P. 1



# RCRA Box 321 Prepped byRyan Dugan



### Document

Number: 

# 22DOGRC-S0016. F Docket Number: 

# F-93-OGRC-FFFF F

Printed 5/8/2007 3:36:32 PM

Sheet 221 of 259P. 2 

## 0<=>fcC-Sc>olk. F
Reques tb yWast eCrud eOi l Reclaimer s Septembe r18 , 199 0 Pag e-35 -

APPendi xE . TH

E REPORT T

O CONGRES SP. 3 

# &EP A Unite d State s Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y Urtic e o i SOII O wast e an d Emergenc

yResponse Washington . DC 2040 0 Decembe r1987 

### OGRC-So o IG- F Soli d Watte 

# Repor t t o Congres s Managemen t ofWaste s fro m th e Exploration , Development , an d Productio n o

fCrud e Oil , Natura l Gas , an d Geotherma l Energy

Executiv e Summarie s

yc« »

•O Q > 

# 0P. 4



## REPORT T O CONGRES S

MANAGEMENT OF WASTE S FRO M TH E EXPLORATION , DEVELOPMENT , AN DPRODUCTIO

N OF CRUD E OIL , NATURA L GAS , AN

DGEOTHERMA

L ENERG

Y

EXECUTIVE SUMMARIE S

UNITE DSTATE S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC Y Offic e o f Soli dWast e an dEmergenc y

Respons e Washington , D.C . 2046 0

Decembe r 198 7P. 5

Thi s Repor t t o Congres s i s dedicate dt o th e memor y o f Susa nL . d e Nagy , Unite dState s Environmenta l Protectio nAgency , an dJoh nF . Cat!in , Unite d State s Departmen t o f th e Interior .P. 6



## EXECUTIV E SUMMAR

Y MANAGEMEN TO F WASTE S FRO M TH E OI L AN D GAS INDUSTR Y
Unde r Sectio n 3001(b)(2)(A ) o f th e 198 0 Amendment s t o th e Resourc e Conservatio n and Recover yAc t (RCRA) , Congres s temporaril yexempte d severa l type s o f soli d waste s fro m regulatio n a s hazardou s wastes , pendin g furthe r studyb yth e Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y(EPA) . Amon g th e categorie s o f waste s exempte d wer e "drillin g fluids , produce d waters , an

d othe r waste s associate d wit hth e exploration , development , o r productio n o f crud e oi l o r natura l gas. " Sectio n 8002(m ) o f th e 198 0 Amendment s require s th e Administrato r t o studythes e waste s an d submi t a repor t t o Congres s evaluatin g th e statu s o f thei r management . Thi s repor t mus t includ e appropriat e finding s an d recommendation s fo r Federa l and non-Federa l action s concernin g th e effect s o f suc hwaste s o n huma n healt hand th e environment . RCRAdefine s a specifi c sequenc e o f event s tha t woul d preced e th e promulgatio n o f an

yne wFedera l regulation s (includin g us e o f Subtitl e C) : 1 . Studyo f issue s and submissio n o f Repor t t o Congres s wit h appropriat e recommendations ; 2 . Forma l publi c commen t perio d o n Repor t t o Congress ; 3 . Aforma l regulator ydeterminatio n b yEPA' ; and 4 . I f regulation s ar e t o b e developed : a . Proposa l o f regulations ; b . Forma l publi c commen t perio d o n propose d regulations ; an d c . Revisio n o f proposal . Shoul d regulation s b e developed , th e statut e provide s tha t the yshal l tak e effec t onl ywhe n authorize d b yac t o f Congress . Th e curren t repor t i s th e firs t ste p i n thi s sequence . Recognizin g tha t thi s clas s o f waste s i s temporaril yexemp t becaus e o f th e complexit yP. 7

o f it s impact s an d th e problem s o f it s management , EP Aha s sough t t o b e a s comprehensiv e a s possibl e i nit s discussio no f issue s fo r Congress . Furthe r step s note d abov e wil l progressivel yrefin e th e issue s o f concern . Congres s retain s ultimat e contro l ove r th e scop e an d directio n o f anyadditiona l Federa l action s tha t migh t b e take nt o improv e th e managemen t o f thes e wastes . 

### SPECIAL WASTE S Oi l and ga s waste s fal l withi n a genera l categor yo f waste s tha t RCRA regard s a s "special " becaus e o f thei r unusuall yhig hvolume , whic hcoul d mak e th e applicatio n o f som e RCRAregulator yrequirement s technicall y infeasibl e o r impractical , and becaus e o f thei r relativel ylo wleve l o f apparen t environmenta l hazar d (base d o ndat a availabl e i n1980) . Th e issue s raise d b

yal l specia l waste s ar e complex , requirin g th e balancin g o f environmental , logistical , and economi c considerations . Congress ' inten t i nvemporaril yexemptin g thes e waste s fro m regulatio n unde r RCRASubtitl e C.wa s t o provid e anopportunit yfo r developin g a nappropriat e strateg yfo r thei r management , shoul d ne wo r additiona l measure s prov e t o b e needed . 

### PURPOS E O F THI S STUDY Thi s stud yi s intende d t o respon d a s full ya s possibl e t o eac ho f th e stud yfactor s describe dbyCongres s i nth e variou s paragraph s o f Sectio n 8002(m) . Th e Agenc y ha s designe d thi s repor t t o respon d specificall yt o eac hstudy

facto r withi nseparat e chapter s o r section s o f chapters . Althoug hever y

study facto r ha s bee nweighe d i narrivin g a t th e conclusion s an

drecommendation s o f thi s report , n o facto r ha s ha d a determinin g influenc e o n th e study' s conclusion s and recommendations .P. 8

Identifyin g Exemp t Wastes : Chapte r II , "Overvie wo f th e Industry, " interpret s th e scop e o f th e exemptio n a s define d i nth e statute . Specifyin g th e Source s an d Volume s o f Wastes : Estimate s o f volume s o f waste s ar e als o presente d i n Chapte r II . Characterizin g Wastes : EPAconducte d a nationa l screenin g typ e o f samplin g progra mo f facilitie s t o compil e relevan t dat a o nwast e characteristics . Simultaneously , th e America nPetroleumInstitut e (API ) sample d th e sam e site s excep t fo r centra l treatmen t location s and centra l pi t locations , an d waste s covere d b

yth e EPAsurvey . Chapte r I I o f thi s repor t summarize s th e result s o f thes e programs . Describin g Curren t Disposa l Practices : Th e Agenc yha s describe d th e principa l and commo n method s o f managin g field-generate d waste s and discusse s thes e practice s i n genera l qualitativ e term s inrelatio nt o thei r effectivenes s inprotectin g huma nhealt hand th e environment . Thi s discussio n i s presente d i nChapte r III , "Curren t and Alternativ e Practices. " Documentin g Evidenc e o f Damag e t o Huma n Healt hand th e Environmen t Cause d b yOi l and Ga s Wastes : Chapte r IV , "Damag e Cases, " summarize s EPA' s effor t t o collec t documente d evidenc e o f dange r t o huma nhealt h o r damag e t o th e environmen t o r valuabl e resources . Thi s collectio n o f cas e studie s i s no t intende d t o estimat e th e frequenc yo r exten t o f damage s associate d wit htypica l operations , no r t o judg e th e effectivenes s o f curren t Stat e program s i n preventin g thes e damages . I t i s intende d onl yt o defin e th e natur e and rang e o f damage s tha t ar e know n t o hav e occurred . Assessin g Potentia l Dange r t o Huma n Healt ho r th e Environmen t fro m th e Wastes : Qualitativ e and quantitativ e ris k modelin g i s presente d i n Chapte r V , "Ris k Modeling. " Reviewin g th e Adequac yo f Governmen t and Privat e Measure s t o Preven t and/o r Mitigat e Advers e Effects : Thi s revie wi s base d o nbot ha qualitativ e assessmen t o f al l th e material s gathere d durin g th e course-o f assemblin gthe repor t and a revie wo f Stat e and othe r Federal , regulator y

program s presente d i n Chapte r VII , "Curren t Regulator y

Programs. " Chapte r VI I review s th e element s o f program s an dhighlight s possibl e inconsistencies , lac k o f specificity , potentia l problem s inimplementation , o r gap s i ncoverage . Interpretatio no f th e adequac y o f thes e contro l effort s i s presente d i n Chapte r VIII , "Conclusions. " Identifyin g Alternative s t o Curren t Wast e Managemen t Practices : EPA' s discussio ninrespons e t o thi s stud y facto r i s incorporate di n Chapte r III , "Curren t and Alternativ e Practices. " Thi s chapte r merge s th e concept s o f curren t and alternativ e wast e managemen t practices .P. 9

Estimatin g th e Cost s o f Alternativ e Practices : Th e firs t severa l section s o f Chapte r VI , "Economi c Impact s o f Alternativ e Wast e ; Managemen t Practices, " presen t th e Agency' s analysi s o f thi s study factor . Estimatin g th e Economi c Impact s o n Industr yo f Alternativ e Practices: Th e fina l tw o section s o f Chapte r V I presen t th e Agency' s analysi s o f th e potentia l economi c impact s o f nationwid e impositio n o f th e hypothetica l contro l scenario s analyze d a t th e projec t level .

ISSUE S SPECIFI C T OTH E OI L AN DGA S INDUSTR Y
T o brin g thi s studyint o perspective , i t i s importan t t o not e a numbe r o f issue s specifi c t o th e oi l an d ga s industr ytha t affec t ho w thi s studywa s conducte d an d ho wCongres s ma yinterpre t it s results . First , th e oi l and ga s industr yi s extremel ylarg e and varied . I n 1985 , ther e wer e approximatel y842,00 0 producin g oi l an d ga s well s i n th e U.S. , distribute d throughou t 3 8 States . The yproduce d 8. 4 millio n barrel s o f oil , 1. 6 millio n barrel s o f natura l ga s liquids , and 4 4 billio n cubi c fee t o f natura l ga s daily . Th e petroleu mexploration , development , an

d productio n industrie s employe d approximatel y421,00 0 peopl e i n 1985 . Al l aspect s o f exploration , development , and productio n var ymarkedl y fro mregio n t o regio n and from Stat e t o State . Wel l depth s rang e fro ma s littl e a s 3 0 fee t t o ove r 30,00 0 feet . Pennsylvani a ha s bee n producin g oi l fo r 12 8 years ; Alask a for onl y1 5 years . Marylan d ha s approximatel y 1 4 producin g wells ; Texa s ha s ove r 259,00 0 an d complete d anothe r 25,72 1 i n 198 5 alone . Productio nfro m a singl e wel l ca nvary fro m a hig ho f abou t 11,50 0 barrel s pe r da y(th e 198 5 averag e fo r well s o n th e Alask a Nort hSlope ) t o les s tha n 1 0 barrel s pe r da yi n man ythousand s o f "stripper " wells . (Overall , 7 0 percen t o f U.S . oi l well s ar e strippers , whic haccoun t fo r roughl y 1 4 percen t o f tota l U.S . production. )P.1 0

Thes e variations mak e i t extremel ydifficul t t o full yrepresen t th e scop e and breadt ho f th e industr yi n detai l a t th e nationa l level . EP A ha s consulte d extensivel ywit hStat e regulator yagencies , othe r Federa l agencies , and industr yi n assemblin g dat a and material s o n whic ht o bas e thi s report . Th e generalization s tha t i t mus t necessaril ydra wi n orde r t o respon d t o Congress ' directive s are , however , th e Agency' s own . Second , althoug hwaste s fro m th e oi l and ga s industr yhav e neve r bee n subjec t t o RCRAregulatio n a s hazardou s wastes , the yhav e lon g bee n regulate d a t th e Stat e leve l an d ar e als o regulate d i n par t unde r th e Federa l Clea n Wate r Ac t and th e Federa l Saf e Drinkin g Wate r Act . Th e question s pose d b

ySectio n 8002(m ) mus t therefor e b e interprete d i n relatio n t o a comple xan d long-establishe d backgroun d o f existin g requirements . Furthermore , Stat e program s controllin g th e managemen t o f high-volum e waste s hav e improve d significantl yove r th e pas t decad e and , especiall yove r th e las t 2 o r 3'years , hav e reflecte d th e nationa l tren d o f increase d concer n abou t environmenta l protection . However , judgin g th e environmenta l succes s o f thes e recen t improvement s i s difficult . EP A recognize s th e difficult yo f analyzin g changin g Stat e requirement s i n relatio n t o th e regiona l variation s o f th e industr yand therefor e wishe s t o pursu e thi s issu e furthe r befor e arrivin g a t a fina l regulator y determinatio n o n thes e wastes . 

### DEFINITION

O F EXEMP T WASTE S Th e followingdiscussio n present s EPA' s tentativ e workin g definitio n o f th e scop e o f th e exemption . Scop e o f th e Exemptio n Th e curren t statutor y exemptio noriginate dinEPA' s propose d hazardou s wast e regulations o f Decembe r 8 , 197 8 (4 3 F R58946) . Propose dP.1 1

4 0 CF R250.4 6 containe d standard s fo r "specia l wastes, " whic hreduce d requirement s fo r severa l type s o f waste s tha t ar e produce d in larg e volum e and tha t EP Abelieve d ma yb e lowe r i n toxicit ytha n othe r waste s regulate d a s hazardou s waste s unde r RCRA . On e o f thes e categorie s o f specia l waste s wa s "ga s and oi l drillin g mud s and oi l productio n brines. "

I n th e RCRAamendment s o f 1980 , Congres s exempte d mos t o f thes e specia l waste s fro mth e hazardou s wast e requirement s o f Subtitl e C , pendin g furthe r studyb yEPA . Th e oi l and ga s exemption , Sectio n 3001(b)(2)(A) , i s directe d a t "drillin g fluids , produce d waters , and othe r waste s associate d wit hth e exploration , development , o r productio n o f crud e oi l o r natura l gas. " EP Adefine d th e exemptio n i n it s regulation s a t 4 0 CF R261.4(6 ) t o includ e thes e wastes . Th e legislativ e histor ydoe s no t elaborat e o n th e definitio n o f drillin g fluid s o r produce d waters , bu t i t doe s discus s "othe r wastes " a s follows : Th e ter m"othe r waste s associated " i s specificall yinclude d t o designat e wast e material s intrinsicall yderive d fro mprimar yfiel d operation s associate d wit hth e exploration , development , o r productio n o f crud e oil , natura l ga s o r geotherma l energy . I t woul d cove r suc hsubstance s as : hydrocarbo n bearin g soi l i n and aroun d relate d facilities ; dril l cuttings ; and material s (suc ha s hydrocarbons , water , sand , and emulsion ) produce d fro ma wel l i n conjunctio n wit hcrud e oil , natura l ga s o r geotherma l energy ; and th e accumulate d materia l (suc ha s hydrocarbons , water , san d and emulsion ) fro mproductio n separators , flui d treatin g vessels , storag e vessels , and productio n impoundments . Th e phras e "intrinsicall yderive d fro m th e primar yfiel d operations " i s intende d t o differentiat e exploration , development , an d productio n operation s fro

m transportatio n(fro mth e poin t o f custod ytransfe r o r o f productio nseparatio nan ddehydration ) an

dmanufacturin g operations . I norde r t o arriv e a t a clea r workin g definitio n o f th e scop e o f th e exemptio n unde r Sectio n 8002(m) , EP Aha s use d thes e statement s i n conjunctio n wit hth e definition s and guideline s include d i n statutor y languag e o f RCR

A a s a basi s fo r determinin gwhic hoi l an dga s waste s shoul d b e include d i n th e presen t study .P.1 2

Th e tes t o f whethe r a particula r wast e qualifie s unde r th e exemptio n ca n b e mad e i n relatio n t o th e followin g thre e separat e criteria . N o on e criterio n ca n b e use d a s a standar d whe n definin g specifi c wast e stream s tha t ar e exempt . Thes e criteri a ar e a s follows : 1 . Exemp t waste s mus t b e associate d wit hmeasure s (1 ) t o locat e oi l o r ga s deposits , (2 ) t o remov e oi l o r natura l ga s fro mth e ground , o r (3 ) t o remov e impuritie s fro m suc hsubstances , provide d tha t th e purificatio n proces s i s an integra l par t o f primar yfiel d operations. 1 2 . Onl ywast e stream s intrinsi c t o th e exploratio n for , o r th e developmen t an

d productio n of , crud e oi l o r natura l ga s ar e subjec t t o exemption . Wast e stream s generate d a t oi l o r ga s facilitie s tha t ar e no t uniquel yassociate d wit hexploration , development , o r productio n activitie s ar e no t exempt . (Example s woul d includ e spen t solvent s fro mequipmen t cleanup , o r ai r emission s fro m

diese l engine s use d t o operat e drillin g rigs. ) Thos e substance s tha t ar e extracte d fro m th e groun d o r injecte d int o th e groun d t o facilitat e th e drilling , operation , o r maintenanc e o f a wel l o r t o enhanc e th e recover yo f oi l an d ga s ar e considere d t o b e uniquel yassociate d wit hexploration , development , o r productio n activities . Additionally , th e injectio n into-th e wellbor e o f material s tha t kee p th e pipe s fro m freezin g o r serv e a s solvent s t o preven t paraffi n accumulatio n i s intrinsicall yassociate d wit hexploration , development , o r productio n activities . Wit hregar d t o injectio n fo r enhance d recovery , th e injecte d material s mus t functio n primaril yt o enhanc e recover yo f oi l and ga s and mus t b e recognize d b yth e Agenc ya s bein g appropriat e fo r enhance d recovery . An exampl e woul d b e produce d water . I n thi s context , "functio n primarily " mean s tha t th e mai n reaso n fo r injectin g th e material s i s t o enhanc e recover yo f oi l and ga s rathe r tha n t o serv e a s a mean s fo r disposin g o f th e injecte d materials .

B^Mfir paters , andothecwas.te^.i.ntrinsica » Maak^l "^WS 'operations associatedTwith * the ! r W ^ ' A^V J n£, ; o r productio no f crud e oil , natura l Q&. - '-t^* 1 * * ,

________" ' " ~ '"'"" '•"-•-- • " cp^ loA<J ' ysreyc'o^p.as s produc t ion-relate dactiiv^t<iie|;j^;44E^. r > , £f> ^ r , 

### l^PiGfEl^g^fZ^Sr*"" * "* *** H^l fW1t

# respec ttfTM: fPffTSToccWTnaIrornea rth e wel lhead , /'bu tprio rttvwf ^

Thus , waste s associate dwit hsuc hprocesse s a s oi l refinin gan dpetrochemical-relate d manufacturin gar e no t exemp t becaus e thos e processe s ar e no t a nintegra l par t o f primar y fiel d operations .P.1 3



### Ko m j nindividua l fiel dfacilit y for /a_centrall y Win carrie r (i.e. , pipelin e o r truckingconcer t 15" a refinery

o r t o a refiner . Wit hrespec t t o natura l ga s production , primar yfiel doperation s ar e thos e activitie s occurrin g a t o r nea r th e wellhea do r a t th e ga s plan t bu t prio r t o th e poin t a t whic hth e ga s i s transferre d fro manindividua l fiel dfacility , a centrall ylocate dfacility , o r a ga s plan t t o a carrie r fo r transpor t t o market . Primar y fiel doperation s encompas s th e primary , secondary , andtertiar y productio no f oi l o r gas . 0 

### < Y>yM 

### "

• , • - s * * 

### Waste s generate db

yth e transportatio nproces s itsel f ar e no t exemp t becaus e the yar e no t intrinsicall yassociate dwit hprimar y fiel doperations . Anexampl e woul db e piggin g wast e fro mpipelin e pumpin g stations . Transportatio n(fo r th e oi l andga s industry ) ma yb e fo r shor t o r lon g distances . Waste s associate dwit hmanufacturin g ar e no t exemp t becaus e the y ar e no t associate dwit hexploration , development , o r productio n andhenc e ar e no t intrinsicall yassociate dwit hprimar yfiel d operations . Manufacturin g (fo r th e oi l andga s industry ) i i Hafinpr i a< ; an

y activit y

occurrin g withi na refinery nr nth^ T 

### manufacturin g facilit yth e purpos e o f whic hi s t o rende r th e produc t commerci al_l_y...sal_eab. l e . Usin g thes e definitions , Tabl e 1 present s definition s o f exemp t waste s a s define db

yEP Afo r th e purpose s o f thi s study . Not e tha t thi s i s onl ya partia l list . Althoug hi t include s al l th e majo r wast e stream s tha t EP Aha s considere di n th e preparatio no f thi s report , other s ma y exist . I ntha t case , th e definition s liste dabov e woul db e applie dt o determin e th e statu s o f thes e waste s unde r Sectio n8002(m) . 

## CHARACTERIZATION

O F WASTE S Organi c constituents , presen t a t level s o f potentia l concer ni noi l an dga s wastes , ar e show no nTabl e 2 . Thes e includ e th e hydrocarbon s ^benzen e andphenanthrene . Inorgani c constituent s o f concer ninclud e lead , arsenic , barium , antimony , andfluoride .P.1 4 

# P . ,^ : \

ry Tabl e 1

Dril l cutting s Drillin gfluid s Wel l completion , treatment , andstimulatio nfluid s Packin gfluid s Sand , hydrocarbo nsolids , an dothe r deposit s remove d fro m productio nwell s Pip e scale , hydrocarbo n solids , hydrates , an dothe r deposit s remove dfro m pipin gandequipmen t Hydrocarbon-bearin gsoi l Piggin gwaste s from gatherin g1ine s Waste s from

subsurfac e ga s storag e andretrieva l EXEMP T WASTE S Basi c sedimen t andwate r andothe r tan kbottom s from storag e facilities ^ andseparator s Produce dwate r Constituent s remove dfro m produce dwate r befor e i t i s injecte do r otherwis e dispose do f Accumulate dmaterial s a[s ] hydrocarbons , soli(
_ sahd , andemulsion ) frj o r tactionseparators , ^ l"uid-treatin

gvessels , an dproductio nimpoundment s 

# P rationo r treatme f f f • ' Drillin gmud s fro

m offshor e operation s Appropriat e fluid s injecte d downhol e fo r secondar y and tertiar y recover y

operation s Liqui dhydrocarbon s remove d fro m th e productio nstream bu t no t fro

m oi l refinin g Gase s remove dfro

m th e productio nstream , suc ha s hydroge nsulfide , carbo n dioxide , an

dvolatilize d hydrocarbon s Material s ejecte dfro m a productio nwel l durin gwel l blowdown Waste , prima i^liifroni '

Wr a operation s Ligh t organic s volatilize d fro m recovere dhydrocarbon s o r from solvent s o r othe r chemical s use dfo r cleaning , fracturing , o r wel l complet i

Wast e lubricants , hydrauli c fluids , moto r oil , and pain t Wast e solvent s from

clean upoperation s Off-specificatio nand unuse dmaterial s intende d fo r disposa l Incinerato r as h Piggin gwaste s from transportatio npipeline s NONEXEMP T WASTE S - Sanitar y wastes , trash , and gra y wate r Gases , suc ha s SOx , NOx , andparticulate s fro m ga s turbine s o r othe r machiner y Drum s - (filled , partiall y filled , o r cleaned ) whos e content s ar e no t intende d fo r us e Wast e ironsponge , glycol , a othe r separatio nmedi a Filter s Spen t catalyst s Waste s fro

m truck - anddrum cleanin goperation s Wast e solvent s fro

m equipme n maintenanc e Spill s fro

m pipeline s o r othe r transpor t method sChemica l

Constituent s Primar yconcer n Benzen e Phenanthren e Lea d Bariu m Secondar yconcer n Arseni c Fluorid e Antimon y Productio n Midpoin t

L * Tan k

botto m

Sf fS + S «

S Endpoln t

L Li L Li L

L L» Centra l treatmen t Iniluen t

S i S i

S Tan k

5 « S i S i Effluen t

L S S i S i

S 5 Centra l pi t Centra l pi t

S i S i S i S i

S s Drillin g Drillin g mu d

s S i Tan k

bottom s

S i S i L i L Pl l

5 S L i L - S i Si * L i Li * S i Si S S L S Legend : L : Liqui d sampl e > 100 xhealth-base d numbe r S : Sludg e sampl e > 10 0 xhealth-base d numbe r # : Denote s > 1,00

0 xhealth-base d numbe r L.S : EP

Asample s L«,S- : AP I sample s + : TCL P extractio n

—Al l value s determine d fro m direc tsample s exceptas denote d b y"+ *

Tabl e 2 Constituent s o l Concer n Foun d I n Wast e Stream s Sample d b yEP Aan d AP I

•yP.1 6

WAST E VOLUM E ESTIMATIO N METHODOLOG YAN DESTIMATE DVOLUME S Informatio n concernin g volume s o f waste s fro moi l and ga s exploration , development , an d productio n operation s i s no t routinel y collecte d nationwide , makin g i t necessar yt o develo p a mean s fo r estimatin g thes e volume s b yindirec t method s i n orde r t o compl ywit hth e Sectio n 8002(m ) requiremen t t o presen t suc hestimate s t o Congress . Afte r carefu l review , estimate s o f wast e volume s compile d b yAP I wer e use d i n th e Quantitativ e Analyse s i n thi s report . AP I estimate s tha t 36 1 millio n barrel s o f drillin g wast e wer e generate d fro mdrillin g 69,73 4 wells , fo r an averag e o f 5,18 3 barrel s o f wast e pe r wel l in 198 5 and tha t 20. 9 billio n barrel s o f produce d wate r wer e generate d i n 1985 . CURREN T AN DALTERNATIV E WAST E MANAGEMEN T PRACTICE S

I t i s convenien t t o divid e oi l an d ga s waste s int o tw o broa d categories . Th e firs t categor yinclude s drillin g muds , wellbor e cuttings , an

d chemica l additive s relate d t o th e drillin g and wel l completio n process ; th e second include s al l waste s associate d wit hoi l and ga s production , primaril yproduce d water . Sectio n 800 2 (m ) require s EPAt o conside r bot hcurren t and alternativ e technologie s i n carryin g ou t th e presen t study . Shar p distinction s ar e difficul t t o mak e becaus e o f th e wid e variatio n i n practice s amongState s an damon g differen t type s o f operations . Wast e managemen t technolog yi n th e oi l and ga s industr yi s fairl ysimple . Fo r th e majo r high-volum e streams , EP Aha s found n o newl yinvente d technologie s i n th e researc ho r developmen t stag e tha t offe r promis e fo r wid e applicatio n i n th e nea r term . Virtuall yever ywast e managemen t practic e tha t exist s ca n b e considere d "current " i n on e specifi c situatio n o r another .



### 1 1P.1 7

O f th e wast e managemen t method s i n commo n us e today , some pos e the potentia l fo r advers e environmenta l impac t i f improperl yimplemented . Reserv e Pit s

Reserv e pit s ar e a

n integra l par t o f the drilling process . Usuall y on e reserv e pi t i s constructe d pe r dril l site . Wher e pit s ar e unline d an d constructe d above unconfine d ground-wate r aquifers , the potentia l exist s fo r ground-wate r degradatio n becaus e o f leaching o f reserv e pi t constituent s int o groun d water . Annular Disposa l o f Produce dWater s Althoughi t i s no t a ver ywidespread practice , som e produce d wate r i s dispose d o f throughth e us e o f annula r injectio n int o producing wells . Using thi s method , produce d wate r i s injecte d throughthe annula r spac e betwee n the productio n casing an d the productio n tubing . Thi s metho d ha s the potentia l t o adversel yaffec t undergroun d source s o f drinking wate r (USDWs ) becaus e o f th e vulnerabilit yo f the singl e protectiv e strin g o f casing . However , i t i s usuall yrestricte d t o low-volume waste s injected a t littl e o r no pressure . Testing o f annula r disposa l well s i s involve d an d expensive . Disposa l o f Produce dWate r i

nInjectio

nWell s Injectio

nwell s use

dfo r the disposa l o f produce d wate r hav e the potentia l to degrade freshgroun d wate r in th e vicinit yi f theyar e inadequately

designed , constructed , o r operated . Highl ymobil e chlorid e ion s ca nmigrat e into freshwater aquifer s throughcorrosio n hole s in injectio n tubing , casing , an d cement . Th e Federa l Underground Injection Contro l (UIC ) progra m require s mechanica l integrit ytesting o f al l Clas s I I injectio

nwell s ever

y 5 years . Al l State s mee t thi s requirement , althoug hsom e State s hav e requirement s fo r mor e frequen t testing .


### 1 2P.1 8

ManyState s hav e primac yfo r th e UI C program . Bot hth e criteri a use d fo r passin g o r failin g an integrit ytes t fo r a Clas s I I wel l and th e testin g procedur e itsel f ca n vary . Ther e i s considerabl e variatio n i n th e actua l constructio n o f Clas s I I well s i n operatio n nationwide , bot h becaus e manywell s i n operatio n toda ywer e constructe d prio r t o th e enactmen t o f curren t program s and becaus e curren t Stat e program s var y significantly . Stat e requirement s fo r ne winjectio n well s ca n b e quit e extensive . However , Stat e requirement s fo r constructio n o f injectio n well s prio r t o th e enactmen t o f th e UI C progra mhav e evolve d ove r time , and constructio n range s fro minjectio n well s i n whic hal l ground-wate r zone s ar e full yprotecte d wit hcasin g and cementin g t o shallo winjectio n well s wit hon e casin g strin g and littl e o r n o cement . Disposa l o f Produce d Wate r i n Unline d Pit s

Us e o f unline d pit s fo r th e disposa l o f produce d wate r i s no wallowe d i n onl ya fe wStates . Th e us e o f thes e pit s ha s th e potentia l t o degrad e usabl e groun d wate r throug hseepag e o f produce d wate r constituent s int o unconfined , freshwate r aquifer s underlyin g suc ha pit . Discharg e o f Produce dWate r t o Sensitiv e Surfac e Water s Discharg e o f produce d water s t o surfac e wate r bodie s mus t mee t Stat e o r Federa l permi t standards . Althoug hpollutant s suc ha s tota l organi c carbo n ar e limite d i n thes e discharges , larg e volume s o f discharge s containin g lo

w level s o f suc hpollutant s ma yb e damagin g t o aquati c communities . Drillin g Waste s o nth e Alask a Nort hSlop e Drillin g wast e disposa l practice s o n th e Nort hSlop e o f Alask a ar e



### 13P.1 9

ver ydifferen t fro mdisposa l practice s elsewhere . Production-relate d reserv e pit s o n th e Nort hSlop e ar e semipermanent , and thei r content s nee d t o b e dispose d o f periodically . Thi s i s generall ydon e b ypumpin g th e aqueou s phas e o f th e pi t ont o th e tundr a afte r th e pi t content s hav e bee n allowe d t o settl e fo r a perio d o f 1 year . Thi s discharg e i s don e unde r permitte d effluen t limit s se t b yth e Stat e o f Alaska . Th e Nationa l Pollutan t Discharg e Eliminatio n Syste m (NPDES ) currentl ydoe s no t regulat e thes e discharges . Th e long-ter meffect s o f dischargin g larg e quantitie s o f liqui d reserv e pi t wast e o n th e sensitiv e tundr a environmen t i s o f concer n t o EPA , Alask a Departmen t o f Environmenta l Conservation , and official s fro mothe r Federa l agencies . Th e existin g bodyo f scientifi c evidenc e i s insufficien t t o conclusivel ydemonstrat e whethe r o r no t ther e ar e advers e environmenta l impact s resultin g fro m thi s practice . Improperl y

Plugge dan

dUnplugge dAbandone dWell s Ther e ar e a n estimate d 1,200,00 0 abandone d oi l o r ga s well s i n th e Unite d States . T o avoi d degradatio n o f groun d wate r i t i s vita l tha t abandone d well s b e properl yplugged . Lac k o f pluggin g o r imprope r pluggin g o f a wel l ma yallo whigh-chlorid e produce d wate r o r injecte d waste s t o migrat e t o freshwate r aquifers . 

### DAMAG E CASE S Th e purpos e o f the damag e cas e studywa s t o respon d t o th e requirement s o f Sectio n8002(m)(l)(C ) b yprovidin g a n overvie wo f th e natur e o f damage s associate dwit hoi l and ga s exploration , development , o r productio nactivities . I n general , cas e studie s wer e use d t o gai n familiarit ywit hrange s o f issue s involve d i n a particula r studytopic , no t t o provid e a statistica l representatio n o f th e scop e o r natur e o f damages . I n addition , althoug hman yo f th e case s involve d violation s o f Stat e o r Federa l regulations , o r woul d involv e violation s o f a Stat e o r



### 1 4 rP.2 0

Federa l regulatio ni f the ywer e t o occu r today , EPAdi d no t conside r thi s t o b e relevan t t o whethe r o r no t thos e case s shoul d b e include d inthi s report . Type s o f damag e o f concer n t o thi s studywer e huma nhealt heffect s (acut e and chronic) , environmenta l effects , effect s o nwildlife , effect s o n livestock , and impairmen t o f othe r natura l resources . Cas e informatio n wa s assemble d fro mth e majo r petroleum-producin g States : Alaska , Arkansas , California , Kansas , Louisiana , Michigan , Ne wMexico , Ohio , Oklahoma , Pennsylvania , Texas , Wes t Virgini a and Wyoming . Th e damag e cas e effor t focuse d o n gatherin g informatio no ncase s tha t ha d occurre d mos t recently . Ninety-fiv e percen t o f al l case s use d i nth e repor t dat e fro m

198 1 t o th e present , and approximatel yhal f o f thes e involve d violation s o f Stat e regulations . Tes t o f Proo f fo r Case s Use d i n th e Study Al l case s wer e classifie d accordin g t o whethe r the yme t on e o r mor e forma l test s o f proof , a classificatio ntha t wa s t o som e exten t judgmental . Thre e test s wer e used ; case s wer e considere d t o mee t th e documentatio nstandard s o f Sectio n8002(m)(l)(C ) i f the yme t on e o r mor e o f them , an d mos t me t mor e tha none . Th e test s wer e a s follows : 1 . Scientifi c investigation : Scientifi c investigation s coul d includ e eithe r a qualitativ e scientifi c evaluatio no f a case , i n whic ha conclusio no f damag e migh t b e reache d b yth e author(s ) o f th e study , o r throug hth e result s o f scientifi c measurements , suc h a s a monitorin g study , o r both . In th e latte r event , damag e coul d b e accepte da s documente d i f th e level s o f contaminatio nreporte d exceede dapplicabl e Stat e o r Federa l standards * o r guideline s fo r th e pollutan t involved . 2 . Administrativ e finding : Damag e wa s accepte d a s documente d i f i t wa s reporte d b

ya Stat e o r Federa l officia l i nth e cours e o f officia l dutie s an d i f tha t repor t wa s no t late r invalidate d o r withdrawn .



### 15P.2 1

3 . Cour t decision : Cour t ruling s findin g presenc e o f healt ho r environmenta l damage s wer e accepte d a s conclusive . EP Adistribute d draf t version s o f th e cas e studies , base d o n a n interpretatio n o f th e documentatio n gathere d i n th e initia l phase s o f th e study , fo r revie wand validation . Th e Agenc yreceive d voluminou s response s o n thes e case s fromth e States , fro mindustry , and sometime s fro mthir d parties . Th e case s wer e extensivel yrevise d and expande d t o incorporat e al l commentary ; wher e issue s o f fac t o r interpretatio n coul d no t b e resolved , EPAha s provide d numerou s footnote s withi n th e repor t s o a s t o presen t al l side s o f th e issues . Severa l pattern s becam e apparen t afte r analysi s wa s performe d o n th e damag e case s collected . The yar e describe d below : Ground-Wate r Degradatio n Degradatio n o f groun d wate r fro m imprope r operatio n o f injectio n well s fo r th e purpos e o f disposa l o r enhance d recover yi s a potentia l hazar d and ha s importan t implication s give n th e larg e numbe r o f well s use d fo r injection , eithe r fo r enhance d recover yo f oi l o r fo r fina l disposa l o f oi l and ga s wastes . Damag e t o groun d wate r fro mimproperl y operate d injectio n well s tend s t o b e long-ter msinc e i t i s difficul t an d costl yt o remediat e contaminate d groun d water . Suc hdamag e ca n resul t i n los s o f domesti c wate r supplie s and damag e t o agricultura l lan d and crop s throug hirrigatio n wit hsalin e water . . . Man yState s have primac yunde r th e Federa l Undergroun d Injectio n Contro l program . I n orde r t o obtai n primacy , th e Stat e ha s t o demonstrat e tha t it s program s ar e effectiv e i n protectin g undergroun d source s o f drinkin g water , mee t al l requirement s o f Sectio n 142 1 (b)(1)(A ) throug h(D ) o f th e Saf e Drinkin g Wate r Ac t (SDWA ) and i n genera l confor mt o guidanc e issue d b yEP Apursuan t t o Sectio n 142 5 o f



### 16 t \ >r >/*• - \ fJ-*

.. . t/ \ • 

### r' r

### ' j .</•

. tP.2 2

SDWA . Individua l Stat e program s however , ma y var y i nthei r specifi c requirement s withi nth e discretio nallowe dunde r thi s program . The . onl y Stat e wit hsignifican t oi l an dga s productio ntha t allow s annula r disposa l of produce dwate r i s Ohio . Thi s practic e make s groun d wate r inth e vicinit y o f a disposa l wel l especiall y vulnerabl e t o degradatio nbecaus e th e groun dwate r i s protecte dwit honl y on e strin gof casing . Ground-Wate r Contaminatio nfrom Leachin gof Reserv e Pi t Content s Contaminatio nof groun dwate r fro m leachin go f reserv e pi t content s i s a situatio nfoundinmany area s of th e U.S . Wher e reserv e pit s ar e overlyin gunconfine daquifers , th e potentia l exist s fo r seepag e or : leachin gof potentiall y toxi c reserv e pi t constituent s int o th e groun d water . Suc hleachin gca nresul t i nlos t domesti c andagricultura l wate r i supplie s an

dirrigatio nwate r supplie s an dca nendange r huma nhealth . Reserv e pit s ma y

contai nhig hlevel s of chlorides , barium , chromium , cadmium , copper , arsenic , lead , zinc , andorgani c toxi c constituents , whic hca nbe mobil e ingroun dwater . Discharg e o f Drillin gFluid s andProduce dWate r int o Bay s and Estuarie s Discharg e o f wast e drillin gmudandproduce dwate r int o bay s and estuarie s of th e Gul f o f Mexic o i s allowe db y Gul f Coas t State s (Texa s andLouisiana) . Thi s practic e ha s bee nshownt o b e detrimenta l t o aquati c lif e i nth e affecte dbay s andestuaries , wit hth e potentia l fo r contaminatio no f aquati c lif e an dbir dlif e wit hheavy metal s and polycycli c aromati c hydrocarbon s (PAHs) . O f greate r concer ni s th e potentia l fo r heavy

metals , take nupinsuc horganism s a s clam s and oysters , t o trave l u pth e foo dchain , possibl y endangerin ghuma nhealt h throug hconsumptio no f contaminate dfis handshellfish . EP A ha s no t ye t issue dNPDE S permit s fo r thes e discharges . Permit s fo r suc hdischarge s ma y b e issue db

y th e States . 1 7Discharg e o f Oil y Waste s t o Unline d Pit s Californi a permit s th e discharg e o f oil ywaste s t o large , unline d sump s o r pit s and ephemera l streams . Thi s practic e ha s resulte d i n mortalit yt o wildlife , includin g som e endangere d species , whe nexpose d t o th e oil ywaste . Unline d Produce d Wate r Disposa l Pit s Th e us e o f unline d produce d wate r disposa l pit s i s stil l allowe d in som e wester nStates . Studie s hav e illustrate d ho wproduce d wate r constituents , includin g benzen e and chlorides , migrat e int o unconsolidate d soi l surroundin g som e suc hdisposa l pit s and see p int o shallo wgroun d water . Discharg e o f Produce dWate r t o Surfac e Stream s Unde r th e NPDE S permi t system , discharg e o f produce d wate r t o liv e and ephemera l stream s i s allowe d i nsom e wester nstates . Studie s hav e shown tha t high-volum e discharge s containin g lo wlevel s o f organi c carbo n ca n hav e sever e impact s o n fis hi n receivin g streams . Illega l Disposa l Illega l disposa l i s a pervasiv e proble mtha t ma yresul t i ndamag e t o surfac e water , wetlands , nativ e aquati c life , soil , groun d water , wildlife , crops , an

dlivestoc k and ma yendange r huma nhealth . Damage s ma yb e temporary , bu t the y ca nb e significan t a t th e tim e o f th e incident . Incident s o f illega l disposa l o f oi l an d ga s wastes-ar e found throughou t the U.S . Abou t hal f th e damag e case s use d i nth e Repor t appea r t o involv e violation s o f Stat e regulations , an da smalle r numbe r involv e violation s o f Federa l regulations . Detaile d informatio no n



### 1 8P.2 4

complianc e statu s wa s not-alway s availabl e and , i n man ycases , practice s tha t ma yhav e bee n lega l a t th e tim e o f a n inciden t ma yno wb e illega l unde r revise d Stat e regulations . Practice s o n th e Alask a Nort hSlop e

Wast e disposa l practice s o n th e Nort hSlop e o f Alask a ar e ver y differen t fro mthos e i n othe r area s o f th e U.S . Discharg e o f exces s liqui d directl yont o th e tundr a and road s fro mproductio n reserv e pit s i s permitte d unde r regulation s o f th e Alask a Departmen t o f Environmenta l Conservatio n (ADEC) . ADE C estimate s tha t 10 0 millio n gallon s o f thi s liqui d ar e pumpe d ont o th e tundr a and roadway s o n th e Nort hSlop e eac h year , potentiall ycarryin g wit hi t reserv e pi t constituent s suc ha s chromium , barium , chlorides , and oil . Scientist s wh o hav e studie d th e are a believ e thi s practic e ha s th e potentia l t o lea d t o bioaccumulatio n o f heavymetal s and othe r contaminant s i n loca l wildlife , thu s affectin g th e foo d chain . Result s fro mrecentl yrelease d studie s sugges t tha t th e possibilit yexist s fo r advers e impac t o n Arcti c wildlif e becaus e o f discharg e o f reserv e pi t liqui d t o th e tundra ; however , thes e studie s ar e inconclusive . Ne wregulation s recentl yenacte d b yth e Stat e o f Alask a shoul d significantl yreduc e th e potentia l fo r tundr a and wildlif e impacts . Improperl y

Plugge dan

dUnplugge dAbandone dWell s Degradatio n o f groun d wate r cause d b ywast e seepag e throug h improperl yplugge dand unplugge d abandone d well s i s know n t o occu r i n variou s part s o f th e U.S . Improperl yplugge d an d unplugge d abandone d well s ca nals o enabl e nativ e brin e t o migrat e up th e wel l bor e and int o freshwate r aquifers . Th e damag e t o groundwate r ca nb e extensive , resultin g i n los t domesti c wate r and irrigatio n wate r supplies . Whe n agricultura l lan d i s irrigate d wit hthi s water , long-ter m damag e t o th e soi l i s sustained . Becaus e thousand s o f well s wer e abandone dthroughou t



### 1 9P.2 5

th e U.S . befor e ther e wer e an yStat e regulator

yplugging requirements , the potentia l fo r environmenta l an d resourc e damag e throug hground-wate r degradatio n i s high . Existing Stat e regulation s concerning pluggin g an d abandonmen t o f oi l an d ga s well s var

ywidely . Some State s have adequat e regulation s currentl yi n place . 

### RIS KMODELING

EP Aused quantitativ e modeling an d a reviewo f scientifi c literatur e t o evaluat e healt han d environmenta l risk s associate d wit hmanagemen t o f oi l an d ga s wastes . Th e Agenc ydi d no t attemp t t o estimat e absolut e risk s i n term s o f th e numbe r o f person s i n the U.S . likel yt o experienc e healt hproblems , o r th e volume o f groun d wate r likel yt o suffe r variou s degree s o f degradation , becaus e o f a lack o f adequat e sampl e dat a on regiona l wast e characterizatio n an d inadequat e empirica l informatio n on wast e managemen t systemfailur e probabilities . Rather , the principa l purpos e o f thi s effor t wa s t o investigat e an d compar e potentia l risk s t o human healt han

d th e environmen t unde r a wid e variet yo f curren t wast e managemen t conditions . Th e specifi c objective s o f the ris k analysi s wer e t o (1 ) characteriz e an d classif yth e majo r risk-influencing factor s (e.g. , wast e types , wast e managemen t practices , environmenta l settings ) associate d wit hcurren t operation s a t oi l an d ga s facilities ; (2 ) estimat e distribution s o f thes e risk-influencing factor s acros s the populatio n o f oi l an d ga s facilitie s withi n variou s geographi c zones ; (3 ) evaluat e thes e factor s in terms o f thei r relativ

e effec t o

nrisks ; an

d (4 ) develop , fo r differen t geographi c zone s o f th

e U.S. , initia l quantitativ e estimate s o f the possibl e rang e o f baselin e healthan denvironmenta l risk s fo r th e variet yo f condition s found . Aqualitativ e revie wo f the potentia l human healt han d ecologica l damag e o n Alaska' s Nort hSlope , an d o f th e proximit yo f oi l an d ga s activitie s t o environment s o f specia l interes t (i.e. , endangere d specie s habitats , wetlands , an d publi c lands) .



### 2 0P.2 6

Methodolog y Mode l scenario s wer e define d t o simulat e ove r 3,00 0 realisti c combination s o f variable s representin g wast e streams , managemen t practices , and environmenta l setting s a t oi l and ga s facilities . Th e focu s wa s o n th e principa l large-volum e wast e streams , includin g mixe d drillin g muds , liquids , and cutting s manage d i n conventiona l line d and unline d reserv e pits , an d produce d wate r dispose d b yinjectio n i n Clas s I I dee p injectio n well s and b ysurfac e wate r discharge . Severa l othe r wast e stream s and curren t managemen t practice s wer e no t include d i n th e quantitativ e modelin g analysis , bu t th e one s considere d represen t th e majo r wast e stream s and th e mos t commo n managemen t practice s withi n th e scop e o f thi s study . Also , n o attemp t wa s mad e t o examin e al l releas e and migratio n pathway s fo r th e wast e stream s tha t wer e considered. 2 EP Aevaluate d scenario s unde r bot h"best-estimate " (typical ) an d "conservative " (i.e. , highe r risk , bu t no t necessaril y worst-case ) assumptions . I n general , th e practice s modele d correspon d reasonabl ywel l wit hth e oaselin e requirement s o f existin g Stat e and Federa l regulator yprograms . Risk s fro millega l disposa l o r othe r complianc e problem s wer e no t specificall ystudie d i n thi s modelin g project .

EP Aselecte d eigh t constituent s fo r modeling : arsenic , benzene , boron , sodium , chloride , cadmium , chromium , and , mobil e ion s (includin g chloride , sodium , potassium , calcium , magnesium , and sulfate) . Th e constituent s wer e selecte dbecaus e they wer e detecte dfrequentl y and i n elevate dconcentration s i n EPA' s wast e samples , an d becaus e the yhav e a relativel y

highpotentia l t o migrat e throughgroundwate r and caus e advers e environmenta l an dhuma nhealt heffects . Th e Agenc ymodele d media n and uppe r 90t hpercentil e concentration s o f thes e constituent s

Fo r instance , n o attemp t wa s nud e t o mode l th e migratio no f reinjecte dproduce dwate r alon g fractures , o r throug hunplugge dabandone dwells , afte r Dem g injecte dunderground . 2 1P.2 7

base d o n existin g sampl e data . Wast e releases , environmenta l transpor t and fate , and risk s effect s vi a ground-wate r and surfac e wate r pathway s wer e modele d fo r a 200-yea r perio d usin g a modifie d versio no f th e Agency' s Line r Locatio n Ris k and Cos t Analysi s Mode l (LLM) . Chemica l transpor t i n river s wa s modele d usin g equation s develope d fo r performin g wast e loa d allocation s i nriver s an d streams . Al l risk s wer e calculate d fo r th e "mos t expose d individual " a t downgradien t cente r lin e plum e concentrations . Genera l Finding s

• Fo r th e vas t majorit yo f mode l scenario s evaluate d i nthi s study , onl yver ysmal l t o negligibl e risk s woul d b e expecte d t o occu r eve n unde r th e conservativ e se t o f assumption s modele d i n thi s analysis . Ris k level s o f concer nwoul d b e expecte d a t onl ya smal l percentag e o f oi l an d ga s sites .

• O f th e hundred s o f chemica l constituent s detecte d i nbot h reserv e pit s and produce d water , onl ya fe wfro meithe r sourc e appea r t o b e o f primar yconcer nrelativ e t o healt ho r environmenta l damage .

• Bot hfo r reserv e pi t wast e and produce d water , ther e i s a wid e (generall yfiv e o r mor e order s o f magnitude ) variatio ni n estimate d healt hrisk s acros s mode l scenarios , dependin g o n concentration s o f toxi c chemical s present , hydrogeologi c parameters , wast e amounts , managemen t practices , and distance s t o exposur e points .

• Modelin g o f resourc e damage s t o surfac e water , i nterm s o f bot h ecologica l impac t and resourc e degradation , generall ydi d no t sho w significan t ris k values . Drillin g Wast e Disposa l i nOnsit e Reserv e Pit s

• Healt hris k estimate s fo r cance r (arsenic ) neve r exceede d 1 x 10" 5 (one i n 100,000 ) fo r reserve pi t wastes . Roughl y2 percen t o f th e reserv e pi t scenarios , analyze d unde r a conservativ e se t o f assumptions , ha d cance r risk s greate r tha n1 x10"' . Fo r noncance r effects , sodiumconcentration s i ndrinkin g wate r exceede d threshol d level s fo r hypertensio ni nonl y1 t o 2 percen t o f th e scenario s examined . Th e highes t sodiu mconcentratio n estimate d a t a nexposur e poin t wa s 3 2 time s th e threshold . Th e



### 2 2P.2 8

highe r ris kcase s occurre dfo r a larg e unline dreserv e pit , a 60-mete r exposur e distance , an dhighsubsurfac e permeabilit y and infiltration .

• Difference s inris kacros s geographi c zone s generall y di dno t vary b y mor e tha non e orde r o f magnitude , bu t thi s ma y hav e reflecte dlimitation s o f th e stud y approac ht o estimatin g regiona l ris kdistribution s an dlac ko f dat a onregiona l variatio ninwast e composition .
• Ground-wate r flo w fiel dtyp e an

dexposur e distance s ha dth e greates t influenc e o nris k(severa l order s o f magnitude) . Recharg e rate , subsurfac e permeability , andpi t siz e hadles s impact . Dept ht o groun dwate r andpresence/absenc e o f a singl e syntheti c line r hadvirtuall y no measurabl e influenc e ove r th e 200-yea r modelin g period ; however , ris kestimate dove r shorte r time periods , suc ha s 5 0 years , woul dlikel y b e lowe r fo r line d pit s compare dt o unline dpits .
• Ground-wate r resourc e ris kfro m leachin g o f reserv e pi t content s wa s ver y

limite dan

dwa s confine dt o th e closes t modelin g distanc e (6 0 meters) . N o surface-wate r damag e wa s predicte dfo r th e seepag e o f leachate-contaminate dgroun dwate r int o flowin g surfac e water . Produce dWate r Disposa l i nInjectio nWell s

• Healt hris kestimate s fo r bot hcance r an dnoncance r effect s wer e substantiall y

belo w level s o f possibl e concer ni na majorit y o f scenario s unde r bot hbest-estimat e andconservativ e modelin g assumptions . Unde r conservativ e assumptions , from 2 2 t o 3 5 percen t o f th e scenario s hadcance r risk s (cause db y th e ingestio n o f arseni c andbenzene ) greate r tha n1 x10"' , andfrom 0. 4 t o 5 percent , o f th e scenario s ha dcance r risk s greate r tha n1 x 10"* . Th e highes t cance r ris kestimat e wa s 9 x10" 4 . Als o unde r th e conservativ e modelin g assumptions , th e sodium concentratio ni ndrinkin g wate r well s wa s predicte dt o excee dth e threshol dfo r hypertensio nfo r a maximum o f 2 2 percen t o f th e scenario s

• Ingeneral , th e highes t ris kscenario s correspon dt o a shor t (60-meter ) exposur e distance , a s relativel y hig hinjectio n pressur e o r rate , anda fe w specifi c ground-wate r flo w fields . Th e highes t cance r risk s wer e associate dwit hrelativel- y hig h ground-wate r velocitie s andflow rates , whil e th e highes t noncance r risk s wer e associate dwit hrelativel y low ground-wate r velocitie s andflow rates .



### 23P.2 9

• A s fo r the reserve pi t results , ther e wa s littl e variatio n o f ris k amon

g zones .

• Exposur e distanc e an d ground-wate r velocit yflowha d the greates t influenc e o n risk . Injection rat e an d pressur e ha

d less , bu t stil l measurable , influence .

• Ris k o f ground-wate r degradatio n fro minjectio n wel l failur e wa s predicte d t o be extremel ylimited , bu t modeling di d no t tak e int o accoun t seepag e throug habandone d borehole s o r fracture s in confining layers , leaching fro mbrin e pits , o r spills .

• N o ris k o f degradatio n o f surfac e wate r wa s predicte d fo r seepag e int o flowin g surfac e wate r o f groun d wate r contaminate d b y direc t releas e fro

minjection wells . Discharg e o f Produce d Wate r t o Surfac e Wate r b yStrippe r Well s

• Substantia l risk s t o human healt ho r aquati c habitat s wer e no t predicte d b

ythe mode l scenario s fo r the norma l rang e o f strippe r wel l discharge s (unde r 10 0 barrel s pe r day) , excep t fo r the possibl e combinatio n o f hig h(90thpercentile ) wast e concentration s an

d ver ysmal l (generall yles s than 5 cubi c fee t pe r second ) receiving wate r strea mflows . Drilling an

d Productio n Waste s Dispose d o n Alaska' s NorthSlope

• Advers e effect s t o human healt hcause d b ydrillin g an

d productio n waste s on the Nort hSlop e ar e expecte d t o b e negligible . Th e greates t potentia l fo r advers e environmenta l impact s i s cause d b ydischarg e an

d seepag e o f reserv e pi t fluid s containing toxi c substance s ont o the tundra . A198 3 Fis han d Wildlif e Servic e stud yan d industr

yinvestigation s indicat e tha t thes e fluid s can adversel yeffec t wate r quality , vegetation , an d tundr a invertebrate s in nearb ysurrounding areas . Strengthene d Stat e regulation s concerning drilling wast e disposal , however , reduc e th e potentia l fo r thes e impact s today . Th e Fis han d Wildlif e Servic e i s i n th e proces s o f studying th e effect s o f reserv e pi t fluid s o n tundr a organisms , an d thes e studie s need t o b e complete

dbefore mor e definitiv e conclusion s ca n b e mad e wit h respec t t o environmenta l impact s on the Nort hSlope . •Locations o f Oi l an dGa s Activitie s i nRelatio

nt o Environment s o f Specia l Interes t

• A s woul d b e expecte d wit han ylarg e an

d widesprea d industry , ther e ar e numerou s oi l an d ga s site s i n th e vicinit yo f endangere d an d threatene d specie s habitat s an d wetlands . I

n accordanc e wit h existing control s fo r th e managemen t o f publi c lands , a smal l



### 2 4P.3 0

portio n o f th e country' s Nationa l Forest s and Park s als o hav e existin g and potentia l oi l and ga s activitie s withi nthei r boundaries . Mor e detaile d studyi s neede d t o determin e wha t effect , i f any , oi l and ga s waste s ma yactuall yhav e o nthes e environment s o f specia l interest . 

### COS T ANDECONOMI C IMPACT S

EP Adevelope d estimate s o f th e complianc e cost s and economi c impact s o f implementin g alternativ e wast e managemen t practice s inth e oi l an d ga s industr yb

ymodelin g thre e wast e managemen t scenarios : (1 ) a "baseline " scenari o reflectin g curren t wast e managemen t practices ; (2 ) a n "intermediate " scenario , in whic hsomewha t stricte r control s o nwast e disposa l practice s ar e assumed , and (3 ) a "Subtitl e C " scenario , inwhic h ful l RCRArequirement s mus t b e met . EPAestimate d tota l annua l cost s fo r eac hscenario base d o n th e cos t o f managemen t usin g practice s tha t confor mt o th e requirement s o f th e scenario . Th e Baselin e Scenari o represent s th e curren t situatio nand encompasse s th e wast e managemen t practice s no wpermitte d unde r Stat e an d Federa l regulations . Thes e wast e managemen t practice s ar e principall y disposa l onsit e i n line d and unline d pit s fo r drillin g waste s and eithe r deepwel l injectio n (fo r disposa l o r enhance d energ yrecovery ) o r surfac e disposa l (e.g. , discharg e t o wate r bodies , evaporatio npits , o r land) fo r produce d water . Th e hypothetica l alternativ e regulator yscenario s requir e additiona l wast e managemen t control s o n waste s considere d hazardous . I nth e absenc e o f regulator y

determinatio no r detaile d regiona l wast e categorization , EP Amad e two separat e estimate s o f the cost s o f eac hscenari o base do n roughassumption s tha t eithe r 1 0 percen t o f 7 0 percen t o f waste s woul db e considere d hazardou s fo r costin g purposes .



### 25P.3 1

I n th e Intermediat e Scenario , hazardou s drillin g waste s woul d b e dispose d o f i n reserv e pit s wit hsingl e syntheti c liners , and hazardou s produce d water s woul d b e injecte d int o Clas s I I wells . Fo r th e Subtitl e C Scenario , al l waste s considere d hazardou s (usin g th e sam e 1 0 percen t and 7 0 percen t assumptions ) woul d hav e t o mee t pollutio n contro l requirement s consisten t wit hexistin g Subtitl e C regulations . Unde r thi s scenario , drillin g waste s considere d hazardou s woul d b e dispose d o f i n Subtitl e C facilitie s (e.g. , a syntheti c line d facilit ywit hleachat e collectio n and monitorin g (SCLC ) impoundment , hazardou s wast e incinerator) , and hazardou s produce d wate r woul d b e injecte d int o Clas s I injectio n welIs . Asecon d Subtitl e C scenari o (th e Subtitl e C- l Scenario ) wa s als o considered . Th e requirement s o f thi s scenari o ar e exactl yth e sam e a s thos e o f th e Subtitl e C Scenario , excep t tha t produce d wate r use d i n waterfloo d operation s fo r enhance d oi l recover y(EOR ) i s considere d par t o f th e productio n process . Unde r thi s scenario , produce d wate r injecte d int o producin g zone s fo r oi l recover ywoul d no t b e considere d a wast e and woul d therefor e be exemp t fro m Subtitl e C (i.e. , Clas s I disposa l well ) requirements . Produce d wate r injecte d fo r disposa l purpose s woul d stil l b e subjec t t o Subtitl e C requirements . Th e Subtitl e C Scenario s d o not , however , impos e al l o f th e potentia l technologica l requirement s o f th e Soli d Wast e Ac t amendments , suc ha s th e lan d ba n and correctiv e actio n requirements , fo r whic hEP Aregulator y proposal s ar e currentl yunde r development . H i T o determin e th e incrementa l cos t o f wast e disposa l unde r th e alternativ e wast e managemen t scenarios , th e Agenc ycalculate d capita l and operatin g cost s fo r th e arra yo f individua l wast e managemen t practice s tha t migh t be use d i n th e differen t scenarios . Thes e cost s wer e develope d usin g literatur e sources , EP Aengineerin g models , origina l engineerin g estimates , vendo r quotations , and othe r sources . Capita l



### 2 6P.3 2

cost s wer e annualize d a t an 8 percen t discoun t rate , th e approximat e after-ta xrea l cost s o f capita l i n th e industry , and wer e adde d t o O& M costs . Th e result s ar e expresse d i n dollar-per-barre l disposa l cost s an d ar e presente d i nTabl e 3 fo r th e lowe r 4 8 State s (Lowe r 48) . Drillin g wast e disposa l cost s fo r th e Lowe r 4 8 wer e found t o rang e fro m$2.0 4 pe r barre l fo r onsit e unline d pi t disposa l t o $157.5 0 pe r barre l fo r incineration . Cost s o f injectin g produce d wate r wer e estimate d t o var ybetwee nSO.1 0 pe r barre l fo r Clas s I I disposa l and $0.9 2 pe r barre l fo r Clas s I disposal . Cost s fo r Clas s I facilitie s ar e substantiall yhighe r becaus e o f increase d drilling , completion , monitoring , and surfac e equipmen t cost s associate d wit hwast e managemen t facilitie s tha t accep t hazardou s waste . Afte r selectin g th e wast e management ' practice s appropriat e unde r eac h scenario , th e least-cos t method s fo r eac hscenari o wer e identified . In thi s way , suc hoption s a s landfarmin g o r incineratio nunde r th e Subtitl e C scenari o wer e eliminate d a s viabl e wast e managemen t options . EPAthe nestimate d th e incrementa l cost s o f thes e alternativ e wast e disposa l practice s unde r eac hscenari o fo r representativ e oi l and ga s project s i n eac ho f 9 majo r region s o f th e U.S . Fo r eac h"mode l project, " th e after-ta xrat e o f retur n and th e cos t o f productionpe r barre l o f oi l wer e calculate d unde r eac hscenario , includin g th e baseline . Tabl e 4 show s th e impact s o f wast e managemen t cost s o na weighte d averag e mode l oi l and ga s projec t designe d t o represen t th e Lowe r 4 8 States , fo r eac ho f th e si xalternativ e regulator yscenario s relativ e t o th e 198 5 baseline . Nationa l cost s fo r eac hscenari o wer e estimate d b yextrapolatin g th e wast e managemen t cost s fo r mode l project s i neac hregio nt o th e nationa l level . Tabl e 4 show s thes e annua l nationa l cost s t o rang e fro m$4 9 millio ni n th e Intermediat e 10 % cas e t o ove r $1 2 billio nfo r th e Subtitl e C 70 % case . 

### 2 7P.3 3

Tabl e 3 Cos t o f Wast e Disposa l Option s

i n th e Lowe r 4 8 State s Disposa l Optio n $/bb l Drillin qWaste s Surfac e impoundmen t

- unline d (0.2 5 acre ) 2.0 4

- singl e line r (0.2 5 acre ) 4.4 6

- SCL C facilit y(1 5 acre) * 15.4 2 Landfarmin g

- curren t 15.4 7

- Subtitl e C 37.1 2 Solidificatio n 8.0 0 Incineratio n 157.5 0 Volum e Reductio n a

- singl e line r disposa l 6.7 4

- SCL C disposa l 11.9 5 Produce d Wate r Clas s I I injectio n

- E0 R0.1 0

- disposa l 0.1 4 Clas s I injectio n

- E0 R. 0.7 8

- disposal 0 0.9 2 Note : Bas e yea r fo r cost s i s 1985 . a Cost s includ e equipmen t rental , transpor t an d disposa l o f reduce d volum e o f waste . Al l cost s ar e allocate d ove r th e origina l volum e o f wast e s o that-per-barre l cost s o f wast e disposa l ar e comparabl e t o th e othe r cos t estimate s i n th e table . D Include s transportatio n and loading/unloadin g charges .



### 2 8 

# JTabl e 4 Impac t o f Wast e Managemen t Cos t o nOi l an dGa s Project s P.3 4

Facto r Inter - Inter mediat e mediat e Baselin e 10 % 70 % Subtitl e Subtitl e Subtitl e Subtitl e C 10 % C 70 % C- l 10 % C- l 70 %

Weighte d. 23. 9 averag e interna l rat e o f retur n(:'.)a Weighte d averag e ir.crenient j I cis t c f produc t io n ($/50E) a 28. 8

$0.0 1 23. 0

$0 1 1 26. 6

$0.4 0 13. 0

$2.6 8 27. 6

<C2 0 19. 7

$0.5 5

Tota l annua l nationa l compllanc e cos t { $ mil)ion ) $4 9 $42 0 $1,71 0 $12,12 5 $98 0 $6,67 1

Note : Bas e yea r fo r cost s i s 1985 . Fo r typica l lowe r 4 8 oi l an dga s projects .



### 2 9P.3 5

EPA the nestimate dshort-term an dlong-term

productio ndecline s tha t coul db e linke dt o thes e increase dwast e disposa l cost s usingDepartmen t o f Energy

productio nforecastin gmodels . Long-term result s ar e show

ni n Tabl e 5 . I

nth e yea r 2000 , no detectabl e chang e wa s see nfo r th e intermediat e scenari o whe n1 0 percen t o f th e waste s wer e considere d hazardous ; th e declin e wa s 1 percent , however , whe n7 0 percen t o f waste s wer e assume dhazardous . Unde r the Subtitl e C scenario , productio n declin e range dfro

m 4 t o 1 8 percen t inth e yea r 2000 ; unde r the Subtitl e C- l Scenari o (waterfloodin goperation s exemp t fro m Subtitl e C requirements) , th e projecte ddeclin e range dfro m 1 t o 12. 5 percent . Th e Agenc y

estimate dth e impac t o f th e projecte dproductio ndecline s o nsevera l economi c aggregates , includin goi l price , balanc e o f trade , oi l imports , Federa l revenues , an dStat e revenues . Th e impact s vary greatly , dependin gonth e cos t o f th e wast e managemen t scenarios . Increase s inoi l import s rang e fro m a "no t detectable " leve l t o 1. 1 millio nbarrel s pe r da y becaus e o f th e U.S . productio ndecline . Increase s inoi l price s unde r the alternativ e scenario s rang e fro m a negligibl e chang e t o $1.0 8 pe r barre l becaus e o f th e declinin gsuppl y an d increasin gcos t o f U.S . production . Thi s shiftin go f oi l suppl y an d pric e result s ina deterioratio ni nth e U.S . balanc e o f trad e rangin g fro m "no t detectable " t o $17. 5 billio npe r yea r an da cos t t o U.S . consumer s o f u

pt o $6. 4 billio npe r year . 

### CURREN T STAT E ANDFEDERAL REGULATORYPROGRAM S

A variet y

o f program s exis t a t th e Stat e leve l t o contro l the environmenta l impact s o f wast e managemen t relate dt o th e oi l an dga s industry . Stat e program s hav e bee nineffec t fo r man y years , an

dmany hav e evolve dsignificantl y ove r th e las t decade . Chapte r VI I provide s a brie f overvie w

o f th e requirement s o f thes e program s an dpresent s summary statistic s onth e implementatio no f thes e programs , contrastin gth e



### 30P.3 6

Tabl e 5 Long-term

Impact s o

nProductio no f Cos t Increase s Unde r Wast e Managemen t Scenario s (Percen t decreas e fro m Baseline )

Scenari o 199 0 200 0 201 0

Intermediat e 10 % Intermediat e 70 % Subtitl e C 10 % Subtitl e C 70 % Subtitl e C- l 10 % Subtitl e C- l 70 %

ND= No t detected . 

### N D N D N D 3.2 % 

### N D 2.1 % 

### N

D 1.4 % . 4.2 % 18.1 % 1.4 % 12.5 % 

### N

D 1.6 % 6.3 % 28.6 % 3.2 % 19.0 %



### 3 1P.3 7

number s o f well s an d othe r operation s regulated b ythes e program s wit h resource s availabl e t o implemen t regulator yrequirements . In a n effor t t o characteriz e thes e Stat e programs , EP Aevaluate d program s in the majo r oil

- an d gas-producing States : Alaska , Arkansas , California , Colorado , Kansas , Louisiana , Michigan , NewMexico , Ohio , Oklahoma , Texas , Wes t Virginia , an

d Wyoming . Chapte r VI I present s the result s o f thi s analysis . Almos t al l o f the State s evaluated hav e genera l performanc e standard s tha t requir e reserv e an d produce d wate r pit s t o b e designe d an

d operate d t o preven t ground-wate r o r surface-wate r degradation . Furthermore , mos t o f th e State s hav e line r an d permi t requirement s fo r thes e pits . Specifi c pi t requirement s generall ydepen d o n the pit' s location , size , an d contents . Deadline s fo r pi t closur e rang e fro m6 0 day s t o 1 yea r afte r drilling ha s ceased . Practice s fo r th e disposa l o f reserve pi t waste s var ywidel yacros s the nation . Mos t o f the State s studied i n thi s repor t have establishe d concentratio n limit s for lan d application an

d surface-wate r discharg e o f reserv e pi t contents , whil e a fe wState s prohibi t thes e disposa l method s altogether . Nearl yal l o f the State s allowannula r injection o f reserv e pit s content s bu t plac e limit s o n the injection pressur e an d requir e tha t th e surfac e casing exten d belowfreshwate r aquifers . Disposa l o f produce d wate r i s als o closel yregulate d b yman yo f th e State s studie d in thi s report . Amajorit yo f the State s d o no t allow produce d wate r discharg e b ynonstrippe r well s t o onshor e surfac e waters ; however , discharg e t o coasta l water s an d discharge s fo r beneficia l use s ar e mor e common . Wher e discharge s ar e allowed , the State s generall y requir e permit s an d complianc e wit hestablishe d concentratio n limits .
Mos t o f th e surveye d State s have genera l standard s tha t requir e underground injectio n operation s t o be protectiv e o f freshwate r aquifers . Thes e State s generall yrequir e casing s tha t exten d belo wth e



### 3 2P.3 8



### lowes t undergroun dsource s o f drinkin gwate r an dmechanica l integrit y test s tha t mus t b e conducte dbefor e injectio nbegin s an dever y 5 year s thereafter . Area s o f review fo r identificatio no f improperl y plugge d abandone dwell s rang e fro m 1/ 4 mil e t o2 1/ 2 miles . Finally , al l o f th e surveye dState s requir e pluggin go f oi' l an dga s well s withi n6 0 day s t o1 yea r fro m th e time at whic hoperation s ceased . Th e onl y curren t informatio nonimplementatio no f thes e program s tha t EPA wa s abl e t ogathe r relate s t oenforcemen t capabilities . Th e surveye d State s hav e designate dfro m 8 t o12 0 position s pe r Stat e fo r enforcemen t o f thei r oi l an

dga s wast e requirements . Th e Federa l Undergroun dInjectio nContro l Program _' iC 

### .^"^

^ " ^ 

### Th e Undergroun dInjectio nContro l (UIC ) program wa s establishe dunde r Par t Co f th e Saf e Drinkin gWate r Ac t (SDWA ) t oprotec t USDW s fro m endangermen t b

y subsurfac e emplacemen t o f fluids . Par t Co f th e SDW A require s EPA

t opromulgat e regulation s establishin gminimum requirement s fo r Stat e program s and , i ncase s wher e State s canno t o r wil l no t assume primar y enforcemen t responsibility , t opromulgat e State-specifi c Federa l regulations . I n1980 , Congres s amende dth e SDW A b y addin gSectio n1425 . Thi s sectio nallow s State s t odemonstrat e th e effectivenes s o f thei r in-plac e regulator y

program s fo r Clas s I I (oil - an dgas-related ) well s inlie uo f demonstratin gtha t the y

mee t th e minimum

requirement s specifie dinth e UI Cregulations . Inorde r t ob e deeme deffective , Stat e Clas s I I program s hav e t omee t th e same statutor y requirement s a s th e othe r classe s o f wells , includin gprohibitio no f unauthorize dinjectio nand protectio no f USDWs . Al l Clas s I I program s currentl y approve db

y EPA wer e approve dunde r Sectio n1425 .

3 3P.3 9

Becaus e o f th e larg e numbe r o f Clas s I I wells , th e Federa l regulation s allo wfo r authorizatio n b yrul e fo r existin g enhance d recover ywell s (i.e. , well s tha t wer e injectin g a t th e tim e tha t a Stat e progra mwa s approve d o r prescribe d b yEPA) . Well s authorize d b yrul e ar e subjec t t o requirement s simila r t o thos e o f permitte d well s bu t ar e not . subjec t t o th e administrativ e difficultie s o f obtainin g a permit . Durin g th e firs t 5 year s o f th e program , EP Aand th e State s hav e bee n conductin g fil e review s o n al l well s authorize d b yrule . Fil e review s ar e assessment s o f technica l issue s tha t woul d normall ybe par t o f a permi t decisio n an

d ar e conducte d t o ensur e tha t injectio n well s no t subjec t t o permittin g ar e technicall yadequat e an d wil l no t endange r USDWs . In approvin g program s unde r Sectio n 142 5 th e Agenc yha s accepte d variation s amon g States . Thi s i s consisten t wit hth e requirement s o f th e SDWA . However , th e progra m ha s bee n i n plac e fo r severa l year s no wan d th e Agenc yha s acquire d experienc e i n implementatio n o f th e regulations . Base d o n thi s experience , th e Agenc yha s begun

- t o loo k a t th e adequac yo f th e curren t requirement s and ma yeventuall yrequir e mor e specificit yand les s variatio n amon g States . Burea uo f Lan

dManagemen t Exploration , development , drilling , and productio n o f onshor e oi l and ga s o n Federa l and India n land s ar e regulate d separatel yfro mnon-Federa l lands . Thi s separatio n o f authorit yi s significan t fo r wester n State s wher e oi l an

dga s activit yo n Federa l and India n land s i s a larg e portio n o f statewid e activity . Th e Departmen t o f Interio r administer s it s regulator yprogra

m throug hth e Burea u o f Land Managemen t (BLM ) office s i n th e producin g States . Thes e office s generall yhav e procedure s i n plac e fo r coordinatio n wit hStat e agencie s o n regulator yrequirements . Th e Burea u work s closel ywit hth e U.S . Fores t Servic e t o defin e surfac e stipulation s fo r usin g Federa l forest s and Federa l grasslands .



### 3 4P.4 0

Historically , BL Mha s controlle d oi l and ga s activitie s throug h Notice s t o Lessee s (NTLs ) and throug hth e issuanc e o f permits . Leases , wher e drillin g i s t o tak e place , mus t b e covere d b ya bond . Asingl e leas e bond i s currentl y$10,000 . Statewid e bond s ar e $25,000 ; nationwid e bond s ar e $150,000 . BL Mconsider s reserv e pit s t o b e temporary , and excep t i n specia l circumstance s the yd o no t hav e t o b e lined . Produce d water s ma yb e dispose d o f b yundergroun d injection , b y disposa l int o line d pits , o r "b yothe r acceptabl e methods. " Whe na dr y hol e i s drilled , pluggin g mus t tak e plac e befor e remova l o f th e drillin g equipment . Ninet yday s afte r a wel l cease s production , th e operato r ma y reques t approva l fo r temporar yabandonment . Thereafter , reapprova l fo r abandonmen t statu s ma yb e require d ever y1 t o 2 years . Pluggin g requirement s fo r well s ar e determine d b yth e BL MDistric t Office . Implementatio no f Stat e an dFedera l Program s Table s 6 and 7 presen t statistic s fo r State ' and Federa l implementatio n o f regulator yprograms . 

# CONCLUSION S

Fro mth e analysi s conducte d fo r thi s report , i t i s possibl e t o draw a numbe r o f genera l conclusion s concernin g th e managemen t o f oi l and ga s wastes . Th e conclusion s ar e presente d below . Availabl e wast e managemen t practice s var y inthei r environmenta l performance . Base donit s review

o f curren t and alternativ e wast e managemen t practices , EP

A conclude s tha t th e environmenta l performanc e o f existin g wast e managemen t practice s and technologie s varie s significantly . Th e reliabilit yo f wast e managemen t practice s wil l depen dlargel y onth e environmenta l setting . However , som e method s wil l generall yb e les s



### 3 5Tabl e 6 Slst a Enlorcaman l alalrl i

Slai a Oa s Productio n Oi l Productio n Oa s wall a Oi l wall a ln|actlo n wall a Na wwall s Aganc y Parsonnsl *

o a Alask

a Arkansa s Caatomi a Kansa a Louisian a NawUaiic o Ohi o Oklahom a Pennsylvania Texa s Was t Virginia Wyomin g 316.00 0 Mm d 1066

194.483 Mm d 198

5 493.00 0 Mm d 198

S 466.60 0 Mm d 198

4 5.867.00 0 Mm d 198

4 893.30 0 Mm d 198

5 182.200 Mm d 198

5 1.996.000 Mm d 198

4 166.000 Mm d 198

4 5.805.00 0 Mm d 198

5 142.500 Mm d 198

6 597.896 Mm d 198

5 661.309,82 1 bb l 1986 19,715.69 1 bb l 198

5 423,900.00 0 bb l 1985 75.723.00 0 bb l 198

4 449,545.00 0 bb l 198

4 78.500.00 0 bb l 198

5 14.987.592 bb l 198

5 153.250.00 0 bb l 198

4 4.825.00 0 bb l 198

4 830.000.00 0 bb l 198

5 3.600.00 0 bb l 198

6 130.984.91 7 bb l 198

S 10

4 2.492 1.56 6 12.680 14.436 18.308 31.343 23.647 J 24.05 0 68.81 1 32.50 0 2.22 0 1.19 1

9.490 55.07 9 57.63 3 25.82 3 21.98 6 29.21 0 99.03 0 20.73 9 210.00 0 15.896 12.21 8 47

2 Class ! 425 EO R 4 7 Disposal 1.21 1 Clas

s U 23 9 EO R 97 2 Disposal 11.06 6 Clas s I I 10.047 EO R 1,01 9 Disposal 14.90 2 Clas s I I 9.36 6 EO R 5.536 Disposal 4.436 Clas

s I I 1.28 3 EO R 3.153 Disposal 3.87 1 ClawI I 3.50 8 EO R 363 Disposal 3.966 Clas

s I I 12 7 EO R 3.82 9 Disposal 22.803 Clas

s I I 14,90 1 EO R 7,902 Disposa l 6,18 3 Clas s I I 4.31 5 EO R 1,868 Disposal 53,14 1 Clas

s I I 45.22 3 EO R 7.91 8 Disposal 76 1 Clas s I t 68 7 EO R 7 4 Disposal 5.880 Clas

s I I 5.257 EO R 623 Disposal 10

0 ne wonshor e weH s complete d i n 196 5 1.05 5 na wwelt s complete d I n 198 5 3.41 3 ne wwall s complete d i n 198 5 6.025 ne wwed s complete d i n 198 5 5.447 ne wonshor e wak s complete

d 198 5 1.74 7 ne wwed s compile d I n 198

5 6.297 ne wweD s complete d i n 198 5 9.176 ne wwells complele d i n 198 5 4.627 ne wwed s complele d i n 198 5 25.72 1 ne

wwed s complele d i n 198 5 1.83 9 ne wweU s complele d i n 198 5 1.73 5 ne wweB s complete d I n 198 5 O l and Ga

s Conservation Commissio n Departmen

t d Environmental Conservation Arkansa s Oi l and Ga

s Commissio

n Departmen

t o l Polulio n Contro l an d Ecolog y Conservation Dept . Division d Oi l an d Gas Departmen

t o t Fish and Game Kansa s Corporation Commissio n Departmen

t d Environmental Ouafl y Otlic a o l Conservation - Injection an d Mining Energ yan d Minerals Department. Oi l Conservation Division Ohi o Departmen

t o l Natura l Rasourcas . Divisio n o t Oi l an d Ga s Oklahoma Corporation Commissio n Departmen

t o t Environmental Resources . Bureau d Oi l and Ga

s Managemen

t Texa s Railroa d Commissio

n Wes l Virginia Departmen

t o l Energ y O l and Gas Conservation Commissio n Departmen

t o l Environmental duall y 8 enforcemen t positions 8 enforcemen

t positions 7 enforcemen

t positions 2 enforcemen

t positions 3 1 enforcemen

t positions 3 0 enlorcaman l positions 3 2 enforcemen

t positions 3 6 enforcemen

t positions 1 0 enforcemen

t positions 6 6 enforcemen

t positions 52 enforcemen

t positions 34 enforcemen

t positions 12 0 enforcemen

t positions I S enlorcaman l positions 7 enforcemen

t positions 4. 5 enforcemen

t positions 'Onlyfiel d slat ! ar

e Include d i n tota l enforcemen

t positions.P.4 2

Tabl o 7 BL M Enforcemen t Matrix *

O ffle a Othe rState s Producin g oi l an d ga a Nonproducin g oi l an d ga a locatio n fo rwhic h offlc a laaaa a leaaee "

I s responsibl e Alask a Californi a Colorad o Idah o Mississipp i Alabam a

Arkansa s Rohd a Kentucky Louisian a Virgini a Tota l Montan a Nort h Dakot a

Sout h Dakot a Tota l Nevad a Na wMexic o

Arizon a Kansas Oklahom a Texa s Tota l Orego n Uta h Wlaconai n Marylan d

Michiga n Misaou n Ohi o Pennaylani a Wes t Virgini a Tota l Wyomin g Nebraska . Tota l Tota l 43

305 3,97 3 0 11 6 1 2 16 1 1 1 3 12 1 1 425 958 45 6 9 3 1.51 2 43 5,725 1 0 150 Z76 7 6 1 8.71 3 0 1.66 4 0 2 2 8 1 3 3 6 4 8 11 6 5.037 4 2 5.079 22.03 7 8.443 1.38 3 4.46 3
47 1 1.51 9 567 1.09 9 0 6 5 487 52 3 4J26 0 4,72 1 1.99 1 572 728 4 3.04 5 9.306 38 6 22 7 2.754 279 12,952 151 3
722 2 0 1 1 603 6 6 9 1 54 84 4 28.044 582 28.62 8 10225 1

* Oi l an d gas inspector s workin g i n th o field a s o fMarc h 30,1987 . A

t tha t lim a ther e ware sigh t vacancie s nationwide . " Include s leasa s that hava neve rbaa n drilled , hava baa n drillad an d abandonad , orar e producin g watt

s tha t hava baa n temporaril yshu t down .

3 7 Paraonna l (fo rproducin g laasa s only )
1 enforcemen t positio n 7 enforcemen tposition s 1 0 enforcemen t position s 0 enforcemen tposition s

3 enforcemen tposition s

1 2 enforcementposition s 1 enforcemen tpositio n

4 3 enforcementposition s

0
1 0 enforcemen t position s

1 enforcementpositio n 2 7 enforcemen t position s 11 5 enforcemen t position s -P.4 3

reliabl e tha nother s becaus e o f mor e direc t route s o f potentia l exposur e t o contaminants , lowe r maintenanc e an doperationa l requirements , inferiorit y

o f design, , o r othe r factors . Dependenc e o nles s reliabl e method s ca ni

ncertai nvulnerabl e location s increas e th e potentia l fo r environmenta l damag e relate dt o malfunction s andimprope r maintenance . Example s o f technologie s o r practice s tha t ar e les s reliabl e inlocation s vulnerabl e t o environmenta l damag e include : e Annula r disposa l o f produce dwate r (se e damag e cas e O H38 , pag e IV-16) ;
• Landspreadin go r roadspreadin go f reserv e pi t content s (se e damag e cas e W

V 13 , pag e IV-24) ;

• Us e o f produce dwate r storag e pit s (se e damag e cas e A R10 , pag e IV-36) ; an

d

• Surfac e discharge s o f drillin gwast e an dproduce dwate r t o sensitiv e system s sucha s estuarie s o r ephemera l stream s (se e damag e case s TX55 , pag e IV-49 ; T X31 , pag e IV-50 ; TX29 , pag e IV-51 ; W

Y07 , pag e IV-60 ; an

dC A 21 , pag e IV-68) . An y program

t o improv e managemen t o f oi l an dga s waste s i nth e nea r term wil l b e base dlargel y o ntechnologie s andpractice s i ncurren t use . Curren t technologie s an dpractice s for th e managemen t o f waste s fro m oi l andga s operation s ar e wel l established , andthei r environmenta l performanc e i s generall y understood . Improvement s inStat e regulator y requirement s ove r th e pas t severa l year s ar e tendin gt o increas e us e o f mor e desirabl e technologie s an dpractice s andreduc e relianc e onothers . Example s includ e increase dus e o f close dsystem s an dundergroun d injectio nandreduce drelianc e o nproduce dwate r storag e an ddisposa l pits . Long-ter m

improvement s inwast e managemen t nee dno t rely , however , purel y o nincreasin gth e us e o f bette r existin gtechnology . Th e Agenc y doe s forese e th e possibilit y o f significan t technical improvement s in futur e technologie s an dpractices . Example s includ e incineratio nan d othe r therma l treatmen t processe s fo r drillin gfluids ; conservation , recycling , reuse , an dothe r wast e minimizatio ntechniques ; andwe t ai r oxidatio nandothe r prove ntechnologie s tha t hav e no t ye t bee napplie dt o oi l an dga s operations . 3 8P.4 4

Becaus e o f Alaska' s uniqu e and sensitiv e tundr a environment , ther e ha s bee n specia l concer n abou t th e environmenta l performanc e o f wast e managemen t practice s o nth e Nort hSlope . Althoug hther e ar e limite d and preliminar ydat a tha t indicat e som e environmenta l impact s ma yoccur , thes e dat a and EPA' s initia l analysi s d o no t indicat e th e nee d t o curtai l curren t o r futur e oi l exploration , development , and productio noperation s o n th e Nort hSlope . However , ther e i s a nee d fo r mor e environmental'dat a o n th e performanc e o f existin g technolog yt o provid e assuranc e tha t futur e operation s ca nprocee d wit hminima l possibl e advers e impact s o n thi s sensitiv e and uniqu e environment . Th e Stat e o f Alask a ha s recentl y enacte d ne wregulation s whic hwil l provid e additiona l dat a o nthes e practices . . EPAi s concerne d i n particula r abou t th e environmenta l desirabilit y o f tw o wast e managemen t practice s use d i nAlaska : discharg e o f reserv e pi t supernatan t ont o tundr a and roa d applicatio no f reserv e pi t content s a s a dus t suppressant . Availabl e dat a sugges t tha t applicabl e discharg e limit s hav e sometime s bee n exceeded . This , couple d wit hpreliminar y biologica l dat a o n wildlif e impact s an d tundr a and surfac e wate r impairment , suggest s th e nee d fo r furthe r examinatio no f thes e tw o practice s wit hrespec t t o curren t and futur e operations . Th e ne w regulation s recentl yenacte d b yth e Stat e o f Alask a shoul d significantl y reduc e th e potentia l fo r tundr a and wildlif e impacts . Increase dsegregatio no f wast e ma y hel pimprove managemen t o f oi l an d ga s wastes . Th e scop e o f th e exemption , a s interprete d b yEP Ai nChapte r 1 1 o f thi s report , exclude s certai nrelativel ylow-volum e bu t possibl y high-toxicit ywastes , suc ha s unuse d pip e dope , moto r oil , an d simila r materials . Becaus e som e suc hwaste s coul d b e hazardou s an d coul d b e segregate d fro mth e large-volum e wastes , i t ma yb e appropriat e t o requir e



### 3 9P.4 5

tha t the yb e segregate d and tha t som e o f thes e low-volum e waste s b e manage d i n accordanc e wit hhazardou s wast e regulations . Whil e th e Agenc y recognize s tha t smal l amount s o f thes e material s ma ynecessaril ybecom e mixe d wit hexemp t waste s throug hnorma l operations , i t seek s t o avoi d an y deliberat e an

d unnecessar yus e o f reserv e pit s a s a disposa l mechanism . Segregatio n o f thes e waste s fro mhigh-volum e exemp t waste s appear s t o b e desirabl e an

d shoul d b e encourage d wher e practical . Altnoug hthi s issu e i s no t explicitl ycovere d i n Chapte r VII , EPAi s awar e tha t som e State s d o requir e segregatio n o f certai n o f thes e low-volum e wastes . EPAdoe s no t hav e adequat e dat a o n whic ht o judg e whethe r thes e Stat e requirement s ar e adequat e i n coverage , ar e enforceable , ar e environmentall yeffective , o r coul d b e extende d t o genera l operation s acros s th e country . Th e Agenc yconclude s tha t furthe r stud yo f thi s issu e i s desirable . Strippe r operation s constitut e a specia l subcategor y o f th e oi l an

dga s industry . Stripper s cumulativel ycontribut e approximatel y1 4 percen t o f tota l domesti c oi l production . A s such , the yrepresen t a n economicall y importan t componen t o f th e U.S . petroleu mindustry . Tw o aspect s o f th e strippe r industr yrais e issue s o f consequenc e t o thi s study . First , generatio n o f productio n waste s b ystripper s i s mor e significan t tha n thei r tota l petroleu m productio n woul d indicate . Som e strippe r well s yiel d mor e tha n 10 0 barrel s o f produce d wate r fo r eac h barre l o f oil , fa r highe r o n a percentag e productio n basi s tha n a typica l ne wwell , whic hmay

produc e littl e o r n o wate r fo r eac hbarre l o f oil . Second , strippe r operation s a s a rul e ar e highl ysensitiv e t o smal l fluctuation s i n marke t price s and canno t easil yabsor badditiona l cost s fo r wast e management .



### 4 0P.4 6

Becaus e o f thes e tw o factors—inherentl yhig hwaste-productio n rate s couple d wit heconomi c vulnerability--EP Aconclude s tha t strippe r operation s constitut e a specia l subcategor yo f th e oi l and ga s industr y tha t shoul d b e considere d independentl ywhe n developin g recommendation s fo r possibl e improvement s i n th e managemen t o f oi l and ga s wastes . In th e even t tha t additiona l Federa l regulator yactio n i s contemplated , suc h specia l consideratio n coul d indicat e th e nee d fo r separat e regulator y action s specificall ytailore d t o strippe r operations . Documente d damag e case s and quantitativ e modeling result s indicat e that , whe n manage d i n accordanc e wit hStat e and Federa l requirements , exempte d oi l and ga s waste s rarel ypos e significan t threat s t o huma n healt han

d th e environment . Generalize d modelin g o f huma n healt hrisk s fro mcurren t wast e managemen t practice s suggest s tha t risk s fro mproperl ymanage d operation s ar e low . Th e damag e case s researche d i n th e cours e o f thi s project , however , indicat e tha t exemp t waste s fro moi l and ga s exploration , development , and productio n ca n endange r huma n healt hand caus e environmenta l damag e whe n manage d i n violatio n o f existin g Stat e requirements . Damag e Case s
I n a larg e portio n o f th e case s develope d fo r thi s study , th e type s o f mismanagemen t tha t lea d t o suc hdamage s ar e illega l unde r curren t Stat e regulation s althoug ha fe wwer e lega l unde r Stat e program s a t th e tim e whe n th e damag e originall yoccurred . Evidenc e suggest s tha t violation s o f regulation s d o lea d t o damages . I t i s no t possibl e t o determin e fro m

availabl e dat a ho wfrequentl yviolation s occu r o r whethe r violation s woul d b e les s frequen t i f ne wFedera l regulation s wer e imposed . Documente d damage s sugges t tha t al l majo r type s o f waste s and wast e managemen t practice s hav e bee n associate d t o som e degre e wit h



### 41P.4 7

endangermen t o f huma n healt hand damag e t o th e environment . Th e principa l type s o f waste s responsibl e fo r th e damag e case s includ e genera l reserv e pi t waste s (primaril ydrillin g fluid s and dril l cuttings , bu t als o miscellaneou s waste s suc ha s pip e dope , rigwash , diese l fuel , and crud e oil) ; fracturin g fluids ; productio n chemicals ; wast e crud e oil ; produce d water ; and a variet yo f miscellaneou s waste s associate d wit h exploration , development , o r production . Th e principa l type s o f damag e sometime s cause d b

ythes e waste s includ e contaminatio n o f drinking-wate r aquifer s and food s abov e level s considere d saf e fo r consumption , chemica l contaminatio n o f livestock , reductio n o f propert yvalues , damag e t o nativ e vegetation , destructio n o f wetlands , an d endangermen t o f wildlif e and impairmen t o f wildlif e habitat . Ris k Modelin g Th e result s o f th e ris k modelin g sugges t tha t o f th e hundred s o f chemica l constituent s detecte d i n bot hreserv e pit s and produce d fluids , onl ya fe wfro m

eithe r sourc e appea r t o b e o f concer n t o huma n healt hand th e environmen t vi a ground-wate r and surfac e wate r pathways . Th e principa l constituent s o f potentia l concern , base d o n an analysi s o f thei r toxicologica l data , thei r frequenc yo f occurrence , an d thei r mobilit yi n groun d water , includ e arsenic , benzene , sodium , chloride , boron , cadmium , chromium , and mobil e salts . Al l o f thes e constituent s wer e include d i n th e quantitativ e ris k modeling ; however , boron , cadmium , and chromiu mdi d no t produc e risk s o r resourc e damage s unde r th e condition s modeled . Fo r thes e constituent s o f potentia l concern , th e quantitativ e ris k modelin g indicate s tha t risk s t o huma n healt hand th e environmen t ar e very smal l t o negligibl e whe n waste s ar e properl ymanaged . However , althoug hth e ris k modelin g employe d severa l conservativ e assumptions , i t wa s base d o n a relativel ysmal l sampl e o f site s an d wa s limite d i n scop e t o th e managemen t o f drillin g wast e i n reserv e pits , th e undergroun d injectio n o f produce d water , and th e surfac e wate r discharg e o f produce d wate r fro mstrippe r wells . Also , th e ris k analysi s di d no t conside r 4 2P.4 8

migratio no f produce dwate r contaminant s throug hfracture s o r unplugge d o r improperl y

plugge dan

dabandone dwells . Nevertheless , the relativel y lo w risk s calculate db

y th e ris kmodelin geffor t sugges t tha t complet e adherenc e t o existin gStat e requirement s woul dpreclud e mos t type s o f damages . Damage s ma y

occu r i nsome instance s eve nwher e waste s ar e manage di n accordanc e wit hcurrentl y applicabl e Stat e an dFedera l requirements . Ther e appea r t o b

e som e instance s i

nwhic hendangermen t o f huma n healt han

ddamag e t o th e environmen t may occu r eve nwher e operation s ar e incomplianc e wit hcurrentl y applicabl e Stat e an dFedera l requirements . Damag e Case s Some documente ddamag e case s illustrat e the potentia l fo r huma n healt hendangermen t o r environmenta l damag e fro m suc hlega l practice s a s discharg e t o ephemera l streams , surfac e wate r discharge s i nestuarie s in th e Gul f Coas t region , roadapplicatio no f reserv e pi t content s an d discharg e t o tundr a i nth e Arctic , annula r disposa l o f produce dwaters , an dlandspreadin go f reserve pi t contents . Ris kModelin g
Fo r th e constituent s o f potentia l concern , the quantitativ e evaluatio ndi dindicat e some situation s (les s tha n5 percen t o f thos e studied ) wit hcarcinogeni c risk s t o maximall y expose dindividual s highe r

- 4 the n1 i n10,00 0 (1x1 0 ) an dsodiu m level s inexces s o f interi m limit s fo r publi c drinkin gwate r supplies . Althoug hthes e highe r risk s resulte d onl y unde r conservativ e modelin gassumptions , includin ghigh(50t h percentile ) concentratio nlevel s fo r th e toxi c constituents , the y d o indicat e potentia l fo r healt ho r environmenta l impairmen t eve nunde r th e



### 4 3P.4 9

genera l assumptio n o f complianc e wit hstandar d wast e managemen t procedure s and applicabl e Stat e and Federa l requirements . Quantitativ e ris k modelin g indicate s tha t ther e i s a n extremel ywid e variatio n (si xo r mor e order s o f magnitude ) i n healt hand environmenta l damag e potentia l amon g differen t site s and locations , dependin g o n wast e volumes , wid e difference s i n measure d toxi c constituen t concentrations , managemen t practices , loca l hydrogeologica l conditions , and distance s t o exposur e points . Unplugge d and improperl yplugge d abandone d well s ca n pos e significan t environmenta l problems . Documentatio n assemble d fo r th e damag e case s an d contact s wit hStat e official s indicat e tha t ground-wate r damage s associate d wit hunplugge d and improperl yplugge d abandone d well s ar e a significan t concern . Abandone d disposa l well s ma ylea k dispose d waste s bac k t o th e surfac e o r t o usabl e groun d water . Abandone d productio n well s ma ylea k nativ e brine , potentiall yleadin g t o contaminatio n o f usabl e subsurfac e strat a or surfac e waters . Man yolde r wells , drille d an d abandone d prio r t o curren t improve d requirement s o n wel l closure , hav e neve r bee n properl yplugged . Man y State s hav e adequat e regulation s currentl yi n place ; however , eve n unde r som e States ' curren t regulations , well s ar e abandone d ever yyea r withou t bein g properl yplugged . Occasionall ycompanie s ma yfil e fo r bankruptc yprio r t o implementin g correc t pluggin gprocedure s an d neglec t t o plu g wells . Eve n whe n well s ar e correctl yplugged , they ma yeventuall ylea k i n som e circumstance s i n th e presenc e o f corrosiv e produce dwaters . Th e potentia l fo r environmenta l damag e occur s whereve r a wel l ca n ac t a s a condui t betwee n usabl e ground-wate r supplie s an d strat a containin g wate r wit hhig h



### 44P.5 0

chlorid e levels . Thi s ma yoccu r whe nth e high-chlorid e strat a ar e pressurize d naturall yo r ar e pressurize d artificiall yb ydisposa l o r enhance d recover yoperations , therebyallowin g th e chloride-ric hwater s t o migrat e easil yint o usabl e groun d water . Discharge s o f drillin gmud s and produce dwater s t o surfac e water s hav e cause dlocall y

significan t environmenta l damag e wher e discharge s ar e no t i ncomplianc e wit hStat e and Federa l statute s an dregulation s o r wher e NPDE S permit s hav e no t bee nissued . Damag e case s indicat e tha t surfac e wate r discharge s o f waste s fro m exploration , development , and productio noperation s hav e cause d damag e o r dange r t o lakes , ephemera l streams , estuaries , and sensitiv e environment s whe nsuc hdischarge s ar e no t carrie d ou t properl yunde r applicabl e Federa l and Stat e program s and regulations . Thi s i s particularl ya n issu e i narea s wher e operation s hav e no t ye t receive d permit s unde r th e Federa l NPDE S program , particularl yalon g th e Gul f Coast , wher e permi t application s hav e bee nreceive d bu t permit s hav e no t ye t bee nissued , and o nth e Alaska nNort hSlope , wher e n o NPDE S permit s hav e bee nissued . Fo r th e Natio na s a whole . Regulatio no f al l oi l andga s fiel dwaste s unde r unmodifie dSubtitl e C o f RCR A woul dhav e a substantia l impac t on th e U.S . economy . The mos t costl y

hypothetica l hazardou s wast e managemen t program evaluate db

y EP A coul dreduc e tota l domesti c oi l productio nb y a s muc ha s 1 8 percen t b

y th e yea r 2000 . Becaus e o f attendan t worl dpric e increases , thi s woul dresul t inanannua l direc t cos t passe dont o consumer s o f ove r $ 6 billion-pe r year . Thi s scenari o assume s tha t 7 0 percen t o f al l drillin gan

dproductio nwaste s woul db e subjec t t o th e curren t requirement s o f Subtitl e C o f RCRA . I f onl y 1 0 percen t o f drillin g waste s and produce dwater s wer e foun dt o be hazardous , Subtitl e C regulatio nwoul dresul t i na declin e o f 4 percen t inU.S . productio nan d



### 4 5P.5 1

a $1. 2 billion cos t increas e t o consumers , compare d wit hbaselin e costs , i n the yea r 2000 .
EP Aals o examine d the cos t o f a Subtitl e C scenari o in whic hproduce d water s injected fo r the purpos e o f enhance d oi l recoverywoul d be exemp t fro mSubtitl e C requirements . Thi s scenari o yielde d productio n decline s rangin g fro mabou t 1. 4 t o 1 2 percen t an d cost s passe d on t o consumer s rangin g fro m$0. 7 t o $4. 5 billion pe r year , depending o n whethe r 1 0 percen t o r 7 0 percen t o f th e waste s (excludin

g produce d water s injected fo r enhance d oi l recovery ) wer e regulated a s hazardou s wastes . Thes e Subtitl e C estimate s do not , however , facto r i n al l o f th e Hazardou s an

d Soli d Wast e Ac t Amendment s relating t o Subtitl e C lan d disposa l restriction s an d corrective actio n requirement s currentl yunde r regulator

ydevelopment . I f thes e tw o requirement s wer e t o appl yt o oi l an d ga s fiel d wastes , th e impact s o f Subtitl e C regulatio n woul d be Substantiall yincreased . The Agencyals o evaluate d complianc e cost s an d economi c impact s fo r a n intermediat e regulatoryscenari o in whic hmoderatel ytoxi c drilling waste s an

d produce d water s woul d be subjec t t o specia l RCR Arequirement s les s stringen t than thos e o f Subtitl e C . Unde r thi s scenario , affete d drilling waste s woul d b e manage d i n pit s wit hsyntheti c liners , caps , an d ground-wate r monitoring program s an d regulate d produce d water s woul d continu e t o b e injecte d int o Clas s I I well s (wit hn o surfac e discharge s allowe d fo

r produce

dwater s exceeding prescribe d constituen t concentration-limits) . Thi s scenari o woul d resul t in a domesti c productio n decline , an da cos t passe d o n t o consumer s in th e yea r 2000 , o f 1. 4 percent an

dS40 0 millio n pe r year , respectively , i f 7 0 percen t o f



### 4 6P.5 2

th e waste s wer e regulated . I f onl y1 0 percen t o f th e waste s wer e subjec t t o regulation , thi s intermediat e scenari o woul d resul t i na productio n declin e o f les s tha n 1 percen t and a n increase d cos t t o consumer s o f unde r $10 0 millio npe r year . Th e economi c impac t analysi s als o estimate s effect s o nU.S . foreig n trad e and Stat e ta xrevenues . Byth e yea r 2000 , base d o nU.S . Departmen t o f Energ ymodels , th e EP Acos t result s projecte d anincreas e i nnationa l petroleu m

import s rangin g fro mles s tha n 10 0 thousan d t o 1. 1 millio n barrel s pe r da yand a correspondin g increas e i nth e U.S . balanc e o f payment s defici t rangin g fro mles s tha n $10 0 thousan d t o $1 8 billio n annually , depending o ndifference s i nregulator yscenario s evaluated . Becaus e o f th e declin e i n domesti c production , aggregate d Stat e ta x revenue s woul d b e depresse d b ya n annua l amoun t rangin g fro ma fe w millio nt o almos t a billio n dollars , depending o nregulator yassumptions . Regulatio no f al l exemp t waste s unde r full , unmodifie dRCR A Subtitl e C appear s unnecessar y

an dimpractica l a t thi s time . Ther e appear s t o b e n o nee d fo r th e impositiono f full , unmodifie d RCRASubtitl e C regulatio n o f hazardou s wast e fo r al l high-volum e exemp t oi l an dga s wastes . Base do nknowledg e o f th e siz e an ddiversit y

o f th e industry , suc hregulation s coul dbe logisticall y difficul t t o enforc e an d coul dpos e a substantia l financia l burde nonth e oi l an dga s industry , particularl y

onsmal l producer s an dstrippe r operations . Nevertheless , ^element s o f th e Subtitl e C regulator y program

ma y be appropriat e i

n selec t circumstances . Reason s fo r th e abov e tentativ e conclusio nar e describe dbelow . Th e Agenc y

consider s impositio no f full , unmodifie dSubtitl e C regulation s fo r al l oi l an dga s exploration , development , an dproductio n waste s t o be unnecessar y becaus e o f factor s suc ha s th e following .



### 4 7P.5 3

Damage s an d risk s pose d b yoi l and ga s operation s appea r t o b e linked , i n th e majorit yo f cases , t o violation s o f existin g Stat e and Federa l regulations . Thi s suggest s tha t implementatio n an d enforcemen t o f existin g authoritie s ar e critica l t o prope r managemen t o f thes e wastes . Significan t additiona l environmenta l protectio n coul d b e achieve d throug ha progra mt o enhanc e complianc e wit hexistin g requirements . Stat e program s exis t t o regulat e th e managemen t o f oi l and ga s wastes . Althoug himprovement s ma yb e neede d i n som e area s o f design , implementation , o r enforcemen t o f thes e programs , EPA believe s tha t thes e deficiencie s ar e correctable . Existin g Federa l program s t o contro l undergroun d injectio n an d surfac e wate r discharge s provid e sufficien t lega l authorit yt o handl e mos t problem s pose d b yoi l an

d ga s waste s withi n thei r purview . Th e Agenc yconsider s th e impositio n o f ful l Subtitl e C regulation s fo r al l oi l an

d ga s exploration , development , and productio n waste s ,t o b e impractica l becaus e o f factor s suc ha s th e following :

• EP Aestimate s tha t th e economi c impact s o f impositio n o f ful l Subtitl e C regulation s (excludin g th e correctiv e actio n and land disposa l restrictio n requirements) , a s the ywoul d appl ywithou t modification , woul d significantl yreduc e U.S . oi l and ga s production , possibl yb ya s muc ha s 1 8 percent .

• I f reserv e pit s wer e considere d t o b e hazardou s wast e managemen t facilities , requirin g permittin g a s Subtitl e C land disposa l facilities , th e administrativ e procedure s and lengthyapplicatio n processe s necessar y

t o issu e thes e permit s woul dhav e a drasti c impac t ondevelopmen t an dproduction . e Addin goi l an

dga s operation s t o th e univers e of hazardou s wast e generator s woul dpotentiall yadd hundred s o f thousand s o f site s t o th e univers e o f hazardou s wast e generators , wit hmanythousand s o f unit s bein gadde dan dsubtracte dannually .

• Manifestin go f al l drillin g fluid s and produce dwater s offsit e t o RCRASubtitl e C disposa l facilitie s woul d pos e difficult.logistica l and administrativ e problems , especiall yfo r strippe r operations , becaus e o f th e larg e numbe r o f well s no wi n operation .



### 4 8P.5 4

State s hav e adopte dvariabl e approache s t o wast e management . Stat e regulation s governin gprope r managemen t o f Federall y exemp t oi l andga s waste s var y

t o some exten t t o accommodat e importan t regiona l difference s ingeologica l an dclimati c conditions , bu t thes e regiona l environmenta l variation s d o no t full y explai nsignifican t variation s in th e content , specificity , an dcoverag e o f Stat e regulations . Fo r example , Stat e well-pluggin grequirement s fo r abandone dproductio nwell s rang e fro

m a requiremen t t o plugwithi n6 month s o f shutdow no f operation s t o n o time limi t onpluggin gprio r to abandonment . Implementatio no f existin gStat e an dFedera l requirement s i s a centra l issu e i nformulatin grecommendation s inrespons e t o Sectio n8002(m) . A preliminar y

revie w o f Stat e an

dFedera l program s indicate s tha t mos t State s hav e adequat e regulation s t o contro l th e managemen t o f oi l andga s wastes . Generally , thes e Stat e program s ar e improving . Alaska , fo r example , ha s jus t promulgate dnew regulations . I t woul dbe desirable , however , t o enhanc e th e implementatio nof , an dcomplianc e with , certai nwast e managemen t requirements . Regulation s exis t in'mos t State s t o prohibi t th e us e o f imprope r wast e managemen t practice s tha t hav e bee nshow nb y th e damag e case s t o lea dt o environmenta l damage s an dendangermen t o f huma nhealth . Nevertheless , th e exten t t o whic hthes e regulation s ar e implemente dand enforce dmus t b e on e o f th e key factor s informin grecommendation s t o Congres s o nappropriat e Federa l an dnon-Federa l actions .



### 4 9P.5 5



# RECOMMENDATION S Following

public hearings

on this report, EPAwill

draw more specific conclusions

and make final recommendations

to Congress

regarding whether there is a need for new Federal regulations

or other actions. These recommendations

will be made to Congress

and the public within 6 months

of the publication

of this report.

Us e o f Subtitl e 0 and othe r Federa l and Stat e authoritie s shoul d b e explore d a s a mean s fo r implementin g anynecessar yadditiona l control s o n oi l and ga s wastes . EP Aha s conclude d tha t impositio no f full , unmodifie d RCRASubtitl e C regulatio n o f hazardou s wast e fo r al l exemp t oi l and ga s waste s ma yb e neithe r desirabl e no r feasible . Th e Agenc ybelieves , however , tha t furthe r revie wo f th e curren t and potentia l additiona l futur e us e o f othe r Federa l and Stat e authoritie s (suc ha s Subtitl e D authorit yunde r RCRAand authoritie s unde r th e Clea nWate r Ac t an d th e Saf e Drinkin g Wate r Act ) i s desirable . Thes e authoritie s coul d b e appropriat e fo r improve d managemen t o f bot hexemp t and nonexempt , high-volum e o r low-volum e oi l and ga s wastes . EPA ma y conside r undertakin gcooperativ e effort s wit hState s t o review an dimprov e th e design , implementation , an denforcemen t o f existin gStat e an dFedera l program s t o manag e oi l an dga s wastes . EP Aha s conclude dtha t mos t State s hav e adequat e regulation s t o contro l mos t impact s associate d wit hth e managemen t o f oi l an d ga s wastes , bu t i t woul dbe desirabl e t o enhanc e th e implementatio nof , and complianc e with , existin g wast e managemen t requirements . EP Aha s als o



### 5 0P.5 6

conclude d tha t variation s amon g State s i

n the design an

d implementatio n o f regulator

yprogram s warran t reviewt o identif ysuccessfu l measure s i n som e State s tha t migh t be attractive t o othe r States . Fo r example , EP A ma ywan t t o explor e whethe r change s i n Stat e regulator

yreporting requirement s woul d mak e enforcemen t easie r o r mor e effective . EP A therefor e recommend s additiona l work , i n cooperatio n wit hthe States , t o explor e thes e issue s an d t o develop improvement s i n the design , implementation , an

d enforcemen t o f Stat e programs . Durin g thi s review , EP

Aan d the State s shoul d als o explor e nonregulator

yapproache s t o suppor t curren t programs . Thes e migh t include developmen t o f trainin g standards , inspecto r training an d certificatio n programs , o r technica l assistanc e efforts . Theymigh t als o involve developmen t o f interstat e commission s o r othe r organizationa l approache s t o addres s wast e managemen t issue s commo n t o operation s i n majo r geologica l region s (suc ha s the Gul f Coast , Appalachia , o r the Southwest) . Suchcommission s migh t serve a s a foru mfo r discussio n o f regiona l wast e managemen t effort s an d provid e a focu s fo r developmen t an d deliver yo f nonregulatoryprograms . Th e industr

yshoul d explor e th e potentia l us e o f wast e minimization , recycling , wast e treatment , innovative technologies , an d material s substitutio n a s long-ter mimprovement s i n th e managemen t o f oi l an d ga s wastes . Althoug hin the nea r ter

mi t appear s tha t n o newtechnologie s ar e availabl e fo

r making significan t technica l improvement s i n the managemen t o f exemp t waste s fro moi l an

d ga s operations , ove r th e lon g ter mvariou s innovativ e technologie s an d practice s mayemerge . Th e industr yshoul d explor e the us e o f innovative approaches , whic hmigh t includ e conservatio n an

d wast e minimizatio n technique s fo r reducing generatio n o f drilling flui d wastes , us e o f incineratio n o r othe r treatmen t technologies , an

d substitutio n o f les s toxi c compound s whereve r possibl e i n oi l an

d ga s operation s generally .


### 51