better




control activities  that  lead  to  ground-water contamination.










        Locations of major unconfined and confined aquifers in



the United States are shown on Figure 9 .  Most of these are



areally extensive water-bearing units in contrast to the long,



narrow sand and gravel aquifers that are hydraulically inter-



connected to major  streams, as shown on Figure 10.   The buried



river valley deposits are typically highly productive because



pumping wells near  the streams normally induce water movement



from the streams into the aquifers.  This can also be a mechanism



for contaminating aquifers which are interconnected with con-



taminated stream water.








                               - 50 -

-------
                                                                      W 0)
                                                                      fd -P
                                                                      •H 1C

                                                                      •3s
                                                                      CO  »
                                                                         en
                                                                      > X!
                                                                      rH 4J
                                                                      O O
                                                                      W
                                                                      W T3
                                                                      •H C
                                                                      Q (0

                                                                      H >i
                                                                      (0 -P
                                                                      •U ^J
                                                                      O Cn
                                                                         0)
                                                                      S-l O
                                                                      (U
                                                                      -P M
                                                                      tO (U
                                                                      IS -P
                                                                         M-l
                                                                      C
                                                                      3
                                                                      O
                                                                         
-------
                                                                               •o
                                                                                c
                                                                                (0
                                                                                .p
                                                                                JC
                                                                                tn
                                                                                m
                                                                                ^
                                                                                
-------
                                                                                 Q) ^
                                                                                4J 01
                                                                                •rH r~
                                                                                 C o\
                                                                                D H

                                                                                 Q)   ^
                                                                                Xi  W
                                                                                4->  (0
                                                                                   r-H
                                                                                 C!  -U
                                                                                •H  <

                                                                                 cn  M
                                                                                 >i o;
                                                                                 Q)  -P
                                                                                    0)
                                                                                    .C
                                                                                    +J
                                                                                    o
                                                                                •d
                                                                                 Q) >i
                                                                                4-> 4J
                                                                                 nj X!
                                                                                H tji
                                                                                 OJ ft)
                                                                                « in
                                                                                    Q)
                                                                                 w O
                                                                                 M
                                                                                 0) M
                                                                                U-l Q)
                                                                                •H 4J
                                                                                 3 IW
                                                                                 d1 (0
                                                                                
-------
        Ground water is widely used throughout the United States



for public-water supplies, rural (domestic) use, irrigation, and



industrial water supplies.  Figure n shows comparative ground-



water and surface-water use by States in 1970, and Figure 12



shows ground-water use as a percent of total water use, by



States, in 1970.






        About 21 percent of all the fresh water supplied in the



United States for all purposes except the generation of hydro-



electric power originates from ground water.  More importantly,



ground water provides 36 percent of all irrigation water and 96



percent of all rural (domestic) water use in the country.



Ground water is the source of supply for more than 100 million



people, of which 60 million are served by public-supply systems.



Ground water also constitutes about 25 percent of the fresh water



used by industries dependent on their own water-supply facilities.






        The water-well industry in the United States is a large



and growing industry.  There are some 15,000,000 municipal, in-



dustrial, commercial, agricultural, and domestic water wells in



the country that have been constructed by some 6,000 licensed



water-well drilling contractors.  The capital investment in these




water wells approximates 15 billion dollars, and nearly 500,000



new water wells are drilled each year.
                               - 54 -

-------
         .-?«\
Figure 11.
Ground-Water Withdrawals (Upper Figure)  and Surface-
Water Withdrawals (Lower Figure)^in Million Gallons
Per Day,  by States,  1970 (after Murray and Reeves,
1972) .
                        - 55 -

-------
                                                                             o
                                                                             r*
                                                                             co n
                                                                             D r-
                                                                                a\
                                                                             H H
                                                                             (!)
                                                                             •P   »
                                                                             to  co
                                                                             S  «J
                                                                                iH
                                                                             H -P
                                                                             «3 <
                                                                             •P
                                                                             O  M
                                                                             EH  0)
                                                                             •M   *
                                                                             c  to
                                                                             O  h
                                                                             O  (1)
                                                                             M x:
                                                                             0) JJ
                                                                             to «d
                                                                             (0  C
                                                                                 10
                                                                             i
                                                                            D -P
                                                                                i
                                                                             M  CP
                                                                             0)  (0
                                                                            •P  V4
                                                                             CJ  0)
                                                                            s o

                                                                            T3  M
                                                                             C  0)
                                                                             3 -P
                                                                             O «M
                                                                             V<  (0
                                                                             Q)
                                                                             M
                                                                             3
                                                                             tP
                                                                            •H
-  56  -

-------
     3.  Existing State Injection Regulations and Programs.



         a.  Variation in Scope and Type of Regulatory Controls.  Legal



controls and procedures regarding ground-water use and contamination



differ widely  among the States in the scope of activities covered



and  in the type and quantity of information and monitoring require-



ments, if any, needed to comply with State regulations  (Figures  13



and  14 and Tables 6 and 7).  Moreover, there is an equally wide



range in overlapping jurisdictions and in the assignment of primary



responsibilities to different agencies, which bears on their effec-



tiveness in dealing with ground-water contamination.  Only about one-



fourth of the  States have water statutes or laws dealing specifically



and  in detail  with ground-water quality.  However, many States have



miscellaneous  legislation or controls which might enable them to



take direct or indirect action to protect ground-water quality after



a problem has  been brought to their attention.  In a few States, in-



dividual towns or counties have more stringent regulations than



State-wide laws.






     This section is based in part on a review of summary reports



(see References) on the existing body of published water laws,



water-pollution laws, solid-waste regulations, and miscellaneous



codes and ordinances.  It does not include a review of the large



body of law based on decisions and interpretations of the courts.



The term "statute,  act,  or law" generally refers to a legis-



lative enactment by a Federal or State legislative body.   An
                             - 57 -

-------
                                                                                 0)
                                                                                o
                                                                                 0)
                                                                                +J
                                                                                U-t
                                                                                 (0
                                                                                 CO
                                                                                 0)
                                                                                -p
                                                                                 ft)
                                                                                4->
                                                                                CO
                                                                                 w ov
                                                                                 > rH
                                                                                 10
                                                                                 ^  *
                                                                                     (0
                                                                                 M  rO
                                                                                 0) 
-------
                                                                           V-l

                                                                          -P
                                                                          ill

                                                                           flj


                                                                           to

                                                                           -u

                                                                           -P  —.
                                                                           W  ro
                                                                          XI r-l

                                                                            ^  ^

                                                                           u w


                                                                           (0 i-l




                                                                          H M
                                                                           0) 0)
                                                                          •H   -
                                                                          41  at
                                                                           O  H
                                                                           0)  0)
                                                                          T-..C
                                                                           c:  4J
                                                                          H  o
                                                                           rtJ  C
                                                                           C  (tJ
                                                                           o
                                                                          •H  >i
                                                                          4J  4J
                                                                           e  x:
                                                                           Q)  tn
                                                                           >  m
                                                                           C  M
                                                                           O  <1J
                                                                          u  o
                                                                           a)
                                                                           M
                                                                           3
                                                                           CP
                                                                          •H
-  59   -

-------
ordinance or code is commonly issued by a county or other local



government body.  In most States,  contamination controls are mainly



in the form of rules or regulations (see Tables I, II, and III



Appendix), are based on administrative actions, or are issued by



a local regulatory agency.  In some States rules, regulations,



standards, and codes have been adopted also by legislative bodies



which gives them a somewhat higher legal status.






        Many States have general statutory controls covering pro-



tection of ground-water quality which are supplemented by adminis-



trative rules and regulations to cover specific forms of injection



such as industrial and municipal disposal wells and landfills. Although



some States have detailed statutes, they give wide discretionary



authority in enforcement to regulatory bodies.





        Policy statements are also used by some States to guide



or control injectors.  For example, Virginia has issued a policy



statement which expresses opposition to the concept of disposal



wells whereas the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission



has issued a positive statement on disposal wells  (see section



on "Disposal Wells").





        b.  State Water and Water Pollution Laws.  Most State



water laws deal entirely or almost entirely with protection of



surface-water quality and rarely mention ground water or ground-



water contamination.  Commonly, the only reference to ground water



is to include the term in the general definition of "Waters of the



State."  In several States, various specific exclusions from the
                               - 60 -

-------
definition tend to weaken the opportunity for controls.  For



example, water confined and retained on private property such as



ponds or lakes, which do not constitute a hazard to fish and wild-



life, are specifically excluded from the definition in some



States.  In West Virginia, farm ponds, industrial basins, and



water-treatment facilities are excluded.  Other exclusions in



some States are gas and oil wells, disposal wells, and retention



ponds, and copper and iron mining operations.





        Many State water statutes attempt to deal with ground-water



contamination superficially or indirectly through well-construction



standards, requirements for sealing abandoned wells, and ground-



water quality standards as shown in Table 6.  Only three States,



Indiana, Kansas, and Pennsylvania, refer to proper construction,



drilling, and operation of oil and gas wells in their water



statutes, but in other States these types of activities commonly



are covered by other statutes, such as the Texas Railroad Com-



mission Acts and the California Public Resources Code.





        Industrial and municipal disposal wells are referred to



in water statutes in about 12 States.  Such disposal is generally



permitted under certain restrictions and requirements such as no



disposal into aquifers suitable for public or domestic supply,



chemical and bacteriological sampling of wells within a given



radius of the disposal well, and construction of wells in a manner



which protect the water resources of the State from preventable



contamination.
                              - 61 -

-------
in

I

Z
O
O
a_
 i
a:




£
.*-
o
t.
V
6








t/1
—
V
£
4>
8
5:




VI
0)

S
O
CO
T3
C
0

6





v»
• —
£
t-
j~
0
£






 •>
4> i- •>-
COD
$-5 "5
"*- v> O)
i- C
41 O
!"th
-a .£ D
S J'~
O o
0)
"~ o -13
S~ "•> °
r •> ™
~ ° &•
o o.g-
D)

r c 
= c"S^
o o c —
0) -Q O «
UO O "O ?

1
S |

? d
o o a
U X -U
O)
C ' "° u,
~ C 4) -^
D 0 C —









X X XXX


















































X












XXX


























































X










X

































































































c








X X



_ n u
X X X X









o
X











































_a





















X



u




X X


















X


u
X X













































































































)








X






>





•)





)




O U n T
g"£-§'o a o - o „ § !


c





;





c













































<


X





X X















































"O

-2-
_Q
o
i



















































































































"D

4-
.0
o
I1"



























X






























£
" 0 <" -^ 0
5~oo> S'^^^o
.5 -c ^ "5 o "Sj^fo o|JJ^ 1 '4 -7 v ^
<
-------
CN
rx
o
oo

I

z
O
O
cu
CZL

LU

I—

<
in

UL

O

(/•



o

tr



O
C£
Q.

Q
LU
t-

U
 0)
 D
 C
•H
-P
 a
 o
 u
 Q)
rH

XI

 (d

EH





4)
V
*>
o
O

4)
6

VI
(U

QJ
*/J
O
>




V)
	
3J
>
•^
8
O)

0

0







in
4)
4>
D




4) "O
0) O> 4)
.E 0 0
5 In TO
=5 £
i- C
4) O
O '•£:
-1 s-g
§ ^ 2
-*  O ~D >

-
u *"
-, ~D
i: o
t; -a
c c c
O O 0
u - t;
0)
^- 1 ~D
~ C 4) —
D O C —
4) _Q O ?>
to O TJ >


1
i/t
^ T
i: C3
t> tj
c c c
o _o o
V«J 4- vi
0)
C | -Q
— C 4) —
O O C —
4) -Q O J>
00 D T3 £
1
S f
i o
VI ~O
c c c
o o o
U -z: t;
S"s
— c
'C o
Q IT





£













X >

< :
i
!

1







































<



i
!

4)
X X











-o












X









-o
>














C


































X


















































14-
X




0 .E
'E c .E
O £ D) C
_ •* O5 .- 'vi
§ vT v, •£ > §
O) c D -^ •*- U
rtj — v *rt 01 Jl
I_ *- -*^> D QJ .—
               '5.  c
0)  O
                                                                       H  2  "^
                                                                   D  C  Q.

-------
            (1) Water-Well Regulations.  Licensing of well-drillers



and the application of selected well-construction standards as



described in State water-well regulations provide some direct



or indirect protection against ground-water contamination.  Table




7 shows the wide range in requirements for licensing and well



construction standards by States in 1972.






            Construction of public-supply wells is controlled in




all States, but in about one-third of the States, domestic, irriga-




tion, and industrial water wells either are not controlled or the



requirements for drilling and operating of such wells are minimal.



Plugging and sealing of abandoned wells, an important method of



preventing ground-water contamination, is provided for by



generalized or specific regulations in only about 30 States.  Re-



charge wells are regulated in only 18 States.






            (2) Disposal Wells.  Texas, Ohio, Michigan, and Idaho



are among the few States that have specific statutes on conven-



tional disposal wells.  The Texas law passed in 1961 and amended



in 1969 requires a permit from the Water Quality Board.  Appli-



cations are also sent to the Water Development Board, Department



of Health, and Water Well Drillers Board, and public hearings




may be held.  The Texas Railroad Commission requires a letter



from the injector stating that the proposed well will not  inter-



fere with or endanger any oil or gas formation.  The Water



Quality Board may adopt rules, regulations, and procedures to




control disposal wells.
                              - 64 -

-------
     Table  7 . - SUMMARY OF SELECTED PROVISIONS OF WATER-WELL
                      REGULATIONS BY STATE, 1972
                (X, regulation applies;  	, information not available)
                       (Van  der Leeden,  1973)
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Drillers
Licensed
____


X
X
X
X
X
X


X
X
X

X
	
___-

X

X
X
X

X

X

X
xa
X a
X
X
•-•—"• 1
xb
X
X
X

X
X
X
X
X



X

Well
Public
Water
Supply
___-.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X


X
X

X
	
____

X

X
	
	
X
X
X
X

X
X

X
X
___..
X
X
X


X
X
X
X



X

X
Construction Regulations
Domes- Irri-
tic gation
...


X
X
X
X
X
X



X


	
	
___-

X

X
	
	



X

X


X
X
	 —
X
X




	

X




X
X
— . —
X

X
X
X
X
X
X

No Regulations
No Regulations


No Regulations
	
	
X
No Regulations
X
No Regulations
X
	
	


X
X
No Regulations
X
X a
No Regulations
X
X
— _
X
X

No Regulations
No Regulations
X
	
X
X
No Regulations
No Regulations
No Regulation!
	

X
Indus-
trial
_ — -
X

X
X
X
X
X
X







	




X
	
	


X
X

X
X a

X
X
__~-
X
X



X

X
X



	


Plugging and Seal-
ing Regulations
Aban-
doned
Wells
___

X
X
X
X

X
X
X


X
X

X
	
X

X

X
	
	
X
X
X
	 .

X
xa

X
X
— -—_
X
X
X


X
X
X
X



X
X
X
Contam-
inated
Zones


X
X
X
X

X
X



X
X

X
	
X

X


	
	

X

	 .

X


X
X
___—
X
X




X
X
X



X

X
Recharge
Wells
Regulated
____
X
X
X
X
X

	
X
X


X
X

	
	
X



X
	
	



X

X

X a
X

— —
X




X

X







Applies to designated areas only
                               -  65  -
As of July 1, 1973

-------
            In 1967, Ohio changed its Oil and Gas Code to include



industrial waste disposal wells in addition to brine wells.



Authority is vested in the Division of Oil and Gas of the Depart-



ment of Natural Resources under a permit system.  The permit must



also be approved by the Water Pollution Control Board, the




Department of Health, and the Geological Survey.  Also, if the



well is in a coal-bearing area, it must be approved by the Divi-



sion of Mines.  Requirements for construction and abandonment




procedures are the same as for oil and gas wells.






            A small number of States rely on general pollution



control and oil and gas laws to control industrial waste injection,



North Carolina and Missouri prohibit municipal and industrial



disposal wells under statutory regulations.






            Comprehensive administrative regulations on disposal




wells exist in Colorado, Hawaii, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska,



and Oklahoma.  The Colorado regulations  (Table  I,   Appendix) are



partly patterned after ADS-5.  Less detailed regulations exist



in California and Pennsylvania.  In the State of Washington, per-



mits are required for disposal wells, and these are authorized



only under extreme circumstances.  Delaware and Wisconsin pro-




hibit disposal wells by regulation.






            Policy statements on subsurface injection have been



issued in Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, New



York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.  The Ohio River Valley Water



Sanitation Commission  (ORSANCO)  issued a policy  statement on
                             - 66 -

-------
disposal wells  (Table II, Appendix) in 1973.  The Commission, which




includes representatives from Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, New York,



Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia, takes the position



that underground injection is a technically acceptable method of waste




disposal or long-term storage when regulatory agencies determine that



it is the best available alternative; that the system is designed




and operated properly; and that geologic and hydrologic conditions



are providing protection of the natural resources.






            Michigan has a Mineral Well Act (1969) that requires



a permit from the Supervisor of Mineral Wells prior to drilling



or deepening a disposal well.  Public hearings are optional.  A



well constructed under a mineral well permit cannot be used for



disposal unless authorized by the Water Resources Commission.  The



operational and monitoring requirements include at least one ob-




servation well within 100 feet of a well used for disposal or



storage of radioactive materials.






             (3) Oil, Gas,and Brine-Disposal Wells.  References to



the construction, operation,  and plugging of oil and gas wells are



rarely noted in State water laws.  These practices are generally



controlled under other statutes and codes.   Commonly the statutes



require sufficient casing to protect fresh water or "usable" water.



In Kansas, "usable" water is defined as water containing 5,000 mg/1



of chloride or less.  Missouri allows return of oil-field wastes



to the same oil-producing formation from which they were pumped.






            Prior to 1935,  discharge of oil-field brine was



practiced indiscriminately and was accompanied by extensive





                             - 67 -

-------
contamination of ground and surface water.   Since then, most



oil-producing States have adopted some type of regulations



controlling brine-disposal activities, including well injection.



Table III (Appendix) summarizes the disposal requirements



in some 37 States.  About 28 States allow brine disposal in



wells through a permit system based on State rules and reg-



ulations.  In most States, the permit application proceedings



require the regulatory agency to consider the suitability,



legality, size, and location of the disposal well, the geo-



logic formations encountered, and the presence of abandoned or



improperly plugged wells.  Generally, no public hearings are



required.  State regulatory agencies also maintain records



of secondary recovery of oil by injection of brines through




wells to displace the remaining oil in a reservoir.  Some



States do not charge a fee for injection permits but require



the posting of plugging bonds for new and oil wells or for



treatment plant performance.  These bonds range in amount from



about $1,000 to $10,000 per well.





           Review of the State regulations indicates that in



many respects they include part or much of the requirements in



Subpart D of the UIC regulations.  However, this conformance



is inconsistent among the States, and uniform control and




enforcement is lacking.






            (4)  Solution-Mining Wells.  Solution-mining wells



are operated only in a small number of States such as Louisiana,



Texas, Ohio, New York, Michigan, and Kansas.  Although no detailed
                           -  68  -

-------
information on control of solution-mining wells was readily



available, generally where controls exist, they are similar



to those for brine-disposal or other conventional disposal



wells.  Michigan has a Mineral Well Act that requires a



permit for drilling.  In Texas, no specific legislation applies



to solution mining of sulfur and salt.  However, if waste



products from these operations are disposed of through wells,



these activities are controlled under existing industrial waste



disposal regulations.  For solution mining of uranium, permits,



periodic reports, proper casing depths, and monitoring require-



ments are under the control of the Texas Water Quality Board.





           (5)  Other Injection Facilities.  Special regulations



for geothermal wells, subsidence control wells, gas-storage



wells, and salt-water barrier wells are essentially non-



existent among the States.  Generally, these operations are



controlled under existing water-well or oil and gas regulations.





           Subsidence control and salt-water barrier wells are



operated in southwestern California where the Los Angeles



Flood Control District reports that no special regulations



exist for such wells.  The problem is minimized in that area



because generally potable water is being injected for control



purposes.  However, suitable well-construction practices  are



used in the design and location of the injection and observa-



tion wells to protect the fresh-water resources.






            In Illinois, gas-storage well operations require
                           - 69 -

-------
approval from the Illinois Commerce Commission and permits



issued by the Division of Oil and Gas include requirements



for location and design of the well, geologic units, volumes



of gas injected and withdrawn, and plugging and abandonment



activities and bonding.





            The California Division of Oil and Gas requires



submission of plans for gas storage for review and approval.



No actual permit is issued.  Monitoring may be required to



detect leakage of gas into fresh-water zones.  In Texas,



gas-storage injection is not closely regulated but assoc-



iated brine-disposal operations are under regulations of the



Texas Railroad Commission.





           Geothermal wells in California are regulated by



the Division of Oil and Gas under a Geothermal Code.  Controls



include blow-out prevention, provisions for adequate casing



depth to protect fresh-water zones, and proper cement grout-



ing of the casing.  Periodic radioactive tracer tests are



required to detect potential upward migration of contaminants



into underground drinking-water sources.





            The Colorado Assembly passed a Bill in 1974 to



regulate geothermal wells.  The Bill  extends the coverage



of existing State water laws to the regulation of these wells.



Permits are to be issued by the Oil and Gas Conservation Com-



mission after an approval of such construction by the State



Engineer.
                            - 70 -

-------
      c.  Institutional Framework and Problems.  Institutional




frameworks or organizational structures for handling water pollu-



tion in general as well as injection control programs are in a



state of transition.  Control and supervision of these activities



now is divided in different States from one department to as many



as five departments.






       Historically, much of this control has been relegated



to State Health Departments, but in recent years, part or all



of the control has been given to other agencies such as Water



Resources Commissions and Departments of Pollution or Environ-



mental Control.






       Table III  (Appendix) gives some indication of the multi-



plicity of State agencies dealing with brine disposal.  Many



of the same agencies also deal with other water-quality control



problems.  The names of the primary regulating agencies are



given on the left-hand side of the table and the coordinating



or cooperating agencies are listed on the right-hand side.



For decisions other than brine disposal, the primary responsibility



could be changed.  Figure 15 shows generalized flow charts



for New Mexico and Colorado which define the general steps



involved in securing a permit for brine disposal.  Note the



participation of advisory agencies to the Oil Conservation



Commission in New Mexico, including the U.S. Geological Survey,



where Indian land is involved.  Table IV (Appendix) lists the



agencies and the numerous rules and regulations which control
                            -  71  -

-------
                              NEW MEXICO
                 _L
                Request for
                disposal permit
                Request approved
                or rejected
                            L
                   Oil
                   Conservation
                   Commission
U.S.G.S.
Indian Lands
Water Quality
Control Commission
    Note:  When Indian  lands are involved,  the United States
    Geological Survey is consulted.  Normally, the Water Quality
    Control Commission  acts as consultant to the Oil Conservation
    Commission.  The Water Quality Control  Commission is made up
    of the heads of the Oil Conservation Commission, Department
    of Health and Social Services, Department of Game and Fish,
    Department of Agriculture, and one citizen at large.
                              COLORADO
                              Oil & Gas
                              Conservation
                              Commission
                                        Division of
                                        Water
                                        Resources
Figure 15.
Organizational Flow Charts  for Dealing With Brine
Disposal Applications in New Mexico and  Colorado
(after Reid  and others, 1974) .
                                 - 72  -

-------
various activities which might cause ground-water contamin-



ation during the drilling of oil and gas wells in Illinois.





         It is obvious that because of split jurisdictions



and the cooperative regulatory arrangements among State agencies



described above, only highly skilled senior technical personnel



should participate in these advisory decision-making groups.



Moreover, the primary regulating agencies require a wide variety



of technical personnel, including hydrologists, geologists,



and sanitary engineers/ to evaluate applications and to conduct



or supervise field investigations during pre-construction,



drilling, and post-construction periods.  In many States,



lack of regulations and statutes, of required personnel,



and of coordination of effort and definition of responsibility



among various agencies make it difficult under present



circumstances to carry out an effective program of under-



ground injection control.
                           - 73 -

-------
D •   Eft^cr ipt ion of the _Propo^ed_JRe_gulat ion s .
    -1--  5.?-£3?-S?leP1-  It is clear from the lan-
guage of the Safe Drinking Water Act and from the record of the
Committee hearings, that the Congress intended for the States
to exercise primary responsibility for protecting public health
by controlling underground injection into drinking-water sources.
Thus, the regulations developed by EPA have been designed to
provide national minimum standards of protection and to blend
as much as possible with existing State programs or programs
acceptable to most States.  The regulations/ therefore, are
modeled to some extent on previous EPA regulations, including
those required for participation in the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System, which was authorized under the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 mainly
to protect and restore surface water quality.  Many States now
have permit programs approved pursuant to those earlier regu-
lations, or in accordance with their own statutes.  These existing
programs form an effective and workable framework for joint
Federal-State cooperation in implementing the regulations.

          Aside from the general parallelism between the  UIC
regulations and others previously issued by EPA, certain modi-
fications have been made in the regulations based on the special
requirements for protecting underground drinking-water
sources.  Some of the major issues and interpretations of
the provisions of the Act for which decisions had to be made in
formulating the UIC regulations are summarized below:

                             - 74 -

-------
          a.  Definition of Well Injection.  The Act defines "under-



ground injection" as "the subsurface emplacement of fluids by well



injection"  (Section 1421(d) (1)).  However, "well injection" is not



defined in the Act.  EPA believes that "well injection" should be



defined in the regulations because that term establishes the



jurisdictional limits of the regulatory programs contemplated by



the Act.






           To begin with, the term "well injection" includes con-



ventional waste disposal wells which are referred to specifically




in the House Report and is discussed at length in the legislative



history of the statute.  Also, conventional brine disposal wells



and recovery injection wells related to oil and gas production are



specifically covered by the term "well injection,"  because the



statute provides the EPA regulations may not "interfere with or




impede" such well injection unless the requirements imposed are



"essential to assure that underground sources of drinking water



will not be endangered by such injection."






           The term "well injection" also applies to certain other



practices.  Because the statute does not qualify "well injection"



with the adjective "deep" or with the adjective "waste-disposal,"



EPA believes that those qualifications should not be imposed in



the definition of "well injection" contained in these regulations.



Accordingly, the definition of "well injection" proposed in Section



146.2 (r)  speaks in terms of the nature and function of the well




rather than its depth or the material it injects.  The definition
                              - 75 -

-------
covers subsurface emplacement of fluids through a bored, drilled,  dug



or driven well whenever the principal function of the well is to



emplace fluids underground.  This would include all "deep well"



waste disposal, brine disposal by well, secondary and tertiary



recovery wells, subsidence control wells, gas-storage wells, barrier



wells, mining wells, and recharge wells.  It would also include



agricultural drainage wells and urban runoff wells.
           b.  Endangerment of Drinking-Water Sources.  The House



report on the Act (93-1185) states that the Congress ". .  .seeks



to protect not only currently-used sources of drinking water, but



also potential drinking-water sources for the future.  This may



include water sources which presently exceed minimum intake water



quality requirements or maximum contaminant levels or which are not



presently accessible for use as a community drinking-water source.



Thus, for example, the Congress expects the EPA's regulations at



least to require States to provide protection for underground waters



having less than 10,000 ppm dissolved solids...".





           The basic approach of the regulations is to prohibit



underground injection which may degrade water in an aquifer with



10,000 mg/1 or less total dissolved solids, unless the injector



can demonstrate that the degradation of the water will not endanger



underground drinking-water sources.  However, EPA believes that



there should be some means dealing with individual aquifers which



are not in fact potential sources of drinking water even though



they have total dissolved-solids levels of less than 10,000 mg/1.
                              - 76 -

-------
For example, an aquifer may be oil-producing even with a TDS level



of less than 10,000 mg/1, and in such a case it may be wise



to give the oil-producing capabilities of the aquifer precedence



over its ability to provide drinking water.  Also, the waters in



some aquifers below the 10,000 mg/1 level are never-the-less so



contaminated that as a practical matter they are not potential



drinking-water sources.






           Because it would be a misallocation of resources to




seek to protect as potential drinking-water sources aquifers which



in fact will not be used by public-water systems, the regulations




provide that a State program may designate one or more aquifers



or parts of aquifers in the State which have a total dissolved



solids content of less than 10,000 mg/1 but which will not be



protected because they are oil-producing, are severely contaminated,



or located in such a way that use as drinking water is impracticable,



As part of the State program, the designation of the aquifer would



be subject to public notice and opportunity for hearing prior to



submission to EPA.






           c.  Rules and Permits.  The regulations require that the



States create permitting programs for shallow and deep industrial



and municipal disposal wells for subsidence control wells, salt-



water intrusion control wells, solution-mining wells, recharge wells



installed for aquifer augmentation, geothermal wells, gas-storage



wells, and wells related to the production of oil and gas.  A more



flexible regulatory procedure is to be implemented with regard to
                             - 77 -

-------
drainage wells.  These may be covered by rules or permits or a combin-


ation of the two at the option of the States.  Rules based on in-


dividual State statutes, codes, ordnances, or administrative orders


may be flexible or rigid and may, for example, prohibit certain types
                                                       /

of injection which are permissible under the Federal regulations.


However, in no instance, may any State rule allow underground


injection which endangers a public drinking-water source.



     2.  Summary of Major Control Elements of the Underground


Injection Regulations.


         a.  Three-Tier Control.  The regulations contemplate three


tiers of control based on individual requirements for three dif-


ferent categories of underground injection listed in Table 2. Ef-


fective December 16, 1977, or as of the time of the Administrator's


approval of a State program, any underground injection which is not


authorized by a State permit or rule is prohibited  (146.10) .  The


requirements for the three controlled categories of injection are


described in detail in Subparts C, D, and E of the regulations and


are summarized below:


             (1)  Requirements Applicable to Waste-Disposal Wells


and Engineering Wells  (Subpart C).


The types of underground injections controlled under this part of


the regulations include industrial and municipal disposal wells,


subsidence control wells, salt-water encroachment (barrier) wells,


recharge wells for aquifer augmentation, solution-mining wells,


geothermal, and gas-storage wells.  States may take up to five years


to issue permits for wells which were in operation prior to approval


       of the State              UIC program.  In the meantime,


                            -  78 -

-------
these wells must be operated by rules of general applicability



designed to prevent endangerment of underground drinking-water



sources.  Operators of existing wells and new wells must submit



fairly detailed documentation on the location of the injection



well and other wells and mines within a two-mile radius; geologic



cross sections; direction of ground-water flow; head relations



in affected aquifers; geological and physical characteristics of the



injection interval and confining units; water-quality data; proposed



injection procedures; and contingency plans to cope with well



failures or shutdowns that endanger drinking-water sources.





             Notice of applications for UIC permits must be cir-



culated to interested parties including private individuals, other



Federal, State and local government agencies, and interstate com-



missions who may provide written comments on the application or



may request a public hearing.  No permits will be issued unless



the applicant can satisfactorily demonstrate that the proposed in-



jection will not endanger underground drinking-water sources.  Posting



of bonds or other methods will be required to assure funds for rem-



edying an improperly constructed or abandoned system that may



cause contamination.  Records of monitoring activities are to be



retained for five years following abandonment of an injection well



and monitoring data collected by the permittee shall be reported



periodically to the State regulatory agency.



             (2)  Requirements Applicable to Injection Wells



Related to Oil and Gas Production (Subpart D).  Congress was clear



in its intent not to authorize needless interference with oil or
                              -  79  -

-------
gas production in the United States.  Thus, the Act  (Section 1421(b))




prohibits requirements that would interfere with or impede production



of oil and natural gas or with disposal of by-products such as brine



associated with such production, or underground injection for second-



ary or tertiary recovery of oil or natural gas, unless necessary to



assure that underground drinking-water sources will not be endangered



by such activities.



              Consequently, although the UIC regulations do not put



great constraints on energy production activities, they are specific



enough to assure the safety of drinking-water sources.  For example,



injection through the annular space of wells is prohibited.  Under-




ground injection practices in operation at the time of approval of the



State program    may be regulated under existing State rules for



five years while the State reviews the facilities to insure that en-



dangerment of drinking-water sources does not exist.  Where under-



ground injection endangers a drinking-water source,  such practice may



be ordered to cease until proper action is taken to  provide protection



of drinking-water sources or the well will be plugged and abandoned.



Existing wells will be evaluated to insure that strata containing



water with 3,000 mg/1 of dissolved solids or less are adequately



protected with cemented surface casing and the long-string casing must




be properly installed to prevent upward migration of contaminated



fluids.  In addition, completion and plugging reports for wells



penetrating the injection zone within a  one-half  mile  radius of




injection wells will be reviewed.



              The application forms for a UIC permit for new wells



include detailed data on location, a variety of engineering, geo-
                               - 80 -

-------
logic, injection and reservoir fluid data, and depth of aquifers



containing water with 3,000 mg/1 and 10,000 mg/1 of total dissolved



solids.  Public hearings on applications for permits shall be held



upon request.  Complete and accurate monitoring records shall be



kept by the injector, and prescribed readings and tests shall be



made at periodic intervals.  Quarterly monitoring reports shall be



supplied to State regulatory agencies.




             (3)  Requirements Applicable to Drainage Wells



(Subpart  E)              Facilities covered by this subpart include



urban runoff and agricultural drainage wells.  These types of under-



ground injection must be covered either by rule or by permits, at



the option of the State.  Minimum permit requirements include infor-



mation regarding the location and design of the facility, the nature



and volume of the fluid to be injected, and other information nec-




essary to satisfy the State that the underground injection will



not endanger underground drinking-water sources.  Appropriate



public notice must be given of any application for a permit and



members of the public will be given an opportunity to comment on



the application and proposed permit.  Specified inspection, mon-



itoring,  recordkeeping, and reporting is required.






            If a State elects to regulate this category of under-



ground injection by rule, the State regulations at a minimum shall



provide that the underground injection shall not endanger under-



ground drinking-water sources, and the injector shall conduct



periodic  testing and maintain appropriate test records.
                              - 81 -

-------
        b.  State Institutional Requirements.   The regulations do



not include specific requirements with regard to personnel or



changes in existing State institutional frameworks.  Aside from



stipulating that certain procedures for permitting or submission



of data must be adhered to, EPA recognizes that each State will



have to fit the program into its present organizational structure



and that, therefore, no uniform guidelines can be established that




would be applicable to all States.  Some States have a centralized




agency responsible for all contamination matters and, in others,



the responsibilities for permitting and controlling underground



injection is dispersed among several State agencies.






        c.  Control by Federal Agencies.  Although the Act dele-



gates responsibility to the States for setting up permit and rule



procedures to control underground injection, EPA has a primary



responsibility for reviewing and approving proposed State programs.



From time to time, EPA will issue guidelines and other information



to help the States prepare their specific regulatory programs.



The intent is that each State program will conform with certain



minimum EPA requirements, but may be more restrictive.   The goal



of the proposed regulations is to establish a national minimal



program of underground injection control so that all States will




have similar minimum standards of public-health protection from




underground injection.






        If a particular State elects not to participate in the



State underground injection control program because it  (1) lacks
                             - 82 -

-------
the necessary facilities,  (2) cannot conform with EPA time-table,




or  (3) is unable to enforce the regulations after entering the



program, EPA must assume control of underground injection operations



in such States.  The intent is to uniformly meet the minimum



requirements of the Act in all parts of the country.  If a portion



of a State's program meets the requirements of the Act and these



regulations, that fact will be taken into account in the EPA's



prescription and administration of a program for the State.  EPA




will administer only that portion of an underground injection



control program for the State for which the State's program is not




adequate.





         d.  Control on Federal Lands.  Section 1447 of the Act



indicates that each Federal agency with jurisdiction over a public-



water system or injection system must comply with national primary



drinking-water standards and State underground injection regulations.



These provisions apply also to Federally owned or operated injection



facilities on any lands owned or leased from the United States,



except that for national security reasons, compliance with the under-



ground injection regulations by some Federal agencies may be waived



by the President.  The State program need not apply to any under-



ground injection on Indian land with respect to which the State's



legal authority to enforce its program is in question.
                               -  83  -

-------
II.  ALTERNATIVES

A.  Issues and Options.  In the process of developing the regula-

tions, several fundamental issues (Table 8) had to be addressed

in ordar to develop a set of procedures that would best achieve

the intent of the Act.  The reasoning that was followed in evalu-

ating each of these is discussed below.


    1.  Definition of Well Injection.  The Act requires develop-

ment of a program to protect underground sources of drinking

water by prohibiting any underground injection that is not

authorized by permit or rule.  The term "underground injection"

is further defined as "the subsurface emplacement of fluids by

well injection"  (P.L. 93-523, Section 1421(b) (1)).  Missing, how-

ever, is a specific definition of well injection.


        Various options exist for defining well injection.  One

is the so-called broad definition, which appears to be supported

by the House Report  (No. 93-1185) on the Safe Drinking Water Act;


        "The definition of  'underground injection1 is in-
        tended to be broad enough to cover any contamin-
        ant which may be put below ground level and which
        flows or moves, whether the contaminant is in
        semi-solid, liquid, sludge or any other form or
        state."

        The Committee placed only one restriction on this broad

definition:

        "While the Committee does not intend  this defini-
        tion to  apply to septic tanks or other  individual
        residential waste disposal systems,  it  does intend
        that the definition apply to a multiple dwelling
        community, or regional system of injection of
        waste."
                              - 84 -

-------



v^
Q •O'l








G
O
•rH
-P
id
H
3

U <*l| -P
to

D O
K CO
W Z
Q O
H H
CO EH


O D
O
tn w
W K
^
H U
C^ ^i
< D

2 D3
3 a
EH EH

< &4
o
Q

rfj 12
ryi
tn §
W 04
D O
cn r3
tn w

w
1 Q

• W
QQ 1C
EH
0)
i— | g;
X) H
2


MH
O

•P
to G
0> 0)
> -P
•H G
•P \ 0
id m 
rH C
<0 -H
^ .v/l.
f*
m -H
O M
•d
G
O G MH
•HO O
•P -H
W -H 4J 01

01 MH T-I >
(Q Q) G 0>
H Q -.H J




1









W
Q
EH

tn
g
•H -P
'd G
M 0)
id -p
tnC

•d-d g
id -d 4J
JH id id
tn d
id G
G id
•rl
X) to
g -P
0-H
U g








0>
rH
3
rl

rH
H
*






4J
••H
g
p
0>
ft

H
rH
rij








to
£5
O
•H
•P
id
rH
rj
tn
Q)
^|

MH
O

to
0>
ft
K"I
EH




1 1
















1 1










rH
•d id
Q) -H
^ 4-)
 g
rH
•rt * 01
id to 
Q





to
0)
-p
id
43
w

^i
Q

f^
O
•H
•P
id
•P
G
a>
g
3
O
O
Q
(U
-P


1





01
G
O
•H
•P
id
o
•H
MH
•H
O
0)
ft
to

o
2



M 01
O H
MH Id
C
"d o
0) -H
•H 01
MH tQ
•H (U
0 MH >,
(1) O rH
ft rl G
cn ft o



W ^H
O (U
MH G
G
*d o
a> to
,_j S-4
^! ft
0.
0) rH
ft rH
tn id




i
0)
M
•H
3
D1
0)
i_i

rH
Q)
c

O
to
M
(U
ft

(U 01
-P 4J
(tj C
•P 0)
cn g
id
rH
(D
M

01
rH
rH
(U
5

c
o
•rH
-P
0
Q)
•n
C
•rl
'd
c
id
01
H
I-l
a>
15

C
0
•H
-P
U
a)
•n
C
•H

rH
id
ft
•H
O
•rl
C
3
g

•d
£
id
H
id
•r| •
rl G
•P 0
W-rl
3 -P
'd u
C 3

o
ft rl
Q) ci,
(U
T3 01
id
i-H tn
id
G-d
O G
•H id
•p
G H
0) -H
> 0
G
0 0
U -P


^v.
rH|
r-H 0)
rH 0)
id G
ft -rl
•rH tn
O C
G (U
•rH
JH T3
ft C
id
G
O 0)
•H D^
•P id
0 G
G -H
3 id
tl 1 tl
T)
X!
O rH
•rl Id
X! rl
^ 3
-P
01 rH
rH 3
H O
(U -r-l
S $H
tn
id

«.
MH
O
G
3
M

C5
5
S-l
3

01
id

x:
0
3
01
•d
\j G
(U 3
X! 0
•P rl
O tn •
rH '-^
H (DCS
rH ^
id G 0)
3 rH
•d xi
G to id
id "d EH
-rl
01 3 CU
rH rH 0)
rH MH 01
(U —
£ Q)
o to
«; id H
rH H
G ft 0)

3 (U
rH ^
O 0 G
U -P -H


"s^
Ol|


O
-P

-d

G

•r-l
01
Q)
rrj

01
CJ
0
o
tn
id
rH
'd
C
id

01
T)
G
0
ft

-
01 •
-P T3
•H G
ft 3
O
- JH
01 tj>
^ S-l
a) a)
•p -d
01 G

01
01
u -d
•H -H
•P 3
ftH
(U MH
01
Q)
tn o
C (d
•H rH
rH ft
rH g
a) QJ
^
-d o
1 4->
•rH
4J >1
i-H rH
3 rH
g id
ft
--H
01 U
rH G
rH -H

01
t5*!
01

U
-H
4J
ft
(U
01

'd
G


01
rH
rH
(1)
3 •
01
ffl -d
•H
G 3
g rH
3 MH
rH
O MH
U O


^^
•*|
CM
                           IT)
                                -  85  -

-------
     It follows from this interpretation that the term "well



injection" embraces underground injection into any actual well,



artificial excavation, or natural opening in the land surface



that discharges into underlying permeable beds and thereby,



could serve as a possible source of ground-water contamination.



Table 9 lists categories of underground injection included in



the broad definition of well injection, together with estimates



of the numbers of such injection facilities.





     An important advantage of adopting the broad definition is



that it provides for regulation of a. wide spectrum of possible



sources of ground-water contamination.  This would provide the



greatest level of protection against contamination of underground



drinking-water sources.  This is also compatible with the basic



intent of the Act, to protect underground sources of drinking



water and is an approach favored by some States.  It should be



noted, however, that even the broad definition does not encompass



all possible sources of ground-water contamination.  For example,



activities such as surface spills, overpumping of wells, and



application of fertilizers and pesticides at the land surface all



can contribute to contamination but are not included in well in-



jection as defined in these regulations.





     Several major problems arise as a result of including a wide



range of facilities and activities in the broad definition of



well injection.  These problems are of sufficient magnitude to



cause rejection of the broad definition.  First, it was not con-
                              -  86 -

-------
           Table 9.- ESTIMATED NUMBER AND CATEGORIES OF
           UNDERGROUND INJECTION FACILITIES INCLUDED IN
           THE BROAD DEFINITION.
                   Category                                 Number

  I.  Waste-Disposal and Engineering Wells

           Conventional industrial wells 	 360
           Conventional municipal wells  	  30
           Subsidence control wells  	 500
           Barrier wells 	 200
           Recharge Wells  (for aquifer augmentation) 	 100
           Solution mining wells 	  . 500
                                                              1,690

 11•  Injection Wells Related to Oil and Gas Production

           Brine disposal wells  	  10,000
           Secondary recovery wells  	  60,000
           Pits	    1,000
                                                            71,000

III.  Other Underground Injections

           Industrial shallow wells  	    1,000
           Industrial pits, ponds, and basins  	  50,000
           Industrial septic systems 	  25,000
           Municipal shallow wells 	    1,000
           Municipal pits,  ponds, and basins (mainly
              sewage effluent and storm water)  	  25,000
           Septic systems  (multi-family residences,
              restaurants,  motels, etc.) 	 1,500,000
           Drainage wells  (agricultural, urban runoff,
              and sewage)	50,000
           Gas-storage wells 	  14,500
           Geothermal wells	      10
                                                         1,666,510
                               - 87 -

-------
sidered reasonable by many to group pits, ponds, and basins with wells as




underground injection devices,        on the basis of the language



of the Safe Drinking Water Act or on  the basis  of a technical




evaluation of  the definition of well  injection.  Second, it was



anticipated that there would be a great  number  of legal challenges



and EPA would  be accused  of over-regulating.  Third, because of



the large number of installations  (possibly numbering in the millions)



and the costs  of permits  and hearings, and construction and moni-



toring requirements, the  financial impact and work load were believed



to be prohibitive for EPA, the State  governments, and the injectors.






     A second  option for  defining well injection is very narrow.



It would restrict the meaning of the  term to conventional deep



municipal and  industrial  disposal wells  that discharge into strata



containing fluids having  a total dissolved solids content of more



than 10,000 mg/1, which are referred  to  specifically in the House



Report and are discussed  at length in the legislative history of



the statute.   Also included are brine disposal  wells and secondary



recovery injection wells  related to oil  and gas production which are



specifically covered by the term "well injection", because the



statute provides that the EPA regulations may not "interfere with



or impede" such well injection unless the requirements imposed are



"essential to  assure that underground sources of drinking water



will not be endangered by such injection."  The total number of



underground injection facilities included in the narrow definition



is estimated to be about  390 conventional wells and about 70,000



brine disposal and secondary recovery wells  (see Table 2).
                             -  88 -

-------
     The principal advantage of adopting the narrow definition



would be its relative ease of implementation.  Because the number



of wells to be controlled would be relatively small, public ac-



ceptance of the program should be forthcoming  and in addition,




the administrative task would be relatively easy for the States



to handle.  In actuality, some 39 States already have some controls



to regulate or prohibit these wells.






     The overwhelming disadvantage of a regulatory program



restricted to the very narrow definition is that it would contribute



little additional to the existing controls that protect ground-



water quality.  From regional surveys that have been made of ground-



water contamination (Fuhriman and Barton, 1971; Scalf and others,



1973; Miller and others, 1974; and Van der Leeden and others, 1975),



it is known that conventional injection wells are only minor con-



tributors to contamination, and that regulation of only this limited



type of underground injection would ignore the need to control



many more significant sources of contamination.  Furthermore, the



will of Congress as expressed in the Act, which clearly is to



protect underground sources of drinking water, would not be fully



carried out.






     A third option is a less narrow definition of "well injection"



which encompasses all drilled, bored,du". or driven wells which-func-




tion principally to emplace fluids underground.  This definition



includes all waste-disposal wells, injection wells related to oil



and gas production, urban runoff drainage wells, agricultural
                             -  89  -

-------
drainage wells, gas-storage wells, geothermal wells, and engineering



wells.  The advantages of this definition are: (1) it provides an



intermediate level of protection of underground drinking-water



sources in contrast to the very narrow definition,  (2) the program



would be sufficiently moderate to encourage States without large



program capabilities to seek primacy and (3) costs of compliance



would be moderate.  On the other hand, under this definition, the



UIC program would not include hundreds of thousands of facilities



such as pits, ponds, and lagoons which also are designed to receive



and eraplace waste fluids underground.  Also, some States favor a



still broader definition of well injection.





     A fourth option for defining well injection is somewhat



broader than the third option in that it includes not only all



the wells noted in option three but also multiple-dwelling septic



Systems and pits, ponds, and lagoons whose principal function is to



emplace fluids underground.  The principal advantages of this



interpretation of well injection are: (1) it would bring under con-



trol more practices that pose a hazard to underground drinking



water sources, (2) it would bolster existing State programs re-



gulating these facilities, and (3) a number of States favor an



approach to control that is at least this broad in coverage.



The principal disadvantages of this interpretation are:  (1)  the



increased costs and workload would reduce the number of States



seeking primacy,  (2) EPA would be subject to criticism for



attempting to control practices not intended by Congress,  (3) the



broader definition would be challenged legally by many injectors,
                           - 90 -

-------
 (4) it may be difficult in many cases to establish whether a



pit, pond, or lagoon functions like an injection well, without



costly and time-consuming studies; moreover the number of such



facilities is not known precisely,and (5) the cost of compliance



would probably be increased by billions of dollars.





     It follows from the foregoing that all definitions of under-



ground injection pose some problems.  The all-important aspect



of protecting public health against threats stemming from con-



tamination of ground-water supplies requires that some practical



and feasible definition and position be adopted.  Thus, the reg-



ulations  (Section 146.2r) define subsurface emplacement of fluids



by well injection as subsurface emplacement through a bored, drilled.



driven, or dug well (where the depth is            greater t!v.n



the largest surface dimension), whenever a principal function



of the well is the subsurface emplacement of fluids.





     2.  Levels of Water-Quality Protection.  This important issue,



raised by the language of the Safe Drinking Water Act and the



accompanying House Report (No. 93-1185), pertains to the kinds of



underground waters that are intended to be protected and the



extent of this protection.  The Act specifies that regulations



promulgated under it shall contain minimum requirements for
                           - 91 -

-------
effective programs to prevent underground injection that endangers

drinking-water sources.  It is further stated that:

        "Underground injection endangers drinking water
        if such injection may result in the presence in
        underground water, which supplies or can reason-
        ably be expected to supply any public water system,
        of any contaminant, and if the presence of such
        contaminant may result in such systems not comply-
        ing with any national primary drinking water regu-
        lation or may otherwise adversely affect the health
        of persons."

        The House Report contains a further interpretation of

the intent of the Congress.  In that report (p. 32), it is stated

that the Congress seeks to protect not only currently used sources

of drinking water, but also potential drinking-water sources for

the future.  Thus, for example, it is expected that the UIC regu-

lations should at least require States to provide protection for

subsurface waters having less than 10,000 mg/1 of TDS  (total dis-

 solved solids),  as  is currently the practice  in Illinois  and Te.xas,


        As explained in Section I of this report, the natural

quality of ground water differs from place to place, depending on

geologic and other factors.  Total dissolved-solids content

is commonly used to characterize the salinity of ground water.

The U. S. Geological Survey  (Hem, 1970) classifies water accord-

ing to TDS content as follows:  Less than 1,000 mg/1, fresh; 1,000

to 3,000 mg/1, slightly saline; 3,000 to 10,000 moderately saline;

10,000 to 35,000, very saline; and more than 35,000 mg/1, briny.

Only fresh waters are recommended for drinking purposes, although

slightly to moderately saline water is used by more than 100

public-supply  systems in Illinois where water of better quality

is not available.


                              - 92 -

-------
        Water having a TDS content of from 3,000 to 10,000 mg/1
is less salty than seawater (TDS, 35,000 mg/1), and is more
amenable to desalination than saltier waters.  For example, in a
study performed in Illinois (Illinois Water Survey, 1973), it
was found that the ion-exchange and electrodialysis processes of
desalination are particularly sensitive to the TDS content of
the feed water.  The capital cost of a reverse-osmosis plant was
estimated to double with an increase in feed-water salinity of
from 2,000 mg/1 to 4,000 mg/1 TDS, and electrodialysis was found
to be uneconomic for feed water with a TDS content greater than
10,000 mg/1.

        In most parts of the United States, the ground water
first encountered when drilling a well is fresh or relatively
fresh, and in many localities, this condition persists to depths
of many hundreds of feet.  Generally, the TDS content increases
at progressively greater depths.

        The most restrictive option would be to control any and
all underground injection into all waters, regardless of TDS con-
tent and regardless of present or future uses of the water.  This
option was rejected because it goes beyond the intent of the
Congress to protect only the quality of present or potential drink-
ing-water sources.

        The most non-restrictive approach in establishing the
level of protection of water quality would be to allow any and
                             -  93  -

-------
all types o£ injection into aquifers with no regard to the risk



of endangerment of drinking-water sources (as discussed in the



next section).  This option would have the least impact on pre-



sent and future injectors but would be inconsistent with the



intent of the Congress, as expressed in the Act, to protect



drinking-water sources.  The non-restrictive approach would re-



sult in increasing degradation of ground water in future years



as a result of largely uncontrolled underground injection practices.





        With the exception of most municipal and industrial



disposal wells and oilfield brine wells, nearly all other types



of underground injection systems listed in Table 2 presently



inject into fresh or moderately saline ground water having a



TDS content of less than 10,000 mg/1.  Obviously, the highest



level of protection of public health would be achieved by con-



trolling injection into such water, and this is the option that



finally was selected for the regulations.





        However, EPA believes that there should be some means  of



dealing with individual aquifers which are not in fact potential



sources of drinking water even though they have total dissolved



solids levels of less than 10,000 mg/1.  For example, an aquifer



may be oil-producing even with a TDS level of less than 10,000 mg/1,



"and in such a case it may be wise to give the oil-producing



qualities of the aquifer precedence over its ability to provide



drinking water.  Also, some aquifers below the 10,000 mg/1 level are



never-the-less so contaminated that as a practical matter they are
                             - 94 -

-------
not potential drinking-water sources.





     Because it would be a misallocation of resources to



seek to protect as potential drinking water sources aquifers



which in fact will not be used by public-water systems,



the regulations provide that a State program may designate



one or more aquifers or parts of aquifers in the State



which have a total dissolved solids level below 10,000 mg/1



but which will not be protected because they are oil-



producing, are severly contaminated or are located in such



a way that current or future use as drinking water is im-



practicable.  As part of the State program, the desig-



nation would be subject to public notice and opportunity



for hearing prior to submission to EPA.





     By protecting water quality up to the indicated TDS,



virtually all other users, including industrial, com-



mercial, and agricultural, will benefit from maintenance



of that level of ground-water quality protection.  Moreover,



this flexibility will provide adequate protection for



usable sources and at the same time will permit the States



to take local conditions into account.
                            - 95 -

-------
          This level of protection provided by the
regulations complies with the objective of the Act to develop
regulations for State UIC programs which will not establish
unnecessary and unreasonable obstacles to approval of State
programs.  It also should not impose a burden upon injectors
that is overly restrictive, yet is designed to focus attention
on ground-water sources used for public supply.

    3. Endangerment of Drinking-Water Sources.  A key goal
of the Act is to prevent the endangerment of drinking-water
sources, as expressed by the specific language of the Act.
Further, the House Report  (No. 93-1185)  provides some guidance
by indicating that any underground source with a TDS content
of 10,000 mg/1 or less should be protected.  This language
opens many alternative interpretations.  Three alternatives
were considered as follows:

        (a)  Sources of underground water are endangered by under-
ground injection whenever they are degraded to any extent.
This nondegradation approach would insure the preservation
of the natural quality of ground water for all future uses,
but would make it impossible to inject any fluids except  fresh
water of a certain quality  into any aquifer containing water
with a TDS content less than 10,000 mg/1.
                             - 96 -

-------
         (b) Sources of underground water are endangered by well



injection whenever they are degraded below national primary



drinking-water standards.  This alternative would allow some



reduction in quality, but not to an extent where the potability



of the ground water would be affected.  One problem with this



option is that many contaminants that are not now included in



the drinking water standards may be added in future years; there-



fore, underground injection controls would have to be designed



now to protect against unknown contaminants in the future.





         (c) Sources of underground water are endangered by



underground injection whenever it becomes apparent that a public-



water system desiring to use the source at any time would have



to resort to more extensive treatment of the water than would



have been necessary before the contamination.  This option permits



some flexibility for underground injection into shallow fresh-



water aquifers because it relates not to the quality of ground



water itself but rather to the degree of additional treatment



that would be required.





        Of the foregoing three alternatives, alternative (c)  has



been adopted in the regulations because it is the least restric-



tive upon underground injection practices and because it does



not impose a burden of additional treatment on future public-



water systems.





        It should be noted that endangerment of underground



drinking-water sources is related not only to the type and
                              - 97 -

-------
volume of the injected fluid but also to the distance between



an injection site and a water-supply well.  As described in



Section I, the concentrations of contaminants in ground water are



attenuated by adsorption, decay, and dilution during their passage



through underground formations.  Thus, with sufficient separation



between injection sites and supply well sites, endangerment can



be minimized.






       The States may wish to evaluate the concept of zonal pro-



tection of public-water supply installations.  The use of zoning



originated in Germany  (Todd, 1973) and has been used elsewhere in



Europe (Cole, 1974).  Figure 16 illustrates one method of providing



protective zones within which certain potentially deleterious



injection practices are prohibited.  The actual configuration of



the zones in any particular place would be based on the local



hydrogeologic situation.





       Another variation of the same concept would be to establish



buffer zones around underground injection sites.  The boundary



of the outermost zone would coincide with the property boundary



of the injector.  Ground water under the injector's property



could be degraded as long as this practice did not endanger a



drinking-water source on any adjacent property.





    4. Types of Regulations.  Control of underground injection



can be achieved by the following regulatory methods:   (1) an



"all-permit" program,  (2) an "all-rule" program, or  (3) a com-



bination of these.  Each method has distinct advantages and



disadvantages.




                             -  98  -

-------
(£.
0

O
U_
CK
UJ

I
     O
     a:
     o
                          WELLS
                                             -AREA I-Well Field;
                                                    10 to 5O meters.
                                             -AREA 11-Bacteriological Protection
                                                    Zone; 50 to 3OO meters,
                                                    or 50 days travel distance.
                                             -ARE A III-Chemical Protection Zone;
                                                    0.5 to 2 kilometers.
                           EXPLANATION

    Area I  is  the actual well field property.  This  area is gener-
ally owned  by  the water-supply company, is grassed and fenced, and
trespassing is prohibited.  It extends about  10  to 50 meters from
the wells in all directions.

    Area II is the bacteriological protection  zone.   Here activi-
ties which  might adversely affect the bacterial  quality of water
are prohibited.   These include, among others,  landfills, mining,
quarries, parking lots,  extensive use of fertilizers, construction,
transport of dangerous liquids, plus exclusions  for  Area III.  The
zone should extend the distance that ground-water  would travel (on
the average) in 50 days, or.a minimum of 50 meters.

    Area III is the chemical protection zone.  In  this relatively
large region prohibitions include recharge of  wastewater, oil and
gas pipelines,  atomic energy plants, refineries, new cemeteries,
airports, and  military bases.  The zone extends  from 0.5 to more
than 2 kilometers.
    Figure 16.
           Sketch  of  Protective Zones for Ground-Water
           Supplies  (Alluvial aquifers are assumed, and
           zones are  not to scale).
                         - 99

-------
        a.  "All-Permit" Program.  Under this program, all exist-



ing and new underground systems would be regulated under a highly



organized and closely controlled permit system, designed largely



according to EPA specifications, but administered by the States.



The principal advantage would be a very strong uniform control of



underground injection practices throughout the country, which would



help maintain ground-water quality at acceptable levels and



thereby benefit public health.  The detailed information required



in the application procedures, public hearings, and periodic



reviews would provide abundant data for making sound decisions



in regard to granting and renewing permits, and would facilitate



the taking of remedial action in the event of the development of



hazardous conditions to health or water quality during the



operation of the injection system.  Moreover, many injection



systems already operate under some type of State permitting



arrangement, which would constitute a base on which to build a



technically sounder permit system.





        The principal disadvantage of an "all-permit" program



would be the inability of many State regulatory agencies to cope



with the vast numbers of applications for permits that would be



required under the broad definition of underground injection.



The financial and staffing impacts would be severe enough in



many States to seriously interfere with the present load of



regulatory environmental responsibilities, and thereby could



result in further degradation not only of the water environment



but also of other aspects of the environment related to public









                            - 100 -

-------
 health.   Permitting procedures calling for public notices and
 hearings  could  seriously extend the time required for approval
 of  permits, which would result in additional costs and delays
 in  organizing the permit system.

        b,  "All-Rule" Program.  Under this program, all types
 of  underground  injection would be covered by individual State
 rules.  State rules would include directives on construction
 and operational procedures that do not endanger underground
 drinking-water  sources.

        The advantage of an "all-rule" program is the wide
 administrative freedom and flexibility given to the States, which
 would enable them to initiate the control system with a minimum of
 procedural delay.  This would bring most underground injection opera-
 tions under some type of control and surveillance within a short
 period after the start of the program.  Much of the data collection
 and compilation could be automated, which would call for fewer
 experienced professional personnel who are now in short supply.
 Rapid start up of the system would benefit water-quality control
 and public health.

        Conceivably, the States could have extremely loose rules
giving blanket authorization for specified classifications of
underground injection without the requirement of public hearings,
notices, or recording of detailed technical information.  On the
other hand, rules could be more restrictive than the permit
program described above, or even specify prohibition of certain
underground injection practices.

                           - 101 -

-------
        The disadvantage of an "all-rule" program is that it
does not set meaningful minimal requirements for the States and
of necessity results in a lack of uniformity of control from
one State to another.  It also could create water-quality con-
flicts between States who share aquifers that cross State boun-
daries.  Furthermore/ an "all-rule" program could interfere with
or conflict with State and Federal requirements under existing
permitting procedures such as NPDES.

        c.  Combination "Permits and Rules" Program,  Under this
program, some underground injection practices would be authorized
under permits and others would be authorized under rules.  EPA
would issue a list of recommended injection practices to be
placed under permit and would prepare guidelines for State
operated permit systems that would be uniform throughout the
country.  The remaining types of underground injection practices
would be controlled by either rules or permits at the discretion
of the States.

        The principal advantage of this approach is that it is
consistent with present policies in most States, and would be
rather easy to implement.  Also, it does not restrict the States
from adopting more protective rules than they have presently, or
to change from rules to permits if they believe that this is
necessary to improve protection of drinking-water sources and
public health.  In addition, many types of underground injection
are already under State rule or permit, and may only require
tightening of selected requirements such as providing more techni-
cal data, reports, and monitoring programs.
                           - 102 -

-------
        The disadvantages of the combination program are a
limited uniformity among the States and a reduced level of control
compared with an "all-permit" program.  However/ the greater
feasibility of implementation from a time and manageability
viewpoint and the large measure of control afforded by the
combination program indicate that it should provide the greatest
protection to ground-water quality and public health on a national
scale.

    5.  Program Implementation.  The underground injection
control program could be implemented in several ways, as dis-
cussed below:
        a.  Listing of States.  Section 1421 (b)(1)(A) of the
Act specifies that minimum State underground injection control
programs must prohibit, effective December 16,  1977, underground
injection that is not authorized by permit or by rule.  In
addition to the above requirements, Section 1422 (a) directs the
Administrator to publish, within 180 days after passage of the
Act, a list of the States for which in his judgment an underground
injection control program is necessary.  The Act also provides
for amendment of the list of States from time to time, and the
House Committee Report (page 32) suggests that all fifty States
should be listed; but the Act provides for judgment on the part
of the Administrator in this regard.  The listed States then
have 270 days after the date of promulgation of State underground
injection control program regulations to apply for control authority.
If a State does not apply or if EPA determines its program to be
inadequate, EPA must then institute an underground injection con-
trol program in that State.  An unlisted State does not need to
                          - 103 -

-------
meet any requirements of the underground injection control pro-



gram section of the Safe Drinking Water Act.  The provision for



State listing provides a means of scheduling the implementation



of the program.  Two options are available for listing States.



EPA could list all States immediately, or a few States could be



listed immediately with others being added from time to time.





        The principal benefits of listing all States initially are;



(1)  complete uniformity in treatment of the State and (2)  the



earliest possible implementation of the UIC program.  A possible



problem in listing all States initially is, if a significant



number should not apply for primacy, EPA would have to establish



programs for these States.  This possibility would be remote if



a maximum effort were made to keep the regulations flexible



enough to match State needs and capabilities.





        Another alternative would be to list a few selected



States the first year and to add additional States in subsequent



years until all 50 were listed.  This procedure would achieve



the intent of Congress that all States should have programs and



it would also allow EPA to concentrate its manpower on a few



States at a time, rather than attempting to deal with all 50



States simultaneously.  The greatest disadvantage of such a



phased approach would be unequal emphasis on State programs of



the States and the delay that would result in promulgation of



the regulations on a nation-wide basis.  Further, it is required



in Section 1421  (b)(1) of the Act that in order  for a State



program to be approved, any underground injection which is not






                             - 104 -

-------
authorized by permit or rule by December 16, 1977, must be

prohibited.


        b.  Program Staging.  One means of staging the imple-

menting of the UIC program would be to specify which of the

regulatory requirements would be adopted immediately and which

would be introduced later.  The requirements for State certifi-

cation of the UIC program which are discussed in Section 1421

(b)  (1) of the Act are rather loosely defined, and fall into

two main classes:  (1)  permitting, or rule-making, and (2) all

other requirements (inspection, monitoring, recordkeeping, and

reporting requirements) which are not elaborated.


         The less explicitly defined requirements of the Act

allow for a greater amount of flexibility in implementation.

For the first few years of the program, for example, States

could be required to inspect only the major underground in-

jection practices.  When the workload leveled off, a gradual

more intensive inspection program could be started for other

underground injection practices.


          This same approach also could be applied to monitoring

and inspection as shown below:
                        MONITORING
Within the first year of
certification
Require self-monitoring
reports monthly (or
quarterly) from all
permittees.
                         -  105  -

-------
Within 3 years                  -   Initiate a program of test
                                    wells for all existing under-
                                    ground injection practices
                                    that are potential problems.

Within 5 years                  -   Require test wells for all
                                    new underground injection
                                    projects that have a potential
                                    for ground-water contamination.


        An advantage of this sequential approach is that it would

allow the State to spread its resources over several years.  A

disadvantage would be the problem it would create for EPA in

administering a large number of widely varying schedules and the

lack of uniformity that would exist among the State programs at

any given time.  More important  , however, is the fact that

many potentially dangerous underground injection facilities would

continue uncontrolled injection for several years before the

State began any type of control program.


        The second alternative is to make all requirements of

the Act mandatory from the beginning of the State's program.  In

this case, EPA would develop minimum requirements on all aspects

of permitting, inspection, monitoring, recordkeeping, and report-

ing.  All of these requirements would be begun immediately.  An

advantage of this approach is that the requirements in all States

would be uniform and consistent.  The major disadvantage is that

due to the nonhomogeneity of hydrologic and geologic conditions

in the United States, it would be difficult to develop such re-

quirements in a manner which would allow maximum control but still

allow the State to consider its differences.
                           - 106 -

-------
         The approach chosen reflects a combination of these



two approaches to implementation.  Specific requirements for



permitting, monitoring, inspection, and recordkeeping are



made for most underground injection practices.  For up to five



years the States may regulate existing underground injections



by rules of general applicability designed not to endanger drink-



ing-water sources.  During this five-year period, the States



will review all existing injections to ensure underground



drinking-water sources are not endangered.  Permits will be



issued to all existing wells which meet this requirement.  New




wells will be required to meet all permitting, monitoring, in-



spection and recordkeeping requirements at the outset.






          On all other practices, the State is given the



flexibility of controlling these practices in a manner which



best fits the situation in the State.  The only stipulations



are that nothing should be done which endangers drinking-water



sources, and the public should be involved in the decision-



making process.  It is very likely that the first control



placed on existing and new underground injection facilities



will be a self-monitoring report which would be delivered to



the State within one year.  Using this information, the State



would plan how all underground injections would be controlled



to prevent endangerment of drinking-water sources.






          The major disadvantages of this approach are the




non-uniformity of State programs and the difficulties which
                            - 107 -

-------
EPA would encounter in monitoring the many different programs.



The major advantages, however, are the fact that all underground



injections would be put under some control immediately and the



State would have the flexibility of developing control programs



which would be unique to their geologic and hydrologic conditions.






          (6)  Documentation by States.  From an overall viewpoint,



the documentation and reporting required in connection with the



regulations can be classified as:  (a)  submissions by the States



to EPA,  (b) applications to the States by injectors, and  (c)



routine periodic reports on monitoring to be provided to the



States by injectors.






         In making a decision on how comprehensive the documen-



tation should be, careful consideration was given to the concern



expressed by Congress with respect to controlling underground



injection and to the need for providing a firm base of technical



information so that the long-term benefits to drinking-water



sources could be properly defined.  Obviously, the greatest level



of control would be achieved by requiring permits and an inten-



sive documentation for all underground injection practices, but



as noted under Section II 4(a) of this report, this would be



impractical.






          If the regulations had required permits for each and



every type of underground injection, there would have been a sub-



stantial amount of communication and interaction between State



and Federal officials regarding such matters as the filing of



permit applications, the nature and amount of injected fluids,





                           -  108 -

-------
subsurface behavior of the fluids, public notices of applications,



public hearings, and provisions for inspection of and copying of



permit application data.  These activities would call for a



significant amount of administrative and technical documentation



at the application stage.  Moreover, permitting procedures would



have to provide for subsequent detailed monitoring procedures and




maintenance of records of all monitoring activities, including



sampling dates, analytical results and methods, and retention of



records for five years after cessation of injection.  Reporting



of monitoring results, not less than once per year on specific



forms, also would be required.






         Such detailed recordkeeping would of course result in



collection of more accurate and abundant monitoring data and,



therefore, would afford better surveillance and protection of



ground-water quality.  A major disadvantage would be the sub-



stantial amount of personnel, time, equipment, and storage



facilities that would have to be allocated to collect and to



evaluate these voluminous records.  This would heavily impact



both State and EPA facilities, personnel, and budgets.





         Under a "rules-only" system, the States would set up their



own arrangements for documenting and monitoring, within a broad



range of guidelines prescribed by EPA.   The States would be re-



sponsible for and would have more flexibility in selecting ade-



quate monitoring procedures, and the amount of paperwork involved



could be adjusted to fit the States' needs.   The main disadvantage



of the rules-only approach would be a lack of uniformity in pro-





                            - 109 -

-------
cedures in the compilation of basic information,  and in the



reporting of findings,  which would result in a lower level of



protection of drinking-water sources.





         Under the regulations,  a State applying to the Adminis-



trator for approval of  its underground injection control program



shall describe how its  program conforms to the regulatory require-



ments, furnish the text of the State's statutory authority, and



document the anticipated State procedures for enforcement, in-



spection, monitoring, and recordkeeping.  When EPA approves the



plan, it shall remain in effect thereafter, subject to periodic



reviews by EPA to insure compliance.





         States participating in the program shall maintain



records on permits, monitoring, and enforcement actions.  In



addition, the State will submit an annual report to EPA summariz-



ing violations and any  enforcement actions to be taken by the



State and a summary  inventory of underground  injection  facilities.





         All existing and new underground injection practices



covered under Subpart C of the Regulations must furnish in-



formation relating to the physical environment at the injection



site, locations of injection wells and nearby water wells, ground-



water conditions, geologic structures, chemistry of fluids, in-



jection procedures, and other pertinent features.  The injector



also must submit a report thoroughly evaluating all alternative



disposal schemes to justify that injection is the most acceptable



environmental alternative.  The State will notify appropriate






                             - 110 -

-------
governmental agencies of the permit application and shall

solicit their views and recommendations.  A provision is in-

cluded to allow for public hearings to be requested by either

the applicant or any interested agency or person.  The State

program shall specify that the- injector maintain proper re-

cords of his injection practice and related monitoring.  The

injector also must submit a report to the State at least once

per quarter.


         For existing underground injections under Subpart D

of the regulations, the State is required to review such under-

ground injections during the first 5 years to ensure these prac-

tices do not endanger drinking-water sources.  No detailed pro-

cedures for record-keeping and documentation are specified during

that time.  When permits are given to existing wells which do

not endanger drinking-water sources the monitoring and record-

keeping requirements outlined previously must be met.  The permit
                       new
applications required forAunderground injection in the oil and

gas industry must contain all of the information referred to pre-

viously, plus information on several other technical matters.

The injector will keep records of his injection operation and

monitoring.


         Under Subpart E of the regulations which applies to

agricultural and urban runoff drainage wells, if the State chooses

to regulate these wells by permit, the permit requirements must

include information on location and design of the facility,

nature and volume of the injected fluid and other information


                            - Ill -

-------
the State may require to determine whether the underground in-



jection endangers drinking-water sources.  The permits issued



will be conditioned on inspection, monitoring, record-keeping



and reporting requirements.





         If a State elects to regulate these types of wells



by rule, the Director is to be notified of each such injection



well and be provided with such information as he requires.



Furthermore, the injector shall conduct periodic testing and



maintain test records where specified by the Director.





         The decision to use a combined permit-and-rule approach



to implement the underground injection control regulations repre-



sents a practicable compromise in terms of the need for record-



keeping and documentation.  A "permit-only" system would have



imposed too heavy an administrative burden on the States, and a



"rules-only" system, although minimizing the administrative



burden, would not have provided an adequate level of protection



of drinking-water sources.  It is believed that the extra work



required of the States in recording and filing information will



not be excessive and will be in line with the normal requirements



of any similar regulatory program.





         7.  State Personnel Requirements.  During the drafting of



the regulations, the options of either specifying minimal levels



of expertise for the State personnel who would be administering
                             -  112  -

-------
the underground injection control program or of not including



such provisions were considered.  Requiring the State agencies



to be staffed with highly skilled and experienced personnel would



of course insure the highest level of compliance with and proper



enforcement of the Act and, thereby, provide maximum protection



of underground drinking-water sources.  The principal disad-



vantage of this approach is that there is presently a scarcity



of experienced personnel in the ground-water field, and the impact



on State budgets of the high cost of salaries to maintain such



personnel would be appreciable.  Also, the staffing problem



would vary from State to State, depending on local economic con-



ditions, other job opportunities, and the availability of rele-



vant university training programs.





        In view of these problems and recognizing that the States



are in a better position to define what kinds of personnel are



available locally or could be made available to implement the



underground injection control program, it was decided to omit



any specifications with regard to personnel qualifications.  The



States have shown themselves to be fully capable in the past of



implementing new regulations, and EPA believes that with proper



coordination between the States and the regional offices, any



deficiencies in this connection will be overcome.





        The States should be able to satisfy the needs of the



program by using a minimum number of high-level supervisory



professionals, supported by subprofessionals and technicians



having not less than some prescribed combination of academic






                           - 113  -

-------
and work experience.  The scarcity of more experienced personnel



might be partially compensated for by the use of substantial but



costly automation of collection and processing of monitoring



data.  Also, the occasional lack of high-level input in some



important decision-making situations could be overcome by



temporary use of experienced advisors to assist State officials.





B.  Procedural Alternatives.  In developing the basic concepts



and the prescribed administrative procedures for the regulations,



careful consideration was given to a number of alternatives,



ranging from little or no  intervention in State programs to



tight Federal control of all aspects of the program.  In this



analysis, the issues and alternatives discussed previously in



Section II-A were evaluated and the probable impacts of all



the alternatives on the States, the operators of underground injection



facilities, the quality of drinking-water supplies, and public



health were assessed.  The final regulations, as published,



reflect some trade-offs and compromises, with the ultimate



purpose of achieving maximum protection of the underground sources



of drinking water with the lowest possible level of adverse



impacts to the States and injectors.





    The following sections review the analytical procedures



followed in arriving at the final decision.  The first section



deals briefly with the unacceptable option of taking no action



at all.  The second and third sections describe the reasoning



process followed in rejecting the extremes of very rigid Federal



controls and loose non-restrictive controls.  The fourth section








                            - 114 -

-------
assesses the regulatory procedures that have been adopted.






    1.  Take No Action.  This alternative means that EPA takes



no action whatsoever with regard to underground injection con-



trol, and leaves all responsibility for initiating programs in



the hands of the States.  In effect, such a policy would represent



no departure from the present situation, in which each State is



largely free to control underground injection to whatever degree it




deems necessary, except for injection related to such programs as NPDES,





        The no-action alternative is precluded by the Safe



Drinking Water Act, which specifically requires (Section 1421)



that EPA shall promulgate regulations for State underground in-



jection control programs and shalj. prohibit, effective three years



after the date of enactment of the Act, any underground injection



which is not authorized by a permit (or a rule) issued by the



State.  The Act contains additional requirements, as discussed




under Section I of this report, which are quite specific with



regard to EPA's role and which further support the position that



a policy of no action whatsoever is unacceptable.





    2.  Promulgate Restrictive Federal Regulations.  Under this



alternative, EPA would issue very tight regulations in which



underground injection is defined broadly to include all types



of drilled, cased, and cemented injection wells and all openings




or excavations that place contaminants into the ground water.



The regulations would require permits for every type of under-



ground injection facility, and these permits would be applicable
                             - 115 -

-------
to all fifty States within the three-year requirement specified



in the Act (Section 1421).  In addition, injection would be allowed



only into aquifers in which the ground water contained more than



10,000 mg/1 of total dissolved solids.  The States would be re-



quired to maintain detailed records with regard to inspection,



monitoring, and reporting of other kinds of information on all



injection sites and facilities.  Finally, the regulations would



specify the minimum levels of expertise needed by the staffs of



State agencies before the State programs would be acceptable to EPA.





        a.  Beneficial Impacts.



            (1) A program of this kind would assure uniformity of



procedures, surveillance, and enforcement throughout the fifty



States, and would represent a high degree of control over all



underground injection facilities.  In contrast to the present



situation, in which each State is essentially free to deal with



injection as it sees fit, a national standard would be applied so



that all injectors would be treated on an equal basis.



            (2) EPA would be able to oversee and control under-



ground injection to the fullest extent.



            (3) Underground drinking-water sources would be pro-



tected to a maximum degree, thereby reducing threats to public



health and overcoming many of the problems faced by public water-



supply systems in developing water that meets the national stand-



ards for drinking-water quality.




        b.  Adverse Impacts.



            (1) Tight Federal control would be inconsistent with









                            -  116 -

-------
EPA's policy of delegating the maximum possible degree of authority



to the States.  The basic intent of the Act is for EPA to provide



guidance and to establish a broad regulatory mechanism, not to



dictate precisely what is to be done by each State, because the



States have a better understanding of local environments, local



problems, and the social and economic implications of making



changes in underground injection practices.



            (2) From a technical viewpoint, it would not be



feasible to write a detailed set of regulations to fit all of



the widely different ground-water environments and patterns of



ground-water use throughout the country.  For example, all ground



water in some States contains less than 10,000 mg/1 of total dis-



solved solids, whereas in other States ground water may contain



more than 200,000 mg/1 of total dissolved solids.



            (3) The burden of inventorying, documenting, issuing



permits for, and monitoring every injection facility would be too



great for most States, and would call for large budgetary increases



to organize and staff new departments to handle the work load.  If



State funds were not available, Federal financial support would



be necessary.



            (4) Injectors would be subjected to severe new con-



straints on their operations, and in many cases would have to turn



to costly alternatives or if alternatives were not available, to



cease operation.



        c.   Action Taken.



            This alternative  was rejected because of its extremely



high cost to the States and the injectors and because it deprives



the States of flexibility in dealing with different ground-water



environments.

-------
     3.  Promulgate Non-Restrictive Federal Regulations.



Under this alternative, EPA issues very loose regulations



in which underground injection is defined in a narrow sense



to mean only conventional industrial and municipal disposal



wells, of which there are about 390 in the United States.



This injection practice would be covered by rules specified



by the individual States.  The program would be implemented



over several years.  There would be no specifications with



regard to the quality of the ground-water into which fluids



could be injected.  There would be no stipulations by EPA



with regard to data requirements in the States, and similarly,



EPA would set no specifications with regard to competence



of personnel or the number of persons needed to make the pro-



gram effective on the State level.





         a.  Beneficial Impacts.



              (1)  This approach would have a minimal impact on



State budgets and institutions, because it would not represent



more than a minor departure from present State practices.



About 39 States already have some permitting programs for



conventional disposal wells, and only in the  remaining States



would new rules have to be issued to cover these facilities.



Finally, P.L. 92-500 already specifies a permitting program



for  this type of well.





              (2)  The  impact on the injectors would be  minimal



because very  little change of injection operations would be



required.







                           - 118 -

-------
         b.  Adverse Impacts.



             (1)  This approach would fall far short of achiev-



ing national uniformity on control of underground injection.



The existing wide disparities in State regulatory programs



would remain, which would mean that EPA would be unable to



carry out the elements of the program described in the Act.





             (2)  Little or nothing would have been accomplish-



ed with regard to protecting the quality of ground water



delivered by public water-supply systems, so that the level



of the threat to public health would not be reduced in any



significant way.  The problems faced by water-supply systems



in furnishing good water would remain as serious as before



or even become more serious.





          c.  Action Taken.



              This alternative was rejected because nonuni-



formity of controls and lack of adequate controls would not



improve the present level of public-health protection from



underground injection as required by Congress.





     4.  Promulgate Intermediate Federal Regulations.  In



the regulatory approach that was finally proposed, certain



compromises were made to minimize adverse impacts on States



and injectors,  while at the same time developing the require-



ments for State programs stipulated in the Act.  The defin-
                            - 119 -

-------
ition of underground injection adopted encompasses all drilled,
bored, driven or dug wells which function principally to emplace
fluids underground.  This would include waste-disposal wells/
injection wells associated with oil and gas production, and
urban run-off, agricultural drainage, and engineering wells.
A combination of permits and rules is stipulated, permits
being specified only for conventional injection wells, in-
jection wells related to oil and gas production, engineering
wells, and a combination of rules or permits for all other
types of underground injection.  The requirement for permits
for certain categories of injection wells is maintained because on-
going State and Federal programs already specify permits for most
of these installations.  Furthermore, it was the intent of
Congress that the Act not conflict with existing State and
Federal programs dealing with this practice.  Other underground
injection practices are to be covered by rules or permits, at
the discretion of the States, in order to provide maximum
flexibility in the implementation of the program.

     A system of rules in which general statements are speci-
fied, and which can be supported by enforcement authority con-
tained in the Act, is believed to be the most practical ap-
proach for certain types of injection practices because it
can cover a variety of conditions and can be adapted to dif-
ferent types of underground injection.  Also, rules must take
into account the need to protect the ground-water resources,
                           - 120 -

-------
as specified in the provisions of the Act.  In other words,



a rule is not intended to be a way of bypassing the intent



of Congress to protect the quality of ground water used by



public water-supply systems.






     Many States now have some kind of permitting system



applicable to certain types of underground injection, but



in some cases these permits are largely administrative and



may not provide the required degree of protection.  Conse-



quently, the rules to be adopted by the States will have to



contain language that is more restrictive than that of a



purely administrative permit.  For example, a State could



establish a rule stating that specific types of wastes will



be prohibited from being disposed of into underground for-



mations at certain types of facilities.  Or, a rule could be



promulgated to ban underground injection within specified




distances from a public water-supply facility.






     However, the UIC regulations provide the States with



some measure of flexibility in administrative and technical



controls.  For example, approved existing injection wells which



ultimately will require UIC permits, maybe permitted to



operate under State rules for up to five years, pending a re-



view of those facilities.  Also, aquifers or parts of aquifers



containing less than 10,000 mg/1 of dissolved solids, but



which are badly contaminated or are suitable mainly for oil or gas




production, may not be designated as potential drinking-water




sources,at the discretion of the States.








                           - 121 -

-------
Extension of well casings to depths where the water contains



3000 mg/1 of dissolved solids may be waived if use of the aquifer



as a drinking-water source is not endangered.





     The procedure for implementing the program will consist of



a listing of the States over a period of years.  In addition,



with respect to data requirements the States will maintain an



inventory of underground injection facilities, and will compile



additional information needed to define hazards to drinking-water



sources.  The level of reporting on monitoring activities would



be related to the relative hazards involved, and would be adjusted



to the individual site conditions and sources of contamination.





      a.  Beneficial Impacts.



           (1)  The regulations allow a high degree of flexibility



in State programs and require a minimum of changes in State in-



stitutions and administrative procedures, while at the same time



bringing all injection practices listed under control.  The re-



quirements for permits should not impose any substantial new



burden on State agencies.





           (2)  This approach is consistent with the provisions



of the Act because the State programs will have to meet the mini-



mal EPA requirements for protecting the quality of drinking water.
                           -122-

-------
           (3)  The costs of implementing the program, from the



viewpoints of both the States and the injectors, generally would



not be intolerable.  Few if any changes in State institutional



frameworks should be needed.






           (4)  An improved level of protection will be provided



for public health because dangerous sources of contamination will



be brought under control and public water-supply facilities using



ground water will be faced with fewer potential problems pertain-




ing to water quality.



     b.   Adverse Impacts.



           (1)  Because permit and rule procedures will differ



from State to State, there will be limited uniformity of procedures



throughout the nation.  This could hamper coordination and de-



cision-making with regard to particular types of ground-water



contamination problems.






           (2)  Some injectors would be put to increased expense



in order to meet the new regulatory requirements and to develop



alternative waste-disposal or treatment practices if their ex-



isting ones should be prohibited.






           (3)  Further degradation of ground-water quality would



be allowed wherever the threat of contamination of an actual or



potential public water-supply system is felt to be minimal.  In




some places, this could have adverse consequences for water users



other than those dependent on public water systems.
                             123 -

-------
     c.  Action Taken.

         This intermediate alternative is recommended because it

will provide new controls and additional support for State efforts

to control ground-water contamination.  Furthermore, it is antici-

pated that implementation will result in a minimum number of legal

challenges and the economic impact in terms of additional costs and

manpower requirements will be moderate.


C.  Summary.  In Section IIA, seven basic issues were discussed

involving interpretations of the provisions of the Act pertaining

to preparation of the State Underground Injection Control Program

regulations.  Various alternatives for each issue were considered.

In Section IIB, these issues were combined into three procedural

alternatives—a very restrictive one, a very loose one, and the

intermediate one that has been adopted in the regulations.  The
                                                              i
alternatives selected for the regulations under each issue repre-
                                          i
sent a combination of various restrictive, non-restrictive, and

intermediate choices.  Table 10 gives a summary showing which of

the choices were selected for each issue.


     The beneficial and adverse environmental impacts of the

regulations are discussed in detail in Section III.  The impacts

that might have been felt from the restrictive and non-restrictive

alternatives, if EPA had decided to take either of these ap-

proaches, are summarized in Tables 11 and 12.  Note that substan-

tial benefits would have accrued from the very restrictive

alternative, but none from the loose alternative.
                            - 124 -

-------

c
-S
4-> CD
O >
H -d C
« (U 0
O 10 -H
EH FTi
<; o
! i
D M
O 2
W W
CU
w o
M W
EH ^
*3j H
§Q

W O
£.4 j2j
Hi H
< Pi
D
W Q
33
EH Q
b. S
O W
Q
JH H
Pi CO
< Z
a o
a u
D
CO CO
w
1 Pi
• D

i — t W
u
Q) O
rH Pi
XJ ft
O 4->
ft (d
O i-H
SH 3
ft IT

O -H 10
H 4-1 fi
EH 0 O
< -H -H
M in 4-1
D 4-i id
O CO rH
W CD 3
« « o-
1 CD
U G Pi
H 0
D Z

W
33
EH



cu in
> c
•rl O
-P -r-t
U 4J
•H id
SH rH
4-1 3
(d CD DI
EH CU CD
Pi Pi
•d ,.
CD C ^
in -ri';d
id £ 5
0) -P 2
SH -H g
U S °
G y. tn
•H C *> -P
O fi
10 -H "O -rl
CD 4J C (C
T) O "* SH
•rH 0) -H 4->
> -P id to
O O Oi C
SH SH CD 0
ft fti-H O





CD
4-1
us
•rH
•O
cu
C
^)
CD
4J
C
H












c!
SH
id
Z












•d
fQ
o

«
i-l
rH
O
st

MH
0

C
0 G
•H 0
4J -H
•H -P
CD
3
in
to
H
fi 0
•H CU
m *r~\
CD c
Q -H
H



,V 10
c o
•H CJ

•d 3
0
•P to
to
O >H
g CD
4->

M 3
CD
^ D^
0 fi
U -H



Ijl ll
0 0

4J rH
fix
CD C7>
•p e
G
0 0
U 0
O 10
co - in
Q 0 CD
EH rH rH


CD
M 1
fi
G O
O 0
•H
4-» en
id Q
H EH
3

•H C
4-1 -H
10 -d 4J
o id a)
Z D>-P




CO
CD EH
S-l

tn o
^
CD m
•P 10 4J
id cu fi
5 H CD
•d -P
H M G
rH 10 O
< tn O
cp I
C 0
•rl rH
X ft
c
•H >i
SH 4J
•d-rl

MH id
0 3
eye
W O
H SH -H
CD CD 4-1
> 4J U
(U id CD
Hi S -P
CN


u
•H
fi g
0 O
U -H C
-rl 4-> O
rH U O
XI CD CD
3 -P
ft O -P
!H 10
to ft id
CD CD
TJ .fi rH
-rl 4J

O Id 4-1
SH CD 'H
ft.fi S
O 1
G -P
id
MH Q)
•H SH
4-1
G -d
0 H CU
•rl Id "O
•P G CD
Id O CD
•d -H fi
id 4J
rl -H 4J
Cn-d C
Q) -d CD
Q id g


O 1
fi -P
id
MH (U
•H SH
•p
C T3
O r-l CD
•rl Id -d
•P fi 0)
id o cu
•d -H c
id 4-1
SH -rl 4J
CT* 'd fi
CD "6 CD
Q id g





c
o
•H
4-1
id
•d
id
M
CD
•d

o




MH
O SH
CD
4J -P
fi id
(U $
fi O1
CD C 10
Ol-rl 4H
U CD
Id 4-1 -P
ft to id
g CD -P
•H 0) V)
in
CD
H
MH 3
O SH

fi 'd
0 G
•rl Id
4-1
id in
C -P
•H -rl
X) g

0 CD
U ft










CD
rH
3
SH
rH
rH
rtj








4J
-H


CD
ft

i-H
rH
<


1
id
i-H
3
CJi
CD
}^l
MH
0

to ui
cu c
ft 0

EH 4J
*
- 125
to
4-1
G 1 C
•H SH -H
id CD
SH MH to
4-1 MH CD
en -H 4J
C T) id
O 4J
o to co
CD
O N G
•H -H -H
g c
o tr> in
c o CD
o o cj
U Q) C
W Pi CD








*d cu
CD 4-1
SH Id
CD 'H
cji *d
Cn CD
2 i
4-1 6
CO H









rH
•O id
CD -H
M -P
CD G
CT> CD
CJi 3
id O1
4J 0
co co






to
3
O
CD CD
fi 4J
id id
•P -H
I-H -d
3 CD
g §
•rl g
CO H

1
fi
0)
§MH
o
H

g C CO 5 C
•H -H Q) )H -H
4J 4-1 CJI O>
g to id 0 id
(3 C -H 4J >H 4J
H O Hi CO ft 01
OI-H
0 -P
Mm-
ft 4J < 0)
in
_

g
SH
^
O

ft

MH
0

ft
3
|
4-1
SH
id
4J
to






































































to
O CD
4-1 -rl
4J
CD -rl
rH rH
XI -rl
id xi
•P Id
ft ft
id id
•d u
id
0)
•p -P
tn id
0 4J
S en
1 0

0)
ft CD
-P
SH Id
O SH
MH CD
rrj
73 O
Q) g
rH
•rl ^ W
id in CD
4-> -P H
CU-rl 3
Q g M










CD
4-1
id
CD
•d
0
S










•d
CD
rH
•H
tO
4J
CD
Q


^1
X)

C
0
•H
4J
id
4->

to
§CD
•P
0 Id
0 4J
Q en
VO



to
CD
1 -H
CU 4-1
t3 **~t
id H
•rl
CD X)
> id
id ft
si rd
o
tn
0) CU
4-1 -P
id id
-P 3
en D1
to
fi
o
•H
•p
id
u
-rl
MH
•H
O
0)
ft
to

O
Z


tn
C
0
-rl
4J
id
o
•H
MH
•H
O
CU
ft
to
O
Z





SH rH
O CD
MH C
C
•d o
CD in
•H (H
38,
u
CD i-H
ftH
CO 10



i-H
CD
fi
fi tn
O 4-1
W C
V4 CD
CD E
ft CD
l^
CD -H
•P 3
id ty
4J CD
CO H
rl


-------


























EH
2
W
S
2 W
O >
OH H
H EH
^ i^
2 2
W K
W
W EH
S3 rj
EH rtj

2 W
O >
CO EH
EH U
U H
< K
ft EH
S to
H W
1
w
. «
H^
*""! &
0
i ro W
M T3 "M
(8 d U
g O d)
• H y O MH
M ° 0) in
Pu to pq
(!) MH
H O
Q) XI
rH (04-1
X! > d tn
(0 0) 0) 0)
> -rH e u

•H O 4-1 -rl 3
M 0) g O
4J SH g w
0) MOO)
p^ H C-) Bl


0) W
rH 0)
 O
rH -H C M
xt tn d) 3
H H g 0
tn >-) (1) 4J U3
>H O > -rl 0)
CU CD g OH
^ ^ K
CD rH O 4H
B; MOO


1
1 -U
Cn >H 6
d rH O (H
o 0 jc, <$
(-3 CO 4J







Beneficial
or
Adverse
Impacts






4-1
C
0)
g
£J
0
!H
•H
*>
C
W




4-1
en s s






O-i tO tO










I5?  3
0 rH 0)
»H rH W
a o 3
g a i
•H >i »o tn
•P SH CO)
'H -rH -rH (0 -H
C rH fO •-) -P
fO (0 *H
3 cu cu d
4-J tr tn tn 3
U (0 (0 -P
CU in CU 0) »H
•P CU >H C !H 0
o 4-> u o u a
!H fO d -H d a
(Xi 3 M 4-1 M 0
1 1 1
CQ < CQ











j_i
Q) T3
4-1 SH C
(C -tH n3
3 <: M





2 I S






to i to










< i <
2 1 2













M 1 M









r-3 1 r-3



r-H
(0
O
•rH
-P CU
fO 14H
CU -H
SH rH
U T3
Q) rH
SH -rH
t~K
B-Increase
benefits
B-Improve v
habitats






d
o
•rH 1
4-1 ro SH
(0 > (0
•rH 0) TJ
> -H C
(D SH O
SH 4-> U
X> 0 0) Q)
XI CU rH K tO
< rH X!
XI (0 •» •» -P
UH (0 O d> 6 C rH
0 > Ei -H rH in (0 (0
Q) JH r-H XI i-H EH -rH 0) O
0 SH EH a SH yi 4n tn -iH
•H 4-1 SH *£ rrj SH 4-i *H SH ^
4-J 0)tV>O gCUSHCCUO)
fTj rH Cl C -M "H ^ O O1 K> C
C ^ C *H O M Q) X« *H ^ CJ

-_J
a i i i i i i i i i i
X

!2 CO







- 126 -

-------



























EH
2
W W
S >
1-7 L_j
r^-4 r^
O EH
« <
M 2
> «
2 W
W EH
hi
W <
S3
EH W
>
2 M
O H
U
CO hH
EH «
0 EH

C
(d m
U S-I 4-1
•H O U
4-1 SH C 0)
•rH O -H HH
C S 4H
tn W
•rH
CO
>i
in
>i (d tn
SH T3 4J
fd CO
g SH 0 (U
•H 0 U 4H
S-I 0) 4H
(X CO W
0) 4-1
rH 0

Xi > c tn
(d Q) (D  ••-( g u
0) SH SH -P SH
•rH O -P -H 3
SH 0) g 0
-P rH g 01
0) SH O (U
05 H cj cr5

d> W
rH 0)
a) xi 4-> o
rH -H C SH
xi tn a) 3
•H SH g O
tn s-i a) 4-) tn
SH O > -rH a)
0) 0) g C5
> >H g
a) SH 0 4-1
ee; H u o



i
1 4->
Cn SH g
C S-i 0 SH
0 O x; 0)
hi CO 4-)













rH
id
H 0) W
U tn 4-1
H S-i SH U
itH 0 (U id
0) > Cu
c -a g

c
w





S I i







CM 1 1










,< \ 1
2 1 1











05 1 1











hi 1 1





4J
C
Q)
g >i
0) 4->
> -H
O rH
t, IT*
W 'U
ft 3
g D1
•rH
SH
g  1 1
g (d i i
•H ?
C
•rH 14H
S 0
1
<









SH
0) T5
•P SH G
(d -H fd
5 rtl hi





i i i




>


I I i










i i I
i I I











i I I











i i i
















i I i
i i i
I i i












C
O
•rH (U
-P 4H
/d -rt
Q; 0) rH
SH tn T!
U --H rH
OJ O -H
C5 2 S





1 1 1







1 1 1










1 1 1
1 1 1











1 1 1











1 1 1
















1 1 1
1 1 1
1 1 1








4H
4H
0
c
tn 3
Q) 05
•P tn i
tn a) HJ
(d -a C
S -H -H
0 0
•a -H a
•H 4-1 1
rH tn C
0 Q) O
CO CM 2





1







1










1
1











1











1
















|
1
1







- rH
u (d
-H O
SH -H
0 OT\
-P O
W rH
•H O
£5 <1J
A
- O
U SH
•H (d 01
q a)
0) T3 4-1
U C -H
CO fd M


























































w
c
0
•rH
4-1
id
•H
>
a)
SH
XI Q)
X) rH
< XI
(d
l*H U Q)
O g -H rH
SH rH XJ
C 0) Q) ft >i-H
0 tn EH ft SH to
•H SH SH < id SH
4J (U en O g (U
fd > C C 4-' -H >
c t3 o -H o rH a)
(d < J S 2 CM «
rH
ft 1 1 1 1 1 1
X
w < hi s < a< «
a






- 127 -

-------
III.  ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION.

A.  Effects on Water.
    1.  Underground Sources of Drinking Water.  More than 70
billion gallons of ground water are pumped daily in the United
States for all uses, but predominantly  for public-water supply and
irrigation.  Consequently, because the Act deals with the pro-
tection of drinking-water sources, a paramount beneficial impact
of the regulations will be an enhancement of the quality of the
human environment, in that drinking-water quality will be im-
proved.  In particular, better water quality will benefit public
health by reducing possibilities for outbreaks of the kinds of
waterborne diseases and chemical poisoning discussed previously
in Section IA1.

        Undoubtedly, the number of unknown or unreported inci-
dents of harmful effects of contaminated water on health is many
times greater than those reported officially.  Moreover, there
are many contaminants in water such as  detergents, phenols, heavy
metals, and  sulfates that may not directly cause disease but  are
objectionable because of taste, odor, or long-term accumulation
effects in the body.  Thus, it is apparent  that there  is consider-
able  room  for improvement  in the quality of  ground water serving
public-water supplies,  and that the regulations constitute  a
step  forward in reducing harmful or objectionable effects on
public health.

     From  the broader viewpoint of  overall  quality  of ground


                             - 128 -

-------
water in the nation, the implementation of the regulations should
do much to reverse the chemical degradation of aquifers that has
taken place stemming from carelessness or lack of knowledge of
underground injection practices.  Plumes of highly  contaminated
ground water have been detected beneath and downgradient from
many existing and abandoned underground injection facilities
throughout the country.  By bringing under new and better con-
trol the estimated tens of thousands of sources of  contamina-
tion of this kind, a greater awareness will be achieved concern-
ing the contamination of ground water resulting from improper
construction and operation of these underground injection systems.
Setting up water-quality restrictions for injection zones and
stringent requirements for constructing, operating, and monitor-
ing underground injection devices and practices will help elimin-
ate or retard the growth of many older plumes  of wastes, as well
as prevent or minimize the development of new ones.

        The language of State permit or rule procedures should be
formulated in a way that operators of waste-disposal facilities
do not gain the impression that underground injection is a more
acceptable practice than they had previously believed or that it
should be adopted as a cheaper alternative to more costly treat-
ment.  Underground injection will be conducted when it can be
shown that it is the most environmentally acceptable method of
protecting the environment.  When injection is not employed, all
discharges must meet surface-water standards.
                            - 129 -

-------
    2.  All Other Waters.



        a-  Fresh Surface Water.  Controlled underground injection,



as prescribed by the regulations, will in many places be an en-



vironmentally safer alternative method of disposal than direct



discharge into surface waters, which is widely practiced at pre-



sent.  In such places, resorting to underground injection will



reduce the volume and content of contaminants discharged directly



into streams, thereby improving stream quality.  Also, flood con-



trol will be improved in smaller streams, where effluent discharge



now represents a significant proportion of the flood flow.





            Where existing underground injection activities are



curtailed or banned under the UIC program, and where suitable



alternative methods of disposal are available, the quality of the



water now seeping out of the ground to make up the base flows of



streams will gradually improve, leading to an overall improvement



in surface-water quality.  In this connection, it should be noted



that discharge of waste waters  into streams will not be allowed



except under an NPDES permit, which will assume that the effluent



meets prevailing stream-quality standards.





            The headwaters and  other parts of  intermittent streams



in arid and semi-arid regions commonly go dry  in non-rainy seasons,



except where the flow is sustained by inflow of sewage  and other



effluents  (for  example,  in parts of Arizona and New Mexico).   If,



as a result of  the  regulations,  the effluents  were to be  disposed



of through wells, parts  of the  streams would go dry  for longer
                            - 130 -

-------
intervals between periods of rain.  The impact would vary in



degree, but generally should not be too significant, since



these types of streams commonly lose most or all of their flow



naturally through the stream bottom into underlying shallow



aquifers.  In humid regions, cessation of effluent discharge



into the headwaters could also cause those parts of the stream



channel to go dry for longer periods.  However, part of the




water from shallow injection facilities that enters the aquifer



near the headwaters of the stream could reappear as seepage in



the channel farther down gradient.






             Non-point runoff of storm water to rivers or to



the sea generally will not be impacted by implementation of



these regulations.  Where storm  runoff is conducted through



artificial ditches and channels to a drain well, contamination



from the drain well to underlying aquifers will require stricter



surveillance and control under the proposed regulations and,



thereby, benefit ground-water quality by preventing or reducing



contamination.





              Non-point runoff in agricultural areas that



contains pesticides, nitrates, and herbicides could come under



regulatory control where such runoff is conducted to drainage



wells that penetrate underlying shallow aquifers.






          b.   Coastal Waters.  Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf



coastal waters represent billions of dollars in value in
                           - 131 -

-------
tourism, fishing, boating, and other recreational activities.



In such places, where underground injection is authorized under



the UIC program as a preferred alternative to discharge of



waste effluents into coastal waters, those waters will receive



reduced loads of contaminants such as pathogens, toxins, nu-



trients, and other dissolved minerals.  Improvements of this



kind are already being noted in Florida, where large amounts



of treated sewage effluent are now being injected underground



instead of being discharged through ocean outfalls.  Also, any



improvement in the quality of streams discharging into coastal



waters that results from the UIC regulations will help to im-



prove the quality of those coastal waters.  No significant ad-



verse impacts are anticipated.





         c.  Wetlands.  The proposed regulations will protect



wetlands against further degradation from poorly operated and



controlled shallow injection systems.  Because the water table



is close to the land surface in wetland areas, shallow in-



jection wells often do not operate efficiently, and may over-



flow and leak contaminants to the land surface.  Supervision



and control of these facilities under the regulations will



result in either shutdown of or improvement in the operation



of defective systems.





          Some short-term damage or destruction of wetland vege-



tation could result locally during construction of injection
                           - 132 -

-------
devices, such as  brine-disposal wells and secondary recovery




wells, which are supporting facilities for oil and gas well fields



located in or near coastal wetlands.  Wetlands contamination can



be minimized and reduced by careful housekeeping operations and



subsequent reclamation programs.





B.  Effects on the Non-Water Environment.



    1.  Air.  Pumping operations for deep and shallow well injec-



tion will not result in air pollution except on a very minor scale.



Most pumps are electrically driven and only a small number are



powered by gasoline or diesel powered engines.  Moreover, many



underground injection processes  are gravity controlled and do not



require pumping.





        Controlling underground  injection should not cause any



major shifts in industry or population that would result in a



shift in air-pollution patterns, because many of these existing



injection operations most likely will be approved by State regu-



latory agencies, or sufficient time will be granted to upgrade



or shut down these systems in accordance with the UIC requirements.



Dust, noise, and fumes from vehicles used during the construction



and operation of new injection facilities will have only minor



secondary adverse impacts on air quality locally, which can be



minimized by careful construction and operational practices.



The minor adverse secondary impacts on air quality will be far



outweighed by the beneficial effects of improved water quality.
                            - 133 -

-------
     2.  Land.  Insofar as injection of fluids in wells



                 will be under closer supervision of reg-



ulatory agencies than at present, land resources in the vi-



cinity of those facilities will be less impacted by careless



spills or storage of contaminants on the land surface, dis-



persal of wastes by overland runoff, or by seepage to the land



surface of contaminated ground water where the water table



is at very shallow depth.  Overall improvement in water qual-



ity resulting from compliance with the regulations should



tend to enhance local land values.





          However, where saline brine or other contaminants



are accidentally spilled on the land surface in the vicinity



of injection wells, some soils and soil bacteria would be



destroyed because of the high concentrations of the contaminants.





           Some land would be taken out of general use to



build disposal facilities but this would represent only a



very small percentage of the land used for other productive



purposes on a nation-wide basis.  Some soil would be removed on a



one-time basis during excavation of wells but this material could



be used for fill elsewhere.  Likewise, the wells themselves,



could be backfilled and the land reclaimed for other purposes



if the facilities were shut down.





       3.  Recreation, Solid Wastes, and Pesticides



            a.  Recreation.  Many recreational ponds, lakes,
                           - 134 -

-------
and streams in the eastern and central parts of the country



are hydraulically connected to the water table and, conse-



quently, receive inflow from shallow aquifers.  Because the



regulations are designed to upgrade the quality of under-



ground drinking-water sources, the quality of such inter-



connected surface-water bodies would also be improved.  This,



in turn, would provide better aesthetic and healthful water-



.quality conditions for swimming, fishing, camping, and drinking-



water purposes in recreational areas.





         b.  Solid Wastes. Although thousands of unregulated



or partly regulated landfills of all types are major point



sources of ground-water contamination, these regulations



should have little effect on the practices of solid-waste



disposal.  These regulations will impact such practices



only if: (1) leachate from a landfill is collected and in-



jected through a well, and (2) if the regulations produce a



shift from injection of some fluids to land filling of the



same fluids.





         c.  Pesticides and Herbicides.  Pesticide and herb-



icide application would not be significantly impacted by the



regulations.  However, liquid pesticides or waste products



from pesticide manufacture which are disposed of in in-



jection wells,will come under the regulations.





     4.  Miscellaneous Activities.
         a.  Wildlife.  Fish and animals that depend on streams



and lakes connected to shallow aquifers for drinking water will





                       -  135 -

-------
benefit from a health viewpoint as a result of improved ground-



water quality.  Similarly, plants whose roots tap shallow water



tables will benefit from the maintenance or improvement of the



quality of ground water stemming from compliance with the proposed



regulations.





            Construction and operation of injection facilities



that are patrolled or fenced may restrict the movement of or other-



wise temporarily or permanently disturb natural habitats of some



wildlife in scattered areas.  The adverse impacts of such distur-



bances would generally be outweighed by the potential for improve-



ment in water quality from properly regulated injection practices.





        b.  Scenic and Historic Places.  Little or no impacts are



anticipated on scenic or historic places because of the flexi-



bility in locating most injection well facilities.  The chances



that some of the  tens  of  thousands  of  existing or proposed



injection facilities could penetrate historical or archeo-



 logically valuable materials is very small  on a nationwide



basis.  Contacting appropriate State or county agencies can pro-



vide some advance warning of possible problems of this kind on  a



site-by-site basis.  This will permit adjustment  of the location



of the facilities, where feasible, or scheduling  of visits by



specialists to collect important  items and  other  data  of  interest



in these categories.
                              - 136 -

-------
C.  Effects on Non-Federal Governmental Agencies.
    1.  Effects on State Institutions.  The long-term impact of
the regulations on the institutional frameworks of the States
should not be severe, although initially some reorganization and
additions of manpower may be needed.  The regulations conform to
many State constitutional capabilities, so that it is anticipated
few State legislative changes will be needed in order to allow
the States to participate in the program.  Moreover, many exist-
ing State agencies should be able to implement the UIC program
by assigning the new duties to the most qualified departments or
units.  Section lEc of this report discusses the current status
of State injection regulations and controls.

        In a broad sense, the additional work that the States will
have to undertake in order to participate in the program can be
grouped under several major headings, each of which is discussed
below:

        a.  Initial Preparation of the State Program.  The regula-
tions stipulate that each State is to prepare a plan or program
for implementation of the underground injection control program
and that this plan is then to be submitted to EPA for approval.
In order for a State to establish a technical foundation for its
program, certain preliminary knowledge of the ground-water en-
vironment must be available.  Few States have thus far made a
detailed evaluation of their ground-water resources, and knowledge
of the chemical content of the ground water, both natural and
                            - 137 -

-------
contaminated, in all parts of a State commonly is fragmentary



or only poorly defined.  Thus, in order to participate in the



UIC program, at least some States will have to undertake studies




and investigations to determine which aquifers are suitable for



drinking-water sources and which are suitable for receiving




contaminated fluids.  Making these decisions will not be an easy



task in some localities, because an aquifer may be a drinking-



water source in one locality and may contain highly saline water



in another.  Because the line or boundary separating the fresh and



salty zones in such aquifers is not fixed in space and can be



shifted as a result of pumping from wells, a State may have dif-



ficulty in being able to rigidly classify aquifers or parts of



aquifers with respect to use for underground injection.






            The acquisition of basic data on the geologic and



hydrologic elements of the ground-water situation is commonly a



task calling for years or decades of study by State geological



surveys, by Federal agencies such as the U.S. Geological Survey,



and by universities and consultants.  Thus, it may be necessary



for some States entering the program to rely on a preliminary



description of the hydrogeologic environment and to take steps to



gradually revise and upgrade this description.  It is realized that



even under the best of circumstances not all of the States will




be able to develop a clear and concise picture of their ground-



water recources at the very outset of the UIC program.
                             - 138 -

-------
            The regulations prescribe procedures for holding



public hearings in the States prior to adoption of the program,



and also indicate what steps have to be taken in the event that the




first draft of the program does not conform with requirements.



These initial setting-up activities will necessitate a certain



degree of cooperation among existing State institutions, a review



of State statutes and legal constraints, a definition of new man-



power and budgetary needs, and in some instances reassignment of



duties among State institutions so that they will be able to carry



out the regulatory program once primacy is granted.  As noted, the




new responsibilities should not constitute a problem in States that



are already organized to handle a variety of regulatory programs.






         b. Permitting Procedures and Recordkeeping.  The burden



of instituting procedures for issuing permits, writing rules, and



organizing the day-to-day recordkeeping and supervision will



differ from State to State.  In States where the capability for



issuing such regulations and for handling the more routine parts



of the program already exists, implementation of the UIC regula-



tions should not cause severe disruption.






             In States where little or no attention has been paid



in the past to ground-water contamination, it may be necessary to



organize new units or departments in order to develop an accept-



able program.  Typically, such a department would have to maintain



central files containing information on injectors, the engineer-



ing details of injection facilities, the types and quantities of
                             - 139 -

-------
fluids being injected, the monitoring procedures being followed by



the injector, periodic reports from injectors, and similar matters.



In States that have few underground injection facilities, the



amount of recordkeeping will be minimal.  In highly industralized



States and in States heavily involved in oil and gas production,



the situation can be much more complicated because hundreds of



underground injection systems will come under scrutiny.





         c.  Monitoring and Enforcement.  Monitoring and enforcement



of the provisions of the regulations will call for an increase in



workload in some States.  In those States having few injection fac-



ilities, providing field inspection should not be a problem.  In



other States, however, it will be necessary to organize field



operations for visiting, inspecting, and monitoring underground



injection facilities on a continuing basis.  In addition to staff-



ing requirements, vehicles must be provided and budgetary outlays



must be made for travel and field expenses for such activities.





             The regulations also stipulate that enforcement is a



responsibility of the States, and that each State shall develop pro-



cedures for halting or eliminating injection practices that endanger



underground drinking-water sources.  Suggested procedures for actions



to be taken by the States would involve filing law suits, levying



fines, and other actions to halt or abate injection practices which



endanger underground drinking-water sources.  When these procedures



are adopted, the State will have to utilize the services of its



attorneys and legal departments.
                              _ 140 -

-------
         3.  staffing Requirements.  Trained ground-water specialists



will be needed to oversee and evaluate underground injection opera-



tions.  Although many permitting systems throughout the country



are quite routine, in the sense that an applicant has to submit



only a limited amount of information in order to receive a permit,



this approach will not be acceptable in the case of the UIC pro-



gram.  The emplacement of contaminated fluids in the subsurface



environment is not well understood by most people, and can be



evaluated only by specialists intimately familiar with the occur-



rence and behavior of ground-water resources.  To develop a mean-



ingful program for underground injection, knowledge of hydrology,



geochemistry, geology, and the hydraulic behavior of aquifer systems



is needed.  Thus, although much of the routine work to be done in



connection with the program will be clerical and administrative,



the intent of the regulations will not be fulfilled unless com-



petent ground-water personnel exercise close control in evaluating



applications for underground injection facilities and their



operations.





              Locating the necessary people to fill these positions



in State agencies may be a problem in some States, unless they can



be reassigned from other jobs within the existing institutional



framework.  In recent years, with the increased emphasis on con-



trol of water contamination, the demand for skilled specialists has



risen accordingly.  The National Water Well Association and others



have pointed out that there is only a limited pool of skilled



manpower available,  and that universities will have to expand their









                              - 141 -

-------
training programs if the quality of technical personnel is to



keep pace with new regulatory requirements.   Consequently, it is



anticipated that at the outset not all of the States will be able



to provide the highest level of professional supervision needed



to fully conform with the requirements of the regulations.





             No in-depth study has been made of how much additional



effort will be required on a State-by-State  basis to conform with



the regulations for the underground injection control program.



However, some indication of the kinds and numbers of personnel



that will be needed by the States to carry out the provisions of



the UIC program is given by the results of previous manpower



studies that are outlined below.





         1.  Manpower Study for P.L. 92-500.  A study made for EPA



by Abt Associates, Inc., entitled "Manpower and Training Needs of



State Water Pollution Control Agencies", was designed to measure



the human resource impact of P.L. 92-500.  Specifically, it was



aimed at providing systematic information on the numbers and types



of State agency personnel needed to implement P.L. 92-500 and



the needs for training of such personnel.





             The approach followed by the investigators basically



was to identify how many sources of contamination might have to



be evaluated in each State and then to define the numbers of



personnel that would be needed.  Their conclusion, based on



estimates provided by the Manpower Planning Branch of EPA, was
                             - 142 -

-------
that about 2,700 technical and support personnel would be required




in the 50 States to cope with all of the provisions of P.L.  92-500.



As would be expected, States having the most pollution sources



had the largest manpower requirements.  California, for example,



needed 117 people; Illinois, 106; Michigan, 100; New York, 109;



and Pennsylvania, 116.  At the other end of the scale, South



Dakota, Vermont, New Hampshire, Delaware, and Hawaii required



about 27 people each.





             It should be kept in mind that the foregoing



manpower estimates applied to all of the provisions of P.L. 92-



500, and that the manpower needs for the UIC program should be



substantially smaller.  In some States that are already heavily



involved in control of underground injection practices, there may



be little or no need for additional staffing,





         2.  The Model Ground Water Law Study.  The National



Water Well Association, under a contract with EPA, has examined



the overall problem faced by the States in protecting ground-water



resources, and has drafted a hypothetical Model Law and Regulations



on how a State, under an ideal situation, could organize itself



along these lines.  This hypothetical Model Law was written in



response to the ground-water requirements of P.L. 92-500.  The



findings of the study, as discussed below, give some indication



of what the States might have to do if they decide to incorporate



the objectives of the UIC program with a complete plan to control
                             - 143 -

-------
all ground-water activities.






                NWWA recognizes that the Model Law in its entirety



is far too ambitious to fit easily into existing State institu-



tional frameworks, because ideally it would call for creation of



a new consolidated State agency concerned specifically with



ground water.  Thus, from a practical viewpoint, adjustments could



somehow be covered by existing institutional arrangements.  This



in turn would accentuate the need for planning and coordination



among the numerous State departments involved with water, and



NWWA believes that this would necessitate creation of a special



planning and coordination section in the State.  This section



would identify critical ground-water areas, investigate methods



of controlling and preventing pollution and contamination, make



recommendations concerning policy and legislation, coordinate



activities with the involved agencies, and compile and dissem-



inate information, along with other similar tasks.





                Other sections of the ideal State agency deal with



permits, monitoring and data collection, enforcement, and re-



search.  The requirements for these sections would differ from



State to State, again depending on the intensity of the effort



needed.  In all likelihood, most States would delegate the dif-



ferent functions to existing departments or sections, while



establishing some sort of overall coordinating procedures.





    2.  Effects on Local Governmejnt.  Local governments at the



county and city level may  be impacted by the regulations in
                              - 144 -

-------
several ways.  First, certain types of underground injection



systems, such as                           urban runoff drainage



wells, and conventional municipal disposal wells are owned and



operated by local governments who may have to upgrade some



facilities in accordance with UIC regulations.  Secondly, county



and city Departments of Health and Environmental Protection may



be delegated the responsibility by some State agencies to hold



hearings and issue permits on local facilities.  Therefore, under



the UIC program, the States will have to play a coordinating rule



with these local agencies in the permitting and inspecting pro-



cedures of the regulations.  This may require small increases in



local budgets and manpower needs.





         3.  Effects on Interstate Agencies.  Existing interstate



relationships and interstate agencies could be impacted to some



degree by the regulations.  Because many aquifers extend across



State lines, variations in the application of the proposed reg-



ulations by adjoining States may result in varied impacts on the



water quality, according to the looseness or rigidity of the in-



dividual State's UIC program.





          In addition, there are about a dozen interstate water-



pollution control or water-regulatory agencies in the United



States that are concerned directly or indirectly with control of



water quality in their respective river basins.  These agencies



range in size from bi-state associations, such as the Klamath



River Compact Commission, composed of California and Oregon, to
                            - 145 -

-------
large organizations, like ORSANCO, which is composed of eight



States, or the Delaware River Basin Commission, which includes



the Federal government as well as four States.





        Several of the interstate commissions are already involved



with preventing water contamination by underground injection.



For example, ORSANCO has prepared regulations on deep-well injec-



tion and the Delaware River Basin Commission has a formal published



policy which gives the Commission substantial authority to pre-



vent or abate ground-water contamination.  Thus, some existing



interstate commissions that are already conforming with the



spirit of the UIC regulations may not have to increase the inten-



sity of their controls, whereas some will have to develop controls



for the first time, particularly where the interest has been



mainly in controlling surface-water quality.  In either case, these



agencies might need additional funds and staff under the UIC



program.





        Some commissions may have legal, policy, and technical



difficulties in controlling contamination where some of their



member States have received primacy under UIC regulations and



others have not.  This problem will be even more complicated where



the Federal government is a participating member of an interstate



commission.
                              -  146  -

-------
D.  Effects on Federal Agencies.



    1.  Environmental Protection Agency.



        a.  Office of Water Supply.  The regulatory program will



have an effect on the operations of this office, because EPA's




role will be to provide assistance and guidance to the States.  It



is not anticipated that EPA will have to administer the UIC pro-



gram in any State.  Nevertheless, some additional manpower re-



sources will be required at increased cost to the Federal govern-



ment to provide necessary coordination with regional offices, other



Federal agencies, other EPA programs, and the States.  Impacts on



the Office of Water Supply that do develop in response to the



regulations will be long-term.






        b.  Other EPA Offices.  It will be necessary to increase



the number of technically competent ground-water specialists in




the EPA regional offices to provide technical assistance and guid-



ance needed by the States.  It is anticipated that these new people



will not be available initially because it is estimated that there



are only about 1,000 such specialists in the United States now.



Moreover, nearly all are presently employed, and competition for



them will come from the States and from industry.  However, the



demand eventually will be filled as new individuals acquire the



training necessary to meet the job requirements.






           The proposed program should have some effects on other



EPA offices.  The most significant one will be the increased compe-



tition for available resources of manpower and money.
                             - 147 -

-------
     2.  Other Federal Agencies.  As is generally the case with



new legislation, some conflicts will be found to exist with pre-



vious Federal laws ans regulations.  A potential area of conflict



will be, for example, with the Mineral Leasing Acts, under which



the Department of Interior has the responsibility for regulating



oil and gas activities on Federal land.  Conflicts also may arise



from the application of the regulations to Indian lands.  Another



area of potential conflict will be in States which presently do



not have authority over the handling and disposal of radioactive



liquids, even on private land.  Where States have not assumed



this authority, it rests with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,



which then licenses underground injection facilities.





E.  Effects on Well Injection Practices.  As discussed in Section



II, a variety of types of underground injection systems are in-



cluded under the underground injection control regulations.  These



include waste-disposal wells and engineering wells, injection wells



related to oil and gas production and drainage wells.  The antici-



pated effects of the proposed regulations on each of these types



of underground injection are summarized below.





      1.  Waste-Disposal Wells and Engineering Wells.  The reg-



ulations contain a detailed coverage of conventional industrial



and municipal injection wells.  Primarily, this is because con-



siderable thought and effort have been given to the development



of such regulations by a number of State, interstate, and



Federal agencies over the past 15 years, thereby providing
                             - 148 -

-------
 substantial background material that could be used in the formula-
 tion of  that portion of the UIC regulations.

         A reflection of this is the EPA policy statement on sub-
 surface  emplacement of fluids  (ADS-5), which contains provisions
 and  requirements selected from among those employed by various
 States and suggested by numerous specialists in injection well
 technology.  The Congress viewed provisions of this policy state-
 ment as  applicable to the UIC regulations, as evidenced by state-
 ments in the House Report  (93 "1185, p. 29 and 31) that the Congress
 intended that EPA would use the policy guidelines and types of
 measures included in that document as a basis for the regulations.
 Because  of the history that preceded the development of the UIC
 regulations relating to industrial and municipal injection wells,
 it is not anticipated that the regulations will substantially alter
 current  practices relating to those wells.

         The regulations require permits for new and existing con-
ventional industrial and municipal wells; most existing wells of these
types in the country are presently under State permit. The water pol-
lution Control  Amendments of 1972 require that,  for a State to have
authority to -administer its own NPDES permit program, it must have
the authority to issue permits for disposal of contaminated fluids
into wells.   Twenty-four States have NPDES program authority and
an additional 15 States are known to have existing drilled, cased,
and cemented disposal wells under some form of State permit.  In
these 39 States, the proposed permit requirements should present
                            -  149  -

-------
little difficulty for existing injectors, since most of the States



allowing such wells now have technical requirements similar to



those in the UIC regulations.





        The regulations require provisions for notice of all UIC



permit applications to the public, to any persons or groups re-



questing notices, to other appropriate Federal, State, and local



government agencies, to other potentially affected States, to



appropriate interstate agencies, and to foreign countries.  Also,



public hearings on UIC permit applications are required if there



is significant public interest.  The requirements for notice and



public hearings go beyond the scope of present procedures in all



States, as far as is known, and will add to the administrative



burden of the injector as well as to the State and may cause



some delay in processing permits.





        The regulations provide that no permit for a conventional



industrial or municipal injection well will be issued unless it



is shown that the resulting injection will not endanger drinking-



water sources.  The provision against endangerment of drinking-



water sources should not greatly affect present practices.  Most



such wells are now injecting into aquifers with dissolved-solids



contents greater than 10,000 mg/1 and, if properly constructed



and operated, will not endanger drinking-water sources.  In a



few cases, injection is into aquifers containing brackish water,



but with less than 10,000 mg/1 TDS.  These injectors will have to



show that well injection does not endanger drinking-water sources.
                            - 150 -

-------
       Several technical requirements are proposed for UIC per-



mits.  These are generally consistent with present practice or



else are minor administrative requirements that should not greatly



interfere with the existing injectors or place undue burden on



new ones.  One requirement that is mentioned in the House Report



(p. 30), and also in the regulations, is the provision for ade-



quate financial resources to deal with injection systems that



are improperly abandoned or that may otherwise cause contamina-



tion of drinking-water sources.  Most States now require bonds



to assure adequate well plugging upon abandonment.  However, there



is no known precedent for bonds or liabilities that would be



adequate to deal with a major ground-water contamination problem.





        The requirements for recording and reporting the results



of monitoring by the injector are within the scope of present



practices.  The provision that such records be kept by the injector



for a minimum of 5 years after a well is abandoned should have



only a minor impact.





        The requirements discussed above for conventional industrial



and municipal wells apply also to shallow municipal and industrial



wells, subsidence control wells, salt-water intrusion barrier wells,



ground-water recharge wells, solution-mining wells, gas-storage



wells, and geothermal wells.  Solution-mining wells are presently



subject to nearly the same requirements as conventional indus-



trial and municipal injection wells in Michigan and are under



some form of control in several other States where they are used.
                            - 151 -

-------
The proposed regulations will have some adverse impact on all



solution-mining wells by increasing their cost and delaying their



construction.  The prime concern for regulating these wells is



not the mining process used but the method by which the secondary



water and spent solution are disposed.  Generally, this solution



is reinjected into the aquifer from which it comes or into an-



other aquifer.  These reinjection practices must be controlled



to prevent endangerment of drinking-water sources.





         Regulations of the type specified have not generally



been applied previously to subsidence control wells, sea-water



intrusion barrier wells, or ground-water recharge wells used for



aquifer augmentation, because these wells are installed only for



beneficial purposes.  The regulations have been applied to these



wells to prevent uncontrolled disposal activities which may en-



danger drinking-water sources.





          Regulation of these wells will unquestionably inter-



fere somewhat with their use.  For example, hydrologic, geologic,



and engineering data will have to be collected and evaluated be-



fore any subsidence, barrier, or recharge well is authorized.



However, it should be noted that most wells of this kind already



are under some local control because it is recognized that they



can have a significant impact on the environment.  However, in the



case of shallow, municipal and industrial wells which are injecting



wastes into ground water containing less than 10,000 mg/1 of




dissolved solids, the impact may be severe.  All of the wells will
                                - 152 -

-------
have to be permitted and, in some instances, may be shut down at



the discretion of the States, if their operation endangers an



underground drinking water source.





     2.  Injection Wells Related to Oil and Gas Production.  Sep-



arate provisions have been set forth under Subpart D for wells used



for disposal of brine or other fluids that have been brought to the



surface during oil or gas production and for wells used for injection



during secondary or tertiary recovery of oil or gas.  The regulations



require that, in States with authorized UIC programs, any such



wells placed in operation after the effective date of the regulations



will be under permit.  The requirement for a permit, in itself,



should not greatly interfere with the use of these wells, because



permits in one form or another are now generally required by most



States in which they exist.





      Annular injection is considered to be undesirable practice



which is not recommended for long-term disposal due to the po-



tential for ground-water contamination from corrosion and short



circuiting of injected fluids through holes in the casing.  This



practice should be phased out completely to insure protection of



drinking-water sources.  New disposal wells or other disposal



methods will be needed to handle brine now disposed of by annular



injection.





       Brine-injection wells in operation on the effective date



of the regulations may be regulated by rules for a period of
                           - 153 -

-------
five years from the effective date if they do not endanger



drinking-water sources.  All these wells shall be reviewed within



five years and, if they do not endanger a drinking-water source,



they may continue in operation under a permit.  Those found to



endanger a drinking-water source must be remedied or they shall



be plugged and abandoned.  It is unknown how many existing wells



will require remedial action as a result of these regulations.



Many operators may abandon wells rather than invest the additional



capital needed to meet the requirements.





         Applications for UIC permits for new wells are to be



widely distributed and public notice is required.  Any interested



or affected person or agency may request or petition for a public



hearing.  These requirements may cause some delay in construction



of new wells.





         The requirements for a UIC permit application for a new



well go beyond those presently required in many of the oil-



producing States.  Acquisition of some of the data to fulfill



permit application requirements will add  slightly to the cost of



these wells and may cause minor delays in their construction.



State-issued permits for new wells will contain specific require-



ments regarding casings, maximum volume of fluid to be injected,



maximum surface pressure, inspection and monitoring schedules,



contingency plans, and plugging and abandonment procedures.  They



also will contain notice that the permit may be modified or re-



voked.  The details of these requirements will be set by the States;
                             - 154 -

-------
therefore, the exact impact on any one injector is unknown.






         If improperly completed or plugged wells are within a



one-half mile radius   of the proposed injection well and if these




abandoned wells will cause the disposal project to endanger drink-



ing water, the permit will be withheld until remedial action is



taken to prevent endangerment.  If remedial action is not taken,




the application may be denied.  Often these abandoned wells are



difficult to locate and recondition (Pasini and others, 1972).



Enforcement of the regulations may prevent and eliminate the use



of brine injection wells in some places, however, the impact should



not be sufficient to interfere with the production of oil and gas.






     3.  All Other Underground Injections.  It is specified in



Subpart E that the following types of underground injection may



be regulated by permit or by rule:  (1) urban runoff drainage



wells, and .(2) agricultural drainage wells.






         The regulations under either permits or rules are brief,



but nevertheless contain one requirement that must be considered



when planning the use of these injection practices.  This require-



ment is that no permits will be issued or injection allowed by



rule that endangers drinking-water sources.






          The interpretation selected requires that no well injec-



tion into aquifers containing drinking water will be allowed if



additional treatment will be required by the water user.  It seems



inevitable that some present injectors will have to modify or
                           - 155 -

-------
abandon their present systems and that new injectors will have


to expend more effort in planning, constructing, and operating


injection systems than has previously been necessary.



        For injection wells regulated by permit under Subpart E,


public notice will be given and hearings will be held if the


Director determines, that the application raises questions of


endangerment. of drinking water resources.  The public will be


given an opportunity to comment on the application.  Moreover,


no permit shall be issued if underground drinking-water sources


are endangered.



F.  Summary.   Table 13 summarizes the anticipated beneficial and


adverse impacts associated with the regulations.   (Tables 11 and


12 summarize impacts for the restrictive and loose versions of


the regulations that were considered but rejected.)  Each impact


is examined as to its duration, reversibility, retrievability,

          <                               ,
order, and relative significance.  In evaluating the duration of


the impacts,  it was assumed that whatever regulations were prom-


ulgated would remain in effect for an extended period.   There-


fore, all impacts are considered long term, except those like


manpower shortages and conflicts with existing legislation, which


are considered to be short term.



     If it were desired to reverse some impacts, this could be


accomplished by revising the regulations or making other adjust-


ments.  Therefore, the only impacts considered irreversible are


those that will remain even if the regulations should be changed.


An example of an irreversible beneficial impact is an improvement




                             -  156  -

-------
 in water  quality.  Water could  be degraded later, but any incre-




 mental  improvement that occurs during a period of protection



 cannot  be taken away.  An irreversible negative impact is the use



 of materials and energy that cannot be regained.  The development



 of additional trained manpower is considered irreversible because



 any new trained technical personnel would remain, even if the



 regulations were subsequently revised to reduce the need for them.





    It  was judged that reversibility and retrievability differ



 in that the former applies to actions, whereas retrievability



 applies only to resources like money and materials, and none of



 these are considered retrievable after commitment.  For example,



 the expenditure of Federal funds for the proposed program is



 reversible; it can be stopped at any time by a change in the law.



 On the other hand, the expended funds are irretrievable.





    Impacts are classed only as primary and secondary.  Primary



 impacts are considered to be those resulting directly from the



regulations,  such as modification of State programs.  Secondary



 impacts are considered to be those that develop in response to



the primary ones;  for example, the costs of modified State pro-



grams.  An impact is classified either as primary or secondary;



 it cannot be both.





    The classification of impacts as significant or minor was



 judgmental and was not subject to a quantitative evaluation.  An



 anticipated shortage of manpower for the program was considered
                            - 157 -

-------
to be significant initially, because of the very small supply of



available persons trained in ground-water hydrology.  However, it



was considered to be ultimately a minor impact when compared with



overall governmental and industrial manpower requirements.
                             -  158 -

-------




















z
o
H
EH
U


Q
W
W
O
CM
O

CM

W

EH

fa
O

tn
EH
U

(i,
a
H

fa
o

§
5*
5j
D
en



^1
i— |

Ed

CQ

EH






















































































































(

;-
«











-P
G
fl
O
•rl
MH
G
Cji
•rH
en

£>i
vj
fl

•H
VH
CM

tn
01
u

D
0
tn
0)


4-t
o

4-1
G
0)
E
4-1
•H
pj
5
O
U





V-l
o

(T>
C
o

















rH
fl
•H
O
•H
MH
01
G
0)
CQ
























U!
M 4-1
O U
rl G 01
0-H IH
a MH
M


M tn
fl 4-1
T) O
G 01
rl O MH
O U MH
01 EL)
en
fl)
^
01 XI
rH (0
xi >
(fl 0)
> M -H
01 O H
•rl 4J
M 01
•P rl
01 M
OS H


0)
H
01 XI
rH -H
xi tn
•rl rl
en M oi
rl O >
01 01
E> rl
0) M
OS H



tn
4J
4-> O
M e (0
.G 0) g
en EH H

















oi in
tn 4J
M U
0) fl
rl > &
o -a e
< H
















4-1 4-1
U 0
0) MH fl
•i-i O 0.

3 H
en







en a







Q* CM









rfj i^
Z Z













OS OS






1
4J 0 •
owe
0) 0) 0
•n M -H
3 O 3
en 4-> rH



rH
*
M
01
TJ
01

•rl O 0)
Er i rH
(J rl
1 1
CQ <


rH
(d
C rH
O fl
•rH V4
4-1 0)
3 T)

•H ^4
4J
en
G
H <

^






•P 4->







CM CM CM









1 fl -H
4-14-1 4J
•H en (0
rH rl
•H cn 0)
xi G a
•H -rl O
X -P O
0) tn o
rH -H
MH X 0)
fl) • 4J
Oi tn fl
4J O C 4-1
fl 4-1 o en
•P -H
en g -P oi
rl fl 0
SONG
O MH -rl fl
rH c G x;
rH O (0 G
rij O 01 W
1 1 1
CQ CQ CQ






01
-P
(0
4-1
tn


•
CQ








s, a







CH fL|









 4J 4J -P >i
w o) tn w tn ,-j -H
O CM O 0 fl u. G
og ouu >,o CMO
O 4J 4-1 -H • 3 -rt
rHO OlrH -HCCO IH4J
fl 0)4-lfl rHX!4J Ifl
rlT3 4-lflO -rlOtn MX
fl)C G-PO XIOIO Olctl
T3fl (OenrH (U4-1O -P4-1
01 rl -H fl
fa T3 eT* 'O 'O rH rT3 T3 U 'Q
01 • 0) 0) 0) 0) 0)
gincOr-icneu t) to n t3tn
3fl4->flflfl Olflfl Olfl
goioiMoioi uaioi uo)
•H i-| tjl OJ M rl 3 (H rl 3rl
COT1T3OO TJOO T)O
•rlC30IGC OJGC fl)G
II III III II
(-Q ^ CQ ^ i^ CQ CQ (^ CQ rf
1 rl
3 0
-P 4J O
•rl tn O -H
4J C 0) rH
tn o -i-i XI
in tn c -ri G 3
0) 4J H -P H CM
O W
rl 0 •
3 o a a o
o
tn
01



-------


























































_
'O

id oi
> -H
Q) W rl
•H O 4J
M 0)
•P rl
01 rl
ftf H

01
,_t
0) X!
H -rl
xt in
•rl M
Ul 01
(H SH >
0) O 0)
> >H
01 rl
£ M
in
4-1
•P O
0 rl S
X! (1) g
CO EH H













0) in
in P
H 0
n oi id
o > a
•a g
rtl H

















4J -P
O O
o> id
•nMH ft
xi o W
3 H
co
HO) H 01
nj 4J id 4J

4J g -P g
•^ -rl -r| -r4
C 4J C 4J
H H I-H H
ID ID
-P 4-1 1 4-1 1
co CQ a CQ a






CQ CQ CQ










*3J ^ ^
22 2












M t-H H







rl CQ 01


^,
4J
•H
H
>iH
XI >, >i
&H H
a a
id DJ ft
O 3 3
co in
H
10 -a -a
O Q) 0)
•H Q) 0)
CO O
Xi X X
O 01 01
10)
4-> H H
H H
•O -H -rl
0) S S
Ul
0) C C
co) S
H Q Q
1 1 1
CQ < <



1 rl
3 0
4J 4J
M -H 10 O
0) -P C 0)
^ in o 
c id
0) g

•O TJ
01 0)
in in
id id
oi oi in
in n 4J
o o c
C C (U
W H H g
0) 1 1
0 < <
3
0
M Dl
0) H
a: id
>1 -H
H CTi M
10 rl 01
U 01 4J
•rH fi Id
in pa a
^4
XI ••
CM id XI

•
O








4J
CQ a a a a a a






O< Pu CO CO CQ CQ CO










ril rtj i4j ril ril »i rf
222 22 22












H « DH H H H Pi







M rl J rl rl rl rl

>i in
4J 4J
•H 1 -H
HO) -H MH
Id Xt CO)
3 3 C
O*H 4J oi in
H H Xt -P
V4 -rl C O Id
01 S O fti H 4-i in
4J -rl Ck Id -H 01
me 4-> o c xi -P
S 0 3 O id in
•H H 01 -rl X! Id
01 4-1 H Ul 4-1 S
> 3 O 3 id 0)
OH ft 1 0) MH T3
(H H -d M -H -H
ft Q M C O H H
g ft -rl Id 0) T) O
•H id H M H in
Vj -rl
tj} 0) 'd i^ 'O & *O
•P 0)' 0) 0) 01
4->idTJtnto to oiin
u K oi id id id >id
01 S 01 0) 01 O 01
4J 0) 0 rl rltO rl 0)0) rl M
ogH o oo) o cc a, o
HOH C. C-rl C OO E C
OjCQld H H4J H 22 H H
II II 1 1 1 1 1
CQ < H S 
-------




















































»^
T3
a
c
.^
4->
C
O
o
—


m
rH
S
CQ

e

'c
g
0
u


M
o

Cr*
C
0
J









, — 1
Ifl
H
o
H
IH
0)
C
0>
ffl
























tn
r4 4-
IH O O
o c; a

S l+-
w

SH u
73 O
C 0)
rj O W-l
O 0 >w
0) W
a
01 x
rH 10
Q £>
ro 0
> -rH
0) 1H >H
•H 0 4-1
r4 0)
4-1 V4
0) r4
« H

0)
r-
0) X
rH -r-
XI w
ra >H a
M O >
0) 0)
> r4
01 IH
« H
CO
4J
-M O
r4 E 13
o M a
a a) E
w e-i H










0)
in M
M 4J
0) O
M >  < c/2


• • «
33 H r-j
>







4-1
w S






C/5 p|








r^ F3
Z Z











M tt








hj 1—


>, i
a c
a 3
3 0
cn M
i
0) H
-P 01
fl >
S 01 .
rH C
u i o
•rH S -H
rH O 4-1
XI rH 3
3 rH
Ol m rH
• a> o
4-1 tn -P a
U CD H 01 01
O 3 rH 4J
r4 O 0 Id
CM in EH S
1 1






4-1
rH
10
0)
K

U
•H
rH
Q
3
ft.
•

































































cn ,
§2 rH
•H ^ Xl >,
4J .^ 10 1-1
10 M. ^ id
•H IjJ 0) 73

aj g 'MO
XI m 0) 0) 01
xi . oi H « tn
< ' rH XI

1-1 O ro O (U 6 C
0 > g -rl H M rfl
:: o M H xi a) u
C Jj -H 0) a >i-rl E-I -H
•Hbl4-J r4(=3l(OM4-J-H
4-1 hil QJ d O S 0) M C
10 JL M e Cl 4-1 'H ^ 0 CT
C j5 M O *>H O M 01 rG *H
(O^rHlJSZCUPCtOt/l
rH
a ' i i i i i i i i
x <

z tn
- 161 -

-------
IV.  ADVERSE IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED SHOULD THE PROPOSAL



     BE IMPLEMENTED






A.  Effects on Water.




    In places where underground injection is curtailed or prohibited,



and where injectors are required to dispose of wastes into other




waters, some deterioration of the quality of those waters may



result.  However, the impact should not be large, as all require-



ments of P.L. 92-500 must be met by the discharge.  On the other



hand, if injection is chosen as a preferable alternative to dis-



posal into surface waters, some reductions in the flows of



streams, particularly intermittent streams and the headwaters of



other streams, may follow.  From an overall viewpoint, such reduc-



tions in surface-water discharge will not be significant.



Cancellation of injection practices in scattered localities will



decrease recharge to aquifers locally, with a consequential



possible lowering of ground-water levels.  In general, primary



adverse impacts of this kind would not be significant and the



loss in recharge will be counterbalanced by the improvement of



ground-water quality.  Some minor low level water contamination



will be tolerated, if it does not endanger drinking water.






B.  Effects on the Non-Water Environment.



    In some places where existing injection practices are can-



celled or prohibited, injectors may have to relocate their



facilities or resort to alternative methods of disposal.  This



could  lead to local  secondary adverse impacts on  land at the new



disposal sites.  Generally, however, the benefits to drinking-water








                            - 162 -

-------
quality should more than offset these adverse secondary impacts.



Some minor air pollution may occur locally from injection facility



operations.  Scattered parcels of land will be taken out of use



for injection facilities but such losses will be outweighed by



the economic gain in improved water quality.






C.  Effects on Governmental Institutions.



    Primary adverse impacts could arise from conflicts between



some existing Federal laws and regulations and the UIC regulations.



For example, under the Mineral leasing Acts, the Department of



Interior is responsible for regulating oil and gas activities on



Federal land.  Similarly, conflicts of jurisdiction may arise on



Indian lands.  Furthermore, some States presently do not have



authority over the handling and disposal of radioactive liquids,



which commonly rests with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.






    In some States, new legislation will be needed to enable the



States to conform with the requirements of the regulations.  For



example, injection practices that are not now being regulated



by States may require new statutory authorizations.  However,



these types of problems are not unusual since States commonly



change previous statutes as new environmental controls are imple-



mented on either the State or Federal level.






    Governmental agencies at the county and city level could be



impacted adversely  to a minor extent where the new regulations



conflict with certain permitting procedures that are delegated to



those local agencies.   For example,  some County and City Departments










                             - 163 -

-------
of Health and other local agencies presently have the responsi-



bility for holding hearings and issuing permits on local injection



facilities.  These local program will have to be adapted to the



requirements of the new State regulations so that the responsibilities



for implementation are taken care of in the most efficient manner.





     In river basins where interstate agencies have major re-



sponsibilities for pollution control and related water-resource



matters, problems will arise if all the member States of these



agencies do not adopt identical regulatory procedures in com-



pliance with the UIC regulations.  The statutory authorizations



for these interstate agencies would have to be modified in some



instances to reflect these differences among the States and to



properly protect aquifers that cross State lines.





D.  Effects on Underground Injection Practices.





     This section discusses several primary adverse impacts of



the regulations on the UTC program.  Although these are classed



as primary it should be remembered that primary in this case does



not refer to the numbers of injectors affected.  Furthermore, these



adverse impacts are expected only on a small portion of each



injection practice category.   Some injectors will have to halt



existing underground injection practices and turn to other altern-



atives for disposal or treatment fluids.  In addition, some in-



jectors will incur new costs in responding to the requirements



of the regulations and in providing technical backup data with



regard  to  the emplacement and movement of waste  fluids in the









                              - 164 -

-------
subsurface environment.  Certain types of injection facilities



will have to be regulated by permits, and this will involve new



monitoring and control costs on the part of the injector.  The



injector will be further impacted by the need to be represented



at public hearings, presentations, and other negotiating sessions



with State agencies.





     Because the proposed regulations provide that the operator



of a facility must demonstrate that the injection will not en-



danger drinking-water sources and is the most acceptable alter-



native, study and preparation of reports will be needed in many



instances to satisfy the permitting requirements.  Injectors will



in some instances be faced with additional costs if the only accept-



able environmental alternative is expensive treatment.





     Another requirement of the regulations that will have a secon-



dary adverse impact in some cases is that injectors must under-



take measures to assure adequate financial resources for dealing



with injection systems that are improperly abandoned or that may



otherwise cause contamination of drinking-water sources.  It is



unknown, at this time, what these measures might be.  Because wells



used for subsidence control, retarding salt-water encroachment,



and artificial recharge for augmentation of aquifers generally



have not been put under a closely controlled permit system in



the past, some minor impact on these operations will be felt.



But, because of the high levels of geohydrologic and engineering



studies required before any of these projects is undertaken, there
                              -  165 -

-------
should be little change in current practice.

     Wherever wells used in the oil and gas industry for brine
injection and secondary recovery are found to endanger a drinking-
water source, they may have to be modified or abandoned.  The
specific technical requirements of the regulations with regard to
these wells will call for some increased expenditures by well owners.
Also, because the proposed regulations have requirements with regard
to improperly plugged wells, field work will have to be undertaken
to locate and rehabilitate abandoned wells where necessary.

     The requirements for protecting aquifers containing potable
ground water with surface casing will require some oil and gas
producers to spend additional funds for drilling new injection
wells, with extra casings and packers, which will increase the com-
petition for materials.

     Where permitting of certain injection wells is specifically
required, it may prove necessary to undertake a case-by-case exam-
ination of existing and new underground injection system.  It seems
inevitable, in this connection, that some injectors will have to
modify or abandon their existing injection wells.

     The costs to all levels of government, injectors, and others
in terms of additional monitoring, record-keeping, and manpower as
an outcome of the regulations cannot be estimated with confidence at
this time but are expected to be small.

     It should be expected that some injection facilities will
experience breakdowns or equipment failures during their operation,
which will necessitate emergency actions or changeovers to
                              - 166 -

-------
alternative disposal methods, as required by the regulations.



This could result in temporary escape of contaminants to the



environment requiring the operators to take corrective measures.






V.  RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LOCAL SHORT-TERM USES OF MAN'S



    ENVIRONMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONG-



    TERM PRODUCTIVITY.



      In principle, underground injection is not really a dis-




posal method but is more a procedure for storing waste fluids



in the subsurface environment.  The storage capacity for fluids



in a subsurface environment is truly immense, and is many orders



of magnitude greater than the storage volumes that conceivably



could be occupied by contaminated fluids within the near future.



Thus, it is reasonable to allow underground injection, under con-




trolled conditions, without vastly increasing the risks of con-



taminating public-water supplies for long periods of time to come,



When injection is allowed in portions of aquifers that cannot



reasonably be expected to be used as a drinking water source,



then the procedure can be thought of as essentially harmless.






      Notwithstanding,  the storage volumes of aquifers are



finite, and some aquifers have relatively limited storage



capacity in terms of the volumes of fluids that might be in-



jected into them.  The States will have to inventory their



hydrologic resources carefully to discriminate between aquifers



having limited storage space and those having very large storage



space with relation to water demands on those systems.
                             -  167  -

-------
      Generally, water-wells draw from shallowest water available



for water-supply purposes, since there is no real advantage to



drilling deeper and more costly wells if the upper water zones



are adequate.  Consequently, in a sense, the deeper the injection



horizon, the less significant is the actual or potential threat



to drinking-water supplies.  Obviously, there are exceptions to



this general statement in places where the best aquifers are the



deepest ones.  For example, in many parts of the Atlantic and



Gulf Coastal Plains, waters to depths of about 2,500 feet are



fresh or nearly fresh and have potential value for public-water



supply use.  Therefore, the State will have to carefully consider



this eventuality in deciding where underground injection is to



be allowed.





      Thus underground injection should be thought of as a



temporary solution to a disposal problem because ultimately some



damage to the physical environment may begin to take place when



the volume of injected fluids becomes extremely large with respect



to the storage capacity of the aquifer systems.  While an analysis



of this trade-off requires a case-by-case determination, it is



probably correct to say that the volumes of contaminants presently



being injected in the United States are relatively insignificant



in comparison to the total available volume of aquifer storage.



With careful surveillance and monitoring on the part of the States,



injection practices can be reduced or halted long before there



would be any possible threat to public-water supplies.  Also,



the development of new treatment technologies or new disposal









                             - 168 -

-------
methodologies should be anticipated.





     Where underground injection is deemed to be a safe



procedure in terms of protecting public-water supplies, the



possible adverse impact of building or installing new injec-



tion facilities can be considered as relatively minor.  For the



most part, installation of an injection facility requires only



the construction of a vertical well (which is essentially similar



to the construction of any water well).





     The drilling and construction of a well is normally a



routine procedure, and has taken place at tens of millions



of sites across the United States without causing intolerable



impacts.  Construction of a well generally takes only a few



days to a few weeks, depending on depth and diameter, during



which a drilling machine is operated and creates minor local



problems of noise and emission of engine exhaust fumes.  This



impact is no different from the operations of any other motor



vehicle or other construction activities and should not be



considered as a special adverse impact of well injection



procedures.
                             - 169 -

-------
      These minor impacts during the construction and installation



of underground injection facilities constitute a small price to



pay in comparison with the considerably larger benefits to be



derived from protecting drinking-water supplies by removal of



contaminating influences from contact with man.





      From a resource recovery viewpoint, the metals and other



substances contained in waste fluids can be thought of as a



resource that should be conserved for possible future recovery.



In a sense, this is not any different from any other waste



accumulation of man, such as the materials disposed of in land-



fills or discharged to the sea in treated sewage effluent.   To



date, man's technology for making better use of the resources



contained in wastes has not yet progressed to the point where



full utilization can be made of them.  Some efforts are in pro-



gress to salvage valuable materials from disposal facilities,



but some of these are prohibitively expensive and as long as



the natural sources of some of these constituents are as abundant



as they are, there is no economic justification for attempting



full recovery of resources from these wastes.  Exactly the same



reasoning is applicable to the dissolved materials contained in



fluids which may be injected underground.





      Futhermore, as noted above, underground injection is not



truly a final and ultimate method for disposing of wastes so



that they are irretrievable.  Quite the opposite is the case,






                             - 170 -

-------
 because most  injected  fluids  are  simply  being  stored  under-



 ground and  theoretically  could  be removed  through  installation



 of wells and  through pumping  when technologies would  become



 available to  reclaim their mineral constituents.   Although small



 amounts of  the  injected substances will  never  be recoverable,



 because they  have become  absorbed or  filtered  out  by  passage



 through the soils.






 VI. IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENTS OF RESOURCES WHICH




    WOULD BE INVOLVED IN THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE



    IMPLEMENTED



       It is  obvious that once  the Underground Injection Control



 Regulations are implemented,  the  costs that will be incurred



 by all levels of government to  initiate  and maintain  them and




 by the injectors themselves will  be irretrievable.  Once these



 funds have  been committed for the  intended purposes,  they can



 never be regained even if the UIC  Program were to  be  terminated.



 Irretrievable costs of this kind would apply to the new manpower



 needed to implement the program,  the administrative and managerial



 expenses, the improved construction techniques for underground



 injection facilities, and the new  costs  for inspection, surveil-



 lance, and  monitoring of these  facilities.  Likewise, monies



 expended on public hearings and other negotiations that may be



 involved in permitting and in settling disputes also would not



be recoverable.






       Although, as referred to in Section V, the fluids injected



underground have a potential for later recovery,  the present state







                             -  171 -

-------
of the art is such that it is prohibitively expensive to make use



of more than a small percentage of the injected fluids.   Presently,



therefore, these fluids can be thought of as irretrievable.  When



the natural supplies of some of these substances have been depleted,



and new treatment methods and other technologies are available,



it may become desirable to undertake recovery procedures, and at



that time some of the injected fluids will become classifiable



as retrievable resources.





       Some of the substances injected could never be recovered,



regardless of conceivable new technologies, because they would



have been precipitated underground or would have migrated to



locations or depths where subsequent withdrawal would be impossible.





       Another irreversible commitment is the use of materials



in the construction of underground injection facilities.  Once



installed, most of these materials are, for all practical purposes,



not salvageable either physically or economically.  For example,



it is too expensive to retrieve several thousand feet of well



casing which has been drilled deep into the earth and cemented



in place.  Because well casings have only a limited life expec-



tancy (perhaps on the order of ten to thirty years) due to



corrosion problems, it is not reasonable to envision possible



future salvage and reuse of these casings after an installation



has been in operation for some years.  In contrast, it may be



possible in some instances to rehabilitate and reuse some pumps



that have only been operated for a few years, in cases where an




injection facility has been shut down.  This could be thought of








                             - 172 -

-------
as a possible reversible commitment of resources.





        Where accidents such as spills or ruptures should occur,



 some irreversible damage to the environment might take place



 locally.   This would arise if highly toxic fluids were to be re-



 leased at a point close enough to present an immediate threat to



 a public  water-supply system, and where it was impractical to



 attempt to pump the contaminated fluids out of the ground or to



 block its path of flow to the threatened public water-supply



 facility.  Because the regulations are intended to im-



 prove surveillance and inspection, and thereby, protect water



 quality,  they will reduce the possibilities of such accidents.



 It is concluded, therefore, that the net gain in protection of



 public health will outweigh the irreversible threat of scattered



 accidental contamination.





        Energy used to operate injection facilities will be



 irretrievably lost.  The gain in public health protection from



 disease from improved control of underground injection will far



 exceed the dollar costs of energy.





        Several clearly irreversible benefits to be derived from



 the regulations will be the overall improvement in drinking water



 quality,  the increased capability on the part of State agencies



 to cope with underground injection problems, and an overall im-



 provement in land-use capability where the regulations abate or






                             - 173 -

-------
or eliminate existing contamination problems.  The entire thrust



of the Act is to achieve an improvement in drinking-water quality,



and as long as the regulations remain in force and are properly



implemented, this improvement can be thought of as irreversible.



There should be a net gain in terms of public health and drinking-



water quality that cannot be reversed as long as the regulatory



program remains in effect.





    Because the States will have to expand and improve their capa-



bilities for coping with all types of underground injection



problems, their technical staffs will have gained a permanent



benefit in improved competency and experience in dealing with



water contamination.  With better documentation and better moni-



toring and surveillance, the States also will have substantially



improved their ability to cope with additional aspects of environ-



mental protection.





    Because the regulations undoubtedly will abate or halt certain



injection practices that now degrade surface-water bodies and



other elements of the surficial environment, a continuing benefit



will accrue to the residents of those areas as an outcome of



implementation of the regulations.  There should be a gradual



improvement in the aesthetic and recreational values of some



lands, which will be permanent and irreversible as long as the



regulations remain in force.  Also, stream quality will benefit



in various places and some improvements will be noted with regard



to vegetation and wildlife in areas that have been seriously



degraded as an outcome of uncontrolled disposal of liquid wastes.








                             - 174 -

-------
SELECTED REFERENCES
     - 175 -

-------
                      SELECTED REFERENCES
Abegglen, D. E., and others, "The Effects of Drain Wells on
     the Ground-Water Quality of the Snake River Plain,"
     Idaho Bureau of Mines and Geology Pamphlet 148, Moscow,
     Idaho, 1970.

Abt Associates, Inc., "Manpower and Training Needs of State
     Water Pollution Control Agencies," U. S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, 119 p., 1973.

American Gas Association, Inc., "The Underground Storage of
     Gas in the United States," Amer. Gas Assoc., New York,
     1971.

American Petroleum Institute, "Environmental Protection Laws
     and Regulations Related to Exploration, Drilling, Production
     and Gas Processing Plant Operations," Amer. Petr. Inst.,
     Dallas, Texas, 319 p.,  1975.

American Water Works Association Water Quality Division Com-
     mission Report, "Status of Waterborne Diseases in the
     United States and Canada," Jour. Amer. Water Works Assoc.,
     Vol. 67, No. 2, p. 95-98, Feb. 1975.

Anon., "Pollution of Ground Water, Legal Control of Water Pollu-
     tion," Univ. of California, Davis, Law Review, 1969.

Anon., "Ground Water Pollution from Subsurface Excavations,"
     Rept. EPA-430/9-73-012, U. S. Environmental Protection
     Agency, Washington, D. C., 1973.

Baffa, J. J., and N. J. Bartilucci, "Waste Water Reclamation
     by Ground Water Recharge on Long Island," Jour. Water
     Pollution Control Fed., Vol.  39,  No. 3, Part 1, 1967.

Baier, D. C., and G. M. Wesner, "Reclaimed Waste Water for
     Ground Water Recharge," Water Resources Bulletin, Vol. 7,
     No. 5, 1971.

Ballentine, R. K., and others, "Subsurface Pollution Problems
     in the United States," Tech. Studies Rept. TS-00-72-02,
     U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C.,
     May 1972.

Bierschenk, W. H., "Hydrologic Aspects of Radioactive Waste
     Disposal," Jour. San. Eng. Div., Amer. Soc. of Civil
     Engrs., Vol. 84, No. SA6, 1958.
                           - 176 -

-------
Bouwer, H., and others, "Renovating Secondary Sewage by Ground
     Water Recharge with Infiltration Basins," Water Pollution
     Control Research Series 16070-DRV, U. S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, March 1972.

Bouma, J., and others, "Soil Absorption of Septic Tank Effluent,"
     Univ. of Wisconsin, Soil Survey Division, Info. Circ. 20,
     1972.

Bureau of Reclamation, "Geothermal Resource Investigations,
     Imperial Valley, California—Developmental Concepts,"
     U. S. Dept. of the Interior, Boulder City, Nevada, 58 p.,
     1972.

Chasteen, A. J., "Geothermal Energy — Growth Spurred on by
     'Powerful Motives'," Mining Engineering, Soc. of Mining
     Engineers of AIME, Vol. 24, No. 10, p. 100-102, 1972.

Coe, J. J., "Effect of Solid Waste Disposal on Ground Water
     Quality," Jour. Amer. Water Works Assoc., Vol. 62, No. 12,
     1970.

Cole, J. A. (editor), "Ground Water Pollution in Europe," Water
     Information Center, Port Washington, New York, 1974.

Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, House of Representa-
     tives, "Safe Drinking Water Act," Rept. No. 93-1185, 93rd
     Congress, 54 p., July 1974.

Congressional Record, "Safe Drinking Water Act," Vol. 120, No.
     160, Nov. 19, 1974, p. H10787-H10832.

Congressional Record, "Safe Drinking Water Act," Vol. 120, No.
     165, Nov. 26, 1974, p. S20220-S20244.

Congressional Record, "Safe Drinking Water Act," Vol. 120, No.
     167, Dec. 3, 1974, p. H11170-H11181.

Craun,  G. F.,  and J. M. Hughes, "Waterborne Disease Outbreaks
     in the United States, 1971-74," Preprint Amer. Water Works
     Assoc. Conf., June 1975.

Craun,  G. F.,  and L. J. McCabe, "Review of the Causes of Water-
     borne Disease Outbreaks," Jour. Amer. Water Works Assoc.,
     Vol. 65,  No. 1, p. 74-84, Jan. 1973.

Deutsch, M., "Phenol Contamination of an Artesian Glacial-Drift
     Aquifer at Alma, Michigan, U.S.A.," Soc. for Water Treatment
     and Examination Proc., Vol. 11, Part 2, 1962.
                          -  177 -

-------
Deutsch, M., "Ground-Water Contamination and Legal Controls in
     Michigan," U. S. Geol. Survey Water-supply Paper 1691, 1963.

Donner, W. S., and R. 0. Wornat, "Mining Through Boreholes—
     Frasch Sulfur Mining System," Mining Engineering Handbook,
     Cummins and Given, editors, Amer. Inst. of Mining,  Met.
     and Petr. Engrs., New York, New York, p. 21-60 to 21-67,
     1973.

Environmental Protection Agency, "A Citizen's Solid Waste Manage-
     ment Project, Mission 5000," Environmental Protection Agency,
     1972.

Environmental Protection Agency, "Compilation of Industrial and
     Municipal Injection Wells in the United States," U. S.
     Environmental Protection Agency Kept., EPA-520/9-24-020,
     1974.

Franke, 0. L., and N. E. McClymonds, "Summary of the Hydrologic
     Situation on Long Island, New York, as a Guide to Water
     Management Alternatives," U. S. Geol. Survey Prof.  Paper
     627-F, 1972.

Fryberger, J. S., "Rehabilitation of a Brine-Polluted Aquifer,"
     Rept. EPA-R2-72-014, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Washington, D. C., Dec. 1972.

Fuhriman, D. K., and J. R. Barton, "Ground Water Pollution in
     Arizona, California, Nevada, and Utah," U. S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, Water Pollution Control Res. Series 16060,
     249 p., 1971.

Geraghty, J. J., and others, "Water Atlas of the United States,"
     Water Information Center, Port Washington, New York, 1973.

Hallden, O. S., "Underground Natural Gas Storage  (Herscher Dome),"
     Ground Water Contamination, U. S. Dept. of Health,  Education
     and Welfare, R. A. Taft Sanitary Eng. Center, Tech. Rept.
     W61-5, Cincinnati, Ohio, 218 p., 1961.

Harmeson, R. H., and 0. W. Vogel, "Artificial Recharge and Pollu-
     tion of Ground Water," Ground Water, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1963.

Harris, R. H., "Water Quality Management on Long Island:  A
     Case for Recycling Municipal Waste Water by Ground Water
     Recharge," A Paper Presented at Wetlands Hearing, Suffolk
     County, New York, 50 p., March 1975.
                           -  178 -

-------
Healy, J. H., and others, "The Denver Earthquakes," Science,
     Vol. 161, No. 3848, Sept. 27, 1968.

Hearing before the Senate Committee on Commerce on Potable
     Waters, March 20, 1972, Serial No. 92-57.

Hearings before the House Subcommittee on Public Health and
     Environment on Safe Drinking Water, May 24, 25, and 26,
     1971, Serial No. 92-24.

Hearings of  the House Subcommittee on Public Health and Environ-
     ment on the Safe Drinking Water Act, June 7 and 8, 1972,
     Serial No. 92-85.

Hearings of  the House Subcommittee on Public Health and En-
     vironment on the Safe Drinking Water Act, March 8 and 9,
     1974, Serial No. 93-11.

Hem, J. D.,  "Study and Interpretation of the Chemical Charac-
     teristics of Natural Water," U. S. Geol. Survey Water-
     Supply Paper 1473, 363 p., 1970.

Hughes, G. M. , and others, "Hydrogeology of Solid Waste Disposal
     Sites in Northeastern Illinois," Kept. SW-12D, U. S. En-
     vironmental Protection Agency, 1971.

Hughes, G. M., and others, "Pollution of Ground Water Due to
     Municipal Dumps," Tech. Bull. No. 42, Canada Dept. of
     Energy, Mines and Resources, Inland Waters Branch, Ottawa,
     1971.

Hughes, G. M., and K. Cartwright, "Scientific and Administrative
     Criteria for Shallow Waste Disposal," Civil Engineering,
     Vol. 42, No. 3, 1972.

Illinois Water Survey, "Feasibility Study on Desalting Brackish
     Water Prom the Mt.  Simon Aquifer in Northeast Illinois,"
     Kept, prepared for the Dept.  of the Interior,  Office of
     Saline Water,  Contract No. 14-30-2924, 119 p., 1973.

International Association of Scientific Hydrology,  "International
     Survey on Existing Water Recharge Facilities," Internat.
     Assoc.  of Sci.  Hydrology, Pub. No.  87, p.  551-762, 1970.

Interstate Oil Compact Commission, "Water Problems  Associated
     with Oil Production in the United States," IOCC,  Oklahoma
     City, Oklahoma,  1963.
                            -  179  -

-------
Interstate Oil Compact Commission, "Environmental Problems
     Relating to Oil and Gas Production—An Initial Review,"
     Interstate Oil Compact Commission, Oklahoma City,
     Oklahoma, 1974.

Irwin, J. H., and R. B. Morton, "Hydrogeologic Information on
     the Glorieta Sandstone and the Ogallala Formation in the
     Oklahoma Panhandle and Adjoining Areas as Related to
     Underground Waste Disposal," U. S. Geol. Survey Circ. 630,
     26 p., 1969.

Jones, P. H., "Hydrology of Waste Disposal National Reactor
     Testing Station, Idaho," U. S. Geol. Survey Interim Rept.
     for U. S. Atomic Energy Comm., Idaho Falls, Idaho, 1961.

Knowles, D. B., "Hydrologic Aspects of the Disposal of Oil-
     Field Brines in Alabama," Ground Water, Vol. 3, No. 2,
     1965.

Krone, R. B., and others, "Direct Recharge of Ground Water with
     Sewage Effluents," Jour. San. Eng. Div., Amer. Soc. of
     Civil Engineers, Vol. 83, No. SA4, 1957.

LeGrand, H. E., "Role of Ground Water Contamination in Water
     Management," Jour. Amer. Water Works Assoc., Vol. 59,
     No. 5, 1967.

Mackenthun, K. M., "Magnitude of Waste Water Treatment and
     Disposal Problem Facing the Nation," in Amer. Assoc.
     Petr. Geol. Memoir 18, AAPG, Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1972.

McDermott, J. H., "Federal Drinking Water Standards," Water
     Well Jour., Dec. 1973.

Mcllwain, R. R., and others, "West Coast Basin Barrier Project
     1967-1969," Los Angeles County Flood Control District,
     Los Angeles, California, June 1970.

McMillion, L. G., "Hydrologic Aspects of Disposal of Oil-
     Field Brines in Texas," Ground Water, Vol. 3, No. 4, 1965.

Meinzer, 0. E., "Outline of Ground-Water Hydrology," U. S.
     Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 494, 71 p., 1923.

Meyer, C. F.  (editor), "Polluted Ground Water:  Some Causes,
     Effects, Controls, and Monitoring," Rept. EPA-600/4-73-00110,
     U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C.,
     July 1973.
                           - 180 -

-------
Miller, D. W., and others, "Ground Water Contamination in the
     Northeast States," Environmental Protection Agency Pub.
     EPA-660/2-74-056, 325 p., 1974.

Murray, C. R., and E. B. Reeves, "Estimated Use of Water in the
     United States in 1970," U. S. Geol. Survey Circ. 676, 1972.

National Water Well Association, "A Working Draft of a Study on
     Present and Future Laws, Regulations, and Institutions
     for Control of Ground-Water Pollution," Prepared for U. S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, 112 p., 1975.

Office of Toxic Substances, "Preliminary Assessment of Suspected
     Carcinogens in Drinking Water—An Interim Report to Congress,"
     U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C.,
     33 p., June 1975.

Oregon State Sanitary Authority, "Water Quality Control in
     Oregon," Oregon State Sanitary Authority, Vol. 1, 113 p.,
     1967.

Pasini, J., HI/ and others, "Plugging Abandoned Gas and Oil
     Wells," Mining Congress Journal, p. 37-42, Dec. 1972.

Patterson, J. W., and others, "Septic Tanks and the Environment,
     Final Rept.," Illinois Inst.  for Environmental Quality,
     Chicago, Illinois, June 1971.

Perlmutter, N. M. and M. Lieber, "Dispersal of Plating Wastes
     and Sewage Contaminants in Ground Water and Surface Water,
     South Farmingdale-Massapequa  Area, Nassau County, New York,"
     U. S. Geol. Survey Water-Supply Paper 1879-G, 67 p., 1970.

Peters, J. A., and J. L. Rose, "Water Conservation by Reclama-
     tion and Recharge," Jour. San. Eng. Div., Amer. Soc. of
     Civil Engineers, Vol. 94, No. SA4, 1968.

Poland, J. F., "Subsidence and its Control," in Underground Waste
     Management and Environmental  Implications, Amer. Assoc.
     of Petr. Geol., Memoir 18, 1972.

Preul,  H. C., "Contaminants in Ground Waters Near Waste Stabili-
     zation Ponds," Jour.  Water Pollution Control Fed., Vol. 40,
     No.  4, 1968.

Price,  D., "Rate and Extent of Migration of a 'One-Shot'  Con-
     taminant in an Alluvial Aquifer in Keizer, Oregon,"  U. S.
     Geol. Survey Paper 575-B, 1967.
                           - 181 -

-------
Public Health Service,  "Ground Water  Contamination,  Proceedings
     of the 1961 Symposium,"  Tech.  Kept.  W61-5,  U.  S.  Dept.  of
     Health Education,  and  Welfare, 1961.

Reeder, L. R., and others,  "Review  and Assessment of Deep Well
     Injection of Hazardous Wastes,"  Unpublished Report Prepared
     for Environmental  Protection Agency,  Solid  and Hazardous
     Wastes Research Laboratory,  5  Vol.,  1975.

Reid, G. W., and others,  "Brine  Disposal  Treatment Practices
     Relating to the Oil  Production Industry," U. S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, Washington, D. C., 1974.

Salvato, J. A., and others, "Sanitary Landfill—Leaching Preven-
     tion and Control," Jour. Water Poll.  Control Fed., Vol. 43,
     No. 10, 1971.

Scalf, M. R., and others, "Ground Water Pollution in the South
     Central States," Rept. EPA-R2-73-268, U.  S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, Corvallis,  Oregon, June  1973.

Sceva, J. E., "Liquid Waste Disposal  in the Lava Terranes of
     Central Oregon," U.  S. Federal Water Pollution Control Admin.,
     Northwest Region,  Pacific Northwest  Water Lab., Corvallis,
     Oregon, 1968.

Swenson, H. A., "The Montebello  Incident," Soc.  for Water Treat-
     ment and Examination,  Proc., Vol. 11, Part  2, 1962.

Task Group Report, "Survey  of Ground-Water Contamination and
     Waste Disposal Practices,"  Jour. Amer. Water Works Assoc.,
     Vol. 52, 1960.

Telfair, J. S., Jr., "The Pollution of Artesian  Ground Waters in
     Suwannee and Orange  Counties,  Florida, by Artificial Recharge
     Through Drainage Wells," Bureau  of Sanitary Eng. Interim
     Rept. of Investigations, Florida State Board of Health,
     Tallahassee, 1948.

Todd, D. K., "Ground-Water Pollution  in Europe—A Conference
     Summary," Rept. to U.  S. Environmental Protection Agency,
     Tempo Rpt., GE73TMP-01,  79  p., 1973.

Todd, D. K., "Salt-Water  Intrusion and Its Control," Jour. Amer.
     Water Works Assoc.,  Vol. 66, No. 3,  March 1974.

Todd, D. K., and D. E.  McNulty,  "Polluted Ground Water:  A Review
     of the Significant Literature,"  Rept. EPA-600/4-74-001, U. S.
     Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C., March 1974
                           - 182 -

-------
U. S. Department of the Interior, "Geothermal Leasing Program,"
     NTIS Accession No. PB 203 102-D, Washington, D. C., 1971.

U. S. Public Health Service, "Public Health Service Drinking
     Water Standards," Pub. No. 956, 61 p., 1962.

Van der Leeden, Frits, "Ground Water Pollution Features of
     Federal and State Statutes and Regulations," U. S. Environ-
     mental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C., 88 p., 1973.

Van der Leeden, Frits, and others, "Ground Water Pollution Problem
     in the Northwestern United States," U. S. Environmental Pro-
     tection Agency Pub. EPA-660/3-75-018, 361 p., 1975.

Vogt, J. E., "Infectious Hepatitis at Posen, Michigan," Jour.
     Amer. Water Works Assoc., Vol. 53, No. 10, 1961.

Walker, T. R., "Ground-Water Contamination in the Rocky Mountain
     Arsenal Area, Denver, Colorado," Geol. Soc. of Amer. Bull.,
     Vol. 72, No. 3, 1961.

Warner, D. L., "Deep-Well Injection of Liquid Waste," U. S. Public
     Health Service Environmental Health Service Pub. No. 999-
     WP-21, 55 p., 1965.

Warner, D. L., "Rationale and Methodology for Monitoring Ground
     Water Polluted by Mining Activities," U. S. Environmental
     Protection Agency, Washington, D. C., 76 p., 1974.

Warner, D. L., and others, "Underground Liquid Waste Disposal,"
     Amer. Soc. Civil Engrs., Hydraulics Div. Jour., p. 421-435,
     March 1975.

Warner, D. L., and D. H. Orcutt, "Industrial Waste Water Injection
     Wells in the United States—Status of Use and Regulation,"
     Preprints and International Symposium on Underground Waste
     Management and Artificial Recharge, Amer. Assoc. Petr. Geol.,
     Tulsa, Oklahoma, Vol. 2., p. 687-700, 1973.

Wichman, S. H., and G. K. Ahlers, "Recharging Conserves Nuclear
     Reactor Cooling Water," Water and Wastes Engineering, March
     1967.                   	

Woodward, F. L., and others, "Experiences with Ground Water Con-
     tamination in Unsewered Areas in Minnesota," Amer. Jour, of
     Public Health, Vol. 51, No. 8, 1961.

Zanoni, A. E., "Ground Water Pollution and Sanitary Landfills—
     A Critical Review," Ground Water, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1972.
                            - 183 -

-------
APPENDIX TABLES I - IV
       - 184 -

-------
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
Water Pollution Control Commission
**210 East 11 th Avenue
Denver, Colorado  80220
Effective date:  July 1, 1970

                             Appendix Table I.
             RULES AND REGULATIONS TOR SUBSURFACE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS


     Section 1. - DECLARATION OF POLICY.  - These Rules and Regulations  provide the
condi tions for the location, construction and operation of subsurface disposal
systems.  After the effective date of the adoption of these Rules  and Regulations,
no subsurface disposal system shall be constructed or operated in  this  State
contrary to the provisions of these Rules and Regulations.

     Section 2. - DEFINITIONS. - As used  in these Regulations:

(a)  "Act" means the Colorado Water Pollution Control  Act of 1966, Chapter  66,
     Article 28, C.R.S.  1963 (1967 Perm.  Cum. Supp.).

(b)  "Aquifer" means a permeable formation which contains and transmits  ground
     water or formation water.

(c)  "Coefficient of Storage" means the volume of water released from a  unit
     volume of the aquifer when the piezometric  surface declines one  (1)  foot.

(d)  "Commission" means  the Colorado Water Pollution  Control  Commission.

(e)  "Construction" when used with respect to a  disposal  system shall mean  any
     initial  creation of a new disposal system,  any material  modification or
     alteration of any existing disposal  system,  and  the  conversion of any
     condition or structure not previously used  as a  disposal  system  into such
     a  system.

(f)  "Disposal  aquifer"  is any aquifer into which wastes  are intended to be
     disposed of by means of a disposal system.

(g)  "Dispose" and "Disposal" mean the deposit,  generation,  creation, or discharge
     of  any wastes at any level  below the land surface.

(h)  "Operate" when used with respect to  a disposal system means the  use or
     employment of that  system to dispose of  wastes below the surface of the land.

(i)  "Person" means the  state, or any agency  or  institution  thereof,  any munici-
     pality,  political subdivision, public or private  corporation,  individual,
     partnership, association, or other entity,  and includes  any officer or
     governing  or managing body of any municipality,  political  subdivision,  or
     public or  private corporation.

(j)  "Pollution" means such contamination, or other alteration of  the physical,
     chemical,  or biological properties of any waters  of  the  state, including
     change in  temperature, taste, color, turbidity, or odor  of the waters,  or
     such  discharge of any liquid, gaseous, solid, radioactive, or other substance
     into  any waters  of  the state as  will  or  is  likely to create a nuisance  or
     render such waters  harmful, detrimental, or  injurious to public  health,

                                - 185 -

-------
     safety, or welfare, or to domestic, commercial, industrial, agricultural,
     recreational, or other beneficial uses, or to livestock, wild animals,
     birds, fish or other aquatic life.

(k)  "Subsurface" means any level below the surface of the land.

(1)  "Subsurface disposal system" means any system or facility,  method,  excavation,
     well structure or condition of any kind whatsoever (other than septic tank
     systems, solid waste disposal sites,  sanitary landfills, refuse disposal  sites,
     oil and gas wells, water injection wells employed in oil and gas well  operations,
     surface ditches or retention ponds and irrigation and water transportation
     systems),used, employed or operated so that the same may reasonably be expected,
     by direct or indirect means, to result in the disposal  of wastes underground,
     including without limitation, the following:   Sewage systems, treatment works,
     wells into which wastes are deposited or injected, installations, structures,
     wells and excavations to be used in connection with any subsurface  explosion,
     detonation, reaction or process that  might tend to discharge, deposit or
     generate wastes underground, and mines or other excavations initially made
     for other purposes when they are used for disposal.

(m)  "Subsurface water" or "Groundwater" means any waters of the State not visible
     on the surface of the ground under natural conditions.

(n)  "System" means all surface and subsurface equipment, installations  and appurte-
     nances and shall include the formations within the zone of  influence of a
     subsurface disposal system.

(o)  "Waste" means any substance, solid, liquid or gaseous,  including "radioactive
     particles thereof, which pollute or may tend  to pollute any waters  of the State.

(p)  "Workover" means any remedial procedure which could change  the physical or
     chemical characteristics of the formation, or changes in physical equipment
     (other than routine maintenance of mechanical equipment), changes in method
     of injection (acidizing, artificial fracturing), repairing  or replacing casings,
     tubing, packing and plugging or perforating additional  zones.

(q)  "Zone of influence" means the areal extent to which a waste can or  will migrate
     or be dispersed within a stated period of time from a subsurface disposal
     system, as well as the areal extent of the significant  variations of formation
     fluids caused by such a system.

     Section 3. - PREREQUISITES TO CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF SUBSURFACE
                  DISPOSAL SYSTEMS.

(a)  No person shall construct or operate  a subsurface disposal  system within  the
State of Colorado unless such person has a currently effective permit for such
construction or operation issued by the Commission pursuant  to this Section.

(b)  No person shall receive a permit from the Commission for the construction or
operation of a subsurface disposal system within the State of Colorado unless  the
Commission, acting upon the application of a person proposing to construct or
operate a subsurface disposal system shall have found and determined beyond a
reasonable doubt with respect to the proposed subsurface disposal system, after
notice and public hearing, one of the following:
                                   -  186 -

-------
      (1) that no waters of the State will be adversely affected thereby; or

      (2) that if waters of the State may be adversely affected thereby, it is
      reasonably certain such waters have then no present or foreseeably beneficial
      use and there  is no reasonable probability such waters, if adversely affected,
     will mingle with or be tributary to beneficially usable waters of the State; or

      (3) that if the waters of the State affected by the proposed system may mingle
     with or be tributary to beneficially usable waters, that the proposed system
      provides for such protective measures or plan of treatment as will adequately
      preserve with  reasonable certainty, the beneficial uses and prevent the pollution
     of such waters; or

      CO that if any beneficially usable waters of the State may be polluted by the
     operation of the proposed system, that there is no risk of significant mi-
     gration of such waters and that the proposed activity Is justified by public
     need.

Any other finding by the Commission shall preclude the construction or operation of
a subsurface disposal system at the site proposed in the application in response to
which the Commission has made its findings.

(c)  Every finding  by the Commission under the provisions of subparagraph (b) of this
Section shall be stated in writing, refer to the application upon which it was based,
and shall be final; provided, however, the Commission will grant a rehearing to an
applicant requesting the same if good cause therefore be shown to the Commission and
such  request is made within 30 days after the date of the entry of the Commission's
findings.  When information or data other than that contained in an application is
considered by the Commission in making its finding, the applicant or any interested
person shall have a right, upon request, to be informed of the nature and source of
such  information or data.   Any person assuming to construct and/or operate a sub-
surface disposal system, with or without a permit issued by the Commission,  shall  be
solely responsible  for such system and shall be deemed to have assumed all risks in
respect to the construction and operation of such system.

(d)  When the Commission shall have, pursuant to application, made one of the findings
described in subparagraphs (1) - CO of subsection (b) of this Section, the  Commission
shall grant to the applicant a permit to construct, operate or construct and operate,
as the case may be, the subsurface disposal system for which the application has been
made, which permit may be subject to any conditions reasonably required by the
Commission.

(e)  Any person having applied to and received from the Commission a permit  under
the provisions of this Section and thereafter assuming to construct and/or operate
a subsurface disposal system under that permit shall  be subject always to such orders
and regulations as  the Commission may reasonably require, from time to time,  for the
prevention, abatement and control of pollution to the waters of the State, including
but not limited to one or more of the following:

      (l) that no zone or interval, other than the zone or interval represented to
     the Commission as the disposal interval or aquifer, shall be, used as part of
     the system except after notice and hearing.

      (2) that a monitoring system, including prescribed equipment, tests, and
      installations, shall  be provided and operated at the sole risk, cost and

                                   - 187  -

-------
     expense of the persons interested in the system;  provided,  however,  the
     Commission may designate some third party to utilize the monitoring  system
     data developed by or for the operation of the system.

     (3) that treatment of wastes shall  be provided to that degree required  by
     the Commission.
         that workover or remedial  procedures  shall  not  be  performed  without  prior
     notification to the Commission and then only to the extent  ordered  by  the
     Commission.

     (5) that disposal shall  be only in such manner  as may  be  ordered by the  Com-
     mission in respect to volume,  rate, pressure, and similar parameters and
     shall  not exceed that specified or be  of  a  kind different from that presented
     to the Commission upon the application filed under  the provisions of Section k
     of these Rules and Regulations.

     (6) that all drilling, completing, and operating procedures for  subsurface
     disposal and monitoring  systems or wells  shall  conform to those  practices and
     procedures previously reviewed by  the  Commission and that any  deviation  in
     procedure or equipment from that specified  in the applications presented to
     the Commission shall  require the concurrence of the Commission before  deviation
     from such procedures may be implemented.

     (7) that an  adequate back-up facility  be  provided,  including surface equipment,
     pumps, well-head, transmission lines,  holding tanks, retention ponds and treat-
     ment facilities, to assure that a  system  may be safely shut down in the  event
     of component failure and to assure the treatment of effluent to 'a suitable
     degree for temporary surface disposal.

     (8) that evidence of financial  responsibility be submitted  to  the Commission
     and, when the Commission so requires by its  order,  security, in  the form of
     cash,  approved securities, surety  bond, or  evidence of insurance, be deposited
     with the Treasurer of the State of Colorado, in such amount and  with and under
     such conditions as the Commission  may  direct to assure the  people of the State
     of Colorado  of the continued compliance with the Commission's  orders and that,
     upon abandonment, cessation or interruption of  the  construction  or  operation of
     the system,  appropriate  measures will  be  taken  to prevent present or future
     pollution of the beneficially  usable waters  of  the  State.   Whenever evidence
     of financial responsibility is required,  such evidence shall be  furnished annually
     for as long  as the Commission  may  require.

     (9) that the Commission  shall  be furnished  with such reports,  charts,  forms,
     and other information as it may reasonably  require  and at such intervals as
     may be directed by the Commission  from time to  time.

     (10) that notwithstanding any  prior finding, order  or  permit of  the Commission,
     the continued or future  construction or operation or use  of a  disposal system
     shall, upon  order of the Commission, be discontinued after  notice and  hearing  if
     the Commission determines that continued  operation  thereof  is  or may tend to be
     injurious to the then present  or foreseeably beneficially usable waters  of  the
     State.

Failure to comply with any condition or order  of the Commission  in  respect  to any
disposal system,  or any action required to  be  taken  in respect thereto,  shall be


                                   - 188 -

-------
 cause for the Commission  to order the suspension or termination of construction or
 operation of such  system, and the suspension or revocation of any permit  issued
 pursuant to this Section,

      Section k. -  APPLICATION FILED WITH COMMISSION. - Any person proposing  to
 construct or operate, or cause to be constructed or operated, a subsurface disposal
 system within the  State of Colorado shall file with the Commission a verified, written
 application for a  permit under Section 3 of these Rules and Regulations.  Such appli-
 cation shall  contain, unless the requirement is waived as inapplicable by an order of
 the Commission, the following:

 (a)  A legal  description of the area within a radius of two (2) miles of the proposed
 system and  a  legal description of the site upon which the system will be  located.

 (b)  An accurate map of the area within a two (2) mile radius of the proposed system
 showing the location of the system, property boundaries, surface and mineral owner-
 ship  of record, the location of all water wells and oil and gas wells and whether the
 same  are  operating or have been abandoned and, if appropriate, whether such wells have
 been  plugged; and  the location of all mines, test holes and other artificial pene-
 trations  or excavations.

 (c)   A  description of the depths and deepest formations penetrated by each of the
 wells,  mines, excavations or penetrations required to be shown on the map required
 at  (b)  above.

 (d)   A  description of local topography, industry, agriculture, population densities,
 culture, wildlife, and fish and other aquatic life within the area of the proposed
 system  with a projection as to the probable effect of the system upon industry,
 agriculture, population, culture, wildlife, and fish and other aquatic life.

 (e)   A  description of the mineral resources believed to be present in the area of
 the system and the probable effect of the system upon such mineral resources,
 together with a map or maps illustrating geologic structures  and stratigraphic
 sections  (formations, lithologies and physical  characteristics for the local area
 and a general map  illustrating the regional geologic setting  of the system).  Such
 exhibits shall be prepared by a qualified expert.

 (f)   A  description of all  water resources, both surface and subsurface, within the
 probable zone of influence of the system, the classification  if any, the available
 amounts thereof and potential uses and a map or maps indicating vertical  and lateral
 limits of surface and subsurface water supplies.

 (g)   A description of the chemical, physical, radiological, and biological properties
and characteristics of the wastes to be disposed of through the system, and the
 treatment proposed for such wastes.

 (h)  Copies of all  plans and specifications for the system and its appurtenances.

 (i)  A statement of all  sources relied upon for the information set forth in the
application.

 (j)   If the disposal  system is to be an injection well, and if requested by the
Commission  in the case of any application, the following information may be required:

      (l)  Potentiometric surface maps of the disposal  aquifers and those aquifers
      immediately above and below the disposal aquifer.


                                  -  189  -

-------
(2)  Copies of all drill-stem tests, extrapolations and data used in making
the maps required at (l) above.

(3)  Location and nature of present and potential use of fluids from the
disposal or affected aquifer formations in the general area.

(4)  Volume, rate and injection  pressure of the fluid to be injected.

(5)  The following geologic and  physical characteristics of the injection
Interval and the overlying and underlying impermeable barriers:

     (aa)  Thickness.

     (bb)  Areal Extent.

     (cc)  Lfthology (grain mineralogy, type and mineralogy of matrix, amount
     and type of cement, clay content, clay mineralogy).

     (dd)  Effective porosity and how determined.

     (ee)  Permeability, vertical and horizontal, and how determined, i.e.,
     mechanical  (electrical) logs, core analyses, formation tests.

     (ff)  Coefficient  of storage of aquifer.

     (gg)  Amount and extent of  natural fracturing.

     (hh)  Location, extent and  effects of known or suspected faulting.

     (ii)  Extent and effects of natural solution channels.

     (jj)  Fluid saturation.

     (kk)  Formation fluid chemistry with indications of local and  regional
     variations.

     (11)  Temperature  of formation and how determined.

     (mm)  Formation and fluid pressures, original and modifications result-
     ing from previous  fluid withdrawals.

     (nn)  Fracturing gradients.

     (oo)  Osmotic characteristics of rock and fluids both comprising and
     contiguous  to the  reservoir, and an indication of the effect of injected
     wastes on contiguous formations in the event of leakage.

     (pp)  Diffusion and dispersion characteristics of the waste and formation
     fluid, including effect of  gravity segregation.

     (qq)  Compatibility of injected waste with physical, chemical  and
     biological  characteristics  of the reservoir.

(6)  The following engineering data concerning the well:

     i=a)  Size of hole and estimated total depth of well.

                                - 190  -

-------
           (bb)   Type,  size, weight,  strength, and  related data  in respect to all
           surface,  intermediate  and  production  casing.

           (cc)   Specifications and proposed  installation of tubing and packers.

           (dd)   Proposed  cementing procedures and  type of cement.

           (ee)   Proposed  coring  program.

           (ff)   Proposed  information testing program.

           (gg)   Proposed  injection procedure, i.e., open hole, perforated casing.

      (7)   Plans  for monitoring the system and,  if  the system is a deep disposal
     well, the plans for monitoring  injection pressures and formation pressures,
      i.e., injection wells and observation wells.

      (8)   Expected changes in pressure, rate of fluid displacement by injected
     wastes, directions of dispersion and area affected by the system.

 (k)  Such  other  and further data as the Commission may reasonably request.  An
applicant  may upon its own initiative, and when requested by the Commission, an
applicant  shall  furnish an opinion of independent experts, satisfactory to the
Commission, in respect to the accuracy and completeness of any information or data
furnished  by the applicant and on any aspect of the applicant's disposal system
or the contemplated operation or effects thereof.

     Section 5.  - PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF APPLICATIONS

 (a)  The Commission recognizes that the accumulation of the information and data
required to complete an application under Section k of these Rules and Regulations
may involve considerable expense to an applicant.  Therefore, and' merely as a
convenience to applicants, the Commission will  accept for preliminary review
applications setting forth in general terms the information specified in Section A,
but the same shall be set out in sufficient detail  so as to enable the Commission
to determine the general feasibility of a proposed system.   Such applications shall
be clearly designated as "for preliminary review" under authority of this Section.

(b)  The Commission may rule upon applications  submitted for preliminary review and
either approve or disapprove the feasibility of the proposed system.   The approval
or disapproval by the Commission upon preliminary review of applications shall in no
way affect the right of an applicant to subsequently submit an application or appli-
cations containing the data required by Section *t of these Rules and Regulations.
The Commission shall  not be bound by its ruling upon any application submitted for
preliminary review.

     Section 6. - PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION - NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING.

(a)  Before any finding upon an application, or application for rehear I r.g, or order,
or amendment of an order shall be made by the Commission under these Regulations,
there shall be held a public hearing upon at least  twenty (20)  days  notice at such
time and place as may be prescribed by the Commission and any person Interested in
the action of the Commission shall be entitled  to appear and be heard; except, when
an emergency requiring immediate action is found to exist by the Commission, the
Commission may issue an emergency order without notification of the  hearing, which
shall  be effective upon promulgation, but shall  remain effective for no more tKsa
twenty (20) days.
                                     -  191  -

-------
(b)  The Commission shall cause notice of every public hearing to be given by
personal service to each surface and mineral owner of record within a two (2)
mile radius of any subsurface disposal system which may be the subject of any
proceeding before the Commission, or it may give such notice by one publication
in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and County of Denver, Denver,
Colorado, and in a newspaper of general circulation in the County where the land
affected by a subsurface disposal system, or some part thereof, is situated.
Said notice shall be issued in the name of the State of Colorado, shall be signed
by the Commission, or the Technical Secretary of the Commission, and shall specify
the style and number of the proceedings, the time and place of the hearing, and
shall briefly state the purpose of the proceeding.

(c)  If notice is given by personal service, such service shall be made by an
officer appointed to serve summons, or by an agent of the Commission, in the  same
manner and extent as is provided by law for the service of summons in civil  actions
in the District Courts of this State.  Proof of service by such agent shall  be by
his affidavit and proof of service by any officer shall be in the form required by
law with respect to service of summons in civil actions.

(d)  In addition to the notice required to be given by the Commission under sub-
paragraph (b) of this Section, notice of every application filed with the Commission
shall be given by the applicant by mailing or delivering a copy of the application
to each surface and mineral owner of record within two (2) miles of any proposed
subsurface disposal system.  Such notice shall be mailed or delivered on or before
the date the application is filed with the Commission.  An affidavit shall be
attached to the application showing the parties to whom the notice required by this
subsection has been served, and their respective addresses.

(e)  The Commission shall designate a hearing officer, as provided in the Act, who
shall make findings and recommendations to the Commission In respect to any matter
pertaining to a subsurface disposal system.

(f)  The Commission may, on its own motion, or upon the request of any interested
person, institute a proceeding to prevent a violation of the Act, or of any order,
rule or regulation of the Commission relating to a subsurface disposal system, or
for the amendment of any order, rule or regulation, by notice of hearing, or
issuance of an emergency order to show cause directed to and served upon any person
or persons charged with violating the same.

(g)  Hearings before the Commission shall be conducted without rigid formality.
A transcript of testimony shall be taken and preserved as part of the permanent
record of the Commission.  Any person testifying before the Commission or in
support of an application or in opposition thereto shall be required to do so
under oath or affirmation.  Full opportunity shall be afforded all interested
parties at a hearing to present evidence and to cross-examine witnesses.  In
general, the rules of evidence applicable before a trial court without a jury shall
be applicable, providing that such rules maybe relaxed, where by so doing, the ends
of justice will be better served.

     Section 7. - TERMINATION, ABANDONMENT - No subsurface disposal system subject
to these Regulations shall be terminated or plugged and abandoned except after
notice and hearing. . Every plugging and abandonment shall be accomplished in
accordance with the orders of the Commission.  Monitoring equipment shall be oper-
ated after termination or abandonment for as  long as  the  Commission may reasonably
require, which operation shall be at the sole  risk, cost, and expense of the
person responsible for the disposal system.

                                   - 192 -

-------
      Section 8.  - WAIVER OF BASIC STANDARDS. - Any person operating a subsurface
disposal  system  under an effective permit issued pursuant to these Rules and Regu-
lations shall not, as a result of the discharge from that system, be deemed to be
in violation of  the Basic Standards applicable to all the waters of this State.

      Section 9.  - RELEASE OF SECURITY. - When any person constructing or operating
a disposal system has been required by the Conmission to make a security deposit
and when  that person can affirmatively demonstrate to the Commission that said
disposal  system  has been finally terminated and all reasonable measures have been
taken to  protect the waters of the State from pollution, the Commission shall, by
order, direct the Treasurer of the State of Colorado to release such security
depos i t.

     Section 10. - OTHER REGULATORY AGENCIES. - Nothing in these Regulations shall
relieve a person making application to the Commission from complying with all
applicable rules and regulations of other government agencies, whether State of
Federa1.

     Section 11. - RESPONSIBILITY.  - Compliance with the Rules and Regulations
contained herein shall in no way be deemed to relieve any person of any liability,
obligation or duty imposed on such  person by statute or the  common law.

     Section 12. - RELIANCE UPON OTHER AGENCIES.  -  The Commission and the Division
of Administration shall  freely consult with such other state and Federal  agencies
and departments, including the Colorado State Planning Office, as it or the Division
of Administration of the Commission may deem necessary for a proper determination
of any matter subject to these Regulations.   Notice of hearing before the Commission
or before a hearing officer designated by the Commission shall  be given'to interested
State and Federal agencies and departments.
                                     -  193 -

-------
        Appendix Table II. - Policy Statement of ORSANCO
                    on Underground Injection


                                    RESOLUTION NO. 1-73
                                    Policy on the Underground Injection
                                    of Wastewaters
                                    Adopted:  January 11, 1973


WHEREAS:  Underground injection is a technically acceptable method
    of wastewater disposal of long-term storage whereby pollutants
    can be removed from the surface environment and placed in iso-
    lated underground locations; and

WHEREAS:  The techniques, trained personnel and organizations are
    available within the ORSANCO district for evaluation of the geo-
    logic and engineering feasibility of underground disposal and
    for determination of the risks, if any, that may exist to public
    health and to the environment;

NOW, THEREFORE:  Let it be resolved that the Ohio River Valley Sani-
    tation Commission does declare as a policy that wastewater in-
    jection may be used when the regulatory authorities with legal
    jurisdiction have considered other alternative methods of waste
    management, and that, after weighing all available evidence,
    have determined that:

       I.  Underground injection is the best available alternative
           in the specific circumstances of the case;

      II.  Geologic and hydrologic conditions will, beyond a rea-
           sonable doubt, provide adequate protection of the public
           and natural resources;

     III.  The volume, chemical and physical composition, and toxi-
           city of the fluid to be injected are compatible with the
           geologic and hydrologic conditions;

      IV.  The necessary  safety factors and monitoring devices are
           incorporated in the design of the injection well and its
           auxiliary facilities;

       V.  The waste injection  system will  be operated in a manner
           compatible with the  geologic conditions, waste character,
           and system construction;

      VI.  An approved alternative plan for waste management  is
           available in the event  that operational  problems occur
           during the use of the  injection  system;

     VII.  The injection  well will be properly  plugged and marked
           before abandonment;

    VIII.  A permanent public record will  be  kept which  documents
           the complete  operational history of  the  injection  system.

                             -  194 -

-------







































in

p-

rH


to i
•H -P 01
to 10 cjj
id -P -P
n in 3
rH
id co to
en -P IH 5
cu u o id
r-} rf, rH

rH
id to
to c
O 01 -H
a. -p -o co
CO -H C Id
•rH CM 10 CQ
Q
4H 1
O O
ID C rH
T3 r-l O rH
O C -H 0)
& 4H p 3
-p
tu
s









en
c
H
4-1
id >
rH O
3 C
CP d)
cu en
a: <


tu
•p
id

en















c
H
0
U

•P
C

01

o

e*
H

IH
cu
4-1
id
3




X



x
















X





X





X





.
•a
m

CO
id
O

o3

rH
H
O

tu
4-1
id
4-1
cn



10
e
id
XI
id
rH









— i
DJ C
IH O
it) U

rH H
cu id
3 -P

03 CU
g
si c
-P 0
H IH
id -H
0) >
s c
w
4H C
0 4H 0
0-H
•p
.p • id
0,-P >
tU d, IH
Q tU (U
Q CO







X






X
X



X










X





X







> 1
14 CU
cu cS
to
c
O -P
u id
c z
CO O
Id -H 4H
O to O to
to  IH
H g ft, 3
H o a) o
O U Q to




id
X
to
id
H







4H rH
O O

• -P
-P C
0. O
tu a
Q •
rH
— rH

tu CM
£,
4-1 3O
H CO
Id
01 .-P
a HO,
o tu
4H at Q
o o
•V

4-1 4->4J
Q, Id1-1
cu jj id
Q CO ! X





X X







[>
14
tu
to g
c e
o o
u o
c
to o 01
id H id
U CO O
to
03 -H oo

rH g rH
•rH O -rH
o u o


to
id id
C CO
o c
N id
•H X
* 1-1
< <
CU t3
Cn C CU
14 Id -P
id fl) 4-1
.C U -H
0 O E
•H O 0)
Q 4-1 a






to
a)
u
r-l
3
O
CO
tu
K

IH
a)
-p
>i id

O

O 4J IH
u to id
ta 4-) o
coca
00







X
















X





X





X





1
1
CO •
id >
o n
CU
03 CO
c
rH 0
•H U
o

4H O
0

• -M
> 0,
H O
Q Q
id
H
C

O
4-1
H
rH
id
U











tv ••.
rH • CO

SIS
id O H
3 U 3
o
— H 10 >i
0) O tU 0)
6 M (K >
10 -P IH
U C H 3
0 tu CO
4H U 4-1
O Id H
C 3 id
GO O
O -H 4H -H
•r-l 4-1 O Cn
CO 3 O
•H rH • rH
> -H > O
•H O -H 0)
Q CM Q C3








X







X














X





X







^
i-4
tu
to
C
o
o
c •
CO O
id -H
O CO
to

s tu
H 1 C
-HO O
O U Z
3
CJ
O -H

id o
IH CU
o c
H C
0 0
u o















1
0)


rH
at
IH
3
4-1 -a
id 14
Z id
0
4-t CQ
O to
01 en
. 0 C
4-) IH -H
a 3 c
tu o H
Q CO S








X X







X X








X





X





X X






•-•a
1C 10 C
co id m
o --H cj
M 4-> CO
•H Id ofl 0)
> rH C
S3 rH -H
w a> -H s
0) O
4H Co; 4H CO
O 4H O -H
rH O Id
• Id • iH
tu i) p cu • 4-1 ai
c a c G > a c
o cu  o H cu -H
Z Q 6 Z Q Q g


tu co
IH id -H
id -o o
3 -H O C
Id IH .C -H
rH O Id H
11 rH -3 -H
Q fa H H
- 195 -

-------


















































































^^
•o
01
3
C
•H
4J
C
0
u


H
V-H
M
, 1
P3
f£
r_|








CO
.V
Vl
K)
e
01





tn
0)
-H
U
c
01
cn
ajj

tjl
c
•H

id
C
• r-f
•o
Vl
o
o
u






to
01
Vl
3.
!u
o
0
M


08

01
•-H
01
id
«

rH
id
Dl
S


r-4
n)
CO
o
o
to
•rH
Q
U-4
o

T3
o
J3
4J
01
S
u
•H 1
H H CO
.Q Id CJi
3 0) C
ft 3! -rH

1 01
Vl 4->
11 -H
ft S
Vl
O 1
IS
CO rH 01
0) 3 C

3 (!) H
K « 4J

1
4J CO
Ifl 01
4-1 4-1
tn 3


to to
4J U 3
U 0 id
< -3
CO
c
to -H
4-1 r-J CO
•H C 10
ft m ca

i
o
D C H
•n O rH
C -H D
H 4J S











o>
c
.,-4
4-1
id >
rH U
3 C
Cn 11

« <





u
4J
id

tn












V|
01
4J
id
S

1
J^
_|J
,-_)
(Q
01
K

m
O

•o

10
o
«














































tv
[/)
td
e>

<~3

-H
•H
0

m
O

•
>
M
Q






H)
C
id
•H
•a
c
H









1
c
H

• *
rH
O
M
4J
C
O
U

C
o
-H
4J
3
rH
rH
O








• tt
C
0
•H
4J
O
01
cn

11
4J
to
10
S

i-H
10
• H
^
4J
01
3














>,
01
>

3
cn

rH
id
u
-H
D1
O
rH
O
01
ft -O O















































1
01



-p
id
z

m
0

.
jj
ft
01
Q





















J^







X





X










X






X
















CO
01
D

3
O
































































































01
4-1
id
4~>
CQ

J^
D
13
C
r}

>*
C
o
•H
4J
O
3
T3
Q
^1
ft 01

O O
2 U















































to
01
a

3
0
CO
01
OS

rH r-H
fl -r4
Vl O
3 C
-P 3
10 O
z u









id
S
o







1
-H
cn
O
rH
O
11
0

• V
rC
4J
rH
fl
Or

Q1 Hldldft 01 ftrl
01 4J4-1MMES OVltO ^J^
•HOld-HCJl333 OHO-r( "
Q-PS>Mi04Jx!co ZIWKH-O "jj


CO
01
u

3
o
to
0)


Vl
01

id
S

IW
O

.
1 1
ft
D
Q








X







X X










X





X






X





lk
^1 • ?"1
01 > OJ
> VI >
Vl 01 Vl
3 to 33
tn c nj w
O 1)
rH O Vl rH
id 3 id
u IH m u
•r4 0 --H
tj* £yi tji
O • CO
rH 4J -H -H 0)
O ft CO C
0) 0) -H 01 O
O Q SO 2
01
4J
4-1
01
10 01
C 13 3
10 C -C
•H id O
01 01 rH IS
•H C >1 tO
3 -HUM
o id id is
r3 S S S



























U
c:
o
2








X







X























X





1
c
O r-4
H id
4J Vl
0 3
0) -P
tn 10

CO 01
Id 
-------



























































^^
•o
01
3
B
•H
JJ
B
0
o

H
H
X H

'O GQ
B <
01 H
a
(X
flj




Remarks

01
a
c
a
0

01
c
4-
10
c
•5
c
o
o
u
•H 1
H JH 0]
Ana
3 01 B
o< a: -H
n
HI 1 (0
V4 lj 4J
3 lll-H
•O O, £
01
U M
O O 1
M 10
Dt m H 01
01 3 B
* H O> O
3 0) -.-I
01 05 K 4J
•H
01 1
10 -P 01
(Q 10 0
4J 4J
H W 3
10
01 01 01
J 4J tl 3
H
n) 01
n B
an -H
4-1 Tl U)
01 -H C O
•H 0< 10 «
Q
»M t
o o
01 CH
•O T-l O l-l
O C-H I)
4J
£






fj
•H
10 >
H O
3 fi
m o>

«<




ID
JJ
Kt
4J
U)


1 01 >i 6
U 01 UW jQ 0)
3 CP « -H 1 Oi
TJ M w o *d fl
O 10 H - U 41
u js zs H O.-P n
QiB unoi -H 01 Oi
o 01 4J 4J a JB 0)
O -H -H O 10 O 'H -P -H
Z4-I d 4J S S J3 O O


B 01
own
U O 01
B
B • O
O -O-H
•H tO 01
•P n)
3 «-H
"•I • §

030
a o u
o
ill J"l
H 0)
M O -P
•H H Ifl
< -u 3






X








X





«>






X






X



•o

10
s

01
3


i-t
0 «
a 01
01 -H
B n
B n
•H 'H
£ £
,
on m n
0) "•< 1 O 10
O 01 OH
•P -H M -H
IV » fi O J» O
+1 •-( .^ +J c
10 Oi g 10 H 3
.P 0 "D U -H O
in H «c 4J o u
B -H
•d • o M
slsH§
>i -O >H 01
01 .- C H H -H
> m HI 41 o £
M 01 W O<
3 O 13 >M
w n ouo
3 OI-H 01
H O O H JJ •
B n H J3 10 >
U 01 01 3 X -H
•H B! g o< B
tji B «D
O M O •* •
H o> u • 6 —
0 -P > g •
01 Ifl IM 01 O T3
us o Q u n






X








^



















X


•H


M
o >

01
10
o



i**4
>p^
o





•l-l
M
3
o
«1
01
•H
£




01
4J
Ih
J3 TJ
4J 14
H Ifl
IB O
oi m
33
01

0 U
• 3
4J 0
Qi n
01 01
Q Oi






X








X












X






X


M
01
01
B
o
o
B
n o
U n





0 U






10
B
n)
4J
i
1 1 B
O U 1 O IM B
3 3 O O -H ifl
•a •3 oi H -H
0 0 O Ifl >l"d TJ
M U O 0) 01 C 01
a C Q.6 ••rH>4JM'O
O 0 U) D< Vj H 6
0 -H O^H • O 3 3 C ifl
^
1 * -p *
1 > H J3 0)
• u a) n u
g 0) » -H 3
B 01 33 b -P
O B H
O 0 M IM
O 0 0 O
M 01 • • •
01 -0 g -P -P
4J ifl g tt a
10 0* O 0* 01
s j3 o a a






X








X












X






X


1

u

J,'

01
01
B
0

01 01
B B H
O O -H
Z Z 0

M

J3 >i O
01 01 U
Ol I» -rl
§M X
oi 8
33 ^3 £

01 01 01
z z z
- 197 -

-------




















































































s~^
13
0)
3
C
-H
.P
C
0
o


H
H

X W
•H p
t3 03
G rtj
01 EH
ft
ft
<;







01
u
(d
g
o»
a.



01
01
.r-f
O
£
0)
CP


CP
G
4-1
G
•H
•a

o
0
u
o
•H 1
H rH 01
.O id CP
3 
H O
3 C
CP Q)
0) tP






0)
+J
(d
4J
M




1
O
3
•0
O
U
ft C
o
0-H
Z 4-1
01
01
o
•H |
> o
14 01 01
0) H O
U) i rO X
4-1 S 4J >,
r4 rH 01
rH 0) ft) >
Id H 01 rH
33 33 3
CXP< U3
4H 4H O rH
o o id
• 0
• • 01 4-1 -rH
> > G ft CP
•H -H O 0) O
Q Q Z Q rH









XXX







XXX
















X X






XXX





1 >
01 1 14
« G 0) > >
W 01 iH V4
rH C 01 0)
ro • o 01 01
.H 4J U G G
01 ft O O
C 0) H U O
•H Q id C C
a i -P 01 o 01 o
i G id -H id -H
44 in o) o 01 o ra
O 0) § 01 01
U G ttf -H 14 *H
•MO g 60)
>3^ rHg rHg C
•H O -H -rH O -HO O
Q01> OU OU Z
id
G
-rH
rH
0
rl
X id id
1H X U
O id 01
N 13 id .C
id M .p
s > ja u
0) 0) 01 O
2 Z 2 Z









1

O
u

c
o
•H
•p
3
rH
•H
O
0<

o

.
01 0) 4J rH
G G ft O
O O 0) In
Z Z D -P









X XX







X XX
















X X






X XX








• rH
S id •
E M E
O3 §
U 4-1 O
id u

id 01
•H 44 0) ft
.4 O 0 H
4-1 ,H O
01 • 3 U
3 4-1 O
T3 ft 01 rH
C 01 01 -H
H Q « O


id
4J
O
X
in (d
Q £

JH X3
4-1 o id
U -H rH
O £1 J<
Z O O
1
u
3 O
•a G 01
o 4J -a
H "-H 0)
ft C S 3
O H 01
0 -H 01 01
Z 4J ft-H


H
id
4-)
G
01


o
n
•H

G

44
O >i
4J
• -H
4J rH
ft id
01 3
Q a

















X










X





X






^





G
id
01
>1 01
CP U
O M
rH 3
O O
01 01
O 01

44
O rH
id

4J  ft C
O 14 CP^ O
HOGG O -H
0< 4-1 H id Z 4J




1
1

T>
ffl

W -P
0) rH
•P Id
CO 
m 0) 01
G 3
rH -H rrj
•H S G
O H
44
44 O H
O id

• 4J <1> (1)
> ft G C
•H 0) -H O
Q Q a z


id 13
•H C
G id
Id rH
> 01
rH H
^
01 111
G t3
c o
01 XI
CK !£
1
U
3
•0
O

ft C
O
O -H
Z 4J




















































































0)
c
o
2
id
G
•H
rH
o

id
u

J3
Jj
3
O
U]
- 198 -

-------











































































T3
01
3
C
-H
4J
C
8




l_j
H
H
C Q
0 2
Q, IH


^









01
M
10
g
£

01
01
•H
o
c

Oi


01
c
-H
^J
10
c
•H

Vl
o
o
u
u
•H P
rH Vl 01
43 IB Oi
3 01 C
ft 33 -H
0!
H 1 01
3 )H -P
O 01 -H
01 ft 6
0
O IH
rl O I
X 10
10 rH 01
Jl 0) 3 C
rH Ol O
01 3 01 -H
H « « 4J
M
10 1
3 -P 01
tO 0)
H 4J 4J
a w 3
•3 01 01
•P M 5
U O (0
< ij
rH
to 01
01 C
0 01 -H
a-u T! co
III -H C 10
•H ft IB «
Q
0 0
•O T-l O rH
O C -H 0)
J3 H 4J |3
01
s











c
•H 01
.p 01
tfl -rl
H U
3 C
O> 0)
0) O>
« <



CO
01
4J
10
4J
w





01
T3 -P J3
Vi 01 O.-P
O 0) 01 rH
-P C 4J Q tO
O -H 0)
oi o e s a
•t~~i 01 vi o
C H 01 H 14
H to aiH o







si
4->
rH
(0
01
33

I4_l
o

,
4-J
o.
01
a








X








X














X













T)

ifl
o


01
(0
u



rH
•rl
o

10



10
o

t~)
4J
3
0
IB



o
1 4J
01
•H rH
13 10 01
01 -P
O O to







_r]
4->

10
01


IH
o

t
•p

01
Q








X








X




























*^3

to



01
s



rH
•H
o




01
0)
0)
0)
01
c
c
01
EH



01
•* Oi 0)
01 T3 M M T3
4J 01 10 O 01
a o o oj o
H 01 IH rH
0 rH -rl IH rH
2 tO 13 O tO
1
'O -1"!
rH 4J
•* -H rH
- • S 10
• TJ 01
rrj CO J) S
CO
• 01 IH
>i 0<>^ O
MOM
•H rH (0 •
H 01 ft 4->
rg > fx
3 01 1-1 01
aa o a

M rl • "
01 0) -P 01
4J 4-J Cli'W
to 10 a) -H
S S O H



X




X








X



















X





.*
10
10
o

iJS Q
H
rH O
•rl O
0
T3
IH 10
0 0

• H
> -H
•H Ifl
Q rt








01
10
X
01
^









I*
g 1
C ^|
O 3
u w

C rH
O 10
•H O
-rJ-rl

H 0
rH rH
0 0
ft 0>
o
rl
01 •
•p en >,
to . 01
s a >

















X









X




X




X




1
1
01 1
tO 0)
O OS

08 •
4-)
rH 10

o
IH
n o 01
O 01
• u
• 4J rl
> a 3
•rl d) O
Q Q 01










rrj
4J
a
-

1 1 1
u to M 01
3 01 rH O -rl
•O 01 3 i»H -O
O rH Ol
H 3 0) 01 01 rH
a c vi vi c c 10
O O -H 01
O -H O M -H Vl O
z -p 2 o -P xi a



T3
M
10
o
ft\

H
0

4-1
c
0
u

^
01
4J
to
s



























X

















l£

VI

r^
10


o n

• 01
a) jj 3
C tX'O
O 01 C
]Z Q H





Ifl
4J -H
c c
O -rt
gOi
Vl
CD -H
> >
199 -
1
•rl 1
01 01
•H -H
> M tj
o o
Vl IH CD rH
a c it)
01 -rl 01
O C H O
2! O J3 C".







































X























CO
01
• c
> -H

o! S
01 IH

Q
O • >i
t> Oi
01 -rH O
tO Q i-H
o o
., 0)
ta • cj
c
rH B Tl
•r( 5 C
O U 10



c
o
4J
Oi
c
•H

0!
10















rH
10
Vl
3
-p
10

01
IH 0)
0 U

. 3
•P 0
a. o)
01 01
a «








X








X



















X



^J
a
01
o

^

^
-rl
o

CO
10 01
O 0)
c

s
H
•rl IW
o o
ra
•H
a
•H

VI
•rH
^

4J
0)
01



-------
•o
01
g
c
                 o
                 H  I
                 -t  U  'Jl
                |jQ  n)
                 3  01
                 tti S -H
                    0) -H
                    &  g
                 °i
                 01 r-<  Ul
                 01 3  C
                 r-l 0>  O
                 g 01 -H
                ,os «

                     i
                    4-1  Ul
                    10  0)
                    4J
                    in
                       ui
                 4J H 3
                 o o (0
                 <    J
              p^4J -a
                  ' C <0
                    10 CO
                 o
                 oi c
                 •r-i O »-*
 tn
 c


I*
r-l  O
 3  C
 0> 01
 0)  OV
                              O
                              3
                              •O
                              O
                              u
                              a c
                                 o
                              O r4
                              Z 4->
                              0>
                              c
                              o
                             2
                                       O U
                                       t^
                                       C
                                      •H
                                       >,
                                                                               -   200   -

-------
Appendix  Table  IV.
                                   ILLINOIS
                OUTLINE OF STATUTORY AUTHORITY AND REGULATIONS
               RELATING TO POLLUTION CONTROL AND WASTE  DISPOSAL
                 (American Petroleum  Institute,  1975)

I.   WATER

    A.   Statutory Authority.
        Water pollution control law comes from the Illinois  Environmental Pro-
        tection Act of 1970 and from an  Act In Relation to Oil,  Gas,  Coal, and
        Other Surface and Underground Resources, effective July  20,  1941 and as
        amended.  The agencies responsible for promulgating  rules  and regulations
        and enforcing pollution control  are:

        1)  Illinois Pollution Control Board - established by the Environmental
           Protection Act to  determine,  define, and implement the  environmental
           control standards  applicable  in the State of Illinois and  to conduct
           hearings upon complaints charging violations and  petitions for
           variances.

        2)  Illinois Environmental Protection Agency - established  by  the Environ-
           mental  Protection  Act to collect and disseminate  information, conduct
           experiments, conduct a program of surveillance and inspection of
           actual  or potential contaminate sources, investigate  violations of
           the Act or regulations, present enforcement  cases before  the Pollution
           Control Board, and recommend  pollution control regulations to the
           Board.

        3)  Division of Oil and Gas, Illinois Department of Mines and  Minerals -
           has jurisdiction and authority over oil and  gas operations as evidenced
           by Section 45(a) of the Environmental Protection  Act, except that water
           quality standards  set forth by the Board apply to and are  effective
           within  the areas covered by the Department of Mines and Minerals.  If
           the Department of  Mines and Minerals fails to act upon  a complaint
           within  10 working  days 'following receipt of  the complaint,  the Illinois
           Environmental Protection Agency may proceed  under the provisions of the
           Environmental Protection Act.

    B.   Rules and  Regulations.
        Division of Oil and Gas,  Illinois Department of Mines and  Minerals.

        Rule  II, Permits.
        (3) Requires application for permit to drill  a  geological  or  structural
           test hole or water supply well.
        (4) Requires permit for drilling,  deepening,  or converting any well for
           injecting gas,  air,  water, or other liquids  into  any underground
           formation.

        Rule  VII,  Waste Prohibited.
        (1) Waste  gas  must be flared.
        (2) Prohibits  escape  of unburned  gas.   Surplus  gas must be burned at a
           safe distance.
        (3) Burn-off pits must be at a safe distance  and must be burned as often
           as necessary to prevent overflowing.   Such  pits  shall  have a continuous
           wall sufficient to prevent escape of oil  or  water drainage into the pit,

                                     - 201  -

-------
Appendix  Table  IV.  (Continued)


           Earthen pits are permitted where the soil is heavy and tight, but
           are prohibited where soil is porous and closely underlain by sand
           or gravel.

       Rule VIII, Protection of Workable Coal Beds.
       (1) Defines workable coal beds and requires that such beds be protected
           from penetrating wells.
       (6) Requirements for operating over an active mine.
           B.  Drilling methods and procedures.
               (2) Requires a mine protective string of casing be set in wells
                   penetrating active mines.
               (3) Requires specified casing diameter, centralizers, and cement-
                   ing of the oil string in wells drilled in active mines.

       Rule IX, Avoidance of Fresh Water Pollution and Disposal of Salt Water
       or Other Liquids to Prevent Waste as Defined in the Act.
       To assure fresh water supplies and prevent waste, no person shall dis-
       pose of salt water or other liquid wastes except as follows:
       (1) Disposal in Underground Stratum.
           Mining Board must issue permit, has authority to designate and
           approve the stratum into which liquids are disposed, and has authority
           to prescribe the protective work necessary to confine such liquids to
           the intended stratum.
       (2) Disposal in Earthen Pits.
           A.  New Pits - Application must be made to the Mining Board for
               permit.  Geological and engineering data may be requested.
               Earthen pit can be constructed only when proposed pit area is
               underlain by tight soil such as clay or hardpan to prevent
               seepage.
           B.  Existing Pits - Application must be made to the Mining Board for
               permit.  All pits shall have continuous surrounding walls to pre-
               vent surface drainage entering.  Pits shall not be used in areas
               subject to flooding unless constructed so as to normally not be
               affected by flooding.
       (3) Pipes to be kept in repair.
       (4) Slush and Mud Pits.
           One slush pit required for cable tool drilling.  For rotary drilling
           a mud circulation pit and reserve pit are required.
       (5) Rotary Drilling Procedure.
           Sufficient surface casing shall be run to reach a depth below all
           utilized fresh water zones and such casing shall be cemented by the
           displacement method with sufficient cement to circulate to the top
           of the hole.  In lieu of surface casing requirements, the flow string
           may be cemented by displacement with sufficient cement to protect
           all utilized fresh water strata.
       (6) Cable Tool Drilling Procedure.
           Sufficient surface casing shall be set to protect all utilized fresh
           water zones and shall be cemented by displacement.
       (7) Mining Board Supervision.
           Improper inpoundment of disposal of salt water or.other liquid waste
           or pollution of utilized fresh water stratum shall be corrected by
           order of the Mining Board.
       (8) Annual Inspection of Pits.
           All pits for which permits have been issued shall be subject to a.
           yearly inspection by the Mining Board.  Ten days after written notice
           to the operator and after a hearing, pit may be condemned by the Board.
                                   -  202 -

-------
Appendix  Table  IV.   (Continued)


         Rule  XI,  Plugging  of Wells.
         To prevent  waste,  nonproductive wells  drilled for oil or gas, unused
         input wells,  unused  salt  water disposal wells,  and unused geological
         or structure  test  holes drilled below  the glacial drift shall be se-
         curely plugged and abandoned.
         (2) Well  to be plugged when:
            a.  Drilling operations  shall have ceased for 30 days and no pro-
                duction string has been run.
            b.  Any well for which operations  have  ceased for six months.
         (3) Prior Notice to  Mining Board.
            Mining  Board representative should be notified at least eight hours
            in advance of  plugging operations  or pulling of casing.
         (5) Plugging  Methods and  Procedures.
            Oil,  gas,  coal,  and fresh water formations  should be protected
            through properly placed  cement plugs at specified depths and mud-
            laden fluid.
         (6) Converting to  Water Well.
            A well  can be  used for fresh water purposes if approved by the
            Mining  Board and properly plugged  below the fresh water stratum.

         Rule  XI-A,  Sealing of Abandoned Water  Wells.
         Unsealed  abandoned water  wells must be sealed with types and amounts of
         materials designated to prevent intermingling of desirable and undesir-
         able  waters.

         Illinois  Pollution Control Board—Part II.  Water Qualtiy Standards.

         Rule  203, General  Standards.
         In order  to protect  the State's water  for aquatic life, agricultural
         use,  primary  and secondary contact use, and most industrial uses,, and
         to ensure the aesthetic quality of the State's  aquatic environment, the
         following water quality standards apply:
         (a) Freedom from unnatural sludge or bottom deposits, floating debris,
            visible oil, odor, unnatural plant or algae growth, unnatural color
            or turbidity,  or matter  in concentrations or combinations toxic or
            harmful to human, plant, animal, or aquatic life.
         (b) pH (Storet number-00400) shall be  within the range 6.5 - 9.0.
         (e) Radioactivity
            1.  Gross  beta (Storet 4-03501) concentration shall not exceed 100
                pica  curies  per liter.
            2.  Concentration of  radium 226 (Storet number-09501) and strontium
                90  (Storet number-13501) shall not exceed 1 and 2 pica curies
                per liter, respectively.
         (f) The following  levels  of  chemical constituents shall not be exceeded.

                                            Storet No.     Concentration (mg/L)
                Barium                        01005               5.0
                Chloride                       00904             500.0
                Iron  (total)   '                01046               1.0
                Phenals                       3273Q               0.1
                Sulfate                       00945             500.0
                Total  Dissolved Solids         00515            1000.0

         (h) Any substance  toxic to aquatic life shall not exceed one-tenth (1/10)
            of the  48-hour median tolerance limit (48TLm) for native fish or
            essential  fish food organisms.

                                  - 203 -

-------
    to
    o
    a.
    CO
    h- (
    Q
CO
hH  [U
O  E-
I-H  Q
O

LU  O
E-  OS
<  H
f-1  2
    O
CO
LL,
o
CO
    U
    O
     a
Appendix
Table IV.
(Continued




Q
OS
<£
O
09

O
OS
H
2
-8

2
O
r-H
H

_5
>_3
O
0~

CO
HH
O
2
HH
HH








CO Z
IS
LU
CO L3
Q <
HH 2
t-J 3
o s
W


j


SH
1— 1
-J
^
j~"i
cx

oi
*— i
<3^






' £
HH
cx





































as

f_
<;
31
(/I
H CO IOC
2 >-J  o
LlJ <£ CO •*-> -H
S ce •< ri c *->
H W C3 •(-> O cd
OS z; i/l • r-l (H
rx 2 00 ctf PL,
uj J C U 0
Q u* 1— 1 T-( -H
O > •— ' 10
CO to cd &, nS
HH LU u. X PL, ofl
O Z O m

HH 2E! • CJ CO
J > i-HJ T3 i-l
J OH HH 3 -H .H
HH O Q OS 5 O











1
H

£J?
113
R.
o
















































2
O
H

£X
O
c^
X
w
^










































































a


^
ji
C
C
a.
c_


CT

















to
0
CM

•t
CM
O
CM

(/)
O
i— H
3
OS



















/ — \
to
**— '

HH
HH

(U
t-H
3
OS















i/i
(U
1 — 1
.2
~- ,
4-J
O
X
CO

.
__Q

















































,-— ^
to
V 	 1

1 — 1
HH


u

>
(U




/ — \
CJ
% — t
•• — '
vD
O
r-H

I/I
4)
i—l
^
p^
^ .
/ — *
nS
* — *
O
1/5
t
CM
O
LO

to
CO
r— 1
3
os


































uD-

DC
•H
^
CO
ID
r-H
X
rt
y c
1 O
<4-' -H
O -I-1
i ni
4J 0
f£« ^
cc u-.
•H C)
CS OS

•
<+H





























r-H
o
\o
to
o
to
o
CM

I/)
V
1


















C
o
•rH
o
0)
4->
O
(X

J_J
CO
•M
_rt

4-*
r-H
rt
CO

a?
,£;
(/)
CL>
X


t>.



O
S"
vD
o
r— 1

t/>
V
r-H

fr"!























































^J
f^
4)
f
C
O
T3
C
CO
^z
 CM
O CM
— '
O -
3 to
H O
CM
l/>
U «
-1 t—t
3 0
IS CM

/ — \

s — '
to
O
t/)
•s
CM
O
L/>

W
CO
t—t
3

































C
O
•H
+->

-------
Appendix
Table IV.
(Continued)






Q
5?
O
CQ

O

E-
Z
-J O
< u
CO
0 Z
(X O
CO rH
I-H F-,
Q 5
CO rJ
i— ( CU 1-J
Of— i c~i
r* \^j
Z CO 0.

•J S CO
i-J rH
I-H C) O
tl,  -H
3 2 OS < n) c 4-i
UO{-CUl34-iOn5
LU E-i OS z in -H rH
OS «£ rH U3" 4-> O
U CX S 00 n) CX
2 LU -3 C 0 0
t-H Q UD" rH -H -H
f~> O > rH (/)
3 CO CO CS CX cfl
I-H LU Cu, XI PL, U)
LU O Z O nl
S Z M in uff
rH S • 4)  rH 13 1— I
-3 U. I-H 3 -H -rH
rH O O OS 2 O













Z
o
t-H
i— •
K!
LU
CU
o

























































































C9
'^*.
i — i
i—.
Q
^!



O
/• — \

\ — /
\o
o
rH

, — i
3
c£

f — ,
rt
V 	 '
TH-
o
LO
«
CM
O
LO
in




o
,, — v
J"l
\ 	 i
\D
O
i-H

d>
f-H
2
pi








/ — \
s
X
t-H

OJ
U
o
m





{/>
4-j
•H
CX

tfj
T3
*iH
3
I-H
U,

&0
C
•H
1 — 1
T— 1
•1— <
CH
A




o
V 	 '
•t
,. — ^
rt
V 	 /
vD
O
rH

rt
S

4_l
rH
'a
CO

CU

f-*
in
0)
LL,
IU
















































03
/ — \
\D
V 	 /
•t
t — \
f— 1
v — 'f — \
to
rHCQ
I/I
0) -

3TM
OS—'


C
o
•H
4-1
O
d>
4J
0
f-i
[~ti

4-1
•rH
tn
o
P,
C.

rH
oj
f-4
(U
C
•rH
UH
-



u
•t
/ — \
Xi
V 	 '
vD
o
1 — 1
0)
rH
3










CM
O
LO

(U
3
OS






















<£
1
rH
X
^
HH
X
VJ

.3
C^









































q
o
• H

rt
1 1
•H
rt
CO

ti5

in

g;
ci
(.J
.c
5 -



o
— /
•CM
-
O -
StO
rHO
CN
in
HrH
30
DSCM
t — *
ni
x — '
Tj"
O
LO

•*
CM
O
in
 •>
30
OSLO



















/ — ^
CM
N 	 /

n
/ 	 v
rH
^^
rH
rH
tn
(1>
rH


















oc
-r_(
4-1
C

^>

.•)
K)
U
•^




2
^ — ^
x>
V 	 /
vO
o
rH
dj
rH
3
OS









to
o
CM

0)
3
OS











































rH
o
rH

C
O
u

o
rH
U
•r-i

J^
rt
a.
^












































































fH
O
tH
4-1

o
u

fl>
yi
•r-/
O
z
rH




































/ — v
XI

rH
O



rH
3
































in
r-H
, — |
H
p.
CO

r-f
•H
O
e



























































































































































































































































I
















































































































































































































































































	 	 ^

-------
  CO
  O
  Cu
  CO
  UJ
  E-
3s
Z a
CO O
  rH
UH f-.
o 5
  j
CO .J
2 O
o a.
 : H
  <
  —i

pe
bl
on
p
o
CO
*_3
8
2
O
U
2
O
rH
H
*~^
-J
0
0.

CO
t-H
o
2

rH












H
ndix
e IV.
tinued)
CO 2
*t UJ
UJ
co o
Q <
rH 2
•J ,
H
rH
»-J
<£
^
cy
os
r— 1
^




i-,
§-*
*-<
g
cy

OS
UJ
f-

^

co i o q
^r ,_J (]j ^_j Q
W < CO *-> -H
2 « < crj q 4J
H UJ u +-> o n)
OS Z 10 -H rH

OH 2 bO Cti ft
uj j q o o
Q US rH 'H -H
O > f- 1 10
CO CO 03 a, OS
i-i uj a. ,c cu ao
O Z O n)
2 rH 10 WT
rH 2 .DO
J >• rH -O rH
JO, l-l 3 -rH -H
tH O Q OS 2 0











•^
O
rH

^
os
UJ
a.
O
















































































z
o
rH
H
O
c
0
OS
a,
rH






















l-t
0
\o
•t
to
o
-
0
CM

V)


3
OS

^
rH
\ 	 /
X
r- 1
^
^-^
^
^ 	 '
t-H / — •
t-H I-N.
^

rH
(§











































rH
CU
tn
O
. P-

•H
Q

tn
-e
•r-
r-^
O
CO


XI



U
vD
O
rH

(0
(D
rH
3
^>
^•^^
oj
^
o
t/>
^
CM
O
LO
tn
,
nj
3:
i

O
I
l_
r-^
G
• r-
f£


q
Q
•r-^
t->
C\
O
C


•c























rH
O
\O
^
to
o
•>
0
CM

tn
4)
rH
3





/ — ^
00
\ — f
•\
t — \
r^
N 	 t
X
rH

O
rH
3
QS










, — ^
^
o
^>
0

r^
O

» — /

10

•H
0,


•a
















CM
0
LO

4)
rH
OS











































I/I
^
• rn
3

IX,

rH
4)
J>
O
y
^
.0


0








«t
^^
MLO
LO T)
O v-
CM Tt
- O
^4 I/"
o •
CM to
0
10 1/5
4) •
rH CM
3 0
OS 10

















l_^
CM

*t
/— \
rH
*• — '
t-H
hH
>.

V)
(D
rH
D
Q*














t
C

^j
c


(/;
£


«H























1— (
O
vO
*v
to
0
-
o
CM

in
a>
rH
3
OS
j;
o

— \
rsi
— ^/— *
«vO
— v^-*
H HH
^X
>< •)

p^
10 v — •
4) •

3 \O
3S v —








rH
4>
+J
cU
s

4J
rH
ns q
CO O
•H
uir 4-*
O
r* 4)
10 +->
4) O
rH H
Pu, 0.


bo
- 20


O
v — '
v — '
O
rH

t/)
rH
3.
^.
f 	
aj
^p
0

•
CM
0
to
in
4)
rH
os




















^f
t
rH
X
*\
rH
X

tn
4)
rH
3
OS








4J
q
4)
e
q
0
T3
q
(^
o
<^

rH
D
a,
O
rH


*
6 -
i


























•H
to
0
CM

4)
rH
3
OS



























q
o
•H
4J
3
r-H
rH
O
tx

r-l
nj
E
rH
4)



•H



































































rH
O
r-l
4_>
q
o
CJ

4>
tn
•r-l
O
2


•* i











^
O
CM

(N

f"^
in ex

rHLO
30










































5(
q

r-
•a
q
n
^

v
n
CD

rH
-
0
CO


•^



0
S*
vO
O

m
4)
rH
3















































o
•H
4-*
U
(D
4->
O
rH
(X

H
0)
q
o
u
CO

o
• r-
4J
$
x;
4->
y
4


*~*











^
/ — ^
<&

to
O ->




































M
C

b
f.
nJ
BO
u>r

bd
q
• r-
^
O
—
F-
£— <

'C
r-
4
U-,


e























































tx
n)
C
4_>
' CO

4)
O
n
(-
^

,X
^
CO

air

(D
O
n
M-
J-
J


q













^^
bo
v — '
to
O
CM

rjj
rH
OS





































4->
q
4)
£
c
-r;
a
UJ

, — t
o
f-H
4.
q
o
t_

^z
o
u.


o



























































t/
w
P
• r
t/
C
rH
O

H
D
4.
n
^

^
q
0
r—
q
rH


P




























£
rH
0
vO

4)
rH
3
OS

































(f
r— i
r-<

1
CT

r~"
c























































































-------
    to
    o

    v5

    3
to

O  H
z  to
rH  <


r^  Q
H  Z
to  o
    C )
u.
o  z
    o
tO  r-H
Z  H
O  =>
r-l  — )
E -- J
<0
-J  a,

u  o
   z
   r— (
pp<
ab:
Coi


C3
05

CO

O
O5
£-,
Z
O
u

o
r-l
H
S

, i
o
a,
to
r-H
O
z
1 — 1
J
I-J









sndix
Le IV.
itinued)
IDS WASTE
NAGEMENT
j <
0 2
to




;>-.
£~"
KH
J
*£
; — i
cx
&,
t-H
^






2>-i
£— i
t — i
»— 3
•^


Q-t
w
£~"*
<£
3:

(/i
E-. to IOC
2: -J 4> 4-> O
UJ < tO 4-> -H
2 o5 < rt c +->
H UJ CJ 4-> O rt
O5 Z tO -rH IH
<£ r-H US 4-» Q)
OH 2 M rt PH
UJ -J C 0 0
O CA7 r-H -H -H
O > r- 1 (fl
co to rt p« rt
t-H LU UH X CX OO
O Z O rt
Z ' — ' *0 «?
rH 2 •  r— t T3 r-H
_! U, rH 3 -H -|H
I-H O Q O5 3 O













z
O
i — i
^H
— 'CM
\O CM
o •
C
tncM
to •
r-H I— 1
30
rv rxi

•>
/ — *
bOLT
v — / ,^
LO 13
O >—

- O
CM LO
o •
CM tO
0
I/) LO
1) •
i— 1 CM
3 0
0« U2
























^ 	 ^
i-H
> — t
I—I
rH
^>

Q^
i-H
3
05


























,-H
O
vD
•v
to
0
•^
to"
0
CM

to
o
1— I
(§
-


/ — s
to
, t — >
rH

•I
• / — ^

* — t
1— _(
1 — I

U)


tfl
CO
u

oj













t/1

O
3

o
iH
d-

-o
• r-i

0
to
.
o

























i-H
o
\o
•^
to
o
rj-
to
o
CM

Ul
CD
1 — 1
3
*
— \
yl
•— '
. — ^
M
— '/ — \
-0
— \* — '
-HI— I
— *>*,
^ «\
— I/ — \
r-^
to^ — '
Q) >t
~H/ — ^
3^O
15 v_-
	 CT
o
• r-
4->
O
0)
4-)
O
(H
OH

L,
CD
4J
CTJ
^

4->
i-H
rt
CO

u?

XI
:/;
(L)
L^
U.

"O










































































i-H
O
rH

f^
O
u

CU
t/1
-H
0
z

o









«l
2"
*• — '
to
0
LO
^
CM
0
/-~^
i/i ns
DV— '
rH-*
3O
rxiLT)



















































cc
c
•l-l
CL,
O
0}
^
D
t/1
^3
O
x:
.
UH
i

o
X)
V 	 '
o
I— 1
(U
i-H
3
05





*3"
/ 	 N
rt
N 	 '
O
LO

O
I— 1
3
(Yi


















































X
rt
^
i
t4n
O
I
to
«J
r'
SO
•H
P5
t
to


























































C
O
• 1-
^,
i_
d;
4_
O

OH

X


O
x;

t/i
ID
<
s
x:







«
o
3
M

rt
^
o
a
o

a
3

4-1
!H
ra
4_)
CO

•H

- 207 -

t/1
d)
i— t
2





/ — \
00
* — /
•«
/ — \
(N
\^j
x
hH

to
i-H
3
05

















4J
•rH
OH

cu
o
rt
CM
H
3
to
g
•r->



























































w
(J
3
T3
o
L^
OH

O
(J
rt
UH
IH
3
t/1
o
3
to

U3

(U (U
U &C
rt rt
t4H ^H
rH 0
3 4J
to to

^










^
x>
* — '
•»
, 	 v
rt
^ — '
o'S
CMV — '
i
to/ — \
i — l*o
3*^ — '
OM





































rH

t4H
to

rt
rH
E-

uO"

OJ
Q£
rt
t^
o

to

4_)
o
3
•o
o
H
OH
1
1— 1









LO
-a
» — '
^j-
o
LO
•*
CM
O
LO

to
to
rH
3
C£





















































to
i— i
i-H
•H
PH
CO

rH
•H
O
_
E3



























































































































































































































































1




































































































__^-
	 — 1























































— —































--^

-------
             UNITED STATES



 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY



             (40 CFR Part 146)



State Underground Injection Control Program



           Proposed Regulations
                 208

-------
            ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                      (40 CFR Part 146)
     STATE UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAMS

                      Proposed Regulations

                           Introduction


    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to Sections 1421,  1422,

1423 and 1450 of the Public Health Service Act, as amended by

the Safe Drinking Water Act ("SDWA" or "the Act," Pub. L.

93-523),  the Administrator of the Environmental  Protection

Agency (EPA) proposes to issue a new 40 CFR Part 146 setting

forth regulations governing State underground injection control

programs.

    Approximately 100 million Americans are dependent upon

drinking water from underground sources which have historically

been relatively free from  harmful contaminants.  However, in

recent years there has been increasing concern over the threat

to public  health posed by the underground injection of substances

which degrade the quality  of underground drinking water sources.

As a result of this concern,  Congress included in the Safe Drinking

Water Act,  enacted on December 16, 1974,  a statutory mandate

for  the establishment of minimum requirements for effective State

programs designed to protect underground drinking water sources

from subsurface injection of contaminants.
                                  01

-------
    The intent of the proposed regulations is to establish minimum



requirements for effective State programs to protect existing and



potential underground sources of drinking water from endangerment



from underground injection of fluids.



    It is clear from the Act and the legislative history of the SDWA



that Congress intended that the States exercise primary enforcement



responsibility for the protection of underground sources of drinking



water to the extent possible.   For  this reason the regulations are



designed to be administratively compatible with and non-duplicative



of existing State programs.  The regulations are intended to broaden



and strengthen these existing State programs as well as to establish



minimum national requirements which reflect good engineering



practice.



    It is also clear that many differences exist between States,



including  geological conditions, use and availability of ground



water, and intensity of underground injection operations.  For



this reason the regulations are designed to allow a State to



exercise maximum flexibility in order to prevent underground



injection practices from  contaminating drinking water sources.

-------
              Le^al Framework of the Regulations



    Section 1421 ol the Act defines the basic requirements of EPA's



regulations for State underground injection control programs.  The



Administrator must promulgate regulations which contain minimum




requirements for effective programs to prevent underground



injection practices which endanger potential or present drinking




water sources.  In accordance with this mandate, the principal




purpose of the regulations is to prevent endangerment of underground



drinking water sources, and the burden is placed on the underground




injection operator to demonstrate that his operation will not result



in endangerment.  Section  146. 2(x) of  the proposed regulations



seeks to clarify what is meant by "endangerment" by defining




that term  to include the contamination or potential contamination



of an aquifer which may result in the need for additional treatment



of water from the aquifer to make it suitable for drinking.  Comments




on this definition and suggestions for alternative approaches are



welcome.  EPA believes that the definition of endangerment should



be construed liberally so as to effectuate the preventive and public



health protective purposes  of the Act.  Therefore,  the proposed



regulations seek to prevent the injection of materials which may



enter a present or potential drinking water source and pose a



threat to human health or otherwise render a present or potential



water source unfit for human consumption.  Necessarily, the
                                  03

-------
regulations seek to prevent the injection of materials which may



force a public water system to expend funds to comply with any



national primary drinking water regulation or otherwise to avoid



endangfirment to the public  health.



    Section 1421(b)(2) states that regulations for State underground



injection programs may not prescribe a requirement which



interferes with or impedes  underground injection in connection with



oil and natural gas production or the secondary or tertiary recovery



of oil and natural gas unless such a requirement is essential to



assure that underground sources of drinking water will not be



endangered by such injection.  The House Report accompanying



the Act defines the term "interfere with or impede" to mean "stop



or substantially delay."  (Report 93-1185, at 31)



    The Administrator need not demonstrate that a particular



requirement is essential unless it can be first  shown that the



requirement interferes with or impedes oil or  gas production.  As



indicated in the House Report, the Administrator does not have



an "impossible" burden in establishing the essentiality of a



requirement.  (Report 93-1185, at 31)  Moreover,  as discussed



above, the Agency intends to interpret the term "endangerment"



broadly so as to effectuate the purposes of the  Act.  Recognizing



the complexity, intensity, age and experience in regulating injection
                                    04

-------
 operations as they relate to oil and gas production and the fact



 that several alternative methods have been demonstrated to be



 equally effective in protection of underground sources of drinking



 water proposed Subsection 146.42(c) provides that a State



 Director may approve an alternative method of protection



 to specific minimum requirements contained in Section 146. 42(a),



 if the operator  clearly demonstrates that (i) the requirement would



 stop or substantially delay oil or natural gas production at his



 site; and (ii) the requirement is not necessary to assure the



 protection of an existing or potential source of underground



 drinking water.  Section 146.42(e) applies only to specific wells



 or injections.  Section 146. 42(b) provides that the Director



 may designate specific geographical areas where an alternative



 method to the requirements in Section 146.42(a)(l) or (a)(2)



 may be employed.



    Section 1422(a) of the Act requires the Administrator to list



 in the FEDERAL REGISTER those States for which a State



underground injection control program may be necessary to assure



that underground injection will not endanger drinking water sources.



Such a determination will not be based on the adequacy of an



existing State program but will be initially based on the dependency
                           05

-------
of a State on ground water as a source of drinking water and
the magnitude of underground injection operations in a State.
All States will eventually be listed.  Under Section 1422 (b)
of the Act,  a State so listed must submit a State program to
the Administrator within 270 days after being named. If the
State program does not fully meet the requirements of the
Act and applicable regulations, or if no State program is submitted,
the Administrator must prescribe a program for the State within
90 days. The States will be listed within 90 days of the publication
of this notice (40 F. Reg. 31034, July 24, 1975).
   If a portion of a State's program meets the requirements of
the Act and these regulations, that fact will be taken into account
in the Administrator's prescription and  administration of a program
for the State.  EPA will administer only that portion of an underground
injection control program for the State for which the State's program
is not adequate.  However, Section 1421 of the Act makes clear that
the State cannot assume overall  "primary enforcement authority"
unless all of its program is approved by the Administrator.  If
a State does not assume primary enforcement responsibility, it
cannot be awarded program grant funds  related to an underground
injection control program after an initial two-year period, and
the Administrator will have direct enforcement authority in the
State pursuant to Section 1423 of the Act.
                        06

-------
    State underground injection control programs under Section 1421

of the Act are considered separately from State public water system

supervision programs under Section 1413.  A State does not have to

qualify for primary enforcement responsibility for public water

systems to qualify for primary enforcement responsibility for

underground injection.

    Section 1421 of the Act requires the Administrator to promulgate

regulations establishing minimum requirements for the State

underground injection control programs.   Sections 1421 also specifies

some of those requirements.   The regulations must require that

a State program, to be approved under Section 1422 —

    (A)  shall prohibit, effective three years after the date
        of the enactment of this title, any underground
        injection in such State which is not authorized by
        a permit issued by the State (except that the
        regulations may permit a State to authorize
        underground injection by rule);

    (B)  shall require (i) in the case of a program which
        provides for authorization of underground injection
        by permit, that the applicant for  the permit to
        inject satisfy the State that the underground injection
        will not  endanger drinking water  sources, and (ii)
        in the case of a program which provides for such
        an authorization by rule,  that no  rule may be
        promulgated which authorizes any underground
        injection which endangers drinking water sources;

    (C)  shall include inspection, monitoring, recordkeeping,
        and reporting requirements; and
                                07

-------
    (D)  shall apply (i) as prescribed by Section 1447(b), to
        underground injections by Federal agencies, and
        (ii) to underground injections by any other persons
        whether or not occurring on property owned or
        leased by the United States.

    Within the framework of Section 1421(b), the Agency has

based the proposed regulation on its review of thirty-one existing

State programs and on technical  and policy input from a diverse

work group including four State officials (Texas, Kansas,

Florida and Michigan), the U.S.  Geological Survey, five regional

EPA representatives (Regions VI, DC and X), three representatives

from USEPA  laboratories, and seven representatives from USEPA

headquarters.  Comments were also solicited from State program

officials, industry representatives, and environmental groups.

                    Scope of the Regulations

    The Act defines "underground injection" as the "subsurface

emplacement of fluids by well injection"  (Section 1421(d)(l)).

    The scope of the coverage of these  regulations is determined

by the definition of "well injection. " The term is not explicitly

defined  in the Act of the legislative history.  Upon examination

of the purpose and legislative history of the Act, EPA is including

the following definition in proposed Section 146. 2(r):

       Well injection means subsurface emplacement through a
    bored, drilled, or driven well, or through a dug well where
    the depth  is greater than the  largest surface dimension,
    whenever a principal function of the well is the subsurface
    emplacement of fluids.


                               08

-------
    '1 ho term ''well injection." is defined in terms of the function

(if a \vell.  As well as including what is normally referred to as

the "deep well" injection of industrial or municipal wastes, the

proposed definition of "well injection" also includes a number of

well injection practices other than "deep well" waste disposal,

including the subsurface emplacement of fluids generally, not

just waste disposal.  This definition is supported by the House

Report, which  states:

    The definition of underground injection is intended to  be
    broad enough to cover any contaminant which may be  put
    below ground level and which flows or moves, whether the
    contaminant is semi-solid, liquid, sludge or any other form
    or state.

    This definition is not limited to the injection of wastes
    or to injection for disposal purposes; it is intended also
    to cover, among other contaminants, the injection of
    brines and the injection of contaminants for extraction
    or other purposes.  (Report 93-1185, at 31)

    The proposed definition includes drilled wells,  since  these are

the type of wells used in the practices most often mentioned in the

legislative history as requiring regulation.  It also covers bored

and driven wells,  which are similar in concept and are used for the

same purposes in appropriate situations.

    The proposed definition includes dug wells in the definition of

well injection practices only when the depth of the well is at least

greater than the largest surface dimension of the well.  Imposing

this depth-width limitation is an effort to adhere to a common view

of a well, that it is substantially deeper than it is wide.

                               09

-------
   Several factors were considered and rejected in the development



of the definition of "well injection."  For example, as noted in the



legislative history above,  the nature of the fluid emplaced is not a



controlling factor.  Also,  the legislative history does not suggest



that subsurface emplacement of fluids becomes "underground



injection" at some predetermined depth below the surface.



   A simple way to define "injection" in the context in which it is



used in the statute would be to relate it to mechanically induced



pressure. However,  the clear purpose of the Act is  to prevent the



endangerment of underground drinking water sources through the



injection of fluids, and there is no reason to distinguish between



mechanical pressure and gravity flow injection.



   The proposed definition does not cover practices which in



many cases endnager underground drinking water because they



cannot be deemed to be  "underground injection" within the meaning



of Section 1421 (d)(l) of the Act.  For example, leakage from sewer



mains, septic systems, highway salting and leaching from landfills  appear



to be very serious sources of contamination of underground drinking



water, but they are not  underground injection practices and therefore



are not regulated by Part C of the Act.  It also does  not cover a



situation such as the construction of an oil or gas production well or



those surface  impoundments where  incidental subsurface emplacement



of fluids  occurs  but is not a principal function of the  operation.





                                  10

-------
    \\\ Section 146, 2(r),  the term "dug well" applies only to impound-




ments where the depth is greater than the largest surface dimension.



However, the term "dug well" also can be applied technically to surface




impoundments, such as  pits, ponds and lagoons, where the depth is less



than the largest surface dimension.  (See Meinzer,  Outline of Ground-




Water Hydrology with Definitions). What is unclear is whether these



dug wells which also have as a principal function the subsurface



emplacement of fluids are also covered by the Act.




    What is clear is that there are  tens of thousands of dug wells —




including industrial and  municipal pits, ponds and lagoons used for



waste treatment,  storage or disposal—which pose a very serious




potential hazard to underground drinking water.  EPA proposes to



attack the problem of these dug wells, including pits,  ponds and



lagoons,  in the following manner:



    1.  Proposed  Section 146.16(b) requires States to undertake



       a survey of dug  wells to determine the extent to which they



       function to  emplace fluids underground and the hazards



       they pose to underground drinking water sources.



    2.  EPA will seek to obtain  needed additional data  on these




       dug wells through the study of pits, ponds and lagoons



       authorized  by Section 1442 of  the Act.
                                     11

-------
    3.   When enough data is available to determine which dug-



       wells should be regulated and how they should be regulated,



       EPA will endeavor to amend the defintion of "well



       injection" to the extent possible to cover additional dug



       wells or will seek such additional legislation as may be



       necessary. It is EPA's intention that any broadening



       of the regulation of dug wells would not take effect for



       at least two years after the effective  date of the initial



       underground injection control regulations, in the interest



       of orderly administration of the State programs.



    However, it should be noted that EPA could act to prevent such



endangerment under Section 1431, the1 emergency powers provision



of the Act.   EPA is studying the effects of these and other sources



of ground-water contamination. In the meantime, the States are



encouraged to continue their efforts to regulate a broad range of



sources of contamination which do not fall within the meaning of



"underground injection" as that term is used in the Act.



    Comments are encouraged on ways in which those dug wells



which have as a principal function the underground emplacement



fluids can be defined and  included in an underground injection



control program.

-------
                Framework of the Regulations



    These regulations are established to provide the minimum



 requirements for regulating the underground injection of fluids



 by the practice of well injection.  The practices which are covered



 by the proposed regulations include injection through any bored,



 drilled or driven well, or any dug well, where the depth is greater



 than the largest surface dimension, whenever a principal function



 of the well is the subsurface emplacement of fluids.



    This covers several hundred industrial and municipal waste



 disposal wells, wells used to inject materials into underground



 strata for storage,  recharge wells, barrier wells, subsidence



 control wells, mining wells, geothermal wells,  brine disposal



 wells, injection wells used in connection with oil and gas



 recovery, and drainage wells used for the purpose of disposal of



 storm water runoff and irrigation return flow.



    The proposed regulations include three categories for



 different types of underground injection practices.  Subpart C



 includes waste disposal wells, wells used to inject materials



 into underground strata for storage, recharge wells, barrier



wells, subsidence control wells, geothermal wells and mining



wells. Permits would be required for all such wells, although



wells in existence on the effective date of the State program could
                               13

-------
be regulated by general rule for a period of up to five years pending



review of the well by the  State.   Subpart D includes underground



injection wells associated with oil and gas production.  Owing to the



unique nature and diversity of these wells, Subpart D allows greater



flexibility to the States in regulating these wells.  As in the case



of Subpart C, a permit would be required for these wells also.



Subpart D wells in existence on the effective date of the State



program could also be regulated by general rule for a period of up



to five years pending review of the wells by the State.  Review



of existing wells could be conducted on a field-by-field or similar



approach by the State to simplify the permitting of existing wells  and



to avoid duplicative data requirements.  Subpart E governs  drainage



wells.  These wells can be regulated by permit or by rule,  at the



option of the State.  Maximum flexibility is given to the States for



regulation of these types  of underground injection wells.



    Comments are invited on the categorization of well injection



practices used in the regulations and the adequacy of coverage of



the regulations.



                Approval of State Programs



    Subpart B of the proposed regulations sets forth the procedures



for the approval of State programs.  Proposed Section 146. 10 lists



the basic requirements for approval.  One of those requirements is



that a State program must follow the pattern of regulations by rule






                                  14

-------
or permit established in Subparts C, D,  and E.  In other words, a



State program must follow the requirements of Subpart C in its



regulation of waste disposal wells and engineering wells.  The



State program regulating injection wells  related to oil and gas



production must follow the requirements of Subpart D.  With



respect to other types of injection wells, the State program may



regulate by a permit system or by rules  of general applicability



or by a combination of the two, so long as it meets the minimum



requirements of Subpart E.



    Proposed Section 146.12 sets out the requirements for  an



application for a State program. It is not intended that a State



include all possible information about its program, but a State



must submit the relevant State statutes and regulations and a



description of the State's enforcement procedures.  This includes



designation of geographical areas under Sections 146.11 and



146. 42(b).



    Under proposed Section 146. 13, the Administrator will



give public notice of a request for approval of a State program, and



will invite comment. Action must be taken on the State application



within'90 days after its receipt.  Opportunity for public hearing is



required by Section 1422(b)(4) of the Act.

-------
    Once a State program is approved by the Administrator,  it will
remain in effect until such time as the Administrator determines
that the program no longer meets applicable requirements.  To
facilitate the Administrator's consideration of the continued
compliance of a State program with applicable requirements,
proposed Section 146.15 requires that the State retain pertinent
records on outstanding State-issued permits and on violations of
State requirements.  In addition, under proposed Section 146.16
a State would be required to submit to the Administrator, for
approval, information on any proposed material changes in the
State program.  This includes designation of geographical areas
under Sections 146.11 and 146.42(b).  The State also would be
required to submit on April 1 of each year a brief annual report
updating the State's inventory of underground injections  (a summary,
not a facility-by-facility description) and summarizing violations of
State statutes  and regulations and of enforcement actions taken by
the State.
           Key Provisions of the Proposed Regulations
A.  Endangerment of Drinking Water Sources
    The goal of any requirement for the protection of underground
water  sources is set by the statute as preventing the endangerment
of drinking water sources.   As provided by Section 1421(d)(2):
of the Act:
                                16

-------
     Undergrouml injection endangers drinking water sources
     it' such injection may result in the presence in under-
     ground water which supplies or can reasonably be
     expected to supply any public water system of any
     contaminant, and if the presence of such contaminant
     may result in such system's not complying with any
     national primary drinking water regulation or may
     otherwise adversely affect the health of persons.

    The House Report accompanying the Act provides some

guidance as to which underground water sources can reasonably

be expected to supply any public water system. The Report

indicates that any underground source with a level of total dissolved

solids  of 10, 000 mg/1 or less  should be protected.  (Report* 93-1185,

at 32)  Proposed Section  146. 2(g) defines underground drinking water

sources accordingly.   However, EPA believes that there should

be some means of excluding individual aquifers or parts of aquifers

which are not in fact potential  sources of drinking water even though

they have total dissolved solids levels of less than 10,000 mg/1.

For example, an aquifer may be oil-producing even with a TDS

level of less than 10, 000 mg/1, and in such a case it may be

wise to give the oil-producing  qualities of the aquifer precedence

over its ability to provide drinking water. Also,  some aquifers

below the 10,000 mg/1 level are so contaminated that as a practical

matter they are not potential drinking water sources.
                               17

-------
    Because it would be a misallocation of resources to seek



to protect as potential drinking water sources aquifers which in



fact will not be used by public water  systems, proposed Section



146.11 (a) provides that a State program may designate one or more



aquifers or portions thereof in the State which have a TDS level



below 10,000 mg/1 but which will not be protected because they



are oil-producing, are severely contaminated or located in such



a way that use as drinking water is impracticable.  The State must



demonstrate by compelling evidence  that an aquifer is and will



continue to be unsuitable as a source of drinking water.  As part



of the State program, the designation would be subject to  public



notice and public hearing prior to submission to EPA.  The



regulations also provide, in Section  146. ll(b), that a State may



designate geographical areas where no underground drinking



water sources exist.  In such geographical areas,  the requirements



of Subparts C, D, and E would not apply.   Comment is requested



on this approach to  selecting aquifers which do not require



protection as potential drinking water sources.



    Once the aquifers to be protected are identified, the question



remains as to the degree of protection to be given.  The Act



defines  "endangerment of drinking water sources"  to mean



the presence of a contaminant which  "may result in [a public water]

-------
 system's not complying with any national primary drinking water



 regulation or may otherwise adversely affect the health of persons. "



 Where an existing system using an underground water source,



 the logical  meaning of this provision is that contamination endangers



 drinking water if it requires the use of new or additional treatment



 by the system to meet a national primary drinking water regulation



 or otherwise to prevent a health risk.  In many instances there



 would be a  time lag between the time of contamination and the



 initiation of the new treatment.  Diversion of water system



 resources to deal with such preventable contamination is an



 inefficient approach to the problem of providing safe drinking water



 to all persons.



    The question of endangerment of underground drinking water



 sources is more difficult with respect to potential sources not



 currently used by public water systems.  It could be argued that



potential sources of underground water are endangered whenever



they are degraded.  Where a potential source of underground



water which would meet primary drinking water regulations without



treatment,  degradation of that water may make treatment necessary.



In the case  of a potential source of underground water which will



require treatment if it is used in the future,  degradation may



make further treatment necessary or may make the water unsuitable



for use as drinking water.





                                   19

-------
    The problem oi what constitutes ''endangerment" is further




complicated by the i'act that it is expected that several contaminants



not covered by the national interim primary drinking water regulations



will be covered within a few years by the revised regulations. It can




also be anticipated that new contaminants will be added to the revised




regulations from time to time thereafter.  How can underground



injection control programs protect underground water sources from



"endangerment" by contamination with materials which are not



now prohibited in any concentration in drinking water but which



may be limited by future maximum contaminant levels ?




    Finally, there is the statutory mandate to protect underground




water sources from any contamination which "may otherwise



adversely affect the health of persons. " The legislative history



of the SDWA suggests that this language means,  at the least, that



contamination by underground injection which causes ground water



to be unpalatable is prohibited.  (Report 93-1185, at 32)



The justification for  such a prohibition is that it  makes little




difference that water can meet applicable primary regulations



if for aesthetic or other reasons it is undrinkable.  Clearly



there can be other types of contamination which "may otherwise



adversely affect the health of persons."  For example, water with



offensive taste, odor, or color may force the use of alternative

-------
water sources of poorer quality.  Also, even if a specific dangerous

pesticide or other toxic chemical is not covered by the primary

regulations because it is not usually found in drinking water supplies,

the contamination of an underground drinking water source  by that

chemical could adversely affect the health of persons who obtain

the drinking water from that source.

    Despite the difficulty of defining endangerment of drinking

water as that term is used in the statute, the task must be

undertaken in these regulations.   For although every effort will

be made to permit consideration of local geological conditions,

local laws and local procedures, the basic health standards to

be applied in underground injection control programs should be

uniform across the country.   It was the intent of Congress to

accommodate local differences within the framework of a national

policy for the protection of the health of the Nation's citizens.

    Endangerment of drinking water sources is defined in

proposed Section 146. 2(x) as follows:

    Underground injection "endangers  underground drinking water
    sources"  if (1)  such injection may  make it necessary for a
    public water system using an underground drinking water
    source to increase treatment of the water, or (2) if such
    injection might make it necessary  for a public water system
    which uses the  source in the future to use more extensive
    treatment of the water than would otherwise have been
    necessary, or (3) if such injection may otherwise adversely
    affect the health of persons such as by adding a substance
    that would make water from the source unfit for human
    consumption.


                              *>l
                              falJk.

-------
   It is expected that the application of the definition of



endangerment will be different in the case of existing underground



injection than in the case of new underground injection.  An applicant



for a permit for underground injection will be expected to demonstrate



to the satisfaction of the State that the injection will not endanger



underground drinking water sources.  However, in the case of an



existing injection, the applicant normally will be able to show, based



on the history of the operation, that continued operation will not



require additional treatment of ground water for drinking water use



and will not otherwise adversely affect the health of persons such



as by making the water unfit for use as drinking water.  New



underground injections, or a substantial  change in an existing



underground injection, will be expected to bear a heavier burden



of proof.



   Comments on the definition of the endangerment of drinking



water sources and how that definition might be applied in  the



regulations are welcomed.



B.  Comparison of Subparts C and D



    1.  Standards for Existing and New Injection Wells



   Existing wells under both subparts C (waste disposal wells and



engineering wells) and D (oil or natural gas production) could be



regulated by rule for a period of up to five years after approval of the



State program so long as such wells do not endanger underground

-------
drinking water sources.  Proposed Section 146.10(a) would prohibit

new underground injection under both subparts without a permit.

Section 1421(b)(l)(A) of the Act authorizes EPA to permit a

State to regulate underground injection by rule or permit, and the

legislative history of this provision states:

     In order to implement these controls to protect drinking
     sources with minimum administrative redtape, the
     Committee decided to allow EPA discretion to utilize
     a permit system, rulemaking, or a combination of
     the two to control underground injection.  (Report 93-1185,
     at 30)

    Accordingly,  EPA believes that it is prudent to  allow States

to phase-in permit procedures for existing wells under

Subparts C and D so long as underground sources of drinking water

are protected by appropriate rules.  Consistent with this effort to

minimize redtape, proposed  Section 146.41(a)(l) provides that

a State Director has discretion to require appropriate information

in permit applications for existing underground injections under

Subpart D.  By comparison,  the information set out in proposed

Section 146.47 is required in all permit applications for new

injection sites under Subpart D. Similarly, the information set

out in proposed Section 146. 24 under Subpart C is required in

permit application for both new and existing operations.  The

reason behind this distinction is the large number of existing

injection wells related to oil  or gas production and the vast


                                    23

-------
amount of data already on file in the States.  By granting



the Director discretion with respect to information requirements



for these wells,  EPA anticipates that a State will be able to focus



its resources on critical existing injection sites without becoming



enveloped in an unduly  burdensome permit program for existing



wells.



        2.  Permit System for Subparts C and D



    As noted above, permits would be required for all underground



injections which commence operation in a State after approval of the



State program ("New underground injections"). Permits would be



required for all underground injection operations in operation prior



to approval of the State program within five years of approval.



Section 142 l(b) of the Act does not specify any type of hearing as



a prerequisite to the issuance of a permit, but the regulations provide



for an  opportunity for informal public hearing  prior to the issuance of



permits under Subparts C (Section 146. 28) and D (Section 146. 45).



Proposed Section 146. 4 provides the Director  with discretion in



determining necessary requirements for the renewal of permits after



five years.  Public notice of the renewal of a permit would be required



by proposed Section  146. 5.  It is anticipated that State administrative



procedures will provide for judicial review of permit proceedings.

-------
    3.  Temporary  Permits



    Section 1421(c)(l) of the Act allows the Administrator to authorize



a State to issue temporary permits for existing underground injection




operations,  effective until December of 1978, when the State is unable




to process all permits within the time available.  The authority can




be given to a State only under the conditions spelled out in Section



1421(c)(l), and only under an application for the authority from




the Governor of the State.  Under the proposed regulations,  Section



1421(c)(l) authority would not be necessary because the States would



be allowed to regulate  wells covered by Subparts C and D by rule



rather than by permit for up to five years and to regulate drainage




wells by rule indefinitely.



    Section 1421(c)(2) of the Act permits the Administrator to




authorize a State, again only under an application from the



Governor of the State,  to issue temporary permits amounting to



variances from the  prohibition of endangerment of underground drinking



water sources. As in the case of the Section 1421(c) (1) temporary



permits, these permits cannot be effective later than December of



1978.  Furthermore, a temporary permit under Section 1421(c)(2)



cannot be issued by a State until the State can find, based on the



record of a hearing, that each of the following requirements are  met:

-------
    (A) thai technology (or other means) to permit
         sale injection of the fluid in accordance with
         the applicable underground injection control
         program is not generally available (taking
         costs into consideration);

    (B) that injection of the fluid would be less
         harmful to health than the use of other
         available means of disposing of waste or
         producing the desired product; and

    (C) that available technology or other means have
         been employed  (and will be employed) to reduce
         the volume and toxicity of the fluid and to
         minimize the potential adverse effect of the
         injection on the public health.

C.  Subpart E

    Proposed Subpart E allows a State program to exercise great

flexibility in designing a program for the control of drainage wells.

A State may regulate these wells by either rule or permit, or

a combination thereof.  While seeking to prevent drainage wells

from endangering underground water sources, EPA recognizes that

the number and diverse characteristics of drainage wells make it

extremely difficult to establish  specific requirements under

Subpart E.  Accordingly,  EPA has allowed State programs maximum

flexibility to deal with drainage wells on a case by case basis, if

necessary.  As such, EPA intends to monitor State programs under

Subpart E and carefully analyze the efficacy of this approach.

-------
D.  Remedial Arliuii Under Subparts C, D and E



    Underground injection operations regulated under Subpart C, D,



or E that are found to endanger underground drinking water sources



are required to discontinue operations until remedial action is taken



unless the Director determines that it is unreasonable and



impracticable to discontinue operations while taking remedial



action.  If the Director permits an endangering operation to continue



operation while taking remedial action, the Director must prescribe



a compliance schedule which shall require remedial action to be



taken as soon as practicable but in no case later than one year



following the determination of endangerment.  It is  expected that



State Directors will require cessation of injection in cases where



an imminent health problem may result from such an injection.



          Specific Provisions of the Regulations



A. Review of Completion and Plugging Reports



    Proposed Section  146. 22 (f) requires that "all well completion



and plugging reports" for wells penetrating the proposed injection



zone within a two mile radius of the proposed well injection be



reviewed to  insure that all wells that, in the judgment of the



Director, present a potential threat to  underground  drinking water



sources are properly  completed or plugged. In Section  146. 42(a)(6)



dealing with oil and gas production this review is also required



except that the radius is reduced to one-half mile.   These






                              £7

-------
requirements are intended to prevent the contamination of



underground drinking water sources by formation fluids or injected



fluids migrating up improperly completed or plugged wells into



fresh water formations.



    EPA feels that the same minimum regulations should  apply to



both waste disposal wells and engineering wells because they share



common construction,  engineering, and operational characteristics.



Most States have defined policies for waste disposal wells but few



policies exist on the  engineering wells.  Fourteen States entirely ban



the use of waste disposal wells.  Twelve States have specific



regulations applying  to waste disposal wells.  The requirements relating



to radius of review vary, but a two mile or greater radius is most



common.  Texas, which now regulates over 40% of all such wells,



requires a two and one-half mile radius of review.  Twenty other



States have policies requiring a careful case by case review of



waste disposal wells.  Therefore,  on the basis of the Texas



requirement and the  fourteen States which ban waste disposal



wells,  EPA does not feel that a minimum radius of review below



two miles would be appropriate.  It is important to note that



these regulations neither require those States which ban waste



disposal wells to permit them in the future nor require a



State such  as Texas to adopt less stringent requirements.  To

-------
Ibe contrary,  EPA encourages States to adopt more stringent



requirements, if necessary, to prevent the endangerment



of underground water sources.



    State regulations demonstrate flexibility with respect to



injection wells related to oil and gas production.  Thirty of the



thirty-one oil producing States require a plat denoting ownership and



location of all wells including oil,  gas, drilling and dry holes.



Seventeen of the thirty-one States have specified that  all wells within



a one-half mile radius of the proposed injection wells should be



indicated on a map or plot and that the injected fluid will not cause



damage to oil, gas, fresh water or other natural resources.  Further,



it  should be noted that the plugging or completion requirement applies



only to those wells penetrating the injection zone which pose a



potential danger to underground drinking water sources.  It is



incumbent on the injector to demonstrate that no hazard exists.



B.  Surface Casing Requirements



    Proposed Sections 146. 22(a) and 146. 42(a)(l) require that "all



underground drinking water  sources of 3,000 mg/1 total dissolved



solids or less (be) protected by surface casing cemented to the surface.



    The House Report accompanying the SDWA recommended that



all ground water up to 10,000 mg/1 TDS be protected as potential



drinking water sources.  Discussion with major oil producing States

-------
indicated fliat existing practice requires protecting ground water



containing up to 3,000 mg/1 TDS with surface casing as potential



drinking water  sources.  In light of these existing provisions, the



3,000 mg/1 limit has been established as a minimum standard. Of



course, where  underground injection would endanger a present or



potential source of drinking water containing up to 10,000 mg/1 TDS,



EPA expects States to protect such  a source.



    It is recognized, however, that  in oil producing States there



are specific areas where alternate methods of protection have been



utilized effectively in the past to protect ground water and can be



used to do so in the future.  Therefore, the Director is given



discretion under Section 146. 42(b) to permit the continued use of this



practice within specified areas of the State provided a public hearing



is held.  Compelling evidence must be adduced at such a hearing



to demonstrate that the  continued use of the practice will not endanger



underground sources of drinking water. The alternative chosen will



be applicable to all wells within the specific area.



C.  Tubing and Packer



    Proposed Sections 146. 22(c) and 146. 42(a)(2) require that "injection



is maintained through tubing with a  suitable packer set immediately



above the injection zone. "  Most State regulations and those



knowledgeable in the field of underground injection recommend
                               30.

-------
 thai tubing and packer or fluid seal be used to isolate the injection



 zone from potential drinking water sources which may  be



, endangered as a result of the injection of fluids.



    It is recognized, however, that there are some areas where



 alternative methods of protection have been used and can continue



 to be used effectively to protect ground water.  For this reason, the



 Director is given the discretion to permit the continued use of this



 practice under Section 146. 42 (b) provided a public hearing is held.



 Compelling evidence must be adduced at such a hearing to demonstrate



 that the continued use of the practice will not endanger underground



 sources of drinking water.  The alternative chosen will be applicable



 to all wells within the specific area.  The Director may also approve



 alternative methods under Section 146. 22(c) where they are



 demonstrated to be equally effective.



 D. Annular Injection



    Section 146. 2(z) defines "annular injection" as any  injection



 between strings of casing, between tubing and casing, between



 strings of tubing and between casing and hole.  The following



 sections deal with the differing types of protection necessary



 to protect drinking water sources from the three common



 types of annular injection.
                                31

-------
    Section 146. 42(a)(7) prohibits annular injection between the



casing and the hole.  With this type of annular injection, there



is no protection for underground sources of drinking water.



    Section 146. 42(a)(8) prohibits annular injection between strings



of casing and between tubing and casing, except that the Director



may approve such injection provided:  (1) there is an annulus



between the outer string of casing receiving the injection,  and the



surface casing which can and will be monitored for leaks;  (2) that



the surface casing is protected by cement to the surface; and (3)



that the injector demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Director



that the injection will not endanger underground sources of



drinking water.



    Section 146. 42(a)(9) prohibits annular injection between the surface



casing and the next innermost casing or between the surface casing



and the tubing, or injection through the surface casing only; except



that the Director may approve such injection where:  (1) the injection



was in operation prior to approval of the proposed State program,



and; (2) the injector  demonstrates to the satisfaction of the



Director that, based on previous history and presentation  of



compelling evidence collected through fluid injection profile surveys



or monitoring wells  that the  injection has not  endangered under-



ground sources of drinking water, nor will its continued use endanger

-------
             sources of drinking water.  Comments are solicited



on the adequacy of these requirements in protecting underground



sources of drinking water and on the impact of these requirements



on existing wells.



E.  Monitoring Well



    Section 146.42(a)(9) permits presentation of evidence gathered



from monitoring wells in support of a demonstration of non-



endangerment from an annular injection.  These monitoring wells



may be drilled specifically for this purpose or they may be



producing water wells currently in place providing they draw water



from the base of fresh water within the calculated zone of influence



of the injection well.



F.  Supplemental Data Acquisition



    Section 146.47(b) contains a list of additional data which is



desirable to have in evaluating an application for well injection.  It



should be noted, however, that it is not necessary to collect this



data in every case.  This data should be collected only where



necessary to make the necessary determinations.



G.  Presentation of Compelling Evidence



    Sections 146. 22(c), 146. 42(a)(9), 146. 42(c)(l) and 146.42(c)(2)



require the presentation  of "compelling evidence. "  "Compelling



evidence" means the types and quantity of data necessary to provide



a base such that reasonably  qualified people would draw the same





                                       33

-------
conclusion.  In sections 146. 42(c)(l) and (c)(2) "written"




compelling evidence is required.  This may take the form necessary




to satisfy the Director.  However, in States where a formal public



hearing, including the use of court stenographers and  cross



examination is required, this procedure may be utilized alone or




in support of other requirements by the Director.




H.  Categorization Anomalies




    There are several special types of wells such as certain recharge



wells, mining wells, where current technology mandates utilization



of annular injection, and multiple use wells such as those used for



water flood and subsidence control which may not readily fit into




the current categorization scheme.   Comment is solicited on the




extent and nature of these wells and on the necessity of developing



different minimum requirements than those currently  contained in




the regulations.



I.  Summary of Solicited Comments



    Comments are solicited on specific parts of the regulations.



These are summarized below:



    1.  Definition of "underground drinking water source";




    2.  Definition of "well injection";



    3.  Definition of "endangers underground  drinking water sources";




    4.  Requiring data to be kept by States in  a form admissible as



       evidence in enforcement proceeding;
                           34

-------
5,  Adequacy of time lor conducting inventory and analyses of




   surface impoundments;



6.  Combination Rule-Permit programmatic staging system for




   existing injection wells;



7.  Handling of confidential information;




8.  Adequacy of requirements in preventing endangerment and



   impact of these requirements on existing annular injection




   wells; and



9.  Alternative methods of determining non-endangerment from



   wells penetrating injection horizon.
                      35

-------
                        COMMENTS

   Interested persons may participate in this rulemaking process

by submitting written comments in triplicate to the Office of Water

Supply (WH-550), Environmental Protection Agency,  Washington,

D. C.  20460,  Attention: Comment Clerk, State Underground Injection

Control Program Regulations.

   Comments on all aspects of the proposed regulations are

solicited.  In addition to considering public comments, the Agency

will hold public hearings to receive comments and statements on the

proposed regulations.  The hearing room locations, dates and times

should be confirmed by interested parties in advance by telephone.
                    October 6, 1976
                    EPA, Region VIII
                    900 Lincoln Tower Building
                    1860 Lincoln Street
                    Denver, Colorado  80202
                    Telephone:  (303) 837-2731
                     October 13,  1976
                     EPA, Region VI
                     First International Building
                     1201 Elm Street
                     Dallas, Texas  75270
                     Telephone:  (214) 749-1962
                     September 29,  1976
                     EPA, headquarters
                     Waterside Mall
                     401M Street S.W.
                     Washington, D.C. 20460
                     Telephone:  (202) 426-3934

-------
    All comments received on or before (November 15,  1976)



 will be considered.  A copy of all public comments will be available



 for inspection and copying from the EPA Freedom of Information



 Center.  As provided in 40 CFR Part 2, a reasonable fee may be



 charged for copying services.



    It is our judgment that these proposed regulations will not have



 a significant impact on inflation as specified in the Agency's



 Guidelines on Inflation Impact Statements.  Hence, these



 regulations are not considered major regulatory actions so that they



 do not require preparation of an Inflation Impact Statement as set



 forth in Executive Order 11821.   However, an economic evaluation



 has been prepared and is included as Appendix A.



    It is hereby announced that a draft Environmental Impact



 Statement has been prepared on these proposed regulations.  Copies



 of the statement may be obtained from the Office of Water Supply



 (WH-550),  Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.



 20460, Attention: UIC-EIS.



    The Council of Environmental Quality will publish in the



 FEDERAL REGISTER on the second  Friday following proposal of



these regulations the duration of the  comment period.  All comments



received on or before the date specified by CEQ will be considered.

-------
Comments should be submitted in triplicate to the Office of Water


these regulations the duration of the comment period. All comments


received on or before the date specified by CEQ will be  considered.


Comments should be submitted in triplicate to the Office of Water


Supply  (WH-550), Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C.


20460,  Attention: Comment Clerk, Environmental Impact Statement -


UIC.
             3 • "
Date:       At'3

              	       	1-1
                                         Administrator
                             38/4

-------
                      TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction

SubpartA - General

    146.1   Scope and Purpose
    146.2   Definitions
    146. 3   Duration of Permits
    146.4   Renewal of UIC Permits
    146. 5   Public Notice of Renewal of UIC Permits

Subpart B - State Underground Injection
           Control Programs

    146.10 Requirements for  Approval of a State
           Underground Injection Control Program
    146.11 Aquifers Protected by a State Program
    146.12 Request for Approval of a State Under-
           ground Injection Control  Program
    146.13 Action on Request for Approval of a
           State Program
    146.14 Public Hearing
    146.15  Records Kept by States
    146.16 Reports by States

Subpart C  - Requirements Applicable to Waste
           Disposal Wells and Engineering Wells

    146. 20 Underground Injection to Which Subpart
           Applies
    146. 21 Review of Existing Underground Injections
    146.22 Requirements for  Existing and New
           Underground Injections
    146.23 General Permit Procedures
    146. 24 Application for UIC Permit
    146.25 Formulation of Preliminary
           Determination and Draft  UIC Permits
    146.26 Public Notice of Proposed Issuance or
           Denial of  UIC Permits for Existing and
           New Underground Injections
    146.27 Notice to Other Government Agencies
    146.28 Public Hearings on Existing and New
           Underground Injections

                                   388

-------
    146. 29  Public Notice of Hearings on Existing
           and New Underground Injections
    146. 30  Director Action on UIC Permit
           Applications
    146.31  Prohibited Underground Injection
    146. 32  Permit Conditions and Other Requirements
    146. 33  Monitoring and Record-keeping
    146. 34  Reporting Requirements

Subpart D - Requirements Applicable to Injection
           Wells Related to Oil and Gas Production

    146.40  Underground Injection to Which Subpart Applies
    146. 41  Review of Existing Underground Injections
    146.42  Requirements for Existing and New
           Underground Injections
    146.43  Public Notice of Proposed Issuance or
           Denial of UIC Permits for Existing and
           New Underground Injections
    146.44  Notice to Other  Government Agencies
    146. 45  Public Hearings on Existing and New
           Underground Injections
    146. 46  Public Notice of Hearings on Existing
           and New Underground Injections
    146.47  Application for UIC Permit for a New
           Underground Injection
    146.48  Permit Conditions and Other Requirements
    146.49  Monitoring and Record-keeping
    146. 50  Reporting Requirements

Subpart E - Requirements Applicable to All
           Drainage Wells

    146. 70  Underground Injections to Which Subpart
           Applies
    146.71  Regulation by Rule or Permit
    146. 72  Regulation by Permit
    146. 73  Regulation by Rule
    146. 74  Remedial Action
                                 38

-------
 REGULATIONS FOR STATE UNDERGROUND INJECTION
                 CONTROL PROGRAMS

SUBPART A - GENERAL
  146.1 Scope and Purpose.

    (a) Part C of the Safe Drinking Water Act,  Pub. L. 93-523,

       added to the Public Health Service Act ("the Act")

       provisions for the protection of present and potential

       underground drinking water sources from contamination

       by underground injection of  contaminants. Public Health

       Service Act §§1421-1424, 42 U.S.C. 300-h through  300-h-3.

    (b) Section 1422 of the Act provides that the Administrator

       shall list in the FEDERAL REGISTER each State for

       which in his judgment a State underground injection

       control program may be necessary to assure that

       underground injection will not endanger drinking water

       sources.  Within 270 days  after a State is listed, it must

       submit to the  Administrator a State program adequate

       to protect underground sources of  drinking water. If

       the State program is not submitted or is not approved

       by the Administrator, an underground injection control

       program for the State must be prescribed by the

       Administrator.

    (c) Under to Sections 1421,  1422 and 1450 of the Act, this

                                    39

-------
   part sets forth procedural and substantive requirements




   which must be met by State programs to obtain the




   Administrator's approval. Any State program approved




   by the Administrator will be subject to the requirements



   of this part. A State with an approved program in effect




   shall have primary enforcement responsibility for all




   underground injection activities in the State,  except as



   noted in paragraph (d).




(d)  To qualify for primary enforcement responsibility,




    a  State's program for enforcement of underground



    injection control regulations must apply to all underground




    injection practices in the State required to be regulated



    by this Part,  except for:



       (1)  underground injection practices on Indian land



          where  the State  does not have the necessary



          jurisdiction or its jurisdiction is in question; or



       (2)' an underground injection practice operated by or




           for a Federal agency where the Administrator



           has waived compliance with all or part of an




           applicable underground injection control program



           under Section 1447(b) of the Act.



(e)  Underground injection to be regulated includes underground
                             40

-------
       injection by municipal and industrial waste disposal wells,



       storage wells, subsidence control wells,  mining wells,




       geothermal wells, barrier wells,  recharge wells;




       underground injection of brine or other fluids which



       are brought to the surface in connection with oil or




       natural gas production and underground injection




       for the secondary or tertiary  recovery of oil or natural



       gas; and underground injection by drainage wells.




§146.2 Definitions.



   As used in this part, and except as otherwise specifically




    provided:



   (a) "Act" means the Public Health Service Act.



   (b) "Agency" means the United States Environmental Protection




       Agency.



   (c) "Administrator" means the Administrator of the Agency or



       his authorized representative.



   (d) "Regional Administrator" means a Regional Administrator



       of the Agency.



   (e) "Director" means the chief administrative officer of a State



       ground-water pollution control agency. In the event




       responsibility for ground-water pollution  control and
                                     41

-------
   enforcement is divided among two or more State agencies,



   the term "Director" means the State administrative



   officer authorized to take the action to which reference



   is made.



(f) "FWPCA" means the Federal Water Pollution Control



   Act, as amended,  33 U.S.C. 1314, et seq.



(g) Except as provided in §146.11, "Underground drinking



   water source" means (1) an aquifer which currently



   supplies a public water system, or (2) an aquifer



   which contains water having less  than 10,000 mg/1



   total dissolved solids.



       (Note:  Comment is solicited on the adequacy



       of this definition)



(h) "Contaminant" means any physical, chemical, biological,



    or radiological substance or matter in water.



(i) "Public water system" means a system for the provision to



   the public of piped water for human consumption, if such



   system has at least fifteen service connection^ or



   regularly serves at least twenty-five individuals daily



   at least 60 days out of the year.  Such term includes (1)



   any collection,  treatment, storage, and distribution



   facilities under  control of the  operator of such system



   and used primarily in connection  with such system, and

-------
    (2) any collection or pretreatment storage facilities not



    under such control which are used primarily in connection



    with such system.



  (j) "State Underground Injection Control Program" (State UIC



    Program) means  a State program for the regulation of the



    practice of underground injection to protect underground



    drinking water sources and meeting the requirements



    of Sections 1421 and 1422  (b)(l)(A)(ii) of the Act and



    regulations promulgated under those provisions



    of the Act.



 (k) "Underground Injection Control permit application" (UIC



    permit application) means the State application form



    including subsequent additions,  revisions, or



    modifications duly promulgated by the Director  for



    application for a UIC permit.



 (1) "Underground Injection Control reporting forms" (UIC



    reporting forms)  means any State reporting forms,



    including subsequent additions,  revisions, or modifications



    duly promulgated  by the Director for reporting data and



    information pursuant to monitoring and other conditions



    of UIC permits.



(m) "Underground Injection Control permit" (UIC permit)



    means any permit or equivalent document issued by the





                         43

-------
    Director,  setting forth the terms under which the



    applicant may inject fluids.



(n)  "Aquifer" means a formation, group of formations,



    or part of a formation that contains sufficient saturated



    permeable material to yield or be capable of yielding



    significant quantities of water to wells or springs.



(o)  "Total dissolved solids" means the entire quantity of



    inorganic and organic materials  dissolved in water.



(p)  "Underground injection" means subsurface emplacement



    of a fluid, or fluids by well injection.
                 ^


(q)  "Fluid" means material which flows or moves, whether



    semi-solid, liquid, sludge, or any other form or state.



(r)  'Well injection" means subsurface  emplacement  through



    a bored, drilled,  or driven well, or through a dug well



    where the depth is greater than the largest surface



    dimension, whenever a principal function of the well



    is the subsurface emplacement of fluids.



       (Note:  Comment is solicited on the adequacy



       of this definition.)



 (s) "Surface Impoundment" means any dug well which



     has  a depth less  than the greatest  surface



     dimension and is used for collection, storage,



     treatment, or disposal of fluids.



                        44

-------
(t) "Existing underground injection" means underground



    injection in operation in a State before the approval



    of the proposed State program pursuant to Section 1422 (b)



    of the Act.



(u)  "New underground injection" means underground injection



    which starts operation in a State after approval of the



    proposed State program under Section 1422 (b) of the Act,



(v)  "Person" means an individual, corporation, partnership,



    association, State, municipality, or Federal agency other



    than the Agency.



(w)  "Municipality" means  a city, town, or other public body



    created by or under State law, or an Indian tribal



    organization authorized by law.



(x)  Underground injection "endangers underground drinking



    water sources" if (1)  such injection may make it necessary



    for a public water system using an underground drinking



    water source to increase treatment of the water, or (2) if



    such injection might make it necessary for a public water



    system which uses the source in the future to use more



    extensive treatment of the water than would otherwise have



    been necessary, or  (3) if such injection may otherwise



    adversely affect the health of persons  such as by adding a



    substance that would make water from the source unfit for






                         45

-------
       human consumption.



           (Note: Comment is solicited on the adequacy



           of this definition.)



    (y) "Federal agency" means any department, agency, or



       instrumentality of the United States.



    (z) "Annular injection" means any injection between strings



       of casing, between tubing and casing, between strings



       of tubing and between casing and hole.



§146.3 Duration of Permits



    No UIC permit may be issued for a term greater than five years.



§146.4 Renewal of UIC Permits



    Upon a request by the permittee, the Director may renew



a permit, without requiring a formal reapplication by the



permittee, after a determination by the Director that the con-



tinued operation of the underground injection will not



endanger underground sources of drinking water.  If the Director



determines that the continued operation of the facility may



endanger underground sources of drinking water the Director



may require the permittee to submit information to demonstrate



that the continued operation of the facility will not endanger



underground sources of drinking water.  If the Director finds



that the permittee has failed to demonstrate the continued operation

-------
will not c'lidanger underground sources of drinking water, the




Director shall refuse to reissue the permit.  The Director's



decision shall be set forth in writing, and a, copy furnished to




the applicant.                                         , ,




§146. 5  Public Notice of Renewal of UIC Permits



   The Director shall give Public Notice of the intent to renew




a UIC Permit or group of permits under either Section 146.26(a),




146.43(a)and 146.72(b).

-------
SUBPART B - STATE UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL
              PROGRAMS

§146.10 Requirements for Approval of a State Underground Injec-
       tion Control Program.

   The Administrator will approve a proposed State underground

injection control program under Section 1422 of the Act

if the State program:

   (a) Prohibits, effective December 16, 1977, or as of the time

      of the Administrator's approval, any underground injection

       covered by Subparts C or D which is not authorized by a

      permit issued  by the State; except that if underground

       injection in operation prior to the approval of the State

       Program under Section 1422(b) of the Act,  the State

      program may authorize continued operation by rule for

      a period of up  to five years from the date of designation;

   (b)  Prohibits, effective December 16, 1977, or as of the time

       of the Administrator's approval, any underground injection

       covered by Subpart E which is not authorized by a

       rule or permit issued by the State;

   (c) Complies with  Subparts C, D and E, which set forth

       requirements for the various categories of underground

       injection;

   (d)  Applies to underground injection by any person within the
                             48

-------
   boundaries of the State, including any Federal agency,




   except for:



       (1)  underground injection practices on Indian land




          which the State does not have the necessary




          jurisdiction or its jurisdiction is in question; or




       (2) an underground injection practice operated by or




          for a Federal agency where the Administrator



          has waived compliance with all or part of an



          applicable underground injection control program




          under Section 1447(b) of the Act.



(e)  Includes statutory or regulatory enforcement authority




    adequate to compel  compliance with State requirements



    which seek to prevent the endangerment of underground



    drinking water  sources by underground injection, such



    authority to include:



        (1)  Authority to sue in courts of competent jurisdiction



            to enjoin any threatened,  or continuing violation



            of the State underground injection control



            regulations;




        (2) Right of entry and inspection of underground



            injection facilities, including the right to




            monitor or take samples, whether or not the

-------
            State has evidence that the facility is in



            violation of an applicable legal requirement;




        (3)  Authority to require operators of underground




            injection facilities to keep appropriate records




            and make appropriate reports to the State; and




        (4)  Authority to assess civil or criminal penalties




            for violation of the State's underground injection



            control regulations including the authority to



            assess daily penalties or multiple penalties



            when a violation continues;



(f) Insures that any information on file with the State




   and pertinent to UIC applications and permits shall be



   available to the public for inspection and copying subject



   to appropriate protection of trade secrets;



(g) Includes inspection and surveillance procedures which



    with reasonable assurance will determine, independent



    of information supplied by applicants and permittees,




   compliance or noncompliance with applicable standards




    and limitations, UIC permit filing requirements, and




    issued  UIC permits or terms or conditions thereof. Such




    surveillance and inspection support procedures shall include



    the following:
                              SO

-------
          (1)  A supporting survey program with sufficient



              capability to make systematic surveys of



              operations subject to the Director's authority



              in order to identify and locate all operations



              subject to UIC permit filing requirements;



          (2)  A supporting inspection program for the periodic



              inspection of underground injection operations,



              systems, or facilities.  Such inspection shall



              determine compliance or noncompliance with the



              terms,  conditions, limitations and schedules of



              compliance in UIC permits; and



   (h) Has  been adopted after reasonable notice and public



       hearings.



§146.11 Aquifers Protected by a State Program.



   (a) Notwithstanding §146.2(g) —which defines "underground



       drinking water sources" to encompass aquifers which do not



       currently supply a public water system but which contain



       water having less than 10,000 mg/1 total dissolved solids —



       a State program which does not undertake to protect one or



       more such aquifers or portions thereof may meet the require-



       ments for primary enforcement responsibility if the State can



       demonstrate to  EPA that the aquifer or portion thereof is not



       an underground drinking water source because the aquifer is






                                  51

-------
   either oil-producing; is too contaminated for use



   as an underground drinking water source; or is in



   a location which makes future use of the aquifer as



   an underground drinking water source impracticable,



   and that the injection into such aquifer would not



   endanger underground  drinking water sources



   in another part of the aquifer or in another aquifer.



(b) The State program may designate specific geographic



   areas which do not  contain underground sources of



   drinking water as defined in §146.2(g),  in which under-



   ground injection is  not subject to these regulations.  The



   State must clearly demonstrate to EPA  that within



   that specified area  no underground drinking water sources



   exist, and further that underground injection in such a



   geographic area would not endanger underground



   drinking water sources outside that area.



(c) A complete record of all  evidence as well as all analyses



   of such evidence related to designations under (a)(b) above



   shall be submitted to the Administrator upon submission



   of the State Program under Section 1422 (b) of the Act.



   All injection wells located in the designated area



   shall be identified as a part of the submission to



   the Administrator.  Such designations are subject





                             52

-------
       to the requirements of Section 146.10(h) and 146.14(a).



       If an area is to be designated after approval of the



       State Program the procedure contained in this



       paragraph must be followed.



§ 146.12 Request for Approval of a State Underground Injection



         Control Program.



    A State may apply to  the Administrator for approval of its



underground injection control program under Section 146.10.



The application shall be as concise as possible,  shall describe



and document the State's compliance with the requirements



set forth in Section 146.10, and shall include the following



information:



    (a)  The text of the State's statutory authority and regu-



        lations pertaining to the State underground injection



        control program; and



    (b)  A brief description, accompanied by appropriate docu-



        mentation, of the State's procedures for the enforce-



        ment of its underground injection control program,



        including State inspection, monitoring, recordkeeping



        and reporting requirements.,



§146.13  Action on Request for Approval of a State Program.



     (a)(l) Upon receipt of a request for approval of a State program



            submitted under  Section 146.12,  the  Administrator






                                53

-------
       shall publish notice of the request in the FEDERAL



       REGISTER and in a newspaper or news papers of



       general circulation in the State involved, with a



       brief summary of the State program,  and shall



       invite comments  on the request.



   (2)  Within 90 days after receipt of the State's completed



       application, the Administrator shall either approve,



       disapprove, or approve in part and disapprove in



       part, the State program.  The Administrator's action



       shall take effect in accordance with Section 146.14.



(b) (1)  If the Administrator approves the State program,



       the State shall have primary enforcement respon-



       sibility for underground injection control in the



       State until such time as the approval is terminated



       under this subsection (b).



   (2)  The Administrator shall periodically review, with



       respect to each State determined to have primary



       enforcement responsibility, the compliance of the



       State with the requirements set forth  in Section 146.10.



   (3)  When the Administrator's periodic review,  or other



       information available to him, indicates that a State



       no longer meets  the requirements set forth in Section



       146.10, he shall notify the State in writing of that fact

-------
            and shall summarize in his notice the information




            available to him which indicates that the State




            no longer meets such requirements.




       (4)   The State notified under subparagraph (3) of this




           paragraph may, within  30 days of receiving the




           Administrator's notice, submit to the Administrator



            evidence demonstrating that the State continues  to



            meet the requirements  for primary  enforcement



            responsibility.




      (5)  After reviewing the submission of the State, if any,




           made under subparagraph (4) the Administrator  shall




           either determine that the State no longer meets the



           requirements of  Section 146.10 or that the  State continues




           to meet those requirements, and shall notify the State of



           his  determination. Any  determination that the State no



           longer meets the requirements of Section 146.10 shall not



           become effective except as provided in Section 146.14.



§ 146.14 Public  Hearing.



   (a)  Before  any determination as to the transfer of  authority to




       a State  under Section 146.13(a) becomes effective,  or any



       determination pursuant to Section  146.13(b) that a State pro-



       gram no longer meets the requirements  of Section 142.10

-------
    becomes effective, the Administrator shall provide



    an opportunity for public hearing on his determination



    under Section 1422(b)(3) of the Act.



(b)  The Administrator shall publish notice of any determination



    specified in paragraph (a) in the FEDERAL REGISTER and



    in a newspaper or newpapers of general circulation in



    the State involved, within 15 days after making such



    determination, with a statement of his reasons for



    the determination.  The notice shall inform interested



    persons that they may request a public hearing on



    the Administrator's determination.  Such notice shall



    also indicate one or more locations in the State where



    information submitted by the State under Section 146.11



    is  available for inspection by the general public.   A



    public hearing may be requested by any interested



    person other than a Federal agency.



(c)  Requests for hearing under paragraph (b) shall be



    submitted to the Administrator within 30 days after



    publication of notice of opportunity for hearing in the



    FEDERAL REGISTER.  Such requests shall include



    the following information:



    (1)   The name, address and telephone number of the



         individual, organization or other entity requesting






                            56

-------
         a hearing;



    (2)  A brief statement of the requesting person's interest



         in the Administrator's determination and of information



         that the person making the request intends  to submit



         at such hearing; and



    (3)  The signature of the individual making the request;



         or,  if the request is made on behalf of an



         organization or other entity,  the signature  of a re-



         sponsible official of the organization or other entity.



(d)  If an appropriate request for hearing is submitted in



    accordance with paragraph (c), the Administrator shall



    give notice in the FEDERAL REGISTER and in a newspaper



    or newspapers of general circulation in the State involved,



    of  any hearing to be held according to a request  submitted



    by an interested person or on his own motion.  Notice of



    the hearing shall also be sent to the person requesting



    a hearing, if any, and to the State  involved. Notice of



    the hearing shall include a statement of the purpose of  the



    hearing, information regarding the time and location for



    the hearing and the address and telephone number of an



    office at which interested persons  may obtain further



    information concerning the hearing.  At least one



    hearing location specified in the public notice shall be





                            57

-------
    within the involved State. Notice of hearing shall be given



    not less than 30 days prior to the time scheduled



    for the hearing.



(e)  Hearings convened under paragraph (d) shall be



    conducted before a hearing officer to be designated by



    the Administrator.   The hearing shall be conducted by



    the hearing officer in an informal, orderly and expeditious



    manner.   The hearing officer shall call witnesses, receive



    oral and written testimony and take such other action



    as may be necessary to assure the efficient  conduct of



    the hearing.  Following the conclusion of the hearing,



    the hearing officer shall forward the record of the hearing



    to the Administrator.



(f)  After reviewing the record of the hearing and other



    relevant information, the Administrator shall issue an



    order affirming the determination referred to in



    paragraph (a) or rescinding such determination.   If the



    determination is affirmed,  it shall become effective



    as of the date of the Administrator's order.



(g)  If no timely  request for hearing  is received  and the



    Administrator does not determine to hold a hearing



    on his own motion, the Administrator's determination



    shall become effective 45 days after notice is issued




                          58

-------
       under paragraph (b) of this section.



    (h) If a determination of the Administrator that a State



       no longer meets the requirements of Section 146.10



       becomes effective, the State may later apply for



       a determination that it meets such requirements



       by submitting to the Administrator information



       demonstrating that it has remedied the deficiencies



       found by the Administrator without adversely affecting



       other aspects of its program required by Section



       146.10.



    (i)  Within 270 days after any amendment of a Regulation,



       under Section 1421, revising or adding any requirement,



       each State shall submit a notice to the Administrator



       containing a showing satisfactory to him that the State



       program meets the revised added requirement.



§ 146.15 Records Kept by States.



    (a)  Each State which has primary  enforcement  responsi-



       bility under Section 1421(b)(l)(c) of the Act shall maintain



       the following information with  respect to each underground



       injection, for which a permit is in effect or for which the



       Director has  received evidence of a violation of applicable



       requirements:



       (1) Reports of any monitoring required by the permit





                           5.9

-------
            or other surveillance conducted by the Director;



        (2)  Copies of permits in effect and the applications



            for those permits; and



        (3)  Records of any enforcement actions or evidence



            of violation of applicable requirements.



    (b)  Records required to be kept under paragraph (a)



        must be in a form admissible as evidence in State



        enforcement proceedings.



             (Note:  Comment is solicited on the feasibility



             of requiring data to be kept in this form.)



    (c)  Each State which has enforcement authority for the



        injection regulated under Subpart D of these regulations



        shall maintain complete records of all approvals



        granted under Section 146.42 (a)(8) and (9) and



        Section 146.42 (c).



§ 146.16 Reports by States.



   Each State which  has primary enforcement responsibility



shall submit to the Administrator the following information:



        (a) A complete inventory of all underground injections



           subject to regulation under Subpart C, D, and



            E of this Part within one year after approval of  the



           program; and



       (b)  An inventory of existing surface impoundments,






                               60

-------
      and an assessment of the extent to which they



      function to emplace fluids underground and an



      evaluation of the hazard they pose to underground



      drinking water supplies, within eighteen months after



      approval of the program, and



          (Note:  Comment is solicited on the adequacy



          of the time for conducting this inventory and



          subsequent analysis in defining the problem



          of underground injection through dug wells



          including surface impoundments not currently



          covered by this Regulation)



(c)   An annual report to be submitted by April 1 of



     every year,  consisting of:



     (1)  A summary of the number of violations of State



        underground injection control statutes and regulations



        and of enforcement actions taken by the State;



     (2) An updated  list of new and abandoned underground



        injection operations in the State;



     (3)  A listing of specific  permits issued for



         underground injections in areas designated



         under Sections 146.11 and 146.42(b).



     (4)  A listing of specific  permits containing



         approvals  granted under Sections 146.42(a)(8),




                      GI

-------
    146.42(a)(9)and 146. 42 (c).



(5)  Information on any proposed material



    change in the State program, before adoption



    of the change.

-------
SUHPART C - REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO WASTE
              DISPOSAL WELLS AND ENGINEERING WELLS

§146. 20  Underground Injections To Which Subpart Applies.

    This  subpart sets forth requirements for State programs

of underground injection by industrial and municipal waste

disposal  wells, subsidence control wells, barrier wells,

recharge wells, mining wells, storage wells and geothermal

wells.

§ 146.21 Review of Existing Underground Injections.

   (a)  Underground injections which were in operation

       under approval by the Director under an existing

       State program before the approval of the proposed

       State program under Section 1422(b) of the Act may,

       for a period of up to five years after approval, be

       regulated by rule provided such underground injections

       will not endanger underground drinking water  sources.

       (1)  The Director shall require applications to be filed

          under Section 146.24 for each existing underground

           injection which is to continue in operation.

       (2) The Director shall systematically review  such

          underground injections to determine that they

          do not endanger underground drinking water

          sources. The method of review to be used must


                             63

-------
          be indicated in the program submission to



          EPA along with a time schedule to assure that



          all existing underground injections will be reviewed



          within five years.



       (3)  Underground injection operations that are found



           to endanger underground drinking water sources



           shall discontinue operation pending remedial action



           unless the Director determines that it is unreason-



           able or impracticable to discontinue operating pending



           remedial action. If the Director permits an endanger-



           ing operation to continue pending remedial action the



           Director shall  prescribe a compliance schedule which



           shall require remedial action to be taken as soon as



           practicable but not later than one year following the



           determination of endangerment.



   (b)  Pending review by  the Director,  underground injections



       must comply at a minimum with State rules in effect on



       date of proposal of  the program by the State.



          (Note:  Comment is solicited on the practicality



          and impact of this regulatory approach)



§146.22  Requirements for Existing and New Underground



         Injections.



   The Director shall review data on existing underground






                                     64

-------
in iertions and on proposed new underground injections to




assure that:




    (a) All underground drinking water sources of 3, 000 mg/1




       total dissolved solids or less are protected by casing




       cemented to the surface;




    (b) The long string is cemented with sufficient cement to



       assure no migration  of injected fluid above or  below



       the injection zone;



    (c) Injection is maintained through tubing with a suitable




       packer set immediately above the injection zone;




       except that the Director may approve an alternative




       method of protection where compelling evidence has  been




       presented demonstrating that the alternative method will



       prevent endangerment of underground drinking water



       sources.  The Director must also offer the opportunity for



       informal  public hearing.



    (d) There are  no leaks in the system;



    (e) Surface injection pressure  is limited to preclude  the



       possibility of fracturing the confining strata;



    'f) All well completion and plugging reports for wells of




       record penetrating the proposed injection zone within



       a  two mile  radius of the proposed well injection should be



       thoroughly  reviewed to insure that all wells are




                              65

-------
       properly completed and/or plugged that in the judgment



       of the Director present a potential threat to underground



       drinking water sources; and



    (g) Annular injection is not practiced.



§146.23  General Permit Procedures.



    State procedures for permits subject to this subpart shall



insure that every applicant for a permit complies with filing



requirements to include the following:



    (a)  The applicant must submit a complete UIC permit



        application on forms prescribed by the Director,



        including data required by Section 146.24 except



        that if the  Director determines that the data required



        is on file with the regulatory agency regulating the



        injection under consideration, the Director may con-



        sider the application complete without resubmission



        of that specific data.



    (b)  In  the case of new underground  injections, a complete



        UIC permit application must be  filed far enough in



        advance of the date on which it is desired to start the



        injection to allow adequate consideration of the application,



        and in sufficient time before starting the injection to insure



        compliance with any applicable requirement under Section



        208 (b)(2)(K) of the FWPCA, and any other




                                   66

-------
        applicable regulations; and



    (c)  Procedures must be established which (1) enable the



        Director to require submission of additional information



        after an application has been filed,  and (2) insure that,



        if any UIC permit application is incomplete or otherwise



        deficient, processing of the application shall not be



        completed until such time as the applicant has supplied the



        missing information or otherwise corrected the deficiency.



§146.24  Application for UIC Permit.



    Each application for a UIC permit covered by this subpart



shall include the following information:



    (a) Ownership and Location Data



        The application shall identify the owner and operator



        of the proposed underground injection facility,  and



        the location of the facility.



    (b)  An accurate map showing (i) location and surface



        elevation of the injection well, (ii) location of all



       facilities,  (iii) property boundaries, and (iv) surface



       mineral ownership.



    (c) An accurate map showing the location of: water wells;



       surface bodies of water; oil, gas, exploratory



       or test wells (with depths of penetration);  other



       injection wells; mines  (surface and subsurface)




                              G7

-------
    and quarries; and other pertinent surface features



    including residences,  roads,  bedrock outcrops,



    and faults and fractures within a two mile radius



    of the injection operation.



 (d) A tabulation of all wells requested under (c)



    penetrating the proposed  injection zone, showing



    operator; lease or owner; well number; surface



    casing size, weight, depth and cementing data for



    surface,  intermediate and long string casings; and



    plugging data.



(e)  Maps and cross sections indicating the vertical



    and lateral limits of aquifers containing 3,000 mg/1



    and 10,000 mg/1 TDS water quality levels, above and



    below the injection zone and direction of movement of



    the water in every underground drinking water source



    which may be affected by the proposed injection.



(f)  Maps and cross sections detailing geologic structure



    for the local area and generalized maps and cross



    sections illustrating the regional geologic setting.



(g)  Description of chemical,  physical, and biological



    properties and characteristics of the fluid to be injected.



    (Note:  Comment is solicited on the impact of this



     requirement.  Since some information involves trade





                            G8

-------
     secrets,  how can  confidentiality be protected without



     unduly restraining public involvement?)



(h)   Volume,  injection rate and injection pressure of the fluid



    to be injected.



(i)  The following geological and physical characteristics of



    the injection interval and the overlying and underlying



    confining  beds:



     (1)  thickness;



     (2)  areal extent;



     (3)  lithology;



     (4)  location, extent and effects of known or suspected



         faulting, fracturing and natural solution channels;



     (5)  formation fluid chemistry, including total dissolved



         solids; and



     (6)  fracturing gradients.



(j)  The  following engineering data:



    (1) diameter of hole and total depth of the well;



    (2) type,  size, weight, and strength of all casing strings;



    (3) proposed cementing procedures and type of cement;



    (4) proposed formation testing program;



    (5) proposed stimulation program;



    (6) proposed injection procedure;



    (7) plans  of the surface and subsurface construction





                     69

-------
           details of the system including engineering drawings;



        (8) plans for monitoring both well head and annular fluid



           pressure, fluids being injected in injection zone



           and other aquifers;



       (9) expected changes in pressure, native fluid displace-



           ment and direction of movement of injected fluid; and



      (10) contingency plans to cope with all shut-ins or well



           failures to prevent endangerment of underground



           drinking water sources.



   (k)  A written evaluation of alternative disposal practices in



        terms of maximum environmental protection.



§146.25 Formulation of Preliminary Determination and Draft



        UIC Permits.



   (a) The Director shall prepare a preliminary staff



       determination with respect to a UIC permit application



       in advance of public notice of the proposed issuance of a



       UIC permit.  The preliminary determination shall include



       at least the following:



        ,:,' A proposed determination to issue or deny a UIC



           permit for the injection  described in the UIC permit



           application;



        (2) Name and address of the applicant; name of the



           facility or operation producing the contaminants

-------
           to be injected; site or proposed site of the injection;



           and a list of the alternatives to underground injection



           which have been considered;




        (3) Proposed injection limitations for each major




           parameter; and




        (4) A brief description of any proposed special conditions



           which will have significant impact upon the injection




           described in the application.



   (b) The Director shall organize the tentative determination, pre-




      pared under (a) of this Section into a draft  UIC permit.



§146.26  Public Notice  Of Proposed Issuance or Denial of UIC Permits




        for Existing and New Underground Injections



   (a) The Director shall give public notice of any preliminary



       determination to issue or deny a UIC permit. The public




       notice shall be circulated in a manner designed to inform



       interested  persons of the proposed injection and of the



       preliminary determination to issue or deny a UIC permit



       for the proposed injection. At a minimum:



       (1) The public notice shall be published in a local newspaper



           of general circulation;




       (2) Notice shall be mailed to any person or group of persons



           upon request;



       (3) The Director shall provide a period of not less than



                                ** 1-1
                                f JL

-------
        30 days following the dale of the public notice,



        during which time interested persons may submit



        written comments regarding the preliminary



        determination with respect to the UIC permit



        application. All written comments submitted



        during the comment  period shall be retained



        by the Director and considered in the formulation



        of his final determination with respect to  the UIC



        permit application.



(b)  The contents of public notice of proposal issuance or



    denial of UIC permits  shall include at least the following:



    (1) Name and address of the applicant and a brief



        description of the  location of the injection;



    (2) Nature of the applicant's activities or operations



        which result in the fluid to be injected (e. g.,



        municipal waste treatment plant, steel manufacturing,



        drainage from mining activities);



    (3) A physical, chemical,  and biological description



        the fluid to be injected and the rate and pressure of



        injection;



        (Note: Comment is  solicited on the impact of this



        requirement since some information involves



        trade secrets.  How can confidentiality be




                       73

-------
            protected without unduly restraining public involve-
            ment?)
        (4)  Depth and geologic name of the injection zone or
            formation;
        (5)  A statement of the Director's preliminary deter-
           mination to issue or deny the permit and a brief
           description of the procedures for the formulation
           of final determinations, including the comment
           period and any other means by which interested
           persons may  influence or comment upon those
           determinations; and
       (6)  Name of the State Agency issuing the public notice
          with address and phone number at which interested
          persons may obtain further information, and inspect
          and copy UIC application forms and related documents.
§146.27 Notice to Other Government Agencies.
    The Director  shall also notify other appropriate government
agencies of the proposed  issuance of a UIC permit and shall
provide such agencies an opportunity to submit their written
views and recommendations or request a public hearing.
Procedures for such notification shall include the following:
    (a) At the time of issuance of public notice under Section
        146.25, a copy of the notice will be transmitted to the
                            73

-------
    Director in any other State whose waters may be



    affected by the issuance of a UIC permit and, upon



    request,  such State will be provided with a copy of the



    UIC permit application and a copy of the proposed



    permit. Each potentially affected State may submit



    written recommendations to the Director (with copies



    to the Regional Administrator (s) for the affected



    Region(s)). The Director shall  provide the affected



    State or States (and the Regional Administrator (s)) a



    written explanation of his reasons for failing to accept



    any such written recommendations;



 (b) A procedure, similar to paragraph (a) of this section,



    for notifying any interstate agency or commission having



    ground-water quality control authority over waters which



    may be affected by the issuance of a permit; and



(c)  A procedure for mailing a copy of the public notice of



    an application for a UIC permit  to any other Federal,



    State,  or local agency, or any foreign country,  upon



    request, and providing an opportunity to respond,



    comment, or request a public hearing pursuant to



    §146.29. Such agencies shall include at least the following:



    (1) The agency responsible for the preparation of an



        approved plan under Section 208(b)(2)(K) of the




                               74

-------
            FWPCA; and



        (2) The State or interstate agency responsible for the



            preparation of a plan pursuant to an approved



            continuous planning process under Section 303(e)



            of the FWPCA, unless such agency is under the



            supervision of the Director.



§146.28 Public Hearings On Existing and New Underground



        Injections.



   (a) The Director shall provide an opportunity for the



       applicant,  any affected State, any affected interstate



       agency,  any affected country, the Regional Administrator,



       or any interested agency, person,  or group of persons



       to request an informal public hearing with respect to



       a UIC permit application.



   (b) The Director shall hold an informal public hearing



       on a permit application if he finds there is a significant



       public interest (including the filing of requests or



       petitions for such a hearing) in holding such a hearing.



       Any hearing held under this subsection shall be



       held in the geographical area of the injection or pro-



       posed injection, and may,  as appropriate, consider



       related groups of permit applications.
                               75

-------
§146. 29 Public Notice of Hearings On Existing and New



        Underground Injections.



   (a) Public notice of any hearing held under Section 146.28



       shall be circulated at least as widely as was the



       notice of the UIC permit application and shall be given



       at least 30 days prior to the hearing date.



   (b) The contents of the public notice of any hearing held



       under Section 146.28 shall include at least the following:



       (1) A brief description of the nature and purpose of the



           hearing, including rules and procedures to be followed;



       (2) Name and address of the  applicant whose application



           will be considered at the hearing;



       (3) Name of formation into which injection is proposed,



           the injection depth, and a description of the location



           of the injection;



       (4) A description of the fluid to be injected and the



           rate and pressure of injection;



       (5) Nature of the applicant's activities or operations



           which result in the fluid to be injected (e.g.,



           municipal waste treatment plant, steel manufacturing,



            drainage from mining activities);



       (6) The date, time and location of the  hearing;



       (7) A concise statement of the  issues raised by the person





                            76

-------
           requesting the hearing; and



        (8) Name of the Agency holding the public hearing with



           address and phone number at which interested persons



           may obtain further information.



 §146. 30  Director Action on UIC Permit Applications.



    After considering the application for a permit for a new



 or existing underground injection and all pertinent matters



 relative thereto, if the Director finds that the applicant has



 demonstrated that the proposed well injection will not endanger



 underground  drinking water sources, the Director may issue



 a permit.  If the Director finds that the applicant has not



 demonstrated that the proposed well injection will not endanger



 underground  drinking water sources, the Director shall issue



 a permit under Section 146.21(a)(3).  The Director's decision



 shall be in writing,  and a  copy furnished to the applicant.



 §146. 31 Prohibited Underground Injection.



    The Director shall insure that no permit shall be issued



 authorizing underground injection unless the applicant can



 demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director that such injection



will not endanger underground drinking water sources.



 §146. 32 Permit Conditions and Other Requirements.



    State procedures must insure  that the terms and conditions



 of each issued UIC permit comply with the following:




                                  77

-------
(a)  Adherence to any applicable more stringent limitations



   including those (i) necessary to meet both treatment



   standards and schedules of compliance, established under



   State law or regulation, or (ii) necessary to meet other



   Federal law or regulation;



(b)  Allowance of no underground injection of contaminants,



   until after:



   (1) The use of appropriate techniques for construction,



       operation and maintenance of the injection system; and



   (2)  Provisions for inspection, monitoring,  record-keeping



    and reporting of the underground injection operation;



(c)  Allowance of no contaminant to enter an existing or



    potential underground drinking water source if the



    presence of such contaminant may endanger such



    drinking water source;



(d)  Adequate contingency plans to cope with malfunctions



    or failure of the underground injection system;



(e)  Adequate procedures for detecting failure of the system



    in a timely fashion;



(f) Provisions for such measures as the Director finds



   necessary to assure the availability of adequate financial



   resources for dealing with underground injection systems



   which either are improperly abandoned  or may otherwise





                            78

-------
    cause contamination of underground drinking water



    sources;



(g)  That all injections authorized by the UIC permit shall



    be consistent with the terms and conditions of the permit



    and  that the injection of any contaminant at a greater



    rate or pressure than that authorized by the permit, or



    a volume in excess of that authorized by the permit shall



    constitute a violation of the terms and conditions of the



    permit;



(h) That the permit may be modified, suspended, or revoked



    in whole or in part during its term for cause including



    but  not limited to, the following:



    (1)  The underground injection endangers underground



        drinking water sources;



    (2)  Violation of  any material terms or conditions of



        the permit;



    (3)  Obtaining a permit by misrepresentation or failure



         to disclose fully all relevant facts; or



    (4)  A change in any  condition that may indicate failure



        of the underground injection system;



(i)  That the permittee shall allow the Director or his



   authorized representative, upon the presentation of



   appropriate credentials:






                          79

-------
   (1) To enter the permittee's premises in which a



      contaminant source or injection system is located



      and in which any records are required to be kept



      under terms and conditions of the permit;



   (2)  To have access to and copy records required to be



       kept under terms and conditions of the permit;



   (3)  To inspect the permittee's facilities, including any



       monitoring equipment or analytical devices; and



   (4)  To sample any fluids being injected, and if sampling



       of the injection zone and other aquifers is required



       by the permittee under the monitoring plan of the



       permit, to also have the right to sample those zones;



(j) That the  permittee at all times shall maintain in good



   working order and operate efficiently facilities or



   systems of control installed by the permittee to achieve



   compliance with terms and conditions of the permit.



(k) That immediately following the permanent cessation  of



   underground injection or where a well is not completed,



   the permittee shall notify the Director and follow the pro-



   cedures  prescribed by the Director for plugging and



   abandonment; and



(1) That the  permittee shall submit reports of all remedial



   work actions to the Director.




                            80

-------
5140. 33  Monitoring and Record-keeping.



   Each permittee shall keep on forms prescribed by the Director



complete and accurate records of:



   (a) All monitoring required in the permit which will include,



        but not be limited to:



        (1) Weekly readings of the surface injection pressure;



        (2) Weekly readings of the tubing - long string annulus



            pressure;



        (3) Weekly total volume of injected fluid; and



        (4) Weekly average injection volume (bbls/day) (liters/day);



   (b) All periodic well tests, including but not limited to;



        (1) Water analyses;



        (2) Measured or calculated bottom hole pressure



            readings  of the injection zone;



        (3) Well  conditions;



   (c) All shut-in periods,  times contingency measures used



       for handling the fluid to be injected;



   (d) The permittee shall retain, for a period of five years,



       records of all information resulting  from any monitoring



       activities required by the UIC permit or by regulation.



       This requirement  shall continue in effect during the



       five year  period following abandonment of the well.



       The period of retention shall be extended when requested






                              81

-------
        by the Director; and




   (e) Records of monitoring activities and results shall include




        for all samples; (1) the date, place and time of sampling;




        (2) the dates analyses were performed; (3) who performed



        the analyses; (4) the analytical techniques/methods; and




        (5) the result of such analyses.



§146. 34 Reporting Requirements.



   (a) Each permittee shall  submit at least the following reports




        or notification to the  Director on forms prescribed by the



        Director:




        (1) Notification of the initial injection operation within




            ten days of the start-up date; and



        (2) Quarterly reports which contain the data records



            required by the Director.



   (b)  Within ten days after the temporary discontinuance



        of disposal operations, the permitee shall notify



        the Director of the date and length of such discontinuance




        and the reason therefor.   The Director will



        prescribe appropriate procedures to insure  that



        underground drinking water sources are protected.

-------
SUBPART D - REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO INJECTION
             WELLS RELATED TO OIL AND GAS PRODUCTION

§146.40 Underground Injections to Which Subpart Applies.

    This subpart sets forth requirements for State programs with

respect to the underground injection of brine or other fluids which

are brought to the surface in connection with oil or natural gas

production; and underground injection for the secondary or tertiary

recovery of oil or natural gas.

§146.41 Review of Existing Underground Injections.

   (a)  Underground injections which were in operation under

       approval by the Director under an existing State

       program before the approval of the proposed State

       program under Section 1422(b) of  the Act may, for

       a period of up to five years, after approval, be

       regulated by rule provided such underground injections

       will not  endanger underground drinking water sources.

       (1) The Director shall obtain data necessary to make the

          determinations required under Section 146.42.

       (2) The Director shall systematically review such under-

          ground injections to determine that they do not endanger

          underground drinking water sources.  The approach for

          review may be by county, field, age of well or other

          systematic approach decided upon by the  Director.

-------
       The method of review to be used must be indicated



       in the program submission to EPA along with



       a time schedule to assure that all existing



       underground injections will be reviewed within



       five years.



    (3) Underground injections reviewed by the Director



       that do not endanger underground drinking water



       sources may continue operation under a permit



       issued in compliance with Sections 146.42 and 146. 47.



    (4)  Underground injection operations that are found



        to endanger underground drinking water sources



        shall discontinue operation pending remedial action



        unless the Director determines that it is unreason-



        able  or impracticable to discontinue operating



        pending remedial action. If the Director permits an



        endangering operation to continue pending remedial



        action the Director shall prescribe a compliance



        schedule which shall  require remedial action to be



        taken as soon as practicable but in no case later than



        one year following the determination of endangerment.



(b)  Pending review by the Director, underground injections



   must comply with State rules in effect on the date of



   proposal of the program, by the State.




                               81

-------
            (Note:  Comment is solicited on the practicality



            and impact of this regulatory approach.)



§146. 42 Requirements for Existing and New Underground Injections.



   (a) The Director shall review data on existing underground



       injection and on proposed new underground injections to



       assure that:



       (1) All underground drinking water sources of 3,000 mg/1



           total dissolved solids or less are protected by surface



           casing cemented to the surface;



       (2) Injection is maintained through tubing with a suitable



           packer set immediately above the injection zone;



       (3) The long string is cemented with sufficient cement



           to assure no migration of injected fluid above or



           below  the injection zone;



       (4)  There are no leaks in the system;



       (5) Surface injection pressure is limited to preclude the



           possibility of fracturing the confining strata;



       (6) All well completion and plugging reports for wells



           of record penetrating the proposed injection zone



          within a one-half mile radius of the proposed well



          injection have been thoroughly reviewed to insure



           that all wells are properly completed and/or plugged



           that in the judgment of the Director present a




                                   85

-------
        potential threat to underground drinking water sources;

        and

(7)  Annular injection between the casing and hole is not practiced.

(8)  Annular injection between strings of  casing and between

   tubing and casing is not practiced;  except that in specific

   cases the Director may approve such annular injection

   providing: (i) there is an annulus between the outer string

   of casing receiving the injection and the surface casing

   which can and will be monitored for leaks; (ii) that the

   surface casing is protected by cement to the surface;  and
                                                *
   (iii) that the injector demonstrates to the satisfaction  of

   the Director that the injection will  not endanger underground

   drinking water sources.

(9)  Annular injection between the surface casing and the

   next innermost casing or between the surface casing

   and the tubing, or injection through the surface casing

   only, is not practiced; except that in  specific cases

   the Director may approve such injection where:

   (i)  the injection was in operation prior to approval

   of the proposed State program, and;  (ii) the injector

   demonstrates to  the satisfaction of the Director that,

   based on previous history and presentation of com-

   pelling evidence  collected through fluid injection


                                   83

-------
   profile surveys and/or monitoring wells that the



   injection has not endangered underground sources



   of drinking water, nor will continued use endanger



   underground sources of drinking water.



(b)  The Director may designate specific areas in the State



    where an alternative method of protection to those



    required in  (a)(l) and (a)(2) above has been used  and



    has been demonstrated to be equally effective in  the



    prevention of endangerment to underground drinking



    water sources provided:



    (1)  A complete record of all evidence, as well as all



       analyses of such evidence relative to a desig-



       nation under this paragraph is submitted to the



       Administrator upon submission of the State program



       under Section 1422(b) of the Act.



    (2)  All injection wells located in the designated area



        and the  alternative to be used are identified  as a



        part of the submission  to the Administrator.



    Such designations are subject to the approval of the



    Administrator and the public hearing requirements



    of Section 146.10(g) and 146.14(a). If an area is  to be



    designated after approval of the State program the



    procedure contained in this  paragraph must be followed.




                            87

-------
(c)  The Director may approve an alternative method of



    protection for a specific well or injection in lieu




    of those required in (a)(l), (a)(2),  (a)(3) provided:



    (1)  The injector can demonstrate  to the  Director




        with written compelling evidence that that specific




        requirement would interefere  with or impede oil




        and gas production from the production well(s)



        serviced by that specific injection well;




    (2)  The injector can demonstrate to the Director



        with written compelling evidence that that specific




        requirement is not essential to prevent endanger-



        ment to underground drinking  water  sources




        resulting from that specific injection;



    (3)  The injector provides a written assessment of the



        alternative method of protection to be used; and



    (4)  The Director provides the opportunity for informal



        public hearing on that specific well or injection.



        (Note: Comment is solicited on the adequacy of



        these requirements in preventing endangerment to



        underground drinking water sources, and of  the




        impact on existing wells.)

-------
G. 43  Public Notice of Proposed Issuance or Denial of UIC Permits



     for Existing and New Underground Injections.



     (a) The Director shall give public notice of the intent to



     issue or deny UIC permits for those existing  and



     new underground injections reviewed under Section



     146. 41 and Section 146. 47. The public notice may  contain



     more than one underground injection facility.  The



     approach may be similar to that in § 146. 41 (a) (3).



     The public notice shall be circulated in a manner



     designed to inform interested persons of the proposed



     injection and of the determination to issue or deny



     a UIC permit for the proposed injection.  Procedures



     for the circulation of public notices shall include at



     least the following:



     (1) Notice shall be circulated within the geographical



         area of the proposed injection by publication in a



         local newspaper of general circulation;



     (2) Notice shall be mailed to any person or group upon



         request;



     (3) The Director shall provide a period of not less



         than 30 days following the date of the public notice,



         during which time interested persons may submit



         written  comments regarding the determination to





                             89

-------
            issue or deny the UIC permit for an existing under-



            ground injection.  All written comments submitted



            during the 30 day comment period shall be retained



            by the Director and considered in the formation of



            his final determination with respect to the UIC permit



           application.



       (4)  The Director shall prqvide a period of not less



           than 14 days following the date of the public notice,



           during which time interested persons may submit



           written comments regarding the determination to



           issue or  deny the UIC permit for new underground



           injections. All written comments submitted during



           the 14 day comment period shall be retained by the



           Director and considered in the formation of his final



           determination with respect to the UIC permit application.



    (b) The contents of public notice of issuance or denial of UIC



permits shall include at least the following:



            (1)  Ownership and location data



                (i)   Operator of injection well or project; and



                (ii)  Location by geographic area, or section,



                     township, and range.



            (2)  Engineering Data

-------
                (i)  Purpose of Injection (Disposal, Recovery);




                (ii)  Estimated volume and type of fluid to be injected



                    (by lease, pool, field or other suitable means);




                    and




                (iii) Number of injection wells.




            (3) Depth and geologic name  of the  injection zone or



               formation;




            (4) A statement of the Director's determination to




               issue or deny the permit and a  brief description



               of the procedures for the formulation of final




               determinations, including the comment period




               and any other means by which interested persons



               may influence or comment upon those




               determinations; and



            (5)  Name of the State Agency issuing the public



               notice with address and phone number at which



               interested persons may obtain further information,



               and inspect and copy UIC application forms and



               related documents.



,§146.44  Notice to Other Government Agencies.




    The Director shall also notify  other appropriate government



agencies of the proposed issuance of a UIC permit and shall
                                  91

-------
provide such agencies an opportunity to submit their written



views and recommendations or request a public hearing.



Procedures for such notification shall  include the following:



    (a) At the time of issuance of public notice under



        §146. 43, a copy of the notice will be transmitted to the



        Director in any other  State or  Territory whose waters



        may be affected by the issuance of a UIC permit and,



        upon request, such State will be provided with a copy



        of the UIC permit application and  a copy of the proposed



        permit.  Each potentially affected  State or Territory



        may submit written recommendations to the Director



        (with copies to the Regional Administrator (s) for the



        potentially affected Region(s)). The Director  shall



        provide the affected State or States (and the Regional



        Administrator (s)) a written explanation of his reasons



        for failing to accept any such written recommendations;



    (b) A procedure,  similar  to paragraph (a) of this section,



        for notifying any interstate agency or commission



        having ground-water quality control authority over



        waters which may be affected by issuance of a permit;



        and



    (c) A procedure for mailing a copy of the public notice of an



        application for a UIC permit to any other Federal, State,

-------
        or local agency, or any foreign country, upon request,



        and providing an opportunity to respond, comment, or



        request a public hearing under Section 146.46. Such



        agencies shall include at least the following:



       (1) The agency responsible for the preparation of an



           approved plan under Section 208(b)(2)(K) of



           the FWPCA; and



        (2) The State or interstate agency responsible for the



           preparation of a plan pursuant to an approved



           continuous planning process under §303(e)



           of the FWPCA, unless  such agency is under the



           supervision of the Director.



§146.45  Public Hearings on Existing and New Underground



        Injections.



     (a)  The Director  shall provide an opportunity for the



         applicant, any affected State, any affected interstate



         agency,  any affected country, the Regional Administrator,



         or any interested agency, person,  or group  of persons



         to request an informal public hearing with respect



         to a UIC permit application.



     (b)  The  Director  shall hold an informal public hearing



         on a permit application if he finds there is a significant
                                  93

-------
         public interest (including the filing of requests or petitions



         for such hearing) in holding such a hearing. Any hearing



         held under this subsection shall be held in the geographical



         area of the injection or proposed injection, and may, as



         appropriate,  consider related groups of permit applications,



§146.46  Public Notice of Hearings on Existing and New Underground



         Injections.



   (a) At least 14 days prior to a public hearing held under



       Section 146. 45,  the Director shall give notice of such



       hearing by publication in a newspaper of general cir-



       culation within the geographical area of the proposed



       injection and shall set forth the following:



       (1)  Ownership and location data



            (i)    Operator of injection well or project;  and



            (ii)   The location of the injection well or project by



                 section, township and range, or by a  location



                 from the nearest village or town,  or in such



                 other manner as will identify the geographical



                 area involved.



       (2)  Engineering Data



            (i)    Purpose of injection (disposal, recovery);



            (ii)   Volume and type of fluid to be injected; and

-------
            (iii)  Number of injection wells involved;



       (3) Depth and geologic name of the injection zone or



            formation;



       (4) A concise statement of the issues raised by the person



            requesting the hearing;



       (4) The name of the agency issuing the notice and the date,



      time, and location of the hearing;



   (b)  The Director shall further supply the information



       set out above to each State,  interstate or Federal



       agency and to each person or group of persons



       expressing an interest in the permit to be con-



       sidered at a hearing.



§146. 47 Application for UIC Permit for a New Underground Injection.



An application for a UIC permit for a new underground injection



shall be filed with the Director on forms prescribed by the



Director.



    (a) The application form for any new underground injection



       shall include the following:



       (1)  Ownership and Location Data



            The application shall identify the owner and operator



            of the proposed underground injection facility, and



            the location of the facility;



       (2)  Engineering Data





                               95

-------
     (i)  A detailed casing and cementing program, or a



        schematic showing: diameter of hole, total depth



        of well and ground surface elevation; surface,



        conductor, and long string casing size and weight,



        setting depth, top of  cement, method used to



        determine top; tubing size,  and setting depth, and



       method of completion (open hole or perforated);



   (ii) A map showing name and location of all producing



       wells, injection wells, abandoned wells,



        dry holes, and water wells of record within .



        a 1/2 mile radius of  the proposed injection



        well; and



   (iii)  A tabulation of all wells requested under (ii)



        penetrating the proposed injection zone,



        showing: operator; lease; well number; surface



        casing size and weight,  depth and cementing data;



        intermediate casing size and weight, depth and



        cementing data; long string and weight,  depth



        and cementing data; and plugging data.



(Note:  Comment is solicited  on other ways to demonstrate



non-endangerment from wells penetrating the proposed



injection zone where it is possible that the wells may be



an open connection to an underground drinking water source.)

-------
 (3) Operating Data



         (i)  Depth to top and bottom of injection zone;




        (ii) Anticipated daily injection volume, minimum and




            maximum, in barrels;



       (iii) Approximate injection pressure; and




        (iv) Type,  source and characteristics  of injected fluids.




    (4) Geologic Data - Injection Zone



       Appropriate geologic data on the injection zone and



       confining beds including  such data as geologic names,




       thickness and areal extent of the zone.



    (5) Underground Sources of  Drinking Water Which May



       be  Affected by the Injection Including:




        Geologic name  and depth (below land surface)




       of aquifers above and below the injection zone




       containing water of 3,000 mg/1 total dissolved



       solids or less,  and aquifers containing water



       of 10,000 mg/1  total dissolved solids or less.



    (6) An electric log on all new wells and on  existing wells



       where available.



(b)  The Director may request any of these additional



    data necessary to make the determinations required



    in Section 146. 41.

-------
(1)  Engineering Data



    (i) Method to determine rate of corrosion;



    (ii) Cement bond log;



   (iii) List of all cement squeeze operations,  giving



       interval and number of sacks of cement;



(2)  Operating Data



    (i) Whether open or closed system;



   (ii) Contingency plans to cope with all shut-ins or



       well failures;



 (3)  Geologic Data - Regional Structure



     Location, extent and effects of known or suspected



     faulting, indicating whether faults are sealed or



     fractured avenues for fluid movement;



 (4)  Underground Sources of Drinking Water



     Lithology of aquifers defined as underground



     sources of drinking water;



 (5)  Any surface retention facilities associated with



     the injection operation;



 (6)  Reservoir and Fluid  Data on Entire Reservoir



     (i)  Lithology;



     (ii)  Original and current bottom hole pressure;

-------
        (7)  Reservoir and Fluid Data on Lease



            (i) Average horizontal permeability;



           (ii) Average porosity;



        (8)  Production history of reservoir;



        (9) Type of injection project and results expected; and



       (10)  Injection pattern and spacing.



§146. 48 Permit Conditions and Other Requirements.



       State procedures must insure that the terms and conditions



of each issued UIC permit including each permit for an existing



underground injection, comply with the following:



        (a)  Adherence to any applicable, more stringent



            limitations including those (i) necessary to meet



            treatment  standards, or schedules of compliance,



            established pursuant to State law or regulation, or



            (ii) necessary to meet other Federal law or



            regulation;



        (b) Allowance of no underground injection of contaminants



           until after:



              (1) The use of appropriate techniques for



                 operation and maintenance of the injection



                 system; and



              (2) Provisions have been completed for inspection,



                 monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting



                 of the underground injection operation;





                                 99

-------
(c)   Allowance of no contaminant to enter an underground



     drinking water source if the presence of such con-



     taminant may endanger such drinking water source;



(d)   Adequate contingency plans to cope with malfunctions



     or failure of the underground injection system;



(e)   Adequate procedures for detecting failure of the system



     in a timely fashion;



(f)   Provisions for such measures as the Director finds



     necessary to assure the availability of adequate



     financial resources for dealing with underground



     injection systems which either are  improperly



     abandoned or may otherwise cause  contamin-



     ation of underground drinking water sources;



(g)   That all injections authorized by the UIC permit



     shall be consistent with the terms and conditions



     of the permit and that the injection of any contaminant



     at a greater rate of pressure than  that authorized



     by the permit, or a volume in excess of that



     authorized by the permit shall constitute a



     violation of the terms and conditions of the permit;



(h)   That the permit may be modified, suspended, or



     revoked in whole or in part during its term



     for cause including but not limited to, the



     following:

-------
     (1) The underground injection endangers underground



         drinking water sources;



     (2)  Violation of any material terms or conditions of



         the permit;



     (3)  Obtaining a permit by misrepresentation or failure



         to disclose fully all relevant facts; or



     (4)  A change in any condition that may indicate failure



         of the underground injection system;



(i)   That the permittee shall allow the Director or his



     authorized representative, upon the presentation of



     appropriate credentials:



     (1)  To  enter permittee's premises in which a



        contaminant source or injection system is located



        and in which any records are required to be



        kept under terms and conditions of the permit;



    (2) To have access to and copy records required to  be



       kept under terms and conditions of the permit;



    (3) To inspect the permittee's facilities, including  any



        monitoring equipment or analytical devices; and



    (4)  To sample any fluids being injected and if



        sampling of the injection zone and other



        aquifers is required by the permittee under



        the monitoring plan of the permit, to also



        have the right to sample these zones;




                        101

-------
       0)   That the permittee at all times shall maintain in



            good working order and operate efficiently the



            facilities or systems of control installed by the



            permittee to achieve compliance with terms and



            conditions of the permit;



       (k)   That immediately following the permanent



            cessation of underground injection or where a well



            is not completed the applicant shall notify the Director



            and follow the procedures prescribed by the Director



            for plugging and abandonment; and



       (1)   That the permittee shall report all remedial work



            to the Director.



§146. 49  Monitoring and Record-keeping.



   Each permittee shall keep on forms prescribed by the Director



complete and accurate records of:



   (a) All monitoring required in the permit which will include,



        but not be limited to:



          (1) Weekly readings of the surface injection pressure;



          (2) Weekly readings of the tubing  - long string annulus



             pressure;



          (3) Weekly total  volume of injected fluid; and



          (4) Weekly average injection volume (bbls/day).



              (liters/day);






                                102

-------
    (b) All periodic well tests, including but not limited to:



          (1) Water analyses;  and



          (2) Well conditions;



    (c) The permittee shall retain, for a period of five years,



        records of all information resulting from any monitoring



        activities required by the UIC permit or by regulation.



        This requirement shall continue in effect during the



        five-year period following abandonment of the well.  The



        period of retention shall be extended when requested



        by the Director;  and



    (d)  Records of monitoring activities and results shall



        include for all samples; (1) the date, place and time



        of sampling; (2) the dates analyses were performed;



        (3)  who performed the analyses; (4) the analytical



        techniques/methods; and (5) the results of such analyses.



146. 50 Reporting  Requirements.



    (a) Each permittee shall submit at least the following reports



       or notification to the Director on forms prescribed by the



       Director:



        (1)  Notification of the initial injection operation within



           ten days of the start-up date; and



        (2)  Quarterly reports which contain the data records



            required by the Director.



                                  103

-------
(h)  Within ten days after the temporary discontinuance



    of disposal operations the permittee shall notify the



    Director of the date and length of such discontinuance



    and reason therefore. The Director will prescribe



    appropriate procedures  to insure that underground



    drinking water sources are protected.
                                 104

-------
SDBPART E - REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO ALL
              DRAINAGE WELLS

§146. 70  Underground Injections to Which Subpart Applies.

    This subpart  sets forth requirements for State programs

with respect to drainage wells used to dispose of stormwater

run-off and irrigation return flow.  Underground injections

covered by this subpart include injections to dispose of storm

water runoff, irrigation return flow, and excess ponded surface

waters.

 §146. 71 Regulation by Rule or Permit.

    A State program may regulate any category of underground

injection covered by this  subpart by rule or by permit system,

at the option of the State.

§146. 72  Regulation by Permit.

    If  a State elects to regulate a category of underground

injection covered by this  subpart by permit,  the permit

requirements must include, as a minimum:

    (a)  That the applicant for the permit to inject  must provide

        such information as the State may require regarding

        location and design of the facility, nature  and volume

        of the fluid to be  injected, and such other  information

        as may be necessary to satisfy the State that the

        underground injection will not endanger  underground


                             105

-------
        drinking water sources.



    (b)  That the Director will give public notice and provide



        opportunity for comment and informal public hearing



        in cases where the Director determines that the



        application raises substantial question of possible



        endangerment of underground drinking water sources.



    (c)  That permits issued will be conditioned on compliance



        with specified inspection,  monitoring, record-keeping



        and reporting requirements.



§146. 73 Regulation by Rule.



    If a State elects to regulate a category of underground



injection covered by this smbpart by rule,1 the State regulations



applicable" to that category shall provide, but'not be limited



to,  the following:



    (a)  That no underground injection that endangers



        underground drinking water sources is authorized,'



    (b)  A mechanism for determining the nature and extent



        of the underground injection activity in the State;



    (c)  A mechanism for insuring that periodic testing is



        conducted and test records are maintained in



        appropriate cases; and
                                106

-------
    (d) That design, location or construction of underground



       injection facilities that would be inconsistent with good



       practice for the protection of underground drinking



       water sources is prohibited.



§146.74 Remedial Action.



    (a) Underground injection operations that are found to endanger



       underground drinking water sources shall discontinue



       operation pending remedial action unless the Director



       determines that it is unreasonable or impracticable



       to discontinue operating pending remedial action.  If



       the Director permits an endangering operation to con-



       tinue pending remedial action the Director shall pre-



       scribe a compliance schedule which shall require



       remedial action to be taken as soon as practicable but



       in no case later than one year following the determination



       of endangerment.
                                  107

-------
              ECONOMIC ANALYSES




STATE UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM



             PROPOSED REGULATIONS
                   316

-------
  Proposed State Underground Injection Control Program

                Costs and Economic Impacts
    Table I following summarizes our best estimate of the capital
expenditures required for existing underground injection and
disposal wells by regulations.  To this total of $22,5 million
a figure of approximately $1 million per year would be required
for permit applications and remedial actions associated with
new wells.

    The estimated annuaiiiiod osts of the  proposed regulations
are presented in Table II.  These total approximately $74
million.

-------
                          Table 3






     Proposed State Underground Injection Control Program




   Estimated Capital Expenditures- Existing Wells (1976-1986)



                          ($ million)
                                                        Capital
Type of Well
Industrial -Municipal Disposal Wells
Industrial
Municipal
Shallow Disposal Wells
Industrial - Municipal
Subsidence Control Wells
Barrier Wells
Recharge Wells
Gas Storage
Geothermal Wells
Solution Mining Wells
Oil and Gas Industry Injection Wells
Drainage Wells

Number
264
20
2,000
500
100
200
14, 500
10
500
70, 000
50,000
Expenditures
1.3
150.0
0.25
0.05
0. 10
1.45
0.38
19.0
52.5
TOTAL (Rounded)
138,000
$225

-------
                           TABLE II

       Proposed Stale Underground Injection Control Program

                     Estimated Annualized Costs

                             ($ Million)

                                                       Costs Annualized

Annualized Costs Associated with Capital  Expenditures

    Capital Items:
                                            1)
      with Operating and Maintenance  Costs                    $61. 1
                                             2)
      without Operating and Maintenance  Costs                   4. 3

Other Annualized Costs

    Annual Costs of Waste Water Disposal from Oil
    and Gas Wells Currently Practicing Annular Injection          0. 7

    Additional Annual Costs of State Program Administration       7. 3

    Additional Annual Cftsts of Federal Program Administration    0. 8
                                      Total Annualized Costs   $74. 2
I) Includes $203. 5 million of capital expenditures for waste water treatment
   facilities, monitoring facilities, etc.  (See Text for Details). An
   anmialization rate of 30% is used, 15% for operating and maintenance
   and 15% for capital costs and other annualized costs.  These figures
   were chosen because  they allow for a comfortable margin over the
   12. 459o and 11. 58% calculated for industrial waste water treatment
   facilities in The Economics of Clean Water -  1973; U. S. Environmental
   Protection Agency; 1973; p.  37.

2) Includes $21. 4 million of capital expenditures for permit application
   and the plugging of abandoned wells.  An annualization rate of 20% is
   used,  because most of these expenditures  ($19 million) are from the
   oil and gas industry in which a shorter facility life-time (10 years)
   is more appropriate.
                                            3

-------
   In general it should be noted that the available information is
minimal for many of these categories of wells.  Consequently,
much of the economic analysis must be based upon professional
judgments as to the number of existing wells, the portion that
may require remedial action, etc.  In this report we have tried
to be conservative in our estimates.  For this reason the costs
presented below may substantially exceed actual expenditures.
In the time remaining before promulgation of these regulations
we will make every effort to obtain additional information,  so
that these estimates may be as  accurate as possible.

   The majority of the estimated costs are for three  categories:
(1) plugging abandoned oil and gas wells;  (2) eliminating the
estimated 2, 000 shallow municipal and industrial waste water
disposal wells; and,  (3) remedial actions on a small portion
of the estimated 5'0, 000 drainage wells.  The estimated costs
for the remaining categories are low, because almost all of
these wells  are judged to be well engineered and well  operated
so that no remedial action will be required.

   Little or no economic impact is expected from these regulations
either in terms of increased prices or plant shutdowns, not only
because the costs are relatively low,  but also because they will
be spread over a period of at least five years as the Stales collect
information and assess the nature of the problem.

   The unit costs to the oil and gas industry for plugging abandoned
wells are judged to be low and are not expected to create any
economic dislocations.  The elimination of shallow wells may create
some economic problems, but since these wells are already prohibited
by existing State regulations, their distribution and ownership is
not known.   The net  effect of their elimination, however, will
be simply to enforce the existing State regulations and the Federal
effluent limitation guidelines. The costs of remedial actions on some
of the drainage wells may be high, but these instances should be few
and should be  mitigated by the flexibility  included in the State rule-
making procedures.

   The following sections present more detail on our economic
analysis for each category of wells.

-------
 Injection Wells Related to Oil and G;..- Production

    Injection wells used by the oil and gas industry lor disposal of
 water or for secondary recovery of product by water flooding are
, estimated to total approximately 70,000. This figure is based
 upon recent information obtained by EPA which shows a total
 of about 40,000 secondary recovery wells and 8,000 brine-disposal
 wells in Arkansas,  Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma,  and Texas.
 We have  estimated that 20,000 secondary  recovery wells and 2,000
 brine disposal wells exist in the remaining States. Approximately
 5,000 new wells are drilled each year.

    In our analysis of the economic impacts of these regulations
 upon the  oil industry we have examined first the economics of
 production of various segments of the oil producing industry.  A
 description of these segments and an illustrative summary  of
 average revenues, costs,  and production characteristics for wells
 in each segment is provided in Section A.

    The major costs to the oil and gas industry imposed by  these
 regulations are expected to be those associated with: (1) permit
 applications;  (2) plugging of abandoned wells;  and (3) cessation
 of water  injection between the annulus of the surface pipe and the
 production string.

    Most states now control new injection wells by permit and
 require detailed information about the site, the proposed disposal
 formation and the characteristics of the injection.  Records of all
 wells are maintained, although the data may become incomplete
 further back than the 1930's.  It is our analysis that the  States will
 require additional information on some of the existing applications.
 Accordingly,  we have assumed a $100 average cost for all existing
 permit applications.  This results in a total cost of $7 million
 for existing wells and $0. 5 million per year for new wells.

    The proposed regulations  require that  all  wells penetrating
 the injection zone within a one-half mile radius of the  injection or
 disposal wells are properly completed and/or plugged that in the
 judgment of the State present  a threat to underground drinking
 water sources.  Half of the oil producing states already have
 a requirement similar to this.  Based upon our best professional

-------
judgment we have estimated that the pegging requirements associated
with the regulation will result in the remedial plugging of no more
than one abandoned well for every thirty existing injection or disposal
wells. * The average costs of these pluggings would be about $5,000
per well plugged** or about $167 per injection well.  The total national
costs of this program would be about $12 million for existing wells
and about $0. 8 million per year for new wells.

    To assess the impact of the application and plugging expenditures
discussed above, we have estimated the average annual costs of
these expenditures per barrel of oil produced,  and have compared
these costs with our  estimates of the average annual costs and
revenues associated  with oil production. The details of this
analysis are presented in Section A. This  analysis shows that the
annual costs associated with the application and plugging requirements
are less than one and one-half cents per barrel of oil produced.  In
none of the industry segments studied do these costs exceed 0. 4
percent of the estimated gross margin of the producing wells.

    Costs of this magnitude are not considered to be significant.
Furthermore, the total national costs of about $19 million over
several years for existing wells and about $1. 3 million per year for
new wells are not significant when compared with the oil industry's
$4 billion annual capital budget.  We, therefore, expect the impact
of this portion of the regulations on oil production to be negligible.

    State regulations now permit the injection of water in the
annulus of the surface pipe and the production string^nly with the
special permission of the appropriate authority.  Consequently,  the
practice is rare in most states.  In a few States, most notably Ohio,
Louisiana and Arkansas, this practice is more common. However,
the total number of wells involved is small, less than 2,000, and
the total cost of disposing of the producted  water, approximately
$730,000 per year, is insignificant on a national basis.  The
additional cost to operators of $1 per barrel of oil to dispose of this
water will not seriously impair the profitability of oil wells.  Thus,
the number of oil wells that might be shut down because of the
prohibition of annular injection is not likely to be significant even
on a regional basis.  The details of this analysis are presented in
Section A.
*  It should be noted that this estimate is to be regarded as illustrative
   only,  and is provided to give an indication of what the possible
   magnitude of these costs could be.  It is not anticipated that any impact
   of this order of magnitude will actually  result.

** Based upon studies showing plugging costs varying from $1, 500 to $14, 000.

-------
    The requirement that suri'ace cas;ng extend through 3,000 mg/1
 total dissolved solids -water is not set n as adding significantly to
 capital costs; it would not be practical to add additional surface
 casing.

    Gas production compliance costs were not estimated using the
 methodology employed for oil production.  However, the data
 developed in that analysis can be used to demonstrate that the
 economic impact of gas production compliance will be very
 small.  There is no secondary recovery for gas production, as
 there is in oil.  Thus, as a first step, compliance costs will be
 no higher for gas than for primary oil production -- about . 07
 cents/bbl.   (0. 1 cents/MMBTU).   Second, the average gas flow
 from wells is greater than the average oil flow.  If we estimate
 average oil flows at 30 bbl/day and average  gas flows at 70 bbl/
 day equivalent, then the compliance costs  become  0. 005 cents/
 MMBTU.  Third, the water production is "insignificant. " Even if
 we assume that water production  from gas wells is as much as
 one-half that of oil wells,  the ceiling on compliance costs is still
 lowered to 0. 0025 cents/MMBTU.

    These compliance costs  are insignificant compared to gas
 selling prices. If and when  natural gas prices are deregulated,
 prices may  rise to $1. 50 to  $2. 00 per MMBTU.  Compliance
 costs would then represent less than . 002% of selling price.  If
 prices are not deregulated,  it is likely that compliance costs would
 be entered into the rate base, effectively negating any impacts
 on marginal producers.

 Municipal and Industrial Injection Wells

   A recent EPA survey has identified 383 permitted  industrial
 and municipal waste injection wells in the United States.  Of these,
 322 have been drilled  and approximately 264 industrial and 20
 municipal wells are currently operating or available for operation.
The remainder are either plugged or have  not yet been drilled.
The approximate distribution of the permitted wells by industrial
category is presented in Table B-l.

-------


















































M
M

W
,-H
pq

o cu
a. cx
o X
Vi W
P-1
rH
tfl
4J
•H
CX
tO
O

TJ
CO
4-1
CO
0
•H
4-1
CO
W












tfl in co
4J 01 T)
•H M C
CX 3 tfl
cfl 4J CO
U -rl 3
T) O
rH C Ji
CO CO H
4-1 CX
O X 
H W ^

CO
T-H
rH C
CU O
S -H
4J
<4H O
o <:

CO 00
oo c
tO iH
C -rl
CU 3
O O*
>H CU
cu a;
PL,







to
4J
CO
o
u

4-1
•rl
c


















CO
c
o
vH
4-J
cx

CO
CO
^

^>
cu
*^{

















B
o
•H
4_)
u
^










rH

,_l













fr"v
o
o
_J
r*"l













o
o
in




>J3
w to
tfl rH
tfl -rl
CO tfl
CO >
CJ CO
CU
C !>s

rH CO
rH CU
*^4 M





B
O
•H

tO
0
iH
rH
CX
CX
^J

4J
•iH
g
CU
PU






























































•
i-H
(rt
(3
•rH
B
tH
g

CU


CO
4J
B
CU
g
CO
»J
TH
3
cr
CO
M



























o
OO














6"-S
m















0
o
o

in









rH
1 rH
10 0)
CO £
a
CU 00
B B
•H
co u
•H 0
4J
B -rl
O B
•rl O
4-1 B
CJ
CO S
O
CU rH
t 1 „- 1
W M
CU CO
.B JC
S co

CO CU
rH B
rH 0
CU

r*.
M U
O CO
PH CO













00
B
•rl
M
O
4J
•rl
B
•g





















































IH
01
UH
•rl
3
cr
n)

IH
cu
4J
td


rj
CO
cu
M •
UH *O
co
CO -rl
IH 3
•rl CT
4-1 CU
rl
CO
£ cu


O rH
4J rH
C -rl
•H 5



























0
o
oo













it1*?
rH















O
o
o

o
m
CM








CO •
•rl >,
I .a
CO C 1
60 -rl T)
tfl B
IH > tfl
a) co 4j
> B co
o
u td w
to
>-, 00
U B CU
B 'rl CO
CO rH 3
60 rH
ti -H O
4J TJ
C rH
O r*» *H
CJ J3 CU
3

4J CO B
CO TJ O
rH -rl -r-l
CX > 4J
0 O CJ
O M CO
CJ O.-I-)






JXj
4J
•rl
rH
•rl
CJ
cd


^
r£)
I
t3
c
td
00.







r-H
^o
rH













ft-S
O
rH














o
o
0
•t
in









C
•H

TJ
CU CU
r* jj
td
4-1 O
to o
3 rH
B
rH
CO rH
rH CU
rH 3
CU
U ^~\
IH
T) CU •
B ^
iJ V-l
rH <4H tfl
rH -"^ CO
•rl VD U)
3 rH CO
 CJ
CO CU
rH 4J B
rH tO
CU 01
£ VH .O
CO
CU CX rH
B CU rH
O CU vH
W T) >


•
O
4J
CO

M
CU
fa
3
IH CO
CU CO
CX CO
CO M
CU CM
Q
0)
rH 0
•rl TJ
IH CU
CH f"1
CU
rH
|Q
rt
rH
•rl
tfl
£,
tfl

4J
o











s-s
o
o
rH







CU
rH
JO
CO
rH
-H
CO

tO

4J
o
25



00
c
•rl
T)
C
o
fl

co
rH
^fi
•rl
CO
CO •
0 TJ
CX 0)
B
4-1 -H
3 0)
O 4-1
^n J$
m o
Cr*
*-j
o cu
•rl OJ
4-1 ,O
td
S co
VJ to
o .c
>4H
C CO
•rl 4J
CO
0 0
Z CJ
















00
B
•rC
T>
0
oq .


























CO

c
0

1 *
u
cu
to

B
•H

"3

T)
•H
£>
O
(H
CX

CO
•rl
en
CO
4J
tO
g
•r!
4-1
CO
CO

co
CO
0)
JZ
4-1

14H
O

B
O
•rl
rr\
W
•rl
V|
CO
TJ

CO
.c
4J

E
O

G
O
•H
4-1
Cfl
a
IH
O
UH
B
•rl

CO

Q
^7j


• •
W
H
O

-------
    Possible costs that might be associated with these regulations
include: (1) application costs,  i. e. the costs associated with
collecting the additional necessary geological and other information
required to apply for a permit; (2) the costs of increased monitoring
capability; (3) the costs associated with having an adequate
contingency plan; (4) the costs of plugging nearby abandoned wells;
(5) the costs of remedial actions such as drilling existing wells
deeper, reducing injection pressure,  or repairing construction
deficiencies; and (6) the costs of meeting bonding requirements.

    Because injection wells generally discharge  large volumes of
wastes which are often highly toxic and which will persist
indefinitely in the subsurface environment, State authorities have
in almost every case insured that the existing wells are well
engineered and adequately operated.   Consequently very few
additional costs are expected to be associated with these regulations.
However, it seems likely that as a result of the  permitting process
some remedial action will be necessary for a few wells. Just how
many wells are likely to be deficient in that respect is impossible
to determine.  Accordingly, we have included in our analysis
estimates of the unit costs that are likely to be involved and of the
percentage of wells that might,  in our judgement, have to take
remedial action.

    Table III summarizes our estimates of the additional capital
expenditures for municipal and industrial operators of injection wells
associated with these regulations. These total $1.1 million for the
284 wells now operable.   Because the requirements of the regulations
are not essentially different from current requirements in most States,
no additional capital expenditures are assumed for new injection wells.

    The economic impact  of these additional expenditures is expected
to be minor.  Most of the costs are very low when compared to the
original costs of most facilities*, or with the $250,000 assumed
average cost of a new facility.  Although the cost of building a new
stand-by well could be large, such a facility will not be built unless
the  economic situation of  the operator can justify it.  Otherwise,
a much less expensive option will be chosen,  or the operator will
simply choose shutting down his plant as the required contingency
plan. These plants will choose  simply to operate until their existing
  These range from $30,000 to $1,400,000.  See Donaldson, E. C.;
   Subsurface Disposal of Industrial Wastes in the United States; Bureau
   of Mines,  1C 8212; 19153
                                     9

-------
well fails--an event whose probable o'v^urence is not affected by
these regulations. The only operations for which plant shut down
would not be a viable option would be the municipalities, to whom
federal grants are available for seventy-five percent of any required
capital expenditures.

Shallow Municipal and Industrial Disposal Wells

    Although the practice is clearly illegal in most States, a number
of municipalities and industrial  establishments still  dispose of
waste water by direct injection into fresh water  aquifers through
shallow wells.  Because these wells are prohibited,  their existence
is not reported to State  or  Federal authorities.  Hence, it is not
possible  to obtain any information on their number,  size, ownership,
or the nature of their wastes.   Consequently,  any estimate of the
economic impact of these regulations upon operators of shallow
disposal  wells must necessarily be speculative.

    Based upon the best available professional judgment we have
estimated the number of municipal and industrial shallow disposal
wells at 2,000.

    Strict enforcement of these regulations will  result in the total
elimination of these shallow wells. Because most of the wells
are located in areas where the subsurface geology would prevent
drilling the wells deeper, the most likely disposal alternative will
be to install conventional waste water treatment systems in conformance
with the effluent limitation guidelines.  It is our judgment that the
wells handle relatively small volumes of waste water.   For this
reason we have estimated that most wells could  easily be replaced
by package treatment systems costing at most $75, 000 including
permit application, etc.  This would result in total national capital
expenditures for  complying with these regulations of $150 million.
It should be pointed out  again that  these estimates are to be regarded
as illustrative only.  It  is not anticipated that any impact of this
magnitude will actually  occur.

    The total costs arc relatively small, and the unit costs should be
manageable in most cases.  For some establishments discharging
particularly hard-to-treat wastes—such as electroplating wastes--the
costs may be prohibitive.   Thus, some plants may be forced to close.
However, the total number of plant closings should be small with
no significant concentrations in any industry or  geographic area.
                                       10

-------
    Because these shallow wells arc prohibited already the net
effect will be to enforce the effluent limitation guidelines that should
have been met even without these regulations.  Thus,  any economic
impact of these regulations upon operator of shallow disposal wells
should already have been included in the economic impact analyses
for the effluent limitation guidelines.  It might even be argued that
the incremental cost imposed by these regulations is zero, since no
new prohibitions are being added to existing regulations.

Subsidence Control,  Barrier, Recharge,  Gas Storage and Geothermal
Wells

    To the best of our knowledge all of these wells are well engineered
and well operated, and pose no  threat to the ground  water.
Consequently, for these wells we have assumed that the only costs
imposed by the regulations will be permit application  costs of  $500
per well.  This estimate assumes that all of the information required
to apply for a permit is readily available.

    For gas storage wells we have assumed that the costs per well
will be only $100.  This is because the 14, 500 wells are grouped
in about 350 storage fields.  Thus, most  of these  wells will be
almost identical and the applications will contain the same information.

Solution Mining Wells

    It is our estimate,  based upon available data and professional
judgement, that there are approximately  500 solution  mining wells
in the United States.

    Almost all of  these wells are subject  to strict State controls and
are known to be well engineered and well operated.  However, it is
possible that enforcement of these regulations may result in additional
monitoring wells  being required in some  instances.  We assume
that were additional monitoring is necessary, two wells at a cost of
$3,000 each would be installed.

    Because most solution mining wells will not need to take any
remedial action,  these costs will apply only to a small fraction of
the wells.  In our judgement, five percent of the wells at most
would be found deficient. Thus, a very conservative estimate of these
capital expenditures would be $125,000 ($6,000 per  well for 25 wells).
                                  11

-------
    It is our judgment that all information necessary for permit
applications should be on hand already for all solution mining wells.
Thus,  we have estimated that these wells would incur minimal
permit application costs of $500 each, for a total of $250, 000.  The
total capital expenditures for these regulations for operators of
.solution mining wells, therefore, would amount to $375,000.

    The economic impact of these costs is not expected to be
significant. The total costs for the industry  are relatively low, and
the unit cost that might be incurred by some  operations seem
manageable.

Drainage  Wells

    Although the use of  drainage wells to handle the disposal of
excess surface water is a fairly common practice, no studies are
available  to provide statistics on the number, distribution,  size,
etc. of these wells.  'Our best professional judgment is that there
are about 50, 000 of these wells.

    It is our judgment that the States will choose to regulate these
drainage wells by rule rather than permit.  Once information on these
wells has been collected and their potential threat to underground
drinking water reviewed, - a process that should take about five years
it is not likely that  remedial action will be required on more than a
small percentage of these wells.  Based upon the best professional
judgment  available  we have estimated this percentage to be at most
2%.

    Remedial action that might be appropriate for these wells would
be site evaluation studies and, in some cases, treatment of the
waste waters.  In our estimation the study requirments for site
evaluation would be about $2, 500.  The cost of treatment systems
will vary.  Since most drainage wells do not  handle large volumes of
water,  the average costs of a treatment facility should be relatively
low--about $50,000.  Where the volume of water is large, and
especially where it would have to be transported large distances for
treatment, the costs would be considerally higher.

    Using the estimates of 2% of all drainage wells  requiring remedial
action, and the average costs of this remedial action being about
$52, 500,  the total capital expenditures for these renovations for
operators of existing drainage wells would be about $52. 5 million.

-------
    Since these costs will be spread ovor a number of years and
;i variety of agricultural and industrial producers as well as
municipalities, it is not likely that  they will have any noticeable
inflationary impact.  In localized cases, where the costs of
required treatment systems are large,  significant economic
hardship might result.  This will be especially true for independent
agricultural establishments. However, we believe that the
requirements of these  regulations give the states sufficient
flexibility so that the number of these instances will be minimal.

State Program Expenditures

    The Safe Drinking Water Act provides for the States, upon
KPA's approval,  to assume primary enforcement responsibility for
these proposed regulations.  Section C presents our analysis of the
possible annual costs to the States of administering the enforcement
programs.  Based upon our estimates of the number of permits that
would have to be issued each year and our observation that most
States are already making significant expenditures for similar
programs, and using work load guidelines from studies that have  been
done of similar programs, we have estimated that the  annual
incremental costs of these proposed regulations for State programs
would be at most $7. 5  million.   These  expenditures would be shared
by the Federal Government through State Grant Assistance.

Federal Program Expenditures

    Increased expenditures by the Federal Government in administering
these proposed regulations should be minimal.  In addition to the
personnel already working in this area, the Agency should not have
to hire more than one or two additional personnel per region to oversee
the State programs and to provide technical assistance.  Assuming
an annual cost of $40,000 per employee for salaries, overhead, etc.  ,
the total costs of these additional personnel should not exceed $800
thousand.

    A few projects have been funded to  study the feasibility of
rehabilitating a brine polluted aquifer.   Unfortunately, most of  the
rehabilitation methods  studied were not technically sound, nor
economically justified.  A Study of one specific underground fresh
water aquifer  involving approximately one square mile of
contamination, which would eventually  spread to affect four and one-
half square miles, and would remain for over 250 years before
being flushed naturally into surface water, indicated that no positive
public benefit-cost ratio could be developed.
                                 13

-------
    Current cost to rehabilitate the four and one-half square
 mile affected area could involve expenditures in excess of
 $11,000,000 to rehabilitate the aquifer.  Alternative methods,
•which are not always feasible, like use for secondary oil
 recovery, supplemental irrigation water, based on 40 to one
 dilution,  etc. would still cost approximately $500,000 to
 $800,000.
                                    14

-------
                           Seclioii A

                    Economic Analysis - Oil Wells

     Industry Segments

     An oil well cannot be economically described by using an industry-
 wide average.  Both drilling costs and production costs vary greatly
 between fields and between wells.  Consequently, segmenting the
 industry into representative sectors is a first step toward more precise
 and meaningful economic description.  Listed across the top of Table
 A-l are the industry segments which have been selected for study.
 A distinction is made between Southwestern wells and Appalachian
 wells because of the significant difference in operating costs between
 these two  oil producing regions.  It is believed that the  segments included
 herein represent the extremes of the average industry-wide costs,  and
 include the major industry segments which will be most impacted by
 these regulations.

     A distinction is next made between new and existing production.
 For a new well, initial capital costs must be considered, because they
 have not yet been incurred.  For an exisiting well, these costs have
 already been incurred and hence are "sunk. "  Rational economic
 decisions  ignore sunk cost and consider only costs yet to be incurred
 when deciding whether an existing well will continue  to operate.  On
 the other hand, analysis of whether to drill a new well must consider
 initial capital costs.  Hence, the capital cost of drilling and completing
 a new well is a positive number while the capital cost of an existing
 well is zero.

     New  production also differs from  existing production in  terms of
 revenue per barrel  of oil.  New production is uncontrolled and is assigned
 a revenue of $13 per barrel.  Existing  production currently is listed
 at the control price of $5. 25 per barrel, although this price may increase
 to uncontrolled levels in a short period of time.

     Finally, a distinction is made between primary, secondary, and
 stripper production*.  New and old primary  production are good
 examples  of segments containing both economically healthy and marginal
production.  The uncontrolled price and profit margin of new primary
production indicate that only a small percentage of its production is
* Tertiery production is not broken out separately.

-------
u
a
»•?
0
a
<







{-.
^ .
UJ
C
cu
V,

U*
w
a.
10
t-
(/)
p
C.)

H C
rf rf
•q; •".
ui L". w
i HI ui
* •- [*i
^ pj ;H
H K t'

S §
U 1
UI
C
s
u
*>
•1;
CM
>
H
[ I
H
If;
:j
L-J
>-j
L -4
U
cy
0
n
^<
Vj
01
D
P
•r
ij
j.i
W

Vj
0)
D
a
•H
u
4-1
W
^j
ij
2 '» CO fN CO r-j in
° o o co en n
O ..... n
|2 '•& 04 co ^r t:
' i <— 4
c
:i
ii
1>
>
g t co  (D '*•
r-l
T)
C)
u
[ '
rt<
G1 >
C M
•t-  -0
10 r.
•<- o
X U
UJ 0)
w
.u
c:
I W
m • o •* rol r- ao
f^ rr co n in \o
« r? ' ''U ' jj
V-l
..'
t/"l
r-(
>,
^(
rt
'O
3 C
 :,'
^i [3<
,^
ii
4J
I/)

17 >.
c c
^g
ir> t-
V>-*H
"f— 1
^. w
i2°-
r-^
in o ^J on 1 r- co '?•
r\l oo oo n 1 1 a> «M ;<
o • • -1 • ^
m CM ' rn in 4]
'3
w i5;
TJ
O
Vj
a<
aj
O
^
•o
^J
4J
in

•V
o
-r4
1.4
ftl
1
4J
UI
0
tJ


















c
0
H
4-J
a)
H
u
O
* Ifl
,— '
% (/)
0 rf
•H "•
^
? OJ
p s
L^
Q
<-J a!
u &•
tj 2"
* M
c' ^
0 W
^-t
J *"
^ 5
(i) "" o y
r-( .. ,
1)
4.1 . a; —
^v,
L
3 n)
oj e
Z -H
^4
a,
1 ^( U 4J ^
o M o co CM! 
in y^ i aj oj " « j
4J •" »> •> ,H m
5 5 > n ' * s **
O-lrH >^ ^ .f IJ
o o) & o) w « o w o Si
*•< c ^ ? "^ °^, ^ <
a)
o,
£
.c:
C)
^
U)
•-H
^H
0)
rH rH M -i-l W| ""I "" «* "^^-.S.
<1> nj(3Utrt-*J'> o*>m
M UCQ(3CQ'-|I/)rH vO •
0) vi -^ u nj 0) 13 T) r-i r- ...
3") n.^oln^^'O^c ,*
c « 10  n, < 'O m
OJ P, U OS W
1G

-------
        marginal. It should be noted, however, that the average existing
        primary well produces 15. 5 barrels p^r day over the life of primary
        production.  A new primary well can be expected to produce on average
        something slightly less than 15. 5 barrels per day given recent finding
        and production figures.  There are thus some low production wells
        in the primary segment that could be vulnerable to cost increases.

             Secondary production differs economically from primary
        production in that while its initial producing well capital costs are
        sunk, some captial costs are associated with new production due to
        the need for water injection wells.  Both new and old secondary
        production have higher operating costs than primary production
        because of water treatment and injection costs, and possible higher
        lifting costs.

             Stripper production is, of course, old production and thus has no
        capital or finding costs.  Stripper wells are defined to be wells producing
        less than 10 barrels per day.

             Note the variation in gross margin between segments (see Table A-l).
        Further, recall that there are ranges within segments and that therefore
        some wells will perform much better or much worse than the average.
        Also note that the numbers in Table A-l should be considered illustrative
        rather than precise estimates.

        Production Characteristics

             The average costs and revenues presented in Table A-l have been
        calculated per barrel of oil.  To convert these into annual costs and
        revenues, we have assigned the following average daily production
        figures to the industry segments.

                                TABLE  A-2

                      Average Daily Production Per Segment *

                         SOUTHWEST                          APPAL AC HIA
             New      Existing    New      Existing
            Primary   Primary   Secondary Secondary   Stripper    Stripper
Average
Daily
Production     20.2     20.2        30        30         3          0. 7
Bbl
  These numbers come from the Federal Energy Administration Oil and Gas
    .ode] (1974),  industry estimates, and the National Stripper Well Survey  (1974)

                                         17

-------
             To estimate the costs per producing well of regulations
        affecting injection or disposal wells, it is also necessary to
        estimate the average number of oil wells serviced by a disposal
        well for each of the segments.  (Note: In this context we will use
        the term "disposal" to include water injection wells used in
        secondary recovery as well as those wells used strictly for water
        disposal.) Those estimates are given below.

                                  TABLE A-3
                 Oil Well to Water Disposal Well Ratio Per Segment

        	SOUTHWEST	APPALACHIA
          New    Existing      New      Existing
        Primary  Primary   Secondary   Secondary Stripper       Stripper

Oil Wells
Per Brine
Well      .10       10   '       2          2         15           15

        All of these numbers are very rough averages. The water/oil ratio
        as well as the proximity of surrounding wells can make the number
        for primary production vary from 1 to 70.  In Appalachia, even though
        water disposal wells are rare, we have assumed one disposal well
        per fifteen producing wells merely for illustrative purposes.
        The average of two injection wells for each secondary recovery well
        is equally rough.   In "peripheral" flooding,  where old wells along the
        outside of the field are converted to injection wells, the number could
        be larger.  The same would be true in a pressure maintenance program
        where a few injection wells are used in a field to keep the bottom
        hole pressure sufficiently high to maintain proper gas/oil ratio.  On
        the other hand, the average of 2 to 1 could be too large for "pattern
        flooding" where injection wells surround a producing well.

             Cost of Regulations

             These  figures provide us  with a framework for analyzing the
        possible impact of the proposed regulations.  The costs associated with
        permit applications and with remedial plugging requirements have been
        presented in the main text above as being $100 per disposal well for
        permit applications and $167 per disposal well for remedial plugging.
        The costs of disposing of produced water from wells which are currently
        injecting this water between the annulus of the surface pipe and the
        production string has been estimated at $1 per barrel of oil produced.
        The magnitude of these costs can be assessed by comparing these costs
        on an annualized  basis with the annual costs and revenues of the
        producing wells.
                                         18

-------
Capital Expenditures

    Because both permit application costs and the costs of remedial
plugging are one time outlays which will extend over the life of
the well, they can be considered capital expenditures.  Assuming an
ave'rage life  of  10 years*, a capital charge rate of 20% per year can
be used.  These annual capital costs per disposal well must then be divided
by the average number of oil wells per injection well and by the average
daily production per oil well.   Schematically, the calculation looks like this:
  	(capital expenditure per disposal) x (capital charge rate)   	
^365 days year) x (average daily production per oil well) x (oil wells/disposal well)

                   Table A-4 summarizes the results.
    The annual capital costs associated with the permit applications
and remedial plugging requirements are less than one cent per barrel
of oil in the Southwest and only about one and one-half cents per barrel of
oil in Appalachia.

    Table A-5 presents a comparison of these costs to the estimated costs
and revenues per barrel of oil from producing wells in each segment.  At
most the annual costs are less than four tenths of one percent of the
estimated gross margin of the producing wells.   Costs of this magnitude
are not likely to have any significant impact on oil producers in any of the
regions studied.
  obtained from industry sources
                                      19

-------
                       TABLE A-4

  Annual Costs for Permit Applications and Remedial Plugging  *
                      ($ Per Barrel of Oil)
    Southwest                                       Appalachia

 New     Existing    New      Existing
Primary Primary  Secondary  Secondary   Stripper      Stripper

$. 003     $. 0007    $0.0024    $0.0024    $0.0033      $0.0139
*  Computed According to the formula given in the text as follows:

SOUTHWEST

     New Primary:     ($100)x (0.20)
                     (365) x (20. 2) x (10)

 (Note: It was assumed that there are no abandoned wells in a new primary
 field.  Hence, there are no plugging expenditures)

    Existing Primary:        ($267) x (0.20)
                           (365) x (20. 2) x (10)

    New Secondary:            ($267) x (0. 20)
                             (365) x (307x12)

    Existing Secondary:       ($267) x (0. 20)
                            (365) x (30) x (20)

    Stripper:             ($267) x (0. 20)
                         (365)x (3)x (15)

APPALACHIA

    Stripper:       ($267) x (0. 20)
                 (365) x (0. 7) x (15)

-------
           M
           
i.) 
n) 
jj
n)
S -a

u) E
•H -H
X M








j>^
3 •>-<
0) eg
53 -H
a,
                           O
                           O
           CN
           o
                                      in
                                      o
                           c-
                           o
           sr
           o
                                     ri
                                     in
                                     o
                           -a
                           
-------
Annual Costs

    The capital expenditure items discussed above, permit applications
and remedial plugging, will have no annual operating and maintenance
costs.  The impact of the annual capital costs has been analyzed above.

    The other major item that will result in increased annual costs to
operators of oil and gas wells is the prohibition of produced  water
injection between the annulus of the surface pipe and the production string.
This practice is currently allowed only special permission of the
appropriate State authorities  and,  consequently,  is rare in most States.
In a few States, most notably Ohio (1, 674 wells), this practice is more
common.

    Prohibition of this type of annular injection will require operators of
these wells to find alternate methods of produced water disposal. In
Ohio many operators have found users for this usually salty  water.  It
is used for dust and ice control on highways, railroad cars,  strip mines,
and drag strips, for example.  Where users of this produced water are
not available the most probable alternative for operators would be to
hire a waste water disposal company to remove the water.  Conversations
with the industry on this matter indicate that the costs of removal would
be about $35 per truckload of approximately 35-50 barrels of water,  or
about $1 per barrel.

    Wells using annular disposal in the Appalachain area are almost
without exception stripper wells.   However, in Louisiana and Arkansas,
annular injection wells are used in remote locations and for  stripper
production.  The average daily production of stripper wells in 1974 was
as follows: Ohio - 1. 13 barrels; Louisiana - 1. 6 barrels; Arkansas  -
3. 03 barrels. * The amount of water produced by these wells varies
considerably from none in some cases to over 90% in others.  A figure
of 1 barrel of water produced per well would be a conservative estimate
of the average for the States mentioned above.  Thus, for the 1, 910
wells identified as employing annular injection the total daily production
of water would be 1, 900 barrels.   If we round this figure to 2, 000 to
allow for other wells which might be practicing annualar injection and
assume oil is produced 365 days per year, the total annual cost
of disposing of this produced  water would be $730, 000.   From a national
point of view this amount is negligible.
*  National Stripper Well Survey as of January 1, 1975; prepared by the
   Interstate Oil Compact Commission.

-------
    Table A-l indicates that operators ol stripper wells realize
a gross margin of approximately $6. 46 per barrel of oil in the
Southwest and $4. 02 per barrel of oil in Appalachia.  Adding an
additional cost of $1 per barrel will significantly detract
from this margin, but in the typical case will not cause a well
operator to cease production of oil.  No significant capital
investment would be associated with these  additional operating
costs,  and a substantial margin will remain for the operator.  Thus,
the typical well will continue to be profitable, and most operators
will continue to produce.  However, because the economics
of stripper well production fluctuates so  widely, it is likely that
some marginal operators will be forced to close because of the
prohibition of annular injection.   This number is expected to be
very small, however,  even on a regional basis.  From the national
point of view these few closings  will certainly be insignificant.

-------
                               Section B

               Municipal and Industrial Injection Wells

                               TABLE B-l

            Standard Industrial Classification of 352 Injection Wells
                                            Wells         Percentage
Mining (12.8%)                                                     ~
      10  Metal Mining                         2                . 5
      13  Oil and Gas Extraction               36              10. 2
      14  Non-Metallic Mining                  5               1. 4
      19  Ordnance and Accessories             2                . 6

Manufacturing (77. 650
~    2~0~Food                                 7               2. 0
      26  Paper                                3                .9
      28  Chemical and Allied Products        180              51. 1
      29  Petroleum Refining                  55              15. 6
      30  Rubber and Plastics                  2                . 6
      33  Primary Metals                     20               5. 7
      34  Fabricated Metals                    1                .3
      35  Machinery - Except Electronics        1                .3
      36  Electronics                           1                .3
      38  Photographies                        3                .9

Transportation,  Gas, and Sanitary
  Services (7. 7%)
      45  Air  Transportation                    1                .3
      49  Electric, Gas and Sanitary Service    25               7. 1
      55  Auto Dealers and Service Stations      1                . 3

Other (i._4%)
     "hli  Miscellaneous Retail Trade            1                .3
      72  Personal Services                    1                . 3
      "75  Automobile Repair and Service         1                .3
                     Services                  2                . 6
Source: Reeder,  Louis R.; Review and Assessment of Deep-Well
        Injection of Hazardous Wastes; EPA,  Solid and Hazardous
        Waste Research Laboratory; 1975.

-------
                            Cost Estimate;;
       Monitoring

       It is assumed that additional monitoring wells will only be required into
the nearest fresh water aquifers.  Assuming an average depth of approximately
300 feet, these wells would cost approximately $5,000 each (about $16. 66 per
foot).

       Monitoring of the injection zone is assumed to be provided by pressure
readings, etc.  from the injection well itself.

       Stand-by Facilities

       The regulations do not make specific requirements regarding stand-by
facilities.  They specify,  however, that a permit must ensure that "adequate
plugging," "adequate procedures for detecting failure of the system in a timely
fashion," and "adequate contingency plans to cope with malfunction or failure
of the underground injection system" are included on a permit.  Any change
in current state control of these factors will depend upon their interpretation
of these Federal guidelines and EPA's approval of these interpretations.

       Possible stand-by facilities and programs  include (1) lined ponds,  (2)
tanks,  (3) surface treatment  plants, (4) stand-by  injection wells, and  (5) plant
shutdown.

       The cost of lined ponds or tanks would depend on the number of days
capacity defined to be adequate stand-by capability.  Table B-2 lists injection
rates for deep wells.

                            TABLE B-2

               Average Rate of Injection in Industrial Wells I/
Injection Rate

0-50 gpm
50 - 100
100 - 200
200 - 400
400 - 800
over 800
Percent
1967
~2T
17
25
26
4
1
of Wells
19V2T
36
13
20
17
7
7
I/ From Warner,  1972,  Ground Water Pollution from Subsurface Excavations,
   EPA -430/9-73-012,  WT3.

-------
Assuming 12 hours per day operation and LH; equate stand-by capability defined
as five days capacity, pond sizes can be determined.  Table B-3 shows average
costs for lined stand-by ponds.  Of course, these would be higher if the plant
operated 24 hours per day or needed more than five days of capacity.

                               TABLE B-3
Stand-by capacity
   (Gallons)

        0-   180,000
  180,000-   360,000
  360,000 -   720,000
  720,000 - 1,440,000
1,440,000 - 2,880,000
over 2,880,000
Costs for Stand-by Lined Ponds 2/

           Percent
           7T9T2T

              36
              13
              20
              17
               7
               7
        Cost
         0 -  2,270
     2,270 -  4,210
     4,210 -  7,967
     7,967 -  15,285
    15,285-  29,665
     over 29,665
      Table B-4 contains estimates of stand-by tank costs.  These costs far
exceed those of stand-by lined ponds.  Costs shown are for carbon steel tanks;
other tank types may cost two to five times as much. It is assumed that 500,000
gallons is the largest sized tank, and that greater capacities are achieved by
using multiple tanks.  Intermediate tank sizes are estimated by interpolation.

                               TABLE B-4
Stand-by Capacity
    (Gallons)

        0 -  180,000
  180,000 -  360,000
  360,000-  720,000
  720,000 - 1,440,000
1,440,000 - 2,880,000
over, 2,880,000
     Stand-by Tank Costs

           Percent
           71972]
              36
              13
              20
              17
               7
               7
      Cost
     0-  16,000
16,000-  20,500
20,500-  41,000
41,000-  70,500
70,500 - 141,000
over 141,000
2/ Assuming: (a) 7. 5 gallons/cubic foot, (b) average pond depth of 10 feet,
~  (c) land costs of $300/acre or $. 062/sq. yd. ,  (d) construction costs of
   $10,000/acre or $2. 07/sq. yd. ,  (e) lining costs of $2. 00/sq. yd. installed,
   and (f) circular pond floor with vertical walls.

-------
      Should interpretation of the regulations require that "adequate contingency
plans" consist of a stand-by treatment facility or a stand-by well, cost would
b
-------
            It is possible only to estimate if the addition of a formal UIC program
     to current State control of deep well injection will cause increases in drilling
     cost due to changes in cementing and casing.  Table B-6 lists injection wells
     by State and Table B-7 details recent legislation. A review of current
     literature suggests that in most cases construction standards adequately
     •protect drinking water.  However, 12 of the States listed had passed no
     laws through 1972; wells in these States comprise 30 percent of the total
     shown.  It is likely that new laws have been passed since 1972,  and
     that several of the wells were already constructed to high quality standards.
     Thus,  it appears that cost impacts because of the casing and cementing
     requirements will be minor.
                              TABLE B-6
      Distribution of Existing Industrial and Municipal Wastewater Injection Wells
Among
Alabama
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Florida
Hawaii
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Michigan
Mississippi
the 25 States
5
1
5
2
7
3
6
13
1
30
3
65
28
1
Having Such Wells in 1975
Nevada
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
Texas
Tennessee
West Virginia
Wyoming


TOTAL
4/
1
1
4
4
9
14
9
98
3
7
1


322
4/ Source:  Reeder, Louis R.; Review and Assessment of Deep-well
   Injection of Hazardous Wastes; EPA, Solid and Hazardous Waste
   Research Laboratory; 1975

-------
                       TABLE 13-7
Recent State Legislation Concerning Wastewater Injection Wells
      1961     Texas
      1966     Kansas
      1967     Ohio
               New York
      1969     Indiana
               Michigan
               New York
               Ohio Valley
               Texas
               W.  Virginia
      1970     Illinois
               FWPCA
               Colorado

      1971     Missouri
      1972     Oklahoma
               Council  of
               Stale Gov'ts

     Fractured Formations
Injection well law adopted
Regulations adopted
Injection well law adopted
Ground water classified
"Test Hole" legislation enacted
"Mineral Well Law" enacted
Injection well policy established
Regulatory policy recommended
1961 law amended
Injection well legislation enacted
Policy specified
Policy announced
Rules and regulations for subsurface
    disposal adopted
Disposal wells prohibited
Regulations adopted
Model State Toxic Waste  Disposal Act
     While the regulations do not impose a limit on injection pressure,  this
information is required along with any proposed fracturing program on  the
permit application.  Again, it is possible only to estimate if current State
limits on injection pressure will become more stringent with EPA involvement,
or if more stringent limits will cause additional costs.

     Fracturing is a process used to increase dispersion from the well.
Basic methods of fracturing are by pumping acid into the well (occasionally
under high pressure), high pressure bursts of pumped water,  or continuous
high pressure pumping.  When properly performed,  fracturing entails few
undesirable environmental impacts.  The environmental concern is that the
fractures may occasionally extend to other aquifers, resulting in inter-aquifer
contamination.

     Fracturing occurs at different pressures,  depending upon the geologic
characteristics of the aquifer.  Fracturing may occur at pressures as low
as 0. 5 psi per foot of well depth,  and most aquifers will fracture at pressures
of 1. 0 psi per foot of well depth.

-------
     A review of EPA's 1974 data,  .summarized in Table B-8 reveals that
of the 102 wells that practice or have practiced fracturing, only one (in
Oklahoma) practices continuous fracturing.  Most of the remainder tend to
fracture only when well pressure rises, usually at intervals between a few
months and a few years.
                         TABLE B-8

                     Fracturing Practices  5/

                                               No.  Wells
      Continuous Fracturing                         I
      Periodic Hydraulic                             4
      Periodic Acid                               88
      Periodic Acid^and Hydraulic                    9
          Total No.  Fracturing                    102

          Psi/ft.    0.5                             9
     Only nine wells indicated pressures above 0. 5 psi/foot of well depth.
These wells (three in Louisiana, two in Michigan,  two in Oklahoma, and
two in Pennsylvania) ranged in pressure from 0, 52 to 0. 85 psi/ft.

     It is unlikely that States will reverse their policies and prohibit
fracturing.  They may, however, limit pressures. If this happens,
the wells affected could meet the standard by increasing the frequency
of acid fracturing, drilling deeper (lowering the psi/ft. ratio), or abandoning
the well.  Assuming that compliance is achieved by drilling deeper,
an incremental depth of 1000 feet would cost about $16,000.
5/  Source:  Compilation of Industrial and Municipal Injection Wells in the
            United States, EPA-520/9-74-Q2Q, 1974.

                                     30

-------
                          SECTION ('
 State Program Expenditures

    The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 provides for the States, upon
 EPA's approval, to assume primary  enforcement responsibility
 for proposed regulations.  The following section presents our best
 estimate of the costs to the States of  administering the enforcement
 program.

 Program  Coverage

    Based upon available data and upon our best professional judgment,
 the number of underground injection facilities to be covered by this
 program have been estimated and are presented in Table I.

    All conventional wells must be covered under a State permit
 within five years after the State receives primacy for the UIC program.
 This will consitute about 113,000 total permits  (this includes 87,700
 existing facilities and an estimated 25, 500 new facilities going into
 operation during those five years).  Each State has the  flexibility to
 choose permit  or rule procedures for drainage wells.   The  choice
 taken will reflect individual geologic and hydrologic conditions within
 the State and the effectiveness of the existing State program.  Because
 it  is impossible to say exactly what portion of the existing drainage
 wells will require permits, we have conservatively assumed that
 one quarter will be permitted. This would result in an additional
 12, 500 facilities.  Thus, the total number of permits to be issued
 by the States would be approximately  125,000, an average of 25,000
 per year.

 Current State Authority

   A review of existing literature of published water and water
pollution laws,  solid waste regulations and miscellaneous codes and
ordinances indicates that the legal control and procedures regarding
 ground-water contamination differ widely among States  in the scope
of activity and compliance monitoring requirements.  The effectiveness
of State programs is affected by the substantial overlapping  jurisdiction
and in the assignment of responsibilities to various State agencies,
Approximately  25 per  cent of the  States have statutes dealing
specifically with ground-water quality.  However, all States possess
some authority which enables  them to initiate action, if necessary,
to  protect ground water.
                                  31

-------
    Control of underground injection activities is usually divided
between two or more State agencies which may function independently
of,  or in conjunction with, each other.  The types of agencies
involved include State Geological Surveys, Environmental Protection
Agencies, Water Quality Boards,  Health Departments, Oil and Gas
Commissions, and Departments of Natural Resources.

    Furthermore, the extent of control of various underground
injection practices vary.  Most States have a  permit program for
industrial and municipal disposal wells, and brine disposal and
secondary recovery wells. Control of other injection  practices range
from no control, rule procedures,  or permits.

State Program Requirements for Implementation

    Section 1422(a) of the Safe Drinking Water Act requires the
Administrator to list-in the Federal Register  those States for which,
in his judgment, a State underground injection control program may
be necessary to assure that present and potential drinking water
sources are protected.

    The following assumptions and statutory requirements generated
the resource requirement for implementation:

    .  EPA would list all 50 States, territories and jurisdictions at
once as requiring UIC programs.

      Permits would be required for all new conventional wells and
engineering wells* which approximate 50 each year.  Five years
would be allowed to permit the 17, 700 existing wells.  Of these the
14, 500 gas storage wells, which comprise only 338  storage systems,
would be permitted as parts of systems thus requiring much  less
work per permit. Only 1,000 permit equivalents would be necessary.
This would reduce the total of 17, 700 existing conventional well
permits to 4,200.

      Five years would be allowed to permit the  10,000 oil and gas
Held disposal wells and the 60,000 oil and gas secondary recovery
wells.  Permits for new wells would total  1, 000 per year for disposal
wells, and 4,000 per year for secondary recovery wells.
* Includes industrial and municipal injection wells, subsidence control
  wells, barrier wells, recharge wells,  geothermal wells, solution
  mining wells, and gas storage wells.

                                   32

-------


































e
cfl
p
M
O
M
PM
'1 C
o
U -rl
O 4J
•u O
cu
UJ 4J
U 0
C r.
11 PM
a
01 M
(^ cu
H 4-1
3 CO
U
0
ri _
C
•H 3
0) 0
C M
a o
in 01
Ul 4J
01 cfl
4% U
to

rH
cu
TJ
,O
ff f











































































>
lj
!fl
T3
C
O
0
0)
C/)


CO
Cfl
CJ

•d
d
cfl
rH
•H
O







































6/1
c
•rl
C
•rl
X




CO
rH
rH
V
*3>
•
Q)
(JO
>-i
cfl
X
O'
fll
vU
erf


rH
10
rH
rH
CU
S

0)
M
Cfl
C
•H
cfl
M
Q





T



Cfl
rH
rH
01
3:

^
Vi
Ol
>
o
o
&








en
rH
rH
CU
^

rH
Cfl
CO
o
Cu
Cfl
•rl
Q


















01
n
•rl
E

O
rH
-^
T)
G
r- .




e
CU
4-1
CO
>*
CO
•*^
•a
B
«*






ex
o
ex

vO
O
rH
"*^_
•O
S
r-












co
4-1
o
0)
•r— I
O
M
CX

in
1
vC










rH
rH
CU
f

1
in





CO
rH
Cfl
C
O
•H
CO
CO
CU
U-l
o
M
PM
M
O
•rH
C
CU
l/>
'\l
(.;
•H
E

0
rH
1 — ,
•a
B
m
ro



E
0)
4J
CO
>.
CO
^>^
T3
S

rH










CO
rH
Cfl
a
0
•H
CO
CO
o>
UH
O
rJ
P4
il)
C
•rl
E

0
rH

T3

r-.




E
0)
4J
Cfl
>,
Cfl
•^
•o
B
-*





Cu
o
CX


VO
O
rH
*«^
T3
<§.
rH











CO
4J
U
cu
•I~)
o
)-l
CX

m
^
\O










rH
rH
0)
3

1















rH
cfl
f_J
.,-(
r.
M
CU
rH
U






tJ
o>
4-J
n)
^<

rH
CO
C
O
•H
4J
n)
^

• r,
C
O
•H
4-1
rH
rH
0
(X,

VJ
01
4J
cfl
•S

T3
c
3
0
M
O
UH
O

rH
0
(-1
4J
C
o
u

)-)
o
U-l

CO
C
O
•H
4-1
3
4J
•rl
4-1
CO
C
M

•o
c
cfl

(0
C
0) O
rH -rt
'a, 4J
O cfl
01 rH
CX 3
on
to c cu
>> 0 oi
CO -H
T) rH
rH U)
§1 I
O t—J
u
II UH
t
O
•H
42
O

rt"
o
4.J
oo
c
•rH
J3
4J
U
o
DE
. •<
C
o
•rl
4J
cfl
•H
O
O
en
en
<

rH
rH
O 0)
•H <; ts
4-1
Cfl
•rl
> 0)
01 CJ
U S-i
J3 3"
JO 0

•^ ex
U-l
-H ^
CO °
r*
•^ c
c °
•H "-t
4J
4J CX
3 °
M
C
c <"
aJ OT
-a u
"^ 4J
Ol ^
> U
cfl W
jr
•^ 0)
0) J=
U ^
c
S w
(j <"
OJ >
U-J >(^
a! «>
ij
M S
rH ">
S &
•ri O
60 *••
•H CX
So
M
B s
n
S <"
-5
t/i
4J -d
C c
cu "1
g
S §
•H ^
3 W)
§• ?
CU ^
(S a.


/«\
rH
33

-------
rH
^j
o
H




10
rH
C rH
O 0)
•rH ££
4-J
3 OO
rH G
O -H
co C
•H

*^


CU
60 CO
V-l rH
rd i-H
J^ CU
CO U 13
4-1 CU
d fyj
CU
e
CU
E M
Pj -rl
iJ 3 CU
VI a1 tC CO
O CU rfl rH
V-i PJ G ^H
ru -H 0)
— 1 CU M
0 C Q
u o
P CO
O V-i

. ¥
Li rd
O cu TJ en
rH JJ d r- 1
VJ fl) O rH
0 4J 0 CU
(1) co cu S
G rH >~>
•-4 Cd CO r4
I i rd CU
O O O >
C H 0
3 ---3 O
O '4H QJ1
L, O rH OJ
it CU O
a rd
G e
'3 -H
i i
CO i — 1

CO rH
G o ' — '
<; a. cu
to 3
•H






























CO
CU
C
•H


0
O
H



CO

CU
4-1
CO

CO

o
CM



P.
0
p. •
o
rH

o
CM
CM





CO
4-1
O
cu
«J— J
0
VJ
P.
O
o
CM
CO

CO
i
cu

o
o
o
...













rH
rd
CU
CO
4-)
•H
G































































CM
CO
C
0)
e
CU

•H
3
O"
CU
ftf
rH
cu
C
o
to
V-I
cu
(X,

u~> in o
o o vo
rH O
rH f^ rH

^
O






CO r-~ co
00 rH CO




CO
CO
o-







rH
rd
G
O
•H
CO
CO
CU rH
UH rd
0 C
rJ O
fi ) *rH r~1
co rfl
M to o
O Q) -H rH
•H UH Vj cd
C 0 CU 4-J
CU VJ >H O
CO PL. cj H


ro O r-~
• » •
 O


-t
CM







OO ^ O
CO O ,

rH "I—}
rH O TJ
0) O eo Q) ^-v
> O CU -H .
T) I-H a
i-H rH 3 P, iJ
Cd rH -H 0)
tO O CJ 4-J
O 4-J G rH -
P. -rl 3 CO
to -O ^-^ G -u
•rl CU -rl
TJ 4J to d '»J
CO rH 0) CU
T3 3 rd 0) C
!-(•!-) d rQ CU
CU tJ O rO
•H nj iH cu
UH U) > 1)
G co rd OO
co cu eu j^ G
rd CU U-j »rH
oo U3 o en Vj
VJ CU UJ
TJ CU P< "rl
G r* V-l "*
rd rd Vj rd co
.G . O rH CU
rH U-i rd T-I
•iH CO CO rH
O rH O P.
rH O i— 1 fX,
CO CU O rH 3
rH CM
P. 0) rH
60 -CO- • CO
to rd rH 60
rH VJ •« rd C
rH O CO CJ -rH
CU 4J rH -r-l rH
5 (/I rd VJ rH
C CU -rl
60 CO O rH ,Cl
C rd -HO
•H 60 CO -
VJ CO VJ
CU O CU O CU
cu c 
rH O "H O
rd 60 O U
a a - -r-l )-(
0 iH CM C O
•H C CM x: U-l
4-1 T-l CO- CJ
G 6 cu a)
CU U-l .U O
> c o d
CO TJ rt
O -rl CO G 5
O -U CU rd O
3 -H rH
CU rH VJ • rH
TJ O rd to rd
3 CO C Vj
rH " E CU rH
O TJ 3 >, rH
G d to 3 rd
•H rd n)
• rH r-H CU
tn en rH rd TJ
rH rH I 3 TJ -rl
rH rH • U C G >
CU CU CO G rd O
3 3 4-> cu rd vj
C rH CO P.
rH 01 CU ,0 60 VJ
rd 60 -H rd C O) o
'0 M cd H "rl CU ;4J
O cfl > S C
p. x: -H 6 3 -ri in
CO O 3 O eo 60 00
•H cu cr vj co G •
Q vj cu PK <; cu rH


rH CM CO

-------
       States would have the option to c > itrol the approximately
 50, 000 drainage wells by rule or permit.  One quarter of these
 would be regulated by permit.

    Thus, the total number of permits issued each year would be
 a'maximum of 25, 000,

    No detailed work has been done to estimate the numbers of
 additional personnl, etc. that will be required by each State to
 implement the proposed program.  However,  some studies have been
 done which allow us to make a reasonable estimate of the approximate
 level of expenditures  that can be expected.

    In making these estimates it must be kept in mind that most
 States already  have in operation  permit program similar to that
 proposed in these regulations.  Thus, a distinction must be made
 between the total costs of the proposed program  and the incremental
 costs, that is,  costs created by the proposed regulations which are
 above the costs already being incurred by the States.  It is only the
 incremental costs that can be considered to  be the true costs of the
 proposed regulations.

    The first study that can be used to estimate State program
 expenditures is a "A Manual of Laws, Regulations and Institutions for
 Control of Ground Water Pollution" prepared by  the National Water Well
 Association.  In this study, personnel requirements have been
 estimated for a model State ground-water protection program.  Personnel
 requirements for those portions of the model program which deal with
 the underground injection facilities covered  by the proposed regulations
 are summarized in Table C-l.  Table C-2 uses these  estimates to
 project the total personnel  and the associated annual expenditures to
 administer the model  program given our previous assumptions about
 the number of permits required.

    Using this method of analysis, a total of approximately 570 personnel
 would be needed to administer the State programs, an average of  11
 people per State.  Total costs using the assumptions about State personnel
 and overhead costs presented in Table C-2  would be approximately
 $14. 0 million per year. It should be noted that these figures are
 estimates of the total  costs of implementing  the proposed regulations, not
the incremental costs which are the object of this analysis.  The current
level of expenditures being made by the States has yet  to be deducted
from these total costs.  This will be dealt with shortly.
                                  35

-------
    It should also be noted that the personnel requirements prepared
by the National Water Well Association were for u "model State
ground-water protection program. "  This program differs substantially
from the proposed regulations.  In general, it is much more strict.
Thus, the personnel and expenditure estimates derived above are
likely to be much higher than those associated with the proposed
regulations.  These estimates,  then, can be regarded as very
conservative.

    Another study that can be used to indicate the probable level of
expenditures to be expected from  the proposed regulations is currently
being completed by EPA.  This study, a Manpower Planning Criteria
Manual for State Water  Pollution  Contro^^uoric"u?'s~*t  does not deal
specifically with a ground-water prot^cTioirpTo'iira'ni.  However,
the study does provide estimates of administering the national pollution
discharge elimination system permit program.  This permit program
is a much more complicated program than that which would be
required by these regulations since it is concerned with permitting
effluents from municipal and industrial establishments, most of which
have never been the subject of a permit program. Using the estimating
procedures of this study, therefore,  should provide an upper range
for  the costs of the State programs associated with the proposed
regulations.

    The EPA study provides an estimate of the man-years per permit
issued that would be required to administer the subject program.
Assuming a total requirement of approximately  20,000 permits per
year, or an average of 500 per State, the appropriate work load
factor from the EPA study would be 0. 025 man-years per permit issued. *
This would result in a total annual personnel requirement of approximately
625. **  This estimate of the total  requirements of 1h
-------
    This total cost estimate must be adjusted by the level of
expenditures already being incurred by the States in administering
programs that would be included within the programs required by the
proposed regulations.  Most States already have underground
injection control programs, many of which are very similar to the
proposed programs.  The thirty-two States with oil and gas wells,
lor example,  all have programs controlling wells in this category.
Similarly,  the twenty-seven States with industrial or municipal
injection wells have programs regulating these wells.  Most of
these regulatory programs are v/ell staffed.  Texas,  for
example, has over 60 people engaged in reglating oil and gas
wells and an additional 32 people concerned with other injection well
categories.  In Florida,  it is  estimated that  50-60 people are engaged
full time in underground injection control activities.

    Other categories of injection or disposal  wells are less well
regulated at present. Very few States, for example have programs
for regulating drainage wells.  The existence of an estimated 2,000
supposedly prohibited industrial and municipal  shallow disposal
wells indicates that State regulatory programs  in this area are
deficient.

    Thus, from a brief look at existing State  underground injection
control programs it can be seen that, although  the current level of
State expenditures will certainly have to be augmented, much of the
total requirements are already being expended.

   In an informal survey conducted in conjunction with a previous
and much more comprehensive verision of the proposed regulations,
the States of Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan, Kansas and Texas
indicates that in general  they would have to at least double their
staff and budget requirements to administer the proposed programs,
Because  considerably more facilities were included in the regulations
at that time, this estimate  of doubling  State resource requirements
can be regarded as an upper estimate of the actual program costs.

   Using this figure and the above calculated total program costs of
$14. 6 million, yields a macimum estimate for  the incremental State
program costs associated with the proposed regulations of $7. 3
million.  Because of extensive State commitments already existing
in this area and because  of our conservative  estimating procedures,
this figure  regarded as probably very high, but it at least provides
us with an order of magnitude estimate of what the actual incremental
costs will be.
 *U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1976 626-882/929 1-5
37

-------

-------