**** 810R79106
SUPPLEMENT TO
"5
DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
ON UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
(40 CFR PART 146)
STATE UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM
REPROPOSED REGULATIONS
Prepared by
OFFICE OF DRINKING WATER
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
,'j ."/ . / / f J ^
u
Victor/ J. Kimra
Deputy Assistant Administrator
Office of Drinking Water
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1. Type of Action;
Regulatory.
2. Brief Description of Action;
The reproposed action prescribes a new set of
regulations which sets minimum requirements for effective
State programs to prevent underground injection which
endangers underground sources of drinking water. The
regulations have been issued in conformance with the
requirements of P.L. 93-523 (the Safe Drinking Water Act)
and P.L. 95-190 (the Safe Drinking Water Amendments of
1977), which amend the Public Health Service Act.
3. Summary of Beneficial and Adverse Environmental Effects
as Originally Proposed (Summary of Impacts of Reproposed
Regulations are on pages v and vi):
a. Improved protection of public health is provided by
bringing dangerous sources of contamination of underground
drinking water sources under minimum nationwide requirements
for control.
b. High flexibility is allowed the States in
developing programs which would be consistent in part with
present regulatory procedures.
c. The compatibility with existing programs should
minimize cost to the States.
d. The minimum requirements prescribed will ensure
that basic programs meet uniform national objectives.
e. Some injectors will incur 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
may occur from Class V wells until their assessment is
completed and a regulatory program for them is established.
g. Revisions to the Draft Environmental Impact
-------
Statement which modify these effects are outlined in this
supplement.
4A. Alternatives Considered in Draft Environmental Impact
Statement
a. No actions.
b. Non-restrictive regulations.
c. Restrictive regulations.
4B. Alternatives Considered in Supplement to Draft
Environmental Impact Statement
The alternatives selected under 4A above reflect
trade-offs and compromises between non-restrictive and
restrictive regulations, 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 general public as well as the States and
injectors. The alternatives considered here represent a
refinement of those selected under 4A and reflect comments
received on the earlier Draft EIS.
5. Federal, State, and Local Agencies from Which Comments
will be requested:
See Attachment I.
6. Date Available to Public and to EIS Registration Branch
(in EPA's Office of Federal Activities) for official
filing;
Supplement to Draft: April 16, 1979
?• Please Request Copies From and Send Comments To;
Office of Drinking Water (WH-550)
Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Attention: Comment Clerk, State Underground Injection
Control Program Regulations-Environmental Impact
Statement.
ii
-------
Attachment I
INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST
Federal
Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
Army Corps of Engineers
Department of Interior
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Bureau of Land Management
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife
Geological Survey
Office of Saline Water
Department of Energy
Water Resources Council
State
California Department of Water Resources
Deleware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control
Florida Department of Pollution Control
Idaho Department of Water Resources
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
Kansas Department of Health and Environment
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Geology Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources
New Mexico Environmental Improvement Agency
Ohio Department of Natural Resources
iii
-------
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
South Carolina Pollution Control Authority
Texas Water Quality Board
West Virginia Department of Natural Resources
Interested Parties
Interstate Oil Compact Commission
American Petroleum Institute, Washington
American Petroleum Institute, Dallas
Salt Institute
National Association of Manufacturers
Freeport Sulfur Company
Texas Gulf Incorporated
National Association of State Departments of Agriculture
National Water Well Association
Environmental Defense Fund
Natural Resources Defense Council
Sierra Club
National Wildlife Federation
E.I. Dupont de Nemours and Company
Manufacturing Chemists Association
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission
American Mining Congress
League of Women Voters
IV
-------
Impacts Affected by Reproposed Regulations
(addressed in Draft EIS)
Revisions to Proposed
Regulations
Revisions to Draft Environmental
Impact Statement Sections
I. Permitting, monitor-
toring, reporting and
control costs have been
reduced.
A. Permits may now
be issued for an area,
rather than each in-
dividual facility, and
may be issued for the
life of the facility
rather than be limited
to a specific time
period. (Page 7 of this
supplement)
Chapter III.
Environmental Impacts
of the Proposed
Action
Chapter IV. Adverse
Impacts that
cannot be
avoided should
the proposal be
implemented
-------
B. The area of review
may now be established
by a fixed radius based
on existing site condi-
tions or determined by
a computed zone of
endangering influence
rather than be limited
to a specific radius,
and the area of review
now applies only to new
oil and gas related
injection wells rather
than all such wells. (Page 9)
B.
Ill
C.
IV
B.
X
C. Existing enhanced
recovery and hydro-
carbon storage wells
may now be regulated
by rule rather than
permit. (Page 11)
II. Varying geologic,
hydrological, or historical
conditions are no longer
impacted. (Page 13)
III. Oil and gas wells
have more flexible per-
formance requirements
A. Certain annular
injections are now per-
mitted that were
previously prohibited. (Page 15)
IV. Alternative cementing
and sealing and tubing
and packer techniques
are permitted. (Page 16)
X
V. More flexible permit
issuance procedures have
been established.
A. The reproposed
regulations do not contain
the specific requirements
of the originally proposed
regulations. (Page 18)
X X
X
-------
INTRODUCTION
The Draft 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 discusses in detail the anticipated
benefits that will result from implementation of the
regulations and compares them with the adverse impacts that
cannot be avoided. In developing the regulations, EPA
considered a number of alternative approaches and rejected
those whose environmental, physical, economic, or legal
consequences were unacceptable. This supplement summarizes
those instances where different alternatives were selected
in response to the public comments that were received.
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, has not been dealt with adequately
by prior State or Federal laws and regulations.
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 the
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 to supply drinking water. The Safe Drinking
Water Amendments of 1977 clarified the previous statute and
provided more flexibility in dealing with these practices.
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 bringing under control many practices and
sources of ground water contamination that endanger public
health.
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
groundwater contamination. Implementation of the
regulations will also be instrumental 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.
The Draft 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 Congressional hearing documents,
previous laws and regulations, and published reports and
articles relating to ground water contamination problems .
Contacts were made with selected State agencies and with
private organizations for preliminary responses and
reactions 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. Substantial reliance on
judgment, assumptions, and experience was necessary where
data were either nonexistent or were not readily available.
This Supplement was prepared in February 1979 after
substantial revisions were made in the regulations following
the review and consideration.of comments received on the
initial proposal of the regulations in the Federal Register
on August 31, 1976.
SUPPLEMENTATARY DOCUMENTS
Copies of (1) the Reproposed State Underground Injection
Control Program Regulations; (2) the Preamble to the
Reproposed Regulations; and (3) the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement are available upon request ( to address in
Item 7, on page ii.) Documentation for the decision-making
process is in the statement of basis and purpose and
preamble, and the economic impact of the reproposed
regulations is in the preamble. The comments received on
the proposed regulations are summarized in Appendix A of the
reproposed regulations.
INJECTION WELL CATEGORIES
The draft of the Proposed State Underground Injection
-------
Control Program Regulations discussed by the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement addressed the following
injection well categories of the proposed regulations:
Subpart C - Waste Disposal Wells and Engineering Wells
Subpart D - Injection Wells Related to Oil and Gas
Production
Subpart E - All Drainage Wells
The Reproposed Regulations address the following injection
well categories:
Class I - Industrial, Municipal and Nuclear Waste
Storage and Disposal Wells that inject beneath the lowermost
stratum containing an underground source of drinking water.
Class II - Injection Wells Related to Oil and Gas
Production and Hydrocarbon Storage
Class III - Special Process Wells
Class IV - Wells Used By Generators of Hazardous Wastes
Or Hazardous Waste Management Facilities To Inject Into Or
Above Drinking Water Sources.
Class V - All Other Injection Wells
Each well category in the proposed regulations is a grouping
of wells with similar modes of operation. The reproposed
regulations retain this grouping and attempt to further
-------
segregate the wells by levels of contamination. Class I,
II, and III wells do not inject into or above underground
drinking water sources. Class IV and V wells do inject into
or above underground drinking water sources. The Waste
Disposal Wells formerly included in Subpart C are now in
Class I; the Engineering Wells formerly included in Subpart
C are now listed as Special Process Wells and included in
Class III; Subpart D wells are now listed in Class II. All
wells injecting hazardouse waste into or above strata that
contain an underground drinking water source are now listed
in Class IV. All other injection wells formerly in Subpart
E are now listed in Class V.
The reproposed regulations included General Provisions
as Subpart A and State Program Implementation Procedures as
Subpart B; these are now included in Parts 122, 123, and 124
of the reproposed regulations.
REVISIONS
The substantial revisions in the regulations have the
following effects on Chapter III "Environmental Impacts of
the Proposed Action" and Chapter IV "Adverse Impacts that
cannot be Avoided should the Proposal be Implemented" that
tend to mitigate these impacts:
-------
I. Permitting, monitoring, reporting, and control costs
have been reduced.
A. Permits may now be issued for an area, rather than
each individual facility, and may be issued for the life of
the facility, rather than be limited to a specific time
period.
1. The Proposed Regulations
Section IV. D., on page 165 of the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement, indicates that "certain
types of injection facilities will have to be regulated by
(individual) permits, and this will involve new monitoring
and control costs on the part of the injector." It
indicates further that "...study and preparation of reports
will be needed in many instances to satisfy the permitting
requirements." (from sec 146.24 and sec 146.47 of the
proposed regulations)
Section 146.3 of the proposed regulations states that
"no OIC permit may be issued for a term greater than five
years."
2. The Reproposed Regulations
On 44 FR 23741 the preamble indicates that the
-------
reproposed regulations "provide for area permits where
a number of injection wells within a single parcel of land
under the control of the same individual would be issued a
single permit" and "that UIC permits may now be issued for
the life of the facility." (from sec. 122.37 and sec.
122.40 of reproposed regulations)
3. Reason for this revision
To reduce the paperwork and potential cost for all
classes of wells requiring permits, the permits may now be
issued on an area basis (e.g., project, field, block)
provided that all injection wells covered by an area permit
are within a legally describable parcel of land within a
single State and that all injection wells are under the
control of a single person. However, the location of each
existing and proposed injection well in the permitted area
must be specified and all proposed wells must still meet the
construction and operating requirements of the regulations.
To facilitate long-term financing of wells and to reduce
still further administrative burdens caused by permits which
automatically expire wells may now be permitted for the life
of their operation. However, the mechanical integrity of
wells must still be tested at least once every five years.
-------
B. The area of review may now be established by a
fixed radius based on existing site conditions or determined
by a computed zone of endangering influence rather than be
limited to a specific radius. Also, the area of review is
now required only for new wells used for oil and gas
production and hydrocarbon storage rather than all such
wells.
1. The Proposed Regulation
Section l.D.2.a.(l), on page 79 of the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement indicates that, "operators of
existing (Subpart C) wells and new (Subpart C) wells must
submit fairly detailed documentation on the location of the
injection well and other wells and mines within a two-mile
radius", while Section l.D.2.a.(2) on page 80 of the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement indicates that, "completion
and plugging reports for wells penetrating the injection
zone within a one-half mile radius of (Subpart D) injection
wells will be reviewed" (from Section 146.24 and Section
146.47, respectively, of the proposed regulations.)
2. The Reproposed Regulation
On 44 PR 23744 the preamble indicates that the States
may now establish the area of review either "by use of a
-------
fixed radial measurement" or by computing the "zone of
endangering influence for each well" and by varying the area
of review eliminate unnecessary record searching and review.
(From Section 146.06 of reproposed regulations). On 44
FR23746 the preamble indicates that "the area of review
requirement applies only to new Class II injection wells"
rather than all such wells. (From Section 146.21(e) of
reproposed regulations).
3. Reason For This Revision
The initially proposed regulations established a
specific radius, described above, for the area of review.
Some of the written comments received on the proposed
regulations argued that a specific radius was unduly
burdensome and unnecessarily inflexible, resulting in the
study of many wells which could not possibly be
contamination sources. Therefore, the reproposed
regulations permit use of an unspecified radius (not less
than 1/4 mile) or computation of a "zone of endangering
influence" as mentioned above; thus permitting maximum
protection with a lower adverse impact.
The initially proposed regulations applied the area of
review to all wells used for oil and gas production and
10
-------
hydrocarbon storage. Some of the written comments received
on the proposed regulations indicated that this was probably
the most costly requirement for these wells. The Agency
gave further consideration to the question of the producing
and abandoned wells that penetrate the area of review
associated with injection wells and now requires that the
area of review be applied only to new wells. This approach
eliminates paperwork and potential cost. Since new
injection wells are normally located in existing oil fields,
the review of the other (producing and abandoned) wells in
the vicinity of new injection wells will with time result in
the review of the vast majority of other wells near existing
injection wells. This revised approach will be reviewed
after the first full year of experience with the permitting
of new wells and modifications made if appropriate.
C. Existing enhanced recovery and hydrocarbon storage
wells may now be regulated by rule rather than permit.
1. The Proposed Regulation
Section I.D.l.c., on page 77 of the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement, indicates that "the regulations require
that the States create permitting programs for shallow and
deep industrial and municipal disposal wells, for subsidence
11
-------
control wells, salt-water intrusion control wells,
solution-raining wells, recharge wells installed for aquifer
augmentation, geothermal wells, gas-storage wells, and wells
related to the production of oil and gas."
Section 146.10 of the proposed regulations "prohibits
any underground injection covered by Subparts C or D
which is not authorized by a permit "
2. The Reproposed Regulation
On 44 PR 23745 the preamble "allows the regulation of
existing enhanced recovery and hydrocarbon storage wells
by rule" rather than permit. (From Section 122.40 of
reproposed regulations).
3. Reason For This Revision
Information now available to EPA suggests that operators
of enhanced recovery operations have a strong incentive to
maintain the injection -wells themselves, as well as the
other wells in the immediate vicinity, in top condition.
Enhanced recovery operations rely on the pressure built up
through the injection of fluids to force additional oil and
gas to the surface through producing wells. To the extent
that the pressure in the target area is dissipated through
leaks in the injection well, fractures in the confining
12
-------
layers or leaks in abandoned wells in the vicinity, enhanced
recovery becomes less cost effective or even impossible.
Consequently, this revision would reduce the costly and
potentially burdensome requirement to issue permits and
focus available resources on the practices that appear to be
of the greatest environmental concern. New injection wells
may not begin operation without a permit. Existing disposal
wells may be regulated by rule for five years. Because they
pose the greatest threat of all wells covered in Class II,
they must thereafter be regulated by permits. Other wells
under Class II, such as' existing enhanced recovery wells may
not pose as serious a threat and may continue to be
regulated by rule.
II. Varying Geologic, Hydrologic, or Historical Conditions
Are No Longer impacted
A. The proposed regulation
Section IV.D., beginning on page 164 of the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement, indicates that "some
injectors will have to halt existing underground injection
practices and turn to other alternatives for disposal or
treatment fluids." The existence of varying geological,
hydrological, and historic conditions in different States,
13
-------
and in different areas within a State, was not considered in
the proposed regulations.
B. The reproposed regulation
On 44 PR 23739 the preamble indicates that the 1977
Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (P.L. 95-190)
specifically "instructs EPA to permit consideration of
varying geologic, hydrologic, and historic conditions among
States" and that the revised regulations "offer States
discretion to tailor local programs to meet specific needs
and to consider (these) conditions in fashioning rules and
permit requirements." (from sec 1421 (b)(3)(A) of the Act,
as amended)
C. Reason for this revision
The initially proposed regulations did not address the
existence of varying geological, hydrological, and historic
conditions in different States and in different areas within
a State. The 1977 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act
(PL95-190) mandates that they now be considered. Therefore
the Act and the regulations now specifically offer the
States the flexibility necessary to consider their
existence.
III. Oil and gas wells have more flexible performance
requirements
14
-------
A. Certain annular injections are now permitted that
were previously prohibited.
1. The proposed regulation
Section III. E.2., on page 153 of the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement, indicates that, for
injection wells related to oil and gas production, "Annular
injection is considered to be undesirable practice which is
not recommended for long-term disposal due to the potential
for ground water contamination from corrosion and escape of
injected fluids through holes in the casing. This practice
should be phased out completely to insure protection of
drinking water sources." (from sec 146.42 (a) of the
proposed regulations)
2. The reproposed regulation
Substantially more flexible performance requirements for
oil and gas wells have been provided. Certain annular
injections that would have been prohibited previously are
now permitted. On 44 PR 23745 the preamble indicates that
"other types of annular injection would be permissible... if
it is determined on a case-by-case basis that they do not
endanger ground water." (sec 146.22 of the reproposed
15
-------
regulations lists prohibited injections)
IV. Alternative cementing and sealingy and tubing and
packer techniques are permitted
A. Specific techniques were previously required.
1. The proposed regulation
Section IV.D., on page 166 of the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement, indicates that "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
competition for materials." (from sec 146.42 (a) and sec
146.22 of the proposed regulations)
2. The reproposed regulation
Where certain cementing and sealing techniques were once
specified without opportunity for exception, a State is now
authorized to permit alternative techniques. On 44 PR 23745
the preamble indicates that the reproposed regulations allow
"more flexible casing and cementing programs". Casing
cemented to the surface ... need not be required if an
alternate casing and cementing technique will equally
suffice." (from sec 146.22 of the reproposed regulations)
16
-------
On 44 FR 23745 the preamble also indicates that the
reproposed regulations "allow a permit applicant to propose
tubing and packer uniquely fitted to the design and function
of his well." (from sec 146.12 of the reproposed
regulations). The tubing and packer requirement now applies
only to Class I wells. It no longer applies to wells
related to oil and gas production.
3. Reason for this revision
The initially proposed regulations required that "(1)
All underground drinking water sources of 3,UOO 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; and (3) the long string is cemented with
sufficient cement to assure no migration of injected fluid
above or below the injection zone." Some of the written
comments received on the proposed regulations argued that
these requirements were economically infeasible, while
others maintained that alternate casing and cementing
techniques could serve equally well. Also, in some
instances (slim hole completions, for example), tubing and
packer is not practical. In other cases, a fluid seal can
17
-------
suffice in place of a packer. In response to these comments
the reproposed regulations allow the more flexible casing
and cementing programs mentioned above. Thus an injection
well may use m-ultiple strings ot casing rather than a single
string to the surface in appropriate situations. The
reproposed regulations also respond to these comments by
allowing the uniquely fitted tubing and packer mentioned
above.
V. More flexible permit issuance procedures have been
established
A. The reproposed regulations do not contain the
specific requirements of the originally proposed
regulations.
1. The proposed regulation
Section III. E.2., on page 154 of the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement, indicates that "the
requirements for a UIC permit application for a new well go
beyond those presently required in many of the oil producing
States...State issued permits for new wells will contain
specific requirements...." (from sec 146.25-29 and sec
146.43-46 of the proposed regulations)
2. The reproposed regulation
18
-------
The reproposed regulations do not specify detailed
permit issuance procedures for State programs. Rather, on
44 PR 23741 the preamble asks only that they "issue permits
or rules that incorporate Federal requirements for applicant
signature, duration and coverage" and "incorporate Federal
requirements for monitoring, record keeping, and reporting
...." Conflicts with local (city, county, etc.) rules and
regulations can thus be minimized and less new State
legislation will be needed, (from sec 123.47 of the
reproposed regulations).
On 44 PR 23741 the preamble also indicates that "a
State need not develop a regulatory program for a type of
injection well which does not exist in that State. However,
the State must, in such case, adopt a rule to regulate that
class of wells to preclude the possibility of unregulated
injection should such wells seek to operate in the State in
the future."
3. Reason for this revision
The initially proposed regulations contained relatively
extensive requirements for the amount of information to be
submitted with permit applications. Many of the written
comments received on the proposed regulations noted that the
19
-------
amount and nature of the information to be submitted with a
permit application were inappropriate, and described them as
excessive, duplicative, unobtainable and burdensome.
Therefore the -reproposed regulations provide only the
minimum requirements for public notice and public comments
mentioned above. This abbreviated approach will provide
more flexibility, yet assure that interested persons have an
opportunity to comment on each permit.
20
------- |