P.1 

RCRA Box 321 

Prepped by Ryan Dugan 

Document Number: 

222)OGRC-S0016.G 

Docket Number: 

F-93-OGRC-FFFFF 

Printed 5/8/2007 3:36:32 PM Sheet 222 of 259 
P.2 

OGRC-SOOKb/Sr 

Request by Waste Crude Oil Reclaimers 

September 18, 1990 

Page -36-

Appendi x F. THE IOCC DRAFT REPORT 
P.3 

OG>^C.-Sooik.<SINTERSTAT E OI L COMPAC T COMMISSIO N 

HEADQUARTERS OFFICE; 900 N.E.23R0 STREET • P.O.BOX53127 • OKLAHOMA CITY. OKLAHOMA 73152-3127 fc 

TELEPHONE: (405) 525-35S6 

MIKE SULLIVAN 

Chairman 

Governor of Wyoming 

W. TIMOTHY DOWD 

Executive Director 

Addraa* Haply to Headquarter* OHice 

MEMORANDUM 

August 31, 1990 

TO: Council Members 

FROM: Jerry R. SimmonsC£st/irisf 

SUBJECT: Final Report ' / 

Enclosed you will find the final version of the Council's report. 

The August 26-28 Council meeting in Oklahoma City determined final 

changes. I have enclosed a reprint of the full report (excluding 

front end pages and appendixes for your information). 

As agreed at the Bismarck meeting, if you have made comments on the 

text of the report and they are not included in this final version, 

you have until the close of business September 24 to submit a 

minority report to me at the IOCC headquarters office.' 

We have done a very quick proofreading of the report and ask that 

you inform me ASAP of any type-o's or other corrections you find. 

Thank you for your time. 

MIMetft aTATIS AUIAM A • ALA8KA . ARIZONA - «»«»»« • • CALIFORNIA . COLORAOO . ILUINOIa . INOIANA . KANIAI . ««NTUCKY 

LOUiaiANA . HADYLANO . MICH.OAN . Ml»al»»l~ l • MONTANA • XIUAtK A . NCVAOA . N«V» MtXICO . MIW TORR • NO.t H DAKOTA . OHIO 

OKLAHOMA . PCNN»VLVANIA • aOOTM OAKOTA . TtXAB . UTAH . V1ROINIA • W«aT VIROINIA . WYOMIHO 

A*aOCIATIS: OIOROIA . IDAHO . MOUTH CAROLINA . ORISON . aOUTM CAROLINA - WA»HINOTON 
P.4 

SECTION 1 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1 Background 

The Interstate Oil Compact Commission (IOCC) is the organization of the governors of the 29 oil and gas 

producing states. The IOCC has been assisting states in developing their oil and gas regulatory programs 

since 1935. More than 99 percent of the oil and gas produced in the United States onshore is produced 

within the borders of and is regulated by member states of the IOCC. In recent years, with the creation 

of an environmental affairs committee, the IOCC has become increasingly involved in environmental issues 

related to oil and gas production. 

1.2 EPA's Regulatory Determination for E&P Wastes 

The federal government's increasing interest in environmental and potential human health impacts 

associated with exploration and production of crude oil and natural gas arose from a two-year study of 

exploration and production (E&P) wastes and their associated waste management practices by the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1986 and 1987. The results of that study were documented 

in a December 1987 Report to Congress (EPA 1987), which was required by 1980 amendments to the 

federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Based on the findings of the Report to 

Congress and on oral and written comments received during public hearings in the spring of 1988, EPA 

on June 30, 1988, decided not to recommend federal regulation of E&P wastes as hazardous wastes 

under Subtitle C of RCRA (EPA 1988). The Agency gave the following reasons for its determination: 

a. 'Subtitle C does not provide sufficient flexibility to consider costs and avoid the serious economic 

impacts that regulation would create for the industry's exploration and production operations; 

b. 'Existing state and federal regulatory programs are generally adequate for controlling oil, gas and 

geothermal wastes. Regulatory gaps in the Clean Water Act and UIC [Underground Injection Control] 

program are already being addressed, and the remaining gaps in state and federal regulatory 

programs can be effectively addressed by formulating requirements under Subtitle D of RCRA and by 

working with the States; 

c. 'Permitting delays would hinder new facilities, disrupting the search for new oil and gas deposits; 

d. "Subtitle C regulation of these wastes could severely strain existing Subtitle C facility capacity; 

e. 'It is impractical and inefficient to implement Subtitle C for all or some of these wastes because of the 

disruption and, in some cases, duplication of state authorities that administer programs through 

organizational structures tailored to the oil and gas industry; and 

f. 'It is impractical and inefficient to implement Subtitle C for all or some of these wastes because of the 

permitting burden that the regulatory agencies would incur if even a small percentage of these sites 

were considered Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs)." (53 Federal Register 25456. July 

6, 1988), 

In the determination, EPA found that 'existing state and federal regulations are generally adequate .. . 

Certain regulatory gaps do exist and enforcement of existing regulation in some states is inadequate.' 

To address those concerns, EPA announced a three-pronged approach that consists of: 
P.5 

• 'Improving federal programs under existing statutory authorities in RCRA Subtitle D, the Clean Water 

Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act; 

• "Working with states to encourage improvements in the states' regulations and enforcement of existing 

programs, and 

• "Working with Congress to develop any additional statutory authority that may be required." 

1.3 lOCC's Council on Regulatory Needs 

IOCC formed a Council on Regulatory Needs in January 1989 to assist EPA with the second prong of the 

agency's approach for E&P wastes. Funded by a two-year, $300,000 grant from EPA, the Council is 

comprised of 12 state regulatory agency members. The Council is supported in its efforts by a nine 

member advisory committee, of whom three represent state regulatory agencies, three represent industry, 

and three represent public-interest/environmental groups. The Council is assisted by five representatives 

of EPA, two from the U.S. Department of Energy, and two from industry, who act as official observers. 

Governors George Sinner of North Dakota and Garrey Carruthers of New Mexico are co-chairs of the 

Council. 

In 1989, the Council met in February, June and December. An organizational meeting of the Council was 

held in February. 1989 in Denver, Colorado. At that meeting, a committee structure was formed with the 

Technical Committee consisting of three subcommittees; Pits, Land, and Commercial, and the 

Administrative Committee consisting of four subcommittees; Personnel and Resources, Organization and 

Coordination, Statutory Authority, and State and Federal Relations. At the Council meeting in June, 1989, 

in Reno, Nevada, the Technical Subcommittees submitted initial criteria for discussion by the full Council. 

The Administrative Committees presented their first draft reports to the Council at its meeting in Tuisa, 

Oklahoma in December 1989. 

In early 1990, the separate committee reports were revised and combined into a single document. This 

document was presented as a draft final report at the June, 1990 IOCC meeting in Bismarck, North 

Dakota. During the summer of 1990, the draft report was circulated to over 300 interested parties for 

review and comment.1 In August, 1990, final changes were made to the document so that the Council 

could present its final report at the December, 1990 IOCC meeting in Phoenix. Arizona. 

The purpose of the Council is to recommend effective regulations, guidelines, and/or standards for statelevel management of oil and gas production wastes (IOCC 1989). EPA has concurred in this purpose, 

stating that"... IOCC Is leading an effort... that will use... information gathered by EPA to develop 

IOCC guidelines for state ofl and gas waste management regulations' (Lowrance 1989). The technical 

and administrative criteria proffered by the Council on Regulatory Needs will be published and 

disseminated to the states as examples of the range of 'elements' necessary for effective state regulatory 

programs for E&P wastes. The criteria by themselves are not intended to form the sole basis of any 

future federal statutory or regulatory authorities that may be sought by EPA for oil and gas production 

wastes. 

1.4 Implementation Strategy 

a. This report represents lOCC's initial effort to help the states and EPA improve E&P waste management 

programs. This report: 

1Ma/V list and comments are available upon request. 
P.6 

- Demonstrates the commitment of the governors of oil and gas producing states, EPA, state 

agencies, environmental groups and industry to work together for environmental change and 

improvements; 

- Serves as a model for future efforts and substantiates lOCC's position as an appropriate forum to 

develop comprehensive approaches to multifaceted and complex oil and gas related environmental 

issues; and 

- Establishes a baseline of performance that can be used for both the administrative and technical 

aspects of E&P waste management This baseline is useful to federal and state regulators, 

legislators, and oil and gas operators. 

b. To achieve successful implementation, the Council recommends the following strategy: 

- Secure grants and encourage individual states to provide adequate funding for implementation of 

followup recommendations and continued active participation of ail affected parties. 

- Communicate the criteria of this report to EPA, state agencies, operators, and other interested 

parties through direct contact, at E&P waste management conferences and symposia, in a series 

of one-day workshops hosted by state agencies and involving regional EPA offices, state and tribal 

agencies, oil and gas operators, trade associations, environmental groups, and through other 

mechanisms as may be appropriate. 

- Continue to build consensus and improve this document. To this end, IOCC plans to widely 

circulate it to federal agencies (EPA, DOE, DOI), state oil and gas agencies, state environmental 

agencies, national and regional trade associations, and other interested parties seeking 

endorsement or qualified endorsement The Council further recommends updating this document 

every three years. The Council also recommends updates include status reports from participating 

states that address, (1) progress of the states in using and implementing the report's criteria, and 

(2) any unresolved or new issues. 

• Use this document as a basis for conducting IOCC coordinated reviews of state E&P waste 

management programs and as a basis for review of federal agency programs. Teams of senior 

state regulatory personnel should visit agencies and review programs using this document as a 

baseline of performance and for making recommendations for improvement. 

• Use IOCC as a clearinghouse for changes and revisions to state and federal regulatory and 

legislative programs. 

- Pursue improvements in data management, waste characterization, and other areas identified in 

Section 6 of this report. 

1.5 Summary of StatekPrograms 

As part of the Council's effort, a review of state E&P wastes programs was undertaken. A questionnaire 

was developed and sent to all oil and gas producing states. The state program summaries contained In 

Appendix B to these criteria were based on responses to that questionnaire, and on information contained 

in Appendix 3 of the EPA Report to Congress, and lOCC's Summary of State Regulations. The states 

provided updated information for the reprint of EPA's Appendix 3. The summaries are presented in 

alphabetical order. 
P.7 

SECTION 2 

SCOPE OF THE CRITERIA 

2.1 General 

a. IOCC criteria address waste management practices that are unique to E&P operations and wastes that 

were determined by EPA to be exempt from the hazardous waste management requirements of 

Subtitle C of RCRA. These narrowly defined wastes include drilling muds and cuttings, produced water 

and associated waste. Wastes that are uniformly regulated by RCRA hazardous waste management 

requirements as well as general industrial wastes such as solvents, off-specification chemicals, 

commercial products, household wastes and office refuse are not addressed by these criteria. 

b. These criteria do not address disposal of produced water by injection or surface discharge - waste 

management practices that are regulated by EPA or by the states under authority of the federal Safe 

Drinking Water Act and federal Gean Water Act, respectively.1 Brief descriptions of the regulatory 

frameworks authorized by those laws follow in Section 2.2 and 2.3. Disposal of produced water in pits. 

by land application or at commercial disposal facilities is addressed in the technical criteria of Sections 

5. 

c in addition to a review of provisions of the Safe Drinking Water and Clean Water Acts that are 

applicable to E&P wastes, this section also contains definitions of solid wastes and hazardous wastes, 

reviews EPA's waste mixture rule, lists examples of exempt and nonexempt E&P wastes, and describes 

general requirements for the management of nonexempt wastes. 

2.2 Class II Injection Wells 

The Safe Drinking Water Act establishes a special class (Class II) of injection wells used for the disposition 

of oil-field fluids. Injection wells in this class are used for E&P waste disposal, enhanced oil recovery and, 

in some cases, storage of liquid hydrocarbons. Class II underground injection control (UIC) programs 

are administered directly by the states through primacy delegated by EPA or by EPA In states that have 

not sought or obtained primacy for the UIC program. Some states have negotiated primacy agreements 

with EPA and in return have received authorization and federal funding for program implementation 

conditional upon meeting minimum EPA standards. Primacy agreements, which may be amended with 

approval from the EPA, largely dictate what can be injected in Class II wells. The EPA determines which 

wastes can be injected in Class II wells in nonprimacy states. 

Among the minimum requirements for Class II wells are: 

a. Only approved E&P wastes may be injected. 

b. No well may endanger an Underground Source of Drinking Water (USDW). 

^Nearly 21 billion barrels of produced water - or 98 percent of all E&P wastes - were generated in the U.S. 

in 1985, according to American Petroleum Institute (API) figures cited by EPA (EPA 1987). Most of that 

produced water was disposed by injection, with much smaller volumes discharged to surface waters or 

disposed In pits, by land application or at commercial disposal facilities. Drilling wastes (I.e., drilling fluids and 

cuttings) accounted for about two percent of all E&P wastes generated in 1985, totaling 361 million barrels, 

according to API (EPA 1987). 
P.8 

c. Unless permitted by rule, all wells must be permitted before construction. 

d. All wells must demonstrate mechanical integrity at least once every five years. 

EPA conducted a comprehensive review of the UIC program in 1989. IOCC will review EPA's final 

recommendations for possible future inclusion in its waste disposal criteria. 

2.3 NPDES-Permitted Discharges 

All point-source discharges of pollutants to surface waters of the United States must comply with the 

requirements of permits issued under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The 

NPDES program is administered by EPA under the authority of the federal Clean Water Act or by the 

states through programs delegated by EPA. NPDES permits establish effluent limitations and monitoring 

requirements for discharges. Effluent limits are based upon the more stringent of levels which can be 

achieved through the use of available technology and levels necessary to meet EPA-approved state water 

quality standards. The Clean Water Act requires NPDES permits for E&P waste discharges to surface 

water. Currently effluent guidelines prevent any discharge to surface waters except in the following 

categories: 

a. Discharges to coastal areas containing brackish waters not suitable for human use; 

b. Discharges of low salinity produced waters which are of beneficial use in arid regions west of the 98th 

meridian; and 

c. Discharges from stripper oil wells. 

2.4 Definition of Solid Waste 

a. In simplest terms, a solid waste is any material that is discarded or intended to be discarded. 

According to RCRA, solid wastes may be solid, semi-solid, liquid, or contained gaseous material. 

Commercial products are not wastes unless and until they are discarded. Commercial products and 

their releases are regulated under other statutes' such as the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and 

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), Superfund Amendments and 

Reauthorization Act (SARA), and the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA). ' 

b. EPA has also determined that produced water injected for enhanced recovery2 is not a waste for 

purposes of RCRA Subtitle C or D, since produced water used in enhanced recovery Is beneficially 

recycled and is an integral part of some crude oil and natural gas production processes. 

2.5 Hazardous Waste 

Under RCRA, a solid waste may be designated as hazardous waste if it is specifically listed as a 

hazardous waste or if it exhibits one or more of the characteristics of hazardous wastes. (See 40 CFR 

261). 

Enhanced recovery describes all efforts to increase ultimate production of oil and gas from a reservoir, and 

this terminology will be considered to encompass other nomenclature in common usage such as pressure 

maintenance, secondary recovery, and tertiary recovery. All enhanced recovery techniques include methods 

for supplementing natural reservoir forces and energy, or otherwise increasing ultimate recovery. Such 

techniques include water injection, gas injection, gas cycling, and miscible chemicals and thermal processes. 
P.9 

2.5.1 Listed Hazardous Waste 

a. EPA has listed numerous types or classes of solid wastes as hazardous waste because they 

typically exhibit one or more of the characteristics of hazardous waste, or have been shown 

to exceed certain human toxicity criteria, or contain any one of more than 350 chemical 

compounds or substances that are listed as hazardous constituents. (40 CFR 261 App VIII.) 

b. EPA's regulations contain four lists of hazardous wastes: (1) hazardous waste from nonspecific 

sources, (2) hazardous waste from specific sources, (3) commercial chemical products that 

become acutely hazardous waste when disposed, and (4) commercial chemical products that 

become toxic wastes when disposed. 

2.5.2 Characteristically Hazardous Waste 

a. EPA considers any waste to be a hazardous waste if it exhibits any one of the characteristics 

of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity. 

b. EPA has expanded the toxicity category (toxicity characteristic (TC)), and adopted a revised 

laboratory procedure (toxicity characteristic leaching procedure (TCLP)). 

2.6 EPA's Mixture Rule 

EPA's RCRA regulations provide that the commingling of any listed hazardous waste with a nonhazardous 

waste renders the entire mixture a hazardous waste. The intent of this mixture rule is to prevent 

avoidance of hazardous waste regulations through dilution. For example, discarding a listed hazardous 

waste (e.g., a half-empty container of a listed solvent) in a reserve pit would cause the otherwise exempt 

pit contents to become a hazardous waste and result in the expensive closing of the reserve pit under 

RCRA hazardous waste regulations. Also, unused commercial products should not be disposed with oilfield wastes. All reasonable efforts should be made to completely use commercial products, return them 

to their vendor if they are not fully used, or segregate them from other wastes for management and 

disposal. 

2.7 EPA's List of Exempt Exploration and Production Wastes 

EPA's determination found that the following wastes are exempt from RCRA hazardous waste 

management requirements. The list below identifies many but not all exempt wastes. In general, E&P 

exempt wastes are generated in 'primary field operations', and not as a result of maintenance or 

transportation activities. (53 FR 25453-25454) 

• "Produced water 

• "Drilling fluids 

• "Drill Cuttings 

• "Rlgwash 

• "Drilling fluids and cuttings from offshore operations disposed of onshore 

• "Well completion, treatment, and stimulation fluids 

• "Basic sediment and water and other tank bottoms from storage facilities that hold product and exempt 

waste 

6 
P.10 

• "Accumulated materials such as hydrocarbons, solids, sand, and emulsion from production separators, 

fluid treating vessels, and production impoundments 

• "Pit sludges and contaminated bottoms from storage or disposal of exempt wastes 

• "Workover wastes 

• 'Gas plant dehydration wastes, including glycol-based compounds, glycol filters, filter media, 

backwash, and molecular sieves 

• 'Gas plant sweetening wastes for sulfur removal, including amine, amine filters, amine filter media, 

backwash, precipitated amine sludge, iron sponge, and hydrogen sulfide scrubber liquid and sludge 

• 'Cooling tower blowdown 

• "Spent filters, filter media, and backwash (assuming the filter itself is not hazardous and the residue 

in it is from an exempt waste stream) 

• "Packing fluids 

• "Produced sand 

• "Pipe scale, hydrocarbon solids, hydrates, and other deposits removed from piping and equipment 

prior to transportation 

• "Hydrocarbon-bearing soil 

• "Pigging wastes from gathering lines 

• "Wastes from subsurface gas storage and retrieval, except for the listed nonexempt wastes 

• "Constituents removed from produced water before it is injected or otherwise disposed of 

• "Liquid hydrocarbons removed from the production stream but not from oil refining 

• "Gases removed from the production stream, such as hydrogen sulfide and carbon dioxide, and 

volatilized hydrocarbons 

• "Materials ejected from a producing well during the process known as blowdown 

• "Waste crude oD from primary field operations and production and 

• "Light organics volatilized from exempt wastes in reserve pits or impoundments or production 

equipment" 

2.8 EPA's List of Nonexempt Exploration and Production Wastes 

EPA's regulatory determination (53 FR 25453-25454) for exploration and production wastes listed the 

following wastes as nonexempt. The list below identifies many but not all nonexempt wastes. Many of 

these wastes are generated during maintenance of production equipment as well as transportation 

(pipeline and trucking) activities. While the following wastes are nonexempt, their regulatory status as 

"hazardous wastes' is dependent upon a determination of their characteristics or whether they are listed 

as hazardous waste. Nonexempt wastes should be managed as described under Section 2.9. 
P.11 

• "Unused fracturing fluids or acids 

• "Gas plant cooling tower cleaning wastes 

• "Painting wastes 

• "OH and gas service company wastes, such as empty drums, drum rinsate, vacuum truck rinsate, 

sandblast media, painting wastes, spent solvents, spilled chemicals, and waste acids 

• "Vacuum truck and drum rinsate from trucks and drums transporting or containing nonexempt waste 

• "Refinery wastes 

• "Liquid and solid wastes generated by crude oil and tank bottom reclaimers 

• "Used equipment lubrication oils 

• "Waste compressor oil, filters, and blowdown 

• "Used hydraulic fluids 

• "Waste solvents 

• "Waste in transportation pipeline-related pits 

• "Caustic or acid cleaners 

• "Boiler cleaning wastes 

• "Boiler refractory bricks 

• "Incinerator ash 

• "Laboratory wastes 

• "Sanitary wastes 

• "Pesticide wastes 

• "Radioactive tracer wastes 

• "Drums, insulation, and miscellaneous solids' 

EPA did not specifically address in its regulatory determination the status of several waste streams 

including hydrocarbon-bearing material that is recycled or reclaimed by reinjection into a crude stream. 

However, under existing EPA regulations, recycled oil, even if it were otherwise hazardous, could be 

reintroduced into the crude stream, if it Is from normal operations and is to be refined along with normal 

process streams at a petroleum refinery facility. See 40 CFR §261:6 (a)(3)(vi). 

2.9 Requirements for Nonexempt Wastes 

a. EPA's hazardous waste regulations, including the toxicity characteristic (TC), may apply to nonexempt 

waste generators at E&P sites. 

8 
P.12 

b. Nonexempt wastes should be tested whenever there is reason to believe they may exhibit one or more 

of the hazardous waste characteristics. Although there is no requirement that a nonexempt waste be 

tested to determine if it Is hazardous, civil and criminal penalties may be imposed if the waste is not 

managed in a safe manner, and according to regulations. 

c. Depending on actual hazardous waste volume generated, stored or managed onsite, RCRA hazardous 

waste requirements for treatment, storage, or disposal or corrective action may apply. 

d. Nonexempt waste should also be segregated whenever possible from exempt waste. If the nonexempt 

waste were a listed hazardous waste, EPA's mixture rule would make the entire commingled waste 

stream subject to stringent RCRA Subtitle C requirements, including the requirement that the waste 

be disposed at a hazardous waste facility. When segregation is not practical, the nonexempt waste 

should be examined closely to assure that it is not a hazardous waste. 

e. Some states have adopted hazardous waste regulations which differ from those that EPA has 

promulgated. While different in many specific areas, those state programs, by law, still must be at 

least as stringent as the federal programs. 
P.13 

SECTION 3 

• 

GENERAL CRITERIA ! 

i • 

3.1 General 

An effective program for the regulation of E&P wastes should include, at a minimum: 

a. statutory authority which adequately details the powers and duties of the regulatory body; 

b. statutory authority to promulgate appropriate rules and regulations; 

c statutes and implementing regulations which adequately define necessary terminology; 

d. provisions to adequately fund and staff the program; 

e. mechanisms for coordination among the public, government agencies and regulated industry; and 

f. technical criteria for E&P waste management practices. 

3.2 Goals 

An effective state program should contain a clear statement of the program's goals and objectives. Such 

goals should include, at. a minimum, protecting human health and the environment from the 

mismanagement of E&P wastes whPe maintaining an economically viable oil and gas industry and 

encouraging waste minimization as a means of achieving such a goal. 

3.3 State/Regional Variations in Criteria 

These criteria are intended to provide guidance to the states in the formulation, development and 

evaluation of oil and gas environmental regulatory programs. Fundamental differences exist from state 

to state, and within regions within a state, in terms of climate, hydrology, geology, economics and method 

of operation which may impact on the manner in which oil and gas exploration, development and 

production is performed. State oil and gas programs can, and should, vary from state to state and within 

portions of a state. 

The process by which these criteria are incorporated into state programs is a function of and within the 

discretion of the responsible state agency. It Is recognized that state programs must vary in order to 

accommodate differences in climate, hydrology, geology, economics, and method of operation or to 

accommodate individual differences in state administrative procedures or law. Furthermore, In some 

instances, in order to accommodate regional, areal, or individual differences within a state, It Is 

appropriate for site-specific waivers or variances to be allowed for good cause shown. All such variations 

should be consistent with the goals of Section 3.2. 

10 
P.M 

SECTION 4 

ADMINISTRATIVE CRITERIA 

4.1 Basic Requirements 

Various federal regulations applicable to the delegation to states of federal environmental programs 

provided the Council with a useful framework for the development of criteria for an effective state 

program. Such a program for E&P waste should, at a minimum, include provisions for permitting, 

compliance evaluation, and enforcement 

4.1.1 Permitting 

A state must have a regulatory mechanism to assure that wastes generated during oil and gas E&P 

operations are managed in an environmentally responsible manner. A program to achieve that 

objective may rely on one or more mechanisms, including issuance of individual permits, issuance 

of permits by rule, establishment of regulatory requirements by rule, issuance of general permits, 

registration of facilities, and/or notification of certain activities undertaken pursuant to general 

regulations. The regulating state agencies should have authority to refuse to issue or reissue 

permits or authorizations if the applicant has outstanding, finally determined violations or unpaid 

penalties, or if a history of past violations demonstrates the applicant's unwillingness or Inability to 

comply with permit requirements. Individual permits for specific facilities or operations should be 

issued for fixed terms. In the case of commercial or centralized facilities, permits generally should 

be reviewed, and revised if necessary, no less frequently than every five years. ! Where similar 

requirements are mandated by two or more regulatory programs, those requirements should be 

combined where feasible. The process for obtaining permits should also involve prompt 

consideration and response to permit applications, while preserving the integrity of the permit 

review process, including appropriate public participation. 

4.1.2 Compliance Evaluation 

4.1.2.1 

State programs generally should contain the following compliance evaluation capabilities: 

i 

a. Procedures for the receipt evaluation, retention, and investigation for possible enforcement 

action of all notices and reports required of permittees and other regulated persons. 

Investigation for possible enforcement action should include determination of failure to submit 

these notices and reports. 

b. Inspection and surveillance procedures that are independent of information supplied by 

regulated persons to determine compliance with program requirements, including: 

(1) the capability to make comprehensive surveys of facilities and activities subject to 

regulation in order to identify a failure to comply with program requirements by 

responsible parties; 

(2) the capability to conduct periodic inspections of regulated facilities and activities at 

a frequency that is commensurate with the risk to the environment that is presented 

by each facility or activity; and 

(3) the authority to investigate information obtained regarding violations of applicable 

program and permit requirements. 

11 
P.15 

c. Procedures to receive and assure proper consideration of information submitted by the public 

about alleged violations and for encouraging the public to report perceived violations. Such 

procedures should not only involve communications with the public to apprise it of the process 

to be followed in filing reports or complaints, but also how the state agency will assure an 

appropriate and timely response. 

d. Authority to enter any regulated site or premises where E&P activities are being conducted and 

locations in which records relevant to program operation are kept in order to inspect, monitor, 

copy records or otherwise investigate compliance with permit conditions and other program 

requirements. 

e. Investigatory procedures that will produce an appropriate paper trail in support of evidence 

admissible in an enforcement proceeding. 

4.1.2.2 

An effective state program should provide that a state permit does not relieve the operator of the 

obligation to comply with federal, local or other state permits or regulatory requirements. 

4.1.3 Enforcement 

4.1.3.1 

With respect to violations of the state program, the state agency should have the authority to take 

some or all of the following enforcement actions1: 

a. Issue a notice of violation with a compliance schedule; 

b. Restrain immediately and effectively any person by order or by suit in state court from engaging 

in any impending or continuing unauthorized activity which is causing or may cause damage 

to public health or the environment; 

c. Establish the identity of emergency conditions which pose an imminent and substantial human 

health or environmental hazard that would warrant entry and immediate corrective action by the 

state agency after reasonable efforts to notify the operator have failed; 

d. Sue or cause suit to be brought in courts of competent jurisdiction to enjoin any Impending or 

continuing violation of any program requirement, including any permit condition, without the 

necessity of a prior revocation of the permit; 

e. Require by administrative order or suit in state court, that appropriate action be undertaken to 

correct any harm to public health and the environment that may have resulted from a violation 

of any program requirement including but not limited to establishment of compliance 

schedules; 

f. Revoke, modify or suspend any permit upon a determination by the state agency that the 

permittee has violated the terms and conditions of the permit, failed to pay an assessed penalty, 

or used false or misleading information or fraud to obtain the permit; or 

1

/n some states, enforcement remedies include authorities to cause cessation of production or transportation 

of product, and/or seizure of illegal product 

12 
P.16 

g. Assess administrative penalties or seek in court civil penalties or criminal sanctions, including 

fines and/or imprisonment. 

h. Forfeiture of financial assurance instruments. 

4.1.3.2 

j 

States should consider guidelines for calculations of penalties that include factors such as the 

economic benefit resulting from the violation, willfulness, harm to the environment and the public, 

harm to wildlife, fish or aquatic life or their habitat expenses incurred by the state in removing, 

correcting or terminating the effects of the unauthorized activity, conservation of the resource, 

timeliness of corrective action, notification of appropriate authority, and history of violations. 

Benefits of guidelines for calculation of penalties include consistency in the assessment of penalties 

and development of readily defensible assessments. Penalties should be such that an operator 

does not benefit financially from unlawful conduct and should provide compliance incentive to 

other operators. States should evaluate their enforcement options and policies to assure that the 

full range of actions available are effectively used. 

4.1.3.3 

The right to appeal or seek administrative and/or judicial review of agency action should be 

available to any person having an interest which is or may be adversely affected, or who is 

aggrieved by any such action. < 

4.2 Additional Program Requirements 

Beyond basic requirements, an effective state program should also include some or all of a variety of 

other administrative requirements that are discussed below. 

4.2.1 Contingency Planning 

The state agency should have authority to require an operator to comply with a general 

contingency plan approved by the state agency, or independently prepare and maintain a 

contingency plan for waste release prevention and control. Such a plan should describe the 

actions which the operator will take to prevent and respond to spills and accidental releases, 

including provisions for notification, remedial action, training, names of Individuals to be contacted 

in the event of an incident, and other requirements similar to those contained In Spill Prevention 

Control and Countermeasure plans under the federal Clean Water Act's oil spill prevention 

provision. ' 

4.2.2 Public Participation 

4.2.2.1 

State program" legislation or regulations should require that the affected public be provided with 

adequate notice of the agency's intention to issue a permit that addresses E&P waste management. 

The public should be provided with an appropriate opportunity to comment on a permit prior to 

issuance. Wherever possible, this notice should be coordinated with the notice requirements of 

other concurrently applicable state or federal programs. For commercial or centralized disposal 

facilities, the operator should also be required to provide written notice to adjacent land owners 

of record for such area and in such manner as may be prescribed by the state agency. Agency 

13 
P.17 

records related to this program should generally be available for review by the public. Where 

Information submitted by an operator is of a 'confidential business' nature, an agency should have 

procedures for segregating that information and protecting it from disclosure. In all cases, spill and 

violation records should be available to the public. Agencies should establish a minimum 

recordkeeping time period of three years which should be automatically extended while any 

unresolved enforcement action regarding the regulated activity is pending. 

4.2.2.2 

States should provide for the dissemination of program information to the regulated industry and 

the public. Such efforts should be part of an on-going process through which information is 

exchanged in an open forum. Because E&P waste management requirements are undergoing 

numerous changes, states have the obligation to inform the regulated industry and the public of 

changes. Industry associations may provide a convenient and effective mechanism for 

dissemination of information. States should actively make use of seminars, newsletters, special 

mailings, association committees, incentive programs and other mechanisms. 

4.2.2.3 

States should use advisory groups of industry, government and public representatives to obtain 

input and feedback on the effectiveness of state programs for the management of E&P wastes. 

Provision should be made for education or training as is appropriate to give such advisory groups 

a sound basis for providing input and feedback. 

4.2.3 Financial Assurance 

All states should develop a financial assurance program to provide resources to the state to close 

or remediate a site should an operator fail to meet its obligations under the law. Most states have 

financial assurance programs, although they vary widely in the specific activity covered, the type 

of assurance allowed, the amount of assurance required, and the mechanism for forfeiture of the 

financial instalment 

States should evaluate the activities that need to be covered by financial assurance. Some states 

require financial assurance for inactive wells, some for drilling and/or plugging, some for waste 

disposal facilities, and some for the life of the well. Some states require performance bonds and 

some states require penal bonds. States should consider combining their financial assurance 

requirements to allow a single instrument to provide coverage for an operator's various activities. 

States should determine the types of financial assurances that will provide reliable monetary 

resources to the state. Types of financial assurance include surety bonds, self-bonding, letters of 

credit, certificates of deposit cash, federal, state, or municipal bonds, and other forms of collateral. 

Some states accept a nonrefundable fee to be paid into the well plugging fund In lieu of a bond. 

Some states allow phased payments of collateral into a fund so that small operators can develop 

a collateral bond over a specified period of time. States should consider those financial assurance 

options which facilitate an operator's compliance with bonding requirements. For example, in 

addition to single well bonds, many states allow blanket bonds. This allows operators to assure 

that an established minimum level of financial assurance is provided without the commitment of an 

unnecessary amount of operating funds. 

States should periodically review the amount of assurance required to determine if the amount Is 

adequate to provide incentive for proper plugging of a well and reclamation of a site, and to assure 

proper management of E&P wastes. 

14 
P.18 

States should develop appropriate procedures to access ah operator's financial assurance when 

the operator does not meet the obligations covered by the financial assurance. These procedures 

should Include provisions for notice, hearings, and forfeiture. 

Some states have special funds, such as well-plugging funds, that are available for state use to 

correct problems where an operator is unable to comply with state requirements. Although the 

availability of such funds may be a consideration in some states when determining bond coverage 

amounts, special funds should be used to supplement, rather than completely take the place of, 

other forms of financial assurance provided by the operator. The use of special funds should be 

limited to instances where the responsible operator cannot be determined or is unavailable. These 

special funds can be generated by taxes, fines, forfeitures, or fees. 

4.2.4 Waste Hauler Certification 

The appropriate state agency should have authority to require the training of drivers of trucks which 

are involved in the commercial transportation of E&P waste to a commercial or centralized disposal 

facility. Such training should include, among other things, emphasis on proper recordkeeping, the 

need to deliver the waste to the designated facility and emergency response arid notification 

procedures. The appropriate state agency should also have authority to require the registration 

of ail vehicles used to commercially transport the waste, and of ail commercial waste haulers. 

4.2.5 Waste Tracking 

Unless the state agency is utilizing an alternative method which achieves comparable results, the 

waste tracking requirements of these criteria (Section 5.7.2.3) should be used by the agency to 

regulate the transportation (other than by pipeline) of E&P waste to a commercial or centralized 

disposal facility. The waste generator, waste hauler and operator of the disposal facility should 

retain and make available for regulatory agency inspection all required waste tracking information 

for a minimum of three (3) years from the date of shipment This record retention period should 

be automatically extended while any unresolved enforcement action regarding the regulated activity 

is pending. 

4.2.6 Location of Closed Disposal Sites 

In response to RCRA Section 3001(b)(2)(A)(i), a state program should contain authority with 

respect to disposal site closure including authority to identify the location of the disposal site and 

for such information to be maintained by the state agency for public review. Whether the location 

of a waste disposal site is disclosed in the public land records is a matter which is within the 

discretion of the state. 

4.2.7 Data Management 

Effective data management systems should be maintained due to the amount of information that 

states compile. Such systems should include permitting, operating, and monitoring information and 

should include those data elements that an individual state finds are necessary to make costeffective, risk-based decisions. Data should be maintained on as detailed a level as is necessary 

for the agencies to conduct their regulatory reviews. States and the federal government should 

undertake efforts to facilitate the sharing of data among responsible agencies and other users. The 

IOCC and federal government should assist the states in developing and maintaining effective data 

management systems. 

15 
P.19 

4.3 Personnel and Funding 

4.3.1 Personnel 

For a state program to function effectively, it must have sufficient, properly trained personnel to 

accomplish the goals and objectives of the program. 

In determining its personnel needs, a state agency should consider not only the number of 

activities that it must regulate and inspect, but also the accessibility of those activities to agency 

personnel. Accessibility will be heavily influenced by the size of the area to be regulated, the local 

terrain and road conditions. In addition, a state agency should consider how its personnel needs 

will be affected by activities occurring in environmentally sensitive areas (e.g., in close proximity 

to surface water and groundwater). 

Generally, personnel needs should be evaluated in each of the categories of administration, legal, 

technical and field inspectors. In each case, a state agency should define the areas of 

responsibility for the position, as well as any prerequisite experience and background. In addition, 

the state agency must provide for the continuing training of personnel to keep them abreast of 

changes in regulations, policy and technical issues and to increase professionalism. This training 

can be accomplished through such means as seminars and university short courses. The following 

discussion addresses these issues in each of the major personnel categories: 

4.3.1.1 Administration 

The elements of the administration of a state program should include traditional administrative 

functions such as program planning and evaluation, budgeting and personnel. In addition, 

administration should be responsible for such programmatic functions as permitting, licensing, 

financial assurance, and ownership transfer. Public involvement and data collection and 

management are also key elements of program administration. The conduct of public hearings, 

the coordination of enforcement activities and the referral of cases to legal personnel for follow-up 

action should also be administration functions. 

4.3.1.2 Legal 

Legal support for an E&P waste management program can be provided by in-house state agency 

lawyers, through the support of the attorney general's office, or through independent counsel. In 

any case, sufficient legal support should be provided to a state agency to assure that the regulatory 

program has an effective capability to pursue appropriate enforcement actions in a timely manner 

against violators of program requirements. A critical element of this capability is that the program's 

legal element be capable of directing the preparation of enforcement cases and providing guidance 

and direction to field inspectors and others involved in case preparation. The legal element of a 

program should also be involved in both the procedural and substantive aspects of rulemaking. 

4.3.1.3 Technical 

All program elements must receive adequate technical support. In supporting administrative 

functions, technical personnel should provide geologic and engineering evaluation and technical 

specifications on such matters as cementing and casing. Technical support to the legal and field 

personnel is necessary for the development and implementation of rules and .in the preparation of 

enforcement cases. In support of field inspectors, technical personnel should be capable of 

mapping hydrologically sensitive areas and areas containing treatable water, and provide support 

in determining pit construction requirements and guidance in waste handling. Key technical 

personnel should have a bachelor of science degree in geology, engineering, hydrology, earth 

16 
P.20 

science, environmental science, or a related field, or possess equivalent experience. Technical 

personnel should be subject to continuing education in such areas as ongoing development of 

rules, policies, and technological changes. 

4.3.1.4 Field Inspectors 

Field Inspectors should be responsible for conducting routine inspections of regulated facilities and 

activities to assure compliance with program requirements. In addition, field inspectors should be 

among the state agency's on-site representatives to witness critical regulated activities and to 

observe or supervise clean-up or remedial actions. Field inspectors also should be involved in the 

assembly of evidence for enforcement actions and in the state agency's community relations. Field . 

inspectors generally should be high school graduates or have equivalent experience and otherwise 

be knowledgeable about oil and gas field-related work and waste management practices. The 

ongoing training of field inspectors should emphasize sampling and investigative procedures 

associated with enforcement proceedings and a thorough understanding of current rules and 

policies of the program as well as sound environmental practices. In addition, field inspectors must 

be. skilled in the handling of hazardous materials and in all aspects of personnel safety. 

4.3.2 Funding 

An effective E&P waste management program should be funded at a level sufficient to allow it to 

accomplish its goals and objectives. While most state agencies will be funded through a general 

appropriation from that state's legislature, each state agency should evaluate such other sources 

of funding as user fees, special levies on production, the dedication of fees and penalties to special 

accounts, and grants from various sources. 

4.4 Coordination Among Agencies 

Many state programs regulating the management of E&P wastes have their roots in oil and gas 

conservation programs that were established during the early part of this century. In most cases, 

these programs have evolved to accommodate other state and federal objectives such as protection 

of human health and the environment 

In most states, multiple agencies are involved in the management of E&P wastes. Different agencies 

are often responsible for the regulation of oil and gas wells, pits and Impoundments, disposal wells, 

surface water discharges, and disposal of drill cuttings and muds. Each agency has its own 

administrative requirements relating to permitting and financial assurance and develops it own budget 

priorities. Each has its own inspection and enforcement authorities. Unless a high level of formal 

interagency coordination exists, such unilateral program implementation can lead to duplication of 

personnel effort, duplication of regulation with sometimes conflicting standards for the industry, and 

duplication of funding. Duplication of programs often diminishes the effectiveness of permitting, 

inspection, enforcement training, and other regulatory activities. Where multiple state agencies have 

jurisdiction over the management of E&P wastes, budget development should be coordinated. 

The review of the state programs (Appendix B) showed that many do not have formal agreements 

providing for the? coordination of activities among agencies. The coordination of permitting, inspection, 

enforcement and training provides an economic benefit to the agencies and assures that no regulatory 

gaps occur In the regulation of the Industry. The Council did not review the adequacy of individual 

memorandums of agreement or memorandums of understanding. States with multiple agencies having 

jurisdiction for E&P waste management should develop formal coordination mechanisms. Additionally, 

states should review existing agreements to assure that they are current and effective. They should 

hold regularly scheduled meetings among or between involved agencies and should share information 

so that each agency can more fully carry out its program responsibilities. 

17 
P.21 

4.5 State and Federal Relations 

Periodic evaluations of state and federal E&P waste management programs have proven useful In 

improving the effectiveness of those programs and increasing cooperation between federal and state 

regulatory agencies. Peer review-based evaluation mechanisms have demonstrated the need for 

establishment of a performance baseline by which E&P waste management programs can be 

evaluated. Those mechanisms have led to the identification of strategies that will improve relations 

between the states and the federal government. 

4.5.1 Background 

4.5.1.1 Initiatives 

Initiatives that have been undertaken to explore relations between state and federal agencies 

and which are relevant to the Council's efforts include: 

a. the Mid-Course Evaluation of state and federally implemented Class II UIC programs; 

b. a federal/state enforcement and compliance steering committee which addresses timely and 

appropriate enforcement in EPA regulatory programs; 

c. the Keystone Center National Waste Management Strategies Project which addressed, 

among other things, state and federal relations; and 

d. the peer review process of state UIC programs being conducted by the Underground 

Injection Practices Council. 

4.5.1.2 Results 

Results of these initiatives included: 

a. the recognition that there may be differing program and enforcement expectations and 

priorities among states, EPA headquarters and EPA regions; 

b. the recognition that variable approaches to regulation may be necessary or beneficial; 

c. the need to establish a baseline of performance by which state and federal agencies can 

judge the effectiveness of their programs; 

d. the need for continued dialogue between various regulatory parties; and 

e. the recognition that programs and priorities may need to change as knowledge increases. 

4.5.2 Strategies for Maintaining A Successful Relationship Between State and Federal Agencies 

As stated in EPA's regulatory determination for E&P waste, '...existing state and federal 

regulations are generally adequate to control the management of oil and gas wastes. Certain 

regulatory gaps do exist however, and enforcement of existing regulations in some states Is 

inadequate.' The key is that overall state programs are adequate. To address these gaps, the 

focus of future efforts should be to utilize information developed through EPA studies and 

Investigations, and augmented by the criteria and information developed by the Council. Given 

that information, EPA. working through the IOCC. can meet with and provide guidance and 

assistance to states that need to improve their programs. 

18 
P.22 

The Council has identified 10 interrelated strategies that, if implemented, would enhance state 

and federal relations and promote effective management of oil and gas wastes. 

a. Commitment to Work Cooperatively. State and federal agencies should take steps to 

encourage open communications among state and federal agencies, the regulated industry 

and other interested parties on issues pertaining to the management and regulation of E&P 

wastes. 

The states and federal agencies should maintain a commitment to work cooperatively to 

Improve the design, implementation and enforcement of state and federal programs for 

managing E&P wastes. 

b. Recognition of Different Priorities. States should recognize the interest of federal agencies 

in achieving national goals and objectives and assuring adherence to federal and state 

statutory and regulatory requirements. At the same time, federal agencies should recognize 

the authorities, responsibilities and capabilities of states to regulate certain activities within 

their borders. 

c. Recognition of Different Statutory Objectives. Each of the federal statutes governing 

protection of the environment (e.g., RCRA, the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act) 

has provisions for state implementation of certain provisions and for federal oversight. The 

objectives of and authorities granted by each statute differ. As such, it should be recognized 

that federal and state authorities and implementation approaches may differ. 

d. Recognition of Regional Diversity. As discussed in the Report to Congress and the 

legislative history of the Safe Drinking Water Act, variable approaches to the management 

of E&P wastes are necessary. These variable approaches are partly a result of the varying 

geologic, hydrologic or historic conditions in different states and in different areas within a 

state, the diverse characteristics of oil and gas activities, and differences in state government 

structures among the producing states. Guidelines or criteria, whether issued by a federal 

agency such as EPA or as advocated by the IOCC, should be sufficiently flexible to permit 

states to take into account these varying conditions. 

e. Baseline of Performance. The criteria developed by the Council should be used by any 

federal or state agency that is responsible for any portion of the E&P waste management 

program. These criteria should serve as a baseline of performance by which the 

effectiveness of programs can be judged. 

The criteria provide states flexibility to address unique conditions while accomplishing the 

goals set forth in Section 3. The criteria and the process by which they may be 

implemented by the states Is similar in concept to Section 1425 UIC programs under the 

Safe Drinking Water Act In these programs, state underground injection control programs 

demonstrate adherence to the goal of protecting underground sources of drinking water, 

rather than adherence to a detailed checklist of quantitative standards. The baseline 

contained in this report can be used in a similar fashion by EPA, Congress and others who 

may evaluate E&P waste management programs such as in the state program review 

process described below. 

f. State Responsibility for Enforcement Enforcement is a critical component of a state E&P 

waste management program. Federal government involvement should occur only if the state 

agency fails to enforce the requirements or requests federal assistance. 

19 
P.23 

State Program Review Process. The IOCC should initiate a state program review process 

that would provide states with an independent evaluation of their E&P waste management 

programs using criteria developed by the Council. An advisory panel to develop the review 

process should Include representatives of state oil and gas and environmental agencies, 

federal agencies, industry and the public. The review process would also increase the 

knowledge of participating states as to the content and operation of other state E&P waste 

management programs. 

Resolving Conflicts/Building Consensus. Where there are unresolved national Issues or 

concerns regarding E&P waste management a task force should be created which is similar 

in makeup and form to that established for the EPA's Office of Drinking Water Mid-Course 

Evaluation of Class II UIC programs. The creation of this task force would bring 

knowledgeable federal and state regulators together to discuss issues, to ascertain whether 

problems associated with these issues are real or perceived, and to decide how best to 

address the issues. This process should be based on the best available information and 

could be initiated by either the federal government or the states. 

Effective Multi-Aoencv Coordination. Coordination among the state agencies is addressed 

in more detail in another section of the Council's report. However, each state should 

recognize that coordination between various agencies is necessary for building and 

maintaining trust between the state agencies and the federal agency that has oversight 

responsibilities. 

Technical and Rnancial Assistance. The federal government should provide technical and 

financial assistance to states to improve the design, implementation and enforcement of 

state E&P waste management programs. Such assistance may be in the areas of training, 

enforcement and data management Federal oversight of a state E&P waste management 

program could be a condition of such assistance. 

20 
P.24 

SECTION 5 

TECHNICAL CRITERIA 

5.1 General 

These technical criteria for E&P waste management practices address pits, land applications, centralized 

and commercial facilities. In most cases, these criteria are general in scope. The states are encouraged 

to establish and implement specific performance standards and design specifications based on sitespecific or regional differences in geology, hydrology, climate and waste characteristics. State E&P waste 

management programs should include the following general provisions as requirements: 

a. Facilities and sites used for the storage or disposal of wastes derived from the exploration and 

production of oil and natural gas should be operated and managed at all times to prevent 

contamination of ground and surface water, soil and air, protect public health, safety and the 

environment, and prevent property damage. 

b. Facilities and sites operated for the storage or disposal of E&P wastes should not receive, collect, 

store or dispose of any wastes that are listed or defined as hazardous wastes and regulated under 

Subtitle C of RCRA, except in accordance with state and federal hazardous waste laws and 

regulations. 

c. Technical criteria for siting, construction and operation of E&P waste disposal facilities should be 

flexible enough to address site-specific or regional conditions, based on findings by the regulatory 

agency. 

d. Disposal of drilling muds and drilling fluids into municipal waste landfills should not be considered 

when better disposal options are available. However, drilling muds and drilling fluids with no free 

liquids that are not mixed with any other wastes may be disposed of in municipal waste landfills only 

when such landfills are designed to contain such wastes. Low volume E&P wastes, such as oily rags 

and drained filters, and any other E&P wastes that are similar in composition to routine municipal solid 

waste streams may be disposed of in municipal solid waste landfills. 

e. As in any aspect of waste management, there are some general, sound practices that should be 

employed. These practices, which include waste minimization, not only serve to protect human health 

and the environment but also tend to protect waste generators from long-term liabilities associated 

with waste disposal. As a rule-of-thumb, the choice of a waste management option should be based 

upon the following hierarchy of preference: 

i. Source Reduction - reduce the quantity and/or toxicity of waste generated; 

il. Recycling - reuse or reclaim as much of the waste generated as possible, and whenever possible, 

hydrocarbons should be combined with crude oil, condensate or natural gas liquids; 

HI. Treatment - employ techniques to reduce the volume or the relative toxicity of waste that has 

been unavoidably generated; 

iv. Proper Disposal - dispose of remaining wastes in ways that minimize adverse impacts to the 

environment and that protect human health. 

f. Nothing in these criteria mandates onsite testing for every hazardous constituent that may be present 

in E&P wastes. Rather, these criteria call for appropriate onsite testing of E&P wastes prior to disposal 

21 
P.25 

for such characteristics as organic content, pH, salinity, hydrogen sulfide content, and ignitability—the 

chemical characteristics that are thought to be of primary concern in E&P wastes. The Council 

recognizes, however, that waste management practices, and regulatory requirements, would be 

improved by obtaining a more complete knowledge through testing and analysis of the range of 

hazardous and toxic constituents in E&P wastes. 

5.2 Quantitative Elements 

Specific quantitative guidelines have been included for some waste management practices. The numbers 

cited are considered to be conservative values for protection of human health and the environment. 

However, they are not intended to be the basis for nationwide standards. Regulatory agencies may 

approve either less stringent or more stringent requirements where circumstances warrant as long as they 

afford the protection described in Section 5.1.a and in the goals statement of Section 3.2. 

5.3 Technical Criteria for Pits 

5.3.1 Definitions 

a. Reserve Pits 

Pits used (a) to store additional drilling fluids for use in drilling operations, and/or (b) to dispose 

of wastes generated by drilling operations and initial completion procedures. 

b. Production Pits 

I. Skimming/Settling-pits used to provide retention time for settling of solids and separation 

of residual oil. 

a* 

ii. Produced Water-pits used for storage of produced water prior to injection or offsite 

transport. 

ill. Percolation-pits used to dispose of waste liquids via drainage or seepage through the 

bottom and/or sides of the pits into surrounding soils. 

iv. Evaporation-lined pits used to contain produced waters which evaporate!into the 

atmosphere by natural thermal forces. 

c. Special Purpose Pits 

i. Blowdown-pits used for collecting material resulting from the emptying or depressurizatlon 

of wells or vessels. 

ii. Flare Pits-pits used exclusively for flaring gas. 

iii. Emergency-pits used to contain liquids on a temporary basis due to process upset 

conditions. 

iv. Basic Sediment-lined pits used for temporary storage of production wastes from tank 

batteries or production vessels which may contain residual oil. 

v. Workover-pits used to contain liquids during the performance of remedial operations on 

a producing well in an effort to increase production. 

22 
P.26 

5.3.2 Permitting 

a. A permitting or review process should be in place for all pits. Pits may be authorized by rule, 

general permit, individual permit, or as part of an operational permit or program. 

b. Pits may be permitted by rule based upon specific requirements in areas where geologic, 

topographical, hydrological or other conditions are similar. 

c. Authorization for a pit may be included in operational, facility or other environmental permits 

(e.g., drilling, workover, gas plant NPDES discharge). The permit application process may have 

to be expanded to include certain additional information concerning the pit (i.e., intake volume, 

soil type, fluid makeup, topography, geology, hydrology, climatology, and such other factors 

as may be necessary to protect human health and the environment). 

d. Construction and use of rule authorized pits should require prior notification of the appropriate 

regulatory agency to ensure that proper construction, operation and closure methods are used 

to protect human health and the environment. 

e. State programs should include provisions to accommodate approval of pits for emergency 

situations. 

5.3.3 Siting 

General siting guidelines or restrictions should be included in area or state-wide regulations to 

address issues such as: fluid makeup, depth to and quality of groundwater, wetlands', flood plains, 

surface contour, and proximity to drinking water supplies and wells, surface water, residential or 

commercial buildings, geologic hazards, or other environmentally sensitive areas. 

5.3.4 Construction 

General standards for construction of pits should be included in area or state-wide regulations and 

should address the following items: 

a. Size should be sufficient to ensure adequate storage until closure taking into account historical 

precipitation patterns. 

b. Depth should be such that the bottom does not penetrate groundwater or such that the pit 

contents do not adversely impact groundwater or surface water. A review of available 

information or a study should be made of the area where the pit is to be located to determine 

if shallow aquifers are present and should be protected. 

c. Berm height, slope and material should be such that the pit is structurally sound, and that pit 

integrity is not compromised by terrain or breached by heavy rains, winds, seepage or other 

natural forces. 

d. If a salt section is anticipated, or oil base muds are used during a drilling program, reserve pits 

should be designed to accommodate those fluids. 

e. Tanks or liners should be required in certain instances based on type of fluid and site-specific 

characteristics (e.g., unconsolidated soils and/or hydrogeologic conditions that create a 

potential for adverse impact to surface water or groundwater, and proximity to environmentally 

sensitive areas). Liners can be natural or constructed of natural or synthetic materials, provided 

23 
P.27 

that they are installed according to accepted engineering practices and are compatible with 

expected pit contents. 

f. Fencing, flagging and caging requirements should be set by area or state-wide regulations as 

may be necessary to protect the public, domestic animals, wildlife and waterfowl. 

g. Where feasible, reserve pits should be placed to directly receive the discharge from solids 

separation equipment and to collect rigwash water, spills, and leaks from drilling equipment. 

h. Unlined skimming/settling pits can be used in areas where groundwater either is not present 

or is unusable or is naturally protected from the threat of contamination. 

5.3.5 Operational Requirements 

a. Specific restrictions on the type of wastes that can be placed in the different types of pits should 

be included in area or state-wide regulations. Restrictions should consider salinity, hydrocarbon 

content pH, or other characteristics which may be detrimental to the environment. 

b. General security guidelines should protect the public, the environment, and wildlife. 

c. Liquids should be maintained at a freeboard level determined by the state that takes into 

account extreme precipitation events or other possibilities and prevents overtopping or 

unpermitted discharges. 

d. Lined pits should be operated in a manner that ensures liner integrity. 

e. Inspections should be conducted at regular intervals or as needed by operators to ensure pits 

meet all operating and structural integrity requirements. 

f. Hydrocarbons which inadvertently accumulate in an unlined reserved pit should be skimmed 

off the pit at the cessation of drilling and completion operations. 

g. Separated oil or accumulated wastes should be periodically removed from unlined 

skimming/settling pits. 

h. Produced water pits should be used only for storage of produced water prior to injection or 

offsite transport 

i. Percolation pits should be used only for disposal of produced waters and only when area or 

state-wide restrictions established under Section 5.3.5.a. above are met 

j . Evaporation pits should be periodically inspected for compliance with permitted input volumes 

and liner integrity. Evaporation pits should be skimmed as necessary to maintain an optimum 

evaporation rate. 

k. Blowdown, flare, and emergency pits should not be used for long-term storage or disposal. 

Ruids diverted to emergency pits should be removed as quickly as practical and the regulatory 

agency notified promptly of the use of those pits. 

I. Unlined basic sediment pits should not be used for storage of oily wastes; they should be 

replaced by lined pits or tanks. 

24 
P.28 

m. Workover pits should be open only for the duration of workover operations and should be 

closed within 120 days after workover operations are complete. 

5.3.6 Closure 

a. Pits should be closed in accordance with local, state and federal regulations, arid if on private 

property, consistent with lease obligations. 

b. Reserve pits should be closed as soon as practical or within 12 months after cessation of 

drilling operations. 

c Pit liquids should have free oil removed and when appropriate should be sampled prior to 

closure for salinity, hydrocarbon content, pH, or other characteristics which may be detrimental 

to the environment Onsite disposal of pit contents should be conducted in accordance with 

the Iandspreading, burial and landfiiling criteria of Sections 5.4 and 5.5, or by NPDES or UIC 

permit. 

d. Liquid and nonliquid materials not satisfying the onsite criteria for Iandspreading or burial 

(Sections 5.4 and 5.5) must be disposed in federal or state approved disposal facilities. 

e. Pit sites should be capped, compacted, contoured and vegetated where necessary and in 

accordance with applicable state or area regulations to ensure ground support stability and to 

prevent erosion. 

f. Records should be kept at the regulatory agency of all pit locations and should be available to 

the public for inspection and copying. 

5.4 Technical Criteria for Landspreading 

5.4.1 Definition and Applicability 

a. Landspreading is a method of treatment and disposal of low toxicity wastes in which the wastes 

are spread upon, and sometimes mixed into, soils to promote reduction of organic constituents 

and the dilution and attenuation of metals. Landfarming or multiple applications are covered 

under Section 5.7. 

b. These criteria apply to waste disposal at or near E&P locations and do not apply to commercial 

disposal operations. Commercial facilities used for disposal of E&P wastes are covered In 

Section 5.7r 

5.4.2 Regulatory Requirements 

When iandspreading practices are used at E&P sites, they should be conducted consistent with 

lease and landowner obligations and local, state and federal regulations. General standards for 

landspreading should be included In area or state regulations and should address the operational 

requirements of Section 5.4.3. 

i 

5.4.3 Operational Requirements 

a. Free oil should be removed from the wastes by mechanical means such as skimming or 

filtration before the wastes are landspread. 

25 
P.29 

b. Landspread liquids should have a pH of 6-10. Where needed, liquids should be neutralized to 

obtain this range. 

c Solid wastes should be spread evenly and disked into the soil. 

d. Liquids should be applied at a rate that will not result in pooling, ponding or runoff. 

e. Where enhancement of biodegradation is desired, nitrogen and other nutrients should be added 

to the soil before disking. Nutrient application can be repeated over time. 

f. Amounts of waste added to soil during landspreading are generally limited by the electrical 

conductivity (EC), exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP), and sodium adsorption ratio (SAR). 

The state should determine its criteria based on site-specific and waste-specific conditions. For 

example some plants tolerate higher or lower salt levels, higher rainfall areas encourage salt 

movement out of the root-zone, or shallow groundwater may severely limit application. 

g. After landspreading of hydrocarbon containing waste, the waste-soil mixture should not exceed 

one percent by weight oil and grease. 

h. Salt- and hydrocarbon-loading criteria apply to the final waste-soil mixture and are not an 

application standard. The operator should be required to demonstrate that these criteria are 

met within 12 months of cessation of drilling or production. If these criteria are not met, 

remediation will be required. Nothing in this paragraph shall delay any requirement for erosion 

control and/or site reclamation or revegetatioa 

I. Soil analyses should be performed prior to landspreading and again upon closure of the site. 

j . Enhanced techniques such as repetitive disking and nutrient addition may be needed to meet 

the salt and hydrocarbon criteria of the final waste-soil mixture. 

k. Under special or abnormal conditions, additional limitations and analysis requirements should 

be considered for wastes that may contain toxic constituents derived from formation liquids, 

cuttings drilling muds, or drilling-mud activities. Records should be maintained of all waste 

analyses. 

5.5 Technical Criteria for Burial and Landfilling 

5.5.1 Definitions 

a. Burial of wastes involves placing the wastes in an excavation and covering the wastes with a 

layer of soil. 

b. Landfilling of wastes involves placing the wastes on the ground and covering them with a layer 

of soO. 

1A study prepared for the American Petroleum Institute determined safe limits for agricultural purposes as 

follows: EC less than 4 mmhos/cm, ESP less tiian 15, and SAR less than 12. Uoyd E. Deuel, Jr., Ph.D., 

'Evaluation of Limiting Constituents Suggested for Land Disposal of Exploration and Production Wastes' (March 

1990). 

26 
P.30 

c These criteria apply to waste disposal at or near E&P sites and do not apply to commercial 

disposal facilities. Criteria for commercial disposal facilities are contained in Section 5.7. 

5.5.2 Regulatory Requirements 

When burial or landfilling is used at E&P sites, either should be conducted consistent with lease 

and landowner obligations and with local, state and federal regulations. General standards for 

burial or landfilling should be included in area or state regulations and should address the 

operational requirements in Section 5.5.3. 

5.5.3 Operational Requirements 

a. Wastes or waste-soil mixtures may be buried or landfilled without a protective bottom liner only 

when they meet the landspreading criteria of Section 5.4 prior to burial. The contents of such 

waste or waste-soP mixtures should be limited to materials such as fresh water based drilling 

muds, drill cuttings, spent iron sponge, pipe scale with low levels of naturally occurring 

radioactive materials (NORM), gas plant catalyst or molecular sieve. Closure should be 

consistent with Section 5.3.6.a and 5.3.6. e. 

b. A protective bottom liner, solidification, fixation or encapsulation method should be required for 

burial or landfilling of wastes whose salt and/or hydrocarbon content exceeds the 

landspreading criteria of Section 5.4.3. The regulatory agency may grant a variance from this 

requirement for fields or portions of fields, upon a showing by the operator that groundwater 

either is not present beneath the waste site or is naturally protected from the threat of 

contamination. 

c. Agency records should be permanently maintained for any required analytical data taken, sites 

used and types and quantities of waste disposed. Site locations should be located on plat 

maps. 

5.6 Technical Criteria for Roadspreading 

5.6.1 Definition 

Roadspreading is the placement on roads of wastes that exhibit properties similar to commercial 

road oils, mixes, dust suppressants or road compaction brines. 

5.6.2 Regulatory Requirements 

When roadspreading is used, it should be conducted consistent with lease and landowner 

obligations and local, state, and federal regulations. General standards for roadspreading should 

be included in area or state regulations and address the operational requirements in Section 5.6.3. 

5.6.3 Operational Requirements 

a. Exempt wastes such as tank bottom, emulsions, heavy hydrocarbons and crude oilcontaminated soil may be used for road oil, road mix, or asphalt if they are not ignitable (40 

CFR §261.21) and have a mixed density and metal content consistent with approved road oils 

or mixes. 

27 
P.31 

b. Hydrocarbon wastes or produced waters should be applied at loading rates that prevent pooling 

and surface runoff. Appropriate buffer zones should be established to protect waters of the 

state arid water wells. 

c. The produced water should be tested and should exhibit properties similar to commercial 

roadspreading products that are regulated by states or local agencies. 

5.7 Technical Criteria for Commercial and Centralized Disposal Facilities 

5.7.1 Definitions and Exemptions 

a. Commercial Disposal Facility - a facility whose owner(s) or operator(s) receives compensation 

from others for the temporary storage, treatment, and disposal of produced water, drilling fluids, 

drilling cuttings, completion fluids, and any other exempt E&P waste, and whose primary 

business objective is to provide these services. 

b. Centralized Disposal Facility - a facility, other than a commercial disposal facility, that is (1) 

used exclusively by one owner or operator, or (2) used by more than one operator under an 

operating agreement, and which receives for collection, treatment, temporary storage, or 

disposal of produced water, drilling fluids, drill cuttings, completion fluids and any other exempt 

E&P wastes that are generated from two or more production units or areas or from a set of 

commonly owned or operated leases. This definition covers the storage and disposal facilities 

(i.e., lined or unlined pits or ponds, and below grade or underground tanks) that are present at 

Class II disposal well sites. 

c. Exemptions - The definitions and technical criteria of Section 5.7 shall not apply to Class II 

produced water injection wells and to welts used in enhanced oil recovery or "waterflood" 

projects, or to the above-ground storage tanks at Class II injection well sites, waterflood project 

sites, and produced water gathering sites, where E&P wastes are stored temporarily prior to 

disposal. The definitions and technical criteria of Section 5.7 are not intended to apply to 

emergency cleanup situations at a Class II injection facility. The regulatory agency may adjust 

or exempt from the standards and requirements of this section centralized facilities that receive 

a limited number of substantially similar waste streams and limited volumes of wastes. 

5.7.2 Technical Standards and Regulatory Requirements 

Commercial and centralized offsite disposal facilities should meet the technical and regulatory 

requirements of this section and the general standards of Section 5.1 of these criteria. Compliance 

with these requirements should be demonstrated in the permit application required in subsection 

5.7.2.1.a. Recognizing that commercial disposal facilities use advanced methods of treatment and 

disposal of wastes, the regulatory agency is encouraged to establish numerical requirements for 

the design of pond liners and leachate collection systems, for landfarming operations (i.e., repeated 

land applications), and for waste-oil reprocessing. The requirements of this section are intended 

to furnish the/egirlatory agency with sufficient and meaningful information such that permitting 

decisions will lead to no environmental or public health impact once the facility has commenced 

operations and following its closure. 

The regulatory agency may adjust or exempt from these requirements for centralized facilities that 

receive a limited number of substantially similar waste streams and limited volumes of waste, such 

as the consolidated produced water disposal facilities in a large multi-operator field. Administrative 

criteria for centralized facilities also may be less extensive than those for commercial facilities. 

28 
P.32 

5.7.2.1 Regulatory Agency Responsibilities in Permitting 

a. Permits. The regulatory agency should authorize off-site commercial and centralized disposal 

facilities for E&P wastes by permit. A permit should be in force for a finite period, to be 

determined by the agency. The agency should use the data and information required by the 

technical standards of this section to approve or deny applications for permits, to ensure 

compliance with permit conditions, to order corrective actions in order to prevent or abate 

violations of the standards, or for any other purpose deemed necessary by the agency. 

b. Acceptable Wastes. The agency should prescribe the range of E&P wastes which can be 

disposed at commercial and centralized facilities and at municipal waste landfills. 

c. Waste Characteristics and Disposal. The agency should identify the chemical characteristics 

of wastes likely to be disposed at commercial and centralized facilities on the basis of published 

scientific data and on knowledge about regional or site-specific waste characteristics. This 

information should be used by the agency to match a given disposal apparatus (e.g., a lined 

evaporation pond with a leak detection system) with a particular waste stream. The agency 

should prescribe these waste disposal facilities and waste stream relationships by rule or in the 

permitting process and ensure that operators of commercial or centralized facilities comply with 

them. For sampling and testing, refer to Section 5.7.2.2.c.v. and vi. 

5.7.2.2 Permitting Requirements 

a. Any new or existing commercial or centralized facility must obtain a permit from the regulatory 

agency to commence operation or to continue to operate. A permit should be issued only upon 

compliance with the general requirements of Section 5.1 and the technical requirements of this 

section and upon submittal and approval of an application that contains a Siting Plan, 

Construction Plan, Operating Plan, and Closure Plan. Operation of a facility should comply with 

the terms and conditions of the permit. 

The regulatory agency may tailor the technical requirements for all existing facilities and for 

centralized disposal facilities to the conditions present at the locations of such facilities. In the 

case of centralized facilities, the regulatory agency may adjust the requirements of 5.7.2.2a, b, 

and c in light of the volume and characteristics of wastes received by the facility. 

b. Siting Plan. The specific site for a commercial facility, or to the extent possible the site for a 

centralized facility, should have natural features (such as isolation from or considerable depths 

to groundwater, protection against flooding, presence of low-permeability soils arid rocks, and 

topography conducive to protection against wind erosion) that prevent or minimize release of 

pollutants to offsite waters, lands and air. Additional safeguards may be required by the 

regulatory agency for centralized facilities that are located on sites that do not exhibit natural 

protective features. An application for a permit to site a commercial or centralized facility 

should contain the following information: 

I. Names, addresses and telephone numbers of owners and the operators of the facility, 

the owner(s) or occupant(s) of properties within close proximity of the site, or any nearby 

person who may reasonably be adversely affected by release from the site; 

ii. Topographic map showing the location of the site and any highways or roads that abut 

or traverse through the site, and that depict all water courses, water wells, and dwellings 

located within one mile of the site; 

29 
P.33 

iii. Geologic, hydrologic, engineering, chemical and any other data or information that 

demonstrate disposal of wastes and operation of the facility will not contaminate fresh 

water, the surrounding soils or air, endanger public health, safety or the environment, or 

cause property damage; 

iv. Average annual precipitation and evaporation rate at disposal site; 

v. Proximity of disposal facilities to surface water courses (priority in net-precipitation 

climates); 

vi. Nature and permeability of vadose zone; description of the subsurface strata, 

identification of and areal extent of underlying aquifer(s), and depth to groundwater; 

direction of groundwater movement; data on water quality of nearby surface waters and 

underlying aquifer(s) prior to commencement of operations; and points of past or current 

use of surface water or groundwater; 

vii. Proof that all public notice requirements have been met; and 

viii. Certification by an authorized representative of the applicant that information submitted 

in the application is true, accurate and complete to the best of the applicant's knowledge. 

c. Construction Plan. In general, commercial and centralized disposal facilities should be 

constructed to prevent or minimize releases of wastes or waste byproducts to surface water, 

groundwater, soils and. air. For commercial facilities, detailed engineering drawings and 

diagrams of engineered disposal facilities should be required; for centralized, or one-owner 

facilities, such extensive construction details may not be needed. Construction should follow 

guidelines and rules adopted by the regulatory agency. 

d. Operating Plan. Applications for permits for existing or new facilities should be accompanied 

by an Operating Plan that describes the wastes that will be accepted at the facility and the 

methods by which those wastes will be managed and disposed. The Operating Plan should 

contain the following information: 

I. Volume, rate and type of material to be disposed at the facilities and the facilities that 

will be used to dispose of each waste stream (i.e., unlined or lined pits, above- or belowgrade tanks, etc.); 

ii. Contingency plan for reporting, responding to and cleaning up spills, leaks and releases 

of wastes or waste byproducts, including provisions for notifying emergency response 

authorities and for taking operator-initiated emergency response actions; 

ill. Plan for routine inspection, maintenance, and monitoring to ensure and demonstrate 

compliance with permit requirements; 

iv. Specific engineering plans for preventing or minimizing the generation and emission of 

hydrogen sulfide gas; 

v. A plan, including consideration of on-site sampling and testing, to assure that RCRA 

Subtitle C or other prohibited wastes are not disposed of at the facility. 

vl. Centralized and commercial waste disposal facilities must submit a plan to characterize 

wastes received for disposal. Larger facilities may require more testing requirements. 

30 
P.34 

Waste characterization requirements for small centralized facilities may be more limited 

than far large facilities, based on the limited types and volumes of wastes received. At 

a minimum, waste characterization must consist of testing for organics, pH, salinity, 

hydrogen sulfide content, and ignitability. States should determine additional minimum 

testing criteria applicable to their regions. Testing for organics must be appropriate for 

the type of waste, method of disposal, and the potential for health and environmental 

hazards posed by that situation. 

vii. Plan for periodic removal and subsequent handling of free oil; and 

viii. Security plan for the facility. 

Closure Plan. Applications for permits for existing or new facilities should be accompanied by 

a Closure Plan that describes the methods to be used to reclaim the facility following the 

cessation of operations. Closure shall comply with the general requirements of Section 5.1 and 

the burial requirements of Section 5.5 of these criteria, and with any other requirements 

established by the regulatory agency. The plan should include a closure schedule, a cost 

estimate for reclamation and a schedule for authorized financial assurance instrument. The cost 

estimate and authorized financial assurance instrument schedule shall be used to establish a 

financial surety level for the facility prior to permit approval. 

5.7.2.3 Waste Tracking Requirements 

To assure that only wastes derived from the exploration and production of oil or natural gas are 

disposed of at commercial or centralized facilities, a waste tracking system that documents the 

movement of wastes from the site of their origin to their final disposition should be implemented. 

The following elements should be included in the waste tracking system: 

a. Three-Part Form Required. A three-part form that contains the names, addresses and phone 

numbers of the generator (producer), hauler, and disposal facility operator, a description of the 

waste; the time and date it was collected, hauled and deposited at the disposal facility; and the 

volume of the waste hauled. 

b. Maintenance of the Form. The form should be maintained by the generator (producer), hauler 

and operator of the disposal facility for inspection by the regulatory agency. The forms should 

be maintained for a period of three years after the shipment date. 

c. Attest to No Illegal Dumping. The hauler and the operator of the disposal facility should certify 

in writing on the three-part form that no wastes were dumped illegally or at a location or facility 

not designated by the generator or permitted to receive exempt E&P waste, and that no 

prohibited oil-field or hazardous wastes were mixed with the exempt wastes during transport 

d. Reporting pf Discrepancies. The operator of the disposal facility shall immediately report to the 

regulatory agency and the generator any discrepancy in waste descriptions, volumes or place 

of origin based on personal observations or information contained in the three-part form. 

e. Permitting of Waste Haulers. Waste hauling companies should be permitted by the regulatory 

agency based on a showing of minimum knowledge about the regulatory requirements for 

disposition of E&P wastes transported from their point of generation to their final disposal site. 

The regulatory agency may issue permits to individual waste haulers or to waste hauling firms. 

31 
P.35 

5.7.2.4 

tTMn^ aS

8

J

raC | ! ingr ^lJirement s d 0 no t aPP"y t 0

 ^aste*

 moved by pipeline. Operators who transport wastes by pipeline should periodically report waste quantities to the regS^genc y 

32 
P.36 

SECTION 6 

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK 

1. The Council encourages industry, individual states and federal government to increase their efforts to 

characterize chemical constituents and naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM) of exploration and 

production wastes. 

2. The Council encourages research by industry, the federal government, state-affiliated academic institutions, 

and public-interest groups into effective ways of minimizing and reusing wastes generated in the nation's oil 

and gas fields. 

3. The Council recognizes that contamination problems exist from the use of past management practices and 

from violation of regulations and laws. As such, it recommends that IOCC, EPA, states, the regulated 

industry and the public work together to evaluate and recommend remediation approaches. 

4. The Council recommends that IOCC review and act upon EPA's recommendations that may result from the 

agency's mid-course review of state UIC programs. IOCC should incorporate in these technical criteria any 

changes that may be needed to address problems or improvements in state-administered UIC programs. 

5. The Council encourages the state and federal governments to examine the benefits and economic and 

energy impacts of changes in E&P waste managements requirements. 

6. The Council encourages EPA to work with all interested parties in the development of any regulations on 

guidance that affect E&P activities. 

33 
P.37 

SECTION 7 

REFERENCES 

Interstate Oil Compact Commission, 1989. "Proposal for EPA/IOCC Review of State Regulations for Wastes 

Generated by Exploration and Production of Oil and Gas." IOCC (Oklahoma City, OK), page 1. (EPA 

Contract No. T901749-01). 

Sylvia Lowrance, 1989. Memorandum dated June 9: "Draft Report on Waste Management Practices on 

Alaska's North Slope - Draft for Public Comment" EPA Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

(Washington, D.C), page 1. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1987. Report to Congress: "Management of Wastes from the 

Exploration, Development, and Production of Crude Oil, Natural Gas, and Geothermal Energy." EPA Office 

of Solid Waste and Emergency Response (Washington, D.C), December 31. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1988. "Regulatory Determination for Oil and Gas and Geothermal 

Exploration, Development and Production Wastes." 53 Federal Register, pages 25446-25459, July 6. 

Mid-Course Evaluation 

API Environmental Guidance Document, 1989. "Onshore Solid Waste Management in Exploration and 

Production Operations." American Petroleum Institute, 1220 L Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 

Interstate Oil & Gas Commission, 1989. Summary of State Statutes and Regulations for Oil & Gas 

Production. June 1989. 

Uoyd E. Deuel, Jr., Ph.D., "Evaluation of U'miting Constituents Suggested for Land Disposal of Exploration 

and Production Wastes", March 1990. 

34 
P.38 

Request by Waste Crude Oil Reclaimers 

September 18, 1990 

Page -37-

1. The Regulatory Determination is properly considered a determination under 

42 U.S.C. §6982(M) as a determination of whether to regulate oil and gas. 

exploration and production wastes. The listing of exempt and nonexempt 

oilfield activities was simply a guidance, and not in accordance with formal rulemaking requirements. 

2. Section 6982(M) directs the Administrator to conduct a detailed and comprehensive study and submit a report on the adverse effects, if any, of 

drilling fluids, produced waters, and other wastes associated with the exploration, development, or production of crude oil or natural gas or 

geothermal energy on human health and the environment, including, but not 

limited to, the effects of such wastes on humans, water, air, health, welfare, and natural resources and on the adequacy of means and measures currently employed by the oil and gas and geothermal drilling and production 

industry, Government agencies, and others to dispose of and utilize such 

wastes and to prevent or substantially mitigate such adverse effects. 

Such study shall include an analysis of --

(A) the sources and volumes of discarded material generated per year 

from such wastes; 

(B) present disposal practices; 

(C) potential danger to human health and the environment from the surface runoff or leachate; 

(D) document cases which prove or have caused danger to human health and 

the environment from surface runoff or leachate; 

(E) alternatives to current disposal methods; 

(F) the cost of such alternatives; and 

(G) '"""the impact of those alternatives on the exploration for, and development: and production of, crude oil and natural gas or geothermal energy. 

3. This is the listing upon which primary focus is placed. By review of 

the earlier references to the Report to Congress, it is observed that anything upstream of delivery for transport to a refiner is a primary field 

operation. 

4. Obviously, the origin of the storage facility or separator would have 

to be upstream of the manifesting for transport to a refinery. 

5. The "certain circumstances" included those E&P wastes which presented 

what EPA thought to be a higher degree of wastes. Among' these were waste 
P.39 

Request by Waste Crude Oil Reclaimers 

September 18, 1990 

Page -38-

crude oil. Indeed, even in its earliest study of the problem, EPA observed that the high volume of materials was a significant reason for the 

exemption. 43 F.R. 58946 (Dec. 18, 1978). 

-s •