United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Water
EPA 570/9-87-006
September 1987
Water
xvEPA
Report To Congress
Class V Injection Wells
• Current Inventory
• Effects on Ground Water
• Technical Recommendations
idustrial
i-acility
Mineral *
Fossil Fuel
Recovery A
i i/
Residential
Areas
Recharge/
Saltwater
Intrusion
Barrier
Project
Service
Station
Repair Bay
Sewage
Treatment
Plant
-------
Report To Congress
Class V Injection Wells
• Current Inventory
• Effects On Ground Water
• Technical Recommendations
September 1987
-------
TABLE OF ( I’EN1S
P? GE
FIGURES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1_v
TABLES V ii i
FOR.E R1D xii
Ac U 1G.JLEDGEM.E TrS Xijj
E E tYTI\1E SUM ’.TARY’ xiv
SECTION 1 IN’rRCOuCrION 1 — 1
1.1 Objective and Scope. 1 — 1
1.2 Backgrourxi 1 — 1.
1.3 Surrrrrary of Findings.. . . . 1 — 5
1.3.1 Hydrogeologic Considerations 1 - 5
1.3.2 Class V Injection Well Inventory 1 - 11
1.3.3 Contamination Potential Assessnents 1 - 12
1.4 Content of Report 1 — 15
SECTION 2 HYDR(ZEOL IC DERP IOM 2 - 1
2.1 Irrpcrtance and Use of the Groundwater Resource.... 2 - 1
2.1.1 Introduction..... .. 2 — 1
2.1.2 Grcund—Water Use..... ........ ... .. ... . 2 — 3
2.2 Physical Properties of Ground-Water Aquifers and
Ground-Water Contamination 2 - 3
2.2.1 Physical Properties 2 — 3
2.2.2 Ground—WaterContarnination...... ...... 2— 7
2.3 Relationship of Class V Injection to Underground
Sources of Drinking Water 2 — 10
2.3.1 General Discussion 2 — 10
2.3.2 Relationship of Class V Injection to US 7 2 - 10
SECTION 3 C. ASS V INJECTION WEL,L INVENTORY 3 — 1
3.1 Inventory thods(Strategies) 3— 3
3.2 Inventory Results 3 — 4
3.3 InventoryDistribution............................ 3— 5
3 . 3 . 1. Drainage Well s 3 — 12
3.3.2 Geothermal Reinjectiori Wells 3— 13
3.3.3 Danestic Wastewater Disposal Wells 3 — 13
3.3.4 Mineral and Fossil Fuel Recovery Wells 3 — 13
3.3.5 Industrial Disposal...... . . . . . . . . ........... . . . . . . 3 — 14
3.3.6 Recharge and Miscellaneo..is Wells 3 — 14
3.4 Evaluation of the Database 3 — 14
3 . 5 RecaruTerida t ic ris. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 — 15
3.5.1 Gerieral........................................... 3 — 15
3.5.2 Specific 3 — 16
SECTION 4 NATION POTENTIAL ASSESSNENTS 4 - 1
4.1 RatingContaminationPotential.................... 4— 1
4.1.1 Parameters Used as Criteria in Determining
contamination Potential 4 — 2
1] .
-------
ThBLE OF TEN S
PP E ‘W
4.1.1.1 USTi 1 Identification Using the Draft Guidelines for
Ground WaterCiassifications 4— 2
4.1.1.2 Well Construction, Operation, and Maintenance 4 — 5
4.1.1.3 lnjectionFluidCcrnposition 4— 6
4.1.1.4 contamination Potential of Injection Fluids 4 — 7
4.1.2 rhe Rating Systan 4 — 8
4.1.2.lHighContaminatiOnPOtentia l 4— 8
4.1.2.2 Moderate Contamination Potential 4 — 10
4.1.2.3 Low Contamination Potential 4 — 11
4.2 Well9:’ypeAssessnents 4— 13
4 . 2 . 1 Dra inage Wells . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 — 14
4.2.1.lAgriculturalDrainageWellS(5F1)................. 4— 14
4.2.1.2 Storm Water and Industrial Drainage Wells (5D2,5D4) 4 - 30
4.2.1.3lniprovedSinkholes (5D3).......................... 4— 46
4.2.1.4specialDrainageWells(5G30)..................... 4— 55
4.2.2 Geothern l Wells. . . . . . . . 4 — 68
4.2.2.1 Electric Power and Direct Heat Reinjection Wells
(5A5, 5A6) 4 — 68
4.2.2.2 Heat Purrrp/Air conditioning Return Flow Wells (5A7) 4 — 107
4.2.2.3 Aquaculture Return Flow Wells (5A8) 4 — 126
4.2.3 Danestic Wastewater Disposal Wells. . 4 — 141
4.2.3.1 Raw Sewage Waste Disposal•Wells and Cesspools
(5W9, 5 1.0) 4 — 141
4.2.3.2 Class V Septic Syst ns (5W11, 5W31, 5W32) 4 — 151
4.2.3.3 Danestic Wastewater Treatn nt Plant Effluent
Disposal Wells (5W12) 4 — 174
4.2.4 Mineral and Fossil Fuel Recovery Related Wells.... 4 — 188
4.2.4.1 Mining, Sand, or Other Backfill Wells (5X13) 4 — 188
4.2.4.2SolutionMiningWells (5X14)... . 4—199
4.2.4.3 In Situ Fossil Fuel Recovery Wells (5X15) 4 — 211
4.2.4.4 Spent Brine Return Flow Wells (5X16) 4 —229
4.2.5 Oil Field Production Waste Disposal Wells 4 — 235
4.2.5.1 Air Scrubber Waste and Water Softener Regeneration
Brine Disposal Wells (5X17, 5X18) ....... 4 —235
4.2.6 Industrial, CaTirrercial, Utility Disposal Wells.... 4 — 235
4.2.6.1 Cooling Water Return Flow Wells (5A19)............ 4— 235
4.2.6.2 Industrial Process Water and Waste Disposal Wells
(5V 720) ..... 4 — 241
4.2.6.3 Autcmobile Service Station Disposal Wells (5X28).. 4 — 277
4.2.7 R.ecliarge Wells. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . •. . . . . . . . . . . 4 — 289
4.2.7.lAquiferRechargeWells (5R21) ..... 4—289
4.2.7.2 Salt Water Intrusion Barrier Wells (5B22) .... 4 — 301
4.2.7.3 Subsidence ontrol Wells (5S23) .. 4—311
4 .2 . 8 Mi. scel larieous Wells . 4 — 319
4.2.8.1 Radioactive Waste Disposal Wells (5I’ Q4) ... 4 — 319
4.2.8.2 ExperiTrental Technology Wells (5X25) 4—324
4.2.8.3 Aquifer Renediation Related Wells (5X26) 4 — 334
4.2.8.4 Hydrocarbon Recovery Injection Wells (5X26) 4 — 341
4.2.8.5 Abandoned Drinking Water/Waste Disposal Wells
(5X29) 4 — 347
111
-------
‘I HLE OF FENFS
PPLE THREE
PN3E
SECTION 5 STJNHARY AND wNa USIoNS. • 5 — 1
5.1 Ct.irrent I.ri .rent.or , 5 — 1
5.1.1 National Inventory 5 — 1
5.2 Asses nent of Well ‘I ypes 5 — 5
5.2.1 Review of Rating Scheme 5 — 5
5.3 Summary of Well Type Asses ents 5 — 5
5.3.1 Regional Breakda n of Inventory According to
Contamination Potential 5 — 13
5.3.2 Summary of Regulatory Systems Currently Kn in to
be in Effect 5 — 13
5.3.3 Suinrrary of Class V Injection Well Data 5 — 28
SECTION 6 RECCYEIENDA’I’IONS.... . . . .. ... . . .. . •......... .. . . . . . . . . 6 — 1
6. 1 Inventory Database •. . . . . . 6 — 1
6.1.1 Priorities 6— 1
6.1.2 Inventory Database Update 6 — 1
6.2 C lassVWe ll T ypes 6— 3
6.2.1 Siting, Construction, Operation, Corrective and
R i dial Actions 6 — 3
6.2.1.1 High Contamination Potential Well Types 6 — 4
6.2.1.2 ?4xlerate Contamination Potential Well Types....... 6 — 8
6.2.1.3 Lcw Contamination Potential Well Types 6 — 1.3
6.2.1.4 Unkn n Contamination Potential Well Types........ 6 — 14
APPENDICES
A. ATE REFORT SUMMARY SHEETS
B. GLOSSARY
C. ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIO LS
D. BIBLI(XRAPHIES
E. SUPEORTI DATA INDEX
LIS’r OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
1—1 U.S. Erivironmarital Protection ?gency Regions 1 - 13
2—1 Grourdwater Withdrawals in 1980 for the Unit States,
Puerto Rico ard U.S. Virgin Islands..................... 2 — 2
2—2 Hlrologic Cycle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 — 4
2—3 Relationship of Subsurface Strata to Cocurrence of
ConfinedandUnconfin& Aquifers ......... 2— 6
iv
-------
cXWF 2S
PPLE F(XJR
FIGURE PAGE
2—4 Groundwater Regions of ithe United States . 2 — 8
3—1 Nurr ber of Wells by State . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 — 7
3—2 Number of Wells by Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 — 9
3—3 Bar Graph Illustrating Class V Injection Well Inventory
by Well Type............................................ 3 — 10
4—1 Typical Subsurface Return Fl i Collection Syst n........ 4 — 17
4—2 Typical AThJ in North—Central Iowa Showing Three Sources
of Flcw............. 4 — 19
4—3 Agricultural Drainage Well Schanatics 4 — 20
A. With Well Inside Cistern
B. With Well Adjacent to Cistern
4—4 TypicaiDrainageWeilDesigns . 4— 34
4—5 Sinkhole Develop’nent Near Improved Sinkholes 4 - 50
4-6 Map of Florida Showing the Location of Class V Swimiting
t’ool Drainage Wel is. . . . . . 4 — 5 8
4—7 Landslide Severity of the United States 4 — 60
4—8 Methods tployed to Dewater Landslide Prone Areas 4 - 63
4—9 Construction Details of a Typical Swinining Pool
DrainageWel linSouthDadeCo 4— 64
4—10 Construction Design for a Typical Danestic Direct Space
HeatingGeothennal lnjectionWell ... 4— 74
4—11 Typical Danestic Space Heating Injection Wellhead 4 - 76
4—12 Typical Sch natic for C-eotherrnal Injection Well
Associated with Electric Power Generation 4 — 77
4—13 Schanatic Diagram of a Surface Heat Exchange Sys tan
Associated with Danestic Geothermal Space Heating 4 — 80
4—14 Typical Dry Steam Electrical Power Generation Facility.. 4 — 82
4—15 Typical Dual Flash Geothermal Electric Pcwer Generation
Facility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e 4 — 83
4-16 Scheni tic of Binary Geothermal Electric Power
Generation Facility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 — 84
4—17 Sh.all ’i Wells........................................... 4 — 110
A. 1-lorizonal
B. Large Diarreter
4—18 DeeperSniallDiarneterWells..... .... 4—111
A. Catpleted in Stone
B. Canpleted in Sand
4—19 Proper Grouting or Canentation of Annular Space 4 - 113
4—20 Typical Well Design for Graindwater Aquaculture Return
Flo .i Well 4 — 131
4-21 Diagrams Illustrating the Developnent of the Ghyben-
Herzberg Lens of Fresh Water Within an Oceanic Island... 4 - 135
4—22 Sectional View of a Cesspool . .. 4 — 146
4—23 Conventional Se!ptlc Tan:k . . . . . 4 — 157
4—24 Seepage Pit Disposal Systan. .............. 4 — 158
4—25 Conventional Drain Field Disposal Systans. 4 — 159
4—26 AbsorptionMoundDisposal Systan.......... 4—163
4-27 Typical Canpietion Diagram of Recharge and I bnitor
Wells ....... 4 — 179
V
-------
BLE OF )NP TS
PAGE FIVE
FIGURE PPGE
4-28 Teton Village Waste Water Treatment and Disposal
FacUity,TetonCounty,Wyaning .............. 4—180
4—29 Typical Mine Backfill Well Construction................. 4 — 191
4—30 Typical Subsidence Control Mine Backfill Operation...... 4 — 192
4—31 Scenarios for Potential Groundwater Contamination for
MineBackfil l Wells 4—200
4-32 Large Diaireter, High Voliine, Class V Solution Mining
Injection Well 4 — 204
4—33 Block Diagram Illustrating application and Collection
of Leaching Fluid . 4 — 205
4-34 Coal Fields of the United States 4 — 214
4—35 Oil Shale Deposits of the United States 4 — 215
4—36 Other Potential Synfuel Resources 4 — 216
4—37 Scher tic Cross Section of an In Situ Coal Gasification
Process. • • . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 — 217
4-38 Undergrairñ coal Gasification Longwall Generator
Process 4 — 219
4-39 Underground Coal Gasification Packed Bed Process 4 — 220
4—40 Undergrouitl Coal Gasification Linked Vertical Wells 4 — 221
4-41 Underground coal Gasification Steeply Dipping Bed
Concept. 4 — 222
4—42 Existing Class V Brine Disposal Injection Well 4 — 232
4-43 Constniction Requiranerits for New Class V Brine Disposal
Injection Wells 4 — 233
4-44 MaSS Loading of Inorganic contaminant Due to Subsurface
Injection of Industrial Waste in Nassau and Suffolk
Counties, New York. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 — 253
4-45 Mass Loading of Sate Heavy ? tal Contaminants Due to
Subsurface Injection of Industrial Waste in NaSSaU and
Suffolk Ccxinties, N i York . 4 — 254
4-46 Mass Loading of dditional Heavy Matal Contaminants Due
to Subsurface Injection of Industrial Waste in Nassau
and Suffolk Counties, New York 4 —255
4-47 Mass Loading of Hazardous Organic Contaminants Due to
Subsurface Injection of Industrial Water in Nassau and
Suffolk Ca.inties, New York 4 — 256
4-48 Mass Loading of Acid and Related Contaminants Due to
Subsurface Injection of Industrial Waste in Nassau and
Suffolk Counties, NewYork.............................. 4—258
4-49 Mass Loading of Other Organic Contaminants Due to
Subsurface Injection of Industrial Waste in Nassau and
Suffolk Cainties, New York 4 — 259
4—50 Mass Loading of Biological and Micrcbiological
Contaminants Due to Subsurface Injection of Industrial
Waste in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, New York 4 — 260
4—51 Typical Disposal Mathods E p1oyed by Gasoline Service
Stations and Car Dealerships that Discharge Service
Bay Waste Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 — 278
vi
-------
TA E OF DNrENFS
PPL3E SDC
FIGURE PPQE
4-52 Detail of a Dry/Disposal Well Sampled at a Gasoline
Service Station 4 — 281
4-53 Detail of a Catch Basin Sai led at a Gasoline Service
Station 4 — 283
4-54 Hypothetical View of Various Sources of Contamination
and Transport of Toxics in the Subsurface..... . ... 4 — 285
4—55 Indication of Artificial Recharge Activity fran
Literature and/or Verbal Canrrunication with Various
Agerx.ies 4 — 292
4—56 National Artificial Recharge Activity, Past arid Present
Projects, Danonstrations, Pilot Projects, Experiments,
arxi Studies 4 — 293
4—57 Scheiiatic of Fresno Recharge Well Construction. 4 — 295
4-58 Diagram of Recharge/Dcmestic Waste Disposal Well in
El Paso, re.xas...... 4 — 296
4-59 Hydrologic conditions With a Fresh Water Ridge Acting
as a Sea Water Barrier. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 — 305
4-60 Hydrologic Conditions With a CaTibination Injection -
Extraction Sea Water Barrier. 4 — 306
4-61 Salt Water Intrusion Barrier Wells, Los Angeles,
Ca]iforriia 4 — 307
4-62 Scne Areas of Land Subsidence Resulting fran Ground-
water Witbc1ra niaJ. 4 — 312
4—63 Schemetic Diagram of Subsidence Control (Water Injection)
Well arid Oil Well, Wilmington Oil Field, Long Beach,
California . 4 — 315
4-64 Uniroyal Chanical Injection Well Used for Aquifer
Renediation............................................. 4 — 338
4-65 Single and Double Cell Hydraulic Containment Showing
Flcxz Lines. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 — 339
4-66 Typical Closed Recharge Well Canpletion, Aquifer
Ranecliation .. . 4 — 344
4-67 Schanatic of o-Punp Systan Utilizing One Recovery Well
for Aquifer R ned.iation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 — 345
5-1 Distribution of Class .V Wells with High Contamination
Potential . 5 — 8
5-2 Distribution of Class V Wells with Mderate Contamina-
t ion Pc)tential . . . . 5 — 9
5-3 Distribution of Class V Wells with L Contamination
Po tentia]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 — 10
5-4 Distribution of Class V Wells with Unknown Contamination
Fbteritial.. . 5 — 11
5-5 Current Regulatory Sys tans
a. Part One . 5 — 26
b. Part ‘rwo . . 5 — 27
vii
-------
TABLE OF 1IE! 1PS
PNE SEVEN
LISP P TABLFS
TABLE PAGE
1-1 Class V Injection Well Types . 1 — 6
1-2 Sunmary of Class V Injection Well Data arid
Reccinrrendations .. 1 — 17
2-1 Geologic Setting and Typical Well Yields for Principle
Aquifers Within Major Grcxindwater Regions 2 - 9
3—1 Reported Class V Injection Wells 3 — 6
3-2 Class V Injection Well Inventory by Region and
Well Classification 3 — 8
3-3 Response Rates of Varicus Grcx s Contacted by Region V
for Inventory Information 3 — 11
3—4 Estimated Tbtal Inventory Figures by Region 3 — 12
4—1 Rating Contamination Potential....... 4 — 12
4-2 Synopsis of State Reports for Agricultural Drainage
Wells (5F1)............................................. 4 — 16
4-3 Quality of Irrigation Wastewater June 26, 1975 to
Au st 24, 1976 4 — 24
4-4 Synopsis of State Reports for Storm Water Drainage
Wells (5D2) 4 — 32
4-5 Synopsis of State Reports for Industrial Drainage
Wells (5D4) 4 — 33
4—6 Synopsis of State Reports for Improved Sinkholes (5D3).. 4 — 49
4-7 Synopsis of State Reports for Special Drainage
Wells (5G30)............................................ 4 — 57
4—8 RatingofLards]ideSeverity............................ 4— 61
4—9 Stratigraphic Units Susceptible to Landslides 4 — 61
4-10 Synopsis of State Reports for Geothermal Electric PcMer
Re inject ion Wells (5A5) 4 — 70
4-11 Synopsis of State Reports for Geothermal Direct Heat
ReinjectionWells (5A6) 4— 71
4-12 National Primary and Secondary Drinking Water
Regulatic)rls 4 — 86
4-13 Caniparison to Standards Set by Primary and Secondary
Drinking Water Regulations, Honey Lake Valley-
La., ‘I’e r erat.ure 4 — 87
4-14 Cat rison to Standards Set by Primary arid Secondary
Drinking Water Regulations, Steamboat Geothermal Area -
La., Tenperature 4 — 88
4-15 Carparison to Standards Set by Primary and Secondary
Drinking Water Regulations, ana Geothermal Area - Lci
‘I’ei erature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 — 89
4-16 Canparison to Standards Set by Primary and Secondary
Drinking Water Regulations, Raft River Geothermal Site,
Idahc) — I.jCM Tenperatu.re. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 — 90
VI.”
-------
OF FENPS
PPLE t( ?F
TABLE P Z GE
4-17 Car arisons to Standards Set by Prirrary and Secondary
Drinking Water Regulations, 1 ’bno—Long Valley-Hot Water
Dcxninated.. 4 — 92
4-18 Canparison to Standards Set by Primary and Secondary
Drinking Water Regulations, Imperial Valley—Hot Water
Dcinir]a ted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 — 93
4-19 Ocuiparison to Standards Set by Primary and Secondary
Drinking Water Regulations, Coso Hot Springs Area - Hot
Water t)arti.nated . 4 — 94
4-20 Canparison to Standards Set by Prinary and Secondary
Drinking Water Regulations, Salton Sea Geothermal Area -
I-’b t Water Danina ted 4 — 95
4-21 Canparison to Standards Set by Primary and Secondary
Drinking Water Regulations, Los Alarros, New xico -
Hot Dry Rock cperirrent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 — 96
4-22 Canparison of Geothermal Fluids Associated With Hot
Water Daninated Resources in Nevada to Natior l Prirrary
DririkingWaterRegulations .. . 4— 97
4-23 Canparison to Standards Set by Primary and Secorx ary
Drinking Water Regulations, The Geysers—Vapor Danina ted. 4 - 99
4-24 Synopsis of State Reports for Heat Pump/Air Conditioning
ReturnFl o wWells(5A7) 4—109
4-25 Surruraxy of Groundwater Heat Pi.uip Use and Effluent
Disposal Regulations by State 4 — 118
4—26 Synopsis of State Reports for Aquaculture Return Flow
Wells (5A8) 4 — 127
4-27 Aquaculture Waste Water Disposal Facilities in Hawaii... 4 - 128
4-28 Synopsis of State Reports for Untreated Sewage Waste
Disposal Wells (5W9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . •. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 — 142
4—29 Synopsis of State Reports for Cesspools (5W10) 4 — 144
4—30 ‘I ’pical Cariposi tion of Danestic Sewage 4 — 147
4—31 Class V Septic Waste Water Disposal Systens.... 4 — 152
4—32 Synopsis of State Reports for Septic Systens (5W11) 4 — 153
4—33- Synopsis of State Reports for Septic Syst ns (5W—31).... 4 — 154
4—34 Synopsis of State Reports for Septic Syst ns (5W32) 4 — 155
4—35 Site Criteria for Drainfield and Seepage Bed Systans.... 4 — 160
4-36 Determination of Toxic Chanicals in Effluent fran
C ity Septic Tank .. 4 — 166
4—37 Synopsis of State Reports for Danestic Waste Water
Treatnent Plant Effluent Disposal Wells (5W12).......... 4 — 176
4-38 Synopsis of State Reports for Mining Backfill
Wells (5 C1.3) .. . 4 — 190
4—39 Regulatory Approach for Mine Backfill Wells . 4 — 198
4-40 Synopsis of State Reports for Solution Mining
Wells (5X14)...... .... 4 — 202
4—41 Synopsis of State Reports for In Situ Fossil Fuel
Recovery Wells (5X15) . . . 4 — 213
4—42 Water Quality, c hanges After Gasification. 4 — 226
i x
-------
BLE OF ( JTEM S
PNE NINE
TABLE PPQE
4-43 Current Regulatory Approach for In Situ Fossil Fuel
Recovery’ Wells 4 — 228
4-44 Synopsis of State Reports for Spent Brine Return FlcM
Wells (5X16) 4 — 231
4-45 Synopsis of State Reports for Cooling Water Return Flc
Wells (5A19) . 4 — 237
4—46 Case Studies (5t’ 20—Industrial Disposal Wells) Listed
in A pendic E 4 — 243
4—47 Synopsis of State Reports for Industrial Process Water
and Waste Disposal Wells (5W20) 4 — 248
4—48 Formaldehyde Data fran Alabama State Report............. 4 — 261
4..49 r C ] LaunderetteWaste............................... 4 —261
4-50 ‘pical Pollutant Concentrations in Waste Water Fran
Self—Service Auto Wa hes 4—261
4-51 Synopsis of State Repofts for Autanobile Service
Station Disposal Wells (5X28) 4 — 280
4-52 Natural Processes That Affect Subsurface Contaminant
‘rransport ....... .. 4 — 287
4—53 Synopsis of State Reports for Aquifer Recharge
Wells (5R21) 4 — 291
4—54 Synopsis of State Reports for Saline Water Intrusion
Barrier Wells (5B22) . . . . . . , , . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . 4 — 303
4—55 Synopsis of State Reports for Subsidence Control
Wells (5S23)............................................ 4 — 313
4-56 Synopsis of State Reports for Radioactive Waste Disposal
Wells (5 4) 4 — 320
4-57 Synopsis of State Reports for Experimantal Technology
Injecton Wells (5X25) . . . . 4 — 326
4-58 Synopsis of State Reports for Aquifer Ramediation
Re].atedlnjectionWells (5X26) .. 4—336
4—59 GIJRB List of Constituent Concentrations for Hydrocarbon
Recovery Inject ion Well Fluids 4 - 343
4-60 Synopsis of State Reports for Abandoned Drinking Water
Wells (5X29)............................................ 4 — 348
5—1 Summary of Class V Injection Wells...................... 5 — 2
5-2 Distribution of Class V Injection Wells by USEPA Region. 5 - 4
5-3 Distribution of Class V Wells by Contamination Potential 5 - 6
5-4 Class V Injection Well Inventory by Region and Contami-
nation Poteritial 5 — 7
5-5 Numbers of Wells with High, Moderate, La ,, and Unkn n
Contamination Potential in Region I 5 — 14
5-6 Numbers of Wells with High, Moderate, Lad, and Un]cia zn
Contamination Potential in Region II..... 5 — 15
5-7 Numbers of Wells with High, Moderate, Lcw, and tJnkncwn
Contamination Potential in Region III................... 5 — 16
5-8 Numbers of Wells with High, Moderate, Lc and Unkn n
Contamination Potential in Region IV.................... 5 — 17
x
-------
TABLE OF C EMIS
PNE TFZ4
TABLE P E
5-9 Nuthers of Wells with High, Moderate, Low and Unknown
contamination Potential in Region V 5 — 18
5-10 Numbers of Wells with High, Mcx erate, L and Unknown
contamination Potential in Region VI 5 — 19
5-11 Numbers of Wells with High, Moderate, Low and Unknown
Contamination Potential in Region VII 5 — 20
5-12 Numbers of Wells with High, Moderate, Low arid Un]mcwn
Contamination Potential in Region VIII.................. 5 — 21
5-13 Numbers of Wells with High, Moderate, Low and Unknown
Contamination Potential in Region IX 5 — 22
5-14 Numbers of Wells with High, Moderate, Low and Unknown
Contamination Potential in Region X 5 — 23
5-15 Current Regulatory Systans
a. Part One 5 — 24
b. Part ‘Iwo. 5 — 25
5-16 Sizrrrary of Class V Injection Well Data and
ReccllinQndations.. 5 — 29
xi
-------
REPORT TO CONGRESS
Foreword
This report was prepared by the Office of Water,
Environmental Protection Agency, from data gathered by the
States, Territories, and Possessions of the United States in
fulfilling the regulatory requirement of 40 CFR 146.52(b) and
with the support of the EPA Regional offices and the contractor,
Engineering Enterprises, Inc. (EEl) under EPA Contract Number 68-
03-3416. The EPA project manager was L. Lawrence Graham, and the
EEl project officer was Lorraine C. Council. In addition, an EPA
Work Group, comprised of representatives from the Office of
Water, the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, the
Office of General Counsel, the Office of Policy, Planning and
Evaluation, the Office of Research and Development, and the EPA
Regions provided technical input and review.
xii
-------
Acknowledgments
o EPA Headquarters
Thomas Belk, Chief, Class V Task Force, ODW
L. Lawrence Graham (Project Manager), Class V Task Force, ODW
Rosemary Workman, Class V Task Force, ODW
Kelly Fowler, Class V Task Force, ODW
A. Roger Anzzolin, Project Officer, ODW
Steve Cordle, ORD
Jose Valdes, OGWP
Ronnie Levin, OPPE
Steve Hirsch, OGC
Jerry Garman, OSWER
o EPA Regional Offices
Tom Burns and Peter Karalekas, Region I
Leon Lazarus and Charles Zafonte, Region II
Mark Nelson and Stu Kerzner, Region III
John Isbell and John Mason, Region IV
Gary Harmon, Region V
Stephanie Johnson and Mac Weaver, Region VI
John Marre and Ralph Larigemeier, Region VII
Paul Osborne and Pat Crotty, Region VIII
Nathan Lau and Glenn Sakarnoto, Region IX
Harold Scott, Region X
o State Offices
John Poole, Alabama Department of Environmental Management
Bob Krill, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Stephen Burch and John Nealon, Illinois State Water Survey
Michael Baker, Ohio EPA
William Klemt and Steve Musick, Texas Water Commission
Guy Cleveland, Texas Railroad Commission
William Graham, Idaho Department of Natural Resources
Charles Ashbaker, Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
Burt Bowen, Washington Department of Ecology
o Engineering Enterprises, Inc .
Lorraine C. Council, Project
Sheila Baber
Craig Bartlett
Gary Cipriano
John Fryberger
Hank Giclas
J.L. Gray
Denise Lant
Mark Larson
Raj Mahadevaiah
Mary Mercer
Michael Quillin
Philip Roberts
Of f icer
Talib Syed
Bill Whitsell
Raechel Bailey
Chuck Bishop
Kara Brown
Jolene Cradduck
Deborah Horsman
Kim Gant
Cindy Jondahi
Sharron Moore
Nancy Simpson
xiii
-------
Executive Summary
This report to Congress, prepared by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), summarizes the results
of State surveys concerning Class V injection wells as defined by
the 1986 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act. In
accordance with the Act, the report (1) identifies the categories
and corresponding inventories of Class V wells in the United
States and its Territories and Possessions, (2) describes primary
contamination problems associated with different categories of
these wells, and (3) summarizes recommendations for minimum
design, construction, installation, and siting requirements that
could be applied to protect underground sources of drinking water
(USDW) from such contamination wherever necessary including
corrective action and remedial action recommendations.
Reports addressing Class V well construction features,
injectate chemical characteristics and volumes, contamination
potentials, corrective alternatives, and recommendations for
remedial actions and regulatory approaches were submitted by
State Directors of 56 of the 57 States, Territories, and
Possessions of the United States. The reports were reviewed,
summarized, and collated in preparing this report to Congress on
Class V injection wells.
There are seven general categories identified and over
170,000 Class V injection wells inventoried by the States. The
general categories include drainage wells, geothermal wells,
domestic (sewage) waste disposal wells, wells related to mineral
and fossil fuel recovery, industrial/commercial/utility wells,
recharge wells, and miscellaneous wells. Ninety—four percent of
all Class V wells belong to only four of the general categories:
drainage wells (58%), domestic waste disposal wells (25%),
geothermal wells - mostly heat pump/air conditioning return flow
wells - (6%), and wells related to mineral and fossil fuel
recovery (5%).
Distribution of the inventoried wells among the ten USEPA
Regions is varied. Thirty-seven percent of the wells reported
are located in Region IX, seventeen percent in Region X, sixteen
percent in Region IV, and ten percent in Region V. Regions VIII
and II each reported five percent of the wells. Regions VII,
III, and VI each reported between two and four percent of the
total number of wells, and Region I reported less than one
percent.
Ground-water contamination potentials for each of the thirty
well types (subcategories of the seven general well types) were
assessed based on information provided by the States and based on
a rating system which incorporated the following criteria:
potential useability and identification of USDW; typical
construction, operation, and maintenance procedures; chemical and
physical characteristics of the injectate; and contamination
potential based, in part, on injectate volumes. Some well types
exhibited a range of contamination potentials. Class V wells
xiv
-------
assessed to have high ground-water contamination potentials
include agricultural drainage wells; improved sinkholes (high to
moderate); raw sewage waste disposal wells and cesspools; septic
systems; domestic wastewater treatment plant disposal wells (high
to low); industrial process water and waste disposal wells;
automobile service station waste disposal wells; and aquifer
recharge wells (high to low).
Class V wells assessed to have moderate ground-water
contamination potentials include storm water drainage and
industrial drainage wells; improved sinkholes (high to moderate);
special drainage wells (moderate to low); electric power and
direct heat reinjection wells; aquaculture return flow wells;
domestic wastewater treatment plant disposal wells; domestic
wastewater treatment plant disposal wells; in-situ fossil fuel
recovery wells; cooling water return flow wells (moderate to
low) ; aquifer recharge wells (high to low) ; experimental
technology wells (moderate to low); and abandoned drinking
water/waste disposal wells.
Class V wells assessed to have low ground-water
contamination potentials include special drainage wells (moderate
to low); heat pump/air conditioning return flow wells; domestic
wastewater treatment plant disposal wells (high to low); solution
mining wells; spent brine return flow wells; cooling water return
flow wells (moderate to low); aquifer recharge wells (high to
low); saline water intrusion barrier wells; subsidence control
wells; and experimental technology wells (moderate to low).
Class V wells with unknown ground-water contamination potential
include radioactive waste disposal wells and aquifer remediation
wel 1 S.
The States recommended additional study in several areas. A
primary concern of many States is that the existing inventory
database is incomplete. Therefore, they recommend continuing
efforts to locate uninventoried Class V facilities and upgrading
the existing database of technical data for inventoried
facilities. Regional and local hydrogeologic investigations may
be necessary in order to more precisely define the potential
impact of various Class V injection practices in areas containing
sensitive aquifers.
The States also made several technical recommendations for
adequate well siting, construction, operation, and maintenance to
protect ground—water quality. The recommendations range from
banning the use of cesspools and raw sewage waste disposal wells
to developing appropriate mechanical integrity tests for
geothermal electric power generation reinjecti.on wells.
Recommendations were also made to determine the ground-water
contamination potentials of radioactive waste disposal wells and
wells associated with aquifer remediation projects.
xv
-------
CLASS V REPORT TO CONGRESS
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE
This report to Congress summarizes information and recommen-
dations provided solely by the UIC programs of the States,
Territories, and Possessions of the United States on Class V
injection wells. Specifically, the report addresses the current
inventory of Class V injection wells and their potential to
affect ground water. Technical recommendations of the Directors
of State Underground Injection Control Programs are presented.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency recommendations are in
the process of development.
1 • 2 BACKGROUND
On December 14, 1974, Congress enacted the Safe Drinking
Water Act (PL 93-523) to protect the public health and welfare of
persons and to protect existing and future underground sources of
drinking water (USDW). In Part C of the Act, Congress directed
the Uhited States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) to
develop regulations for the protection of underground source(s)
of drinking water from contamination by the subsurface injection
or emplacement of fluids through wells. In 1980, USEPA promulga-
ted these regulations under 40 CFR Parts 144 through 146 and Part
124. The regulations specify minimum standards and technical
requirements for the proper siting, construction, operation,
monitoring, and plugging and abandonment of injection wells.
The Act also mandated the development of a Federally
approved Underground Injection Control (UIC) program for each
State, Possession, and Territory. Approval of a particular pro-
gram is based on a finding that the program meets minimum stan-
dards and technical requirements of SDWA Section 1422 or Section
1425 and the applicable provisions set forth in 40 CFR Parts 124
and 144 through 146. States whose programs were submitted to and
approved by USEPA are known as Primacy States. These states have
primary enforcement responsibility for the regulation of injec-
tion wells in their States. In those instances where a State has
opted not to submit a program for approval or where the submitted
program does not meet the minimum standards and technical
requirements, the program is promulgated and administered by
USEPA. States with Federally administered programs are known as
Direct Implementation (DI) States and are subject to the regula-
tions set forth in 40 CFR Parts 124 and 144 through 146. There
are 22 DI States, Possessions, and Territories at present.
Reports on the Class V programs in the DI states and
recommendations were prepared under the direction of the
“Director’ t of that State program, i.e., the Regional
Administrator. All underground injection is unlawful and subject
to penalties unless authorized by a permit or rule.
1—1
-------
The UIC regulations define and establish five classes or
categories of injection wells. Class I wells inject hazardous
and non-hazardous waste beneath the lowermost formation
containing, within one-quarter mile of the well bore, an USDW.
Class II wells are used in conjunction with oil and gas
production. Class III injection wells are used in conjunction
with the solution mining of minerals. Class IV wells inject
hazardous or radioactive wastes into or above a formation which
is within one-quarter mile of an USDW. (Class IV wells are
prohibited by 40 CFR 144.13.) Class V wells include any wells
that do not fall under Classes I through IV. Typically, Class V
wells are used to inject non-hazardous fluids into or above
underground sources of drinking water.
In 1980, tJSEPA chose to defer establishing technical
requirements for Class V wells. Instead, these wells are
authorized by rule. That is, injection into Class V wells is
authorized until further requirements under future regulations
are promulgated by USEPA. However, Class V wells are prohibited
from contaminating any USDW or adversely affecting public health.
Therefore, wells which are found to be violating this prohibition
are subject to enforcement or closure. Some Primacy States
require injection well permits while others currently implement
authorization by rule or law.
The Agency has not established specific requirements for
Class V wells for several reasons. By definition, the category
of Class V encompasses a variety of well types ranging in
complexity from radioactive waste disposal wells to storm water
drainage wells. At the time of the original promulgation, little
was known about the operation of these wells. The Agency
reasoned that due to the large number and types of Class V wells
in existence, the variability of injection fluids and volumes,
the lack of knowledge concerning the extent of environmental
damage caused by these wells, and the lack of knowledge
concerning the consequences of bringing them under regulation,
technical requirements could not be established that effectively
would assure that operations of all Class V wells would not
endanger USDW. Therefore, the Agency concluded that it was
necessary to develop an assessment of Class V injection well
activities prior to any regulatory development.
Under 40 CFR 146.52(a), USEPA requires owners and operators
of Class V injection wells to notify the Director of the State or
the Direct Implementation tJIC program of the existence of all
Class V wells under their control and to submit pertinent
inventory information (as required under 40 CFR 144.26(a)). The
Directors then are required, under 40 CFR 146.52(b), to complete
and submit to USEPA a report containing the following:
1. Information on the construction features of Class
V wells and the nature and volume of injected
fluids;
1—2
-------
2. An assessment of the contamination potential of
Class V wells using hydrogeological data available
to the State;
3. An assessment of the available corrective
alternatives where appropriate and their
environmental and economic consequences; and
4. Recommendations both for the most appropriate
regulatory approaches and for remedial actions
where appropriate.
The reports are required to be submitted no later than three
years after the effective date of the State’s UIC program appro-
val. Several of the reports are not due until November 1987.
The 1986 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act require
USEPA to prepare and submit to Congress a report on Class V
injection wells. The report is to summarize the results of the
State reports and to note State recommendations for the design,
siting, construction, operation, and monitoring of each Class V
well type that has the potential to contaminate ground water.
Specifically, Section 1426(b) of the Act states:
The Administrator shall submit a report to Congress, no
later than September 1987, summarizing the results of
State surveys required by the Administrator under this
section. The report shall include each of the follow-
ing items of information:
1. The number of categories of Class V wells which
discharge nonhazardous waste into or above an
underground source of drinking water.
2. The primary contamination problems associated with
different categories of these disposal wells.
3. Recommendations for minimum design, construction,
installation, and siting requirements that should
be applied to protect underground sources of
drinking water from such contamination wherever
necessary.
While the intent of Section 1426 is clear, it should, be noted
that the definition of Class V wells does not limit injection to
only “into or above USDW” and does not limit Class V wells to
only “disposal wells.” Spent brine return flow wells
(inventoried to date) and Class V radioactive waste disposal
wells are examples of wells which inject below the lowermost
USDW. Aquifer recharge wells and mineral and fossil fuel
recovery wells are examples of wells which are not disposal
well s.
1—3
-------
Under 40 CFR Section 144.3, a “well” is defined as a bored,
drilled, or driven shaft, or dug hole, whose depth is greater
than its largest surface dimension. “Well injection’ t is defined
as the subsurface emplacement of fluids through a bored, drilled,
or driven well; or through a dug well where the depth of the dug
well is greater than its largest surface dimension. A “fluid” is
any material or substance which flows or moves, whether in
semisolid, liquid, sludge, gas or any other form or state. The
definitions of the five injection well classes are found in 40
CFR 144.6. A list of Class V well types recognized by USEPA for
the purpose of this study is presented in Table 1—1.
As can be seen in Table 1-1, the Class V injection well
category is large and diverse. This is due to the broad
definition of Class V wells. If a well does not fit into one of
the first four classes and meets the definition of an injection
well, it is considered a Class V well.
Although included in Table 1-1 as Class V injection wells,
air scrubber waste and water softener regeneration brine disposal
wells, types 5X17 and 5X18, are not included in the inventory and
assessment portion of this report. At the time the State Class V
injection well reports were written, air scrubber waste and water
softener regeneration brine disposal wells were categorized as
Class V injection wells. As a result, however, of a July 31,
1987, USEPA policy decision, these well types, in certain
situations, may fall under the Class II category rather than
Class V. This was determined to be the case with those 5X17 and
5X18 wells inventoried in the State reports.
Class V injection wells can be divided into two general
types of wells based on construction. t ’Low-tech” wells 1) have
no casing designs or have simple casing designs and well head
equipment and 2) inject into shallow formations by gravity flow
or low volume pumps. In contrast, thigh_tech l wells typically
1) have multiple casing strings, 2) have sophisticated well
equipment to control and measure pressure and volume of injected
fluid, and 3) inject high volumes into deep formations.
Low-tech well types include agricultural drainage wells
(5F1), storm water and industrial drainage wells (5D2 , 5D4),
improved sinkholes (5D3), heat pump/air conditioning return flo’ v
wells (5A7), some aquaculture return flow wells (5A8), raw sewage
disposal wells and cesspools (5W9, 5W10), septic systems (5W11,
5W31, 5W32), some mine backfill wells (5X13), some cooling water
return flow wells (5A19), some industrial process water and waste
disposal wells (5W20), automobile service station waste disposal
wells (5X28) , and abandoned water wells (5X29).
High—tech well types include geothermal wells used for elec-
tric power or for direct heat (5A5, 5A6), some aquaculture return
flow wells (5A8), domestic wastewater treatment disposal wells
(5W12), mining, sand, or other backfill wells (5X13), solution
mining wells (5X14), in—situ fossil fuel recovery wells (5Xl5) ,
1—4
-------
spent brine return flow wells (5A16), some cooling water return
flow wells (5A19), some industrial process water and waste
disposal wells (5W20), some aquifer recharge wells (5R21) , salt
water intrusion barrier wells (5B22), subsidence control wells
(5S23), radioactive waste disposal wells (5N24), experimental
technology wells (5X25), and aquifer remediation wells (5X26).
1.3 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS*
1.3.1 HYDROGEOIJOGIC CONSIDERATIONS
Half of the population of the United States currently is
served by ground water, and studies show that demand for this
resource is increasing at a rate of 25 percent per decade. The
use of ground water is increasing at a faster rate than is the
use of surface water. The degree to which each State depends
upon ground water varies from less than one percent of total
water withdrawals (District of Columbia) to 85 percent (Kansas).
The largest single use for ground water is irrigation, and
the major areas of usage are the southwestern, midwestern, and
southern States. The second largest use for ground water in the
United States is as a drinking water supply. Forty-eight percent
of the population relies on ground water as a drinking water
supply. Roughly two-thirds receive drinking water through public
supplies, and the remainder are supplied through domestic wells.
Ground water aquifers are of two primary types, unconfined
and confined. Unconfined, or water table, aquifers are the most
common. Under unconfined conditions, the water table is exposed
to the atmosphere such that the upper surface of the saturated
zone is free to rise and decline through openings in the soil
matrix. Available data suggest that most Class V injection is
into or above unconfined aquifers. Confined, or artesian,
aquifers are isolated from the atmosphere at the point of
discharge by impermeable strata. The confined aquifer is subject
to higher hydraulic pressure than atmospheric pressure, and
certain high—tech Class V wells inject into these aquifers.
Waste disposal or other fluid emplacement through injection
wells are potential causes of contamination to USDW. The distri-
bution of contaminants within an aquifer can occur as discrete
bodies, or “slugs,” resulting from low volume or short term
incidents of waste disposal/fluid injection. Cumulative effects
of numerous slugs, or continual disposal of highly concentrated
waste/injection fluid, or large volumes of waste/injection fluid
from a single facility can cause widespread contamination. The
degree of contamination ranges from slight deterioration in
natural quality to the presence of toxic levels of heavy metals,
organic compounds, inorganic contaminants, and radioactive
materials.
* Findings are a compilation of data submitted by the States.
1—5
-------
TABLE 1-1
CLASS V INJECTION WELL TYPES
WELL
CODE NAME OF WELL TYPE AND DESCRIPTION
DRAINAGE WELLS (a.k.a. DRY WELLS )
5F1 Agricultural Drainage Wells — receive irrigation
tailwaters, other field drainage, animal yard, feedlot,
or dairy runoff, etc.
5D2 Storm Water Drainage Wells - receive storm water runoff
from paved areas, including parking lots, streets,
residential subdivisions, building roofs, highways,
e Lc.
5D3 Improved Sinkholes - receive storm water runoff from
developments located in karst topographic areas.
5D4 Industrial Drainage Wells - include wells located in
industrial areas which primarily receive storm water
runoff but are susceptible to spills, leaks, or other
chemical discharges.
5G30 Special Drainage Wells - are used for disposing water
from sources other than direct precipitation. Examples
of this well type include: landslide control drainage
wells, potable water tank overflow drainage wells,
swimming pool drainage wells, and lake level control
drainage wells.
GEOTHERMAL REINJECTION WELLS
5A5 Electric Power Reinjection Wells - reinject geothermal
fluids used to generate electric power - deep wells.
5A6 Direct Heat Reinjection Wells — reinject geothermal
fluids used to provide heat for large buildings or
developments - deep wells.
5A7 Heat Pump/Air Conditioning Return Flow Wells - reinject
groundwater used to heat or cool a building in a heat
pump system - shallow wells.
5A8 Groundwater Aquaculture Return Flow Wells - reinject
groundwater or geothermal fluids used to support
aquaculture. Non—geothermal aquaculture disposal wells
are also included in this category (e.g. Marine
aquariums in Hawaii use relatively cool sea water).
1—6
-------
TABLE 1-1
CLASS V INJECTION WELL TYPES
WELL
CODE NAME OF WELL TYPE AND DESCRIPTION
DOMESTIC WASTEWATER DISPOSAL WELLS
5W9 Untreated Sewage Waste Disposal Wells - receive raw
sewage wastes from pumping trucks or other vehicles
which collect such wastes from single or multiple
sources. (No treatment)
5W10 Cesspools - include multiple dwelling, community, or
- regional cesspools, or other devices that receive
wastes and which must have an open bottom and sometimes
have perforated sides. Must serve greater than 20
persons per day if receiving solely sanitary wastes.
(Settling of solids)
5W 11 Septic Systems (Undifferentiated disposal method) -
are used to inject the waste or effluent from a
multiple dwelling, business establishment, community,
or regional business establishment septic tank. Must
serve greater than 20 persons per day if receiving
solely sanitary wastes. (Primary Treatment)
5W31 Septic Systems (Well Disposal Method) - are used to
inject the waste or effluent from a multiple dwelling,
business establishment, community, or regional business
establishment septic tank. Examples of wells include
actual wells, seepage pits, cavitettes, etc. The
largest surface dimension is less than or equal to the
depth dimension. Must serve greater than 20 persons per
day if receiving solely sanitary wastes. (Less
treatment per square area than 5W32)
5W32 Septic Systems (Drainfield Disposal Method) - are used
to inject the waste or effluent from a multiple
dwelling, business establishment, community, or
regional business establishment septic tank. Examples
of drainfields include drain or tile lines, and
trenches. Must serve more than 20 persons per day if
receiving solely sanitary wastes. (More treatment per
square area than 5W31)
5W12 Domestic Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent Disposal
Wells - dispose of treated sewage or domestic effluent
from facilities ranging from small package plants up to
large municipal treatment plants. (Secondary or
further treatment)
1—7
-------
TABLE 1-1
CLASS V INJECTION WELL TYPES
WELL
CODE NAME OF WELL TYPE AND DESCRIPTION
MINERAL AND FOSSIL FUEL RECOVERY RELATEI) WELLS
5X13 Mining, Sand, or Other Backfill Wells - are used to
inject a mixture of fluid and sand, mill tailings, and
other solids into mined out portions of subsurface
mines whether what is injected is a radioactive waste
or not. Also includes special wells used to control
mine fires and acid mine drainage wells.
5X14 Solution Mining Wells - are used for in-situ solution
mining in conventional mines, such as stopes leaching.
5X15 In-situ Fossil Fuel Recovery Wells - are used for in-
situ recovery of coal, lignite, oil shale, and tar
sands.
5X16 Spent—Brine Return Flow Wells - are used to reinject
spent brine into the same formation from which it was
withdrawn after extraction of halogens or their salts.
OIL FIELD PRODUCTION WASTE DISPOSAL WELLS
5X17 Air Scrubber Waste Disposal Wells - inject wastes from
air scrubbers used to remove sulfur from crude oil
which is burned in steam generation for thermal oil
recovery projects. (If injection is used directly for
enhanced recovery and not just disposal it is a Class
II well.)
5X18 Water Softener Regeneration Brine Disposal Wells -
inject regeneration wastes from water softeners which
are used to improve the quality of brines used for
enhanced recovery. (If injection is used directly for
enhanced recovery and not just disposal it is a Class
II well.)
INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL/UTILITY DISPOSAL WELLS
5A19 Cooling Water Return Flow Wells - are used to inject
water which was used in a cooling process, both open
and closed loop processes.
1—8
-------
TABLE 1-1
CLASS V INJECTION WELL TYPES
WELL
CODE NANE OF WELL TYPE AND DESCRIPTION
5W20 Industrial Process Wajer and Waste Disposal Wells — are
used to dispose of a wide variety of wastes and waste—
waters from industrial, commercial, or utility
processes. Industries include refineries, chemical
plants, smelters, pharmaceutical plants, laundromats
and dry cleaners, tanneries, laboratories, petroleum
storage facilities, electric power generation plants,
car washes, electroplating industries, etc.
5X28 Automobile Service Station Disposal Wells - inject
wastes from repair bay drains at service stations,
garages, car dealerships, etc.
RECHARGE WELLS
5R21 Aquifer Recharge Wells - are used to recharge depleted
aquifers and may inject fluids from a variety of
sources such as lakes, streams, domestic wastewater
treatment plants, other aquifers, etc.
5B22 Saline Water Intrusion Barrier Wells — are used to
inject water into fresh water aquifers to prevent
intrusion of salt water into fresh water aquifers.
5S23 Subsidence Control Wells - are used to inject fluids
into a non-oil or gas producing zone to reduce or
eliminate subsidence associated with overdraft of fresh
water and not used for the purpose of oil or natural
gas production.
MISCELLANEOUS WELLS
5N24 Radioactive Waste Disposal Wells - include all
radioactive waste disposal wells other than Class IV
wel 1 s.
5X25 Experimental Technology Wells - include wells used in
experimental or unproven technologies such as pilot
scale in—situ solution mining wells in previously
unmined areas.
5X26 Aquifer Remediation Related Wells — include wells used
to prevent, control, or remediate aquifer pollution,
including but not limited to Superfund sites.
1—9
-------
TABLE 1-1
CLASS V INJECTION WELL TYPES
WELL
CODE NAME OF WELL TYPE AND DESCRIPTION
5X29 Abandoned Drinking Water Wells - include those
abandoned water wells which are used for disposal of
waste.
5X27 Other Wells — include any other unspecified Class V
wells.
1 — 10
-------
Generally, Class V injection is into or above USDW. An USDW
is defined as an aquifer or its portion which supplies any public
water system or which contains a sufficient quantity of ground
water to supply a public water system and currently supplies
drinking water for human consumption or contains fewer than
10,000 rng/l total dissolved solids, and which is not an exempted
aquifer. Certain special Class V facilities are known to inject
fluids below USDW. Potential for contamination to TJSDW varies
and is dependent upon where injection occurs relative to USDW;
well construction, design, and operation; injectate quality; and
injection volumes. Class V injection practices which discharge
directly into USDW are potentially more harmful to USDW than
Class V injection above or below USDW because some protection of
USDW may be provided by injection above or below USDW.
1.3.2 CLASS V INJECTION WELL INVENTORY
As defined in this report, there are seven general
categories of Class V injection wells containing a total of 30
well types. Based on State inventories, there are approximately
173,159 Class V wells in the United States and its associated
Territories and Possessions. About 94 percent of all Class V
wells belong to four main categories: drainage wells (58%),
sewage related wells (25%), geothermal wells (6%), and mineral
and, fossil fuel recovery related wells (5%).
The numbers of Class V wells broken down by USEPA Regions
are as follows:
Region IX: 64,214 37%
Region X: 29,826 17%
Region IV: 27,911 16%
Region V: 17,772 10%
Region VIII: 9,015 5%
Region II: 8,950 5%
Region VII: 6,675 4%
Region III: 4,589 3%
Region VI: 3,843 2%
Region I: 364 (1%
1 — 11
-------
It should be noted that these numbers can be misleading,
however, because inventories were not conducted with consistent
levels of resources and guidance. There is a high probability
that the distribution of wells and the resulting conclusions are
not entirely accurate. Fifty—six States had submitted Class V
inventory and assessment reports by August 1987 for incorporation
into this Report to Congress.
Figure 1-1 is a map of the States and USEPA Regions. At the
present time, there are 22 Direct Implementation States (or
Possessions or Territories) and 35 Primacy States.
1.3.3 CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL ASSESSMENTS
Contamination potential has been assessed for each well type
in this report, using all available data. Because inventory
databases varied widely for different well types, a unified
system was needed with which to assess each well type
equivalently. The assessment incorporates the following
parameters:
1. Identification and potential useability of USDW;
2. T.ypical construction, operation, and maintenance
procedures;
3. Chemical and physical characterization of
injection fluid; and
4. Typical injected volumes.
Based upon this rating scheme, well types have been assessed
qualitatively for contamination potential as high, moderate, or
low. Certain Class V well types exhibit such variation in design
and injectate quality that a spectrum of ratings (e.g., moderate
to low, high to moderate, high to low) resulted. A few well
types have an unknown potential for contamination due to
extremely limited information. Contamination potentials for
Class V wells currently are assessed as follows:
High Contamination Potential
— Agricultural drainage wells, 5F1;
- Improved sinkholes, 5D3 (high to moderate);
- Raw sewage waste disposal wells, 5W9, and cesspools,
5W10;
— Septic systems, 5W11, 5W31, 5W32;
1 — 12
-------
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
REGIONS AND STATE UIC PROGRAM STATUS
AGENCY
LEGEND
N?JAIBER OFWELLS8 ’SZ4TE
Primacy State
• Direct kTçlernentation Stat
V I I I
,,fa
I
II
III
x
I
VI
. .
PUERTO RICO &
VIRGIN ISLANDS
L
-------
— Domestic wastewater treatment plant disposal wells,
5W12 (high to low);
- Industrial process water and waste disposal wells, 5W20;
— Automobile service station waste disposal wells, 5X28;
and
- Aquifer recharge wells, 5R21 (high to low).
Moderate Contamination Potential
- Storm water drainage, 5D2, and industrial drainage
wells, 5D4;
- Improved sinkholes, 5D3 (high to moderate);
— Special drainage wells, 5G30 (moderate to low);
- Electric power, 5A5, and direct heat reinjection wells,
5A6;
- Aquaculture return flow wells, 5A8;
— Domestic wastewater treatment plant disposal wells,
5W12 (high to low) ;
— Mining, sand, or other backfill wells, 5X13;
— In-situ fossil fuel recovery wells, 5X15;
- Cooling water return flow wells, 5A19 (moderate to low);
- Aquifer recharge wells, 5R21 (high to low);
- Experimental technology wells, 5X25 (moderate to low); and
- Abandoned drinking water/waste disposal wells, 5X29.
Low Contamination Potential
— Special drainage wells, 5G30 (moderate to low);
— Heat pump/air conditioning return flow wells, 5A7;
- Domestic wastewater treatment plant disposal wells,
5W12 (high to low);
— Solution mining wells, 5X14;
— Spent brine return flow wells, 5X16;
1 — 14
-------
— Cooling water return flow wells, 5A19 (moderate to
low)
— Aquifer recharge wells, 5R21 (high to low);
— Saline water intrusion barrier wells, 5B22;
— Subsidence control wells, 5S23; and
— Experimental technology wells, 5X25 (moderate to low).
Unknown Contamination Potential
- Radioactive waste disposal wells, 5N24; and
- Aquifer rernediation wells, 5X26 (including hydrocarbon
recovery injection wells).
Additional study is necessary in a number of areas. A
primary concern of many States is that the existing inventory
database is incomplete. It is recommended by many States that
efforts continue in attempting to locate uninventoried Class V
facilities and to upgrade the existing database of technical data
for inventoried facilities. Also, States recommended that
hydrogeologic studies on both local and regional scales may need
to be conducted f or areas containing sensitive aquifers in order
to define the potential impact of the various types of Class V
injection practices. Table 1-2 presents a summary of available
inventory data, types of fluids injected, and State
recornmenda tions.
1.4 CONTENT OF REPORT
Section Two of the report is an overview of the ground water
resource and current and projected use of the resource. Several
hydrogeologic considerations, important when examining injection
well practices, are discussed to provide the reader with an
appropriate background. A general understanding of our ground-
water resource is essential, considering that over 95 percent of
Class V injection wells discharge directly into, above, or
between tJSDW.
The inventory information submitted by the State UIC
programs is presented and summarized in Section Three of the
report. Inventory numbers are given by well type and by USEPA
Regions and States. The sources of the inventory data are
primarily State reports; however, inventory information also was
obtained from personal interviews, the FURS database (Federal UIC
Reporting System), reports other than the State Class V reports,
and published literature.
1 — 15
-------
Section Four of the report is presented in two parts. The
first part is a discussion of methods used to determine ground-
water contamination potential and the criteria important in
assessing an individual well type’s potential. The second part
of Section Four consists of the individual well type assessments
for the Class V wells listed in Table 1-1. Each assessment
addresses well purpose; inventory and location; construction,
siting, and operation; nature of injected fluids and injection
zone interactions; hydrogeology and water usage; contamination
potential of well type; current regulatory approach; and State
recommendations for siting, construction, operation, and correc-
tive or remedial actions. As with the inventory information,
most data used in the well type assessments came from States’
Class V reports. Additional data were gathered from published
literature, unpublished reports, inspection and investigation
programs, and personal interviews.
The Summary and Conclusions Section, Section Five, provides
an overview of the preceding sections on inventory and assessment
and contains a summary table for quick reference. Section Six of
the report presents recommendations both for the inventory data-
base and f or each Class V well type assessed in the report. The
recommendations are a summary of those given by the State
reports. The recommendations include consideration of the
technicaL aspects of- Class V injection, such as siting,
construction, and operation.
Appendix A consists of State Report Summaries for each of
the State Class V reports received and reviewed to date.
Appendices B and C contain the glossary and list of acronyms and
abbreviations used, respectively. Appendix D consists of a
general bibliography and other well-type specific
bibliographies. Appendix E is a listing of supporting data,
mainly case studies, used (to augment State report data) in
assessing well types.
1 — 16
-------
‘1 .E 1—2
Nation.qide: 1.338 wells
)eJ York: 150 wells
Puerto Rico: no nirbers
West Virginia: no nuters
florida: no nebers
Georgia: 43 wells
Kentucky: no narbers
Illinois: 6 wells
Indiana: 72 wells
Mithigan: 15 wells
Minnesota: 54 wells
(klahans: no tasters
Texas: 108 wells
Ice: 230 wells
Missairi: no tasters
Nebraska: 5 wells
lorado: no tasters
Pbrth Da) ta - 1 well
Idako: 572 wells
Oregen: 16 wells
Washington: 66 wells
Ittentially sany tuses
this figure in areas
typified by irrigation.
3fl ’ a? aa V rurlal W&L M All) I4fll*flCI
R&ZPtWS
- Inprovetent of inventory efforts
is essential. (PR. GA. IN, NI,
MN. CX). OR)
- Locate and prcperly plug all aban-
donS wells near Agricultural
Drainage Wells. (IA)
- Close surface inlets to sIlo, ,
infiltration thraigh soil. (Ml)
- Raise the inlets above maxinuin
pording levels. (IA)
- Require that injection fluids
east all or sate drinking water
standards. (NE. OR)
- Require irrigation tailwater
recovery and pieçtack. (OR)
- Use only necessary anounts of
irrigation weter and applied
chetucals. (GA)
- Require frequent nonitoring of
drinking water wells in surronni-
ing areas.
- Require detailed sep with all
well locations. (NE)
- Require diagran of injection well
construction. (NE)
— Require siting of wells at least
2.000 ft. away fran any stock,
municipal, or dcnestic well. (NE)
- Discourage use and encourage
elimination of agricultural
drainage wells by developing
alternate netl s. (IA)
Agricultural Drainage
Wells (SF1)
Varies due to thffering farming
practices aid soil types; poterr
tial agricultural contaninants
include sedanent, nutrients,
pesticides, organics, salts,
netals, and patlcgens in sat
cases.
High
Na York — SPItS Permit
Florida — Permit
Georgia - Banned
Illinois — Rule
Clcla)uua - Rule
Ia.za — Diversion Penni t
Misscxiri — ?bne
Nebraska — Rule
Utah — Rule
Arizona — Permit
Idairt — Peniux if deaper than
18 feet
Washington - Undec ided
-------
1 .ft.E 1—2, amtuujmj
8I .RY OR a. V Ull flc W L i m ws’ia
Netiom,ide: 80.000—100.000
walls reported for 39
States
Netiomnde: 3.802 wells
reported for 23 States.
Herbicides, pesticides, ferti-
lizers. deicing salts, as ial—
tic sedurents, gasoline, grease
oil, tar and residuas fran roofs
and paving. rubber particulaces,
liquid wastes and industrial
solvents, heavy setals aid
col if ore bacteria.
Similar constituests to these
found in Storuwacer Drainage
Wells, though generally present
in higher co1 enrrat1ons.
Heavy iretals such as lead,
iron, aid manganese.
Organic caipounos.
Inforuetion applies to both 5D2
aid 5D4 unless otherwise specified.
inecticut—Peniut (5D2)
?Iassachusetts-Elcespt (502)
New .1ersey-NJPDi Permit
New York-Permit if injected volune
aicceeds 1,000 GPD
Z.Iarylath—Permit (5D4)
Alabama—Permit (502)
Florida-Permit
Georgia-Bani
Kentucky-Lcral (5D2), Permit (5D4)
South Carolina—Permit (502)
Tennessee—Permit (502)
Illinois—Rule
Wiscorisin— ie (5D2) Rule (504)
Louisiana—Class II Regulations
(5D4), Registration of Class V
wells not reguired
New l . aco-Registration
iclatrsna-Ru1e
Nebraska-Rule
bbntana-Permit (502)
Utah-Rule
W uning-Pennit (502)
Arizona-Registration
California-Rule
Hawaii—Permit
Guam-Permit (502)
Alaska—Permit (5D2)
Idako—Pernut if deeper than 18
feet (502)
Washington-Rune
Apply to both storm water aid indus-
trial drainage walls:
- New walls should be investigated
aid added to FURS. (KY, UT, WA)
- C ristruct ion of new industrial
drainage walls should be limited
or discouraged; storm water sewers,-
detention Fords, or vegetative
basins are preferred. (OR, U., KY,
m, UT).
- Said aid gravel filters should be
added to wells. (KY, )
- Stand pipes shculd be constructed
at the openings of wells. (KY, Th)
- Limit future construction to resi-
dential areas. (U.)
- Ml spills should be diverted away
fran industrial drainage wells
(OR, iyr, WA)
- New construction of walls in areas
served k ’ storm water sewers should
be prohibited. (CA, AZ)
- Drainage wells sIx iid not be con-,
structed within 200 ft. of water
supply wells which tap lceer
water-bearing aquifers. (CA)
- Deep wells should be plugged or
ces nted to avoid mixing between
aquifers. (KY, Th)
- Depth to water data should be made
available to well drillers.
(AZ)
- Additional studies including use of
nonitoring wells should be conducted
to study possible pollution sources
aid prolonged effect of industrial
drainage wells on ground water.
(FL. WI, KS)
- An assessrent of the effects of
store drainage wells shculd be
conducted prior to caiplering an
inventory because the inventory
would be trire-consuning and costly.
(!‘?F, OR)
- Sediments extracted Iran drainage
wells, catch bas,.ns, or sediment
traps should be cisposed in an
appropriate landfill. (AZ)
- 1 public awareness program should
be mplerentid. (AZ)
- Ml drainage wells should be identi-
fied aid plugged. (WV)
Storm Weter Drainage
Wells (5D2)
OR
BhJ L2U4 W L
L(X .TIa1 a
OR wazs OR
PO1 iWI . W 2
(P PI S
fl ” ’
a)-l l ( a)
Jw
POi 1LV ’L
SThTE R JL,wi
R I4 flA
Industrial Drainage
Wells (504)
Nederate
-------
!I &.E 1-2 . ctmtinued
a.a v nawcrni tea. wm nc
nw a’
nua nw in
LccPinal & IU
a’ Cs
mzna WOifla4
‘ivr a’
nun w
1O-WA1St (D J)
anaicwn
1UtFIA&
siwit n
9 1W
RaotecAnae
lnproied Sinkholes
(5D3)
Natiorwide: 479 wells
New Hanpshire: 3 wells
Puerto Rico: 10 wells
Kentucky: 76 wel is
Tennessee: 5 wells
Indiana: 26 wells
Michigan: 103 wells
Mmn ota: 6 wells
Missouri: 250 wells
Virginia. West Virginia.
Florida, aid Ohio: nmsrbers
not yet confmnt.
Potentially in all areas
with lin*stona aid dolanite
lithologies at relatively
Sialloa depths.
Runoff, fran paved areas, con-
taming lead aid petroletin
products fran autaitbiles, pes—
ticides fran horticulture aid
lawn care. nitrates fran fern-
lizers. aid fetal material fran
wild aid datestic animals;
normal fallout fran air pollu-
tants nay also be present.
High to Ptderate
•
Puerto Rico-Permit
Florida-Permit
Georgia—Banned
Kantucky-Lccal
Terstessee-Perniit
Irdiana—taie
Michigan—)bre
Minnesota-Thne
Ohio-Rure
Missouri-None
- Training should be required for
engineers aid drillers in the proper
construction of wells with specia]
esphas is on sam rary sealing and
protection against corrosion.
Training should be slanted tavard
construction in Karst or limestone
formations. (PR)
- Careful dye trace studies should
be run ci any existing or mproved
sinkhole drainage systens. aid
cccasional norutoring of both
entering aid exiting fluids s lnild
be run after the systen is in
operation. (K))
Special Drainage
Wells (5G30)
‘
i
Natiorwide: 1.557 wells
Florida: 1.385 wells
Laiisi&ia: 1 well
Writana: 55 wells
Hawaii: 1 well
Idaho: 7 wells
Washington: 108 wells.
Potentially present in
all Regions.
Highly variable, depending on
systen design; for landslide
control. graird water is gener-
ally used; swmeung pool
drainage fluid say contain
lithitzn hyporblorite. calcnsn
)wpcrhlorite, sidnsn bicar-
borate, chlorine, biranine,
iodine, cyanuric acid. alu—
suntan sulfate, algaecides.
fungicides, aid nunatic
acid.
Ptderate to Im
florida-Peniut/Mile
Louisiana-Class II Regulations.
Registration of Class V wells rot
required
Nabraska-Rule
Mintana-Pernut
Hawaii-Permit
Idaho-Permit if deeper than 18
feet.
- Rathan sanpling aid analysis of
swinning pool wastewater for
possible contaminants shouid be
required. (FL)
.
-------
TAN,E 1—2, amtlnued
aa V DQU Y1W ca, — AID R tflVEICG
Electric Paver
Reinjection Wells
(5A5)
Direct Rest Rainjec-
tion Wells (SM)
Natiomade: 89 wells
‘Itcas: ntrbers not conf inied
California: 65 wells
Nevada: 16 wells
Idabo: 4 wells
Alaska: 4 wells
Netioavide: 21 wells
New York: no niflers
Ne , ’ Nexico: 2 wells
Texas: 1 well
Cblorsdo: 2 wells
California: 1 well
Nevada: 6 wells
Idabo: 2 wells
Ore i: 6 wells
Utah: 1 well
Vapor-Danwa ted Resource
heavy netals (arsenic, boron,
seleriiun) • sulfates, aid
dissolved solids.
Rot Water—Daninsted Resource
heavy setals (arsenic, boron,
selenitr) • chlorides, dissolved
solids, aid acidic p H.
Arsenic, boron, fluoride,
dissolved solids, sulfates,
chloride.
Texas—Permit
) raska—Rule
Utah-Permit
California—Permit
Nevada-Pentit
Ida)r-Pennit
New ) uco—Permit
Tacas—Peneit
t raska—Fojle/Pennit
Utah-Permit
Cal ifornia-Pennit
Nevada—Permit
Idabo—Pennit
Ore n-Permit if injected volune
acceSs 5.000 CPD
Apply to both electric paver aid
direct heat reinjection wells:
- Detailed study on the types of n:T
available for geothensal systess
aid the resolut ion of each rethod.
(NV)
— Initial analysis of injectate and
injection zone water corducted
prior to full-scale injection
operations; parareters of con-
cern are taqierature, inorganic
constituents of Primary a id Secon-
dary Drinking Water Regulations,
alkalinity, haniness, silica.
boron, aid amaua nitrogen.
(CA, M V)
— Injection into ron—thermal reser-
voirs if the thermal injection
fluids neet drinking water require-
rents or if the receiving fluids
are of equal or lesser quality. (ID)
qy cr
DU ’YIQI WflL
WQflat & ?UP
Cr l&LS at
RflflffIAL W flat
1YP (P PW3I
Thnn i
riciua ( )
ma n n
m’na
sfl RBW!UW
Geothensal Reinjection
Wells
P&derate
-------
TA&.E 1-2. caitimied
Cr a V Bu ncll W L DATA M I) I I) lTC2E
Netionwide: 10.028 wells.
Potentially present in all
regions: sore e qiected in
areas characterized by
clin ’atic extrases. Regorted
in all States accept the
following; !‘.ame, R} e
Island, Verumt. Puerto
Rico. Virgin Islands, West
Virginia, Alabama. Arkansas,
Hawaii, Merican Sairoa, TIPI,
Guam.
Primarily thennally altered
ground water: additives de-
signed to inhibit scaling.
corrosion aid iscrustation
when water high in netals aid
salts, or deimnstrating high
or low ç 1. is used.
inecticut—Pemut
Nassachusetts-Pennit if injected
voluire is greater than 15.000 GPO
New Jersey-Rule/Peniut
New York-Permit
Deiaware-Perm it
Maryland—Permit
Florida—Permit
Georgia—Ban i
Nerth Carolina-Penn: t
South Carolina-Rule
Ill irlOis—Rule
Minnesota-Permit
Wisca ’ isin—Ruile
Lou is i aria—Pen iut
New F uco—Registraticri
Okla}xx ia—Rule
Texas—Rule
Missouri-Registration
Nthraska- R ule
Fbrth Dakota—Rule
Utah-Permit
Wyon -Penalt
Arizoria- 11,ne
California—Permit
Alaska-Permit
Idabo—Pe rnut
oregori—Pernut if injected volure
is greater than 5.000 GPD
Washingron-Penru t
- ‘t,re research is needed on the
theoretical envi ronriental effects
of heat paips. (M D, AZ, SC}
— Authorization by rule is appropriate
for properly spaced and operated
systans. (SC)
- New regulatory progress should be
directed at large—scale systens
rather than at systess for single-
fanily dwellings. (LA. Q. TN)
- Records should be maintained by
ca.sities and periodically up-loaded
to State databases in order to
nonitor well densities. (WA)
- The State permitting agency should
set construction standards and
ensure that wells are constructed
and operated properly. (FL. KS.
MD. NE. SC, WA)
- Permits for commrcial developrents
should include requirneenrs for
water quality characterizations
of both source art) receiving
water, )
- Return wells s1 ild be cased
through top of injection zone. (IA)
- Annular space should be cacented
or grouted. (IA. KS. NE. TN)
- Adequate spacing between produc-
tion wells should be practiced,
(KS. NE. SC)
- Discharge should be into or abcwe
the supply aquifer. (LA. IA. KS. SC)
- Closed 1 cop systans should be re-
quired. (tYF. TN)
- Discharge should be to the surface
rather than to an injection well,
(LA)
- The waste product should contain
no additives or only approved
additives (LA, KS, NE)
- Voluses art) tanperatures of injec-
tion fluids should be nonitored, (NC)
- Analyses of receiving fluids should
oe conducted periodically. (KS, WA)
licensed water well drille:
snoulo be anployed to install.
rework • and/or plug art) seal me
well. (U i, IL)
- New well installation in kn ’n or
suspected conmaniriated aquifers
should he prohibited. (WA)
Heat Punp/Air
Gurditioning
Patuin Flow Wells
(5A7)
‘IYPE CF
D lT l W L
i. rxcI1 & o at
(F W LS Cr
l i1’I?L I Cr
TYPE CF PWI1
fljj e -m
-w i ( i)
i’ICr
KY1 AL
E R LA5U ’
-------
1 .&.E 1—2. tinued
UA v nu rxai waz i m an a i rxci
.w
nu na W L
I .TI 4 &
t LS a
i iwz. i rici
FWfl
Tki,z-n .
M -WM t ( )
fflhI?1 T l
WL
SIMS REU1taSU
a n e ai
R * lWYI(I
Ground-water Aqua-
culture Return
Fly Wells (5A8)
Hawaii: 7 active wells
3 standby wells
15 pzcposed wells
Rtentially found Eierever
neru e or fresh water
organises are cultured
in large quantities.
Large voluess of vastawater
caiposed of essentially salt
water with ‘‘ nutrients.
bacteriological gro th.
perished aniiials. and aninal
detritus. Effluent typically
cont&ms nitzates. nitrites,
anionia. high EU). and.
orthoi*iosiI ate.
Mxierate
Nebraska-Rule
Utah-Permit
Hawaii-Permit
Ore ,-PenIut if injected volme
exceeds 5.000 GPD
- Regular saxrpling and analysis of
Injection fluid and injection zone
fluid should be required (sari-
annually). (HI)
- Water to be disposed should be
filtered and appropriately treated
prior to injection. (HI)
- Return waters should be carefully
noni tored at a point before and
after treatsent to ensure the
neasures being enployed are suf f i—
cient to alla., the water to be
injected. (HI)
Dasestic Wastewater
Disposal Wells
Raw Sewage Disposal
Wells (5W9)
Natioawide: 980 wells
Puerto RicO: 5 wells
Pennsylvania: no iuibers
Illinois: 916 wells
Indiana: 22 wells
Michigan: 11 wells
Mimwaota: 10 wells
Texas: 10 wells
Hawaii: 3 wells
Alaska: 3 wells
Generally poor quality. inclu-
ding high fixed volaules. BCE.
. T . nitrogen (organic.
and free • chloride.
alkalinity aid grease.
High
Illinois-Banned
Nebraska-Rule
uta l i anne d
Hawaii-Permit
Nevada—Baru
Alaska-Permit or Rule
Oregnu-Rule
Ne recarnerdations corcerning raw
sewage disposal wells and cesspools
were provided in State raports.
Hcwever, the use of such disposal
nEt S has been banned in several
States.
Cesspools (5W10)
Nation.,ide: 6.622 wells
New Jersey: 1 well
New York: no nurbers
Puerto Rico: 67 wells
Indiana: 22 wells
Michigan: 18 wells
Minnesota: 25 wells
New Mexico: 14 wells
Texas: 16 wells
Nebraska: no nuirbers
Wyaning: 3 wells
Arizona: 17 wells
California: 46 wells
Hawaii: 57 wells
Alaska: ) 79 wells
Oregon: 6.257 wells
Sane as for Raw Sewage Disposal
Wells.
High
New Jersey-NJPDES Permit
New York-Permit if injected volure
exceeds 1.000 GPD
New Maaco-Bannid
Texas—Rule
Nebraska—Rule
Utsh—Ban
Wyaiu.ng—Pennit
Arizona-Permit
California—Banned
Hawaii—Permit
Nevada-Banned
Alaska-Penni t or Rule
Oregon—Rule
-------
Th& .E 1—2. tim
5W11: 26.769 inventoried
wells in 31 States
5W31: 4.435 wells in 13 States
5W32: 3.783 wells in 8 States
Varies with type of systen;
fluids typically 99.9% water
(by weight) and .03 suspended
solids; irajor constituents
include outrates. chlorides
sulfates. saii n. ca1ci nn. arid
fecai colifonn.
necticut—Pennit if volune
injected exceeds 5.000 GPD
Massachusetts-pexnut if volima
injected exceeds 15.000 GPo
New Jersey-NYPDES Peniu t
New York-Permit if volisne
injected exceeds 1.000 GPO
Maryland-Permit (5W31)
Alabana—Periiut
Florida—Permit
Kentucky-Rule (5W31)
South Carolina—permit (5W32)
Minnexota-Rule
Wisconsin-Rule (5W31)
Icuisiana-Rule
New l ci.co-Registration
Oklahosa-Ru le
reras-I al
Missouri—Pen_nit
N ,raska-Rule
l .b tana—Permit
brth Dakota-Rule
Utah—Pen_nit
Wyaning—Pernut
Arizona—Pen_nit
Cal ifornia-Pernut
Hawaii—Pen_mt (5W31)
Nevada—Banned (5W31) • Permit (5W32)
aIn-z e
Alaska-Pernut or Rule
Idaho-Pen_nit if deeper than 18
feet
Oregon—Pen_nit if injected
vojuime exceeds 5.000 GPO (5W32)
Wash r.ngton—Pernut/Rule
- Further study is recommended.
(FL, TF, OR)
— Proper construction and installa-
tion guidelines should be devel-
oped. (NE))
- C going training progress for
sanitarians is recommended; should
include h frogeology. ground-water
flo . , theory of septic systen
operation, and potential risks to
hmsnan health. (PR. Ml. MN)
- Siting should be conducted so as
not to endanger water wells. (KS. NE)
- All system s ald be sited arid
designed individually. (TX)
- Local planning groups should be
encouraged to establish septic tank
density limits. (NE)
- Sewage disposal wells for private
facilities s) ild be phased out
arid replaced by alternate netheds
of treatnent and disposal. (TX)
- Well constructions should be inves-
tigated. (KS)
- Statewide non.ltoring system should
be established arid should include
inventory nethodology arid database
updates. (l .a)
Septic Systase
(5Wll. 5W31. 5W32)
ie i c a v nu rici W L R A!fl
IC TXQ &
w is a
¶YP FWBE
(ml)
Io1P ’a’Ic I
9l7 1E R A1 .1 ’
D ’fla W L
rIAL i rxai
flum
IUIE1 IThL
S ’Mxnu
High
-------
TAa.E 1—2, amtin
s wa a:. aa v uu ,nai waz. wn no
TYW CF
D0r1a4 WaL
wawn & IO
CF C F
wrw
¶Y CF Ffl
flunmw
(r Q)
CU1 IflWUfPIGI
Lu In i f is
9IWIE incaiaw
estic Wastewater
lteaazent Plant
Effluent Disposa]
Wells (5W12)
Potentially wesent in all
Regions. 1,099 wells
inventoried nationaide
in 19 States.
Injected fluid, after secorilary
or tertiary waste treaurent.
believed to be generally can-
patible with receiving forma-
non; say contain high nitrates
aid fecal colifonn if wpr -
erly treated.
High to Lee
tssachusetts-Pennit if injected
vo lwe exceeds 15,000 010
) e York-Permit
Puerto Rico-Permit
florida-Permit
Kenwcky-flmuziate
Illinois-Rule
Ithiane-Pennit
Michigen-Pennit
Texas—Rule/Permit
Nthraska-Rule
Utah-Permit
Arizona—Permit
California—Permit
Hawaii—Fermi t
Nevada-Banned
Alaska-Permit or Rule
Idaho-Rule
Washingtcn—Rule
- Operation should ensure that
injection is restricted to rates
ard pressures dictated by site-
specific hydrogeologic corditions
(stcdd involve nonitoring).
(WY. AL. HI).
- Alternative net1 s of disposal
aid feasibility of upgrading
existing plants should be evalu-
ated. (VA)
- In sam cases, wells should be
plugged. (KY)
Miners] aid Fossil
Fuel Reca’ery
Related Wells
Mining, Said or
Other Backfill
Wells (5X13)
Naticnvide: 6,500 wells
fotrylard: 1 well
Pennsylvania; 811 wells
West Virginia: 258 wells
Alabama: no nisbers
Kenurky: 61 wells
Teitsasee: no nisthers
Illinois: 5 wells
New Ptuco: 11 wells
Texas: 65 wells
Missouri: 4.326 wells
Color : 2 wells
!tntana: 10 wells
t’brth Dakota: 300 wells
Wyarung: 74 wells
Nevada: 1 well
Idaho: 575 wells
Hydraulic or presnatic slurries
- Solid portion of slurries
may be said, gravel, caient,
mill tailings/refuse, or fly
ash.
- Slurry waters may be acid
mine weter or ore extraction
proress wastewater.
? erate
,
Maryland-Permit
Pasisylvania-Mine operation
West Virginia—Mine ration
Alabama—Permit
Kentucky-Permit
Illinois-Rule
New )tuco-Unkncqn
Texas—Rule
Missairi-ttire
flabraska-Rule
Colorado-Rule
t ’tntana—Pennit
lbrth Dakota-Rule
Utah—Rule
Wyaning-Permi t
Idaho-Rule
- Siting, design. construction. and
operation should be specified in
permit requiremnts. (IL)
- Slurry injection volires should
be ironitored aid carpered to
calculated mine volure to prevent
catastroçtiic failure. (WV)
- Gr -water nonitoring in areas
containing potable water. (ID)
- Site-specific study is necessary
to determine the nature and
extent of degradation fran mine
backfill wells. (FTP)
- Authorization of mine backfill
wells without penru ts siould con-
tinue vbnere tailings are injected
into formations that are effect-
ively isolateo fray USOW. (ID)
-------
‘l E 1—2. contlmi&
eq J or’ 0.ASS V n& u ria w L AMI R 44 I3MIa
Q
na a WM2
i. iai &
W AS t
mI rIAL Lcora’Ia
IYP cF FWUE
mi
Q l - 1 ( J)
lO1 fl!IAL
SThTh I LAfIU
STIWCIURE
Solution Miruog
Wel is (5X14)
Mitionvide: 2,025 wells
! York: 48 wells
Michigan: 15 wells
New Nexico: 1,073 wells
Wyatung: 14 wells
Arizona: 870 wells
California: 5 wells
Potentially in other
mining districts.
Weak acid solutions (sulfuric
and hydrochloric)
ieronlun caitonate
Sediunn carbonate/bicarbonate
Ferric cyanide
Lcs
hew York—Permit
New Wexiao-PerTri t
hshraska-Pemt.tt
Utab-Penuit
Wyaiu.ng-Pennit
Arizona-Permit
Calif ornia-Pennit
- Network of injection wells sheuld
not extend beyond surface proj ec-
tion of ore bcxi . (CA)
- New types of nechanical integrity
tests for urplenentatiOn with this
well type stould be studied. (AZ)
- Hydrologic nonitoring sheuld be
ccriducted to deternune a weter
)sidget. (AZ)
In Situ Fossil Fuel
Recovery Wells
(5X15)
Natioravide: 66 wells
(blorado: 23 wells
Indiana: 1 well
Michigan: 1 well
Wyuning: 41 wells
Potentially in other
areas wtih relatively
allne. organic rich
sib strata,
Undergrcurd coal gasification:
- air. orcygen. steam. weter.
igniting agents snch as
aeroniun nitrate-fuel oil
(ANfV) or propane.
In situ oil shale retorting:
- air. acygen. steam, water.
sard. explosives. igniting
agents (generally propane)
Pur se in both cases s to
initiate and maintain cathus-
tion. CaTbustlon prcducts
include polynuclear dramatics.
cyan.ides. nitrites, phenols.
erate
Texas-Permit
N raska-Rule
loraio—Pole
utab-Perirur
Wya rung-Peimit
- Qrduct canpiete geologic and
hydrogeologiC investigations prior
to systen irplarentation. (WY)
- Raiediate zone fluids to minimize
future contamination. (WY)
Spent urine Return
Flo.c Wells (5fl6)
Nationeide: 121 wells
New York: no nurbers
West Virginia: 2 wells
Indiana: 8 wells
Michigan: 33 wells
Arkansas: 70 wells
Cklaftina: 7 wells
Nerth Dalatta: i well
Potentially in Regic,ns
having carnrercially recov—
erable halogen deposits.
Limited to brines fran which
halogens or salts have been
extracted;
Potential for addition of other
uthef uierl constituents into
waste stream,
Los
Nei York-Pernut
Arkansas-PerThit
Oklatsina—Rule
Nebraska-Pole
Utah—Rule
- Technical requirerents specified in
permits shnuld be similar to those
for oilfield brine injection wells
or solution mining wells. (W.’. AR)
— Construction requirerents srould
be developed based upon well oper—
ating parameters. (AR)
- Vechanical integrit) tests snould
be rec uired. (AR)
- Semi—annual ccnlprenenslve saitpl mg
.rd analysis of flub ard caripar-
son of pxcduced vs. lrJected
‘luid sriou]c on rE.ai.:rmi. (A.F)
-------
1 E 1—2, zitini
& 4 RY a’ V n m i’iai WPIL fl 5 NI) R f I)ATl(I
?IPE a’
DUIZPIa’ W L
I .TiQ & MP
a’ is a’
I I ILX ATIa’
‘WP a’ 1Mfl
D&J I
fl()-WA!1 (t )
Mfl a’
mi irm
S1? E REQ)taSU
fl 1XJRE
R iXXH 2 I ) LFI()S
Irdustrial/CoTlTerciai
.
Utility Disposa:1
Wells (5A19)
ling Water Reuum
291 wells inventoried
Dependent upon type of systan,
Federate to La .
Massachusetts-Permit if injection
voltare exceeds 2,000 CM)
- MinimuTi bating reguiranents for
the injection well relative to any
Fins Wells (5A19)
:
.
nationside; pota tialiy
neny tines this number,
and wonld be lorated in
all Regions.
.
•
.
.
.
type of edditives, and tenper-
ature of water; open pipe
systses may expose grcanid water
to accidental intrtrbx tion of
surface ccztaminants, industrial
spills, or unauthorized disposal
of wastes.
.
,
Haw Jersey-NJPDES Permit
Alabama-Pertn it
Florida—Permit
Georgia—Permit
South Carol ins—Rule
Illinois—Rule
Wisconsin—Rule
Arkansas-Sons
New c.ico—Registration
Isa-Permit
raska Rule
Utah-Permit
California-Permit
Hawaii-Permit
Alaska—Permit
Ida lx,-Permit
Oregon-Permit if injected volures
exceed 5,000 GM)
Washington-Permit
.
.
nearby nunicipal supply wells
should be established. (NE. SC)
- Wells sbeiuid be grouted fran at
least 20 feet Mi s land surface
tO lath surface or to the water
table. (NE)
— Wells should be cased fran surface
to the top of the uppermost supply
and injection zone. (AR)
- CeTented annulus fran surface to
supply/injection zone. (AR)
- Reguire minimum of 2 wells: supply
well and return well. (AR. SC)
- Wells should be constructed such
that spent fluids are injected
into source aquifer. (AR)
- Cpen loop return f ins wells should
be prthibited. (Fl ., AR, NE, tIP)
- Wells should be plugged with cerent
upon abandorurent. (AR)
- Permit specifications needed:
Petailed map sft ing all area wells.
Diagram of injection well design.
Diagram of entire system.
‘rIpe and volute of injectate. (AR,
NE)
-------
‘a E 1—2. tin
1,989 inventoried sells
i -n 33 States.
Potentially arty fluid disposed
by various industries; can have
high dissolved solids, suspen-
ded solids, alkalinity.
chloride, pkos iate, sulfate,
total volatiles.
connecticut-Fermi t
Massachisetts-Pereu t
New Jersey—!JPDES Permit
New York-Permit
Narylard—Permit
Pennsylvania-Permit
Alabama—Permit
Flonda-Pennit
Saith Carol ina—Peniut
Ill inois—ltile
Wisconsin—Permit
Texas-Class I Regulat ta te
l raska-Rui e
Utah-Banned
Wyn iung-Permit
Arizona—Permit
Cal iforrua—Peruut
Hawaii—Permit
Alaska—Permit
Idalo—Peniut if desper than 18
feet
Oregon-Pent
- inventory efforts should continue
with high pnorit on identifying
irdustnal disposal facilities.
(PR. 1K, WI, AK. W i)
- Assirie all ir ustrial waste
disposal has a deleterious effect
on UStJA, warranting uresthate
action. (PA)
— Ebctensive ground-water evaluation
studies should be conducted to
identify areas which would be
vulnerable to caitaninat ion by
industrial waste disposal. (PR. AL)
- Drainago areas surroirthng irdus—
trial facilities should be studied
and all possible pollution sources
north. (KS)
— Inspection of these facilities
should be marnatory, and conducted
by teams backed by cheincal or
irdustnal engineers. (PR)
- rtnitoring programs should be
required and saupling specifica-
tions should be tightened. (PR.
r io, r i,, KS)
- Grairo—water sonitoring snould
be coraucted using a minumsi of
one uçgradient and two dciwngradient
wells. (AZ)
— Iractice of injecting industcial
prccess water ann waste should be
ascouraged, arid wastes routes
to on—site treacncnt facilities
or iminicipal sanitarl segei
s&stams. (FL)
- Discharge of inoustrial pr ess
wastes to sept 1 c svstens snould
be disrouragec. (PP. NE)
- “tsr wells snouic cc permutes
onl inor injEcton is into g’ourc
a ei ccnt&.r no rueatet thst’
ri—tr.OusaflO mcii ‘IDE. (It)
Industrial Process
Water and Waste
Disposal Wells (5W20)
WIWI a? QaA V D4JK.’flal WflL DATA ND R e cAflQS
‘iv a?
nu riai wflZ.
WaA’104 & I&P
a? CS a?
1u1utI’IAL xwnai
flP C r FWUE
nurw
ID4JPSBt (rmg)
ajim wan a i
nn, lrxnJ
sr P XUfl
saesnuxs
R t4flDAnGE
High
-------
T ..E 1—2, tizn
& WRY cF a.A V naj ria walL DA J m R }44 l]ATI(
‘IYW
I1UI 1 b L
L TIQ & t’D
cF W ILS GI
L 1’ 1a
1YF
fl IH)
Q 3 l3-’vTh I (U J)
I4fl
T I1PL
E REIIJl
5’r!ajc in .jp .
Autambfle Service
Station Waste
Disposal Wells
(5X28)
•
Nationwide: 99 wells
Connect jcut: 1 well
R1 1e Islaed: 3 wells
Vernont: 10 wells
New Jersey: 18 wells
New York: 3 wells
Virgim . 1 well
Florida: no raiTbers
Illinois: 5 wells
lediana: 2 wells
Miebigan: 2’7 wells
New cico: no nuthers
Iewa: 1 well
Missa.iri: 5 wells
Utah: 2 wells
Nevada: no ntznbers
Idaho: 21 wells
Waste oil, antifreeze,
floor washings (including
detergents, organic, arri
inorganic sedirent) aix)
other petroleun prcrIucts.
.
.
High
•
:
Gunnecticut—Permit
Jersey—N3PDES Permit
New York—Permit
Florida—Permit
Illinois-Rule
Nebraska—Rule
Utah—Banned
Idaho-Rule
.
— Inventory update is vital.
Guidelines for construction,
operation, a ix) cweral ) regulation
of these wells need to be estab—
lisned. ( , PR)
- Permits should shcw construction
features, a plan to utilize
separators aix) holding tanks, arx)
a plan to seiple aix) analyze
injected fluids. (IA)
- Urx)ergrourd holding tanks should
be reguired. (UT)
- Loral building cede a ix) sewer
pretreateent inspection should
identify areas where discharge
to sewers is prohibited. (UT)
Recharge Wells
.
quifer Recharge
Wells (5 ) 1)
.
.
Natiorwide: 3,558 wells
New Hanpshire: 1 well
New York: 3.000 wells
Florida: 349 wells
Illinois: 1 well
Minnesota: 1 well
) Mexico: 30 wells
Texas: 44 wells
Kansas: 4 wells
Nebraska: 4 wells
Wycining: 32 wells
Arizona: 51 wells
California: 52 wells
Idaho: 7 wells
Washington: 7 wells
Petentially found in
areas characterized by
large witbarawals for
drinking water or
irrigation far in excess
of recharge.
Depehoent t c source; water
quality changes noted include
adsorption, ion exchange, pre—
precipitation aid dissolution,
chemical acidation, biological
nitrification aid denitrifica—
tion, aerebic or anaerobic
degradation, irechanical dis-
persiori, and filtration.
.
.
High to Lo
New Jersey—Rule/Permit
Florida-Permit
Illinois—Rule
New Mexico-Registration
Texas-Permit
Nebraska—Rule
Utah—Rule/Permit
Wyaning-Permit
Arizona-Permit
California—Permit
Idaho-Permit if deeper than
18 feet
,
.
- Injection fluid should he of
generally eguivalent or better
quality than 1n eCtiOn zone
fluid. (NE)
- Staidards for injectate quality
rust be on a case by case basis.
(? Z)
- Regular injectate sampling should
be conducted. (NE)
- Use of proper design. construction
and operation is essential. (FL. NE)
.
-------
mat 1—2. cc nmiS
&nww a. aa V marw vjaz. AM) R&DI4 LRTIQE
ttw a.
DU FIW l L
WCATIQ1 & )CPEflt
a. ieis
i IflAL ICO n
¶YP a. EWES
n f l
(I J)
Iea!naa
flIEfPIAL
smit R maau i
S1WJCIURE
REm.esuA’rIas
saline Water
Intrusion Earner
Wells (5 2)
California: 155 wells
Florida: 2 wells
Potentially faith in coastal
areas typified by abundant
fresh water withorawals for
irrigation and/or drinking
water.
Varies with type of source;
exasples include advanced
treated sewage, surface urban
and agricultural rurcff • and
inported surface waters.
Lo u
New .lersey—Rule/Peniut
Florida-Permit
Nebraska—Rule
Utah-Rule/Pe r t - ut
Cal ifornia—PermLt
Washington-Permit
- Pilot studies to define lithologic
and h drogeologic parameters
influencing salt water intrusion
should be conducted on site-
specific basis. (CA)
- Characterization of interaction of
injectate and formation fluids is
necessary. (CA)
Sitsidence trol
Wells (5 3)
4 walls inventoried for
Wis sin fran state r rts ;
it is believed inventory is
incatplete; potantially
present in desert and coastal
areas typified by large,
long-term ground-water with-
drawals; areas having
carbonate auifers are par-
ticularly susceptible to
s i tsiderce.
See ‘Ilquifer Recharge Wells’
Lou
Wisconsin-Permit
Nebraska—Rile
Uta}rThile/Pertnit
•
.
- Injectate quality should be s c m-
tored. (CA)
- Proper wall design, operation.
and construction practices should
be inpleiented. (CA)
- For additional recamendat ions,
see ‘Aquifer Recharge Wells’
Miscellaneous Wells
Radioactive Waste
Disposal wells
(5EQ4)
Unknown nuther. but existence
ainf inS for Tennessee, New
ltxico, Idaho, and Washington
in State reports.
Variety of radioactive sister—
ials, including Beryll iun 7.
‘rritiun, Strontnsn 90, Cesusn
137, Potassium 40, alt 60.
beta particles, Plutornun,
Anericitn, Uranium, and
radionuclides.
Unknown
Illinois—Rule
New Mexico-Banned
Ckla)nna-Rule
Nebraska—Rule
Utah—Rule/Permit
Idaho-Permit if deeper than is
feet
Washington-Permit
- Discharges stni]d satisfy all
known, available, reasonable
treatirent and control aethuds. (WA)
— Distnarge to cribs and french
drains stn.ild be pretreated prior
to disposal. (WA)
- Permits, petmit ctinpl iance, and
enforceieni actions should be
negotiated annually i th EPA
through the State/EPA Agreenent
Proaram.__((U)
Ebcperinental
Technology Wells
(5 i S)
225 wells in State reports;
Potentially lorated in every
Region.
Wide variety of injected
constituents: highly acidic
or basic caqxsinds for solu-
tion mining; daiest ic waste—
water containing high total
suspended solids, fecal
coliform. awcnia, ND, pH;
air is used in certain water
rectwery projects.
Etderate to Lou
Alabama—Permit
Florida—Permit
Mississippi—Rule
North Carol ma-Permit
I ] linois-Rule
Mew Mexico-Permit
Nebraska—Rule
Utah—Rule/Permit
Wyaning—Permit
Arizona-Perm it
California-Permit
Hawaii—Permit
Nevada—Permit
— Wells should not be sited and
operated so as to permit injection
into Class IIB aquifers. (CA)
- Detailed hydrogeological studies
snould be conducted prior to any
proposed injection. (CA)
- Cnenical analysis of waste stream
nrriodrcally. (CA)
— -‘cnan cal integrity tests should
.‘ developcd and conducted regularly.
(CA. C)
-------
1 E 1—2, XXitiflL
isa c aa v nu rra esz. i m -F . v a’ias
nu riai w 1.
Lfl 4 & NJ
W LS Q
1 1’ThL LOCATI
T P FLUII
DU L U
JM -WNl O ’J)
cn i
in i .
--—
i aL 1 ttc
R I ( IWflCI
Aquifer Resediation
Wells (lirluding
Oil Reccwery
Injection Wel is)
(5X26)
Nationwide: 355 wells
P ) e Island: 2 wells
New Jersey: 9 wells
Puerto RicO: 1 well
Alabama: 1 well
)brth Carolina: 12 wells
Indiana: 4 wells
Michigan: 59 wells
Minnesota: 7 wells
Wisconsin: 17 wells
New Mexico: 50 wells
Ckla)una: 60 wells
Texas: 37 wells
Kansas: 15 wells
Missouri: no nixrbers
Nebraska; no nuthers
Colorado: 81 wells
Dependent upon hydrogeologic
reginen. paraieters of the
contaiunation p1 use. and design
of the rerediation progran; for
refinery projects. typical
injectate constituents are
oil/grease, iols. toluene.
benzene. lead, iron.
Unknown
New Jersey—NJPDES Peniut
Alabama-Pennit
Nerth Carol ina-Pernu t
Wisconsin-Rule
Okiahana-Rule
Nebraska—Pennit
Utah— R ule/Pennit
California-Permit
- Inplaren cation of registering and
itonitoring programs. (KS)
- aristruct ion scandar s sheul d be
similar to thase established for
discharge wells. (OX)
Cased front surface through the tcp
of the inlection zone. ((10
Screened intervals through sards
and gravels. ((1<)
Annulus shauld be grcuted. (OK)
- In3ectel fluid quality shafld be
better than that of the fluid in
the contaninated aquifer but not
necessarily of drinking water
rtandards. (EL)
Abandoned Drinking
WaterNaste Disposal
Wells (5X29)
3,050 wells inventoried.
Potentially present in all
areas having shallow fresh
water aquifers,
Potentially any kind of fluid,
particularly brackish or saline
water, hazardous chulucals awl
sewage; domsientation of
nitrate aix) coliforin contain—
ination dcxuiented in Nebraska
( aier awl Spalding, 1985);
Dasestic sewage disposal via
these wells docunented for 75
bases in Minnesota; also donu-
sentation for disposal of
pesticides within agricultural
nirnff (Jones, 1973; Diner aix)
Spalding, 1985).
Z .t,derate
Utah—Banned
The following states have p1i ging
aix) abandomient regulations for
water wells:
Rhode Island. esz Jersey.
Puerto Rico, Delaware,
Maryland, Pennsylvania,
Virginia, West Virginia,
Alabama. Florida, Georgia,
Nerth Carolina. Tennessee,
Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota,
(1uo. Wisconsin, Arkansas,
Louisiana. Oklahana, Texas,
Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska,
Colorado, )brth Dakota,
South Dakota, Wyaning, Arizona,
California, Nevada, Alaska.
Idaha. Oregon. aix) Washington
- Nest establish a better inventory
of wells. (PR. IN. ME. t .2 . )
- Wells should be properly plugged
using cesenc. (MN)
-------
SECTION 2
HYDROCEOLOGIC CONS IDERATIONS
2.1 IMPORTANCE AND USE OF THE GROUND-WATER RESOURCE
2.1.1 INTRODUCTION
Ground water is one of the most widely used natural
resources and is available in at least small amounts at virtually
every point on the Earth’s surface (Heath, 1985). The
availability of the resource is a significant issue in almost
every State (Mann, 1985). Ground water serves as the dominant
source of drinking water f or most rural areas and is the largest
source of water for irrigation in arid and semiarid regions of
the midwestern and southwestern United States. In addition,
ground water is an important source for industrial, urban, and
irrigation purposes in humid areas (Heath, 1985). It is a
relatively reliable resource and is not subject to the rapid or
potentially large fluctuations in availability characteristic of
surface water supplies (USEPA, 1977).
The development of ground water as a resource has led to
declining ground—water levels in many areas of the country.
These declines may lead to streamfiow depletion, land subsidence,
saltwater intrusion, and increased pumping costs for producers of
water (Mann, 1985). The importance of ground water as a resource
in the United States is represented in Figure 2-1. Half of the
United States population is served by ground water, and studies
show that ground-water use within this country is increasing at a
rate of 25 percent per decade (USEPA, 1977). In many areas of
the country, the ground-water resource is the only high quality
economic source of water available.
Ground water contamination has been detected at sites in
virtually all parts of the United States and regionally in some
of the most heavily populated and industrialized areas. In
almost all cases, ground-water contamination has been discovered
only after a drinking water supply has been affected. Most of
the time the level of contamination at the point of use does not
exceed the health-based standards.
Consequences of around-water contamination vary depending on
1) the potential hazard to health or the environment, 2) current
use of the affected resource, 3) public concern, 4) regulatory
requirements, and 5) funding available to study and mitigate the
problem. In the most serious cases, water supply wells have been
abandoned, uses of recreational areas have been altered,
expensive remediation programs have been initiated, and new water
supplies have been developed.
2—1
-------
I
zL±J>
C0 (1 )
U
(0
C
I?
10.000
HAWAII
SiO JI
8000°
—6000
0
-J
-400o
-2000
—0
U.
PUERTO RICO AND
U.S. VIRGIN ISLANDS
-------
2.1.2 GROUND-WATER USE
Trends in water development during the last three decades
demonstrate that the use of ground water for all purposes has
been increasing at a faster rate than has the use of surface
water (Heath, 1985). In 1980, nationwide ground water
withdrawals ranged from less than one percent of total water
withdrawal in the District of Columbia to 85 percent in Kansas
(Heath, 1985). In addition, this survey demonstrated that in ten
States, ground—water withdrawals represented more than half of
the States’ total water usage. The above figures are exclusive
of thermoelectric power generation, for which surface water use
still exceeds ground-water withdrawals.
At this time, the largest use of ground water is for
irrigation (Heath, 1985). States with the largest ground—water
use for this purpose are California, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana,
Kansas, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Other States in the southern
United States that rely heavily upon ground water for irrigation
practices are Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and
Texas.
Forty—eight percent of the United States’ population depends
upon the ground-water resource as a drinking water supply.
Thirty-nine percent of the ground-water-dependent population
receive drinking water through public supplies and •the other
nine percent through individual domestic wells (USEPA, 1977).
According to Heath (1985), the percentage of the United States
population served by groundwater ranges from 30% in Maryland to
89% in New Mexico. Rural populations in the nation receive 94%
of their drinking water from ground-water sources, whereas the
populations served by public drinking water supplies get 35% of
that supply from ground water (USEPA, 1977). Total withdrawal of
ground water in 1984 was 8.8 billion gallons (27,000 acre—feet)
per day of which 38% was used for drinking water (Heath, 1985).
2.2 PHYSICAL PROPERTIES OF GROUND-WATER AQUIFERS AND
GROUND-WATER CONTAMINATION
2.2.1 PHYSICAL PROPERTIES
Under natural conditions, movement of ground water is from
areas of recharge to areas of discharge. Ground water may be
discharged to springs, ponds, lakes, or streams, lost by
evapotranspiration to the atmosphere, or discharged directly into
the ocean in coastal areas (Mann, 1985). This situation
constitutes the hydrologic cycle, represented in Figure 2-2. In
general, an equilibrium prevails in which long-term ground—water
recharge is balanced by long—term discharge from the ground-water
system (Mann, 1985).
2—3
-------
Condensation Th
Glacier
Precipitation — ‘
recharge
Infiltration
Groundwater flow
1-iYDROLOGK CYCLE
(from DrIscoll, 1986)
Agure 2-2
2—4
-------
Aquifers are of two primary types: unconfined and confined.
Unconfined aquifers, also referred to as water table aquifers,
are the most common. Tinder unconfined conditions, the water
table is exposed to the atmosphere through openings in the
overlying regolith (Driscoll, 1986). Water in unconfined
aquifers, regardless of depth, is under the pressure exerted by
the overlying water. The upper limit of the saturated zone in
these aquifers is known as the water table. The pressure on
fluids at the water table is equal to atmospheric pressure.
Ground water existing under confined or artesian conditions
is isolated from the atmosphere at the point of discharge by
impermeable strata (Driscoll, 1986). The confined aquifer
generally is subject to pressures higher than atmospheric
pressure, but it is possible for unconfined conditions to exist
(laterally) in the recharge areas of confined aquifers.
Unconfined and confined ground—water conditions are illustrated
in Figure 2-3.
A third ground-water condition which can exist is due to
variations in the ability of confining beds to retard water
movement. Virtually all confining beds are capable of
transmitting ground water if a sufficient hydraulic gradient
and/or a total head differential exists between the aquifers.
Beds that transmit measureable flows are termed semi confining,•’
and the associated aquifers are considered to be semi-confined
(Mann, 1985)
Intergranular pores, fractures, or openings resulting from
solution in an unconfined aquifer are saturated with water below
a free surface, known as the water table (Mann, 1985). As the
volume of ground water in storage varies, the water table rises
or falls accordingly. In confined aquifers, pores, fractures,
and solution openings are completely filled with water. The
water is confined under pressure by an overlying bed exhibiting
low hydraulic conductivity (Mann, 1985). Changes in the amount
of ground water stored under these conditions occur through
elastic expansion and contraction of the porous material and of
the water in response to pressure changes. In some instances,
changes in ground-water storage can occur through the inelastic
compaction of fine—grained sediments with associated subsidence
of the land surface (Mann, 1985).
Five criteria have been proposed to differentiate between
ground-water systems (Heath, 1982):
1. the aquifers and confiningbeds that make up the
ground-water system;
2. the types of primary and secondary porosities, solution
cavities, or fractures;
2—5
-------
RELAT1ONSHP OF SUBSURFACE STRATA TO
OCCURRENCE OF CONFINED AND LNCONFINED
AQUiFERS
w m Dda lI, 1986 Rgure 2-3
2—6
-------
3. the composition of the dominant aquifer material, name-
ly whether or not it is soluble, insoluble, or Consists
of both material types;
4. the storage coefficient and transmissivity of the
dominant aquifer; and
5. the recharge and discharge conditions of the entire
ground—water system.
Based upon these criteria, the U.S. Geological Survey has
proposed 13 ground-water regions for the conterminous United
States. These regions are displayed in Figure 2-4. Note that
Alaska and Hawaii are considered separate hydrogeologic regions.
Geologic settings for aquifers and typical well yields for those
aquifers are presented for each region in Table 2-1.
2.2.2 GROUND-WATER CONTAMINATION
For the purposes of this report, ground-water contamination
is defined as the degradation of ground water’s natural quality
as the result of human activity (USEPA, 1977). The Safe Drinking
Water Act defines a contaminant as “any physical, chemical,
biological or radiological substance or matter in water.”
Contamination processes begin with contaminant sources,
namely waste disposal practices (USEPA, 1977). Leakage, percola-
tion, or discharge of contaminants into water supply aquifers
occur either intentionally or accidentally and can involve a
variety of waste constituents. As the contaminant travels
through the soil or rock media into the ground-water aquifer, it
can be modified by various attenuation processes. These
processes vary greatly in their effectiveness, and some toxic
substances can be highly mobile. Attenuation of pollutants with-
in the aquifer, like ground-water movement, can be extremely
slow. Movement of these contaminants can occur as 1) individual
bodies or “slugs,” 2) local plumes caused by continual flow of
leachate, and 3) masses of degraded water (USEPA, 1977).
The degree of contamination that can occur within ground-
water aquifers ranges from a slight degradation in natural
quality to the presence of toxic concentrations of heavy metals,
organic compounds, and radioactive materials (USEPA, 1977).
These constituents can be present in varying concentrations with-
in certain Class V waste streams. It is important to note that
simply removing the source of contamination does not clean up the
aquifer once it has been contaminated. This contamination can
result in portions of aquifers being condemned for use as drink-
2—7
-------
GROUNDWATER REGIONS OF THE UNITED STATES
frorn DrIscoll, 1986) Figure 2—4
2— 8
-------
‘] BLE 2-1. G XLCGIC si rriiI3 AN) ‘l’fPICAL WELL YIELDS FOR PRIt IPL 1 E
JIFERS wi’IWLN 1 JOR G1 JN)-WATER REXI( (HEATh. 1982)
Region
No.
Region
Geologic -J
Situation
Well Yie d
[ (gpn) (m /day)
1 Western M .intain Mamtains with thin soils 10—100 50—500
Ranges aver fractured rocks,
alternating with narr
alluvial and, in part,
glaciated valleys
2 Alluvial Basins Thick alluvial (locally 100—5,000 500—30,000
glacial) deposits in basins
arx3. valleys bordered by
mountains
3 Columbia Lava Thick lava sequer e inter— 100—20,000 500—100,000
Plateau bedded with unconsolidated
deposits and averlain by
thin soils
Colorado Plateau Thin soils aver fractured 10—1,000 50—5,000
& Wyaning Basin sedinentary rocks
5 High Plains Thick alluvial deposits 100—3,000 500—20,000
aver fractured
sediirentazy rocks
6 Nonglaciated Thin regolith aver 100—5,000 500—30,000
Central Region fractured sedirrentary
rocks
7 Glaciated Thick glacial deposits 50—500 300—3,000
Central Region over fractured sedinentary
rocks
8 Piedrront & Blue Thick regolith aver fractured 50-500 3 00—3, 000
Ridge crystal 1 the ar ire tarroxphosed
sediirentazy rocks
9 Northeast ar.d Thick glacial deposits aver 20-200 100-1,000
Superior Uplands fractured crystalline rocks
10 Atlantic & Gulf— Canplexly interbedded 100—5,000 500—30,000
Coastal Plain sands, silts, & clays
11 Southeast Coastal Thick layers of sarx3. & 1,000—20,000 5,000—100,000
Plain clay aver semiconsolidated
carbonate rocks
2—9
-------
TABLE 2—1.
ccxitiriued
12 Alluvial Valleys Thick sarxi and gravel deposits 100—5,000 500—30,000
beneath flo plains arxl
terraces of streams
13 Hawaiian Islands Lava flows segir nted by dikes, 100—5,000 500—30,000
in terbedded with ash deposits
ard pertly overlain by alluvium
14 Alaska Glacial and alluvial deposits 10—1, 000 50—5,000
in pert perennially frozen ath
overlying crys tall the, rre tarnor-
phic, ard sedixr ntary rcxks
ing water supplies. It is considerably more difficult to reclaim
a polluted aquifer than to clean up a surface water supply
(Canter and Knox, 1986; USEPA, 1977).
2.3 RELATIONSHIP OF CLASS V INJECTION TO
UNDERGROUND SOURCES OF DRINKING WATER
2.3.1. GENERAL DISCUSSION
Underground sources of drinking water (USDW) have been tar-
geted for protection under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and are
bodies of water recoverable in “significant’ t quantities, having
less than or equal to 10,000 mg/i Total Dissolved Solids (TDS).
Typically, Class V wells are those that inject into or above
USDW. However, certain Class V wells inject below USDW.
Examples of such well types are geothermal rei•njection wells,
spent brine return flow wells, some of the mineral and fossil
fuel recovery related wells, select radioactive waste disposal
wells, and certain experimental technology wells. Potential for
contamination by Class V injection can vary greatly and is
largely dependent upon where injection occurs relative to USDW,
construction and operation features of wells, and injectate
quality and volumes.
2.3.2. RELATIONSHIP OF CLASS V INJECTION TO USDW
As discussed, certain Class V wells inject fluids below
USDW. These wells often inject large fluid volumes. Depending on
the compatibilities of the injectate and the USDW (i.e., physical
and chemical characteristics), this could adversely impact
(degrade) USDW if proper planning is not conducted. In many
areas studied, USDW exist to depths of several thousand feet.
Aquifers at these depths are confined, probably both above and
2 — 10
-------
below. Proper planning can assure that injection will occur
below a lower confining layer. If proper construction and opera-
tion are practiced, including regular mechanical integrity
testing, injection below USDW can pose minimal threat of contami-
nation to USDW.
The inventory indicates that most Class V injection is above
USDW. Wells of this type include many of the drainage wells and
domestic waste water disposal wells. Attenuation of contaminants
in shallow soils and unconsolidated sediments is the controlling
parameter in shallow USDW contamination. If injection wells are
sited and constructed properly, contaminants may be attenuated,
thereby reducing the potential for harm to USDW.
Injection into USDW is the type of Class V activity
potentially most harmful, and representatives of each Class V
well type probably are presently injecting into USDW. Depending
upon the nature of the injected fluids, injection directly into
USDW could result in broadscale degradation within USDW.
2 — 11
-------
SECTION 3
CLASS V INJECTION WELL INVENTORY
The Class V injection well inventory is characterized by
extreme variations in database completeness. In general,
inventories for “high—tech” Class V wells are more accurate than
those for “low—tech” wells. A number of factors may be
responsible for this disparity. High-tech Class V injection
wells are typically associated with special industries or large
scale remediation and disposal projects. They also tend to be
small in number, localized, and easy for regulatory agencies to
inventory and monitor. In addition, several agencies at the
local, county, and state levels may be regulating these
operations through drilling and waste discharge permits.
Furthermore, owners/operators of high—tech wells generally are
more informed about existing regulations, such as reporting
requirements, than are owners/operators of some types of low-tech
wells. As a result, files maintained by high-tech well operators
tend to be more complete, whereas no such files may exist for
many low-tech wells.
A number of inspection programs have been conducted that
target high-tech Class V injection wells. These inspections have
provided valuable inventory data for facilities inspected, as
well as for other facilities owned by the same owner/operator.
All these factors have resulted in a generally complete inventory
database for high-tech wells and a generally poor to nonexistent
one for low—tech wells.
The current regulations (40 CFR 144.24) state that injection
into Class V wells is authorized by rule until future regulations
are established. Owners or operators of Class V injection wells
authorized by rule are required to submit specific inventory
information within one year of the effective date of an
applicable underground injection control program in their State.
The inventory information required as specified in 40 CFR
144.26(a) includes the following:
1. facility name and location;
2. name and address of legal contact;
3. ownership of facility;
4. nature and type of injection well(s); and
5. operating status of injection well(s).
For programs administered by USEPA, owners/operators of the
following types of Class V injection wells are required to supply
additional inventory information [ 40 CFR 144.26(b) (1) (iii)]:
1. sand or other backfill wells;
3—1
-------
2. radioactive waste disposal wells;
3. geothermal energy recovery wells;
4. brine return flow wells;
5. wells used in experimental technology;
6. municipal and industrial disposal wells other than
Class I; and
7. any other Class V wells, at the discretion of the
Regional Administrator.
The additional information to be provided by these
owners/operators includes [ 40 CFR 144.26(b) (2) (ii-x)] :
1. location of each well or project by Township,
Range, Section, and Quarter-Section; or by lati-
tude and longitude to the nearest second, accor-
ding to the conventional practice in the state;
2. date of completion of each well;
3. identification and depth of the formation(s) into
which each well is injecting;
4. total depth of each well;
5. casing and cementing record, tubing size, and
depth of packer;
6. nature of injected fluids;
7. average and maximum injection pressure at the well
head;
8. average and maximum injection rate; and
9. date of the last mechanical integrity test, if
any.
Per 40 CFR 146.52(b), within three years of approval of each
IJIC program, whether administered by the individual State or by
the USEPA, a report must be submitted by the Director of the UIC
Program to USEPA and must contain the following:
1. information on the construction features of Class
V wells and the nature and volume of injected
fluids;
3—2
-------
2. an assessment of the contamination potential of
Class V wells using available hydrogeological
data;
3. an assessment of the available corrective alterna-
tives where appropriate and their environmental
and economic consequences; and
4. recommendations for both the most appropriate
regulatory approaches and for remedial actions
where appropriate.
Appendix A contains State Report Summaries on each report
received to date. Summaries for each State report include:
1. status of the UIC program:
a. primacy - implemented by the state
b. direct implementation (DI) - implemented by
the USEPA;
2. title, author, date, and status of the report;
3. hydrogeology and water usage;
4. number of injection wells by type, and their com-
patibility with numbers reported by Federal
Underground Injection Control Reporting System
(FURS);
5. assessed contamination potentials of each well
type (“high,” “moderate,” or “low,” where appli-
cable);
6. applicable regulatory systems for each well type
(“permit,” “rule,” or “none,” where applicable);
7. inventory strategies;
8. availability of case studies and bibliographies;
and
9 • recommendations.
3.1 INVENTORY METHODS (STRATEGIES)
Several methods were used to gather inventory data.
Strategies employed for different States and Territories are
listed on the State Report Summaries in Appendix A. Some
inventory methods were common to several states. For example,
inventory efforts often were initialized by publishing notices
about the UIC program in the local newspapers. Generally they
3—3
-------
requested information required by 40 CFR 144.26. Another common-
ly used method entailed mailing questionnaires to County Health
Departments/Sanitarians, registered water well drillers, and
public facilities such as schools, churches, etc. In addition,
visits to various government agencies were made to question per-
sonnel who might be knowledgeable about current Class V activi-
ties and to search various files for existing Class V well regis-
trations and permits. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permits generally were reviewed where available.
Also, mailing lists and telephone contacts were compiled from
local telephone directories and directories of related pro-
fessional organizations (e.g., National Water Well Association).
The USEPA has instituted a computer database system for
maintaining the inventory data of all classes of injection wells.
The Federal UIC Reporting System (commonly referred to as FURS),
contains general facility, well type, number, and status
information for each inventoried injection facility. Generally,
the FURS inventory data for Class V injection wells, on a
national basis, are incomplete and dated. In preparing this
report, well data provided in the State reports and additional
correspondence were considered in addition to the FURS data.
3.2 INVENTORY RESULTS
According to the most recently submitted inventory figures,
there are approximately 170,000 Class V injection wells in the
United States, its Territories, and Possessions. Table 3-1 lists
the number of wells reported to date for each State, Territory,
and Possession. Also provided is the total f or each well type
and for each Region. Figure 3-1 illustrates the distribution of
Class V wells by State. Table 3-2 is a summarized version which
lists totals by Region and by general well type category. Figure
3—2 illustrates the distribution of Class V wells by Region.
Please refer back to .Table 1-1 for a list of well type sub-
classifications recognized by the USEPA for the purpose of this
study. Figure 3—3 illustrates the distribution of inventoried
Class V wells by general well type category.
At this time it is prudent to emphasize that the reported-
inventory figures should be interpreted cautiously . The
inventory collection is an on—going process, and figures are
subject to change frequently and dramatically. There are always
questions about what practices are Class V as opposed to other
classes of wells, and which practices are considered well
injection. There is also, from time to time, confusion about
what Class V subcategory to which a particular injection practice
should be assigned.
Furthermore, it should be emphasized that many of the
numbers included in the table are estimates and that records are
not necessarily available for each well listed. For example, the
estimated number of drainage wells (5D2 plus 5D4) in Arizona
3—4
-------
ranged from 25,000 to 100,000 wells. Based on verbal communi-
cation with various State agencies, the range was narrowed down
to between 40,000 and 60,000 wells. For the sake of simplicity,
the table indicates 50,000 wells.
In another case, the number of heat pump/air-conditioning
return flow wells (5A7) in Oklahoma was reported to be “in the
hundreds.’ t Again for the sake of simplicity, the table lists
t1 100 11 heat pump/air—conditioning return flow wells.
As a final example, the number of septic systems (5W11) in
Florida was reported to be 19,000. This number was derived using
a mathematical equation to estimate the “total” number of septic
systems. Nineteen thousand represents one percent of the “total”
number. This number was derived because only one percent of the
total number of septic systems are believed to serve more than 20
persons. Florida has actual records on approximately 850 septic
systems. The remaining estimated figures are too numerous to
describe.
3.3 INVENTORY DISTRIBUTION
The geographical distribution of the wells inventoried to
date is difficult to accurately describe for several reasons.
First, efforts made to compile inventories differed significantly
among States and Regions. While some States were successful at
actually locating and keeping records on each reported well,
other States made blanket estimates and had little to no
documentation to support the estimates. In States where the
USEPA was responsible for conducting the inventory, levels of
effort varied significantly.
Second, record—keeping systems among States vary drastic-
ally. Inventories were easier to conduct and resulted in more
accurate figures for States which require permits or
registrations of injection wells. In many cases, file searches
were quicker, and were likely to be more accurate than reliance
on a network of contacts.
Third, the response rates differed significantly among
various groups who were contacted for information. Whereas one
State may have derived its most significant information from the
Soil Conservation Service (SCS), for example, another State might
have had less success with the SCS and found County Health
Departments to be its most valuable source of information. It
should be noted here that different groups have varying levels of
interest in the different well types; therefore, the inventory
figures provided by different groups vary accordingly. For
example, the SCS may provide more information on agricultural
drainage wells (5F1) while County Health Departments are likely
to provide more information on septic systems (5W11). Table 3-3
illustrates the varying response rates of several groups which
were contacted by mail in a portion of Region V.
3—5
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
TOTAL NUMBER
OF CLASS V WELLS
BY STATE
LEGEND
NU4I8ER*OF WELLS BY STA7
0 to 100
100 to 500
:i 500 to 1000
1000 to 10000
— 10000 to 60000
V III
x
Ix
II
HI
PUERTO RICO &
VIRGIN ISLANDS
*So numbers are estimates.
-------
TAELE 3-2: CLASS V INJECTION I(LL t TIONAL II1 ENT Y BY REGION & IELL CLASSIFICATION
“
I’
11
II
EPA I T0TP . I
RE8I 4 1 $ LLS ‘
I
I I
DRAII E IGE01IER1 1.
‘
,
I
I
S
I
DGESTIC NINERP .S &
TEWATER IFOSSIL RE.’
I
I
I
I
NDUSTRI . :
‘
I
.I
RED1Pá 8E
MISCaLNIEOUS
I I
I I
I
II
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I 364 ‘
I I
41’
I
24
‘
I
169 ‘ 0
I
1
127 1
1
I
2
1
II
II
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
‘‘
II
II ‘ 8950 I
I I
3780’
•
181
1503
48
1
428
3000
I
i
10
1
II
II
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
In 1 4 I
I I
279 ‘
I
2291
‘
I
916 ‘ 1072
I
1
31:
0
I
I
0
1
II
II
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
.
I
I
I
I
II
IV’ 27911’
I I
35831
I
2998
‘
I
2O493’ 61
I
1
3931
351
I
32
1
II
II
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
H
II
V I 17712 1
I I
546 I
I
1164
‘
I
8237 63
I
1
651 1
6
I
2191
1
II
II
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
‘‘
II
VI’ 3843 ‘
I I
Ill I
I
1149
I
106
I 1226
1
11
74
I
i
1106
1
II
II
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
H
,
VII I
,
66Th ‘
495 ‘
.
1802
‘
,
5’
4326
1
fl
8
I
•
.17
1
II
II
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
H
II
VIIII 9015’
I I
76271
I
222
‘
I
425’ 465
I
1
44
7
‘
I
225
1
II
II
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I X’ 642141
I I
59480’
I
166
‘
I
3146’ 876
I
1
235:
258
‘
I
45
1
II
II
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
H
II
2982.6’
I I
19820’
I
166
‘
I
8680’ 5Th
I
1
437:
14
‘
I
126
1
II
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
:1
TOTPL 173159 1
100744 ‘
I
10163
‘
I
43680 ‘ 8712
I
1
2379 1
3719
I
3754
1
3—8
-------
:fr 1
V WELLS
LEGEND
IyEZLS*8) REGION
1
o to
1000
5000
10000
50000
1000
to 5000
to 10000
to 50000
to 100000
TOTAL NUMBER OF CLASS
BY REGION
x
‘TI”
V
I
Ix
“I
IV
VI
° II
PUERTO RICO &
VIRGIN ISLANDS
*SOrfl numbers are estimates.
-------
Dow
CI)Ø
w
F Zi
-< !C
C1)
110000
100000
90000
80000
70000
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
cuss v %JE fl0N WD.I. INVENTORY
—‘I-.,
-------
TABLE 3-3
RESPONSE RATES OF VARIOUS GROUPS CONTACTED BY REGION V
FOR INVENTORY INFORMATION
GROUP RESPONSE RATE (% )
Indiana Michigan Minnesota
Agricultural extension agencies 39 35 23
City officials 25 29 48
County Health Departments 7 77 51
Drilling companies 17 11 9
Soil Conservation Service 31 48 59
Fourth, confusion about how to classify injection wells
frequently was apparent. The most common error involved the
distinction between heat pump/air—conditioning return flow wells
(5A7) and cooling water return flow wells (5A19). Several
inventories combined these two types based on the misconception
that cooling water refers to air-conditioning return flow water.
In actuality, t cooling water” is intended to describe fluids used
to cool industrial products, industrial processes, and machines
used by manufacturers, utilities, etc.
Another classification problem frequently encountered was
distinguishing between sewage disposal systems (5W10, 11, 31, and
32) and industrial disposal wells (5W20). This problem is
inherent to the classification system (Table 1—1) and is not
easily resolved. In general, the classification system is based
more on differing waste stream components rather than on differ-
ing well construction components. With this in mind, it is
suggested that facilities which inject industrial waste into
septic systems or cesspools be classified as industrial disposal
facilities (5W20) rather than cesspool or septic system facili-
ties (5W10, 5W11). Consequently, sewage disposal facilities
would be limited to those facilities which inject solely sanitary
wastes (and are multi—family, domestic, or public facilities
serving more than 20 persons per day). Because this clarifica-
tion was not provided prior to conducting the inventories, many
industrial disposal facilities are included in the figures repre-
senting septic systems and cesspools under the heading, “Domestic
Wastewater Disposal Wells.”
Furthermore, confusion ensued when waste stream components
included more than one of the described sub-classifications. For
example, some facilities reported injecting both cooling water
and industrial process wastewater. In Illinois, raw sewage,
cooling water, and industrial process wastewater are all injected
3 — 11
-------
into abandoned coal mines. Mixed waste streams are difficult to
inventory and even more difficult to assess. Facilities,
injecting mixed waste streams were classified under the category
of highest contamination potential. In the cases described
above, the facilities were classified as industrial disposal
facilities.
In summary, it is difficult to draw conclusions about the
geographical distribution of Class V injection wells. The
distribution would very likely change significantly if actual
inventory figures were compiled under a study conducted to
produce comparable data. “State” totals range from 0 wells in
American Samoa and Trust Territories of the Pacific Islands
(TTPI) to more than 25,000 wells in Florida and 50,000 wells in
Arizona. To date, Region IX reports the largest inventory with
over 64,000 wells. The bulk of Region IX’s inventory, however,
lies in the estimated number of drainage wells (5D2 plus 5D4) in
Arizona: 50,000 wells. Approximate inventory figures by Region
are shown on Table 3—4.
TABLE 3-4
TOTAL INVENTORY FIGURES BY REGION
Region Total It of Wells
Region IX 64,214
Region IV 27,911
Region X 29,826
Region V 17,772
Region VIII 9,015
Region II - 8,950
Region VII 6,675
Region III 4,589
Region VI 3,843
Region I 364
Although correlation between the number and distribution of
wells is difficult, a few trends can be distinguished among well
types.
3.3 • 1 DRAINAGE WELLS
The highest number of drainage wells is reported in Arizona
(Region IX). Region X also reports a relatively high number of
drainage wells. These high numbers are consistent with the
hydrogeological conditions inherent to Regions IX and X. It is
3 — 12
-------
difficult to distinguish storm water drainage wells (5D2) from
industrial drainage wells (5D4) within the current inventory, but
industrial drainage wells might be expected to be located in
highly populated (industrialized) areas with appropriate
hydrogeological conditions. High numbers of improved sinkholes
(5D3) are expected in areas with “karst” topography such as
Region IV, Region V , Puerto Rico, and Missouri.
3.3.2 GEOTHERMAL REINJECTION WELLS
Relatively high numbers of geothermal reinjection wells were
expected in areas with high geothermal gradients such as the West
Coast of the United States. The reported inventory figures
support this hypothesis as most electric power reinjection wells
(5A5) and direct heat reinjection wells (5A6) are located in
Regions IX and X.
Technology concerning heat pump/air-conditioning return flow
wells (5A7) is available nationwide. Data indicate that heat
pump/air—conditioning return flow wells are present in all
Regions of the United States. It should be noted that high
geothermal gradients are not required for efficient usage of
groundwater source heat pumps.
3.3.3 DOMESTIC WASTEWATER DISPOSAL WELLS
Domestic wastewater disposal wells are prevalent in every
Region of the United States. Generalizations beyond that fact
are difficult to make. However, fewer domestic wastewater
disposal wells are probably located in more highly populated
areas because those areas are more likely to be served by sewer
systems. An exception to this generalization may be older
cities.
One reason it is difficult to recognize any trends in the
distribution of domestic wastewater injection wells is that they
are exceedingly difficult to inventory. State and local
regulations and record-keeping systems differ drastically. If
records of individual systems are not kept by the State, it is
difficult to identify these wells.
Another reason it is difficult to recognize trends is that
some disposal systems were not included in some inventory
efforts. For example, only septic systems with associated
“wells” were inventoried in some States, while other States
included both septic systems with “wells” and those with
“drainfields.” Both types will be included in the Class V
inventories for this report. Without consistent inventories, it
is impossible to make comparisons.
3.3.4 MINERAL AND FOSSIL FUEL RECOVERY WELLS
Inventory figures of these well types are believed to be
relatively complete. These well types generally are limited to
3 — 13
-------
States with related available natural resources. They seem to be
well documented and regulated within their respective industry
regulations.
3.3.5 INDUSTRIAL DISPOSAL
Problems with compiling inventories and recognizing usage
trends of industrial disposal wells are similar to the problems
associated with domestic wastewater disposal wells. Accurate
records are not kept in many states. Furthermore, often there is
reluctance on the part of owners/operators to report their
industrial disposal wells for fear of “government interference.”
Also, injectate quality often is suspect, and recent public
awareness campaigns concerning environmental protection may have
made the owners/operators wary.
3.3.6 RECHARGE AND MISCELLANEOUS WELLS
Limited information was provided on recharge and
miscellaneous wells. Presumably these well types will see
increased usage in the future. Region V reporEs a relatively
high number of abandoned drinking water wells (5X29); however, it
should be noted that they are not necessarily used for the dispo-
sal of waste. The numbers reported indicate the number of aban-
doned drinking water wells on which they have records. There is
no evidence to suggest that they are all being used to dispose of
waste. Due to the difficulty in determining which wells actually
are being used f or disposal, the Agency is assuming a worst-case
scenario and will include all abandoned drinking water wells in
the inventory until data demonstrate otherwise. Where waste
streams can be identified, well type classifications are revised
to reflect the source of the waste streams.
3.4 EVALUATION OF THE DATABASE
Conducting an initial inventory search for Class V injection
wells and then maintaining the inventory database with periodic
updates is a complicated task. However, it is one that is essen-
tial to the program because a solid inventory is the basis for
solid assessments. Some Class V wells were not regulated before
the USEPA UIC program. Consequently, an unknown number of tlass
V injection wells probably remain “undiscovered” to this day
since records of their existence either were not kept or were
lost.
The inventory of Class V wells is considered to be poor to
fair (i.e., incomplete). Many states were confident that most
existing well types were identified even though the numbers of
each type were thought to be low. Several factors contribute to
the lack of detail and completeness (inventory vs. existing
wells)
3 — 14
-------
As described earlier, levels of effort among States and
among Regions differed significantly. Second, the amount and
type of information available for each well type differ among
States, among Regions, and among well types. Third, different
information sources responded to requests for information incon-
sistently. Fourth, several problems in classifying well types
were evident.
It is essential to continue collecting inventory information
and updating databases in order to reasonably assess the ground-
water contamination potential of Class V injection wells.
3.5 RECOMNL .....
The Class V injection well inventory continues to change.
New wells continue to be constructed, and “undiscovered” existing
wells continue to be identified. Several States recommended that
additional resources and efforts be devoted to improving the
Class V injection well database. All data should be
computerized, including records of questionnaires, permit record
files, and support documentation. Every effort should be made to
establish a uniform classification and numbering system.
As a result of the States’ efforts in inventorying Class V
wells, several important lessons have been learned concerning
strategies for obtaining a complete inventory on which to base
assessments. Eased on the inventory methods used by the States,
the following recommendations for where and how to best find
inventory information on both general and well specific levels
are presented.
3.5.1 GENERAL
Currently there are at least 30 types of Class V injection
wells, rather than only the 11 types that FURS recognizes. Not
all States have all 30 types. However, because there are so many
well types, States may have to employ more than one strategy when
conducting and updating inventories.
The States in USEPA Region VIII recommend that the Agency
make a request to Congress for funding to conduct an effort
similar to the Surface Impoundment Assessment study. This study
could be conducted with a more consistent approach and would
provide a firm foundation for making regulatory changes.
When conducting mailed questionnaire surveys, some states
found that telephone surveys used to ascertain appropriate
“targets” enhanced mailed responses. Attachments to the
questionnaires explaining the UIC program and follow-up telephone
calls for data verification also have been useful in obtaining
cooperation.
3 — 15
-------
Some states recommended that every time an inventory search
is conducted by State, Federal, local, or consultant entity,
documentation of the strategy and date is essential so future
inventory searches can build upon previous knowledge.
Current yellow pages, industry directories and association
mailing lists, and agency and community listings were recommended
for use by many states because they provide a good base of
addresses and telephone numbers. Examples of directories include
the Thomas Register and State Red Book of companies and
industries; the Pennwell series of directories such as the
Worldwide Refining and Gas Processing Directories ; the telephone
directory government blue pages; State association of governments
or cities listings; and City, County, or State listings of
business and commerce. Idaho reports that computerized directory
systems, such as the Electronic Yellow Pages, allow statewide
searches by specified categories and can provide addresses on
printed mailing labels.
Some States have had good inventory results posting public
notices in newspapers and various trade journals. Results are
directly proportional to the notice’s general content and ease of
reading, location, and period of time the notice was posted.
Permits or other records needed during drilling and
installation of a well may have been filed with the State agency
which requires permits for water wells. However, the files may
not be segregated by well type.
Many States require that all water well drillers be licensed
with the State and that drillers register all completed wells and
supply well logs. In these States, registration forms could be
re—designed to indicate “well purpose.” Well drillers should be
better informed of the Class V UIC Program in order to identify
specific injection well types.
Contamination potential assessments of the various Class V
well types is, in part, dependent on 1) hydrogeologic character-
istics and water usage in a given area, and 2) the population at
risk. Numerous States recommended that efforts should be
initiated to standardize the type and amount of information
available on Class V injection wells.
3.5.2 SPECIFIC
In describing their inventory efforts, many States
identified methods utilized to inventory specific well types.
Recommendations based on these methods follow.
1. Agricultural Drainage Wells (5F1)
Many States have entities which can be contacted concerning
existence of agricultural drainage wells such as county
extension services; irrigation, water, or drainage
3 — 16
-------
districts; septic tank and dry well installers and drillers;
local or regional water quality or resource boards; county
environmental health departments; local consultants and
university groups, especially at the A & M universities; the
USDA Soil Conservation Service offices; and USGS State
offices or State geological surveys.
Often the farmer is the only person who really knows of the
existence of agricultural drainage wells. If the farmer is
informed of the potential contamination of USDW posed by
these wells, he may volunteer information when asked. Iowa
State University Cooperative Extension Service put together
an information brochure, “Agricultural Drainage Wells in
Iowa,” for distribution to farmers and others to provide
information on the effects of these wells on water supplies.
Publications of this type may help to improve the inventory
database by informing the public not only of their
responsibility to report Class V wells but also the reason
behind the requirements.
2. Storm Water and Industrial Drainage Wells (5D2, 5D4)
These wells are among the hardest types to effectively
inventory if a State has not been registering them since the
time of installation. Obviously, if a State has had no
problems with drainage, then this type of well probably will
not have been used. There are several potential places to
search for storm drainage well records. These include the
State or Federal highway department, city engineers, public
works directors, architectural engineers - either private or
public (certain areas may have been designed to be drained
by these wells), drillers or “dry” well installers, State
water resource divisions or boards, State health departments
or environmental protection agencies, and USGS State offices
or State geological surveys. Another key means of locating
drainage wells is to check local zoning requirements for
sewage and storm water control. Some local zoning
departments also have records showing actual well locations.
City zoning maps may be used to determine industrial sectors
of the cities. A percentage of storm drainage wells located
in industrial sectors may be “industrial drainage wells”
(5D4) because the probability of chemical or hazardous
substance spills and leaks is greater in industrial
settings.
Public notices about storm drainage wells to the general
population may be a good strategy to use. Fieldwork also
may be necessary (in probable areas) when all other means
fail.
3. Improved Sinkholes (5D3)
Sinkholes are found in areas of the United States underlain
by karst limestone formations (approximately 20% of the
3 — 17
-------
United States.). In many locations, naturally occurring
sinkholes may have been improved to enhance acceptance rates
of storm drainage or any fluids (e.g., sewage, industrial
process water and waste products). Inventory strategies
used for storm drainage wells also may be used to find
improved sinkholes.
4. Electric Power Geothermal Reinjection Wells (5A5)
These wells are used in thermally active areas of the United
States, notably the western states and in the Gulf Coast.
Many geothermal electric power plants discharge to rein-
jection wells. Entities holding records on these wells
include oil companies and other operators involved in
geothermal electric power generation, the Geothermal
Resources Council (based in San Francisco), State oil and
gas divisions, energy or corporation commissions,
departments of minerals (these are State level agencies),
U.S. Bureau of Land Management (for developments on Federal
•leases), the U.S. Geological Survey, and the U.S. Department
of Energy. States such as California and Nevada have permit
programs for these wells. -
5. Direct Heat Geothermal Reinjection Wells (5A6)
These wells also are used in thermally active areas of the
United States but do not require as high groundwater temper-
atures as geothermal electric power operations. Many of
these wells are shallower than electric power reinjection
wells and may or may not reinject spent water.
In Oregon, wells which inject into a formation other than
the source aquifer must apply for a permit with the
Department of Environmental Quality. Other wells which
reinject into the source aquifer or discharge to the surface
do not need a permit. In California and Nevada, large
direct heat operations file for permits with the California
Department of Oil and Gas and the Nevada Department of
Minerals. Public service commissions also may be involved
if the direct heat operation is very large or serves as a
public utility company. The Geothermal Resources Council
and State and U.S. Geological Surveys are good information
sources.
6. Heat Pump/Air Conditioning Return Flow Wells (5A7)
Historically, the best sources of information for heat
pump/air conditioning return flow wells have been the
State tax commissions since many States gave tax credits (or
provided other incentives) for these systems. Idaho,
Michigan, and Oregon offer such tax credits. Michigan and
Ohio give property and sales tax incentives for groundwater
heat pumps. In Massachusetts, heat pumps are exempted from
State sales tax. Nevada has a program to reduce the valua-
3 — 18
-------
tion of alternative, energy systems for property tax
purposes.
In addition to State tax records, inventory information may
be available through heat pump installers and distributors.
The telephone yellow pages should list such companies.
Also, the National Water Well Association, which is an
advocate of ground—water heat pumps, has a plethora of
information on heat pump companies, state laws, etc.
7. Aquaculture Return Flow Wells (5A8)
Aquaculture is the practice of rearing water animals or
cultivating water plants in a controlled environment. Most
operations are for profit, however, some aquaculture is
experimental or for public interest (e.g. Marineland of the
Pacific). The source of water may be ground water, waste-
water from power plants or other industries, surface water
or ocean water. Thus, only some aquaculture wastewater
disposal wells are really return flow wells. Disposal wells
are only one of the methods of wastewater discharge
available. Sources of information for these wells -include
the State or local USDA office; the telephone yellow pages
under Fish Hatcheries, Fish Farms, Seafood, Aquaculture;
State listing of commerce, industry, or business; and
research or public display aquariums.
8. Domestic Wastewater Disposal Wells (5W9, 5W10, 5W11, 5W31,
5W32, 5W12)
Historically, disposal of sewage wastes has been handled at
the county and/or city level. Some States do maintain
records of sewage disposal systems and almost all counties!
cities maintain such records. In orderto increase the
inventory of these Class V injection wells, personal,
telephone, and written queries (in decreasing order of
effectiveness) should be made with the county/city
sanitarians and public works directors. The nature and
availability of sewage disposal well records vary from State
to State and county to county. Experience has shown that
often, records of these types of wells are extensive paper
files and information is very difficult, if not almost
impossible, to extract. Building a Class V inventory
database of such wells may prove to be a long, tedious
process which requires significant resources.
The city public works department director should be the
person to contact for information on sewage treatment plant
effluent disposal methods. Most plants discharge to surface
waters; however, in some locations wells may be used (e.g.
Hawaii, Florida). Some cities are using highly treated
sewage wastewater (effluent) for aquifer recharge projects
or saline water barrier projects (e.g., Palo Alto,
California saline water intrusion barrier project).
3 — 19
-------
9. Mineral and Fossil Fuel Related Wells (5Xl3, 5X14, 5X15,
5X16)
Records and other information on these wells related to
energy and mineral recovery may be found by contacting the
U.S. Bureau of Mines, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S.
Geological Survey, State bureaus of mines, State departments
of energy, corporation commissions, State departments of
minerals and economic geology, State geological surveys,
State water resources /protection boards, and the mining and
energy industries themselves. For operations on Federal
land, the U.S. Bureau of Land Management may hold records.
10. Cooling Water Return Flow Wells (5A19)
Most users of cooling water return flow wells are utilities
(electric power generation) and industries. Often, the
State water resources/protection boards or comparable
agencies have records •f or such wells. If no State records
are kept, then contact should be made with the utilities’
and industries’ process engineers or plant supervisors!
directors. The State public service commissions should have
listings of all utilities in the States. Directories, such
as the Thomas Register, California Red Book (other states
may have similar directories), the Pennwell Oil and Gas
Directory series, and oLhers will give industry addresses,
telephone numbers, and other pertinent information.
11. Industrial Process Water and Waste Disposal Wells (5W20)
It is difficult to obtain records for this grouping of
wells. In addition to the large number and variety of
industries, commercial ventures, and businesses, many
industries may be reluctant to provide information on their
waste disposal practices. The types of directories listed
above for 5A19 wells and the telephone yellow pages can be
consulted for information on locations of industries.
The State water resources agencies or environmental
health/protection agencies may have a permit program or keep
records on these wells, especiaLLy if they are “high
technology” wells. Additionally, industries which were
denied NPDES (surface water) discharge permits may be
disposing of waste through injection wells.
12. Automobile Service Station Waste Disposal Wells (5X28)
The wells referred to in this Class V category inject a
variety of wastes from car dealer and gasoline service
stations including waste oil, engine cleaning solvents,
brake fluid, transmission fluid, antifreeze, and other
fluids from the repair bays; car wash effluent (detergent,
oil and grease, sediments, heavy metals); and minor spills
3 — 20
-------
of gasoline and oils. Many automobile service stations
participate in waste oil and other recycling programs and
are connected to the city sewer lines. Sometimes oil and
grease interceptors - separators are required by a State
plumbing code. But many other stations may be using private
waste and wastewater discharge systems such as “dry” wells
and septic systems (which may receive wastes other than
domestic wastes).
Finding the stations which inject their wastes and waste—
waters is difficult because (1) the number of automobile
service stations is great, and (2) city or county officials
will have to be contacted to determine which stations are on
the sewer system and if they are allowed to dispose of all
their wastes in the sewer system. Many service stations
could be contacted and queried on their waste disposal
systems through the oil companies. A significant number of
stations are privately owned and would have to be contacted
individually. Furthermore, many stations may be reluctant
to provide information about their waste disposal practices
or may not have detailed information on wells and septic
systems they use. Information on automobile service
stations may be available now through the Underground
Storage Tank (UST) Programs initiated by the Hazardous and
Solid Waste Amendments of 1986, (HWSA), and Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) amendments (e.g.,
UST owner operation inventory surveys).
13. Recharge Wells (5R21, 5B22, 5S23)
Most recharge projects are under the direction of or direct-
ly report information to the State, regional, or local water
resources agency or similar agency. Permits and extensive
monitoring/testing programs usually are required since
important USDW are directly affected by recharge projects.
14. Radioactive Waste Disposal Wells (5N24)
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licenses and
regulates commercial nuclear facilities under the Energy
Reorganization Act of 1974. In the past, facilities managed
by The Department of Energy (DOE) may have used wells to
dispose of some low—level radioactive waste. Some States
may regulate these wells through water resources boards,
health departments, or environmental protection agencies.
Radioactive waste disposal wells may be used by national and
private nuclear research laboratories, national and private
processing and manufacturing plants, nuclear power plants,
the military, and various smaller entities using nuclear
materials such as hospitals, oil and service companies,
mining and energy companies, etc.
3 — 21
-------
15. Experimental Technology Wells (5X25)
Many of the wells falling into this category are used in
pilot scale Solution mining operations. Inventory
information for these wells should be available through the
same entities named for 5X14 wells.
Other types of experimental technology wells include thermal
storage project wells, air injection wells for water table
recharge, tracer study wells, aquifer remediation wells, and
oil shale and coal gasification related wells. The State
water resources or protection boards, research or academic
institutes, or mining boards may have inventory data for the
various facilities.
16. Aquifer Remediation Related Wells (5X26)
Aquifer remediation related wells have been increasing in
number in the last 10 to 20 years, especially since the
i nception of federal programs such as RCRA and CERCLA. Many
contaxtdnant spills, leaks, and other discharges are being
remediated in part by injection-extraction well systems.
For example, this type of clean-up technology is being used
near Denver, Colorado, at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal.
Additionally, several companies are remediating long-term
oil leaks from refineries, terminals, storage areas, and
pipelines using extraction-injection systems. Contacting
appropriate State or Federal water protection agencies which
may be involved in or have initiated several of these clean-
ups may help to improve inventories. Many industries whose
sites have experienced contamination are starting aquifer
and soil contamination remediat ion programs on their own
initiative. Contacting their environmental staffs and
private consulting firms (employed to clean—up their
facilities) may result in better inventories.
17. Abandoned Drinking Water Wells Used for Waste Disposal
(5X29)
These wells are very difficult to obtain information on for
the Class V inventory. State water well laws on reporting
new wells and on plugging and abandonment may be used to
inventory these wells. Most information on these wells may
come from individuals reporting specific waste disposal
operations. Wells installed and abandoned before regulation
programs began may remain unknown.
3 — 22
-------
SECTION 4
CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL ASSESSMENTS
This section of the report presents assessments for each of
the Class V well types recognized to date. An assessment rating
system was developed, based on the type, degree of detail,
status, and amount of data available, to qualitatively assess the
contamination potential of each well type.
In addition to the assessments, an overview of current
regulatory approaches and technical recommendations have been
included for each well type. The regulatory overviews discuss
the current approaches Federal, State, and local agencies have
taken to control well usage. The technical recommendations for
each well type include siting, construction, operation, and
maintenance recommendations. Corrective and remedial action
recommendations are also presented, where applicable. The
recommendations are based on those provided in State reports or
supporting dat . Assessments and recommendations for the various
well types are summarized in Sections 5 and 6 (refer to Table 5-
16)
An explanation of the rating system is presented below,
followed by the various well type assessments.
4 • 1 RATING CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL
The objective of this rating system is to qualitatively
assess the consequences of Class V injection practices with re-
gard to current or potential beneficial uses of any USDW in
communication (connected) with injection zones. According to
“Guidelines For Ground-water Classification Under the USEPA
Ground-water Protection Strategy,” (USEPA, 1986, final draft)
data such as hydrogeologic and well/reservoir surveys are needed
to determine ground-water classification of injection zones and
any USDW connected to injection zones. Other necessary data
include general knowledge of aquifer characteristics; typical
well construction, operation, and maintenance; chemical
composition of injected fluids; and injected fluid rates/volumes
and water budgets.
It should be emphasized that this rating system is only
qualitative. It is used in this report as a tool to prioritize
and designate certain well types or facilities for further study
or regulatory oversight. The validity of the rating(s) will be
increased when additional documented studies of Class V injection
practices become available.
4—1
-------
Furthermore, it should be noted that no amount of siting
review, mechanical integrity testing, construction requirements,
or injection fluid monitoring can eliminate the high pollution
potential of some injection wells. Available data indicate that
well closure will be necessary in many individual cases.
4.1.1 PARAMETERS USED AS CRITERIA IN DETERMINING CONTAMINATION
POTENTIAL
The rating system utilizes four criteria to assess each well
type’s contamination potential. First, the injection zone must
be identified as either being or not being an USDW. All
hydraulically connected aquifers also must be identified. The
“Guidelines for Ground-Water Classification Under the tJSEPA
Ground-Water Protection Strategy” are used in this rating system
to determine which aquifers or injection zones are USDW. The
guidelines carry the USDW identification one step further by
providing USDW subclassification (Class I, hA, IIB, lilA, and
IIIB). Subclassification may be useful when prioritizing uses of
limited resources. Second, a determination must be made as to
whether or not typical well construction, operation, and
maintenance for each well type will allow injection or fluid
migration into USDW. Third, the typical fluids injected must be
characterized with respect to the National Primary and Secondary
Drinking Water Regulations and the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act Regulations. Finally, the contamination potential
of typical injected fluids must be determined with respect to
existing water quality in the injection zones and hydraulically
connected aquifers. Sections 4.1.1.1 through 4.1.1.4 provide
further explanation of each rating system criteria.
4.1.1.1 USDW Identification Using the Draft Guidelines for Ground
Water Classifications
Classification Review Area (CRA)
Defining the area around the well is the first step in
making a ground water classification decision. The Guidelines
specify the initial CRA as the area within a two-mile radius of
the boundary of the facility or activity under review. Under
certain hydrogeologic conditions an expanded or reduced CRA is
allowed. For example, the Classification Review Area can be
subdivided or expanded to reflect the presence of one or more
ground—water units which may have significantly different uses
and values. The degree of interconnection between these ground-
water units must be characterized to determine if contamination
to all or some units would occur due to contamination of one
unit. Interconnection is also a criterion for differentiating
subclasses of Class III aquifers.
4—2
-------
Ground-water units are mappable, three—dimensional bodies
delineated on the basis of three types of boundaries:
o Type 1 - Permanent ground-water flow divides.
o Type 2 - Laterally and vertically extensive, low-
permeability, confining beds.
o Type 3 — Permanent fresh-water/saline--water contacts
(saline is defined as waters with greater
than 10,000 mg/i TDS).
A low to intermediate degree of interconnection is expected
through undisrupted Type 2 boundaries. Because they are prone to
alteration/modification due to changes in ground-water
withdrawals and recharge, Type 1 and Type 3 boundaries imply an
intermediate degree of interconnection. A high degree of
interconnection is assumed when conditions for a lower degree of
interconnection are not demonstrated.
Once the Classification Review Area (CRA) has been
delineated, information regarding public and private wells,
demographics, hydrogeology, and surface water and wetlands is
collected. A classification decision is then made based on the
criteria for each aquifer class as described below.
Class I - Special Ground Water
Class I ground water is defined as a resource of particular-
ly high value. USEPA identifies three parameters that
characterize Class I ground water: highly vulnerable,
u-replaceable , and ecologically vital.
Highly vulnerable ground water is characterized by a relatively
high potential for contaminants to enter and/or be transported
within the ground-water flow system. The draft Guidelines pro-
vide two options, for which public comment was solicited, for
determining vulnerability based on hydrogeologic factors. Option
A uses a standard numerical ranking system known as DRASTIC
(Aller et. al, 1985) with numerical cutoff points. Option B
relies on a qualitative “best professional judgment” approach
which may include use of numerical or alternative techniques.
An irreplaceable source of drinking water is ground water that
serves a substantial population, and whose replacement by water
of comparable quality and quantity from alternative sources in
the area would be economically infeasible or precluded by
institutional constraints. There are two options, which were
presented for public comment, for judging irreplaceability.
Option A relies on a standard methodology using one or more
numeric cutoff values for size of population served and economic
feasibility. Option B is a qualitative “best professional
4—3
-------
judgment” approach which may include use of quantitative
approaches as part of the assessment.
Ecologically vital ground water supplies a sensitive ecological
system located in a ground-water discharge area that supports a
unique habitat. Unique habitats include habitats for plant and
animal species that are listed or proposed for listing under the
Endangered Species Act. Certain Federally managed and protected
lands may include unique habitats.
Class II - Current and Potential Sources of Drinking
Water and Ground Water Having Other Beneficial Uses
Class II ground water includes all non—Class I ground water
that is currently used (Subclass hA) or is potentially available
(Subclass IIB) for drinking water or other beneficial use.
Subclass hA includes current sources of drinking water.
Ground water is classified as hA if within the CRA there is
either one or more operating drinking water wells or springs, or
there is a water supply reservoir watershed or portion thereof
that is designated for water quality protection by either a state
or locality.
Su1 class IIB is a potential source of drinking water. This
ground water can be obtained in sufficient quantity to meet the
needs of an average family (e.g., 150 gallons per day), has total
dissolved solids (TDS) of less than 10,000 milligrams per liter
(mg/i), and is of a quality that can be used without treatment or
that can be treated using methods reasonably employed by public
water systems.
Class III - Ground Water Not a Potential Source of Drinking
Water and of Limited Beneficial Use
Class III ground water has either a TDS concentration of
over 10,000 mg/i or is contaminated by naturally occurring
conditions or by the effects of broadscale human activity such
that it cannot be cleaned up using standard public water supply
treatment methods. Two subclasses of Class III Ground Waters have
been defined. Subclass lilA ground water has a -high to
intermediate degree of interconnection with adjacent ground-water
units or with surface water, while Subclass 11Th ground water has
a low degree of connection with adjacent surface waters or
ground-water units.
Treatment Methods. Technology-based and economically-based
tests for reasonably employed treatment methods were presented in
the Final Draft Guidelines for public comment. The technology-
based test is a simple listing of treatment technologies and
4—4
-------
their applications. Known or potential water treatment systems
have been classified by USEPA into three categories:
o Methods in common use that should be considered
reasonably employed in public water treatment
sys tems
o Methods known to be in use in a limited number of
cases that, in some regions because of special
circumstances, may be considered reasonably
employed in public water treatment systems
o Methods not in use by public water-treatment
systems.
Methods in common use include aeration, air stripping, carbon
adsorption, chemical precipitation, chlorination, flotation,
fluoridation, and granular media filtration.
Methods known to be used under special circumstances include
desalination (e.g., reverse osmosis, ultrafiltration, electro—
dialysis), ion exchange, and ozonation. In most USEPA Regions,
these treatment methods should not be considered methods reason-
ably employed by public water systems. However, in certain USEPA
Regions, because of special ground—water quality or water
scarcity circumstances, these methods may be considered reason-
ably employed.
Treatment methods not in use by public water treatment
systems include distillation and wet air oxidation. These
methods are considered new to public water treatment although
they have been applied for industrial purposes in the past.
Since their application to water treatment is experimental at
this time, they should not be considered treatment methods
reasonably employed in public water systems.
Treatment capacity to handle certain concentrations or
combinations of contaminants may not be economically feasible,
even though the basic technologies are available. If questions
of capacity arise, the economic—based test should be applied.
4.1.1.2 Well Construction, Operation, and Maintenance
Since Class V well types are so diverse, well construction,
operation, and maintenance will vary accordingly. In assessing
contamination potential, a determination must be made on whether
or not typical construction, operation, and maintenance for each
well type will allow injection or fluid migration into USDW. It
will be necessary to rate only those components applicable to the
well type in question. In subsequent statements, the term
Itadequateut is used in addressing certain aspects of injection
well construction. This is a qualitative term.
4—5
-------
Aspects of typical construction/design which should be
considered in making an assessment include:
1. Is casing used in the well and, if so, what is the
casing program, and is it adequate? That is, is
the casing of sufficient thickness and depth to
protect 1) shallow fresh ground—water zones, and
2) deeper zones not intended to receive injection
fluids?
2. Is cement used and, if so, what volumes are
present and where?
3. Are tubing and packer part of the injection
program?
4. Is the welihead assembly adequate, if present?
Can welihead pressures and injection rates be
monitored at the welihead, and are manual shutoff
valves present? Does the wellhead assembly
protect against spillage or illicit disposal into
the well? -
Operational aspects to be considered include:
1. Are injection pressures, rates, and volumes
monitored and, if so, are the data regularly
analyz ed?
2. Is the injection fluid analyzed regularly?
3. Is the facility operating under a permit?
4. Is there potential for abuse (e.g. illicit
disposal, excessive welihead pressure, or improper
monitoring) under present operational procedures?
Maintenance aspects to be considered include:
1. Has a program been established to regularly
conduct mechanical integrity tests (MIT)?
2. Have plans for proper plugging and abandonment
been established, and is proper plugging and
abandonment possible?
4.1.1.3 Injection Fluid Composition
One of the most important criteria in this rating system is
the characterization of injection fluids and injection zone
interaction products with respect to receiving USDW. For this
4—6
-------
Class V rating system, fluid characterization will be in terms of
the National Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Regulations (40
CFR Part 142) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) Regulations (40 CFR 261 Subparts C and D). The constitu-
ents or parameters listed in these regulations are the only ones
which are available for reference under the Safe Drinking Water
Act and the UIC regulations. One group of parameters which also
should be addressed, but which is without a complete set of stan-
dards for comparison, is radioactive materials. Materials which
are considered radioactive are regulated by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission and are listed in 10 CFR, Chapter 1, Part
20. Another parameter which should be considered is heat, inclu-
ding any possible chemical and physical reactions resulting from
thermal changes in USDW relating to injection practices.
4.1.1.4 Contamination Potential of Injection Fluids
The final factor of this assessment rating system is the
contamination potential of typical injected fluids with respect
to existing water quality in an injection zone. Constituents
must be compared with background level constituents because many
USDW naturally exceed the National Primary and Secondary Drinking
Water Standards. In making such a judgment, the two major
considerations are the type(s) and mass loading 1 of the
contaminant(s) injected and the transport and fate of the
contaminant(s).
The first consideration, contaminant type and mass loading,
should be addressed in terms of contaminant(s) concentrations in
the injected fluids and the injection rates and volumes. Factors
to be considered for contaminant transport and fate, the second
category, include formation lithology, hydraulic conductivity and
other physical properties of the particular zone, dilution of
injection fluids by natural recharge to the receiving formation,
the configuration of hydraulic head in the formation, and effects
of attenuation mechanisms such as sorption, ion exchange, preci-
pitation—dissolution reactions, neutralization reactions, and
biodegradation.
For the purposes of this rating system, the effects of Class
V injection on injection zone water quality are estimated for two
possible scenarios. For the first scenario, contamination
effects are estimated for the region beyond the facility property
1. In a fixed elemental volume of the flow domain, mass loading
is the total contaminant mass added and is calculated as:
injection rate x contaminant concentration x total time
(volume/time) (mass/volume) of
inj ection
4—7
-------
lines (perimeter). Since this approach is not feasible for some
well types, potential contamination effects are also considered
on a group/area basis. This approach should be taken for well
types whose contamination potential can not be estimated in
reference to facility boundaries. An example of this would be a
study of the impact of storm water drainage wells in an entire
city or county.
4.1.2 THE RATING SYSTEM
The rating system consists of a series of questions (see
4.1.2.1 — 4.1.2.3) based on the four major criteria discussed
previously. In brief, the four major criteria are aquifer iden-
tification; well construction, operation, and maintenance; injec-
tion fluid characterization; and injection fluid contamination
potential. Ultimately, a well type is designated as having a
high, moderate, or low contamination potential or where data are
insufficient, an unknown potential to contaminate USDW.
The first step in the rating system is to determine if the
well type in question has a high contamination potential. At
least three of four questions asked for high contamination
potential must yield affirmative answers to rate a particular
well type as having a high rating. More specific requirements
are described in Section 4.1.2.1. If the well type does not have
a high potential, then the questions for moderate contamination
potential must be answered. If at least two of the four
questions receive affirmative answers, then the well type should
be designated as having a moderate contamination potential. If
less than two answers are affirmative, then the low contamination
potential questions must be addressed. For a well type to rate a
low contamination potential, all three low potential questions
must be answered affirmatively. If the answers to any of these
questions cannot be provided, then the well type should be
recognized as having an unknown potential for contaminating USDW.
It should be noted that any given well type could have a range of
contamination potentials if more than one “typical” scenario
exists for that well type (resulting from different hydrogeologic
conditions, well constructions, etc.).
4.1.2.1 High Contamination Potential
Answer “YES” or “NO” to the following questions. Please
note that the term “typical” will have varying definitions based
on well types and geologic/geographic settings. In general, the
term “typical” is intended to suggest commonly practiced
standards (such as industry standards, commercial standards,
etc.) or circumstances most likely to occur.
4—8
-------
1. (a) Is injection into or above a Class I or Class
II USDW?
or
(b) Is injection below the lowermost USDW but
with the potential for fluids to migrate into
a Class I or Class II USDW?
2. Would typical well construction, operation, and
maintenance allow injection or migration into
unintended zones containing Class I or II USDW?
3. Do the injection fluids typically:
(a) have concentrations of constituents exceeding
standards set by the National Primary or
Secondary Drinking Water Regulations (40 CFR
Part 142)?
or
(b) exhibit characterfstics or contain constitu-
ents listed as hazardous as stated in RCRA
Regulations (40 CFR 261 Subparts C and D)?
4. Based on injectate characteristics and possibilities
for attenuation and dilution, does injection occur in
sufficient volume or at a sufficient rate to cause an
increase in concentration (to above background levels)
of substances listed in the National Primary or
Secondary Drinking Water Regulations, or to endanger
human health or the environment:
(a) beyond the facility perimeter?
or
(b) in a region studied on a group/area basis?
Facility perimeter is defined as (1) the legal property
lines, whether the surface and underground rights are leased or
owned, of the facility with which an injection well is
associated; or, (2) project boundary lines as defined in other
applicable Federal, State, or local permits to operate the
facility.
A high contamination potential for the well type is indica-
ted if all four questions are answered affirmatively or if condi-
tions described below are met. If questions 1(a) or 1(b), and
3(a) or 3(b), and 4(a) or 4(b) are answered affirmatively, then
the well type has a high contamination potential. Alternatively,
if questions 2, and 3(a) or 3(b), and 4(a) or 4(b) are answered
affirmatively, then the well type has a high contamination poten-
tial.
4—9
-------
Note that if both questions 1(a) and 3(b) are answered
affirmatively, then the facility may be operating a Class IV well
and appropriate investigations should be conducted.
4.1.2.2 Moderate Contamination Potential
Answer “YES” or “NO” to the following questions.
1. (a) Is injection into or above any USDW?
or
(b) Is injection below the lowermost USDW but
with the potential for fluids to migrate into
an USDW hydraulically connected to the injec-
tion zone?
2. Would typical well construction, operation, and
maintenance allow injection or migration into
unintended zones containing USDW?
3. (a) Are the injection fluids of pdorer quality
(relative to standards of the National
Primary or Secondary Drinking Water
Regulations or RCRA Regulations) than the
fluids within any USDW in communication with
the injection zone?
or
(b) In the event that water quality is unknown
for any USDW in communication with the
injection zone, do the injection fluids:
Ci) typically contain constituents whose
concentrations exceed standards of the
National Primary or Secondary Drinking
Water Regulations?
or
(ii) typically contain constituents or
exhibit characteristics defined as
hazardous in the RCRA Regulations?
4. Based on injectate characteristics and possibilities
for attenuation and dilution, does injection occur in
sufficient volume or at a sufficient rate to cause an
increase in concentration (to above background levels)
of substances listed in the National Primary or
Secondary Drinking Water Regulations, or to endanger
human health or the environment:
(a) beyond the facility perimeter?
or
(b) in a region studied on a group/area basis?
4 — 10
-------
If at least two questions are answered affirmatively, then
the well type should be rated as having a moderate contamination
potential.
Note that if both questions 1(a) and 3(b) are answered
affirmatively, then the facility may be operating a Class IV well
and appropriate investigations should be conducted.
4.1.2.3 Low Contamination Potential
Answer “YES” or “NO” to the following questions.
1. (a) Is injection into or above any USDW?
or
(b) Is injection below the lowermost tJSDW, but
with little or no potential for migration of
fluids into any USDW hydraulically connected
to the injection zones?
2. Would typical well construction, operation, and
maintenance ensure that fluids are injected and
remain in the intended zones?
3. Are the injection fluids typically:
(a) of equivalent or better quality (relative to
standards of the National Primary or
Secondary Drinking Water Regulations or RCRA
Regulations) than fluids within any IJSDW in
communication with the injection zone?
or
(b) of poorer quality (relative to standards of
the National Primary or Secondary Drinking
Water Regulations or RCRA Regulations) than
fluids within any USDW in communication with
the injection zone
BUT
are injected in volumes/rates and contaminant
concentrations insufficient to change current
or potential beneficial uses of the water
found within any USDW in communication with
the injection zone?
If all three questions are answered affirmatively, then the well
type should be rated as having a low potential to contaminate
USDW. If any of the 11 questions asked could not be answered,
then the well type must be categorized as having an unknown
potential. The information that is known about such well types
then may be examined and used as a guide in delineating recom-
mendations (e.g. chemical analyses of the injected fluids should
be obtained on a semi—annual basis). Table 4-1 presents the
rating system in table form.
4 — 11
-------
rpa .E 4—1
RI TC a iwwua iai mr n
W L
Ol M’IQ1 NC
aw isrxc
fl&JE PIQ PWTD
m n’ Ic ATIai
x
0
la) Injection into or aboie
Class I or II tJSD ’J
OR
b) Injection bela, lcs ersost
USD , potential exists
for fluid migration into
Class I or II USDd.
2) I jpiCal well construction.
O ratiOn. arid maintenance
allcw injection or migration
into unintended zones con-
taming Class I or II USD ’J.
3) Injection fluids typically
a) ccxitain ccmstituents in
concentrations exceeding
National Pruiery or
Secondary Drinking Water
Regulamons.
OR
b) exhibit characteristics
or contain constituents
listed as hazardous per
RC] A Regulations.
4) Based on injectate charac-
teristics arid possibilities
for attenuation/dilution.
injection orcurs in sufficient
voluses/rates to cause
tanination of graarz ater:
a) beyond the facility perweter
OR
b) regionally on a group/area
basis.
w
I —
O
0
la) Injection into or abo’e
any USDJ
OR
b) Injection bela,, loner-
rost U5114. potential
exists for fluid migration
into U&14.
2) pical well constructions
operation, arid maintenance
allay injection or migration
into unintended zones con-
taming USD1.
3a) Injection fluids typically
are of p er quality
(relative to National
Prinary or Secondary Drinking
Water Regulations or RQ &
Regulations) than fluids
within any U S D A in ccsunmi-
cation with the irdecuon
zone.
OR
b) In the eeent that water quality
is unknann for any USDnJ in
caienrucatlon with the injec—
ticri zone, injection fluids
typically criatain astiti its
in concentrations exceeding
National Primary or Secondary
Drinking Water Regulations or are
listed or athibit characteristios
included in A Regulaticam.
4) Based on injectate charac-
teristics arid possibilities
for attenuation/dilution,
injection cocurs in sufficient
voluaes/rates to cause
contaiunatmon of groundwater:
a) beyond the facility
perineter
OR
b) regionally on a grcxip/
area basis
la) Injection into or abo.,e
arej USDn1
OR
b) Injection bela lonernost
USD. ’l, with little or no
potential for fluid
migration into any USI J.
2) Typical well construction,
ration , arid maintenance
ensure that fluids are
injected into arid renamn
in intended zones.
3) Injection fluids typically:
a) are of equivalent or better
quality (relative to National
Primary or Secondary Drinking
Water Regulations or A
Regulations) than fluids
within any 05 11 .1 in carauni-
cation with the injection zone
OR
b) are of pcorer quality (relative
to National Primary or Secondary
Drinking Water Regulaticxm or
RCRA Regulations) than fluids
within any U3 1 .l in camiunicatmon
with the injection zara...
SDr are injected in
insufficient volunes/rates
arid contanmnant concentra-
tions to change current or
potential beneficial uses
of any USEW in calsunication
with the injection zone.
-------
4.2 WELL TYPE ASSESSI”IENTS
Each well type assessment presented in this report addresses
well purpose; inventory and location; construction, siting, and
operation; nature of injected fluids and injection zone
interactions; hydrogeology and water usage; contamination
potential of the well type; current regulatory approach; and
recommendations for siting, construction, operation, and
corrective or remedial actions. Each well type assessment also
contains a table summarizing number of wells, current regulatory
system, availability of case study information, and the
contamination potential of the well type as reported by each
State. Because each State approached the task of identifying the
items listed above in a different manner, descriptive terms were
not consistent. Therefore, the following list of explanations is
provided.
Confirmed Presence of Well Type: where available, numbers
of wells within each State are indicated. If States report that
the well type is known to exist, but numbers are not available,
then the word “yes’ 1 is substituted for number of wells.
Likewise, where no wells are known to exist, “no” is substituted.
“N/A” indicates that the information is not available.
Regulatory System: regulatory systems are defined as
“permit,” “rule,” “none,” or “N/A” (not available). In some
cases, qualifiers such as well depth or injectate volume are also
indicated. Where injectate volume is indicated, “K” represents
one thousand. For example, “Permit > 15K GPD” indicates that
permits are issued for wells which inject more than 15,000
gallons per day.
Case Studies/Info. Available: where case studies were
provided by the States, the table lists “yes.” Where case
studies were not provided by the States, the table lists “no.”
“N/A” indicates that information was not available.
Contamination Potential Rating: this column indicates how
each State rated the contamination potential of the well type.
In some cases, States did not rate contamination potential as
“high,” “medium,” or “low.” Instead, they ranked contamination
potential as compared with other well types. In these cases, the
table indicates, for example, “2nd HIGHEST/b TYPES.” That is,
out of 10 types of wells found within a State, the State
identified this well type as having the 2nd highest contamination
potential.
In other cases, the States refrained from rating or rankip,g
contamination potentials and merely identified whether or not the
well type had any potential to contaminate ground water. For
these States, the table lists “positive” or “negative.” Where
4 — 13
-------
5 Fl
descriptive terms such as “variable,” “deleterious,” or “unknown’ t
were provided by the States, these terms also have been noted.
In some cases the States are noted for not providing
detailed information in many of the subclass assessments. It
should be noted that major modifications were made to the Class V
classification system in the fall of 1986. The system was
expanded to reflect 32 well types rather than 11 well types as
were recognized by FURS.
4.2.1 DRAINAGE WELLS
4.2.1.1 Agricultural Drainage Wells (5F1)
Well Purpose
Proper management of agricultural land requires that
adequate drainage of surface runoff and subsurface flow be pro-
vided for a well-aerated root zone for optimum crop growth (Ochs,
1980). Land on which sufficient natural drainage does not exist
necessitates artificial outlets such as drainage ditches,
channels, or wells. For example, in some parts of Iowa where the
soils are classified as poorly drained and the topography is low
and flat, land now being intensively farmed could not be used for
agricultural purposes without drainage provided by wells (Iowa
ADW Assessment Report). The USEPA defines agricultural drainage
wells (5F1) as wells that receive fluids such as irrigation
tajiwaters or return flow, other field drainage (i.e., resulting
from precipitation, snowmelt, floodwaters, etc.), animal yard
runoff, feedlot runoff, or dairy runoff. These wells most
commonly are used in the western half of the United States
primarily for disposing irrigation return flow and controlling
salinity in the root zone (Ochs, 1980). Injection of irrigation
return flow, along with other agricultural waste fluids, quali-
fies these drainage wells as Class V 1 defined by 40 CFR, Section
146.5(e) (1).
Inventory and Location
Compiling a national inventory of agricultural drainage
wells has been complicated by inconsistencies between the State
reports and the Federal UIC Reporting System (FURS) listings over
the existing number of these wells. States were asked to verify
the FURS listings in their inventory and assessment reports or to
note reasons why the verification was not possible. However,
these verifications have not been received from many States. In
addition, it is suspected that the numbers of this well type may
be underestimated in both the States’ inventories and the FURS
listings, but the exact degree of underestimation is unknown.
Many States have entities, such as irrigation districts, that can
be contacted for information on this well type. However, there
4 — 14
-------
5 Fl
may be many wells that are not located in these districts. Also,
by noting the number of farming operations in the United States,
the relative ease of constructing an agricultural drainage well,
the lack of permit requirements, and the reluctance of many well
owners to admit to the wells’ existence, it seems likely that
there are many unreported and unverified wells. In some cases
the farmer or rancher may be the only one who knows that a
particular agricultural drainage well exists.
Some States know or suspect that these wells exist, yet
cannot or have not been able to verify the information and,
therefore, do not know the correct number of wells. In
California, authorities are aware of the use of drainage wells
(commonly called dry wells) to dispose of irrigation tailwater,
but the exact number of wells is unknown. In the State of Iowa,
researchers have noted that many methods to inventory agricul-
tural drainage wells have been attempted, but none have proven
very successful. Large discrepancies as to the actual number of
these wells exist among the different inventories. For example,
in 1981 Iowa University estimated that there are 700 agricultural
drainage wells in Iowa; whereas, the Iowa Geological Survey (IGS)
estimated that there are 328 agricultural drainage wells in the
State. The IGS estimate was later adjusted to 230 for
statistical reasons. The FURS inventory also reports only 230
agricultural drainage wells for the State of. Iowa. State
inventories from Illinois, Oklahoma, and Colorado note that
although numbers are not available, the existence of agricultural
drainage wells is suspected. Texas officials have identified and
verified 108 wells, but suspect there may be an additional 100 in
existence. Also, Georgia has reported both confirmed and uncon-
firmed wells. The State of Minnesota has banned agricultural
drainage wells; however officials there suspect some still exist
because some have been located since the ban.
Specifically 1,338 agricultural drainage wells have been
inventoried. In total, the majority of known agricultural drain-
age wells are located in Iowa, Idaho, Texas, and Indiana. Their
distribution throughout the United States is presented in Table
4—2.
Well Construction, Operation, and Siting
The design of agricultural drainage wells varies depending
on site conditions, age of the well, and whether the primary
concern is for disposal of surface and/or subsurface return
flows. Figure 4-1 shows a typical collection and disposal system
used for injecting subsurface return flows. These drainage
systems are common in areas where percolation of water past the
root zone is impeded by impermeable soils. This may lead to the
formation of perched water, which may be detrimental to plant
life. The drainage lines shown in Figure 4-1 typically are
packed in gravel to facilitate percolation. The lines usually
4 — 15
-------
TASLE 4-2: SYNOPSIS STATE REPORTS FOR R UDLTI.WL ORAD EE LLS 1)
5 Fl
RESION
&
STATES
EPA I Confined RequIat y I Case Studies/ Contaaination
REGION Presence Syste. Info. availabiel Potential
• Of Nell Type Rating
IC mectlcut
Naine
M assachusetts
INew Ha shire
IRItodelsiand
V iont
I • MI
I IC
I I tO
I IC
I I IC
I IC
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
IC
NO
IC
IC
IC
I C
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
II
EwJuiey
New Y k
IPu to Rico
IVirgin Islands
II
11
II
II
IC
1 €.LS
YES
IC
N/A
EPCES PERIIIT
N/A
N/A
IC
IC
IC
IC
N/A
V RIA8LE
N/A
N/A
:Delu,are
Maryland
Pennsylvania
IViroinia
Nest Virginia
III • IC
III IC
Ill I IC
III IC
III I YES
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
IC
IC
IC
tO
tO
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
HIGH
:
Alabaaa
IFl ida
:6e gia
kentucky
Mississ ippi
9bth Carolina
IScuth Carolina
Tennessee
I
IV I IC
IV YES
IV 1 43 10 LS
IV YES
IV IC
IV IC
IV IC
IV IC
I I
N/A
PEGHIT
GAMED
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
I
M I
PC
tO
P C
• IC
PC
• IC
IC
N/A
N/A
LON/LWJ4OIIf
N/A
N/A
N/A
• N/A
N/A
•
•
I
•
•
•
I
I
Ililinois
Ilndiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Oilo
INiscensin
I
I I
V 6 I LLS
V 1 72 IELLS
V 15 IELLS
V I 54IELLS
V • IC
V I IC
I
I
RILE YES
I N/A • IC
I N/A PC
I GAlIlEO IC
N/A 1 PC
N/A I IC
I
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
I
kkansas
IL iisiana
INew re.iico
lOkiahosa
Ilesas
I
I
VI IC
I VI • IC
• VI M i)
I VI 1 YES
‘ VI 108 LLS
I I
N/A
N/A
N/A
I RILE
N/A
I
PC
IC
I Mi)
F IC
1 YES
N/A
N/A
• N/A
1 N/A
1 HIGH
I
I
I loia
IKansas
IMissciri
Nebraska
I
I I
VII 1 230 LLS
VII I IC
VII 1 YES
I VII 1 5 ILLS
I I
I
DIVERSION PERMIT
I N/A
JOE
I RILE
YES
IC
1 10
IC
I
I
HIGH
N/A
HIGH
I HIGH
I
1Col ado
Itbitana
IIbth Dakota
IScuth Dakota
utah
wycmng
I I
1 VIII • YES
I VIII I IC
VIII I I LL
1 VIII I IC
I VIII IC
• VIII I IC
1 N/A
N/A
• N/A
N/A
RILE
N/A
I
PC
IC
JO
IC
PC
M I
I
HIGH
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
lAlizona Ii
ICalif nia I X
Hawaii IX
IN evada I IX
I rzcan Sawa IX
ITt. Tern, of P IX
Gusi IX
IDII IX
I
I IC
‘ IC
IC
PC
JO
IC
IC
IC
I
PERMIT Mi) N/A
N /A I IC N/A
N/A Mi) N/A
N/A I IC N/A
N/A I IC N/A
N/A I IC N/A
N/A IC I N/A
N/A IC I N/A
I I
I
Alaska
Ildaho
eqcn
Washingtcu
I
I
1
1
1
I Pd)
572 liS
1 16 IELLS
66 IELLS
I I
N/A I tO
I PERMIT)18 ft YES
N/A NO
I WIElDED IC
N/A
3d) HI EST/14 TYPES
2ND HIGIESI/3 TYPES
I I.NOdIIIl/HIGH
101!: SIJE MJIGERS ON THIS PA MiY RE ESTIMiTES.
4—16
-------
5F1
TYPICAL SUBSURFACE RETURN FLOW
COLLECTION SYSTEM
(from Texas Dept. of Water Resources. 1984) Figure 4— 1
Citrus Grove
20 Acres
Arrows indicate direction of fluid flow.
4—17
-------
5 Fl
are constructed of perforated plastic, but clay and concrete also
are used. Figure 4-2 is a general diagram showing an agricul-
tural drainage well system for both surface and subsurface flow.
In this type of system, surface water can enter directly into the
tile lines through surface inlets. In some cases, surface flow
also may enter into the tile lines due to the development of
cracks in the lines and within the soil profile that allow rapid
inflow of ponded water.
Generally, an agricultural drainage well system consists of
a buried collection basin or cistern, one or more tile lines
entering the cistern, and a drilled, or dug, cased well. The
well may be a “dry well” (situated above the water table) or may
be installed into a water bearing formation. Figure 4—3 shows
two typical agricultural drainage wells. These wells usually are
constructed with 4- to 6-inch diameter casings. The intake to
the well is raised above the cistern bottom so the lower section
of the cistern can act as a settling basin for sediment.
Construction features vary from State to State. Wells in
Idaho are grouped by capacity for descriptive purposes. Large-
capacity wells drain 80 to greater than 640 acres, while small-
capacity wells drain 80 acres or less of irrigated land. Casing
diameters range from 3 to 8 inches for small—capacity wells, to 9
to 24 inches for large-capacity wells. The large wells in Idaho
generally have screened or inverted inlets, settling ponds, and
surface seals. Small wells may not have screened inlets,
settling ponds, or surface seals. Large wells usually inject
into the saturated zone while small wells usually inject into the
vadose zone (IDWR, 1987).
Agricultural drainage wells usually are completed in the
shallowest permeable zone that will readily accept drainage
fluids. Shallow completions are preferred to keep construction
costs low. Therefore, the majority of return flow wells are less
than 100 feet deep and operate by gravity flow. Wells in Idaho
range in depth from 20 feet to greater than 300 feet below land
surface. Casing depths for Idaho wells range from 5 feet to
greater than 200 feet below land surface (IDWR, 1987).
Some drainage well systems can be costly to operate and
maintain because of susceptibility to corrosion, incrustation,
and plugging. Costs can be minimized by using proper design
criteria and suitable or compatible materials (Ochs, 1980).
Historically, once the well has been completed, little routine
maintenance has been performed.
Generally, agricultural drainage wells are found in areas
having low soil permeabilities, shallow water tables, and insuf-
ficient natural surface drainage. However, additional considera-
tions on the site specific level can determine where these wells
4 — 18
-------
5F1
Inlet
ADW
1
EXPLANATION
OSurface Flow
YQuasi Surface Flow
© Subsurface Flow
TYPICAL AGRICULTURAL DRAINAGE WELL IN
NORTh—CENTRAL IOWA SHOWING ThREE
SOURCES OF FLOW
(from Austin and Baker. 1984) Figure 4—2
4—19
Road
Ci stern
-------
Concrete Cover Land Surface
20 Concrete Pipe
Concrete
Reinforced
l.D. Top
— Concrete
or Brick
Minimum
Free Fall
lmaxlmum
____ Fllte7 _
Slit
Storage
(
4 Corrugated
Plastic Drain
Tile
9,
C D
c’J
C
-Minimum 4 Casing
—Drain Well — Usually 75—100 Deep
EXCEPT AS INDICATED, MATERIALS AND
DIMENSIONS ARE AS SHOWN IN FIGURE
TO LEFT.
AGRICULTURAL DRAINAGE WELL SCHEMATICS
A WITH WELL INS IDE CISTERN
B WITH WELL ADJACENT TO CISTERN
(from Texas Dept. of Water Resources, 1984) Figure 4— 3
5F1
4—20
-------
5 Fl
are located. One such consideration involves drainage of irriga-
tion waters. On land that is irrigated, agricultural drainage
wells are used more frequently where supply water is relatively
abundant and inexpensive. On the other hand, in areas where
supply water is costly, there is little incentive to dispose of
irrigation tailwater by injection wells. In this case farmers
are more likely to recycle tailwater by collecting and pumping it
back into the irrigation supply system. Recycling irrigation
tailwaters is a common practice in certain areas of California
and Arizona where water is an expensive commodity.
In siting these drainage wells, Ochs (1980) recommends
taking the following into consideration: degree of land develop-
ment, interference with farming or other activities, environ-
mental concerns, need for access for servicing and maintenance,
location of surface drainage, and the presence of hydrologic
boundaries.
Injected Fluids and Injection Zone Interactions
Injected Fluids. The quantity and quality of agricultural
drainage water varies from differences in farming practices
(i.e., use of fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, etc.) and soil
types (i.e., clay soils adsorb more pollutants than non-clay
soils). However, a general characterization is possible. Poten-
tial agricultural contaminants include sediment, nutrients,
pesticides, organics, salts, metals, and in some cases, patho—
gens. These contaminants may be found in agricultural waste
fluids on both irrigated and non-irrigated lands. However, as
previously noted, agricultural drainage wells are used primarily
in the western states to drain irrigation return flow; therefore,
the nature of most of the injection fluids entering these wells
will more accurately reflect the irrigation return flows.
Irrigation water applied in excess of crop requirementscan
create drainage problems. The difference between the amount of
irrigation water applied to the crop and the amount consumed by
the crop or held by the soil matrix is the return flow. Return
flows consist of two parts - surface runoff produced during
irrigation (commonly termed as tailwater), and subsurface
drainage produced from the percolation of irrigated water seeping
past the root zone (Ochs, 1980).
With current irrigation practices, only about 50 percent of
the water applied is consumed by the crop or held by the soil.
Some of the excess water is applied intentionally in order to
maintain the correct salt balance in the soil by reducing the
salt concentrations in the root zone. This part of the excess
water is called the “leaching fraction,” and contributes to the
subsurface portion of return flow. In addition, excess
irrigation water is applied intentionally in many western states
due to “beneficial use” requirements of the water appropriation
4 — 21
-------
5 Fl
rights. These appropriation rights stipulate that the first
person to develop and put water to beneficial use has the legal
right to all the water required to satisfy his needs; however,
this right may be lost or reduced by nonuse of the water. Most
irrigators have water appropriation rights and have interpreted
irrigation as a “beneficial use.” Therefore, they use their
total water allocation each year to avoid having their future
allocation lost or reduced. This practice often results in over-
irrigation and can create a substantial amount of return flow
(Blackman et al., 1977).
The quality of surface drainage waters can vary
significantly depending on the amount of sediment, fertilizer,
pesticide, and other residues that are picked up as the water
flows across the fields. Generally, the quality of the surface
runoff is good with regard to salinity, but may contain large
amounts of sediment. Surface runoff also may have significant
levels of bacteria and certain pesticides. An analysis of water
samples from four agricultural drainage wells in Iowa showed
pesticide and bacteria levels were higher in the wells draining
surface runoff than those receiving only subsurface flow (Iowa
ADW Assessment Report). Subsurface return flow, on the other
hand, may contain high concentrations of total dissolved solids,
particularly in the semi-arid areas of the country (Ochs, 1980).
Specific fertilizer nutrients most commonly applied to
crops, and therefore found in drainage waters, are nitrogen and
phosphorus. Nitrogen normally is applied in a highly soluble
nitrate form and usually is transported in a dissolved state in
subsurface return flows. During an Iowa study of subsurface
return flow to agricultural drainage wells, N0 3 -N concentrations
were higher (10 to 30 mg/l) during periods between runoff events
and lower (often
-------
5F1
A study conducted by Graham, Clapp, and Putkey (1977) on
agricultural drainage wells in Idaho identified sediment loads
and bacterial concentrations as the most serious threat to ground
water quality from return flows. The following table (Table 4-3)
shows the quality of the return flows studied by Graham and
others. While the data provides a good overview of the problem,
it should be noted that the results are for surface return flows
only.
Injection Zone Interactions. Most agricultural drainage
wells are completed in the unsaturated (vadose) zone or shallow
aquifers. The most significant interaction which can occur from
the injection of the drainage fluids into these shallow wells is
the contamination of an aquifer so it can no longer be used as an
underground source of drinking water. High concentrations of
pesticides, metals, and fertilizers found in drainage waters can
render an aquifer unusable.
Aquifer sensitivity to the injection of agricultural drain-
age fluids into the vadose zone depends on the thickness of the
vadose zone (depth to the water table), the nature of the layered
deposits in the zone (i.e., high or low permeability), the degree
of confinement of the ground water (presence of a confining zone
impeding the migration of the contaminants), and the quality of
the ambient ground water. The first three factors affect the
rate of movement of the contaminants through the soil matrix
(i.e., absorption onto soil particles). In general, contaminants
are less likely to reach the aquifer in harmful concentrations
when the vadose zone is of sufficient thickness, the permeability
low, and the degree of confinement high. The lateral movement of
injected wastewater through highly permeable interbeds (normally
unsaturated) into uncased or unsealed rural single family
domestic wells is the major cause of contamination of domestic
ground-water supplies attributed to injection well use in Idaho
(IDWR correspondence 1987). Sensitivity to the injection of
drainage fluids directly into a water table aquifer depends
primarily on the quality of the ambient ground water. Chemical
incompatibility between the receiving water and the injected
fluids may result in adverse reactions in the formation.
}Iydrogeology and Water Use
Agricultural drainage wells are found in areas having poorly
drained soils. Most wells are completed in shallow aquifers that
have the capacity to receive large volumes of fluid. The prime
aquifer units for injection are bedrock aquifers which have
undergone dissolution and/or fracturing. The majority of the
agricultural drainage wells inventoried inject fluids into such
formations. In the State of Iowa, these wells inject drainage
fluids into fractured, vuggy carbonate formations. In Idaho,
fluids are injected into fractured basalt formations. These
4 — 23
-------
TABLE 4—3
C1JAt T c RIG? fl WASI R
1 JUNE 26, 1975 1O k T 24, 1976
(Sc*irce: ( abam et 834, 1977)
EPA Pxopos
Nunber of Tñ } Drinking Public Water Drinking Water
— De1 inin ticxis an High Water Staxx azds & p1y ( iteria Staixiaxds
? 1driri (ppt) 9 —— ——— <10 1,000 —
chiordane (ppt) 9 — — <10 3,000 3,000
DDD (ppt) 9 —— <10 —— ——
DDE (ppt) 9 <10 <10 10.6 50,000
D1 T (ppt) 9 <10 <10 14.9
Dieldrin (ppt) 9 <10 <10 37.3 1,000
• Diazinon (ppt) 9 — — <10
Er rin (ppt) 9 — — <10 500 200
Heptachior (ppt) 9 — — <10 100 100
Heptachior epoxide 9 — — <10 100 100
(ppt)
Lir ane (ppt) 9 <10 5,000 4,000
I 4a1athJ.on (ppt) 9 (10 — —
ethoxych1or (ppt) 9 <10 1,000 100,000
thy1 parathion 9 <10 —
(ppt)
Parathion (ppt) 9 <10 -—
- T ixaphene (ppt) 9 <10 5,000 5,000
2, 4—D (ppt) 9 <10 20,000 100,000
2,4,5,—T (ppt) 9 <10 2,000 10,000
-------
TABLE 4—3, H iin
EPA Pxcçcsed
Ni.nther of Tda1i Drinking Public inter Drinking ter
— D etThiflRtiCES )‘ an High i ter Staix3axds p1y Criteria Starx axds
Alkalinity (zig/i 10 148 168 198
as
knnonia (zig/i as N) 4 ——— —— 0.00 —— 0.5
Arsenic (zig/i) 4 — — <0.01 0.05 1.0 0.05
Barium (zig/i) 5 0.04 0.05 0.07 1.0 1.0 1.0
Boron (rig/i) 10 0.05 0.10 0.18 1.0
Ca&nium (zig/i) 5 —— —— <0.01 0.05 0.01 0.01
Calcium ( rig/i) 10 40.2 42.4 46.0
, Chloride (zig/i) 10 14.6 16.6 19.9 250 250
U
hranium (zig/i) 5 — — <0.02 0.05 0.05 0.05
w
0 O per (zig/i) 5 0.01 0.02 0.02 1.0 1.0
U
Cyanide (zig/i) 7 — — <0.01 0.20 0.20
Iron (zig/i) 5 <0.02 0.02 0.06 0.3 0.3
1
Lead (zig/i) 5 — — <0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
Magnesium (zig/i) 10 10.7 14.4 27.6
Manganese (zig/i) 5 <0.01 0.02 0.04 0.05 0.05
Marcury (ugh) 5 <1.0 1.0 1.3 2.0 2.0 2.0
Nitrate (zig/i as N) 10 0.08 0.35 1.82 10 10 10
Nitrite (zig/i as N) 10 0.00 0.03 0.07 10 10 10
(11
Ort1 cp1 os ate 10 0.05 0.11 0.22 2?
(zig/i as P)
Potassium (zig/i) 10 3.91 5.90 11.3
Selenium (ugh) 4 0.9 1.2 1.8 10 10 10
-------
TABLE 4—3, 1 ti nii i
EPA Pzcçosed
NLniber of Tñ r Drinkir Public ter Drinkir ter
— DemiT% tia is La,i an High ter Star ards Su p1y iteria Star ards
Silver (rrçll) 5 <0.01 0.05 0.05 0.05
Sodiun (n /l) 10 15.9 17.6 22.8 —
Sulfate (ng/1) 10 30.7 33.2 37.4 250 250
Zinc (n /1) 5 0.01 0.02 0.02 5.0 5.0
0 h nica1 cygen 10 13 24 37
derr r (ng/l)
pH 14 7.94 8.94
Specific a ñuctance 49 350 382 445
(umt s/an)
‘Ibtal dissolved 9 197 225 290 500 500
solids (n /l)
Color (C.TJ.) 9 <5 43 >70 15 75
‘I rrperature (°C) 27 5.6 17.2 35.0 29.0
Tuxbidity (NI’rJ) 48 7.7 86 320 5 5
‘Ibtal nonfilterable 35 9.3 237.1 152
• residue (irg/l)
Nonfilterable fixed 33 0.6 151.8 731.2
residue (xTg/l)
Nonfilterable vola— 33 4.1 33.2 108.1
tile residue (u /l)
-4
. ¶Ibtal colifonr 45 580 29,000 96,000 2(MPN)
O (organisms/100 ml)
Fecal Co1ifoni 45 65 850 13,000 —
(organisn /1OO in].)
U
Z Fecal str tococci 38 900 7,400 16,000
(r rri rii Rrrtc /1 flfl ml
-------
5 Fl
aquifers have sufficient capacity to accept drainage fluids and
are less likely than sand or gravel aquifers to become plugged.
The disposal of agricultural drainage waters into shallow
aquifers leads to a concern for possible ground-water contarnina—
tion. The formations used for injection of these drainage waters
are often the same formations used as sources of local drinking
water. Therefore, nearby public or private drinking water wells
may be subject to direct contamination from pesticides, nutri-
ents, metals, bacteria, etc. The degree to which a drinking
water well may be affected depends on a variety of factors which
include: the horizontal and vertical distance from the injection
operations; the quality and volume of the injected fluids; the
sensitivity of the receiving aquifer; and the concentration of
agricultural drainage wells in the area.
In several States, there is sufficient evidence of ground
water contamination resulting from injection of agricultural
drainage fluids. In the State of Iowa, aquifers used for injec-
tion of these drainage fluids also are used for water supply for
local farms and communities. Contamination of the supply wells
is most prevalent in areas highly concentrated with agricultural
drainage wells. Likewise, in Idaho the same aquifers used to
inject agricultural drainage waters are used as the main source
of water for approximately 140,000 people. Here too, supply
wells show signs of contamination. In the State of Texas, agri-
cultural drainage wells inject fluids into a highly mineralized
aquifer. Though not an USDW, this aquifer is hydraulically
connected to deeper aquifers that may be utilized as USDW in the
future. The injection aquifer and the deeper aquifers all exhi-
bit some nitrate contamination resulting from the drainage wells.
Contamination Potential
Based on the rating system described in Section 4.1,
agricultural drainage wells are assessed to pose a high potential
to contaminate tJSDW. These wells typically do inject into or
above Class I or Class II USDW. Typical well construction,
operation, and maintenance may or may not allow fluid injection
or migration into unintended zones. Injection fluids typically
have concentrations of constituents exceeding standards set by
the National Primary or Secondary Drinking Water Regulations.
They are likely to be of poorer quality (relative to standards of
the National Primary or Secondary Drinking Water Standards) than
the fluids within any USDW in communication with the injection
zone. Based on injectate characteristics and possibilities for
attenuation and dilution, injection does occur in sufficient
volumes or at sufficient rates to cause an increase in
concentration (above background levels) of the National Primary
or or Secondary Drinking Water Regulation parameters in ground
water, or endanger human health or the environment in a region
studied on a group/area basis.
4 — 27
-------
5 Fl
The most serious threat to USDW from agricultural drainage
wells is the potential for aquifer contamination from drainage
waters carrying nutrients, pesticides, dissolved solids, patho—
gens, and metals. These contaminants can have serious health
effects if introduced into drinking water supplies. The greatest
concentration of soluble contaminants (nitrates, dissolved
solids, and soluble pesticides) is introduced by subsurface
return flows. On the other hand, surface return flows have the
greatest potential of introducing suspended solids with associ-
ated contaminants and bacteria into ground water. Drainage
waters injected into permeable zones may migrate horizontally
rather than vertically. This contaminated water can be intro-
duced into local water supply aquifers through uncased or improp-
erly abandoned wells in the vicinity of the drainage well.
Injected fluids also may migrate downward to the water table in
the absence of impermeable layers. In addition, contaminated
water also may be injected directly into aquifers which are used
for local drinking water supplies.
Studies have shown that agricultural drainage wells present
a very serious threat of ground-water contamination. In the
State of Texas, chemical analyses of fluids injected into these
drainage wells show the presence of contaminants above USEPA Safe
Drinking Water Act standards with respect to TDS, sulfate,
chloride, and nitrate. Also, a recent study by the California
Assembly Office of Research found that almost 3,000 supply wells
in California are contaminated by 57 different pesticides. At
least 22 of the 57 pesticides have been traced to agricultural
use (Ground Water Monitor, 1985). No agricultural drainage wells
have been inventoried in California to date, however, these wells
reportedly exist within the State. In Iowa, water wells located
near clusters of agricultural drainage wells have shown nitrate
contamination levels greater than USEPA maximum contaminant level
standards. Concurrently, in the State of Idaho, the quality of
water entering these wells was found to be over that State’s
drinking water standards for total coliform bacteria and sediment
levels. According to a study by Graham and Leach (1979),
excessive levels of indicator (total and fecal coliform) bacteria
were found in domestic water supplies only during the irrigation
season.
Current Regulatory Approach
Agricultural drainage wells are authorized by rule under the
federally-administered UIC programs (see Section 1). Very few
States regulate agricultural drainage wells as part of their UIC
program. The primary reason for this is the lack of complete
inventories and ground water contamination assessments for these
wells. From the information received from the States to date,
only eleven have adopted regulatory policies for these wells. In
Oklahoma, the Industrial Waste Division requires registration of
all Class V wells, including agricultural drainage wells.
4 — 28
-------
5 Fl
Illinois, Nebraska, and Utah authorize all Class V wells by
rule.
Only five States require permits for the construction and
operation of these wells. Iowa requires a permit for any diver-
sion of subsurface waters into an aquifer. This diversion permit
is required for all agricultural drainage wells, both new and
existing. In addition, Iowa’s regulations also specify that the
disposal of any pollutant, other than heat, in a well is prohi-
bited. Thus, an owner/operator may construct and operate an
agricultural drainage well only if he has obtained a diversion
permit and has shown that the injection fluids do not contain any
pollutants, other than heat. Idaho requires a permit to operate,
modify, or construct a new Class V (a) well. In Idaho, Class V
(a) wells inject primarily irrigation tailwater and highway
runoff. Fluids injected into these wells must meet the State’s
drinking water standards at the point of injection. Arizona
requires a Ground Water Quality Protection Permit for all land
use “activities” which may involve disposal of wastes or
pollutants causing ground water contamination. Owner/operators
of such land use activities must submit a Notice of Disposal
describing the site operations. If the operation is deemed to
have no adverse effects on ground water, a permit will be issued.
Agricultural land use is included in Arizona’s definition of
“activities.” Thus, agricultural drainage wells are subject to
this permitting requirement. Both New York and Florida require
agricultural drainage wells to be permitted as part of an overall
permitting requirement for Class V wells. Agricultural drainage
wells have been banned in Georgia.
Recommendations
Currently, there is an undetermined number of agricultural
drainage wells in existence in the United States. Several States
(including PR, GA, IN, MI, MN, CO, and OR) acknowledge that
obtaining the exact number of these wells is a difficult but
necessary task. Therefore, each State should continue its
research and work to improve its inventory efforts.
General guidelines suggested in State reports for protecting
USDW in areas near agricultural drainage wells include:
1. Location and proper plugging of all abandoned wells
within the immediate area of the agricultural drainage
well (IA);
2. Requiring that fluids meet drinking water standards at
the point of injection (NE, OR);
3. Requiring irrigation tailwater recovery and pumpback
(OR);
4 — 29
-------
5D2,4
4. Requiring a detailed map of the location of the injec-
tion well and all municipal, domestic, and stock wells
within one mile of the injection well (NE):
5. Requiring a diagram of the injection well construction
(NE);
6. Siting all ADW at least 2,000 feet from any stock,
municipal, or domestic well (NE); -
7. Closing surface inlets in order to allow infiltration
through soil to decrease the transport of bacteria,
some pesticides, and sediment to the aquifer (MO);
8. Raising the inlets above the maximum ponding levels
(IA);
9. Reducing the volume of irrigation return flow by apply-
ing only the quantity of water necessary and only the
amount of chemicals necessary to meet crop requirements
and maintain the correct soil salt balance (CA); and
10. Discouraging use and encouraging elimination of ADW by
developing alternative drainage methods (IA).
4.2.1.2 Storm Water and Industrial Drainage Wells (5D2,5D4)
Well Purpose
Municipalities with rapid growth rates and/or limited storm
water sewer systems often experience storm water drainage
problems. Increased paved areas can create storm water runoff
volumes which overload existing drainage capacities. As a result,
these municipalities operate and maintain storm water drainage
wells (also called “dry” wells) to dispose of local runoff. In
addition, in some municipalities, storm water drainage wells are
used to manage runoff on construction sites and newly developed
areas. Developers are required, through grading and drainage
ordinances, to drain surface runoff on site within 36 hours. The
surface runoff is usually drained to a retention area where storm
watet collects. Many developers use retention basins with
drainage wells to dispose of runoff due to their relative low
cost as compared to storm sewer systems.
Industrial drainage wells (5D4) are used to dispose of
runoff on industrial properties. Commercial facilities [ i.e.,
gas stations] which maintain drainage wells susceptible to
chemical spillage are included in this classification. These
wells drain storm water runoff and possibly, at times, chemicals
from inadvertent spills or intentional discharges of industrial
waste.
4 — 30
-------
5D2,4
Inventory and Location
Storm water and industrial drainage wells have been reported
in 38 States and Territories. Reported well totals are presented
for each State and Territory in Tables 4-4 and 4—5. Well totals
for individual States were obtained from State reports, FURS,
verbal communication, and case studies sent by various States.
Due to the multitude of drainage wells existing in several
States, often only estimated well totals were supplied.
Geographical regions which have relatively large numbers of
reported drainage wells are the West Coast, the eastern Great
Lake States, New York, and Florida. States with over 5,000
reported drainage wells are Arizona, California, and Washington.
Approximately 40,000-60,000 drainage wells are estimated to
operate in Arizona.
Storm water and industrial drainage wells reportedly number
about 90,000 in the United States and its Territories. Although
the majority of these wells are storm water drainage wells, a
larger percentage than reported of industrial drainage wells are
believed to comprise the total.
Construction, Siting and Operation
Four typical well designs commonly are used in the
construction of storm water and industrial drainage wells. These
designs are shown in Figure 4-4. Drainage wells similar to
designs 1, 3, and 4 are constructed in areas where loamy soils
and permeable alluvial sands and gravels are prevalent. Drainage
wells similar to that shown in design 2 are constructed where
consol idated formations predominate.
Drainage wells resembling those shown in designs 1, 3, and 4
all function in a similar manner. These wells, however, have
different operational features. In designs 1 and 4, storm runoff
collects in one, or a series, of catch basins. Heavier sediments
carried in the runoff settle to the bottom of each catch basin.
After reaching a certain height in the basin, storm water drains
into the injection well. This water flows through a filter
screen (in design 4) within the drainage well and into a
perforated pipe. As in design 3, storm water is then allowed to
percolate through filter material (gravel or small rocks) and
into the surrounding strata. In design 1, the catch basin and
injection well essentially are consolidated into one drainage
well. The upper compartment (a precast concrete vault) functions
as a collection sump and sediment trap. When the collected water
rises to a sufficient level in the upper compartment, it flows
through a screened connecting pipe into the lower part of the
well. This water subsequently is discharged through emplaced
filter material and into surrounding permeable strata.
4 — 31
-------
TP&E 4-4: 5YN SIS STATE 1 TS FOR STORM TER DRAI LLS(502)
I€SIOW
&
STATES
EPA
IOW
Confined
, fresence
I Of fl Type
‘ Requlat y Case Stuthesl Ccntaainatim
I Systes linfo. availablel Potential I
Rating
ICcnnecticut
IMaine
Massachusetts
:NewHa abire
IRIusle Island
:Verennt
I
I
I
1
• I
I
I
I 3i 11s
Ml
1 19 L(LLS
• MO
MO
• MI
I
PERMIT
N/A
EIEWT
N/A
N/A
N/A
M l
M I
YES
MO
, Ml
MO
N/A
N/A
LOW
N/A
N/A
N/A
Maw Jersey
liEu Y k
Puerto Rico
IVirgin Islands
II
‘ 11
I II
II
I El
1 2,500 I(LLS
3 ILLS
Ml
I4JPDES PERMIT
PERNIT>1I( ‘D
N/A
N/A
Ml
Ml
YES
MO
N/A
POSITIVE
• N/A
N/A
!De laware
III
M l
N/A
MO
WA
i l laryland
Pennsy lvania
Viroinza
West Virginia
A labasa
Wl ida
eergia
iKlfltUCky
ifliss issappi
9b th Carolina
lSonth Carolina
Tenn see
•
III
III
III
III
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
M I
155 I€LLS
116 E.LS
>2 ILLS
9 MOLLS
l, 9 MILLS
• 2 EIS
484 WELLS
MO
Ml
31 WELLS
7 WELLS
N/A M l
N/A MO
N/A YES
N/A MO
PERMIT MO
P IT I YES
BNIED M I
LOCRI. YES
N/A MO
N/A I Ml
PERMIT YES
PERMIT I YES
N/A
3 HIEI€ST/6 TYPES
LOW
I MOW
VABIABLE
I Hl EST/8 TYPES
10€ WdJB D)
LOW
N/A
N/A
H19(ST/3 TYPES
N/A
I
I
llllanois
l lndiana
iMichigan
Uhinnesota
IOiio
Wi5cons an
V
V
V
V
V
V
697 E.LS
2 IRI) WElLS
123 WELLS
30 E.LS
1341 WELLS
116 E.LS
RILE YES
N/A MO
N/A MO
I N/A MO
I N/A 1 MO
0€ MO
I &
• N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
MOW
1 1 100 1 1
frkansas
ILcuasiana
liEu Maxico
Qklah a
Ilexas
I
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
MO
Ml
5 WELLS
YES
S2IELLS
I N/A MO N/A
• N/A I MO N/A
I RESISTRATIOW Ml I LOW
• RILE MO I N/A
I N/A I MO LOW
I
I I
II .a VII 6 WELLS
Ikansas VII 3 WELLS
lMisscwl VII MO
IEbraska I VII I I WELL
I I
I
I N/A I Ml
N/A I Ml
N/A • MO
RILE I MO
I
N/A
POSITIVE
N/A
LOW
I
I I
ICol ado VIII 2 WE l LS
Ilbitana VIII 4,500 WELLS
IN ’th Dakota VIII MO
Scuth Dakota I VIII MO
IUtah I VIII I 2,743 WEllS
:Wynmnq I VIII SE.LS
I
I I
N/A MO
PERMIT I MO
N/A I Ml
I N/A MO
RILE M l
I PERMIT MO
I
LOW
• MEN
N/A
N/A
RANGE 2—5(7 4rn€ST)
1 D HIEIEST/lO TYPES:
I
•
I X 40K-6OI( WELLS
ICalif nia I X 9175 WELLS
:Hauaii 1 IX 129 WELLS
IlEvada • IX ‘ 15 WELLS
l ricanSaaoa I IX MO
lTr. Tern, of P IX MO
IX 164 WELLS
D 1 1 1 I X I MO
I —
REBISTRATIOW YES
RILE I YES
P IT ‘ MO
N/A MO
N/A I MO
N/A 1 MO
I PERMIT Ml
• N/A MO
I
I
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
N/A
N/A
LOW
N/A
I
I
lAlaska
lldaho
eqon
Washingtm
I ‘
1
I 1
1
I I
66 WELLS • PERMIT I MO
1165 WELLS I PERPUT>18 FT YES
516 I€ .LS I N/A I Ml
14,903 E.LS I 10€ MO
I I
HIOW
HI €ST/14 TYPES
N/A
MODERATE 10 HIEN
MOTE: SOlE PIJIBERS IN ThIS TABLE ARE ESTII TES.
5D2,4
4-32
-------
TABLE 4-5: SYUSIS STATE REPORTS FOR INCUSTRIP . DRAINA WELLS 4)
MITE: SO E MJ ERS IN This TABLE ESTfl TES.
5D2,4
REBIOW
&
STATES
EPA
REBION
Cenfirsed
Presence
Of Well Type
RequIat y Case Stuthes/ Caitamination
System Unfo. availablel Potential
Rating
ICcnnecticut
IMaine
Maesachusetts
IWew Ha uhire
RIiode island
Verennt
I
I NO 1 4/A
I MI N/A
I NO I N/A
1 16 WELLS N/A
I MI N/A
I I II ) : N/A
I
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
N O
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
‘
I
9 w Jersey
IWew Yark
Wuarto Rico
IVirgin Islands
Ii
II
II
II
I
I WELL • NIIPOES PERMIT
1,l® WELLS I P ITMK D
15 WELLS • N/A
NO — I N/A
M I
NO
YES
NO
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
IMasare
Maryland ‘
IPannsylvania
IViroinia
West Virginia
I II NO N/A
III 3 WELLS • PERIIIT
III MI I N/A
III 1 3 WELLS , N/A
III YES I N/A
NO
YES
NO
M i
NO
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
HIGH
Alabaaa IV
Wla’ida IV
6eargia IV
Ikentucky IV
M issasslppi IV
Itbth Carolina IV
South Carolina IV
Frennessee IV
• I
M I I N/A NO N/A
YES • P IT M l HI EST/8 TYPES
2 WELLS BABIED II) IOEIPH GED)
• YES PERMIT MI I LOW
Ml I N/A NO I N/A
, NO N/A MI N/A
MI N/A I NO I N/A
MI N/A NO I N/A
I
I I &
Ullinois V 47 WEU.S RILE
Undiana V 0 WELLS WA
Michigse V 9 WELLS I N/A
Minnesota V B WELLS N/A
V 118 WELLS I N/A
1WEsc sin V 1 WELL RILE
I I
NO N/A
NO N/A
NO N/A
NO N/A
NO I HIGH
MI LO W
I
kansas
Louisiana
iWew VQxico
Oklaho.a •
Ilexas
I
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
NO
5 WELLS
NI)
NO
NO
N/A
U.ASS II
N/A
N/A
N/A
NO
MI
NO
MI
NO
a
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
* I
I
II .a
Kansas
Misec.rt
INebraska
I
VII
VII
VII
VII
Ml
NO
NO
NO
I
WA
N/A
N/A
RILE
NO
Ml
NO
NO
a I
I N/A
I N/A
I N/A
N/A
I
I
ICol ado
:rcntana
N th Dakota
ISouth Dakota
IUtah
Wycming
VIII NO
VIII I NO
VIII I NO
VIII I Ml
VIII 1 321 WELLS
VIII Ml
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
• RILE
N/A
M I
NO
NO
NO
NO
• NO
I a
N/A
N/A I
I N/A
N/A
RANGE 3—7(7€GIEST)I
N/A
Ikizona I X
Calif nza I IX
IHaj.aii IX
INevada IX
I rican Saena IX
hr. Tart. of P IX
IX
IX
I
YES
YES
4 WELLS
YES
Ml
NO
Ml
NO
REGISTRATION YES
RILE Ml
PERMIT NO
N/A I NO
N/A NO
14/A I NO
N/A I NO
14/A I NO
I
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE
MODERATE I
I N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
I
Alaska
Idaho
I)eqon
IWashingtou
I
I
I
I
1W
• NO
NO
• 2,141 WELLS
I I
14/A NO N/A
N/A I Ml N/A
ti/A NO N/A I
141 1€ I Ml I MODERATETOHIGH I
4—33
-------
PIN TRAT,ON INTO
— GPANULAR MATEMAI.
(tO R€CGMCNOW)
Runoff —
40 -
n. 10 A v•
Wi,i, Tible
Co. .1 Sand SDs um—.—
4—34
-------
5D2,4
Depths of storm water drainage wells similar to designs 1,
3, and 4 are dependent upon the regional depths to permeable
soils and ground water. Reported depths generally range from 12
to 350 feet. Most wells are installed so that they penetrate at
least 5 to 20 feet of permeable materials; this promotes
increased drainage -within each well. Theoretically, industrial
and storm water drainage wells are completed to depths which are
at least 10 feet above the underlying ground-water table. This
allows the injected waters to be filtered by vadose zone soils
before reaching ground water. Drainage wells similar to wells
shown in designs 1 and 4 generally cannot dispose of storm water
as fast as it falls on site. Parking lots, landscaped areas, and
parks commonly are used as storm water retention facilities.
These basins hold storm water prior to its injection into
drainage wells.
Drainage wells constructed similarly to the well shown in
design 2 generally are 40 to 400 feet deep. As previously noted,
these wells are completed in consolidated strata. Ground water
generally is injected through a filter screen and directly into
underlying fractures in limestone, sandstone, or lava flows.
Injected waters do not undergo further treatment before reaching
the water table. Wells of this design in Virginia are reported
to inject between 300 and 500 gallons per minute (gpm). Wells
constructed similarly to design 2 comprise a small percentage of
the drainage wells reported in the United States •and its
protectorates.
Injected Fluids and Injection Zone Interactions
Injection Fluids. Urban storm water runoff can acquire
significant contaminant loads. Runoff may pick up contaminants
from streets, roofs, landscaped areas, industrial areas and
construction sites. Substances found in stormwater runoff
include:
1. Herbicides; 2. Pesticides; 3. Fertilizers; 4. Dei—
cing salts; 5. Asphaltic sediments; 6. Gasoline,
grease, and oil; 7. Tar and residues from roofs and
paving; 8. Rubber particulates (from automobile tires);
9. Liquid wastes and industrial solvents; and 10.
Asbestos.
Literature values for contaminant concentrations detected in
urban runoff are wide-ranging. These values are dependent upon
numerous factors including the location of the sampling site, the
sampling and analytical methods employed, and the frequency and
duration of the precipitation event(s) sampled.
4 — 35
-------
5D2,4
Storm Water Drainage Wells (5D2 )
National research concerning the characterization of water
quality in urban storm water runoff has been conducted. Storm
water runoff entering conventional sewer collection systems and
drainage basins has been sampled in cities across the nation.
Because drainage wells are not as common as conventional systems,
few sampling programs have sampled storm water as it enters storm
water drainage wells (5D2).
The Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) was initiated by
the United States Environmental Protection Agency in 1978. This
program began in 28 cities to determine, among other objectives,
the extent to which urban runoff contributes to regional water
quality problems. Urban runoff entering conventional storm water
collection systems was sampled. Several major conclusions from
the NURP study were as follows (NURP, 1983):
1. Heavy metals (especially copper, lead, and zinc)
are by far the mostprevalent priority pollutants
found in urban runoff. Metal concentrations in
urban runoff samples exceeded USEPA’s water
quality criteria and drinking water standards
numerous times.
2. Organic priority pollutants were detected less
frequently and at lower concentrations than heavy
metals. The most commonly found organic was the
plasticizer bis (2-ethylhexyl) pthalate and the
pesticide lindane.
3. Coliform bacteria are present at high levels in
urban runoff. Median coliform counts for sampled
sites are 21, 000/100 ml in summer and 1, 000/100 ml
in the winter.
Other programs sampling storm water runoff injected by storm
water drainage wells have been conducted in at least six states.
A summary of the analytical findings produced from three of the
sampling programs are presented below. Additional information
regarding these and other sampling programs i listed in Appendix
E.
SMC Martin Inc. - Roanoke, Virginia . Samples of
storm water runoff entering 10 storm water drainage
wells were collected in residential and commercial
areas of Roanoke, Virginia. Runoff from an April
precipitation event was sampled and analyzed for major
inorganic elements, trace metals, phosphorous and
organophosphates. Many of the parameters measured were
well below National Primary and Secondary Drinking
4 — 36
-------
5D2,4
Water Regulations. Iron and lead were the only
constituents present in concentration above the
national drinking water standards. Runoff constituents
detected in smaller concentrations were phosphorous,
nitrogen, trace metals (except iron and lead) and
chlorides.
Geological Survey of Alabama, Alabama Dept. of
Environmental Management — Muscle Shoals, Alabama .
Urban runoff samples draining into 14 storm water
drainage wells in Muscle Shoals, Alabama were collected
in October, 1985 and March, 1986. These samples were
analyzed for the presence of trihalo—methanes,
herbicides, pesticides, and inorganic compounds. The
turbidity and color of the drainage well injectates
were also analyzed. Herbicides, pesticides, and vola-
tile compounds were not detected. Except for high
color and turbidity, the runoff samples chemically met
state and national standards for drinking water sup-
plies.
Maricopa Association of Governments — Phoenix, Arizona .
This study monitored the seasonal variations of
the chemical quality of storm water runoff. Runoff
from a paved commercial site in Phoenix, Arizona, was
analyzed for organic and inorganic constituents.
Possible ground-water contaminants in winter storm run-
off were lead, iron, manganese, and diazinon. Iron,
lead, manganese, diazirion, and bis (2-ethyl) pthalate
were found in summer storm water runoff. Iron, lead,
and manganese concentrations were the only constituents
found to exceed National Primary and Secondary Drinking
Water Regul ations.
Industrial Drainage Wells (5D4 )
Surface runoff injected by industrial drainage wells can be
similar in quality to runoff entering storm water drainage wells.
A limited amount of evidence, however, suggests that storm water
runoff in industrial areas is relatively poorer in quality. The
Fresno, California, NURP project showed that industrial areas had
the worst storm water runoff quality of the four land-use types
evaluated. Of the 62 non—pesticide constituents monitored, 52
were statistically highest in industrial site runoff. These
findings were roughly corroborated in Spokane, Washington, where
a study was conducted to determine land use-related loading and
the contaminant removal capacity of drainage wells. The Spokane
findings showed that industrial and commercial sites clearly
contributed greater quantities of total dissolved solids,
4 — 37
-------
5D2,4
chemical oxygen demand, total nitrogen, lead, and zinc (Oregon,
1986). The overall NURP results, which summarized roughly three
years of data from 28 projects nationwide, concluded that the
geographic location and land—use category appear to be of little
utility in predicting the characteristics of urban runoff from
unmonitored sites. A recommendation for the further
investigation of runoff in industrial areas was offered in the
NIJRP final report.
Because of their siting, industrial drainage wells are
susceptible to inadvertent chemical spills and illicit dis-
charges. Among a variety of possible sources, accidental spills
can result from chemical loading operations, pipelines, and
storage tanks. Two cases of subsurface contamination resulting
from industrial drainage wells have been reported. In Arizona,
waste solvents from an overflowing storage tank were diluted with
water and inadvertently flushed into a drainage well on site.
Subsurface soils surrounding the tank pad were confirmed to be
contaminated. A more extreme case of contamination was reported
in Kansas. A diesel/tar mixture from a newly tarred roof washed
into a drainage well during a rain. A nearby city water well was
shut down as a result of the injected hydrocarbon mixture.
In summary, the following conclusions regarding drainage
well injection fluids can be drawn:
1. Heavy metals such as lead, iron, and manganese
frequently are found in urban runoff. Metal con-
centrations exceeding National Primary and
Secondary Drinking Water Regulations are not
uncommon.
2. Organic compounds have been found in urban runoff.
However, concentrations detected generally are
low, and constituents encountered are site depen-
dent.
3. Fluids injected by industrial drainage wells are
potentially poorer in quality than those injected
by storm water drainage wells. Storm water, acci-
dental chemical spills, and illicit discharges
potentially can enter industrial drainage wells.
Injection Zone Interactions. The injection of fluids
through drainage wells can occur in the vadose zone or in a
saturated stratum. Research programs have been conducted in at
least three States to study the attenuation and dilution of
runoff contaminants in the injection zone. A summary of the
findings of these research programs follows.
4 — 38
-------
5D2,4
Spokane (WA) Water Quality Management Program -
Spokane, Washington . In Spokane, Washington, runoff
was sampled as it drained into a storm water drainage
well. Ground water was sampled and analyzed 50 meters
downgradient of the drainage well. The Spokane resear-
cher determined that only 3 percent of the total injec-
ted contaminant load in runoff entered the ground-water
system. The researcher also hypothesized that this
load varied significantly with the density of drainage
wells in the area.
University of Montana - Missoula Valley, Montana .
Students attending the University of Montana have
recently conducted a study in the Missoula Valley.
Samples from several drainage wells, two ground-water
monitoring wells, and depth discrete lysimeters were
collected. These samples were analyzed to see if
recharging urban runoff measurably affected the quality
of underlying ground water. Ground water and lysimeter
water quality data indicated that the vadose zone is
effective in attenuating chloride, sodium, and
potassium at shallow depths (0 to 15 feet). Percola-
ting recharge water (runoff) appeared to pick up
magnesium, sulfate, calcium, bicarbonate, and total
dissolved solids as it moved through the vadose zone.
Maricopa Association of Governments — Phoenix, Arizona .
Storm water runoff entering two drainage wells at a
commercial site in Phoenix, Arizona was sampled. These
wells directly injected storm water runoff into ground
water below the site. Three monitoring wells were
installed within 20 feet of the two drainage wells
sampled. None of the potential contaminants identified
in the injected runoff were detected in ground water
sampled from the monitoring wells. Contaminants
detected in the runoff as it entered the well included
lead, iron, manganese, diazinon, Dacthal, and bis (2
ethyl) pthalate. The researcher attributed the
apparent removal of contaminants to the settling of
suspended contaminants in the drainage well and the
subsequent filtration of runoff during its passage
through saturated sediments.
U.S. Dept. of the Interior, University of Arizona -
Tucson, Arizona . Five injection tests were conducted
on an experimental dry well at a site near Tucson,
Arizona. Simulated drainage waters containing metals,
microorganisms, and organic matter were injected into
the dry well. Several perched groundwater “tables”
formed from the dry well injected fluids. Samples of
laterally moving drainage waters were collected at a
depth of 25 feet. These samples were withdrawn from a
4 — 39
-------
5D2,4
monitoring well located approximately 40 feet from the
dry well. Iron and lead concentrations detected in the
laterally moving subsurface water were 40 percent and
20 percent (respectively) of the original concentra-
tions injected. Microorganisms were found to be dras-
tically reduced in laterally -flowing water in the
vadose zone. E—coli appeared to be attenuated to a
lesser extent than fecal streptococci and the bacterio-
phage f2. Attenuation processes operating during
lateral flow in the vadose zone apparently were not
effective in preventing the migration of organics
(Wilson, 1983). A decrease in total organic carbon
(TOC) in later samples indicated that dilution was
effective as an attenuation process.
The overall findings of these studies are inconclusive.
Results from two sampling studies indicate that 0 to 3 percent of
contaminants in urban runoff actually enter ground water.
Filtration, adsorption, absorption, and ion exchange reactions
are a few of the possible attenuating processes that may be
occurring in the injection zone. Data from the University of
Arizona study indicate that the attenuation of metals in
laterally flowing drainage water (in the vadose zone) is 60 to 80
percent efficient. Fairly high concentrations of organic
compounds in drainage well fluids were also detected in the
vadose zone. Further research is needed to adequately define the
injection zone interactions and prolonged effects of drainage
well injectates on underlying ground water.
Hydrogeology and Water Use
Storm water and industrial drainage wells inject surface
runoff into unconsolidated and consolidated deposits. The
majority of reported drainage wells tap unconsolidated strata
(i.e., gravel, sand). Drainage wells are completed in these
permeable zones to maximize their drainage capacity. Injected
waters percolate through these sediments until underlying ground
water is encountered.
Thicknesses of permeable vadose zones lying between the
bottom of drainage wells and ground water tables vary signif i-
cantly. Reported thicknesses generally range from 0 - 350 feet.
Thick vadose zones are desirable: injected runoff contaminants
more likely are attenuated when sorptive surface areas and
filtering media are maximized.
Impervious layers (i.e., silt) underlying injection wells
can cause the formation of perched water. Injected waters can
also collect above impervious layers and begin to migrate
laterally. These runoff waters will continue to laterally
migrate until a discontinuity in the retarding layer is encoun-
4 — 40
-------
5D2,4
tered. Upon reaching this discontinuity, injected waters will
continue to migrate vertically. In this manner, underlying
ground water sources located upgradient or downgradient of a
drainage well potentially can be affected.
Drainage wells also are constructed in consolidated
formations. Such wells have been reported in Alabama, Virginia,
and Kentucky. These wells usually are completed in limestone
bedrock. Drainage wells intercept solution channels in the
underlying bedrock thereby providing a passage for injected
drainage fluids to drain into the subsurface. Drainage
capacities of these subsurface networks are known to approach 600
gpm in certain regions. These channels can be quite extensive
and often are connected with the underlying aquifer system.
Contaminants in surface runoff are not attenuated under these
subsurface environments.
Many drainage wells reported in the United States and its
Territories inject storm water runoff into or above USDW. The
current and potential uses of these aquifers are variable. USDW
currently used for municipal and domestic drinking water supplies
reportedly underlie many drainage wells in operation. Cities
accessing ground water in these areas, however, may pump ground
water from deeper zones which are hydraulically separate from
shallower water—bearing aquifers. Three sole source aquifers (as
designated by the USEPA) are reported to underlie operating
drainage wells. These aquifers are located in Fresno,
California, Idaho, and Washington. In several sections of the
country, researchers noted that ground water was of poorer
quality than injected surface runoff.
Contamination Potential
Based on the rating system described in Section 4.1, storm
water drainage wells and industrial drainage wells are assessed
to pose a moderate potential to contaminate USDW. These wells
typically do inject into or above Class I or Class II USDW.
Typical well construction, operation, and maintenance would allow
fluid injection or migration into unintended zones. Injection
fluids typically have concentrations of constituents exceeding
standards set by the National Primary or Secondary Drinking Water
Regulations. The fluid may be of poorer quality, relative to
standards of the National Primary or Secondary Drinking Water
Regulations or RCRA Regulations, than the fluids within any USDW
in communication with the injection zone. Alternatively, they
may be of equivalent or better quality, relative to these
parameters, than the fluids within any USDW in connection with
the injection zone. Based on injectate characteristics and
possibilities for attenuation and dilution, injection does not
occur in sufficient volumes or at sufficient rates to cause an
increase in concentration (above background levels) of the
National Primary or Secondary Drinking Water Regulation
4 — 41
-------
5D2,4
parameters in ground water, or endanger human health or the
environment beyond facility perimeters or in a region studied on
a group/area basis.
Storm Water Drainage Wells (5D2). The majority of storm
water drainage wells have been reported to inject surface runoff
above USDW. In a number of areas (i.e., Modesto, California, and
Phoenix, Arizona) storm water drainage wells have been reported
to inject directly into an USDW. In many cases, shallow aquifers
potentially affected by storm water injectates are hydraulically
connected to aquifers currently used as drinking water supplies.
Drainage wells therefore can be considered to inject fluids above
an TJSDW of Class IIB or better quality.
Storm water runoff has been sampled extensively in the
Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP) and in a number of
drainage well sampling projects. Metal contaminants, especially
lead and iron, have been shown to be concentrated in runoff at•
levels exceeding National Primary and Secondary Drinking Water
Regulations. These metals typically are present as suspended
particles and dissolved ions in solution. The efficiency of
storm water drainage wells to filter suspended metals in runoff
(prior to injection) has not been documented. These wells
therefore are assumed to inject concentrations of metals similar
to those detected in typical drainage well influent.
Contamination studies to date have not conclusively shown
that area-wide degradation of ground water quality has resulted
from drainage well injection operations. Therefore, it cannot be
confidently asserted that injection occurs in sufficient volumes
to degrade ground—water quality on an area-wide basis. These
wells, therefore, are judged to pose a moderate contamination
threat to USDW.
Drainage wells judged to pose the highest relative potential
to contaminate USDW are those wells which 1) inject surface
runoff directly into an USDW or 2) are completed in bedrock and
inject runoff into solution channels within the formation. In
either case, suspended metals in the runoff have no opportunity
to be filtered by subsurface sediments before reaching ground
water. -
Industrial Drainage Wells (5D4). As with storm water drain-
age wells, industrial drainage wells are also reported to overlie
USDW. A number of these USDW are believed to be hydraul ically
continuous with underlying drinking water supply aquifers.
Injection from industrial drainage wells, therefore, can be con-
sidered to inject fluids above an USDW of Class IIB or better
quality.
4 — 42
-------
5D2,4
A limited number of studies have attempted to specifically
characterize the quality of storm water runoff in industrial
areas. As previously discussed, industrial runoff was sampled
and analyzed in Fresno, California, and Spokane, Washington.
Results from both studies indicated that storm water runoff in
industrial areas was of poorer quality than runoff sampled in
commercial and residential areas. Industrial runoff typically
contained concentrations of trace metals above National Primary
and Secondary Drinking Water Regulations. Organic contaminants
also were reported to be more commonly detected in industrial
runoff (Fresno NURP Project). Inadvertent spills (similar to the
cases documented in Kansas and Arizona) also may occur, resulting
in the injection of hazardous chemicals into industrial drainage
wells. Ground-water contamination beyond the facility perimeter
resulting from industrial drainage wells has not been documented.
In both cases cited above, contamination was not shown to migrate
off site.
Although both drainage well types (5D2 and 5D4) are assessed
to moderately endanger USDW, industrial drainage wells pose a
greater threat of contamination. This is largely attributable to
their 1) poorer quality injection fluids, 2) susceptibility to
accidental industrial spills, and 3) availability for abuse
through illicit discharges.
Current Regulatory Approach
Storm water and industrial drainage wells are authorized by
rule under the Federally—administered UIC programs (see Section
1). Some States and most counties and municipalities with con-
centrations of storm water and industrial drainage wells regulate
these wells. Limited amounts of regulatory information were
provided in the State reports. General regulatory approaches
taken by the responding States and their municipalities are dis-
cussed below.
Some States manage industrial and storm water drainage wells
with “blanket regulations.” These regulations are broad in scope
and generally are applicable to all Class V wells. States using
this approach enforce legislation created as a result of the S&fe
Drinking Water Act or State Administrative Codes. Persons
proposing to construct drainage wells are required to obtain
general discharge permits. Drainage well permits are granted if
wells are not considered to be an endangerment to ground-water
quality. States identified to adopt regulatory approaches
similar to the one described above include New York, Wyoming,
Alabama, Florida, portions of California, and the island of Guam.
4 — 43
-------
5D2,4
A limited number of States reportedly administer State-wide
storm water and industrial drainage well programs. Reporting,
siting, and construction requirements for drainage wells are
enforced by these States. Siting criteria usually include provi-
sions for minimum horizontal setback distances from water supply
wells or other wells and separation distances between the bottom
of the drainage well and a saturated stratum. Restrictions
regarding the type of strata which must lie between the drainage
well and an underground source of drinking water also are
enforced. Oregon and Arizona are two states known to have drain-
age well regulations similar to the type described above.
Many counties and municipalities which use drainage wells
have and enforce drainage well policies. In most cases, county
and municipal regulations are administered to ensure the proper
operation of drainage wells. City engineers/inspectors often are
called upon to perform percolation tests and inspect drainage
plans prior to well construction. Environmentally-related regu-
lations pertaining to drainage wells also are adopted by some
local governments. These include minimum setback requirements,
depth requirements, and zoning restrictions. Localities banning
the construction of storm water or industrial drainage wells
include: Fresno, California; Chico, California; southern and
central sections of Florida; Georgia; and Tucson, Arizona.
In many instances Federal, State, and local regulations
regarding storm water and industrial drainage wells over]ap.
States usually issue permits for drainage wells but allow local
governments or agencies to regulate them. States, however, may
directly intervene in the regulatory process. This is most
probable where local governments do not enforce requirements
equivalent to or stricter than State regulations.
Recommendations
Technical recommendations were offered in some State reports
for storm water and industrial drainage wells:
1. New wells should be investigated and added to FURS
(KY, UT, WA)
2. The construction of new industrial drainage wells
should be severely limited (OR, IL). Storm water
sewers, detention ponds, or vegetative basins are
the preferred alternatives (UT). If sewers are
cost prohibitive, on-site vegetated basins with
fine-grained sand beds should be constructed
(Grass swales have been discovered in the NURP
study to provide moderate improvements in runoff
quality).
4 — 44
-------
5D2,4
3. Retention basins might be planned so runoff can be
released slowly into the sanitary sewer or treated
before entering the well (KY, TN).
4. Sand and gravel filters should be added to wells
(KY, TN).
5. Limit future construction to residential areas
(IL).
6. Stand pipes should be constructed, several feet in
height, at the opening of wells (KY, TN).
7. All spills should be diverted away from industrial
drainage wells (OR, UT, WA).
8. The new construction of storm water and industrial
drainage wells in areas served by storm water
sewers should be prohibited (CA, AZ).
9. Drainage wells should not be constructed within
200 feet of water supply wells which tap lower
water-bearing aquifers (CA).
10. Deep wells should be plugged or cemented to avoid
mixing between aquifers (KY, TN).
11. Depth to ground water information should be made
readily available to drainage well drillers and
land planning engineers. Separation distances
between the depths of storm water drainage wells
and ground water tables should be maximized. Pro-
posed wells which would penetrate perched ground
water or water tables should not be constructed
(AZ).
12. Additional research should be conducted to study
the prolonged effect of industrial drainage wells
on ground water quality. Additional research
relating to the attenuation of metals and organics
under long term discharge conditiohs from indus
trial and storm water drainage wells should be
conducted (States in Region VIII).
13. Ground—water monitoring programs in industrial
areas with many industrial drainage wells are
advisable (FL, WI, KS).
4 — 45
-------
5D3
14. Sediments extracted from drainage wells, catch
basins, or sediment traps should be disposed in an
appropriate landfill. Due to possible metal con-
centrations, these sediments may be considered as
hazardous materials (AZ).
15. Assessment of the effects of drainage wells should
be conducted prior to completing an inventory
because the inventory would be time—consuming and
costly (MT, OR).
16. A public awareness program should be implemented
(AZ).
17. Drainage wells should be identified and plugged
within the shortest possible time frame (WV).
4.2.1.3 Improved Sinkholes (5D3)
Improved sinkholes are natural surface depressions that have
been modified or altered by man for purposes of directing fluids
into the hole opening. Sinkholes typically form in limestone or
dolomite karst regions -- areas exemplified by irregular and
“pitted” topography with features such as caverns, swal.lets, and
springs. In general, sinkholes are the result of physical
weathering of unconsolidated materials along bedding planes and
fractures, and of chemical dissolution of soluble rock
formations. Rock types susceptible to sinkhole formation are
limestones and dolomites. Both rock types are composed
principally of calcium and magnesium carbonate and will dissolve
readily under the influence of chemical dissolution. Carbonic
acid (the weak acid formed when carbon dioxide dissolves in rain
water) and organic acids (formed during the decay of organic
matter) increase the acidity of ground water and begin or
accelerate the dissolution of the rock.
Chemical dissolution acts to enlarge the void spaces created
by physical weathering. The spaces are progressively widened and
integrated to form channels which allow for increased ground-
water circulation and further dissolution. Eventually, if enough
material is washed away, a cavity may develop. The cavity can
evolve into a sinkhole if the weathering process undermines the
support base such that it can no longer support the roof
materials above and collapse occurs.
Sinkholes may be only a few feet in diameter and depth, or
they may be many tens or hundreds of feet in diameter and depth.
The size attained is controlled principally by the depth to the
ground—water level and the kind of support from the remaining
limestone or dolomite rocks.
4 — 46
-------
5D3
Sinkholes, for their impressive ability to accept large
volumes of water, have for years been popular disposal sites for
many different types of undesirable wastes, most notably sewage.
However, states have vigorously sought to eliminate them as
disposal points for sewage. Improved sinkholes today are most
likely to receive partially treated domestic wastewater
indirectly from the overflow of overloaded septic tank and
drainfield systems. Sinkholes remain, however, popular in many
areas for the disposal of storm runoff. In Kentucky, for
example, permits are issued for drilling into underground
channels and caverns in Karst topography in order to reduce
surface flooding during heavy rains.
Well Purpose
Improved sinkholes, for the purpose of classification of
Class V wells, are sinkholes for which work has been done to
increase the amount of fluids they are required to handle; to
increase their capacity to handle fluids; or to preserve their
capacity to handle fluids. This includes, but is not limited to,
channels or pipes installed to direct or accelerate flow to the
sinkhole; excavation to enlarge the sinkhole or remove
obstructions from the opening; and the installation of casing
within the sinkhole or periodic removal of vegetation, debris,
etc. from the sinkhole in order to maintain capacity.
Improved sinkholes are used to dispose of storm water runoff
from housing and other developments located in karst topographic
areas. If located away from the development, the sinkhole may
have been improved by channels or pipelines to direct the water
to it. If located within the development, the sinkhole may have
been “improved” by installing casing (possibly with a grill or
screen over it to prevent clogging by debris) and a concrete slab
and/or wall around it.
Inventory and Location
Improved sinkholes are limited to those areas where the
geology and hydrogeology are favorable for their development.
Wherever limestone and dolomite formations exist near or at the
surface and where the geologic history has allowed solution
channels and cavities to develop in the rock, sinkholes are
possible.
Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri,
New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Puerto Rico, and Tennessee have
reported numbers of improved sinkholes. Florida, Ohio, Virginia,
and West Virginia confirm their existence, but have not yet
provided a number.
4 - 47
-------
5D3
The bulk of reported improved sinkholes are in Missouri
(250) and Michigan (103), while Indiana reports 26; however, the
numbers for many States are still very preliminary. This
particular category has received little attention in the past.
Accurate records are lacking.
Table 4-6 is a synopsis of information on improved sinkholes
from the State reports.
Construction, Siting, and Operation
Construction. Improved sinkhole wells are, for the most
part, quite simple. The fact that they are always in Karst
limestone geology means that there is usually no need for a well
screen within the borehole. The most common “improvement” to a
sinkhole is the construction of channels, grading, or laying of
pipe to direct surface runoff to the sinkhole. The second most
common improvement is the installation of a piece of steel casing
in the throat of the sinkhole (to •prevent materials and objects
from falling in). Depending on the location, some kind of
protection screen, grill, or grating may be mounted on top of the
casing; or if a casing is not installed, a concrete box with
removable grating (for cleaning) may be constructed around and
over the sinkhole (Figure 4—5). In general, construction
features are dictated by two considerations: (1) the need to get
the storm runoff to and into the sinkhole at the rate required;
and (2) the need to keep the underground network of conduits free
of materials that could plug the sinkhole.
In some areas — notably in Kentucky - drilling machines are
used to drill out through the bottom of sinkholes in search of
deeper fractures, channels and cavities capable of handling
increased volumes of water.
Finally, the owner may opt to pave an area (usually of
concrete) around the entrance to the sinkhole, or fence it in.
Siting. In most cases, improved sinkholes have been sited
by nature; the owner merely takes advantage of the sinkhole’s
proven ability to drain storm runoff. It is, however, feasible
to drill into sinkhole areas that are mere depressions where
water collects during a storm and then infiltrates the soils to
the deeper limestones. This option may be taken where the only
open sinkholes lie at some distance from the area to be drained,
or where they are situated on the land of someone who objects to
their use by others.
4 — 48
-------
TASLE 4—6: SYNOPSIS OP STATE I PORTS FOP II R tlED SINKHOLES 3)
SION EPA
& SI O N
STATES
Of
C ifirsed
Presence
11 Type
Reoulat y
Syste.
Case Stuthes/ C itasination
Unfo. available Potential
: Rating
i
C inecticut
I
NO
N/A
NO
N/A
Maine I
Massachusetts I
INew IWshire I
Rhode Island I
I
NO
NO
3 IAB.LS
IC
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1 W
I C
I YES
1 NO
N/A
I N/A
N/A
N/A
Versent I
I I
NO
N/A
I NO
N/A
I
I -
N ewjers ey II
NewYcrk II
Puarto RICD II
yirgin Islands I II
Delaware III
Maryland III
Pennsylvania II I
Virqinia III
Nest Virginia Ill
IC
NO
10 WELLS
NO
P 4 )
14)
1 4)
YES
YES
N/A
N/A
I PERMIT
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
NO
IC
YES
NO
NO
NO
‘ NO
NO
NO
I
N/A
N/A
MODERATE TO HI
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
WA
HISH
IAlabaaa
Ifl id
ISeorgi
Ikentuc
INissis
IN th
IS ith
Tennes
a
a
ky
sippi
Carolina
Carolina
see
IV
IV
IV
IV ‘
IV
IV
IV
IV 1
P 4)
YES
14)
76 WELLS
IC
IC
14)
5 WELLS
N/A
PERMIT
BNI€D
LOCP&
I N/A
N/A
1 N/A
PERMIT
I
NO
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
YES
N/A
HIG)€ST/8 TYPES I
N/A
LOW
I N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Ullinois I
Undiana
Michigan
:rAnne ota
Ono
IWisc sin
frkansas
Lcuisiana
INew MaXICD
1Oklah
Texas
—
V I
V
V 1 1
V
V I
V
I
I
VI
VI I
VI
VI I
VI
I
NO N/A
26 hELLS I NOfE
03 WELLS NOlE
6 1W.LS NONE
YES POE
NO N/A
NO I N/A
NO N/A
NO I N/A
PC N/A
NO N/A
NO
IC
NO
NO
NO
IC
IC
NO
NO
NO
IC
I
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
I
I
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
NIA
Iowa VII
Ikansas I VII I
Missouri 1 VII
Nebraska I VII I
I
Col ado VIII I
tana I VIII
IC • N/A
IC N/A
250 WELLS NOPE
NO N/A
I
NO N/A
NO I N/A
PC
ND
YES
ND
NO
IC
N/A
N/A
POSSIBLE
N/A
N/A
N/A
Itóth
Dakota
I VIII
14)
N/A
IC N/A
IScuth
IUtah
INyosin
I izcn
Calif
Dakota
g
a
wnia
1 VIII
I VIII
VIII
I I X
IX
14)
NO
P0
IC
14)
N/A
N/A
N/A
• N/A
N/A
NO N/A
NO I N/A
NO N/A
IC ‘ N/A
IC I N/A
IHawan
I N e ada
1 IX •
1 IX
P0
IC
N/A
N/A
NO N/A
• NO N/A
P.eric
an Saaoa
I IX I
IC
N/A
IC I N/A
ITr. I
&iai
IDPI
err. of P
IX I
IX
IX I
r
IC
IC
NO
N/A
N/A
N/A
NO I N/A
NO N/A
NO N/A
I
hAlaska
Udaho
I(keqcn
IWashi
nqton
I I
X
I I
I I I
I
NO
14)
PC
PC
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
I
NO I WA
NO N/A
NO N/A
14) 1 N/A
NOTE: SOlE MINERS IN THIS TABLE ESTIPCTES.
4—49
5D3
-------
DRAINAGE WELL A
I
:
S
MANTLE
(
Beehive Grate
.—Stee
• .UNCO S LIDAT D:.•: ROCK.
c:
v&op gCa ty
Hypothesized development of arches under and near drainage wells .
Steel Casing
FRAGMENTS
Boulder
Water flows out of drainage well A along a crack where the casing is resting on bedrock
and saturates the surrounding mantle . As the water level in the well drops below the crack,
channeling of saturated mantle into the well creates an arch.
Drainage well B was only cased to a boulder above bedrock. During floods,
as water flows from the perched water above the bedrock into the well.
channeling creates an arch.
DRAINAGE WELL B
- -
I 1 1 1 I I
I I I _1 1
01
ci
C )
-------
5D3
Operation. In operating improved sinkholes, the
owner/operator may need to conduct periodic investigations to
detect the possibility of tendencies for other sinkholes to
develop in the vicinity (Figure 4—5). Maintenance is required
where debris collects on the screen or grating at the entrance.
Injected Fluids and Injection Zone Interactions
The quality of water reaching a sinkhole from storm runoff
in non—industrial areas has not received the attention it proba-
bly deserves. Now there is a growing awareness that runoff from
paved areas may contain lead and petroleum products from the
operation of motor vehicles, a wide variety of pesticides from
horticulture and lawn care, nitrates from garden and lawn ferti-
lizing, and fecal material from wild and domestic animals and
birds. In addition, in areas where air pollution occurs, the
normal fallout of air pollutants may add significant amounts of
contaminants to the runoff.
Paved areas provide virtually no attenuation of pollutants;
the pollutants are swept rapidly along the paved surfaces to the
sinkhole without any opportunity for filtration by soils or
chemical reaction with clays and other minerals.
Acid rain conditions prevailing in some parts of the country
may increase the solubility of heavy toxic metals such as lead,
mercury, and cadmium. Acidity of the water should in time be
neutralized by the limestones, but with the high rates of runoff
associated with many storms these pollutants can be carried great
distances through underground channels before the neutralizing
action has had time to take place.
The presence of carbon dioxide in rain water (carbonic acid)
and any acid rain present will in time enlarge the channels in
the limestone through which it flows. The limestone rock is
literally dissolved. Rate of solution is proportional to acidity
of the water, its velocity through the rock, and the length of
time the water is in contact with the rock.
There is also a physical effect of storm water on
underground sediments. It is not unusual for a newly improved
sinkhole to induce the development of additional sinkholes nearby
as a result of surges of storm water within the channels.
Alternate inundation and draining of deposits of unconsolidated
sands, silts and clays in the vicinity washes away these
supporting materials, causing the overburden to collapse into the
empty space.
4 — 51
-------
5D3
Hydrogeology and Water Use
The limestone and dolomite formations where sinkholes form
are in communication with ground water under “water table” condi-
tions. That is to say, the surface of the body of ground water
is at atmospheric pressure and is exposed to the atmosphere.
Water running into sinkholes moves rapidly downward through the
networks of solution channels, fractures, and cavities to become
a part of the water table aquifer. The probability that the
water table aquifer is to some degree contaminated by surface
water is therefore very high.
Pollutants, on arrival at the surface of the water table,
move horizontally downgradient, but with some mixing with the
ground water. As a result, a degree of protection may be
obtained by casing water supply wells to depths well below the
lowest ground water. Wisconsin well construction codes require
this kind of defense when such ground water constitutes the only
usable source of water supply. If geological conditions permit,
completely enveloping the casing in a sheath of cement greatly
adds to the security and the longevity of the well. In any case,
it is considered good practice to chlorinate water withdrawn from
such aquifers.
Contamination Potential
Based on the rating system described in Section 4.1,
improved sinkholes are assessed to pose a high to moderate poten-
tial to contaminate USDW. These wells typically do inject into
or above Class I or Class II USDW. Typical well construction,
operation, and maintenance would allow fluid injection or migra-
tion into unintended zones. Injection fluids typically have
concentrations of constituents exceeding standards set by the
National Primary or Secondary Drinking Water Regulations. The
fluids may exhibit characteristics or contain constituents listed
as hazardous as stated in the RCRA Regulations. Based on injec-
tate characteristics and possibilities for attenuation and dilu-
tion, injection may occur in sufficient volumes or at sufficient
rates to cause an increase in concentration (above background
levels) of the National Primary or Secondary Drinking Water
Regulation parameters in ground water, or endanger human health
or the environment beyond facility perimeters or in a region
studied on a group/area basis.
Improved sinkholes that drain only non-industrialized devel-
opments may constitute significant threats, as the runoff water
may contain lead, petroleum products, pesticides, fertilizers,
excrement from wild and domestic animals and birds, and, in
certain areas, other contaminants from air pollution. Injectate
fluid quality can be poor when the drainage area is indus-
trialized or when sewage (Sections 4.2.3.1 and 4.2.3.2) or indus-
4 — 52
-------
5D3
trial wastes (Section 4.2.6.2) are injected. Because volumes
(sometimes large) are injected through and into channeled and
fractured limestone or dolomite, filtration or other attenuative
processes are not provided. Therefore, degradation of the local
or regional USDW can occur if injection fluid quality is poor.
Current Regulatory Approach
Improved sinkholes are limited to those states with Karst
limestone and dolomite formations. Twelve States (including
Puerto Rico) have acknowledged having at least one. Since this
is a category of well that has not generally been regulated or
even registered, it is possible that other States also have them.
Improved sinkholes are authorized by rule under Federally-
administered UIC programs (see Section 1).
Florida. Florida has not distinguished between improved
sinkholes and other drainage wells. The total of all wells in
this general category is reported to be 1,539. It is probably
safe to assume there are many improved sinkholes. Since these
wells do not receive separate recognition in Florida, it may be
assumed that they require permits just as the other drainage
wells do. These would be issued by the Florida Department of
Environmental Regulation (FDER), Diviqion of Environmental
Permitting. Most permits are issued, without input from the
Division of Environmental Programs in Tallahassee, by the
district offices.
Missouri. The Missouri Department of Natural Resources
manages the State’s tJIC program. It does not appear that the
State issues permits for type 5D3 wells. Nor is there evidence
that local governments control these discharges.
Michigan. Permits for discharge to 5D3 wells are issued by
the State’s Department of Natural Resources (DNR)I Groundwater
Discharge Permit Section. The section reviews permit
applications which subsequently are approved or denied by the
Water Resources Commission. Of the 83 county health departments
in Michigan, about 52 have developed their own permit programs
for various well types, including dry wells.
Indiana. The Stream Pollution Control Board is responsible
for the regulation and control of water pollution in Indiana.
However, specifically exempted from this control are “discharges
composed entirely of storm runoff when uncontaminated by any
industrial, commercial, or agricultural activity. t ’ From this it
would appear that Type 5D3 wells in general do not require
permits.
4 — 53
-------
5D3
Puerto Rico. The Environmental Quality Board (EQB) is the
agency of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico responsible for
regulating and permitting Class V wells. Applicants are required
to complete a several-page application form providing details on
the source of water, water quality, number and location of wells
(sinkholes), etc. In some cases the EQB will specify a
sampling/monitoring program that must be followed, with results
reported periodically to B.
Other States. Information on regulation and permitting of
5D3 wells in other States indicating the existence of such wells
is not yet available in sufficient detail to determine whether
they have systems in place for this category of injection well.
Recoinmendat ions
Siting. No recommendations were given for siting improved
sinkholes. The potential to contaminate USDW is inherent to the
nature of the well type and the hydrogeologic conditions in which
it is sited.
Construction. In the Puerto Rico report, the recommendation
was made to require training for engineers and drillers in the
proper construction of wells, with special emphasis on sanitary
sealing and protection against corrosion. It further recommended
that training be slanted toward construction in Karst or
limestone formations.
Operation. Improved sinkholes do not require operation.
They may require maintenance to prevent plugging of the
underground network of channels.
A recommendation in the Missouri report suggested that
careful dye trace studies be run on any existing or planned
improved sinkhole drainage systems, and occasional monitoring of
both entering and exiting fluids be run after the system is in
operation. Dye tracing could be used to identify areas
downgradient that would be affected in the event of a potentially
harmful discharge into an improved sinkhole.
Corrective or Remedial Actions. Remedial actions would be
called for if it were revealed that a significant discharge of
toxic materials or sewage was being swept into the well.
It is possible that in some areas it may be advisable to
prohibit the deepening of such wells so as to avoid exposing
deeper, usable aquifers to contamination.
4 — 54
-------
5G30
4.2.1.4 Special Drainage Wells (5G30)
Well Purpose
Special drainage wells are used to inject drainage fluids
from sources other than direct precipitation. Some of these
sources identified to date include:
1. Pump control valve discharges and potable water tank
overflow discharges;
2. Land slide control;
3. Swimming pools;
4. Municipal and construction dewatering.
This well type does not include agricultural drainage wells,
storm water and industrial drainage wells, or improved sinkholes
as they are separately classified and discussed in the previous
sections. Special drainage wells are classified as Class V wells
under 40 CFR 146.5(e).
With the exception of swimming pool drainage wells, special
drainage wells are viewed as wells that are installed for
convenience of drainage according to their specific functions.
However, these wells are classified as injection wells since the
wells receive fluids that are in turn injected to the subsurface.
Inventory and Location
Inventories conducted in six States revealed the following
types and numbers of special drainage wells:
State Well Purpose Well(s )
Idaho Potable Water Tank Overflow Drainage 7
Montana Landslide Control Drainage 55
Florida Swimming Pool Water Drainage 1,385
Hawaii Swimming Pool Water Drainage 1
Washington Drainage of Water Associated with
Municipal Dewatering 108
Louisiana Unclassified Special Drainage 1
4 — 55
-------
5G30
Table 4-7 provides a synopsis of information on these wells from
the State reports.
The State of Idaho has reported the presence of 7 special
drainage wells that receive water from water tank overflow
systems and municipal pump check valve systems. Of these seven
wells, three deep wells are used at municipal water supply pump
stations and are located in the cities of Shoshone, Kimberly, and
Moscow. Four shallow wells are used for the disposal of pump
leakage at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.
The State of Montana Department of Highways has constructed
55 landslide control drainage wells in the central and western
parts of the State. The wells are located at three sites: U.S.
Route 15 near Craig in western Montana (20 wells); U.S. Route 15
south of Dillon in southwestern Montana (15 wells); and Route 238
south of Leviston in central Montana (20 wells).
The State of Florida Department of Environmental Regulations
has listed 1,384 swimming pool drainage wells based on the
Department’s Groundwater Management System (GMS) database. As
many as 96% of these wells are located in Dade County, and 3.5%
in Palm Beach County (Figure 4—6). Pinellas County reports the
presence of two special drainage wells. Information for some of
these wells was verified through a questionnaire survey which was
mailed to a random number of pool owners, both public and pri-
vate. The responce to the que tionnairc survey aided in obtain-
ing additional information on construction features, although
only 31% responded.
The State of Hawaii reports one swimming pool drainage well
on the island of Oahu. Numbers of known wells of this type are
expected to increase in Hawaii as a result of future inventory
efforts.
Washington’s report to USEPA on the inventory of Class V
wells reported the presence of 106 municipal dewatering wells.
Most of these wells were installed at the Chamber Creek
Interceptor Tunnel in Tacoma, Washington and have been pulled out
and plugged as the tunnel construction phase has been completed.
However, according to Mr. L. Goldstein of the Washington
Department of Ecology (1987), 62 new wells have been installed at
the Bangor Submarine Base.
One special drainage well type was mentioned in the report
from Louisiana. However, the report did not contain any details
on this well type.
As many as 1,557 special drainage wells have been
inventoried by the six States. However, it is important to note
that special drainage wells with similar well purposes may be in
use in other States. There is a strong possibility that many
4 — 56
-------
TABLE 4-7: SYNOPSIS STATE P($ TS FOR SPECIAL DRAINAGE LLS($3O)
f(6ll 1
&
STATES
EPA
I REGIOR
Cafirmed Requlat y Case Studies/ Ccntaaination
Presence System lIMo. availablel Potential
Of 11 Type Rating
IC %nect icut
I
IC
N/A
IC
I N/A
Name
I
IC
N/A
NO
N/A
Nassachusetta
I
IC
N/A
NO
I N/A
Nay Ha shire
I iode Island
I I
I
NO
NO
N/A
N/A
IC
NO
N/A
• N/A
lVer it
I
IC
N/A
NO
N/A
I
I
I
INew Jersey
INaw York
II
II
NO
M I
N/A
N/A
I IC
‘ MI
N/A
N/A
Puarto Rico
II
NO
N/A
I NO
N/A
Virgin Islands
II
NO
N/A
—_NO
N/A
Delaware
III
NO
N/A
NO
N/A
Mary land
lPennsylvania
IVirqinia
III
• III
III
NO
NO
NO
N/A
N/A
N/A
I NO
NO
IC
N/A
N/A
N!A
Nest Virginia
Alabama
Fl o rida
Georgia
iKentucky
: ippm
I II
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
NO
M l
1,385 NO1 LS
I C
NO
NO
N/A
N/A
PERNIT/RILE
N/A
N/A
N/A
IC
‘ NO
YES
IC
PC
I Ml
N/A
N/A
LON
N/A
• N/A
I N/A
tóth Carolina
IV
NO
• N/A
: IC
N/A
Scuth Carolina
Tennessee
IV
IV
M I
ND
N/A
N/A
M I
NO
I N/A
• N/A
I lilinoi s
Indiana
Nichigan
IMannesota
(limo
Wisc ismn
kansai
ILou msiana
V.
V
V
V
V
V
VI
VI
NO I N/A
PC N/A
NO N/A
IC I N/A
IC I N/A
NO I N/A
IC I N/A
1 LL 1 (lASS II
I NO N/A
NO N/A
IC N/A
Ml I N/A
NO N/A
NO N/A
IC • N/A
NO N/A
New Naxico
Okla homa
Texas
VI
VI
VI
NO N/A
PC N/A
M l N/A
I
IC N/A
NO N/A
NO I N/A
l lowa
VII
Ml
I
I N/A
NO
• N/A
Kansas
Nisscuri
Nubraska
VII
VII
VII
NO
NO
PG
I N/A
I N/A
1 LE
PG
NO
PG
N/A
N/A
N/A
I
I
I
(Colorado
ntana
VIII
VIII
M l
LLS
I
N/A
PERMIT
I
NO
I YES
I
N/A
,
North Dakota
VIII
NO
N/A
1 NO
N/A
ISouth Dakota
Wtah
VIII
VIII
NO
NO
N/A
N/A
I PC
1 PG
N/A
N/A
Wycsing
1 VIII
MI
N/A
NO
N/A
I.
Ifrizona
J
II
NO
N/A
I
NO
——
• N/A
California
1 I X
PG
N/A
1 NO
N/A
I l 4 a waii
I IX
I I LL
PERMIT
NO
I IN(NOMi
Nevada
I IX
NO
N/A
1 NO
N/A
IPmarican Samoa
I IX
NO
N/A
IC
I N/A
hr. Tart. of P
IX
IC
N/A
PG
• N/A
IGeam
‘ IX
• NO
N/A
PC
N/A
ICIIII
I IX
NO
N/A
NO
• N/A
Alaska
I
•
NO
N/A I PG
I
• N/A
Udaho
1
1 7 IELLS
PERMIT)I8 FT I YES
I L(XEST/14 TYPES
1(hqou
INasMngt on
I
1
PC
1 106 LLS
N/A I NO
N/A 1 YES
N/A
I N/A
NOTE: 90€ MJIBERS IN THIS TABLE ME ESTINATES.
4—57
5G30
-------
5G30
Pineilas County
2 Verified wells
P m Beach County
49 VerIfied wells
D e County
1333 VerIfied wells
MAP OF FLORIDA SHOWING THE LOCATK)N OF
CLASS V SWIMMING POOL DRIAJNAGE WELLS
(from FOER tIles, 1986) Agure 4— 6
C •
4—58
-------
5G30
States may have overlooked this well type or even classified
these wells under a different well type. On the other hand, some
of these well types may be only found in specific States. For
instance, in the state of Montana, special drainage wells are
used to combat landslides along highways. No other States have
reported use of this procedure to correct landslide problems.
Although landslide control drainage wells only have been
inventoried in Montana, they may be found in other areas prone to
landslides. A review of available literature suggests additional
areas that may have these special drainage wells. Woods, Berry
and Goetz (1960), mention some landslide—prone areas and the
severity of the landslides. Figure 4-7 and Table 4-8 offer
general descriptions of landslide severity by physiographic pro-
vinces, while Table 4-9 lists some of the geologic formations
which are susceptible to landslides. It is important to note
that this data may be incomplete. Also, the list does not imply
that special drainage wells are used in all the areas that have
the highest rating. In fact, some landslide-prone areas may
employ other methods of landslide control such as relocation,
bridging, excavating, restoring structures, stabilization with
adxnixtures, blasting, etc. It is evident that in Montana land-
slide-control drainage wells are located in the Northern Rocky
Mountains, an area which has a high severity rating as indicated
in Table 4-8.
Well Construction, Operation, and Siting
Since special drainage wells have specific functions and
features, the construction, operation, and siting for each of
these well types is discussed under separate subheadings.
Water Tank Overflow Drainage Wells. The State of Idaho
reported use of seven special drainage wells that inject water
from two sources: water tank overflow systems and municipal pump
check valve systems. Potable water from these sources is drained
to the subsurface periodically (mostly due to emergency overflow
or bypass) at depths ranging from less than 18 ft up to 100 to
667 ft below the surface.
The three deep wells, with depths ranging from 100 to 667
ft, are used to drain pump control valve discharges and water
tank overflows at municipal water supply pump stations. The deep
well in Shoshone injects above the underlying aquifer, while the
wells in Kimberly and Moscow inject directly into drinking water
sources. The rates of injection are reported to approach 800 gpm
for short periods of time.
The four shallow wells, with depths less than or equal to 18
feet, are used to drain pump control valve discharges. The wells
inject above the underlying aquifer. Two wells inject less than
4 — 59
-------
LANDSUDE SEVERITY OF1HE UNITED STATES
(Courtesy of Highway Research Board) Figure 4— 7
TI -ww rv V
F *NCY op oc o
TPv( To cr e $
4—60
-------
5030
TABLE 4—8 RATING OF LANDSLIDE SEVERITY
I Mn.ior ae”eriy I 3c Black hulls
84 Allegheny Mountain Section 13.1 High Plains
8. Kanaa ha Section I 3 . l’hain, Border
I 4n Springl’iclui-Soleun Plateairn 13 1 Colorado l’iedmont
16 Southern Rocky hluuuintau,is I 46 Boston I louinLains ”
19 Northern Rocky hfouuntauna 21n high l’Iatcauuq of Utah,
20o Walla Walla Plateau 216 Uinta Baxin
23n Northern Cascade 6lnuntnuiin 21 . Canyon l.anils
24a. Puget Trough, 21.1 Nasajo Section
246. Olympic Mountains 2k Granul Canyon Section
24e. Oregon Coast flange 22n Great Ilasin
244. K lamath Mountains 22.t Mexican highland
24/. California Coast Ranges 22e Sarraii,ento Section
24g. Los Angeles Ranges 23b. 6IiuldIe Cascade tshu’uintuiins
II Medtuat ga untly 23c. Southern Cascaile I¼loiunta,,is
56. Southern section of thur Blue Ridge 234 Sierra Nevada
Pros ince 24, California 1 rough
66. Miulille section of Valley antI Ridge IV Nnaextstu.uut pruubleua
Pro s lnee 2. Continental Shelf
Sc. Southern New York Section 36 Sea lnhuunul Su’ciioo
116. Lcvngton Plain 3/ SVest Gulf Coast P lnin
124. Till Plains of the Central Lonlanul Sn Northern Section of the llliiu’ lliilge
Pros inee Pros inee
I 2 .. l)issuueteil Till l’lains of tin’ Central 6n Tennessee Section
Lon land Pros men 76. Northern Sectioii of t I m St I , , . ” rence
18. Middle Rocky Mountains Valley Pros ince
20’ l’ayette Seciion So Mohass k Section
204 Snake Riser Plain 86 Catskill Seetiuun
If!. lftnuur aeuuertty 8/ Cuiioluerlanil liatraii
Superior Ii iulaoul Be Cuinutuu’rluund 6luiuintuuiiiq
3 ’s Eoiliayed Section 9 ’ s .9eahoaril Losslanul Seetuiia
Jr I loriilian Section 10. Adirondack Pros unce
3d East (iolf Coastal Plain II. Naqhs ilk’ Ilasia
3e. Mississippi Alluvial Plain lid Western Section ul the Interior Low
4o. Piedmont Upland Plateaus
46. Pieulinont Lowlands 13q Itaton Section
S If udsna Volley 136 Pecos Valley
7e. Champlain Section 13* Edwaril , Plateau
96 New Englanil Upland Su’etiuuii 13k Central Texas Section
9 ,. %Vliitc Mountain Seehion IS o Arkansas Valley
94. Green Mountain Section 156 Oiiaehita Mountains
9 . Taeoaie Section 17. Wyoming Basin
I In. Iligh land Riot Section 206 Illue Mountain
lie Eastern Lake Section 2 0 e. l larney Section
126 Western Lake Section 21/ Datil Section
I 2c. Wisconsin Driftle., Section 226 Sonoran l)esert
12 ! Osagc i’lsins 22’ Salton rroughi
l3e Glaciated Missouri Plateau 25 Loner California Pros ince
136. lJnglaeiateul Mis oiiri l’latrami
Soumo F: Based upon lllghway Resu’arehu Board questionnaires and partial literature search
TABLE 4 9 STRATIGRAPHIC UNITS SUSCEPTABLE TO LANDSLIDES
Region awl state Geologic series or tormoatimmn Description
Northeast: Glauconite be ds in Crelaeeoiis seuliinenta
Vermont l’ers ioiis material lueneath clay or soil
Maine Sott clays
MiiIiIle East:
New Jersey Upper Cretaceouis clays mmli as Sand or grasel oserlying clay strata
Merchants ille nnul t% oodluiry
I Jelass arc Talhuot/Wlciiiiuioii, VS issnliiekon
West ‘irglola Cmmni’iuauighi • 6liiaiuii giulimla I )iinkaril
Ohio (irulos leimumi shah s and lmiiieshiines Fire clays
Coneiimamighi ; ftliinoo galiela . I )iinkaril
Illinois Sliales
I’ennaylvanla ( oneiiiaiighi . I%l oimium gii Iii Ii • C ii tskill
Wissiihiieh,iun
Southeast:
N uirthi Carolina lhliie Itiulge l’ros ioee Jointed surfaces tilleul with manganese
Florida 6hioem ’iie— I law tliornc Fiillere.earlh.t 3 iie clay
North Central:
Iowa t)es Moines series f Pennsylvanian)
iSlequoketa (Ordosmciaa)
Kansas l’ierre shale. (irancros shale Dakota
forioatloa
South Central:
Texas Tertiary lava. tufts, and agglomerates,
and ,oiscellanrous eeilioii.nts
Moontamn: Pierre shale, Bearpass shale. (iraneros
shale, top Dakota san dstone
Montana Precaunlirian Belt su’iliiucnta Clay elualre. lmnntonmtt.. serpentine
Idaho Payette: Triassie eeulinmente
Colorado Fort Union: I)cns cr. Arapahoe Glacial till: ground moraine
Nest Mexico l)akota on Morrison
l’acuiie:
California Franciscan; l’ieo, Rineon Serpentine, clay shale, Quaternary
allos’lmimn
Oregon I ;ngle Creek s iihea,uie hmrcccla Ilasalt talus resting on lurecein
Washington Ni’spelu’mmm gil ts Astoria ailietone;
Eooenc slialea
(from Woods, Berry and Goetz, 1960)
4—61
-------
5G30
40 gallons/week while the discharge rate for the other two wells
is unknown.
Landslide Control Drainage Wells. The presence of ground
water in the subsurface increases the weight of the sediment
debris and decreases resistance to shearing. This phenomenon
stimulates, or continues, sediment movement in landslide-prone
areas. Special drainage wells are employed to dewater these
areas by removing ground water that also acts as a “lubricant.”
This countermeasure helps to reduce continued or potential land-
sliding in active slide areas.
Two kinds of vertical drainage systems are employed to
dewater slide areas. One method involves installation of a
combination of vertical drainage wells and horizontal/subhorizon-
tal drains. At the Craig and Lewistown sites, vertical drainage
galleries, consisting of clusters of wells, are installed in the
center of the general area that is landslide-prone. These wells
have borehole diameters varying from 4 to 12 inches and borehole
depths of up to 100 feet. Tiles, steel, or PVC casing are in-
stalled in these boreholes to various depths as the situation
warrants. The annular space of the wells above the drainage area
is grouted with cement or bentonite, and the tops are closed to
prevent any. surface water inflow. Surface runoff is primarily
directed to surface drains on the-perimeter of the landslide
area. Hori.zontal/subhorizontal drains up to 500 feet in length
are then installed through stable ground (downgradient of the
landslide) to intersect the vertical drainage wells near the base
of the unstable area, resulting in an “L” configuration as shown
in Figure 4—8. Proper installation of the system is confirmed by
monitoring the water level in the vertical drainage wells. A
sudden drop in water level indicates that the system is hydrauli-
cally connected. Often, several boreholes may have to be drilled
for successful installation.
Another typ of drainage system (installed south of Dillon)
drains shallow ground water from the Pipe Organ Landslide and
flows by gravity into a vuggy limestone unit in the underlying
Madison Formation. These wells are 200 to 250 ft. deep and pene-
trate approximately 150 ft. into the Madison Formation.. The
wells are constructed much like the vertical drainage wells dis-
cussed above with an open borehole in the bottom of the well.
Swimming Pool Water Drainage Wells. General construction
features of the swimming pool drainage wells vary depending on
the geographic location and type of pool (i.e., private or
public). Small diameter wells (2 in. and 4 in.) are typically
constructed with PVC well casings, while steel casings are used
for large (5 in. — 18 in.) diameter wells. Figure 4—9 is an
illustration of a typical swimming pool drainage well with con—
4 — 62
-------
5G30
METHODS EMPLOYED TO DEWATER LANDSLDE
PRONE AREAS
Rgure 4—8
- —
Wells, 4 to 12’ Borehole Die..,
Up to 100’
- -
A. Com nation Vertical and Horizontal Drain e (employed In LewI on & Craig, Montana)
Confined k ulfer
- RI L E
4 to 12’ Borehole Die.., Up to 250’
WATER TABLE AFTER DRAJN8GE
B. Vertical Drain e employeci In Dillon, Montana)
4—63
-------
5G30
Land Surface
wj g — - - - Pan coSand(marI) - - -
Miami Oolite
6 O.D. Steel Casing
Cement
51’—
57—
Fort Thorrpson Formation
CONSTRUCTION DETAILS OF A TYPICAL
SWIMMING POOL DRIAJNAGE WELL IN
SOUTH DADE COU’JTY
(from FOER flIes, 1986) Agure 4— 9
4-64
-------
5G30
struction details. Typically, private pools contain between
10,000 — 20,000 gallons of water and the public pools contain
several hundred thousand gallons of water.
The drainage wells are usually located in the deeper part of
the pool and periodically drain up to several thousand gallons of
pool water. Public pools usually drain annually while private
pools drain every couple of years, or when repairs are needed.
Drainage is accomplished by gravity flow to the subsurface.
Injected Fluids and Injection Zone Interactions
According to the State of Idaho, the inventoried deep
drainage wells inject drinking water quality fluids originating
from pump control valves and water tank overflow systems. The
inventoried shallow wells inject drinking water quality fluids
resulting from municipal pump check valve systems.
The landslide co-ntrol drainage wells inject ground water
from the shallow subsurface to deeper zones. The report from the
State of Montana has mentioned no source of contamination that
might affect the natural water quality in this shallow zone.
Swimming pool drainage fluid may include Constituents such
as lithium hypochiorite, calcium hypochlorite, sodium
bicarbonate, chlorine, bromine, iodine, cyanuric acid, aluminum
sulfate, algaecides, fungicides, muriatic acid, and other
physical, chemical, and biological contaminants. Some of these
chemicals may be used to maintain pH, or for disinfection of the
pool water. Other contaminants may result from the activities in
the swimming pool. Some of the free chlorine available in the
drainage fluid may degrade into trihalomethanes. These
contaminants are drained into the subsurface without any kind of
pretreatment. Thus, swimming pool effluent may contain many
constituents in excess of the National Primary and Secondary
Drinking Water Regulations.
The nature of injected fluids and injection zone interac-
tions for the other three types of special drainage wells is
unknown at the present time.
I{ydrogeology and Water Usage
Due to a lack of detail in the state reports, hydrogeologic
aspects for three of the five special drainage well types are not
discussed in this report. These three special drainage well
types are potable water tank overflow drainage wells, drainage of
water associated with municipal dewatering, and the special
drainage wells reported by Louisiana. Discussions of
4 — 65
-------
5G30
hydrogeology and water usage are presented under separate
subheadings for landslide control and swimming pool drainage
wel 1 s.
Landslide Control Drainage Wells. The- normal annual
precipitation in the areas of Montana where these well types are
located is approximately 16 inches. Infiltration of rainfall is
one of the main sources of recharge to the underlying aquifers.
Due to the presence of the underlying fresh water aquifers at
Craig and Lewiston (Todd, 1983), a combination of vertical and
horizontal drainage wells is employed at these sites as opposed
to the direct vertical drainage employed at Dillon.
Due to lack of information in the State report, it is
difficult to discuss hydrogeology and water usage in these areas.
Nevertheless, draining of water from an upper zone to a deeper
aquifer may cause potential problems. In the event that the
shallow zone becomes contaminated, the contaminants may migrate
into the vicinity of these drainage wells. Once the contaminants
enter the area of influence, migration to the underlying aquifer
will occur quickly, thereby contaminating the deeper aquifer.
This could occur because the drainage wells act as conduits,
hydrogeologically connecting the shallow zone to the deeper
aquifer. Eventually, any drinking water wells completed in these
zones may become contaminated.
Swimming Pool Drainage Wells. All of the swimming pool
drainage wells inventoried inject wastewater into the unconfined
Biscayne Aquifer. This aquifer serves as a major source of
drinking water for southeast Florida. Owing to its high
permeability, some large diameter public supply wells in Dade
County produce as much as 7,000 gpm with very little drawdown.
The majority of swimming pool drainage wells (1,334 verified
wells) are located in this county. Hence, all injection
activities that take place in this area may contribute contami-
nants which may eventually enter public or private water supply
well s.
Contamination Potential
Based on the rating system described in Section 4.1, special
drainage wells are assessed to pose a moderate to low potential
to contaminate tJSDW. These wells typically do inject into or
above Class I or Class II USDW. Typical well construction,
operation, and maintenance may or may not allow fluid injection
or migration into unintended zones. Injection fluids sometimes
have concentrations of constituents exceeding standards set by
the National Primary or Secondary Drinking Water Regulations.
However, sometimes the fluids are of equivalent or better quality
4 — 66
-------
5G30
(relative to standards of the National Primary or Secondary
Drinking Water Standards and RCRA Regulations) than the fluids
within any USDW in connection with the injection zone. Based on
injectate characteristics and possibilities for attenuation and
dilution, injection typically does not occur in sufficient
volumes or at sufficient rates to cause an increase in
concentration (above background levels) of the National Primary
or Secondary Drinking Water Regulation parameters in groundwater,
or endanger human health or the environment beyond the facility
perimeter or in a region studied on a group! area basis.
Based on the report from the State of Idaho, water tank
overflow drainage wells are not expected to cause any degradation
to the underground drinking water sources. However since most of
these wells inject into or above USDW it is necessary to monitor
the characteristics of the fluid to detect any accidental
discharge of contaminated water resulting from contaminant leaks
into the flow systems.
Properly designed and constructed landslide control drainage
wells in Montana may have a low contamination potential owing to
their use in relatively uncontaminated shallow aquifers. Yet
these wells may act as conduits that can transfer large amounts
of contaminants immediately into the lower aquifers in the event
of accidental spills or leaks of chemicals at the. surface.
Similarly, swimming pool drainage wells drain pool water to
the subsurface. Such untreated pool water may contain toxic
chemical constituents such as trihalomethanes and microbial con-
taminants. In addition, some microbial contamination may be
contributed by the people who use the swimming pool. Depending
on the concentration levels, these contaminants may eventually
reach a drinking water well and degrade water quality.
The contamination potential of other types of special
drainage wells is unknown at the present time.
Current Regulatory Approach
Special drainage wells are authorized by rule under the
Federally-administered UIC programs (see Section 1). Almost all
types of special drainage wells also are regulated by the respec-
tive States by permit and/or by rule. For instance landslide
control drainage wells in Montana are permitted by the State of
Montana Department of Highways. The district offices of the
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (FDER) permit the
swimming pool drainage wells in Florida. A permit is required in
Florida to construct, plug, or abandon the wells, but there are
no requirements for operation. Also, monitoring is optional, and
4 — 67
-------
5A5,6
reporting is not required. Permitting of potable water tank
overflow drainage wells, drainage wells employed for dewatering,
and other special drainage wells is currently unknown.
Recommendations
All special drainage well types are necessary to perform
various functions in different regions. But improperly managed
wells, or well sites, can present a threat to human health and
the environment. Few of the State reports included
recommendations concerning special drainage wells.
In the event that contamination problems develop in the
water tank overflow drainage wells, the State of Idaho suggests
some alternatives to dispose the fluids. Possible alternatives
include ponding with evaporation or seepage, disposal into
suitable surface waters, or transport to municipal sewer
treatment facilities.
Florida suggests the need to characterize swimming pool
wastewater for possible contaminants before injection/drainage.
This can be achieved by obtaining random samples representative
of the pool wastewater. Those pools that have contaminant levels
in excess of the water quality standards will need treatment of
fluids before injection.
States noted that regardless of the well type, all special
drainage wells that are improperly plugged or abandoned after
their useful lifetime will act as a hydraulic connection between
the shallow aquifers and the deeper ones. Therefore, States
recommended that good record keeping of all active and inactive
wells, monitoring activities, and accidental leaks or spills
would provide useful information if corrective actions need to be
implemented.
4.2.2 GEOTHERMAL WELLS
4.2.2.1 Electric P er and Direct Heat Reinjection Wells
(5A5, 5A6)
Well Purpose
Geothermal waters are high-temperature fluids used as an
energy source. Following extraction of the heat energy,
injection wells are used to dispose of spent geothermal fluids.
Such disposal serves to recharge geothermal reservoirs and to
avoid degrading other water sources. If geothermal reservoirs
are not recharged, water pressure, and therefore production
capacities, are lowered. At present, recharge of geothermal
reservoirs has not been a major concern except at some reservoirs
used to generate electric power. The cooled geothermal fluids,
termed “heat spent.” are still warmer than non-thermal waters and
may cause temperature pollution. Also, geothermal fluids
4 — 68
-------
5A5,6
generally have at least one constituent exceeding the National
Primary Drinking Water Regulations and usually have a greater
concentration of dissolved solids than non-thermal waters.
Because of these characteristics it is usually not prudent to
dispose of spent geothermal fluids by discharging into seepage-
evaporation ponds or surface water bodies, or by injecting into
non—thermal groundwater.
Inventory and Location
Geothermal reservoirs currently utilized fall into three
categories: dry steam, hot water with temperatures above 150°C,
and warm water with temperatures from 500 to 150 0 C. The only dry
steam field in the United States is the Geysers in California.
The steam is piped directly from production wells and used to
turn turbine generators. Hot water reservoirs are being used to
generate electricity in southern California, eastern California
and Nevada.
Where hot water systems have a connection to shallow
aquifers, heat transfer from or mixing of hot geothermal fluids
and cooler waters has created low temperature geothermal systems.
These systems are being utilized in California, Nevada, Oregon,
Idaho, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas for direct space heating.
One or more electric power generation facilities may be
operational in Oregon, utilizing low temperature (50-150° C)
geothermal resources (Forcella, 1984). However, no mention of
such a facility occurs in the Oregon report.
The best available data indicate there are currently 21
direct heat reinjection wells (5A6) and 89 electric power rein-
jection wells (5A5). The majority of these wells are located in
USEPA Regions IX and X. The numbers and distribution of wells
are shown on Tables 4-10 and 4—11. The California inventory of
electric power reinjection wells (5A5) is significant with
respect to total volumes of heat spent geothermal fluid injected.
An electric power reinjection well will typically inject a volume
10 to 100 times that of a direct heat reinjection well. Most (89
percent) of these large volume injection facilities are located
in California.
A few minor inventory problems were detected in State
reports and FURS. The most common errors were the differentia-
tion of direct heat reinjection wells (5A6) from heat pump/air
conditioning return flow wells (5A7). Therefore, the well count
is suspect for direct heat reinjection wells. Also, low volume
injection facilities may not be required to register, be
reviewed, or obtain permits. Limits for what is considered low
volume vary among the States. Oregon considers less than 5,000
gallons/day as low volume, while Nevada permits any geothermal
injection well with injection rates greater than 1,800
gallons/day (Oregon, 1986; Nevada, 1987).
4 — 69
-------
TAFLE 4-IDi SYNOPSIS fF STATE REPORTS FOR REOTI L ELECTRIC PO$(R RE-INOECTIOR LLS A5)
5A5,6
RESIOR
&
STATES
EPA
RESIOR
Confirmed
‘ Presence
Of Nell Type
Reoulat y : Case Studies/ I Contamination
System Unfo. available: Potential
Rating
.
IC inecticut
Naine
Massachusetts
Mew HaEshire
Imiodeislend
Verw it
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
PC
PC
PC
PC
PC
PC
I N/A PC
N/A PC
N/A PC
N/A IC
I N/A NO
N/A PC
I
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
INmu Jersey II PC
Pó York 11 II )
IPuerto Rico II PC
IVirgin Islands II PC
, N/A PC
I N/A PC
, N/A PC
I N/A PC
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Delaware
Ularyland
IPeonsylvania
Virg inia
IWest Virginia
III PC
III I PC
III PC
III IC
III PC
P1/A PC
• WA PC
I N/A PC
• N/A I PC
I N/A PC
• N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
• N/A
Alabaaa
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
iP SI15Sip9i
INmrth Carolina
Scuth Carolina
Tennes s ee
I
IV PC
IV IC
IV M l
IV PC
IV PC
IV PC
IV PC
IV PC
I N/A I IC • WA
• N/A IC N/A
I N/A • Ml I N/A
N/A PC I N/A
I N/A IC N/A
• WA PC WA
I N/A PC N/A
N/A M l Ni A
I
I
illinois
indiana
INichigan
Minnesota
:(L io
Wisconsin
V
V
V
V
V
V
PC
PC
PC
• PC
PC
• IC
N/A 1 IC
N/A NO
N/A IC
N/A IC
N/A PC
N/A PC
I
N/A
I N/A
I WA
l I lA
• N/A
I N/A
I
frkanias
Imonisiana
hEw Mexico
IOklahosa
Texas
I
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
I IC
PC
I NO
PC
YES
WA
N/A
N/A
N/A
PERMIT
I
PC
PC
IC
PC
PC
I
I P1/A
N/A
N/A
I N/A
N/A
I I
I
Unea
Ikansas
Nissauri
Nebraska
VII
VII
VII
VII
• PC
PC
PC
PC
N/A
N/A
N/A
RULE
PC
PC
PC
PC
I
N/A
I N/A
N/A
N/A
I
Colorado
Montana
IIbth Dakota
IS auth Dakota
Wtah
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
PC
PC
IC
Ml
PC
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
P IT
PC
PC
PC
PC
PC
I
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
WA
Wycmng -.
izona
lCallf o rnia
Ne a ii
Nevada
: eric i Samea
Tr. Terr. of P
Gems
IDIII
I
VIII
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
• PC
NO
65I LLS
PC
16 Ml .LS
PC
PC
• PC
PC
I
N/A
N/A
PERMIT
N/A
PERMIT
N/A
WA
N/A
N/A
PC
PC
YES
PC
YES
PC
PC
PC
PC
N/A
N/A
LOR
N/A
L) - HIGH
N/A
N /A
N/A
WA
I
Alaska I
idaho 1
Uhgon X
IWa!MngtC n • I
I
4PC.LS
1 4 I LI.S
• PC
I NO
N/A
PERMIT
I N/A
I N/A
PC ICDERATE
YES 1121$ HIST/I4TYPESI
IC I N/A
P C 1 N/A
MITE: S(X( PUIERS IN THIS TR&E AFE ESTII TES.
4-70
-------
TAELE 4-11: SYPCPSIS STATE REPORTS FOR DTIE . DIRECT IEAT RE-II4JECTIOR .LSI 6)
RESION
&
STATES
EPA
REBIOW
I
Cafir d Requlatcry Case Studiesfl Ccntaainaticn I
I Presence Syste. Unfo. availablel Potential
Of Well Type I Rating
:Ccmnecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Ha shire
Rhode Island
IVere.mt
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NO N/A
PC N/A
I C N/A
PC I N/A
PC , N/A
PC N/A
I
I P 4) N/A
PC N/A
NO N/A
PC N/A
IC N/A
• NO N/A
I
I
INew Jersey
INew Yerk
Puerto Rhco
IVirgin Islands
I
II
II
II
II
I I I
PC N/A PC N/A
YES N/A PC N/A
PC I N/A PC N/A
PC N/A PC N/A
Delaware
D laryland
Pennsylvania
Virqin :a
Nest Virginia
III
III
‘ Ill
111
I II
I PC N/A
PC N/A
NO ‘ N/A
PC I N/A
PC N/A
14) N/A
• PC N/A
PC N/A
I PC N/A
I PC N/A
Alabaaa
flerida
ISecrqia
ksntucky
IMississappi
IN th Carolina
Scuth Carolina
Tennessee
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
—
IC N/A
PC N/A
PC N/A
P 4 ) 1 N/A
PC N/A
PC N/P s
I PC N/A
IC N/A
I
I PC
PC
PC
PC
PC
IC
PC
IC
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
• l lllinois V N/A N/A
Undiana V I N/Ps N/A
Ihichigan I V ti/A N/A
Minnesota V ti/A N/A
V • N/Ps N/A
wlscnnsin V N/A N/A
3
Ifrkansas
Lnnisiana
New Yeeico
Oklahnna
ITe, as
I
3
VI
: VI
VI
VI
VI
1
IC
NO
2 PELLS
IC
IP4LL
N/A
N/A
PE IIT
N/Ps
PE llT
NO N/A
IC N/A
PG LOW
PC N/A
‘ PC N/A
I
Um.a
kansas
Missouri
N ebraska
I
VII
VII
VII
VII
PC
PC
P 4)
PC
N/Ps
N/Ps
N/A
R )LE/P IT
14)
I i )
IC
PC
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
ICo1 ado
P itana
Ibth Dakota
ISouth Dakota
:Utah
Wyosinq
VIII
VIII
VIII
, VIII
VIII
• VIII
2PC.LS
PC
14)
P 4)
I LL
IC
N/Ps
N/A
N/A
N/A
PERMIT
N/A
IC
PC
IC
I PC
NO
PC
LOW
N/A
N/A
N/A
5 (1*I6I€ST)
N /A
Ifrizona
Calif n ia
Hawali
Nevada
erlcan Sasoa
Tr. Trr. of P
lSoai
I I
I
• I X
IX
IX
IX
I IX
IX
IX
IX
I
PC
I I 1 (L).
PC
6 1(LLS
PC
PC
• PC
14)
N/A
PERMIT
I N/A
PERMIT
I N/A
N/Ps
I N/A
N/A
I
M I
YES
• MI
YES
IC
MI
PC
14)
N/A
LOW
N/A
LOW
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
I
Alaska
Udaho
1(kegnn
was6ingtnn
I
I
I 1
1
I
I I I I
NO N/A I 1 4 ) N/A
2 1(LLS I PERMIT 1 YES 15TH HI €ST/14 T’tPES
1 6 IELLS I PERMIT> D I PC LOW
PC N/A I PC - N/A
NOTE: SOlE OilERS IN THIS TAILE N ESTIP TES.
4—71
5A5•6
-------
5A5,6
Siting, Construction, and Operation
Siting. General considerations in siting these wells are
choosing the injection zone and deciding where (laterally and
vertically in the injection zone) to complete the well.
Typically the injection zone is a geothermal reservoir or some
other thermally altered reservoir. Several approaches are taken
by regulators in choosing the injection zone and determining the
areal distribution of injection wells. All of them attempt to
prevent the lateral and vertical spread of thermally altered
water. In cases where the geothermal reservoir is confined at
depth, injection back into the reservoir is required (California,
1987; Nevada, 1987). When the geothermally altered zone extends
to the surface, injection into shallow, unconfined aquifers can
occur. In these cases ground-water monitoring may be required to
demonstrate that injected fluids do not migrate laterally into
non—thermal waters (Nevada, 1987).
Operators also must decide if recharging the reservoir is
necessary. If it is not, then injection wells may be located at
some convenient place away from producing geothermal wells to
eliminate problems of reservoir cooling due to reinjection. If
recharge to the geothermal reservoir is critical, spent
geothermal fluids are typically injected back into the reservoir.
Wells will be sited so as to best enhance this strategy. Factors
of importance to this strategy are vertical and lateral
permeability to flow, reservoir pressures, and injection volumes.
In general, the operator will use knowledge of the flow pattern
in the reservoir to locate wells. The injection wells may be
positioned as close to the production wells as possible without
excessively cooling that portion of the reservoir.
Another geologic control with regard to siting is the
ability of the formation to accept the desired volume of
injectate. Injection wells associated with electric power pro-
duction are characterized by large volumes of injectate. If the
geothermal reservoir is the injection zone, the siting of
injection wells must be at a point where the reservoir is most
capable of receiving the fluid. This, in virtually all cases,
will be in an area where the reservoir exhibits high fracture
permeability associated with major structural features. The goal
of the injection program is to inject with little to no injection
pressure.
Injection wells associated with direct space heating are
subject to similar siting controls. The geothermal reservoir
typically is the injection formation. For these facilities to be
operated economically, the production (and injection) zone must
be a relatively shallow geothermal resource. Ease of injection
may be controlled by fractures associated with major faults.
These features represent conduits to the surface for geothermal
fluids as well as conduits for injection.
4 — 72
-------
5A5 ,6
Construction. Plans for injection well construction must
address two criteria. The first is the protection of shallow
ground water. This is accomplished using conductor and surface
casing strings, cemented in place. Although materials may vary,
there is little variation in design between deep and shallow
geothermal wells. The second criteria is assurance that
injection will be into the intended zone. Injection control is
accomplished by a wide variety of techniques, dependent upon well
depth and geologic nature of the injection zone.
Direct Space Heating
Injection wells associated with direct space heating facili-
ties are usually shallow (500—1,500 feet). A typical design for
an injection well of this type is presented in Figure 4-10. The
largest diameter casing, referred to as surface casing, is hung
from the surface and typically penetrates a few hundred feet into
the borehole. The entire void space between the surface casing
and borehole wall is filled with cement. This procedure is
designed to prevent any commingling of injection fluid with
shallow ground water. While variations in diameter and depth of
surface casing exist from well to well, the basic design and goal
is consistent in all of geothermal injection wells.
Inside the surface casing, a string of smaller diameter
casing is suspended using a “shoe.” This string may or may not
be cemented into place, depending upon the borehole diameter arkl
the nature of the formation opposite the casing. The purpose of
the cement program is to protect zones from injection fluid and
to hold the casing in place. If a zone is impermeable to the
injection fluid and the borehole diameter is sufficiently small
for the casing to fit snugly, cement may not be used. Figure 4-
10 is an example of such a well. In this case, a packer is used
at the top of the injection casing to prevent leakage between
casing strings. Likewise, a packer is used between the injection
casing and well screen. This packer, pressed against the
welibore, is designed to create a seal and prevent injectate from
going anywhere but into the intended zone.
Opposite the injection zone, a variety of mechanical
configurations are possible. The example well in Figure 4—10 has
a well screen designed to allow injection without clogging by
particulate matter. Another design makes use of a slotted liner.
Both designs are used for formations that readily accept injec-
tion fluids.
Where the injection formation is less permeable, or several
separate zones within the weilbore are to be used, a perforation
program may be employed. In this method, the injection zone is
cemented off and a “perf gun” is lowered to the proper depth and
discharged. This procedure is repeated in each zone of a
4 — 73
-------
Ground Level
5A5,6
105/8 Blank Surface Casing
Figure 1K’ Packers
97/8’ Bore Hole
85/8’ Blank Injection Casing
Johnson Figure •K’ Packer
150’ Double Extra Strong
.250 LCS HiCap
Johnson Screen
CONSTRUC11ON DESK3N FOR A TYPK AL
DOMES11C DIRECT SPIACE HEAliNG
GEOTHERMAL INUECT1ON WELL
(provided by Sierra Geothermal, Reno, NV) Agure 4—10
P .
44
4 4
44
4
P.
4
44
.4
4
41
I .
4
I
153/4’ Bore Hole
Concrete
4
4
Pp
d i
p.
p.
4
Pp
di
p.
4 ,
41
p.
‘I
‘ I
I .
‘I
I
Shoe
P
I
Drive Shoe
4—74
-------
5A5,6
multiple—zone completion. The charge used is sufficient to
perforate the casing, cement, and formation. Fluid to be
injected will exit the casing through these perforations.
Welihead assemblies vary for different facilities, but a
typical design for domestic direct space heating systems is
presented in Figure 4—11. The welihead is an interface between
the flowline from the facility and the downhole equipment.
Injection pressure, if needed, is established at injection pumps
located downstream of the facility. Pressures and flow rates are
typically monitored at the welihead via a system of gauges. The
pressure gauge usually is removable to facilitate adapting the
wellhead for use as a sample port.
Fluid flow to the weilbore can be regulated by valve systems
at the welihead. Ball valves operated using a pipe wrench, and
gate valves manipulated by rotating “wheels”, are typical
restrictors on this type of geothermal injection well. These
valves are “on or off” systems and are not designed to allow
partial flow. If partial restriction of flow is required during
normal operation, it is usually controlled by adjustable valves
at the injection pumps.
Present construction designs for these wells must address
corrosive problems associated with cooled geothermal fluids.
Casing made of low carbon steel with minimum .25 inch sidewall
thickness is optimum. The casing should be cemented with a
slurry consisting of approximately twenty percent bentonite clay
(Nork and Bantz, 1983).
Electric Power Generation
Injection wells associated with electric power generation
facilities typically dispose of larger volumes of spent fluid,
and are deeper than those wells associated with direct space
heating. As a result, construction designs for downhole and
welihead assemblies are more complex and display more variation.
Again, specific details for design are dictated by the size of
the operation and local geologic factors.
A typical design for an injection well at an electric power
generation facility is presented in Figure 4-12. Current prac-
tice for injection wells of this type is to construct all casing
strings of low to moderate strength steel to resist corrosion and
work hardening (Snyder, 1979). Work hardening is the process by
which a material becomes more brittle in response to continued
stress. With respect to casing in geothermal injection wells,
this stress is the result of thermal expansion and contraction.
The design in Figure 4-12 features conductor casing that
typically is not found with direct space heating facilities. The
purpose of the conductor casing is to prevent shallow
unconsolidated sediments from collapsing into the welibore during
4 — 75
-------
5A5,6
TYPICAL DOMES11C SPACE HEAliNG
INJECTiON WELLHEAD
(at ter Warren Estates Geothermal, Reno, NV) Figure 4— 11
12 Tapped
Blind Flange
Geothermal
Facility
Burton’ Circular
Flow Meter
Injection
Pressure Meter
Top of
1V Conductor Casing
(Cemented)
Level
4—76
-------
5A5,6
1/2 Steel Plate
.• ‘,• ••• ‘: V ‘ ‘ > :. —CelIar
13318,54.5# : : . Cement To Surface
Conductor Pipe :: : p,4
___ 101’
95/8, 36#,K—55 - ‘ 4 Cement To Surface
Surface Casing 44,
;4, II 1010’
4
p
4
:
83/4 Hole
4
4
p
4
7,26#,K-55 ‘4
Injection Casing
(CMTD & Perf’d Casing)
I Shoe 4506’
T.D.”4515ft.
TYPICAL SCHEMA11C FOR
GEOThERMAL INJEC11CN WELL ASSOCIATED
WITh ELECTRICAL PGNER GENERATION
(provided by Chevron Geothermal) Figure 4—12
4—77
-------
5 A 5,6
drilling operations. This string is cemented back to the
surface.
Inside the conductor casing, hung from the surface, is the
surface casing. Again, the purpose of this string is to protect
shallow ground water from drilling fluids and from injected
fluids after the well is completed. This string is cemented back
to surface prior to continued drilling. Depth of surface casing
is dictated by local hydrogeology, and ultimate determination is
the responsibility of State drilling engineers and hydrogeolo-
gists. It is also common to find that injection casing extends
only to the top of the injection zone. In such cases the bottom
portion of the well may be left as an open hole, or a slotted
liner may be hung from the injection casing. Liners are hung
near the bottom of the injection casing. Open hole or slotted
liner completions do not involve placing any cement across the
injection zone.
Inside the surface casing, also hung from the surface, is
the injection casing. The example in Figure 4-12 displays a
single string of injection casing, perforated through the injec-
tion interval. Depending upon the depth and pressures associated
with injection, additional strings of casing may be used.
Diameter of the casing will decrease with increased depth.
Cementing the casing strings in a geothermal injection well
is an integral part of well design. Casing failure in geothermal
wells generally is attributed to the inability to consistently
and reliably cement casing strings solidly from bottom to top.
Gallus and others (1979) had the following recommendations
concerning cements;
1. Cements with a compressive strength of less than
1,000 psi or a water permeability higher than 1
millidarcy (md) are not adequate for geothermal
well use.
2. API Class G cement with 40—80% silica flour, a
thickening time of at least 1 hour at 250°F, and
no free water will achieve satisfactory results.
Class G cement without silica can disintegrate when exposed to
the geothermal well envirorunent. The silica and water react to
recrystalize xonotlite to truscottite with an increase in volume
and decrease in permeability (Gallus et. al., 1979). Coarse
silica particles react more slowly than fine silica but can
develop higher compressive strengths and lower permeabilities
(Gallus et. al., 1979).
Wellhead assemblies for these injectors are essentially the
same as those discussed for space heating facility injectors.
Injection pressure can be monitored at the wellhead, and valves
for manual shut-off are present. Variations in injection
pressure are controlled at the injection pumps.
4 — 78
-------
5A5,6
Operation. Geothermal injection well operation is addressed
separately f or direct heat and electric power reinjection wells.
Domestic Direct Space Heating
Facilities of this type use low temperature (50-150°C) geo-
thermal fluids. The fluid is piped to heat exchangers located at
central facilities or individual homes where municipal water is
heated for use in homes. Heat exchangers are “closed loop”
systems, and no commingling of geothermal and municipal fluids
occurs. The geothermal fluid is untreated, and the only physical
change is a reduction in temperature prior to injection.
Both downhole and surface heat exchangers are used for
direct space heating. Warren Estates, a new housing subdivision
in Reno, Nevada, employs a centralized surface heat exchanger.
This system is schematically presented in Figure 4-13. This
system is ideal when a single, high volume production well is
used in conjunction with the municipal water supply. Hot, muni-
cipal water is dispersed to individual homes, eliminating the
need for individual heat exchangers. Because surface exchangers
can be large, facilitating a larger surface area for heat ex-
change, this system is the most efficient available for this type
of geothermal resource.
Some geothermal injectors of this type make use of slotted
liners rather than a perforation program at the injection
interval. This is less expensive in that the liner (light-weight
casing) can be placed into the welibore with the other strings.
This method is actually preferable where the injection formation
is very permeable.
Where several production wells are available, each serving
only two or three homes, a downhole exchanger is the system of
choice. The system employed at Sierra Geothermal in Reno is
considerably less efficient than surface exchange due to borehole
size constraints but is also less expensive. This system oper-
ates by piping municipal water through a “trombone” loop inside a
geothermal production well. As the fresh water is heated and
pumped to homes, geothermal fluid around the loop is cooled.
Downhole convection cells and pumps are used to remove this brine
from the welibore and transfer it via pipeline to the injection
well. One injection well is typically capable of disposing the
spent brine for an average—sized subdivision.
Electric Power Generation
Three different systems are used for electric power
generation depending on the nature of the geothermal resource.
Dry steam systems are the most efficient of the power generation
facilities (McLaughlin and Donnelly - Nolan, 1981). Reservoir
temperatures and pressures are such that there is virtually no
4 — 79
-------
5A5,6
Municipal Power
Geothermal
Production Well
Ground Level
Injection Pipe
Static
Water Level
Pressure
tabilization Valve
Injection Well
SCHEMA11C DLA GRAM OF A
SURFACE HEAT EXCHANGE SYSTEM ASSOCIATED
Will-I DO vES1lC GEOTHERMAL SPACE HEAliNG
(after Nork & Bantz, 1983) Figure 4—13
Mur cipal
Water
Out
Municipal
Water
In
(to homes)
Surface Exchanger
Submersible Pump
4-80
-------
5A5,6
liquid phase to the geothermal resource. No separators or
“flash” systems are necessary. Produced steam is piped directly
to the generator turbines. At this point, the resource is
condensed in cooling towers, where approximately eighty percent
is evaporated to the atmosphere. The remaining condensate is
collected in settling ponds and ultimately pumped to the
injection systems. Figure 4—14 is a schematic of a typical dry
steam facility.
Because settling ponds are used at dry steam facilities, the
systems are not totally tlclosed.tI Some interaction may occur
between the heat-spent fluids and the atmosphere. No treatment
procedures are conducted on the spent fluid at any time. The
assumption is made that no significant chemical alteration occurs
within the fluid prior to its reinjection into the geothermal
reservoir.
Dual phase systems are being used in California and Nevada.
This system, diagrammatically represented in Figure 4-15, makes
use of geothermal resources comprised partly of steam and
partially of hot water (300 - 400°F).
In a dual phase system, the first step is separation of the
steam and liquid fractions. The steam is not totally “dry” and
must be demisted to remove liquid molecules. The steam leaving
the demister is used to drive the system turbines. The steam is
then condensed in cooling towers where up to eighty percent is
lost to evaporation. The remaining condensate is pumped to the
injection system.
The liquid fraction of the geothermal resource is piped into
a lower pressure vessel following separation from steam. This
pressure reduction causes the fluid to “flash” into steam. This
steam is dexnisted and used to drive turbines as described above.
After condensation in the cooling system, the spent fluid is sent
to the injection system.
Some dual flash facilities use settling ponds to reduce
particulates from corrosion and mineral precipitation. Signif i-
cant temperature reduction and aeration due to atmospheric expo-
sure occur. Some facilities add oxygen scavenger compounds, for
example sodium bi-sulfite, to inhibit corrosion in surface and
down-hole equipment. Effects to injection zone water quality
resulting from these practices is discussed further under
Injection Zone Interactions.
Several facilities using the Binary Method of electric power
generation also are located in California and Nevada. A binary
facility schematic is presented in Figure 4-16. This type of
system is truly “closed.” It is designed so that one hundred
percent of the produced fluid is reinjected into the geothermal
reservoir.
4 — 81
-------
5 A 5,6
TYPICAL DRY STEAM ELECTRICAL POWER
GENERATION FACIUTY
(after a figure provided by Chevron Geothermal) Figure 4—14
Electric Power
Production Facilities
Cooling Tower
Makeup
lnject on Facilities
Settling
I n ec tio n
Pump
4-82
-------
5A5,6
TYPICAL DUAL FLASH GEOThERMAL ELECTRIC
POWER GENERATION FAOLITY
(provided by Chevron Geothermal) Figure 4—15
Electric Power
Production
Facilities
Fad lit te S
4-83
-------
5A5,6
SGHEMAT1C OF BINARY GEOTHERMAL ELECTRIC
PONER GENERATK N FACIUTY
Figure 4—16
4-84
-------
5A5,6
In a binary system, fluid from the production wells is
pumped into tubular heat exchangers where a light hydrocarbon
such as isobutane is vaporized. The vapor drives the generator
turbines, and then is condensed via cooling towers prior to being
reintroduced to the heat exchange system. The cooled fluid is
pumped to the injection system. No commingling between isobutane
and fluid occurs, and the fluid is not held in settling ponds.
Injected Fluids
The following discussion groups geothermal injection fluids
into three categories: low temperature (50 - l50L C) water used
for space heating, hot water resources used for electric power
generation (including hot dry rock reservoirs), and vapor domina-
ted resources used for electric power generation. In order to
evaluate the hazards of geothermal injection fluids, data in
published literature and from geothermal injection well operators
were compared to several parameters of the Primary and Secondary
Drinking Water Regulations (Table 4-12). Available data at best
covers the inorganic constituents plus pH and Total Dissolved
Solids (TDS). The data from various resource areas are presented
in Tables 4—13 to 4—16.
Low Temperature Resources. Only one facility utilizing an
injection well with a low temperature space heating system has
been inventoried in California. Susanville Geothermal is located
in the Honey Lake Valley, one of several low temperature
geothermal resource areas identified in northern California
(Hannah, 1975). The potential certainly exists for increased use
of these resources along with utilization of injection wells to
dispose of spent fluid.
Currently, six geothermal space heating facilities utilizing
injection wells to dispose of spent fluid have been inventoried
in Nevada. Two are multi—home space heating systems which tap
the Moana Geothermal System in Reno, Nevada. Future development
of these types of facilities is expected in the Moana area and in
another area known as Steamboat Hot Springs about twelve miles to
the south. Relatively inexpensive, shallow wells can encounter
geothermal fluids with temperatures of 100°C (Flynn and Ghusn,
1984; Baternan and Scheibach, 1975) in these areas.
Several other States indicated Class V injection wells were
utilized in low temperature geothermal resources areas usually as
part of direct space heating projects. However, little or no
data on the geochemistry of those geothermal fluids was given. A
limited amount of data was available in the literature for the
Raft River Geothermal Site, in Idaho. This is represented in
Table 4-16. The Oregon State report mentions TDS of geothermal
reservoirs around Klamath Falls is less than 1,000 mg/l.
4 — 85
-------
5A5,6
TABLE 4-12
NATIONAL PRIMARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
NATIONAL SECONDARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
+ Recommended limits are mainly
and taste characteristics
* Revised by 51 FR 11410, Apr.
Source: U.S. EPA 1976 and 1977
to provide acceptable esthetic
2, 1986
Inorganic Constituents
Max. Permissible
Concentration (mg/i )
Arsenic (As)
Barium (Ba)
Cadmium (Cd)
Chromium (Cr+ 6 )
Fluoride (F)
Lead (Pb)
Mercury (Hg)
Nitrate (N0 3 )
Selenium (Se)
Silver (Ag)
0.05
1.0
0.01
0. 0
4.0
0.05
0.002
45.0
0.01
0.05
Inorganic Constituents
Recommended +
Conc. Limit (mg/l )
Chloride (Cl-)
Copper (Cu)
Fluoride (F)
Iron (Fe)
Manganese (Mn)
pH
Sulfate (S0 4 2—)
Total Dissolved Solids (TDS)
Zinc (Zn)
250
1.0
2.0*
0.3
1.0
6.5—8.5 pH units
250
500
5.0
4 — 86
-------
5A5,6
TABLE 4-13
COMPARISON TO STANDARDS SET BY PRIMARY
AND SECONDARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
*HONEY LAKE VALLEY - LOW TEMPERATURE
(2 SPRINGS)
CALIFORNIA
Parameter n x (mg/i) Range (mg/i) % Exceedance Standard (mg/i )
primary
Arsenic ND 0.05
Barium ND 1.0
Cadmium 2 <0.01 0 0.01
Chromium ND 0.05
Fluoride 2 4.2 4.1—4.4 100 4.00
Lead 2 <0.1 0.05
Mercury ND 0.002
Nitrate ND 45.00
Selenium ND 0.01
Silver ND 0.05
secondary
Chloride 2 175 160—190 0 250
Copper 2 <0.02 0 1
Fluoride 2 4.2 4.1—4.4 100 2
Iron 2 <0.06 0 0.3
Manganese 2 <0.01 0 0.05
Sulfate 2 330 300—360 100 250
Dis. Solids 2 960 879—1,040 100 500
Zinc ND 5
pH 2 8.4 0 6.5 to 8.5
other Criteria
Boron 2 4.8 4.0—5.5 100 2.0 1
1 American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Monograph No. 3, 1980.
* Data from Reed (1975)
n Number of samples
x Sample average
ND No data
4 — 87
-------
TABLE 4-14
COMPARISON TO STANDARDS SET BY PRIMARY
AND SECONDARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
*STE .J4 OAT GEOTHERMAL AREA - LOW TEMPERATURE
x
(ma/i)
NEVADA
Range
(mg/i)
5A5 1 6
Standard
(mg/i)
primary
Arsenic
Bar i urn
Cadmium
Chromium
Fluoride
Lead
Mercury
Nitrate
Sel eniuxn
Silver
ND
2.5
0.06
ND
2 2.6
ND
ND
2 2.3
ND
ND
1.8 — 3.2
0.05 — 0.06
0.05
1.0
0.01
0.05
4.0
0.05
0.002
45.0
secondary
= American Societyof Agricultural Engineers, Monograph No. 3, 1980.
= Data from Flynn and Ghusn (1984)
= Number of samples
= Sample average
= No data
Parameter n
2
2
% Exceedance
2.5 — 2.6
0 — 4.6
100
0
0
0
0.01
0.05
Chloride
2
850
770 — 930
Copper
ND
Fluoride
2
2.6
2.5 — 2.6
Iron
2
0.01—<0.05
Manganese
2
<0.01
Sulfate
2
126
102 — 151
TDS
2
2300
2200 — 2370
Zinc
ND
pH
2
100
100
0
0
0
100
0
7.4
250
1
2
0.3
0.05
250
500
5
6.5 to 8.5
other
Criteria
Boron 2 61 60
— 62 100 2.01
1
*
n
x
ND
4 — 88
-------
pr ± mary
TABLE 4-15
COMPARISON TO STANDARDS SET BY PRIMARY
AND SECONDARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
*MOANA GEOTHERMAL AREA - LOW TEMPERATURE
NEVADA
5A5,6
Arsenic* *
Barium
Cadm iuin
Chromium
Fluoride
Lead
Mercury
Nitrate
Selenium
Silver
secondary
13
10
ND
1
10
1
1
ND
1
1
<0.02
1.0 — 5.6
<0.05
<0.0005
<0.005
<0.01
69
0
0
77
0
0
0
0
0.05
1.0
0.01
0.05
4.0
0.05
0.002
45.00
0.01
0.05
Chloride 10
Copper
Fluoride
Iron
Manganese
Sulfate
TD S
Zinc
pH
<0.02
1.0 — 5.6
<0. 01—0. 01
<0. 01—0.02
74 — 460
2197 — 1010
<0.01
7.5 — 8.5
0
0
90
0
0
70
80
0
0
250
1
2
0.3
0.05
250
500
5
6.5 to 8.5
1 = American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Monograph No. 3, 1980.
* = Data supplied by an operator of geothermal injection wells and
from Flynn and Ghusn (1984)
n = Number of samples
x = Sample average
ND = No data
** = Compiled from data for 13 wells encountering thermal waters in T
19N/R19E Section 24, 25, 26 in Baternan and Scheibach (1975). Data
f or arsenic and lithium in Flynn and Ghusn (1984) were reported by
them to be suspect (p. 50).
Parameter
n x Range % E çceedance Standard
(mg/i) (mg/i) (mg/i)
.09 0.01 — .20
<0. 02—0. 036
4.4
33 10 — 51
1
10
10
10
10
10
1
10
4.4
365
797
other
Criteria
Boron 10 2.0
0.30—2.62 80 2.0
4 — 89
-------
5A5,6
TABLE 4-16
COMPARISON TO STANDARDS SET BY PRIMARY
AND SECONDARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
RAFT RIVER GEOTHERMAL SITE. LOW TEMPERATURE (<150°C)
IDAHO
Parameter n x Range % Exceedance Standard
(mg/i) (mg/i) (mg/i)
primary
Arsenic ND 0.05
Barium ND 1.0
Cadmium ND 0.01
Chromium ND 0.05
Fluoride 3 6.2 4.3 — 8.6 100 4.0
Lead ND 0.05
Mercury ND 0.002
Nitrate ND 45.00
Selenium ND 0.01
Silver 0.05
secondary
Chloride 3 1130 682 — 2000 100 250
Copper ND 1
Fluoride 3 6.2 4.3 — 8.6 100 2
Iron ND 0.3
Manganese ND 0.05
Sulfate 3 49 32 — 61 0 250
TDS 3 2080 1300 — 3580 100 500
Zinc ND 5
pH ND 6.5 to 8.5
other
Criteria
Boron ND
2.01
1 = American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Monograph No. 3, 1980.
2 = Data are the average values for three geothermal wells at the
Raft River Geothermal Site, Malta, Idaho from Allen et. al., 1978.
n = Number of samples
x = Sample average
ND = No data
4 — 90
-------
5A5,6
Water quality data for most parameters of the Primary
Drinking Water Regulations were not available. Arsenic
concentrations are above the standard in the Steamboat Springs —
Moana area of Nevada. No other data on arsenic concentrations
are available.
Fluoride concentrations commonly exceed the Maximum
Concentration Limit of 4.0 mg/i set in the National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations. This standard has been set to
prevent the occurrence of crippling skeletal fluorosis. Fluoride
also is a parameter of the National Secondary Drinking Water
Regulations, for which the Recommended Concentration Limit is 2.0
mg/i. This standard has been set to protect against dental
fluorosis (mottling of the teeth).
Among parameters of the Secondary Drinking Water
Regulations, TDS and flouride are consistently above standards in
geothermal fluids. Chloride and sulfate concentrations also
commonly exceed standards. The boron criteria was exceeded in
each case reported.
High Temperature. Three hot water dominated geothermal
resource areas utilizing Class V injection wells as part of elec-
tric power generating facilities are located in California and
Nevada. One experimental hot dry rock geothermal system also
produces high temperature fluid (200°C). The Los Alamos hot dry
rock experiment involves two deep wells (10,000 feet). A granitic
rock unit was hydrofractured establishing a hydraulic connection
between the two wells. Water is injected in one well and is
pumped from the recovery well 10 hours later at 200°C (Tester et.
al., 1978).
The data presented in Tables 4-17 to 4—22 show that much
remains to be learned about the concentrations of most elements
covered by the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. In
general, one or more parameters were above the standards at each
facility.
Among parameters of the Secondary Drinking Water Regula-
tions, several were well above standards at each facility,
notably TDS, chloride, and fluoride. In addition, the boron
criteria was greatly exceeded at each area.
Vapor Dominated Resources. The only resource area of this
nature is the Geysers, Sonoma and Lake Counties, California.
Five injectate analyses were available from operators in this
area (Table 4—23). Unfortunately, detection limits varied among
the different analytical laboratories for most parameters of the
Primary Drinking Water Regulations and were often above the
regulation standard. The detection limit is the lower limit for
resolution of an analytical procedure. When the detection limit
is above the standard, it cannot be determined whether the sample
4 — 91
-------
TABLE 4-17
COMPARISON TO STANDARDS SET BY PRIMARY
AND SECONDARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
*MONO_LONG VALLEY - HOT WATER DOMINATED
(2 INJECTION WELLS)
American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Monograph No. 3, 1980.
Data supplied by geothermal injection well operator (August, 1986)
Number of samples
Sample average
No data
5A5,6
CALIFORNIA
n x (ma/i) Ranae (me/i) % Exceedance Standard (mg/i)
Parameter
primary
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Chromium
Fluoride
Lead
Mercury
Nitrates
Selenium
Silver
2
ND
2
ND
2
2
2
2
ND
ND
<0.02
1.23
0 .95 — 1.5
100
14
11—16
<0 • 12
100
0.097
0.003—0.19
100
1.0
0 — 2.0
0
0.05
1.0
0.01
0.05
4 • 00
0.05
0.002
45.00
0.01
0.05
ND
secondary
Chloride
Copper
Fluoride
I ron
Manganese
Sul fate
Dis. Solids
Zinc ND
pH
2
2
14
0.31
2
2
2
145
1600
2 215 170—260
50
250
1
11—16
100
2
0.27—0.35
50
0.3
<0.04
0
0.05
140—150
0
250
1600
100
500
5
2
8.9—9.2
100
6.5 to 8.5
other Criteria
Boron 2 10 8.6—12 100 2.01
1 =
* =
n =
x =
ND =
4 — 92
-------
TABLE 4-18
COMPARISON TO STANDARDS SET BY PRIMARY
AND SECONDARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
*IMPERI J VALLEY - HOT WATER DOMINATED
(13 INJECTION WELLS)
CALIFORNIA
5A5,6
Parameter
n x (ma/i)
Ranae (ma/i)
% Exceedance
Standard (ma/i)
primary
Chloride
Copper
Fluoride
Iron
Manganese
Sulfate
Dis. Solids
Zinc
pH
69 00—9000
0.04—0.7 1
0. 4 0—0: 75
4. 0—30.9
0.41—1.76
4 1—68
8,840—12,360
0. 11—1. 38
7.1—8.0
100
0
0
100
100
0
100
0
0
American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Monograph No. 3, 1980
Data supplied by a geothermal injection well operator (August, 1986)
Number of samples
Sample average
No data
Arsenic
13
<0.05
0
0.05
Barium
13
0.92
0.23—1.83
46
1.0
Cadmium
ND
0.01
Chromium
13
0.47
0.10—0.92
100
0.05
Fluoride
13
0.60
0.40—0.75
0
4.00
Lead
13
0.84
0.22—3.39
100
0.05
Mercury
13
0.003
.001—0.011
46
0.002
Nitrates
ND
45.00
Selenium
ND
0.01
Silver
ND
0.05
secondary
13
12
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
8,880
0.24
0.60
15.1
1.02
54.3
10,700
0.36
250
1
2
0.3
0.05
250
500
5
6.5 to 8.5
other
Criteria
Boron 13 50.9
32.9—70.2 100 2.01
1 =
* =
n =
x =
ND =
4 — 93
-------
5A5,6
TABLE 4-19
COMPARISON TO STANDARDS SET BY PRIMARY
AND SECONDARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
*COSO HOT SPRINGS AREA - HOT WATER DOMINATED
CALIFORNIA
Parameter n x (mg/i) Range (mg/i) % Exceedance Standard (mq/i )
primary
Arsenic 1 8.2 100 0.05
Barium ND 1.0
Cadmium ND 0.01
Chromium ND 0.05
Fluoride 1 3 0 4.00
Lead ND 0.05
Mercury 1 <0.0005 0 0.002
Nitrate 1 <0.03 0 45.00
Selenium ND 0.01
Silver ND 0.05
secondary
Chloride 1 3600 100 250
Copper 1 <0.005 0 1
Fluoride 1 3 100 2
Iron 1 0.08 0 0.3
Manganese 1 <0.01 0 0.05
Sulfate 1 100 0 250
Dis. Solids 1 9700 100 500
Zinc 1 <0.02 0 5
pH ND 6.5 to 8.5
other
Criteria
Boron 1 79
100 2.01
1 = American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Monograph No. 3, 1980
* = Data supplied by a geothermal injection well operator (August, 1986)
n = Number of samples
x = Sample average
ND = No data
4 — 94
-------
TABLE 4-20
COMPARISON TO STANDARDS SET BY PRIMARY
AND SECONDARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
*S7 JJTON SEA GEOTHERMAL AREA - HOT WATER DOMINATED
CALIFORNIA
5A5,6
Parameter
n x (ma/i)
Ranae (ma/i)
% Exceedance
Standard (ma/i)
primary
Arsenic
Bar i uiii
Cadmium
Chromium
Fluoride
Lead
Nitrate 2
Mercury
Selenium
Silver
secondary
10 — 15
200 — 1100
<0.005
<4
2 — 18
50 — 200
5 — 35
0.006—<0.2
0 — 1.4
100
100
0
80
100
50
0.05
1.0
0.01
0.05
4.00
0.05
45.00
0.002
0.01
0.05
Chloride
Copper
Fluoride
Iron
Manganese
Sul fate
Dis. Solids
Zinc
pH
162, 600
4.0
10.8
2,050
1,340
34.7
278,000
715
100
29
80
100
100
0
100
100
100
250
1
2
0.3
0.05
250
500
5
6.5 to 8.5
= American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Monograph No. 3, 1980
* = Data summarized from Cal. Dept. Water Resources (1970) and
represents one to- four samples from four different wells.
Number of samples
Sample average
No data
Data indicate very high levels of ammonia nitrogen [ (NH 3
and NH 4 +)] ranging from 340—570 mg/l. In an oxidizing
environment some would convert to nitrate. Additionally,
ammonia nitrogen in small amounts (Criteria for fresh water
is 0.02 mg/i, EPA (1977)) is toxic to fish in fresh water.
5 11.4
6 483
1
1
5 10.8
7 95
2 20
3
6 0.70
66
9
7
5
8
9
7
8
4
6
93, 650—210,700
0 —. 10
2 — 18
1,150—3,420
410—1,300
0 — 75
184,000—388,000
50 0—97 0
3.9—5.3
other
Criteria
Boron 7 149—745
100 2.01
n =
x =
ND =
2 =
4 — 95
-------
5A5,6
TABLE 4-21
COMPARISON TO STANDARDS SET BY PRIMARY
AND SECONDARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
LOS ALAMOS, NEW MEXICO
HOT DRY ROCK EXPERIMENT (200°C)
Parameter n x (mg/i) Range (mg/i) % Exceedance Standard (mg/i )
primary
Arsenic ND 0.05
Barium ND 1.0
Cadmium ND 0.0].
Chromium ND 0.05
Fluoride 12 — 14 100 4.00
Lead ND 0.05
Mercury ND 0.002
Nitrate 2 ND 45.00
Selenium ND 0.01
Silver ND 0.05
secondary
Chloride 400—600 100 250
Copper ND 1
Fluoride 12—14 100 2
Iron 2—3 100 0.3
Manganese 0.01 0 0.05
Sulfate ND 250
Dis. Solids 1470—2390 100 500
Zinc ND 5
pH 6.8—7.0 0 6.5 to 8.5
other Criteria
Boron ND 2.0
1 = American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Monograph No. 3, 1980
2 = Data from Tester et. al. in EPA, 1978.
4 — 96
-------
TABLE 4-22
ARISW G IH L F1iJfl S A 0c IPff& WflH HcYr WM
IN NEVADA ¶10 NATI ThL tTh RY DRD Kfl 3 WAT R LATI IS
.-s Sj S.
Resc irCe ArSeniC Bariwt dniun thran1un Fluoride Lead b rcury Nitrate Seleniun Silver
Area (mg/i) (mg/i) (mg/i) (n /l) (n /1) (mg/i) (mg/i) (mg/i) (mg/i) (mg/i)
Q.ievrona
Becwawe
n 5 5 ND ND 5 5 N I) ND ND 5
x 0.05 0.10 15 0.005 0.01
range ND ND ND ND ND
chevron”
Des. ak
n 2 2 2 2 2 2 ND ND ND 2
x 6.2
range (0.61 <0.6 <0.06 <0.05 6.0 — 6.5 <0.24 <0.05
GDAC
Steamboat
n 1 1 ND ND 1 ND 1 1 ND ND
x 3.2 0.08 2.4 0.002 0.5
range
Stardard 05 1.0 0.01 0.05 2 0.05 0.002 10 0.01 0.05
a - average of 5 samples fran flcw test data supplied by operator (Rossi 21-19)
b - data fran 2 pra1uction wel is supplied by o rator
c - data fran çermit infarrr tion in f iles of the Nevada, Dep rtnent of Envirorirental Protection
n = number of samples
x = saIT ple average
ND = no data
(11
0)
-------
T1$BLE 4—22, ccgitinued
cXJIPARISW OF’ GE0ThE L FLUIDS ASSOCIATFD wrlH HGr WATFã DR N1’F1) R WRC Z
IN NEV DA 1O NN I(l I1½L SE(DFARY DRINK]IC WATFR RFX JLATh S
thioride açper Fluoride Irai nganese Sulfate WS Zirx Bora
Area (mg/i) (mg/i) (mg/i) (mg/i) (mg/i) (mJl) (mg/i) ( m g/i) (mg/i) (nuJi)
thelvrofla
Beo awe
n 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
x 110 0.01 15 3.3 0.05 440 1580 0.7 9.4 2.0
range ND ND ND ND ND ND ND. ND ND ND
ievronb
Des. Peak
n 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 ND 2
x 1700 6.2 110 5070 12.2
range 1635—1775 <0.6 6.0—6.5 <0.02—0.03 <0.24 106—115 4880—5260 <0.12 11.6—12.9
GDAC
Steamboat
n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
x 950 0.01 2.4 0.17 0. 01 126 2440 0.02 8.6 49
range
Stai 1ard 250 1 2 0.3 0.05 250 500 5 6.5 to 8.5 0.0
criteria 2.0
a - average of 5 samples fran fia i test - data supplied by o rator (1 ossi 21-19)
b - data fran 2 prcxluction wells supplied by operator
c - data fran permit infarm3tion in Nevada, De rtnent of Erwirorii ntal Protection
1 = An rican Society of Agriculturai Engineers, ‘bnocJra k No. 3, 1980
n = nuther of samples
x = sample average
ND = no data
01
>
01
0)
-------
TABLE 4-23
COMPARISON TO STANDARDS SET BY PRIMARY
AND SECONDARY DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS
*ThE GEYSERS - VAPOR DOMINATED
(3 INJECTION WELLS, 2 CONDENSATE PONDS)
CALIFORNIA
1 = American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Monograph No. 3, 1980
* = Data s plied by two operators of geothenral injection wells (August, 1986).
n = Number of samples
Sample average
No data
Data indicate high levels of ammonia nitrogen (NH 3 and NH +) are
present ranging from 6.7 to 13.2 rng/l. In an oxiaizing
environment some would convert to nitrate. Additionally, small
amounts of ammonia nitrogen in fresh water is toxic to fish
(Criteria for freshwater is 0.02 mg/i, EPA (1977)).
5A5,6
Parameter n x (ma/i) Range (m /1) % Exceedance Standard (mg/i)
primary
Arsenic
5
0.87
<0.01—3.2
80
0.05
Barium
5
<0.5
0
1.0
Cadmium
5
<0.1
0.01
Chromium
5
<0.05—<0.1
0.05
Fluoride
4
0.12
<0.1—0.27
0
4.00
Lead
5
<0.05—<0.1
0.05
Mercury
Nitrate 2
5
2
<0.001—<0.01
1 — < 5
20
0
0.002
45.00
Selenium
5
<0.01—<0.1
0.01
Silver
5
(0.02—0.10
at least 20
0.05
secondary
Chloride
4
26
0—100
0
250
Copper
4
<1.0
0
1
Fluoride
4
0.12
(0.1—0.27
0
2
Iron
5
7.1
<0.1—29
60
0.3
Manganese
2
<0.03—0.06
50
0.05
Sulfate
5
180
8—440
40
250
Dis. Solids
5
436
98—1, 095
40
500
Zinc
2
0.06—0.11
0
5
pH
4
6.6—7.51
0
6.5 to 8.5
other
Criteria
Boron
5
94
62—190
100
2.01
x =
ND =
2 =
4 — 99
-------
5A5,6
contains constituents in concentrations above or below the
standard. In general, arsenic was the only parameter commonly
above the standard. Data for cadmium and selenium were
inconclusive except to indicate that an occasional sample could
contain these constituents in concentrations up to ten times the
standard. Concentrations of mercury and silver were each over
the standard in one sample.
Among the Secondary Regulations only iron was found to have
at least a 50% exceedance rate. Sulfate and TDS also could be
minor problems and occasionally exceeded twice the standard. The
boron criteria was greatly exceeded for each sample.
Injection Zone Interactions
General. Two important considerations for the Underground
Injection Control Program are:
1. how injection practices will affect the ability of
the rock media to accept fluids at the desired
rates and pressures; arid
2. how the injection fluid will change the water
quality naturally present in the injection zone.
The first point is important in deciding the type and fre-
quency of operational monitoring and mechanical integrity testing
which should be employed. Undesirable connections between the
injection zone and other USDW because of packer failures, forma-
tion fracturing, and other casing or tubing failures could occur
due to a decrease in the accepting formation’s ability to receive
fluids. Point number two directly addresses pollution of the
injection zone by the geothermal fluid effluent.
Effects on Injectivity. Negative impacts upon irijectivity
occur due to two main phenomena: high suspended solids in the
injectate causing filter cake buildup at the borehole and pore
plugging due to precipitation of solids as the injectate moves
through the rock media. Precipitation of dissolved solids occurs
due to changes in temperature and pressure as the geothermal
brine is taken out of the reservoir and moved through the various
surface equipment necessary to extract the heat energy. Solids
can also precipitate if ion concentrations increase due to loss
of water during flashing or if significant evaporation occurs as
spent brine is temporarily held in ponds or tanks before injec-
tion. Suspended solids are commonly amorphous silica, carbonate
minerals (example - CaCO , MnCO 3 ) and gypsum (CaSOA) (Arnold,
1984; Summers et. al. , 19g0; Michels, 1983; Vetter an Kandarpa,
1982; Hill and Otto, 1977). A worst case example of plugging due
to formation of a low permeability filter cake at the well bore
is described by Owen et. al., (1978). The injection well was
disposing of a high TDS fluid from the Salton Sea Geothermal
4 — 100
-------
5A5,6
Field in California. Spinner survey information indicated that a
458-foot slotted liner was plugged every where except for a 4-
foot interval. This occurred over a one-week period. The inter-
val through which injection fluids were still moving was believed
to correspond with a zone of fracture permeability.
Precipitation of solids also may occur within the rock media
of the injection zone at some distance away from the welibore.
For instance, if the concentration of sulfate anion (SOc) or
calcium cation (Ca ) increases during loss of watei from
flashing or evaporation, solid calcium sulfate (CaSO 4 ) may
precipitate in the injection zone. This would occur as the
injectate is heated by mixing with hotter fluid in the injection
zone and from heat given up by the rock itself. CaSO is less
soluble at high temperatures (Nancollas and Gill, 1978; Vetter
and Kandarpa, 1982). A host of such reactions causing solids to
precipitate in the injection zone can occur depending upon varia-
bles such as temperature, pH, and ion concentration. These are
extremely difficult to predict based on theory because of the
numerous variables involved. Pilot scale injectivity testing or
experiments with core samples allow the best predictions
(Michels, 1983; Owens et. al., 1978; Arnold, 1984).
Effects on Injection Zone Water Quality. This is the second
injection zone consideration. It will be discussed in two parts
dealing with major ion composition and minor (or trace) element
composition.
Major Ion Composition
This consideration deals with the potential degradation of
injection zone water quality by introducing the geothermal brine
effluent. Based on information from literature review, UIC
Facility Inspection Reports, and UIC File Investigation Reports,
typical industry practice is to utilize the geothermal reservoir
as the injection zone. If this is the case, only minor changes
to the overall injection zone water quality would occur. Major
ion composition is expected to be negligibly influenced by fluid-
fluid and rock-fluid interactions. Hence, TDS can be considered
as a non—reactive parameter for pollution studies (Freeze and
Cherry, 1979; Summers et. al., 1980).
Changes in major ion concentration may occur due to the
concentrating effects of evaporation/vaporization. A facility
like the Geysers loses 80% of produced fluid (steam) to the
atmosphere. Cooling towers condense 20% to liquid which is then
injected. The majority of dissolved solids will be concentrated
in those fluids. If essentially all the dissolved solids remain
in the liquid fraction there will be a four fold increase in
concentration. Dual flash systems lose about 15 to 20 percent of
the original fluid volume. Assuming the lost steam is
essentially pure, a concentration factor of 1.15 to 1.20 results.
4 — 101
-------
5A5,6
Successive concentration of TDS by recycling of injected brine to
production wells could be a serious problem to injection zone
water quality and to equipment operations.
Minor or Trace Constituents
Minor or trace elements for which there are Primary or
Secondary Drinking Water Standards include: Silver (Ag), Arsenic
(As), Cadmium (Cd), Chromium (Cr), Copper (Cu), Fluorine (F),
Iron (Fe), Mercury (Hg), Manganese (Mn), Lead (Pb), Selenium
(Se), and Zinc (Zn). Fluid-fluid or rock-fluid interactions
could be grouped into six types: adsorption—desorption, acid-
base, solution-precipitation, oxidation-reduction, ion pairing-
complexation, and microbial cell synthesis (Driscoll, 1986). In
general, thermodynamic principles and chemical equilibria can be
applied to dilute solutions at near-earth surface conditions to
estimate ion concentrations due to the above interactions. This
does not hold for microbial cell synthesis. The chemistry of
high temperature, high pressure, and high ionic strength (high
TDS) solutions is extremely complex. Estimates of interactions
in geothermal reservoirs might be attainable on a case-by-case
basis where thermodynamic data on an element and its possible
solid, ion pair or complex species are available. The same
concentrating effects of evaporation/vaporization could increase
minor or trace element concentrations in geothermal reservoirs.
Pre-Trea tmen t
A variety of treatments are in use to ensure efficient
functioning of equipment such as pipelines, cooling towers,
pumps, and wells. Three general types of problems, namely
corrosion, scaling, and suspended solids, are discussed below,
with possible treatment methods:
1. Corrosion - rusting due to dissolved oxygen in the
effluent; treat by adding oxygen
scavengers such as ammonium bisulfite or
sodium sulfite.
2. Scaling — - Precipitation of minerals onto metal
surfaces; treat with scale inhibitors
such as organic phosphonate derivatives
and polyacrylic acids.
3. Suspended
Solids - partially composed of eroded rust or
scale but also minerals precipitated
from solution; treat by filtering,
sedimentation, or acidification.
Among facilities actually inspected, oxygen scavengers,
filtering, and sedimentation are methods observed in use. Michels
(1983) reported the unpredictable results of injecting a flashed
4 — 102
-------
5A5,6
brine combined with an unidentified CaCO 3 scale inhibitor. CaCO 3
was deposited within the injection zone after injection was
halted, and native fluids moved back toward the well bore in one
experiment. This did not occur in another experiment where the
same fluid was injected into an area of slightly different
geothermal fluid chemistry. The oxygen scavengers noted do not
pose a threat to injection zone water quality. They may reduce
concentration of various metal ions in solution by helping to
maintain a reducing environment in the injection zone.
Additional information on industry pre—treatment practices needs
to be gathered and evaluated with respect to injection zone water
quality.
Summary. Qualitatively, closed systems (direct heat or
binary method for electric power generation) should experience
the least change of water quality in the injection zone. Vapor
dominated and flash systems would be injecting fluids more out of
equilibrium with the reservoir. Small shifts in trace or minor
constituent concentrations could result in waters potentially
harmful to human health or the environment. Injection testing on
a pilot scale or studies with reservoir cores should be used to
estimate long—term injectivity as well as effects to minor trace
element concentrations when injection is into a good-quality or
currently used ground—water resource.
Beneficial uses of most non—thermal waters with TDS <1,000
mg/i could be seriously altered if heat spent geothermal fluids
from high temperature reservoirs were injected. Non—thermal
waters could be adversely affected by injection of spent
geothermal fluids from low temperature resources if water
qualities are not carefully compared. Most drinking water
quality aquifers in the western United States would be negatively
impacted by such a practice. However, Idaho recommends allowing
injection into non—thermal reservoirs if the thermal injection
fluids meet drinking water standards or if the receiving fluids
are of equal or lesser quality.
Hydrogeology and Water Use
Geothermal systems in most cases have a natural discharge of
thermal water into shallow aquifers. Faults are usually the
conduits along which geothermal fluids rise although other
geologic discontinuities can allow geothermal fluids to discharge
from the reservoir. For instance, confining layers may thin and
disappear allowing discharge. In some cases the discharge is
seen at the surface as fumaroles, mud pots, or geysers.
The areal distribution of thermally altered waters in USDW
represent a quasi-steady state before the development of the
resource. Injection wells, should they develop casing leaks or
inject into non-thermal waters, may change the areal or vertical
distribution of thermally altered water. Such changes could
affect current or potential beneficial uses of USDW.
4 — 103
-------
5A5,6
The California, Nevada, and Oregon State reports show that
the vast majority of heat spent geothermal fluids are injected
into the geothermal reservoirs. The geothermal reservoirs
themselves usually meet the definition of an tJSDW. As was shown
in the previous section, the geothermal reservoirs frequently
have a high concentration (several thousand mg/i) of dissolved
solids. Aquifers of better water quality are usually penetrated
by the Class V injection wells disposing of geothermal fluids.
Current use of ground water in areas near geotherma:1
resources is usually low. The majority of geothermal facilities
are in sparsely populated, remote areas. In some instances
natural mixing of thermal and non-thermal waters has limited
current use by creating poor water quality up to the surface.
Exceptions to this are the Truckee Meadows (metropolitan Reno and
Steamboat) area of Nevada, Kiamath Fa1l area of Oregon, and the
Raft River Geothermal Area of Idaho. Shallow valley—fill or
volcanic rock aquifers supply important municipal, domestic, and
irrigation water needs in these locations.
Two geothermal resource areas in the Truckee Meadows are
being developed, Steamboat Hot Springs and Moana. Moana is a low
temperature (<150°C) resource where Class V injection wells are
utilized in space heating applications. MUlti—home systems,
churches, motels, and apartment complexes are finding geothermal
energy affordable and convenient. The Steamboat Hot Springs area
is being developed primarily for electric power production at
present. One company has recently put a binary system utilizing
two Class V injection wells on line. Another company is drilling
wells for a planned binary facility. Case studies with material
on the contamination potential of three facilities in the Truckee
Meadows are listed in Appendix E. The Class V injection wells at
these facilities penetrate the valley-fill aquifer which supplies
the 200,000 people of metropolitan Reno with about 20 percent of
the municipal water (Van Denburgh, et al., 1973).
Contamination Potential
Based on the rating system described in Section 4.1,
electric power and direct heat reinjection wells are assessed to
pose a moderate potential to contaminate USDW. These facilities
typically inject below Class I and Class II aquifers but into
some USDW. Typical well construction, operation, and maintenance
would not allow fluid injection or migration into unintended
zones. Injection fluids typically have concentrations of
constituents exceeding standards set by the National Primary or
Secondary Drinking Water Regulations. Based on injectate
characteristics and possibilities for attenuation and dilution,
injection does occur in sufficient volumes or at sufficient rates
to cause an increase in concentration (above background levels)
of National Primary or Secondary Drinking Water Regulation
4 — 104
-------
5A5,6
parameters in ground water, or endanger human health or the
environment beyond the facility perimeter.
Several States have rated the contamination potential of
both 5A5 and 5A6 wells as low. Several case studies of Class V
wells associated with both 5A5 and 5A6 are presented in the
California and Nevada State reports. The reports state that
assurance of mechanical integrity is assumed in the contamination
potential rating. The rating system used in this report does not
give as much weight to proper construction, operation, and
maintenance as the State reports.
Current Regulatory Approach
Electric power and direct heat reinjection wells are
authorized by rule under Federally-administered UIC programs (see
Section 1). Based on data from the Texas, California, Oregon,
and Nevada reports, various State regulatory agencies are at
least reviewing applications to install and operate geothermal
injection wells. The Oil and Gas Division of the Railroad
Commission of Texas runs a permit program for oil, gas, and
geothermal injection wells. It is not known whether comments on
proposed projects are solicited from other State agencies in
Texas.
In California, the Geothermal Office of the California
Division of Oil and Gas (CDOG) has primary responsibility for
permitting the drilling and completion of geothermal injection
wells. Monthly reports on the operational status of the well(s)
is required along with injection volume and rate information.
The Geothermal Office also requires a yearly mechanical integrity
test and periodic analyses of injectate. The California Regional
Water Quality Control Board is also actively involved in
regulating geothermal injection. The authority exercised by the
Water Board stems from the California Administrative Code and the
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. The Water Board issues
waste discharge permits regulating the choice of the injection
zone and limiting the maximum injection pressure.
Three agencies in Oregon are responsible for oversight of
geothermal injection. The Water Resources Department (WRD)
regulates geothermal projects involving thermal fluids of less
than 250°F (120°C). These fluids are considered ground-water
resources and are the property of the public trust. Thermal
fluids 250°C or hotter are considered a portion of the surface or
mineral estate of the property and are regulated by the
Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (DOGAMI). Each
agency has procedures for drilling and standards for well
construction. Chemical analyses of the water from the production
zone, the injectate, and the injection zone are required. If an
operator plans to inject into a different aquifer than the
producing aquifer or if chemicals are added to the effluent, a
second permit is required. This is a Water Pollution Control
4 — 105
-------
5A5,6
Facilities Permit (WPCF) which is issued by the Department of
Environmental Quality.
Regulatory oversight of the drilling and operation of
geothermal injection wells in Nevada is shared by three agencies.
Two of them, the Division of Environmental Protection (DEP) and
the Division of Water Resources (DWR) are branches of the
Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. The Department
of Minerals (DOM) is the third agency. The DWR has broad
jurisdiction over appropriation of water. The DEP administers
and enforces the Nevada Pollution Control Law. This includes
evaluating the potential to pollute waters of the State by waste
disposal operations. The DOM share jurisdiction because it
administers the Geothermal Resources Law under the Nevada Revised
Statutes (NRS), Chapter 534A. The DOM and DEP are most directly
involved and their responsibilities are discussed in the next few
paragraphs.
Pursuant to NRS 534A a permit must be obtained through DOM
to drill or operate a geothermal injection well. The DOM
regulations address bonding to ensure proper plugging of
abandoned wells. Other regulations cover minimum casing,
cementing, safety, and control requirements. Before a permit can
be issued DOM is required to consult with DWR, DEP, and the
Department of Wildlife. The minimum requirements mentioned aJ ove
vary depending on whether the geothermal facility is classified
as domestic, commercial, or industrial. One area not regulated
by this agency is periodic mechanical integrity testing.
The Division of Environmental Protection also has a permit
program for geothermal injection wells. It is directed toward
demonstrating the mechanical integrity of injection wells and
that the heat spent fluids are injected into a zone of similar
chemical quality within the geothermal reservoir. Baseline
hydrogeological studies and analyses of both injection fluid and
injection zone formation water may be required to obtain a
permit. The DEP evaluates the need for a permit and permit
requirements on an individual project basis where geology,
hydrogeology, flow rates, and potential impacts are considered.
Geothermal injection on Federal lands may involve obtaining
State and Federal permits. On a Federal level, the Bureau of
Land Management has regulatory jurisdiction over geothermal in-
jection operations at several facilities in California. They
review the injection plans and approve well construction. No
requirements for periodic, mechanical integrity tests, or injec-
tate analyses are made by BLM. The CDOG does not extend its
authority to include these facilities on Federal land. In
Nevada, DEP would require all appropriate State permits be
obtained in addition to Federal permits (Mr. Daniel Gross, DEL ’,
1986). How other States interface with Federal agencies to
regulate geothermal injection on Federal lands is not known.
4 — 106
-------
5A7
Some aspects of geothermal injection are regulated on a
local level in Oregon. Subjects addressed are spacing require-
ments between production and injection wells and pump test
requirements (Forcella, 1984). To date this is the only reported
State having local ordinances or codes.
Recommendations
In general, these types of geothermal wells are sited,
constructed and operated in such a way as to protect USDW. Two
areas needing improvement have been identified by States which
use geothermal wells. These are mechanical integrity testing and
initial chemical analyses of injectate, and injection zone
waters, followed by annual analyses of injectate.
Geothermal injection would have a high contamination poten-
tial if mechanical integrity could not be assured. Nevada
strongly recommends that USEPA fund a detailed study on the types
of MIT available for geothermal systems and the resolution of
each method. The Bureau of Land Management does not require
periodic mechanical integrity tests at any of the facilities
under their jurisdiction in California. Annual MIT also are not
required by DEP in Nevada. Another aspect of this problem is
that there are many types of MIT. Many of these are based on
well designs and reservoir conditions typical to the oil
industry.
According to the California and Nevada reports, initial
analyses of injectate and injection zone water quality are needed
to establish baseline reservoir conditions. Annual injectate
analyses will indicate any changing conditions possibly dictating
new construction, siting, or operating conditions at a facility.
Parameters included in the analyses, as recommended in the
California and Nevada reports, should be temperature, inorganic
constituents of the National Primary and Secondary Drinking Water
Regulations, plus alkalinity, hardness, silica (Si0 2 ), boron, and
ammonia nitrogen (NH 3 and NH 4 +), gross alpha, and beta.
4.2.2.2 Heat Pump/Air Conditioning Return Flow Wells (5A7)
Well Purpose
With the recent rise in costs of residential heating oil and
natural gas, many mericans have begun to realize the need for
conservation of energy. The use of ground—water heat pumps has
become increasingly common for residential space heating or cool-
ing needs. Ground-water heat pumps are particularly efficient in
areas where ground water is readily available and where there is
extreme variation in seasonal temperatures.
The operation of a ground-water heat pump involves taking
thermal energy (heat) from ground water and transferring it to
4 — 107
-------
5A7
the space being heated. The process is reversed when cooling is
required as heat pumps remove excess heat from a building and put
it into the ground water. Ground—water heat pumps do not consume
any water in the heat exchange process. Whatever volumes of
water are supplied to the system must be returned to the environ-
ment; therefore, owner/operators are faced with finding a method
to discharge the spent water.
There are several options available for disposal of heat
pump/air conditioning effluent including return to the source
aquifer, injection into an alternative aquifer, discharge for
secondary use (e.g. irrigation), discharge to surface, etc. The
most commonly recommended method of discharge is the return of
water to the aquifer from which it was extracted. Subsurface
injection of spent water qualifies heat pump/air conditioning
return flow wells as Class V injection wells per 40 CFR
146.5(e) (1).
Inventory and Location
The compilation of a national inventory of heat pump/air
conditioning return flow wells has been complicated by insuff 1-
cient delineation of the type 5A subclasses within the Federal
Underground Injection Control Reporting System (FURS) and State
reports. Another complicating factor is errant classification of
heat pump/air conditioning return flow wells as cooling water
return flow wells, and vice versa. There are 10,017 heat pump!
air conditioning return flow wells inventoried to date, and their
distribution throughout the United States is presented in Table
4—24.
Well Construction, Operation, and Siting
Construction. Heat pump/air conditioning return flow wells
are constructed in a variety of ways throughout the United
States. Typically, waters are returned to the surface through
shallow, large diameter wells and horizontal wells (Figure 4-17),
small diameter wells (Figure 4-18), or in some instances,
drainfields. Information from State reports show that the average
depth of heat pump/air conditioning return flow wells in the
conterminous United States is approximately 190 feet, with well
depths ranging from 19 to 930 feet. Return flow wells that are
completed in sand and/or gravel facilitate water movement. Heat
pump/air conditioning return flow wells must be constructed as
well as, if not better, than the ground-water supply wells. Iowa
suggests that the well should be cased from the surface through
the top of the injection zone. Casing aids in supporting the
walls of the well (borehole) and helps keep out possible surface
contaminants. Three States (Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska)
recommend that when boreholes are drilled oversize, the annular
space (empty space between the casing and the borehole) should be
4 — 108
-------
5A7
TAELE 4-24: SYNOPSIS OP STATE I PORTS FOP tEAT P1W/AIR COIOITIOWINO RETI FLOW tELLS(5A7)
S1OW I EPA
1 PESIOW
STATES
Confined Requlatory I Case Stuthes/ Contasination
Presence Syste. Unfo. availabiel Potential
Of Well Type I Rating
Connecticut • 1
IMaine I
Massachusetts 1
INew HaWshire 1
rnde Island •
Iysrwtt I
I
12 LLS
NO
10 lELLS
2 MI.LS
M I
t O
P IT
I N/A
PERMIT>1 ( D
N/A
N/A
I N/A
I YES
M I
I YES
YES
M I
tO
I
MIlE
N/A
LOW
N/A
N/A
N/A
IN u Jersey
New York
IPuirto Rico
IVirgin Islands
II
II
II
• II
181 lELLS
YES
tO
NO
RILE/PERMIT
PERMIT
N/A
‘ N/A
YES
MI
Mt
Mt
N/A
LOW
N/A
N/A
Delaware
Maryla nd
IPennsylvania
IViroanta
West Virginia
III
III
III
III
I II
164 tELLS
368 tELLS
24 €.LS
1,7 5 tELLS
Ml
PERMIT
PERMIT
N/A
N/A
‘ N/A
NO
tO
• 10
YES
14)
LOW
LOIEST/3 TYPES
LClEST/6 TYPES
N/A
N/A
Alabasa IV
IFlorida IV
gia IV
kentucky IV
IMississ ppi IV
Ulorth Carolina , IV
IScuth Carolina IV
Tennessee I IV
I
Mt
2 671 tELLS
Iii tELLS
• YES
7 WELLS
1 79 WELLS
1 60 WELLS
1 70 WELLS
I
• N/A
P IT
BN8 ED
N/A
N/A
PERMIT
RILE
N/A
I
I C
t O
tO
NO
• MI
Mt
1 YES
NO
r
N/A
7TH HIGIEST/8 TYPES
LOW
N/A
N/A
LOW
lD H1 €ST/3 TYPES
LOW
I
illinois V
indiana V
flichigan I V
Minnesota V
lOWlo I V
!W isc o ns in V
I
• 57 WELLS
1 236 WELLS
• 760 WELLS
34 WELLS
• 73WELL 5
1 4WELLS
RILE -
N/A
N/A
PERMIT
N/A
RILE
I
NO
10
14)
• tO
Mt
• YES
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
LOW
LOW
I rkansas
tLonisiana
INew rssico
Ok lahcsa
Texas
V i
VI
VI
VI
VI
I Mt
• 5 tELLS
1 27 IQLS
• >100 WELLS
1 1,014 WELLS
N/A
PERMIT
REGISTRATIOW
RILE
RILE
IC
Mt
NI)
t O
YES
N/A
LOW
LOW
I LOW
LOW
I
iowa
kansas
Misscuri
INebraska
I
VII
VII
VII
VII
I
1 17 WELLS
394 WELLS
1 741 WELLS
650 WELLS
N/A
N/A
REGISTRATION
RILE
14)
MI
• NO
NO
I
LOW
LOW
: LOW
LOW
p
•
I
Colorado
II’mntana
IIbth Dakota
ISonth Dakota
IUtah
Wyowlng
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
2 WELLS
20 WELLS
• 135 WELLS
48 WELLS
I 7 WELLS
7 WELLS
N/A
#0 1
RILE
N/A
1 PERMIT
1 P IT
14 1
M I
Ml
I NO
MI
1 MI
L I
LOW
I LOW
I LOW
N/A
4 17H19EST)
8TH HIEI€ST/10 1YPESI
*izona
California
Hawaii
Nevada
ierican Saaoa
ITt. Terr. of P
Guae
DIII
I
IX YES 1 tOE
IX 53 WELLS I PERMIT
IX IC I N/A
IX YES I N/A
IX I IC N/A
IX tO I N/A
• IX IC N/A
IX I I C I N/A
I NO
NO
to
NO
I 140
tO
1 NO
NO
I
LOW
LOW
N/A
LOW
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
I
ALaska
:Idaho
1th e on
:Washinqton
I
X
• X
1
X
7 WELLS I F IT
20 WELLS P IT
13 WELLS I PERMIT>SC GPD
110 WELLS I PERMIT
I
MI 1 NOOERATE
NO :12Th HI EST/14TYPESI
NO I N/A I
I NO I LOW
MITE: SOlE MX EERS IN ThIS TASLE N ESTIMATES.
4—109
-------
5A7
Heat_Pump
Static Water Level
c7
‘I
— Injection Tube
Gravel Pack
Well Screen
Heat Pump
SHALLOW WELLS
A. HORIZONTAL
B. LARGE DIAMETER
(From McCray Ed. 1983 NWWA PubHcatjon) Figure 4—17
\ , ,. .Injection Water Level
Injection Tube
4—110
-------
Static Water Level
- Casing
Open Hole
Stone Formation
Well Screen
Sand, Gravel Aquifer
DEEPER SMALL DIAMETER WELLS
A. COMPLETED IN STONE
B. COMPLETED IN SAND
Figure 4—18
1I i
Injection Tube
Casing
lIii
4-111
-------
5A7
filled with cement or clay grout to prevent introduction of
contaminants from the surface. (See Figure 4-19.)
Operation. Although the most common operation of heat
pump/air conditioning return flow wells is through gravity flow,
this is not always possible. In aquifers with low perrneabili-
ties, return flow waters may need to be pressurized to produce
sufficient infiltration rates. Also, most aquifers will not
accept 100% of their yields. An aquifer which yields 10 gallons
per minute (gpm) will readily accept only 7.8 gpm of the return
flow, potentially allowing the remaining 2.2 gpm to run out on
the ground. These problems are alleviated by the use of pumps to
pressurize return flows or by the storage of water to slow return
flow rates enough to allow total return.
Siting. Siting is a very important factor in the use of
heat pump/air conditioning return flow wells. The National Water
Well Association recommends the return of heat pump/air condi-
tioning return flow effluent to the production aquifer, providing
the water remains in a closed system. There are several methods
for returning water to its source, including the use of a single
well for both supply and return; the use of two wells which
alternate between supply and return, depending on the season; and
the use of two wells, one a permanent supply, one a permanent
return. The most efficient well system is the two well
alternating system, but it is also the most costly and it is used
on a limited basis in the United States. Discharge to aquifers
other than the production aquifer also occurs on a limited basis.
However, this method is not widely accepted unless the supply and
return aquifers are chemically compatible.
Injected Fluids and Injection Zone Interactions
Nature of Injected Fluids. Generally heat pump/air condi-
tioning return flow wells dispose or return supply water which
has been only thermally altered. Even in cases where poor
quality ground water is supplied to the heat pump, additives
generally are not used. Water with high concentrations of metals
and salts, high or low pH, or even water that is not of drinking
water quality is readily utilized in these systems by simply
using fixtures and components which resist scaling, incrustation,
and corrosion of the plumbing and piping.
Water flow requirements for heat pump/air conditioning sys-
tems depend on several factors: 1) System size and design
(varies widely with application), 2) water flow per BTU/hour of
heating (varies among systems), and 3) temperature of ground-
water source (should provide 50,000 BTIJ/hour of output -- typical
requirements for an average modern home). A heat pump/air
conditioning system typically consumes between 7,500 and 21,600
gallons per day (gpd), depending on the systems s design. The use
of heat pumps to heat water for household use in addition to
space heating or large commercial systems may require much more
4 — 112
-------
5A7
\\\\\\\‘ S ‘‘ S ‘
‘ 5
. rge 5 Drillhole::, :
\ s\ ’ , ‘\ ‘ ,\\\ ‘ , .\\ •
\ \ \‘ ‘.‘ , N ‘ ‘
\ ‘ ‘ ,‘‘ ‘
\\\\\\\\\\\ \ ‘ . ‘ “
Qi Lo’a’m
S S \ ‘‘ S ‘‘ ‘ .25 ’.
5 ’
5’-.. ..‘ - , -
,\\\\\, ,\‘s N. ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ,
N
$r t ‘
polluted Water
a.
Lø 1Q& cLayQ — j
-:Cement _ t:::::: :::::
-:—: :-:—:—:—:-:—:—:—:—:-—:-:—:-—
:- Casrng P pe:::::::..
Screen
PROPER GROUTING OR CEMENTATION
OF ANNULAR SPACE
(From McCray Ed. 1983 NWWA Publication) Figure 4—19
4—113-
-------
5A7
water. Information from the national inventory suggests that flow
rates throughout the United States vary from 2,500 gpd for small
residential applications to 1,000,000 gpd at a shopping mall.
Injection Zone Interactions. The most significant interac-
tions which occur when returning spent heat pump/air conditioning
return flow to the source aquifer involve thermal alteration of
the aquifer water. Generally, thermal alteration of an aquifer
can alter water chemistry and viscosity, aquifer permeability and
porosity, and the physical characteristics of the water. How-
ever, little is known about the specific effects of thermal
alteration on aquifers.
Chemical equilibria in an aquifer is a very fragile balance,
and in certain cases, it may require only slight temperature
changes to precipitate certain salts or solids or to take more
into solution. Furthermore, hydrolysis of certain metals may be
achieved with only slight temperature changes. Temperature also
affects the ambient pressure within an aquifer and may stimulate
or retard bacterial growth.
There are -several factors which influence the rate of
thermal impact within an aquifer. They include flow rates,
volumes, and temperature disparities between injected and
receiving waters. Heat is transported through an aquifer by
combinations of convection and conduction. The movement of ther-
mal fronts within an aquifer is influenced primarily by parame-
ters which control the flow of water. Temperature fronts advance
faster in aquifers which have smaller values of the porosity-
thickness product. The minimum distance to which injected water
fronts travel is inversely proportional to the square root of the
product of porosity and thickness. Aquifers with high hydrody-
naxnic di.spersivity increase the movement and speed of thermal
fronts. In addition, the heat capacities of the specific water
and rock in an aquifer control the quantities of heat stored.
Well siting also plays a major role in thermal front ad-
vancement. Temperatures in aquifers change more rapidly when
production wells are located downgradient from injection wells.
In addition, partial penetration or completion has nearly the
same effect (increasing the movement and speed of the thermal
front) as reducing the total aquifer thickness to the length of
the completed interval.
Well spacing plays one of the most significant roles in
temperature change within an aquifer. The temperature difference
between inlet and outlet ends of a heat pump is fixed for a given
heat pump; therefore, the temperature of the injected water
changes directly with the temperature of the produced water. When
the thermal front arrives at the production well, water begins to
recycle between the wells leading to greater temperature changes
within the aquifer in shorter times. This effect could be
4 — 114
-------
5A7
multiplied if heat pumps with supply and injection wells were
installed on adjacent properties.
The most serious interaction occurs when waters are returned
to aquifers other than the source. In addition to thermal impacts
resulting from injection, if receiving waters are not chemically
compatible with injected waters, then chemical interactions re-
sulting from thermal impacts may be more severe.
Hydrogeology and Water Use
Most heat pump/air conditioning return flow wells inject
spent waters directly into USDW. The majority of these ground-
water heat pump systems are installed at residences, and domestic
supply wells are often the source for heat pump systems in
residential applications. Because returning the spent water to
its source is the most common method of disposal for heat pump
effluent, we can see that injection to USDW is prevalent. The
expense of drilling usually mandates return to the shallowest
formations. Since shallower aquifers often are of higher
quality, this is a major concern. Private or public supply wells
completed in the vicinity of the injection zone consequently are
subject to any thermal and/or chemical changes which may occur in
the aquifer. The degree to which they may be vulnerable depends
on a number of items, including distance (horizontal and verti-
cal) from injection operations, volumes of injected fluids,
hydraulics of the aquifer, amount of water drawn in the supply
well, etc. Domestic supply wells and heat pump/air conditioning
return flow wells often are completed in formations less than 200
feet deep.
While it does not occur often, heat pump/air conditioning
return flow is sometimes injected into formations other than the
supply aquifer. Usually, these are shallower formations, and the
practice is implemented to minimize installation costs (drilling
costs are less). Receiving waters in these formations are
subject to the same changes as the original aquifer but with
higher chances of chemical alteration. If the receiving forma-
tion is an USDW which supplies public or private facilities,
those supply wells are subject to alterations. The same factors
previously discussed would affect the degree of alteration.
Water use and hydrogeology should be key points in determining
proper siting and location of heat pump/air conditioning return
flow wells.
Contamination Potential
Based on the rating system described in Section 4.1, heat
pump/air conditioning return flow wells are assessed to pose a
low potential to contaminate USDW. These wells typically do
inject into or above Class I or Class II USDW. Typical well
construction, operation, and maintenance would not allow fluid
4 — 115
-------
5A7
injection or migration into unintended zones. Injection fluids
typically are of equivalent quality (relative to standards of the
National Primary or Secondary Drinking Water Standards and RCRA
Regulations) than the fluids within any USDW in connection with
the injection zone. Based on injectate characteristics and
possibilities for attenuation and dilution, injection does not
occur in sufficient volumes or at sufficient rates to cause an
increase in concentrations (above background levels) of the
National Primary or Secondary Drinking Water Regulation
parameters in ground water, or endanger human health or the
environment beyond the facility perimeters or in a region studied
on a group/area basis.
One of the most serious threats to TJSDW through the use of
heat pump/air conditioning return flow wells is thermal degrada-
tion of an aquifer. Thermal change resulting from injection of
heat pump effluent occurs in all aquifers, at least temporarily.
The degree to which it occurs depends on several factors.
A study conducted by the NWWA in 1979 used a computer model
to determine thermal impacts that might be expected as a result
of heat pump discharge into a water supply aquifer. To limit
the variables, the model kept the aquifer characteristics, well
design, and well spacing constant. It was determined that measu-
rable changes in aquifer temperatures can be expected to occur if
ground water used by a heat pump is returned to the subsurface.
While the changes are measurable, and the migration of a
thermal front from the injection well may be anticipated, it
should be noted that aquifer characteristics (a constant in the
study) play a very important role. For example, an aquifer one-
half the thickness used in the simulation will expand the thermal
front at twice the rate. The hydraulics of an aquifer also play
an important role in expanding thermal fronts.
The possibility also exists for chemical alteration as a
result of temperature changes within an aquifer. Solids present
in an aquifer are at equilibrium, which is to say that all those
solids that will dissolve under the present conditions have done
so. Changing physical conditions (i.e. changing the temperature)
will alter the equilibrium within the aquifer. Usually, a
temperature increase will bring more solids into solution and
result in increased total dissolved solids (TDS). Increased TDS
in turn, may result in degradation of the water so that drinking
water standards are threatened, or it may result in altered
ground-water flow. Conversely, lowering ambient aquifer tempera-
ture may result in precipitation of certain salts and metals
which can lead to formation plugging and subsequent flow changes.
In addition, thermal changes may result in the hydrolysis of
certain metals within an aquifer and an increase or decrease in
biological activity.
Furthermore, thermal interference may occur within an
aquifer between heat pump supply wells and injection wells. While
4 — 116
-------
5A7
this is a threat to supply waters, it is probably not permanent
and can be easily alleviated by discontinuing injection.
The practice of injecting poor quality waters into high
quality tJSDW presents a potential threat of direct contamination
of ground water. Fortunately, this practice is not common. It
is believed to be happening on such a small scale that the threat
is not serious. Such operations actively degrade the waters into
which they are injecting.
Possibly the most serious threat to USDW resulting from use
of heat pump/air conditioning systems is the practice of surface
discharge. In certain areas of the country ground—water supplies
are being rapidly depleted through the use of heat pump/air
conditioning systems discharging to the surface.
Current Regulatory Approach
Heat pump/air conditioning return flow wells are authorized
by rule under the Federally-administered UIC programs. Based on
data compiled in 1983, most states chose to regulate heat
pump/air conditioning return flow wells as a part of their TJIC
programs (Table 4-25). However, the data in Table 4-25 are not
entirely consistent with the infprmation compiled in the State
report.
To date, 16 States in the conterininous United States require
permits for the injection of heat pump/air conditioning discharge
waters. These requirements are administered by a variety of
State agencies. For example, most States with regulatory policies
promote the return of spent waters to the production aquifer.
While some aspects of the regulatory policies differ widely,
common factors include prohibited injection of either waters used
in contact systems or chemically altered waters, mandated separa-
tions between injection and supply wells ranging from 50 to 500
feet, and required submittal of maps or sketches showing injec-
tion well location in relation to supply wells, streams, ponds,
lakes, water courses, buildings, etc. Most States, in accordance
with USEPA administered UIC programs, require the reporting of
these systems for inventory purposes. Local governments
generally are not attempting to regulate heat pump air
conditioning return wells at the present time.
Recommendations
Because aquifer characteristics play an important role in
the degree of thermal degradation and, therefore, chemical
alteration, some States recommended that each well location be
examined on the basis of its own characteristics. Several States
4 — 117
-------
‘Da.E 4—25
axsseIy of a ater Heet Ibip Use aid fluset Dicçs a Regulaticrw by Staten (Source: PtQ ay, 1983)
Th Pethn ge ‘lb airfane ‘lb Sqtic
State Water Use Well Water ‘lb lad ‘lbz** ‘lb S
A laba ma No permit needed Siuple permit required by Theoretically Not a prthlen if A loophele in Would prthably be
to use water for H-P Water ]flproweient co,ered by discharge to laid regulations-this allotted alsost
under danastic mnissinn. Well regulated NPDES-hatever ac ted by H-P user type of discharge is azwwhere—
category as Cass V well utter this systen usually allotted-if tank is altinigh in masy
Undergroard Injection sot equipped to big anigh art far areas would be
Critrol Program (UIC) coraider stall ernagh fran well coat-prthibitive
danestic use so in
scat cases could
just discharge
witheut a permit
Alaska No prthlen to No stechanian to require a
thtain water rights permit or to prewent this
type of irdectiat well
Arizona No prthlam to Will be regulated by rule
cbtain water use— as Class V well utter m c
falls into dazeetic vdari the state thtasns
category——so permit primacy
reedS
Arkansas No permit needed Permit required by D t.
for water use of of Pollution zitrol art
this type &ology as Class V well
un d erU l c
California 32 counties cut of At present, there are on
58 total require regulations. In the
permits for all futire, may be regulated
wells by the regional water
quality control boards
art through UlC
O loracb No permit needed Permit required by state
for a well that engineer
has a yield less
than 15 gpn
C nnecticut Diversion permit Permitted as Class V
required for use well utter DIC
of sore than
50.000 d
* If to information La provided in this coltznn, regulations pertaining to this type of discharge are similar to these in Alabama
**ap lscale daneatic heat purp utilization only
01
- 1
-------
..E 4—25. tiii
Su_neary of sñieter Heat Rnp Hee aed f1 seit Di 1 Ragulati e by Statees (Searcea 1983)
1 iazqe lb & f ace lb S tic
State Water Use Wail W aters lb L.aml lank lb Se er*
Delaware No prthleu to use State policy is to
water-would be escourage reinjecticzi.
classified as a Pennittel through UIC
dcxnestic well-no as Class V well
pezmit required
Florida A pennit would be Pemut required by
required for this Dspt. of &wironnental
vol sne of water Regulation as Class V
use well ueler UIC
Georgia No pannit needed Reinjection Cf nooling
for use less than water is allaeed in
100.000 g_pd state. No permit is
z uir& for this
}fawaii Classified as a A regulation ecists
danestic well-so that requires
no prthlen to permission for
abtain water use disposal wells aril
wasteete.r disposal—
kvNever not eif arced
at present
Idaki No permit needed Penmit will be granted No prablea eccept in critical grourd water areas where racharge back to the
for danestic use— if water quality equifera zld be required
eccept in critical ranains the sane
ground water
area—need a permit
for aw use note
than 13.000 gpd
flhinoia Danestic use Heat pimp return wells
classif ice tion-- are unregulated. The
no permit state EPA has the 3uris-
needed diction to permit then
but has chosen not to
do so at the present
tine
* If no infornati.on is prcwided in this colunn, regulations pertaining to this type of discharge are similar to these in Alabama
**&p ls e danestic heat puip utilization only
01
>
-.1
-------
N.E 4—25. 0,tinued
9 ’y of GrQII ter t Puip Use w fluaut Diaponal ReguLations by State (Source: ) ay. 1983)
b Retharge b &zrf ace b Septic
State Water Use Well Weter* ¶b Laid Thr.k*
Indjaria DQ setiC use-—no ( nvantional ani cooling Board of Health
pennit needed water rediarge wells not pennit—no special
regulated—tbuugh Streen prdilea to thtain
trol Bond has
theoretical authority.
Pernitting regulations
currently being considered
No permit needed The state s not
for danestic use aàninistering the UIC.
Heat puip wells suet
be registered with U.S.
EPA. Users are encouraged
to consult with Io ia
Geological Surve 3 ’ before
construction
Kansas A weter No regulations at presont
appropriation but will prthably reguire
permit culd be a permit as Class V well
needed ofIJIC
Kentucky Private use—no Will prthably be
pennit required regulated as Class V
F ’ .) well uxthr UIC
0
Louisiana No pennit raguired Rennit reguired as
Class V well of UIC
No permit needed Permit raiuir& by
for this type of Water Bureau of
weter use Dept. of Eriirorsental
Protection
Wazylard A permit would be Permit reguired at
needed for use of county le,e.l. Dee
this type county has banned
heat puxpe
Hassachisetts No permit needed Registration will be
for this type of reguired with the
weter use Division of Water
Pollution Omtrol
as Class V well
un3er UIC
* If no infonsetion is provided in this onlunn. regulations pertaining to this type of disdiarge are similar to these in Alabama
**9pall_ ale dunsetic heat puip utilization only
C))
>
- .4
-------
&.3 4—25. Q iitiis
& sery of o tar t I iip Use aid Effluest Di p” Regulaticris by State (Smirce: 1983)
¶b R iarge b Norface Th S tic
State Weter Use Well W ater 5 m s r
Michigan No permit needed No penrat required
for this type of by Water Resources
water use tnusslcn as long as
heat puip has a heat
eccharige rate less
than 120.000 Stu/hour
or has ro theiucal
a3dit ives
Minnesota No pexmit required mi1t required by
Dlpt. of Health.
Druikirig water well
niay rot be used as
supply well. Weter
mast be reu ectad
to seas equifer in
a closed 3/sten. lb
other type of
dispesal alioied
Mississippi No peniut required Fennit required as
ass V well of
UIc
Missouri No pexmxt needed Permit required by
— D ,t. of Nateral
Resources unless
heat pup is ithaited
to single family
residerte or is
limited to eight or
f seer single family
resi roes with a
cai*iinid in)ectioril
withfrseal rate of
600.000 Btu/haur
t.tzatana ( rtificmte of water mass V well of UIC
right is needed—ro
seriaas prthlen to
thtain
* If ro information is provided in this colunn. regulations pertaining to this type of discharge are suaular to these in Alabama
**9 11. sca1e danestic heat puip utilization only
(.n
>
-------
State
Water Use
b I 1arge
Well
lb rface 1b Segtic
Weter ‘lb lant nk To Sewer*
N raska
No pexnu t needed
Permit reguired as
class v well of UIC.
New regulations
sible in susier
of 1983
Nerada
Permit i1d be
regul red
Not regulated at this
tine but prthably will
be in the future
New Hanpshire
No peniut needed
Notification reguir&..
Wells regulated as
class V wells of
u:rc
New Jersey
No permit needed
Permit reguires wells
5 feet apart and weter
returned to seas
eguifer
New Z4ecico
Permit neeaed for
use of this
magnitude
Regulated un x New
) cico’ s ecisting
grmind ‘eater
regulations on a
case—by—case basis
New York
lb permit needed
Dealt with on an ad
bac basis by Division
of Water Dapt. of
wironTentaL
iservation. Mey
reluire a disd arge
permit if a unit
presents a possible
tbannal pOLlution
prthl n
North
No pannit re uir&
Red ar well reguires
( zolin a
a paxmit as a Class—V—A
well under the state’s
DIC
North Dajuita
Standard
appropriation
permit needed
Registration regw.red as
Class V well of DIe
4—25. clxititusel
Suisery of Grusdieter t Rs Use and fluest Dj ’ . 1 Rsgulatia by 5 as 3983)
-I
r
N
* If no information is prwided in this colunn. regulations pertaining to this type of distharge are similar to these in ? labama
**9p a l-s ale danesuc heat pimp utilization only
-------
&.E 4—2 5 . itfri d
eaiy of Gru ter Beat I sp Use aed f1uset Di ’ ’1 Regu1atia L State’ (Soi’ rt , 1983)
lb I iarge lb Qizf e lb Septic
State I t Use 1 l1 t ’ lb Laid Thnk 1b Sewer*
duo No permit needed No permit required. The
for da amtic use state ‘A has recaimended
onnstruction and ngeration
, . tdures
Okiahona No permit needed Will be treated as Class V
for &znestic use well of UIC for permitting
purposes
egnn Less than 15.000 Permit nd report required
gpd—no permit by Water Resources Dept. as
required l tat ratwe geothermal
well
Pennsylvania No çenmut needed No regulations. fl state
is not edqiting the UIC
program. Bureau of Water
Quality ziagement s gests
returning weter to its
original source
Rhode Island No permit needed pproial will be required RIPDFS msy require
as Class V well of UIC a ainplq permit
South No çecnit needed Pending legislation will
C rolxna designate heat puap wells
as Class V-B wells. Wells
will not need permits but
will be reportel.
struction standards
are being xisidered.
South Da mta No pernut needed Will be regulated as
Class V well under UIC
Tennessee No pennit needed Heat pts s will be
for weter use less regulated by UIC.
than 50.000 Pro sed rules cclude
danastic heat p.znps
fran permit requirarents.
Caimeicial and irdustrial
heat pumps will be
permitted by rule as
Class V well of (JIC
If no i.nfonuation is prorided in this anlumni. regulations pertaining to this type of disdiarge are similar to those in Alabama
**p ] l_s e damestic heat pump utilization only
-------
.E 4—25. QLtinued
-. ‘y of Grusi.eter Rest PuIV Use atd fluait fl 4 . pr 1 ReguIatia by State” (Scsirce. Cray. 1983)
1b fese Us Septic
State Wet Use Well s a
Texas No exmit needed Autherized by rule as
for weter use Class V well of UIC
Utah Pennit needed for Class V well of UZC
use of aw type
Vemcnt No permit needed Prthably will be
regulated as Class V
well urrier UIC
Virginia No permit needed Currestly o x sidering
regulations that would
reguire a general
national pOllutant
discharge elimination
systen permit for snail
heat pi.zips aM a
specific NPDES pennit
far large units.
Waelungton Pexnut needed for Discharge permit not
use of nore than r uired on single
5.000 fanxly residen .
Ar thing lar r reguirea
—& I ennit fran Dept. of
ology
West Virginia No permit needed Return wells are
Class V wells uniter UIC.
Ho. ever . there are no
plans to reguire permits
at thi . tine
Wisconsin No permit needed Reir ectiOn of water
alla ed only by permit
through ecperllTental
progran rurming thro h
1984
Wycxn ing No permit needed Rennit rapured to
rscharge water
* If no infoxration is prcwided in this column, regulations pertaining to this type of discharge are sinniar to those in Z*labazna
** p 1_scale danestic heat pisp utilization only
01
-J
-------
5A7
recommended that guidelines for construction, siting, and
operation be developed. Some of these guidelines included the
following:
1. Return wells should be cased through the top of
the injection formation (IA);
2. Annular spaces should be cemented or grouted (IA,
KS, NE, TN); -
3. Return should be in to or above the supply aquifer
(LA, IA, KS, SC);
4. Closed loop systems should be required (TN, UT);
5. Discharge should be to the surface rather than to
an injection well (LA);
6. Adequate spacing should be provided between
injection wells and supply wells (KS, NE, SC);
7. Authorization by rule is appropriate for properly
spaced and operated systems (SC).
8. Volumes and temperatures of injected fluids should
be monitored (NC);
9. Records should be maintained by counties and
periodically uploaded to the State water rights data
management center in order to monitor well density
(WA);
10. Analyses of receiving waters should be carried out
periodically to monitor changes in aquifer temper-
ature and chemistry (KS, WA);
11. Permits for development of a commercial system
should include requirements for water quality
characterizations of both source and receiving
water (WA).
12. More research is needed on the theoretical
environmental effects of heat pumps (MO, SC, AZ);
13. New regulatory Systems should be directed at
large-scale systems rather than at systems for
single family dwellings (LA, OK, TX);
14. The state permitting agency should set
construction standards and ensure that wells are
constructed and operated properly (FL, KS, MO,
NE, SC, WA);
4 — 125
-------
5A8
15. The waste product should include no additives or
only approved additives (LA, KS, NE);
16. A licensed water well contractor should be
employed to install, rework, and plug/seal the
well (LA, IL); and
17. A policy of prohibiting new well installation in
known or suspected contaminated aquifers should be
developed and implemented by states. This policy
would be administered by local government (WA).
4.2.2.3 Aquaculture Return Flow Wells (5A8)
Well Purpose
Aquaculture is the active cultivation of marine and fresh
water animals and plants. When raised in environments in which
temperature, food rations, and other factors can be regulated,
fish and shellfish can undergo rapid growth through high
efficiency of feed conversion to useable protein (McNeil, 1978).
Geothermal aquaculture utilizes relatively warm water from the
earth. Primarily, low-grade geothermal ground water is used for
this purpose, though steam and hot water reservoir supplies also
may be used. Warm water aquaculture also can derive the
necessary heat from a variety of sources such as reuse of waste
heat from thermal power generation sources or industrial
processes. Aquaculture is not limited to warm water resources,
and certain facilities use cold marine water to cultivate sea
life.
Injection generally is an acceptable technique for disposal
of liquid and semi—solid wastes associated with aquaculture.
Dis.posal by injection has the advantage of replenishing the
ground-water resource, often requiring no pumping, and being
technically feasible. These injection wells are recognized as
Class V wells according to 40 CFR 146.5(e) (12). Because of the
variety of water sources for aquaculture, only some aquaculture
wastewater disposal wells are actually return flow wells.
Inventory and Location
At present, the only documented aquaculture waste disposal
wells inventoried are located in the State of Hawaii (Table 4—
26). These facilities are on the islands of Oahu and Hawaii and
include seven active, three standby, and fifteen proposed
injection wells. This data is summarized by facility and
presented in Table 4-27.
4 — 126
-------
TABLE 4-21 ,: SYNOPSIS OF STATE PURTS FOR OIKIdATER AQORCULTtI RET1 FLOR LLS(5AB)
5A8
I 6IOR I EPA Confiresd
& I RESION Presence
STATES Of Well Type
IConnecticut I NO
Maine I NO
Ma ssachusetts I NO
INew Ha sInre I I NO
ode Island I NO
Vermcmt I NO
Requlat -y Case Studies! C itasinaticn
Sytes Unfo. available Potential
Ratinq
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
I NO N/A
i NO N/A
NO N/A
NO N/A
I NO N/A
NO N/A
INew Jersey
INewYork
Puarto Rico
IVirqin Islands
I
II NO
II NO
II NO
II I NO
I
N/A
N/A
14/A
N/A
I
NO
NO
NO
I C
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
I
IDe! aware III ‘ NO
Maryland III NO
Pennsy lvania • III NO
Viroin ia III I
West Virginia 111 IC
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
I N/A
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
IAlabaaa
Flcrida
6esrgia
1 Kentucky
Mississippi
tóth Carolina
Scuth Carolina
Uennessae
• IV NO
IV IC
• IV NO
IV I NO
• IV NO
IV I C
• IV M I
IV NO
, N/A IC N/A
N/A I NO N/A
N/A NO N/A
N/A NO N/A
• N/A NO N/A
N/A I NO N/A
• N/A NO WA
N/A I IC N/A
: •-•
Ullinois V IC
l lndiana V NO
Michigan V NO
IMinnesota V PC
V NO
Wisconsin I V NO
•
N/A
N/A
N/A
• N/A
N/A
1 N/A
NO
IC
PC
IC
IC
IC
N/A
I N/A
N/A
WA
N/A
N/A
‘kansas I VI 1 M I I N/A 1 IC
Louisiana VI 1 NO I N/A I NO
INew Mexico I VI I NO I N/A I IC
lOkiahosa VI IC I N/A I NO
Texas VI NO 1 N/A ‘ IC
I
N/A
N/A
• WA
WA
• N/A
I
I
Ilawa
kansas
Miseouri
INebraska
I
VII
VII
VII
VII
NO I
NO
NO I
NO I
I
I
N/A NO
N/A IC
WA NO
RILE 1 NO
I
• N/A I
WA
N/A
N/A
I
I
Colorado
P’mntana
North Dakota
South Dakota
IUtah
Wycmng
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
I
IC 1 N/A 1 NO
M I I N/A M l
IC 1 N/A I NO
IC I N/A NO
PC I P IT 1 NO
IC I WA IC
I
N/A
I N/A
N/A
I N/A
• N/A
N/A
frizona
ICalifcrn ia
IHawali
Wevada
I ric anSasoa
ITt. Tart. of P
ia.
I M II
I
I X
IX
IX
IX
II
IX
1 IX
IX
I
NO
IC
25 I LLS
IC
IC
NO
• NO
IC
N/A PC
N/A 1 PC
P iIT YES
N/A PC
WA NO
N/A 1 NO
N/A IC
WA I ND
N/A
N/A
LOW-HIGH
• WA
P4/A
• Pd/A
I N/A
N/A
I
I
lAlaska
l ldaho
eqou
IWasfiinqton
I
I X
X
I
I I
I
NO N/A
NO N/A
NO PEI UT> ( D
I NO 1 N/A
PC
IC
IC
IC
I
WA
I WA
I N/A
N/A
NOTE: SOI I4MRS IN THIS TABLE ESTII TES.
4—127
-------
5A8
TABLE 4—27
2JAQLiui WASTEWATER DISEVSAt 1
FAc1LiTJJ S Th1 HPWAII
FAcfl rW
t 1’IQ
#OF
W LS
6’rP r1US
PERMIT #
Sea Life Park
Makapuu Point,
Wairnanalo, C hu
5
Active
U01219
Marine Culture
E iterprises
Ka1 uku, Oahu
3
Standbj
U01315
Oceanic
Institute
Waimarialo, Oahu
2
Active
U0 1325
Hawaiian
?balane P rrns
Kailua-Kona,
Hawaii
15
Under Cons truction
(August, 1986)
UH1384
4 — 128
-------
5A8
Sea Life Park, of Waimanalo, Oahu, has five active disposal
wells that inject untreated aquaculture wastewater. Small
amounts of secondary treated sewage, generated on site, are also
injected. Marine Culture Enterprises, Kahuku, Oahu, is an aqua-
culture operation producing marine shrimp for resale. Three
injection wells are permitted for disposal of salt water and
untreated aquaculture wastewater used in the operation. These
wells are currently inoperative due to severe clogging problems,
and the facility utilizes canal discharge to the ocean under a
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) surface
water outfall permit. Oceanic Institute of Waimanalo, Oahu has
two active injection wells used for disposing aquaculture
wastewater which serve the secondary purpose of sanitary
wastewater disposal, originating from a small on-site septic
system. Finally, Hawaiian Abalone Farms, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii,
has proposed 15 injection wells to be used for disposal of
untreated aquaculture wastewater. At the time of the last
inventory update (August, 1986), these wells were still under
construct ion.
Construction. Siting, and Operation
Construction. Injection wells associated with disposal of
untreated aquaculture wastewater typically are simple in design.
Total depths vary, depending upon depths to injection aquifers.
For the inventoried wells, total depths range from 50 to 200 feet
below land surface. Wells typically display two different
welibore diameters. The upper portion of the welibore is larger
in diameter and is often cased with lightweight steel or PVC. If
steel is used, thinner wall thicknesses (3/16”) may be used, as
compared to thicker-walled PVC (1/2”). The injection zone is
usually below the larger welibore into a smaller—diameter uncased
welibore. Perforated or slotted liners may be present opposite
the injection zone. The diameter of the lower wellbore (when
present) usually is equal to or smaller than the diameter of the
smallest casing used at the surface. This serves two purposes:
1) providing a ledge to seat the casing, and 2) isolating the
annulus to facilitate gravel packing and cement grouting.
Injection may be facilitated by using a gravel pack when
slotted or perforated casing is used. The thickness of gravel
packing used varies but typically extends more than twenty feet
above the uppermost perforations or slots in the casing. Cement
grout may be pumped into the annulus atop the gravel packing and
returned to the surface to provide a seal. Surface projections
(weliheads) for these injection wells typically are not
elaborate. The facility where a site inspection was conducted
(Marine Culture Enterprises) was characterized by open-ended PVC
tubing for injection wellheads. This PVC connection can be
hooked up to various waste stream sources by PVC lines or hoses.
This construction design is such that almost any substance could
4 — 129
-------
5A8
be introduced into the welibore. Other facilities reporting
construction designs display similar simplicity for welihead
constructions. A schematic diagram representative of the
construction features for inventoried wells at one facility is
presented in Figure 4-20.
Siting. All data acquired to date in the investigation
indicate that no specific strategy exists for siting these
injection wells with respect to ground-water quality. Most
facilities of this type in Hawaii are located along the coast,
and the geology of the shallow aquifers in these areas is
relatively homogeneous. It is concluded, then, that siting is
conducted with primary emphasis upon proximity to the aquaculture
f a ci ]. i ty.
Operation. The three inventoried facilities with active or
standby wells use saline ocean water or brackish ground water for
aquaculture operations. The facility on the island of Hawaii
which has proposed 15 new injection wells will use cool marine
water taken directly from the Pacific Ocean. The injection wells
generally are designed for large disposal volumes, and variations
from 60,000 to 10 million gallons per day have been reported.
Because the water used for marine aquaculture must support
abundant life, water must be. continually circulated to maintain
marine conditions within the holding tanks. As such,- volumes of
effluent from the operations tend to remain relatively constant.
While injectate volumes may be constant, the composition of
effluent can vary greatly with time. This is discussed in the
following sub-section.
Some problems associated with reinjection of aquacult.ure
wastewater include:
1. The volume of water required by some operations may
represent too large a volume to be reinjected.
2. Well plugging, primarily at the injection zone
perforations, may occur if the water is used directly
in raising aquatic animals and is not pretreateci or
filtered prior to injection.
3. Depending upon the location and quality of the
geothermal water source, discharge of the used fluids
into aquifers other than the source can introduce
traces of heavy metals, organic matter, and higher con-
centrations of dissolved and suspended solids.
4. Precipitation of dissolved solids within the injection
zone, caused by the interaction between fluids of
different temperatures.
4 — 130
-------
5A8
Corregated metal casing
Solid Casing, Steel
Diameter
Rock Packing
Screen, Steel
Diameter
Open hole
16 Hole Diameter
50 Total Depth
TYPICAL WELL CONST1RUCT1ON FOR
GROUNDWATER AQUACULTURE RETURN
FLOW WELL
Figure
-10, Cement Grout
30’
1 6
10’
24
Hole
Diameter
10’
1 6
4—13 1
-------
5A8
At the present time, maintenance of mechanical integrity
within disposal wells is not known to be practiced at these
facilities. Because the injection aquifers along coastal areas
of Hawaii essentially begin at the surface, protection of certain
zones from injection fluids would not appear to be a primary
concern. Mechanical integrity should be of immediate concern if,
or when, well problems exist to the point that the injectate
overflows the welibore and causes surface problems.
Injected Fluids and Injection Zone Interactions
The facilities inventoried for this investigation typically
dispose of very large volumes of wastewater. Annual volumes from
20 million gallons (63 acre—feet) to 3.65 billion gallons (11,200
acre—feet) have been reported. Samples taken from test wells for
supply and injection sites at an inspected facility in Kahuku
displayed salinity values of 5.4 to 22.1 parts per thousand.
Detailed site—specific chemical analyses for waste streams are
not available at present, thus characterization of such effluents
must be general in nature. The wastewater is essentially salt
water with added nutrients, bacteriological growth, perished
animals, and animal detritus. The effluent likely contains
nitrates, nitrites, ammonia, high biological oxygen demand (BaD),
and orthophosphate. If geothermal ground wa.ter is used, traces
of arsenic, boron, and fluoride also may be present. As
discussed, certain of the inventoried facilities also dispose of
small volumes of treated sewage generated on-site. Nitrates and
pathogens would be constituents of most concern in that portion
of the waste stream.
Injection aquifers at these facilities are of two kinds.
Volcanic aquifers typically are highly porous, owing to their
vesicular development. Permeability usually is high and
generally is the result of fracturing associated with magmatic
cooling. The other injection aquifer typical of th ese facilities
is a “caprock formation, composed of Pleistocene coral and algal
reefs. Rocks of this type generally are characterized by
moderate primary porosity and permeability which is the result of
the decay of organic material within a calcium carbonate matrix.
Permeability may vary widely, as secondary processes can increase
or decrease porosity.
Injectivity can be negatively impacted by two phenomena: 1)
high concentrations of suspended solids in the injectate causing
filter cake buildup or clogging at the wellbore, and 2) pore
plugging due to precipitation of solids as the injectate moves
through the rock media. An example of the first problem has been
documented at one facility on the island of Oahu, where injection
of wastewater associated with shrimp farming was being conducted.
Injection wells were used between August, 1984 and February,
1985, at which time the wells began to “back up,” and continued
4 — 132
-------
5A8
injection became impossible. These wells clogged probably as a
result of high amounts of animal detritus and other debris found
within the untreated, unfiltered wastewater.
Pore plugging as a result of precipitation within the rock
media is difficult to predict, and little documentation for in
situ occurrence exists. Experimental and field data indicate
that certain salts typically present in geothermal fluids, namely
calcium carbonate and manganese carbonate, tend to precipitate
upon introduction to cooler ground water (Summers e al, 1980;
Vetter and Kanclarpa, 1982; Arnold, 1984). Because the injection
fluid is so organically diverse, a host of potential fluid/rock
interactions are possible. Prediction of these reactions is
difficult based upon theory because of numerous variables
involved. Experimental data from cores of aquifer material are
needed to adequately characterize those interactions.
Hydrogeology and Water Use
Because Hawaii is currently the ànly State in which
aquaculture return flow wells are being used (according to the
inventory), specific hydrogeologic parameters for that State
alone will be discussed. Parameters discussed here are
indicative of the hydrogeologic aspects of importance within any
State that should utilize these wells in the future.
Ground-water withdrawals comprise about 41% of Hawaii’s
total fresh water use (USGS, 1985). Oahu, the island on which
three of the inventoried facilities exist, is the State’s largest
user of ground water, accounting for 27% of the total usage.
Almost 90% of Oahu’s total ground water use is for domestic
purposes (USGS, 1985).
Rainfall is the sole source of fresh water in the State of
Hawaii, and its quantity and spatial distribution govern volumes
and qualities of ground water (USGS, 1985). Mean annual rainfall
is 73 inches, and ranges from 20 to 300 inches have been record-
ed. Ground water recharge is approximately 30% of the rainfall
(USGS, 1985). Fresh ground water is present primarily as basa’
water in unconfined volcanic aquifers or in aquifers confined by
coastal caprock under artesian pressure (USGSI 1985). Lesser
amounts occur in isolated ground—water bodies resting on
impermeable lava beds.
One of the inventoried aquaculture return flow facilities is
on the northeast island margin of Oahu. Three wells at this
facility injected into Pleistocene Coral/algal reef limestone
before clogging ceased injection operations. The other two
facilities are on the southeast island margin and inject into
Honolulu basalts.
4 — 133
-------
5A8
On the island of Hawaii, the proposed injection wells will
be located at Keahole Point near Kailua—Kona, along the western
island margin. The principal aquifer within this region is an
unconfined sequence of basaltic lava flows. In general, the
aquifer is highly permeable. This aquifer is the injection zone
at the proposed facility in at Keahole Point.
As completed to date, all inventoried injection wells
associated with aquaculture return flow dispose of wastes
oceanward of the UIC Line. The UIC Line is a general
approximation for the limits of 5,000 mg/i total dissolved solids
(TDS) content in ground water and generally delineates the extent
of sea water intrusion landward within the aquifer. Oceanward of
the UIC Line, the aquifer is exempted. The aquifer is protected
landward of the Line.
With the exception of rift zones and volcanoes, virtually
all of the Hawaiian islands are saturated with sea water below
sea level (Macdonald et al, 1983). Fresh ground water occurs in
the form of a huge lens floating on sea water (Driscoll, 1986).
Fresh basal water floating on salt water presses down the salt
water, and the depth to which the salt water is pressed down
depends upon the weight (thickness) of the fresh water lens
(Macdonald et al, 1983). The principles of fresh ground water
flotation on salt water in coastal regions is referred to as. the
Ghyben-Herzberg principle and is schematically presented in
Figure 4—21. Part C of Figure 4—21 best describes the setting
for injection operations on Oahu. The presence of a relatively
impermeable “caprock,” composed of consolidated alluvial deposits
and Pleistocene coral and algal reefs, raises the water table
inland from it. and increases the thickness of the underlying
fresh water lens. In these areas, the lens of fresh water is
anomalously thick and skewed oceanward, thus facilities oceanward
of the UIC Line may be injecting into fresh water. This has not
been demonstrated for the inventoried facilities, primarily due
to the absence of site-specific hydrogeologic data.
Contamination Potential
Based on the rating system described in Section 4.1,
aquaculture return flow wells are assessed to pose a moderate
potential to contaminate tJSDW. These facilities may or may not
inject or above USDW (Class I and/or Class II). Typical well
construction, operation, and maintenance would not allow fluid
injection or migration into unintended zones. Injection fluids
typically have concentrations of constituents exceeding standards
set by the National Primary or Secondary Drinking Water
Regulations. Based on injectate characteristics and
possibilities for attenuation and dilution, injection does occur
in sufficient volumes or at sufficient rates to cause an increase
in concentration (above background levels) of the National
4 — 134
-------
5A8
kI2nrl
Sea Level - Aerated Zone
Salt -water
Saturated Zone
A.
AN ISLAND WITHOUT
SALT OCEAN WATER
RAINFALL
SATURATED UP
TO
SEA
LEVEL
WITH
erated Zone
S ring
\\
‘
\\
Fresh—water Saturated Zone
\‘•_,..
% —‘
s .. .—--
‘%
— —— — — — —
__z _e_
,/
I
,/
,‘ /
— /
— /
,
Salt—water Saturated Zone
B. AN ISLAND IN WHICH WATER THAT FELL AS RAiN ON NE ISLAND SURFACE HAS
DESCENDED THROUGH 11-C ROCKS UN11L IT ENCOUNTERED SALT WATER
lmpermp — ___ ______
Sea Level — - ____
C. AN ISLAND WITH A RELA11VELY MPERMEABLE C.AP ROCK ON ONE SIDE
DIAGRAMS ILWSTRA11NG THE DEVELOPMENT OF
THE GHYBEN-HEPZBERG LENS OF FRESH WATER
WIThIN AN OCEANIC ISLAND
Figure 4—21
/
/ /
—-%-
- ., .
______
—
- -
--..- —_._ Fresh ___— .—---
— _ i 1s;_ — — — —
4—135
-------
5A8
Primary or Secondary Drinking Water Regulation parameters in
ground water, or endanger human health or the environment beyond
the facility perimeter.
All active and proposed aquaculture return flow wells are
located on the islands of Oahu and Hawaii in the State of Hawaii.
While specific hydrogeologic details about these operations are
not readily available, contamination potential can be generically
assessed for this well type by making certain broad.
general izat ions.
It has been stated that injection is conducted oceanward of
the UIC Line. This Line is often “political” in its positioning,
but generally reflects the point at which 5,000 mg/l TDS
concentration in ground water begins. This Line is also a rough
approximation for the landward extent of groundwater containing
in excess of 2,500 mg/l chloride. Because of the Ghyben—Herzberg
relationship, significant volumes of USDW quality water may be
present oceariward from the UIC Line in the areas under
consideration. No hydrologic data which confirm or dispute this
claim are presently available for any of the injection
facilities. Thus, though it is possible that injection is into
or above an USDW, this can not be concluded at this time.
Construction designs for these wells are generally simple.
Wells on Oahu are completed in highly permeable basalts or coral
and algal caprock of variable permeability. Injection depths are
shallow, and the injection aquifers generally are considered to
be unconfined. Welihead designs are equally simple, and the
potential for introduction of unpermitted waste streams must be
considered to exist. Operational monitoring for these wells is
believed minimal, due to the lack of operational and
hydrogeologic data.
Water quality of injected fluids has been shown to be
generally poor. No specific chemical analyses for waste streams
have been provided by operators, but it is known that effluent is
essentially salt water with added nutrients, bacteriological
growth, perished animals, and animal detritus. These consti-
tuents tend to impart high concentrations of nitrates, nitrites,
ammonia, BOD, and orthophosphate to the waste stream. Some
constituents of the waste stream would exceed Primary and/or
Secondary Drinking Water Regulations.
Annual injection volumes at these facilities vary greatly
and can exceed 10,000 acre-feet. These are extremely large
volumes, and the assumption that they influence ground water
beyond facility boundaries is supportable. It must be reiterated
that basal groundwater flow in coastal areas is generally seaward
and that movement of pollutants likely will be away from fresher
water situated inland. It seems safe to conclude, however, that
constituents such as nitrates, nitrites, ammonia, and
4 — 136
-------
5A8
orthophosphate are not naturally present within ground water.
Thus, injection of such large volumes of waste will tend to
increase concentrations of such constituents within the ground
water.
In summary, injection of aquaculture waste water may be into
USDW in Hawaii even though all inventoried wells are seaward of
the UIC Line; however, chemical data to confirm this is lacking.
General knowledge of waste streams indicates that Secondary
Drinking Water Regulations for chlorides are exceeded. Chlorides
are definitely above standards (Test data from Inventory Report).
Finally, because of large injection volumes, increases of
contaminants within ground water beyond facility limits will
occur.
Current Regulatory Approach
Class V aquaculture return flow wells are authorized by rule
under Federally—administered tJIC program (See Section 1). All
injection wells in Hawaii are regulated under a permit program
administered by the Environmental Permits Branch of the Hawaii
Department of Health. Under Chapter 340E, Hawaii Revised
Statutes and Chapter 23, Administrative Rules, provisions were
set forth requiring ners of both existing wells and proposed
wells to submit a permit application. Owners of injection wells
existing on or before July 6, 1984 were required to register
those wells with the Department of Health. Within 180 days of
registration, owners were required to submit the following
injection well data:
1. Description of the injection system, including
emergency pumps, standby wells, or monitoring
wells, if any. Include a copy of the plans.
2. Well log, including:
a. Lithology of injection interval(s) and con-
fining formation(s);
b. Physical and structural characteristics of
the formations encountered;
c. Water level, if any;
d. Tidal fluctuations and efficiency, if any;
e. Date of construction;
f. Drilling contractor; and
g. Ground surface elevation.
3. Complete results of injection testing or a de-
tailed history of operation including dates,
-volumes and reasons for overflows, modifications
and/or redevelopment.
4 — 137
-------
5A8
4. Regional water quality (attach data from nearest
supply wells, including: chloride, total dissolved
solids, coliform, organic chemicals, inorganic
chemicals, pH and temperature).
5. Nature and source of formation water, if encoun—
t e red.
6. Description of operating plans, including:
a. Identification of legal operator:
b. Maximum and average rates and volumes of
injection fluids;
c. Nature and source of injection fluids;
d. Number of hours per day of use; and
e. Degree and type of treatment.
7. Certification by applicant.
Application for new injection activities to begin on or
after July 6, 1984 must be submitted at least 180 days
before the date that operations are due to commence.
Applications require the following information:
1. Nature of well;
2. Drilling contractor;
3. - Facility name and location;
4. Facility owner/operator;
5. Legal contact or authorized representative;
6. Nature and source of injected fluids;
7. Proposed fluid volumes;
8. Injection rates and pressures;
9. Description of injection system, including emer-
gency suinps, standby wells, or monitoring wells,
if any;
10. Description of proposed injection testing;
11. Regional water quality (specifically addressed are
chloride, TDS, coliform, organic chemicals, inor-
ganic chemicals, pH, and temperature);
12. Well siting details; and
13. Proposed construction details (using cross-sec-
tion)
Following the review of the application data, an approval to
construct or modify must be issued prior to the start of activi-
ty. Copies of this approval must be maintained at the construc-
tion site. For wells proposing to inject into USDW (as deline-
ated on the UIC map), public notice is required prior to issuance
of approval to construct. A public hearing also may be required,
depending upon response to public notice. Upon completion of the
activity and testing, the applicant must submit a certified
engineering report detailing information gathered during con-
4 — 138
-------
5A5
struction and testing. The report is to bear the signatures of
the engineer and geologist preparing the report and the profes-
sional seal of the engineer. The report should be prepared in
accordance with the following guidelines:
1. General Information
a. Brief description of project and location,
including:
(1) Facility name;
(2) Facility location;
(3) Site plan with contours and drawn to a
scale suitable for the use intended;
(4) Tax map key number; and
(5) Location of all existing wells within
one—quarter mile of the facility.
b. Name of owner;
c. Name and address of legal contact or author-
ized representative; and
d. Name of operator.
2. Physical Characteristics of Area
a. Location;
b. Climate;
c. Topography;
d. Geology and foundation conditions;
e. Earthquake considerations;
f. Flood problems including tsunami inundation
zones; and
g. Information confirming adherence with local
land—use planning and zoning regulations.
3. Description of System Operation
a. Nature and source of injected fluids;
b. Design capacity operating rates, and volumes
of injected fluid;
c. Description of the system, including emergen-
cy, standby, or monitoring wells, and system
plans;
d. Number and type of wells actually construct-
ed;
e. Maximum and average rates and volumes of
injected fluids;
f. Number of hours per day of use; and
g. Degree and type of treatment.
4 — 139
-------
5A8
4. Geohydrologic Considerations
a. Description of well site:
(1) Coordinates (latitude, longitude); and
(2) Land surface elevation;
b. Well Log, including:
(1) Lithology of injection interval (s) and
confining formation(s) ;
(2) Physical and structural characteristics
of the formations encountered;
(3) Initial water level and subsequent water
levels, if any; and
(4) Tidal fluctuations and efficiency, if
any.
c. Nature and source of formation water, includ-
ing analyses for the parameters specified in
the Primary Drinking Water Regulations and
regional water quality erom the nearest sup-
ply wells.
d. Complete results of injection testing includ-
ing maximum capacity and hydraulic conducti-
v i ty.
e. Description of number and type of injection
well (s) constructed including construction
materials and procedures.
f. Elevation section showing fina] dimensions,
elevations, and materials used for each well.
5. Certification by Applicant
Review of applications and activity reports is
presently the responsibility of a single staff
hydrogeologist with the Department of Health.
Recommendations
The Hawaii report suggests that proper operational
procedures should include regular monitoring of injection
fluid and ground-water quality. It. may not be practical to
drill new monitoring wells, but idle or abandoned wells
could be converted to monitoring status for determining
ground-water quality. Injection fluid analysis, in light of
extremely large injection volumes, should be conducted twice
annually at a minimum. Constituents specified in permit
applications, as discussed previously, would represent
minimum reporting requirements. Regularity and type of
4 — 140
-------
5W9,1O
mechanical integrity testing should be specified more
clearly for operational procedures. It is believed these
items are referred to in permit applications, but
implementation of requirements was not noted for the
facilities studied.
Additional recommendations from the Hawaii report
include 1) water to be disposed should be filtered and
appropriately treated prior to injection, 2) return waters
should be carefully monitored at a point before and after
treatment to ensure that the measures being employed are
sufficient to allow the water to be injected, 3) injection
wells should be sited as close to the coast as possible, and
4) injection of aquaculture return flow fluids should never
occur in USDW areas.
4.2.3 DOMESTIC WASTEWATER DISPOSAL WELLS
4.2.3.1 Raw Sewage Waste Disposal Wells and Cesspools (5W9,
5W1 0)
Well Purpose
Class V raw sewage waste disposal wells (5W9) and cesspools
(5W10) primarily are used to receive and dispose of sanitary
wastes. Cesspools, which receive solely sanitary wastes and
serve over 20 persons per day, are Class V wells. Both types of
disposal wells generally are located in areas not served by
sanitary sewers. Cesspools and raw sewage disposal wells
reportedly have been used by multi-family developments, office
complexes, businesses, sewage waste haulers, and hospitals.
These wells also may receive additional fluids not commonly
characterized as domestic wastes.
Inventory and Location
Raw Sewage Waste Disposal Wells. Reported Class V raw
sewage waste disposal wells total 980. These wells were reported
to operate in eight States and one protectorate. Reported state
totals of 5W9 wells are presented in Table 4—28. The majority of
reported wells are located in selected towns within the Great
Lakes States. These towns usually are without sanitary sewers
and overlie abandoned mines. Businesses and multi-family
developments reportedly discharge their raw sewage into wells
which are conduits to the abandoned mines.
Many unreported raw sewage disposal wells in the Great Lakes
Region are suspected to exist. Over 900 raw sewage wells have
been reported in Illinois on an Illinois EPA database. These
wells, however, have not been reported within the Illinois State
Report. In addition, authorities in Ohio and Pennsylvania
4 — 141
-------
NiLE 4-The SYN SIS OF STATE PORTS Fl IJITREATED WARE WASTE DI OS LLS( d9)
5W9,1O
NOTE: 901€ MJIGERS IN THIS TAGLE A ESTIMATES.
EPA
RE6 1011
Confirmed Re vlatory Case Studies/ Contamination
P esance I System Unfo. availabiel Potential
Of Well Type Rating I
I
I
I
I
I
I
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
N/A NO
N/A NO
N/A NO
N/A NO
N/A I NO
N/A ND
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
II
II
II
II
NO
NO
5 LLS
NO
N/A NO
N/A NO
N/A NO
N/A NO
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
III
III
III
III
111
NO N/A O
NO N/A O
YES N/A NO
NO N/A NO
IC N/A NO
N/A
N/A
N/A
• N/A
N/A
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IC
I C
IC
I C
NO
NO
IC
IC
N/A NO N/A
‘ N/A 1 IC N/A
N/A I NO N/A
N/A NO N/A
N/A IC I N/A
N/A IC N/A
N/A NO N/A
N/A 1 NO N/A
—
V
V
V
V
V
V
916 1€LLS
22 ..LS
11 1€LLS
10 I&LLS
IC
NO
B NED I YES
N/A IC
N/A NO
N/A NO
N/A YES
N/A NO
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
IC
NO
IC
IC
10 (ELLS
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
NO
NO
IC
NO
IC
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
VII
VII
VII
VII
NO
NO
NO
NO
N/A
N/A
N/A
RILE
NO
IC
NO
IC
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
NO
IC
IC
NO
NO
NO
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
8#dED
N/A
NO
NO
1 IC
IC
NO
IC
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
IX
IX
I X
I I
IX
IX
IX
IX
NO
IC
3 (€LLS
IC
NO
IC
NO
IC
N/A
N/A
PERMIT
S I€D
N/A
N /A
N /A
N/A
NO
IC
YES
IC
NO
NO
IC
IC
I
N/A
N/A
HIGH
HIGH
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
X
X
I
I
3 *LLS
IC
IC
IC
PERMIT (P RILE
N/A
RILE
N/A
I
I NO HIGH
IC N/A
1 NO N/A
I M l N/A I
4—142
-------
5 W9, 10
estimate that many unverified “black holes” are used within their
States to dispose of raw sewage. Individual homeowners who do
not have access to municipal treatment plants or have failing
septic systems are suspected to utilize raw sewage disposal
wel is.
Raw sewage waste disposal wells also have been reported in
Puerto Rico, Arkansas, and Hawaii. One well in Honokaa, Hawaii
is used by the City’s hospital and an unknown number of busi-
nesses and residences.
Cesspools Reported Class V cesspools in the United States
and its Possession and Territories number over 6,600. The State
totals of these wells are presented in Table 4-29. Oregon
reports having 6,257 Class V cesspools operating within the
State. The vast majority of these wells are located in mid-
Multnomah County. Although the State of Oregon has prohibited
the construction of cesspools, this method is still the
predominant means of sewage disposal in mid—Muitnomah County.
The total number of cesspools (including non—Class V cesspools)
in Multnomah County is approximately 56,000.
Other States reporting cesspools are scattered throughout
the country. Most States believe that many unreported cesapools
presently are operating within their respective States. These
wells are generally located in rural areas not served by rnunici-
pal treatment plants. This statement is supported in Hawaii,
Alaska, and Puerto Rico where Class V cesspools reportedly serve
rural communi ties.
Construction. Siting, and Operation
Raw sewage waste disposal wells are simply constructed.
Wells are drilled in limestone or lava flow formations. In the
Great Lakes Region, raw sewage waste disposal wells usually
consist of surface casing and underlying, uncased boreholes.
These wells are drilled until the borehole penetrates an
underground cavern or abandoned mine seam. No pressure is used
when injecting; the fluids fall to the mine or cavern under the
influence of gravity. The reported depths of wells which dispose
sewage into abandoned mines range anywhere from 75 to 150 feet
deep.
An inspection of a well disposing of raw sewage in Hawaii
was conducted in 1985. The well was originally constructed in
1949 as a county-owned cesspool. During excavation, a lava tube
(8 feet deep x 10 feet wide) was encountered and subsequently
used as a raw sewage disposal well. The vertical and lateral
extent of the lava tube from the point of injection is unknown.
4 — 143
-------
TAILE 4-29: SYNOPSIS OP STATE REPORTS FOR ( SEPO(LS( 1O}
5 W9, 10
RESIGI EPA
& RESIGH
STATES
C firred
Presence
Of Well Type
Renulatory I Case Studies! Cataannation
Systes 1 Info. availablel Potential I
Rating
Cnnnecticut
I
PC
N/A
PC
N/A
Iflaine
I
ND
N/A
PC
N/A
Maasachusette
I
PC
N/A
PC
N/A
Itlew Ha sbire
Rhode Island
I
I
PC
PC
I N/A
N/A
•
MI
NO
• N/A
N/A
Veruent 1 1
PC
N/A
•
NO
I N/A
hiew J,sey II
IWew Ycrk II
I WELL
YES
1 t6JP S P IT
PERMIT>1K SPD
NO
PC
N/A
SIGNIFICANT
:Puerto Rico 11
67 WELLS
P N/A
•
YES
N/A
IVirgin Islands I I NO
N/A
1
NO
N/A —:
Delaware UI I NO
N/A
MI
N/A
Maryland I III PC
N/A
I
NO
• N/A
Pennsylvania 111 1 PC
:Virqinia Ill 1 PC
N/A
N/A
I
•
PC
NO
P4/A
N/A
Wes( Virginia UI NO
N/A
1
NO
N/A
lAlabasa
IV
I PC
N/A
I
NO
N/A
Florida IV
PC
N/A
•
M l
N/A
Georgia IV P4)
IKentucky IV • IC
N/A
N/A
P
I
IC
IC
N/A
I N/A
Mississippi IV 14)
1 N/A
1
PC
N/A
:North Carolina IV
IC
I N/A
•
PC
N/A
South Carolina
IV PC
N/A
I
NO
N/A
Tennessee I IV
IC
•
I N/A
I
PC
N/A
N/A
N/A
I
P Illinois V • IC
lindiana V P fl WELLS
N/A
N/A
I
•
1
IC
14)
iMichigan I V 1 18 WELLS
I N/A
•
PC N/A
INinnesota I
V 1 £.LS
N/A
1
IC
N/A
PIJno P V
PC
N/A
I
14) N/A
Wisconsin
I
V
P 4)
N/A
I
1
IC
N/A
I
kansaz
I
VI I NO
I
N/A
I
1
PC
N/A
:Lnnisiana VI PC
Wew Mexico VI 1 14 WELLS
IOklah a VI PC
N/A
‘ à ED
N/A
I
M l I N/A
PC I NOCERATE
PC N/A
Texas •
VI 16 WELLS
N/A
1
NO
N/A
1
I
II a VII
I
PC
N/A
I
PC
IKansas
VII
ND
N/A
IC
Ni5wUri
VII
I
PC
N/A
I
IC
Nebraska
I
VII I
I
YES
RILE
I
NO
Colorado
VIII
PC
I tana 1
VIII
I IC
INorth Dakota I
VIII
I IC
IScuth Dakota I
VIII
1 IC
- Ilitab I
VIII
1 14)
Wyosing
VUI
• 3 WELLS
N/A
N/A P
N/A
N/A
N/A
PC
N/A
N/A
I
IC
I
N/A
I
N/A
1
PC
I
N/A
I
N/A
I
PC
1
N/A
1
€D
I
PC
I
N/A
PERMIT
I
NO
5Th
HlGI€ST/1O T(PES
I
izona
ICalif nia
IHasaii
INevada
erican Saaoa
hr. Tarr. of P
Scan
ICP I
I
I X
• IX
1 1
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
17 NO.LS
46 WELLS
, 57 WELLS
14 )
PC
IC
I IC
IC
I
I
PERMIT P MI HIGH
BN€D PC HIGH
PERMIT PC HIGH
BAIlED I PC HIGH
N/A 1 PC N/A
N/A I PC N/A
N/A 1 PC I N/A
N/A NO N/A
I
I
Alaska 1
Udaho I I
I eqcn I
Washington I I
I
>79 WELLS
IC
6, 7 WELLS
PC
PERMIT OR RILE
N/A
RILE
N/A
I
NO
PC
PC
1 PC
I
HIGH
N/A
N/A I
N/A
NOTE: SI E NPJIBERS IN THIS TABLE ABE ESTIMATES.
4—14 4
-------
5W9,1O
A cesspool is usually a brick lined sump 4 to 6 feet in
diameter and 5 to 10 feet deep (Figure 4-22). Raw sewage is
generally drained (by gravity) directly to the cesspool from
sanitary facilities on site. Larger solids present in the sewage
settle to the bottom while the liquid seeps Out through the
sides.
Injected Fluids and Injection Zone Interactions
Injected Fluids. The quality of injected wastewaters dis-
charged (by gravity) from Class V cesspools and raw sewage waste
disposal wells is poor. These wells receive domestic sewage from
individual homes, recreational facilities (i.e. campgrounds) and
businesses. Sewage generated from these sources Consists of 99.9
percent water by weight and 0.03 percent suspended solids. Table
4-30 presents ranges of constituent concentrations found in
domestic sewage. Of these constituents, nitrates, bacteria, and
viruses are of most concern.
In addition to domestic wastes, cesspools and raw sewage
disposal wells potentially can receive wastes associated with
commercial businesses. This is best illustrated in Hawaii, where
a raw sewage well was reported to receive untreated sewage, food
establishment wastewater, and infectious wastes.
Settleable solids in cesspool influent collect at the bott .,om
of the well. The total solids content of waters injected by
cesspools, therefore, is somewhat reduced. The reduction of
other contaminants in cesspool effluent or raw sewage disposal
well effluent has not been documented. Concentrations of bac-
teria, viruses, and inorganic and organic compounds in the
effluent are therefore assumed to be close to those present in
the untreated sewage.
Injection Zone Interactions. Possible injection zones for
cesspools and raw sewage disposal wells are the vadose zone and
the saturated zone. Cesspools are usually completed in vadose
zones comprised of coarse permeable sediments. A clogging layer
usually forms several feet below the bottom of a cesspool in
permeable sediments. The clogging layer is composed of micro-
organisms and by-products of decomposition. Contaminants in
injected waters are partially removed in this layer by physical
filtering as well as by biological and chemical processes. Waste
organic compounds in effluent can act as biocides and potentially
harm the efficiency of the clogging layer.
Nitrates, the end product of aerobic stabilization of or-
ganic nitrogen from ammonia, are formed in the vadose zone in
cesspool effluent. Nitrates are not easily attenuated by soils
and are fairly mobile in groundwater. Bacteria and viruses in
cesspool effluent generally are well attenuated in alluvial
4 — 145
-------
5W9,1O
SEWER
AND COVER.
LINE OF
EXCAVATION
OMIT
BRICK
OTHER
EVERY 4 TH.
IN EVERY
C OUR SE.
OMIT NO BRICKS
IN FOOTING.
SEC11CNAL yEW OF A CESSPOOL
(Courtesy, Maryland Slate Dept. of Health) Figure 4—22
COAL HOLE FRAME
EARTH
F I
REINFORCEMENT BARS AS REQUIRED.
BACKFILL WITH
BRICK BATS, LOOSE...
STONE,OR GRAVEL.
4—146
-------
5W9,1O
TABLE 4-30
TYPICM COMPOSITION OF DOMESTIC SEWAGE
(All values except settieable solids are expressed in mg/i.)
Concentration
Constituent Strong Medium Weak
Solids, total 1,200 700 350
Dissolved, total 850 500 250
Fixed 525 300 145
Volatile 325 200 105
Suspended, total 350 200 100
Fixed 75 50 30
Volatile 275 150 70
Settleable solids, (mi/i) 20 10 5
Biochemical Oxygen Demand
5—day, 20°C (BOD 5 20°) 300 200 100
Total Organic Carbon (TOC) 300 200 100
Chemicai Oxygen Demand (COD) 1,000 500 250
Nitrogen, (total as N) 85 40 20
Organic 35 15 8
Free ammonia 50 25 12
Nitrite 0 0 0
Nitrate 0 0 0
Phosphorus (totai as P) 20 10 6
Organic 5 3 2
Inorganic 15 7 4
Chloride 100 50 30
Alkalinity (as CaCO 3 ) 1 200 100 50
Grease 150 100 50
1 Values should be increased by amount in carriage water.
4-147
-------
5W9,1O
vadose zones. Only in a few documented cases have viruses been
shown to migrate significant distances from wastewater disposal
facili ties.
Interactions occurring in the injection zone utilized by raw
sewage disposal wells are minimal. Because these wells generally
are completed in consolidated limestones or lava flows, injected
waste contaminants are left untreated in this injection zone. A
study by Dr. Maliman of Michigan State University (1960’s) showed
that bacteria traveling in unconfined limestone aquifers were
limited only by the extent of water—bearing joints and solution
channels in the rock.
Contaminants in effluent discharged from cesspools and raw
sewage disposal wells completed below the water table are also
untreated. The dilution of these contaminants in ground water is
the only mitigating factor.
Hydrogeology and Water Use
Cesspools and raw sewage waste disposal wells reportedly
inject wastewater into a variety of geologic formations. Raw
sewage waste disposal wells generally are completed in fractured
bedrock formations. These formations can be composed of basaltic
lava formations, limestone, sandstone, or shales. Disposal wells
utilize solution channels, lava tubes, or underground mines to
transport sewage away from the surface. The vertical and lateral
extent of these cavities often are unknown. Many of the reported
raw sewage disposal wells in the Great Lakes States overlie aban-
doned coal mines. Fill, bess, and other semi-permeable deposits
usually are encountered near the surface in these areas.
Pennsylvania bedrock with shales, coals, and lesser amounts of
siltstone, sandstone, and limestone underlie more permeable stra-
ta. Class V raw sewage disposal wells reported in Hawaii inject
wastewater into lava tubes present in the near surface basaltic
lava (name unknown). These tubes are believed to generally issue
outward toward the ocean.
Class V cesspools generally are constructed in alluvial
formations which have a high capacity for receiving wastewater.
The alluvial layers used to filter cesspool effluent are usually
composed of medium- to coarse-grained sands and gravels. Most of
the cesspools reported by the responding States (including
Oregon) are completed in alluvial deposits. A small percentage
of reported cesspools have been completed in fractured basalt or
limestone.
Cesspools and raw sewage waste disposal wells inject
wastewater above USDW in many cases. States reporting past,
present, or potential degradation of USDW due to cesspools and
raw sewage disposal wells include: California, Arizona, Oregon,
4 — 148
-------
5W9,1O
Illinois, Hawaii, and Ohio. A number of these USDW potentially
or presently affected were reported to be used as drinking water
sources. Although shallow, domestic supplies appear to be
especially threatened, the ground-water contamination of deeper
zones may inevitably occur. This currently is being documented
in Oregon (Multnomah County) where over 14 million gallons/day of
raw sewage is being discharged to the subsurface from cesspools
and seepage pits. Elevated concentrations of nitrates and small
concentrations of commonly used solvents currently are being
detected in deeper waters used for larger sources of drinking
water. Aquifers directly threatened by raw sewage disposal wells
generally are difficult to isolate. The lateral migration of
wastewater in extensive solution channel networks can potentially
degrade ground water large distances away from the injection
point.
Contamination Potential
Based on the rating system described in Section 4.1, raw
sewage waste disposal wells and cesspools are assessed to pose a
high potential to contaminate USDW. These wells typically do
inject into or above Class I or Class II USDW. Typical well
construction, operation, and maintenance would allow fluid
injection or migration into unintended zones. Injection fluids
typically have concentrations of constituents exceeding standards
set by the National Primary or Secondary Drinking Water
Regulations. The fluids may exhibit characteristics or contain
constituents listed as hazardous as stated in the RCRA
Regulations. Based on injectate characteristics and possibility
for attenuation and dilution, injection does occur in sufficient
volumes or at sufficient rates to cause an increase in
concentration (above background levels) of the National Primary
or Secondary Drinking Water Regulation parameters in ground
water, or endanger human health or the environment in a region
studied on a group/area basis.
As discussed in the “Characterization of Injected Fluids”
section, domestic sewage typically includes high microbial popu-
lations, total solids concentrations, and nitrogen. These con-
taminants are injected directly into raw sewage disposal wells
without pretreatment. Wastewater discharged by cesspools are
reduced in total solids content. Harmful nitrates, bacteria and
viruses, and soluble constituents, however, are not removed by
cesspools. Nitrates, TDS, and coliform bacteria typically can be
expected to exceed National Primary and Secondary Drinking Water
Regulations in cesspool and raw sewage waste disposal well
effluent.
The majority of active cesspools and raw sewage wastewater
disposal wells inject wastewaters above USDW of better quality
than Class IIB. Over 6,000 Class V cesspools in Oregon inject
raw sewage into water—bearing zones currently or potentially
useable as drinking water sources. Shallow ground water tapped by
4 — 149
-------
5W9,1O
domestic supplies appears to be especially threatened. Aquifers
used for municipal drinking water sources usually are deeper and
initially are less susceptible to surface discharges. Ground
water reportedly has been degraded from cesspool and raw sewage
disposal wells in Ohio, Illinois, and Oregon. Ground water
degradation was regional in nature and resulted from large
numbers of raw sewage disposal wells and cesspools operating in
these areas. (Many of the raw sewage wells in Ohio and Illinois
were replaced by sewer systems in the late 60’s and early 70’s.)
Fluids injected by Class V cesspools and raw sewage disposal
wells are therefore judged to be capable of polluting waters off—
site and on a region-wide basis.
The collective contamination potential assessed for Class V
cesspools and raw sewage disposal wells is high. The
environmental threat posed by cesspools, however, is to some
degree site-specific. For example, cesspools mi ecting into
shallow ground water pose a higher contamination potential than
those injecting above deep, genii-confined aquifers. The contami-
nation potential of raw sewage disposal wells and cesspools
completed in bedrock are categorically high. Attenuation of
contaminants disposed through these wells does not occur in the
injection zone. One factor which may mitigate the threat of
contamination posed by these wells is the injection of higher
quality fluids (i.e. storm water runoff) into the same
formation(s).
Current Regulatory Approach
Class V raw sewage disposal wells and cesspools are
authorized by rule under Federally—administered UIC programs.
Regulatory information provided by the States and Territories of
the United States concerning cesspools and raw sewage waste
disposal wells is limited. From the State reports, seven States
have been identified to declare all cesspools and raw sewage
disposal wells illegal. These States are: Nevada, California,
Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, Ohio, and Utah. The remaining
states reporting cesspools and raw sewage disposal wells
apparently regulate these wells under general UIC Class V Well
Regulations. State health and environmental departments in these
States review waste discharge permits on a case-by-case basis.
Permits are granted for discharges judged not to threaten the
quality of the states’ ground water. In actuality, State
permitters in these States may categorically reject permits for
new cesspools or raw sewage wells. Written policies regarding
these wells, however, were not presented in the State Class V
Well Assessment Reports.
Recommendations
Unfortunately, no recommendations concerning cesspools and
raw sewage waste disposal wells were provided in the State
4 — 150
-------
5W11,31,32
reports. However, several States have banned the construction
and use of new cesspools and raw sewage disposal wells.
4.2.3.2 Class V Septic Systems (5W11, 5W31, 5W32)
Well Purpose
Class V septic wastewater disposal systems ideally are
designed to receive, treat and dispose of sanitary wastes. Often
they receive additional wastes. These systems generally are
located in areas not served by sanitary sewers.
On—site sewage wastewater disposal systems commonly used are
septic tanks coupled with a subsurface disposal method.
Drainfields and disposal wells (including seepage pits) are two
subsurface disposal systems. On-site systems serve centralized
multi-family developments and commercial and industrial
properties. Table 4—31 describes the subclasses of Class V
septic systems according to their subsurface disposal method.
Inventory and Location
The inventory of Class V septic systems is a complex issue.
Tables 4-32 through 4-34 contain the numbers of 5W11, 5W31, and
5W32 wells reported by the States. The 5W11 systems are those
about which construction information is lacking. The 5W31
systems use some type of well or “dry well” to dispose of
effluent. The 5W32 systems make use of a drain field where
further treatment takes place. Unfortunately, in many cases
local records do not specify construction and do not distinguish
between multi-family, single family, or industrial/commercial
sanitary systems. This is illustrated by a letter from the
Maricopa County Health Department (Phoenix, Arizona). “We have
records covering approximately 30,000 permits with 80-90% of this
number meeting your criteria. We estimate it would take at least
(one) man year to research the files...”
The 1980 census estimated 22 million septic systems exist
serving nearly one—third of the population. Most of these are
single family systems, yet potentially they have a great impact
upon the proper siting of Class V septic systems. The literature
indicates that the major cause of septic system failure is
improper spacing, that is, the construction of too many systems
too close together. It is true that many systems are found in
remote areas where the population is sparse. However, States
report the use of systems in fringe areas of rapid growth, where
available public treatment is limited. In these areas lot size
can be critical and overloading a real danger, especially when
multi-family systems are very quickly designed and installed by
developers.
4 — 151
-------
5W11,31,32
Table 4—31. Class V Septic Wastewater Disposal Systems
New Code Name of System Type and Description
5W11 Septic Systems (Undifferentiated disposal method) -
used to inject the waste or effluent from a multiple
dwelling, business establishment, community or regional
business establishment septic tank. (Primary
treatment).
5W31 Septic Systems (Well Disposal Method) - examples of
wells include actual wells, seepage pits, cavitettes,
etc. The largest surface dimension is less than or
equal to the depth dimension. (Less treatment per
square area than 5W32).
5W32 Septic Systems (Drainfield Disposal Method) - examples
of drainfields include drain or tile lines, trenches,
etc. (More treatment per square area than 5W31)
4 — 152
-------
T LE 4-32 SThOPSIS (F STATE REPU TS F SEPTIC SYSTENS 11)
5W11,31,32
REGIOW
&
STATES
EPA Caif irrEd
REGION Presence
I Of Nell Type
Reoulatory Case Studies! Contamnation
Syste. Info. avazlable Potential
Rating
•
I
Connecticut 1
Maine I
P’assachusetts 1
(New Haa shire I
RIode Island I
Vermcnt I
I
I
62 WELLS
t O
27 to.LS
• tO
8to.LS
I C
PERNIT> ( GPO YES
N/A NO
PERNhT>1 ( GPD NO
N/A 10
N/A YES
N/A tO
I
I HIGH
• N/A
I LOW
N/A
LOW
N/A
New Jersey II
New York II
(Puerto Rico II
iVirgin Islands II
143 WELLS
YES
1,073 WEllS
1 44 WELLS
NJPDES PERMIT 10
PERMIT>lK GPO I d )
N/A I NO
N/A YES
• N/A
SIGHIFICNIT
• N/A
N/A
(Delaware III
IMary land III
(Pennsylvania III
Virgznia I III
INesf Virginia I II
I I
1 tO
Id)
1 II)
6 WELLS
2 WELLS
N/A Id)
N/A 1 Id)
N/A Id)
N/A I d)
N/A I C
I
N/A
N/A
I N/A
• N/A
N/A
i
I I
Alabaaa IV
Flar ida 1 IV
(Georgia IV
(Kentucky IV
Nississippi IV
INerth Carolina IV
South Carolina I IV
(Tennessee I IV
I I
• 1 NELL
19,000 WELLS
1 MI
NO
YES
10
Id )
tO
I
PERMIT ND
PERMIT NO
N/A 10
N/A NO
N/A NO
N/A : Id )
N/A NO
N/A 1 t O
I
I V I LE
I N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
I
I
Illinois V
Undiana V
(Michigan V
(Minnesota V
Tho P V
Wisconsin V
I
Ikkansas VI
(Louisiana 1 VI
New Nexico VI
(Oklahoma VI
Texas VI
Pd)
895 WELLS
2 693 WELLS
1 i88 ISLS
361 WELLS
t O
N/A I Id) N/A
N/A Pd) N/A
N/A 1 tO N/A
RILE 1 0 1 N/A
N/A I Id) HIGH
N/A Id) N/A
I
•
1
I
PC
YES
1 10 WELLS
YES
I 56WELLS
I
N/A P C
RILE 1 Id)
REGISTRATION t O
RILE Id)
LOCN. NO
I
N/A
N/A
1 MODERATE
N/A
I N/A
I
•
I
1I a
kansas
1is scuri
(Nebraska
VII
VII
VII
VII
1 3 WELLS
IC
I 2 WELLS
YES
—
N/A 10
N/A 1 NO
PERMIT Id )
R ILE NO
LOW
N/A
L I I I
HIGH
•
I
(Colorado
I tana
Iüth Dakota
South Dakota
Wtah
Wycmng
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
I
10
I 2 WELLS
, 10
1 10
YES
1 420 WELLS
N/A
PERMIT
RILE
N/A
P IIT
PERMIT
t O
I C
tO
Id)
tO
PC
I
N/A
HIGH
N/A
N/A
N/A
15TH HIGIEST/lO TYPES 1
friznoa
California
(Hawaii
Nevada
tPmarican Samoa
Tr. Terr. of P
ISoaa
1ø I
I
IX
IX
I X
IX
• IX
IX
IX
IX
143 WELLS
1,165 WELLS
MI
3 WELLS
I C
10
Pd)
2 WELLS
PERMIT
N/A
I N/A
I PERMIT
N/A
1 N/A
N/A
I tOE
I I )
10
10
NO
1 tO
tO
1 Id)
I I )
I_
HIGH
HIGH
N/A
MODERATE
N/A
N/A
N/ti
LOW
I
lAlaska
Udaho
i(hqon
Washington
I
I
1
1
I
—
•
B WELLS (PERMIT OW RILE
52 WELLS I PERMIT)18 FT
Pd) I N/A
NO PERMIT/RULE
I
tO HIGH
10 16TH HIGIEST/14 TYPES:
Id) 1 N/A
1 Pd) N/A
NOTE: SOlE MJIdERS IN THIS TALE NE ESTIMATES.
4—153
-------
TA .E 4-33: SYNOPSIS IF STATE REPORTS FOP PTIC SYSTEI 3l)
5W11.31,32
I(SIGH
&
STATES
EPA
I RESIOP
: Confined
Presence
I Of Well Type
Requlat y I Case Stuthes/ I Contaaination
Syste. Info. available Potential
Rating
IConnecticut
Maine
:n ae.acI e.tts
Die Ha shire
Diode Island
IVeriont
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
Mi
PC
I IC
PC
, PC
Mi
N/A PC
N/A Mi
N/A IC
N/A IC
N/A M l
N/A PC
I ti/A
NJA
N/A
N/A
I N/A
N/A
I
New Jersey
IMawY k
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
11
II
11
II
M I
YES
NOLLS
Mi
N/A I IC
PERII1T>1K ’D PC
N/A I PC
N/A PC
N/A
I N/A
N/A
N/A
‘
IDelaware
:Maryland
Pennsylvania
IVirqinia
Diet Virginia
III
III
II I
III
III
PC 1 N/A PC
890 IC.LS I PEI IIT I IC
13 IC.LS 1 N/A IC
P C . N/A : PC
IC N/A PC
N/A
) HI €ST/3 TYPES
1 3RD H1 €ST/6 TYPES
N/A
I N/A
‘
Alabaia
IF1 ida
IGeorgia
Kuntucky
Wlssissippi
DOth Carolina
ISxth Carolina
Tennessee
I
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
NO N/A IC
PC I N/A I IC
Mi 1 N/A IC
736 NOLLS I RILE PC
IC I N/A Ml
Mi N/A ‘ MI
PC N/A Mi
PC N/A NO
N/A
N/A
I N/A
INOOI
N/A
N/A
I N/A
N/A
I
I
I lilinois
Indiana
Michigan
IMinnesota
: o
IWiscmsin
I
I
V
V
V
V
V
V
I
Mi
105 tELLS
2,511 tELLS
• 16 tELLS
PC
3tELLS
N/A IC
N/A I Mi
N/A PC
N/A Mi
N/A • IC
RILE PC
I
I
N/A
I N/A
N/A
I N/A
• N/A
IGH
I
frkansas
Ikonisiana
INeuMasico
IOklahosa
Tesas
I
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
Ml
PC
M l
PC
IC
I
N/A Ml
N/A I PC
N/A Mi
N/A I Ml
N/A PC
I
I
I N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
.
I
Hosa
Xansas
Nisscwi
I libraska
I
I I
VII Mi N/A IC
• VII I IC 1 N/A IC
VII Mi I N/A Mi
VII 1 PC RILE I PC
- I I
.
I N/A
N/A
I ti/A
N/A
I -
I
ICoicrado
Iroitana
Dbtb Dakota
IS th Dakota
Wtah
Wyo.ing
VIII PC
VIII Mi
VIII PC
VIII Mi
VIII IC
VIII Ml
I I
N/A PC
N/A PC
N/A 1 Mi
N/A PC
PERMIT I MI
N/A PC
I -
WA
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Ifrlzcna I X
ICalif nia IX
IHaisaii IX
ilivada IX
IPaerican Saeoa IX
tin. Terr. of P II
IX
DIII IX
, I
lB tELLS
48 tELLS
7 tELLS
Ml
PC
PC
IC
PC
I PERMIT IC
PERMIT I Mi
I PERMIT YES
BNI€D 1 PC
1 N/A Ml
I N/A Mi
1 N/A PC
N/A I Ml
I
HISIt
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
WA
N/A
N/A
N/A
I I
I I
Alaska I
l ldaho I I
eqcn I
Iwashington I I
3 WELLS
PC
PC
PC
I
PERIIIT OP RILE I Mi
I N/A Ml
N/A Ml
I N/A PC
I
HIGH
N/A
N/A
N/A
MiTE: 1PE PUIBERS IN THIS TABLE N ESTIMTES.
4—154
-------
TABLE 4-34: SY! SIS STATE REP(X TS F SEPTIC SYSTEI 5W32)
5W11,31,32
RESI&4 I EPA
& RE6I
STATES
I Confir d
Presence
Of Well Type
RequIati y I Case Studies! I Ca tasinati i
Syste. Unfo. availablel PotEntial
Rating
IConnacticut
Naine
Massachusetts
IWeN HaEshire
I ode Island
IVerwit
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2 WELLS
ND
I NO
tID
: NO
NO
I
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
I YES
ND
NO
NO
NO
NO
I
HI
N/A
N/A
N/A
I N/A
I N/A
I
I
N swjarsey
:We Y k
IPuerto RiCO
IVirgin Islands
11
II
II
II
I
NO
I YES
63 tELLS
ND
N/A
PE IT>1K D
N/A
N/A
I
ND
ND
YES
NO
I
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
IDelaware
Maryland
IPennsylvania
V irQtn :a
Wesf Virginia
III
II I
III
III
III
ND
NO
ND
NO
M I
N/A
I N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
i ND
ND
NO
M I
• NO
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Alabaia
Fl ida
IBeagia
IKentucky
Ihississippi
IIbth Carolina ‘
ISmith Carolina
Tennesse. I
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
NO
* 1
NO
M I
NO
M I
200 WELLS
NO
N/A
1 N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
PERMIT
N/A
I ND
I C
• IC
Mt
IC
NO
N D
NO
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
LOWEST/3 TYPES
N/A
Ullinois
I lnthana
INichigan
:M innesota
iio
IWiscmsin
I
V
V
V
V
V
V
M I N/A
NO : N/A
NO N/A
PC N/A
NO I N/A
NO I N/A
I
M I
PC
NO
NO
ND
NO
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N /A
N/A
I
I kansas
IL o usi a na •
IWewMaxico
IOklah
Ilexas
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
IC
NO
ND
IC
ND
I
N/A
N/A
N/A
• N/A
I N/A
NO
NO
ND
ND
NO
I
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
I
Ilcwa
Ikansas
missouri
Webraska •
I
VII
VII
VII
VII
NO
‘ ND
ND
NO
I N/A
• N/A
N/A
• RILE
I
NO
ND
IC
NO
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
I
I
IColarado
IYu tana
:tUth Dakota
ISouth Dakota
IUtah
Iwyornng
I
VIII PC N/A
VIII NO N/A
VIII ND N/A
VIII PC N/A
VIII P C PERMIT
VIII P C N/A
I
NO N/A
ND N/A
NO N/A
IC N/A
ND N /A
ND N/A
IPrizona
ICalif nia
Hawau
Nevada
I rican Saena
Tr. Tart. of P
Soai
DIII
I
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
3 WELLS
1,276 tEllS
II )
YES
NO
ND
NO
NO
PERMIT
I PERMIT
I N/A
I PERMIT
1 14/A
N/A
I N/A
N/A
I
MI HI I
NO HI
NO N/A
ND I N/A
ND N/A
P C I N/A
ND N/A
NO I N/A
—
I
IAlaska X
Udaho I X
I eqon I
IWashingt 1
& I
2,133 WELLS IPERMIT t RILE I NO I HIGH
NO 1 P1/A I NO I N/A
NO I PERNIT)5 1( D I NO I N/A
108 tELLS I PERMIT I NO 1 VARIABLE
NOTE: SOlE P&BIBERS IN ThIS TABLE ME ESTIP TES.
4—15 5
-------
5W11,31,32
The inventory of Class V systems obviously is not complete.
One reason may be a reluctance to address a problem which
traditionally has been regulated locally, and which has such
tremendous resource implications. The resources do not currently
exist in the t.TIC program to address the inventory of all Class V
septic systems.
Many “sanitary” septic systems may be found to be “dual
purpose” and, in fact, used to dispose of (as opposed to treat)
organics and other chemicals which may retard or destroy the
treatment capabilities of septic systems.
Construction, Siting and Operation
Septic systems consist of two major components: a septic
tank and a subsurface treatment/disposal system. Septic tanks
are used to trap floating grease, scum, and settleable solids in
wastewater. Solids are anaerobically decomposed within the tank.
Baffles within the tank promote the settling of wastewater
constituents. Figure 4-23 displays a cross section of a typical
concrete septic tank. Conventional septic tank subsurface
disposal Systems receive partially treated effluent from the
septic tank. Two popular subsurface disposal systems are the
disposal well and the drainfield.
Wells used in conjunction with septic tanks employ simple
gravity flow designs. These wells commonly fit into two
categories: brick lined cesspool-type wells and seepage pits
(some systems in Oregon use drain holes). Seepage pits often are
used when drainfields are impractical because of siting or
geologic restrictions. The uncased sidewalls and bottom of the
seepage pit provide a subsurface disposal interf ace (Figure 4-
24). A series of pits often are used within one septic system.
Pits usually are separated by a distance equal to three times
their diameter. Seepage pits usually are dug 5 to 10 feet above
the water table and are backfilled with coarse gravel (James M.
Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc. 1979).
Configurations of drainfields include the conventional
drainfield and the absorption mound system. Conventional drain-
fields consist of a series of perforated distribution pipelines
(Figure 4-25) placed in trenches or shallow seepage beds. The
perforated pipe is placed in the trench or bed at a slight slope
to promote drainage. Gravel or crushed rock also is backfilled
around the perforated pipe to improve drainage. Topsoil of at
least one foot thickness is placed over the gravel layer. Drain-
field trenches generally are 1 to 3 feet wide and beds range in
width from 3 to 12 feet. Figure 4—25 shows two cross sections of
conventional drainfields. General recommended siting criteria
for drainfields, as established by the USEPA, are presented in
Table 4-35. Many States have adopted siting guidelines, some of
which are incorporated in permit requirements.
4 — 156
-------
5 W11,31,32
CONVEN]1ONAL SEPTiC TANK
(adapted from James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, 1979) Agure 4—23
SEPTIC TANK
TO SUBSURFACE
TREATMENT/DISPOSAL
SYSTEM
___ MANHOLE COVERS
RAW WASTEWATER
EFFLUENT
4—157
-------
SEPTiC TANK
0
5 W11 1 31 1 32
1. U
SEEPAGE PIT
SEEPAGE PIT DISPOSAL STh1 EM
0 — SEEPAGE PIT
C
BUILDING PAPER
—PERFORATED
• 0 PIPE :. :
0
• 00
GRAVEL.
LOOSENED NATIVE SOIL
(from James M. Montgomery, Conailting Engineers, 1979)
4—158
Figure 4-24
GRASS COVER
ACCESS
I
-------
L 3—6ft ,4 3—6ft
5 W11,31,32
Barrier
Material
1/2 1n Rock
SEEPAGE BED DESIGN SECTION A-A ’
TRENCH DESIGN SECTiON B-B ’
CONVENTiONAL DRAIN FIELD
DISPOSAL SYSTEMS
(from USEPA, October 1980 and
James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, 1979) Figure 4—25
Distribution Box
Perforated Pipe
A
—
Alter Material —‘
_ — ———H
1
_____ 1
—-----
—.---J
A’
PLAN VIEW
Distribution Box
Perforated
Distribution
Pipe
is
Backfill
Barr ler
Material j :.’j !•
I I
6-12 1n of
3/4—2 1121n
dla. Rock
4—159
-------
5W11,31.32
TABLE 4—35
sri QUT IA F DRAINFIEW W sKKP E B D SYS’Th ’S
(U.S. EPA, 1980)
IT I ERIA
Landscape Level, well drained areas, crests of slopes,
convex slopes host desirable. Avoid depressions,
bases of slopes and concave slopes unless suitable
surface drainage is prcwided.
Slopea 0 to 25 percent. Slopes in excess of 25 percent
can be utilized but the use of construction
machinery may be limited. Bed sys tans are limited
to 0 to 5 percent.
‘pical Horizontal
Sepera tion Distancesb
Water Supply Wells 50 — 100 ft
Surface Waters, Springs 50 — 100 ft
EscaiVnents, Manmade Cuts 10 — 20 ft
Bcunc3ary of Property 5 - 10 ft
Building Fourdations 10 - 20 ft.
Soil
Texture Soils with sardy or loamy textures are best suited.
Gravely and cdblef soils with open pores and sl ly
perireable clay soils are less desirable.
Structure Strong granular, blcxky or prismatic structures are
desirable. Platy or unstructured massive soils should
be avoided.
Color Bright, uniform colors indicate well-drained, well-
aerated soils. Dull, gray or nottled soils indicate
continuous or seasonal saturation and are unsuitable.
Layering Soils exhibiting layers with distinct textural or
structural changes should be carefully evaluated to
insure water movarent will not be severely restricted.
Unsaturated Depth 2 to 4 ft of unsaturated soil should exist between the
bottan of the system and the seasonally high water
table or bedrock.
4 — 160
-------
5W11,31,32
TABLE 4—3 5, C xitinued
I Q TERIA
Pei colation Rate 1 to 60 mm/in (average of at least. 3 percolation
tests). Syst ns can be constructed in soils with
slower percolation rates, but. soil damage during
construction rruist be avoided.
aL s pe position and slope are nore restrictive f or beds because of the
depths of cut on the upslope side.
b t ed only as a guide. Safe distance varies fran site to site, based upon
topography, soil perireability, graind water gradients, geology, etc.
with pexcolation rates less than 1 mm/in can be used for trenches and
beds if the soil is replaced with a suitably thick (greater than 2 ft.) layer of
loarr y sand or sand.
4 — 161
-------
5W11,31,32
Absorption mounds, or elevated drainfields, are alternative
subsurface disposal systems. Absorption mounds have been used to
replace conventional drainfields where high ground-water tables
prevail. Mounds typically are constructed 3 feet above ground
level out of clay, sand, and gravel (Figure 4—26). Perforated
distribution pipe is set in gravel filled trenches running along
the length of the mound. Treated effluent is discharged through
the perforated pipe. Water then seeps through the underlying
gravel, sand and native soil layers.
Injected Fluids and Injection Zone Interaction
Injected Fluids. The quality of treated wastewater
discharged from Class V septic wastewater disposal systems is
variable. This quality is dependent upon the quality of
untreated wastewater entering the treatment system and the type
of Class V septic wastewater disposal system utilized.
Characterization of Untreated Domestic Wastewater
Domestic sewage from individual homes and large residential
developments consists of approximately 99.9 percent water (by
weight) and 0.03 percent suspended solids. Ranges of constituent
concentrations found in domestic sewage are presented in Table 4-
30 in the cesspool and raw sewage well assessment section. Of
these constituents, nitrates are well known for their capacity to
contaminate USDW. Anions of chlorides and sulfates, and cations
of sodium and calcium, can also significantly deteriorate
drinking water if injected in sufficient volumes (Carriere, 1980).
Organic compounds known to contaminate ground water have
been detected only recently and quantified in domestic sewage.
In a study conducted by the Washington (State) Department of
Health and the University of Washington, untreated domestic
sewage was found to contain 49 to 50 organic compounds in excess
of 1 ppb; of these, 5 are considered to be priority pollutants
(Dewalle, et. a].., 1985). Toluene was the most prevalent
priority pollutant (as designated by Dewalle) detected in the
untreated sewage. Dichioromethane, chloroform, and
tetrachiorothene were other priority pollutants found (Dewalle,
et. al., 1985).
Pathogenic bacteria and viruses also are present in
untreated domestic sewage. Pathogens can constitute a
considerable health hazard if they reach potable ground water.
Industrial/Commercial Wastewaters
Wastewater sewage from commercial or industrial
establishments can resemble domestic sewage. This is most likely
true in waters generated from offices, motels, recreational
campgrounds, etc. Other commercial and industrial businesses,
4 — 162
-------
5 W11 ,31 ,32
ABSORPTiON MOUND DISPOSAL SYSTEM
(from James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, 1979)
Figure 4—26
GRASS COVER
BUILDING PAPER
SHRUB
S 1LTY LOAM TOPSOIL
GRAVEL
PLOWED NATiVE SOIL
TREATED EFFLUENT
F
4—163
-------
5 WiT, 31, 32
however, discard chemical or industrial wastes in their sewage.
Printers dispose of organic solvents and metal degreasers, and
the photoprocessing industry disposes of many organic and
inorganic chemicals. Laundries and laundromats dispose of soil
and stain removers. Dry cleaners discard used solvents such as
trichioroethylene and perchloroethylene. Paint dealers and
hardware stores discard many harmful solvents and cleaning
products. Restaurants must dispose of large volumes of grease
and cleaners. Funeral homes handle various chemicals. (See
South Carolina Report on Funeral Home Septic Systems.) Gasoline
and service stations discard waste oils, degreasers and other
solvents, and other automotive fluids. Laboratory wastes also
contain many harmful wastes such as dyes. All of these
establishments may use septic systems. (USEPA, 1986)
Treatment Capacities of Class V Septic Wastewater Disposal
Sys tems
The ability to treat constituents in sewage wastewater is
governed by the treatment process employed. The following
briefly describes the treatment capacities and expected effluent
compositions of Class V septic system wastewater.
Septic tank systems provide a primary degree of treatment to
sewage was tewater. The expected removal efficiency ( [ C 1 -
Cout]/Cin] x 100%) of total solids in septic tanks is 10 to 15
percent (Kern, 1980). Given this efficiency, effluent
concentrations of Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) in strongly
concentrated domestic sewage (See Table 4-31) would exceed the
National Secondary Drinking Water Standard for TDS.
The expected removal efficiency of bacteria in septic tank
systems is 25 to 75 percent (Kern, 1980). This presumes that
the wastewater does not contain chemicals which function as
biocides. When these chemicals (biocides) are present, not only
are the chemicals not removed, but the anaerobic activity in the
tank and the aerobic activity at the soil interface may be
retarded or stopped. In this case, the treatment function is
thwarted, and the septic system is in reality a disposal
mechanism. Attempts to determine removal efficiencies of viruses
in septic tank effluent have been impeded. Standard analytical
methods for detecting and quantifying low but significant levels
of harmful viruses in water are not widely established (Scaif,
et. al., 1977).
The removal of nitrogen and phosphorous from septic tank
influent is minimal. Cases of ground-water contamination from
nitrates produced by septic tank effluent are widespread
throughout the nation. A document prepared for the USEPA reports
that concentrations of nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium in
waste water are slightly reduced by primary treatment (Batelle
Memorial Institute, 1974)
4 — 164
-------
5W11,31,32
Septic tank systems also are ineffective in treating
synthetic organics. This was documented in the University of
Washington study previously noted. Influent and effluent
domestic waste waters from a five year-old community septic tank
were sampled. Essentially no removal of priority pollutants
occurred during the two-day detention time in the septic tank
(Table 4-36). Organic compounds most often detected in the
septic tank effluent were dichioromethane, toluene,
dichlorobenzene, bis—pthalate and diethylphthalate (Dewalle, et.
al., 1985).
In summary, domestic and industrial sewage constituents are
not effectively treated in septic tanks. Soil absorption systems
often are expected to provide additional treatment of these
constituents. Bacteria, viruses, chlorides, and synthetic
organics in septic tank effluent are present in concentrations
not found in drinking water. Average effluent concentrations of
organic compounds may be especially high if industrial/commercial
wastes are handled by the septic system.
Injection Zone Interactions. The injection zone ideally
utilized by Class V sewage disposal systems is the unsaturated
(vadose) zone. This zone exists above the underlying ground-
water table and is largely responsible for contaminant
attenuation. Biological activity, including organic matter
decomposition and nutrient assimilation by plants, occurs in the
upper layer of the vadose zone (Canter and Knox, 1985). Fluia
movement is also relatively slow in the vadose zone (unsaturated
materials) when compared to saturated media (Freeze and Cherry,
1979). Biological and chemical removal mechanisms in the vadose
zone are enhanced by these increased residence times.
Adsorption, ion exchange, and chemical precipitation are
important chemical interactions influencing the transport and
fate of constituents in soils. A key soil parameter in the
removal of inorganic substances is the soil cation exchange
capacity (CEC). High values of CEC are desirable and are
associated with high organic matter and clay content in soils.
A unique pollutant removal zone known as the clogging layer
results when biologically treatable domestic sewage is discharged
into soils. The clogging layer is a slimy mass consisting of
wastewater solids, mineral precipitates, microorganisms (mostly
faculative bacteria but also some protozoa and nematodes), and
the by-products of decomposition. Formation of the clogging
layer occurs at the interface between the soil and the waste
discharge system (drainfield, seepage bed, etc.).
The clogging layer employs physical filtration as well as
biological and chemical transformation to partially remove
contaminants. The high concentration of microorganisms in the
clogging layer makes the layer an efficient biofilter. Viruses,
in only rare instances, have been detected up to 400 meters in
4 — 165
-------
!FABLE 4-36
C ac LS Th IAJ T F a1 cXIIVNI’IY
M1 kT.LC TANK
DAILY A LYS , 9—22 9—28, 1980, (ug/L)
9—
i ’
9-
E”
9—23 9—23
I E
9—24
I
9—24
E
9—25
I
9—25
E
9—26
I
9—26
E
9—27
I
9—27
E
9—28
I
9—28
E
1.
Methane. brano-
2.
3.
Methane,
trichiorofluoro-
Methane, thchloro
(methy lenech loride)
14.8
4.8
44.4
0.6
0.8
7.3
4.4
3.7
3.7/—
1.9
3.0
0.5
0.8
5.6
9.0
4.
Ethene. 1, 2-dichloro-
5.
Ethene, 1, 1-dichioro-
6.
Qilorofonn
5.3
0.9
0.82
—/0.3
0.9
0.4
1.9
1.0
7.
T uene
24.9
31.9
38.2/— 22.2
38.1
32.9
28.5/—
47.8
38.4
32.1
48.9
25.3
56.9
8.
Ethene, tetrachioro-
9.
Benzene, chioxo-
10.
Ber ene , ethyl—
11.
Methane, tribrcino-
3.5/—
12.
Ethane,1,1,1—
Trichioro
13.
Benzene
0.18
14.
Propane, 1.2—
Dichioro-
15.
Ethene, trichioro-
16.
1—Propane, 1,3—
dichioro (2)-
17.
Ethane,1,1,2—
trichioro-
18.
1,4—dichlorthersene
0.79/
2.13
2.57
1.8/
23
2.9
2.7
2.9
4.7
0.7
-
0 )
0)
(1) Irifluent.
(2) Effluent.
(3) ‘IWo samples.
-------
5W11,31,32
porous soils (Perkins, 1984). As with bacteria, however, viruses
are easily absorbed by vadose zone soils and will migrate only
under unusual conditions (Carriere, 1980).
Phosphates also are easily absorbed by soils under normal
loading rates. Migration of phosphates formed from phosphorous
usually is limited and generally does not pose a threat to USDW
(Carriere, 1980).
Nitrates are produced in the injection zone when the
ammonia-laden effluents from sewage disposal systems are
oxidized. Ammonia concentrations are relatively high near the
point of injection. These concentrations, however, decrease
sharply with depth while the nitrate concentrations increase.
Since nitrate is a soluble anion, the soil’s cation exchange
capacity cannot remove the nitrate ion and nitrates subsequently
move with the percolating effluent into groundwater.
Synthetic organic contaminants present in sewage and other
wastewater are relatively intractable to microbial degradation in
the vadose zone (Scaif, et. al., 1977). The attenuative effects
of adsorption/absorption reactions on organic chemicals in the
vadose zone are largely unknown. Furthermore, these reactions
are dependent on underlying soil characteristics and are
therefore site—specific.
All of the above are predicated upon a sufficient depth of
appropriate unsaturated soils below the point of injection. Some
case studies report a depth to the water table of only one or two
feet. There also may be a mound of wastewater under the point of
injection. The effect in such cases may be that aerobic
treatment is retarded or eliminated. Again, some waste chemicals
act as biocides and can partially neutralize the clogging layer.
Hydrogeology and Water Use
Over 30,000 Class V septic tank systems have been reported
in the United States and its Possessions and Territories.
Consequently, septic systems dispose of treated effluent into a
multitude of geologic formations.
Septic systems with drainfields are widely used in geologic
formations typified by shallow alluvial deposits. These deposits
usually Consist of sand with interbedded layers of gravel, clay,
and silt. Septic tank systems with conventional drainfields
generally are not operated in settings where any of the following
hydrogeologic conditions exist:
1. Shallow impermeable layers (i.e. clay, silt, caliche
layers)
2. shallow ground water tables; and
3. highly permeable vadose zones.
4 — 167
-------
5W11,31,32
Septic systems with elevated drainfields (also called absorption
mounds) are an alternative disposal method used in some States
where shallow water tables and/or highly permeable sediments
occur.
Septic tanks with wells are used in consolidated and
unconsolidated strata. Seepage pits (see Figure 4-24) commonly
are used as an alternative to drainfields when shallow
impermeable layers lie just below land surfaces. Seepage pits
are completed below these shallow impervious layers and into
underlying permeable strata. Septic systems with wells also have
been reported in areas where shallow bedrock occurs. These wells
are drilled into the consolidated stratum and penetrate
underlying cracks and solution channels.
The majority of reported Class V septic systems inject
treated wastewater above USDW. Due to the large number of USDW
involved, generalizations regarding the quality of these waters
can not be made. A number of these TJSDWS however, are used or
are in hydraulic communication with aquifers used for drinking
water supply sources. Shallow, unconfined USDW are the most
susceptible to contamination from septic system discharges.
Because domestic wells usually tap shallow aquifers, drinking
water from these sources is most immediately threatened.
Aquifers used for municipal drinking water supplies are usually
deeper and immediately less susceptible to surface discharges.
In general, USDW currently or potentially affected by Class V
septic systems are used for irrigation, industrial use, domestic
and municipal water supplies.
Contamination Potential
Based on the rating system described in Section 4.1, septic
systems are assessed to pose a high potential to contaminate
USDW. These wells typically do inject into or above Class I or
Class II USDW. Typical well construction, operation, and
maintenance would allow fluid injection or migration into
unintended zones. Injection fluids typically have concentrations
of constituents exceeding standards set by the National Primary
or Secondary Drinking Water Regulations. The fluids may exhibit
characteristics or contain constituents listed as hazardous as
stated in the RCRA Regulations. Based on injectate
characteristics and possibilities for attenuation arid dilution,
injection does occur in sufficient volumes or at sufficient rates
to cause an increase in concentration (above background levels)
of the National Primary or Secondary Drinking Water Regulation
parameters in ground water, or endanger human health or the
environment in a region studied on a group/area basis.
In rating septic systems, States have based their judgment
upon the conditions in each State. For example, Wyoming has
rated them as moderate (“five” on a scale of 1 to 10) because
there are few such wells identified. Massachusetts rates them
4 — 168
-------
5W11,31,32
low because they are permitted, and permit conditions limit both
injection and siting. South Carolina reports over 200 and rates
them as low based upon the permitting system in place.
Other States such as Nevada, Alaska, Ohio, Nebraska, and
Montana rate these same sub-types as having high pollution
potential. This presents a dilemma in providing a national
generic assessment. It seems clear that the best approach is to
rate these injection practices by their unregulated potential.
Therefore, all septic systems are assessed as having a high
contamination potential.
Septic Systems (Well Disposal Method 5W31). In general,
septic systems are used in residential areas. Very often they
are found in combination with private or public water supply
wells completed into the surficial aquifer. Class V septic
systems are located in areas which are not publicly sewered or
lack sufficient capacity to service rapid residential
development.
Properly designed, constructed, and operated septic systems
prvide an adequate method of treatment and renovation of human
waste and biodegradable domestic waste. However, evidence is
growing that systems often do not operate as designed. Septic
systems treat nitrogen, microorganisms, and total solids to
varying degrees. Synthetic organic compounds potentially present
in wastewater are not treated. As a result, septic tank effluent
has been found to contain contaminants which exceed MCLs (maximum
contaminant levels) or are “hazardous”. This effluent drains
into a well which may inject directly into an USDW.
Septic Systems (Drainfield Disposal Method, 5W32). The
discussion on the nature of the injectate applies equally to this
sub—class of well. In fact, systems lacking the septic tank,
consisting of a drain field only have been reported being used
for the disposal of industrial wastes. These are rated in
Section 4.2.6.2, later in the report.
The design advantage of a septic tank followed by a
drainfield is that a properly designed and operated system can
provide treatment and renovation for sanitary wastes. Such a
system can be a very practical solution to the disposal of
sanitary wastes in unsewered areas. However, in view of the
nature of modern domestic waste and the wide spread potential for
abuse, including the often reported dual use of residential
systems to include industrial and commercial wastes, such wells
should be rated as having a high contamination potential. The
potential seems even higher when it is recalled that the abuse of
septic systems may destroy the treatment of pathogens and the
biological processes in the tank and drainage field. The result
is the subsurface emplacement of untreated liquid wastes which
endanger USDW.
4 — 169
-------
5W11,31,32
Current Regulatory Approach
Class V septic systems are authorized by rule under
Federally-administered UIC programs (see Section 1). Many States
regulate discharges of sanitary sewage to ground water by flow
rate categories. In Massachusetts for example,
Domestic discharges greater than 15,000 GPD
require a permit and are regulated under the
Groundwater Discharge Permit Program... Discharges into
structures or pits that are deeper than they are wide
qualify as underground injection control facilities.
Those UIC facilities (which are not exempted) are
required to obtain a groundwater discharge permit.
Many States report that no records are kept of single family
septic systems. These may be registered with a local
jurisdiction, and approved by a sanitarian, but those records may
not be available to the State.
South Carolina gives a good description of the relationship
of State Agencies.
In South Carolina, wastewater disposal systems
comprised of septic tank/absorption fields are
regulated by two permitting programs within the South
Carolina Department of Health and Environmental
Control. The Bureau of Environmental Sanitation issues
permits for facilities involving restaurants,
laundromats, car washes and individual residential
systems. The Bureau of Water Pollution Control issues
construction and operating permits for all other
industrial and sanitary land disposal systems,
including septic tank/tile field systems.
The permitting program of each Bureau issues a
permit of approval or denial for tile field disposal
only after a rigid assessment of the overall potential
environmental impact from the proposed system. The
site specific assessment includes an investigation of
potential impact to the shallow aquifer system and
takes into consideration wastewater characteristics,
hydrogeological conditions of the proposed site, and
any existing and/or potential ground-water use in the
area. Hydrogeological site assessments are performed
by staff hydrogeologists of the Groundwater Protection
Division for systems regulated by the Bureau of Water
Pollution Control. Soil classifiers (sanitarians)
perform preliminary site assessments for the Bureau of
Environmental Sanitation, On occasion, a
hydrogeologist from the Groundwater Protection Division
assists Environmental Sanitation.
4 — 170
-------
5W11,31,32
Arizona instituted a Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) in July of 1987, to protect, among other things, ground-
water quality.
Chapter 20 of the Arizona Compilation of Rules and
Regulations, passed in 1984, requires the issuance of a
ground water quality protection permit for all disposal
activities that may adversely affect ground water
quality. Operators of waste disposal facilities are
required to submit a Notice of Disposal (NOD)
describing disposal activities. If the facility is
deemed to have no adverse effect on ground water a
permit will be issued by the Arizona Department of
Health Services (ADHS), which maintains records of all
NOD’S and permits issued (Wilson, 1986a).
Arizona Department of Health Services guidelines
pursuant to Rules and Regulations for Sewage Systems
and Treatment Works prohibit some practices and
installations. Septic systems are prohibited under the
following conditions: 1) when connection to a public
sewer system is determined by the ADHS to be practical,
2) when soil conditions or topography are such that
septic systems cannot be expected to function properly,
3) where ground—water conditions are such that septic
systems may cause contamination of the ground—water
supply, and 4) where systems may create an unsanitary
condition or public health nuisance. The use of
cesspools for waste disposal is prohibited, as is the
practice of discharging effluent from any waste
treatment device into any crevice, sink—hole, or other
natural or artificial opening, or into a formation
which may permit the contamination of ground water.
Florida has a permit system based on capacity.
Septic systems are usually permitted in Florida by
the county health departments. Regulations which
govern these septic systems are contained in Chapter
1OD-6 of the Florida Administrative Code (FAC). All
industrial septic systems and those domestic septic
systems receiving 5,000 gallons of waste per day or
more are regulated by the Department of Environmental
Regulation (DER). Chapter 17-6, FAC governs all septic
systems permitted by the DER.
California is regionalized.
California’s Regional Water Quality Control Boards
are empowered to regulate waste discharges within the
State. Class V sewage waste disposal systems are among
those dischargers regulated by the Regional Boards.
4 — 171
-------
5W11,31,32
Each of the nine Regional Water Quality Control
Boards in California have adopted individual regulatory
approaches regarding Class V sewage waste water
disposal systems. County health departments are
heavily relied upon by a majority of the Regional
Boards to regulate Class V on—site systems (i.e.,
septic tank systems) within their respective counties.
Municipal waste water disposal systems are exclusively
regulated by Regional Boards. Permits for Class V on-
site sewage systems are issued and maintained by county
health departments and/or Regional Water Quality
Control Boards.
Texas describes number of regulating authorities.
The degree and type of existing regulation varies
greatly among the three areas of the State in which the
Department of Health investigated sewage disposal
wells. Much of the study area was not covered by
septic tank orders. These areas are, however, subject
to regulation by incorporated towns and county health
departments. This regulation usually consists of
encouraging proper system design and installation, and
dissemination of information and guidelines. Often,
builders, developers, and architects will consult with
local public health officials for recommendations on
sewage system design. Another indirect form of
regulation is the requirement of a local health
department inspection and approval of domestic
wastewater facilities for Farmers Home Administration
(FHA) financing. This inspection provides a mechanism
for enforcing Department of Health guidelines and
upgrading some existing facilities.
In the High Plains, three counties and two lake
authorities administer septic tank orders. Included
within these areas are the cities of Lubbock, Canyon,
and Amarillo. These orders cover only a very small
part of the High Plains study area. The City of
Rocksprings, on the Edwards Plateau, has no regulatory
order, but reviews septic tank and disposal well
installations for basic design criteria. A similar
situation exists in Nueces County, where the Corpus
Christi-Nueces County Health Department reviews plans
and inspects construction of septic tank and disposal
well installations for compliance with design criteria.
Current private sewage facility regulatory
programs are generally of recent origin and are
effective in controlling design and installation of on-
site sewage disposal systems in new construction
projects. These programs, however, do not generally
assure upgrading of existing systems.
4 — 172
-------
5 W11,31,32
Recommendations
In many States septic systems for the disposal of sanitary
wastes are permitted by a County sanitarian. The traditional
concern has been to establish that the site “percs” or
infiltrates. Miller and Wolf (1975) point out that the issue is
more complex.
Thus the capacity of a soil to transmit and renovate
effluents is a function of its behavior under the
unsaturated flow conditions imposed by the crusting process
that renders the percolation test ineffective as a design
criteria, since this estimates saturated hydraulic
conductivity, whereas the system eventually operates in the
soil medium at unsaturated hydraulic conductivities as
governed by the infiltration rate at the clogged surface.”
In other words, septic drain fields will not accept the
volume of fluid indicated by a percolation test. The system may
fail. Therefore, an ongoing training program for sanitarians, is
recanmended by Minnesota, Puerto Rico, and Maryland.The training
should include hydrogeology, groundwater flow, theory of septic
system operation, and the potential risks to human health in the
disposal of organics, solvents, and other man-made chemicals in
septic systems.
It. was suggested by Kansas and Nebraska that septic systems
should be sited so as not to endanger any water wells. Present
local regulations may ignore hydrogeology and allow migration to
the owner’s and/or neighbor’s wells. Septic systems which
dispose without adequate treatment should be eliminated.
All septic systems should be individually sited and designed
(Texas). A hydrologic study should document the density of septic
systems and the total loading to the ground water (Nebraska).
Three states (Florida, Montana, and Oregon) recommended that
further study is required. Missouri recommended that proper
construction guidelines be developed, and Kansas suggested
investigating facilities to ensure quality well construction.
Washington stated that there is a critical need to establish
a statewide monitoring system, inventory methodology, and
database in order to evaluate design for existing systems,
establish ambient water quality in vulnerable aquifer regions,
and be able to quantify changes in critical parameters.
Finally, Texas recommended that sewage disposal wells for
private facilities be phased out and replaced by alternate
methods of treatment and disposal.
4 — 173
-------
5W12
4.2.3.3 Domestic Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent Disposal
Wells (5W12)
Well Purpose.
These wells should riot be confused with recharge wells
(5R21) and salt-water intrusion barrier wells (5B22) even though
wastewater is sometimes injected into the latter. This
discussion covers only domestic wastewater (sewage) treatment
plant disposal (5W12) wells that are intended to dispose of the
effluents from wastewater treatment plants by injecting the
wastewater into or above USDW. In addition to disposal, highly
treated domestic wastewater is sometimes injected between a fresh
ground-water body and the leading edge of an encroaching salt
water body. In such cases, the sole function of the injected
water is to reverse the pressure gradient causing the landward
migration of salt water. Wells injecting treated wastewater for
this purpose, however, fall under the saline water intrusion
barrier well category and therefore are not discussed here.
Domestic wastewater injection wells also may be used to reinforce
dwindling ground water resources. Where this has been done, the
remoteness of domestic water supply wells, combined with the
magnitude of dilution thus far has not resulted in any detectable
deterioration of ground—water quality in the vicinity of the
supply wells. Quite naturally, great effort has been made to
select sites that are remote from points of use and to provide a
very high degree of treatment -- treatment that produces an
effluent meeting all currently applicable maximum concentration
levels (MCL’S) for drinking water. Again, however, wells
injecting treated wastewater for this purpose are classified as
5R21 and will not be discussed in this section. Volumes of
wastes handled vary widely, from a few thousands of gallons per
day (for motels) to several millions of gallons per day (for
cities).
All the facilities reviewed so far have provided at least
secondary treatment, and a few could be rated as tertiary
treatment plants. Secondary treatment usually involves some form
of aeration (activated sludge or trickling filter or equivalent)
in addition to the primary treatment (sedimentation and digestion
of settleable solids). Clarification (removal of suspended
solids) is always involved, and final chlorination of the plant
effluent to destroy microorganisms also generally is included.
Since clogging of receiving formations can become a serious
obstacle in unconsolidated aquifer materials and in sandstones,
special efforts to remove still more of the fine suspended
solids, by filtration through sand, are likely to be necessary
when injecting into such geological formations.
4 — 174
-------
5W12
Inventory and Location
At this writing the inventory of type 5W12 wells is
incomplete. States reporting Type 5W12 wells and their estimated
numbers are shown in Table 4-37.
As seen in Table 4-37, the bulk of 5W12 wells are reported
as being in the States of Florida (553 wells) and Hawaii (339
wells). The abundance of cavernous limest.ones in Florida, and
the high permeabilities of the coralline limestones of the
Florida Keys make this disposal method popular in that State.
Both types of formations accept organic wastes with little
tendency to plug.
Hawaii has both fractured, tunneled basalt and highly
porous, ancient marine coral reefs which readily accept
wastewaters. This is an economical and simple means of disposal
for small towns, hotels, and institutions where there are no
public sewer systems.
At first glance, the 72 wells reported for Massachusetts is
surprising for a State not known for lirnestones or basalts.
However, all 72 wells are seepage pits serving a condominium
complex.
California (40 wells) and Texas (10 wells) are both in arid
regions where the heavy withdrawal of ground water f or irrigation
has led to some of the first serious attempts to replenish
freshwater aquifers with highly treated wastewater plant
effluents.
Construction, Siting, and Operation
Construction. Construction details vary widely. Some well
constructions show evidence of good casing and cementing pro-
grams, good screen designs in the injection zone, and dependable
flow and pressure monitoring/recording systems. Others are
little more than a few feet of pipe inserted into a bore hole
some 20 feet in depth. Construction details appear to be
controlled more by the need to keep the wells operating than by a
desire to confine the discharge to a predetermined zone.
The ability of a disposal well to inject a given discharge
rate into the injection zone is primarily a function of several
factors: 1) the permeability of the geological formation
comprising the receiving zone, 2) the thickness of the receiving
formation, 3) the design of the screen set across the receiving
interval, 4) the differential pressure head that is available to
force the waste water into the formation, 5) the completeness of
4 — 175
-------
TABLE 4-37: SYNOPSIS (F STATE PORTS FOR DO ST1C WASTE WATER TREAT IT PLANT EFFLUENT DISPOSAL WELLS(ZWI2
SIOR
&
STATES
EPA
6I
Confirsed
: Presence
Of Nell Type
Requlatory Case Studiesl Contaennaticn
Systes lIMo. availablel Potential
Rating
lC inecticut
INaine
Massachusetts
1N ewHa shire
ode Island
Veresnt
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I NO
NO
72 £15
NO
NO
NO
N/A NO
N/A NO
1PERMIT>1 C BPS YES
N/A NO
N/A NO
N/A NO
N/A
N/A
Lthi
N/A
N/A
I N/A
lNesJersey
New York
PuertoRico
Virgin Islands —
II
II
II
II
NO
21 WELLS
IWEI.L
NO
N/A
PERI IT
PERMIT
N/A
NO
NO
YES
M I
I—
I N/A
I N/A
HIGH
N/A
Delaware III
lP laryland III
lPennsylvan ia III
Virqinia III
INest Virginia III
NO
NO
4 WELLS
I WEli.
NO
N/A NO N/A
N/A NO N/A
N/A NO 14Th HI €ST/6 TYPES
N/A NO I N/A
N/A NO N/A
A labaaa I IV
IFlorida I IV
IBeorgia IV
Ikentucky IV
M ississ ippi IV
INorth Carolina • IV
IScuth Carolina I IV
Tennessee IV
I I
RI)
553 WELLS
NO
1 3 NO. 1.5
NO
NO
NO
I NO
N/A NO
P IT I YES
N/A NO
ELIMINATE I C
N/A NO
N/A NO
N/A NO
N/A I IC
I
I N/A
HI €ST/B TYPES I
I N/A
SERI
N/A
N/A I
N/A
N/A
I
Ullinois
Undlana
IMichigasi
Minnesota
lOno
IWisccusin
I
V I I WELL
V 27 WELLS
V 2 €15
V 11 WELLS
V I YES
V NO
I
RILE I NO
PERI41T I C
P IT NO
• N/A NO
N/A NO
N/A NO
I
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
•
kkansas
lLcws :ana
New rexaco
Oklahosa
Tesas
VI I IC
VI I NO
VI NO
VI IC
VI NO
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
MLEJPERPIIT
NO N/A
IC N/A
NO N/A
I C I N/A
YES N/A
I
l lowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
I
VII
I VII
VII
VII •
NO N/A
IC N/A
NO N/A
IC RILE
NO N/A
NO N/A
IC N/A
NO N/A
I
Colorado
IPb tana
North Dakota
Scuth Dakota
Wtah
I
VIII • IC N/A
VIII ND N/A
VIII NO • N/A
VIII I IC N/A
VIII NO PE I1T •
NO
NO
NO
IC
NO
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
IWycmng
IkI2cua
ICalifornia
Hawaii
Nevada
: erican Samoa
lit. Tart. of P
Scam
IDI I
I
VIII YES N/A
I X I I WELl. PERIIIT 1
I IX 22 WEI.LS PERIIIT
IX WELLS PERMIT
I IX IC I BAIlED
IX NO N/A I
1 IX NO I N/A
IX NO N/A I
IX NO N/A
I I I
NO N/A —
NO HIGH
RI) HIGH
YES HIGH
NO I N/A I
NO N/A
NO N/A
NO I N/A
NO I N/A
I I
I
lAlaska
l ldaho
(Weqon
Iwuliingtcn
——-——I I I I
X 4 WELLS IPEMiITORR%LE NO HIGH I
I NO . 1.5 1 RILE I IC 17Th HIG1€ST/14 TYPES
I 32 WELLS 1 N/A I NO N/A
I NO I RILE I NO I N/A
NO1E 90€ IIJIBERS IN THIS TABLE E ESTINATES.
5 Wi 2
4—176
-------
5 Wi 2
treatment before injection, and 6) the chemical compatibility of
the injectate with clays in the receiving formation.
A single term called “transmissivity” combines the first two
factors mentioned above: permeability and formation thickness.
The rate at which the receiving formation will accept the
injected fluid is directly proportional to its transmissivity.
For injection wells in sand and gravel formations, specially
designed “screens” are installed in the injection zone. These
screens provide a large percentage of open area and have slot
sizes that prevent movement of formation sand into the well
during “development.” Development is a process of agitation and
removal of materials around the well intake (screen) that are
fine enough to pass through the slots in the screen; it lowers
the resistance to flow close to the well thereby increasing the
efficiency and capacity of the well. Development is necessary
before placing the well in service and is required periodically,
to remove plugging materials from the face of the borehole and
restore well capacity.
Frequently 18-8 stainless steel or some other suitable alloy
is used as the material for the well screen; 18-8 stainless (18%
minimum chromium, 8% minimum nickel, 2% maximum manganese, 0.2%
maximum carbon, balance iron) is an alloy commonly used for water
well screens. It is noted for its excellent resistance to
corrosion by aggressive water and by harsh chemicals that
sometimes must be used during redevelopment. A well screen whose
length will cover a high percentage of the formation thickness is
specified.
Where highly permeable formations are used for the injection
zones, most disposal wells operate successfully “on gravity,”
that is, the pressure provided by the column of water in the well
casing is sufficient to cause the wastewater to flow into the
receiving formation without overflowing onto the ground surface.
There are numerous examples of “gravity flow” injection wells in
Florida, Kentucky, Tennessee, Hawaii, Puerto Rico and many other
States where such formations exist.
Where only sand or gravel beds are available, the resistance
to flow provided by the formation may require the use of pumps.
In such cases, the well casing is connected directly to the pipe
carrying the treatment plant effluent and the pumps maintain both
the pipe and casing under pressure.
Completeness of treatment prior to injection is crucial to
the successful hydraulic performance of an injection well
completed in unconsolidated materials (sands and gravels). The
more complete the treatment —— especially the removal of
suspended solids —- the longer the well will operate at
reasonable pressures before it must be shut down and
4 — 177
-------
5W12
rehabilitated. The plugging material may be fine sand, silt,
organic matter, and microorganisms. Bacteria and certain other
microorganisms find an ideal habitat within the screened portion
of the injection well, where a constant supply of nutrients at
nearly constant temperature is being provided by the effluent
stream. Final chlorination of the effluent before injection can
destroy most microorganisms and retard the growth of others
within the well; unfortunately, the concentrations of chlorine
necessary to be effective in water so high in organic materials
also produce a wide range of chlorinated organic compounds, some
of which are known to be toxic.
Siting. Injection well sites are selected for the usual
considerations: economics, convenience, suitability of the
target receiving formation, and, for the hydraulic effect the
injection will have on the receiving formations.
The first consideration given is to drill the well as near
as practical to the waste treatment facility it will serve. If
the well can be constructed on land owned by the facility,
additional land or rights-of-way will not have to be purchased.
The closer the well is located to the point of discharge, the
lower pipeline, trenching, and pumping costs will be.
In addition, the well must be located where suitable
receiving formations are available, as this will have a direct
bearing on the efficiency, serviceability and dependability of
the well. As in the case of water supply wel is, an exploratory
drilling program to locate and evaluate the injection formation
may be necessary if the desired information is not already
available.
Operation. Operation of injection wells for disposal of
domestic treatment plant wastewater may range from very simple to
relatively complex. Disposal wells in the Florida Keys,
delivering effluent to shallow (25 to 30 ft.) wells completed in
corailine limestones, operate by gravity flow with virtually no
attention. There is no monitoring of flow or water quality, and
there are no monitoring wells to track the lateral movement of
the injected waters.
At the other extreme are operations such as that at Jackson
Hole, Wyoming (Figures 4-27 and 4-28), where the plant effluent
quality is monitored for quality and measured for volume
regularly to assure that concentrations of constituents listed in
the tJSEPA regulations never approach the MCL’S for drinking
water; and samples downgradient of the well are withdrawn at
regular intervals to detect any significant change in ground
water quality.
4 — 178
-------
=
a
I
I
I
D
O ;
J
H
Surface
5’
5 — 7’
9-13’
42 - 49’
12’ X 30’ Stauless
Steel Screen
12’ X 3’ Blank
Steel Casing
28 — 60’
I — I
No Above-Surface
Treatment Specified
- SLr face
______ 4 PVC Sch. 80 Casing or
6-5/8’ Steel Casing
Bentorite Seal
________ 4 PVC Sch. 80
Wth 1/8’ Holes
Rows 6’ rt
OR
Casing
6 per Row,
6-5/8’ Steel Casing Wth
3/8’ X 1-1/2’ M I Slots,
3 per Foot
TYPICAL RG HARGE WELL
TYPICAL MONITOR WELL
Saritary Seal
A1r / Vacu m Valve
Pressure Gauge
Concrete Pad
Cement GroaA
14’ X 15’ Steel
Casing
5-12’
5 — 15’
Pac r
( ii
-------
0
m
z
-I
0
-------
5W12
At Bay City, New York, on Long Island, an experimental
domestic wastewater injection well has been operated for more
than two decades by the U.S. Geological Survey and the Nassau
County Department of Public Works (this experiment has been
terminated and the facility is no longer operating). Water
quality parameters for the injectate have been meticulously
monitored throughout the period. Despite intensive treatment of
the injectate, clogging has been an ever-present problem at Bay
City. Bacterial contamination has been limited to a few feet
radially from the injection well (Ehrlich, et al, 1979).
Both pressure and rate of injection are monitored at wells
injecting into sand and gravel formations, as these values
indicate when the well should be shut down for rehabilitation.
Clogging elevates pumping costs and reduces the rate of
mi ection.
Gravity flow wells injecting into highly permeable,
channeled, and cavernous limestones and into basalts are not
susceptible to clogging, so operation is relatively simple with
no need to monitor pressures at the well head. Limestones and
basalts, however, are ineffective barriers to the movement of
bacteria. Wastewater treatment plant injection wells completed
in such formations, therefore, are a greater threat to public
health. Destruction of pathogens during treatment before
injection is more critical than for wells injecting into sand
formations.
Injected Fluids and Injection Zone Interactions
Numerous studies have shown that bacteria are unable to
travel more than a few feet through unconsolidated sand and
gravel materials. The possibility of infections from bacteria
moving through such materials any appreciable distance therefore
appears not to be a concern. Phosphates and nitrates, however,
are present in all domestic waste treatment plant effluents, and
are completely mobile. Nitrates are permitted in drinking water
only in concentrations as high as 10 mg. per liter (10 parts per
million) as nitrogen: when concentrations in drinking water
exceed this value, they can b& reduced by a process called
“denitrification, U
The nature of domestic wastewater (unaffected by industrial
discharges) is such that, after treatment in a secondary or
tertiary wastewater treatment plant, it may approach chemical
compatibility with the water in the receiving formation.
There are two general categories of chemical reactions that
can result when the injectate mixes with formation water. One is
dissolution of aquifer rock materials; the other is the
production of chemical precipitates.
4 — 181
-------
5W12
If the injectate is acidic (pH less than 7.0),. some of the
rock matrix or minerals may be dissolved. This clearly can
happen in lirnestones and dolomites, with no consequence unless
the rocks happen to release significant amounts of undesirable
minerals as they dissolve or the solution channels are increased
in number or size. At Bay City, New York, the low pH of the
injectate dissolved iron-bearing minerals in the sand, elevating
iron concentrations in the vicinity of the injection well.
High alkalinity and higher pH (above 7.0) are more likely to
cause chemical precipitation when the injectate reacts with the
formation water. In this case the precipitates formed are likely
to plug granular formations, especially medium to fine sands.
Chemical precipates would not plug channeled formations such as
limestones or basalts.
There is another type of reaction that often takes place
when irijectate comes in contact with native clays. Many clays
are sensitive to changes in pH or the presence of certain ions --
especially sodium. A very small amount of clay dispersed within
a sand aquifer can effectively block the flow of water if it
swells as a result of a pH change or the presence of certain
ions. These phenomena are well known to the petroleum industry,
where extensive injectate water conditioning is sometimes
necessary to maintain the injectivity of water flood and salt
water disposal wells.
Hydrogeology and Water Use
If USDW are to be protected from possible contamination by
injectates from Class V injection wells, full advantage shouad be
taken of hydrogeologica]. factors affecting the direction and rate
of travel of injectates. The formations with the greatest
permeabilities and, hence, those that accept injected water most
readily are those that possess networks of interconnected
channels, fractures, caverns and tunnels. Examples of these are
the weathered limestones (especially the “karst” limestones) and
certain types of volcanics (especially certain basalts). These
types of formations also offer the additional advantage of not
being vulnerable to plugging by suspended materials in the
wastewater. As we shall note later, however, this inability to
intercept and hold suspended materials becomes a disadvantage
when public health considerations are taken into account.
Formations with low permeabilities, such as those composed
of fine sand or sand with quantities of silts and clays, do not
accept injectates as readily as the channeled limestones and
basalts and are far more susceptible to plugging by suspended
materials in the wastewater. For this reason a great deal of
attention needs to be paid to carrying, to a high degree of
completion, the treatment of the wastewater —- especially the
4 — 182
-------
5W12
removal of suspended matter. “Polishing” beds of sand, or
lagoons, are sometimes placed in service (following the normal
secondary treatment) to accomplish this end.
Ideally, the injection well is located so that none of the
injectate would ever reach a drinking water supply source. At
the very least, it should be so situated that its effect at the
water supply source would be undetectable. This is not always
the case, though, as can be seen from a facility in Florida.
The Florida domestic wastewater treatment plant near the
town of Florida in the Arecibo District of Puerto Rico is
situated in karst topography with numerous sinkholes. It was
found to be operating at about double its design capacity and
with the final, tertiary treatment section (sand bed filtration)
out of service. The effluent, confirmed by plant operating
records, was incompletely treated. It is likely that the plant
effluent, some 360,000 gallons per day discharged into a
sinkhole, travels downward through fissured and channeled
limestone to the water table aquifer below. The same aquifer is
the source of water for the town of Florida and several other
nearby groups of houses.
Contamination Potential
Based on the rating system described in Section 4.1,
domestic wastewater treatment plant effluent disposal wells are
assessed to pose a high to low potential to contaminate USDW.
These facilities typically do inject into or above Class I or
Class II USDW. Well construction, operation, and maintenance
may, in certain geological settings, allow fluid injection or
migration into unintended zones. Injection fluids sometimes have
concentrations of constituents exceeding standards set by the
National Primary or Secondary Drinking Water Regulations and are
of poorer quality (relative to standards of the National Primary
or Secondary Drinking Water Standards or RCRA Regulations) than
the fluids within any USDW in communication with the injection
zone. However, fluids may be of equivalent or better quality
(relative to standards of the National Primary or Secondary
Drinking Water Standards and RCRA regulations) than the fluids
within any USDW in connection with the injection zone. Based on
injectate characteristics and possibilities for attentuation and
dilution, injection sometimes occurs in sufficient volumes or at
sufficient rates to cause an increase in concentration (above
background levels) of the National Primary or Secondary Drinking
Water Regulation parameters in ground water, or endanger human
health or the environment beyond the facility perimeter.
The potential for Type 5W12 wells to contaminate USDW will
vary from high to low depending on the following considerations:
4 — 183
-------
5W12
1. Class V wells that inject into or above tJSDW are,
by virtue of the location of these target injec-
tion zones alone, a threat to aquifers. Elevation
alone provides the “head” or driving force neces-
sary for the injectate to tend to move toward the
USDW.
2. Where there is no geological formation providing
an effective barrier separating the injectate from
the USDW, as in the case of vugular limestones or
basalts, bacteria may be carried by flow of the
injectate to the USDW.
3. Unconsolidated sediments such as sands and fine
gravels effectively filter out bacteria and other
suspended solids within a few feet of the
injection well.
4. When only domestic sewage is being treated, that
is, no industrial wastes are present, the only
soluble constituents that are fully mobile and of
concern are phosphates and nitrates. Of these,
only nitrates are of public health concern; they
may require special treatment prior to injection.
5. Wastewater treatment plants accepting industrial
wastes may present a special threat, in that many
organic chemicals, as well as some “heavy t ’ metals
(frequently tpxic) pass through the treatment
process essentially unaffected.
6. Treatment facilities discharging into porous and
channeled limestones or basalts require constant
vigilance and monitoring, as these activities
constitute the only barriers to potential
contamination of USDW.
7. The origin of the water and the purity of the
injectate require continuous vigilance by plant
operators and dependability of mechanical devices.
Current Regulatory Approach
Class V domestic wastewater treatment effluent disposal
wells are authorized by rule under Federally-adrninisterec UIC
programs (see Section 1). Of the 19 States reporting the
existence of type 5W12 wells, Florida and Hawaii have, by far,
the most (80% of them).
4 — 184
-------
5W12
Florida. The Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
(FDER) issues construction permits for Class 5W12 wells. Permits
are also required for both operation and for plugging and
abandonment (P&A) of 5W12 wells. In addition, the FDER is
authorized to specify monitoring requirements as a condition to
operation.
The application—for—construction permit is a 3—page, rather
comprehensive document that requires the presentation of
information such as location and construction details of the
well, the general nature and volume of the injectate, a
description of the injection system, and definition of the area
of review showing all water supply wells, surface water bodies,
injection wells, etc. It specifies that contamination caused by
the proposed well can result in revocation of the operating
permit. The corresponding operating permit is non-renewable and
non—expiring (except for violations of the law) and is
transferable to another owner. The FDER may elaborate on
specific conditions set for operation of the facility within the
permit.
The FDER also requires that a permit to plug and abandon be
obtained when a 5W12 well is permanently removed from service.
The application requires a detailed description of the P&A plan.
Upon completion of the P&A operations, the owner is required to
complete a “Certification of Plugging Completion Class I, III or
V Well” and record it at the FDER.
The FDER has included in its State report a draft of
proposed “Revisions to the Florida UIC Class V Regulations.” It
deals primarily with proposed rules tightening the effluent water
quality requirements and specifying the types of treatment that
are expected to be used in bringing the quality up to levels safe
for injection.
Hawaii. The Department of Health of the State of Hawaii
issues permits for Class V wells, including the 5W12’s. A single
5-page application form is required to be filled out, whether it
be for an existing well, a new well, abandon and seal procedures,
or other activity.
The accompanying instructions are comprehensive, calling for
information on the facility such as, all wells within one-quarter
mile, geology and climatology, nature and source of injectate,
operating parameters, geohydrology, well logs, nature of
groundwater, results of injectivity tests.
State of Hawaii statutes prohibit the operation,
construction or modification of an injection well without a
permit issued by the Department of Health.
4 — 185
-------
5W12
California. Regional Water Quality Boar 1s (RWQB), of which
there are nine in the State, are the permitting agencies for 5W12
injection wells.
Texas. Registration is conducted by the Texas Department of
Water Resources (DWR). Existing Class V wells are regulated by
rule, on condition they’re registered by January 6, 1983.
Proposed new Class V wells must be registered with Department of
Water Resources prior to construction. The Department may
continue regulation by rule, or may develop “other regulating
approaches for specific categories of Class V wells.” The
following information is required to be submitted: (1) name of
facility; (2) name and address of legal contact; (3) owner; (4)
nature, type and operating status of each injection well; and (5)
location, depth, and construction of each well. After the
Executive Director of the DWR has reviewed the proposed
operation, he may require that the owner or operator apply for an
injection well permit.
Oregon. Registration is with the Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) of Oregon. The Department of Water
Resources (DWR) regulates and issues permits for groundwater
recharge. Individual permit drafting and source oversight are
the responsibility of the five DEQ regional offices.
Alaska. Class V injection wells are under the jurisdiction
of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC).
General permits describing the features of the facility are
issued by ADEC. In addition, local regulations may control in
certain areas. Currently many changes are occurring in local
regulations as the need for coordination is recognized.
Idaho. All Class V wells deeper than 18 feet below land
surface require permits issued by the Department of Water
Resources. An application must be filed with the DWR for
construction, maintenance or modification of an injection well.
No well is pe±-mitted by DWR if it contaminates an USDW.
Indiana. The main State regulatory statute in Indiana for
the control of pollution of both surface and groundwater is
3301AC 3-1. The Stream Pollution Control Board (SPCB) is
responsible for its enforcement. All discharges from Class V
wells into ground water require a permit from the SPcB except the
following:
• 1. approved and/or properly operating septic tanks
with less than 4,000 gallons of liquid capacity;
4 — 186
-------
5W12
2. discharges composed only of storm runoff; and
3. air conditioning/cooling water return wells which
do not use water additives.
The Indiana State Board of Health administers the discharge
permitting program through several state sub-agencies.
Michigan. The Water Resources Commission is responsible for
controlling the pollution of both surface and groundwater in the
State. The Commission would require a permit be issued for any
5W12 type injection well.
Other States. Other States that indicated the existence of
5W12-type wells have not yet provided the information on
permitting, or have provided information so general that its
relationship to 5W12 wells is unclear. There is some evidence to
suggest that several States misclassified the wells.
Recommendations
Siting. Recommendations for location of injection wells so
as to protect USDW are likely to be different from those aimed at
consideration of cost, land ownership and convenience. Although
economics will play an important role in every case, this report
will stress only those that enhance the protection of USDW.
Hydrogeologic data on the proposed injection zone and
contiguous formations must be collected and interpreted in order
to understand existing ground-water occurrence and movement and
to predict how these likely will be affected by the injection
operation (AL, WY, HI). This might include complete pumping
tests (both withdrawal and injection) with sufficient observation
wells available to maximize usefulness of the data.
Operation. Each injection well should be permitted to
operate at a maximum predetermined injection rate and a maximum
pressure, determined by site-specific hydraulic conditions --
prevailing and foreseen (WY, AL, HI).
Remedial Action. Any 5W12-type injection well injecting
treatment plant effluent into an USDW and not meeting the USEPA
maximum concentration levels for drinking water requires remedial
actions. Specific remedy(ies) will depend on the seriousness of
the threat to water supplies and the nature of the treatment
process. In some cases, wells should be plugged (KY).
4 — 187
-------
5X13
Alternative disposal methods and feasibility of upgrading
existing plants should be evaluated (VA).
4.2.4 MINERAL AND FOSSIL FUEL RECOVERY RELATED WELLS
4.2.4.1 Mining, Sand, or Other Backfill Wells (5X13)
- Well Purpose
Backfill wells are used to place hydraulic (water) or
pneumatic (air) slurries of sand, gravel, cement, mill
tailings/refuse, or fly ash into underground mines. Mines may be
backfilled in order to:
(1) Prevent subsidence attributable to mine cave-in;
(2) Create structural stability in active mines;
(3) Dispose of mill tailings/refuse or fly ash;
(4) Control or extinguish underground mines fires; and
(5) Fill in dangerous mine openings (Texas).
This operation entails drilling wells from the surface to the
roof of the mine void, casing the well, and gravity feeding or
pumping a slurry down the well into the mine. In Idaho, mine
tailings are mixed with water to form a slurry and are piped
through existing mine tunnels into excavated portions of
subsurface mines.
The term “mine backfill wells” also has been used in
reference to water wells or monitor wells installed into the
backfill of surface mines. The latter definition of mine
backfill wells does not fit the Federal Underground Injection
Control (TJIC) Program regulatory definition. According to 40 CFR
146.5 (e) (8), sand backfill and other backfill wells are used to
inject a mixture of water and sand, mill tailings, or other
solids into mined-out portions of subsurface mines (whether what
is injected is a radioactive waste or not), and are Class V
injection wells.
Inventory and Location
The Federal Underground Injection Control Reporting System
(FURS) database indicates an inventory of 548 mine backfill wells
in 6 states while the 54 State inventory and assessment reports
received at this writing indicate the existence of 6,500 wells in
16 states. The discrepancy may be attributable to the fact that
many mine backfill operations are now regulated by State or
Federal mine bureaus or agencies who have little contact with UIC
regulators. As a result, many backfill operation regulators are
not aware of FURS or the EPA UIC Program requirements. The fact
4 — 188
-------
5X13
that FURS does not differentiate 5X well types also may add to
the inaccuracy of the FURS inventory (mine backfill wells are one
of many 5X type wells).
The “State Report” inventory (Table 4-38) includes only
active and temporarily abandoned mine backfill wells. There are
over 20,000 permanently abandoned wells of this type in the
United States. The Pennsylvania State report identified over
19,000 wells. Many backfill wells are utilized for less than 2
days, then plugged and abandoned.
Mine backfill wells are limited to the continental United
States and only those States where shaft mining exists. An
abundance of water for slurry transport is a significant
requirement for backfill well feasibility. Therefore, mines in
arid regions with low water tables are not as likely to be
hydraulically backfilled as mines in the wetter regions of the
country.
Construction, Siting, and Operation
Several different types of mining—related injection wells
utilize the mined-out portions of deep mines as the
injection/disposal zone. Even though each well type performs a
unique function, similar techniques and injected material are
utilized. Operation and construction details of each mining
related injection well are described below. Figures 4-29 and 4-
30 present a typical mine backfill well construction and a
typical subsidence control operation.
Subsidence Control. Hydraulic flushing is a technique
commonly employed as a means of minimizing surface damage
resulting from underground mine collapse (subsidence). It
involves the use of strategically placed injection wells foi the
purpose of sluicing a slurry of solids into a mine void until
full. Hydraulic flushing allows for substantially complete
filling of all void spaces (to a predictable radius) around the
well bore. Extent of fill, both laterally and vertically, is
controlled by the solids concentration of the slurry and the
injection rate, thus lending design flexibility dictated by mine
void configuration. Bulkheads within the mine are sometimes
constructed to control slurry emplacement. Hydraulic flushing
for subsidence control can be applicable both above and below
drainage coal seams. Economics dictate that readily available,
abundant, and inexpensive fill materials be used. The fill
materials commonly used are mine refuse, fly ash, cement, and
crushed sandstone. Combinations of these materials are also
used.
4 — 189
-------
TP LE 4-38: SYNOPSIS OP STATE REP(l 1S F MININO BAD(FILL .LSI5113)
RE6IOW
&
STATES
EPA I Confirend I ReQulatory I Case Studies! I Contamination
RESIOW Presence System llnfo. available Potential I
I Of Well Type I Rating
ICainecticut
:Maine
Ulassachusetts
New Ha sInre
Rhode Island
IVer it
I
I
I
I
I
I
I NO N/A
NO N/A
I NO ‘ N/A
NO N/A
NO N/A
NO N/A
NO N/A
NO N/A
NO N/A
NO N/A
• NO N/A
NO I N/A
I
Wee Jersey II
INew York I II
IPuerto Rice I I
Virgin Islands I II
I I
NO I N/A
• NO I N/A
NO I N/A
• 110 N/A
NO N/A
NO N/A
NO N/A
NO N/A —
Delaware
Plaryland
Pennsylvania
:Vircinia
West Virginia
III
III
III
III
III
• NO N/A
I WELL PE I IT
811 WELLS MIWE OPERATIOW
NO N/A
• 2SBWEI.LS INEUPERATIOW
NO N/A
NO N/A
NO 5TH HISIEST/6 1YPES
NO N/A
NO LOW
Alabama
F londa
6eorqia
iK ent u cky
INississippi
tbth Carolina
ISonth Carolina
Tennessee
I
I IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
• YES I PERIUT
NO N/A
NO N/A
63 WELLS PERIUT
NO N/A
NO N/A
• M I I N/A
YES N/A
I
• NO VARIABLE
NO I N/A
I NO N/A
M I I RII)E
• NO • N/A
NO 1 N/A
• NO N/A
NO N/A
I.____________________
I
Illinois
Ilndiana
Ithohigan
Hlinnesota
lI mo
Wiscciisin
—
V
V
V
V
V
V
I
5 WELLS RILE
MI 1 N/A
NO N/A
• NO N/A
M I 1 N/A
NO 1 N/A
,
I I
NO N/A
NO I N/A
1( 1 N/A
I IC • N/A
PC N/A
NO N/A
I
I_
kansa5
ILcuis iana
IWe, , Mexico
Oklahaa
ITexas
I
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
I
IC I N/A
NO I N/A
• 11 WELLS • N/A
NO I N/A
65 WELLS R ILE
I
I
110 N/A
MI N/A
I YES LOW
NO N/A
• NO • LOW
I
I
Ucea
Kansas
Miseouri
INebraska
I
VII
VII
VII
VII
I
NO 1 N/A
IC I N/A
4,326 WEiLSIabdfl NOPE
PC RILE
I
I
I PC N/A
NO I N/A
1 YES LOW
P 4 ) 1 N/A
I
I
Colorado
Iflontana
lorth Dakota
ISonth Dakota
Utah
Wyo.ing
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
I
2 WELLS RULE
10 WELLS P dUT
300 WELLS I RILE
IC N/A
NO I RILE
74 WELLS PERMIT
I
PC N/A
1 NO I N/A
P0 1 POSITIVE
NO N/A
• NO I N/A
I PC I3RD-IOTH HI/3D TYPES:
Pirizona
Cahfornia
Hawaii
ffievada
IAmericanSaena
ITt. Terr. of P
I ai
1C 141 1
I
1X
1 I I
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
I IX
• NO N/A
PC N/A
PC N/A
I NELL I N/A
IC N/A
IC , N/A
I 14 ) N/A
• M I • N/A
I
I P C
• NO
NO
NO
I PC
I NO
I NO
NO
I
N/A
N/A
N/A
LNcNOMI
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
I I
lAlaska 1 X 1 IC • N/A
lldaho X 1 575 WELLS RILE
I X NO I N/A
Was hingt on 1 1 1 14) N/A
I
I NO N/A
I NO :3RD HI EST/I4 TYPES:
I IC I N/A I
I PC N/A
NOTE: IIE MIIBERS IN THIS T LE ESTIMATES.
5X13
4—190
-------
• I... ! %•
Conductor (basing -
• • : b •.‘ .
•.D
I 5 L • I• ••I , 4
- 1--WI ’ ____
________
•
•1•
j : lflJeCtIOfl Casing—
—
I I •I I I _ I
- I
I — — I • I I
-
‘
j L : : çEio’±
i I
/ ‘ : : 1I
: • : •
I T I I I
T
5X13
Surface
Alluvium
Top of Rock Strata
Rock Strata
Coal Bed
Rock Strata
Coal Bed
Rock Strata
TYPICAL 1 1 1NE BI CKFILL LL CONSTRUC11ON
4—191
RQure 4—29
-------
ç pper
No. 2 Bed
01
><
( )
w
m
1
StockpIle 7
o,’ and avel 0 IL
o 0 High School
Wooden Battery or Bull head —,.J
— . T i
i c tra1a c! t’: 1:!
. i. i. . I. - -
i ‘
. “ i
k
- No.1 Bed
I
. I 1__.aJ
\j;
-
—
War Po ’) 1
- ---- — -. -.-- . -.. --.-- -.. -.---- - -
a •
IR I I I I
I __ _J_____
-------
5X13
Typically, subsidence control injection wells are drilled
with a rotary rig and are less than 500 feet deep. Unconsolida-
ted surface materials are sealed off with conductor pipe. A 5-
to 10-inch diameter hole then is completed into the mine void.
Casing then is installed at depths to ensure delivery of the
slurry materials through higher mined out or permeable zones into
the mine. In most cases, neither casing is cemented during
construction. The slurry material then is pumped (or gravity
fed) through the borehole into the mine until the maximum radius
around the well is effected and slurry refusal occurs. Upon
refusal, both casing strings are removed and the well is plugged
with cement from top to bottom. The delivery time required for,
and total volume of, slurry emplacement is a function of mine
configuration. The number of backfill injection wells necessary
to complete a mine subsidence control project is contingent upon
the total void volume to be filled as well as mine configuration.
Delivery times range from as little as two days to a number of
months. This-accounts for the large number of permanently
abandoned mine backfill wells.
Hydraulic flushing as a mine subsidence control technique
has proven very successful in the United States and abroad.
Excavations into mines which have employed this technique for
coal refuse have showed that nearly total void filling had
occurred and the material had drained and compacted to form
competent supporting material.
Waste Disposal. Underground mining and related processes
generate extremely large volumes of solid and liquid waste. Both
types of waste can be generically categorized as potentially
acidic and highly mineralized representing the major cause of
concern for potential groundwater—quality degradation. When deep
mining coal, substantial volumes of non-coal material are also
extracted from the subsurface. The waste material, or mine
refuse, generated is essentially sandstone, carbonaceous shale,
and low grade coal. The mine refuse and coal itself are heavily
concentrated with iron, manganese, and sulfide bearing minerals.
These minerals, primarily pyrite, degrade the quality of the
coal, and therefore it is desirable to separate the coal from the
refuse and the pyrite from the coal. The refuse and the iron-
sulfide precipitate (yellow-boy) formed when removing pyrite then
often is injected into the mine void for disposal.
Many times the mine void is not available or is not used for
mine refuse disposal and this material is deposited in “spoil”
piles outside the mine portal. The pyrite and other metal-
bearing minerals abundant in the spoil rapidly begin oxidizing.
Water from rainfall percolates through the spoil, dissolving the
oxidized material and creating a highly acidic, highly
mineralized acid mine drainage . Similarly, ground water flows
through abandoned deep mines becoming increasingly acidic and
4 — 193
-------
5X13
mineralized as it comes in contact with exposed mineral-
containing rocks until it too is considered acid mine drainage.
The acid mine drainage then flows by gravity down-dip to a
surface discharge point, or in some instances it must be pumped
from the mine for de-watering purposes to allow mining operations
to continue. In either situation, the acid mine water must be
treated prior to surface water discharge. Treatment consists of
neutralizing the acidic nature of the mine water and aeration to
allow for precipitation of metals. The sludge generated is then
injected into the mine void. Also, it is not uncommon for acid
water, which has been removed from an active mine, to be injected
into an abandoned mine untreated. In these instances, the
receiving mine is sealed to prevent gravity discharge of these
acid waters.
waste disposal well construction is typical of other mine
backfill well construction. Specifically, a 5— to 10—inch
diameter borehole is drilled to the mine void. Conductor pipe
may or may not be used, dependent upon problems associated with
unconsolidated surface material and borehole integrity. Cement
is rarely used if casing is irrstalled. The major difference
between the operation of this and other backfill wells is the
length of time the borehole is in service as an injection well.
Waste disposal wells generally inject relatively moderate volumes
of solids over extended periods of time.
A USEPA Region IV national assessment of Class V wells in
the Region indicated an inventory of coal processing wastewater
injection wells throughout Kentucky and Tennessee. In a number
of cases a slurry is formed by consolidating wastewater from the
coal washing process with coal clay and fragments of rock passed
through mesh screen of No. 28 size. Chemical flocculants then
are added to the mixture to facilitate settling of suspended
materials. The jellied slurry, comprised of 25% to 30% firm
material is injected into the mine void.
The slurry inj.ection wells for coal processing wastewater
injection in USEPA Region IV vary from 100 to 400 feet in depth.
The slurry (injectate) often is transported from the processing
facility to the injection well site by a pipeline and injected
into the borehole which, more often than not, is without casing.
In one case, the operator utilized the shaft of the mine as the
injection well. Based on the USEPA Region IV study, injection
rates for coal processing wastewater injection wells range from
2.7 to 350 gallons per minute, with total volume dependent upon
the extent of the mine void.
Mine Fire Control. Underground mine fires, as evidenced by
the number of mine fire control wells, are a significant problem
in Pennsylvania. The technique found to be most effective in
controlling mine fires is hydraulic flushing. Flushing is essen-
tially flooding with a slurry of solid material as opposed to
4 — 194
-------
5X13
water alone. When flushing, the water portion of the slurry has
sufficient heat capacity to extinguish some of the fires and
dissipate heat while the solids seal the mine (see discussion of
subsidence control wells), depriving the fire of oxygen and
effectively putting the fire out. The solid material used to
form the slurry is often mine refuse. Fly ash is another readily
available waste material frequently used. Sandstone is used
sometimes but is generally cost prohibitive. In some instances,
only water is injected into the mine for fire control.
Typically, the slurry emplacement boreholes are 8 inches in
diameter and less than 100 feet deep. Eight-inch casing may be
installed through any alluvial material to a maximum depth of 20
to 30 feet. This casing is never cemented. Quite often, when
unconsolidated material on the surface is absent, no casing is
used. On average, a well/borehole is never used for actual
injection for more than a few days. The total volume of solid
material injected through any one bore hole can range from 100 to
more than 1,000 cubic yards. The wells are plugged immediately,
from top to bottom with cement after their useful life is
complete and any casing is removed.
One of the Nation’s most publicized mine fires was
discovered near Centralia, Colombia County, Pennsylvania in May
1962. The fire has not yet been extinguished. During the period
1962 to 1980, 1,535 boreholes were. constructed for hydraulic
flushing in an attempt to control the fire. Incomplete records
indicate that in excess of 200,000 cubic yards of combustibly—
inert solids were injected into the mine for various fire control
purposes.
Injected Fluids and Injection Zones Interactions
Typical injected fluids are hydraulic or pneumatic slurries.
The solid portion of the slurries may be:
1. sand; 4. mill tailings/refuse; or
2. gravel; 5. fly ash.
3. cement;
If a pneumatic slurry is emplaced in the mine, injection zone
(mine shaft) interactions will be limited to oxidation if the
mine itself is dry. Injection (mine shaft) interactions of
hydraulic slurries range from slight water quality improvement to
possible contamination from leachates or acid mine drainage. The
degree and type of interaction within the mine after slurry
emplacement is dependent on the source of water and type of
slurry solid.
If water not affected by acid mine drainage is produced
during mining and used to emplace sand, gravel, or cement
slurries, no adverse interactions within the mine can be
4 — 195
-------
5X13
expected. In this case, mine waters are being introduced back
into the mine with sand, gravel, or cement, which are essentially
inert.
When slurry waters are acid mine water or ore extraction
process wastewater, interactions within the mine may increase.
Acid mine water will have a tendency to react with some portions
of slurry solids, mine walls, or surrounding soils and mobilize
potential groundwater contaminants. Process wastewaters may
contain chemicals used in ore extraction that may cause inter-
actions.
The use of mill tailings/refuse and fly ash as fill material
may cause detrimental interactions. Mill tailings are low
quality ore and, in the case of coal mining, are high in sulphur.
Fly ash is the waste product of burned coal and has been found to
contain arsenic and salts (particularly sodium sulfate). The
leaching of these compounds does occur.
Mine backfill operations present special problems where, and
if, ground water migrates through the backfilled mine voids and
leaches high concentrations of chemical species such has heavy
metals, sulfuric acid, cyanide, and other byproducts of rnil]ing
processes, from the backfill material itself.
When precipitated sludge from acid mine drainage pools is
emplaced in a mine containing acid mine water, the alkaline
nature of the sludge may tend to neutralize the acid water and
decrease the solubility of metals.
Hydrogeology and Water Usage
The mine backfill well category incorporates three opera-
tionally distinct coal mining related injection wells. Even
though the wells inject for different purposes, the characteris-
tics of the injected material are e sentially the same.
Existing USDW chemical quality is critically important when
assessing mine backfill wells. Mine water and interconnected
groundwater is generally of moderate to poor quality with a high
dissolved metals content and a potentially high pH. Therefore,
the introduction of “wastes” consistent with the existing
environment may not be considered degradation. An in—depth
evaluation of mine backfill wells in West Virginia concludes in
part that the “erthanced’ t pollution caused by such wells is very
nearly impossible to quantify because of the low quality of
receiving waters. It should be noted that mine water and aquifer
quality is a function of the chemical composition of the mined
out seam. Specifically, some seams have excellent water quality
and, to a limited extent, serve as public drinking water
supplies.
4 — 196
-------
5X13
Mine backfill wells, in general, have little negative impact
on ground-water quality. Short term use wells (subsidence and
mine fire control) only can be considered beneficial. However,
injections of acid mine drainage (AMD), AMD precipitate, and coal
waste slurry are potentially detrimental, especially into mines
which traverse formations serving as drinking water supplies.
It must be noted that, in many cases, surface and ground
water contamination from mine waste surface piles may be more
serious than contamination within a mine backfilled with that
material.
Contamination Potential
Based on the rating system described in Section 4.1, mine
backfill wells are assessed to pose a moderate potential to
contaminate USDW. These facilities typically do inject into or
above Class I or Class II USDW. In Idaho, however, this is not
the case. Typical well construction, operation, and maintenance
would not allow fluid injection or migration into unintended
zones. Injection fluids typically have concentrations of
constituents exceeding standards set by the National Primary or
Secondary Drinking Water Regulations. Based on injectate charac-
teristics and possibilities for attenuation and dilution,
injection does not occur in sufficient volumes or at sufficient
rates to cause an increase in concentration (above background
levels) of the National Primary or Secondary Drinking Water
Regulation parameters in ground water, or endanger human health
or the environment beyond the facility perimeter, or in a region
studied on a group/area basis.
Current Regulatory Approach
Mine backfill wells are regulated in one of three
approaches:
1. By permit
2. By rule
3. As part of the overall mining operation.
The distribution of the various approaches is fairly even as
evidenced by Table 4—39. The tendency, however, is to authorize
these wells by rule until directives resulting from the national
Class V Inventory and Assessment are issued from USEPA.
Available regulatory details of each state (where mine
backfilling is conducted) are included in Table 4-39.
It is believed that a significant hindrance to the FURS
inventory is the fact that mining bureaus/agencies have
regulatory jurisdiction in many States, and these entities are
not completely familiar with the UIC program.
4—197
-------
T E 4-39
RW L AP P MINE B flL wazs
R LM
Alabama State Dept. of Federal UIC Regulations
Envirorilerital are utilized
Nanagenent
Cxñorado USEPA Region VIII Authorized by rule arid
inventoried. Lo
inventory response rate.
Idaho State Dept. of Authorized by rule until
Water Resources Inventory and Assesanent
efforts are ccm Lete.
Operators must sthnit
inventory infarniatiai.
Narylaiid State Dept. of assified as lidustrial
Health and Mental drainage and waste
Hygiene disposal wells. Raluires
grourid,iater distharge
pennit and p .blic heariog
through Waste Managenent
Mninistration.
Missouri State Division of Not regulated. E qDecting
Geology and Land regulatory guidance fron
Survly USEPA at ccxnpletion of
National Inventory and
Assesanent.
itana Bureau of Regulated by E xmit.
abandoned Mines
North Dakota State Department Authorized by rule.
Health Director must be
notified of operations.
Nai wells must suhnit
drillers log and
inventory information.
Director may r uire
permit.
Pennsylvania State Bureau of Regulated as part of a erall
Mi1i S aI Id mine operation.
Reclamation
T cas State Water E,cisting well authorized
rmissiOn by rule. Regulated
through register arid ><
recrie i process.
West Virginia Division of Mining Regulated as part of cwerall
mine operation.
Wyaning State Dept. of Regulated by Permit
Envi .rorrnental
I_ -S
-------
5X14
Recommendations
Several States provided recommendations f or mining backfill
operations. Some of them are suirixnarized as follows. The siting,
design, construction, and operation of mine backfill wells, when
possible, should be included in overall mine operation plans and
permit requirements (Illinois, Kentucky, Idaho). In many cases,
this is done today, due to backfill well regulatory responsibi-
lity of State mining regulators. Contamination potential for
backfill wells occurs in the mine void and not in the well-bore
itself.
While injecting, slurry volumes should be monitored and
compared to calculated mine volume as a check that no cata-
strophic failures occur (West Virginia).
Ground—water monitoring is recommended in areas that contain
potable water in the stratigraphic vicinity of backfilled mine
workings (Missouri). Migration of water through, or out of,
backfilled mines appears to be the scenario which constitutes the
primary ground-water contamination concern. Figure 4-31 presents
possible ground—water contamination scenarios.
The Montana report recommended that site specific studies by
conducted to determine the nature and extent of degradation due
to mine backfill wells. Idaho recommends continuing authoriza-
tion of mine backfill wells without permits in cases where the
tailings are injected into formations that are effectively
isolated from USDW.
4.2.4.2 Solution Mining Wells (5X14)
Well Purpose
In—situ or solution mining utilizes injection and recovery
well techniques to bring minerals from underground deposits to
the surface (Texas Department of Water Resources Report 274,
1983). Fluids designed to mobilize mineral resources are
injected into an ore body, and the resulting “pregnant” solution
is extracted. Minerals typically extracted by this procedure
include copper, uranium, trona, borate, gold, silver, and zinc.
Solution mining falls into three general categories (Ahiness
and Pojar, 1983) :
1. Commercial operations with ore body preparation
including such activities as blasting, block
caving, and hydrofracturing, specifically to
fragment the ore body:
4—199
-------
m
k jected (kid /possib e contarnEnated pkirne
Storm Water
Drop Shalt
kr rop.rIy pkigged
t. hogs
-------
5X14
2. Commercial operations in old mine workings,
including those done in open pits, worked out
black caved areas, and backfilled stopes where
leaching is conducted following conventional
mining; and,
3. Experimental programs conducted on small scales to
assess the economical and engineering feasibility
of such projects.
The latter two categories are the types of programs associated
with Class V injection, whereas the first category is associated
with Class III injection. In-situ leaching of conventional mines
is used to recover additional metals from old mine workings when
conventional techniques such as open pit or tunnel recovery are
economically unfeasible due to low grade ore or insufficient size
of deposit. Experimental programs are typically pilot-scale
feasibility studies which may or may not employ Itexperimental
procedures.
Inventory and Location.
Available inventory data indicate that there are presently
2,025 active and idle Class V solution mining injection wells in
the United States and associated Possessions and Territories.
This information has been derived from the various Class V State
reports submitted. The solution mining well inventory data is
presented in Table 4-40. Many more solution mining facilities
actually have been reported for the United States than are
indicated in the Table. These facilities are actually pilot-
scale feasibility operations and are technically defined as
experimental technology disposal wells (5X25). They are
inventoried in the experimental technology section of this
report, but their purpose and operation are consistent with
injection wells used for stopes leaching solution mining.
Construction, Operation, and Siting
Specific aspects of injection wells associated with solution
mining may vary from facility to facility, but construction
designs generally are consistent. Plastic piping, typically PVC
or CPVC, or Fiberglas pipe is used for casing, although light-
weight steel casing also has been used for this purpose at
certain Wyoming facilities. Casing diameters have been found to
range from two to eight inches, with typical diameters of four to
six inches. Depths of injection wells typically vary from about
200 ft to more than 1,000 ft and are dependent upon the depth of
the ore body. The well completion may be open hole if total
depth is into the ore body. If the well is seated below the ore
4—201
-------
TABLE 4-40: SYNOPSIS OP STATE 1 PORTh FOR SOLUTION MININ6 l LLS(5X14)
RESIDN
&
STATES
EPA
RE6ION
Con iraed
Presence
Of Well Type
Regulatory Case Studies/ Contasination
Systes Info. available Potential
Rating
Ccnnecticut
Ulaine
Massachusetts
INew HaEshire I
IRM e Island
Vers o nt
I
I NO N/A NO N/A
I NO I N/A NO N/A
I I NO N/A NO N/A
I ND N/A NO N/A
I NO N/A NO N/A
I NO N/A I NO N/A
I I I I
New
INew
Pu
IVi
I
Jersey
York
erto Rico
rgin Islands
II 110 N/A NO N/A
II 48 1(LLS PERMIT I NO N/A
II NO I N/A P10 N/A
II 110 N/A NO N/A
I I
I I
IDelaware
Naryland 1
Pennsylvania
IVirqinia
Wust Virginia
I
III P10
III 110
III NO
III • NO
III NO
I
N/A NO N/A
N/A I NO N/A
N/A NO I N/A
N/A NO I N/A
1 N/A NO N/A
Alabaaa
IFlorida
Eeorgaa
UCantucky
Iflississ ippi I
Ub’th Carolina I
Scuth Carolina •
Tennessee I
I
IV 110 N/A
IV NO N/A
IV I NO N/A
IV P10 1 N/A
IV I NO I N/A
IV 110 N/A
IV I P10 N/A
IV NO N/A
I
NO
NO
110
NO
NO
110
NO
NO
N/A
N/A
N/A
• N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
• N/A
I
I •
:I l linms
l lndiana
flichigan
Minnesota
no
Wisconsin
I
I
I
I
I
V
V
V
V
V
V
M l
I C
15 WELLS
NO
NO
NO
—
I
N/A NO N/A
N/A NO WA
N/A I NO N/A
N/A NO N/A
N/A I IC N/A
N/A NO WA
I
Lon
INuw
10k
Tes
kansas
asians
I’Qxlco
lahoia
as
I
‘
I
‘
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
M l
NO
1,073 WELLS
NO
NO
I
N/A PC
N/A ND
PERMIT YES
N/A I NO
N/A IC
I I
I
N/A
N/A
LOW
N/A
N/A
I
I
1
I
I
I
II
Ikan
IMi
Nub
owa
see
ssanri
raska
VII
VII
VII
VII
NO
NO
NO
IC
I
N/A IC
N/A I NO
N/A NO
PERMIT I - NO
I WA
N/A
WA
N/A
I
I
1
I
I
IC c!
Non
Nur
Son
Ut
Iwyom
orado
tans
th Dakota
th Dakota
ah
nq
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
NO
IC
NO
NO
NO
14 WillS
.
N/A PC
I N/A PC
N/A : 110
1 N/A IC
PERMIT I NO
I P IT YES
I
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
• N/A
HI €ST/10 TYPES
ICal
IHawa
Nov
Pr
ITr
aa
CM
I
Ikizona
ifm-naa
ii
ada
acan Sawoa
• Tart. of P
I
I
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
II
IX
970 WillS
5 WiLLS
NO
NO
IC
NO
NO
IC
PERMIT YES I LOW/MODERATE
PERMIT YES INOIO N u
N/A I IC I N/A
I N/A NO I WA
I N/A I NO I N/A
N/A 1 NO N/A
I N/A NO N/A
I N/A I NO N/A
I I
I
IA!
lId
tW a
aska
alio
shington
X
I
I
I
I I I
NO I N/A I IC N/A
NO I N/A NO I N/A I
NO I N/A 1 NO N/A
NO I N/A NO I N/A
MITE: SOlE MNERS IN ThIS TABLE ABE ESTIMATES.
5X14
4—202
-------
5X14
body, screened openings or perforations may be used to inject
fluid into the ore body. The entire annulus between borehole and
casing generally is cemented from total depth to surface. Some
operators use an acid—resistant cement across the injection zone,
where injectate is actually in contact with the cement job.
Several centralizers .may be used to assure proper positioning of
casing within the weilbore. A typical construction design for
solution mining injection wells is presented in Figure 4—32. In
general, construction designs seem to be relatively simple and
trouble free. Injection is gravity fed, and bursts in the casing
due to high pressure rarely occur. However, operators do not -
typically conduct mechanical integrity tests. Therefore, the
possibility that injection fluids unknowingly could migrate into
unintended zones may exist.
In-situ leaching is the most common method used with Class V
solution mining. Injection and recovery wells are constructed
into an ore body that has been fragmented through blasting, block
caving, or hydrofracturing. The majority of the wells
inventoried in the United States are constructed in or around
block caved zones. This method of in-situ solution mining
involves four steps. First, a lixiviant, or “barren” solution
composed of an acidic or basic oxidizing agent, is injected.
This fluid will vary, depending upon the type of ore being mined.
The injection of lixiviant causes mobilization of the mineral
from the host ore body by creating a soluble complex salt.
Third, the mineral-bearing lixiviant (“pregnant’ t solution) is
recovered using extraction wells. Finally, the mineral is
recovered from the pregnant solution at the surface using certain
ion exchange techniques. One such technique is known as solvent
extraction - electrowinning (SX-EW). Ideally, after solution
mining activities are discontinued, a fifth step would be
conducted which involves the restoration of groundwater to a
prescribed post-mining quality. A schematic representation of
in—situ solution mining is presented in Figure 4-33.
In—situ solution mining injection wells are sited in
patterns sufficient to cover what geologic analysis has defined
as the three-dimensional extent of the ore body. Spacing between
wells is a function of several parameters. A primary
consideration is intended injection volumes. Volumes used are
directly related to the amount of fracture permeability induced
by block caving. Also, capacity of the recovery system must be
considered. Finally, the hydrogeologic properties of the ore
body, principally porosity and permeability, must be addressed in
determining adequate well spacing.
Injected Fluids and Injection Zone Interactions
Injection fluids will vary depending upon the type of
mineral to be recovered. Copper and uranium are currently the
4—203
-------
5X14
LARGE DIAMETER, HIGH VOLUME, CLASS V
SOLUTION MINING INJECTION WELLS
PROPOSED BY KOCIDE CHEMICAL CORPORATION
Figure 4—32
Flow Control Valve
18 in. dia. Steel Surface Casing
Cement
14 in. dia. Steel Casing
6 in. dia. Fiberglass Reinforced
Plastic Tubing
14 in. dia., 304 Stainless Steel
Below 900,
Caved Copper Ore
4—204
-------
5X14
BLOCK DIAGRAM ILLUSTRATING
APPLICATION AND COLLECTION
OF LEACHING FLUID
(Courtesy: Noranda) Figure 4—33
Oxide Shaft
Solid PlastiC Pipe
In Waste Zone
Perforated pipeb
In Ore Zone 9
Haulage Drift.
4—205
-------
5X14
most widely mined minerals using in—situ procedures. Common
lixiviants used for oxidizing these minerals include weak
solutions (1-4%) of sulfuric or hydrochloric acid, aramoniuxn
carbonate, and sodium carbonate/bicarbonate. Ferric cyanide
solutions typically are used to recovery gold, silver and other
precious metals. -
Operations have reported that block caved zones are actually
“suxnps” to ground—water flow. That is, hydraulic gradients from
surrounding aquifers toward the block caved zone have been
established. Because conventionally mined ore bodies usually are
sulfide deposits, infiltrating ground water tends to oxidize the
sulfide minerals. This process lowers the pH and increases heavy
metal content within the ground water. Injection of weak acid
solutions associated with solution mining only serves to enhance
the natural reactivity of the sulfide minerals. Injected fluids
are usually slightly more acidic than the ground water within
block caved zones, as indicated by monitoring well data (Noranda
Lakeshore Mines, Personal Communication, 1986).
Hydrogeology and Water Use
Ore bodies containing copper, uranium, and other precious
metals are referred to as hydrothermal deposits (Tennissen,
1974). These are deposits formed in rock from hydrothermal
fluids at high temperatures and pressures. Hydrothermal
solutions responsible for ore deposits are of diverse origin, and
sources include magmatic, meteoric, and connate waters. Ore
bodies such as these are typically present within crystalline
rocks of igneous or metamorphic origin that have been
structurally emplaced adjacent to sedimentary rocks.
Hydrothermal fluids enter the crystalline rock mass through the
porous sedimentary media or fault-related fractures, or both.
Specific hydrogeologic parameters will vary among solution
mining projects across the nation, but certain generalizations
can be made. In mining districts of the western United States,
sediments adjacent to ore bodies tend to be coarse-grained,
poorly sorted alluvial valley fill. Depending upon the depth of
burial, these sedimenis may be consolidated, semi-consolidated,
or unconsolidated. Permeability within such sediments can be
high, resulting in a high degree of communication between mine
workings and adjacent alluvial aquifers. These aquifers may or
may not be an USDW.
As discussed previously, the process of block caving creates
massive void spaces in and around the ore body. Void spaces tend
to establish sumps to ground-water flow, and hydraulic gradients
toward the mine workings develop almost instantaneously following
block caving. Volumetric data support this claim in that
operators report recovery volumes as much as 20% higher than the
4—206
-------
5X14
amount of fluid injected. As long as withdrawal is approximately
continual, and a positive hydraulic gradient toward the block
caved zone is maintained, losses of fluid from the workings into
surrounding aquifers should be minimal. If, however, an
operation is left idle for a period of time sufficient to allow
development of hydraulic equilibrium, migration of contaminants
along natural ground-water flow gradients could occur. This may
result in the degradation of USDW adjacent and downgradient to
the mine workings.
In light of these hydrogeological considerations, lithologic
confinement to ground—water flow is of secondary importance. As
discussed, ore bodies are usually present within crystalline
rocks with relatively low primary porosity and permeability.
Secondary permeability, in the form of structure-related
fractures is common. These fractures may have propagated into
adjacent sedimentary rocks. As such, the lithologic character of
“confining” units is of less concern than is the degree of
fracture pervasiveness within the crystalline mass and
surrounding sediments.
Contamination Potential
Based on the rating system described in Section 4.1,
solution mining wells are assessed to pose a low potential to
contaminate USDW. These facilities typically inject below USDW
with little or no potential for migration of fluids into any
USDW. Typical well construction, operation, and maintenance
would not allow fluid injection or migration into unintended
zones. Injection fluids typically have concentrations of
constituents exceeding standards set by the National Primary or
Secondary Drinking Water Regulations. Based on injectate
characteristics and possibilities for attenuation and dilution,
injection does not occur in sufficient volumes or at sufficient
rates to cause an increase in concentration (above background
levels) of the National Primary or Secondary Drinking Nater
Regulation parameters in ground water, or endanger human health
or the environment beyond the facility perimeter.
While a variety of minerals are extracted in the United
States using in-situ leaching, procedures and hydrogeologic
parameters are generally very similar. Specific details
regarding these considerations are not known for all solution
mining facilities, but a generic assessment or contamination
potential can be made using generalized, or “typical” data.
Injection of acidic or basic lixiviants used in solution
mining is into block caved or hydrofractured zones generally
adjacent, along at least one boundary, to consolidated or semi-
consolidated sediments. These sediments are generally water-
bearing, as indicated by positive flow of fluids into mine
4—207
-------
5X14
workings reported by operators. No data exist to show these
ground waters are of TJSDW quality. With a few exceptions, such
operations are in semi-remote areas away from population centers.
At this time, it cannot be concluded that injection is into or
above potentially useable Class IIB aquifers. Because of the
general water quality conditions in alluvial aquifers of the
desert Southwest, where most solution mining is occurring, it is
believed that “usable” tJSDW are generally sparse.
As discussed, typical construction and operational aspects
of solution mining are relatively simple. As such, the potential
for malfunction leading to migration of fluids into USDW is
considered minimal, particularly considering these mine workings
are ground-water sinks. However, it must be pointed out that
provisions for conducting mechanical integrity tests are not part
of operational plans.
Injectate composition must be kept constant for a solution
mining operation. As a result, it is easy to characterize
injectate water quality. Injectates are typically acids, though
weak bases are used occasionally for in-situ leaching operations
for uranium. For acidic injectates, pH levels of 1-4 are
typical. This clearly exceeds National Secondary Drinking Water
Regulations for pH, and probably exceeds corrosivity levels as
well.
Depending upon the size of the operation, injected volumes
can be very large, exceeding 500,000 gallons per day. If natural
ground-water flow conditions existed within and around these
operations, it could be easily concluded that such volumes would
cause degradation of groundwater in a large area around the
facility. However, because active solution mining facilities
maintain a positive flow gradient toward the mine workings,
degradation beyond the facility boundary would not be
anticipated.
It is hereby concluded that contamination potential
attributable to in-situ solution mining is generally low. This
is a generic assessment based upon the overall database for this
well type. This seemingly is contradictory to the Wyoming State
Report, that ranked solution mining operations as the most
dangerous of the known Class V facilities within that State.
However, it must be stressed that they are mining a radioactive
substance (uranium) which in its own right can be considered
dangerous. Secondly, there are only 199 such wells at 14
facilities in Wyoming, representing only 0.6% of the total
solution mining injection wells in the United States. This
percentile cannot be interpreted as tetypicalt for that well type.
As in other assessments for well types having limited
databases, any new data acquired that supplement (or supersede)
broad generalizations will be used to re-define contamination
4—208
-------
5X14
potential. Such data would include demonstration that
contaminants are migrating into adjacent ground water following
operation closing or that failed mechanical integrity has
resulted in contamination of shallow or adjacent aquifers.
Another factor would be the demonstration that an adjacent
aquifer is of Class IIB quality or better. Such findings would
lead to an assessment of higher contamination potential.
Current Regulatory Approach
Solution mining wells are authorized by rule under
Federally-administered UIC programs (see Section 1). The best
data for regulatory oversight of solution mining facilities were
found in the Wyoming and Arizona State reports. It is believed
that regulatory information contained therein represents typical
approaches to this type of Class V injection.
Both States have established broad sweeping legislation that
addresses the protection of all “waters of the State.” In
Arizona, enforcement of those rules is the responsibility of the
Department of Health Services (ADHS). In Wyoming, the regulatory
body is the Land Quality Division (LQD) of the Wyoming Department
of Environmental Quality. These agencies require the submittal
of applications for waste discharge .permits by any operator
proposing underground injection of any institutional, commercial,
agricultural, or residential waste fluids. While injected fluids
used for in-situ leaching operations are not technically “waste”
material, operators are still bound by the terms of waste
discharge permits.
Applicants for permits in the two States are required to
supply detailed information about proposed injection operations.
This information includes, but is not limited to, a complete
description of fluids to be injected; the numbers and
construction details of injection wells to be used;
characteristics of the intended injection zone and all affected
aquifers; all nearby ground-water users; and the materials and
equipment to be used in the injection process. In some areas, a
hydrogeological report and disposal impact assessment may be
required. Additional conditions required with respect to
permitting such wells include monitoring frequency
specifications, constituents to be monitored at each monitoring
well, reporting requirements, injectate quality limits, and
definition of what constitutes a permit violation. An important
aspect of new permit application reviews is the specification of
closure plans and the restoration of the aquifer after solution
mining operations have been terminated (post-closure plan). This
latter aspect is a relatively new permit requirement, and several
facilities exist that were permitted prior to its adoption. As
such, those facilities may not be bound to any post-closure
requirements at the present time.
4—209
-------
5X14
In some States, active solution mining facilities are known
to exist on Federal land or on land regulated by Federal
authority, such as tribal lands. Specific management of such
solution mining activities, where known, is the responsibility of
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Initial approval of these
activities on tribal lands must be granted by the tribe of
concern, in conjunction with the United States Bureau of Indian
Affairs (USBIA). The ELM provides technical assistance for
permit approval, and requires submittal of an Environmental
Assessment (EA) by the operator. Addressed specifically in the
EA are the proposed solution mining plan, existing hydrogeologic
conditions, and potential environmental impacts. Approval
requirements include a hydrogeologic monitoring program. Leach
solution applied, fresh water inflows to the facility, and
amounts of leachate recovered must be specified. Moisture lost
in exhaust air must be monitored as well. Finally, a ground-
water monitoring network and plan is established specifying
analysis requirements and reporting intervals. Closure plans
discussing site reclamation, sealing of mine works, and continued
hydrogeologic monitoring are not included in the EA.
Recommendations
Injection wells associated with solution mining must be
sited so as to efficiently supply the necessary volumes of
leachate to the disturbed ore body. While several experimental
procedures for applying leachate are being tested in the United
States, the best approach to large-scale operations is to site
wells directly above the block caved zone and inject flood
leachate by gravity flow. As such, the network of injection
wells need not extend beyond the surface projection of the
underground mine workings. These recommendations are contained
within the Arizona report.
The preservation of mechanical integrity should be an
important concern of operators. At the present time, mechanical
integrity requirements are not part of permit specifications for
most solution mining operations. Part of the problem is that
there are not well defined procedures for determining mechanical
integrity in such simple wells. The Arizona report recommends
that possible types of mechanical integrity tests should be
studied in the near future, and an effort to implement reliable
testing should follow.
The Arizona report makes another significant recommendation.
One aspect of solution mining that has the potential for broad
scale contamination of ground water beyond facility boundaries
concerns post-closure plans. As discussed, ground-water flow
gradients toward the mine workings are anticipated while
injection and recovery operations are active. However, when
operations are terminated, artificial hydrogeologic conditions
4—2 10
-------
5X15
established during solution mining will approach equilibrium with
regional hydrogeologic gradients. If proper closure and ground-
water restoration are not practiced, migration of acidic ground
water into adjacent alluvial aquifers would likely occur. At the
present time, closure and remedial action plans are not part of
permit requirements for facilities on federal lands, or lands
under federal regulation. To assure this well type a future low
ground-water contamination potential rating, implementation of
adequate closure and remedial plans is essential.
Supporting Data
Case studies are listed in Appendix E and include Noranda’s
Lakeshore Mines, Pinal County, Arizona. These data are in the
form of a UIC Inspection Report, dated September 9, 1986, and
subsequent file review material. The inspection was conducted by
representatives of Engineering Enterprises, Inc. and USEPA Region
Ix.
4.2.4.3 In—Situ Fossil Fuel Recovery Wells (5X15)
Well Purpose
Wells designed as In-Situ Fossil Fuel Recovery Wells are
used to inject water, air, oxygen, solvents, combustibles, or
explosives into underground coal or oil shale beds in order to
liberate fossil fuels which can be produced to the surface by
wells. To date these methods have been experimental. This is
not expected to change in the near future due to the worldwide
depression in oil prices. Injection wells used in in—situ
processes that recover heavy oils from tar sands in the United
States are part of “Enhanced Oil Recovery” methods. As such,
these wells are regulated as Class II injection wells and should
not be within the scope of this report. Many in-situ methods
used to recover heavy oils are commercial.
Underground coal gasification (UCG) utilizes Class V
injection wells to deliver air, oxygen, steam and air, or steam
and oxygen mixtures into a target coal bed in order to initiate
and maintain combustion of the bed and liberate a low grade gas.
Target beds for underground coal gasification generally are
unininable coal beds such as low grade or deep coal seams, and
steeply dipping beds.
Recovery of synthetic oil “Syncrude” from oil shale usually
is accomplished by burning (retorting) oil shale rubble. If it
is impossible to mine and retort the oil shale at the surface,
retorting is accomplished underground (in-situ). Class V
injection wells are used to deliver air, oxygen, combustibles, or
explosives in order to rubblize the bed, and initiate and main-
4—211
-------
5X15
tam in-situ combustion. Liberated “Syncrude” is produced to
the surface via production wells. “Syncrude” also can be pro-
duced by circulating hot fluids.
Inventory and Location
According to State reports, 66 in-situ fossil fuel recovery
wells have been used in 5 States; Colorado, Indiana, Michigan,
Texas, and Wyoming. The Federal UIC Reporting System (FURS)
indicates that 38 of these wells exist in Colorado only. Wells
are known, however, to have existed in Utah also. At least three
of the 66 wells are known to be permanently abandoned. Due to
depressed oil prices it is believed all 5X15 wells are abandoned
or in the process of being abandoned. Table 4—41 indicates the
well type inventories and summarize their assessment. The
difference between State reports and FURS inventories may be
attributable to confusion over the extent to which abandoned
operations should be inventoried.
Figüres.4-34, 4—35, and 4—36 indicate locations of coal
fields, oil shale, and other potential synfue]. resources in the
United States.
Construction, Siting, and Operation
Underground Coal Gasification. Underground coal gasifica-
tion (UCG) is a process for recovering fuel from coal that is not
economically or technically feasible to recover by conventional
mining techniques because of its low heating value, thin seam
thickness, great depth, high ash or excessive moisture content,
large seam dip angle, or undesirable overburden properties. The
UCG process converts coal into a useful gas product by partially
cornbusting the coal underground in the presence of water and a
limited amount of air, oxygen, steam and air, or steam and oxygen
mixtures. Figure 4—37 presents a schematic cross section of the
UCG process. In a simplified two-well model, an injection well
and a production well are drilled into the coal deposit. The
permeability of the coal seam must then be increased to permit
reasonable gasification rates and prevent condensation of tars
and other volatile organic matter from the produced gas as it.
passes through cooler parts of the coal seam. Permeability
enhancement is referred to as linking (a permeable flow path is
linked between the injector and producer). Linking can be
accomplished by reverse combustion, directional drilling,
4—212
-------
5X15
TABLE 4-41: SYN S1S (F STATE REP TS FOR IN SITU FOSSIL na RECOVERY LS(5XI5)
REBItIl
&
STATES
EPA
REGIOR
Confirmed Requlatory
Presence I System
Of Well Type
Case Studies/ Caitamnati
Info, available: Potential
Rating
on
I
I
‘
Connecticut
I
NO
N/A
N/A
Naine
I
NO N/A
NO N/A
Massachusetts
I
NO
N/A
I MI N/A
INew Ha shire
rnde Island
I
I
NO N/A
NO N/A
NO I N/A
NO N/A
IVeriant
I
NO N/A
NO N/A
:
New Jersey
New Y k
II
II
•
NO N/A
I NO ft/A
:
NO N/A
NO N/A
I
IPuerto Rico
I I
NO N/A
NO N/A
virgin Islands
II
NO N/A
NO N/A
:Dalaware
III
NO
ft/A
NO N/A
Naryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
III
III
III
III
NO I N/A
I NO N/A
I NO I N/A
I NO N/A
NO N/A
I NO N/A
NO I N/A
NO N/A
I
I
lAlabama
Florida
I
IV
IV
NO l If/A
NO I N/A
NO N/A
NO I N/A
ISe -gaa
K e ntucky I
Iflississippi I
IN7th Carolina
ISouth Carolina
I Tennessee I
I
I
Ullinois I
linthana
Michigan .
INinnesota
I io
IWisc n sin
I I
I I
kansas
Louisiana
INew Ne ico
Oklahasa
hues
I
I
lImsa
Kansas
Nisscuri
I N ebTaska
I
I
ICol ado
:r tana
Nnrth Dakota
IScuth Dakota
:Utah I
Wyoming
Ifrizona
ICaIifi n :a I
IHawai :
vada
lPaericanSaana
Tr. Terr. of P 1
aa
IQPI I
I
I
Alaska
IIdahD
I ’eqon ‘
IftasMnqt c n
IV NO N/A • NO N/A
IV NO I N/A NO I N/A
IV I NO ft/A I NO I N/A
IV NO I N/A NO N/A
IV I NO ‘ N/A I NO I N/A
IV • NO I N/A NO N/A
I I I I
I I
V NO N/A NO I N/A
V 1 1 NO.1. ‘ N/A I NO I N/A
V • I ELI. N/A I NO I N/A
V I NO N/A I NO I N/A
V • NO I N/A I NO I N/A
V I NO 14/A I NO I N/A
I
1 I
VI NO I ft/A NO I N/A
VI • NO I N/A M I I N/A
VI I NO I N/A I NO N/A
VI • NO I N /A NO I N/A
VI YES I P IT I NO N/A
I
I
VII I NO • N/A IC I N/A
VII NO I N/A NO N/A
VII I IC N/A • NO N/A
VII NO I RILE NO N/A
I I
I I I
VIII 23 WEllS I RILE NO N/A
VIII NO N/A NO N/A
VIII MI N/A NO N/A
VIII • MI N/A NO N/A
VIII NO P IT NO N/A
VIII 1 41 WEllS PERIIIT YES 4TH-7TH HI/ID
IX NO N/A IC N/A
IX NO N/A IC I N/A
IX NO N/A NO I N/A
IX I NO N/A NO I N/A
IX NO N/A NO N/A
IX I Ml N/A NO I N/A
IX NO N/A IC N/A
IX NO N/A NO N/A
I
I
X $0 N/A NO N/A
I NO N/A NO N/A
I Ml N/A NO N/A
1 MI N/A Id) N/A
I
I
I
1
I
1
•
1
I
I
I
TYPES
I
1
I
I
I
•
I
•
I
I
I
I
NOTE: SOE Id IN THIS TP&E E ESTIMATES.
4—213
-------
. —. .
AiViracu
12.700 8*uIIb
Co
13.100 B a/Ib
Subb anrno Co
9.500 Btia/lb
Ligius.
6.700 Btu/Ib
18
Coil rsgion
d cuisid in tsxi
01
x
01
-------
5X15
LEGEND
Tertiary Deposits, Green River
Formation in Colorado, Utah, and
Wyoming; Monterey Formation,
California; Middle Tertiary Depo-
sits in Montana. Black areas are
Known High-Grade Deposits.
Permian Deposits, Phosphoria
Formation, Montana.
‘ Devonian and Mississippian
Deposits (Resource Estimates
Included for Hachured Areas
Only). Boundary Dashed Where
Concealed or Where Location
is Uncertain.
OIL SHALE DEPOSITS OF THE UNITED STATES
(from Rannsy, 1979, OIl Shale and Tar Sands Technology) Figure 4-35
Source: Ranney, M.W., 1979, Oil Shale and Tar Sands Technology
4-215
-------
f L j• ?‘: T.:rTTt
c , 7
I I , ‘
\•‘ -J / _; ‘ — --_L .
ir —i.\. / -
L .,k’ -
-‘
ii
/ /
. ... D
m
- ‘0
cl3
0
or
• iC
0•
•0
0
.
‘C
0
C)
w
- I
S. - -
: --
‘S
EXPLANATION
l w ands
—
w
V
r
back
I
SIM1S
S
(n
-‘
-------
t Produalon will to
rsmovs gas
fl
Inj.ction will to supply sir or
oxygin for combustion
n
jj
— H
T
- : •; .;,z - 1 , VAPORIZATiON j— (Ashi
\ rj ZONE’ ’j’ 0
- ,_,) ‘/ .
— - see .r -.
- - — - -
—
— cnr r
=_-t=_-=_ t—=-_- -
-= =
t ç çr
EXPLANATION
0 Direction of movement
of fluids an gasses
fractures
cA
3 &
01
-S
01
rnZ
(1 )2
no
0 —
or
O s
S .
a cn
s ic
Os
So
5
S
0
S
0
V
L3
—I
Zm
— =1
C( -)
QU)
-n
i i
-u
S
Fr i
C ,)
-n
(0
C
- I
cD
t
CA)
—4
I ] Main routes of ground-water flow (regional
I ground-water flow is from right to left)
-------
5X15
electrolinking, or hydraulic fracturing. Once linking is
complete a gasifying agent, usually air or oxygen-enriched air,
is injected throughout the operation to sustain combus Lion and
effect gasification of the coal. Gases produced by the burning
coal escape through the flow channel and are removed through the
production well. In a commercial scale operation, several pairs
of wells (or other configurations) would be simultaneously
gasified.
As gasification continues, a cavity is formed in the coal
seam. Its geometry continues to change as the burn proceeds.
Early in the gasification process the cavity is empty. As the
coal burns, the cavity roof may subside or collapse, partially
filling the cavity with rubble which subsequently alters the
gaseous flow patterns and burn geometry. Injection wells used to
initially ignite the coal seam and maintain combustion vary
widely in design although the injection fluids are similar (air,
oxygen, steam, or combination). For example, in operations
utilizing the reverse linking process, injection and production
wells are of similar design since their respective functions are
switched after initial combustion is achieved. Figures 4-38 - 4-
41 show four major types of UCG processes and their respective
well configurations.
Injection wells are completed in high temperature combustion
zones and are exposed to subsidence. The injection well may be
subjected to temperatures up to 2,735 0 F (1,500°C) for several
hours. Special well constructions are necessary to withstand
such an environment. In addition to high temperatures and
possible melting, the well materials (casing, cement, welihead,
and surface valves) are subjected to sulfidation and oxidation
from combustion, thermal expansion and contraction forces, and
cement shrinking and parting due to overburden drying or volati-
lization. Subsidence of overburden materials must be accurately
predicted and accounted for in the well’s design and siting to
avoid damage. Well completion depths generally are less than 600
ft. Wells are cased with carbon or high strength stainless
steel.
In Situ Recovery of 01]. Shale. Oil shale is a fine-grained
sedimentary rock that contains an oil-yielding organic material
called Kerogen. Oil shale is composed of approximately 86%
mineral material and 14% organic material. It is classified
geologically as a maristone because the mineral matter is
primarily carbonaceous material. The organic portion is composed
of 10% bitumen and 90% Kerogen. Bitumen is soluble in many
organic solvents. Kerogen has a molecular weight greater than
3,000 and is insoluble in most organic solvents. Kerogen and
bitumen are thermally unstable and, when heated to 480°F (250°C)
or higher, thermally decompose to form gaseous and liquid
products than can be refined to synthetic crude oil (Syncrude).
4—218
-------
5X15
COMPRESSED ANO WATER CLEAN
COMBUSTION UP RECYCLING
GAS BLENDER
GAS CLEAN UP
HEAT EXTRACTION
UNIT
UNDERGROUND COAL GASIFICATION
LONGWALL GENERATOR PROCESS
( from Morgantown Energy Reas.rch Center, Procesdlngs August 10-12, 1976) Figure 4—38 —
4—219
-------
5X15
REACTION ZONE
UNDERGROUND COAL GASIFK AT1ON
PACKED BED PROCESS
(from Morgsnt n Energy Research Center, Proceedings; August 10-12, 1976) Figure 4-39
PIPEUNE GAS
OXYGEN PLANT
WATER PLANT
COAL AND SHALE
4-220
-------
5X15
PRODUCT GAS
OUT
COMBUSTION ZONE
(COUNTERCURRENT FLOW
CONDITION SHOWN)
UNDERGROUND COAL GASIFKJATKJN
LINKED VER11CAL WELLS
(from Morgant n Energy Research Center, Procsedlngs August 10-12, 1976) Figure 4—40
PROCESS GAS
DIRECTION OF
MAXIMUM NATURAL PERMEABILITY
d4221
-------
5X15
STRATA CRACKING
AND SUBSiDING
NO.1 AIR INLET USED
FOR FIRST PHASE OF
GASIFICATION
ASH AND CLINKER IN
BURNT OUT AREA
NO.1 AIR
INLET
ORIGINAL END OF
GASIFICATION BORE HOLE
GAS OFFLET
(IN DIFFERENT
VERTICAL PLAN
THAN AIR INLETS)
NO.2 AIR INLET
FOR SECOND
PHASE OF
GASIFICATION
UNDERGROUND COAL GASIFK AT1ON
STEEPLY DIPPING BED CONCEPT
(from Morgantown Energy Research Center, ProceedIngs; August 10-12, 1978) Figure 4—41
COAL
SEAM
ZONE
SUBSIDING
INTO BURN OUT AREA
4 -222
-------
5X15
At least three different technologies are utilized to
extract petroleum products from oil shale. They are above ground
retorting, in—situ, and modified in-situ (MIS). The latter two
processes involve underground retorts which utilize Class V
injection wells. Retorting is the process in which oil shale is
heated to free the oil it contains. Above-ground retorts may be
containers into which mined crushed oil shale is placed for
burning. Underground retorts are simply the zones of oil shale
which are to be heated. Both in-Situ and MIS processes use
underground retorts.
Modified in—situ processes involve partial mining of an
underground retort and subsequent burning of the oil shale. Some
companies have used MIS systems in which hot inert gas and air
are injected by pipes into the retorts to facilitate burning.
Each retort uses a number of injection conduits, the number
depending on the stage of the project. This technology 1s
usually proprietary and details of retort construction could not
be obtained by States.
In the in-situ recovery process, the shale formation is
initially fractured by explosives or hydraulic fracturing methods
to increase permeability. A portion of the shale’s organic
material is then burned to obtain heat for retorting. Upon
strong heating (retorting) the organic material decomposes to
gas, condensable liquids, and residual carbonaceous matter which
remains on the spent shale. An external fuel may be used to
start and control the burning. The retorted oil shale product is
extracted by pumping in a manner similar to crude oil production.
A large number of in-situ recovery techniques have been
patented by various individuals and companies. However, most of
these techniques are proprietary and not publicly available. A
typical in-situ oil shale operation may consist of a two-well
system (one injection well and one production well) or a five—
spot pattern (four injection wells and one production well in the
center of the pattern) completed within the oil shale bed.
Injection wells are used to initially combust the oil shale and
sustain the retort by continuously injection a pyrolyzing fluid.
Production wells are used to recover the gaseous and liquid
products which will be refined to syncrude.
Patents exist for several different in-situ oil shale
production methods; each production method utilizes uniquely
designed injection and production wells and varying fluids.
Generally, well completion depths range from 100 to 1,000 feet
below land surface. Wells are cased with carbon or higher
strength stainless steel casing. Stainless steel may be used
near the injection horizon. Casing is cemented to surface to
keep overlying groundwater from entering the well bore using
standard high temperature oil field practices.
4—223
-------
5X15
Injected Fluids and Injection Zone Interactions
As stated previously, in-situ fossil fuel recovery injection
wells may inject water, air, oxygen, solvents, combustibles, or
explosives. More specifically, underground coal gasification
wells may inject:
1. Air
2. Oxygen
3. Steam
4. Water
5. Igniting agents such as ammonium nitrate-fuel oil
(ANFO) or propane.
In-situ oil shale retort wells may inject:
1. Air
2. Oxygen
3. Steam
4. Water
5. Sand
6. Explosives
7. Igniting agents (generally propane). -
The purpose of injection in both cases is to initiate and sustain
combustion in the zone.
Air, oxygen, steam, water, and sand should not damage
environmental quality by themselves. The environmental impact of
explosives, igniting agents, and especially combustion products
on ground—water quality is the main subject of concern for this
well type. Combustion products include:
1. Polynuclear aromatics
2. Cyanides
3. Nitrites
4. Phenols.
UCG Interactions. During the gasification phase, high temp-
erature gases can migrate from the burn cavity into surrounding
strata, where cooling occurs and various chemical compounds are
condensed or deposited. Most of the condensed chemicals are
organic compounds including light hydrocarbons, phenols, oils,
and tars. The heavier organics include some polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons and heterocyclic compounds. Other gaseous compo-
nents that condense or are absorbed in surrounding ground water
are ammonia, carbon dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, and methane.
After gasification, an ash residue remains in the burn cavity
which yields soluble inorganic components to reinvading ground
water, greatly increasing the total dissolved solids content of
the ground water. These soluble components include a wide array
4—224
-------
5X15
of ionic species, mostly calcium, sodium, sulfate, and bicarbo-
nate. Additionally, many other inorganic materials are leached
into the ground water in lesser quantities and include aluminum,
arsenic, barium, boron, iron, zinc, cyanide, selenium, and
hydroxide. (Humenick, Edgar, and Charbeneau, 1983). Table 4-42
presents water quality changes in the combustion zone after
gasification.
Extensive fracturing of the surrounding rocks, and subsi-
dence and collapse of the overburden material greatly enhance the
ground—water contamination potential of UCC- operations and can
seriously effect the economic success of these operations.
Fracturing, subsidence, and collapse occur due to the high
thermal stresses of gasification and especially from the removal
of coal material by gasification (ever expanding void areas are
created as the coal burn progresses). Potential environmental
effects include contamination of adjacent aquifers by escaping
gases (fractures, voids, and damaged well bores are potential
conduits) and structural disruption of overlying aquifers.
Additionally, any major deformation or collapse of the overburden
rock will ultimately be reflected at the surface as subsidence.
Subsidence may create new pathways for surf icial contaminants to
enter TJSDW.
Oil Shale Retort Interactions. Large quantities of water
are removed from oil shale during retorting (up to 1.5% of the
raw shale by weight). Soluble and particulate organic matter are
the components most likely to limit its environmental integrity.
The pyrolytic retorting processes can produce a variety of poly-
nuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). In addition, shale oil
contains much higher concentrations of polar heterocyclic
components than do crude oils. The environmental significance of
the presence of large concentrations of polar and heterocyclic
components in shale oil is two—fold. First, a number of organic
compound types are potentially toxic and/or carcinogenic, and
second, the polar characteristics increase their solubility and
accommodation in water systems. Retort waste is amenable to
treatment by charcoal sorption with eventual destruction of its
organic compounds by heating, thus preventing adverse
environmental effects.
Hydrogeology and Water Usage
In-situ fossil fuel recovery operations typically have
occurred at depths less than 1,000 ft but may be technically
feasible at depths up to 3,000 ft. As a result, for this well
type, injection may occur above, below, or into tJSDW.
Water quality in coal and oil shale beds is typically poor.
Even though these waters may meet USDW definition limits (TDS <
4—225
-------
5X15
TABLE 4-42 WATER QUALITY CHANGES AFTER GASIFICATION
(Source: Huinenick and Mattox, 1976)
Parameter Before, mg 1 After, mg 1
Ca 2 20 200
Mg 2 5 15
Na 100 300
HCO 3 300 500
CO 3 2 0
SO 4 4 1150
H,S 0.02 0.4
C 30 40
F 0.1 0.7
NO 3 2.0
NH 1.0 100
TD 350 2300
Phenols 0.1 20
TOC 20 200
Volatile dissolved solids —— 300
CN <0.01
CNS <0.5
CH 4 0.42 0.16
pH 7.6
As <0.01
Ba <1
Cd <0.01
Cu <0.1
Cr (total) <0.05
Mn 0.07
Hg 0.002
Se <0.01
Ag <0.05
Zn <0.1
B 0.3
4—226
-------
5X15
10,000 mg/i) their usefulness is questionable. The main threat
to water quality is migration out of the zone during and after
combustion. Zone roof collapse and resulting subsidence further
adds to this concern.
If confinement within the zone can be established, several
ground-water contamination concerns can be alleviated. Ground
water contamination outside combustion horizons has not been
substantiated. This may be due to the lack of pressure build-up
and resulting flow in the combustion zone over time due to
pressure release through producing wells. Water migration
through the combustion zone and dispersion are the primary
contaminant transport mechanisms.
Complete hydrogeologic and water usage information should be
considered in any site selection process.
Contamination Potential
Based on the rating system described in Section 4.1, in-situ
fossil fuel recovery wells are assessed to pose a moderate
potential to contaminate USDW. These facilities typically do
inject into or above Class I or Class II tJSDW. Typical well
construction, operation, and maintenance would allow fluid
injection or migration into unintended zones. Injection fluids
typically have concentrations of constituents exceeding standards
set by the National Primary or Secondary Drinking Water
Regulations. Based on injectate characteristics and possibili-
ties for attenuation and dilution, injection does not occur in
sufficient volumes or at sufficient rates to cause an increase in
concentration (above background levels) of the National Primary
or Secondary Drinking Water Regulation parameters in groundwater,
or endanger human health or the environment beyond the facility
perimeter.
Lack of injection zone pressure build-up and resulting flow
potential out of the zone precludes this well type from having a
high contamination potential. Dispersion and through zone
migration are the primary contaminant transport mechanisms. At
present, no wells are known to operate in the United States due
to economic conditions. This is not expected to change in the
near future.
Current Regulatory Approach
In—situ fossil fuel recovery related wells are authorized by
rule in Federally-administered IJIC programs (see Section 1).
This well type has only existed in Colorado, Indiana, Michigan,
Utah, Texas, and Wyoming. Table 4-43 details the known
responsible regulators and their approach in each State. At
present none of these well types are known to be operating.
4—227
-------
5X15
TABLE 4-43
CURRENT REGULATORY APPROACH FOR IN-SITU FOSSIL FUEL
RECOVERY WELLS
REGULATORY
STATE AGENCY PERMIT RULE
Colorado USEPA Region VIII Regulated by
rule
Texas State Railroad Regulated by
Commission permit.
Utah State Dept. of In cooperation
Health, Bureau of with State Dept.
Water Pollution of Health. Dept.
Control of Health can
require a permit
if deemed neces-
sa ry
Wyoming State Dept. of Regulated by
Environmental permi t
Quality (Land
Quality Division)
4—228
-------
bXl6
The regulatory tendency for this well type is for State
agencies to regulate by permit. Colorado is the only State where
the Federal UIC program has primacy and thus regulates these
wells by rule.
Recommendations
In—situ fossil fuel recovery injection wells are similar to
Class I injection wells in that if welibore integrity can be
confirmed, and injection fluids or by-products are confined to
the target zone, USDW protection is possible; if not, serious
ground—water contamination can occur. Certainly, complete geolo-
gic and hydrogeologic investigations should be part of any opera-
tions plan (Wyoming).
Wyoming also suggests that if long term confinement of
combustion zone fluids cannot be assured, remediation of zone
fluids may be a way of stopping or minimizing future
contamination.
Supporting Data
Supporting data (Appendix E, page 4) consists of case
studies of U.S. Department of Energy projects in Wyoming.
4.2.4.4 Spent Brine Return Flow Wells (5X16)
Well Purpose
Spent brine return flow wells are used to reinject spent
brine into the same formation from which it was withdrawn after
the extraction of halogens or their salts. Although there are
similarities between spent brine return flow wells and wells used
in association with solution mining processes (Class III injec-
tion wells), the spent brine return flow wells are classified as
Class V injection wells. The purpose of these wells is the re-
emplacement of the spent fluids into the source formation as
opposed to use as an integral part of the mining or extraction
process.
Inventory and Location
Spent brine return flow wells have been reported in rela-
tively few States. This, of course, corresponds to the location
of geologic formations conducive to the extraction of halogens or
salts in an economically feasible process. The largest inventory
of spent brine return flow wells has been reported in Arkansas,
followed by the inventory reported for Michigan. Other States
reporting spent brine return flow wells include Indiana, New
4 — 229
-------
5X16
York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and West Virginia. Reported to
date, the national inventory of this well type is 121 wells.
The inventory numbers reported by the States are reliable,
since industries utilizing these wells are easily identifiable.
Table 4-44 provides a synopsis of the inventory data from the
State reports.
Well Construction, Operation, and Siting
The only information on well construction of spent brine
return flow wells was received from Arkansas. Wells located in
Arkansas are constructed just the same as wells used to dispose
of oilfield brines (Class II injection wells). The wells have
multiple strings of casing cemented in the hole, and injection is
through steel tubing which generally is isolated from the casing
with a packer. (See Figures 4-42 and 4-43.) The well construc-
tion reported by the State of Arkansas is compatible with the
expected well usage.
The operation of spent brine return flow wells consists of
injecting large volumes of fluid, typically 10,000 - 20,000 bar-
rels of fluid per day. The injection operations are continuous,
but generally injection is not at high pressures. Gravity fed
wells (i.e. no applied surface pressure) are common.
The siting of any spent brine return flow well is determined
by the geology of the area for the optimum production of halogen-
rich brine. Siting, therefore, is limited to areas with
economically recoverable brines.
Injected Fluids and Injection Zone Interactions
The injection fluids, by definition are limited to brines
from which halogens or salts have been extracted. Since the
brine is re-injected into the same formation from which it was
produced, injection zone interactions with the injection fluid
are not a problem.
However, there have been unconfirmed reports that occa-
sionally other fluids, possibly hazardous wastes, are added to
the injection stream. The effect of emplacing unknown fluids
into the injection zone cannot be determined, but reports of this
practice do indicate the need for strong regulation of spent
brine return flow wells.
Hydrogeology and Water Usage
Spent brine return flow wells do not inject into USDW. Due
to the high dissolved solids content of the brines, all reported
halogen- or salt-rich brines have underlain all TJSDW, and are
separated from fresh waters by confining layers.
4 — 230
-------
TABLE 4-44; SYNOPSIS OP STATE P0R1S FOR SPENT IWE TI ftOR WEIIS(5X16)
— I
5X16
6WN
&
STATES
EPA
RESIOR
C ifirmed
Presence
Of Well Type
Requlatory I Case Studies! Contamination
System Unfo. available: Potential
Rating
Connecticut
Itlaine
tlassachusetts
NewHa shire
Xe Island
Vermont
I
I
I
I
I
I
• I
I
I
NO
N C)
NO
NO
NC)
NO
N/A
N/A
• N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
14)
I
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
wJ ersey
:N Y -k
Puerto Rico
lYirgin Islands
1 II
1 II
II
I II
NO N/A
YES PE IT
I NO N/A
NO N/A
NO N/A
I NO N/A
NO N/A
NO I N/A
IDelaiiare
Itlaryland
Pennsylvania
IVirginia
West Virginia
I III
III
III
III
III
NO N/A
NO N/A
NO N/A
NO N/A
2 ELI.S__— N/A
14)
• NO
1 NO
• NO
I NO
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
lAlabama
Florida
IBeorgia
:K tt ky
Itlississippi
Itbth Carolina
Sonth Carolina
Tennessee
I
I IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
ND N/A
14) N/A
NO N/A
NO N/A
NO N/A
14) 1 N/A
NO N/A
NO N/A
I NO N/A
• IC N/A
I NO N/A
NO N/A
1 IC N/A
NO N/A
NO N/A
IC N/A
I
I •
Ullinou V
Indiana V
Itlichigan V
Iflinnesota V
: ia I V
INisconsin V
I
14) 1 N/A
B WELLS N/A
33 WELLS 1 N/A
NO N/A
NO N/A
NO N/A
I
I I
• NO I N/A
I IC N/A
• 113 1 N/A
1 IC I N/A
• 14) 1 N/A
NO N/A
I
I
Ikkansas
IL ieiana
WewI xico
IDklaho.a
Tesas
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
——I
70 WELLS PERNIT
NO 1 N/A
NO N/A
7 WELLS : RILE
NO N/A
I YES
NO
I IC
NO
1 NO
I
NODERATE
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
lIona
kansas
tlissoura
Webraska
I
VII
VII
VII
VII
NO N/A IC
14) 1 N/A I NO
NO N/A I NO
NO I RILE I 14)
I
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
I
IColorado
Irmntana
1N th Dakota
ISouth Dakota
Wtah
IWyoming
I
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
I VIII
NO N/A
NO N/A
I IQ.L N/A
NO N/A
NO I RILE
NO N/A
I
• NO
1 IC
IC
I I )
NO
• II)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
I N/A
izona
Califwnia
IHaisaii
IWevada
IPierican Samoa
hr. Tmrr. of P
ISoam
ID I
IX
• IX
I IX
I IX
I IX
• IX
I IX
IX
NO
NO
NO
I NO
I I )
NO
NO
I NO
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
• N/A
N/A
NO
r io
NO
I C
1 13
14)
14)
NO
‘ N/A
N/A
I N /A
I WA
N/A
1 N/A
I N/A
I N/A
AIaaba
Udaho
I eg o n
waehington
I I
I I
I
I
NO
NO
1 NO
I I )
•
N/A
N/A
N/A
• N/A
‘ NO
IC
NO
NO
•
1 N/A
N/A
1 N/A
1 N/A
NOTE: SOlE MIEERS IN THIS TABLE ESTIMATES.
4—231
-------
5X1A
Annulus Pressure Gauge
Cement To Surface
Annular Space
Injection Tubing
Cement To Surface
Packer Set Above
Injection Zone
(Open
Conductor Casing
Set At 60
Annular Space
Long String Casing
Set At 8240
Scale: None
EXISTING CLASS V BRINE DISPOSAL
INJECTION WELL
GREAT LAKES CHEMICAL CORPORATION
(Source: Arkansas, 1985) Figure 4—42
Surface Injection
Pressure Gauge
Spent Brine
Casing
Set At 1022
T.D. 8148
4—232
-------
Scale: None
CONSTRUCTION REQLilREMENTS FOR
NEW CLASS V BRINE DISPOSAL
INJECTION WELLS
(Source: Atkansas, 1985) Figure 4—43
5X16
Surface Injection
____ Pressure Gauge
I tj:i 1JT - Spent Brine
a
C
p
a
p
C
S
a
S
4
a
p
V
S
4
S
4
4
a
V
S
V
a
a
I
a
p
S
S
a
V
S
a
a,
4
D p
‘S
V1
4
a
a ,
I
a
S
S
‘a
V
4
p
4
V
a
V
S
S
4
4
a
C
.‘
V
:4
4
I
a
a
44
V
Annulus Pressure Gauge
Cement To Surface
Annulus Filled
With Fresh Water
Carbon Steel
Injection Tubing
Cement To Surface
Perforations -
(To Be Determined From
Open Hole Logging)
Carbon Steel
Conductor Casing
Carbon Steel Surface Casing
Cemented To Surface - Set
Below Base Of USDW
Fresh Water
Carbon Steel Long String
Casing Cemented To Surface
Packer Set Within 100
Of The Top Of The
Injection Zone
—
S
V
S
—
S
a
a
a
V
Do
4
U
U
U
I
p
V
4
a
a
V
a
S
V
A
a
S
A
S
6
V
•4
V
- - - i
r . •.
5 4
— -A --—— — __ — ‘
4—233
-------
5X16
Contamination Potential
Based on the rating system described in Section 4.1, spent
brine return flow wells are assessed to pose a low potential to
contaminate USDW. These facilities typically inject below USDW
with little or no potential for migration of fluids into any
USDW. Typical well construction, operation, and maintenance
would not allow fluid injection or migration into unintended
zones. Injection fluids typically have concentrations of consti-
tuents exceeding standards set by the National Primary or
Secondary Drinking Water Regulations. Based on injectate charac-
teristics and possibilities for attenuation and dilution, injec-
tion does not occur in sufficient volumes or at sufficient rates
to cause an increase in concentration (above background levels)
of the national Primary or Secondary Drinking Water Regulation
parameters in ground water, or endanger human health or the
environment beyond the facility perimeter.
Since the spent brine return flow wells inject fluids
through adequately constructed injection wells and into confined
formations which are not tJSDW, the contamination potential is
limited. Proper operation of the wells would ensure a low con-
tamination potential.
Current Regulatory Approach
Spent brine return flow wells are authorized by rule under
Federally-administered UIC program (See Section 1). The State of
Arkansas requires a permit for spent brine return wells, while
the State of Oklahoma allows injection by rule—authorization.
Other agencies have not reported their regulatory approach.
The State of Arkansas appears to be effectively ensuring
proper operation of the spent brine return flow wells located in
the State through their permitting process. Well construction
requirements must be met, and requirements for mechanical inte-
grity verification and reporting of operating parameters are
stipulated. Arkansas is implementing comprehensive sampling of
the original brine and of the injection fluid as a further regu-
latory requirement.
Recommendations
The only significant recommendations provided came from the
Arkansas state report and are summarized as follows: technical
requirements for spent brine return flow wells should be similar
to those for oilfield brine injection wells (Class II injection
wells). Construction requirements should be developed based upon
the operating parameters of the well, and mechanical integrity
tests should be required. Comprehensive fluid sampling and
analysis also should be done periodically. Volumes of produced
and injected fluids should be compared periodically to determine
4 — 234
-------
5A19
if additional unlicensed wastes are being injected. The last two
monitoring activities mentioned should be performed on a semi-
annual or more frequent basis.
West Virginia recommends that spent brine return flow wells
should be regulated in a similar manner to Class III wells.
Supporting Data
Supporting data on spent brine return flow wells have been
taken in whole from the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control
and Ecology Class V Report. Refer to the list in Appendix E.
4.2.5 OIL FIELD PRODUCTION WASTE DISPOSAL WELLS
4.2.5.1 Air Scrubber Waste and Water Softener Regeneration Brine
Disposal Wells (5X17,5X18)
Although included in Table 1—1 as Class V injection wells,
air scrubber waste and water softener regeneration brine disposal
wells, types 5X17 and 5X18, are not included in the inventory and
assessment portion of this report. At the time the State Class V
injection well reports were written, air scrubber waste an.d water
softener regeneration brine disposal wells were categorized as
Class V injection wells. As a result, however, of a July 31,
1987, USEPA policy decision, these well types, in certain
situations, may fall under the Class II category rather than
Class V. This was determined to be the case with those 5X17 and
5X18 wells inventoried in the State reports.
4.2.6 INDUSTRIAL. COMMERCIAL. UTILITY DISPOSAL WELLS
4.2.6.1 Cooling Water Return Flow Wells (5A19)
Well Purpose
The low specific heat of water (the amount of energy
required to raise the temperature of water by 1°C) makes water an
excellent Itheat sink” (readily absorbs heat). Various industries
take advantage of this property of water by using it in heat
exchange systems to cool processes, equipment, or products.
These cooling systems often require large quantities of water to
operate efficiently. Ground water is used if it is available in
sufficient quantities or at low enough costs. Utilization of
ground water in the cooling system most commonly entails the
return of these large volumes of water to the subsurface through
injection wells. Cooling water return flow wells are installed
to dispose of the used cooling water, to prevent subsidence, and
to avoid depletion of ground-water supplies. These wells are
classified as Class V wells under 40 CFR Section 146.5 (e) (3).
4 — 235
-------
5A19
Inventory arid Location
The collation of an inventory of cooling water return flow
wells on a national level has been complicated by: 1) State
reports which contradict the Federal Underground Injection
Control Reporting System (FURS) listings, 2) insufficient
delineation of subclasses within FURS and State reports, and 3)
the errant classification of cooling water return flow wells as
heat pump/air conditioning return flow wells and vice versa.
There are 291 cooling water return flow wells inventoried to
date and their distribution is presented in Table 4—45. There
are some States whose FURS listing reported 5A types which were
undifferentiable based on facility name. It is expected that
some of these are cooling water return flow wells (5A19).
Well Construction, Operation, and Siting
Well construction varies greatly throughout the United
States. Wells used to inject cooling water typically are
completed at shallow depths (less than 300 feet). In some areas,
due to special conditions, such as arctic provinces where
permafrost occurs, wells are completed at much greater depths.
Based on inventory information, the range of these cooling water
return flow wells is 10 to 600 feet deep. Wells may be cased to
depth, cased at the surface, or open hole for the entire depth.
Due to the wide variation in construction practices, no typical
well construction diagram has been included. Return flow wells
are completed most commonly in the source aquifer but can be
completed in another aquifer. Injection generally is achieved
through gravity drainage.
There are three basic designs for the circulation of cooling
waters through a cooling system. The most common design is the
“closed” system which does not expose ground water to the air at
any point between withdrawal and reinjection. “Open” systems, on
the other hand, expose ground water to the air at some point
prior to reinjection. The third system is the “contact” system
which runs ground water over (in direct contact) the product to
cool it. This system may be easily abused in that industrial
fluids may be commingled with the cooling water.
Spent cooling fluids can be injected into several different
zones. They can be returned to the source aquifer through the
supply well or through another well, or they can be injected into
a different aquifer. Returning spent fluids to the source
aquifer is the most commonly practiced method.
Injected Fluids and Injection Zone Interactions
Injected Fluids. The nature of injected fluids depends
heavily upon the type of system in place, the type of additives
(if any) which are added to supply waters, and the temperature of
4 — 236
-------
TABLE 4-45: SYNOPSIS OP STATE POWTS FOP COOLINO WATER REVi N FLOW WELLS(5A19)
RESIOW
&
STATES
EPA l Confiresd
REGION Presence
Of Nell Type
Regulatory Case Studies/ I Ca taminati
Syste. Ilnfo. availabl,1 Potential
Rating
Ccmnecticut
INaine
N asuchusetts
New HaEthIre
I Cd. Island
Vere.nt
I
I I NO
I I NO
1 3 NO.LS
I 1 3 WELLS
1 B NO.LS
I I NO
I
N/A
N/A
PERPIIT>21C D
N/A
N/A
N/A
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
NO
N/A
N/A
LOW
N/A
HIOW
N/A
Niw Jersey
IN ew York
Puerto Rico
Islands
II
II
II
I
5 WELLS
NO
1 1 NO.1.
NO
NJPDES PERMIT
N/A
N/A
N/A
NO
NO
YES
NO
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
IDelaware
INary land
Pennsylvania
IVirg :nia
Nest virginia
111
III
III
III
Ill
NO
NO
YES
YES
NO
N/A
N/A
N/A
I N/A
N/A
NO N/A
NO N/A
NO N/A
NO N/A
NO N/A
Alabaaa IV
IFlorida IV
6 eorgia IV
Ikentucky IV
Missisaippi IV
:Ió th Carolina • IV
SMh Carolina IV
llenneseee I IV
I
33 NO.LS
35 tELLS
5 NO.1.5
NO
I C
NO
2 Ff ILITIES
NO
I
PERMIT
PERMIT
PB UT
N/A
N/A
I Il/A
‘ RILE
N/A
NO VABIABLE
, YES 5TH HIGI€ST/8 TYPES
I NO LOW
NO N/A
I NO N/A
• NO N/A
1 YES C HIEI€ST/3 TYPES
NO N/A
I I
I I
lIllmnms V 10 WELLS
Unthana V I 22 NO.1.5
Iflichigan 1 V 52 tELLS
Minn e sota V I 4 tELLS
V YES
Wignnsin V 2 WELLS
I I
RILE
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
RULE
I I
NO N/A
• IC I N/A
NO N/A
• NO N/A
NO I N/A
$ IC N/A
I
I
1
I
I
I I
Ikkansas VI I tELL
ILcuisiana VI NO
INe. Nexico VI I 6 WELLS
IOklahce. VI NO
ITesas VI NO
I $ -
l NOtE
N/A
REGISTRATION
N/A
N/A
NO I LOW
NO N/A
NO LOW
NO N/A
NO N/A
I I
h ow e VII I SWELLS
Kansas VII 3 W ELLS
Missouri VII IC
Nebraska VII 8 tELLS
I
PERMIT
N/A
N/A
RILE
NO
NO
NO
IC
N/A
POSSIBLE
N/A
YABIABLE
1
ICOICradO I VIII IWELL
Ircntana I VIII I YES
Itb th Dakota I VIII INOJ.
South Dakota VIII 1 NO.1.
lUtab I VIII 3 WELLS
IWycsinq - VIII NO
• IX IC
ICalifornia IX 20 WELLS
IHaisal : IX 6 WELLS
Nevada IX NO
IP rican Saana IX NO
ITt. Tart. of P l IX NO
IX NO
10 111 IX NO
I
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
P IT
N/A
IC LOW
NO I LOW
NO L*NOI I
NO I N/A
NO 4 (7#II EST)
NO N/A
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
N/A
PERMIT
P IT
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
NO
NO
YES
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
N/A
(NCNOI*I
LOW-NODERATE
N/A
N/A
I N/A
I N/A
N/A
I
1
I
I
,
•
I
lAlaska
hldaho
eqnn
IWas1 &ngtnn
X
I
X
I
I
2 WELLS PERMIT NO MODERATE
49 tELLS I PERMIT NO 111Th HIEIEST/ I4TYPES
NO I PERMIT> D NO 1 N/A
YES I PERMIT NO N/A
NOTE: SSI€ MJEERS IN THIS TABLE R ESTIP TES.
5A19
4—237
-------
5A19
the water. If water runs through a closed pipe system with no
additives introduced at any point, only the temperature of the
water is altered. This is the most common operation in the
United States. There are, however, open pipe systems which
expose water to accidental introduction of surface contaminants,
spills of industrial fluids, or unauthorized disposal of wastes.
In addition, contact systems may alter the chemical makeup of
waters by introducing contaminated fluids directly to the
receiving aquifer. Contamination of the fluids may be a result
of commingling of fluids or as a result of absorption or leaching
of matter from products. Any additives used to improve well
performance also are directly introduced to receiving aquifers.
Volumes of injected waters depend chiefly on the size of the
operation. Private industries which reinject cooling water may
inject only a few gallons of water per day, whereas larger
industries, such as public utilities, may inject several million
gallons per day.
Injection Zone Interactions. Injection of cooling water
results in temperature increases within the injection zone.
Effects of the temperature increase may include the dissolution
of additional salts and minerals and/or the hydrolysis of certain
metals within the aquifer. Injection into an aquifer other than
the source aquifer can result in any number of chemical
reactions, all subject to the chemical compatibilities of the
different waters.
Hydrogeology and Water Use
Operators of cooling water return flow wells often inject
into the shallowest aquifer which will handle the volume of water
they dispose. For example, in Illinois, cooling water return
flow is discharged into abandoned underground coal mines 6
Injection into shallow aquifers is preferred over injection into
deep aquifers because of lower drilling costs. In the United
States, most cooling water is injected into USDW. Wells which
supply private or public waters and are located downgradient of
cooling water return flow wells are threatened by thermal and/or
chemical changes in the aquifer. The degree of threat to supply
wells is a function of their distance from injection operations,
volumes of fluid injected at those operations, hydraulics of the
aquifer, the amount of water drawn in the supply wells, etc.
Contamination Potential
Based on the rating system described in Section 4.1, cooling
water return flow wells are assessed to pose a moderate to low
potential to contaminate TJSDW. These facilities typically do
inject into or above Class I or Class II USDW. Since well
construction, operation, and maintenance practices vary widely,
injection or migration of fluids into unintended zones may occur
4 — 238
-------
5A19
as a result of improper construction or operation. Injection
fluids may have concentrations of constituents exceeding
standards set by the National Primary or Secondary Drinking Water
Regulations. However, injectates from closed systems are likely
to be of equivalent quality (relative to standards of the
National Primary or Secondary Drinking Water Standards and RCRA
regulations) to the fluids within any USDW in connection with the
injection zone. Based on injectate characteristics and
possibilities for attenuation and dilution, injection may occur
in sufficient volumes or at sufficient rates to cause an increase
in concentration (above background levels) of the National
Primary or Secondary Drinking Water Regulation parameters in
ground water, or endanger human health or the environment beyond
the facility perimeter when contaminants are present in the
inj ectate.
The most significant threat to USDW from cooling water
injection wells results from the use of contact cooling waters
and the addition of chemicals to the cooling waters. Open-pipe
systems have only slightly lower contamination potential. Their
contamination potential depends primarily on the steps taken to
maintain the water’s integrity. Any introduction of chemicals to
the cooling water results in direct dispersion of chemicals into
the receiving aquifer and constitutes degradation if the
receiving waters are of drinking water standards. Closed-pipe
systems do not chemically alter waters; therefore, their
potential for contamination is lfmited to the chemical reactions
which occur as a result of thermal alteration.
North Dakota reports that closed-loop systems generally are
designed to shut down automatically in the event of pressure loss
due to a below-ground pipe break. Also, most closed-loop well
casings are filled with nearly impermeable grout compound which
surrounds the circulation piping. This is necessary to assure
proper heat conduction. Therefore, North Dakota concludes,
ground-water contamination from closed loop systems is extremely
low.
Thermal degradation occurs in every application of these
systems. The degree to which degradation occurs, however,
depends on several factors including volume of the aquifer,
disparity between temperatures of injected and receiving waters,
and volume of injected fluids. The chemical interaction between
warm injectate water and cool water inherent to the injection
zone is not well documented. Many chemical alterations are
possible within an aquifer as a result of a temperature rise.
Solids present in an aquifer are at equilibrium, which is to say
that all those solids that will dissolve under the present
conditions have done so. Changing physical conditions (such as
temperature) will alter the equilibrium in the aquifer. Usually
a temperature increase brings more solids into solution. This
rise in total dissolved solids (TDS) constitutes degradation of
the aquifer. As a result, drinking water standards may no longer
be met, ground water flow may change, and biological activity may
4 — 239
-------
5A19
increase within the thermally altered area. Degradation may also
result from the hydrolysis of certain metals in an aquifer. High
levels of dissolved metals may disqualify an aquifer from
drinking water classification and can cause clogging of an
aquifer among other problems.
Thermal degradation and resulting chemical changes are not
well documented in the United States. Much more study of the
chemical alteration due to thermal degradation of aquifers is
needed.
Current Regulatory Approach
Class V wells, which include cooling water return flow
wells, are authorized by rule. States with primacy approach the
regulation of cooling water return flow wells in many different
ways, but these States have provided only minimal detail on their
current regulatory programs. Some States require a permit prior
to construction or operation; others authorize by rule. At least
thirteen States have some type of permitting program which
mandates permits for operation of cooling water return flow
wells. Some of these programs are conditional and require
permits for injections in excess of set volumes or for certain
system designs (e.g. contact systems). In Texas, cooling water
return flow wells are regulated as Class I injection wells.
While regulations are diverse throughout States with primacy,
most State reports recommend construction standards which may
include return to the source aquifer, minimum separation between
supply and injection wells, casing requirements, etc. In a few
States, construction standards are included in the current
regulatory programs.
Little or no information is available in State reports on
local jurisdiction. Municipalities typically do not regulate
cooling water return flow wells.
Recommendations
Regulation of cooling water return flow wells may best be
carried out after development of specific guidelines for these
wells. These guidelines should set minimum requirements for
construction, siting, and monitoring. Some of the most common
siting and construction standards recommended in State reports
include the following:
1. Prohibition of open loop cooling water return flow
wells (FL, AR, NE, UT);
2. Casing from the surface through the top of the
uppermost supply and injection formation (AR);
4 — 240
-------
5 W2 0
3. Cemented casing from the top of the supply and
injection formation to the land surface (AR);
4. A minimum of two wells: a supply well and a
return well, maintaining proper distances between
the two (AR, SC);
5. Supply and return well system construction so that
spent fluids are returned to source aquifers (AR,
SC);
6. Plugged cooling water return flow wells upon
abandonment (by filling them with cement) (AR);
7. Restriction that nothing other than spent cooling
water originating at the supply well(s) be
injected CAR);.
8. Various minimum locating requirements for
injection wells relative to any municipal supply
wells (NE, SC).
Permits to construct could be issued after submittal of an
application specifically for •cooling water return flow wells.
According to Nebraska and Iowa, the permit application should
include:
1. Detailed map showing location of injection well
and all municipal, domestic, and stock wells
within one mile of the well;
2. Diagram of the injection well including screen
depths, casing, gravel pack, grout, etc.;
3. Diagram of the entire system; and
4. Type and volume of injected fluids (IA). This
information may discuss additives, mixed waters,
and other wastes which might be disposed with
cooling waters.
Supporting Data
Appendix E lists abbreviated case studies from five states
which were used in preparing this assessment.
4.2.6.2 Industrial Process Water and Waste Disposal Wells (5W20)
Well Purpose
Industrial process water and waste disposal wells are used
to dispose of a variety of industrial wastes. Twenty-seven case
studies of industrial disposal well facilities which were used in
4 — 241
-------
5 W2 0
assessing this well type are listed in Appendix E and illustrate
the variety of processes for which industrial disposal wells are
used. Table 4-46 provides a summary of each case study. The
reader will note that the case studies indicate several wells
injecting wastewater which contains apparently “hazardous”
materials. By definition, these may be Class IV wells. However,
proving injection of “hazardous” waste as described under 40 CFR
261 Subparts C and D is very difficult. Until these facilities
can be proven to inject hazardous waste or are proven to be
sources of contamination or to adversely affect public health,
they may be reported as Class V wells. Several types of
facilities which may utilize industrial disposal wells include:
- petroleum refineries
- high-tech electric component manufacturers
- small machine manufacturers
- asphalt manufacturers
- metal plating and fabricattng facilities
— reverse osmosis reject water facilities
- automobile dealers and car washes
- laundries and dry cleaners
- funeral homes and mortuaries
— chicken farmers.
Inventory and Location
Results. There are 1,938 industrial process water and waste
disposal wells inventoried to date. Table 4-47 lists their
numbers and distributions by State. It is likely that many more
exist.
The distribution of industrial process water and waste
disposal wells appears sporadic. Data may be interpreted to
indicate higher numbers of wells on the coasts of the United
States and lower numbers in the mid-continent. These trends may
be expected due to increased industrial activity and larger
populations on the coasts. However, several additional factors
may affect the apparent distribution. These factors are dis-
cussed in the Evaluation of the inventory and include 1)
difficulty identifying wells, 2) reluctancy of owners/operators
to report their wells, and 3) difficulty classifying wells.
Evaluation. In general, the inventory of industrial
disposal wells is believed to be poor to fair. Several factors
are responsible for the lack of quality (detail) and completeness
(accurate number of wells). First, the wells are difficult to
locate and identify. Problems are similar to those related to
4 — 242
-------
5W20
TABLE 4—46
Case Studies (5W20—Industriaj. Disposal Wells)
Nan
Locatiai (Regi.cri )
Nature of Business Descripticri
Qpm its, Inc. Used an acid solution process involving dilute
Keenthunk, ME (Rep I ) solutions of nitric acid, sulfuric acid, and tan-
talum ponder. Groundwater was determined to be
Capacitor Manufacturer locally contaminated with manganese, nitrates, ard
sodium. Canpar y moved. bnitoring continues.
Scxitherri Maine Finishing ( . Operated a rudin ntary was tewater tree bnent plant
East Watethoro, ME (Reg I ) which resulted in contamination of ground and
surface water. New treathient sys ten was designed
Matal Plating ar Fabrica- which could treat cyanide chraniun acid and alka-
ting Plant ii.
York Aviaticzi Waste paint, spent solvents, and associated
Sanford Airport Irx]ustrial material were washed to a collection durrp. After
Park, ME (Req I ) ranoval of solids, was tewa ter was disposed in a
drainfield. Matter is under investigation by
AiLI 1Ld1t Maintenance Maine’ s Departhient of Environmental Protection.
Fasteni Air Devices ‘I\’ o dry wells had been used for waste disposal.
Dover, NH (Req I ) The wel is were cleaned out, and fluids and solid
samples were analyzed. Sane organic compounds
Electric ! .ttor Manufacturer were identified (primarily tetrachioroethylene, or
PCE). Hydrogeol ogy of the area was assessed and
contamination is believed to be contained.
Viscase Puerto Rico Process wastewater, ancillary cooling water, po r
Q:irpozatiai, Barceicrieta, house water, and filter backwashes were neutra-
P.R. (Req II ) lized in concrete basins, filtered through anthra-
cite filters, and then injected. Wells were
Food Casing Manufacturer plugged after approximately 10 years of use.
R de.1 Caribe, Inc. Wastewater contains acids, alkalis, ferric
BarcelcrLeta, PR. (Reg II ) chloride, ferrous chloride, organic material, and
chromium. Discharge violates several limits
Aperture Mask Manufacturer inposed by Eriviror rental Quality Board. Closer
rronitoring is reccrnxrerrled.
4 — 243
-------
5 W2 0
TABLE 4—46 (Oxitinued)
Glamurette FashicMl Mills
Quthradillas, P.R. (Reg II )
A arel nufacthrer —
Dyeing Operations
Lotus (Land iithority of
Puerto Rico — Pinea le
Divisic i) Barcelcx eta,
P.R. (Req II)
Tr ica]. Fruit Processing
and Canning
KeMa].l raw Laboratories
Sabana Graz ]e, P.R. (Req II )
The USEPA considers certain dyes to be hazardous.
The caiparly declined to provide information on the
kinds, quantities, and concentrations of dyes in
the injectate. This matter is under investigation
by USEPA, Region II.
Industrial wastes cane fran the cooling process,
pineapple washing, and pineapple extraction. The
organic waste is higher than that of typical
danestic sewage. Recaru nded limits for phenol,
total dissolved solids, and surfactants are
exceeded. bnitoring program is recc rended.
Septic tank receives sanitaxy wastes (71%) process
water (24%), and washing water (5%).
ParElteral ? dical
Accessories ! nufacturer
Varixis AutLlitbile Dealers
Laig Island, NY (Req II )
Car Dealers
Car Washes
Parmit Canpliarze Systen
New York (Reg II )
Pennit O ,lairK!e (S1aJ1!S)
Lehigh Purtland C i nt Q.
Wcodsboro, M) (Req III )
Mining and Crushing
for Ca nt Aggregate
A pl led EL tro-Mechanics,
Iix ., Rint of Rocks, P )
(Req III)
The NJDEP found a Tc yota dealer ra noving co lene
fran autancbiles with formula R-E-L (87% PetroleuT
Hydroca ±ons, 11% t.richloroethane, 4% Detergents)
and washing it into a dry well. Several other car
dealers in New York were thserved using hydro-
carbons to ranove co&nolene.
Preliminary results of an EEt investigation.
Includes evaluatin of fluids injected into
industrial waste disposal wells in Nassau and
Suffolk Cc jnties.
Disposal well receives storm water runoff arid wash
water that is used to rinse rock crushing dust
f ran the outside of trucks. -
Well used for disposal of rinse water f ran the
nEtal irridite and anodizing process. Drairifield
used for disposal of rinsewater f ran the printed
circuit and photographic processes. Samples
sha ed elevated levels of copper. Facility will
continue to be rronitored.
nufacturer of Public
ress Syst
4 — 244
-------
5 W2 0
TABLE 4—46 (Qxitinued)
Harm iinill Paper Q. During seven and one half years of operation, over
Erie, PA (Reg III ) one billion gallons of waste pulping liquors were
inj ected. Wells were plugged when a ne z process
Pulp ar Paper Mill for making paper was developed.
Rodale (Square D) 2 ppraxin ately 3,000 gallons per day of electra—
Ezmaus Borrxiqb, PA (Req III ) plating waste containing up to 118.4 pprt cyanide
were illegally dumped into 3 injection wells.
Ea trical Products Area wells (serving 10,000 people) have been
nufacturing Plant sampled and no contamination faind.
Naticiial Wood Preservers Pentachiorophenol (PCP) and fuel oil were dis-
Haverford vnship, PA charged into disposal well. Subsequently, FCP and
( Beg III ) fuel oil migrated to the top of the water table
and flc Ned dc ngradient killing or heavily depres-
Wood Theatn nt sing uatic life for 5 1/2 miles dcMnstream.
az Preservation
Highiay Auto Service Petrochanicals, cyanides, 2,2 dichlorobenzene, and
Station, Pittstcivn a tost of other ] ci zn and un1mo n carcinogenic,
¶ [ jnship, PA (Rea III ) teratogenic, mutagenic, and tc dc chanicals were
present in discharge fran a mine tunnel to the
Auto Service Station Suajuehanna River. Sampling analyses indicated
pollution came fran the station. Case study
describes severe damages. Extensive clean—up and
nonitoring efforts continue.
Franklin A. HollarxI & Son Pit was constructed to dispose of fcwl that die
Ne v Church, VA (Beg III) . prior to being sold. Increased nitrate, organic,
and bacteriological levels could be cpec ted, but
thicken Fann no infontation on nature of the liquid waste that
enters the water table is available. One pit
probably does not constitute high contamination
potential; however, if n riy pits are utilized in
one area, evaluation of quality and quantity of
leachate nay be required.
Facility Nan — Sane Class V wells in Florida are used to dispose
t Available of reject water (brine) fran water treatment
Florida (Req IV ) plants using m nbrane technology (reverse osrrosis)
to render poor qual I ty grourdwa ter potable. Of
Reverse OaIxsis Brine particular interest are the high levels of
radionucl ides.
4 — 245
-------
5 W2 0
TA’BLE 4—46 ( itinued)
&nerican ( janamid Quipar y Injected waste generally contains high levels of
Michigan City, ]1 J (Reg V ) total solids, Na, and SO . The inj ection zone
lies between two USEW. The upper US1 is cur-
Catalyst nufacturers rently a source of drinking water, arid the lc zer
zone is a potential source of drinking water. It
is recamEnded that these wells be phased out.
Pur ro Co. Well used to collect rinse water runoff and
Bakersfield. ( (Req DC ) spillage that occurred during material transfers.
Chanicals handled on site included 1, 2-dibrano--3-
Fertilizer and Pesticide chioropropane (DBCP) until the State of California
Distributor Facility banned its use because of possible carcinogenic
arid toxic effects. Order was issued requiring
subsurface investigations and soil contamination
assessnents. Use of this well was discontinued in
1980.
Mafford Field Wells were used for disposal of agricultural
Tulare, (Req DC ) ch nicals and hydrocarbons, wash water used to
clean crop usting planes arid cbanical containers,
Crcp Dusting and waste petroleum prciducts. Groundwater con-
taiiination has been documented. Additional moni-
toring wells should be installed.
KW tric Qinpar ’ Rinse waters fran silver plating contained concen—
Stocktcri, CA (Req IX ) trations of copper, cyanide, and silver in excess
of 1 mg/l. Waste streams fran galvanizing con-
Manufacturing, Silver tamed high concentrations of lead and zinc. Data
Plating, Galvanizing is inadequate to delineate tent of subsurface
con tanina tion.
T.H. Agriculture arid Designated Superfund site. Ten areas containing
Nutriticm () . industrial waste contaminants have been identi-
Fresix, CA (Req IX ) fied. Industrial disposal wells and an industrial
leach field were responsible for soil contamina-
Agricultural thetiical tion at four locations. Groundwater contamination
Fbnnulaticxi, Packaging, on and downgradient from the property is well
arid Warehwsing Plant dccunented. Inj ec tion ceased in 1983.
Varicx s Petro1e in Three refinery waste inj ection wells at two
Refineries facilities were located and investigated in
C lifornia (Req tX ) California. Average injection volumes are
approxirtately 40-50 million gallons annually. A
Petroleun Marketing variety of organic arid inorganic constituents are
found in the waste stream.
4 — 246
-------
5 W2 0
Bt 1 E 4-46 ( itinued)
UniDynamics Designated Superfund site (Phoenix Litchfield Air-
Goodyear, AZ (Req DC ) port). Wells and ponds were used to dispose of
solvents. G:roundwater contamination on site has
nufacturing Plant for been dcc rented da rngradient of the wells. TCE
Defense ar Mrospace has migrated into a drinking water aquifer. The
R uipi nt wells were closed in 1982.
Hcrieywell Paint sludges, thinners, varnish, arxl solvents are
H enix, AZ (Req DC ) disposed in two wells. Wastes generated by
circuit board manufacturing processes were
disposed in three wells. Given the hydrogeologic
information collected to date, the threat to
grcLlndwater forn rly posed by the disposal wells
cannot be assessed. The wells were closed in
1982.
4 — 247
-------
T LE 4-47: SYNOPSIS (F STAlE P TS F( INOUS1RI . PR( ESS WATER D Wt6TE D1SPOS . WELLS QO)
RE5 1C14
STATES
EPA Confirmed
RESI I Presence
Of Well Type
Reculatory Case Studies/ Caitasination
System Info. availabiel Potential
I Rating
;Ccnnecticut
Ma ine
Massacrnisetts
INiw Ha shire
iode Island
Vermont
•
1
I
I
1
• I
I
6 WELLS I PERMIT YES
: 15 WELI.S N/A I YES
I WELl. PERMIT YES
1 13 WELLS N/A YES
‘ 59 WELLS N/A YES
SWELLS N/A YES
MODERATE
V IABLE
MODERATE
YP IAELE
MODERATE-HI l
MODERATE
I
•
New Jersey
tlew York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
I
11
II
II
II
I I
20 tELLS NJPDES PERMIT YES VPRIAELE
350 WELLS PERMIT I SI 11FICN1T
28 WELLS N/A I YES I N/A
3 WELLS N/A 14) N/A
I
DelaNare
fl aryIand
IPennsylvania
Virgin :a
West Virginia
III
III
III
III
III
I
NO N/A NO
9 WELLS PERMIT I YES
‘ 19 WELLS PERMIT YES
2 WELLS N/A YES
14) N/A )
N/A
HI84ESTJ3 TYPES
DE1.ETERIOIJS
V 1A&E
N/A
Alabasa
IFlorida
Secrgia
Kentucky
:Mississipp :
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
I
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
98 WELLS PERMIT YES
20 WELLS PERMIT YES
NO N/A YES
NO N/A t 4)
NO N/A NO
NO N/A NO
200 DRAIIFIELDS PERMIT YES
NO N/A NO
I
V IABLE
4TH HIGHEST/B TYPES
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
I L €ST13 TYPES
N/A
I
I
lIllinois
Undiana
:Michigan
IMinnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
I
.
V
V
V
V
V
V
— I I
16 WELLS RiLE YES MODERATE
30 WELLS N/A NO N/A
9 WELLS N/A I NO N/A
I WELL • N/A M l I N/A
467 WELLS N/A NO HIGH
4 WELLS PERMIT NO
frkansas
Lou isiana
New Mexico
lOkiahosa
Texas
Ilowa
kansas
Missoun
Nebraska
I
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
NO N/A NO
NO N/A NO
2 WELLS N/A YES
14) N/A 14)
2tE1.LS I CLASSI NO
N/A
• N/A
I MODERATE
N/A
N/A
VII
VII
VII
VII
NO N/A NO N/A
NO N/A 14) N/A
NO I N/A 14) N/A
NO RiLE 14) N/A
I
I
Colorado
lYcntana
North Dakota
South Dakota
lUtab
IWycmng
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
I
NO N/A NO
NO I N/A NO
14) N/A I 14) •
NO I N/A 1 IC
4 WELLS BANPED PC
32 WELLS PERMIT NO
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
RNg5—7(7 I1 €sT)I
3RD HI EST/10 TYPES:
IPrizoua
California
Hawau
fllevada
i ierLCan Sawa
Tr. Terr. of P
Soas
D III
I
II
I X
IX
IX
• IX
IX
IX
IX
I
72 IEI.LS PERMIT YES
93 .LS PERMIT YES
44 WELLS 1 P8 IT YES
14) 1 N/A ‘ PC
IC N/A NO
NO N/A NO
NO N/A NO
I IC N/A IC
HIGH
HIGH I
HIGH
N/A I
N/A I
N/A
N/A
N/A I
I I
lAlaska X
l ldaho 1
eqon X
IWasbington I I
‘ 230 WELLS
46 IELLS
20 WELLS
69 WELLS
I P IT 1 IC HIGH
PERIIIT>1B FT I IC 110TH HI 6T/14TYPES
PERMIT 1 YES I LOW
N/A I II) I (NOOII
MITE: SOlE MillERS IN ThIS TAII AlE ESTIMATES.
5 W2 0
4—248
-------
5 W2 0
the inventory of septic systems. Because records have not. been
kept on many of the wells, the inventory may never be complete.
Differences in record-keeping systems among States, among agen-
cies, and even among facilities make it difficult to use only one
inventory method.
Second, owners/operators are often hesitant to report their
industrial waste disposal wells. Fear of breaking the law, being
shut down, and drawing bad publicity adds to their reluctance.
Increased public awareness concerning the severe implications of
- ground—water contamination has rendered them wary.
Third, classification problems severely affect the results
of inventory efforts. In some States (Texas, for example), all
industrial disposal wells are regulated as Class I wells rather
than Class V wells. Another problem involves the
subclassification system. In some questionnaires, recipients
were asked to report “dry wells used for the injection of
wastes.” The terminology was problematic because industrial
disposal wells were consequently restricted to dry wells (a type
of well Construction). Therefore, septic tanks with soil
absorption systems which were used to dispose industrial wastes
were not identified as industrial waste facilities. Rather, they
were more likely identified as septic systems and were confused
with wells that receive solely sanitary wastes.
Methods. Methods used to inventory industrial disposal
wells were similar to those used for other wells. In States
where permits were already issued, files of those permits
generally were considered the primary source of information.
Where permit files were not available, information was gained
from a variety of Federal, State, County, and City Agencies.
County Health Departments were consistently valuable sources of
information.
A variety of private industries were also contacted for
information on industrial disposal wells. The list is too
lengthy to print in its entirety, but examples include:
— drilling and boring contractors
— water well and oil well drillers
— civil and consulting engineers
— manufacturing and processing companies
- petroleum refineries
- laundromats and dry cleaners
— mortuaries and funeral homes
- auto dealers and car washes.
Most agencies and facilities were contacted by mail and
asked to complete a questionnaire concerning well types, injected
fluid characteristics, and construction features. When
facilities were contacted by telephone or in person, response
rates were consistently higher.
4 — 249
-------
5W20
Summary. Results of the inventory effort are believed to be
poor to fair. Over 1,900 industrial waste disposal wells have
been inventoried to date, but it is likely that many wells have
not been reported. Many States (including Puerto Rico, Indiana,
Wisconsin, Arkansas, and Wyoming) have stated that inventory
efforts should continue, and further efforts should be made to
improve the quality and precision of the existing inventory.
Well Construction, Operation, and Siting
Industrial waste disposal wells are designed and constructed
in a variety of widths, depths, and configurations. The
following “wells” which formerly received industrial wastes in
California demonstrate the variability of industrial disposal
wells with regard to construction and design:
- a buried 55 gallon drum (flush with land surface)
with no ends;
- an uncased 22 ft deep borehole backfilled with
porcelain from a foundry on site;
- a 17 ft deep brick lined cistern backfilled with
gravel and designed to receive septic tank ef-
fluent;
- a slotted 4—inch diameter PVC pipe leach line
designed to receive septic tank effluent; and
— an abandoned cased water well penetrating deep
water bearing zones.
Tables 1, 2, and 3 listed in Appendix E describe the well
construction features for a wider variety of wells in California.
According to the report submitted for New York, it was
discovered that the terms “dry well,” “leach pit,” and “cesspool”
often are used interchangeably and given different meanings. For
example, cesspools designed for the disposal of sanitary wastes
generally are constructed of buried concrete rings stacked on top
of each other. The bottoms are sand or gravel. However,
cesspools with this construction often are used for the disposal
of wastewaters other than sanitary waste. Furthermore, the
cesspools may or may not have a manhole cover to provide access.
The New York report continues to note that “dry wells” are
similar in construction to cesspools and often are considered to
be cesspools. A dry well has an open bottom, according to that
report, and receives only liquid wastes such as the effluent from
a septic tank or series of settling ponds. The effluent
percolates into the subsurface depending on the soil
permeabilities. The theory behind using “dry wells” is to
“filter” the effluent through earth materials in the unsaturated
zone so that the liquid is relatively clear when it reaches the
4 — 250
-------
5 W2 0
water table. The report further states the “practical effective-
ness of this type of system depends on the attenuative character-
istics of the soil and the volume and quality of wastewat.er.”
One type of dry well that is potentially very hazardous,
according to the Wyoming report, is the floor drain in a
commercial or industrial facility which discharges to an open or
damaged sump. These commonly are found at service stations and
other facilities that perform vehicle maintenance or repair.
Highly toxic compounds and heavy metals are like]y to be
contributed to the ground-water system. Because the usual
location of such wells is in populated areas which frequently are
not served by sewers or water districts, many nearby residents
may obtain their water supplies from wells susceptible to
contamination.
Some ttinjection wells” were constructed by excavating pits
with a backhoe and backfilling them with gravel. No access is
possible for these wells, and accurate records are not always
available; thus, the dimensions of these “wells” could not always
be determined.
Other types of construction also were found. Some wefls
were constructed of masonry. One well was found which consisted
of an abandoned boxcar buried on end. Many sites were found to
have leach fields and other waste disposal systems.
Industrial waste disposal wells generally do not use
pressurized injection; industrial wastes are drained into these
wells by gravity flow. Total depth is generally as shallow as
practicable to provide discharge into a permeable zone. The
injection zone is often above sensitive aquifers. The wells are
typically sited in unsewered areas with commercial or industrial
development. No State reports indicated injection into exempted
aqui fers.
Because of the nature of the siting and construction
characteristics inherent to industrial disposal wells, unreported
wells are likely to go unnoticed. Inspectors can easily overlook
industrial disposal wells if casing does not rise above land
surface.
Injected Fluids and Injection Zone Interactions
Injected Fluids. Industrial process water and waste
disposal wells could potentially receive any fluid disposed by
the various industries which use thewells. In New York, many
industrial facilities are permitted to discharge waste to the
subsurface where all underlying aquifers are classified as sole
source aquifers. Periodic monitoring of injection fluids from
various industrial facilities is required for compliance with
State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permits.
Monitored parameters, including discharge rates and contaminant
4 — 251
-------
5 W2 0
levels, are stored on a Permit Compliance System (PCS). The PCS
data include facilities which are permitted and required to
monitor specific parameters. However, some permitted facilities
have not reported monitoring information.
For the purposes of this report, a copy of the PCS data,
entitled, “Limits and Measurements Data for Nassau and Suffolk
Facilities Discharging to Ground Water,” was supplied to
Engineering Enterprises, Inc. (EEl) by tJSEPA Region II. The data
were stored in the EEl computer system in a format which allowed
calculations and interpretations to be made. Calculation of
“mass loading of contaminants per unit time” was one of the
objectives of the study.
These PCS data included information on only those facilities
which provided monitoring information. It should be noted that
approximately 62 facilities are discharging wastewater from
various sources including process waste, sanitary waste, non-
contact cooling water, wastewater treatment plant effluent, etc.
In Nassau and Suffolk Counties, an average of 20 million
gallons per day (MGD) of wastewater is injected into the
subsurface by facilities listed on the PCS. Maximum volumes
total nearly 21 MGD. Based on these volumes, calculations
suggest that more than 190 grams of total dissolved solids (TDS)
are entering the subsurface each second (190 g/sec). Converted
to more familiar units, these data indicate that approximately
0.42 pounds of TDS are entering the subsurface each second, or 36
thousand pounds per day!
As illustrated in Figure 4-44, several inorganic
contaminants are being injected into the subsurface. Injection
rates range from 390 mg/sec of fluoride to as much as 5,900
mg/sec of nitrogen. Mass loadings per unit time for total sulfate
and chloride fall in the intermediate range. It is not possible
to calculate mass loadings for sulfide and sulfite due to lack of
information on discharge rates.
Many EPA priority pollutants (heavy metals) and hazardous
constituents identified by RCRA are being injected into the
subsurface at a rate of nearly 120 mg/sec (Figures 4-45 and 4-
46). Notable contaminant discharge rates include copper (125
mg/sec), iron (128 mg/sec) and nickel (151 mg/sec).
Hazardous organic constituents , re injected into the
subsurface at rates ranging from 4 x 10° mg/sec (xylene) to 680
mg/sec (1,1,1—Trichloroethane). (See Figure 4-47.) Discharge of
additional hazardous organic elements has been permitted. Those
elements include benzene, methylethyl ketone, trichloroethylene,
tetrachloroethylene, trichlorofluoromethane, 1, 1-dichioroethane,
1,2-transdichloroethylene, and vinyl chloride. It is not
possible to calculate mass loadings per unit time for these
4 — 252
-------
0
w
(n
0
1f ; —
‘ii (n
If .)
_jJ
l\ )
C :’ Z c:
1±
—4 - ’- ,
z
z.
0
0
6
5
4
3
2
1
INORGANIC CONTAMINANT LE\/ELS
MASS LOADING PER UNIT TIME
Chloride
Fluoride Nitrogen(T) Sulfate(T) Sulfide
CONTAM I NANTS
Figure 4—44 . Mass loading of inorganic contaminants due to subsurface injection of
industrial waste in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, New York (based on PCS
data of the SPDES program).
0
Sulfite
cn
-------
CONTA vHNANTS
Figure 445. Mass loading of some heavy metal contaminants due to subsurface injection
of industrial waste in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, New York (based on PCS
data of the SPDES Program).
HEAVY METAL CONTAM NANT LEVELS
MASS LOADING PER UNIT TIME
C)
Cr)
c i
(I )
-J
tiJ
>
-J
H-
z
z
H-
z
0
0
0
4,.
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-
O
‘ e
.
-
H’
( I
-
_I HE
:i:i :
-__
r i •
H
:___iH -_
0.00009
cj
0.049
L
I
•
I
I
1
I
I
Arsenic
Aluminium
Barium
Cadmium
Cr(T)
Cr(H)
Copper
Cyanide
FZ 2i k22
0.201
N)
Q
-------
HEAVY METAL CONTAMINANT LEVELS
MASS LOADING PER UNIT TIME
CONTAMINANTS
Figure 446 . Mass loading of additional heavy metals contaminants due to subsurface
injection of industrial waste in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, New York
(based on PCS data of the SPDES Program).
0
w
U)
0
(11
-J
I 4 J
-J
I—
z
z
I-
z
0
0
N)
01
01
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Iron Lead Mn Mercury
Nick e I
Silvr
Tin
#Inc
01
1%)
0
-------
ORGANIC CONTAIv1INANT LEVEL
MASS LOADING PER UNIT TIME
Chloroform
CONTAMI NANTS
Figure 447 . Mass loading of hazardous organic contaminants due to subsurface injection
of industrial waste in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, New York (based on PCS
data of the SPDES program).
HAZARDOUS
700
600
0
U
(I)
C)
(I)
-J
Li.J
>
U
I—
( Il -
0 )
z
I—
z
0
0
500
400
300
200
100
0
Toluene Methyl. CI 1 1—DCE 1 1 1,1—TCA
Xylene
01
0
-------
5 W2 0
contaminants because the permitted facilities did not provide
discharge rates.
Some acids and related contaminants are discharged at a rate
slightly below 22 mg/sec, as illustrated in Figure 4-48. Figure
4-49 indicates that other organic constituents are injected at
rates ranging from 0.3 mg/sec to just under 200 mg/sec. Other
biological and microbiological indicators, including carbonaceous
biological oxygen demand (BOD(c)), chemical oxygen demand (COD),
and carbonaceous oxygen demand (OD(c)), are injected at rates
below 1,200 mg/sec. Coliform is injected at 130,000 #/sec
(Figure 4—50).
In conclusion, many facilities in Nassau and Suffolk
Counties are permitted to discharge as many as 65 organic and
inorganic constituents to the subsurface. In some cases, fluids
containing contaminant levels which exceed drinking water
standards are injected. In other cases, fluids containing
contaminant levels which are below drinking water standards are
injected in excessive volumes (average 20 million gallons per
day). These fluids typically percolate through the vadose zone
to the water table. Some contaminants in the waste fluids may be
attenuated by the vadose zone due to various physical, chemical,
and biological processes. Nevertheless, contaminants have the
potential to degrade ground water-quality. Contamination
potential depends on volume, persistence, mobility, and toxicity
of .the injected constituents.
Although the information provided by New York was the most
specific with respect to injectate quality, several other States
provided general information on the composition of injected waste
streams. For example, the California report identified waste
streams which included waste laboratory chemicals, petroleum
products, pesticides, pesticide and defoliant rinse waters,
degreasing solvents, and industrial process chemicals. These
wastes typically contain one or more of the compounds listed
under 40 CFR Part 261 Subpart D (RCRA regulations). Further
investigations should be conducted to determine whether these are
Class IV facilities.
Alabama also provided data on the constituents of waste
streams from various facilities. Tables 4-48 through 4-50 list a
few of the substances identified.
It should be noted here that some wells which are classified
as industrial disposal wells also may contain sanitary wastes
which vary greatly depending on their origin. As discussed
earlier, many facilities utilize septic systems to dispose of
their industrial wastes. Sanitary wastes from those facilities
are likely to be mixed in the waste stream. Section 4.2.3.2
discusses the characteristics of injected fluids discharged to
septic systems.
4 — 257
-------
0
L U
( I )
C -)
c i )
-J
LU
>
LU
t -J
I —
z
z
I —
z
0
0
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
& RELATED CONTAMINANT LEVELS
MASS LOADING PER UNIT TIME
Benzoicacids PMA acid Guafensin Niacinamide Theophyllin&araben M&P
co TAM INANTS
Figure 4—48 . Mass loading of acid and related contaminants due to subsurface injection
of industrial waste in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, New York (based on PCS
data of the SPDES Program).
ACID
22
20
C ),
N)
0
-------
0
U i
U)
0
(I)
-J
Ui
-J
Co I—
z
4:
z
z
0
0
OTHER ORGANIC CONTAMINANT LE\/ELS
MASS LOADING PER UNIT TIME
200
190
180
170
160
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10-
0
-
-
-
_
Iii
-——1 —-
O.486
-
II
-
---___
_
-
--
/7 /7
7 ///
.—
- -
-
Surf actant
TOC
I I I I I I
Ch lorine(T)
Freon
o&G
CONTAMINANTS
Figure 449. Mass loading of other organic contaminants due to subsurface injection of
industrial waste in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, New York (based on PCS
data of the SPDES Program).
Ph e n o I
01
1\)
0
-------
0
U i
C l )
0
It ”.—’
‘ I ,
-J
a
a i O
fl
10
z
z
0
0
MICROBIOLOGICAL CONTAMINANT LEVELS
MASS LOADING PER UNIT TIME
1.2
CONTAMINANTS
Figure 4—50 . Mass loading of microbiological contaminants due to subsurface injection of
industrial waste in Nassau and Suffolk Counties, New York (based on PCS data
of the SPDES Program).
1.1
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
wx
ØØ7/ 7 )
;,ø2
////%
// /
:_
!
.
I
t////// /
øW ,V/ /2 ;
//////2
:v/////
BOD(C)
COD
OD(C)
C M
10
0
-------
5 W2 0
TABLE 4-48
FORMALDEHYDE DATA
Embalming Process Sample
Lavender Funeral Home 195 mg/i
Rocko Funeral Home 750 mg/i
Septic Tank Sample
O t Bryant Chapel < .1 mg/l
Williams Funeral Home .15 mg/i
Nichols Funeral Home 2.4 mg/i
TABLE 4-49
TYPICAL LAtJNDERETTE WASTE
Substance
Range (mg/i)
Minimum
Average
Maximum
ABS
3.0
44.0
126.0
Suspended Solids
15.0
173.0
784.0
Dissolved Solids
104.0
812.0
2,064.0
COD
65.0
447.0
1,405.0
Alkalinity
61.0
182.0
398.0
Chlorides
52.0
57.0
185.0
Phosphates
1.4
148.0
430.0
pH
5.1
—
10.0
Nitrates
—
< 1.0
Free Ammonia
-
3.0
-
Sulfates
—
200.0
—
TABLE 4-50
TYPICAL POLLUTANT CONCENTRATIONS IN WASTEWATER
FROM SELF-SERVICE AUTO WASHES
(10 MONTH PERIOD)
Substance
Range (mg/i)
Minimum
Average
Maximum
Total Solids
729
2,006
3,334
Total Volatile Solids
207
456
871
Suspended Solids
95
386
840
Volatile Suspended Solids
25
72
116
BOD (5)
15
57
166
Oil and Grease
38
86
200
4 — 261
-------
5 W2 0
As stated previously, it is difficult to generalize about
the quality of fluids injected into an industrial process water
and waste disposal well. Fluid qualities vary with industrial
processes. It is important to emphasize, however, that
industrial wastes may contain “hazardous’ t constituents.
Injection Zone Interactions. Limited data are available
concerning the interaction between industrial waste effluent and
injection zones. More research is needed to determine the
effects of the waste stream, particularly on the unsaturated
zone. A study by Wilson (1983) indicated that very little
attenuation of common organics and heavy metals occurs in the
vadose zone during lateral migration. Due to design limitations,
little data on attenuation during vertical migration were
obtained during Wilson’s study. It should be noted that the
Wilson study dealt with concentrations expected in urban storm
water runoff and not those expected from disposal of industrial
wastes. Some of the constituents which made up the waste
streams, however, were similar to those identified in several
industrial facilities.
On a positive note, according to Wyoming, removal of
contaminants may occur as a result of settling of solids,
filtration, dilution, and chemical reactions in the saturated
zone. However, if a perched water table is created, lateral flow
of contaminants may increase. Metals and organics appear to be
attenuated less by saturated lateral flow, the report notes, than
do microorganisms.
In summary, interactions between injection zones and indus-
trial waste effluent probably result from processes similar to
those which occur in other well types. Chemical incompatibility
between injected fluids and fluids inherent to the injection
zones are likely to result in precipitation or dissolution of
various minerals based on characteristics such as temperature,
pressure, and pH. Injection of low quality fluids with respect
to quality of the ground water may result in degradation of the
ground water depending on volumes, rates, and constituents of the
injected fluids.
Hydrogeology and Water Usage
Site specific hydrogeologic factors strongly influence the
contamination potential posed to USDW by industrial waste
disposal practices. Industrial disposal wells typically inject
wastes above or into LTSDW. Hydrogeologic factors which
significantly influence the contamination potential of industrial
disposal wells include:
1. thickness of the vadose zone below the injection
well;
4 — 262
-------
5 W2 0
2. physical and chemical properties of vadose zone
sediments below the injection well; and
3. presence/absence of confining layers (aquicludes).
Thick vadose zones provide an increased sorptive surface
area for dissolved industrial waste contaminants. As noted
before, little research has been performed to determine the
extent of adsorption/absorption processes which actually occur
between wastewater contaminants and vadose zone sediments.
The permeability of vadose zone sediments is a second
significant hydrogeologic determinant. Laterally continuous, low
permeability silt or clay layers generally act as confining beds.
Such strata existing above or below the injection zone can
effectively restrict the migration of waste effluent to other
zones which may contain drinking water.
Hydrogeologic factors contributed considerably to ground-
water contamination at two facilities (reviewed for this report)
where contamination was caused, in part, by industrial waste
disposal wells. Industrial disposal wells at the Thompson
Hayward Agricultural and Nutrition Company (THAN) in Bakersfield,
California and at Mefford Field in Tulare, California were
completed above shallow ground—water tables. Piezometric
elevations reported at each site were less than 25 feet below
land surface. Silty to coarse alluvium sands also were reported
to comprise the vadose zones below each facility.
Industrial disposal wells described within each of the
industrial disposal well case studies (Appendix E) injected waste
waters above or into USDW. In two site studies, domestic water
wells were located within 1/2 mile of the disposal wells.
Domestic water wells downgradient of the THAN site in Fresno,
California have been contaminated from disposal well operations
at the facility (Kleinfelder and Associates, 1983). Water wells
also have been contaminated from past operations of industrial
disposal wells (septic tanks with wells) located in the eastern
half of the San Fernando Valley (L.A. Department of Water and
Power, 1983).
Industrial disposal wells in Arizona at both UniDynamics and
Motorola Inc., 52nd Street Facility, were completed above shallow
ground-water tables. Piezometric elevations at both sites were
less than 100 feet below land surface. Permeable alluvial sands
also were reported to comprise the vadose zones below each
facility. (Ecology and Environment Inc., 1986; Guiterrez—
Palmeriberg, Inc., 1983). Groundwater contamination on-site has
been documented downgradient of the wells at Unidynamics.
4 — 263
-------
5 W2 0
Some active industrial disposal wells reported in Arizona
overlie the Salt River Valley. Aquifers in the valley are used
for irrigation and public water supply (USGS, 1983). Waters
tapped by municipal water purveyors are generally greater than
300 feet below land surface.
As illustrated by the case studies previously described, the
usual location of industrial waste disposal wells is in populated
areas which are frequently riot served by sewers or local water
districts. Many nearby residents may obtain their water supplies
from shallow wells completed in aquifers which produce ground
water that is susceptible to contamination.
Contamination Potential
Based on the rating system described in Section 4.1,
industrial process water and waste disposal wells are assessed to
pose a high potential to contaminate USDW. These wells typically
do inject into or above Class I or Class II USDW. Typical well
construction, operation, and maintenance would allow fluid
injection or migration into unintended zones. Injection fluids
typically have concentrations of constituents exceeding standards
set by the National Primary or Secondary Drinking Water
Regulations. Fluids may exhibit characteristics or contain
constituents listed as hazardous as stated in the RCRA
Regulations. Based on injectate characteristics and
possibilities for attenuation and dilution, injection does occur
in sufficient volumes or at sufficient rates to cause an increase
in concentration (above background levels) of the Primary or
Secondary Drinking Water Regulation parameters in ground water,
or endanger human health or the environment beyond the facility
perimeter or in a region studied on a group/area basis.
It is difficult to define “typical t ’ scenarios for the
criteria listed in the rating system because the industrial
disposal well category is so diverse. In order to fairly assess
the wells, they must be judged on a site specific basis.
However, for the purposes of this study, the interest of
groundwater protection mandates that worst-case scenarios are
more heavily weighted.
As stated earlier, industrial disposal wells are likely to
be located in populated areas which are frequently not served by
sewer systems or water districts. Therefore, nearby residents
may obtain their water supplies from wells. It is presumed that
these wells produce water which meets drinking water quality
standards. In other words, the ground water inherent to the
injection zone is likely to belong to Class I or Class II of the
Groundwater Classification System.
It is difficult to identify “typical” construction,
operation, and maintenance features; therefore, worst—case
4 — 264
-------
5 W2 0
scenarios will be applied to this section of the rating system.
In many cases previously described, wells showed no signs of
casing, cement, tubing, packers, or welihead assemblies.
Furthermore, injection pressures, rates, and volumes “typically”
are not monitored. The injected fluids are likely not to be
analyzed, and many facilities are believed to be operating
without permits. Under present operational procedures, there is
a great potential for abuse, as illustrated by the case studies
from Pennsylvania (Appendix E). Programs established to conduct
mechanical integrity tests and to properly plug and abandon wells
are rare. Based on these criteria, it is reasonable to assume
that typical well construction, operation, and maintenance prac-
tices will allow injection or fluid migration into USDW.
Contaminants identified in wastewaters discharged to
industrial disposal wells are numerous and site specific.
Nevertheless, many waste streams may contain contaminants which
are defined as “hazardous” per 40 CFR Part 261, Subparts C and D.
Detailed investigation is needed to determine whether these
wastes actually meet the “hazardous” criteria. Contaminants
detected in some waste streams include TCE, xylene, benzene, and
various pesticides, to name just a few.
Identifying injection volumes and rates is probably the most
difficult parameter for which to determine a “typical” scenario.
The reader is referred to the case studies (list provided in
Appendix E) for evidence that injection of industrial wastes
frequently occurs in sufficient volume or at a sufficient rate to
cause an increase in concentration (above background levels) of
the National Primarey or Secondary Drinking Water Regulation
parameters in groundwater, or endanger human health or the
environment either (a) beyond a facility’s perimeter, or (b) in a
region studied on a group/area basis.
Current Regulatory Approach
Industrial waste disposal wells are authorized by rule under
Federally-administered tJIC programs. Several available case
studies suggest that 40 CFR 144.12 is possibly being violated.
These requirements state:
No owner or operator shall construct, maintain,
convert, plug, abandon, or conduct any other injection
activity in a manner that allows the movement of fluid
containing any contaminant into underground sources of
drinking water, if the presence of that contaminant may
cause a violation of any primary drinking water
regulation under 40 CFR Part 142 or may otherwise
adversely affect the health of persons.
4 — 265
-------
5W20
Unfortunately, many agenices with the authority to regulate
these systems are under-staffed and are not able to inspect all
systems, according to Utah. Limited State and local government
resources make it easy for an operator to modify portions of his
wastewater system (without being detected) to discharge to dry
wells instead of to a municipal sewer. In States where well
manufacturers and installers currently are unregulated and have
no obligation to report their installations to local and State
authorities, primary construction of facilities with industrial
disposal wells may go unnoticed.
Furthermore, proving that injected waste is “hazardous” as
described in 40 CFR 261 Subparts C and D is very difficult.
Until these facilities can be proven to inject “hazardous” waste
or are proven to be sources of contamination or to adversely
affect public health, they may be classified as Class V wells.
Some questions have been raised concerning whether the RCRA
program or the UIC program maintains jurisdiction over certain
Class V wells when potentially “hazardous” wastes are involved.
This problem is prevalent in regulating septic systems that
receive industrial waste or toxic household waste. The following
paragraphs summarize the RCRA regulations regarding household
wastes and conditionally exempt small quantity generator (SQG)
wastes. The information is excerpted from personal correspond-
ence with the USEPA and indicates that the UIC program clearly
maintains control over authorization of this type of injection
well.
Household wastes are defined in 40 CFR Part
261.4(b) (1) as “any material (including garbage, trash
and sanitary wastes in septic tanks) derived from
households (including single and multiple residences,
hotels and motels, bunkhouses, ranger stations, crew
quarters, campgrounds, picnic grounds, and day use
recreation areas). It is conceivable that household
wastes could contain toxic chemicals. Yet, under Part
261.4(b), these wastes are not considered RCRA
hazardous wastes. Therefore, wells injecting household
wastes for disposal purposes would fall under the Class
V category rather than the Class IV category, even
though these wastes may contain toxic chemicals.
Small quantity generators of less than 100
kilograms per month are exempt from full RCRA
regulations, under Part 261.5(g), provided that certain
conditions are met. If the generator does meet the
conditions, hazardous wastes may either be treated or
disposed of in an on-site facility or an off-site
storage, treatment, or disposal facility which is
either:
4 — 266
-------
5 W2 0
1. permitted under Part 270; or
2. in interim status under Parts 270 and 265; or
3. authorized to manage hazardous waste by a
State with a hazardous waste management
program approved under Part 271; or
4. permitted, licensed or registered by a State
to manage municipal or industrial solid
waste; or
5. a recycling or reclamation facility.
Thus, a Class V well that has been permitted, licensed,
or registered as a facility by a State may inject RCRA
hazardous wastes produced by conditionally exempt small
quantity generators of less than 100 kilograms per
month. In situations where this occurs, the well must
be reclassified as Class IV. Since Class IV wells are
prohibited, under 40 CFR 144.13, the well then must be
properly plugged and abandoned in accordance with the
requirements of Parts 144.14 and 144.23.
Several States implement stringent requirements for
industrial process water and waste disposal wells. Table 4-47
indicates the regulatory systems described in each State report.
Unfortunately, specific regulatory information provided in the
State reports usually was very general or non-existent.
States with primacy approach the regulation of industrial
waste disposal wells in many different ways. Some States require
a permit prior to construction or operation while others
authorize by rule. At least sixteen States have some type of
permitting program in pl.ace which mandates a permit for the
operation of industrial disposal wells. Some of these programs
are conditional and require permits for injections in excess of
set volumes or for certain system designs. Texas regulates
industrial disposal wells as Class I injection wells. While
regulations are diverse throughout States with primacy, most
State reports recommend permitting systems which set minimum
construction standards and monitoring requirements. In a few
States, permitting systems and monitoring programs are part of
the current regulatory program.
Several States quote applicable State regulations which,
summarized, prohibit the injection of wastes which will degrade
ground water. Examples include Indiana and North Carolina. Some
States require general permits for operation of any type of
injection well. Because the waste streams often contain poten-
tially hazardous constituents, however, the trend in many States
4 — 267
-------
5 W2 0
seems to be moving toward individually permitting industrial
disposal wells. States with individual permitting programs in-
clude New Jersey, Wisconsin, Alabama, Maryland, and Oregon. The
regulatory systems of New Jersey, New York, and California are
described in greater detail in the following paragraphs. These
three systems were used as examples because information
concerning the systems was readily available.
New Jersey. The following information is a direct excerpt
from the New Jersey State. Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NJSPDES) permit application package.
ADDITIONAL GENERAL CONDITIONS FOR INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL
DISCHARGES BY SUBSURFACE DISPOSAL
A. Monitoring Requirements
1. Flow measuring device(s) shall be installed
in the waste stream(s) prior to discharge to
the subsurface system such that the total
daily flow can be measured on a continuous
basis.
2. Flow shall be recorded and reported to the
Department as required in the discharge moni-
toring requirements of this permit.
B. Maintenance Requirements
1. Septic Tanks
Septic tanks, if utilized, shall be inspected
on at least a semi-annual basis to determine
the level of sludge that has accumulated.
When the level of the sludge reaches one—
quarter (1/4) of the capacity of any septic
tank within a single system, all tanks within
that system shall be pumped.
The permittee shall also conduct an inspec-
tion of the following appurtenances on at
least an annual basis:
Appurtenance Inspection
Septic Tanks Leaks, Baffle Corrosion
Conveyance Piping* Leaks, Solids Accumulation
Grade
Distribution Box Leaks, Solids Accumulation
Elevation
4 — 268
-------
5 W2 0
*Internal inspection to be performed only if
readily accessable: otherwise inspection
only for surface evidence of system failure.
The perxnittee shall maintain a record of all
inspections performed and shall make the
record of the inspections available to the
Department upon request.
Prior to pumping any septic tank, the permit-
tee shall arrange at his/her own expense for
an EP Toxicity Test (or other such test as
the Department may currently require to be
performed on the sludge content. The results
of the EP Toxicity Test (or other such test
as the Department may currently require)
shall be forwarded to the Bureau of Hazardous
Waste Manifest and Classification of the
Division of Waste Management for classifica-
tion.
a. If the classification of the sludge is
other than I.D. 73, appropriate disposal
and any necessary manifesting and all
applicable Waste Flow Rules shall be
followed pursuant to the rules, regula-
tions and requirements of the Division
of Waste Management.
b. If the classification of the sludge is
I.D. 73, the septic tank puinpings shall
be disposed of pursuant to Section 18
(Residuals Management) of the General
Conditions for all NJPDES Permits unless
adopted Waste Flow Rules require other-
wise.
2. Subsurface Disposal Area
a. The immediate and surrounding area of
the subsurface disposal area shall be
inspected on at least a monthly basis
for evidence of malfunctioning. Said
evidence shall include, but shall not be
limited to breakout, ponding, wet areas,
odors and an overabundance or loss of
vegetative cover. A record of these
inspections shall be maintained by the
permittee and shall be made available to
the Department upon request.
4 — 269
-------
5 W2 0
b. At the first indication of malfunction-
ing, the owner shall notify the Depart-
ment pursuant to Section 14 (Reporting
Noncompliance) in the General Conditions
for All NJPDES Discharge Permits.
C. Operation Restrictions
1. The permittee shall comply with all provi-
sions of Section 5.9, Additional Conditions
Applicable to all UIC Permits, of the NJPDES
regulations. N.J.A.C. 7:14A-1 et seo .
2. The operation of a subsurface disposal system
shall at no time create an unpermitted dis-
charge to any surface water of the State or a
persistent standing, ponded, or flowing fluid
condition.
3. When the Department has reason to believe
that contamination of the ground waters is
being caused by this facility, remedial mea-
sures shall be required to determine the
extent of the suspected contamination and/or
to correct the contaminated conditions. The
remedial measures shall include, but shall
not be restricted to, the installacion of
ground water monitoring wells, modifica-
tion(s) of the treatment system (if any),
installation of a treatment system and/or
reduction of cessation or the discharge.
New York. In New York. the Department of Environmental
Conservation (NYDEC) regulates the discharge of pollutants to
both surface water and ground water under the State Pollutants
Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) program. The SPDES program
is operated based on the provision under Article 12 of NYDEC and
the authority of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. All
facilities that discharge more than 1,000 gallons per day of
wastewater to the subsurface are permitted through this program.
The following discussion of the program concerns discharge to
both the surface and subsurface.
The NYDEC has nine regional headquarters and several sub-
off ices. The Division of Water at the Central office of the
NYDEC in Albany, NY, coordinates all efforts through the regional
headquarters. The regional headquarters, in turn, delegate
responsibilities to respective suboffices and counties on a
regional basis. The Division of Water of the central office
issues Technical and Operational Guidance Service (TOGS) to
establish priorities and procedures for the SPDES program.
4 — 270
-------
5W20
According to TOGS (1985), the SPDES permitting is divided
into two classes: Significant Permit Classes, and Non—Signifi-
cant Classes.
Significant permit classes consist of all USEPA designated
major* permits (NPDES Program?), plus the following non-
major permits:
1. Municipal
2. Toxic Industrial
3. Non-Toxic Industrial
4. Private, Commercial and Institutional (PCI)
(Regional Concern)
Non-Significant Classes consist of non-major PCI and
other industrial permits less those designated for
inclusion in the significant class under subpart 2, 3,
and 4 above.
* (Most USEPA major permits in Long Island discharge to
surface water.)
The regional offices have the authority to process all first
time applications and issue permits complete with expiration date
regardless of class. The permits are then classified as signif i—
cant or non—significant based on certain guidelines. The poten-
tial for the discharge to create serious nuisance conditions,
impact on water supply or bathing areas, and intense public
concern are some items considered in this evaluation.
The Bureau of Wastewater Facilities Design (BWFD) sends
renewal notices to dischargers in the significant class. The
regional permit administrator, in turn, processes the applica-
tions and reissues permits as applicable. The BWFD sends renewal
notices, also, to dischargers in the non—significant classes.
However, the Bureau extends such permits indefinitely under the
provision of the state administrative procedures. In any case,
the permitees in the non—significant classes are required to
monitor discharges as necessary and retain the analytical results
for inspection by the Department or its designated agent.
The overall goal of the SPDES is to reduce severe
contamination potential by closely monitoring all significant
discharges while ensuring compliance of all nonsignificant
permits by spot inspections. All monitoring data for significant
classes are stored in the NYDEC’s Permit Compliance System (PCS)
data storage. Appropriate actions are taken on those facilities
that discharge wastewater in excess of the water quality
4 — 271
-------
5 W2 0
regulations as specified in Title 6, Chapter X, Parts 700 — 705
of the New York State Codes, Rules and Regulations, (NYDEC,
1986). Most of the above discussion is based on TOGS (1985)
reporting by the Division of Water of the NYDEC.
It is not clear whether other States have State regulatory
systems similar to those of New York and New Jersey, but programs
such as these are beneficial to the protection of ground water.
California. Little or no information is available in most
State reports on local jurisdiction. The following excerpt is
from the California report and illustrates how local agencies may
be responsible for regulating industrial disposal wells.
Class V industrial waste disposal wells (5W20)
operating in California are regulated under the Cali-
fornia State Health and Safety Code and the California
State Water Code. Each code grants specific enforce—
ment powers and responsibilities to two environmental
regulatory branches:
- the Department of Health Services
- the State Water Resources Control Board and its
nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards.
The Department of Health Services (DOHS) and a Calif or-
nia Regional Water Quality Control Board often coordi-
nate actions at sites where regulatory jurisdictions
overlap. This, however, is not true in all cases.
Class V industrial waste disposal wells are regulated
differently according to the type of wastes they dis-
pose. Wells found to dispose of waste waters contain-
ing hazardous wastes (as defined in the State of Cali-
fornia Health and Safety Code Chapter 6) are subject to
stricter regulations recently passed under California
Assembly Bill No. 2058. (The California Health and
Safety Code was amended to contain the provisions of
this bill in 1985.)
Provisions under the bill prohibit:
any person on or after January 1, 1986, from
discharging hazardous waste into an injection well
which commenced operation on or after January 1,
1986, and prohibits such a discharge after January
1, 1988, into an injection well which commenced
operation before January 1, 1986, unless the per-
son has received a hazardous waste facilities
permit for the well, the well is not within 1/2
mile of drinking water, and the injection well
4 — 272
-------
5 W2 0
does not discharge hazardous waste into or above a
specified formation, unless granted an exemption
by the department (DOHS) pursuant to a specified
procedure. (California AB 2058, 1985)
The bill also prohibits the DOHS from issuing a
hazardous waste facilities permit unless a hydrogeolo—
gic assessment report for the industrial waste disposal
well is reviewed and approved. Groundwater monitoring
and injection zone requirements must also be stipulated
by the DOHS before issuing a hazardous waste discharge
permit. The bill further requires Regional Water Qual-
ity Boards to base waste discharge requirements which
they issue for hazardous waste injection wells on
hydrogeologic assessment reports. Hydrogeologic
assessment reports CHAR) are carefully reviewed by
Regional Water Quality Control Boards and the DOHS.
Industrial disposal well iners are often required to
submit extensive site specific hydrogeologic data with-
in their HAR. (See “Industrial Disposal Well case
Study, Kearney-KPF”, Appendix E for an example of
information required by state agencies within a HAR).
In response to orders received from the DOHS and the
Regional Water Quality Control Boards, a number of
facilities are currently conducting hydrogeologic site
investigations.
Class V wells not identified to discharge hazard-
ous waste (as designated by the State) are regulated by
the State and Regional Water Quality Control Boards.
These Boards are empowered by the California State
Water Code to require...
any person ...who is discharging, or who proposes
to discharge, wastes or fluid into an injection
well, to furnish the State or Regional Board with
a complete report on the condition and operation
of the facility or injection well, or any other
information that may be reasonable required to
determine whether the injection well threatens to
pollute the waters of the state. (Porter Cologne
Water Quality Code, Sect. 13263.5a, 1985).
‘When a report filed by any person pursuant to this
section (California State Water Code, Section 132601e)
is not adequate in the judgement of the regional board,
the board may require the person to supply the addi-
tional information which it deems necessary’ (Calif or-
nia State Water Code, Section 13260(e) as amended by AB
2058). Waste discharge requirements for industrial
disposal wells are set by the Regional Board on a case
by case basis. These requirements can specify the
4 — 273
-------
5W20
design, location and type of construction among other
requirements which must be complied with by the injec-
tion well owner in a lawful manner. Shallow industrial
waste disposal wells discovered by the Regional Boards
to have operated without waste discharge permits have
been closed by the Boards in most cases. These wells
can reopen if, after reviewing the waste discharge
report, a Regional Board judges that the shallow indus-
trial disposal well will not threaten regional ground-
waters.
Based on information provided in State reports, it is likely
that the local regulatory system utilized by California is more
stringent than systems in other States.
Recommendations
Recommendations provided by State reports are summarized on
the State Report Summaries in Appendix A. While some States
provided only general recommendations for continuation of the UIC
program as a whole, other States provided recommendations for
specific well types. The following list of recommendations
includes most of the topics addressed in the State reports.
State reports which contain specific recommendations are
identified in parentheses.
Inventory.
1. Inventory efforts should be continued with a high
priority given to identifying industrial disposal
facilities (PR, IN, WI, AK, WY).
2. Assume that all industrial waste disposal prac-
tices have deleterious effects on USDW, thus war-
ranting immediate attention. Then conduct site
investigations to assess the true contamination
potential (PA).
3. The NPDES program could be more effective in
helping the UIC program by requiring sewer
improvement districts to inventory all industrial
users of their systems and to review details of
each user’s waste streams(s) (NY).
4. The issue of the reluctance of operators to report
their wells can be overcome by presenting a
coordinated program (about waste streams that are
allowed) through a multi-media approach. The
4 — 274
-------
5W20
multi—media approach should encourage public
participation at the State and local levels
(States in Region V).
Hydrogeol ogical Evaluations.
1. “Extensive groundwater evaluation studies should
be completed in order to identify areas which
would be vulnerable to contamination due to indus-
trial waste disposal. Standard criteria should be
developed to define in precise terms the criteria
that constitute vulnerability,” (PR, AS).
2. “Drainage areas surrounding industrial facilities
should be studied and all possible pollution
sources noted,” (KS).
Permits.
1. “Industrial disposal wells should be permitted
only when the injectate contains less than 10,000
mg/i TDS,” (FL).
2. These wells can be detected and managed by local
building code, environmental, or sewage protection
programs (UT).
Inspections.
1. Inspection of industrial waste disposal facilities
should be continued (PR).
2. “Inspection teams should be reinforced by chemical
or industrial engineers whose familiarity with the
industrial processes would render a more objective
assessment of the impact industry might have on
the environment,” (PR).
3. Inspection of well construction practices should
be mandatory along with annual inspections to
ensure adherence to appropriate regulations (MD,
KS).
Monitoring.
1. “Request all industries to conduct monitoring
programs,” (PR).
2. “Tighten up sampling requirements to assure their
being representative of material reaching the
injection well,” (PR).
3. “If USDW is/are present above the injection zone,
monitoring should be required which is capable of
detecting the migration of effluent in the
direction of the USDW,” (FL).
4 — 275
-------
5W20
4. Ground-water monitoring should be conducted using
a minimum of one upgradient and two downgradient
wells, (Paz).
5. Existing State regulations should be reviewed and
revised to provide more prudent control of injec-
tion and monitoring requirements (HI).
6. All nonhazardous industrial process water and
waste disposal wells shown to have a high
contamination potential should be phased out.
These wells should be required to inject below
USDW as Class I wells in the future. Other 5W20
wells should be periodically checked for injection
rate and fluid quality (States in Region V).
Alternative Methods.
1. The practice of injecting industrial process water
and waste should be discouraged, and wastes should
be routed to on-site treatment facilities or
municipal sanitary sewer systems where possible,
(FL, UT).
2. “Discharge of industrial process wastes to septic
systems should be discouraged due to the fact that
septic tank systems are not designed to adequately
treat this waste type,” (NE).
3. “Septic tanks were designed to treat domestic
(kitchen and toilet) wastes only. The septic tank
really has no place in industry except to treat
wastes generated exclusively by a mess hail (caf e—
teria) and sanitary facilities. Even very small
amounts of some industrial wastes can render a
tank useless for the stabilization of domestic
waste, “ (PR).
4. Alternative methods for disposal of industrial
process water and waste should be considered (MD).
5. The policy of prohibiting the installation of
septic tank/drainfields for treating embalming
fluids (current practice requires holding
facilities and periodic removal and proper
disposal) should be continued (SC).
6. Until additional data is at hand to define the
fate of industrial wastes in the saturated zone,
it is prudent to take extraordinary precautions to
minimize the potential for aquifer degradation via
injection of highly toxic substances (WA).
4 — 276
-------
5X28
7. Alternatives to land disposal such as recycling or
resource recovery, reduction of wastes generated
through process modification, and improved methods
of hazardous waste neutralization should be
actively pursued (WA).
Supporting Data
Appendix E lists 27 case studies of industrial process water
and waste disposal facilities used in preparing this assessment.
Also listed in Appendix E are three tables which illustrate
varying construction features and injectate constituents of
several industrial disposal wells in California.
4.2.6.3 Automobile Service Station Disposal Wells (5X28)
Well Purpose
Wastewater comprised of waste anti freeze fluids, waste
petroleum products (oil, grease, etc.), floor washings (including
detergents, sediments, etc.), and miscellaneous wastes originates
from service bays at gas stations and auto dealerships. This
type of wastewater will be called Service Bay Wastewater (SBW) in
the following discussion. SBW typically is disposed of by three
general methods: discharge to sanitary sewers, discharge to the
subsurface by injection, and riddance by other methods such as
storage or hauling of waste to an off-site disposal or recycling
facility. (See Figure 4-51.)
Of particular concern is the injection of wastes to the
subsurface brought about through one or a combination of methods.
One method of waste injection involves discharge of wastewater
through disposal wells or thy wells which exclusively receive
wastewater from service bay drains. For the purpose of identif 1—
cation in the following •sections, these wells will be called
single purpose wells. The other method of injection involves
discharge of SBW through cesspools, septic tank systems, or storm
water drainage wells. These discharge systems will be called
multi—purpose disposal systems as they receive wastes both from
service bay drains and sewage or storm water runoff. In the
event that the SBW is disposed through septic tank systems, the
waste may be finally discharged to the subsurface through cess-
pools, dry or disposal wells, drainfields or other disposal
methods. Hence, SEW may be injected to the subsurface through
any of the above mentioned disposal methods, all of which are
regulated under the UIC regulations.
Inventory and Location
Some States like Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana,
Michigan, New Jersey, New York, and Utah have conducted site-
specific investigations to identify and assess the impact of SBW
4 — 277
-------
Service Bay Wastaeater (SBW)
(Coilectsi in Drains)
Pretreacnent Systens - Oil-water
I se Brators, grease traps,
catch basins. etc.
.1 ___ ______
Sanitary Sewers Subsurface Injection Other Waste Disposal tho3s
______________ _____________ Such As Storage & IIaulir , etc.
Dry/Disposal Wells I Septic Tank Systens Irdustrial/Stnsnseter
40 R 146.5 (e) (5) 40 R 146.5 (e) (9) Drainage Wells
_______________ ______________ 40 ‘R 146.5 (e) (2)
1’.) L __________________________
- .4
1 - ___ 1 . ____
Cnss poo ls Dry/Disposal Wells Drain Fields Other Disposal thois
40 R146.5 (e) (2) 40 R 146.5 (e) (5) 40 R 144.1 (g) (1) (iii & iv) Such as Seepage Pits, etc.
C ; )
Figure 4—51
Typical disposal retb s asploy by gasoline service staticris ani car dealerships that discharge service bay vaste..ater ( W) CO
-------
5X28
injection to the subsurface. Appropriate corrective actions are
now being implemented based on the findings of these investiga-
tions.
A nationwide inventory has not been conducted for gasoline
station service bay disposal wells. By and large, such an inven-
tory has not been conducted because most States are not aware of
such injection practices. Meanwhile, those States that are aware
sometimes misinterpret the Class V definition and identify
certain disposal techniques as septic tank systems or storm water
drainage wells.
The USEPA Region II conducted several field trips in New
York and New Jersey and identified some automobile service
stations that were suspected of injecting service bay wastewater
to the subsurface. (Engineering Enterprises, Inc. (EEl) was
contracted to sample and analyze some of these injection wells in
Long Island, New York. The preliminary investigation in Long
Island, New York, revealed that three out of eight gasoline
service stations investigated discharge SBW to the subsurface
through single purpose and multipurpose wells. It was not
possible to identify the disposal method at the rest of the
sites. Missing plumbing records and site plans, modifications to
old plumbing, and lack of information exchange during transfer of
ownerships were some of the many elements that affected proper
identification of a disposal method at these five sites.
In Connecticut, an inventory has not been completed because
SBW disposal methods are identified and regulated only on a case-
by-case basis as they are reported or identified during routine
inspection. In New Jersey, the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection (NJDEP) reported 18 service station
disposal wells of which 11 non—filer facilities are undergoing
enforcement actions, one facility is closed, and the others are
either permitted or under investigation. In other words, there
is no extensive program setup to inventory or regulate such
disposal methods.
Under all of these circumstances it was not possible to
obtain a complete inventory either on a State level or national
level. Table 4-51 is a synopsis of the inventory data given by
the states.
Well Construction, Operation, and Siting
As discussed before, wastewater from service bays may be
discharged through single purpose or multipurpose wells. Con-
struction of multipurpose wells is similar to constructions dis-
cussed under septic tank systems or storm water drainage wells.
Single purpose wells designed to discharge only service bay
wastewater are typically completed at shallow depths using
standard precast cesspool rings as illustrated in Figure 4—52.
At some sites, depending on the volume of waste discharged and
4 — 279
-------
TABLE 4-51: SYNOPSIS STATE REPORTS FOP AUTOMOBILE SEfr ICE STATIOB WASTE DISPOSAL WELLS(5X28)
5X28
REGIOB I EPA I Confirud
& I RESIGH I Presence
STATES Of Well Type
Re ulat -y I Case Studies! Contaainati i
Systes llnfo. available: Potential
Rating
Ccnnecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
IWew Ha thire
Hthode Island
Veri it
I
I
I
I
I
1
I WELL
MO
NO
NO
3 WELLS
II) tELLS
PERMIT
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
YES
I C
I C
I C
YES
YES
HI I
H/A
N/A
N/A
LOW
MODERATE/HIGH
IWewjersey
IWew Y k
Puerto Rico
Ivirgin Islands
II
II
II
II
1SWELLS
3 WELLS
IC
IC
‘I4IPDESPERMIT
PERMIT
N/A
N/A
YES
YES
NO
I C
N/A
HIGH
N/A
N/A
IDelaisare
Maryland
lPennsylvania
IVirqinia
West Virginia
II I
Iii
113
Ill
Ill
Mt N/A
IC N/A
NO N/A
I WELl. 1 N/A
IC N/A
NO
IC
IC
IC
I C
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
IAlabaaa -
Fl ida
IBeorgia
Ikantucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
Sonth Carolina
Tennessee
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IC N/A
YES PERMIT
IC N/A
IC N/A
Mt i N/A
143 N/A
IC N/A
IC ‘ N/A
IC
IC
NO
NO
IC
IC
14)
14)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Ullinois
lindiana
Nichigan
Minnesota
ICIiio
Wisconsan
V
V
V
V
V
V
5 WELLS
2 WELLS
27 WELLS
IC
PC
NO
RILE
N/A
‘ N/A
N/A
‘ N/A
N/A
IC
IC
IC
PC
IC
IC
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
frkansas
Louiszana
INaw Naxico
ICklahosa
Texas
I
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
IC
PC
YES
IC
NO
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
14) N/A
Mt N/A
IC I N/A
IC N/A
NO N/A
I
I I
ilossa VII
kansas 1 VII I
:Misscw-i ‘ VII 1
Nthraslca 1 VII
I I I
I WELL. N/A IC HIGH
PC 1 N/A 1 IC N/A
SWELLS N/A I IC I UNKNOIuM
143 1 RILE I IC N/A
I &
Colorado VIII
Montana VIII 1
North Dakota 1 VIII
IScuth Dakota I VIII
Wtah - I VIII
IWyosing VIII
IC N/A
14) N/A
M I I N/A
IC N/A
2 WELLS 1
PC N/A
IC
IC
IC
IC
IC
NO
I
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
6 (7 IIGIEST)
N/A
1 izona I I
Calif nia I I X
IHawaii IX
INavada IX
eerican Saeoa IX
hr. Tart. of P ‘ IX
ISuaa IX
QIII IX
I
PC
NO
PC
YES
IC
IC
IC
IC
N/A IC
N/A 14 )
N/A NO
‘ N/A I IC
N/A I IC
N/A I NO
N/A 1 14)
N/A I IC
I
• N/A
N/A
• N/A
HIGH
• N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
I
Alaska
lldaho
1 eqos
Washingtos
I
1
I
X
PC
21 WELLS
PC
14)
I I
N/A IC N/A
RILE I IC 4Th Hl €ST/I4 TYPES;
N/A I MI N/A
• N/A I IC N/A
NOTE: WIE MIllERS IN ThIS TABLE ABE ESTIMATES.
4—280
-------
5X28
/7
//
//
A ”
Inlet Drain . ____
‘N
L A
/ 1
//
Cast Iron Cover
6’ Inlet Drain Pipe
from Catch Basin
10.5’ to Top of
Bottom Sediment
Layer
Disposal Fluids
Bottom Sediment
DETAiL OF A DRY/DISPOSAL WELL
SAMPLED AT A GASOLINE SERVICE STATION
LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK
PLAN VIEW
—Reinforcing Mesh
Standard Pre—Cast
Rings
CROSS-SECTIONAL ELEVATION (A-A’)
Figure 4—52
4—261
-------
5X28
the geology, a series of standby wells may also be constructed as
the situation warrants.
Wastewater effluent originating from service bays may pass
through a pretreatment system before being discharged into a
disposal well. Such pretreatment systems include grease pits,
oil water separators, or catch basins. Figure 4-53 is an illus-
tration of a catch basin sampled in New York. Injection takes
place by simple gravity flow from the pretreatment system to the
subsurface disposal facility.
Injected Fluids and Injection Zone Interactions
Typically, wastewater from service bay drains may include
waste oil, antifreeze, floor washings (including detergents,
organics, and inorganic sediment), and other petroleum products.
Hence, wastewater of this nature may contain highly toxic organ—
ics and heavy metal priority pollutants along with other organic
and inorganic compounds that may eventually migrate to the ground
water. Many of these contaminants may be absorbed or adsorbed to
the organic and inorganic suspended sediments and settleable
sediments.
Samples obtained at some gas stations during the preliminary
investigations in Long Island, New York showed contaminant levels
highly in excess of drinking water standards. High levels of
heavy metals (total), ethylene glycol, and volatile or anics were
detected in the wastewater samples collected in the investiga-
t ion.
During the investigation in New York and a separate investi-
gation in Utah, it was estimated that some wells had up to two
feet of oily residue in the wells, and the entire inside of the
wells was coated with black oily films. Case studies are listed
in Appendix E.
At most sites, waste fluids enter the unsaturated subsurface
zone by gravity flow, seeping through slots and openings of the
disposal well. Waste fluids migrate vertically downward in the
unsaturated (vadose) zone by force of gravity. In this process,
the fluids may leave behind residual contamination in the wells
and in the flow path through the vadose zone, due to adsorption
or absorption. The residue potentially may leach or desorb
contaminants to the subsurface for long periods of time.
Hydrogeology and Water Use
Wastewater from service bays typically is injected into the
shallow subsurface (within 20 to 30 feet of land surface).
Consequently, at many sites, shallow aquifers may be in or near
such discharge zones. Shallow aquifers are highly vulnerable to
contamination regardless of their location with respect to injec—
4 — 282
-------
5X28
6’ Inlet
Pipe from
Drain
Inlet Drain_s
DETAIL OF A CATCH BASIN
SAMPLED AT A GASOLINE SERVICE STATION
LONG ISLAND, NEW YORK
PLAN VIEW (B—B’ )
Concrete Slab
Disposal Fluid
Bottom Sediment
CROSS-SECTIONAL VIEW (A-A’)
Figure 4—53
4—263
-------
5X28
tion zones since contaminants in SBW may eventually reach the
aquifer. Incidentally, most gas station service bays are located
in populated areas that may have many additional sources of
pollution (See Figure 4—54). Some residents in the area may
obtain their drinking water from wells completed in shallow
aquifers in the general area. Contaminants entering the shallow
aquifers may migrate through the ground water and, eventually,
contaminate drinking water wells in the vicinity.
In some areas where shallow aquifers are non-potable, water
wells may be completed in deeper aquifers. Contaminants from SBW
disposal wells may still migrate down to the deeper aquifer,
depending on the hydrogeological connection between the upper
shallow aquifer and the deeper aquifer. Improperly abandoned or
poorly constructed and maintained water wells may also contribute
to connectivity of shallow and deep aquifers.
Contamination Potential
Based on the rating system described in Section 4.1,
automobile service station waste disposal wells are assessed to
pose a high potential to contaminate tJSDW. These wells typically
do inject into or above Class I or Class II USDW. Typical well
construction, operation, and maintenance would allow fluid
injection or migration into unintended zones. Injection fluids
typically have concentrations of constituents exceeding standards
set by the National Primary or Secondary Drinking Water
Regulations. Furthermore, many of the fluids are likely to
exhibit characteristics or contain constituents listed as
hazardous as stated in the RCRA Regulations. Based on injectate
characteristics and possibilities for attenuation and dilution,
injection does occur in sufficient volumes or at sufficient rates
to cause an increase in concentration (above background levels)
of the National Primary or Secondary Drinking Water Regulation
parameters in groundwater, or endanger human health or the
environment beyond the facility perimeter or in a region studied
on a group/area basis.
When SBW is disposed by subsurface injection, it usually is
discharged to a shallow zone. The waste is -injected into the
subsurface in populated areas that depend,in many instances, on
ground water as a source of drinking water. Hence, in most
cases, the injection zones are underlain by USDW. Also, the
construction, operation, and maintenance of many subsurface
injection methods allow contaminants to migrate into unintended
zones in the subsurface. The injection fluids commonly contain
toxic organics and heavy metal priority pollutants in excess of
drinking water standards. Finally, injected fluids are very
likely to cause degradation of ground-water quality beyond the
facility perimeter. Based on the above findings and the rating
systems developed and discussed at the beginning of Section Four,
it can be concluded that subsurface discharge of SBW presents a
high potential to contaminate USDW in the vicinity. This
4 — 284
-------
Underground
Storage Tank
MAGOTHY AQUIFER
r
r r
Industrial
Facilities
Shallow Deep
Private Public
Water Water
Supply Supply
Well Well
-------
5X28
conclusion is reaffirmed by some state reports, including New
York, Utah, and Iowa, that rate these disposal methods as those
that pose a high contamination potential.
As discussed above, discharge of such contaminants to the
subsurface has an immediate or potential impact on the ground-
water quality and, thereby, poses a threat to human health and
the environment. The impact ground-water quality is influenced
by the transport and fate of the injected fluids in the
subsurface.
As mentioned by Keeley, Piwoni, and Wilson (1986), there are
many natural processes that affect the transport and fate of
pollutants (Table 4-52). They are divided into physical,
chemical, and biological processes. These processes may, in many
instances, reduce the contamination potential. Nevertheless,
these contaminants have the ability to eventually degrade the
ground-water quality depending on the volume, persistence,
mobility, and toxicity of the injected fluid. Investigations
that study the transport and fate of contaminants can be both
costly and time consuming but are essential. Such investigations
become more complicated (especially in densely populated residen-
tial and industrial areas as in the case of the Long Island, New
York study) as different sources of contamination contribute to
the gross contamination plume.
A thorough investigation of the various factors mentioned
above is necessary to understand the full impact and
contamination potential of service bay waste water injection on
USI)W.
Current Regulatory Approach
Automobile service station waste disposal wells are
authorized by rule under Federally-administered UIC progrxnas (see
Section 1). Currently, gasoline station disposal wells are not
actively regulated by the USEPA or by many State systems. One
reason is that some States do not believe that such disposal
practices exist. Also, many other States are confused and
misled, believing that multipurpose wells like septic tank
systems and storm water/industrial drainage wells (that also
discharge waste from service bays) do not meet the definition (in
UIC Regulations) of “Automobile Service Station Disposal Wells.”
Some States, however, are beginning to recognize the impact
of these injection practices. For instance, according to Patton
(1987), Connecticut has barred any discharge of wastewater to the
subsurface from gasoline station service bays. All facilities,
old and new, are now required to dispose of such wastewater only
through the sewer system or other means where the waste is re-
moved from the area. Operators are required to obtain necessary
permits in this regard. Facilities that do not follow these
requirements have been asked to immediately seal off such drains.
4 — 286
-------
5X28
TABLE 4-52
NATURAL PROCESSES THAT AFFECT SUBSURFACE
CONTAMINANT TRANSPORT. (KELLEY. PIWONI AND WILSON. 1986)
Physical processes
Advection (porous media velocity)
Hydrodynainic dispersion
Molecular diffusion
Density stratification
Immiscible phase flow
Fractured media flow
chemical processes
Oxidation-reduction reactions
Radionucl ide decay
Ion-exchange
Compl exation
Co-solvation
Immiscible phase partitioning
Sorption
Biological processes
Microbial population dynamics
Substrate utilization
Biotransformation
Adaptation
Co-metabol ism
4 — 287
-------
5X28
Other States, including Wyoming, Wisconsin, New Jersey, and New
York, are taking effective steps to mitigate these injection
practices. Some States, like Texas, are now requiring permits
for these discharges, and have classified the wells as Class I
wells (Musick, 1986)
The USEPA Region II recently sampled catch basins and dispo-
sal wells at eight gas stations in Long Island, New York. Results
(though inconclusive) show that many USEPA priority pollutants
and other toxic compounds in the injection fluid may be highly in
excess of the drinking water standards. TJSEPA Region II is
currently sending out Class V well inventory/investigation forms
to new car dealers in New York.
Another type of facility that discharges service bay waste-
water is car dealerships which maintain service bays. A USEPA
investigation in New Jersey revealed that a foreign car dealer
was operating a Class IV well and injecting hazardous waste that
contained trichloroethane (used for degreasing). Effective
actions were taken and, consequently, the Director of the New
York Class V UIC program sent nearly 1,400 permit applications
to new car dealers (since the probability of injection practices
similar to New Jersey were anticipated to be occurring in New
York). Based on the monitoring information required for permit
compliance, the State Director hopes to determine whether there
is current injection of potentially hazardous or otherwise toxic
wastes. Local governments do not regulate subsurface discharge
of service bay wastewater at the present time.
Recommendations
As discussed previously, subsurface injection or discharge
of potentially hazardous and toxic fluids from service bays at
gasoline stations and car dealerships is a threat to human health
and the environment.
An inventory of SBW disposal systems on a state level and,
eventually, on a national basis is vital (New York, Puerto Rico,
Idaho). This information can be employed in making an assessment
of the contaminant mass loading and detrimental effects on the
subsurface water quality. Unsewered areas, such as in some areas
of Long Island, New York, may have large concentrations of SBW
subsurface disposal facilities. Therefore, it may be appropriate
to begin inventories in these unsewered areas and gradually work
outward.
Iowa suggests requiring a permit to operate which includes
information on construction features, a plan to utilize
separators and holding tanks, and a plan to sample and analyze
the injected fluids.
The following three recommendations are excerpts from Utah’s
report on Class V injection wells (1987):
4 — 288
-------
5R21
A. These wells can be corrected by providing
underground holding tanks (total containment) for
the waste oils/f luids. These tanks would require
regular off—loading to waste oil reclaimers. In
Utah, there is economic incentive for a service
station to sell waste oil to a reclaimer. The
management of these wells would be accomplished at
the local government level because they already
enforce their building and sewer ordinances. Any
inspections by state or federal staff would be a
duplication of effort.
B. Communities with a water reclamation system
commonly prohibit oil and grease discharges to
their sewer. Consequently, some operators opt to
discharge to dry wells as a “loophole” to the
environmental regulations. Local building code
and sewer pretreatment inspection should be able
to locate and manage these wells.
C. The UIC program has not been effective in
controlling this problem, but local government
has. The UIC program can be more effective by
educating those local government staff who conduct
building and environmental inspections. This
training will help locate these violators and
hopefully solve the problem.
4.2.7 RECHARGE WELLS
4.2.7.1 Aquifer Recharge Wells (5R21)
Well Purpose
Artificial recharge is used primarily as a water resource
management tool. The main objective of artificial recharge is to
increase the amount of water entering an aquifer, thereby allow-
ing a greater rate of ground-water withdrawal. This may be con-
ducted during periods of excess surface water during rainy sea-
sons, or it may involve importation of water from nearby areas.
During natural recharge through stratified soils, water
collects or perches on less permeable subsurface layers. If
recharge continues over a long period of time over a large area,
perched water may approach the land surface and cause ponding.
Under these conditions, recharge wells are very effective because
they bypass the impermeable sublayer restrictions to vertical
flow (Bianchi, et al., 1978) and inject directly into USDW.
In addition to water storage, artificial recharge through
wells may be used for other reasons. Other applications include
prevention of salt water intrusion into fresh water aquifers
4 — 289
-------
5R21
(Section 4.2.7.2), disposal of wastewater treatment effluent
(4.2.3.3), subsidence control (4.2.7.3), disposal of urban and
agricultural runoff (4.2.1.2, 4.2.1.1), and aquifer remediation
(4.2.8.3). This section will cover recharge wells which have
been reported to serve the primary purpose of augmenting
underground water supplies.
Inventory and Location
The inventory data collected by each State, Territory, and
Possession account f or a total of approximately 3,558 aquifer
recharge wells (See Table 4-53). The wells included in this
category have been limited to those which have been reported as
recharge wells. New York has reported 3,000 recharge basins which
have been included in the inventory as requested by the State of
New York; however, it is unlikely that these would qualify as
Class V facilities unless wells were installed to enhance basin
drainage. The distinction between recharge well types and
drainage well types is oftentimes difficult. Recharge wells may
serve secondary purposes, such as drainage. Likewise, a
secondary purpose of drainage wells may be aquifer recharge.
This sometimes leads to a conflict of interest which, in turn,
may increase contamination potential to some underground sources
of drinking water.
Inventory information from other sources has been compiled
by the Environmental and Ground Water Institute at the University
of Oklahoma (O’Hare et al., 1986). Figures 4—55 and 4—56 reflect
information from this source. See Appendix E for the reference
to a list of facilities represented on Figure 4—56.
Many other recharge projects probably exist throughout the
United States, its territories, and possessions. One would ex-
pect to find recharge wells in areas where populations are heavi-
ly dependent upon ground-water supplies for irrigation and domes-
tic use, where evapotranspiration and extraction of water exceeds
recharge, and in areas with restrictive subsurface layers which
impede natural recharge.
Construction, Siting, and Operation
There are several methods of artificial recharge in wide-
spread use. These include surface spreading, infiltration pits
and basins, and wells or shafts. Surface spreading and infiltra-
tion basins recharge through surface seepage. Wells may be
utilized in areas where existence of impermeable strata between
the surface and the aquifer makes recharge by surface infiltra-
tion impractical. Wells are also used in urban areas where
sufficient land for surface spreading is not available.
Construction, siting, and operation of recharge wells will
depend on whether the well serves a secondary purpose. Aquifer
recharge wells inventoried include some wells that also serve as
4 — 290
-------
5R21
TABLE 4-53: SYNOPSIS OF STATE REPORTS FOR A JIF RECHARGE I LS15R21)
REGION
‘
STATES
I
EPA
REGION
Confined Requlat y Case Studies! Caitaeinatmon
Presence Systes llnfo. available Potential
Of Well Type I Rating
I
J
Connecticut
Maine
IMassachusetts
:New Ha shire
IRh e Island
IVerw t
p
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
I NO N/A
NO N/A
I NO N/A
1 IELL N/A
I NO I N/A
NO I N/A
i p
p j
NO N/A
NO N/A
NO 1 N/A
YES I LOW
NO N/A
NO N/A
I
INew Jersey
New York
IPuerto Rico
Virgin Islands
IDelaware
II
II
II
II
Ill
NO I R iE/FERMIT
1 3000 BASItS I N/A
NO I N/A
NO N/A
I NO N/A
NO I N/A
NO I N/A
NO I N/A
NO N/A
NO N/A
Naryland
Pennsylvania
Wir inia
IWest Virginia
III
III
III
III
‘ NO 1 N/A
NO N/A
NO I N/A
NO N/A
NO I N/A
NO N/A
NO N/A
NO N /A
:Alaba.a
Wlorida
Georgia
kantucky
IMississippi
INorth Carolina
IScuth Carolina
ITennessee
Ililinois
Unthana
Illichigan
Minnesota
The
Wisconsin
p
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
NO N/A I NO N/A
1 349 IELLS I P IT YES ,3RD H18€ST/B TYPES I
NO N/A I NO N/A
NO I N/A NO I N/A
NO N/A I NO N/A
NO I N/A NO N/A
NO ti/A I NO N/A
NO I N/A I NO - N/A
1 IELL RILE 1 NO N/A
NO N/A I NO N/A
NO N/A 1 NO N/A
I IELL ti/A I NO N/A
NO N/A I NO 1 N/A
NO N/A I NO N/A
I I__ I
V
, V
V
V
V
V
I
Dwkansas
ILcu ie ana
INew Mexico
IOklaho.a
Texas
I
VI NO
VI I M I
1 VI 1 30 WELLS
VI I NO
I VI 44 WELLS
p
N/A I NO N/A
N/A 1 IC N/A
REGISTRATION NO I LOW
N/A NO N/A
P IT 4 YES I V LOW I
p
Uowa
Kansas
Misscuni
IN eOraska
p
I VII
VII
I VII
VII
p
IC
4 tELLS
I IC
1 4 WELLS
p
N/A
N/A
N/A
RILE
NO I ti/A
NO POSSIBLE
IC I N/A
NO I VARIABLE
I
Colorado
I tana
Itbth Dakota
IScuth Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
VIII
VIII
I VIII
I VIII
I VIII
VIII
I M I
IC
I IC
IC
1 MI
7 WELLS
ti/A IC N/A
ti/A IC N/A
N/A PC I N/A
ti/A PC N/A
RILE/PERMIT NO I N/A
PERMIT YES 16TH HI EST/l0 TYPES
frucna
California
IHawaii
Nevada
erican Samoa
Tn. Tern, of P
Scam
IC P I
I
I X
i i
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
I IX
p
Si WELLS I PERMIT I YES
1 52 WELLS PERMIT I YES
IC I N/A I IC
NO N/A I NO
IC I N/A 1 IC
IC N/A : PC
NO I N/A NO
IC : N/A I NO
I
I LOW a
LI INNOWN
N/A
NIA
N/A
N/A
N/A
N /A
I
I I
Alaska I I
Udaho 1
eqcn I X
IWas1 ingtcn : X
I I . 1
NO I N/A I NO N/A
1 7 tELLS PERMIT>IB FT YES 17Th HISI€ST/14 TYPESI
IC N/A I PC I Il/A
1 7 WELLS I N/A I IC N/A
NOTE: SOlE hIJiBERS IN THIS TABLE ARE ESTIMATES.
+ MERE IEERBROIJC ThR DISTRIC1S HAVE BEEN ESTAFLISIED
I PROVIDED POLLUTPIITS ARE KEPT OUT OF RECHARGE HATER
• PROVIDED PcW}ER DESISII, I lGTRUCTION NC OPERATION
4—291
-------
r
*1* I
*1
* Indication of Artificial Recharge Activity
/
\
\
* •1
*
I
I
*
01
-------
-u ,Z
0—I
o -m
m —
X-I
2o
m m
Z ( )
C / )>
cnç)
0-ri
ffi)>
(n—I
0
z
( -I)
-n
(0
-‘
CD
(J1
0)
1
1
I
I
I 2 7ic±
I
1
\-‘ ‘JI__
6
I
1
b
2
(I
/
14
2
I
/
\
1
r J
/
L
3/
I
/
\
/
17
\
2
I
5 1
11
151
8
(11
r\)
-------
5R21
drainage and disposal wells. This can often pose a potential
threat to the receiving aquifer, especially when the injection
zone is a drinking water supply aquifer.
The subsurface drain collector — deep well recharge system
known as Leaky Acres Recharge Project in Fresno, California
illustrates construction specifics of a recharge well used exclu-
sively for the purpose of aquifer recharge. The well was con-
structed using a reverse rotary rig to bo-re a 34-inch diameter
hole. The injection casing is 16 inches in diameter. A 4-foot
diameter corrugated culvert was used as conductor pipe to isolate
the upper drain collector zone of the soil profile from the
deeper aquifers. The conductor was grouted from ground surface
to a depth of 20 feet into the first horizon perching zone. The
casing perforations start at a depth of 50 feet and extend to
full depth of the 250 foot borehole (Figure 4-57). The recharge
well is located at the center of a 10—acre ponding basin.
Injected water is diverted from an areal canal, filtered through
surface soils, and collected through a subsurface tile drain
system for injection.
Many of the reported recharge wells from Florida are actual-
ly “connector” wells which are also used to dewater phosphate
mining areas. These wells are constructed through an impermeable
perching layer of strata close to the surface, thereby draining
the perched water to a deeper water supply aquifer. This results
in recharge of the deep aquifer through the constructed well,
which “connects” the deep aquifer to the shallow perched aquifer.
These wells are typically 12 inches or greater in diameter and
approximately 200—300 feet deep. Wells are usually cased with
PVC pipe from the surface to the injection zone. The PVC pipe is
slotted and screened at the “intake” zone within the surf icial
aquifer. Water in this zone drains into the slotted casing and
cascades through the pipe into the deeper injection zone.
Many of the reported recharge wells from Texas are !‘dual
purpose” wells which alternately produce ground water for irriga-
tion and inject agricultural surface runoff into the supply
aquifer. Texas also reports recharge wells northeast of El Paso,
sited at a domestic wastewater treatment plant. The El Paso area
wells serve the secondary purpose of treated waste disposal for
•the treatment plant. Plant recharge/disposal wells are con-
structed to a depth of approximately 800 feet (See Figure 4-58.)
The Teton Village Wastewater Treatment Plant in Wyoming also
utilizes injection wells for recharge and waste disposal. Con-
struction, siting, and operation variations exist throughout the
United States. The variables are determined by local hydrogeo-
logic conditions and any secondary purposes of wells. The above
examples provide a representative sampling of wells which
illustrate the diversity of aquifer recharge application.
One of the major operational problems with recharge injec-
tion wells is clogging. During extended periods of injection,
some clogging generally occurs near the borehole due to accuinula-
4 — 294
-------
A Collection Head
B Maximum Injection Head
SCHEMATiC OF FRESNO
RECHARGE WELL CONSTRUCTION
(from W.C. Bianchi. et al, 1978) Figure 4—57
5R21
¶
2’
‘i ’ ’
5.5.
,-Pond Surface ______
çGround Surface —
- -
:: —F-- : :
: ::e el ::: r .......__________...
I
4A
‘, :. I —Corrugated
: I Culvert Pipe(4 ’diam.)
ii
l —Grout Seal
. ‘ :s
4 . r..
b L’! Drain Flow
13.5’
20’
•
•
•
7;
///
B
50 ’
TI
______ — Casing(l6diam.)
I :: //First Perchin Horizon //,“
I Gravel Pack Filter(1.5 Rock)
I - .r Well Inflow
Control Valve
______ Start of Perforations
Pre—Injection
::l. Water Tab ________
.s
: :
.‘
I
a
:
4—295
-------
5R21
Scale: None
Two 3 diameter injection Pipes
Ground Surface
24 diameter Casing
to 35fY depth
18 diameter Casing
to 350 depth
Water Level 350±
—Gravel Pack
450 of Slotted ir
diameter Screen
with Gravel Pack
Total Depth 800
1
DIAGRAM OF RECHARGE/DOMESTiC
WASTE DISPOSAL WELL
IN EL PASO, TEXAS
(after Texas DWR, 1986) Figure 4—58
Cement
— 6 diameter Pump
Column with Pump
4—296 -
-------
5R21
tion of suspended solids. Design of a recharge well to allow
redevelopment or removal of the clogged aquifer interface near
the borehole is possible. Redevelopment procedures for wells at
the Leaky Acres Project in Fresno, California involve shifting of
a coarse, well-rounded gravel pack at the injection zone. This
movement dislodges the sand and clogging fines from the aquifer,
thus creating a clean injection face. Dislodged material is
pumped out of the well during redevelopment procedures.
Other redevelopment practices include cleaning of the injec-
tion zone through methods such as flush pumping, surging, and
jetting. The injection wells at El Paso utilize a downhole pump
(Figure 4-58) to redevelop the well by surging and pumping. This
is a common redevelopment procedure. Clogging may also result
from biological activity, chemical incompatibility, and entrained
air. Injection zone interactions will be discussed further in
the following section.
Injected Fluids and Injection Zone Interactions
Injection fluid characteristics will vary depending on the
source of injection waters. Water quality transformations that
might occur during passage of injected water through an aquifer
include adsorption, ion exchange, precipitation and dissolution,
chemical oxidation, biological nitrification and denitrification,
aerobic or anaerobic degradation of organic substrates, mechani-
cal dispersion, and filtration.
Field experience has shown that recharge wells lose capacity
with time, even with. refined surface water pretreatment, because
of gradual penetration of clogging materials. Pretreatment
methods include the use of settling basins and soil filtration
before injection. These procedures are effective in removing
much of the clogging material. Attempts have been made to chemi—
cally disperse deeply-trapped sediment and move it more deeply
into the aquifer, but concern about effects of this approach on
water quality and producing wells in the area has limited this
technique. Sodium Hexametaphosphate is one chemical that is
sometimes added for clay particle dispersal. Periodic cleaning
of the well will also decrease clogging caused by suspended
solids.
In addition to suspended solids, clogging may result from
the presence of air bubbles in recharge water, bacteria growth,
and chemical reactions between the receiving aquifer water and
injection water. These problems can be remedied by injecting
chemically and thermally compatible, well filtered water, and
preventing turbulence from cascading water during injection.
Mechanical jamming from rearrangement of grains in the aqui-
fer reduces pore volume and may result from alternatively pumping
and injecting fluids through the same well. This is generally
not a major problem with properly designed and constructed wells.
4 — 297
-------
5R21
Some types of recharge wells inject into the vadose or
unsaturated zone above the aquifer. These wells allow the
injectate to bypass a significant portion of materials between
the surface and the injection zone, but injected fluids must pass
through some material before reaching the saturated zone.
Passage through part of the unsaturated zone will allow
attenuation of some constituents before water reaches an aquifer.
The major advantages of direct aquifer injection through
wells are the immediate response of aquifer water levels and a
relatively high rate of recharge. Disadvantages of direct
aquifer injection include: 1) direct introduction of water and
any chemical or biological contaminants that may be present in
the recharge water, 2) recharge using pressurized injection could
result in extensive formation fracturing, and 3) introduction of
suspended solids may cause local clogging of the aquifer and
contamination due to adsorption and transportation of pollutants.
The solids of greatest concern are the colloidal clays, because
they resist most forms of settling and filtration and are,
therefore, difficult to remove from waters prior to injection
(Dvoracek, 1971).
Hydrogeology and Water Use
A thorough and detailed knowledge of hydrogeologic features
is necessary for adequately selecting a recharge site. Some
parameters to be considered include geologic and hydraulic boun—
daries, tectonic boundaries, inflow and outflow of water, poro-
sity, hydraulic conductivity, transmissivity, storage capacity,
water resources available for recharge, natural recharge, water
balance, lithology, and depth of the aquifer. Special attention
is required for karstic regions, where injected water may rapidly
discharge to the surface through underground caverns. In some
areas, injection below karstic discharge outlets can minimize
volume of discharge after recharge (U.N., D.E.S.A., 1975).
Populations in arid climates are generally more dependent
upon ground water, as surface water is usually not readily avail-
able. Heavy ground-water demands in these areas may cause deple-
tion in the supply aquifer. Irrigated agricultural areas of
California and Arizona are prime examples of depletion resulting
from heavy ground-water demand.
Contamination Potential
Based on the rating system described in Section 4.1, aquifer
recharge wells are assessed to pose a high to low potential to
contaminate USDW. These facilities typically do inject into or
above Class I or Class II USDW. Typical well construction, oper-
ation, and maintenance vary considerably but ideally would not
allow fluid injection or migration into unintended zones. Injec-
4 — 298
-------
5R21
tion fluids should be of equivalent or better quality (relative
to standards of the National Primary or Secondary Drinking Water
Standards and RCRA regulations) than the fluids within any USDW
in connnection with the injection zone. However, some case
studies revealed that injection fluids are of poorer quality
(relative to standards of the National Primary or Secondary
Drinking Water Standards) than the fluids within any USDW in
communication with the injection zone. Based on injectate
characteristics and possibilities for attenuation and dilution,
injection does occur in sufficient volumes or at sufficient rates
to cause an increase in concentration (above background levels)
of the National Primary or Secondary Drinking Water Regulation-
parameters in ground water, or endanger human health or the
environment beyond the facility perimeter when contaminants are
present in the recharge water.
Ground-water quality may be adversely affected by injection
recharge practices if the quality of the injection water is not
closely monitored. Serious consequences may result if low
quality water is injected directly into utilized underground
sources of drinking water. Recharge wells may introduce contami-
nants to supply aquifers from shallower perched water zones if
wells are not properly designed and constructed to prevent
communication between zones.
Florida’s “connector” wells are specifically designed to
allow communication between the surf icial perched aquifer and the
deeper supply aquifer. A case study on these aquifer connector
wells was carried out by the Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation, Bureau of Groundwater Protection. This study con-
cluded that 10—20% of the connector wells inject water that
greatly exceeds primary drinking water standards for gross alpha
radiation, and another 30-40% inject water that slightly exceeds
that standard. The concentration of combined radium 226/228
exceeds primary drinking water standards in about 10% of these
wells. Injectate consistently exceeds secondary drinking water
standards for iron.
Additionally, some of these wells may be located in close
proximity to phosphate chemical plant waste disposal areas.
These wells may provide a conduit to the water supply aquifer for
possible toxic waste plumes originating at chemical plant waste
disposal sites. Ground-water samples from the surf icial aquifer
have been obtained within a contaminant plume from a waste
disposal area. Samples taken revealed possibilities of extreme
contamination. Records show some cases of sulfate and fluoride
concentrations in excess of 5,000 mg/i, sodium concentrations in
excess of 2,000 mg/l, chromium concentrations of 2.0 mg/i (forty
times the primary drinking water standard), and extremely acidic
pH values below 2. Injectate volumes and concentrations will
vary according to precipitation amounts and drainage patterns.
4 — 299
-------
5R 21
Florida receives approximately 53 in/yr precipitation of which
approximately 14 in/yr comprises runoff (Pettyjohn, et al.,
1979). The case study carried out by the FDER Bureau of
Groundwater Protection is listed in Appendix E of this report.
Many inventoried recharge wells in Texas are “dual purpose”
irrigation supply/injection wells located on the High Plains.
Farmers have been practicing this recharge method for 20-30
years. Recharge wells are also sited in playa lakes in the area.
These lakes develop impermeable clay layers along their bottoms
from settling solids. Wells are constructed to drain the land
and recharge the aquifer. Water injected into “dual purpose’ t
wells and playa lake recharge wells is agricultural runoff. The
injection zone is the Ogallala aquifer. Ten wells were inven-
toried in the High Plains area, and two of these were sampled by
the Texas Department of Water Resources for injectate quality.
(See Appendix E.) Sampling results indicated that injectate
water quality was of higher standards than aquifer water quality
at the time the sample was taken (March-April, 1982). This
sampling episode may not be representative of typical conditions
throughout the year. Nitrate levels in the aquifer water sampled
ranged from 8.4 mg/i to 43 mg/i in the two wells (the primary
drinking water standard for nitrate is 45 mg/i). This variation
raises questions about the origin of nitrate concentrations in
the second well. Injectate waters, when sampled and analyzed for
nitrate, measured only .04 mg/i. Common chemical contaminants
associated with agricultural runoff include nitrates, phosphorus,
pesticides, herbicides, pathogens, metals, and total dissolved
solids.
Domestic wastewater may contain nitrogen, bacteria, viruses,
and organic or inorganic pollutants. Effluent is more
susceptible to toxic chemical contaminants if it serves an
industrial sector. Refer to Section 4.2.3.3 for more in depth
information on domestic wastewater disposal wells.
In summary, the contamination potential of properly
designed, constructed, and operated recharge wells is low (proper
operation would include careful injectate monitoring to prevent
introduction of poor quality fluids). However, many inventoried
wells may be improperly designed, constructed, and/or operated
and, therefore, must be assessed as a moderate (Texas dual
purpose wells) to high (Florida connector wells) contamination
threat. Contamination potential is directly dependent upon
injectate quality in a properly designed and constructed well.
Current Regulatory Approach
Aquifer recharge wells are authorized by rule under
Federally administered UIC programs (see Section 1). State
reports were generally not specific with regard to regulatory
jurisdiction; however, information from the following States is
pertinent. Injection wells in Florida are currently permitted
4 — 300
-------
5B22
through the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation.
Recharge wells on the High Plains of Texas are permitted by the
High Plains Underground Water Conservation Districts in areas
where underground water districts have been established. The
only permit requirement for these wells is that no pollutants
enter the fresh water aquifer through them. A well completion
report must also be furnished to the local district by the well
owner (Texas DWR, 1986). Arizona has passed regulations for
ground-water quality protection and has established an aquifer
protection permit program under the Environmental Quality Act of
1986. Arizona House Bill 2209 deals specifically with regulation
of aquifer recharge and underground storage projects.
Recommendations
The Florida and Nebraska state reports indicate that major
concerns for aquifer recharge injection wells include injectate
water quality monitoring, and proper design, construction, and
operation of wells. Nebraska recommends that injectate water
quality generally be of equivalent or better quality than water
contained in the receiving aquifer.
The Arizona report suggests that regulatory personnel should
set standards for aquifers on a case by case basis to determine
aquifer water quality and allowable quality parameters for
injectate waters. For example, if the aquifer serves as a
drinking water source, water quality standards should not exceed
drinking water standards. Local hydrogeologic information is
necessary to adequately assess each site and recharge situation.
Supporting Data
Referenced supporting data for Aquifer Recharge Wells is
listed in Appendix E of the report.
4.2.7.2 Salt Water Intrusion Barrier Wells (5B22)
Well Purpose
Artificial recharge is used in many coastal areas to control
the intrusion of salt water into fresh water aquifers. Intrusion
of salt water is predominantly due to reversal of the ground-
water gradient caused by pumping. Over-pumping of fresh water in
coastal areas allows salt water to flow inland and contaminate
fresh ground water. Since as little as two percent sea water in
fresh water can render it unpotab].e, controlling intrusion has
received considerable attention.
Several methods have been proposed to control salt water
intrusion. These include: (1) control of pumping patterns; (2)
construction of an impermeable subsurface barrier using materials
such as sheet piling, puddled clay, emulsified asphalt, cement
4 — 301
-------
5B22
grout, bentonite, silica gel, calcium acrylate, or plastics; (3)
formation of an extraction barrier whereby a continuous pumping
trough is formed by a line of wells adjacent to the ocean, (4)
use of combination injection - extraction barriers utilizing
injection and extraction wells; (5) direct artificial recharge to
raise groundwater levels; and (6) maintenance of fresh water
ridge along the coast utilizing artificial recharge (D.K. Todd,
1974). Saline water may also intrude fresh water aquifers in
inland areas where fresh and saline waters are in contact. The
most usual cause of this problem is overpumping of the fresh
water aquifer. This allows upconing of saline water to the
pumping well.
Inventory and Location
The inventory data collected by the States, Territories, and
Possessions account for a total of 164 saline water intrusion
barrier wells. Of this total, 155 wells are located in the state
of California. Washington reported a total of 7, and Florida
reported 2. Table 4-54 provides a synopsis of information from
the State reports.
The West Coast Basin Barrier Project in Los Angeles County,
is the first and largest intrusion barrier project in the State
of California. This project utilizes 106 injection wells and
stretches approximately 10 miles along the coast.
It is certain that uninventoried wells exist. One operation
of significance which was not included in inventory numbers is
the Palo Alto Intrusion Barrier Project in Santa Clara County,
California. This operation is located adjacent to the southern
tip of San Francisco Bay. Treated sewage is being injected and
extracted at this location to form a fresh water ridge barrier
against intruding saline bay waters (see list of applicable Case
Studies, Appendix E).
Construction, Siting, and Operation
tJtilizing injection wells to control sea water intrusion may
be accomplished by utilizing direct recharge, whereby ground-
water levels are raised and maintained through injection of high
quality water; or by maintaining a fresh water ridge, whereby
water is injected through a line of wells near the coast. The
most complex method of maintaining a fresh water ridge is an
injection-extraction system whereby a ridge and pumping trough is
formed (Todd, 1974). This method requires a smaller volume of
fresh water for injection than does the system used to maintain a
fresh water ridge. However, it also requires twice as many
wells.
Wells may be utilized in a variety of ways to form a fresh
water barrier against salt water intrusion. Injection or
4 — 302
-------
TABLE 4-54: SYNOPSIS STATE REPORTS FOR S L1tE WATER INTRUSION BARRIER NO.LS 5922)
5B22
RESION EPA C fir d
I REGION Presence
STATES Of N .h Type
Regu1at y I Case Studiesl I Ccntaaination
I Systes Unfo. availablel Potential
Rating
N/A 1 NO N/A
N/A I NO I N/A I
N/A I NO N/A
1 N/A 1 P4) 1 N/A
N/A 1 NO N/A
I N/A ‘ NO N/A
I RILUPE1 flT NO N/A
N/A NO N/A
I N/A NO N/A
N/A NO N/A
P4/A NO N/A
N/A NO N/A
N/A NO N/A
• N/A NO I N/A
N/A NO I P4/A
N/A NO N/A I
PERMIT NO N/A
N/A NO N/A
N/A I NO N/A
N/A I NO P 4 T h 1
N/A NO I N/A
N/A 1 P4) N/A I
N/A I NO I N /A
I
Connecticut I
Maine I
massachusetts I
IWew Haapslnre I
RIwde Island I
Verxnt I
NO
NO
NO
P4)
14)
NO
ll4ew Jersey 1 II
I N ewY k II
Puerto Rico I II
Virgin Islands II
NO
NO
NO
NO
IDelaware III
maryland I
IPenneylvania III
IVirginia III
N.st Virginia III
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
lAlabase IV
IFl ida I IV
6e gia IV
Ksntucky I IV
Nississipp : IV
IN.rth Carolina 1 IV
IScuth Carolina IV
Ilennessee I IV
I
NO
2 I LLS
NO
NO
NO
NO
P4)
NO
I
Ulhinois
l lndiana
Michigan
minnesota
lOno
Ith sc n in
I
‘ V P 4)
V P4)
V NO
• V I NO
V NO
• V P4)
I
I
N/A I NO
N/A NO
N/A 1 NO
N/A NO
N/A I NO
N/A I 14)
I
t
N/A
I N /A
N/A
I N/A
N/A
1 P4/A I
I
I
frkansas
ILouisiana
INew Maxic
lOkiahosa
Texas
1
VI
VI
• VI
Yl
1 VI
I
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
1
I I
• N/A I NO N/A
N/A 1 NO N/A
N/A NO N/A
N/A I NO N/A
• N/A NO N/A
I
I
Ilowa
Kansas
IMissouri
Nebraska
I
I VII
VII
I VII
VII
I
I
NO
NO
PC
NO
N/A
N/A
• N/A
RILE
I
P C
I 14)
NO
I NO
I
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
I —
I
Colcrado
Ilbitana
INiwth Dakota
ISouth Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
I
• VIII
VIII
• VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
NO
IC
I NO
IC
NO
IC
I
N/A
N/A
N/A
1 N/A
RtLEiP 1T
N/A
I
I NO N/A
NO I N/A
NO I N/A
PC N/A
‘ 14) N/A
PC I N/A
I
I izcna
ICalifornia
IHawaii
N.vada
rican Saioa
ITt. Tert. of P
ISoam
ID I
I
I
I X NO I N/A
IX I l WEI.LS I P IT
IX NO N/A
IX I NO N/A
IX I PC I N/A
I X NO N/A
1 II NO N/A
1 II NO N/A
I
NO N/A
YES I LOW I
NO N/A
NO I N/A
NO I N/A
NO N/A
NO N/A
NO N/A
I
I
Naska
l ldaho
egom
IWasflingtcn
I I
X NO N/A
I PC I N /A
1 NO N/A
1 1 7 IELLS I PERMIT
I
NO N/A
PC N/A
PC N/A I
• PC I LOW
4—303
-------
5B22
extraction wells may be separately, or a combination injection-
extraction system may be employed.
If injection wells alone are utilized, these wells will be
sited along the coast, and fresh water will be injected to form a
fresh water barrier (see Figure 4-59). If extraction wells alone
are utilized, they will be sited along the coast to extract salt
water so that it does not further intrude into fresh water
aquifers. A combination injection-extraction system may be
utlized to extract salt water along the coast when some intrusion
has taken place, while simultaneously injecting fresh water
further inland (see Figure 4—60). An injection-extraction system
may also be utilized to inject water along the coast to form a
fresh water ridge, while simultaneously extracting this water
further inland. This may prevent aquifer contamination when
injectate water quality is low relative to that found within the
aquifer. An example of this system exists at Palo Alto,
California, and will be discussed further in this report.
Figure 4—61 illustrates construction features of salt water
intrusion barrier injection wells used at the Alamitos Project in
Los Angeles. These wells utilize 12-inch diameter stainless
steel casing and are approximately 300 feet deep. Injection
wells for sea water intrusion barriers commonly have injection
capacities of 0.5—1.5 cubic feet per second (cfs). Attempts to
increase capacities by using high injection pressures may result
in problems such as formation fracturing. Cases exist in which
the ground surface near the well settled, the well casing
buckled, the gravel pack was plugged, and hydraulic communication
between aquifers was established due to overpressuring the
aquifer (Toups, 1974).
Injected Fluids and Injection Zone Interactions
Characteristics of injection fluids will vary depending upon
the source. An intrusion ba±rier system has been implemented in
Palo Alto, California which injects effluent from an advanced
sewage treatment plant as fresh water in the injection—extraction
system. The effluent is injected along the coast and is later
extracted by wells farther inland to prevent contamination of the
drinking water supply. After extraction, the diluted effluent is
made available for industrial and agricultural purposes (Sheahan,
1977). Examples of other injection fluid sources include surface
runoff, which may be comprised of urban and agricultural runoff,
and imported surface waters from canals, rivers, and lakes.
Since injected fresh water is less dense than intruding salt
water it will overlie the intruded fluid, and a transition zone
will exist between fresh and saline waters. The purpose of
injected fluid is to keep the transitional and saline waters from
intruding into fresh water zones.
4 — 304
-------
5B22
Extraction Field
in Basin
HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS WITH A
FRESH WATER RIDGE ACTING AS
A SEA WATER BARRIER
(at ter Todd, O.K.. 1974) Figure 4—59
INJECTiON WELL
Ground Surface
IN AN UNCONFINED GROUNDWATER BASIN
INJECTION WELL
Extraction Field
in Basin
IN A CONFINED GROUNDWATER BASIN
4—305
-------
5B22
EXTR,AC11ON WELL INJECTiON WELL
HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS WITH A COMBINATION
INJECTION-EXTRACTiON SEA WATER BARRIER
(after Todd, D.K., 1974) Figure 4—60
EXTR ACflON WELL
IN AN UNCONFINED GROUNDWATER BASIN
Extr tion ReId
in Basin
IN A CONFINED GROUNDWATER BASIN
4—306
-------
5B22
SINGLE INJECTION WELL
DUAL INJECTION WELL
Intake
EXPLANATION
7 Gravel Pack
S Perforated Casing
9 Packer Pressure Line
10 Pneumatic Packer
11 Measuring Pipe
Grout
Protective Casing
Conductor Pipe
Blank Casing
Sand Packer
Tremie Pipe
SALT WATER INTRUSION BARRIER WELLS
LOS ANGELES, CAUFORNIA
(from Texas DWA, 1984) 4—307 Figure 4—61
-------
5B22
Two major problems can occur within the injection zone as a
result of this type of injection, both dependent upon the nature
of the injected fluid. The first is that chemical or biological
contaminants, associated with agricultural or urban runoff and
treated sewage, can be introduced into the injection zone with
the recharge water. Second, suspended solids can be introduced
with the injected fluid, causing local clogging within the
injection zone and contamination due to adsorption and
transportation of pollutants. Clogging solids of greatest
concern in are colloidal clays. Colloids resist most forms of
settling and filtration and are, therefore, difficult to remove
from waters prior to injection (Dvoracek, 1971).
Clogging problems may also be caused by recharge with water
that is not chemically compatible with receiving water or aquifer
material. These problems include precipitation of solids and the
swelling of clay particles present in the aquifer. For example,
if the water used for recharge has a higher sodium-calcium ratio
than the receiving water, and clay particles are present in the
formation, swelling can occur. Ion exchange occurs between
calcium and sodium ions adsorbed onto clay minerals. The sodium
ions hydrate more than the calcium ions which causes the clay
particles to swell, resulting in decreased aquifer pore space and
permeability. These types of reactions can be prevented by
choosing an alternate recharge water or by treating the recha ge
water prior to injection to bring it into equilibrium with the
aquifer system.
There are a variety of reactions that may occur during
injection into an aquifer. Among the most notable are
adsorption, ion exchange, precipitation and dissolution,
oxidation, biological nitrification and denitrification, aerobic
and anaerobic degradation of organic substrates, mechanical
dispersion, and filtration. The relative influence of reactions
such as these must be addressed on a site—specific basis, and
will be dependent upon the chemical nature of the fluids
involved.
Hydrogeology and Water Use
Studies by the US Geological Survey of saline ground water
(1965) indicate that approximately two thirds of the U.S. is
underlain by ground water containing more than 1,000 mg/i of
dissolved solids. Coastal intrusion has been recognized to occur
in almost all of the states bordering the sea. Most serious are
those sections where coastal urban areas have led to exploitation
of local ground—water resources. The states of California,
Texas, Florida, New York (Long Island), and Hawaii have been
affected to the largest extent. The problem is also known inter-
nationally (Todd, 1974).
The most significant hydrogeologic parameters to address in
assessing this well type are the rate at which intrusion is
4 — 308
-------
5B22
occurring and the nature of the chemical interactions between sea
water and the injection fluid. Increases in intrusion rates are
due to decreased hydraulic head resulting from water extraction
via wells tapping the fresh water aquifer. Intrusion is also
controlled largely by lithologic and structural features within
the area and their influence on hydraulic gradients and
transmissivi ties.
Contamination Potential
Based on the rating system described in Section 4.1, salt
water intrusion barrier wells are assessed to pose a low
potential to contaminate USDW. These wells typically do inject
into or above Class I or Class II USDW. Typical well
construction, operation, and maintenance would not allow fluid
injection or migration into unintended zones. Injection fluids
should be of equivalent or better quality (relative to standards
of the National Primary or Secondary Drinking Water Standards and
RCRA regulations) than the fluids within any USDW in connection
with the injection zone. Based on injectate characteristics and
possibilities for attenuation and dilution, injection does not
occur in sufficient volumes or at sufficient rates to cause an
increase in concentration (above background levels) of the
National Primary or Secondary Drinking Water Regulation
parameters in groundwater, or endanger human health or the
environment in a region studied on a group/area basis.
The contamination potential posed by wells of this type
depends heavily upon the type of injectate used and treatment
provided. Significant variation in sources for injectate water
exists. Effluent from advanced sewage treatment plants, surface
runoff, and imported surface waters are the most notable sources
of injectate. Water from these sources may contain constituents
at levels in excess of National Primary and Secondary Drinking
Water Standards, especially if injectate is not sufficiently
treated. In addition, constituent levels set forth in 40 CFR,
Part 261, Subparts C and D may be exceeded owing to the influence
of pesticides, agricultural nutrients, and urban chemicals. At
the present time, no data exist to substantiate this.
This sort of injection generally occurs within currently or
potentially useable drinking water aquifers. Support for this
statement stems from an indication that sea water intrusion is
most prominent in regions drawing heavily from wells for
agricultural and domestic purposes. If contaminants associated
with improperly treated domestic wastes or agricultural and urban
runoff are injected directly into presently used drinking water
supplies, serious health and safety problems could develop.
Injectate quality is especially important since salt water
intrusion barrier projects inject large volumes of water.
Degradation of USDW on a local or regional scale could occur if
injectate water quality is poor.
4 — 309
-------
5B22
The contamination potential for saline water intrusion
barrier wells is considered low, provided the wells are properly
designed, constructed, and operated, and injectate quality is
adequately monitored. These wells are designed specifically to
remediate contamination problems associated with intrusion.
Current Regulatory Approach
Salt water intrusion barrier wells are authorized by rule
under Federally-administered UIC programs (see Section 1). The
California Regional Water Quality Control Boards regulate saline
water intrusion barrier wells in California. A waste discharge
permit is required statewide for salt. water intrusion barrier
wells injecting waste—water, such as sewage effluent. Injection
wells in the State of Washington are currently regulated under
the nondegradation provisions of the Water Pollution Control Act
and the Water Resources Act. Other Washington State laws
applicable to Class V wells include Chapter 90 of the Regulation
of Public Groundwaters, the Pollution Disclosure Act, and the
Planning Enabling Act. The Florida Department of Environmental
REgulation permits Class V wells in Florida. Inspection and
surveillance of Class V wells is under the jurisdiction of FDER
District offices.
Recommendations
The following recommendations regarding saline water
intrusion barrier wells appear in the California report. Proper
design, construction, and operation is required to prevent
possible contamination resulting from communication with surface
waters and other penetrated zones. Wells must be properly cased,
cemented, and operated to prevent this problem.
Processes and fluids involved with salt water intrusion
barrier projects are variable and often site specific. Litholo—
gic and hydrogeologic parameters that influence salt water intru-
sion in coastal areas should be defined, and coastal USDW should
be defined and characterized with regard to water quality in
areas experiencing saline water intrusion problems. Interactions
of injected fluids with formation fluids also should be
characterized for operating barrier projects. If it can be shown
that potentially usable USDW are being degraded by this
injection, immediate steps toward corrective action should be
initiated.
Because these projects are typically of a broad scope,
inventory maintenance and update should not be difficult. A
regularly updated inventory is fundamental to maintaining proper
regulatory authority.
4 — 310
-------
5S23
Supporting Data
The referenced supporting data for Saline Water Intrusion
Barrier Wells is listed in Appendix E of the report.
4.2.7.3 Subsidence Control Wells (5S23)
Well Purpose
Subsidence control wells are recharge wells employed for the
primary purpose of controlling land subsidence. Subsidence is
the sudden sinking or gradual downward settling of the earth’s
surface with little or no horizontal motion. Subsidence may
result from a variety of natural geologic or man-induced proces-
ses. For purposes of this report and the UIC program, we will
limit our discussion to subsidence resulting from excessive
ground—water withdrawal.
Problems associated with subsidence include: (1)
differential changes in elevation and gradient of stream
channels, drainage, and water transport structures, (2) failure
of water casings due to compressive stresses generated by
compaction of the aquifer system(s), (3) tidal encroachment in
lowland coastal areas, and (4) damage to engineering structures
(Poland et. al., 1984).
Inventory and Location
The inventory data collected by each State and United States
territories and possessions accounts for a total of only 4 wells
at one location in Wisconsin. These 4 wells are associated with
a construction project. However, problems with subsidence are
prevalent in southwestern states, most notably in California,
Texas, and Arizona. The Houston—Galveston area of Texas has
experienced subsidence which has led to catastrophic flooding
along Galveston Bay. Thousands of sinkholes• exist in karstic
regions from Florida to Pennsylvania. These sinkholes are most
often the result of ground—water withdrawal. Some areas of land
subsidence resulting from ground-water withdrawal in the United
States are depicted in Figure 4-62. Case studies of subsidence
problems in Alabama, Texas, and California are listed in Appendix
E. Subsidence control wells may be used now or in the future to
control problems in these areas. Table 4-55 presents the
inventory data from the State reports.
A recharge injection project has been carried out in Long
Beach, California for purposes of subsidence control and oil
recovery. It is true that this represents a Class II rather than
a Class V injection well; however, the same principles would
apply for subsidence control purposes.
4 — 311
-------
5S23
SOME AREAS OF LAND SUBSIDENCE
RESUL11NG FROM GROUNDWATER WITHDRAWAL
(aftsr Poasnd al, 1984) Figure 4—62
4—312
-------
TASLE 4-s: SYNOPSIS STATE REP TS F JSSIDE)CE CO TR . I LLS 5S23)
5S23
RE6I EPA Confirmed I Reoulat y Case Studies! Contamination
RESION Presence System Unfo. availablel Potential
STATES Of Well Type Rating
IConnecticut
INaine
:nassachusetts
:We Ha isInre
IRIiode Island
Wericnt
I
I I NO
I NO
I I NO
I NO
I NO
I I NO
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
INenj e rsey
York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
I
II NO
II YES
II I I C
I II NO
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
—
NO
NO
NO
‘ PC
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
IDelaware
Naryland
Pennsylvania
iVirginia
Iwest Virginia
I III NO
iii I NO
I III ‘ IC
III IC
• III ‘ NO
, N/A NO N/A
N/A 1 NO N/A
• N/A NO N/A
N/A I NO N/A
• N/A NO N/A
IAlaba.a
:Florida
Eecrqia
Ikentucky
INisSiSSippi
Ubth Carolina
ISouth Carolina
1 Tennessee
I
IV IC
IV I NO
IV IC
IV II )
IV IC
IV IC
IV NO
IV IC
I
I N/A NO I N/A
N/A I NO • N/A
• N/A NO N/A
N/A I NO N/A
I N/A IC I N/A
N/A I IC N/A
N/A IC N/A
N/A IC N/A
I
Ullinois
Undiana
flichigan
Minnenota
no
Wiscmsin
I
V NO
V IC
V IC
V NO
V I NO
I V 4 LLS
I
N/A I IC N/A
I N/A IC I N/A
N/A I NO N/A
N/A NO I N/A
N/A M I N/A
1 PE IT IC 1.0W
I
I
Ifrkaneae
ILonisiana
IWew IlexiCO
lOkiahosa
I I
VI NO
• VI I IC
VI IC
VI NO
N/A
N/A
1 N/A
N/A
I
NO
ND
NO
I NO
N/A
N/A
N/A
WA
Texas
l lowa
Kansas
Miss vi
INebraska
I
VI PC
VII NO
VII IC
VII NO
VII IC
I N/A
1 N/A
• N/A
I N/A
RILE
I
I C
NO
‘ NO
NO
IC
I N/A
I N/A
I N/A
N/A
I N/A
I
I
IColorado
I lbitana
North Dakota
South Dakota
Iutah
IWyoming
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
I
‘ I C N/A NO I N/A
NO N/A IC N/A
NO I N/A I IC N/A
NO N/A I IC N/A
NO I RILEIPERNIT P0 WA
NO N/A PC N/A
izona
California
Hawaii
INovada
Pierican Samoa
Tr. Tort. of P
ISoam
D I
I X
U
IX
U
IX
IX
IX
IX
NO
NO
NO
NO
IC
NO
IC
NO
N/A NO N/A
N/A NO N/A
N/A I IC N/A
N/A NO N/A
N/A I NO N/A
N/A 1 NO I N/A
N/A IC N/A
N/A NO N/A
Alaska
lldaho
eqon
Was hin gton
I
I
I
I
IC
NO
IC
NO
N/A
N/P ,
N/A
N/A
NO
IC
NO
NO
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
IC1t 3I€ MXIEERS IN ThIS TAELE ESTIMATES.
4—313
-------
5S23
Construction. Siting, and Operation
Although the injection wells used in the Wilmington Oil
Field subsidence control/enhanced recovery project are not Class
V wells, they are illustrative of construction, siting, and
operation of subsidence control injection wells (See Figure 4—
63). In this particular case, oil production resulted in
decreased fluid pressures in the oil saturated sand zone
underlying an impermeable shale layer. This shale layer acts as
a trapping mechanism, preventing further upward migration of
petroleum. As fluid pressures decreased with oil production,
water contained in the shale zone was squeezed out by weight of
overburden into the zone of lowered pressure. This resulted in
compaction of the shale layer, which caused subsidence at the
surface.
The water injection well was sited down structural dip to
oil production. This allows injection into the water saturated
zone of the reservoir rock. Since oil is less dense, injected
water acts to push the oil upward toward the producing well, and
also to increase reservoir pressures. Increasing reservoir pres-
sures in this case resulted in abatement of the previously des-
cribed shale dewatering and compaction. This project resulted in
reduction of the subsiding area and local land surface rebound of
as much as 1 foot (Mayuga and Allen., 1969).
The inventoried wells in Wisconsin are temporary and have
been constructed for the purpose of restoring piezometric levels
during tunnel construction procedures. This is necessary to
minimize damage from settlement during construction of the
Milwaukee Tunnel project (Wisconsin DNR, 1986). Construction,
siting, and operation practices will vary according to
hydrogeologic condi tions.
Injected Fluids and Injection Zone Interactions
Injection fluid characteristics and injection zone interac-
tions are discussed in depth under Section 4.2.7.1 (Aquifer
Recharge Wells) of the report. The following discussion deals
with some physical properties and characteristics of the injec-
tion zone with regard to compaction and response to injection.
Water level fluctuations change effective stresses in the
following 2 ways (Poland et. al., 1984):
1. A rise in the water table provides buoyant support
for the grains within the zone of change while
water decline removes buoyant support in this
zone. These changes in gravitational stress are
transmitted downward to all underlying deposits.
4 — 314
-------
5S23
Subsidence Area
SCHEMA11C DIAGRAM OF SUBSIDENCE CONTROL
(Water Injection) WELL AND OIL WELL
Wilmington Oil Field, Long BeacI CA
(after Texas DWR, 1986)
Figure 4—63
Water
Supply
Well
Water Injection Well
4—315
-------
5S23
2. A change in position of the water table or
potentiometric surface of the confined aquifer
system may induce vertical hydraulic gradients
across confining or semiconfining beds and thereby
produce a seepage stress. If preexisting seepage
stresses are altered in direction or magnitude, a
change in effective stress will result.
Since aquitards (composed of clay or shale) are highly
compressible in comparison to aquifers (granular porous and
permeable media), they may determine by number and thickness the
system’s susceptibility to compaction. Aquifers themselves are
relatively incompressible at low pressures, however compression
due to rearrangement of grains will occur at higher pressures (at
the effective stress point). Compression may be permanent
(inelastic) or recoverable (elastic). If geologic conditions are
favorable, injection wells may aid in recovery of compacted
strata.
Hydrogeology and Water Use
Subsidence due to ground-water withdrawal develops
principally under two contrasting environments and mechanics
(Poland et. al., 1984). One environment is that of karst areas
where ground water flows through underground cavernous openings.
The ground—water body provides buoyant support to overlying
material in these areas. When ground-water levels drop, the
buoyant support is removed and the hydraulic gradient is
increased. This may result in erosion of unconsolidated material
overlying the karst material, and also further dissolution of the
karst material itself. This process may result in catastrophic
collapse of roof material, forming sinkholes.
The second and more prevalent environment of occurrence is
that of young unconsolidated, or semiconsolidated elastic sedi-
ments of high porosity which were deposited in shallow marine,
alluvial, or lacustrine environments. This environment consists
of aquifer systems containing aquifers of sand and/or gravel of
high permeability and low compressibility, which are interbedded
with clayey aquitards of low vertical permeability and high
compressibility (Poland et. al., 1984). These aquifer systems
compact in response to increased overburden stress. This is
caused by decreased fluid pressures in the coarse-grained aqui-
fers resulting from excessive extraction of water from this zone.
Clay zones are thus dewatered and compacted as fluids move into
the zone of lowered pressure. If overburden pressures continue
to increase, aquifers may also compact due to grain rearrange-
ment.
Principle clay minerals of which aquitards are composed
belong to the montmorillonite, illite, or kaolin groups. Mont-
morillonite clays are the most compressible, and are the most
4 — 316
-------
5S23
predominant clays in the compacting aquifer systems of the south-
western United States.
Populations in arid climates are generally more dependent
upon ground water, as surface water is not readily available in
many of these areas. Heavy ground—water demands may cause severe
depletion leading to subsidence. High ground-water demand in
irrigated agricultural areas of the southwestern United States
has caused widespread subsidence problems. Subsidence in Arizona
has led to the formation of earth fissures.
Contamination Potential
Based on the rating system described in Section 4.1,
subsidence control wells are assessed to pose a low potential to
contaminate USDW. These wells typically do inject into or above
Class I or Class II USDW. Typical well construction, operation,
and maintenance would not allow fluid injection or migration into
unintended zones. Injection fluids should be of equivalent or
better quality (relative to standards of the National Primary or
Secondary Drinking Water Standards and RCRA regulations) than the
fluids within any USDW in connection with the injection zone.
Based on injectate characteristics and possibilities for
attenuation and dilution, injection does not occur in sufficient
volumes or at sufficient rates to cause an increase in
concentration (above background levels) of the National Primary
or Secondary Drinking Water Regulation parameters in ground
water, or endanger human health or the environment in a region
studied on a group/area basis.
Subsidence control injection wells discharge directly into
or above USDW. If subsidence control wells are not properly
designed, constructed, and operated contamination may result.
Wells must be properly sealed to prevent cross contamination and
surface inflow. Special design, construction, and operation
problems may arise in subsiding areas, as wells may be subject to
casing or seal failures resulting from compressive stresses.
Ground—water quality may be adversely affected by subsidence con-
trol recharge practices if injectate water quality is not closely
monitored. Serious aquifer degradation may result if low quality
water is injected directly into drinking water supply aquifers
since injected volumes are quite large. Contamination potential
for subsidence control wells is considered to be low providing
they are properly designed, constructed, and operated. Serious
problems may arise with improper practices which may lead to a
high contamination potential. Refer to Section 4.2.7.1 for more
information on the contamination potential of recharge wells.
Severe land subsidence itself may threaten water quality in
some instances. Underground structures such as water and sewer
systems, pipelines, and storage tanks may be damaged by land
subsidence and earth fissures. There have been some cases in
Arizona of people dumping refuse into open fissures. Earth
4 — 317
-------
5323
fissures and sinkholes may extend to depths of regional supply
aquifers and could provide a conduit for surface pollutants to
enter drinking water supply aquifers.
Current Regulatory Approach
Subsidence control wells are authorized by rule under
Federally administered UIC programs (see Section 1). The
inventoried wells in Wisconsin have been permitted by the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR). These wells
will be used temporarily during a construction project and will
be properly plugged after the project is completed. The WDNR
approved these wells under certain conditions, which include
proper construction, operating, and abandonment procedures. The
injectate source will be public supply drinking water. The
project proposal was found by the WDNR to be consistent with the
USEPA UIC regulations and local state regulations.
The Harris—Galveston Coastal Subsidence District was created
in May 1975 to provide for the regulation of ground-water
withdrawal within district boundaries for the purpose of ending
subsidence. In 1978 ( Smith—Southwest Industries, Inc. vs.
Friendswood Development Company ) the Texas Supreme Court ruled
that ground-water users were not liable for subsidence damage
caused by past actions, but could be held liable for damages due
to future negligent or malicious ground-water pumpage (Poland,
et. al., 1984).
In 1958 the United States sued oil and gas producers in the
previously mentioned Wilmington oil field for damages to the U.S.
Naval Base on Terminal Island, and other properties, resulting
from subsidence. This was the largest damage suit in United
States history for subsidence caused by the pumping of
underground fluids. This case was settled out of court and the
Anti-Subsidence Act of 1958 compelled Wilmington oil field
producers to unitize and repressure the depleted reservoir
(Poland, el. al., 1984).
Reconmiendati ons
Recommendations for subsidence control wells are similar to
those for recharge wells (See Section 4.2.7.1). Injectate quali-
ty should be monitored, and proper well design, construction, and
operation are most important. Injectate quality should be of
equivalent or better quality than fluids in the receiving aqui-
fer. Standards should be set on a case by case basis.
Supporting Data
Referenced supporting data for Subsidence Control Wells is
listed in Appendix E of the report.
4 — 318
-------
5N24
4.2.8 MISCELLANEOUS WELLS
4.2.8.1 Radioactive Waste Disposal Wells (5N24)
Well Purpose
The purpose of radioactive waste disposal wells is to
dispose of wastes containing radioactive materials, in
concentrations exceeding those listed in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix
B, Table 2, Column 2, into subsurface formations. These wastes
are low level radioactive wastes. This subcategory includes
wells that inject heat exchange and cooling water process
equipment waste condensate from facilities managing radioactive
materials. In addition, non-radioactive wastes from laboratory
drains also may be injected into these wells.
Inventory and Location -
The inventory data collected by each State, Territory, and
Possession, account for a total of approximately 122 radioactive
waste disposal wells. There tends to be a hesitancy by the
operators of possible radioactive waste disposal wells to
identify themselves. However, when this report was coordinated
with the Department of Energy, staff at all levels were
cooperative and offered full and complete data for this report.
It is very possible that the current inventory of known
radioactive waste disposal wells constitutes only a percentage of
those actually in existence. Table 4—56 indicates where
inventoried Class V radioactive waste disposal wells are located.
A major problem in the inventory of radioactive waste
disposal wells is determining which wells are Class V injection
wells and which wells would meet the criteria for Class IV
injection wells, which are banned. Also, wells which have not
disposed of radioactive wastes since the inception of the UIC
program would not fall under the jurisdiction of the UIC
regulations; however, mention of these facilities is included in
this inventory for completeness.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) under the Energy
Reorganization Act of 1974, licenses and regulates the following
facilities according to Section 202:
1. Demonstration Liquid Metal Fast Breeder reactors
when operated as part of the power generation
facilities of an electric utility system, or when
operated in any other manner for the purpose of
demonstrating the suitability for commercial
application of such a reactor.
4 — 319
-------
TASLE 4-56: SY1 S1S (F STATE REP(RIS F(R RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL WALLS(5N24)
5 N2 4
RESIOW
&
STATES
EPA
I RESIOW
‘
‘ I
I
I
I
I
I
Confireed
Presence
Of Well Type
Requlat y
System
Case Studies/ Caitaainati i
Unfo. available Potential
Rating
Ccnnecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Ha shire
ode Island
Ver.ent
I
WA N/A
WA N/A
ND N/A
ND N/A
WA N/A
WA I N/A
I
WA
: ND
ND
ND
WA
ND
I
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
New Jersey
NewYark
Puerto Rico
Wirgin Islamis
II
II
II
II
WA N/A
ND N/A
WA I N/A
WA N/A
ND
NO
NO
WA
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Delaware
Uiaryland
:Penn sy lvanu
Yir inia
West Virginia
III
III
III
III
III
WA N/A
ND N/A
WA N/A
WA I N/A
I WA N/A
ND N/A
ND N/A
WA N/A
WA I N/A
WA I N/A
Alabama
IFicrida
Secrgia
IKentucky
Mississippi
tb-tb Carolina
Scuth Carolina
Tennessee
I
IV I WA N/A
IV ND N/A
IV WA N/A
IV WA N/A
IV WA N/A
IV WA N/A
‘ IV ND - N/A
I IV I WALL (ADD) ‘ N/A
1
WA
WA
M I
ND
ND
WA
WA
WA
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
I
I
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Wgnnisota
( no
Wiscnosin
I
V
V
V
V
V
V
I
1 1 WALL
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
—
RILE
N/A
‘ N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
WA
N/A
N/A
N/A
ti/A
N/A
N/A
I
kansas
Louisiana
New Nexico
IOklah a
Texas
VI
I VI
VI
VI
• VI
WA
WA
1 WAWADD)
‘ I WEWADD)
WA
N/A
N/A
ILLEEAL
RILE
N/A
WA
WA
YES
ND
WA
N/A
N/A
LOW
N/A
N/A
:
I
:
1
1
I
Ioua
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
• VII
VII
VII
VII
WA
WA
WA
WA
N/A
N/A
N/A
RILE
WA
WA
WA
• WA
N/A
N/A
14/A
N/A
i
ICoicrado
I lbitana
INcrth Dakota
South Dakota
Wtah
IWyoming
VIII
I VIII
VIII
‘ VIII
VIII
VIII
WA
WA
Mt
WA
WA
I WA
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
RIJLE/P (IT
N/A
WA
WA
I WA
WA
WA
WA
N/A
ti/A
N/A
N/A
N /A
I N/A
1
I izcna
Califcrnia
Itiawaxi
Wevada
Piurican Samoa
ITr. Tarr. of P
uam
DIiI
I
I X
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
‘ IX
WA
WA
WA
MI
WA
WA
WA
WA
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
• N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
WA I N /A
WA N/A
WA N/A
WA I N/A
WA I N/A
WA N/A
WA N/A
WA N/A
I I
I
Alaska
l ldaho
eqcn
IWasbingtom
I
1
I
1
WA
4 WALLS
WA
116 W LS
N/A
P IT>1B FT
N/A
PERIIIT
I
WA N/A
YES 17Th HIGI€ST/14 TYPESI
WA N/A
‘ YES I HI I
NOTE: ]IE M1%RS IN ThIS lADLE N ESTIWATES.
4—320
-------
5 N2 4
2. Other demonstration nuclear reactors when operated
as part of the power generation facilities of an
electric utility system, or when operated in any
other manner for the purpose of demonstrating the
suitability for commercial application of such a
reactor.
3. Facilities used primarily for the receipt and
storage of high-level radioactive wastes resulting
from activities licensed under such Act.
The Kerr-McGee facility in Oklahoma falls under the
jurisdiction of the NRC. The State of Oklahoma reports a permit
request from the Kerr-McGee Corporation for disposal of “very
low-level radioactive wastes.” Oklahoma reports that these
wastes were below the level designated as nuclear waste and,
therefore, did not permit the well as a radioactive waste
disposal well. The well was plugged in December 1985.
Applications for radioactive waste injection at NRC licensed
facilities are evaluated on a case—by-case basis and in
accordance to EPA re ulations.
The Department of Energy (DOE) under the Atomic Energy Act
of 1954 regulates the remaining facilities included in the
current inventory. At the Hanford Atomic Operations in Richiand,
Washington, information has been documented concerning the
disposal of radioactive wastes; however, available information
indicates that the injection wells have not been used to inject
fluids containing radioactive materials since the 1950’s.
Another facility which has injected radioactive wastes, in the
form of cement grout, in the past is the Oak Ridge National
Laboratory in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. According to State
officials, radioactive wastes are no longer injected into those
wells, and there are no plans to resume this type of injection
due to the difficulties in obtaining a UIC permit. The last
reported injection activity there occurred in 1984.
In the State of Idaho, DOE maintains one low-level
radioactive waste disposal well at the DOE Idaho Chemical
Processing Plant (ICPP) on the Idaho National Engineering
laboratory reservation. According to an Idaho assessment of
Class V injection wells, this well is maintained as an emergency
disposal method to the facility’s ongoing waste percolation pond
disposal system.
A tile field cooling water disposal system has been reported
by the State of Illinois at the Fermi National Accelerator
Laboratory in Batavia, Illinois. The radioactive wastes are
composed of cooling water with low levels of Beryllium 7, which
has an affinity for adhesion to the clay into which disposal
occurs. tinder current DOE policy, no injection wells are being
used to dispose of radioactive materials.
4 — 321
-------
5N24
Construction, Siting, and Operation
Construction and operation of radioactive waste disposal
wells varies greatly. At Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
radioactive wastes were blended with cement to form a slurry
which was pumped under pressure through a cased well into
subsurface strata.
At the Hanford Facility in Washington, injection has
occurred through three distinct methods. The methods include:
reverse wells, french drains, and cribs. According to the State
of Washington Department of Ecology, the Hanford facility has
operated 13 reverse wells, 32 french drains, and 70 cribs since
the early 1940’s. There is some uncertainty as to which of these
disposal methods would fall under jurisdiction of the UIC
program. The “reverse wells” undeniably are subject to UIC
regulation. Reverse wells are cased wells with a perforated
bottom section for disposal of the radioactive materials. A
french drain consists of a rock-filled cell with an open bottom
that allows liquids to seep into the ground. A crib is an
underground structure which consists of a settling tank,
diversion box, distribution line, and a perforated drain pipe
which allow fluids to seep into the subsurface. The cribs at the
Hanford facility, however, did not include a settling tank.
The ICPP low-level radioactive waste disposal well in Idaho
is constructed of 12-inch diameter casing which extends from 15
feet below ground surface (base of well pit) to 588 feet, the
total depth of the borehole. The borehole encountered
approximately 40 feet of unconsolidated materials and penetrated
approximately 548 feet of interlayered basalt and sedimentary
strata. The lowermost 138 feet of casing (from 450 feet to 588
feet) is perforated. Ground water is encountered in the ICPP
emergency injection well at a depth of 440 feet. In 1983, the
well was lined with 10-inch diameter PVC casing and back-filled
to a depth of 520 feet. No explanation for the casing and
backfilling effort was presented in the Idaho report. However,
DOE has informed EPA that the PVC casing and backfilling were
standard techniques to correct well collapse.
Injected Fluids and Injection Zone Interactions
A variety of radioactive materials reportedly have been
injected into radioactive waste disposal wells. Reported wastes
include Beryllium 7, Tritiuin, Strontium 90, Cesium 137, Potassium
40, Cobalt 60, Plutonium, Americium, Uranium, and other
Radionucl ides.
At the Idaho DOE facility, the ICPP emergency injection well
is not utilized for routine injection. The injectate, as
demonstrated from fluids disposed in the facility’s routine
disposal system, would include: heat exchange condensate and
cooling water, boiler blowdown, deionizer regeneration solutions,
4 — 322
-------
5 N2 4
chemical makeup solutions, process equipment waste condensate,
nonradioactive wastes from laboratory drains, and fluids from
pilot plant drains.
According to the 1985 records, approximately 136,000 gallons
of injectate were disposed through the ICPP emergency injection
well. According to the Idaho report, only one injection episode
occurred from January 1, 1986 through October 1, 1986. During
this injection episode, approximately 850 gallons of injectate
were disposed through the ICPP injection well.
Based on water quality data, injectate of the ICPP injection
well is not considered hazardous in accordance with the
definition of RCRA listed and characteristic hazarous waste under
40 CFR Part 261. In addition, the injectate is in accordance
with the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, Radiation
Control Regulation for release to an uncontrolled area. However,
the concentrations of radiochemical constituents, as well as
nitrates and mercury, have exceeded the USEPA Primary Drinking
Water Standards (40 CFR, Part 142). They also exceeded the
discharge quality standards of the Idaho Injection Well
Regulations.
According to the Washington Department of Ecology report on
the Hanford facility, injection fluids originated from a variety
of sources which include laboratories and processing areas. The
fluids may contain condensates and laboratory wastes.
Hydrogeology and Water Use
Inventoried injection facilities inject wastes which are
reported to be confined within the perimeters of the site. There
is no expected water usage on these sites; however, the potential
transport of these materials off—site needs further evaluation.
Since injection occurs at very shallow depths, there still
remains the potential for contaminating USDW if transport of
these radioactive material occurs. Investigations should be
conducted to determine whether these wells are Class V or Class
IV injection wells, based on location of USDW with respect to
injection zones.
Contamination Potential
With the data available from the State reports, the
contamination potential cannot be adequately determined.
Current Regulatory Approach
Radioactive waste disposal wells are authorized by rule
under Federally—administered ‘rjiC programs (see Section 1). See
Table 4-56 for a synopsis of regulatory systems by State.
4 — 323
-------
5X25
Recommendations
Washington provided the following recommendations for its
Class V program:
1. The Department proposes to use the provision of
[ the state waste discharge permit program (Chapter
173—216 WAC)] to authorize and take enforcement
actions for discharges which do not satisfy the
standard of all known available reasonable methods
of treatment and control.
2. The disposal standard for cribs and french drains
will be to treat the waste before discharge and
not to rely soley on evaporation, the soil, and
dilution to treat the wastes.
3. The number of permits issued and permit compliance
and enforcement actions will be negotiated
annually with Environmental Protection Agency
through the State/EPA Agreement program planning
process.
4.2.8.2 Experimental Technology Wells (5X25)
Well Purpose
These wells are used in experimental or unproven technology.
Studies are generally conducted on a pilot scale to assess the
economic and technological feasibility of applying such proce-
dures. Most wells of this type have been used in technologies
associated with recovering fossil fuels and other minerals.
Examples of these technologies include underground coal gasifica-
tion, in situ oil shale retorting, in situ solution mining,
tracer studies, aquifer remediation, and secondary water recovery
projects. While underground coal gasifiOation and in situ oil
shale retorting are regarded as experimental technologies, pro-
jects of this kind have been operated on large scales and asso-
ciated injection wells are classified as a specific type of Class
V well. These technologies are discussed thoroughly in a pre-
vious section of this report (See Section 4.2.4.3). In situ
solution mining, primarily for uranium and copper recovery, is a
specific type of Class V injection and also is discussed in a
previous section (See Section 4.2.4.2). Certain of these solution
mining facilities are operating at pilot scales and are techni-
cally defined as an experimental technology, though little to no
difference in procedures exists.
Inventory and Location
Inventory updates, through State reports and other database
additions, result in an inventory of 225 experimental technology
4 — 324
-------
5X25
wells, located in 17 States. A summary of available inventory,
regulatory systems, contamination potential ratings and known
case studies is presented in Table 4—57.
Referring to Table 4-57, it will be noted that over half the
reported experimental technology wells are located in Wyoming
(135). The Wyoming State report indicates that this number
represents three well types: underground coal gasification, in
situ oil shale retorting, and in situ uranium solution mining.
At the present time, none of these facilities is believed to be
active, presumably due to economic difficulties plaguing those
industries. In addition, the two known experimental technology
wells in California, associated with a refinery clean-up project
are presently inactive. The Alabama report describes a well used
in an “experimental” capacity to dispose of treated domestic
wastewater. Another well in that State is used to dispose of
wastewater generated by the recovery and treatment of contaiui—
nated ground water. The report indicates that both projects are
short—term and do not ap ear to be feasible for continued use.
The implication of these reports is that there are actually very
few active experimental technology injection operations in the
United States at the present time.
Construction. Siting, and Operation
Because of the diverse nature of experimental well types,
aspects of construction, siting, and operation will also be
diverse. The specific examples provided in State reports are
discussed in the following paragraphs. For a description of
construction, siting, and operation typical of in situ solution
mining, underground coal gasification, and in situ oil shale
retorting, see the appropriate sections of this report.
The facility in Alabama disposing of treated domestic
wastewater uses an injection well approximately 65 feet deep.
Six-inch diameter PVC slotted screen is used for casing and is
gravel packed at the borehole annulus for the entire depth of the
well. Monitoring is conducted at five wells for total suspended
solids, fecal coliform, ammonia, BOD (5—day), and pH. Flow rate
averages 43 gallons per minute, and maximum daily volume is
36,000 gallons.
The other experimental facility in Alabama is used to inject
wastewater generated by the recovery and treatment of
contaminated ground water. Wells are 80 feet deep and screened
over the bottom 25 feet. Ten-inch diameter steel casing is
secured in the 16—inch borehole with cement grout. Adjacent to
the 10—inch diameter wire-wound, stainless steel screen is a
gravel pack capped with fine sand. Fluid injected must meet
criteria for COD and nitrated organics (100 mg/i and 0.5 mg/i,
respectively). Maximum flow rate is 100 gallons per minute.
4 — 325
-------
TP E 4-57: SYNIPSIS (F STATE REP1J TS F(F EXPERIIENT L TEDVIOLOGY INJECTIOW WELLS(5125)
5X25
RESIOW EPA
& P.ESIU4
STATES
Confined Regulatory Case Studiesfl Contasination
Presence I Systes Unfo 1 available Potential
Of Well Type ‘ Rating
NO N/A N/A
NO I N/A NO N/A
NO N/A NO N/A
NO I N/A NO N/A
NO N/A I NO N/A
NO N/A NO N/A
t4) N/A NO N/A
NO N/A a N/A a
NO N/A NO N/A
NI) N/A NO N/A
NO N/A NI l N/A
ND N/A NO N/A
NO N/A NO N/A
NO N/A NO N/A
NI) N/A NO N/A
2 WELLS PEMIIT YES NODERATE
3 WELLS PEM IT NO N/A
a NI) N/A NO N/A
NO N/A P 1) a N/A
• SWELLS RILE • NO N/A
B WEliS PERIIIT NO • N/A
• NI) N/A NO N/A
NO N/A NO N/A
2 WELLS • RILE P1) N/A
I I ) N/A NO I N/A
4 WELLS N/A P1) N/A
2 WELLS N/A II N/A
PG N/A NO N/A
P C N/A NO N/A
I
• PG N/A • NI) I N/A
NO N/A ND I N/A
6 WELLS PEIVI IT YES LOW
PC N/A NO N/A
6 WELLS N/A • PC LOW
PC N/A 1 P1) N/A
IC N/A 11) N/A
• IC N/A IC N/A
2 WELLS RILE NO N/A
I a
2 WELLS N/A NO LOW
IC N/A • NO • N/A
PC N/A P1) N/A
IC N/A a NO a p4j
PC PVLEJPETdIIT PC N/A
135 PC.LS PERIIIT YES LOW-HI 4
a 32 WELLS PEIVIIT 1 YES LOWIWERATE
2 WELLS PERIflT NO
6 WELLS PERMIT NI) LOIHEMERATE
SWELLS P IT NO t* 1C1 14 I
PC N/A 1 Ml N/A
IC N/A NO N/A
PC a N/A I NO WA
IC Il/A NO I N/A
I I
I I
• IC N/A a IC NIA
I IC N/A I IC • N/A
IC N/A NO N/A
3 WELLS N/A I NI) Il/A
Connecticut I
I
flassachusetts I
New Ha sh:re I I
Rhode Island I I
verennt 1
New Jersey
New York
IPiierto Rico
IVirgin Islands
II
II
II
U
:De laware
Ilaryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
III
I II
I II
UI
III
lAlabasa
Florida
seorgia
Kentucky
Mississippa
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
Ullinois V
Undiana V
Michigan V
flinnesota V
V
Wisconsin V
kansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
Uoisa
Kansas
Miszcuni
Nebraska
VII
VII
VII
VII
I
Colorado
Pbtana
t th Dakota
South Dakota
Wtah
:Wyomng
VIII
VIII
• VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
iz o na
California
Kawaii
Nevada
ncan Sasca
ITt. Terr. of P
&iai
ID I
I
I X
II
II
IX
IX
IX
Ix
IX
•
a
Alaska
Idaho
eq on
Washington
I
I
I
I
NOTE: SOlE PUIBERS IN THIS T LE E ESTIMTES.
4—326
-------
5X25
Air injection tests have been conducted in Texas as a mode
of secondary water recovery. This experimental method is used to
determine whether air pressure will force capillary water within
the unsaturated zone of the aquifer to migrate down to the
saturated zone. A six-inch diameter injection well was completed
to 116 feet. Steel casing is seated in or below an impermeable
stratum and cemented to surface. Slotted steel tubing is seated
to total depth, below the impermeable stratum. A packer isolates
the injection zone. The injection well is surrounded in a radial
pattern by five monitoring wells. An estimated 12 million cubic
feet of air was injected during a 217—hour test.
An experimental procedure tested at the University of
Minnesota attempted storing heated ground-water in a confined
aquifer. The goal was to recover energy, via heat, from the
injected fluid. Four short-term cycles were studied. Wells were
constructed of stainless steel casing, screened across permeable
intervals of the confined aquifer. This screened casing (6-inch
diameter) extended down from 13-3/8—inch steel casing. The lower
casing was surrounded by a gravel pack designed to accommodate
thermal expansion of the casing. The injection zone was isolated
by a packer. Constant speed turbine pumps were seated at about
450 feet. Hot fluid was injected and stored for various lengths
of time, then recovered to test the heat content of the fluid. A
fixed-bed precipitator using high-purity limestone was used to
treat injected fluid to prevent scaling. Similarly, hardness was
removed before heating the ground-water using an ion-exchange
water softener.
Injected Fluids and Injection Zone Interactions
Each type of experimental injection operation makes use of a
different type of injectate. A variety of acidic and basic com-
pounds can be used for in situ solution mining operations. These
fluids and their potential interactions with the injection zone
are discussed in Section 4.2.4.2. Similarly, fluids used for
underground coal gasification and in Situ oil Shale retorting are
reported, along with injection zone interactions, in Section
4.2.4.3.
The Alabama facility injecting treated domestic wastewater
has been monitored for total suspended solids, fecal coliform,
ammonia, BOD, and pH. The Alabama report stated that there were
no permit limitations for those parameters. The permit was for
one year, and injectate volumes of 36,000 gallons per day would
result in a maximum of over 13 million gallons injected at that
facility. No information on the injection aquifer was presented
• by the Alabama facility.
The other Alabama facility, injecting wastewater associated
with treatment of contaminated ground water, was reported to in-
ject up to 100 gallons per minute. On an annual basis, this
would result in a maximum of over 50 million gallons injected.
4 — 327
-------
5X25
This injected fluid was subject to contaminant limits per the
operating permit. Again, no information with respect to the
injection zone was presented by the facility.
For the secondary water recovery operation in Texas, it was
stated that air was injected under pressure to affect movement-of
capillary water toward the water table. It is believed that this
activity results in very little interaction at a molecular level
between injected air and formation water. Data regarding
hydrogeological character of the injection zone were not reported
by the Texas facility.
Finally, the experimental procedure applied in Minnesota for
storing injected hot water made use of ground water extracted
from the intended injection zone. Before heating, the water was
softened by ion exchange. A fixed-bed reactor is part of the
injection system and is used to precipitate calcium carbonate,
thus preventing scaling within the injection wells. The coriclu-
sion is that the injectate was actually of better quality thah
injection zone water with respect to hardness and total dissolved
solids (TDS). The influence of temperature differentials between
injectate and injection zone fluids upon lithological parameters
was not determined by the facility.
The previous discussions, though not exhaustive, exemplify
that no singular or typical description of injection fluids or
injection zone interactions can be made. Characterization of
these parameters must be conducted on a site-specific basis.
Each known facility studied should place emphasis the following
parameters:
1. Goal of the operation;
2. Nature and volume of injected fluids;
3. Site hydrogeology; and
4. Construction, operation, and mai’ntenance features.
Hydrogeology and Water Use
It is difficult to make broad hydrogeological
generalizations with respect to these wells. Experimental
procedures involving injection can vary greatly as can the goals
of these projects. Again, it should be emphasized that
experimental procedures for in situ solution mining, underground
coal gasification, and in situ shale retorting are discussed with
respect to hydrogeologic parameters in previous sections.
In general, experimental injection operations reported with-
in the United States are characterized by injection into confined
aquifers. Exceptions to this may be the two experimental facili-
ties reported by Alabama where injection wells reach a maximum
depth of only 80 feet. Though specific details for these aqui-
fers are not known, the well depths are indicative of unconfined
or semi-confined aquifer conditions.
4 — 328
-------
5X25
The Wolfforth Air—Injection test, a 1984 experimental
secondary water recovery test, was conducted in two unsaturated
zones separated by a “bed of hard rock” (High Plains Underground
Water Conservation District No. 1, July, 1985). The depth of
this well (110 feet) is such that the aquifer beneath the hard
rock unit was probably confined, and the zone above this layer
was unconfined or semi—confined. Two tests were conducted at the
Wolfforth site. The first test was designed to inject air under
low pressure (8 psi) at low volumes (300 cubic feet/minute) into
the unsaturated zone above the confining layer. Two key results
were noted. First, moisture content within the unsaturated zone
decreased within a 300-foot radius of the injection well,
indicative that the procedure actually could move capillary
water. Second, injection actually increased the moisture content
within the confined aquifer below the hard rock layer.
A second test conducted at Wolfforth was designed to inject
air at low pressures and volumes into the confined zone below the
hard rock layer. Results similar to the initial test occurred,
namely a decrease in moisture content around the injection well
and increased yields within a two—mile radius in irrigation wells
during and after the test. Additionally, researchers were able
to observe the influence of lateral variations in aquifer charac-
teristics upon capillary water movement induced by air injection.
Results of these injection tests conclusively demonstrated that
water levels could be significantly raised in radii of several
tens of miles using air injection. Other important findings were
1) up to 30 percent of the capillary water in storage can be
released under relatively low air pressures and volumes using
this procedure, and 2) post capillary water drainage can occur
for several months or years after short-term injection.
Another experimental injection operation for which relative-
ly full documentation exists is the aquifer thermal energy stor-
age (ATES) project. These experiments were conducted at the
University of Minnesota. The procedure made use of a combination
extraction—injection system whereby ground water is heated and
injected into a confined aquifer for storage. Results showed
that energy recovery via this process was 62 percent of the
energy added to the injected ground—water for long—term cycles.
Energy recoveries varied from 46—62 percent for the four short—
term experiments conducted.
Wells used in this procedure were completed in a highly
variable sequence of late Cambrian marine sediments (Franconia—
Ironton—Galesville sequence). This is a highly stratified, con-
fined aquifer, present at a depth of about 590 feet. It is
approximately 200 feet thick and is under a static head of about
400 feet (Hoyer and Walton, 1984). The aquifer is composed of
sandstone interbedded with shale, siltstone, and dolomite.
Ground water is calcium-magnesium bicarbonate and is extracted
from and injected into the same zones. The upper zone, part of
the Upper Franconia, is a fine- to medium-grained sandstone
4 — 329
-------
5X25
demonstrating varying concentrations of glauconite. It is
confined above and below by relatively impermeable silty
dolomites and siltstones, respectively. The lower injection zone
is the entire section of Ironton and Galesville rocks. These
formations are a sequence of medium quartzose sandstones and fine
feldspathic sandstones with shale laminations. Similar to the
upper zone, the Ironton—Galesville sequence is a highly permeable
aquifer bounded above and below by relatively impermeable silts,
fine sands, and silty dolomites.
The foregoing site—specific information on experimental
injection operations has been presented to demonstrate parameters
important to such operations. Ground-water remediation and reco-
very, thermal energy storage, and fossil fuel and mineral reco-
very are known to be major objectives of experimental strategies.
Other important aspects of experimental injection include 1)
lithologic character of the injection zone (mineralogy, permeabi-
lity, vertical confinement, and lateral variation), 2) nature of
injected fluid, 3) ground—water quality, and 4) injection system
design. Each of these aspects will vary, and their influence
upon system performance and environmental impact should be
evaluated on a site-specific basis.
Contamination Potential
Based on the rating system described in Section 4.1,
experimental technology wells inventoried to date are assessed to
pose a moderate to low potential to contaminate USDW, but each
operation must be assessed individually. These facilities
typically do inject into or above some iJSDW. Typical well con-
struction, operation, and maintenance would not allow fluid
injection or migration into unintended zones. Injection fluids
typically have concentrations of constituents exceeding standards
set by the National Primary or Secondary Drinking Water
Regulations. Based on injectate characteristics and possibili-
ties for attenuation and dilution, injection may or may not occur
in sufficient volumes or at sufficient rates to cause an increase
in concentration (above background levels) of the National
Primary or Secondary Drinking Water Regulation parameters in
ground water, or endanger human health or the environment beyond
the facility perimeter.
Because of the variability exhibited in experimental
technologies associated with Class V injection, it is not
possible to assign a singular contamination potential. In
previous sections, it has been stated that contamination
potential attributable to in situ solution mining is generally
low and that contamination potential from underground coal gasi-
fication and in situ shale retorting is moderate. These results
indicate that meaningful assessment of experimental technologies
for contamination potential must be system-specific. The
following paragraphs contain assessments for the types of experi-
mental injection operations inventoried to date.
4 — 330
-------
5X25
Due to the limited data presented for the experimental
systems in Alabama, these two facilities are assessed together,
using certain broad generalizations. One operation disposes of
treated domestic wastewater, and the other injects wastewater
produced due to the recovery and treatment of contaminated ground
water. Injection at both facilities is relatively shallow, and
both injection zones may be USDW. However, from the limited
description presented, it cannot be concluded these aquifers are
Class IIB quality or better.
Construction designs for the Alabama facilities provide for
specific injection intervals. Screened openings are employed,
and the up-hole portions of wells at both facilities are cemented
and grouted. However, the reported well depths are shallow
enough to imply that the injection zones are actually semi- to
unconsolidated and are probably not totally confined. As such,
it is likely that injection fluids have migrated vertically into
other zones.
At the facility disposing of treated wastewater, injectate
is monitored for total suspended solids, fecal coliform, ammonia,
SOD, and pH, yet no permit limitations exist for these parame-
ters. At the other facility, limitations for chemical oxygen
demand (COD) and nitrated organics have been established, but
other constituents present within contaminated ground water are
not addressed. The conclusion is that there is a strong likeli-
hood that some constituents are present within these waste
streams that exceed certain Primary and/or Secondary Drinking
Water Regulations.
Finally, injection volumes must be addressed. Maximum
injection volumes for these facilities can be several tens of
millions of gallons annually. Though specific hydrogeologic
conditions for each site have not been ascertained, these volumes
could result in contamination of ground water beyond facility
boundaries.
In summary, it cannot be concluded that injection at the two
Alabama facilities is into Class IIB aquifers. However, con-
struction and operation of the wells is probably resulting in
migration of injection fluids into unintended zones. In addi-
tion, the possibility exists that certain drinking water regula-
tions are being exceeded f or injection fluids and that injection
volumes are sufficient to cause increases in these constituents
within ground water beyond facility boundaries. It is hereby
concluded that injection conducted at these two facilities poses
moderate threat of contamination to local USDW. This assessment
could be amended to high contamination potential, should further
data about USDW in the area become available.
In Texas, the air injection operation for secondary water
recovery was into an aquifer used extensively as an irrigation
water aquifer. That aquifer’s potential useàbility as a drinking
4 — 331
-------
5X25
water supply has not been demonstrated. Injection of air into
the unconfined zone actually resulted in changes in moisture
content within the confined aquifer. With respect to injectate
quality, only compressed air was injected. The composition of
air would not be such that any Primary or Secondary Drinking
Water Regulations would be exceeded, nor would it cause increases
in those constituents within ground-water beyond facility boun—
daries. Therefore, this particular injection operation poses a
low ground-water contamination potential.
At the University of Minnesota facility, injection fluid was
merely heated ground water which was returned to the same zones
it was extracted from. It could not be determined if the extrac-
tion—injection aquifer was of Class IIB quality. Well construc-
tion was found to be relatively simple, and the potential for
migration of fluids into unintended zones may be considered to
exist. Because the same fluid is extracted, heated and injected,
increases in constituents of Primary and Secondary Drinking Water
Standards may or may not occurr beyond facility boundaries.
Therefore, this particular injection operation has presented low
potential for contamination to tJSDW.
To summarize what has been demonstrated in the previous
discussion, contamination potentials ranging from low to moderate
are possible for experimental injection operations as presently
understood. Future data regarding known operations or new in-
ventory information may result in a higher contamination assess-
ment. It will be necessary to evaluate each facility individual-
ly.
Current Regulatory Approach
Experimental technology wells are authorized by rule under
Federally—administered UIC programs (see Section 1). Review of
the various types of experimental injection operations has indi-
cated that in Situ solution mining, underground coal gasifica-
tion, and in situ shale retorting are the most thoroughly regu-
lated. Aspects of regulatory jurisdiction over these well types
are discussed in earlier sections of this report.
Data regarding regulatory authority over other representa-
tive well types is largely absent. The Alabama facility injec-
ting wastewater generated by recovery and treatment of contamina-
ted ground water operates under concentration limitations for COD
and nitrated organics. It is presumed these restrictions are
part of waste discharge permit requirements, but the issues of
such permits remain in question. Some inventoried facilities may
not operate under permit programs at the present time. Refer to
Table 4-57 for a synopsis of State regulatory systems.
4 — 332
-------
Recominenda t ions
Experimental technologies involving injection vary greatly.
As such, recommendations addressing siting, construction, and
operation must be broad and general in nature. Siting injection
wells associated with precious metal or fossil fuel recovery
will, of course, be dependent upon the location and dimensions of
the mineral deposit. The California report recommends that
injection wells for other technologies, not location dependent,
should not be sited where poor quality fluid injection into a
Class ITh aquifer could occur. The report further suggests that
detailed ground—water studies should be conducted for any
potential injection site. Points to be addressed in such studies
might include general ground—water quality, aquifer dimensions,
and present ground-water uses, as well as potential for further
use.
Additional recommendations from the California report
include chemical analysis of the waste stream at regular
intervals. Frequency for such analyses will be dictated by the
general nature of the waste stream with respect to potentially
hazardous or toxic materials, and volumes of injection.
Establishment of mechanical integrity at regular intervals should
be part of every operational plan, according to both the Arizona
and California reports. The type of tests employed will be
dependent upon the materials used for casing, and the type of
completion (perforations, screened openings, or open hole).
Most of the experimental injection facilities discussed in
this report are inactive or have been abandoned. Facilities
known to still be active are certain solution mining operations
in the southwestern United States. No evidence for USDW
contamination exists at the present time. As a result, no
recommendations for remedial or corrective action were proposed
in the State reports except to continue to identify USDW in areas
where experimental injection is occurring. These data could be
used to better assess, on a site-specific basis, potential
contamination to USDW from this kind of Class V injection.
Supporting Data
Two case studies are listed in Appendix E for Experimental
Technology Injection wells. The first is a study of aquifer
thermal energy storage conducted on the University of Minnesota
campus by the Minnesota Geological Survey. The second case study
represents an air-injection test conducted in Texas to attempt
enhancement of secondary fresh water recovery. The test was
conducted jointly by the Texas Department of Water Resources, the
High Plains Underground Water Conservation District Number 1, and
the City of Wolf forth, Texas.
4 — 333
-------
5X26
4.2.8.3 Aquifer Reniediation Related Wells (5X26)
Well Purpose
Aquifer remediation can be defined as the implementation of
remedial measures to correct deficiencies, improve selected
parameters (such as quality or flow), or to prevent anticipated
or possible problems in permeable materials which contain or are
capable of containing ground water. The implementation of these
programs historically has been in response to problems which have
already occurred and, to a much lesser extent in recent years, as
a preventive practice.
Recent years have seen the incidence, or at least the recog-
nition, of ground-water contamination on the increase. In light
of this, the public awareness and concern have demanded correc-
tion of these problems. Remediation programs implemented
throughout the United States have many widely varying arrays
which normally are a function of several parameters including
type and quantity of pollutants, area of contaminated water,
hydrogeologic regimens, and others. While aquifer remediation
programs are implemented through the use of different tactics,
they have certain goals which are common throughout. These goals
include, first and foremost, the abatement of contamination,
second, the containment of the area of contamination, and last,
the restoration of the aquifer. Injection wells quite often are
used in these programs for a variety of purposes. They are
implemented to achieve one or more of these goals. They can be
used to introduce chemicals or microorganisms designed to neu-
tralize the contamination, or they may be used to transport clean
waters to the contaminated zones for the purpose of diluting
tainted waters and forming hydraulic barriers, or they may be
used to return treated waters to the aquifer. Many people refer
to wells utilized to return treated water to the aquifer as
“recharge wells,” or simply “injection wells.” Returning
treated waters to the aquifer and setting up hydraulic barriers
to contain contamination plumes are the most common uses for
injection wells in aquifer rernediation strategies.
The use of injection wells in some portion of the remedial
strategy is almost an absolute. Most of the programs implemented
in the past have included the removal of contaminated waters,
above ground treatment, and subsequent return of these waters to
the production zone. With technological advancements made in
recent years, this is not always necessary. In—situ treatment is
rapidly becoming a popular and relatively inexpensive remedial
tactic. This requires the introduction of some agent or agents
which will counteract and eliminate the contaminated waters
without removing them from the aquifer. Each of these schemes,
in—situ treatment and recovery and treatment, require some sort
of injection program. It is these injection wells which are
assessed in the following sections.
4 — 334
-------
5X26
A specialized type of aquifer rernediation related wells,
known as hydrocarbon recovery “recharge” wells, is addressed
separately in the following section, 4.2.8.4.
Inventory and Location
To date, the inventory of aquifer remediation wells in the
United States includes 353 injection wells distributed throughout
fifteen States as shown in Table 4-58. Since an abatement and
restoration program may require several injection wells at a
single contamination site, these wells often are clustered. The
257 injection wells accounted for in the USEPA Underground
Injection Control database (known as FURS) are distributed
throughout ten States with the majority of these injection wells
located in three of those states (81 in Colorado, 59 in Michigan,
and 60 in Oklahoma). This clustering is accounted for by
concentrations of certain industrial practices which are
prevalent in those States such, as petroleum refining in oil-rich
Oklahoma (refer to Section .4.2.8.4.) and the manufacturing of
industrial chemicals at a site in Colorado. This is demonstrated
by the fact that all 60 injection wells located in Oklahoma are
located at various petroleum refineries, and all 81 injection
wells in Colorado are at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal which was
used by the government during the Second World War for the
manufacturing of chemicals used in warfare and later leased by
private industry for chemical manufacturing. It should be noted
that these wells serve the secondary purpose of aquifer recharge.’
Construction, Siting, and Operation
The construction of injection wells used in aquifer remedia-
tion programs varies widely throughout the United States. The
depths to which these wells are installed is based on the loca-
tion of the contaminated aquifer. Since most contamination
occurs as a result of surface or near surface spills, the depths
of injection wells used in aquifer remediation are generally
quite shallow. Over’ 50% of these wells are installed to depths
of less than 100 feet (based on available inventory information).
Diameters range from 1 to. 12 inches for those wells (50%) identi-
fied above but also vary widely according to the amount of fluids
they must deliver to the subsurface.
Remediation injection wells are screened when completed in
sands and gravels. This eliminates or reduces.incrustation and
facilitates water movement (the latter being of primary concern
in aquifer remediation). Furthermore, injection wells used for
aquifer remediation are almost always cased, the only exception
to this being the “wells” which return fluids through surface
introduction (percolation). Casing is constructed of PVC piping
and generally is installed from the surface through the top of
the injection zone. The casing aids in supporting the walls of
the well, helps keep out possible surface contaminants, and
4 — 335
-------
TABLE 4-s: SYN(FSIS (F STATE REPORTS FOR A JIFER REIEDIATION(5X2b)
5X26
EPA
REBIOW
Confirmed
Presence
Of Well Type
1 Reoulatory Case Stuthes/ Contamination
System Unfo. availablel Potential
Rating
I
I
I
I
I
I
PC
P 4)
1 4)
P C
2 WELLS
I PC
N/A P 1)
N/A NO
N/A ND
N/A PC
N/A PC
N/A PC
I
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
I HI$4
N/A
I
II
II
II
II
9 WELLS
PC
1 WELL
NO
P4IPOES P IT I PC
I N/A PC
N/A I YES
I N/A Pd)
N/A
N/A
N/A
• N/A
III
III
III
III
III
PC
NO
PC
PC
I C
N/A NO
N/A NO
• N/A PC
N/A I PC
• N/A PC
N/A
N/A
• N/A
N/A
N/A
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
1 WELL PERMIT I NO VABIABLE
I PC N/A Pd) N/A
PC N/A PC I N/A
PC N/A I ND N/A
• PC I N/A PC I N/A
12 WELLS P 1T PC N/A
PC N/A PC N/A
PC N/A PC I N/A
I I
V
V
V
V
V
V
—
PC
4 WELLS
59 I€.LS
7 WELLS
PC
‘ 17 WELLS
1
I
N/A PC N /A
N/A PC • N/A
N/A PC N/A
N/A I PC 1 1/A
N/A P C N/A
I RILE • PC • LOW
1
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
I
• PC
PC
50 WELLS
60 WELLS
I 31 WEllS
I N/A
N/A
N/A
RILE
N/A
I
NO
1 PC
1 PC
I Pd)
1 PC
1
• N/A
N/A
PIOD- l.OW
P4/A
• N/A
VII
VII
VII
VII
PC
15 WELLS
YES
YES
N/A
N/A
N/A
PERMIT
I
PC
PC
1 NO
Pd)
I
N/A
LOW
N/A
N/A
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
81 WELLS 5* N/A
NO N/A
PC 1 N/A
PC I N/A
• PC RILE/PERMIT
PC 1 N/A
I
I PC LOW -
I PC • N/A
PC N/A
I PC N/A
I NO I N/A
I Pd) I N/A
I X
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
PC
Pd)
PC
PC
Pd)
PC
PC
PC
N/A
PERMIT
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
I NO
PC
Pd)
PC
P C
PC
PC
PC
I
N/A
LOW e
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
-
I
I
X
I
PC
PC
PC
PC
N/A
N/A
N/A
• N/A
PC
I C
PC
PC
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
PC1E: SOlE MJIBERS IN ThIS TABLE Al ESTIMIES.
PROVIDED P ER DESIOW CTRtJCTIOW AND OPERATIOl4
II flEE WELLS SERVE 11€ C0NDABY PORPOGE (F ABUIFER RED
4-336
-------
5X26
maintains the proper integrity between the injected fluids and
the contaminated zones. The typical construction of injection
wells used in aquifer remediation programs is shown in Figure 4-
64.
Siting is a key factor in aquifer remediation strategies.
In almost all cases injection wells are located upgradient from
any discharge wells and contamination plumes. This facilitates
the proper migration of injection fluids with respect to remedia-
tion objectives. Different remedial tactics require different
arrays of injection wells.
Injection wells used to control hydraulic flow require
different orientations in relation to contamination plumes than
those injection wells returning treated waters to an aquifer.
For instance, some injection strategies utilize two injection
wells, a “double—cell containment” array, to contain and
facilitate the proper movement of a contamination plume (Figure
4-65). A different strategy might be to utilize a single
injection well to facilitate the proper movement and containment
of plumes (Figure4—65).
Isolating contaminants in an aquifer by using these
hydraulic “barriers’ t requires much more precision in the siting
of injection wells than does the return of treated waters.
Typically, injection wells used to return treated waters simply
are located upgradient of any recovery wells in the aquifer.
The operation of almost all of the injection wells used for
aquifer remediation is by simple gravity flow. To date, there is
no inventory information available indicating the use of pressur-
ized injection.
Injected Fluids and Injection Zone Interactions
- The primary forms of aquifer contamination which have been
addressed in remediation programs are contamination through the
introduction of organic compounds (chiefly hydrocarbons),
industrial chemicals, and inorganic compounds. Because most
contamination occurs as a result of surface or near surface
spills, the nature and volume of injected fluids is a function of
the hydrogeologic regime, the parameters of the contamination
plume, and the design of the remediation program.
Hydrocarbon recovery largely depends on the types of hydro-
carbons involved and on the recovery system being used. Recharge
rates range from a few gallons per minute (gpm) to 100 gpm (refer
to Section 4.2.8.4 for more detail). The constituents in the
injected stream generally consist of some hydrocarbons recircula-
ted back to the contaminated aquifer.
There is a facility in Alabama currently using two injection
wells to recover and treat contaminated ground water. Standards
4 — 337
-------
5X26
_________ Steel Cover Plate
Cement Platform
: a,
• a,
a
a a
S
a ,
a’
I. a.
a
Cement Grout
p •
a
a. .
a a
a a
a a
a, a
‘a 10. Diameter Steel Well Casing
a,
a a
4 1 a.
a
4 a
16 Diameter Borehole
__ Fine Sand Cap
_____ :::
Gravel Pack
::: ______ :4:
- .-- 10 Diameter, Wire Wound
::i _________ : : Stainless Steel Screen
...
— 3 Sump
Not To Scale
UNIROYAL CHEMICAL INJEC11ON WELL
USED FOR AQUIFER REMEDIA11ON
(from Alabama, 1986) Figure 4—64
4-338
-------
5X26
Recharge Well
A. SINGLE-CELL
Production Well
Recharge Wells
Outer Cell
Production Wells
B. DOUBLE-CELL
SINGLE CELL AND DOUBLE CELL
HYDRAULIC CONTAINMENT SHOWING FLOW LINES
(from wilson. 1984) Figure 4—65
w
Pollutant Plume
Groundwater Row
w
Pollutant Plume
Inner Cell
4—339
-------
5X26
have been set for these injection fluids which must be met.
These consist of no more than 100 mg/i COD and no more than 0.5
mg/i of nitrated organics.
Remediation programs for recovery and treatment of ground
water contaminated with industrial chemicals most often utilize
recovery wells to extract contaminated ground water. The tainted
water undergoes above—ground filtering prior to reinjection. In
Colorado, the remediation program at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal
utilizes injection wells to return water that has been extracted
from the contaminated zone and purified by carbon filtering.
This method is used to aid in removing industrial chemicals and
wastes.
Inorganic chemicals are also often present in unacceptable
quantities in many aquifers. New techniques are being developed
to treat these waters in situ and include a method called Vyredox
which is being used in pilot programs in some areas of the United
States to remove iron and manganese. Vyredox treatments involve
the injection of degreased, highly oxygenated waters which
precipitate out iron and manganese, thus improving water quality.
Hydrogeology and Water Use
Injection wells used in aquifer remediation programs seldom
inject fluids into USDW. Their purpose is to restore
contaminated aquifers to a condition in which they can provide
usable waters. The degree of restoration may differ based on the
projected use of the water. Because these remediation programs
are generally expensive, aquifers that are easily replaced are
seldom restored. This means that, in general, the aquifer might
have to be the primary source of water for a variety of users to
mandate remediation. The expense of remediation might be
undertaken voluntarily by an industry if it can recover
significant amounts of leaked product (enough to make it
profitable), or it might be mandated 1 y governmental or public
demand in an area where users are not able to utilize low quality
water.
Contamination Potential
Contamination potential for these wells must be assessed on
a site specific basis rather than as a group. Since the goal of
aquifer reinediation is to increase the quality of an aquifer as a
unit, one might jump to the conclusion that as Class V wells they
possess a low potential for contamination. This, however, is not
always the case. There are injection wells used in aquifer
reinediation programs which may place uncontaminated zones or
other aquifers in the vicinity in jeopardy due to the nature of
injected constituents or the hydrogeologic strata. This,
however, varies widely from application to application. In
accordance with the rating system previously outlined, we can
4 — 340
-------
5X26
only say that these wells possess (as a group) an unknown
potential for contamination. It is possible to assess any of
these wells on a site specific basis with the proper information,
and efforts should be made in future work to do so. However, the
varying hydrogeology, injection fluid nature, water use, and
remediation techniques result in different potentials for
contamination at different sites.
Current Regulatory Approach
Aquifer remediation wells are authorized by rule under
Federally administered UIC programs (see Section 1). State and
local authorities have little to do with the regulation of
aquifer remediation. They may require the reporting of these
wells for inventory efforts (per tJSEPA mandates) but seldom
monitor these wells. Aquifer remediation programs are generally
subject to widespread media attention which may aid State and
local governments in monitoring these programs.
Recommendations
The Kansas State report suggests that implementation of a
registration and monitoring program is in order. This would
allow for site specific evaluations and the subsequent setting,
on a site specific basis, of operating conditions which will aid
restoration activities and restrict or eliminate any contamina-
tion potential. The Oklahoma State report recommends that these
wells be constructed to the same set of standards by which
discharge wells are constructed to insure the injection wells’
integrity and to maintain rentediation program standards. At a
minimum, injection wells used in remedial programs should be
cased from the surface through the top of the injection zone and
screened in sands and gravels, and the annulus should be grouted.
It is recommended in the Florida State report that injected fluid
quality should be required to be better than the quality of the
fluid inherent to the injection zone but not necessarily required
to meet drinking water standards.
4.2.8.4 Hydrocarbon Recovery Injection Wells (5X26)
Well Purpose
Hydrocarbon recovery injection (recharge) wells are used to
return the coproduced water pumped from hydrocarbon recovery
wells back into the aquifer. These wells are a specialized type
of aquifer remediation related wells (Section 4.2.8.3). The
hydrocarbons and water are separated either by the pumping system
in the recovery wells or by surface separators.
Hydrocarbons such as gasoline, diesel, fuel oil, and other
refined petroleum products may leak into the subsurface from
4 — 341
-------
5X26
tanks and pipelines and migrate downward. Most such hydrocarbons
are lighter than water and accumulate as a discrete layer of free
hydrocarbons floating on the water table. If this hydrocarbon
layer is not removed from the water table it will migrate
downgradient into streams or move under adjoining properties. In
areas where the water table is very shallow (less than about 20
feet) fire and other hazards from fumes are possible in addition
to ground-water pollution.
Removal of the free hydrocarbon layer (contamination source)
may be accomplished by a variety of remedial methods of which
pumping is the most common. In many instances a two-pump system
is used. The bottom pump in the recovery well creates a cone of
depression in the water table and pumps only water. The hydro-
carbon flows down the cone of depression into the well and is
pumped out by the upper pump which pumps only hydrocarbons. In
other situations, both water and hydrocarbons are pumped from the
well by a single pump, and the oil and water are then separated
at the surface.
With either rehabilitation system water must be removed from
the aquifer in order to remove the hydrocarbons. In many cases
the most feasible and environmentally sound method of disposing
of the water is to discharge the water back into the aquifer
through injection wells.
Inventory and Location
Large-scale hydrocarbon recovery is currently underway at
many active and abandoned refineries, tank farms, and terminals
across the United States. Such remedial action will become more
widely practiced as more of these facilities are investigated.
There are approximately 350 active and inactive refinery sites in
the United States, and as yet an undetermined number of tank
farms and terminals - probably on the order of 1,000 to 5,000.
Although no inventory has been made, it is estimated that cleanup
of free hydrocarbons may be required at 30 to 50 percent of these
sites. Water reinjection wells may be used at approximately 25
percent of the sites anticipated to require remedial action.
Small—scale hydrocarbon recovery will be required at
approximately 270,000 underground storage tanks that are
estimated to have leaked. However, injection of the water
produced in the remedial actions is anticipated at only a small
fraction of these sites.
Construction, Siting, and Operation
The design and construction of water injection wells used in
hydrocarbon recovery is not sophisticated. These wells are
commonly only 20 to 100 feet deep and are constructed with
plastic (PVC) casing 2 to 6 inches in diameter. Such wells are
4 — 342
-------
5X26
not operated under pressure and the surface seal around the
outside of the casing is used only to prevent surface fluids from
migrating down the annulus. Figure 4-66 is a typical hydrocarbon
recovery injection well schematic. Figure 4-67 is a typical
hydrocarbon recovery well. The water produced by the recovery
well is piped to the injection well. Maintenance of these water
injection wells is limited to periodic well rehabilitation to
remove plugging caused by the high iron content commonly associ-
ated with hydrocarbon pools.
Injected Fluids and Injection Zone Interactions
No data have been submitted by the States, but it is known
that in some instances the injected water contains water soluble
fractions from the hydrocarbons such as benzene, toluene, and
xylene, commonly referred to as BTX. The BTX content of the
injected water may, in some instances, exceed currently recommen-
ded drinking water standards. The Oklahoma Water Resources Board
(OWRB) put together a list of constituent concentrations both
“realistic and representative’ t for typical injection streams
located in remediation areas at certain refineries in Oklahoma.
This list is given in Table 4—59.
ThBLE 4-59
OWRB LIST OF CONSTITUENT CONCENTRATIONS FOR HYDROCARBON
RECOVERY INJECTION WELL FLUIDS
Oil/Grease
4.80
mg/i
Lead
0.02
mg/i
Phenols
3.00
mg/i
Iron
8.40
mg/i
Toiuene
12.80
mg/i
Total
Hardness
86.80
mg/i
Benzene
7.90
mg/i
pH
COD
•
7.10
229.00
mg/i
Norxnaiiy, water containing BTX would be treated before
injection back into the aquifer; however, in many cases involving
hydrocarbon recovery, such treatment would be pointless unless
the soil is also cleaned or removed. Only 40 to 60 percent of the
totai amount of hydrocarbons floating on the water table can be
recovered. The unrecoverable fraction remainsin the soil above
the water table and continues to provide a source of BTX into the
underlying ground water. Therefore, removing the BTX from the
water being pumped from the aquifer and reinjected is useless
unless all of the hydrocarbons are removed from the soil or the
contaminated soil is excavated.
In large-scale hydrocarbon recovery projects, the amount of
water injected back into the aquifer may total up to 1,000 gpm.
Handling of such volumes by existing on-site treatment is usually
not feasible; furthermore, injection of the water can accelerate
the cleanup of the free hydrocarbons.
4 — 343
-------
H _
o 000 00.
0 :. °
0 0 0 0 0
0 00
o 0 0 0000
:0 0:0:0 :
0 .. oo:
0 00 00
•
0 00 __________________ 00
0 00 00
00 0000
0 0 0 ____________ 00
___________ : OE::::__________________
_______ coo.
• 0 0 0 0 0
0 00 00
o 0 0 0
00 0 _________________ 00
000 0 0 __________________ 0 0 0
0.:
000 .000
0 0 000 ________________ 000
000 0 000
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
00 0°0O
000 o. 000
0000 ______________ 0o
0000 00 0
o •.0 0000
0 0 000 000 0
00:00 00
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
00.00 0000
0 0 000 .0.
a.:.. ____________ .0:
.00,0 ________________ 000000
0. •0 I c2.—
oo .. : ,_ Go:
:: . o:: -
o : •o 00 :
_____________________ ° 0 o 0 0 o0 — - 00 00000
: :o:o:: :0:0:: : : : : :00:: : : : :o:o:::
00000 0 000000.00000 0 00
0000 00.0 0 O0 00 0 0 00000 0 0000000 c -
•. o°o 00. 00. 00. 000
) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -
- :- -—.- - : .. : o. : .o : o. : 00: •e : .e
1 000 000 00 000 .00 o
0
0 1
TYPICAL CLOSED RECHARGE WELL COMPLETiON
AQUIFER REMEDIATION
(Source: 0k ahoma, 1985) Figure 4—66 -
-
Valve
Nitrogen Purge Line
5X26
i Pvc Piezometer
Pressure Release Valve
5 PVC Sealed Cap
Native Fill
A From Production Well
Pitless Adapter
Cement Plug
— 5 PVC Casing (Sch. 40)
Bentonite Plug
1—114 PVC Drop Tube
10. Bore Hole
5 PVC Screen (.065 slot)
Gravel Pack (8—12)
10 Pvc Screen
—- 1—1/4 Check Valve
- = urnp
— —---—G --.
- - -
4-344
-------
5X26
Water
Punp
SCHEMA11C OF TWO-PUMP SYSTEM UTILIZING.
ONE RECOVERY WELL FOR AQUIFER REMEDIAT1ON
(from Iahoma, 1985) Figure 4—67
Water discharge
Pro ct Storage
Product
Purrp Controls
Seal (as required)
Backfill
Pack
Pro jct Detection Probe
Product Detection Probe
ter Pump
Continuous Slot Screen
4-345
-------
5X26
In small—scale rehabilitation efforts, where less than 50
gpm water is produced, alternatives other than injection are more
feasible, hence injection is rarely needed.
In all cases, the quality of the water being injected is the
same as the quality of the water already in the aquifer,
providing, of course, the water is injected into the same
geologic horizon and area from which it was originally pumped.
Hydrogeology and Water Use
Hydrocarbon recovery as a form of aquifer remediation may be
required in a wide variety of hydrogeological settings. It is
considered probable at this time that only a small minority of
the large-scale hydrocarbon recovery operations requiring the use
of injection wells would be located over an aquifer being used as
a water supply. Most refineries and major tank farms are
believed to be located on bedrock or over very shallow alluvial
geologic environments not being used for water supply.
Contamination Potential
The overall contamination potential of hydrocarbon recovery
injection wells is unknown; contamination potential must. be
assessed on a case by case basis. Recharging water being pumped
by a hydrocarbon recovery operation back into the same geologic
environment from which the water was originally pumped does not
contribute to the contamination of the water already there. In
many instances removal of the free hydrocarbons alone
accomplishes the objective of the rehabilitation action, i.e.
where drinking water supplies are not threatened by the continued
presence of BTX.
In those instances where the water in the aquifer contains
BTX or other contaminants exceeding drinking water standards and
where drinking water supplies are threatened, treatment of the
water prior to injection should be accomplished. It must be
stressed, however, that cleanup of the water underlying a hydro-
carbon pool must be accompanied by complete cleanup of the hydro-
carbons remaining in the soil above the water table in order to
prevent the water from becoming recontazninated.
Recommendations
No recommendations concerning this type of remediation well
were provided in State reports.
4 — 346
-------
5X29
4.2.8.5 Abandoned Drinking Water/Waste Disposal Wells (5X29)
Well Purpose
Intentionally or unintentionally, unplugged or improperly
abandoned water wells can become receptacles for the disposal of
waste. Intentional misuse may involve disposal of hazardous
wastes, sewage, or simply household garbage. Improperly aban-
doned wells can become the conduit by which unintentional dispo-
sal occurs. Surface runoff draining into a well and the estab-
lishment of a hydraulic connection between aquifers of different
water quality are two examples of unintentional misuse.
An important consideration is that surface or near-surface
contamination may be transferred to potable aquifers without the
benefit of natural clean-up processes. Ground water usually tra-
vels very slowly, a few to tens of feet per year, and during that
downward movement through unsaturated soils, natural purification
occurs. Purification involves filtering, biological, and other
chemical changes. Rainfall runoff or spills entering improperly
abandoned wells around industrial sites, construction sites,
animal feedlots, etc. will be injected directly into an aquifer,
circumventing the purification process.
Inventory and Location
A total of 3,050 abandoned drinking water wells have been
reported. There is also one such well on the FURS inventory.
Documented cases of abandoned drinking water wells used for waste
disposal were rarely found in the State reports. Much of the
reported inventory represents estimates of improperly abandoned
water wells from a few States. Most States reported no such
wells exist. This is understandable since most States do not
make an effort to check the status of the thousands of private
drinking water wells on a periodic basis.
The distribution of reported wells is shown on Table 4-60.
In all likelihood there are probably several hundred to many
thousands of 5X29 wells in every State. Because of a lack of
understanding among the general public as to the nature and
occurrence of ground water and its sensitivity to contamination,
most disposal is probably unintentional. Eventually some of
these wells are discovered after a complaint about poor water
quality from a well owner prompts an investigation.
Construction, Siting, and Operation
A vast array of well designs is possible for this well type.
Local hydrogeologic conditions, preferences on materials, and
construction methods are the sources of variability. Most of
these wells are probably shallow wells dug, bored, or drilled for
livestock and domestic uses. A lack of understanding, finances,
4 — 347
-------
TABLE 4-60 SYN(PSIS OF STATE REPORTS FON ABANOOI€D ORUIINo WATER WiLLS/WASTE DISPOS .(5X29)
5X29
REGION I EPA Confirsed
& REGION Presence
STATES I Of Nell Type
Re u1atiiy Case Studies! Contasination
Systes Unfo. available Potential
Rating
Connecticut
Maine
Massachusetts
wHa sh re
Rhode Island
Veraont
I NO NO N/A
I No No No N/A
1 NO No No N/A
I No No NO I N/A
I No P&A RILES NO N/A
I No No NO N/A
New Jersey
NewY k
IPuerto Rico
IVirgin Islands
II No
i 11 No
II No
II M I
P&A RILES NO
No No
P&A RILES NO
NO NO
- N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Delaware
Maryland
Pennsylvania
IVirninia
West Virginia
III No
III 1 M I
III No
Iii No
III I No
P& RILES NO
P&A RILES No
PI RILES NO
P tA RILES I NO
I P&ARILES No
N/A
N/A
N/A
NIA
N/A
‘
IAlabaaa
IFlorida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
tó’th Carolina
Scuth Carolina
ITenneuee
I
IV I MI
IV 1 YES
IV I MI
IV No
IV I MI
IV No
IV MI
IV MI
I
I PtARILES No N/A
PtA IU.ES I M I N/k
1 PtA RILES MI N/A
No I NO I N/A
I No No I N/A
PtA RILES I M I N/A
I MI No N/A
PtA RILES 1 No N/A
I
—
I
Ililinois
llnthana
Michigan
Minnesota
IOhio
Wisconsin
I
I
V No
V 1 156 WELLS
V 630 W El.L 5
V 1 1,309 WiLLS
V I YES
V : No
I I
PtA RILES 1 No I N/A
MI No N/A
PtA RILES 1 YES 1 N/A
PtA RILES YES N/A
PtA RILES No N/A
PVI RILES No I WA
I I
I
Ifrkansas
Loinsiana
NewMoxico
lOkiahosa
Tewas
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
MI
No
No
No
945 WELLS
I I
PtA RILES No NIA
PtA RILES I No N/A
I No No 1 N/A
PtA RILES I No N/A
I PtA RILES I C 1 N/A
Uosa
Kansas
Misscuri
Nebraska
VII
VII
VII
VII
No
No
No
YES
No No
PtA RILES 1 PC
PtA RILES No
PtA RILES I No
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
I
IColorado ‘
Montana
IIUth Dakota ‘
ISouth Dakota
IUtah
Wyoming
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
YES
IC
No
No
7 WiLLS
No
I
PtA RULES 1 MI
• NO NO
P&ARILES I No
• PtA RILES NO
GAMED I PC
PtA RILES IC
I
HION
N/A
• N/A
N/A I
RPNGE 2-1(7 II9}EST)I
N/A
frizona
California
Hawaii
vada
P&ericanSaaoa
ITr.T err.of P
za s
IDPI
I
IX
IX
IX
II
IX
IX
IX
IX
M I
No
MI
PC
No
No
IC
No
I PtA RILES PC
PtA RILES I PC
I MI IC
PtA RILES No
IC IC
No I NO
I IC No
PC I PG
I
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A I
N/A
N/A
PC
1 No
I
I
Alaska
l ldaho
eqcn
IWashington
X
X
I
I
3 WELLS
No
IC
No
PtA RILES I PG
IPtARILES IC
P&ARIJLESI No
I PVIRILES IC
I
HION
WA
WA
I NO
PGTEi SOI MIIBERS IN This TABLE ARE ESTI1 TES.
4—348
-------
5X29
and regulatory oversight contribute to these wells’ potential to
degrade ground water.
Private, domestic wells are most likely to be found in rural
areas. Therefore, chances of locating improperly abandoned
drinking water wells are probably highest in rural areas where
there is a heavy reliance on ground water. Though fewer in nuin-
ber, such wells located in suburban or urban areas could have a
greater adverse impact on ground—water resources. A municipal
well field contaminated by such wells would be costly indeed.
Injected Fluids and Injection Zone Interactions
Potentially, a spectrum of contaminants including hazardous
chemicals, sewage, and saline water could enter and degrade USDW
through these wells. Dilution or other attenuation mechanisms
may reduce contaminant levels as the injectate moves away from
the well. The areal distribution of contamination is very much
case specific. Variables such as the nature of the contaminant
(i.e. salt, metals, petroleum products, bacteria), injection
rates and volumes, volume of water in the USDW, natural recharge
rate, the tJSDW rock type, background water quality-in the USDW,
and hydraulic conductivity of the USDW will determine the impact
of contamination.
Ground—water contamination caused by faulty well
construction has been documented in an 1,100 square mile area of
Southeast Nebraska by Exner and Spalding (1985). Nitrate-
nitrogen (NO 1 — as N) and coliform contamination were most
prevalent in aug (47%) or augered (80%) wells with open—jointed
casing. Farms in this rural area are cash grain-livestock
operations, and nitrogen fertilizer use is low. Surface and
shallow subsurface leakage into improperly constructed wells from
barnyards and corrals was primarily responsible for the
contamination. Rural water districts have been formed due to the
private well contamination problems. Wells abandoned in favor of
a public supply add to the problem because they are not being
properly abandoned.
The Minnesota State report describes an on-going practice of
domestic sewage disposal by 75 homes via old water wells. In
this case the area was connected to a city water supply and the
private well owners chose not to plug their wells or maintain
them as reserve water supplies. Contamination would be in the
form of NO 1 and fecal coliform. Other contaminants might be
household cleaning agents, paint, and solvents.
Cases of herbicides or pesticides entering USDW through
improperly constructed or abandoned water wells are also known.
Improperly constructed farinstead water supply wells acting as
conduits for herbicide or pesticide contamination are discussed
by Jones (1973), and Exner and Spalding (1985).
4 — 349
-------
5X29
Hydrogeology and Water Use
Shallow aquifers utilized for private domestic and/or live-
stock water supplies are probably most affected by these wells.
Historically, these aquifers have had some of the best quality
ground water available.
In 1980, 97 percent of rural domestic water supplies in the
United States was obtained from ground-water sources (USGS,
1985). The word “rural” carries false connotations of
“uninhabited”. Actually, about 42 million people were served by
their own supply of domestic well water in 1975 (Pettyjohn, et.
al., 1979).
Problems with the sanitary condition of private domestic
wells have been recognized for years. Studies on the condition
of individual water supplies provided by wells were conducted in
several states including Wyoming, Ohio, Iowa, Georgia, Kentucky,
and Tennessee, during the early 1970’s. At that time it was
estimated that 40 percent of the supplies were polluted by
nitrates or coliform bacteria (Whitsell and Hutchinson, 1973).
The studies concluded that faulty and inadequate well construc-
tion was primarily responsible for the situation (Whitsell and
Hutchinson, 1973).
Contamination Potential
Based on the rating system described in Section 4.1,
abandoned drinking water/waste disposal wells are assessed to
pose a moderate potential to contaminate USDW. These facilities
typically do inject into or above Class I or Class II USDW.
Typical well construction, operation, and maintenance would allow
fluid injection or migration into unintended zones. Injection
fluids may or may not have concentrations of constituents
exceeding standards set by the National Primary or Secondary
Drinking Water Regulations. Based on injectate characteristics
and possibilities for attenuation and dilution, injection may or
may not occur in sufficient volumes or at sufficient rates to
cause an increase in concentration (above background levels) of
the National Primary or Secondary Drinking Water Regulation
parameters in groundwater, or endanger human health or the
environment in a region studied on a group/area basis.
Confirmed incidents of intentional waste disposal via
abandoned water wells seem rare. A literature search of two
electronic ground—water and environmental databases, Enviroline
and Water Resources Abstracts, did not result in a single case
study. Such activities were alluded to in a few State reports,
but only Minnesota and Michigan had documented occurrences.
The major contamination problem seems to be the uninten-
tional injection caused by faulty or inadequate well construction
4 — 350
-------
5X29
and abandonment. The evidence points to a broad scale problem,
especially in rural areas. The most significant contaminants are
nitrates and coliform bacteria, both health hazards.
This well type is rated as a moderate contamination poten-
tial according to the rating scheme. Yes answers can be given to
the first three questions under high contamination potential.
The fourth question, concerning injection volumes, cannot be
answered affirmatively. Exner and Spalding (1985) found that NO
contamination varied widely in their study area, indicative o
point-source contamination. Contaminant plumes from such wells
may have crossed property lines but had not spread to affect all
water supplies in the 1,100 square mile study area.
Current Regulatory Approach
Abandoned drinking water wells used for injection are
authorized by rule under Federally-administered UIC programs (see
Section 1). According to State reports received, the direct
implementation States have not issued tJIC permits for this
injection practice.
According to Gass and others (1977), most States have some
regulations dealing with abandonment of water wells. At the time
of their investigation, many of the State programs were inade-
quate. Some of the major reforms suggested in the Minnesota
report included:
1. procedures for well abandonment need to be described in
detail for each different subsurface environment;
2. provisions need to be made for enforcement of
abandonment regulations; and
3. requirements need to be made for permanent plugging and
abandonment procedures to be done by licensed water
well drillers.
Recommended plugging and abandonment procedures from two
organizations, USEPA, and the ? 1 merican Water Works Association
are referenced in Appendix E. States having some kind of regula-
tion are indicated on Table 4-63. The regulatory status of
fifteen states, the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Guam,
the Trust Territories of the Pacific Islands and the Commonwealth
of the Mariana Islands is unknown.
Recominenda t ions
Utilization of former water wells for intentional waste
disposal requires regulatory oversight. Such wells would be
injecting directly into USDW. Years of neglect or inadequate
construction standards could result in a well becoming a
4 — 351
-------
5X29
hydraulic connection between aquifers of varying water quality.
Limitations on injectate quality and quantity must be imposed to
protect USDW if these wells are allowed to operate.
The USEPA Region V DI program stresses that the issue of
abandoned drinking water wells should be seriously considered.
Abandoned drinking water wells are a prime suspect for surface
runoff which is an uncontrolled source of contaminants. Any
uncontrolled source of contaminants poses a high potential for
contamination of USDW. These wells are completed in zones that
are currently being used for drinking water or may be used
sometime in the future.
Unintentional injection through improperly plugged and
abandoned water supply wells is a widespread problem. Most
States already have regulations concerning abandonment, but due
to the large numbers of private wells in existence, inspection
and enforcement is not feasible. In some cases the plugging and
abandonment procedures are not described in sufficient detail in
the State regulations to protect USDW. The danger of inadequate
plugging and abandonment is also present in several States where
persons performing such work do not have to be licensed water
well drillers. The USEPA may be able to bring a more
standardized approach to plugging and abandoning water wells
among the States, Territories, and Possessions.
The problem of locating these improperly plugged and
abandoned wells and the question of who will pay to permanently
seal the wells will be difficult to resolve. Well owners may not
call attention to their abandoned wells because they do not want
to pay the $500 - $1,500 fee to plug and abandon the average 4-
inch diameter domestic well (Minnesota, 1986). Without well
owners’ help, State and local officials do not have the
personnel, time, or money to perform inspections to locate the
wel is.
The answer seems to lie in federal support of approved State
programs to locate and properly plug and abandon these wells.
Puerto Rico, Indiana, Michigan, and Minnesota recommend that
better inventories be established. The Minnesota Department of
Health has undertaken such a program, although costs are the
responsibility of the well owner. The Minnesota program deserves
study because (1) it tries to establish the scope of the problem,
(2) areas of the State have been prioritized for action, and (3)
procedures for plugging and abandonment are described. The USEPA
would have to produce a similar guidance document to the States
should this approach be taken nationally. The Minnesota Depart-
ment of Health program is included in the list of supporting data
in Appendix E.
Utah suggests that the only corrective alternative for these
wells is closure and that this practice must be halted to prevent
aquifer contamination. Utah also suggests that sanitary sewer
• hook-up should be required for domestic waste disposal and dispo-
4 — 352
-------
5X29
sal of industrial wastes which have received necessary pretreat—
rnent. Hazardous waste should be handled in accordance with RCRA
regulations. It appears that the most practical way these wells
can be located and closed is to educate the public and personnel
in other government programs (i.e., RCRA, NPDES, local environ-
mental and planning/building programs) in how to locate these
wells, what they consist of, and the damage they can do to ground
water.
4 — 353
-------
SECTION 5
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
5.1 CURRENT INVENTORY
5.1.1 NATIONAL INVENTORY
The Class V Injection well inventory, based on State
reports, is conservatively estimated to be 173,159 wells. Well
types have been grouped into seven main categories for the
purposes of the National inventory:
1. Drainage Wells;
2. Geothermal Reinjection Wells;
3. Domestic Wastewater Disposal Wells;
4. Mineral and Fossil Fuel Recovery Related Wells;
5. Industrial/Commercial/Utility Disposal Wells;
6. Recharge Wells; and
7. Miscellaneous Wells.
Based on the purpose of the well and the origin of the injection
fluids, 30 well types have been identified and inventoried f or
this report. A summary of the numbers of Class V well types,
shown in Table 5—1, indicates over 94 percent of the inventory is
from four categories of wells: drainage wells, domestic
wastewater disposal wells, geothermal wells (mostly heat pump/air
conditioning return flow wells), and mineral and fossil fuel
recovery related wells. These four categories are predominantly
comprised of low-tech wells. Low-tech wells typically 1) have
simple casing designs and well head equipment and 2) inject to
shallow formations by gravity flow or low volume pumps. In
contrast, high-tech wells typically 1) have multiple casing
strings, 2) have sophisticated welihead equipment to control and
measure pressure and volume of injected fluid, and 3) inject high
volumes into deep formations.
The Class V injection well inventory is characterized by
extreme variations in database completeness and quality. In
general, inventories for high-tech Class V wells are more
accurate than those for low-tech wells.
Because high-tech Class V injection wells are typically
associated with special industries or large scale remediation and
disposal projects, they constitute a small proportion of all
Class V wells. They also tend to be localized, and are easier for
regulatory agencies to inventory and monitor. In addition,
several agencies may be involved with these operations for
5—1
-------
TABLE 5—1:
CLASS V WELL NATIONAL INVENTORY
RANKED BY WELL CLASSIFICATION
1 WELL TYPE I
& CAiEGORY
TOTAL
*WELLS
ZOF
TOTAL
I ___________ I — I
I I I
I ___________ I ___ I I
I I — _—— I I
TOTAL
173159
b c)
IDRAINAGE
IDOMESTIC
I6EOTHERMAL
IMINERAL
MISCELLANEO I
IRECHARGE
I INDUSTRIAL
100744
43688
10163
0— I l ‘ ‘
o S S
.3754
3719
2 7 Q
58. 2
25.2
5.9
5.0
-‘ r)
- S
2.1
1.4
5-2
-------
drilling and waste discharge permits at local, county, and state
levels.
It has also been found that, in general, operators of high-
tech wells are more informed about existing regulations and more
responsible in reporting activities than are owner/operators of
some types of low-tech wells. As a result, files maintained by
high-tech well operators tend to be more complete, whereas no
such files may exist for many low—tech wells.
A number of inspection programs have been conducted that
target high-tech Class V injection wells. These inspections have
provided valuable inventory data for facilities inspected, as
well as other facilities owned by the same owner/operator. The
result of all these factors has been a generally complete
inventory database for high-tech wells and a generally poor to
nonexistent one for low—tech wells.
The high-tech Class V database is relatively good; however
it is certain that uninventoried facilities exist, and files for
certain other high-tech facilities are lacking in technical data.
The data summarized in this section were submitted by 56
States, Territories, or Possessions of the United States. The
inventory data reveal that Class V wells are not distributed
evenly among the ten USEPA Regions. In fact, four Regions
contain over 80 percent of the Class V wells inventoried. Region
IX alone accounts for 37 percent of Class V wells. Table 5-2
summarizes the distribution of wells by USEPA Region.
Several well types have very incomplete inventories. In
general, the well types which have been most difficult to inven-
tory are those for which records are kept only at a local level
or registration or permitting of the wells has not been required.
The well types most seriously impacted by these limitations are:
1. All types of drainage wells (5F1, 5D2, 5D3, 5D4) ;
2. All types of domestic wastewater disposal wells (5W9,
5W10, 5W11, 5W12, 5W31, 5W32)
3. Industrial disposal wells (5W20) ;
4. Automobile service station disposal wells (5W28); and
5. Abandoned drinking water/waste wells (5X29).
5—3
-------
TABLE 5—2: CLASS V NATIONAL WELL INVENTOR/
RANKED B? USEPA REGION
I I I I
I I I I
EPA : TOTAL 7. OF
REGION #WELLS TOTAL
I — — — I _________ I _______ _ I
I I I I
IX 64214 : 37.1
X 1 29826 t 17.2 1
IV 1 27911 16.1 1
V 1 17772 10.3
VIII 1 9015 5.2
I IT I I C fl I
I St I 7.J%J I J.4.. I
VII 1 6675 1 3.9
III 1 4589 1 2.7
VI 1 3843 1 2.2 1
I 1 364 1 0.2 1
— I I I
I — I I I
1 TOTAL 1 173159 1 100 1
5—4
-------
5.2 ASSESSMENT OF WELL TYPES
5.2.1. REVIEW OF RATING SCHEME
The available data were used in Section 4 to qualitatively
assess the consequences of injection on current or potential
beneficial uses of USDW. Four major criteria entered into the
assessment of contamination potential:
1. The identification and potential usability of USDW
(water quality parameters);
2. The typical well construction, operation, and maint-
enance as they relate to injection or migration of
injectate into unintended zones;
3. The injection fluid characteristics with regard to the
water quality parameters; and
4. The estimated degree and areal extent of contamination
based on injection rates and volumes, and contaminant
transport and fate in the USDW.
The rating system consists of a series of questions based on the
four major criteria which produce ItYESII or “NO” answers. Section
4.1 fully describes the methods used in assessing contamination
potential.
5.3 SUMMARY OF WELL TYPE ASSESSMENTS
Application of the rating system resulted in each well type
being rated as having a high, moderate, low, or unknown contami-
nation potential. For some well types, one typical injection
situation was difficult to establish. In these cases, a range of
contamination potentials is indicated. The well types are listed
below under all the appropriate contamination potential headings.
In all following tables, the well type is listed under the high-
est contamination potential ascribed in a range. Stricter State
regulation of some well types rated high or moderate may lower
the assessment of their contamination potential. Table 5-3 lists
the number of wells by contamination potential for each State.
Table 5-4 summarizes by Region the numbers of wells reported.
Figures 5—1 through 5—4 illustrate the distribution of wells by
contamination potential and Region.
High Contamination Potential
— Agricultural drainage wells, 5F1;
- Improved sinkholes, 5D3 (high to moderate);
5—5
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
TABLE 5-4: CLASS V INJECTION WELL IPWENIONY BY REGION
REGION I HIGH IP1OD ATE: LOW I L*NO 4: TOTAL
! ! —.—!
I I 2961 52: 241 21 364:
I I I I I
I I I I I I
1 II I 50651 36261 229: 101 69501
I I I I •
I I I I I I
1 1111 9471 1349: 2293: 01 4589
I I I I I I
I I I I I I
1 IV 1 21294: 3613 1 3000 1 14 I 27911 1
I I I I
I I I U U I I
VI 90821 73181 1224 981 171721
I I I I U I
I I U U U I —
VII 2921 11061 2296 1491 --36431
• I I I I I
U I I I I I
I VII 1 504 1 4354 1 1802 15 1 6675 I
• I I I I
I I U I I I I
I VIII 1 471 1 8229 1 234 1 81: 9015 1
I I I I I I I
I I I U I U I
I IX 1 3458 1 59673 1 1063 D l 64214 1
I I I I I I I
I I U I I I
I 1 9742 I 19814 1 150 120 1 29826 I
I _______ I _______ I _______ I _______ I _______ I _______
I I I I I I I
TOTAL 51151 I 109194 1 12335 479 1 173159
5—7
-------
0 1w
cn
-1
=$
2 ”
I li
HIGH CONTMIINATION POTENTIAL.
I
REG V
US A REGION
-------
60000
MODERATE COK AMINA11ON POTOThAL
V/I/I//I//A V//I/I//I/A ii
W
55000
50000
45000
40000
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
REG I REG II REG III
REG IV REG V REG v i REG VII
USEPA REGION
REG VIU REG IX REG X
-------
IJ,-w
r -I
U) 0
oz
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
z
1000
500
0
LOW CONTMIINA11ON P0T ITIAL
REGV REGVI
USEPA REGION
-------
G)
-
ZQr
5 :;:I:zJ
G)
I
RECV RECVI
USEPA REGION
-n
1
CD
01
cONTA&IINA11ON POIENTIAL UNKNOWN
-------
- Raw sewage waste disposal wells, 5W9, and cesspools,
5W10;
— Septic systems, 5W11, 5W31, 5W32;
— Domestic wastewater treatment plant disposal wells,
5Wl2 (high to low);
- Industrial process water and waste disposal wells,
5W20;
— Automobile service station disposal wells, 5X28; and
— Aquifer recharge wells, 5R21 (high to low).
Moderate Contamination Potential
- Storm Water drainage, 5D2, and industrial drainage
wells, 5D4;
- Improved sinkholes, 5D3, (high to moderate);
— Special drainage wells, 5G30 (moderate to low);
— Electric power, 5A5, and direct heat reinjection wells,
5A6;
— Aquaculture return flow wells, 5A8;
— Domestic wastewater treatment plant disposal wells,
5W12 (high to low);
— Mining, sand, or other backfill wells, 5X13;
— In—situ fossil fuel recovery wells, 5X15;
- Cooling water return flow wells, 5A19, (moderate to
low)
— Aquifer recharge wells, 5R21 (high to low);
- Experimental technology wells, 5X25 (moderate to low);
and
— Abandoned drinking water/waste wells disposal wells,
5X2 9.
5 — 12
-------
Low Contamination Potential
- Special drainage wells, 5G30 (moderate to low);
- Heat pump/air conditioning return flow wells, 5A7;
- Domestic wastewater treatment plant disposal wells,
5W12 (high to low);
- Solution mining wells, 5X14; -
- Spent brine return flow wells, 5X16;
- Cooling water return flow wells, 5A19 (moderate to low);
- Aquifer recharge wells, 5R21 (high to low);
— Saline water intrusion barrier wells, 5B22;
- Subsidence control wells, 5S23; and
— Experimental technology wells, 5X25 (moderate to low).
Unknown Contamination Potential
- Radioactive Waste Disposal Wells, 5N24 ; and
- Aquifer remediation related wells, 5X26 (including
hydrocarbon recovery related injection wells).
5 • 3 • 1 REGIONAL BREAKDOWN OF INVENTORY ACCORDING TO CONTAMINATION
POTENTIAL
A series of tables have been compiled to indicate the
breakdown of well types in each USEPA Region. The well types and
numbers are listed in Tables 5-5 to 5-14 under headings which
group well types by contamination potential. The tables are
useful tools for prioritizing additional Class V inventory and
assessment efforts in the various Regions.
5.3.2 SUMMARY OF REGULATORY SYSTEMS CURRENTLY KNOWN TO BE IN
EFFECT
Class V injection wells are authorized by rule under the
Federally—administered UIC programs (Section 1). Several States,
however, implement their own methods of regulating Class V wells.
Table 5-15 lists and Figure 5—5 illustrates the known regulatory
systems in effect.
5 — 13
-------
TABLE 5—5: WELL TYPES IN REGION I
CLASSIFIED BY CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL
WELL TYPE & CLASSIFICATION WELL #‘S : Y. OF TOTAL
I I £
HIGH CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL
I I
Imoroved Sinkholes (5D3) 3 : 0.8
Septic UndifferentiatedC5wll) 97 : 26.6
:Domestic WW Treatment Plant Effluent(5W12) : 72 1 19.8
tlndustr ial Process Water & WW(5W20) 99 1 27.2
lAutomobile Service StationCSX2S) : 14 3.8
lAquifer Recharge We lls(5R21} 1 0.3
MODERATE CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL
I I I
• I I I
Storm Water Drainage(5D2) 22 6.0 1
l lndustrial Drainage(5D4) 1 16 1 4.4
ICooling Water Return Flow Wells(5A19) 14 3.8
LOW CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL I I
I I I I
I I I I
Heat Pump/AC Return Flow We lls(5A7) 1 24 1 6.6
CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL UNKNOWN
I I I I
I I I
lAquifer Remediation Related Weils(5X26) 1 2 1 0.5 1
I I I £
I I I I
I I ____________ I I
I I I I
TOTAL 1 364 1 100.0
5-14
-------
TABLE 5—6: WELL TYPES IN REGION Il
CLASSIFIED BY CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL
WELL TYPE CLASSIFICATION WELL #S •h OF TOTAL
I I
I I I
I I
HIGH CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL
I I
:Agricu ltural Drainaqe(5F1) 1 150 1.7
Umproved Sinkholes (5D3) 10 0.1
Untreated Sewage Disp(5W9) 5 u.1
:Cesspools5W IO 68 0.8
Septic Undi erentiated(5W11) 1260 14.1
Septic with Well C5W31) 85 0.9
Septic with Drainfield(5W32) 63 0.7
IDomestic WW Treatment Plant E+fluent(5W12) 22 0.2
lndustr:al Process Water & WW(5W20) 401 4.5
Automobi1e Service Station(5X28) 21 0.2
Aquifer Recharge Wells(5R21) 3000 33.5
I MODERATE CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL
I I
I I I
Storm Water Dra nage(5D2) 2504 28.0
Undustrial Drainage(504) 111 12.5
ICooling Water Return Flow Wells(5A19) 6 0.1
LOW CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL
I I I
• I
IHeat Pump/AC Return Flew Wells(5A7) 181 2.0
ISolution Mining Wells(5X14) 48 1 0.5 1
CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL UNkNOWN
I I I
I I I
101
I TOTAL 1 8950 1 100.0 1
5—15
-------
TABLE 5—7: WELL TYPES IN RE 3I0N III
CLASSIFIED BY CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL
WELL TYPE & CLASSIFICATION WELL #5 . OF TOTAL
I I
I I I
HI6H CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL
I I I
I I I
Sept c Undiffer ntiateO(5W11) 8 0.2
Septic w th Well (5W31) 903 19.7
Domestic WW Treatment Plant Effluent(5W12) 5 0.1
Industrial Process Water & WW(5W20) 30 0.7
Automobile Service Station(5X28) : 1 0.0
I I I
MODERATE CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL
I I I
I I I
Storm Water Drainage(5D2) 273 5.9
Industrial Drainage(5D4) 0.1
Plining Sand/Other Backfill Wells(5X13) 1070 1 23.3
LOW CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL
I I
• I
IHeat Pump/AC Return Flow Wells(5A7) 2291 49.9
Spent—Brine Return Flow We1ls 5X16) 2 0.0
CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL UNKNOWN
I I
• I I
None
I — —— I _____
— —— — I — I —
TOTAL 4589 1 100.0
5—16
-------
TABLE 5—8: WELL TYPES IN REGION IV
CLASSIFIED BY CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL
WELL TYPE & CLASSIFICATION WELL 4 S 7. OF TOTAL
HIGH CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL
Agrzcultural Drainage(5F1) I 4
llmproved Sinkholes (5D3) SI 0.3
Septic Undifferentiated(5W11) 190(11 68.1
Septic with We11CSW3 I) 736 2.6
Septic with Drainfzeld(5W32) - 200 0.7
IDomestic WW Treatment Plant Effluent(5W12) 1 556 2.0
Industrial Process Water & WW(5W20) 318 1.1
Aquifer Recharge Wells(5R2 1) 349 1.3
MODERATE CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL
I I
I I U
Storin Water Drainage(5D2) 2072 7.4
lindustrial Drainage(5D4) 1 2 0.0
Special Drainage Wells(5G30) 1385 5.0
IMifling Sand/Other Backfill Wells(5X13) 61 0.2
Cooling Water Return Flow Wells(5A19) 75 0.3
Experimental Technology Wells(5X25) 18 0.1
LOW CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL
I I I
Heat Pump/AC Return Flow Wells(5A7) 2998 10.7
Saline Water Intrusion Barrier Wells(5922) 2 0.0
I I I
I I I
CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL UNKNOWN
• I
lRadioactive Waste Disposal Wells(5N24) 1 1 1 0.0 1
lAquifer Reniediation Related Wells(5X26) 13 0.0 I
I I
I I I
1 I
TOTAL 1 27911 1 100.0
5—17
-------
ABLE 5—9: WELL TYPES IN REGION V
CLASSIFIED BY CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL
WELL TYPE & CL S3IFICATION I WELL *‘S 7 OF TOTAL
I I I
HIGH CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL I
I I
I I I
IAgricultural Drainagi’5F1) 147 0.8
Unproved Sinkholes C5D3} 135 1 0.8
UntreateD Sewage Disp (5W9) 959 1 5.4
Cesspoolsth wl o) 65 1 0.4 1
ISeptic Undifferentiated(5W11) 4537 25.5
:Septic with Well(5W31) 1 2635 1 14.8
:Domestic WW Treatment Plant E+fluent(5W12) : 41 0.2
lindustrial Process Water & WW(5W20) I 527 1 3.0
Automobile Service Stationt5 x2fi) 34 0.2
lAquifer Recharge Wells(5R21) 2 1 0.0
MODERATE CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL
I I I I
I I I I
IStorm Water DrainageC5D2) 4987 1 28.1
l lndustrial Drainage(504) 1 191 1 1.1
IMining Sand/Other Backfill Wells(5X13) 5 1 0.0
In—situ Fossil Fuel Recovery Welis(5X15) 2 0.0 1
ICooling Water Return Flow Wells(5A19) 1 90 1 0.5
lExperimental Technology We11sC5X25) 8 0.0
Abandoned Drinking Water Wells(5X29) 1 2095 11.8 1
I I I I
I I I I
LOW CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL
I I
IHeat Pump/AC Return Flow Wel ls(5A7) 1164 1 8.5
ISolution Mining Wells(5X14) 1 15 0.1
Spent—Brine Return Flow Wells( SX1b) 41 0.2
Subsidence Control Wel1sC5523) 1 4 1 0.0
I I I
I I I
CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL UNKNOWN I I
I I I I
I I I I
Radioactive Waste Disposal Wells(SNZ4) 1 1 1 0.0 1
TOTAL 1 17772 1 100.0 1
5—18
-------
TABLE 5—10: WELL TYPES IN REGION VI
CLASSIFIED BY CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL
WELL TYPE & CLASSIFICATION I WELL *S 7. OF TOTAL I
I
HIGH CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL
I I p
I I I
lAgricultural Drainage(5F1) 108 2.8
lUntreated Sewage Disp(5W9) 10 1 0.
lCesspoolsC SW lO 30 0. 3
ISeptic Undif+erentiated(5W11) 1 66 1.7
lindustrial Process Water & WW(5W20) 4 0.1
lAquifer Recharge Wells(5R21) 74
MODERATE CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL
I I I
I I I
Storm Water Drainage(5D2) 57 1 ,5
Industrial Drainage(5D4) 5 0.1
ISpecial Drainage Wells(5G30) 1 1 0.0
IDirect Heat Reinjection WeIl(5A6) 1 3 0.1
Mining Sand/Other Backfill WellsC5X l3) 1 76 2.’)
Cooling Water Return Flow Wells(5A19) 1 7 0.2
;Experimental Technology Wells(5X25i 1 12 0.3
lAbandoned Drinking Water WelIs(5X29) 945 24.6
LOW CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL
I I
I I
IHeat Pump/AC Return Flow Wells(5A7) 1146 29.8 1
ISolution Mining Wells(5X14) 1 1073 27.9
ISpent—Brine Return Flow Wells(5X16) 77 2.0 1
I I I
I I I
CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL UNKNOWN 1
I I
I I I
:Radioactive Waste Disposal WelIs(5N24) 1 2 1 0.1
1 1471
TOTAL 3843 1 100.0
5—19
-------
TABLE 5—11: WELL TYPES IN REGION ‘111
CLASSIFIED BY CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL
WELL TYPE & CLASSIFICATION WELL *S fl OF TOTAL
HIGH CONTAMINATION 1 OTENTIAL
I I
Agricultural Drainaae(ZF1)
Usnproved Slnkhole5 t5D , ..z
ISeptic IJnd fferentiated(5W11) U.1
Automobile Service Station 5X28) 0.1
Aquifer Recharge Wells(5R21) a o.i
MODERATE CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL
I I
Storm Water Dra3naqe(5D2) 1’) 0.1
IMining Sand/Other Backfill WeIls 5X13) 42 i ó4.B
:cooling Water Return Flow Wells(5A19) 1 0.2
Experimental Technology Wells(5X25) 2
LOW CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL
I I
Heat Pump/AC Return Flow Wells(5A7} 1802 27.0
I P
CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL UNKNOWN
I I
I I I
TOTAL ó75
5—20
-------
TABLE 5—12: WELL TYPES IN REGION VIII
CLASSIFIED BY CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL
WELL TYPE & CLASSIFICATION WELL *5 h OF TOTAL
I I I
I I I
HIGH CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL
I I I
I I I
Agricultural Drainaqe(5F1) 1 0.0
CesspoolsCSWIO) 3 : 0.0
Septic Undifferentiated(5W11) 422 4.7 1
Industrial Process Water & WW(5W20) 36 0.4
lAutomobile Service Station(5X28) 2 1 0.0 1
Aquifer Recharge Wells(5R21) 7 0.1
MODERATE CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL
I I I
I I I
Storm Water Drainage(5D2) 7250 80.4
Undustrial Drainage(5D4) 1 321 3.6
Special Drainage WellsC5G3O) 55 0.6
IDirect Heat Reinjection Well(5A6) : 3 u.0
Mining Sand/Other Backfill Wells(5X13) 386 4.3
Un—situ Fossil Fuel Recovery Wells(5X15) 64 0.7
ICooling Water Return Flow Wells(5A19) 6 0.1 1
Experimental Technology Wells(5X25) 137 1.5
Abandoned Drinking Water Wells(5X29) 7 0.1
LOW CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL
Heat Pump/AC Return Flow Wells(5A7) 1 219 1 2.4
ISolution Mining Wells(5X14) 14 0.2
Spent—Brine Return Flow Wells(5X16) 1 1 0.0 1
CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL UNKNOWN 1
I I I
I I I
TOTAL 9015 1 100.0 1
5—21
-------
TABLE 5—13: WELL TYPES IN REGION IX
CLASSIFIED BY CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL
WELL TYPE & CLASSIFICATION WELL *‘S 7. OF TOTAL
I I
I I
HIGH CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL
I I I I
I I I I
lllntreated Sewage Disp(5W9) 1 3 0.0
Cesspools(SW1O) 120 0.2
Septic Undifferentiated(5W11) 1313 1 2.0
ISeptic with Well(5W31) 73 0.1
Septic with Drainfield(5W32) 1279 2 .u
lDoinestic WW Treatment Plant Effluent(5W12) 358 0.a
Undustrial Process Water I WW(5W20) 2U9 0.3
lAquifer Recharge Wells(5R21) 103 0.2
MODERATE CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL
I I I I
I I I I
lStorm Water Drainage(5D2) 59483 92.6
llndustrial Drainage(5D4) 4 0.0
Special Drainage Wells(5G30) 1 0.0
Electric Power Reinjection Well(5A5) 81 0.1
Direct Heat Rein ection 14e11(5A6) 7 0.0
1GW A uaculture Return Flow Well(5A8) 1 25 1 0.0 1
Ulining Sand/Other Backfill WellsC5X13) 1 1 1 0.0 1
ICooling Water Return Flow Wells(5A19) 26 1 0.0 1
Experimental Technology Wells(5X25) 1 45 1 0.1 1
LOW CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL
I I I I
• I I I
IHeat Pump/AC Return Flow Wells(5A7) 1 53 1 0.1 1
lSolution Mining Wells(5X14) 1 875 1 1.4 1
ISaline Water Intrusion Barrier Wells(5B22) 1 155 1 0.2 1
I I I
I I I
CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL UNKNOWN 1
I I
None I
I — — — I I
I I I
1 TOTAL 1 64214 1 100.0 1
5-22
-------
TABLE 5—14: WELL TYPES IN REGION X
CLASSIFIED BY CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL
WELL TYPE & CLASSIFICATION WELL *S X OF TOTAL
p — — ——————————————————————— — I
p — — — p
• I I
• I I
HIGH CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL
p I I I
I I I I
Agricultural Drainage(SF1) 654 2.2
Uintreated Sewage Disp(5W9} 3 : 0.0 1
Cesspools(5W10) 6336 1 21.2
Septic Undifferentiated(SWLI) 1 60 1 0.2
Iseptac with Well(5W31) 3 0.0 1
ISeptac with Drainfaeld(5W32) 2241 7.5
Domestac WW Treatment Plant Effluent(5W12) 45 0.2
Undustrial Process Water & WW(5W20) 365 1.2
Automobale Service Station(5X28) 1 21 1 0.1
Aquifer Recharge Wells(5R21) 14 0.0
MODERATE CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL I
I I I I
I I I I
IStorm Water Drainage(5D2) 1 16910 1 56.7
Undustrial Drainage(5D4) 2141 7.2
ISpecial Drainage We11sC5630) 1 115 0.4 1
Electric Power Reinjection Well(5A5) 8 1 0.0
Direct Heat Reinjection Well(5A6) 8 1 0.0
Mining Sand/Other Backfill Wells(5X13) 1 575 1 1.9 1
Cooling Water Return Flow Wells(5A19) 51 0.2
lExperimental Technology Wells(5X25) 3 0.0
Abandoned Drinking Water Wells(5X29) 3 1 0.0 1
LOW CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL
I I
I I I I
IHeat Pump/AC Return Flow Wells(5A7) 150 0.5
CONTAMINATION POTENTIAL UNKNOWN I
I I I
I I I I
Radloactive Waste Disposal Wells(5N24) 1 120 1 0.4 1
I I I I
I I I I
I — — I — — I — — I
I — — — — 1 I I
TOTAL 1 29826 1 100.0 1
5-23
-------
STIlES
‘V
AESIOI
s 511
517 5
519
t0tSl C 1ENATEB
>O ’
CmC
C)
-
-..J _n
C/)
rn-i
corn
—Co
rn
—10
‘-‘C
I -dr .
z>
rn-i
- 0
:zi
C’)
-<
C / )
-I
rn
C /)
5110 5111 5131 5112
Ic mictiojt
:i n.
ilIiuatbus.tti
:im tI r.
Jliodi iii
;Vu- t
Ti
I
I
I
1
I
N/A PEAOT
N/A Nil
Nil EIDPT
Nil Nil
N/A N/A
Nil Nil
N/A
Nil
N/I
Nil
Nil
Nil
N/A N/A
N/I Nil
N/ A N/A
N/A Nil
Nil Nil
N/l N/I
: N SA
WA
I Ill
N/l
I I II
N/l
Nil
N/A
N/I
Nil
N/l
N/I
IT
N/A
PEIAIT>I 0
N/ I
N/A
N/A
WA
N/A
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
WA N/A 0 N/A
N/A N/A Nil N/A
Nil Nil PEMIT) 151 D N/A
Nil Nil Nil Nil
N/l I N/I N/l Nil
N/l Nil N/A Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
WA
Nil
Nil
Nil
PE1iIIT>l 9 D
Nil
N/A
Nil
Illu J,uiy
1I Vrrk
IPuvto Ricc
i i
II
II
Nil WP!ES PENIIIT
t(S P iT PEAIITMK A
N/A N/l
Nil
N/A
P91 11T
NIP1 S PE IIT N/A
IIT}iK B 9 N/A
N/A N/A
I
WI
I NM
WI
Nil
N/A
N/I
AU/PE1 UT
P EINI IT
N/I
N/l
Nil
N /A
1111 NWE P IIT NIPtEN P NUT N/A
N/l PEINIIT>IK 0 P IIT)1K A D P IT>IK D
Nil N/A N M N/A
N/l
P 9 1 1 1 1 ) 1 K A D
Ill
Nil
P91IIT
P iT
Virg1i Iuiandi
II
N/A Nil
N/A
N/I Nil
I P11
N/A
N/I
N/A
N/A N/l Nil Nil
I/A
N/A
Dulasar.
!Ilaryiang
IPuuiy lvaaa
IVirlinla
IinL Virginia
Ill
III
III
III
III
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
Nil Nil
N/I N/A
Nil N/I
N/A
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
N/l N/A
£91111 N/A
N/A N/A
N/I N/A
N/A Nil
• NSA
WI
I WA
N/A
I Nil
Nil
N/I
Nil
N/A
N/A
P91111
IIT
N/A
N/l
N/I
N/A
Nil
Nil
N/I
Nil
Nil N/I WI Nil
Nil N/A N/A IT
Nil N/I N/A Nil
Nil N/I Nil N/A
N/A Nil N/l N/A
Nil
Nil
WA
£ 1 1
Nil
N/I
N/A
N/A
Nil
Nil
lI iabs
Iflwida
IGswgia
IKa%tizky
Illiuiuippi
110th Carolina
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
IV
N/I PEJNIIT
P lT P91IIT
fl/MED NAIlED
N/I L1KM.
Nil Nil
N/I Nil
Nil
I1T
MED
L
N/A
Nil
N/I N/A
PEI 1IIIT PEAJ1T/AJI
M I) Nil
£91111 Nil
Nil N/A
N/A N/A
I I/l
Nil
N/A
• WI
Nil
N/A
N/A
N/l
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
N/l
PEA IIT
MED
N/I
Nil
PEAI IT
N/I
N/l
N/l
N/I
N/A
Nil
N/A Nil PEPJ IIT Nil
N/A Nil £91 1 11 Nil
Nil N/I Nil N/I
N/A Nil Nil AU
N/I Nil N/I Nil
N/A N/A Nil N/A
Nil
I/l
Nil
N/I
£ 1 1
Nil
Nil
£ 9 1 111
Nil
IlWIl lE
N/I
N/A
1S ith Carolina
Tumms
Ililinois
Ilodma
litchigu
Illimusota
lOno
INiucusin
Dukanuai
ILaiuima
1110 INixico
IIF Isk.I
IT u sas
IV
IV
—
V
V
V
V
V
V
—i
VI
VI
VI
VI •
VI
N/A £91 1 11
N/I P91111
AU ALE
N/A Nil
N/A Nil
N/l N/I
N/A Nil
It/A tOE
N/A N/A
N/A Nil
Nil ESAIS1NATIOI
AU AU
Nil N/A
Nil
PEAIIT
Nil
10€
10€
POE
10€
N/I
Nil
Nil
N/I
N/I
Nil
N/I Nil
N/I N/I
AlE Nil
N/l N/l
Nil N/I
F dA N/I
N/A Nil
AU Nil
N/l Nil
WED II DiED II
Nil Nil
N/I N/A
Nil Nil
I WA
N/I
I
I/I
I ISA
N/I
I WA
WA
I WA
I N/A
WA
I NSA
N/I
I 191111
N/I
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
N/I
N/A
N/A
N/l
Nil
PErMIT
Nil
PErMIT
AU
N/A
ALE
N /A
Nil
PEAUT
N/I
All
Nil
PErdIlT
ASISIRATIOI
ALE
ALE
N/I
Nil
N/l
Nil
Nil
N/I
N/I
N/A
NI
N/I
N/l
N/I
N/l
N/I N/A Nil N/I
N/I Nil N/I N/A
N/lIED Nil Nil Nil
Nil tIll Nil N/I
N/I N/I Nil Nil
Nil Nil AU N/I
N/A Nil Nil N/I
Nil Il/A Nil AU
N/I N/I N/I N/I
N/A Il /I ALE Nil
N/A NAIlED WA ISINATIOI N/I
Il/A Il/I AU N/l
N/I ALE LLtA N/I
I E AI IT
Nil
N/I
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
WI
Nil
WI
Ill
N/I
N/I
AU
PEA IIT
£ 9 1 1 11
N/l
Nil
N/l
N/I
N/I
N/l
N/l
All/PErMIT
U i . .
X m as.
Illiusari
IliNiaska
Calarido
IIbita.a
1 10th Dakota
Ilmith Dakota
Utah
lWpamng
VU
VII
VII
VII •
—
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII
VIII I
1011191191191111 Nil
N/I Nil
JOE N/I
AU ALE
N/A Nil
N/A PErMiT
Nil N/A
Nil Nil
AU ALL
N/A l IT
N/A
N/I
ICE
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
N/A
N/A
N/I
Ill Nil
N/I Nil
N/A N/I
AU ALL
N/I N/A
N/I PErMIT
Nil Nil
N/I Nil
AU N/A
Nil N/A
NSA
Nil
I Nil
AU
I
I I/I
I NSA
I WA
Nil
£91111
I N/I
Nil
N/A
Nil
AW I1T
N/I
N/I
N/A
N/A
PErMiT
N/A
Nil
Nil
EAISI91TIOI
ALL
N/A
POE
PILE
N/A
PErMIT
PErMIT
N/A
N/I
N/I
ALE
N/I
N/A
N/A
N/I
PErMIT
N/A
N/A Nil N/I N/A
Nil Nil N/A N/A
N/A Nil £ 9 1 111 Nil
AU AU IdLE AU
Nil N/I N/I N/A
• Nil N/I £ 8 9 111 N/A
N/A Nil AU N/I
N/A N/I Il/I N/A
MED N/lIED PErMIT P91111
N/A P91111 £81 1111 N/I
Nil
Ill
Nil
AU
Nil
Nil
Nil
Nil
PBNIIT
N/A
Nil
Nil
N/A
ALE
N/A
N/I
N/l
Nil
PErMIT
N/I
Amzma
ICailfarnia
I I 1 0a ij
Ilivada
Ilurican Saaoa
ITr. lay, of P
i D ui s
DIh1
II I
11 •
II I
Ii
II I
II I
II I
II I
£91111 916151911191
Nil PILL
Nil PEDIIT
Nil Nil
N/A Nil
N/A N/A
N/I PErMIT
Nil N/l
N/A
Nil
N/A
N/I
N/I
Nil
N/A
Nil
915151911191 N/A
AU N/l
PErMIT PErMIT
Nil N/A
N/I Nil
N/I Nil
Nil N/A
N/A N/I
N/A
£91111
WA
• UT
I NIA
WI
I N/A
N/I
N/l
PErMIT
N/A
PErMIT
N/I
N/I
N/A
N/I
0€
£91111
Nil
N/l
N/I
N/A
N/I
N/A
Nil
N/l
P l1
Nil
N/A
N/A
Nil
Id/A
Nil ll1 UT PErMIT
N/I BIllED N/I iT
£91111 iT N/I P91111
BAlED N/dIED PErMIT BAlED
• N/I Nil N/A N/A
I N/A N/I N/I N/I
I N/I N/l N/I Nil
N/A N/I JOE N/A
iT
I1T
Nil
P91111
Nil
Nil
N/l
Nil
P IT
PErMIT
P91111
NAIl ED
Nil
Nil
N/A
N/A
Alaska
Ildmho
IDegan
lNashmnqtu
I I
I I
I I
I 1
Nil PErMIT
P91111)18 ft P91111)18 FT
N/A Nil
IIEDEICED POE
Nil
N/I
N/I
Nil
a
N/A N/A I WI
N/I P811111)18 P 11 IIT
N/I N/l I N/l
0€ N/A I N/A
N/A
£91111
PE11II1) AD
N/A
PErMIT
PErMIT
P91111>51 AD
P E AIIT
a
Nil PEAI1T IF PILE PErMIT IF AU £9111111 AU PErMIT IF AU
N/I 1 N/l N/I P91111)18 FT N/A
PEIIIIT>D( AD I MU 8111 N/l N/I
Id/A I Nil N/I P91111/ALE N/I
£811111 IF PILE
I l/I
1911 11)51 AD
PESI IT
PErMIT IF ALE
DIE
N/I
ALE 1
TABLE 5-15A
-------
>0C/
CmC
G)
( PC>
-i
Co
- -n
CI)
rn-i
‘ --4
C/)ri
- C/)
-D
>D
Drn
0- 1
—0
-<
C /)
-<
C / )
-1
m
C ’)
1 EPA MI FIMSIL FIn
• 1lIIMIRI .
PEDMI
MIMXLL BI€aE
1 BI I1
: 1 5113 5114 5515 SUb
I9 5520 5120
1 55 55
1Q4 S1 SUb 5129
I
I I
1 1
I I
I I
1
NIB NIB NIB NIB
NIB NIB NIB NIB
NIB NIB NIB NIB
NIB NIB NIB PUB
N/B NIB NIB NIB
NIB PUB N/B NIB
NIB PEMIIT PEMIIT
NIB NIB NIB
PEMIIT) EPO 1T NIB
NIB N/B NIB
N/B PP/B NIB
N/B NIB NIB
NIB NIB N/B
NIB 11)4 N/B
NIB NiB NB
NIB NB 1114
PUB NIB N/B
NIB NIB IIIB
NIB NIB N IB P 4)
NIB NIB P 14 PG
NIB NIB NIB PG
NIB NIB I II 14)
N/B NIB NIB PIBPUIS
NIB NIB NIB P G 1
I—
11
• II
11
NIB NIB NIB NIB
NIB I1T NIB PEMIIT
NIB NIB N/A NIB
NIB NIB NIB NIB
NIPSES PEMPIT NIPtES PEMPIT NJP 3 PEPIPIT MUJPEINIIT MU/PEPIPIT 1114
PUB IT PEMPIT NIB NIB N/B
NIB NIB NIB NIB NIB 1114
NIB NIB NIB NIB NIB NIB
—
PUB NIB N PEPIPIT PVs PILES
NIB NB PUB PG 1
NIB NIB NIB PtA PIUS:
N/B NIB NIB PG
111 NIB NIB NIB NIB
III • 1T NIB NIB NIB
III IMPE U E TI NIB N/B NIB
III NIB NIB N/B NIB
III •PIDE E T1OI I l/B NIB NIB
PUB NIB NIB
NIB 1T NIB
NIB PEMPIT NIB
NIB PUB NIB
NIB NIB NIB
NIB NIB NIB
PUB NIB NIB
NIB NIB PP/B
NIB NIB NIB
NIB NIB NIB
NIB NIB NIB P IU.ES
NIB NIB NIB PtA PILES
NIB 11/B NIB FIB PILES
• N/B N/B NIB FIB PILES
NIB NIB NIB P 1* PILES
IV • FEMPIT NIB NIB NIB PUlPIT PUlPIT NIB
IV NIB NIB N/B NIB PEPIIIT IIT IT
IV NIB NIB NIB NIB PUlPIT NIB NIB
IV PUlPIT N/B NIB NIB N/B NIB NIB
IV NIB NIB NIB NIB NIB NIB NIB
1 IV NIB NIB NIB NIB I NIB NIB NIB
IV NIB NIB NIB NIB PILE PUlPIT NIB
1111 NIB NIB NIB NIB NIB NIB NIB
N/B NIB NIB
IT FEMPIT NIB
NIB PP/B NIB
P114 NIB NIB
NIB NIB NIB
NIB NIB 11)4
NIB NIB NIB
N/B NIB NIB
NIB PEMI IT PEMIIT FIB PILES
I NIt. PIT NIB P t A PILES
NIB NIB NIB PtA PILES
: NIB NIB W A PG
NIB PILE NIB PG
11/B II FUPIT FIB PILES
NIB NIB NIB PG
NIB NIB NIB P tA PILES
V
V
V
V
V
V
PILE NIB N/B NIB
NIB NIB NIB NIB
NIB NIB NIB NIB
NIB NIB NIB NIB
NIB NIB NIB WA
NIB NIB NIB N/B
PILE PILE MU ,
NIB NIB NIB 1
NIB NIB NIB
NIB NIB NIB I
NIB NIB NIB
PILE PUlPIT N/B •
PILE NIB NIB
Il/B NIB NIB
NIB N/B NIB
NIB NIB NIB
NIB NIB NIB
NIB NIB PUlPIT
PILE MU PUB P 1* PILES
NIB NIB NIB PG
NIB NIB NIB FIAPILESI
NIB N/B NIB PtA PILES
NIB NIB NIB FlAWS.
NIB NIB RU FIB PILES
VI NIB NIB NIB PEMUT
VI NIB NIB NIB NIB
VI NIB PUlPIT NIB NIB
VI I NIB N/B NIB 1*1
VI PILE N/B PUlPIT WA
POE NIB NIB NIB NIB NIB
NIB NIB NIB NIB NIB NB
1SWBT1OI NIB NIB SIS1RBTI I NIB N/B
NIB NIB PP/B NIB NIB NIB
NIB 5 I N/B PUlPIT + NIB PUB
NIB NIB NIB PIAMUSI
NIB NIB NIB PtA PILES
1LLEEM PUlPIT NIB PG
MU NIB P ILE P11. RILES
I NB NIB NIB PtA PILES
— l
VII • NB NIB NIB NIB
VII Il/B NIB NIB NIB
VII POE NIB NIB NIB
VII PILE PUlPIT MU MU
PUlPIT NIB N/B
NIB NIB NIB
NIB NIB N/B
MU PILE MU
NIB NIB NIB
NIB NIB NIB
NIB NIB NIB
PILE
•
I NIB NIB NIB PG
• NIB NIB NIB PtA PILES
1 NIB NIB NIB FIB PILES
MU__MU_•_MU__PILE PUlPIT FIB PILES
I VIII
I VIII
I VIII
:VIII
VIII
I VIII
MU Il/B PILE NIB • NIB NIB NIB NIB NIB NIB
IT NIB NIB NB I NIB NB N/B PP/B NIB NIB
PILE N/B NIB NIB NIB N/B NIB NIB NIB N/B
NB NIB NIB NB I NB NIB NIB lIlA NIB NIB
MU PUlPIT PUlPIT PILE PUlPIT EMBED EMBED lW/PUlPIT PILE/PUlPIT MUIPEMIIT
PUlPIT PUlPIT PUlPIT NIB • NIB PUlPIT NIB PEPIPIT NIB NB
NIB NIB NIB FIB PILES
• NIB NIB NIB PG
NIB NIB NIB P1* PILES
• N/B NIB FIB PIAPILES
PILE/PEIIPIT MU/PERPPIT NWPEMPIT WIRED
• N/B PUlPIT NIB FIB PILES
• II
II
11
II
11
II
I X
II
Il/B PEMPIT N/A NIB • NIB PUlPIT N/B
NIB PUlPIT NIB NIB PUlPIT PIT N/A •
NIB NIB NIB NB • PUlPIT PUlPIT N/B
NIB NIB NIB NIB NA NIB NIB I
NIB NIB NIB NIB NIB NIB NIB
PUB NIB NIB NIB NIB NIB NIB I
NIB N/A N/B NIB N/B N/B N/A I
NIB NIB NIB NIB NIB NIB NIB
PUlPIT NIB NIB
PUlPIT PUlPIT N/B
NIB NIB NIB
lIlA NIB Pd/B
NIB NIB NB
NIB NIB NIB
NIB NIB NIB
NIB NIB NIB
NIB PUlPIT NIB FIB PILES
NIB PUlPIT PUlPIT FIB PILES
NIB PUlPIT NIB PG
NIB IT NIB FIB PILES
NIB NIB NIB PG
NIB NIB N iB PG
N4 NIB FIB PG
NIB NIB NIB PG 1
I
I I
I •
I I
NIB NIB N/B N/B PUlPIT PUlPIT NIB I NIB NIB NIB • NIB NIB N/B FIB PILES
PILE NIB NIB NIB IT PEMIIT)IO FT PILE IPEMIITMB FT NIB NIB PEMPIT)IB FT NIB NIB PtA 1 11 .53 1
NIB NIB NIB NIB IPEMPIT>55 D PUlPIT NIB I NIB NIB NIB NIB NIB NIB FIB PILES I
NIB N/B NIB NIB I PUlPIT NIB NIB I N/B PUlPIT N/B PUlPIT NIB NIB P1* PIUS
TABLE 5-15B
-------
c>mC
C-ICW
-iO
.1
-<>
11
m 1
U )-
—I
0
z
I-
C/)Z
U)-
-u
i-0
m
a
-‘
CD
C i i
RECUIATORY SYSTEMS PART ONE
z
40
36
30
25
20
IS
10
5
0
-------
> nz
c>mc
Cl ) I
OO
.J
( 1 ) -I
CJ)
—I
0
CDz
Cl )
a
-u
In>
rC)
ii
a
C
-‘
CD
0’
a -
REGUlATORY SYSTflIS PART IWO
-------
Several items should be clearly understood when interpreting
this information. First, these data are based on information
reviewed to date (5—15-87) as provided by State Class V reports.
Second, it is very likely that many additional regulatory systems
are currently in effect, but the State reports have noc
completely addressed them, in many cases.
In describing States’ regulatory systems, the intent was to
use one of the following words: Permit, Rule, Banned, None, or
Information Not Available (N/A). However, many States use these
systems in conjunction with a multitude of qualifiers and/or
exemptions. For example, Idaho regulates some well types by
permit if the wells are deeper than 18 feet but regulates by rule
if they are shallower than 18 feet. Several States regulate by
permit only when the amount of injection fluid exceeds a set
volume (i.e., Oregon 5A6-8 are permitted if injecting more than
5,000 (5K) gallons per day). In the case of abandoned drinking
water wells (5X29), most States appear to have existing rules for
proper plugging and abandonment (P & A) procedures. Utah
specifically indicated that injection into abandoned drinking
water wells is illegal. Kentucky could not identify State
systems in effect for drainage wells (5D2, 5D3) because they are
regulated locally.
In general, few States regulate all well types, since many
well types are highly dependent on the geology of the area (5D3 ,
5A6-8). The fact that some States do not have a regulatory
program for a particular well type does not mean that those wells
are not adequately regulated. In actuality, many States have not
regulated some well types because these well types are not
located in their States.
In spite of some of the pitfalls, the effort to identify
current regulatory systems will help simplify the task of
identifying future actions necessary for an effective National
Class V program.
5.3.3 SUNMARY OF CLASS V INJECTION WELL DATA
Table 5—16 presents a summary of available inventory data,
types of fluids injected, contamination potentials, recommenda-
tions, and State regulatory systems for each well type.
5 — 28
-------
‘ * E 5-16
a ic c v nu i’ia W L m MO
Natioaqide: 1,338 wells
New York: 150 wells
Puerto Rico: no nun ers
West Virginia: no nurbers
Florida: no nisrbers
Georgia: 43 wells
Kentucky: no ni.srbers
Illinois: 6 wells
Indiana: 72 wells
Mldiigan: 15 wells
Minnesota: 54 wells
Ciclaixina: no nuithers
‘Recas: 108 wells
ba: 230 wells
Missouri: no nsebers
Nabraska: 5 wells
loraio: no flutters
brth DaI ta: 1 well
Idalc: 572 wells
Oregen: 16 wells
Washington: 66 wells
Rutentially neaty tines
this figure in areas
typified by irrigation.
Varies due to differing farming
practices and soil types; poten-
t ial agricultural contaninants
include sedinent, nutrients,
pestIcides, organics, salts,
metals, and pat)xgens in sane
cases.
New York - SPDES Permit
Florida — Permit
Georgia — Banned
Illinois — Rule
Cicla}xsma - Rule
Ic a - Diversion Permit
Missouri —
Nabraska - Rule
Utah - Rule
Arizona — Permit
Ida)x — Penmut if deaper than
18 feet
Washington - Undecided
- Izrpr arent of inventory efforts
is essential. (PR. GA, IN. Ml,
NE. CD. OR)
- Locate and prc erly plug all aban-
doned wells near Agricultural
Drainage Wells. (IA)
- Close surface inlets to al l
infiltration through soil.
- Raise the inlets ab e maximmin
pording levels. (IA)
- Require that injection fluids
meet all or sane drinking water
standards. (NE, OR)
- Require irrigation tajlwater
rec ery aid pu back. (OR)
- Use only necessary eeunts of
irrigation weter and applied
chamucals. ( )
- Require frequent nonitoring of
drinking water wells in surround-
ing areas.
- Require detailed sap with all
well locations. (NE)
- Require diagran of injection well
construction. (NE)
— Require siting of wells at least
2,000 ft. away fran any stcrk,
municipal, or damestic well. (NE)
- Discourage use and encourage
elimination of agricultural
drainage wells by developing
alternate methods. (IA)
Agricultural Drainage
Wells (5F1)
nu riai
iu ria &
F waz.s a
ior n w a
n
(L )
w
pai a
si
Drainage Wells
High
-------
‘ft&,E 5—16, centini
an r a aass v na nai WtL ‘M NC REXDI IMTICG
Mtionwide: 80,000—100.000
wells reported for 39
States
Herbicides, pesticides, fern—
lizers, deicing salts, as$iai-
tic sedisents, gasoline, grease
oil • tar and residues fran roofs
and paving, rubber particulates,
liquid wastes and industrial
solvents, heavy iretals and
col if omit bacteria.
Similar constituents to those
found in Storm.ater Drainage
Wells, though generally present
in higher coscentrations.
Heavy iretals such as lead,
iron, and manganese.
Organic caipcunds.
Information applies to both 502
and 504 unless otherwise specified.
Connecticut—permit (5D2)
Nassachusetts—Exesipt (5D2)
New .lersey—NJPDES Permit
New York-Permit if injected volts’s
ecceeds 1,000 Gp O
Maryland—Permit (5D4)
Alabama-Permit (5D2)
Florida-Permit
Georgia—Banned
Kentucky-Loral (5D2) • Permit (5D4)
South Carolina-Permit (502)
‘Tennessee—Permit (502)
Illinois—Rule
Wisconsin-?Izrie (5D2) Rule (5D4)
Lasisiana—Class II Regulations
(5D4), Registration of Class V
walls not required
New Nocico—Registrat ion
Ciclatsina—Rule
Nebraska—Rule
)tntana—Permit (5D2)
Utah-Rule
Wyaning-Pennit (5D2)
Arizona—Registration
California—Rule
Hawaii—Permit
Guam—Permit (502)
Alaska—Permit (5D2)
Idaho-Permit if deeper than 16
feet (5D2)
Washington-Fbne
Apply to both storm water and indus-
trial drainage walls:
- New walls should be investigated
and added to FURS. (KY. UT, WA)
- istruct ion of ne industrial
drainage walls should be 1 ins ted
or discouraged; storm water sewers. —
detention ponds, or vegetative
basins are preferred. (OR. IL, KY,
N, UI’).
- Sand and gravel filters should be
added to wells. (KY. N)
- Stand pipes should be constructed
at the openings of wells. (KY, N)
- Limit future construction to mis ;-
dential areas. (U.)
- All spills should be diverted away
fran industrial drainage wells
(OR, 171’, WA)
- New construction of walls in areas
served by storm water sewers sinild
be prohibited. (CA, AZ)
- Drainage wel Is staId not be con-
structed within 200 ft. of water
supply wells which tap later
water—bearing aquifers. (CA)
- Deep wells should be plugged or
ceiented to avoid mixing between
aquifers. (KY, N)
- Depth to water data sthu]d be made
available to well drillers.
(AZ)
- Mthtional studies including use of
nonitoring wells should be conducted
to study possible pollution sources
and prolonged effect of industrial
drainage wells on ground water,
(FJ WI. KS)
- An assessient of the effects of
storm drainage wells staId be
conducted prior to caxpleting an
inventory because the inventory
would be tine-consuming and costly.
(NT, OR)
- Ssdinents extracted f ran drainage
wells, catch basins, or sedineit
:raps should be disposed in an
appropriate landfill. (A l)
- ? ptbl ic awareness program should
be inpletented. (AZ)
- All drainage walls should be went;—
fied aid plugged. (WV)
Storm Water Drainage
Wells (5D2)
‘IYW cv
nurxai waj,
IWTIQl & PO
(P CS (P
ioiana WL7AflW
‘IYI cv PWIZS
n an
( flflD-WIi5 t ( J)
JeThn
lcza lrxs
9
srwnmE
Raxn a na
t& ,derste
Industrial Drainage Netiorevide: 3,802 wells
Wells (504) reported for 23 States.
-------
ThW E 5—16, caitixnial
aiww a ’ aa v noa rxai va no
¶YPE a’
fl&J PIat W L
Lc a’ia4 & ta
CF C at
IUI CAL flflal
¶YI C r FWB
DØ W )
flv-WA1 t (Us I)
ThMUFA Iat
PaI9WThL
flat REWfl
9I flt
R t4ac&naG
Inproved Sinkholes
(5D3)
Natiorwide: 479 wells
New Hanpshire: 3 wel is
Puerto Rico: 10 wells
Kentucky: 76 wells
Tennessee: S wells
Indiana: 26 wells
Michigan: 103 wells
Minnesota: 6 wells
Missouri: 250 wells
Virginia, West Virginia,
Florida, aid Ohio: ntzthers
not yet confirsed.
Potentially in all areas
with limestone an) dolanite
lithologies at relatively
shallov depths.
Runoff, fran paved areas, con-
taming lead aid petroleun
products fran autarthiles, pes—
ticides fran horticulture aid
lawn care, nitrates fran ferti—
lizars, aid fecal material fran
wild aid datestic animals;
normal fallout fran air pollu-
taits say also be present.
High to Mixierate
Puerto Rico-Permit
Flonda-Pernut
Georgia—Banned
Kentucky-Local
Teimeasee-Pernut
Indiana-&ne
Michigan-tbie
Minnesota-I’bne
Ohio-Mine
Missouri—I’bw
- ‘Itaining sinild be required for
engineers aid drillers in the proper
construction of wells with special
enphasis on sanitary sealing and
protection against corrosion.
Training should be slanted ta ard
construction in Karst or lmnestone
formations. (PR)
- careful dye trace studies should
be run at any existing or inproved
sinkhole drainage systans, aid
occasional nonitoring of both
entering aid exiting fluids should
be run after the systen is in
operation. (I’D)
Special Drainage
Wells (5G30)
U I
L a
I.- ’
Nationwide: 1,557 wells
Florida: 1,385 wells
Louisiana: 1 well
ttana: 55 wells
Hawaii: 1 well
Idaho: 7 wells
Washington: 108 wells.
Potentially presant in
all Regions.
Highly variable, depending on
systen design; for landslide
control, ground water is gerer—
ally used; swisning pool
drainage fluid smay contain
1 ithiun hypochlorite, calciun
hypcchlorite, saiusn bicar-
bonste, chlorine. braiu.ne,
iodine, cyanuric acid, alu-
sunun sulfate, algaecides,
fungicides, and snuriatic
acid.
Ptderate to Low
florida-Penmut/Rele
Louisiana—Class I I Regulations,
Registration of Class V wells not
required
Nthraska-Riile
Itr itana-Pennit
Hawaii-Permit
Idaho-Permit if deeper than 18
feet,
- Raidcin sanpl ing aid analysis of
swinning pool westeweter for
possible contaninants should be
required. (Pt)
-------
‘l & E 5—16 • cuatinued
a t ie P aa V ntj naj W a OATh M V
Electric Paver
Reinjection Wells
(SM)
Direct Heat Reinjec-
tion Wells (5A6)
Nstiorwide: 89 wells
‘Itcas: nuthers not confined
California: 65 wells
tevada: 16 wells
Idato: 4 wells
Alaska: 4 wells
) tiorwide: 21 wells
tEw York; no nurters
t j ttxico: 2 wells
Texas: 1 well
(blorado: 2 wells
California: 1 well
? vada: 6 wells
Idabo: 2 wells
Oregen: 6 wells
Utah: 1 well
Vapor-Daninated Resource
heavy netals (arsenic, boron.
seleniun), sulfates, and
dissolved solids.
Hot We ter—Danina ted Resource
heavy retals (arsenic, boron,
seleniun) • chlorides, dissolved
sol ids, and acidic pH.
Arsenic, boron, fluoride,
dissolved solids, sulfates,
chloride,
Texss—Pezmi t
Nthraska—Rule
Utah-Permit
California—Permit
Nevada—Penn t
Idalo—Penni t
New ltuco—Peznut
Tecas—Pennit
Nthraska—kile/Pennit
Utah-Permit
Celifornia-Penaut
Nevada—Permit
Idaln—Pennit
Or n-Peniut if injected volute
exceeds 5,000 GPO
‘pply to both electric paver aid
direct heat reinjection wells:
- Detailed study on the types of I Cr
available for geothermal systens
aid the resolution of each netirrI.
( N V)
— Initial analysis of injectate and
injection zone weter conducted
prior to full-scale injection
operations; paraneters of con-
cern are teiperature, inorganic
constituents of Primary aid Secon-
dary Drinking Water Regulations,
alkalinity, hardness, silica,
boron, and as i ans nitrogen,
(CL NV)
- Injection into non-thermal reser-
voirs if the thermal injection
fluids neet drinking water require—
nents or if the receiving fluids
are of equal or lesser quality. (ID)
‘IYW Cr
nua riai wa
it ’n & tu
C? WaS at
nrniia won
‘i p at FWfl
m u a v
JtD-WA’IZt (ml)
aiia jcanai
iUifl(flAL
sam Rilzua’luiy
enn
.isanas
Geothennal Reinject ion
Wells
Wxlerste
-------
‘I 2 5—16 • caitinued
apwiw cw CIA V naa’nw CL DPfl nv iewnae
Netionwide; 10,028 wells.
Potentially present in all
regions; nwe expected in
areas characterized by
climatic extremes. Reported
in all States except the
following: Maine, Rhode
Island, Varmint, Puerto
Rico, Virgin Islands, West
Virginia. Alabama, Arkansas,
Hawaii, American Reioa ‘fl’PI,
Ga O I.
Prmerily thermally altered
graird water; additives de-
signed to inhibit scaling.
corrosion aid incrustation
Men water high in metals aid
salts, or deionstrat ng high
or la , p4 1. is used.
lnecticut—Pennit
Massachusetts—Permit if injected
volume is greater than 15.000 G B )
New Jersey-Rule/permit
New York-Permit
Delaware-Permit
Marylard—Peniu.t
Florida-Peniu t
Georgia-Berried
btrth Carolina—Perini t
South Carol isa-Rule
Illinois—Rule
Minnesota—Persist
Wiscaisiri—Rule
Lcussiana—Pennlt
New l cico—Registra tion
c&lalana—Rul e
‘Fecas-Rule
Missour i-Registration
Nabraska-Rule
) tana-ta e
Ptrth Dakota-Rule
Utah—Permit
Wyonin Peniut
Arizone—P ie
Cal if ornia-Pexmit
Alaska—Permit
Idaho—Permit
Oregon—Pennit if injected volume
is greater than 5,000 CIt
Washington-Permit
- Mare research is needed on the
theoretical erwirorsiental effects
of heat pumps. (PC, AZ. SC)
- Authorization by rule is appropriate
for properly spaced aid qieratec
systems. (SC)
- New regulatory progress should be
directed at large—scale systems
rather than at systens for single-
family dwellings. (LA, CS. ‘ DC)
- Records should be maintained by
coxities aid periodically up-loaded
to State databases in order to
monitor well densities. (WA)
- The State pernutting agency should
set construct ion standards aid
ensure that walls are constructed
aid operated properly. (FL. KS.
PC, PE, SC, WA)
- Permits for commercial developrents
should include reguirereits for
water quality characterizations
of b eth source ansi receiving
water. (WA)
- Return wells s lnild be cased
through top of injection zone. (IA)
- Annular space should be cemented
Or grouted. (IA. KS. NE. TN)
- adequate spacing between produc-
tion wells should be practiced.
((CS. NE, SC)
- Discharge should be into or abcwe
the supply aquifer. (LA. IA. KS, SC)
- Closed loop systems should oe re-
quired. ((IF. TN)
- Discharge should be to the surface
rather than to an injection well.
(LA)
- The waste product should contain
no additives or only approied
additives (LA. KS. bE)
- Volumes art) temperatures of injec-
tion fluids snculd be monitored. (NC)
— Zinalyses of receiving fluids should
ce conducted peiiodical) .(KS, WA)
- - licenson water we l l dr lier
snoulc be etpicyed to incict’,
raon., and/c’: plir aid rc a tre
scIl. (LA, It,)
— Na. well installation in knci.n or
suspected contaminated aquifers
should be prohibited. ( Ic ?)
Pleat Pimp/Air
oaidit ioning
Return Flou Wells
(5A7)
w e at
c
LCc !I’Ia9 & NJ€ P
cr CiS at
PDInTnML ten
wp at wae
nunnw
G D-WA2 (T. J)
awinwanoi
anncai.
sam R flflu’
si icm z
Rpxn.ecAnac
-------
TAmE 5—16 • catimed
&M9fl tF C.ASS V DUU. flQ1 WflL m m AID R t flDWflGE
‘ N W cr
uurnai wa&
watitii & PJP
wnzs at
winan iwna
¶YPW a ti
flajnntv
ID-WM t (l ’l)
UI 1Th WflIQ4
IOWIflAL
•
SiMS RBflA Uff
seieaautcp
sxnteianas
Ground-water Aqua-
culture Return
Flat Wells (SAR)
Hawaii: 7 active wells
3 standby wells
15 proposed wells
Potentially fond wherever
marine a fresh water
organame are cultured
in large quantities.
Large volines of wastewater
caiposed of essentially salt
water with added nutrients,
bacteriological growth,
perished anwals. an si anise]
detritus. Effluent typically
contains nitrates, nitrites,
ansonia, high SW, and
ortho ctosphate.
t’tderate
Nebraska-Rule
Utah—Permit
Hawaii—Permit
Oregon—Permit if injected volune
exceeds 5.000 GPO
- Regular sanpl ing and analysis of
injection fluid and injection zone
fLuid should ho required (semi-
annually). (HI)
- Water to be disposed should be
filtered and appropriately treated
prior to injection. (HI)
- Return waters should be carefully
sonitored at a point before and
after treatsent to ensure the
seasures being eiiployed are suff i—
cient to allot the water to be
:n-iected, (P1)
Daiestic Wasteeter
Disposal Wells
Raw Sewage Disposal
Wells (5W9)
Naticatide: 980 wells
Puerto Rico: 5 wells
Pennsylvania: no rsrbers
Illinois: 916 wells
Indiana: 22 wells
Michigan: 11 wells
Minnesota: 10 wells
‘tees: 10 wells
Hawaii: 3 wells
Alaska: 3 wells
Generally poor quality. inclu-
ding high fixed volatiles, SW,
, ‘1W, nitrogen (organic.
and free asronia) • chloride,
alkalinity and grease.
High
Illinois-Banned
Nebraska-Rule
Utah-Banned
Haweii—Pennit
Nevada—Banned
Alaska—Permit or Rule
Oregon-Rule
No reconrerdations correrning raw
sewage disposal wells and cesspools
were provided in State reports.
However, the use of such disposal
eet) s has been banned in several
States.
Cesspool s (51 .110)
Natiorwide: 6,622 wells
Na .. Jersey: I well
New York: rio reirbers
Puerto Rico: 67 wells
Indiana: 22 wells
Michigan: 18 wells
Minnesota: 25 wells
Hew !txico: 14 wells
Texas: 16 wells
1’araska: no nurbers
Wytsung: 3 wells
Arizona: 17 wells
California: 46 wells
Hawa ii: 5’ wells
Alaska: ) 79 wells
Oregon: 6,257 welle
Sane as for Raw Sewage Disposal
Wells.
high
New Jersey—HJPDES Permit
Na . ’ York-Permit if injected voluae
exceeds 1,000 GPD
New Nexico-Banned
Texas—Rule
Nebraska-Rule
Utah-Sensed
Wyaning—Permit
Arizona—Permit
Cal fornia-Ranned
Hawaii—Permit
levada—Banned
Alaska-Pernut or Rule
Oregon—Rule
-------
TA& E 5—16 • amtissiaI
an aw er c. v nurna waz. i a n Mu
SW 1 1: 26,769 inventoned
wells in 31 States
5W31: 4,435 wells in 13 States
5W32; 3.783 wells in 8 States
Varies with type of systen;
fluids typically 99.9% water
(by weight) and .03 suspended
solids; irajor constituents
include nitrates, chlorides,
sul fates. scxlium, calcitsi, a i d
fecal col if orm.
Cannecticut—Permit if vo l tare
injected exceeds 5.000 GE)
Massachusetts-Permit if volume
injected exceeis 15.000 GPD
New .Jersey-NJPDFS Permit
New York-Permit if volume
injected exceeds 1.000 GE)
Maryland—Permit (5101)
Alabama—Permit
Florida-Permit
Kentucky-Rule (5101)
South Carolina—Pemus (5W32)
Minnesota-Rule
Wisconsin-jtjl e (5101)
Inn siana—Rule
New Nexico—Registrat ion
Okialnea-Rule
Texas—Local
Missoun—Permi t
Nedraska-Rule
?bitane—Peniu t
)tirth Dakota-Rule
Utah—Permit
Wycaning-Pennit
Arizona—Permit
Cal i fornia-Penrut
Hawaii—Permit (5101)
Nevada—Banned (5W3]j, Permit (5102)
Alaska-Permit or Rule
Idaho—Penni t if deeper than 18
feet
Oregon—Permit if injected
volume exceeds 5.000 CE) (5102)
Washington-Permit/Rule
- Further study is reconnerded.
(FL. MT . OR)
- Proper construction arid installa-
tion guidelines should be devel-
oped. U t)
- Q going training programs for
sanitarians is recommended; should
include h3 drogeology, ground-water
flcw. theory of septic systen
operation, and potential risks to
hunan health. (PR. (V. MN)
- Siting should be conducted so as
not to endanger water wells. (KS. Z )
- All systens should be sited arid
designed individually. (fl()
- Local planning groups should be
encouraged to establish septic tank
density limits. (NE)
- Sewage disposal wells for private
facilities should be phased out
and replaced by alternate nethois
of treatment and disposal. (TX)
- Well constructions should be inves-
tigated. (KS)
- Statewide nonitoring systems should
be established and should include
inventory methodology arid database
updates. (l’a)
Septic Systems
(5141. 5101. 5102)
we E a’
nuwnai E1L
LO .flC4 & tu! t
a’ vaLS a
IUlfltnAL i 4 nnai
a’ Ffl
nuwzw
IO1a2ut (1ev)
m’xa
‘
at
snnnuie
t c nac
High
-------
•I R 5—16 • azitiin
3 I €P Q..A V 1MJ YiGJ W L D Nil
‘nw c
IM3 1 1 W L
&
EOI 1’ThL LCC
i pes w
Th I 1
-wA5 ( )
nes
IU1 FI?L
SThBE R JI
S JC URE
I Cstic Wasrewater
Treacirenc Plant
Effluent Disposal
Wells (5W12)
Potentiaily present in all
Regions. 1,099 wells
inventoried nationeide
in 19 States.
Injected fluid, after secorriary
or tertiary waste tzeaarent,
believed to be generally can-
patible with receiving forina-
tion; may contain high nitrates
and feral Coliform if inprn,p-
erly treated.
High to Los
Massachusetts—Permit if m ected
voli.me exceeds 15.000 G
New York-Permit
Puerto Rico-Permit
Florida-Permit
Kentucky-Eliminate
Illinois-Rule
Indiana—Permit
Michigan-Permit
Texas—Rule/Permit
Nebraska-Rule
Utah-Permit
Arizona-Permit
Cal iforrua—Permit
Hawaii—Permit
Nevada-Banned
Alaska-Permit or Rule
Idaho-Rule
Washington-Rule
- Operation Snoula ensure that
injection is restricted to rates
and pressures dictated by site-
specific hydrogeologic conditions
(should involve noniroring).
(Wit. AL. HI).
- Aiterriarive neth s of disposal
and feasibility of upgrading
existing plants should be evalu-
- a ted. (VA)
- In sore cases, wells should be
p1t ged. (K’x)
Mineral and Fossil
Fuel Recovery
Related Wells
Mining, Sand or
Other Backf ill
We] is (5X13)
Nat iomride: 6 • 500 wells
Maryland: 1 well
Pennsylvania: 811 wells
West Virginia: 258 wells
Alabama: no nuthers
Kentucky: 61 wells
Tennessee: no nurhers
fli inois: 5 wells
New Nexico: 11 wells
Texas: 65 wells
Missouri: 4.326 wells
Coloreds: 2 wells
f’bnt na; 10 wells
North DaI ta: 300 wells
Wyoming: 74 wells
Nevada: 1 well
Idaho: 575 wells
H draul ic or pneumatic slurries
- So] id portion of slurries
say be sand, gravel, carent,
null tailings/refuse, or fly
ash.
- Slurry waters may be acid
mine water or ore extraction
pr ess wasrewater.
Nederate
Parylarx )-Pernur
Pennsylvania-Mine operation
West Virginia—Mine ration
Alabama—Permit
Kentucky-Permit
Illinois—Rule
New Nexico-Unkncwn
Texas—Rule
Missouri-None
Nebraska—Rule
Colorado-Rule
Nentana—Pernut
North Dakota-Ru]e
Utah—Rule
Wyam .ng—Pern iit
Io ahoR ule
— Siting, design, construct ion. and
operation sr uid be specified in
rernu requiranents. (IL)
- S ]urr injection voluiesshoulo
be ncnicoreo ano coTparea to
calcularen mine voluiie to prevent
catastrophic failure. (W f)
- Ground-water iron: toring in areas
containing potable water. ( )
— Site—specific study is necessary
to determine the nature and
extent of degraaatior f ran mine
backfill wells. (HF)
— Authorization of mine bachf:ll
wells wirnour permits should cot’-
rinue t nere tailings are njecred
nro fo:-rat.ons rh t art cffect—
ivel sca cc , fr-rn- USL .. (ID)
-------
ThR E 5—16 • contirn
91W1& c r V DU flQ4 CL W.Th AM) R I4flCPB7CIS
¶YW cr
C L
LC .TIGl & MJ
cr CLS (It
a UnTIGJ
IYPes (P Ffl
nu
a v-ieaut (i q)
I 11 ? I(U flW
ivina
flit RMXJtA1
S IflJRE
RW , IflUAtIQE
SolUtion Mining
Wells (5X14)
Nationwide: 2,025 wells
Neu York: 48 wells
Michigan: 15 wells
New Mexico: 1,073 wel is
WyOming: 14 wells
Arizona: 870 wells
Cal i fonua: 5 wells
Potentially in other
mining districts,
leak acid solutions (sul func
aid hydrochloric)
Pnioniun carbonate
Sodiwn carbonate/bicarbonate
Ferric cyanide
Lo u
New York—Permit
New Mexico-Fermi t
Nebraska-Peimit
Utah-Permit
Wyotung-Peniut
Arizona-Permit
Cal if ornia-Permit
— Network of injection wells s)nild
not acterd beyord surface proj ec-
non of ore body. (CA)
- New types of mechanical integrity
tests for isplenentation with this
well type should be studied. (AZ)
- Hydrologic monitoring should be
cadirted to determine a water
budget. (AZ)
In Situ Fossil Fuel
Recovery Wells
(SX1S)
I
,
Nationuide: 66 wells
Colorado: 23 wells
Irdiana: 1 well
Michigan: 1 well
Wyoming: 41 wells
Potentially in other
areas wtih relatively
shalio. ’, organic rich
sub strata,
Urdergrojrd coal gasification:
- air, acygen, steam, water,
igniting agents sirh as
aimoniun nitrate-fuel oil
INFO) or pz ns.
In situ oil shale retorting:
- air, acygen, steam, water,
said, explosives, igruting
agents (genera] ly propane)
Purpose in both cases is to
initiate aid maintain catus—
tion. catustion products
irc lude polynirlear aramatics,
cyanides, nitrites, phenols,
Z’ erate
‘l’ecas—Peniut
Nebraska-Rule
Coloraio-Rile
Utah-Permit
Wynning-Pensit
— Corduct coTplete geologic aid
hydrogeologic investigations prior
to system inpleTentation. (WY)
- Ranediate zone fluids to minimize
future contamination. (WY)
Spent Brine Return
Flou Wells (5fl6)
Natiorsuide: 121 wells
New York: no numbers
West Virginia: 2 wells
Irdiana: 8 wells
Michigan: 33 wells
Arkansas: 70 wells
OklaFama: 7 wells
North Dalota: 1 well
Potentially in Regions
having camercially reca’-
erable halogen deposit5,
Limited to brinee fran which
halogens or salts have been
extracted;
Potential for aldition of other
urdef med constituents into
waste stream,
Lou
New York-Permit
Arkansas-Permit
Clcla)xria-Rule
Nebraska-Rule
Utah—Rule
- technical requiratents specified in
permits should be similar to those
for oilfield brine injection wells
or solution mining wells. (WV, AR)
— Ctristruction requirements should
be developed based upon well oper-
ating parameters. (AR)
- Nechanical integrity teats should
me required. (AR)
- Semi-annual caiprehensive saup l :ng
trd analysis of fluid a i d caipar—
son of produced vs. :rjected
luid sriould be :eouirod. (AR)
-------
‘Mm..E 5—16 • tini
Je .RY cF cL V IN] YI€ll waj.. DM W
291 wells irwentoried
nationwide; potentially
many tines this niarber.
and ild be located in
all Regions.
Dependent u i type of s stam.
type of edthtives, and tanper-
ature of water; open pipe
systans may ei se ground water
to accidental rotrodirt ion of
surface caltanunants, industrial
spills, or unauthorized disposal
of wastes.
Massachusetts—Permit if injection
volune exceeds 2,000 GPD
New Jersey—NJPDES Permit
Alabama—Permit
Florida-Permit
Georgia—Permit
South Carol ins-Rule
Illinois—Rule
Wisconsin—Rule
Arkansas—l.bne
New Nexico-Registration
Ia a—Peniu.t
raska—Rule
Utah-Permit
California-Pernut
Hawaii—Permit
Alaska—Permit
Idalo—Pen nit
Chegon-Peniut if injected volunes
exceed 5.000 GPO
Washington—Permit
— Minimun locating requiraients for
the injection well relative to any
nearby iiunicipal supply wells
should be established. (NE. SC)
- Wells sixaild be grouted fran at
least 20 feet belc land surface
to land surface or to the water
cable. (NE)
- Wells should be cased fran surface
to the top of the uppernost supply
a ix) injection zone. (AR)
- Cenented annulus fran surface to
supply/injection zone. (AR)
- Require mlninujm of 2 wells: supply
well are) return well. (AR. SC)
- Wells should be constnicced such
that spent fluids are injected
into source aquifer. (AR)
- C en loop return fiG.! wells should
be prchibited. (FL, AR. NE. tlr)
- Wells should be plugged with caient
upon abandonirent. (AR)
- Permit specifications needed:
Detailed map sl .!ing all area wells.
Diagram of injection well design.
Diagram of entire systan.
Type and voline of injectate. (AR.
HF)
oling Water Return
Flcw Wells (5A19)
n ria
L.Oc n 1 &
a z.s
POI flThL wc iai
iwn
nuwr
GP J D-WM ( l)
i n ixai
1VI lFIAL
gr j
ST i a
Industrial /Canrerciari
Utility Disposal
Wells (5A19)
erate to Lo
-------
i &.E 5—16 • orsitixzund
1.989 inventoried wells
in 33 States.
a.A V DU i’IQ1 W L W Il IlAT l IS
Potentially any fluid disposed
by various industries; can have
high dissolved solids. susperi-
ded solids. alkaluuty.
chloride. pho *iate. sulfate.
total volatiles.
connecticut—Penni t
Massachusetts—Permit
New Jersey-NJPDES Permit
New Yoxic-Permit
Naryla. n d—Peruut
Pennsy lvaxua-Penlut
Alabama-Permit
Florida-Permit
South Carol ina—Pensit
Ill inoi s—Rele
Wisconsin—Permit
Texas—Class I Regular ions
Nthraska-Rule
Utah-Banned
Wyaiu.ng—Fermit
Arizona—Permit
California-Permit
}iawaii-Pennit
Alaska—Permit
Idaho—Permit if de er than 18
feet
Oregon-Permit
— inventory efforts should continue
with high priority on identifying
industrial disposal facilities.
(PR. m l. WI. AK. w
- Asswre all industrial waste
disposal has a deleterious effect
on USI1 J. warranting iniimdiate
action. (PA)
- ctensive ground-water evaluation
stuthes should be conducted to
identify areas which would be
vulnerable to contaninat ion by
industrial waste disposal. (PR, AL)
- Drainage areas surrounding indus-
trial facilities should be studied
and all possible pollution sources
txted. (KS)
— inspection of these facilities
be mandatory, and conducted
by teens backed by chenical or
industrial engineers. (PR)
- 1itoring progress should be
reguired and sampling specifica-
rions should be tightened. (PR.
14). FL. KS)
- Grcjirx1—water sonicoring should
be conducted using a min.inun of
me uporathent and two da . ngradienc
wells. (AZ)
— Practice of in)ecting industrial
proress water and waste should be
ciscouraged. and wastes muted
to on—site treatiient facilities
or nurucipal sanitary sewer
systass. (FL)
- Discharge of industrial prceess
wastes to septic systens should
be discouraged. (PR. NE)
- ‘i’ ese wells should be permitted
only when injeccion is into ground
.ncer conta Ining greater than
:n—chouse.nd wç/l lOS. (FL)
Industrial Process
hater and Waste
Disposal Wells (5W20)
‘IYW F
iiii riai WElL
ILX .fflal & M E t
WElLS a
FOTEl l’IAl. ICC TIQ’I
¶YP cw EWII
Dussiw
DV-WNIH
Ml 1TThL
5 1MB
n 5L iuI
R ? ElI)M’IaS
High
-------
‘Fk E 5-16 • itinued
a a. s V naa’nai C l. D&Th M c
¶ ft
nuanai wai,
1a rxaJ & !U
I flJ5 Q
WIflCAL LO flGl
cr n f l
DU
fl?D-WM (UaW)
fl7fl fl
sa 1 nn.
gjfl
s s. i u
teo&nas
Aiitatbi]e Service
Station Waste
Disposal Wells
(5X28)
Nationwide: 99 wells
G unnecticut: 1 well
Rhode Island: 3 wells
Ventont: 10 wells
New Jersey: 18 wells
p , York: 3 wells
Virginia: 1 well
Florida: no ntxrbers
Illinois: 5 wells
Indiana: 2 wells
Michigan: 27 wells
l.e.u Nouco: no ntrbers
Ice: 1 well
Missouri: 5 wells
Utah: 2 wells
Nevada: no nurbers
Idaho: 21 wells
Waste oil, antifreeze .
floor weshrngs (including
detergents, organic, aid
inorganic sediment) aid
other petroleum products.
High
nnecticut-Peurat
New .]ersey-NJPDES Persut
New York-Permit
Florida-Permit
Illinois-Rule
Nthraska-Rule
u-sanned
Idaho-Rule
- Inventory update is vital -
Guidelines for construction,
qieration, aid werall regulation
of these we] is neid to be estab-
lisned. (NY, PR)
- Permits should sha r construction
features, a plan to utilize
separators a ix ) holding tanks. aid
a plan to sample and analyze
injectid fluids. (IA)
- Urdergrwrd holding tanks should
be required. (L IP)
- L al building code aid sewer
pretreatment inspection should
identify areas where discharge
to sewers is prthibitid. (UT)
Recharge We] ls
Aquifer Recharge
Wells (Sfll)
Natiorr.vide: 3.558 wells
New Hampshire: I. well
?S i York: 3.000 wells
Florida: 349 wells
Illinois: 1 well
Minnesota: 1 well
New Mexico: 30 we] ls
Texas: 44 wells
Kansas: 4 wells
Nthraska: 4 wells
Wytining: 32 wells
Arizona: 51 wells
California: 52 wells
Idaho: 7 wells
Washington: 7 wells
Potentially found in
areas characterized by
large witidrawals for
drinking water or
irrigation far in excess
of recharge.
Dqierdent upon source; water
quality changes noted include
adsorption, ion exchange, pie-
precipitation aid dissolution,
chen.ical acidation, biological
nitrificatmon aid denitrifica-
tion, aerthic or anaerthic
degradation, mechanical dma-
persion, aid filtration.
High to Lc
New Jersey-Rule/Permit
Flonda-Pentut
Illinois-Rule
New l’ xico-Ragistration
Texas—Permit
Nthraska—Rule
Utah-Rule/Pe r mit
Wyonung-Permit
Arizona—Permit
cal ifornia-Pennit
Idaho—Permit if desper than
18 feet
.
- Injection fluid should be of
generally equivalent or better
quality than injection zone
fluid. (NE)
- Standards for injectate quality
must be on a case by case basis.
(AZ)
- Regular mnjectate sampling should
be conducted. (NE)
- Use of proper design, construct ion
aid operation is essential. (FL.. NE)
-------
TAWZ 5—16, cxntirnied
&M W a’ Q.A V fliJUfl’IGI WElL DN M I ) R tIE2WflQS
IYPE a’
DUWI’IW WElL
reanai & jiasa,
a ’ WElJ a,
FO1SIFIAL IC flW
¶YP a’ pn
Uua ’iw
!C-$th 1Th ( )
cmiaimana
KY IThPThL
sa RElUa!1uw
STWIURE
RDXMIElC&TIC I E
Saline ( ‘acer
Intrusion Barrier
Wells (5 2)
California; 155 wells
Florida: 2 wells
Potentially fond in coastal
areas typified by aburdant
fresh water wittdrawals for
irrigation aid/or drinking
water.
Varies with type of source;
examples include advanced
treated sewage, surface urban
arc) agricultural ruroff • aid
imported surface waters.
Lo u
Yew Jersey—Rule/Permit
Florida-Permit
Nebraska-Rule
Utah-Rule/Permit
California-permit
Washington-Permit
- Pilot studies to define 1 ithologic
aM hydrogeologic parameters
influencing salt water intrusion
should be corducted on site-
specific basis. (CA)
- tharacterization of interaction of
injectate arc) formation fluids is
necessary. (CA)
Sttsiderce Control
Wells (5 3)
4 wells inventoried for
Wisctnsin fran state reports;
it is believed inventory is
incteplete; potentially
present in desert arc) coastal
areas typified by large.
long-term grand-water with—
drawal 5; areas having
carbonate uifers are par-
ticularly susceptible to
s itsiderce,
See ‘Aquifer Recharge Wells’
Lou
Wisconsin—Pernu.t
Nebraska-Rule
Utah—Rule/Permit
- Injectate quality should be ironi-
toned. (CA)
- Proper well design, operation.
arc) construct ion practices should
be inplemented, (CA)
- For additional recamerdations,
see ‘Aquifer Recharge Wells’
Miscellaneous Wells
Radioactive Waste
Disposal wells
(5 ( 04)
Unknaun nuiter, but ecistete
confirnel for ‘rennessee, New
Ituco, Idaho, aid Washington
in State reports,
Variety of radioactive mister-
ials, including Beryllium 7,
Tritiun, Strontium 90, Cesium
137 • Potassium 40, alt 60,
beta particles. Plutonium,
Americium, Uranium, arc)
radionuclides.
Unknoun
Illinois—Rule
New Waxico-Bannsd
Oklahoma-Rule
Nebraska—Rule
Utah-Rule/Permit
Idaho—Permit if deeper than 18
feet
washington—Permit
- Discharges s)nald satisfy all
kan, available, reasonable
treatment arc) control methcds. (WA)
- Discharge to cribs arc) frerch
drains should be pretreatei prior
to disposal. (WA)
- Permits, permit caipliance, aid
enforcement actions should be
negotiated annually with EPA
through the State/EPA Agreement
Procram. (WA)
Eb erimental
Technology Wells
(5 i 5)
225 wells in State reports:
Potentially located in every
Region,
Wide variety of injected
constituents: highly acidic
or basic carpcuids for solu-
non mining; domestic waste-
water containing high total
susperded solids, fecal
colifornt, aimonia, Ba), p H;
air is used in certain water
recovery projects,
) erate to La
.
Alabama-Permit
Florida-Permit
Mississippi-Rule
itrth Carolina-Permit
Illinois—Rule
New (tuco-Permi t
Nebraska—Rule
Utah—Rule/permit
Wyar ,ing-Pereit
Arizona-Permit
California-Permit
Hawaii -Permit
Nevada—Permit
- wells should not be sited arc)
operated so as to permit trjection
into Class hR aquifers. (CA)
- Detailed hydrogeological studies
should be corducted prior to any
f rcposed injection. (C?)
- C ieiucal analysis of waste stream
‘riodicall . (C?)
- rnanical integrity tests snou2d
oe ’eloocd aid corducted ogularly.
(CA, “Z(
-------
mat 5—16 • otrtirsied
*ww a’ a.a i nuwna WZL D&Th MU REXUI flU7.SIQC
¶YPE a’
C L
wc riai & tn
a’ V S
PClfllflAL wrai
¶YP a’ fiZIUE
Thjn.mi
Qnw-wNi (u&wJ)
cniazman
ioina
s a m
sna
swt n anac
Aquifer Resedia t ion
Wells (lrcluding
Oil Recoiery
Injection Wel is)
(5X26)
Nationwide: 355 wel is
stride Island: 2 wells
Nei. Jersey: 9 wells
Puerto Rico: 1 well
Alabama: 1 well
North Carolina: 12 wells
Indiana: 4 wells
Michigan: 59 wells
Minnesota: 7 wells
Wisconsin: 17 wells
New ) cico: 50 wells
Cklalnna: 60 wells
‘Itas: 37 wells
Kansas: 15 wells
Missouri: so nuthers
Nebraska: no nurbers
Cblorado: 81 wells
Dependent t i hydrogeologic
reginen. parateters of the
ca tauinatmon punt. a i d design
of the resediation program: for
refinery projects, typical
injectate constituents are
oil/grease, phenols. toluene.
benzene, lead, iron.
Unknaei
New Jersey-NflVES Permit
Alabama-Permit
Itrth Carolina—Penrat
Wisconsin—Rule
Oklatxrna-Rule
l raska-Pezmit
Utah-F
-------
SECTION 6
RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 INVENTORY DATABASE
6.1.1. PRIORITIES
The inventory database is based on reports submitted by the
State UIC programs. Inventory data on most of the low-tech well
types has been described in this report as generally poor. Both
the completeness (inventoried vs. existing) and the quality
(level of detail) of the database are poor for the low-tech
wells. The lack of inventory information is reflected in the
extremely low number of detailed case studies of low-tech wells.
Case studies of low-tech well types, including site
investigations, will need to be conducted if appropriate policy
is to be set concerning their siting, construction, and
operation.
Several States recommended that, based on numbers and
contamination potential, all types of drainage wells and domestic
wastewater disposal wells are appropriate candidates for further
study. States also recommended that the inventory and
contamination potential of the two well types listed as unknown
contamination potential be clarified by further study.
6.1.2 INVENTORY DATABASE UPDATE
Some States recommended that the inventory of newly
constructed wells also be tracked along with status changes for
inventoried wells. Successful inventory methods and a consistent
approach to updating the Class V inventory are discussed below.
6.1.2.1. Inventory Methods
Lessons learned to date on effective inventory methods
should be built upon. Some of the more successful techniques and
sources of information are listed below.
1. Survey efforts involving questionnaires are an appropriate
first step in building an inventory database. A minimum of
actual facility information should be requested initially.
This may improve inventory response since volunteering
lengthy or technically sensitive data goes against human
nature.
6—1
-------
2. Personal, follow—up telephone calls to respondents for data
verification and to explain the UIC program have been
especially useful in obtaining cooperation when amore
detailed questionnaire or report is needed later. Personal
follow-up is also a very good technique for producing new
inventory leads.
3. Federal, State, and local government agencies are
storehouses of information on Class V injection wells. Much
of the current inventory information was provided by these
sources. Indications are that these sources have not beer-i
fully utilized. There are problems associated with
information accessibility because it has not been filed
according to Class V well types. Many agencies have indi-
cated they do not have the manpower or finances to sort
through files and determine which wells meet Class V cri-
teria.
4. Visits to regulatory agencies and site inspections are
invaluable for in-depth investigations and new inventory
leads.
Details on compiling mailing lists and agencies which have infor-
mation on specific well types and other inventory strategy can be
found in Section 3, Class V Injection Well Inventory.
6.1.2.2. Mechanism for Updating the Class V
Inventory Database
Presently, there is not a well defined, consistent approach
among USEPA Regions or State and local governments to locate
additional inventory and report it. This has seriously hampered
inventory and assessment efforts to date. Consequently, a mecha-
nism or system for passing along information needs to be devel-
oped. Ideally, one designated State agency would interface
between the USEPA Region and other agencies in the same State.
The interface would pass along new inventory information and be a
directory for additional information requests. At least an
annual update to.the Class V injection well inventory database is
needed in order to prioritize USEPA efforts. Some confusing
inventory information could be eliminated if the database used
the new well type codes (Table 1-1).
In order to enhance obtaining a more complete inventory
database for all Class V wells, concerted effort on the part of
agencies at all levels of government will be required. It will
be necessary to redefine areas that may have Class V wells
present and initiate a new questionnaire mailing. Historically,
this has been best accomplished at the local or State levels by
water resource and waste management agencies. These authorities
seem to be most familiar with potential Class V injection facili-
ties, and should be able to follow up questionnaire mailings with
personal contact of possible owner/operators. It is essential
6—2
-------
that replies be received for each questionnaire issued. It
should not be assumed that no reply indicates there are no Class
V wells at a given location.
Another essential element in building a more complete
inventory database for Class V wells is the development of a more
thorough public awareness about these wells and appropriate
regulations. Many owners of private, small-scale domestic, or
commercial facilities probably are not aware that they need to
report their injection systems. A campaign must be conducted to
promote public knowledge of potential contamination to major
drinking water supplies as a result of unregulated Class V
injection. The public must be made aware that valuable
groundwater supplies are limited and susceptible to irreversible
degradation.
6 • 2 CLASS V WELL TYPES
6.2.1 SITING, CONSTRUCTION. OPERATION, CORRECTIVE AND REMEDIAL
ACTIONS
The following sections contain a discussion of
recommendations for siting, construction, and operation of
existing and future Class V injection wells. Recommendations are
made for groups of well types established on the basis of
contamination potential.
While certain recommendations are unique to specific Class V
well types, many States made some general recommendations that
apply to all well types, regardless of the rated contamination
potential. These recommendations address the need for:
1. continued inventory efforts;
2. in-depth hydrogeologic studies for active and potential
areas of Class V injection;
3. periodic comprehensive sampling and analysis of
injected fluids and injection zone water;
4. protection of USDW by adequate construction and
operational monitoring;
5. maintenance and verification of mechanical integrity;
and
6. proper plugging and abandonment of wells upon
termination of injection activities.
Certain well types are not characterized by a single contam-
ination potential. Because of a wide disparity in State report
assessments and case study data, some well types were found to
6—3
-------
pose low or moderate contamination potential in certain areas and
high potential in others. For the purpose of the subsequent
recommendations summary, well types will be discussed under the
highest contamination potential ascribed in a range . State
reports containing applicable recommendations are indicated in
parentheses.
6.2.1.1 High Contamination Potential Well Types
Well types assessed as having high contamination potential
are:
- Agricultural drainage wells, 5F1;
- Improved sinkholes, 5D3 (high to moderate);
- Raw sewage waste disposal wells, 5W9, and cesspools,
5W1 0;
— Septic systems, 5W11, 5W31, 5W32;
— Domestic wastewater treatment plant disposal wells,
5W12 (high to low);
- Industrial process water and waste disposal wells, 5W20;
- Automobile service station waste disposal wells, 5X28;
and
- Aquifer recharge wells, 5R21 (high to low).
Agricultural Return Flow Wells (5F1)
Locating and properly plugging all abandoned wells within
the immediate area of agricultural drainage wells would
significantly aid in protecting TJSDW (IA). Injected fluids
should be required to meet all or some National Drinking Water
Regulations (NE, OR). Recovery and pumpback of irrigation
tailwater should be required (OR). Water from drinking water
supply wells near agricultural drainage wells should be sampled
and analyzed frequently to detect any contaminant mobility (NE).
A detailed map of the location of injection wells and all
municipal, domestic, and stock wells within one mile of the
injection wells should be required. A diagram showing
construction features of injection wells should also be required,
and all ADW should be sited at least 2,000 feet away from any
stock, municipal, or domestic well (NE).
Closing surface inlets in order to allow infiltration
through the soil would decrease the transport of bacteria, some
pesticides, and sediment to the aquifer (MO). Iowa suggests that
6—4
-------
inlets to the injection wells should be raised above ponding
levels.
The volume of irrigation return flow would be reduced by
applying only the quantity of water necessary and only the
amounts of chemicals necessary to meet crop requirements and
maintain correct soil balances (CA). Use of ADW should be
discouraged and elimination should be encouraged: alternative
drainage methods should be developed (IA).
Improved Sinkholes (5D3)
Little is currently understood about these wells, and few
recommendations were provided in the State reports. The Puerto
Rico report suggests that well construction training should be
required for engineers and drillers, with special emphasis on
sanitary sealing and protection against corrosion. Missouri
suggests running careful, dye trace studies on improved sinkhole
drainage systems.
Raw Sewage Disposal Wells and Cesspools (5W9, 5W10)
Assessments for these well types found within State reports
indicate that the construction of any such wells should be
strictly prohibited. Regional ground-water contamination
resulting from cesspools and raw sewage disposal wells has been
documented. Recommended on—site disposal systems for domestic
wastewater would be septic systems with drainfields or septic
tanks with absorption mounds.
Septic Systems (5W11, 5W31, 5W32)
Septic systems are a widely varied group of Class V
facilities, and include undifferentiated systems, well disposal
systems, and drainfield disposal systems. Because of the
variabilites noted for disposal methodology, construction design,
and operation, large variations in contamination potential are
recognized.
Of extreme importance is that national continuing public
education programs be implemented, with specific emphasis toward
septic system owners. A key aspect to continued education about
septic systems and their potential threat to USDW will be ongoing
training programs for sanit.arians at local and State levels.
This training should include hydrogeology, ground-water flow,
theory of septic system operation, and potential risks to human
health (PR, MD, MN).
Kansas and Nebraska suggested that septic systems be sited
in well-studied drainage areas to avoid endangering water wells.
Present local regulations may ignore hydrogeology and allow
6—5
-------
migration to the owner’s and/or neighbor’s wells. Septic systems
which dispose without adequate treatment should be eliminated.
Nebraska further recommended that the density of septic systems
and total loading to ground water be studied.
Three States (Florida, Montana, and Oregon) recommended that
further study is required. Missouri recommended that proper
construction guidelines be developed, and Kansas suggested
investigating facilities to ensure quality well construction.
Washington identified a critical need to establish a
statewide monitoring system, inventory methodology, and database
in order to evaluate design for existing systems, establish
ambient water quality in vulnerable aquifer regions, and be able
to quantify changes in critical parameters.
Texas recommended that systems be individually sited and
designed and that sewage disposal wells for individual facilities
be phased Out.
Domestic Wastewater Treatment Plant Disposal Wells (5W12)
This is another well type that demonstrates much variability
in design and operation, resulting in wide variations in assessed
contamination .potential. Operation should ensure that injection
is restricted to--rates and pressures dictated by site—specific
hydrogeologic conditions. This will involve continuous moni-
toring of operations, assuring that injectate does not exceed
standards set forth in waste disposal permits (WY, HI, AL)
Alternative methods of disposal and feasibility of upgrading
existing plants should be evaluated (VA). In some cases, wells
should be plugged (KY).
Industrial Process Water and Waste Disposal Wells (5W20)
Inventory efforts must be continued with high priority
placed upon identifying industrial disposal facilities (PR, IN,
WI, AK, WY). It is believed that some industrial disposal into
or above USDW will have a deleterious effect upon those aquifers,
warranting immediate remedial or corrective action (PA). The
practice of injecting these wastes in the future should be
discouraged, and wastes should be routed to on-site treatment
facilities or municipal sanitary sewer systems (FL). The dis-
charge of these wastes to septic systems should be discouraged
(PR, NE). Extensive ground—water evaluation studies should be
conducted to identify areas potentially vulnerable to contamina-
tion by industrial disposal. This study would include an
analysis of drainage areas surrounding industrial facilities,
noting all possible sources of pollution (KS, PR, AS).
Periodic site inspections should be mandatory for these
facilities, and inspections should be conducted by teams of chem-
6—6
-------
ical and industrial engineers (PR). Monitoring programs should
b specifically required and should include sampling and analysis
of ground water. A minimum of one upgradient and two
downgradient wells for monitoring ground water are recommended,
and the well pattern should be sufficient to detect any migration
of injected fluid into USDW (PR, MD, FL, KS, AZ).
The NPDES program could be more effective in helping the UIC
program by requiring sewer improvement districts to inventory all
industrial users of their systems and to review details of each
user’s waste stream(s) (NY). The issue of reluctance of
operators to report their wells can be overcome by presenting a
coordinated program (about waste streams that are allowed)
through a multi-media approach (States in Region V).
All non-hazardous industrial process water and waste
disposal wells shown to have a high contamination potential
should be phased out. These wells should be required to inject
below USDW as Class I wells in the future. Other 5W20 wells
should be periodically checked for injection rate and fluid
quality (States in Region VI).
The policy of prohibiting the installation of septic
tank/drainfields for treating embalming fluids should be
continued. (Current practice requires holding facilities and
periodic removal and proper disposal.) (SC).
Until additional data are at hand to define the fate of
industrial wastes in the saturated zone, it is prudent to take
extraordinary precautions to minimize the potential for aquifer
degradation via injection of highly toxic substances.
Alternatives to land disposal such as recycling or resource
recovery, reduction of wastes generated through process
modification, and improved methods of hazardous waste
neutralization should be actively pursued (WA).
Automobile Service Station Disposal Wells (5X28)
As with most Class V well types, continued inventory update
is vital to continued monitoring and regulation of these wells.
In general, guidelines for construction, operation, and overall
regulation of these wells do not exist and must be established
immediately (NY, PR). Iowa suggests requiring a permit to
operate which would include information on construction features,
a plan to utilize separators and holding tanks, and a plan to
sample and analyze the injected fluids.
Utah suggests that these wells can be corrected by providing
underground holding tanks (total containment) for the waste
oils/fluids. These tanks would require regular off—loading to
waste oil reclaimers. In Utah, there is economic incentive for a
service station to sell waste oil to a reclaimer. The management
of these wells would best be accomplished at the local government
6—7
-------
level because they already enforce their building and sewer
ordinances. Any inspections by State or Federal staff would be a
duplication of effort.
Utah continues that communities with a water reclamation
system commonly prohibit oil and grease discharges to their
sewer. Consequently, some operators opt to discharge to dry
wells as a “loophole” to the environmental regulations. Local
building code and sewer pretreatment inspection should be able to
locate and manage these wells. -
Finally, Utah states that the UIC program has not been
effective in controlling this problem, but local government has.
The UIC program can be more effective by educating those local
government staff who conduct building and environmental
inspections. This training will help locate these violators and
hopefully solve the problem.
Aquifer Recharge Wells (5R21)
Design, construction and operation features will vary,
depending upon the type of project, but it is essential that high
standards be set and strictly enforced by regulatory agencies for
these parameters. Again, because operations can vary so widely,
standards for injectate quality must be determined on a case-
specific basis (AZ). In general, injection fluids should be of
equivalent or better quality than injection zone fluids, and
periodic sampling and analysis of injectate and injection zone
fluids should be required (NE). Certain wells of this type have
been assessed as having high contamination potential (FL),
whereas others have been rated moderate (TX). It is believed
that properly designed, constructed, and operated wells may be
assessed as low potential for contamination.
6.2.1.2 Moderate Contamination Potential Well Types
Well types assessed as having a moderate contamination
potential include:
— Stony water drainage, 5D2, and industrial drainage
wells, 5D4;
- Improved sinkholes, 5D3 (high to moderate);
- Special drainage wells, 5G30 (moderate to low);
- Electric power, 5A5, and direct heat reinjection wells,
5A6;
- Aquaculture return flow wells, 5A8;
6—8
-------
- Domestic wastewater treatment plant disposal wells,
5W12 (high to low);
— Mining, sand, or other backfill wells, 5X13;
— In-situ fossil fuel recovery wells, 5X15;
— Cooling water return flow wells, 5A19 (moderate to
low);
- Aquifer recharge wells, 5R21 (high to low);
- Experimental technology wells, 5X25 (moderate to low);
and
— Abandoned drinking water/waste disposal wells, 5X29.
Stormwater and Industrial Drainage Wells (5D2, 5D4)
Inventory efforts should continue and newly located wells
should be investigated and added to FURS (KY, UT, WA). The
construction of new industrial drainage wells should be severely
limited (OR, I L 1 ). Storm water sewers, detention ponds, or
vegetative basins are the preferred alternatives (UT). If sewers
are cost prohibitive, on—site vegetated basins with fine-grained
sand beds should be constructed (Grass swales have been
discovered in the NURP study to provide moderate improvements in
runoff quality). Retention basins might be planned so runoff can
be released slowly into the sanitary sewer or treated before
entering the well (KY, TN). Sand and gravel filters should be
added to wells (KY, TN). Stand pipes should be constructed,
several feet in height, at the opening of wells (KY, TN).
Future construction should be limited to residential areas
(IL). All spills should be diverted away from industrial
drainage wells (PA, IA, OR, KY, UT, WA). The construction of new
storm water and industrial drainage wells in areas served by
storm water sewers should be prohibited (CA, AZ). Drainage wells
should not be constructed within 200 feet of water supply wells
which tap lower water-bearing aquifers (CA). Deep wells should
be plugged or cemented to avoid mixing between aquifers (KY, TN).
Depth to ground water information should be made readily
available to drainage well drillers and land planning engineers.
Separation distances between the depths of storm water drainage
wells and ground—water tables should be maximized. Proposed
wells which would penetrate perched ground water or water tables
should not be constructed (AZ).
Additional research should be conducted to study the
prolonged effect of industrial drainage wells on ground-water
quality. Additional research relating to the attenuation of
6—9
-------
metals and organics under long term discharge conditions from
industrial and storm water drainage wells should be conducted
(States in Region VIII). Ground-water monitoring programs in
industrial areas with many industrial drainage wells are
advisable (FL, WI, KS). Sediments extraced from drainage wells
catch basins, or sediment traps should be disposed in an
appropriate landfill. Due to possible metal concentrations,
these sediments may be considered as hazardous materials (AZ).
Assessment of the effects of drainage wells should be
conducted prior to completing an inventory because the inventory
would be time—consuming and costly (NT, OR). A public awareness
program should be implemented (AZ).
Special Drainage Wells (5G30)
Certain wells that fall under this classification probably
have been inventoried as other well types. Other inventoried
well types should be cross-checked for special drainage wells.
In sensitive hydrogeological areas, continual monitoring of
injection fluid volume and quality should be conducted. Florida
recommended that random sampling and analysis of swimming pool
waste fluids be conducted to define possible contaminants.
Electric Power and Direct Heat Reinjection Wells (5A5, 5A6)
Most. recommendations for electric power and direct heat
reinjection wells are derived from the California and Nevada
reports. These wells are characterized by generally high volumes
of disposed fluids. More work is necessary in the near future in
determining what surveys will be the most reliable indicators of
mechanical integrity.
It is essential that accurate characterization of injection
fluids be conducted not only before operations begin but also
periodically during the life of the facility. Parameters of
concern in physical and chemical analyses of injection fluids
include temperature, inorganic constituents of National Primary
and Secondary Drinking Water Regulations, alkalinity, hardness,
boron, silica, and ammonia nitrogen.
Geothermal fluids should not be injected into non-thermal
reservoirs unless the receiving fluids. are of equal or lesser
quality or the thermal injection fluids meet drinking water
standards (ID). Besides temperature pollution, concentrations of
most other dissolved solids would be increased. Beneficial uses
of most non-thermal waters with TDS (1,000 mg/i could be
seriously altered if heat spent geothermal fluids from high
temperature reservoirs were injected. Even heat spent geothermal
fluids from low temperature resources should not be injected into
non-thermal waters without carefully comparing water quality.
6 — 10
-------
Most drinking water quality aquifers in the western United States
would be negatively impacted by such a practice.
Aquacultural Return Flow Wells (5A8)
All recommendations for aquaculture return flow wells are
derived from the Hawaii report. Wells of this type located in
Hawaii should always be sited outside the UIC Line, as defined by
the Hawaii Department of Health, and should be located as close
to the coast as possible, where applicable. Injection well
casing should be constructed of lightweight steel or Schedule 40
PVC. The annulus should be filled with rock packing across the
injection zone and cement grout between the surface and the rock
packing. An extremely important recommendation is that injection
wellheads should not be open at the surface so as to allow
disposal of unauthorized liquid wastes.
Regular comprehensive sampling and analysis of injectate and
injection zone fluids should be required. Because injection
volumes are typically high and waste streams are characteristic-
ally variable, semi-annual sampling is recommended.
Mining, Sand, or Other Backfill Wells (5X13)
Siting, design, construction, and operation of these wells
should be specified in permit requirements (IL, KY, ID). Slurry
injection volumes should be monitored continually and compared to
calculated mine volumes to prevent catastrophic failure due to
over—injection (WV). Regular analysis during injection opera-
tions should continue. It will be important to monitor ground
water regularly in areas containing potable water (MO). Site-
specific studies should be conducted to determine the nature and
extent of degradation due to mine backfill wells (MT)
Authorization without permits of mine backfill wells should be
continued where tailings are injected into formations that are
effectively isolated from USDW (ID).
In Situ Fossil Fuel Recovery Wells (5X15)
As part of any in situ fossil fuel recovery program utili-
zing injection wells, complete geologic and hydrogeologic inves-
tigations should be conducted prior to system implementation.
All operations should have a well-defined remediation program for
injection zone fluids to minimize future ground-water contamina-
tion after operations are terminated (WY).
Cooling Water Return Flow Wells (5A19)
Many States regulate cooling water return flow wells under a
permit system. Permit specifications for these wells are not
6 — 11
-------
consistent. It is recommended (IA, NE) that all permit applica-
tions include the following material:
1) detailed map showing all wells in the area;
2) a diagram of the injection well system;
3) a diagram of the entire operational system; and
4) detailed chemical and physical analysis of the
inj ectate.
All injection wells of this type should be constructed such
that injection of spent fluids is into the source aquifer. In
addition, wells should be cased from the surface to the top of
the uppermost supply and injection zone. Open loop return flow
wells should be prohibited (FL , AR, NE).
Cooling water return flow systems should have a minimum of
two wells: one supply well and one injection well. No additives
should be used (AR). Upon abandonment, all wells should be
plugged with cement (AR).
Experimental Technology Wells (5X25)
All recommendations for experimental technology wells are
derived from the California and Arizona reports. Before
operations for any experimental technology facility can commence,
detailed hydrogeologic studies should be conducted for the area
of interest. Of primary importance in such a study will be to
determine the occurrence of USDW and, more importantly, the
occurrence of aquifers of Class IIB or better quality. Injection
into any Class lIE or better aquifer should be strictly prohi-
b i ted.
Chemical analysis of the injection fluid should be conducted
periodically, and the frequency should be dependent upon such
factors as potential toxicity of the fluid and the consistency of
the injected stream. Finally, a system of mechanical integrity
testing applicable to these wells needs to be developed, and
those tests should be conducted regularly. Annual mechanical
integrity testing would be sufficient.
Abandoned Drinking Water/Waste Disposal Wells (5X29)
Because these wells are potentially located in all regions
of the nation, it is critical that a better inventory database is
established (PR, IN, MI, MN). This will require efforts at all
regulatory levels. Wells of this type that are located should be
properly plugged using high-quality cement (MN).
6 — 12
-------
6.1.2.3 Low Contamination Potential Well Types
Wells rated in this assessment as having low potential for
contamination are:
— Special drainage wells, 5G30 (moderate to low);
- Heat pump/air conditioning return flow wells, 5A7;
- Domestic wastewater treatment plant disposal wells,
5W12 (high to low);
- Solution mining wells, 5X14;
- Spent brine return flow wells, 5X16;
- Cooling water return flow wells, 5A19 (moderate to
low);
- Aquifer recharge wells 5R21 (high to low);
- Saline water intrusion barrier wells, 5B22;
- Subsidence control wells, 5S23; and
- Experimental technology wells, 5X25 (moderate to low).
Heat Pump/Air Conditioning Return Flow Wells (5A7)
As with most Class V injection systems, it is essential that
characteristics of the production/injection aquifer system be
thoroughly understood. In addition, inventory updates must be
continually conducted.
Adequate spacing between production and injection wells must
be maintained (KS, NE). This will serve to enhance system
efficiency and limit thermal interactions between injected fluids
and fluids near the production welibore. Return wells should be
cased through the top of the injection zone, and the annular
space should be grouted or cemented (IA, KS, NE).
It is important that the injection zone be the same as the
production zone from water quality and availability standpoints.
If injection must occur into a zone other than the production
zone, the injectate should be of equal or better quality than
water in the injection zone (LA, KS, IA). Volumes and tempera-
tures of return fluids should be monitored continually, and
comprehensive sampling and analysis of both injection and
receiving fluids should be conducted periodically (KS, NC).
6 — 13
-------
Solution Mining Wells (5X14)
The network of injection wells should not extend beyond the
surface projection of the ore body (CA). It is also important
that a study be conducted to determine what types of mechanical
integrity tests should be implemented for testing these wells.
Spent Brine Return Flow Wells (5X16)
All recommendations for spent brine return flow wells are
from the Arkansas State report. Technical requirements specified
in permits for these wells should be similar to those for oil
field brine injection wells. Construction and operation designs
will vary with the scope of operations and should be developed
based upon specific operation parameters of interest. Mechanical
integrity tests should be required periodically. In addition,
semi-annual comprehensive sampling and analysis of injection
fluids, and comparison of produced and injected fluids, should be
required. Injection of fluids other than spent brine (e.g.
process water) should be prohibited.
Saline Water Intrusion Barrier Wells (5B22)
All recommendations for saline water intrusion barrier wells
are derived from the California report. These wells are usually
made necessary due to heavy ground-water withdrawals for
irrigation and drinking water in coastal areas. Intrusion of
saline water is into zones of high discharge by wells, thus
injection to develop intrusion barriers must be into the same
zone. Because this injection is typically into Class IIB or
better aquifers, it is essential that studies precede any
proposed injection of this type. These studies should address
the definition of lithologic and hydrogeologic parameters influ-
encing saline water intrusion and the impact of proposed injec-
tion fluids upon injection aquifers. Delineation of USDW within
the area should also be a goal of such studies.
- Subsidence Control Wells (5S23)
Recommendations for this well type are generally consistent
with those presented previously for “Aquifer Recharge Wells.”
The reader is referred to that section for recommendations.
6.2.1.4 Unknown Contamination Potential Well Types
Two Class V well types have been assessed as having unknown
contamination potential, based upon broad-scale lack of knowledge
regarding their existence and operation. These well types are:
6 — 14
-------
- Radioactive waste disposal wells, 5N24; and
- Aquifer remediation wells, 5X26 (including hydrocarbon
recovery injection wells).
Radioactive Waste Disposal Wells (5N24)
Since the current inventory may constitute only a percentage
of existing wells, it is recommended that investigations into
radioactive waste disposal practices be conducted. The existence
of facilities in Tennessee, New Mexico, Washington, Idaho,
Oklahoma, and Illinois has been confirmed.
Washington provided the following recommendations. First,
discharges should satisfy all known available, reasonable
treatment and control methods. Second, discharge to cribs and
french drains should be pretreated prior to disposal. Third,
permits, permit compliance, and enforcement actions should be
negotiated annually with EPA through the State/EPA Agreement
Program.
Aquifer Remediation Wells (Including Hydrocarbon
Recovery Injection Wells) (5X26)
Because projects of this type are believed to be operating
in many, if not all, of the regions, the implementation of
registering and monitoring programs must begin immediately.
Construction standards for these wells should be similar to those
established in permitting requirements for other discharge wells.
Wells should be cased from the surface through the top of the
injection zone. Screened intervals should be used when the
injection zones are sands and gravels. Perforations should be
used in less permeable injection lithologies. The annulus
between welibore and casing should be grouted, preferably with
some type of cement (OK).
6 — 15
-------
APPENDIX A
State Report Summary Sheets
-------
Region I State Report Summaries
Corinec ticut
Maine
Massachusetts
New Hampshire
Rhode Island
Vermont
-------
Prepared: 5—15—87
Updated: 8—14—87
RE F ARY
(All iiif ruati i recorded as described in state report,
a ii1i tiaial corresparderx e, aid verbal caitnunication)
S’MTE: Connecticut STMUS: Priiracy BTPT.TCZRAPFIY: No
‘ITiLE: State of Connecticut UIC Cl ass V Assessment
NYUIOR: Water Car liance Unit of the Department of Erwirorrnental Protection
DATE: 4-87 icEL( rx STA ’ IUS: Final
R TRT.R MI Cf(I ): Water Canpliance Unit DEP
HYDRCJG LCGY:. N/A
IW fl AND A 4 P: 84 wells FURS 4PAT]BLE: No (8—20—86)
itaniinati o n Case Regulatory
1 ’pe Nuither Ibt itia1 Stix3ies Systan
5A7 12 ne Yes nnit
5W20 6 derate Yes Permit
5W11 62 High Yes Permit (75000 gpd)
5X28 1 High Yes Permit
5D2 3 N/A No Peimit
Strategy Rating/Response
N/A N/A
R DATI( :
To address the concern about 5X28 wells, the foll ring strat y will be used by.
the Connecticut DEP:
Task I - Continue the existing program of inspection by existing field and
engineering staff of facilities that could discharge to the
grouix iaters of the state with anphasis placed on facilities that
could contamir te undergrcuid sources of drinking water.
Task II - Contact the cwners and/or operators if the facilities that discharge
to the grcxith via letter informing than of the need to apply for and
thtain a permit for these discharges aid the Department’ s pal icy of
not granting discharge permits in GA or GAA and GB groundwater
classification areas.
Task III- Contact the Directors of Health of each of the 169 t ns in
Connecticut inf aiming than of:
1. The potential for groundwater contamination from unpermitted
discharges to the groundwater fran floor drains at gas stations aid
auto repair shops.
-------
Q necticut
ge L1S
2. The department’s program of permitting and enforcanent actions f or
gramd ater discbarges fran flo drains under the nnecticut Water
Pollution Control Statutes.
-------
Prepared: 1—28—87
Updated:
RE r &M RY
(All information recorded as described in state report
additional corresporderxe, and veibal canrnunication)
mW1 : Maine ST !IUS: Primacy BILI(X RM 1Y: No
‘ITILE: Revised Interim Report: Maine’s UIC Program
NYIWR: Maine De rtirent of Environrr ntal Protection
DM’E: 12-86 RELQer S’iWIUS: Draft
R 1 TI .R A CY(ThS):
Maine Depart nent of Environnental Protection
W I DW Y:
Areas with rocky outcrops tend to be characterized by highly or moderately
fractured bedrock relatively near the surface. In most such instances, the
fissures are saturated with groundwater. The purging of liquid wastes into the
ground r uires the displacarent of the groundwater in these fissures.
Other areas of Maine consist of sand and gravel aquifers, usually overlying
marine clays or bedrc k zone. In such areas, forcible mi ection is feasible,
yet the costs are still high relative to other disposal techniques. Also, most
of Maine’s sand and gravel aquifers are in moderately to heavily populated areas
and are valued water supplies. This has discouraged the develo nent of
injection facilities within t1 se areas.
flIV ii N ) ASS lENP: 15 wells FURS 4PM’IBLE: NO (8—20—86)
Qxitaminaticxi C se Regulatory
‘I ype NLmter Potenti i1 Sttdies Systan
5W20 15 Variable 9 facilities N/A
Strategy Rating/Respaise
N/A - N/A
N/A
-------
Prepared: 12—4—86
Updated:
ME
(All infc tion recorded as descrIbed in state report
additional corresporder e, and verbal canrrunication)
STME: Massachusetts STMUS: Primacy BIBLIOGRAPHY: Yes
‘iTILE: Unde.LyLOUnd Inj ection Control in the Carinorwealth of Massachusetts
tT1HCR: Division of Water Pollution Ccntrol
DATE: 7-86 EER*d ’ STMUS: Draft
R I Q ST .R 2 G CY(Th ): Division of Water Pollution ntrol (I PC)
HYDI )G OGY: No ovezvie i of general hydrogeology of the state is
provided. However, site—specific hydrogeology is
addressed in case study asses nents.
miv n AND ART: 131 wells FURS 4PM’]BLE: NO (8—20—86)
ii•iaticri se * Regu1atai y
Type NLI±er teritia1 Stixlies Systan
5D2 19 Low Yes Exanpt fratt permit
if area is separ-
ated fran industrial
activities.
5A7 10 Low Yes nnit if discharge
exceeds 15,000 GPD.
5W11 27 Low No Permit if discharge
5W12 72 Low Yes exceeds 15, 000 GPD.
5A19 3 Low Yes Permit if discharge
exceeds 2,000 GPD or
teip. of ir j. fluid
exceeds 40°C.
5W20 1 Moderete Yes Discharge permit
r& uired.
* ¶r se provided are very brief but well su rized.
Strategy (I te) Rating/Respc se
N/A N/A
N/A
-------
Prepared: 12—12—86
Updated:
grATE RE
(all information recorded as described in state report
additional correspondence, and verbal carirru.inication)
STM”E: New Haxtpsbire STA IUS: Priinacy B]BLICGRAPHY: No
‘ITILE: Inventory of CLass V Injection Wells in New Hazrpshire (Plus additional
correspondence)
NYIMOR: New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control Canrnission
DATE: ? REE’(kcr STMUS: Draft
iCi SRi I HI I . c (I ): New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control
Ca nis sion
HYDRCG CGY: N/A
]NI fl ! AND SS T: 38 wells FURS CX iPN1’JBIE: No (8—20—86)
Ccntaminaticxi Case Regulatory
‘1’ ppe tktEltial Studies Systan
5D3 3 N/A Yes N/A
5D4 16 N/A Yes N/A
5A7 2 N/A Yes N/A
5M9 3 N/A Yes N/A
5W20 13 Variable Yes N/A
5R21 1 La Yes N/A
* Specific data are provided on each individual well but no studies were
conducted aver aiv lenth of time. rhaps these should be termed
“skeleton” case studies.
Stxategy (r te) Rating/Resp se
N/A N/A
N/A
-------
Prepared: 5—15—87
Updated: 8—14—87
TE RE P RY
(All information reorded as described in state report
additional correspondence, and verbal camrunica tion)
swrA : Rhode Island S’Th WS: Primacy BIBE,ICXRARIY: NO
ITILE: State of Rhode Island Undergrc ind Injection ntrol Program Class V Well
Assessnent
2%IYIHCR: Deparbnent of Envirorinental Managanent, Division of Water Resc rces
DATE: 7—87 RER cr STAIUS: Final
iu 1 I i .R (IFS): Departh ent of Envirorirental Managanent, Division of
Water Resources, Gr nd ater Protection Program
HYDI )G CGY: Grouzñt ater is utilized by 24% of the pcpulation and is derived
fran two formations: consolidated paleozoic bedrcck and unconsolidated
pleistcxene glacial deposits. Three specific geographical regions were
studied. (1) Blc k Island, a sole source aquifer, glacial washout and
till. (2) Southern portion of state, similar to gechydrological formations
as in Nur±er 1. (3) Central portion of state, sand and gravel aquifer.
]]W IJXRY ND SSFS 1 NP: 80 wells FURS (X 1PAT]BLE: No (8-20-86)
Qx taminaticxi c se Regulatoty
I ’pe NLIther* t tia1 Sti ies Systen
5A19 8 High Yes N/A
5W11 8 Lcx z Yes N/A
5W20 59 Mod./High Yes N/A
5X28 3 Yes N/A
5X26 2 High No N/A
* Sane facilities reported lagoons as Class V wells.
Strat ’ Rating/ReSpcEse
Task 1. Identify UIC Class V injection wells, review the chan— N/A
ical analysis of waste streams and register then with
the state UIC program.
Task 2. Segregate specific Class V wells having highest poten- N/A
tial for contamination thich could impact grainclQater
aquifers supplying public and priva tely- ned wells.
-------
R1 de Is1a
Page o
Task 3. Eaiminate n dify Class V well discharges which are N/A
impacting underground drinking water supplies to
ca ply highest attainable grourx water quality. NO!’ S
ar order are issued against tlxse facilities that are
not in carpliance. Fines issued with Administrators’
Order are based upon established çenalty matrix.
RE M :
N/A
-------
Prepared: 5—15—87
Updated: 8—14—87
SThTE E r ARY
(ALl information recorded as described in state report,
eddi tiona]. correspondence, and verbal can irunica tion)
S’PA : Vermont STPLLUS: Primacy BTN.TCGRMHY: Yes
ITILE: Vermont Class V Injection Well Inventory and Asses rent
NYI : Ground Water Mariaganent Section, Dept. of Water Resources and
Envi xonrr ntal Engineering
DA1 : N/A ic U r g] ITJS: Final
R L()W Hi . R fl IC! (I ): Verriont Agency of Environrrental Conservation, Water
Quality Division, Groundwater Managanent Section
HYDRCG CGY: Shal lcx.z unconsolidated groundwater aquifers
INV1 N) ASFS l JT: 15 wells FURS (X 4PMIBLE: No (8—20—86)
Qaitaminaticxi Case Regulatory
I ipe NL er I tentia1 Sb ies Systan
5X28 10 Mod. /High Yes N/A
5W20 5 Mod, Yes N/A
Strategy Rating/Resprxise
(ALl well types)
-Contractor mailed c er 1,000 surveys to t vn
clerks, health aEficers, planning camdssions,
water well drillers, septic sys tan contractors,
consulting engineers, industrial and envirorinental 28% response
groups. 1 well located
-Published pthlic notice in 16 newspapers. No response
-Conducted file re,iews (storage, transport,
treatirent, aixi disposal facilities-hazardous
waste). 5 wells located
-Act 250 Re,iew (plans su1 nitted far new or
rencwat& de relopnents-reviewed weekly). No wells located
(Sewage related wells)
-Surveyed 53 septage haulers 22 responses
-------
V T1W I1t
Page r
-Conducted 450 file re.,iews (rrcbile bane
rarks, public buildings, campgrounds,
arxl subdivisions). No wells located
(Agricultural drainage wells-5F1)
-Contacted Public Facilities Division of the
Agency of Environmental Conservation No wel is located
(Heat pur return fla i-5A7)
-Sent public notice to 20 heat ptitip installers 7 responses
(Auto service stations-5X28)
-Contacted 68 autanotive r air stations 10 wells located
RE Th S:
1. The database of injection wells is anall, and updating the inventory
can be accanplished by site visits coupled with a telephone survey of
the injection well operators.
2. Other methods of updating and future surveying of injection wells will
continue through the Act 250 inter-agency caxmmications.
3. Methods of ranedial action have not been specifically addressed as
there are no contaminatir injection wells.
4. The injection well location, nature of establishrrent, type of fluid
being discharged, and volume of fluid may be of critical inportance to
the enexgerzy response program in case of accidents.
-------
Region II State Report Suimnaries
New Jersey
New York
Puerto Rico
Virgin Islands
-------
Prepared: 4—28—87
Updated:
TE RERI &M RY
(All information recorded as described in state report,
H i ial corresp t3erK e, aril verbal camiunication)
ST E: N i Jersey STPLIUS: Primacy B]BL.ICGRAPHY: No
ITILE: UrideLgiourid In ection Control (UIC) Program Inventory arid Asses anent
of CLass V Wells Stat ide
N5nL1: N i Jersey Department of Envirorinental Protection
D TE: RER cr ST ! [ US:
HYD1 )G LOGY: New Jersey is divided into two distinct geographic provinces.
The ppa.lachian Province consists of Paleozoic strata, Pre—Cambrian inetamorçhic
rock, aid Mesc oic sedixrents interbedded with intrusive igneous sills. This
region is extensively folded and faulted and has two separate groundwater
syst ns (consolidated bedrock and unconsolidated glacial sediments). The
Atlantic Coastal Plain consists of unconsolidated, stratified arid unstratified,
Mesc oic and Cenoroic Sediments urderlain by Pre-Carrbrian bas rtent-rock cariplex.
ThW fl AND ASSRS 4ENI’: 379 wells identified FURS 4PM’IBLE: No (8—20—86)
(3000—6000 estiirated)
itamination Case Regulatory
‘1 ipe NL her t itia1 Sbxlies Systan
5D2 1 N/A No NIPDES Permit
5D4 1 N/A No NJPDES Permit
5A7 181 N/A Yes Rule/Permit
5W10 1 N/A No NJPDES Permit
5W11 143 N/A No NJPDES Permit
5A19 5 N/A No NJPDES Permit
5W20 20 Variable Yes MJPDES Permit
5R21 0 N/A No Rule/Permit
5B22 0 N/A No Rule/Permit
5X26 9 N/A No MJPDES Permit
5X28 18 N/A Yes NJPDES Permit
Strategy (date) Respa ise/ Rating
(12-86) File search of NIPDES permits. N/A
(1981) Preliminary survey tained fran state 1224 facilities identified
records aid questionnaires nailed to
various institutions and organizations
C?) Mailed permit application to 339 faci— 31%
liities (fran preliminary survey).
-------
Jersey
Page Tho
RE ATIC
1. bre NJPDES/tX3W—UIC pennits need to be issued to existing facilities to
detezrnine aw in act on existing gra.mdwater quality;
2. All new or proposed facilities desiring to utilize subsurface disposal as
their prinaxy means of waste rnanagarent must provide ada uate pretreatment
of effluent sufficient to meet the State’s groundwater quality standards at
a pre-detexinined point of canpliance;
3. All existing cr abandoned Class V wells which cannot rreet the groundwater
quality standards must in l tent a detection nonitoring program, pursuant
to an order to permit, and enter into r nedial mitigation concerning
grcundwater quality enbancexEnt;
4. Funding frau 13. S. Erivirorinental Protection Agemy must be significantly
increased fran its present level ($81, 800) just to fulfill the minimum
reporting requirements of the tJIC program. Additional resources are
currently needed by NYDEP if it is to perfar n the required enforc rent arid
pexint admirListration activities to meet EPA’S expectations.
5. In terms of grcundwater quality, protection and preservation, increased
emphasis needs to be placed on creating new treatment facilities, in
dition to upgrading existing ones, ‘which are capable of achieving current
drinking water or surface water standards.
-------
Prepared: 1—28—87
Updated: 5—05—87
TE RER RY
(all information recorded as described in state report,
Iditional correspondence, arid verbal cantrunication)
S’1 1 : New York $JWIUS: DI B]BI 1 IWRAFHY: Yes
ITILE: Class V Injection Well Inventory and P ssessrr nt: State of New York
ArJi L : SMC Martin
DME: 9—83 RER cr STAIUS: ?
< Fa TW.R (IRS):
New York Depar nent of Erivirorrrentai Conservation
New York consists of several different provinces controlled by bedrock
geology. Each province is blanketed by unconsolidated deposits in the fonn of
glaci l drift or coastal plain sedinents underlain by consolidated bedrock.
Unconsolidated deposits concentrating in stream valleys and Long Island have the
highest pextreabilities arid serve as the principal a uifers but also serve as
efficient zones far injection.
INV I’1 Y AND ASSFS. Nr: 7, 172 wel is FURS 4PATIBLE: NO (8—20—86)
Qxjtaminaticzi Case Regulatory
Type tbt itia1 St ies SystQn
5F1 150** Variable No SPDES permit
5D2 2,500 Positive No SPDES permit (>1000 gpd)
5D4 1,100 N/A No SPDES permit (industrial)
5M X N/A No N/A
5A7 X La i No Permit
5W10 X Significant No Permit (>1000 gpd)
5W11 X Significant No Permit (>1000 gpd)
5W12 21 N/A No SPDES permit
5X14,16 48 N/A No Permit
5W20 350 Significant Yes SPDES permit
5R21 3,000 basins N/A No N/A
5S23 X N/A No N/A
5X28 3 Hi iest No Permit
5W31 X N/A No Permit (>1000 gpd)
5W32 X N/A No Permit (>1000 gpd)
* “X” indicates well type is believed to exist; no nunbers available
** May discharge to either surface or gra.mdwater
-------
q York
Page
Strategy Rating/Respcr se
1. Review preliiniraxy report corpleted by the NYSHD on Incanpiete
CLass V injection wells.
2. Contact state and federal agencies and conduct library N/A
research to cbtain infarn tion on geology, contamination
fran CLass V wells, and regulations.
3. Contact county health officials with a letter of Limited
introduction and a questionnaire concerning the inventory,
ccntanination, and local aquifers.
4. Contact county health officials and NeAr York Department
of Environmental Conservation with a fol1 z-up telephone
survey. 100%
EE ATIC :
1. Further regulatory control of CLass V injection wells.
a. !t ’pe and degree of regulation would rrost efficiently he developed
and irrplementod by local agencies with respect to specific and
potential contamination problems, geology, and pre—existing
injection well concentrations.
b. Such regulation should inventory and classify existing and
proposed Class V injection wells for further site specific
contamination assessment and pennitting.
2. Further study into CLass V wells covered by the SPDES program since
several county health officials felt the SPDES pennit file was not
canpiete or up to date.
3. Further study into the assessment of area of high contamination
potential rather than an asses nt covering the whole state. Such
areas should be chosen with respect to kno&n contamination fran CLass V
injection wells, high injection well concentrations, and geology.
4. Further study into the Smithtcwn, Suffolk County area, and continuation
of the preliminary report.
5. Investigation of other areas of high Class V well contamination
potential using a methodology similar to the nithtc n study.
-------
Prepared: 1—30—87
Updated:
TE RE M RY
(Al]. infannatiai recorded as described in state report,
additia,al corresparx3eixe, and vexbal camn znicatian)
STATE: Puerto Rico S’IWI’tJS: DI BIBLIOGRAPHY: No
TTJLE: Report on Inventory and Assessnent of Class V Injection Wells in Puerto
Rico
PLrn1 c: Engineering Enterprises, Inc.
DATE: 12-86 REL b’P I’US: Draft
Puerto Rican Erwiroriiiental Quality Board (E1 B) - - the agency expected to
assune “primacy” for continuation of the tJIC program.
Linestanes and cwérlying alluvial deposits make up the rcst productive
aquifers of Puerto Rico. The xrost extensive and thickest ones underl Le the
northern coastal area. While the high penneabilities developed in the
limestone (due to develorirent of solution cavities) have produced highly
productive aquifers, they have also rendered the rrore shallcx z aquifers
vulnerable to pollution. An additional threat to productive aquifers along
the north coast is the intrusion of sea water.
]NJ (1 & ASS 4EN1: 1,356 facilities FURS 4PATIBLLE:No(8—20—86)
Contamination Case Regulatory
Type Number* tential Studies** Syst n
5F1 -X- No
5D2 3 2
5D3 10 Mod. /High Yes Permit
5D4 15 — 13
5W9 5 No
5W10 67 1
5W11 1073 No N/A
5W12 1 High 2 xmit
5Ai.9 1 3
5W20 28 7
5X26 1 1
5X27 4 5
5W31 85 No
5W32 63 9
* “X” indicates well type is kncwn to exist; no numbers available
** Number of inspection reports included in appendix
-------
Puerto Rico
Page o
strategy (1 te) Respc ise/
Rating
t addressed directly. There is evidence in the
state r ort that an initial inventory was conducted N/A
and later updated.
E ATh :
1 • Future work:
a. Lock for 5X28 ‘ s — service stations
b. Look for 5X29 ‘ s - probably present
2. Use revised form for pre-irispection nailing and for inventory.
3. Hire inspection personnel with training and experience in engineering
geology, or groundwater, or equivalent; or train present ar plc jees in those
subjects.
4. Set up systan of periodic (or contint us) updating of inventory.
5. Inspect r aining industrial UIF’ s (not inspected in 1986 assessrrent).
6. Provide training for industrial personnel with responsibility for
protecting the environment: geology; hydrogeology; graindwater currence
and novanent; grourd ,ater protection; hydraulics of wells and aquifers;
governmental (state and federal) agencies involved in groundwater
developrent and protection.
7. Conduct groundwater studies to define better the direction arid rate of
grounc ater xr vErent in the principal aquifers; arid to establish baseline
values for key water quality parameters.
8. aining far engineers arid drillers in the proper construction of water
wells, with special hasis on sanitary sealing and protection against
corrosion. Training to be slanted toward construction in Karst or
lines tone formations.
9. Training for EOB personnel in those sQninars provided hy EPA and applicable
to Puerto Rico.
10. Priority: study the Florida area to determine the seriousness of the
existing threat to the grcxrndwater—using caniriinities in the vicinity.
11. Provide adequate financing for B’s UIC staff—-sufficient to permit
routine arid arergency field inspections.
12. Agricultural drainage wells--follow up on this, the information fran
the Puerto Lath Authority.
-------
Puerto Rico
Page Three
13. Fallc up on the UIF’ s that have not provided the information requested of
then -- Glairourette Fashion Mills in particular.
14. Continue the search for unreported industrial UIF’s.
15. Fol1o up on the school districts that have riot responded to the CEO letter
requests for information on the schools arid their septic tanks.
16. Request all industries to ooriduct a monitoring program of their mi ectate.
Results should be provided to EPA or to EQB in case Puerto Rico assumes
I,
17. Study, in more detail, Sterling, RC Del Caribe, Lotus, Digital, Upj ohn
and Flor Quiin, (1) to assess the impact each one of these discharges has on
the quality of groundwater and on its present arid future uses; (2) to
delineate remedial actions, including costs and benefits of each
a]. temative.
18. U S reports existence of numerous water wells that are not within the
.ASA water supply network. These should be checked to see if arty are
supplying water for human consumption.
19. Get injectate analyses with parameters selected according to kind of
industries, chemicals or substances used, and the probability or
possibility of accidental releases of given materials.
20. Tighten up sampling/monitoring requirements to assure their being
representative of rraterials reaching the injection well. (First part of
rain, last part, after a release, etc.)
21. Pre-treatrrent facilities on industrial plant grounds should be examined
critically to see if thea’ may be leaking. The potential for groundwater
contamination fr an these facilities may be nuch more sericLis than storm
water runoff to sin]tholes.
22. Insçection teams should be reinforced by chemical or industrial engineers
whose familiarity with the industrial processes would parmit a more
independent assessment of the impact the industry might have on the
environnent.
-------
Prepared: 10—2—86
Updated: 1-30-87
TE RE &
( ll information recorded as descrIbed in state report
additional correspondence, and verbal canmunication)
STME: Virgin Islands S9 IUS: DI B LIOGRA1 1Y: Yes
TI’ILE: CLass V Well Inspection Program: U.S. Virgin Islands
&rnt : Geraghty and Miller
DATE: 9—86 RE P STMUS: Draft
k k TM . R ! (IFS):
DEW: as part of the well permitting process, collects geologic arid well
construction data, installs and reads water neters, arid r uires suhnission
of r ular piir age information fran ground water cons .xners.
DCCA: responsible for collecting ground water quality data.
E ctensive geologic descriptions resulting fran Geraghty and Miller’s 1983
study of groundwater conditions in the U.S. Virgin Islands for the U.S.
Virgin Islands Department of Conservation and cultural affars are included
in the state report.
IM1 ’1 Y AND SS 9 ENr: 47 wells FURS 4PATIBLE: NO (8—20—86)
itaminatiai Case Regulatory
Type Studies Systan
5W1 1 44 N/A 24 facility N/A
investigations
5W20 3 N/A N/A
Strategy (Date) Rating/Respczise
1. DCCX personnel in charge of the UIC program were
contacted to determine if any records or previous
reports were available for each facility on the FURS
inventory. N/A
2. An atta t was made to contact each facility listed
on the FURS inventory by telephone to check the
accuracy of the information on the inventory. N/A
3. 24 facilities were selected for site inspections based
on their proximity to public supply wells and the type of
waste generated. N/A
-------
Virgm Islarxls
Page o
1. A waste oil management program should be developed, and all existing
unergr nd fuel storage tanks should be inventoried and tested for leaks.
2. To evaluate the extent of septic tank usage on the islands, the DR 1 records
should be inspected to determine which facilities are hooked to the public
sanitary sewer system.
3. Records of the cai anies that clean and install septic systems on the
islands should be inspected in order to determine which facilities still
utilize septic tanks for waste disposal.
4. cpansion and upgrading of existing public danestic waste collection and
disposal systems on St. Croix and St. Thanas &ould greatly reduce the
potential for grQlnd water contamination.
5. More manp ier and ui znent should be caninitted to DP. 1 and DCCA in order to
implement data-collection programs, coordinate the data—collecting
furctions of the o organizations, and store the data so that they can be
easily retrieved.
6. The three 5X (5W20 above) wells should be investigated in rrore detail.
-------
Region III State Report Summaries
Del aware
Maryland
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
-------
Prepared: 1—30—87
Updated: 5—15—87
RE P RY
(All inforitiaticx recorded as described in state r ,ort,
&i tia ial correspcu]erxe, and vexbal ccziuuinicaticri)
STATE: Delaware S’2MUS: Primacy B]I(X3RMflY: Yes
TI ’ILE: Underground Injection Control Program Class V Well 2 ssessment
PirnlR: Philip J. Cherry
DATE: 12-86 RER P STP!IUS: Final
RFSK} IBLE A lC!: Department of Natural Resources and Envirorznental Control,
Water Supply Branch
HYDI JG aCGY: Delaware is divided into two physiographic provinces: (1)
Piediront Province underlain by cxystalline bedrock; and (2) Coastal Plain
underlain by urconsalidated sedimentary deposits (irost irrportant equifers in the
state). Grounciø ater is the primary source of public, rural, and industrial
water supply in 94% of the state; 60% of the population is served by
ground eter.
INV i1 & ASSFS 4 T: 164 Wells FURS 1PAT]BLE: No (8—20—86)
itaminatian Case Regulatory
1 ype R)tentia l Stixlies Systan
5A7 164 Little to None No rmit
Respcise/
Strategy- (Date) Rating
All Class V wells must be permitted; records are
kept in a pa ierful caTputer systeTt. Ccxnpilation of N/A
inventory information requires listing all permitted
Class V wells on the sys tan
1. The uIC database inventory, as well as Delaware’s well and water
allocation database, should be transferred to a more interactive in-house
cat uter-based data sys tan for better data accessibility and reduction in
cog t.
2. The regulations governing installation of CLass V injection facilities,
fnile adequate at the present time, should be updated as the need occurs.
3. The mandatory injection well construction inspections should continue and
be supplemented by annual inspections for continued adherence to
appropriate regulations.
-------
Prepared: 1—30-87
Updated: 4—2—87
E P RY
(All informatiai recorded as described in state report,
a H ti al correspa e, ath verbal camumication)
STWIE: Maryland STMUS: Primacy BTRI.TWRAHff: Yes
TIThE: State of Maryland Class V Injection Well Inventory
and Asses rent
N7flI R: N/A
DM’E: 12—86 REUCicr S’rA 1US: Draft
j ( iiii.R C!(IRS): Depar tient of Health and ntal Hygiene (DHMH), Office
of E 1roz LeL1tal Programs
HYDRCGEOLCGY: Maryland is divided into five ground water provinces: (1)
unconfined aquifers of the eastern portion of the Coastal Plain
Physiographic Province; (2) confined aquifers of the western portion of the
Q astal Plain; (3) crystalline rock aquifers of the Pie&r t and Blue Ridge
Provinces; (4) sedinentary rock aquifers, exclusive of the carbonate rocks,
of the Valley and Ridge and the Appalachian Plateau Provinces; and (5)
carbonate rocks of the pçalachian Plateau, the Great Valley in the Valley
and Ridge Province, and the Frederick Valley in the Pied it Province.
& SSRS 4 P:1, 271 wells FURS PA 1 T IBLE:No (8—20—86)
Qxitaniimtiai ( se Regulatory
ype Nu±er* RtE 1tial** Studies Systan
5D4 3 N/A 1 facility Individual Permit
5A7 368 (3) L z No General Permit
5W31 890 (2) Mir±rial No Individual Permit
5X13 1 N/A No Individual Permit
5W20 9 (1) 3 facilities Individual Permit
* “X” irxltcates well type is kncwn to exist; no numbers available.
** Well types are raril ed according to contamination potential;
1 = highest, 3 = la iest.
Respc ise/
Strategy (Date) Rating
1. Well c ners listed on the FURS printait provided 39% (poor)
8/85 were surveyed by nail.
2. Files of state and county records were searched. N/A
3. Teleplxne ir uiries were made of state agencies that N/A
kept records of Class V wells.
-------
! xylau1
Page —
1. Continue an active program of nonitaring well drilling and sanpling at
industrial Class V well facilities.
2. Maintain- an active itonitaring presence at those industrial sites where
grc*indwater quality is threatened. If graindwater quality is threatened
due to a State permitted Class V discharge, actions should be taken to
alleviate the contamination potential.
3. Maintain communications with Local Health Departments in order to
dissaninate information on current State actions and to solicit canrr nts
for future raanirerdations.
4. Develop a training and guidance program to be made available to local
health departments in order to assist in the future protection of
groundwater supplies. This program should be supported by the State’ s TJIC
grant that is adninistered by the EPA through the Office of Erivironmantal
Programs.
5. Solicit EPA to set aside additional ironies in future grant years to assist
the State in developing the training and guidance program.
6. Develop a factsheet of standard inforn tion to be cbtained and guidelines
to follo. , when drafting Class V industrial drainage and waste disposal
wells.
7. Maintain an accurate UIC Class V data base. The Class V data hase has
been accartodated for in the Waste Managar nt Mninistration’ s Consol idated
Waste Manganent Information Sys tan (()IMIS). This effort has already been
çartially funded by EPA using State UIC carry over rroney.
-------
Prepared: 1—30—87
Updated: 5—15—87
TE xE RY
(All information recorded as described in state report,
thditional correspondence, and verbal cannunication)
STATE: Pennsylvania STA!IUS: D I BILICGRM’HY: Yes
TrITE: tJndergraind Injection Control Program Class V Well As ses sn nt
?I7DKR: U.S. EPA Region III
DATE: 1—87 EER1 i ST 1XJS: Draft
RRSIBLE N JCf: Penr ’s1vania Departh ent of Environmental Resources (DER),
Bureau of Water Quality Managexent (B M)
HYD G Y: There are two major types of grourx3water flow or aquifer systans
within the CcniuorAøjealth of Pennsylvania: (1) unconsolidated alluvial fluvial
deposits fran which most ground waters used for public water supplies are
derived due to their high trananissivities and geographic relationship to high
population density areas; and (2) fractured sedirrentaxy bedrock which often
serve as the only source of water for individual danestic needs in rural
Pennsylvania. ?‘bst Class V operations inject directly into or above underground
sources of drinkir water.
DW I1 & ASS 4 iP: 1,026 wel is FURS 4PATIBLE: No (8—20—86)
Qzitaiiinaticri Case Regulatory
Type Rt i’1 al ** Sttxlies Syst9ns
5D2 155 (2) High No
5A7 24 (6) Low No
5W9 X N/A No
5W12 4 (4) Unlaiown No N/A
5X13 81]. (5) Low Yes Mine Operation
5A19 X N/A No
5w20 19 (1) Deletericu.s 4 facilities Pennit
5W31 13 (3) Pending No
* ‘ t X indicates well types known to exist; no number available
** Well types are ranked according to contamination potential
(1 = highest, 6 = lowest)
Ratiirj/
Strate r (1 te) Respcx se
(1979—81)
1. Manual search of the ground water file N/A
at B M
2. Review of industrial waste files N/A
(“case files”)
3. Review of solid waste files N/A
4. Review of mine pennit files N/A
-------
Pennsylvania
Page
Rating/
Strategy (c t.) Respc se
5. Personal contacts and telephone not
interviews with govenirrent agencies significant
6. Survey questionnaire sent to Mayors 50%
or Burough Council Presidents, Tcwnship
Chairuen or Canmission Presidents, County
Cainissioners, County Health Deçartxrents,
and water well drillers
7. De ar rent of Transportation survey 30 sites
(4 offices) located
8. RCRA hazardous waste notification 2 located of
survey 77 irx uiries
9. Survey of heat puxtp manufacturers 14 responses of
and distributors 26 irquiries
(1983) 1. EPA sent questionnaires r uesting
verification of and u ates to the database N/A
to each Class V well operator on the
previous inventory
2. Placed public notices of tJIC requir nts N/A
in each of Pennsylvania’ s maj or newspapers
3. (5A7) Responses were reviewed for
cartpleteness and cross-checked a thst
existing inventory N/A
4. (5D2) Each of the 11 Departmant of N/A
Transportation off ices were surveyed
5. (5X13) Personal visits made to Bureau of N/A
Aban&ined Mine Reclamation (3 offices),
Penn. Dept. of the Interior (Office of
Surface Mining (2 offices)
6. (5W11 & 5W20) Contacted personally or by N/A
phone: state and regional DER, B B
offices; state DER office; all
ners/operators of cannercial or
industrial waste facilities and sane
a iners/operators of sanitary sewage
disposal sys tarts with wells; and
camty health departirents
RE T :
Specifics as to reccxnmrerded future federal action is prauature at this tine.
-------
Prepared: 11—26—86
______ Updated: 5—15—87
TE
(All infocu ticxi r r as described in state report ,
a itiaial correspc 1er e, ard verbal camuinicaticz )
STATE: Virginia STMUS: DI BTRT.TCGRAPHY: No
TIThE: 1. AsscssiT t of Selected Class V Wells in the State of Virginia
2. Assesat nt of Class IV Wells in Saltville, VA
3. Virginia CLass V tJIC Assessrrent
N7111*: 1. Q 2M Hill
2. C rtin
3. USEPA Region III
DATE: 1. 4—83 x a ..acr STh IUS: 1. Final
2. 12—84 2. Final
3. 5—86 3. Final
R. 4i.R 3 IC (I ): USEPA Region III
HYDI G LOQY: Five physiograçhic regi 1s (fran east to west) are recognized:
Coastal Plain, Piedmont, Blue Ridge, Valley and Ridge, and Appalachian
(Curnberland) Plateau. Alrrost half of the state’s grcxindwater curs in the
Coastal Plain. Eighty percent of the population relies either partly or
entirely on grwnd ater fur their ater supply. Approximately 400 million
gallons of grourdwater are used every day.
fl W I AND ASSRS.9IENP: 1,864 Wells FURS lPM’IBLE: NO(8—20—86)
itaminaticzi case Regulatory
Type t9 1tia1 St xiies Systan
5D2 116 La Yes N/A
5D3 No N/A
5D4 3 No N/A
5A7/19 1735 N/A Yes N/A
5W11 6 No N/A
5W12 1 No N/A
5W20 2 Variable Yes N/A
5 7* 8 No N/A
5X28 1 No N/A
* Propane storage wells (should be Class II)
** “X” irdicates well type is believed to cist; no niinbers available
Strategy (Date): Respcxise/Rating
N/A N/A
RE A S:
N/A
-------
Prepared: 1—28—87
Updated: 5—15—87
RE P RY
(All infonration recorded as described in state report,
aIdi tional correspondence, and verbal caninunica tion)
S’1 1 : West Vi:rginia S’JWIUS: Pr acy BT1 1.TWR RIY: Yes
State of West Virginia tJndergrarnd Inj ection Control Program,
Class V Injection Well Inventory and Assess nent
AImiOR: D.W. Long, J.M. King, K.W. Ellison
DA 1 : 1/87 RERier STAIJ.US: Draft
RESPONSIBLE 2 GENCY(IES): West Virginia Division of Water Resources (U ’JR),
Deparbnent of Natural Rescurces (DNR).
HYDROGEOLOGY: West Virginia is divided into 3 physiographic provinces:
Appalachian plateaus, Blue Ridge, and Valley arid Ridge. Precipitation is the
main source of recharge to groundwater sys tans. The two principle types of
aquifers are unconsolidated alluvial deposits and sediitentary bedrcxk aquifers
(Pennsylvanian and Mississippian). Pennsylvanian rocks are likely to host
mining activities while Mississippian rocks are susceptible to contamination due
to sinkholes and large solution openings. Abandoned underground mines are an
inpartant source of ground ater for public supply and industrial use.
FURS
INV ITOR’f AND ASSESSMENI’: 83 wells 4PM’]KE: NO (8—20—86)
it aIiUllatiCXI C se Regulatory
Type NLmI,er* tentia1 Stixlies Systan
5F1 X High No
5D2 2+ High NO
5D3 X High No
5D4 X High No N/A
5W11 2 N/A No
5X13 268 La. z No Mine Operation
5X16 2 N/A No
* “X” indicates well type is krxx in to exist; no numbers available.
Strategy
5D2-4: Prepared na is release anricur ing DNR’ $ intent to assess this well
type.
5W11: Ground water discharge survey conducted by State Water Resources
Division Inspectors.
-------
West Virginia
Page 1ti
Strategy (cciit.)
5X13: In-depth study by graduate student including permit file rev-jews,
questiormaires, xna os, letters of irx uiry, and telephone contacts.
5X16: Information was submitted along with applications for Class III
permits for solution mining operations.
RE M :
(5X13) 1. In instances where Coal Slurry Disposal and Acid Mine Drainage
Precipitate Wells may have detrixi ntal effects on USI s, it would see i
prudent to regulate injection fluid catposition, quantity, injection
rate, injection well construction and operation, hydrogeologic
transport, and exposure risk, anong other factors, as needed.
2. Regulation of AM T injection wells is not warranted at this time.
(5W11) If contamination potential were to be detected and irore information on
these wells cannot be produced to facilitate regulation and/or
r nedi al action, then the wells should be plugged, and a]. t er-nate
sources of waste disposal should be found.
(5D2-4) These wells should all be identified and plugged within the shortest
possible time fran .
(5X16) These types of wells could be incoxporated into a Class III solution
mining permit, or a new permit could be created which closely
approximates the conditions set forth in a Class III permit, to
initiate regulation.
-------
Region IV State Report Suitimaries
Alabama
Florida
Georgia
Kentucky
Mississippi
North Carolina
South Carolina
Tennessee
-------
Prepared: 7—28—86
Updated: 4—23—87
TE RER %RY
(All information recorded as described in state report,
additional correspondence, and verbal canmunication)
STM’E: Alabama STM’LJS: Prizracy BTR1.TOGRA 3Y: Yes
TI’ILE: 1. Alabama CLass V Injection Well Asses nt Report
2. Evaluation of Storm Water Drainage (Class V) Wells, Muscle
Sboals, Alabama
3. Response to Cannents on Alabama’ s CLass V Asse nt
N7fl R: 1. Alabama Deçartir nt of Erivironn ntal Managaient (ADEN)
2. Geological Survey of Alabama, Water Rescxirces Division
3. Laura E. Mirq, AlDEN
DME: 1. 6—86 iCI!R1C1 S ”IWIUS: 1. Draft
2. 8—86 2. Final
3. 2-87 3. Not Applicable
ia L HI . R C t (IFS): Alabama Departxtent of Envirorirrental Managanent
Northern province : Consolidated rocks formed before and during the
Appalachian orogeny. Resistant sandstones and metamorphic rocks form
ridges ai plateaus while valleys are cut into limestones. Water table
depths range fran 10 to 50 feet.
Scxithern province : Unconsolidated sedirrents deposited during coastal plain
dec,elopnent. Abur ant sath units provide shallcyz water table uifers.
About 45-55% of the population of Alabama deperx on grcxmdwater as a source
of drinking water; 85% of the public water supply systans use grounc zater
f or part of their supply. The principal withdrawal areas for grcundwater
are the Coastal Plain ar the Tennessee Valley areas. Industry also uses
groun iater for their process needs, but these wells are not regulated.
flW J’IU Y ND ASS SM 1r: 144 facilities FURS a PATIBLE: NO (8—20—86)
* amtaminatiai Case Regulatory
Type Nu er tential Sti dies Systen
5D2 9 Varies accord— Several cases zmits required
5W 11 1 ing to site- presented. for all Class V
5X13 X ’ specific More inf or- operations
5A19 33 details mation needed
5W20 98 on each
5X25 2 facility
5X26 1
* These nubers represent facilities rather than wells
** Wells believed to exist; no nur±ers available
-------
Mabat
ge f--
Strategy (Date) Rating/Response
6-82) Notice placed in newspaper informing a iners of
Class V wells that they were cIligat& to apply
for a UIC permit 30%
—85) iners of facilities were notified to determine
whether they were still in operation
? ) Notified State and County Health Departments and
State funeral hane licensing agency
RE :
1. Facilities which operate Class V injection wells and are not a
potential threat to the groundwater could be controlled without
r uiring a permit. Construction r uiranents could sufficiently
protect the grc*mdwater fran contamination.
2. EPA should ensure that State programs will address the potential
impact on groundwater by Class V operations. “One means of
accatiplishing this goal may be a revised formula for grant canputation
which assigns more weight to Class V wel is.”
-------
Prepared: 1—28—87
Updated:
TE r RY
(All infarmatiai recordth as described in state report,
&iii tic al correspc x3eire, ai verbal caiuiunicatiai)
STM : Florida STMUS: Primacy BIBLIOGRAPHY: Yes
TIILE: Florida Underground Injection Control Class V Well Inventory and
P sses nt Report
NTDIOR: Bureau of Groundwater Protection, Florida Dept. of Environmental
Regulation
DATE: 12/86 REPiicr S’JWIUS: Draft
Ith ikU T1 I.R X t : Deper rent of Envirorxre.ntal Regulation (DER): 1) Division
of Envirorntental Pxtgrains; 2) Division of Envirorinental Permitting. Often a
Class V well will be permitted by both DER and the appropriate water manag nent
district (of which there are five).
HYDI()GICGY: The Floridan (north & central) and Biscayne (southeast) aquifers
are the prinary aquifers receiving water injected through Class V wells in
Florida. Because of high tran nissivites, the sole hindrance to the volume of
water a well receives in sate areas is the physical size and condition of the
well (possibilities range up to hundreds or thousands of gallons per minute into
the receiving aquifer).
FU
i]lVEW1 AND ASS.FS 4ENF: 25,573 wells a 4PM’]BLE:No(8—2O—86)
CXmtaziiinatiai Case Regulatory
I ype Nux±er* Potential Sttdies Systau
5F1 X N/A No A permit nust
5D2 1539+ 1 Yes be cbtained to
5D3 X 1 No constnict all
5D4 X 1 No ClassVwells
5A7 2671 7 No with the except-
5W11 19000 N/A No ion of air con-
5W12 553 2 Yes ditioning return
5 9 35 5 Yes f ioN and swirrming
5W20 20 4 Yes pool drainage
5R21 349 3 Yes wells which are
5B22 2 N/A No issued a general
5X25 3 N/A No permit.
5X27 16 N/A No
5X28 X N/A No
5X29 X N/A No
5G30 1385 6 Yes
* “X indicates well type is kncwn to exist, no nii±ers available.
* ell types are ranked according to contamination potential; 1 = highest, 7 =
lc .,est
-------
Florida
Page
Sfl A Y (Date)
(1970) First inventory conducted by Florida Dept. of Air and Water Pollution
troi - dtained information fran State Board of Health çennit files
which date back to 1937.
(1977) Inventory updated by Florida DER - used permit files dated 1950 to
1976.
(1980) CLass V inventory was caupiled for the tJIC program — 1977 inventory
was on wel is drilled between 1977 and 1980. Telephone surveys arid a
mail survey were also conducted. 6,684 weils were identified.
(1982-83) Owner notifioation program was conducted. 7,000 questionnaires were
mailed out and 2,973 wells were identified (many duplicates of
previcus inventories). -
(1984) Inventory updated and duplications eliminated. 9,602 wells were
identified.
(1986) t u Groundwater Manag nent Systan ( S) identifies 6,564 wells. Not
all wells in 1984 inventory have been entered into the GMS.
RE ATIC :
(5W12) Should further n nitoring shcw that the s age treatment plant is, in
fact, discharging effluent that results in drinking water standard
violations in the effluent discharged to the drainage wells, sane type
of action will be r uired by FDER. Such corrective action will
probably be directed ta ,azd nodifying the s lage treatment plant.
(5W11) Further study is ra uired.
(5R21) 1. To minimize the c currence of connector wells draining water with
high levels of radionuclide paramEters, ground water in the surf icial
aquifer should be thoroughly analyzed in advance of connector well
construction and all new connector wells should be properly
constructed and routinely sampled. More attention to well
construction and maintenance would also improve well performance and
prevent suspended solids f ran entering connector wel is.
2. 2 reas of shalla ground water contamination should be avoided in
siting connector wells.
(5D2-4) 1. nitoring wells located to specifically n nitor certain of the
injection wells should be constructed and sampled.
-------
Florida
Page Three
Recam x3atiais (ccrit.)
2. Monitoring wells should be constructed using information on
casing depth and çerrreable zones intercepted by the inj ection well.
3. Monitoring wells should be constructed to monitor all the
perneable zones that are suspected of being connected to the mi ection
well.
4. Ground water hydrographs and precipitation records should be used
to daronstrate bydraulic connection between the rronitor and inj ection
wells before sariples are collected.
(5A7) The state çennitting agency should insure that the wells be and are
constructed and operated properly. This effort will entail a review
of well construction data by the state, as well as pr ably requiring
permit language that assures that any ground water heat pu np systan
that is damaged or otherwise malfunctions will be prariptly repaired.
(5M9) The several systens which place additives in the cooling water should
not be allab,,ed to operate.
(5W20) These wells should be permitted only when injection is into ground
water containing greater than 10,000 rng/l TDS. If a US1 ’J is present
above the injection zone, on-site well nonitoring should be required
which is capable of detecting the migration of effluent in the
direction of the U J. This practice should be discouraged and these
wastes should be routed to on-site treatment syst ns or municipal
sanitary sewer systans if possible.
(5W2 0) Class V reverse osnosis rej ect water wells should be permitted using
extratte caution. The supply water should be analyzed for primary and
secondary water quality pararreters and a projection should be made as
to the expected reject water quality before a well is permitted. If
the projected reject water quality is as g ed or better than the
ambient water quality in the injection zone, a Class V well may be
permitted if the applicant can daronstrate that the injected fluids
will raTlain in the injection zone.
(Regs) 1. thange the regulations in order to exarpt fluids being injected
in a Class V aquifer ranediation well (5X26) fran having to satisfy
the drinking water quality standards or be of a quality equal to, or
better than, the natural unaffected background water quality. This
requirarent should be replaced with one that requires the injected
fluid to be better than that in the contaminated uifer undergoing
renediation. The fluids inj ected would also have to be canpietely
captured by the neaiby wi thdra. ral wel is. A very stringent ironi toring
program would also be required.
-------
florida
ge F r
RecamETxiatic s (ccxit.)
2. Changes should be made in the UIC regulations which would
specifically r uire mechanical integrity testing for Class V wells
which inject poor quality fluids, urxier pressure, into a non-USt J
located between two USLW or belcw a USLI’J.
3. Construction r8 uiranents should be left as is due to the great
variety of possible Class V well designs. e stringent construction
requiranents should be anphasized when poor quality effluent is
injected into non-UStJW zones located below a USDW or between two
USE s. There should be a range of requiranents for these wells,
determined by the quantity and quality of eEfluent mi ected and the
quality of the USDWs below and/or above, with the most stringent
requirar nt being the Class I injection well standards. The proximity
of drinking water st ply wells should also be taken into account when•
considering construction requirat nts for Class V wells.
-------
Prepared: 1—13—87
Updated: 4—24—87
TE KE RY
(All irifonnation recorded as described in state report,
edditional correspondence, and verbal cannunication)
STM : Georgia STMUS: Prinacy B1W.TOGR IY: No
ITILE: 1. Inventorying and Assessing Class V Injection Wells
2. An Asses nent of Class V Injection Wells th Georgia
N71 K)R: 1. J.C. Adams, Ralph M. Lainade
2. Patricia Franzen
DPiTE: 1. 4—86 IER)ier ST fLUS: 1. Draft
2. 12—86 2. Final
1CiHI AF C!(Th ): Geologic Survey Branch of the Environn ntal Protection
Division (EPD) of the Georgia Depar rent of Natural Resources
BYDROGEOLOGY: Georgia is characterized by the absence of oil and gas
production, mineral resources that are not amenable to solution or well-slurry
mining techniques, fresh water aquifers to depths of 2000 feet, thick clayey
residual soils that protect the bedrock aquifers of north Georgia, and multiple
confining units that protect the aquifers of south Georgia. Drainage wells
represent the type of injection well nost likely to adversely affect water
quality in USEW. The geologic character of the state is not conducive to
injection well technology.
INV lTORY AND ASSRS 1 Nr: 163 wells FURS 4PATIBLE: NO (8—20—86)
Qxitaminaticxi C se Regulatory
‘I ’pe Nuther Rt it4a1 Stadies Systan
5F1 43 Lo, z/UnIm zn No Banned
5D2 2 None (Plugged) No Banned
5D3 0 None No Banned
5D4 2 None (Plugged) No Banned
5A7 111 L No Banned
5A19 5 No Permit
Strategy Rating/Response
1. General Assesanent---mail survey--Univ. of Ga.
contacted licensed well drillers, FWAC contractors,
county health and public work departments, U.S. 68%
Soil nservation Service field offices, city
engineers.
-------
G r a
Page
Strategy ( t.) Rating/Respcrise
2. Specific ssessrrent--verif ication—-GrRC
a. mail Survey: Phase 1, Phase 2 25%, 43%
b. telep1 ie ar personal inteiviews N/A
c. verification of initial survey N/A
3. Fol 1c z-up Ass essmit - EPD
visited water well drillers, personal contacts Best
R ATIC S
1. Additional efforts should be made to identify agricultural drainage wells.
2. Wells identified should be pl ged and water samples should be checked for
contamination within the corresponding well r ion.
3. Suspend or revoke the license of ar ’ driller who constructs an illegal
well. Loss of license r resents loss of iricane to the well driller.
4. Prdiibit new grairid water heat purips.
-------
Prepared: 4—20—87
Updated:
ARY
(All information recorded as described in state report,
additional corresponderxe, and verbal caluTunication)
P TE: Kentucky STMUS: DI B]BLIOGRAI 1Y: Yes
‘iTILE: An Assessnent of CLass V Ir jection Wells in Kentucky
&J’flIOR: US EPA Region IV
DAlE: ? RE r STA ’ iUS: Draft?
R I E C (I ): USEPA Region IV
HYDI()G. L)GY: Groundwater serves 31% of the pcpulation in Kentucky. cc1uding
withdrawals for thermoelectric pcx.zer, groundwater use is 22% of total
(water) use. Recharge is primarily fran precipitation. Principal aquifers
include the Alluvial, rtiary and Oretacecils, Pennsylvanian Sandstone, and
Mississippian and Oxdovician Limastone k uifers.
IW II Y AND ASSFS 4EN’P: 1360 wells FURS (X 4PMIBLE: No (8—20—86)
itaminat.tcxi ( se Regulatory
!L ’pe NUTI,er* tentia1 Sttxites Systau
5F1 X N/A No N/A
5D2 484+ nal1est ° Yes Local/City/None
5D3 76 nallest ° Yes Local/City/None
5D4 X nallest ° No KPDES Permit
5A7 X N/A No N/A
5W12 3 Serious No To be eliminated
5X13 61 Serious No Permit
5W31 736 Un n No Rule
(Health Dept.)
* “X” indicates well type may exist
+ Estimated additional 100 wells not inventoried
o Or dependent on lath use in the drainage area
Strategy Rating/Respcaise
(1983) WE Contract with 4C Martin (5D2, 3) Located
47 wells
(1984) Grant with Western Kentucky Univ. (5D2, 3) Located
560 wells
(?) Envixon rental Impact Study, Jefferson Located
County (5W11) 736 wells
(?) Region IV staff (5X13) Located
61 wells
-------
Kent r
ge
(5D2-4) 1. Ne i wells should be investigated and added to FURS.
2. Identify wells draining contaminated zunoff fran caruiercial or
industrial areas. Where possible, the contaminants should be
prevented fran entering the storm water.
3. Retention basins might be planned so runoff can be released
slo. ily into the sanitary se r or treated before entering the
well.
4. Plug or cement deep wells which may cause mixing between
aqu.i. fers.
5. Construct a stand pipe, several feet in height, at the opening of
the well.
6. Md a sand and gravel filter to the well.
(5W:L2) All three wells are scheduled to be plugged in 1988 when the regional
treathient plant and interceptor s er is canpleted.
(5X 13) R uire ,riers/operators to suhnit permit applications.
-------
Prepared: 4—22—87
Updated:
TE 1 O P &J RY
(All jnfarn ation recorded as described in state report,
additional correspondence, and verbal catm.rnication)
STM : Mississippi b’rMUS: Primacy BIBI 1 IOGRAPHY: Yes
TI 1LE: State of Mississippi CLass V Injection Well Inventory
&T1 : Mississippi Dept. of Natural Resources, Bureau of Pollution Control
Dl !1’E: 3-87 I EIU T STA!JXJS: Final
i SEa TRI.R 3 X ( (ThE): Mississippi Dept. of Natural Resources,
Bureau of Pollution Control
H D1 XE CGY: Geologic and t ’drologic conditions and quality of gr indwater vary
throughout the state. The state is divided into six groundwater areas: 1) far
northeast; 2 northeast; 3) north central arid central; 4) north ,est-Mississippi
Delta; 5) central; and 6) saith.
fl Th2 11 T OWf AND ASSEESMENP: 14 wells FURS 1PM’IBLE: No (8-20-86)
itaminatiai ( se Regulatory
I ype 1 tential St ies SystQn
5A7 7 N/A No N/A
5W11 X+ N/A No N/A
5 5* 5 N/A No Rule
5 7** 2 N/A No Rule
* Gro nd zater solute transport studies
** Teiparazy injection of drlg. fluids at gas well sites
+ “X t ’ indi tes well type believed to exist; no numbers available
Strategy Rating/Respcr se
(?) Telep1 one survey conducted to determine which governmantal Poor
agencies permit or keep records on Class V wells.
Contacted E district offices, seater manag nt district
offices, local erwirorix ntal programs, and county health
departuents.
(?) Mail survey conducted. Contacted all licensed well Poor
drillers in the state.
RE M :
N/A
-------
Prepared: 1—16—87
Updated:
S Th RE RY
(All information recorded as described in state report,
additional correspondence, and verbal communication)
STATE: North Carolina SIYM’US: Primacy BIBLICXRAPHY: Yes
TIJLE: North Carolina Class V Injection Well Inventory Assessnent Report
NYIHOR: NC Deçartrrent of Natural Resources and Carinunity Developt nt, Division
of Env irorinental Manag nent, Groundwater Section
DATE: 12-86 REPO1 1’ STATUS: Draft
R TRT.R ?L Cf: Division of Environmental Manag nent in the
Departxrent of Natural Resources and
Canrruni ty Deve1o nent.
HYDI Z OGY: North Carolina can be divided into 7 major hydro o1ogic units:
(1) Great Srnokey Mountain Belt (2) Blue Ridge - Inner Piedmont Belt (3)
tharlotte Belt (4) Carolina Slate Belt (5) ¶ftiassic Basins (6) Sand Hills, and
(7) Coastal Plain Sediments. Knci zn Class V injection wells are primarily
located in four of the nost praluctive units: (2), (3), (4), arid (7). Gro. ith—
water usage within the state as a whole accounts for itore than 60 percent of
total ater required, and in the coastal plain, usage exceeds 90 percent of
total water required.
flW 11 Y AND ?SS SSM NP: 99 wells FTJRS aI4PATIBEE: No (8-20-86)
1taminatiQ I Case Regulatcn:y
Type NL er tentia1 Sbxlies Systen*
5A7 79 No nitoring &
Permit Required
5X25 8 N/A No Permit Required
5X26 12 N/A No Permit Required
* “a permit shall be obtained from the director prior to constructing,
operating, or using any wel 1 for injection.”
RespckIse/
Strategy (I te) Rating
Contacts made by one, letter, or visit with:
Regional drilling contractors, heating and
air conditioning contractors least helpful
Building inspectors nost helpful
Also: Realtors, housing de relopnents, country clubs, funeral
hanes, n rtuaries, dry cleaners, cainty health depertnEnts,
local governmental departments, lending institutions,
individual well a iners
-------
rth roUna
Page o
ATIC
1. Every inj ection well contact rrust be covered and informed of state
statutes and regulations. ? fter the education is caitplete, inventory upkeep is
relatively easy.
2. The FURS systan should be iriplanented in North Carolina. Upkeep of
the present systan by sending in inventory farms is inad uate and not the rrcst
efficient method of inventoty upkeep.
3. Regulating heat pimp facilities is best accar plished by nonitoring the
effluent and systan configuration. The permit al1a zs UIC staff access to the
facility and effluent sampling port. Thus, samplings and inspections are
usually continued after permitting in North Carolina.
4. Should ranedial action becane necessary at an unpermitted site where
grcxind ater has becaie polluted, the recatinended procedure would be to close
dcwn the facility, and take steps to neutralize the contaminant plume.
-------
Prepared: 4—20—87
Updated:
RE &Th RY
(All irifornation recorded as described in state report,
additional correspondence, and verbal caruruini cation)
STM’E: South Carolina STATUS: Primacy BIBLI(XRAPHY: Yes
PPILE: An Assessr nt of Class V Injection Wells in South Carolina
NYmOR: Sofge, G.M., C.M. Livingston, and M.A. Williams
DATE: 12—86 REIOi r S’IWIUS: Final
kU R CiIHl.R A} C!(Th ): South Carolina Dept. of Health arx3
E wirorKnental Control (SCEHEC)
HYD1 D aY: The SCDHEC has classified and designated the aquifers within
South Carolina into nine systans (briefly described in state report). All
aquifers in South Carolina r et the definition for USW.
INV 1 AND ASS ’1E 1T: >493 FURS 4PATIBLLE: No (8—20—86)
Qxitaniination Case Regulatoxy
‘I ’pe NuzI,er Potential* Stixlies Systen
5D2 31 1 (high) 2 facilities rrnit
5A7 >60 2 (l i) 3 wells Rule
5A19 2 facilities 2 (la i) 1 facility Rule
5W20 >200 drainfields 3 4 facilities Permit
5W32 >200 drainfields 3 No nnit
* Contamination Potential is ranked fran highest to 1cx est; 1=highest, 3=lazest
Strategy (Date) - Rating/Respcklse
(?) Field inspections.
Mailed questionnaires to arthitects, engineers,
nunicipalities and well drillers.
Re,iewed state project files. N/A
Contacted State and Federal personnel.
Mailed nags letters.
RE ATICX :
(5A7/19) 1) The policy prohibiting injection into an aquifer or zone
different fran the source s1 - uld be continued.
2) Proper distances between retuim and production wells should be
maintained.
-------
Sc ith carolina
Page Tho
Pecaiinerxiati s (ccrit.)
3) Ebt iding the return line below water level arid installing a back
pressure valve at the end of the discharge line is neceessary.
4) Cavitation of the pump within the production well should be
avoided.
5) Tanperature and pressure shut-off sensors within the heat pump
units should rai in in proçer operation.
6) Authorization by rule is appropriate for properly spaced arid
operated systans.
7) Additional funding to support State evaluations of groundwater
impact fran high density situatia-is involving 5A7 wei is should be
provided.
(5W20) 1) Embalming fluid wastes (volatiles arid base neutral and acid
extractables) are inherently unsuitable for biological treabre.nt
arid disposal via septic tanks and drain fields.
2) The policy of prohibiting the installation of septic tank/drain
field for tr ting e nbalming fluids (current practice requires
holding facilities and periodic r noval and proper disposal)
should be continued.
-------
Prepared: 4—20—87
Updated:
RE RY
(All inforirtition recorded as described in state r ort,
addi tiona]. correspondence, arid verbal cariirurii cation)
ST Th: ‘Pennessee ST aUS: D.I. BThLIWRM’RY: Yes
ITILE: An Asses3nent of CLass V mi ection Wells in Tennessee
ATfl OR: US EPA Region IV
DALE: ? iCER* r STALUS: Draft?
R 1BtaE 1 3 lC (ThS): USEPA Region I V
HYD1 )GE(IL)GY: Groundwater serves 51% of the population in Tennessee. Excluding
withdrawals for thernoelectric p er, ground ater use is 21% of total ( ter)
use. Rechaxge is primarily fran precipitation. Principal aquifers include
Alluvial, I rtiary. etac ais Sand, Pennsylvanian Sandstone, Mississippian and
Ordovician Carbonate, I(noc, Cathrian and Ordo rician xbonates, aid ystalline
Rak 2 quifers.
fllV 11 AND ASS .9 P: 82 wells FURS 4PAI9BIE: No (8-20-86)
CXritaminatixi C se Regulatory
‘1 ’pe teritia1 Studies Systan
5D2 7 N/A Yes New wells
r uire a
5D3 5 N/A Yes permit.
5A7 70* No N/A
5X13 X N/A No N/A
* Estimated 700 to 1000 wells
Strategy (Date) R 1 RSPcXIS
(1980—81) 1. Identified areas of Karst landscape. N/A
2. Mailed letter r uesting information to 45%
300 organizations and individuals (mail-
ing list cbtained fran telephone bocks).
3. Interviewed landaNners, residents of bst
flocid—prone areas, city officials, and Successful
people on the street.
4. Interviewed state government officials Helpful
in Nashville, ‘IN.
-------
Teru essee
Page 1 iio
Strategy (Date) - c t. Rating/Response
(1982) 1. Made contacts with several groups to or
locate wells: industries — 5A19 & 5X13;
‘LN Dept. of Health — 5W9, 10, 11, & 12.
2. Contacted 1/3 of the registered water Lcca ted
well drillers in the state — 5A7. -70 wells
RE DATI( :
(5D2,3) 1. Plug deeper wells which may cause mixing between aquifers.
2. Direct runoff in ca rrercial and ithus trial areas to sanitary
sewers, or retain and treat storm water before releasing it to
drainage wells.
3. Construct a stand pipe, several feet in height, at the opening to
the well.
4. Md a sand and gravel filter to the well.
(5A7) 1. Contamination can be prevented by requirir closed loop systems.
2. Wells sho ad be properly constructed, wit1 cement behind the
casing, to prevent surface runoff fran r.mnir do in the backside
of the casing into UST J.
-------
Region V State Report Summaries
Illinois
Indiana
Michigan
Minnesota
Ohio
Wisconsin
Indian Lands
-------
Prepared: 11—24—86
Updated: 8—24—87
S TE RER RY
(All irifonnation recorded as described in state report,
additional correspondence, and verbal camrunica tion)
S’1XI : Illinois STATUS: Primacy B1W.T RAPHY: Yes
TI’ILE: i. Class IV and Class V Injection Well Inventory.
2. An Assessment of Class V Underground Injection in Illinois,
Interim Report. Phase One: Assessment of Current Class V
Activities in Illinois.
3. An Assessment of Class V Underground Injection in Illinois,
Interim Report. phase io: Identification of Possible Action
Options.
4. An Assessment of CLass V Underground Injection in Illinois
&YfliOR: 1. Ste en Davis and Monte Nienkirk;
2. Stephen L. Burch, and Bruce R. Hensel, Illinois State Water
Survey Division, flhinois State Geological Survey;
3. San as2.
4. Stephen L. Burch, Bruce R. Hensel, John S. Nealon, and Edward
C. anith
J) . 1. 5—84 xaia S’IMUS: 1. Final
2. 7—86 2. Draft
3. 12—86 3. Draft
4. 6—87 4. Final
R IU IBt 1 E P(J CY(IFS): Illinois Envilt)nnental Protection Agency (IEPA);
Illinois Pollution Control Board (IP )
HYDI GECLCGY: Most groundwater in Illinois is cbtained fran unconsolidated sand
and gravel, sandstone, or fractured limestone and dolanite. Brine and
brackish a uifers are found belcw 2000 feet in the northern part and 100
feet in the southern part of the state. Injection is generally to zones
with high bydraulic conductivity and to open caverns (both abandoned mines
and sinkholes). Very ged site-specific inf ttetion is included in the
state report.
INV fl AM) ASS .9l ?r: 1,766 wells FURS 4PATIBLE: NO (8—20—86)
* Qmtamiriaticzi C se Regulatory
Type Niither ___ Sb xlies Systan
5F1 6 N/A Yes All Class V
5D2 697 High Yes operations are
5D4 47 Moderate Yes authorized by
5A7 57 N/A No rule until
5W9 916 Moderate Yes (illegal) assessne.nts are
5W12 1 N/A No canpieted and
5X13 5 N/A No recanitendations
5A19 10 N/A No are made.
5W20 16 Moderate Yes
5R21 1 N/A No
5 4 1 N/A No
5X25 2 N/A No
5X28 5 N/A No
Unkna ,n 2 N/A No
* “X” indicates well types kna n to exist; no nurrber available
-------
M i1ed questionnaire to well drillers, engineers,
private ca panies, stat dde associations, arid
U.S. Professional Services.
2. Telephone survey - 270 contacts made (cities arid
counties).
3. Press release in state arid local nsølsçapers.
RE A1 :
1. Use of st m water drainage wells should be discouraged.
2. Location of storm water drainage wells should be ±iasized.
3. UIC manager should use zoning ordinances to limit future construction of
storn iater drainage wells to residential areas.
4. Use of detention poixis should be prcnioted.
5. Policies should prohibit injection wells near or in flow paths toward
public water supply wells.
flhirxis
Page o
Strategy
(1984) 1.
Rating/Respcxise
37%
Invaluable
0
-------
Prepared: 12—17—86
Updated:
s’rATE
(All information recorded as described in state report,
additional correspondence, and vetbal canrnuriication)
i IE: Indiana STA IUS: DI BTRI.TCGRAPRY: Yes
TIJLE: Inventory and Asses nt of CLass V Inj ection Wel is in Irxliana
NJTEOR: Geraghty and Miller
DATE: 12/86 REF( cr S’I flJS: Draft
j itit.R C!(I ):
Departhtent of Natural Resources (DNR)
Departxr nt of Enviroriiental riagaient (DEN)
HYDI JG L)GY: Indiana has been divided into four regions on the basis of the
principal source of ater supplies used in each region. With the exception of
several areas in the southern part of the state, surf icial deposits consisting
aE Pleistocene—aged glacial drift, alluvium, and lake deposits blanket the
State. Grour 3water resources are derived fran both surf icia]. urconcol idated
aquifers arid bedrcck aquifers.
IN 1 iI NI) SS 4 P: 3816 wells FURS Q PATIBI E: No (8—20—86)
pe ber pe
5F1 72 5W11 895
5D2 2180 5W12 27
5D3 26 5X15 1
5D4 8 5XL6 8
5p 5* 1 5X18* 3
5 * 3 5A19 22
5A7 236 5W20 30
5 * 3 5X26 4
5W9 22 5X28 2
5W10 22 5 Q9 156
5W31 105
No information was provided on contamination potential, case
studies, or r ulatary systans.
* Verification efforts proved these wells do not exist.
-------
Page f.- .
Strategy P.espcxise/
Rating
1. Questionnaire packages containing a stazr!ped,
addressed return envelope, a cover letter des-
cribirig the program, arid a r uest far collect
telephone calls to G&M cor erning questions
were nailed to:
a. countyhealthdepartnentsanitarians............. 7%
b. county agricultural extension agents.... .. ....... 39%
c. soil conservation service district representatives 31%
d. director of public works of all cities in the
state. . . . . . . • . . . . . . • • • • • • . , • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 25%
e. drilling car anies listed in the 1986 N’ WA direc-
tory, arid selected drilling ccznpanies fran the
listing of registered water well drillers in the
tate..... ........ . . . . . .. . . . . . . •....... . . . . . . . . . . 17%
2. Te].ep1 ne inter ri ’,s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ?
3. Personal intervleRls. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ?
Recam aticxis:
1. Additional resources trust be allocated to this program in order to neet the
tJIC mandates.
2. Additional work is needed in order to expand arid refine the assesanent
report by incorporating rr e specifics and case sthdies.
3. ddi tior al work is needed in order to ref the procedures for determining the
degree-of-risk.
4. Additional work is needed to develop options for corrective actions arid
regulations of varicus well types.
5. Additional work is needed ta ,ard developnent of ilTplanentation steps.
6. The Class V inventory and asses rent reports must be updated annually.
-------
Prepared: 12—17—86
Updated:
&‘ M a r RY
(All information recorded as described in state repQrt,
additional correspondence, arid verbal carimuriication)
STATE: Michigan STA LUS: DI B]BLIaRA 11Y: Yes
1TILE: Inventory and Assesanent of CLass V Injection Wells in Michigan
AIYIHOR: Geraghty and Miller
D E: 12/86 Ju S cr S’Th 1US: Draft
R TRI.R (IFS):
Departhient of Natural Resources (DNR)
Departn tt of Public Health (D i)
HYD1 )GEaL)GY: The state has been divided into seven hydrogeologic regions.
M)st of Michigan is blanketed by glacial drift ca posed of till, outwash, and
morainal material. Groundwater resources are derived from both surf icial
unconsolidated aquifers and bedrcxk aquifers. Bedrcck aquifers normally have
the largest well yields and best water quality where they subcrop directly
beneath arid are hydraulically connected with the glacial drift.
iNJ 1 Y A 1) ASS 1EN1’: 7575 wells FURS (X74PM!IBLE: No (8—20—86)
pe pe N er
5F1 15 5X15 1
5D2 623 5X16 33
5D3 103 5fl7* 1
5D4 9 5A19 52
5A6* 3 5W20 9
5A7 760 5X25 4
5W9 11 5X26 59
5W10 18 5X28 27
5W11 2693 5X29 630
5W12 2 5W31 2511
5X14 15
No thformation on contamination potential, case studies, or regulatory sys tans
was prav-ided.
* Verification efforts proved these wells do not exist.
-------
Michigan
ge
strategy Respctisef
Rating
1. Questionnaire packages containing a staxr ped,
addressed return erwelope, a cover letter des-
cribing the program, and a request to call
G&M collect with any questions were mailed to:
a. cc mty health department sanitarians.. . . . . . ...... 77%
b. county agricultural tension agents............. 35%
c. soil conservation service district representatives 48%
d. director of public works in cities whose popu-
lation is > 2000................................. 29%
e. drilling canpanies listed in the 1986 N’ WA direc-
tory, and selected drilling ciiti nies fran the
listing of registered water well drillers in the
state. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11%
2. Telephone iritervi .Js..... .............. . .... N/A
3. rsona]. iritercriews. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N/A
1. Additional resources nust be allocated to this program in order to neet the
UIC mandates.
2. Additional work is needed in order to expand and refine the assessnent
report by incorporating more specifics and case studies.
3. Additional work is needed in order to refine procedures for determining the
degree-of-risk.
4. Additional work is needed to develop options for corrective actions and
regulations of varic*is well types.
5. Additional work is needed ta iard developnent of inpianentation steps.
6. The CLass V inventory and assessment reports r ust be updated annually.
-------
Prepared: 12—17—86
tJpda ted:
S’ RE r RY
(All information recorded as described in state report,
additional correspother e, arid verbal cat rmiriica tion)
SE: Minnesota STA!IUS: DI B1W.TOGRAPHY: Yes
TIThE: Inventory and Asses tent of Class V Injection Wells in Minnesota
.rn i : Geraghty arid Miller
DATE: 12/86 icEkad S’IWIUS: Draft
R R IF4I.R Nfl iC!(IFS):
Minnesota Pollution Control Agerxy (MPCA)
Minnesota Derartirent of Health (MDH)
HYD1 )G CGY: st of the state is covered by varied thicknesses of glacial
drift, lake deposits, peat, and allwiiin. Groind ater resources are derived
fran both surf icial urconsalidated aiuifers arid bedrock a uifers. The major
aquifers, and the most favorable units for well injection in terms of
perneability and porosity, are located in the saitheastern part of the state.
This pert of the state also is the most heavily populated.
INV 11 RY AND ASSFSSM Nr: 21(17 wells PURS (PATE: No (8—20—86)
Qxitaminati i case Regulatory
‘1 ipe teiH al Sttvlies Systan
5F1 54 N/A N/A N/A
5D2 30 N/A N/A N/A
5D3 6 N/A N/A N/A
5D4 8 N/A N/A N/A
5A7 34 N/A N/A nnit by MDH
5W9 10 N/A N/A N/A
5W10 25 N/A N/A N/A
5W11 588 N/A N/A MN Regulation Chp. 7080
5W12 11 N/A N/A N/A
5A19 4 N/A N/A N/A
5W20 1 N/A N/A N/A
5R21 1 N/A N/A N/A
5 Q5 2 N/A N/A N/A
5X26 7 N/A N/A N/A
5X27 1 N/A N/A N/A
5X29 1309 N/A N/A N/A
5% 31 16 N/A N/A N/A
-------
Miriflesota
Page o
Strategy Response/
Rating
1. Questionnaire packages containing a stanped,
addressed retuxri envelope, a cover letter des—
cribing the program, and a request to call
G&M collect with any questions were mailed to
varicLis govexrarent agencies and private can-
paru.es:
a. county health departhent sanitarians............. 51%
b. cc,inty agricultural extension agents.. ........... 23%
c. soil conservation service district representatives 59%
d. director of public works in cities whose pcpu-
lation is > 2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48%
e. drilling ccinçenies listed in the 1986 M’JWA direc-
tar -. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . .. .. . . . . . . 9%
f. selected drilling cançanies fran the listing of
registered water well drillers in the state ..... N/A
2. Telephone interviews with state governmant personnel
ani selected city and county officials.........
3. rsonal intervi .is. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
RE API(}
1. Additional rescxirces mist be allocated to this program in order to neet the
UIC mandates.
2. Additional work is needed in order to expand and refine the assessnent
report by incorporating more specifics and case studies.
3. Additional work is needed in order to refine procedures for determining the
degree-of-risk.
4. Additional work is needed to develop options for corrective actions and
regulations of variais well types.
5. Additional work is needed toward de relo xnent of l irplanentation steps.
6. The CLass V inventory and assessrent reports riust be updated annually.
-------
Prepared: 11—12—86
Updated:
TE RE RY
(All information recorded as described in the state report,
add! tional corresporderce, and verbal canrriunication)
STATE: Ohio STMUS: Primacy BIBLICGRA IY: No
TITLE: Class IV and V Injection Well Inventory for Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency
?171 OR: Malcolm Pirnie
DATE: 6-86 iu icr STMUS: Draft
R ThLE ICY (IRS):
Ohio Departnent of Natural Resources (ODNR); Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency (OEPA).
Groundwater sources (1) buried valleys of glacial outwash, and stream
valleys with thick alluvial deposits; (2) porous bedrock: open textured
limestones and dolanites; (3) sandstones, cx)ng1a rates, and well-sorted
glacial material beneath till. O nfining units (1) Till and glacial lake
deposits; (2) dense shales and limes tones.
fl ThN1UY AND ASSRS24ENr: 2360 wells FURS 1PATIBLE: NO (8—20—86)
itaminatiai ( se Regulatory
Type Nlnber* Ikt itia1 Studies Systan
5D2 1341 High N/A N/A
5D3 X N/A N/A N/A
5D4 118 High N/A N/A
5A7 73 Lo N/A N/A
5W11 361 High N/A N/A
5W12 X N/A N/A N/A
5W20 467 High N/A N/A
5X27 X N/A N/A N/A
5X29 X N/A N/A N/A
* “X” indicates well types krio zn to exist; no ni.inber available
Strategy Ratii /Respaise
Personal visits to County health or envirorznental
depertxrents; City, State agencies +
Press release - newspapers and professional associations
Telepirne interviews ?
Genera]. mailing 33%
Industry mailing 64%
Hazardous Materials Facility Mailing 72%
Field site visits ?
-------
cthio
Page
RE :
1. Unverified wells should be verified.
2. Ml OIJNR well logs be r uired to state the intended use of each well
being drilled.
3. Further publicize legal requirement to register Class V
wells with the OE A.
-------
Prepared: 1—5—87
Updated: 5—17—87
TE RE RY
(All information recorded as described in state report,
ditiona1 correspondence, and verbal canrriunication)
STATE: Wisconsin STMUS: Primacy BIBLICGRAHIY: No
ITILE: Wisconsin CLass V Injection Well Inventory
NYIMOR: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) Central Office
D E: 9—86 xERicr STMUS: Final
RESR ThLE CY’ (IRS): Wisconsin Deparl tent of Natural Resources (WDNR)
HYDROGEOLOGY: Five ground water provinces are defined according to the
principal a uifers: (1) valley alluvium, (2) central sara plain, (3) glacial,
(4) western paleozoic, (5) eastern paleozoic. Seventy-five percent of the state
is covered by permeable, glacial deposits. All areas, except the dense
crystalline rc ks in the narth est third of the state, are capable of accepting
injected wastes.
IN WI N) ASS l N1’: 151 Wells FURS CX1 PM”IBLE: NO(6—1O—86)
Qxitaminaticm ( se Regulatory
Type N .ither Rtential Stixlies Systan
5D2 116 in question No None
5D4 1 minin l No Bur. Waste Water Mgmt.
5A7 4 minimal Yes Bur. of Water Supply
5M9 2 N/A No Bur. Waste Water Mgmt.
5W20 4 un] i in No WPDES rennits
5S23 4 negligible No Bur. Water Supply
5X26 17 negligible No Bur. Water Supply
5W31 3 negligible No Bur. Waste Water Mgmt.
Strategy Rating/Respcrise
1. Examined state’ s hydrogeologic factors to identify
areas favorable for mi ection
2. Recorded field observations and investigated
canplaints fran the public N/A
3. Reviewed WPDES permit files; then facilities were
contacted by phone N/A
4. Sent questionnaires re: sanitary and stornwater
collection systans to 695 nunicipalities. Fallo ,ed
up with phone contact for qualifying sys tans 82%
-------
Wisccx sin
Page ¶1 rio
Strategy (ccxit.) RaUi /Respa ise
5. Contacted DILHR, Division of Safety, Bureau of
Plu mbing — accessed facilities permitted since
1981. N/A
6. Sent questionnaires re: “seepage pits” to county -
zoning adninistx torS. 86%
7. Re,iew Bureau of Water Supply and Bureau of Solid
Waste Manager ent Files. N/A
RE M :
1. Further evaluation of industrial seepage pits and municipal
storm drainage seepage pits is necessary.
2. Groundwater monitoring programs, in addition Eo current
statewide monitoring, could be established for those
nonpenmitted CLass V injection wells.
3. Increased effluent monitoring could be required in any
permitting ‘ocess for permitted CLass V injection wells.
-------
Qritamtha
ttai
case
Regulatory
!I ’pe
Nu±er
t atAa1
St ies
Syst i
5W32
39
N/A
N/A
N/A
5X28
2
N/A
N/A
N/A
Prepared: 4—15—87
Updated:
Strategy Rating/Resp ise
Interviewed water systQn operat s, Tribal officials, N/A
Tribal arid Indian Health Service (BIS) Sanitarians,
IHS gineers, Tribal Housing Authority personnel,
and Tribal Erivi rorin ntal ists.
Interviews conf lined by personal inspection of all
Reservations.
Telephone fol1c —ups conducted to determine existence
of septic systans.
!wA.A.rirL’4l-vtJJ&a :
1. Foll -up is needed to secure additional maps of reservations.
2. Folla i-up will be needed if n e detail is reguired on the wells
located to date.
3. Inventory activity should continue to determine whether the data
gathered to date is all-inclusive.
TE K r
(All infarxriation recorded as described in state report,
additional correspondence, arid vei±a1 canrruni cation)
STATE: Region V - Indian Laths STMUS: DI BT .TOGRAPHY: No
TPILE: Survey of CLass V Injection Wells
AIYIHOR: Larry W. Bailey, Minnesota Rural Water Association
DNrE: 3—87 xERA P STMUS: Final
R K I& 1 E X IFS): N/A
HYD1 )G LOGY: N/A
INY’ I1 t AND ASS 4EW1’: 45 wells
N/A
N/A
-------
Region VI State Report Sununaries
Arkansas
Louisiana
New Mexico
Oklahoma
Texas
-------
Prepared: 9-18-86
Updated:
RE RY
(All information recorded as described in state report,
additional correspondence, and verbal caTimunication)
irATE: Arkansas SrP!LUS: Primacy B]BLIOGRAHiY: No
TITLE: Final Design for Arkansas’ Class V Injection Well Inventory and
Asses
N71 : Arkansas Dept. of Pollution Control and Ecology
D2 TE: 9—85 RER*&T S’IWIUS: Draft
R TRrP A (IES):
The Arkansas Oil and Gas Canmission (AD & GC) regulates the st.bsurface
portion, and the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology
(ADP( ) has regulatory authority over the above ground portion of CLass V
brine disposal injection wells. The APDCE has complete regulatory
authority over all other types of CLass V injection wells in Arkansas.
The principal CLass V brine disposal injection formation• is the Srnackover
Limestone which ranges fran 7000 to 9000 feet in South Arkansas. Other
formations used include: the James Me nber (limestone) of the Glen Rose
Formation, the Tokio Formation (sandstone), the Blossom Formation
(sandstone lateral equivalent of the Brownstone Marl), and the Graves
M nber (sandstone) of the Ozan Formation.
J W N1 AND ASSRS 4EN.F: 71 wells FURS (XIIPATIBLE: NO (8—20—86)
itaininatiai Case Regulatory
!L ’pe tent ia1 Sttx3ies Systen
5X 16 70 Mod-Low Yes AO & GC
(permits)
5A19 1 N/A none
Strategy (E te) Rating/Respcrise
N/A
RE M :
( 5X16 )
1. The proposed injection formation nust be separated from U J ‘s by one or
rx,re confining zones which meet the approval of the Director
2. Casing and c nent must be designed to protect USL S (see state report for
detailed considerations).
-------
A nsas
Page ‘lt.,o
RecauiETxlaticxIs: (cont.)
3. The casing above the injection zone shall be sufficiently cemented by
circulating cement with returns to the surface. Good quality cement is
inperative to assure against fluid migration into untargeted zones. The quality
should be sufficient to withstand the maximun operating pressure and should be
resistant to degradation by native formation fluids and the injection fluids.
4. On all na ly drilled or converted, and all existing Class V brine disposal
wells, injection must be through tubing set on a packer unless exception is
granted by the Director. Packers shall be set no hi ier than 100 feet above the
top of the injection zone.
5. Well use may not begin until an appropriate permit is issued. After permit
issuance, any proposed change or alteration to construction plan and
specifications described in the application must be approved by the Director
before being incorporated.
6. All phases of well construction and testing must, if possible, be
supervised by a qualified person who is knowledgeable and experienced in
practical drilling engineering and who is familiar with the special conditions
and r uir ients of inj ection well construction.
7. During the drilling and catpletion of Class V brine disposal injection
wells, appropriate logs will be cbtained and tests conducted as set forth in the
nechanical integrity guidelines.
8. The operation of a ns as well as existing Class V brine disposal injection
wells should be regulated according to the sane operating r uirate.nts by which
Class II irij ection wells are regulated.
( 5A19 )
Because of the shallow depths of these wells (only fresh water bearing
furiiations are penetrated) and the simpleness of the system in which the water
is being used, the Departhient sees no need for ca pl ica ted regulations governing
this type well except to maintain that no intermingling of the system’s water
with foreign substances occurs between the supply well and the return well.
Specifically, all Class V cooling water return flow wells shall be constructed
using the following construction reuirenents:
1. Both the supply well (s) and the return well (s) shall be cased at least fran
the surface down through the top of the uppermost supply and injection
forna tion.
2 • The casing shall be cemented in place fran the top of the uppermost supply
and injection formation to the surface.
3. A cooling water return flow well system shall, at a minixtuzn, consist of two
wells, a supply well and a return well.
4. The supply and return well system shall be constructed so that the formation
fran which the cooling water was extracted is the same formation into which the
cooling water is reinj ected.
5. There shall be no “open-loop” cooling water return flow wells.
6. All cooling water return flow system wells shall be pl ged upon abandornTent
by filling the well with cement.
7. Cooling water return wells shall receive nothing other than the used
cooling water which originated at the cooling water supply well (s).
-------
Prepared: 10—16—86
Updated:
RE SW RY
(All information recorded as described in state report,
additional corresponder e, and verbal car mication)
b’I ATE: Louisiana SrA LUS: Primacy BTRT.TWR FUY: Yes
TIThE: Louisiana Class V Assesanent Reports
Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Office of
Conservation (OC), and. Louisiana Geological Survey
DNI’E: 3—85 RE Ucr STMUS: Final
R IBIE N (I ): Louisiana Deparbrent of Natural Resources (DNR).,
Office of Conservation (OC)
HYD GaILBY: N/A
IW N1 Y AND ASS SM P: 11 wells FURS 4PAT1BLE: NO (8-20-86)
itaminatiai se Regulatozy*
Type Niuber t itial Stndies Syst n
5D4 5 N/A N/A Class Ii regulations
5A7 5 Loa N/A Permitted by OC, DNR
5W1 1 X N/A N/A Regulated by Dept.
Health and Human
Resources
5G30 1 N/A N/A Class II regulations
÷ “X” indicates that well type is kna in to exist; no number available
* Presently Louisiana does not r uire the registration of any Class V wel is
Strategy Rating/Respciise
1. Louisiana Geological survey mailed letters to all the
well water contractors in the state r&p.iesting
information on heat purrps and associated prc1Dl ns 10%
2. Departh nt of Health and Human Resources helped
Geological Survey in mailing letters to parish
sanitarians r uesting information about septic
systans 10%
3. Letters were sent to each state ra uesting
infoz-iiation on heat putps 80%
-------
Laiisiana
Page o
RE ?i ID TEC : (Concerning heat ptxnp syst ns only)
1. Discharge should be to the surface rather than to an mi ection well.
2. The waste product fran grourd-water source heat pumps for a single family
residence should be returned or injected into or above the supply aquifer
without prior rev-jew by the State and without a State permit. The
installation shall conform with Section 20.03E arid 20.04C of Statewide
Order 29-N-i, with the folia iing provisions.
A. The ground water/heat puip installation or systan shall be limited to
a single family residence.
B. The a.zner of an injection/return well, or the licensed water well
contractor who instal is it, shall be r uired to register the mi ec-
tion/return well with the Office of Conservation, tSR, within 30 days
after the well ‘s car letion. The supply well should be registered
with the Office of Public Works ID. The Office of Public Works
Water—Well Registriation Form C 7—l) can be used to register the wells.
This farm has been in use by water-well contractors since 1976.
C. If pollution of ground water should occur, the well cwner or lard
leassee is responsible for immediately informing the appropriate State
arid local officials so that the “spread” of polluted water can be
prevented and the cause of pollution eliminated. The a’ ner should be
made aware that he may be liable for any damage to the property arid
water of others.
D. The waste product shall contain no additives, such as chlorine, etc.
E. A licensed water-well contractor should be anpl ’ed to install the
return/injection well, to rework the well, whenever necessary, and to
provide the necessary maintenance.
F. If the injection/return well becomes inoperative and must be
abanderied, a licensed water-well contractor shall be a ployed to plug
and seal the well. When a well is plugged and sealed this action
should be r orted to the Office of Conservation, LI’IR arid Departitent
of ‘I ansportation and Develo nent using Louisiana Office of Public
Works Pli ging arid Abandorin nt Farm (GW-2).
3. The Office of Conservation, DNR, should establish a permit systan for an
injection well used by an installation far a multiple dwelling, office
building, cannercial arid industrial estabiishxrent, or institution. The
permit review process should include rules and/or guidelines to provide for
the review of plans.
-------
Prepared: 2-13-87
Updated: 8—24—87
S’ThTE RER 9M
( ll information recorded as described in the state report,
additional correspondence, and verbal caurrunication)
STA!1 : New Mexico S’PNLUS: Primacy BTRI.TWRM’HY: Yes
TflLE: Undergran Injection Qntrol Class V Inventory
P1Jfl KM: G. Koschal, K. Lathert, S. Sares
DNI’E: 3-87 RERid ’ STMUS: Final
R RX IBLE A3 C!(IFS): (1) New Mexico Envirorinental Irriprovenent Division, (2)
Environtrental Improvatent Division, (3) Ground Water/Hazardous Waste Bureau
HYD1 )Q L]GY: Wide variety of geologic settings. Eastern plains are sedirrentaxy
s ji. nces; western areas are n untaino.is. The state is divided into four
physiographic provinces: Colorado Plateau, Great Plains, Basin and Range,
and Southern Rocky Mountains. Major aquifers are in Tertiary and
Quaternaty alluvium, Mesczoic sandstones, and Pale oic liniestones.
fl i1 Y AND ASSRSSM P: 1237 wells FURS a 1PATIBr.E: NO (8—20-86)
itaminatiai Case Regulatory
!I ype Nuzber Rt iHa1 Studies Systen
5D2 5 No Registration/Rule
5A6 2 La i No Permit
5A7 27 No Registration/Rule
5W10 14 Moderate No TrJ flAL
5W1 1 10 Moderate No Registration/Rule
5X13 11 La Yes N/A
5X14 1073 Yes Permit
5A19 6 La No Registration/Rule
5W20 2 Moderate Yes N/A
5R21 30 La i No Registration/Rule
5b 4 1 (abd) La Yes U LECAL
5X25 6 Lcw Yes Permit
5X26 50 Med-Lc No N/A
Strategy Rating/Respcrise
1. Preliminary assessnent of Class V wells
prioritizing subclasses.
2. Ass nblage of potential well c ner/operators
using permit database, notice of intent
database, and kn ledge of city, county, and
state offices, well drillers, and the general
public.
3. Target surveys nailed.
4. Follo..z up letters and telephone calls.
-------
q dco
Page o
RE M :
1. Need sane control over agricultural drainage wells (not in inventory;
specifically exanpted fran CC control).
2. Regulations needed to control abandoned inj ection wells.
3. If abandoned wells have contaminated grcaindwater, procedure is needed for
ranediation. -
4. Ebcisting notification re uiranents should be inproved (ra irite portions of
regulations).
5. Definitions for well type classes and subclasses should be provided in the
regions.
-------
Prepared: 9-18-86
Updated:
R
(All information recorded as described in state r ort,
additional corresporxlerice, arid vei±a1 cat nuirdcation)
STATE: Okiahana STNIUS: Primacy BTRr.TQRAPIIY: Yes
ITJLE: Ok1a1 una CLass V Well Study ai Asses ent
?I7flK)R: Oklahana Iniustrial Waste Division, State Departmant of Health
DATE: 7—85 Iu!a(*cr STA IUS: Draft
C!(IFS):
Okla1 na Industrial Waste Division
N/A
INV i1 Y AND ASSRSSM P: 167 wells FURS 4PATIBLE: NO (8—20—86)
* ( itaminatia i C se Regulatory
‘1 ype Nixrber I’bt iHa1 St 3ies Systen
5F1 X N/A N/A All Class v
5D2 X N/A N/A facilities are
5A7 100’s Lo i N/A r uired to
5W11 X N/A N/A register with
5X16 7 N/A N/A the Division
5N24 (Plugged) X N/A N/A
5X26 60 N/A N/A
*fl fl indicates this well type is kna n to exist; no nuither available
Strategy’ (Date) Rat1.ng/Respct ise
(1980) l.a. Departnent sent questionnaire with a cover
letter explaining the puipose of the survey
to all County Health Departments, rural water
districts, and county/district sanitarians. 0%
b. Press releases were placed in local n spapers
r uesting public assistance 0%
2. Second mailing aid foll -up phone calls to
co.inity sanitarians 0%
(1982) Pilot study of CLass V wells in Cleveland Co., OK by
University of Okiahana poor
-------
OklaI a
Page P,Jo
RE ATI( :
1. Oklai una needs a cooperative system among state agerries to record all
drilling activity that exactly defines what each well is intended to
be used for.
2. (5x26) a) During drilling, machinery capable of producing heat or
a srark that could ignite flammable vapors should be
kept up-wind and as far removed f-ran the wel isite as
possible.
b) Air rotary drilling should be avoided since the
m i ection of air into the hydrocarbons can produce an
extremely flammable mixture.
c) Registration of wells and a description of construction
features and well locations should be rnandatciry.
d) The Division should have an o artunity to examine well
proposals and set permit conditions as they see fit,
including the quality of fluid to be reinjected.
e) Federal or State regulatory standards and limitations
would be extremely difficult to enforce as well as
hinder activity. Permit conditions should be defined
on a case by case basis.
3. (5A7) a) I½ny new regulatory program for air conditioning/heat
pump return flag wells should mainly be directed at
lange scale sys tens designed for canmercial buildings,
such as office car lexes and manufacturing facilities.
b) A system is needed to register, inventory, and maintain
cpparb.inity for review of air conditioning/heat pump
return flcx i wells.
c) Renewable permits and. periodic inspections would help
prevent groundwater contamination problems due to these
return—f lc i wel is.
4. With a registration and tracking rr chanism the Division y ould have the
opportunity to review well site conditions and construction, set
permit standards where needed, and better assess possible grour dwater
contamination fran Class V wells.
5. Before stringent state and federal regulation is irtposed, further
study of Class V wells is advisable.
6. Recanrtendations fran the Cleveland County pilot study:
a) A public awareness, public relations program should be instituted
correrning these wells. The program should be conducted using a
gourd, positive approach which er asizes that while most of
these wells prcbably pose no pollution problems, they nust be
reported in an ongoing effort to assess their significance to
possible groundwater contamination.
b) Since the state already has an effective working network of
Professional Sanitarians and Envirorinental Specialists at the
city and county levels, this group should have the primary
responsiblity for data gathering and inspection of Class V wells.
c) The Class V well inventory and permitting information should be
canpiled and stored in a databank which has capability for future
expansion.
-------
Prepared: 11—13—86
Updated:
TE ER r
(All Infariration is recorded as described in state report,
additional correspondence, and verbal carnnunication)
STM’E: Texas STMUS: Primacy B]BLICZRAPHY: Yes
[ TILE: Underground Injection Operations in Texas: A Classification and
Asses amnt of Underground Injection Activities, Report 291
N7I : Texas Depart ent of Water Resources, Ben K.Knape
DATE: 12—84 i(ERli r STMUS: Final
R R IBE 1 E X&CY(IFS): Texas DeparUnent of Water Resources (now Texas Water
(Cajinission); Texas Railroad Cannission
Nost significant structures: (1) fault zones of central Texas,
(2) salt dcznes and growth faults of Gulf Coast, (3) salt
dissolution structures of High Plains, (4) inperrneable rocks of
Liano Uplift. Very gai list of major and minor aquifers in
state report.
flW l’1 Y AND ASSRS. l 11!: 2356 wells FiRS 1PATIBLE: NO (8—20—86)
Qxitamiriat.i.ai c se Regulatory
Type Ibtential Sttviies Systen
5F1 108 High Yes N/A
5D2 52 Low No N/A
5A5 X ? No ‘IX Railroad Canm.
5A6 1 ? No TX Railroad Caum.
5A7 1014 Low Yes Authorized by rule
5W9 10 ? No N/A
5W10 16 ? No N/A
5W11 56 ? No Differs locally
5X13 65 Low No ‘ IX Railroad Canm.
5X15 X ? No ‘IX Railroad Catur .
5W20 2 N/A No ClassI
5R21 44 Low Yes Local Authority
5X25 6 Low No N/A
5X26 37 N/A No N/A
5X29 945 N/A No P&A Rules
* “X” indicates well types known to exist; no niinbers available.
Strategy Rating
No inventory strategies discussed in state report.
-------
Page ‘ltvo
Recamerdatiais (cait.):
1. New r ulatc y programs for heat punp systan wells should be directed at
large-scale syst rather than at syst ns fca single-family dwellings.
The Department should continue to inventory the wells, and maintain
o partunity for review of project proposals for the puipose of issuing
pexinits as necessary. -
2.a. Regulatory orders for private sewage facilities should be adopted in areas
which are riot already protected. Orders should be based on current minimun
standards for sewage disposal as published by the Department of Health and
appropriate site—specific considerations.
2.b. Sewage disposal wells for private facilities are not acceptable under Texas
Dept. of Health standards and should be phased out and replaced by
alternate methods of- sewage treatment and disposal.
2.c. Each proposed sewage disposal well, excludii single-family residence
sewage facilities, should be authorized by site-specific permit rather than
by rule, and existing wells should be individually reviewed for
contamination potential with appropriate action taken in each case.
-------
Region VII State Report Summaries
Iowa
Kansas
Missouri
Nebraska
-------
Prepared: 1—30—87
Updated:
rA RE RY
(All information recorded as described in state report,
additional correspondence, and verbal canrrunication)
I ia S’rMUS: DI B]BLI(XRAHiY: Yes
CLass V Injection Well Assessnent Report for Direct Irriplanentatiori,
State of Ia.ia
N7IILi : U.S. EPA, UIC Section, Drinking Water Branch, Region VII
DNIE: 11-86 REEORT S’rA LuS: Final
R IBLE 1CY: Ia ia Conservation Canmission, Dept. of Natural Resources
HYD GEXLOGY: There are five major bedrcck aquifers in Icwa which are separated
by aquicludes. A sixth aquifer systan consists of alluvial aquifers
associated with stream systans and glacial drift. These aquifers provide
75 percent of the state’s &mestically used water.
INV i1 Y & ASS 4ENI’: 262 wells TJRS XtlPATIBLE: No (8—20—86)
tainiriatixi se Regulatory
Type NLIIiier ,tentia1 St ies Syst n
5F1 230 (est 700) High Yes Diversion Permit
5D2 6 ? No N/A
5A7 17 (est 250) Lo No N/A
5W11 3 None* No N/A
4 permitted
5A19 5 N/A No 1 nonitored
5X28 1 High No N/A
* if “properly constructed and maintained”
Resprise/
Strategy Rating
1. Sent letters to well drillers and heat p .zrp installers N/A
2. Ran public notices in thirteen Ic va ne ispapers N/A
3. Caripiled a list of AEW a mers through well tax N/A
reporting cards
4. Used infrared and aerial photography to locate N/A
AJIWs.
-------
Ia,,a
Page L S
R
(5 Fl)
Close highway surface inlets to ADWs. Provide alternate drainage or
inpaindErents when necessary. Permits should be required to ensure canpliance.
Raise inlets above maxinum porxiing levels. Abandoned wells are to be properly
plugged. Nitrates should not be applied where subsurface tiles are present.
Any other appropriate best rnanaganent practices should be used. Perhaps water
going da, n hole should be required to meet drinking water standan s.
Eairnination of Ai Js could be accanplished gradually through attrition. A more
rapid chase out could be accanpariied by cost sharing plans like a onetime
payment for plugging follcMed by annual tax incentives. The land could be
bought by the goveauent who would then plug A1] 1s on government lands.
(5A19)
Require permit stating type and volume of injected fluids, construction
features, depth, date drilled, and driller. Na z wells would require grouted
surface casing, and a concrete pad at top. EPA to be infox!red on any change of
conditions, source and injected aquifer to be the same. Five year inspection.
(5A7)
Same as (5A19)
(5X2 8)
Require permit shcMing: Construction features and a plan to utilize separator
and holding tank and a plan to sample and analyze mi ected fluid. Five year
inspection.
(5D2)
Require permit sh iing locations, construction features; and plan to affix cover
to tops of casings should a spill occur. Also sha i plan for arergency cleanup
operations. Five year inspection.
(5W1 1)
Require permit giving construction features and stating that only sewage goes
into tank. Five year inspection.
-------
3
394
3
4
15
758*
storage wells
TI T ILE:
Prepared: 11—17—86
Updated:
TE xE
(All information recorded as described in state report,
additional correspotherxe, and vezbaJ. carurunica tion)
Kansas SIWLUS: Primacy B]BtI(X3RAPHY: Yes
CLass V Well Assessnent of Kansas
Kansas Departmant of Health and Environment
Susan Hargadine
DATE: 11—86 KER.*er STA!IUS: Draft
RFSITm.P NF 1C (: Kansas Department of Health and Enviror rent
HYDI )G OGY: CLass V well records were found in many areas with surface geology
nsisting of rtia and Pleistocene alluvail deposits (especially in the
western and south-central parts of Kansas). In Butler, Ccwley, and parts of
Sedgwick Counties, the surface rocks are of rrnian age and the wells penetrate
rocks in the Chase and Sumner groups which are also used for supply purposes. A
few wells axe drilled into the Dakota formation in Barton, CLoud, Ellswcrth,
Hodg nan, and Pawnee counties.
IWFN1 P ND ?iSSFS 4FNP: 419 wells FURS (tt4PM’]BLE: NO (8-20-86)
ca itaminaticri case Regulatoty
Type tenF a1 Sb dies Systan
5D2 Positive N/A N/A
5A7 La N/A N/A
5A19 Possible N/A N/A
5R21 Possible N/A N/A
5X26 N/A N/A
5X27 La N/A N/A
* Hydrocarbon (should be CL ass II)
Strategy
1. Used FURS printout for wells entered 1981—84.
2. Questionnaires were sent to well a aners.
3. A printout was made of ater wells with well types
that would include nost CLass V wells.
4. Water well record files were checked manually to
eliminate wells on the printout that were not CLass V. s.
5. Same data were aquired fran discussion with field staff.
6. Pbone contacts and letters were written to cwners on
questionable wells.
Rating/Respcxise
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
-------
Kansas
Page L •
RE TIc :
(1 tabase)
1. It is possible that additional wells exist. The current inventory
will have to be accepted until raich time and manpoi er can be devoted
to searching all possible avenues.
2. The ccnputer inventory syst n is cx1 and workable.
3. The inventory on the FURS systan is not correct: the state systan is
correct and contains all information called for on the FURS syst n.
4. It would be desirable to get the state CLass V inventory on a ccznputer
with capabilities to plot distribution, make graphs and maps,
summarize, etc.
(Mditiorial Infarxration)
1. Public notices asking for voluntary information on CLass V type wells
could be printed in ne&spapers and trade journals.
2. Yellow pages could be checked for businesses advertising for
construction or maintenance of CLass V type wells; then businesses
could be contacted for information.
3. ( ntact to personnel in cc*nty health depertnents, extension services,
or public works could be helpful.
4. If field personnel of various agencies r uiring field work (Board of
Agriculture, Deçar tent of Health and Envirorirent, etc.) are advised
on the types of data needed, they may be able to supply information
discovered during field investigations.
(5D2 , 5W11, 5W20, 5X26)
1. These well types should be irore closely monitored.
2. Inspections should be made to investigate construction of the wells.
3. The surrounding drainage areas should be studied and all possible
pollution sources noted.
4. Sanples should be taken of the waste stream to be analyzed.
(5A7)
1. Require all groundwater heat ptir systans to have properly designed
and maintained fresh water disposal wells (and reduce the number of
systans discharging to surface).
-------
Kansas
Page Three
2. Establish construction standaxds
a. for specific site and hydrogeologic conditions
b. for necessary volumes of water -
c. with back-check valves and disposal lines iimiersed beloN water
level
d. with spacing of 5 0-100 feet between disposal and supply wel is
e. with disposal well located da in-gradient fran supply well
f. for proper grouting of vertical holes
g. for line connectors
3. Establish formal r uiranents for reporting heat pump installations to
the appropriate state agency.
4. SpecIfy approved antifreeze solutions.
5. bnitor Class V well syst ns on a syst ra tic basis particularly in
areas of the state with high concentrations of wells.
-------
Prepared: 1—16— 87
Updated:
2A EX RY
(All jnfox tiOn recorded as described in state report,
additional corresporder e, and verbal canr unication)
STNI’E: Missouri S’rATtJS: Primacy BT1a.TCGR ffiY: Yes
ITILE: Mis sairi Underground Injection Control Program Class V Asses anent
A17IHOR: N/A
DAlE: 12-86 RER cr STA!IUS: Draft
kU IL {IM1.R ?L 1 : Deper tent of Natural Resources, Division of Geology and
Land Survey
HYD1 JG AXW: Rocks ranging fran PreCaithrian to recent are exposed. They
include volcanic and intrusive rocks, xTarine and continental sedirrEntary rocks,
glacial deposits and wind b1c n soils. Table 4-1 in the state report contains a
summary of geologic and hydrologic characteristics and locations of the
surf icial materials and bedrock in Misscuri.
] N 11 t AND ASSFSSMENI’: 5324 wells FURS a PM’IBLE: No (8—20—86)
1tam1nat1Q1 C se Regulatory
L ’pe N%z±er* lktenti l Stix3ies Systan
5F1 x High No None
5D3 250 Rssible Yes None
5A7 741 La No Registration
5W11 2 LOG No zmit
5X 13 4326 (abd) LOG Yes None
5X26 x N/A No N/A
5X28 5 (abd) Unkn zn No N/A
* “x” indicates well type is knOGn to exist; no numbers available
Resprjise/
stxategy Rating
1. State and Federal agercies that may have inf or- N/A
mation of Class V wells re contacted.
2. A telephone survey was made covering the manu— N/A
facturing industry, disposal industry, heating
and cooling contractors, installers, utilities,
and the general public.
3. A field search was made to locate and determine N/A
type of inj ecticns and the rates of injection as
required in 40 CFR 144.26.
-------
MisscRiri
Page o
RE Th :
(5F 1) 1. ‘bre careful N management could be used to reduce the amount of
N0 3 -N leaJced and transported to an ?Th T.
2. Pesticide incorporation at application and the use of soil
conservation practices, along with more strongly adsorbed pesticides
could decrease pesticide losses.
3. For bacteria, moderately or strongly adsorbed pesticides, and
sediment itself, closing the surface inlets and forcing surface water
to infiltrate through soil ould decrease their transport into the
aquifer.
4. Transport of the slightly adsorbed anioxic herbicides with
subsurface fla. i, or the even lesser novarent of other pesticides would
have to be solved by banning the pesticides of cor eru or closing the
AEW’ s if this transport was deemed a prcblan.
(5D3) 1. Further dye tracing will be necessary to better define the
bcundaries of the spring recharge areas.
2. It is suggested that a careful dye trace study be run on any
existing or planned improved sink hole drainage systems and that
occasional monitoring of both entering and exiting fluids be run after
the system is in operation.
(5A7) Areas that need addressing include:
1. Regional meetings with drillers and installers so that
infoni tion can be distributed and exchanged.
2. ‘bre energy directed ta ard public awareness of the rules and
regulations regerding heat pups.
3. More detailed research about the theoretical environmental
effects of heat pups.
4. Standards set for the construction of supply and retuiri wells so
that the prcblems associated with them can be reduced.
(5W11) Proper construction and installation guidelines should be considered
before and during construction of a sewage disposal system.
(5X13) Water supplies having a 1 a n or suspected close connection to mining
activities should be tested prior to use to insure against
contamination fran such soirces.
-------
Prepared: 11—13—86
Updated:
xER RY
(All information is recorded as described in state report,
additional corresporrience, arid verbal carinunication)
STATh: Nebraska STMUS: Primacy B]BLIO(RM 1Y: Yes
TI3LE: Inventory aid Asses nent of Class V Injection Wells arid Related Sources
NYmOR: N/A
D TE: 8-86 NER cr STATUS: Final
R R ThLE XItRS: Nebraska DepartirErit of Environtental Control
of Nebraska is underlain at al1 depth a thick,
moderately to highly permeable unconsolidated rock of Cenozoic and/or
Tertiary age. This is the principal a uifer, Ogallala, arid it supplies
large quantities of gcd quality ater. In north zest Nebraska there is a
group of secondary auifers which are generally deeper arid provide low to
moderate quantities of acceptable quality voter. These aquifers include
the Arikaree Group, Brule Formation, and Chadron Formation. Another
secondary aquifer in eastern Nebraska is the Dakota aquifer, which is
currently utilized.
IW fl Y N) ASS 4 1P: 672 wells FURS (XI4PM’IBLE: NO (8—20—86)
Qntaininatiai C se Regulatory
‘I ppe tential Sbxlies Systan
5F1 5 High No Rule
5D2 1 Low No Rule
5A7 650 Low No Rule
5W10 X N/A No Rule
5W11 X High No Rule
5AiS 8 Variable No Rule
5 1 4 Variable No Rule
5X25 2 N/A No Rule
5X27 2 Lot, No Rule
5X29 X N/A No Rule
* “X” indicates well type is known to exist; no numbers available.
Strategy Respc se/Rating
Review of DEC files aid records
Mailing to each x nber of the Nebraska Well
Drillers Association 39%
Mailing to Natural Resource District Mangers
arid follow—up plxne call 100%
RaTote sensing techniques
Mailir to Residential Graind ater Heat Pump
Contractors and Installers 65%
-------
N raska
Page o
E DATI( :
Based upon information gained fran the Class V injection well technical
revi , inventory, arid assessrrent, the foll ing recanuendations will aid in
prevention of groundwater contamination fran Class V injection wells in
Nebraska.
All CLass V Inj ticzi Wells
1. The injection well should not be icca ted in any depressions where it
would be subj ect to influence fran surface runoff or flooding (not
including AEWs).
2. The inj ection well should be located at least 50 feet frczn any septic
tank, cesspool, or other surface or subsurface waste disposal area.
3. A continuous inventaty program for Class V injection wells should be
established. This program should include:
i) the filling out of CLass V injection well application forms.
These farms would be distributed to well drillers arid heat pump
contractors and installers to in tuni be distributed to cwners of
CLass V injection wells. These farms would then be sent back to
the Depart nent as each well is installed:
ii) data on all existing and future Class V injection wells should be
stared in a caiputer data base for easy access.
4. On all CLass V injection well applications (if applicable), details
should be included on well depth, well casing type, screen locations,
gravel pack depths, static and injection water levels, arid a well log.
5. The definition of Class V Injection Wells under Title 122 Rules
arid Regulations for Underground Injection and Mineral Preduction Wells
should be zrcdified to include closed lo heat ptrrp sys tans arid single
family septic systans.
qricu1tura1 Drainage Wells
1. All ? J ’Js would r& uire a permit fran DEC. The permit re uiranents
would include the fQllc ving:
i) a Gas Chranatography/Mass Spectro otanetry (GC/ ) analysis be
done on injection water on at least a quarterly basis to
determine the presence of any pesticides. Parameters o be
ironitored f or pesticide concentrations would be later determined
r ’ DEC;
ii) water should be noriitored arid aeet standards for nitrate-nitrogen
(10 mg/i).
-------
ra
ge ee
Recam rx3atiais (cxmt.)
2. A Class V injection well application form specifically for ADWs
which would require:
i) a detailed map of the location of the injection well including
the locations of all nuriicipal, danestic, and stock wells within
one mile of the injection well;
ii) a diagram of the drain tile (if applicable) and the injection
well.
3. The drainage well should be located at least 2,000 feet fran ar ’
stock, rtunicipal, or danestic well.
ny ADW not meeting the above requiraments would have a potential to
adversely izr act ground water quality and would not be allowed.
Qy 1 ir Water Return Flat, Wells
1. Minimum design requiraments for cooling water return flow wells
including:
1) wells be grouted f ran a point at least 20 feet below land surface
to the land surface or to the water table;
ii) wells be designed only for noncontact systans where injection
water is not chanically altered.
2. A .ass V injection well application form specifically for cooling
water return flow wells which would require:
i) a detailed map of the location of the injection well including
the locations of all xa nicipal, danestic, and stock wells within
one mile of the injection well;
ii) a diagram of the injection well including s een depths, gravel
pack, and grout;
iii) a diagram of the injection well systan.
3. Minimun locating requir nerits for the injection well relative to any
nea±y municipal supply wells.
Any cooling water return flow well not fleeting requiranents 1, 2, and 3
fran above would require a permit.
-------
Nth
Page F ir
R aa atiais (ccrit.)
Residential Grcxnxl Water Heat Pimp Systans
1. Miriinum design criteria for the inj ection well in open loop sys tans
which would include:
1) the well be grouted fran a point at least 20 feet below land
surface to the lath surface to the water table;
ii) wells be designed only for noncontact systans where injection
water is not chanically altered.
2. Minimum design criteria for the underground loop in closed loop
systans which would include:
i) the loop be built of flexible, stress resistant, high density,
roncorroding pipe such as polyetbylene, palybutylene, or other
pipes approved by DEC;
ii) joints and links in the underground loop should be properly
sealed as outlined in the National Standard Plumbing Code.
3. The underground loop or the injection well should be located at least
100 feet fran any danes tic and 500 feet fran any municipal supply
wells.
4. A Class V injection well application form specifically for residential
ground water heat putp systans which would require:
1) a detailed map of the location of the injection well including
the lo tions of all municipal, danestic, and stock wells within
one half mile of the injection well or underground loop;
ii) if the systan is closed loop, details on the design including the
type of pipe and the type of antifreeze used.
Miy residaitial ground ater heat purr systan not n eting the above criteria
would require a permit.
Cam rcia1 Grc*uI Water Heat Punp Wells
1. Mininum design criteria for canirercial ground water heat pump wells
including:
1) wells be grouted fran a point at least 20 feet below land surface
to the lath surface or to the water table;
ii) wells be designed only for noncontact systans where injection
water is not chanically altered.
-------
NthraSka
Page Five
Recxmi rx3ati is ( it.)
2. A C.ass V injection well application form specifically for canrrercial
ground water heat puip wells which would r uire:
1) a detailed map of the location of the injection well including
the locations of all municipal, danes tic, and stock wells within
one mile of the injection well.
3. The inj ection well should be located at least 500 feet fran any stock,
zrn. nicipal, or danes tic supply well.
Any canmercial ground water heat pwr well not meeting the above
r uirenents would r uire a permit.
Grc*irxl Water R +i rge Wells
1. Water fran streams, rivers, canals, lakes, or ground water which is to
be used to recharge ground water should be n nitored for and meet
standards for the folla iing limits:
i) nitrate-nitrogen (10 mg/i);
ii) fecal col i form (200 per 100 in].) as out]. med in the 1976 EPA
Quality Criteria for Water.
2. A GC/J #E analysis should be done on any water source which will be used
to recharge ground water to determine the presence of any pesticides.
Parameters to be itonitored for pesticide concentrations would be later
determined by DEC.
3. Theated sewage water to be used to recharge ground water should be
tested for and should meet standards for:
i) all parameters listed under Chapter 4, Title 118 Nthraska Ground
Water Protection Standards (excluding radionuci ides);
ii) biological c cygen danand (30 mg/l);
iii) fecal colifarm (200 per 100 ml);
iv) chlorides (200 mg/i);
v) (5 m gll);
vi) any other parameters determined by DEC.
4. The ground water recharge well should be located at least 2000 feet
f ran any stock, dames tic, or municipal supply well.
-------
Nthraska
Page Six
5. A CLass V injection well application form specifically designed for
ground water recharge wells fnich would include:
i) the act location of the injection well including the location
of ar ’ municipal, danestic, arid stock wells within one mile of
the recharge wel 1;
ii) the type of water being used for recharge arid its source;
iii) time of year thich recharge will be done and cpected mi ection
rates to be used.
6. The injection well should be grouted fran a point at least 20 feet
belG land surface to the lard surface or to the water table.
Any ground water recharge well not meeting the above criteria would r uire
a permit.
Septic 1 Thnk Systens
1. Local planning groups should be er ouraged to examine establishing
septic tank density limits. These limits would be based upon, arrong
other things:
i) depth to ground water;
ii) soil penr abilities;
iii) potential for further septic tank installations; and
iv) quantities of wastes being discharged to individual systems.
2. Many industries discharge process wastes, in addition to sanitary
wastes, to septic tank systems. Discharge of industrial process
wastes should be restricted due to the fact that septic tank systems
are not designed to ad uately treat this waste type.
-------
Region VIII State Report Summaries
Cal orado
Montana
Indian Lands
North Dakota
South Dakota
Utah
Wyoming
-------
Prepared: 12—15—86
_____ Updated:
S TE RER RY
(All infarrration recorded as described in state report,
add! tioriaJ. correspondence, and vethal ccxnrtumication)
S’lwr’E: Colc ado STM’US: DI BIBLI RAB Y: Yes
TIILE: Inventory of CLass V Injection Wells in the State of Colorado
NYmOR: C rtin, Inc.
DM’E: 3-85 REEU I ’ STM’LJS: Final
A C (IFS):
N/A
Colorado carl be broadly divided into 5 major groundwater regions: High
Plains, Unglaciated Central Region, Central Mcuntains, San Luis (alluvial)
Valley, and Colorado Plateau. The geologic and hydrologic frameworks are
not generally corducive to the utilization of mi ection wells.
IN TkNJXRY AND ASSF FNP: 115 wells FURS 4PATIBLE: No (8—20—86)
* caitaminatiai c se Regulatcxry
Type Nurber tentia1 Sttxiies Systan
5F1 X High N/A N/A
5D2 2 Lcw N/A N/A
5A6 2 L v N/A N/A
5A7 2 Lcw N/A N/A
5X13 2 ? N/A Rule
5X15 23 N/A Rule
5A19 1 Lo z N/A N/A
5X25 2 La i N/A N/A
5X26 81 Lcw N/A N/A
5X29 X High N/A P&A Rules
* “X” indicates this well type is knoim to ecist; no niinber available
Strategy (E te) Rating/Response
1. (1984) Contacts were made with governmental and
private sector sources of general information on
CLass V injection wells.
2. (1984) Mass mailings were made to individuals and
organizations presumed to be ]ma ,1edgeab1e about
specific types of CLass V wells.
-------
orado
Page !D,jo
Strategy (Date) — ccrit. Rating! Respcrise
3. (1984) Telep1 ie contacts were made with specific
individuals and organizations determined to have
infui tion on individual well, well types, or
well facilities in Colorado High
4. (1985) Lists of names and phone nurr ers car iled fran
phone books, directory assistance and preliminary
inventory r ort (over 200 calls made). High
a. State agencies within the Board of Health,
Derar rent of Natural Resources and other public
sector groups
b. Private sector individuals
c. Legal contacts for all inventoried wells in onder
to verify inventory information
RE A I :
1. State of colorado Division of Water Resources should alter its drilling
permit form (WRJ-5—Rev.76) to categorize wells as “injection” or
It tr tionIt wells.
2. State officials involved in developing ne z ground water regulations should
provide a neans in the legislation of maintaining the inventory.
3. Identify and inventory agricultural drainage wells and make further
recannendations based on canbined efforts of the State De rt nt of Health
and the EPA.
-------
Prepared: 12—15—86
Updated:
rA r &M
(All infcrrr tion recorded as described in state report,
addi tiona]. correspondence, and verbal cai rtunication)
s’rM : !‘ bntana STMUS: DI BIBr ICcRM IY: No
TI’ILE: Inventory of CLass V Wells in the State of Nontana
NTIH(R: 4C rtin, Inc.
DATE: 3-85 RER)Rr STMUS: Final
RES T .R c ’i (Th ):
N/A
N/A
I 1FIURY AND ?SSRS 4FRP: 4587 wells FURS 4PATIBLE: YES (8—20—86)
( itaininatiai ( se Regulatory
Type Niither R t tia1 Stwiies Systan
5D2 4500 High N/A (private) permit:
Building Dept.
(municipal) Engi-
neer’s Dept.
5A7/19 20 Lcw N/A None
5W11 2 High N/A permit: County
Sanitation
Authority
5X13 10 ? N/A permit: Bureau of
Z bd. Mines
5G30 55 Lo.q Yes permit: Dept. of
Highways
Strategy (Date) Rating/Response
(1983) o Inventory canpiled by telephone N/A
interviews arid correspondence with various
federal, state, county, arid municipal
agencies as well as iridustriaJ. firms,
drillers, punp sales arid service ccztpanies,
arid private individuals.
o All county sanitation officers were initially N/A
contacted through letters stating the purpose
of the survey and describing the types of
Class V wells. The sanitarians were r uested
to list all class V facilities in their
counties. Telephone calls were subs uently
made to verify information and cbtain other
sources of information.
-------
thna
Page o
Strategy (Date) — cait. Rating/Response
o All drillers listed in the bntana telephone N/A
directories were contacted. Information
given by a driller concerning an injection
well, if incarplete, was foll zed up with
a telephone call to the a ner of the well.
o Pump sales arid service ccrnpanies were N/A
contacted. ‘they were cccasionally able to
give the names of urilis ted local well
drillers, who were then contacted.
(Post-1983) SMC Martin cord x ted an cterisive series of N/A
telephone interviews to assess and evaluate
the previously cariple ted inventory. See the
state r ort for the scope of this effort.
RE M :
1. Site specific study is needed to determine the nature and tent of
degradation fran 5X13 wells.
2. EPA should contact county sanitation authorities concerning sanitary
waste disposal wells: A more reasonable asses tent of the number of
these wells could be obtained by a review of permits in county
sanitation files. Site specific study is needed to evaluate the
inpact and ctent of this degradation.
3. An assessiTent of the effects of 5D2 wells should be conducted prior to
canpleting a caiplete inventory because the inventory xuld be tine
consuning arid costly. If fa.irid to be an actual source of significant
contamination, this inventory should be carple ted inmediately.
-------
Prepared: 4—15—86
Updated:
STh RE M RY
(All information recorded as described in state report,
additional correspondence, and verbal catirnunication)
STATE: Region VIII - Indian Land STMUS:DI BIBLI RAR1Y:No
TIThE: Inventory of CLass V Inj ection Wells in the Indian Lands
of EPA Region VIII
AUfli : SMC Martic
D rE: 3-85 REI STMUS: Final
RITRI.R U.S. EPA Region VIII, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of
Land Managanent
HYD1 G CGY: N/A
IMTE 1 AND ASSFSSMENI’: 2 wells FURS 4PM’IBtE: No (8-20-86)
Qntaminaticti case Regulatory
‘1 ’pe tentia1 Sbxiies Systan
5A7 1 Minor, localized No N/A
5W11 N/A No N/A
Strategy (Date) Response/Rating
(Date N/A) Contacted government agencies on
several levels: federal, regional, state, and
reservation. BIA agencies were the n ost valua-
ble source of information. Very little specific
information was gathered fran state agency contacts.
RE :
This inventory can best be updated if individuals in local agencies who are
familiar with the operations of individual reservations are periodically
contacted to determine if any activity involving Class V injection wells has
recently taken place on the reservation. Local BIA officials and/or tribal
council n ,bers should be contacted. A kncYNledgeable person on each reservation
could be ampa ered by the EPA to zronitor Class V (and perhaps all) injection
wells on that reservation. Periodic reporting iw these people to EPA would
ensure that the inventory rarains current.
-------
Prepared: 12—15—86
Updated:
TE RY
(All information recorded as described in state report,
additional correspondence, and verbal canmunication)
STA IE: North Dakota S’rMUS: Primacy BTRT.TOGRPPHY: No
¶ITILE: Evaluation of the Inventory and Assessnent of Class V Injection
Wells in North Dakota
?D1B(R: SMC Martin, Inc.
DATE: 3-85 x icr STMUS: Final
1 TI .R A f(I S):
N/A
HYD G GY:
N/A
flW i1 AND ASS F: 448 wells FURS PATIBLE: NO (8—20—86)
itaminaticxi Case Regulatory t
pe FOtential Studies Syst a
5F1 1 N/A No N/A
5A7 135 Lc N/A All water well
drillers m.ist
sthnit a log of
wells that have
been canpie ted
Installation
nuist be apprcwed
by the State
Water Depar nent
5X13 300 sitive N/A Rule
5X16 1 ? N/A N/A
5A 19 1 N/A N/A
5X27 10 ? N/A N/A
* individual well o irier is r juired to register his injection well with
the State De rtirent of Health.
Strategy (I te) Rating/Resp se
Tel eplxne survey conducted of: N/A
o Private residences
o Industrial and carunercial sites
o Municipal and other governmental operations
o Varicxis public facilities including sclxols, churches, etc.
o Industrial installers and dealers of heat p irps
N/A
-------
Prepared: 12—15—86
Updated:
(All inforxtation recorded as described in state r art,
additional correspondence, and verbal cat xainication)
STATE: South Dakota STMUS: DI B]B1 1 1(ZRAPHY: No
- TIThE: Evaluation of the Inventory and Asses nent of Class V Injection Wells in
the State of South Dakota
AwUOR: C Martin, Inc.
DATE: 3-85 RER cr STATUS: Final
R TRT.R C! (ThS):
N/A
HYD GY:
N/A
DlV 11 AND ASSRS 4 T: 49 Wells FURS 4PATIBLE: NO (8—20—86)
Qxitaminaticxi ( se Regulatory
1 ’pe Rtential St x3ies Systan
5A7 48 N/A N/A N/A
5A 19 1 N/A N/A N/A
Strategy Rati.ng/Respcxise
(1983) Telephone surveys soliciting inforn tion fran: Thorough and
o Electric cooperative ma±er service accurate for
directcries heat pinps
o Plumbing and heating caitractors
o Water well drillers
o State agencies-limited fort
(Post 1983) SMC Martin conducted a rrore ctensive survey:
See state r ort for tails N/A
RE TIc1 :
Water wells should be designated as “supply” or “injection” wells on
drilling permits.
-------
TE RE P RY
(All information recorded as described in state report,
additional correspondence, and verbal canmunica tion)
STATE: Utah
iUS: Primacy
BIBLI ZRAHiY: Yes
ITILE: Draft Class V Well Inventory for the UIC Program
PU’11fl : Morton, Loren B. and James H. Martin
DATE: 2—87
RER1 P STMUS: Draft
R K IBLE IC! (I ): Utah Bureau of Water Pollution Control (BWPC)
HYD1 JG OGY: The state of Utah is carposed of three physiogra iic provinces which
each contain distinct ap ifer characteristics arid vulnerabilities. In the Basin arid
Range Province, injection wells penetrating the confining layer or located in the
recharge area pose the greatest threat to current public water st lies. In the
Middle Rocky Mtn. Province the bedrock aquifer systems are at high risk for
groundwater pollution while the alluvial and glacial aquifer systems are less
vulnerable. No inforir tion is currently available on the Colorado Plateau Province.
flN fl A1 SS :
3,088 wells
Flips (fl PAT]BLE: No (8—20—86)
Strate
Rating/Respc se
City, State, arid Federal Cboperation....................
Public Education. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Industry
(5D2, 4)
Response. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Contacted city arid county engineers, planning
and zoning staff, building inspectors, public
works directors, and local envixorinental health
staff. Also conducted site inspections.
Gocid
To Be Implemented
Mixed
Prepared:
Updated:
3—16—87
4—27—87
c taniiiatiai
2743
321
se
St ies
2—5
3—7
Regulatory
Systen°
5
4
Type
NLzIt er
Potential
5D2
5D4
5A6
5A7
7
5At9
3
4
Permit
5W20
4
5—7
(Prctiibited)
5X28
2
6
(Prohibited)
5X29
SW 11
7
X
2—7
N/A
(Illegal)
N/A
No
Rule
Rule
Permit
Permit
* “drainfields are believed to exist and should be included
+ contamination potential is rated on a scale of 2 to 7,
(2=l est, 7=highest)
o information concerning responsible agencies rather than system
(e.g. permit, rule, etc.)
-------
Utah
Page o
Strategy (cczit.) Rating/Respcxise
(5A5-7) Reviewed records of Utah Division of Water N/A
Rights (t R). Sane site inspections.
(5A19) Contacted 1 R and potential well ners. N/A
(5W20) Contacted BWPC personnel arid local health N/A
depar rent staff.
(5X28) Located during drainage well inventory. N/A
(5X29) Contacted IY.4R arid BWPC. N/A
( 5D24 )
A. The irost thvious alternative to these wells is the conventional storm sewer. In
nost Utah cannninities this would rajuire extensive public works construction. A
ban on drainage wells would force carm.iriities to construct arid tend storm
sewers for all public streets arid sane private property. This creation or
augmentation would reault in increased costs to the local taxpayer.
B. Another alternative would be to provide environmental rnanagarent.
1. Studies should first be undertaken to assess:
(a) organic paraireters of urban runoff entering drainage wells fran public
streets (5D2 wells),
(b) total water chenistry, including organics, of runoff entering
canrrercial/ithustrial drainage wells (5D4 wells).
Priority attention in the stu ’ should be given to wells located in the
recharge area of the public water supply aquifers. In these areas ground
water pollution prcblans should be addressed ininediately upon discovery.
2. Once armed with facts, efforts should be focused on prevention of pollution
f ran drainage wel is. This could best be accar l ished by:
(a) tablishnent of state and federal standards for drainage well water
quality, and associated design, siting, and spill prevention
requi.ranents.
(b) Propagation of authority and iinplemention of state and federal
standards to local government. Multiple point source nature of
drainage wells will rajuire highly labor intensive managanent which
could best be accanplished at the local level.
3. After prevention, cleanup of drainage well polluted sites should be
anrhasized. This would be accanplished throu accepted aquifer cleanup
practices.
-------
Utah
ge 1 ee
C. Additional regulation is needed in storage and loading areas which are
vulnerable to hazardo.is prcduct arid spills.
1. Increased attention could be provided in changes to local zoning and
building code ordinances or environmental regulations.
2. Plan review in the permit approval process could give opportunity for local
government to assist the private sector in proper design and siting,
including spill prevention.
D. Little federal attention has been given to regulation of urban runoff to date.
Even less attention has been given to urban runoff disposed in drainage wells.
We recaitmend that drainage well studies be conducted, regulations as necessary
be ixrple ented, and coordination be accanplished between local govemTent, and
the UIC arid NPDES programs. Today, the UIC program is ineffective at regulating
these systems due to 1) lack of understanding of regulatory needs of drainage
wells, and 2) the sheer numbers of wells to be managed by a limited staff. It
nust be noted that aw increase in regulatory r uiraTents for these wells,
without an increase in program resources, will only result in even more
diminished program effectiveness.
( 5A6,7, 19 )
A. The xrost practical corrective alternative is one that should already cist in
these systems: non-contact use of the groundwater. System design should
emphasize prevention of grouiñ ater contact with any other fluids or soluble
solids.
B. If operation and maintenance inspections of these wells is ra uired in the
future, n e resources will be necessary to match the increased workload.
C. The federal government can be effective by providing information on necessary
environmental regulations arid encouraging states to adopt than. Currently the
UIC program is ineffective in regular inspection arid day-to-day management of
these wells due to lack of resources. Increased r u.irai nts will have to be
accanpanied by increased resairces to achieve better program effectiveness.
( 5W2 0 )
A. The best corrective alternative for these wells is to connect the waste streams
to the sanitary sewer, following any necessary pretreatment requirements.
Direct discharge to a well or dry well does not provide the treatment necessary
to render the waste water harmless to grainc water supplies. This treatn nt can
be provided by local water reclamation plants.
-------
Utah
Page Fc* r
B. These wells can be detected and managed by local building code, environmental,
or s r pretreatuent programs. Hcwever, the fact that sane of these wells
exist may be indicative of a lack of CLass V well experience, and the high
workloads and low funding levels that local government programs endure.
Occurrence of these wells in rural areas may also be caused by a lack of
cannuni ty water reclamation systems.
C. The low nixnber of these wells found indicates local government is doing a good
j cb of regulating industrial process water. However, the NPDES program can be
more effective in helping the UIC program by requiring sewer improvement
districts to inventory all industrial users of their system and to review
details of each user’s waste stream(s). This assistance will help locate these
wells in urban areas of the state. The UIC program should then closely examine
rural industry, in conjunction with state ground water protection staff and with
the help of local government, to identify industrial dischargers to grciind
water. Such a study would locate discharges not only to wells but also to
drainfields, strips, thy wells, etc. Once a in without increased resources this
effort may never be accanplished.
( 5X28 )
A. These wells can be corrected by providing urdergrourd hlding tanks (total
containment) for the waste oils/fluids. These tanks would require regular of f-
loading to waste oil reclaimmers. In Utah, there is econanic incentive for a
service station to sell waste oil to a reclairrer. The rnariagsrent of these wells
would best be accanplished at the local government level because they already
enforce their building and sewer ordinances. Any inspections by state or
federal staff would be a duplication of effort.
B. Canrtunities with a water reclamation system carutonly prthibit oil and grease
discharges to their sewer. Consaquently, sane operators opt to discharge tQ dry
wells as a “loophole” to the environmental regulations. Local building code and
sewer pretreatment inspection should be able to locate and manage these wells.
C. The tJIC program has not been effective in contrciiling this prcblan, but local
government has. Considering the thousands of service stations in the state, to
find only two of these wells thus far is encouraging. The tJIC program can be
more effective by educating those local government staff who conduct building
and environmental inspections. This training will help locate these violators
and 1 opefully solve the prcblem.
( 5X2 9 )
A. The only corrective alternative for these wells is closure. This practice nust
be halted to prevent aquifer contamination. In the case of danestic waste,
sanitaxy sewer 1 odc-up should be required. Industrial wastes should receive aw
necessary pretreatxrent and should also be discharged to the sanitary sewer.
Hazardous waste should be handled in accordance with RCRA regulations.
-------
Utah
Page Five
B. Disposal practices are difficult to detect without inspecting each arri every
water well; a Hez ulean task. Perhaps a m e practical way to find these
prcbl s is through inspections carried out by other cisting state, local, and
federal regulatory programs. B ucating those who cor uct building code, water
appropriation, and envirorir ental inspections on what to look for should be the
irost st effective way to find these types of violatiais. Prevention of this
problan would best be accanplished through public education, particularly of
water well a iners.
C. It appears that the xt st practical way these wells can be located and closed is
to educate the public and personnel in other govenii nt programs (i. e., RCRA,
NPDES, local envirorrriental and planning/building programs) in 1 w to locate
these wells, ‘fnat they consist of, and the damage they can do to the ground
water supply. Short of this, these wells could only be detected by an
exhausting revi of all existing water wells in the state; an inpossible task
considering current funding levels.
-------
Prepared: 1—16—87
Updated:
STATE REF ..*c r ] RY
(All information recorded as described in state report,
additional correspondence, and verbal carimunication)
STATE: Wyaning STMUS: Primacy BIBLIWR PHY: Yes
ITIIE: Assesanent of Class V Inj ection Wells in the State of Wyaning
AU’I’HC : Western Water Ccmçanies
DATE: 9-86 REI( F STMtJS: Final
RFS IBLE 1C!: Depertit nt of Envirorn ntal Quality (DEQ)
HYDRCG. OGY: The formations nost sensitive to Class V injection operations
include those areas underlain by: 1. Quaternary—age alluvium; 2. Mountain
glacial deposits; 3. Shallow bedrock aquifers; 4. Paleozoic-age aquifers; 5.
Dune sand and bess. Less Vulnerable units include ignecils, n tarnorphic, and
volcanic rocks; Mesozoic sandstone aquifers; playa lake and other lacustrine
deposits; landslides; arid Mesozoic shales (aquitards).
INV l’I AND ASSRSSMENF: 738 wells FURS CX lPATIBLE: No (8—20—86)
Qxitaminatiori Case Regulatory
‘1 ipe Nunber Potential* Studies Systan
5D2 5 3 No Any party who in-
5A7 7 8 No tends to construct
5W10 3 5 No or operate any fac-
5W11 420 5 No ility which may
5X13 74 3,10 No cause or contribute
5X14 14 1 No to pollution of any
5X15 41 4,7 2 facilities water of the
5W20 32 3 No state is raiuired
5R21 7 6 1 facility to cbtain a permit
5X25 135 1,9 3 facilities fran the WQD.
* Well types are ranked according to contamination potential (1 = hi est, 10 =
lowest). Sane well types h different rankings for different facilities.
-------
Wy
Page 1 o
Rating!
Strategy (Date): see state report for individual Response
strategies.
(1984) 1. Thtexvi ied state and federal govern- N/A
ir nt agencies and re,i ed available records.
2. Local govemnent offices were asked to N/A
provide inforiration about Class V wells within
their jurisdictions.
3. Potential a zners of and businesses 1 ikely N/A
to install or service Class V wells were identified
and contacted.
4. When potential well zners or information N/A
sources could not be reached, an extensive letter and
telephone folla z-up systen was anployed
1. Continue current regulatory efforts.
2. Investi te the envizorinental effects of dry wells within the state.
3. Obtain a cxitputerized standard ground-water quality ircdel to verify
model results submitted by permit applicants and independently
evaluate proposed proj ects.
4. Develop and use a standard data management system for routine
nonitoring data submitted by permit tees.
-------
S
Region IX State Report Summaries
Arizona
California
Hawaii
Nevada
American Samoa
Trust Territories and Pacific Islands
Guam
CNMI
-------
Prepared: 7—22—87
Updated:
STATE NE r RY
(All inforrration recorded as described in April 10, 1987 m norardum
fran Richard A. Cc dington to Michael B. Cook)
STATE: DI States - USEPA Region IX (AZ, C2 , Guam, HI, NV, TTPI)
R ]BLE * : U.S. Erivirorinental Protection Agency
IN flORY AND ASS SSNENP: 64,105 wel is
* Qxitaininatic i c se Regulatory
Type Nu±er teitial Stndies Syst n
5D2,4 59,323 See individual State Report Summaries
5G30 1
5A5 81
5A6 7
5A7 53
5A8 25
5W9 3
5W10 120
5W11 1,311
5W31 73 ‘I
5W32 1,279
5W12 358
5X13 1 H
5X14 875
5X 17 35
5X18 22
5Ai.9 26
5W20 209
5R21 103 U
5B22 155 I’
5X25 45
Strategy (I te) Rating/Respcxise
See individual State R art Sunmaries
RE ATIC :
1. Develop a systeit to consistently update and maintain the Class V
inventory. This systan should:
* focus on cbtaining inventory information arid well specific data about
high priority or high contamination potential wells prior to
cons truction;
-------
Regiczi]X
Page 1t o
* focus on cbtaining data about wells in areas which have a high level
aE grounc1i iater usage and a high density of wells which could endanger
the USEW;
* coordinate with and utilize information fran existing state programs;
* utilize authority under UIC or RCRA program to request infonTation
fran operators of high contamination potential wells;
* contact and cbtain information fran well drillers, cities and other
groups that maintain records an recent and new well construction and
operation; and
* utilize information gathered by other Federal programs (e.g. through
RCRA at hazardcus waste generation facilities with stonnwater drainage
wells).
2. Develop and inpi enent an effective inspection, canpl iance, and enfor ament
program. This should include:
* review state specific CLass V assesaments, Class V inventory, state
program r )orts, and local program rqorts, and identify specific
facilities with high contamination potential wells which must be
inspected;
* inspect high contanination potential well types in high risk areas
(e.g., areas overlying sole source aquifers with a high density of
high contanination potential wells);
* coordinate inspection and work in conjunction with existing state
programs;
* sanple waste streams when necessary to assess possible violations;
* bring enforcaient actions against all Class IV wells which may be
uncovered; and
* take appropriate enforcanent actions against operators of Class V
wells which are “endangering” an US J.
3. Develop and inpianent an interim UIC Class V permit program. This interim
permit program should contain proper siting, construction, nonitoring,
r orting, and closure requirenents which will assure that a permitted
Class V well will not endanger an USEM.
-------
Prepared: 2—3-87
Updated: 6—1—87
PE REEO1 P & RY
( ll information recorded as described in state reports,
additional correspondence, and verbal canrrunica tion)
STM”E: Arizona STA IUS: DI BIBLICGRAI 1Y: Yes
PI E: Repart on Class V Inj ection Well Inventory and Assessnent in Arizona
NYfflOR: Engineering Enterprises, Inc.
DATE: 5-87 icER)i P STMUS: Final Draft
RIBLE PL 1C!(ThS): USEPA, Region DC, UIC Section
HYD1 JG WY: The Upper Alluvian Unit of the basin-fill aquifer in the Salt
River Valley groundwater area receives the majority of water injected
through Class V wells in Arizona. This basin-fiJi aquifer is utilized for
domestic, industrial, irrigation and public water supply. Groundwater
withdrawals from this aquifer account for 25 percent of groundwater
with3ra ,als in the state.
INV iURY ND ASSFSSMEN1 : 51, 207 wells RJRS a:14P I’IBLE: No (8—20—86)
itamiriaticri se Regulatory
‘1 pe Nuuber tential Studies Systan
5D2 40,000 — 60,000 Moderate Yes Registration
5D4 Cathined w/5D2 Moderate Yes Registration
5 20 72 HIgh Yes Permit
5W10 17 High No Permit
5W11 143 High No Permit
5W12 1 High No Permit
5W3 1 18 High No Permit
5W32 3 High No Permit
5X].4 870 Lo to Mod. Yes Permit
5R21 51 Lot, Yes Permit
5X25 32 LcM to Mcd. Yes Permit
5A7 X Lo No None
Strategy Rating/Respcxise
Jan.—Feb., 1985 Inventory questiormaires mailed to N/A
varicxis federal, state and local
ager ies.
April-Nay, 1985 A second inventory questionnaire N/A
was mailed to businesses and
industries and potentially
c ming/operating Class V wells.
-------
Arizc a
Page o
May-June, 1985 Inventory questionnaires were N/A
mailed to irrigetion, drainage,
arid other water districts in
Arizona.
August, 1986 A fourth questionnaire was mailed N/A
to county health depar ents and
the Arizona Departnent of Health
Sexy ices to increase the inventory
of CLass V sewage treathent/disposal
systatis.
July, August,
Sept., 1986 A file investigation/site inspection N/A
study was conducted by EEl to d,tain
further data on solution mining
wells and industrial disposal wells.
RE ATIC :
Solution Mining Wells (5X14) and E cperinental Technology Wells (5X25) Associated
with Solution Mining:
1. Re uire operators currently grandfathered fran having to cbtain a permit to
seek one through the sppropriate state agency.
2. Additional study is needed to determine if post-closure r&iuiranents are
sufficient to protect USEW.
3. Performance bonds may be necessary to insure compliance with permit
conditions.
Pquifer Recharge Wells (5R21):
1. USEPA and Arizona regulators should agree on guidelines to address 1 x
water quality versus water quantity conflicts are resolved for projects
using injection wells.
Heat Ptitip/Air nditiorthig Return Flc Wells (5A7):
1. Well construction and choice of injection zone should be regulated.
2. Pñditional study on the impact of additives such as biocides, corrosion or
scale inhibitors, arid clay dispersal agents used to increase injection well
performance is needed.
Sewage Waste Water Disposal Wells (5W10, 5W11, 5W31, 5W32):
1. Inventory may be improved by working with state and local agencies.
Inventary efforts should focus upon sys tens receiving industrial/cam rcial
wastes or process waters.
-------
Ariza
Page Three
2. Groundwater Quality Protection Pennit conditions should be tested to ensure
protection of TJSLW by conducting site investi .tions, including groundwater
ironitoring.
3. class V on—site systems should be reclassified in order that waste stream
quality arid quantity may be determined fran the type of syst&n indicated on
the returned questionnaire.
4. The public should be educated on the appropriate use of on-site trea nent
syst ens.
Danestic Waste Water Theathient Plant Effluent Disposal (5W12):
1. Conduct additional inventory efforts.
2. Groundwater Quality Protection Permit conditions should be tested to ensure
protection of USEW by conducting site investi tions including groundwater
morii taring.
Storm Water Drainage and Industrial Drainage (5D2 arid 5D4):
1. ditional study of the water quality ixt acts to USI are needed. These
should involve saitpling of sedinents in settling basins of drainage wells,
storm water run off, and groundwater within the saturated arid unsaturated
zone at selected sites. also, use studies as a basis for establishing a
minimum vertical seperation distance between the water table and the bottan
of the well.
2. Provide depth to water maps for drillers and planners especially in
carmercial areas.
3. Continue public information efforts on the ne ily instituted registration
program.
Industrial Process Water arid Waste Water Disposal Wells (5W20):
1. Conduct targeted questionnaire mailings, telephone fal l -ups, and facility
inspections. Also, re rie i ADHS files f or additional inventory.
2. AIW operating permits thich are granted should re uire water level data and
a geologic description of sedirrents dcwn to the regional water table.
3. Develop case studies at selected sites, including groundwater nonitaririg,
to determine if permit conditions protect USL .
4. Continue to require a canplete waste stream analysis as pert of the permit
application.
-------
Ariza a
Page Fcxir
5. In conjunction with (3) above, conduct studies on the attenuation of
contaminants within the vadose zone in order to specify a minimum
separation distance between ca’npletion depth and the water table.
Agricultural Drainage Wells (5F1):
If such wells are installed or discovered in the future, they should be
regulated. Guidelines should include well cons truction standards, mi ectate
quality standards, choice of injection zones and injection volume.
-------
Prepared: 1—28—87
Updated: 5—7—87
RE RY
(all thforrnation r orded as described in state report, additional
correspondence, and verbal carmmica tion)
STATE: California SPMUS: DI BIBLIOGRAR!Y: Yes
PIILE: Reporting on Class V Injection Well Inventoxy & Assessment in
California
M7I !OR: Engineering Enterprises, Inc.
DATE: 5—87 RE ( L ’ STMUS: Final Draft
RFSK TRr.R C! (I ):
California Division of Oil & Gas (CDx) Division of Water Resources (fl’JR);
Regional Water Quality itrol Boards (I (B); Bureau of Land Managar nt
(BLM)
Groundwater wjthdraqals account for 40% of California’s water use. Total
storage capacity of all groundwater basins is 1.3 billion acre-feet.
Principal aquifers are alluvium and older sedinents in coastal regions.
Basin-fill aquifers typify desert regions. Volcanic aquifers are fcund
primarily in northern California, flanking the Cascade & Siskiyou Ranges,
and along the eastern Sacramanto Valley. nsolidated crystalline rocks
and bedded sandstones are principal aquifers locally.
ItWFNIURY AND ASS 4 iP: 12,236 wells (Est) FURS NI’IBIE: No (8—20—86)
itaminaticri Case Regulatoxy
¶I rpe t itial Stu1ies Systan
5D2 - 5D4 9175 (est) OD 1 NO PERMIT R UIR.E1)
5A5 65 LCW 4 PERMIT
5A6 1 La ’J 1 PERMIT
5A7 53 1kW NO PERMIT
5W10 46 HIGH NO BANNED
5W11 1165 HIGH NO N/A
5W12 22 HIGH NO PERMIT
5X14 5 UNKNQ ’JN 1 PERMIT
5X17 35 1 DD-HIGH 5 PERMIT
5X18 22 NOD-HIGH 9 PERMIT
5A19 20 UNKNG N NO PERMIT
5W20 93 HIGH 6 PERMIT
5R21 52 UNKNG’JN YES PERMIT
5B22 155 L(X’J YES PERMIT
5X25 2 UNKNG’JN NO PERMIT
5W3 1 48 HIGH NO PERMIT
5W32 1276 HIGH NO PERMIT
-------
c lifarnia
ge Tho
Strategy
(1,2—1985)
Questionnaires I & II mailed by EEl & EPA to:
county health departments, public works
departments, depart nts of transportation,
department of agriculture, U.S. Soil
Conservation Service, kncwn geothermal operators,
selected RCRA applicants
Ratii g/Response
Moderate
(4-19 85) Questionnaires mailed by EEl to: petroleum
refiners and chanical plants, chanical
manufacturers, industrial manufacturers,
drilling service cczqpanies, cai grouxids/RV
discharge areas, mortuaries, refuse haulers,
industrial disposal services, waste oil
ref iriers, amelters, pumping contractors
(6—19 85) Similar questionnaires mailed by EEl to new
operator
(7—9—1986)
(9—12, 1986)
Ageiry file reviews arid site investigations
for hi—tech facilities
Contact regional boards and county health
departx nts to increase the inventory of
CLass V sewage disposal sys tens.
Moderate
Moderate
A. 3”1 iiqA I A ) INW ThiAL DRAI E wi,z.g (5D2 & 5D4 )
Increased inventory efforts are needed to locate and identify wells of this
type. In addition, the severity of contamination potential posed by these wells
needs to be better defined by further field investigations. Factors to consider
in establishing interim regulations for these wells include:
1) Prohibition of
2) Prohibition of
3) Definition of
4) Definition of
wells in areas served by storm water sewers.
well developient into public supply aquifers.
minimum vertical separation requirenents.
minimum horizontal setback requirenents.
B..
.& flUC
rMTw 1 T rrH w1 T.q 1cAc
It is recanrrerded that all permit applications are accam anied by baseline
hydrogeological studies, cariplete with maps sha*iing all ater supply wells in
the area, detailed drilling arid canpietion plans, and canprehensive injectate
arid inj ection formation fluid thenical analyses. Mechanical integrity tests and
analysis of injection fluids should be required annually. In addition, continu-
al monitoring of inj ection volumes and pressures should be required.
Los i
-------
c 1ifarnia
Page Three
C. G Y1HERMAL DIREL’r I Th A r I UEC’PIC w1 T (5M )
RecaTirrendations are generally the sarre as for electric pawer generation. In
addition, further inventory efforts are needed to locate other law-tenperature
geothermal injection facilities in northern California.
D. HEAT POMP/MR CX1 DITIC1 i iuxN FLG( wiyx.g (5A7 )
tential for US13. s1 contamination is lawest when the source and mi ection zones
are the same & uifer. It is recantrended that all inj ection of heat pu np/air
conditioning return flaw water is into the source aquifer. In addition,
increased inventory efforts are needed to identify new and existing wells, and
to evaluate their potential for USI J contamination.
E. SFWNE W1 M’ DISPOSAL SY 1 (5W10, 5W11, 5W12, 5W31, 5W32 )
Increased inventory efforts are needed. Inventory efforts should be concentra-
ted on cesspools, septic systans with wells, and septic systans with drainfields
receiving industrial/cannercial wastes or process waters. Septic sys tans and
cesspools should be classified according to the types of waste water disposed.
Operators of cesspool s should be re ui red to develop al ten ate disposal sys tens.
Sewage disposal systens should not be designed for areas with existing sewers.
iners of these disposal systans should sthT it waste discharge r orts. Opera-
tors should be r uired to characterize their waste streams before discharging
aid at aw tine cat osition changes. Permitting f or snail facilities should be
a)rducted at the local agency level.
F. SCfl7PIC 1 MIN]X IN]ECTIal W LS (5X14 )
A irore thorough database for existing facilities should be developed. I bnitor-
ing well networks should be established dawn gradient to the mine and sani-
annual sample analysis should be conducted for each well. Monthly volumetric
analysis of injection aid recovery fluids should be conducted to ensure balance.
Mechanical integrity for all wells should be danonstrated periodically.
G. A]R SQ JBBER WA.S’I’E DISI ATJ (5X17 )
r is reccmnended that a sampling program is developed to characterize waste
streams at all facilities. Sarrples should be taken at the injection pur s or
wellhead. Said-annual waste stream analyses should be required, and standard
sample parameters should be Total Organic Carbon (TOC), oil and grease, aid
total recoverable hydrocarbons. Inj ection into USI ’I that are riot oil zones
should be prohibited. Finally, consistency in permit r uiranents for each
facility should be established.
-------
California
Page Fair
H. WM SOFTh2 ER R G IERATEC BRINE DISI AL w i.g (5x18 )
For recai nendations, see Air Scrubber Waste Disposal Well Summary.
I. cx)an 3 WATER w autcN Laq w z-g (5A19 )
Increased inventory efforts are necessary to locate and identify all wells of
this kind. Injection of contact cooling water into Class I3B aquifers should
not be allcy,zed, and all n v systEns should be of the closed loop variety. Spent
cooling water should be injected back into the source aquifer to prevent aquifer
degradation due to fluid incai tibility. Finally, permit applications should
address the hydrogeology for a 1/4-mile ralius around the facility.
J. INEUb’I’RI L P1 J S WA L & WPfflE DISR)SAL (5W20 )
Monitoring well syst ns should be iinplai nted at large facilities to trace the
migration of contaminants. Inj ection of industrial waste and process water into
US1 Z should be prthibited. Increased inventory efforts are needed to identify
new and cisting facilities. More in-depth 1 ’drogeological background should be
a uired prior to permit approval. Finally, all permits should r uire regular
chanical analysis of mi ect&1 fluids.
K. ii c RECBA E w g (5R21 )
Agricultural chanicals and nutrients should be ranoved fran return fla zs in
agricultural areas where recharge is being conducted. Sewage wastewater should
always be treated prior to use as recharge fluid. Water not neeting National
Primary and Secondary Drinking Water Standards should not be mi ected into
currently used USI]J.
L. SAL’1WA I Iki isia1 BARRUR wF z-c (5B22 )
Case studies should be conducted to assess the influence of this injection upon
potential or present public drinking water supplies. Studies should also be
conducted to further define the lithologic and ‘drogeologic controls aver salt
water intrusion. a aracterization of injectate and injection zone fluids should
be conducted at all salt water intnision barrier proj ects. Finally, increased
inventory efforts are needed to ensure that all such projects have been identi-
fied.
M. PERIMEN AL TEQW 1 OGY ] iiCii (5X25 )
Increased inventory efforts are necessary to locate other cperirTental facili-
ties. Site-specific studies should be conducted for each facility located
through continued inventory efforts.
-------
Prepared: 2-3-87
Updated: 5—7—87
ATE RE &M RY
(All inforrration recorded as desoribed in state r orts,
a di tional correspondence, and verbal cannu.inica tion)
S1 M’E: Hawaii STM’US: DI BIBLIOGR }HY: Yes
ITILE: (1) Draft Report, Inventory and Asses rent of Class V Inj ection Wells
in Hawaii for US EPA Region IX
(2) Draft Report of Investigation CLass V mi ection Well Inspections,
( hu and Hawaii Islands, Hawaii
(3) Letter with irxventczy updates fran Hawaii Department of Health
and various correspondence
ALYI’!KR: (1), (2) Engineering Enterprises, Inc.
(1) April 1987 RER cr ST I’US: Draft
(2) Novether 1985
(3) August 1986
R ]BLE C (IFS):
U.S. EPA Region IX, tJIC Section
Hawaii Department of Health, Erivirorxnental Permits Branch
HYD1 )G UWY: Primary water source is groundwater on maj or islands. Surface
water is locally inpartant. Groundwater occurs prirrarily as (1) basal
lens, underlying all islands, c ii cising major groundwater source, (2)
water held in dike car lexes, above basal lens and/or sea level, and (3)
perched water at high elevations above basal lens and/or sea level.
Specific information is contained in draft reports.
IORY AND ASS S. 1ENP: 617 wells FURS a PATThLE: No
Q itaminaticxi ( se Regulatory
‘1 ’pe Potential Stixlies Systan
5D2 129* Moderate No All Class V
5D4 4 Moderate No injection wells
5A8 25 Moderate Yes are r ulated
5W9 3 High Yes under a permit
5W10 57 High No sys ten by the
5W31 7 High Yes Hawaii Dept.
5W12 335 High Yes of Health,
5A19 6 La Yes Environ r r ntal
5W20 44 High Yes Permits Branch.
5X25 6 L No
5G3 0 1 Un1 ia n No
* Many more wells thought to exist.
-------
Hawaii
Page 1t o
Strategy (I te) Respcxise/Rating
(1) Hawaii Dept. of Health cbtained a list of Gocxl
injection well a zners which U93S carpiled
arid mailed r& uest-for-pexmit application
forms to people on list. The U&S list
was based on: permit applications for
privately a ,ned treatment works; personal
mettaries of regulatory officials; and
well drilling permits. (pre-1985)
(2) Hawaii Dept. of Health also mailed r uest- Good
for-permit application forms to: businesses in
the telephone book; potential sewage disposal
well cwners in non-sewer& areas; arid kn vn
industrial plants or operations. (pre-1985)
(3) Follcw-up letters were mailed to non-respondents
of surveys listed in (1) and (2).
(4) EEl inspection program added three facilities Good
(sewage related wells) dw ing site inspection
program. One facility was in a non—sewered
area and was found to use well disposal. ¶tWo
other facilities were state/county hospitals
disposing of sewage waste for which the Health
Dept. bed not bad manpcwer before inspections
to obtain data needed to canplete permit
application. (August 1985)
RE M S
Fran EEl Draft Report “Inventory and Assessment of Class V
Irrj ecticm Wells in Hawaii” (April, 1987):
- Irwent y efforts should continue.
- The public should be educated with regard to proper operation of CLass V
inj ection well systans arid potential grain 1ater contamination which may
result fran unregulated CLass V injection. The public should be made aware
of regulations re rding Class V wells.
- In-depth hydrogeologic studies should be conducted by a qualified
individual for active and proposed areas of Class V injection.
- Wells should be properly designed, constructed, and operated. Regulat y
personnel should review proposed construction specifics and the suhnitted
hydrogeol ogic report before granting permission to construct wells.
-------
Hawaii
Page Three
- Periodic sampling arid analysis of injected fluids should be conducted.
Receiving waters should also be sampled periodically for signs of
degradation fran injection practices.
- Mechanical integrity of selected well types should be maintained and
verified through testing periodically. Appropriate nechanical integrity
tests may need to be developed.
- Wel is should be properly p1 ugged and sealed when inj ection is tenrnina ted.
- the UIC Line may need to be relocated in sane areas, as it is only a rough
appr cixration of groundwater containing at least 5,000 irg/l IDS.
- Research should be conducted with rege.rd to attenuation capabilities of
basalts at various stages of weathering.
- An organized sample and c e library could be fanned to facilitate areal
mapping and hydrogealogic evaluation. This proposal should be considered.
Frau EE l Draft Report of In restigatia s (1 reiber 1985):
SITE ]NQESTIGATIONS AND HI4mIAII UIC PR(X RAM
- Site inspections should be conducted at facilities which sthnit permit
applications to verify and augirent su nitted information.
— Appropriate chanical analyses should be done to characterize injected
fluids at permitted facilities.
- Site hydrogeology at permitted facilities should be better documented, at
least in the form of injection well boring logs.
- Water usage in the area of the permitted facilities should be considered
during the permitting process.
- Abandoned wells should be properly plugged arid abandoned.
- Efforts should be continued to locate facilities not currently under the
regulatory process. This activity could entail substantial field work.
This task could be aided by r&juiring and strictly enforcing a rule on well
installation. This rule would r& uire sühnittal of well logs, canpletion
details, and other pertinent data to all appropriate state agencies.
-------
Hawaii
ge F r
Fran Hawaii Departn nt of Health Correspax ice ( y 1986)
LEMEI’TI’S NEEDED FOR THE FUIURE
- Review and revision of cisting state regulations to provide n ore prudent
control of inj ection arid nonitoring re uirarents. -
- Promote cooperation between regulatory agencies and the regulated
ccmnunity. ODoperation must be caipled with education of the regulated
canmuni ty and the public.
- Seek out and regulate injection facilities which have not yet been
reported.
-------
Prepared: 1—28—87
Updated: 5—4—87
STATE RE P RY
(All infoirration recorded as described in state reports,
additional correspondence arid verbal caritrainica tion)
?JWPE: Nevada STA!IUS: DI BIBLIWRAPHY: Yes
TIThE: Report on Class V Injection Well Inventory and Assessrrent in Nevada
? 4 171’HOR: Engineering Enterprises, Inc.
DATE: 5-87 icER cr STM’US: Final Draft
R TI .R E C!(ThS):
Division of Envirorxnental Protection (DEP); Division of Water Resources
(t R); Departri nt of Minerals (Da 1); Division of Health ( H)
HYD G GY:
Grour qater with3ra rals account for about 20% of all water used in Nevada.
Basin-fill (valley-fill) aquifers are currently supplying the majority of
groundwater withdra ials. Carbonates (linestone and dolanite) arid volcanic
r ks also function as principle uifers in certain parts of the state.
fl 1 1 AND ASSFSSMF74T: 46 wells FURS (XZ4PATIBLE: NO (8—20—86)
itanthiatia i Case Regulatory
1 ipe RtenH 1 Stix3ies Systan
5D2 15 Moderate No N/A
5D4 X Moderate No N/A
5A5 16 High — 3 facilities Permit
5A6 6 5 facilities Permit
5A7 X La , No N/A
5Wil 3+ Moderate No Permit
5W32 X Permit
5X25 5+ Unkncwri No Permit
5X28 X High No N/A
5X13 1 Unknazn No N/A
* “x” indicates well type is believed to exist; no numbers available
-------
Nevada
Page P, o
Strategy Ratig/Respc se
(1981) “Feasibility Report of the tJnderground Inj ection N/A
Control Program for the State of Nevada”
(1983) Inventory of injection wells, canpiled by 4C rtth N/A
(1984) Assesanent of injection wells, carpiled by SMC Martin N/A
(1,2—85) Questionnaires I & II mailed by EEl & EPA to: county Moderate
health depts., public rks depts., depts. of
transportation, dept. of agriculture, Nev. Pollution
Control Federation, U.S. Soil Conservation Service,
various other state and federal agencies, kn zn
geothermal operators, selected RCRA Part A permit
applicants, and others fran eviously constructed
lists.
(4,5-85) Questionnaires mailed by EPA to: petroleum refiners, La i
petroleum chenical plants, chenical manufacturers,
other industrial manufacturers, drilling service
canpanies, carnpgrcv.nds/ R.V. discharge areas,
nortuaries, maj or refuse hauling and disposal services,
industrial waste disposal services, waste oil
re-refineries, snelters, and pumping contractors
(sewage).
(5,6-85) Questionnaires nailed by EPA to irrigation, drainage,
and varia.is ater districts in Nevada. La*z
(9-86) Survey conducted by EE l/EPA to increase the inventory
of sewage disposal well facilities. La
RE ATICX :
Sewage Disposal Wells (5W11, 5W32):
1. Effluent limitations, periodic inspections and public education may
alleviate prthl ns of misuse through irrproper disposal.
2. Site investigations or case studies nay provide information in artier to
ascertain whether siting guidance for individual systens is suitable for
CLass V systans.
3. State, county, and local agency files may be camined in order to improve
inventory.
4 • Site investigations may be desirable when the inventory is inproved.
Experimantal Technology Wells (5X25):
1. Additional inventory data should be thtained.
2. Mditional study should be conducted on current regulatory jurisdiction.
-------
Nevada
Page Three
2. Injection fluids should be sampled and analyzed for parameters of the
National Prinary Drinking Water Standards (NPLWS).
3. State should expand the scope and detail of baseline hydrologic
irivesti tiaris required in permit applications.
Geothent l Dir t Heat Injection Wells (5A6):
1. A discussion should be held with state agencies in order to inventory
danestic size systems.
2. Additional study is needed to determine appropriate MIT’ s and frequency of
testing.
3. Injection fluids should be sampled and analyzed for parameters of the
NPIYiJS.
4. State should expand the scope and detail of baseline flydroLogic
investi tions required in cannercial permit applications.
storm Water and Industrial Drainage Wells (5D2, 5D4):
1. Likely present and future uses of drainage wells should be determined by
asking state and local officials if ordinances requiring or banning
drainage wells exist.
2. Consider public education as a neans to control future use of this well
type and on-site sewage waste water disposal systems. riodic conferences
and literature distributions for public officials or interested parties
re rdirig the uses and abuses of such systems would provide education and
pranote awareness of the Federal tJIC program. Regulatory approaches could
also be discussed through such neans.
-------
Prepared: 2-3-87
Updated:
rA RY
(All infarn tion recorded as described in state report,
add! tional correspondence, and vethal canrrunication)
STATE: A rerican Samoa STMUS: DI BThLICGRAE IY: Yes
‘iTILE: Asses uent Rep t - ? rican Samoa
2 I7THOR: UIC, Region DC
D?iTE: 1—87 icERX T STRIUS: Draft
R IBLE 3L C!(IFS): EPA Region DC, tJIC
HYDI )G WY: All of the groundwater occurs in either high-level aquifers or
basal aquifers. Ground water in high level aquifers is either (1)
prevented frau migrating downward by flat-lying aquitards, or (2) inpounded
behind near vertical dikes that have intruded highly permeable basalt
flows. Discharges range from 2 liters/sec. to 24 liters/sec. Basal
aquifers drain directly to the sea without significant retention times.
They are generally located near the coast. Discharge rates range fran 2
liters/day to 21 liters/day. Inhabitants generally depend on surface
water.
flN WI PY AM) ASS SMFNP: 0 Wells FURS (X 4PATIBLE: N/A
Qxitaminatiai C se Regulatory
Type Potential Strdies Systen
0 0 0 0 0
Strategy Rating/Respcrise
bt ?ppl icable
RE M :
Prior to the early 1970’s, the inhabitants of American Sartoa relied almost
entirely on surface water sources to supp t their drinking water needs. With
the installation of ruxnerous water wells in the last decade, however,
groundwater now represents the bulk of the drinking water consumed on the
islands of American Samoa. Despite this eleaient of progress, new groundwater
sources mist be developed to meet the needs of the growing population.
The islands of American Samoa will probably scon face the prcblan of large scale
waste disposal as new industries are intrcxiuced. Due to the delicate water
balance that exists on each island, the disposal of waste must be approached
cautiously. At present, little recorded data exists on the distribution of
high-level and basal aquifers on the islands. Because of this, it is difficult
to assess hydrogeologic vulnerability. There are, however, numerous examples of
locations that clearly should not be used as waste disposal sites such as the
Tafuna-Leone Plaine and the upper Fagaalu Valley. These two areas are
-------
r±can Sa a
Page 1t’ o
vulnerable because the local uifers, which occur at or near the surface, are
essentially unprotected fran contarnii tion due to the high level of hydraulic
intercormection beb een the geologic units. Other areas characterized 1 w highly
erzreable f nations or d osits are likewise unsuitable as waste disposal sites
for the reason given above.
In order to dj ectively identify areas of hydrogeologic vulnerability, a set of
standard iteria rtust be developed that define in precise tenris what consitutes
vulnerability and what does not. Once these criteria have been established, it
will be possible to isolate areas that are vulnerable to contamination, and to
evaluate the potential for CLass V well installation in a site-s cif ic manner.
-------
Prepared: 2—3-87
Updated:
TE RE r RY
(All information recorded as described in state report,
additional correspondence, and verbal canmunication)
STATE: Trust rritories of STMUS DI B]BLICGRA1 IY: NO
the Pacific Island (TrPI)
TIJLE: Trust TerritaLy of the Pacific Islands Underground Inj ection Control
Program
At7IHOR: John Mink
DATE: 1—87 IERRd ’ STMUS: Draft
R U4ST1 R 21GEC (IES): EPA Region DC, UIC; Thist ¶L rritory Environmental
Protection Board
HYD1 )G CGY: ¶Ik o island types are prevalent: volcanic and raised limestone.
The people rely on a variety of sources for water supply including rain
catchlTent, stream flow, and shallow hand dug wells.
fl ThN1 Y AND ASsr: 0 Wells FLIPS (X 4PM LE: N/A
Qxitaminatiai Case Peguiatazy
ype tential St xiies Systen
0 0 0 0 0
Strategy Rating! Respcaise
Not Applicable
RE I( :
As mentioned previously, the carpletion of the 1985 EPA stu ’ reaffirir d the
original assurrption that there ware no IJIC wells in Micronesia. However, it
should be noted that limestone aquifers are highly susceptible to dissolution by
acidic solutions, i.e., disintegration by acidic injectates. Therefore, the pH
of the injectate should be carefully ironitared and assessed should consideration
be given to allow future injection near these limestone formations.
Unconsolidated and semi-consolidated rock types are highly permeable, and
therefore if used as receiving foz it tions, can pose a potential endangerment to
nearby underground sources of drinking water (USEX J’ s). Uri.ieathered volcanic
rocks, on the other hand, are considered highly consolidated units arid should
make very stable, inperrreable confining zones. Efforts should be made to locate
art’ future Gass V wells in areas where aquifers or USI]’Js can be adaquately
protected fran injection zones by such consolidated confining zones. Where
ij ection trust occur into a USLW, a detailed chemical analysis of the inj ectate
should be first conducted to protect against ar ’ direct contamination of the
UStW. At a minimum, total dissolved solids (‘IDS) and ar ’ constituents for which
drinking water standards have been developed should be measured and evaluated.
Also, because of the fragile nature of ground water resources, alternatives such
as surface treatnent facilities, should be considered prior to making the final
decision.
-------
Prepared: 12—1-86
Updated:
STATE RELOI r SLTh 1
(All information recorded as described in state report,
add! tional correspondence, and verbal canmunication)
STATE: Guam S’lWIUS: Primacy BIBLI(X RAPHY: Yes
TIILE: Underground Inj ection Control Class V Assessnent Report
AIJIHOR: Guam Enviror ntal Protection Agency
DATE: 9-86 REUL. CL STMUS: Final
RF K IRrR P C (IE ): Guam En rixorntental Protection Agency (GEPA),
Water Program Division, Safe Drinking Water Programs
HYD CGY: Northern half : limestone plateau covered by Guam clay, contains
three groups of ground water resources: (1) basal, (2) parabasal, arid (3)
perched limestone caps on hills of volcanic rock. The “Northern Lens”
serves as a source of potable water for 95% of the pcpulation. Southern
half : Volcanic uplands. Ground water occurs in limestone lenses, volcanic
rocks, and noncalcareous sediments. Not adequate for large scale
developrEnt (i.e., beyond local needs).
flN I Y M D ASSRSSME 11 : 164 Wells FURS 4PATIBLE: YES(lO—20—86)
Ccntaminatic!1 case Regulatoxy
Type Rtential Sttdies Systan
5D2 164 N/A nnit Required
Strategy Respc se/Rating
GEPA contacted all federal, state, and local
agencies in Guam +
RE DATI : (These practices are presently in effect in Guam)
1. GEPA has issued pennits to all Class V wells arid prohibi-ts the construction
arid operation of new injection wells without a permit.
2. GEPA requires the operator to san le and ironitor the injection fluids for
MBAS, Oil arid Grease, and N0 3 -N.
3. GEPA staff conduct inspections of injection wells to ensure that only
surface water runoff and storm water are disposed of into the wells and to
ensure that no toxic or hazardous chet icals or other pollutants are
inj ected.
4. Periodically, GEPA staff conduct surveillance, islaridwide, for possible
illegal activities concerning underground injection control.
-------
Prepared: 12—1—86
Updated:
E RY
(All infonTation recorded as des ibed in state repart,
additional correspondence, and verbal cannunication)
STATE: ( I STMUS: Primacy B]BLICGRA IY: No
TIILE: Underground Injection Control Class V AssesaTent Repart
A7flfl : Division of EnvirorzTental Quality
D TE: 9-86 REEU P STMUS: Final
RFS ETI R C 1 (IFS): Division of Envirorux ntal Quality (DEQ);
HYDROGEOLOGY: Primary water sources are basal, characteristic of coastal
regimes. Mare specific infcaii tion about Saipari, Rota, and Tiriian is included
in the state repart.
T i1U AND AssFS 4 ir: 2 Wells FURS (X 4PATiBLE: YES(8—20—86)
( itam1naticm ( se Regulatory
ipe Nuther t H 1 St ies Systen
2 Lo i N/A None r uired
Respcrise/Rating
-c was notified of requiret nt to notify DEQ
in one year) of oNnership of CLass V wells through
(1) publi tion of regulations in the Canrronwealth
Register 0
(2) conduction of a public hearir 0
• itine safe drinking water insrection found 2 wells
‘ )ATIC :
• DEQ should be on the 1od out for other Class V wells
• Interviews should be conducted with staff menbers of the Deper rent of
Public Works, who were aware of the above described wells, for information
on other possthle wells.
-------
Region X State Report Summaries
Alaska
Idaho
Oregon
Washington
-------
Prepared: 1—18—87
Updated:
RR RY
(All infarnation recorded as described in state report,
additional correspondence, and verbal canrrunication)
STATE: Alaska S’rMUS: DI B]BLICERAffiY: Yes
TI’JLE: Prel imina.ry Class V Injection Well Inventory arid Assesanent Report-Alaska
&YIBOR: Engineering Enterprises, Inc., Zonge Engineering arid Research Organization
DNPE: 11/86 icER cr S’IWIUS: Draft
R IU ST R (IFS):
Alaska Depar1m ent of Envirorinental Conservation (ADEC)
Alaska’s principal a uifer consist of unconsolidated alluvium arid glacial
deposits, and consolidated clastic and carbonate sedimentary rocks. They
produce shallow, high-yield and deep, low-yield wells, respectively.
L nnafrost, a major factor in groundwater availability, and groundwater
storage and recharge are also discussed in the state report.
ASSFS Ir: 2542 wells FURS CX 1PATIBEE: NO (8—20—86)
Qntanunatiai Case Regulatory
!I ’pe Nuth tential Studies Syst n
5X29 3 High
5D2 66 High
5A5 4 Moderate N/A R&auire a permit
5A7 7 Moderate to discharge
5A19 2 Moderate
5W20 230 High
5W9 3 R uire plan
5W10 >79 review. . . in
5W11 8 High N/A sane cases
5W12 4 permits to
5W31 3 discharge
5W32 2133
Strategy (Date) Response/Rating
Agency contact - seven days contacting state, federal 95%
and local (Anchorage) agencies reviewing files
Written ir uixy - four nailing programs conducted
including - municipalities
industry (I) 12%
service stations
industiy (II)
-------
Maska
Page P#io
RE M S:
Ongoing inventory - tailoring specific and concise questionnaire targeted for
specific potential well a zners rather than general mailing programs.
- Public awareness improv- nent of UIC regulations in Alaska
- Agency file search in Alaska
Hydrogeologic and jurisdictional - WA TORE incorporation with UIC programs
(to achieve bydrogeologic Database to accanpar j UIC Database)
— Identify jurisdictions best regulated by state and local agencies and
incorporate into cooperative UIC program
Well site investigations -
(1) Review Alaskan inventory to identify high densities of industrial, process
ter and waste disposal syst ns.
(2) Gather Iydrogealogic information for these areas.
(3) Gather regulatory information fran state, local, and/or federal agencies.
Carry out site inspections for 5W20 focusing and øcamining facility records,
facility layout, industrial process, sampling of injected fluids.
-------
Prepared: 3—11—87
Updated:
STATE x
(All irifozit tion recorded as described in state report,
additional corresporiderce, arid verbal canmunication)
STATE: Idaho STMUS: Primacy BIBLICX RA IY: Yes
‘ITILE: Idaho Assesanent of Class V m i ection Wells
&rn : W.G. Graham, Linford J. rr pbel1, Ingrid Sather
DNI’E: 1-87 RERX r STATUS: Final Draft
p TR1.R N ZY(IRS): Idaho Dept. of Water Resources
HYDROGEOLOGY: Ninety percent of all inventoried Class V injection wells,
excluding mine tailings backf ills, are located in areas overlying the Snake
Plain, Boise Valley, and Rathdrurn Prairie ground water sys tans. These
three ground ater systans provide drinking water for 41 percent of the
state population and supply large quantities of water for irrigation and
industrial users. Mine backE ills occur in foutations that are effectively
isolated fran underground sources of drinking water.
flW l1V AND ASS SM IP: 2, 533 wells FURS PM’] E: No (8—20—86)
it ni nation ( se Regulatory
N zther tenti.al° Stixlies Systan
5F1 572 2 Yes *
5D2 1,165 1 Yes * +
5A5 4 12 Yes Permit
5A6 2 5 Yes Permit
5A7 20 12 No Permit
5W11 52 6 No
5W12 9 7 No +
5 3 575 3 No Rule
5A19 49 11 No Permit
5W20 46 10 No
5R21 7 7 Yes *
5 4 4 7 Yes *
5X28 21 4 No +
5G30 7 14 Yes
o Well types are ranked according to contamination potential
(1=hi iest, 2=1c est)
* Deep wells (>18 feet) authorized by permit r uiring caupliance with discharge
quality standards and locational criteria.
+ Shal la i wells (<18 feet) authorized by rule provide that r uirai inventory
infc raation is furnished arid use of the well es not contaminate a drinking
water source.
-------
Id&x
Page o
Strategy (Date) Rating/Respc se
(1974) nnit application revi is and regional office surveys.... N/A
(?) 1. Ranote sensing/high-altitude aerial photographs (5F1).
2. Mail-out surveys to city and county engineers, high-
way district supexv isors, airport managers,
pesticide applicators, ners/ope ators of variais initial: 50-60%
autanotive and irtplenent service facilities (5D2) .... final: 2002/2248
3. Mail survey far mine backfill wells 100%
4. Fol]. .z—up mailings .. ... .. .. ..... ....... • ..... •,• ... 85%
5. FdJ. lo.z—up phorie cal is . . . . . . . . . . . 100%
1. Shalla injection wells (less than or equal to 18 feet in depth) generally
discharge nall quantities of nonhazardais wastes into horizons well above
the underlying drinking-water sources. Continued authorization of shalla i
injection wells by rule is recannended for Idaho where the quality of
underground drinking-water scurces are not endangered. This Option should
continue to be available to the States under the federal 1JIC program.
2. Deep injection wells (greater than 18 feet in depth), excluding mine
backf ills, may discharge large volumes of fluids into drinking-water
sources, or into injection horizons that are generally close to drinking-
water sources. Authorization of these practices should require suhnittal
of data concerning well construction, quality of injected fluids and
pertinent geologic and hydrologic features in addition to the required
inventory infonuation.
3. Continued authorization of mine backfill wells (Class 5X-13) without permit
is reca inended where the tailings are injected into formations that are
effectively isolated fran underground sources of drinking water.
4. With re rd to the possible endangermant to undergrc*.ind drinking-water
sources fran fluids injected through service station waste disposal wells
(CLass 5X-28), a concerted effort should be undertaken to determine the
nature of the injected fluids and to ensure that all such wells are
inventoried. Subsequent permitting and abandonarent may be required.
-------
Prepared: 12—22—86
Updated:
ATE RE r
( ll infon tion recorded as described in state report,
additional corresprder e, and veibal canrrunication)
STATE: Oregon STMUS: Primacy B r ICGRA 1Y: Yes
ITILE: Uridergrourxl Injection Control CLass V Inventory arid Asses&nent in the
State of Oregon
NP1MCR: Or on Department of Erivirorinentaj. Quality
DATE: 12—86 REP( r gIWIUS: Draft
TRTR C! (I ):
Department of Envirorrnental Quality (D Q), Water Quality Division
Deparbt nt of Water Resources (I R) - well construction standards; geothermal.
fluids < 250°F
Department of Geology and Mineral Industries (D(XAMI) - oil & gas related;
geothermal fluids > 250°F
HYD. G L)GY: Highly pent able alluvial deposits (central ltnanah County) are
generally used for disposal of storm water drainage arid sewage. Fractured
basalt and layers of volcanic punice and scoria were used for sewage disposal
bef ore the installation of sewers and treatment plants. Geothermal resources
are used for space heating, agriculture, arid industrial process heating. In
arid areas groui ater is used for irrigation.
INV 11 Y AND ASS 4 iP: 7, 120 wel is FURS 1PAPIBLE: No (8—20—86)
az tam i naticii se
1 ,pe Nu±ex* bt itia1 St ies Regulatory Systan
5F1 16 2nd hi iest No N/A
5D2 4,162 3rd highest Yes Limited to depth
5D4 No of 100’.
SM 20 No Permit r&piired if
5A7 la Yes water prciduced ex-
5A8 N/A No ceeds 5,000 gpd.
5A19 N/A No
5W9 No Rules resulting
5W10 1st hi iest Yes fran the Mid-
5W 11 6320 (5W9—12) Yes Multr nah Co.
5W12 No Plan & PWPCA Study.
5W20 N/A No Individually per-
mitted.
+Nunbers were not reported according to the nost recent breakd n
of subclassifications.
-------
Oreg
Page 1 io
*pe ts are raruired for disixsal of all wastes. Subsurface
discharge r& uires a Water Pollution Control Facilities (WPSF)
permit.
RFSK
A Y (DA )
1. (1982) EPA contracted with the Dept. of Geology
and Oregon State University to conduct an irwen-
tory and assessnent. . . . . . . . . . . . • Incanpiete
2. (?) rsonal irx uiries of enployees of the DE
arid IR. were corxiucted. . . . . . . . . . ÷
3. C?) Public notices were published in major news-
papers throughout the state which irifonr d the
public of the necessity of reporting any under-
ground irrjection activity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4. (?) Cities arid cdunties involved with storm
water disposal and s age disposal were called
uponi. to pro 1 ride inEctru tion. . . . . . . . . . .
5. (?) Agricultural disposal well information was
solicited fran water masters located through-
out the state...................................
RE IQ :
(5W9-1O-11) 1. The Depar’anent should continue to n n iitor the inpi nentation of
the order adopted by the Environmental Protection Quality
Caiimission for the Mid-Multnanah County Area (see state report).
2. The Departrr nt should continue to iinpl ent its present control
strategy for the communities of Central Oregon (see state
report).
(5F1) 1. Inventory of disposal wells should be coordinated with the Dept.
of Water Resources and Central Oregon Irrigation District.
2. Irrigation runoff quality data should be collected by the
Departitent.
3. Guidelines for the construction and operation of irrigation
disposal wells should be developed by DH arid tWR.
4. The Central Oregon Irrigation district should er ourage the use
of pump back ponds and develop infantational programs on proper
irrigation practices.
(5D2—4) 1. Water quality data for storm runoff should be collected in the
Bend area by either the Dept. or the city in lieu of a formal
storm runoff study.
-------
Oreg
Page Three
2. There should be guidelines and policies that will delineate the
responsibilities of the Dept. and local governments for
evaluating proposed storm drainage wells.
3. The City of Portland and J1tnaTeh County should revi 1 their
storm drainage well control program including usage, design, and
siting of wells.
4. Guidelines should be developed for proposed drainage wells in
ne zly developing industrial areas.
5. A xtonitoring program for both surface runoff and drainage wells
should be impl tented by the local authorities and coordinated
with the Department.
-------
Prepared: 2—17—87
Updated: 4—27—87
TE RE RY
(All information recorded as described in state report,
additional correspondence, and verbal carinunica tion)
STATE: Washington STA 1US: Primacy BIBLIWRA MY: Yes
TflLE: Class Five Inj ection Well Inventory
UThCR: L irerice Goldstein, Washington Departmient of Ecology
DATE: 2—87 REK cr STMUS: Draft
R R EThLE A ! ( ): Washington Departhent of Ecology
HYD1 GEaCGY: The occurrence, quantity, and quality of grounc ater in Washington is
closely tied to regional differences in climate, topography, surf icial geology, and
lath uses. Desoriptions of the geology and hydrology of Washington, which are
provided in the state report, are based on approximately twenty principal uifer
regions.
INFJ 1 Y - _ SSRS l P: C 4PATJBLE: No (8-20-86)
se Regulatory
Sttx3ies Systen
No Undecided
No None
No None
No Permit (ccunty plan-
ning codes)°
No N/A
No Permit
Yes Permit
No N/A
Yes N/A
No P e r mit°
** Estimated total is 1,000
Rating/Respczise
14,242 wells FURS
Qxftaminatiai
‘I ype Niiz er t tential
5F1 66 Un] -i in (wells)
High (chenigation)
5D2 14,903 Mod to High
5D4 2,141 Mcd to High
5A7/19 110
5W20 69 Unknc n
5R21 7
5bQ4 116 High
5X25 3 N/A
5G30 108 N/A
5W32 108** Site—Specific
o struction standards available
+ Natural Gas Storage & Municipal d atering
StrateW (t te)
(1981) Spckane Valley
1. In-house records search of county records N/A
2. City of Spokane records search.
3. Personal intexvi s with city and county utility design and maintenance
personnel.
4. Field work using block by block, section by section, search method.
-------
Was tcn
Page IWo
(19 81) Pierce County
1. Record search of county records.
2. Persona]. interviews with county engineers, technicians, public works employees,
arid field sanitarians.
(1981) Field Investigations
(N/A) Public Notification of need to file construction and operation data,
published in major daily newspapers and letter to Washington Well Drillers
Assocation.
(1985) State Inventory
1. Public Notification — letter to county and city public works directors; follo i
up on p1x ne calls.
2. Records searches of county and city records.
3. Personal interviews with public works directors arid maintenance personnel,
public utilities personnel, engineers, technicians, arid private well zners.
4. Field Irivesti tians.
(5A7)
1. A corxerted effort should be trade to ensure proper construction of these wells
arid heat punp installations.
2. Permits for developnent of a canrrercial system should include ra uirements for
water quality characterizations of both source and receiving water.
3. Records should be maintained by counties and periodically uploaded to the state
water rights data xrianagai nt center in order to itonitor well density.
4. MDnitoring wells should be installed to track changes in water chemistry and
t .erature.
5. A policy of prohibiting new well installation in )cncwn or suspected contaminated
aquifers should be developed and irr lErented by the state.. . This p01 icy would be
administered by local government, with the assistance of the department.
(5D2/4)
1. Further stu ’ is recam rided in areas of (a) attenuation processes, (b) well
design, Cc) inventory of private wells, Cd) specific industrial and catirrerical
activities, arid Ce) land—use site characteristics.
2. Dry wells other facilities discharging to the ground should not be all ed
where they tray be exposed to potentially contaminating industrial materials or
discharges. Loading docks and material storage areas should be designed so that
spilled materials cannot be washed, either deliberately or accidentally, into a
drainage device discharging to the ground.
3. Ccxnmerical or industrial wastewaters containing chemicals should not be
discharged to the ground without treathent. Current state waste discharge
permits all iing this practice should be reevaluated.
-------
Washirigtc
Page Three
4. bnitoring and regulatoty activities should be increased, focusing on wells in
areas of high contamination potential.
(5I. Q 4)
1. The department proposes to use the provisions of [ the state waste discharge
permit program (Qiapter 17 3—216 WAC)] to authorize and take enforcerent actions
for discharges which do not satisfy the standard of all kno in available
reasonable methods of treatment arid control.
2. The disposal standard for cribs and french drains will be to treat the waste
before discharge arid not to rely solely on evaporation, the soils, and dilution
to treat the wastes.
3. The nunber of permits issued and permit cartpliance arid enforcanent actions will
be negotiated annually with Environmental Protection Agency through the
State/EPA Agreanent program planning process.
(5W3 2)
There is a critical need to establish a stat ide rronitoring sys ten, inventory
methodology, and database in order to evaluate design for existing systens,
establish ambient water quality in vulnerable uifer regions, and be able to
quantify changes in itical parameters.
(5W2 0)
1. Until additional data is at band to define the fate of industrial wastes in the
saturated zone, it is prudent to taken extraordinary precautions to niinirnize the
potential for uifer degradation via mi ection of highly t cic substances.
2. kLterriatives to lath disposal such as recycling or resource recovery, reduction
of wastes generated through process modification, and improved methods of
hazardQls waste neutralization should be actively pursued.
-------
APPENDIX B
Glossar.y
-------
GLOSSARY
Absorption. The process of sucking up or taking up to make part
of an existent whole.
Adsorption. To gather on a surface in a condensed layer.
Aeolian. See eolian.
Alluvial. Material deposited by a stream or running water.
Alpha particle. A positively charged particle consisting of two
protons and two neutrons, emitted in radioactive decay or nuclear
fission.
Annulus. The space between the casing in a well and the wall of
the hole, or between two concentric strings of casing, or between
casing and tubing.
Aquifer. A body of rock that is sufficiently permeable to conduct
groundwater and to yield economically significant quantities of
water to wells and springs.
Asphaltenes. Any of the solid, amorphous, black to dark brown
dissolved or dispersed constituents of crude oils and other
bitwnens that are soluble in carbon disulf ice but insoluble in
paraff in naphthas.
Bulkhead. A stone, steel, wood, or concrete wall-like structure
primarily designed to resist earth or water pressure.
Cambrian. The earliest period of the Paleozoic era, thought to
have covered the span of time between 570 and 500 million years
ago; also, the corresponding system of rocks.
Confined aquifer. An aquifer bounded by impermeable beds, or beds
of distinctly lower permeability than that of the aquifer itself,
confined groundwater is generally subject to pressure greater
than atmospheric pressure.
Connate water. Water entrapped in the interstices of a
sedimentary rock at the time of its deposition.
Crystalline. Pertaining to or having the nature of a crystal, or
formed, by crystallization; specifically having a crystal
structure or a regular arrangement of atoms in a space lattice.
Dewatering. To lower the groundwater level to a determined depth
through the use of water extraction wells.
Dolomite. A common rock-forming rhombohedral mineral: CaMg(C03)2.
1
-------
Downdip. A direction that is downwards and parallel to the dip of
a structure or surface.
Effective stress. The average normal force per unit area
transmitted directly from particle to particle of a soil or rock
mass. It is the stress that is effective in mobilizing internal
friction.
Eolian. Pertaining to the wind; especially said of such deposits
as bess and dune sand, of sedimentary structures such as wind—
formed ripple marks, or of erosion and deposition accomplished by
the wind.
Eutrophication. The process by which waters become more
eutrophic; esp. the artificial or natural enrichment of a lake by
an influx of nutrients required for the growth of aquatic plants
such as algae that are vital for fish and animal life.
Evapotranspiration. Loss of water from a land area through
transpiration of plants and evaporation from the soil.
Coliform. Relating to, resembling, or being the colon bacillus
(bacteria).
Feldspathic. Said of a rock or other mineral aggragate containing
feldspar.
Halogens. One of the electronegative elements of Group VII A of
the Periodic Table (fluorine, chlorine, bromine, iodine, and
astatine).
Hydraulic conductivity. Rate o flow of water in gallons/day
through a cross section of 1 ft. under a unit hydraulic gradient
at the prevailing temperature.
Hydraulic gradient. The rate of change in total head per unit of
distance of flow in a given direction.
Hydrogeology. The science that deals with subsurface waters and
with related geologic aspects of surface waters.
Hydrostatic head. The height of a vertical column of water whose
weight, if of unit cross section, is equal to the hydrostatic
pressure at a given point.
Hydrothermal. Of or pertaining to hot water, to the action of hot
water, or to the products of this action, such as a mineral
deposit precipitated from a hot aqueous solution.
Igneous. Said of a rock or mineral that solidified from molten or
partly molten material.
2
-------
Injectivity. The ability of a formation to accept fluids; can be
measured as the change in injection rate divided by the
corresponding change in injection pressure.
In situ. In the natural or original position.
Karstic. A type of topography that is formed on limestone,
gypsum, etc. by dissolution, characterized by sinkholes and
caves.
Lacustrine. Pertaining to, produced by, or formed in a lake, or
lakes.
Leachate. A solution obtained by the separation, selective
removal, or dissolving-out of soluble constituents from a rock or
orebody by the natural action of percolating water.
Lithology. The physical character of a rock.
Lixiviant. See leachate.
Louver. A transverse wall plate in archaeocyathids, commonly
developed between the edges of adjacent septa or longitudinal
ribs and usually tilted with reference to the wall surface.
Magma. Naturally occurring itiobile rock material, generated within
the Earth and capable of intrusion and extrusion.
Magmatic water. Water contained in or expelled from magma.
Metamorphic. Pertaining to the process of metamorphism or to its
results.
Metamorphism. The mineralogical, chemical, and structural
adjustment of solid rocks to physical and chemical conditions
which have generally been imposed at depth below the surface
zones of weathering and cementation, and which differ from the
conditions under which the rocks in question originated.
Meteoric water. Pertaining to water of recent atmospheric origin.
Also: pertaining to, dependent on, derived from, or belonging to
the Earth’s atmosphere.
Nitrate. A salt or ester of nitric acid, or any compound
containing the univalent group; 0N02 or N03.
Nitrogen. A colorless, odorless, gaseous element that constitutes
about four fifths of the volume of the atmosphere and is present
in combined form in animal and vegetable tissues, especially in
proteins; used chiefly in the manufacture of ammonia, nitric
acid, fertilizers, cyanide, explosives, etc.
3
-------
Packer. A short expansible-retractible device deliberately set in
a cased or uncased well bore to prevent upward or downward fluid
movement; generally for temporary use.
Perched water table. The water table of perched ground water.
Permeability. The property or capacity of a porous rock,
sediment, or soil for transmitting a fluid; it is a measure of
the relative ease of fluid flow under unequal pressure.
Phosphate. A salt or ester of phosphoric acid, containing
phosphorus.
Phosphorous. A solid, nonmetallic element existing in two
allotropic forms, one that is yellow, poisonous, flammable and
luminous in the dark, and another that is red, less poisonous,
and less flammable.
Piezometric surface. An imaginary surface representing the total
head of groundwater, and defined by the level to which water will
rise in a well.
Pneumatic, Of, relating to, or using gas.
Porosity. The percentage of the bulk volume of a rock or soil
that is occupied by interstices.
Potentiometric surface. An imaginary surface representing the
total head of groundwater and defined by the level to which water
will rise in a well.
Radioactivity. The phenomenon exhibited by certain elements
spontaneously emitting radiation as a result of changes in nuclei
of atoms of the element.
Radium. A highly radioactive metallic element that upon
disintegration produces the element radon and alpha particles.
Regolith. A general term for the layer or mantle of fragmental
and unconsolidated rock material, whether residual or transported
and of highly varied character, that nearly everywhere forms the
surface of the land and overlies or covers the bedrock.
Resin. Any of various hard, brittle, transparent of translucent
substances formed esp. in plant secretions and obtained as
exudates of recent or fossil origin by the condensation of fluids
on the loss of volatile oils.
Sedimentary. Formed by the deposition of sediment, or pertaining
to the process of sedimentation.
4
-------
Seepage stress. The force that is transferred from water flowing
through a permeable granular medium to the medium itself by means
of viscous friction.
Shear. A deformation resulting from stresses that cause or tend
to cause contiguous parts of a body to slide relatively to each
other in a direction parallel to their plane of contact.
Siltstone. An indurated silt having the texture and composition
of shale but lacking its fine lamination or fissility.
Sluicing. Concentrating heavy minerals by washing unconsolidated
material through boxes (sluices) equipped with riffles that trap
the heavier minerals on the floor of the box.
Slurry. A highly fluid mixture of water and finely divided
material.
Stratified. Formed,arranged, or laid down in layers or strata;
especially said of any layered sedimentary rock or deposit.
Stratigraphy. The science of rock strata. It is concerned not
only with the original succession and age relations of rock
strata but also with their form, distribution, lithologic
composition, fossil content, geophysical and geochemical
properties.
Stratum. A layer of sedimentary rock,visually separable from
other layers above and below.
Sump. An excavation in which the drainage water of an area is
collected for subsequent use in irrigation or wild-fowl
conservation.
Tectonic. Said of, or pertaining to the forces involved in,
structural or deformational features of the outer (crustal) part
of the Earth.
Topography. The general configuration of a land surface or any
part of the Earth’s surface, including its relief and the
position of its natural and man—made features.
Traflsmissivity. The rate at which water is transmitted through a
unit width of an aquifer under a unit hydraulic gradient.
Unconfined aquifer. An aquifer which is not confined under
pressure by relatively impermeable strata.
S
-------
Vadose zone. A subsurface zone containing water under pressure
less than that of the atmosphere, including water held by
capillarity; and containing air or gases generally under
atmospheric pressure. This zone is limited above by the land
surface and below by the surface of the water table.
Viscosity. The property of a substance to offer internal
resistance to flow.
Water Balance. An accounting of the inflow to, outf low from, and,
storage in a hydrologic unit.
6
-------
APPENDIX C
Acronyms and Abbreviations
-------
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ADHS. Arizona Department of Health Services.
AMD. Acid mine drainage.
AOR. Area of review.
BIA. Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior.
BIIM. Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Department of the Interior.
BOD. Biological oxygen demand.
CDOG. California Department of Conservation, Division of Oil
and Gas.
CERcLA. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act.
CFR. Code of Federal Regulations.
COD. Chemical oxygen demand.
DI. Direct implementation (state).
EA. Environmental assessment.
FLGMS. Florida Groundwater Management System.
FURS. Federal Underground Injection Control Reporting System.
LQD. Land Quality Division (Wyoming).
MIT. Mechanical integrity test.
NURP. Nationwide Urban Runoff Program.
NPDES. National Pollution Discharge Elimination System.
pH. The negative log of the concentration of hydrogen ions
in a solution.
RCRA. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.
SBW. Service Bay Water.
SCS. Soil Conservation Service, United States Department of
Agriculture.
SDWA. Safe Drinking Water Act.
1
-------
SQG. Small quantity generator.
TDS. Total dissolved solids.
TOC. Total organic carbon.
TRH. Total recoverable hydrocarbons.
TTPI. Trust, Territories of the Pacific Islands.
UIC. Underground Injection Control.
USDW. Underground Source of Drinking Water.
USEPA. United States Environmental Protection Agency.
USGS. United States Geological Survey.
2
-------
APPENDIX 0
Bibliographies
-------
BIBLIOGRAPY
AICHE Symposium, 1983, Underground Coal Gasification: The State
of the Art-AICHE Symposium Series 226, Vol. 79.
Abney, J.L., 1980, Evaluation of 19 On-Site Waste Treatment
Systems in Southeastern Kentucky , U.S. EPA, EPA 600/2-80-101,
Lexington, Kentucky, Parrott, Ely & Hurt.
Ahlness, J.K. and M.G. Pojar, In-Situ Co er Leaching in the
United States: Case Histories of Ooerations , US Dept. of the
Interior, Bureau of Mines, Inf. Circ. 8961.
Ali, M.M., 1980, Effect of Pretreatment on Groundwater
Contamination from Leaching Beds , Ontario Ministry of the
Environment, Pollution Div, Pub. No. 83, Toronto. Canada, 102 pp.
Allen, N.J., 1981, “Microbiology of Ground Water”, Journal of
the Water Pollution Control Federation , Vol. 53, Ho. 6,
Dallas, Texas, EPA, Region VI, pg. 1107-1109.
Althoff, W.F., 1970, Geolo v and Ground-Water Resources of
Granbv, Massachusetts , Massachusetts Univ. Water Resource
Research Center, OWRR B-Oil-MASS(S), Amherst, 170 pp.
American Petroleum Institute, 1982, Guide for Controlling the
Lead Hazard Associated with Tank Entry & Cleaning , American
Petroleum Institute, API 2015A, API.
American Petroleum Institute, 1985, Cleaning Petroleum
Storaae Tank , American Petroleum Institute, API 2015A, API.
Amstead, H.C.H., Miscellaneous Heat Pump Brochure, National
Water Well Association, NWWA.
Andreoli, A., 1984, Renort on Water Sun lv Priorities ,
Sulfolk Co. Dept. of Health Sciences, S.C.D.H.S.
Andreoli, A., 1985, Priority Pollutant Testing , Sulfolk
Co. Dept. of Health Sciences, Sulfolk Co., S.C.D.H.S.
Andreoli, A.,R. Reynolds,N. Bartilucci,R. Forgione, 1981,
“Nitrogen Removal in a Subsurface Disposal System”, Water Science
and Technology , Vol. 13, No. 2, Hauppauge, N.Y., Suffolk
County, pg. 967-976.
Arizona Bureau of Mines, 1969, Mineral and Water Resources of
Arizona , Arizona Bureau of Mines, Bulletin 180, 638 pp.
Arizona Dept. of Health, ADHA Requirements for Fac. Affecting
Groundwater Qual. & Notice of Disposal Form, Chapt. 20 pp.
-------
Arizona Dept. of Health, 1983, Arizona Water Pollution Control
Law, Dept of Health, Env Health Service, Bureau Nat. Affair3.
171-179 pp.
Arizona Dept. of Health Sciences, Comments of the PrcDos
Arizona Underground _ Lnj Sij2n Control Rezu lat ions
Arizona Dept. of Health Services, Drinking Water Regulations for
the State of Arizona, ADHS Bureau of Water Quality Control
Arizona Dept. of Health Services, 1976, Guidelines for
Installation of Septic-Tank Systems, ADHS, Div. Env. Health, Bureau
of Water Quality, Engr Bulletin 12
Arizona Dept. of Health Services, 1981, Environment&flffeaLth
Services. Winter/Spring 1981 .
Arizona Dept. of Water Resources, 1983, Water Service
Organizations in Arizona , Arizona Dept. of Water Resources,
219 pp.
Arizona Water Resources Research Center, Tucson, 1985, Fiscal
Year 1984 Report, National Technical Information Service.
PB86-132370/AS, Springfield,Virginia.
Arizona, House of Representatives, 1986, Chapter 368, House BiU
2518, Senate Engrossed House Bill.
Arizona, State of, Agencies Potentially Knowledgeable Abouji
Class V Wells .
Arizona, State of, Arizona Revised Statutes, Water Poll. Permit
System, Water Qual. Std- Sur. Water, West Pub. Co., Ch. 20,21 pp.
Arizona, State of, Arizona Revised Statutes - Annotated
1975-1985 Suppl. Pam. ,Ch.16 Water Pollution, West Pub Co . 235-250
pp.
Arizona, State of, Maricopa Co. Health Code Ch. 2 Sewage &
Wastes, Sec. 8 Individual Sewage Systemm, t’laricopa Co., Ch.2.S.8 pp
Arizona, State of, 1985, Arizona Rules and Reg. for Sewerage
Systems and Waste Treatment Works, Bureau Nat. Affairs.
Arizona, State of, 1985, Arizona Water Quality Standards, Bureau
Nat. Affairs, 77-98 pp.
Arnold, S.C., 1984, Near—Surface Groundwater Responses to
Iniecticcn of Geothermal Wastes , Idaho Water & Energy Res.
Research Inst., DEB4 015139, IWERRI, 138 pp.
-------
Avault, J.W. Jr., 1981, How Much Water Do You Use to Farm
Fish?, Aciuaculture Magazine , Nov/Dec 1981, pg. 42-43.
Bacon, J.M. and W.A. Oleckno, 1985, “Groundwater Contamination:
National Problem with Implications for State & Local’, Journal of
Environmental Health , Vol. 48, No. 3, Rockford, Illinois,
Winnebago County, pg. 116-121.
Baker, E.T. Jr. and J. Rawson, 1972, Ground-Water Pollution
in the Vicinity of Toledo Bend Reservoir. Texas. Progress ,
USGS Open File Report, Austin, Texas, USGS.
Baker, E.T. Jr. and J. Rawson, 1974, Ground-Water Pollution
in the Vicinity of Toledo Bend Reservoir. Texas , USGS Open
File Report, Austin, Texas, USGS.
Balsam Environmental Consultants, 1986, New Hampshire Class V
Inlection Well Report .
Bandeen, R.F., 1984, Case Study Simulations of Dry Well
Drainage in the Tucson Basin .
Bateman, R.L. and R.B. Scheibach, 1975, Evaluation of
Geothermal Activity in the Truckee Meadows, Washoe Co. Ney.d. ,
Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, Report 25, Truckee Meadows,
Mackay Sch. of Mines.
Bedient, P.B., J. Lambert and N. Springer, 1980, Stormwater
Pollutant Load-Runoff Relationships, Journal of the Water Pollution
Control Federation, Vol. 52, No. 9, 2396-2404 pp.
Bedinger, 11.6. , J. Harril and J. Thomas, 1984, Maps Showing
Groundwater Units and Withdrawal, Basin and Range Province, Nevada,
USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report, 83-4119-A.
Bedinger, 11.6. , J. Harril, W. Langer, J. Thomas, 1984, Maps
Showing Ground-water Levels, Springs & Depth to Grnd-water,Basin &
Range,NV, USGS Water-Resources Investigations Report, 83-4119-B.
Beehler, G.R. and J.A. Moore, 1980, A Study of the
Characteristics and Pollution Potential of Land Spread
Domestic , National Technical Information Service, No.
PB8O-143670, Springfield,Virginia.
Bergstrom, R.E., 1970, Geology for Planning at Crescent City,
Illinois, Illinois State Geological Survey, Geology Notes No. 36,
Urbana, USGS.
Berkowitz, S J., 1981, On-Site Wastewater Tre atment Problems
& Alternatives for Western North Carolina , National Technical
Information Service, No. PB81-240541, Springfield,Virginia, 148 pp.
-------
Beuscher, J.H., 1967, Current Trends in Wisconsiri s Water Law,
Wisconsin Bar Bulletin, Vol. 40, Madison, Wisconsin Univ. , 19-28 pp
Beuscher, J.H., 1967, Current Trends in Wisconsins Water Law.
Wisconsin Bar Bulletin, Vol. 40, No. 2, Madison, Wisconsin State
Bar, 19-28 pp.
Bhagat, S. K. and J. F. Orsborn, 1971, Water Quality and
Quality Studies of Vancouver Lake. Washington , Washington St.
Univ., Sanitary Engineering Section, Summary Report, Pullman.
Bianchi, W.C. and G.J. Lang 1 1974, “City of Fresnos Leaky Acres
Groundwater Recharge Project-Constr. & Performance, Journal of
the American Water Works Association , March 1974, Fresno, pg.
176—180.
Bianchi, W.C., H. Nightingale and R. McCormick, 1978, “Fresno,
Ca., Subsurface Drain Collector-Deep Well Recharge System,
Journal of the American Water Works Association , Aug. 1978,
Fresno, pg. 427-435.
Bianchi, W.C., H. Nightingale and R. McCormick, 1978, “A Case
History to Evaluate the Performance of Water-Spreading Projects”,
Journal of the American Water Works Association , March
1978, pg. 176-180.
Bigbee, P.D. and R.G. Taylor, 1971, Pollution Studies of the
Regional Ogallala Aquifer at Portales, New Mexico, Groundwater
Pollution Conference, October 1971, St. Louis, Missouri, Eastern
N.Mexico Un., 115-131 pp.
Bingler, E.C., 1975, Guidebook to the Quaternarv Geolo v
Along the Western Flank of the Truckee Mead., , Nevada Bureau of
Mines and Geology, Report 22, Wa6hoe Co.
Blackman, W. Jr., C. Wills and A. Celnicker, 1977, PL 92-500 v.
Pollution by Irrigation Return Flow”, Journal of Irri2ation and
Drainage. ASCE , Vol. 103, No. 1R2, pg. 207-220.
Bonham, H.F., 1969, Geology and Mineral Deposits of Washoe and
Storey Counties, Nevada, Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology,
Bulletin 70, Washoe & Storey Co., Mackay Sch. of Mines, 140 pp.
Bortleson, G.S. and B.L. Foxworthy, 1973, Relative
Susce tibilitv of Lakes to Water-Quality Degradation in the Hood
Canal , USGS Open File Report, Tacoma, Washington.
Bouwer, H., 1978, Groundwater Hydrology, Chapter 11.2 Saltwater
Intrusion, McGraw-Hill Book Co., 402-406 pp.
Bowne, W.C. and H.L. Ball, 1981, Pressure Sewer System Proves
Effective, Economical, Douglas County, Oregon, Public Works, Vol.
112, No. 3, 83—86 pp.
-------
Brandes, N., 1975, Studies on Subsurface Movement of Effluent
from Private Sewate Disposal Systems 1 Ontario Ministry of the
Environment, Part 2, 1973-1974, Toronto, Canada.
Bromssen, U.V., 1963, On oinø and Recent Research _ nn On-Site
Treatment and Disposal Methods in Sweden , National Swedish
Environment Protection Board, Hanasaari, Finland, Tampere Univ.
Tech. , 409-418 pp.
Bromssen, U.V., 1984, Short Term and Lone Term Effects on
Groundwater by Wastewater Infiltration , National Swedish
Environment Protection Board, Hanasaari, Finland, Tampere Univ.
Tech., 345-352 pp.
Brower, G.E. and R. Ramkrishnadas, 1981, “Solid Wastes and Water
Quality”, Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation ,
Vol. 53, No. 6, Knoxville, Tennessee, Envirodyne Engineers, pg.
896—900.
Brown and Caldwell, 1984, Fresno Nationwide Urban Runoff
Prolect - Final Renort , Fresno Metro. Flood Control District,
Fresno Cal.
Brunett, J.D. and M. Lee, 1982, Hydrogeology for Land-Use
Planning:The Peters Creek Area, Municipality-Anchorage, USGS
Water-Resources Investigations, Report No. 82-4120.
Brutseart, W.F., W.E. Hedstrom and J.D. McMillan, 1983,
Im proving DesiEn of a Domestic Waste Disposal System Usin& an
Unsaturated Flow.. , National Technical Information Service,
No. PB83-196527, Springfield,Virginia.
Cadwagen, R.M. et al, 1983, “Improving Monitoring Efficiency of
Deep Wells”, Groundwater Monitoring Review , Vol. 3, No. 1, pg.
110—118.
California Dept. of Conservation, 1983, Manually Prepared
Geothermal Steam Prod. , Water Production, and Injection Report,
Division of Oil and Gas.
California Dept. of Water Resources, 1975, California’s
Groundwater, Dept. of Water Resources, Bulletin 118, 135 pp.
California Dept. of Water Resources, 1986, State of Cal., Dept.
of Water Res. Telephone Directory, May 1986, Dept. of Water
Resources, Telephone Directory.
California Division of Oil and Gas, 1983, 69th Annual Report of
the State Oil and Gas Supervisor, Division of Oil & Gas, PR 06, 147
pp.
California, Dept. of Water Resources, 1967, Ground Water
Occurrence and Quality: San Diego Region, Vol. 1: Text, Dept. of
Water Resources, Bulletin 106-2, San Diego.
-------
California, State of, Agencies Potentially Knowledgeable About
Class V Wells.
California, State of, State Water Laws, Bureau of National
Affairs, Inc., Bureau Nat. Affairs.
California, State of, 1984, Underground Injection Control
Program - Class V Well Study, Cal. Reg. Water Qual. Control Brd.
Central Valley.
California, State of, 1985, California Laws for Conservation of
Geothermal Resources, PRCO2.
Campbell, J. H. et al, 1979, “Groundwater Quality Near an
Underground Coal Gasification Experiment”, Journal of
Hvdrolon , Vol. 44, pg. 241-266.
Canter, L.W. and B.C. Knox, 1985, Se tic Tank System Effects
on Ground Water Qualtiv , Lewis Pub., Inc., 336 pp.
Capacasa, J., 1986, Virginia Class V Injection Well Assessment
Report, USEPA, Region 3, Water Supply Branch, 3WM40.
Carlile, B., L.W. Stewart and M.D. Sobsey, 1977, Status of
Alternative Systems for Septic Wastes Disnosal in North
Carolina , North Carolina State Univ., Dept. of Soil Science,
Sea Grant Reprintl08, Raliegh.
Carpenter, A.B. and R.N. Stoufer, 1977, Influence of Organic
Carbon and Microorganisms on Iron and Sulfide Concentration ,
National Technical Information Service, No. PB-270 640,
Springfield,Virginia, Missouri Univ.
Childs, K.E., S.B. Upchurch and B. Ellis, 1974, “Sampling of
Variable, Waste-Migration Patterns in Ground Water”, Ground
Water , Vol. 12, No. 6, Lansing, Michigan St. Univ., pg.
369—376.
Christenson, G.E. and T.L. Peive, 1979, Environmental Geol.
McDowell Mountains Area,Maricopa Co. Arz. Waste Disposal Map, Bureau
of Geology and Mineral Technology, Folio Sr. 1, GI-1-I, Maricopa
Co.
Christenson, G.E. and T.L. Pieve, 1979, Environmental Geol.
McDowell Mountains Area, Maricopa Co., Arz. Ground Water Map, Bureau
of Geology and Mineral Technology, Folio Sr. 1, GI-1-E, Maricopa
Co.
Clark, J.M., 1975, “System and Process for Bacterial Reduction
of Wastes”, Official Gazette of the U.S. Patent Office , Vol.
939, No. 3, pg. 1458.
-------
Coble, L.W. Jr. , 1981, ‘Influence on Groundwater from the Bermed
Infiltration Pond”, Journal of Environmental Health , Vol. 44,
No. 1, Cambridge, Maryland, pg. 27-31.
Cogger, C.G. and B.L. Carlile, 1984, ‘Field Performance of
Conventional and Alternative Septic Systems in Wet Soils”,
Journal of Environmental Quality , Vol. 13, No. 1, pg.
137—142.
Cohen, Phillip and D.E. Everett, 1963, A Brief Appraisa Lof
the Ground-water Hvdrolo v of the Dixie-Fairview Valley ,
Nevada Dept. of Conservation and Natural Resources, Reconnaissance
23, Dixie—Fairview Valle.
Col, J.J. , 1979, “Ground-Water Storage for California Water
Project”, Journal of Irrigation, and Drainage. ASCE , Vol. 105
No. 1R3, pg. 305—315.
Cook, N.G.W., 1982, Ground-Water Problems in Open-Pit and
Underground Mines, Geological Society of America, Special Paper 189.
397—405 pp.
Cooke, G.D., N. McComas, D. Wailer and R. Kennedy, 1977, ‘The
bccurance of Internal Phosphorus Loading in Two Small, Eutrophic
Glacial .. .“, Hvdrobiologia , Vol. 56, No. 2, Kent State Univ.,
pg. 129-135.
Corapcioglu, N.Y., 1984, Study of Bacterial & Viral
Contamination of Groundwater from Landfill and Septic ,
National Technical Information Service, PB85-217701/AS,
Springfield ,Virginia.
Corapcioglu, N.Y. and A. Haridas, 1984, “Transport and Fate of
Microorganisms in Porous Media:A Theoretical Investigation”,
Journ l of Hydrology , Vol. 72, No. 1/2, pg. 149-169.
Cotteral, J.A. Jr. and D.P. Norris, 1969, ‘Septic Tank Systems”,
Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Division. ASCE , Vol. 95,
No. SAl, San Francisco, Brown and Caldwell, pg. 715-746.
County of Fresno Public Works and Development Ser.. , 1986, Water
Resources Management Plan (Draft), Co. Of Fresno Public Works & Dev.
Service, Fresno.
Crawford, N.C. and C.G. Groves, 1984, Storm Water Drainage Wells
in the Karst Areas of Ken. & Ten. Extended Inventory, Underground
Water Source Protection Program, Grant G004358-83-0, Karet Area.
Davidson, D.H., 1980, “In-Situ Leaching of Nonferrous Metals’ ,
Mining Congress Journal , Vol. 66, No. 7, pg. 52-57.
Davis, G.H., B. Lofgren and S. Mack, 1964, Use of Groundwater
Res. for Storage of Surface Water in the San JoaQuin Valley. ,
USGS Water Supply Paper,No. 1618, San Joaquin, US Govt. Printing
Of, 125+ pp.
-------
Davis, K.E., Cement Logging.
Davis, K.E., 1983, EPA Region III Inspection Guide.
DeCook, K.J. and L. Wilson, 1980, Groundwater Recharge from
Urban Runoff and Irrigation Returns , Arz Dept. of Water Res.
Deep Percolation Symp., Report No. 1, Arz. Dept. Water Res. 37-51 pp
DeWalle, F.B. and R.M. Schaff, 1980, “Ground Water Pollution by
Septic Tank Drain Fields, Journal of the Environmental
Engineering Division , Vol. 106, No. EE3, Seattle, Washington,
ASCE, pg. 631—648.
DeWalle, F.B., D. Kalman, D. Norman and J. Sung,
Determination of Toxic Chemicals in Effluent from Household
Septic Tanks , US Dept. of Commerce, EPA 600/2-85/050, Nat.
Tech. Inf. Serv.
DeWalle, F.B., R.M. Schaff and M.B. Hatlen, 1980, “Well Water
Quality Deterioration in Central Pierce County, Washington,
Journal of the American Water Works Association , Vol. 72,
No. 9, Seattle, Washington, pg. 533-536.
Dewan, J.T., 1983, Essentials of Modern Open-hole Lo
Interpretation. Deer Well Monitorin& , Pennwell Pub. Co.,
284—315 pp.
Dion, N.P., 1979, Environmental Features. General Hvclrologv
and External Sources of Nutrients .. . , USGS Water—Resources
Investigations, Report No. 79-63, Tacoma, Washington.
Driscoll, F.G., 1986, Groundwater and Wells. 2nd Edition ,
St. Paul, Minnesota, Johnson Division, 1089 pp.
Drost, B.W., 1983, Water Resources of the Tulali Indian
Reservation. Washington , USGS Water-Resources Investigations,
Report No. 82-648, 153 pp.
Dudley, J.G. and D.A. Stephenson, 1973, Nutrient Enrichment
of Groundwater from Septic Tank Disposal Systems , Inland Lake
Renewal & Shoreland Mgmt. Project, Madison, Wisconsin, Wisconsin
Univ., 131 pp.
Dvoracek, N.J. and S. Peterson, 1971, “Artificial Recharge in
Water Resources Management”, Journal Irrigation and Drainage.
ASCE , Vol. 97, No. 1R-2, pg. 219-232.
Dymond, R.L., 1981, Design Considerations for Use of On-Site
Sand Filters for Wastewater Treatment , National Technical
Information Service, No. PB83-146738, Springfield,Virginia, 206 pp.
-------
Eganhouse, R.P., B. Simoneit and I. Kaplan, 1981, “Extractable
Organic Matter in Urban Stormwater Runoff. 2. Molecular
Characteriza”, Environmental Science pnd _ J’echnolo v. ACS , Vol.
15, No. 3,, pg. 315—326.
Ehrenfeld, J.G., 1984, Feasibility of UsinE Forest Vegetation
to Renovate Septic Tank Effluent in N.J . , National Technical
Infdrmation Service, PB85 157634/AS, Springfield,Virginia.
Engineering Enterprises, Inc., 1983, Workshop-Inj. Well Tech I:
Use of Borehole Geophysical Logs-Formation Evaluation.
Engineering Enterprises, Inc., 1985, Generic Assessments of
Selected Class V Injection Wells-Initial Draft.
Engineering Enterprises, Inc., 1985, Generic Assessments of
Selected Class V Injection Wells-Intial Draft.
Engineering Enterprises, Inc. , 1985, Report of Investigations
Class V Injection Well Inspections, Oahu & Hawaii Is., Qahu, Hawaii
Is.
Engineering Enterprises, Inc. , 1985,. Report on Class V Injection
Well Inventory and Assessment - Draft.
Engineering Enterprises, Inc. , 1985, Underground Injection
Control Database Management System: User’s Manual, Ver. ’l.O.
Engineering Enterprises, Inc. , 1985, Workshop-Injection Well
Technology: Well Log Interpretation.
Engineering News Record, 198.1, “Cleaning Up Chemical Wastes”,
En ineerin News Record , March 26, 1981, pg. 26-27.
Everett, L.G. and T.R. Schultz, 1974, The Effect of Development
on Groundwater in the Parker Strip, Hydrology & Water Resources in
Arizona Conference, April 19-20, Vol. 4, Flagstaff, Arizona, Arizon
Univ., 176-182 pp.
Eyre, P.R., 1985, “Simulation of Ground-Water Flow in
Southeastern Oahu, Hawaii’, Ground Water , Vol. 23, No. 3,
Oahu, pg. 325-330.
Fairchild, D.M. , 1984, Review of Data Bases on Injection Wells.
Fetter, C.W., W.E. Soley and F.L. Spangler, 1976, “Potential
Replacement of Septic Tank Drain Field by Artificial Marsh Waste
.“, Ground Water , Vol. 14, No. 6, OshKosh, Wisconsin Univ.,
pg. 396—401.
Field, R. and R. Turkeltaub, 1980, ‘Dont Underestimate Urban
Runoff Problems”, Water and Wastes Engineering , Oct. 1980, pg.
48—50.
-------
p
Finch, A.J. and S.M. Durachee, 1986, Water-Resources
Activities in New York 1985-1986 , USGS, Open File Report,
Report 86-146, USGS.
First West Engineers, 1978, Underground Iniection Control
Study , Dept. of Health, State of Hawaii.
Fitzgerald, C.J., 1979, Evaluation of Mound Systems for
Purification of Septic Tank Effluent , National Technical
Information Service, No. PB8O-158132, Springfield,Virginia, 310 pp.
Fletcher, J.B., 1971, “In-Place Leaching at Miami Mine, Miami,
Arizona, Transactions of Society of Mining Engineers , Vol.
250, Miami Mine, pg. 310—314.
Fletcher, J.B., 1972, “In-Place Leaching at Miami Mine, Miami.
Arizona’, Transactions of Society Mining Engineers , Vol. 252,
Miami Mine, pg. 186.
Flipse, W.J. Jr., B. Katz, J. Lindner, R. Markel, 1984, “Sources
of Nitrate in Ground Water in a Sewered Housing Development, Long
Island’, Ground Water , Vol. 22, No. 4, pg. 418-426.
Florida Dept. of Natural Resources, 1978, Permitting of
Artificial Recharge Systems, Florida Administrative Code, Suwannee
River Mgmt., Ch. 16, 5.01-5.31, White Springs, Fla.
Flynn, T. and G. Ghusn, 1983, Geologic and Hydrologic
Research on the Moana Geothermal System. Washoe Co. Nev , US
Dept. of Energy, DOE/RA/50075-2, Washoe Co.
Flynn, T. and George Ghusn, Jr., 1984, Geologic and
Hydrologic Research on the Moana Geothermal System Washoe Co.
Nev., , US Dept. of Energy Contract, ACO3-82RA50075, Moana,
Washoe Co., Univ. Of Nevada.
Forcella, L.S., 1984, Low Temperature Geothermal Resource
Management , Oregon Dept. of Energy, Water Resources Dept.
Ford 1 P.J. and P.J. Turina, 1985, Characterizaton of
Hazardous Waste Site - A Method Manual Vol.1 Site Investion ,
EPA, R&D, Environmental Monitoring Systems Lab, EPA 600/4-84-075, US
EPA.
Ford, P.J., P.J. Turina and D.E. Sealy, 1984, -
Characterization of Hazardous Waste Sites-A Methods Manual
V.11 Sampling Methods , USEPA, R&D,Environmental Monitoring
Laboratory, EPA 600/4-84-076, USEPA, 171+ pp.
Forgione, R., 1980, “Nitrogen Removal in a Subsurface Disposal
System”, Clearwaters , Vol. 10, No. 1, Long Island, N.Y.,
Dvirka & Bartilucci, pg. 13-15.
-------
Freeze, R.A. and J.A. Cherry, 1979, Groundwater. Ch. 8.13
Saltwater Intrusion , Prentice-Hall, Inc. , 375-378 pp.
Furomoto, A.S. et al, 1977, Preliminary Studies for
Geothermal Exploration in Hawaii , Geothermal Resources
Exploration in Hawaii, No. 1, HIG-75-5.
Gallus, J.P., L. Watters and D. Pyle, 1979, “Performance of
Oilwell Cementing Compositions in Geothermal Wells”, of
Petroleum Engineers Journal. Aug. 1979 , 0037-999/79/008-759,
pg. 233-241.
Garside, L.J. , 1974, Geothermal Exploration and Development
in Nevada Through 1973 , Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology,
Report 21, Mackay Sch. of Mines.
Garside, L.J. and J.H. Schilling, 1979, Thermal Waters of
Nevada”, Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology , Bulletin 91,
Mackay Sch. of Mines, pg. 163.
Geib, S.B. and M.P. Anderson, 1981, Sources of Chloride arid.
Sulfate in Groundwater Beneath Urbanized Area 1ichigan ,
National Technical Information Service, No. PB81-212391,
Springfield,Virginia, Wisconsin Univ.
Geothermal Resources Council, 1974, Geothermal Regulations:
Special Study Guide No.2 , Geothermal Res. Cncl.
Geraghty and Miller, Inc., 1982, Final Iniection Well
Construction Practices and Technology , 309 pp.
Geraghty and Miller, Inc., 1986, Guidelines Groundwater
Classification Under EPA Groundwater Protection Strategy. , 191+
pp.
Gibb, J.P., M. Barcelona, S. Schoch, & H. Hampton, 1984,
Hazardous Waste in Ogle & Winnebago Co.: Potential Risk Vi3.
Groundwater Due to.. , Illinois Dept. of Energy and Natural
Resources, ENR Doe. No. 83/26, Olge & Winnebago Co.
Gibbs, M.M., 1977, “Soil Renovation of Effluent from a Septic
Tank on a Lake Shore, New Zealand Journal of Scien , Vol.
20, Taupo, New Zealand, pg. 255-263.
Gibbs, M.M., 1977, “Study of Septic Tank System on a Lake Shore:
Temperature & Effluent Flow Pattern”, New Zealand Journal of
Science , Vol. 20, No. 1, Taupo, New Zealand, pg. 55-61.
Glancy, Patrick A. and T.L. Katzer, 1975, Water-Resources
Ai raisal of the Carson River Basin. Western Nevada , Nevada
Dept. of Conserv. & Nat. Res., Water Res., Reconnaissance R. 59,
Carson River Basin.
-------
V
Goehring, D.R. and F.R. Carr, 1980, “Septic System Problems on
an Urban Fringe”, Journal of the Water Resources Plannin. &
Mgmt. , ASCE Vol.106, No.WR1, Newark, Del., pg. 89-102.
Graham, W.G., D. Clapp and T. Putkey, 1977, IrrigatiQn.
Wastewater Disposal Well Studies: Snake. Plain Aouifer , tJSEPA.
Robt. Kerr Env. Research Lab, EPA-600/3-77-071, Snake Plain.
Graham, W.G., I. Sather and G. Galinato, 1983, An Anavisis of
Feasible Alter. to Current Irrigation Disposal Well Practices ,
Idaho Dept. of Water Resources, Idaho Dept. Water R, 169 pp.
Greenberg, M.R., 1972, “Issues in Waste Water Treatment Facility
Location’, Growth and Change , Vol. 3, No. 1, New Brunswick,
N.J., Rutgers, St. Univ., pg. 39-43.
Greene, C.J., 1983, Underground m l. Control Tech.
Manual-Subsurface Disposal and Solution Mining , Texas Dept. of
Water Resources, Report 274.
Ground Water Age, 1981, Septic Sewage Systems Contaminate
Ground Water , Ground Water Age, June, 1981, 36-37 pp.
Ground Water Monitor, 1985, “Inform to Investigate Irrigation
Mgmt. Technique to Lessen Groundwater Overdraft”, Ground Water
Monitor , April 2, 1985.
Ground Water Monitor, 1985, “Nitrogen Lingers in Soil Many Years
After Applied, Ground Water Monitor , April 30, 1985.
Ground Water Monitor, 1985, “Recent Laws Fail Protect Country
From Pesticide Contam., Environmentalists Say”, Ground Water
Monitor , May 28, 1985, pg. 67-68.
Hagedorn, C., E.L. McCoy, T.M. Rahe, 1981, “The Potential for
Groundwater Contamination from Septic Effluents’, Journal of
Environmental Quality , Vol. 10, No. 1, Mississippi St. Univ.
pg. 1-8.
Ham, K.E. and R.T. OBrien, 1979, The Survival of Enteric
Viruses in SeDtic Tanks and Septic Tank Drain Fields , National
Technical Information Service, No. PB8O-127251,
Springfield,Virginia, New Mexico St. Univ., 73, pp.
Hall, F.R., 1975, Chloride in Natural Waters of New
Hampshire , National Technical Information Service, No. Pb-248
060, Springfield,Virginia, New Hampshire Univ.
Hanson, L.D. and W.E. Fenster, 1969, “What s Killing Our Lakes”,
CroDs and Soils , Vol. 22, Minneapolis, Univ. of Minnesota, pg.
13—15.
-------
Hargis. D.R. and F.L. Peterson, “Effects of Well Injection on a
Basaltic Ghyben-Hernberg Aquifer”, Groundwater , pg. 4-9.
Harkin, J.M., B. Al-Hajjar and D. Kroll, 1983, Elfects of
Deterøent Formula on the Performance of Septic Svstema ,
National Technical Information Service, No. PB83-257543,
Springfield ,Virginia.
Harkin, J.M., C. Fitzgerald, C. Duffy and D. Kroll, 1979,
Evaluation of Mound Systems for Purification of Septic....flnjj
Effluent , National Technical Information Service, No.
PB80-122807, Springfield,Virginia, Wisconsin Univ. , 310 pp.
Harrill, J.R. and J.O. Nowlin, 1976, Ground-Water Data Near
the Northwest Shore of Topaz Lake. Douglas County. Nevada ,
USGS Open File Report, No. 76-90, Carson City, Nevada.
Harris, L.D., 1972, Categories of Relative Feasibility for
Septic-Tank Filter Fields in Knox County, USGS Geologic
Investigations Map, No. 1-767 L, Washington, D.C., 1 Sheet pp.
Harrison, R.M., D. Laxen and 5, Wilson, 1981, “Chemical Assoc.
of Lead, Cadmium, Copper & Zinc in Street Dusts & Roadside Soils”,
Environmental Science & Technology, ACS , Vol. -15, No. 11,
pg. 1378-1383.
Hatten, R. E., 1978, “New Approach Gets Results in Utah Well”,
Johnson Drillers Manual , Vol. 50, No. 4.
Hawaii Institute of Geophysics, 1972, “Publications in Geology,
Geophysics, Geodesy, Geochemistry”, Hawaii Inst. Geophys, 1-28 pp
Hawaii, Dept. of Natural Resources, 1969, 1968-1969 Report to
the Governor, State of Hawaii, Dept. of Natural Resources, 1st pg.
of each div., 5,8,10... pp.
Heath, R.C, 1985, Introduction to State Summaries of
Ground-Water Resources , USGS Water Supply Paper, National
Water Summary, No. 2275, Washington, D.C., 467 pp.
Heath, R.C. , 1982, “Classification of Ground-Water Systems of
the United States”, Ground Water , Vol. 20, No. 4, pg. 393-401
Helsel, D.K., J. Kim, T. Grizzard, C. Randall, 1979, “Land Use
Influences on Metals in Storm Drainage”, Journal of the Water
Pollution Control Federation , Vol. 51, No. 4, pg. 710-7L7.
Higgins, B.R., 1976, The Contribution of a Water System for
Environmental Plannin& in Minnesota , National Technical
Information Service, PB-254 626, Springfield,Virginia, Minnesota
Univ.
-------
Hobba, W.A. Jr., 1981, Ground-Water HvdroloEv of Jefferson
County. West Virginia , W. Virginia Geological & Econ. Survey
Envir. Geol., Bulletin No. EGB-16, Morgantown, W. Vir , Geological
Survey.
Hoilman, P. , 1984, Aauaculture , Library of Congress
Science & Tech. Division, 1SSN 0090-5232.
Horton, R.C., 1964, Part 2: An Outline of the Mining History
of Nevada. 1924-1964 , Nevada Bureau of Mines, Report No. 7,
Mackay Sch. of Mines.
Hulburt, M.A., 1983, “Backfill Monitoring Methods,
Groundwater Monitoring Review , Vol. 3, No. 1, pg. 100-102.
Humerick, M.G. and C. F. Mattox, 1978, “Groundwater Pollutants
from Underground Coal Gasification”, Water Research , Vol. 12,
pg. 463—469.
Iowa State University, 1984, Impact of Agricultural Drainage
Wells on Groundwater Quality , Iowa State University, Dept. of
Agricultual Engr., ISU-ERI-Ames-85/83, 238 pp.
Jacobs, H.R. and R.F. Boehm, Electrical Production from
Moderate Temperature Geothermal Brines , 11-18 pp.
Jeffus, H.M., 1985, Groundwater Pollution in Northeast
Arkansas , Groundwater Quality Research Conference Proceeding,
Houston, Texas, Arkansa Univ., 125-126 pp.
Jenks, J.H. and B.L. Harrison, 1977, “Multi-feature Reclamation
Project Accomplishes Multi Objectives”, Water and Wastes
Engineering , Nov. 1977, pg. 19-30.
Jensen, M.E., 1980, Design and ODeration of Farm Irrigation
Systems , American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Ch.
6.13,7.8.1 & .3, 225,273 pp.
Jewell, T.K. and D.D. Adrian, 1982, “Statistical Analysis to
Derive Improved Stormwater Quality Model”, Journal of the Water
Pollution Control Federation , Vol. 54, No. 5, pg. 489-499.
Jewell, W.J., 1976, Executive Summary: Workshops on
Technological Aspects , Water Problems in Rural Environment
Conference, November 4-5, 1976, Ithaca, N.Y., Cornell Univ., 111-117
pp.
Jones, LA. and G.F. Lee, 1977, SeDtic Tank Disoosal Systems
as Phosphorus Sources for Surface Waters , National Technical
Information Service, No. PB-276 689, Springfield,Virginia, Texas
Univ., Dallas.
-------
Jones, R.A. and G.F. Lee, 1979, ‘Septic Tank Wastewater Disposal
Systems as Phosphorus Sources for Surface Waters’, Journal of the
Water Pollution Control Federation , Vol. 51, No 11, Ft.
Collins, Cob., pg 2764—2775.
Jordan, D.G., 1962, “Ground Water Contamination in Indiana”,
Journal of the American.Water Works Association , Vol. 54,
No. 10, Indianapolis, md. , USGS, pg. 1213-1220.
Kalinski, B., 1985, Inventory and Assessment of Class V Wells
and Related Sources in Nebraska , Nebraska Dept. of
Env.Control, Waste & Water Mgmt.
Kansas Dept. of Health and Environment, 1985, Inventory and
Assessment of Class V Injection Wells in Kansas , Kansas Dept.
of Health & Env.,Oil Field, Env. Geol.
Kashef, A.I., 1976, “Control of Salt Water Intrusion by Recharge
Wells”, Journal of Irri&ation and Drainaae. ASCE , Vol. 120,
No. 1R4, pg. 445—457.
Katz, B.G. and G.E. Mallard, 1980, Chemical and
Microbiological Monitoring of a Sole-Source Aquifer Intended
for... , USGS Open-File Report, Report No. 80-567.
Katz, B.G. and G.E. Mallard, 1981, “Chemical & Microbiological
Monitoring of a Sole-Source Aquifer Intended for . . .“, Chemistry
in Water Reuse: Annarbor Science , Volume I, Nassau County,
N.Y., pg. 165-167.
Kauahikaua, J. and N. Mattice, 1981, “Geophysical Reconnaissance
Prosp. Geothermal Areas on Hawaii, Using Elec. Method”,
Assessment of Geothermal Resources in Hawaii. No.4 , HG-81-4,
Fig. 27, USGS Report 81-1044.
Kaufmann, R.F., 1977, “Land and Water Use Impacts on
Ground-Water Quality in Las Vegas”, Ground Water , Vol. 15, No.
1, Las Vegas Valley, pg. 81-89.
Kern Co. Health Dept., 1982, Preliminary Groundwater Quality
Report. San Joa puin Valley. Kern Co.. California , San Joaquin
Valley.
Kern Co. Water Agency, 1982, Groundwater Quality Report. San
Joa quin Valley. Kern Co. , Kern Co. Health Dept., San Joaquin
Valley, Kern Co. Water Agenc.
Kern Co. Water Agency, 1986, Water Suonlv Renort 1985 ,
Kern Co. Water Agency, Kern Co.
Khaleel, R. and D.L. Reddell, 1976, Simulation of Pollutant
Movement in Groundwater Aquifers , National Technical
Information Service, No. PB-268 835, Springfield,Virginia, Texas A
N Univ., 248 pp.
-------
Kimmel, G.E., 1972, Nitrogen Content Qf Ground Water in Kings
County. Long Isl and. New York , USGS Professional Paper, No.
800-D,PD199-D203, Mineola, New York.
Klien, H., J.E. Hull, 1978, Biseavne Aauifer. Southeast
Florida , USGS Water-Resources Investigation, Report No-.
78-107, Tallahassee, Florida.
Knape, B.K., 1984, Underground In.iection Ot,erations in
Texas:Class. of Underground Injection Activ. , Texas Dept. of
Natural Resources, Report 291.
Kocher, D.C. et al, 1983, tjncertanties Geologic Disp.
High-Level Wastes-Groundwater TransDort Radionuclide , US
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NU REG/CR 2506.
Kolega, J., B. Morton and H. Luce, 1983, Groundwater
Monitoring at a SeeDa e Lagoon Facility , National Technical
Information Service, No. PB84-110758, Springfield,Virginia.
Kraus, D. L., G. Burgdorf and W. Zamor, 1984, Iniection Well
Procedures Manual: A Case Study of the Raft River Geothermal
Prol , USEPA, Groundwater Protection Div., Drinking Water, Raft
River.
Kreitler, C.W., L.A. Browning, 1983, “Nitorgen-Isotope Analysis
of Groundwater Nitrate in Carbonate Aquifers, Journal of
Hvdrolo v , Vol. 61, No. 1-3, pg. 285-301.
Kristiansen, R., 1981, “Sand-Filter Trenches for Purification of
Septic Tank Effluent: II. Nitrogen, Journal of Environmental
Quality , Vol. 10, No. 3, Norway, pg. 358-361.
Krulikas, R.K., 1981, Hvdrogeologic Data from Selected Wells
& Test Holes in Sulfolk Co. Long Island , USGS, Open File
Report, Report 81-500, Long Island, USGS.
Krumhardt, A.P., 1982, Hvdrolo ic Information for Land-Use
Planning. Badger Road Area. Fpirbanks.Alaska , USGS Water
Resources Investigations, Report No. 82-4087.
Kunze, J. F., Utili2ing Geothermal Resources Below 150 C (300
El, 23-27 pp.
Laak, R., 1975, A Covered Domestic Lagoon Svstem:Natural
Groundwater Recharge Near Metro olitans , National Technical
Information Service, No. PB-243 506, Springfield,Virginia.
Laak, R., 1981, Feasibility of On-Site Denitrificaiton of
Waste Water by Separation of . . , National Technical
Information Service, No. Pb 81-173916, Springfield,Virginia.
-------
Laak, R., K.A. Healy and D.M. Hardisty, 1974, “Rational Basis
for Septic Tank System Design”, Ground Water , Vol. 12, No. 6.
Connecticut Univ., pg. 348-351.
Larson, T.E., 1966, hccurrence of Nitrate in Well Waters, Water
Resources Center, Project 65-058, Urbana, Illinois Univ.
Lasala, A.M. Jr. , 1968. Groundwater Resources of the
Erie-Nia gara Basin. New York , Water Resources Commission Bas-in
Planning Report, No. ENB-3, Albany, New York, Geological Survey, 11
pp.
Lincoln, F.C., 1964, “Part I: An Outline of the Mining History
of The State of Nevada (1855-1923)”, Nevada Bureau of Mines ,
Report No. 7, Mackay Sch. of Nines.
Luttrell, S.F. and C.E. Brockway, 1983, Imnacts of Individual
On-Site Sewa&e Disposal Facilities on Mountain Valleys -I ,
National Technical Information Service, No. PB83-182147,
Springfield ,Virginia.
MacDonald, G.A., A. Abbott and F. Peterson, 1983, Volcanoes
in the Sea: The Geoloøv of Hawaii , Univ. of Hawaii Pres, 517
pp.
Madabhushi, G.V., 1984, “Effects Temp. Changes Chem. Equilibria
in Groundwater Due Groundwater Heat Pumps”, Ground Water , Vol.
23, No. 4, pg. 529.
Mann, L.J., 1985, Ground-Water-Level Chanøes in Five Areas of
the United States , USGS Water Supply Paper, National Water
Summary, No. 2275, Washington, D.C., 467 pp.
Manual, B., 1971, “Well Contamination--Part III, Solution for
Pollution”, Ground Water Age , Vol. 9, No. 1, pg. 24-27.
Mattox, C.F. and N. Humerick, 1980, “Organic Groundwater
Contaminants From UCG”, In Situ , Vol. 4, No. 2, pg. 129-151.
Mattraw, H,C. Jr., 1976, Ground -Water Quality in the Davie
Landfill. Broward County, Florida , USGS Water-Resources
Investigations, Report No. 76-56, Tallahassee, Florida.
McCray, K.B., 1983, Understanding Heat Pumps. Groundwater and
Wells , National Water Well Association.
McGuckin Drilling Co., 1980, Gradinø and Drainage Ordinances
of Arizona Cities .
McGuckin. W.G., 1980, Problems and Promises in Urban Runoff
Management, Arizona Dept. of Water Resources, Report No. 1.
-------
McGuinness, C.L., 1963, The Role of Ground Water in the
National Water Situation , USGS, Geological Survey Water Supply
Paper, Paper 1800
McJunkin, F.E., 1975, Wastewater Reuse in Coastal Areaa ,
Water Supply & Wastewater-Coastal Areas Conference. April 2-4, 1975.
Wilmington, N.C. , Univ. N. Carolina, 111-123 pp.
McLaughlin, R.J. and J.M. Donnelly-Nolan, 1981, Research in
the Geysers—Clear Lake Geothermal Area. Northern California ,
USGS, Professional Paper, Paper No. 1141, Washington, D.C., US Govt.
Printing Of, 259 pp.
tlcLaughlin,R.J. and J. Donnelly-Nolan, 1981, Research in the
Geysers-Clear Lake Goethermal Area, Northern California, USGS
Professional Paper, No. 1141, Clear Lake, N.Cal., 259 pp.
McQuillan, D.M., 1983, Ground Water Quality in the South of
Albuoueraue , New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute,
WRRI Report No. 169, Las Cruces, N.M., Water Quality Conf., 48-59 pp
Miller, D.W., Waste Disposal Effects on Ground Water ,
Premier Press.
Miller, F.P. and D.C. Wolf, 1975, Renovation of Sewa&e
Effluents by the Soil , Individual Onsite Wastewater
Systems,2rid Nat. Conf.
Miller, J., 1980, “The Legal Implications of Ground Water Heat
Pump Use”, Water Well Journal , Vol. 34, No. 7, Worthington,
Ohio, NWWA, pg. 66-73.
Miller, J.C., 1972, Nitrate Contaminatioii of the Water-Table
Aauifer in Delaware , USGS Report of Investigations, No. 20,
Newark, Delaware, USGS.
Miller, W.L. and A.C. Lietz, 1976, Quality-Of-Water Data.
Palm Beach County. Florida 1970-1975 , USGS Water-Resources
Open File, Report No. 76-784, Tallahassee, Florida, 100 pp.
Minear, R.A. and J.W. Patterson, 1971, Septic Tanks and
Groundwater Pollution , Groundwater Pollution Conference,
October 1971, St. Louis, Missouri, Illinois Inst. Tech., 53-71 pp.
Mitchell, D., 1976, Im rovin Design Criteria for Seotic Tank
Systems , National Technical Information Service, No. PB-262
006, Spririgfield,Virginia, Arkansas Univ.
Mitchell, D. and R. Ashworth, 1985, De1ineatin Groundwater
Contamination by Household Wastewater , Groundwater Quality
Research Conference Proceeding, Houston, Texas, Arkansas Univ.,
129—131 pp.
-------
Nassau Co. Dept. of Health, 1986, Irsvestization of
Contaminated Aquifer Seaments. Nassau Co. . N.Y . , Nassau Co.
Dept. of Health, Nassau Co., N.C.D.H.
National Academy of Sciences, 1979, US Energy Supply Prospects
to 2010-Study of Nuclear & Alternative Energy Systems, National
Academy of Sciences, 176-183 pp..
National Fire Protection Association, 1984, Fire Hazard
Properties of Flammable Liquids. Gases and Volatile Solids -
1984 , National Fire Protection Association, NFPA 325M, NFPA.
National Water Well Association, Ground Water Heat Pumps:
Exam. of Hydrogeologic, Env.. Leual & Econ. Factors , National
Water Well Association, 250 pp.
National Water Well Association, A Catalog of Ground Water
Geothermal Heat Pumv Related Publications and Services ,
National Water Well Association, NWWA.
National Water Well Association, “Groundwater Heat Pump ... An
Economical Alternative to Fossil Fuel”, National Water Well
Association , NWWA.
National Water Well Association, 1986, “Ground Water On-Line
User’s Guide: National Ground Water Info. Center Data Base’
National Water Well Association .
Nault, G.S., 1979, A Studv:Efficiencv of Septic Tank Effluent
Treatment in Two Raised Bed Systems , National Technical
Information Service, No. PBBO-140189, Springfield,Virginia, Maine
Univ., 187 pp.
Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, 1964, Mineral and Water
Resources of Nevada , Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology,
Bulletin 65, 314 pp.
Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, 1976, Reno Folio ,
Nevada Bureau Mines & Geol. Env. Folio Series, Reno Quadrangle,
Reno, Mackay Sch. of Mines.
Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, 1982, The Nevada Mineral
Industry - 1981 , Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, Special
Pub. MI-1981, Mackay Sch. of Mines.
Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, 1984, The Nevada Mineral
Industry - 1983 , Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology, Special
Pub. MI-1983.
Nevada Dept. of Conservation and Natural Resources, 1980, Nevada
Water Facts.
-------
Nevada Dept. of Conservation and Natural Resources, 1981,
Feasibijtv Report of the Underground Iniection Control ProEram
for Nevada , Nevada Dept. of Conservation and Natural
Resources, 110 pp.
Nevada Dept. of Conservation and Natural Resources, 1986,
Ground-Water Quality Management Plan for Nevada - Draft, Nevad t
Dept. of Conservation and Natural Resources.
Nevada Dept. of Minerals, Nevada,Geothermal Regulations &
Practice & Procedure Adopted Pursuant NRS534A, Nevada Dept of
Minerals.
Nevada Dept. of Minerals, Users Guide: Geothermal Rules and
Regulations, Nevada, Dept. of Minerals.
Nevada State Engineer’s Office, 1976, Water for Nevada -Nevada
State Water Planning References.
Nevada, State of, Agencies Potentially Knowledgeable About Class
V Wells.
Nevada, State of, Nevada Water Pollution Control Law, Bureau
Nat. &ffairs, 101-231 pp.
New Mexico Environmental Improvement Agency, 1972, Requirements
for Approval of Individual Sewage Disposal Systems, June 27, 1972.
Nielsen, D.M. and L. Aller, 1984, Methods for Determining
Mechanical Inte ritv of Class II Iniection Wells , USEPA, Robt.
Kerr Env. Research Lab, EPA-600/2-84-121, NWWA, 261 pp.
Niem, W.A., and A.R. Niem, 1982, Assessment of Selected Class
V Iniection Wells in the State of Oregon .
Nightingale, H.I. and R.L. McCormick, 1985, “Chemical Quality of
Perched Septic Tank Effluent for Plant Use and Recharge’, Journal
of the Water Pollution Control Federation , Vol. 57, No. 9,
Fresno, California, pg. 916-920.
North Carolina Dept. of Natural Resources, 1979, Water
Quality Management Plan: Executive Summary , Raleigh Division
of Environmental Management.
Nowlin, J.O., 1976, A Preliminary Evaluation of the Chemical
Character of Water:Northeast Topaz Lake , USGS Open File
Report, No. 76-419, Douglas County, Nev.
OBrien, R.T., 1980, Enterovirus Inactivation in Surface
Water. Groundwater and Soil , National Technical Information
Service, No. PB8O-211402, Springfield,Virginia, New Mexico St.
Univ.
-------
Oklahoma Dept. of Health, 1985, Oklahoma Class V Well Study
and Assessment , Oklahoma Dept. of Health, Industrial Waste
Div.
Oklahoma University Env. & Groundwater Institute, 1985,
Annotated Bihlio. of Artificial Recharge & Salt Water
Intrusion Plus References , Prepublished.
Oliver, L.G. and S.G. Grigoropoulos, 1981, ‘Control of
Storm—Generated Pollution Using a Small Urban Lake”, Journ .al of
the Water Pollution Control Federation , Vol. 53, No. 5, pg.
594-603.
Oregon State University, Water Resources Research, 1974. Land
and Water Use in Oregon , National Technical Information
Service, No. PB-241 709, Springfield,Virginia, 130 pp.
Oregon State Unversity, 1978, Geothermal Resources for
Aquiculture; Proceedings of a Workshop, Boise, Idaho, Oregon State
University, Sea Grant College Program, ORESU-W-78-001.
Osiensky, J., 1983, “Groundwater Withdrawal Schemes for Uranium
Mill Waste Disposal Sites”, Groundwater Montoring Review , Vol.
3, No. 1, pg. 22—27.
Ostrowski, C.N. et al, Radioactive Waste: Management and
Regulation , The Free Press.
Otis, R.J., W.C. Boyle, E.Clements and C. Schmidt, 1980,
Design Manual; Onsite Wasteiiater Treatment and Disposal
Svstemz , U.S. EPA Report, No. EPA-625/1-80-012, Madison, Wis.,
412. pp.
Otton, E.G. , 1981, The Availability of Ground Water in
Western Montgomery County. Maryland , Maryland Geological
Survey Report of Investigation, No. 34, Towson, Maryland, Geological
Survey.
Page, R.W. and R.A. LeBlanc, 1969, Geology. Hvdrolo v and
Water Quality in the Fresno Area. California , USGS, Water
Resources Div., Open File Report, Report 6417-03, Fresno.
Panno, S.V., Draft Technical Position: Subtask 1.2 Post
Emplacement Monitoring, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
WUREG/CR -3219.
Parliman, D.J., 1983, Ground-water Quality in the Western
Snake River Basin. Swan Falls - Glenns Ferry , USGS
Water-Resources Investigations, Report No. 83-4062.
Patt, R.D., 1978, Las Vegas Valley Water Budget: Relationship
of Distribution. Consumptive Use. . . , EPA, EPA-600/2-78--159,
Las Vegas, Nevada.
-------
Peirce, H.W. and J.R. Scurlock, 1972, Arizona Well Information,
Arizona Bureau of Mines, Bulletin 185, 195 pp.
Perkins, R.J., “Septic Tank, Lot Size, and Pollution of Watre
Table Aquifers”, N.Mex. Env.Improv.
Perkins, R.J., 1984, “Septic Tank, Lot Size, and Pollution of
Water Table Aquifers”, Journal of Environmental Health , Vol.
46, No. 6, pg-. 298—304.
Perkins, R.J., 1984, ‘Septic Tanks, Lot Size and Pollution of
Water Table Aquifers”, Journal of Environmental Health , Vol
46, No. 6, Santa Fe, New Mexico, pg. 298-304.
Petty, S. and F.L. Peterson, 1979, Hawaiian Water In Jection
Practices and Problems , Water Resources Research Center, Tech
Report 123, Univ. of Hawaii, 15,38-40 pp.
Petura, J.C., 1981, “Trichloroethylene and Methyl Chloroform in
Groundwater: A Problem Assessment”, Journal of the American Water
Works Association , Vol. 73, No. 4, West Chester, Penn.,
Weston-Designers, pg. 200-205.
Piskin, H., 1973, “Evaluation of Nitrate Content of Ground Water
in Hall County, Nebraska”, Ground Water , Vol. 11, No. 6, pg.
4—13.
Pitt, B. and G. Shawley, 1979, “Second Yr. Work Plan Demonst.
Non-Point Pollution Mgmt. on Castro Valley Creek”, Castro Valley
Creek.
Pitt, W.A.J. Jr., 1974, Effects of Sentic Tank Effluent on
Groundwater Quality. Dade County. Florida , USGS Open File
Report, No. 74010, Tallahassee, Florida, USGS.
Pitt, W.A.J., H.C. Mattraw Jr. and H. Klein, 1975,
Ground-Water Quality in Selected Areas Serviced by Septic
Tanks. Dade County , USGS Open File Report, No. 75-607,
Tallahassee, Florida.
Poland, J.F., 1984, Guidebook to Studies of Land Subsidence
Due to Ground-Water Withdrawal .
Poland, J.T. and A.M. Piper, 1956, Ground-Water Geology of the
Coastal Zone, Long Beach, Santa Ana Area, California, USGS, Water
Supply Paper, Paper 1109, Long Beach,Santa Ana, 162+ pp.
Polta, R.C., 1969, Septic Tank Effluents , Water Resources
Research Center, Water Pollution, WRRC Bulletin No. 13, Minneapolis,
Univ. of Minnesota, 53-57 pp.
Poon, C.P.C., 1983, Rho4e Island Water Resources Center.
Annual Prouram Repo’rt. Fiscal Year 1983 , National Technical
Information Service’, PB85-214872/AS, Springfield ,Virginia.
-------
Rahe, T.M., C. Hagedorn, E.L. McCoy and G. Kling, 1978,
“Transport of Antibiotic-Resistant Escherichia Coil Through W
Oregon Hillslope. .“, Journal of Environmental Quality , iol 7,
No. 4, Corvallis, Oregon, Oregon St. Univ., pg. 487-494.
Rajagopal, R. , 1978, “Impact of Land Use on Ground Water Quality
in the Grand Traverse Bay Region”, Journal of Environmental.
Quality , Vol. 7, No. 1, Durham, N. Carolina, Duke Univ., pg.
93-98. -
Rea, LA. and S.B. Upchurch, 1980, “Influence of Regolith
Properties on Migration of Septic Tank Effluent”, QrQumsj.
Water , Vol. 18, No. 2, Tampa, Florida, Univ. South Florida,
pg. 118—125.
Rector, Michael R., 1983, WestsideGroundwater Study Kern &
Kina Counties. California , Final Report to the Western Oil and
Gas Assoc., Vol I & II, Kern and King Co.
Reilly, T.E. and H.T. Buxton, 1985, Effects of Sanitary
Sewerina on Ground-water Levels and Streams in Nassau Co .
USGS, Water Resource Investigations, 83-4210, Nassau & Sulfolk Co.,
USGS.
Reneau, LB. Jr., 1979, “Changes in Concentrations of Selected
Chemical Pollutants in Wet Tile-Drain Soil”, Journal of
Environmental Qi.ialitv , Vol. 8, No. 2, Virginia Poly Tech, pg
189—196.
Reneau, LB. Jr. and D.E. ?ettry, 1976, “Phosphorus Distribution
from Septic Tank Effluent in Coastal Plain Soils”, JnurnaL.c 1
Environmental Quality , Vol. 5, No. 1, Blacksburg, Virginia,
Virginia Polytech., pg, 34-39.
Rigby, E., 1981, A Call to Arms for Sedona Citizens, Sedona.
Rigby, E., 1981, Why Injection Wells Could Be Sedona’s Downfall,
Sedona.
Roberts, P.V., P . McCarty and W. Roman, 1978, “Direct Injection
of Reclaimed Water into an Aquifer”, Journal of Environmental
En gineerin g, ASCE , Vol. 104, No. EE5, pg. 933-949.
Roberts, R.J., K. Montgomery and R. Lehner, 1967, Geolo v and
Mineral Resources of Eureka Co. Nevada , Nevada Bureau of Mines
and Geology, Bulletin 64, Eureka Co., Mackay Sch. of Mines, 152 pp.
SMC Martin, 1982, Inventory of Class V Iniection Wells in the
State of Michi gan .
SMC Martin, 1983, Inventory of Class V In jection Wells in the
State of Indiana , 22+ pp.
-------
SMC Martin, 1983, Assessment of Class V In.iection Wells in
the State of Nevada , 8418-040-94002.
Salveson. J.D , 1931, Future Potential for Development rf
Geothermal Energy in Contiguous United State”. . - meri an .s :c
Petroleum Geologists Bulletin , C)149-1377/S1/5G13-38. p
401—408.
Sandhu, S.S. , W.J. Warren and P. Nelson, 1977, “Inorganic
Contaminants in Rural Drinking Waters”, American Water Works
Association Journal , Vol. 69, No. 4, Orangeburg, S.C., S.
Carolina St. Coil, pg. 219-222.
Sargent, K.A. and M.S. Bedinger, Geologic & Hydr. Eval. Basin &
Range Prov. Disposal High-level Radioactive Waste, USGS Open File
Report, Report 83-699.
Sartor, J.D., G. Boyd and Agardy, 1974, “Water Pollution Aspects
of Street Surface Contaminants”, Journal of the Water Pollution
Control Federation , Vol. 46, pg. 458-467.
Sawhney, B.L. and J.L. Starr, 1977, “Movement of Phosphorus from
a Septic System Drainfield”, Journal of the Water Pollution
Control Federation , Vol. 49, No. 11, New Haven, Conn., pg.
2238—2242.
Scaif, M.R., W.J. Dunlap and J.F. Kreissl, 1977,
Environmental Effects of Septic Tank Systems , Robert Kerr
Environmental Reasearch Lab, EPA-600/3--77-096, Ada, Oklahoma,
Ecological Research.
Schillinger, J.E. and D.G. Stuart, 1978, Quantification of
Non-Point Water Pollutants from Logging. Cattle Grazing. .
National Technical Information Service, No. PB8O-174063,
Springfield,Virginia, Montana St. Univ., 366 pp.
Schmidt, C.J. and E.V. Clements, 1977, Reuse of Municipal
Wastewater for Groundwater Recharge , U.S. EPA,
EPA-600/2-77-183, Long Beach, Calif., SCS Engineers, Inc., 151 pp.
Schmidt, CJ. . and J.W. Patterson, 1980, On-Site Wastewater
Treatment and Disposal Systems-Environmental & Health Effects ,
Illinois Institute of Natural Resources, Chicago, No. 80/19,
Chicago, Illinois, Patterson Associates, 229 pp.
Schmidt, K., Urban Storm Runoff - Draft, Note: Not for
Release-draft.
Schmidt, K., 1979, The Marico a Association of Governments
Groundwater Quality Monitoring Program , Maricopa.
Schmidt, K., 1984, Results of Dry Well Mon. Prol. for
Commercial Area at 28th St. & Indian Sch. Rd. , Phoenix.
-------
Schmidt, K., 1985, Results of Dry Well Mon. Prol. for a
Commercial Site in the Phoenix. Urban Area , Phoenix, 53+ pp.
Schmidt, K.D., 1972, “Nitrate in Ground Water of the
Fresno-Clovis Metropolitan Area, California”, Ground Water ,
Vol. 10, No. 1, Tucson, Arizona, Harshbarger & Assoc., pg. 50-61.
Schmidt, K.D., 1974, “Nitrates and Ground-Water Management in
the Fresno Urban Area’, Journal of the American Water Works
Association , Vol. 66, No. 3, pg. 146-148.
Schwab, G., H. Frevert, T. Edminster and K Barnes, 1966,
Soil and Water Conservation EnflneerinE , John Wiley & Sons,
607—610 pp.
Seabloom, R.W., 1983, Onøoinø and Recent On-Site Treatment
and Disposal Methods in the U.S.A. , Washington Univ., Seattle
Dept. of Civil Engr., Hanassari, Finland, Tampere Univ. Tech.
427-440 pp.
Seitz, H.R., A.M. La Sala, Jr. and J.A. Moreland, 1977,
Effects of Drain Wells on the Ground-Water Quality of the
Western Snake Plain. .. , USGS Water Resources Division,
Open-File Report, No. 76-673, Snake River, Idaho.
Selby, K. and T.D.A. Tricker, 1982., “The Control of Effluent and
Water Quality in an Important Water Supply Catchment”, Water
Pollution Control , Vol. 81, No. 1, pg. 97-111.
Sewell, P.L., 1982, “Urban Groundwater as a Possible Nutrient
for an Estuarine Benthic Algal Bloom”, Estuarine. Coastal. and
Shelf Science , Vol. 15, No. 5, Austalia, pg. 569-576.
Shamberger, Hugh A., 1967, Inventory of Printed Info./Data
Pertaining to Water & Related Resources in Nevad, Nevada Dept. of
Conservation and Natural Resouces, Inventory Series 2.
Shawley, G. and H. Pitt, 1979, Demonstration of Non-Point
Pollution Management on Castro Valley Creek. 1st Ann. , Castro
Valley Creek. -
Shawley, G. and H. Pitt, 1979, Demonstration Non-Point
Pollution Mpmt. on Castro Valley Creek- lst Tech. Proa. H ,
Castro Valley Creek.
Sheahan, N.J., 1977, “Injection/Extraction Well System - A
Unique Seawater Intrusion Barrier”, Ground Water , Vol. 15, No.
1, pg. 32—50.
Shupe, J.W. and P.C. Yuen, 1979, Geothermal Energy in Hawaii -
Present and Future, Am. Assoc. of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin
0149-1, 377/81/SG13-0009.
-------
Silka, L.R. and T. Swearingen, 1978, A Manual for Evaluating
Contamination Potential of Surface Impoundments, USEPA, Drinking
Water, Ground Water Protection Div, EPA 570/9—78-003.
Sinton, L.W., 1982, ‘Groundwater Quality of an tinsewered,
Semi-Rural Area”, New Zealand Journal of Marine & Freshwater
Res. , Vol. 16, No. 3/4, pg. 317-326.
Sinton, L.W., 1986, “Microbial Contamination of Alluvial Gravel
Aquifers by Septic Tank Effluent”, Water. Air and Soil Pollution
WAPLAC , Vol. 28, No. 3/4, New Zealand, Ministry of Works, pg.
407—425.
Skilling’s Mining Review, 1977, “Oxy-Min’s In-Situ Copper
Leaching Project at Miami, Arizona”, Skillin ’s Mining Review ,
Dec. 12, 1977, Miami pg. 9—12.
Small, M.M., 1975, “Brookhaven’s Two Sewage Treatment Plants”,
Comnost Science , Vol. 16, No. 5, Upton, New York,
Brookhaven Nat. Lab., pg. 7-9.
Smith, S.A., G. Small, T. Phillips and N. Clester, 1982, Water
Quality in the Salt River Project: A Preliminary Report, Salt River
Proj., Water Res. Oper.. Groundwater Div, Salt River Valley,
6.11-6.23 pp.
Snarely, D.S. and J. Williams, 1985, Est Public Water Sunnlv
& Ind./Com. Groundwater Withdrawals & Return in Nassau , USGS,
Water Resources Investigation, 84-4246, Long Island, USGS.
Snyder, R.E., 1979, “How Geothermal Wells are Completed and
Produced”, World Oil , Oct. 1979, pg. 81-88.
Soil Conservation Service, Urban Hvdrolosv for Small
Watersheds , National Technical Information Service, No. PB-244
531, Springfield,Virginia.
Soil Conservation Society of America, 1985, “Special Issue on
Non—Point Pollution”, Journal of Soil and Water Conserv. Jan-Feb
1985, Vol. 40, No. 1.
Soren, J., 1978, HvroweoloEic Conditions in the Town of
Shelter Island.Suffolk Countv.Lona Island , USGS
Water-Resources Investigations, Report No. 77-77, Syosset, New York,
Starr, J.L. and B.L. Sawhney, 1980, “Movement of Nitrogen and
Carbon from a Septic System Drainfield”, Water. Air. and Soil
Pollution , Vol. 13, No. 1, New Haven, Conn., pg. 113-123.
Stearns, H,t,. and W.O. Clark, 1930, Geology and Water Resources
of the Kau District, Hawaii, USGS, Water Supply Paper, Paper 616, US
Govt. Printing Of, 194 pp.
-------
Stewart, L.E., D. Ross, H. Brodie and T. Sohrabi, 1983,
Disposal of Secondarily Treated Municipal Sewage by Subsurface
Irrigation , National Technical Information Service, PB8
190081, Springfield,Virginia.
Stow, S.H. and C.S. Haase, 1986, Subsurface Disposal of Liquid
Low-Level Radioactive Wastes at Oak Ridge, Tenn., Subsurface
Injection Liquid Waste Symposium, March 3-5, 1986, Oak Ridge, NWWA,
656—675 pp.
Strahier, A.N. , 1972, The Environmental Impact of Ground
Water Use on Cane Cod-Impact Study No. 3 , The Association for
the Preservation of Cape Cod, Orleans, Mass.
Strange, W.E., 1983, Subsidenpe MonitorinE for the State of
Arizona , US Dept. of Commerce, Nat. Oceanic & Atmos. Admin.,
Nat. Geodetic Info.
Sulfolk Co. Dept. of Health Services, 1986, Standards for the
Adminstration of Article 12 “Toxic and Hazardous Materials
___ Sulfolk Co. Dept. of Health Sciences, Sulfolk Co.
S.C.D.H.S.
Sulfolk Co. Dept. of Health Services, 1986, Sulfolk Co.
Sanitary Code Article 12: “Toxic and Hazardous Materials Storage
___ Sulfolk Co. Sanitary Code, Sulfolk Co. , Sulfolk Co.
Sulfolk Co. Dept. of Health Services, 1986, Sulfolk Co. Code
of Ad. Reg. Article 6: Reality Subdivisions. Development .
Sulfolk Co. Dept. of Health Services, Sulfolk Co. , SCDHS
Sulfolk Co. Dept. of Health Services, 1986, Ground-water
Table Ma of Sulfolk Co. - March 1986 , Sulfolk Co. Dept. of
Health Services, Annual Report 1986, Sulfolk Co. , SCDHS.
Sulfolk Co. Dept. of Health Services, 1986, Sulfolk Co. Code
of Ad. Reg. Article 7: Water Pollution Control-Amended
4/9/1986 , Sulfolk Co. Dept. of Health Services, Ammendment,
Sulfolk Co., SCDHS. -
Sutton, L.A. , 1982, “EPA and Water Supply -- Present and
Future’, Journal of the New England Water Works Association ,
Vol. 96, No. 2, pg. 135-139.
Takasaki, K., 1984, Hydrologic Cond. Eel. to Subsurface and
Surface Disposal •of Wastes in Hawaii, USGS, Open-File Report, Water
Resources Invest., Report 1-74.
Takasaki, K.J., 1977, Elements Needed in Design of a
Ground-water Quality Mon. Network - Hawaiian Is., USGS, Water Supply
Paper, Paper 2041.
-------
Task Committee on Agricultural Runoff & Drainage, 1977, “Quality
Aspects of Agricultural Runoff and Drainage’, Journal of
Irrintion and Drainage. ASCE , Vol. 103, No. 1R4, pg. 475-495
Tchobanoglous, G. and R. Eliassen, 1969, •‘The Indirect Cycle of
Water Reuse”, Water and Wastes En ineerin , Vol. 6, No. 2,
Stanford Univ., pg. 35-41.
The Groundwater Newsletter, 1985, “State Groundwater
News-Nevada”, The Groundwater Newsletter , Vol. 14, No. 4.
The Groundwater Newsletter, 1985, “State Groundwater
News-California”, The Groundwater Newsletter , Vol. 14, No. 6.
The Groundwater Newsletter, 1985, “State Groundwater News -
Hawaii”, The Groundwater Newsletter , Vol. 14, No. 8.
The Groundwater Newsletter, 1985, “State Groundwater
News-California”, The Groundwater Newsletter , Vol. 14, No. 12,
The Groundwater Newsletter, 1986, “State Groundwater News -
California”, The Groundwater Newsletter , Vol. 14, No. 13.
The Groundwater Newsletter, 1986, “Watergrams”, The
Groundwater Newsletter , Vol. 15, No. 2.
The Groundwater Newsletter, 1986, “Group Assembled to Stimulate
Geothermal Technology”, The Groundwater Newsletter , Vol. 15,
No. 3,
The Groundwater Newsletter, 1986, “First Samples Taken Adjacent
to Underwater Hot Springs in Atlantic”, The Groundwater
Newsletter , Vol. 15, No. 5.
Thomas, D. et al, 1979, Potential Geothermal Resources in
Hawaii: Prelim. Regional Survey, Assessment of Geothermal Res. in
Hawaii Number 1, HIG-79-4.
Thomas, H.E., 1984, Innovative Means of Dealing With Potential
Sources Groundwater Contamination, National Groundwater Quality
Symposium, September 1964, NWWA.
Thornhill, J.T., T. Short and L. Silka, Application of the Area
of Review Concept (reprint), 32-38 pp.
Thornton, J.C., 1981, Groundwater Pollution in Kentucky: A
Status Reoort , Workshop on Groundwater Problems in the Ohio
River, April 28-29, 1981, W. Lafayette, md ., Kentucky Dept.Health,
17-21 pp.
-------
Tjlstra, J.R., K.W. Malueg and C.F. Powers, 1973, A Study of
Disposal of Cam round Wastes AdJacent to Waldo Lake. Oregon ,
National Technical Information Service, No. PB-253 331, Corvallis,
Oregon.
Tinlin, R.M., 1976, Monitoring Groundwater Quality:
Illustrative Examples , EPA Environmental Monitoring Series,
EPA-600/4-76-036, Santa Barbara, Cal., General Electric Co.
Todd, D.K., 1974, “Salt Water Intrusion and It ’s Control”.
Journal of the American Water Works Association , March
1974, pg. 180—187.
Todd, K., 1983, GroundwaterResoi.irces of the United States -
Hawaii Re gion , Premier Press, 718-747 pp.
Tollefson, D.J. and R.F. Kelly, 1983, “STEP Pressure Sewers are
a Viable Wastewater Collection Alternativ&’, Journal of the Water
Pollution Control Federation , Vol. 55, No. 7, Eureka,
California, Winzler & Kelly, pg. 1004-1014.
Toups, J.M., 1974, “Water Quality and Other Aspects of
Ground-water Recharge in Southern California”, Journal of the
American Water Works Assocaition , March 1974, pg. 149-151
Toxics Assembly Group, Deep Dumps: Assessment of Hazardous Waste
Disposal in Injection Wells in Calif., Assembly Office of Research.
Transportation Research Board, 1985, Surface Drainage and
Highway Runoff Pollutants , Transportation Research Board, TRB
Record 1017, Nat. Res. Council.
Turnage, A.C. Jr., 1975, Shallow Subsurface DisDosal of
Wastewater , Water Supply & Wastewater-Coastal Areas
Conference, April 2-4,1975, Wilmington, N.C., Univ. N. Carolina,
60—67 pp.
U.S. EPA Region V, 1980, Final Environmental Impact
Statement: Alternative Wastewater Treatment Systems , EPA
Region V, Report July 1980, 169 pp.
US Dept. of Agriculture, 1964, Eastern Stanislaus Area
California - Soil Survey , US Dept. of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation, Series 1957, No. 20, Eastern Stanislaus, 160 pp.
US Dept. of Agriculture, 1971, Eastern Fresno Area,
California - Soil Survey , US Dept. of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Serivce, Fresno pp.
US Dept. of Agriculture, 1975, Agricultural Waste Management
Field Manual , US Dept. of Agriculture, Chapter 3, US Govt.
Printing Of.
-------
US Dept. of Agriculture, 1983, Literature of US Aquaculture,
1970-1982, US Dept. of Agriculture, Nat. Ag. Library, Bib. & Lit.
No. 28, 21,89,91, pp.
US Dept. of Commerce, 1981, Information Resources in the USA
on New and Renewable Ener v , US Dept. of Commerce, Nat. Tech.
Info. Service, CONF-810802-2.
US Dept. of Energy, The Potential for Usin2 Geothermal Ener v
for Space Cooliniz at Wms. AFB. Arizona , US Dept. of Energy,
Idaho Operations Office, GP-790007.
US Dept. of Energy, 1981, Biblio raohv of Published Retorts.
PaDers & Art. on Nevada Waste Storage Invest. , US Dept. of
Energy, Nevada Operations Office, NVO196-24.
OS Dept. of Energy, 1984, ExDerience. R&D A lvin Correc.
M easures-Ma ]or Low-Level Radioactive Waste DisD , Nat.
Low-Level Radioactive Waste Mgmt. Program.
OS Dept. of the Interior, 1976, Susanville Geothermal
Investigations SDecial RDt. Vol I. Su . Tech.Data Vol. II ,
Bureau of Reclamation, Susanville.
US Dept. of the Interior, 1977, Geolo v & Groundwater Res.
Revort. Central Ar. Pro].: V.1- MaricoDa & Ping Co. , US Dept.
of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Ilaricopa & Pina Co. , 105÷ pp
US Dept. of the Interior, 1977, Geolo v & Groundwater Res.
ReDort. Central Ar. Project: V.2-Maricopa& Ping Co. , US Dept.
of the Interior.
US Dept. of the Interior, 1982, Susanville Geothermal
Investigation Concludin& ReDort , Bureau of Reclamation,
Susanville.
OS Dept. of the Interior, 1984, hirtv-Fourth Annual Water
SuDDlv ReDort , US Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of
Reclamation, 143 pp.
USEPA, Massachusetts: Class V Inlection Well ReDort .
USEPA, Potential Env. ImDacts of Class V Inlection Wells in
Wyoming . Colorado. S. Dakota .
USEPA, EPA Underground Iniection Control Program
Regulations , 40 CFR 144-146, 124, 144—146 pp.
USEPA, 1973, Ground Water Pollution From Subsurface
Excavations , USEPA, EPA-430/9-73-012.
-------
USEPA, 1974, “Ground Water Pollution From Subsurface
Excavations, Part VIII Septic Systems”, Water Well Journal ,
Vol. 28, No. 11, Washington, D.C., pg. 53-56.
rJSEPA, 1977, Alternatives for Small Wastewater Treatment
Systems: Vol. 3. Cost/Effectiveness , EPA-625/44-77-O11C,
Cincinnati, Ohio.
USEPA, 1977, The Re’ ort to Congress-Waste Disposal Practicer
& Their Effects on Ground Water , USEPA office of Water Supply
& Solid Waste Mgmt., Washington, D.C., 512 pp.
USEPA, 1983, Results of the Nationwade Urban Runoff
Program-Executive Summary , National Technical Information
Service, PB84-185545, Water Planning Div.
USEPA, 1983, Results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program:
Vol. 1. Final Report , National Technical Information Service,
PB84-185552, Water Planning Div.
USEPA, 1983, Non oint Source Runoff Information Transfer
System , USEPA, Office of Water, EPA-430-9-83-009.
USEPA, 1983, Results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program.
Vol. 2-Appendices. Vol. 3-Data , USEPA, Water Planning Div.,
Nat. Tech.. Info. Serv., PB84-185578.
USEPA, 1985, Final Design for Arkansas’ Class V In.iection
Well Inventory and Assessment .
USEPA, 1985, Impacts of Wastewater Disposal Prac. on Ground
Water-North Carolina Barrier Ils. , USEPA, Region 4, Atlanta,
Georgia, EPA 904/9-85 139, Barrier Islands.
USEPA, 1985, DRASTIC: Stand. System for Eval. Ground Water
Poten. Using Hydrogeologic Setting, USEPA, Robt. Kerr Env. Research
Lab, EPA/600/2-85/018, US Dept. Commerce, 163 pp.
USEPA, Dallas, Texas Air & Water Programs Division, 1972,
Construction of Wastewater Facilities. Red Oak. Tex a ,
National Technical Information Service, No. PB-207 065-D,
Springfield ,Virginia.
USGS, 1972, Water Resources Investigations in Hawaii and
Other Pacific Areas , USGS.
USGS, 1984, National Water Sum. 1984: Hydrologic Ev nt
Water Qual. Trends &Groundwater Res , USGS, Water Supply Paper,
Paper No. 2275.
United Nations, 1983, Ground Water in the Pacific Region ,
UN Dept. Tech. Coop. Devel. Nat. Res./Water Series, No. 12
ST/ESA/121, United Nations, 289 pp.
-------
Unknown, Class V Iniection Well Methodolo2 ies Collection .
Unknown, 1968, The Nations Water Resources: Hawaii
Regioii .
Unknown, 1976, “Septic Tank Pollution Cut, Corns and
Soils , Vol. 29, No. 3.
Unknown, 1985, “Underground mi. Cont. Pro. Compi. Strategy -
Direct Implementation Jurisdiction”, pg. 36+.
Unknown, 1986, “Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments - 1986’.
Unkown, 1984, Groundwater Heat Pum Biblio ra hv , NWWA.
Vaccaro, J.J. and E.L. Bolke, 1983, Evaluation of
Water-Quality Characteristics of Part of the Sookane A uife ,
USGS Water-Resources Investigation, Report No. 82-769, Idaho,
Washington.
Vacher, H.L., 1978, “Hydrology of Small Oceanic Is. -Influence
of Atmospheric Pressure on Water Table”, Ground Water , Vol.
16, No. 6, pg. 417—423.
Van Denburgh, A.S., R. Lamke and J. Hughes, 1973, A Brief
Water-Resources Aooraisal of the Truckee River Basin. Western
Nevada , Nevada Dept. of Conservation and Natural Resources,
Truckee River Basin.
Vaughn, J.M., E.F. Landry and M.Z. Thomas, 1983, “Entrainment of
Viruses from Septic Tank Leach Fields Through Shallow, Sandy Soil’,
Aoolied and Environmental Microbiology , Vol. 45, No. 5,
Upton, New York, pg. 1474-1480.
Veneman, P.L.M., 1982, The Seotic Tank As A Wastewater
Treatment and DisDosal Facility , National Technical
Information Service, No. PB83-139873, Springfield,Virginia.
Viraraghavan, T., 1982, “Effects of Septic Tank Systems on
Environmental Quality, Journal of Environmental Management ,
Vol. 15, No. 1, New Brunswick, ADI Ltd,Frederiction, pg. 63-70.
Viraraghaven, T., 1977, “Wastewater Treatment Through Soil-With
Special Reference to Septic Tank Effluent’, Journal of the
Institution of Engineers (India , Vol. 57, Part EN3, New
Brunswick, ADI,Ltd., pg. 95-102.
Viraraghaven, T. and R.G. Warnock, 1976, “Groundwater Pollution
From a Septic Tile Field, Water. Air and Soil Pollution , Vol.
5, No. 3, Ontario, Canada, Ottawa Univ., pg. 281-287.
Viraraghaven, T. and R.G. Warnock, 1976, “Groundwater Quality
Adjacent to a Septic Tank System”, American Water Works
Association Journal , Vol. 68, No. 11, New Brunswick, ADI Ltd.,
pg. 611—614.
-------
Visher, F.N. and J.F. Mink, 1964, Groundwater Resources in
Southern Oahu. Hawaii , USGS, Water Supply Paper, Paper 1778,
Oahu, US Govt. Printing Of, 133 pp.
Waananen, A.O., 1968, Urban Effects on Water Yield, Water
Resources Symposium, Effects of Watershed, October 1968, Austin,
Texas, Univ. Texas Press, 169-182 pp.
Walker, W.G., J. Bouma, D.R. Keeney and P. Olcott, 1973,
“Nitrogen Transformations During Subsurface Disposal of Septic Tank
Effluent”, Journal of Environmental Quality , Vol.2, No. 4,
Madison, Wisconsin, Wisconsin Univ., pg. 521-525.
Wall, G.J. and L.R. Webber, 1970, Soil Characteristics and
Subsurface Sewage Disposal , Dept. of Agriculture, Guelph. Can
J Pub Health, Vol. 61, No.1, Ontario, Canada, 47-48 pp.
Ward, JR., 1983, “Considerations in Multi-Aquifer Monitoring
for In-Situ Leach Mining”, Groundw&ter Monitoring Review , Vol.
3, No. 1, pg. 119—121.
Warner, D.L., L. Kolderity, A. Simon and N. Yew, 1979, Radius
of Pressure Influence of Inlection Wells , USEPA, Robt. Kerr
Env. Research Lab, EPA-660/2-79/170.
Warner, D.L. , L. Kolerity and R. Flori, i982, AQuifer (Res.
Field Test Analysis & Press. Buildup Caic. for tJIC Re ulator
Per , USEPA, School of Mines & Metallurgy, On. Missouri.
Water Well Journal, 1985, “Ground Water Heat Pumps”, Water
Well Journal .
Weddle, B.R., 1975, Environmental Effects of Sludge Disposal
in Sanitary Landfills , Municipal Sludge Management &.Disposal
Conference, August 18-20, 1975, Anaheim, California, EPA, 188-192 p 1;
Weeter, D.W. , 1979, The Use of Eya otrans iration as a Means
of Wastewater Disposal , National Technical Information
Service, No. PB-297. 767, Springfield,Virginia, Tennessee Univ., 136
pp.
West Virginia Code, 1967, Depositing Dead Animals Or Offensive
Materials In or Near Water, West Vriginia Code Ann Secs 16-9-2 &
16—9-3.
Whelan, B.R. and N.J. Barrow, 1984, “Movement of Septic Tank
Effluent Through Sandy Soils near Perth, Ii. Phosphorus”,
Australian Journal of Soil Research , Vol. 22, No. 3,
Wembly, Australia, pg. 293-302.
Whelan, B.R. and N.J. Barrow, 1984, “Movement of Septic Tank
Effluent Through Sandy Soil Near Perth, I. Nitrogen”,• Austraiiari
Journal of Soil Research , Vol. 22, No. 3, Wembly, Austaliá,
pg. 283-292.
-------
Wilke, K.R., 1976, Ground—Water Levels and Chemical Quality
of Ground Water in Lincoln. Montana , USGS Open File Map, No
76-333, Helena, Montana, 4 Sheets pp.
Wiliden, R. and R. Speed, 1974, Geolo v and Mineral De osit .
of Churchill Co.. Nevada , Nevada Bureau of Mines and Geology,
Bulletin 83, Churchill Co., Mackay Sch. of Mines.
Wilson, L.G., Case History - Groundwater RecharEe in
Arizona .
Wilson, L.G., 1983, A Case Study of Dry Well Recharge ,
Research Project Technical Completion Report, A-114-ARIZ.
Wood, P. and R. Dale. 1964, Geo1o v and Ground-water Features
of the Edison-MaricoDa Area. Kern Co.. Cal. , USGS, Water
Supply Paper, Paper 1656, Edison-Maricopa, US Govt. Printing Of,
108+ pp.
Woolenberg, H.A. et al, An A raisal of Nuclear Waste
Isolation in Vadose Zone in _ Arid & Semi-Dry Region , US Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-3158.
Worts, G.F., 1951, Geolo v and Ground-Water Resources of the
Santa Maria Valley Area. California , USGS, Water Supply Paper,
Paper 1000, Santa Maria Valley, 169+ pp.
Yates, M.V., SeDtic Tanks and Ground Water Contamination ,
Dept. of Microbiology &. Immunology, Un. Arizona.
Yates, M.V., 1985, “Septic Tank Density and Ground-Water
Contamination”, Ground Water , Vol. 23, No. 5, Ada, Oklahoma,
pg. 587-591.
Yeager, J.G. and R.T. OBrien, 1977, Enterovirus and
Bacteriophage Inactivation in Subsurface Waters &
Translocation , National ‘Technical Information Service, No.
PB-266 708, Springfield,Virginia, New Mexico St. Univ.
Yoder, D., 1982, “Aquifer Management in Dade County”,
Water/Engineerina and Management , Vol. 129, No. 4, Miami,
Florida, pg. 34-38-40.
Young, R.H.F., 1974, “PollutIon Effects on Surface and Ground
Waters”, Journal Water Pollution Control Federation , Vol. 46,
No. 6, Honolulu, Hawaii, Hawaii Univ., pg. 1419-1429.
Youngs, L.G., 1984, Annotated iblio. of Geothermal Info.
Publ./Authored by Cal. Div. Mines & Geol. , California Dept. of
Conserv., Div. of Mines & Geol, Special Pub. 69, Cal. Dept.
Conserv,
-------
Zelazny. L.W., D.A. Lietzke, H.L. Barwood, 1980, Septic Tank
Drainfield Failures Resulting From MineraloEical Chaagi a ,
National Technical Information Service 1 No PBS1-114662,
Springfield,Virginia, 118 pp
Zenone, C. , 1974, Geolo&v and Water Resource&aL..tt
Girthjo d-Alveska Area. Alaska . USGS Open File Report.
Anchorage, Alaska.
Zones, C.P., 1961, Ground-Water Potentials in the Cre nS
Valley. Eureka & Lander Co. Nevada , USGS Water Supply Paper.
Paper 1581, Eureka & Lander Co., US Govt. Prtntirig Of
van der Leeden, F., L.A. Cerrillo and P W Miller, 1975.
Ground-Water Pollution Problems in the Northeastern Llifl c1
States , National Technical Information Service, No. P5-242
860, Springfield,Virginia, Geraglity & Miller, 361 pp
van der Leeden, F., L.A. Cerrillo and D.W. Miller, 1975
Ground-Water Pollution Problems in the Northwestern Unjtacl
States , Robert Kerr Environmental Research Lab,
EAP-600/3-75-018, Ada, Oklahoma, EPA, 361 pp.
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR AGRICULTURAL DRAINAGE WELLS
Baker and Austin, 1984, “Impact of Agricultural Drainage Wells on
Groundwater Quality’ t , College of Agriculture, College of
Engineering, Iowa State University.
Blackman, Jr., W.C., Wills, C., and Celnicker, A., 1977, “PL-92-
500 v. Pollution by Irrigation Return Flow:” Journal of the
Irrigation and Drainage Division, Vol. 103, No. 1R2, June,
1977, pp 207—220.
Cherryholmes and Gockel, 1987, “Iowa Agricultural Drainage Well
Assessment Report”, University Hygienic Laboratory,
University of Iowa.
Graham, W., C.lapp, D., and Putkey, T., 1977, “Irrigation
Wastewater Disposal Well Studies, Snake Plain Aquifer” EPA-
600/3—77—071, June, 1977.
Graham, W., 1979, “The Impact of Intensive Disposal Well Use on
the Quality of Domestic Groundwater Supplies in Southeast
Minidoka County, Idaho: Prepared for Idaho Dept. Water
Resources, Statehouse, Boise, Idaho, December, 1979.
Ground Water Monitor, 1985, “Recent Laws Fail to Protect Country
From Pesticide Contamination, Environmentalists Say” Ground
Water Monitor, May 28, 1985, p. 67.
Kenneth D. Schmidt and Associates, 1986, “Assessment of Wells
Used for Recharge of Irrigation Wast.ewater in California -
Draft Report” Prepared for Engineering Enterprises, Inc.
Ochs, W.J., et al., 1980, “Drainage Requirements:” In Design and
Operation of Farm Irrigation System. Edited by Jensen,
N.E., American Society of Agricultural Engineers, pp 271-
275.
Idaho Department of Water Resources, 1983, An Analysis of
Feasible Alternatives to Current Irrigation Disposal Well
Practices .
Idaho Department of Water Resources, 1987, Idaho Assessment of
Class V Injection Wells , USEPA Region X.
Iowa State University, 1985, Agricultural Drainage Wells in Iowa ,
Cooperative Extension Service, Ames, Iowa.
Owens, I-I., 1986, “Transmittal of Iowa Class V Well Assessment
Reports.” A memorandum, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region VII, Kansas City, Kansas.
Schwab, G., Frevert, R., Edminster, T., and Barnes K., 1966,
“Soil and Water Conservation Engineering” John Wiley and
Sons, pp 607—610.
-------
Wilson, L.G., 1986, “Assessment of Agricultural Return Flow Wells
in Arizona” Prepared for USEPA, Region IX.
IJSEPA, Region VII, 1986, “A Synopsis of Reports on Agricultural
Drainage Wells in Idaho” USEPA, Region VII, Kansas City,
Kansas.
USEPA, Region VII, 1986, “A Synopsis of Material From Two Texas
Department of Water Reports Dealing in Part with
Agricultural Drainage Wells in that State” tJSEPA, Region
VII, Kansas City, Kansas.
University of Hygienic Laboratory, 1987, “Iowa Agricultuural
Drainage Well Assessment Report” University of Iowa, Iowa
City, Iowa.
BIBLIOGRAPHY OF STATE REPORTS
(Agricultural Drainage Wells) -
Arizona Draft Report on Class V Injection Well
Inventory and Assessment in Arizona for USEPA
Region IX, prepared by Engineering
Enterprises, Inc., January 1987.
Florida Florida Underground Injection Control Class V
Injection Well Assessment Report, prepared by
Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation, December 1986.
Illinois An Assessment of Class V Underground Injec-
tion in Illinois, Interim Report, Phase One:
Assessment of Current Class V Activities in
Illinois, prepared by Illinois State Water
Survey, July 1986. Phase Two: Identifica-
tion of Possible Action Options, prepared by
Illinois State Water Survey, December 1986.
Iowa Class V Injection Well Assessment Report for
Direct Implementation State of Iowa, prepared
by USEPA Region VII Drinking Water Branch,
November 1986.
Oklahoma Oklahoma Class V Well Study and Assessment,
prepared by the Oklahoma State Department of
Health, July 1985.
New York Class V Injection Well Inventory and
Assessment, State of New York, prepared by
SMC Martin, March 1984.
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR STORM WATER AND INDUSTRIAL DRAINAGE WELLS
Brown and Caidwell, 1984, “Fresno Nationwide Urban Program
Project”, : with the Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control
District.
McGukin Drilling, Schematic, Maxwell Dry Well Brochure, (Date
Unknown).
USEPA (Water Planning Division), 1983, “Results of the Nationwide
Urban Runoff Program.”
Schmidt, K.D., 1985, “Results of Dry Well Monitoring Project
for Commercial Area at 28 Street and Indian School Road”:
Prepared for Maricopa Association of Governments, Phoenix,
AZ.
Wilson, r .G., 1983, “A Case Study of Dry Well Recharge”,:
Water Resources Research Center, University of Arizona,
Tucson, Arizona.
Modesto Public Works Department, 1981, “Rock Wells”, Standard
Specifications, Section 7.4.
SMC Martin Inc., 1983, “Preliminary Assessment of the Impact
of Stormwater Drainage Wells on Groundwater Quality”:
Prepared for USEPA Region III, Philadelphia, PA.
Woessner, et. al., 1986, “Study of the Effects of Stormwater
Injection by Class V Wells on a Potable Groundwater System”,
Progress Report University of Montana, Missoula, Montana.
Mancini, E. and Moore, J., 1986, “Evaluation of Stormwater
Drainage (Class V) Wells, Muscle Shoals Area, Alabama”:
Prepared for Alabama Department of Environmental Management,
Tuscaloosa, Alabama.
Crawford, N. and Groves, C., 1984, “Stormwater Drainage
Wells in the Karst Areas of Kentucky and Tennessee”:
Prepared for USEPA, Region IV, Atlanta, Georgia.
-------
STATE REPORT BIBLIOGRAPHY
(Storm Water and Industrial Drainage Wells)
Alabama - Class Injection Well Assessment Report submitted
to USEPA by the Alabama Department of
Environmental Management, 1986.
Alaska - Preliminary Class V Injection Well Inventory and
Assessment Report submitted to USEPA by
Engineering Enterprises, Inc., Norman, Oklahoma,
1986.
Arizona - Report on Class V Injection Well Inventory and
Assessment by Arizona submitted by USEPA by
Engineering Enterprises, Inc., Norman, Oklahoma,
19 87.
California— Report on Class V Injection Well Inventory and
Assessment in California submitted to USEPA by
Engineering Enterprises, INC., Norman, Oklahoma,
1987.
Florida — Class V Injection Well Inventory and Assessment
Report submitted to USEPA by the State of Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation, 1986.
Guam — Underground Injection Control Class V Assessment
Report submitted to USEPA by the Guam
Environmental Protection Agency, 1986.
Illinois - An Assessment of Class V Underground Injection in
Illinois. Interim Report Phase One submitted to
USEPA by the Illinois State Water Survey and the
Illinois Survey Divisions.
Montana - Inventory of Class V Injection Wells in the State
of Montana, submitted to USEPA by SMC Martin,
Inc., Valley Forge, PA, 1983.
New York — Class V Injection Well Inventory and Assessment
submitted to TJSEPA by’-SMC Martin Inc., Valley
Forge, PA, 1984.
Oregon - Underground Injection Controls Class V Inventory
and Assessment in the States of Oregon submitted
to USEPA by the Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality, 1986.
Virginia — Assessment of Selected Class V Wells in the State
of Virginia submitted to USEPA by CH2M Hill,
Greensville, FL, 1983.
Wyoming - Preliminary Ranking Report for Class V Injection
Wells in the State of Wyoming submitted to USEPA
by Western Water Consultants, Laramie, WY, 1986.
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR IMPROVED SINKHOLES
Aley, T. and Thomson, K.C., 1981, Hydrogeologic mapping of
unincorporated Greene County, Missouri, to identify areas
where sinkhole flooding and serious groundwater
contamination could result from land development: Report
prepared for Greene County Sewer District by Ozark
Underground Laboratory, Protem, Missouri.
Booker, R.W., and Associates, Inc., 1978, Study of sinkhole
flooding, Bowling Green and Warren County, Kentucky: report
prepared for Federal Insurance Administration.
Crawford, N.C., 1982, Hydrogeologic problems resulting from
development upon karst terrain, Bowling Green, Kentucky:
Guidebook prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
karst Hydrogeology Workshop, Nashville, Tennessee.
Crawford, N.C., 1984, Sinkhole flooding associated with urban
development upon karst terrain, Bowling Green, Kentucky:
Guidebook prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Karst Hydrogeology Workshop, Nashville, Tennessee.
Crawford, N.C., 1984, Sinkhole flooding associated with urban
development upon karst terrain: Bowling Green; Kentucky: in
Beck, B.F. (ed.), Proceedings of the first Multidisciplinary
Conference on Sinkholes, Rotterdam, Netherlands: A.A.
Balkema, Pubi ± shers.
Department of Natural Resources (Puerto Rico), 1984, Regulation
for the appropriation, use, conservation and administration
of the waters of Puerto Rico, Sep. 1984, San Juan, P.R.
Environmental Quality Board (Puerto RicO), 1982, Development of
an institutional management framework for groundwater
protection in the northern coastal area of Puerto Rico,
June, 1982, Santurce, P.R.
Environmental Quality Board (Puerto Rico), 1983, Reglamento para
el control de la inyeccion subterranea, Sep. 1983, Santurce,
P.R. -
Environmental Quality Board (Puerto Rico), 1986, Puerto Rico
pathogenic organisms survey report, Jan. 1986, U.S. EPA,
Region II, Caribbean Field Office, Santurce, P.R.
Hampson, P.S., 1986. Effects of Detention on Water Quality of
Two Stormwater Detention Ponds Receiving Highway Surface
Runoff in Jacksonville, Florida, U.S. Geological Survey
Water-Resources Investigations Report 86-4151.
-------
Hull, R.W., and Yurewicz, M.C., 1979. Quality of Storm Runoff to
Drainage Wells in Live Oak, Florida, April 4, 1979, U.s.
Geological Survey Open-File Report 79-1073, 40 p.
Kintrey, J.O., and Fayard, L.D., 1984. Geohydrologic Reconnais-
sance of Drainage Wells in Florida, U.S. Geological Survey
Water—Resources Investigations Report 84-4021, 67 p.
Lager, J.A., et al, 1977. Urban Stormwater Management and
Technology Update and User’s Guide, EPA 600/8—77—014.
Matheney, J.B., 1984, Bowling Green and Warren County, Kentucky
storm water management program review: City-County Planning
Commission of Warren County, Kentucky.
Mills, H.H., Starnes, D.D., and Burden, K.D., 1982, Coping with
sinkhole flooding in Cookeville: Tennessee Tech. Journal.
Owe, M., Craul, P.J., and Halverson, H.G., 1982. Contaminant
Levels in Precipitation and Urban Surface Runoff, Water
Resources Bulletin, Vol. 15, No. 5, October.
Puerto Rico Department of Natural Resources and U.S. Geological
Survey, 1984, Planning report for the comprehensive
appraisal of the groundwater resources of the north coast
limestone area of Puerto Rico, open-file data report 84—
427, San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Schiner, G.R., and German, E.R., 1983. Effects of Recharge from
Drainage Wells on quality of Water in the Floridan Aquifer
in the Orlando Area, Central Florida, U.S. Geological Survey
Water-Resources Investigations Report 82-4094, 124 p.
Soderburg, Carl—Axel P., 1986, Control de la contaminacion de las
aquas en Puerto Rico (paper presented at the Water Symposium
- XXI Century), June 27, 1986, San Juan, P.R.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1977, Report to
Congress on Waste Disposal Practices and their Effects on
Ground Water: U.S. EPA, Office of Water Supply, Office of
Solid Waste Management.
U.S. Geological Survey (Water Resources Division), 1984, National
Water Summary: Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, Water
Supply Paper 2275, San Juan, P.R.
Wailer, B.G., Klein, H., and Lefkoff, L.J., 1984. Attenuation of
Stormwater Contaminants from Highway Runoff Within
Unsaturated Limestone, Dade County, Florida, U.S. Geological
Survey Water—Resources Inves tigations Report 84—4083.
-------
Wanielista, M.P., Kersten, R.D., and Burr, J.R., 1984. Letter
proposal to the Florida Department of Transportation,
Reduction of Groundwater Contamination by Limestone
Substrate, University of Central Florida, Orlando, Florida.
Whipple, W. Jr., and Hunter, J.V., 1979. Petroleum Hydrocarbons
in Urban Runoff, Water Resources Bulletin, Vol. 15, No. 4,
p. 1096—1105.
Yousef, Y.A., ed., 1980. Urban Stormwater Runoff and Combined
Sewer Overflow Impact on Receiving Water Bodies, EPA 600/9-
80—056.
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR SPECIAL DRAINAGE WELLS
Eckel, E.B., et. al., 1958, “Landslides and Engineering
Practice,” Highway Research Board , Special Report, Vol. 29.
Graham, B., 1987, Personal Communications, State of Idaho,
Department of Water Resources, Boise, Idaho.
Goldstein, L., 1987, Personal Communication, State of Washington,
Department of Ecology (Water Department), Washington.
Todd, D.K., 1983, “Missouri Basin Region”, Ground—Water Resources
of the United States , Prenice Press, Berkeley, California,
pp. 297—343.
Woods, K.B., Berry, D.S., Goetz, W.H., 1960, “Prevention and
Correction of Landslides”, Highway Engineering Handbook ,
McGraw-Hill Book Company Inc., New York.
-------
STATE REPORT BIBLIOGRAPHY
(Special Drainage Wells)
Florida Bureau of Groundwater Protection, Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation,
1986, Florida Underground Injection Control
Class V Well Inventory and Assessment Report
USEPA Region IV.
Louisiana Louisiana Dept. of Natural Resources, Office
of Conservation, and Louisiana Geological
Survey, 1985. Louisiana Class V Assessment.
ports , USEPA Region VI.
Montana SMC Martin, Inc., 1985, Inventory of Class V
Wells in the State of Montana , USEPA Region
VIII .
Washington Washington Dept. of Ecology, 1986, Interim
Report Class V Injection Well Inventory in
Washington State , USEPA Region X.
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR GEOTHERMAL WELLS
Allen, A.C., et al, 1977, Status Report, Raft River Project
Sampling, Analysis, and Environmental Effects Study ,
Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Sampling Geothermal
Effluents, February 15-17, Las Vegas, Nevada.
American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Monograph No. 3 ,
1980.
Arnold, S.C., 1984, Near-Surface Groundwater Responses to
Injection of Geothermal Wastes , Idaho Water & Energy
Resources Research Institute, DE—AMO7-811D12210, Moscow,
Idaho, Univ. of Idaho, 138 pp.
Bateman, R.L. and R.B. Scheibach, 1975, Evaluation of Geothermal
Activity in the Truckee Meadows, Washoe Co., Nevada , Nevada
Bureau of Mines & Geology.
Bedinger, M.S., J. Harril, J. Thomas, 1984, “Maps Showing
Groundwater Units & Withdrawal, Basin & Range Province,
Nevada”, Water Resources Investigations Report , 83-4119-A,
USGS.
Bingler, E.C., 1975, Guidebook to the Quaternary Geology Along
the Western Flank of Truckee Meadows , Nevada Bureau of Mines
& Geology, Washoe Co. Nevada, Univ. of Nevada, Reno.
Bonham, H.F., 1969, Geology & Mineral Deposits of Washoe & Storey
Co., Nevada , Nevada Bureau of Mines & Geology, Bulletin 70,
Reno, Nevada, Univ. of Nevada, Reno, 140 pp.
California Dept. of Water Resources, 1970, Geothermal Wastes and
the Water Resources of The Salton Sea Area , California Dept.
of Water Resources, Bulletin 143-7, Sacramento, Cal., Cal.
Dept. Water Res, 123 pp.
Cohen, P. and O.J. Loeltz, Evaluation of Hydrogeology and
Hydrochemistry of Truckee Meadows Area Washoe County,
Nevada , Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 1779-S, United
States Geological Survey, 1964.
Driscoll, F.G., 1986, Groundwater and Wells , Johnson Division,
St. Paul, Minnesota.
Flynn, T. and G. Ghusn, Jr., 1984, Geologic & Hydrologic Research
on the Moana Geothermal System, Washoe Co. Nevada , Univ. of
Nevada, Div. of Earth Sciences, USDOE ACO3-82RA50075, Las
Vegas, Nevada, Univ. of Nevada, 148 pp.
-------
Forcella, L.S., 1984, Low Temperature Geothermal Resource
Management , Oregon Water Resources Dept. for Oregon
Department of Energy.
Freeze, R.A. and J.A. Cherry, 1979, Groundwater , Englewood
Cliffs, NJ, 604 pp.
Gullus, J.P., et al, 1979, Preference of Oilwell Cementary
Compositions in Geothermal Wells , Society of Petroleum
Engineers Journal, August, pg. 233-241.
Garrels, R.M. and C.L. Christ, 1965, Solutions, Minerals and
Equilibria , San Francisco, CA, Freeman, Cooper & Co., 450
pp.
Hannah, J.L., 1975, Low Temperature Geothermal Resources in
Northern California , Cal. Div. of Oil and Gas Report, Report
No. TR13, Sacramento, Cal., Cal. Div. Oil & Gas.
Hem, J.D., 1970, Study & Interpretation of the Chemical
Characteristics of Natural Water , USGS Water Supply Paper,
Paper No. 1473, 363 pp.
Hill, J.H. and C.H. Otto, Jr., 1977, “Sampling and
Characterization of Suspended Solids in Brine From Maginamax
#1 Well”, USEPA Workshop Sampling & Analysis of Geothermal ,
UCRL71007, 770227—1, Las Vegas, Nev., USEPA.
Michels, D.E., 1983, Disposal of Flashed Brine Dosed w/CaCO3,
Scale Inhibitor: What Happens when... , US Dept. Energy,
Geothermal Program Review II, Conf-8310177.
Nancollas, G.H. and J.S. Gill, 1979, “Formation & Dissolution of
High Temp. Calcium Sulfate Scales: Influences of Inhig”,
Society of Petroleum Engineers Journal , Dec. 1979, pg. 423-
429.
Nevada Division of Water Planning, 1980, Nevada Water Facts ,
Nevada Dept. Conserv. & Natural Res—Water Planning, Bulletin
No. 1,1 Nev. Dept. Cons & NR.
Nork, W.E. and K.J. Bantz, 1983, Low Temperature Space Heating
Wells , National Association of Corrosion Engineers, Jan. 12-
28, San Francisco, Cal.
Olmsted, F.H., et al, 1975, Preliminary Hydrogeologic Appraisal
of Selected Hydrothermal Systems in Northern and Central
Nevada , Open File Report 75-56, U.S. Department of the
Interior Geological Survey, Water Resources Division, Menlo
Park, California.
-------
Owen, L.B., et al, 1978, Predicting the Rate by Which Suspended
Solids Play Geothermal Injection Wells , Univ. of California,
Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, UCRL-80529C0NF771243.
Personal Communication, Mr. Daniel Gross, NDEP.
Reed, M.J., 1975, Chemistry of Thermal Water in Selected
Geothermal Areas of California , Cal. Div. of Oil and Gas,
Publication No. TR15, Sacramento, Cal., Cal. Div. of Oil &
Gas.
Snyder, R.E., 1979, How Geothermal Wells are Completed and
Produced , World Oil, October, pg. 81-88.
Summers, K., S. Gherine, C. Chen, 1980, Methodology to Evaluate
Potential-Groundwater Contamination: Geothermal Fluids , U.S.
EPA, No. 68—03—2671, U.S. EPA, 168 pp.
Tester, J.W., 1977, Geochemical Analysis of Fluids Circulated
through a Granitic Hot Dry Rock Geothermal System ,
Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Sampling Geothermal
Effluents, February 15-17, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Todd, D.K., 1983, Ground-Water Resources of the United States ,
Berkeley, Cal., Premier Press Books, 749 pp.
U.S.E.P.A., National Primary and Secondary Drinking Water
Regulations.
VanDenburgh, A.S., R. Lamke, J. Hughes, 1973, “A Brief Water—
Resources Appraisal of the Truckee River Basin, Western
Nevada”, Water Resources-Reconnaissance Series , Report 57,
Carson City, Nev. Dept. Conser., pg. 122.
Vetter, O.V., and V. Kandarpa, 1982, Scale Formations at Various
Locations in a Geothermal Operation Due to Injection , United
States Dept. of Energy, Div. Geothermal Eng., DOE/ET/27146—
T13.
Walton, W.C., 1962, Selected Analytical Methods for Well and
Aquifer Evaluation , Illinois State Water Survey, Bulletin
49, Illinois Dept. Educ.
-------
STATE REPORT BIBLIOGRAPHY
Geothermal Electric Power Reinjection
and Direct Heat Reinjection Wells
California — Report on Class V Well Inventory and
Assessment California for USEPA, Region ; by
Engineering Enterprises, Inc., 1987.
Idaho - A Guide to the Idaho Injection Well Program,
April, 1986; State of Idaho, Department of
Water Resources.
Nevada - Report on Class V Well Inventory and
Assessment in Nevada for USEPA, Region ; by
Engineering Enterprises, Inc., 1987.
Oregon - Final Report - Assessment of Selected Class V
Injection Wells in the State of Oregon,
submitted to TJSEPA by Oregon State
University, 1982.
Oregon - Underground Injection Control Class V
Inventory and Assessment in the State of
Oregon, submitted to USEPA by Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality, 1986.
Texas — Underground Injection Operations in Texas: A
Classification and Assessment of Underground
Injection Activities; Texas Department of
Water Resources, Report 291, 1984.
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR HEAT PUMP AIR CONDITIONING RETURN FLOW
*Andrews, C.B., 1978, “The Impact of the Use of Heat Pumps on
Groundwater Temperatures”: Groundwater, Vol. 16, No. 6,
November-December, pp 437-443.
Bacon, D., 1981, “Environmental Implications of Widespread Use of
the Groundwater Geothermal Heat Pump”: Groundwater Heat Pump
Journal, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp 16-19.
Connelly, J. 1980, “Groundwater Heat Pumps in Wisconsin”: Water
Well Journal, July 1980, Water Well Journal Publishing
Company, Worthington, Ohio, p 49.
Davison, R.R. 1975, “Storing Sunlight Underground”: Chemical
Technology, Vol. 5, December 1985, American Chemical Socity,
pp 736—741.
Dexheiiner, R. D. 1985,”Water Source Heat Pump Handbook”: National
Water Well Association, Dublin, Ohio.
Doty, P. 1980, “Pipe and Duct Sizing for Groundwater Heat Pumps”:
Groundwater Heat Pump Journal.
Gass, TE .,, 1982, “The Thermal Impact Cf Heat Pump Operation”:
Water Well Journal, Mary 1982, Water Well Journal Publishing
Company, Worthington, Ohio.
Gass T.E., D. M. Armitage, D.J. Bason, J.D. Orr, D.L. Warner, and
R.H. Howell 1982, “Computer Simulation to Assess the
Environmental Impact of Residential Groundwater Heat Pump
Utilization: USEPA Grant No. R806465—02.
Gass, T.E. 1980, “Sizing Water Well Systems for Groundwater Heat
Pumps”: Groundwater Heat Pump Journal, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp 16-
22.
Gass, T.E., and J.H. Lehr, 1977 Groundwater Energy and the
Groundwater Heat Pump”: Water Well Journal, April 1977,
Water Well Journal Publishing Company, Worthington, Ohio.
Gerstmann, J., 1980, “Comparison of Energy Consumption by
Alternative Heating System”: Groundwater Heat Pump Journal,
Vol. 1, No. 3 pp 8—10 and 14—15.
Hildebrandt, A.F., S.O. Gupta, and F.R. Elliot, 1979,
“Groundwater Heat Pump HVAC Demonstration Project, Phase I -
Design Development”: Texas Energy Advisory Council,
Houston, TX, p 93.
-------
*Kazmann, R.G., 1981, “Use of Twin Wells and Water-Source Heat.
Pumps for Energy Conservation in Louisiana”: Louisiana
Water Resources Research Institute Technical Report No. 9.
Kzech, D. K., 1982, “Design of Heat Pump Pump Return Flow Wells”:
Water Well Journal, Vol. 36, No. 6.
Legette, R.M., and M.L. Brashears 1938, “Groundwater for Air
Conditioning on Long Island New York”: In Transactions of
the American Geophysical Union, Vol. 19, No. 19, pp 412-418.
Lehr, J.H., 1982, “Two Pumps in Every Yard”: Water Well Journal,
March 1982, Water Well Journal Publishing Company,
Worthington, Ohio, p.8.
*Madabhushj, G.V., 1984, “Effects of Temperature Change on
** Chemical Equilibria in Groundwater Due to Groundwater Heat
Pumps”, Abstract of a PhD Dissertation, Utah State
University.
*McCray, K.B., E.D., 1983, “Understanding Groundwater Heat Pumps,
Groundwater and Wells”: Prepared by the National Water Well
Association in Cooperation With the Groundwater Heat Pump
Industry.
Miller, J., 1980, “The Legal Implications of Groundwater Heat
Pump Use”: Water Well Journal, July 1980, Water Well
Journal Publishing Company, Worthington, Ohio, pp 66-73.
National Water Well Association, 1980, “Environmental Aspects of a
Groundwater Source Heat Pump”: Pamphlet.
National Water Well Association, 1980, “Mechanics of a Groundwater
Source Heat Pump”: Pamphlet.
*National Water Well Association, 1978, “Groundwater Heat Pumps,
** An Examination of Hydrogeologic, Environmental, Legal and
Economic Fac.tors Affecting Their Use”, Vol. 1, Appendices A,
B, and C.
Oliver, J., and H. Brand 1981, “Thermal Exchange to Earth
Concentric Well Pipes”: American Society of Agricultural
Engineers, Vol. 24, No. 4, p 906—910, 918.
Part.in, J. R., “Drilled and Trenched Earth Coupled Heat Pump
Exchangers”, Geosystems, Inc., Promotional Paper.
Poehiman, J. 1981, “Testing Wells for Groundwater Heat Pump Use”:
Groundwater Heat Pump Journal, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp 27-28.
-------
Research Associates 1981, “Statewide Assessment of Groundwater
Heating and Cooling System Applications”: Louisiana
Geological Survey, Division of Natural Resources, Baton
Rouge, Louisiana.
Scheatzle, W. J., and C. E. Brett, 1979, “Heat Pump Centered
Integrated Community Energy Systems, System Development”:
University of Alabama Interim Report, Argonne National
Laboratory. -
Schockley, R., 1980, “Effluent Disposal Methods”: Groundwater
Heat Pump Journal, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp 27-28.
Smith, A. E., 1980, “Groundwater Geothermal Effluent Disposal
Methods”: Groundwater Heat Pump Journal, Fall 1980, Water
Well Journal Publishing Company, Worthington, Ohio, p 14-17.
Stillman, D.I., V. N. Uhi, and M. R. Warkel 1982, “Application of
a Groundwater Source Heat Pump at the Prudential Energy
Project, Princeton, New Jersey”: Paper Presented at the
International Groundwater Geothermal Heat Pump Conference,
Columbus, Ohio, February 7-8, 1982.
*Warner, D..L., and J. Algan, 1984, “Thermal Impacts of
Residential Groundwater Heat Pumps”, Groundwater, •Vol. 22,
No. 1, pp 6—12.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 1984, Report to the
Wisconsin Legislature on Experimental Groundwater Heat Pump
Injection Well Project , July, 1984.
* References consulted for heat pump air-conditioning return
flow.
** References consulted for cooling water return flow.
-------
STATE REPORT BIBLIOGRAPHY
(Heat Pump, Cooling Water Return Flow)
Arkansas - Final Design for Arkansas Class V Injection Well
Inventory and Assessment submitted to USEPA by
Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and
Ecology, 1985.
Colorado- - Inventory of Class V Injection Wells in the State
of Colorado submitted to USEPA by SMC Martin Inc.
Under Contract 68—01—6288, 1985.
Illinois - An Assessment of Class V Underground Injection in
Illinois submitted to USEPA by Illinois State
Water Survey Division and Illinois Geological
Survey Division, 1986.
Kansas - Class V Wells in Kansas submitted to USEPA by
Bureau of Oil Field and Environmental Geology,
Kansas Department of Health and Environmental,
1985.
Louisiana - Louisiana Class V Assessment Reports submitted to
USEPA by Louisiana Department of Natural
Resources, 1985.
Massachusetts- Underground Injection Control in the Commonweath
of Massachusetts, Report on Class V Wells: An -
Assessment submitted to USEPA by Massachusetts
Division of Water Pollution Control, 1986.
Michigan -. Inventory of Class V Injection Wells in the State
of Michigan submitted to USEPA by SMC Martin Inc.,
Valley Forge, PA, 1983.
Minnesota - Identification of Class IV and V Injection Wells
in Minnesota Final Report, Vol. 1, submitted to
USEPA by Bruce A. Liesch Associates, Inc., 1981.
Nebraska - Inventory and Assessment of Class V Injection
Wells and Related Sources submitted to USEPA by
Program and Plans Section Water and WAste
Management Division of Department of Environmental
Control, 1985.
New Hampshire- Inventory of Class V Injection Wells in New
Hampshire (plus additional correspondence)
submitted to USEPA by New Hampshire Water Supply
and Pollution Control, 1986.
-------
Research Associates 1981, “Statewide Assessment of Groundwater
Heating and Cooling System Applications’ t : Louisiana
Geological Survey, Division of Natural Resources, Baton
Rouge, Louisiana.
Scheatzle, W. J., and C. E. Brett, 1979, “Heat Pump Centered
Integrated Community Energy Systems, System Development”:
University of Alabama Interim Report, Argonne National
Laboratory.
Schockley, R., 1980, “Effluent Disposal Methods”: Groundwater
Heat Pump Journal, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp 27-28.
Smith, A. E., 1980, “Groundwater Geothermal Effluent Disposal
Methods”: Groundwater Heat Pump Journal, Fall 1980, Water
Well Journal Publishing Company, Worthington, Ohio, p 14-17.
- Stiliman, D.I., V. N. Uhi, and M. R. Warkel 1982, “Application of
a Groundwater Source Heat Pump at the Prudential Energy
Project, Princeton, New Jersey tt : Paper Presented at the
International Groundwater Geothermal Heat Pump Conference,
Columbus, Ohio, February 7-8, 1982.
*Warner, D.L., and J. Algan, 1984, “Thermal Impacts of
Residential Groundwater Heat Pumps”, Groundwater, Vol. 22,
No. 1, pp 6—12.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 1984, Report to the
Wisconsin Legislature on Experimental Groundwater Heat Pump
Injection Well Project , July, 1984.
* References consulted for heat pump air-conditioning return
f 1 ow.
** References consulted for cooling water return flow.
-------
STATE REPORT BIBLIOGRAPHY
(Heat Pump. Cooling Water Return Flow)
Arkansas - Final Design for Arkansas Class V Injection Well
Inventory and Assessment submitted to USEPA by
Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and
Ecology, 1985.
Colorado — Inventory of Class V Injection Wells in the State
of Colorado submitted to USEPA by SMC Martin Inc.
Under Contract 68—01—6288, 1985.
Illinois - An Assessment of Class V Underground Injection in
Illinois submitted to USEPA by Illinois State
Water Survey Division and Illinois Geological
Survey Division, 1986.
Kansas - Class V Wells in Kansas submitted to USEPA by
Bureau of Oil Field and Environmental Geology,
Kansas Department of Health and Environmental,
1985.
Louisiana - Louisiana Class V Assessment Reports submitted to
tJSEPA by Louisiana Department of Natural
Resources, 1985.
Massachusetts- Underground Injection Control in the Commonweath
of Massachusetts, Report on Class V Wells: An
Assessment submitted to USEPA by Massachusetts
Division of Water Pollution Control, 1986.
Michigan - Inventory of Class V Injection Wells in the State
of Michigan submitted to USEPA by SMC Martin Inc.,
Valley Forge, PA, 1983.
Minnesota - Identification of Class IV and V Injection Wells
in Minnesota Final Report, Vol. 1, submitted to
USEPA by Bruce A. Liesch Associates, Inc., 1981.
Nebraska - Inventory and Assessment of Class V Injection
Wells and Related Sources submitted to USEPA by
Program and Plans Section Water and WAste
Management Division of Department of Environmental
Control, 1985.
New Hampshire- Inventory of Class V Injection Wells in New
Hampshire (plus additional correspondence)
submitted to USEPA by New Hampshire Water Supply
and Pollution Control, 1986.
-------
North Dakota - Evaluation of the Inventory and Assessment of
Class V Wells in North Dakota submitted to the
USEPA by SMC Martin, Valley Forge, PA, 1983.
Ohio - Class IV and V Injection Well Inventory for Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency, submitted to
USEPA by Malcom Pirnie, 1986.
Oklahoma - Oklahoma Class V Well Study and Assessment
submitted to USEPA by Oklahoma State Department of
Health, 1985.
Oregon - Final Report—Assessment of Selected Class V
Injection Wells in the State of Oregon, submitted
to tJSEPA by Oregon State University, 1982.
- Underground Injection Control Class V Inventory
and Assessment in the State of Oregon, submitted
to USEPA by Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality, 1986.
South Dakota- Evaluation of the Inventory and Assessment of
Class V Injection Wells in the State of South
Dakota, submitted to USEPA by SMC Martin Valley
Forge, PA, 1985.
Texas - Underground Injection Operations in Texas: A
Classification and Assessment of Underground
Injection Activities submitted to tJSEPA by Texas
Department of Water Resources, 1984.
Virginia - Assessment of Selected Class V Wells in the State
of Virginia, submitted to USEPA by Chem Hill,
Gainesville, FL, 1983.
Wyoming - Preliminary Ra•nking Report for Class V Injection
Wells in the State of Wyoming, submitted to USEPA
by Western Water Consultants, WY, 1986.
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR AQUACULTURE RETURN FLOW WELLS
Arnold, S.C., 1984, Near Surface Groundwater Responses to
Injection of Geothermal Wastes , Idaho Water and Energy
Resources Research Institute, Report DE—AMO7-81lD122l0,
University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, 138 pp.
Drjscoll, Fletcher G.,, 1986, Groundwater and Wells , 2nd Edition,
Johnson Division, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1089 pp.
Macdonald, GA. ; A.T. Abbott, and F.L. Peterson, 1983, Volcanoes
in the Sea - The Geology of Hawaii , 2nd Edition, University
of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii, 517 pp.
McNeil, William J., 1978, “ Geothermal Resources for Aguaculture -
Proceedings of a Workshop, Boise, Idaho, December 13-15,
1977” , Oregon State University, Sea Grant College Program,
Corvallis, Oregon, 49 pp.
Summers, K., S. Gherini, C. Chen, 1980, Methodology to Evaluate
Potential - Groundwater Con tamina t ion: Geo thermal Fluids ,
U.S. EPA, No. 68—03—2671, U.S. EPA, 168 pp.
U.S. Geological Survey, 1985, National Water Summary 1984 ,
U.S.G.S. Water-Supply Paper 2275, United States Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 467 pp.
Vetter, O.V. and V. Kandarpa, 1982, Scale Formation at Various
Locations in Geothermal Operation Due to Injection... , U.S.
Dept. of Energy, Div. of Geothermal Energy, DOE/ET/27146-
T13.
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR RAW SEWAGE WASTE DISPOSAL WELLS
MID CESS POOLS
Engineering Enterprises, Inc., 1985, “Report of Investigations,
Class V Injection Well Inspections, Oahu and Hawaii Islands,
Hawaii”, for USEPA Region IX, San Fransisco, California.
Engineering Enterprises, Inc., 1985, “Report on Class V Injection
Well Inventory and Assessment for USEPA Region IX”, for
USEPA Region IX, San Francisco, California.
Maryland State Department of Health, date unknown, “Sectional
View of a Cesspool”, schematic.
-------
STATE REPORT BIBLIOGRAPHY
(Raw Sewage Waste Disposal Wells and Cesspools)
Alaska - Inventory and Assessment of Class V Injection
Wells in Alaska submitted to USEPA by Zonge
Engineering (Tuscon, Arizona) and Engineering
Enterprises, Inc., Norman, Oklahoma, 1986.
Arizona - Report on Class V Injection Well Inventory
and Assessment in Arizona submitted to USEPA
by Engineering Enterprises, Inc., 1987.
California - Report on Class V Injection Well Inventory
and Assessment for California submitted to
USEPA by Engineering Enterprises, Inc.,
Norman, Oklahoma, 1987.
Illinois — An Assessment of Class V Underground
Injection in Illinois submitted to USEPA by
Illinois State Water Survey Division and
Illinois Geological Survey Division, 1986.
Maryland - An Assessment of Class V Underground
Injection in Illinois submitted to USEPA by
the Maryland Department of Health and Mental
Hygiene, Office of Environmental Programs,
1986.
Michigan — Inventory and Assessment of Class V Injection
Wells in Michigan submitted to USEPA by
Geraghty and Miller, Inc., Lawrence, Kansas,
1986.
Ohio - Class IV and V Injection Well Inventory for
Ohio EPA submitted to USEPA by Malcolm
Pirnie, ColuiDbus, Ohio, 1986.
Oregon - Underground Injection Control; Class V
Inventory and Assessment in the State of
Oregon submitted to USEPA by the Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality, 1986.
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR SEPTIC SYSTEM
Batelle Memorial Institute, Pacific Northwest Lab., 1974,
“Evaluation of Municipal Sewage Treatment Alternatives”,
Council on Environmental Quality and USEPA, Contract No. EQC
316.
Carriere, G.D. and L.W. Canter, 1980, Effects of Septic Tank
Systems on Groundwater Quality, USEPA National Center for
Groundwater Research, NCGWR 80-8.
Dewalle, et al, 1985, Determination of Toxic Chemicals in
Effluent from Household Septic Tanks, USEPA Water
Engineering Research Lab, Office R&D, Grant No. R 806102.
Freeze, R.A. and Cherry, J.A., 1979, “Groundwater”, Prentice—
Hall, Inc. 604 pp.
Maricopah County (Arizona) Health Department, 1985, “Letter from
Don Conroy to Engineering Enterprises, Inc., March 21,
1985”.
Montgomery, James M., Consulting Engineers, Inc., 1979, “Water
Quality Management Plan for Paradise and Megalia”, Butte
County Division of Environmental Health.
Perkins, R.J., 1984, “Septic Tanks, Lot Size, and Pollution of
Water Table Aquifers”, Journal of Environmental Health , Vol.
46, pg. 298—304.
Scalf, M.R., W.J. Dunlap and J.F. Kressel, 1977, Environmental
Effects of Septic Tank Systems, USEPA, R. Kerr Environmental
Research Lab Report, EPA 600/3—77-096.
U.S. EPA Office of Groundwater Protection, 1986, “Septic Systems
and Ground—Water Protection: A Program Manager’s Guide and
Reference”.
Wilson, L.G., 1983, “A Case Study of Dry Well Recharge”, Research
Project Technical Completion Report, A—114—ARIZ, U.S.
Department of the Interior.
-------
SPATE REPORT BIBLIOGRAPHY
(Septic Systems)
Alaska Preliminary Class V Injection Well Inventory
and Assessment Report submitted to USEPA by
Engineering Enterprises, Inc., Norman,
Oklahoma, 1986.
Arizona Report on Class V Injection Well Inventory
and Assessment by Arizona submitted by USEPA
by Engineering Enterprises, Inc., Norman,
Oklahoma, 1987.
California Report on Class V Injection Well Inventory
and Assessment in California submitted to
USEPA by Engineering Enterprises, Inc.,
Norman, Oklahoma, 1987.
Florida Class V Injection Well Inventory and
Assessment Report submitted to USEPA by the
State of Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation, 1986.
Massachusetts Water Supply Protection Atlas Handbook,
Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Quality Engineexing, 1982.
Montana Inventory of Class V Injection Wells in the
State of Montana, submitted to USEPA by SMC
Martin, Inc., Valley Forge, PA, 1983.
Nebraska Inventory and Assessment of Class V Injection
Wells and Related Sources submitted to USEPA
by Program and Plans Section, Water and Waste
Division of the Department of Environmental
Control, 1985.
Nevada Report on Class V Injection Well Inventory
and Assessment in Nevada submitted to tJSEPA
by Engineering Enterprises, Inc. Norman,
Oklahoma, 1986.
Ohio Class IV and V Injection Well Inventory for
the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
submitted to USEPA by Malcolm, Inc.,
Columbus, Ohio, 1986.
Texas Underground Injection Operations in Texas: A
Classification and Assessment of Underground
Injection Activities submitted to USEPA by
the Texas Department of Water Resources
Report 291, 1984.
-------
Wyoming Preliminary Ranking Report for Class V
Injection Wells in the State of Wyoming
submitted to USEPA by Western Water
Consultants, Laramie, WY, 1986.
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR DOMESTIC WASTE WATER TREATMENT
DISPOSAL WELL
Black, Crow and Eidsness, Inc., 1972, Supplemental Engineering
Report on Lake Kanapaha Wastewater Treatment Plant for
Gainesville/ Alachua County Regional Water and Sewer
Utilities Board.
Black, Crow and Eidsness, Inc., 1972, Revised Environmental
Assessment Statement, Wastewater Management Plan for the
City of Gainesville, Florida.
Black, Crow and Eidsness, Inc., 1977, Proposal to the Gainesville
- Alachua County Regional Utilities Board, Icanapaha Ground
and Surface Water Monitoring and Sampling Program to
Determine Baseline Conditions.
Brooks, P.D., C.W. Dye, and M.L. Roll, 1984, Bioassays of the
Kanapaha Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant, Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation, Bureau of Water
Analysis, Biology Section.
Bouwer, Herman, 1970, Ground Water Recharge Design for Renovating
Waste Water: Journal of the Sanitary Engineering Division,
Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol.
96, No. SAl.
Brown, R.F. and Signor, D.C., 1974, Artificial Recharge - State
of the Art: Ground Water, Vol. 12, No.3, p. 152-160.
CH2M Hill, 1986, Ground Water Mohitoring Plan for the University
of Florida Wastewater Treatment Plant and Lake Alice
Recharge Well System.
Collentine, M.G., Libra, R.D., and Boyd, Lynne, 1981, Injection
Well Inventory of Wyoming: Water Resources Research
Institute, University of Wyoming, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Contract No. G-008269—79.
Department of Natural Resources (Puerto Rico), 1984, Regulation
for the appropriation, use, conservation and administration
of the waters of Puerto Rico, Sep. 1984, San Juan, P.R.
Donaldson, E.C. and Bayazeed, A.F., 1971, Reuse and Subsurface
Injection of Municipal Sewage Effluent: Bureau of Mines
Information Circular 8522, 20 pp.
Donaldson, E.C., 1972, Injection Wells and Operations Today in
underground Waste Management and Environmental Implications
Symposium, Houston, 1971, Proceedings: Oklahoma, The
Association of Petroleum Geologists, p. 24-46.
-------
Ehrlich, G.G., Ku, H.F., Vicchioli, John, and Ehike, T.A., 1979,
Microbiological Effects of Recharging the Magothy Aquifer,
Bay Park, New York, with Tertiary-Treated Sewage: United
States Geological Survey Professional Paper 751-E.
Ember, L.R., 1975, Disposing of Liquid Wastes Underground in
Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 9, No. 1, p. 24.
Environmental Quality Board (Puerto Rico), 1982, Development of
an institutional management framework for groundwater
protection in the northern coastal area of Puerto Rico,
June, 1982, Santurce, P.R.
Environmental Quality Board (Puerto Rico), 1986, Puerto Rico
pathogenic organisms survey report, Jan. 1986, U.S. EPA,
Region II, Caribbean Field Office, Santurce, P.R.
Environmental Quality Board (Puerto Rico), 1983, Reglamento para
el control de la inyeccion subterranea, Sep. 1983, Santurce,
P.R.
Environmental Science and Technology, 1968, Deep Well Injection
is Effective for Waste Disposal: Vol. 2, No. 6, p. 406.
First West Engineers, Inc., and Mink, John F., 1978, “Underground
Injection Control Study”, Department of Health, State of
Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii.
Freeze, R. Allan, and Cherry, John A., 1979, Groundwater,
Prentice—Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., pp. 375—378.
Hargis, David R., and Peterson, Frank L., 1974, “Effects of well
injection of a basaltic Ghyben-Herzberg aquifer”,
Groundwater, Vol. 12, No. 1, January-February 1974, National
Water Well Association, Worthington, Ohio, pp. 4-9.
Heutmaker, D.L., 1977, “A laboratory study of waste injection
into a Ghyben-Herzberg groundwater system under dynamic
conditions”, Water Resources Research Center, University of
Hawaii, Honolulu, Technical Report No. 107.
Huisman, L. and Olsthoorn, TN.,, 1983, Artificial Groundwater
Recharge: Boston, Pitman Advanced Publishing Program,
320 pp.
Miller, D.W., 1980, Waste Disposal Effects on Ground Water ;
Berkeley, Premier Press.
Miller, S.S., 1972, Injection Wells Pose A Potential Threat: in
Environmental Science and Technology, Vol. 6, No. 2, p. 120-
122.
-------
Oberdorfer, June A., and Peterson, Frank L., 1985, “Wastewater
injection: geochemical and biogeochemical clogging
processes”, Groundwater, Vol. 23, No. 6, November-December,
1985, National Water Well Association, Worthington, Ohio,
pp. 753—761.
Petty, Susan, and Peterson, Frank L., 1979, “Hawaiian waste
injection practices and problems”, Water Resources Research
Center, University of Hawaii. Technical Report No. 123,
Honolulu, Hawaii, 104 p.
Puerto Rico Department of Natural Resources and U.S. Geological
Survey, 1984, Planning report for the comprehensive
appraisal of the groundwater resources of the north coast
limestone area of Puerto Rico, open—file data report 84-427,
San Juan, Puerto Rico.
Ragone, S.E., Geochemical Effects of Recharging The Magothy
Aquifer, Bay Park, New York, with Tertiary-Treated Sewage:
United States Geological Survey Professional Paper 751-D.
Sanzone, Patricia, Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
Interoff ice Memorandum to Howard Rhodes dated July 30, 1986.
Subject: Use of Boreholes in the Florida Keys and Portions
of Dade County.
Soderburg, Carl—Axel P., 1986, Control de la cont.aminacion de las
aguas en Puerto Rico (paper presented at the Water Symposium
- XXI Century), June 27, 1986, San Juan, P.R.
Takasaki, K.J., 1974, “Hydrologic conditions related to
subsurface and surface disposal of wastes in Hawaii”, USGS
Open File Report WR11-74, 5 sheets.
Takasaki, K.J., 1976, “Elements needed in the design of a
groundwater quality monitoring network in the Hawaiian
Islands”, USGS Water Supply Paper 2041, 23 p.
Treweek, G.P., 1985. Pretreatment Processes for Ground Water
Recharge: in Artificial Recharge of Groundwater, Takashi
Asano, Editor, Boston, Butterworth Publishers, p. 205-248.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1977, Report to
Congress on Waste Disposal Practices and their Effects on
Ground Water: U.S. EPA, Office of Water Supply, Office of
Solid Waste Management.
U.S. Geological Survey (Water Resources Division), 1984, National
Water Summary: Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, Water
Supply Paper 2275, San Juan, P.R.
-------
Warner, D.L. rti Doty, L.F., 1967, Chemical Reaction Between
Recharge Wa ei and Aquifer Water; International Association
of Scientif ic flydrology, Publication No. 72, p. 278-288.
Wyoming De1pa tz nt.. of Environmental Quality, Water Quality
Division, p1983. Rules and Regulations of the State of
Wyoming, C1 apteir VIII, Quality Standards for Wyoming Ground
Waters: WDE /WQD, Cheyenne, Wyoming.
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR MINING, SAND, OR OTHER BACKFILL WELLS
Gray, R.E., Gamble, J.C., McLaren, R.S., and Rogers, D.J., “State
of the Art of Subsidence Control”, prepared for the Appala-
chian Regional Commission and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Resources.
Hulburt, M.A., 1983, “Backfill Monitoring Methods”, Groundwater
Monitoring Review, Winter 1983, pp. 100-102.
Texas Dept. of Water Resources, 1984, Underground Injection
Operations in Texas: A Classification and Assessment of
Underground Injection Activities, Texas Dept. of Water
Resources, Report 291, pp. 12/1—12/6.
Rauch, Henry, and Smith, Diane. December 1986, “A Preliminary
Summary Report: Inventory and Assessment of the Disposal of
Coal Slurry and Mine Drainage Precipitate Wastes into
Underground Mines in West Virginia”, West Virginia
University, Morgantown, W.V.
-------
STATE REPORT BIBLIOGRAPHY
(Mining, Sand, or Other Backfill Wells)
Alabama Alabama Class V Injection Well Assessment
Report submitted to USEPA by Alabama Dept. of
Environmental Management, 1986.
Colorado Inventory of Class V Injection Wells in the
State of Colorado submitted to USEPA by SMC
Martin Inc. Under Contract 68—01—6288, 1985.
Maryland State of Maryland Class V Injection Well
Inventory and Assessment submitted to USEPA,
1986.
Missouri Missouri Underground Injection Control
Program Class V Assessment submitted to USEPA
by Missouri Dept. of Natural Resources,
Division of Geology and Land Survey, 1986.
Montana Inventory of Class V Injection Wells in the
State of Montana submitted to USEPA by SMC
Martin, 1985.
North Dakota Evaluation of the Inventory and Assessment of
Class V Wells in North Dakota submitted to
the USEPA by SMC Martin, Valley Forge, PA,
1983.
Pennsylvania Underground Injection Control Program Class V
Well Assessment - Commonwealth of Pennsyl-
vania prepared and submitted by USEPA Region
III, 1987.
Texas Underground Injection Operations in Texas: A
Classification and Assessment of Underground
Injection Activities submitted to USEPA by
Texas Department of Water Resources, 1984.
West Virginia State of West Virginia Underground Injection
Control Program, Class V Injection Well
Inventory and Assessment submitted to USEPA
by West Virginia Dept. of Water Resources and
Dept. of Natural Resources, 1987 (Draft).
Wyoming Preliminary Ranking Report for Class V
Injection Wells in the State of Wyoming,
submitted to USEPA by Western Water
Consultants, WY, 1986.
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR IN SITU SOLUTION MINING INJECTION WELLS
Ahiness, J.K. and M.G. Pojar, 1983, In-Situ Copper Leaching in
the United States: Case Histories of Operation , U.S.
Department of the Interior Circular IC 8961.
Tennissen, Anthony C., 1974, Nature of Earth Materials , Prentice-
Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 439 pp.
Texas Dept. of Water Resources, 1983, Underground Injection
Control Technical Assistance Manual, Subsurface Disposal... ,
Texas Dept. of Water Resources, Report No. 274.
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR IN SITU FOSSIL FUEL RECOVERY WELLS
Alired, V.D., 1982, Oil Shale Processing Technology, the Center
For Professional Advancement, East Brunswick, New Jersey.
Campbell, J.H., et al, 1979, “Groundwater Quality Near an
Underground Coal Gasification Experiment’ t , Journal of
Hydrology, Vol. 44, pp. 241—266, Elsevier Scientific
Publishing Company, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
deMaiherbe, M.D., Doswell, S.J., and Mamalis, A.G., 1983,
Synthetic Crude from Oil Sands . Fortschritt-Berichte der
Zeitschriften, Volume 3, Number 80, VDI - Verlag GmbH
Dusseldorf.
Geraghty and Miller, Inc., and Booz, Allen and Hamilton, Inc.,
1982, Injection Well Construction Practices and Technology,
prepared for U.S. EPA, Office of Drinking Water, under EPA
Contract No. 68—01-5971, unpublished.
Granger, L., and Gibson, J., 1981, Coal Utilization: Technology,
Economics and Policy, Halsted Press, New York, New York,
503 p.
Gronhord, G.H., et al, 1982, Low-Rank Coal Technology: Lignite
and Subbituminous, Noyes Data Corporation, Park Ridge, New
Jersey, 610 p.
Humerick, M.J., and Mattox, C.F., 1977, “Groundwater Pollutants
from Underground Coal Gasification”, Water Research, Vol.
12, pp. 463-469, Pergamon Press Ltd., Great Britain.
Krants, W.B., and Gunn, R.D., 1983, Underground Coal
Gasification: the State of the Art, American institute of
Chemical Engineers Symposium, Series No. 226, Vol. 79, 185
p., AICHE, New York, New York.
Lamb, G.H., 1977, Underground Coal Gasification, Noyes Data
Corporation, Park Ridge, New Jersey, 255 p.
Mattox, C.F., and Humerick, M.J.,, 1980, “Organic Groundwater
Contaminants from UCG”, In Situ, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 129—151,
Marcel Dekker, Inc.
Morgantown Energy Research Center, ERDA (MERC), 1976, Proceedings
of the Second Annual underground Coal Gasification
Conference, August 10-12, 1976, MERC, US ERDA, Office of
Public Affairs — Technical Information Center, Morgantown,
West Virginia, 586 p.
-------
Perrini, Edward M., 1975, Oil from Shale and Tar Sands, Noyes
Data Corporation, Park Ridge, New Jersey, 307 p.
Ranney, M.W., 1979, Oil Shale and Tar Sands Technology: Recent
Developments, Noyes Data Corporation, Park Ridge, New
Jersey, 430 p.
Rickert, D.A., Ulman, W.J., and Hampton, E.R., 1979, Synthetic
Fuels Development: Earth Science Considerations, U.S. Dept.
of the Interior, Geological Survey, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 45 p.
Rohl, W., 1982, Tar (Extra Heavy Oil) Sands and Oil Shales,
Geology of Petroleum Vol. 6, Ferdinand Euke Publishers,
Stuttgart, Germany.
United Nations Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR),
1981, The Future of Heavy Crude Oils and Tar Sands First
International Conference, June 4-12, 1979, Edmonton,
Alberta, Canada; McGraw-Hill, NY, NY.
-------
STATE REPORT BIBLIOGRAPHY
(In Situ Fossil Fuel Recovery Wells)
Colorado - Inventory of Class V Injection Wells in the State
of Colorado submitted to USEPA by SMC Martin Inc.
Under Contract 68—01—6288, 1985.
Texas - Underground Injection Operations in Texas: A
Classification and Assessment of Underground
Injection Activities submitted to USEPA by Texas
Department of Water Resources, 1984.
Utah — Morton, Loren, Utah Department of Health (Tele-
phone Conversation)
Wyoming - Preliminary Ranking Report for Class V Injection
Wells in the State of Wyoming, Submitted to USEPA
by Western Water Consultants, WY, 1986.
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR SPENT BRINE RETURN FLOW WELLS
-------
STATE REPORT BIBLIOGRAPHY
(Spent Brine Return Flow Wells)
West Virginia State of West Virginia Underground Injection
Control Program, Class V Injection Well
Inventory and Assessment, submitted to TJSEPA
by West Virginia Department of Water Resour-
ces, Department of National Resources, 1986.
Indiana Inventory and Assessment of Class V Injection
Wells in Indiana, submitted to USEPA by
Geraghty and Miller, Inc., 1986.
Michigan Inventory and Assessment of Class V Injection
Wells in Michigan, submitted to USEPA by
Geraghty and Miller, Inc., 1986.
Oklahoma Oklahoma Class V Well Study and Assessment
submitted to USEPA by Oklahoma State Depart-
ment of Health, 1985.
Arkansas Final Design for Arkansas Class V Injection
Well Inventory and Assessment submitted to
USEPA by Arkansas Department of Pollution
Control and Ecology, 1985.
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR COOLING WATER RETURN FLCXPJ
**Andrewg, M.B. and M.P. Anderson 1978, “Impact of a Power Plant
on the Groundwater System of a Wetland”: Groundwater Vol.
16, No. 2, March—April, 1978, pp. 105—111.
**Rley, W. and W. Heekxnan, 1981 “Waste Heat Balance in Aquifers
Calculated by a Computer Programme”: Groundwater Vol. 19,
No. 2, March—April 1981, pp 144—148.
**Ljppmann, M.J. and Chin Fu Tsang, 1980, “Groundwater Use for
Cooling: Associated Aquifer Temperature Changes”:
Groundwater Vol. 18, No. 5, September—October 1980, pp 452-
458.
May, J.A. 1978, “Direct Cooling with Groundwater”: Water Well
Journal, Vol 32, No. 10, p 57.
**Molz, F.J., J.C. Warman, and I.E. Jones 1978, “Aquifer Storage
of Heated Water Prt I - A Field Experiment”, Groundwater,
Vol. 16, No. 4, July—August, 1978, pp 234—241.
Papadopulos, S.S. and S.F. Larson 1978, “Aquifer Storage of
Heated Water: Part II - Numerical Simulation of Field
Results”: Groundwater, Vol. 16, No. 4, July-August 1978, pp
242—248.
* References consulted for heat pump air—conditioning return
f 1 ow.
** References consulted for cooling water return flow.
-------
STATE REPORT BIBLIOGRAPHY
(Heat Pump, Cooling Water Return Flow)
Arkansas - Final Design for Arkansas Class V Injection Well
Inventory and Assessment submitted to USEPA by
Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and
Ecology, 1985.
Colorado - Inventory of Class V Injection Wells in the State
of Colorado submitted to USEPA by SMC Martin Inc.
Under Contract 68—01—6288, 1985.
Illinois - An Assessment of Class V Underground Injection in
Illinois submitted to USEPA by Illinois State
Water Survey Division and Illinois Geological
Survey Division, 1986.
Kansas - Class V Wells in Kansas submitted to USEPA by
Bureau of Oil Field and Environmental Geology,
Kansas Department of Health and Environmental,
1985.
Louisiana - Louisiana Class V Assessment Reports submitted to
USEPA by Louisiana Department of Natural
Resources, 1985.
Massachusetts- Underground Injection Control in the Commonweath
of Massachusetts, Report on Class V Wells: An
Assessment submitted to USEPA by Massachusetts
Division of Water Pollution Control, 1986.
Michigan — Inventory of Class V Injection Wells in the State
of Michigan submitted to USEPA by SMC Martin Inc.,
Valley Forge, PA, 1983.
Minnesota - Identification of Class IV and V Injection Wells
in Minnesota Final Report, Vol. 1, submitted to
USEPA by Bruce A. Liesch Associates, Inc., 1981.
Nebraska - Inventory and Assessment of Class V Injection
Wells and Related Sources submitted to USEPA by
Program and Plans Section Water and WAste
Management Division of Department of Environmental
Control, 1985.
New Hampshire- Inventory of Class V Injection Wells in New
Hampshire (plus additional correspondence)
submitted to USEPA by New Hampshire Water Supply
and Pollution Control, 1986.
-------
North Dakota - Evaluation of the Inventory and Assessment of
Class V Wells in North Dakota submitted to the
USEPA by SMC Martin, Valley Forge, PA, 1983.
Ohio - Class IV and V Injection Well Inventory for Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency, submitted to
USEPA by Malcom Pirnie, 1986.
Oklahoma - Oklahoma Class V Well Study and Assessment
submitted to USEPA by Oklahoma State Department of
Health, 1985.
Oregon - Final Report-Assessment of Selected Class V
Injection Wells in the State of Oregon, submitted
to USEPA by Oregon State University, 1982.
- Underground Injection Control Class V Inventory
and Assessment in the State of Oregon, submitted
to USEPA by Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality, 1986.
South Dakota- Evaluation of the Inventory and Assessment of
Class V Injection Wells in the State of South
Dakota, submitted to USEPA by SMC Martin Valley
Forge, PA, 1985.
Texas — Underground Injection Operations in Texas: A
Classification and Assessment of Underground
Injection Activities submitted to USEPA by Texas
Department of Water Resources, 1984.
Virginia - Assessment of Selected Class V Wells in the State
of Virginia, submitted to USEPA by Chem Hill,
Gainesville, FL, 1983.
Wyoming - Preliminary Ranking Report for Class V Injection
Wells in the State of Wyoming, submitted to USEPA
by Western Water Consultants, WY, 1986.
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR INDUSTRIAL PROCESS WATER AND
WASTE DISPOSAL WELLS
Brown and Caidwell, 1984, Fresno Nationwide Urban Runoff Program
Project , Fresno Metropolitan Flood Control District.
DeWalle, et al, 1985, Determination of Toxic Chemicals in
Effluent from Household Septic Tanks , USEPA Water
Engineering Research Lab, Office R&D, Grant No. R 806102.
Freeze, R.A. and JA. Cherry, 1979, Groundwater , Prentice—Hall,
Inc., 604 pp.
Kleinfelder, J.H. and Associates, 1984, T H Agriculture &
Nutrition Company, Site in Fresno, California Status Report ,
Cal. Dept. of Health Services, Toxic Substance Div., Cal.
Dept. Health.
Kleinf elder, J.H. and Associates, 1985, Updated Address Inventory
of Drinking Water Wells Near THAN Site, Eastern Fresno ,
California Dept. of Health Services, Cal. Dept. Health.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYDEC),
1986, Water Quality Regulations - Surface Water and Ground-
water Classifications and Standards, NY State Codes, Rules
and Regulations, Title 6, Chapter X, Parts 700-705 , New
York.
Perkins, R.J., 1984, “Septic Tanks, Lot Size, and Pollution of
Water Table Aquifers”, Journal of Environmental Health , Vol.
46, pg. 298—304.
Scaif, M.F., W.J. Dunlap and J.F. Kreissel, 1977, Environmental
Effects of Septic Tank Systems , USEPA, R. Kerr Environmental
Research Lab Report, EPA 600/3—77-096.
State Department of Environmental Conservation, Technical and
Operational Guidance Series (TOGS), 1985, “Division of Water
Technical and Operational Guidance Series (85-W-26) - SPDES
Program Priorities”, Albany, New York.
Toxics Assessment Group, 1985, Deep Dumps, An Assessment of
Hazardous Waste Disposal in Injection Wells in Cal. .
Tucker, C., 1987, Personal Communications, Bureau of Waste Water
Facilities Operation, NYDEC, New York.
U.S. EPA Office ofGroundwater Protection, 1986, Septic Systems
and Ground Water Protection: A Program Manager’s Guide &
Reference .
-------
Wilson, L.G., 1983, A Case Study of Dry Well Recharge , Research
Project Technical Completion Report, A-114-ARIZ, US Dept. of
the mt.
-------
STATE REPORT BIBLIOGRAPHY
(Industrial Process Water and Waste Disposal Wells)
Alabama - Alabama Dept. of Environmental Management,
1986, Alabama Class V Injection Well
Assessment Report, Draft , USEPA Region IV.
Arkansas — Arkansas Dept. of Pollution Control &
Ecology, 1985, Final Design for Arkansas
Class V Injection Well Inventory &
Assessment, USEPA.
Arizona - Engineering Enterprises, Inc., 1987, Report
on Class V Injection Well Inventory and
Assessment in Arizona, Draft , USEPA Region
Ix.
California - Engineering Enterprises, Inc., 1987. Report
on Class V Injection Well Inventory and
Assessment in California, Draft , USEPA Region
Ix.
Colorado - SMC Martin, Inc., 1985, Inventory of Class V
Injection Wells in the State of Colorado ,
USEPA, 68—01—6288.
Florida - Florida Department of Environmental Regula-
tion, 1986, Class V Injection Well Inventory
and Assessment Report, Draft , USEPA Region
IV.
Georgia - Adams, J.C, R.M. Lamada, 1986, Inventorying
and Assessing Class V Injection Wells ,
Georgia Institute of Technology, USEPA.
Hawaii - Engineering Enterprises, Inc., 1986, Report
of Investigation, Class V Injection Well
Inspections, Oahu and Hawaii Islands, Hawaii,
Draft , USEPA Region IX.
Illinois — Illinois State Water Survey Division &
I.G.S.D., 1986, An Assessment of Class V
Underground Injection in Illinois , USEPA
Region V.
Indian Lands - SMC Martin, Inc., 1985, Inventory of Class V
Injection Wells in the Indian Lands of EPA
Region VIII , USEPA, 68—01—6288.
-------
Indiana - Geraghty & Miller, 1986, Inventory and
Assessment of Class V Injection Wells in
Indiana, Draft , USEPA Region IV.
Kansas - Kansas Dept. of Health and Environment, 1985,
Class V Wells in Kansas , USEPA.
Kansas - Hargardine, Susan, Kansas Dept. of Health and
Environment, 1986, Class V Well Assessment of
Kansas , USEPA Region vii.
Louisiana Louisiana Dept. of Natural Resources, 1985,
Louisiana Class V Assessment Reports , USEPA.
Maine - Maine Dept. of Environmental Protection,
1986, Revised Interim Report: Maine’s UIC
Program , USEPA Region I.
Maryland - Maryland Department of Health and Mental
Hygiene, Office of Environmental Programs,
1986. State of Maryland Class V Injection
Well Inventory and Assessment .
Massachusetts - Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution
Control, 1986, Underground Injection Control
in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Class V
Well , USEPA.
Michigan - SMC Martin, Inc., 1983, Inventory of Class V
Injection Wells in the State of Michigan ,
US EPA.
Michigan - Geraghty and Miller, 1986, Inventory and
Assessment of Class V Injection Wells in
Michigan , USEPA Region V.
Minnesota - Ljesch, Bruce A., Associates, Inc., Identif i-
cation of Class IV and V Injection Wells in
Minnesota, Final Report , USEPA, Volume 1.
Minnesota - Geraghty & Miller, 1986, Inventory and
Assessment of Class V Injection Wells in
Minnesota , USEPA Region V.
Montana - SMC Martin, Inc., 1985, Inventory of Class V
Injection Wells in the State of Montana ,
USEPA, 68—01—6288.
Nebraska — Nebraska Dept. of Environmento]. Control,
1985, Inventory and Assessment of Class V
Injection Wells and Related Sources,
Nebraska , USEPA.
-------
Nevada — Engineering Enterprises, Inc., 1987. Report
on Class V Injection Well Inventory and
Assessment in Nevada, Draft , USEPA Region IX.
New Hampshire - New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution
Control, 1986, Inventory of Class V Injection
Wells in New Hampshire , USEPA.
New York - SMC Martin, InC., 1983, Assessment of Class
IV Injection Wells in the State of New York ,
USEPA Region II.
New York - SMC Martin, Inc., 1984, Class V Injection
Well Inventory and Assessment, State of New
York , USEPA Region II.
North Dakota - SMC Martin, Inc., 1985, Evaluation of the
Inventory and Assessment of Class V Injection
Wells — N. Dakota , USEPA Region VIII, 68-01-
628 8.
Ohio - Pirnie, Malcom, 1986, Class IV and V Injec-
tion Well Inventory for Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency , USEPA.
Oklahoma - Oklahoma State Dept. of Health, 1985,
Oklahoma Class V Well Study and Assessment ,
USEPA.
Oregon - Oregon State University, 1982, Final Report-
Assessment of Selected Class V Injection
Wells in Oregon, Draft , USEPA.
Oregon - Oregon Dept. of Environmental Quality, 1986,
Underground Injection Control Class V Inven-
tory and Assessment in Oregon , USEPA.
Pennsylvania - USEPA Region III, 1987, underground Injection
Control Program Class V Well Assessment,
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania .
Puerto Rico — Engineering Enterprises, Inc., 1985, Report
on Inventory and Assessment of Class V Injec-
tion Wells in Puerto Rico, Draft , USEPA
Region II.
South Dakota - SMC Martin, Inc., 1985, Evaluation of the
Inventory and Assessment of Class V Wells in
South Dakota , USEPA. -
-------
Texas — Texas Dept. of Water Resources, 1983, Under-
ground Injection Control Technical Assistance
Manual, Subsurface Disposal. . Texas Dept. of
Water Resources, Report No. 274.
Texas - Texas Dept. of Water Resources, 1984, Under-
ground Injection Operations in Texas: A
Classification and Assessment of UIC , USEPA.
Virginia — CH2M Hill, 1983, Assessment of Selected Class
V Wells in the State of Virginia , USEPA
Region III.
Washington - Washington Department of Ecology, 1986,
Interim Report Class Five Injection
Wells Inventory in Washington State , USEPA
Region X.
Wisconsin — Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources, 1986,
Wisconsin Final Class V Injection Well Inven-
tory , USEPA Region V.
Wyoming - Western Water Consultants, 1986 Preliminary
Ranking Report for Class V Injection Wells in
the State of Wyoming , USEPA Region VIII.
Wyoming — Western Water Consultants, 1986, Assessment
of Class V Injection Wells in the State of
Wyoming , USEPA Region VIII.
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR AUTOMOBILE SERVICE STATION DISPOSAL WELLS
Keeley, J.F., M.D. Piwoni, and J.T. Wilson, 1986, “Evolving
Concepts of Subsurface Contaminant Transport.” Journal of
Water Pollution Control Federation 58: 349-357.
Musick S., Personal Communication, 1986, Texas Water Commission,
Austin, Texas.
Patton, L. T., Personal Communication, 1987, Connecticut Depart-
ment of Environmental Protection, Water Compliance Branch,
Connecticut.
-------
STATE B IBLIOGRAPHY
(Automobile Service Station Disposal Wells)
Illinois An Assessment of Class V Underground
Injection in Illinois submitted to USEPA by
Illinois State Water Survey Division and
Illinois Geological Survey Division, 1986.
New York Draft Class V Assessment for New York State
submitted by USEPA Region II, 1986.
Michigan Inventory of Class V Injection Wells in the
State of Michigan submitted to USEPA by SMC
Martin, Inc., Valley Forge, PA, 1983.
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR RECHARGE WELLS.
SALINE WATER BARRIER INTRUSION WEIJ ,S AND
SUBSIDENCE CONTROL WELLS
Aronson, D.A,, G.E. Seaburn, 1974, Appraisal of Operating
Efficiency of Recharge Basins on Long Island, New York, in
1969 , USGS WSP 2001—D.
Asano, T., el al., 1985, Artificial Recharge of Groundwater ,
Butterworth Publishers, Stoneham, Massachusetts.
Bianchi, W.C., et. al., 1978, “Fresno, California, Subsurface
Drain Collector - Deep Well Recharge System”, Water
Technology , August 1978.
Bianchi, W.C., G. J. Lang, 1974, “The City of Fresno’s Leaky
Acres Groundwater Recharge Project — Construction...”,
American Water Well Association Journal , March 1974.
Bouwver, H., 1978, Groundwater Hydrology , McGraw-Hill Book
Company, New York, New York.
Brown, D.L., W. D. Silvey, 1977, Artificial Recharge to a
Freshwater-Sensitive Brackish-Water Sand Aquifer, Norfolk,
Virginia , USGS Professional Paper 939.
Brown, Richard., R.D. Norris., R.L. Raymond, “Oxygen Transport in
contaminated Aquifers with Hydrogen Peroxide” abstract:
National Water Well Association and API Conference
Campbell, Pressly L., J.V. Kinsella, , “Development of a Two
Aquifer Containment Plume: A Case history. national Water
Well Association and API Conference an abstract
Coe, J.J., 1979, “Ground-water Storage for California Water
Project”, Journal of the Irrigation & Drainage Division ,
ASCE, September 1979, Vol. 105, 1R3, pg. 305—315.
Dalton, Matthew, “Recovery of Petroleum Product within a Complex
Hydrogeologic Environment”, an abstract National Water Well
Association and API Conference
Driscoll, F,G., 1986, Groundwater and Wells , Johnson Division,
St. Paul, Minnesota. -
El Paso Water Utilities Public Service Board, “Specifications for
Drilling of Injection Wells.”
Engler, K, et. al., 1963, Studies of Articifical Recharge in the
Grand Prairie Region, Arkansas Environment and History , USGS
WSP, 1615—A.
-------
Feth, JH,, et. al., 1965, Preliminary Map of the Conternijnous
United States Showing Depth To and Quality of Shallowest
Groundwater Containing More Than 1000 Parts Per Million
Dissolved Solids , USGS Hydrology Inventory Atlas, AA 1999.
Freeze, R.A., J.A. Cherry, 1979, Groundwater , Prentice—Hall,
Inc., Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.
French, R.H. (ed.), 1984, Salinity in Watercourses and
Reservoirs , Proceedings of the 1983 International Symposium
on State—of-the—Art Control of Salinity, July 13—15, 1983,
Salt Lake City, Utah, Butterworth Publishers, Stoneham,
Massachusetts.
Gass, T., 1981, “Injection, Recharge, and Return Wells”, Water
Well Journal , October, 1981.
Huisman, L., T. N. O].sthoorn, 1983, Artificial Groundwater
Recharge , Pit inan Publishing, Inc., Marshfield,
Massachusetts.
Jenks, J.H., B.L. Harrison, 1977, “Multi-Feature Reclamation
Projects Accomplishes Multi-Objectives”, Water and Wastes
Engineering , November, 1977.
Kashef, bdel-Aziz I., 1976, “Control of Salt Water Intrusion by
Recharge Wells”, Journal of the Irrigation and Drainage
Division , ASCE, December, 1976.
Malot, James J., “Recovery of Volatile Organic Contaminants from
Subsurface Media”, an abstract National Water Well
Association and API Conference
Mayuga, M.N., D.R. Allen, 1969, Subsidence in the Wilmington Oil
Field, Long Beach, California, USA , IAHS-AISH Publication
O’Hare, M.P., et. al., 1986, Artifical Recharge of Ground Water,
Status and Potential in the Contiguous United States , Lewis
Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, Michigan.
Olsthoorn, T.N., 1982, The Clogging of Recharge Wells, Main
Subjects , The Netherlands Waterworks’ Testing and Research
Institute KIWA.
Pettyjohn, et, a],, 1979, A Ground—Water Quality Atlas of the
United States , National Demonstration Water Project.
Poland, J.F., et. a]., 1984, Guidebook to Studies of Land
Subsidence Due to Ground-Water Withdrawal , United Nations
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization.
-------
Price, C.E., 1961, Artifical Recharge Through a Well Tapping
Basalt Aquifers, Walla Walla Area Washington , USGS, WSP,
1594—A.
Price, D., et. al, 1965, Artificial Recharge in Oregon and
Washington 1962 , USGS WSP, 1594—C.
Roberts, P.V,, et al., 1978, “Direct Injection of Reclaimed Water
Into an Aquifer”, Journal of the Environmental Engineering
Division .
Schumann, et. a]., 1986, Land Subsidence and Earth Fissures
Caused by Ground-Water Depletion in Southern Arizona .
Regional Aquifer Systems of the U.S., AWRA Monograph Series
No. 7.
Sheahan, T., 1977, “Injection/Extraction Well System - A Unique
Seawater Intrusion Barrier”, Groundwater , January - February
1977, Vol. 15, No. 1, pg. 32—50.
Smith, William, P.M. Yaniga, and R. Raymond “Biodegradation of
Organic Compounds in Groundwater; Advanced Techniques for
In-Situ Oxygen Transfer”, an abstract National Water Well
Association and API Conference
Sniegocki, R.T., 1963, Geochemical Aspects of Artificial Recharge
in the Grand Prairie Region Arkansas , USGS WSP, 1615—E.
Sniegocki, R.T., 1963, Problems in Artificial Recharge Through
Wells in the Grand Prairie Region, Arkansas, USGS WSP, 1615—
F.
Strahler, A.N., 1981, Physical Geology , Harper & Row, Publishers,
Inc., New York, NY.
Sylvester, Kenneth A. “Migration, Entrpment, and Treatment of
Subsurface Oil Under Bank Inflow/Outflow Conditions near a
major River”. an abstract National Water Well Association
and API
The Cross Section , July, 1986, “Playa Recharge Experiments Await
Rainfall Runoff.”, p. 3.
Todd, D.K., 1983, Ground-Water Resources of the United States ,
Berkeley, California, Premier Press Books, 749 pp.
Toups, J., 1974, “Water Quality and Other Aspects of Ground-Water
Recharge in Southern California”, Journal of the American
Water Works Association , March, 1974.
United Nations Dept. of Economic and Social Affairs, 1975,
Ground-Water Storage and Artificial Recharge , Natural
Resources/Water Series No. 2.
-------
Urban, L.V., B.J. Claborn, 1984, Recharge with Playa Lake Water
and Filter Underdrains , Texas Tech University, Lubbock,
Texas.
Wilson, John L. 1984, “Double Cell Hydraulic Containment of
Pollutant Plumes” Proceedings of the Fourth National
Symposium on Aquifer Restoration and Ground Water Monitoring
Winegardner, D.L., and J.R. Quince, 1984, “Ground Water
Restoration Projects: Five Case Histories” in Proceedings
of the Fourth National Symposium on Aquifer Restoration and
Ground Water Monitoring
Yaniga, P.M., and W. Smith “Aquifer Restoration Via Accelerated
In Situ Biodegradation of Organic Contaminants”, an abstract
National Water Well Association and API Conference
“Cleaning up chemical wastes” Engineering News Record 1981
-------
STATE REPORTS BIBLIOGRAPHY
(Recharge Wells)
Alabama
Arizona
Alabama Dept. of Environmental
Alabama Class V Injection Well
Management, 1986,
Assessment Report,
Draft, USEPA Region IV.
Engineering Enterprises, Inc.,
Class V Injection Well Inventory
1987, Report on
and Assessment in
Arizona, Draft, U.S. EPA, Region
IX.
California— Engineering Enterprises, Inc., 1987, Report
Class V Injection Well Inventory and Assessment
California , Draft, U.S. EPA, Region IX.
on
in
Colorado - SMC Martin, Inc., 1985, Inventory of Class V
Injection Wells in the State of Colorado , U.S.
EPA, Region VIII.
Florida - Florida Department of Environmental Regulation,
1986, Class V Injection Well Inventory and
Assessment Report, Draft, U.S. EPA, Region IV .
Illinois — Illinois State Water Survey Division, Illinois
Geological Survey Division, 1986, An Assessment of
Class V Underground Injection in Illinois , U.S.
EPA, Region V.
Minnesota — Liesch, Bruce A., Associates, Inc., 1981,
Identification of Class IV and V Injection Wells
in Minnesota, Final Report , U.S. EPA, Region V.
Nebraska - Nebraska Dept. of Environmental Control, 1985,
Inventory and Assessment of Class V Injection
Wells and Related Sources, Nebraska , U.S. EPA,
Region VII.
New Hampshire- New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollution Control,
1986, Inventory of Class V Injection Wells in New
Hampshire , U.S. EPA, Region I.
New York — SMC Martin, Inc., 1983, Assessment of Class IV
Injection Wells in the State of New York , U.S.
EPA, Region II.
Oklahoma - Oklahoma State Department of Health,
Oklahoma Class V Well Study and Assessment ,
Texas - Texas Dept. of Water Resources, 1984, Underground
Injection Operations in Texas: A Classification
Region VI.
1985,
US EPA
-------
and Assessment of UIC , U.S. EPA, Region VI.
Virginia — CH2M Hill, 1983, Assessment of Selected Class V
Wells in the State of Virginia , U.S. EPA, Region
III.
Washington— Washington Department of Ecology, 1986, Interim
Report Class Five Injection Well Inventory in
Washington State , U.S. EPA, Region X.
Wisconsin — Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources, 1986,
Wisconsin Final Class V Injection Well Inventory,
U.S. EPA , Region V.
Wyoming - Western-Water Consultants, 1986, Preliminary
Ranking Report for Class V Injection Wells in the
State of Wyoming , Wyoming Dept. of Environmental
Quality, U.S. EPA, Region VIII.
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOS WELLS
Wil].rich, M., et al. 1977. Radioactive Waste: Management and
Regulation . The Free Press, New York.
Burch, SI ,., 1987. Letter to EEl. Associate Hydrologist,
Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources.
Baker, S.I., 1982. Environmental Monitoring Report for Calendar
Year 1981 . Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory.
St ,, S.H., S.C. Haase, 1986. Subsurface Disposal of Liquid Low—
Level Radioactive Wastes at Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Proceedings of “Subsurface Injection of Liquid Wastes, ”
NWWA International Symposium, March 3—5, 1986, New Orleans,
LA.
Deis, 1986. Disposal of Hanford Defense High-Level, Transuranjc
and Tank Wastes, Volume 3 .
USEPA, 1977. The Report to Congress, Waste Disposal Practices
and Their Effects on Ground Water .
USEPA, 1982. Report on the NRC/EPA Underground Injection Liaison
Group .
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1985. Title 10, Code of Federal
Regulations , Chapter 1.
-------
STATE REPORT BIBLIOGRAPHY
(Radioactive Waste Disposal Wells)
Illinois Illinois State Water Survey Division, Illinois
Geological Survey DivisiOn, 1986. An Assessment
of Class V Underground Injection in Illinois,
Interim Report . USEPA Region V.
oklah na Oklahoma State Department of Health, 1985.
Oklahoma Class V Well Study and Assessment . USEPA
Region VI.
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR EXPERIMENTAL TECHNOLOGY DISPOSAL WELLS
High Plains Underground Water Conservation District No. 1, “Mound
of Water Present Following Air-Injection Test”, The Cross
Section , July, 1985, pp. 1-4, Lubbock, Texas.
Hoyer, Marcus C, and Matt Wilson, 1984, Aquifer Thermal Energy
Storage Experiments at the University of Minnesota, St.
Paul, Minnesota, U.S.A. , Minnesota Geological Survey,
University of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota.
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR AQUIFER REMEDIATION WKLLS
Brown, Richard., R.D. Norris., R.L. Raymond, “Oxygen Transport in
Contaminated Aquifers with Hydrogen Peroxide” abstract:
National Water Well Association and API Conference
Campbell, Pressly L., J.V. Kinsella, “Development of a Two
Aquifer Containment Plume: A Case History. National Water
Well Association and API Conference an abstract
Dalton, Matthew, “Recovery of Petroleum Product within a Complex
Hydrogeologic Environment”, an abstract National Water Well
Association and API Conference
Malot, James J., “Recovery of Volatile Organic Contaminants from
Subsurface Media”, an abstract National Water Well
Association and API Conference
Smith, William, P.M. Yaniga, and R. Raymond “Biodegradation of
Organic Compounds in Groundwater: Advanced Techniques for
In-Situ Oxygen Transfer”, an abstract National Water Well
Association and API Conference
Sylvester, Kenneth A. “Migration, Entrpment, and Treatment of
Subsurface Oil Under Bank Inflow/Outflow Conditions near a
major River”. an abstract National Water Well Association
and API
Wilson, John L. 1984, “Double Cell Hydraulic Containment of
Pollutant Plumes” Proceedings of the Fourth National
Symposium on Aquifer Restoration and Ground Water Monitoring
Winegardner, D.L., and J.R. Quince, 1984, “Ground Water
Restoration Projects: Five Case Histories” in Proceedings
of the Fourth National Symposium on Aquifer Restoration and
Ground Water Monitoring
Yaniga, P.M., and W. Smith “Aquifer Restoration Via Accelerated
In Situ Biodegradation of Organic Contaminants”, an abstract
National Water Well Association and API Conference
-------
STATE REPORT BIBLIOGRAPHY
(Aquifer Reinediation Wells)
Alabama - Alabama Dept. of Environmental Management, 1986,
Alabama Class V Injection Well Assessment Report,
Draft , USEPA Region IV.
Oklahoma - Oklahoma State Dept. of Health, 1985, Oklahoma
Class V Well Study and Assessment , USEPA Region
VI.
Colorado - SMC Martin, Inc., 1985, Inventory of Class V
Injection Wells in the State of Colorado, rJSEPA,
68—01—6288.
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY FOR ABANDONED WATER WELLS
American Water Works Association, 1966, Sealing Abandoned Wells ;
AWWA Standard for Deep Wells, Sections A 1-13, New York, New
York.
Exner, Mary E., and Roy F. Spalding, 1985, “Groundwater
Contamination and Well Construction in Southeast Nebraska”;
Ground Water , Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 26-34.
Gass, Tyler E., Jay H. Lehr, and Harold W. Heiss, Jr., 1977,
Impact of Abandoned Wells on Ground Water ; Robert S. Kerr
Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and
Development, USEPA, EPA—600/3—77—095, 53 pp.
Jones, E.E., Jr., 1973, “Well Construction Helps Determine Water
Quality”; Journal of Environmental Health , Volume 35, No. 5,
pp. 443—450.
Pettyjohn, Wayne A., Joseph R.J. Studlick, Richard C. Bain, and
Jay H. Lehr, 1979, A Ground Water Quality Atlas of the
United States ; prepared by the National Water Well
Association for the National Demonstration Water Project,
272 pp.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, 1975, Manual of
Water Well Construction Practices ; Office of Water Supply,
pp. 136—142.
United States Geological Survey, 1985, National Water Summary,
1984 ; Water Supply Paper 2275, 467 pp.
Whitsell, W.J. and G.D. Hutchinson, 1973, “Seven Danger Signals
for Individual Water Supply”; Transactions of the Amer. Soc.
Ag. Eng. , Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 777—781.
-------
STATE REPORT BIBLIOGRAPHY
(Abandoned Water Wells)
Alaska - Preliminary Class V Injection Well Inventory
and Assessment Report - Alaska; prepared for
U.S. EPA, Region X, by Engineering Enter-
prises, Inc., 1986.
Colorado - Inventory of Class V Injection Wells in the
State of Colorado, submitted to USEPA by SMC
Martin Inc., 1985.
Florida Class V Injection Well Inventory and Assess-
ment Report; Florida Dept. of Environmental
Regulation, Bureau of Groundwater Protection,
1986.
Indiana - Inventory and Assessment of Class V Injection
Wells in Indiana, prepared for Engineering
Enterprises, Inc. by Geraghty and Miller,
Inc., submitted to U.S. EPA, Region V, 1986.
Michigan - Inventory and Assessment of Class V Injection
Wells in Michigan; prepared for Engineering
Enterprises, Inc. by Geraghty and Miller,
Inc., submitted to U.S. EPA, Region V, 1986.
Minnesota - Inventory and Assessment of Class V Injection
Wells in Minnesota; prepared for Engineering
Enterprises, Inc. by Geraghty and Miller,
Inc., submitted to U.S. EPA, Region V, 1986.
Ohio - Class IV and V Injection Well Inventory for
Ohio EPA, submitted to U.S. EPA by Malcolm
Pirnie, 1986.
-------
APPENDIX
List of Supporting Data
-------
NATIONAL CLASS V INVENTORY AND ASSESSMENT
REPORT TO CONGRESS
SUPPORTING DATA INDEX
Drainage Wells
Agricultural Drainage Wells:
1. Synopsis of Agricultural Drainage Reports Prepared by
EPA Region VII UIC Section - November 1986.
2. Iowa Agricultural Drainage Well Assessment Report.
3. Assessment of Irrigation Return Flow Wells in Arizona -
September 1986.
Stormwater and Industrial Drainage Wells:
4. Preliminary Assessment of the Impact of Stormwater
Drainage Wells on Groundwater Quality - Roanoke,
Virginia — September 1983.
5. Evaluation of Stormwater Drainage (Class V) Wells,
Muscle Shoals Area, Alabama - 1986.
6. A Case Study of Dry Well Recharge (Southwest u.s.)
September 1983.
7. Evaluation of Sump Impacts on Ground Water in East
Mutnomah County, Washington - April 1986.
8. The Impact of Stormwater Runoff on Groundwater Quality
and potential Mitigation (Washington State) - October
1984. (Cover page only)
1
-------
9. Potential of Ground Water Impacts Resulting From Storm
Water Runoff Disposal in Spokane County, Washington -
December 1983. (Cover page only)
10. Results of Dry Well Monitoring Project for a Commercial
Site in the Phoenix Urban Area - July 1985. (Cover page
only)
11. Study of the Effects on a Potable Groundwater System -
Progress Report (Montana) - November, 1986. (Cover
page only)
12. Storm Water Drainage Wells in the Karst Areas of
Kentucky and Tennessee - Extended Inventory of Drainage
Wells in Kentucky and Tennessee - September 1984.
(Cover page only)
Improved Sinkholes:
(Supporting Data Pending State Report Subinittals)
Special Drainage Wells:
(Supporting Data Pending State Report Subinittals)
Geothermal Wells
Electric Power and Direct Heat Reinjection Wells:
13. Case Study: Moana - Steamboat Hot Springs, Nevada.
Heat Pump/Air Conditioning Return Flow Wells:
14. Case Studies: Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oregon
2
-------
Aquaculture Disposal Wells:
15. UIC Inspection Report - Marine Culture Enterprises,
Laie, Oahu, Hawaii.
Domestic Wastewater Disposal Wells
Raw Sewage Waste Disposal Wells and Cesspools:
16. tJIC Inspection Report (Inspection 4) — Laie Cesspool
Suinp, Oahu, Hawaii.
17. UIC Inspection Report (Inspection 8) - Haliewa Shopping
Plaza, Haliewa, Hawaii.
18. UIC Inspection Report (Inspection17) - Honakaa
Hospital, Honakaa, Hawaii.
19. Contamination of Underground Water in the Beilvue
(Ohio) Area - June 1961.
20. An Assessment of Class V Underground Injection in
Illinois - July 1986 (Selected pages)
Septic Systems:
21. Industrial Owned Septic Systems - San Fernando Valley,
California.
Sewage Treatment Plant Disposal Wells:
22. Notification of Threat to Underground Source of
Drinking Water (USDW) - Arecibo, Puerto Rico - July,
1986.
23. Case Study: Recharge Wells - Teton Village, Wyoming.
3
-------
Mineral and Fossil Fuel Recovery Related Wells
Mining. Sand or Other Backfill Wells:
(Supporting Data Pending State Report Submittals)
Solution Mining Wells:
24. UIC Program Inspection Report - Noranda Lakeshore
Mines, Inc., Casa Grande, Arizona.
In Situ Fossil Fuel Recovery Wells:
25. Case Study: Underground Coal Gasification - USDOE
Hanna Area, Wyoming.
26. Case Study: Oil Shale In Situ Retorting - USDOE Rock
Springs Site, Wyoming.
Spent Brine Return Flow Wells:
27. Types of Class V Injection Wells with Potential for
Use in Arkansas - Brine Disposal Injection Wells.
28. Results from Analysis of Brine Disposal Injection Well
Injection Fluid (Arkansas).
29. Class V Brine Disposal Injection Well Plugging Details
(Arkansas).
Oil Field Production Waste Disposal Wells
Air Scrubber and Water Softener Regeneration Brine Disposal Wells
30. UIC Program Inspection Reports - Texaco Producing,
Inc., San Ardo Field, San Ardo, California.
31. UIC Program Inspection Report - Tosco Enhanced Oil
Recovery Corporation, Newhall, California.
4
-------
Industrial, C mnercial, Utility Disposal Wells
Cooling Water Return Flow Wells:
32. Synopsis of Case Studies: Hawaii, Massachusetts,
Minnesota, Nebraska, Wyoming.
Industrial Process Water arid Waste Disposal Wells:
33. Case Study I: Components, Inc., Keenebunk, Maine.
34. Case Study II: Southern Maine Finishing Co., East
Waterboro, Maine.
35. Case Study III: York Aviation, Sanford Airport
Industrial Park, Maine.
36. Case Study IV: Eastern Air Devices, Dover, New
Han shire.
37. Case Study V: Viscase Puerto Rico Corp.,
Barceloneta, Puerto Rico.
38. Case Study VI: RCA del Carthe, Inc., Barceloneta,
Puerto Rico.
39. Case Study VII: Glamourette Fashion Mills,
Quebradillos, Puerto Rico.
40. Case Study VIII: Lotus, Barceloneta, Puerto Rico.
41. Case Study IX: Kendall McGraw Laboratories, Sabana
Grande, Puerto Rico.
42. Case Study X: Various Automobile Dealers, Long
Island, New York.
43. Case Study XI: Permit Compliance System, New York.
44. Case Study XII: Lehigh Portland Cement Co.,
Woodsboro, Maryland.
5
-------
45. Case Study XIII: Applied ElectrOMeChaflics, Inc.,
Point of Rocks, Maryland.
46. Case Study XIV: Hammermill Paper Co., Erie,
Pennsylvania.
47. Case Study XV: Rodale (Square D), EmmauS Borough,
Pennsylvania.
48. Case Study XVI: National Wood Preservers, Haverford
Township, Pennsylvania.
49. Case Study XVII: Highway Auto Service Station,
PittstoWfl Township, Pennsylvania.
50. Case Study XVIII: Franklin A. Holland & Son, New
Church, Virginia.
51. Case Study XIX: Reverse Osmosis Brine Facility,
Florida.
52. Case Study XX: American Cyanamid, Michigan City,
Indiana.
53. Case Study XXI: PuregrO Co., Bakersfield,
California.
54. Case study XXII: Mef ford Field, Tulare, California.
55. Case Study XXIII: Kearney-KPF, Stockton, California.
56. Case Study XXIV: T.H. Agricultural and Nutrition
Co., FresnO, California.
57. Case Study XXV: Various Petroleum Refineries,
California.
58. Case Study XXVI: TinidyflalfliCS, Goodyear, Arizona.
59. Case study XXVII: Honeywell, Phoenix, Arizona.
6
-------
60. a. Table 1: Class V Deep Industrial Waste Disposal
Wells.
b. Table 2: Class V Shallow Industrial Waste Disposal
Wells.
c. Table 3: Class V Industrial Waste Disposal Wells
of Unknown Depth.
Gasoline Service Station Disposal Wells:
61. Table: Contaminant Levels in Samples Collected at
Catch Basins and Disposal Wells at Gasoline Service
Station and other Industrial Facilities in Long Island,
New York.
Recharge Wells
Aquifer Recharge Wells:
62. Class V Connector Wells (Class V Type 5R21 Wells)
(Florida).
63. National Artificial Recharge Activity - Past and
Present Projects, Demonstrations, Pilot Projects,
Experiments, and Studies — 1986.
64. Assessment of Irrigation Dual Purpose Wells, Texas,
1984.
Saline Water Intrusion Barrier Wells:
65. Injection/Extraction Well System - A Unique Seawater
Intrusion Barrier (Palo Alto, California), 1977.
7
-------
Subsidence Control Wells:
66. Case History No. 9.11. Alabama, U.S.A.
67. Case History No. 9.12. The Houston-Galveston Region,
Texas, U.S.A.
68. Case History No. 9.13. San Joaquin Valley, California,
U.S.A.
69. Case History No. 9.14. SantaClara Valley, California,
U.S.A.
Miscellaneous Wells
Radioactive Waste Disposal Wells:
70. Subsurface Disposal of Liquid Low—Level Radioactive
Wastes at Oak Ridge, Tennessee - March 1986.
71. Reverse Wells (Hanford, Washington).
72. Pertinent Correspondence and Information.
Experimental Technology Wells:
73. Aquifer Thermal Storage Experiments at the University
of Minnesota, St. Paul, Minnesota, U.S.A.
74. “The Cross Section” Newsletter Article (Texas):
Secondary Recovery Research Continues - Mound of Water
Present Following Air-Injection Test - July 1985.
Aquifer Remediation Related Wells:
75. Aquifer Remediation Wells in Oklahoma.
76. Wells Used for Aquifer Recharge - Colorado.
77. Cleaning Up Chemical Wastes - Army Moves to
Decontaminate Denver Aquifer - March 1981.
78. Selected Excerpt from Alabama State Report.
8
-------
Abandoned Drinking Water/Waste Disposal Wells:
79. Abandoned Well Information (Minnesota).
80. Permanent Well and Test Hole Abandonment (USEPA).
81. Sealing Abandoned Wells (AWWA).
9
------- |