United States Office of Ground Water EPA/816-R-99-014u
Environmental and Drinking Water (4601) September 1999
Protection Agency
The Class V Underground Injection
Control Study
Volume 21
Aquifer Recharge and Aquifer Storage
and Recovery Wells
-------
Table of Contents
Page
1. Summary 1
2. Introduction 2
3. Prevalence of Wells 4
4. Injectate Characteristics and Injection Practices 8
4.1 Injectate Characteristics 8
4.1.1 Aquifer Recharge Wells 8
4.1.2 ASR Wells 15
4.2 Well Characteristics 27
4.2.1 Design Features 27
4.2.2 Siting Considerations 29
4.3 Operational Practices 31
5. Potential and Documented Damage to USDWs 32
5.1 Injectate Constituent Properties 32
5.2 Observed Impacts 33
6. Best Management Practices 33
6.1 Aquifer Recharge and ASR Wells 33
6.1.1 Recharge Water Quality 33
6.1.2 Water Monitoring in Recharge Projects 34
6.1.3 Physical, Biological, Chemical, and Mechanical Clogging 34
6.2 ASR Wells 37
6.2.1 Location and Spacing of ASR Wells and Impact on Static
Ground Water Levels 37
6.2.2 Operation and Maintenance Practices for ASR Wells 37
7. Current Regulatory Requirements 38
7.1 Federal Programs 38
7.1.1 SDWA 38
7.1.2 Other Federal Rules and Programs 40
7.2 State and Local Programs 42
Attachment A: ASR Well Data Reported in Literature 45
Attachment B: ASR Facilities and Wells in Florida 47
Attachment C: State and Local Program Descriptions 49
References 66
September 30, 1999
-------
AQUIFER RECHARGE AND
AQUIFER STORAGE AND RECOVERY WELLS
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) conducted a study of Class V
underground injection wells to develop background information the Agency can use to evaluate
the risk that these wells pose to underground sources of drinking water (USDWs) and to
determine whether additional federal regulation is warranted. The final report for this study,
which is called the Class V Underground Injection Control (UIC) Study, consists of 23 volumes
and five supporting appendices. Volume 1 provides an overview of the study methods, the
USEPA UIC Program, and general findings. Volumes 2 through 23 present information
summaries for each of the 23 categories of wells that were studied. This volume, which is
Volume 21, covers two Class V well categories: aquifer recharge and aquifer storage and
recovery (ASR) wells.
1. SUMMARY
Aquifer recharge and ASR wells are used to replenish water in an aquifer for subsequent
use. While an aquifer recharge well is used only to replenish the water in an aquifer, ASR wells
are used to achieve two objectives: (1) storing water in the ground; and (2) recovering the stored
water (from the same well) for a beneficial use. Both of these types of wells, however, may have
secondary objectives, such as subsidence control and prevention of salt water intrusion into fresh
water aquifers. Aquifer recharge and ASR wells are found in areas of the U.S. that have high
population density and proximity to intensive agriculture; dependence and increasing demand on
ground water for drinking water and agriculture; and/or limited ground or surface water
availability. ASR wells are also found in areas that have no freshwater drinking water supplies,
or in coastal areas where salt water intrusion into freshwater aquifers is an issue.
Aquifer recharge and ASR well injectate consists of potable drinking water (from a
drinking water plant), ground water (treated or untreated), and surface water (treated or
untreated).1 Water injected into aquifer recharge and ASR wells is typically treated to meet
primary and secondary drinking water standards. This is done to protect the host aquifer and to
ensure that the quality of the ground water to be recovered is adequate for subsequent use. In
addition, most regulatory agencies require the injectate in aquifer recharge and ASR wells to
meet drinking water standards in order to prevent degradation of ambient ground water quality.
However, it should be noted that, in some instances, constituents have been measured at
concentrations slightly above drinking water standards.
Aquifer recharge and ASR wells are drilled to various depths depending on the depth of
the receiving aquifer. They may inject into confined, semi-confined, or unconfined aquifers,
although most of these wells inject into semi-confined aquifers that have been partially
dewatered due to overpumping.
1 Aquifer recharge and ASR well injecting only treated wastewater are addressed separately in
the sewage treatment effluent well summary, which is Volume 7 of the Class V UIC Study.
September 30, 1999
-------
No contamination incidents associated with the operation of aquifer recharge or ASR
wells have been reported.
Because the major goal of aquifer recharge and ASR wells is to replenish water in
aquifers for subsequent use and its injectate typically meets drinking water standards, aquifer
recharge and ASR wells are unlikely to receive spills or illicit discharges.
According to the state and USEPA Regional survey conducted for this study, there are
approximately 1,185 aquifer recharge and ASR wells documented in the U.S. This total includes
807 aquifer recharge wells, 130 ASR wells, and 248 wells (in California and Idaho) that cannot
be distinguished among aquifer recharge and ASR wells in the available inventory. The
estimated number of aquifer recharge and ASR wells in the nation is greater than 1,695, but
unlikely to be higher than 2,000. This estimate does not include 200 wells proposed to be built
in Florida as part of the "Everglades Restoration Project." Approximately 89 percent of the
documented aquifer recharge and ASR wells are located in ten states: California (200),
Colorado (9), Florida (<488), Idaho (48), Nevada (110), Oklahoma (44), Oregon (16), South
Carolina (55), Texas (67), and Washington (12). Wisconsin has conditionally approved one
ASR well as part of a pilot study at a municipal water system in Oak Creek, and a second pilot
project in Green Bay, Wisconsin is under development. The project in Green Bay is expected to
be operational within the next year.
The statutory and regulatory requirements differ significantly among the ten states where
the majority of the aquifer recharge and ASR wells are believed to exist. In California and
Colorado, USEPA Regions 9 and 8, respectively, directly implement the UIC program for Class
V injection wells. However, both states have additional jurisdiction over aquifer recharge and
ASR wells through state regional water quality control boards in California and permitting of
extraction and use of waters artificially recharged in Colorado. The remaining eight states are
UIC Primacy States for Class V wells. Oklahoma and Texas are UIC Primacy States that
authorize aquifer recharge and ASR wells by rule, while Florida, Nevada, Oregon, South
Carolina, and Washington require individual permits for the operation of aquifer recharge and
ASR wells. In Idaho, construction and operation of shallow injection wells (<18 feet) is
authorized by rule; construction and use of a deep injection well ( 18 feet) requires an individual
permit.
2. INTRODUCTION
Ground water is being increasingly used for agricultural, drinking, and industrial supplies
in the United States. As a result, the available supply of fresh ground water is decreasing at an
accelerated rate, and water managers and planners have been faced with the challenge of
developing water management techniques to meet water demands (O'Hare et al., 1986; Pyne,
1995).
One technique that has been used in recent years is artificial aquifer recharge. Artificial
recharge refers to the movement of water via man-made systems from the surface of the earth to
underground water-bearing strata where it may be stored for future use (Griffis, 1976). Such
recharge may be conducted for ground water resource management, water storage and recovery,
September 30, 1999 2
-------
prevention of salt water intrusion into fresh water aquifers, and subsidence control, among other
purposes (Bouwer et al., 1990; Crook et al., 1991; Fairchild, 1985; Hamlin, 1987; North Carolina
Division of Water Resources, 1996).
The advantages of aquifers over surface water impoundments as reservoirs for cyclic
storage of water are: (1) permanence; (2) no loss of storage capacity due to sedimentation; (3) no
loss of water due to evaporation; (4) less vulnerability to destruction and contamination; and (5)
the absence of threat to downstream communities (by eliminating the possibility of dams
breaking and floods occurring) (Kazmann, 1967).
Conventional methods of artificial recharge include surface spreading, infiltration pits
and basins, and injection wells. Injection wells are the selected method of artificial recharge in
areas where the existence of impermeable strata between the surface and the aquifer makes
recharge by surface infiltration impractical or in areas where land for surface spreading is
limited.
During the last 30 years, a special type of recharge well has been developed: ASR wells
(Wilson, 1999; Pyne, 1995). What distinguishes an ASR well from an aquifer recharge well is
its dual-purpose characteristic. While an aquifer recharge well is used only to replenish the
water in an aquifer, ASR wells are used to achieve two objectives: (1) storing water in the
ground; and (2) recovering the stored water (from the same well) for a beneficial use.
This summary addresses both aquifer recharge and ASR wells. These types of wells
usually inject water into water supply aquifers. According to the existing UIC regulations in 40
CFR 146.5(e)(6), "recharge wells used to replenish the water in an aquifer" are considered Class
V injection wells. ASR wells are considered Class V injection wells under the existing UIC
regulations in 40 CFR Parts 144 and 146, but ASR wells are not specifically defined in the
regulations.
Aquifer recharge and ASR wells that only inject reclaimed wastewaters are addressed
separately in the sewage treatment effluent well summary, which is Volume 7 of the Class V
UIC Study (the wells covered in this volume, Volume 21, do not inject sewage treatment effluent
or inject such effluent mixed with ground water and/or surface water). Aquifer recharge wells
used primarily for subsidence control or prevention of salt water intrusion into fresh water
aquifers are addressed in Volumes 20 and 23 of the Class V UIC Study, respectively.
Connector wells, which create a direct connection, or bore hole, from one aquifer to
another, are designed to drain surficial aquifers into a deeper aquifer and are used solely for
dewatering purposes, not in a recharge capacity. Thus, connector wells are considered special
drainage wells and are not included in this volume. For further information on connector wells,
see the special drainage information summary, which is Volume 14 of the Class V UIC Study.
Storm drainage wells, which may provide aquifer recharge while disposing of excess storm
water, are addressed separately in Volume 3 of the Class V UIC Study.
September 30, 1999
-------
3. PREVALENCE OF WELLS
The primary factors for locating aquifer recharge and ASR wells include: population
density and proximity to intensive agriculture in a low moisture region; dependence and
increasing demand on ground water for drinking water and agriculture; high seasonal
fluctuations in water demand and availability; and limited ground or surface water availability.
ASR wells are also found in areas that have no fresh water drinking water supply, or in coastal
areas where salt water intrusion into freshwater aquifers is an issue. Densely developed areas
tend to use recharge wells, while the Central and Western Plains States have more available open
land and are more likely to use recharge basins and infiltration areas. As the population grows,
as adequate land for the construction of surface reservoirs becomes increasingly scarce, and as
water sources become more limited, the use of aquifer recharge and ASR wells is expected to
increase.
Three studies looked at potential siting and future needs for artificial aquifer recharge.
Gulp (1981) developed water use and ground water mining projections for areas of the country
and identified the Great Plains and the southwest United States as requiring recharge or some
other action to alleviate water shortages. O'Hare et al. (1986) used a model based on agriculture
needs to identify areas for aquifer recharge. The model identified central areas of the Great
Plains and areas along the west and southeastern coasts of the United States. Fairchild (1985)
identified areas suitable for aquifer recharge in combination with a need for preventing salt water
intrusion. The areas suitable for recharge, according to Fairchild, corresponded to the same
areas identified by O'Hare (1986): central areas of the Great Plains and areas along the west and
southeastern coasts of the United States.
For this study, data on the number of Class V aquifer recharge and ASR wells were
collected through a survey of state and USEPA Regional UIC Programs. The survey methods
are summarized in Section 4 of Volume 1 of the Class V UIC Study. Table 1 lists the numbers
of Class V aquifer recharge and ASR wells in each state, as determined from this survey. The
table includes the documented number and estimated number of wells in each state, along with
the source and basis for any estimate, when noted by the survey respondents. If a state is not
listed in Table 1, it means that the UIC Program responsible for that state indicated in its survey
response that it did not have any Class V aquifer recharge or ASR wells.
As shown in Table 1, there are approximately 1,185 aquifer recharge and ASR wells
documented in the United States. This total includes 807 aquifer recharge wells, 130 ASR wells,
and 248 recharge wells (in California and Idaho) that cannot be distinguished among aquifer
recharge and ASR wells in the available inventory. The estimated number of aquifer recharge
and ASR wells in the nation is believed to be greater than 1,695 (1,300 aquifer recharge wells,
147 ASR wells, and the 248 wells in California and Idaho that are either aquifer recharge or ASR
wells. These estimates include 404 in Florida that were reported as aquifer recharge wells.
However, there is a possibility that a high number of these 404 wells are storm drainage wells or
September 30, 1999
-------
Table 1. Inventory of Aquifer Recharge and
Aquifer Storage and Recovery Wells in the United States
State
Documented
Number of Wells
Estimated Number of Wells
Number
Source of Estimate and Methodology1
Type of
Well
(AR/ASR)
USEPA Region 1
NH
2
2
N/A
AR
USEPA Region 2
NJ
NY
NR
102
0
NR
NR
500
N/A
N/A
Best professional judgement.
AR
ASR
AR
USEPA Region 3
DE
PA
VA
WV
2
NR
NR
I2
1
2
NR
NR
NR
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
State officials believe that the documented number
of aquifer recharge wells in the state is accurate.
ASR
AR
AR
ASR
AR
USEPA Region 4
FL
NC
sc
TN
<404
>84 wells at
28 facilities
0
55
I3
<404
>84 wells at
28 facilities
(200 more wells to
be built)
0
55
NR
N/A
N/A
Aquifer recharge wells are not being used to date,
but state officials note that they are aware of plans
to construct this type of well in the future.
N/A
N/A
AR
ASR
AR
AR
ASR
USEPA Region 5
IL
WI
5
1
2
1
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency has
recent documentation for just two wells and believes
that only two are still operating. The last
correspondence on these wells was in May 1996.
One pilot test well approved conditionally as part of
an American Water Works Association Research
Foundation study (Wilson, 1999).
AR
ASR
September 30, 1999
-------
Table 1. Inventory of Aquifer Recharge and
Aquifer Storage and Recovery Wells in the United States (continued)
State
Documented
Number of Wells
Estimated Number of Wells
Number
Source of Estimate and Methodology1
Type of
Well
(AR/ASR)
USEPA Region 6
OK
TX
44
66
1
44
66
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
AR
AR
ASR
USEPA Region 7
IA
KS
1
1
1
1
N/A
N/A
ASR
ASR
USEPA Region 8
CO
SD
UT
WY
2
7
1
3
3 wells/1 site
(WDEQ)
6 sites
(WY Database)
NR
7
1
>3
3 wells/1 site
N/A
N/A
N/A
Inventory forms received in fiscal year 1998 are not
reflected in the documented number because of an
anticipated change in data systems.
Best professional judgement. The additional wells
listed in the WY Database were never constructed or
were closed shortly after commencing operations.
AR
ASR
AR
ASR
AR
USEPA Region 9
AZ
CA
GU
NV
2
81 (Region 9)
200 (Central Valley
Region)
102
110
>2
81 (Region 9)
200 (Central Valley
Region)
NR
110
Best professional judgement (Olson, 1999).
USEPA Region 9 does not distinguish between ASR
and aquifer recharge wells; both are coded 5R21 in
the inventory. Therefore, the exact number of ASR
wells cannot be determined by examining the
inventory.
County and State Regional Water Quality Control
Boards maintain Class V inventories. The extent to
which USEPA Region 9 inventory data overlap
county and state inventory data is unknown.
Documented number of wells was obtained from
Region database. However, Region acknowledges
that this database is not entirely accurate because
Guam was granted Primacy for the Class V UIC
program in May 1983.
N/A
AR
AR/ASR
AR
AR
September 30, 1999
-------
Table 1. Inventory of Aquifer Recharge and
Aquifer Storage and Recovery Wells in the United States (continued)
State
Documented
Number of Wells
Estimated Number of Wells
Number
Source of Estimate and Methodology1
Type of
Well
(AR/ASR)
USEPA Region 10
ID
OR
WA
48
4
12
6
6
48
0
15
6
<20
This number combines ASR and aquifer recharge
wells, both of which are coded as 5R21 wells in the
available inventory (Terada, 1999).
Best professional judgement (Priest, 1999).
Best professional judgement (Priest, 1999).
N/A
Best professional judgement.
AR/ASR
AR
ASR
AR
ASR
All USEPA Regions
All states
1,185
(807 AR, 130 ASR,
and 248 AR/ASR)
> 1,695
(1,300 AR, 147 ASR,
and 248 AR/ASR)
Total estimated number counts the documented
number when estimate is NR.
Estimated number of wells does not include 200
ASR wells proposed to be built in Florida as part of
the new "Everglades Project."
ARand
ASR
1 Unless otherwise noted, the best professional judgement is that of the state or USEPA Regional staff completing the survey
questionnaire.
2 The number of documented wells was not reported by the USEPA Region or the state. Number of wells was obtained from
literature.
3 This injection well was permitted as an experimental well because, although ASR technology had been demonstrated in other
states, this is the first such system to be constructed in Tennessee (TDEC, 1996a, 1996b).
AR Aquifer recharge well.
ASR Aquifer storage and recovery well.
N/A Not available.
NR Although USEPA Regional, state, and/or territorial officials reported the presence of the well type, the number of
wells was not reported, or the questionnaire was not returned.
September 30, 1999
-------
connector wells (Deuerling, 1999). It should also be noted that the estimated number of aquifer
recharge and ASR wells does not include 200 ASR wells proposed to be built in Florida as part
of the "Everglades Restoration Project."
The Everglades Restoration Project, officially known as the Central and South Florida
(C&SF) Project, was authorized by Congress in 1948 and completed by the mid 1960s. It is a
multi-purpose project that provides flood control; water supply for municipal, industrial, and
agricultural uses; prevention of salt water intrusion; water supply for Everglades National Park;
and protection offish and wildlife resources. The primary system includes about 1,000 miles
each of levees and canals, 150 water control structures, and 16 major pump stations. One set of
problems has given way to a new set of equally critical problems that threatens the final collapse
of what remains of the natural system, along with the resulting impacts to the population and
economy of the region (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1996).
In 1993, the Army Corps of Engineers initiated a comprehensive review of the C&SF
Project (C&SF Restudy), and a Federal Interagency Task Force, chaired by the Department of
the Interior, was convened to coordinate ongoing restoration efforts and guide the Corps in its
C&SF Restudy. The purpose of the C&SF Restudy was to determine the feasibility of structural
or operational modifications to the project essential to restoration of the Everglades and Florida
Bay ecosystems while providing for other water related needs including urban water supplies
(U.S. Department of the Interior, 1996).
Additional information on ASR wells is provided in Attachments A and B of this volume.
Attachment A provides the location, operational information, storage zone, and number of ASR
wells, as reported in the literature, of some of the ASR facilities in the national inventory.
Attachment B details the permitting and operational status, as well as type of injectate, of the 28
ASR facilities located in Florida.
4. INJECTATE CHARACTERISTICS AND INJECTION
PRACTICES
4.1 Injectate Characteristics
4.1.1 Aquifer Recharge Wells
Sources of injectate in aquifer recharge wells known to exist in the United States are
listed in Table 2. As shown in this table, aquifer recharge well injectate consists of treated
drinking water, surface water (treated or untreated), surface runoff, and ground water (treated or
untreated). Treated municipal wastewater (i.e., reclaimed water) also is being used for aquifer
recharge, but wells injecting only this type of fluid are covered in the sewage treatment effluent
well summary, which is Volume 7 of the Class V UIC Study.
September 30, 1999
-------
Table 2: Source of Injectate for Aquifer Recharge Wells in the United States1
State
NH
NJ
NY
PA
VA
WV
FL
NC
sc
IL
OK
TX
CO
SD
WY
AZ
CA
NV
GU
ID
OR
WA
Source of Injectate
Untreated surface (river) water that meets drinking water standards.
NR
Untreated surface water.
NR
NR
Treated drinking water.
Treated surface water and reclaimed water.
NR
Surface water treated to drinking water standards.
Surface water from the Illinois River.
Unknown.
Generally, overland flow.
NR
Surface water from the James River treated at the City of Huron Water
Treatment Plant prior to injection.
Fluids dewatered from a clinker unit of a surface coal mine.
Untreated surface water.
Treated ground water.
93 wells inject surface water with disinfection only.
17 wells inject untreated ground water at mine dewatering sites.
NR
47 wells inject untreated surface water.
1 well injects water treated to drinking water standards.
3 wells inject shallow (<50 feet) ground water.
1 well injects surface water treated with disinfection only.
Treated water. Treatment depends on background water quality.
1 All data presented in the table were obtained from states and USEPA Regions.
NR Not reported.
September 30, 1999
-------
Two aquifer recharge projects in the High Plains Region of the United States provide
examples of the quality of water being injected into aquifer recharge wells. The first example is
the Huron Project in South Dakota. This aquifer recharge project uses high flows from the
James River during the spring runoff period as a source of water, treats this water in the City of
Huron's water treatment plant, and injects the water into the Warren Aquifer. The Huron Project
is one of the projects implemented by the Bureau of Reclamation and local sponsors in
cooperation with USEPA and the United States Geological Survey under the "High Plains States
Ground Water Demonstration Program Act of 1983," Public Law 98-434 (the Act). The Act
authorizes and directs the Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation, to
engage in a special study of the potential for ground water recharge in the High Plains States
(Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Texas, and Wyoming)
and other Reclamation Act States (Arizona, California, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota,
Oregon, Utah, and Washington) (Schaefer et al., 1994). The primary purpose of the Act is to
advance the state-of-the-art in ground water recharge techniques (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation,
1996). For each demonstration program established under the Act, monitoring data have to be
collected for a period of four to five years and a final report has to be submitted to Congress. A
summary report will be submitted to Congress at the conclusion of the demonstration projects,
currently estimated to be early in fiscal year 2000 (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, No date #1).
Injectate data for the Huron Project in South Dakota, along with drinking water standards
for the purpose of comparison, are presented in Table 3. As seen in the table, all constituents
analyzed, except fluoride, meet primary and secondary drinking water standards. For fluoride,
concentrations ranging between 8 and 14 mg/1 were measured. The primary drinking water
standard for fluoride is 4 mg/1.
The second example is the use of aquifer recharge wells in the High Plains Region of
Texas. This type of well is used to recharge ground water aquifers when surface water is in
surplus. Constituent concentrations in waters of the High Plains Aquifer and in recharge waters
are presented in Table 4. Comparison of constituent concentrations in aquifer waters with
corresponding recharge waters suggest that the injected water may often be of better quality than
that of the receiving aquifer. In addition, all constituents in the recharge waters, for which
chemical analysis data are available, meet drinking water standards. The only exception is the
recharge waters of Hockley County for which the pH was 9. The secondary drinking water
standard for pH is 6.5 to 8.5.
September 30, 1999 10
-------
Table 3. Injectate Data for Recharge Water Used in the Huron Project
Parameter
Drinking Water Standard1
(mg/1, unless otherwise
indicated)
Health Advisory Level
(mg/1, unless otherwise
indicated)
Range of Concentrations
(mg/1, unless otherwise
indicated)
Organics
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,3-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethy lene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
2,4-D
2,4,5-T
2,4-DP
Aldrin
Chlordane
DDD
DDE
DDT
Dieldrin
Endosulfan I
Endrin
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Lindane
Methoxychlor
Mirex
Perthane
0.005 (F)
0.005 (F)
0.6 (F)
N/A
0.075 (F)
0.005 (F)
0.007 (F)
0.2 (F)
0.005 (F)
0.002 (F)
0.07 (F)
L
N/A
N/A
0.002 (F)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.002 (F)
0.0004 (F)
0.0002 (F)
0.0002 (F)
0.04 (F)
N/A
N/A
0.1 (F,C)
0.03 (F,C)
0.6 (F,N)
0.6 (F,N)
0.075 (F,N)
0.04 (F,C)
0.007 (F,N)
0.2 (F,N)
0.3 (F,C)
0.0015 (F,C)
0.07 (F,N)
0.07 (F,N)
N/A
0.0002 (D,C)
0.003 (F,C)
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.0002 (F,C)
N/A
0.002 (F,N)
0.0008 (F,C)
0.0004 (F,C)
0.0002 (F,N)
0.04 (F,N)
N/A
N/A
0.003
O.003
0.003
O.003
0.003
O.003
0.003
O.003
0.003
O.001
0.00001 - 0.00025
0. 00001 - 0.00001
0.00001 - 0.00001
0. 00001 - 0.00001
0.00001-0.0001
0. 00001 - 0.00001
0.00001 - 0.00001
0. 00001 - 0.00001
0.00001 - 0.00001
0. 00001 - 0.00001
0.00001 - 0.00001
0. 00001 - 0.00001
0.00001 - 0.00001
0. 00001 - 0.00001
0.00001 - 0.00001
0. 00001 - 0.00001
0.0001-0.0001
September 30, 1999
11
-------
Table 3. Injectate Data for Recharge Water Used in the Huron Project (continued)
Parameter
Polychlorobiphenyls
Polychlorophthalenes
Silvex (2,4,5-TP)
Toxaphene
Dichlorobromomethane
Bromoform
Chlorodibromomethane
Chlorofonn
Drinking Water Standard1
(mg/1, unless otherwise
indicated)
0.0005 (F)
N/A
0.05 (F)
0.003 (F)
N/A
0.1 (P)
0.1 (P)
0.1 (P)
Health Advisory Level
(mg/1, unless otherwise
indicated)
0.0005 (P,C)
N/A
0.05 (F,N)
0.003 (F,C)
N/A
0.4 (D,C)
0.06 (D,N)
0.6 (D,C)
Range of Concentrations
(mg/1, unless otherwise
indicated)
0.0001- 0.0001
<0. 0001 -0.0001
0.00001 - 0.00001
<0. 001 -0.001
0.0075 - 0.021
O.003
0.0035-0.017
0.0093-0.021
Inorganics
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chloride
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Fluoride
Iron
Lead
Lithium
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
0.05 (R)
2(F)
0.004 (F)
L
0.005 (F)
N/A
Secondary MCL: 250 (F)
0.1 (F)
N/A
1 .3 (F) (action level, at tap)
Secondary MCL: 1 (F)
4 (F,R)
Secondary MCL: 2 (F)
Secondary MCL: 0.3 (F)
0.015 (action level, at tap) (F)
N/A
N/A
L
Secondary MCL: 0.05 (F)
0.002 (F)
L
0.1 (F)2
0.002 (D,C)
2 (F,N)
0.0008 (D,C)
0.6 (D,N)
0.005 (F,N)
N/A
N/A
0.1 (F,N)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.002 (F,N)
0.04 (D,N)
0.1 (F,N)
O.001
0.012-0.020
O.0005
0.2-0.4
O.001
37-53
69- 100
0.005
O.003
0.01
8- 14-
0.005-0.009
O.01
0.05-0.07
12-20
0.002 - 0.003
O.0001
0. 01 -0.01
O.01
September 30, 1999
12
-------
Table 3. Injectate Data for Recharge Water Used in the Huron Project (continued)
Parameter
Ammonia
Nitrate, as N
Phosphorus
Orthopho sphorus
Potassium
Selenium
Silica
Silver
Sodium
Strontium
Sulfate
Vanadium
Zinc
Drinking Water Standard1
(mg/1, unless otherwise
indicated)
N/A
10 (F)
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.05 (F)
N/A
Secondary MCL: 0.1 (F)
N/A
N/A
500 (P)
Secondary MCL: 250 (F)
T
L
Secondary MCL: 5 (F)
Health Advisory Level
(mg/1, unless otherwise
indicated)
30 (D,N)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.1 (D,N)
D
N/A
D
D
2 (D,N)
Range of Concentrations
(mg/1, unless otherwise
indicated)
0.59-0.98
<0. 1-0.1
0.578-0.593
0.02 - 0.063
17-23
O.001
4.6-8.8
O.001
100-190
0.24-0.37
230 - 440
O.006
0.003 -0.004
Radionuclides
Gross Beta, as CS- 137
Gross Beta, as SR/YT-90
Gross Alpha, as U-Nat
Radium 226/228
4 mrem/y (27.7 pCi/1) (F)
4 mrem/y (27.7 pCi/1) (F)
15pCi/l(F)
Combined Radium 226 and
228: 5pCi/l(F)
4 mrem/y (27.7 pCi/1) (C)
4 mrem/y (27.7 pCi/1) (C)
15pCi/l(C)
Combined Radium 226 and
228: 20pCi/l(C)
7.5 - 24 pCi/1
5.6-18pCi/l
<0.4-1.2pCi/l
0.1/OpCi/l
Data Sources: South Dakota State University, 1993 and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, No date #2
1 Primary maximum contaminant level (MCL), unless otherwise noted.
2 Being remanded.
Regulatory Status:
F Final
D Draft
L Listed for regulation
Health Advisory:
C 10"4 cancer risk
P Proposed
R Under Review
T Tentative (not officially proposed)
N Noncancer lifetime
N/A Not available.
Exceeds primary and secondary drinking water standards.
September 30, 1999
13
-------
Table 4. Constituent Concentrations in Aquifer and Recharge Waters, High Plains Aquifer, TX
Parameter
Nitrate
Silica
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Potassium
Carbonate
Bicarbonate
Sulfate
Chloride
Fluoride
PH
Total Dissolved Solids
Drinking Water Standard1
(mg/1, unless otherwise
indicated)
10 (F)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
500 (P)
Secondary MCL: 250 (F)
Secondary MCL: 250 (F)
4 (F,R)
Secondary MCL: 2 (F)
Secondary MCL: 6.5 - 8.5
Secondary MCL: 500 (F)
Health Advisory Level
(mg/1, unless otherwise
indicated)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
D
N/A
N/A
N/A
D
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Concentrations at
Dawson County Well2
(mg/1, unless otherwise
indicated)
Aquifer
Waters
43
70
61
53
65
8
375
81
68
4.5
7.8
637.8
Recharge
Waters
0.04
2
39
3
25
6
0
113
32
33
0.3
8.3
206
Concentrations at
Hockley County Well2
(mg/1, unless otherwise
indicated)
Aquifer
Waters
8.4
50
60
88
61
337
218
86
4.4
8.4
741.5
Recharge
Waters
0.04
2
27
7
15
6
6
87
24
20
0.5
9-
154
Concentrations at
Edwards County Well3
(mg/1, unless otherwise
indicated)
Aquifer
Waters
7.2
11
63
8
8
211
7
15
0.2
8.1
223.1
Recharge
Waters
0.04
11
60
1
6
12
0
183
10
15
0.1
8
222
Data Source: Texas Department of Water Resources, 1984
1 Primary maximum contaminant level (MCL), unless otherwise noted.
2 Ogallala Aquifer.
3 Edwards Aquifer.
Regulatory Status: F: Final; D: Draft; R: Under Review
N/A Not available.
Exceeds secondary drinking water standard.
September 30, 1999
14
-------
4.1.2 ASR Wells
Sources of injectate in ASR wells known to exist in the United States are listed in Table
5. As shown in the table, ASR well injectate consists of potable drinking water (from a drinking
water plant), surface water (treated or untreated), ground water (treated or untreated), and
reclaimed water. For further discussion on ASR wells injecting reclaimed water, see the sewage
treatment effluent well summary, which is Volume 7 of the Class V UIC Study.
Table 5: Source of Injectate for ASR Wells in the United States1
State
NJ
DE
VA
FL
WI
TX
IA
KS
CO
UT
CA
OR
WA
Source of Injectate
NR
Ground water from another aquifer; the water may be treated and disinfected.
NR
Treated potable drinking water (from a drinking water plant), untreated (raw)
ground water, untreated (raw) surface water, reclaimed water, and partially
treated surface water.
Surface water treated to drinking water standards.
Surface water treated to drinking water standards.
Surface water treated to drinking water standards.
Untreated ground water infiltrated from the Little Arkansas River.
Surface water treated to drinking water standards.
Surface and spring water treated to drinking water standards.
Treated ground water.
Surface water treated to drinking water standards.
Surface water treated to drinking water standards. The Washington State
Legislature recently authorized injection of treated wastewater (tertiary
treatment) on a pilot basis. To the state's knowledge, none of this type of well
currently exists, but activity is expected in the near future.
1 All data presented in the table were obtained from states and USEPA Regions.
NR Not reported.
In cases where injectate constituents react with ambient ground water causing an increase
in constituent concentrations or the formation of new compounds, pretreatment techniques are
used. For example, injectate of ASR wells at the Swimming River site in New Jersey is
pretreated in order to control excessive iron concentrations (i.e., concentrations above secondary
drinking water standards) in the recovered water. These techniques involve lowering pH to
control the precipitation of ferric hydroxide floe in the aquifer, followed by a buffer volume of
deoxygenated water at normal pH.
September 30, 1999
15
-------
To provide a representative characterization of the injectate used in ASR operations,
injectate data from four facilities are summarized in Tables 6 through 8. For the purpose of
comparison, the tables also present available drinking water standards. A brief discussion of
these data follows.
Table 6 presents injectate data for the ASR wells operated by the Centennial Water and
Sanitation District, Denver, Colorado. The injectate in these wells is treated surface water and
treated ground water, when surface water is not readily available. As shown in this table, the
only two constituents that do not meet the primary drinking water standards are radium and lead.
For radium (radium 226 and 228), a concentration of 5.03 pCi/1 was found during one of the
sample events (July 28, 1998). The primary drinking water standard for combined radium 226
and 228 is 5 pCi/1. For lead, a concentration of 0.025 mg/1 was found in one of the samples
(February 11, 1998). The action level for lead is 0.015 mg/1, at the tap.
Table 7 presents injectate data for the four ASR wells at Woodmansee Park in the City of
Salem, Oregon. These ASR wells, which inject treated surface water, are being used as a
secondary source of water for emergency needs and for supplemental needs during high water
use summer seasons. As shown in the table, all constituents analyzed meet drinking water
standards.
Table 8 presents injectate data for the ASR well operated by the Memphis Light, Gas,
and Water Division (MLGWD). This well injects treated drinking water. As shown in Table 8,
the injectate meets primary drinking water standards for all constituents analyzed.
As mentioned earlier, 200 new ASR wells have been proposed to be used as part of the
C&SF Restudy. These wells would inject untreated surface water, which will not meet primary
or secondary drinking water standards at the point of discharge (Wilson, 1999).
September 30, 1999 16
-------
Table 6. Injectate Data for the ASR System
at Centennial Water and Sanitation District, Highlands Ranch, Colorado
Parameter
Drinking Water Standard1
(mg/1, unless otherwise
indicated)
Health Advisory Level
(mg/1, unless otherwise
indicated)
Range of Concentrations
(mg/1, unless otherwise
indicated)
Volatile Organic Chemicals
Benzene
Bromobenzene
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
o-Chlorotoluene
p-Chlorotoluene
Dibromomethane
m-Dichlorobenzene (1,3-
Dichlorobenzene)
o-Dichlorobenzene (1,2-
Dichlorobenzene)
p-Dichlorobenzene (1,4-
Dichlorobenzene)
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethy lene
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
Dichloromethane (Methylene Chloride)
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
1 ,3-Dichloropropane
2,2-Dichloropropane
1 , 1 -Dichloropropene
0.005 (F)
L
0.1 (P)
0.1 (P)
T
0.005 (F)
N/A
L
0.1 (P)
L
L
L
L
N/A
0.6 (F)
0.075 (F)
N/A
0.005 (F)
0.007 (F)
0.07 (F)
0.1 (F)
0.005 (F)
0.005 (F)
L
L
N/A
0.1 (F,C)
D
0.06 (D,C)
0.4 (D,C)
0.01 (D,N)
0.03 (F,C)
N/A
D
0.6 (D,C)
0.003 (F,N)
0.1 (F,N)
0.1 (F,N)
N/A
0.6 (F,N)
0.6 (F,N)
0.075 (F,N)
N/A
0.04 (F,C)
0.007 (F,N)
0.07 (F,N)
0.1 (F,N)
0.5 (F,C)
0.06 (F,C)
D
D
D
-------
Table 6. Injectate Data for the ASR System
at Centennial Water and Sanitation District, Highlands Ranch, Colorado (continued)
Parameter
1 ,3-Dichloropropene
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
1,1,1 ,2-Tetrachloroethane
1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1 ,1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
1 ,2,3-Trichloropropane
Vinyl Chloride
m-Xylene
o-Xylene
p-Xylene
Drinking Water Standard1
(mg/1, unless otherwise
indicated)
T
0.7 (F)
0.1 (F)
L
L
0.005 (F)
1(F)
0.005 (F)
0.005 (F)
L
0.002 (F)
10 (F)2
10 (F)2
10 (F)2
Health Advisory Level
(mg/1, unless otherwise
indicated)
0.02 (F,C)
0.7 (F,N)
0.1 (F,N)
0.07 (F,N)
0.1 (F,C)
D
0.07 (F,C)
1 (F,N)
0.003 (F,N)
0.3 (F,C)
0.04 (F,N)
0.5 (F,C)
0.0015 (F,C)
10 (F,N)3
10 (F,N)3
10 (F,N)3
Range of Concentrations
(mg/1, unless otherwise
indicated)
-------
Table 6. Injectate Data for the ASR System
at Centennial Water and Sanitation District, Highlands Ranch, Colorado (continued)
Parameter
Drinking Water Standard1
(mg/1, unless otherwise
indicated)
Health Advisory Level
(mg/1, unless otherwise
indicated)
Range of Concentrations
(mg/1, unless otherwise
indicated)
Radionuclides
Gross Alpha
Gross Beta
Radium 226
Radium 228
15pCi/l(F)
4 mrem/y (27.7 pCi/1) (F)
Combined Radium 226 and
228: 5pCi/l(F)
15pCi/l(C)
4 mrem/y (27.7 pCi/1) (C)
Combined Radium 226 and
228: 20pCi/l(C)
5.3-13.8pCi/l
5.2 - 12.4 pCi/1
0.31 -2.42 pCi/1-
1.0 -2.61 pCi/1-
Pesticides
Endrin
Lindane
Methoxychlor
Toxaphene
0.002 (F)
0.0002 (F)
0.04 (F)
0.003 (F)
0.002 (F,N)
0.0002 (F,N)
0.04 (F,N)
0.003 (F,C)
-------
Table 7. Injectate Data for ASR System in City of Salem, Oregon
Parameter
Drinking Water Standard1
(mg/1, unless otherwise
indicated)
Health Advisory Level
(mg/1, unless otherwise
indicated)
Concentration
(mg/1, unless otherwise
indicated)
Organics
Benzene
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethy lene
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
Dichloromethane (Methylene Chloride)
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
Ethylbenzene
Styrene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1 ,1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
Vinyl Chloride
Xylenes
Bromobenzene
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Bromomethane
0.005 (F)
0.005 (F)
N/A
0.6 (F)
0.075 (F)
0.005 (F)
0.007 (F)
0.07 (F)
0.1 (F)
0.005 (F)
0.005 (F)
0.7 (F)
0.1 (F)
0.005 (F)
1(F)
0.07 (F)
0.2 (F)
0.005 (F)
0.005 (F)
0.002 (F)
10 (F)
L
0.1 (P)
0.1 (P)
T
0.1 (F,C)
0.03 (F,C)
N/A
0.6 (F,N)
0.075 (F,N)
0.04 (F,C)
0.007 (F,N)
0.07 (F,N)
0.1 (F,N)
0.5 (F,C)
0.06 (F,C)
0.7 (F,N)
0.1 (F,N)
0.07 (F,C)
1 (F,N)
0.07 (F,N)
0.2 (F,N)
0.003 (F,N)
0.3 (F,C)
0.0015 (F,C)
10 (F,N)
D
0.06 (D,N)
0.4 (D,C)
0.01 (D,N)
-------
Table 7. Injectate Data for ASR System in City of Salem, Oregon (continued)
Parameter
Chloroethane
Chloroform
Chloromethane
2,4-D
Silvex (2,4,5-TP)
Aldrin
Chlordane
Dieldrin
Endrin
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Lindane
Methoxychlor
Toxaphene
Drinking Water Standard1
(mg/1, unless otherwise
indicated)
L
0.1 (P)
L
0.07 (F)
0.05 (F)
N/A
0.002 (F)
N/A
0.002 (F)
0.0004 (F)
0.0002 (F)
0.0002 (F)
0.04 (F)
0.003 (F)
Health Advisory Level
(mg/1, unless otherwise
indicated)
D
0.6 (D,C)
0.003 (F,N)
0.07 (F,N)
0.05 (F,N)
0.0002 (D,C)
0.003 (F,C)
0.0002 (F,C)
0.002 (F,N)
0.0008 (F,C)
0.0004 (F,C)
0.0002 (F,N)
0.04 (F,N)
0.003 (F,C)
Concentration
(mg/1, unless otherwise
indicated)
-------
Table 7. Injectate Data for ASR System in City of Salem, Oregon (continued)
Parameter
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Nitrate, as N
Potassium
Selenium
Silica
Silver
Sodium
Sulfate
Zinc
Drinking Water Standard1
(mg/1, unless otherwise
indicated)
0.015 (action level, at tap) (F)
N/A
L
Secondary MCL: 0.05 (F)
0.002 (F)
0.1 (F)2
10 (F)
N/A
0.05 (F)
N/A
Secondary MCL: 0.1 (F)
N/A
500 (P)
Secondary MCL: 250 (F)
L
Secondary MCL: 5 (F)
Health Advisory Level
(mg/1, unless otherwise
indicated)
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.002 (F,N)
0.1 (F,N)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.1 (D,N)
D
D
2 (D,N)
Concentration
(mg/1, unless otherwise
indicated)
0.0003
1.1
0.0005
-------
Table 7. Injectate Data for ASR System in City of Salem, Oregon (continued)
Parameter
Drinking Water Standard1
(mg/1, unless otherwise
indicated)
Health Advisory Level
(mg/1, unless otherwise
indicated)
Concentration
(mg/1, unless otherwise
indicated)
Other Parameters
Alkalinity
Conductivity
Hardness
PH
Total Dissolved Solids
Turbidity
N/A
N/A
N/A
Secondary MCL: 6.5-8.5
Secondary MCL: 500 (F)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
15
44 uhmos/cm
14
7.02
25
0.27 NTU
Data Sources: City of Salem, 1999
1 Primary maximum contaminant level (MCL), unless otherwise noted.
2 Being remanded.
Regulatory Status:
F Final
L Listed for regulation
R Under Review
Health Advisory:
C 10"4 cancer risk
-------
Table 8. Injectate Data for the ASR System
Operated by the Memphis Light, Gas, and Water Division in Tennessee
Parameter
Drinking Water Standard1
(mg/1, unless otherwise
indicated)
Health Advisory Level
(mg/1, unless otherwise
indicated)
Concentration
(mg/1, unless otherwise
indicated)
Volatile Organic Chemicals
Benzene
Bromodichloromethane
Bromoform
Carbon Tetrachloride
Chloroform
Dibromochloromethane
Dibromochloropropane
1 ,2-Dibromoethane
o-Dichlorobenzene ( 1 ,2-Dichlorobenzene)
p-Dichlorobenzene ( 1 ,4-Dichlorobenzene)
1 , 1 -Dichloroethane
1 ,2-Dichloroethane
1 , 1 -Dichloroethy lene
cis-1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
trans- 1 ,2-Dichloroethylene
Dichloromethane (Methylene Chloride)
1 ,2-Dichloropropane
Ethylbenzene
Monochlorobenzene
Styrene
1,1,1 ,2-Tetrachloroethane
1 ,1 ,2,2-Tetrachloroethane
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
1 ,2,3-Trichlorobenzene
0.005 (F)
0.1 (P)
0.1 (P)
0.005 (F)
0.1 (P)
0.1 (P)
0.0002 (F)
N/A
0.6 (F)
0.075 (F)
N/A
0.005 (F)
0.007 (F)
0.07 (F)
0.1 (F)
0.005 (F)
0.005 (F)
0.7 (F)
0.1 (F)
0.1 (F)
L
L
0.005 (F)
1(F)
N/A
0.1 (F,C)
0.06 (D,N)
0.4 (D,C)
0.03 (F,C)
0.6 (D,C)
0.06 (D,N)
0.003 (F,C)
N/A
0.6 (F,N)
0.075 (F,N)
N/A
0.04 (F,C)
0.007 (F,N)
0.07 (F,N)
0.1 (F,N)
0.5 (F,C)
0.06 (F,C)
0.7 (F,N)
0.1 (F,N)
0.1 (F,N)
0.07 (F,N)
0.1 (F,C)
D
0.07 (F,C)
1 (F,N)
N/A
-------
Table 8. Injectate Data for the Aquifer Storage and Recovery System
Operated by the Memphis Light, Gas, and Water Division in Tennessee (continued)
Parameter
1 ,2,4-Trichlorobenzene
1,1,1 -Trichloroethane
1 ,1 ,2-Trichloroethane
Trichloroethylene
1 ,2,3-Trichloropropane
1 ,2,4-Trimethylbenzene
Vinyl Chloride
Xylenes
Drinking Water Standard1
(mg/1, unless otherwise
indicated)
0.07 (F)
0.2 (F)
0.005 (F)
0.005 (F)
L
N/A
0.002 (F)
10 (F)
Health Advisory Level
(mg/1, unless otherwise
indicated)
0.07 (F,N)
0.2 (F,N)
0.003 (F,N)
0.3 (F,C)
0.04 (F,N)
0.5 (F,C)
D
0.0015 (F,C)
10 (F,N)
Concentration
(mg/1, unless otherwise
indicated)
-------
Table 8. Injectate Data for the Aquifer Storage and Recovery System
Operated by the Memphis Light, Gas, and Water Division in Tennessee (continued)
Parameter
Phosphate
Selenium
Silica
Sulfate
Thallium
Zinc
Drinking Water Standard1
(mg/1, unless otherwise
indicated)
N/A
0.05 (F)
N/A
500 (P)
Secondary MCL: 250 (F)
0.002 (F)
L
Secondary MCL: 5 (F)
Health Advisory Level
(mg/1, unless otherwise
indicated)
N/A
N/A
N/A
D
0.0005 (F,N)
2 (D,N)
Concentration
(mg/1, unless otherwise
indicated)
1
-------
4.2 Well Characteristics
4.2.1 Design Features
Although the design and construction of aquifer recharge and ASR wells depend on site-
specific conditions and the intended use of the recharged water after withdrawal (e.g., drinking
water versus agricultural water), the components of most recharge wells are very similar. These
include: (1) the well casing; (2) the well screen (except in rock and other open hole wells); (3)
sand/gravel (filter) pack around the screen (except in rock and other open hole wells); (4)
grout/cement around the casing; and (5) a pump. Figure 1 illustrates a typical recharge well.
Figure 2 shows schematics of a typical ASR well.
Figure 1. Typical Recharge Well
Figure 2. Typical ASR Well
Sand jAquif
- Casing
Concrete or
grout seal
Downspout
Fitter pack
- VtfeHsereen
Source:
Powers, 1992
ASR Well (ASR-1) Observation
Well 1 (OW-1)
NaluralGamrna
Ragbag
AHDSrOHE, Sight
Ire- co o
grjIn
E3 SilyS
20 dQ 60 50
API U nte
ES Calcare
Source: Pyne, 1995 (ASR well in Marathon, Florida)
September 30, 1999
27
-------
Uncoated steel casing is typically used in the construction of injection wells. However,
steel-cased ASR wells are more vulnerable to rusting than most other injection wells because
alternating periods of recharge and recovery during ASR operations expose a large surface area
to frequent wetting and drying. This frequent wetting and drying causes rust to form on the
inside of the well. During recharge periods, the rust becomes suspended in injection water with
other solids and contributes to well clogging. To avoid this problem, ASR wells may be
constructed using material that will not contribute to the production of rustin particular,
polyvinyl chloride (PVC). However, if steel casing is required, epoxy coating can substantially
reduce the surface area of steel subject to rusting. These two approaches have been proven to be
successful in operational ASR systems. Other materials that could be used in the construction of
ASR well casings are fiberglass and stainless steel, but they are more expensive alternatives.
One example of the use of stainless steel in the construction of ASR wells is a well in the city of
Delray Beach, Florida. That ASR well has a type 316 stainless steel final casing to protect
against electrolysis.
In an ASR system, the proper selection of the pumping equipment is of prime importance
because the same well-pump combination will be used for recharge and recovery purposes.
Submersible pumps are often used in ASR wells for recovery of stored water. Conventionally,
ASR systems place the pump at the base of the casing, above the well screen. While this design
has been successful in the past, a new design alternative has been suggested. In this alternative,
the pump is placed below the screen interval at the bottom of the well. Figure 3 shows the two
design options.
Figure 3. Alternative Pump Setting for ASR Wells
Conventional
Pump Setting
Potential ASR
Pump Setting
Source: Pyne, 1995
September 30, 1999
28
-------
It should be noted that the above description covers the most common well design.
However, wells could be constructed using other designs, such as slant or horizontal casings or
multiple casings nested on a single bore hole to control injection into specific aquifer zones.
4.2.2 Siting Considerations
There are several factors that are common to the site selection process of all aquifer
recharge and ASR wells. These include physical siting criteria, recharge water availability and
quality, water demand (if applicable), regulatory and institutional issues, and economic
considerations. A discussion of each of these factors follows.
Physical Siting Criteria
Under ideal conditions a well will accept recharge water at least as readily as it will yield
water by pumping. However, actual conditions are never ideal. For that reason, it is common to
conduct a hydrogeologic evaluation of the area. This evaluation provides the information
necessary to select suitable storage zones, recharge water sources, and treatment requirements (if
any). These hydrogeologic characteristics affect the location and design of the wells and have to
be considered for a successful recharge project.
The hydrogeologic evaluation considers the following factors:
1. availability of an aquifer suitable for recharge;
2. aquifer areal extent, thickness, and depth;
3. geologic structure (unconsolidated, consolidated, fractures, bedding planes,
fissures, etc.);
4. hydraulic characteristics (transmissivity, storativity, hydraulic conductivity,
porosity, etc.);
5. mineralogy of clays, sands, and other soil components;
6. confining layers or aquitards (areal extent, thickness, and depth);
7. lithology of aquifer and confining layers;
8. chemical characteristics of the native ground water;
9. native ground water velocity and direction;
10. water table levels or potentiometric surface;
11. local gradient of the potentiometric surface;
12. geochemical compatibility of recharge and native water with formation minerals;
13. proximity of the potential recharge site to an appropriate well field cone of
depression;
14. water level differences between the aquifer and the recharge site;
15. topography;
16. well inventory within a reasonable radius;
17. ground water withdrawals within the surrounding area;
18. proximity of potential sources of contamination; and
19. proximity of potential contamination plumes that may be affected by recharge
operations (O'Hare, 1986).
September 30, 1999 29
-------
In addition, delineated wellhead protection and source water protection areas should be taken
into consideration for the siting of the wells.
In short, there are many hydrogeologic characteristics to be considered when determining
if a particular site will be suitable for artificial recharge through recharge wells. After all
applicable data are obtained, computer simulation modeling of the proposed recharge may be
necessary and appropriate if there are any special concerns. Results of these analyses would be
useful in deciding the location and design of the recharge wells.
Water Availability and Quality
The availability and quality of a source of water for artificial recharge also is an
important factor in site selection. Many geographical areas that have demonstrated needs and
many sites that are physically suitable for artificial recharge can never be developed due to lack
of an acceptable water source. The types of water that may be considered for artificial recharge
vary with the locality.
For water to qualify for consideration as a source water for artificial recharge, the
chemical, physical, and biological characteristics are evaluated relative to the native water
characteristics. This evaluation provides the information necessary to understand the interaction
between the recharge and the native water, establish the criteria for the quality of the recharge
water to prevent degradation in the quality of the native ground water, and determine if treatment
of the recharge water is necessary.
Water Demand
If artificial recharge is used primarily as a water resource management tool, evaluation of
water demands, including average demands, monthly variability, and trends is important in order
to assess the duration of peak demand periods when recovery of stored water would provide
maximum benefit.
Regulatory and Institutional Issues
Regulatory and institutional issues are also considered in artificial recharge site selection.
These are particularly important because each state has its own requirements and procedures, as
discussed in Section 7. In addition, the federal government (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and
U.S. Geological Survey) is involved in recharge activities through funding of local
demonstration programs and state water projects, and USEPA or state UIC Primacy Programs
have a say as part of their particular Class V programs. In some instances, consideration of local
perspectives and relationships is also necessary.
September 30, 1999 30
-------
Economic Considerations
Any proposed artificial recharge project first has to be evaluated relative to its
effectiveness and economic justification. Thus, a preliminary estimate of the capital and
operating cost of injection well operations is usually developed. Such analysis considers the
useful life of the recharge project and the anticipated future availability of the recharge water
source.
4.3 Operational Practices
As stated earlier, a recharge well may be defined as a well that is used to inject water
(from the surface) to replenish the water in a fresh water aquifer. When water is injected into a
recharge well, a mound in the potentiometric surface of a confined aquifer, or the water table of
an unconfmed aquifer, is created. The mound extends unsymmetrically in the direction of the
regional flow in the aquifer. As injection continues, the areal extent of the mound spreads to
occupy an ever-increasing area (Freeze and Cherry, 1979). This process forms a cone of
recharge that is similar in shape but the reverse of a cone of depression surrounding a pumping
well. Thus, this process may be viewed as the inverse of the effect of a pumping well in a
confined aquifer, and, in fact, is described mathematically by the same equations, modified for
the effect of injection rather than pumping (Warner, 1965). Additional information on this topic
might be found in sources such as Driscoll (1986), O'Hare et al. (1986), and Todd (1980).
A number of factors affect recharge performance. Most of the problems in recharging
through wells, especially in aquifers composed of fine-grained material, involve excessive
buildup of water levels in the recharge well because of clogging of the well screen or aquifer.
Injecting high-quality water reduces the frequency of well clogging, increases the operating life
of the well, and reduces cleaning costs. In addition, chlorination of the injected water helps to
protect the well casing, prevents potential leaks, and reduces nearfield biofouling of the
formations (Bloetscher, 1999). However, even when using high-quality water, clogging is
inevitable.
When there is clogging and the injection head has increased above acceptable levels
(approximately every three years when using high-quality injectate water), redevelopment of the
injection wells is necessary (Bruington, 1968). Redevelopment of a well involves the removal of
finer material from the natural formations surrounding the perforated sections of the casing.
Periodic redevelopment of the well is used to restore its efficiency and specific capacity.
Thorough initial development of the injection wells will delay the need for redevelopment and
increase the initial specific capacity of the well, making it more efficient (Bruington, 1968).
Calibration of flow meters and other equipment associated with the recharge well system
is another standard operating procedure. Calibration is important to accurately keep track of
flow rates in order to determine whether clogging is occurring and whether redevelopment is
necessary.
A key factor in the operation of an ASR well is its recovery efficiency. Recovery
efficiency is defined as the percentage of the water volume stored that is subsequently recovered
September 30, 1999 31
-------
while meeting a target water quality criterion in the recovered water (Pyne, 1995). According to
Pyne (1995), recovery efficiency tends to improve with successive cycles when the same volume
of water is stored in each cycle because the residual water not recovered in one cycle becomes a
transition or buffer zone of marginal quality surrounding the stored water in the next cycle.
Building the buffer zone around each ASR well is usually completed over a series of cycles,
typically about three to six, at the end of which the ultimate recovery efficiency for the site is
achieved.
One ASR cycle consists of three different operating phases: injection, storage, and
subsequent recovery of potable water. During the first phase, water is injected into an aquifer
when excess runoff or excess water supplies from a treatment plant are available for storage.
During the second operating phase, potable water is stored in an aquifer. Storage times are
typically diurnal, long-term (injected during wet years then recovered in dry years), or seasonal
(injected during the fall and winter then recovered in the spring and summer). Water may also
be stored for emergency use during drought or flooding. The last part of the cycle is recovery.
Recovered water is used for drinking water, irrigation, and other agricultural purposes.
5. POTENTIAL AND DOCUMENTED DAMAGE TO USDWs
5.1 Injectate Constituent Properties
As discussed in Section 4.1, water injected into aquifers through the use of aquifer
recharge and ASR wells is typically treated to meet primary and secondary drinking water
standards. This is done to protect the host aquifer and to help ensure that the quality of the
ground water to be recovered is adequate for subsequent use. In addition, treatment of the
injectate in aquifer recharge and ASR wells to drinking water standards is required by most
regulatory agencies in order to prevent degradation of ambient ground water quality (see Section
7). However, not all fluids injected into aquifer recharge and ASR wells meet drinking water
standards. Injection of fluids with chemical concentrations can be allowed as long as it is found
not to endanger USDWs. Thus, aquifer recharge and ASR wells injecting fluids that do not meet
drinking water standards can still have an environmental benefit.
It should be noted that, even when water injected into aquifers through the use of aquifer
recharge and ASR wells has been treated, a few constituents have been measured at
concentrations slightly above drinking water standards. For example, fluoride concentrations in
the recharge water used in the Huron Project in South Dakota (see Section 4.1.1) and combined
radium 226 and 228 concentrations at Centennial Water and Sanitation District in Denver,
Colorado (see Section 4.1.2) have been observed slightly above the drinking water standards.
September 30, 1999 32
-------
5.2 Observed Impacts
The objective of aquifer recharge and ASR wells is to replenish water in an aquifer for
subsequent use. Thus, aquifer recharge and ASR wells are closely controlled to make sure they
safely augment the amount of water available from a USDW. These controls make hazardous
material spills or illicit discharges into aquifer recharge and ASR wells unlikely.
Based on information obtained from state and USEPA Regional offices, there are no
known contamination incidents associated with the use of aquifer recharge and ASR wells.
However, changes in water quality of the aquifers have been observed. In addition, in some
instances, injection of high quality water into aquifers that contain either brackish or poor quality
water has improved the ambient ground water quality.
6. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
6.1 Aquifer Recharge and ASR Wells
6.1.1 Recharge Water Quality
In order to ensure the use of "good" quality recharge water, monitoring of recharge water
quality should be performed on a routine basis. If the recharge water is not low in suspended
solids, air, and microorganisms, and is not chemically compatible with natural ground water and
the aquifer material, clogging can cause a recharge operation to be infeasible (Lichtler et al.,
1980).
The intended use or recharge objective needs to be considered in evaluating the quality of
the recharge water. For example, if artificial recharge is going to be used primarily for water
storage, it is necessary to consider changes that may take place between the time of recharge and
the time of withdrawal and use by the consumer. The following basic processes must be
considered when evaluating water quality changes likely to occur during ground water recharge
and storage:
1. biodegradation by and growth of microorganisms;
2. chemical oxidation or reduction;
3. sorption and ion exchange;
4. filtration;
5. chemical precipitation or dilution; and
6. volatization or photochemical reactions.
In addition, a contaminant source inventory in the area supplying the injectate water
should be conducted in order to prevent potential contamination of the receiving aquifer.
September 30, 1999 33
-------
6.1.2 Water Monitoring in Recharge Projects
Monitoring of ground water is necessary to ascertain the direction and rate of movement
of water and the extent of water quality changes occurring during movement of the recharged
water through the aquifer. As a result, a monitoring plan is needed to properly assess and
minimize the water quality impacts of an aquifer recharge project. A monitoring plan should
take into account several conditions, including:
The nature of the hydrogeologic and hydrochemical setting;
An analysis of the source of the recharge water;
A determination of the constituents that may be contributed by the source; and
An assessment of potential aquifer-plugging mechanisms (Shea-Albin, 1997).
Initially, ground water and recharge water should be monitored for all analytes for which
drinking water standards have been promulgated and for all potential contaminants in the source
water contribution area. It is important to analyze for all of these contaminants during the
baseline sampling period, even if a particular aquifer may not be vulnerable to contamination. If
contaminants of concern are not present in baseline samples, reduction in future monitoring
requirements may be possible (Shea-Albin, 1997).
6.1.3 Physical, Biological, Chemical, and Mechanical Clogging
Understanding the interaction between the recharge and native water will prevent
clogging of the well, which is one of the major operational problems with recharge injection
wells. Factors that may contribute to clogging of the well include:
1. suspended sediment in the recharge water (including both organic and inorganic
matter);
2. entrained air in the recharge water;
3. microbial growth in a well;
4. chemical reactions between recharge water and the native ground water, the
aquifer material, or both;
5. ionic reactions that result in dispersion of clay particles and swelling of colloids
in a sand-and-gravel aquifer;
6. iron precipitation;
7. biochemical changes in the recharge water and ground water involving iron-
reducing bacteria or sulfate-reducing organisms; and
8. differences in temperature between recharge and aquifer water (Pyne 1995;
Sniegocki, 1970).
The following sections describe the most common types of clogging problems and
presents methods for the early detection and prevention of problems associated with physical,
biological, chemical, and mechanical clogging problems.
September 30, 1999 34
-------
Physical Clogging
Physical clogging problems result from suspended solids clogging the pores of the
receiving formation, well screens, and/or gravel packs. This type of clogging is more prevalent
in raw water recharge systems than in treated water systems because treated water will have few,
if any, suspended solids. The particles settle around the recharge well, creating a need for higher
injection pressures.
For ASR wells, backflushing, or reversing the flow of the wells for recovery operations,
may alleviate physical clogging problems. The amount of time a well should be backflushed is
site dependent. Some ASR wells are backflushed every day for 10 minutes to 2 hours, while
others are backflushed every few weeks for varied durations. The waste from backflushing is
sometimes routed to a water treatment plant for re-treatment before disposal to a drainage field,
storm drain, dry well, pit, pond, or sewer system.
Physical clogging problems can also be the result of temperature differences between the
injectate and the receiving waters. When cold injection water comes into contact with warm
aquifer water, outgassing (formation of gas bubbles in the injectate) may occur. The dissolved
gases in the injection water tend to escape out of solution and clog the aquifer. Outgassing due
to temperature differentials may be prevented by studying the changes in water temperature and
the mixing characteristics of the injectate and the receiving water (Pitt and Magenheimer, 1997).
Cold water also tends to have a higher viscosity than warm water, which may reduce flow rates.
The probability of clogging due to temperature differentials is highly site specific. Typically,
temperature differentials are more likely to occur with the first injection cycle. The cold
injectate displaces the receiving water around the borehole, and after the first injection cycle,
little temperature difference is found.
Biological Clogging
Recharge wells are sometimes clogged by bacterial growth. Pre-chlorination of the
injection water may solve the problem. For raw surface water or non-potable recharge systems,
adding chlorine to the injection water will reduce well clogging.
Chemical Clogging
Chemical clogging problems can be caused by precipitates, clay colloids, gas bubbles,
and protective chemicals (Pitt and Magenheimer, 1997). These problems may arise from
geochemical reactions between native ground water and the injectate (Pitt and Magenheimer,
1997). For example, formation of chemical precipitates (usually calcium carbonate, calcium
sulphate, iron oxides, manganese oxides, magnesium hydroxide, and silicates) may arise as a
result of reactions between native ground water and recharge water. These precipitates can clog
the well screen, the gravel pack, or the formation.
Carbonate precipitation can be controlled by lowering the pH of injection water. If
extensive precipitation has already occurred, acidizing the well with a corrosion inhibitor
dissolves the precipitates and prevents further corrosion of the steel casing. Injection of liquid
September 30, 1999 35
-------
and gaseous carbon dioxide through the packer into the well screen will also remediate clogging.
In this process, the gas expands, forms carbonic acid, and then freezes in the well screen. After a
few days, the particles dissolve and pH values decrease (Pitt and Magenheimer, 1997).
Thin clay layers in the storage zone may swell and plug the formations around the zone.
Clay colloids (particles) may also break free, travel as suspended solids, and clog the pores of the
receiving formation. Injection waters containing high sodium concentrations may exacerbate
clogging by hydrating the clay, thereby causing the clay to swell, potentially clogging the well
and the aquifer. Examining the well construction report and geological data will determine
whether or not clogging problems from clay colloids or thin clay layers in the injection zone can
be expected. Remedial measures include adding chemical stabilizers to the injection water to
reduce clay swelling and treating the injection water to remove sodium.
Outgassing from the injection water may also cause well clogging. In this case, an
analysis of dissolved gases in the injection water should determine the degree of gas saturation.
If the concentration of dissolved gases in injection water is likely to cause a well clogging
problem, the water can be treated with degasification through a stripping column.
Sometimes chemicals such as anti-sealants, which are added to the injectate to protect
pipelines in the distribution system, precipitate and contribute to aquifer clogging. Through
chemical reactions, these chemicals dissolve, loosen, and re-suspend sediments in the pipelines
and encourage bacterial growth (Pitt and Magenheimer, 1997). Using anti-sealants that degrade
during transport from the treatment plant to the injection well (e.g., zinc pyrophosphate) will
decrease the potential for well and aquifer clogging. For example, zinc pyrophosphate will not
loosen and re-suspend bacteria and other solids in the pipelines because it degrades during
transport. Well clogging due to anti-sealant chemicals may also be averted by performing a
complete investigation of the chemicals used in the water treatment process. Assessing the
potential chemical reactions between recharge water, pipeline materials, and anti-sealant
chemicals will alert recharge managers to potential well clogging problems, so that clogging may
be avoided or treated before serious problems occur.
Mechanical Clogging
For ASR wells, there are some potential problems that may be caused by mechanical
clogging. Mechanical clogging problems include air entrainment and formation particle
jamming (Pitt and Magenheimer, 1997). Air entrainment, one type of air clogging, traps
atmospheric air in the ASR well and in the storage zone during the storage cycle. This may
occur when the injection water has a lower temperature than native ground water, clogging the
aquifer. Sealing the annulus at the well head typically prevents air entrainment during ASR
operations. Air entrainment can be tested by conducting a mechanical integrity test (Pyne,
1995). Air entrainment is not equivalent to outgassing, although temperature differentials may
cause outgassing and add to aquifer clogging problems. Other common causes of air clogging
include loose connections in piping, the use of inadequate pumps, cavitation of the injection
pump (air in the pump), and high injection velocities. These problems may best be addressed by
maintaining airtight pipelines and connections, using centrifugal pumps, and ensuring that
September 30, 1999 36
-------
injection velocities are kept at a level below that which causes turbulent flow. Pump cavitation
should not occur during injection (Pitt and Magenheimer, 1997).
Aquifer jamming may result from particle displacement when water flow in the ASR
system is reversed from the injection to the recovery cycle. This problem is only encountered in
loosely consolidated aquifers and when the well is gravel-packed with gravel/particles of
relatively uniform size. When the water flow is reversed, the particles are drawn back toward
the well, and their packing is rearranged. This reduces water flow efficiency and has the same
effect on the ASR system as parti culate clogging. To remediate aquifer jamming, the wells may
need to be redeveloped by surging and pumping methods or by acidizing. Pressure fracturing or
explosive fracturing, where the aquifer is broken apart by extreme physical or explosive force,
will also dislodge the jammed aquifer but may not be permitted in every state. Maintaining low
velocities during the recovery cycle and ensuring that the screen and gravel pack match the
aquifer materials can reduce the risk of aquifer jamming (Pitt and Magenheimer, 1997).
6.2 ASR Wells
6.2.1 Location and Spacing of ASR Wells and Impact on Static Ground Water Levels
The long-term and regional effects of ASR cycles need to be considered when
configuring ASR systems. Therefore, developing optimal water basin management strategies is
important (Dickenson, 1997). Background basin hydrology, including natural recharge sources
and locations, pumping patterns, discharge areas, and the proposed storage area, should be
examined. Spilling and overdraft patterns (patterns where the water table and/or aquifer level is
too high or too low) in the proposed ASR area should be assessed so that ASR injection and
recovery operations dampen extreme fluctuations in ground water levels, rather than exacerbate
existing problems. Pyne (1995) suggests that ASR facilities be located near water treatment
plants and at least 100 feet from existing or potential sources of contamination. He also points
out that this siting criterion is a regulatory requirement in some states.
6.2.2 Operation and Maintenance Practices for ASR Wells
In order to successfully operate an ASR system, the following operation and maintenance
practices, as described by Pyne (1995), are recommended:
Periodic change in operating mode. This occurs typically two to four times per year as
the system changes from recharge to recovery and back again.
Back/lushing to waste during recharge. This procedure is implemented at most ASR
sites in order to maintain recharge capacity by purging from the well any solids that may
have been carried into the well during recharge. Backflushing frequency varies from
every day to every few years, depending on site-specific conditions. Some ASR wells
currently in operation are redeveloped seasonally by extended pumping, as part of the
recovery operation, without any additional backflushing frequency.
September 30, 1999 37
-------
Trickle flow of chlorinated water. During periods of storage, it is advisable to maintain a
trickle flow of chlorinated water into the well. This will control bacterial activity in the
formation immediately adjacent to the well, thereby helping to maintain recharge-specific
capacity and bacterial clogging.
Calibration of pressure gauges, flow meters, chart recorders, and other equipment
associated with the ASR well system. It is important to accurately keep track of flow
rates and pressure and water levels in order to determine whether clogging is occurring
and backflushing is necessary.
Monitoring. Monitoring of ground water during recharge, storage, and recovery is
necessary to ascertain the direction and rate of movement of water and the extent of water
quality changes occurring during movement of the recharged water through the aquifer.
Annual water accounting or water balance. It is important to accurately track the
volume of water stored and recovered from an ASR well system. If the volume of water
recovered is greater than the volume of the water stored, there might be a reduction in the
recovery efficiency around the well, as well as adverse impacts on water levels in
surrounding areas. In addition, ASR permits are sometimes issued providing only for
seasonal storage and recovery, so that annual volume recovered cannot exceed the
volume stored in the same year (Pyne, 1995).
Periodic review of operating and water quality data. This review is necessary in order to
evaluate performance relative to expectations, and make adjustments, as appropriate.
This is particularly important in the first two to five years of system operation, when the
greatest changes in water levels and water quality will tend to occur and normal ranges
for various parameters tend to be defined.
7. CURRENT REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
Several federal, state, and local programs exist that either directly manage or regulate
Class V aquifer recharge and ASR wells. On the federal level, management and regulation of
these wells falls primarily under the UIC program authorized by the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SOWA). Some states and localities have used these authorities, as well as their own authorities,
to extend the controls in their areas to address concerns associated with aquifer recharge and
ASR wells.
7.1 Federal Programs
7.1.1 SDWA
Class V wells are regulated under the authority of Part C of SDWA. Congress enacted
the SDWA to ensure protection of the quality of drinking water in the United States, and Part C
specifically mandates the regulation of underground injection of fluids through wells. USEPA
has promulgated a series of UIC regulations under this authority. USEPA directly implements
September 30, 1999 38
-------
these regulations for Class V wells in 19 states or territories (Alaska, American Samoa, Arizona,
California, Colorado, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New
York, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, Virgin Islands, and Washington, DC).
USEPA also directly implements all Class V UIC programs on Tribal lands. In all other states,
which are called Primacy States, state agencies implement the Class V UIC program, with
primary enforcement responsibility.
Aquifer recharge and ASR wells currently are not subject to any specific regulations
tailored just for them, but rather are subject to the UIC regulations that exist for all Class V
wells. Under 40 CFR 144.12(a), owners or operators of all injection wells, including aquifer
recharge and ASR wells, are prohibited from engaging in any injection activity that allows the
movement of fluids containing any contaminant into USDWs, "if the presence of that
contaminant may cause a violation of any primary drinking water regulation ... or may
otherwise adversely affect the health of persons."
Owners or operators of Class V wells are required to submit basic inventory information
under 40 CFR 144.26. When the owner or operator submits inventory information and is
operating the well such that a USDW is not endangered, the operation of the Class V well is
authorized by rule. Moreover, under section 144.27, USEPA may require owners or operators of
any Class V well, in USEPA-administered programs, to submit additional information deemed
necessary to protect USDWs. Owners or operators who fail to submit the information required
under sections 144.26 and 144.27 are prohibited from using their wells.
Sections 144.12(c) and (d) prescribe mandatory and discretionary actions to be taken by
the UIC Program Director if a Class V well is not in compliance with section 144.12(a).
Specifically, the Director must choose between requiring the injector to apply for an individual
permit, ordering such action as closure of the well to prevent endangerment, or taking an
enforcement action. Because aquifer recharge and ASR wells (like other kinds of Class V wells)
are authorized by rule, they do not have to obtain a permit unless required to do so by the UIC
Program Director under 40 CFR 144.25. Authorization by rule terminates upon the effective
date of a permit issued or upon proper closure of the well.
Separate from the UIC program, the SDWA Amendments of 1996 establish a
requirement for source water assessments. USEPA published guidance describing how the states
should carry out a source water assessment program within the state's boundaries. The final
guidance, entitled Source Water Assessment and Programs Guidance (USEPA 816-R-97-009),
was released in August 1997.
State staff must conduct source water assessments that are comprised of three steps.
First, state staff must delineate the boundaries of the assessment areas in the state from which
one or more public drinking water systems receive supplies of drinking water. In delineating
these areas, state staff must use "all reasonably available hydrogeologic information on the
sources of the supply of drinking water in the state and the water flow, recharge, and discharge
and any other reliable information as the state deems necessary to adequately determine such
areas." Second, the state staff must identify contaminants of concern, and for those
contaminants, they must inventory significant potential sources of contamination in delineated
September 30, 1999 39
-------
source water protection areas. Class V wells, including aquifer recharge and ASR wells, should
be considered as part of this source inventory, if present in a given area. Third, the state staff
must "determine the susceptibility of the public water systems in the delineated area to such
contaminants." State staff should complete all of these steps by May 2003 according to the final
guidance.2
7.1.2 Other Federal Rules and Programs
As stated earlier, aquifer recharge and ASR wells are used to replenish water in an
aquifer. In most cases, aquifer recharge and ASR wells inject water into USDWs. Thus, the
injectate from these wells is typically treated to drinking water standards established under
Section 1412 of the SDWA. This section requires USEPA to establish National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations for a contaminant if (1) the contaminant may have an adverse public
health effect; (2) it is known or likely to occur in public water systems with a frequency and at
levels of public health concern; and (3) if regulation of such contaminant presents a meaningful
opportunity for health risk reduction. A brief description of these regulations follows.
Total Trihalomethane Rule
In November 1979, USEPA set an interim MCL for total trihalomethanes (TTHMs) of
0.10 mg/1 as an annual average (44 FR 68624). Compliance is defined on the basis of a running
average of quarterly averages of all samples. The value for each sample is the sum of the
measured concentrations of chloroform, bromodichloromethane, dibromochloromethane, and
bromoform. The interim TTHM standard only applies to community water systems using
surface water and/or ground water serving at least 10,000 people that add a disinfectant to the
drinking water during any part of the treatment process.
Surface Water Treatment Rule
In June 29, 1989, USEPA promulgated the final Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR)
(54 FR 27486). Under the SWTR, USEPA set maximum contaminant level goals (MCLGs) of
zero for Giardia lamblia, viruses, and Legionella; and promulgated NPDWRs for all public
water systems using surface water sources or ground water sources under the direct influence of
surface water. The SWTR includes treatment technique requirements for filtered and unfiltered
systems that are intended to protect against the adverse health effects of exposure to Giardia
lamblia, viruses, and Legionella, as well as many other pathogenic organisms. The rule became
effective in June 1993.
Total Coliform Rule
In June 29, 1989, USEPA also promulgated the Total Coliform Rule, which applies to all
public water systems (54 FR 27544). This regulation sets compliance with a MCL for total
2 May 2003 is the deadline including an 18-month extension.
September 30, 1999 40
-------
coliforms. If a system exceeds the MCL, it must notify the public using mandatory language
developed by the USEPA.
Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment
On December 16, 1998, USEPA finalized the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment
Rule (IESWTR) (63 FR 69478). The purposes of the IESWTR are to: (1) improve control of
microbial pathogens, including specifically protozoan Cryptosporidium, in drinking water; and
(2) address risk trade-offs with disinfection products. The IESWTR applies to public water
systems that use surface or ground water under the direct influence of surface water and serve
10,000 or more people. The regulation became effective on February 16, 1999.
Stage 1 Disinfection Byproducts Rule
In December 16, 1998, USEPA finalized: (1) maximum residual disinfectant level goals
(MRDLGs) for chlorine, chloramines, and chlorine dioxide; (2) MCLGs for four trihalomethanes
(chloroform, bromodichloromethane, dibromochloromethane, and bromoform), two haloacetic
acids (dichloroacetic acid and trichloroacetic acid), bromate, and chlorite; and (3) NPDWRs for
three disinfectants (chlorine, chloramines, and chlorine dioxide), two groups of organic
disinfection byproducts (TTHMsa sum of chloroform, bromodichloromethane,
dibromochloromethane, and bromoformand haloacetic acidsa sum of dichloroacetic acid,
trichloroacetic acid, monochloroacetic acid, and mono-and dibromoacetic acids), and two
inorganic disinfection byproducts (chlorite and bromate) (63 FR 69389). The NPDWRs consist
of maximum residual disinfectant levels or MCLs or treatment techniques for these disinfectants
and their byproducts. The NPDWRs also include monitoring, reporting, and public notification
requirements for these compounds.
The Stage 1 Disinfection Byproducts Rule applies to public water systems that are
community water systems and nontransient, noncommunity water systems that treat their water
with a chemical disinfectant for either primary or residual treatment. In addition, certain
requirements for chlorine dioxide apply to transient noncommunity water systems.
Radon Rule
On July 18, 1991, USEPA proposed a MCLG, a MCL, monitoring, reporting, and public
notification requirements for radon and a number of other radionuclides in public water supplies
(systems serving 25 or more individuals or with 15 or more connections) (56 FR 33050).
USEPA proposed to regulate radon at 300 pCi/1.
On August 6, 1996, Congress passed amendments to the SDWA. Section 1412(b)(13)(A)
of the SDWA, as amended, directs USEPA to withdraw the proposed national primary drinking
water regulation for radon. Thus, as directed by Congress, on August 6, 1997 (62 FR 42221),
USEPA withdrew the 1991 proposed MCLG, MCL, monitoring, reporting, and public
notification requirements for radon.
USEPA expects to publish a final MCLG and national primary drinking water regulation
for radon by August, 2000.
September 30, 1999 41
-------
Ground Water Rule
Currently, USEPA is developing a Ground Water Rule that will specify appropriate use
of disinfection and encourage the use of alternative approaches, including best management
practices and control of contamination at its source. The rule will be designed to protect against
pathogenic bacteria and viruses in source water, against growth of opportunistic pathogenic
bacteria in ground water distribution systems, and to mitigate against any failure in the
engineered systems, such as cross-connections or sewage infiltration into distribution systems.
The Ground Water Rule will apply to systems using only ground water, which are not regulated
under the 1989 SWTR.
USEPA expects to publish the Final Ground Water Rule by November 2000. The
statutory deadline, under the SDWA (Section 1412(b)(8)), for the Ground Water Rule is May
2002.
7.2 State and Local Programs
The requirements pertaining to aquifer recharge and ASR wells in states that contain
substantial numbers of such wells are sometimes identical. In California, for example, both
types of wells are regulated under the state's Water Quality Control Act. Florida, in contrast, has
enacted specific regulatory requirements for aquifer storage and recovery. Some relatively arid
western states have enacted rules pertaining to aquifer storage and recovery as part of their
system of regulating the use of the water resources of the state, but those requirements also may
touch upon well construction standards and/or monitoring requirements.
This section summarizes the existing UIC programs in the states where the vast majority
of the aquifer recharge and ASR wells are known to exist: California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho,
Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, and Washington (see Section 3).
Altogether, these ten states have a total of 1,049 documented aquifer recharge and ASR wells,
which is approximately 89 percent of the documented well inventory for the nation. More detail
on these state programs is provided in Attachment C of this volume.
It should be noted that ASR wells are not specifically defined in 40 CFR Part 146. Thus,
the definition of ASR wells may vary from state to state.
In California, USEPA Region 9 directly implements the UIC program for Class V
injection wells. Aquifer recharge and ASR wells in the state are authorized by rule in
accordance with the existing federal requirements. However, if treated wastewater is planned to
be used for artificial recharge, Regional Water Quality Control Boards issue site-specific
discharge requirements. In addition, the Department of Health Services must review and
approve the application. The injectate must meet drinking water standards at the point of
injection. County water districts and/or county health departments may supplement the
requirements. If potable water is planned to be used for aquifer recharge, the projects are
reviewed and regulated by local health departments.
September 30, 1999 42
-------
In Colorado, USEPA Region 8 directly implements the UIC program for Class V
injection wells. The state does not have rules explicitly addressing ASR wells, but it has enacted
requirements directly addressing artificial recharge. However, those rules apply primarily to the
permitting of extraction and use of waters artificially recharged. The rules do provide that water
artificially recharged into a Denver Basin aquifer, whether for the maintenance of water levels or
for subsequent extraction, shall be, at the time of extraction, fully consumable and/or reusable
(Rule 5.1). In addition, the State Engineer accounts for water that is artificially recharged and
administers the orderly withdrawal of such water to prevent injury to existing water users and
water rights holders.
Florida is a UIC Primacy State for Class V wells. In this state, owners or operators of
aquifer recharge and ASR wells are required to obtain a Construction/Clearance Permit from the
Department of Environmental Protection before receiving permission to construct. In order to
use the well, the applicant is required to submit information needed to demonstrate that well
operation will not adversely affect a USDW. Once such a demonstration is made, the
Department will issue an authorization to use the well subject to certain operating and reporting
requirements, including the requirement to meet drinking water standards at the point of
injection. Injection of fluids that exceed the drinking water standards is allowed only if it is not
into a USDW and if it is controlled in accordance with a site-specific operating permit.
Idaho is a UIC Primacy State for Class V wells. In this state, construction and operation
of shallow injection wells (<18 feet) is authorized by rule, as long as inventory information is
provided and use of the well does not result in endangerment of a drinking water source or cause
a violation of state water quality standards that would affect beneficial use. Construction and use
of a deep injection well ( 18 feet) requires an individual permit.
Nevada is a UIC Primacy State for Class V wells. In this state, construction and
operation of aquifer recharge and ASR wells are prohibited except as authorized by permit by
the State Engineer. The State Engineer must determine that the project is hydrologically feasible
and that it will not cause harm to users of land or other water within the area of hydrological
effect of the project. The permit specifies the capacity and plan of operation of the recharge
project, any required monitoring, and any other conditions believed necessary to protect ground
water.
Oklahoma is a UIC Primacy State for Class V wells. The state has incorporated by
reference into the Oklahoma Administrative Code those parts of 40 CFR Part 124 and Parts 144
to 148 that apply to the UIC program (252-652-1-3 OAC). Thus, aquifer recharge and ASR
wells in the state are authorized by rule in accordance with the existing federal requirements.
Oregon is a Primacy State for UIC Class V wells. In this state, the UIC program is
administered by the Department of Environmental Quality. However, the Oregon
Administrative Rules (OAR) contain special provisions administered by the Water Resources
Department addressing ASR and artificial ground water recharge (OAR 690 Division 350).
OAR requires a limited license for ASR testing before a permanent ASR permit may be obtained
(690-350-0010(2) OAR). The injection source water for ASR is required to comply with
drinking water standards, treatment requirements, and performance standards established by the
September 30, 1999 43
-------
state Health Department or maximum measurable levels established by the Environmental
Quality Commission, whichever are more stringent. No license or permit may establish
concentration limits for water to be injected for ASR in excess of standards established by the
Health Department or the Environmental Quality Commission (690-350-0010(6)(a)-(c) OAR).
Use of artificially recharged waters requires a secondary ground water permit specifying the
maximum diversion rate and volume of withdrawals and allowable uses of stored recharged
water (690-350-0130 OAR).
South Carolina is a UIC Primacy State for Class V wells. In this state, aquifer recharge
and ASR wells are prohibited except as authorized by permit. Injection may not commence until
construction is complete, the permittee has submitted notice of completion to the Department of
Health and Environmental Control (DHEC), and DHEC has inspected the well and found it in
compliance. DHEC will establish maximum injection volumes and pressures and other such
permit conditions as necessary to assure that fractures are not initiated in the confining zone
adjacent to the USDW and to assure compliance with operating requirements. The movement of
injected fluids containing contaminants into USDWs is prohibited if the contaminant may cause
a violation of any drinking water standard or otherwise adversely affect health.
Texas is a UIC Primacy State for Class V wells. In this state, underground injection is
prohibited, unless authorized by permit or rule. By rule, injection into an aquifer recharge well
is authorized , although the Texas Natural Resources Control Commission may require the
owner or operator of a well authorized by rule to apply for and obtain an injection well permit.
No permit or authorization by rule is allowed where an injection well causes or allows the
movement of fluid that would result in the pollution of a USDW.
Washington is a UIC Primacy State for Class V wells. In this state, an individual permit
is required to operate an aquifer recharge or ASR well. In addition, Washington has set
standards for direct ground water recharge projects using reclaimed water. These rules primarily
address the standards and treatment requirements for the reclaimed water, when injected into
potable and non-potable ground water.
Although an ASR well exist in Tennessee, the Tennessee Department of Environment
and Conservation (TDEC), Division of Water Supply, regulates this well as a Class V UIC
experimental well. The TDEC indicated that this injection well was permitted as an
experimental well because, although aquifer storage and retrieval system technology had been
demonstrated in other states, this is the first such system to be constructed in Tennessee (TDEC,
1996a; TDEC, 1996b). TDEC issued the permit to the MLGWD in 1996 (TDEC, 1996c). This
permit expires in 2001. The MLGWD is permitted to inject no more than 600 gallons per minute
of treated drinking water into the ASR system at a maximum injection pressure of 125 psi. The
MLGWD is also required to conduct injectate sampling and analysis for injectate quality at the
start up of each injectate event.
September 30, 1999 44
-------
ATTACHMENT A
ASR WELL DATA REPORTED IN LITERATURE
Location
Brick, NJ
Gordon's Comer, NJ
Murray Avenue, NJ
Swimming River, NJ
Wildwood, NJ
Chesapeake, VA
Boynton Beach, FL
Cocoa, FL
Collier County, FL
Hillsborough County, FL
Manatee, FL
Marathon, FL
Marco Island, FL
Peace River, FL
Port Malabar, FL
Tampa, FL
Operational Information
Began operations in 1996.
Began operations in 1972.
Began operations in 1994.
Began operations in 1993.
Injection into aquifer with high iron
concentration due to siderite and pyrite.
Began operations in 1968.
Also beneficial for preventing saltwater
intrusion.
Began operations in 1990.
Began operations in 1993.
Injection into brackish aquifer.
Began operations in 1987.
Injection into brackish aquifer.
Began operations in August 1998.
Injection into brackish aquifer.
Operational testing is expected in 1998
and 1999.
Injection into a brackish aquifer.
Began operations in 1983.
Injection into brackish aquifer.
Began operations in 1994.
Injection into a saline aquifer.
Injection into a brackish aquifer.
Began operations in 1985.
Injection into brackish aquifer.
Began operations in 1989.
Injection into brackish aquifer.
Permit had been granted, but
construction had not yet begun in 1 997.
Storage Zone
N/A
Clayey sand
Clayey sand
Clayey sand
Sand
(Cohansey aquifer)
Sand
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
(Hawthorne Zone II
Aquifer)
Limestone
(lower Suwanee
Limestone)
Limestone
Sand
Limestone
Limestone
Limestone
N/A
Number of
ASR Wells
1
2
2
1
4
1
1
(1 additional well
expected)
6 wells, plans for
4 more wells
1
1 test well to be
installed
(Construction to
be complete by
December, 1997)
1
1 test well, plans
for 7 more wells
1 test well
9
1
1
Data Source
Horvath, 1997
Pyne, 1995
Pyne, 1995
Pyne, 1995
Amans and McLeod,
1991; Horvath, 1997;
Lacombe, 1997;
Pyne, 1995
Horvath, 1997;
Pyne, 1995
Pyne, 1995
Pyne, 1995
Walker, 1999
McNealetal., 1997
Pyne, 1995
Pyne, 1995
Horvath et al, 1997
Horvath, 1997;
Pyne, 1995;
Singer etal, 1993;
Southwest Florida
Water Management
District, website
Pyne, 1995
Deuerling, 1997
September 30, 1999
45
-------
ATTACHMENT A
ASR WELL DATA REPORTED IN LITERATURE (continued)
Location
Kerrville, TX
Ankeny, IA
Wichita, KS
Highlands Ranch, CO
Calleguas, CA
Goleta, CA
Lancaster, CA
Oxnard, CA
Pasadena, CA
Salem, OR
Seattle, WA
Operational Information
Began operations in 1991.
Part of a research and demonstration
project.
Injection into a poor quality aquifer
(slightly brackish).
Research and demonstration project
jointly sponsored by the city of Wichita
and the USGS to determine water-
quality effects of ASR on ground water.
Began operations in 1993.
Began operations in 1992.
Electricity generation during recharge
periods.
Began operations in 1978.
All wells were retrofitted for ASR and
recharge purposes.
Recharge occurred in only seven years
between 1978 and 1988.
One test well operated in 1994, one
other well currently in test phase.
Began operations in 1989.
Began operations in 1992.
Considering electricity generation
during recharge.
Pilot ASR well program undertaken in
1994/1995.
Began operations in 1992.
Storage Zone
Sandstone
(Hosston-Sligo
formation in the
Lower Trinity
Aquifer)
Sandstone
(Jordon aquifer)
Equus beds
wellfield
Sand
Sand
(North Las Posas
Ground Water
Basin)
Silty, clayey sand
(Lancaster Aquifer)
Alluvial aquifer
overlain by thick,
areally extensive
clay deposits
(Oxnard Aquifer)
Sand (Raymond
Ground Water
Basin)
Basalt
Glacial drift
Number of
ASR Wells
2
1 test well
N/A
1 well, 2 more
expected
1 well, 4 more
expected by end
of 1997,
investigating
sites for 25 more
wells
9
2
5
2
4
3
Data Source
Amans and McLeod,
1988; Amans and
McLeod, 1991;Pyne,
1995; Singer etal.,
1993
Miller and Beavers,
1997
United States
Geological Survey,
website
Pyne, 1995;
Singer etal., 1993
Breault, 1997;
Calleguas Municipal
Water District, website;
Pyne, 1995
Pyne, 1995
Antelope Valley Board
of Trade, website
City of Oxnard, 1996;
Pyne, 1995
Pyne, 1995
Eckley, 1999
Pyne, 1995
N/A
Not available.
September 30, 1999
46
-------
ASR
ATTACHMENT B
FACILITIES AND WELLS IN FLORIDA
Updated: 12/07/98
Facility Name
Boynton Beach ASR
Broward County 2A WTP
Miami-Bade Southwest Wellfield
Miami-Dade West Wellfield
Deerfield Beach ASR
FiveashWTP
Miami Beach ASR
Taylor Creek ASR
West Palm Beach ASR
Peace River
Wells 1-9
Wells 10-21
Palm Beach County System #3
Delray Beach
Collier County
FKAA Marathon
Corkscrew (Lee County)
Well #1
Wells 2-6
Marco Lakes
Well #1
Wells 2-9
Punta Gorda
San Carlos Estates (Bonita Springs Utilities)
Kehl Canal (Bonita Springs Utilities)
Fort Myers
North Reservoir (N. Ft. Myers)
ASR
Type*
TDW
ROW
ROW
ROW
TDW
TDW
future ROW
TDW
RSW
TDW
interim PTS
future RSW
TDW
TDW
future ROW
TDW
TDW
TDW
TDW
PTS
TDW
TDW
PTS
TDW
TDW
Map#
14
15
17
18
16
24
21
12
13
5
22
26
8
19
6
7
23
29
30
31
33
Pre-
Application
X
X
Construction
Application
Received
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Construction
Permit Issued
Well
Constructed
X
X
X
X
X(WMD
permit)
X
X
Operational
Testing
X
X
X
X (not used)
X
X(not used)
X
Operation
Permit
X
X
September 30, 1999
47
-------
ATTACHMENT B
ASR FACILITIES AND WELLS IN FLORIDA (continued)
Facility Name
Olga
Tampa - Rome Avenue
Well #1
Wells 2-9
Tampa - Hillsborough River
Lake Manatee
Wells B-l and B-2
Wells B-3 through B-6
Cocoa - Claude H. Dyal
Wells 1-6
Wells 6-10
Palm Bay
Sunrise Springtree
ASR
Type*
RSW
TDW
PTS
TDW
TDW
TDW
TDW
Map#
34
1
2
4
9
11
20
Pre-
Application
X
Construction
Application
Received
X
X
X
Construction
Permit Issued
Well
Constructed
X
X
Operational
Testing
Operation
Permit
X
X
X
X
*ASR Types:
TDW
RSW
ROW
PTS
Potable through drinking water plant.
Raw surface water.
Raw ground water.
Partially treated surface water.
September 30, 1999
48
-------
ATTACHMENT C
STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS
This attachment does not describe every state's regulatory requirements; instead, it
focuses on the ten states where aquifer recharge and ASR wells are known to exist: California,
Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Nevada, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, and Washington.
Altogether, these ten states have a total of 1,051 documented aquifer recharge and ASR wells,
which is approximately 87 percent of the documented well inventory for the nation.
California
USEPA Region 9 directly implements the UIC program for Class V injection wells in
California. The California Water Quality Control Act (WQCA), however, establishes broad
requirements for the coordination and control of water quality in the state, sets up a State Water
Quality Control Board, and divides the state into nine regions, with Regional Water Quality
Control Boards (RWQCBs) that are delegated responsibilities and authorities to coordinate and
advance water quality in each region (Chapter 4 Article 2 WQCA). A RWQCB can prescribe
requirements for discharges (waste discharge requirements, or WDRs) into the waters of the state
(13263 WQCA). These WDRs can apply to injection wells (13263.5 and 13264(b)(3) WQCA).
In addition, the WQCA specifies that no provision of the Act or ruling of the State Board or a
Regional Board is a limitation on the power of a city or county to adopt and enforce additional
regulations imposing further conditions, restrictions, or limitations with respect to the disposal of
waste or any other activity which might degrade the quality of the waters of the state (13002
WQCA).
Permitting
The WQCA provides that any person operating, or proposing to operate, an injection well
(as defined in §13051 WQCA) must file a report of the discharge, containing the information
required by the Regional Board, with the appropriate Regional Board (13260(a)(3) WQCA).
Furthermore, the RWQCB, after any necessary hearing, may prescribe requirements concerning
the nature of any proposed discharge, existing discharge, or material change in an existing
discharge to implement any relevant regional water quality control plans. The requirements also
must take into account the beneficial uses to be protected, the water quality objectives
reasonably required for that purpose, other waste discharges, and the factors that the WQCA
requires the Regional Boards to take into account in developing water quality objectives, which
are specified in §13241 of the WQCA (13263(a) WQCA). However, a RWQCB may waive the
requirements in 13260(a) and 13253(a) as to a specific discharge or a specific type of discharge
where the waiver is not against the public interest (13269(a) WQCA).
If treated wastewater is planned to be used for aquifer recharge, the approach followed by
RWQCBs is to issue site-specific WDRs. In addition, the Department of Health Services must
review and approve the application. The recharge injectate must meet drinking water MCLs at
the point of injection. County water districts and/or county health departments may supplement
the requirements. If potable water is planned to be used for aquifer recharge, the projects are
reviewed and regulated by health departments.
September 30, 1999 49
-------
Siting and Construction Requirements
Department of Water Resources Bulletin 74-90 provides specifications for well
construction standards.
Operating Requirements
Not specified by statute or regulations.
Monitoring Requirements
Not specified by statute or regulations.
Mechanical Integrity Testing
Not specified by statute or regulations.
Financial Assurance
Not specified by statute or regulations.
Plugging and Abandonment
Not specified by statute or regulations.
Colorado
USEPA Region 8 directly implements the UIC program for Class V injection wells in
Colorado. The State of Colorado does not have rules explicitly addressing aquifer storage and
recovery, but it has enacted requirements directly addressing artificial recharge. However, those
rules apply primarily to the permitting of extraction and use of waters artificially recharged
(Rules and Regulations for the Permitting and Use of Waters Artificially Recharged into the
Dawson, Arapahoe, and Laramie-Fox Hills Aquifers, 2 Colorado Code of Regulations (CCR)
402-11). The rules do provide that water artificially recharged into a Denver Basin aquifer,
whether for the maintenance of water levels or for subsequent extraction, shall be, at the time of
extraction, fully consumable and/or reusable (Rule 5.1).
Permitting
Permitting requirements under the artificial recharge rules apply only to extraction.
However, an application to construct a well to extract artificially recharged water must include
information about whether the aquifer is confined or unconfmed at the injection site(s) and other
information concerning the aquifer at and around the well or wells through which the water was
injected, including an accounting of the timing, amount, and location(s) of injection of
artificially recharged water which is to be extracted through the proposed well (Rule 6.3.1).
September 30, 1999 50
-------
Like almost all western states, Colorado issues permits for the extraction and use of both
surface water and ground water. Permits for extraction and use must consider impacts to
existing wells and other water rights. The rules on permitting and use of waters artificially
recharged into the Dawson, Denver, Arapahoe, and Laramie-Fox Hills aquifers define extraction
well as an existing permitted well or a well that has been, or will be constructed, for the purpose
of extracting artificially recharged water. When applied to an existing permitted well, this term
may describe a well which has been authorized for the extraction of an amount of water beyond
the amount of naturally occurring ground water authorized for withdrawal under the existing
permit (Rule 4.3.8). Use of totalizing flow meters is required for measuring the amount of all
water injected and extracted (Rule 5.7.1). The State Engineer accounts for water that is
artificially recharged and administers the orderly withdrawal of such water to prevent injury to
existing water users and water rights holders.
Siting and Construction Requirements
Colorado's water well construction rules (2. CCR 402-2) do not state explicitly that they
apply to artificial recharge wells, but because they apply to the construction of water wells, the
state applies them. A permit issued by the State Engineer is required prior to constructing a new
or replacement well (Water Well Construction Rule 6).
Siting and construction requirements under the artificial recharge rules apply only to
extraction. The water well construction rules contain detailed requirements concerning well
location and minimum well construction standards (Rule 10). They include specifications for
well casing, sealing and grouting, and disinfection (Rule 10.4 - 10.9 and Rule 17).
Operating Requirements
The wells used for artificial recharge and/or extraction are required to have totalizing
flow meters installed to measure the amount of all water injected and extracted (Rule 5.7). If the
meter is not operational, the well may not be operated.
Monitoring Requirements
Not specified by statute or regulations.
Mechanical Integrity Testing
Not specified by statute or regulations.
September 30, 1999 51
-------
Financial Assurance
Not specified by statute or regulations.
Plugging and Abandonment
Not specified by statute or regulations.
Florida
Florida is a UIC Primacy State for Class V wells. Chapter 62-528 of the Florida
Administrative Code (FAC), effective June 24, 1997, establishes the state's UIC program, and
Part V of Chapter 62-528 (62-528.600 to 62-528.900) addresses criteria and standards for Class
V wells. Class V wells are grouped for purposes of permitting into eight categories. Aquifer
recharge wells fall into Group 2. Wells associated with an aquifer storage and recovery system
fall into Group 7.
Permitting
Underground injection through a Class V well is prohibited except as authorized by
permit by the Department of Environmental Protection. Owners and operators are required to
obtain a Construction/Clearance Permit before receiving permission to construct. The applicant
is required to submit detailed information, including well location and depth, description of the
injection system and of the proposed injectate, and any proposed pretreatment. When site-
specific conditions indicate a threat to a USDW, additional information must be submitted. The
state generally issues letters of authorization, even when potable water is injected and no permit
is required. The letter of authorization can include specific conditions with respect to the
standards that must be met by the injected water, monitoring requirements for flow rate and
pressure, sampling of monitoring well, and reporting. Finally, all Class V wells are required to
obtain a plugging and abandonment permit.
In addition, local Water Management Districts and/or County Environmental
Management Departments also review applications for aquifer storage and recovery wells.
Siting and Construction Requirements
Specific construction standards for Class V wells have not been enacted by Florida,
because of the variety of Class V wells and their uses. Instead, the state requires the well to be
designed and constructed for its intended use, in accordance with good engineering practices,
and approves the design and construction through a permit. The state can apply any of the
criteria for Class I wells to the permitting of Class V wells, if it determines that without such
criteria the Class V well may cause or allow fluids to migrate into a USDW and cause a violation
of the state's primary or secondary drinking water standards, which are contained in Chapter 62-
550 of the FAC. However, if the injectate meets the primary and secondary drinking water
quality standards and the minimum criteria contained in Rule 62-520-400 of the FAC, Class I
injection well permitting standards will not be required.
September 30, 1999 52
-------
Class V wells are required to be constructed so that their intended use does not violate
the water quality standards in Chapter 62-520 FAC at the point of discharge, provided that the
drinking water standards of 40 CFR Part 142 (1994) are met at the point of discharge.
Operating Requirements
All Class V wells are required to be used or operated in such a manner that does not
present a hazard to a USDW. Pretreatment of injectate must be performed, if necessary to ensure
the fluid does not violate the applicable water quality standards in 62-520 FAC.
Monitoring Requirements
Monitoring generally will be required for Group 2 and 7 wells, unless the wells inject
fluids that meet the primary and secondary drinking water standards in 62-550 FAC and the
minimum criteria in Rule 62-520, and the injection fluids have been processed through a
permitted drinking water treatment facility (62-528.615 (l)(a)2 FAC). Monitoring frequency
will be based on well location and the nature of the injectate and will be addressed in the permit.
Mechanical Integrity Testing
Not specified by statute or regulations.
Financial Assurance
Not specified by statute or regulations.
Plugging and Abandonment
The owner or operator of any Class V well must apply for a plugging and abandonment
permit when the well is no longer used or usable for its intended purpose. Plugging must be
performed by a licensed water well contractor.
Idaho
Idaho is a UIC Primacy State for Class V wells and has promulgated regulations for the
UIC Program in the Idaho Administrative Code (IDAPA), Title 3, Chapter 3. Deep injection
wells are defined as more than 18 feet in vertical depth below the land surface (37.03.03.010.11
IDAPA). Wells are further classified, with Class V Subclass 5R21 defined as aquifer recharge
wells (37.03.03.025.01.m IDAPA).
September 30, 1999 53
-------
Permitting
Construction and use of shallow injection wells is authorized by rule, provided that
inventory information is provided and use of the well does not result in unreasonable
contamination of a drinking water source or cause a violation of the state's water quality
standards that would affect a beneficial use (37.03.03.025.03.d. IDAPA). Construction and use
of Class V deep injection wells is authorized by permit (37.03.03.025.03.c IDAPA). The
regulations outline detailed specifications for the information that must be supplied in a permit
application (37.03.03.035 IDAPA).
Operating Requirements
Standards for the quality of injected fluids and criteria for location and use are
established for rule-authorized wells, as well as for wells requiring permits. The rules are based
on the premise that if the injected fluids meet MCLs for drinking water for physical, chemical,
and radiological contaminants at the wellhead, and if ground water produced from adjacent
points of diversion for beneficial use meets the water quality standards found in Idaho's "Water
Quality Standards and Wastewater Treatment Requirements," 16.01.02 IDAPA, administered by
the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, the aquifer will be protected from unreasonable
contamination. State officials may, when it is deemed necessary, require specific injection wells
to be constructed and operated in compliance with additional requirements (37.03.03.050.01
IDAPA (Rule 50)). Rule-authorized wells "shall conform to the drinking water standards at the
point of injection and not cause any water quality standards to be violated at the point of
beneficial use" (37.03.03.050.04.d IDAPA).
Monitoring Requirements
Monitoring, record keeping, and reporting may be required if state officials find that the
well may adversely affect a drinking water source or is injecting a contaminant that could have
an unacceptable effect upon the quality of the ground waters of the state (37.03.03.055 IDAPA
(Rule 55)).
Mechanical Integrity Testing
Not specified by statute or regulations.
Financial Assurance
There are no financial responsibility requirements for rule-authorized wells. Permitted
wells are required by the permit rule to demonstrate financial responsibility through a
performance bond or other appropriate means to abandon the injection well according to the
conditions of the permit (37.03.03.35.03.6 IDAPA).
September 30, 1999 54
-------
Plugging and Abandonment
The Idaho Department of Water Resources (IDWR) has prepared "General Guidelines for
Abandonment of Injection Wells," which are not included in the regulatory requirements. IDWR
expects to approve the final abandonment procedure for each well. The General Guidelines
recommend the following:
Pull the casing, if possible. If the casing is not pulled, cut the casing a minimum of two
feet below the land surface.
The total depth of the well should be measured.
If the casing is left in place, it should be perforated and neat cement with up to 5 percent
bentonite can be pressure-grouted to fill the hole. As an alternative, when the casing is
not pulled, course bentonite chips or pellets may be used. If the well extends into the
aquifer, the chips or pellets must be run over a screen to prevent any dust from entering
the hole. No dust is allowed to enter the bore hole because of the potential for bridging.
Perforation of the casing is not required under this alternative.
If the well extends into the aquifer, a clean pit-run gravel or road mix may be used to fill
the bore up to ten feet below the top of the saturated zone or ten feet below the bottom of
casing, whichever is deeper, and cement grout or bentonite clay used to the surface. The
use of gravel may not be allowed if the lithology is undetermined or unsuitable.
A cement cap should be placed at the top of the casing if it is not pulled, with a minimum
of two feet of soil overlying the filled hole/cap.
Abandonment of the well must be witnessed by an IDWR representative.
Nevada
Nevada is a UIC Primacy State for Class V wells in which the Division of Environmental
Protection (DEP) administers the UIC Program. In addition, the State Engineer is authorized to
regulate the use of underground water, and projects for recharge and storage and recovery fall
under that jurisdiction.
Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) §§ 445A.300 - 445A.730 and regulations under the
Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) §§ 445A.810 - 445A.925 establish the state's basic UIC
Program. The injection of fluids through a well into any waters of the state, including
underground waters, is prohibited without a permit issued by DEP (445A.465 NRS), although
the statute allows both general and individual permits (445A.475 NRS and 445A.480 NRS).
Furthermore, injection of a fluid that degrades the physical, chemical, or biological quality of the
aquifer into which it is injected is prohibited, unless the DEP exempts the aquifer and the federal
USEPA does not disapprove the exemption within 45 days after notice of it (445A.850 NRS).
Regulations, particularly Chapter 445A NAC, "Underground Injection Control," define and
elaborate these statutory requirements.
September 30, 1999 55
-------
In addition, Chapter 534 of the Nevada Revised Statutes, "Underground Water and
Wells" addresses recharge and storage and recovery activities.
Permitting
The UIC regulations specify detailed information that must be provided in support of
permit applications, including proposed well location, description of geology, construction plans,
proposed operating data on rates and pressures of injection, analysis of injectate, analysis of fluid
in the receiving formation, proposed injection procedures, and corrective action plan (445A.867
NAC). The DEP may, however, modify the permit application information required for a Class
Vwell.
The underground water statute provides that the State Engineer will supervise all wells
tapping artesian water or water in definable underground aquifers, except wells for domestic
purposes that do not require a permit (534.030.4 NRS). The State Engineer may establish a
ground water basin water board to advise on approval of applications to issue permits to drill
wells or take related actions (534.035 NRS). Persons seeking to sink or bore a well in any basin
or portion thereof in the state designated by the State Engineer must first obtain a permit from
the State Engineer (534.050 NRS). The statute also provides that any person seeking to operate
a project for recharge, storage, and recovery of water must obtain a permit from the State
Engineer. The State Engineer must determine that the project is hydrologically feasible and that
it will not cause harm to users of land or other water within the area of hydrological effect of the
project (534.250 NRS). A permit application must supply detailed information about the
project, including the following:
Evidence of financial and technical capacity;
The source, quality and annual quantity of water proposed to be recharged, and the
quality of the receiving water; and
A study that demonstrates the area of hydrological effect of the project, that the project is
hydrologically feasible, that the project will not cause harm to users of land and water
within the area of hydrological effect; the percent of recoverable water.
The permit will specify the capacity and plan of operation of the project, any required
monitoring, and any conditions (534.270 NRS).
Siting and Construction Requirements
The State of Nevada specifies that all injection wells must be situated on a well-drained
site not subject to inundation by a 100-year flood and sited in such a way that the well injects
into a formation that is separated from any USDW by a confining zone that is free of known
open faults or fractures within the area of review. It must be cased from the finished surface to
the top of the zone for injection and cemented to prevent movement of fluids into or between
USDWs. All injections must be through tubing set on a mechanical packer and the packer must
September 30, 1999 56
-------
be set between the top of the zone for injection and the bottom of the next highest USDW and as
close as possible to the top of the injected interval (445 A.908 NAC).
Operating Requirements
Injection of a fluid that degrades the physical, chemical, or biological quality of the
aquifer into which it is injected is prohibited, unless the DEP exempts the aquifer and the
USEPA does not disapprove the exemption within 45 days after notice of it (445A.850 NRS).
Monitoring Requirements
Monitoring frequency for injection pressure, pressure of the annular space, rate of flow,
and volume of injected fluid is specified by the permit for Class V wells. Analysis of injected
fluid must be conducted with sufficient frequency to yield representative data. Mechanical
integrity testing is required once each 5 years, by a specified method (445A.916 NAC).
Mechanical Integrity Testing
Not specified by statute or regulations.
Financial Assurance
A bond is required in favor of the state for the costs of plugging and abandonment of the
well, except that the bond may be waived for Class V wells upon adequate proof of financial
responsibility (445A.871 NAC).
Plugging and Abandonment
A plugging and abandonment plan and cost estimate must be prepared for each well, and
reviewed annually. Before abandonment, a well must be plugged with cement in a manner that
will not allow the movement of fluids into or between USDWs (445A.923 NAC).
Oklahoma
Oklahoma is a UIC Primacy State for Class V wells. The state has incorporated by
reference into the Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC) those parts of 40 CFR Part 124, and
Parts 144 to 148 that apply to the UIC program (252-652-1-3 OAC).
Permitting
Applicants for Class V injection well facilities are required to perform ground water
monitoring, provide an analysis of injected fluids and a description of the geologic strata through
which and into which injection is taking place, and provide any addition information that the
applicant believes is necessary to comply with 40 CFR 144.12 (252:652-5-3 OAC).
September 30, 1999 57
-------
Siting and Construction Requirements
Not specified by statute or regulations.
Operating Requirements
Not specified by statute or regulations.
Monitoring Requirements
Not specified by statute or regulations.
Mechanical Integrity Testing
Not specified by statute or regulations.
Financial Assurance
Not specified by statute or regulations.
Plugging and Abandonment
Not specified by statute or regulations.
Oregon
Oregon is a Primacy State for UIC Class V wells. The UIC program is administered by
the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Under the State's Administrative Rules
(OAR) pertaining to underground injection, "underground injection activity" means any activity
involving underground injection of fluids, including waste disposal wells and ground water
recharge wells. A "waste disposal well" is defined as any bored, drilled, driven or dug hole,
whose depth is greater than its largest surface dimension, which is used or is intended to be used
for disposal of sewage, industrial, agricultural, or other wastes and includes drain holes,
drywells, cesspools and seepage pits, along with other underground injection wells (340-044-
0005(22) OAR). Construction and operation of a waste disposal well is prohibited without a
water pollution control facility (WPCF) permit. Certain categories of wells are prohibited
entirely. Wells used for underground injection activities that allow the movement of fluids into a
USDW if such fluids may cause a violation of any primary drinking water regulation or
otherwise create a public health hazard or have the potential to cause significant degradation of
public waters are prohibited (340-044-0015(4)(d) OAR). The rules also provide that any
underground injection activity which may cause, or tend to cause, pollution of ground water may
be approved by DEQ in addition to other permits or approvals required by other federal, state, or
local agencies.
OAR contain special provisions administered by the Water Resources Department
addressing ASR and artificial ground water recharge (OAR 690 Division 350). ASR is defined
September 30, 1999 58
-------
as the storage of water from a separate source that meets drinking water standards in a suitable
aquifer for later recovery and not having as one of its primary purposes the restoration of the
aquifer (690-350-0010(l)(a) OAR). Artificial ground water recharge is defined as the
intentional addition of water diverted from another source to a ground water reservoir (690-350-
0110(1) OAR).
Permitting
ASR requires a limited license for ASR testing before a permanent ASR permit may be
obtained (690-350-0010(2) OAR). The limited license may cover ASR testing for a single well
or same-aquifer wells in a wellfield. The injection source water for ASR is required to comply
with drinking water standards, treatment requirements, and performance standards established by
the state Health Department or maximum measurable levels established by the Environmental
Quality Commission, whichever are more stringent. Conditions are placed in the limited license
or permit to minimize, to the extent technically feasible, practical, and cost-effective, the
concentration of constituents in the injection source water that are not naturally present in the
aquifer. No license or permit may establish concentration limits for water to be injected for ASR
in excess of standards established by the Health Department or the Environmental Quality
Commission (690-3 50-0010(6)(a)-(c) OAR). If the injection source water contains regulated
constituents that are detected at greater than 50 percent of the established levels, the ASR limited
license or permit may require the permittee to employ technically feasible, practical, and cost-
effective methods to minimize concentrations of such constituents in the injection source water.
Constituents that are associated with disinfection of the water may be injected into the aquifer up
to the standards established in the state. Further restrictions may be placed on certain
constituents if the Water Resources Department finds that they will interfere with or pose a
threat to the maintenance of the water resources of the state for present or future beneficial uses.
An application for a limited license must specify the proposed source for injection water,
maximum diversion rate, maximum injection rate at each well, maximum storage volume,
maximum storage duration, and maximum withdrawal rate at each well. It must specify the
proposed beneficial use or the intended disposal method for the recovered water. Access to
water for injection must be evidenced by a completed water availability statement from the local
watermaster, results from the DEQ's water availability model, or citation of an existing water
right. If the applicant is not the holder of the water right for the proposed ASR testing,
permission for use must be obtained. Applicants are encouraged to protect their ground water
supply through the development of a Wellhead Protection plan (690-350-0020 OAR).
The proposed ASR testing program must include water quality sampling, quality
assurance/quality control, and water level monitoring. The proposed system design must include
well construction information for any injection wells. Detailed preliminary hydrogeologic
information must be provided. Detailed information must be provided on the quality of the
source water and the quality of the receiving aquifer water. Application for a permanent ASR
permit requires submission of detailed information on all of the topics included in the application
for a limited license (690-350-0030 OAR). The Water Resources Department consults with the
Health Department and DEQ about the completeness of the applications for a limited license or
permit.
September 30, 1999 59
-------
An application for a ground water recharge permit must include all of the information
required under OAR 690-310-0040. Use of artificially recharged waters requires a secondary
ground water permit specifying the maximum diversion rate and volume of withdrawals and
allowable uses of stored recharged water (690-350-0130 OAR).
Siting and Construction Requirements
The permit application must include the proposed system design, including well
construction information, the wellhead assembly, piping system for injection and recovery, and
other conceptual design components of the system. A licensed professional must develop this
information (690-350-0030(4)(b)(B) OAR).
Operating Requirements
Not specified by statute or regulations.
Monitoring Requirements
Not specified by statute or regulations.
Mechanical Integrity Testing
Not specified by statute or regulations.
Financial Assurance
Not specified by statute or regulations.
Plugging and Abandonment
The state UIC requirements provide that upon discontinuance of use or abandonment a
waste disposal well is required to be rendered completely inoperable by plugging and sealing the
hole. All portions of the well which are surrounded by "solid wall" formation must be plugged
and filled with cement grout or concrete. The top portion of the well must be effectively sealed
with cement grout or concrete to a depth of at least 18 feet below the surface of the ground, or if
this method of sealing is not effective by a manner approved by the DEQ. The Water Resources
Department's requirements for ASR and aquifer recharge wells do not address plugging or
abandonment.
September 30, 1999 60
-------
South Carolina
South Carolina is a UIC Primacy State for Class V wells and the UIC program is
implemented by the Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC). The UIC
regulations, found in Chapter 61 of the State Code of Regulations, divide Class V wells into two
groups, with aquifer recharge wells found in group A.
Permitting
Class V.A. wells, which include recharge wells used to replenish the water in an aquifer,
are prohibited except as authorized by permit (R61-87.10.E.(l)(b) and (2)). The permit
application must include a description of the activities to be conducted, the name, address, and
location of the facility, the names and other information pertaining to the owner and operator, a
description of the business, and proposed operating data, including average and maximum daily
rate and volume of fluid to be injected, average and maximum injection pressure, and source and
an analysis of the chemical, physical, biological, and radiological characteristics of the injected
fluid; and drawings of the surface and subsurface construction of the well (R61-87.13.G(2)).
The movement of fluids containing wastes or contaminants into USDWs as a result of injection
is prohibited if the waste or contaminant may cause a violation of any drinking water standard or
otherwise adversely affect the health of persons (R61-87.5).
Siting and Construction Requirements
Siting and operating criteria and standards for Class V.A wells require logs and tests,
which will be specified by DHEC in the permit, to identify and describe USDWs and the
injection formation (R61-87.14).
Injection may not commence until construction is complete, the permittee has submitted
notice of completion to DHEC, and DHEC has inspected the well and found it in compliance
(R61-87.13U).
Operating Requirements
Operating requirements for Class V.A wells are the same as those for Class II and III
wells (R61-87.14). DHEC will establish maximum injection volumes and pressures and such
other permit conditions as necessary to assure that fractures are not initiated in the confining
zone adjacent to a USDW and to assure compliance with operating requirements (R61-87.13V).
Monitoring Requirements
Monitoring requirements will be specified in the permit. Monitoring requirements for
Class V.A wells are the same as those for Class III wells, and may include monitoring wells
(R61-87.14.G). Quarterly reporting of monitoring results is required to DHEC (R61-87.14.I(1)).
September 30, 1999 61
-------
Mechanical Integrity Testing
Prior to granting approval for operation, DHEC will require a satisfactory demonstration
of mechanical integrity. Tests will be performed at least every 5 years (R61-87.14.G).
Financial Assurance
Not specified by statute or regulations.
Plugging and Abandonment
A plugging and abandonment plan must be prepared and approved by DHEC (R61-
87.15).
Texas
Texas is a UIC Primacy State for Class V wells. The Injection Well Act (Chapter 27 of
the Texas Water Code) and Title 3 of the Natural Resources Code provide statutory authority for
the UIC program. Regulations establishing the UIC program are found in Title 30, Chapter 331
of the Texas Administrative Code (TAG). Aquifer recharge wells used to replenish water in an
aquifer are specifically defined as Class V wells (331.11 (a)(4)(F) TAG). Aquifer storage wells
used for the injection of water for storage and subsequent retrieval for beneficial use are also
specifically defined as Class V wells (331.11 (a)(4)(K) TAG).
Permitting
Underground injection is prohibited, unless authorized by permit or rule (331.7 TAG).
By rule, injection into a Class V well is authorized, although the Texas Natural Resources
Control Commission (TNRCC) may require the owner or operator of a well authorized by rule to
apply for and obtain an injection well permit (331.9 TAG). No permit or authorization by rule is
allowed where an injection well causes or allows the movement of fluid that would result in the
pollution of a USDW. A permit or authorization by rule must include terms and conditions
reasonably necessary to protect fresh water from pollution (331.5 TAG).
Siting and Construction Requirements
All Class V wells are required to be completed in accordance with explicit specifications
in the rules, unless otherwise authorized by the TNRCC. These specifications are:
A form provided either by the Water Well Drillers Board or the TNRCC must be
completed.
The annular space between the borehole and the casing must be filled from ground level
to a depth of not less than 10 feet below the land surface or well head with cement slurry.
Special requirements are imposed in areas of shallow unconfmed ground water aquifers
and in areas of confined ground water aquifers with artesian head.
September 30, 1999 62
-------
In all wells where plastic casing is used, a concrete slab or sealing block must be placed
above the cement slurry around the well at the ground surface; and the rules include
additional specifications concerning the slab.
In wells where steel casing is used, a slab or block will be required above the cement
slurry, except when a pitless adaptor is used, and the rules contain additional
requirements concerning the adaptor.
All wells must be completed so that aquifers or zones containing waters that differ
significantly in chemical quality are not allowed to commingle through the borehole-
casing annulus or the gravel pack and cause degradation of any aquifer zone.
The well casing must be capped or completed in a manner that will prevent pollutants
from entering the well.
When undesirable water is encountered in a Class V well, the undesirable water must be
sealed off and confined to the zone(s) of origin (331.132 TAG).
Operating Requirements
None specified. Chapter 331, Subpart H, "Standards for Class V Wells" addresses only
construction and closure standards (331.131 to 331.133 TAG).
Monitoring Requirements
Not specified by statute or regulations.
Mechanical Integrity Testing
Injection may be prohibited for Class V wells that lack mechanical integrity. The
TNRCC may require a demonstration of mechanical integrity at any time if there is reason to
believe mechanical integrity is lacking. The TNRCC may allow plugging of the well or require
the permittee to perform additional construction, operation, monitoring, reporting, and corrective
actions which are necessary to prevent the movement of fluid into or between USDWs caused by
the lack of mechanical integrity. Injection may resume on written notification from the TNRCC
that mechanical integrity has been demonstrated (331.4 TAG).
Financial Assurance
Chapter 27 of the Texas Water Code, "Injection Wells," enacts financial responsibility
requirements for persons to whom an injection well permit is issued. A performance bond or
other form of financial security may be required to ensure that an abandoned well is properly
plugged (§ 27.073). Detailed financial responsibility requirements also are contained in Chapter
331, Subchapter I of the state's UIC regulations (331.141 to 331.144 TAC). A permittee is
required to secure and maintain a performance bond or other equivalent form of financial
September 30, 1999 63
-------
assurance or guarantee to ensure the closing, plugging, abandonment, and post-closure care of
the injection operation. However, the requirement, unless incorporated into a permit, applies
specifically only to Class I and Class III wells (331.142 TAC).
Plugging and Abandonment
Plugging and abandonment of a well authorized by rule is required to be accomplished in
accordance with §331.46 TAC (331.9 TAC). In addition, closure standards specific to Class V
wells provide that closure is to be accomplished by removing all of the removable casing and
filling the entire well with cement to land surface. Alternatively, if the use of the well is to be
permanently discontinued, and if the well does not contain "undesirable" water, the well may be
filled with fine sand, clay, or heavy mud followed by a cement plug extending from the land
surface to a depth of not less than 10 feet. If the use of a well that does contain undesirable
water
is to be permanently discontinued, either the zone(s) containing undesirable water or the fresh
water zone(s) must be isolated with cement plugs and the remainder of the wellbore filled with
sand, clay, or heavy mud to form a base for a cement plug extending from the land surface to a
depth of not less than 10 feet (331.133 TAC).
Washington
Washington is a UIC Primacy State for Class V wells. Chapter 173-218 of the
Washington Administrative Code (WAC) establishes the state's UIC program. Under this
program, the policy of the Department of Ecology is to maintain the highest possible standards to
prevent the injection of fluids that may endanger ground waters which are available for
beneficial uses or which may contain fewer than 10,000 mg/1 total dissolved solids. Consistent
with that policy, all new Class V injection wells that inject industrial, municipal, or commercial
waste fluids into or above a USDW are prohibited (172-218-090(1) WAC). Existing wells must
obtain a permit to operate.
In addition, the state has enacted standards for direct ground water recharge projects
using reclaimed water (Water Reclamation and Reuse Standards, Section 3). These rules
primarily address the standards and treatment requirements for the reclaimed water, when
injected into potable ground water and when injected into nonpotable ground water. For potable
ground water, the requirements also include construction standards for withdrawal facilities,
requiring them to comply with 173-136 and 173-150 WAC. The rules include reclaimed water
sampling and analysis and monitoring requirements, operational requirements for the
reclamation plant, disinfection requirements, mandatory retention time prior to withdrawal, and
ground water monitoring requirements (Articles 3 to 6). However, these rules do not address
requirements for injection and/or withdrawal wells, except for the requirement pertaining to
wells withdrawing water from potable aquifers.
September 30, 1999 64
-------
Permitting
A permit must specify conditions necessary to prevent and control injection of fluids into
the waters of the state, including all known, available, and reasonable methods of prevention,
control, and treatment; applicable requirements in 40 CFR Parts 124, 144, 146; and any
conditions necessary to preserve and protect USDWs. Any injection well that causes or allows
the movement of fluid into a USDW that may result in a violation of any primary drinking water
standard under 40 CFR Part 141 or that may otherwise adversely affect the beneficial use of a
USDW is prohibited (173-218-100 WAC).
Siting and Construction Requirements
The state has promulgated minimum standards for construction and maintenance of wells
(173-160-010 through -560 WAC). However, injection wells regulated under Chapter 173-218
are specifically exempted from these constructions standards (173-160-010(3)(e) WAC).
Operating Requirements
The water quality standards for ground waters establish an antidegradation policy. The
injectate must meet the state's ground water standards at the point of compliance (173-200-030
WAC).
Monitoring Requirements
Not specified by statute or regulations.
Mechanical Integrity Testing
Not specified by statute or regulations.
Financial Assurance
Not specified by statute or regulations.
Plugging and Abandonment
All wells not in use must be securely capped so that no contamination can enter the well
(173-160-085 WAC).
September 30, 1999 65
-------
REFERENCES
Amans, L.C. and J. McLeod. 1988. Kerrville, Texas-A Case Study for Aquifer Storage
Recovery. In International Symposium on Class V Injection Well Technology, held in Las
Vegas, Nevada. Underground Injection Practices Council, 203-221. September 13-15, 1988.
Antelope Valley Board of Trade. 1997. Aquifer Storage and Recovery Testing Continues.
Antelope Valley Business News. Available: http://www.avbot.org/avdn/mar97/aquifer.html.
Atkinson, S.F., G.D. Miller, and D.S. Curry. 1986. Salt-water Intrusion, Status and Potential in
the Contiguous United States. Chelsea, Michigan: Lewis Publishers.
Bouwer, H., R.D.G. Pyne, and J.A. Goodrich. 1990. Recharging Groundwater. Civil
Engineering. American Society of Civil Engineers, 1:6: 63-66.
Bloetscher, F. 1999. Comments on the May 17, 1999 Draft of The Class V Underground
Injection Control Study: Salt Water Intrusion Barrier Wells Information Summary. Florida
Governmental Utility Authority. June 16, 1999.
Breault, R.L. 1997. Project Management During Design and Construction of an Aquifer
Storage & Recovery Wellfield. Proceedings of AWRA Symposium, Conjunctive Use of Water
Resources: Aquifer Storage and Recovery, Long Beach, California. Herdon, Virginia: American
Water Resources Association, 357-363. October 19-23, 1997.
Bruington, A.E. 1968. The Amelioration of Prevention of Salt-Water Intrusion in Aquifers-
Experience in Los Angeles County, California. Salt-water Encroachment into Aquifers:
Proceedings of the Limited Professional Symposium, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge,
Louisiana, May 4-5, 1967. Baton Rouge: Louisiana Water Resources Research Institute Bulletin
3. October 1968.
Calleguas Municipal Water District. Las Posas Basin Aquifer Storage and Recovery Project.
Available: http://www.calleguas.com/lpb.html.
Castro, I.E. and L.R. Gardner. 1997. "A Geochemical Model for the Aquifer Storage and
Recovery Project at Myrtle Beach, SC." Proceedings of AWRA Symposium, Conjunctive Use
of Water Resources: Aquifer Storage and Recovery, held in Long Beach, California, October 19-
23,1997. American Water Resources Association, pp 201-210.
Centennial Water and Sanitation District. 1998. Water Analysis Report of Water Samples
Collected at Location KOI: Well A-6 Recharge on February 11, 1998, April 23, 1998, and July
28,1998. September 30, 1998.
City of Oxnard. 1996. Annual Water Quality Report: Water Quality Program. Oxnard,
California.
September 30, 1999 66
-------
City of Salem. 1999. Letter from Mr. Paul Eckley, Chief Utilities Engineer, City of Salem, to
Mr. Donn Miller, Hydrogeologist, Oregon Water Resources Department re 1998 Annual Report
for ASR Limited License #001. February 11, 1999.
Crook, J., T. Asano, and M. Nellor. 1991. Groundwater Recharge with Reclaimed Water in
California. Municipal Wastewater Reuse: Selected Readings on Water Reuse. 67-74.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA 430/09-91-022.
Gulp, R.L.. 1981. Treatment Processes to Meet Water Reuse Requirements. Water Engineering
and Management 28:4: 72-76.
Deuerling, R. 1997. Florida Department of Environmental Regulations. Memorandum to
Anhar Karimjee, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Tallahassee, FL.
November 14, 1997.
Deuerling, Rich. 1999. Comments on the April 30, 1999 Draft of the Class V Underground
Injection Control Study: Aquifer Recharge Well Information Summary. State of Florida.
June/July 1999.
Dickenson, J.M. 1997. ASR and Ground water Basin Management. Proceedings of AWRA
Symposium, Conjunctive Use of Water Resources: Aquifer Storage and Recovery. Long Beach,
California. Herndon, Virginia: American Water Resources Association, 155-162. October 19-
23, 1997.
Driscoll, F. G. 1986. Groundwater and Wells (Second Edition). Johnson Division. St. Paul,
Minnesota.
Eckley, Paul. 1999. Comments on the May 14, 1999 Draft of the Class V Underground
Injection Control Study: Aquifer Storage and Recovery Well Information Summary. Oregon
Public Works Department. City of Salem, Oregon. June 9, 1999.
Fairchild, D.M. 1985. Multi-Purpose Approach to Ground Water Management. Proceedings of
the Association of Ground Water Scientists and Engineers, Southern Regional Water
Conference, San Antonio, Texas. Worthington, OH: National Water Well Association.
September 18-19, 1985.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). 1998. Map titled Aquifer Storage and
Recovery Facilities. December 1998. Table titled Aquifer Storage and Recovery Facilities in
Florida. Updated: December 7, 1998.
Freeze, R. A. and J. A. Cherrry. 1979. Groundwater. Printice Hall, Inc. Englewoods Cliffs,
New Jersey.
Griffis, C.L. 1976. Artificial Recharge in the Grand Prairie, Arkansas. Bulletin 810,
Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas. August, 1976.
September 30, 1999 67
-------
Hamlin, S.M. 1987. Hydraulic/Chemical Changes During Ground-Water Recharge by
Injection. Groundwater 25:3: 267-274.
Horvath, Lloyd. 1997. ViroGroup, Inc. Memorandum to Kim Clemente, The Cadmus Group,
Inc. Listof ASR projects that ViroGroup has undertaken, 1997. Cape Coral, FL.
Horvath, L.E., M.S. Pearce, and HJ. Losch. 1997. Using Aquifer Storage and Recovery to
Meet Seasonally Fluctuating Water Demand and Water Availability Cycles at Marco Island,
Florida. Proceedings of AWRA Symposium, Conjunctive Use of Water Resources: Aquifer
Storage and Recovery, Long Beach, California. Herndon, Virginia: American Water Resources
Association, 61-70. October 19-23, 1997.
Kazman, R.G. 1967. Perspectives in Artificial Recharge. American Water Resources
Association, Proceedings Series #4, pp. 187-192.
Lacombe, PJ. 1997. Artificial Recharge of Ground Water by Well Injection for Storage and
Recovery, Cape May County, New Jersey, 1958-92. Proceedings of AWRA Symposium,
Conjunctive Use of Water Resources: Aquifer Storage and Recovery, Long Beach, California.
Herndon, Virginia: American Water Resources Association, 33-41. October 19-23, 1997.
Lichtler, W.F., D. Stannard, and E. Kourna. 1980. "Investigation of Artificial Recharge of
Aquifers in Nebraska." Water-Resources Investigations: 80-93. U.S. Geological Survey.
Reston, VA.
Lucas, M. and K. McGill. 1997. "Aquifer Treatment Methods for Preventing Iron
Concentrations in the Recovered Water From Aquifer Storage and Recovery Wells Installed in
Clayey Sand Aquifers of the Atlantic Coastal Plain." Proceedings of AWRA Symposium,
Conjunctive Use of Water Resources: Aquifer Storage and Recovery. Held in Long Beach,
California October 19-23, 1997. American Water Resources Association, pp 449-458.
McNeal, M.B., A.E. Fox, N.J. LoPriesti, and K.E. Coates. 1997. Seasonal Storage of High
Quality Reclaimed Water. Proceedings of AWRA Symposium, Conjunctive Use of Water
Resources: Aquifer Storage and Recovery, Long Beach, California. Herndon, Virginia:
American Water Resources Association, 427-435. October 19-23, 1997.
Memphis Light, Gas, and Water Division, 1997. Letter from Mr. Charles Picket, Manager, Gas
and Water Engineering, to Ms. Robin Bell, Manager, Underground Injection Program,
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Supply, March 5,
1997.
Miller, TJ. and R.R. Beavers. 1997. ASR Using a Deep Midwestern Aquifer: Des Moines
(Iowa) Water Works ASR Demonstration Project. Proceedings of AWRA Symposium,
Conjunctive Use of Water Resources: Aquifer Storage and Recovery, Long Beach, California.
Herndon, Virginia: American Water Resources Association, 89-98. October 19-23, 1997.
September 30, 1999 68
-------
North Carolina Division of Water Resources. 1996. Strategic Management Implications of
Water Reclamation and Reuse on Water Resources.
O'Hare, M.P., D.M. Fairchild, P.A. Hajali, and L.W. Canter. 1986. Artificial Recharge of
Groundwater. Chelsea, MI: Lewis Publishers.
Olson, Gregg. 1999. Comments on the April 30, 1999 Draft of the Class V Underground
Injection Control Study: Aquifer Recharge Well Information Summary. USEPA Region 9.
June 23, 1999.
Palmer, R., D. Wendell, A. Hutchinson, and T. Foreman. 1997. "Optimization of ASR
Operations in a Nitrate and PCE Contaminated Aquifer." Proceedings of AWRA Symposium,
Conjunctive Use of Water Resources: Aquifer Storage and Recovery, held in Long Beach
California, October 19-23, 1997. American Water Resources Association. pp3-ll.
Pitt, W.A.J. and S. Magenheimer. 1997. ASR Technology: Avoidance and Solutions to Aquifer
Clogging Problems. Proceedings of AWRA Symposium, Conjunctive Use of Water Resources:
Aquifer Storage and Recovery, Long Beach, California. Herndon, Virginia: American Water
Resources Association, 251-260. October 19-23, 1997.
Powers, J. Patrick. 1992. Construction Dewatering: New Methods and Applications. Second
Edition. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Priest, Barbara. 1999. UIC Program Coordinator, Water Quality Division, Oregon Department
of Environmental Quality. Telephone Conversation with Maribelle Rodriguez, ICF Consulting.
September 9 and 14, 1999.
Pyne, R.D.G. 1995. Ground water Recharge and Wells: A Guide to Aquifer Storage Recovery.
Boca Raton, Florida: Lewis Publishers.
Schaefer, V.R., DeBoer, D.E., and Emmons, P.J. 1994. Huron Project of the High Plains States
Demonstration Program. Artificial Recharge of Ground Water, II: Proceedings of the Second
International Symposium on Artificial Recharge of Ground Water. American Society of Civil
Engineers.
Shea-Albin, V. 1997. "Summary of info from the Report to Congress on the High Plains
Aquifer Project (prepared by USEPA to be part of the preamble)." USEPA Region 8. Denver,
CO. Correspondence to Anhar Karimjee, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. October 31, 1997.
Singer, P.C., et al. Examining the Impact of Aquifer Storage and Recovery on DBFs. Journal of
the American Water Works Association, 85-94. November 1993.
Sniegocki, R.T. and Brown, R.F. 1970. Clogging in Recharge Wells, Causes and Cures.
Proceedings Artificial Ground Water Recharge Conference. Water Res. Assn. England. 337.
September 30, 1999 69
-------
South Dakota State University. 1993. Memorandum Rule Authorization for Huron Project of
the High Plains States Groundwater Demonstration Program. Addressed to Mr Arnold
Boettcher, USEPA. March 26, 1993.
Southwest Florida Water Management District. The Peace River Option: A Balance Between
Nature and People. Issue Paper No. 8. Available:
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/swfwmd/SWFI008.html.
Terada, Calvin. 1999. Final Modified Inventories for Class V UIC Study Idaho, Oregon, and
Washington. E-mail from USEPA Region 10 to Anhal Karimjee, USEPA Office of Ground
Water and Drinking Water. February 24, 1999.
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC). 1996a. Letter from Mr.
Justin Wilson, Commissioner, Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation,
Division of Water Supply, to Mr. Charles Picket, Manager. Gas and Water Engineering,
Memphis Light, Gas, and Water Division. Re: UIC Class V Permit, MLGW, Shelby County,
May 30, 1996.
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC). 1996b. Underground
Injection Control Permit - Authorization to Operate a Class V Injection Well, issued to Memphis
Light, Gas, and Water Division, May 30, 1996.
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. 1996c. Memorandum from Ms.
Robin Bell, Manager, Underground Injection Program, Tennessee Department of Environment
and Conservation, Division of Water Supply, to Mr. Justin Wilson, Commissioner, Tennessee
Department of Environment and Conservation, Division of Water Supply: Re: Request review
and approval to issue Class V Underground Injection Control (UIC) Permit, May 8, 1996.
Texas Department of Water Resources. 1984. Underground Injection Operations in Texas: A
Classification and Assessment of Underground Injection Activities. Chapter 8: Artificial
Recharge Wells. December 1984.
Todd, D. K. 1980. Groundwater Hydrology (Second Edition). John Wiley & Sons.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. No date #1. High Plains States Groundwater Demonstration
Program, Interim Report.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. No date #2. Huron Project of the High Plains States Groundwater
Demonstration Program Progress Report for the Period November 1, 1991 to May 31, 1992.
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 1996. Hueco Bolson Recharge Demonstration Study Summary.
April 1996.
U.S. Department of the Interior. 1996. A Comprehensive Plan for the Restoration of the
Everglades. January 19, 1996.
September 30, 1999 70
-------
USEPA. 1997. Source Water Assessment and Programs Guidance. Office of Water.
Washington, D.C. EPA 816-R-97-009. August 1997.
U.S. Geological Survey. Water-Quality Effects of Aquifer Storage and Recharge of the Equus
Beds at the Ground-Water Recharge Demonstration Project Site Near Wichita, Kansas. Project
Number KS194. Available: http://www-ks.cr.usgs.gov/Kansas/studies/project.html.
Walker, Charles W. 1999. Comments on the May 14, 1999 Draft of the Class V Underground
Injection Control Study: Aquifer Storage and Recovery Well Information Summary. Missimer
International, Inc. June 17, 1999.
Warner, D. L. 1965. Deep well injection of liquid waste. Environmental Health Series, Water
Supply and Pollution Control, No. 999-WP-21. U.S. Department of Health, Education and
Welfare. Cincinnati, Ohio.
Wilson, Karen. 1999. Comments on the May 14, 1999 Draft of the Class V Underground
Injection Control Study: Aquifer Storage and Recovery Well Information Summary. USEPA
Region 4. June/July, 1999.
September 30, 1999 71
------- |