NOTE:

This is an OCR'd version of an original scanned document. There may be slight formatting and/or spelling errors due to issues related to machine transcription. I can send you a copy of the original document if requested. Email your request to: WilliamAHuston@gmail.com

ENVIRONMENTA
LPROTECTIO N AGENCY

906R87103

DALLAS, TEXAS

L IB R A

CHAPTER

OIL

AND GAS DAMAGE CASES

DAMAGE CASES1 INTRODUCTION1

Limitations Methodology for Gathering Purpose of the Damage Case of the Methodology andDamage Case Information2 Its ResultsReview1 5 Several Oil-ScheduleAppendix C5 3 2 Review Analysis5 Groups Categories Contents Field Proof4 Other Byand Gas-Producing Stateofofand Contacts Sources Work3 Information and Test 5 States NotSources5 in Included

CONTENTS

ZONE 215 ZONE 115

Environmental and Development Conclusions8 TypesOperations15General of Current Market Major of Operators15 Chapter13 Structure of This Issues17Implications Context16 Conditions7 Damage to water wells afterdrilling canarewidely NotandDeclines Inappropriate land Pastof Conditions14 Cases7 inbyNecessarily Illegal dumping ofspreadingdamages10causedPrice Not Be Overview practices of enforcement May DiscussionsEffects Method Did Implementationsubstances9 Oil State standards vary brine, Damages Recent seriously Issues Withincause of deficient12 Sample5 gas or of both Issues and Compliance requirements in West of state requirements11A Representative mud, and fracing fluid17and CouldFully Stated7 oil well fracturing19contribute to currentDamage Virginia20 contentas well as scope Zones13 Produce nonhazardous is Affect hazardous

Illegal discharge of oil21

Abandoned wells......22 ZONE 3..................................23 ZONE 4..................................23 Operations......................23 Types of Operators.........24 Environmental and Development Context.....25 Major Issues....................25 Groundwater Contamination from Unlined Brine Disposal and Reserve Pits.......25 Use of Hazardous Chemicals in Workover Operations................26 Allowable Discharge of Drilling Mud Into Gulf Coast Estuaries..................27 Illegal Dumping In the Louisiana Gulf Coast Area..........................27 Illegal Dumping in Arkansas...................29 Improperly Operated Injection Wells..........31

Improperly Abandoned and Improperly Plugged Wells...........31 ZONE 5..................................33 Operations......................33 Types of Operators.........33 Major Issues....................33 Groundwater Pollution in Michigan...............33 Illegal Dumping of Wastes in Ohio.........35 Contamination of Ground Water From Injection and Annular Disposal....................36 Contamination of Ground Water From Reserve Pits..............37 ZONE 6..................................39 Operations......................39 Types of Operators.........39 Environmental and Development Context.....40 Major Issues....................41 Poor Lease Maintenance.............41

Pollution of Ground Water with Chlorides from Improperly Abandoned Wells and Reserve Pits..............42 Problems with Injection Wells.........................43 ZONE 7..................................45 Operations......................45 Types of Operators.........45 Environmental and Development Context.....46 Major Issues....................47 Discharge of produced water and drilling mud into bays and estuaries of the Texas Gulf Coast.................47 Leaching of reserve pit constituents..............48 Ground water chloride pollution from injection wells.........................49 Illegal dumping.........50 Improperly abandoned or improperly plugged

wells.........................51

ZONE 8..................................53 Operations......................53 Types of Operators.........53 Environmental and Development Context.....54 Major Issues....................55 Illegal dumping.........55 Reclamation problems .................................56 Discharge of produced water into surface streams....................56 ZONE 9..................................58 Operations......................58 Types of Operators.........58 Environmental and Development Context.....59

Major Issues....................59 Unlined Produced Water and Oilfield Waste Pit Contents Leaching into Ground Water........................59 Damage to Ground Water From Leaking Injection Wells..........61 Contamination of Ground Water From Improperly Completed Oil and Gas Wells.........................62 ZONE 10................................64 Operations......................64 Types of Operators.........65 Environmental and Development Context.....65 Major Issues....................65 Discharge of brines and oily wastes to ephemeral streams. .65 Damages from disposal of drilling wastes in ponds........................67

ZONE 11................................68 Operations......................68 Further development of reserves has been almost entirely curtailed throughout Alaska since the prices of oil and gas have declined. There were only 100 wells drilled in the State in 1985, none of them exploratory. However, if world prices were to increase..........................69 Types of Operators.........69 Environmental and Development Context.....69 Major Issues....................70 The North Slope........70 The Kenai Peninsula. 74

DAMAGE CASES INTRODUCTION Purpose of the Damage Case Review The damage case study effort conducted for this report had several objectives, as discussed below. To Respond to the Requirements of Section 80Q2(m')('Q: The primary objective was to respond to the requirements of Section

8002(m) of RCRA which requires EPA to identify "Documented cases that prove or have caused danger to human health and the environment from surface runoff or leachate." In interpreting this passage, EPA has emphasized the importance of strict documentation of cases by establishing a "test of proof' (discussed below) that all cases were required to pass before they could be included in this report. In addition, EPA has emphasized development

of recent cases that illustrate damages created by current practices under current State regulations. Historical damages that occurred under prior engineering practices or under previous regulatory regimes have been excluded unless such historical damages illustrate health or environmental problems that the Agency believes should be brought to the attention of Congress now.1 The overall
1 The primary example of this is the problem of abandoned wells, discussed at length under Region 2, below. The abandoned well problem results for the most part from

objective for the documented cases has been to illustrate clear links of cause and effect between waste management practices and resulting damages, and to identify cases where damages have been most significant in terms of human health or environmental impacts. To Provide An Overview of The Nature of Damages Associated With Oil and Gas
inadequate past plugging practices that have since been improved under State regulations, yet associated damages to health and the environment are continuing.

Exploration. Development, or Production Activities: In the course of accumulating damage cases, EPA has acquired a significant amount of information on cases that do not pass the formal test of proof mentioned above. Although references to these cases are excluded

from this report and from Appendix III, the information

gathered has served as useful background in developing the overview discussions presented here, and in supporting the risk assessment reported in Chapter V of this report. Methodology for Gathering Damage Case Information The methodology for identifying, collecting, and processing damage cases was presented in draft form in the Technical Report published on October 31, 1986.

Modifications to that draft methodology have been minimal. Information Categories As stated in the Technical Report, the damage case effort attempted to collect the following types of information on each case: 1.Characterization of specific damage types: For each case, the environmental medium involved is listed (ground water, surface water, or land), along with the type of incident and characterization of damage involved.

Although the Technical Report included "suspected damage" as a category, no case has been included where no documented damage could be demonstrated. Where significant suspected damages exist in addition to documented damages, they are referenced. Types of potential health or environmental damages of interest are shown on Table 1. 2.The size and location of the site: Sites are located by nearest town, county, and any other available environmental factors. Where significant

hydrogeological or other pertinent factors are known, they are included; however, this type of information has been difficult to gather for all cases. 3.The operating status of the facility or site: All pertinent factors or the site's status (active, inactive, in process of shutdown, etc.) have been noted. 4.Identification of the type and volume of waste involved: While the type of waste involved has been easy to define, volumes often have not. They have been included wherever possible. 5.Identification of

waste management practices: For each incident, the waste management practices associated with the incident have been discussed in context. 6.Identification of any pertinent regulations affecting the site: State regulations in force across the oil- and gasproducing States are discussed at

length in Appendix A. Since it would be unwieldy to attempt to discuss all pertinent

regulations in relation to each site, each documented case includes a section on Compliance Issues that discusses significant regulatory issues associated with each incident as reported by sources or contacts.2 In some cases, interpretations were necessary. 7. Type of documentation available; All documentation available for each case has been included in Appendix C to the
2 All discussions, including particularly the compliance sections of each case study, have been reviewed by State officials and by any other sources or contacts that provided information on a case.

extent possible. For a few cases, documentation is extremely extensive and space has permitted only the most pertinent listings to be included. All information gathered is, however, available in EPA files. Sources and Contacts As stated in the Technical Report, no attempt was made to compile a complete census of current damage cases. States from which cases were drawn are listed on Table 2. As evident from the table, resources did not permit

gathering of cases from all states listed in the Technical Report: States for which some information was gathered but from which documented damages cases are not presented are listed separately. Within each of the States, every effort was made to contact all available source categories listed in the Technical Report^ Because time was extremely limited, the effort relied principally on information

available through relevant State and local agencies, and on contacts provided through public interest or citizens' groups. In some instances, cases were developed through contacts with private attorneys directly engaged in litigation. Because these nongovernmental sources often provided information on incidents of which State agencies were unaware, such cases were often undocumented at the State level. State agencies were, however, provided with review

drafts of case write-ups and were encouraged to provide comments. Field Work Virtually all of the data used here was gathered through field work or through follow-up to that field work. For each State, researchers first contacted all State agencies that play a significant role in the regulation of oil or gas operations and set up appointments

Table 1 Type of Damage of Concern to This Study

1.Human Health Effect? (acute and chronic): While there are some instances where contamination has resulted in cases of acute adverse human health effects, such cases are difficult to document. Levels of pollution exposure caused by oil and gas operations are more likely to be in ranges associated with chronic carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects. 2.Environmental Effects: Impairment of natural ecosystems and habitats, including contaminating of soils, impairment of terrestrial or aquatic vegetation, or reduction of the quality of surface waters. 3.Effects on wildlife: Impairment to terrestrial or aquatic fauna; types of damage may include reduction in species' presence or density, impairment of species health or reproductive ability, or significant changes in ecological relationships among species. 4.Effects on livestock: Morbidity of mortality of livestock, impairment in the marketability of livestock, or any other adverse economic impact on livestock.

5.Impairment of other natural resources: Contamination of any current or potential source of drinking water, disruption or lasting impairment to agricultural lands or commercial crops, impairment of potential or actual industrial use of land, or reduction in current or potential use of land.

for field visits. At the same time, contacts and appointments were made where possible with local citizens' groups and private attorneys in each State. Field work was done from December 1986 through February 1987.

During the field work actual documentation was gathered and as many additional contacts were made as possible. Test of Proof All cases were classified as to whether or not they met the formal test of proof first described in the October 1986 Technical Report. Three tests were used; cases were considered to meet the documentation standards of 8002(m)(C) if they met one or more of them. These tests

were to some extent judgmental; a case was considered to meet the test of proof on the basis of one or more of the following: 1.Scientific investigation: A case could meet the test of proof if damages were found to exist as part of the findings of a scientific study. Such studies could be extensive formal investigations supporting litigation or a State enforcement action, or they could, in some instances, be the results of technical tests (such as monitoring of wells) if such tests were (a)

conducted with Stateapproved quality control procedures, and (b) revealed contamination levels in excess of an applicable State or Federal standard or guideline (such as a drinking water standard or water quality criterion). 2.Administrative ruling: A case could meet the test of proof if damages were found to exist through a formal administrative finding, such as the conclusions of a site report by a field investigator, or through existence of an enforcement action that cited specific health or environmental

damages. 3.Court decision: The third way in which a case could meet the test of proof was if damages were found to exist through the ruling of a court or through an outof-court settlement As noted above, cases that failed to meet the test of proof were not discarded, but were retained to serve as additional background to the report. No cases that failed the test of proof are listed in Appendix C or referenced specifically in the text of this report.

Contents of Appendix C For each test-of-proof case, Appendix C presents a summary write-up covering all of the above information. Summary tables listing the numbers and types of cases developed appear at the beginning of that Appendix. Review By State Groups and Other Sources All agencies, groups, and individuals who provided documentation or who have jurisdiction over the sites in any specific State were sent

draft copies of the material presented in Appendix C. Their comments were incorporated to the extent possible; judgments on which comments should be included were made by EPA. Limitations Methodology Results Schedule of and the Its

The time period over which the field work occurred was short. In addition, much of the field work was arranged or conducted over the December

1986/January 1987 holiday period, when it was often difficult to make contacts with State representatives and private groups. To the extent that resources permitted, follow-up visits were made to fill gaps. Nevertheless, coverage of some States listed in the October Technical Report had to be omitted entirely, and coverage in others (particularly Oklahoma) was limited.

Several Oil- and GasProducing States Not Included in Analysis Aside from the States that originally were intended to be covered, some of the oil and gas producing States were omitted entirely from coverage. This issue was covered in the Technical Report: States actually visited accounted for a significant percentage of U.S. oil and gas production (refer to Table 1).

Method Did Not Necessarily Produce A Representative Sample Although every attempt was made to produce representative cases, the study cannot assert that its cases are in fact a statistically representative record of damages in each State.

Aside

from

scheduling

and

budgetary limitations alluded to above, there are a number of practical reasons why this is so. First, record keeping varies significantly among States. A few States, such as Ohio, have unusually complete and up-todate central records of enforcement actions and complaints. More often, however, enforcement records are incomplete and/or distributed throughout regional offices within the State. Schedules were such that only a few officesusually only the

State's central officeswere visited by researchers. Furthermore, their ability to collect files at each office was limited by the time available on site (usually one day, but never more than three days) and by the ability of each State to spare staff time to assist the research. The number of cases found at each office and amount of material gathered was influenced strongly by these constraints. Second, in some States data on known damage cases has often been sealed by the

courts in response to requests by defendants, usually oil companies. This is typical practice, for instance, in Texas. In some cases the records of well-publicized damage incidents are almost entirely unavailable for review. Impoundment conceals the scientific and administrative documentation of the incident as well as the nature and size of the settlement. While it would be theoretically possible to open these records through a formal request through the courts, this was not done

because (1) it would have been extremely difficult to identify the cases of interest (precisely because records are unavailable) and (2) it would have taken many months for the records to be obtained even if the request were granted. A third general limitation in locating damage cases is that oil and gas activities in some parts of the country are in remote, unpopulated, and (therefore) unstudied areas. The Overthrust Belt in Wyoming and the North Slope

in Alaska are examples. In these areas, not only is there no significant population present to experience adverse health effects, access to sites is physically difficult, often limited by restrictions imposed by the companies active in the areas (this is especially true on the Alaskan North Slope), therefore making it difficult to witness environmental damages sustained. Issues of Compliance May Not Be Fully Stated While every effort was made to put each case into

accurate regulatory context, the discussions contained under "Compliance Issues" may not always present a complete picture of all applicable compliance issues. There are several reasons for this: The update of the review of State regulations presented in Appendix A was conducted simultaneously with the damage case effort. Its results were therefore not available in time to be fully incorporated into the write-ups. Compliance issues

were generally developed through interviews with State officials, lawyers, and interested citizens' groups. Although these parties had the opportunity to review and comment, time for this comment was itself limited and errors and omissions may have been made by reviewers. Compliance issues reviewed focused almost entirely on specific requirements affecting oil and gas operations. Other more general environmental or public health statutes may in fact have jurisdiction in some cases, but

being State-specific could not be fully anticipated by EPA researchers and may have escaped the attention of State and local reviewers. Effects of Recent Oil Price Declines Could Affect Damage Cases The effects of the recent oil price decline on the nature and extent of damages now and in the future cannot be fully analyzed. No systematic attempt was made within the case study write-ups contained in Appendix C to deal with these issues. To some extent,

current damages may reflect negative effects caused by the price decline: one example is the increase in improperly abandoned or improperly plugged wells caused by bankruptcies. On the other hand, current damages may not reflect future conditions once prices increase: increased drilling levels may be accompanied by increased damages from drilling operations, and so forth. While this issue is inherently speculative, it is discussed to the extent possible in relation

to particular categories of damage cases. Implications of Current Market Conditions Oklahoma and Texas have been affected perhaps more adversely by the current decline of oil and gas prices than any other area of the country except Alaska (Zone 11).

Although production is still extensive and will continue, recent economic losses have been heavy. The current situation affects potential environmental damages in several ways. On the one hand, problems associated with improper well abandonment or plugging have increased (often because of bankruptcies), marginally profitable companies appear to have cut down on environmental compliance expenditures, and the States' resources available for

enforcing existing rules and regulations have declined. These forces tend to increase the potential for environmental damages. On the other hand, the slowdown in drilling and development has decreased the amount of wastes that might otherwise be generated by drilling activity, producing perhaps a temporary decrease in the environmental impacts associated with certain waste streams, such as in the Deep Anadarko Basin where deep exploration has fallen off because it is so capital

intensive. As elsewhere, impacts of currently depressed prices affect smaller operators more than the major companies. Continued market constraints can be expected, however, to significantly decrease expensive deep exploration and production projects. General Conclusions As is evident from the cases presented below, health and environmental damages caused by oil and gas operations appear to be

significant, widespread, and in need of correction. The most obvious impacts are on natural resources and the environment. Human health impacts also exist, but these tend, by their nature, to be harder to document. In many cases, there is convincing circumstantial evidence that serious health effects, such as cancer and other fatal diseases, have been caused or are potentially caused by oil and gas activities. On the basis of the research done for this study,

the following general conclusions can be drawn.

Damages are caused by nonhazardous as well as hazardous substances The clearest division that can be drawn among the cases is between damages caused by disposal (legal or illegal) of produced water, and damages

caused by disposal of all other categories of wastes. Although produced water may contain many toxic substances known to be soluble in water (for instance, oil, heavy metals and organic compounds such as benzene), and therefore can, in some instances, be considered hazardous under the definitions of RCRA, most produced water causes damage because of its chloride content. Chloride concentrations in produced waters vary widelyfrom a few

parts per million (ppm) to over 100,000 ppm in some cases but damages are not necessarily proportional to brine concentration. EPA's drinking water standard for chlorides is only 250 ppm, and while drinking water is, of necessity, consumed at levels higher than this standard in many parts of the country, even comparatively lowchloride brines can contaminate water supplies enough to render them useless. Livestock can in practice be watered at levels

two and three times higher than the 250 ppm human consumption standard, but this use too is fairly easily damaged. The third major category of produced-waterrelated damage is contamination of soils or surface waters, which can destroy vegetation, aquatic organisms, or agricultural productivity. For some productive purposes, such as agriculture, this type of damage may be virtually permanent. In other cases (such as fish kills) it can be

reversed relatively quickly, perhaps over a period of a few years. The other categories of potentially damaging wastes include drilling muds (which may often contain brine, toxic heavy metals, and chemical additives) and a wide range of chemicals used in completing wells, maintaining production, and reworking old sites. Many of these substances are clearly hazardous by one or more RCRA definitions (they may be toxic, corrosive, or ignitable) but health and environmental

concern centers primarily on their toxicity. It has been comparatively easy to document damages caused by brines because the damages in question are readily measurable, both scientifically and economically. It was

difficult, on the other hand, to document damages caused by toxic chemicals and metals.

This was true for a number of reasons. First, toxic effects often take many years to manifest themselves as cancers or other chronic diseases; when they eventually do it is usually impossible to link individual cases to specific environmental exposures. Second, toxic contamination may occur simultaneously with chloride contamination; when this happens, the chloride contamination, being acute, tends to become the central fact of the case, dominating damage characterization, case

documentation, and response. Past practices can both cause and contribute to current damages Health and environmental damages caused by oil and gas extraction projects cannot be fully corrected by addressing only current operations. One of the most important conclusions to be drawn from the cases presented here is that improper closure and abandonment of oil and gas sites causes, or significantly contributes to, current damages. In some cases,

damages are caused entirely by inactive sites. In other cases, inactive sites exacerbate problems caused by current operations, increasing the scale of damage and confusing the assignment of responsibility and liability. The clearest example of this is improper or inadequate plugging or abandonment of wells. It is estimated that there may be as many as 1.2 million abandoned production wells in the U.S. In most states, plugging requirements, if they exist at all, are comparatively

recent. Even where plugging requirements do exist, they are often inadequate to prevent damage from occurring. In heavily developed areas such as the Permian Basin, which have been under intensive development for many decades, literally thousands of wells have been left improperly capped, often forming direct conduits between the surface, drinking water aquifers, and producing zones. In some cases brines under artesian pressure leak directly to the surface. In other

cases, liquids are forced up by artificial pressure from secondary recovery or disposal wells. Where this occurs it is difficult to assign liability wells may have been improperly closed for any number of reasons, including bankruptcy of the operator. The situation is exactly similar to post-

closure problems at hazardous

wastes sites. The other major type of post-closure problems is burial of reserve pit wastes. The toxic compounds that may be found in these pits (which may include a wide variety of production-related chemicals and other wastes in addition to drilling muds) can contaminate ground water years after a site is closed. Examples of this type of problem have been found in California and Alaska, where development of previously remote areas has been adversely affected by wastes

left by petroleum development. State standards vary widely in scope and content Although EPA recognizes the need to adjust controls over oil and gas operations to be responsive to local economic and geographic factors, current variations in state practices are unnecessarily wide. Some states' rules are comprehensive in scope, technically adequate in their

design, and clear in their specific requirements. Other states' rules are, unfortunately, limited in scope, technically inadequate to cope with local conditions, and extremely vague in their requirements. They may also be so unrealistic as to invite noncompliance, creating dramatic disparities between nominal and actual practices. Technical differences in state requirements can also be significant, an example being the mechanical integrity

testing of injection wells. Differences in test protocols can be significant enough to make it theoretically possible for a well that fails a performance test in one state to be considered fit for use in another. Many states are in the process of upgrading their environmental requirements, but defects in previous regulatory programs have contributed heavily to past problemsproblems that, as pointed out above, often contribute to current damages.

In addition, lax regulations in the past have sometimes created a climate of leniency that will further complicate enforcement in the future.

Implementation and enforcement of state requirements is seriously deficient The single most important cause of health and environmental damages from

oil and gas operations is failure of states to fully implement and aggressively enforce the rules that are nominally in effect. There are many reasons for this. Some are inherent in the nature of the oil and gas industry itself. Others are, unfortunately, the responsibility of the states and private industry. The inherent problems of controlling the health and environmental impacts of the oil and gas industry should not be underestimated. The industry is large, old, and

geographically very extensive. Operations often occur in remote areas where it may be difficult to set up effective waste management programs. The work is also difficult and physically dangerous. In such circumstances, environmental controls are inevitably less urgent than completing projects safely and maintaining production. All these factors make regulatory enforcement logistically difficult, labor intensive, and expensive. Finally, attempts to develop comprehensive environmental

standards are comparatively recent, and as stressed above, past practices and current problems are often interlinked. Regulatory programs must deal with these in addition to their current responsibilities. These difficulties do not entirely account for or in any way excuse the damages revealed by the current study, however. Shortcomings in states programs and in voluntary industry compliance are in urgent need of correction.

State regulatory programs are, as a rule, seriously underfunded and understaffed. The major responsibilities of state inspectors in key states are often incommensurate with the resources available to carry them out. In Texas, for example, 173 state inspectors are required to supervise approximately 200,000 producing sites, 18,000 injection facilities, and personally witness the closing and plugging of an average of 40,000 wells per year. In

Louisiana, 12 inspectors are responsible for 80,000 production wells and 4,000 injection facilities; six of the available 12 positions are currently vacant.

Many State regulatory agencies face conflicting incentives and responsibilities. In several States, responsibility for promoting and controlling oil and gas activities lie within

the same agency. In many cases, revenues for regulating agencies come from direct or indirect taxes on petroleum operations. The conflicts inherent in such arrangements are obvious. They undermine the credibility of enforcement in the eyes of the public and create an atmosphere of leniency that encourages substandard compliance from less scrupulous operators. In some States, economic reliance on oil industry revenues increases public tolerance of environmental

damages. It may also tend to discourage citizens from complaining about damages, either out of cynicism or for fear of job reprisals. In extreme cases, illegal practices are carried out in blatant disregard of rules, often by small independent operators, but sometimes also by the major companies. The more diversified a State's economy, however, the more broad the concern over health and environment issues is likely to be. Structure of This

Chapter Overview of Conditions Within Zones The first subsection in the discussion of each zone presents an overview of significant conditions within the zone. Topics include: Operations: A brief characterization of the zone's oil and gas activity, including key descriptive statistics for 1985. As noted above, since the recent drop in oil prices has been a determining force in the marketplace, its specific effects on

current operations in each zone are noted. Characterization of operators: The nature and extent of damages are in some instances related to the type of operators active in a zonemajor oil companies, large, midsized, and small independents. Environmental and development context: This includes characterization of the physical environment, population patterns, and other issues of concern.

Discussions of Issues Within each zone, damage cases are discussed on an issue-by-issue basis. Individual cases are used as examples of broad patterns; when mentioned, they are referenced by the case numbers used in Appendix C.

ZONE 1 No significant oil

and gas activity. No damages cases were collected. ZONE 2 Zone 2 includes New York, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee. Most of these States have minimal oil and gas production. Though damage cases were collected for West Virginia and Pennsylvania, most of the cases presented here came from West Virginia.

Operations In the Appalachian Basin, which includes the production areas of Pennsylvania and West Virginia, hydrocarbon production is generally marginally economic. Operations are often promotional, low-budget efforts, frequently using low quality materials. Sufficient funds for proper maintenance of production sites are often inadequate, and there is a general lack of awareness of potential environmental liabilities among operators.

Although the absolute amount of oil produced in the Appalachian zone is small in comparison with the rest of the country, wells in the zone produce a high proportion of high chloride brine in relation to product. In West Virginia in 1985,1,839 new wells were completed at an average depth of 4,270 feet. Only 18 exploratory wells were drilled in that year. In Pennsylvania, 4,627 new wells were completed in 1985 to an average depth 2,287 feet; 59 exploratory wells were drilled

in that year. The number of completed wells was almost double the annual number drilled from 1979 through 1984, but the number of exploratory wells was down almost 50 percent from 1984 levels.

Types of Operators
Oil and gas production in West Virginia is dominated by small operators, some wellestablished, some new to the industry. Since the majority of extraction is economically marginal, operators are

extremely susceptible to market fluctuations, and are

increasingly likely to compromise environmental performance in order to maintain profitability. Current depressed conditions also tend to discourage proper abandonment practices as wells are taken out of production. Prices also affect the ability of the State regulatory agencies to enforce

existing rules, which are funded by declining collections of severance tax. Pennsylvania's activity is similar. Operators include a mix of small and mediumsized independents.

Environmental and Development Context

The oil development areas of West Virginia typically lie among elongated parallel

ridges separated by narrow valleys. The land has moderate to steeply graded hills and mountains, making erosion from drill sites a significant and continuing problem. Runoff from disturbed drilling areas causes loss of topsoil and elevated sediment loads in streams and rivers. Enforcement of post-drilling restoration of the land surface is often neglected. In West Virginia, surface rights are separate from mineral rights, and much of the population lives in rural areas

where average incomes are low by national standards. In the permitting process for development of a new well, the signature of the surface owner is not required and usually not obtained though a landowner may raise objections during a two week comment period after a drilling application has been submitted. The surface owner can obtain a hearing on oil and gas activities on his or her land only after the drilling has taken place and some type of damage has been sustained. Very often the surface owner

signs a consent that waives all rights to any kind of compensation for damages. Since many rural landowners do not have access to natural gas, when they do sustain unreasonable damages from oil or gas activities they often sue for a lifetime supply of free natural gas in lieu of a cash settlement. Thus, many damage cases in West Virginia do not reference specific technical facts on damages sustained.

West Virginia has no spacing rules for oil and gas wells unless the well is to be drilled deeper than 6,000 feet. As a result, the site for drilling may be within a few hundred feet of a residential water well. These water wells located in close proximity to oil and gas drilling operations are often permanently damaged when the oil or gas well is fractured, allowing for the migration of fracturing fluid, sand, and hydrocarbons into residential water supplies. In Pennsylvania the major

oil and gas fields are located in rural areas in the northwest part of the State. The land includes steep hills and mountains, appalachian plateaus and narrow valleys. Erosion is a problem, as it is in West Virginia. Site restoration is usually difficult and has not been required in the past. Aquifers are shallow, and downvalley soils are often coarse and unconsolidated, allowing surface waters to percolate readily to the ground water.

Major Issues

Illegal dumping of brine, drilling mud, and fracing fluid Damage from illegal disposal of the range of wastes associated with drilling and production is by far the most common type of problem in West Virginia. Results of illegal discharge include fish kills, vegetation kills, and death of livestock from drinking polluted water. Discharged fluids include oil, brines of up to 180,000 ppm chlorides, drilling

fluids containing detergent and bentonite mud, and fracing fluids that can have a pH of as low as 3.0 (highly acidic). Illegal discharges take many forms, including draining of saltwater holding tanks into creeks or streams, breaching of reserve pits into streams, siphoning of pits into streams, or dumping of vacuum truck contents into fields or streams. Enforcement is made very difficult due to inadequate State inspection and enforcement manpower and

the remote location of many drill sites. Most dumping incidents come to light through complaints from landowners or anonymous informers.

West Virginia's zerodischarge rule is generally thought to be unrealistic because of the marginal economic condition of the oil industry in the State and the high expense of developing

alternative forms of disposal such as injection wells. As a practical matter, marginal operators have the choice between paying a small fine for illegal dumping (when and if they are caught), disposing of waste at commercial facilities, or constructing then- own injection wells.
Allegheny Land and Mineral Company of West Virginia operates a gas well # A- 226 on the property of Ray and Charlotte Willey. The well is located in a corn field where cattle are fed in winter. Adjacent to the well is a stream known as the Beverlin Fork. The well is located less than 1,000

feet from the Willey's residence. Allegheny Land and Mineral also operates another gas well above the residence known as the #A- 306, located on property owned by the Willeys. Allegheny Land and Mineral has maintained open reserve pits and a waste ditch running into Beverlin Fork. The ditch has served to dispose of brine, oil, drip gas, detergents, fracturing fluids and produced chemicals. Employees of the company told the Willeys that fluids in the pit were safe for their livestock to drink. The Willey's cattle drank the fluid in the reserve pit, became poisoned, causing abortions, birth defects, weight loss, contaminated milk and death. Hogs were

also poisoned resulting in infertility and pig stillbirths. The soil on the farm was contaminated causing a decrease in crop production and quality. The water table and groundwater of the farm were contaminated, polluting the water well from which the Willeys drew their domestic water supply. The value of the real estate was diminished as a result of these damages to the land. The Willeys incurred laboratory expenses in having testing done on livestock, soil, and water. The Willeys were awarded a cash settlement in court of a total of $3,000. (WV 18) On February 23, 1983, a complaint was filed by

Tom Ancona, a fur trapper, concerning a fish kill on Stillwell Creek. Another complaint was also filed anonymously by an employee of Marietta Royalty Co. A trail of dead fish, frogs and salamanders was followed up to a drilling site operated by Marietta Royalty Co. A syphon hose was found draining the drilling waste pit into a tributary of Stillwell Creek. Acid levels at the pit were a pH of 4.0, enough to shock and kill aquatic life according to WV District Fisheries Biologist Scott Morrison. Samples and photographs were taken. Above the syphon site no dead aquatic life was found. Marietta Royalty Co. was taken to court and fined a total of $1,000 plus $30 in court costs.

(WV20)

The long-term environmental impacts of chronic, widespread illegal dumping include elevated salt levels in soil. In Pennsylvania, dumping of oil and gas wastes prior to 1985 violated the State's general water quality criteria, but the regulations were rarely enforced because of the

general belief that the wastes were not harmful (due in part to the RCRA 3001 which specifically exempts drilling fluids and produced waters from any federal regulation). During this time, however, the State Fish and Game Commission did find stream degradation in relation to numerous incidents involving one company:
S.W. Jack Drilling Co. violated State regulations regarding disposal of wastes. The incidents took place at different locations, and involved discharge of drill cuttings, fracing fluids, muds, fluids, and surfactants

into several creeks and streams. In all cases there was damage to the surface water. In specific instances the inspector noted other damages. Pierce Farm #4 incident resulted in a kill of "...at least three hundred fish, including native brook and brown trout that inhabited the Moss Run watershed." Kinter Lease incident threatened fish in Little Mahoning Creek which is a "...high pressure trout stream stocked by the Fish Commission." (PA 02)

The long term environmental impacts of chronic, widespread illegal dumping include loss of

aquatic life in surface streams and soil salt levels above those tolerated by native vegetation. At current depressed prices, the incentives for illegal dumping remain strong. Damage to water wells after gas or oil well fracturing There is no minimum distance established for separating oil or gas wells from drinking water wells. Surface owners have little discretion over where an oil or gas drilling site is to be located on their

land, and sitings near domestic water wells are not uncommon. During the fracing process, fractures can be produced allowing migration of brine, fracing fluid, and hydrocarbons to a nearby water well. When this happens the water well is permanently damaged; a new well must be drilled or an alternative source of drinking water found. West Virginia has no automatic provision requiring drillers to replace water wells lost in this way; owners must replace them at their own expense or sue the

driller. There is currently no initiative within West Virginia to design a statewide rule to correct this situation. Where there is contamination of a fresh water source, State regulations presume an oil or gas drilling site is responsible if one is located within 1000' of the water source.
Cabot Oil and Gas drilled, fractured, and completed an unspecified number of production wells in late 1981. These wells were drilled in close proximity to several domestic water wells (within 1000'). As a result of the drilling activity, the well water for several residences was

contaminated and could no longer be used for domestic purposes. Four families sued Cabot Oil. Real estate values for the properties held by the

families were reduced, as was agricultural productivity from their land. The case was settled out of court for an undisclosed amount. (WV 02) In 1982, Kaiser Gas Co. drilled a gas well on the property of Mr. James Parsons. The well was fractured using a typical

fracturing fluid or gel. The residual fracturing fluid migrated into Mr. Parson's water well, drilled to a depth of 416ft. (The gas well is located less than 1000 ft. from the water well.) By 1984, the water well was unfit for domestic use and an alternate source of water had to be found. Well water was analyzed and found to contain high levels of fluoride, sodium, iron, manganese. The water had a hydrocarbon odor indicating the presence of gas. Dark and light gelatinous material (fracturing fluid), was found along with white fibers. (WV 17)

Similar

cases

have

occurred in Pennsylvania.

Civil suit was brought by 14 families living in the village of Belmar (the whole village) against a Meadville-based oil drilling company, Norwesco Development Corporation, in June 1986. Norwesco had drilled more than 200 wells near Belmar. Though Norwesco claimed it was not responsible for contaminationfrom old, long abandoned wellsthe Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources (DER) sided with Belmar residents agreeing that the contamination was from the drilling operation. All families relying on the groundwater for their water lost their water supply. Ground water in Belmar had been "pristine"

prior to the drilling operation of Norwesco. Not only were residents not able to drink or bathe using the groundwater, but they could not use the water for washing clothes or household items without causing permanent stains. The water from the contaminated wells would, "...burn your eyes in the shower, and your skin is so dry and itchy when you get out." Plumbing fixtures were also pitted by the high TDS and CI levels. Families would have to buy bottled water for drinking and have to drive, in some cases, as far as 30 miles to bathe. In early 1986, DER ordered Norwesco to provide Belmar with an alternative water supply that was "adequate in quality and

quantity" to what the Belmar residents lost when their wells were contaminated. In November 1986 Norwesco offered cash settlement of $275,000 to construct new water system for village, and provision of temporary water supply. (PA 08)

Inappropriate land spreading requirements in West Virginia Land spreading, the mixing of waste drilling fluids with soils on the well site itself, is legal in West Virginia. Muds containing up to 25,000 ppm

chlorides are allowed to be spread on the land; this concentration is considerably higher than is permitted for land spreading in other States, and several times greater than native vegetation can tolerate. Land spreading therefore frequently results in the destruction of arable land. Waste fluids may kill surface vegetation where directly applied; salts in the wastes can also leach into surrounding soil, affecting larger plants and trees. Seepage into shallow ground water is also a potential

problem.

In early 1986 Tower Drilling land-applied the contents of a reserve pit to an area 100 ft by 150 ft. All vegetation died in the area where pit contents were directly applied and several trees adjacent to land application area were dying because of the leaching of high levels of chlorides. Complaint was made by a private citizen. Land-applied drilling fluid contained very high chloride levels, and soil was measured as having 18,000 ppm chlorides.

(WV13)

Illegal discharge of oil The northwestern area of Pennsylvania has been officially designated as a hazardous spill area in 1985 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency because of the large number of oily waste discharges that have occurred there. Even though spills are accidental releases, and thus do not constitute wastes routinely associated with the extraction of oil and gas under the sense of the 3001

exemption, "spills" in this area of Pennsylvania appear to represent deliberate, routine, and continuing illegal discharge of waste oil. Willful breeching of pits, opening of tank battery valves, and improper oil separation has resulted in an unusually high number of sites discharging oil directly to streams. Despite the new 1985 regulations, these discharges appear to be continuing. The issue was originally brought to the attention of the State through a Federal investigation

of the 500,000 acre Allegheny National Forest that discovered 500 separate spills. These discharges have affected stream quality, fish population, other related aquatic life, and in some instances human health.
USEPA declared a four county area (including Mckean, Warren, Venango, and Elk counties) "a major spill area" in the summer of 1985. The area is the oldest commercial oil producing region in the world. Chronic low-level releases have occurred in the region since earliest production and continues to this day. EPA and other agencies (e.g. US Fish & Wildlife, Pennsylvania Fish

& Game, Coast Guard) were concerned that continued discharge into the area's streams has already and will in the future have major environmental impact. The area is dotted with thousands of low level producing wells (with high ratio produced water), as well as thousands of abandoned wells and pits. In the Allegheny Reservoir itself, divers spotted 20 of 81 known improperly plugged or abandoned wells, seven of which were leaking and have since been plugged. There is concern that many others are also leaking. The Coast Guard surveyed the forest for oil spills and brine discharges, identifying those of particular danger to be cleaned immediately, by government if necessary.

In the Allegheny Forest alone USCG identified over 500 sites "where oil is leaking from wells, pits, pipelines or storage tanks. In fifty-nine cases, oil was discharging directly into streams; 217 sites showed evidence of

past discharges and were on the verge of leaking again" into the Allegheny Reservoir. Oil field wastes have had detrimental effect on the environment, "...lethal effect on trout streams and [have] damaged timber and habitat for deer, bear and grouse. On Lewis Run,... 52 sites have been

identified and the stream supports little aquatic life." "Almost all streams in the Allegheny Forest have suppressed fish population as a...direct result of pollution from oil and gas." Monitoring of water wells noted that methane gas from an adjacent natural gas field had migrated into local drinking water supplies, and had also percolated into the basement of the park superintendents home. The water well was closed down and the home was temporarily evacuated. (PA 09)

Abandoned wells Because Pennsylvania has

had an active oil industry for longer than any other State, the number of abandoned wells is large. Well plugging has been required since 1955, but enforcement has evidently been loose and the State has not had the resources to plug wells itself. The current general drilling rule, passed in 1985, requires a $2,500 bond to cap dry wells, but problems associated with older wells continue. (See also longer discussion related to Zone 7.)

ZONE 3 No significant oil and gas activity. No damages cases were collected. ZONE 4 Zone 4 includes Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida. Attention in the damage case

effort was focused on Arkansas and Louisianathe two major producers of the zone.

Operations
Operations in Arkansas are predominantly small to midsized independent operations in mature production areas. A significant percentage of production comes from stripper wells, which produce high volumes of associated brine. Most production occurs in the southern portion of the State and is very similar to production in northern

Louisiana. The average depth of a new well drilled in 1985 was 4,148 feet. One hundred twenty-one exploratory wells were drilled in that year, and 1,055 new wells were completed. Louisiana has two distinct production areas. The northern half of the State is dominated by marginal stripper production from shallow wells in mature fields. The southern half of Louisiana has experienced

most of the State's development activity in the last decade. There has been heavy, capital intensive development of the Gulf Coast area, where gas is the principal product. Wells tend to be of medium depth; operations are typically located in or near coastal wetland areas on barge platforms or small coastal islands. Operators dredge canals and estuaries to gain access to sites. Reserve pits are constructed out of the materials found on coastal islands, mainly from peat,

which is highly permeable and susceptible to destruction from reserve pit fluids. Reserve pits on barges are self-contained, but can be discharged in particular areas if wastes are below

specified limits. If they are above these limits they must be injected or stored in (unlined) pits on coastal islands.

The average depth of a new well drilled in northern Louisiana in 1985 was 2,713 feet; along the Gulf Coast it was 10,150. In the northern part of the State, 244 exploratory wells were drilled and 4,033 were completed. In the southern part of the State, 215 exploratory wells were drilled and 1,414 were completed. Types of Operators In Arkansas, operators are generally small to midsized independents, including some

established operators and others new to the industry. Because production comes mostly from stripper wells, operators tend to be financially vulnerable and extremely susceptible to market fluctuations. This situation provides a strong incentive for illegal dumping, improper abandonment and plugging of wells, and neglected reclamation of drill sites. Northern Louisiana's operators, like those in Arkansas, tend to be small to midsized independents. They

share the same economic vulnerabilities and incentives for noncompliance with environmental procedures. In addition, however, Louisiana's more marginal operations may be particularly stressed by the new Rule 29B, which requires close of all on-site produced water disposal pits by 1989. Estimated closing costs per pit is $20,000. Operators in southern Louisiana tend to be major companies and large independents. They are less susceptible to fluctuating

market conditions in the short term, and more likely to be more responsible in discharging their environmental responsibilities. On the other hand, projects in the south are larger than in the north and are located in more sensitive areas.

Environmental and Development Context The Louisiana Gulf Coast is

composed mostly of wetland. Surface material is usually highly porous. Although unlined brine pits will not be allowed after 1989 under the State's new rule (29B), the use of unlined reserve pits is still accepted. Major Issues Groundwater Contamination from Unlined Brine Disposal and Reserve Pits Unlined brine disposal pits have been used in Louisiana for many years, and are only now being phased out

under Rule 29B. Past practice has, however, resulted in damages both to groundwater and to human health.
In 1982, suit was brought on behalf of Dudley Romero et al. against operators of an oil waste commercial disposal facility run by PAB Oil Co. The plaintiffs complained that their groundwater wells were contaminated by wastes dumped into open pits in the PAB Oil Co. facility, rendered them unusable. Oil field wastes are dumped into the waste pits for skimming and separation of oil from the remaining oil field wastes. The pits are unlined but meet the State impermeability standards. The plaintiffs water wells are down-gradient, drilled

to depths of 300 -500'. Problems with water wells dates from 1979. Extensive analysis on the probability of well contamination coming from PAB Oil Co. site. There was also analysis on surface soil contamination. Soil Testing Engineers, Inc. determined that it was hypothetically possible for the wastes in PAB Oil Co. pits to reach and contaminate Romero's water wells. Surface sampling around perimeter of PAB Oil Co. site found high concentrations of metals. Resistivity testing showed that plumes from the pits did lead to the water well. Borings that determined the substrata makeup suggested that it would be possible for wastes to

contaminate the Romero groundwater within the time that the facility has been in operation "if the integrity of the clay cap has been lost (as by deep excavation somewhere within it)." The pit was 12' deep and within range to percolate into the water bearing sandy soil and capable of migrating to the aquifer within the time of facility operation. Plaintiffs complained of sickness, nausea and dizziness, and a loss of cattle. (LA 67)

The ground in this area is unusually porous, allowing pits to leak quickly and wastes to migrate relatively rapidly.

Waste constituents potentially leaching into ground water from unlined pits include arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, zinc, and chlorides.
Claude H. Gooch and Patricia Richard Gooch filed suit against Conoco, Inc., seeking damages of $934,000 for damages caused by the blowout of a gas well that was previously plugged and abandoned. The blowout sent gas through fault zones to the land

surface, where it could be ignited by a match held to the ground. The gas was also determined to be a potential hazard for contamination of drinking water wells in the immediate area, as well as in the residents' home, where gas accumulation could reach such a level that it could explode. (LA 87)

Use of Hazardous Chemicals in Workover Operations Workover operations may require the use of chemical solvents to dissolve and clean bore holes in order to maintain

well productivity. The workover fluid wastes come under the State's classification as a Nonhazardous Oilfield Waste (NOW) and, therefore, is exempt from the handling and disposal requirements for Louisiana's hazardous wastes. Despite this classification, work-over wastes often contain constituents that are both acutely and chronically toxic to humans. Exposure to these chemicals, such as carbon disulfide, can cause severe health damage to the exposed individual.

Carbon disulfide is classified as a hazardous waste under the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act because of its danger to human health. Yet, like the Federal government, Louisiana treats wastes from oilfield operations differently regardless of whether there are hazardous constituents in the oilfield waste stream. Louisiana has determined carbon disulfide to be nonhazardous when it is a constituent of a waste stream from oilfield operations. This

chemical has both acute and chronic toxic effects and can cause severe health problems to persons who are exposed, especially those who are not properly protected from contact.
Kirk Cormier, while working for BM Oil Company, was regularly exposed over a three year period (1983-86) to the chemical solvent carbon disulfide during work-over operations. Carbon disulfide was used to remove paraffin in order to clean the bore hole. During this period Mr. Cormier, without any protective gear (including respirators, gloves, protective clothing or shoes) handled carbon

disulfide. Mr. Cormier would often be standing in "pools" of the work-over fluid as it was being poured down the well. Purged work-over fluid as a Nonhazardous Oilfield Waste (NOW) was dumped onto the site where Mr. Cormier worked adding to the dangerous liquid he was exposed to. Neurologists believe Mr. Cormier has begun to exhibit the common symptoms of carbon disulfide poisoning identified with chronic exposure to the chemical. Most apparent are the symptoms affecting his nervous system and brain such as severe mood swings (irritability and manic depression) and loss of motor coordination. (LA 105)

Allowable Discharge of Drilling Mud Into Gulf Coast Estuaries Under existing Louisiana regulations, drilling muds from onshore operations may be discharged into estuaries of the Gulf of Mexico. These estuaries are often valuable commercial fishing grounds. Since the muds can contain high levels of toxic metals, bioaccumulation of these metals in shellfish or finfish can cause significant potential human health threats:
In 1984, the Glendale

Drilling Co. was drilling from a barge at the intersection of Taylor's Bayou and Cros Bayou, and discharging drilling cuttings and mud into the bayou adjacent to and active oyster harvesting area and State oyster seeding area. At time of discharge oyster harvests were in progress. The Water Pollution Control Division inspector noted that there were two separate discharges occurring from the barge and a low mound of mud was protruding from the surface of the water beneath one of the discharges. Woods Petroleum had a letter from the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality authorizing them to discharge the drilling

cuttings. While no damage was noted at time of inspection, there was great concern expressed by the Louisiana Oyster Growers Association, the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, Seafood Division and some parts of the Department of Water Pollution Control Division of the Department of Environmental Quality that the discharge of muds and cuttings with high content of metals may have long term impact on the adjacent commercial oyster fields and the State oyster seed fields in nearby Junop Bay. Metals precipitate from the discharge, settling in progressively higher concentrations in the bayou sediments where the oysters mature. The

bioaccumulation of these metals by the oysters can have an adverse impact on the oyster population and could also lead to human health problems if contaminated oysters are consumed. The Department decided in this case to direct the oil company to stop the discharge of drilling cuttings and muds into the bayou, such practices are usually allowed and can be terminated only on a case-by-case basis. In this case, Department of Environmental Quality ordered that a drilling cutting barge be used to contain the remainder of the drilling cuttings. The Company was not ordered to clean up the mound of drilling cuttings that they had already deposited in the bayou.

(LA 20)

Despite the potential for human health impacts, there is no initiative under way as of this time to curtail this practice on a general basis. The alternative would be to require every offshore drilling barge to use a closed mud containment system, with all wastes contained in onboard tanks. This would, however, be significantly more costly.

Illegal Dumping In the Louisiana Gulf Coast Area By far the majority of damage cases recorded in the Louisiana involve illegal dumping or inadequate facilities for containment of wastes generated by operations on the Gulf Coast. Damage can be extensive:

Two

Louisiana

inspectors inspected a swamp adjacent to KEDCO Oil Co. facility to assess flora damage based on a Notice of Violation issued to KEDCO 3/13/81, and WPC Log #2-8-81-21. LA 38 described the KEDCO facility and the type of damage that had prompted the Department of Natural Resources, to issue Notice of Violation. The damage was, in part, due to a pipe protruding from the pit levee to discharge brine into adjacent canal which emptied into cypress swamp. The discharge of brine had probably been occurring for some time due to the amount of harm to the trees in the cypress swamp. Analysis of a sample collected by a Mr.

Martin, the complainant who expressed concern over the brine discharge into the canal he used to obtain water for his crawfish pond, showed salinity levels of 32,000 ppm. To assess the damage the inspectors on April 15, 1981 made an effort to measure the extent of damage to the trees in the cypress swamp. After surveying the size of the swamp they randomly selected a compass bearing and surveyed a transect measuring 200'X20' through the swamp. They counted and then classified all trees in the area according to the degree of harm they were suffering. Inspectors found that in the swamp that they surveyed "...an

approximate total area of 4,088 acres of swamp was severely damaged." Within the randomly selected transect, they classified all trees according to the degree of harm. Out of a total of 105 trees, 73 percent were dead, 18 percent were stressed, and only 9 percent were living. The inspectors' report noted that "although the transect ran through a heavily damaged area, there were other areas much more severely impacted. Therefore, it [was] concluded, based on the data collected and firsthand observation, that the [percentages of damaged trees recorded]...are a representative, if not conservative, estimate of damage over the entire

affected (LA 45)

area"

Most of the damage incidents collected involved small operations run by independent companies. Some incidents, however, involved major oil companies:
Exxon Co. USA, operates its Common Tank Battery #1 at the Deer Island Oil and Gas Field, in a fresh water marsh. Four different inspections were made in 1986 in regard to the discharge of wastes from the pit levee and other areas of site. A May 1986 inspection had noted problems with runoff from the site platform

into the bayou. While this appeared to be repaired by the time of the August inspection, there were still problems with greasy, rust sludge from the high and low pressure separator and glycol tower and circulating pump, which posed a potential runoff problem. There were also indications of discharge from several pits. Final inspection (10/16/86) indicated that while some of the oil contaminates had been cleaned from the surface surrounding the pits, there was still oil in puddles around the site. The inspector noted contaminated sediment and other surface damage to flora in the area. Stained soil with oily wastes and produced water discharged into the freshwater marsh were

having an adverse effect on the flora in the area. The inspector also noted that there was an "area void of living vegetation," and that the area is "incapable of supporting vegetation due to contamination from oil, brine or possibly other contaminants." (LA 07)

Some documented cases include detailed descriptions of damage to agricultural crops:

Dr. Wilma Subra analyzed sugar cane fields adjacent to a production site (which included a saltwater disposal well) in New Iberia Parish run by D.T. Caffery. The analysis was conducted between July of 1985 and November of 1986, and included reports of salt concentrations at various locations in the sugar cane fields along with descriptions of accompanying damage. The site had various areas that were barren and contained what appeared to be sludge. The facility is up gradient from the sugar cane fields and it was surmised that the salt brine was discharged onto the soil surface and that the plume spread downgradient, thereby affecting the sugar cane

fields. In July 1985 Dr. Subra noted that the cane field, though in bad condition, was predominately covered with sugar cane. There were, however, weeds or barren soil covering a portion of the site. The patch of weeds and barren soil matched the area of highest salt concentrations, as measured in November 1986. In the area where the topography suggested brine concentrations would be lowest, the sugar cane appeared healthy. Field investigation and soil sampling in November of 1986 found the field to be nearly barren, with practically no sugar cane growing. Measured concentrations ranged from a low of 1,403 ppm to 35,265 ppm at the edge of

the field adjacent to the oil operation. (LA 64)

Although most of the damage is associated with disposal of brines, other types of oil field wastes have been known to create significant damage:
Chevco-Kengo Services, Inc. operates a disposal facility near Abbeville LA, transporting saltwater and other wastes using vacuum trucks.. Following complaints in 1984, an inspection of the site found that a truck washout pit was emptying oil field wastes into a roadside ditch flowing into

nearby coulees. Neighbors were concerned that such discharge was entering their groundwater supply, damaging their agricultural fields and crawfish ponds. Civil suit was brought against Chevco-Kengo Services, Inc., asking for a total of $4 million in property damages, past and future crop loss, and exemplary damages. Plaintiffs also alleged that there was extensive damage to crawfish, rice, and human health. Dr. Wilma Subra collected samples of soil and water. High metals content from the wastes, especially from the area near the facility and in the adjacent rice fields, indicated a possibility that wastes from the facility were, indeed, the source of the damage. The case

was settled out of court for an undisclosed amount of money. (LA 90)

Illegal Dumping Arkansas

in

The majority of damage incidents found in Arkansas are related to chronic illegal dumping of produced water and oil from production units. Damages typically include pollution of surface streams with high levels of chlorides and oil, contamination of soil with high chloride levels and oil, and documented or potential contamination of

ground water with elevated levels of chlorides found in native brines or produced waters, and damage to vegetation (especially forest and timberland).
An oil production unit operated by Mr. J.C. Langley was discharging oil and brine in large quantities onto the property of Mr. Melvin Dunn and Mr. W. C. Shaw. The oil spill caused severe damage to the property, interfered with livestock on the

property and delayed construction of a planned lake. Mr. Dunn had spoken repeatedly with a company representative (pumper) operating the facility concerning the oil spill, but to no avail. Mr. Dunn then hired an attorney in order that corrective action be taken. Complaint was made to ADPCE, the operator was informed of the situation and the facility was brought into compliance. However, damage from the spill was not corrected, and it is not known if the operator cleaned up the damaged property. Property of Mr. Melvin Dunn and MR. W. C. Shaw was polluted with surface runoff of oil and brine. Oil and brine runoff from broken and leaking pipes

of J. C. Langley's production unit interfered with their livestock and delayed construction of a planned lake. (AR 07) On September 20, 1984, a complaint was filed with ADPCE concerning the discharge of oil and brine in and near Smackover Creek from production units operated by J. S. Beebe Oil Account. It was found that saltwater was leaking from a saltwater disposal well located on the site. Beebe wrote a letter stating willingness to correct the situation. On November 16, 1984, the site was investigated again, and it was found that pits on location were

now being used as the primary disposal facility; were noe overflowing and leaking into Smackover Creek. It was noted that the pits were below the river level when heavy rains occurred. One pit was being siphoned over the pit wall, while waste from another pit was flowing onto the ground through an open pipe. The floors and walls of the pits were seeping. Beebe was ordered to shut down production, correct the situation and was fined $10500. It is not known if the fine was collected or if production was actually shut in. (AR 10)

The State of Arkansas is

under severe resource constraints for policing this type of illegal practice. The situation is made more acute by the lack of authority of several relevant departments in the State or Federal government to close down violators, even with repeat offenders.
In 1983 and again in 1985, James M. Roberson, an oil and gas operator, was given drilling surface access for areas in the Sulphur River Wildlife Management Area where the surface rights were owned by the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. Mr.

Roberson repeatedly violated the agreements contained in the surface use permits as well as State and Federal regulations, allowing for release of oil and brine into the wetland areas of Sulphur River and Mercer Bayou from a leaking saltwater disposal well and illegal brine disposal pits. One drill site was wrongfully located in a campground. Access roads are wider and longer than proposed, disrupting and blocking normal wetland water circulation patterns. One road was illegally built across a special waterfowl rest area severely limiting the benefit to migratory waterfowl. Oil and saltwater damage was documented in the study of area by Hugh A.

Johnson, Ph.D. His study mapped chloride levels around each wellsite and calculated area of damage. The highest chlorides recorded in the wetlands was 9,000 ppm, native vegetation starts to be stressed from exposure to 250 ppm. Significant areas around each wellsite have dead or stressed vegetation due to saltwater exposure. Significant damage has been sustained by the Sulphur River Wildlife Management Area through discharge of oil and brine into the wetlands and construction of roads, causing restricted water circulation in wetlands. A campground operated by the SRWMA has been used by the operator as a drillsite, rendering the

campground unusable for recreational purposes. A road built across the Henry Moore III Waterfowl Rest Area

has limited its effectiveness as a resting and feeding habitat for all species of migratory waterfowl that winter in Arkansas. It is feared that continued discharges of brine and oU in this area will threaten the last remaining forest land in the Red River bottoms.

(AR

It

is

assumed

that

the

Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission (AOGC) could shut down operations like this, but there is an apparent lack of cooperation between the AOGC and such groups as the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission (AGFC) in these situations (see also Appendix A: Review of State Laws and Regulations). Improperly Operated Injection Wells Improper operation of injection wells raises the potential for long-term damage

to ground-water supplies, as the following case from Arkansas illustrates.

On September 19, 1984, Mr. James Tribble made complaint to Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology concerning saltwater which was coming up out of the ground in his yard, killing his grass and threatening his water well. There are many oil wells in the area and waterflooding is a common enhanced recovery method at these wells. Upon inspection of the wells nearest to his residence, it was discovered that the operator, J. C. McLain, was injecting saltwater into an unpermitted well. The saltwater was being

injected into the casing, not into tubing, where it could migrate into the freshwater zone. A pit at the same site was near overflowing. On follow-up inspection, the violations had been corrected. Saltwater being injected into the casing of a saltwater disposal well migrated into the vacinity of Mr. James Tribble's residence and came up out of the ground onto his grass. The saltwater killed his grass and, if it continued to migrate, would contaminate his water well. No fine was levied and no provision was made for reclaiming damage sustained by Mr. Tribble. (AR 12)

Policing of injection wells is made difficult by lack of State resources; in this marginally economic oil recovery area, the potential exists for many unreported incidents similar to that cited above. Improperly Abandoned and Improperly Plugged Wells Damage from improperly plugged and abandoned wells is known to occur in Louisiana.
Crow Farms, Inc., operator of Angelina Planatation, initiated a $7 million civil suit against operators of active and abandoned oil test wells,

oil production wells, and an injection well, for causing progressive loss of agricultural revenue from brine contamination to 1.7 square miles of rice, soybeans, and rye. Analysis of site concluded

that it will take 27 years to restore the soil and a longer period to restore the aquifer. The 40,000 acre farm is 20 miles from Natchez MS. At least seven wells are involved, including two active oil production wells, both operated by Smith, Wentworth and Coquina, and five abandoned oil

test wells drilled by Hughes & New Oil Co. Extensive study by Groundwater Water Management, Inc. concluded that Crow Farms, Inc., used irrigation wells contaminated by brine water from the oil producing formation. This brine traveled up poorly or improperly plugged wells or down the annulus of producing wells, leaking into the fresh water aquifer used for irrigation, thereby contaminating the aquifer with chloride levels beyond the tolerance levels for rice. Extensive testing was conducted to show that the brine in the aquifer was responsible for damage on the plantation. This included chemical "fingerprinting" of brines

to confirm that brines in the irrigation water originated as brines in the oil producing formations. Crow Farms spent in excess of $250,000 to identify the source of the brine contamination. Records of the case state: "Surface casings may not have been properly cemented into the Tertiary clays underlying the alluvial fresh water aquifer. If these casings were not properly cemented, brine could percolate up the outside of these casings to the fresh water aquifer at an oil or gas well test location where improper abandonment procedures occurred. Any brine in contact with steel casings will rapidly corrode through the steel wall thickness gaining

communication with original bore hole." 65)

the (LA

This case underscores both that brine damage to agricultural lands from improperly abandoned wells can be extensive, and that the costs of conclusively identifying the source of contamination are large. Policing of newly abandoned wells and the discovery of older leaking wells is made extremely difficult because of shortages of both enforcement funds and manpower at the State level.

ZONE 5 Zone 5 includes the Michigan, Ohio, Iowa, Indiana, Wisconsin, Illinois, and Missouri. Damage cases were investigated in Michigan and Ohio.

Operations
Michigan produces both oil and gas from limestone reef formations at sites scattered throughout the State at a depth of 4,000 to 6,000 feet. Oil and gas development is relatively new in this area, and most production is primary

(that is, as yet it involves no enhanced or secondary recovery, such as waterflooding). Exploration in Michigan possibly the most intense currently under way anywhere in the country. The average depth of new wells drilled in 1985 was 4,799 feet. In that year 863 wells were completed, 441 exploration wells. By contrast, Ohio has far less exploration. It produces gas and some oil primarily from mature production areas in the eastern portion of the

State. Activity is developmental rather than exploratory, with only 78 exploratory wells drilled in 1985 out of a total of 6,297 wells completed. The average depth of a new well in 1985 was 3,760 feet. Types of Operators Operators in Michigan include everything from small independent companies to the major oil companies. In Ohio, operators are mostly small to mid-sized independents, but some major companies still

hold significant leases. Major Issues Groundwater Pollution in Michigan All the damage cases gathered in Michigan are based on case studies written by the Michigan Geological Survey, which regulates oil and gas operations in the State. All these cases deal with ground water pollution. While the State has documented damages in all cases, sources of damages are not always evident. Usually several potential sources of

contamination are listed and the plume of contamination is defined by monitoring wells. Documented damage has occurred because of the use of unlined reserve or disposal pits, but most of the cases involve disposal of produced waters. Often, however, characterization of the brine

and pollution constituents can be done using so-called "stiff diagrams" (elsewhere referred to as "fingerprinting") to prove that oilfield brine was the source of contamination. For example:

contaminated water wells. Only five of the wells are still producing, recovering a combination of oil and brine out of the Dundee Limestone. The brine is separated from the crude oil on site and disposed of back into the producing formation through the F. & L. Leach #1 Brine Disposal Well. The source of the pollution was evidently the H.E. Trope, Inc. crude separating facilities and brine storage tanks located upgradient from the contaminated water wells. Monitoring wells were installed to confirm the source of the contamination. Sample results located two plumes of chloride contamination ranging in concentration from 550 to 1,800 ppm that were traveling on a southeasterly direction

downgradient from the brine storage tanks and crude separator facilities owned by H.E. Tope. The plumes have already reached the several of the monitor wells and contaminated the residences well of G. Brown and M. Todder on 155th St. Stiff diagrams were used to confirm the similarity of the constituents of the formation brine and the chloride contamination of the affected water wells. (MI 05)

Ground-water contamination in the State has also been caused by injection wells; the same stiff diagrams

can be used to confirm the origins of brines in these cases as well, as shown by the following case.
In April 1980, residents of Green Ridge Subdivision, located in Section 15, Laketon Township in Muskegon County, complained of bad tasting water from their water wells. Well were sampled by the local health department revealed elevated chloride concentration in some wells. Because of the close proximity of the Laketon Oil Field, an investigation was started by the Michigan Geological Survey. The Laketon Oil Field consist of dry holes, producing oil wells, and a brine disposal well (Harris Oil Corp. Lappo #1PN

26328). Oil wells produce from the Traverse-Dundee Limestone and produce a mixture of oil and brine. The brine is separated and disposed, by gravity, back into the producing formation. After reviewing monitor well and electrical resistivity survey data, it was concluded that the source of the contamination was the Harris Oil Corp. Lappo #1 brine disposal well. (MI 06)

Significant damage to ground water under the drill

site can occur even where operators take special precautions for drilling near residential areas.
Drilling operations at the Burke Unit #1, permit #30080, caused the temporary contamination of two domestic water wells, and longer-lasting contamination of a third well closer to the drilling site. The operation was carried out in accordance with State regulations and special site restrictions required for urban areas, including Rig engines equipped with mufflers, steel mud tanks for drilling wastes, lining of earthen pits that may contain salt water and the placement of a conductor casing to a depth of 120 feet to isolate the well

from the fresh water zone beneath the rig. The contamination resulted from the handling of highy concentrated brine at the drilling location. The location is underlain by permeable surface sand and with bedrock depth at less than fifty feet. The contamination occured when a working pit used to contain the material flushed from the mud tanks and the cuttings remained in the unlined pit for 13 days before removal. This allowed sufficient time for contaminants to migrate into the fresh water aquifer. The source of contamination was the working pit for Burke #1 oil well or a leak of unknown size from the tank battery. When the Burke #1 well was

completed, the mud tanks were flushed into the woiking pit. Seepage may have occured through the lined pit bottoms and sidewalls during the 13 day period before mud and cuttings were removed. Also a leak from the brine storage tank was reported to have occured before the contamination was detected in the water wells. One shallow well was less than 100 feet directly east of the drilling pit area and 100 to 150 feet southeast of the brine leak site. Chloride concentrations in this well measured from 750 (9/5/75) to 1,325 (5/23/75) ppm. By late August, two of the wells had returned to normal while the third well still measured 28 times its original background concentration.

(MI 04)

Illegal Dumping Wastes in Ohio

of

Ohio is making an aggressive effort to gain compliance from oil and gas operators and is trying to maintain complete and up-todate records. The State has recently banned all saltwater disposal pits; overall, there is substantial support for an active oil and gas compliance effort. Illegal dumping is,

however, a significant problem in Ohio, as elsewhere. There are still instances of deliberate illegal disposal practices.
Kemgas, Inc., was fracturing a production well (well #95) when the well blew out. The well was allowed to blow or vent for 12 1/2 hours, discharging oil drilling mud, fracing fluid, brine, and gas. Since the area had been previously reclaimed, there was no pit to contain the waste, so it spilled over the well site and into the adjacent creek (Little Sandy Creek). The field inspector for DNR noted oil stains along 2 1/2 miles and a fish kill along 1/2 mile of Little Sandy Creek. (OH 01)

Cases of similar disregard for rules is seen in relation to brine disposal:

Equity Oil & Gas Funds, Inc., operates well #1 at Engle Lease, Howard Township, Knox Co. An Ohio DNR official inspected the site on April 5, 1985. He found no saltwater storage tank or vault, and high concentrations of brine were being discharged from a plastic hose leading from tank battery into a culvert that emptied into a creek. The inspector took

photos and samples. Both brine and oil and grease levels were of sufficient magnitude to cause damage to flora and fauna. The inspector noted that a large extent of soil along the culvert had been contaminated with oil brine. The suspension order indicated that the "violations present an imminent danger to public health and safety and are likely to result in immediate and substantial damage to natural resources." The operator was required to "restore the disturbed land surface and remove the oil from the stream in accordance with Section 1509.072 of ORS..." (OH 07}

In another case:

Zenith Oil & Gas Co. operated Well #1 in Hopewell Township. Zenith was issued a suspension order in March of 1984 after inspectors discovered brine discharges onto the surrounding site from a pit breech and pipe leading from the pit. A Notice of Violation had been issued in February 1984, but the violations were still in effect 3/20/84. An inspection of an adjacent site also operated by Zenith Oil & Gas Co. discovered a plastic hose extending from one of the tank batteries discharging brine into a breeched pit and onto the site surface. Another tank was discharging brine from an open valve directly onto

the site surface. In both cases it was apparent that brine discharges were bineg willfully released. Not only was there concern for the high concentration of chloride in the brine but there was also concern for the lead which was nearly 2 1/2 times and mercury which was 925 times the EPA drinking water standards. The suspension order stated that the discharge was, "...causing contamination and pollution..." to the surface and subsurface soil and in order to remedy the problem the operator would have to restore the "disturbed" land. (OH 12)

Despite

Ohio's

intensive

effort to control illegal disposal, the State's compliance budget is limited, and officials expect illegal disposal practices to continue. The problem is made more acute by the current low price of oil and the marginal nature of many oil and gas operations in the State. Contamination of Ground Water From Injection and Annular Disposal Unlike most States, Ohio still allows annular disposal of brine or produced waters. This

practice is not allowed in other States because of its potential for ground water contamination; high chloride contents tend to corrode casings, creating holes that allow migration of waste brine into ground water. To avoid this, Ohio requires the operator to conduct radioactive tracer surveys to determine if brine is actually being deposited in the correct formations. Tracer surveys are more expensive than conventional mechanical

integrity tests; only 2 percent of all tracer surveys were actually witnessed by inspectors, as required, in 1985. Failures of permitted annular disposal operations commonly occur because of corrosion of the casing.
The Donofrio well (permit #3642) is a production oil well with an (O H 38)

annular disposal hookup fed by a 100 bbl brine storage tank. In December, 1975, shortly after completion of the well, contamination of the Donofrio residential water well was reported. One month after the well contamination was reported, several springs on the Donofrio property showed contamination from brine and oil. On January 8,1976, OEPA investigated the site and reported evidence of oil overflow, lack of diking, and the presence of several brine storage pits. Nine years after the first report of contamination, a court order to disconnect the annular disposal lines and to plug of the well was issued. In April 1986, the casing recovered from the annular disposal well

showed that its condition ranged from fair to very poor. The casing appeared to be thin in several places and to have a lot of rust and scale. Six holes were found in the casing. The disposal well was then plugged.

The alternative to annular disposal is underground injection in Class n wells, which operate under Federal guidelines and standards. Class II disposal is, however, more expensive than annular disposal; because many of the State's operatorions are economically marginal, a change in requirements would

be difficult to police. Contamination of Ground Water From Reserve Pits Ohio does not have a statewide rule to require liners in reserve pits. Liners have recently been required on a case-by-case basis in the northeastern portion of the State, where freshwater aquifers are overlain with higly permeable material, and are therefore especially vulnerable. Damage case incidents resulting from unlined reserve pits, with subsequent migration

of contaminants into ground water, are scattered throughout the State.

An unnamed oil and gas company contaminated the well that served a house and barn owned by Mr. Bean, who uses water for his dairy operations. When barium was found in the well water, the Ohio Department of Agriculture documented that wells supplying water for domestic and dairy use became contaminated from oil field waste in October of 1982. Water samples from Mr. Bean's well show concentrations of chlorides, barium, iron, sodium, and other residues above the

USEPA's Secondary Drinking Water Standards. Milk produced at the Bean farm was found to contain high levels of barium at 0.63 mg/1 A new well was drilled, but it also became contaminated. In September 1984,

Mr. Bean's water wells were still showing signs of contamination from the same oilfield wastes. (OH 49)

ZONE 6 Zone 6 includes North and South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas. All of these States have oil and gas production, but for this study Kansas was the only State visited for

damage case collection. Discussion is limited to that State.

Operations
Kansas has two principal hydrocarbon production areas. The first is the Giant Hugoton gas field in the southwest corner of the State (also known as the Panhandle Region), one of the largest gas fields in the world. Most production in this field is from mature areas. Recent reductions in spacing requirements for wells have increased well density in the

field, with a subsequent increase in developmental drilling activity. There has also been some recent exploration of deeper horizons in the Hugoton area, where oil deposits have been found. The second area of Kansas' production is in mid- to eastern Kansas, where spotty marginal stripper operations produce high ratios of produced water to oil. The average depth of a new well drilled in Kansas in 1985 was 3,770 feet. Six

thousand twenty-five (6,025) new wells were completed in that year, and 1,694 exploratory wells were drilled.

Types of Operators
Operators in Kansas include the full range of companies, from the majors to small independents. The Hugoton area is dominated by mid-sized to large independents. Spotty oil production in the mid to eastern portion of the State is dominated by small independent producers.

Environmental and Development Context The southern portion of Zone 6 is underlain by limestone, shale, sandstone, conglomerate, siltstone, and coal. Kansas has large expanses of agricultural land; the west portion of the State is relatively flat, the east and southeast are gently rolling. Native vegetation consists of

grasslands, with some shrub and grassland combined. With the exception of a few major metropolitan centers, the State is only sparsely populated. For this reason, discovery and documentation of damages from oil and gas activities is difficult. Kansas contains several special groundwater management districts. These have been set up to more intensively manage the vital and vulnerable ground-water resources, so important to the

agriculture industry. Oil and gas activities are partially responsible for the historic degradation of ground-water resources in these districts. In the Burtton Groundwater Management District, for example, portions of the ground water contain 2,000 to 4,000 ppm chlorides. In response to the groundwater degradation problem, the Kansas Corporation Commission has a "Lease Maintenance" section of rules governing oil and gas activities. These spell out good

housekeeping practices for drilling sites, along with penalties for their violation. "Lease Maintenance" rules are implemented to minimize impacts to groundwater from brine spills associated with production activity. According to officials from the Kansas Department of Health and the Environment, the use of liners for reserve pits is necessary for ground water protection in the western third of the State, where the Ogallala aquifer is vulnerable, and in the central section,

where the Arkansas River flows. The majority of surface landowners in Kansas own their land's mineral rights as well.

Major Issues Poor Lease Maintenance There have been documents instances in Kansas of damage associated

with poor lease maintenance and use of illegal pits. These commonly result in contamination of soil and surface water with high levels of chlorides as well as longterm pollution of ground water with chlorides.
Temple Oil Company and Wayside Production Company operate a number of oil production leases in Montgomery County. The leases were operated using illegal salt water containment ponds, improperly abandoned reserve pits, unapproved emergency salt water pits,and improperly abandoned salt water pits. In addition, operation of the

sites was generally very sloppy resulting in numerous oil and saltwater spills. Documentation of these incidents starts in 1977 when adjacent landowners began to complain about soil pollution, vegetation kills, fish kills and pollution of freshwater streams due to oil and saltwater runoff from these sites. Complaints were received by the Conservation Division, Kansas Department of Health and the Environment, Montgomery County sheriff and Kansas Fish and Game. A total of 39 violations on these leases were documented between 1983-1984. Private landowners filed complaints as early as

1981. The leases also contain a large number of abandoned, unplugged wells, posing a threat to ground water. Water sampled from a 4 1/2 foot test hole between a freshwater pond and creek on the Fowler's lease showed ground water with CI conc. of 65,500 ppm. Water samples taken from pits on the owner's leases (the Fowler's and others) showed CI conc. ranging from 5,000 to 82,000 ppm. The Kansas Corporation Commission made an administrative order in 1984, fining Temple and Wayside a total of $80,000. Only $25,000 was collected and the operators could reapply for licenses to operate in Kansas in 36 months. It took the KCC

at least five years to bring an end to the blatant disregard for the rules and regulations governing oil and gas operations in Kansas. In five years, significant environmental damage was sustained by the areas near these leases. (KS 01) On January 31, 1986, the Kansas Department of Health and the Environment inspected the Reitz lease in Montgomery County, operated by Marvin Harr of El Dorado, Arkansas. The lease contained an unpermitted emergency pond, containing water which had 56,500 ppm chlorides. A large leaking area was observed on the south side of the pond, allowing the flow of salt water down the slope for

about 30 feet. The company was notified and asked to apply for a permit and install a liner as the pond was constructed of sandy clay and sandstone. The operator was directed to immediately empty the pond and backfill if a liner were not installed. On Feb. 24 the lease was reinspected and the emergency pond was still full and actively leaking. It appeared that the lease had been shut down. A "pond order" was issued requiring the company to drain and backfill the pond. On April 29, the pond was still full and leaking. A fine of $500 was imposed and it was ordered that the pond be drained and backfilled. Water samples from pit show CI concentrations of from

30,500 ppm (4/29/86) to 56,500 ppm (1/31/86). Leakage from the pit showed chloride concentrations of 17,500 ppm (2/24/86). The Kansas Department of Health and the Environment stated that "...the use of the pond,...has caused or is likely to cause pollution to the soil and the waters of the State. (KS 08)

Such incidents are a recognized problem in Kansas;

as noted above, recently the Kansas Corporation Commission added new "lease maintenance" rules in their oil and gas regulations. The question of concern is how stringently these rules will be enforced, especially, as these cases show, in the light of the evident reluctance of some operators to comply even when faced with repeated orders for corrections. Smaller operators appear to be the most reluctant to comply.

Pollution of Ground Water with Chlorides from Improperly Abandoned Wells and Reserve Pits Chloride pollution of ground water is a pervasive problem in Kansas, and has been for a long time. It results in large part from improperly plugged and abandoned wells and reserve pits. Damage can be extensive.
At the Gary Leslie farm, considerable salt pollution of groundwater is evident. Natural springs on the farm have become salty, causing vegetation kills and salt pollution of soil. Located on the farm is the Leslie #1, a well

drilled by Western Drilling Inc. The Leslies believe this well to be the source of salt pollution of their groundwater because some days after plugging, the top plug slipped an unknown distance downhole. After slippage a rock was dropped downhole and a splash was heard some seconds later. Another possible source is the abandoned reserve pit used to drill the Leslie #1, as drilling in this area requires penetration of the Hutchinson Salt member, during which 200 to 400 cubic feet of rock salt is dissolved and discharged into the reserve pit. The ground in the area consists of highly unconsolidated soils which would allow migration of pollutants into the

groundwater. The Leslies were not provided relief by the Kansas Corporation Commission (KCC), so they filed suit in civil court, and won their case for a total of $11,000 from the oil and gas operators for damages sustained to the groundwater. Saltwater at the top of the Leslie #1 had conductivity of 5,050 pmhos. Conductivity of spring water equaled 7,250 pmhos. "Very saline water" was noted by the KCC as coming out of the springs. It was also noted that conductivity of 2,000 pmhos will damage soil, precluding growth of vegetation. (KS 03)

Problems also occur when improperly plugged wells are located in areas being

developed as secondary recovery projects. After pressuring the formation for secondary recovery, brine can migrate up improperly plugged wells, causing extensive ground water pollution.
In 1961, Gulf and its predecessors began secondary flooding operations in the East Gladys Unit in Sedgwick County. During secondary recovery, water is pumped into a target formation at high pressure, enhancing oil production. This pumping of water pressurizes the formation, allowing for brine to come to the surface through unplugged or improperly plugged abandoned wells. When Gulf began their

secondary recovery in this

area, it was with the knowledge that a number of abandoned wells existed and could lead to escape of saltwater into groundwater. Three improperly plugged wells in close proximity to the Gladys unit were the source of groundwater pollution resulting in the destruction of fresh groundwater on the property of Gerald Blood who runs a peach orchard in the area. The saltwater forced up through the pressuring of the Gladys field flowed

into the unplugged wells and into the groundwater below the surface. Salt water gradually migrated into the groundwater from which he draws irrigation water and water for his residence. Pollution of irrigation wells was first noted by Gerald Blood when in 1970, a truck garden was killed by irrigation with salty water. As the pollution continued to migrate in the aquifer, it contaminated two more irrigation wells in the mid-1970s. By 1980, the pollution had contaminated the irrigation wells used to irrigate a whole section of Mr. Blood's land and adjacent landowners began to have saltwater pollution in their wells at this time. Mr. Blood lost

a number of peach trees as a result of the contamination of his irrigation well, and lost the use of his domestic well. (KS 14)

Problems with abandoned reserve pits are illustrated in the following case.
Between February 9 and 27, the Elliott#l was drilled on the property of Mr. Lawrence Koehling. While drilling, the Hutchinson Salt member was penetrated, dissolving 100-200 cubic feet of salt which was disposed of in the reserve pit. The reserve pit lies 200 feet away from a well used by Mr. Koehling for his ranching operations. Within a few weeks of the drilling of

the Elliott #1, Mr. Koehling's nearby well began to pump water containing the saltwater drilling fluid. As confirmed by the KCC, the saltwater plume would eventually pollute the Koehling's domestic water well and the water wells on a farmstead over a mile downstream. The drilling company was not fined for pollution of groundwater, and Mr. Koehling received no compensation for damages sustained. Water samples from the Koehling livestock water well show chloride concentrations of 900 and 950 ppm. Background concentrations of chloride would be in the range of 100-150 ppm. Due to the seepage of

reserve pit fluids containing high levels of salt, the groundwater on the Koehling ranch has been polluted with salts, chlorides reaching 950 ppm in the freshwater aquifer. It is anticipated by the KCC that the saltwater plume will continue moving, thus polluting the Koehling domestic water well and the water well utilized by a farmstead over one mile downstream from the Koehling ranch. It is also stated by the KCC that other wells drilled in the area using unlined reserve pits would have similarly affected the groundwater. (KS 05)

Problems with Injection Wells Injection is one of the most important methods of disposal for brines in Kansas and elsewhere. Proper design and maintenance of injection facilities is therefore highly important. If injection wells are allowed to be constructed in unsuitable formations, damages can resulted.
In the SmolanSalemsburg area, 44 injection wells were injecting into the Hutchinson Salt Member of the Wellington Formation, commonly called the Lost

Circulation Zone. Through injection of oilfield brine, this salt member was being dissolved. As a result, highly salty water was intruding into the Smokey Hill River

through outcropings, making it unusable during low-flow stages, and the Wellington aquifer has sustained significant salt contamination. The Smokey Hill River is the water supply source for several communities in northeast Kansas. Several residents in the

area have lost their domestic water wells due to the salt pollution, and have lost trees and plants as a result of irrigating with the salty water. The dissolving of the salt member also caused subsidence and sinkholes to appear in the area, creating the potential for further collapse of subsurface. In 1983-1984, the KCC ordered that injection into the Hutchinson Salt Member be discontinued. Exemptions were granted to several operators for the continuance of injection into the salt formation. (KS 04)

Problems also occur as a

result of improper testing and maintenance, as illustrated by the following case.

On July 12, 1981, the Topeka KDHE received a complaint from Albert Richmeier, a landowner operating an irrigation well in the South Solomon River valley. His irrigation well had encountered salty water. An irrigation well belonging to an adjacent landowner, L. M. Paxson, had become salty in the fall of 1980. Oil has been produced in the area since 1952, and since 1962, secondary recovery has been used. Upon investigation by the Kansas Department of Health and the Environment (KDHE), it was discovered that the

cause of the pollution was a saltwater injection well nearby. Upon receipt of the saltwater complaint, a casing profile caliper log was run which revealed numerous holes in the casing of the injection well. The producing formation, the Kansas City-Lansing, requires as much as 800 psi at the wellhead to inject the brine to create a profitable enhanced oil recovery project. After attempts at repair, the operator, Petro- Lewis, decided to plug the well. (KS 06)

Both of these cases illustrate generic problems of the UIC program as delegated

to any State. These cases, however, suggest that inspection and enforcement resources are needed.

ZONE 7 Zone 7 includes Oklahoma and Texas, both being large producers of oil and gas. As of December 1986, Texas ranked as the number one producer in the U.S. among all oil

producing States. Due to scheduling constraints, research on this zone concentrated on Texas, and most of the damage cases available come from that State. Operations Oil operations in Texas and Oklahoma began in the 1860s and are among the most mature and extensively developed in the U.S. These two States include virtually all types of operations, from large scale exploratory projects and enhanced recovery projects to

marginal small scale stripper operations. In fact, Zone 7 includes the great majority of the country's stripper well production. Because of their maturity, many operations in the area generate significant quantities of associated produced water. Although the zone is heavily affected by current price declines, development remains active. In 1985, 9,176 new wells were completed in Oklahoma, along with 385 exploration wells. In Texas in the same year, 25,721 wells

were completed on shore, along with 3,973 exploration wells. The average depth of wells in the two areas is comparable: Oklahoma 4,752 feet; Texas, 4,877 feet. Because the scale and character of operations varies so widely, cases of environmental damage from this zone are numerous and varied, and are not limited to any particular type of operation. TYPES of Operators Major operators are the

principal players in exploration and development of deep frontiers and capital-intensive secondary and tertiary recovery projects. As elsewhere, the major companies have the best record of compliance with environmental requirements of all types; they are least likely to cut comers on operations, tend to use high quality materials and methods when drilling, and are generally responsible in handling well abandonment

obligations. On the other hand, the scale and technical difficulty of their operations may mean that their projects pose considerable potential for environmental damage. Smaller independent operators in the zone have a significantly poorer environmental record. Being more susceptible to fluctuating market conditions, they may have a greater incentive to compromise environmental performance in the interest of maintaining profitability. They may lack sufficient capital to

purchase first quality materials and employ best available operation methods. Smaller operators are more likely than the majors to neglect abandonment obligations. Environmental and Development Context This zone is large and thinly populated. Much of the population is in rural areas. Many oil and gas production sites are located in remote areas that are physically difficult to reach, making inspection and enforcement

difficult. The West Texas Permian Basin area has limited fresh water resources, and as a result is particularly vulnerable to adverse impacts of groundwater and surface water pollution associated with improperly plugged abandoned wells. The Texas Gulf Coast, another significant production area, is a wetlands area with extensive wildlifeshore birds and aquatic life. Disposal of brine and drilling fluids directly

into tidally affected estuaries and bays is legal, increasing the potential for adverse impacts on environmental resources. Landowners have control over mineral rights in about 50 percent of the privately owned land in the zone. Surface and mineral rights are severed in the remaining 50 percent. Since the zone has been dependent on oil and gas development for a significant percentage of its economic growth and stability for such a long time (since the nineteenth

century), residents of the zone have become accustomed to the environmental problems associated with oil and gas development, and appear, in many cases, to be willing to tolerate a certain level of adverse environmental impacts. In addition, since such a large proportion of the population is employed, directly or indirectly, by the oil industry, there is

a widely-acknowledged reluctance to complain about environmental damage. On the one hand there is fear of jobrelated reprisals, on the other there is frustration and a certain cynicism about actions being taken against firmlyentrenched economic interests. Major Issues

Discharge of produced water and drilling mud into bays and estuaries of the Texas Gulf Coast Texas allows the discharge of brine and muds into tidallyaffected estuaries and bays of the Gulf Coast from nearby onshore development. This practice has, however, produced cases of environmental damage both from discharges that are legal under Texas Railroad Commission rules as well as from discharges that appear to be inconsistent with

TRC rules. Cases in which legal discharges have created damage include:
In Texas, oil and gas producers operating near the Gulf Coast are permitted to discharge produced brine into surface streams if they are found to be tidally t affected. Along with the brine, other e chemicals and s organic constituents t. are discharged, including lead, zinc, chromium, barium, and may contain water soluble polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons or PAH's which are known to accumulate in sediment producing liver and lip tumors in catfish and

affect mixed function oxidase systems of mammals, rendering a reduced immune response. Study of sediment in Tabbs Bay, receiving discharge from oilfield brine production as well as discharges from upstream industry (Houston Ship Channel), indicates severe degradation of the environment by PAH contamination. Sediments contained no benthic fauna, and because of wave action, the contaminants were continually resuspended allowing chronic exposure of contaminants to the water column. It is concluded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that shrimp, crabs, oysters, fish and fish-eating birds in this location have the

potential to be heavily contaminated with PAH's. (TX 55) Brine discharges contain a high ratio of calcium ions to magnesium ions, a condition which has been found to be lethal to common Atlantic croaker, even when total salinity levels are within tolerable limits. In a bioassay study, this fish was exposed to various ratios of calcium to magnesium, and it was found that in 96 hour LC50 studies, mortality was 50 percent when exposed to calcium-magnesium ratios of 6/1, the natural ratio being 1/3. Nearly all of oil field brine discharges on file with the Army Corps of Engineers in Galveston contain ratios exceeding the 6/1 ratio established in

the LC50

(T X 31 )

Until very recently, the TRC allowed discharge of produced water into Petronilla Creek, parts of which are 20 miles inland and clearly not tidally affected. Here too, damages have been found:
For over fifty years, oil operators (including Texaco and Amoco) have been allowed to discharge produced brine into Petronilla Creek, a supposedly tidally-

influenced creek. Discharge areas were as much as 20 miles inland and contained fresh water. In 1981 the pollution of Petronilla Creek became an issue when studies were done that documented the severe degradation of the water and damage to native fish and vegetation. All freshwater species of fish and vegetation were dead due to exposure to toxic constituents in discharge liquid. Portions of creek were black or bright orange in color. Heavy oil slicks and oily slime were observable along discharge areas. Impacts were observed in Baffin Bay, where the creek empties. Petronilla Creek is the only freshwater source for Baffin Bay

which is a nursery for many fish and shellfish in the Gulf of Mexico. Sediments in Baffin Bay show elevated levels of toxic constituents found in Petronilla Creek. For the next five years the Texas Deparrtment of Water Resources and Texas Parks and Wildlife along with environmental groups worked to have the discharges stopped. The creek was shown to contain high levels of chromium, barium, oil, grease, and EPA priority pollutants, naphthalene and benzene. Oil operators argued that a "no dumping" order would put them out of business because oil production in this area is marginal. In 1986, the TRC ordered a halt to discharge of produced brine in

Petronilla (TX 29)

Creek.

Long-term environmental impacts associated with this type of discharge are unknown, due to lack of suitable documentation and analysis. Bioaccumulation of heavy metals in the food chain of estuaries could potentially affect human health through consumption of crabs, clams, and other food stocks harvested off the Texas Gulf Coast.

Alternatives to coastal discharge do exist. They include underground injection of produced water and drilling fluid, use of produced water and reserve pit fluid tanks, and placement of spent drilling muds in commercial facilities. Evidence suggests that so long as market conditions remain depressed, operators will continue to push for permits allowing this type of discharge of brines and muds. The TRC does not at this time have any plans to preclude further discharges of this nature.

Leaching of reserve pit constituents Leaching of reserve pit constituents into ground water and soil continues to be a major problem in Zone 7. Reserve pit liners are generally not required in Texas and Oklahoma. When pits are constructed in permeable soil, the potential exists for migration

of reserve pit constituents into ground water and soil. Although pollutant migration may not always occur during the active life of the reserve pit, problems can occur after closure when dewatered drilling mud begins to leach into the surroundings. Pollutants typically include chlorides, sodium, barium, chromium, and arsenic.
On November 20, 1981, the MichiganWisconsin Pipe Line Company began drilling an oil and gas well on the property of Ralph and Judy Walker. Drilling was completed on March 27, 1982. Unlined reserve pits

were used at the drilling site. After two months of drilling, the water well used by the Walkers became polluted with elevated levels of chloride and barium. The Walkers were forced to haul fresh water from Elk City for household use. The Walkers filed complaint with the OCC, investigation was conducted and all drilling mud was ordered removed from the reserve pit. The OCC then dismissed the case, as the Walkers had not proven that the reserve pit had polluted their well. The Walkers eventually retained a private attorney and sued Michigan-Wisconsin for damages to their groundwater due to migration of reserve pit fluids into the freshwater

aquifer. The Walkers won their case. (OK 08) In 1973, an oil well was drilled on the property of Dorothy Moore. As is the common practice, the reserve pit was dewatered and the remaining mud was buried on site. In 1985-1986, problems from the buried reserve pit waste began to appear. The reserve pit contents are seeping into a nearby creek and pond. The surrounding soil had very high chloride content. Extensive erosion is evident, a common problem with high-salinity soil. Oil slicks are visible in the adjacent creeks and ponds. No monitoring wells have been drilled to test the groundwater.

(OK 07)

Lining of pits does not appear to be a particularly effective solution to this generic problem, since after the pit is closed the contents are bulldozed and buried, almost certainly destroying the integrity of the liner. Injection of reserve pit contents after completion of drilling would preclude long-term migration of pollutants. A more costly alternative would be to use a closed system while drilling, with portable tanks used in

place of a reserve pit; contents would then eventually be disposed of in a central commercial facility. The use of such alternatives is not under way in either State in Zone 7, and would likely be unpopular with the industry, particularly under current economic conditions. Ground water chloride pollution from injection wells Zone 7 contains a high number of injection wells used both for disposal of produced

water and for enhanced or tertiary recovery projects. This high number of wells creates the potential for pollution of ground water through casing leaks.

The Devore #1, a saltwater injection well located on the property of Verl and Virginia Hentges, was drilled in 1947 as an exploratory well. Shortly afterwards, it was permitted as a saltwater injection well. The injection formation, the

Layton, was known to be capable of accepting 80 barrels per hour at 150 psi. In 1984, George Kahn acquired the well and The OCC granted an exception to Rule 3-305, Operating Requirements for Enhanced Recovery Injection and Disposal Wells, and permitted the well to inject 2000 barrels per day at 400psi. Later in 1984, it was becoming evident that there was saltwater migration from the intended injection zone of the Devore #1 to the surface. Saltwater had polluted the groundwater used by the Hentges on their ranch, and saltwater was polluting Warren Creek, a freshwater stream, used by downstream residents as the only source of fresh water. Saltwater

discharged to the soil had caused vegetation kills and soil pollution. OCC required a workover be done on the well, but pollution continued. After workover of well was completed to remedy leakage, migration of saltwater continued, and the OCC allowed the operator to continue to dispose of saltwater in the well. Hentges then sought private legal assistance, and filed a lawsuit against George Kahn, the operator, for $300,000 in actual damages and $3,000,000 in punitive damages. The lawsuit is pending. (OK 06)

Considerable inconsistency exists from State to State with respect to the operation and

testing of injection wells. Although the Federal government sets minimum standards for operation and testing of underground injection, States that have primacy have considerable latitude in the implementation of the program. Potential exists for the use of inadequate materials, attempts to inject at pressures above what the receiving formation can tolerate (resulting in fractures within the formation that can allow waste to migrate to the surface or to ground water),

and inadequate testing of casing integrity. Policing of oil and gas activities has been reduced in Zone 7 because of reduced collections of production- related ad valorum and severance taxes. Illegal dumping Illegal dumping is common in Zone 7 because of the diversity of operators involved and the high level of oil and gas production. Illegal dumping can occur in many forms, including breaching of reserve pits, emptying of vacuum trucks into fields and ditches,

and draining of produced water onto the land surface. Damage to surface soil, vegetation, and surface water usually results.
Esenjay Petroleum Co. had completed the L.W. Bing #1 well at a depth of 9,900 ft. and had hired T&L Lease Service to clean up the drillsite, on May 16, 1984. During cleanup, the reserve pit, containing high chromium drilling mud, was intentionally breached allowing drilling mud to flow into a tributary of Hardy Sandy Creek. The drilling mud was up to 24 inches deep along the north bank of Hardy Sandy. Drilling

mud had been pushed into the trees and brush adjacent to the drill site. Spill was reported to the operator and TRC, and on May 20, cleanup was in progress. Because of high levels of chromium, warnings were issued by the Lavaca-Navidad River Authority to residents and landowners downstream of the spill as it represented a possible health hazard to cattle watering from the affected streams. The River Authority also advised against eating the fish from these waters due to the high chromium levels in the drilling mud. On September 15, 1983, TXO Production Company began drilling its Dunn Lease Well No. B2 in Live Oak County. On

(TX

October 5, 1983, employees of TXO intentionally broke the reserve pit levee and began spreading drilling mud downhill from the site, towards the fence line of property owned by the Dunns. By Oct. 9, the mud had entered the draw which flows into two stock tanks on the Dunn property. On November 24 and 25, dead fish began to be observed on the stock tank. On Dec. 17, Texas Parks and Wildlife documented over 700 fish killed in the stock tanks on the Dunn property. Despite repeated requests, TXO has not cleaned up the drilling mud and polluted water from the Dunn property. Lab results from TRC and Texas Department of Health indicate that the

drilling mud was high in levels of arsenic, barium, chromium, lead, sulfates, other metals and chlorides. In February 1984, the TRC stated that the stock tanks contained unacceptable levels of nitrogen, barium, chromium and iron, and that the chemicals present are detrimental to both fish and livestock. The Dunns water their cows at this same stock tank. TRC came out with a memorandum stating that the fish had died due to a cold front moving through the area, in spite of the fact that extensive analysis of the soil, sediment and water in and around the stock pond contained high levels of harmful substances. Ultimately, TXO was fined $1,000, and TXO and the

Dunns reached settlement of claims. (TX 22)

a cash damage

Improperly abandoned or improperly plugged wells Although damage created by improperly abandoned or improperly plugged wells is not immediately associated with the extraction of oil and gas, wastes (generally native brines) leaking from such wells do cause significant environmental damage in Zone 7. The issue is essentially a "post-closure"-related problem.

Damages can be direct, such as through artesian flows of brine from deep geological strata to the surface (this happens frequently in West Texas in the area of the Coleman Junction in the Permian Basin). They can also be indirect, through upward migration of fluids injected under pressure in neighboring disposal or secondary recovery wells. The problem is particularly severe because oil development in the area is old and many thousands of wells in

the area were abandoned before any regulatory plugging requirements were put in place. In addition, current plugging requirements are often ignored or loosely enforced. Some 40,000 wells are closed each year in Texas, and under

TRC rules each closing must be witnessed by one of the State's 173 inspectorsan implied

rate of more than one well closing per work day per inspector, a logistical impossibility. Finally, even where well closures have been properly witnessed, leaks and damages can occur. There is even concern that some wells may require repeated closures because of deterioration of concrete plugs in the presence of concentrated chlorides.
One case involves improperly plugged abandoned wells near Miles TX. The area of particular concern includes three wells drilled in the early 1970s on the Marvin Helwig farm. They were abandoned and plugged in

October 1984 after the operator filed for bankruptcy and a salvage company arranged to junk equipment in exchange for plugging the wells. A TRC inspector was present when the work was performed and supposedly witnessed the plugging operation and signed the necessary forms. Wells do not seem to be properly plugged, however. Samples taken from well #1 show more than 36,000 ppm chlorides. (TX 05) A number of sites in the Tom Green/Runnels Co. area have been contaminated by improperly plugged or unplugged oil and gas wells. One site in the San Angelo area revealed an abandoned oil test well

that was flowing formation waters to the surface. The well was drilled in 1939 and brines had been continually released for 46 years. The well was found in a pasture on the Donald Cox Ranch, Loop 306, Foster Road. (TX 07) In the 1950s, oil was discovered in what is known as the Yankee Canyon Field producing from the Canyon Sand about 4,000 feet below land surface. In 1958, the field was converted to the water flood secondary recovery process. There are more than 50 wells drilled in this field with only 12 to 15 of the wells producing while the balance of the old wells are unplugged and abandoned. One well is located on a farm owned J.K. Roberts about 200

yards from his domestic 70 ft. deep water well. Chlorides in his well have climbed from 148 ppm in 1940 to 3,080 ppm in 1970. It is believed that the unplugged abandoned well 200 yards from his water well is allowing migration of saltwater into the fresh water aquifer tapped by the water well. Mr. Roberts requested that the TRC take action, but all that was required of the operator was to plug 5 out of the forty or so abandoned wells. With the help of the local media and Ralph Hoelscher, remedial work was performed on a number of wells in the field in the 1980s. (TX 17) Ralph Hoelsher and others have conducted

studies of generalized brine contamination of groundwater throughout Runnels County, caused by leakage of artesian flows from the Coleman Junction through current operations, earthen disposal pits (now illegal), abandoned but improperly plugged wells, leaking injection wells, and interformational leakage of brine through defective or inadequate casing in producing wells of exploration holes. Many of the responsible wells date from the 1950s. Results of Hoelsher's work have been shown to Texas elected officials and responsible administrative officials. Chlorides concentrations in many area wells are in excess of 250 ppm standard established for human consumption. The

loss of several head of cattle by Jerry Kraatz was plausibly connected by the Texas Dept. of Agriculture to a well leaking on the Palmer farm. There is a loss of grazing area on the Kraatz farm. Ralph Hoelsher has listed 150 landowners who together report 3,889 saline seeps within the county. (TX 59)

ZONE 8 Zone 8 includes Idaho, Montana, and Wyoming. Idaho has no commercial production

of oil or gas. Montana has moderate oil and gas production. Wyoming has substantial oil and gas production, and accounts for all the damage cases discussed in this section. Operations Significant volumes of both oil and gas are produced in Wyoming. Activities range from small, marginal operations to major capital- and energyintensive projects. Oil production comes from both mature fields producing high

volumes of associated water or brine as well from newly discovered fields, where oil/water ratios are still relatively low. Gas production comes from mature fields as well as from very large new discoveries in the Overthrust Belt. These new fields contain hydrogen sulfide (H2S), a highly lethal, naturally occurring constituent of some natural gas. This H2S production requires special processing plants, two of which have been constructed and are in operation in the Overthrust

Belt. Although the average new well drilled in Wyoming in 1985 was about 7,150 feet, exploration in the State tends to be into strata as deep as 18,000. The make-up of mud for deep drilling is complex and requires many chemical additives not needed for more shallow drilling; muds are therefore more complex and potentially more harmful to the environment. In 1985,1,735 new wells were completed in Wyoming,

and 541 exploratory wells were drilled. Although exploration is currently at a low point, if economic conditions were to improve significantly, substantial new exploration and drilling would follow. Tvnes of Operators Because of the depth and technical difficulty of drilling on the Overthrust Belt, and the capital intensive nature of secondary and tertiary recovery projects, many operations in the State are conducted by the major oil

companies. These companies use first quality

materials, are likely to implement environmental controls properly during drilling and completion, and are generally responsible in carrying out their well abandonment obligations. Small independent operators do account for some oil and gas production in the State,

and are inherently more susceptible to fluctuating market conditions. These operators are much more likely than the majors to increase profitability at the expense of environmental protection. Between these two groups are many mid-sized independent operators, whose performance on environmental matters may be between the other two. Environmental Development Context and

Wyoming contains both high desert and high-elevation,

pristine wilderness. Both have severe climates and are environmentally fragile. Much of the State has yet to be explored intensively for oil and gas deposits. Both State officials and Federal Bureau of Land Management officials have expressed concern over potential future development in still-untouched areas, especially in the western highlands, which contain a majority of the State's highquality surface water. Many aspects of the industry's operations are, at

present, only loosely regulated. Operators are allowed, for instance, to discharge produced water directly into dry stream beds and surface water. Containment of produced water in unlined pits is common, even though this practice is illegal in most other States. Much of Wyoming's land is owned by the Federal government, and is subject to different rules than apply to private landowners. According to State officials of the Department of Environmental

Quality, exploration and production operations on Federal lands are better managed than those on private land due to the presence of oversight by the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service. Wyoming's population is largely rural with only a few small population centers. The State ranks 49th in population, ahead of Alaska. Environmental damages related to oil operations are therefore unlikely to affect populations or create human

health impacts.

Furthermore, since most of the activity is in physically remote areas, identification and documentation of damages is difficult and documentable cases are therefore rare. M a j

o r I s s u e s I l l

e g a l d u m p i n g Wyoming

DEQ

officials

believe that illegal dumping of wastes is the most pervasive environmental problem associated with oil and gas operations. Cases come to light largely through anonymous tips, sometimes from employees of companies involved in illegal dumping. Enforcement is difficult because money and manpower are scarce and the areas to be patrolled are large and remote.
Altex Oil Company has operated an oil production field for several decades just east of Rozet, Wyoming. An access road runs through the area which for years was used

as a drainage for produced water from the oil field operations. In August of 1985, an official with WDEC collected soil samples from the road ditch to ascertain chloride levels as it was observed that trees and vegetation along the road were dead or dying. Samples showed chloride levels as high as 130,000 ppm. The road was chained off in October of 1985 to preclude any further dumping of produced water. (WY 03) In early October, 1985, Cities Service Oil Company had completed drilling at a site northeast of Cheyenne on highway 85. The drilling contractor, Z&S Oil Construction Company was suspected of illegally disposing of

drilling fluids over a mile away on the Pole Creek Ranch. An employee of Z&S had given an anonymous tip to a County detective. A stake-out of the illegal operation was made with law enforcement and WDEQ personnel. Samples and photos were taken of the reserve pit and the dump site. Vacuum trucks were witnessed draining reserve pit contents down a slope and into a small pond on the Pole Creek Ranch. After sufficient evidence had been gathered, arrests were made and the trucks impounded. The state sued Z&S and won a total of $10,000. Owners of Z&S were given a criminal record. (WY 01)

With current depressed oil and gas prices, the incidence of illegal dumping could continue to increase. DEQ believes that independent operators may be responsible for most of it, though there have been instances where a major company has been involved in illegal dumping activities.
During the week of April 8, 1985 field personnel at the Byron/Garland field operated by Marathon Oil Company were cleaning up a storage yard used to store drums of oilfield chemicals. Drums containing discarded

chemicals were punctured and allowed to drain into a ditch adjacent to the yard. Approximately 200 drums containing 420 gallons of fluid were drained into the trench. The chemicals were demulsifiers, reverse

demulsifiers, scale and corrosion inhibitors and surfactants. Broken transformers containing PCBs were leaking into soil in a nearby area. Upon discovery of the condition of the yard, Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality ordered clean-up procedures to begin.

Groundwater monitors were installed, and monitoring of nearby Arnoldus Lake was begun. The state filed a civil suit and won a $5000 fine and $3006 in expenses for lab work. (WY 05)

The legal method for disposal of reserve pit fluids and mud (through dewatering of the pit, usually by land application, and burial of muds and cuttings) is not unusually costly. Illegal dumping appears to be happening not because costs of proper disposal are unreasonable, but because the

easy opportunity for illegal practices exists and because inspection and enforcement is difficult due to limited State funds. Reclamation problems Although Wyoming's mining industry has rules governing reclamation of sites, no such rules exist covering oil or gas operations. As a result, reclamation on privately owned land is often inadequate or entirely lacking, according to State officials. By contrast, reclamation on Federal lands is

believed to be consistently more thorough, since federal leases specify reclamation procedures to be used on specific sites. WDEQ officials state that this will be of continuing and growing concern as the State continues to be opened up to oil and gas development. No documentation was available to this study on reclamation problems; WDEQ officials have photographs and letters from concerned landowners, but no developed cases. The issue is at least

partially related to drilling waste management, since improper reclamation of sites often involves inadequate dewatering of reserve pits before closure. As a result of this inadequate dewatering, reserve pit constituents, usually chlorides, are alleged to migrate up and out of the pit, making revegetation difficult. The potential also exists for migration of reserve pit constituents into groundwater.

Discharge of produced water into surface streams Because much of the produced water in Wyoming is relatively low in chlorides, several operations are allowed to discharge produced water directly into dry stream beds or

live streams. The practice of constant discharge of low-level

pollutants can, however, be harmful to aquatic communities in these streams. Residual hydrocarbons contained in produced water appear to suppress species diversity in live streams.
This case involves analysis of the macrobenthos community (fish) done on a stream receiving produced water discharges from oilfield production. The study was undertaken to determine the effect of chronic, lowlevel discharge of oilfield effluent into a stream, and the resulting effect on the aquatic community in the stream. Several western states permit discharge into surface waters of oil wastewater from refinery

or crude oil production operations. These western states are also receiving increased pressure to develop new oil reserves on public lands containing valuable natural resources. Inadequate information is available for the states to set discharge limitations for the protection of aquatic resources from chronic oil contamination. During the study, samples were taken upstream from the discharge, and downstream. Species diversity, community structure were studied. Water analysis was done on upstream and downstream samples. The study found a decrease in species diversity downstream from the discharge, further characterized by total

elimination of some species and drastic alteration of community structure. The downstream community was characterized by only one dominant species, while the upstream community was dominated by three species. Total hydrocarbon concentrations in water and sediment increased 40 to 55 fold below the discharge of oilfieldproduced water. The authors of the study stated that "based on our findings, the fisheries and aquatic resources would be protected if discharge of oil into fresh water were regulated to prevent concentrations in receiving streams water and sediment that would alter structure of macrobenthos

communities." (WY 07)

The authors of the above case state, "Based on our findings, the fisheries and aquatic resources would be protected if discharge of oil into fresh water were regulated to prevent concentrations in receiving stream water and sediment that would alter structure of macrobenthos communities." Alternatives would be disposal of produced water through subsurface injection or on-site disposal in

brine pits. Both are common in Wyoming. There is, however, currently no initiative in the State to prohibit discharge of produced water into dry or live streams. Both major and independent operators take advantage of this allowable practice.

ZONE 9 Zone 9 includes the States

of Nevada, Utah, Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico. All five have some oil and gas production, but New Mexico's is the most significant. The discussion below is limited to New Mexico. Operations Although hydrocarbon production is scattered throughout the State, most comes from two distinct areas within New Mexico: the Permian Basin in the southeast comer, and the San Juan Basin in the northwest corner.

Permian Basin production is primarily oil, and it is derived from several major fields. There are numerous large capital and energy intensive enhanced recovery projects that include extensive use of CO2 flooding. The area also contains some small fields in which production is derived from marginal stripper operations. This is a mature production area which is unlikely to see extensive exploration in the future. The Tucumcari Basin to the north of the Permian may, however,

experience extensive future exploration if economic conditions improve in the future. The San Juan Basin is, for the most part, a large mature field that produces primarily gas. Significant gas finds are still made, however, including many on Indian Reservation lands. As these are opened to oil and gas development, exploration and development of the basin as a whole will continue, and possibly increase.

Much of the State has yet to be explored for oil and gas. The average depth of new wells drilled in 1985 was 6026 feet. The number of new wells was 1,747, with 281 exploratory wells. Types of Operators The capital- and energyintensive enhanced recovery projects in the Permian Basin, as well as the exploratory activities under way around the State, are conducted by the major

oil companies. Overall, however, the most numerous operators are small and medium- sized independents. Small independents dominate marginal stripper production throughout the Permian area. Production in the San Juan Basin is dominated by mid-sized independent operators. Environmental and Development Context The land forms and geologic features

dominating this zone are consolidated rock, mostly lying flat and at or near the land surface. The zone's topography is extremely varied, and with the exception of the areas supporting alpine meadows and Douglas pine and fir forests evaporation exceeds precipitation throughout. Common vegetation includes creosote bush, Arizona pine, Juniper and pinyon pine, sagebrush, and a variety of different

shrubs and grasses. As in any western State, oil and gas activities often occur in remote, sparsely populated areas, making documentation of environmental damage difficult. New Mexico is a relatively poor State, having one of the lowest per capita incomes in the country. Perhaps unique among the oil-producing States, much of the land believed to be potentially promising for oil and gas development is owned by

various Indian tribes within the reservations, which comprise a significant percentage of New Mexico's area. The tribes do not have clear guidelines for dealing with non-Indian companies, making development of their oil and gas reserves difficult. In one instance, the Navajos have not entered into an oil and gas lease agreement with nonIndians since 1975, precluding the development of their lands

during the last boom. Major Issues Unlined Produced Water and Oilfield Waste Pit Contents Leaching into Ground Water New Mexico, unlike most other States, still permits the use of unlined pits for disposal of brines and reserve pit wastes. These can produce significant contamination of ground water.

One damage case developed in this State is in actually a summary of a study conducted in 1985 in an attempt to demonstrate the hydrocarbons and chlorides found in produced water in the San Juan Basin do indeed migrate out of unlined produced water pits and into the ground water table.
In July 1985, a study was undertaken in the Duncan Oil Field in the San Juan basin to analyze the potential of unlined produced water pit contents, including hydrocarbons and aromatic hydrocarbons, to migrate into the

groundwater. The oil field is situated in a flood plain of the San Juan River. The site chosen for investigation was similar to at least 1500 other nearby production sites in the flood plain. Test pits were dug around the disposal pit on the chosen site. These test pits were placed above gradient and down gradient of the disposal pit, at 25 and 50 meter intervals. A total of 9 test pits were dug to a depth of 2 meters and soil and groundwater samples were obtained from each test pit. Volatile aromatic hydrocarbons were found in both the soil and water samples of test pits down gradient, demonstrating migration of unlined produced water pit contents into the groundwater. Damage can

be summarized as contamination of shallow groundwater due to leaching from an unlined produced water disposal pit. Benzene was found in concentrations of 100 ppb, above New Mexico Water Quality Control Commission standards of 10 ppb. Concentrations of ethylbenzene, xylenes and larger hydrocarbon molecules were found. No contamination was found in test pits placed above gradient from the disposal pit. Physical signs of contamination were also present including black, oily staining of sands above water table and black oily film on the water itself. Hydrocarbon odor was also present. (NM 02)

As a result of this study, the use of unlined produced water pits was limited to wells producing no more than five barrels per day of produced water. While this is an improvement over the previous rule, which did not limit volume of produced water disposed of in this manner, there still exists great potential for contamination of ground water with hydrocarbons and chlorides in this zone. Over 20,000 unlined pits are still in existence in New Mexico.

Evidence of damage from this practice is shown in such instances as the following.
Lee Acres landfill is located two miles E-SE of Farmington, N.M. It is owned by BLM. The landfill is composed of four unlined liquid-waste lagoons or pits. Since 1981, a variety of liquid wastes associated with the oil and gas industry have been disposed of here including produced water, septage and volatile organic compounds. Use of the pits ceased on 4/19/85. 8,800 cubic yards of waste were disposed of prior to closure. Site is 20 acres in size. Leachate from the unlined waste lagoons contaminated several water wells in the Lee

Acres housing subdivision located downgradient from the landfill. Extensive water analysis has been done on the pits and the contaminated water wells. High levels of Na, CI, Pb, Cr, benzene, toluene, xylenes, chloroethane and trichloroethylene were found in pits. High levels of chlorides and VOCs were found in a

downgradient monitoring well. One domestic well was sampled extensively and found to contain extremely high levels of chloride and elevated

levels of chlorinated VOCs, including trichloroethane. Except for benzene, the contamination found in this well (Reynold's well) are not characteristic of the contaminants generated by a nearby refinery. The State has ordered BLM to provide public water to residents affected by the contamination, develop a groundwater monitoring system, and investigate types of drilling, drilling procedures, and well construction methods. BLM Submitted a motion to stay the order so as to include Giant Oil Co. and El Paso Natural Gas in cleanup operations. The motion was denied. The case is pending, and may end up in court. (NM 05)

Damage to Ground Water From Leaking Injection Wells One case discovered in New Mexico involves a leaking injection well that has caused extensive economic and environmental damage, yet is still in operation with the permission of the New Mexico Oil Conservation Division.
A saltwater injection well, BO-3, operated by Texaco, is used for brine disposal for the MooreDevonian oil field in SJE. New Mexico. Injection occurs at about 10,000 ft. The Ogallala aquifer, overlying the oilfield, is the sole source of potable

groundwater in much of southeastern New Mexico. The BO-3 was found to have contributed to a saltwater plume of contamination in the Ogallala nearly one mile long and containing chloride concentrations of up to 26,000 ppm. Texaco argued that the saltwater plume was the result of leachate of brines from unlined brine disposal pits, now banned in the area. Texaco still uses the BO-3 well, unaltered, as a disposal well for oilfield brines in spite of a lawsuit in which they paid a cash settlement to a rancher for damages incurred due to the leaks and subsequent groundwater contamination from BO-3. The rancher sustained damage to crops after irrigating with water

contaminated by the saltwater plume in the Ogallala aquifer. In 1973, an irrigation well was completed on the ranch of Mr. Paul Hamilton. In 1977, the well began producing water with chlorides of 1,200 ppm. His crops were severely damaged and the farm property was foreclosed on. There is no evidence of crop damage prior to 1977. Mr. Hamilton's hydrologist proved that if old pits in the vicinity previously used for saltwater disposal had caused the contamination, high chloride levels would have been detected in the irrigation well prior to 1977. It was proven in court that the BO-3 injection well adjacent to his property had leaked some 20 million gallons of

brine into the groundwater, causing chloride contamination of the Ogallala aquifer from which he irrigated. Mr. Hamilton won a cash settlement from Texaco for damages sustained by the leaking injection well. The well is still in operation. (NM 01)

The well in question was pressure tested several times during the course of the trial, during which the plaintiff's hydrologist discovered that this injection well would have been classed as a failed well using the State of Texas's criteria for

pressure testing of injection wells. Presumably the well would have been shut down if it had failed New Mexico's

pressure testing requirements, but in this case the damage was extensive enough that it appears unusual that the State did not use discretionary authority to close down the operation.

Contamination of Ground Water From Improperly Completed Oil and Gas Wells Improperly completed wells can leak hydrocarbons into aquifers and cause contamination of public drinking water supplies.
The Flora Vista Water Users Association operates a community water system that serves 1500 residents and small businesses. The system began operation in 1983 with two wells, each capable of delivering 6070 gallons per minute. In 1980, Manana Gas, Inc. drilled the Mary Wheeler No. 1-E, and began producing natural gas and oil on a production site

less than 300 feet from one of the Flora Vista water wells. In 1982, the Manana well produced 39,584 million cubic ft of gas and 1,022 barrels of oil. In 1983, one Flora Vista water supply well was contaminated with oil and grease, apparently by the Manana Gas well, and was taken out of service. After extensive testing and investigation, the New Mexico Oil Conservation Division concluded that the Manana Gas well was the source of oil and grease contamination of the Flora Vista water well. Water analysis done on water wells affected as well as on five monitor wells. Analysis shows hydrocarbon contamination of groundwater. Pumping tests were also done to

ascertain source of pollution. Although the gas well lies down gradient from the water well, it was demonstrated that pumping of the water well drew the oil and grease upgradient, thus contaminating the water well. Water now has to be purchased from the town of Aztec and piped to Flora Vista in an existing pipeline. There is no indication in reports that the production well responsible for this contamination has been shut down or reworked to prevent further contamination of groundwater. (NM 03)

This type of contamination

of ground water has a long history in this State (as elsewhere).

Lea County has been an area of major hydrocarbon production for a number of decades. Oil field contamination of fresh water sources became apparent as early as the 1950s. Contamination of the fresh water aquifer has resulted from surface pit seepage and leakage from production and injection well casings. Over 120 domestic water wells in the town of Hobbs have been contaminated so extensively as to preclude further use of the well for domestic or irrigation purposes. Residents have been using bottled water for a decade or more as a

result of the contamination. Leakage from oil wells has been so great in some areas as to allow ranchers to produce oil from the top of the Ogallala aquifer using windmill pumps attached to contaminated water wells: approximately 400.000 barrels have been pumped off the top of the Ogallala to date, although production is decreasing due to repair of large leaks in adjacent oil production wells. Damages include extensive, permanent contamination of groundwater with high levels of chlorides and a variety of organic compounds. Groundwater is the only source of drinking water in the area. Over 100 domestic water wells have documented

contamination in the town of

Hobbs. The potential for casing leaks on oil wells and injection wells remains high due to the high chloride content of the native brine coproduced with the oil. (High chloride levels in water corrode well casing.) It is therefore assumed that the contamination is continuing. (NM 04)

As is seen in cases such as

this, extensive contamination may often become accepted by local residents, as here where use of botded water is routine.

ZONE 10 Zone 10 includes Washington, Oregon, and California. Of the three, California has the most significant hydrocarbon

production; Washington and Oregon have only minor oil and gas activity. Damage cases were therefore gathered only from California.

Operations
California has a diverse oil and gas industry, ranging from stripper production in very mature fields to deep exploration and large enhanced recovery operations. Southern California and the San Joaquin Valley are dominated by large capitaland energy-intensive projects;

for example, operators are increasing the use of steam recovery by injection to enhance production in southern San Joaquin Valley fields where "heavy gravity" oil is extractedan expensive, but, in this case, necessary technique. Exploration and development in the new coastal fields is also capital intensive. California's most mature production areas are in the lower San Joaquin Valley and the Sacramento Basin. The San Joaquin produces both oil and

gasthe new coastal fields produce mostly oil, but some gas. The Sacramento Valley produces mostly gas. Waste disposal is an important concern. Although two practical methods are available, injection and percolation, both are considered problematic by environmental departments in the State. Operators have been increasing the number of Class II and V injection wells to reinject brines and other oil field wastes. Class II wells serve a dual purpose, being

used both for disposal of oil field wastes and for enhanced recovery; Class V wells are used only for waste disposal, and are subject to more relaxed environmental performance standards. Percolation, the other principal method of waste disposal, is used primarily in the San Joaquin area, where brines are discharged to ephemeral streams and later diverted into central percolation sumps. The average depth of new wells drilled in California in 1985 was 4,176 feet. One

hundred sixty-six exploratory wells were drilled in that year, and 3,413 completed.

Types of Operators Operators in California range from small independents to major producers. The majors dominate capital- and energyintensive projects, such as coastal development and large

enhanced recovery projects. Independents tend to operate in the mature production areas dominated by stripper production. Environmental Development Context and

Oil and gas development in California occurs in diverse areas. The San Joaquin Valley has a dry climate with rolling hills. After the winter rainfall, streams are intermittent. The California Fish and Game Commission has identified the

area as a sensitive habitat for species classified by both the State and Federal Governments as rare and endangered. The increasing amount of agriculture in the region uses irrigation water brought from the north by aqueduct, though there is some use of ground water and surface water from the Kern River. Oil operations are located in both populated and unpopulated areas. The coastal oil development area is classed as chapparel; it is wetter than the

eastern area, and has steeper hills. Oil operations in the Sacramento Valley take place on the valley's agriculturally intensive floor. Since this farming draws ground water for irrigation, there is increasing concern about the safety of oil-related injection wells. California's southern oil region also lies along the coastal plain where population is
dense.

Major Issues

Discharge of brines and oily wastes to ephemeral streams In the San Joaquin Valley, the State has long allowed discharge of oily brines to ephemeral streams, from which it is later diverted into central sumps for disposal through evaporation and percolation. Infiltration of brines into aquifers is assumed to occur, but official opinion on its potential for damage is divided. The Department of Oil and Gas

takes the position that the aquifers are naturally brackish, and thus have no beneficial use for agriculture or human consumption. A report for the Water Resources Council Board, however, suggests that brines may percolate into useable ground-water structures.
Groundwater in the study area has been categorized according to geotypes and compared to brine waters in sumps that came from production zones. Research has found that sumps in Cymric, McKittrick and Midway

Valleys, Elk Hills and Buena Vista Hills, and Buena Vista Valley fields responsible in part for ground water brine. Officers of the California Dept. Fish & Game often find entrapped animals in the oily deposits in the streams. While recent research has not investigated groundwater damages per se, their study suggests obvious potential for damages relating to the groundwater. It has been estimated that about 570,000 tons of salt from petroleum brines were deposited in 1981, or a total of 14.8 million tons since 1900. The California Water Resources Board suspects that a portion of the salt has percolated

into the groundwater and has degraded it.

(CA

Aside from concerns over chronic contamination to aquifers, this practice can cause acute damage to wildlife when wastes mixed with natural runoff exceed the holding capacity of the ephemeral streams. The combined volume may then overflow the diversions to the sump areas, continue downstream, contaminating soil and endangering sensitive

habitat The oil and gas industry contends that it is rare for any wastes to pass the diversions set up to channel flow to the sumps, but the California Department of Fish and Game believes that it is a common occurrence.
Produced water in the Crocker Canyon area flows downstream to where it is diverted into Valley Waste Disposal's large unlined evaporation/percolation sumps for oil recovery (cooperatively operated by local oil producers). In this instance, discovery of a significant spill was made over month after it occurred. The incident, caused probably by heavy rainfall exceeding disposal

facilities capacity and eroding sumps, allowed produced water mixed with oil to flow into the valley beyond the disposal facility into a habitat occupied by several endangered species (blunt-nosed leopard lizard, San Joaquin Kit Fox, Giant Kangaroo Rat). According to the State's report, there were "116 known wildlife losses: including 80 mammals, 11 Giant Kangaroo Rats, and two doves. The count of dead animals was estimated at only 20 percent of the actual number of animals destroyed because of the delay in finding spill, allowing poisoned animals to leave the area before dying. Vegetation was

covered with waste throughout the spill area. This was not considered an isolated incident; the California Water Resources Control Board noted during its investigation, "...deposits of older accumulated oil, thereby indicating that the same channel had been used for wastewater disposal conveyance in the past prior to the recent discharge. Cleanup activities conducted later revealed the buildup of older oil was significant." The companies implicated in this incident were fined $100,000 and were required to clean up the area. They did, however, deny responsibility for the discharge.

(CA

Damages from disposal of drilling wastes in ponds Current damages have occurred through long term migration of drilling related wastes from old waste sites. The problem is similar to that of abandoned wells in that the risk occurs in the "post-closure" phase. Incidents such as presented below suggest the potential of drilling-related wastes (in this case probably workover fluids) to cause health damage years after closure of a pit.

Acid petroleum sludge and drilling muds during the 1940s were disposed of into "earthen ponds" in what was then a remote part of Fullerton Hills. While the report issued on the area does not specify exactly what acids were used, acids were typically used to remove paraffin and waxy build up from a production well and during a workover operation. The report did not specify the exact constituent makeup of the waste steam though the wastes were most likely workover fluids. The area began to be developed for residential use in the late 1970s and soon after the California Department of Health Services responded when residents complained of

health problems they were experiencing. A controlled health survey of the residents mainly assessing air inhalation demonstrated elevated health problems, though the report found that the relationship between the McColl site and health degradation was unclear. For soil and water exposure, it estimated that problems could occur with direct contact with wastes both on-site and off-site, though no actual analysis was conducted of such direct exposure. (C A 01)

ZONE 11 Zone 11 includes Alaska and Hawaii. Hawaii has no oil or gas production, but Alaska is second only to Texas in oil production. Operations Alaska's oil operations are divided into two entirely separate areas, the Kenai Peninsula and the North Slope. Because of the area's remoteness and harsh climate, operations in both areas are

highly expensive and energyintensive. For the purposes of damage case development, and indeed for most other types of analysis, operations in these two areas are distinct. Types of damages identified in the two areas have little in common. Activities on the Kenai Peninsula have been in progress since the late 1960s, and gas is the primary product. Production levels are not nearly as significant as on the North Slope. Only a relatively small amount of brine is

produced in Kenai operations, and for the most part, this is legally discharged to the ocean. The primary wastes of concern on the Kenai are drilling muds, related chemicals, and gas condensate. North Slope operations occur primarily in the Prudhoe Bay area, with some smaller fields located nearby. Average drilling depth is about 8,150 feet. Production has been under way since the trans-

Alaska pipeline was completed in the mid 1970s; activities are even more capital- and energyintensive than they are on the Kenai Peninsula. Much of the oil recovery in this area is now becoming marginal; enhanced recovery through water flooding is on the increase. Some production units were shut-in between December 1986 and February 1987, while damage case development was in progress. Waste management on the North Slope is unusual in several respects. First,

transportation costs are such that all materials hauled to the area are permanently deposited there once they are no longer useful. This includes disposal of foam and timber for drilling pad construction, empty metal drums previously containing chemical additives, as well as waste oil, chemicals, and general trash. It also includes all muds and production-related

chemicals such as corrosion inhibitors and biocides. Produced waters are disposed of by injection below the permafrost. Further development of reserves has been almost entirely curtailed throughout Alaska since the prices of oil and gas have declined. There were only 100 wells drilled in the State in 1985. none of them exploratory. However, if world prices were to increase significantly (to about

$2Q/bbD. Alaska would be one of the chief beneficiaries and oil and gas development would resume qn a significant scale. Generation of associated waste stream volumes, especially reserve pit fluids, would rise dramatically over current levels.

Types of Operators
There are no small, independent oil or gas operators in Alaska because of the high capital requirements for all activities in the region. Operators in the Kenai

Peninsula include Union Oil of California and other major companies. Major producers on the North Slope are ARCO and Standard Production Company. Because of their size and visibility, these large companies have both the incentive and the ability to maintain high environmental standards. On the other hand, Alaska is remote, sparsely populated, and expensive to develop, providing both the opportunity and the incentive to cut costs where possible.

This is particularly true on the North Slope, where physical access is extremely difficult, and where the major operators maintain security gates on the haul road owned by the State of Alaska. Restricted access complicates environmental enforcement and has severely limited scientific evaluations of the effects of oil activities by both government and private scientists.

Environmental and Development Context

The Kenai Peninsula is a

wetlands area, with shallow groundwater often only a few feet from the surface. Soils are generally unconsolidated sands and gravels. There is abundant wildlife. Both birds and game fish are highly important to the area as a sporting attraction; the Kenai River is one of the most heavily fished sportfishing streams in the United States. Until recently the peninsula was sparsely populated, but settlement

increased dramatically during the 1970s in response to the high general level of oil development activity throughout the State. With an increase in population has come an increase in awareness of possible environmental damages associated with oil and gas development. The porous soils and high water table increase the likelihood that ground water contamination from oil and gas operations (such as from reserve pits and illegal

dumping) can spread to drinking water supplies. On the other hand, increased population has permitted the development of centralized water supplies, lowering reliance in some areas on individual home wells. The North Slope is a wet coastal plain with numerous interconnected tundra ponds and streams. It is underlain by permafrost of up to 2,500 feet thick. The spring "break up" or thaw occurs in June; at this

time all surface water melts producing an area-wide "sheet flow." The area is unfrozen for only about two months of the year, but is inhabited by a large variety of shore birds and waterfowl feeding primarily on communities within the tundra ponds. Except for the permanent camps maintained by the production companies and a few native settlements, there are no population centers on the North Slope. Because of

the permafrost, drinking water wells are non-existent and human health impacts from the drilling operations through environmental pathways are not significant. Potential damages involve disruptions of the extensive wildlife communities through discharge of reserve pit fluids and other wastes to the tundra (above the permafrost). Maior Issues The North Slope Reserve Pits: Reserve pits on the North Slope are unlined

and made of permeable native sands and gravels. Very large amounts of water therefore unavoidably flow into and out of these pits during break-up each spring in the phenomenon known as "sheet flow." Discharge from pits directly onto the tundra is also permitted under regulations of the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) if minimum discharge standards are met (see Chapter 3). Through these processes, ADEC estimates

that 100

million gallons of supernatant flow onto the tundra each year,3 potentially carrying with it reserve pit constituents such as chromium, barium, chlorides, and oil. Scientists who have studied the area believe this has the potential to lead to bioaccumulation of heavy metals and possibly
3 Statement by Larry Dietrick to Carla Greathouse.

other contaminants in local wildlife. Despite the potential significance of this issue both to the Prudhoe area and to possible future development in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, no studies have been published to demonstrate or disprove this possibility, though results from unpublished studies suggest that this can happen.
In 1983, a study of the effects of reserve pit discharges on water quality and the macroinvertebrate community of tundra ponds was undertaken by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the Prudhoe Bay

oil production area of the North Slope, where discharge to the tundra is a common disposal method for reserve pit fluid. The study shows a clear difference in water quality and biological measures between reserve pits, receiving ponds, distant ponds and control ponds. Receiving ponds had significantly greater concentrations of chromium, arsenic, cadmium, nickel and barium than did control ponds, and distant ponds showed significantly higher levels of chromium than did control ponds. Chromium levels in reserve pits and in ponds near drill sites frequently exceeded EPA chronic toxicity criteria for protection of aquatic life.

(AK 06) In the summer of 1985, a field method was developed to evaluate toxicity of reserve pit fluids discharged into tundra wetlands at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. Results of the study document acute toxicity effects of reserve pit fluids. Acute toxicity was shown at all five reserve pits examined after 96 hours. Receiving ponds also had significantly higher death/immobilization than control ponds after 96 hours. At drill site 1, after 96 hours, 100 percent of the Daphnia in the reserve pit had been immobilized or were dead, as compared to the control pond which showed less

than 5 percent immobilized or dead. At drill site 12, 80 percent of Daphnia in reserve pit were dead or immobilized after 96 hours and less than 1 percent of control pond Daphnia were dead or immobilized. In June 1985, five drill sites and three control sites were chosen for studying the effects of drilling fluids and their discharge on fish and waterfowl habitat on the North Slope of Alaska. Bioaccumulation analysis was done on fish tissue using water samples collected from the reserve pits. Nearby and distant tundra ponds are contaminated with reserve pit effluent including drilling mud, diesel fuel, waste chemicals and oil.

(AK

Many drilling fluid additives are known to be acutely or chronically toxic, including aromatic hydrocarbons, bactericides, lignosulfonates, emulsifiers and metals. This study documented the migration of reserve pit fluids from pits through discharge and seepage into nearby and distant tundra ponds. Fecundity and growth were reduced in daphnids exposed for 42 days to 2.5 percent and 25 percent fluid from some drill sites. Bioaccumulation of Ba, Mo, Ti, Fe and Cu was documented in fish exposed to drilling fluids for 96 hours. (AK 08)

Currently the most pressing environmental issue on the North Slope is the permitted practice of road spreading of reserve pit fluids. This is commonly done when reserve pit fluids do not pass a minimum quality test required in discharge permits under ADEC's rules, raising the possibility that reserve pit contaminants are spread on an even wider area than when discharged to the tundra. Construction and subsequent erosion of reserve pits constitutes another

potential problem area. Pits are constructed of highly permeable native sand and gravel and there is no feasible way to line them.4 If pits are noi closed out at the end of a drilling season, they may breach during "break-up" because of increased hydrostatic head on the pit walls caused by the influx of high volumes of melt water.
4 Oil companies assert that bentonite mud used in drilling seals reserve pits, thus preventing leaching. However, although this may be true at the beginning of a pit's life, bentonite breaks down and loses its sealing properties after one freeze-thaw cycle.

Reserve pit contaminants are then released directly to the tundra. Flow of gravel during a pit breach can also choke or cut off tundra streams, severely damaging or eliminating aquatic habitat.
The Awuna Test Well No. 1, 11,200 ft deep, is in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska and was a site selected for cleanup of the NPRA by USGS in 1984. The site is in the northern foothills of the Brooks Range. The well was spud on Feb. 29, 1980, and operations were complete on April 20,1981. A side of the reserve pit berm has washed out into the tundra during spring break-up, due to the coarse material used in pit

and pad construction, allowing for reserve pit fluid to flow into the tundra. High levels of chromium, oil and grease have leached into the soil down gradient from the pit. The high levels of oil and grease may be from the use of Arctic Pack (85 percent diesel fuel) at the well over the winter of 1980. The downslope soils were discolored and putrefied, particularly in the upper layers. The well site is in a caribou calving area. The pad is located in a runoff area allowing for erosion of pad and pit into surrounding tundra. Area of vegetation kill due to reserve pit fluid exposure = 0.5 acres. Areas of drill pad may remain barren for many years due to contamination of soil with salt and hydrocarbons.

(AK

Problems can also be encountered with the "freezeback" method of reserve pit closure. When drilling has been completed and a pit is to be closed, the common North Slope practice is to dewater the pit, mound gravel over the remaining contents and allow the contents to freeze permanently in place. Problems can arise when hydrocarbons have contaminated the pit, since the contents will then not refreeze properly and can leach into

the surrounding area. The ADEC is attempting to revise current statutes regulating the construction and integrity of reserve pits. ADEC is proposing a requirement to close pits at the end of each drilling season; thus, liquid management plans (involving discharge to the tundra or road spreading) would not be necessary and reserve pit fluids might be totally contained. The Alaska Oil and Gas Commission requirements state that reserve pits may not be permitted to leach further

than 50 feet during the active life of the pit. It is, however, officially acknowledged that 65 of the approximately 350 reserve pits on the North Slope are currently seeping. Inspection and enforcement are difficult on the North Slope due to shortages of manpower and high expenses. Inspectors often require the use of a helicopter for transportation and must be housed in costly man-camps while in the area. Until 1983, the ADEC had little funding for enforcement or

inspection on the North Slope. Prior to 1982, according to officials in Fairbanks, there was little state regulation of North Slope activities. Currently, through the acquisition of Federal Coastal Zone Resource Management funding, ADEC can now support 36 "monitoring weeks" per year on the North Slope.
North Slope Salvage, Inc. (NSSI) operated a salvage business in Prudhoe Bay during 1982 and 1983. During this time NSSI accepted delivery of various discarded materials, including more than 14,000, 55 gallon drums, 900 of which were full or held more than

residual amounts of oils and chemicals used in the development and recovery of oil. The drums were stockpiled and managed in a manner which allowed the discharge of hazardous substances. The situation was discovered by ADEC in June 1983, and an inadequate cleanup effort was mounted by NSSI after confrontation by ADEC. Ultimately, ARCO and Sohio paid for the cleanup as they were the primary contributors to the site. Cleanup was completed on August 5, 1983, after 58,000 gallons of chemicals and water were recovered. It is unknown how much of the hazardous substances were carried into the tundra, however, cleanup did not begin until July 2, well after the completion

of breakup for that year. The discharge consisted of oil and a variety of organic substances known to be toxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic or suspected of being carcinogenic or mutagenic. NSSI failed to report the discharge or initiate containment and cleanup actions until they were confronted by ADEC field officers. (AK 10)

Oil Spills: Spills of crude oil and hydrocarbon products constitute another potential source of long-term environmental damage. Although spills may not be "wastes" under the 3001

exemption, and may be small in volume when compared to the total volume of oil

and gas produced on the North Slope, impacts of oil spills in the Arctic are more long-term and more far-reaching than in more temperate climates. Spills are endemic to all oil and gas operations, and, especially in the harsh North Slope climate, certain levels of

spillage can be expected despite the vigilance of operators. In 1986, there were a total of 415 reported spills comprising an estimated 1,565,054 gallons of crude oil; of that, 13,658 gallons, or less than one percent, were reported as cleaned up.
From 1971-1975, a study was done for the Department of the Interior by individuals from Iowa State University concerning waterbirds, their wetland resources and the development of oil at Storkersen Point, Alaska. Contained in the study area was a capped oil well (owner of well not mentioned). Adjacent to the well was a pond which

had been severely polluted during the drilling of this well. The area is classified as an arctic wetlands. "TTie results of severe oil pollution are indicated by the destruction of all invertebrate and plant life in the contaminated pond at the Storkersen Point well; the basin is useless to water birds for food, and the contaminated sediments contain pollutants which may spread to adjacent wetlands. Petroleum compounds in bottom sediments break down slowly, especially in cold climates, and oil-loaded sediments can be lethal to important and abundant midge larvae, and small shrimp-like crustaceans. Repopulation of waters over polluted sediments

by free-swimming invertebrates is unlikely because most aquatic invertebrates will be subjected to contact with toxic sediments on the bottom of wetlands during the egg or overwintering stage of their life cycle. Unfortunately, humaninduced change may create permanent damage before we can study, assess, and predict the complications. First order damage resulting from oil development will be direct effects of oil pollution on vegetation and wetland systems. Oil spills almost anywhere in this area where slopes are gradual and drainage patterns indefinite, could result in the deposition of oil in many basins during the spring thaw when melt water flows over the

impermeable tundra surface. Any major reduction of food organisms through degradation of preferred habitats by industrial activity will be detrimental to local aquatic bird populations." WATER BIRDS AND THEIR WETLAND RESOURCES IN RELATION TO OIL DEVELOPMENT AT STORKERSEN POINT, ALASKA, United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Resource Publication 129,1977. (AK 09)

The Kenai Peninsula Reserve Pits: Reserve pit wastes are the principal source

of potential environmental degradation on the Kenai Peninsula (little brine is produced). At least several hundred wells have been drilled in the area since the late 1960s and until recently there has been little concern over the manner in which reserve pit wastes have been managed. In the last several years, however, citizens have been increasingly concerned about the potential for contamination of ground water caused by the use of unlined reserve pits and improper

closure of such pits. Because soils are unconsolidated and because many residents'

drinking water wells extract water from near the surface (frequently from a few dozen feet or less), residents are concerned that toxic materials are leaching into the wetland water table. There is also the potential for wildlife damage through contamination of

wetland breeding, feeding, and support areas by heavy metals and chemicals associated with reserve pit wastes. Even though reserve pit wastes are not classified as hazardous by the State, since 1972 drilling operators have been required, under Alaska's solid waste rules, to dispose of reserve pit wastes in a permitted landfill after the pits are closed. Annular disposal of muds is also permitted, but this method can only accept a portion of the large volumes of muds used in the area,

estimated at between 35,000 and 50,000 bbls per well.5 Between 1972 and October 1985, the only licensed land disposal facility in the area was the Sterling Special Waste Site. This site has now been closed permanently after prolonged controversy about the quality of its management and the possibilitybased on monitoring of local water wells that it has contaminated
5 A significant portion of the muds used in the Kenai may be lost to the formations through which the well is drilled. Data on this possible loss was not available to this study.

local ground water.

The operation has had long history of substandard monitoring, having failed during 1977 and 1978 to carry out any well sampling and otherwise having performed only irregular sampling. This is in violation of permit requirements to perform quarterly reports of water quality samples from the monitoring wells. Internal DEC memo [L.G. Elphic to R.T. Williams, 2/25/76] noted "we must not forget...that this is the State's first sanctioned hazardous waste site and as such must receive close observation during its initial operating period." Permit for site was reissued in 1979 despite knowledge by DEC of lack of effective groundwater

monitoring. In July of 1980, DEC Engineer R. Williams visited site and filed a report noting that the "operation appears completely out of control" [R. Williams, "Inspection Trip Report: Kenai Peninsula Solid Waste Disposal Facilities," DEC July 1980]. Monitoring well samples in excess of drinking water standards include exceedences for iron, lead, cadmium, copper, zinc, arsenic, phenol, and oil and grease. One private well showed 0.4 ppb 1,1,1trichloroethane. Sterling School well showed 2.1 | j.g/l mercury. Both contamination incidents alleged to be caused by the Sterling Special Waste Site; allegations unconfirmed by the DEC. (AX 03)

Although the Sterling Site had problems of its own, its logs suggest that far less mud was being shipped to the site than should have been if all closed reserve pits had followed State requirements. Over the period between July 1972 and October 1985, a total

of 243,000 bbls of muds were logged into the 40 acre site; during the same period more

than two hundred wells were drilled on the Kenai. Considering the large volumes of mud used in drilling operations on the peninsual, and even accounting for significant losses within the formations, the Sterling Site appears to have received only a small percentage of the waste that it should have. Even allowing for annular disposal of a significant portion of the mud on site, large amounts of reserve pit wastes appear to have been illegally disposed of during the entire period of

operation of the Sterling Site. For example:

David Brown of Mar Enterprises (operator of Sterling Special Waste Site) contracted to remove an estimated 50,000 bbls of muds from pit located on a site owned by Union Oil. Brown's actual bill (June 10, 1981) indicated removal of only 15,823 bbls; rest was buried by Union Oil prior to arrival of vacuum trucks. This is documented by a sequence of correspondence detailing arrangements between David Brown and Union Oil to clean up waste from pits; correspondence indicates that after initial site inspection, Union Oil illegally buried much of the mud to be removed confirmed by correspondence from

ADEC to December (AK 03)

Union Oil, 7,1981.

Since the closure of Sterling very little drilling has occurred on the Kenai, but there is now no legal site in Alaska to which drillers can ship their muds. If drilling were to revive, it appears that there is no legal option available to oil companies for disposing of their reserve pit wastes. With the exception of the indirect evidence linking the Sterling Site with local well

contamination, there have been few documented instances of ground water contamination by reserve pit wastes. This may be partly because the area is still relatively sparsely settled, partly because wastes may not have had enough time to migrate, and partly because the State lacks resources to monitor extensively in the area. Nevertheless, there is at least one fully documented instance in which illegal disposal of wastes has resulted in substantial economic and

health damage.

This case involves a 45 acre gravel pit on Poppy Lane used since the 1970s for disposal of wastes associated with gas development. It contains barrels of unidentified wastes, drilling muds, gas condensate, gas condensate contaminated peat, abandoned and useable equipment, diesel and chemical contaminated soil. Property belongs to Union Oil Co., which bought it around 1968 (reportedly for $10). Dumping of wastes in this area is illegal; reports of last observed dumping were in October 1985, as witnessed by residents in the area. Illegal disposal of drilling and production wastes can lead to

migration of materials offsite to neighboring properties and drinking water wells. In this case there has been demonstrated contamination of adjacent wells with organic compounds

related to gas condensate (ADEC laboratory reports from October 1986 and earlier). Health effects on residents of neighboring properties include nausea, diarrhea, rashes, elevated blood metals levels in two residents (chromium, copper). Property values have been effectively reduced to zero for residential resale. Fire on the site on July 8, 1981 attributed to

combustion of petroleum related products; fire was allegedly deliberately set by people illegally disposing of wastes, fire department was unable to extinguish. Soil is contaminated with metals and organics. Fumes from organic liquids noticeable in breathing zone on site (June 85). Worker nearly overcome with fumes from sampling leachate (June 86). Case illustrates impacts of apparently common illegal disposal of drilling muds and related production wastes throughout the Kenai peninsula. UNOCAL has been directed on several occasions to remove gas condensate wastes from site. Case has been actively under review by state since 1981. (AK 01)