Utah DEQ: Programs: UICBeginning 1 July 2. Class V injection wells required to submit UIC Inventory Information shall remit a one- time $1. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has promulgated regulations establishing minimum requirements, technical criteria and standards for Underground Injection Control (UIC) programs to protect underground sources of drinking water (USDW) from endangerment by subsurface emplacement of fluids (4. CFR Parts 1. 44- 1. UIC wells. The Utah Bureau of Water Pollution Control (BWPC), now the Utah Division of Water Quality, received primacy from EPA on February 1. Utah under section 1. The Underground Injection Control (UIC) section is responsible for administering a United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved regulatory and permitting program. Its core duty is to protect underground sources. Utah DEQ: Programs: Utah Underground Injection Control Program. Project Title & Description. Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program Underground Source Water Protection continuing environmental program grant. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) is committed to implementing a comprehensive state Underground Injection Control (UIC) program covering all five classes of injection wells. The primary role of this program is. 2 promulgated regulations creating an Underground Injection Control Program to protect from contamination aquifers that are, or could become, potential sources of drinking water. In 1981, California’s Division of Oil and Gas. Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program. There are five classes of injection systems in the Federal UIC program. There are 30 types of injection systems ('wells') recognized by EPA ranging from. Safe Drinking Water Act for Class I, III, IV and V wells (the Utah 1. UIC Program). In Utah, the UIC program under section 1. Safe Drinking Water Act for Class II injection wells (the Utah 1. UIC Program) is administered by the Utah Division of Oil, Gas, and Mining. Please contact John Rogers (8. Class II injection wells in Utah. Facilities regulated under the Utah 1. UIC Program are permitted by rule under the Utah Ground Water Quality Protection Program. See R3. 17- 6- 6. A)(8) of the Utah Administrative Rules for Ground Water Quality Protection (R3. No facility permitted by rule, including facilities regulated under the UIC Program, may cause ground water quality to exceed the ground water quality standards in Table I of R3. Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) limits of the receiving ground water as set forth in Sections R3. R3. 17- 6- 3. 7. See R3. B). Contact Candace Cady with questions or comments about this content. GAO - Drinking Water: EPA Program to Protect Underground Sources from Injection of Fluids Associated with Oil and Gas Production Needs Improvement. What GAO Found. The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) role in the Underground Injection Control (UIC) class II program is to oversee and enforce fluid injection into wells associated with oil and gas production, known as class II wells. EPA has approved 3. II programs, and EPA regions are responsible for managing the programs in remaining states. EPA regions and states use a mix of resources to manage class II programs, including EPA grant funding, state funding, and federal and state personnel. EPA's UIC grant funding has remained at about $1. Programs in two states are managed by EPA and rely on EPA safeguards, while the remaining six programs are state managed and have their own safeguards that EPA deemed effective at preventing such contamination. Overall, EPA and state program officials reported that these safeguards are protective, resulting in few known incidents of contamination. However, the safeguards do not address emerging underground injection risks, such as seismic activity and overly high pressure in geologic formations leading to surface outbreaks of fluids. EPA officials said they manage these risks on a state- by- state basis, and some states have additional safeguards to address them. EPA has tasked its UIC Technical Workgroup with reviewing induced seismicity associated with injection wells and possible safeguards, but it does not plan reviews of other emerging risks, such as high pressure in formations. Without reviews of these risks, class II programs may not have the information necessary to fully protect underground drinking water. First, EPA does not consistently conduct annual on- site state program evaluations as directed in guidance because, according to some EPA officials, the agency does not have the resources to do so. The agency has not, however, evaluated its guidance, which dates from the 1. Without such an evaluation, EPA does not know what oversight activities are most effective or necessary. Second, to enforce state class II requirements, under current agency regulations, EPA must approve and incorporate state program requirements and any changes to them into federal regulations through a rulemaking. EPA has not incorporated all such requirements and changes into federal regulations and, as a result, may not be able to enforce all state program requirements. Some EPA officials said that incorporating changes into federal regulations through the rulemaking process is burdensome and time- consuming. EPA has not, however, evaluated alternatives for a more efficient process to approve and incorporate state program requirements and changes into regulations. Without incorporating these requirements and changes into federal regulations, EPA cannot enforce them if a state does not take action or requests EPA's assistance to take action. EPA is working on a national database that will allow it to report UIC results at a national level, but the database will not be fully implemented for at least 2 to 3 years. These wells are subject to regulation to protect drinking water sources under EPA's UIC class II program and approved state class II programs. Because much of the population relies on underground sources for drinking water, these wells have raised concerns about the safety of the nation's drinking water. This report examines (1) EPA and state roles, responsibilities, and resources for the program, (2) safeguards to protect drinking water, (3) EPA oversight and enforcement of class II programs, and (4) the reliability of program data for reporting. GAO reviewed federal and state laws and regulations. GAO interviewed EPA and state officials and reviewed class II programs from a nongeneralizable sample of eight states selected on the basis of shale oil and gas regions and the highest number of class II wells. EPA agreed with all but the enforcement recommendation. GAO continues to believe that EPA should take actions to ensure it can enforce state class II regulations, as discussed in the report.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
December 2016
Categories |