Disposal of Liquid Wastes by 

lniection UndergroundNeither Myth nor Millennium 

Disposal of Liquid Wastes by 

lniection UndergroundNeither Myth nor Millennium 

By Arthur M. Piper 

GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CIRCULAR 631 

Wcr~hington J 969 
United States Department of the Interior 

WALTER J. HICKEL, Secretary 

Geological Survey 

William T. Pecora, Director 

,,... on application to the U.S. Geological Su'"y, Wcultington, D.C. 20242 
CONTENTS 

Abstract - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - General perspective - - - - - - - - - - -

The Rocky Mountain Arsenal well - - - - - - - - -

Hydrologic features - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The earthquake swarm - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Status of knowledge and steps to be taken- - - - - - - - - -

Categories of waste - - - - - - - - - - - -

Chemical and physical aspects - - - - - - - - -

Background- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Raw wastes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Compatibility and interaction- - - - - - - - -

Pretreatment of wastes - - - - - - - - -

Canvass of injection provinces - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Zones of circulation - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Zone of rapid circulation - - - - - - -

Zone of delayed circulation- - - - - - - - - - - -

Subzone of lethargic flow- - - - - - -

Stagnant subzones - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dry subzones - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hydrodynamics; potentiometric levels and gradients- - - -

Hydrofractures; safe injection pressure - - - - - - - - -

Geochemical aspects - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Legislative and institutional considerations- - - - - - - - - - -

Selected references - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

III 

Page 

1 

1 

3 

3 

4 

5 

5 

6 

6 

6 

7 

7 

7 

8 

8 

8 

8 

9 

9 

9 

10 

10 

11 

12 

Disposal of liquid Wastes by lniection UndergroundNeither Myth nor Millennium 

By Arthur M. Piper 1 

Paper presented at symposium of the American Institute of Chemical Engineers, November 20, 1969, and published in Chemical Engineer Progress Symposium Series No, 9?, Volume 65, 1969, under the title "Water-1969." 

ABSTRACT 

Injecting liquid wastes deep underground is an attractive but not necessarily practical means for disposing of them. For decades, impressive volumes of 

unwanted oil-field brine have been injected, currently 

about 10,000 acre-feet yearly. Recently, liquid industrial wastes are being injected in ever-increasing 

quantity. Dimensions of industrial injection wells range 

widely but the approximate medians are: depth, 2,660 

feet; thickness of injection zone, 185 feet; injection 

rate, 135 gallons per minute; wellhead injection pressure, 185 pounds per square inch. 

Effects of deep injection are complex and not all 

are understood clearly. In a responsible society, injection cannot be allowed to put wastes out of min d. 

Injection is no more than storage-for all time in the 

case of the most intractable wastes-in underground 

space of which little is attainable in some areas and 

which is exhaustible in most areas. 

Liquid wastes range widely in character and concentration-some are incompatible one with another 

or with materials of the prospective injection zone; 

some which are reactive or chemically unstable would 

require pretreatment or could not be injected. Standards by which to categorize the wastes are urgent 1 y 

desirable. 

To the end that injection may be planned effectively 

and administered in orderly fashion, there is proposed 

an immediate and comprehensive canvass of all the 

United States to outline injection provinces and zones 

according to their capacities to accept waste. Much of 

1 Research geologist, U.S. Geological Survey, 

Carmel, Calif. 

1 

the information needed to this end is at bmd. Such a 

canvass would consider (1) natural zoneE' of groundwater circulation, from rapid to stagnant, (2) regional 

hydrodynamics, (3) safe injection pressures, and (4) 

geochemical aspects. In regard to safe pressure, definitive criteria would be sought by which to avoid recurrence of earthquake swarms such as seem to ·have 

been triggered by injection at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal well near Denver, Colo. 

Three of the 50 States-Missouri,. Ohio, and Texashave statutes specifically to regulate injP-ction of industrial wastes. Other States impose widely diverse 

constraints under unlike administrative authorities.· 

Few, if any, State agencies currently have the staff 

skills, centralized authority, and financial resources 

to assure rights of the general public t":l be spared 

harm from, and to reap the benefit of accrued experience with, deep injection. Some new, full~· competent 

institutional arrangement appears to be essential, under a unified policy. As required, such an institution 

might have en echelon components, respe~tively having nationwide, single State or major province, subprovince, or local jurisdiction. 

GENERAL PERSPECTIVE 

In perpetually increasing amount and e\'er more diverse kind, mankind produces wastes which, in and 

near areas of great population density, dl but overwhelm the land-surface environment. Trust it is increasingly urgent that wastes be managed effectively. 

In this situation, the possibility of injecting liquid 

wastes deep underground becomes attractive. This 

paper undertakes to assess the state of injection art, 

on the basis of published information. 

Generally the earliest, and by far the most extensive, disposal of unwanted liquids deep beneath the 

land surface has been by the petroleum industry, to 

dispose of the brines that are incidental to the extraction of petroleum. The magnitude of sud· disposal is 

impressive-Texas a 1 one has about 20,000 brineinjection wells (Department of Interior, unpub. data, 
1966) and Kansas had issued permits for about 3,000 

such wells as of 1960 (Warner, 1965); the volume of 

brine injected into the ground each year is several 

billion gallons (in the order of 10,000 acre-feet). The 

technical experience with brine injection is covered 

by a voluminous literature, including that of Cleary 

( 1958), Dickey and Andresen ( 1945), Grandone and 

Holleyman ( 1949), Horner ( 1951 ), Hubbert and Willis 

(1957), Joers and Smith (1954), Lynch (1962), Moran 

and Finklea (1962), and Yuster and Calhoun (1945). 

Subsequently, noxious wastes from the chemical industry have been handled in the same manner. Very 

recently-in an effort fostered in part by clamor to 

diminish pollution in streams and lakes, and deriving 

from the experience of the petroleum industry-liquid 

industrial wastes are being injected det~p beneath 

the land surface in ever-increasing quan<:ity. 

No exhaustive, nationwide canvass has been made 

of existing facilities for injecting induf't:rial wastes 

underground. However, a considerable, and probably 

a representative, sample is afforded br the lists of 

Warner (1967) and the Interstate Oil Compact Commission ( 1968). The two lists cover 124 wasteinjection wells (excluding brine-injection wells) in 18 

States; two-thirds of the wells are in t'lree StatesTexas (34 wells), Louisiana (25 wells), and Michigan 

(21 wells). Only three of thelistedwellshad been recognized as failures, and 104 were in operation as of 

January 1968. Data on these representative we 11 s 

summarize as follows: 

Ma:r:imum Minimum Median 

Depth drilled, feet---------------------------------------------

Injection zone: 

12,750 295 2,660 

Depth to top, feet--------------------------------------------

Thickness, feet-----------------------------------------------

Injection rate: 

11,975 

2,099 

1 4,300 

200 2,050 

5 185 

Gross, U.S. gallons per minute--------------------------------

Specific, U.S. gallons per minute per foot of zone thickness--

Injection pressure: 

22.6 

2.0 

.15 135 

.006 1.0 

Wellhead, pounds per square inch------------------------------

At top of injection zone: 

4,000 185 

Pounds per square inch per foot depth 3----------------------

Hydrostatic ratio 4------------------------------------------

2.1 

4.8 

2 . 4 . 5 

21.0 1.2 

1 In two wells, jointly. 2 Pressure is "gravity." Values indicated are valid only so long as injection rate is sufficient that the well casing remains filled to the land surface; at a smaller injection rate, 

wellhead pressure is negative and top-of-zone pressure is less than indicated. 3 Equal numerically to the so-called geostatic ratio--that is, the ratio of fluid pressure 

to overburden pressure. Ordinarily, overburden (lithostatic or geostatic) pressur,~ is presumed to increase l pound per square inch per foot of depth--that is, the bulk density of the 

rock and any contained fluid is presumed to be 2.3, average. 4 The ratio of fluid pressure to the pressure exerted by a column of fresh water extending 

to land surface. 

In its predilection for grossly oversimplifying a problem, and seeking to resolve all variants by a single 

massive attack, the United States appears to verge on 

accepting deep injection of wastes as a certain cure 

for all the ills of water pollution. Uncritical acceptance would be ill advised. It is fostered by a technical 

and commercial literature which, to a distressing degree, describes capabilities of injection in terms so 

highly generalized as to be all but meaningless in relation to a specific waste in a particular environment. 

In part the assessments are projected from misleading or false premises. An instructive example of a misleading premise is quoted below from a commercial 

source; t h·e same premise appears also in current 

technical literature. 

"The amount of fluid that can be displaced into a disposal zone with broad areal distribution is staggering 

when standard reservoir formulas are applied. As an 

exam pIe, a disposal zone one hundred feet in thickness with a porosity of 20 percent will hold over 

2 

13,000,000,000 gallons of fluid within on~ mile of the 

borehole of a disposal well. Some disposal zones known 

to underlie several States constitute a veritable ocean 

of space available for waste disposal." 

The preceding quotation would imply that total pore 

space of an injection- zone is" available" to be filled 

by liquid waste. However, in the great majority of such 

potential injection zones, pore space is filled naturally 

with brine or another fluid which is, or at least is assumed to be, unusable. Extracting unusable native fluid 

in a volume equal to that of injectable waste clearly 

could do no more than relocate a disposal problem. 

In effect, therefore, within the so-called area of influence of an injection well the volume of waste that 

can be injected is limited to that achieved by com pres-. 

sion of the native fluid and of the injected waste, by 

compression of the rock matrix of the irjection zone, 

and by dilation (upward elongation) of that zone-all 

under a practicable and acceptable injection pressure. 
So limited, volume of waste injectable is much less 

than gross pore space within the area of influencecommonly by at least two orders of magnitude-that 

is, at least 100-fold less. 

Involved here is a seeming par ado x. In m::>st instances, the injected liquid waste would invade the zone 

very largely by displacing the native interstitial liquid, 

with relatively little dispersion of the one liquid into 

the other. (In regard to little dispersion, see Esmail 

and Kimbler, 1967.) Thus, the zonal volume invaded 

would be very nearly the waste volume divided by porosity of the zone, as implied in the preceding quotation. However, if the native interstitial fluid is wholly 

liquid, the displacement is possible only because of, 

and sensibly is compensated by, the elastic effects 

just identified. The same concept applies to multiple 

injection wells which may interfere one with another, 

but which have a composite area of influence within 

which the aggregate displacement compensates. 

The area-of-influence concept just outlined is, at 

best, an approximation that applies only to early and 

close-in effects of injection. More comprehensively, 

injection modifies hydrodynamic gradient and accelerates movement of interstitial liquid away from the 

point, or poirits, of injection. In time, the accelerated 

movement may reach an outcrop. In principle, therefore, injection of waste ultimately may be compensated 

additionally by accelerated discharge of native interstitial fluid at some remote place on the land surface. Here, however, is a dilemma. On the one hand, 

if the discharged fluid is unusable, no advantage would 

have been gained and a necessity for disposal would 

merely have been relocated. On the other hand, if accelerated movement ex~nds into a part of the aquifer 

system that contains fresh water or a usable fluid, 

then ultimately the injected waste must invade the 

fresh-water (or usable-fluid) source. Ordinarily, to 

abet such invasion would seem foolhardy. 

Comprehensive explanation of the hydrodynamics of 

injection is not here practical. Neither would it nullify 

the point already made under the area-of-influence 

concept-namely, the volume of waste that can be injected practically is ordinarily much less than aggregate pore space within the injection zone. 

A second common false premise is that strata deformed into a syncline, or downfold, afford an inviolable hydraulic trap-that waste placed in the bottom 

of a syncline would remain immobile for all tim e. 

Movement of interstitial fluid is, of course, determined not by geologic structure but by hydrodynamic 

gradient. Hydrodynamic gradient may be, and commonly is, virtually independent of geologic structure. 

A third and final misleading premise is that experience in brine injection by the petroleum industry translates, in all aspects, to industrial-waste injection. 

Where the brine is returned to the same stratigraphic 

zone as that from which it had been extracted (along 

with petroleum and gas), such return tends commonly 

to restore, at least partially, the hydrodynamic gradi3 

ent that had been disturbed by the antecedent extraction-in other words, at least partially to restore the 

natural equilibrium. Also, part of the native fluid being gas, which is very compressible, return of brine 

commonly induces relatively little change of hydrodynamic potential. 

In certain petroleum-producing areas, however, 

brine is not returned to the same stratigraphic zone 

but is injected into another salt-water aquifercommonly into the shallowest such aquifer, as in much 

of the Permian basin in Texas and Oklah..,ma (L. A. 

Wood, written commun., 1969). Such injection generally involves an all-liquid system rather than the 

liquid-gas system just summarized. Th€ all-liquid 

system can accept by injection, over the long term, 

much the smaller volume under a particular increment of pressure. In this connection, injec-:ion of oilfield brine under high pressure, into shallow saltwater aquifers in the Brazos River basin .. Texas, is 

reported to have accelerated the seepage of salt water 

into streams on the land surface (L. A. Wo'ld, written 

commun., 1969). 

THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN ARSENAL WELL 

HYDROLOGIC FEATURES 

Complexity and uncertainty of effects that can result 

from deep injection of liquid waste are shown forcefully 

by experience with the injection well at the Rocky 

Mountain Arsenal (Mechem and Garrett, 191-,3; Polumbus and Associates, 1961; Scopel, 1964). Ar'long existing injection wells this one is unique in that a moderately comprehensive part of its performance record 

has been published. The well is located about 10 miles 

northeast of Denver, Colo., in the N~NEM sec. 26, T. 

2 S., R. 67 W. Land surface is 5,187 fee.t above sea 

level. 

The Arsena 1 well was drilled March 10 to September 11, 1961, to a depth of 12,045 feet. Casing, tubing, and a liner extend from land surfac~ to 11,975 

feet. These are cemented through the regi')nal freshwater aquifers, which occur from 1,250 to 1,426 feet 

below land surface. Potentiometric level of these aquifers is about 90 feet below land surface. 

The injection zone is fractured gneiss from 11,975 

to 12,045 feet below land surface. Natural potentiometric level (fluid level) of the zone wae· not determined adequately during drilling or before injection 

began. Subsequent observations are not definitive but 

suggest that level to be 2,500 to 3,000 feet below land 

surface (L. A. Wood, written commun., 1969). Thus, 

at the top of the injection zone, natural hydrostatic 

ratio would be about 0. 80; geostatic ratio, about 0. 33. 

The injection zone is reported to have accepted 

"more than" 400 gpm (gallons per minute) under a 

wellhead pressure of "less than" 2,000 psi (pounds 

per square inch), when tested initially. From March 

1962 to September 1963, and September 1964 to February 1966 waste liquid in an aggregate volu'lle of about 

165 million gallons ( 22 million cubic feet or 500 acre-
feet) was injected. Maximum rate of injection was 514 

gpm at a wellhead pressure of 1,100 psi; average rate, 

about 200 gpm at 500 psi. Thus during injection, maximum pressure at the top of the injection zone has been 

equivalent to a hydrostatic ratio of 1. 2 and a geostatic 

ratio of 0. 53; average pressure, equivalent to a hydrostatic ratio of 1.1 and a geostatic ratio of 0.48. The 

maximum geostatic ratio would be somewhat less than 

the minimum at which rock formations ordinarily would 

dilate by so-called hydraulic fracturing(AmericanPetro1eum Institute, 1958). 

Average injection pressure has been equivalent to 

a head of about 1,250 feet potentially available to have 

driven waste into the fresh-water aquifers. That waste 

could have so escaped, through or a r o u n d the cemented casings, seems most unlikely. Nonetheless, 

there is here at issue a general point: if deep injection at other places is to be demonstrably safe, standards for construction of the injection well and facilities may need to be uncommonly meticulous, and so 

verified by thoroughly documented tests. Also, the injection process will in general need to be monitored 

and documented rigorously at all stages. 

In the Arsenal well, four saline-water aquifers are 

cased off in the 3,500-foot reach immediately above 

the injection zone (Scope!, 1964; and Hoeger, 1968). 

Available hydrodynamic information suggests that regionally these four aquifers, plus the underlying injection zone (which also is naturally saline), may constitute a zone of common hydraulic circulation. If so: 

(1) From the vicinity of the Arsenal well, in the eastern half of the Denver basin, fluid movement is generally northward, then northeastward or eastward, toward low outcrops of the Dakota Group in eastern 

Nebraska. (2) In this direction of movement, the composite zone increases notably in transmissibility and 

becomes am a j or source of fresh water. (3) Injection 

at the Arsenal well has placed noxious liquid waste 

in this same zone. 

Assuming that, in the zone of common circulation 

just described, the 500 acre-feet ofinjectedwastewill 

move with the native liquids, in principle that waste 

ultimately could reach the areas of outcrop and of 

fresh-water withdrawal. To do sothewast7.wouldhave 

moved a few hundred miles from the Arsenal well, in 

a time interval of probably several thousand years. 

Hopefully, over that space and during that time the 

waste will have been rendered harmless by sorption, 

dispersion, and degradation (L. A. Woorl, written 

commun., 1969). Thus, an ultimate hazard is conjectural but one would be remiss not to note it (W. W. 

Rubey, oral commun., 1968). Data for a~8essing the 

hazard definitively are neither at hand nor readily obtainable. Here, the general point at issue is that for 

the most persistently noxious wastes, a responsible 

society cannot knowingly create even a remote hazard. 

THE EARTHQUAKE SWARM 

In the seventh week after injection began in the well 

at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal, a seismo;'!raph newly 

installed by the University of Colorado at its Bergen 

Park laboratory recorded an earthquake of magnitude 

1. 5. The date was April24, 1962. Through .August 1967, 

1,514 earthquakes were recorded with magnitudes 

ranging from 0.5 to 5.3. All these were relatively 

shallow in origin, from a small area about midway 

between central Denver and the Arsenal well (Major 

and Simon, 1968). The following table summarizes the 

record. 

In November 1965, near the end of the se~ond period 

of injection at the Arsenal well, Evans (19<--f:la, b) publicly expressed his view that the earthquake swarm 

Denver (Derby) earthquakes, April 1962-August 196? 

Number recorded Percent of total number at magnitude of--

Period 

April 1962-September 1963. Continual injection at 

Arsenal well. 

October 1963-August 

1964. No injection. 

September 1964-

February 1966. 

Continual injection. 

March 1966-August 

1967. No injection. 

Total 

447 

74 

614 

Average per 

month 

25 

7 

34 

21 

0.5-0.9 l. 0-l. 9 

15 67 

11 73 

0 82 

• 3 83 

1 Five additional earthquakes of undetermined magnitude. 

4 

2.0-2.9 3. 0-3.8 4.0-4.3 5.0-5.3 

16 2 0.4 0 

16 0 0 0 

16 18 0 0 

14 2 • 3 • 5 
just described had been caused by the injections. His 

conclusion was derived from the seemingly strong correlation between frequency of the earthquakes and volume of injection, month by month. Numerous other investigators have contributed to resolving the injectionearthquake relationships, which recently have been 

reviewed critically by Healy, Rubey, Griggs, and Raleigh ( 1968). Present consensus is thatthe earthquakes 

are products of a regional stress fieldoftectonic origin, triggered by the local incremental strain from injection into the Arsenal well. In several aspects, however, the stress-strain relationships in the vicinityof 

the Arsenal well seem not yet to have been resolved 

fully. 

The injection-triggered earthquake swarm at Denver probably is not unique. Counterparts have been 

identified tentatively or contingently, but have not been 

studied intensively, in the Rangely oil field ofwestern 

Colorado (Healy and others, 1968), also in Texas and 

Utah (L. C. Pakiser, oral commun., 1968). Criteria 

have yet to be developed by which such efforts of injection can be anticipated generally. 

STATUS OF KNOWLEDGE AND STEPS TO BE TAKEN 

Admittedly, injecting liquid wastes deep beneath the 

land surface is a potential means for alleviating pollution of rivers and lakes. But, by no stretch of the 

imagination is injection a panacea that can encompass 

all wastes and resolve all pollution, even if economic 

limitations should be waived. Limitations on the potentials for practical injection are stringent indeedphysical, chemical, g eo 1 o g i c, hyd::-ologict economic, 

and institutional (including legal) limitations. A general appraisal of certain principal limitations, and of 

our state of knowledge concerning them, follows. 

CATEGORIES OF WASTE 

The very wide range in volume and in concentration 

and kind of noxious constituents in liquid wastes all 

but precludes meaningful generalization as to practicality of disposal by deep injection. Uniform and specific criteria are urgently desirable for categorizing 

wastes in this regard, principally according to type, 

quantity, and persistence of critical constituents. Such 

criteria have been proposed recently in one small part 

of the field of concern, wastes from the nuclear-energy 

industry (American Institute Chemical Engineers, 

1967). Specifically, five categories or classes of radioactive waste would be defined with respect to "maximum permissible" concentration, exposure, and intake 

as established previously by the International Commission on Radiological Protection. The five classes, 

and their parallels for industry in general, can be summarized as follows: 

At one extreme, class A wastes would be those 

whose radionuclide concentration is so low as to 

justify dispersal without restriction. The parallel 

from general industry would be those liquid products to which an unnatural property has been imparted, but not to a degree that conceivablywould 

be harmful to human beings, in the food chain, or 

indiscriminately in the biosphere. An appropriate 

general standard would be analogous to, and or5 

dinarily close to, the maximum allowable concentrations that numerous public-health agencies 

have set for various chemic a 1 cons .. ituents in 

drinking water. Such limits of concentration are 

known in the main; they need only to I '?. collated 

and promulgated through suitable channels. It is . 

highly desirable that the general s tan dar d be 

equally comprehensive the nation over. For certain limits, however, some variation from one 

region to another would seem appro~riate, according to the variable concentration of the particular constituents in local native wzters. Vexatious questions would arise in regar(l to appropriate limits for the almost overwhelring array 

of new products from the chemical an1 pharmaceutical industries-for one common eyample, the 

very stable insecticide DDT w hi c h, along with 

other chlorinated hydrocarbons, is c r u s in g so 

much concern nowadays. 

Class 8 radioactive wastes would be those whose 

radionuclide concentration is greater than that of 

class A wastes, by a factor not great~~r than 10. 

The class would have force only in ,. controlled 

areas," where personnel would be exposed only 

during working hours and where suitable safety 

precautions could be enforced. In the general industrial parallel, an appropriate concentration 

factor between classes A and B probab1.y would be 

neither 10, nor uniform among all waste constituents, nor uniform either regionwide or nationwide. 

Rather, the factor might relate to the acceptability 

of zoning under which dispersal of the yraste would 

be so controlled as to time or place, or the waste 

would be so diluted, that the cumulative exposure 

of human beings to the waste was substantially as 

though the class A standard was satisfied. In this 

connection, dilution probably would be acceptable 

only transiently, until pre c 1 u de d b:r the evergreater demand for water of highest p·,rity. 

In regard to general industry, liquid products of 

classes A and B would of course not r~quire disposal underground. However, specific definition of 

the two classes is desirable to discrimi"late wastes 

that, even in the distant future, need rot preempt 

the limited space in which injection wHl be feasible. 

Nuclear-waste class C would be more concentrated than class B by a factor not greater than 

104. In general it would be amenable to a treatment converting a major fraction to class B or 

class A, and a minor fraction to class D or class 

E. In the general parallel the concentration factor 

between analogs of waste classes B and C commonly would be much less than 104 , and might 

relate more to chemical stability of tl ~ principal 

waste constituent than to its concentration. The 

general class C might comprise those wastes that 

are produced in v o 1 u m e s exceeding the underground space available for long-term storage but 

which might either (1) be reduced to a smaller 

volume or converted to a less concent:--ated class, 

or (2) be suitable for injection into th~ relatively 
shallow zone of rapid circulation or the underlying zone of delayed circulation [zones to be described], in which residence time would suffice 

for disintegration of the noxious constituents. A 

common example of the first type would be spent 

pickling acid, which might be neutralized and filtered, and possibly otherwise treated, to yield an 

effluent of class B or class A. An example of the 

second type would be septic-tank effluent, that 

common p rod u c t of rural and some suburban 

communities; or, certain unstable products and 

wastes from organic chemistry. 

Nuclear class D wastes would be more concentrated than class C, again by a factor not exceeding 10~. Alternatively, these would be either 

stored indefinitely in suitable containers on the 

land surface, incorporated into a bituminous matrix or into concrete, or r e d u c e d to a s o li d 

residue. The solid forms of converted waste would 

be held on the land surface. The general analog 

of class D might be those wastes which are produced in, or can be reduced to, relatively small 

volumes; which are relatively stable; and which 

are of such kind or concentration that on the land 

surface they would constitute a persistent, but 

ordinarily a nonlethal, nuisance. Examples among 

organic substances, would be certain oils and solvents; among inorganic substances, numerous 

highly soluble salts. Such are the wastes generally 

suitable for deep injection into the zone oflethargic circulation [to be described) where a residence time of many decades, or even centuries, 

could be assured and would suffice. Alternatively, 

analog class D wastes might be incorporated into 

concrete or otherwise converted to solid form, 

and retained on the land surface. 

Nuclear class E waste is that whose concentration exceeds that of class D-that is, the class 

C concentration is exceeded by a factor greater 

than 10~. It would be stored indefinitely in 

suitable containers on the land surface unless it 

can be converted to, or in corp o r at e d in, a 

radiation-stable solid. We must acknowledge, and 

face up to, the analog of class E in industry-that 

is, waste of such persistent intractability and concentration that (in the words of de Laguna, 1964) its 

"future disposition must be known unequivocally 

and in detail," and it must be excluded from the 

biosphere for virtually all time. Since absolute 

immobility cannot be assured u n de r ground, 

the analog class E waste would be unthinkable for 

injection. Included in the category would be stable 

substances so highly toxic as to be potentially 

lethal if dispersed in the biosphere, even at slight 

concentrations. Certain pesticides and chemicalbiological warfare agents are potentially of this 

general sort. 

The writer feels strongly that orderly mangement 

of liquid wastes by injection deep into the ground will 

prove elusive until general waste categories such as 

those just outlined have been defined, in terms of 

6 

specific concentrations for each of numerous kinds 

or groups ofwaste constituents. Magnitude of the limiting concentrations seems less urgent than specific 

limits drawn so conservatively that the e-everal categories might receive ear I y and virtually universal 

acceptance. Adequate standards for tho. categories 

would be more comprehensive, but inherentlynomore 

complex, than those of the nuclear industry. As has 

been alluded to, drafting such standard"" w o u 1 d be 

largely a task of discriminately co 11 at in g existing 

knowledge. Principal disciplines involved inc 1 u de 

chemistry, medicine, and public health. 

CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL ASPECTS 

Background 

Injection underground would of coursep1twastes out 

of sight but, in a responsible society, cann'Jt be allowed 

to put them out of mind. Injection does not constitute 

permanent disposal. Rather it detains in storage and 

commits to such storage-for all time in the case of 

the most intractable wastes-underground space of 

which little is attainable in some areas, and which definitely is exhaustible in most areas. Th~se precepts 

have been stated or implied repeatedly in diverse contexts, by numerous writers. 

Wastes underground cannot be manageiresponsibly 

in the absence of comprehensive knowlec~e as to their 

character and expected history. The res:->onsibility is 

in part, but only in part, separable into two phases: 

First, an agency creating wastes must know or determine, and fully disclose to a suitable p·•blic institution, the character and amount of wastes committed 

to underground storage. Second, and conversely, public 

institutions must know or determine, and maintain a 

suitable record of, where wastes are dis:r~rsed underground (in three dimensions, specificall~r), what their 

chemical characters are, and how thos ~ characters 

may change with time. Further, an agency creating 

and injecting a waste must constrain that waste within 

the land-surface b o u n d a r i e s of its real property, 

unless or until custody of the waste pa~ses to a responsible agency, private or public, h<:~ving wider 

jurisdiction. The restraints here outlined or implied 

are strict and in some respects novel. To relax them 

substantially, however, would disclaim reality. 

Raw wastes 

Physical and chemical character must be known for 

each raw waste that is a candidate for injection. Information should be specific as to: ( 1) RFte of production and anticipated aggregate volume; (2~ temperature 

and thermal stability; (3) viscosity, pH, F.ndden si ty; 

and ( 4) concentration and stability of the several entrained, suspended, or dissolved constituents. If 

dissolved, suspended, or entrained congtituents are 

nuclides, radiometric properties should be known in 

terms such as specific radioactivity; percentage distribution of the nuclides according to the kinds and 

energies of their radiations, or according to their 

half lives; and rad~oactivity due to key nuclides. (See 

Nace and others, 1962.) Any of or all the.1e properties 
may determine whether a particular waste is suitable 

for injection. Thermal and chemical stability may be 

especially critical-for example, wastes from the 

nuclear industry commonly generate heat as they disintegrate or "decay," at rates g r e at e r than would 

dissipate through the rock matrix of an injection zone 

(Birch, 1958; Skibitzke, 1961 ). Chemical stability must 

be considered over not only the short term, but also 

the long term-possibly indefinitely long-of potential 

storage underground (injection). In this regard, the 

very feasibility of injection may hinge on the life of 

a noxious constituent in relation to predictable residence time of the waste in the particular injection zone. 

(More will be said concerning this.) Physical stability 

must be considered likewise-for example, the rate at 

which a suspension may convert to a gel. 

Information such as just outlined is a product of 

the chemist, physicist, and laboratory technician. 

Commonly that information is known to the wastecreating agency, but may be considered by the agency 

to be of concern to it alone. If wastes are to be managed effectively, however, the writer considers such 

information to be everybody's concern, expressible 

through a public agency having appropriate responsibility and authority. The authority should include the 

prerogatives of requiring from the producing agency, 

and verifying, analytical data on all raw wastes. 

Compatibility and interaction 

Even though comprehensive, information as to 

chemical and physical character of a waste does not, 

of itself, determine suitabilityforinjection. Additional 

information is required as to compatibility among (1) 

a particular waste as it might be injected, (2) other 

wastes with which it might make contact in the injection zone, (3) fluids native to the injection zone, and 

(4) both mineral and organic (perhaps including bacterial) constituents of the injection-zone matrix. The 

possibilities of interaction are many and complex. 

The environment in which interactions might occur is 

unlike that of the lan.d surface, particularly in respect 

to temperature and pressure. The pH of waste and 

native fluid may differ little or much. All these environmental differences influence the kind and rate of 

potential interactions. Residence time of the waste in 

the injection zone may be indefinitely long, so that interactions that are slow in rate may be major factors 

in waste behavior. 

The reactions of potential concern are diverse in 

kind-chemical reaction that results in a precipitate, 

diminishing pore space of the injection zone; separation 

of a gel with like effects; flocculation or deflocculation (dispersion) of clay minerals, with an influence 

on permeability; dissolution of mineral matter from 

the injection-zone matrix, with or without further 

reaction; base-exchange and sorption reactions between waste constituents and minerals of the zone 

matrix; buffer action inhibiting or modifying reaction 

between other constituents. 

Exchange and sorption reactions may involve, not 

the dominant minerals of the injection-zone matrix, 

7 

but only minerals which occur in minor quF'ltity-for 

example, a clay-mineral fraction in a sandstone that 

is dominantly of quartz. Even so, these reac.tions may 

be of far-reaching effect, and even theprinc~ryal factor 

in managing a waste. 

Compatibility and potential interaction between 

waste and injection zone have for some years been 

studied intensively, but largely in general terms, by 

numerous persons. Muchofthis effort has b'?.en in regard to potential deep injection of radioacti,·~ wastes. 

Warner ( 1966b) summarizes current knowl~dge, and 

undertakes experimental and theoretical an a 1 y s i s. 

There is an urgency to proceed soon fro:""l general 

to specific consideration of interactions be<:ween potential wastes and injection zones, collating dispersed 

experience and information now available V~Tith future 

experience that would be assessed syste11atically. 

First stages of this effort well might be in conjunction with the canvass of major injection provinces, 

which will be outlined. The primary disci':'lines involved would be those of geochemistry and geohydrology. 

Pretreatment of wastes 

Certain wastes, otherwise incompatible with a 

potential injection zone, can feasibly be pretreated. 

Possibly the most common step would be to adjust pH 

of the waste to the ends of chemical stability and minimum reaction in the injection zone. ConceiYably a dilute waste might be concentrated to diminish its volume, where the available injection zone has only small 

capacity and where compatibility problems would not 

be worsened by the concentration. 

Beyond these highly general considerat:'ons, pretreatment seems largely a matter of matching a specific waste to a specific injection zone. Such becomes 

a task of chemistry and geochemistry, in detail much 

too diversified for specific treatment here. 

CANVASS OF INJECTION PROVINCES 

To the end that injection as a means of waste management shall be planned effectively and adninistered 

in orderly fashion, there is here proposed a comprehensive canvass of all the United States to dir'-riminate 

injection provinces according to their divers~ potential 

capacities to accept wastes. Through identir '"::ation and 

definition of such provinces, meaningful administration 

and regulation of injection would be facilitate1~ according to limitations peculiar to each province. Oversimplified, the alternative'would seem to be spot-by-spot 

consideration under ·a dilemma of standards e i t h e r 

impractically complex if all diversities of "injectability" were served, or generalized to tl- ~ point of 

becoming ineffective. 

First steps toward defining such injection provinces 

have been made, under sponsorship of the Atom i c 

Energy Commission-specifically, in summary descriptions of salt deposits and major se~imentary 

basins over the United States (Griggs, 1958; Pier ,c e 

and Rich, 1958; Repenning, 1959 and 196C; de Witt, 

1960; Love and Hoover, 1960; Colton, 1961; Beikman, 
1962; LeGrand, 1962; Sandberg, 1962; andMacLachlan, 

1964). Most of these summaries considered only geologic aspects-stratigraphy and structure. In some 

respects more comprehensive, but in other respects 

more selective, than the summaries just listed is a 

review by the American Association of P e t r o 1 e u m 

Geologists ( 1964; also Galley, 1968). 

A more comprehensive basis for discriminating injection provinces is necessary and, in preliminary 

scope, can be formulated from information at han d. 

More definitive classification by subprovinces could 

follow as data and experience accumulate. Both the 

preliminary and the ultimate canvass of provinces 

would involve numerous disciplines, chiefly those of 

geology (in an all-inclusive sense, including, in particular, geophysics and seismology), geochemistry, 

and hydrology (including hydrodynamics in particular). 

The preliminary canvass would assess the following 

aspects. 

ZONES OF CIRCULATION 

The manner of waste management underground may 

range widely indeed. A chemically stable, dilute waste 

may require only to be injected into, and dispersed 

thoroughly in, a body of rapidly circulating ground 

water that is recharged continually or copiously. Alternatively, a biochemically unstable effluent may require only a residence time, within the injection zone, 

of sufficient duration that disintergration proceeds to 

completion; dispersion into the native ground water 

may or may not be desirable and residence time of 

a few days or weeks may suffice. At another extreme, 

a persistently intractable or a very concentrated waste 

may require the longest possible residence time, with 

or without dispersion into the native water. T h u s, 

freedom of native-water circulation is a primary criterion by which to scale "injectability." In this connection, Nace and others ( 1962) recognize a functional 

succession of ground-water zones, generally downward, in which circulation is respectively rapid, delayed, lethargic, and stagnant. The latter two are sub-

-- zones of the so-called noncyclic zone, which includes 

a dry subzone also. Over much of the United States, 

information at hand should suffice for a general description of such zones and their potentials for injection of wastes-specifically, their depth and thickness, 

lithology, extent and continuity, and transmissibility 

(and other properties to be considered). The several 

zones are as follows (adapted from Nace and others, 

1962). 

Zone of rapid circulation 

The zone of rapid circulation extends from land surface downward some tens, or a few hundreds, of feet; 

the aerated zone and the uppermost part of the saturated zone are included. Here, generally or commonly, 

the native soil water and ground water are unconfined, 

fresh, and largely or exclusively of meteoric origin; 

residence time is from a few hours to a few years; 

and the environment is oxidizing. Natural discharge 

from the zone of rapid circulation is the principal 

source of water sustaining the dry-season flow of 

streams; thus, injection of chemically stable wastes 

8 

into it is precluded commonly although no': universally, 

as will be outlined. 

Injection of waste into the zone of rapid circulation 

could be feasible in a quantity so small, and at a site 

so placed, that the waste would be adequately diluted 1 

by dispersion, or stabilized by disintegration, before 

it could reach a point of discharge to a stream or of 

withdrawal for use. Feasibility of such injection, therefore, would depend on hydrodynamics of the area involved; hydrodynamic factors would ne?.d be established explicitly and monitored adequately. 

Most common among wastes injected into the zone 

of rapid circulation probably is septic-tank effluent, 

to which reference has been made. Reference has been 

made also to successful management of c~rtain wastes 

in this way on the Hanford reservation of the Atomic 

Energy Commission. Here dispersaloftl-·~wastewithin the zone has been monitored rather intensively, the 

path of waste travel within the reservation is some 20 

miles, and adequate residence time appears to have 

been assured. Elsewhere, however, indis~riminateinjection into the zone has led to the contamination of 

usable ground waters in numerous scattered areas, 

as described by Deutsch (1961, 19,13, 1965) for 

Michigan. 

Zone of delayed circulation 

In the zone of delayed circulation, native ground 

water is also largely or exclusively of meteoric origin, 

is generally fresh, and may be unconfined and oxidizing at the shallower depths but commonly is confined 

and nonoxidizing at the greater deptl "· The water 

circulates continually and comparatively freely, but is 

retarded sufficiently that natural residen~e time within 

a given zone is a few to many decades, or even a few 

centuries. Depth to or through the zone may range from 

no more than a few hundred feet, in some geologic and 

geographic situations, to thousands of feet at other 

places. 

The zone of delayed circulation being the principal 

source of water supplies drawn from tl ~ ground, injection of wastes into it is generally not advisable, as 

in the case of the overlying zone of rapi1 circulation. 

However, locally and under suitable monitoring, wastes 

have been injected successfully, as at the National 

Reactor Testing Station, Idaho (Jones, 1961a, b; Morris 

and others, 1965). 

Subzone of lethargic flew 

The subzone of lethargic flow is the c.ommon locus 

of so-called salaquifers-that is, in that subzone the 

native liquid is commonly saline. Much of, or even all, 

the water is of ultimate meteorologic origin, but its 

residence time in the subzone-in isoh•t:ion from the 

normal hydrologic cycle-has been in the order of 

hundreds or even thousands of years. '".':be very slow 

mov-ement is considered generally to be hydrodynamic, 

but possibly in part is by geochemical osmosis. The 

environment commonly lacks free oxyger, Saline water 

and lethargic flow may occur within the upper few 
hundred feet of the earth's crust and are common at 

depths of a few thousand feet, but are generally at 

depths greater than 5,000 feet. 

The subzone of lethargic flow is the chief potential 

locus for storing (disposing of) the more concentrated 

and moderately intractable wastes by injection (excepting wastes so intractable and noxious that absolute 

containment is required for virtually all time). Thus, 

delimiting and describing these subzones is largely 

tantamount to defining injection provinces. Description 

is needed, in terms as specific as is possible, for all 

principal factors that influence injectability. Fairly 

comprehensive and extensive data are at hand from 

oil fields, of which most are in the subzone here of 

concern. Aside from such fields, and a few commercial brine fields, the descriptive data at hand may not 

be definitive, but preliminary guides for injection may 

be inferable. 

Stagnant subzones 

In stagnant subzones the rocks are porous but the 

interstitial liquid (generally brine) appears to be 

hydrodynamically trapped and so essentially without 

Darcy-Iaw flow. A very small movement may take 

place by geochemical osmosis or some other process 

that is not understood clearly. Pressure of the interstitial liquid ranges greatly: it may be considerably 

less than in overlying zones, but on the other hand may 

equal or even exceed the geostatic pressure for the 

depth of occurrence. With few exceptions, if any, 

stagnant subzones are at least several thousand feet 

below land surface. 

Because by definition its native liquid is virtually 

motionless over a very long interval of time, a stagnant 

subzone would seem to afford the ideal locus of injection for intractable waste. However, the existence of 

such subzones is inferred commonly from sparse or 

weak evidence; proof of existence would be difficult 

and certainly costly. Injection, n e cess a r i I y under 

pressure, would immediately change the stagnant state 

to one of local hydrodynamic movement; the reach of 

such an effect could be difficult to predict with certainty, from the data attainable by ordinary effort. 

Thus, the capability of a stagnant subzone to accept 

and retain an injected liquid should be assessed with 

extreme caution. 

Dry subzones 

Within depths that would be fully practicable for 

injection, dry subzones are in a sense anomalous. A 

common type would be a salt bed or plug (dome), in 

which free water is virtually nonexistent and which 

may be impermeable in a finite sense. Depth to such 

subzones ranges from a few tens to thousands of feet. 

Thickness and horizontal extent are likely to be conjectural except, for example, for salt domes that have 

been delimited in connection with extraction of petroleum or sulfur. 

A waste injected into a dry subzone of the sort just 

described, by hydrofracturing or otherwise, would in 

principle be wholly isolated from the natural hydrodynamic circulation. However, injection would create 

a hydrodynamic potential, conceivably sufficient to in9 

duce movement of the injected fluid if the l"?drofractures should extend to a boundary of the subzone. TI1us, 

performance of a dry subzone under injection should 

be assessed cautiously; absolute containment of injected liquid cannot be assumed. 

Dry (unsaturated) subzones do occur in permeable 

strata, but not commonly. Waste injected into such a 

subzone would move down dip until it reacl-tes a saturated zone, then would come under local hydrodynamic 

forces. In detail, its behavior could be most difficult 

to foresee. 

HYDRODYNAMICS; POTENTIOMETRIC LEVELS AND 

GRADIENTS 

In general, virtually all movement of ground water 

and behavior of an injected liquid are hydrodynamic 

processes. Unfortunately, in a large fraction of the 

relevant current literature, effects of inje~tion have 

been assessed only in terms of hydrostaecs and of 

injection wells under hydraulic equilibrium. As aresult, the assessment has not always been adequate. 

It is contemplated that the canvass of injection provinces would seek to genera I i z e, for each zone or 

subzone of circulation, the patterns of regional hydrodynamic circulation so far as these can be inferred. 

Two examples of regional circulation in tb~ subzone 

of lethargic flow are described by McNeal ( 1965) and 

Hoeger ( 1968), respectively for the Permian basin and 

for the eastern half of the Denver basin. Data to 

delineate other analogous areas is expect~'~d to rest 

largely in the petroleum industry. 0 u t side the oil 

fields, current information may not be definitive. 

Potentiometric (fluid) levels and gradients should 

suggest relative rates of fluid movement. These must 

be assessed not only for the natural condition, but 

especially for the conditions of injection, when levels 

and gradients may change transiently orprog,ressively, 

perhaps greatly, and commonly will fluctuate considerably. Under such conditions, only nonequilibrium 

concepts and formulas seem appropriate for analyzing 

and anticipating the fluid movements (Perris and 

others, 1962). Prototypes for the conditions of waste 

injection doubtless rest in the experience with brine 

injection, in the petroleum industry. 

A zone whose potentiometric level is substantially 

below those of overlying zones, or in which the potentiometric gradients are locally centripetal, seems, on 

casual consideration, especially favorable for injection. Such zones or areas should, however, be assessed cautiously for reasons that include th~se: First, 

fluid levels for deep zones are not easy to measure 

accurately, so that any isolated unverified level may 

be considerably in error. Second, centripetal gradien~s 

imply an anomalous hydrodynamic circulation that may 

have been misinterpreted. Third, the greater the depth 

of the potential level, the greater the degree to which 

injection pressure would diminish the frict:'<:>n across 

fracture planes in the injection-zone matrix (see Healy 

and others, 1968, p. 1306 )-that is, other f;1'ctors being the same, the greater the potential for injectiontriggered earthquakes, such as have been mentioned 
HYDROFRACTURES; SAFE INJECTION PRESSURE 

Experience of the petroleum industry with brineinjection wells indicates that as injection pressure 

increases, the rate of brine acceptance increases proportionally until, at a so-called critical pressure, the 

rate of brine acceptance quickens notably. At injection 

pressures greater than critical, the rock "hydrofractures" so that its permeability increases. At least approximately, however, if injection pressure then is 

diminished to less than critical, brine acceptance diminishes to its antecedent rate. Accordingly, it is 

reasoned that hydrofractures do not p e r m an en t 1 y 

modify the permeability of the rock matrix. (In this 

connection see American Petroleum Institute, 1958; 

Cleary, 1958; Dickey and Andresen, 1945; Grandone 

and Holleyman, 1949; Hubbert and Willis, 1957; and 

Yuster and Calhoun, 1945.) 

Generally it has been assumed, expressly or tacitly, 

that the critical pressure determines the safe maximum injection pressure at a particular well. On this 

basis, safe pressure falls commonly between 0. 6 and 

1.0 psi per foot of depth (the higher of these limits 

is the common value of the so-called geostatic or 

lithostatic pressure_.,that is, the pressure exerted by 

overlying rock at 2. 3 average density). Existing wasteinjection wells operate at pressures as much as 2.1 

geostatic-that is, at about twice the pressure necessary to "float" the rocks overlying the injection 

zone. Yet the brief reports available do not note excessive hydrofracturing at the maximum pressure 

cited. 

Again, there is involved here a seeming paradoxspecifically, a safe pressure less than critical pressure would, in general, foreclose hydrofractures and 

the greater injectivity they cause. Yet hydrofractures 

would, at some places and times, be both permissible 

and desirable. At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, for 

example, certain radioactive waste liquids are made 

into a slurry with cement, the slurry is injected into 

shale by hydrofracturing, and the radioactive constituents become sensibly immobile once the slurry hardens 

(de Laguna, 1962). Definitive criteria are lacking, by 

which to constrain hydrofractures appropriately. 

In another context, a" safe" injection pressure would 

be less than that which could "trigger" an earthquake. 

The quakes originating near the Rocky Mountain Arsenal well were contemporaneous with injection pressures ordinarily not greater than about 0. 53 psi per 

foot of depth-that is, somewhat less than that at which 

hydrofracturing is considered generally to start, and 

about half the ordinary upper limit of critical pressure 

which has been cited. Here, injection pressure is but 

one of numerous relevant factors. Involved are the 

stress in the injection zone due to overburden, that 

due to active tectonic forces, and that which is residual (D. J. Varnes, written commun., 1969); hydrodynamic and thermodynamic fluxes; geochemical processes; and mechanical properties of the injectionzone matrix. Injection of an extraneous liquid (waste) 

distorts the balance among the natural forces. Over10 

simplified, if the natural balance is delicate, a small 

distortion can trigger an earthquake; in d~tail, current 

theory and techniques of observation ar'~ little more 

than rudimentary (R. W. Stallman, writt~n commun., 

1969). 

It seems necessary, therefore, to deYelop a fully 

comprehensive and wholly general concept of "injectivity" at a" safe" injection pressure, to serve as the 

ultimate basis for classifying potential injection provinces and their subzones. To that end it is proposed 

that the brine-injection experience of the petroleum 

industry, related theory, and the separrte theory of 

injection-induced earthquakes all be reviewed 

critically and reexpressed as necessary in criteria 

generally applicable to waste injection, (See Healy 

and others, 1968; Kehle, 1964; and Scheid<7.gger, 1960.) 

Here, there is particular need to discriminate clearly 

between wellhead pressure, the incremental pressure 

equivalent to weight of fluid between we 11 head and 

natural water level, and total pressure on the zone. 

Further, it is emphasized that in some areas, brine 

injection has dealt with a fluid system in which one 

component (gas) is readily compressible, whereas 

generally all the fluids of a waste-injection system 

would be liquid-that is, none of the fluid components 

would be highly compressible. The comprehensive and 

general concept here outlined probably will not be realized easily. 

GEOCHEMICAL ASPECTS 

Allusion has been made to chemical compatibility 

among injected waste, materials of the injection-zone 

matrix, and native inters tit i a 1 water of the zone. 

Possible combinations of the variables involved are 

numerous indeed, as are the relevant analytical data 

at hand-chemical an a I y s e s of brine, other native 

waters, rocks, and earth materials; temperature and 

pressure gradients; fluid densities; sparse but suggestive values of exchange capacities. In all the complexities and wealth of data it should be possible to 

isolate some criteria for classifying injection subzones 

according to broad types of chemical problems that 

could be anticipated with various categor:'es of waste. 

A search for general criteriaofthiskindis suggested. 

The primary discipline involved would of course be 

g eo c h em i s t r y, with close support r e qui r e d by 

geohydrology. 

Incidental allusion has been made to geochemical 

osmosis as a possible driving force acting between 

two aquifers that contain waters of unlike chemical 

concentrations at unlike pressures, and that are separated by a confining bed acting as a senipermeable 

membrane. That such a force acts at dept'l in the subzones of lethargic circulation and of stagnation has 

been suggested by several investigators, presumably 

from the spatial analogy of certain aquifer and 

confining-bed systems to the laboratory environment 

of unlike concentrations of fluid on eith~r side of a 

semipermeable membrane. If strictly valid, the analogy to fluid transfer by osmosis, in the laboratory, 

anticipatea the long-term history of certain de e p I y 
injected wastes. To the writer the analogy has not been, 

but if possible should be, demonstrated from rigorously 

screened field data, by theoretical analysis. 

LEGISLATIVE AND INSTITUTIONAL 

CONSIDERATIONS 

Three of the 50 States-Missouri, Ohio, and Texashave enacted statutes specifically to regulate disposal 

of waste liquids by injection into the ground. Provisions 

of the statutes in the latter two States are generally 

alike; very greatly simplified, they may be summarized 

as follows: (1) A permit is requiredofany person who 

drills, modifies, or uses a well "for the injection of 

sewage or any liquid used in or resulting from any 

process of industry, manufacture, trade, business, or 

agriculture" [Ohio's language, disposition of oil-field 

brines is regulated by another statute in both Ohio 

and Texas], (2) application for such a permit is made 

to a named administrative agency, the application locating and describing the proposed injection facility 

and stating composition of the liquid intended to be 

injected, (3) an application may be denied only on a 

determination of "unreasonable risk [of] waste or contamination of oil or gas in the earth,*** unreasonable 

risk of loss or damage to valuable mineral resources, 

*** [or] pollution [of water]" [Ohio's language]; otherwise, a permit must be issued, (4) thepermit may include conditions necessary to protect health, safety, 

conservation of resources, orpurityofwater supplies, 

(5) a permit may be suspended or revoked for infraction of the statute, of regulations promulgated under 

the statute, or of conditions attached to the permit, 

and (6) a permit may be suspended and, after a 

hearing, revoked if warranted by information disclosed 

after that permit was first issued [Ohio only]. 

The two statutes just summarized are concise, reasonably explicit as to intent, quite explicit as to placement of relevant responsibility and authority, and free 

from technical restrictions that would be tantamount 

to prejudgments of field conditions. In a "legalistic" 

sense they are perhaps ideally workable. To the writer, 

however, the two statutes share three substantial inadequacies: First, they require of the administering 

agency a binding judgment as to effectiveness of the 

proposal for injection whereas, in the present state of 

injection art, available information commonly does not 

suffice for a fully reasoned judgment. All uncertainty 

must be covered into conditions attached to the permit. 

This could lead to dilemma: futility for the administrator versus frustration for the injector. Second, the 

statutes admit only two parties to an injection-the 

individual who injects and the State agency that administers. Reasons will be advanced that this grossly oversimplifies and restricts the interests con c e r ned. 

Third, the statutes neither establish, nor provide 

for promulgation of, "off-limit" zones or areas-the 

entire "subsurface" of each State is declared open 

for injection except where specific inimical effects 

are anticipated. Limitless injectability at any point 

seems to be implied. The art of injection being ill 

11 

understood, and the effects of injection being irrevocable, a policy so openhanded verges on rashness. 

The brief Missouri statute provides that (1) "any 

individual wishing to use underground w~~lls or depositories for the injection of liquid waste'· must apply 

for a permit, ( 2) a permit is granted p r ovid e d the 

"health or property of others" will not be harmed, and 

( 3) a "reasonable" bond may be required of the permittee to assure that the injection facility, if and when 

its use ends, is plugged or sealed. 

Other States impose various degrees o~ constraint 

on injection of liquids underground, under as many as 

t h r e e regulatory agencies in a part i cuI a r State 

(Warner, 1965, p. 23, 36-37). The diversity of these 

constraints is suggested by the following generalizations. Nearly all the States regulate the c~menting of 

casings in wells drilled for petroleum or natural gas; 

only by implication and, so far as the writer is informed, in no instance by specific wordirg of statute 

would such regulation apply to injection vrells. A few 

States prohibit all injection; several prohibit injection 

of liquids other than salt water or oil-field brine. 

Others require that oil-field brine be returned underground; among these, some require that tte return be 

to the very stratigraphic zone from which the brine 

was extracted California specifically pr":lhibits disposal of waste into strata that are used, or are usable, 

as a source of domestic water supply. In respect to 

these diverse constraints, there are similarly diverse 

requirements as to application for a permit; preconstruction submittal of statement of locatiC'n; postconstruction filing of a statement of locatio"l, plans, or 

log of a well; or filing of a record of facilities abandoned. All degrees of public involvement are represented. 

The writer feels strongly that the current order in 

waste disposal ·by injection-in essence a private individual or corporation versus a State-is inherently 

and woefully insufficient. Principal reaE"ons follow, 

in addition to others already implied. 

Exploration to prove feasibility and absolute safety, 

together with adequate construction of a ·pell andrelated facilities to accomplish deep inje~tion, commonly would be exceedingly costly. For example, at 

one installation of the Atomic Energy Commission, 

somewhat more than a million dollars was expended 

on definitive exploration in an area of a few square 

miles, to depths of only about 800 feet, over a 3-year 

term. Construction of injection facilities and continuing monitoring have about equaled the exploration cost. 

Even so, some potentially critical quest:'r.ms remain 

unanswerable. Few private agencies have, or can command, the specialized technical skills and the financial 

resources necessary for demonstrably sound performance, when injection is to be at depths of thousands of 

feet. Should the skills and resources be at hand, full 

disclosure of findings by a pioneer injector could grant 

an unearned "free ride" to the competitors. The urge 

to shortcuts in exploration and construc<:ion, and to 
avoidance of disclosure, would seem all but irresistible. A joint injection facility, with cost of exploration 

and construction shared among several private agencies, would be advantageous to the participants but 

would aggravate the tendency to avoid disc I o sur e. 

At the opposite pole in the current order, the general 

public should have the inalienable rights to be spared 

harm from, and to reap the benefit of accrued experience with, deep injection. Few, if any, State agencies 

currently have the staff skills, centralized authority, 

and financial resources to assure these general-public 

rights. Some new, fully competent institutional arrangement appears to be essential. As suggestive 

means to that end: 

1. An agency or commission of government or a public 

corporation, either designated from among existing institutions or created for the purpose, might 

be vested with exclusive authority and responsibility to ( 1) delineate provinces and stratigraphic 

zones suitable for injection, and (2) maintain a 

continuing record of waste storage in the several 

provinces and zones-both capacity occupied and 

capacity unused, both volumes and chemic a I 

character and concentration of wastes injected. 

As required, such institutions might exist in en 

echelon scope-nationwide, single State or major 

province, subprovince, and local zone. Staff capability and financial support, both commensurate 

with responsibility, would be presumed at each 

echelon. Each subprovince or local zone would 

constitute a hydrodynamic whole and would be 

administered as a who I e; if any such unit had 

parts in more than one State, a single jurisdiction 

would be negotiated or otherwise arranged. 

2. Each of the above governmental or public entities 

might (1) construct injection facilities and offer 

waste-storage service at a suitable fee or, alternatively (2) license a private agency or an association of such agencies to construct and operate an injection facility for its exclusive use. The 

fee charged for injection service might be scaled 

according to volume, concentration, and compatibility of the waste delivered to the public agency. 

Such a policy would create incentive for the waste 

producer to minimize his demand on the space 

available for waste storage. The license would 

require full disclosure of all information originating with the waste producer but required for 

orderly long-term managment of the injection 

province or zone. The license might also grant 

to the private agency or association the prerogative of exploring and delineating a suitable injection zone or zones. 

3. Among its prerogatives, the public agency would 

be authorized to: ( 1) so regulate the construction 

and casing of injection wells that wastes are excluded, completely and permanently, from the 

zone between the land surface and the injection 

zone into which they are released, ( 2) promulgate 

and enforce "safe" injection pressures and rates 

12 

of injection; these should be variable as hydrodynamic conditions might require, · ( 3) prescribe 

an aggregate volume of waste permitted to be injected into a particular province, subprovince, 

or zone, ( 4) require any waste to b~ treated before injection, as may be necessary to render it 

chemically compatible or stable, (5) prohibit injection of chemically incompatible or excessively 

noxious wastes, (6) declare any province, subprovince, or zone to be ,,off limits,, to injection, 

either permanently or temporarily, as may be 

necessary to achieve or maintain suitable hydrodynamic and g eo chemic a I balances, (7) as 

warranted, reserve any particular zone or subzone for a dec I are d resource-management 

purpose-for example, as a source of some particular resource, as a source of fJ·esh water by 

desalination, or for gas storage, (8) preserve the 

integrity of the confining layer abo,Te any designated waste-injection zone, by requiring that all 

wells or other openings drilled into that layer for 

any purpose be adequately cased, and plugged if 

abandoned, and (9) continually search for alternative and economically competitive methods of 

waste handling, to the ends of minimizing encroachment on the land-surface en vi ronm en t, 

w h il e prolonging c a p a c i t y for in j e c t ion 

underground. 

In the concept just suggested, the public a 1 en c y 

having only a local jurisdiction would, in principle, 

act as an agency of one particular State, p'lssibly in the 

form of a utility or conservancy district. To implement 

the concept fully would require legislat:'on establishingtheproperFederal role and approaching a uniform 

State role, both roles to encompass the full scope of 

technical and management problems dis,~ussed or implied. 

Advisedly, the concept is concerned o:Jlywith injecting wastes underground. Even in perf7.cted form, it 

resolves only in part the necessity that mankind learn 

to manage the wastes it produces. 

SELECTED REFERENCES 

American Association of Petroleum Geologists, 1964, 

Radioactive waste-disposal potentials in selected 

geologic basins-A reconnaissance study: U.S. 

Atomic Energy Comm. rept. SAN-413-2, 31 p. 

American Institute of Chemical Engineers, 1967, Proposed definition of radioactive waste categories: 

Approved, United States of America Standards Institute, June 7, 1967. 

American Petroleum Institute, 1958, Problems in the 

disposal of radioactive waste in deep wells: Dallas, 

Tex., American Petroleum Inst., Div. of Production, 27 p. 

Beikman, H. M., 1962, Geology of the Powder River 

Basin, Wyoming and Montana, with reference to 

subsurface disposal of radioactive wastes: U.S. 

Geol. Survey TEI-823, 85 p. 
Bergstrom, R. E., 1968, Feasibility of subsurface disposal of industrial wastes in I IIi no is: Illinois 

Geol. Survey Circ. 426, 18 p. 

Birch, Francis, 1958, Thermal considerations in deep 

disposal of r ad i o a c t i v e waste: Natl. A cad. Sci.-

Natl. Research Council Pub. 588. (Report for 

Committee on Waste Disposal, Div. of Earth 

Sciences.) 

Brown, R. W., and Spalding, C. W., 1966, Deep-well 

disposal of spent hardwood pulping liquors: Water 

Pollution Control Federation Journal, v. 39, no. 12, 

p. 1916. 

Cleary, J. M., 1958, Hydraulic fracture theory-Part 

1, Mechanics of materials; Part 2, Fracture orientation and possibility of fracture control: Illinois 

G eo 1. Survey Circs. 251 and 252, p. 24 and 19, 

respectively. 

Clebsch, A., Jr., and Baltz, E. H., 1967, Progress in 

the United States of America toward deep-well disposal of liquid and gaseous radioactive wastes in 

Disposal of radioactive wastes into the ground: Internat. Atomic Energy Agency, Vienna, p. 591-605. 

Colorado School of Mines, 1968, Geophysical and geological studies of the relationships between the 

Denver earthquakes and the Rocky M o u n t a in Arsenal well: Quarterly, v. 63, no. 1. 

Colton, G. W., 1961, Geologic summary of the Appalachian Basin, with reference to the subsurface 

disposal of radioactive waste solutions: U.S. Geol. 

Survey TEI-791, 121 p. 

Deep Well Pollution Control Corp., 1968, A management guide to deep well disposal of in d u s t r i a I 

wastes. 

de Laguna, Wallace, 1968, Disposal of medium ... Ievel 

radioactive waste by hydraulic fracturing: Paper 

presented at annual m e e tin g N atl. Water We 11 

Assoc., Sept. 24, 1968, Washington, D.C. 

de Laguna, Wallace, and others, 1962, Disposal by 

hydraulic fracturing in Health Physics Division· 

Annual Progress Report for period ending July 31, 

i 1962: U.S. Atomic Energy Comm. rept. ORNL3347, p. 6. 

Deutsch, Morris, 1961, Incidents of chromium contamination of ground water in Michigan in Groundwater contamination: U.S. Dept. Health, Education, 

and Welfare, Proc. 1961 Symposium, Tech. ;rept. 

w 61-5. 

__ 1963, Ground-water contamination and I ega l 

controls in Michigan: U.S. Geol. Survey WaterSupply Paper 1691, 79 p. 

__ 1965, Natural controls involved in shallow aquifer contamination: Ground Water, v. 3, no. 3. 

de Witt, Wallace, Jr., 1960, Geology of the Michigan 

Basin with reference to subsurface disposal of 

radioactive wastes: U.S. Geol. Survey TEI-771, 

100 p. 

Dickey, P. A., andAndresen, K. H., 1945, The behavior 

of water-input wells in Drilling and production 

practice: Am. Petroleum' Inst., p. 34-58. 

Dickey, P. A., Shriram, C. R., and Paine, W. R., 1968, 

Abnormal pressures in deep wells of southwestern 

Louisiana: Science, v. 160, no. 3828, p. 609-615. 

13 

Dolan, J. P., Einarsen, C. A., and Hill, G. A., 1957, 

Special applications of drill-stem tes': pressure 

data: Am. Inst. MiningMetall. EngineerE Trans., v. 

210, p. 318-324. 

Donaldson, E. C., 1964, Subsurface disposd of industrial wastes in the United States: U.S. Bur. Mines 

Inf. Circ. 8212. 

Drescher, W. J., 1965, Hydrology of deep-well disposal of radioactive liquid wastes in Fluids in subsurface environments: Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Mem. 4, p. 399-406. 

Esmail, 0. J., and Kimbler, 0. K., 1967, Investigation 

of the technical feasibility of storing fresh water 

in saline aquifers: Water Resources Research, v. 

3, p. 683-695. 

Evans, D. M., 1966a, The Denver area earthquakes 

and the Rocky Mountain Arsenal disposal well: The 

Mountain Geologist, v. 3, no. 1, p. 23-3"'. 

1966b, Man-made earthquakes in De·wer: Geo-

-rfmes, v. 10, no. 9, May-June, p. 11-18. 

Ferris, J. G.,. Knowles, D. B., Brown, R. H., and Stallman, R. W., 1962, Theoryofaquifertest: U.S. Geol. 

Survey Water-Supply Paper 1536-E, p. 69-174. 

Galley, J. E., ed., 1968, Subsurface dispoqq_l in geologic basins-A study of reservoir strata: Am. 

Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Mem. I 0, 253 p. 

Grandone, P., and Holleyman, J. B., 1949, Injection 

rates and p r e s s u r e s for water flooding MidContinent oil sands: U.S. Bur. Mines Rept. Inv. 

4600, 30 p. 

Griggs, R. L., 1958, The Silurian salt deposits of the 

northeastern United States: U.S. Geol. SurveyTEI710. 

Ground Water Age, 1968, Injection well in~orporates 

many safeguards: June 1968, p. 34-37. 

Hadsell, F. A., 1968, History of earthquakes in Colorado: Colorado School Mines Quart., v. 63, no. 1, 

p. 57-72. 

Healy, J. H., and Hoover, D. C., 1967, Microearthquakes near the Rocky Mountain Arsenal well, Denver, Colo. [abs.]: Geol. Soc. America, Rocky Mtn. 

Sec. Mtg. 1967, Golden, Colo., Program p. 38. 

Healy, J. H., Jackson, W. H., and Van Schnack, J. R., 

1966, Geophysical and geological investigations relating to earthquakes in the Denver area, Colorado: 

U.S. Geol. Survey open-file rept., pt. 5. 

Healy, J. H., Raleigh~ C. B., and Coakley, J. M., 1968, 

Paper presented before Seismol. Soc. Am., 64th 

Ann. Mtg. 

Healy, J. H., Rubey, W. W., Griggs, D. T., a"'d Raleigh, 

C. B., 1968, The Denver earthquakes: Science, v. 

161, no. 3848, p. 1301-1310. 

Hoeger, R. L., 1968, Hydrodynamic study of thewestern Denver basin, Colorado: Colorado School Mines 

Quart., v. 63, no. 1, p. 245-251. 

Homer, D. R., 1951, Pressure build-up in wells: World 

Petroleum Cong., 3d, Proc. Sec. II, p. 503. 

Hubbert, M. K., and Willis, D. G., 1957, M~chanics of 

hydraulic f r act uri n g: Am. In st. Miring Me tall. 

Engineers Trans., p. 153-168. 

Inoue, Y., and Kaufman, W. J., 1961, Dispersion relations in injection disposal of radioact~ve wastes: 
U.S. Atomic Energy Comm. rept. TID-7621, 

p. 131-139. 

1962, Studies of injection disposal: U.S. Atomic 

--rnergy Comm. rept. TID-7628, p. 303-321. 

1963, Prediction of movement of radionuclides 

--rrl solution through porous media: Health physics, 

v. 9, p. 70S-71S. 

International Atomic Energy Agency, 1967, Symposium 

on the disposal of r ad i o a c t i v e wastes into the 

ground: Vienna, May 29-June 2, 1967, 666 p. 

Interstate Oil Compact Commission, 1968, Subsurface 

disposal of industrial wastes: Oklahoma City, Okla., 

109 p. 

Jacobs, D. G., 1967, Behavior of radioactive gases 

discharged into the ground: Nuclear Safety, v. 8, 

p. 17S-178. 

Joers, J. C., and Smith R. V., 19S4, Determination of 

effective formation permeabilities and operation 

efficiencies of water input wells: P rod u c e r s 

Monthly, v. 18, no. 12, p. 21-28. 

Jones, P. H., 1961a, Hydrology of radioactive waste 

disposal at the Idaho Chemical Processing Plant, 

National Reactor Testing Station in Short papers 

in the geologic and hydrologic sciences: U.S. Geoi. 

Survey Prof. Paper 424-D, p. 374-376. 

__ 196lb, Hydrology of waste disposal Nation a 1 

Reactor Testing Station, Idaho; an interim report: 

U.S. Geol. Survey open-file rept. I00-22042, 82p. 

Kehle, R. 0., 1964, The determination of tectoni c 

stresses through analysis of hydraulic fracturing: 

Jour. Geophys. Research, v. 69, no. 2, p. 2S9-273. 

Kreidler, W. L., 1968, Preliminary study of underground disposal of industrial liquid waste in New 

York State in Subsurface disposal of industrial 

wastes: Interstate Oil Compact Comm., App. III. 

Le Grand, H. E., 1962, Geology and ground-water 

hydrology of the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal P 1 a in 

as related to disposal of radioactive wastes: U.S. 

Geol. Survey TEI-80S, 169 p. 

__ 1967, A broad view of waste dis p o s a 1 in the 

ground: Water Resources Eng. Con f., 6th, Vanderbilt Univ., Nashville, Tenn., publishedinWaterand 

Sewage Works, p. Rl67-Rl80. 

Love, J. D., and Hoover, Lynn, 1960, A summary of 

the geology of sedimentary basins of the United 

States, with reference to the disposal of r ad i aactive wastes: U.S. Geol. Survey TEI-768, 89 p. 

Lynch, E. J., 1966, Formation evaluation: New York, 

Harper & Row, 414 p. 

MacLachlan, M. E., 1964, The A n ad ark o Basin (of 

parts of Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas, and Colorado): 

U.S. Geol. Survey TEI-831, 7S p. 

Major, M. W., and Simon, R. B., l968,Aseismic 

study of the Denver (Derby) earthquakes:· Colorado 

School Mines Quart., v. 63, no. 1, p. 9-SS. 

Manger, G. E., 1963, Porosity and bulk density of sedimentary rocks: U.S. Geol. Survey Bull il44-E, SSp. 

McNeal, R. P., 196S, Hydrodynamics of the Permian 

basin in Fluids in' subsurface environments: Am. 

Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Mem. 4, p. 308-326. 

Mechem, 0. E., and Garrett, J. H., 1963. Deep injection disposal well for liquid toxic waste: Am. Soc. 

Civil Engineers Proc., Jour. Construction Division, 

p. 111-121. 

Moran, J. H., and Finklea, E. E., 19M:, Theoretical 

analysis of pressure phenomena as~ociated with 

the wireline formation tester: Jour. Petroleum 

Technology, v. 14, no. 8, August. 

Morris, D. A., Barraclough, J. T., Chase, G. H., Teasdale, W. E., and Jensen, R. G., 196S, Hydrology of 

subsurface waste disposal, National Reactor Testing Station, Idaho; Annual Progress Report, 1964: 

U.S. Geol. Survey open-filerept. 100-22047, 146p. 

Mudra, P. J., and Schmalz, B. L., 196S, An appraisal 

of gaseous waste disposal into the lithosphere at 

the National Reactor Testing Station~ U.S. Atomic 

Energy Comm. rept. I00-12024. 

Nace, R. L., 1960, Contributions of geology tothe 

problem of radioactive waste disposal in Disposal 

of radioactive wastes: Intern at. Atomic Energy 

Agency, Vienna, p. 4S7-480. 

1961, Underground storage of radioactive wastes: 

-rn1:erstate Oil Compact Comm. Bull., v. III, no. l, 

lS p., figs. 

Nace and others, 1962, Site requirements for routine 

liquid waste disposal: Am. Standards Assoc. Working Group NS.2.2. 

National Academy of Sciences, 1957, Report on disposal of radioactive waste on land: Natl. Research 

Council Pub. 519, 142 p. 

1962 and 1964, Reports ofCommitteeonSanitary 

~gineering and Environment, Subcommittee on 

Waste Disposal: Natl. Research Council. 

Ohio Division of Water, 1967, Contamine~ionofunderground water in the Bellevue area: F eport to Ohio 

Water Commission, June 1961: 28 p. 

Pickett, G. R., 1968, Properties oftheRockyMountain 

Arsenal disposal reservoir and the~.r relation to 

Derby earthquakes: Colorado School Mines Quart., 

v. 63, no. 1, p. 73-100. 

Pierce, W. G., and Rich, E. I., 19S8, Surrmary of rock 

salt deposits in the United States as possible disposal sites for radioactive waste: U.S. Geol. Survey TEI-72S, 17S p. 

Pollard, D., 19S9, Evaluation of acid treatments from 

pressure build-up an a 1 y s i s: Am. In st. M in i n g, 

Metall. Petroleum Engineers, Petroleum Trans., 

v. 216. 

Polumbus, E. A., Jr., and Associates, In~., 1961, Final 

report on drilling of pressure injection disposal 

well, Rocky Mountain Arsenal: Denver, Colo. 

Proctor, J. F., and Marine, I. W., 1965, Geologic, 

hydrologic, and safety considerations in the storage 

of radioactive wastes in a vault exca·rated in crystalline rock: Nuclear Sci. Engineering, v. 22, 

p. 3S0-36S. 

Querio, C. W., and Powers, T. J., 1961, Fundamentals 

of deep well disposal of wastes: Ohic Water Pollution Control Conference, Cleveland, Ohio, June lS, 

duplicated, 14 p., figs. 

14 
Repenning, C. A., 1959, Geologic summary of the San 

Juan Basin, New Mexico, with reference to disposal of liquid radioactive waste: U.S. Geol. Survey TEI-603, 57 p. 

__ 1960, Geologic summary of the Central Valley 

of California, with reference to disposal of liquid 

radioactive waste: U.S. Geol. Survey TEI-769, 

69 p. 

Roedder, Edwin, 1959, Problems in the disposal of 

acid aluminum nitrate high-level radioactive waste 

solutions by injection into deep lying permeable 

formations: U.S. Geol. Suryey Bull. 1088, 65 p. 

Sandberg, C. A., 1962, Geology of the Williston Basin, 

North Dakota, Montana, and South Dakota, with 

reference to subsurface disposal of radioactive 

wastes: U.S. Geol. Survey TEI-809, 148 p. 

Scheidegger, A. E., 1960, On the connection between 

tectonic stresses and well fracturing data: Geofisica pura e applicata, v. 46, p. 66-76. 

Scisson, S. E., 1960, Planning for mined underground 

L.P.G. storage: Oil and Gas Jour., v. 58, no. 18, 

p. 141-144. 

Scope!, L. J., 1964, Pressure injection disposal well, 

Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Denver, Colorado: The 

Mountain Geologist, v. 1, p. 35-42. 

Siple, G. E., 1964, Geohydrology of storage of radioactive waste in crystalline rocks at the AEC Savannah River Plant, South Carolina in Geological 

Survey research, 1964: U.S. Geol. Survey Prof. 

Paper 501-C, p. 180-184. 

Skibitzke, H. E., 1961, Temperaturerisewithinradioactive wastes injected into deep formations: U.S. 

Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 386-A. 

Snow, D. T., 1968a, Hydraulic characteristics of fractured metamorphic rocks of Front Range and implications to the Rocky Mountain A r sen a 1 well: 

Colorado School Mines Quart., v. 63, no. 1, 

p. 167-199. 

__ 1968b, Fracture deformation and change of permeability ana storage upo:p- change of fluid pressure: Colorado School Mines Quart., v. 63, no. 1, 

p. 201-244. 

15 

Theis, C. V., 1935, Relation between the lowering of 

the piezometric surface and the rate an1 duration 

of discharge of a well using ground-water storage: 

Am. Geophys. Union Trans., pt. 2, p. 519-524. 

1959, The disposal of low and interme1iate level 

-radioactive wastes to the ground in Industrial 

radioactive waste disposal, Hearings before the 

Special Subcommittee on Radiation, Joint Committee on Atomic Energy: Cong. of th~ United 

States, v. 2, p. 1117-1122. 

vanEverdingen, A. F., 1953, The skin eff~ct and its -

influence on the productive capacity of E well: Am. 

lnst. Mining, Me tall. Petroleum Engineers Trans., 

v. 198. 

Walton, W. C., 1962, Selected analytical rr~thods for 

well and aquifer evaluation: Illinois Wa<:er Survey 

Bull. 49, 81 p. 

Warner, D. L., 1965, Deep-well injectio:'l of liquid 

wastes-A review of existing knowledge and an 

evaluation of research needs: U.S. Dept. Health, 

Education, and Welfare, P u b 1 i c Health Service, 

pub. 999-Wp-21, 55 p. 

1966a, Deep industrial waste injecticn wells in 

----ale United States: A summary of pertinent data: 

Federal Water Poilu ti on Control Agency, duplicated 

1966b, Deep well waste injection-Re~ction with 

-aquifer water: Am. Soc. Civil Engineers, Jour. 

Sanitary Engineering Division, v. 92, no. SA4, Proc. 

Paper 4881, p. 45-69, August 1966. 

1967, Deep wells for industrial waste injection 

~ the United States-Summary of data: Federal 

Water Pollution Control Administration pub. WP20-10, 45 p. 

Yuster, S. T., and Calhoun, J. C., 1945, Prefl~;ure parting of formations in water flood operations: Oil 

Weekly, v. 117, no. 2, p. 38, no. 3, p. 34, 35, 38, 

40, 42, 48. 

GPO 886•381