Ariz. Admin. Code § R18-9-J664 - Class VI; Mechanical Integrity
A. A Class VI
well has mechanical integrity if:
1. There is
no significant leak in the casing, tubing, or packer; and
2. There is no significant fluid movement
into a USDW through channels adjacent to the injection well bore.
B. To evaluate the absence of
significant leaks under subsection (A)(1) of this Section, owners or operators
must, following an initial annulus pressure test, continuously monitor
injection pressure, rate, injected volumes; pressure on the annulus between
tubing and long-string casing; and annulus fluid volume as specified in
R18-9-J663;
C. At least once per year, the owner or
operator must use one of the following methods to determine the absence of
significant fluid movement under subsection (A)(2) of this Section:
1. An approved tracer survey such as an
oxygen-activation log; or
2. A
temperature or noise log.
D. If required by the Director, at a
frequency specified in the testing and monitoring plan required at
R18-9-J665, the owner or operator
must run a casing inspection log to determine the presence or absence of
corrosion in the long-string casing.
E. The Director may require any other test to
evaluate mechanical integrity under subsections (A)(1) or (A)(2) of this
Section. Also, the Director may allow the use of a test to demonstrate
mechanical integrity other than those listed above with the written approval of
the Administrator. To obtain approval for a new mechanical integrity test, the
Director must submit a written request to the Administrator setting forth the
proposed test and all technical data supporting its use.
F. In conducting and evaluating the tests
enumerated in this Section or others to be allowed by the Director, the owner
or operator and the Director must apply methods and standards generally
accepted in the industry. When the owner or operator reports the results of
mechanical integrity tests to the Director, they shall include a description of
the test or tests and the method or methods used. In making his/her evaluation,
the Director must review monitoring and other test data submitted since the
previous evaluation.
G. The
Director may require additional or alternative tests if the results presented
by the owner or operator under subsections (A) through (F) of this Section are
not satisfactory to the Director to demonstrate that there is no significant
leak in the casing, tubing, or packer, or to demonstrate that there is no
significant movement of fluid into a USDW resulting from the injection activity
as stated in subsections (A)(1) and (A)(2) of this Section.
Notes
State regulations are updated quarterly; we currently have two versions available. Below is a comparison between our most recent version and the prior quarterly release. More comparison features will be added as we have more versions to compare.
No prior version found.