United States Office of Ground Water EPA/816-R-99-014v
Environmental and Drinking Water (4601) September 1999
Protection Agency
The Class V Underground Injection
Control Study
Volume 22
Noncontact Cooling Water Wells
-------
Table of Contents
Page
1. Summary 1
2. Introduction 2
3. Prevalence of Wells 3
4. Wastewater Characteristics And Injection Practices 6
4.1 Injectate Characteristics 6
4.1.1 Discharge Monitoring Report from New Jersey 8
4.1.2 Toxicity Characterization Study from Massachusetts and New
Hampshire 9
4.2 Well Characteristics 9
4.3 Operational Practices 10
5. Potential And Documented Damage to USDWs 12
6. Best Management Practices 12
7. Current Regulatory Requirements 12
7.1 Federal Programs 12
7.1.1 SDWA 12
7.1.2 CWA 13
7.2 State and Local Programs 14
Attachment A: State and Local Program Descriptions 15
References 22
September 30, 1999
-------
NONCONTACT COOLING WATER 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 (Volume 21 covers 2 well
categories). This volume, which is Volume 22, covers Class V wells that inject noncontact
cooling water.
1. SUMMARY
For the purpose of this study, "noncontact cooling water wells" are limited only to wells
used to inject noncontact cooling water that contains no additives and has not been chemically
altered. Wells that inject contact cooling water or noncontact cooling water that contains
additives (e.g., corrosion inhibitors, biocides) or is contaminated compared to the original source
water are considered "industrial wells."
USEPA defines noncontact cooling water (in 40 CFR §418.21 governing fertilizer
manufacturing) as "water which is used in a cooling system designed so as to maintain constant
separation of the cooling medium from all contact with process chemicals... provided, that all
reasonable measures have been taken to prevent, reduce, eliminate and control to the maximum
extent feasible... contamination...." No sampling data were obtained during the course of this
study that can be used to characterize the quality of fluids injected into noncontact cooling water
wells. However, given the very narrow way that such wells and noncontact cooling water are
defined, it is reasonable to expect that the quality of the fluids will not threaten USDWs.
Available information suggests that these wells are commonly used in situations in which
cooling water is withdrawn from an aquifer and then injected back into the same formation (so-
called "cooling water return flow wells" as defined in 40 CFR §146.5(e)(3)). In these situations,
the quality of the fluids injected will be the same as the quality of the fluids in the receiving
formation, except for a change in temperature.
No contamination incidents associated with noncontact cooling water wells, as defined
for the purpose of this study, have been reported. The only scenario in which noncontact cooling
water wells could be contaminated would involve pipe leaks that allow process chemicals or
other contaminants to commingle with the cooling water. Illicit discharges into these wells
appear extremely unlikely, since noncontact cooling water systems are operated as closed
systems that are virtually inaccessible for "midnight dumping." No incidents of this or any other
kind were uncovered during the course of this study.
September 30, 1999
-------
As for some of the other well categories addressed in this study, the inventory results for
noncontact cooling water wells are very uncertain because most responses to the state and
USEPA Regional survey did not distinguish these wells from other kinds of commercial or
industrial wells. The survey results suggest that there are more than 7,780 noncontact cooling
water wells in the nation, but this number includes some carwash wells, laundromat wells, and
food processing waste disposal wells. The survey results also indicate that noncontact cooling
water wells may exist in as many as 22 states, although most appear to be concentrated in Alaska
(212), Washington (3,900), and Tennessee (1,000). Ninety-eight percent of the documented and
estimated noncontact cooling water wells in the U.S. are found in ten states: Alabama, Alaska,
California, Iowa, Montana, New York, Ohio, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Washington.
Of the three states that have the vast majority of noncontact cooling water wells, Alaska
and Washington require the wells to be individually permitted. Tennessee currently permits
them by rule, following a program like the minimum federal requirements established in
USEPA's existing UIC regulations.
2. INTRODUCTION
Industries use water to cool processes, products, or equipment. Water is an ideal heat
sink, due to its low specific heat. The cooling water used in industrial heat exchange systems
may originate from surface water, such as lakes or rivers, or from ground water. After ground
water has been used for cooling, it may be returned to the subsurface through injection wells.
There are advantages to the injection of the cooling water. For example, widespread pumping
can decrease ground water levels in an aquifer and/or cause land subsidence, but injection may
help preserve and protect an aquifer by returning water that meets drinking water standards to
the voids in water-bearing strata (Snyder and Lee, 1980).
On July 29, 1998 (63 FR 40586), USEPA proposed revisions to the Class V UIC
regulations that would add new requirements for the following three types of wells that, based on
available information, were believed to pose a high risk to USDWs when located in ground
water-based source water protection areas: motor vehicle waste disposal wells, industrial wells,
and large-capacity cesspools. Under the consent decree described in Volume 1 of the study, all
other types of Class V wells are to be studied further to determine whether they warrant
additional UIC regulation.
In the July 29, 1998 proposal, "wells used to inject noncontact cooling water that
contains no additives and has not been chemically altered" were included in the proposed "other
industrial" well category.1 In contrast, Class V wells used to inject contact cooling water or
1 The wells in the proposed "other industrial well" category are: (1) wells used to inject fluids from
carwashes that are not specifically set up to perform engine or undercarriage washing; (2) wells used to
inject noncontact cooling water that contains no additives and has not been chemically altered; (3) wells
used to inject fluids from laundromats where no onsite dry cleaning is performed or where no organic
solvents are used for laundering; and (4) wells used to inject wastewater from food processing operations.
The other three kinds of wells included in the other industrial well category are addressed in separate
(continued...)
September 30, 1999 2
-------
noncontact cooling water that contains additives or has been chemically altered would fall into
the industrial well category subject to the proposed regulation. Consistent with this proposed
distinction, this study focuses primarily on noncontact cooling water wells (NCWWs) that
contain no additives. However, it also examines other kinds of noncontact cooling water
because available information does not always clearly distinguish between noncontact cooling
water with additives and noncontact cooling water without additives.
3. PREVALENCE OF WELLS
For this study, data on the number of Class V NCWWs 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 Study. Table 1 lists the numbers of Class V NCWWs 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
NCWWs.
Some states and USEPA Regions administering the UIC program acknowledge that they
have not been able to determine exactly how many NCWWs exist for a variety of reasons. Chief
among these reasons is that NCWWs are sometimes grouped together with other well types in
inventory databases. Thus, the state officials are unable to distinguish between NCWWs and
other well types, such as heat pump/air conditioning (HAC) return flow wells, carwash wells,
and other industrial wells, within their databases.
These uncertainties notwithstanding, Table 1 shows there are a total of 5,775 documented
NCWWs and more than 7,780 estimated NCWWs in the U.S. The following ten states contain
98% of the documented and estimated NCWWs: Alabama, Alaska, California, Iowa, Montana,
New York, Ohio, Tennessee, Washington, and West Virginia. The wells appear to be
concentrated in Washington, Tennessee, and Alaska, but inventories from Washington and
Tennessee may be incorrect. Tennessee officials believe they have included closed-loop HAC
wells in their inventory (Sorrells, 1999), and Washington officials cannot differentiate between
NCWWs and carwash wells within their inventory (Cadmus, 1999). Alaska has 212
documented wells; however, most of these wells are located at one facility and are being phased
out and closed. In states where NCWWs are grouped in with other industrial wells, such as New
York and West Virginia, the documented number is recorded as less than the total number of
documented "other industrial" wells.
1 (...continued)
volumes of the Class V Study.
September 30, 1999
-------
Table 1. Inventory of Noncontact Cooling Water Wells in the U.S.
State
Documented Number of
Wells
Estimated Number of Wells
Number
Source of Estimate and Methodology1
USEPA Region 1
MA
ME
NH
RI
NR
0
14
4
NR
NR
>14
Unknown
Best professional judgement. State staff suspect
that noncontact cooling water wells exist at some
industrial facilities.
Suspects these wells exist in ME, but none are
documented.
More wells suspected.
Best professional judgement.
USEPA Region 2
NY
<174
1500
Best professional judgement, based on years of
inspections and reviews of business directories.
USEPA Region 3
MD
WV
3
<223
>3
>223 total other
industrial wells
More wells suspected, but no information
provided.
Best professional judgement.
USEPA Region 4
AL
FL
GA
TN
162 total wells, not
categorized by type
Unknown
2
1000
>162
NR
2
>1000
Best professional judgement.
Based on field visits, believe wells exist, but no
statewide inventory is available.
N/A
State staff believe this number may include HAC
return flow wells. Only five NCWWs may actually
exist.
USEPA Region 5
IL
IN
MI
OH
0
Unknown
5
8
>0
Unknown
5
60
Best professional judgement.
State staff did not provide estimate because it does
not differentiate between industrial wells addressed
in the July 29, 1998 proposed rulemaking and
"other industrial wells."
N/A
Best professional judgement. Ohio ' s USEPA UIC
inventory does not differentiate between industrial
wells addressed or not addressed in the July 29,
1998 proposed rulemaking. Insufficient
information on business locations and related
sewer locations across the state to develop an
accurate estimate.
September 30, 1999
-------
Table 1. Inventory of Noncontact Cooling Water Wells in the U.S.
(Continued)
State
WI
Documented Number of
Wells
0
Estimated Number of Wells
Number
NR
Source of Estimate and Methodology1
Suspect these wells exist in WI, based on inventory
efforts made in some counties and best
professional judgement.
USEPA Region 6 - None
USEPA Region 7
IA
KS
MO
NE
Unknown
5
Unknown
14
<100
5
Unknown
14
Best professional judgement. The estimate is
based on discussions with trade organizations and
county sanitarians, and from working with the
regulated community.
Best professional judgement.
N/A
N/A
USEPA Region 8
MT
ND
SD
UT
WY
10
0
0
7
Unknown
50
Very few
Unknown
>7
Unknown
Best professional judgement.
Best professional judgement.
Region suspects more wells exist in SD, but none
are documented.
Best professional judgement.
N/A
USEPA Region 9
CA
HI
NV
7
5
2
507
5
1-5
Best professional judgement.
N/A
Best professional judgement.
USEPA Region 10
AK
ID
OR
WA
212
18
0
3900
150
18
50
>3900
Best professional judgement. Most wells are
located at one facility where they are being phased
out.
N/A
Best professional judgement.
Includes both noncontact cooling water wells and
carwash wells since database cannot distinguish
between the two; suspects more wells exist in WA
than documented.
September 30, 1999
-------
Table 1. Inventory of Noncontact Cooling Water Wells in the U.S.
(Continued)
State
Documented Number of
Wells
Estimated Number of Wells
Number
Source of Estimate and Methodology1
All USEPA Regions
All States
<5,775
> 7,780
Both documented and estimated figures may
include up to 3,900 car wash wells (see
Washington) and up to 1 ,000 heat pump/AC wells
(see Tennessee). Total estimated number counts
the documented number when the estimate is NR.
1 Unless otherwise noted, the best professional judgement is that of the state or USEPA Regional staff completing the survey
questionnaire.
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.
Unknown Questionnaire completed, but number of wells is unknown.
4. WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS AND INJECTION
PRACTICES
4.1 Injectate Characteristics
Within the scope of this study, noncontact cooling water contains no additives and has
not been chemically altered. If no additives are introduced to the water during the cooling
process, the injectate quality resembles the quality of the original source water used for cooling.
Therefore, in situations where cooling water is withdrawn from an aquifer and then injected back
into the same formation, the injectate quality will basically be the same as the water in the
receiving formation. Theoretically, the only characteristic that will have changed would be the
temperature.
Sometimes industries use additives in cooling water treatment programs in order to
provide corrosion control, scaling control, fouling control, and microbiological control (Frayne,
1992). Additionally, the natural chemistry and increased temperature of the water sometimes
accelerate corrosion of the pipes, introducing metallic elements to the injectate.
These additives may include a wide variety of chemicals in low levels. Examples include
chlorine, zinc, and chromium in biocides, such as algacides, bactericides, and fungicides;
well/pipe cleaners; sodium citrate in anti-scaling additives; antifreeze; and corroded pipe
metal/scale and anti-corrosion additives (Bose, 1997). State officials have mentioned other
examples, such as biodegradable additives, potassium permanganate for removing iron
accumulation, acids for removing lime scale from pipes, and tiny amounts of glue used in gluing
PVC pipes together (Sorrells, 1999).
September 30, 1999
-------
USEPA Region 9 officials report some injectate quality information for noncontact
cooling water wells in Hawaii (Wong, 1998). Region 9 sampled a well that was associated with
an electric power plant. The findings revealed high metal levels due to the commingling of
boiler blowdown wastes. (Therefore, the injectate has been chemically altered and would not
qualify as noncontact cooling water defined for this study). There is also a report of a
manufacturing factory in Hawaii that injected noncontact cooling water. The fluids released in
this well contained acetone, so it is questionable if it would qualify as water that contains no
additives or has not been chemically altered. A third noncontact cooling water well was located
at a pineapple canning plant, but fluids released in this well were not sampled by USEPA
Region 9.
Other than this anecdotal information, no data have been obtained on the quality of
noncontact cooling water that is injected underground. Therefore, as a surrogate for such data,
this summary relies on information on the quality of noncontact cooling water discharged to
surface waters. It is important to keep in mind several distinctions between surface water
intake/discharges and ground water intake/injections. Noncontact cooling water withdrawn from
surface water has a greater variety of potential additives, especially biocides, such as those to
control zebra mussel or lamprey infestation within the pipes (McRae, 1999). Water from ground
water sources does not require such additives, except for algacides, bactericides, and/or
fungicides.
There are a number of characteristics of concern to states regulating the discharge of
noncontact cooling water to surface waters. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) general permits for the states of Maine, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire, define
noncontact cooling water as "water used to reduce temperature which does not come into direct
contact with any raw material, intermediate product, waste product (other than heat), or finished
product. Noncontact cooling water discharges are similar in composition even though they are
not generated by a single industrial category or point source" (59 FR 22048, April 28, 1994)).
For example, discharge permits for New Jersey, Maine, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire
include limitations on the following effluent characteristics:
pH;
• Changes in temperature due to discharge;
• Total residual chlorine;
• Volume of the discharge;
Total suspended solids;
Petroleum hydrocarbons;
Chemical oxygen demand;
Acute toxicity to aquatic organisms; and
• Chronic toxicity to aquatic organisms.
The following sections summarize the results of two separate investigations of the quality
of noncontact cooling water discharged to surface water in New Jersey and in Massachusetts and
New Hampshire. Although the data are expected to be similar to NCWW injectate, these are not
injectate data.
September 30, 1999
-------
4.1.1 Discharge Monitoring Report from New Jersey
The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy (NJDEPE)
collected data for 36 industrial facilities that submitted discharge permit renewal applications
and had active noncontact cooling water discharges from August 1991 to July 1992. The data
compiled from this effort are documented in a Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) and are
summarized in Table 2. This table also compares the results to applicable standards, including
primary drinking water maximum contaminant level (MCLs), secondary (non-health-based)
MCLs, and health advisory levels (HALs).
Only two of the 36 facilities that were reviewed had detectable levels of copper and zinc.
Measurable levels of chromium (i.e., equal to or greater than 0.1 mg/1) were not found at any
facility. The minimum and maximum pH levels were reported to be slightly outside the
secondary MCL range. All other parameters were reported to be less than applicable MCLs or
HALs.
Table 2. DMR Data from 36 Facilities in New Jersey
Parameter
Chemical Oxygen Demand
(mg/1)1
pH range (S.U.)
Total Suspended Solids (mg/1)
Petroleum Hydrocarbons
(mg/1)
Chromium (mg/1)
Copper (mg/1)
Zinc (mg/1)
Temperature (• C)
Minimum
0.5
6.0
ND
--
--
--
--
4.9
Maximum
3,7772
8.9
31
88.5
<0.1
0.031
0.209
35.3
Average
34.233
--
4.4
1.9
--
--
--
19.9
Drinking Water
Standards*
mg/1
-
6.5-8.5
-
-
0.1
1.3/1
5
-
P/S
s
p
Action
Level/S
S
Health
Advisory
Levels**
mg/1
-
-
-
-
-
-
2
-
N/C
N
'Some of the data reported were indicated as a less than value. For these data points, one half of the less than value was used
as the data point for purposes of estimating an average.
2This was the highest value reported in the DMR and is not expected to be representative of the true range of data points. A
more representative maximum is expected to be 49 mg/1.
3This is the calculated average utilizing all data points. The average value excluding the two data points which are not
expected to be representative of the true range of data points is 8.76.
Source: NJDEPE, 1994.
* Drinking Water Standards: P=Primary; S=Secondary.
** Health Advisory Levels: N=Noncancer Lifetime; C=Cancer Risk.
- No data available.
- No standards of advisory levels available.
September 30, 1999
-------
4.1.2 Toxicity Characterization Study from Massachusetts and New Hampshire
In November 1991, the Environmental Services Division from USEPA Region 1
conducted a study on the toxicity of noncontact cooling water discharges to surface water in
Massachusetts and New Hampshire. USEPA collected grab samples from 16 outfalls and three
individual plant water sources. Acute or chronic toxicity tests were conducted on the effluents
from these sources using the fat head minnow (Pimephales promelas) and the water flea
(Ceriodaphnia dubia).
This study showed that a majority of the noncontact cooling water discharges that were
tested caused significant acute or chronic toxicity to these aquatic organisms. Test results
reported acute toxicity (LC50) levels as low as 3.4 percent effluent, and chronic toxicity (no
observed effect concentrations) as low as 2.5 percent effluent. USEPA stated that the possible
causes for this toxicity included (NJDEPE, 1994):
• Contaminated source water;
• Presence of metals in the discharges; and
• Use of biocides or cooling water additives (i.e., chlorine) in the discharges.
These biocides and corrosion inhibitors are "toxic to aquatic life and would need to be
closely monitored and require periodic bioassay testing as well as toxicity limitations." In New
Jersey, those facilities that add copper, chromium, or zinc as corrosion inhibitors are required to
have individual permits (NJDEPE, 1994).
New Jersey facilities that use chlorine as a biocide also do not qualify for a general
permit because chlorine has been proven to be toxic to aquatic biota. Chlorine, however, is a
parameter that is commonly found in public water supplies in low levels. The general permit
discussion states that a database is necessary to further examine Chlorine Produced Oxidants
(NJDEPE, 1994). The New Jersey general permit only allows biocides that are non-toxic.
Because the cooling waters tested in this study contained biocides, the resulting toxicity
characterization is not representative of noncontact cooling water "that contains no additives,"
which is of interest in this study. New Jersey now requires toxicity characterization studies in
their permit for discharges of noncontact cooling water containing biocides to surface water.
4.2 Well Characteristics
Cooling water return flow wells are typically shallow and drain fluid by gravity. Design
and construction varies greatly with the volume of injectate and local conditions. Cooling water
return flow wells may be designed as open or closed systems. The most common design is the
closed system, which withdraws ground water, uses it in closed pipes for cooling without ever
exposing the water to air, and then injects the water back into the same underground formation
from which it came (USEPA, 1987). In contrast, open systems expose ground water to the air at
some point before re-injection.
September 30, 1999
-------
In Snyder and Lee (1980), several types of applications for ground water cooling systems
are described. The simplest systems are used for direct cooling, and employ either a shell and
tube heat exchanger or the "fan and coil" system, which cools air exposed to a coil filled with
cold ground water. Figure 1 shows schematics of these designs.
Cooling water return flows wells are sometimes used by power plants. For example,
Hawaii Electric Company reports that their subsidiary utilities use noncontact cooling water
return flow wells. The utilities have onsite source wells that supply cooling water for the power
plant condensers, which is subsequently injected through a Class V well (Bonnet, 1995).
However, officials reported that due to differing hydrological conditions, ground water
does not always provide enough cooling water for large industries in New Jersey such as power
plants. As a result, large industries more commonly use surface water intakes for large-scale
cooling, and mostNCWWs are likely to be used by small businesses (Manhas, 1999).
The primary use of such wells is to dispose of used cooling water. However, they also
may be used to inject water to prevent subsidence and to avoid depletion of ground water
supplies. For example, Lichtler et al. (1980) documented two cooling water injection wells that
also provided aquifer recharge in Aurora, Nebraska. According to the authors, in order to
accomplish these other objectives besides disposal, wells injecting noncontact cooling water
would have to be sited in locations where it is important to prevent subsidence or maintain
ground water recharge.
4.3 Operational Practices
No information was obtained through the Class V survey on the operational practices of
NCWWs.
5. POTENTIAL AND DOCUMENTED DAMAGE TO USDWs
There is no evidence that any constituents in NCWW injectate, as narrowly defined for
this study, exceed any health-based standards. However, there is one case where documented
contamination was caused by a cooling water well. Eckhardt and Pearsall (1989) documented a
case of ground water contamination in which cooling water injection wells spread contamination
from a deep aquifer, which served as the original water source, to a shallow aquifer, which
received the water after it was used. Ground water contaminated with trichloroethylene (TCE),
1,2-dichloroethylene (DCE), and tetrachloroethylene (PCE) was withdrawn from the Magothy
aquifer in Roosevelt Field on Long Island, New York, and injected into an overlying aquifer.
The original source of the contamination, the well structure, and the type of cooling water return
well (i.e., open, closed, or contact) are unknown. In any case, however, the injectate was not the
relatively "clean" noncontact cooling water envisioned for the "other industrial" well category
proposed in the July 29, 1998 notice of proposed rulemaking because the feedwater was
originally contaminated.
September 30, 1999 10
-------
Figure 1. Ground Water Cooling Systems for Direct Cooling
Groundwater from
Source Well
i
c
Liquid to
Be Cooled
Cooled Liquid
Groundwater to
Reinjection Well
(A) Shell and Tube Heat Exchanger
Cooling Coil
Fan
Air
Jl
(B) Water to Air Heat Exchanger
Source: Snyder and Lee, 1980
September 30, 1999
11
-------
6. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Noncontact cooling water systems can be designed to shut down automatically in the
event of a pressure loss due to a pipe leak below ground. In addition, noncontact cooling water
systems can use a heat-conductive, but nearly impermeable, grout material to fill the casing
surrounding circulation piping, helping reduce the possibility of a leak.
In general, the use of noncontact cooling water is thought to be a best management
practice in itself because the water can be reused. The use of additives, as discussed in Section
4, is a major issue in determining if this practice is sound. From an environmental standpoint,
the use of non-toxic additives are obviously preferable to toxic additives such as chlorine,
copper, zinc, and chromium.
7. CURRENT REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS
Several federal, state, and local programs exist that either directly manage or regulate
Class V NCWWs. On the federal level, management and regulation of these wells falls
primarily under the UIC program authorized by the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). 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 NCWWs. Although not targeted to
underground injection, general permits for discharges of noncontact cooling water have been
issued under the Clean Water Act (CWA).
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
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.
Noncontact cooling water 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 noncontact
cooling water 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."
September 30, 1999 12
-------
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 noncontact cooling water 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
source water protection areas. Class V wells, including noncontact cooling water 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 CWA
There are no national effluent guidelines for noncontact cooling water discharges to
surface water, which might have some partial applicability to ground water discharges. Instead,
USEPA has issued general permits for surface water discharges. USEPA's regulations authorize
the issuance of general permits to categories of discharges (40 CFR §122.28). General permits
2 May 2003 is the deadline including an 18-month extension.
September 30, 1999 13
-------
are warranted by similarities in environmental conditions, state regulatory requirements, and the
type of technology employed.
7.2 State and Local Programs
As discussed in Section 3 above, 98% of the documented and 98% of the estimated
NCWWs in the nation exist in ten states: Ohio, New York, West Virginia, Alabama, Tennessee,
Ohio, Iowa, Montana, California, Alaska, and Washington. Attachment A of this volume
describes how each of these states currently address NCWWS.
The statutory and regulatory frameworks for injection wells associated with NCWWs in
the states that indicate the largest number of wells fall into two major groups.
• USEPA directly implements the UIC Class V program in six of the states with relatively
large numbers of NCWWs: Alaska, Iowa, Montana, California, New York, and
Tennessee. In Alaska, Iowa, and Montana, the USEPA Region applies inventory and
permit by rule requirements to ensure non-endangerment of USDWs. In California, New
York, and Tennessee, the state also has water quality control requirements that it can use
to prescribe requirements for discharges into the waters of the state. These water quality
control programs can impose stringent permitting requirements, although in practice they
apparently have not given priority to noncontact cooling water injection wells as subjects
for regulation.
• Ohio, West Virginia, Washington, and Alabama are UIC Primacy States for Class V
wells. Although these states define cooling water wells as Class V wells in their state
regulations, they frequently do not specify that the injected water targeted by the
regulations is noncontact cooling water (i.e., the regulations apply to both contact and
noncontact cooling water). In some cases, wells are described as air conditioning wells,
without clarifying whether the rules apply to heat pump/air conditioning wells. In most
cases, applicable statutes do not establish requirements specifically targeted to
noncontact cooling water wells. In two of these states, Ohio and West Virginia, cooling
water wells are permitted by rule, with mandatory inventory requirements and a
requirement for non-endangerment of USDWs. Alabama allows Class V wells that do
not cause a violation of primary drinking water regulations under 40 CFR Part 142, and
requires submission of information in a permit application describing the use of the
injection well. Washington permits existing wells and prohibits new wells that inject
industrial, municipal, or commercial waste fluids into or above a USDW and requires
only inventory information from other wells.
September 30, 1999 14
-------
ATTACHMENT A
STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS
This section describes the regulatory requirements of the following ten states that report
having 98% of documented and estimated NCWWs in the U.S.: Alabama, Alaska, California,
Iowa, Montana, New York, Ohio, Tennessee, Washington, and West Virginia.
Alabama
Alabama is a UIC Primacy State for Class V wells. The Alabama Department of
Environmental Management (ADEM) has promulgated requirements for Class V UIC wells
under Chapter 335 of the Alabama Administrative Code (AAC). Injection wells used for the
injection of water previously used for cooling (cooling water return flow wells) are specifically
defined as Class V wells in the state (335-6-8-.02 AAC). The Code specifies that "Class V wells
may be allowed insofar as they do not cause a violation of primary drinking water regulations
under 40 CFR Part 142" (335-6-8-.07 AAC).
Permitting
The operator of an existing or proposed Class V well must submit a permit application to
ADEM that includes the following information (335-6-8-. 14(a) through (e) AAC):
• Facility name and location;
• Name of owner and operator;
• Legal contact;
• Depth, general description, and use of the injection well; and
Description of pollutant injected, including physical and chemical characteristics.
ADEM is required by the Code to assess the possibility of adverse impact on a USDW
posed by the well and to determine any special construction and operation requirements which
may be required to protect a USDW (335-6-8-.15(1) AAC). If the ADEM determines that the
proposed action may have an adverse impact on a USDW, the applicant may be required to
submit a permit application in the manner prescribed for Class I and Class in wells. When those
permit application requirements are applied, the permit application processing and issuance
procedures will follow the rules set forth for Class I and in wells (335-6-8-. 15(2) AAC).
Siting and Construction Requirements
Class V wells are required to be constructed in such a manner that they may not cause a
violation of primary drinking water regulations, defined as 40 CFR Part 142 in USDWs. When
required by ADEM, the wells must be constructed by a well driller licensed by ADEM (335-6-8-
.25 AAC).
September 30, 1999 15
-------
Operating Requirements
Class V wells are required to be operated in a manner that may not cause a violation of
primary drinking water regulations under 40 CFR 142. ADEM may order the operator to take
necessary actions to prevent violation, including closure of the well (335-6-8-.16 AAC).
A method of obtaining grab and composite samples of pollutants after all pretreatment
and prior to injection must be provided at all sites. Spill prevention and control measures
sufficient to protect surface and ground water from pollution must be taken at all sites (335-6-8-
.22 AAC).
Monitoring requirements may be specified in the permit, by administrative order, by
directive, or by inclusion in the plugging and abandonment plan (335-6-8-.28 AAC).
Plugging and Abandonment
A plugging and abandonment plan may be required by permit or administrative order. If
necessary, it may be required to include aquifer cleanup procedures. If pollution of a USDW is
suspected, ground water monitoring may be required after well abandonment (335-6-8-.27
AAC).
Alaska
USEPA Region 10 directly implements the UIC program for Class V injection wells in
Alaska. In addition, Chapter 72 of the Alaska Administrative Code addresses wastewater
disposal to ground water. Disposal of nondomestic wastewater is subject to restrictions in 18
AAC 072.500, including review and approval of a nondomestic wastewater system plan by the
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.
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 a Regional Water Quality
Control Board that is delegated responsibilities and authorities to coordinate and advance water
quality in each region (Chapter 4 Article 2 WQCA). A Regional Water Quality Control Board
can prescribe waste discharge requirements (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).
Although the Regional Water Quality Control Boards do not issue permits for injection
wells, the WQCA provides that any person operating, or proposing to operate, an injection well
September 30, 1999 16
-------
(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 Regional Board, after a hearing, may prescribe requirements for any proposed
discharge, existing discharge, or material change in an existing discharge in order to implement
any relevant regional water quality control plans that the RWQCB has adopted. 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 Regional Board
may waive the requirements in 13260(a) and 13263(a) for a specific discharge or a specific type
of discharge where the waiver is not against the public interest (13269(a) WQCA).
California counties take a variety of approaches to regulation of noncontact cooling water
injection wells, with some prohibiting them. For example, Merced County prohibits the
construction of "air conditioner" wells, defined as wells constructed to "return air conditioning
coolant water to the ground" (Merced County Code 9.28.060.B and 9.28.020 D). This
prohibition may apply to HAC return flow wells as well as non-contact cooling water wells.
Yolo County regulates only those activities that are not appropriately regulated by the State
Regional Water Quality Control Board and are deemed to warrant more stringent regulations due
to particular conditions within the county. Yolo County requires permits for wells that fall into
this category (Yolo County Code, Chapter 8, Water Quality, §§6-8.302, 6-8.602, 6-8.604).
Iowa
USEPA Region 7 directly implements the UIC program for Class V injection wells in
Iowa. No state regulations apply directly to non-contact cooling water return flow wells.
However, Iowa has enacted an anti-degradation policy to protect ground water from point
sources of contamination to the maximum extent possible (Chapter 567-61 Iowa Administrative
Code (IAC)).
Montana
USEPA Region 8 directly implements the UIC program for Class V injection wells in
Montana. The Region applies inventory requirements and permit by rule to ensure non-
endangerment. No state regulations apply to noncontact cooling water return flow wells.
New York
USEPA Region 2 directly implements the UIC program for Class V injection wells in
New York. In addition, under the state's Environmental Conservation Law, the Department of
Environmental Conservation, Division of Water Resources (DWR) has promulgated regulations
in the State Code Rules and Regulations, Title 6, Chapter X, Parts 703, 750 -758. These
regulations establish water quality standards and effluent limitations, create a state pollutant
discharge elimination system requiring permits for discharges into the waters of the state (which
include ground water), specify that such discharges must comply with the standards in Part 703,
and provide for monitoring in Part 756.
September 30, 1999 17
-------
Permitting
Applications for a State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit must
describe the proposed discharge, supply such other information as the DWR requests, and be
subject to public notice. SPDES permits must ensure compliance with effluent limitations and
standards and will include schedules of compliance, monitoring requirements, and records and
reports of activities (Parts 751 - 756).
Operating Requirements
Wells must meet effluent limits (Part 703) as determined by the state in the SPDES
permit. Monitoring and reporting requirements as prescribed by the state in the SPDES permit
must be met.
Ohio
Ohio is a UIC Primacy State for Class V wells. Regulations establishing the
underground injection control program are in Chapter 3745-34 of the Ohio Administrative Code
(OAC). Class V injection well definitions include cooling water return flow wells used to inject
water previously used for cooling (3745-34-04 OAC).
Permitting
Any underground injection, except as authorized by permit or rule, is prohibited. The
construction of any well required to have a permit is prohibited until the permit is issued (3745-
34-06 OAC).
Injection into Class V injection wells is authorized by rule (3745-34-13 OAC). The state
applies inventory requirements and a non-endangerment requirement. However, a drilling
permit and an operating permit are required for injection of sewage, industrial wastes, or other
wastes, as defined in § 6111.01 of the Ohio Revised Code, into or above a USDW (3745-34-13
OAC and 3745-34-14 OAC). Therefore, if the injectate is anticipated to exceed primary
drinking water standards, MCLs or HALs, permits to install and operate the well are required.
Wells required to obtain an individual permit must submit detailed information, including
location, formation into which the well is drilled, depth of well, nature of the injectate, and a
topographical map showing the facility, other wells in the area, and treatment areas (3475-34-
16(E) OAC).
Siting and Construction
There are no specific regulatory requirements for the siting and construction of wells
permitted by rule. Wells required to obtain an individual permit must submit siting information
and construction records.
September 30, 1999 18
-------
Operating Requirements
There are no specific operating or monitoring requirements for wells permitted by rule.
Injectate must meet drinking water standards at the point of injection, unless a permit allows
otherwise. Permitted wells will have monthly and quarterly monitoring and reporting
requirements (3745-34-26 (J) OAC).
Tennessee
USEPA Region 4 directly implements the UIC program for Class V injection wells in
Tennessee. The Region applies inventory requirements and permit by rule to ensure non-
endangerment. However, the state also has enacted a regulation addressing underground
injection in Section 1200-4-6-.01 of the Tennessee Administrative Code (TAG) pursuant to the
state's Water Quality Control Act. The statute protects all waters of the state, including ground
water. The state's rules define cooling water return flow wells used to inject water previously
used for cooling as Class V (1200-4-6.06(5)(c) TAG).
Permitting
Under the Tennessee rules, construction and operation of an injection well is prohibited
unless authorized by an injection well permit or by a rule of the Tennessee Department of
Environment and Conservation (DE&C) (1200-4-6.03 TAG). No permit may be issued or
authorization by rule allowed where an injection well causes or allows the movement of fluid
containing any contaminant that would result in the pollution of ground water classified under
the state's classification system. A permit or authorization by rule must include terms and
conditions reasonably necessary to protect ground water classified pursuant to 1200-4-6.05(1)
from pollution (1200-4-6.04(1) TAG). Injection into Class V wells generally is authorized by
rule, subject to compliance and demonstration of mechanical integrity (1200-4-6.07 TAG).
Siting and Construction
The variety of wells and uses preclude specific construction standards. A well must be
designed and constructed for its intended use, in accordance with good engineering practices,
and the design and construction must be approved by the DE&C. Wells must be constructed so
that their intended use does not violate the water quality standards (1200-4-6-.14(7) TAG).
Operating Requirements
Wells are required to be operated in such a manner that they do not present a hazard to
ground water (1200-4-6-.14(8) TAG). The well operator is required to monitor injection fluids,
injection operations, and local ground water supplies in accordance with monitoring
requirements determined by the type of well, nature of the injected fluid, and water quality of the
receiving aquifer (91200-4-6-.14(9) TAG).
September 30, 1999 19
-------
Plugging and Abandonment
The DE&C must approve a proposed plugging method and type of cement. Plugging
may be carried out by any recognized method that is acceptable to DE&C (1200-4-6-. 14(11)
TAG).
Washington
Washington is a UIC Primacy State for Class V wells. Chapter 173-218 of the
Washington Administrative Code (WAC) establishes the UIC program. Under the 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 TDS. 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 that inject industrial, municipal,
or commercial waste fluids into or above a USDW must obtain a permit to operate. All other
Class V injection well owners and operators must notify the WDOE and supply required
inventory information (172-218-090 (2) and (3) WAC).
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). The state's Waste Discharge Permit Program, which
prohibits the discharge of pollutants into waters of the state (which include ground water)
without a permit (Chapter 173-216 WAC) does not apply to the injection of fluids through wells
which are regulated by the UIC control program (173-216-010 WAC).
Siting and Construction
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 anti-degradation policy. The
injectate must meet the state ground water standards at the point of compliance (173-200-030
WAC).
September 30, 1999 20
-------
Plugging and Abandonment
All wells not in use must be securely capped so that no contamination can enter the well
(173-160-085 WAC).
West Virginia
West Virginia is a UIC Primacy State for Class V wells. Regulations establishing the
UIC program are found in Title 47-13 West Virginia Code of State Regulations. The state
defines Class V cooling water return flow wells as wells used to inject water previously used for
cooling (47-13-3.4.5.m WVAC).
Permitting
Class V injection wells are authorized by rule unless the Office of Water Resources of the
Division of Environmental Protection requires an individual permit (47-13-12.4.a. and 47-13-
13.2 WVAC). Injection is authorized initially for five years under the permit by rule provisions.
Operating Requirements
Owners or operators of Class V wells are required to submit inventory information
describing the well, including its construction features, the nature and volume of injected fluids,
alternative means of disposal, the environmental and economic consequences of well disposal
and its alternatives, operation status, and location and ownership information (47-13-12.2
WVAC).
Rule authorized wells must meet the requirements for monitoring and records (requiring
retention of records pursuant to 47-13-13.6.b. WVAC concerning the nature and composition of
injected fluids until 3 years after completion of plugging and abandonment); immediate reporting
of information indicating that any contaminant may cause an endangerment to USDWs or any
malfunction of the injection system that might cause fluid migration into or between USDWs;
and prior notice of abandonment.
The rules enact a general prohibition against any underground injection activity that
causes or allows the movement of fluid containing any contaminant into a USDW, if the
presence of that contaminant may cause a violation of any primary drinking water regulations
under 40 CFR Part 142 or promulgated under the West Virginia Code or may adversely affect
the health of persons. If at any time a Class V well may cause a violation of the primary
drinking water rules the well may be required to obtain a permit or take other action, including
closure, that will prevent the violation (47-13-13.1 WVAC). Inventory requirements for Class V
wells include information regarding pollutant loads and schedules for attaining compliance with
water quality standards (47-13-13.2.d.l WVAC).
The injection operation may be required to satisfy requirements, such as for corrective
action, monitoring, and reporting, or operation, that are not contained in the UIC rules (47-13-
13.2.C.1.C. WVAC) if they are needed to protect the USDW.
September 30, 1999 21
-------
REFERENCES
Bonnet, W. A. 1995. Hawaiian Electric Company. Comments on the Class V Wells —
Regulatory Determination and Minor Revisions to the Underground Injection Control
Regulations; Technical Correction to the Regulations for Class I Wells; Proposed Rule. October
27, 1995.
Bose, L.T. 1997. USEPA Region 9 Ground Water Office. Memorandum to Clive Davies,
USEPA Office of Water. November 21, 1997.
The Cadmus Group. 1999. State-by-State Notebooks Compiling Results from the Class V
Underground Injection Control Study. February 1, 1999.
Eckhardt, D. A. V. and K. A. Pearsall. 1989. Chlorinated Organic Compounds in
Ground water at Roosevelt Field, Nassau County, Long Island, New York. U.S. Geological
Survey. USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 86-4333.
Frayne, S. P. 1992. Minimize Plant Wastewater. Hydrocarbon Processing, v71, n8, p 79(4).
August 1992.
Lichtler, W. F., D. Stannard, and E. Kouma. 1980. Investigation of Artificial Recharge of
Aquifers in Nebraska. U.S. Geological Survey. Reston, Virginia. Water-Resources
Investigations Report 80-93.
Manhas, B. 1999. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Water
Quality, Bureau of Point Source Permitting. Telephone conversation with Vaishali Deshpande,
ICF Consulting. April 1999.
McRae, A. 1999. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Surface Water Quality
Division. Telephone conversation with Vaishali Deshpande, ICF Consulting. April 1999.
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy (NJDEPE). 1994. Statement
of Basis Draft NJPDES General Permit to Discharge Noncontact Cooling Water into the Waters
of the State of New Jersey. NJPDES Permit No. NJ0070203.
Snyder, M. and C.H. Lee. 1980. Survey of Reinjection Experience from Ground water Cooling
Applications. PNL-3740. Kansas City, MO: Midwest Research Institute, Prepared for Pacific
Northwest Laboratory, under Department of Energy Contract.
Sorrells, S. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. Telephone conversation
with Vaishali Deshpande, ICF Consulting. April 1999.
USEPA. 1987. Report to Congress: Class V Injection Wells. Office of Water. Washington,
D.C. EPA570/9-87-006. September 1987.
September 30, 1999 22
-------
Wilson, J., and Noonan, JJ. 1984. Microbial activity in model I aquifer systems. Ground water
Pollution Microbiology. New York, NY. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Wong, A. 1998. U.S. USEPA Region 9. Email correspondence to Bindiya Patel, ICF
Consulting. September 4, 1998.
September 30, 1999 23
------- |