2008-08-28_ENFORCEMENT - M1983194

Home Browse Search

1 24. In light of the statutory factors and the specific facts of this case, EPA calculates 2 and proposes that Respondent be required to comply with its UIC permit 3 requirements within a reasonable schedule and to pay a total penalty of 4 $37,917 (thirty-seven thousand nine hundred seventeen dollars) for the 5 violations alleged above, as explained below: 6 7 Seriousness of the Violation 8 9 The Respondent's injection wells inject at the highest injection rate of those 10 regulated by EPA Region 8. These wells are not constructed with a monitorable 11 annulus, precluding the ability to monitor for losses of internal mechanical 12 integrity. External mechanical integrity can only be assessed by conducting 13 period logging, such as the temperature logging required in the UIC permit. 14 15 A leak through well casing (loss of internal mechanical integrity) or through 16 channels adjacent to the well bore (loss of external mechanical integrity) can take 17 place without detection until the required internal and external mechanical 18 internal tests are conducted. Given the high injection rate, approximately 19 45,000,000 barrels (1.9 billion gallons) is injected between five-year mechanical 20 integrity demonstrations. Failing to detect a leak owing to overdue mechanical 21 integrity demonstrations can result in a significant volume of injected fluid 22 released into one or more USDWs. For these reasons, EPA considers these . 23 violations to be serious. 24 25 Economic Benefit 26 27 EPA believes Respondent enjoyed an economic benefit by delaying expenditure 28 to make the reports in Counts 1 and 2, and has avoided this cost to date. EPA 29 estimates Respondent has enjoyed an economic benefit for these two counts 30 totaling $7,992 (seven thousand nine hundred ninety-two dollars), which is 31 included as part of the proposed penalty. 32 33 Prior Compliance History 34 35 EPA has not taken a prior formal enforcement action against Respondent for 36 violations of the UIC program regulations. EPA made no adjustment to the 37 proposed penalty based on this factor. 38 39 Good-Faith Efforts to Comply 40 41 EPA sent a notice of violation to Respondent, dated December 17, 2007, 42 describing these violations. Respondent described in a telephone call on or about 43 April 4, 2008, that it was an oversight by Respondent that these violations 44 occurred and that scheduling the tests posed a challenge owing to (1) the need to 45 shut down the plant for the tests, (2) the high demand for the equipment needed to 46 conduct the testing, and (3) a temporary weight limit on the only access road Page 5 of 9