WEST VIRGINIA 

FOLLOW-UP AND SUPPLEMENTAL 

REVIEW 

State Review of Oil and Natural Gas 

Environmental Regulations, Inc. 

January 2003 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

 

Introduction .................................................................................................................1 

Program Overview ........................................................................................................2 

Review Highlights..........................................................................................................5 

Part 1 - Follow-up to Recommendations of the 1993 West Virginia State Review

 General................................................................................................................7 

 Permitting.......................................................................................................... 15 

 Siting ............................................................................................................... 18 

 Public Participation............................................................................................ 19 

 Technical Criteria .............................................................................................. 20 

 Waste Tracking.................................................................................................. 21 

 Data Management.............................................................................................. 22 

 Inspection, Surveillance, Compliance Evaluation............................................... 24 

 Enforcement ...................................................................................................... 25 

Part 2 – Review of West Virginia Program Under 2000 Guidelines 

 General.............................................................................................................. 26 

 Administrative ................................................................................................... 30 

 Technical........................................................................................................... 39 

 Abandoned Sites ................................................................................................ 58 

 NORM............................................................................................................... 68 

Appendix A - Acronyms.............................................................................................. 71 

Appendix B -Completed Questionnaire and Selected Attachments .......................... 75 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 1 - 

West Virginia Follow-Up and Supplemental Review 

INTRODUCTION 

 The 1980 amendments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

created an exemption to the federal hazardous waste program for oil and gas exploration 

and production (E & P) wastes pending completion of a study by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. In 1988, EPA completed its study and determined that these wastes 

should not be regulated as hazardous wastes. In its regulatory determination, EPA 

indicated that existing state and federal regulations were generally adequate, but that 

some regulatory gaps existed and enforcement of existing regulation by some states was 

inadequate. EPA worked with states to encourage improvements in the states' regulations 

and enforcement of existing programs. This report is a part of that EPA funded effort. 

 An original assessment was made of the West Virginia exploration and 

production (“E&P”) waste regulatory program pursuant to the 1990 EPA/IOGCC Study 

of State Regulation of Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Waste (the "1990 IOGCC 

Guidelines"). That assessment, known as the West Virginia State Review (the “1993 

Review”), was published in December, 1993, and contained specific findings and 

recommendations for action based on the 1990 IOGCC Guidelines. 

 Since the 1993 Review, the IOGCC Guidelines were updated and revised by the 

Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission (the “IOGCC”) in 1994. In 1999, 

administration of the state review program devolved to a non-profit organization named 

State Review of Oil and Natural Gas Environmental Regulations, Inc. ("STRONGER"). 

STRONGER again revised, expanded and updated the Guidelines, which were accepted 

by the IOGCC, and published in June 2000 as the Guidelines for the Review of State Oil 

and Natural Gas Environmental Regulatory Programs (the "2000 Guidelines"). 

 This report consists of two main components. Part I is a follow-up review of the 

progress made by the Office of Oil and Gas (“OOG”) of the West Virginia Department of 

Environmental Protection (DEP) since the 1993 Review. Part II of this report is a 

supplemental review of the aspects of West Virginia’s program not covered by the 

IOGCC Guidelines, but which are addressed in the 2000 Guidelines. 

 In March, 2002, an eleven-person team (the “2002 Review Team”) appointed by 

the STRONGER Board conducted a follow-up review to evaluate progress made in the 

West Virginia program since the 1993 Review, and evaluate the adequacy of the program 

compared to the 2000 Guidelines. The eleven-person panel consisted of six members and 

five observers (collectively the “2002 Review Team”. David McMahon of Mountain 

State Justice; Richard T. Eades; David Janco of the Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection; Harold Fitch of the Michigan Department of Environmental 

Quality, Geological Survey Division; Robert L. Radabaugh of S&R Gas Ventures, Ltd.; 

and Ann Bradley of the Charleston-based law firm of Spilman, Thomas & Battle, served 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 2 - 

as members. Donald S. Garvin of Trout Unlimited and the STRONGER Board; Jeffrey 

R. Stevens, P.E., of R.H. Adkins & Companies; Peter Lagiovane of the U.S. Department 

of Energy; Steve Souders of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; and Mark Carl 

representing the IOGCC, participated as observers. Two 2002 Review Team members, 

David McMahon and Robert Radabaugh served as observers on the 1993 Review and 

Steve Souders served as an observer in the 1993 Review. 

 The process began with a questionnaire that was sent to the OOG. The 

questionnaire had been prepared by the STRONGER Board. STRONGER intended to 

capture both the status of the West Virginia program relative to both the finding from the 

1993 review (Part I) and new guidelines in the 2000 Guidelines (Part II).The OOG’s 

responses to the questionnaire were then sent to the review team. The review team then 

had its first meeting. The first meeting was conducted in Charleston, West Virginia, at 

the offices of the OOG on March 17th through 20th, 2002. Mr. James Martin, Chief of the 

OOG, made a short presentation and then he and his staff responded to questions from the 

review team based upon the written questionnaire and the OOG’s responses. Following 

the interviews and review of the written materials and backup documentation provided by 

the state, the review team compiled this follow up review report. 

 As noted above, Part 1 of this report contains the findings and recommendations 

of the 1993 Review Report, the West Virginia OOG responses to those recommendations, 

and the follow-up findings of the Review Team. Part 2 of this report presents the findings 

of the 2002 Review Team with respect to those aspects of the West Virginia program 

governed by standards established in the 2000 Guidelines that are new or different from 

the standards of the 1990 IOGCC Guidelines under which the West Virginia program 

was initially reviewed. 

PROGRAM OVERVIEW 

Gas Production 

The West Virginia natural gas industry is one of the oldest in the United States. 

Natural gas production in the state began in 1885. In fact, West Virginia was the nation’s 

largest natural gas producer until the 1920s. This heritage carries over to the present, in 

that the state ranks second in the United States in the number of active gas wells. Of the 

90,000 oil and natural gas wells drilled up through 2001, there are 43,126 still actively 

producing. The cumulative extraction of deposits in West Virginia has created the 

“space” to make the state one of the major gas storage areas in the nation with 

approximately 500 billion cubic feet of capacity. This is coupled with a growth in 

investment in storage related facilities, and has allowed more uniform year-around 

production. 

In terms of future potential, West Virginia has proven gas reserves of 2,846 

billion cubic feet, based on 1998 data. However, if unconventional deposits, such as tight 

sands and Devonian Shale are included, the reserve estimates are significantly higher. At 

present, producers in West Virginia are actively tapping the reserve base and the state 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 3 - 

ranks fourteenth in the United States in terms of annual natural gas production, producing 

approximately 167 billion cubic feet. Small and middle-sized firms characterize the 

drilling segment of the industry, and, overall, 90 to 95 percent of this activity is done by 

independents. These firms are able to attract nearly 95 percent of their capital from 

outside of the state. 

West Virginia is serviced by four major pipeline companies that buy a significant 

portion of the state’s production. In addition, these pipelines transport gas from other 

regions through the state to eastern markets. Overall, the state is self-sufficient in gas, 

but its central location between producing and consuming regions results in in-flows 

several times higher than annual production and consumption. 

Oil Production 

The oil industry in West Virginia also has a long and proud heritage, though it is 

significantly smaller in size than the gas industry. Oil production began in the state in 

1860. Since that time, approximately 48,000 oil wells have been drilled, and as of 2000, 

18,000 are in production. In 1998, oil reserves were 26 million barrels, and natural gas 

liquids were 71 million barrels. Oil reserves showed a steady rise, moving up from a 

plateau of 30 million barrels, in situ, during the late 1970s and early 1980s, to a peak of 

76 million barrels in 1984. The state’s oil production has been steadily declining since 

the early 1900s. West Virginia’s 1.5 million barrels ranked 24th in the nation for oil 

production in 1998 reports. 

State Program Developments Since Last Review 

Significant program changes in the West Virginia program since the 1993 review include 

the following: 

• The Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Manual was revised in 1993 as a Best 

Management Practice (BMP) document to assist operators in proper site construction 

and reclamation. 

• The Coalbed Methane Act, passed in 1993, gives authority and direction to the OOG 

regarding the environmental regulation of coalbed methane wells. 

• The National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Produced Water 

General Permit was developed in 1993 as an environmentally sound option for 

produced water from stripper oil wells. 

• In 1994 the DEP rules were reorganized to provide further clarification of authorities 

and responsibilities of the various regulatory offices and agencies. 

• Global Positioning System (GPS) units were provided for all field personnel in 1995 

to allow for the collection of accurate well location data. Additionally, all field 

personnel have cell phones and offices set up in their homes which include a 

computer, fax, copier, scanner and printer. 

• In 1997 a new general permit for the treatment of associated waste was issued.

• A Unix workstation was also installed in the Charleston office to better access the 

DEP’s Geographic Information System (GIS). 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 4 - 

• The DEP Office of Legal Services (OLS) was created in 1995 through the passage 

of House Bill 2523 (Executive Order No. 4-95) giving the OOG greater access to 

legal support for enforcement actions and development of rules. 

• In 1999 the OOG was formally organized into four programs/sections--- 

permitting, compliance, inspection/enforcement and abandoned wells---as a 

reflection of office priorities and to provide clarification of duties. 

• The independent, privately contracted OOG database has been converted to a statedeveloped and maintained Oracle system as of 1999, employed throughout the DEP. 

A few applications are still in the conversion process and should be fully completed 

by year-end 2002. 

• In 1995 a protocol was adopted for petitioning OOG for a determination of the scope 

of the RCRA exemption at oil and gas facilities in West Virginia. 

• The West Virginia Legislature created legislation in the 2001 session to re-instate 

rules for the implementation of the Natural Gas Policy Act (35CSR7) allowing for 

Section 29 tax credits. 

• The Legislature also approved regulation changes to allow for electronic permitting. 

DEP’s Information Technology Office is aggressively working to complete epermitting capabilities across the Department by mid January of 2003. 

• The former Division of Environmental Protection was restructured in the 2001 

legislative session. The change made the Division a cabinet level Department. Some 

of the larger Offices of the prior Division are now divisions within the new 

Department. The Office of Oil and Gas remains an Office within the reorganized 

DEP. 

• In 2002 legislation was passed to permit the submission of GPS locational data in lieu 

of an actual survey, for certain types of permits. 

Program Workload 

 There are 43,000 producing oil or gas wells in West Virginia. Each year 900 to 

1,400 new well permits are issued. Total annual permits issued, including work-overs and 

other activities, ranges from 1,500 to 2,200. There have been as many as 38 drilling rigs 

operating in the state at one time. The OOG estimates there are approximately 10,000 

known wells that are not currently producing and for which a “bona fide future use” has 

not been established (as that term is currently defined by regulation). These wells require 

inspections and may need to be plugged. 

 The 1993 Review found an inadequate number of inspectors. The number then 

was 15. Currently there are 14 inspectors. While the number of inspectors declined since 

1993, OOG’s duties have increased. Some examples of increased OOG responsibilities 

include a new general NPDES permit requirement for disposal of brine water that is 

produced from some oil wells; a new general permit for the disposal of pit waste water; 

new requirements arising out of the abandoned well act; OOG lead agency status for 

spills involving oil and gas; an increased number of permit applications, including coalbed methane wells; in recent years an increasing number of deep well applications; new 

provisions added to the Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Manual; and involvement of 

oil and gas inspectors in Watershed Assessment programs directed toward soil erosion 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 5 - 

and sediment control. In addition, the OOG’s responsibilities are expected to increase as 

a result of anticipated new regulatory activity in the areas of storm water, and antidegradation. 

 Initiatives that OOG has undertaken to deal with an increased workload and 

reduced staffing include equipping field personnel with cell phones, GPS units and home 

offices to enhance productivity; development and use of the Erosion and Sediment 

Control Manual and Well-plugging Field Manual to standardize field methods and 

streamline permitting; development of an electronic permitting system; and training of 

operators in proper field techniques to reduce the number of sites needing inspection 

enforcement activity. 

REVIEW HIGHLIGHTS 

 As noted above, the STRONGER Review Team and observers met with James 

Martin, Chief of the OOG, and his staff over the course of three days to discuss all 

aspects of West Virginia’s regulatory program for E & P wastes. The Review Team and 

observers were permitted wide latitude in their questioning of Chief Martin and his staff 

and responses provided were thorough and informative. In the course of these 

discussions the Review Team identified certain positive and innovative components of 

the West Virginia program that go beyond the provisions of the 2000 Guidelines and 

warrant consideration by other states. These components are discussed below. 

1. Well Plugging Field Manual 

 The OOG is in the process of developing a field manual to provide guidance on 

well plugging. The purpose of the manual is to present clear and simple instructions 

covering the technical aspects of well plugging activities. The goal is to improve 

plugging performance and decrease problems caused by failure to follow proper 

procedures. The OOG hopes to expand this program in the future by including 

mandatory training and certification requirements for plugging contractors. 

2. OOG Website 

 The website established by the OOG is an excellent source of information for the 

regulated community and for members of the public interested in oil and gas operations 

in West Virginia. The Soil Erosion And Sediment Control Manual, forms for well work 

permits, general permit registration and well transfer notifications are available in userfriendly format on the website. In addition, the entire inventory of active and abandoned 

wells can be easily accessed. The OOG is scheduled to have full capability for electronic 

permitting by January 2003. 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 6 - 

3. Training 

 The OOG has initiated a program to train operators in the proper practices under 

the West Virginia Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Manual. This program targets 

operators in a specific watershed and provides a detailed review of the practices 

described in the Manual. The goal of the program is to assess and minimize the 

environmental impacts of oil and gas operations in the watershed. To date the OOG has 

completed or is conducting training in four watersheds. Early results from this program 

show increased vegetative cover of 10 to 12% for sites within these watersheds. 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 7 - 

PART 1 

FOLLOW-UP TO RECOMMENDATIONS 

OF THE 1993 WEST VIRGINIA STATE REVIEW 

 In preparation for the 2002 STRONGER Follow-up and Supplemental Review, 

the staff of the OOG prepared an item by item response to each of the recommendations 

made as a result of the 1993 Review. The evaluation of the 2002 STRONGER Review 

Team is based on the written responses of the OOG as well as discussions from 

interviews of OOG staff. In its responses, the OOG stated that several of the findings and 

recommendations of the 1993 Review were beyond the scope of the 1990 IOGCC 

Guidelines in effect at that time. The OOG noted that, although it was not necessary for a 

reviewed state to respond to such findings and recommendations, the OOG had carefully 

considered each recommendation and reported any actions that had been taken that were 

responsive to the recommendations. The 1993 Review findings and recommendations 

are set out below, followed by the 2002 responses of the OOG and the evaluation of those 

responses by the 2002 STRONGER Review Team. The responses of the OOG to the 

1993 Review recommendations are shown in italics. 

I. General 

1993 REVIEW FINDING I.1. 

DEP has not yet institutionalized a multi-year planning process for E&P waste 

management. 

1993 REVIEW RECOMMENDATION I.1. 

Though the DEP has been in a state of transition, and while IOGCC Guidelines do 

not expressly address long-term planning, the review team nonetheless 

recommends DEP develop a long-term planning process. 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

 

In creating the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), the state 

legislature found that restoring and protecting the environment is 

fundamental to the health and welfare of individual citizens and our 

government has a duty to provide and maintain a healthful environment 

for our citizens. As part of this goal, the DEP has in place a strategic plan 

that extends up to 5 years into the future. This plan addresses 

coordination of all environmental permitting, inspection and enforcement 

program consistency, alternative approaches for environmental 

compliance, quality workforce enhancement, staff centralization, 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 8 - 

information management and communications capabilities, public 

involvement and financial capability. 

2002 FOLLOW-UP REVIEW FINDING: 

The 1993 Review recommendation has been met, although the recommendation 

was beyond the scope of the original 1990 IOGCC Guidelines. However, it is 

included in the 2000 STRONGER Guidelines [4.2.3]. The 2000 STRONGER 

Guidelines recommend that a state’s regulatory process should include both shortand long-term strategic planning for defining goals and objectives, setting 

priorities, and evaluating program effectiveness. 

The West Virginia Code (W.Va. Code §22-1-1(1998)) establishes restoration and 

protection of the environment as the fundamental goal for the DEP. To 

implement that goal, the DEP has instituted a five-year strategic plan. The plan 

addresses coordination of permitting, consistency of inspections and enforcement, 

alternative compliance approaches, staff training and advancement, information 

management, public input, and funding needs. Staff of the Office of Oil and Gas 

(OOG) implements the strategic plan by annually evaluating past activities and 

future needs and priorities, and by incorporating the program goals in individual 

performance objectives. 

See also discussion under Performance Measurement. 

1993 REVIEW FINDING I.2. 

The Oil & Gas Inspectors’ Examiners Board is an undesirable layer of 

bureaucracy that duplicates functions of other agencies and that obscures lines of 

authority for inspector selection and discipline, and it has the potential to 

adversely affect inspector behavior. 

1993 REVIEW RECOMMENDATION I.2. 

Although beyond the scope of the IOGCC Guidelines, the review team 

recommends that the Oil & Gas Inspectors’ Examining Board be abolished or, 

failing that, be restructured to greatly reduce representation of the regulated 

industry in its membership. The team also recommends the Oil & Gas Inspectors’ 

Examining Board, in any event, not have inspector discipline responsibilities. 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

The Oil and Gas Inspector’s Examining Board has been restructured 

(Chapter 22C, Article 7) (2001). The Board is comprised of the Office of 

Oil and Gas (OOG) Chief, the Division of Water Resources (DWR) 

Director, a member of the public[ representing surface or environmental 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 9 - 

interests], an independent operator representative and a major producer 

representative. Proceedings for the removal of inspectors are initiated by 

the director/secretary of the DEP. 

2002 FOLLOW-UP REVIEW FINDING: 

The recommendation was beyond the scope of the original 1990 IOGCC 

Guidelines, however, the recommendation has been partially met. The Oil and 

Gas Inspectors’ Examining Board has been restructured, meeting the first element 

of the recommendation. The Board retains some disciplinary authority, although 

disciplinary actions of the Board are now subject to appeal under the West 

Virginia Civil Service System. 

1993 REVIEW FINDING I.3. 

A number of West Virginia’s substantive E&P waste management laws vest 

duties in offices that have been subsumed within DEP. This circumstance 

obfuscates the connection between statutory authorization and agency 

action/regulation. 

1993 REVIEW RECOMMENDATION I.3. 

The review team recommends that conforming legislation, such as that drafted by 

DEP, be adopted. [1990] IOGCC Guidelines section 3.1. 

WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

In Chapter 15, Acts of the Legislature, 1991, the Legislature granted the 

Governor the authority to transfer the administration and enforcement of 

certain state environmental programs to the Division of Environmental 

Protection (now known as the “Department of Environmental 

Protection”). Pursuant to that authority the transfer officially occurred 

with the issuance of Executive Order No. 8-92 on July 1, 1992. 

Consequently, the DEP assumed the responsibility of administering all 

statutes and rules relating to the various state environmental programs in 

West Virginia. In July 1994, the Legislature enacted legislation introduced 

in House Bill 4065 which re-codified all existing state environmental 

statutes administered by the DEP under the same chapter of the West 

Virginia Code (Chapter 22). 

2002 FOLLOW-UP REVIEW FINDING: 

This recommendation has been met. Subsequent to the 1993 Review, the 

authorities for state environmental programs were transferred to the DEP in 

accordance with state law. In July 1994, the Legislature recodified all existing 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 10 - 

state environmental statutes administered by the DEP under the same chapter of 

the West Virginia Code (Chapter 22). 

1993 REVIEW FINDING I.6. 

If there were E&P waste management memoranda of understanding among DEP 

offices, and between DEP and other regulatory subdivisions, the boundaries of 

each regulator’s responsibilities could be more easily ascertained by all affected 

parties, and activities that are not actually being regulated would likely be 

identified. 

1993 REVIEW RECOMMENDATION I.6. 

The review team recommends that the DEP adopt a statement that delineates the 

E&P waste management roles of each of its offices, and also negotiate similar 

memoranda with other relevant state regulatory authorities. [1990] IOGCC 

Guidelines sections 3.1.e. and 4.4. 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

The OOG has the lead role in all [oil and gas] E&P waste management 

issues. Where there are specific delegated programs in which other 

offices within DEP have lead regulatory status, such as Underground 

Injection Control (UIC) or National Pollution Discharge Elimination 

System (NPDES), the appropriate Memorandums of Understanding 

(MOUs) and Memorandums of Agreement (MOAs) have been put in place 

and are updated annually. Copies of the MOUs and MOAs are included 

in the documents package. 

2002 FOLLOW-UP REVIEW FINDING: 

This recommendation has been partially met. Copies of memoranda of 

understanding with the Office (now Division) of Water Resources covering the 

administration of the NPDES permit program for coal bed methane production 

wells and the NPDES permit program for stripper oil wells were produced and 

reviewed. A document entitled “Shared Accounts Agreement for Underground 

Injection Control Program,” signed by representatives of the Office of Water 

Resources and the Office of Oil and Gas was provided and reviewed. An MOU 

between these two offices covering the underground injection control program 

was initially developed in 1982. However, the MOU cannot be found. 

Although the absence of the original written agreement was not identified as 

being the source of any problem or creating any impediment to the operation of 

the program, the 2002 Review Team felt that having a formal document covering 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 11 - 

the responsibilities of each party would help to avoid any such problems in the 

future. 

2002 FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATION: 

A formal MOU should be executed between the Division of Water Resources and 

the Office of Oil and Gas covering the administration of the Underground 

Injection Control program for Class II injection wells. 

1993 REVIEW FINDING I.9. 

The OOG does not have enough inspectors or funding to fully meet its statutory 

mandate. (See also Section IX of this report.) 

1993 REVIEW RECOMMENDATION I.9. 

 The review team recommends that West Virginia explore means to significantly 

increase OOG funding so that OOG can meet its statutory mandate. [1990] 

IOGCC Guidelines section 4.1.2.1.b.(1) and (2). 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

Budgetary increases to fund the OOG must come from the West Virginia 

State Legislature. While there has been no significant increases, some 

minor increases such as those regarding the processing of bond transfers 

and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) filings, have 

occurred. In 1996 a bill was drafted the Abandoned Well Act. Among 

other things, this legislation would have provided for a significant 

increase in funding for the purpose of plugging and reclaiming of 

abandoned wells/sites. Unfortunately, no action was taken by the 

legislature. Since the initial review, the OOG budget has remained flat 

and staffing is down 13%. 

 

The OOG is looking at various supplemental sources of funding including 

storm water Phase II permitting, violation assessments and grants. We 

have been able to access the Federal Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund for 

certain oil cleanup operations and we are now participating in a federal 

grant that will provide funding to staff an inspector specialist position 

dedicated to the area of well site reclamation. 

2002 FOLLOW-UP REVIEW FINDING: 

This recommendation has not been met. Since the 1993 Review, the OOG has 

made significant efforts to explore additional funding from several sources, 

including the Storm Water Phase II program, violation assessments and grants. 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 12 - 

However, West Virginia has not significantly increased OOG funding to allow 

OOG to meet its statutory mandate. The number of inspectors has decreased from 

13 full-time inspectors and two supervisors in 1993 to 13 full-time inspectors and 

one supervisor as of 2001. During the same period no significant increases in 

funding have been provided for operating the OOG. Since the 1993 Review, the 

OOG budget has increased only slightly from $1.7 million to $1.8 million, and 

staffing has been reduced by 13 percent. 

Disbursements for the Office of Oil and Gas in fiscal year 2001 consisted of 

approximately $2.36 million with $857,000 coming from general revenues, 

$649,000 from well work permit fees, $115, 000 from deposits to the reclamation 

fund ($100 added to each well work permit plus bond forfeitures) and 

approximately $50,000 in ground water fees. Since 1993 the OOG has 

supplemented its funding with a significant contribution from the Federal Oil 

Spill Liability Trust Fund under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 for plugging wells 

leaking oil. During fiscal year 2001, revenues from this fund totaled 

approximately $400,000. 

The oil and gas industry generates $3.2 million per year in severance taxes and, in 

addition, pays property taxes on minerals, pays B&O taxes, and generates income 

taxes. The general revenue funds received by OOG are only 25% of the severance 

tax receipts alone. 

2002 FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATION: 

The Review Team strongly recommends that the state increase the amount of 

funding for OOG to assure that the OOG is able to meet its statutory mandates. 

1993 REVIEW FINDING I.11. 

 The OOG does not have formal agreements with other DEP offices regarding the 

sharing of specialized staff expertise. 

1993 REVIEW RECOMMENDATION I.11. 

 The review team recommends DEP develop formal memoranda for sharing staff 

environmental expertise among OOG and other DEP offices. [1990] IOGCC 

Guidelines sections 4.3.1.3. and 4.4. 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

The DEP has formally established an Enforcement Coordinator within the 

Office of Environmental Enforcement, to provide technical environmental 

guidance and assistance throughout the Department. The OOG has 

received investigative assistance in the field and procedural guidance 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 13 - 

relating to assessment orders. Additionally, the OOG participates in 

monthly reporting, along with all other Divisions and Offices to the 

Enforcement Coordinator. This information is used to monitor and 

coordinate DEP enforcement activities. 

2002 FOLLOW-UP REVIEW FINDING: 

 The recommendation has been substantially met. The Office of Oil and Gas 

appears to receive technical assistance and expertise from within the DEP quite 

readily. No problem was identified relating to having sufficient technical 

expertise to respond to the statutory mandates of the OOG. The subject agencies 

are now all reporting to a single Department head, which provides for better 

coordination. The DEP established an Enforcement Coordinator to provide 

consistent guidance and assistance in the area of enforcement throughout the 

DEP. The OOG coordinates day-to-day with other specialized DEP staff, 

including a science advisor and information technology advisor. In most cases, 

written DEP policy directs that these specialists shall coordinate with and advise 

staff of the various DEP programs. 

 It seemed to be the general feeling among OOG staff that they had the complete 

support of DEP hierarchy in carrying out their mission. Although the literal 

language of this recommendation was not met in that there are no formal 

memoranda relating to sharing staff and expertise among the DEP offices, the 

Review Team felt that the agency had achieved such a significant level of 

cooperation that any formal memoranda of understanding were not necessary. In 

addition, the restructuring of the DEP has made such a legal formalistic approach 

unnecessary. The DEP is to be complimented for the excellent manner in which 

staff among the various divisions and offices are cooperating to lend expertise to 

the Office of Oil and Gas. Such coordination helps to offset the under-staffing and 

funding deficiencies. 

1993 REVIEW FINDING I.12. 

 The OOG does not seek legal advice early in its initiatives. 

1993 REVIEW RECOMMENDATION I.12. 

 The review team recommends OOG acquire sufficient legal support to prepare 

and pursue appropriate enforcement actions and to provide procedural and 

substantive support for rulemaking. [1990] IOGCC Guidelines section 4.3.1.2. 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

The DEP’s Office of Legal Services (OLS), created in 1995 (Executive 

Order 4-95), provides attorneys and other legal support staff (18 people) 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 14 - 

to represent the OOG and assist in enforcement actions. We have an 

attorney dedicated and funded as needed. During 2001, the time billed 

from OLS to the OOG amounted to approximately one-fifth of an 

employee. Additionally, the OLS has just recently hired staff dedicated to 

providing rulemaking support. 

2002 FOLLOW-UP REVIEW FINDING: 

 The recommendation has been met. The DEP’s Office of Legal Services, created 

in 1995, provides all necessary legal support to represent the OOG and assist in 

enforcement. Previously, the OOG had to rely on the office of the Attorney 

General for legal assistance. The OOG has both civil and criminal ongoing 

enforcement actions. 

1993 REVIEW FINDING I.13. 

 OOG’s orphaned well mapping project is a high quality program that may be a 

model for other states. 

1993 REVIEW RECOMMENDATION I.13. 

 Although beyond the scope of the IOGCC Guidelines, the review team recognizes 

West Virginia’s efforts to identify abandoned and orphaned wells and 

recommends the state continue with these efforts. 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

 Abandoned wells are defined under WV Code 22-6-19 and are a reflection 

of the well’s activity. While orphaned wells are not defined, they are 

generally accepted to refer to wells which have no operator. 

 The cursory abandoned well mapping/identification project has been 

completed. Subsequent to its completion, the OOG has undertaken efforts 

to further refine the results through field investigations. An OOG priority 

is to acquire high quality Global Positioning System (GPS) locational 

data on all abandoned wells as they are identified. As a mechanism in 

helping to achieve this goal, GPS units have been supplied to all field 

personnel. 

 The Office continues to work with operators on plugging programs and is 

planning an initiative for 2002 to accelerate this effort. The objective of 

this initiative will be to identify operators’ abandoned wells and to return 

them to a state of compliance through reactivation or plugging according 

to an agreed schedule. 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 15 - 

2002 FOLLOW-UP REVIEW FINDING: 

The recommendation has been met and exceeded. OOG is commended for its 

efforts. Abandoned and orphaned wells are now addressed in the 2000 

STRONGER Guidelines and are discussed in the Abandoned Sites portion of this 

report. 

II. Permitting

1993 REVIEW FINDING II.2. 

 At the present time, exempt E&P waste falls under the jurisdiction of various 

offices within DEP including OOG, OWR, OWM, and OAQ. 

1993 REVIEW RECOMMENDATION II.2. 

 The review team recommends that West Virginia continue to consolidate 

authorization for regulating exempt E&P wastes with the OOG. A formal 

interagency agreement or memoranda [sic] of understanding is needed to place 

responsibility for handling all exempt E&P wastes under the OOG. [1990] 

IOGCC Guidelines section 4.1.1. 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

As discussed in response I.6., the necessary MOUs are in place. All such 

MOUs are within the Department and fall under the authority of the 

Department Secretary. All exempt E & P wastes are presently handled by 

the OOG with the exception of minor amounts, which are landfilled, and 

fall under the jurisdiction of the DEP’s Division of Waste Management. 

2002 FOLLOW-UP REVIEW FINDING: 

The recommendation has been substantially met. See Finding and 

Recommendation I.6, above. 

2002 FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATION: 

A formal MOU should be executed between the Division of Water Resources and 

the Office of Oil and Gas covering the administration of the Underground 

Injection Control program for Class II injection wells. 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 16 - 

1993 REVIEW FINDING II.3. 

OOG recognizes that general permits are a method of regulating activities that are 

otherwise difficult to regulate individually, in light of the activity levels and fiscal 

constraints. 

1993 REVIEW RECOMMENDATION II.3. 

 The review team recommends that OOG work with OWR to develop a NPDES 

general permit addressing produced water discharges to surface waters, which can 

be issued by the OOG for a fixed term, followed by an evaluation of the permit to 

identify the level of success and the need for modification, if necessary. [1990] 

IOGCC Guidelines section 4.1.1. 

WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

The NPDES permit has been developed for stripper oil wells and been in 

place since 1994. The OOG has received 35 applications, since its 

inception, and currently has 10 active permits which average discharging 

approximately 200 gals./day over the course of the annual discharge 

period (6 months). Of the 5 parameters, pH, chloride (cl), iron (fe), oil and 

grease, and total suspended solids (tss), operators have had good success 

meeting the effluent limits for all but tss which has had moderate success 

and may have been adversely impacted through improper analysis. 

2002 FOLLOW-UP REVIEW FINDING: 

 The recommendation has been met. The recommended permit has been 

developed and issued, and is periodically reissued. It is currently undergoing 

evaluation by OOG. 

2002 FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATION: 

OOG should pursue resolution of the Total Suspended Solids issue. 

1993 REVIEW FINDING II.4. 

 The draft associated waste guidance document provides guidance on the goals of 

waste minimization, separation of exempt and nonexempt wastes, and selection of 

appropriate disposal technologies. 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 17 - 

1993 REVIEW RECOMMENDATION II.4. 

 The review team recommends that the OOG complete the associated waste 

general permit for a fixed term, followed by an evaluation of the permit to 

identify the level of success and the need for modification, if necessary. 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

The associated waste [general] permit has been developed and was 

originally issued in 1997. There has not been much interest by the 

industry in the permit. Since that date there have only been 6 approved 

applications. However in discussions with the Independent Oil and Gas 

Association (IOGA) environmental committee members, there is an 

indication of increased future interest. 

2002 FOLLOW-UP REVIEW FINDING: 

The recommendation has been met. 

1993 REVIEW FINDING II.7. 

 The plan gives no indication of whether a liner is required and what its disposition 

will be. 

1993 REVIEW RECOMMENDATION II.7. 

 Although beyond the scope of the IOGCC Guidelines, the review team 

recommends that whenever possible, the ultimate disposition of a pit liner, if 

used, be identified in the Erosion and Sediment Control Plan. 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE. 

Under West Virginia statute, a pit liner is required to be used whenever 

the pit is not naturally impervious. The liner remains under the drill 

cuttings after reclamation. The free water is treated and released under 

the Pit General Permit while the pit liner and solids are encapsulated and 

vegetative cover established (G.4(f)). 

2002 FOLLOW-UP REVIEW FINDING: 

Although beyond the scope of the IOGCC Guidelines, the Review Team finds 

that the recommendation has been met. 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 18 - 

III. Siting

1993 REVIEW FINDING III.2. 

With the exception of depth-to-groundwater restrictions, the West Virginia 

program meets the siting guidelines outlined in [1990] IOGCC Guidelines section 

5.3.3. 

1993 REVIEW RECOMMENDATION III.2. 

The review team recommends OOG address depth-to-groundwater restrictions in 

its permitting program. IOGCC Guidelines section 5.3.3. 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

West Virginia topography does not allow much flexibility regarding the 

location of drilling pits. However, all pits must be impervious or 

synthetically lined and in all cases, the OOG inspector has to provide 

approval as to the pit location. Additionally, depth to ground water is 

addressed in the casing program requirements (WV Code 22-6-21 and 

35CSR4-11-3) of the permitting process. All groundwater zones are 

required to be cased and cemented to the surface. One of the main 

objectives in the permitting process, as well as all facets of the OOG, is to 

ensure protection of groundwater. 

2002 FOLLOW-UP REVIEW FINDING: 

This recommendation has been substantially met. OOG staff stated that the 

appropriate location of pits, including whether the pits would be below the water 

table, was considered in the course of site inspections and review of reclamation 

plans. No specific requirement was identified, however, in the regulations or in 

the West Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Field Manual, which addressed 

depth to groundwater as restricting pit locations. The lack of formal restrictions 

may be of low significance, however, given the fact that all pits must be 

impervious or synthetically lined and that the OOG inspector must give the 

approval of the pit location. 

2002 FOLLOW-UP RECOMMENDATION: 

OOG may wish to define “impervious” for the purposes of consistency of site 

reviews. 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 19 - 

IV. Public Participation

1993 REVIEW FINDING IV.2. 

The minimum amount of time for persons receiving notice of a Well Work Permit 

to make a comment is 15 days. 

1993 REVIEW RECOMMENDATION IV.2. 

The review team recommends that the OOG evaluate whether the 15-day period is 

adequate. [1990] IOGCC Guidelines section 4.2.2.1. 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

The OOG permitting section has determined that the 15-day period is 

adequate, as they will accept any contact, including phone calls, to 

initially halt the permitting process while the company and OOG inspector 

address the concerns of the objecting party. The written notice of the 

proposed work is either hand delivered to the landowner with a signed 

affidavit of personal service or sent certified mail with return receipt 

requested. 

2002 FOLLOW-UP REVIEW FINDING: 

OOG has evaluated the time period and the recommendation has been met. The 

OOG has demonstrated enhanced attentiveness to comments by concerned 

citizens. 

1993 REVIEW FINDING IV.5. 

Adjacent and downstream landowners do not, in all cases, receive notice of Well 

Work Permit applications. 

1993 REVIEW RECOMMENDATION IV.5. 

 Notice of Well Work Permit applications should be published in local 

newspapers, and documentation of this publication should accompany the 

application filed with the OOG. Landowners adjacent to the well site should 

receive written notice of the application simultaneously with the filing of the 

application with OOG. Any affected member of the public should be allowed to 

protest, within 15 days after the Well Work Permit application is filed, and should 

have some opportunity for hearing and judicial review. 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 20 - 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

Notices of this nature are required for Coalbed Methane (CBM) and UIC 

well permit applications. CBM and UIC notices are required to be 

published as a class II legal advertisement in the local paper where the 

well is situated. While not required for other permits, affected parties 

have rights through the courts under common law. 

2002 FOLLOW-UP REVIEW FINDING: 

It is noted that this recommendation is beyond the scope of the 1990 Guidelines. 

The recommendation was made by one team member from the 1993 review team 

and did not represent a consensus recommendation. Therefore, it was concluded 

that it was not necessary to formally address this recommendation as a part of this 

review. Nevertheless, the recommendation and the response of the OOG were 

reviewed and discussed. No further recommendation is made on this issue by the 

Review Team. 

VI. Technical Criteria

1993 REVIEW FINDING VI.12. 

West Virginia’s regulatory program does not contain specific requirements 

applicable to commercial or centralized facilities. 

1993 REVIEW RECOMMENDATION VI.12. 

Although West Virginia currently has no commercial or centralized facilities, the 

review team recommends that OOG establish a specific regulatory program to 

include technical and public participation requirements that would be applicable 

to such facilities. [1990] IOGCC Guidelines section 5.7. 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

West Virginia still has no commercial facilities as defined under the 

STRONGER guidelines but would expect to establish the necessary 

regulatory requirements if and when such facilities were permitted. West 

Virginia now has five commercial disposal wells within the state and 

specific regulatory requirements for these facilities are written in the 

permits. With the states’ relative inexperience with these commercial 

disposal wells, OOG feels it would be premature to develop regulations 

until such time as the existing regulatory requirements can be evaluated. 

Technical and public participation requirements are a part of the existing 

process. The NPDES permit has established technical and public 

participation requirements applicable to those centralized facilities. 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 21 - 

2002 FOLLOW-UP REVIEW FINDING: 

This recommendation, technically, has not been met. However, West Virginia 

has no commercial facilities as defined in the STRONGER Guidelines, nor does it 

have specific regulations for commercial or centralized facilities. Surface facilities 

at centralized facilities are permitted in the same manner as surface facilities at 

producing wells. For this reason, the Review Team found that OOG meets the 

intent of Guidelines 5.10.1 and 5.10.2, because waste handled at a centralized 

facility is under the control of one operator. 

VII. Waste Tracking

1993 REVIEW FINDING VII.1. 

Currently, West Virginia does not differentiate between the tracking of 

commercial and non-commercial disposal of E&P wastes. 

1993 REVIEW RECOMMENDATION VII.1. 

Disposal of E&P wastes at commercial facilities requires an effective waste 

tracking system. The review team recommends that formal procedures be 

developed for waste tracking specifically associated with commercial facilities. 

This would include certification of waste haulers and other tracking requirements 

given in the [1990] IOGCC Guidelines sections 4.2.4., 4.2.5., and 5.7.2.3. 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE. 

As stated in response VI. 12., West Virginia has no commercial facilities, 

however, all commercial disposal wells require waste tracking to be in 

place before any waste may be transported to a commercial UIC facility. 

Additionally, the OOG does not allow third party haulers to transport 

waste to a commercial UIC disposal facility. The facility operator is 

responsible for hauling and tracking of waste. 

2002 FOLLOW-UP REVIEW FINDING: 

 See Follow-up Review Finding VI.12. 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 22 - 

VIII. Data Management

1993 REVIEW FINDING VIII.1. 

The data management capabilities of the OOG generally meet all criteria of 

[1990] IOGCC Guidelines section 4.2.7. 

1993 REVIEW RECOMMENDATION VIII.1.(1) 

While beyond the scope of the IOGCC Guidelines, the review team recognizes 

that OOG has developed an exceptional data management system and encourages 

OOG to continue to expand its use in E&P waste management by: 

(1) Requiring the filing of all water production data. Currently, water 

production is reported only for enhanced oil recovery wells. 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

The OOG once required filing of water production data but this policy 

was discontinued after evaluation. It was felt that the requirement was 

redundant, as most water was disposed of at UIC sites and specific water 

reporting requirements exist for those facilities. 

2002 FOLLOW-UP REVIEW FINDING: 

This recommendation was beyond the scope of the 1990 IOGCC Guidelines, but 

is now addressed under Data Management in the 2000 Guidelines. See Finding 

and Recommendation III.30 in Part 2 of this report, below. 

1993 REVIEW RECOMMENDATION VIII.1.(2)

(2) Consider more frequent filing of production and injection reports or 

computerization of those reports, or other mechanisms, to help avoid 

delays in processing the current annual reports. 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

The Underground Injection Control Section of the OOG requires monthly 

injection reports. The current annual filing requirements [for production 

reports] have not been found to increase the likelihood of delays in 

producing the annual reports. 

2002 FOLLOW-UP REVIEW FINDING: 

This recommendation has been met. 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 23 - 

1993 REVIEW RECOMMENDATION VIII.1.(3)

(3) Provide an 800 number for increased public access to the database. 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

An 800 number was established for public access to the database in 1995. 

The OOG now has its own web page which provides access to our 

database. The 800 number has been discontinued. Users have the 

capability of retrieving various types of information including: 

production, spills, violations, operators, and locations through an 

interactive mapping interface. The web page also provides access to all 

OOG forms, rules and regulations and the soil and erosion control 

manual. 

2002 FOLLOW-UP REVIEW FINDING: 

This recommendation has been met through creation of the web page. 

 

1993 REVIEW RECOMMENDATION VIII.1.(4)

(4) Acquire more complete GIS system support to augment the existing 

capabilities provided by DEP. 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

The OOG has its own Unix GIS workstation which provides access to the 

entire DEP GIS database. We also have the capability of uploading OOG 

acquired GPS data to this database. Additionally, the DEP, Information 

Technology Office (ITO), has a group dedicated to GIS administration 

and has just recently (2001) created the Customer Support Service (CSS) 

group to provide assistance to DEP personnel on all computer technology 

related subjects. 

2002 FOLLOW-UP REVIEW FINDING: 

This recommendation has been met. 

 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 24 - 

IX. Inspection, Surveillance, Compliance Evaluation

1993 REVIEW FINDING IX.4. 

The review team regards the inspection goals as quite good and recognizes the 

fact that most field staff remain motivated in spite of being overworked. 

However, because of limited resources, some issues are not being dealt with 

adequately and there is significant reliance on operator self-inspection (i.e., the 

frequency of periodic inspections is not always commensurate with risk). 

1993 REVIEW RECOMMENDATION IX.4. 

Although beyond the scope of the IOGCC Guidelines, the review team 

encourages OOG to consider the following to improve the effectiveness of current 

field staff: 

(1) Improve communications capability. For example, cellular phones or 

other means could be used to eliminate communication “dead spots”, and 

separate business telephone lines could be provided in an inspector’s home 

at the state’s expense. 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

All OOG field personnel are equipped with cell phones and have 

dedicated phone lines in their homes for state business. Each one also has 

a laptop computer and fax/scanner/copier/printer

2002 FOLLOW-UP REVIEW FINDING: 

This recommendation has been met. 

1993 REVIEW RECOMMENDATION IX.4(2)

(2) Develop some sort of formal overtime compensation system. 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

The DEP adopted an overtime/compensatory time policy in 1996 which 

covers all DEP personnel. 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 25 - 

2002 FOLLOW-UP REVIEW FINDING: 

This recommendation has been met. 

X. Enforcement

1993 REVIEW FINDING X.2. 

OOG has no formal guidance, other than the Drilling Fluids General Permit, to 

assist inspectors in determining if an incident is a violation. 

1993 REVIEW RECOMMENDATION X.2. 

The review team recommends that the OOG issue guidance for utilization by 

inspectors to ensure consistency in enforcement actions. [1990] IOGCC 

Guidelines section 4.3.1.4. 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

OOG inspectors function under a “team” concept as an approach to 

enforcement. The state is divided into districts with three inspectors in 

each district. Each inspector is encouraged to work with other members 

of his team (district) on problem cases. All enforcement actions must fall 

within the framework of WV Code Chapter 22 Articles 1 through 6 and 

35CSR1-4. Additionally, a 2002 initiative will include training to enhance 

violation identification and provide education on compliance achievement 

and enforcement policies and strategies. 

2002 FOLLOW-UP REVIEW FINDING: 

This recommendation has been met. Additional guidance with respect to ensuring 

consistency in enforcement actions is provided in the Office of Oil and Gas 

Assessment Policy dated November 15, 2001. 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 26 - 

Part 2 

REVIEW OF WEST VIRGINIA PROGRAM 

UNDER 2000 GUIDELINES 

The Guidelines for the Review of State Oil and Natural Gas Environmental 

Regulatory Programs, as adopted in June 2000 (the 2000 “Guidelines") contain certain 

standards that were not part of the 1990 IOGCC Guidelines in effect at the time of the 

1993 Review for West Virginia. In addition, the 1990 IOGCC Guidelines were revised in 

1994, which revisions included new standards. This portion of the Report covers new 

issues that are addressed in the 2000 Guidelines adopted since the 1993 Review. Each 

question is reprinted, with a reference to the relevant 2000 Guidelines section in brackets, 

together with the West Virginia response in italics, and is followed by the Review 

Team’s Findings and Recommendations. 

I. GENERAL CRITERIA 

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW QUESTION I.1. 

I.1. Are technical criteria for E&P waste management practices contained in a formal 

document? If so, please provide the appropriate reference. [3. l.f] 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

Yes, technical criteria for E & P waste management 

practices are found in the following: 

• Underground Injection Control (UIC) permit 

conditions for produced fluids, 

• General permit conditions for drilling pit fluids, 

produced fluids, and associated wastes, 

• For landfill disposal, all material must be 

determined to be RCRA non-hazardous as 

defined under 40 CFR Part 261. 

FINDING I.1: 

West Virginia program meets the 2000 Guidelines. 

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW QUESTION I.2. 

I.2. What are the goals and objectives of the state's waste management program? 

Please provide reference to the appropriate document(s). [2000 Guidelines 3.2] 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 27 - 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

In creating the Department of Environmental Protection, the State 

Legislature found that restoring and protecting the environment is 

fundamental to the health and welfare of individual citizens and the State 

has primary responsibility for protecting the environment. Furthermore, 

the legislature found that it is the policy of the State to use all practicable 

means and measures to prevent or eliminate harm to the environment and 

biosphere and to create and maintain conditions under which man and 

nature exist in productive harmony and fulfill the social, economic and 

other requirements of present and future generations. (WV Code 22-1 -1). 

Consequently the goals and objectives of all facets of the OOG are 

centered on the foundation of environmental protection. Specific to waste 

management, the OOG desires to minimize such waste and to provide a 

mechanism for and require the proper ultimate disposition of any waste. 

(associated waste permit, Underground Injection Control (UIC permit, 

other general permits, landfilling through the Division of Waste 

Management (DWM)). 

FINDING I.2: 

The West Virginia Program meets the 2000 Guidelines. 

The 2000 Guidelines [3.2] recommend that a state program should contain a clear 

statement of the program's goals and objectives, including protecting human 

health and the environment from the mismanagement of E&P wastes while 

maintaining an economically viable oil and gas industry. The guideline has been 

met. The West Virginia Code, Article 1, Division of Environmental Protection, § 

22- 1 - 1, states in part: 

(a) The Legislature finds that: 

(1) Restoring and protecting the environment is fundamental to 

the health and welfare of individual citizens, and our 

government has a duty to provide and maintain a healthful 

environment for our citizens. 

(2) The state has the primary responsibility for protecting the 

environment.... 

(b) The Legislature declares that the establishment of a 

department of environmental protection is in the public 

interest and will promote the general welfare of the state of 

West Virginia without sacrificing social and economic 

development. It is the policy of the state of West Virginia, 

in cooperation with other governmental agencies, public 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 28 - 

and private organizations, and the citizens of this state, to 

use all practicable means and measures to prevent or 

eliminate harm to the environment arid biosphere, to create 

and maintain conditions under which man and nature can 

exist in productive harmony, and fulfill the social, 

economic and other requirements of present and future 

generations. 

The West Virginia Code, Article 10, Abandoned Well Act, § 22-10-2, states in 

part: 

(b) The Legislature hereby declares that it is in the public 

interest and it is the public policy of this state, to foster, 

encourage and promote the proper plugging of all wells at 

the time of their abandonment to protect the environment 

and mineral resources of this state. 

The OOG implements these goals and objectives through establishment of 

personal performance evaluation objectives for its employees. 

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW QUESTION I.3. 

I.3. Does your program provide for flexibility in determining the criteria applicable to 

E&P waste (e.g., variation in criteria dependent on region of the state or other 

factors; authorization of site-specific waivers for good cause shown and consistent 

with program goals and objectives)? If so, please provide an example or examples 

and reference to the appropriate document(s). [2000 Guidelines 3.3]

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

Flexibility is provided for in both permits and regulations. NPDES permits 

are dependent upon local stream flow and stream load and consequently 

are designed accordingly (NPDES permit). Water Pollution Control 

permits are designed and utilized based on such factors as area 

topography and water quality contaminates. For example, some Coalbed 

Methane (CBM) wells produce high quality water and can be 

appropriately managed through such a permit. 

The Chief of the OOG has the authority to grant variances, under certain 

conditions, to requirements under 35CSR4 and WV Code Chapter 22 

Article 21. Insert WV response here. 

FINDING I.3: 

The 2000 Guidelines [3.3] recognize that it is appropriate for state programs to 

provide site-specific waivers or variances to be allowed for good cause, in order 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 29 - 

to accommodate regional, areal, or individual differences within a state. The West 

Virginia E&P waste management programs meets the 2000 Guidelines. 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 30 - 

II. ADMINISTRATIVE CRITERIA

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW QUESTION II.1. 

II.1 . Do E&P waste permits provide notice of the permittee's obligation to comply 

with other federal, state or local requirements? If so, please provide a copy of the 

form(s). [2000 Guidelines 4.1.1] 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

Notices of compliance obligation are contained in the UIC permit, 

associated waste general permit, NPDES general permit, and the drilling 

pit general permit. 

FINDING II.1: 

The West Virginia Program meets the 2000 Guidelines. 

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW QUESTION II.2. 

II.2. Has the state adopted a state contingency plan for response to spills and 

releases? If so, briefly describe, including volumes that trigger a response, time in 

which notification and clean-up is to occur, and criteria (i.e., cleanup standards) 

used to assure that remediation was accomplished. Please provide reference to 

applicable portions of the state plan. [2000 Guidelines 4.2.1.1.a] 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

The State has developed an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) to respond 

to disasters and emergencies. It assigns duties and responsibilities to 

departments, agencies, and support organizations. The DEP plays an 

integral part in this plan and additionally has established an 800 number 

for spill reporting and a corresponding "Spill Line Manual" that lists call 

procedures, contacts, etc. 

Crude oil and natural gas industry related spills are routed to the OOG 

for investigation. Additionally, notification directly to the OOG from the 

well operator is required immediately but in no case, later than 24 hours. 

Reportable discharges are those that: (1) would be reportable pursuant to 

section 311(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, (2) any upset 

or bypass causing effluent limitations established under the general permit 

to be exceeded or (3) any pit failure which results in a discharge to any 

surface water of the state. Cleanup standards are generally those found in 

the Groundwater Protection Area (GWPA) established Maximum 

Concentration Levels (MCL) and the associated waste general permit. 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 31 - 

FINDING II.2: 

The state contingency plans meet the 2000 Guidelines. It was also pointed out that 

another mechanism for addressing spills and releases in West Virginia is the 

State's voluntary remediation (or "Brownfields") program. See W. Va. Code § 

22-22-let seq. 

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW QUESTION II.3.

II.3. Describe any funding provisions to enable the state to respond to spills and 

releases in the event a responsible operator cannot be located or is unwilling or 

unable to respond, and any provisions for reimbursement of the state for moneys 

so expended. [2000 Guidelines 4.2. 1. Lb] 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

If a spill occurs from an abandoned well or wellsite, the OOG can access 

the Oil and Gas Reclamation Fund which can be used to plug and reclaim 

abandoned wells and well sites. Monies from this fund come from fees on 

new drilling permits and bond forfeitures and are typically in the 

$100,000 range per year. Expenditures from this fund can be recovered 

under WV Code Chapter 22 Article 10 Section 7(/). Additionally, the 

DEP’s Division of Waste Management has a response team that can be 

activated for assistance through the Hazardous Waste Emergency 

Response Fund (WV Code Chapter 22 Article 19). The statute was 

modified in 2000 to allows for clean up of petroleum products. The statute 

requires reimbursement for expenditures from this fund by the responsible 

party. 

The State has accessed the federal Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund through 

the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) regarding crude oil spills impacting or 

threatening to impact a navigable water of the United States and in which 

the responsible party is unknown. 

FINDING II.3 

The West Virginia program meets the 2000 guidelines. It must be noted, however, 

that the State relies on funds provided pursuant to the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 

for spills of oil, and, should those funds not be accessible to the State, an 

alternative source of funds for oil spill response activities would be necessary. It 

was also pointed out that legislation passed during the 2002 Regular Session of 

the West Virginia Legislature expanded the State's authority to recover response 

costs from responsible parties. See West Virginia Code § 22-11-29. 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 32 - 

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW QUESTION II.4. 

II.4. Describe the program planning and performance measurement 

processes, including the following [2000 Guidelines 4.2.3, 4.3, 8.1, 

8.2, 8.3]: 

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW QUESTION II.4.a.

a. Strategic or short-term planning. 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

The Office of Oil and Gas is comprised of four program/sections. The 

managers of each of these sections meet monthly with the Chief to discuss 

strategies and undertake short-term planning. A significant portion of the 

planning takes place with the individual employees during their 

performance appraisals. These are originally established at the beginning 

of each year with interim reviews as often as needed but at least mid year 

and year-end Assessment of the success of goals and objectives are 

determined in those reviews based on the performance standards 

established in the originally appraisals. 

FINDING II.4.a: 

The West Virginia program partially satisfies the 2000 Guidelines. There is 

excellent communication within the OOG which is sufficient to address short 

term planning criteria. In addition, the yearly review of budget objectives also 

provides an excellent opportunity to articulate and memorialize longer-term goals 

and objectives. OOG has also developed goals and objectives. 

OOG could improve on its overall planning by creating a long-term strategic plan. 

There is a need for expanded and formalized methods for establishing long-term 

plan goals and objectives. Such goals and objectives would allow for comparative 

analysis over time for specific data and indicators of protections of the 

environment and human health and safety. Among key program areas that may 

benefit from performance based planning are measurable objectives for the 

plugging of abandoned wells and the tracking of production wastewater or brine. 

They may also benefit from reviewing the performance measurement methods in 

other states. 

RECOMMENDATION II.4.a: 

It is recommended that a strategic plan be developed for the Office of Oil & Gas 

consistent with the DEP five-year strategic plan. In addition, it is recommended 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 33 - 

that data be collected and, in the preparation of budget objectives for the 

upcoming year, a review be made of the goals and objectives of the past budget 

year and an evaluation be conducted of the OOG's performance in meeting the 

goals and objectives. 

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW QUESTION II.4.b. 

b. Briefly describe how program goals and objectives are related to the protection 

of human health and the environment. [2000 Guidelines 3.2, 8. 1] 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

The OOG is the lead E&P regulatory body responsible for the protection of 

human health and the environment and consequently applies this premise 

in everything it does. This practice is evident in such activities as the 

review of all casing programs and proper site construction Best 

Management Practices (BMPs) for permit applications, responding to 

citizens' complaints, reviewing reclamation activities, establishing site -

safety plans for deep well permits, developing compliance orders and 

plugging of abandoned wells and reclamation of abandoned well sites 

along with a regular inspection and enforcement program. 

FINDING II.4.b: 

The West Virginia program meets the 2000 Guidelines. 

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW QUESTION II.4.c. 

c. Briefly describe the program's methods for 

establishing program goals and objectives. [2000 

Guidelines 3.2] 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

The goals and objectives of the OOG are predicated on the mandates as 

set forth in statute and regulation and are done in conjunction with the 

overall mission, goals and objectives of the DEP as outlined in the 

strategic plan and WV Code 22-1-1 (see General Criteria question 2). 

OOG staff participates in strategic planning by evaluating past activities 

and future needs and priorities to establish program goals and objectives 

for the coming year. 

The OOG has developed or implemented, or is in the process of 

developing and implementing, several initiatives designed to achieve the 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 34 - 

protection of human health and the environment. Examples of such 

initiatives include: 

 

• compliance protocols specified in novs and orders involving 

among other things, operator training, 

• site safety plan requirements for all deep wells, 

• well plugging contractor certification which will result in a 

guidance manual and training. 

FINDING II.4.c: 

The West Virginia program partially satisfies the Guidelines. In discussions with 

OOG staff they indicated that Employee Performance Appraisals (EPAs) were 

used to establish goals for each program/section. This appeared to be an adequate 

method for identifying specific goals and objectives. However, consistent with 

Recommendation II.4.a., the OOG should develop a mechanism to measure 

compliance with goals and objectives as well as developing a more formalized 

approach to strategic planning for the OOG. In addition, the 2002 Review Team 

was impressed with the initiatives that had been identified by the OOG that are 

designed to achieve the protection of human health and the environment. In 

particular, the OOG is to be applauded for the development of site safety plans for 

all deep wells, contractor certification for well plugging activities and creative 

approaches to compliance protocols by inserting requirements such as operator 

training in orders resolving notices of violations. 

RECOMMENDATION II.4.c: 

See Recommendation II.4.a, above. 

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW QUESTION II.4.d. 

d. How E&P waste management activities are weighted 

against other program activities competing for time 

and resources. [2000 Guidelines 4.3.1, 4.3.2]

WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

Protection of the environment is weighted above all other program 

activities (WV Code 22-1-1). As E&P waste management interacts in the 

environmental protection mandate, E&P waste management is weighted 

heavily. The OOG relies significantly on general revenue funding from the 

legislature but does seek other avenues. Just recently we were able to 

participate in an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) grant that will 

be used to staff an Inspector Specialist who will be dedicated to well site 

reclamation and BMP implementation and training. 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 35 - 

FINDING II.4.d: 

The Review Team concludes that the OOG staff is working well, within the 

budgetary constraints that it currently faces. Additional funding and personnel 

resources, however, would improve the effectiveness of the programs. 

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW QUESTION II.4.e.

e. How program plan expectations are communicated to staff at all levels 

who are responsible for program implementation. 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

Program priorities and plan expectations are developed through the 

strategic and short-term planning sessions undertaken by the OOG Chief 

and managers. These plans are then disseminated to the staff responsible 

for implementation through meetings, memorandums, and individually 

through the employee performance appraisal, which outlines specific 

duties and responsibilities (see question 4. a). 

FINDING II.4.e: 

The West Virginia program meets the 2000 Guidelines. The 2002 Review Team 

noted the excellent communication that exists among the OOG staff. 

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW QUESTION II.4.f.

f. Briefly describe how progress toward achievement of program goals 

and objectives is measured. [2000 Guidelines 8.2] 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

Policies and procedures which are developed and implemented to achieve 

the OOG's goals and objectives are always under review. Regardless of 

the method of measurement, all progress must be toward achieving the 

ultimate goal of protecting the public health and the environment. 

The OOG measures progress a variety of ways. One current example of 

impact assessment involves our efforts in the identification of areas 

deficient in erosion and sediment controls and the subsequent follow-up 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 36 - 

inspection after erosion and sediment control implementation. This 

methodology is being implemented at the DEP level in its watershed 

analysis. 

Input measures are also developed as we encourage feedback from all our 

customers (regulated community, environmental community, public, other 

government agencies). Under compliance and inspection/enforcement 

sections, the OOG receives and responds to a variety of complaints. 

Additionally the OOG conducts periodic operator and public training 

seminars. Through compliance protocol, the OOG is participating in 

individualized training and is planning a joint training session with EPA 

around June of this year. 

At the DEP level, town hall meetings have been held periodically to 

discuss particular issues and to receive feedback regarding the activities 

of the Department. The DEP has also in the past engaged in customer 

surveys to help gauge the level of achievement towards our goals. The 

DEP website presently provides one of the best tools for input from all 

sources outside the Department. 

The OOG has also historically engaged in output analysis, such as 

inspections and activity witnessing (Mechanical Integrity Tests (MIT), 

cementing jobs, etc), for determining success of individualized goals, 

which in turn provide a mechanism to evaluate the level of achievement of 

program goals and objectives. 

FINDING II.4.f. 

The 2002 Review Team noted several positive aspects of the OOG program, 

relating to benchmarking or measurable evaluations of success in addition to 

those identified in the above response. Several existing elements of the OOG 

program may lend themselves to benchmarking for the purpose of tracking 

improvements in human health and the environment, including: 

• Maintaining the OOG database to track and document the number of 

releases, outstanding violations, and abatement activities; 

• Maintaining the OOG database to track every citizen complaint that results 

in an identified impact to human health and the environment, to ensure 

that every citizen complaint is addressed; 

• Tracking OOG participation in watershed assessment programs, where 

such training is an excellent example of how the quality of program 

activities can be improved. One such effort resulted in a documented 10-

12% increase in vegetative cover at permitted sites throughout the 

watershed greatly increasing sediment control and reducing erosion. 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 37 - 

However, there needs to be a better link between information obtained from the 

measurement of progress in achieving goals and objectives, and the way in which 

the information is used to modify program activities. Performance measurement 

needs to be a cyclical process. 

OOG’s benchmarking is not clear enough to illustrate how the collected 

information is being used to evaluate the effectiveness of the programs in 

protecting human health and the environment. In particular, there should be some 

tracking process which monitors the number of abandoned wells that are being 

plugged each year, the number of newly determined abandoned and orphaned 

wells, and how resources meet the objective of plugging the significant backlog of 

wells to be plugged. 

RECOMMENDATION II.4.f: 

Additional development of benchmarking and measurement techniques is needed 

to more clearly and formally illustrate the link between performance 

measurements and the modification of program elements. Benchmarking and 

measurement will allow OOG to determine whether its efforts in a particular 

initiative are producing results and whether to modify its approach or techniques. 

Key indicators of the condition of the environment should be identified and 

tracked to measure OOG's progress in improving environmental conditions. The 

number of unplugged orphan wells and the percentage increase in cover in 

identified watersheds, for example, may offer reliable indicators of program 

success in improving environmental conditions.

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW QUESTION II.4.g. 

 Briefly describe how information obtained from measurement of progress 

in achieving goals and objectives is used to alter or refine program 

activities. [2000 Guidelines 8.3] 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

As information is gathered concerning progress measurement, the OOG 

seeks to identify successful processes and apply those to other, less 

successful areas. This assessment is undertaken collectively among OOG 

staff to promote consistency and allow for a, broader and more objective 

perspective. The OOG is striving to become more "team” oriented in its 

methodology for decision making in all facets of operation. 

West Virginia OOG has also found that information sharing between 

10GCC member states to be beneficial, as many issues tend to be common 

among states. 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 38 - 

FINDING II.4.g: 

The West Virginia program partially satisfies the criteria of the Guidelines. As 

noted previously, employee performance appraisals are used to evaluate, in part, 

whether goals and objectives have been met. 

RECOMMENDATION II.4.g: 

The Review Team recommends that a more formal approach to defining goals and 

objectives and evaluating whether they have been met should be developed by the 

OOG. It is recommended that data be collected and, in the preparation of budget 

objectives for the upcoming year, a review be made of the goals and objectives of 

the past budget year and an evaluation be conducted of the OOG's performance in 

meeting the goals and objectives. See also the discussion of benchmarking under 

Finding and Recommendation II.4.f, above. 

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW QUESTION II.5. 

II.5. Describe any waste hauler training and certification requirements for 

commercial transportation of E&P wastes in your state. Give reference to 

any statutory or regulatory provisions relating to this activity. [2000 

Guidelines 4.2.5] 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

The OOG has no such requirements. However, the West Virginia 

Department of Transportation (WVDOT) requires Commercial Drivers 

Licenses (CDL) for certain types and sizes of truck (91 CSR4) and the WV 

Public Service Commission has licensing authority over waste haulers to 

commercial landfills (150CSR9). All haulers to commercial UIC disposal 

wells are required to be affiliated with the commercial disposal well 

operation and no third party haulers are permitted for such facilities. 

FINDING II.5: 

West Virginia program meets the 2000 Guidelines for commercial waste haulers. 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 39 - 

III. TECHNICAL CRITERIA

A-GENERAL 

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW QUESTION III.1. 

III.1. Describe any general performance or design standards applicable to 

E&P waste management practices used in your state. Describe how these 

standards prevent contamination of ground water, surface water, soil or 

air; protect public health, safety and the environment; and prevent 

property damage. [2000 Guidelines 5.1.a] 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

All disposal of E & P waste is designed to protect human health, safety 

and the environment and must be permitted through the OOG (Chapter 

22, Article 6, Section 7) or approved for landfills, by the DWM (Chapter 

22 Article, 15). Permits contain the various waste management practices 

and standards applicable to the particular waste disposal method. 

Examples of waste management practices typical for most disposal 

methods are waste characterization, treatment methodologies, storage and 

secondary containment requirements, and specific operating and 

discharge requirements. 

Pits used during the drilling process to collect drill cuttings and fluids 

must be constructed, used and ultimately reclaimed in accordance with 

statute and regulation. They must not be left in such condition as to 

constitute a hazard or to prevent use of the surface for agricultural 

purposes after the expiration of the reclamation period (35CSR4-16 4). Pit 

fluid disposition is regulated through a Water Pollution Control Permit, 

which requires, among other things, sampling and testing to ensure 

contamination prevention, public health protection and property damage 

prevention. 

Produced water disposal is typically addressed through permitted UIC 

facilities or in certain instances, NPDES permitted facilities. With both 

permits, strict standards must be met from sampling and testing of the 

waste fluid and effluent to mechanical integrity testing of disposal wells. 

All these requirements are in place for the protection of public health and 

the environment. 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 40 - 

FINDING III. 1: 

The West Virginia program meets the 2000 Guidelines. See the discussion of the 

need to address location of pits relative to groundwater table in Part 1, above, 

Finding and Recommendation III.2. 

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW QUESTION III.2. 

III.2. Describe any waste segregation requirements or other measures 

applicable to E&P waste management practices and facilities that ensure 

that hazardous waste is not disposed with exempt E&P waste. Give the 

regulatory citation. Does the state require or encourage segregation of 

exempt from non-exempt E&P waste? [2000 Guidelines 2.8.d and 5.1.b] 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

Waste management and disposal permits delineate the specific wastes that 

may be managed under a particular permit and generally address waste 

that are not permitted under the permit. These permits do not allow mixing 

of exempt and non-exempt wastes. Additionally the OOG has reviewed gas 

transportation and handling facilities in the state and issued Declaratory 

Rulings for those facilities identifying the exempt and non-exempt waste at 

the facilities and the associated handling requirements applicable to each 

(35CSR4.7.3.b.3). All landfilled E & P wastes must be determined to be 

RCR,4 non-hazardous as defined in 40 CFR Part 261. 

FINDING III.2: 

The West Virginia program meets the 2000 Guidelines. 

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW QUESTION III.3. 

III.3. Are there any air emission control requirements applicable to E&P waste 

management facilities? If so, please describe and provide appropriate 

references. [2000 Guidelines 5.1.a and 5.10.2.2.c] 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

While there are no specific requirements, the OOG does address when 

encountered, on a site-specific basis, situations which may have an air 

impact. Hydrogen sulfide has been encountered in isolated areas in West 

Virginia and in such instances the Permissible Exposure Limits (PEL) 

established by Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) 

are enforced. Regarding landfills, the DWM does have requirements for 

methane emissions. 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 41 - 

FINDING III.3: 

The West Virginia program meets the 2000 Guidelines. 

B - PITS 

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW QUESTION III.4. 

III.4. Do you have specific technical criteria in place in your state for the 

following types of pits? If so, please cite the reference for such criteria. 

[2000 Guidelines 5.5. 1 ] 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

 Type Reference

 

 __ Reserve pits Drilling Pit General Permit, BMP Manual, 

35CSR4-16.4 

 

 __ Production pits see below____________________ 

 

 __ Skimming/settling pits not used____________________ 

 

 __ Produced water pits prohibited__________________ 

 

 __ Percolation pits prohibited__________________ 

 

 __ Evaporation pits prohibited____________________ 

 

 __ Special purpose pits see below__________________ 

 

 __ Blowdown pits prohibited__________________ 

 

 __ Flare pits contained in the site safety plan

 

 __ Emergency pits Drilling Pit General Permit, BMP Manual, 

35CSR4-16.4 

 

 __ Basic sediment pits prohibited__________________ 

 

 __ Workover pits Drilling Pit General Permit, BMP Manual, 

35CSR4-16.4 

 

 __ Other N/A_________________________ 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 42 - 

FINDING III.4: 

The West Virginia Program meets the 2000 Guidelines. The Review Team finds 

that the West Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Field Manual is an excellent 

tool for assuring that environmental impacts of E & P activities are minimized. 

Although outside the scope of the Guidelines, the Review Team acknowledges the 

value of the booklet entitled, "Managing Oil and Gas Wellsites for Wildlife," as 

developed through a cooperative effort of the West Virginia agency and the 

regulated community, and encourages OOG to make it available on its website. 

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW QUESTION III.5. 

III.5. What notification is required prior to construction and operation of 

rule-authorized pits? [2000 Guidelines 5.5.2.d] 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

West Virginia has no rule-authorized pits, as all pits must be permitted 

[under general or individual permits for this purpose.]. 

FINDING III.5: 

The West Virginia program meets the 2000 Guidelines. 

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW QUESTION III.6. 

III.6. Briefly describe any provisions concerning the issuance and use of emergency 

permits for pits. Give reference to the applicable statutory or regulatory 

sections. [2000 Guidelines 5.5.2.e] 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

Emergency pits can be constructed, on a site-specific basis, only after 

receiving prior approval from the OOG inspector (Construction and 

Reclamation BMP Manual). Any emergency pit is subject to all the same 

requirements as regular reserve pits. 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 43 - 

FINDING III.6: 

The West Virginia program meets the 2000 Guidelines. 

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW QUESTION III.7. 

III.7. What are the requirements for the placement of reserve pits relative to drilling 

equipment? [2000 Guidelines 5.5.3.g] 

WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

Section 7, pages 21 and 22 of the Construction and Reclamation BMP 

Manual, provides specific requirements for the placement of reserve pits 

relative to drilling equipment. Additionally, wells requiring a site safety 

plan include further requirements for the placement of reserve pits. 

FINDING III.7: 

The West Virginia program meets the 2000 Guidelines. 

C - LANDSPREADING (Non-Commercial) 

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW QUESTION III.8. 

III.8. Give reference for any statutory or regulatory definitions of, or prohibitions 

against, landspreading that are applicable in your state. [2000 Guidelines 

5.6.1.a] 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

Definitions are contained in the Drilling Pit General permit which 

identifies the permitted materials as those generated during 

exploratory/developmental drilling, well treatment operations, plugging 

operations and reworking of wells. The Associated Waste General Permit 

also addresses landspreading as a treatment/disposal for some types of 

wastes. 

FINDING III.8: 

The West Virginia program meets the 2000 Guidelines. 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 44 - 

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW QUESTION III.9. 

III.9. Is on-site landspreading of waste containing NORM above action levels 

prohibited? [2000 Guidelines 5.6.1.c] 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

If a waste contained NORM above active levels, landspreading would be 

prohibited. 

FINDING III.9: 

The West Virginia program meets the 2000 Guidelines. Two sites are currently 

being evaluated for NORM under the West Virginia voluntary remediation 

program. 

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW QUESTION III.10. 

III.10. Briefly discuss each of the following operational requirements as they apply to 

landspreading (give reference to any statutory or regulatory requirements): [2000 

Guidelines 5.6.3] 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

All the operational requirements below are found in the Drilling Pit and 

Associated Waste General Permits. 

a. Removal of free oil 

The Drilling Pit and the Associated Waste General Permits require the 

removal of free oil. 

b. Allowable pH range of waste being disposed 

For the Drilling Pit General Permit, 6-10. No pH range established for 

the Associated Waste General Permit. 

c. Spreading of solids and incorporation into the soil 

The Associated Waste General Permit requires delineation of the 

contaminated area and along with the site registration for the permit, the 

permittee must provide a description of their treatment methodology, 

which includes the spreading of solids and incorporation into the soil. 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 45 - 

d. Application rates, methods and practices for liquids 

Under the Drilling Pit General Permit, the discharge of liquids shall be 

conducted only on vegetated land. It may not be conducted on saturated, 

frozen or impermeable ground. The discharge shall be applied at a rate 

that shall not cause ponding, erosion or run-off into the water of the state. 

Effluent limits are established for iron, dissolved oxygen, settleable solids, 

chloride, aluminum, oil and grease, and manganese. 

e. Addition of nutrients for biodegradation 

Under the associated Waste General Permit, the description of treatment 

methodologies shall identify the addition of nutrients for biodegradation. 

f. Waste limitations (e.g., Electrical Conductivity, Exchangeable Sodium 

Percentage, Sodium Absorption Ratio) 

Specific limitations are addressed in the Drilling Pit General Permit and 

on a site-specific basis for the associated Waste General Permit. 

g. Limitations on waste-soil ratio by oil and grease content 

The Drilling Pit General Permit requires that when any oil and grease 

levels are above 15 milligrams/liter (mg/l) the operator must submit an 

explanation of the cause of such level and the steps to be taken to reduce 

the levels. The Associated Waste General Permit, requires treatment to a 

level of 500 ppm for total petroleum hydrocarbons (tph). 

h. Limits on salt and hydrocarbon content in final waste-soil mixture 

Final hydrocarbon content in waste soil mixture must be 500 ppm or 

below. Salt content in the final waste soil mixture is not required to be 

determined because effluent limitations are set for salt content of a 

discharge through the general permit. 

i. Enhanced techniques available to meet final criteria for salt and hydrocarbons 

The use of any enhanced techniques must be described in the treatment 

methodology contained in the associated waste permit. 

j. Soil analysis required prior to landspreading and/or after site closure 

The area of contamination must be delineated by soil analysis prior to 

treatment and must achieve the 500 ppm at site closure in accordance with 

the provisions of the associated waste general permit. 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 46 - 

k. Any additional criteria for landspreading special wastes 

N/A 

FINDING III.10: 

The West Virginia program meets the 2000 Guidelines. The 2002 Review Team 

notes with approval the fact that the standard for total petroleum hydrocarbons in 

soil (500 ppm) (see 10.g.) is significantly more protective that the criteria 

recommended by the Guidelines (10,000 ppm oil and grease). 

D - BURIAL AND LANDFILLING (Non-Commercial) 

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW QUESTION III.11. 

III.11. Give reference for any statutory or regulatory definitions of or prohibitions 

against burial or landfilling which are applicable in your state. [2000 Guidelines 

5.7.1] 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

The only burial allowed is for residues left in the pit after discharge of 

fluids as provided for in the Pit General Permit. While there are no 

statutes or regulation prohibitions against burial or landfilling, any 

ultimate disposal of a waste must be permitted (WV Code 22-6-7). It is the 

policy of the OOG to prohibit the burial or landfilling of waste beyond 

what is permitted under the Pit General Permit. 

FINDING III.11: 

The West Virginia program meets the 2000 Guidelines. 

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW QUESTION III.12.

III.12. Do you have specific regulatory requirements for burial or landfilling of E&P 

wastes? If so, give reference to the applicable statutory or regulatory sections. 

[2000 Guidelines 5.7.2] 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

The Pit General Permit (G.4(f)), provides requirements for the burial of 

residues left in pits. After discharge of pit fluids, the remaining material 

shall be promptly covered with adequate soil to prevent contact with the 

surface runoff and reduce the potential for pollution of surface water. 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 47 - 

FINDING III.12: 

The West Virginia program meets the 2000 Guidelines. 

E - ROADSPREADING 

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW QUESTION III.13. 

III.13. Give reference for any statutory or regulatory definitions of or prohibitions 

against roadspreading which are applicable in your state. [2000 Guidelines 

5.8.1] 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

Chapter 22, Article 6, Section 7 requires a permit for the discharge of 

any waste. It is the policy of the OOG at the present time that 

roadspreading is not viable and therefore prohibited. 

FINDING III.13: 

The West Virginia program meets the 2000 Guidelines. 

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW QUESTION III.14. 

III.14. Briefly discuss each of the following operational requirements as they apply to 

roadspreading (give reference to any statutory or regulatory requirements): [2000 

Guidelines 5.8.3] 

 N/A 

a. testing criteria that are applicable for wastes proposed for roadspreading (e.g., 

ignitability, density, metal content, consistency with approved road oils) 

 N/A 

b. application rates 

 N/A 

c. buffer zones 

 N/A 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 48 - 

d. produced water testing (for similarity to approved commercial products) 

N/A 

FINDING III.14: 

The West Virginia program meets the 2000 Guidelines. 

F - TANKS 

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW QUESTION III.15. 

III.15. Give references for any statutory or regulatory definitions of E&P waste tanks 

used in your state. How are the tanks that treat, store or dispose of E&P waste 

regulated differently, if any, from tanks used exclusively for processing or storage 

of petroleum products? [2000 Guidelines 5.9] 

WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

West Virginia Title 35, Series 1 provides requirements for all tanks 

whether used for storage and disposal of E & P wastes or for processing 

and storage of petroleum products. 

FINDING III.15: 

 The West Virginia program meets the 2000 Guidelines. 

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW QUESTION III.16. 

III.16. Describe any requirements pertaining to the location, use, capacity, age and 

construction of E&P waste tanks, including registration, inventories, etc. [2000 

Guidelines 5.9.2.a] 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

All tanks used for the storage of E & P wastes shall be constructed of 

material that is compatible with the material stored and the conditions of 

storage. They shall be provided with a secondary means of containment 

and be inspected on a periodic basis. Measures to prevent spills shall be 

properly engineered and may include such things as adequate tank 

capacity, overflow equalizing lines, vacuum protection, sensors and 

periodic examination of production equipment (35CSRI-7). 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 49 - 

FINDING III.16: 

 The West Virginia program meets the 2000 Guidelines. 

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW QUESTION III.17. 

III.17. Describe any state program pertaining to pollution prevention requirements 

relating to tanks. [2000 Guidelines 5.9.2.c] 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

Title 35, Series 1, Section 7 describes the state program for pollution 

prevention requirements relating to tanks. Such requirements include 

construction, secondary, containment, inspection, monitoring and 

maintenance. In addition to those requirements described in number 16 

above, operators are required to have at each production facility, 

appropriate containment and/or diversionary structures or equipment to 

prevent discharged oil or other pollutants from reaching the waters of the 

state. 

FINDING III.17: 

The West Virginia program meets the 2000 Guidelines. Although outside the 

scope of the guidelines, the Review Team applauds the determination of the OOG 

under certain circumstances to require the tethering of tanks to minimize releases 

of oil and other fluids during floods. 

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW QUESTION III.18. 

III.18. Briefly discuss each of the following operational requirements as they apply to 

E&P waste tanks (give reference to any statutory or regulatory requirements): 

[2000 Guidelines 5.9.3] 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

a. corrosion protection 

Operators are required to have a maintenance program which includes 

corrosion protection provisions, as well as the requirements for 

compatibility of tanks with material stored (35CSR1 - 7. 10). 

 b. structural integrity 

Tanks are required to be constructed in a manner compatible with 

material stored (35CSRI-7.4). Visual examinations of tanks are required 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 50 - 

for condition and need for maintenance (35CSRI-7.6). Adequate vacuum 

protection is required to prevent tank collapse (35CSRI- 7.7c). 

 c. protection against overtopping 

Operators shall have one or more of the following: adequate tank capacity 

to ensure that the tank will not overfill, overflow equalizing lines between 

tanks or high level sensors (35CSR1 - 7.7). 

 d. secondary containment/leak detection 

All operators shall have appropriate secondary containment and/or 

diversionary structures or equipment to prevent discharged oil or other 

pollutants from reaching water of the state. Operators must have a 

periodic inspection program of tanks for leak detection (35CSRI-7). 

 e. covers or measures to prevent entry of wildlife 

Areas may be required to be fenced off or covered on a site specific basis 

based upon a field determination by the inspector that any open area may 

present a danger. 

 f. hydrogen sulfide emission control 

Any facilities in which H2S emissions may occur at detectable 

concentrations, are required to have treatment and controls on a site 

specific basis. 

FINDING III.18: 

 The West Virginia program meets the 2000 Guidelines. 

SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE NO. III.19. 

III.19. Describe any tank removal and closure requirements and provide reference to 

statutory or regulatory requirements. [2000 Guidelines 5.9.4] 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

Chapter 22, Article 6, Section 30, requires that, within 6 months after a 

well is plugged, the operator remove all production and storage structures 

and properly reclaim the site. 

FINDING III. 19: 

 The West Virginia program meets the Guidelines. 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 51 - 

G - COMMERCIAL AND CENTRALIZED DISPOSAL FACILITIES 

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW QUESTION III.20. 

III.20. What agency (agencies) in your state has (have) regulatory jurisdiction over 

these facilities? [2000 Guidelines 5.10.1] 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

West Virginia has no commercial disposal facilities as defined in the 

STRONGER guidelines. West Virginia Department of Environmental 

Protection, Office of Oil and Gas has regulatory jurisdiction over UIC 

facilities and NPDES sites that meet the definition of centralized disposal 

facilities. 

FINDING III.20: 

West Virginia has no commercial disposal facilities as defined by the 2000 

Guidelines. OOG does have jurisdiction over centralized facilities. See also 1.21 

and III.22. 

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW QUESTION III.21. 

III.21. Give reference for any statutory or regulatory definitions for commercial and 

for centralized disposal facilities. [2000 Guidelines 5.10.1] 

 None 

FINDING III.21: 

West Virginia has no commercial disposal facilities as defined by the 2000 

Guidelines. West Virginia regulates centralized facilities in the same manner as 

other disposal facilities. 

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW QUESTION III.22. 

III.22. Do you have any centralized or commercial E&P waste disposal facilities? How 

many, and of what type? Does this include any surface facilities at UIC sites? If 

so, how many are associated with UIC sites? [2000 Guidelines 5.10.1] 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 52 - 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

West Virginia has no commercial E&P waste disposal facilities. We do 

have 60 UIC disposal sites with surface facilities and 10 active NPDES 

disposal sites for produced water from stripper oil wells. 

FINDING III.22: 

West Virginia refers to certain UIC wells as "commercial" facilities, which are 

defined by the 2000 Guidelines as "centralized" facilities. The OOG currently has 

no commercial facilities as defined in the 2000 Guidelines, nor does it have 

specific regulations for commercial or centralized facilities. Surface facilities at 

centralized facilities are permitted in the same manner as surface facilities at 

producing wells. 

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW QUESTION III.23. 

III.23. What wastes are acceptable for disposal? Do any of these facilities accept 

RCRA nonexempt wastes or wastes from other than oil and gas exploration and 

production activities? [2000 Guidelines 5.10.2] 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

Only RCRA exempt class II fluids are acceptable for disposal at UIC sites. 

Regarding the NPDES sites, only produced water from stripper oil wells 

are accepted for disposal. RCRA nonexempt wastes and non-E&P wastes 

are not accepted at UIC and NPDES sites. 

FINDING III.23:

 The West Virginia program meets the 2000 Guidelines. 

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW QUESTION III.24. 

III.24. What are the disposal and treatment methods employed at these facilities? 

[2000 Guidelines 5.10.2] 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

For NPDES facilities, disposal and treatment consists of ph adjustment, 

aeration, settling, filtration and dilution with disposal into receiving 

streams. 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 53 - 

FINDING III.24: 

 The West Virginia program meets the 2000 Guidelines. 

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW QUESTION III.25. 

III.25. What elements are required as part of the permit application (e.g., siting plan, 

construction plan, operating plan, closure plan, etc.)? [2000 Guidelines 5.10.2.2.a] 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

Siting, construction, operating and closure plans are all part of the permit 

applications. 

FINDING III.25 

 The West Virginia program meets the 2000 Guidelines. 

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW QUESTION III.26. 

III.26. If permit applications are required for siting, do they include: [2000 Guidelines 

5.10.2.2.b] 

 Y Names, addresses and phone numbers of the owners or operators of the 

facility? 

 N Names, addresses and phone numbers of owners or occupants of properties in 

close proximity of the site, or any other persons who may reasonably be 

adversely affected by releases from the site? 

 Y Topographic map that shows all highways, water courses, water wells, and 

dwellings within one mile of the site? 

 Y Geologic, hydrologic, engineering, chemical and any other data or 

information that demonstrate disposal of wastes and operation of the facility 

will not contaminate fresh water, the surrounding soils or air, endanger 

public health, safety or the environment, or cause property damage? 

 N Average annual precipitation and evaporation rate at the disposal site? 

(evaporation is not an acceptable disposal method due to high annual 

precipitation) 

 Y Nature and permeability of vadose zone; description of the extent of 

underlying aquifer(s), and depth to ground water; direction of groundwater 

movement; data on water quality of nearby surface waters and underlying 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 54 - 

aquifer(s) Prior to commencement of operations; and points of past or 

current use of surface or groundwater? 

 Y Proof that all public notice requirements have been met? 

 Y Certification by an authorized representative of the applicant that 

information submitted in the application is true, accurate and complete to 

the best of the applicant's knowledge? 

 Y Construction plan that includes detailed engineering drawings and diagrams 

of engineered disposal facilities? 

FINDING III.26: 

 The West Virginia program meets the 2000 Guidelines. 

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW QUESTION III.27. 

III.27. Describe any construction requirements that will minimize or prevent releases to 

surface water, ground water, soil and air. In the case of reclamation facilities, 

describe any such requirements that apply to waste before and after reclamation. 

[2000 Guidelines 5.10.2.2.c] 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

Construction requirements include the following: secondary containment, 

flood protection, fencing and locks for security and switches and sensors 

for automatic shut down. 

FINDING III.27: 

 The West Virginia program meets the 2000 Guidelines. 

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW QUESTION III.28. 

III.28. If permit applications are required for operating, do they include: [2000 

Guidelines 5.10.2.2.d] 

 Permit elements are described and addressed in the applicable permit. 

An operating plan? 

 Y Volume, rate and type of material to be disposed? 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 55 - 

 Y Identification of the specific facilities that will be used to dispose of each 

waste stream (e.g., unlined or lined pits, tanks, etc.)? 

 Y Contingency plan for reporting, responding to and cleaning up spills, leaks 

and releases of wastes or waste byproducts, including provisions for 

notifying emergency response authorities and for taking operator-initiated 

emergency response actions? 

 N Ground water monitoring where wastes are managed on the land? (West 

Virginia does not have any permitted centralized disposal facilities where 

wastes are managed on land.) 

 Y Plan for routine inspection, maintenance, and monitoring to ensure and 

demonstrate compliance with permit requirements, and in the case of land 

farming, ensure that organic wastes are effectively treated? 

 N Specific engineering plans for preventing or minimizing the generation or 

emission of hydrogen sulfide gas? (There has been no known occurrences of 

hydrogen sulfide gas emissions at any centralized disposal facilities) 

 Y A plan for the onsite sampling and/or testing to assure that RCRA Subtitle C 

or other wastes prohibited by the regulatory agency for disposal are not 

disposed at such a facility? (Onsite testing is not required at NPDES 

facilities, however, the operator is required to certify that all disposed 

wastes are exempt under RCRA Subtitle C requirements) 

 Y Characterization of wastes accepted at the facility? 

 Y Plan for periodic removal and subsequent handling of free oil? (At UIC 

surface storage facilities, most free oil is already removed prior to arrival 

and any remaining may be sold as product or disposed of through the UIC 

injection process at the operator's discretion) 

 Y Security plan for the facility? 

FINDING III.28: 

 The West Virginia program meets the 2000 Guidelines. 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 56 - 

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW QUESTION III.29. 

III.29. Describe the closure and post-closure monitoring and maintenance 

requirements applicable to commercial facilities, including duration of 

post-closure care and financial assurance release schedules. [2000 Guidelines 

5.10.2.2.e] 

N/A 

FINDING III.29: 

There are no facilities in West Virginia to which the 2000 Guidelines would 

apply. 

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW QUESTION III.30. 

III.30. For wastes not moved by pipeline, is there a requirement for waste 

tracking? If so, does it require: [2000 Guidelines 5.10.2.3] 

 Y A multi-part form that contains the names, addresses and phone numbers of 

the waste generator (producer), hauler, and disposal facility operator? 

 Y Description and volume of the waste? 

 N Time and date it was collected, hauled and deposited at the disposal facility? 

 Y Time requirement for maintenance of the form? 

 N Attesting that no illegal dumping occurred? 

 N Certification by the hauler and disposal facility operator that no wastes were 

dumped illegally or at a location or facility not designated by the generator 

or permitted to receive the waste, and that no prohibited or hazardous wastes 

were mixed with the waste during transport? 

 N Reporting of any discrepancies in waste descriptions, volumes or place of 

origin based on personal observations or information contained in the 

three-part form? 

Waste tracking is required for hauling to UIC facilities in accordance with the 

UIC permit. 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 57 - 

FINDING III.30: 

The West Virginia program partially meets the 2000 Guidelines. The 1990 

Guidelines recommended tracking of waste disposed at commercial facilities 

only. The 2000 Guidelines similarly recommend tracking of waste disposed at 

commercial facilities [5.10.2.3], but also recommend tracking of all brine 

produced and injected: Section 4.2.8.1 states, "States are encouraged to track and 

maintain the minimum data set described in the IOGCC publication Guidelines 

for States: Exploration and Production Data Management. (November 1996)." 

The "minimum data set" established in the 1996 Production Data Management 

Guidelines includes "barrels of water produced" and "barrels of water injected." 

RECOMMENDATION III.30: 

The Review Team recommends the OOG require operators to report volumes of 

all water produced and disposed of, including off-site disposal of E & P wastes 

sent out of state. 

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW QUESTION III.31. 

III.31. Are waste haulers permitted or licensed based on a showing of basic 

knowledge of regulatory requirements? [2000 Guidelines 5.10.2.3] 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

There are no such permits or licenses, as the OOG does not allow third 

party haulers to transport waste. Consequently, knowledge of regulatory 

requirements is expected as they relate to all OOG statutes and 

regulations. 

FINDING III.31: 

West Virginia does not allow third party waste haulers. The West Virginia 

Program meets the 2000 Guidelines. 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 58 - 

IV. ABANDONED SITES

Permits and survey plats for oil and gas wells were not required until 1929. In 1995 the 

West Virginia Geological and Economic Survey did a search of historical records to 

identify unplugged inactive wells drilled prior to 1929, and found records for 

approximately 35,000 wells. From these records the OOG randomly selected a number 

of wells for field evaluation. For roughly 50% of these wells, no actual well bore or 

casing was found at the recorded location. If the historical records are correct, then the 

remaining 50 percent of the wells could have been properly plugged (at least by the 

standards of the day) or they could just have been left alone and the vegetation and earth 

covered them. About 25% of the randomly selected wells were operating or properly 

plugged. About 25% of the randomly selected wells appeared inactive, did not appear to 

be plugged, and had no responsible operator. These wells are referred to herein as 

"orphaned" wells, although that term is not used in West Virginia statutes or rules. If the 

findings from the randomly selected wells hold true for all pre-1929 wells, then 

approximately 9,000 wells could be located and found to be abandoned with no 

responsible party. 

By one official estimate, there are approximately 10,000 post 1929 wells that are not in 

production and that have no approved bona fide future use. Of those, approximately 

60% are associated with and operator, and 40% are orphaned. However, exact figures 

on the number of orphan wells are not available. 

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW QUESTION IV.1. 

IV.1. Does your state have a program to inventory, prioritize and remediate (as 

necessary) abandoned oil and gas sites? [2000 Guidelines 6. 1] 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

There have been various efforts on the part of the OOG to inventory 

abandoned wells. The most extensive was completed by the West Virginia 

Geological and Economic Survey in 1995. The focus of this study was to, 

through file research, identify any well that had been drilled but had no 

evidence of current activity or of having been plugged Additionally, all 

permitted wells are identified in the OOG database as to their status (i.e. 

abandoned, plugged, active). 

Field investigations/inspections of abandoned wells are initiated by 

complaints and through inspector work priorities and initiatives. Once 

inspections are completed, the information is submitted to the office staff 

for prioritization, which is required by statute and regulation. 

Remediation, through plugging and reclamation, is done as funding will 

allow. Under certain circumstances, the OOG will contact the National 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 59 - 

Response Center NRC and seek assistance through the federal Oil and 

Pollution Act (OPA). 

FINDING IV.1 

 The West Virginia program meets the 2000 Guidelines. 

RECOMMENDATION IV.1 

Consistent with other recommendations regarding staffing, the 2002 Review 

Team recommends that the personnel of the OOG be increased to address existing 

abandoned wells and minimize the chances of additional wells from becoming 

abandoned in the future, particularly to make the bona fide future use program 

more effective. 

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW QUESTION IV.2. 

IV.2. Please provide reference to any definitions pertaining to abandoned sites or your 

abandoned well site program, including the types of facilities included in the 

definitions. [2000 Guidelines 6.2] 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

Any well completed as a dry hole or not in use for a period of twelve 

consecutive months shall be presumed to have been abandoned (WV Code 

22-6-19). Related definitions are found in Chapter 22 Article 10, the 

Abandoned Well Act, and 35CSR5 and 35CSR6 

FINDING IV.2 

The West Virginia definition of “abandoned” is sufficient to accomplish the intent 

of the 2000 Guidelines. 

As noted above, abandoned wells are identified by statute in West Virginia. 

Additionally, a well is not considered abandoned if the operator satisfactorily 

demonstrates to the DEP that the well has a bona fide future use. [WV Code, 

Section 22-6-19]. 

The differences between the 2000 Guidelines definition of “abandoned” and the 

West Virginia definition are: 

1. For a formerly-productive well that is not plugged, the 2000 Guidelines 

define the well as abandoned only if it poses an actual or potential threat to 

public health or the environment. The West Virginia Code defines the 

well as abandoned if it has not been used for twelve consecutive months. 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 60 - 

2. Under the 2000 Guidelines, a well is defined as abandoned only if no 

responsible party can be located, or the responsible party has failed or 

refused to take necessary actions to abate the threat. There is no such 

criterion under the West Virginia Code. However, the West Virginia 

Code requires the operator to promptly plug an abandoned well. The DEP 

may plug an abandoned well after proper notice, and may recover costs 

from the owner or operator of record, if any exists. 

The West Virginia definition of “abandoned” is broader than that of the 2000 

Guidelines. Clearly, unlike the use of the term in the 2000 Guidelines, in West 

Virginia a well can be declared abandoned even where there is no actual or 

potential threat to public heath or the environment posed by the well. It is a matter 

of judgment as to the conditions under which an unused well may constitute a 

“threat to public health or the environment” under the 2000 Guidelines, although 

most people would agree that most wells may pose a threat if left unplugged for 

an extended period of time. Further, it might be argued that an abandoned well in 

West Virginia could be causing damage to the environment or public health, but 

would not be required to be plugged unless 12 months of non-production had 

elapsed. However, the DEP has other means to address such a situation. The WV 

Code requires the DEP to issue an order requiring abatement of any violation 

found, whether the well meets the West Virginia definition of abandoned or not. 

If the violation creates an imminent danger to a person or a fresh water supply, the 

DEP shall order the operator to cease operations until the danger is abated (WV 

Code Section 22-6-3). In addition, the DEP may file for injunctive relief against 

any person for a violation of the WV Code, order, or rule. 

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW QUESTION IV.3. 

IV.3. Briefly describe your program for identification, inventory and ranking of 

abandoned sites. [2000 Guidelines 6.3] 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

Abandoned wells are typically identified in the field through complaint 

investigations and random inspections. They can be identified in the 

database based on their status as a consequence to the annual reporting 

requirements. Once identified and inventoried, they are ranked by the 

information obtained during the field inspection. 

Statute and regulation require the ranking to be based, fundamentally, on 

the well's threat to human health, safety and the environment and whether 

it is an impediment to the development of mineral resources. Wells that 

pose the greatest threat are placed in Classification I followed in lower 

priority by Classification II and Classification III. 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 61 - 

FINDING IV.3 

The West Virginia program meets the 2000 Guidelines. The OOG is commended 

for the enormous strides it has made in identifying, locating, and inventorying 

historically abandoned well sites. There will be more work to do. 

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW QUESTION IV.4. 

IV.4. Briefly describe funding mechanisms available to the state for abandoned site 

remediation. [2000 Guidelines 6.4] 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

The Oil and Gas Reclamation Fund was established to address the 

plugging and reclamation of abandoned wells and wellsites. One hundred 

dollars from new well permit fees is allocated to this fund, as are bond 

forfeitures. 

Through these two sources, the OOG has historically taken in 

approximately $100,000 per year. 

Over the past few years, the OOG has accessed monies for oil clean up 

through the OPA (Oil Pollution Act), and has plugged abandoned wells 

responsible for such incidents. Funding through OPA can only be 

accessed in cases involving crude oil pollution, or the threat of crude oil 

pollution, into navigable waterways. 

FINDING IV.4 

West Virginia has access to several sources of funding for remediation (including 

plugging) of abandoned wells. Permit fee revenue to the Oil and Gas 

Reclamation Fund varies, of course, according to the number of new well permits 

issued; in recent years, between 900 and 1,400 new well permits have been issued 

per year. Money from bond forfeitures also varies from year to year, depending 

on the number of violations with forfeiture actions taken by the OOG. West 

Virginia requires operators to post a $5,000 individual well bond or a $50,000 

blanket bond. As noted above, the OOG typically receives about $100,000 per 

year from permit fees and bond forfeitures. 

The state also receives funds through the Oil Pollution Act. In addition OOG has 

explicit authority to recover costs of plugging an abandoned well if a solvent 

responsible operator can be found. 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 62 - 

In recent years, the OOG has plugged an average of 25 wells per year with OPA 

funds, and two wells per year with money from the Oil and Gas Reclamation 

Fund. The minimum cost to plug a well is $8,000 to $10,000; the high-priority 

problem wells that OOG has plugged recently have cost $30,000 to $35,000 each. 

Considering the large number of abandoned wells that may need to be plugged, 

state funding is inadequate. 

RECOMMENDATION IV.4 

The 2002 Review Team recommends that the DEP, at the Secretary level, look at 

alternative, supplementary means of securing funding for site and well 

remediation. Possible sources of additional funding may include general revenue 

funds, financial assurance mechanisms, federal grants, fees, penalties, etc. 

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW QUESTION IV.5. 

IV.5. Briefly describe the criteria used in your abandoned site prioritizing system. 

[2000 Guidelines 6.5] 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

As stated earlier, prioritization is based on the well's threat to human 

heath, safety and the environment and if it is an impediment to the 

development of mineral resources. General risk assessment/evaluation 

criteria used to make this determination are such things as visual safety or 

health hazards, surface leakage and amount/area affected, evidence of 

ground water contamination in the vicinity, condition of surface casing 

and production casing, and planned or active mineral resource 

development in the area. These criteria will determine the Classification 

of the well and it is further prioritized using information such as the 

distance of the well to drinking water sources, the number of people living 

in the area of the well, the proximity to streams, the age of the well, and 

the amount of time the well has been abandoned. 

FINDING IV.5 

The OOG has a rule for prioritizing wells for remediation that generally meets the 

2000 Guidelines. The Guideline criteria for prioritization include a criterion for 

considering “environmentally sensitive areas,” which is not a criterion in the West 

Virginia program. 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 63 - 

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW QUESTION IV.6. 

IV.6. What are the state's abandoned site remediation goals? How is progress 

measured? [2000 Guidelines 6.5.1] 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

The general goal is to locate and evaluate each abandoned well site and 

mitigate those that are a threat to human health, safety or the 

environment. Initially, the OOG will expect the operator to respond to any 

remediation situation and take the appropriate action. If the operator fails 

to do so, or there is no known operator, the OOG will respond and take 

the necessary actions as funding will allow. Progress is essentially 

measured through the amount of funding at our disposal and hence the 

number of sites remediated. 

FINDING IV.6: 

The abandoned well initiative OOG has undertaken is commendable. However, 

the Team offers the same comment regarding funding as Finding IV.4, above. 

Additional resources should be put into remediation. 

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW QUESTION IV.7. 

IV.7. Briefly describe the state's program relating to establishing liability for the 

remediation of abandoned sites. Provide references to any statutory or regulatory 

allocation of responsibility. [2000 Guidelines 6.5.2] 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

Under the definition of "abandoned" in WV statute, abandoned sites may 

actually have responsible parties or operators. In these instances, the 

operators, per WV Code Chapter 22 Articles 6 and 10, are considered to 

have the liability associated with such sites. If no operator exists, and the 

well is considered to be "orphaned," the State has the responsibility to 

clean up sites per the requirements of WV Code Chapter 22 Articles 6 and 

10 and 35CSR4 and 35CSR6 

If government funds are expended for site remediation, the OOG will directly 

or through a contractor, research pertinent files and databases in an effort 

to locate the responsible party. Depending on the nature and severity of 

the site contamination, this search may be done prior to expenditures. 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 64 - 

FINDING IV.7: 

The West Virginia program meets the 2002 Guidelines. The OOG has sufficient 

statutory authority to establish liability for remediation of abandoned sites. A 

well that has not been producing for twelve months has to be plugged unless the 

operator submits sufficient information and data to establish a bona fide future use 

35 CSR 5. Another method used by the OOG to prevent wells with responsible 

operators from becoming orphaned wells is to withhold approval of transfer of a 

non-complying well until the well is brought into compliance.

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW QUESTION IV.8. 

IV.8. Please provide reference to any standards for abandoned site remediation. 

[2000 Guidelines 6.6] 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

Under statute and regulation (22-6-24, 35CSR4-13) wells must be plugged 

in a manner which will completely seal the hole and consequently 

minimize any threat to public health and the environment. As part of this 

requirement, all fluid/gas bearing zones must be separated by cement 

plugs and all retrievable casing must be removed. Standards for onsite 

remediation of crude oil contaminated soils are found in the Associated 

Waste Permit for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (tph) (500 ppm max.). 

FINDING IV.8 

The West Virginia program meets the 2000 Guidelines. The state has excellent 

requirements for plugging (well bore remediation) and site reclamation (site 

remediation) in its statutes and rules. 

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW QUESTION IV.9. 

IV.9. Briefly describe the state's abandoned well remediation program, including any 

flexibility allowed in plugging procedures. [2000 Guidelines 6.6.1] 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

Once a well becomes a priority for plugging by the OOG, the job goes out 

to bid to contractors. As with all well work, a permit is obtained which 

outlines the methodology to be followed during the plugging and 

reclamation process. The Abandoned Well Act provides for abandoned 

well plugging by "interested" parties, which includes any parties which 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 65 - 

may be adversely affected by an abandoned well. The director may 

authorize bonding to such interested parties in lesser amounts than those 

required by well operators. The interested party may recover all 

reasonable plugging costs from the well operator. 

FINDING IV.9 

West Virginia is to be commended for its innovation in remediating abandoned 

and orphaned wells. OOG's approach of time and materials contracting for 

plugging projects is one example of their flexibility and adaptability to changed 

circumstances to get the most benefit for their efforts and resources. 

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW QUESTION IV.10. 

IV.10. Briefly describe the state's program for surface remediation of abandoned sites, 

including any requirements regarding present or future land use and consultation 

with surface owners. [2000 Guidelines 6.6.2] 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

Within six months of the date of well plugging, the site is required to be 

reclaimed in accordance with the standards outlined in the OOG Erosion 

and Sediment Control manual, WV Code Chapter 22 Article 6 and 35 

CSR4. This includes the removal of all production and storage structures 

and equipment. The surface owner receives a copy of the plugging permit 

application and may file comments relating to such activity. They may 

request of the permittee, certain types of vegetation to be sown and such 

things as monument burial depending on how they wish to use the land. 

FINDING IV.10 

The West Virginia program meets the 2000 Guidelines. The Review Team 

commends OOG for its Erosion & Sediment Control Manual. 

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW QUESTION IV.11. 

IV.11. What is the program for maintenance of records of remediated sites? How is 

public access assured? [2000 Guidelines 6.6.3] 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

All well work, which typically involves site work, requires a permit that 

outlines the reclamation requirements. Site work which may not 

specifically be part of well work falls under the discretion and scrutiny of 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 66 - 

OOG staff. An associated waste permit may be obtained in these cases. All 

documents pertaining to the activity of this site, including inspection 

reports, will be kept on file and maintained at the OOG. The OOG file is 

considered to be the official file. Information initially received on paper is 

periodically transferred to microfiche. 

All OOG file information is considered public information and can be 

requested for public review and copies. The DEPs Public Information 

Office (PIO), works as a liaison between the program offices and their 

customers, including the public. They have an obligation to ensure that all 

requested information is provided accurately and timely. Additionally, 

through the DEPs website, a vast amount of information on file at the 

OOG can be accessed at the convenience of the requesting party and' 

without involving OOG staff. 

FINDING IV.11 

The West Virginia program meets the 2000 guidelines. 

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW QUESTION IV.12. 

IV.12.Describe any public participation activities associated with the abandoned sites 

program, including public access to information, public participation in 

rulemaking associated with the program, and participation regarding the priority 

of sites on the inventory and level of remediation. [2000 Guidelines 6.7] 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

As stated earlier, all OOG files and records are public information and 

can be easily reviewed or obtained. The “public” can become directly 

involved in the program through the interested party provision of the 

Abandoned Well Act. Under this provision, the party has the right to enter 

the property and plug the well, at its expense, and to seek reimbursement 

from the responsible party. 

There is no direct involvement of the public in the prioritization or level of 

remediation, however, it is common that a member of the public provides 

the initial contact concerning an abandoned well through a complaint. As 

a consequence to that complaint, an investigation is conducted with the 

findings being provided to the complainant and used by the OOG to 

prioritize the site. 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 67 - 

FINDING IV.12 

The West Virginia program partially meets the 2000 Guidelines. When the rules 

for bona fide future use, including rules on priorities of sites generally, were 

adopted, the state utilized a stakeholder's group for issues discussion before the 

rules were published for official public comment. This was excellent compliance 

with the public participation. The state does an excellent job of giving the public 

access to the information about abandoned wells that it has. 

It is the practice of the OOG to receive all public comments offered in making a 

determination of the priority for a particular well. The OOG practice of receiving 

public comment appears to be working well. However, there is no statutory or 

regulatory mechanism for citizens to petition the state to change a well's priority 

or appeal from the determination. 

RECOMMENDATION IV.12 

The Review Team recommends that, when the state has the opportunity to do so, 

a statutory or regulatory mechanism be codified for a citizen to petition the state 

to change an abandoned well's priority or appeal from that determination be 

established. 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 68 - 

V. NATURALLY OCCURRING RADIOACTIVE 

MATERIAL

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW QUESTION V.1. 

 

V.1. Discuss any activities the state has undertaken to determine the occurrence and need

for regulation of NORM. [7.2] 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

To date the OOG is has not received any reports of NORM occurrences. 

The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection is in the process 

of investigating this issue through the Brownfields Program of the Division 

of Waste Management. Through this effort, which includes investigating 

several oil and natural gas sites during 2002, the Department will determine 

whether NORM exists at these sites and assess the associated health risks. 

The parties involved will be operating under Department of Energy (DOE) 

regulations and WV Department of Health guidelines during this 

investigative project. 

 

FINDING V.1 

West Virginia is taking action to meet the 2000 Guidelines. The 2000 Guidelines 

recommend that a state adopt a regulatory program that addresses identification 

and handling of oil field NORM, unless the state determines, based on field 

monitoring and other scientific data, that NORM in the state does not pose a risk 

that warrants a regulatory program. West Virginia is in the process of making 

such a determination. 

RECOMMENDATION V.1 

The review team recommends that West Virginia complete its evaluation of 

potential oil field NORM occurrence, and establish a regulatory program if 

warranted. 

SUPPLEMENTAL REVIEW QUESTION V.2. 

 

V.2. Briefly discuss each of the following program elements as they apply to the NORM 

regulatory program (give reference to any statutory or regulatory requirements): 

[7.3] 

2002 WEST VIRGINIA RESPONSE: 

 

 a. definitions N/A

 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 69 - 

 b. action levels N/A 

 

 c. surveys N/A 

 

 d. worker protection N/A 

 

 e. licensing/permitting N/A

 

 f. removal/remediation N/A

 

 g. storage N/A

 

 h. transfer of land and equipment for continued use N/A

 

 i. release of sites, materials, and equipment N/A

 

 j. disposal N/A 

 

 k. interagency coordination N/A

 

 l. public participation N/A

FINDING V.2. 

West Virginia has not adopted the referenced program elements because the state 

is only in the initial stages of determining whether or to what extent oil field 

NORM may exist in the state. 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 70 - 

This page left blank intentionally
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 71 - 

Appendix A 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 72 - 

This page left blank intentionally
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 73 - 

GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS 

BMP Best Management Practices 

CBM Coalbed Methane 

CDL Commercial drivers license 

CSS Customer Support Service 

DEP West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection 

DOE Department of Energy 

DWR Division of Water Resources 

E&P Exploration and production 

EOP Emergency Operations Plan 

EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency 

EPAs Employee Performance Appraisals 

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

GIS Geographic Information System 

GPS Global positioning system 

GWPA Ground Water Protection Area 

GWPC Ground Water Protection Council 

H2S Hydrogen sulfide 

IOGA Independent Oil and Gas Association 

IOGCC Interstate Oil and Gas Compact Commission 

MCL Maximum concentration level 

MIT Mechanical integrity test 

MOA Memorandum of agreement 

MOU Memorandum of understanding 

NORM Naturally occurring radioactive material 

NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System 

NRC National Response Center 

OAQ Office of Air Quality 

OLS Office of Legal Service 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 74 - 

OOG Office of Oil and Gas 

OPA Oil Pollution Act of 1990 

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

OWM Office of Waste Management 

OWR Office of Water Resources 

P&A Plug and abandon 

PEL Permissible exposure limits 

PIO Public Information Office 

ppm Parts per million 

RCRA Resources Conservation & Recovery Act 

STRONGER State Review of Oil and Natural Gas Environmental Regulations 

tph Total petroleum hydrocarbons 

tss Total suspended solids 

UIC Underground Injection Control 

WVDOT West Virginia Department of Transportation 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 75 - 

Appendix B 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 76 - 

This page left blank intentionally
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 77 - 

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FOLLOW-UP AND SUPPLEMENTAL 

REVIEW OF STATE OIL AND GAS ENVIRONMENTAL 

REGULATORY PROGRAMS 

 State West Virginia__________________ 

 

 Completed by The Office of Oil and Gas________ 

 

 Organization Department of Environmental Protection________________ 

 

 Address 1356 Hansford Street_________________________________ 

 

 Charleston, WV 25301_______________________________ 

 

 Telephone ( 304 ) 558 – 6075 

 

 Questionnaire Coordinator James Martin__________________________ 

 

 

INSTRUCTIONS: The primary bases for this review are the Guidelines for State Review of 

Oil and Natural Gas Environmental Regulatory Programs (June 2000), and the 

recommendations of the initial report of the review your state's Oil and Gas regulatory 

program. The major objectives of the follow-up review are to evaluate your state's responses 

to the initial review recommendations, and to evaluate the regulatory program against 

changes made to the Guidelines since the initial review. 

Please answer the questions as completely as reasonably possible, keeping the purposes of 

the follow-up review in mind. Avoid supplying extensive background information, data, 

regulations or statutes that do not address issues in the review recommendations or the 

Guidelines, or are not related to the state's oil and gas environmental programs. (For 

example, regulation of underground fuel storage tanks is not addressed in this review.) The 

purpose of this questionnaire is to elicit information that will provide a fair and balanced 

characterization of the state's regulatory program, rather than an exhaustive inventory of 

waste management facilities. Terms used in this questionnaire have meanings consistent 

with those contained in the Guidelines. Citations that appear in brackets (e.g., [5.3.]) 

following each question refer to the applicable section or sections of the Guidelines. 

 

A computer disk containing the questionnaire in either Word 97 or Word Perfect 8.0 

has been provided to facilitate your preparation of the document. 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 78 - 

REQUESTED BACKGROUND INFORMATION 

I. Please revise and update, as appropriate, the introductory material in the report of the 

initial review. 

 The introductory material will be a separate document. 

II. Please provide brief descriptions of the main developments in your state program 

since the last state review. 

The Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Manual was developed in 1993 as 

a Best Management Practice (BMP) document to assist operators in 

proper site construction and reclamation. 

The Coalbed Methane Act was passed in 1993 which gives authority and 

direction to the Office of Oil and Gas (OOG) regarding the environmental 

regulation of coalbed methane wells. 

The National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Produced 

Water General Permit was developed in 1993 as an environmental sound 

option for produced water from stripper oil wells. 

In 1994 the Department of Environmental Protection’s (DEP’s) rules and 

regulations were recodified through House Bill 4065 to provide further 

clarification of authorities and responsibilities of the various regulatory 

offices and agencies. 

Global Positioning System (GPS) units were purchased for all field 

personnel in 1995 to allow for the collection of accurate well location data. 

Additionally, all field personnel have cell phones and offices set up in their 

homes which include a computer, fax, copier, scanner and printer. A Unix 

workstation was also purchased to better access the DEP’s Geographic 

Information System (GIS). 

The DEP Office of Legal Services (OLS) was created in 1995 through the 

passage of House Bill 2523 (Executive Order No. 4-95) giving the OOG 

greater access to legal support for enforcement actions and development of 

rules and regulations. 

In 1999 the OOG was formally organized into four programs/sections--- 

permitting, compliance, inspection/enforcement and abandoned wells---as a 

reflection of office priorities and to provide clarification of duties. 

The independent, privately contracted OOG database has been converted 

to a state-developed and maintained Oracle system as of 1999, employed 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 79 - 

throughout the Department. A few applications are still in the conversion 

process and should be fully completed by year-end. 

The West Virginia Legislature created legislation in the 2001 session to reinstate rules for the implementation of the Natural Gas Policy Act 

(35CSR7) allowing for Section 29 tax credits. They also approved 

regulation changes to allow for electronic permitting. DEP’s Information 

Technology Office is aggressively working to complete e-permitting 

capabilities across the Department by mid January of 2003. 

The Division of Environmental Protection was restructured in the 2001 

legislative session. The change made the Division a cabinet level 

Department. Some of the larger Offices of the prior DEP are now 

divisions within the new DEP. The Office of Oil and Gas remains an 

Office. 

III. Please provide a listing of the recommendations from the previous review, and your 

responses to each. The listing should include any implementation or action plans. 

The responses to the recommendations from the previous review are contained in 

a separate document. 

IV. Please provide the following in the format or formats most readily available to you: 

 

 

A. References to all statutes, rules, regulations, orders, and other 

documentation reflecting changes made in response to recommendations 

contained in the report of the initial state review. 

 

 Associated Waste General Permit 

 NPDES permit for produced water 

Inspector’s Examining Board composition (WV Code 

Chapter 22C, Article 7) 

 DEP Office of Environmental Enforcement 

 OOG Enforcement Policy 

 OOG Assessment Policy 

 WVGES Abandoned Well Project completion 

 DEP website creation for public access (www.dep.state.wv.us) 

 OOG GIS workstation implementation 

 Office of Legal Services creation through House Bill 2523 

 DEP Overtime/Comp. Time Policy

 

B. Organization chart(s) showing the structure of all agencies responsible for 

abandoned oil and gas sites, and oilfield NORM (naturally occurring radioactive 

materials). 

 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 80 - 

 An OOG organizational chart is provided separately. 

 

C. Descriptions of references to all statutes, rules, regulations and orders applicable to 

abandoned oil and gas sites, and NORM from oil and gas production. 

 

 WV Code Chapter 22 Article 6 Section 19, 35CSR4 

The Abandoned Well Act—WV Code Chapter 22 Article 10, 35CSR6 and 

35CSR5 

D. Any memoranda of understanding or similar agreements between state agencies or 

between the state and any other governmental entities (BLM, EPA, Indian Tribes, 

local jurisdictions) pertaining to abandoned sites, and NORM from oil and gas 

production. 

 

There are no Memorandums of Understanding (MOU’s) at this time. 

However, for all work done accessing funds from the Oil Spill Liability 

Trust Fund through the Oil Pollution Act, a Pollution Removal Funding 

Authorization (PRFA) is executed with EPA. 

 

E. Any written mission statement(s), goals, objectives and policies applicable to 

abandoned sites, and NORM from oil and gas production. 

 

Legislative findings in the Abandoned Well Act, Chapter 22, Article 10 

Section 2(b) state that “it is the public policy of this state, to foster, 

encourage and promote the proper plugging of all wells at the time of their 

abandonment to protect the environment and mineral resources of this 

state”. 

 

The Abandoned Well Program manager’s personal performance evaluation 

specifies the following objectives: 1) as funding permits, keep a 

cleanup/plugging crew working on a continual basis, 2) assess the risk of 

abandoned wells and prioritize well plugging candidates, and 3) seek 

avenues to reduce abandoned well liabilities. 

 

 

IV. Also, please include on a separate page any other relevant practices, program measures, 

guidelines or controls applicable to your state. 

 

In our efforts to protect human health and the environment, the OOG has 

developed a Site-Safety Plan requirement for all deep wells, which must be 

approved before drilling begins. 

 Likewise, in an effort to be as fair and consistent as possible with industry 

operators, the OOG has established enforcement and assessment policies. 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 81 - 

 The OOG is currently working with service companies, well plugging 

contractors, and well operators to develop a well plugging certification 

program. This program will provide education, training, and certification 

for well plugging contractors to help ensure proper well plugging. 

To enhance the quality of operators’ reclamation work, the OOG developed 

an Erosion and Sediment Control Manual to serve as a BMP document for 

proper, effective reclamation. 

 As a training and personal development initiative, the OOG is planning 

inspector certification through the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact 

Commission’s (IOGCC’s) National Inspector Certification Program. 

V. The next pages contain a matrix that should be used to summarize E&P waste 

management practices. It is recognized that further explanation may be necessary. Don't try 

to capture everything in precise detail - the matrix is intended only to provide a general 

characterization of the scale of your program. Please provide the best data readily available. 

If the basis for volume determinations is approximation, for example, simply state that. 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 82 - 

E&P Waste Management Matrix 

Waste Management 

Practices 

Number of 

Facilities (2000) 

Volume Managed Annually 

(2000) 

Basis for Volume 

Determination

Drilling 900 New Well 

Permits 

2,200,000 cubic feet of cuttings calculation based on avg. of

 2444 cubic ft./well 

Production 43,223 Wells 

Reporting Prod. 

Produce water not reported 

Special Use 

Landspreading 900 Land app.of 

drilling pit fluids 

750,000 bbls. calculation based on avg. 

 of 35,000 gals./pit 

Roadspreading 

Tanks (EOR) unknown 2,500,000 bbls. operator reports 

Commercial Facilities: 

Multipractice 

Landfarms 

Tank Bottom Reclaimers 

UIC Surface Facilities 5 275,000 bbls. operator reports 

Oil-Field NORM 

Centralized Facilities 

(non-NORM)

10 NPDES 

facilities 

 8,000 bbls. operator’s discharge 

itoring reports 

Oil-Field NORM 

Municipal Landfills 

Accepting E&P Waste

 19 approved 

tive 

 unknown 

Underground Injection 

Surface Facilities

 55 925,000 bbls. operators reports 

Abandoned Sites 

Other 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 83 - 

E&P Waste Management Matrix (cont.) 

Waste Management 

 Practice

Principal Agency Primary Statute Primary Rules, 

Regulations, or Orders

Applicable 

Guidelines

 Drilling OOG Chapter 22 

cle 6

35CSR1-4 Permit cond.,SS 

, BMP Man. 

 Production

 OOG 

Chapter 22 

cle 6 35CSR1-6 

 Special Use 

 Landspreading 

 OOG 

Chapter 22 

cle 6

35CSR1,3,4 General Permit 

 Roadspreading 

 Tanks 

 OOG 

Chapter 22 

cle 6 35CSR1 

SPCC Regs. 

COMMERCIAL 

 FACILITIES: 

 Multipractice 

 Landfarms 

Tank Bottom Reclaimers 

 UIC Surface Facilities OOG Chapter 22 

cle 6

35CSR1,2,4 UIC permit 

ditions 

 Centralized Facilities: 

 (non-NORM) 

 

G/DWR 

 

pter 22 

 Article 11 

 

SR10 

NPDES permit 

conditions 

 Oil-Field NORM 

Municipal Landfills 

Accepting E&P Waste 

 DWM Chapter 22 

cle 15 33CSR1 40CFR Part 

261 

Underground Injection 

 Surface Facilities 

 OOG Chapter 22 

cle 6

35CSR1,2,4 UIC permit 

ditions 

Abandoned Sites 

Other 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 84 - 

I. GENERAL CRITERIA 

 

1. Are technical criteria for E&P waste management practices contained in a formal 

document? If so, please provide the appropriate reference. [3.1.f] 

 

Yes, technical criteria for E & P waste management practices are found in 

the following: 

• Underground Injection Control (UIC) permit conditions for 

produced fluids, 

• General permit conditions for drilling pit fluids, produced fluids, 

and associated wastes, 

• For landfill disposal, all material must be determined to be RCRA 

non-hazardous as defined under 40 CFR Part 261. 

 

2. What are the goals and objectives of the state’s waste management program? Please 

provide reference to the appropriate document(s). [3.2] 

 

In creating the Department of Environmental Protection, the State 

Legislature found that restoring and protecting the environment is 

fundamental to the health and welfare of individual citizens and the State 

has primary responsibility for protecting the environment. Furthermore, 

the legislature found that it is the policy of the State to use all practicable 

means and measures to prevent or eliminate harm to the environment and 

biosphere and to create and maintain conditions under which man and 

nature exist in productive harmony and fulfill the social, economic and 

other requirements of present and future generations. (WV Code 22-1-1). 

Consequently the goals and objectives of all facets of the OOG are centered 

on the foundation of environmental protection. Specific to waste 

management, the OOG desires to minimize such waste and to provide a 

mechanism for and require the proper ultimate disposition of any waste. 

(associated waste permit, Underground Injection Control (UIC) permit, 

other general permits, landfilling through the Division of Waste 

Management (DWM)) 

3. Does your program provide for flexibility in determining the criteria applicable to E&P 

waste (e.g., variation in criteria dependent on region of the state or other factors; 

authorization of site-specific waivers for good cause shown and consistent with program 

goals and objectives)? If so, please provide an example or examples and reference to the 

appropriate document(s). [3.3] 

 

Flexibility is provided for in both permits and regulations. NPDES permits 

are dependent upon local stream flow and stream load and consequently are 

designed accordingly (NPDES permit). 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 85 - 

Water Pollution Control permits are designed and utilized based on such 

factors as area topography and water quality/contaminates. For example, 

some Coalbed Methane (CBM) wells produce high quality water and can be 

appropriately managed through such a permit. 

The Chief of the OOG has the authority to grant variances, under certain 

conditions, to requirements under 35CSR4 and WV Code Chapter 22 Article 

21. 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 86 - 

II. ADMINISTRATIVE CRITERIA 

 

1. Do E&P waste permits provide notice of the permittee's obligation to comply with 

other federal, state or local requirements? If so, please provide a copy of the 

form(s). [4.1.1] 

Notices of compliance obligation are contained in the UIC permit, 

associated waste general permit, NPDES general permit, and the drilling 

pit general permit. 

 

2. Has the state adopted a state contingency plan for response to spills and releases? If 

so, briefly describe, including volumes that trigger a response, time in which 

notification and clean-up is to occur, and criteria (i.e., cleanup standards) used to 

assure that remediation was accomplished. Please provide reference to applicable 

portions of the state plan. [4.2.1.1.a] 

The State has developed an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) to respond 

to disasters and emergencies. It assigns duties and responsibilities to 

departments, agencies, and support organizations. The DEP plays an 

integral part in this plan and additionally has established an 800 number 

for spill reporting and a corresponding “Spill Line Manual” that lists call 

procedures, contacts, etc. 

 Crude oil and natural gas industry related spills are routed to the OOG for 

investigation. Additionally, notification directly to the OOG from the well 

operator is required immediately but in no case, later than 24 hours. 

Reportable discharges are those that: (1) would be reportable pursuant to 

section 311(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, (2) any upset or 

bypass causing effluent limitations established under the general permit to 

be exceeded or (3) any pit failure which results in a discharge to any 

surface water of the state. Cleanup standards are generally those found in 

the Groundwater Protection Area (GWPA) established Maximum 

Concentration Levels (MCL) and the associated waste general permit. 

 

3. Describe any funding provisions to enable the state to respond to spills and releases in 

the event a responsible operator cannot be located or is unwilling or unable to 

respond, and any provisions for reimbursement of the state for moneys so expended. 

[4.2.1.1.b] 

If a spill occurs from an abandoned well or wellsite, the OOG can access 

the Oil and Gas Reclamation Fund which can be used to plug and reclaim 

abandoned wells and well sites. Monies from this fund come from fees on 

new drilling permits and bond forfeitures and are typically in the $100,000 

range per year. Expenditures from this fund can be recovered under WV 

Code Chapter 22 Article 10 Section 7(f). Additionally, the DEP’s Division 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 87 - 

of Waste Management has a response team that can be activated for 

assistance through the Hazardous Waste Emergency Response Fund (WV 

Code Chapter 22 Article 19). The statute was modified in 2000 to allow for 

clean up of petroleum products. The statute requires reimbursement for 

expenditures from this fund by the responsible party. 

The State has accessed the federal Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund through 

the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) regarding crude oil spills impacting or 

threatening to impact a navigable water of the United States and in which 

the responsible party is unknown. 

 

4. Describe the program planning and performance measurement processes, including 

the following: [4.2.3, 4.3, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3] 

 

 a. Strategic or short-term planning. 

 

The Office of Oil and Gas is comprised of four program/sections. The 

managers of each of these sections meet monthly with the Chief to discuss 

strategies and undertake short-term planning. A significant portion of the 

planning takes place with the individual employees during their 

performance appraisals. These are originally established at the beginning 

of each year with interim reviews as often as needed but at least mid year 

and year-end. Assessment of the success of goals and objectives are 

determined in those reviews based on the performance standards 

established in the originally appraisals. 

 b. Briefly describe how program goals and objectives are related to the protection 

of human health and the environment. [3.2, 8.1] 

 

The OOG is the lead E&P regulatory body responsible for the protection 

of human health and the environment and consequently applies this 

premise in everything it does. This practice is evident in such activities 

as the review of all casing programs and proper site construction Best 

Management Practices (BMPs) for permit applications, responding to 

citizens’ complaints, reviewing reclamation activities, establishing sitesafety plans for deep well permits, developing compliance orders and 

plugging of abandoned wells and reclamation of abandoned well sites 

along with a regular inspection and enforcement program. 

 

 c. Briefly described the program’s methods for establishing program goals and 

objectives. [3.2] 

The goals and objectives of the OOG are predicated on the mandates as 

set forth in statute and regulation and are done in conjunction with the 

overall mission, goals and objectives of the DEP as outlined in the 

strategic plan and WV Code 22-1-1 (see General Criteria question 2). 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 88 - 

OOG staff participates in strategic planning by evaluating past activities 

and future needs and priorities to establish program goals and objectives 

for the coming year. 

 The OOG has developed or implemented, or is in the process of 

developing and implementing, several initiatives designed to achieve the 

protection of human health and the environment. Examples of such 

initiatives include: 

• compliance protocols specified in novs and orders involving 

among other things, operator training, 

• site safety plan requirements for all deep wells, 

• well plugging contractor certification which will result in a 

guidance manual and training. 

 

 d. How E&P waste management activities are weighted against other program 

activities competing for time and resources. [4.3.1, 4.3.2] 

Protection of the environment is weighted above all other program 

activities (WV Code 22-1-1). As E&P waste management interacts in the 

environmental protection mandate, E&P waste management is weighted 

heavily. The OOG relies significantly on general revenue funding from the 

legislature but does seek other avenues. Just recently we were able to 

participate in an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) grant that will be 

used to staff an Inspector Specialist who will be dedicated to well site 

reclamation and BMP implementation and training. 

 

e. How program plan expectations are communicated to staff at all levels who are 

responsible for program implementation. 

Program priorities and plan expectations are developed through the 

strategic and short-term planning sessions undertaken by the OOG Chief 

and managers. These plans are then disseminated to the staff responsible 

for implementation through meetings, memorandums, and individually 

through the employee performance appraisal, which outlines specific duties 

and responsibilities (see question 4. a.). 

f. Briefly describe how progress toward achievement of program goals and 

objectives is measured. [8.2] 

Policies and procedures which are developed and implemented to 

achieve the OOG’s goals and objectives are always under review. 

Regardless of the method of measurement, all progress must be toward 

achieving the ultimate goal of protecting the public health and the 

environment. 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 89 - 

The OOG measures progress a variety of ways. One current example of 

impact assessment involves our efforts in the identification of areas 

deficient in erosion and sediment controls and the subsequent follow-up 

inspection after erosion and sediment control implementation. This 

methodology is being implemented at the DEP level in its watershed 

analysis. 

Input measures are also developed as we encourage feedback from all 

our customers (regulated community, environmental community, public, 

other government agencies). Under compliance and 

inspection/enforcement sections, the OOG receives and responds to a 

variety of complaints. Additionally the OOG conducts periodic operator 

and public training seminars. Through compliance protocol, the OOG is 

participating in individualized training and is planning a joint training 

session with EPA around June of this year. 

At the DEP level, town hall meetings have been held periodically to 

discuss particular issues and to receive feedback regarding the activities 

of the Department. The DEP has also in the past engaged in customer 

surveys to help gauge the level of achievement towards our goals. The 

DEP website presently provides one of the best tools for input from all 

sources outside the Department. 

The OOG has also historically engaged in output analysis, such as 

inspections and activity witnessing (Mechanical Integrity Tests (MIT), 

cementing jobs, etc.), for determining success of individualized goals, 

which in turn provide a mechanism to evaluate the level of achievement 

of program goals and objectives. 

g. Briefly describe how information obtained from measurement of progress in 

achieving goals and objectives is used to alter or refine program activities. 

[8.3] 

As information is gathered concerning progress measurement, the OOG 

seeks to identify successful processes and apply those to other, less 

successful areas. This assessment is undertaken collectively among OOG 

staff to promote consistency and allow for a broader and more objective 

perspective. The OOG is striving to become more “team” oriented in its 

methodology for decision making in all facets of operation. 

West Virginia OOG has also found that information sharing between 

IOGCC member states to be beneficial, as many issues tend to be common 

among states. 

 

 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 90 - 

5. Describe any waste hauler training and certification requirements for commercial 

transportation of E&P wastes in your state. Give reference to any statutory or regulatory 

provisions relating to this activity. [4.2.5]

The OOG has no such requirements. However, the West Virginia 

Department of Transportation (WVDOT) requires Commercial Drivers 

Licenses (CDL) for certain types and sizes of truck (91CSR4) and the WV 

Public Service Commission has licensing authority over waste haulers to 

commercial landfills (150CSR9). All haulers to commercial UIC disposal 

wells are required to be affiliated with the commercial disposal well 

operation and no third party haulers are permitted for such facilities. 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 91 - 

III. TECHNICAL CRITERIA 

 

A - GENERAL 

 

1. Describe any general performance or design standards applicable to E&P waste 

management practices used in your state. Describe how these standards prevent 

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

environment; and prevent property damage. [5.1.a] 

 

All disposal of E & P waste is designed to protect human health, safety and 

the environment and must be permitted through the OOG (Chapter 22, 

Article 6, Section 7) or approved for landfills, by the DWM (Chapter 22 

Article 15). Permits contain the various waste management practices and 

standards applicable to the particular waste disposal method. Examples of 

waste management practices typical for most disposal methods are waste 

characterization, treatment methodologies, storage and secondary 

containment requirements, and specific operating and discharge 

requirements. 

Pits used during the drilling process to collect drill cuttings and fluids must 

be constructed, used and ultimately reclaimed in accordance with statute 

and regulation. They must not be left in such condition as to constitute a 

hazard or to prevent use of the surface for agricultural purposes after the 

expiration of the reclamation period (35CSR4-16.4). Pit fluid disposition is 

regulated through a Water Pollution Control Permit, which requires, 

among other things, sampling and testing to ensure contamination 

prevention, public health protection and property damage prevention. 

Produced water disposal is typically addressed through permitted UIC 

facilities or in certain instances, NPDES permitted facilities. With both 

permits, strict standards must be met from sampling and testing of the 

waste fluid and effluent to mechanical integrity testing of disposal wells. 

All these requirements are in place for the protection of public health and 

the environment. 

 

2. Describe any waste segregation requirements or other measures applicable to E&P waste 

management practices and facilities that ensure that hazardous waste is not disposed with 

exempt E&P waste. Give the regulatory citation. Does the state require or encourage 

segregation of exempt from non-exempt E&P waste? [2.8.d and 5.1.b] 

Waste management and disposal permits delineate the specific wastes that 

may be managed under a particular permit and generally address waste 

that are not permitted under the permit. These permits do not allow mixing 

of exempt and non-exempt wastes. Additionally the OOG has reviewed gas 

transportation and handling facilities in the state and issued Declaratory 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 92 - 

Rulings for those facilities identifying the exempt and non-exempt waste at 

the facilities and the associated handling requirements applicable to each 

(35CSR4.7.3.b.3). All landfilled E & P wastes must be determined to be 

RCRA non-hazardous as defined in 40 CFR Part 261. 

 

3. Are there any air emission control requirements applicable to E&P waste management 

facilities? If so, please describe and provide appropriate references. [5.1.a and 5.10.2.2.c] 

While there are no specific requirements, the OOG does address when 

encountered, on a site-specific basis, situations which may have an air 

impact. Hydrogen sulfide has been encountered in isolated areas in West 

Virginia and in such instances the Permissible Exposure Limits (PEL) 

established by Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) are 

enforced. Regarding landfills, the DWM does have requirements for 

methane emissions. 

B - PITS

 

4. Do you have specific technical criteria in place in your state for the following types of

pits? If so, please cite the reference for such criteria. [5.5.1] 

 

 Type Reference

 

 __ Reserve pits Drilling Pit General Permit, BMP Manual, 

35CSR4-16.4 

 

 __ Production pits see below____________________ 

 

 __ Skimming/settling pits not used____________________ 

 

 __ Produced water pits prohibited__________________ 

 

 __ Percolation pits prohibited__________________ 

 

 __ Evaporation pits prohibited____________________ 

 

 __ Special purpose pits see below__________________ 

 

 __ Blowdown pits prohibited__________________ 

 

 __ Flare pits contained in the site safety plan

 

 __ Emergency pits Drilling Pit General Permit, BMP Manual, 

35CSR4-16.4 

 

 __ Basic sediment pits prohibited__________________ 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 93 - 

 

 __ Workover pits Drilling Pit General Permit, BMP Manual, 

35CSR4-16.4 

 

 __ Other N/A_________________________ 

 

 

5. What notification is required prior to construction and operation of rule-authorized pits? 

[5.5.2.d] 

 West Virginia has no rule-authorized pits, as all pits must be permitted. 

 

6. Briefly describe any provisions concerning the issuance and use of emergency

permits for pits. Give reference to the applicable statutory or regulatory sections. [5.5.2.e] 

Emergency pits can be constructed, on a site-specific basis, only after 

receiving prior approval from the OOG inspector (Construction and 

Reclamation BMP Manual). Any emergency pit is subject to all the same 

requirements as regular reserve pits. 

 

7. What are the requirements for the placement of reserve pits relative to drilling 

equipment? [5.5.3.g] 

Section 7, pages 21 and 22 of the Construction and Reclamation BMP 

Manual, provides specific requirements for the placement of reserve pits 

relative to drilling equipment. Additionally, wells requiring a site safety plan 

include further requirements for the placement of reserve pits. 

 

 

C - LANDSPREADING (Non-Commercial) 

 

8. Give reference for any statutory or regulatory definitions of or prohibitions against

landspreading that are applicable in your state. [5.6.1.a] 

Definitions are contained in the Drilling Pit General permit which identifies 

the permitted materials as those generated during exploratory/developmental 

drilling, well treatment operations, plugging operations and reworking of 

wells. The Associated Waste General Permit also addresses landspreading 

as a treatment/disposal for some types of wastes. 

 

9. Is on-site landspreading of waste containing NORM above action levels prohibited? 

[5.6.1.c] 

If a waste contained NORM above active levels, landspreading would be 

prohibited. 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 94 - 

 

10. Briefly discuss each of the following operational requirements as they apply to 

landspreading (give reference to any statutory or regulatory requirements): [5.6.3] 

All the operational requirements below are found in the Drilling Pit and 

Associated Waste General Permits. 

 

 a. Removal of free oil. The Drilling Pit and the Associated Waste General Permits 

require the removal of free oil.

 

 b. Allowable pH range of waste being disposed. For the Drilling Pit General 

Permit, 6-10. No pH range established for the Associated Waste General 

Permit.

 

 c. Spreading of solids and incorporation into the soil. The Associated Waste General 

Permit requires delineation of the contaminated area and along with the site 

registration for the permit, the permittee must provide a description of their 

treatment methodology, which includes the spreading of solids and 

incorporation into the soil. 

 

 d. Application rates, methods and practices for liquids Under the Drilling Pit General 

Permit, the discharge of liquids shall be conducted only on vegetated land. It 

may not be conducted on saturated, frozen or impermeable ground. The 

discharge shall be applied at a rate that shall not cause ponding, erosion or 

run-off into the water of the state. Effluent limits are established for iron, 

dissolved oxygen, settleable solids, chloride, aluminum, oil and grease, and 

manganese. 

 

 e. Addition of nutrients for biodegradation Under the associated Waste 

General Permit, the description of treatment methodologies shall identify the 

addition of nutrients for biodegradation. 

 

 f. Waste limitations (e.g., EC, ESP, SAR) Specific limitations are addressed in the

Drilling Pit General Permit and on a site-specific basis for the associated 

Waste General Permit.

 

 g. Limitations on waste-soil ratio by oil and grease content The Drilling Pit 

General Permit requires that when any oil and grease levels are above 15 

milligrams/liter (mg/l) the operator must submit an explanation of the cause 

of such level and the steps to be taken to reduce the levels. 

 The Associated Waste General Permit, requires treatment to a level of 500 

ppm for tph. 

 

 h. Limits on salt and hydrocarbon content in final waste-soil mixture Final 

hydrocarbon content in waste soil mixture must be 500 ppm or below. Salt 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 95 - 

content in the final waste soil mixture is not required to be determined 

because effluent limitations are set for salt content of a discharge through 

the general permit. 

 

 i. Enhanced techniques available to meet final criteria for salt and hydrocarbons

 The use of any enhanced techniques must be described in the 

treatment methodology contained in the associated waste permit. 

 

 j. Soil analysis required prior to landspreading and/or after site closure The area of 

contamination must be delineated by soil analysis prior to treatment and 

must achieve the 500 ppm at site closure in accordance with the provisions 

of the associated waste general permit. 

 

 k. Any additional criteria for landspreading special wastes N/A

D - BURIAL AND LANDFILLING (Non-Commercial) 

 

11. Give reference for any statutory or regulatory definitions of or prohibitions against

burial or landfilling which are applicable in your state. [5.7.1] 

The only burial allowed is for residues left in the pit after discharge of 

fluids as provided for in the Pit General Permit. While there are no statutes 

or regulation prohibitions against burial or landfilling, any ultimate 

disposal of a waste must be permitted (WV Code 22-6-7). It is the policy of 

the OOG to prohibit the burial or landfilling of waste beyond what is 

permitted under the Pit General Permit. 

 

12. Do you have specific regulatory requirements for burial or landfilling of E&P wastes? 

If so, give reference to the applicable statutory or regulatory sections. [5.7.2] 

The Pit General Permit (G.4(f)), provides requirements for the burial of 

residues left in pits. After discharge of pit fluids, the remaining material 

shall be promptly covered with adequate soil to prevent contact with the 

surface runoff and reduce the potential for pollution of surface water. 

 

E - ROADSPREADING

 

13. Give reference for any statutory or regulatory definitions of or prohibitions against

roadspreading which are applicable in your state. [5.8.1] 

Chapter 22, Article 6, Section 7 requires a permit for the discharge of any 

waste. It is the policy of the OOG at the present time that roadspreading is 

not viable the therefore prohibited. 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 96 - 

 

14. Briefly discuss each of the following operational requirements as they apply to 

roadspreading (give reference to any statutory or regulatory requirements): [5.8.3] 

 N/A 

 

 a. testing criteria that are applicable for wastes proposed for roadspreading (e.g., 

ignitability, density, metal content, consistency with approved road oils) 

 N/A 

 

 b. application rates 

 N/A 

 c. buffer zones 

 N/A 

 

 d. produced water testing (for similarity to approved commercial products) 

 N/A 

 

F - TANKS

 

15. Give references for any statutory or regulatory definitions of E&P waste tanks used in 

your state. How are the tanks that treat, store or dispose of E&P waste regulated differently, 

if any, from tanks used exclusively for processing or storage of petroleum products? [5.9] 

West Virginia Title 35, Series 1 provides requirements for all tanks whether 

used for storage and disposal of E & P wastes or for processing and 

storage of petroleum products. 

 

16. Describe any requirements pertaining to the location, use, capacity, age and

construction of E&P waste tanks, including registration, inventories, etc. [5.9.2.a] 

All tanks used for the storage of E & P wastes shall be constructed of 

material that is compatible with the material stored and the conditions of 

storage. They shall be provided with a secondary means of containment 

and be inspected on a periodic basis. Measures to prevent spills shall be 

properly engineered and may include such things as adequate tank 

capacity, overflow equalizing lines, vacuum protection, sensors and 

periodic examination of production equipment (35CSR1-7). 

 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 97 - 

17. Describe any state program pertaining to pollution prevention requirements relating

to tanks. [5.9.2.c] 

Title 35, Series 1, Section 7 describes the state program for pollution 

prevention requirements relating to tanks. Such requirements include 

construction, secondary, containment, inspection, monitoring and 

maintenance. In addition to those requirements described in number 16 

above, operators are required to have at each production facility, 

appropriate containment and /or diversionary structures or equipment to 

prevent discharged oil or other pollutants from reaching the waters of the 

state. 

 

18. Briefly discuss each of the following operational requirements as they apply to E&P 

waste tanks (give reference to any statutory or regulatory requirements): [5.9.3] 

 

 a. corrosion protection Operators are required to have a maintenance 

program which includes corrosion protection provisions, as well as the 

requirements for compatibility of tanks with material stored (35CSR1-

7.10).

 

 b. structural integrity Tanks are required to be constructed in a manner compatible 

with material stored (35CSR1-7.4). Visual examinations of tanks are 

required for condition and need for maintenance (35CSR1-7.6). Adequate 

vacuum protection is required to prevent tank collapse (35CSR1-7.7c). 

 

 c. protection against overtopping Operators shall have one or more of the 

following: adequate tank capacity to ensure that the tank will not overfill, 

overflow equalizing lines betweens tanks or high level sensors (35CSR1-

7.7). 

 

 d. secondary containment/leak detection All operators shall have appropriate 

secondary contaminate and/or diversionary structures or equipment to 

prevent discharged oil or other pollutants from reaching water of the state. 

Operators must have a periodic inspection program of tanks for leak 

detection (35CSR1-7). 

 

 e. covers or measures to prevent entry of wildlife Areas may be required to fenced 

off or covered on a site specific basis based upon a field determination by 

the inspector that any open area may present a danger. 

 

 f. hydrogen sulfide emission control Any facilities in which H2S emissions may 

occur at detectable concentrations, are required to have treatment and 

controls on a site-specific basis. 

 

19. Describe any tank removal and closure requirements and provide reference to statutory 

or regulatory requirements. [5.9.4] 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 98 - 

Chapter 22, Article 6, Section 30, requires that, within 6 months after a 

well is plugged, the operator remove all production and storage structures 

and properly reclaim the site. 

G - COMMERCIAL AND CENTRALIZED DISPOSAL FACILITIES

 

20. What agency (agencies) in your state has (have) regulatory jurisdiction over these 

facilities? [5.10.1] 

West Virginia has no commercial disposal facilities as defined in the 

STRONGER guidelines. West Virginia Department of Environmental 

Protection, Office of Oil and Gas has regulatory jurisdiction over UIC 

facilities and NPDES sites that meet the definition of centralized disposal 

facilities. 

 

21. Give reference for any statutory or regulatory definitions for commercial and for 

centralized disposal facilities. [5.10.1] 

None 

 

22. Do you have any centralized or commercial E&P waste disposal facilities? How many, 

and of what type? Does this include any surface facilities at UIC sites? If so, how many 

are associated with UIC sites? [5.10.1] 

West Virginia has no commercial E&P waste disposal facilities. We do 

have 60 UIC disposal sites with surface facilities and 10 active NPDES 

disposal sites for produced water from stripper oil wells. 

 

23. What wastes are acceptable for disposal? Do any of these facilities accept RCRA 

nonexempt wastes or wastes from other than oil and gas exploration and production 

activities? [5.10.2] 

Only RCRA exempt class II fluids are acceptable for disposal at UIC sites. 

Regarding the NPDES sites, only produced water from stripper oil wells 

are accepted for disposal. RCRA nonexempt wastes and non-E&P wastes 

are not accepted at UIC and NPDES sites. 

 

24. What are the disposal and treatment methods employed at these facilities? [5.10.2] 

For NPDES facilities, disposal and treatment consists of ph adjustment, 

aeration, settling, filtration and dilution with disposal into receiving 

streams. 

 

25. What elements are required as part of the permit application (e.g., siting plan, 

construction plan, operating plan, closure plan, etc.)? [5.10.2.2.a] 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 99 - 

Siting, construction, operating and closure plans are all part of the permit 

applications. 

 

26. If permit applications are required for siting, do they include: [5.10.2.2.b] 

 

 _ Y_ Names, addresses and phone numbers of the owners or operators of the facility? 

 

 __N Names, addresses and phone numbers of owners or occupants of properties in 

close proximity of the site, or any other persons who may reasonably be adversely affected 

by releases from the site? 

 _ Y_ Topographic map that shows all highways, water courses, water wells, and 

dwellings within one mile of the site? 

 

 _ Y_ Geologic, hydrologic, engineering, chemical and any other data or information 

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

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

cause property damage? 

 

_ N_ Average annual precipitation and evaporation rate at the disposal site? 

(evaporation is not an acceptable disposal method due to high annual 

precipitation) 

 

 _Y_ Nature and permeability of vadose zone; description of the extent of underlying 

aquifer(s), and depth to ground water; direction of groundwater movement; data on water 

quality of nearby surface waters and underlying aquifer(s) prior to commencement of 

operations; and points of past or current use of surface or groundwater? 

 

_Y_ Proof that all public notice requirements have been met? 

 

 _Y_ Certification by an authorized representative of the applicant that information 

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

knowledge? 

 

_Y__ Construction plan that includes detailed engineering drawings and diagrams of 

engineered disposal facilities? 

 

27. Describe any construction requirements that will minimize or prevent releases to 

surface water, ground water, soil and air. In the case of reclamation facilities, describe any 

such requirements that apply to waste before and after reclamation. [5.10.2.2.c] 

 Construction requirements include the following: secondary 

containment, flood protection, fencing and locks for security and switches 

and sensors for automatic shut down. 

 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 100 - 

28. If permit applications are required for operating, do they include: [5.10.2.2.d] 

 

 Permit elements are described and addressed in the applicable permit. 

 

 _Y_ An operating plan? 

 

 _Y Volume, rate and type of material to be disposed? 

 

_Y_ Identification of the specific facilities that will be used to dispose of each waste 

stream (e.g., unlined or lined pits, tanks, etc.)? 

 

_Y_ Contingency plan for reporting, responding to and cleaning up spills, leaks and 

releases of wastes or waste byproducts, including provisions for notifying emergency 

response authorities and for taking operator-initiated emergency response actions? 

 

_N_ Ground water monitoring where wastes are managed on the land? 

(WV does not have any permitted centralized disposal facilities where 

wastes are managed on land.) 

 

 _Y_ Plan for routine inspection, maintenance, and monitoring to ensure and 

demonstrate compliance with permit requirements, and in the case of landfarming, ensure 

that organic wastes are effectively treated? 

 

 _N_ Specific engineering plans for preventing or minimizing the generation or 

emission of hydrogen sulfide gas? 

(There has been no known occurrences of hydrogen sulfide gas emissions 

at any centralized disposal facilities.) 

 

 _Y_ A plan for the onsite sampling and/or testing to assure that RCRA Subtitle C or 

other wastes prohibited by the regulatory agency for disposal are not disposed at such a 

facility? 

(Onsite testing is not required at NPDES facilities, however, the operator is 

required to certify that all disposed wastes are exempt under RCRA Subtitle 

C requirements.) 

 

 _Y_ Characterization of wastes accepted at the facility? 

 _Y_ Plan for periodic removal and subsequent handling of free oil? 

(At UIC surface storage facilities, most free oil is already removed prior to 

arrival and any remaining may be sold as product or disposed of through 

the UIC injection process at the operator’s discretion.) 

_Y_ Security plan for the facility? 

 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 101 - 

29. Describe the closure and post-closure monitoring and maintenance requirements 

applicable to commercial facilities, including duration of post-closure care and financial 

assurance release schedules. [5.10.2.2.e] 

N/A 

 

30. For wastes not moved by pipeline, is there a requirement for waste tracking? If so, 

does it require: [5.10.2.3] 

Waste tracking is required for hauling to UIC facilities in accordance with 

the UIC permit. 

 

_Y_ A multi-part form that contains the names, addresses and phone numbers of the 

waste generator (producer), hauler, and disposal facility operator? 

 

 _Y_ Description and volume of the waste? 

 

_N_ Time and date it was collected, hauled and deposited at the disposal facility? 

 

_Y_ Time requirement for maintenance of the form? 

 

 _N_ Attesting that no illegal dumping occurred? 

 

 _N_ Certification by the hauler and disposal facility operator that no wastes were 

dumped illegally or at a location or facility not designated by the generator or permitted to 

receive the waste, and that no prohibited or hazardous wastes were mixed with the waste 

during transport? 

 

_N_ Reporting of any discrepancies in waste descriptions, volumes or place of origin 

based on personal observations or information contained in the three-part form? 

 

31. Are waste haulers permitted or licensed based on a showing of basic knowledge of 

regulatory requirements? [5.10.2.3] 

There are no such permits or licenses, as the OOG does not allow third 

party haulers to transport waste. Consequently, knowledge of regulatory 

requirements is expected as they relate to all OOG statutes and regulations. 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 102 - 

V. ABANDONED SITES

Does your state have a program to inventory, prioritize and remediate (as 

necessary) abandoned oil and gas sites? [6.1] 

There have been various efforts on the part of the OOG to inventory 

abandoned wells. The most extensive was completed by the West Virginia 

Geological and Economic Survey in 1995. The focus of this study was to, 

through file research, identify any well that had been drilled but had no 

evidence of current activity or of having been plugged. Additionally, all 

permitted wells are identified in the OOG database as to their status (i.e. 

abandoned, plugged, active). 

Field investigations/inspections of abandoned wells are initiated by 

complaints and through inspector work priorities and initiatives. Once 

inspections are completed, the information is submitted to the office staff 

for prioritization, which is required by statute and regulation. 

Remediation, through plugging and reclamation, is done as funding will 

allow. Under certain circumstances, the OOG will contact the National 

Response Center ( NRC) and seek assistance through the federal Oil and 

Pollution Act (OPA). 

 

2. Please provide reference to any definitions pertaining to abandoned sites or your 

abandoned well site program, including the types of facilities included in the definitions. 

[6.2] 

Any well completed as a dry hole or not in use for a period of twelve 

consecutive months shall be presumed to have been abandoned (WV Code 

22-6-19). Related definitions are found in Chapter 22 Article 10, the 

Abandoned Well Act, and 35CSR5 and 35CSR6. 

 

3. Briefly describe your program for identification, inventory and ranking of abandoned 

sites. [6.3] 

 

Abandoned wells are typically identified in the field through complaint 

investigations and random inspections. They can be identified in the 

database based on their status as a consequence to the annual reporting 

requirements. Once identified and inventoried, they are ranked by the 

information obtained during the field inspection. 

 Statute and regulation require the ranking to be based, fundamentally, on 

the well’s threat to human health, safety and the environment and whether 

it is an impediment to the development of mineral resources. Wells that 

pose the greatest threat are placed in Classification I followed in lower 

priority by Classification II and Classification III. 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 103 - 

 

4. Briefly describe funding mechanisms available to the state for abandoned site 

remediation. [6.4] 

 

The Oil and Gas Reclamation Fund was established to address the 

plugging and reclamation of abandoned wells and wellsites. One hundred 

dollars from new well permit fees is allocated to this fund, as are bond 

forfeitures. Through these two sources, the OOG has historically taken in 

approximately $100,000 per year. 

Over the past few years, the OOG has accessed monies for oil clean up 

through the OPA (Oil Pollution Act), and has plugged abandoned wells 

responsible for such incidents. Funding through OPA can only be accessed 

in cases involving crude oil pollution, or the threat of crude oil pollution, 

into navigable waterways. 

 

5. Briefly describe the criteria used in your abandoned site prioritizing system. [6.5] 

As stated earlier, prioritization is based on the well’s threat to human 

heath, safety and the environment and if it is an impediment to the 

development of mineral resources. General risk assessment/evaluation 

criteria used to make this determination are such things as visual safety or 

health hazards, surface leakage and amount/area affected, evidence of 

ground water contamination in the vicinity, condition of surface casing and 

production casing, and planned or active mineral resource development in 

the area. These criteria will determine the Classification of the well and it 

is further prioritized using information such as the distance of the well to 

drinking water sources, the number of people living in the area of the well, 

the proximity to streams, the age of the well, and the amount of time the 

well has been abandoned. 

 

6. What are the state's abandoned site remediation goals? How is progress measured? 

[6.5.1] 

 

The general goal is to locate and evaluate each abandoned well site and 

mitigate those that are a threat to human health, safety or the environment. 

Initially, the OOG will expect the operator to respond to any remediation 

situation and take the appropriate action. If the operator fails to do so, or 

there is no known operator, the OOG will respond and take the necessary 

actions as funding will allow. Progress is essentially measured through the 

amount of funding at our disposal and hence the number of sites 

remediated. 

 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 104 - 

7. Briefly describe the state's program relating to establishing liability for the remediation of 

abandoned sites. Provide references to any statutory or regulatory allocation of 

responsibility. [6.5.2] 

Under the definition of “abandoned” in WV statute, abandoned sites may 

actually have responsible parties or operators. In these instances, the 

operators, per WV Code Chapter 22 Articles 6 and 10, are considered to 

have the liability associated with such sites. If no operator exists, and the 

well is considered to be “orphaned”, the State has the responsibility to 

clean up sites per the requirements of WV Code Chapter 22 Articles 6 and 

10 and 35CSR4 and 35CSR6. 

If government funds are expended for site remediation, the OOG will 

directly or through a contractor, research pertinent files and databases in 

an effort to locate the responsible party. Depending on the nature and 

severity of the site contamination, this search may be done prior to 

expenditures. 

 

8. Please provide reference to any standards for abandoned site remediation. [6.6] 

Under statute and regulation (22-6-24, 35CSR4-13) wells must be plugged 

in a manner which will completely seal the hole and consequently minimize 

any threat to public health and the environment. As part of this 

requirement, all fluid/gas bearing zones must be separated by cement plugs 

and all retrievable casing must be removed. Standards for onsite 

remediation of crude oil contaminated soils are found in the Associated 

Waste Permit for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) (500ppm max.). 

 

9. Briefly describe the state's abandoned well remediation program, including any 

flexibility allowed in plugging procedures. [6.6.1] 

Once a well becomes a priority for plugging by the OOG, the job goes out 

to bid to contractors. As with all well work, a permit is obtained which 

outlines the methodology to be followed during the plugging and 

reclamation process. The Abandoned Well Act provides for abandoned 

well plugging by “interested” parties, which includes any parties which 

may be adversely affected by an abandoned well. The director may 

authorize bonding to such interested parties in lesser amounts than those 

required by well operators. The interested party may recover all 

reasonable plugging costs from the well operator. 

 

10. Briefly describe the state's program for surface remediation of abandoned sites, 

including any requirements regarding present or future land use and consultation with 

surface owners. [6.6.2] 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 105 - 

Within six months of the date of well plugging, the site is required to be 

reclaimed in accordance with the standards outlined in the OOG Erosion 

and Sediment Control manual, WV Code Chapter 22 Article 6 and 35 

CSR4. This includes the removal of all production and storage structures 

and equipment. The surface owner receives a copy of the plugging permit 

application and may file comments relating to such activity. They may 

request of the permittee, certain types of vegetation to be sown and such 

things as monument burial depending on how they wish to use the land. 

 

11. What is the program for maintenance of records of remediated sites? How is public 

access assured? [6.6.3] 

All well work, which typically involves site work, requires a permit that 

outlines the reclamation requirements. Site work which may not 

specifically be part of well work falls under the discretion and scrutiny of 

OOG staff. An associated waste permit may be obtained in these cases. All 

documents pertaining to the activity of this site, including inspection 

reports, will be kept on file and maintained at the OOG. The OOG file is 

considered to be the official file. Information initially received on paper is 

periodically transferred to microfiche. 

All OOG file information is considered public information and can be 

requested for public review and copies. The DEP’s Public Information 

Office (PIO), works as a liaison between the program offices and their 

customers, including the public. They have an obligation to ensure that all 

requested information is provided accurately and timely. Additionally, 

through the DEP’s website, a vast amount of information on file at the 

OOG can be accessed at the convenience of the requesting party and 

without involving OOG staff. 

 

12. Describe any public participation activities associated with the abandoned sites 

program, including public access to information, public participation in rulemaking 

associated with the program, and participation regarding the priority of sites on the inventory 

and level of remediation. [6.7] 

As stated earlier, all OOG files and records are public information and can 

be easily reviewed or obtained. The “public” can become directly involved 

in the program through the interested party provision of the Abandoned 

Well Act. Under this provision, the party has the right to enter the property 

and plug the well, at its expense, and to seek reimbursement from the 

responsible party. 

 There is no direct involvement of the public in the prioritization or level of 

remediation, however, it is common that a member of the public provides 

the initial contact concerning an abandoned well through a complaint. As 

a consequence to that complaint, an investigation is conducted with the 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 106 - 

findings being provided to the complainant and used by the OOG to 

prioritize the site. 
West Virginia Review January 2003 

- 107 - 

V. NATURALLY OCCURRING RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL 

 

1. Discuss any activities the state has undertaken to determine the occurrence and need for

regulation of NORM. [7.2] 

To date the OOG is has not received any reports of NORM occurrences. 

The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection is in the 

process of investigating this issue through the Brownfields Program of the 

Division of Waste Management. Through this effort, which includes 

investigating several oil and natural gas sites during 2002, the Department 

will determine whether NORM exists at these sites and assess the 

associated health risks. The parties involved will be operating under 

Department of Energy (DOE) regulations and WV Department of Health 

guidelines during this investigative project. 

 

2. Briefly discuss each of the following program elements as they apply to the NORM 

regulatory program (give reference to any statutory or regulatory requirements): [7.3] 

 

 a. definitions N/A

 

 b. action levels N/A 

 

 c. surveys N/A 

 

 d. worker protection N/A 

 

 e. licensing/permitting N/A

 

 f. removal/remediation N/A

 

 g. storage N/A

 

 h. transfer of land and equipment for continued use N/A

 

 i. release of sites, materials, and equipment N/A

 

 j. disposal N/A 

 

 k. interagency coordination N/A

 

 l. public participation N/A