Federal Underground Control Regulations and Their Impact on the Oil Industry (includes associated papers 12562 and 12569 )
Authors: Wasicek Jerry J. 
Published: December 2007

Distinguished Author Series articles are general, descriptivere presentations that summarize the state of the art in an area of technology by describing recent developments for readers who are not specialists in the topics discussed. Written by individuals recognized as experts in the area, these articles provide key references to more definitive work and present specific details only to illustrate the technology. Purpose: to inform the general readership of recent advances in various areas of petroleum engineering.

Introduction
Until the U.S. Congress passed the Safe Drinking Water Act (PL 93–523)in Dec. 1974, regulation of subsurface injection wells was the sole province of the individual states. The Safe Drinking Water Act placed permitting of subsurface injection wells under the control of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). However, states were Protection Agency (EPA). However, states were encouraged to adopt or modify their underground injection-control(UIC)regulatory programs to obtain EPA approval, thereby returning authority to the states to administer the UIC program. This return is known as"primacy." During the 1940's and early 1950's, oil-producing states on their own initiative adopted effective regulations for subsurface disposal and injection wells used in oil and gas operations. Among other objectives, state injection-well rules were designed to protect freshwater aquifers.

Legislative History
History gives convincing evidence that state regulations were effective in protecting underground waters. Documented cases of pollution of fresh water aquifers by oilfield injection and disposal wells are few and limited in area. Congressional recognition of the effectiveness of state control programs wasevident in the original language of the Safe Drinking Water Act. However, Congress expressed its recognition more clearly in the Dec. 1980 amendments to the act (PL 96–502) by instructing the EPA to grant approval to existing state regulatory programs for oil and gas field injection wells programs for oil and gas field injection wells under general-standards rather than the more specific standards imposed on other classes of injection wells. Part C of PL 93–523 setsout the requirements for approvable state programs. Originally, states were required to comply with Sec. 1422 (b)(1)(A). Among other conditions, this section provided that a state program must meet all requirements of EPA regulations in effect under Sec. 1421. The Dec. 1980 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act added Sec. 1425, which allowed states greater flexibility in obtaining EPA approval for their existing Class II injection-well program. Sec.1425 gave states the option to demonstrate that their UIC program for Class IIwells generally meets the requirements of Sec. 1421 (b)(1), Subparagraphs (A)through (D), in lieu of the showing required under Sec. 1422 (b)(1)(A). Congress did include the provision in PL 93–523 that regulations and guidelinesadopted by the EPA and the states should not interfere needlessly with oil and gas operations (Sec. 1422[c]). The Senate committee report accompanying the actcomments further on this precaution as follows. …This Amendment prohibits regulations for state underground injection-control programs from prescribing requirements which would interfere with oil or natural gas or disposal of by products associated with such production, except that such requirements are authorized to be prescribed if essential to assure that underground sources of drinking water will not be endangered by such activity. …The Committee'sintent in adopting this amendment was not to require an impossible burden of proof on the states as a condition of promulgation of any such regulations. Rather, the Committee sought to assure that constraints on energy production activities would be kept as limited in scope as possible while still assuring the safety of present and potential sources of drinking water. present and potential sources of drinking water. Similar provisions were adopted with respect to EPA regulations.
JPT
p. 1409