W. Va. Code R. § 47-13-6 - [Effective 7/1/2025] Corrective Action and Mechanical Integrity

6.1. Corrective Action. In determining the adequacy of corrective action proposed by the applicant and in determining the additional steps needed to prevent fluid migration into underground sources of drinking water, the Director shall consider the following criteria and factors:

6.1.1. Nature and volume of injected fluid;

6.1.2. Nature of native fluids or by-products of injection;

6.1.3. Geology;

6.1.4. Hydrology;

6.1.5. History of the injection operation;

6.1.6. Completion and plugging reports;

6.1.7. Abandonment procedures in effect at the time the well was abandoned;

6.1.8. Hydraulic connections with the underground sources of drinking water; and

6.1.9. Potentially effected population.

6.1.10. Reliability of the procedures used to identify abandoned wells; and

6.1.11. Any other factors which might affect the movement of fluids into or between USDWs.

6.2. Mechanical Integrity.

6.2.1. An injection well has mechanical integrity if:

6.2.1.a. There is no significant leak in the casing, tubing, or packer; and

6.2.1.b. There is no significant fluid movement into an underground source of drinking water through vertical channels adjacent to the injection well bore.

6.2.2. One of the following methods must be used to evaluate the absence of significant leaks under paragraph 6.2.1.a. of this section:

6.2.2.a. Monitoring of annulus pressure; or

6.2.2.b. Pressure test with liquid or gas.

6.2.3. The absence of significant fluid movement under paragraph 6.2.1.b. of this section may be demonstrated by:

6.2.3.a. For Class 2 wells, any requirements determined necessary under subdivision 9.1.1.;

6.2.3.b. For Class 3 wells where the nature of the casing precludes the use of logging techniques prescribed at 6.2.3.c. of this section, cementing records demonstrating the presence of adequate cement to prevent such migration;

6.2.3.c. The results of a temperature or noise log;

6.2.3.d. For Class 3 wells where the Director elects to rely on cementing records to demonstrate the absence of significant fluid movement, the monitoring program prescribed by subsection 10.4 shall be designed to verify the absence of significant fluid movement;

6.2.3.e. For Class 6 wells, to evaluate the absence of significant leaks under 6.2.1. 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 subsection 13.6.1.e.;

6.2.3.e.1. At least once per year, the owner or operator must use an approved tracer survey such as an oxygen-activation log or a temperature or noise log to determine the absence of significant fluid movement under 6.2.2. of this section.

6.2.3.e.2. If required by the Director, at a frequency specified in the testing and monitoring plan required at subsection 13.6.2., the owner or operator must run a casing inspection log to determine the presence or absence of corrosion in the long-string casing.

6.2.3.e.3. The Director may require any other test to evaluate mechanical integrity under 6.2.3.e. 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 (MIT), the Director must submit a written request to the Administrator setting forth the proposed test and all technical data supporting its use. The Administrator may approve the request if he or she determines that it will reliably demonstrate the mechanical integrity of wells for which its use is proposed. Any alternate method approved by the Administrator will be published in the Federal Register and may be used in all States in accordance with applicable State law unless its use is restricted at the time of approval by the Administrator.

6.2.3.e.4. 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, he/she shall include a description of the test(s) and the method(s) used. In making his/her evaluation, the Director must review monitoring and other test data submitted since the previous evaluation.

6.2.3.e.5. The Director may require additional or alternative tests if the results presented by the owner or operator under paragraphs 1 through 4 of this subsection (6.2.3.e) 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 6.2.1. of this section; or

6.2.4. The Director may allow the use of a test to demonstrate mechanical integrity other than those listed in subdivisions 6.2.2. and 6.2.3. of this section with the written approval of the Director of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

6.2.5. 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 shall apply methods and standards generally accepted in the industry. When the owner or operator reports the results of mechanical integrity tests to the Director, he shall include a description of the test(s) and the method(s) used. In making his/her evaluation, the Director shall review monitoring and other test data submitted since the previous evaluation.

Notes

W. Va. Code R. § 47-13-6