vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water
EPA 570/9-91-031
October 1991
Analysis of the Effects of
EPA Restrictions on the
Deep Injection of Hazardous
Waste
-------
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY , i
1.0 CIASS I HAZARDOUS (IH) INJECTION WELLS ARE USED TO DISPOSE OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE 1
1.1 What Are Class IH Injection Wells? 1
1.2 Where Are Class IH Wells Located? 3
1.3 Who Uses Class IH Wells? 3
1.4 What Are the Risks from Class IH Wells? 3
1.5 UIC Regulations Prevent Contamination of USDWs by Class IH Wells 7
1.6 Class IH Wells Are Safer than Virtually All Other Waste Disposal
Practices 9
2.0 EPA PROMULGATED REGULATIONS TO MEET CONGRESSIONAL MANDATES .... 9
2.1 UIC Class IH Regulations 10
2,2 Regulations Preventing Contamination from Class IH Wells 10
2.3 States Have a Role in Protecting USDWs 12
3.0 CONGRESS BANNED HAZARDOUS WASTE INJECTION EXCEPT WHERE
PROTECTION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT IS ENSURED 13
4.0 EPA ESTABLISHED A RIGOROUS PROCESS TO DEMONSTRATE
PROTECnVENESS 13
4.1 Operators Submit Extensive Information on the Well and the Site 13
4.2 Models are an Effective Method for Predicting Waste Migration . 15
4.3 EPA Successfully Defended Legal Challenges to the UIC Land Ban
Regulations 15
4,4 EPA Regional Offices Coordinate Petition Review 16
4.5 Several People Review Each Petition 16
4.6 Local and Regional Geology and Hydrogeology are Reviewed by EPA .... 16
4.7 The Petition Model is Evaluated 16
4.8 Operators Must Correct Petition Deficiencies 17
4.9 The Public Participates in the Decision Process . 17
5.0 RESULTS OF THE PETITION PROCESS 18
5.1 EPA Spends an Average of One Person-Year Reviewing Each Petition 18
52 Well Operators Spend an Average of $343,000 per Petition 18
5.3 Changes in Waste Management Practices 20
5-4 Most Operators Who Submitted a Petition Successfully Demonstrated
No Migration 23
6.0 CONCLUSIONS 23
-------
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit I. Class I Hazardous Waste Injection Well 2
Exhibit II. Class IH Facilities by Region 4
Exhibit III. Class IH Facilities by State 5
Exhibit IV. Class IH Facilities by Industry 6
Exhibit V. EPA's No-Migration Petition Review Process 14
Exhibit VI. Number of Facilities that Filed and Did Not File No-Migration
Petitions 19
Exhibit VII. Class IH Well Status for Former Class IH Facilities that Withdrew
or Did Not Submit Petitions 21
Exhibit VIII. Hazardous Waste Disposal Practices of Facilities that Withdrew'
or Did Not Submit Petitions 22
Exhibit IX. Status of No-Migration Petitions 24
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Hazardous waste injection began in the 1950s. Class I hazardous waste (IH) welk
inject hazardous waste beneath the lowest underground source of drinking water (USDW).
By the early 1980s, approximately half of the liquid hazardous waste disposed of in the
United States (approximately 11.5 billion gallons) was injected into these wells.
This report describes how EPA regulations prevent Class IH wells from endangering
USDWs. It also documents changes in the Class IH well population and Class IH hazardous
waste management practices that have occurred since the regulations were promulgated. The
findings of this report are summarized below.
1. EPA has strengthened operating regulations and has required operators to
submit "no-migration" petitions in order to continue operating. This has made
underground injection an even safer, more effective waste disposal practice.
In response to the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA promulgated regulations in 1980
governing all injection wells including those injecting hazardous waste. In 1984, Congress
banned most forms of land disposal of untreated waste, including injection wells, unless EPA
determined that the prohibition was not required to protect human health and the environ-
ment. In 1988, EPA passed additional regulations requiring Class IH operators to prove
protectiveness by submitting a "no-migration" petition demonstrating that waste would not
migrate from the injection zone for as long as it remained hazardous. Well operators who do
not submit petitions must either treat to remove the banned substances or cease injection of
the waste.
2. EPA established a rigorous Class IH petition review process.
EPA Headquarters, Regional offices, and State agencies devoted substantial resources
to the petition review process: approximately one person-year (over 2000 hours) was spent
on each petition. In most cases, Regions needed to commit several professionals full-time to
accomplish a detailed petition review. For example, Region VI had sixteen full-time staff
members reviewing the petitions for almost a full year.
3- Petitions provide detailed analysis of migration potential.
Class IH petitions submitted by well operators were typically several volumes long,
contained thousands of pages of technical data, and occupied up to two to three feet of shelf
space. The petitions reflected detailed, rigorous analysis of every technical aspect of well
siting, construction, operation, and detailed analysis of the injected waste streams.
A team of professionals arc assigned to review each petition. Engineers and geologists
review information about the construction, operation, compliance history, and closure plans
for the well. They evaluate the chemical compatibility of the waste with the materials of well
construction, and the injection and confining zone rocks and fluids Information for the Area
of Review is studied to ensure that no migration could occur through unplugged or improp-
erly completed wells which penetrate the confining zone. Geologists evaluate both local and
-------
regional geology by analyzing the scientific literature, core data, cross-sections, and seismic
profiles submitted by the petitioner.
For purposes of this study, operators were contacted to determine the cost of
preparing complete petitions. The average amount spent to prepare each petition was
$343,000. Costs ranged from $50,000 to $1,200,000 with a mode of $290,000. These costs
exceeded EPA's earlier estimates.
4. The Class I hazardous waste restrictions resulted in a significant reduction of the
volume of waste injected and in the number of Class IH facilities.
In 1985 EPA estimated that 11.5 billion gallons of hazardous waste was being injected.
By 1990 EPA estimated that this volume had been reduced to 9 billion gallons of hazardous
waste. In addition, the number of Class IH facilities has decreased from 95 to 51 between
the time Class IH regulations were promulgated and now. Although these reductions are not
due solely to the Class I hazardous waste restrictions and may in fact be due to waste
reduction efforts by the industries concerned, it is reasonable to conclude that the restrictions
influenced the reductions.
Facilities which do not have approved petitions are prohibited from injecting banned
waste into their wells. Of the 36 former Class IH facility operators who either withdrew or
did not submit their petitions:
20 now inject only non-hazardous waste;
11 have plugged and abandoned their wells; and
5 have temporarily abandoned their wells.
5. The Class I Hazardous Waste Restrictions program has encouraged pollution
prevention.
Facilities no longer allowed to inject hazardous waste are doing the following with
their waste:
13 are no longer generating hazardous waste;
14 treat their wastes on-site so that it is no longer hazardous; and
2 ship the waste off-site.
Seven of the former Class IH injectors have dosed their Class I facilities entirely.
-------
Analysis of tbe Effects of EPA Restrictions on the Deep Injection of Hazardous Waste
1.0 CLASS I HAZARDOUS (EH) EJECTION WELLS ARE USED TO DISPOSE OF
HAZARDOUS WASTE
Class I wells used to inject hazardous waste are classified by EPA's Underground
Injection Control (UIC) program as Class IH wells.1 About 50 percent of the liquid hazard-
ous waste generated each year in the U.S. is safely disposed of In secure subsurface geologic
formations using Class IH injection wells. The purpose of this report is to assess the effect of
Class I regulations on hazardous waste disposal practices and to evaluate the changes in the
Class IH well population since the regulations were promulgated. In gathering data for this
report, the four Regions in which Class I wells are located were contacted, and Regions V and
VI were visited to interview Class I petition staff and to review their files. In addition, Class
IH operators were directly contacted by an EPA contractor for information on petition costs
and waste disposal practices.
1.1 What Are Class IH Injection Wells?
Although injection wells have been successfully used in the oilfield since 1910,
subsurface injection of hazardous waste commenced about 1938 when a well was utilized to
dispose of waste brine from a chemical manufacturing process. Class I wells, by definition,
inject municipal or industrial waste beneath the lowermost underground source of drinking
water (USDW). A USDW is an aquifer or portion of an aquifer that supplies a public water
system (PWS), contains enough water to supply a PWS, or which contains less than 10,000
milligrams/liter of total dissolved solids (TDS).2
A Class IH injection well consists of several components which serve to isolate injected
waste from USDWs. Concentric pipes, known as casing or tubing, extend down a drilled hole
known as the well bore. The outermost casing of a Class IH well, called the surface casing,
usually extends below the base of the lowermost USDW. A second casing inside the surface
casing is called the long-string casing, and consists of one or more pipes extending into the
formation where the waste is placed, called the injection zone. The casings are cemented
into the hole and to each other to seal the well bore. Inside the long-string casing is the
injection tubing, through which waste is injected. The space between the long-string casing
and the injection tubing, called the annulus. is filled with a non-corrosive fluid. The annulus
is sealed at the bottom by a packer or equivalent, and at the top by the well head seal, A
Class I injection well is depicted in Exhibit I.
Casing and tubing material are generally alloy steel or fiberglass, depending on the
corrosion characteristics of the injected fluid. Packers are usually machined from corrosion-
resistant alloys (e.g., Hastclloy C), but some high-elastomer inflatable packers arc in service in
some wells. Cement is usually a chemically-resistant latex blend, although many wells use an
epoxy resin (e.g., EPSEAL) instead of cement. The mechanical integrity of the tubular
*For the purposes of this report, a Class 111 facility is defined as one which injects currently
banned waste (or would if its petition were approved).
240 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 144 3
-------
Analysts of the Effects of EPA Restrictions on the Deep Injection of Hazardous Waste
Exhibit I
Class I Hazardous Waste Injection Well
Gauge on injection tubing
Gauge on tubin§-casing annulus
Surface casing
Long string casing
Surface soil and rock
Underground sources of
'drinking water
Formations containing
fresh water or brine
Injection tubing
Packer
Confining zone
-------
Analysis of the Effects of EPA Restrictions on the Deep Injection of Hazardous Waste 3
goods (i.e., casing, tubing, packer, or well-head seal) of the well can be directly verified by a
pressure test or continuous monitoring of the tubing/casing annulus. The integrity of the
cement used to seal the casing at the injection zone is tested using wireline logs (e.g.,
radioactive tracer tests).
Class IH wells typically inject wastes into zones several thousands of feet below the
land surface. In the Great Lakes Region, well depths range from 1700 to 6000 feet. In the
Gulf Coast, depths range from 2200 to 9500 feet.
Waste injected into the injection interval disperses through the injection zone. The
injection zone is the subsurface geologic layer (usually sandstone or limestone) into which the
waste is injected. Above the injection zone is the confining zone, which consists of imperme-
able rock such as shale or dense limestone that prevents fluids from migrating upward.
1.2 Where Are Class IH Wells Located?
Currently, there are fifty-one Class IH facilities in the U.S. Most are found in EPA
Regions VI (38) and V (9). (See Exhibit II.) Texas has the greatest number of Class IH
facilities of any State (28), followed by Louisiana (9). (See Exhibit III.)
1.3 Who Uses Class IH Wells?
The industries having the greatest number of Class IH well sites are the chemical
products, petroleum refining, and metal products industries. Eleven facilities are "commercial
disposal" facilities (i.e., waste management/treatment). (See Exhibit IV.)
1.4 What Are the Risks from Class IH Wells?
EPA originally identified four potential Class IH contamination pathways.3 These
pathways of concern are:
Well Failure. Injection wells can fail internal or external mechanical integrity.
Internal failure results from corrosive or mechanical failure of the tubular goods.
External failure occurs when fluid moves up the outside of the well due to failures
in the cement.
Improperly Plugged or Completed Wells in the Area of Review. Improperly
plugged or completed wells which penetrate the confining zone in the vicinity of
the injection well can form a conduit for fluids to travel from the injection zone to
USDWs. These potential conduits arc most common in areas of oil and gas
exploration. Because the geologic requirements for Class HI injection activities are
similar to those for oil and gas exploration, these activities take place in the same
areas. EPA estimates that there may be as many as 300,000 abandoned wells
MJ.S HPA, Report to Congress on the Injection of Hazardous Waste, I-PA 570/9-85-003. May
1985. p. 1-2
-------
g
"o
0
DC
__ .Q
18
-Q .=
X
O
-------
CD
CO
.0
.Q
X
LU
CD
O
CO
LL
I
0)
w
JO
O
-------
Exhibit IV
Class IH Facilities by Industry
Petroleum Refining
5
Metal Products
6
Chemical Products
23
Commercial Disposal
11
Other/Not Classified
6
-------
Analysis of the Effects of EPA Restrictions on the Deep Injection of Hazardous Waste
and 100,000 producing wells outside of active oil and gas production fields and
potentially in the Areas of Review of Class I injection wells.
* Faults or Fractures in the Confining Zone. Transmissive faults can allow wastes
to migrate out of the injection zone. Faults or fractures may have existed naturally
prior to injection, or pathways may be created by the waste dissolving the rocks in
the confining zone. Artificial fractures may also be created by injecting waste at
excessive pressures, although this is not perceived to be a usual or probable
occurrence.
* Lateral Fluid Displacement Out of the Injection Zone. Lateral fluid displace-
ment can contaminate USDWs if the injection interval is hydraulically connected to
the USDW. The effects of injection might cause poorer-quality water such as brines
or highly saline groundwater to move up-gradient into USDWs.
EPA has promulgated extensive technical regulations to ensure that fluids do not
migrate from the injection zone into USDWs. The regulations are listed in 40 CFR 146 and
148 and are described in section 2.1 of this report.
1.5 UIC Regulations Prevent Contamination of USDWs by Class IH Wells
Several studies, some by EPA contractors4 and some by independent environmental
groups,5 have evaluated the protectiveness of the Class I technical regulations. EPA has
reviewed these studies and, in addition, to the Agency's and State's review of the UIC
program, has concluded that current regulations are sufficiently stringent to protect USDWs.6
Contamination of USDWs by Class IH wells has been rare. EPA and the States have
identified two cases where injected wastes contaminated USDWs, and one case where an
injection well was suspected of causing the contamination of a USDW. All three cases
occurred prior to the implementation of a State or Federal UIC program. EPA has also
identified eight cases where leakage from Class IH wells entered non-USDW formations and
two cases of surface contamination due to blowouts.7
4CH2MHill, Class I Injection Well Survey-Phase I Report: Survey of Selected Sites, prepared
for the Underground Injection Practices Council, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 1986, and Engineer-
ing Enterprises, Inc., Class I Hazardous Waste Injection Wells Evaluation of Non-Compliance
Incidents, prepared for the U.S. EPA, Office of Drinking Water, UIC Contract No. 68-01-7011,
1986,
5W. Gordon and J. Bloom, Deeper Problems: Limits to Underground Injection as a
Hazardous Waste Disposal Method, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., New York, N.Y.
653 FR28131
^Hazardous Waste: Controls Over Injection Well Disposal Operations, U.S. General Account-
ing Office, August 1987,
-------
Analysis of the Effects of EPA Restrictions on the Deep Injection of Hazardous Waste 8
Both cases of known USDW contamination from Class IH injection wells (Tenneco
Refinery #1, Chalmette, LA, 1980 and Velsicol Chemical #1, near Beaumont, TX, 1975)
occurred prior to the existence of the UIC program and had the same cause. Both wells
were constructed without tubing and packer and without surface casing set to protect all
USDWs. Corrosion of the long-string casing (the only layer of protection) allowed the unob-
served leakage of wastes to USDWs. The contamination was limited to within 100 feet of the
wellbore, and both aquifers were cleaned up using pump-and-treat methods. Later, both
injection wells were plugged. UIC regulations would have never allowed this method of
completion for Class IH wells, but rather require three redundant layers of protection: surface
casing set and cemented through all USDWs, cemented long-string casing, and tubing with a
packer or an equivalent. These levels of protection and the requirement for continuous
annulus pressure (i.e., mechanical integrity) monitoring would make these cases of contamina-
tion impossible today.
Class I injection wells were suspected as the cause of USDW contamination near Erie,
PA (Hammermill Paper wells, 1972). It was suspected (but not proven) that the increase in
injection zone pressure attributable to the wells caused waste or formation fluid to move up
an unplugged well to a USDW. The unplugged well was five miles from the injectors, and no
contamination was found at the injection site. The wells were plugged in 1972.
Current UIC regulations require that the pressure effects of an injection well be
addressed. Also, in an area where injection pressures are found to be sufficient to cause
migration to a USDW, the operator is required to identify and evaluate all artificial penetra-
tions of the confining zone. Furthermore, the Land Disposal Restrictions Regulation (40 CFR
148) requires a detailed analysis of the fate and transport of the injected waste, and an
evaluation of its potential for confinement in the injection zone for 10,000 years. Given the
relatively shallow injection zone of the Hammermill wells, it is highly unlikely that the
petitions for these wells would have been approved.
EPA studies also indicate that hazardous waste leakage into non-USDWs occurred at
eight facilities between 1975 and 1984. Most of these incidents occurred prior to the
implementation of State UIC programs and were relatively minor leaks in the area immediate-
ly adjacent to the wellbore. The incidents were caused by tubing and casing corrosion and
were detected or confirmed by mechanical integrity tests (MITs). The most notable of these
cases (Chem Waste Management, six wells, Vickery, Ohio, 1983) involved the unobserved
deterioration of the long-string casing in wells without packers (for which continuous annulus
pressure monitoring cannot be performed). Current UIC regulations require either a packer
or a system that allows comparable protection and capability for continuous monitoring of
mechanical integrity. In each case, the construction, monitoring, and MIT requirements of the
current regulations would have either prevented the observed failure or detected its
occurrence in time to prevent significant leakage.
In addition to these cases, there have been two incidents of well blowouts which
resulted in soil contamination at the surface. In both cases, the cause of the blowout was
CO2 gas generated in the injection zone due to incompatibility of the waste with the forma-
tion. Both occurred prior to the implementation of a UIC program in the State. Current UIC
regulations require that an operator demonstrate the compatibility of the waste with the
-------
Analysis of the Effects of EPA Restrictions on the Deep Injection of Hazardous Waste i
materials of well construction and with the injection formation. The regulations also require
the operator to demonstrate the capability for emergency shut-in in case of well failure or in
response to conditions such as those encountered.
1.6 Class m Wells Are Safer than Virtually All Other Waste Disposal Practices
The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (OSWER) prepared a study which
evaluated the relative risks posed by many waste management practices.8 The study ranked
risks from these different practices based on:
acute exposure health risks,
chronic health risks from acute events,
other health risks (such as cancer risks),
groundwater sources affected,
welfare effects, and
ecological risks.
The study found that Class IH wells are safer than virtually all other waste disposal
practices. According to the study, high-risk disposal practices include municipal landfills,
hazardous waste storage tanks, and land disposal of hazardous waste. Medium-risk activities
include transportation of hazardous materials, municipal waste combustion, and Superfund
sites. Hazardous waste injection falls into the low-risk category, along with ocean dumping
and ocean incineration.
2.0 EPA PROMULGATED REGULATIONS TO MEET CONGRESSIONAL MANDATES
Part C of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) of 1974 required EPA to develop a
program, called the UIC program, to protect USDWs. The SDWA mandated that EPA:
publish minimum technical requirements for State UIC programs;
* approve or disapprove State programs based on whether they meet the minimum
technical requirements;
oversee UIC program implementation by States that run their own programs; and
administer programs in States that do not have approved programs.
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, OSWER Comparative Risk Project Executive
Summary and Ovcnieu' (OSWER). U.S. EPA, Washington. D.C. ICEPA/540/1-B9/003, November
1989
-------
Analysis of the Effects of EPA Restrictions on the Deep Injection of Hazardous Waste 10
2.1 UIC Class m Regulations
EPA believes that the initial UIC regulations passed in 1980 were sufficiently stringent
to protect USDWs,9 However, the Agency gained experience and knowledge from imple-
menting and overseeing UIC programs, to a 1985 Report to Congress on Class IH wells,10
EPA identified ways to make the original regulations even more protective without being
unnecessarily burdensome.
to 1986, EPA assembled a Regulatory Negotiation committee consisting of representa-
tives from industry, State and Federal regulatory agencies, and environmental groups. The
committee carefully considered both the technical and economic impacts of EPA's proposed
regulatory changes to the Class IH program, and the Agency used their findings in developing
the final regulation. The more stringent technical requirements were promulgated in July
1988."
The regulations applicable to Class IH wells are described in 40 CFR 124, 144, 145,
146, and 148. They require that all Class I injection wells have a permit to operate and that
they meet all applicable administrative and technical criteria set forth in the regulations.
Administrative requirements include reporting and financial responsibility requirements.
Technical criteria include siting, construction, operating, testing, monitoring, closure, and
post-closure requirements.
2.2 Regulations Preventing Contamination from Class IH Wells
The Class IH technical requirements were designed to control the Class IH contamina-
tion pathways. Controls for each contamination pathway are listed in 40 CFR 146 and are
also summarized below:
Controls to prevent well failure
* Well materials must be compatible with wastes they are likely to contact.
Operators are required to conduct corrosion monitoring;
» Wells must be adequately cased and cemented to protect USDWs and isolate
the injection zone;
The long-string casing, injection tubing, and annular seal must be pressure-
tested at least annually, and whenever there is a well workover. The bottom-
hole cement must be tested annually by a radioactive tracer survey (RTS). Also,
a test for fluid movement along the bore hole must be conducted at least once
'53 FR 28131.
10U.S. EPA, Report to Congress, p. 1-2.
"53FR28118etseq.
-------
Analysis of the Effects of EPA Restrictions on the Deep Injection of Hazardous Waste 11
every five years using a noise, temperature, or other EPA-approved logging
method. Finally, for certain Class I wells, casing inspection logs must be
maintained. These logs are predictive tools to assess developing weaknesses in
the well's casing;
The operator must install and use continuous recording devices to monitor
waste injection pressure, flow rate, and temperature. He must also install and
use an automatic alarm and shut-down system designed to alert the operator
and shut-in the well when pressures, flow rates, or other parameters exceed
the allowable limits; and
If the well is automatically shut down, the operator must identify whether
mechanical integrity was lost. A well has mechanical integrity if there is no
significant leak in the casing, tubing, or packer and if there is no significant
fluid movement through channels adjacent to the well bore outside of the
injection interval. If loss of mechanical integrity is found during an automatic
shutdown or during routine MIT, the operator must notify EPA, cease injecting
fluids, and perform the well workover and remediation plan specified by the
Director.
Controls to prevent fluid migration up improperly plugged wells that penetrate
the confining zone
The operator must identify all wells within a two-mile radius of the well bore.
In some cases a larger area of review (AOR) may be required if pressure
analysis shows that the injection well has a greater pressure radius of influence;
All wells in the AOR must be examined to determine whether they are ade-
quately completed or plugged, or that there is no potential for fluid movement,
hence waste movement up the abandoned well;
A description of each well and any records of its plugging or completion must
be submitted to EPA; and
A remediation plan must be submitted for wells that EPA determines arc
improperly plugged, completed or abandoned, or for which plugging or
completion information is inadequate. The plan must consist of steps or
modifications that will be taken to ensure that fluids will not move up the
wells. The plan will be a condition of the permit.
Controls to prevent fluid migration through faults or fractured confining strata
Wells must be completed such that the injection zone which receives the waste-
is confined above and below by an impermeable confining zone;
-------
Analysis of the Effects of EPA Restrictions on the Deep Injection of Hazardous Waste 12
* Injection pressure must be controlled so that new fractures are not created or
propagated in the injection zone or the confining formation;
* The confining zone must be laterally continuous and free of faults and trans-
missive fractures;
« The waste must be chemically compatible with the confining zone, so that
dissolution of the confining zone rock does not allow waste to migrate out of
die injection zone; and
* The operator must conduct an annual pressure transient test to measure any
changes in reservoir characteristics and the pressure increase in the reservoir
over time.
Controls to prevent lateral displacement of fluids
» The injection zone must have sufficient permeability, porosity, thickness, and
areal extent to prevent fluid movement into USDWs; and
* Information must be provided by the operator on faults, the continuity of
injection and confining zones, and the proximity of USDWs to the injection
well.
2.3 States Have a Role in Protecting USDWs
After EPA promulgated UIC technical regulations, States were required to adopt
regulations that met or exceeded the minimum technical criteria. If State regulations were
found to be adequate, the State would be granted permitting and enforcement responsibility,
or primacy, for the various classes of wells. If a State did not adopt minimum federal regula-
tions, EPA was required to implement the program for the State. Thirty-five States and
territories have received primacy for Class I programs. EPA implements Class I programs in
the remaining twenty-two States and territories, including the District of Columbia.
States oversee well operators and EPA conducts oversight reviews of the States to
ensure that program requirements are met. Well operators document their adherence to
regulations and permit conditions in monthly or quarterly reports. Class IH waste injection
well facilities must be inspected by EPA or the State annually. EPA regional staff visit State
program offices at least annually and require States to submit non-compliance reports
quarterly. The reports describe any operator noncompliance with UIC regulations and permit
conditions. They also describe actions States have taken to ensure compliance.
-------
Analysis of the Effects of EPA Restrictions on the Deep Injection of Hazardous Waste 13
3.0 CONGRESS BANNED HAZARDOUS WASTE INJECTION EXCEPT WHERE PROTEC-
TION OF HUMAN HEALTH AND THE ENVIRONMENT IS ENSURED
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), as amended by the Hazardous
and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984, requires EPA to promulgate regulations
identifying hazardous waste and establishing requirements for those who generate, transport,
treat, store, or dispose of it.
The 1984 RCRA amendments ban the land disposal of hazardous wastes, including
wastes managed by underground injection, unless:
the waste is treated to reduce concentrations of constituents below hazardous
levels or operators use treatment methods specified by the EPA; or
the operator demonstrates that the waste will not migrate from the injection zone
as long as the waste remains hazardous.
4.0 EPA ESTABLISHED A RIGOROUS PROCESS TO DEMONSTRATE PROTECTIVENESS
EPA promulgated standards in Jury 1988 describing how the no-migration condition
could be successfully demonstrated (40 CFR Part 148). EPA requires operators to show that
waste will remain totally confined in the injection zone for at least 10,000 years. Alternatively,
operators may demonstrate that the waste will decompose or otherwise be attenuated in the
injection zone so that it is no longer hazardous. Exhibit V is a flow chart of the petition
review process.
4.1 Operators Submit Extensive Information on the Well and the Site
Currently, operators submit petitions directly to the EPA Regions. The Regions have
been given complete authority to approve or disapprove petition submittals. Each petition is
a complex technical analysis of every aspect of the well and consists of several volumes which
describe:
Well construction, monitoring, and operation;
The types, amounts, and processes which generate the waste injected into the well;
Local and regional geology, and hydrogeology;
Descriptions of any "potential points of discharge" from the injection zone, such as
faults or other penetrations which might enable waste to migrate out of the
injection zone; and
Mathematical models demonstrating that the waste will not migrate from the
injection zone into underground sources of drinking water.
-------
Analysts of the Effects of EPA Restrictions on the Deep Injection of Hazardous Waste
14
Exhibit V
EPA's No-Migration
Petition Review Process!
EPA Regional office
r&c&vss petition
EPA preparas proposed
approval notice
Petition reviewed
for completeness
£PA reviews petition with additional
technical support from primacy States;
permit modification occurs concurrently
with petition review, if needed
hfPA's
draft decision to approve
petition?
EPA Issues public notice ol draft decision;
public comment period begins
Operator submits
additional iniormstion
\
Public comment period doses
ffffean days after hearing
Public hearing Is held thirty
days after draft decision
\
CPA responds to significant comments
Irompub/ic notice and hearing and mates
final determination to accept or deny petition
final decision is published
in the Federal Register
-------
Analysis of the Effects of EPA Restrictions on the Deep Injection of Hazardous Waste 15
Models used in the petitions are mathematical simulations of waste movement and
decomposition in the subsurface. The models must be "appropriate for the specific site,
waste streams, and injection conditions of the operation."12 The models must use "conserva-
tive values" to predict worst-case scenarios and to "analyze the effect that significant uncertain-
ty may contribute to the demonstration."13
4.2 Models are an Effective Method for Predicting Waste Migration
Although environmental groups and some researchers have questioned whether
modeling can accurately predict waste migration in the subsurface over the next 10,000 years,
EPA, the States, and many scientific experts believe that modeling can be accurately used for
the purpose intended in the UIC program. First, EPA notes that modeling does not have to
determine the exact location of the waste in 10,000 years, only where the waste will not
migrate.14 Second, the type of fluid-flow modeling used in the no-migration petition
demonstrations is considered to be a "well developed and mature science" and that similar
modeling has been "used for many years in the petroleum industry."15 Third, the modeling
and its application to predicting Class I waste fate and transport were approved by EPA's
Science Advisory Board, a group of independent scientists who advise EPA on scientific
issues.16 Finally, the use of models in regulatory decision-making has precedents in other
EPA programs and in the Department of Energy (DOE). EPA uses waste migration and fate
models in the Superfund and RCRA programs. DOE has developed similar models for the
nuclear waste isolation program.
4.3 EPA Successfully Defended Legal Challenges to the UIC Land Ban
Regulations
Both the Chemical Manufacturers Association representing numerous Class I operators
and the Natural Resources Defence Council (NRDC) and others challenged specific issues
involving EPA's Class I petition process in court. Operators argued that the petition process
was unreasonably stringent, whereas NRDC argued that the "no-migration" standard using
"hazardous levels" of waste constituents demonstrated in the petition was not stringent
enough. In both cases the court upheld EPA's use and interpretation of the "no-migration"
standard, and therefore the regulations were upheld as promulgated.
"40 CFR 148.21(3).
1340CFR 148.21.
U53 FR 28126.
1553 FR 28127.
"52 FR 32446
-------
Analysis of the Effects of EPA Restrictions on the Deep Infection of Hazardous Waste 16
4.4 EPA Regional Offices Coordinate Petition Review
As previously mentioned, Regional EPA offices decide whether a petition should be
approved or denied. Petitions from operators in UIC primacy States are also reviewed by the
State's UIC program and other appropriate State agencies in addition to EPA Regional staff.
Petitions from non-primacy States are reviewed only by Regional personnel, though States are
kept informed about the progress of the petitions. EPA Headquarters has the responsibility
of assuring that petitions are subjected to equitable review by the various Regions. Both the
Regions and Headquarters provide written and verbal guidance to help operators prepare and
submit petitions.
4.5 Several People Review Each Petition
EPA uses the "team management" approach to review Class IH petitions, which means
that many technical staff members may review a single petition. The strengths of this
approach are that each part of a petition is reviewed by a specialist, complicated parts of the
petitions are reviewed several times, and issues that require "best professional judgement" are
resolved by pooling the experience of several people.
4.6 Local and Regional Geology and Hydrogeology are Reviewed by EPA
A geologist reviews information about the construction, operation, maintenance, and
compliance history of the well. The geologist also evaluates descriptions of local and regional
geology by reviewing core data, scientific literature, pressure test results, and seismic profiles
to look for evidence of faults or fractures which may compromise the integrity of the
confining zone. Local seismic activity is evaluated to determine whether fluid injection into
the proposed formation has any potential to cause an earthquake that would result in a
release of waste. The geologist evaluates the chemical compatibility of the waste with the
well construction materials, and with the injection and confining zone rock and fluids. Finally,
the petitioner's quality control/quality assurance plan is reviewed to verify that it meets EPA
guidelines for all aspects of the demonstration.
Information on artificial penetrations in the area of review is thoroughly studied by
EPA to ensure that no migration will occur through unplugged man-made conduits from the
injection zone into USDWs. Such conduits include water wells and oil and gas exploration
and production wells. The method used to search for all artificial penetrations, both wells
currently in use and wells abandoned from past production and exploration, is also assessed.
For each abandoned well found, the petitioner must either demonstrate conclusively that the
well was properly plugged or that the weD will not act as a conduit for wastes to enter
USDWs.
4.7 The Petition Model is Evaluated
The modeling expert is responsible for ensuring that the petitioner validated and
calibrated the model and performed sensitivity analysis on the assumptions. This person also
ensures that the petitioner selected a model that takes into account all significant processes
that affect waste mobility and transformation, and that is sensitive to subsurface processes.
-------
Analysis of the Effects of EPA Restrictions on tbe Deep Injection of Hazardous Waste 17
The modeler has to evaluate the accuracy of the model's predictions compared to actual
conditions at the site. Assumptions that were used in the model are evaluated to make sure
the petitioner chose conservative assumptions which predict "worst-case" scenarios. The
model is analyzed to identify the most important input parameters, and the parameters are
evaluated over a wide range of possible values. This sensitivity analysis presents a spectrum
of least-to-worse case scenarios and evaluates the reasonableness of the operator's technical
data.
4.8 Operators Must Correct Petition Deficiencies
As the petition is reviewed, a list of any deficiencies, noted by Regional and State
reviewers is compiled. A "notice of deficiency" (NOD) is then sent to the petitioner. Each
deficiency must be corrected before the petition review can be completed. Petitioners may
receive two, three, or more notices of deficiency before a decision is made on their petition.
The well's UIC permit is reviewed and modified as needed. The permit conditions
must be consistent with conditions described in the petition. For example, if the permit
allows more waste to be injected into the formation than that modeled in the petition, then
the permit is modified to limit injection to the amount modeled.
If the petition deficiencies cannot be addressed by the operator, or if the petition
review shows that migration of waste to USDWs might occur, EPA notifies the petitioner that
it plans to deny the petition. Generally, EPA allows the petitioner to withdraw the petition.
Twenty out of 51 petitions have been voluntarily withdrawn. If an operator refuses to
withdraw an inadequate petition, EPA will formally deny the petition in the Federal Register,
No petition has been formally denied as of August 1, 1991.
4.9 The Public Participates in the Decision Process
EPA publishes a draft notice of its decision to approve or deny a petition usually 30
days before the Agency offers a public hearing on the petition. The public is given 45 days
from publication of the draft notice to comment on the proposed petition decision. EPA must
respond to all significant comments. Generally, the public hearing is held in the well opera-
tor's community. When the final decision is made for a petition, a notice is published in the
Federal Register, and the petitioner is sent a letter outlining the conditions of the decision.
These may include the type and amount of waste that can be Injected, limitations of injection
pressure, or other technical considerations. If new information that contradicts the informa-
tion in the petition comes to light after an approval is granted, or if the petitioner does not
abide by the conditions of the permit or petition approval, EPA can exercise its authority to
revoke petition approval.17 In addition, there arc procedures to modify or reissue no
migration petitions if information by the operator is changed.
I740FR 148.24
-------
Analysis of the Effects of EPA Restrictions on the Deep Injection of Hazardous Waste 18
5.0 RESULTS OF THE PETmON PROCESS
Of the 95 Class IH facilities operating in the late 1970s before Class IH regulations
were promulgated and before the land disposal restrictions petition process was established,
68 petitions were filed, and 28 operators did not file. (See Exhibit VI.) Note that one facility
submitted both a waste transformation and a no migration petition; therefore, the number of
petitions filed is one greater than the number of facilities.
5.1 EPA Spends an Average of One Person-Year Reviewing Each Petition
EPA Regional and State UIC staff perform an exhaustive review of each petition. The
States and Regions devote substantial attention to the review of each petition, expending an
average of approximately one-person year on each. In most cases, Regions commit several
professionals full-time to this review. The level of effort devoted to review of the Class I
petitions demonstrates EPA's serious commitment to protection of USDWs.
Since the Class I wells are concentrated in just a few areas of the U.S., some Regions
accepted more of the petition review burden than others. Region VI, for example, has more
wells than Regions IV, V, and VII combined. For almost a year Region VI had sixteen full-time
staff members reviewing the petitions. EPA Regions IV and V dedicated a large number of
UIC staff for petition review as well.
5.2 Well Operators Spend an Average of $343,000 per Petition
Well operators were surveyed to determine die cost of preparing complete petitions.
Most operators hired technical consultants to prepare the petition. Operators reported
contractor cost only; they typically did not include internal company time spent on the
petition review. Thus, the costs cited here are lower limits. Of the 35 operators who
prepared complete petitions, 33 provided cost information. They reported that the average
amount spent to prepare each petition was $343,000. The range was $50,000 to $1,200,000
with a mode of $290,000.
The cost of the petitions exceeded EPA's expectations. In a Regulatory Impact Analysis
prepared before the petition process was finalized, EPA assumed that petitions would only
describe fluid migration and transformation. However, permit issues from 40 CFR 146 were
raised (such as siting, construction, monitoring, reporting, and testing) which increased
petition costs. Also, EPA did not realize that operators would spend substantial amounts of
money responding to repeated notices of deficiency before a final decision could be made on
a petition.
Petitions typically consist of several full three-ring binders containing thousands of
pages of detailed technical information. A petition for a single facility may take up to two to
three feet of shelf space. These extensive petitions reflect detailed, rigorous analysis of migra-
tion potential. It is very apparent that the operators took the petition process very seriously,
as demonstrated by the cost they applied to each petition.
-------
Exhibit VI
Number of Facilities that Filed and
Did Not File No-Migration Petitions
CO
o
2
Q.
O
H~
o
v_
0>
E
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
_
Non-Filers
-------
Analysis of the Effects of EPA Restrictions on the Deep Injection of Hazardous Waste 20
5.3 Changes in Waste Management Practices
Of the 36 former Class IH facilities that withdrew or did not submit petitions (see
Exhibit VII):18
20 now inject only non-hazardous fluids;
11 are plugged and abandoned; and
5 are temporarily abandoned.
While all of these changes were not a result of the Class I petition process, it is reasonable to
conclude that some of these changes in waste handling were a direct outcome of the
regulations.
The petition process may have selectively eliminated Class I disposal activities, allowing
only highly sound Class I disposal operations to continue. Several Class I disposal facilities
withdrew or did not submit petitions because they may not have met meet minimum federal
standards for 40 CFR 146 and 148.
Facilities that withdrew or did not submit petitions have changed their hazardous
waste management practices in the following ways (see Exhibit VIII):
13 are no longer generating the hazardous waste;
2 now ship the hazardous waste off-site;
14 treat their waste on-site so that it is no longer hazardous; and
7 have closed their Class I facilities entirely.
Although it is not clear to what degree, the Class I petition process can be presumed to have
reduced the amount of hazardous waste produced. Some injectors chose to eliminate their
hazardous waste stream entirely, while others chose alternative disposal methods. The more
stringent regulations have resulted in safer operating wells, more monitoring, and stricter
controls.
'"This does not include two operators that are currently injecting hazardous waste without
petition approval because they have received an extension from HPA.
-------
Exhibit VII
Class IH Well Status for Former Class IH Facilities
that Withdrew or Did Not Submit Petitions
O
+_
CO
0
30
25
2°
CL
O
*- 15
O
Q)
10
0
Non-Hazardous
Plugged & Abandoned
Well Status
Temporarily Abandoned
-------
Exhibit VIII
Hazardous Waste Disposal Practices of Facilities
that Withdrew or Did Not Submit Petitions
Treat On-Site
Ship Off-Site
2 (5%)
No Longer Generating
13 (38%)
Facility Closed
7 (19%)
-------
Analysis of the Effects of EPA Restrictions on the Deep Injection of Hazardous Waste 25
9.4 Most Operators Who Submitted a Petition Successfully Demonstrated No
Migration
Most facilities that submitted petitions were able to demonstrate no migration (see
Exhibit EC):
* 36 facilities have had their petitions approved;
20 of the facilities that initially submitted a petition later withdrew; and
* 14 petitions are still pending.19
6.0 CONCLUSIONS
EPA has taken a strong protective stand to assure that USDWs are not endangered in
the short-term (i.e. life of the well and UIC permit) or the long term (i.e. 10,000 years). First,
EPA has strengthened the Class I operating regulations found in 40 CFR Part 146. EPA
required operators to submit petitions that would demonstrate that waste will not migrate
from the injection zone for as long as the waste remains hazardous.
Operators who submitted petitions performed expensive and thorough technical
analysis of every facet of their injection operation. It is clear from the level of effort and
expertise applied to the petition review process that EPA performed a very careful and rigor-
ous review of the petitions.
Overall, the number of Class IH injection facilities has decreased from 95 to 51 from
the period right before Class IH regulations were promulgated until now. In addition, the
volume of hazardous wastes injected has been reduced from 11.5 billion gallons in 1983 to 9
billion gallons in 1990. This reduction in hazardous wastes injected is due at least in part to
the Class I Hazardous Waste Restrictions. The Class IH wells that continue to operate today
are subject to strict technical requirements, and have been evaluated by a rigorous, compre-
hensive process that ensures that they do not endanger underground sources of drinking
water.
"This includes an operator of a non-hazardous well that may inject hazardous waste in the
future.
-------
CO
c
o
(D
CL
:9 2>
s?
UJ O
o
CO
'>i;i':S3fef'?»^ '^>;^W"::' ^
i^^^'^j's''^^!^
i
s
CO
o O
D-
T3
V
I
Q.
Q.
<
o
CO
-------
REFERENCES
Engineering Enterprises, Inc., Class I Hazardous Waste Injection Wells Evaluation ofNon-
CompUance Incidents, prepared for the U.S. EPA, Office of Drinking Water, UIC
Contract No. 68-01-7011, 1986.
CHZMHill, Class I Injection Well Survey-Phase I Report: Survey of Selected Sites, prepared for
the Underground Injection Practices Council, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 1986.
W. Gordon and J. Bloom, Deeper Problems; Limits to Underground Injection as a Hazardous
Waste Disposal Method, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., New York, N.Y.
Hazardous Waste: Controls Over Injection Well Disposal Operations, U.S. General Account-
ing Office, August 1987.
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, OSWER Comparative Risk Project: Executive
Summary and Overview (OSWER), U.S. EPA, Washington, D.C. #EPA/540/1-89/003,
November 1989.
"Underground Injection Control Program; Hazardous Waste Disposal Injection Restrictions
and Requirements for Class I Wells; Final Rule," (40 CFR Parts 124, 144, 146, and 148),
Federal Register. July 26, 1988.
U.S. EPA, Report to Congress on the Injection of Hazardous Waste, EPA 570/9-85-003, May
1985.
U.S. General Accounting Office, Hazardous Waste: Controls Over Injection Well Disposal
Operations, Report to the Chairman, Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources
Subcommittee, Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives,
August 1987.
40 CFR Parts 100 To 149, Code of Federal Regulations. July 1, 1990.
------- |