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
-------
------- |