United States Office of Ground Water EPA/816-R-99-014v

Environmental and Drinking Water (4601) September 1999

Protection Agency

The Class V Underground Injection

Control Study

Volume 22

Noncontact Cooling Water Wells
September 30, 1999

Table of Contents

Page

1. Summary ..............................................................1

2. Introduction ............................................................ 2

3. Prevalence of Wells ...................................................... 3

4. Wastewater Characteristics And Injection Practices ............................. 6

4.1 Injectate Characteristics ............................................. 6

4.1.1 Discharge Monitoring Report from New Jersey .................... 8

4.1.2 Toxicity Characterization Study from Massachusetts and New

Hampshire ................................................. 9

4.2 Well Characteristics ................................................9

4.3 Operational Practices .............................................. 10

5. Potential And Documented Damage to USDWs ............................... 12

6. Best Management Practices ............................................... 12

7. Current Regulatory Requirements .......................................... 12

7.1 Federal Programs ................................................. 12

7.1.1 SDWA ................................................... 12

7.1.2 CWA ..................................................... 13

7.2 State and Local Programs .......................................... 14

Attachment A: State and Local Program Descriptions ................................ 15

References .................................................................. 22
September 30, 1999 1

NONCONTACT COOLING WATER WELLS

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) conducted a study of Class V

underground injection wells to develop background information the Agency can use to evaluate

the risk that these wells pose to underground sources of drinking water (USDWs) and to

determine whether additional federal regulation is warranted. The final report for this study,

which is called the Class V Underground Injection Control (UIC) Study, consists of 23 volumes

and five supporting appendices. Volume 1 provides an overview of the study methods, the

USEPA UIC Program, and general findings. Volumes 2 through 23 present information

summaries for each of the 23 categories of wells that were studied (Volume 21 covers 2 well

categories). This volume, which is Volume 22, covers Class V wells that inject noncontact

cooling water.

1. SUMMARY

For the purpose of this study, “noncontact cooling water wells” are limited only to wells

used to inject noncontact cooling water that contains no additives and has not been chemically

altered. Wells that inject contact cooling water or noncontact cooling water that contains

additives (e.g., corrosion inhibitors, biocides) or is contaminated compared to the original source

water are considered “industrial wells.”

USEPA defines noncontact cooling water (in 40 CFR §418.21 governing fertilizer

manufacturing) as “water which is used in a cooling system designed so as to maintain constant

separation of the cooling medium from all contact with process chemicals...provided, that all

reasonable measures have been taken to prevent, reduce, eliminate and control to the maximum

extent feasible...contamination....” No sampling data were obtained during the course of this

study that can be used to characterize the quality of fluids injected into noncontact cooling water

wells. However, given the very narrow way that such wells and noncontact cooling water are

defined, it is reasonable to expect that the quality of the fluids will not threaten USDWs.

Available information suggests that these wells are commonly used in situations in which

cooling water is withdrawn from an aquifer and then injected back into the same formation (socalled “cooling water return flow wells” as defined in 40 CFR §146.5(e)(3)). In these situations,

the quality of the fluids injected will be the same as the quality of the fluids in the receiving

formation, except for a change in temperature.

No contamination incidents associated with noncontact cooling water wells, as defined

for the purpose of this study, have been reported. The only scenario in which noncontact cooling

water wells could be contaminated would involve pipe leaks that allow process chemicals or

other contaminants to commingle with the cooling water. Illicit discharges into these wells

appear extremely unlikely, since noncontact cooling water systems are operated as closed

systems that are virtually inaccessible for “midnight dumping.” No incidents of this or any other

kind were uncovered during the course of this study.
The wells in the proposed “other industrial well” category are: (1) wells used to inject fluids from 1

carwashes that are not specifically set up to perform engine or undercarriage washing; (2) wells used to

inject noncontact cooling water that contains no additives and has not been chemically altered; (3) wells

used to inject fluids from laundromats where no onsite dry cleaning is performed or where no organic

solvents are used for laundering; and (4) wells used to inject wastewater from food processing operations.

The other three kinds of wells included in the other industrial well category are addressed in separate

(continued...)

September 30, 1999 2

As for some of the other well categories addressed in this study, the inventory results for

noncontact cooling water wells are very uncertain because most responses to the state and

USEPA Regional survey did not distinguish these wells from other kinds of commercial or

industrial wells. The survey results suggest that there are more than 7,780 noncontact cooling

water wells in the nation, but this number includes some carwash wells, laundromat wells, and

food processing waste disposal wells. The survey results also indicate that noncontact cooling

water wells may exist in as many as 22 states, although most appear to be concentrated in Alaska

(212), Washington (3,900), and Tennessee (1,000). Ninety-eight percent of the documented and

estimated noncontact cooling water wells in the U.S. are found in ten states: Alabama, Alaska,

California, Iowa, Montana, New York, Ohio, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Washington.

Of the three states that have the vast majority of noncontact cooling water wells, Alaska

and Washington require the wells to be individually permitted. Tennessee currently permits

them by rule, following a program like the minimum federal requirements established in

USEPA’s existing UIC regulations.

2. INTRODUCTION

Industries use water to cool processes, products, or equipment. Water is an ideal heat

sink, due to its low specific heat. The cooling water used in industrial heat exchange systems

may originate from surface water, such as lakes or rivers, or from ground water. After ground

water has been used for cooling, it may be returned to the subsurface through injection wells.

There are advantages to the injection of the cooling water. For example, widespread pumping

can decrease ground water levels in an aquifer and/or cause land subsidence, but injection may

help preserve and protect an aquifer by returning water that meets drinking water standards to

the voids in water-bearing strata (Snyder and Lee, 1980).

On July 29, 1998 (63 FR 40586), USEPA proposed revisions to the Class V UIC

regulations that would add new requirements for the following three types of wells that, based on

available information, were believed to pose a high risk to USDWs when located in ground

water-based source water protection areas: motor vehicle waste disposal wells, industrial wells,

and large-capacity cesspools. Under the consent decree described in Volume 1 of the study, all

other types of Class V wells are to be studied further to determine whether they warrant

additional UIC regulation.

In the July 29, 1998 proposal, “wells used to inject noncontact cooling water that

contains no additives and has not been chemically altered” were included in the proposed “other

industrial” well category. In contrast, Class V wells used to inject contact cooling water or 1
 (...continued) 1

volumes of the Class V Study.

September 30, 1999 3

noncontact cooling water that contains additives or has been chemically altered would fall into

the industrial well category subject to the proposed regulation. Consistent with this proposed

distinction, this study focuses primarily on noncontact cooling water wells (NCWWs) that

contain no additives. However, it also examines other kinds of noncontact cooling water

because available information does not always clearly distinguish between noncontact cooling

water with additives and noncontact cooling water without additives.

3. PREVALENCE OF WELLS

For this study, data on the number of Class V NCWWs were collected through a survey

of state and USEPA Regional UIC Programs. The survey methods are summarized in Section 4

of Volume 1 of the Class V Study. Table 1 lists the numbers of Class V NCWWs in each state,

as determined from this survey. The table includes the documented number and estimated

number of wells in each state, along with the source and basis for any estimate, when noted by

the survey respondents. If a state is not listed in Table 1, it means that the UIC Program

responsible for that state indicated in its survey response that it did not have any Class V

NCWWs.

Some states and USEPA Regions administering the UIC program acknowledge that they

have not been able to determine exactly how many NCWWs exist for a variety of reasons. Chief

among these reasons is that NCWWs are sometimes grouped together with other well types in

inventory databases. Thus, the state officials are unable to distinguish between NCWWs and

other well types, such as heat pump/air conditioning (HAC) return flow wells, carwash wells,

and other industrial wells, within their databases.

These uncertainties notwithstanding, Table 1 shows there are a total of 5,775 documented

NCWWs and more than 7,780 estimated NCWWs in the U.S. The following ten states contain

98% of the documented and estimated NCWWs: Alabama, Alaska, California, Iowa, Montana,

New York, Ohio, Tennessee, Washington, and West Virginia. The wells appear to be

concentrated in Washington, Tennessee, and Alaska, but inventories from Washington and

Tennessee may be incorrect. Tennessee officials believe they have included closed-loop HAC

wells in their inventory (Sorrells, 1999), and Washington officials cannot differentiate between

NCWWs and carwash wells within their inventory (Cadmus, 1999). Alaska has 212

documented wells; however, most of these wells are located at one facility and are being phased

out and closed. In states where NCWWs are grouped in with other industrial wells, such as New

York and West Virginia, the documented number is recorded as less than the total number of

documented “other industrial” wells.
September 30, 1999 4

Table 1. Inventory of Noncontact Cooling Water Wells in the U.S.

State Wells Number Source of Estimate and Methodology

Documented Number of

Estimated Number of Wells

1

USEPA Region 1

MA NR NR Best professional judgement. State staff suspect

that noncontact cooling water wells exist at some

industrial facilities.

ME 0 NR Suspects these wells exist in ME, but none are

documented.

NH 14 >14 More wells suspected.

RI 4 Unknown Best professional judgement.

USEPA Region 2

NY <174 1500 Best professional judgement, based on years of

inspections and reviews of business directories.

USEPA Region 3

MD 3 >3 More wells suspected, but no information

provided.

WV <223 >223 total other Best professional judgement.

industrial wells

USEPA Region 4

AL 162 total wells, not >162 Best professional judgement.

categorized by type

FL Unknown NR Based on field visits, believe wells exist, but no

statewide inventory is available.

GA 2 2 N/A

TN 1000 >1000 State staff believe this number may include HAC

return flow wells. Only five NCWWs may actually

exist.

USEPA Region 5

IL 0 >0 Best professional judgement.

IN Unknown Unknown State staff did not provide estimate because it does

not differentiate between industrial wells addressed

in the July 29, 1998 proposed rulemaking and

“other industrial wells.”

MI 5 5 N/A

OH 8 60 Best professional judgement. Ohio’s USEPA UIC

inventory does not differentiate between industrial

wells addressed or not addressed in the July 29,

1998 proposed rulemaking. Insufficient

information on business locations and related

sewer locations across the state to develop an

accurate estimate.
Table 1. Inventory of Noncontact Cooling Water Wells in the U.S.

(Continued)

State Wells Number Source of Estimate and Methodology

Documented Number of

Estimated Number of Wells

1

September 30, 1999 5

WI 0 NR Suspect these wells exist in WI, based on inventory

efforts made in some counties and best

professional judgement.

USEPA Region 6 -- None

USEPA Region 7

IA Unknown <100 Best professional judgement. The estimate is

based on discussions with trade organizations and

county sanitarians, and from working with the

regulated community.

KS 5 5 Best professional judgement.

MO Unknown Unknown N/A

NE 14 14 N/A

USEPA Region 8

MT 10 50 Best professional judgement.

ND 0 Very few Best professional judgement.

SD 0 Unknown Region suspects more wells exist in SD, but none

are documented.

UT 7 >7 Best professional judgement.

WY Unknown Unknown N/A

USEPA Region 9

CA 7 507 Best professional judgement.

HI 5 5 N/A

NV 2 1-5 Best professional judgement.

USEPA Region 10

AK 212 150 Best professional judgement. Most wells are

located at one facility where they are being phased

out.

ID 18 18 N/A

OR 0 50 Best professional judgement.

WA 3900 >3900 Includes both noncontact cooling water wells and

carwash wells since database cannot distinguish

between the two; suspects more wells exist in WA

than documented.
Table 1. Inventory of Noncontact Cooling Water Wells in the U.S.

(Continued)

State Wells Number Source of Estimate and Methodology

Documented Number of

Estimated Number of Wells

1

September 30, 1999 6

All USEPA Regions

All States <5,775 > 7,780 Both documented and estimated figures may

include up to 3,900 car wash wells (see

Washington) and up to 1,000 heat pump/AC wells

(see Tennessee). Total estimated number counts

the documented number when the estimate is NR.

Unless otherwise noted, the best professional judgement is that of the state or USEPA Regional staff completing the survey 1 

questionnaire.

N/A Not available.

NR Although USEPA Regional, state and/or Territorial officials reported the presence of the well type, the number

of wells was not reported, or the questionnaire was not returned.

Unknown Questionnaire completed, but number of wells is unknown.

4. WASTEWATER CHARACTERISTICS AND INJECTION

PRACTICES

4.1 Injectate Characteristics

Within the scope of this study, noncontact cooling water contains no additives and has

not been chemically altered. If no additives are introduced to the water during the cooling

process, the injectate quality resembles the quality of the original source water used for cooling.

Therefore, in situations where cooling water is withdrawn from an aquifer and then injected back

into the same formation, the injectate quality will basically be the same as the water in the

receiving formation. Theoretically, the only characteristic that will have changed would be the

temperature.

Sometimes industries use additives in cooling water treatment programs in order to

provide corrosion control, scaling control, fouling control, and microbiological control (Frayne,

1992). Additionally, the natural chemistry and increased temperature of the water sometimes

accelerate corrosion of the pipes, introducing metallic elements to the injectate.

These additives may include a wide variety of chemicals in low levels. Examples include

chlorine, zinc, and chromium in biocides, such as algacides, bactericides, and fungicides;

well/pipe cleaners; sodium citrate in anti-scaling additives; antifreeze; and corroded pipe

metal/scale and anti-corrosion additives (Bose, 1997). State officials have mentioned other

examples, such as biodegradable additives, potassium permanganate for removing iron

accumulation, acids for removing lime scale from pipes, and tiny amounts of glue used in gluing

PVC pipes together (Sorrells, 1999).
September 30, 1999 7

USEPA Region 9 officials report some injectate quality information for noncontact

cooling water wells in Hawaii (Wong, 1998). Region 9 sampled a well that was associated with

an electric power plant. The findings revealed high metal levels due to the commingling of

boiler blowdown wastes. (Therefore, the injectate has been chemically altered and would not

qualify as noncontact cooling water defined for this study). There is also a report of a

manufacturing factory in Hawaii that injected noncontact cooling water. The fluids released in

this well contained acetone, so it is questionable if it would qualify as water that contains no

additives or has not been chemically altered. A third noncontact cooling water well was located

at a pineapple canning plant, but fluids released in this well were not sampled by USEPA

Region 9.

Other than this anecdotal information, no data have been obtained on the quality of

noncontact cooling water that is injected underground. Therefore, as a surrogate for such data,

this summary relies on information on the quality of noncontact cooling water discharged to

surface waters. It is important to keep in mind several distinctions between surface water

intake/discharges and ground water intake/injections. Noncontact cooling water withdrawn from

surface water has a greater variety of potential additives, especially biocides, such as those to

control zebra mussel or lamprey infestation within the pipes (McRae, 1999). Water from ground

water sources does not require such additives, except for algacides, bactericides, and/or

fungicides.

There are a number of characteristics of concern to states regulating the discharge of

noncontact cooling water to surface waters. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) general permits for the states of Maine, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire, define

noncontact cooling water as “water used to reduce temperature which does not come into direct

contact with any raw material, intermediate product, waste product (other than heat), or finished

product. Noncontact cooling water discharges are similar in composition even though they are

not generated by a single industrial category or point source” (59 FR 22048, April 28, 1994)).

For example, discharge permits for New Jersey, Maine, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire

include limitations on the following effluent characteristics:

C pH;

C Changes in temperature due to discharge;

C Total residual chlorine;

C Volume of the discharge;

C Total suspended solids;

C Petroleum hydrocarbons;

C Chemical oxygen demand;

C Acute toxicity to aquatic organisms; and

C Chronic toxicity to aquatic organisms.

The following sections summarize the results of two separate investigations of the quality

of noncontact cooling water discharged to surface water in New Jersey and in Massachusetts and

New Hampshire. Although the data are expected to be similar to NCWW injectate, these are not

injectate data.
September 30, 1999 8

4.1.1 Discharge Monitoring Report from New Jersey

The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy (NJDEPE)

collected data for 36 industrial facilities that submitted discharge permit renewal applications

and had active noncontact cooling water discharges from August 1991 to July 1992. The data

compiled from this effort are documented in a Discharge Monitoring Report (DMR) and are

summarized in Table 2. This table also compares the results to applicable standards, including

primary drinking water maximum contaminant level (MCLs), secondary (non-health-based)

MCLs, and health advisory levels (HALs).

Only two of the 36 facilities that were reviewed had detectable levels of copper and zinc.

Measurable levels of chromium (i.e., equal to or greater than 0.1 mg/l) were not found at any

facility. The minimum and maximum pH levels were reported to be slightly outside the

secondary MCL range. All other parameters were reported to be less than applicable MCLs or

HALs.

Table 2. DMR Data from 36 Facilities in New Jersey

Parameter Minimum Maximum Average mg/l P/S mg/l N/C

Drinking Water Advisory

Standards* Levels**

Health

Chemical Oxygen Demand 0.5 3,777 34.23 - -

(mg/l)1

2 3

pH range (S.U.) 6.0 8.9 -- 6.5-8.5 S -

Total Suspended Solids (mg/l) ND 31 4.4 - -

Petroleum Hydrocarbons -- 88.5 1.9 - -

(mg/l)

Chromium (mg/l) -- < 0.1 -- 0.1 P -

Copper (mg/l) -- 0.031 -- 1.3/1 Action -

Level/S

Zinc (mg/l) -- 0.209 -- 5 S 2 N

Temperature (EC) 4.9 35.3 19.9 - -

Some of the data reported were indicated as a less than value. For these data points, one half of the less than value was used 1

as the data point for purposes of estimating an average.

This was the highest value reported in the DMR and is not expected to be representative of the true range of data points. A

2

more representative maximum is expected to be 49 mg/l.

This is the calculated average utilizing all data points. The average value excluding the two data points which are not 3

expected to be representative of the true range of data points is 8.76.

Source: NJDEPE, 1994.

* Drinking Water Standards: P=Primary; S=Secondary.

** Health Advisory Levels: N=Noncancer Lifetime; C=Cancer Risk.

-- No data available.

- No standards of advisory levels available.
September 30, 1999 9

4.1.2 Toxicity Characterization Study from Massachusetts and New Hampshire

In November 1991, the Environmental Services Division from USEPA Region 1

conducted a study on the toxicity of noncontact cooling water discharges to surface water in

Massachusetts and New Hampshire. USEPA collected grab samples from 16 outfalls and three

individual plant water sources. Acute or chronic toxicity tests were conducted on the effluents

from these sources using the fat head minnow (Pimephales promelas) and the water flea

(Ceriodaphnia dubia).

This study showed that a majority of the noncontact cooling water discharges that were

tested caused significant acute or chronic toxicity to these aquatic organisms. Test results

reported acute toxicity (LC50) levels as low as 3.4 percent effluent, and chronic toxicity (no

observed effect concentrations) as low as 2.5 percent effluent. USEPA stated that the possible

causes for this toxicity included (NJDEPE, 1994):

C Contaminated source water;

C Presence of metals in the discharges; and

C Use of biocides or cooling water additives (i.e., chlorine) in the discharges.

These biocides and corrosion inhibitors are “toxic to aquatic life and would need to be

closely monitored and require periodic bioassay testing as well as toxicity limitations.” In New

Jersey, those facilities that add copper, chromium, or zinc as corrosion inhibitors are required to

have individual permits (NJDEPE, 1994).

New Jersey facilities that use chlorine as a biocide also do not qualify for a general

permit because chlorine has been proven to be toxic to aquatic biota. Chlorine, however, is a

parameter that is commonly found in public water supplies in low levels. The general permit

discussion states that a database is necessary to further examine Chlorine Produced Oxidants

(NJDEPE, 1994). The New Jersey general permit only allows biocides that are non-toxic.

Because the cooling waters tested in this study contained biocides, the resulting toxicity

characterization is not representative of noncontact cooling water “that contains no additives,”

which is of interest in this study. New Jersey now requires toxicity characterization studies in

their permit for discharges of noncontact cooling water containing biocides to surface water.

4.2 Well Characteristics

Cooling water return flow wells are typically shallow and drain fluid by gravity. Design

and construction varies greatly with the volume of injectate and local conditions. Cooling water

return flow wells may be designed as open or closed systems. The most common design is the

closed system, which withdraws ground water, uses it in closed pipes for cooling without ever

exposing the water to air, and then injects the water back into the same underground formation

from which it came (USEPA, 1987). In contrast, open systems expose ground water to the air at

some point before re-injection.
September 30, 1999 10

In Snyder and Lee (1980), several types of applications for ground water cooling systems

are described. The simplest systems are used for direct cooling, and employ either a shell and

tube heat exchanger or the “fan and coil” system, which cools air exposed to a coil filled with

cold ground water. Figure 1 shows schematics of these designs.

Cooling water return flows wells are sometimes used by power plants. For example,

Hawaii Electric Company reports that their subsidiary utilities use noncontact cooling water

return flow wells. The utilities have onsite source wells that supply cooling water for the power

plant condensers, which is subsequently injected through a Class V well (Bonnet, 1995).

However, officials reported that due to differing hydrological conditions, ground water

does not always provide enough cooling water for large industries in New Jersey such as power

plants. As a result, large industries more commonly use surface water intakes for large-scale

cooling, and most NCWWs are likely to be used by small businesses (Manhas, 1999).

The primary use of such wells is to dispose of used cooling water. However, they also

may be used to inject water to prevent subsidence and to avoid depletion of ground water

supplies. For example, Lichtler et al. (1980) documented two cooling water injection wells that

also provided aquifer recharge in Aurora, Nebraska. According to the authors, in order to

accomplish these other objectives besides disposal, wells injecting noncontact cooling water

would have to be sited in locations where it is important to prevent subsidence or maintain

ground water recharge.

4.3 Operational Practices

No information was obtained through the Class V survey on the operational practices of

NCWWs.

5. POTENTIAL AND DOCUMENTED DAMAGE TO USDWs

There is no evidence that any constituents in NCWW injectate, as narrowly defined for

this study, exceed any health-based standards. However, there is one case where documented

contamination was caused by a cooling water well. Eckhardt and Pearsall (1989) documented a

case of ground water contamination in which cooling water injection wells spread contamination

from a deep aquifer, which served as the original water source, to a shallow aquifer, which

received the water after it was used. Ground water contaminated with trichloroethylene (TCE),

1,2-dichloroethylene (DCE), and tetrachloroethylene (PCE) was withdrawn from the Magothy

aquifer in Roosevelt Field on Long Island, New York, and injected into an overlying aquifer.

The original source of the contamination, the well structure, and the type of cooling water return

well (i.e., open, closed, or contact) are unknown. In any case, however, the injectate was not the

relatively “clean” noncontact cooling water envisioned for the “other industrial” well category

proposed in the July 29, 1998 notice of proposed rulemaking because the feedwater was

originally contaminated.
September 30, 1999 11

Figure 1. Ground Water Cooling Systems for Direct Cooling

Source: Snyder and Lee, 1980
September 30, 1999 12

6. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Noncontact cooling water systems can be designed to shut down automatically in the

event of a pressure loss due to a pipe leak below ground. In addition, noncontact cooling water

systems can use a heat-conductive, but nearly impermeable, grout material to fill the casing

surrounding circulation piping, helping reduce the possibility of a leak.

In general, the use of noncontact cooling water is thought to be a best management

practice in itself because the water can be reused. The use of additives, as discussed in Section

4, is a major issue in determining if this practice is sound. From an environmental standpoint,

the use of non-toxic additives are obviously preferable to toxic additives such as chlorine,

copper, zinc, and chromium.

7. CURRENT REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

Several federal, state, and local programs exist that either directly manage or regulate

Class V NCWWs. On the federal level, management and regulation of these wells falls

primarily under the UIC program authorized by the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Some

states and localities have used these authorities, as well as their own authorities, to extend the

controls in their areas to address concerns associated with NCWWs. Although not targeted to

underground injection, general permits for discharges of noncontact cooling water have been

issued under the Clean Water Act (CWA).

7.1 Federal Programs

7.1.1 SDWA

Class V wells are regulated under the authority of Part C of SDWA. Congress enacted

the SDWA to ensure protection of the quality of drinking water in the United States, and Part C

specifically mandates the regulation of underground injection of fluids through wells. USEPA

has promulgated a series of UIC regulations under this authority. USEPA directly implements

these regulations for Class V wells in 19 states or territories (Alaska, American Samoa, Arizona,

California, Colorado, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New

York, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, Virgin Islands, and Washington, DC).

USEPA also directly implements all Class V UIC programs on Tribal lands. In all other states,

which are called Primacy States, state agencies implement the Class V UIC program, with

primary enforcement responsibility.

Noncontact cooling water wells currently are not subject to any specific regulations

tailored just for them, but rather are subject to the UIC regulations that exist for all Class V

wells. Under 40 CFR 144.12(a), owners or operators of all injection wells, including noncontact

cooling water wells are prohibited from engaging in any injection activity that allows the

movement of fluids containing any contaminant into USDWs, “if the presence of that

contaminant may cause a violation of any primary drinking water regulation . . . or may

otherwise adversely affect the health of persons.”
May 2003 is the deadline including an 18-month extension. 2

September 30, 1999 13

Owners or operators of Class V wells are required to submit basic inventory information

under 40 CFR 144.26. When the owner or operator submits inventory information and is

operating the well such that a USDW is not endangered, the operation of the Class V well is

authorized by rule. Moreover, under section 144.27, USEPA may require owners or operators of

any Class V well, in USEPA-administered programs, to submit additional information deemed

necessary to protect USDWs. Owners or operators who fail to submit the information required

under sections 144.26 and 144.27 are prohibited from using their wells.

Sections 144.12(c) and (d) prescribe mandatory and discretionary actions to be taken by

the UIC Program Director if a Class V well is not in compliance with section 144.12(a).

Specifically, the Director must choose between requiring the injector to apply for an individual

permit, ordering such action as closure of the well to prevent endangerment, or taking an

enforcement action. Because noncontact cooling water wells (like other kinds of Class V wells)

are authorized by rule, they do not have to obtain a permit unless required to do so by the UIC

Program Director under 40 CFR 144.25. Authorization by rule terminates upon the effective

date of a permit issued or upon proper closure of the well.

Separate from the UIC program, the SDWA Amendments of 1996 establish a

requirement for source water assessments. USEPA published guidance describing how the states

should carry out a source water assessment program within the state’s boundaries. The final

guidance, entitled Source Water Assessment and Programs Guidance (USEPA 816-R-97-009),

was released in August 1997.

State staff must conduct source water assessments that are comprised of three steps.

First, state staff must delineate the boundaries of the assessment areas in the state from which

one or more public drinking water systems receive supplies of drinking water. In delineating

these areas, state staff must use “all reasonably available hydrogeologic information on the

sources of the supply of drinking water in the state and the water flow, recharge, and discharge

and any other reliable information as the state deems necessary to adequately determine such

areas.” Second, the state staff must identify contaminants of concern, and for those

contaminants, they must inventory significant potential sources of contamination in delineated

source water protection areas. Class V wells, including noncontact cooling water wells, should

be considered as part of this source inventory, if present in a given area. Third, the state staff

must “determine the susceptibility of the public water systems in the delineated area to such

contaminants.” State staff should complete all of these steps by May 2003 according to the final

guidance.2

7.1.2 CWA

There are no national effluent guidelines for noncontact cooling water discharges to

surface water, which might have some partial applicability to ground water discharges. Instead,

USEPA has issued general permits for surface water discharges. USEPA’s regulations authorize

the issuance of general permits to categories of discharges (40 CFR §122.28). General permits
September 30, 1999 14

are warranted by similarities in environmental conditions, state regulatory requirements, and the

type of technology employed.

7.2 State and Local Programs

As discussed in Section 3 above, 98% of the documented and 98% of the estimated

NCWWs in the nation exist in ten states: Ohio, New York, West Virginia, Alabama, Tennessee,

Ohio, Iowa, Montana, California, Alaska, and Washington. Attachment A of this volume

describes how each of these states currently address NCWWS.

The statutory and regulatory frameworks for injection wells associated with NCWWs in

the states that indicate the largest number of wells fall into two major groups.

C USEPA directly implements the UIC Class V program in six of the states with relatively

large numbers of NCWWs: Alaska, Iowa, Montana, California, New York, and

Tennessee. In Alaska, Iowa, and Montana, the USEPA Region applies inventory and

permit by rule requirements to ensure non-endangerment of USDWs. In California, New

York, and Tennessee, the state also has water quality control requirements that it can use

to prescribe requirements for discharges into the waters of the state. These water quality

control programs can impose stringent permitting requirements, although in practice they

apparently have not given priority to noncontact cooling water injection wells as subjects

for regulation.

C Ohio, West Virginia, Washington, and Alabama are UIC Primacy States for Class V

wells. Although these states define cooling water wells as Class V wells in their state

regulations, they frequently do not specify that the injected water targeted by the

regulations is noncontact cooling water (i.e., the regulations apply to both contact and

noncontact cooling water). In some cases, wells are described as air conditioning wells,

without clarifying whether the rules apply to heat pump/air conditioning wells. In most

cases, applicable statutes do not establish requirements specifically targeted to

noncontact cooling water wells. In two of these states, Ohio and West Virginia, cooling

water wells are permitted by rule, with mandatory inventory requirements and a

requirement for non-endangerment of USDWs. Alabama allows Class V wells that do

not cause a violation of primary drinking water regulations under 40 CFR Part 142, and

requires submission of information in a permit application describing the use of the

injection well. Washington permits existing wells and prohibits new wells that inject

industrial, municipal, or commercial waste fluids into or above a USDW and requires

only inventory information from other wells.
September 30, 1999 15

ATTACHMENT A

STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAM DESCRIPTIONS

This section describes the regulatory requirements of the following ten states that report

having 98% of documented and estimated NCWWs in the U.S.: Alabama, Alaska, California,

Iowa, Montana, New York, Ohio, Tennessee, Washington, and West Virginia.

Alabama

Alabama is a UIC Primacy State for Class V wells. The Alabama Department of

Environmental Management (ADEM) has promulgated requirements for Class V UIC wells

under Chapter 335 of the Alabama Administrative Code (AAC). Injection wells used for the

injection of water previously used for cooling (cooling water return flow wells) are specifically

defined as Class V wells in the state (335-6-8-.02 AAC). The Code specifies that “Class V wells

may be allowed insofar as they do not cause a violation of primary drinking water regulations

under 40 CFR Part 142” (335-6-8-.07 AAC).

Permitting

The operator of an existing or proposed Class V well must submit a permit application to

ADEM that includes the following information (335-6-8-.14(a) through (e) AAC):

C Facility name and location;

C Name of owner and operator;

C Legal contact;

C Depth, general description, and use of the injection well; and

C Description of pollutant injected, including physical and chemical characteristics.

ADEM is required by the Code to assess the possibility of adverse impact on a USDW

posed by the well and to determine any special construction and operation requirements which

may be required to protect a USDW (335-6-8-.15(1) AAC). If the ADEM determines that the

proposed action may have an adverse impact on a USDW, the applicant may be required to

submit a permit application in the manner prescribed for Class I and Class III wells. When those

permit application requirements are applied, the permit application processing and issuance

procedures will follow the rules set forth for Class I and III wells (335-6-8-.15(2) AAC).

Siting and Construction Requirements

Class V wells are required to be constructed in such a manner that they may not cause a

violation of primary drinking water regulations, defined as 40 CFR Part 142 in USDWs. When

required by ADEM, the wells must be constructed by a well driller licensed by ADEM (335-6-8-

.25 AAC).
September 30, 1999 16

Operating Requirements

Class V wells are required to be operated in a manner that may not cause a violation of

primary drinking water regulations under 40 CFR 142. ADEM may order the operator to take

necessary actions to prevent violation, including closure of the well (335-6-8-.16 AAC).

A method of obtaining grab and composite samples of pollutants after all pretreatment

and prior to injection must be provided at all sites. Spill prevention and control measures

sufficient to protect surface and ground water from pollution must be taken at all sites (335-6-8-

.22 AAC).

Monitoring requirements may be specified in the permit, by administrative order, by

directive, or by inclusion in the plugging and abandonment plan (335-6-8-.28 AAC).

Plugging and Abandonment

A plugging and abandonment plan may be required by permit or administrative order. If

necessary, it may be required to include aquifer cleanup procedures. If pollution of a USDW is

suspected, ground water monitoring may be required after well abandonment (335-6-8-.27

AAC).

Alaska

USEPA Region 10 directly implements the UIC program for Class V injection wells in

Alaska. In addition, Chapter 72 of the Alaska Administrative Code addresses wastewater

disposal to ground water. Disposal of nondomestic wastewater is subject to restrictions in 18

AAC 072.500, including review and approval of a nondomestic wastewater system plan by the

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation.

California

USEPA Region 9 directly implements the UIC program for Class V injection wells in

California. The California Water Quality Control Act (WQCA), however, establishes broad

requirements for the coordination and control of water quality in the state, sets up a State Water

Quality Control Board, and divides the state into nine regions, with a Regional Water Quality

Control Board that is delegated responsibilities and authorities to coordinate and advance water

quality in each region (Chapter 4 Article 2 WQCA). A Regional Water Quality Control Board

can prescribe waste discharge requirements (WDRs) into the waters of the state (13263 WQCA).

These WDRs can apply to injection wells (13263.5 and 13264(b)(3) WQCA). In addition, the

WQCA specifies that no provision of the Act or ruling of the State Board or a Regional Board is

a limitation on the power of a city or county to adopt and enforce additional regulations

imposing further conditions, restrictions, or limitations with respect to the disposal of waste or

any other activity which might degrade the quality of the waters of the state (13002 WQCA).

Although the Regional Water Quality Control Boards do not issue permits for injection

wells, the WQCA provides that any person operating, or proposing to operate, an injection well
September 30, 1999 17

(as defined in §13051 WQCA) must file a report of the discharge, containing the information

required by the Regional Board, with the appropriate Regional Board (13260(a)(3) WQCA).

Furthermore, the Regional Board, after a hearing, may prescribe requirements for any proposed

discharge, existing discharge, or material change in an existing discharge in order to implement

any relevant regional water quality control plans that the RWQCB has adopted. The

requirements also must take into account the beneficial uses to be protected, the water quality

objectives reasonably required for that purpose, other waste discharges, and the factors that the

WQCA requires the Regional Boards to take into account in developing water quality objectives,

which are specified in §13241 of the WQCA ((13263(a) WQCA). However, a Regional Board

may waive the requirements in 13260(a) and 13263(a) for a specific discharge or a specific type

of discharge where the waiver is not against the public interest (13269(a) WQCA).

California counties take a variety of approaches to regulation of noncontact cooling water

injection wells, with some prohibiting them. For example, Merced County prohibits the

construction of “air conditioner” wells, defined as wells constructed to “return air conditioning

coolant water to the ground” (Merced County Code 9.28.060.B and 9.28.020 D). This

prohibition may apply to HAC return flow wells as well as non-contact cooling water wells.

Yolo County regulates only those activities that are not appropriately regulated by the State

Regional Water Quality Control Board and are deemed to warrant more stringent regulations due

to particular conditions within the county. Yolo County requires permits for wells that fall into

this category (Yolo County Code, Chapter 8, Water Quality, §§6-8.302, 6-8.602, 6-8.604).

Iowa

USEPA Region 7 directly implements the UIC program for Class V injection wells in

Iowa. No state regulations apply directly to non-contact cooling water return flow wells.

However, Iowa has enacted an anti-degradation policy to protect ground water from point

sources of contamination to the maximum extent possible (Chapter 567-61 Iowa Administrative

Code (IAC)).

Montana

USEPA Region 8 directly implements the UIC program for Class V injection wells in

Montana. The Region applies inventory requirements and permit by rule to ensure nonendangerment. No state regulations apply to noncontact cooling water return flow wells.

New York

USEPA Region 2 directly implements the UIC program for Class V injection wells in

New York. In addition, under the state’s Environmental Conservation Law, the Department of

Environmental Conservation, Division of Water Resources (DWR) has promulgated regulations

in the State Code Rules and Regulations, Title 6, Chapter X, Parts 703, 750 -758. These

regulations establish water quality standards and effluent limitations, create a state pollutant

discharge elimination system requiring permits for discharges into the waters of the state (which

include ground water), specify that such discharges must comply with the standards in Part 703,

and provide for monitoring in Part 756.
September 30, 1999 18

Permitting

Applications for a State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit must

describe the proposed discharge, supply such other information as the DWR requests, and be

subject to public notice. SPDES permits must ensure compliance with effluent limitations and

standards and will include schedules of compliance, monitoring requirements, and records and

reports of activities (Parts 751 - 756).

Operating Requirements

Wells must meet effluent limits (Part 703) as determined by the state in the SPDES

permit. Monitoring and reporting requirements as prescribed by the state in the SPDES permit

must be met.

Ohio

Ohio is a UIC Primacy State for Class V wells. Regulations establishing the

underground injection control program are in Chapter 3745-34 of the Ohio Administrative Code

(OAC). Class V injection well definitions include cooling water return flow wells used to inject

water previously used for cooling (3745-34-04 OAC).

Permitting

Any underground injection, except as authorized by permit or rule, is prohibited. The

construction of any well required to have a permit is prohibited until the permit is issued (3745-

34-06 OAC).

Injection into Class V injection wells is authorized by rule (3745-34-13 OAC). The state

applies inventory requirements and a non-endangerment requirement. However, a drilling

permit and an operating permit are required for injection of sewage, industrial wastes, or other

wastes, as defined in § 6111.01 of the Ohio Revised Code, into or above a USDW (3745-34-13

OAC and 3745-34-14 OAC). Therefore, if the injectate is anticipated to exceed primary

drinking water standards, MCLs or HALs, permits to install and operate the well are required.

Wells required to obtain an individual permit must submit detailed information, including

location, formation into which the well is drilled, depth of well, nature of the injectate, and a

topographical map showing the facility, other wells in the area, and treatment areas (3475-34-

16(E) OAC).

Siting and Construction

There are no specific regulatory requirements for the siting and construction of wells

permitted by rule. Wells required to obtain an individual permit must submit siting information

and construction records.
September 30, 1999 19

Operating Requirements

There are no specific operating or monitoring requirements for wells permitted by rule.

Injectate must meet drinking water standards at the point of injection, unless a permit allows

otherwise. Permitted wells will have monthly and quarterly monitoring and reporting

requirements (3745-34-26 (J) OAC).

Tennessee

USEPA Region 4 directly implements the UIC program for Class V injection wells in

Tennessee. The Region applies inventory requirements and permit by rule to ensure nonendangerment. However, the state also has enacted a regulation addressing underground

injection in Section 1200-4-6-.01 of the Tennessee Administrative Code (TAC) pursuant to the

state’s Water Quality Control Act. The statute protects all waters of the state, including ground

water. The state’s rules define cooling water return flow wells used to inject water previously

used for cooling as Class V (1200-4-6.06(5)(c) TAC).

Permitting

Under the Tennessee rules, construction and operation of an injection well is prohibited

unless authorized by an injection well permit or by a rule of the Tennessee Department of

Environment and Conservation (DE&C) (1200-4-6.03 TAC). No permit may be issued or

authorization by rule allowed where an injection well causes or allows the movement of fluid

containing any contaminant that would result in the pollution of ground water classified under

the state’s classification system. A permit or authorization by rule must include terms and

conditions reasonably necessary to protect ground water classified pursuant to 1200-4-6.05(1)

from pollution (1200-4-6.04(1) TAC). Injection into Class V wells generally is authorized by

rule, subject to compliance and demonstration of mechanical integrity (1200-4-6.07 TAC).

Siting and Construction

The variety of wells and uses preclude specific construction standards. A well must be

designed and constructed for its intended use, in accordance with good engineering practices,

and the design and construction must be approved by the DE&C. Wells must be constructed so

that their intended use does not violate the water quality standards (1200-4-6-.14(7) TAC).

Operating Requirements

Wells are required to be operated in such a manner that they do not present a hazard to

ground water (1200-4-6-.14(8) TAC). The well operator is required to monitor injection fluids,

injection operations, and local ground water supplies in accordance with monitoring

requirements determined by the type of well, nature of the injected fluid, and water quality of the

receiving aquifer (91200-4-6-.14(9) TAC).
September 30, 1999 20

Plugging and Abandonment

The DE&C must approve a proposed plugging method and type of cement. Plugging

may be carried out by any recognized method that is acceptable to DE&C (1200-4-6-.14(11)

TAC).

Washington

Washington is a UIC Primacy State for Class V wells. Chapter 173-218 of the

Washington Administrative Code (WAC) establishes the UIC program. Under the program, the

policy of the Department of Ecology is to maintain the highest possible standards to prevent the

injection of fluids that may endanger ground waters which are available for beneficial uses or

which may contain fewer than 10,000 mg/l TDS. Consistent with that policy, all new Class V

injection wells that inject industrial, municipal, or commercial waste fluids into or above a

USDW are prohibited (172-218-090(1) WAC ). Existing wells that inject industrial, municipal,

or commercial waste fluids into or above a USDW must obtain a permit to operate. All other

Class V injection well owners and operators must notify the WDOE and supply required

inventory information (172-218-090 (2) and (3) WAC).

Permitting

A permit must specify conditions necessary to prevent and control injection of fluids into

the waters of the state, including all known, available, and reasonable methods of prevention,

control, and treatment; applicable requirements in 40 CFR Parts 124, 144, 146; and any

conditions necessary to preserve and protect USDWs. Any injection well that causes or allows

the movement of fluid into a USDW that may result in a violation of any primary drinking water

standard under 40 CFR Part 141 or that may otherwise adversely affect the beneficial use of a

USDW is prohibited (173-218-100 WAC). The state’s Waste Discharge Permit Program, which

prohibits the discharge of pollutants into waters of the state (which include ground water)

without a permit (Chapter 173-216 WAC) does not apply to the injection of fluids through wells

which are regulated by the UIC control program (173-216-010 WAC).

Siting and Construction

The state has promulgated minimum standards for construction and maintenance of wells

(173-160-010 through -560 WAC). However, injection wells regulated under Chapter 173-218

are specifically exempted from these constructions standards (173-160-010(3)(e) WAC).

Operating Requirements

The water quality standards for ground waters establish an anti-degradation policy. The

injectate must meet the state ground water standards at the point of compliance (173-200-030

WAC).
September 30, 1999 21

Plugging and Abandonment

All wells not in use must be securely capped so that no contamination can enter the well

(173-160-085 WAC).

West Virginia

West Virginia is a UIC Primacy State for Class V wells. Regulations establishing the

UIC program are found in Title 47-13 West Virginia Code of State Regulations. The state

defines Class V cooling water return flow wells as wells used to inject water previously used for

cooling (47-13-3.4.5.m WVAC).

Permitting

Class V injection wells are authorized by rule unless the Office of Water Resources of the

Division of Environmental Protection requires an individual permit (47-13-12.4.a. and 47-13-

13.2 WVAC). Injection is authorized initially for five years under the permit by rule provisions.

Operating Requirements

Owners or operators of Class V wells are required to submit inventory information

describing the well, including its construction features, the nature and volume of injected fluids,

alternative means of disposal, the environmental and economic consequences of well disposal

and its alternatives, operation status, and location and ownership information (47-13-12.2

WVAC).

Rule authorized wells must meet the requirements for monitoring and records (requiring

retention of records pursuant to 47-13-13.6.b. WVAC concerning the nature and composition of

injected fluids until 3 years after completion of plugging and abandonment); immediate reporting

of information indicating that any contaminant may cause an endangerment to USDWs or any

malfunction of the injection system that might cause fluid migration into or between USDWs;

and prior notice of abandonment.

The rules enact a general prohibition against any underground injection activity that

causes or allows the movement of fluid containing any contaminant into a USDW, if the

presence of that contaminant may cause a violation of any primary drinking water regulations

under 40 CFR Part 142 or promulgated under the West Virginia Code or may adversely affect

the health of persons. If at any time a Class V well may cause a violation of the primary

drinking water rules the well may be required to obtain a permit or take other action, including

closure, that will prevent the violation (47-13-13.1 WVAC). Inventory requirements for Class V

wells include information regarding pollutant loads and schedules for attaining compliance with

water quality standards (47-13-13.2.d.1 WVAC).

The injection operation may be required to satisfy requirements, such as for corrective

action, monitoring, and reporting, or operation, that are not contained in the UIC rules (47-13-

13.2.c.1.C. WVAC) if they are needed to protect the USDW.
September 30, 1999 22

REFERENCES

Bonnet, W. A. 1995. Hawaiian Electric Company. Comments on the Class V Wells --

Regulatory Determination and Minor Revisions to the Underground Injection Control

Regulations; Technical Correction to the Regulations for Class I Wells; Proposed Rule. October

27, 1995.

Bose, L.T. 1997. USEPA Region 9 Ground Water Office. Memorandum to Clive Davies,

USEPA Office of Water. November 21, 1997.

The Cadmus Group. 1999. State-by-State Notebooks Compiling Results from the Class V

Underground Injection Control Study. February 1, 1999.

Eckhardt, D. A. V. and K. A. Pearsall. 1989. Chlorinated Organic Compounds in

Ground water at Roosevelt Field, Nassau County, Long Island, New York. U.S. Geological

Survey. USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 86-4333.

Frayne, S. P. 1992. Minimize Plant Wastewater. Hydrocarbon Processing, v71, n8, p 79(4).

August 1992.

Lichtler, W. F., D. Stannard, and E. Kouma. 1980. Investigation of Artificial Recharge of

Aquifers in Nebraska. U.S. Geological Survey. Reston, Virginia. Water-Resources

Investigations Report 80-93.

Manhas, B. 1999. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Water

Quality, Bureau of Point Source Permitting. Telephone conversation with Vaishali Deshpande,

ICF Consulting. April 1999.

McRae, A. 1999. Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Surface Water Quality

Division. Telephone conversation with Vaishali Deshpande, ICF Consulting. April 1999.

New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy (NJDEPE). 1994. Statement

of Basis Draft NJPDES General Permit to Discharge Noncontact Cooling Water into the Waters

of the State of New Jersey. NJPDES Permit No. NJ0070203.

Snyder, M. and C.H. Lee. 1980. Survey of Reinjection Experience from Ground water Cooling

Applications. PNL-3740. Kansas City, MO: Midwest Research Institute, Prepared for Pacific

Northwest Laboratory, under Department of Energy Contract.

Sorrells, S. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. Telephone conversation

with Vaishali Deshpande, ICF Consulting. April 1999.

USEPA. 1987. Report to Congress: Class V Injection Wells. Office of Water. Washington,

D.C. EPA570/9-87-006. September 1987.
September 30, 1999 23

Wilson, J., and Noonan, J.J. 1984. Microbial activity in model I aquifer systems. Ground water

Pollution Microbiology. New York, NY. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Wong, A. 1998. U.S. USEPA Region 9. Email correspondence to Bindiya Patel, ICF

Consulting. September 4, 1998.