- <

i UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Interim Guidance for Overview of the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program

ogram Guidance 130 (GWPG 130)

FROM: office ok Drinking Water (WH-550)

TO : Water Division Directors Water Supply Branch Chiefs Regions I - X

Purpose

This document outlines procedures and criteria for effective overview of the UIC Program. These procedures and criteria may be used by EPA Regional offices (ROs) as they oversee State programs or by EPA Headquarters for overview of Regional office programs in nonprimacy States and on Indian lands. Implementation of this guidance will provide EPA with enough

I information to assess the effectiveness of the UIC program and to provide the Congress and the Office of Management and Budget with quantitative and qualitative information for planning and evaluation purposes. This guidance will be expanded when warranted, and will be incorporated into the next Office of Water guidance. This guidance follows the Office of Water overview criteria and the Administrator's delegation policy documents. Region VI overview criteria was used extensively in developing this guidance.

In conducting overview activities EPA will utilize existing information and required reporting to the greatest extent possible in order to minimize disruption and additional burden on the States and the regulated community. It is important that the planning for overview be integrated into the yearly changes and development processes for the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). Also note that this guidance references and briefly describes several reporting requirements for which separate guidance will be issued. They have been mentioned here in order to provide the "total picture" of overview activities and elements.

Background

The Safe Drinking Water Act (the Act) requires that a State provide the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with reports on its UIC program. The minimum requirements for an effective State UIC program are given in section 1421 of the Act. Section 1421(b)(l)(C) requires that a State program include inspection, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. As a follow-up to this, under "State Primary Enforcement Responsibility," section 1422(b)(l)(A)(ii) requires that the State show in its program application that it:

" . . . will keep such records and make such reports with respect to its activities under its Underground Injection Control program as the Administrator may require by regulation."

With this statutory basis for reporting, EPA established specific requirements in the program regulations.

An optional demonstration of an effective UIC program is provided for Class 11 (oil and gas related) injection wells under section 1425 of the Act. This allows the State program, in lieu of meeting section 1422(b)(l)(A) parameters, to meet the following

v alternative in section 1425(a)(2): n . . . the State may demonstrate that such portion of the State program meets the requirements of subparagraphs ( A ) through (D) of section 1421(b)(l) and represents an effective program (including adequate recordkeeping and

(1 reporting) . . . . Although no regulations have been promulgated for section 1425 programs, interim final guidance (46 FR 27333, attached), paragraph 3.7(e), notes that in the Memorandum of Agreement the State .-_ _ __.- -- should agree t o ' : p . r o ~ ~ ~ ~ f l ~ % i th -an an-nu&x: report on- ...

opetati5iZf its program, andparagraph 6.3 describes the minimum content of the annual report.

The State's specific reporting requirements and EPA's procedures, as established by regulations and guidance, are considered below.

I. Grant regulations - 40 CFR Part 35 These regulations were amended and published October 12, 1982 (47 FR 44946). Section 35.125 directs the national program manager to issue guidance specifying, among other things, the program elements and other tracking criteria which the Regional office should negotiate with each individual State. Guidance

for the management of UIC grants is being developed and will be issued separately. The information on these elements is acquired to report to Congress and OMB on the status of the program and to justify budget requests. This is discussed in the preamble

. to 40 CFR Part 35 (47 FR 449491.

The evaluation of recipient performance is covered under 40 CFR S35.150. The recipient and the Regional office staff will negotiate a schedule for evaluation of the recipient's performance. The Regional Administrator will include this in the grant agreement.

11. Required State reports - As mentioned above, EPA, in its evaluation of State programs, will use information,contained in required State reports. These reports are:

(A) Annual program reports (40 CFR S144.8(b) and 1425 Guidance S6.3). Guidance to be issued;

(B) Financial Status reports and property reports (40 CFR S30.505) in annual UIC grant Guidance;

(C) Quarterly noncompliance reports (for major permits) 40 CFR Section 144.8(a);

(D) Annual noncompliance reports (for nonmajor permits) (40 CFR Section 144.8(b));

Guidance

Four elements comprise the UIC overview system: annual (Federal) reporting, gr=t_~eporting, - pzncom liance ~ltap~rting, +- and-program evaluations. While this gui ance focuses on program e v a l u a t i o T i ~ , ~ ? e e areas of reporting are also discussed below in order to provide a total overview picture. Figure 1 shows reporting and other deadlines on a timeline for FY 8 3 .

I. Annual (Federal) reporting

The annual program report is due 60 days following the close of the calendar year, but there ia an effort under way to consolidate much of the UIC program reporting. This report summarizes UIC activities which took place in the State during the year. By aggregating annual report data from all States (and EPA-run programs), EPA will be able to calculate and document the nationwide level of activity in the UIC program (number of permits issued, etc.). The injection

- .. -4- fX

well inventory update is also considered a part of the annual report. The annual program report contains a narrative description of program developments and accomplishments along with a tabulation of activities in the following areas:

(A) Part I - Permit Review and Issuance and Wells in the Area of Review

( B ) Part I1 - Compliance Evaluation ( C ) Part I11 - Mechanical Integrity of Existing

Wells

This information will be used to establish a tracking and evaluation system for the program.

The annual program report should also address problems encountered during the year and any program changes necessary to resolve them. Detailed guidance and forms for annual program reports are being developed and will be issued separately.

xi. Grant reporting

Financial reporting for UIC grants and direct implementation funding is outlined in UIC grant Management Guidance which is being issued separately. Regional offices will provide Headquarters with object class and program element budget information from State grants at the time of grant award, subsequent increases, and again following the close of the budget period. States will submit financial status reports as required by 40 CFR Section 30.505.

111. Noncompliance reporting

Noncompliance reports, required by 40 CFR Section6 144.8(a)(1) and 144.8 (b), are to be prepared quarterly for "major* facilities and annually for all other facilities. EPA has defined *major UIC facilities" in GWPG 118 as Class I and Class IV wells; however, some States have used different . criteria in their MOAs and expanded their definition to include other types of injection wells. Noncompliance reporting for non-majors is done annually and i S due at the same time as the annual (Federal) report.

IV. State program evaluations

Prior to the start of the Fiscal Year, the RO should reach agreement with the State on the criteria and procedures to be use by the RO for overview of the -- - - State's program during the year. This agreement can be formal (e.g. an amendment to the delegation MOA), or included as part of the UIC grant application.

The RO should perform at least one on-site evaluation of each primacy State each y e ; i - r ~ A d d i € i o i T a l - ~ ~ i ~ ~ t i d n a ca% 'be-3one ' i i it-STid%ired-;ind if resources permit. The EPA State program manager should attend the evaluation conference, along with other EPA staff as appropriate. The evaluations should be coordinated with the EPA evaluation of ROs and the Office of Water operating guidance.

A. The evaluation conferse has the following --- - -'- f uncflaiis :

(1) To evaluate the State's performance against commitments during the current budget period;

( 2 ) To identify any changes which should be made in the State's plan of work for the remainder of the budget period;

(3) To provide EPA with "feedback" on what EPA's role should be for the remainder of the budget period and beyond;

( 4 ) To plan for the upcoming budget petiod; and

( 5 ) To inform the State of adequacy of reports and State variances with national averages.

Following the evaluation conference, the RO should draft an evaluation report regarding the State's performance. The State should have an opportunity to review this report before it is finished. Copies of the final report should be sent to the State and Headquarters.

B. The RO should reference the-following documents in evaluating the State's perf-

(1) Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)

The RO should assess whether the State has complied with the procedures and commitments set forth in the UIC delegation Memorandum of Agreement.

-6-

( 2 1 Program description

The RO should evaluate whether the State's program is being implemented as outlined in the UIC program description which was a part of the primacy application.

( 3 ) State regulations

The RO should check to ensure that the State's actions are in accordance with the State UIC regulations.

( 4 ) Grant award document and grant work plan

The RO should reference the budget and grant conditions of the UIC grant award document for the budget period in evaluating the State's performance. The RO should also compare the State's accomplishments with the program grant work plan for the budget period.

(5) EPA operating guidance

The RO should compare State objectives with the national and Regional program priorities set by the FY operating guidance.

1 6 ) Prior evaluation reports

The RO should review the recommendations of prior evaluation reports to see if the State has implemented them.

In addition, RO staff should draw on their experience from evaluating the UIC programs of other States and from running UIC programs directly in assessing the State's performance and making recommendations.

The RO should develop overview mechanisms to.evaluate items such as those listed below. The RO should not simply pose the questions belor to the State, but should evaluate the quality of the State's program in these areas based on direct observations.

C. The following areas may be reviewed by the RO during program evaluations. The RO should make sure that the areas reviewed correspond to the Program Elements defined in grants guidance (GWPG 1281, and the 'measures* contained in the Office of water Accountability System. (The list that follows is only intended to be a 'laundry listg and not a hierarchy classification.)

L-'

(1) Permitting Process

(a) Technical Quality of Permits

- Are technical judgments of good quality?

- Do construction and operation requirements conform with program description, State regulations, and MOA?

(b) Accomplishments vs. Projections

- Is permit reissuance proceeding on schedule (if applicable)?

(c) Response to Comments

- How well does the State respond to public comments on proposed permits?

- If the State regulations allow exceptions to construction, operation or hearing requirements, have these been granted i,n such a way as to protect USDWs?

( 2 ) Compliance Actions

(a) Investigation Procedures

(b) Response to Complaints

(c) Accomplishments vs. Projections

- Were the projected number (or percentage) of witnessings of HITS, plugging, etc., accomplished?

( d ) Review of Operator report8

- Did the State review operator reports and take appropriate action when necessary?

(e) Technical Actions

( 3 ) Enforcement Actions J

(a) Timeliness

- Were enforcement actions initiated quickly when warranted?

(b) Effectiveness

- Did the actions taken resolve the problem?

(c) Adequacy

- Were the actions taken appropriate?

(d) Emergency Response

- How well did the State respond to emergency situations?

( 4 ) Program Coordination J

(a) Within UIC

( b ) With RCRA

(c) With Clean Water Act programs

(d) With Superfund program

(5) Administrative Management J

(a) Regulation Revision

- Did State consider revising regulations to follow an EPA regulation change?

- Did State inform EPA of proposed changes to State UIC?

J

(b) Staff Training

- How well are new State UIC staff trained?

- Are all State UIC staff kept current with training on technical issues?

(c) Special studies

- Were special studies or projects (where applicable) completed on time and with quality results?

(d) Grant-Related Issues

- Is the State's fiscal recordkeeping adequate?

- Is the State's property management system adequate for property purchased with grant funds?

- How are Resources used?

(el Quality Assurance (OA)

- Did the State develop adequate PA plans for UIC activities?

- Is the QA project plan being implemented? .

(£1 Data Management

- How does State maintain all information?

- Does State maintain an updated well inventory system?

D. Many opportunities exist for the RO to gain informatio! necessary to develop a fair and accurate evaluation of the State's performance. Frequent personal contacts with State staff, review of State reports and documents, and the discussion at the evaluation conferences all provide valuable information on which EPA can make judgments. Fiscal matters, of course, are subject to fiscal audit; however, the critical program areas of permitting, cgmpliance an? enforcement will reauire special review. The RO should utilize one or more of tne following methods for gathering information on the State's program implementation activities. The ROB and the State should agree, prior to the beginning of the evaluation period on the subjects to be considered

(1) File Reviews i /

The RO may utilize after-the-fact review of

the State's files to assess permitting, compliance and enforcement performance. This review may be done in *random". fashion, or the RO may want to concentrate on permits or actions in a certain geographical area, or geologic formation, or on a certain well type. As a general rule, the RO should review 10 percent of the permits issued/actions taken, or should review 10 actions/permits per year, whichever number is more. The RO should make an effort to ensure that the sample is representative. However, the RO should negotiate with the State the appropriate number of reviews for each State program.

( 2 ) "Real Time* Reviews

In situations where the RO can review draft permits/enforcement actions (prior to issuance by the State) within the normal time frames for action, the RO may wish to use this approach. This should not be interpreted as a *vetom power over proposed permits$ it is simply a mechanism for accomplishing overview when permit issuance time frames allow and when the State may benefit from EPA review prior to issuance. As an example, the process for issuing Class I hazardous waste well permits may allow time for such a review by EPA.

( 3 ) Inspection "audits" (joint inspections)

As an alternative to (or in addition to) the file review discussed above, the RO may evaluate State compliance activity by accompanying State inspectors as they do their field work. The number of such "audits* to be conducted and coordination of schedules should be negotiated with the State in advance.

V. Regional program evaluation

Headquarters may use the criteria and procedures outlined above to evaluate performance in non-primacy States and on Indian lands. As with State overview, Headquarters and the RO should agree in advance On the specific criteria and procedures to be followed in the overview process.

Implementation

The ROs should use this document to evaluate and complement the Regional overview policies. Overview criteria should be integrated with the MOA, to assure full agreement by the States.

Filing Instructions

This document should be filed under Ground Water Program Guidance %30 (GWPG $ 3 0 ) .

Action Responsability

For further information on this guidance contact:

Dr. Jentai Yang, P.E., Chief State Program Implementation Section Ground Water Protection Branch (WH-550) U.S. EPA 401 M Street, SW Waihington, DC 20460

FTS 382-5562

Rulct 'and Regulatlon~ 27333

the amendmentr added r new Section 1423 to the Aer SecUon 1425 ertablishec an dlenutive uLethod for a Slam lo obtaln ~rtauw eafontment re~poniiblli -for Ulose portions of IU Undernun a Inleclion Control (uIC) 'pm rn related to Ihr nwvrry and pro Y- ucllon of oll md gar M a r rprdnully." b Uru of thr abowtq riqulred under rubpm-wpb (A] of 8ecUon l ~ I ( l 1 Ihr Stale may drmonrtratr that rucb mNon of thr

Secclon l W b ) [ l ) or LSa SDWA #peellies thal a Slat& In order lo obl.Ln ~ u r o v r l for I ~ I UIC mpfua mwt

egulatlonn issued by thr ~ ! ~ ~ ~ & t r a t o r . t uch ngulallonr hrvr berm pmmdgated at ~OCFR PUU uz ~ 1 . !U and #a

Thl8 aotim h btandcd to pmvida @dance lot rbe implammliltion 01 the .ItemrUvr demonrtnUon plovlded for la the aew &cUon ¶(25 It cobtah talorrmUon on: (1 bow Slain MY apply for approv J under Section la md (2) thr critertr the &vhnmcntal RolecUon Agency (EPA) wU1 wr In DppmVlng Or dirbpptoviap appWlf0IU under Section 142S.

rfiectiva upon May 1% lWL .

Water Rolecllon Branch Omca of DIG&-& w.ter (iw-swi EnvimnmentaI RotecUon Agency, (OI M Smak SW. Wrshlngroa D C 204t)a

ENVIUONMEKTAL PROTECnON relav~imaterir l~, will k mrfirWMd at

AGENCY tbr wu adJrCu. ron ~ m n r wronuinow comrm

40CFRQrI Mr. Thomas E lklk (2oa 42WW.

- ---, . ' - . &mote Intedm Rnrl Culdana and Tabbd*r#rrb

Repuc5t for Public Comment. - R , , 8uuuMr: the %fa DrfnUnl Watrr M

ofro7c (SDWA) wrr mended on . U A n a H L p LO--

lkccmba b 1980 AmonJ othu chuyeh a t qM

, . '27334 . Federal R&ster I Vol. 48. No. 88 / TuerCay, &fay 19, 1981 1 Rules end Regulations

i d Purpaumd69DP ,.- :me unendments to the Sale .. .*Lng Waler Acl [SDWA) added a

': Section 1425 whlch pmvido .a \,ternatlve metna for ~ l a l t s to acquln

primary enforcement rerponsibllity for the control of urrdepund injecllon related to the recovery and mducUon B of oil and natural gas. Thla ocumeol wntains guldanw on: (I) how Slates may spply for approval under SecUon 14%. and 121 the crUerir EF'A WU use In approving or disspprovlnp appUuUow under SccUon 1425.

FPA Is mlndfd of the l a d ch.L to enacting Section 1425. Congrtss Intended thrt States be offered m aItemaUve lo the detailed requirements of the regulaUons promulgated 01 40 CFR Pads fZT1U. l24 and 148. m d b t State progrunt to wntml InjecUont related to 00 m d nts vroduclion k considered M their mirib. Neve~ihelesr SrcUoa 142.5 does r r q n h a Stale to demonsbate that ruch portlon of ilr Underground lnjectlon Cantml (UIC) program (1) meet# lhr requlremenlr of SecUon ltZl(b](l] (A] h u g h ID]; m d (2) represenla an rffecllve program to prevent InlacUon whicb enda e n drinkLn( water sourus. fur 3 er, Section 1425 r e q u t ~ s tht Adminisbrtor of EPA to approve or

, J'qapprove ruch portlon of a State's UIC pam lor prlmr y rnlorcrment ponsibilily based on his ludyleat of

rhelher lhe Slate bas succeeded b '

maklng the re ulred demonsbsUow. Conrcquen I? y. EPA belkves b a t

States ur anUUa (o luldanu on ths

hplemmtation of scl ion 1425. I h e ~mcedurrr m d criteria contained In this

' documenl were developed in consultstion wltb Lntercrted SInler n e v rcDrrarnla "model" State rppbuion andprogram whlch EPA'r view, meet lhe rrqulremenla of tbr unrnded SDWA. A Stat0 appUuUon whlcb conforms to tbess procedures m d mccu the suggested crlteri. should be rppmvable under (iecuoo 2425.

A State may choose to apply in 8 different tom and make demonrkaUons different fmm &ore ruggerted in thla documen; EPA will consider such applluUons. However. they will have 10 be reviewed on r care-byuse brsis lo . determine wbether they meet the nqulrrments of the A& Such revleW8 may iavolve addiUonal requesla for

asswurct of ulumate rpprovrl. This @dance and the re8ulsUons

promu pled at 40 CFR PIN 122 12.3. l24 an f 148 an both rimed at rchleving (ha lame fundamental ob ecUve: the d protectloo of wdcrpmun sources of drW;lng water bum endangerment by well lnjecUoa n e r e am. bowevn. Some algnlfiunt difference between them

The most Immediate difference b tbat one b I rcgulstion snd the other Is Nldancc.Th11 was I deliberale cbolce 6n the p u t of the Agency beuuss It does not dew the new Congretrl~nd mandate a t requlrtng mother set of detailed repIaUon, for Ila ImplemeqtaUon In my w e n t them L. tnsuffident tlme Lo develop such rtpIaUons La l&ht of lbe .hat! Umr rrmakrlng before State program rubmirslons uc due under bactlon r u z p ) [ l ) y ] of h a SDWA.

A hvrher difference b that Stall pro&.m submisslont under Section 14~(b ) [ l ] of the SDWA m requked lo meet r dincnnt legal ~tandsrd t o m s a t e program submLa1ont aadar Sectlon 1425. Under Section i&?zp)[l)[A). the State b nquked to make r showinr that Its UIC vron~ %tits the req&ements of &gul.tiont In effecl under secUon 1422 *" Under SccUon 1425. the Slats is requtred to demonsbate th.1 the Class U portlon of lla UlC program meets the requlrrmenlr 01 hclion 1Ulfb)ll) (A) Uunugh (Dl and represents m eflectivs rogrim~tipreveni undemund

&lecUon which rndtngen drhlhg v i l e r rourcsr '

As 1 consequence of tbeu diIlerences. this guidance la much lers detalled than the regulations and lcrver r great deal more dlscrrtfon lo the SUtr to develop m d EPA to approve Slaw . UIC program under Section 1425.

f.0 AppliuUow t r Definftion

For the purporer of SecUon 1425 of the SDWA: . - I. I h e underground Injection of brine or othcr fluids which are bmught to the aurface in connectlon with oil or nalural gas product lo^^: and L Any underground injoctlon for,fhe .

secondary or tertiary rewvery of oil or orhurl gas: and S. Any injection for the storage 0t

bydroc~rbont which m liquid r t rtrndard temperature and prcrsurc; shall be defined as "Class li" Injections br udh. -. .~ t? ATeed for on Undergmund lnject!on Con&/ IUICJ Pmdmm

An State which bas Class XI wells must t: avo m UIC program to assun Ih.r tucb wells do not endanger underground sources oldrlnklng water

c.' SDWs]. A Slate may aubmlt l u Class program to EPA for approval. U EPA

approves the propm. the SUte bas primary edotcement responsibUi& lor tbrl portion of lb UIC proprrm.

U r Sate chooses not to r ply, or it Its program Is disapproved, or i! subrequcnt to approval the State loses rfmary 1 edommenl retponribflity eccruse the Admlnlrmtor determines. under Section 142S(c)(2), the1 the demonttraUoa is no longer valid EPA must pretcribe U I ~ lm lcmenl r program In thrt State. WE en EPA Implemenla a ~ a t s XI pmgtm for r Shte. Lt wiIl do so La rtcordmce with the nqulremcntt of 40 CFR Parla 1% 124 and 14B

A State which d m not have an Class XI weus neednot develop r &ass X I control prorpam In order lo qusldy for primacy under the U C program Under the rrgulaUons at 40 CFR 123Ji[d), such r State only needs to demonsuatc !hat Ursr U well8 cannot le ally occur mtll '! the State has develope UI approved program to repIrle such InJecUonr. 28 Applcollons Under Section 1425

Any State which has Class U rreUs my, at L optlon rpply for rlrnay 101 IR l t ~ Class R UIC program ei er: (1) under Ule regutstiom at 40 CfR Part4 122 122 1% m d rca: or (2) under SecUon 1425 of tbr SDWA.

HOUS~ ~ ~ p o r i NO. ~ - r j i b , accompanying the 18BG amendments, ~ t a t e s on page 5 Ihrl: "TbeGommitter ex rcta Lhrl alternative demonstntlons w& be submitted on the amme aehadule. .- -- . . Aceardln~ly, rs damonslnllont required for atate programs meetlnn Federal rrputrtlons promulgated Gder SccUon

Federal Register I Vol.

qfi)." Strtes have m) drys hom July' w to submit rppIiiUow or wUI 10, JW.

'L ,,nL period me be extended by up to Il mother 270 dars y the Reglooll Admlnislrrton for "good uu",or auuf Ionwry 15 Wlz

A Sute need no1 writ until It fr ready to rubmlt It, rpplluUon for all clrrsw of wells. P A will entart.h utl.1 . L rppliouont for prlmrcyrr ng r s tbr . program for which approval ir sought m e n : (1) rli element, of 1 pmsrm to mgulate 1 pullculrr drsr m drrres of InjccUon prr&ces even U the d r r s m dasaer Involve the JurtrdicUon of mom Ban onr State agency; or (2) all dement, of r program lo regulrte all tbe Jarses or types of wells withla the furlsdictlon of1 rhgle Strte agency. However. U 1 State submltr & putid rpplicrtion the rlternrtlw demonstrellon under Sedon 1473 mr be used only for the Clrsa II @on the rpplIuUon. Ihe p N o n of the

o i

propam wveling types of prrcucee other thrn Wars U wlll hrvr lo meel the nquinment, of 40 CFR Pula l7.L l23. 324 and lca U Eflsctr of0 WdAppUmUoa ..

Ibe recent rmendmenu have changed Y o n 1443 of the SDWA 80 thrt 1 - 2 may recalve grant ruppon until

1082 After thrt date. It murt have "m&irved full primacy In order tor p.nl -- ~~

,cl18ibl~ty to &nUnue. Aa 1 wnsequence. 1 st l l r may nctivl partiat pNolcy for ilr Clrrr Jl conld program and continue lo receive gnurk (1) U It bas obtrtoed en extension for . @ubmltUng the remrjnder ol Its .ppllcrUon: (2) until It d e d u r l It, .

,IntenUon not to file my huthu . - rpplicrUons: (3) until EPA Iermln&tes it8

grant for uusr. or (4) unUI July l O a Z whichevsr & roonert . --

U r State ncelves full primrcg,tt, eligibility for puru wllL olcoun*

2 &/emant# of o Sfo&AppUmUlon A mmolete Stab rubmltrlon should

conkin the folloshg elements . ,

r. 1 letter fmm tbs Covrmw, b. r dcrcriptlon of the progrrm: c r sUtement of legal ruthorftp. . 6 eo~ler ofthr pVUnent strhrter a d

mgulrdow m. wnieo of (he perlinen1 State fonw

rod t e slgned wpy of r Memomdvm ot rsment

\ A e nrtum of hese dernmb Is . desuibed further below.

're. No. M / Tuesday. May 19, 1981

u LstrsrRom6heCotlmar Jbe letter from the Governor ehould:

' a. nquca rppmvrl of the State'r program for p W c y under lhr UIC Dm- b specify whether rpprovrl ir sought

~ d e r Section 1473 of tb SDWA or ~det toCFRPula tUlZ3 .1Urod lcs; ma

c&thrt the8talebwJllinpmd ~ b l r to uy out lhr prugrun demibed. u ~ D u ~ U ~

A S~te ' s rp llutlon Is expected to conlrln r ~1 B ercription of the p g n m tor which rppmvd & rought. la rufficlent detail to enable &PA lo nuke the judgment, outlined la SecUoa S blow. Sucb r dercripuon rhould: a, Specify the rtruch~m. coverrge md

rcope of the pmplm: b. S cify the Strte p e d t i n p pmcers

urd r & e s r to the extent rppllublr rbe f o l l o ~ elements: t who rppues for cu r b . 1 or Lhr

ruthortuUon by rule L Sfen.toder nqulnd lor parmlt

mppllcrtlon and npoN: r. Conditions rpplluble to p e d k

bduW duty to comply with p e d l wndluons. duty to mrpply. duty to lull or n d u u rctlvlty, duty to mltlgntr, proper operrUon,rnd wtolenuua.

ermlt rcUonr properly Q h k &rpeetlon and entry monitoring. record keeping end reporUng rtqulremcnW

4. CompUencr rcheddel: IL huukrolpermltr: '0. TermlnrUon of penal& . T. Whether u t r e d u m pmfect

pcrmlt, us gmnte c! b Emergency permltr: 0. l l ~ e rvrilablllty md use of

ru l rnua and other d t raaUony exemptJon8 to progr-tla nqukrmenls m d

. la AdmMsmtlve end ludldrl pmcedunr for the modi8uUon of Ocr='w t Describe tbe &ention of rng

wed by the Slate totepulrtr Clur II vrh a

d Deroibc tbe tehnfcd rrqulrrmcnQ apfled to open lore by Lb. Stale pn,pnm: a lndude r docription ollh;~trt@'*

procedures lor monitorin& Inspection , urd teqvkfnO report@ horn opnr(on: i Discun Uu Sutr'c: MtoMmsn!

m m , ** L ~ d m ~ s w n v e p r ~ r d U n s for

derlhg with vlobttoar LNrtum end amount, o rpml la&

b e e and othn enforcement toolr; 5. Mterf. for L.klng edwcnnent.

actlonl: md 4. it the Stale & s e e W rppmvr1 for

.n erlsllw program, evmmuy data on:

/ Rules and Reguletlons 27335

h Pasf prrctlcc la the use of d01ccmmt roob: B Current wmpllance/non.

ccmplisncc with State rcqulrtmcntr: C Repeal cfoletlon~ at the same well

W' by the same operator at different wrlh

well lvilun rater: rnd & USDW wntrmlnrtion u r u based

on retud Gcld work urd JUrur mmplrlnte. .

~ U U the state7r st& Yd nrowcer and demonrlrote at there M sufficient to uy out the pmporsd Dmgrrm: k U m m than one Strte agency 11 '

lnvolved In thr Clrsr U program. desolbr their relrtionsblps witb mgud to wrying out thr Wrrr U pmgrrm:

LContrln 1 nrronrble schedule for compleuon of m Invantory of Clrrs R well* In ths Strtai

desolbed la the put td rppllution, ~ d e by the Btalk t Con- r plm (hdudfng the brsb

for relpnlng prforftles) for tbe tevlew of . all rrlrting Clrrs II welie la the Slrte ulthln five yeus of program rppmvd to asrun that they meet m n l no* endangerment nqulremcnlr of the Sulr [this may Include penall modlficaUon and mlrsuures. U rpproprhle): 1 Darcribe Strte ngulnmenl for

ensuring public putlclprUon In the pmcees ofbrufng p t d u and modifylug - p e d u &I ths a r e of substrntlal chrngo lo tbr pmject area, inlecUon pmrsun or the hjecUon horlon. md

. m Dssalbe Strtr prwedmea for rrrponding to complrlnt, by the publle sr S&&mt of &gdAurhodty

n e rtrtemenl of legal ruthorfty I* Wended to rrsun EPA that the State brs thr Ie al ruthorfty to a n y out the proprm 1 escrlbed It mey be signed b

~ m p l e , the Attorney CearrrL the r r competent leg11 omnr of the State. or

Counsel for thr nrponriblr State. - agency, or my other omccr who npnrent, thr &encp la tad mllcn.

n e statement may. r t tbr o Uon of ))U Strb. -1st Of. N1 .Mf:sl. ofth.

(bs program derPtpUon rboulP delrfl .

. . 27336 Federal Rcglsttr I Vol. 46. No. 9B I ' h e r d n y . May 18. 1981 1 Ruler and Regulatlonr --

*he legal author it^ on which the ~ & O W men& of the State's pmpnm n r L

I ' Copies of Stotufer MdRegulol lo~ fhe application rhould mntain w p l u

of a11 applicable State rtaluter, ruler m d rrguletiona. Including thore govemfq State admMalralive p d u - 3.6 Copie~ of Slob Pomp .

m e appliutlon abbuld contaln exampler of all fonna used by the Stata In admlnirteriq the pmgrah including appliuUon form. permit fonnr m d repoIuq iamu ,tr ~emomn'dum ofrtgrsunnt

The bead of the cognitant Stat1 agency m d the EPA Rc~lorul Admlnlrwntor ahall execute a memorandum of apeernent which ahall set forth Ule terms under whlch the Slat1 will c a y out the deruibed program and EPA will exerirrrc It8 o v e n ~ t rrrponaibility. A copy of auch M agreement signed b the Director of the

of the 1pplluUan L State agency. J.ll submitted 11 part

At a minimum, the memorandum of agreement thould: .

a. lndude a wmmlfmmt by the Staa that the program will be u n i e d out 11

.. 3,ruibed and be rupported by M rmpriatc level of rtaK m d rerourcer: ,Recognize EPA's right of a w a a to

\-my pertinent Stat. Nca: r Specify the procedurer ( e ~ . .

notification to the Stata end participation by State ofIidala) 80vemlna EPA inrpecliona of weUa or . operator fernrdc

d Recopnlre EPA'a authohty (o bka Federal edorcemrrit action wider Section 1423 of the SDWA in uses

. - when the State foils lo take adepuate -. - - - - -

*. T= e to pmvide EPA wllh an annul noofl on the opcrstion of tbe State pmbarn. the content of which may be nsjotinted between EPA and primacy Statei from time (o Ume; t Provide that aquifer exempUona for

C b n ll wells be consitlent ~ 4 t h aquifer rxemptionr for thr reat of the UIC Proprrm:

c When appropriate, may include pmvialona for joint pmteaaing of

ermita by tbe State and EPA lm adlitlo or activltlee which rsqutm P

permlta from both EPA and the Sb t r under diNerent proglamr: Md

h. Specify that U the Stale pmposea lo anow m y mechaniul Integrity tertr other than those rpecined or justified in - "e program application. the Director

I notify the cognfurnt Redona1 . \ mtnistrator m d mvide enough

ulfomution about %i e pmpored test thrl

1 fudgment about l u urefulnrsr and reliabuity may be nudo. 4d Roclla fm Appmvdar Diippmvd of Appliulton

Public hrtidpofioa by ~lo t ra ' &tion I(U relteves States of the

nsponrlbili~y to hold public hearlnga or mfford an opponunity for public

, comment prlor lo aubmltting an epplication to EPA Tbcrefon, when . a~oliut ion k made by.1 State under &;tion I=. It may. bul need not sovlde ur oowrturrit~ for vublic k e w r or idmmenti - U. bazpfeto A g p f i r a l l ~ ~

wit^ 10 w b b &ya oftbe rocelpi of a final appliutlon, &PA wlll determine whether the appliution b complete or not and 10 ootUy the State in writfng. U (ha application b round to be Incomplete It will be returned to lhe State wltb specific requestr for

' additional metul.1 or cbanses. However. the State may. atila optioh h l r t tbat EPA wm~le te ila revlew of m appliution as sububrrritted 4.8 EPARrdtw

IEPA hor Oodayt to approve or dtarppmve m application. U EPA Rndr ' that the application k complete, the review period wUl be deemed to have begun on the dale the appliution war received tn the cognizant Regional Ofrice. U M appllution bar been found to be incom~leta and the Sule Insist8

' that EPA prbsced with ib review of the. appUuUon as submitted the nvievv period will begin on Ihe date (hat EF'A ncelvea the State's reauest to ~ m u c d Inwrfting. I b e n v i e w ~ ~ r l o d may be rxtended by the mutual uuuent of &PA m d the stice.

b. Wilbln the ~ d . ~ perlod EPA requert public commenb and pmvide mn o p p o W t y for ublic beulng on each a p p ~ i u u o h in Ig e applwg state, ~a a d a n c e wltb 40 CFR lWbl[cl md (dl. U tbe State bes. not dona lo. EPA will hold at kar t one p~bl ic hewing in tbl stat.. ' r U r Strte'a eppliwtlon I. approvrd

the Slate ahdl have primary . enforcement nsponaibllity for ltr C l r u aprog~e

d U a State's appllunon I8 dbappmve& EPA intend8 wilhtn drys of diaappmvd or as awn '

thereafter as feasible, prrsuibe i UIIS n program for the State in accordace wlth Section ;4Z[c) of the SDWA and, 40 CFR Partr iz2 U4 and 148. ' . .

6.0 -Critedr for Appmvlng or Disapproving State R o ~ r r m s dl Crneml

Sscllon 14:s of d e SDM'A atatcs that: * the State muy demonr t~t r that

[the Class II] portion of the State program meets the requlremrntr of aubputgraphc [A] through (Dl of

'

Ssctlon 11zl[b~tl] and represent8 an effectire program [inciuding adeguatr nmrdkeeping and reportin )to rcvent cmdcrground tnjecll~n wbt en ngen

water aourcea." J S,

nu# Section 1425 requires that a State. fn mder lo receive appmal for it. Oar1

. ll pmgram under the optional demonrwatioa make a aucccarful ahowing lhot lla proprun rneela f ve coadttiona: r Section 142llbl(llt~l reaulrea that -.-.

an approvablc Staie prqirampmhiblt . any underground inlection in such Ste!e whlrh ir not authorired by pennit er

- - nquiie Ul.1:

a. The eppliunt for a pamrlt m&t 8aUsIy the State that the undngmund fmjection *rill not endaqer drlnklag water aounea: and

Z No rule may be pmmul ated wbicb authotizes any undergroundinjection which e n d m e n drtaklns water - - wurce1. r Ssction 14Zl(b)[l)[C) iequlrel that

.n appmvable State plopram include Ins ecUon, monltorlnp, recordkeepfng an 1 r e p o w requirements. d &cUon 142l[bI[l][D) requires that

m appmvuble State program apply to: (21 undarground b j tc t ion~ by Federal .gender: and [Z) unde und lnlectiona by any other versoa. w ?"= ether or not oi.nuiin8 on mperty owned or l&ed by the Unite Stale*.

&Section 142Slrl mquIrerthrt a" - a pmvoble Statiprogiam represent m' ef;cc~vr pmgrrm to pnvent

3 underground injection which cndangen drinking tvatcr souma.

fhe following aectlons provide &nw to EPA penonrid for making

JuJgmenla with respect to in tba review of m

appliu~tioa for appmvd under Section 1425.

. fhe question ot whether a State am prohibits uneuthorlzed C ~ I * ll

E t i o n a ir a funcUonof the State'a sbtutory and re latory authority. A determination o !" whether the St** ;m rnm meets Wr condi~onihouid be ma& fmm a review of the coverage and scope of the p m g ~ a a the atatemenl of

. . i '

Federal Register I Vol.

legst ruthority rubmltted by the St.@ .I of the rtatuter and renulatioru . ..

nrelve~. One bnporta& ~lideratlon 11 whether the Stall h 8

<an rpproprirts formal mecbanirm for modifying pennlu lo u s e r when the omration has underpone slsnlfiuat

B c d c l e m l ~ U 0 n of whether 1 S u b "-- -- . program Is adequate h requlr(ng that : the a ~ ~ l i c a n l demonstrate ih.1 th* pip&ed injection will not end- drink1n.q water source# hunr on hro elemenh: (1) whether the State rogram B placer on fhe applicant the bur en of making the requlrite showing, m d (2) the extent of the infomution the applicant 11 requlred to provlde n r besir for the State agencya# dedrlon Whether the burden of ma& the requlrlte showfng 11 on h e applicant , ahould be determined from the Sute'r dercrlpllon of It, permitling pmccrr. If che necerraw Information 11 available In 81ate fJer.I6e Director need not requln 11 to be rubmltted agah. However. r r a matter of ~rtnclole. ibe avvlicant should io t ocap; ultimate rerpbnsibility for rsruring that the information about hls operatiin 11 accurate and available. Onr r.onclderaUon in thlr regard is whether . well operator har a rerpoatlbility to

rm c h i permltUq authority about .,ny material change tn hlr operation. or anv oerilnent Wormstion acauired ainw L h ; ~ e d t appllutioo w a ~ mide.

With regard to the rxteol oftha Worm4tion to be c o ~ l d e m d by the Director. the Stale program should re ulre m applicaUoncontdnlng #dficiently detailed InformaUon lo make r knowledgerble declrlon to (pmt or deny the permlr Such Lnfonnrtion abould include:

r. A map rbonZng the area of mvtew and identihM all w e b ofpubllc rewrd penet ra l l~ thi inlectlon Lnlerval:

b. A 1.bulsUon of data on all wcUs of pubUc record wlhlo the area of revlew uNch penetrate the proposed InjecUon tone. Such data should Include r description of each well'r typa, wnrtruction d a b of drillii lwtlon. deph; ncord of pluggi rndlor 3 wmpleUon. m d any ad U o d Information the Director msu re^^ r Dah on the proposed obnhon.

lneludLnn: L ~ v k g r and maximum dally tbts

m d volume of flul& to be inleacb. L Average and maximum hjecUon

Dt?ISW: Uld - 8. Some. and m a proprlste analyrlr 'nlection Ould Uo IR er than produccd ~ter . and wmoaUbiIit~ with the

46. NO, 98 / ~ u e s d e ~ . May 19. 1981 1 Rules end Reguletions 27337

,d, Appropriate eolo Ica1 data on the Aa adequate prog&rn should insure InJecHon zone r n3 w n I! tnlng wnes &a1 r l minlmum 25% of aU tacludiq Uthologic dercription mo&anlcal integrity tertr performed :eologlcal nune. Ihlcknerr. and depth' , e~ch ear wlll be witnebstd by 8 r a Ceologlc name, and depth to bottom qubU md Slate Inspector. of all underground tources of drinking b. Afonttoring. RepoHinp and water wbich may be rIfacted by tha RCCOnfkeeping. LrrJectlon: r The Director should have the.

I. ~chematlc &wings of the rutfrcs ruthority to sample injected nuldr at mdsubrurface construction delrIk of m y Ume during Injection operation. Uls ryt*m; ; The operator should be nqulred to

~ o p o r e d 8UmulatIon p m m : monltor the fnjectloa pressure and -k All avrUable lo dng m d t e s w (niectlon rite of arch inlection well rI &la on the well: m g kar t on r monthly baris with the result,

L Tbe nerd for comctlve rcllon on weUs ~nel ra t lng the Lnleclioll tona In

tbem in hvo cimmtancer & rhlch the direslor may require lers LrJormaUon from the rppliunt First, &a DLector need not rcqulre an mppUcanl to mrubmil Lnfonnalloo whlch b u ~ t o - ~ ~

date m d readilj rvallable la SGte Wer Sewad r State'r appllullon may

reporled wuaUy. . &The D h d o r should nqulrr prompt notice ofmechurlcal faUm or

'downhole problems Ln hjectlon wells. 4. The State should arrun retention

m d rvrUabiUty of rU monitoring n w r d s b m one mechaniul integrity h r t to Lbr next ILe. 6 vemL

outline ckumrlmt%r or wndlUoru when certain item oflnformaUon may not be requtred in r specific use . Such dmunrlincer may lricludr altuaUoa~ where. bared upon demonrhblr Imowledne rvallabla to the dlrrctor about a Geeldc operaUoo the Dhctor Dmporrr lo permft that opentlan . ~ 6 o u t reqliiring wmctiva rcuon or Jternativer to t t Fixampler of a u d dnworuncer rra mvlW or vacuum

An rpprovable State proFrm must demonseala the Sute's ruthorlty to mgulata injecUon rcUvllIes by Federal rgeneler m d by m other person on ropcrty owned of '#red by the Untted

[taler The adequacy of the StaWr ruthorl la these mgudr may be ! assesre on the bash of the progsm description and statement of legal ruthodty rubmltted by fhe Sute. Such eulhorify and fhe program to cany 11

fniccllona and inleZtionithrouxh zones out muri be in v lke i t r Ume no liter ~ ,-- -

or plastic heaving rhaler. than the rppm;d of fhe program by Section 1~llbll1lfB1alro maulrsr r EPA. EPA will admlnlrter the UIC .. .. .

8lrte whlch ruichorler Clatr U- mgram on Indian Ian& unless fhe InlecUons by d e to show that such 1 tale har the authority Uld b wllltng to d e r do noidlow rny underground JnjecUon whlcb r n d q r n drlnlJnl water a o u ~ e r . Tt.8 determiruUon of wbelber Ibe Sbte program meets lhh npulrernent may be made kom the pro am desrdplloa statement of bad rutkiforlty, the text of the d e a themsdver m d the manner la rvhtch the Stab has rdmMrtered 8uch ruler

'Iblr rectlon of &e SDWA r r q u h s Lh.1 m r provrbla State program P t ~ t a l n a ament, lor InapacUoa modtoring, nwrdkeeplna m d nportlng. Tbe rdequacy of &a Slate program in there rerpect, may be nrer r rd nlth tbe w e of thr followinn dtak.

7

Ekurpear~. Aa r p mvrble S t a t e p r o a ~ n b

r x ecte B to have m e&ct~ve eystem or tnrpecmn pmvide ~ot.

1. InapecUonr of lnlecUon lrdlltles, wel11, m d nearby produdq wellr; rod

;The mseace of qualiIled State

dlrntsred rbova. Section l 4 B requlrrr r Stole to dunonstrata thal the War8 II

gram lor which It reek8 approval la rct "represent, r n eflectivr pro am lo P" T Drevenl underground InltcUon w ich

iodangen drlIJdng wrier rolutar* Among Lbr frcton that EPA wtU . conslder in rssesslng lhe "aUecUveness" of a State program am (1) whecher (he Slate hu m effecUve pennittfng procna which nru lu in rdorceable permltx (2) wbelber Lbr S u b rppllrs UNh mlnlrnum technlwl requlrrmen\r lo opcrrton by permll or rule: (3) whether tbr Slats has m eUactlvr 8weUlancs

w a r n to determlnr compliance wlch Ru reb&mantx (4) whether the s t a b b a s t ctUve means to UJOM agallut violrton: and (6) whelher the State usurer adequate partlclpaUon by tha public h the pew!! bruance p rous r

Evldeace oft: 2 prsrence or absence a l m u n d water contamlnatlon Is

. . . .

48. No. 96 / Tue~dsv . May 18. 1881 / Ruler and Renuletlona

-. .. -. rll States have collected ruch evldeacr r stemrllully. Mom ImporlanUy. h e r i s e n u ofrvidencs of wntnmlnrtloo rspcdally U based on M abr rnu 01 comdalnts, la not neussarlly pmof b a t &&d water coatrmlrutloaf;u mt *&

mch of the Pvr,bcton namtd r b a b discuned W c r fn the folio* rubccUonr. la Jb mvlew of tbesr kcton.EPA b not obcrssul l~ b k k u r for 8 udnhum set or rven an pa rUdw i! r I emen~Tha etlectiveners o r Strtr program will be rssersed by nvlewky thr State's entin progrrm.Thr sbsencs of even .a Important element La 1 State propnm may not by Itself mean that tbr program is Ineffective r r long r s tben b 1 aedible program for detecting and r l lminrW inlecUon unctlco whlch allow my-&jratlon which urdmgen dr(nklng water source&

& Pcnnilting h * & SecUon 8db of tbr Pmsnm

DesctipUon ouUines the mafat eIcmrnls of (he permltUng pmcess. The listing of these consldertlons should not br viewed 18 Federally imposed ofnlmum policy, but nther r r rn outline of the hfomutlon which will bc necessary for EPA to rtalurte the effectiveness of thr ;trtegr permitting PrcKcSh

, States may deal with wltttap considerations, ruch as tations on &e banrfer of permltr. in r vule* of wavs.Then a n many ~ermltUnn r p&&es whlcb m c b + equdy eiective. EPxr review will hun on whether the rrcmrltth ~mCess. Wkcn rs r wbole, rep;esents & effectlvr me&rnisrn for abptyinp au~rourlate and enforceable requikmeatsia o g r e t o n b Teclurlcal Cn'Icria Any rppmvrble State m em bhould 'i r have tbe aulborit~ to 1DD Y. Y DrmJlt or

di. certrln bchdcrl i q h m l n t s derllprrd lo prevent the migration of

U S D W L A ~ ~ State program @do I ~ J

t J (he langua e of40 CFR l+s aha d be considere appmvable on its facs vrlur for (bat porUon of the program to whieb It rppliea. Strtr mpplicnlions not dy ing

a e of 40 C!R 148 should br reviewed oathe*$ or 8, e presence and adequacy of thr followin, khdn of bchnlul kqulremcab Lii b S t r b p ~ u n .

%sitin#. Si- nquhments should k;'

consldcred in the plrccment urd '

conrhctlon of m y Clrss U di8pod well. Such mqulrcmenlr should be designed to r s run the1 dis oral toner ur hydrrullully isolrted f!am dnderground rources of W n g wa tn

. (USDWs), Such isola!ion me be ohom through informalion supplie J by the rppUunt, or &U on Wr with b e Strtr, .-

wblcb would be analyzed by qulliRod &tala atrff. - -

t ConslnnUon A. EfTrctlve pmgnmr sh6uld nq'ulm

9 ~ e w b drilled Class n waUe to be . u s e d ind urnantad to prevent movement of nuids h to USDWh GpedAc uslng m d ccmrn rr ulmmentr should ba bare '9 on: 1 the depth to the base 01 tbe USDIV;

U the nrhua of rbr Pul& to bc b j e w d ; end U the bydmloglc mlrtlmhlp

between the Injection ronrpnd tbe b r r oftbe USDW.

&All newly mnvncedQrsr If w e b - ehould be mqulred to demonstreh , mechrnlul Integrity, r 41CmUon A. ~dequa te opening n p a l m e n t r

should otrblish r maximum Injection presrurr fw r well which r s s w s tbet the Dresswe La the lnlecUon tone durlnp lnleitlon docs no! lnll'ale new b a c l w i m pmprprte rrd8Ung fractuns La the 0- zone. Ilmfir Uons cur Lalectlon

r e s sw~hou ld rlso precludr tba !t!ecUon from uualns tbc rnmemcnt of Ildds fnto .a nndeqfound wurm of 'drWdn(l wrtlr.

Acceptable metbodr lor estrbllsblna ~ t s t i e n r on InjecUonprersrvas - bcluds: '

L CIlculsted fnctum gmdIents: U lnjectivlty bsts to otabiisb ksctun

pM81lI?G or W. Other compenlng gcolaglc

bydmfogk or englnecdag drta. &An euective State pm rm should

brvc the demonstrrtcd rbifly to detect m d remedy system frllurrs discovered duriru muthe opention or monltorlna 80 e r i o mtlfsrti urd.nglmrant to : USDWh . .

4. Plugpq mdAbnndonmmL . Plugging and rbrndonmmt

rsgulremenb &auld be nvlewed for thr presence oftbe following elements:

A.That ruum~rlale me&anlsms ua

Plugdrig &d rbrndonmmt rsgulremenb &auld be nvlewed for thr presence oftbe followine elements:

A. Tb rvrllrble 6 i h e ~ t r t e pro am to lnrm the pmper plqging ofw& upon rbandonmenE

&That dl Class El wells w nqulred upon abandonment to be plugged In r manner wN& will not rUow the movemeat of Odd8 Into o, k t w r m USDWI: and

C T h r t openton an nqulred to arintaln finnctd nsponriblllty Lt rome form, for the pluOglnp of rbrL brfectfon wella.

L Ama ofhview. An affectlw Stste pmgnm b

expected to inco~orr te the wnccpt of .n smr of mview d r b e d r s r redlu8 of not less &an )G mile from tht well, P d d

d n g e r l n g influrnct in ilr ol thir Lred rrdiw. The zone of r n d ~ l p r ( n 8 hnueace should ba determined for Lh. utlmatcd life of the well tlald, or project thmugh the u8r of an approprlal, crlculrtion formula, or rnathernrtiul model that tokes the mlrvant geologic hydrologic cnglneerhg m d operatlonnl h t m r of (he Inlection wrl l Peld or

An rp mvrblr State p B Tm rxprcle lo Include the rut orlty to nauln tbr operator la take wmclfvr rcume on will8 within the rrer of

.

m i r w m ronr olrndsngering influenu A ComcUvr rctlon mry include any

d t b e foUowIng typn of nquinmurt.: Lncemmtbg. m wolftovcr. LLL Gcondi~onlnpr or h. plugging or n p l e B A Statr program a u y provide Ihr

Mnctor (he dismtlon to rpedty the ~ U O W types of nqtrlrrments in l hu ollmme 9 iatr corncuvr rctlon:

L Rrmlt condltionr whtcb d l r s s w r negatlw bydrrulic gndlent at tbr b a r of USDW r t tbr weU in qucttloa U. Monlloring pmgnm (1.e. monltohg

rc l l s completed to tbe base of USDW Wthln the zone of IdIurnceE or

LU. krlodic ten ID determlns nuld movement ouUlde '3, e lnfeclion lntervrl r t olhcr wells w i h tbr u e r of mrlrw.

However. Umonllorlng or tesllng (ndlutr the potentid cadawerrnent of ury USDW, comclfvr rcUon sbdl be

"EEses vbm Director bas demonrtreble knowledge of geologlo b~dmlonlc otrnalaeerinn condiUonr GedAcia r given opention. whlch rasun tbal well8 wllbh the zone of

n 2 a&r r s conduits for mlgratlon of Oul& Into m USDW, r Slate program may ~mvide the Director the disaetion k r specIIic openUon wltboul reauIrin.4 rnmctlvr rctions or m y of the rlkrnrlives rpeclfled In SubsecUon (Bl rbove. Examples of such drcumstsncn m nrrvltv or v r r u m tniectlons m d .

8~hlfOib0 State progrrm may. La no drcurrutanccn, rutborlre an InjecUon whlcb sndonnen drlnklM water - - U)IDCCh

?. Methdwllntegdfy. An rppmvrble Stale pmpnm b

expected to nquire the operrtor to demonstrate &a mecbrnlul fntefigrlty of m new lnjectlon well prior to opht lon rnd of dl infectloa wells periodlmlly. r t

. k r s t once evny five y u n . For ihr purpose of assessing the Strte'a m e c b m i d Integrlty mqulrrmentr:

Federal Regfsler 1 Vol. 48, No. 08 I Tuesday, May 19.'1981 1 Rules and Regulations 27339

-An lnlectlon well has mechuduf . lb en f~ument authorjtier adepurtely pprtmrry enforcemtnt roponsilility for rgrity if: hthr. r L ruch ar t ion of i t s UIC program. Thr

- L ( h e n I s no s l m l ~ u n l leak irr thr a. h b l i c FbrtIcI~oflon. Clrrs U ~ronrsm 11 a nrrntriinlbla tubing or~rcker. and One factor to b i ured by EPA In acl~vlty i n d ~ s rubjecito the &me EPA

Ut.%ere b no rimincant nuld rrsesrlnp the "effecUvcness"ofr SUB oveninhl as other portionr of the VIC movement into ahunde und rolnsr T' ofdrlnklry water h u g wNul channels ed went to the well bon.

8. Tbe fo 11 owin( l r?b m w ~ l d e r e d to be acceptable letts lo demomttrt8 the rbsenu ofsignlIiunt leakc .

L r pressw test wllb flquld or trc 11. (he monltorlng of annulus p m s u n

In lhme wells l n j e c m at a oslttva uli' DICDSW. t0~0WbU V I C U U l

mopramis the deme to whI& 11 progrim (e.0.. Sla!elEP~ Agreements. Hidcounr Reviewe. grant wnd~lionh iss-as the pub l i im opportunity 0

partidpat8 in malor re&ulrtoy dcehlonr. I t I( aoumsd ch.1 moat S U M already brvr bglslrtlon &at o v m publlc psrtlclprtlon in S u I t d dsloa-

waluaUoo of CIatr U programs as mvbloned in 40 ~ 1 ~ 1 6 ( C ) ( 4 ) ( 1 i ) m d i 4 8 Z . However. in lieu of a r ~ e c i J

alemeits that iEPA will mmlder: I. Public NoUcr d permit appliuuon: A. TIM Snw may give aucb m U w or

U may repulm the appliUot to gIvb

nporUng nqulrernett. addiUanal nqulnmrnu haw bran added to the 6ute's annu l repon lo fPk Should (bla

icst or -

LLL all other lest8 or wmblnrtlonr of testa wnrldend effectivr by rbr -. Director.

C. ?be lollowing a n coneidend Lo br rcceptablr tertr to demonsvrta (be absence of algnlficml fluid movement In wrUd churn& bdlrcent lo tho well

secestry dha. a #pedal r r~on ing rraulrcment m y br nepotirted wilb rbr

br adequrte lo bring-thematter lo thr attrnuon of interested parl io mb In vuUculu. the vubltc In Lbe u e r of (ha

prirrmcy Stater i t 1 *tar &te.

bore: L cementing rewrdr (they need not br

reviewed rvew Bvr null:

pmposed hJecUon This m y hvolva one or mom of &a foiiom?rrg: L Porting: U PubbUon In m ofkh! Sht r

A# pa14 d the Memmndvm of Apemen& each S u b h a l l agree lo aubmlt m annual report on Lhe operaUon of lu Class U pmgrua to EPA. At a minimum (be annul nwrt r h d

& h a ~ r turi.8y* - ItL nobs logs; tv. kmperrtun r w e y l : or vdany other test or comblnrUoa o l

lcatr roruldend e&cUv8 by tho penozu: or - # .

w. Anv otbar effectlvr method that b. A ruinmay of t w e l i l a n u programs. l n d u d i i thr mfiulu of monltoriq md mechanlcai lntegrlty ksUng. the number of I n s ecIlon* md B c o m c U ~ r acUom orden and

ok-ctor. .

D, U rhc Suts pmgmm al lom or ecifies aItemUva tests under B(11fl or

--. -- - rchlever the obfec~va.

C Aa adequate notice ahodd: L M d e AII adeouate desuiollon of &l(v) above. the pmgrm descrlp~on

should rupply rufliclent Informallon so that (hr usefulness m d rrlirblUty of ruch test8 in the proposed clnumrlMu

~~ -

the proposed act& U LdenUfy wbem an lntererted party

m r i obtaln additlonrl Information Thir vlorrrad:

E Aa account of all wmplabtr nvlewrd by tbr Sbte d nde acUonr b c i ~ o o should be rearonably

mcrrrtibl. m d so~vrnleol for h b n r t e d mar br assessed - Wras

d. An recount of the n s d u 01 thr Mfnv ofwbt lag wet* made d w tbe

-. c S m i l l o n a . . Tbe demonrtraUon of M 8~tCtJv8

rwc i l lmcc pmmua bas already bean blrcusred in'SeiUon 6.4 abovr d LnfommsnL A Sute'a enforcement of its pmgnm .

f~ a audrl wnsldemtlon i. m W thr kar t is d1vr

- - - - -- --.~ f f b a State progrim rhould pmvldr

oppomnlw for a publlc brarlng U &a .~ ludgment of whether the Stat# program ~r dsctivr. Sktes hrvr u e d a ouaber of calorsrmant tool8 lo 8hUt tba etonomlc lncenUvr ofoperrUon mom toward wmpl lmw Nfth the hw. O h a Sntr programs brvr rmployed dvil , penrllles and lor repeal or w l W violrton. crlmlnal Tine, or 110 trntenocs. Other commonly wed prrcuccs ur admlnirlrrUw orden and wun InluncUom. La uea of oil m d

Oiiector fiids. baied upon mueru. 8 rlgnlncanl degne of piblic hiemst. A. Thr Dhctor may bold a baa- of

hlr o m moUoo and nlr r noUce drruh hearkywiththa DDUhdLbr - ap l l u t l o n P U a publlc braring Ir dcdded IIP~ durlhn chr comment ueriob noUa of

gar r e g i l r ~ o o many Butee have found vlpellnr revemnu a powerful lool In

~ - ~. ~.~ -~ - - -~

cbrdi: dryr afier Lbe no~cm. LTba final Steta acUm on lhe Wrmll - -

assessinp r State's edoorrrmml program W A will wnslder not wbrtbu a Strb bas all or any ~vUnJu

8ppllcrUm rhould mula a h r ~ m a to cornmenu" whlcb rummarites lhr rubstmuva comments recelved and tho rnfomment tools b;iwhether the

Strte'a pro#r ra Uken r e a whola - rerrntr an effective rnforumsot .Po* ~ertalnly. them a n aunr

dispaslUon of the crwrmenu.

-Wll a1 a d . .

mrorsrment matrices which &rtr eectlve rograma. In rddillon EPA b4 Once a C l l ~ 8 Il pmgmm I8 appmved look 11 wfetber thr Suta hu rxerclled under GccUon 142% Lbr Sute has