&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Water
Washington DC 20460
December 1988
EPA 570/9-89-003
Underground Injection
Control Program
Annual Report
Waste Plumes from Two Injection Wells,
Waste Front Plotted for 1, 5, 10 and 40 Years.
300
-300
-300-200-100 0 100 200 30C
Meters
5000-
FEET
DSDW
_AOUITARD
QVEBLYING
AQUIFER
CONFINING
ZONE
"INJECTION
- ZONE
INJECTION
INTERVAL
Figure i. Deep injection well for hazardous wastes.
-------
Cover design: illustration of injection well from "Waste
Confinement Performance of Deep Injection Wells" by David S.
Ward., et al, NWWA, 1787; illustration of waste plumes,, by
David W. Morganwalp, U.S. EPA.
-------
UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM
ANNUAL REPORT
DECEMBER 1988
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Water
Office of Drinking Water
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
I. BACKGROUND 1
A. STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BASIS FOR THE PROGRAM ... 1
1. SDWA and UIC Regulations 1
2. SDWA and RCRA Interface 2
3. Status of UIC Programs 3
B. THE REGULATED UNIVERSE 5
C. FY 1987 PROGRAM OBJECTIVES AND PRIORITIES 6
II. FY 1987 PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS 7
A. EPA OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES 7
1. State Audits 7
2. Peer Reviews 9
3. Mid-Year Evaluations 9
B. DATA MANAGEMENT 9
1. Data Awareness Training 10
2. Increased Noncompliance Reporting 10
3. Administrative Order Tracking System 10
C. REGULATION OF THE UIC UNIVERSE 11
1. Testing the Mechanical Integrity of Wells 11
2. Permit Determinations 12
3. Review of Existing Permit Files 13
D. DEVELOPMENT OF A COMPREHENSIVE UIC 13
ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
1. Expansion of EPA's Authority 13
2. Timely and Appropriate Enforcement 14
3. Noncompliance other than Significant 16
4. Field Inspections 17
E. PROGRAM ENHANCEMENT 18
1. Assessment of Class V Wells 18
2. Response to HSWA Amendments 19
3. Assessment of Alternative Mechanical 20
Integrity Tests
4. Dissemination of Technical Guidance 20
F. 1987, THE YEAR OF TRANSITION 25
-------
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Page
Figure 1: Delegated Programs Vs 3
EPA Implementation (Number of Programs)
Table 1: Regulated Injection Wells in the US 4
Figure 2: Delegated Programs Vs 5
EPA Implementation (Number of Wells)
Figure 3: Distribution of Class II Wells 6
Figure 4: Mechanical Integrity Test 7
Figure 5: Deep Well Disposal 19
Table 2: Mechanical Integrity Tests Reviewed, 21
Or under Review
-------
I. BACKGROUND
A. STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BASIS FOR THE PROGRAM
1. The Safe Drinking Water Act and UIC Regulations
The Underground-Injection Control (UIC) program was
established under Part C of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
to protect underground sources of drinking water (USDWs) from
endangerment by subsurface emplacement of fluids through wells.
Part C of the SDWA requires EPA to:
a. Identify the States for which the UIC programs may be
necessary—EPA listed all States and jurisdictions;
b. Promulgate regulations establishing minimum
requirements for State programs which:
• prohibit underground injection that has not been
authorized by permit or by rule;
require applicants for permits to demonstrate that
underground injection will not endanger USDWs; and
include inspection, monitoring, recordkeeping, and
reporting requirements. These requirements are
contained in 40 CFR Parts 144, 145 and 146.
c. Prescribe by regulation a program applicable to the
States, in cases where States cannot or will not assume
primary enforcement responsibility. These direct
implementation (DI) programs are codified in 40 CFR
Part 147.
The regulations define five classes of wells:
Class I - injection of municipal or industrial waste
(including hazardous waste) below the deepest
USDW;
Class II - injection related to oil and gas production;
Class III - injection for mineral recovery;
Class IV - injection of hazardous or radioactive waste
into or above a USDW; and
-------
-2-
Class V - all injection practices not included in the
other four groups.
In December 1980, Congress amended the SDWA to allow States
to demonstrate the effectiveness of their in-place regulatory
programs for Class II wells, in lieu of demonstrating that they
met the minimum requirements specified in the UIC regulations.
.(Section 1425). Later amendments to the SDWA gave EPA the
authority to issue administrative orders, required EPA to assess
and submit a report to Congress on Class V wells and to
promulgate regulations for underground injection practices on
Indian lands.
2. SDWA and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act fRCRM
Interface
Class I wells which are used to inject hazardous waste must
have authorization under both the Safe Drinking Water Act and
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). RCRA banned
all disposal of hazardous waste in other than approved hazardous
waste management facilities after October 1980. Although the
UIC program under SDWA regulates the injection well below the
wellhead, all Class I wells that inject hazardous waste must
also be lawfully authorized under RCRA (through permit-by-rule
or interim status) and meet associated requirements. The
amendments to RCRA enacted through the Hazardous and Solid Waste
Amendments (HSWA) of 1984 contain two provisions of particular
significance to the UIC program.
First, any RCRA permit issued after November 8, 1984 must
require corrective action for any prior and continuing release
of hazardous waste or hazardous constituent from any solid waste
management unit located at the facility. In order to fulfill
these requirements, for any well which received a UIC permit
after November 8, 1984, the primacy agency must determine; a)
the number of wells at the facility, b) whether releases of
hazardous wastes or constituents have occurred ; c) whether the
facility can demonstrate financial assurance of the estimated
cost of any corrective action; and d) that corrective action is
performed as appropriate.
Second, HSWA specifically prohibited the continued land
disposal of untreated hazardous waste beyond specified dates,
unless the Administrator determines that the prohibition is not
required in order to protect human health and the environment
-------
-3-
for as long as the wastes remain hazardous. The Agency proposed
regulations implementing these provisions on August 27, 1987.
The proposal sets out the standards by which owners and
operators can continue to inject untreated hazardous wastes.
The first effective date for the land ban provisions affecting
injection well is August 8, 1988.
RCRA and the HSWA amendments affect a total of 83 hazardous
waste management facilities with 192 (181 active) Class I
hazardous waste (HW) wells regulated under the UIC program; over
half of -the facilities (49) are regulated by Texas and Louisiana
alone and contain 73 percent (132 wells) of all Class I HW
wells.
-
3. Status of UIC State Programs
By 1987, UIC regulations had been in place for at least two
years in all States and jurisdictions, except some Indian
Lands. Thirty-four States had primacy over all injection
practices, six shared primacy with EPA, and 17 States had
Federally-administered programs.
DELEGATED PROGRAMS VS EPA IMPLEMENTATION
PRIMACY PROGRAMS-40
EPA PROGRAMS-25
td^^^V^^^^^^^^^^^^^fitttiH^s^^^HpfV^^^H^^^^^^K —-.—--.
Figure 1
# PROGRAMS
The national program office had begun two separate regulatory
processes: one to establish criteria under which an Indian Tribe
might obtain primacy over injection wells under its
-------
TABLE 1
REGULATED INJECTION WELLS IN THE U.S.: 297,371
34 States Have Primacy
All Injection
Six
Practices:
Number
of Wells
New Hampshire 47
Massachusetts 100
Maine 18
Connecticut 172
Vermont 1
Rhode Island 34
New Jersey 1,279
Delaware 29
Maryland 887
West Virginia 870
Alabama 437
North Carolina 95
Georgia 17
South Carolina 150
Ohio 6,341
Wisconsin 149
Illinois 16,320
Oklahoma 22,815
New Mexico -5,234
Texas 71,722
Louisiana 4 , 705
Arkansas 1,289
Nebraska 1,081
Kansas 16,014
Missouri 1,336
Wyoming 8,711
Utah 781
North Dakota
Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Isl.
Guam 282
Idaho 2,364
Washington 13,999
Oregon 10,514
Nevada 328
(expected FY 1988)
Share Primacy
With EPA
Florida
Mississippi
Colorado
South Dakota
California
Alaska
Number
of Wells
7,368
1,099
1,145
95
19,863
3,013
Two Indian larris Have
l l—
Pr
t-M-LCUIB
Osage
Mineral
Reserve (OK)
Navajo Lands
4,490
509
17 States Have
Federallv—
Programs
Puerto Rico
New York
Virgin Isl.
Dist. of Col.
Pennsylvania
Virginia
Tennessee
Kentucky
Indiana
Minnesota
Michigan
Iowa
Montana
Arizona
American Samoa
Trust Territories
Hawaii
Number
of Wells
2,223
5,680
71
-0-
7,201
1,867
57
5,928
4,788
2,122
6,135
262
6,530
24,810
-0-
-0-
328
DISTRIBUTION OF INJECTION WELLS
ALL OTHER
CLASS I. Ill AND V
CLASS II WELL
Figure 2
-------
-5-
jurisdiction, and one to promulgate Federally-administered
programs for all Indian Tribes who would not or could not assume
primacy.
B. THE REGULATED UNIVERSE
In 1987, the national UIC program well inventory numbered
close to 300,000 injection wells. States had primary enforcement
authority over approximately 73 percent of these wells.
DELEGATED PROGRAMS VS EPA IMPLEMENTATION
# OF INJECTION WELLS
300000
250000 -
CLASS II WELLS
CLASS I.III.V WELLS
Figure 3
PRIMACY STATES EPA PROGRAMS
Over half,(168,394) of all regulated injection practices
were active Class II wells. Most of them were located in the
oil and gas production States of Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas and
Illinois; these States each reported more than 14,000 active
Class II wells.
Class V wells constituted the next largest number of wells,
however, their actual number is unknown. During 1987, EPA
identified 173,159 wells in the Report to Congress but the
Agency and States had not completed an all inclusive inventory
of these practices.
-------
-6-
In all, there were 558 Class I wells in the EPA inventory of
which 192 were classified as hazardous waste wells. Most Class
I hazardous waste wells were located in Texas (76) followed by
Louisiana (56).
Class III wells, associated with mining activity, numbered
19,604 at 263 facilities. Most wells were located in Texas
(17,285) followed by Wyoming (871) and Arizona (484).
Class IV injection wells are banned by the UIC regulations
(and RCRA if they are used to inject hazardous waste) except for
wells associated with aquifer remediation under approved CERCLA
or RCRA clean-up plans. There were 21 temporarily abandoned
Class IV wells in 1987. Fourteen of these wells were
radioactive waste dipsosal wells in the State of Washington.
None of these wells were being used to inject wastes.
DISTRIBUTION OF CLASS'II WELLS
4 MAJOR STATES
ALL OTHER
228oo
IL 14500
KS 14900
Figure 4
37%
ALL OTHER 62560
% WELL DISTRIBUTION
C. PROGRAM OBJECTIVES AND PRIORITIES
In the FY 1987 operating guidance, the Agency stated that
the goal of the UIC program was to "assure the effective
-------
-7-
implementation of high quality direct implementation and primacy
programs." The guidance identified three objectives for the
program:
Objective I: Assure that programs conform to applicable
regulations and program'descriptions
Objective II: Assure that reporting is accurate and used for
management purposes
Objective III: Assure that EPA and primacy States take timely
and appropriate action to resolve instances of
significant noncompliance
In addition, the Guidance contained a list of priority
activities for the program from which three other major
objectives emerged:
Objective IV: Vigourously control land disposal of hazardous
waste by injection wells
Objective V: Establish a strong comprehensive enforcement
program not limited to significant noncompliance
Objective VI: Initiate program enhancement
The following report examines the program's accomplishments
in achieving these objectives and priorities.
II. FY 1987 PROGRAM ACCOMPLISHMENTS
A. OVERSIGHT ACTIVITIES
As stated above, the first objective of the program was to
assure that State and EPA Regional programs conformed to
applicable regulations and program regulations. To accomplish
this objective the Program undertook the following activities:
1. State Audits
The Headquarters UIC Program Office and various Regional
Offices participated in joint evaluations of the Kansas, Texas
and California 1425 programs. Each evaluation was conducted as
a cooperative effort between the Regional Office and
-------
-8-
Headquarters with the Region functioning as the lead. The
Reviewers used an informal agenda and a State evaluation
guidebook. All major program elements were reviewed and
discussed with emphasis on permitting, file reviews, mechanical
integrity, enforcement,and inspections, data management, public
outreach, plugging and abandoment and resource need and staffing
pattern. The forum for discussion was informal allowing input
from all participants. Finally, the visiting team developed a
report of its findings designed to highlight areas of
outstanding performance and identify areas of concern and
possible improvement. Some areas of findings common to most
State programs that reflect major strengths were:
* Good organization and highly qualified staff;
*• Well organized and efficient permit procedures;
* Generally good construction requirements applied to new
wells; and
* Well maintained filing systems.
A major area of concern common to most State programs was:
The need for improvement in enforcement and compliance
activities including tracking field data, documentation
of all violations and enforcement actions; and
improving the level of consistency in the protection of all
USDWs.
Other areas of concern applicable to one or more programs were:
* Failure to conduct a complete area of review analysis
during permit determination;
* Failure to conduct an initial pressure test before
using annulus pressure monitoring as a method of
demonstrating mechanical integrity;
* Failure to submit major program modifications for EPA
approval;
The review process proved to be effective as an oversight
activity in enhancing communication lines between the regulator
-------
-9-
and the well owner or operator. The UIC Program Office will
continue the process in the next fiscal year.
2. Peer Reviews
The UIC program offices in Headquarters and the Regions
created a highly successful new oversight activity, peer review,
where UIC staff from the Headquarters Programs Division and
Regional Offices visited four Regions in 1987 and observed
day-to-day implementation of Federally-administered programs.
Unlike the annual mid-year evaluations conducted Agency-wide by
the program managers, peer review served as a forum for Regional
UIC Program staff to exchange information about each other's
experiences in implementation and enforcement activities
associated with Federally-administered programs, and to offer
program assessments or technical assistance informally. The UIC
Program Office acted as a facilitator rather than an evaluator
in this process. Regions participating in the process concluded
that it provided more opportunity than the mid-year evaluation
for Regional cooperation, "team" building, and constructive
recommendations for improvement in program performance. The UIC
Branch will complete these peer reviews in FY 88 and begin a
cycle of peer review of activities associated with Regional
oversight of State-administered programs.
3. Mid-Year Evaluations
In addition, Headquarters staff participated in the Office
of Water mid-year evaluations in all ten Regional Offices.
Mid-years were used to formally evaluate EPA implementation of
UIC programs and EPA oversight of primacy programs at least once
during the fiscal year. Major issues identified during these
evaluations, such as inconsistencies in program reporting data,
were resolved through Headquarters' seminars. Other issues,
such as significant noncompliance, were resolved through UIC
program guidance.
B. DATA MANAGEMENT
The FY 87 Operating Guidance called for the program to
"assure that reporting is accurate and used for management
purposes". This goal was accomplished through the following
activities.
-------
-10-
1. Data Awareness Training
After six years of program experience, the UIC Branch
conducted a review of the UIC Federal Reporting System forms and
revised the national reporting forms in an effort to increase
the accuracy and consistency of reporting nationwide. EPA,
assisted by the Underground injection Practices Council,
conducted pilot sessions for a "Data Awareness Training" Seminar
in Kansas City and Chicago. State and EPA participants reacted
favorably, and the Program Office planned to complete the
training in FY 1988.
2. Increased Noncompliance Reporting
Prior to FY 1987, EPA required Regions and States to report
only Class I or IV well violations four times (quarterly) each
year and other classes annually. There are approximately 558
Class I and 21 Class IV wells. These wells are considered to
have a high potential for contamination because they inject into
or above or within one quarter mile of a USDW. However,
Class I/IV wells actually represent only a small subset of the
well universe with a high potential for contamination. Thus, in
FY 1987, the Office of Drinking Water expanded quarterly
reporting to include noncompliance reporting for all classes and
facility-specific significant noncompliance on an exceptions
basis. The Office of Drinking Water developed the Quarterly
Exceptions List as a means to track facility-specific
significant noncompliance information on violators that had not
returned to compliance or been subjects of a formal enforcement
action for at least two consecutive reporting quarters.
3 • ftdm^fljistrative Order Tracking System
In FY 1987, the Office of Drinking Water initiated a
successful joint effort with Regional Offices to develop an
automated record management system for Headquarters and the
Regions to track Administrative Order issuance and compliance
follow-up (the AOTS) . The system will facilitate EPA tracking
of Notice of Violation and Administrative Order records,
associated compliance actions, and violations. AOTS reports
will provide timely summaries of overall activity,
record-specific status reports and compliance action "tickler"
and overdue reports. The system will be completed and in use by
early 1988.
-------
-11-
C. REGULATION OF THE UIC WELL UNIVERSE
During the first five years after program delegation, each UIC
Director's major goals are to assure: 1. that all underground
injection wells in existence when the applicable regulations
become effective have permit determinations; 2. that wells that
continue to operate under authorization-by-rule rather than by
permit are technically up to UIC standards; and, 3. that all
injection wells receive mechanical integrity tests.
1. Testing the Mechanical Integrity of Wells
The effectivenes of any Underground Injection Control
Program depends on the integrity of its injection wells. A well
is said to have mechanical integrity when the operator can
demonstrate through EPA approved tests that there are no
significant leaks in the well or fluid migration into the
vertical channels outside the well bore.
\\
\
\\j
/ff//ff//
\
LEAK
I
777T
IfTUTA
M/L
In 1987, the two
methods most often
used by well operators
operators to test for
significant leaks were
a pressure test of the
casing to detect any
rapid pressure decline
or a review of injec-
tion pressure/volume
monitoring records. By
far, the most commonly
used method to detect
fluid migration was to
evaluate the integrity
of cement used in con-
struction through a
review of a well's
cement record.
The UIC regulations allow EPA and State program directors to
continue to regulate existing Class II enhanced recovery and
hydrocarbon storage wells under existing State regulations if
they meet general UIC requirements, rather than impose
additional permitting requirements. Approximately 70 percent,
HOUUCU. mourn TOT
-------
-12-
or 118,800, of all Class II wells that are currently regulated
by the, UIC program (168,394) are regulated in this manner.
However, they must all be tested for mechanical integrity.
The Office of Drinking Water closely monitored Class II
activities in seven Class II primacy programs approved under
Section 1425 because they regulated 54% of all existing Class II
wells (Alabama, Oklahoma, Texas, New. Mexico, Louisiana, Utah,
and Wyoming). These States declared 64,697 Class II wells in
their respective inventories at time of program approval. Most
of the States had completed testing their existing wells, or, as
in Louisiana, temporarily shut in wells until testing could be
completed, or as in Texas, received an extension to complete the
testing of its existing wells.
The data for casing/tubing pressure test results indicate an
88 percent pass rate for all Class II wells (22,353 out of
25,278 tests) and for cement record reviews, a 95 percent pass
rate (21,293 out of 22,357 tests). Close to three thousand
Class II wells failed MI tests and required some type of
remedial action to return them to compliance. In most cases,
when a well was not in compliance the well owner initiated
plugging and abandonment (P & A) procedures (38 percent of all
noncompliance).
2. Permit Determinations
The FY 87 guidance set the following priorities for permit
determinations:
New Class II wells
Existing Class I wells
Existing Class III wells
New Class I and III wells
Existing Class II salt water disposal wells
UIC Program Directors rank the permit determination for a
new Class II well which is associated with oil and gas
production as a top priority because of the SDWA mandate that
the UIC program not unduly impede the petroleum industry. UIC
Program Directors completed 8,130 Class II permit determinations
in 1987; eighty-five percent of the determinations were permits
for new Class II wells; the Ohio, Arkansas and Texas programs
together issued over four thousand. Two hundred five permits
-------
-13-
were for existing Class II wells or well fields; 185 of those we
for existing salt water disposal wells.
By the end of 1987, UIC Program Directors had completed
permit determinations for all but 25 of 350 existing Class I
wells, in keeping with the regulatory requirements that all
existing Class I wells receive permit determinations within the
first five years of the effective date of the program. UIC
Program Directors issued 23 new Class I permits.
Of the 127 existing Class III permit determinations
completed in 1987, forty-five were permits issued to existing
wells. Eighty-two permits were issued to new Class III
wells.
3. Review of Existing Permit Files
The UIC regulations authorize the review of the State file
(well record) for an existing Class II well to determine its
compliance status in lieu of issuing a new UIC permit. UIC
Program Directors must make these determinations during the
first five years of the applicable UIC program. A total of
94,509 determinations against a target of 115,070 have been
completed since the onset of the UIC program; 24,896 were made
in FY 1987. Federally-administered UIC programs became
effective in 1984. The Regional UIC Program Directors have
until 1989 to complete their determinations.
D. DEVELOPMENT OF A COMPREHENSIVE UIC ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM
1. Expansion of EPA/s Authority
The SDWA Amendments of 1986 substantially increased EPA's
enforcement authority which meant that in FY 1987 the UIC
compliance and enforcement program changed dramatically from a
program that had to rely exclusively on the slow and resource
intensive judicial enforcement process to compel compliance with
program requirements, to a program that could .issue orders for
compliance and assess administrative penalties in a relatively
short period of time. Headquarters put in place administrative
procedures and guidances for the enforcement program prior to
proposal and promulgation of procedural regulations. This was a
calculated risk that the UIC program office was willing to take
in order to quickly provide the Regions with the tools to begin
-------
-14-
using this important new authority. During the 39 months that
enforceable UIC requirements had been in effect in the majority
of DI States, the UIC program had taken less than 15 judicial
actions. With the new AO procedures in place, it was able to
initiate over 100 administrative actions; by the end of FY 1987,
the EPA Regional UIC Program Directors had issued 89 proposed
UIC AOs and 18 final AOs. Following is a chronology of actions
the ODW took in response to the SDWA amendments of 1986:
December 1986: The Office of Drinking Water issued
guidance on the UIC program definition of SNC for all
classes of wells the general program reporting
procedures guidance (UICP Guidance #52) and the UIC
Compliance Strategy
• January 1987: The Offices of Drinking Water and
Enforcement and Compliance Monitoring jointly issued
guidance to the Regions on procedures to be used for
issuing Administrative Orders (AO) which require
compliance, assess a penalty for both.
• March 1987: ODW issued the general program and, a
clarification on how to classify certain MIT failures
and pressure limitation exceedences (September 9,
1987).
April 1987: The Program Office issued a Compliance
Strategy which defined the major compliance management
policies, guidance, and procedures for implementing the
compliance and enforcement aspects of the program over
the next five years, published the second phase of
Quality Assurance Guidances for field inspections and
continued development of a general procedural manual
for field inspectors to be published early in FY 1988.
2. Timely and Appropriate Enforcement
The third objective of the program in 1987 was to assure
that Regions and States took timely and appropriate action in
response to significant noncompliance. The Office of Drinking
Water had worked with its Regional Offices, State primacy
-------
-15-
agencies and the Underground Injection Practices Council over a
thirteen month period to develop a definition of noncompliance
that would give the UIC program director discretion to determine
whether or not a violation by a well owner or operator
(noncompliance) could result in endangerment to a USDW. This
type of violation would be labeled as "significant noncom-
compliance" (SNC) and would be documented talcing into account 12
specified criteria. This definition, issued in December 1986,
expanded the UIC program's universe of potential SNC violators
to include Class II, III, and V well owners and operators, an
increase from some 566 wells to over 153,000 wells. Timely and
appropiate meant that the regulatory authority (State or EPA)
would have to address SNC violations in less than 90 days. FY
1987 was the first year in which the UIC program used this
enforcement criterion for SNC violations covering all five
classes of UIC wells. Following is a discussion of reported SNC
during 1987, its discovery and its resolution. (NOTE:
interpretation and correlation of the data compiled this first
year was difficult because there were many inconsistencies and
discrepencies in reporting nationwide.)
For the most part, Regions and States reported that they
were able to address significant noncompliance in less than 90
days using informal means, resulting in rapid return to
compliance. UIC Program Directors reported 340 violations
involving approximately 59% of the Class I/IV well universe.
Violations for these wells are always considered SNCs. At
year's end, only five Class I wells and one Class IV well
remained on the exceptions list. Two of the Class I wells were
sewage disposal wells in Florida and two were industrial
disposal wells in Oklahoma. The Class IV well is a potential
CERCLA site and was awaiting evaluation before plugging and
abandonment could be completed.
UIC program directors reported 1,820 violations involving
Class II, III, and V wells. Of these, 1,551 violations affected
less than one percent of the Class II well universe.
Forty-seven percent (1,024) of the reported SNC violations
occurred in Kentucky which has a Federally-administered
program. The EPA Region IV Office negotiated a landmark consent
order requiring plugging and abandonment and other actions with
Ashland Exploration Company, which involved Class II enhanced
recovery wells and widespread ground-water contamination. (See
discussion of Administrative Orders.) Another sixteen percent
-------
-16-
(362) of the SNC violations occurred in Pennsylvania which also
has a Federally-administered program and was associated with
unauthorized injection which EPA ultimately eliminated. In all
•only one Class II well appeared on the exceptions list, a salt
water disposl well which failed mechnical integrity and it
wasscheduled to be plugged and abandoned. There were only
sixty-seven SNC violations involving either Class III or V
wells, none of which appeared on the exeptions list.
3. Noncomoliance other than Significant; Violations.
Enforcement Actions and Return to Compliance
The fifth objective of the UIC program was to establish a
strong comprehensive enforcement program not limited to
significant noncompliance. Nationally, UIC Program Managers
identified over 25,000 violations affecting all classes of wells
during 1987; over half (13,700) of these were monitoring and
reporting violations. They initiated around 42,000 enforcement
actions, most of which were informal actions, and by the end of
the year, they verified that over 10,000 wells had returned to
compliance. Following are the 1987 national totals of
violations, enforcement actions and wells returned to compliance
broken out by each well class and its corresponding inventory.
(NOTE: National summary data could not be correlated, as each
element was reported as a discrete activity in 1987.)
Class I well Inventory; 558 wells
— 360 violations;
— 204 enforcement actions;
— 153 wells returned to compliance.
Class II well inventory? 168.394 wells
— 23,770 violations;
— 40,874 enforcement actions;
— 9,814 wells returned to compliance.
Class III inventory: 19.604 Class III wells
— 1,108 violations;
— 103 enforcement actions;
— 73 wells returned to compliance.
Class IV inventory: 21 Class IV wells
~ 8 violations;
-- 4 enforcement actions;
— 2 wells returned to compliance.
-------
-17-
• Class V inventory; 108.794 wells
— 776 violations;
— 263 enforcement actions;
— 105 wells returned to compliance.
Proportionately, on a per well basis, there were more
violations identified for Class I and Class IV wells than for
other classes of wells. This high proportion does not
necessarily reflect that more violations occurred with these
types of injection practice. The well universe is smaller than
for either Class II, III, or V wells and require fewer
resources, which has been an important factor in the UIC
program's ability to identify and resolve violations.
By the same token, the lower ratio of violations to wells
associated with Class II, III, and V injection practices does
not necessarily indicate that fewer violations occur. Class II
wells have fewer specific requirements than Class I wells and
are less stringently regulated so as not to impede oil and gas
production.
Class III wells, although they are associated with
production rather than waste disposal, are more stringently
regulated than Class II wells; and as with Class I wells,
tighter monitoring has resulted in fewer violations.
Very few violations have been identified and reported for
Class V wells considering how many types and numbers there are.
The main reason has been because EPA has not yet established
specific requirements for Class V wells in the UIC program
regulations, as it has for other classes. The Agency will
develop regulations when it has completed an assessment of this
largely unknown injection practice.
4. Field Inspections
The UIC program established an effective field presence
during FY 1987 as evidenced by the amount of noncompliance it
identified during on site inspections. Even so, most States
were able to target only a percentage of their wells for
inspection each year because of large inventories. Kansas for
example, targeted 25% of its 16,000 wells for inspection.
-------
-18-
In all, the UIC Program Directors conducted 80,938 field
inspections, 18,000 more than 1986; 46,370 wells were inspected
in accordance with Agency priorities:
1. Emergency inspections, Class IV closure verification,
and citizen complaint investigation.
* UIC program managers conducted 104 on-site
investigations of this type during FY 1987.
2. Mechanical Integrity Testing witnessing and enforcement
inspections.
UIC program managers witnessed 18,778 MITs.
3. Preoperational, plugging and abandonment verification
and record inspections.
UIC program managers conducted 2,421
pre-operational, or well construction inspections
and 2,261 plugging and abandonment inspections.
4. Routine inspections to determine compliance with rules
and regulations.
The majority of inspections that were conducted
in 1987: UIC program managers conducted 57,455
routine inspections.
E. PROGRAM ENHANCEMENT
1. Assessment of Class V wells
In FY 87, the Director of the Office of Drinking Water
established a special task force to develop a strategy for
regulatory development of Class V wells before the end of FY
1988. Class V wells include all injection practices not
included in Classes I, II, III, or IV, have innumerable
construction designs and uses, and their actual number is
unknown. Its first activity was to coordinate the national
survey of Class V injection practices in the United States
mandated by the SDWA Amendments of 1986.
-------
-19-
corresponding inventories of Class V wells in the United States
and its Territories and Possessions; it described primary
contamination problems associated with different categories of
these wells, and summarized State recommendations for minimum
design, construction, installation, and siting requirements that
could be applied to protect USDWs from such contamination
wherever necessary including corrective action and remedial
action recommendations.
The report identified seven general categories and
inventoried over 173,159 Class V wells; over half of these were
agricultural drainage wells, primarily located in the western
part of the United States and considered to have a high
potential for ground-water contamination. Some 32 subcategories
included geothermal wells, domestic waste disposal wells, wells
related to mineral and fossil fuel
recovery, industrial/commercial/util-
ity wells, recharge wells and mis-
and miscellaneous wells, for example.
2.
ResDonse to HSWA Amendments
In order to vigourously control
the land disposal of hazardous waste,
ODW established the Hazardous Waste
Restriction Task Force to implement
Sect. 3004 of RCRA as it pertains to
injection wells by reassessing the
use of Class I wells as a means of
disposing of hazardous waste. The
Task Force prepared a proposed regu-
lation which would define the two
circumstances under which a waste
otherwise prohibited from injection
may be injected: (a) when the waste
has been treated in accordance with
requirements of Part 268 pursuant to
Sect. 3004(m), or (b) when an appli-
cant has demonstrated to the satis-
faction of . the Administrator that
there will be no migration of
hazardous constituents for as long as
the waste remains hazardous. The Task
Force also proposed amendments to UIC
regulations at Part 146 applicable to
all owners and operators of Class I
Deep Wei I Disposal
Figure 5
-------
-20-
hazardous waste wells that:
0 would improve or increase current monitoring,
operating, siting, construction, and testing regulatory
requirements for Class I hazardous waste wells.
would list methods for monitoring Class I injection
activities.
3. Assessment of Alternative Mechanical Integrity Tests
The Director of ODW appointed a workgroup to evaluate and
forward proposed alternative mechanical integrity tests for
management approval or disapproval. In 1987, the workgroup
reviewed thirteen MITs and recommended approval of five with
some restrictions or limited use: radioactive tracer,
dual/completion, water-in-annulus, annulus pressure/gas
detector, and temperature anomaly. The workgroup recommended
against the cement bond log/cement evaluation and pressure
fall-off methods.
4. Dissemination of Technical Guidance
The Branch published technical assistance materials for
Class I hazardous waste well operators and owners titled:
"Annulus Pressure Monitoring for Class I wells;" and "Class I
Hazardous Waste Injection Wells: Evaluation of Noncompliance
Incidents," "Annulus Pressure Monitoring for Class I Wells;" and
"Assessment of Treatment Technologies Available to Attain
Acceptable Levels of Hazardous Waste in Deep Injection Wells."
In addition, the Branch developed and disseminated other
technical guidances to UIC Program Directors of
Federally-administered programs:
Inventory of Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells in Allegany
County, New York - Region II
' - Inventory of Abandoned Oil and Gas Wells in Cattaraugus
County, New York - Region II
- Preliminary Assessment and Evaluation of Ground Water
Contamination in Allegany, Cattaraugus and Chautagua
Counties, New York - Region II
-------
TABLE 2
Mechanical Integrity Tests Reviewed, or Under Review, by the EPA NIT Workgroup
TEST
UELL
CLASS
AREA OF
USE
PARTS
TESTED FOR
COMMENTS
1. Radioactive Tracer All
Nationwide
1 ft 2 (Partial)
2. Dual/Completion
II
3. Cenent Bond Log/
Cement Evaluation
Method
All
Montana, Wyoming,
Kansas, Nebraska,
Michigan ft Osage
Mineral Reserve
in Oklahoma
Nationwide
Approval in Federal Register
9/18/87, revisions published
in FR. 12/10/87. Approval is
for detection of casing leaks
and movement behind casing
from injection interval with
restrictions described in the
FR. notices. Currently approved
for timed run but not velocity
shot methods.
Two year interim approval in
FR. 10/29/87. Restricted to
wells where oil is extracted
above the packer isolating
the injection zone.
Logs that detect specific para-
meters could be useful to deter-
mine conditions that would allow
fluid movement outside a casing.
EPA Headquarters does not con-
sider this as an alternate NIT
and it can be used in addition
addition to, but not in lieu of
other, approved methods.
-------
TABLE 2 (Cont'd.)
TEST
WELL
CLASS
AREA OF
USE
PARTS
TESTED FOR •
COMMENTS
Water-In-Annulus
II Specific counties
in the Bradford
field area of
Pennsylvania and
New York
Restricted to wells with the
construction and in a geologic
setting as that found in the
Bradford field. Currently under
a second interim approval which
ends in July. 1988.
Pressure Falloff
II
New York
The workgroup recommended against
the test and is not conducting
further review at this time.
6. Annulus Pressure/ II
Gas Detector
Pennsylvania and
New York
Limited to wells with construc-
tion including multiple tubings
and located in a geologic
setting as found in the Bradford
field. £R. notice is being pre-
pared.
I
ro
ro
I
7. Temperature Anomaly II
Kansas
Restricted to sllmhole wells
without tubing and packer. In-
jection fluid must be of a cer-
tain temperature and log must be
run in a given time interval.
Other restrictions apply to well
construction, location and test
procedures. Workgroup rec-
commended approval which has been
requested of EPA Headquarters.
-------
TABLE 2 (Cont'd.)
TEST
WELL AREA OF
CLASS USE
PARTS
TESTED FOR
COMMENTS
8. Differential II Nebraska
Tenperature
9. Surface Casing in II Ohio
Annular Disposals
Workgroup has finished its re-
view and it is being studied
at EPA Headquarters.
Workgroup has reviewed pre-
liminary information from Reg. V
but is awaiting formal sub-
mission from Ohio. This type of
well is prohibited in 40 CFR
10. Large Bore Packer-
less Municipal
Waste
Florida
Workgroup recommended against
fresh water test. Request has
been resubmitted and is being
reviewed further.
I
M
to
11. Salt Solution Mining
Gallery Test •*
III
Nationwide
Because of very large cavities
created by the mining, the work-
group believes a very small
loss of pressure can represent a
very large volume of fluid loss.
Since the test lacks adequate
sensitivity, the workgroup plans
to issue a statement against
its continued
use.
-------
TABLE 2 (Cont'd.)
TEST
WELL
CLASS
AREA OF
USE
PARTS
TESTED FOR
CONNENTS
12. Oxygen Activation
All
Nationwide
13. Injection Pressure/
Zero Annulus
Monitoring and
Bradenhead Test
without initial
Pressure Testing***
II
New Mexico,
Oklahoma
This is being propsed through
Region V and has been tested
at the Kerr Lab in Ada. Okla.
and producing areas. Initial
data are very promising that
test can detect movement of
water behind a casing.
Studies by the two states
were reviewed. The workgroup
recommends these tests be used
only after an initial annulus
pressure test. Subsequent mon-
itoring should be done only
when positive surface pressure
is maintained in the annulus.
ro
*•
I
Part 1 refers to leaks in casing and In some cases, tubing and packer.
behind casing. Thse are described in 40 CFR 146.8.
Part 2 refers to fluid movement
Gallery testing has been used in several Regions as an alternative to individual well pressure tests.
The workgroup believes there is a significant difference in the two methods and that gallery testing
should be evaluated separately. The workgroup met with salt solution mining industry representatives
and requested information on the sensitivity of gallery testing, a formal request for review, and/or
other alternative NITs. The requested information has not been submitted.
These tests were not formally submitted by the States or Region VI for workgroup review. The workgroup
was asked, by the UIC Branch Chief at HO. for technical review of the EPA funded studies.
-------
-25-
- Ground-Water Monitoring Report - Region V
Assessment of UIC Framework in Virginia - Region III
- Constant Positive Annular Pressure Requirement for
Class II Wells - Region V
Assessment, of Agricultural Return Flow Wells in
Arizona - Region IX
F. 1987, THE YEAR OF TRANSITION
FY 1987 marked a year of transition for the UIC program. By
the end of FY 1986, UIC program managers had completed, for the
most part, identifying and permitting the existing injection
well universe and bringing it under regulation, and had begun
increasing their efforts to identify and bring violators into
compliance. FY 1987 presented a significant challenge to the
Agency to meet the statutory mandates of the RCRA and SDWA
amendments. Substantial progress was made in meeting program
goals and priorities for both of these statutes. Moreover, the
UIC compliance and enforcement program made major progress and
could stand on its own with the other more mature Agency
enforcement programs. The UIC program office and program
directors accomplished a lot, but there was still a significant
amount of work to be completed.
FY 1988 would present more challenges to EPA. Headquarters
would be completing and implementing the national automated AO
tracking system, promulgating AO procedure regulations,
promulgating regulation changes to improve enforceability
especially against rule authorized owners and operators,
completing an administrative penalty policy, and developing
guidance for calculating the economic benefit associated with
certain UIC noncompliance practices. For the Regional Offices
this would mean a continued emphasis on issuance of UIC AOs for
SNC and other violations, tracking and follow-up to ensure
compliance with AOs issued previously and closer oversight of
approved programs to ensure that they followed the timely and
appropriate enforcement criteria.
------- |