tfto ST*:.	UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
¶ A	Washington, DC 20460
L.	¶	%
GUIDANCE
FOR
STATE SUBMISSIONS
UNDER
SECTION 1425
OF THE
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT
GROUND WATER PROGRAM GUIDANCE #19
Reproduction of UIC Guidance 19

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section	Title Page
1.0	Purpose and Scope 	 1
2.0	Applications	 2
2.1	Definition	 2
2.2	Need for an UIC Program	 2
2.3	Application under Section 1425 	 3
2.4	When Should Application be Made? 	 3
2.5	Effects of a Partial Application	 3
3.0	Elements of an Application	 4
3.1	Elements of a State Application 	 4
3.2	Letter from the Governor	 4
3.3	Program Description 	 4
3.4	Statement of Legal Authority 	 6
3.5	Copies of Statues and Regulations 	 7
3.6	Copies of State Forms	 7
3.7	Memorandum of Agreement	 7
4.0	Process for Approval or Disapproval	 8
4.1	Public Participation by States	 8
4.2	Complete Applications	 8
4.3	EPA Review 	 8
5.0	Criteria for Approving or Di sapproving
State Programs	 9
5.1	General	 9
5.2	Section 1421 (b)(1)(A) 	 10
5.3	Section 1421 (b)(1)(B) 	 10
5.4	Section 1421 (b)(1)(C) 	 11
5.5	Section 1421 (b)(1)(D) 	 12
5.6	Section 1421 (a) 	 12
6.0	Oversight	 19
6.1	General	 19
6.2	Mid-Course Evaluation 	 19
6.3	Annual Reporting	 20
Reproduction of UIC Guidance 19

-------
Reproduction of UIC Guidance 19

-------
1.0 Purpose and Scope
The 1980 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) added a new Section 1425 which
provides an alternative means for States to acquire primary enforcement responsibility for the control
of underground injection related to the recovery and production of oil and natural gas. This document
contains guidance on: (1) how States may apply for approval under Section 1425; and (2) the criteria
EPA will use in approving or disapproving applications under Section 1425.
EPA is mindful of the fact that, in enacting Section 1425, Congress intended that States be offered an
alternative to the detailed requirements of the regulations promulgated at 40 CFR 122 [144], 123
[145], 124 and 146, and that State programs to control injections related to oil and gas production be
considered on their merits. Nevertheless, Section 1425 does require a State to demonstrate that such
portion of its Underground Injection Control (UIC) program: (1) meets the requirements of Section
1421(b)(1)(A) through (D); and (2) represents an effective program to prevent injection which
endangers drinking water sources. Further, Section 1425 requires the Administrator of EPA to
approve or disapprove such portion of a State's UIC program for primary enforcement responsibility
based on his judgment of whether the State has succeeded in making the required demonstrations.
Consequently, EPA believes that States are entitled to guidance on the implementation of Section
1425. The procedures and criteria contained in this document were developed in consultation with
interested States. They represent a "model" State application and program which, in EPA's view,
meet the requirements of the amended SDWA. A State application which conforms to these
procedures and meets the suggested criteria should be approvable under Section 1425.
A State may choose to apply in a different form and make demonstrations different from those
suggested in this document. EPA will consider such applications. However, they will have to be
reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine whether they meet the requirements of the Act. Such
reviews may involve additional requests for information, more time and less assurance of ultimate
approval.
This guidance and the regulations promulgated at 40 CFR 122 [144], 123 [145], 124 and 146 are
both aimed at achieving the same fundamental objective: the protection of underground sources of
drinking water from endangerment by well injection. There are, however, some significant differences
between them.
The most immediate difference is that one is a regulation and the other is guidance. This was a
deliberate choice on the part of the Agency because it does not view the new Congressional mandate
as requiring another set of detailed regulations for its implementation. In any event, there is insufficient
time to develop such regulations in light of the short time remaining before State program submissions
are due under Section 1422(b)(1)(A) of the SDWA.
Reproduction of UIC Guidance 19
T

-------
A further difference is that State program submissions under Section 1422(b)(1) of the SDWA are
required to meet a different legal standard from State program submissions under Section 1425.
Under Section 1422(b)(1)(A), the State is required to make a showing that its UIC program "meets
the requirements of regulations in effect under Section 1421;..." Under Section 1425, the State is
required to demonstrate that the Class II portion of its UIC program meets the requirements of
Section 1421(b)(1)(A) through (D) and represents an effective program to prevent underground
injection which endangers drinking water sources.
As a consequence of these differences, this guidance is much less detailed than the regulations and
leaves a great deal more discretion to the State to develop and EPA to approve State UIC programs
under Section 1425.
2.0	Applications
2.1	Definition
For the purposes of Section 1425 of the SDWA:
1.	the underground injection of brine or other fluids which are brought to the surface in
connection with oil or natural gas production; and
2.	any underground injection for the secondary or tertiary recovery of oil or natural gas;
and
3.	any injection for the storage of hydrocarbons which are liquid at standard temperature
and pressure;
shall be defined as "class IF' injections or wells.
2.2	Need for an Underground Injection Control (UIC^Program
Any State which has Class II wells must have an UIC program to assure that such wells do not
endanger underground sources of drinking water (USDWs). A State may submit its Class II program
to EPA for approval. If EPA approves the program, the State has primary enforcement responsibility
for that portion of its UIC program.
If a State chooses not to apply, or if its program is disapproved, or if subsequent to approval the
State loses primary enforcement responsibility because the Administrator determines, under Section
1425(c)(2), that the demonstration is no longer valid, EPA must prescribe and implement a program
in that State. When EPA implements a Class II program for a State, it will do so in accordance with
the requirements of 40 CFR 122 [144], 124 and 146.
Reproduction of UIC Guidance 19
1

-------
A State which does not have any Class II wells need not develop a Class II control program in order
to qualify for primacy under the UIC program. Under the regulations at 40 CFR 123.51 [145.21]
(d), such a State only needs to demonstrate that Class II wells cannot legally occur until the State has
developed an approved program to regulate such injections.
2.3	Applications under Section 1425
Any State which has Class II wells may, at its option apply for primacy for its Class II UIC program
either: (1) under the regulations at 40 CFR 122 [144], 123 [145], 124 and 146; or (2) under Section
1425 of the SDWA.
2.4	When Should Application be Made?
House Report No. 96-1348. accompanying the 1980 amendments, states on page 5 that: "The
Committee expects that alternative demonstrations will be submitted on the same schedule.
Accordingly, as demonstrations required for state programs meeting Federal regulations promulgated
under Section 1421(b)." States have 270 days from July 24, 1980 to submit applications, or until
April 20. 1981.
This period may be extended by up to another 170 days by the Regional Administrators for "good
cause", or until January 15. 1982.
A State need not wait until it is ready to submit its application for all classes of wells. EPA will
entertain partial applications for primacy as long as the program for which approval is sought covers:
(1) all elements of a program to regulate a particular class or classes of injection practices even if the
class or classes involve the jurisdiction of more than one State agency; or (2) all elements of a
program to regulate all the classes or types of wells within the jurisdiction of a single State agency.
However, if a State submits a partial application, the alternative demonstration under Section 1425
may be used only for the Class II portion of the application. The portion of the program covering
types of practices other than Class II will have to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 122 [144], 123
[145], 124 and 146.
2.5	Effects of a Partial Application
The recent amendments have changed Section 1443 of the SDWA so that a State may receive grant
support until July 1982. After that date, it must have achieved full primacy in order for grant eligibility
to continue. As a consequence, a State may receive partial primacy for its Class II control program
and continue to receive grants: (1) if it has obtained an extension for submitting the remainder of its
application; (2) until it declares its intention not to file any further applications; (3) until EPA terminates
its grant for cause; or (4) until July 1982, whichever is soonest.
Reproduction of UIC Guidance 19
I

-------
If a State receives full primacy, its eligibility for grants will, of course, continue.
3.0	Elements of an Application for Primacy under Section 1425
3.1	Elements of a State Application
A complete State submission should contain the following elements:
a.	a letter from the Governor;
b.	a description of the program;
c.	a statement of legal authority;
d.	copies of the pertinent statutes and regulations;
e.	copies of the pertinent State forms; and
f.	a signed copy of a Memorandum of Agreement.
The nature of these elements is described further below.
3.2	Letter from the Governor
The letter from the Governor should:
a.	request approval of the State's program for primacy under the, UIC program;
b.	specify whether approval is sought under Section 1425 of the SDWA, or under 40
CFR 122 [144], 123 [145], 124, and 146; and
c.	affirm that the State is willing and able to carry out the program described.
3.3	Program Description
A State's application is expected to contain a full description of the program for which approval is
sought, in sufficient detail to enable EPA to make the judgments outlined in Section 5 below. Such a
description should:
a.	specify the structure, coverage and scope of the program;
b.	specify the State permitting process and address, to the extent applicable, the
following elements:
1. who applies for the permit or the authorization by rule;
Reproduction of UIC Guidance 19

-------
2.	signatories required for permit application and reports;
3.	conditions applicable to permits, including: duty to comply with permit
conditions, duty to reapply, duty to halt or reduce activity, duty to mitigate,
proper operation and maintenance, permit actions, property rights, inspection
and entry, monitoring, record keeping, and reporting requirements;
4.	compliance schedules;
5.	transfer of permits;
6.	termination of permits;
7.	whether area permits or project permits are granted;
8.	emergency permits;
9.	the availability and use of variances and other discretionary exemptions to
programmatic requirements; and
10.	administrative and judicial procedures for the modification of permits.
c.	describe the operation of any rules used by the State to regulate Class II wells;
d.	describe the technical requirements applied to operators by the State program;
e.	include a description of the State's procedures for monitoring, inspection and requiring
reporting from operators;
f discuss the State's enforcement program, e.g.:
1.	administrative procedures for dealing with violations;
2.	nature and amounts of penalties, fines and other enforcement tools;
3.	criteria for taking enforcement actions; and
4.	if the State is seeking approval for an existing program, summary data on:
A. past practice in the use of enforcement tools;
Reproduction of UIC Guidance 19


-------
B.	current compliance/non-compliance with State requirements;
C.	repeat violations at the same well or by the same operator at different
wells;
D.	well failure rates; and
E.	USDW contamination cases based on actual field work and citizen
complaints.
g.	detail the State's staffing and resources, and demonstrate that these are
sufficient to carry out the proposed program;
h.	if more than one State agency is involved in the Class II program, describe their
relationships with regard to carrying out the Class II program;
I. contain a reasonable schedule for completion of an inventory of Class II wells in the
State;
j. include the procedures for exempting aquifers, a list of the aquifers or portions of
aquifers proposed for exemption at the time of application, and the reasons for the
proposed exemptions, unless these have been described in other partial applications
made by the State;
k. contain a plan (including the basis for assigning priorities) for the review of all existing
Class II wells in the State within five years of program approval to assure that they
meet current non-endangerment requirements of the State (this may include permit
modification and reissuance, if appropriate);
1. describe State requirements for ensuring public participation in the process of issuing
permits and modifying permits in the case of substantial changes in the project area,
injection pressure or the injection horizon; and
m. describe State procedures for responding to complaints by the public.
3.4 Statement of Legal Authority
The statement of legal authority is intended to assure EPA that the State has the legal authority to
carry out the program described. It may be signed by a competent legal officer of the State, for
example, the Attorney General, the Counsel for the responsible State agency, or any other officer who
represents the Agency in legal matters.
Reproduction of UIC Guidance 19

-------
The statement may, at the option of the State, consist of a full analysis of the legal basis for the State
program, including case law as appropriate. Or the statement may consist of a simple certification by
the legal representative that the State has adequate authority to carry out the described program. If
the State chooses to submit a certification, the program description should detail the legal authority on
which the various elements of the State's program rest.
3.5	Copies of Statutes and Regulations
The application should contain copies of all applicable State statutes, rules and regulations, including
those governing State administrative procedures.
3.6	Copies of State Forms
The application should contain examples of all forms used by the State in administering the program,
including application forms, permit forms and reporting forms.
3.7	Memorandum of Agreement
The head of the cognizant State agency and the EPA Regional Administrator shall execute a
memorandum of agreement which shall set forth the terms under which the State will carry out the
described program and EPA will exercise its oversight responsibility. A copy of such an agreement
signed by the Director of the State agency, shall be submitted as part of the application.
At a minimum, the memorandum of agreement should:
a.	Include a commitment by the State that the program will be carried out as described
and be supported by an appropriate level of staff and resources;
b.	Recognize EPA's right of access to any pertinent State file;
c.	Specify the procedures (e.g., notification to the State and participation by State
officials) governing EPA inspections of wells or operator records;
d.	Recognize EPA's authority to take Federal enforcement action under Section 1423 of
the SDWA in cases where the State fails to take adequate enforcement actions;
e.	Agree to provide EPA with an annual report on the operation of the State program,
the content of which may be negotiated between EPA and primacy States from time
to time;
Reproduction of UIC Guidance 19
7

-------
£ Provide that aquifer exemptions for Class II wells be consistent with aquifer
exemptions for the rest of the UIC program;
g.	When appropriate, may include provisions for joint processing of permits by the State
and EPA for facilities or activities which require permits from both EPA and the State
under different programs; and
h.	Specify that if the State proposes to allow any mechanical integrity tests other than
those specified or justified in the program application, the Director will notify the
cognizant Regional Administrator and provide enough information about the proposed
test that a judgment about its usefulness and reliability may be made.
4.0	Process for Approval or Disapproval of Application
4.1	Public Participation bv States
Section 1425 relieves States of the responsibility to hold public hearings or afford an opportunity for
pubic comment prior to submitting an application to EPA. Therefore, when application is made by a
State under Section 1425, it may, but need not, provide an opportunity for public hearings or
comments.
4.2	Complete Applications
Within 10 working days of the receipt of a final application, EPA will determine whether the
application is complete or not and so notify the State in writing. If the application is found to be
incomplete it will be returned to the State with specific requests for additional material or changes.
However, the State may, at its option, insist that EPA complete its review of an application as
submitted.
4.3	EPA Review
a.	EPA has 90 days to approve or disapprove an application. If EPA finds that the
application is complete, the review period will be deemed to have begun on the date
the application was received in the cognizant Regional Office. If an application has
been found to be incomplete and the State insists that EPA proceed with its review of
the application as submitted, the review period will begin on the date that EPA
receives the State's request to proceed in writing. The review period may be
extended by the mutual consent of EPA and the State.
b.	Within the 90-day period, EPA will request public comments and provide an
opportunity for public hearing on each application, in the applying State, in
Reproduction of UIC Guidance 19

-------
accordance with 40 CFR 123.54 [145.3 l](c) and (d). If the State has not done so,
EPA will hold at least one public hearing in the State.
c.	If a State's application is approved, the State shall have primary enforcement
responsibility for its Class II program.
d.	If a State's application is disapproved, EPA intends within 90 days of disapproval or
as soon thereafter as feasible, prescribe a Class II program for the State in
accordance with Section 1422(c) of the SDWA and 40 CFR 122 [144], 124 and
146.
5.0	Criteria for Approving or Disapproving State Programs
5.1	General
Section 1425 of the SDWA states that: " . . the State may demonstrate that [the Class II] portion of
the State program meets the requirements of subparagraphs (A) through (D) of Section 1421 (b)(1)
and represents an effective program (including adequate recordkeeping and reporting) to prevent
underground injection which endangers drinking water sources."
Thus Section 1425 requires that a State, in order to receive approval for its Class II program under
the optional demonstration, make a successful showing that its program meets five conditions:
a.	Section 1421(b)(1)(A) requires that an approvable State program prohibit any
underground injection in such State which is not authorized by permit or rule.
b.	Section 1421(b)(1)(B) requires that an approvable State program shall require that:
1. the applicant for a permit must satisfy the State that the underground inj ection
will not endanger drinking water sources; and
2 . no rule may be promulgated which authorizes any underground injection
which endangers drinking water sources.
e. Section 1421(b)(1)(C) requires that an approvable State program include inspection,
monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements.
d. Section 1421(b)(1)(D) requires that an approvable State program apply to: (1)
underground injections by Federal agencies; and (2) underground injections by any
other person, whether or not occurring on property owned or leased by the United
States.
Reproduction of UIC Guidance 19

-------
e. Section 1425(a) requires that an approvable State program represent an effective
program to prevent underground injection which endangers drinking water sources.
The following sections provide guidance to EPA personnel making the required judgments with respect
to these five conditions in the review of an application for approval under Section 1425.
5.2	Section 142Ub)fl )(A)
The question of whether a State program prohibits unauthorized Class II injections is a function of the
State's statutory and regulatory authority. A determination of whether the State program meets this
condition should be made from a review of the coverage and scope of the program, the statement of
legal authority submitted by the State, and of the statutes and regulations themselves. One important
consideration is whether the State has an appropriate formal mechanism for modifying permits in cases
where the operation has undergone significant change.
5.3	Section 1421fb•lVm
The determination of whether a State program is adequate in requiring that the applicant demonstrate
that the proposed injection will not endanger drinking water sources turns on two elements: (1)
whether the State program places on the applicant the burden of making the requisite showing; and
(2) the extent of the information the applicant is required to provide as a basis for the State agency's
decision. Whether the burden of making the requisite showing is on the applicant should be
determined from the State's description of its permitting process. If the necessary information is
available in State files, the Director need not require it to be submitted again. However, as a matter of
principle, the applicant should not escape ultimate responsibility for assuring that the information about
his operation is accurate and available. One consideration in this regard is whether the well operator
has a responsibility to inform the permitting authority about any material change in his operation, or
any pertinent information acquired since the permit application was made.
With regard to the extent of the information to be considered by the Director, the State program
should require an application containing sufficiently detailed information to make a knowledgeable
decision to grant or deny the permit. Such information should include:
a. A map showing the area of review and identifying all wells of public record
penetrating the injection interval;
b. A tabulation of data on all wells of public record within the area of review which
penetrate the proposed injection zone. Such data should include a description of each
well's type, construction, date of drilling, location, depth, record of plugging and/or
completion, and any additional information the Director may require;
Reproduction of UIC Guidance 19

-------
c.	Data on the proposed operation, including:
1.	Average and maximum daily rate and volume of fluids to be injected;
2.	Average and maximum injection pressure; and
3.	Source, and an appropriate analysis of inj ection fluid if other than
produced water, and compatibility with the receiving formation;
d.	Appropriate geological data on the injection zone and confining zones including
lithologic description, geological name, thickness, and depth;
e.	Geologic name, and depth to bottom of all underground sources of drinking
water which may be affected by the injection;
F. Schematic drawings of the surface and subsurface construction details of the
system;
g.	Proposed stimulation program;
h.	All available logging and testing data on the well; and
I.	The need for corrective action on wells penetrating the injection zone in the area of
review.
There are two circumstances under which the Director may require less information from the
applicant. First, the Director need not require an applicant to resubmit information which is up-to-
date and readily available in State files. Second, a State's application may outline circumstances or
conditions where certain items of information may not be required in a specific case. Such
circumstances may include situations where, based upon demonstrable knowledge available to the
Director about a specific operation, the Director proposes to permit that operation without requiring
corrective action or alternatives to it. Examples of such circumstances are gravity or vacuum
injections and injections through zones of plastic heaving shales.
Section 1421(b)(1)(B) also requires a State which authorizes Class II injections by rule to show that
such rules do not allow any underground injection which endangers drinking water sources. The
determination of whether the State program meets this requirement may be made from the program
description, statement of legal authority, the text of the rules themselves, and the manner in which the
State has administered such rules.
5.4 Section 1421fbYlYQ
Reproduction of UIC Guidance 19
TT

-------
This section of the SDWA requires that an approvable State program contain elements for inspection,
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting. The adequacy of the State program in these respects may
be assessed with the use of the following criteria.
a.	Inspection
An approvable State program is expected to have an effective system of field
inspection which will provide for:
1.	Inspections of injection facilities, wells, and nearby producing wells; and
2.	The presence of qualified State inspectors to witness mechanical integrity tests,
corrective action operations, and plugging procedures.
An adequate program should insure that, at a minimum, 25% of all mechanical
integrity tests performed each year will be witnessed by a qualified State inspector.
b.	Monitoring. Reporting and Recordkeeping
1.	The Director should have the authority to sample injected fluids at any time
during injection operation.
2.	The operator should be required to monitor the injection pressure and
injection rate of each injection well at least on a monthly basis with the results
reported annually.
3.	The Director should require prompt notice of mechanical failure or
downhole problems in injection wells.
4.	The State should assure retention and availability of all monitoring records
from one mechanical integrity test to the next (i.e., 5 years).
5.5 Section 142Ub)fl tfD)
An approvable State program must demonstrate the State's authority to regulate injection activities by
Federal agencies and by any other person on property owned or leased by the United States. The
adequacy of the State's authority in these regards may be assessed on the basis of the program
description and statement of legal authority submitted by the State. Such authority and the programs
to carry it out must be in place at a time no later than the approval of the program by EPA. EPA will
administer the UIC program on Indian lands unless the State has the authority and is willing to assume
responsibility.
Reproduction of UIC Guidance 19
77

-------
5.6 Section 1425Ta)
In addition to the four demonstrations discussed above, Section 1425 requires a State to demonstrate
that the Class II program for which it seeks approval in fact "represents an effective program to
prevent underground injection which endangers drinking water sources." Among the factors that EPA
will consider in assessing the effectiveness of a State program are: (1) whether the State has an
effective permitting process which results in enforceable permits; (2) whether the State applies certain
minimum technical requirements to operators by permit or rule; (3) whether the State has an effective
surveillance program to determine compliance with its requirements; (4) whether the State has
effective means to enforce against violators; and (5) whether the State assures adequate participation
by the public in the permit issuance process.
Evidence of the presence or absence of ground water contamination is important. However, it cannot
serve as the sole criterion of effectiveness. Not all States have collected such evidence systematically.
More importantly, the absence of evidence of contamination, especially if based on an absence of
complaints, is not necessarily proof that ground water contamination has not occurred.
Each of the five factors named above is discussed further in the following subsections. In its review of
these factors, EPA is not necessarily looking for a minimum set or even any particular elements. The
effectiveness of a State program will be assessed by reviewing the State's entire program. The
absence of even an important element in a State program may not by itself mean that the program is
ineffective as long as there is a credible program for detecting and eliminating injection practices which
allow any migration which endangers drinking water sources.
a . Permitting Process
Section 3.3 b of the Program Description outlines the major elements of the permitting process. The
listing of these considerations should not be viewed as Federally imposed minimum policy, but rather
as an outline of the information which will be necessary for EPA to evaluate the effectiveness of the
State's permitting process.
States may deal with permitting considerations, such as limitations on the transfer of permits, in a
variety of ways. There are many permitting approaches which may be equally effective. EPA's
review will turn on whether the permitting process, taken as a whole, represents an effective
mechanism for applying appropriate and enforceable requirements to operators.
b. Technical Criteria
Any approvable State program should have the authority to apply, by permit or rule, certain technical
requirements designed to prevent the migration of injected or formation fluids into USDWs. Any
State program adopting the language of 40 CFR 146 should be considered approvable on its face
Reproduction of UIC Guidance 19	13

-------
value for that portion of the program to which it applies. State applications not relying on the language
cf 40 CFR 146 should be reviewed for the presence and adequacy of the following kinds of technical
requirements in the State program.
1. Siting
Siting requirements should be considered in the placement and construction of any
Class II disposal well. Such requirements should be designed to assure that disposal
zones are hydraulically isolated from underground sources of drinking water
(USDWs). Such isolation may be shown through information supplied by the
applicant, or data, on file with the State, which would be analyzed by qualified State
staff.
2.	Construction
A. Effective programs should require all newly drilled Class II wells to be cased
and cemented to prevent movement of fluids into USDWs. Specific casing
and cementing requirements should be based on:
I. the depth to the base of the USDW;
ii. the nature of the fluids to be injected; and
iii. the hydrologic relationship between the injection zone and the base of
the USDW.
B. All newly converted Class II wells should be required to demonstrate
mechanical integrity.
3. Operation
A. Adequate operating requirements should establish a maximum injection
pressure for a well which assures that the pressure in the injection zone during
injection does not initiate new fractures or propagate existing fractures in the
confining zone. Limitations on injection pressure should also preclude the
injection from causing the movement of fluids into an underground source of
drinking water.
Acceptable methods for establishing limitations on injection pressures include:
I. Calculated fracture gradients;
Reproduction of UIC Guidance 19

-------
ii.	Injectivity tests to establish fracture pressure; or
iii.	Other compelling geologic, hydrologic or engineering data.
B. An effective State program should have the demonstrated ability to detect and
remedy system failures discovered during routine operation or monitoring so as
to mitigate endangerment to USDWs.
4.	Plugging and Abandonment
Plugging and abandonment requirements should be reviewed for the presence of the
following elements:
A.	That appropriate mechanisms are available in the State program to insure the
proper plugging of wells upon abandonment;
B.	That all Class II wells are required, upon abandonment, to be plugged in a
manner which will not allow the movement of fluids into or between USDWs;
and
C.	That operators are required to maintain financial responsibility in some form,
for the plugging of their injection wells.
5.	Area of Review
An effective State program is expected to incorporate the concept of an area of
review defined as a radius of not less than 1/4 mile from the well, field, or project.
Alternatively, a State program may substitute a concept of a zone of endangering influence in
lieu of this fixed radius. The zone of endangering influence should be determined for the
estimated life of the well, field, or project through the use of an appropriate calculation,
formula, or mathematical model that takes the relevant geologic, hydrologic, engineering and
operational features of the injection well, field or project into account.
6.	Corrective Action
An approvable State program is expected to include the authority to require the
operator to take corrective actions on wells within the area of review or zone of
endangering influence.
A. Corrective action may include any of the following types of requirements:
Reproduction of UIC Guidance 19

-------
I. recementing;
ii.	workover;
iii.	reconditioning; or
iv.	plugging or replugging.
B.	A State program may provide the Director the discretion to specify the
following types of requirements in lieu of immediate corrective action:
I. permit conditions which will assure a negative hydraulic gradient at the
base of USDW at the well in question;
ii.	monitoring program (i.e., monitoring wells completed to the base of
USDW within the zone of influence); or
iii.	periodic testing to determine fluid movement outside the inj ection
interval at other wells within the area of review.
However, if monitoring or testing indicate the potential endangerment of any
USDW, corrective action shall be required.
C.	In cases where the Director has demonstrable knowledge of geologic,
hydrologic, or engineering conditions, specific to a given operation, which
assure that wells within the zone of endangering influence or area of review
will not serve as conduits for migration of fluids into an USDW, a State
program may provide the Director the discretion to permit a specific
operation without requiring corrective actions or any of the alternatives
specified in Subsection (8) above. Examples of such circumstances are
gravity or vacuum injections and injections through zones of plastic heaving
shales. However, under the statute the State program may, in no
circumstances, authorize an injection which endangers drinking water sources.
7. Mechanical Integrity
An approvable State program is expected to require the operator to demonstrate the
mechanical integrity of a new injection well prior to operation and of all injection wells
Reproduction of UIC Guidance 19
16

-------
periodically, at least once every five years. For the purpose of assessing the State's
mechanical integrity requirements:
A.	An injection well has mechanical integrity if:
I. there is no significant leak in the casing, tubing or packer; and
ii. there is no significant fluid movement into an underground source of
drinking water through vertical channels adjacent to the well bore.
B.	The following tests are considered to be acceptable tests to demonstrate the
absence of significant leaks:
I. a pressure tests with liquid or gas;
ii.	the monitoring of annulus pressure in those wells injecting at a positive
pressure, following an initial pressure test; or
iii.	all other tests or combinations of tests considered effective by the
Director.
C.	The following are considered to be acceptable tests to demonstrate the
absence of significant fluid movement in vertical channels adjacent to the well
bore:
I. cementing records (they need not be reviewed every five years);
ii.	tracer surveys;
iii.	noise logs;
iv.	temperature surveys; or
v.	any other test or combination of tests considered effective by the
Director.
D.	If the State program allows or specifies alternative tests under B(iii) or (C)(v)
above, the program description should supply sufficient information so that the
usefulness and reliability of such tests in the proposed circumstance may be
assessed.
Reproduction of UIC Guidance 19
17

-------
c. Surveillance
The demonstration of an effective surveillance program has already been discussed in Section 5.4
above.
d.	Enforcement
A State's enforcement of its program is a crucial consideration in making the judgment of whether the
State program is effective. States have used a number of enforcement tools to shift the economic
incentive of operation more toward compliance with the law. Often State programs have employed
civil penalties and, for repeat or willful violators, criminal fines or jail sentences. Other commonly
used practices are administrative orders and court injunctions. In the area of oil and gas regulation,
many States have found pipeline severance a powerful tool. In assessing a State's enforcement
program, EPA will consider not whether a State has all or any particular enforcement tools but
whether the State's program, taken as a whole, represents an effective enforcement effort. Certainly,
there are many enforcement matrices which create effective programs. In addition, EPA will look at
whether the State has exercised its enforcement authorities adequately in the past.
e.	Public Participation
One factor to be used by EPA in assessing the "effectiveness" of a State program is the degree to
which it assures the public an opportunity to participate in major regulatory decisions. It is assumed
that most States already have legislation that governs public participation in State decision-making and
defines such processes as appeals, etc. Therefore, the following represents only a minimal list of
elements that EPA will consider:
1. Public Notice of permit application:
A.	The State may give such notice or it may require the applicant to give
notice.
B.	The method of giving notice should be adequate to bring the matter to the
attention of interested parties and, in particular, the public in the area of the
proposed injection. This may involve one or more of the following:
I. posting;
ii.	publication in an official State register;
iii.	publication in a local newspaper;
Reproduction of UIC Guidance 19
18

-------
iv.	mailing to a list of interested persons; or
v.	any other effective method that achieves the objective.
C. An adequate notice should:
I. provide an adequate description of the proposed action;
ii.	identify where an interested party may obtain additional information.
This location should be reasonably accessible and convenient for
interested persons;
iii.	state how a public hearing may be requested; and
iv.	allow for a comment period of at least 15 days.
2.	The State program should provide opportunity for a public hearing if the Director
finds, based upon requests, a significant degree of public interest.
A.	The Director may hold a hearing of his own motion and give notice of such
hearing with the notice of the application.
B.	If a public hearing is decided upon during the comment period, notice of
public hearing shall be given in a newspaper of general circulation. The
hearing should be scheduled no sooner than 15 days after the notice.
3.	The final State action on the permit application should contain a "response to
comments" which summarizes the substantive comments received and the disposition
of the comments.
6.0	Oversight
6.1	General
Once a Class II program is approved under Section 1425, the State has primary enforcement
responsibility for such portion of its UIC program. The Class II program is a grant-eligible activity
and is subject to the same EPA oversight as other portions of the UIC program (e.g., State/EPA
Agreements, Mid-course Reviews, grant conditions, etc.).
6.2	Mid-Course Evaluation
Reproduction of UIC Guidance 19
19

-------
EPA will conduct a mid-course evaluation of Class II programs as envisioned in 40 CFR 122.18
[144.8] (c)(4)(ii) and 146.25. However, in lieu of a special reporting requirement, additional
requirements have been added to the State's annual report to EPA. Should this mechanism prove
unable to provide the necessary data, a special reporting requirement may be negotiated with the
primacy States at a later date.
6.3 Annual Reporting
As part of the Memorandum of Agreement, each State shall agree to submit an annual report on the
operation of its Class II program to EPA. At a minimum the annual report shall contain:
a.	an updated inventory;
b.	a summary of surveillance programs, including the results of monitoring and
mechanical integrity testing, the number of inspections, and corrective actions ordered
and witnessed;
c.	an account of all complaints reviewed by the State and the actions taken;
d.	an account of the results of the review of existing wells made during the year; and
e.	a summary of enforcement actions taken.
Reproduction of UIC Guidance 19
20

-------