PS'-m s ytmpy.m-. WP X,..fe?w S7-W-vi y.%' * '-'-^ l ' ' . ' - = - > ( & :'' ."-; .vA ly* t? Alm m< *A'/l Tom\JWr 4imm en,Afts ?6e.riA>6-ZI ***tta CD r f' " " " U-r f > j j l {Jlf(J -Jir-t1 **] Ac** 1*! i ,-i -'.w W' .Or-:,' < v i f?'^Aa * > - < waste" and therefore not covered by RCRA.This case is directly on point with respect to produced water for enhanced oil recovery. Since produced water used for enhanced oil recovery is not subject to regulation as a "solid waste" under RCRA, it should be excluded from the Section 8000(m) study Section 1003 of RCRA provides that its objective is to protect human health and environment from activities involving solid waste activities - it does not cover the regulation of activities not involving not-solid wastes practices or issues including the production of crude oil or the handling of products etc. covered by such other statutes such as OSHA Section 1006 or RCRA and 40 CPR Section 261.4(a) (2) exempt discharges subject to the NPDES program under the Clean Water Act from regulation as a solid waste under RCRA.Conse^ quently, such discharges should not be included in the Section 8002(m) study. immm r * * - , >/' Chapter I-Introduction API feels redefining the scope of the exemption at this time is unwarranted.Any modifications of the exemption such as the proposed narrowing (PFS concept) would constitute a regulatory determination with immediate implications for industry.See Chapter II comments for further discussion. The description of damage cases should recognize a number of cases are based on pending court cases where facts have yet to be established.And, in other cases, the scientific evidence used was provided by private citizens or attorneys alleging damage and seeking compensation. It is noted that 249 damage cases were referenced versus the 228 that were included in the Interim Report.If these additional cases are used for background or risk assessment information, API would appreciate the opportunity to review and comment upon the additional cases. API agrees with the logic that the damage cases because they are almost all violations of current state and federal regulations cannot be used to demonstrate adequacy of state of federal enforcement efforts. Such an investigation would require significant additional effort to gather necessary data.However, it is felt that when the cases are grouped into "damage" categories that they are useful in demonstrating the extent of the current regulatory framework present for oil and gas wastes. See comments on Chapter IV. As described, the risk assessment modeling section is intended to be a screening procedure to indicate potential CDocor xcizao *tort - * , +1 5 T =>"lcex *t3tao CD o o 33 > ; o innffl-flWlt r r-:: :fr.; A:! w ^ j gp-l @ni fe^.i'l '.iV'.-Vf.v: ..; v-^i-, AIB-*';"m ill ii lililfifl fciliiill The report inaccurately indicates seepage in drilling pits is part of the pit closure techniques on page 13.If seepage occurs in a drilling pit, it is not design.Seepage is kept to a minimum in all drilling pits due to the self sealing properties of drilling muds.Column leach studies (furnished to EPA by API) substantiate that filter cakes with permeabil-ities of 1 x 10-6 or lower cm/sec can be created in drilling pits,seepage of fluids from drilling pits is not part of a pit closure technique nor do we believe it is a significant contributor to USDW contamination.The fact is that 37% of drilling pits have artificial liners installed where highly permeable soils exist over shallow groundwater or where bentonite is not added to the drilling fluid. The report characterizes landspreading incorrectly.Land spreading is not, in most cases, a supplemental step taken to dispose of excess muds squeezed out during burial of pit solids in a pit closure operation.This technique requires the operator to remove the drilling solids form the pit and spread those solids on the ground, provided that metal, salts and hydrocarbon concentrations comply with state constituent criteria.As incorrectly described by the report, land-spreading is not an after-thought in a pit closure operation and is not normally done without a planned design. In the discussion of Alaskan North Slope drilling wastes, the report refers to "road watering" as the only disposal alternative to decanting reserve pit fluids to the tundra. It should be noted that annular injection and conventional Class II disposal are also current practices. The report's discussion of reconditioning and reusing drilling muds fails to note that the ability to reuse mud economically varies widely with the distance between drilling operations, frequency and continuity of the drilling schedule and the compatibility between muds and formations among drilling sites. CTJO=J S- Ztoco"oI 5"p>d:=r- I _P _^\ -' .-:" . ''/.* AV ji iW piil fi P \%-:%-:iP''""""'"'"'' p: sZiA AzA*SM MrnXxASU; li 0m m iXX{ Aw \m-;iy.ppr.ii.1-ii:iYpY$i i %Sy;pP:P:.,yppYtejif !|iliillK 3 sfeiWI SpiY mypysypyiiYiPm m mm M$^km m y Zm zz mwAZxiZs pPpiZZ. wppASpy pWr,H MS*.-! pressure injection wells operating i n an EOR project. A problem would then exist for migration of injected fluid to a USDW through improperly plugged wells. This is possible, but not likely.Water injection in enhanced recovery operations is not usually i n i t i a t e d until the pressure i n the producing reservoir has declined s i g n i f i c a n t l y below the original reservoir pressure.Further, under the UIC program, a l l states either limit injection pressures or specifically permit an approved pressure. Most EOR projects are subject to constant pressure a n d volume monitoring, reducing the potential for this problem. The report discusses variation of state programs as if it implies corresponding variation i n effectiveness.There are many valid reasons f o r variations, some of which are r e q u i r e d by statute.For example, section 1425 of the Safe Drinking Water Act required EPA to recognize differences in state programs in awarding primacy.However, in 1981, the EPA office of Drinking Water issued minimum guidelines for assessing adequate state programs. These guidelines address permitting, area of review, enforcement authority, and other major requirements f o r assuring that a state program i s acceptable. As a result, there may be certain state programs that are different but there i s a minimum standard they must ali meet to obtain primacy.These minimum standards imposed by EPA are adequate to protect USDW's. The report criticizes (page 35) the present UIC program as allowing the grandfathering of existing Class II wells thereby circumventing the responsibility of the operator to identify possible channels of communication between the injection zone and freshwater zones. The operator must report annually ( a n d weekly or monthly depending on permit requirement) injection well pressures as required by the present regulations in both primacy and non-primacy states. The operator also must comply with MIT test requirements a t least every five years a n d more frequently as required b y their permits. More importantly, sound operations practices 17 CT. O CDC *5- r,\ rtto 2"W\ 3rta- toZTto'3 \ aco mto\ " i* p~ .! fe "V IP -CI *s$ 5I t- / - ; v.-'::-.; / ^; .;::r-; i1--'" |l-s;^"tf-:;i:'--3 !I ^ ? r ; v : ^ ,;v ;.-;-A,.; *J 4 .'#&.V ;'-.,.%.>'*>'.& wm m m ^im? - ! , . , , - . T . . ; r ::,.-..V^V'.V%:2w u Wm Ji l l 5 1" V' . , -. - --,T|r' -U;.-:-S' i *dictate an operatorobserve the performanceof its injection wells on a dailybasis.The pointis that the present programdoes not relieve the operator of maintaining compliance, i.e., preventingcontaminationof USDW's. Thereport'sassessment of incentives(page 35) for assuring theintegrity of disposalwellsis incorrect.There are many types of wastedisposalprocessesusedin industrywhereby theincentivefor assuringproperdisposalisenvironmental protectionand regulatorycompliance.Thereis also an economicincentivefrom the heavyfines and pipeline severancesthat can be imposedif the regulations are ignored.Further, the reportstatesthatmostdisposalwells areusuallyold, heavilypatchedand difficulty to maintain. Thisis not true.Manydisposalwells are new because convertinga producingwellin the fieldwouldreducecrude oilproduction.Also, in manysmallerfields, the saltwater disposal(SWD)wellis the differencebetweenrevenue and no revenue,if the injectionwellgoesdown,production has to beshut in.Moreover,mostenhancedrecoverywells are convertedformproducingwells.The ideathat all disposal wells are old and heavilypatchedand enhancedrecoverywells are new and withoutproblemsis incorrect. Thereportdescribes(page 36) the use of percolation and evaporationpitsfor areaswhereunderlyingwaters are not suitablefor use.However, the reportthensees apotential forthesesamepits to contaminateusablegroundwater.This is a contradiction and suchpitsrequirestatepermitsbefore theycan be usedfor thesepurposes. Indiscussingsurfacewaterdischarges the reportalludes to thepotentialfor damage to the aquaticcommunitiesfrom discharges.Industry has reviewedmanystudies ofcoastal estuaries and bayswhereaquaticlife has beenfound to 5" P a: =r -H I ^SgSol , O ro r-v r>r" A:1fe W* j I JrU'I, ( coexist successfully with industry operations.A listing of these studies can be provided.Also, EPA itself has responsibility for regulating these discharges through enforcement of the Clean Water Act NPDES program and does not require additional authority under RCRA. 0"J3l CDC 5'fiL COj y -# ,< of the do Imed o 3 CD 3 e-h Z} O O * + 5" ex c CD f-f O r * 3 " CD NOTIC is les m if the fi clear tha ~ * sr=: CO CD 'I I i s ,W' . ' " T A A 'A.' * JV -j V CHAPTER IV - DAMAGES CAUSED BY OIL AND GAS OPERATIONS SUMMARY API's analysis centers on presenting information on the 62 cases contained in the Draft Report to Congress. Cases are analyzed and conclusions presented as to whether adequate regulations exist to regulate "damage" incidents regardless of whether API believed the cases are appropriate for inclusion in EPA's study.Adequate regulation exist in these cases. API continues to disagree that damage cases from outdated practices prevented by current regulations and non-waste, non-RCRA issues such as oil spills, producing operations and Clean Water Act discharges are appropriate for this study because the study was mandated by Congress to determine the need for additional waste management regulations. API is concerned that no questions were posed regarding its 500+ page submittal on the 228 cases included in the Interim Report.API is available to discuss any additional documen^ tation needs or answer questions in whatever manner would be helpful to EPA. API is concerned the Draft Report refers to 249 or 21 cases not in the Interim Report's 228.If these and other cases are used for background or other purposes in the report, industry should be provided the opportunity to comment upon these cases.We are also concerned with the use of cases that did not pass EPA's "test of proof" for "overview discussions...and supporting the risk assessment."From the 62 cases API reviewed, the attached list of statements from the damage cases overview discussion do not appear to be supported. erxxa coczo *> b^ Inanalyzingthedamagecases, API has providedacharacter-izationofthecasescomparedtocurrentregulations,a summaryofcases bydamagecategoryanddetailedcommentson eachcare tosupplementits originalcommentsinEPA's docket. O CO 1 CDC 5" L a: =s-' gSO _< - 3 p> CO CD r~ :T T "k m zz mm wz'-y|vl;Ay;v?Iil |i| MZzm s s 0 !KV 'SpPPZ'ZZi : m Ai^m Xiim miM^Zy iiy ppiAiixp Damage Cafe Overview Statements Appalachian Basin..."Because of these marginal economic conditions, the costs of environmentally protective practices and proper well abandonment practices can make the difference between profitability and unprofitability." Ohio..."The State has recently banned all saltwater disposal pits, but a current legislative initiative is attempting to overturn that ban." West Virginia..."Enforcement is difficult both because of limited availability of State inspection and enforcement manpower and because of the remote location of many drill sites." Pennsylvania..."In Pennsylvania, disposing of oil and gas wastes into streams prior to 1985 violated the State's general water quality criteria, but the regulations were rarely enforced." West Virginia..."Land spreading o f drilling muds containing up t o 25,000 ppm chlorides is allowed." Pennsylvania..."Even though spills are accidental releases, and thus do not constitute wastes routinely associated with the extraction of oil and gas under the sense of the Section 3001 exemption, "spills" in this area of Pennsylvania appear to represent deliberate, routine, and continuing illegal disposal of waste oil." Louisiana..."drilling muds f r o m onshore operations may be discharged into estuaries of the Gulf of Mexico, ...Since the muds can contain high levels of toxic metals, bioaccumulation of these metals in shellfish or finfish are of concern:" Arkansas..."The State of Arkansas has limited resources for inspecting disposal facilities associated with oil and gas production." Kansas..."Recently the Kansas Corporation Commission added new "lease maintenance" rules to their oil and gas regulations. The question of concern is how stringently these rules will be enforced, especially, as these cases show, in the light of the evident reluctance of some operators to comply even when faced with repeated orders for corrections." Texas..."While the Texas Railroad Commission has not stopped the practice of coastal discharge, they are currently evaluating the need to preclude this type of discharge by collecting data from new applications." Wyoming..."Enforcement of state regulations is made difficult as resources are scarce and areas to be patrolled are large and remote." o* CD a ta 3 CaD. Xi 2L o -l> rt CD ex. CX1=CD a a rt o" rt to ex. CtZo C+ o to CO co" CO CO CD 'to -J rt *-r a rt to -HO rt* rt to rt. 3 wm.m " " -- * " , W 1 tNew Mexico..."Over 20,000 unlined produced water disposal pits are still in existence in New Mexico." Alaska..."Inspection of oil and gas activities and enforcement of state regulations on the North Slope is difficult due to resource constraints, .." i lf -/xSy$A | Y *;W I iii''f " T .ii,.A i '-y -y y pYi-A ' ^ S L DRAFT REPORT TO CONGRESS SUMMARY OF DAMAGE CASES BY CATEGORY DRILLING RELATED CASES; Contamination of Groundwater from Reserve Pits - 5 Cases (0H49,MI04,OK08,OK02,KS05) -Only two of the five cases appear to be the result of Leachate from reserve pits (MI04 and OK08).In both cases the States have regulations addressing this type damage that would make it a violation today. -Of the three remaining cases, OK02 is a civil suit case seeking damages for a 1973 drill well where the information from the plaintiff's attorney cannot be verified by the OCC or defendant. The two other cases OH49 and KS05 appear to be damages from old produced water pits.Nevertheless, Ohio and Kansas do have regula^ tions that pertain to both reserve pit construction and operation and produced water pits that would have made these cases violations today. -Additional regulatory authority or regulations are not justified by these cases. Surface Damage Related to Landspreading of Reserve Pit Contents - 1 Case (WV13) -West Virginia state regulations at the time of the discharge permitted landfarming of pit fluids with chloride levels above those discharged.Since then, revised regulations would have banned this landfarming incident (see case writeup for new regula^ tory limits). -Existing regulations are adequate and can be changed if needed to reduce chloride limits in the future. Allowable Discharge of Drilling Mud Into Gulf Coast Estuaries - 1 Case (LA20) -Louisiana has regulations in place for discharges into inland and coastal waters.In this case, the state ordered a legal discharge stopped under its authority to regulate discharges. -No additional regulatory authority is needed. Xhx erxxato'ZZ\ tzoo CD"-2 -* ?5wT = a :gcoo a2 . S *" m- 2 " * _C D- b S. Q H-g* rt- "i c3rZot t a3*5"\ C DZT ^3\ j ~ ~ vW 'W W sKg SPZy ZHmIpVvr - ; V ; v. ZASp?pZ3 v Yy M Ipsjiflvy %y :zzAZiM \^0s ASm iiiX:AXM ^XXWAimPXYmp Mf.tf mp s :Damage from Arctic North Slope Drilling Reserve Pits - 4 Cases (AK06,AK07,AK08,AK12) -Three of the cases are studies (AK06, AK07, AK08). -Two of the studies(AK06, AK08) investigated the impacts of permitted discharges to the tundra.AK06 was a draft study by FWS that is unavailable to EPA or the public for review.ADEC drawing on AK08 and other information has recently promulgated new dis^ charge requirements to additionally protect the tundra.The regulations were promulgated under existing authority. -One of the studies(AK07) is not damage related and found only that reserve pits and Arctic ponds support different levels of Daphnia which is a species sometimes used in toxicity testing. -On case AK12 is an example of a practice now banned by the ADEC. Exploration pits are now required to be closed within one year of cessation of operations and can no longer be left open indefinitely as was U.S. government's practice on the NPRA. -The need for additional regulatory authority requirements or regulations are not demonstrated by these cases. Damage Related to Alaska Drilling in the Kenai Area - 2 Cases (AK01,AK03) -Both cases refer to sites that current regulations would prohibit using. -One site(AK01) received materials initially from an oil and gas operator but became an open dump. -One site was a commercial site which is no longer used and would not be in compliance with ADEC regulation 18 AAC 60.3106 requiring groundwater monitoring and other requirements for commercial sites. -No additional regulation or regulatory authority is justified by these cases. *..(& zr o s r o r 1' W Vj # ? g ,^^A^W' ' J 'vVC; r ' 7 V, | p> VK'iiV-'':7'-'.iv V.7V7..v 'i7^V' ^J i B3V'A **-. ; A - V'AA- A I EyyW;?V;.;:.7?'{;:'.7;!,;j j J.^*; V ;.,.% " * ;, W* ' ,''-; Pi'Tp PRODUCTIONRELATED CASES: Illegal Disposali n Production Operations - 1 7Cases (LA45,LA64,LA90,OH07,OH12,OH45,AR07,AR04,TX21,TX22,WY03,WY05,WV18, LA15,AR10,WV20,PA09) -Sixteen of the incidents involve activities in violation o f state or federal regulations for either waste disposal or reporting of oil spills as required under the Clean Water Act Section 311. -One case (LA64) is an accidental saltwater spill incident where the landowner refused remedial action by the operator a n d d e m a n d e d instead a cash settlement. -Additional regulation is not justified as 16 o f 17 of the cases are already illegal and the seventeenth was an accidental spill that should not have been i n c l u d e d i n this category. Produced Water and Oil Field Waste Pit Contents Leaching Into Groundwater - 3 Cases (NM02,NM05,LA67) -All three cases involve practices which are no longer authorized and are extensively regulated by the states of New Mexico and Louisiana. -O n e case(NM02) w a s erroneouslyreported.N o damageoccurred, and n o violationo f state groundwaterstandardsexisted. -N o additionalregulations a r e r e q u i r e d o r justifiedbecause these practicesa r e n o longerallowed. AllowableDischarge o f Water Into Surface Streams a n d Ephemal Streams - 4 Cases(WY07,CA21,CA08,PA02) -Three of the cases are allowed discharges under the Clean Water Act's NPDES program.One ( P A 0 2 ) reports on a s t u d y on discharges that would violate state and federal NPDES requirements i f they were occurring today. -The surface discharge of produced waters (WY07) is specifically allowed west of the 98th meridian under the Agricultural and Wildlife Water Use provision of the Clean Water Act (40CFR Part 435 Subpart E).These discharges are extensively regulated under the federal NPDES programs implemented by the EPA and/or under existing state water quality standards. Further, many of these waters are of high quality and represent a major water source for many land^ owners in arid regions o f the Western U.S. -The California cases (CA21, CA08) represent an example ofa situation that may require additional regulatory attention. Regulation of this type incident are covered under the Clean Water Act NPDES program.These cases are under active regulatory review using existing regulatory authority by the EPA and California. I f changes are required, they will be incorporated into revised permit conditions. -LI to aa c wto O l ELzt. j r * -H *Z'$. A : *? ' fe.A WiP m XXX-Ib2A..;...~ BnergeneyTeammembersTotmy Duncan(left) andL.F.Fegaldemons tratelifes up p ort equip mentatas eminaronhydrogens ulfide s urvival.E-Teconmembers ares p eeially trainedfieldinap eetorewho oaaiatlow enforcementoffioerainoilfieldBJS em^ ergencies andteachBJSs afety. tionwascreated in 1981 by t he legisla^ ture ast heComplaintsandInformation Departaentt 6servessan advoeate for mineral andsurfaceownersIndealings with oil and gas producers and buyers. Responsibilities have been expanded t o Include providing generalinformationon oiland gas aatters by telephone and dis^ tribution of printed materials.Thename ofthisunit was changed in FY66 t o pro^ ject a more positive image andreflect a declining number of complaintsreceived. DuringFY86,t heInformation/Public jterestS ectionhandled10,006public contacts,a 26.6% decline from the 13,648 contacts in FY84 and13,639contactsin FY85.Inresponse, staffing was reduced froa three t o t wo investigators. The Oil a n d Gas ProductionAllowables S ectiontracksproductionfrom approxi^ mately 102,000 oil wellsand25,000gas wells t o assure production does not exceed amountsauthorizedbytheCorporation Commission.DuringFY86, 54 oil and 792 gas wells were identifiedasoverproduc^ ing, and appropriate actions were taken t o bring t he wells back into compliancewith Commission orders. Field Operations TheFieldOperationsDepartment enforces rules and regulations for oil -ind gaswellsand related structures such as reserve pits,disposalwellsandpits, tankbatteriesand piping, a n d the move^ ment and storage or disposal of crude oil, drilling chemicals and salt water. Thedownturn in drilling activity not reduce the field inspectors' workload. Whiledrillingdecreased, well pluggings and well abandonmentsincreased. Pollution control was atoppriority forfieldoperationspersonnel in FY86. Inspectors investigated all proposedoff-sitedisposal pit locations, checking for soil type,surfaceproximityofunder^ ground water and t he engineering design of fluid disposal ponds.Tbey also monitored operationsoflicensed pits and investi^ gatedpollutionproblemscaused by unpluggedabandondedwells,reserve pit cuts, illegal dumping of drillingwastes, oil spills and pipeline leaks. Field operations inspectors and manag^ ers continued t o achieve a highrateof successin resolving complaints and rules violations.Of138,750complaints investigated,110,566(79.68%)were resolved iat hefield.Only206com^ plaintsrequiredlegalaction t o obtain compliance. Installation of computers in tbefour districtofficesgavefieldperson' instantaccesst ointent-to-drill a-surety information. Fieldinspectors worked122,535.5 man hours in FY86.The largest share(27.64%) wasspentconductinginspections.The second largest share(14.07Z)wasspent -26-erxxam; * z|totzoo ta ; o ; aozz ex Z-zt*e >rt-zr^zr C Dg - ^ CD 2- to5 5-y rtar--zr^ 3 to ta CD "*"' "" rn-* . . . pSi r - S' *4 ^Bd" o l v i n* c ompl aints. w, c lLmS"ta d5 2 - 8 hel l copt"* *Pollution Abatement ThePollutionAbatementDepartment evaluatesenvironmentalpollution situa^ tionsanddevelopsrecommendationsfor correctiveaction.Thedepartment also coordinates research toward new techniques fordealingwithcontemporary oil field pollution problems. Primary focus is on off-sitedisposal pits,abandondedoil and gas wells, soil farming and pollutionviolationenforce^ ment.During FY86, department investiga^ tions led t o recommendationsforclosing onepitand closing or reworking 10 oth^ er s.The departmentslso developedmeth^ odsforimproving evaporation in pits in eastern Oklahomawhichwereplaguedby excessive rainfall. Neart heendof FYS 6, the Pollution Control Departmentformulatedguidelines for a pilot study of soil farming, a meth^ od of disposing of certain types of drill^ ing fluid wastes by mixing them into soil. Theguidelinesculminatedan18-month studyin cooperation with other Pollution Control Coordinating Board member agencies toevaluate t he feasibility of soil farm^ ing.The eventual goalofsoilfarming research is development of procedures that will allow safe soil farming of wastes*M an alternative t o off-site pit disposal. Inadditiont o dealing with specific pollution issues, t he PollutionAbatement Departaentupgradeditsoff-sitepit information inventory t o improvetracking o fall p i t s ' operational status a n d prob^ lem history. The departaent alsodevelopedguide^ linesfor site suitability, t o help avoid location of pits at geologicallyunstable or otherwise inappropriate sites.S tudies also producedrecommendationsforchanges t o strengthen requirements f o r pit permit^ ting, construction, operation, maintenance and closure. Tohelpreduceprocessingtime and roeedures,aninformationbookletwas developedfor pit permit applicants. Tha booklet describes t he permittingprocess, includinginformationrequiredbyt he -27-Commission, and listsrules tions f o r p i t operations. Technical a n dregula TheTechnicalDepartmentprovides . multitude ofengineeringandgeologies!services. AaajorEngineering S ection activitj in FY86 was processing andmakingrecom^ mendationsona large number of applica^ tions for hardship and distressed gas well status, due t o the soft market f o r natural gas.ACommissionpriorityschedule requiresthat gas purchased from Oklahoma producers be taken first from hardship and distressed wells--wells that would sustain damage if they are not produced. The Engineering S ection also processes applications for commingling of production (producing fluids from more than onefor^ mation through a single tubing string) and ventingandflaringofnaturalgas, reviewsproductioninformation needed t o determine if a well shouldbeclassified asa gas well or oil well, a n d r e c o m m e n d s amendments t o special field rules as safe^ guards t o prevent psoduction and pollution problems in individual fields. The Geology S ectioninvestigatesall geologicaspects of drilling f o r a n d pro^ ducing oil and gas.This includes screen^ ingdrillingpermit applications to make sure the proposed drilling plan andloca^ tionaeetstaterequirementsfor fresh water and environment protection. TheGeologyS ectionalsocollects, ebecksandrecords surface casing, elec^ tric logs and cement bond logs data.The data are monitored t o determine compliance withCorporationCommissionrulesand regulations. DuringFY86, t he Technical Department began a prehearing screeningprocessfor wellspacing,locationexceptionand increased density applications. This allows discoveryandresolution ofmany technical problems prior t o hear^ ings, reducing t he cost and time of delays requiredt osettletechnicaldisputes after hearings have been conducted. During FY86, tbe TechnicalDepartaent reviewed1,560spacing,1,650location exceptionand1,098increaseddensity applications.The review process resulted Indisapprovalrecommendationsfor574 5fo5 Ss-Sl rtgcoo erxxazz-coczcx '.:,-T-irii ','',r.rr AAiAZx$A is y swry . 'ipfe* V ATTACHMENT C TO COMMENT ON CHAPTER VII - CURRENT REGULATORYPROGRAMSIn addition t o S tate laws a n d regulations governing:1 ) Reserve P i t Design, 2 ) Construction and Operation, 3 ) Reserve Pit Closure/Waste Removal, 4 ) ProducedWaterS urfaceDischargeLimits, 5 ) Produced Water Injection Well Construction, and 6 ) Well Abandonment/Plugging, the Bureau of Land Management strictly regulates these activities on federally controlled lands under 30CFR. S pecific comments include: California-Table4, "ProducedWaterS urfaceDischarge Limits." Columntitled"Onshore"shouldbedeletedasthisisnota limitation. Louisiana-Table2 , "ReservePit Closure/WasteRemoval." Column titled"S urface WaterDischarge" shouldincludeastatementthat "discharges mustconformto applicable S tate and Federal discharge programs."These programs may require additional limits other than those stated and this column should incorporate that fact. New Mexico - Table 5, "Produced Water Injection Well Construction." Column"MIT Pressure and Duration". Rule 704 states that a minimum pressure of 300 psi should be used unless an exception is obtained from t he New Mexico Oil and Gas Commission. Oklahoma-Table3, "Produced WaterPit Designand Construction." Column "General S tatement of Objective/Purpose" should delete ..."in addition offsite pits must contain fluids with less than 3,500 ppm Cl."Thisshouldbereplacedwith"Generaland Areaguidelines provide specific design and construction limits for commercial and non-commercialreserve pits." cra-zz-z JOmCDtzoo aLZZzr- H

Zrttoto^ t *rtCD -"to=S Zf ^a 3CD CO CD ^ i i&-fsi*$ij j ^{yf!!Jiij *^. -> igl$&1S!iii}J&&&2^^j fe &ii^Sifiasfisaai^*^ .p-.y.-yipr-i^-.s~] j fe &ii^Sifiasfisaai^*^ .7.u*rfek: I CONTAMINATIONOF GROUNDWATERFRON RES ERVE PITSEPA CAS E NQ. EPAN O N N O N PEW)- VIOLATESUNS UB-DAHAS ERCRACURRNTIN6CURRS TAN-CATAGORYIS S UE PRACTICE CAS ERE6S TIATED MAJOR FACTSDIS PUTED CO. NAME CONTAIN RES OURCE ADHIN/ CONTAIN ENFORCE HAS TEHENT ACTION EPA CAS E DES CRIPTION 0H49PRODNOT LIS TGND HTR H U DDAHA6E TO FRES H HATER HELL, INS UFFICIENT DETAIL ON EX ACTS OURCE THE S OURCE OF DANAGE TO THE FRES H HATER HELLSISUNCERTAIN. IT HASUNDETERMINED HHETHER DAHAGE HASRELATED TO DRILLING OR HORE LIKELY FROH HATER ANALYS ISOLD PRODUCTION PITS . THE EPA CONTRACTORDES CRIPTION OF OPERATIONSLIS TSTHE CATEGORY A S'PRODUCTION'. IN ANY CAS E, THE CAS E ISA VIOLATION OF CURRENT OHIO REGULATIONSRE6ARDIN6 DRILLING HUD AND PRODUCED HATERS . OHIO REGULATIONSFOR DRILLING HUDS :1) PROHIBIT ES CAPE OF BRINE AND CONTAMINATION OF LAND, S URFACE NATER AND GROUNDWATER2) REQUIRE LINERSI N HYDR06EOL06IC BAS INS(LINERSHOULD BE REQUIRED I N THE AREA OF THISDAHA6E CAS E).ALS O, OHIO REGULATIONSFOR PRODUCED HATER REQUIRE S URFACE PITSCONTAINING PRODUCED HATER HUS T BE LIQUID TIGHT, PRODUCED HATER CANNOT B Y S TORED HORE THAN 180 DAYSAND PITSCANNOT B E US ED FOR ULTIMATE DIS POS AL. MI04PROD/DRLGYYNOT LIS TGND HTRHUD/PROD PITH T R THISCAS E OCCURRED I N 1975.S INCE 1975, MICHIGANHASADOPTED REQUIREHENTS (299.1304;299.1601FF) FOR THE US E OF LINED PITSI STHISAREA. 1975 CAS E DEALING HITH UNLINED PITSCURRENTLYBANNED OKOBDRLGYHI-HIS CGND/S URFH U DY HTR i S OIL IN THISCAS E, EPA'SCONTRACTORINCLUDED S TATE COHHENTSHHICH UNDERLINE THE FACT THAT THE OCC ACTED ON A COMPLAINT BY A LANDONNER AND DIRECTED THE OPERATORTO REMOVE THE CONTENTSOF A PIT THAT VIOLATED OCC RULESB Y CONS TRUCTION O F THE PIT I N A FRACTURED S HALE.FURTHERMORE, THE OCC I SIN THE PROCES SOF DEVELOPING ADDITIONALREGULATION TO PREVENT THE LEACHIN6 OF HIGH S ALT HUDSINTO GRPUNDHATER. IN ADDITION, COLUMNTES TSCONDUCTED I N THE API PRODUCTION HAS TE S TUDY ASHELL ASRES EARCH CONDUCTED BY DR. L. CANTEROF THE UNIV. OF OKLAHOMAENVIRONMENTALDEPARTMENT PRES ENTED A T THE 1986 DRILLING MUD S YS POS IUH I N NORHAN OKLAHOMACONCLUDE THAT METALSOF CONCERN ARE VERY TIS HTLY HEALD I N DRILLING MUDSBENTONITE CLAY MOLECULARS TRUCTURE AND THERE I SN O D A T A T D S UPPORT POLLUTION MIGRATIONO F BARIUH, CHROMIUH O R ARS ENIC. LEAKING PIT I N VIOLATION OF OCC RULESORDERED CLOS ED 130va oo paui|y. Bui.aq ;uauunoopa q ; j oityj -enb aq;o;anp s;;J'ao^ou si q;u-eq; j -eapssa|s; 36BUIIui|!ia q;i\:30il ON KS 05 VNOT LIS TS URF/GND H U D HTR 4 S OIL API COMMENTSIN EPA'SDOCKET INDICATE NO DAMAGE HASBEEN DOCUMENTED FROM THISCAS E. EPA'SCONTRACTORI SREPORTING ON A CAS E HHERE THE ONLY DATA S OURCE US ED I STHE PLAINTIFFSATTORNEY I N A PENDING LAN S UIT I N CIVIL COURT FOR DAMAGES .API'SCOMMENTSHHICH HERE REJECTED FOR A LACK OF DOCUMENTATION HERE OBTAINED FROH THE OKLAHOMACORPORATION COMMIS S ION AND THE DEFENDANT'SATTORNEY.API ISCONCERNED THAT EPA'SCONTRACTOR MAY BE US IN6 A DIFFERENT S TANDARD FOR DOCUMENTATION FOR THEIR INFORMATIONTHAN API'S . THISCAS E ISAN EX AHPLE OF DIFFICULTIESUS ING DATA FROM PENDING LAN S UITSHHERE FACTSHAVE YET TO BE EVALUATED AND JUDGEMENTSHADE BY THE COURT. NEVERTHELES S , OKLAHOMA HASPERFORMANCES TANDARDSPROHIBITING LEAKAGE OF RES ERVE PITSINTO GROUNDWATER(S EE 0KO8 COHKENTSFOR ADDITIONALDETAILS ) 1973 CLOS ED DRILLING PIT ALLEGEDLY S EEPINGINTO S URF HTR., CAS E PEND1N6 DRLG NOT LIS TGRN HTRS ALT HTR Y UNLINED DRILLIN6 PIT THOUBHT TO BE LEACHING S ALT INTO FRES HHATER HELL KDHE AND KCC HAVE S UBHITTED COHHENTSIN EPA'SDOCKET S UBS TANTIATING THAT THE POLLUTION S OURCE HASNOT THE REFERENCED DRILLING RES ERVE PI T.EPA'SCONTRACTOR DIS PUTESTHE S TATE AGENCY FACTSDES PITE EX TENS IVE INVES TIGATIONINTO THISINCIDENT BY THO S TATE A6ENCIES . NEVERTHELES S , KANS ASIS S UED 'LEAS E MAINTENANCE' RULESON MAY 13, 1987 THAT S HOULD S ERVE TO PREVENT THISTYPE DAMAGE.THE RULESREQUIRE PERMITSFOR ALL PITS(DRILLINSAND PRODUCING), EMPTYIN6 OF EMERGENCY PITSHITHIN 48 HOURS , NOTIFICATION OF S PILLSWITHIN 24 HOURSAND S PECIFIC PENALTIESAPPLICABLE FOR EACH VIOLATION.IN ADDITION, KCC HASAUTHORITY TO S HUTDOHN AN OPERATOR TO ENFORCE ITSREGULATIONS . ijlrfiiYj-l'iim^t^wft^ /LCI /_/_/CI i30vaoo pawiij .6uj aq ;uawnoop aq; ^o;i|Bnb aq;o;anps|;;'ao;;ou sj q;ue q; .re ap ssa|si a6BUj i W|!j . aq; j ]-30UON ftU.^AS " - W ^T^WT^: W V - * ~ ' < "-*-' ,x-la ii^-sS*(-MMgSBiHM*>t^i*.^vt.jigj*^**^' ' ~] S URFACE DAMAGERELATED TO LANDS PREADING OF RES ERVE PIT CONTENTSEPAE P AN O N N O N PEND- VIOLATESUNS UB-MAJOR CAS EDAMAGERCRACURRNTIN6CURRS TAN-FACTSNO.CATAGORYIS S UE PRACTICE CAS EREGS TIATEDDIS PUTED ADMIN/ CONTAINCONTAIN ENFORCE-CO.RES OURCEHAS TEHENT NAMEACTION HV13DRLG TOHER DRL6S OIL EPA CAS E DES CRIPTION LANDFARMING OF DRILLING MUDSDAMAGEDVEGETATION FROM S ALT CONTENT THISCAS E DOESNOT DEHONS TRATE A NEED FOR ADDITIONALREGULATION THE CAS E I SI N ERROR RE6ARDING S TATE REGULATIONSON ALLOHABLELANDS PREADING S INCE THISINCIDENT ADDITIONAL REGULATIONSHAVE BEEN PROMULGATED LIMITING CHLORIDESLANDS PREAD TO 12,500 PPH N O DIS CHARGESOVER 25,000 6ALL0NSPER ACRE AND NO CHLORIDE LOADINGSOVER 600 LB PER ACRE.' HVDNR COMMENTSTO EPA'SINTERIM REPORT PROVIDE ADDITIONALDOCUMENTATION AND S TATE DAMAGE FROM THIS1986 INCIDENT HASS HORT TERM AND HASFULLY RECOVERED. mas ^'imtmimis ^-P.vSL^/: wywt/f->*Cv- * -,~" -. v i *-j r-yyyZ~yxx,"*r -. ^i A A *i " f "r^-W-* V**.5s*^i fe^8 ^^8 ^^ftma > . ' " ' - * ,* - * ' - -",-I .\,- >- ?j->ivn DAMAGERELATED TO ALAS KA DRILLING IN THE KENAI AREA EPAE P A N O NN O NPEND- VIOLATESUNS UB-CAS EDAHAGERCRACURRNTI N GCURRS TAN-NO.CATA60RY IS S UE PRACTICE CAS EREGS HATED MAJOR FACTSDIS PUTED CO. NAHE CONTAIN RES OURCE ADMIN/ CONTAIN ENFORCE-HAS TEHENT ACTION EPA CAS E DES CRIPTION HTR/S OILMUD/S NYAK016RAVELYYYYUNION PIT THISCAS E INVOLVESDIS POS AL OF S POIL MATERIAL WHICH WASUNREGULATED PRIOR TO 1972. NO EVIDENCE OF GROUNDWATERCONTAHINATION WASEVER FOUND.CLAIMED HEALTH EFFECTSBY NEIGHBORING RES IDENTSARE ALL BY INDIVIDUALSRES IDING UP THE GROUNDWATER6RADIENT OF THE GRAVEL PIT AND WHOS E HELL NATER HASNEVER S HOWN ANY S IGN OFCONTAHINATION. CURRENT REGULATIONSPROHIBIT DUMPING ON THISS ITE.GENERAL REGULATORY REQUIREMENTSARE COVERED IN ADEC REGULATION 18 AAC 60.520. UNION WASORDERED TO CLEAN UP A DUMP S ITE AK03COMMERCIALYYMAR ENTERPRIS EGND HTR HUD/PROD COHPANYWAS TE THE IHPACT IN THISCAS E ISNOT DUE TO DRILLING ACTIVITY BUT RATHER OF IHPROPER HANDLINGBY AN INDEPENDENT COHHERCIAL WAS TE DIS POS ALOPERATOR. ACTIVITY AT THE S ITE ISLLLE6AL PER ADEC REGULATION 18 AAC 60.3106 WHICH REQUIRESQUARTERLY REP0RTIN6 AND GROUNDWATERMONITORING PR06RAHS . ALLEGED PERMIT VIOLATIONSAT S TATE PERMITTED DIS POS AL S ITE IZOJtUDQ pauilli 6u;aq ;uaiunoopaq; 40 A;i|-enb aq;0;anp s| ;J -90i;ou sj q;UBq; j -eapssa|si 86BU1! UJ|!i mi\:30I10N m* \*a\y( - ^; uw^* *- >=V '^>F;* >-, -* -.--*"A , , "** Q_ ac cn cn a= cn a. LU ca as *x en ae cc -Cau. a c x cn -r-a= za CJ LU ca ca -a-^^ajfaJaaifetii*aa-feiPiP -j*& gii& ~& i^'Y**fift:8!?a^& '^^ DAHAGE RELATED TO POOR LEAS EHAINTENANCE EPAE P AN O N N O N PEND- VIOLATESUNS UB-CAS EDAHA6ERCRACURRNTI N GCURRS TAN-NO.CATA60RY IS S UE PRACTICE CAS ERE6S TIATED MAJOR FACTSDIS PUTED CO. NAME CONTAIN RES OURCE ADHIN/ CONTAINENFORCE HAS TEHENT ACTION CAS E DES CRIPTION KS 01PRODTEHPLEHTR/S OILS ALTHATERYHABITUAL VIOLATOR OF REGULATIONSBANNED FROM OPERATIONSIN KANS ASTHISCAS E DOESNOT DEMONS TRATE A NEED FOR ADDITIONALREGULATION OPERATOR HASA HABITUAL VIOLATOR(39 VIOLATIONSIN THO YEARS ) OF REGULATIONSRES ULTING IN NUMEROUSVIOLATIONSOF S TATE RULES .THE KCC AS S ES S ED A PENALTY, REVOKED THE OPERATORSLICENS E AND PROHIBITED FURTHER OPERATIONSON THE LEAS E AND HITHIN KANS ASBY THE OPERATOR HITHOUT PUBLIC NOTICE AND HEARING. THE ' LEAS E MAINTENANCE' S ECTION OF KANS ASREGULATIONSHERE IS S UED HAY 13, 1987 REQUIRINGPERHITSFOR ALL PITS(DRILLING AND PRODUCING), EHPTYING OF EHERGENCY PITSHITHIN 48 HOURS , NOTIFICATION OF S PILLSHITHIN 24 HOURSAND S PECIFIC PENALTIESAPPLICABLE FOR EACH VIOLATION.IN ADDITION KCC HASAUTHORITY TO S HUTDOHN AN OPERATOR TO ENFORCE ITSREGULATIONS . FURTHER DOCUHENTATION ISINCLUDED IN K.A.R. 82-3-400 THROUGH 403. KS 08PRODYHARRS OILS ALT HATER Y THISCAS E DOESNOT DEHOHS TRATE A NEED FOR ADDITIONALREGULATION. AN UNPERMITTED EMER6ENCY POND HASFOUND TD BE LEAKING S ALTHATER.THE OPERATOR HASORDERED TO CORRECT THE S ITUATION BY LINING THE POND AND S ECURIN6 A PERMIT.THE OPERATORDID NOT COHPLY AND AN ORDER TO CLOS E THE POND HASIS S UED BY KDHE. THE S ITE HASBEEN CLOS ED FOR ADDITIONAL DOCUHENTATION S EE COHHENTSON KS 01 PERTAINING TO KCC 'LEAS E HAINTENANCE' REGULATIONSCONTAINED IN K.A.R. 82-3-400 THR0U6H 403. ILLEGAL US E OF S ALTHATER PITS , OPERATION ORDERED CLOS ED BY KCC izo vaoo pauilj j .6u;aq ;u9mnoopa q ; 40 /C;j |Bnb aq;0 ;anpsi;J'aoj ;ou Sj q;UBq; JB9|ossa|si a6Biuj UJIIJ. a q;^i-30HON ******--S*l|ilt*-fe3||lp|^^*^'& .y *^'& .y-imi& ??& i sffi ^s? &fflJsliii&iS3%f^^' n DIS CHAR6E OF PRODUCED HATER AND DRILLING MUD INTO BAYSAND ES TUARIESOF THE TEX AS6ULF COAS T EPAE P AN O N N O N PEND- VIOLATESUNS UB-HAJORCONTAIN CAS EDAHAGERCRACURRNTIN6CURRS TAN-FACTS C O .RES OURCE NO.CATAGORY IS S UE PRACTICE CAS ERE6S TIATEDDIS PUTEDNAME ADMIN/ CONTAINENFORCE-HAS TEHENT ACTION EPA CAS E DES CRIPTION TX 55DIS CHARGE YNOT LIS TEDFIS HS ALT HATERALLE6ED S EDIMENTSFROH NPDESDI5CHAR6E ENDAN6ERING FIS H THISCAS E DOESNOT DEMONS TRATE A NEED FOR ADDITIONALREGULATION THISI SA D15CHAR6E S UBJECT T O THE NPDESPROGRAMUNDER THE CHA ADMINIS TERED BY EPA.ALTHOUGH DUE T O THE FAILURE OF EPA TO IS S UE PERHITSFOR THISTYPE DIS CHAR6E, THE TEX ASRAILROAD COHHIS S ION HASES TABLIS HED A PERHIT PROGRAH TO ENS URE DIS CHARGESDO NOT ENDAN6ER HUHAN HEALTH O R THE ENVIRONHENT.NO REFERENCESARE CITED I N THISCAS E TO DETERHINE IF POLLUTION AND ENDANGERMENT OF FIS H I STHE RES ULT OF OIL FIELD DIS CHARGESO R DIS CHARGESOF THE S HIPPING AND PETROCHEMICALINDUS TRIESO R DIS CHARGE OF NONINDUS TRIAL HAS TES . THERE ARE HANY S OURCESOF DIS CHARGE I N THE HOUS TON S HIP CHANNEL OTHER THAN OIL AND GASPRODUCTION OPERATIONS . TX 31DIS CHARGE YYYNOT LIS TFIS HS ALT HATER THISCAS E DOESNOT DEHONS TRATE A NEED FOR ADDITIONALREGULATION THISDIS CHARGE ISPERHITTED BY THE TEX ASRAILROADCOMMIS S ION NPDESPROVIS IONSOF THE S AFE DRINKING HATER ACT.TEX ASREQUIRESPERHITSFOR DIS CHARGESTHAT HILL NOT DE6RADE THE QUALITY O F THE RECEIVING HATER BODY.THE S TUDY REFERENCED DID NOT RECOGNIZE THE MIX ING THAT OCCURS8ETHEEN THE DIS CHARGED AND RECEIVING HATERS .OTHER S TUDIESS HOHN NO ADVERS E EFFECTSFROH THES E DIS CHARGES . ALLEGED ENDANGERMENT T D FIS H FROH NPDESDIS CHARGE TX 29DIS CHAR6E YYTEX ACO/AHOCOS URF HTRS ALT HATER Y THISCAS E DOESNOT DEHONS TRATE A NEED FOR ADDITIONALREGULATION. UPON REVIEH, THE TEX ASRAILROAD COHHIS S ION REVOKED THISDIS CHARGE PERHIT DUE TO CONCERNSTHE DIS CHARGE HASADVERS LY EFFECTING THE QUALITY O F THE RECEIVING HATERS . THISDIS CHAR6E HASALS O S UBJECT TO REGULATION OF EPA UNDER NPDESPROVIS IONSOF THE CLEAN HATER ACT. TEX ASRAILROAD COHHIS S ION S TOPPED DIS CHAR6E TO BAFFIN BAY i. 30vaoo pauuj j j . 6u;aq ;u9iunoopaq;j o/tyj Bnb aq;o;anpsi;;'aoi;ou sj q;UBq; JB9|0ssaj si 36BUIIuiuj .aq;}\:30H 0N m .!' |cJ*-r..*rr. v - Vj,4*s ,.z&'-r-'-s zw, ^l DAHA6E RELATED TO ARTIC PRODUCTIONOPERATIONSEPAE P AN O N N O N PENB- VIOLATESUNS UB-HAJOR CAS EDAHAGERCRACURRNTI N G CURRS TAN-FACTS C O . NO.CATAGORY IS S UE PRACTICE CAS EREGS TIATEDDIS PUTEDNAHE ADMIN/ CONTAINCONTAIN ENFORCE-RES OURCEHAS TEHENT ACTION EPA CAS E DES CRIPTION S URF HTRCHEHICALS YAKIOS ALVAGEYYYNS S I OPERATION THISCAS E REFERSTO THE IMPROPER AND ILLEGAL S T0RA6E AND HANDLING OF US ED DRUHSBY A COMMERCIALS ALVAGECOMPANY. THE ADEC AND DNR ACTED TO QUICKLY DEVELOP AND IHPLEHENT A CLEAN UP PLAN HITH THE S ALVAGE COHPANY AND HITH NORTH S LOPE OPERATORS .IS S UESOF THISTYPE ARE S PECIFICALLY ADDRES S ED IN ADEC S PILL CLEANUP AND NOTIFICATION REQUIREHENTSDOCUMENTED IN 18 AAC 75.080.NOTE THAT AFTER CLEANUP, A MONITORING PROGRAMOF ADJACENT TUNDRA AREASAND PONDSHASUNDERTAKEN.TES T S HOHED THAT HATER AND TUNDRA HERE FREE OF CONTAHINCATION. ILLEGAL AND UNREPORTED CHEHICAL S PILLSitwy iiyi,1'-:>"^vr.ii**'-wM*^^ * - A~- - ^* ; .- '- z4m*: - *i**--j DAHAGE RELATED TO PRODUCTION OPERATIONSS PILLSEPAE P AN Q N N O N PEND- VIOLATESUNS UB-CAS EDAHA6ERCRACURRNTI N GCURRS TAN-NO.CATAGORY IS S UE PRACTICE CAS ERE6S TIATED HAJOR FACTSIS PUTED CO. NAHE CONTAIN RES OURCE ADHIN/ CONTAIN ENFORCE-HAS TEHENT ACTION EPA CAS E DES CRIPTION AK09 HI05 OILYYNOT LIS TS URF HTR O I L S PILL THISISAN OIL S PILL INCIDENT.NO S AHPLIN6 HASRECORDED IN CONNECTION HITH THE OIL S PILL INCIDENT, AND HUCH OF THE DAHAGE CAS E TEX T ISAS S UHPTION AND S PECULATION.NUHEROUSFEDERAL AND S TATE REGULATIONSRE6ARDIN6 PULLUTION CONTROL EX IS T (S EC. 311 CLEAN HATER ACT), AND MOS T HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED S INCE THE WRITING OF THE FHSREPORT OVER TEN YEARSAGO. ADEC REGULATION 18 AAC 75.080 REQUIRESDIL S PILL NOTIFICATION AND CLEANUP. ALLEGED OIL S PILL FROH OIL HELL PLUBGED PRIOR TO 1973-75 S TUDY DAHA6E FROH S PILLSFROH PRODUCTIONFACILITIESPRODYTROPEGNO HTRPROD HTR THISCAS E IN INCORRECTLY REFERRED TO ASCAUS ED BY IMPROPER RES ERVE OR DIS POS AL PITS . THE CAS E DES CRIPTION ACTUALLYINDICATESTHAT THE S OURCE OF THE GROUNDHATER CONTAHINATIONISBRINE S TORAGE TANKSAND CRUDE OIL S EPARATORFACILITIES . ASISTHE NORHAL CAS E IN MICHIGAN, THE GEOLOGICAL S URVEY INVES TIGATED THOROUGHLY AND US ED S TIFF DIAGRAHSTO CONFIRH THE S IHILARITY OF THE CONS TITUENTSOF THE FORHATION PRODUCED HATER AND THE CHLORIDE CONTAHINATION OF THE AFFECTED HATER HELLS . THISINDICATESTHE S DURCE TO BE LEAKSOR S PILLSOF PRODUCED HATER FROH THE PRODUCTION FACILITIES . MICHIGAN REGULATIONSCOVER S UCH S PILLS .MICHIGANCOMPILED LANS , S ECTION 323.1 AND 323.4, ASHELL DEPARTHENT OF NATURAL RES OURCESHATER RES OURCE COHHIS S ION GENERAL RULE 323.1144 COVER RELEAS ESOF OIL, S ALT OR OTHER POLLUTING MATERIAL.IHHEDIATE NOTIFICATION AND A S UBS EQUENT REPORT DEALING HITH THE CAUS E, DIS COVERY, AND CLEANUPIZOV U 9 pauuij j .6u;aq ;uaui noopa q ;j oA;j j Bnb aq;o;anpsi; ;' 9oi ;ou s; q;UBq;JB9JOssa|si aBBUiiui |i j .aq;j;: 3 0 J I O N * * * 3* -* S; j-^tVB1 ^*,^-* -^^* iM* fe'^iJ J * ^XJ,^ _*-? < AV^.TL*A - - .V.1 i*-A N.V. W rx?W~~Y.-.Si.sR-: "V""- W-k y s tk AS^ZA-iy ?iiww W rx?W~~Y.-.Si.sR-: "V""- W-k y s tk AS^ZA-iy ?iiww W^-^g^ri^^M^tts^rS*f**#>~^ ^ ^ 2 ^ ^ ^ , , ^ ^ -w , . GROUNDHATERCONTAMINATIONFROH IHPROPERLY COHPLETED HELLSEPAE P A N O N N O N PEND- VIOLATESUNS UB-HAJOR CAS EDAHAGERCRACURRNTI N GCURRS TAN-FACTSNO.CATAGORY IS S UE PRACTICE CAS EREGS TIATEDDIS PUTED NN04 CO. NAME CONTAIN RES OURCE ADMIN/ CONTAIN ENFORCE HAS TEHENT ACTION EPA CAS E DES CRIPTION NH03PROD HANANAGND HTR O I LALLEGED OIL CONTAHINATION OF GND HTR BY PRODUCING NELL THISI SNOT A HAS TE IS S UE BUT A CAS E HHERE A PRODUCING HELL CONTAHINATED GROUNDHATER HITH HYDROCARBONS .THE CAS E HASINVES TIGATED BY THE NEH HEX ICO OIL CONS ERVATIONDIVIS ION UNDER THEIR AUTHORITY TO REGULATE PRODUCTION NELLS . PROD NOT LIS TGND HTRPROD HTR/ 6R0UNDHATER DAHA6ESIN THE HOBBSNEH HEX ICO AREA HAVE OCCURRED DUE TO APS T PRACTOIL LONGER ALLOHED BY THE NEH HEXICO CONS ERVATIONDIVIS ION.THES E PAS T PRACTICESHAVE BEEN REGULATED BY BANNED US E OF UNLINED S ALTHATER DIS POS AL PITS , THE UIC PROGRAH OF INJECTION HELL REGULATIONSUNDER THE S AFE DRINKING HATER ACT, S PCC REGULATIONSUNDER THE CLEAN HATER ACT AND NUHEROUSPRODUCTION AND DRILLING PRACTICESREGULATIONS .IT S HOULD ALS O BE NOTED THE REFERENCE TO OIL ON AN AQUIFER HASA 1945 S TUDY AND CURRENT S TUDIESREFERENCED BY EPA INDICATE CURRENT PRACTICESARE REDUCING THE ENVIRONHENTALIHPACT OF THES E OLD PRACTICESGROUND HATER DAHA6ESFROH PAS T PRACTICESkzo vaooXfe.A.7 .,: pgiuij j . Buj aq ;u9uinoopaq;40;i|Bnb aq;0 ;anpsi;i-aoi;ou sj q;UBq; JB9|ossa|si aBBuij ui j j iaq;j|-30IJ.ON I' * q i ^ M ^ ^ ^ ^ q ^r 1 $ / . i j U1 I",I''. 1 I > | J ?5 1 * 06M 00 o*) 5 CHARLESTON E.OLENNROBI NSON CHARLESMCELWEE J OHNC.PALMERJ3T DAVI DM.FLANNERY J OSEPHS.BEESON DAVI DK.HI OOI NS M.ANNBRADLEY ROBERTD.FLUHARTY J OS E P HM.PRI CE KI MBROWNPOLAND MI CHAELB.VI CTORSON DAVI DL.KYOER TI MOTHYM.MI LLER WI LLI AMC.PORTH. J R. LYNNA.SMI TH HENRYC.BOWEN LAWOFFICES ROBI NSON&MCEIAVEE P. O. BOX1791 CHAHXJSJSTON, WES TVI RGI NI A25320 TELEPHONE13041344- 5BOO TELECOPI ER1304)3 4 4 - S S e e 6 0 0UNI TEDCENTER LEXINGTONOFFI CE P.O.BOXIBSO LEXI NGTON.KENTUCKY4 0 3 9 2 TELEPHONE{BOO)2 3 I - SI 3 I LEXINGTONFINANCIALCENTER March14,1988 5MA8.J-.Ui8 DOUOLASC.MCELWEE WI LLI AME. ROBI NSON REBECCAL.3 TEPTO BRENTD.BENJAMI N DAVI DL.YAU3SY ROBERTE.LANNAN, B SARAHM.STUMP CHRI ST OPHERB.POWER R.CLARKEVANDERVORT KENTJ.OEORGE CHRI STOPHERKORLE9KI LEXINOTON EDWARDN.HALL R. ALLANWEBB ADMITTEDTOPRACTICEIN KENTUCKYANDWESTVIROINIA Docket Clerk Office of Solid Waste(WH-565) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 401 M Street, SW Washington, DC20460 Re:Docket No.F-88-0GRA-FFFFF. Dear Sir: PursuanttothenoticecontainedintheFederal RegisterofJanuary4,1988(53Fed.Reg.81), pleasefind enclosedforfilingtheoriginalandtwocopiesofwritten commentsrelevantto EPA's Report to Congress on hazardous waste regulationsof the oil andgasindustrywhicharesubmittedon behalf of the followingtrade organizationsrepresentingoil and gas operators in seven Appalachian states: Independent Oil and Gas Association of New York Independent Oil and Gas Association of West Virginia Kentucky Oil and Gas Association Ohio Oil and Gas Association Pennsylvania Natural Gas Associates Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Association Tennessee Oil and Gas Association Virginia Oil and Gas Association and the West Virginia Oil and Natural Gas Association. CT-JO CDC 5"EL to- -- b* < of the d Imed =J O o" r+ 3" ex c CDCO co~ CO CO CDpj - 7 2 o - H o rn fi ' "^ i. S *! o "-> o % ' L_ 00013 COMMENTS REGARDING THE UNITED STATES ENVIRON-MENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S REPORT TO CONGRESS WITH RESPECT TO THE MANAGEMENT OF WASTES FROM THE EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT AND PRODUCTION OF CRUDE OIL, NATURAL GAS AND GEOTHERMAL ENERGY DOCKET NUMBER F-88-OGRA-FFFFF ON BEHALF OF THE INDEPENDENT OIL AND GAS ASSOCIATION OF NEW YORK INDEPENDENT OIL AND GAS ASSOCIATION OF WEST VIRGINIA KENTUCKY OIL AND GAS ASSOCIATION OHIO OIL AND GAS ASSOCIATION PENNSYLVANIA NATURAL GAS ASSOCIATES PENNSYLVANIA OIL AND GAS ASSOCIATION TENNESSEE OIL AND GAS ASSOCIATION VIRGINIA OIL AND GAS ASSOCIATION and the WEST VIRGINIA OIL AND NATURAL GAS ASSOCIATION SUBMITTED BY: ROBINSON & McELWEE David M. Flannery Robert E. Lannan 600 United Center Post Office Box 1791 Charleston, West Virginia25326 (304) 344-5800 March14,1988 crj aa w (Oco"o 5" 2L 5T B _,< m W oa-"2.1!. CD *CO _. ^5 5r+= 3rt-sr- =P> CD to pp-i 1 -% e- 3" -* OE: 3c+=r- ID=r5-3 =P> CO o 30 T '#i" N> OS ^"T**!'L. } I fv Sf *!. , Appalachian crude oil and natural gas are strategically important to the nation, contributing a significant percentage of the nation's lubricants. Our natural gasis important not only because of its volume and close proximity to major Northeast markets, but also because of the extensive use of geologic formations here for the storage and retrieval of natural gas. Appalachian wells produce small amounts of wastes when comparedtoelsewhereinthenation.Thevastmajorityof Appalachian wells produce such small amounts of product that they qualify as stripper wells. Finally, because of the climate, geology, and hydrology oftheregion,aswellasthenatureofthedrillingand production wastes in the region, less reliance has been placed on disposal techniques used elsewhere in the nation.Concomitantly, increasedrelianceondisposaltechniquessuchasland application,roadspreading,streamdischarge,andannular disposal has occurred. The first major point of concern raised by the comments oftheAppalachianProducersinresponsetoEPA'sspecific informationrequestintheJanuary4,198 8FederalRegister relatestothescopeoftheoilandgasexemption.Ithas consistentlybeenandcontinuestobethepositionofthe AppalachianProducersthatthescopeoftheoilandgas exemption, as interpretedby EPA, is overly narrow.While EPA hasrecognizedthecriticalimportanceofthescopeofthe exemptiontothestudy,bydelayingafinaldecisiononits i i I crjas>=z rococo 5" SL2"- -H ~9. S-" 2.'-. I I CD ro 'COP? =r_ =**=C=; rCO CD il I s y\*~> '"I n i o lo !r>t-fZZi 5" r 2." S" m" -b 3r+=r- -a>=rJ;-3 =5.wto (0 W a - - V-$ ;M A v I ffix! * & 3 3 O roadspreading,streamdischarge,andannulardisposal.While thesespecificwastedisposalalternativesarediscussedmore completely in the body of these comments, suffice it to say that ineachinstance,eachdisposaloptionwherepracticedis comprehensivelyregulatedunderpresentlyexistingstate regulations of the Appalachian states in a manner which insures the environmental acceptability of these techniques and that no harm to human health or the environment occurs.This fact alone should be enough to indicate to EPA that no further regulation of oil and gas drilling or production wastes is necessary in view of thepresenceofadequatestateregulationofanypotential environmentalproblems.Acondemnationofthesepractices without a thorough examination of the various state prograias and particularlyin light of EPA's continued mischaracterization of manydamagecasesoccurringintheAppalachianstatesis unsupportable. In addition, the Appalachian Producers submit that EPA has no basis whatsoever for concluding in the Report to Congress thatsignificanttechnicalimprovementsinwastedisposal techniquesintheoilandgasindustryareforeseeable. ParticularlyasitrelatestooperationsintheAppalachian states, this discussion is purely speculative and not supported by any objective findings of the Report to Congress.This is a matterofparticularimportancebecauseintheAppalachian states, unique waste management practices that have evolved as a functionofcarefulbalancingbetweenenvironmentalprotection andeconomicalrealitiesindicatethatthereisnobasisfor iv e c q " o to, 3- o _^ < Pm m | o a-" 2. -. I 2 "* 23r*-r I toT 3 => wmto CO I i!o o 30 o GO L w~ 9" "^m^^^^^^^ 1 '* ^ >c o believing any significant change in waste disposal practices is foreseeable in this region. The AppalachianProducersare further concernedabout the Agency'srecommendationthatitis necessaryto conduct a further review of state and federal programs with a view toward possible modificationof these programsto deal withperceived problems regarding industry regulation.Our review of the Report toCongressandourownassessmentofthestateregulatory requirements in the seven Appalachian states involved, lead us to believe that existing regulatory requirements, be they state or federal,aremorethanadequatetopreventormitigateany adverseimpacts on the environmentcaused by the management of oilandgasdrillingandproductionwastes.Theoverwhelming majority of damage cases cited by EPA in its Report to Congress violatepresentdayregulatoryrequirementsand,infact, violated regulatory requirements at the time they occurred.EPA has completelyfailed to recognize the significant evolution of state oil and gas regulatory programs over the last few years or the fact that major changes in many Appalachian state regulatory programsareunderwayatthecurrenttime.Havingfailedto recognize these facts, we are unaware as to why EPA insists on further study of state regulatory programs and federal regulatory programs with a view toward possible modification in the future. The Appalachian Producers are also concerned that EPA's economic impact analysis does not adequately assess costimpact on Appalachian operations.EPA's assessment has understated the impact ofimposingalternativerequirementsontheAppalachian v CD* YA Vn* f.hJFti Y^ n o Y Atfa Sfk,Y^*t f g Ifei o tiJ%i B-Y r1 ** O o industry.We do, however, support the recommendation by EPA that effortsbetakentodevelopcooperativeapproacheswiththe statesthatwouldexplorenon-regulatorysupportforcurrent programs in the form of funding, training, or technical support. Alternatively,althoughtheAppalachianProducersdo notfeelthatitisnecessaryorappropriateforanynew regulatoryrequirementstobeimposedontheoilandgas industry,shouldEPAneverthelessbeinclinedtopursue regulations in response to this study, we feel that circumstances surroundingoperationsintheAppalachianstatesjustify exemptingtheseoperationsfromanyofthenewregulatory requirements finally promulgated.Because of the minimal nature ofthewastestreamsinvolved;theprovenadequacyofthe existingregulatoryprograms; andtheenormouscostimpactof imposing additional requirements, a conclusion is compelled that currentregulatoryandwastemanagementrequirementsin Appalachia should not be altered as part of the establishment of any national environmental regulatory program to control oil and gas drilling and production wastes. Stateregulatoryprogramshavemorethanenough authority to appropriately change their own programs if there is a need.Expertise also exists at the state level to fashion an appropriateregulatoryprogramwhichaddresseswhatever environmentalconcernsexist,whilerecognizingtheeconomic capabilitiesoftheseoperations.Areviewofthisdocument leads us to believe the Agency has several options available to itwhichwillresultinadifferentregulatory v i i COco-o ^ . S g S o lCDw ''I 5" rt-' ** 3 2. s- e CDI o 30 o to CO Si r to' k/ JM'f i^W VV&J .'"SUM tif: lM * 4 O O l_ process as it effects oil and gas drilling at production wastes. In considering these approaches, it continues to be the position of the Appalachian Producers that no regulations of any kind are necessaryandthatadequatestateandfederalregulatory authorityalreadyexiststohandleanyenvironmentalproblems attributabletotheindustry.Itisourbeliefthatafter competentreviewoftheexistingstateandfederalregulatory authoritiesanddisposal practicesemployedinthe Appalachian region, the inalterable conclusion must be that neither Subtitle C or any other regulations justify change. V l l l o o a x-"~ I.INTRODUCTION. OnMonday,January4,1988(53 Fed. Reg.81), the UnitedStates EnvironmentalProtection Agency["EPA"] announced thepublicationandavailabilityforpubliccommentofits "Report to Congress: Management of Wastes from the Exploration, Development,andProductionofCrudeOil,NaturalGasand GeothermalEnergy"["ReporttoCongress"].TheReportto Congresswaspreparedpursuanttothestatutorymandateof Sections 3001(b)(2) and 8002(m) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C.S. 6921(b)(2), 6982(m)(1982)["RCRA"]. TheFederalRegisternoticeannouncedthe availabilityof the Report to Congress and requested submission of public comment by March15, 19 88.EPAalsoannouncedthatit wouldholdfive public hearings on the Report to Congress, the first of which was scheduled for Washington, D.C. on February 23,1988. These comments are being filed pursuant to the Federal Register notice of January 4, 1988, on behalf of the nine trade organizationsrepresentingoilandgasoperatorsinseven Appalachian states.These organization are as follows: Independent Oil and Gas Association of New York Independent Oil and Gas Association of West Virginia Kentucky Oil and Gas Association Ohio Oil and Gas Association Pennsylvania Natural Gas Associates Pennsylvania Oil and Gas Association c+^ CD o {% j n1v$m \\\^ "Mr h* iv1 =- 5- 3 3COQ> rt-CO CDI o o 3D, o 10 .: si\ w~ r ix< -BW o * * f c T-7-JT 5.Specialized Waste Disposal Practices. Finally,auniquecombinationof wastedisposal practices have evolved in Appalachia.The climate, geology, and hydrology of the region as well as the nature of theregion's drilling and production wastes have resulted in less reliance on suchdisposaltechniquesasevaporationandcentralized underground injection and in increased reliance on such disposal techniques as land application, roadspreading, stream discharge, and annular disposal. Thesefactorsandothers,takenindividuallyor collectively,createa veryspecialset ofcircumstancesthat must be specificallyaddressedin this study.Our comments on the Report to Congress will focus on these special circumstances and how they should be reflected in EPA's followup to the report. C.Previous Involvement With EPA. It should be recognizedthat these comments have been precededbya longseries of meetings withEPAincluding ones occurring: April 30, 1986, July 23, 1986, 0December 13, 1986, February 24, 1987, June 2, 19 87, 0June 9, 1987, and July 15, 1987. Eight formal sets of comments have also been filed by the nine trade associations with respect to various phases of the study 10 - ^ S s o j CTJO=JJ;-z P> -H I m I""_. =* I 2. se>ri-1 _^.^i co_ - 3I P>B