Arkansas Water Pollution Control Commission 6Rder No

ARKANSAS WATER POLLUTION CONTROL COMMISSION 6RDER NO. 1-58 IN THE MATTER OF THE POLLUTION OF THE LOWER OUACHITA RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES BY SALT WATER ~~D OTHER OIL FIELD WASTES.

Filed in this office on the 20th day of February. 1964. ?CLLUI'IC1 CCNT?.C L CCl·&~ISSICN

IN TEE MATT3R CF THZ 7-'GLLl.i'TICi'! ) ) r'F THS LCHER \Uf.CH !TA RIVE::'. .t;.ND ) ) No. 1-58 TP.I""'UTAP.I'ZS .. y SAL'T HAT3R Al'-"!D ) ) CTHZR CIL :r"IELD ~~!ASTE3 )

CRDSR.

FEEREA3, pursuant to the provisions of Act 472 of the Acts of Ar!

~~~RZA3, investigations conducted by the Commission have established that enormous quantities of salt water and other oil field wastes are being cischerged each dc:.y from oil and gas wells into the waters of the !~uachita P..iver (below 7~iver hile 312) and the tributaries thereof, including Lapile Cree~-{, Nill Creek and Smackover Creek, hereinafter collectively referred to as the •:tower Cuachita River Drainage ':asinn; and

HF..S~EA3, oil and gas wells in the Lower Cuachita River Drainage :>.asin discharge more than 19,200,000 2;allons of salt water per day, equivalent to over 12,500,000 pounds of dry salt, the sub- stant:ial part of which flows into the Cuachita River; and

\:? 1:::::'2t<>, the dischar~e of said salt water and other oil field wastes has produced excessive and abnormal salinity and abnormally lm.v p~: value in t:he "Jat:s::s of the Lower ~uachita :S.iver

Drainage ~asin, thereby substantially impairin3 the quality of said~ .. -2-

waters and ~cndering the s~ue unfit for most d~nestic, commercial,

industrial, and recreational uses, including use for dridting

water, irriea.tion, stoc,.:. \vatering, s.nd other agricultural uses;

and

~~lERZA3, public hearings on the foregoing matters were

held by the Commission as follows: Lapile Cree~t Drainage Jasin,

Cctober 2, 1957, :Sl Dorado, .. ·.r!::ansE.s (including the following oil

fields - !-~illsboro, South :-7illsboro, Lewson, South. Lawson, New

London, North New London, Pigeon IIill, .]anc1y ~~c:::....: ~ l·7orth Sandy 3end,

Urbana, and ~.Jest Urbane); Hill Cree1 ~ Drainaze ··.asin, bc;v 29, 1958,

Sl ~orado, f~ltansas ( including the following oil fiel~s - Champag nolle, t.Jilmington, and ila:nsey Cree:~); and 3mac:(over Creek Drainage

~asin, June 23, 195C, Camden, Ar!:ansas, and June 25, 195C, .1 Dorado,

Ar!'=ansas ( inclu:Ung the followin~ oil fields - Amason, ·;ear Creek,

~uena Vista, Calion, Gum, Lisbon, Mt. Rolly, race City, Salem Church,

Sheppard, Smacl::over, SUO'i-1 Pill, Cld 3tephens, North Stephens, Troy,

Wesson, and llesgul"·n) ; and

~J:-GREA3, notice of the aforesaid hearings was given to each operator operating oil or gas wells within the aforesaid drain age basins, respectively, in the manner and within the time provided by law; and

~1{ZREA~, the foregoing conditions constitute pollution

-within the meaning of .:.ct l:.72 of 1949, in that said conditions are a public nuisance and detrimental to public health, safe-ty, and welfare, and have rendered the waters of the Lower Cuachita River

Drainege .,asin unfit for most dcr..=stic, commercial, industrial, end recreational uses, end injurio~D to fish and other aq~tic life; and . .

-3··

l..i~~2~"SA8, it is in the public interest that sc:..id pollution

be abatec e.s promptly as possible, giving due consideration to the practicability end to the physical and economic feasibility thereof;

:~G·J, THZirE7C?J:, The Ar~~anses ~-.rater ..:·ollution Control Com- misaion, purs",.lant to Act 472 of 19l~S, coes hereby order and cirect the operetors operatin;3 oil or gas t

1 • ~r..ac h sueh _ opera.t or sna• 11 , w;~h·.... ~.. 1.n th~.:.. r·-ur.e h.ere i na....et er set forth, cease and desist from dischargins saL; tJd!:er of other oil field '~astes produced by a.ny oil or gas "t·Jell in his control or possession in any oanner permittin3 such wastes to flow into any of the waters of the Lower Cuachita. :tiver :Jrainage Jasin, "tvhether by natural draina~e, seepaee, overflow, or otherwise. It shall be the duty of each such operator to confine all such salt water and other oil field wastes and dispose of sam-e in such manner as t<-1ill prevent their discharge or flow into any of the waters of said drainage basin.

2. Giving due consideration to the practicability and tb the physical and economic feasibility of sec~.1ring abatement of the aforesaid pollution, each such operator may effec·;: a sradual abatement of the pollutio&.l resulti~g from axistinc 'tvells in ::old fields or '90ols ., , now or hereafi:er operatee by him, by reducing the "base volumer: of s~lt water and other wastes flO\ving into the ~Jaters of said draina,~e ~asin by not lees i:':lan twenty per cent ( 20cra) on or before Decemb~r 13, 1959, and at a r2-=e of not less th~n twenty per cent ( 20~~) for each tvJelve-months' ?eriod ·thereafter. ·;cld fields or pools:1 are cefined as oil c; s:1.s fields and/or ?Ools found, brought in, or established prior to July 1, 1957. ~·3ase volume11 is defined as the average cai1y ~uantity of salt water and other wastes dischar_::e l,Ji·thout an adeq~.1.s.te disposal syste·,n by c::.ll exisi:ins wells

in oil fiei~.:..:: or pools opers.tec by ec-.ch s'..l.ch operator in the Cua.chita

:tiver Crai:,~:z:: :--asin curing the period :)ecew0er 1, 195S, through

?ebruary 15, !'JJ9. Tote..l e..bc::.tement shall be effected not later the..n

December 13, 19C4.

3. In ad~ition ~o the disposal required by Parasraph 2

hereof, each such operator shall dispose, in full, of any increase

above the base volume in salt 't"c:.ter or other ~7Estes £rom existing

and new wells in oil fields and pools.

4. 3alt water and other wastes produced by any wells in

r:New fields or pools=r shall also be disposed of in full in accordance

with Regulation No. 1 o~ t:::1e Commission.. :rNew fields or pools" are

defined as oil or gas fields and/or pools found, brought in, or

established after July 1, 1~57.

5. fn or before i~~arsh 1, 19.59, each such o:_Jerator shall

file with the Co~~ission a report, verified by affidavit, reflectin~

the volume in bc::.rrels per d~y of sal~ "tvater end other wastes produced

from each t•iell, based upon e..ctual well tests during the base period

December 1, 195~, throush 2ebr~ry 15, 195?, the tan:: bettery to which

each 'vell is connectei, ~:nd the volue:n of salt water produced daily

· _through each tan!.' battery, the C.isposal system in use, if: any, end

th~ volun::e o:': s.E.lt w~t~r disposed o:f thereby, the volume of undisposed

of salt ~ater and ot~er w~Gtes, to~ether with such other information

as the Cornm~sGion may require. Zach such operator shall also, on or

before i:~arc:.1 1, 1959, file t,.Jith the Commission a verified statement

as to the method by t-Jhich the -req:· .. ired dist:osal is to be accomplished,

including the d·i.mensions o£ e.nd plDt;.s for the disposal system to be

used, and ar. aJ?plic~ti::-n for a ceri.:i~icete of ap:~roval to 1.nstall end -5- operate such disposal system. ~:ithin thirty (30) 2zys ~fter the end of each ?erl.o:! for !'ercenta::;e reduction, es :>rovidec1 by :.:·aragre?h 2 hereof, a verifiec report shall be filed with the Commission by each opera-::or shC)\·Jine by -.:-Jells the reduction in uncisposed selt water and other 't-7c:.s~es attained during the preceding period, together with a statement as to the method by "-vhich the disposal required for the next succeeding period is to be eccomplished. :ach such operator shall submit such other in£orma.tion and r:-~ports as the

Commission may, from time to time 1 deem necee:cc.:·:- _)r ?roper to effect compliance with this order. ?orras for reporting the information required by this order and for ap?lyin~ for disposal certificates may be obtained from tl1e ~ori.• tlission.

C:. No oil or ga.s ~vell may be o~erated unless the operator thereof has a?plied for and obteinec a disposal certificate, in the manner and within the time proviced by ?aragraph 5 of this ol:'der.

Any well for which proper ~is?osel application has been filed with the Ccmmission may be operated pending final action thereon by the

Commission. Upon recei~t of a disposal certificate, the operator of the well shall poat at the s:!.te of the well or tan:: battery a permanent sign beari~~he name of the operator, the lease, legal description of th2 location, and certificate number. 7. Each operator subject. to this order may join. with one or more oi:her O!)erators (hereinafter referred to as ;'unit 11 ) in the

Lower Cuach~~a ~iver Jrainage ~asin for purposes of joint compliance with this or~er. In such case, the operators shall file one joint

/ report for this unit, and corr~lic .ce with tha a~atement re~uirernents of this orccr s:1all be determined sn the basis of the unit, provided, hm.vever, th.:::.t e~-::!1 c::~retc:: in t:·1e unit ~hall be jointly .::md severally . .

,. -<.:-

responsible for com?liance by the unit with this order. In the event

of dissolution of e.:. unH:, notice thereof sh2ll LJ'iaediately be siven

to the Con:rrnission and eech o~erator in the unit shall, within a per-

iod of 00 de.ys after cissolution, reduce his discharge of salt water

and other wastes to the level which such operator would have had to

attain if not a member of t~:e unit:.

C. Hherever possible, disposa.l of salt tvater shall be

accomplished by subsurface dischar~e t:~rouzh clispo~e.l wells to under-

ground horizons below the fresh-w~ter level, s.J.c:i ·,..ells to be so

drilled, cased, cemented, equir:::·ed, and ope::a.ted tha:: no fresh-water

horizon shall be polluteC: c:nc in sccordc.nce t·Jith the rules and regu-

lations of the .."r~:ensas :il anc ~as Co·(:mission.

9. ."Jurface dispcsal oZ salt water and other liquid tvastes

in earthen pits will not be e;;provsd, ,.mlass sucl1 ?its are underlaid

by tight soil such as heavy cl~y cr har1pan, or are lined with asphalt

or other watertight material, and a~e of suf£icient size to assure

adequate disposal of t~e volume o£ westes to be iu~ounded therein.

r,Jhere the soil under an under.grounc pit is porous <:nd closely under-

laid by gravel or s~_nd strat,...ur., impouncling of Galt water or other

liquid wastes therein tvill net be allowed. .'n application for a

certificate to use disposal pits must show tt.at such pits will ade-

quately dispose of the 't-7aetes to be impounded therein. '"''hen the use

of stor.£.ge ~its hc:.a been ap?rovec, tl1ey 2:--.all be so constructed a.nd r:1e..intainecl· as to prevent escz::;:-e of -r,,Jc.ste there~ rom, tvhet:her by seep-

no ~i?hons or openings ?laced in the

boa.r:l shall never t.Je less ·::tan lZ ir:d'!es, measured from the lowest

?Oint of the di':e. - /-

t~ meet the sbate·:n'O:nt r-=·:;.u:tre::nents J:: t}:is ~:.-der rr,ay be reopened or

oDeratec in a.ny ~a!'lner fr.~-..a source of sup?lY ~'liithout the

written ?t:rmission ..,f the •:ommission being first ~bta.ined.

11. !',ny -:Jerson t-Jho s~1~.ll ::ile e. report or application re-

quir~c ·)v t1~is ..,rder cont.:;.inin3 inf"Jr::.aticn ~:nown to him to be

false, or Y'-'>, st:.e 11 violate e.ny ")ther ?revision of this orcer,

shall, in adC.it:i'm to all ,t~1er }ensltiss ?r:::>vided by la"tv, be re-

quired f-::>rth"tvith of all salt water and other wastes dis-

charged froa1 ""''ells :Ln hiii1 '?:::>ssession or c-:Jntr0l.

12. ~ursuan·t to t:he provisions c~ ~72 of 1949, vio-

le.ti:m -:Jf any ;?revision ~f t~·,ic -,rder s!-.all b2 e. mis2eLu.e.:::nor and

each day 1 s c-:>ntinua:r:.ce of s·.:.c\ vi.~la.tion shall c::mstitute a separate

offense. -ollution cE e;~ny v;.2.tarc of" the State in violati-::>n of any

provision o-: this ·:::>r\~£r sha.ll constitute a public nuisance and ?~er-

ati~n of eny ~Jell result inc- in G1.1Ch ~oll".l'i:ion [;,ay be enj oineC: as

1::. :'his or::'er shall 0e ':lindinr- U;?On each :>-;:-;erc:.l:or no\.V or herea~ter ('·;er£~.:in..,. ~ny -::>il or .:~.as r,jell wit:hin the LOVJer Cuachita

River :rainat;"'e ·c. sin, his agent3, servants, em~loyees, S'.lccessors,

and assi~ns, anc all "ersons in c:ctive concert or participation with

him.

lt.:.. "':'he Commission way alter or amend this order or issue

such -:>ther anc further orders as may be deemed necessary or pro!;)er to secure a.bater.:lent of tb.e af-::>res.?.id ~ollu::ion.

D~:~J this 13th ~ay oF October, lSSC.

3ecretary A'F...t ..;.\3.~5 D:C.T ..;r.-~-;.,;r;.:;!- Vr T-'v4--v, •v:~ ...... -.-...... ------. . CJ~7~0L 6 ECOLOGY ?!:'cmulqation ~111\'UTE ORDER NO. 9?--cS ,_ • • - -PAG- 1 OF 1 J- .,~ ~~Ur ••i,· _,_, i ~ c. ------... -; ,..., ·-" . ,..., -·- /T'l . I _...., / ~ h; .. . \~ ... : :)j::.n o:·.,r uu.cH cr --ml NHEREAS, the United States En~~r5J'n\nltntWi Lprfo):ection Agency promulgated UIC regulations on July 26, 1988, amending .. ~,o~.~fR Parts 124, ·144, and 146. '=';..·.~·~·,... -·~ 1 L. r!~~ .... ur; ~ WHEREAS, the Department of Po~I.t£i6.ri:~:c?.J.~~~9,)s and Ecology finds it necessary to adopt federal regula~ons in order to maintain an authorized Underground Injection Control Program:--·------

Therefore, the Commission hereby approves the attached Arkansas Underground Injection Control Code which incorporates 40 CFR Parts 124, 144 and 146 dated July 26, 1988. Promulgated the ~.lj!h day of ifr?ti:/ldv , 1989. BY ORDER OF THE COMMISSION ON POLLUTION ONTROL AND ECOLOGY

Attest:

~ Director

Vince Blubaugh DATE PASSED: KELLY BRYANT, SECRETARY OF STATE

ARKANSAS WATER POLLUTION CONTROL COMMISSION ORDER NO. 2·59 IN THE MATTER OF THE POLLUTION OF THE CORNEY CREEK DRAINAGE BASIN (INCLUDING BIG CORNEY, LITTLE CORNEY, AND THREE CREEKS) BY SALT WATER AND OTHER OIL FIELD WASTES.

Filed in this office on the 20th day of February, 1964. BEFORE THE ARKANSriS 'WhTER POLLU'I' ICN CONTROL COMMISSION

IN THE IviJ~TTER OF THE POLLUTICN ) ) OF THE CCRNEY CF;.EEK D~n~·.~GE B,~IN ) ) (INCLUDING BIG COkNEY, LITTLE COiU~Y, ) . No • __.,z_-.,.5..,_9 ) AND TH?~E CREEKS) BY SALT Wh.TEit f~ ) ) OTHER OIL FIELD WASTES )

C ~'- D E R.

wHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of ~ct 472 of the Acts of t\rkansas for 1949, the Arkansas Water Pollution Control Commission, hereinafter referred to as the "Commission", is au-

thori·zed to adopt rules nnd regulations to i.Y·. ::;-veni: pollution and to make and alter reasonable orders requiring the discontinuance

of discharge. of sewage, industrinl wnstes, or other wastes into any of the waters of the St.:lte; ,snd

'. ·WHE~, en Februcry 5, 1957, the Secretary of Health, i ·' ') Education, and Welfare, after ~n extended investigation and public hearing, issued lln order pursuc.nt. to the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (62 Stat. 1155, 70 Stat.

498; .33 U.S.C.h.., ~6) directing all~ersons th~ operating oil . . wells in the Corney Creek Dr~inage 3csin t~ cease and desist from

contributing to the pollution of the w~ters of said drainage

basin by the discharge of snlt wc~er und ether oil field wastes; ·

~nc ., WHEP~, following the issuance cf said order, salt

water polluticn in said draina.ge basin lilCS substantially abated by

the constructi,~n of underground injectL;n systems and by ether·

ci~osal methods; and

y· WHERE.AS, .the waters cf said drainage basin were thereby ,·:

v-~,~ "· greetly improved in quality; and

WdEREAS, investigaticns recently conducted by the Com-

~ .

. '

/ ' -2-

mission he1ve established that cert:Jin wells drilled since the

effective dete of the aforesaid ·:>r<:ler by persons not subject to

same ere discharging substanticl quantities of salt water without

lln adequ.:~te cispos~l system ancl thereby substantially impairing

the cu:lit:y· of the v1aters of said Jrc.in.::1ge basin and rendering

the same unfit fer most domestic, c0rnmercial, in:.1ustrial, and

recrecticnal uses, including ~se for drinking wat~r, irrigation,

stock '"ate ring, .~_nc~ -::>ther egricultural uses; and

V..'HE'£.:.\S, ~ public i:earin.; on the fcreg::>ing matters was

held by· the Corrit'nission on ..:~pri 1 22, 1959, ut El Dorcdo, Arkansas,

(incl,_ucling the following oil fields: ~:~tL::nc.o·. ., pc.rt of Magnolia~ ... Schuler, Tubal, e1nd Village); and

WHEh&.iS, ncti·ce. of the aforescid hearii!g was given to each operator operating oil or g::s wells within the aforesaid drainage basin in the m.:1nner c.nc: within the time provided by law; and

\~"HEi{&1.3, it is in the p_ublic interest that sa-id pollutio1 be promptly ebater1; .

11. "0'"· T THE..... r, 1:' ,..,.c-- t;' L'• w, • .1.\.u.i:' K ... ' the Arkansas Water Pollution Control

Commission, pursuant to ~;.ct .472 -of 1949, dces hereby order and direct all persons now or here~fter having possession or control of eny oil or gas well in the Corney Creek Drainage Dasin (in-

clueing 3ig Corney, Little Corney, and Three Creeks) and the oil fields aforesaid, either .3s contractor, owner, _lessee, agent, · . .., .(h · · ct c-2pac:t~...y ere~n.::~ ... er collec_tively re-

. ferrec to as 11Cperator·;1 as follows: ... 1. Each such Cperntor shall, wi~hin ninety (90) days after receipt of thisCrder, cease end desist from discharging

salt water or other oil field wastes pr~uced by any oil or gas well in his control or possession in any manner which permits such . ~-··

I j / I wastes tc flow into ~ny of the waters of s~id drainage hasin,

whether by natural c.~raiMge, sect::ose, overflow, or otherwise. It

shell be the duty of each such Gperat·~r to confine all such salt

water end other oil field wastes ~r~ ~ispose of same in such

· manne.,: as will prevent their dischar.;e or flow into any of the

waters of se.id drainage basin.

2. No Cperator shall hereafter operate any oil or gas

well in said ~rai.ncge basin whiCh .produces any salt water ox: other

oil field wastes, unless such Cperator shall have s~bmitted to the

Commission plans a~d. ·specifications fer C! disuosnl system adequate

to prever:tt the cischarge or flow of· scid \-;...::--~·.::8 into any of the

weters of ·said drc;ina;;e basin, together _with an ::pplication for a.

permit to. install an:::· operc:q::~: such disposal system~. The Commissio

shall grant· or deny such p~-;~':.i:it un(}er such terms and conditions

as it may prescribe. ..~pp licati.:.n for n p~rmit for wells in o-

peration on the clate of this o·~de; and which produce any salt

water or other wastes shall be filed ~th the Commission within

thirty (30) days of the receipt of this Crder. npplication for a

permit for wells completed after the date of this Crcler or for

existing wells which co not now produce any such wastes shall be

made within thirty (30)_ days after cny such well shall have first / __./ produced any such wastes.

3. No Operator shall hereafter operate any oil or gas.

well in violation of the terms and conditions: of a disposal per-

mit fer such well or without having applied for and obtained a diE

I i posal permit, as required by paragraph 2 hereof. ;..ny well for

which proper permit application has be~n made may be operated

pending final action· thereon by the Commission. Upon receipt of

a permit, the Cperetor of the well shall post at the site of the

well or tam< battery a permanent sign bearing the narre of the _,. ... . -·..

-4-

Cperetor, the lease, les~l Gescription of the locution, and the permit nur11ber.

4. Wherever possible, disposal of salt w~ter shall be accomplished by subsurface C:ischcr;e throu:;:1. dispcsal wells t'O under.;round horizons bel::>w the fresh .,.,v~tE;r level, such wells to be so drilled, cased, cemetec, equipped, and operated that no fresh water·horizon sh.:.!ll be polluted and in accordance with the rules and regulations of the ..... rka.nsas Cil and Gas Commission.

5. Pursuant to the provisions of i~ct 472 of 1949, viola tion of any prevision of this CrGer sh~ll be ~ misdemeanor and each day's continuance cf such violation si•·~.:..l constitute a separate offense. Pollution of any waters of the State in violation· of any provis,ion of t;his .Order shall constitute a public nuisance and ope~ation of eny t-Jell l."C:8ultin6 in such pollution may be enjoined as provided by l~w_.

6. · This. Order shall be binding upon ecch uperatcr now or hereafter opercting any oil or gas well within said drainage basin, his agents, serv~nts, employees, success~rs, ancl assigns, and all persons in active concert or perticipction with him.

Issued this 29th dey of June, 1959.

3Y c:JJE~'- CF T:-IE rli\.:{rlNSi~ {-iAl'ER ~CLLUTICN CCNT;;(CL CC£,JlviiSSICN

.·Trust en Holder, Chairman hTTI3T:

G. T. ~ellogg, Technical ~ecretcry , I f-.

ARKANSAS WATER POLLUTION CONTROL COMMISSION ORDER NO. 1·59

IN THE MATTER OF THE POLLUTION OF THE DRAINAGE BASINS OF THE LOWER RED RIVER, LOUTRE BAYOU, MORO CREEK, CHAMPAGNOLLE CREEK, TWO BAYOU, BODCAW CREEK, CANEY CREEK, AND DORCHEAT BAYOU BY SALT WATER AND OTHER OIL FIELD WASTES.

Filed in this office on the 20th day of February, 1964. BEFORE THE AR.:

IN THE NATTER CF THE PCLLUf ICN ) CF THE DrtAINAGE 3ASINS CF THE ) LOw'ER RED RIVER, LCUTRE BAYCU, ) NCRC CREE~<, CHAl'-lP AGNCLLE CREE:<,) Th{) BAYCU, 3CDCAVJ CREE:<, CANEY ) No. 1-59 CREE::, .?.ND :JCRCHEAT 3AYCU BY ) SALT WATE?.. A.l'\E CTI-IER C IL F IELD ) WASTES )

GENER!-1.L CRIJ EP,

WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Act 472 of the

Acts of Arl(ansas for 19l;.9, the Ar~~ansas ~vater Pollution Control

Commission, hereinafter referred to as the "Commission", is authorized to adopt rules and regulations tv ·.J::-~-.7ent pollution and to make and alter reasonable orders requiring the discontinuanc~ of discharge of sewage, industrial wastes, or other wastes into any of the waters of th·3 State; and WHEREAS, investigations. conducted by the Commission have established that enormous quantities of salt water and other oil

field wastes are being discharged each day from oil and gas wells into the waters of the Lower Red River, Loutre 3ayou, ~~ro Creek,

Champagnolle Creek, Two 3ayou, 3odcaw Creek, Caney Creek, and Dorcheat Bayou and the tributaries thereof; and WHEREAS, the discharge of said salt water and other oil

field wastes has produced excessive and abnormal salinity and abnormally low pH value in said waters, thereby substantially impairing the quality of said waters and rendering the same unfit for most domestic, commercial, industrial, and recreational uses, including use for drinking water, irrigation, stock watering, and other agricultural uses; and WHEREAS, public hearings on the foregoing matters were

held by the Commission, as follm... ·s: Loutre 3ayou, lVioro Creek,

Champagnolle Creek, and Two Bayou Drainage Basins, April 22, 1959, ElDorado, Arkansas (L:tcluding the fvllowing oi.l fields -

_ Gatesville, El Dorado So;J.th, Hi bank and South Hi bank, Nick Springs,

Woodle}, west Nick Springs, west ~.Joodley, i,rtesinn, Bragg, Hampton,

and Locust .Bayou); Bodco.w Creek, Dorcheat J3c.you, and Caney Creek

Drainage 3asins, May 27, 1959, Lewisville, Ark~nsas (including

the following oil fields - Bodccw, Dooley Creek, Kress City,

Lewisville, Lewisville West, Mc:~rnie - Patton, Meriweather Lake,

Hidw.:ty, Stc.mps, Stcrnps West, Stnmps North, Stc.mps Northwest,

Buckner, Calhoun, Dorche~t - ~~cedonia, Falcon, Haynesville,

Horsehead, ?..ilgore Ledge, Nagnolio., North Shongaloo, :Plainfield,

Springhill, Stc.mps East, Stamps Northeast, Uillisville, Willisville

Southwest, Willisville West, Irma, Troy c:nci ·l.··='-~-g); and Lower Red

River Drainage 3asin, M~y 28, 1959, Texark~na, rlrkansas (including

the following oil fields - 3r~dley West, Christmas, Fouke, Fouke North, Fouke Northeast, Cypress Lake, Doddridge, Ft. Lynn, Fouke

West, Garland City, New Garland City, Genoa, Jonesville, ~

Lewisville Ncrthwest, LewisvillE West, McKinney 3ayou, Midway

West,·Rocky Mound, Rodessa Spirit Lake, Texarkana, Walnut Hill,

and Wising-;r).

WP£~, notice cf the aforesaid hearings was given to

each operctor cperating oil cr gas wells within the aforesaid drain·

age basins, respectively, in the manner and within the time pro- viC.ed by law; ar..d

WHEREAS, the foregoing conditions constitute pollution

. within the meaning cf Act 472 of 1949, in thc.t said cond.itions .are a public nuisance end detrimentcl to public health, safety,. and welfnre, and have rendered the w~ters of snid Drninnge Ecsins unfit

fer mcst domestic, c::mrnercial, industri.:J.l, end recrec.tionnl uses, and injuri0us to fish en~ oth~~ aquatic life; ~nd

WhEREAJ, it is in the public interest that said pollution be abat~c ~s promptly .:J.s p8ssible, giving due consideration tc the practicability nnd to the physicnl and economic feasibility thereof:

---2- NOH, TI-:EREI:'C:~, the Arkanscs Water f ollution Control

Corrmissio-~1, pursuant to •.:.:..ct 472 cf 19L}9, does hereby order and direct the operators operating oil or g~s wells in the above named drainage basins and oil fields, and each of them, as follows:

1. Ench such operator shall, within the time hereiruJ.fter set farth, cecse and desist from discherging sclt w~ter or other oil field wcstes produced by any oil or gas well in his control or possession in eny mnnner permitting such wastes to flow into any of the waters of S.:!id draincge bc.sins, whether by natural drainage, seepage, overflot-7, or .otherwise. It shell be the duty cf each such operator to confine nll such salt w~ter and other oil field wastes and dispose of same in such mc.rt-·.2:.:· :::.s T..vill prevent their discharge cr flew into any of the wnters cf said drainage basins.

2. Giving dua consideration to the practicability Q.Ild .. to the physical and economic feasibility of securing abatement of the aforesaid pollution, each such operator may effect a gradual abatement of the pollution resulting from existing wells in "cld fields or pcolsu, now or hereafter operuted by him, by reducing the "base volume•• of salt water and other wastes flowing into the waters c£ said drainage basins by net less than twenty per cent

(20%) on or before June 30, 1960, and at a rnte of net less than twenty per cent (20%) for eo.ch twelve-months' period thereafter. "Ole! fields or pools., are defined as oil cr gas fields and/or pools found, br0ught in, or established prior to July 1, 1957 •. "Base volume" is cefined as the average daily quantity cf salt water and other wastes discharged without nn adequcte disposal system by all existing wells in cld fields or pocls OFerated by eech such operator in s~id drninng~ bcsins durir~ the period August 15,

1959, through Cctcber 31, 1959. Tctal ab.:J.tement shnll be effected net ~ater th~n June 30, 1964.

-3- ....

3. In addit.ion t.o the disposal required by Paragraph 2 hereof, each such operator shall dispose, in full, of any increase

above the base volume in snlt wetter or other w.::tstes from existing

and new wells in olcl fields and pools.

4. Salt Water and other w~stes produced by any wells in

~'new fields or pools" sh-:::.11 also be disposed of in full in accord-·

c.nce with RE=-~gulntion No. 1 of the Commission. '1New fields or

pools" are defined as oil or g(Js fields and/or pools found, brought in, or established after July 1, 1957.

5. Cn or before November 15, 1959, each such operator

shell file with the Commission a report, verified by affidavit, reflecting the volume in barrels per day cf salt water and other

wastes produced from each well, based upon actual well tests during the base period August 15, 1959, through October 31, 1959, the tank .. battery to which each well is C·~nnected, and the volume of salt water produced daily thrc,ugh each tank battery, the disposal system

in use, if any, and the volume of salt water disposed of thereby, the volume of undisposed of salt water and other wastes, together

with such other information as the Commission may require. Each

such operator shall alsc, en or before November 15, 1959, file

with the Commission a verified state~ent as to the method by which

the required cisp~sal is to be accomplished, including the dimen-

sions of anu p tans for the c1ispos.::l system to be usee, and an app li· cation for a certificate of approvnl to install and operate such disposal system. Within thirty (30) days after the end of each• period fer percentage reducticn, as provided by Paragraph :a hereof, a verified report shall be filed with the Commission by each operator showing by wells the reduction in undisp:Jsed salt water and other wastes attcined during t:1e preceding peri eel, tcgether with a statecrLent es to the meth_,.J by which the disposal required for the next succeeding period is to be accomplished. Each such

operator shall subll'.it such other information and repcrts as the

-4- . . •

C""'n'r·l1.' ..,...... "" - 'l.. ;- •., +· '1.;,.. -.-..·r~ ·r e -Ffect.a. V ·'::' -.;.!.'. .._.._ \l't """''-" -!. ~!:) '-.1..'-iC-.... • ?o~·:ns for :ceporting the in- formc..tJ_,:m 1:equired by this ord.E.t: antl f:)~C E:'.pp lying for disposal certificatt?s way be obtained fr·.:m the Ccmmission.

6. No oil or gas well mny be oper~ted ~1less the operate therec·f h::2s a.n-;li:::d for D.nd obtained a disposal certificate, in ~ . the m:~nn.::r o..nd within the time pn:vided by Puragrn:)h 5 of this order. Ar... y we 11 f~.:.r 'tvhich pr.:.·per disposcl npp lication has been filed with the CammissL.:n mc.y be C?erD.ted ?ending final nction thereon by the c-;nu.·nissi-.:m. U~cn recei?t of a dis?osal certificate, the oper.:.tor of the well sh2ll p:;st at the site c>f the well or tank battery a permanent sign beari:.1.g the n.Jx.1e c·f. the operator, the lcnse, lGgo.l descri?tL:m of th~ l·.Jcc.tion, c..nd certificate number.

7. Ec.ch O?C:C.:ltsr subj~ct to this rjrder may join with one cr mere Gther C?er.::tt::rs (hc:reino.fter referred to as uunit") in said drainage basins for ?U-:::::·Gses c:f joint cc.uplianoe with this order. In such cnse, the :.:~erc.t(:rs sh~ll file one jcint report for the unit, en_~ corrtplinnce with the nbateraent requirements of this c.rc:er shall be c:etennined on the basis of the unit, provided,_ however, that each ·Jperntcr in th8 unit shall be jointly and severally responsible fc,r ccmplic.nce by the unit with this order.

In the event cf cissc)lution of a. unit, nctice thereof shall im- mediately be:: given tc· the Corllr.lission and each o:;eratcr in the unit shall, within a period c:f 60 days after \lissulutict::l, reduce his (~ischnrge of salt wc..ter end ,_.. ther wastes to the level which such cper:J.t..::•r woulc.~ have hac tc .::.ttc.in if not 2 member of the unit.

8. Wherever. ;;ossible, disposal of salt wnter shall be

by subsurf.:1ce C.L:·.;::hc.rge ·thr::mgh dis?osnl wells to

undero-rcunc..:> h.-:;riz:::-ms belcw the fr12sh-water level, such wells to be so dri lle.-.~, c.:1se,..l: cemcntc.-2, cquipr)e~:, nne G?erc.ted that no fresh- wcter h:-rizcn sh~ll be polluted end in accordance with the rules

-5- and regul:J.tio~s of tt:e 1.\'!:''_::::ms.::~s Cil and Gc.s Coll'.mission.

9. Surfc.ce d::..spos-:ll of SD.lt w::.te-r .:J.nd other liquid

'1.-vnstes in e.:.rthe·a pits wi 11 not b·~ 2pproved, unless such pits are

under1:::id by tight soi 1 such ::.s heavy cL:.y or hardpan, or are lin~c

with cspho.lt or other T.Natertight mc.terial, .:!nd ara of sufficient

siz~ to assure ~dequc.te disposnl of the volume of wastes to be im-

pounded therein. Where the soil under c.n underground pit is porouE

nnd closely underl~.id oy gr.:1vc: 1 or s.:nd str.:::.tum, impounding of salt

water or ether liq,:.i.:i- w-::.stes therein wi 11 not be allowed. An app li

cation for n c2rtific~te to use disposal pits must show that such

pits will adequately dispose of the w~stes to b8 impounded therein.

When the use of storage pits hns been ap;roveJ, they shall .be so

constructed and maintained cs to prevent escape of waste therefrom,

whether by s~~pagc or ctherwise. Storage pits shall -be. protected .. from surf.:::.ce wnters by cik~s enG crainage ditches and no siphons

or openings placed in th~ wells or dikes that would permit the es-

cape of the wastes. Freebocrd sh~ll never be less than 12 inches,

measured fr0m the lowest point of the dike.

10. No well 'i.vhich is her~after closed down by an opeL:J.tc

to meet. the· ab.::.t..ement requirements of this order· may· be reopened. or

__ operated in any mann~r frcm the s.:tu--e source of supply wi. thout .the

written permission of the Conruussion being first obtained.

11. Any pe1:son wbo ·shall file -a ·report cr ~plication·

required by this order c~ntaining information kncwn to him· to· be·· • false,..· or who shall violate c:my other provision ·of this ,order,-··

shall, .in o.ddition to all ether ?ennlties provi.decl by law,· be- re-···

quired forthwith to dispose ·:..f ~11 salt wnter and .other wastes dis-

. . . charged frcm w~lls in his poss2ssL.m or contrcl •

12. Pursu.:mt: t,::_. th; ?r.:::visicns .of Act. 472 of 194<1,. ..vio- .

.lation of any prav""isicn 8f this crder shall be a misdemeanor· a..""ld

each Jay's .c.cntinu.:mce of such violati:Jn shall constitute a separat. offense •. ?clli.ltion of any wc:.t.ers of the State in violation. of .. any

-6- ·. . '. • ,•

provision of this or.. ~e:r. sh:.lll co.1stit.u.tE: <::!. public nuisance and

operntio~ c:my well res;J.l\:int. :tn such j?Ollution may be enjoined

as provided by 12.;,.;.

13. This order Sfi·::.ll be binding upon euch operutor now

or here-:-.fter oper:rcing nny oil or g

bnsins, his c.g.;nts, serw~nts, employees, successors, nnd nssigns,

nnd all persons in active concert or porticipation with him.

li,. The Corr.m:i.ssion 1nay alter or amend this order or

issue such other .::!.nd further orders ns may be deemed necessary

or proper to se:cu!.·e aboter.:~ent of the nfor~said pollution.

DATED this 29th day of June, 195~.

BY ORDE:a CF TLB .AR;.w"\iSo..3 WATER ?OLLUTION CONTROL CClviMISSICN

- Trusten Holder, Chairman-- ... ,

ATTEST:

/ /;/? . t'/1 .·,.o_..,.., .,-. . • •· # / ~_....· ••• ..-...... :..-- z£j,. ' . - ~ i I IJ G. T. :zellogg» Technic.:tl~----- Sccreto.ry

•

-7- ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF POLLUTION LOCATION-SUBJECT: Approval of ~CONTROL & ECOLOGY Changes to Regulation No. 1

•• I 93 - 16 MINUTE ORDER NO. ______PAGE 1 I. ~n0F ____~1~------\'

WHEREAS: the Arkansas General Assembly on November 1 1 1958 1 authorized the

Arkansas Commission on Pollution Control and Ecology 1 pursuant to the Arkansas Air and Water Pollution Control Act (Act 4 72 of the Acts of

Arkansas for 1949 1 as amended; Ark. Code Ann. 8-4-101 et sq} to adopt Regulation No. 1, "Regulation for the Prevention of Pollution by Salt Water and Other Oil Field Waste Produced by Wells in New Fields or Pools" in order to prevent the uncontrolled release or discharge of salt water or other oil field wastes to the surface waters of the State.

WHEREAS: the Department recommends a revision to Regulation No. 1 to change the wording to read "all pits" in any "existing field or pool" and the inclusion of an additional Section (Section 11} requiring the closure of any existing pit, associated with oil and gas exploration or production operations, in the state of Arkansas, and located within the designated 100 year flood plain, to be closed within 48 months of the effective date of these adopted changes.

THEREFORE: The Commission hereby approves the attached revisions to Regulation No. 1, "Regulation for the Prevention of Pollution by Salt Water and Other Oil Field Wastes Produced by Wells in All Fields and Pools" to include wording changes and authorization to close all existing oil and gas pits within the designated 100 year flood plain, throughout the state of Arkansas.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

J. Hill c. King J. Looney R. Mason B. Mobley J. Pascale E. Waddell H. Watkins, III R. Wilbourn Williams Wilson Wright Young

SUBMITTED BY: C. Bennett DATE PASSED: 01-15-93 ~~~~~~~~--- ·ARKANSAS Ht:UI~ 1 c:n • Transmittal Sheet ~"l·"~ • r ~. t .. ..._· J RECD FEB 2 6 1993 W. J. "Bill" McCuen -- Secretary of State State Capitol Rm. 01 0 LittleR Arkansas 72201-1094

For Office Use Only: Effective Date 3 I Cf3 Code Number 0 {l/- . Ot.l-. CJ3--- Ob I

Chuck Bennett

Statutory Authority for Promulgating Rules ACT 472 ARK CODE ANN 8-4-101

Intended Effective Date Date Emergency Legal Notice Published ...... 0 03;-26-92

~ 20 Days After Filing Rnal Date for Public Comment . . . . . 05-18-92 04-21-92 0 Other Rled With Legislative Council . • . • . • 10-07-92

Reviewed by Legislative Council . . . . 11-20-92

Adopted by State Agency ...... 01-15-93

CERTIFICATION OF AUTHORIZED OFFICER I Hereby Certify That The Attached Rules Were Adopted In Compliance with Act 434 of 1967 ~s Amended. 'fhtlilfLMl! 2 ~a Signature

Chief, Legal Division

Title

February 25, 1993 Date UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 6 1445 ROSS AVENUE, SUITE 1200 DALLAS, TX 75202-2733

~~ECD APR 2 3 1993 April 20, 1993

REPLY TO: 6W-SU Mr. Chuck Bennett Chief Water Division Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology Post Office Box 8913 8001 National Drive Little Rock, Arkansas 72209 RE: Proposed Changes to Arkansas' Regulation No. 1 Dear Mr. Bennett: Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed changes to Regulation No. 1. These changes, which require the closure of all oil and gas related pits susceptible to flooding, impacts the State's UIC program by promoting disposal of the pit fluids via Class II injection wells. EPA Region 6 feels that the environmental benefits to be achieved by these amendments are consistent with this Agency's policy of waste management and we have no objections to the proposed amendments to Regulation No. 1. Should you have any questions, please contact Ray Leissner of my staff at (214) 655-7183. Sincerely yours,

/ // ~""? ~ , - ...,. ./--"'7/l/:l~A-*.. (:("-:-~~"'""'£__. ' Myron o. Knudson, P. E. Director Water Management Division (6W) cc: Mr. Marty Perdue, AOGC Mr. Jerry Delavan, ADPC&E

@ Printed on Recycled Paper UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 6 1445 ROSS AVENUE, SUITE 1200 DALLAS, TX 75202-2733

April 20, 1993

· ·· Pnnted 0'' Recvcled Pa[l'" ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF POLLUTION CONTROL AND ECOLOGY

Responsiveness Summary for

Comments Submitted During Public Hearing and Review Period on

Proposed Changes to Regulation No. 1

Public review of the proposed changes to Regulation No. 1 "Regulation for the Prevention of Pollution by Saltwater and Other Oilfield Wastes Produced by Wells in New Fields or Pools" was initiated by a Public Notice published March 30, 1992 in a newspaper having statewide circulation. This Public Notice set out time frames for the Department to receive written comments concerning the proposed changes to Regulation No. 1 and also gave notice of the scheduled public hearing held in El Dorado, AR, on May 7, 1992.

Responses to comments made during the comment period are as follows:

Comment: The Department needs to conduct an Economic Impact Study on the effects of these pit closure requirements before they are implemented. Numerous commenters were concerned about the overall economic impact of these proposed changes on the small operators.

Response: The Department is aware there will be an economic impact on some operators due to these regulations. Hopefully, the proposed time frame (48 months) to effect these pit closures will allow an operator to proceed at a rate which is economically feasible within the scope of their current operations.

Comment: One commenter had not heard of any surface water problems related to the use of these pits and questions ... if it cannot be proven a particular pit is causing a problem why close it? What problems will be corrected by expending large sums of money for pit closures?

Response: The Department on a regular basis sees water quality problems in south Arkansas that are directly attributed to active and abandoned pits not having adequate freeboard, overflowing and discharging saltwater and oil into the tributaries and watercourses of major streams in the region. In addition, Smackover Creek has flooded extensive areas several times in recent years and the pits in and beyond the 100 year flood plain were extensive areas several times in recent years and the pits in and beyond the 100 year flood plain were inundated and flushed out releasing large qualities of saltwater and oil. This process degrades the overall water quality of Smackover Creek and the region. The problem is cumulative, it may not just be one pit, it is all pits combined creating a larger problem when they flood or discharge. It's this problem of on going degradation it is hoped will be corrected by these pit closures.

Comment: One commenter noted the need for the pages of the guidelines to be numbered and noted several typographical errors which should be corrected.

Response: The pages of the guidelines will be numbered for easier reference and typographical error have been corrected.

Comment: Section II.B.6. of the guidelines establishes a 60 day time frame for an operator to send water analysis test results to the Department once a sample has been taken, but does not establish a time frame for the Department to respond back to an operator in regards to whether discharge, disposal or land application of those fluids will be allowed. Response: In light of this comment and other comments related to sampling procedures the turn around time for a decision on authorization to discharge, land apply andfor dispose by any other disposal method approved by the Department will be 10 days.

Comment: Several commenters wanted to know if the sampling and reporting procedures required to obtain Department approval allowing disposal of pit fluids could be streamlined for fluids known to exceed the maximum allowable chloride concentration, without notifying the Department, prior to being allowed to dispose of these fluids?

Response: If an operator knows the water in a pit will not pass or did not pass the testing requirements of Section II.B. it is not necessary to send the Department any sample analysis for that pit. However, each operator will still need to notify the Department of their intent to close each pit by filling out a form or notification which

2 outlines the proposed method for disposing of that water, the volume to be disposed, location of the disposal well or disposal site and approval from the disposal well operator or application site land owner. The Department must be notified of the pending disposal prior to commencement. A copy of the reporting form will be available from the ADPC&E ElDorado field office ..

Comment: Section III.A.5. requires that the bottom of the waste mass be buried three feet above the seasonal high water table. This stipulation appears to go against the idea of closing pits in the 100 year flood plain, please explain.

Response: The purpose of this guideline was to prevent the burial of the waste mass in the water saturated zone below ground surface which would make up the water table. This guideline may be a problem in some locations within the 100 year flood plain. However, the Department would consider an alternate depth of burial at each of those sites on a case by case basis given the depth of the water table at that location. The intent is to prevent burial where the waste would be continually saturated by the local ground water.

Comment: What is an ADPC&E approved and/ or permitted disposal facility and why were these not included in the guidelines?

Response: An ADPC&E approved or permitted facility could be an a saltwater disposal system currently permitted with the Department or it could be an operator with a permit to receive, collect and dispose of pit wastes related to oil and gas exploration or production. A list of those commercial operators can be supplied to anyone upon request.

Comment: Will the use of temporary pits be allowed within the 100 year flood plain?

Response: Yes, temporary workover pits, reserve pits or other pits would be allowed in response to the need for an emergency containment situation, provided the operator agrees to close such a pit in a timely manner after the use has been completed. We don't want pits left open years after the workover, completion or other designated use has been completed. Each pit within the 100 year flood plain must

3 be closed after the use has been completed. Certainly, some discretion on the time frame allowed would be considered by the Department on a case by case basis.

Comment: As an operator how can we be assured that ten years down the line that the ADPC&E or the EPA won't come back in and say this pit was improperly closed or where are the sample results to verify proper closure?

Response: The ADPC&E is the lead agency in regards to regulating pollution control measures in the state of Arkansas, not the EPA. The proposed changes to Regulation No.1 are progressive and hopefully reflect future changes in environmental policy both in Arkansas and nationwide. As far as the Department knows, at this time, no new future regulations should impact or radically change what is being proposed by the Department, as the proper way to close these existing pits in south Arkansas.

Comment: Has any consideration been given to one particular area or field in use where operators are not using pits for the storage of saltwater, but for oil storage such as the "old" Irma Field where you cannot tankage your production?

Response: It may be that the Irma field is a special case and it is something the Department would be willing to consider as a special case. Presumably, these oil storage pits would not be located within the 100 year floodplain. The Department realizes that some flexibility will have to be used in implementing the final guidelines. Special situations will exist where a particular type of pit closure may be a problem. It may be the protection around these pits would need to be increased in order to comply with existing SPCC Regulations instead of closing them.

Comment: Several commenters had questions about whether or not they would have to make application and pay a fee for a permit modification if a pit included in the current active permit is later closed?

Response: No modification fee would be required. All the Department would require is for an operator to notify us that the pit has been closed and that letter of notification would be placed in your file as a record of the modification.

4 This would be handled administratively and no fee would be assessed for the modification. The plan is to have our staff would respond back to you that we hereby amend the permit accordingly based on the operators notification.

Comment: Numerous questions came up on who will be responsible for closure of the abandoned pits, the landowner, mineral owner, the operator, who will be ultimately responsible?

Response: Liability for pit closure shall be the responsibility of the current operator or leaseholder and shall not be transferred to the current landowner. If the current landowner or leaseholder cannot be located or identified then, the current landowner shall assume responsibility for all pit closure activities. There is no other way for the Department to determine who is the responsible party for pit closures. It will be_the responsibility of the current landowner or the current operator to find the responsible party if they are not responsible.

Comment: There were several questions about what would be required for proper road application of oil ... Are we going to be fined if its not exactly according to the guidelines?

Response: The guidelines for road application of waste oil contained in Section III.E. are just that, guidelines. The intent was to offer assistance to those who may not be aware of what would be required. Consequently, the Department will pull specific guidelines out of the proposed regulations and keep only the general guidelines as regulations. A copy of specific recommended guidelines will be available from the Department upon request.

Comment: A comment on Section III.A.7 that requires an operator to close and return to the original configuration the surface of the pit. How on earth is an operator supposed to know what the ground surface looked like in the 1920's?

Response: A return to the original configuration of the land surface will not be required following pit closure. The Department, after reviewing this matter, will now require an operator to return the pit closure area to a grade or configuration which is as close as possible to the current configuration of the present land surface.

5 Comment: Section I.A.7 requires a pit be reclaimed and seeded to effect a permanent vegetative cover ... these requirements seem unduly restrictive and place an undue burden on the operator ... how do you establish a vegetative cover where nothing has grown before.

Response: No vegetative cover will be required. The requirement to establish an effective vegetative cover at each site where a pit closure has taken place will be waived. However, each operator will be encouraged to attempt to establish, if possible, a permanent vegetative cover at each pit closure site.

Comment: One cornrnenter stated the deadline of three years is unrealistic, could it be expanded to five years to allow for economic planning by the operators.

Response: The Department in order to allow additional time for closure hereby extends the allowable time for closure to 48 months.

Comment: One commenter wanted the Department to consider allowing trees to be left in the pit before closure. According to them, trees act as a natural buffer in absorbing the swelling of the mud in warm weather.

Response: We are not sure whether live or dead trees were involved in this comment. The Department feels that in the long run dead trees should be removed in order to properly close a pit. Live trees could be left if pit closure activities can be conducted around them. A decision could be made on this on a case by case basis by field personnel.

Comment: Two commenters requested that the Department include a requirement that each open pit containing "live" oil be covered with a mesh netting in order to protect migratory water fowl.

Response: It is not within the scope of the present proposed changes to Regulation No.1 to require netting to be placed on existing pits containing oil. The primary focus of the proposed changes is pit closures. Perhaps the question of netting pits can be addressed at a later date by the Department.

6 Comment: A comment that each well should be required to have a sign giving proper identification for that well. Response: Section 6. of Regulation No. 1 currently requires that a sign be posted at any well for which proper permit application has been made. AOGC regulations also requires an operator to post a sign at each well which identifies the operator, well location and the name of the well.

7 ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF POLLUTION CONTROL AND ECOLOqY

MEMORANDUM

TO: Becky Allison FROM: Chuck Bennett ~Jh DATE: 7-13-92

SUBJECT: Reporters questions on Brine problems/Oil Producers News release

/ Fir~, I would like to discuss the obvious mis-quotes in the Oil Pr~ucers News Release. I never mentioned.any 11 intensified drilling 11 or " the unchecked drive for oil in South Arkansas 11 The department is quite aware that the oil industry is in a depressed cycle at this time.

Statements attributed to me in the news release that ... 11 operators in South Arkansas have been drilling and polluting at will ... 11 is false. My entire presentation to the commission was in the light that nothing had changed in the oil fields for the last four decades. Illegal discharges of brine and crude oil are still a major problem. I also made the point that the department has one inspector in the El Dorado office who must split his time between the UIC program and inspecting all 7~300 active oil wells. Obviously we are terribly understaffed and I requested the commissions help in getting additional staffi'ng during the next legislative session. We are hoping to acquire three more inspectors, one Geologist, and one Engineer to help in covering the oil fields during the next legislative session.

Now to the facts. The Ouachita River at Camden, above the oil fields, carries on the average about 250,000 lbsfday of chlorides ( salt ) while the river below the oil fields carries on the average about 2,000,000 lbsjday of chlorides. Smackover Creek, which drains a large portion of the oil fields and discharges to the Ouachita, by itself carries an average of 1,000,000 lbsjday. Bayou de loutre, which goes into Louisiana and not to the Ouachita, also carries another 250,000 lbsjday on the average.

In comparison, Moro Creek which is similar in size to Smackover Creek, carries only 30,000 lbsfday of chlorides, as compared to Smackover's 1,000,000 lbsjday. Of course these are all rough averages. ~ttached are graphs displaying actual daily values for each of the streams mentioned above. Note that maximum values observed peak at several times the average values.

Much has been made by those who have the opinion that this amount of salt would be impractical for the existing active wells to discharge on a daily basis. This misses the point. Essentially all of the salts coming down these streams was mined by the oil operators. There are no natural sources of saLts in these areas at the ground surface. These salts have been brought to the surface by the oil industry and discharged to the ground or to a stream. We make no distinction between salt that was discharged to the ground forty years ago or to a stream today. It must be cleaned up before these streams can meet their designated uses. Salt flat dead zones that were created many years ago can be remediated. It is just a matter of finding the responsible party and the money to accomplish the task.

Why are these numbers important? Basically because all of the streams that drain the oil fields, including Smackover Creek, Lapille Creek, Bayou de Loutre, and Cornie Bayou were all destroyed long ago, and have never recovered. Chloride concentrations are required to be less than 250 mgjl in any public water supply, yet Smackover Creek and Bayou de loutre average 275 mg/1 and 896 mg/1 respectively. None of these streams will be available for public water supplies until these chloride concentrations are drastically reduced.

No mention is made in the news release of the pervading problem of crude oil spills in the area. All streams are regularly subjected to minor spills on a regular basis. Each of these streams normally has an oil sheen upon it and the stream bottom is coated with the heavier crude products in some areas. New information submitted to the department by the Fish and Wildlife Ser~ice suggests that these stream sediments may be toxic ~o fish and humans alike as the result of these deposits of crude ln the stream. It is not uncommon for regular spring floods to wash crude oil out of the disposal pits and into the streams. Thus the department has proposed to eliminate those pits within the floodplain.

The department has a long history in trying to deal with pollution problems in the oil fields. The first regulation this department adopted in 1958 was an attempt to start a clean-up. Permits for disposal of brine were required, first in pits and years later by injection only. Unfortunately the department never has had adequate inspectors to cover the oil fields and as a result enforcement of the law has always been inadequate.

At the request of Mr. Richard Mason, a commissioner, the department has proposed changes to Regulation #1 ( Brine Disposal Regulations ) which takes the interim step of eliminating old brine disposal pits which are located within the 100 year floodplain. Once the department's new staff of inspectors, geologists, and engineers are on board, all pits will be eliminated and enforcement increased. As part of this effort the water-division placed it's entire statewide staff of fifteen field inspectors in the oil- fields for one week to assess the current status of the problem. The results were 94 sites were inspected, 83 were out of compliance, and 228 violations were documented. A slide show based upon what our inspectors found was assembled and shown to the commission. At the earliest possible date the department will be bringing the proposed changes to Regulation #1 before the commission for final promulgation. We are also working with the Governor's office to obtain the positions needed to adequately deal with the oil fields. 111E.APCC 050046 OUA()E:A USGS073640 .33 09 14.0 092 06 36.0 OUACHITA RIVER NR CROSSETT ARK 05139 AR KAt·~SAS u

OU{~CHITA RI\/ER SW LOWER MISSISSIPPI

940 CHLO FUDE TOTAL LB./DA'{

.><10 6

. \ , . I 2 1 I I fI I ) r---~,::r···\A \ \ " I \ x-1 I ~J \ I ' 1> •I ' > ,. , I l / \ \ I \X\~~1" I \.x,. I \,._.,.,"I I 0 ~---1----· 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 .1981-1990 1116~1PCC; 050159 OUA27' USGS073621 33 22 46.0 092 43 09.0 SMACKOVER CREEK N OF SMACKOVER ARK 05139 ARKANSAS u

LOWER RED RIVER-BELOW DENISON SW LOWER MISSISSIPPI

940 CHLORIDE TOTAL LB./DAY

6 >( 10

:~:

II i ·~

~\)\ll-~ I ··~··;·.>

-+-~ ~/, ··r~· w. . .· I . ·n ·o:;.·•r'~· I ,.ii''xl oc; I 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1981-198'3 111E.APCC oe;oo42 OUA05 USGS073646 33 05 55.0 092 35 32.0 BAYOU DELOUTRE NEAR EL DORADO, AR 05139 ARKANSAS U

OUACHITA RIVER SW LOWER MISSISSIPPI

940 CHLORIDE TOTAL LB./DA'(

6 ><10 2.0

1. 5

1.0

() . 0 I 1.: I I I I I I ..-K ··· x I I ·' " )If)< I 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990

1 9 81 -1 '='0::10 112LA.I RD 07362000 33 35 47.0 092 49 05.0 OUACHITA RIVER AT CAMDEN, ARK 05103 ARKANSAS 0

~'40 CHLORIDE TOTAL LB./DAY

X10~:;.

1 • 0()

,.-, 7c=' '-' • •. '-J

0.50 '.(.

" \ ~ . !\ \ A r-----1\ I \VA I •' I :· .• ~.. I '\ 0 .00 " ""' 1\ J i ~ , I I ~I\. I I I. I \ I 1"::J81 19E:3 1985 1':387 1989 1991

1982 1984 1S 186 19E:8 1990

1 ~'E:1-1991 1116APCC 050160 OUA28 USGS073625 33 32 38.0 092 19 00.0 1·'10RO CREEK NEAR BAt'-IKS, AR 05011 ARKANSAS B )• OUACHITA RIVER SW LOWER MISSISSIPPI

940 CHLORIDE TOTAL LB/DAY

·"·.'·'1- (.) 5 1.6

1 . ()

-~ n ~ lo1 1 ·1~1 It

11 II l I ~·.

_l_. )i .. ~~\ / I I~I~ .• -\·- l-·'; I I ~. j l n~....X I I I I ·\ ,. ' 'l_l( . .-. - I ,·.»'~I.~.I;w; I v,('+ I X'~K~-~ .... 1 . ~ I V • \_) n y,, > •• l I {j"' / \." ' ' ~ 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990

1 S181 -1 S1 '=!0 ·- --.

AnOil Field Controversy

Arkansas Oil Producers Try Drilling PC&E Official~

c -~-C.c._ ...... "~~- =---~-~o sion, for attack. to close up old pits, some ofwhich closing of all pits, making bankruptcy

[tiiii.!A'i'li fi&W•• n ° Battle lines also are forming are 40 and 50 years old." inevitable for some producers. between PC&E and another gov PC&E officials, however, believe For n9w, the changes focus on ~eorgeWaldon ernment agency, the stale Oil and Gas better environmental policies can closing pits in the 100-year flood msas Business Staff Commission. Commission officials be achieved without driving pro plain. Heavy rains and floods are are siding with OPA members in ducers out of business. major causes of oil field wastes escap 1me oil producers in southwest asserting tl1at PC&E employees have Inspections in the El Dorado area ing from containment pits. lrka.nsas are up in arms over a overstated the extent of the prob discovered numerous wells with at Amending_ state regulations to Josed regulation that would lem in soutl1west Arkansas. least one violation and several with abolish a grandfather clause for pre- 1ge tl1e way they handle wastes. "Mr. Bennett left the clear impres multiple violations, including ille 1957 oil wells and pits in tlte 100- move is afoot at the state sion tl1at our mom-and-pop opera gal discharges of oil and brine. year flood plain would go a long artment of Pollution Control tors in south Arkansas have been OPA members counter that the way toward alleviating tl1e problem, Ecoklb'Yto further restrict tl1e use drilling and polluting at will, and new regulations would prompt the PC&E officials believe. 0 mtainment pits as a means of that's just not the case," says Bill ecting surface water from oil Wright, director oftlte Oil and Gas 80 Arkansas pollution. Commission. Oil producdon: IU1-U90 :::&E officials believe oil pro "I don't do interviews," Bennett 70 :rs could - and should - do replies. "I gave that up a couple of e to prevent wastes from run- years ago." 60 into rivers and streams. That self-imposed prohibition 1e proposed changes and recent didn't stop a reporter from record 50 :isms by PC&E officials sparked ing Bennett's comments outside a :reation of a group called the Pollution Control and Ecology roducers of Arkansas. l11e orga Commission hearing. His words pro jon is led by John Lowery of ·· vided the grist for many of OPA's ery Oil Co. of El Dorado. Its charges. •ose is to deflect unfavorable ,city and blunt regulatory efforts Doing Their "Best" .vould significantly reduce prof- "We're doing tl1e· best we can to

meet environmental regulations ~-llll!!l!llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll_l_l!!ll!!ll!!lll!lll!ll!!ll!!l PA members charge tl1at PC&E witl1 our new wells, and we're doing .... "'' Ult .... lying on inaccurate i.nforma what we can to improve the condi LESS OIL, MORE WASTE?: Oil production in Arkansas has fallen steadily during TIIe brroup is singling out Chuck tions of the old wells," Lowery says. the past three decades. Regulatory pressure is mounting for producers to do cu., director of PC&E's water divi- "But it is an expensive proposition more to protect rivers and streams from oil field wastes such as salt water.

'-'0'"' u'""'u..., u J ~-""' u v u a--- 1.~.8 H H . H M H d / NEWS RELEASE OIL PRODUCERS OF ARKANSAS

TO: !Jl M5dio FROM: Oil Producers of Arkansas CONTACT: John Lowe::!)', Lowe!)' 0!! Company 862·0121 SUBJECT; Inde-pendent Oil Producers Work lo Allovfole Threats to the Environment FOR RELEASE: Uj:lon Receipt

"Our Intention, • stated John Lowery of Lowe!)' Oil Company, on behalf of the Oil .Producers oi Arkansas.'' is not only toabidoby environmental regulations, bwt todoevery!hinQ we con lo

onsur~ c hoolthy ~nvironmont for future gent:lrations. 11

Tho g-roup !ormoo recently Jn responsellO an Aprill9921nspecllon by the state Deportment of Pollullon Control & Ecology. According to Lowery, "The PC&E's South Arkansas visit resulted

in lnaccurac!os lhcl woro lotor reported to PC&E cornmlssion"'r:l 011d publishoc1 !r1 nlcllc e1nd loco! media."

-t;> 1\.s on example, Bill Wright, Director o! the Oil & Gas Commission, cited a PC&E reference to "intons!Hed 11 drillino and ••th0 unch0cked drive !or oll!n South Arkansas•• over th® pest five

years. 1'The reolity is, 11 Wright sold, uArkansas oil producl.lon decreasoo 38% !rom 19851o 1989, and drilling permits dropped £rom 1280 in 1985 to 280 in 1991 (see c:ttocned "roph). The !of:;! 'Intensive' drlllinQ In this oreo occurred with thG 1981 surg!!' in the price por barrel for oll. Between 1985 and 1986 alone, drill!nQ permits dropped from 1280 to less than 500." ~ 70-';)114

Cltino supposed violollons ct s<:wero! solt wo!or tnJmction wolls, Chuck Bonnet Director of tho PC&E Water Division, stated thotsouthArkonscswasanoreo that thePC&Ehad don0nothino • more·

Fax"

,:'-~·-o.". ·:;.:,,;, ......

' ':' ...... i .. -··,· ..... - .. ~· .• , -- -·-----··--,---~- c 1 .... ~. ~~ ··~'···-: ~-~~::~1::'.·· ... ~-,r•u',N·:--: ... ·T··:;... 4 -~--:1-·r;-: · ..1~: ,..·'"~·.~ .. ~."':::· ·•·· 'J' ••• .: •. ,.,_ .~-·· Oil Producers Pcrge 2

obout. The PC& E. however, hcs had cloc:::l of!ice staffed w!th c field lnspecto:- since l96E. In

oddiUon. thet:-idus::-y hcsbeen ~cv~rnc-d by the Oil & GosCommlssJon since 185.5. end lt 1~ tho

cowmiss!on's responsibility to issue;- c s~H wate~ disposal permit before any well is used for disposal of sell wcler. "The salt water disposal permit begins c:-, oversight process !o: the well

that cont!nues until the well ls plu~med end obcndonoo," occordino to Bill Wrioht. Director ol

the Oil & Gas Commission. "Mr. Bennett lef! the? clear impression that our mom ond pop

1 UfX)fUiors In wuth Arkou:;uu hovo lx.lun c.Jrllling onu pollu!iiiU \II wlll, (..lllJ lli\JI :.l )~1:..:1 I lUI II Ill cosrs"

/\t thohoorlo! lholssuoissoll wotor, o by-productofo!lproduction. Envlronmontal rogulo!ions were odopt0d to prohibit the surface dischoroe of salt water end other liqu!d wastes into the

state's waters. requlrlnc that ell salt water produced by South Arkansas oil wolls be dls):X)s~d of in Injection wells. In 1958, state PC&E R$Qulot!on No. 1 rnondoted thol ell wells brought in after July l, 1957 should have cpprovod disposer! systems includino- a salt water injocllon disposal well. However, the PC&E allowed many producers to use exist! no pits. In !oct. !or many years containm€1nt pits wsre the standard, now they may bocome unaccGptoble undor

the new reQulatioi"'.s.

-f>Atthoir Ap:il rn~l!ng, the?C&Ereported that Arkansasoll Ilclds a roo great contributor to the "I or 2 mill! on pounds of salt that Is sont down th0 Ouachllo River lnlo Lou!siona ovory dey."

"In !oct," Wright sold. "assuming chlorid~s of 41,563 ppm, which is a v0ry, very hlgh number.

the oil industry would have to deHberately release 104,167 bam~ Is of brine (4,375,0 14 gallons) dally in order to doposlt 1.5 million pounds of salt into the Ouachita."

"for example," Lowery noted, 11 300 oil wells would have to release all the salt woter they producadoily, and all of it would hcvo to rooch the Oucchl!a River undiluted !or thoolllnd ustry

to contribul€> onril million pounds of salt dolly." • more- - I I 0 - o ..... - o o I f.lo Oil Producers Page 3

According t:::> an Arkansas Vv ater Pollution Control Commissi:::>n re:porl dated April ?.2, 1958, J 02

million pounds of salt water wr:re being discharged dally in the Ouachita basln. This moons

that even if the 1 million pounds o! salt figure was accurate, South Arkansas oil produce:-s and

olhGr salt-water producing sources have reduced salt water discharge by 98% in 32 y~-:1rs. ·

Local geologists agree that much of the salt in the Ouachita is the result of natural leaching from the soil, dead trees, stumps, etc. Leaching is nature•s way of eliminating the residual sell that has been there since the '20s, '30s and 140s. Bulletin No. 645 from the U.S. Bureau of Minos

not

potential for future development.11 According to the report, the salt-bearing formation, which

reaches a thickness of more fhan 850 feet in the Smackover oil field and exceeds 1,325 feet sost

of the Norphlet dome in Union County, underliesollorpartsofNevada, Ouachita, Brodley,and Union Counties.

"Asfortheo!lproducersinSouthArkansas,wearedoingthebestwecantomeetenvironmental regulations with our new wells, and we're doing what we can to improve the conditions of the old wells,'' Lowery said. 11 But it is an expensive proposition to close up old pits·· some of them '10 and 50 yGOrs old. 11

OPA member hove united in their opposition too proposed amendment to Regulation No. I w h.ich would extend its coverage to all pits, old or new. This could mean bankruptcy for some producers who ore operating in an already depressed market. Many pits pre-dote 1957, and fall under the •old' category. Closing all existing open pits would be cost prohibitive, and put

an incredible financial strain on an already financially strapped industry.

Also, given the gravity of oil ond the volume of sand, pits ore sometimes the only containment option, and have often proven to the best-· thought not the most beautiful·· safety feature. /

• more· -Oil Producers ·Page 4

''Some pits," said Lowery, look like the devil, but in case of an emergency, they do their jobc.rnd

contain the oil ond salt water."

"The bottom line is this," said Lowery, 11 We all agree there is room for improvement, and we are committed to making those improvements. However, many of lhcso problonw h

. 30. ARKANSAS DEPAR'IMENT OF POLLUTION CONTROL & ECOlOGY PUBLIC HEARING * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Arkansas Oil and Gas Ccmnission~ -- .., .. ----.... . { :1 .... :, I: '•' I. El fX>rado, Arkansas. , .. . .· ..,, ... : .. : · .: u. • --·; ; : I I': I! I 7:oop.m. ~·uJ r: ,r~ '.r· '9~~ I i, \ ,·. _, ,) ' I) i "- WJ' * * * * * * * * * * * * ~~~ULS!J!JLSuulS * * * ·- -- Iu·

MR. BILL WRIGHT: I am Bill Wright, Director of the Arkansas Oil and Gas Ccmnission. My position as Director also allows me to serve on the Pollution Control and Ecology Ccmnission as a Ccmnissioner, there. Tbnight I have several of my Commissioners on the Oil and Gas Ccmnission present. My Chainnan is here, Mr. E. Boyd Alderson, Mr. Ned Price, Bob Nolan, we may have sane others I can 1 t see, my Hearing Officer who is an attorney, Bill Wynne is also here. At this point I would like to ask my Chainnan, Mr. E. Boyd Alderson, if he would like to cane and welcome each and all of you to the Oil and Gas Commission headquarters here.

MR. E. BOYD AlDERSON: Ladies and Gentlemen, welcane to the Oil and Gas Ccmnission facilities, we welcane the Arkansas Pollution Control and especially we welcane each one of you operators, South Arkansas Oil operators at this meeting. I feel that maybe with the questions and the statements made tonight that we will learn a lot more about what is expected of the oil operators, haw we can better our facilities, our operations and also maybe we can enlighten the Arkansas Pollution and Control Camrnission on sane of the problems that exist in South Arkansas. And I could make you a long statement now but I understand the program is already outlined.

I have a list here of things that have been done in South Arkansas in the last three years that according to same of the newspapers that not a thing has been done and later on if you are interested, and would like to give me the opportunity, I 1 11 go into detail on the progress that has been made in South Arkansas.

Again I would welcane each one of you, any way that any of the canmissioners or any of the employees of the Ccmnission can help you out, well, let us know. Thank you again.

MR. WRIGHT: Thank you Mr. Alderson. At this time I TNOuld request that Rhonda Sharp read the public notice that 1 s been published in the newspaper and advertised in the news media.

MS. RHONDA SHARP: Rather than read it to you I would like to stipulate that the proposed revisions to Regulation one were published on March 29 in the Arkansas Derrocrat-Gazette, a newspaper of statewide circulation. Additionally a press release of the proposed revisions were submitted by our office for distribution to newspapers across the state. Copies of the proposed revisions, a sumnary of the revisions and the pit closure requirerrents were placed in public libraries throughout the state including El Dorado, Carrrlen and Crossett. Copies were also placed at the Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission office here in El Dorado. Copies of the public notice were sent to the ADPCE' s hearing notification list and this infonnation was provided to the legislative council. Copies have been made available on the table out there. Thank you.

MR. WRIGHT: In introducing the Carmissioners that were present, I forgot to introduce Richard Mason over here who is a Pollution Control and Ecology Commission, Commissioner. Richard is here on their behalf and others tonight also. We welcane Richard here as well.

At this time I 'rn going to ask Wilson 'Iblefree, Wilson is the Deputy Director of the DPCE. Wilson is going to make the introduction and opening remarks concerning this revision to Regulation one.

MR. WilSON TOLEFREE: Thank you Carmissioner. Good evening Ladies and Gentlemen, I 'rn Wilson Tolefree, Deputy Director for the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology. I too appreciate and welcome each of you here tonight to give corrments and welcome your comments on the proposed changes to Regulation number one.

First I would like to introduce the members of my staff that is here tonight. On the extreme left is Ken Estes who is an engineer and works out of the El Dorado office. He is an engineer working in the El Dorado office who takes care of most of our engineering inspections and he works in the El Dorado area. Sitting next to him is Bruce Kirkpatrick who's chief of State Pennits Branch has charge of the pennit facilities that encompass the Regulation one regulations and to my irrmediate left is Gerry Delevan who is a Geologist in the State Pennits Branch.

You have before you or we had on the table a copy of the sumnary of the proposed changes to Regulation number one. The Regulation number one as you know is not a new regulation this regulation became effective November 1, 1958, and it was issued under the provisions of the Arkansas Water and Air Pollution Control Act 472 of 1949. The regulation was drafted in order to prohibit the uncontrolled release of discharges of produced salt waters to the surface waters of the state. We have been working with you in this area and we know that there have been changes there has been progress made in this area because we have seen same changes in same of the the limits that we've seen and what we are hoping to do is have to effectuate a continuing change as far as the water quality is concerned. We think the proposed changes that we have in the regulations is a first step effort and is a good place to start.

The regulations, as I said, the main changes in the body of the regulation was the new section that we've added whereas we're proposing that those pits located in the hundred year flood plane be closed out within a three year period. That's the major difference in the

2 regulations that we're proposing. we have same other changes in there but the rrost significant one with the rrost impact is the closing out of those pits in the ?? ? over a three year period. We also have small changes in same of the wording in Section two, we have a change in same of the wording in Section three and we have a change in the wording in Section four, the regulations, and we have same changes in the wording of Section five which you can follow. As I said those have been pointed out in the proposed changes and a sunmary of the changes we have made available to you.

We have added one carplete section and I' 11 read that, it says; The addition of one carplete section reads as following:

"All pits or holding basins associated with oil or gas exploration or production in Arkansas regardless of being active, abandoned, reserved or workover pits which are located within the hundred year flood plane or any stream as designated on the flood hazardous boundary map developed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Developnent Federal Insurance Administration shall be closed in thirty six rronths the effective date of the revision to this regulation according to the closure guidelines adopted by the agency."

We feel that this is a good place to start and by no means do we by putting these in place are we saying that there has not been any progress made. We have seen same changes. But we feel that we need to start someplace with the addition of these other changes to bring about a change in the regulations that we have to effectuate this other change of those problems that we've seen to be sane of the major problems that we're having. In going through this we will see that what this is going to do through this process, is same of those areas that it may be thought to be a problem or may have been seen to be a problem would be taken care of, that really was not a problem at the time but because of the way that they were being handled and because of the way that it was being operated at the time, it would not be a problem after looking at it and going through the proposed changes according to the close out procedures that we've had. So I think this is a good place to start. We realize that there have been same changes made and we want to effectuate the continuing process in trying to get compliance with the Regulation number one. Thank you Commissioner. And thank you all.

MR. WRIGHT: Thank you Wilson. The proposal and the way we will handle this will be I have eleven cards that have been turned in to either make oral and written statements or just an oral statement. We're going to call these people in the order that they signed in one through eleven and when we call you, came to the microphone and make your oral statemmt. If there are others to be made you need to sign a card and turn them into Ms. Sharp before we get through this eleven. After all the statements have been made, then Mr. Tolefree and his staff will be available to answer questions that you may pose or that same of the statements may have posed.

At this time I want to say that I have told many of you that we would have same slides here tonight for you to look at, those slides did not

3 carne dawn from Little Rock, so you can't look at slides tonight. They did bring same pictures with them, if you want to look at those pictures after this is over, they will be here and the pictures will also be here. But, I apologize that the slides were not released from Little Rock to carne dawn, so we won't have the slides as I told you I would have.

At this point I want to call Mr. Bradley Johnson from Texarkana, Texas.

MR. BRADLEY JOHNSON: Good evening sir. Good evening, I'm Bradley Johnson from Texarkana, I have not had time to read all of the rev1s1ons, the changes in Regulation one. I am in agreement with the provisions that all pits, holding ponds, lagoons be closed within the three year period or prior to the three year period if possible. They are hazards to humans, wildlife, species and for the future of all inhabitants of adjoining areas not only Arkansas. With proper action possibly the future of the State and of the citizens can be protected and these types of operations can be prevented. Also no other pits holding ponds or lagoons should be permitted wetlands marshes or in the hundred year floodplane.

MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Bill Prewitt from El Dorado, Arkansas.

MR. BILL PREWI'IT: Mr. Wright I'm going to file with you a written statement in behalf of Mr. James H. Noble. Let me say first at the outset here that I appear in behalf of Mr. James Noble who is the managing partner of McFarland Company, but I also appear in behalf of myself. The written statement, reading it, might be enlightening, I simply would urge Mr. Tblefree and those of you who are concerned with this and who will be involved in adopting or implementing this regulation to please read it. Let me say also that those of us who carne and oppose these regulations and I appear in opposition to it. In particularly in opposition to the wording and same of the details of it. That does not mean that we are in favor of polluting the environment. It does not mean that we are in favor of any hazards to human beings.

I've been around here a long time and others have been here much longer than I have and I doubt if you can find a single one out here that could tell you of a pit that causes a problem to any human being. I haven't heard of one in I don't know how many years, if ever. So when we speak of hazards by virtue of these pits. Quite often we're simply taking an isolated incidence out of context. The article that was in the paper last Sunday. It's a scare article that really gets concerned and picks out one isolated area maybe one pit that could create a problem in an unusual situation that then is put in a photograph, that then is put in the paper and is put forth as being something that applies to every single pit, to every single oil and gas operator.

We simply appear to tell you and I'm going to read one carrnent, Mr. Noble's written statement which says: "I join with all of those who consciously insist on protection of our environment today. I do not join in with those who want conscientious producers who do protect the environment today and who have in their practices consistently

4 protected the envirollirent. I do not want them to be required to pay for past sins of persons and companies long since gone from the oil and gas business."

'Ihere has been to my knowledge no econanic impact study of this regulation. I question whether many that are proposing this regulation really know what the econanic impact of this will be. I wonder how many of these people who are sitting out here today will be looking for a way to make a living, a way to feed their families, if you require them to go out here and spend money unnecessarily. 'Ihe oil industry today is in a severe depression. 'Ihere is no other word to say for it. It's in a depression because of sanetimes overzealous people imposing unnecessary red tape, imposing unnecessary regulations that have no real purpose in mind and thereby making them unable to make a living and feed their families. 'Ihe statistics are out here and Mr. wright can tell you what the production of oil and gas is in this area today. He can tell you what it was ten years ago. He can tell you of the severe decline in it. He can tell you what caused it.

I don't how many of you have really studied the history of the oil and gas business. In 1921, when the first oil well was brought in this area, the bocm when El Dorado went fran about five thousand (5,000) population to well over twenty-five thousand (25,000) population in a short period of time. In 1921 when the Smackover Field was producing over four hundred thousand ( 400,000) barrels of oil a day, four hundred thousand ( 400, 000) . When the sane six hundred million dollars that came out of the Smackover Field in a very brief time, Imlch more than all of the gold that came out of the Klondike Fields, more than twenty-five (25) times all of the monies in all of the banks in Arkansas at that time. At that time, unfortunately there was no concern of the envirollirent, pits were dug for storage, saltwater was pennitted to go on the ground. 'Ihat is not the case today.

We simply appear to you and ask you if there is a pit that's causing a problem, yes, close it, don't let em' cause that problem. 'Ihere's not a person sitting out here that wants to pollute the environment. 'Ihere' s not one out here that wants to run saltwater on the ground. But to cane in and arbitrarily say that everyone that has a pit, you've got to go through all of those regulations. Actual!y behind us right here, under this regulation as written, I ask you to look out and look at the pit, if this were in the one hundred year floodplane, this regulation, as written, would require the operator if there is an operator first, if there's no operator, requires the landowner to came out there fill it to grade, seed it, unless they can prove it wasn't seeded and how in the heck are you going to prove scmething wasn't seeded in 1921 when that pit was dug? Who knows, obviously no one knows today.

Gentlerren, we appear and implore you to do one thing. Conduct an econanic impact study on this regulation before you put the Mom and Pop Oil Operators out of business. James Noble McFarland's what we call a large independent, he's going to be in business, he' 11 be in business probably in sane other state, and not here, but he' s going to be in business he's going to be making a living. I'm not sure that that can

5 be said of all of the people who are in this roam here tonight. So we simply urge you, think long and hard before you make people guilty without proving it. Everything that 1 s written here says that the operator has got to prove his innocence. That 1 s not our way of life, at least give him the benefit of the doubt and let yourself, if you think he' s doing wrong, prove he's doing wrong, prove there' s sane damage. We thank you.

MR. WRIGHT: Thank you Mr. Prewitt. Mr. E. W. Smith, pass. Mr. Eddie Dumas.

MR. EDDIE DUMAS: I 'rn going to pass, too. He said exactly what I wanted to say.

MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Eddie Berry.

MR. EDDIE BERRY: No problem.

MR. WRIGHT: You passing also?

MR. BERRY: For right now.

MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Tim Corely or Conley? Corely, 0. K. Tim.

MR. TIM CORELY: What I'd like to say is along the same lines as Mr. Prewitt. There are sane pits that might be abused and need to be covered. People may be needing to take action against them. But there are sane pits I think that are in good use. There' s sane pits that save fran causing a huge rress when a bleeder's stopped up. If you're familiar with that. On a tank when the bleeder's stopped up, then your tank's ran over. There's been tirres the sludge pit has saved it fran going out through the woods or going out where you could not recover it. In a pit you can and there are sane pits still in use today that are produced in and I think maybe otherwise it might not be able to be produced that way. I think you need to look at it as a whole and go in and see not only look at what bad uses of the pits are but look at what we could use maybe work with you and ccme up with sane agreement that we' 11 be able to use in sane line a pit to protect our oil spills around our tank batteries and around our wells even they cane in use at tirres, but maybe regulate them. Thank you.

MR. WRIGHT: Thank you Tim. Mr. Steve Wells.

MR. STEVE WElLS: Pass.

MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Van Martin.

MR. VAN MARriN: I didn't put my name down.

MR. WRIGHT: Sanebody did. It's printed Van, isn't that yours?

MR. MARriN: My name is Van Martin and I 1 ffi fran Smackover.

MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Myron Crisco.

6 MR. MYRON CRISCO: Well I'm certainly not no speech maker and this gentlerren over here said it real gocxl. I'm going to be one of those that he's talking about because this proposal and $14 oil is going to destroy me and my farnily and I 'm sure I won't be alone. We've been fighting low prices and high costs for six (6) or seven (7) years now. I hope it gets better, that's what I'm working for. Who knows it may not, but if you say three years you got to do all this and we're still buckin' $14 oil, you can forget it. Because we'll all be belly up somewhere.

That's just what I had to say. This man said a lot of good things that I agree with but I just wanted to put it in perspective from my side of it. And I don't think I'm alone and I didn't ask for your sympathy, so thank you.

MR. WRIGHT: Rather than get myself in trouble here I'm just going to call the mayor of Garland City and let her pronounce this last name for you.

MS. MARTHA FRANKLIN: Martha Franklin.

MR. WRIGHT: Franklin?

MS. FRANKLIN: I'm Martha Franklin. I agree with what they say about all these mandates caning down the tube. But you'd have to be a lowly mayor to know what we are faced with, too. I know that the water under Garland City is saltwater because we had to go three miles out of town to get some. And this advertiserrent that' s in the newspaper in the legal section for this disposal for Rodney Roberts and also Shreveport louisiana. I'd like to read to you that the USGS geological survey water supply paper, 1988 published by Mr. Ludwig entitled The Water Resources of Hempstead, Lafayette, Little River, Miller and Nevada Counties. "The information we have shows prior damage to shallow groundwater in the Garland City area pages 19-21. Some people feel that the high chloride content in the shallow ground water in the Garland area is from the abandoned brine disposal pits associated with the oil industry."

On May 7, 1992 the Garland City residents are hereby requesting a public hearing in Garland City at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely, Martha Franklin.

I agree, I would love to have same of the revenue from the oil. I also burn gas in my car. I have the greatest sympathy for you people. As a lowly mayor, I know what your faced with in sane of these controls but we must have them. We have had several deaths in fifteen (15) years in Garland City. We've only had two that were not cancer. One was killed in a car wreck and the other one died with a heart attack. I'm telling you folks, I have a water and a sewer license. Don't tell rne about same of these stringent controls, I know about them, and I welcorne them, we've got to have them, we're killing ourselves. That's all I have to say, thank you.

7 MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Robert Reynolds.

MR. ROBERT REYNOLDS: Excuse me ladies and gentlerrEn, my name is Robert Reynolds and I have a few carments regarding the guidelines for the closure of all pits. Please accept my carments in a restrictive and positive way. I have same comments about the pit closure requirerrEnts.

My first canment was that the guidelines themselves are a little hard to work with because the pages are not numbered. If you 1 d excuse me I 1 11 have to refer to section, and then letter, then number. And if anyone wants to follow along, please do so. Ranan numeral one, Pit Closure Requirements, Section A, General Guidelines, Number five. Number five refers to "An ADPCE pennitted disposal facility" but not does not list the names of any such facilities nor tell how to obtain a list of such facilities. Raman numeral two, Proper Pit Fluid Disposal Techniques, Section B, Pit Fluid Analysis Test RequirerrEnts. Number two, this refers to "This section one B" I think that 1 s a clerical or typographical error should say "this section two B" , there is no Section one B. Number three, the limitations on the listed parameters are unduly restrictive and do not conform to existing state and federal standards. For example, the five hundred (500) parts per million (ppn) limitation on total dissolve solids is only five percent (5%) of the Federal Standard of ten thousand (10,000) ppn for drinking water. In other words, no fluid could be discharged fran a pit if it has more than five percent (5%) of the same dissolved solids the Feds have for drinking water. Number four, refers to ADPCE regulation number two but it does not say what are the maximum allowable discharge values in Regulation two. Number six establishes a sixty ( 60) day deadline for citizens but does not establish a corresponding deadline for a ADPCE decision. The regulation should require ADPCE to act within the same time frame that it requires for citizens to act for the citizens request should be deerrEd to have been approved. C, disposal of pit fluids not meeting water quality standards. Number one refers to "Arkansas UIC Code" to my knowledge there is no Arkansas UIC code. If there 1 s anybody in here that knows better please tell me. Number two establishes parameters but it does not establish the limitation it instead leaves approval to the discretion of the ADPCE. Ladies and GentlerrEn I 1m not sure that 1 s fair that 1 s sort of like saying that the police may establish speed limits and then enforce those limits without saying what those limits will be. It merely gives the parameter the parameter is miles per hour. That 1 s what we got here, we got a parameter but in milligrams per liter but it doesn 1 t tell how many milligrams per liter. In other words we 1 re gonna have a speed lirnit in miles per hour but we 1 re not going to say how many miles per hour. I 1m afraid that leaves open, different people will have different speed limits, different people are gonna 1 have different milligrams per liter. Hanan numeral three, pit closures and closure technique. A. Specific guidelines for pit closures. Number five, requires the bottom of the waste mixture to be at least three (3) feet above the seasonal high water table, and remember this regulation is written for the flood planes and streams but requires the bottom of the waste mixture to be three (3) feet above the seasonal high water table. I believe in many cases, if not in most cases this requirerrEnt directly contradicts the

8 requirement to fill pits that are in the seasonal that are in the hundred year flood plane. Item m.nnber ten requires the filing of a fonn subsequent to closing the pit but does not show a copy of the required fonn or the proposed fonn. B, land treatment/disposal of pit waste. Number one refers to ADPCE pennitted commercial disposal facility but does not list the names of any such facilities nor tell how to obtain a list of such facilities. F, Off Site Disposal of Nonhazardous Oil Field Waste. Number one refers to an ADPCE approved and/or pennitted facilities. Again, the regulation fails to provide what it pranises. For these reasons I request that you not irrplement this irrpractically and unworkable regulation. In the event that you elect to rewrite the proposed regulation, we ask that you solicit and incorporate practical suggestions fran people who will actually be doing the closure of pits. Thank you.

MR. WRIGHT: Thank you Mr. Reynolds. That is all of the cards that have been turned in. Wilson, do you and your staff want to attempt to answer same of the questions that have been posed at this point rather than taking the questions fran the audience which we might do.

MR. TOLEFREE: We would like to go through it.

MR. GERALD DELAVAN: Rob, I appreciate your comments. I'm glad you took time to go ahead and really go over this thing with a fine tooth comb. This is not the final document, let me assure you. There are bugs to be worked out same additional infonnation that needs to be included.

You rrentioned one of the fonns that' s not included. We haven't, I haven't ever had a chance to develop that fonn yet. I wanted to have this fonn I wanted to take infonnation from the public fran that to refine if you will what needs to be done in here.

In regards to your comments about the pit fluid analysis test requirements. These requirements and the limitations in regard to Ph and Chlorides, total dissolved solids. These parameters were given as limitations for each parameter came directly out of what is known as the Regulation number two for our agency which is, correct me if I'm wrong here Wilson, which is the Water Quality Standards. That's where those came out of. It wasn't related to Federal Regulations whatsoever it's the department's own water quality standards. Your comments about a report containing the results of fluid analysis shall be submitted to the ADPCE. Certainly we would hope to give you a turn around time of something less than sixty (60) days. Once your infonnation is submitted to us, if we're just not just swamped with trying to get things straightened out and getting the infonnation out to the individual operators about specific pits. Certainly we're gonna try to have a turn around time of ten, fifteen (15) days in tenns of trying to give you the infonnation that you need to proceed with your pit closure activities. Certainly I don't know if that is something that we can write into the regs in regards to what you expect from us in terms of turn around time. I would hope it would be as short as possible.

You mentioned once again on the same page, C, the disposal of pit fluids not being water quality standard. Pit fluids or any other N.O.W.

9 fluids which do not meet pit fluids analysis test requirerrents for surface discharge may be disposed into an ADPCE pennitted carmercial or noncommercial disposal well or wells provided they meet all applicable Ac:x;c and Arkansas UIC ccxie regulations. Well the UIC ccxie is what Arkansas uses to regulate what is the Underground Injection Control program. The Arkansas Oil and Gas Carmission and the Pollution Control Carmission jointly administer involvement with Underground Injection Control. Bill Wright's group has involverrent with the sub-surface disposal aspects of the saltwater disposal. My group has, is, involved with the surface disposal, the tankage, the firewalls, piping, the anount of storage injection pressure, that sort of thing. All I was referencing there in the ccxie it states specifically from our standpoint, requirements and regulations involving proper injection disposal of those wastes. So that's why I referenced the UIC ccxie, I would just hope that an operator that was going to use an injection well as a disposal methcxi would be in canpliance with the law applicable rules of rules and regulations regarding that disposal methcxi. That the well's constructed properly, that the casing is set properly, that he's operating under the guidelines of both the regulations of my agency and Bill's agency. That was the only reason I made reference to the UIC ccxie.

You talked a little bit about land application of pit fluids on site. Typically the way that would be handled is, what I was hoping here was the operator could submit a test analysis of the pit fluids. These are the parameters that we want to test for, scxiiurn chlorides, barium, lead, and chromium, that sort of thing. That analysis would be sent to us and based on the analysis there's a worksheet that I have in the office that I'd be happy to supply to you. But, I'll run through same calculations in regard to the conductivity of the fluids, the analysis of the soils where the materials gonna be land applied and from that I carne up with a count and amount what is would be typically an acceptable rate in terms of discharge that you're given. Your allowed to put one inch an acre on a minimum of twenty acres based on the chloride content or based on the analysis that you send me. There's all kinds of variables in there so I really couldn't carne in and put a concentration level that might be acceptable because same other variable might throw it out of spec. So I'd be glad to provide a copy of those worksheets to anybcxiy that they could see haw the calculations run and give them an idea what might be acceptable from a land disposal standpoint in regards to water that might be out of spec. That' s where I was earning from on that.

What else we got, Wilson? The pit closure reporting form, like I say, that was not something that has been developed yet, we just haven't had a chance to do that. Hopefully it will be just a short half page form where you can identify yourself as an operator, location of the pit, methcxi of disposal, sorrething that I can have on file in regards to the work to give you credit if you will on the work that was done and have a record for my files on what was done and when the pit was closed. If the public comes to me in regards to if or if not a pit is closed that I would have same way of going back through my files and having the reporting form on hand. That was what was envisioned on that.

10 Anything else? The last item you mentioned was under item B, land treatment and disposal of pit waste. Once again, all waste oils, sludge, and N.O.W. materials must be either disposed of on site or transported to an ADPCE permitted disposal facility. Once again, I did not, I have a listing in the office of permitted carrnercial operators who are licensed and pennitted through our agency to collect handle and dispose of waste associated with oil field production and exploration. I'd be certainly willing to supply any of the operators with a list of those people who are pennitted and we feel are good operators in regard to disposal practices and that sort of thing. That's available on request, I'm not trying to hide anything in regard on who could do that work, we just didn't supply that tonight. I 've got that infonnation if you need it.

MR. TOLEFREE: Thank you Gerry.

MR. DELEVAN: Thanks Rob.

MR. BIIL FOSTER: If this goes fo:rward, the closing of pits, it seems to me the most important thing is to get our pits closed and not put so many restrictions in front of the operator, for instance today in our tank battery firewall we only have stock tanks in that firewall. The majority of us have in our SPCC plan can drain the rainwater out of it and most of the mess is separate, taste and color. What is wrong with this, doing this? I can see this taking sixty ( 60) days fran the time I get ready to close the pit until I get your approval.

MR. DELEVAN: Sir, you really want me to address the question of proper disposal of fluids in the firewall, if you will?

MR. FOSTER: I mean it seems to be the descriptions are so rigid that we do so much sampling that the average boy out here can walk out here and taste of that water and see if it's brackish.

MR. DELEVAN: Yes sir.

MR. FOSTER: Then if it's brackish he's got to put it in a disposal system.

MR. DELEVAN: Yes sir.

MR. FOSTER: If it's not brackish he ought to be able to turn it loose. I ought to not have to go sample it, send it to same lab then get the analysis back and certify that analysis and then send it to you.

MR. DELEVAN: Like I say .•.

MR. FOSTER: They were going to do this in Louisiana and I thought it was going to be quite successful.

MR. DELEVAN: As far as giving the operator the discretion on what should be discharged and what shouldn't and the State not being involved, is that what you're suggesting?

11 MR. FOSTER: That's basically what I'm saying. Let's get our pits closed if that's what we want to do, go on down with pipe and get our pits closed. Let's get our pits closed the best way we can, quickest way we can, and let sane of these people survive.

MR. DELEVAN: Oh, I agree and it' s certainly not. . . the intent of this was not to place an econanic hardship on anyone. That was certainly not the intent of this. That was not the intent of this at all. If there's a more workable solution to pit testing requirements. If there's a more workable solution out there I'm willing to listen and try to streamline it so we can effect a quicker turn around tine. I'm not quite sure what that solution is, I think the department feels like they would want to be involved in regards to saying what the analysis of same of those fluids were prior to disposal. I just feel like that we want to have a little bit of say in regards to what's going to be disposed and what's not. What's the best method for that is I'm not sure. That's why we're having a public hearing to take corrments and make possible changes to the proposed reg. This is not written in stone.

MR. FRANK SPOONER: Is your thrust mainly to handle the saltwater?

MR. DELEVAN: Yes, and the oily waste that's contained in the pits too.

MR. SPOONER: Well what you don't want then is a discharge of oily waste into the streams.

MR. DELEVAN: Yes.

MR. SPOONER: And you don't want a discharge of saltwater.

MR. DELEVAN: Yes.

MR. SPOONER: I think most of the people consent to that but when you get so detailed with it most of us don't have an engineering background and we tend to thro.v up our hands at this stuff sanewhere down the road. When we see statements like two million pounds ••. I'm fran Monroe Louisiana, I read in the paper there's two million of salt daily going down the OUachita river. Where is that two million pounds caning fran?

MR. TOLEFREE: In doing analysis I think that's one of the important things as far as our testing program is concerned, performing analysis and looking at that and trying to make the determination as to what has been released and that's what we're looking at as to the concentrations and all that have been released. I think that's why it's important to have same idea as to the concentrations and all that's been released. I think based on the analysis that we've had it's where we get those figures from is based on our analysis of those that can discharge.

MR. SPOONER: Ho.v much does two million pounds a day add to the chlorides in the OUachita river?

MR. DELEVAN: I 'm sorry?

12 MR. SPOONER: HeM much does two million pounds a day raise the dissolved solids in milliliters?

MR. BRUCE KIRKPATRICK: Well I guess for an exarrple, last July 2, stream fl<:M was up pretty high in the Ouachita river, I believe the Chloride concentration d<:Mn at Felsenthal after the Saline river runs in was twenty-seven (27) milligrams per liter which is well within the water quality standards. But, the stream fl<:M at that time was about eight thousand sane odd million gallons per day. High water flow.

MR. SPCX)NER: High water fl<:M?

MR. KIRKPATRICK: Yes sir, it was high water. When you figure twenty-seven (27) milligrams per liter over that much water you're going to carne up with about pretty close to 1.98 or something like that million pounds per day of Chloride.

MR. E. W. SMI'lli: How much does the Saline river carry, though?

MR. KIRKPATRICK: I didn't hear your last corrment, sir.

MR. SMI'lli: How much does the Saline river carry by itself.

MR. KIRKPATRICK: The Saline ...

MR. SMI'lli: It's not named Saline river for nothing.

MR. KIRKPATRICK: Yes sir, it's carrying quite a bit on it's <:Mn, I agree and it don't weigh ...

MR. SMI'lli: How much is caning out of our Ouachita fran up above?

MR. KIRKPATRICK: Yes sir. Right there's the Ouachita River Basin starts up there in Western Arkansas and covers a huge part of the State and I think everybody knows that there are Chlorides in our soils that go into solution during rainfall runoff. There are many sources, discharge from sewer treatment plants, I don't think anyone here would say that all the saltwater going to the Ouachita river is caning fran saltwater discharge from oil and gas operations.

MR. SPCX)NER: That's what it said in the paper.

MR. DELEVAN: I'm not responsible for what the paper said. I can't control what the rredia says in regards to ...

MR. KIRKPATRICK: I think the paper said that the oil and gas operations were a large contribution. I think that would probably be a good statement. I'm not saying majority but I'm saying probably a good amount of saltwater probably earning from a lot of the salt flats in the area.

MR. WRIGHT: Ladies and Gentlemen, let me bring our record up to where it ought to be. If you are going to make comments, at least give your name before you make a carment so the people will know who they're

13 trying to answer. These people do not know you, I do. The first party who spoke was Bill Foster, second was Frank Spooner, and Mr. E. w. Smith was the third comment. Now you're going to have to talk one at a ti.Ire, because there's a record trying to be maintained. 'Ihe little lady who's here is going to have a heck of a time putting Joe Blow with all these names out there. Bill Foster?

MR. FOSTER: I'm trying to be rather conservative. Ya' 11 said one million to two million pounds of salt going down the river a day. I just pulled same Chloride counts for the South Field. Everybody knows what the El Dorado South Field is. It runs somewhere around thirty-seven thousand (37 ,000) ppn. If you canpute thirty-seven thousand (37 ,000) ppm into pounds of salt per barrels of saltwater it will only take seventy-eight thousand (78,000) barrels of water a day to make one million pounds. Thank you.

MR. JAMES LANGLEY: I'm James Langley.

MR. WRIGHT: Jerry Langley.

MR. LANGLEY: James. I don't know if you're aware of this but in 1958 there was a survey done. Fifty-one thousand (51,000) tons of salt was going down the Ouachita River. There' s a big discrepancy bet"~Neen one and two million. First we need to decide whether it's one million or two million pounds, but in 1958 there was fifty-one (51,000) tons going down the river. Now the Saline river does contribute. International Paper Canpany in carrrlen does contribute. The sewage systems all the way up the river as far as you go up the river including Smackover and carrrlen does contribute. The gentleman made the statement there's no way to monitor. A chemical specialist, a man that works for Treat-0-Lite, or any of these ????chemical coopanies who run Chloride above Smackover Creek and above the Saline River and subtract the differences and it doesn't take a genius to figure out what the Chloride count is above and below. I think the oil producers are an easy prey at this point to take the heat. But there are ways to check it and unfortunately even though we've had a ninety-eight percent (98%) decrease in the amount of salt going down the river per Government and I have the report in my office, I meant to bring it but I failed to do so like your slides. And never the less we've had a ninety-six to a ninety-eight percent (96 to 98%) improvement in the amount of salt going down the river wherever it's caning fran since 1958. And I realize there's a lot of work to be done but I think you need to bear that in mind when you make your decision and realize that most of us try to be CC>It"petent operators. I'm an oil producer and I'm in the timber business and right now I make more money out of the timber business than I do out of the oil business. So I'm more concerned about my trees growing than I am my oil wells purrping.

Gentlemen if we're going to keep this industry the government is going to have to work with us instead of against us. we're going to have to work together as a partnership. And for us to do this you're going to have to give us guidelines but you're going to have to give us specific guidelines and you're going to let some people that have same ccmnon working knowledge with it work with you so we can work it out together

14 so that we all can live. You can do your job, we can do our job all we want to do is make a living. We don't want to take the rap for other industries. we don't mind working with you but we need guidelines and we need specific guidelines. Thank you.

MR. KIRKPATRICK: I would like to make a ccmnent on that. There' s been sane definite improvem:mt in just recent years. Back around 81' era the peaks as far as you want to talk about saltload going down the OUachita river. Peaks were, even ten years ago, were around eight million pounds per day. The reason, there's no way you can put any exact number on that because just the flow of the OUachita river goes up and down fran day to day and so does the arrount of salt it carries. So there's no way to say it's this much. It's going to be ..• It varying from day to day.

MR. SPOONER: Can I ccmnent on that? I' 11 tell you what the Louisiana Department of Conservation found.

MR. WRIGHT: What is your nane, sir.

MR. SPOONER: Frank Spooner. Monroe gas field has probably six thousand ( 6, 000) pits in it. Louisiana Depa.rtnent of Conservation went through the sane closure procedure in the flood plane of the OUachita River down there as you did up there. But the Director of the Office of Conservation in Monroe and the Wildlife and Fisheries have monitored the OUachita River repeatedly and they've never found any increase in the salt content caning down that river, fran supposedly flushing of those pits. Just not visible. If you guys want to close the pits that's fine but I don't think you ought to be using the arrount of salt caning down the OUachita river as an excuse for it. At flood stage, that' s when your going to pick up your water, there's sixty-one thousand (61,000) cubic feet of water per second that crosses Monroe. At pool stage it's only one thousand 1,000 cubic feet per second. But even at pool stage that's five billion 300 and same odd thousand pounds a day crossing at Monroe. If you're out to close the pits I'd appreciate that but don't confuse this as an excuse for doing it because they're not hurting the Ouachita. A million pounds of salt at flood stage if my calculations are correct that's three (3) ppn at a million pounds a day that is going down the river. At two million pounds it comes out to six ( 6) ppn that you would increase. I don't think you can rreasure it. We're going to close the pits and I understand that's what we're going to do. Now I think my question is probably more can we have sane little pit to catch oil spills just don't put salt water in it. Will that be allowed?

MR. DELEVAN: We're wanting a workable situation to where yes you can have a pit that is a workover pit or you got a situation that you need a pit to contain oil that may be getting into a water course or into a creek or stream. We're certainly willing to work with you in regards to that. The intent of this was not to prevent you fran using any pits whatsoever. The intent was to try to address a very specific problem that we had which was the periodic inundation of pits. When we get into a high water situation on the Ouachita river, the river getting up

15 and just flushing pits out, it didn't matter what was in those pits everything was getting flushed, whether it was saltwater, waste oil, oily sludge, it was all being flushed down the river and from a water quality stand point and from a surface water quality standpoint the department saw this as a serious problem. What we're trying to do here is to not put an undue burden of hardship on everybody in regards to closing all pits if you've got good water in the pit we're not going to force you to close that out. If you can show me that you've got a good pit that's gone through passive closure and you've got trees on that rascal, I'm not going to ask you to close that pit. I'm asking you to close the pits that have a problem from a water quality standpoint or a problem from a bunch of oily sludge that's been in there for a long time that's periodically inundated and are closing a problem in regards to water quality. We're wanting to work with you in regards to what pits you may need or may not need. Like I say this is not all cast in stone in regards to the specifics of what is going to be done. This is a brand new program for us. We're willing to look at different options in regards to what may or may not have to be done. Yes, it states very clearly in here the specifics, I've got one guy saying that things are too specific, one guy saying things are not specific enough. We're trying to carne up with a workable set of guidelines here that everybody can live with. It's not going to please everybody, I'm not going to make everybody happy. I'm trying to cane up with sanething that ..•. An operator calls me and says Hey, I've got to do a workover operation I'm going to need to use a pit, I need a workover pit. O.K. use the workover pit but don't leave it there for ten (10) or fifteen (15) years because you may be working the workover pit down the line. Use the pit then close the pit out if need be. Surely there's a workable situation.

MR. PREWI'IT: My name is Bill Prewitt. If I could just ccmnent. As I read the regulation it does not pennit what you've just said that you're intending to do. I'm simply ask you to review the regulation write into what you've just said and you will have gone a long ways toward solving the problem.

MR. DELEVAN: I'm not going to argue with you, you're an attorney. I know better than that. I tried to write same lead way into it.

MR. FOSTER: Bill Foster. Gerry, one rrore time. If we have a pit that we obviously know the water quality is not up to par, what is wrong with us taking it and going to dispose of it into that pit instead of going and getting samples and waiting on ya' 11. But you personally know I have a commercial well.

MR. DELEVAN: Yes sir.

MR. FOSTER: If I've got a pit that won't pass, I know where my water's going before I close that pit. What I am against is the long drawn out testing procedure. Let' s do it and get it over with.

MR. DELEVAN: I don't see any problem with that whatsoever. If you know you got bad water quality in your pit and you know it's not going to cane out. Here's the specs in front of you in terms of what's going

16 to be required in tenns of water quality. If you know the water quality is bad, sure let's avoid the middle man. One less phone call to me or to my staff makes everything go a lot srooother.

MR. FOSTER: What bothers me right now is the way the proposed regulations are is just supposing I took it on myself and did that in all good faith. 'IWo years or three years dCMn the line you came back or someone comes back and says, hey ....

MR. MIKE DAVIS: Not many of us are drilling wells anymore but for those of us who intend to drill wells in the future, what do you intend for us do with the drilling muds that we have in our reserve pits once we're through with our drilling operation? Can we land fann that, does it have to be disposed of somewhere, does that pit have to be lined or can we still just use an earthen pit like we've used for years and years and years? What do you intend for us to do; clarify that a little bit and tell me your intent as to what to do with our drilling mud.

MR. DElAVAN: We have same guidelines that are already in place in regards to construction, the proper construction, and the disposal and closure for reserve pits. Unfortunately, the guidelines that's been applied ... have been applied to two different areas in the state. The guidelines that are out there have typically been used in the Arkoma Basin and they are used in the Arkoma Basin. Each operator that drills a well and utilizes a reserve pit in the Arkoma basin typically notifies us and we send them a letter of authorization for that reserve pit construction. I do not have the staff or the time to oversee the same kind of construction operations in South Arkansas. Consequently, we felt like the Arkoma basin was a little more environmentally sensitive area if you will, so we took the time and energy to try to regulate that a little closer than South Arkansas. Those regulations are already in place in regards to requirements for pit liners where there's going to be compacted clay or bentonite or synthetic liner in regards to proper closure techniques, those are already there. But I don't have the staff and the time to regulate each one of those in South Arkansas, there much more numerous down here, I don't see it as big a problem in regards to reserve pit activities as I do in the Arkoma basin. Probably if our request for staffing increases are made, eventually we will probably require the operators to notify us and atterrpt to construct a reserve pit and once they do, we' 11 send them a copy of the guidelines on how a pit should be constructed, closed, fluids disposed, and that sort of thing; so those regulations are already there, we just haven't had the staffing or the time to go ahead and address South Arkansas like we have the Arkoma.

MR. 'IDLEFREE: Also, these regulations that we're proposing and the changes that we're proposing is going to ... we recognize the fact that it's going to require additional staff to properly respond to just those types of situations that you have. And we will be getting additional staff to address these issues.

MR. DAVIS: I don't mean you people have additional staff. I just mean •••

17 MR. TOLEFREE: But I was saying in response to what was being said, as far as that's concerned additional staff will help you too, to answer sane of the questions that you have in those areas.

MR. JOHNNY BEEBE: Bill.

MR. WRIGHT: Johnny Beebe.

MR. JOHNNY BEEBE: Johnny Beebe. I think one thing that we're concerned about is; let me give you an exarrple. Say ten (10) years ago when we were the focus of saltwater they allowed us to put it in pits, I've got records down there where I turned in my reports where we were putting it in pits, and, the Pollution Control and the Oil and Gas gave me the authority to do it. Now ya' 11 cane back and say we can • t use that which is fine. But what we're afraid of is that the regulations you make today ten years from now you may think "That's what Bill was talking about. " But what you're saying now is go ahead and cover your pits, if you have water in them, just get rid of the water and cover your pit. Ten years fran now another board may cane back and say "look, you closed that pit - where are your sarrples? Cause this is what we're concerned about.

MR. 'IDLEFREE: And I understand that. And what we're trying to do is be progressive in the regulations that we write and then in responding to the need. If we make catastrophic changes, then no one can comply and as regulations and new ideas evolve in society and things are gonna to change. New regulations are going to cane out and we try and be as progressive as we possibly can without being over burdensane at times which sanetimes gets us in trouble. And as we go through we make changes that we feel are necessary at that time that will address those issues and sanetimes we haven't gone far enough. You know we can't guarantee you that ten years from now there won't be same additional requirements but we can only stand so much at one time.

MR. DElAVAN: I don't think anybody is going to be penalized for doing pit closure, I mean, there' s no way that ten years down the line we're going to come back and try to penalize you for doing pit closure unless for same reason you've done a really botched job of it, like oil caning back to the surface or leaking to a stream or something that would make us came back in regards to what was done. We're not going to start a witch hunt and ten years fran now and say, "Well gee, I wonder if he closed that pit properly" If I don't have any direct evidence that you didn't properly close that pit, I'm not going to do anything, trust me. Bad choice of words.

MR. WRIGHT: Gerry, has any consideration been given to one particular area and field that we have, we're not using pits for the purpose of storing saltwater, those are the production tanks for that field. What • s going to happen in the old Inna field where you cannot tankage your production. Because if you put it in tanks as Mobile tried when they thought they could operate better than same of the independents up there and they would fill their thousand (1,000) barrel tanks up and then you could take their inspections plate off and you would have to shovel it out of there.

18 MR. DELAVAN: It may be that Inna field is a special case, I don't know, it's not sanething we consider a special case, but maybe if they've got to use specific type of production facilities in the Inna field, that there could be a variance granted to operators in the Inna field in regards to what type of production pits could be used.

MR. WRIGHT: Well I think all the industry is asking is that you use ccmnon sense approach to it and that theirs going to have to be sane wavers, differences for different areas just like we've got as you mentioned in Northwest Arkansas The purpose of the pits and the liners in Northwest Arkansas is, they depend upon impoundments for their water supplies up there. We depend on subsurface water supply dawn here, we don't ..• so that's a difference in areas. You can't treat Northwest Arkansas as you do South Arkansas. You've got ... I realize we can't control the !redia. I wish I could, but I can't. But in the last five years the industry is dawn in drilling pennits four hundred and thirty-five percent (435%). We're dawn in production in the last five years approximately five and a half million barrels of oil. You've got a stated one to two million barrels of salt in the OUachita going to louisiana every day. I'm not saying that the oil and gas industry didn't contribute to that; we probably did in the 1920's and 1930's and its going to be there till the 1990's and 2000's. Every ti.nE it rains your going to get salt flushed out of the Smackover drainage area and Champagnolle Creek drainage area. Its leached into the stumps, trees , soil out there. It's going to be there for years to cane. We've cane a long way from the quoted fifty-six million pounds ... or tons, excuse me, in 1956 I believe it was, we're only putting one or two million dawn today. Saneone said it was about 90 ... or ninety-nine percent (99%). All that doesn't cane from the oil industry. A lot of its in the Smackover Creek bottan and Champagnolle Creek bottan. A lot of its earning from the Saline River from the salt creeks and other areas.

MR. DELAVAN: We'd be the first to agree with you, you have cane a long way.

MR. WRIGHT: Thank you. I'm glad you agree, because the papers don't - still don't.

MR. DELAVAN: The water quality data itself proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that for the last ten (10) years its gone dawn dramatically. We realize that.

MR. WRIGHT: John Lowery.

MR. JOHN LOWERY JR.: In regards to Johnny's question there, one problem that we have ... if we close out these pits that it was originally a pennitted system or still pennitted as far as we're concerned, are you going to turn around now when your inspector comes through and says that the pennit' s been altered and you make us send off a hundred dollars ($100) again or a hundred and fifty ($150) to renew the pennit, like we do nCM. The saltwater disposal system may have not changed at all but your sign's been stolen; you've got to turn around even if you've filed the month before and paid your fee you've got to redo the pennit and turn around and pay a hundred dollars ($100)

19 to ya' 11 or a hundred and fifty ($150) or whatever it is in addition to what they require. Is that going to be required?

MR. DELEVAN: If that pit was not associated with the disposal system itself, I don't think there's any way you would be required to do that as a pennit mcx:1ification. Unless that pit was directly associated or included in the diagrams that you sul:mitted when you obtained your pennit. Unless it was directly associated sanehow with that application and how you were utilizing that pennit in regards to disposing saltwater, there's no way we would force any kind of modification on you.

MR. JOHN I..GVERY, JR.: Well, sane of them were though. Sare systems that sane of us unfortunately inherited might have been drilled in the forties in the earthen pits pennitted, there's not water, it's not part of a holding system now. You can take that pit out, it was in the original drawing. If we close it even though its not used, are we going to have to re-pennit it? Are we going to have to pay the fee.

MR. DELEVAN: Bruce might be able to respond to that better than I can. His comment was that we can probably amend those pennits by letter, I mean, administratively if you will. Just notify us that you're closing the pit out, it was formerly included as part of the documents related to the original pennits and let us respond back to you in a letter that we hereby amend the pennit accordingly.

MR. JOHN I..GVERY, JR.: One other question, I might not should open this can of wonns right now, what if sane producers do have to go out of business during this process? You've got land owners, operators, lease holders and land owners. What's the process now as far as responsibility if the operators gone, bankrupt, dead or whatever. Say he plugs the well deeper, just to get away fran the twenty thousand dollar ($20,000) pit closure, what happens? Could you walk us through this, is that going to go to the landowner, and if not to the landowner, a super fund or what, could you go through that?

MR. DELEVAN: The regulation as it is drafted nCM, the responsibility of that would fall to the landowner.

MR. YANC:Y REYNOlDS: The surface land owner not a mineral owner?

MR. DELEVAN: I didn't bring a lawyer with me. I 'm not a lawyer.

MR. YANCY REYNOlDS: My name is Yancy Reynolds. My folks have held land and been involved in oil and gas since the twenty' s. I wish you would address that if you will.

MR. DELEVAN: I'm sorry. I don't know how to address that at this time. I really don't.

MR. DELEVAN: The problem we ran up against ••. let me explain a little bit, the problem. We didn't quite know heM, if an operator is bankrupt or if an operator has left pits on your property, we weren't sure heM to go about the proper tracking down process, if you will on heM to

20 hold those parties responsible. I'm not sure how as the department we can track dCMn who could ultimately be responsible for the pits that were left. Consequently, the only recourse we had was, if we cannot establish, beyond a shadow of a doubt, who the operator was that was responsible, then the responsibility is going to have to fall back to the surface land owner.

MR. Y. REYNOlDS: I have one additional question. It concerns the fresh water in stock tank pit walls.

MR. DELAVAN: Yes.

MR. Y. REYNOlDS: We've been advised that there's a possibility that we'll have to build a catch basin within the pit wall, and process that fresh rainwater back through our saltwater systems which would not be helpful. Is there a definite answer to that?

MR. DELAVAN: I'm sorry. I don't know. Could you, maybe, Bruce can you answer the question. Could you repeat that again?

MR. Y. REYNOlDS: In a stock tank pit wall, fire wall, you have rainwater that is caught. If you have been discharging out of the pit wall. we've been told that we're going to have to build a catch basin and install a p'UIT"p and process that water back through our saltwater system, which would not be beneficial for the saltwater system.

MR. BRUCE KIRKPATRICK: Well there is sane facilities out there set up to do that, right now. I'm not sure ••• I'm sure there's probably sane compatibility problems with the collected rainwater and the saltwater to be disposed.

MR. Y. REYNOlDS: But, there is a regulation dealing with that now?

MR. DELAVAN: Are you talking about, in general, just fluids in the firewall if you will in regards to how your going to? There are regulations now that say you cannot have fluids in the firewall. But that's in regards to the saltwater disposal and the tankage storage of just the saltwater. Our regulations right now do not extend to the tank battery as I understand it. Tank batteries fall to the regulation of the Oil and Gas Commission because it's deemed the production part of the process. So as far as I know we have not written any regulations in regard to fluid in the firewall involving the stock tank battery. Our pennits are involved with the tankage and the storage and the firewalls are concerned with the saltwater storage and not the production tank battery.

MR. BILL FRISBY: I'm Bill Frisby. I'd like to ask you one thing that would probably apply to a lot of us producers, and it did to me the other day. I had three different tank batteries with common interest, and all I wanted to do was cut out two tank batteries and use one tank battery and look after one salt water system. And have all my production going to one tank battery. In order for me to do that I had to do all that paperwork, and which John asked me if I had closed a pit, I had to redo all the paperwork and now I'm a waitin' on a new

21 saltwater disposal pe:rmit. All the water was going to the same saltwater well, stored in the same saltwater lines, I rrean flowlines. It's still going to the same saltwater well, and I had to pay a hundred and twenty dollars ($120) and do all of this paperwork. Why would that be imposed on all us producers if we try to economize our oil field and move a common tank battery into one, and the water going to the same well, the water's still going to, it was goin there before I moved the flowlines into one tank battery. And I had to do all that paperwork and do all that revising and pay a hundred and twenty dollars ($120).

MR. DElAVAN: Ken, here we go.

MR. KEN ESTES: Well Bill, the way the regulations are written today, any alterations to your saltwater disposal system requires a revision. That' s if, like if you move a tank, remove a tank, add a tank, well, you have to revise your system. And when you do that, that's going to cost you a hundred and twenty dollars ($120) • That's the way the regulation states.

MR. FRISBY: I know that's the way it is but it looks like that would cause a lot of paperwork. Can we get that changed? It wasn't about money, cause I've already done it see. But I wondered why we had to do that if we just tried to alternate and make our lease a lot more sinple.

MR. DElAVAN: Haw would you propose to stream line that if you will. let me pose the question back to you.

MR. JOHN LCWERY, JR. : Just by letter like you suggested on the 5th.

MR. FRISBY: What I did, I carried Mr. Ken and them a map on what I changed. Drawn to scale. But I didn't do all the paperwork. Which all the wells are still there, all the wells are still pumping, doin' the same thing.

MR. ESTES: But you altered your system there Mr. Bill, and it has to be revised. Now I don't know. We can get our people together. I don't know whether that' s in concrete either.

MR. DElAVAN: I'm not quite sure haw to respond that Bill.

MR. FRISBY: I'm not going to fight. Don't worry about that. I'm talking about a lot of people are probably going to be regrouping their wells and cutting out tank batteries and where they have long salt water lines and stuff like that. They might be changing their flowlines and doin' it saneday.

MR. DElAVAN: It may be that we can make a change. The scope of this hearing is not in regards to changing the regulations that your talking about. That' s a whole other matter. 'Ib go in to change those regulations would require the same kind of public hearing fonnn we're having tonight in order to change those regs. Now, it certainly might be possible to look at streamlining in regards to the information that need to be sutmitted by the operator to try to give ..•we have to know where the changes are so if an inspector cOires dawn and he looks at

22 your system and suddenly the system's completely changed, he needs the records in his hands to be able to evaluate whether the system is permitted or not pennitted accordingly. So I guess if there's a workable situation there in regards to getting the information to us about what changes have been made, possibly we could streamline it.

MR. WRIGHT: I think Jerry, he is :rrore is concerned that he is trying to do a better job consolidating his disposal system to better protect the envirol1IIEnt, yet this is :rronetarily unwise to do that.

MR. FRISBY: The hundred and twenty dollars ($120), the paperwork, all the time doing the final paperwork plus the hundred and twenty dollars ($120) and there I was trying to cut back on tank batteries, I done away with two tank batteries. Built two extra firewall and the whole ball of wax and cut it down to one system.

MR. DELAVAN: Well Bill, maybe as a Camnissioner, maybe you need to propose sane changes. Let :rre throw that back on you.

MR. JOHN SAULSBURY: Like on your statement a minute ago about Bill's department being responsible for production and yours being responsible for disposal •.•• could you clarify that for field inspectors.

MR. DELAVAN: Yes sir. I'd be glad to try. I' 11 let Ken address that.

MR. ESTES: What's your problem John?

MR. SAULSBURY: Well, for instance, I got a letter the other day on a production well that your people inspected. They didn't like the firewalls, well they didn't like anything. And he wrote it up giving a saltwater pennit number and the saltwater well is over a quarter of a mile away fran that well. It's very frustrating trying to satisfy your people when they don't even know what they're looking at themselves. And they get involved in the Oil and Gas Commission business.

MR. DELAVAN: We are involved with the production tank battery if there is a violation is occurring and in terms ... if there is a breach in the firewall, and you have a discharge from the production battery that is entering the waters of the state or is sanehCM impacting the surface water quality, yes, our agency would be involved with the situation.

MR. SAULSBURY: We understand that. But you know this mass inspection that you did back in the first of March?

MR. DELAVAN: Yes Sir.

MR. SAULSBURY: I'm referencing a bunch of that.

MR. ESTES: I understand John, we had inspectors doing this YJOrk that you stated that they do this everyday. This was a different area for them, and they might have made a mistake here and there, overall, I think they did a real good job. But in certain instances, they may have missed their calling. This is one of them that your speaking of. They will be addressed.

23 MR. DElAVAN: We had inspectors in fran Fayetteville, we had inspectors in fran Harrison, we had inspectors in from all over, that were water divisions inspectors that had never been to South Arkansas whatsoever, didn't know the scope of what was going on, involved with the pennitting process with saltwater disposal systems, and certainly in your case it sounds like they were caught off guard and off base in regards to what they were citing you for. So, Ken is certainly right. In roost instances we felt like they were on target. They did miss the boat sanetimes. I' 11 agree with that.

MR. FOSTER: Gerry we have not touched on the subject of oiling our roads. You know this is sanething we've done for many, many years.

MR. DElAVAN: Yes Sir.

MR. FOSTER: The only objections I had is the limitations on E, paragraph D, says it will only be one (1) inch thick . . MR. DELEVAN: Yes Sir.

MR. FOSTER: ...We have covering in order all of us to do that. We don't want the oil going dawn the road, I can see where a inspector would cane along my oil road and squat down any place he wanted to, take his pocket knife, and dig a inch and a half deep and if he got sane oil, I'm in violation. This is nit picking.

MR. DElAVAN: Well, I think you're nit picking us. I'm not ••• I've got to put same kind of number in there in regards to how it should be done proper1 y. Right?

MR. FOSTER: I doubt very seriously if one inch is proper.

MR. DELEVAN: Is two inches proper, is three inches proper?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It depends on what kind of road it is, is it sandy or what?

MR. FOSTER: A sand bed might soak up six inches if we put high gravity oil in it.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: You've got a driveway out there that's six inches deep that's the same asphalt, oil.

MR. ESTES: Well, again, the intent is to keep the oil on the road bed. Just don't let it get off the road. It may be an inch thicker. We're not going to came out there and stick a ruler dawn there and say, "Hey, you're in violation. You're an inch and a half. " We're just trying to get sane guidelines here.

MR. FOSTER: I understand that, that's why I'm putting this forth.

MR. KIRKPATRICK: Maybe sanebody's never done road application. Maybe they don't know how their supposed to do it. An inch was just a guideline like Ken said. It's not ... These are guidelines. This is not

24 a regulatio~ ~igpt here. You cannot be cited for being in violation of a guideline.

MR. FOSTER: I thought our hearing tonight was sane input on those guidelines. That' s my approach on this •.•

MR. 'IOLEFREE: Once regulations are in place, guidelines can be evolved over a period of time if we see how things operate and if there's sane changes or whatever that needs to be made these guidelines for input and if you have suggestions on how things should be done differently, or any suggestions on how guidelines should be implemented, we appreciate you writing them and sending them in to us.

MR. FOSTER: When we oil the roads, does that mean we take either a road grader or sane type of way we open our road up a little furrow?

MR. 'IOLEFREE: Put in a furrow then ...

MR. FOSTER: And spray it down.

MR. 'IOLEFREE: Yes.

MR. CHARLES Rcx;ERS: I know I speak for all of us, I appreciate you fellows ccming down here to talk with us and taking the time. OUr concept of this thing here a month or two ago was ru:rrored around ya' 11 were looking for somebody to fine, or the idea of looking for somebody to punish. And you go around people that's in the fanning business, all the farm people, they want to help these guys. fanning and you go out on a farm and they want to help these guys. And I appreciate ya'lls attitude here tonight. It makes me feel a lot better that ya'll are out to work with us. You know. That's what we heard, ya' 11 would send thirty (30) or forty (40) men down here, just hunting somebody to fine. Like a beat dog hidin' out behind a porch.

MR. 'IOLEFREE: Well when people quickly get on the negative band wagon, and they like to make negative publicity, it makes good copy. And so, those things happen and by no means is that the facts. What happens is actually we're saying, "We're fran the government, we're here to help you," you know, people take that in a negative way cause we're really trying to work with •••

MR. ROOERS: One thing I wanted to ask you is, especially to Ken, and I know most of us do that, if you'll let us know, in other words say you inspect a lease of ours or sanething ... but if you' 11 tell us and work with us instead of saying o.k. here's a bunch of stuff and we're not carplying. Talk to us. We' 11 say "what can I do where" . Most of us, I'll guarantee it, every one of us will do it. We're not out to hide something, just tell us what you want and give us a little slack, and do it. Don't just came up here and ..•

MR. 'IOLEFREE: Often times you see regulations that implemented and put in place without guidelines on how to implement those. These regulations that we're proposing, and Gerry and his staff has spent a tremendous amount of time developing guidelines on how to implement

25 those and that's the purpose of that, trying to make sure that we have a means of input in the regulation.

MR. Ra3ERS: One more question before I address him. In the regulation, the surrmary of changes of regulations, paragraph 5 says "shall be closed within thirty-six (36) months of the effective date of the revision of this regulation." I was wondering what is the effective date?

MR. TOLEFREE: You '11 know when the effective date is.

MR. Ra3ERS: Has it been set yet?

MR. DELEVAN: No. The Corrmission has to vote and adopt these regulations.

MR. TOLEFREE: We got a ways to go yet. Let me tell you the process that we are going to go through that we go through with regulations. We have a regulation committee of the Commission •..

MR. ROGERS: In other words, we got at least three (3) years fran now to canply.

MR. WRIGHT: Plus.

MR. TOLEFREE: Plus.

MR. MARK THCMAS: Yancy Reynolds posed a question earlier, I'm Mark Thanas by the way, concerning the draining of fresh water, rain water fran production tank batteries and we need a yes or no answer Bill, if the person has the ability to run a Ph, if a person has the ability to run a if the person has the ability to run a Ph run a person has the ability to run a chloride specific conductance on that rainwater, and it is within the guidelines for discharge that's mentioned here that I'm sitting there on that firewall, drainin' what I know is good rainwater out and Ken Estes pulls up or one of your people Bill, and I say the Ph is seven (7), the chloride is fifty (50) conductance is two hundred (200) and here it goes, are you going to give me a ticket?

MR. WRIGHT: I've never given you a ticket.

MR. THOMAS: I know that, but we just want to know.

MR. WRIGHT: They might.

KEN ESTES: No, we're going to believe you if you tell us that we' 11 believe you.

MR. WRIGHT: It's very simple if he's there on your lease, you've got water inside that firewall, reach dawn and stick your finger in it and stick it to your tongue. I've done that all my life

MR. THOMAS: Right, it works but I don't want to get in trouble over it.

26 ...

MR. WRIGHT: That's what Bill Foster's talking about, taste and coloring. If it taste salty, its salty. If its got a rainbow or sheen on it it' s got oil. You know, those are obvious things. lAWRENCE BEAROON: lawrence Bearden. 'Ihese maps that you refer to from the federal housing and urban development. Are these available to us now?

MR. DELEVAN: Yes sir. lAWRENCE BEAROON: Do you know where we'd write to get them?

MR. DELEVAN: Yes sir. 'Ihe soil and water conservation ccmnission has copies of those maps. I did bring a set of maps with rre tonight if you'd like to take a look at them after we're through.

LAWRENCE BEARDON: Did those care out of Little Rock?

MR. DELEVAN: Yes sir. 'Ihe soil and water conservation ccmnission has those maps available.

MR. WRIGHT: You don't want a set of them, lawrence. They're here in this office and you sure don't want a set of them cause they are hunongous.

MR. DELEVAN: We' 11 have a set of those maps for Ken in the ElDorado office, they have a set here. If, Bill's got a set? Certainly don't want you to incur extra cost, have to go get a set of maps to figure up whether your pits fall within this hundred year flood plane.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'd like to direct a question to the Commission, its directors, Mr. Ken. Are any oil wells going to be permitted in this flood hazard area that' s mentioned on these maps fran this tirre forward, to create more problems further dawn the road to keep aggravating the problem?

MR. WRIGHT: This regulation only applies, it does not apply to the drilling of an oil and gas well. If you as an operator have the right to drill on that property, no one can stop you fran doing that. You're responsible for any damage that you might do while on that property but there's nothing to keep you fran drilling in that hundred year flood plane. '!he hundred year flood plane, if you want to know, covers practically South Arkansas. You would stop or shut down drilling in Arkansas if you could not drill within the hundred year flood plane. Does that answer your question?

MR. DELEVAN: Any last questions?

MR. WRIGHT: Any more questions?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Let Ire ask this. I know you can't control the Iredia, but when quotes came out of the Commission office in Little Rock that are inaccurate, that bothers a lot of people.

27 MR. TOLEFREE: It bothers us too, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: not only the operator ... but when there are quotes fran the Carmission, I think you need to be a little nore careful about what you tell people.

MR. ALDERSON: Mr. Wright, may I follow up just a little bit on that? I know that you all have no control over the news media, but, the article that came out of the paper to me is an insult to the oil and gas industry. OUt of all the people here, 95% try to abide, maybe 98%, by following the rules and regulations. And when an article comes out in the paper, which I'm sure ya' 11 don't have any control over, although a quote fran one of your men, that South Arkansas is the worst polluted area in the state of Arkansas. That is an insult to people that have tried to do a good job. The Lion Oil Refinery has spent, an estimate, close to two million dollars. Phillips Petroleum Company has spent in the Smackover Field, same three million dollars or over. I contacted quite a few operators and if I don't call your name don't ... excuse me, cause I can't get them all. Mr. Jerry Ramsey with AJK Operators, operates a hundred and four (104) wells in the Smackover field. In the last three years he has filled forty (40) pits that were dug in the bocm days of 1925, 26 and 27. Then it comes out in the paper in big headlines that the drilling industry in South Arkansas is way up and that nobody has checked on it for the last five years, the pollution has just been terrible. Well gentlemen, I want you to know that we have same of the hardest working people in the oil industry in the state. Just a few of them, Berg, Laney and Brawn, they have done their best to clean up, fill up fix their pits, do everything according to what they're supposed to do. We are all interested in the environment, but again when a man makes a statement that the oil and gas industry is the worst violator, pollution in the State of Arkansas, that's an insult I think to all you gentlemen. Because that's why I wanted so bad for the slides to be here tonight because I knew we were going to have a great group of operators here. Now the percentage of these people that have violated in the pictures. I saw the pictures, they are terrible. Sane of them, you need to be represent. I mean hard, because you have not done your job. But 98% of you have done your job. I wanted the 98% to see what a few have done to cause such a name for the oil and gas industry. Ya'll might not realize but out of the 75 counties in the State of Arkansas, there's 25 counties that produce oil and gas. Gas production is in Northwest Arkansas, our oil production is in South Arkansas, the south ten counties. Although we just have 24 counties producing oil and gas, we rank 6th in the state industry. We pay a lot of tax in the State of Arkansas. Now when you get so, when we get so unreal, every barrel of oil that we produce is one barrel of oil that -won't be irrported. Gentlemen, let's work together. We can work together, but we cannot clean up everything in five years, six years that started back in 1921. '!he first well gentlemen was drilled right back here on this property. The Bussey well. I have seen the oil industry, I lived a quarter of a mile from it. I happened to see the Bussey well came in, I was five years old. I have seen the oil industry cane up and go dawn and cane up and go dawn again. Back in those days my nother would see which way the wind was blowing before she would hang her washing on the line. Because if

28 the wind was blowing that way, everything was going to be oily. Every pine tree was bent over with oil. You talk about pollution, we had it. Gentlemen we learned fran that and we've got to continue to learn. Let's work together, lets get this thing, let's help our operators and maybe 99% of them will cooperate with this. Thank you.

MR. SPOONER: Mr. Wright.

MR. WRIGHT: Yes Sir.

MR. SPOONER: Are there any rules being worked on, any thoughts as given by bioremediation?

MR. DELEVAN: There's no rules perse that are being worked on.

MR. SPOONER: Are you pursuing it any?

MR. TOLEFREE: We're looking one project that we're looking at as far as bioremediation is concerned towards clean up or superfund site that we're looking at. We know that is is a viable process, but it' s its no rules and regulations on it to its use.

MR. SPOONER: Had an operator call me the other day that did one fran South Louisiana and he said he had a pit that had a foot of oil on it and reduced it to nothing in six (6) months.

MR. DELEVAN: I certainly think that's viable. In fact, there was a news story on just the other night I saw where they're going back and treating sane of these beaches where the Valdez oil spill was in Alaska, there going back and treating this with bioremediation and using, feeding and fertilizing the micros if you will, that eat the oil and they're seeing a significant decrease in the amount of oil covering the rocks, beneath the rocks, on top of the rocks, so certainly biorernediation could be a viable source in tenus of treating the oily sludge in the pits. But its going to be expensive. Right now I don't think its a viable option for a lot of these guys in terms of corning up with a cost effective, economical way to try to effect pit closures. It may be sanething in the future that' s very viable.

MR. WRIGHT: I believe that about covers all of the questions. If there are no further questions or statements. Yes sir.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What about this landowner situation. Couldn't ya'll get who owns those oil wells fran the Oil and Gas Commission when they find out who owns them and go back to them?

MR. WRIGHT: The problem is that they may be in bankruptcy or, we've got a lot of oil operators who drill in the 20' s 30's and 40's that are no longer in existence, you can't locate them anywhere. So there, I have a problem with what you're talking about, the land owner being responsible. I think that's a problem they have to cross in, through the legislature or in the court house.

29 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I think it really needs to be addressed, because the land owner, he might always be, he's •••

MR. WRIGHT: That's true, in many cases the land owner owns no minerals whatsoever. He's the surface owner.

MR. WRIGHT: I'm very Im.lch in sympathy with you 'cause I'm a mineral owner and surface owner. I know it might effect rre in each case.

MR. DELEVAN: And we agree too. I rrean if it was a shot for us to go after the responsible party, if there was any chance for us to do that, we would do it, but the logistics are a nightirare for us to do that. It's impossible.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What about the cost to that landCMner?

MR. DELEVAN: He may have to go through a civil court. Reparations to a responsible party.

MR. WRIGHT: That's really not what you want to do, because when you get out of the court, you promote growth and that's really not what you want.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That really needs to be addressed deeply there.

MR. WRIGHT: Yes. We're going to take one more question.

MR. EDDIE DUMAS: My name's Eddie Dumas. I'm going to nit pick a little bit. We've been all around the questions tonight and put all this input into it, when are we going to find out what this input has done for us.

MR. TOLEFREE: Okay. The procedure that we use, we take the cooments that we've had and we review those and assess all cooments will be taken under consideration. We can effect changes and have effect the regulations and we' 11 make those. If there are substantial changes as a result of carm:mts we received, enough to require another hearing, we'll have another hearing. But it will be based on what the staff looks at based on the cooments and then we will present our findings to the regulations committee of the Commission.

MR. DUMAS: Is there any way that we can persuade you to have another hearing and cane up with your findings.

MR. WRIGHT: They have several carmittees canposed of Corrmissioners there. I am not on the regulations ccmnittee, however, its not impossible for us to make a request of the regulations committee at the time they meet, roughly meet in Little Rock, to came dCMn here and meet where the problem is, so that the majority of the people who are here tonight could also attend that meeting. It would probably be a day meeting not a night meeting

30 MR. DUMAS: Well, what I'm concerned with, if they don't have another meeting and they decide what they want to do do and then just put out the regulations, then I've just wasted my time tonight.

MR. WRIGHT: Well, I don't think you've wasted your time Eddie because there's been lots of good points made here tonight and I'm sure these people are going to take it back and I will also take it back for them too ••• The regulations ccmnittee will have to meet. They will have to make recommendations to the full Commission before it can be adopted. So, sarebody asked the question "How long?" it's much :rrore than any three ( 3) years.

MR. SPOONER: Bill is there a legislative oversight review of these •••

MR. 'IOLEFREE: Before it is passed and made final it does have to go before the legislative committee.

MR. SPOONER: IX> they have hearings on it?

MR. WRIGHT: No. That' s al:rrost a formality there .••

MR. RICK BEEBE: Mr. Wright, is there a deadline you know of? The last meeting we had they took oral comments, took written comments and later they had a deadline

MR. WRIGHT: You got it. You've got ten (10) days to file any written comments if you want. You can file them with a secretary who's here tonight, if you want to file them to me, I'll make sure they get there if I have to fax them up there on the tenth (lOth) day.

MR. 'IOLEFREE: They also can send them to the El LOrado office.

MR. DELEVAN: They can send it to our El Dorado office and they can forward them to Little Rock.

MR. WRIGHT: Ken can handle them, I can handle them or you can mail them directly to them in Little Rock ... ! appreciate all of you earning.

31 PHONE(501)863- 7234 FAX (501)863- 6331

SHULER DRILLING COMPANY, INC. 3514 WES'T HILLSBORO EL DORADO ARKANSAS 71730-6799

September 4, 1992

Mr. Jerry Delavan Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology P. 0. Box 9583 Little Rock, AR 72209 Re: Proposed Revision of Regulation No. 1 Proposed Pit Closure Guidelines Dear Mr. Delavan: Your depth and breadth of knowledge on this subject is very great. Thank you for taking the time to explain the new guidelines.

Robert Reynolds RR:vsg ~-~~. y~(UJIL ~~ cane down fran Li t1 did bring some pi ) look at pictures after thi~ ~ ~()_~ ~ 1e pictures will also be here. But, Jt released from Little Rock to come as I told you I would have. r~· ~v~. " " n QJ0L' At this .r:x:>int I want ~ ~. :arkana, 'Iexas.

MR. BRADLEY JOHNSON: ~ ':J, I 'rn Bradley Johnson fran 'Iexark< ~ ~S Ld all of the rev1s1ons, the change ( \\.'::': ,., ·• ~ errent . wi~ the provisions that all t: ~~--- ...= ~,.;.Losed w1thm the

three year period or . -.J ure three year period if IXJSSible. They are hazards to humans, wildlife, species and for the future of all inhabitants of adjoining areas not only Arkansas. With proper action ,[X)ssibly the future of the State and of the citizens can be protected and these types of operations can be prevented. Also no other pits holding IXJnds or lagoons should be permitted wetlands, marshes in the hundred year floodplane.

MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Bill Prewitt fran ElDorado, Arkansas.

MR. BILL PREWI'IT: Mr. Wright I 'rn going to file with you a written statement in behalf of Mr. James H. Noble. Let me say first at the outset here that I appear in behalf of Mr. James Noble who is the managing partner of McFarland Company, but I also appear in behalf of myself. The written statement, reading it, might be enlightening, I simply would urge Mr. Tolefree and those of you who are concerned with this and who will be involved in adopting or implementing this regulation to please read it. Let me say also that those of us who cane and op.[XJse these regulations and I appear in op.[XJsi tion to it. In particularly in op.[XJsition to the wording and some of the details of it. That does not rrean that we are in favor of IXJlluting the environrrent. It does not mean that we are in favor of any hazards to human beings.

I 've been around here a long time and others have been here much longer than I have and I doubt if you can find a single one out here that could tell you of a pit that causes a problem to any human being. I haven't heard of one in I don't know how many years, if ever. So when we speak of hazards by virtue of these pits. Quite often we're simply taking an isolated incidence out of context. The article that was in the paper last Sunday. It's a scare article that really gets concen1ed and picks out one isolated area maybe one pit that could create a problem in an unusual situation that then is put in a photograph, that then is put in the paper and is put forth as being something that applies to every single pit, to every single oil and gas operator.

We simply appear to tell you and I 'rn going to read one comment, Mr. Noble's written statement which says: "I join with all of those who consciously insist on protection of our environrrent today. I do not join in with those who want conscientious producers who do protect the envirornent today and who have 1n their practices consistently

4 protected the environrrent. I do not want them to be required to pay for past sins of persons and companies long since gone from the oil and gas business."

There has been to my knCMledge no economic impact study of this regulation. I question whether many that are proposing this regulation really know what the economic impact of this will be. I wonder hav many of these people who are sitting out here today will be looking for a way to make a living, a way to feed their families, if you require them to go out here and spend rroney unnecessarily. The oil industry today is in a severe depression. There is no other word to say for it. It's in a depression because of sometimes overzealous people imposing unnecessary red tape, imposing unnecessary regulations that have no real purpose in mind and thereby making them unable to make a living and feed their families. The statistics are out here and Mr. Wright can tell you what the production of oil and gas is in this area today. He can tell you what it was ten years ago. He can tell you of the severe decline in it. He can tell you what caused it.

I don't haw many of you have really studied the history of the oil and gas business. In 1921, when the first oil well was brought in this area, the boan when El Dorado went fran about five thousand (5,000) population to well over twenty-five thousand (25,000) population in a short period of time. In 1921 when the Smackover Field was producing over four hundred thousand (400,000) barrels of oil a day, four hundred thousand (400,000). When the sane six hundred million dollars that came out of the Smackover Field in a very brief time, Im.lCh rrore than all of the gold that came out of the Klondike Fields, more than twenty-five (25) times all of the rronies in all of the banks in Arkansas at that time. At that time, unfortunately there was no concern of the environrrent, pits were dug for storage, saltwater was permitted to go on the ground. That is not the case today.

We simply appear to you and ask you if there is a pit that's causing a problem, yes, close it, don't let em' cause that problem. There's not a person sitting out here that wants to pollute the environment. There's not one out here that wants to run saltwater on the ground. But to come in and arbitrarily say that everyone that has a pit, you've got to go through all of those regulations. Actually behind us right here, under this regulation as written, I ask you to look out and look at the pit, if this were in the one hundred year floodplane, this regulation, as written, would require the operator if there is an operator first, if there's no operator, requires the landowner to came out there fill it to grade, seed it, unless they can prove it wasn't seeded and haw in the heck are you going to prove something wasn't seeded in 1921 when that pit was dug? Who knows, obviously no one knows today.

Gentlemen, we appear and implore you to do one thing. Conduct an economic impact study on this regulation before you put the Mom and Pop Oil Operators out of business. James Noble McFarland's what we call a large independent, he's going to be in business, he' ll be in business probably in same other state, and not here, but he's going to be in business he's going to be making a living. I'm not sure that can

5 trying to answer. These people do not know you, I do. The first party who spoke was Bill Foster, second was Frank Spooner, and Mr. E. w. Smith was the third comment. Now you're going to have to talk one at a time, because there's a record trying to be maintained. The little lady who's here is going to have a heck of a time putting Joe Blow with all these names out there. Bill Foster?

MR. FOSTER: I'm trying to be rather conservative. Ya' ll said one million to two million pounds of salt going down the river a day. I just pulled same Chloride counts for the South Field. Everybody knows what the El Dorado South Field is. It runs sanewhere around thirty-seven thousand (37,000) ppm. If you compute thirty-seven thousand (37 ,000) ppm into pounds of salt per barrels of saltwater it will only take seventy-eight thousand (78,000) barrels of water a day to make one million pounds. Thank you.

MR. JAMES lANGLEY: I'm James Langley.

MR. WRIGHT: Jerry Langley.

MR. lANGLEY: James. I don't know if you're aware of this but in 1958 there was a survey done. Fifty-one thousand (51,000) tons of salt was going down the Ouachita River. There' s a big discrepancy between one and two million. First we need to decide whether it's one million or two million pounds, but in 1958 there was fifty-one (51,000) tons going down the river. Now the Saline river does contribute. International Paper Company in carrden does contribute. The sewage systems all the way up the river as far as you go up the river including Smackover and camden does contribute. The gentleman made the staterrent there' s no way to monitor. A chemical specialist, a man that works for Treat-o-Lite, or any of these ????chemical companies who run Chloride above Smackover Creek and above the Saline River and subtract the differences and it doesn't take a genius to figure out what the Chloride count is above and below. I think the oil producers are an easy prey at this point to take the heat. But there are ways to check it and unfortunately even though we've had a ninety-eight percent (98%) decrease in the amount of salt going down the river per Government and I have the report in my office, I meant to bring it but I failed to do so, like your slides. And never the less we've had a ninety-six to a ninety-eight percent (96 to 98%) improverrent in the amount of salt going down the river wherever it's corning fran since 1958. And I realize there' s a lot of work to be done but I think you need to bear that in mind when you make your decision and realize that most of us try to be ccrnpetent operators. I'm an oil producer and I'm in the timber business and right now I make more money out of the timber business than I do out of the oil business. So I'm more concerned about my trees growing than I am my oil wells purrping.

Gentlemen if we're going to keep this industry the government is going to have to work with us instead of against us. We're going to have to work together as a partnership. And for us to do this you're going to have to give us guidelines but you're going to have to give us specific guidelines and you're going to let some people that have some corrmon working knowledge with it work with you so we can work it out together

14 so that we all can live. You can do your job, we can do our job all we want to do is make a living. We don't want to take the rap for other industries. We don't mind working with you but we need guidelines and we need specific guidelines. Thank you.

MR. KIRKPATRICK: I would like to make a ccmnent on that. There's been sane definite .irrprovement in just recent years. Back around 81' era the peaks as far as you want to talk about saltload going dawn the Ouachita river. Peaks were, even ten years ago, were around eight million pounds per day. The reason, there' s no way you can put any exact number on that because just the flow of the Ouachita river goes up and dawn from day to day and so does the amount of salt it carries. So there's no way to say it's this much. It's going to be ... It's varying from day to day.

MR. SPOONER: Can I camnent on that? I'll tell you what the lDuisiana Department of Conservation found.

MR. WRIGHT: What is your name, sir.

MR. SPOONER: Frank Spooner. Monroe gas field has probably six thousand (6,000) pits in it. Louisiana Department of Conservation went through the same closure procedure in the flood plane of the OUachita River dawn there as you did up there. But the Director of the Office of Conservation in Monroe and the Wildlife and Fisheries have monitored the OUachita River repeatedly and they've never found any increase in the salt content coming dawn that river, from supposedly flushing of those pits. Just not visible. If you guys want to close the pits that's fine but I don't think you ought to be using the amount of salt coming down the Ouachita river as an excuse for it. At flood stage, that's when your going to pick up your water, there's sixty-one thousand (61,000) cubic feet of water per second that crosses M::>nroe. At pool stage it's only one thousand 1, 000 cubic feet per second. But even at pool stage that's five billion 300 and sane odd thousand pounds a day crossing at Monroe. If you're out to close the pits I'd appreciate that but don't confuse this as an excuse for doing it because they're not hurting the OUachita. A million pounds of salt at flood stage if my calculations are correct that's three (3) ppm at a million pounds a day that is going dawn the river. At two million pounds it carres out to six ( 6) ppm that you would increase. I don't think you can measure it. We' re going to close the pits and I understand that's what we're going to do. Now I think my question is probably ItDre can we have some little pit to catch oil spills just don't put salt water in it. Will that be allowed?

MR. DELEVAN: We're wanting a workable situation to where yes you can have a pit that is a workover pit or you got a situation that you need a pit to contain oil that may be getting into a water course or into a creek or stream. We're certainly willing to work with you in regards to that. The intent of this was not to prevent you from using any pits whatsoever. The intent was to try to address a very specific problem that we had which was the periodic inundation of pits. When we get into a high water situation on the Ouachita river, the river getting up

15 and just flushing pits out, it didn't matter what was in those pits everything was getting flushed, whether it was saltwater, waste oil, oily sludge, it was all being flushed d~ the river and fran a water quality stand point and fran a surface water quality standpoint the department saw this as a serious problem. What we're trying to do here is to not put an undue burden of hardship on everybody in regards to closing all pits if you've got good water in the pit we're not going to force you to close that out. If you can show me that you've got a good pit that's gone through passive closure and you've got trees on that rascal, I'm not going to ask you to close that pit. I'm asking you to close the pits that have a problem from a water quality standpoint or a problem from a bunch of oily sludge that's been in there for a long time that's periodically inundated and are causing a problem in regards to water quality. We're wanting to work with you in regards to what pits you may need or may not need. Like I say this is not all cast in stone in regards to the specifics of what is going to be done. This is a brand new program for us. We're willing to look at different options in regards to what may or may not have to be done. Yes, it states very clearly in here the specifics, I've got one guy saying that things are too specific, one guy saying things are not specific enough. We're trying to came up with a workable set of guidelines here that everybody can live with. It's not going to please everybody, I'm not going to make everybody happy. I'm trying to came up with sanething that .... An operator calls me and says Hey, I've got to do a workover operation I'm going to need to use a pit, I need a workover pit. O.K. use the workover pit but don't leave it there for ten (10) or fifteen (15) years because you may be working the workover pit d~ the line. Use the pit then close the pit out if need be. Surely there's a workable situation.

MR. PRE.WITI: My name is Bill Prewitt. If I could just ccmnent. As I read the regulation it does not pe:rmit what you've just said that you're intending to do. I'm simply ask you to review the regulation write into what you've just said and you will have gone a long ways toward solving the problem.

MR. DELEVAN: I'm not going to argue with you, you're an attorney. I know better than that. I tried to write some lead way into it.

MR. FOSTER: Bill Foster. Gerry, one more time. If we have a pit that we obviously know the water quality is not up to par, what is wrong with us taking it and going to dispose of it into that pit instead of going and getting samples and waiting on ya' 11. But you personally know I have a commercial well.

MR. DELEVAN: Yes sir.

MR. FOSTER: If I've got a pit that won't pass, I know where my water's going before I close that pit. What I am against is the long drawn out testing procedure. Let's do it and get it over with.

MR. DELEVAN: I don't see any problem with that whatsoever. If you knovl you got bad water quality in your pit and you kno~:: it's not going to come out. Here's the specs in front of you in terms of what's going

16 to ya' ll or a hundred and fifty ($150) or whatever it is in addition to what they require. Is that going to be required?

MR. DELEVAN: If that pit was not associated with the disposal system itself, I don't think there's any way you would be required to do that as a permit modification. Unless that pit was directly associated or included in the diagrams that you sul:mi tted when you obtained your permit. Unless it was directly associated somehow with that application and how you were utilizing that permit in regards to disposing saltwater, there's no way we would force any kind of modification on you.

MR. JOHN LC:WERY, JR.: Well, sane of them were though. Some systems that same of us unfortunately inherited might have been drilled in the forties and the earthen pits permitted, there's not water, it's not part of a holding system now. You can take that pit out, it was in the original drawing. If we close it even though its not used, are we going to have to re-permit it? Are we going to have to pay the fee.

MR. DELEVAN: Bruce might be able to respond to that better than I can. His comment was that we can probably amend those permits by letter, I mean, administratively if you will. Just notify us that you're closing the pit out, it was formerly included as part of the documents related to the original permits and let us respond back to you in a letter that we hereby amend the permit accordingly.

MR. JOHN LC:WERY, JR. : One other question, I might not should open this can of wonns right now, what if same producers do have to go out of business during this process? You've got land owners, operators, lease holders and land owners. What's the process now as far as responsibility if the operators gone, bankrupt, dead or whatever. Say he plugs the well deeper, just to get away from the twenty thousand dollar ($20,000) pit closure, what happens? Could you walk us through this, is that going to go to the landowner, and if not to the landowner, a super fund or what, could you go through that?

MR. DELEVAN: 'Ihe regulation as it is drafted na.N, the responsibility of that would fall to the landa.Nner.

MR. YANCY REYNOlDS: The surface land a.Nner not a mineral a.Nner?

MR. DELEVAN: I didn't bring a lawyer with me. I 'm not a lawyer.

MR. YANCY REYNOlDS: My name is Yancy Reynolds. My folks have held land and been involved in oil and gas since the twenty' s. I wish you would address that if you will. l1R. DELEVAN: I'm sorry. I don' t kncM ha.N to address that at this time. I really don't.

JV!R. DELEVAN: The problem we ran up against. .. Let me explain a little bit, the problem. We didn't quite know h()Vl, if an operator is bankrupt or if an operator has left pits on your property, we weren't sure how to go about the proper tracking down process, if you will on how to

20 those and that's the purpose of that, trying to make sure that we have a means of input in the regulation.

MR. ROGERS: One rrore question before I address him. In the regulation, the surrmary of changes of regulations, paragraph 5 says "shall be closed within thirty-six (36) months of the effective date of the revision of this regulation." I was wondering what is the effective date?

MR. 'IDLEFREE: You'll know when the effective date is.

MR. RCX;ERS: Has it been set yet?

MR. DELEVAN: No. The carrnission has to vote and adopt these regulations.

MR. 'IDLEFREE: We got a ways to go yet. Let me tell you the process that we are going to go through that we go through with regulations. We have a regulation committee of the Commission .•.

MR. RCX;ERS: In other words, we got at least three (3) years fran now to canply.

MR. WRIGHT: Plus.

MR. 'IDLEFREE: Plus.

MR. MARK THCMAS: Yancy Reynolds posed a question earlier, I'm Mark Thomas by the way, concerning the draining of fresh water, rain water from production tank batteries and we need a yes or no answer Bill. If the person has the ability to run a Ph, a person has the ability to run a chloride specific conductance on that rainwater, and it is within the guidelines for discharge that's mentioned here. Then I'm sitting there on that firewall, drainin' what I know is good rainwater out and Ken Estes pulls up or one of your people Bill, and I say the Ph is seven (7), the chloride is fifty (50) conductance is two hundred (200) and here it goes, are you going to give me a ticket?

MR. WRIGHT: I've never given you a ticket.

MR. THOMAS: I know that, but we just want to know.

MR. WRIGHT: They might.

KEN ESTES: No, we're going to believe you if you tell us that we'll believe you.

MR. WRIGHT: It's very simple if he's there on your lease, you've got water inside that firewall, reach down and stick your finger in it and stick it to your tongue. I've done that all my life

MR. THOMAS: Right, it works but I don't want to get in trouble over it.

26 MR. WRIGHT: That's what Bill Foster's talking alx)Ut, taste and coloring. If it taste salty, its salty. If its got a rainbow or sheen on it it's got oil. You know, those are obvious things.

LAWRENCE BEARDON: Lawrence Beardon. These maps that you refer to from the federal housing and urban developnent. Are these available to us now?

MR. DELEVAN: Yes sir.

LAWRENCE BEARDON: IX> you know where we'd write to get them?

MR. DELEVAN: Yes sir. The soil and water conservation ccmnission has copies of those maps. I did bring a set of maps with me tonight if you'd like to take a look at them after we're through.

LAWRENCE BEAROON: Did those cane out of Little Rock?

MR. DELEVAN: Yes sir. The soil and water conservation ccmnission has those maps available.

MR. WRIGHT: You don't want a set of them, Lawrence. They're here in this office and you sure don't want a set of them cause they are hurrongous.

MR. DELEVAN: We'll have a set of those maps for Ken in the EliX>rado office, they have a set here. If, Bill's got a set? Certainly don't want you to incur extra cost, have to go get a set of maps to figure up whether your pits fall within this hundred year flood plane.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'd like to direct a question to the Commission, its directors, Mr. Ken. Are any oil wells going to be pennitted in this flood hazard area that' s mentioned on these maps from this time forward, to create rrore problems further down the road to keep aggravating the problem?

MR. WRIGHT: This regulation only applies, it does not apply to the drilling of an oil and gas well. If you as an operator have the right to drill on that property, no one can stop you from doing that. You're responsible for any damage that you might do while on that property but there' s nothing to keep you fran drilling in that hundred year flood plane. The hundred year flood plane, if you want to know, covers practically South Arkansas. You would stop or shut down drilling in Arkansas if you could not drill within the hundred year flood plane. Does that answer your question?

MR. DELEVAN: Any last questions?

HR. WRIGHT: Any more questions?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Let me ask this. I know you can't control the media, but when quotes cane out of the Ccmnission office in Little Rock that are inaccurate, that bothers a lot of people.

27 ARKANSAS DEPAR'IMENT OF POLLUTION CONTROL & ECOLOGY PUBLIC HEARING * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Arkansas Oil and Gas Coomission -- -~ · -----..

El IX:>rado, Arkans~s, , .. ' .,:: --· · ' 4 ., : ~ l 7 00 '.:I ' i I : p.m. j t_' . .,: J "·: :r~ ": r·. 1"':.':" ·~!,! . ~ \ :--. ·' _, ; v ,j ,: - i : ~ ' ! ! I I * * * * * * * * * * * * i It/ * * *. ------..-.-.-UD'i i i : L : L;- . ' L ' ' . I I L.. , I u tJ w :._] '-.) :.__:: ~ u LJ

MR. BILL WRIGHT: I am Bill Wright, Director of the Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission. My position as Director also allows me to serve on the Pollution Control and Ecology Coomission as a Carmissioner, there. Tbnight I have several of my Commissioners on the Oil and Gas Carmission present. My Chairman is here, Mr. E. Boyd Alderson, Mr. Ned Price, Bob Nolan, we may have some others I can't see, my Hearing Officer who is an attorney, Bill Wynne is also here. At this point I would like to ask my Chainnan, Mr. E. Boyd Alderson, if he would like to come and welcome each and all of you to the Oil and Gas Ccmnission headquarters here.

MR. E. BOYD AlDERSON: Ladies and Gentlerren, welcare to the Oil and Gas Carnmission facilities, we welcare the Arkansas Pollution Control and especially we welcare each one of you operators, South Arkansas Oil operators at this meeting. I feel that maybe with the questions and the statements made tonight that we will learn a lot more about what is expected of the oil operators, how we can better our facilities, our operations and also maybe we can enlighten the Arkansas Pollution and Control Ccmnission on sare of the problems that exist in South Arkansas. And I could make you a long statement now but I understand the program is already outlined.

I have a list here of things that have been done in South Arkansas in the last three years that according to sare of the newspapers that not a thing has been done and later on if you are interested, and would like to give me the opportunity, I' 11 go into detail on the progress that has been made in South Arkansas.

Again I would welcare each one of you, any way that any of the carmissioners or any of the employees of the Carnmission can help you out, well, let us knCM. Thank you again.

MR. WRIGHT: Thank you Mr. Alderson. At this time I would request that Rhonda Sharp read the public notice that' s been published in the newspaper and advertised in the news media.

MS. RHONDA SHARP: Rather than read it to you I would like to stipulate that the proposed revisions to Regulation one were published on March 29 in the Arkansas Derrocrat-Gazette, a newspaper of statewide circulation. Additionally a press release of the proposed revisions were submitted by our office for distribution to newspapers across the state. Copies of the proposed revisions, a surrrnary of the revisions and the pit closure requirerrents were placed in public libraries throughout the state including El Dorado, Camden and Crossett. Copies were also placed at the Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission office here in El Dorado. Copies of the public notice were sent to the ADPCE' s hearing notification list and this infonnation was provided to the legislative council. Copies have been made available on the table out there. Thank you.

MR. WRIGHT: In introducing the Commissioners that were present, I forgot to introduce Richard Mason over here who is a Pollution Control and Ecology Commission, Commissioner. Richard is here on their behalf and others tonight also. We welcane Richard here as well.

At this time I'm going to ask Wilson Tolefree, Wilson is the Deputy Director of the DPCE. Wilson is going to make the introduction and opening remarks concerning this revision to Regulation one.

MR. WilSON TOLEFREE: Thank you Ccmnissioner. Good evening ladies and Gentlemen, I'm Wilson Tolefree, Deputy Director for the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology. I too appreciate and welcane each of you here tonight to give carments and welcane your comments on the proposed changes to Regulation number one.

First I would like to introduce the members of my staff that is here tonight. On the extreme left is Ken Estes who is an engineer and works out of the El Dorado office. He is an engineer working in the El Dorado office who takes care of most of our engineering inspections and he works in the El Dorado area. Sitting next to him is Bruce Kirkpatrick who's chief of State Pennits Branch has charge of the permit facilities that encompass the Regulation one regulations and to my imnediate left is Gerry Delevan who is a Geologist in the State Permits Branch.

You have before you or we had on the table a copy of the surrrnary of the proposed changes to Regulation number one. 'Ihe Regulation number one as you know is not a new regulation this regulation became effective November 1, 1958, and it was issued under the provisions of the Arkansas Water and Air Pollution Control Act 472 of 1949. The regulation was drafted in order to prohibit the uncontrolled release of discharges of produced salt waters to the surface waters of the state. We have been working with you in this area and we knCM that there have been changes there has been progress made in this area because we have seen sane changes in same of the the limits that we've seen and what we are hoping to do is have to effectuate a continuing change as far as the water quality is concerned. We think the proposed changes that we have in the regulations is a first step effort and is a good place to start.

2 regulations that we're proposing. we have same other changes in there but the rrost significant one with the rrost impact is the closing out of those pits in the ??? over a three year period. We also have small changes in same of the wording in Section two, we have a change in same of the wording in Section three and we have a change in the wording in Section four, the regulations, and we have same changes in the wording of Section five which you can follow. As I said those have been pointed out in the proposed changes and a stmmary of the changes we have made available to you. we have added one carplete section and I' 11 read that, it says; The addition of one complete section reads as following:

"All pits or holding basins associated with oil or gas exploration or production in Arkfu~sas regardless of being active, abandoned, reserved or workover pits which are located within the hundred year flood plane or any stream as designated on the flood hazardous boundary map developed by the u.s. Department of Housing and Urban Develo:pnent Federal Insurance Administration shall be closed in thirty six months the effective date of the revision to this regulation according to the closure guidelines adopted by the agency. "

We feel that this is a good place to start and by no means do we by putting these in place are we saying that there has not been any progress made. We have seen same changes. But we feel that we need to start someplace with the addition of these other changes to bring about a change in the regulations that we have to effectuate this other change of those problems that we've seen to be sane of the major problems that we're having. In going through this we will see that what this is going to do through this process, is same of those areas that it may be thought to be a problem or may have been seen to be a problem would be taken care of, that really was not a problem at the time but because of the way that they were being handled and because of the way that it was being operated at the time, it would not be a problem after looking at it and going through the proposed changes according to the close out procedures that we've had. So I think this is a good place to start. We realize that there have been same changes made and we want to effectuate the continuing process in trying to get ccmpliance with the Regulation number one. Thank you Ccmnissioner. And thank you all.

MR. WRIGHT: Thank you Wilson. The proposal and the way we will handle this will be I have eleven cards that have been turned in to either make oral and written statements or just an oral statement. We're going to call these people in the order that they signed in one through eleven and when we call you, came to the microphone and make your oral stat.errent. If there are others to be made you need to sign a card and turn them into Ms. Sharp before we get through this eleven. After all the staterrents have been made, then Mr. Tolefree and his staff will be available to answer questions that you may pose or that sane of the staterrents may have posed.

At this time I want to say that I have told many of you that we would have same slides here tonight for you to look at, those slides did not

3 cane dawn fran Little Rock, so you can't look at slides tonight. They did bring sane pictures with them, if you want to look at those pictures after this is over, they will be here and the pictures will also be here. But, I apologize that the slides were not released fran Little Rock to came down, so we won't have the slides as I told you I would have.

At this point I want to call Mr. Bradley Johnson fran Texarkana, Texas.

MR. BRADLEY JOHNSON: Good evening sir. Good evening, I'm Bradley Johnson fran Texarkana, I have not had time to read all of the revisions, the changes in Regulation one. I am in agreement with the provisions that all pits, holding ponds, lagoons be closed within the three year period or prior to the three year period if possible. They are hazards to humans, wildlife, species and for the future of all inhabitants of adjoining areas not only Arkansas. With proper action possibly the future of the State and of the citizens can be protected and these types of operations can be prevented. Also no other pits holding ponds or lagoons should be permitted wetlands marshes or in the hundred year floodplane.

MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Bill Prewitt fran ElDorado, Arkansas.

MR. BILL PREWITT: Mr. Wright I'm going to file with you a written staterrent in behalf of Mr. James H. Noble. Let :rre say first at the outset here that I appear in behalf of Mr. James Noble who is the managing partner of McFarland Carrpany, but I also appear in behalf of myself. The written staterrent, reading it, might be enlightening, I silnply would urge Mr. Tolefree and those of you who are concerned with this and who will be involved in adopting or inplerrenting this regulation to please read it. Let :rre say also that those of us who cane and oppose these regulations and I appear in opposition to it. In particularly in opposition to the wording and same of the details of it. That does not rrean that we are in favor of polluting the environment. It does not :rrean that we are in favor of any hazards to human beings.

I've been around here a long time and others have been here much longer than I have and I doubt if you can find a single one out here that could tell you of a pit that causes a problem to any human bEhng. I haven't heard of one in I don't know how many years, if ever. So when we speak of hazards by virtue of these pits. Quite often we're simply taking an isolated incidence out of context. The article that was in the paper last Sunday. It's a scare article that really gets concerned and picks out one isolated area maybe one pit that could create a problem in an unusual situation that then is put in a photograph, that then is put in the paper and is put forth as being sanething that applies to every single pit, to every single oil and gas operator.

We sinply appear to tell you and I'm going to read one carment, Mr. Noble's written staterrent which says: "I join with all of those who consciously insist on protection of our environment today. I do not join in with those who want conscientious producers who do protect the environment today and who have in their practices consistently

4 protected the environrrent. I do not want them to be required to pay for past sins of persons and companies long since gone from the oil and gas business."

There has been to my knowledge no econanic impact study of this regulation. I quest1on Whetller many trtat are ptoposbrg Uds tegalation really know what the econanic impact of this will be. I wonder heM many of these people who are sitting out here today will be looking for a ,way to make a living, a way to feed their families, if you require them to go out here and spend IIDney unnecessarily. 'Ihe oil industry today is in a severe depression. There is no other word to say for it. It's in a depression because of sanetimes overzealous people imposing unnecessary red tape, imposing unnecessary regulations that have no real purpose in mind and thereby making them unable to make a living and feed their families. The statistics are out here and Mr. Wright can tell you what the production of oil and gas is in this area today. He can tell you what it was ten years ago. He can tell you of the severe decline in it. He can tell you what caused it.

I don't how many of you have really studied the history of the oil and gas business. In 1921, when the first oil well was brought in this area, the boan when El Dorado went fran about five thousand (5,000) population to well over twenty-five thousand (25 ,000) population in a short period of time. In 1921 when the Smackover Field was producing over four hundred thousand ( 400, 000) barrels of oil a day, four hundred thousand ( 400, 000) . When the sane six hundred million dollars that came out of the Smackover Field in a very brief time, much more than all of the gold that came out of the Klondike Fields, more than twenty-five (25) times all of the monies in all of the banks in Arkansas at that time. At that time, unfortunately there was no concern of the environrrent, pits were dug for storage, saltwater was pennitted to go on the ground. That is not the case today.

We simply appear to you and ask you if there is a pit that's causing a problem, yes, close it, don't let em' cause that problem. There's not a person sitting out here that wants to pollute the environrrent. There's not one out here that wants to run saltwater on the ground. But to cane in and arbitrarily say that everyone that has a pit, you've got to go through all of those regulations. Actually behind us right here, under this regulation as written, I ask you to look out and look at the pit, if this were in the one hundred year floodplane, this regulation, as written, would require the operator if there is an operator first, if there's no operator, requires the landCMner to carne out there fill it to grade, seed it, unless they can prove it wasn't seeded and how in the heck are you going to prove sanething wasn't seeded in 1921 when that pit was dug? Who knows, obviously no one knows today.

Gentlerren, we appear and implore you to do one thing. Conduct an ~nanic impact study on this regulation before you put the Mom and Pqp Oil Operators out of business. James Noble McFarland's what we call a large independent, he's going to be in business, he'll be in business probably in same other state, and not here, but he's going to be in business he's going to be making a living. I'm not sure that that can

5 be said of all of the people who are in this roan here tonight. So we sirnply urge you, think long and hard before you make people guilty without proving it. Everything that's written here says that the operator has got to prove his innocence. That's not our way of life, at least give him the benefit of the doubt and let yourself, if you think he' s doing wrong, prove he's doing wrong, prove there' s sane damage. We thank you.

MR. WRIGHT: Thank you Mr. Prewitt. Mr. E. W. Smith, pass. Mr. Eddie Dumas.

MR. EDDIE DUMAS: I'm going to pass, too. He said exactly what I wanted to say.

MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Eddie Berry.

MR. EDDIE BERRY: No problem.

MR. WRIGHT: You passing also?

MR. BERRY: For right now.

MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Tim Corely or Conley? Corely, 0. K. Tim.

MR. TIM CORELY: What I 'd like to say is along the same lines as Mr. Prewitt. There are sane pits that might be abused and need to be covered. People may be needing to take action against them. But there are sane pits I think that are in good use. There's sane pits that save fran causing a huge ness when a bleeder's stopped up. If you're familiar with that. On a tank when the bleeder's stopped up, then your tank' s ran over. There's been tines the sludge pit has saved it fran going out through the woods or going out where you could not recover it. In a pit you can and there are same pits still in use today that are produced in and I think maybe otherwise it might not be able to be produced that way. I think you need to look at it as a whole and go in and see not only look at what bad uses of the pits are but look at what we could use maybe work with you and cane up with sane agreement that we'll be able to use in scree line a pit to protect our oil spills around our tank batteries and around our wells even they cane in use at tines, but maybe regulate them. Thank you.

MR. WRIGHT: Thank you Tim. Mr. Steve Wells.

MR. STEVE WELLS: Pass.

MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Van Martin.

MR. VAN MARriN: I didn't put my nai'l'e down.

MR. WRIGHT: Sarebody did. It's printed Van, isn't that yours?

MR. MARTIN: My name is Van Martin and I'm fran Smackover.

MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Myron Crisco.

6 MR. MYRON CRISCO: Well I'm certainly not no speech maker and this gentlerren over here said it real good. I 'm going to be one of those that he's talking about because this proposal and $14 oil is going to destroy me and my family and I'm sure I won't be alone. We've been fighting low prices and high costs for six (6) or seven (7) years now. I hope it gets better, that's what I'm working for. Who knows it may not, but if you say three years you got to do all this and we're still buckin' $14 oil, you can forget it. Because we' 11 all be belly up sarewhere.

That's just what I had to say. This man said a lot of good things that I agree with but I just wanted to put it in perspective fran my side of it. And I don't think I'm alone and I didn't ask for your sympathy, so thank you.

MR. WRIGHT: Rather than get myself in trouble here I'm just going to call the mayor of Garland City and let her pronounce this last name for you.

MS. MARTHA FRANKLIN: Martha Franklin.

MR. WRIGHT: Franklin?

MS. FRANKLIN: I'm Martha Franklin. I agree with what they say about all these mandates caning down the tube. But you'd have to be a lowly mayor to knCM what we are faced with, too. I know that the water under Garland City is saltwater because we had to go three miles out of town to get sane. And this advertiserrent that' s in the newspaper in the legal section for this disposal for Rodney Roberts and also Shreveport Louisiana. I'd like to read to you that the USGS geological survey water supply paper, 1988 published by Mr. Ludwig entitled The Water Resources of HeriJ?stead, Lafayette, Little River, Miller and Nevada Counties. "The infonnation we have shCMs prior damage to shallCM groundwater in the Garland City area pages 19-21. Sane people feel that the high chloride content in the shallow ground water in the Garland area is from the abandoned brine disposal pits associated with the oil industry. "

On May 7, 1992 the Garland City residents are hereby requesting a public hearing in Garland City at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely, Martha Franklin.

I agree, I would love to have sane of the revenue fran the oil. I also burn gas in my car. I have the greatest sympathy for you people. As a lowly mayor, I knCM what your faced with in sane of these controls but we must have them. We have had several deaths in fifteen {15) years in Garland City. We've only had two that were not cancer. One was killed in a car wreck and the other one died with a heart attack. I'm telling you folks, I have a water and a sewer license. Don't tell me about sane of these stringent controls, I knCM about them, and I welcane them, we've got to have them, we're killing ourselves. That's all I have to say, thank you.

7 MR. WRIGHT: Mr. Robert Reynolds.

MR. ROBERT REYNOLDS: Excuse rre ladies and gentlemen, my name is Robert Reynolds and I have a few ccmnents regarding the guidelines for the closure of all pits. Please accept my ccmnents in a restrictive and positive way. I have sane carrrents about the pit closure requirements. f:, My first comment was that the guidelines themselve are a little hard · to 'WOrk with because the pages are not numbered. If you'd excuse rre ~ ~ I '11 have to refer to section, and then letter, then number. And if anyone wants to follow along, please do so. Ranan numeral one, Pit Closure Requirements, Section A, General Guidelines, Number five. Number five refers to "An ADPCE pennitted disposal facility" but not does not list the names of any such facilities nor tell how to obtain a list of such facilities. Raman numeral two, Proper Pit Fluid Disposal Techniques, Sectipn B, Pit Fluid Analysis Test Requirements. Number two this refers to "This section one B" I rical or typographical error should say "this section t'WO B" there is no Section one B. Number three, the limitations on the listed parameters are unduly restrictive and do not conform to existing state and federal ~ ~ standards. For example, the five hundred (500) parts per million (pf!!!f'"·~ ~ -~· l.iruitation on total dissolve solids is only five percent (5%) of the rw~ Federal Standard of ten thousand (10,000) p];IIl for drinkinq water. In other words, no fluid could be discharged fran a pit if it has more than five percent (5%) of the same dissolved solids the Peds have for drinking water. Number four, refers to ADPCE regulation number two but it does not say what are the maximum allowable discharge values in Regulation two. _Number six establishes a sixty ( 60) day deadline for~ · · z s but does not establish a corresponding deadline for a ADkE decision. The regulation should res!;l1re to ac w1 e same · at it r ires for c1tizens to act for the c1t1zens request should be deerred to have been approv . C, 1sposa o pit ., fluids not meeting water quality standards. Number one refers to ~l 1\ C.Oot.~Arkansas UIC Code" to my knowledge there is no Arkansas UIC code. If ) there's anybody in here that knows better please tell rre. Number two Ll\.C.~ establishes parameters but it does not establish the limitatipn it instead leaves apmpval to th~ discretion of .the ADPCE. ladies and Gentlemen I'm not sure that's fair that's sort of like saying that the police may establish speed limits and then enforce those limits without saying what those limits will be. It merely gives the pararneter the parameter is miles per hour. That's what we got here, we got a . parameter but in milligrams per liter but it doesn't tell how many milligrams per liter. In other "WOrds we're gonna have a speed limit in miles per hour but we're not going to say how many miles per hour. I'm afraid that leaves open, different people will have different speed limits, different people are gonna' have different milligrams ~r liter. Raman numeral three, pit closures and closure technique. Ti:) Specific guidelines for pit closures. Number five, requires the bot~ of the waste rrdxture to be at least three (3) feet above the; seasonal high water table, and remember this regulation is written for the flood planes and streams but res;n1i res t.be bottqn of the~1 pnste mj.xtnre; to be three (3) feet above the seasonal high water table; . ' I bel1eve 1n IIWlY cases, if not in roost cases tbjs req:njrerrent dj~~l¥ contraqjcts the

7~ > ;;

8 requirement to fill pits that are in the seasonal that ~g in the 4 hundred year flood plane. Item number ten requires the filing of a .~·!F form subsequent to closing the pit but does not shCM a copy of the~ ..JJ.'\1" required form or the proposed form. B, land treatment/disposal of pit ~v waste. Number one refers to ADPCE permitted commercial disposal facility but does not list the names of any such facilities nor tell how to obtain a list of such facilities. F, Off Site Disposal of , Nonhazardous Oil Field Waste. Number one refers to an APPCE approved QY and/or rrnitted facilities. Again, the regulation fails to proVi'de ~/..o~9v;.., what it pramses. For ese reasons I request at you not 1.IIp ement §JIIJ f3 this irrpractically and unworkable regulation. In the event that you #~ Ai elect to rewrite the proposed regulation, we ask that you solicit and ~ 'Q" incorporate practical suggestions fran people who will actually be doing the closure of pits. Thank you.

MR. 'IDLEFREE: We would like to go through it.

MR. GERALD DElAVAN: Rob, I appreciate your ccmrents. I'm glad you took time to go ahead and really go over this thing with a fine tooth canb. This is not the final dOCUI"'alt, let me assure you. There are rugs to be worked out same additional information that needs to be included.

You mentioned one of the forms that's not included. We haven't, I haven't ever had a chance to develop that form yet. I wanted to have this form I wanted to take information fran the public fran that to refine if you will what needs to be done in here.

In regards to your comments about the pit fluid analysis test requirements. These requirements and the limitations in regard to Ph and Chlorides, total dissolved solids. These parameters were given as limitations for each parameter came directly out of what is knCMn as the Regulation number two for our agency which is, correct me if I'm wrong here Wilson, which is the Water Quality Standards. That's where those came out of. It wasn't related to Federal Regulations whatsoever it's the department's own water quality standards. Your comments about a report containing the results of fluid analysis shall be submitted to the ADPCE. Certainly we would hope to give you a turn around time of something less than sixty (60) days. Once your information i submitted to us, if we're just not just swamped with trying to get things straightened out and getting the information out to the individual operators about specific pits. Certainly we're gonna try to have a turn around time of ten, fifteen (15) days in terms of trying to give you the information that you need to proceed with your pit closure activities. Certainly I don't know if that is something that we can write into the regs in regards to what you expect from us in terms of turn around time. I would hope it would be as short as possible.

You mentioned once again on the same page, C, the disposal of pit fluids not being water quality standard. Pit fluids or any other N.O.W.

9 fluids which do not meet pit fluids analysis test requirezrents for surface discharge may be disposed into an ADPCE pennitted carrnercial or noncommercial disposal well or wells provided they meet all applicable Ac::t:':/2 and Arkansas UIC code regulations. Well the UIC code is what Arka."'lsas uses to regulate what is the Underground Injection Control program. The Arkansas Oil and Gas Ccmnission and the Pollution Control Ccmnission jointly administer involvanent with Underground Injection Control. Bill Wright's group has involvezrent with the sub-surface disposal aspects of the saltwater disposal. My group has, is, involved with the surface disposal, the tankage, the firewalls, piping, the arrount of storage injection pressure, that sort of thing. All I was referencing there in the code it states specifically from our standpoint, requiranents and regulations involving proper injection disposal of those wastes. So that's why I referenced the UIC code, I would just hope that an operator that was going to use an injection 'Well as a disposal method would be in carpliance with the law applicable rules of rules and regulations regarding that disposal method. That the 'Well's constructed properly, that the casing is set proper1 y, that he' s operating under the guidelines of both the regulations of my agency and Bill's agency. That was the only reason I made reference to the UIC code.

You talked a little bit about land application of pit fluids on site. Typically the way that would be handled is, what I was hoping here was the operator could submit a test analysis of the pit fluids. These are the parameters that we want to test for, sodimn chlorides, barimn, lead, and chramimn, that sort of thing. That analysis would be sent to us and based on the analysis there's a worksheet that I have in the office that I'd be happy to supply to you. But, I' 11 run through sane calculations in regard to the conductivity of the fluids, the analysis of the soils where the materials gonna be land applied and from that I cane up with a count and arrount what is would be typically an acceptable rate in terms of discharge that you're given. Your allowed to put one inch an acre on a minimum of twenty acres based on the chloride content or based on the analysis that you send me. There's all kinds of variables in there so I really couldn't cane in and put a concentration level that might be acceptable because same other variable might throw it out of spec. So I'd be glad to provide a copy of those worksheets to anybody that they could see how the calculations run and give them an idea what might be acceptable from a land disposal standpoint in regards to water that might be out of spec. That's where I was earning from on that.

What else we got, Wilson? The pit closure reporting fonn, like I say, / that was not sanething that has been developed yet, we just haven't had a chance to do that. Hopefully it will be just a short half page fonn where you can identify yourself as an operator, location of the pit, method of disposal, something that I can have on file in regards to the work to give you credit if you will on the work that was done and have a record for my files on what was done and when the pit was closed. If the public comes to me in regards to if or if not a pit is closed that I would have sane way of going back through my files and having the reporting fonn on hand. That was what was envisioned on that.

10 Anything else? The last i tern you mentioned was under i tern B, land treabnent and disposal of pit waste. Once again, all waste oils, sludge, and N.O.W. materials must be either disposed of on site or transported to an ADPCE pennitted disposal facility. Once again, I did not, I have a li~ting in the office of pennitted carrnercial operators who are licensed and pennitted through our agency to collect handle and dispose of waste associated with oil field production and exploration. I'd be certainly willing to supply any of the operators with a list of tl)pse people who are pennitted and we feel are good operators in regard to disposal practices and that sort of thing. That's available on request, I'm not trying to hide anything in regard on who could do that work, we just didn't supply that tonight. I've got that infonnation if you need it.

MR. TOLEFREE: Thank you Gerry.

MR. DElEVAN: Thanks Rob.

MR. BILL FOSTER: If this goes forward, the closing of pits, it seems to me the most inportant thing is to get our pits closed and not put so many restrictions in front of the operator, for instance today in our tank battery firewall we only have stock tanks in that firewall. The majority of us have in our SPCC plan can drain the rainwater out of it and most of the mess is separate, taste and color. What is wrong with this, doing this? I can see this taking sixty ( 60) days fran the time I get ready to close the pit until I get your approval.

MR. DElEVAN: Sir, you really want me to address the question of proper disposal of fluids in the firewall, if you will?

MR. FOSTER: I mean it seems to be the descriptions are so rigid that -we do so much s~ling that the average boy out here can walk out here and taste of that water and see if it' s brackish.

MR. DELEVAN: Yes sir.

MR. FOSTER: Then if it's brackish he's got to put it in a disposal system.

MR. DELEVAN: Yes sir.

MR. FOSTER: If it's not brackish he ought to be able to turn it loose. I ought to not have to go s~le it, send it to same lab then get the analysis back and certify that analysis and then send it to you.

MR. DELEVAN: Like I say ...

MR. FOSTER: They -were going to do this in lDuisiana and I thought it was going to be quite successful.

MR. DELEVAN: As far as giving the operator the discretion on what should be discharged and what shouldn't and the State not being involved, is that what you're suggesting?

MR. DELEVAN: Oh, I agree and it's certainly not •.• the intent of this was not to place an econanic hardship on anyone. That was certainly not the intent of this. That was not the intent of this at all. If there' s a more workable solution to pit testing requirements. If there's a more workable solution out there I'm willing to listen and try to streamline it so we can effect a quicker turn around tirre. I'm not quite sure what that solution is, I think the department feels like they would want to be involved in regards to saying what the analysis of sane of those fluids were prior to disposal. I just feel like that we want to have a little bit of say in regards to what's going to be disposed and what's not. What's the best method for that is I'm not sure. That's why we're having a public hearing to take cooments and make possible changes to the proposed reg. This is not written in stone.

MR. FRANK SPNER: Is your thrust mainly to handle the saltwater?

MR. DELEVAN: Yes, and the oily waste that's contained in the pits too.

MR. SPNER: Well what you don't want then is a discharge of oily waste into the streams.

MR. DELEVAN: Yes.

MR. SPNER: And you don't want a discharge of saltwater.

MR. DELEVAN: Yes.

MR. SPNER: I think most of the people consent to that but when you get so detailed with it most of us don't have an engineering background and we tend to throw up our hands at this stuff sanewhere down the road. When we see staterrents like two million pounds ••. I'm fran Monroe louisiana, I read in the paper there's two million of salt daily going down the OUachita river. Where is that two million pounds caning fran?

MR. TOLEFREE: In doing analysis I think that's one of the :i.rrq:_x>rtant things as far as our testing program is concerned, performing analysis and looking at that and trying to make the determination as to what has been released and that's what we're looking at as to the concentrations and all that have been released. I think that's why it's :i.rrq:_x>rtant to have same idea as to the concentrations and all that's been released. I think based on the analysis that we've had it's where we get those figures from is based on our analysis of those that can discharge.

MR. SPNER: How much does two million pounds a day add to the chlorides in the OUachita river?

MR. DELEVAN: I'm sorry?

12 MR. SPOONER: Ho.v much does two million pounds a day raise the dissolved solids in milliliters?

MR. BRUCE KIRKPATRICK: Well I guess for an example, last July 2, stream flo.v was up pretty high in the Ouachita river, I believe the Chloride concentration do.vn at Felsenthal after the Saline river runs in was twenty-seven (27) milligrams per liter which is well within the water quality standards. But, the stream flo.v at that time was about eight thousand sane odd million gallons per day. High water flo.v.

MR. SPOONER: High water flo.v?

MR. KIRKPATRICK: Yes sir, it was high water. When you figure twenty-seven (27) milligrams per liter over that much water you're going to came up with about pretty close to 1.98 or something like that million pounds per day of Chloride.

MR. E. W. SMITH: How much does the Saline river carry, though?

MR. KIRKPATRICK: I didn't hear your last corrment, sir.

MR. SMITH: How much does the Saline river carry by itself.

MR. KIRKPATRICK: The Saline .•.

MR. SMITH: It's not named Saline river for nothing.

MR. KIRKPATRICK: Yes sir, it's carrying quite a bit on it's o.vn, I agree and it don't weigh •.•

MR. SMITH: How much is caning out of our Ouachita fran up above?

MR. KIRKPATRICK: Yes sir. Right there's the Ouachita River Basin starts up there in Western Arkansas and covers a huge part of the State and I think everybody kno.vs that there are Chlorides in our soils that go into solution during rainfall runoff. There are many sources, discharge from sewer treatment plants, I don't think anyone here would say that all the saltwater going to the Ouachita river is caning from saltwater discharge from oil and gas operations.

MR. SPOONER: That' s what it said in the paper.

MR. DELE.VAN: I'm not responsible for what the paper said. I can't control what the rredia says in regards to ..•

MR. WRIGHT: Ladies and Gentlerren, let rre bring our record up to where it ought to be. If you are going to make camments, at least give your name before you make a carment so the people will know who they're

13 trying to answer. These people do not know you, I do. The first party who spoke was Bill Foster, second was Frank Spooner, and Mr. E. W. &nith was the third carment. Now you're going to have to talk one at a tirre, because there's a record trying to be maintained. 'Ihe little lady who's here is going to have a heck of a time putting Joe Blow with all these narres out there. Bill Foster?

MR. FOOTER: I'm trying to be rather conservative. Ya' 11 said one million to two million pounds of salt going down the river a day. I just pulled same Chloride counts for the South Field. Everybody knows what the El Dorado South Field is. It runs somewhere around thirty-seven thousand (37,000) ppm. If you compute thirty-seven thousand (37 ,000) ppn into pounds of salt per barrels of saltwater it will only take seventy-eight thousand (78,000) barrels of water a day to make one million pounds. Thank you.

MR. JAMES LANGLEY: I'm Jarres Langley.

MR. WRIGHT: Jerry Langley.

MR. LANGLEY: Jarres. I don't know if you're aware of this but in 1958 there was a survey done. Fifty-one thousand (51,000) tons of salt was going down the OUachita River. There' s a big discrepancy between one and two million. First we need to decide whether it's one million or two million pounds, but in 1958 there was fifty-one (51,000) tons going down the river. Now the Saline river does contribute. International Paper Ccrnpany in carrrlen does contribute. The sewage systems all the way up the river as far as you go up the river including Smackover and Carrrlen does contribute. The gentleman made the statement there's no way to monitor. A chemical specialist, a man that works for Treat-0-Lite, or any of these ????chemical cc:xrpa.nies who run Chloride above Smackover Creek and above the Saline River and subtract the differences and it doesn't take a genius to figure out what the Chloride count is above and below. I think the oil producers are an easy prey at this point to take the heat. But there are ways to check it and unfortunately even though we've had a ninety-eight percent (98%) decrease in the amount of salt going down the river per Government and I have the report in my office, I meant to bring it but I failed to do so like your slides. And never the less we've had a ninety-six to a ninety-eight percent (96 to 98%) .improverrent in the amount of salt going down the river wherever it's caning fran since 1958. And I realize there's a lot of work to be done but I think you need to bear that in mind when you make your decision and realize that most of us try to be competent operators. I'm an oil producer and I'm in the tinber business and right now I make more money out of the tinber business than I do out of the oil business. So I'm more concerned about my trees growing than I am my oil wells pumping.

Gentlemen if we're going to keep this industry the government is going to have to work with us instead of against us. We're going to have to work together as a partnership. And for us to do this you're going to have to give us guidelines but you're going to have to give us specific guidelines and you're going to let same people that have same carm::>n working knowledge with it work with you so we can work it out together

MR. KIRKPATRICK: I would like to make a cannent on that. There' s been sane definite iroproverrent in just recent years. Back around 81' era the peaks as far as you want to talk about saltload going down the ouachita river. Peaks were, even ten years ago, were around eight million p:::>unds per day. The reason, there' s no way you can put any exact number on that because just the flow of the OUachita river goes up and down fran day to day and so does the arrount of salt it carries. So there's no way to say it's this much. It's going to be •.. It varying from day to day.

MR. SPOONER: can I comment on that? I'll tell you what the Louisiana Department of Conservation found.

MR. WRIGHT: What is your name, sir.

MR. SPOONER: Frank Spooner. Monroe gas field has probably six thousand (6,000) pits in it. Louisiana Department of Conservation went through the same closure procedure in the flood plane of the OUachita River down there as you did up there. But the Director of the Office of Conservation in Monroe and the Wildlife and Fisheries have monitored the ouachita River repeatedly and they've never found any increase in the salt content caning down that river, fran supposedly flushing of those pits. Just not visible. If you guys want to close the pits that's fine but I don't think you ought to be using the arrount of salt caning da-m the ouachita river as an excuse for it. At flood stage, that's when your going to pick up your water, there's sixty-one thousand (61,000) cubic feet of water per second that crosses Monroe. At pool stage it's only one thousand 1,000 cubic feet per second. But even at pool stage that's five billion 300 and sane odd thousand p:::>unds a day crossing at Monroe. If you're out to close the pits I'd appreciate that but don't confuse this as an excuse for doing it because they're not hurting the OUachita. A million pounds of salt at flood stage if my calculations are correct that's three (3) ppn at a million pounds a day that is going dCM!l the river. At two million p:::>unds it canes out to six ( 6) pt:m that you \'JOuld increase. I don' t think you can measure it. We're going to close the pits and I understand that's what we're going to do. Now I think my guestj on j s probably more can we have sane little pit to catch oil spills just don't put salt water in it. Will that be allowed?

MR. DELEVAN: We're wanting a \'JOrkable situation to where yes you can have a pit that is a workover pit or you got a situation that you need a pit to contain oil that may be getting into a water course or into a creek or stream. We're certainly willing to work with you in regards to that. The intent of this was not to prevent you fran using any pits whatsoever. The intent was to try to address a very specific problem that we had which was the pericx:lic inundation of pits. When we get into a high water situation on the ouachita river, the river getting up

15 and just flushing pits out, it didn't matter what was in those pits everything was getting flushed, whether it was saltwater, waste oil, oily sludge, it was all being flushed dCMn the river and fran a water quality stand point and from a surface water quality standpoint the department saw this as a serious problem. What we're trying to do here is to not put an undue burden of hardship on everybody in regards to closing all pits if you've got good water in the pit we're not going to force you to close that out. If you can show me that you've got a good pit that's gone through passive closure and you've got trees on that rascal, I'm not going to ask you to close that pit. I'm asking you to close the pits that have a problem from a water quality standpoint or a problem from a bunch of oily sludge that's been in there for a long time that's periodically inundated and are closing a problem in regards to water quality. We're wanting to work with you in regards to what pits you may need or may not need. Like I say this is not all cast in stone in regards to the specifics of what is going to be done. This is a brand new program for us. We're willing to look at different options in regards to what may or may not have to be done. Yes, it states very clearly in here the specifics, I've got one guy saying that things are too specific, one guy saying things are not specific enough. We're trying to came up with a workable set of guidelines here that everybody can live with. It's not going to please everybody, I'm not going to make everybody happy. I'm trying to cane up with sanething that .... An operator calls me and says Hey, I've got to do a workover operation I'm going to need to use a pit, I need a workover pit. 0. K. use the workover pit but don't leave it there for ten (10) or fifteen (15) years because you may be working the workover pit dCMn the line. Use the pit then close the pit out if need be. Surely there's a workable situation.

MR. PREWITr: My name is Bill Prewitt. If I could jyst cqrment. As I read the regulation it does, not permit wb,at you've ;just said that you're intendinq to do. . I'm si.Irply ask you to review the regulation write into what you've just said and you will have gone ~ lc;mg ways toward solving the problem. ,4/J~ u~ Of tJ#) o~1Eil'lj!ot'Aef (tTJ Jli f{J;()IJj)(AN/ MR. DELEVAN: I'm not going to argue with you, you're an attorney. I know better than that. I tried to write same lead way into it.

MR. FOSTER: Bill Foster. Gerry, one roore time. If we have a pit that we obviously know the water quality is not up to par, what is wrong with us taking it and going to dispose of it into that pit instead of going and getting samples and waiting on ya' 11. But "/W.u QerSOnally know I have a coornercial well. Air~ o·ca.u.T I() IS~ ~ f) ~lL II"\ ow t-~g1·,~~urtl~~ t t "iltt· . MR. DELEVAN: Yes sir. ~

MR. FOSTER: If I've got a pit that won't pass, I know where my water's going before I close that pit. What I am against is the long drawn out testing procedure. let's do it and get it over with.

MR. DELEVAN: I don't see any problem with that whatsoever. If you know you got bad water quality in your pit and you know it's not going to care out. Here's the specs in front of you in tenns of what' s going

16 to be required in tenns of water quality. If you know the water quality is bad, sure let's avoid the middle man. One less phone call to me or to my staff makes everything go a lot srroother.

MR. FOSTER: What bothers me right now is the way the proposed regulations are is just supposing I took it on myself and did that in all good faith. Two years or three years dc:Mn the line you cc;:me back or saneone canes back and says, hey. . . . Atl01'6Sj Jl«,pr. AcW&ItJtq8 1t. 1(y MK. MIKE DAVIS: Not many of us are drilling wells anyrrore but for those of us who intend to drill wells in the future, what do you intend for us do with the drilling muds that we have in our reserve pits one we're through with our drilling operation? Can we land fann that, does it have to be disposed of sanewhere, does that pit have to be lined or can we still just use an earthen pit like we've used for years and years and years? What do you intend for us to do: clarify that a little bit and tell me your intent as to what to do with our drilling mud.

MR. DElAVAN: We have sane guidelines that are already in place in regards to construction, the proper construction, and the disposal and closure for reserve pits. Unfortunately, the guidelines that's been applied .•• have been applied to two different areas in the state. The guidelines that are out there have typically been used in the Arkana. Basin and they are used in the Arkana. Basin. Each operator that drills a well and utilizes a reserve pit in the Arkana. basin typically notifies us and we send them a letter of authorization for that reserve pit construction. I do not have the staff or the time to oversee the same kind of construction operations in South Arkansas. Consequently, we felt like the Arkana basin was a little more environmentally sensitive area if you will, so we took the time and energy to try to regulate that a little closer than South Arkansas. Those regulations are already in place in regards to requirements for pit liners where there's going to be compacted clay or bentonite or synthetic liner in regards to proper closure techniques, those are already there. But I don't have the staff and the time to regulate each one of those in South Arkansas, there much m::>re mnnerous dc:Mn here, I don't see it as big a problem in regards to reserve pit activities as I do in the Arkana basin. Probably if our request for staffing increases are made, eventually we will probably require the operators to notify us and attempt to construct a reserve pit and once they do, we' 11 send them a copy of the guidelines on how a pit should be constructed, closed, fluids disposed, and that sort of thing: so those regulations are already there, we just haven't had the staffing or the time to go ahead and address South Arkansas like we have the Arkana.

MR. 'roLEFREE: Also, these regulations that we're proposing and the changes that we're proposing is going to •.• we recognize the fact that it's going to require additional staff to properly respond to just those types of situations that you have. And we will be getting additional staff to address these issues.

MR. DAVIS: I don't rrean you people have additional staff. I just Ineall •••

17 MR. TOLEFREE: But I was saying in response to what was being said, as far as that's concerned additional staff will help you too, to answer sane of the questions that you have in those areas.

MR. JOHNNY BEEBE: Bill.

MR. WRIGHT: Johnny Beebe.

MR. JOHNNY BEEBE: Johnny Beebe. I think one thing that we're concerned about is; let me give you an example. Say ten (10) years ago when we were the focus of saltwater they allowed us to put it in pits, I 've got records down there where I turned in my reports where we were putting it in pits, and, the Pollution Control and the Oil and Gas gave me the authority to do it. Now ya'll came back and say we can't use that which is fine. But what we're afraid of is that the regulations you make today ten ·years fran now you may think "That's what Bill was talking about." But what you're saying now is go ahead and cover your pits, if you have water in them, just get rid of the water and cover your pit. Ten years fran now another board may came back and say "look, you closed that pit - where are your samples? Cause this is what we're concerned about.

MR. 'IDLEFREE: And I understand that. And what we're trying to do is be progressive in the regulations that we write and then in responding to the need. If we make catastrophic changes, then no one can comply and as regulations and new ideas evolve in society and things are gonna to change. New regulations are going to came out and we try and be as progressive as we possibly can without being over burdensome at ti.rrEs which sometimes gets us in trouble. And as we go through we make changes that we feel are necessary at that time that will address those issues and sometimes we haven't gone far enough. You know we can't guarantee you that ten years fran now there won't be same additional requirements but we can only stand so much at one time.

MR. DElAVAN: I don't think anybody is going to be penalized for doing pit closure, I mean, there's no way that ten years down the line we're going to came back and try to penalize you for doing pit closure unless for same reason you've done a really botched job of it, like oil earning back to the surface or leaking to a stream or something that would make us came back in regards to what was done. we're not going to start a witch hunt and ten years fran now and say, "Well gee, I wonder if he closed that pit properly" If I don't have any direct evidence that you didn't properly close that pit, I'm not going to do anything, trust me. Bad choice of words.

MR. WRIGHT: Geny, has any consideration been given to one particular area and field that we have, we're not using pits for the purpose of , storing saltwater, those are the production tanks for thatfield. What's going to ha:ppen in the old Inna field wbere yon cannot tankage your production. Because if you put it in tanks as r-Dbile tried whe they thought they could operate better than same of the independents up there and they would fill their thousand (1,000) barrel tanks up and then you could take their inspections plate off and you would have to shovel it out of there.

18 MR. DELAVAN: It may be that Inna field is a special case, I don't know, it's not sanething we consider a special case, but maybe if they've got to use specific type of production facilities in the Irma field, that there could be a variance granted to operators in the Irma field in regards to what type of production pits could be used.

MR. WRIGHT: Well I think all the industry is asking is that you use catmOn sense approach to it and that theirs going to have to be sare wavers, differences for different areas just like we've got as you mentioned in Northwest Arkansas The purpose of the pits and the liners in Northwest Arkansas is, they depend upon impoundments for their water supplies up there. We depend on subsurface water supply down here, we don't ••. so that's a difference in areas. You can't treat Northwest Arkansas as you do South Arkansas. You've got ... I realize we can't control the media. I wish I could, but I can't. But in the last five years the industry is down in drilling pennits four hundred and thirty-five percent (435%). We're down in production in the last five years approximately five and a half million barrels of oil. You've got a stated one to two million barrels of salt in the Ouachita going to louisiana every day. I'm not saying that the oil and gas industry didn't contribute to that; we probably did in the 1920's and 1930's and its going to be there till the 1990's and 2000's. Every time it rains your going to get salt flushed out of the Smackover drainage area and Charnpagnolle Creek drainage area. Its leached into the stumps, trees , soil out there. It's going to be there for years to came. We've came a long way from the quoted fifty-six million pounds ..• or tons, excuse me, in 1956 I believe it was, we're only putting one or two million down today. Sarreone said it was about 90 .•. or ninety-nine percent (99%). All that doesn't cane from the oil industry. A lot of its in the Smackover Creek bottan and Charnpagnolle Creek bottan. A lot of its caning fran the Saline River from the salt creeks and other areas.

MR. DElAVAN: We'd be the first to agree with you, you have cane a long way.

MR. WRIGHT: Thank you. I'm glad you agree, because the papers don't - still don't. MR. DELAVAN: The water quality data itself proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that for the last ten (10) years its gone down dramatically. We realize that.

MR. WRIGHT: John Lowery.

MR. JOHN la'JERY JR.: .In regards to Johnny's question there, one _I>roblem that we have .•• if we close out these pits that it was , originally a pennitted system or still permitted as far as we 1 re . concerned, are you going tp tum around now wben your i nspectar cares through and says that the pennit' s been altered and you make us Send off a hundred dollars ($1 00) .again or a hundred and fifty ($150) to .tenew the pennit, like we do now. The saltwater disposal system may have not changed at all huf your sign's been stolen; you've got to turn around even if you've filed the rronth before and paid your fee you've got to redo the pennit and turn around and pay a hundred dollars ($100)

19 to ya'll or a hundred and fifty ($150) or whatever it is in addition to what they require. Is that going to be required?

MR. DELEVAN: If that pit was not associated with the disposal system itself, I don't think there's any way you would be required to do that as a pennit modification. Unless that pit was directly associated or included in the diagrams that you sul:rnitted when you obtained your permit. Unless it was directly associated somehow with that application and how you were utilizing that permit in regards to disposing saltwater, there's no way we would force any kind of modification on you.

MR. JOHN I.OOERY, JR.: Well, sane of them were though. Sane systems that sane of us unfortunately inherited might have been drilled in the forties in the earthen pits permitted, there's not water, it's not part of a holding system now. You can take that pit out, it was in the original drawing. If we close it even though its not used, are we going to have to re-permit it? Are we going to have to pay the fee.

MR. JOHN I.OOERY, JR.: One other question, I might not should open this can of wonns right now, what if sane prOducers do have to go out of @usiness during this process? You've got !and owners, operators, leAse holders and land owners. ,What 1 s the process now as far as responsibility 1£ the ~perators gone, bankru t, dead or whatever. Sa e p ugs the wel deeper, Just to get away rom the twenty ousand dollar ($20,000) pit closure, what happens? Could you walk us through this, is that going to go to the;, land.gomer, and,. if not to the landowner, a super fund or what, could you go through that?

MR. DELEVAN: 'Ihe regulation as it is drafted now, the responsibility of that would fall to the landowner.

MR. YANCY REYNOlDS: 'Ihe surface land owner not a mineral owner?

MR. DELEVAN: I didn't bring a lawyer with me. I 'rn not a lawyer.

MR. YANCY REYOOIDS: My name is Yancy Reynolds. My folks have held land and been involved in oil and gas since the twenty's. I wish you would address that if you will.

MR. DELEVAN: I 'rn sorry. I don't know how to address that at this time. I really don't.

MR. DELEVAN: The problem we ran up against ••• let rne explain a little bit, the problem. We didn't quite know haw, if an operator is bankrupt or if an operator has left pits on your property, we weren't sure haw to go about the proper tracking dawn process, if you will on haw to

20 hold those parties responsible. I'm not sure how as the department we can track down who could ultimately be responsible for the pits that were left. Consequently, the only recourse we had was, if we cannot establish, beyond a shadow of a doubt, who the operator was that was responsible, then the responsibility is going to have to fall back to the surface land owner.

MR. Y. REYNOlDS: I have one additional question. It concerns the fresh water in stock tank pit walls.

MR. DElAVAN: Yes.

MR. Y. REYNOLDS: We've been advised that there' s a possibility that we'll have to build a catch basin within the pit wall, and process that fresh rainwater back through our saltwater systems which would not be helpful. Is there a definite answer to that?

MR. DElAVAN: I'm sorry. I don't know. Could you, maybe, Bruce can you answer the question. Could you repeat that again?

MR. Y. REYNOLDS: In a stock tank pit wall, fire wall, you have rainwater that is caught. If you have been discharging out of the pit wall. we've been told that we're going to have to build a catch basin and install a pump and process that water back through our saltwater system, which would not be beneficial for the saltwater system.

MR. BRUCE KIRKPATRICK: Well there is sane facilities out there set up to do that, right now. I'm not sure ... I'm sure there's probably s~ e<:::rrpatibili ty problems with the collected rainwater and the saltwater to be disposed.

MR. Y. REYNOlDS: But, there is a regulation dealing with that now?

MR. DElAVAN: Are you talking about, in general, just fluids in the firewall if you will in regards to how your going to? There are regulations now that say you cannot have fluids in the firewall. But that's in regards to the saltwater disposal and the tankage storage of just the saltwater. Our regulations right now do not extend to the tank battery as I understand it. Tank batteries fall to the regulation of the Oil and Gas Commission because it's deemed the produCtion part of the process. So as far as I know we have not written any regulations in regard to fluid in the firewall involving the stock tank battery. Our pennits are involved with the tankage and the storage and the firewalls are concerned with the saltwater storage and not the production tank battery.

MR. BILL FRISBY: I 'm Bill Frisby. I'd like to ask you one thing that would probably apply to a lot of us producers, and it did to me the other day. I had three different tank batteries with common interest, and all I wanted to do was cut out two tank batteries and use one tank battery and look after one salt water system. And have all my production going to one tank battery. In order for me to do that I had to do all that paperwork, and which John asked me if I had closed a pit, I had to redo all the paperwork and now I'm a waitin' on a new

21 saltwater disposal pennit. All the water was going to the same saltwater well, stored in the same saltwater lines, I rrean flowlines. It's still going to the same saltwater well, and I had to pay a hundred and tW'Emty dollars ($120) and do all of this paperwork. Why would that be imposed on all us producers if we try to economize our oil field and move a common tank battery into one, and the water going to the same well, the water's still going to, it was goin there before I moved the flowlines into one tank battery. And I had to do all that paperwork and do all that revising and pay a hundred and tW'Emty dollars ($120).

MR. DElAVAN: Ken, here we go.

MR. KEN ESTES: Well Bill, the way the regulations are written today, any alterations to your saltwater disposal system requires a revision. That's if, like if you rrove a tank, remove a tank, add a tank, well, you have to revise your system. And when you do that, that's going to cost you a hundred and twenty dollars ($120). That's the way the regulation states.

MR. DElAVAN: How would you propose to stream line that if you will. Let me pose the question back to you.

MR. JOHN I.CWERY, JR.: Just by letter like you suggested on the 5th.

MR. ESTES: But you altered your system there Mr. Bill, and it has to be revised. Now I don't know. We can get our people together. I don't know whether that's in concrete either.

MR. DElAVAN: I'm not quite sure how to respond that Bill.

MR. DElAVAN: It may be that we can make a change. The scope of this hearing is not in regards to changing the regulations that your talking about. That' s a whole other matter. To go in to change those regulations would require the same kind of public hearing forum we're having tonight in order to change those regs. Now, it certainly might be possible to look at streamlining in regards to the information that need to be sul:mitted by the operator to try to give .••we have to know where the changes are so if an inspector cares down and he looks at

22 your system and suddenly the system's completely changed, he needs the records in his hands to be able to evaluate whether the system is pennitted or not pennitted accordingly. So I guess if there's a workable situation there in regards to getting the infonnation to us about what changes have been made, possibly we could streamline it.

MR. WRIGHT: I think Jerry, he is rrore is concerned that he is trying to do a better job consolidating his disposal system to better protect the envirorurent, yet this is rronetarily unwise to do that. "l MR. FRISBY: The hundred and twenty dollars ($120), the paperwork, all the tine doing the final paperwork plus the hundred and twenty dollars ($120) and there I was trying to cut back on tank batteries, I done away with two tank batteries. Built two extra firewall and the whole ball of wax and cut it dCMn to one sys·tem.

MR. DElAVAN: Well Bill, maybe as a Ccmnissioner, maybe you need to propose sane changes. Let rre throw that back on you.

MR. JOHN SAUlSBURY: Like on your staterrent a minute ago about Bill's department being responsible for production and yours being responsible for disposal .... could you clarify that for field inspectors.

MR. DELAVAN: Yes sir. I'd be glad to try. I'll let Ken address that.

MR. ESTES: What's your problem John?

MR. SAUlSBURY: Well, for instance, I got a letter the other day on a production well that your people inspected. 'Ihey didn't like the firewalls, well they didn't like anything. And he wrote it up giving a saltwater pennit nmnber and the saltwater well is over a quarter of a mile away fran that well. It's very frustrating trying to satisfy your people when they don't even know what they're looking at themselves. And they get involved in the Oil and Gas Commission business.

MR. DElAVAN: We are involved with the production tank battery if there is a violation is occurring and in tenns ... if there is a breach in the firewall, and you have a discharge from the production battery that is entering the waters of the state or is sanehCM irrpacting the surface water quality, yes, our agency would be involved with the situation.

MR. SAUlSBURY: We understand that. But you know this mass inspection that you did back in the first of March?

MR. DELAVAN: Yes Sir.

MR. SAULSBURY: I'm referencing a bunch of that.

MR. ESTES: I understand John, we had inspectors doing this work that you stated that they do this everyday. This was a different area for them, and they might have made a mistake here and there, overall, I think they did a real good job. But in certain instances, they may have missed their calling. 'Ihis is one of them that your speaking of. They will be addressed.

23 MR. DELAVAN: We had inspectors in from Fayetteville, we had inspectors in fran Harrison, we had inspectors in from all over, that were water divisions inspectors that had never been to South Arkansas whatsoever, didn't know the scope of what was going on, involved with the pennitting process with saltwater disposal systems, and certainly in your case it sounds like they were caught off guard and off base in regards to what they were citing you for. So, Ken is certainly right. In most instances we felt like they were on target. They did miss the lx>at sanetimes. I' 11 agree with that.

MR. FOSTER: Gerry we have not touched on the subject of oiling our roads. You know this is sanething we've done for many, many years.

MR. DElAVAN: Yes Sir.

MR. FOSTER: The only objections I had is the limitations on E, paragraph D, says it will only be one ( 1) inch thick.

MR. DELEVAN: Yes Sir.

MR. FOSTER: ...We have covering in order all of us to do that. We don't want the oil going down the road, I can see where a inspector would cane along my oil road and squat down any place he wanted to, take his pocket knife, and dig a inch and a half deep and if he got same oil, I'm in violation. This is nit picking.

MR. DELAVAN: Well, I think you're nit picking us. I'm not .•. I've got to put sane kind of number in there in regards to how it should be done proper1 y. Right?

MR. FOSTER: I doubt very seriously if one inch is proper.

MR. DELEVAN: Is two inches proper, is three inches proper? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It depends on what kind of road it is, is it J sandy or what?

MR. FOSTER: A sand bed might soak up six inches if we put high gravity oil in it.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: You've got a driveway out there that's six inches deep that's the sane asphalt, oil.

MR. ESTES: Well, again, the intent is to keep the oil on the road bed. Just don't let it get off the road. It may be an inch thicker. We're not going to care out there and stick a ruler down there and say, "Hey, you're in violation. You're an inch and a half. " We're just trying to get sane guidelines here.

MR. FOSTER: I understand that, that's why I'm putting this forth.

MR. KIRKPATRICK: Maybe sanebody' s never done road application. Maybe they don't know how their supposed to do it. An inch was just a guideline like Ken said. It's not ••• These are guidelines. This is not

24 a regulatio~ ~igpt here. You cannot be cited for being in violation of a guideline.

MR. FOSTER: I thought our hearing tonight was sare input on those guidelines. That's my approach on this •.•

MR. 'IDLEFREE: Once regulations are in place, guidelines can be evolved over a pericxl of time if we see how things operate and if there's sane changes or whatever that needs to be made these guidelines for input and if you have suggestions on how things should be done differently, or any suggestions on how guidelines should be implemented, we appreciate you writing them and sending them in to us.

MR. FOSTER: When we oil the roads, does that IIEan we take either a road grader or sare type of way we open our road up a little furrow?

MR. 'IDLEFREE: Put in a furrow then •••

MR. FOSTER: And spray it down.

MR. 'IDLEFREE: Yes.

MR. CHARLES ROGERS: I know I speak for all of us, I appreciate you fellows caning down here to talk with us and taking the tinE. Our concept of this thing here a month or two ago was rumored around ya'll were looking for somebody to fine, or the idea of looking for somebody to punish. And you go around people that's in the fanning business, all the farm people, they want to help these guys. farming and you go out on a farm and they want to help these guys. And I appreciate ya'lls attitude here tonight. It makes me feel a lot better that ya'll are out to work with us. You know. That's what we heard, ya' 11 would send thirty (30) or forty (40) men down here, just hunting somebody to fine. Like a beat dog hidin' out behind a porch.

MR. 'IDLEFREE: Well when people quickly get on the negative band wagon, and they like to make negative publicity, it makes gocxl copy. And so, those things happen and by no means is that the facts. What happens is actually we're saying, "We're fran the goverrurent, we're here to help you," you know, people take that in a negative way cause we're really trying to work with ...

MR. ROGERS: One thing I wanted to ask you is, especially to Ken, and I know most of us do that, if you' 11 let us know, in other words say you inspect a lease of ours or sarething ••. but if you '11 tell us and work with us instead of saying o. k. here's a bunch of stuff and we're not carplying. Talk to us. We'll say "what can I do where". Most of us, I'll guarantee it, every one of us will do it. We're not out to hide sarething, just tell us what you want and give us a little slack, and do it. Don't just care up here and •••

MR. 'IDLEFREE: Often times you see regulations that implemented and put in place without guidelines on how to implement those. These regulations that we're proposing, and Gerry and his staff has spent a tremendous am::>unt of time developing guidelines on how to implement

25 those and that's the purpose of that, trying to make sure that we have a means of input in the regulation.

MR. ROGERS: One :rrore question before I address him. In the regulation, the stmmary of changes of regulations, paragraph 5 says "shall be closed within thirty-six (36) :rronths of the effective date of the revision of this regulation." I was wondering what is the effective date?

MR. TOLEFREE: You '11 knCM when the effective date is.

MR. ROGERS: Has it been set yet?

MR. DELEVAN: No. The Coomission has to vote and adopt these regulations.

HR. TOLEFREE: We got a ways to go yet. let me tell you the process that we are going to go through that we go through with regulations. We have a regulation committee of the Commission ...

MR. ROGERS: In other words, we got at least three (3) years fran nCM to carply.

MR. WRIGHT: Plus.

MR. TOLEFREE: Plus.

MR. MARK THCMAS: Yancy Reynolds posed a question earlier, I'm Mark Thanas by the way, concerning the draining of fresh water, rain water fran production tank batteries and we need a yes or no answer Bill, if the person has the ability to run a Ph, if a person has the ability to run a if the person has the ability to run a Ph run a person has the ability to run a chloride specific conductance on that rainwater, and it is within the guidelines for discharge that's mentioned here that I'm sitting there on that firewall, drainin' what I knCM is good rainwater out and Ken Estes pulls up or one of your people Bill, and I say the Ph is seven (7), the chloride is fifty (50) conductance is two hundred (200) and here it goes, are you going to give me a ticket?

MR. WRIGHT: I've never given you a ticket.

MR. THC*1AS: I know that, but we just want to knCM.

MR. WRIGHT: 'nley might.

KEN FSTES: No, we're going to believe you if you tell us that we' 11 believe you.

MR. WRIGHT: It's very sirrple if he's there on your lease, you've got water inside that firewall, reach down and stick your finger in it and stick it to your tongue. I've done that all my life

MR. THC*1AS: Right, it works but I don't want to get in trouble over it.

26 ... MR. WRIGHT: That's what Bill Foster's talking about, taste and coloring. If it taste salty, its salty. If its got a rainbow or sheen on it it' s got oil. You know, those are obvious things. lAWRENCE BEARDON: lawrence Bearden. These rna.ps that you refer to fran the federal housing and urban developrent. Are these available to us now?

MR. DELEVAN: Yes sir. lAWRENCE BEARDON: Do you know where we'd write to get them?

MR. DELEVAN: Yes sir. The soil and water conservation ccmnission has copies of those maps. I did bring a set of maps with rre tonight if you'd like to take a look at them after we're through. lAWRENCE BEARDON: Did those care out of Little Rock?

MR. DELEVAN: Yes sir. The soil and water conservation ccmnission has those maps available.

MR. WRIGHT: You don't want a set of them, Lawrence. They're here in this office and you sure don't want a set of them cause they are hUIIDngous.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I'd like to direct a question to the Ccmnission, its directors, Mr. Ken. Are any oil wells going to be permitted in this flood hazard area that' s mentioned on these maps fran this tine forward, to create more problems further down the road to keep aggravating the problem?

MR. WRIGHT: This regulation only applies, it does not apply to the drilling of an oil and gas well. If you as an operator have the right to drill on that property, no one can stop you fran doing that. You're responsible for any damage that you might do while on that property but there's nothing to keep you from drilling in that hundred year flood plane. The hundred year flood plane, if you want to know, covers practically South Arkansas. You would stop or shut down drilling in Arkansas if you could not drill within the hundred year flood plane. Does that answer your question?

MR. DELEVAN: Any last questions?

MR. WRIGHT: Any more questions?

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: let rre ask this. I know you can't control the rredia, but when quotes cane out of the Ccmnission office in Little Rock that are inaccurate, that bothers a lot of people.

27 MR. TOLEFREE: It bothers us too, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: not only the operator ... but when there are quotes fran the Camnission, I think you need to be a little rrore careful about what you tell people.

MR. AlDERSON: Mr. Wright, may I follow up just a little bit on that? I know that you all have no control over the news rredia, but, the article that came out of the paper to me is an insult to the oil and gas industry. out of all the people here, 95% try to abide, maybe 98%, by following the rules and regulations. And when an article comes out in the paper, which I 1m sure ya 1 11 don 1 t have any control over, although a quote fran one of your men, that South Arkansas is the worst polluted area in the state of Arkansas. That is an insult to people that have tried to do a good job. The Lion Oil Refinery has spent, an estimate, close to two million dollars. Phillips Petroleum Company has spent in the Smackover Field, same three million dollars or over. I contacted quite a few operators and if I don 1 t call your name don 1 t •.• excuse me, cause I can 1 t get them all. Mr. Jerry Ramsey with AJK Operators, operates a hundred and four (104) wells in the Smackover field. In the last three years he has filled forty (40) pits that were dug in the boan days of 1925, 26 and 27. Then it comes out in the paper in big headlines that the drilling industry in South Arkansas is way up and that nobody has checked on it for the last five years, the pollution has just been terrible. Well gentlemen, I want you to know that we have same of the hardest working people in the oil industry in the state. Just a few of them, Berg, Laney and Brown, they have done their best to clean up, fill up fix their pits, do everything according to what . they 1 re supposed to do. We are all interested in the environment, but again when a man makes a staterrent that the oil and gas industry is the worst violator, pollution in the State of Arkansas, that 1 s an insult I think to all you gentlemen. Because that 1 s why I wanted so bad for the slides to be here tonight because I knew we were going to have a great group of operators here. Now the percentage of these people that have violated in the pictures. I saw the pictures, they are terrible. Sane of them, you need to be represent. I mean hard, because you have not done your job. But 98% of you have done your job. I wanted the 98% to see what a few have done to cause such a name for the oil and gas industry. Ya 1 11 might not realize but out of the 75 counties in the State of Arkansas, there 1 s 25 counties that produce oil and gas. Gas production is in Northwest Arkansas, our oil production is in South Arkansas, the south ten counties. Although we just have 24 counties producing oil and gas, we rank 6th in the state industry. We pay a lot of tax in the State of Arkansas. Now when you get so, when we get so unreal, every barrel of oil that we produce is one barrel of oil that w:::>n 1 t be inported. Gentlemen, let 1 s work together. We can work together, but we cannot clean up everything in five years, six years that started back in 1921. 'Ihe first well gentlemen was drilled right back here on this property. The Bussey well. I have seen the oil industry, I lived a quarter of a mile from it. I happened to see the Bussey well came in, I was five years old. I have seen the oil industry cane up and go down and cane up and go down again. Back in those days my rrother w:::>uld see which way the wind was blowing before she would hang her washing on the line. Because if

28 the wind was blo.ving that way, everything was going to be oily. Every pine tree was bent over with oil. You talk about pollution, we had it. Gentlemen we learned fran that and we've got to continue to learn. Let's work together, lets get this thing, let's help our operators and maybe 99% of them will cooperate with this. Thank you.

MR. SPOONER: Mr. Wright.

MR. WRIGHT: Yes Sir. "' MR. SPOONER: Are there any rules being worked on, any thoughts as given by bioremediation?

MR. DELEVAN: There's no rules perse that are being worked on.

MR. SPOONER: Are you pursuing it any?

MR. SPOONER: Had an operator call me the other day that did one from South Louisiana and he said he had a pit that had a foot of oil on it and reduced it to nothing in six ( 6) nonths.

MR. DELEVAN: I certainly think that's viable. In fact, there was a news stocy on just the other night I saw where they're going back and treating sane of these beaches where the Valdez oil spill was in Alaska, there going back and treating this with bioremediation and using, feeding and fertilizing the micros if you will, that eat the oil and they're seeing a significant decrease in the amount of oil covering the rocks, beneath the rocks, on top of the rocks, so certainly bioremediation could be a viable source in terms of treating the oily sludge in the pits. But its going to be expensive. Right now I don't think its a viable option for a lot of these guys in terms of earning up with a cost effective, econanical way to tcy to effect pit closures. It may be sanething in the future that's vecy viable.

MR. WRIGHT: I believe that about covers all of the questions. If there are no further questions or statements. Yes sir.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What about this lando.vner situation. Couldn't ya'll get who o.vns those oil wells from the Oil and Gas Commission when they find out who o.vns them and go back to them?

MR. WRIGHT: The problem is that they may be in bankruptcy or, we've got a lot of oil operators who drill in the 20's 30's and 40's that are no longer in existence, you can't locate them anywhere. So there, I have a problem with what you're talking about, the land o.vner being responsible. I think that's a problem they have to cross in, through the legislature or in the court house.

29 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: I think it really needs to be addressed, because the land owner, he might always be, he's •..

MR. WRIGHT: That's true, in many cases the land owner owns no minerals whatsoever. He's the surface owner.

MR. WRIGHT: I'm very much in sympathy with you 'cause I'm a mineral owner and surface owner. I know it might effect rre in each case.

MR. DELEVAN: And we agree too. I rrean if it was a shot for us to go after the responsible party, if there was any chance for us to do that, we would do it, but the logistics are a nightnare for us to do that. It's impossible.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: What about the cost to that landowner?

MR. DELEVAN: He may have to go through a civil court. Reparations to a responsible party.

MR. WRIGHT: That's really not what you want to do, because when you get out of the court, you promote growth and that's really not what you want.

UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: That really needs to be addressed deeply there.

MR. WRIGHT: Yes. We're going to take one rrore question.

MR. TOLEFREE: Okay. The procedure that we use, we take the carments that we've had and we review those and assess all cooments will be taken under consideration. We can effect changes and have effect the regulations and we' 11 make those. If there are substantial changes as a result of carm:mts we received, enough to require another hearing, we'll have another hean.ng. But it will be based on what the staff looks at based on the carments and then we will present our findings to the regulations committee of the Commission.

MR. DUMAS: Is there any way that we can persuade you to have another hearing and cane up with your findings.

MR. WRIGHT: They have several carrnittees canposed of Ccmnissioners there. I am not on the regulations carrnittee, however, its not impossible for us to make a request of the regulations committee at the ti.rre they rreet, roughly rreet in Little Rock, to cane down here and rreet where the problem is, so that the majority of the people who are here tonight could also attend that rreeting. It would probably be a day rreeting not a night rreeting

30 MR. DUMAS: Well, what I'm concerned with, if they don't have another meeting and they decide what they want to do do and then just put out the regulations, then I've just wasted my time tonight.

MR. WRIGHT: Well, I don't think you've wasted your time Eddie because there's been lots of good points made here tonight and I'm sure these people are going to take it back and I will also take it back for them too ... 'Ihe regulations ccmnittee will have to meet. They will have to make recommendations to the full Commission before it can be adopted. So, sarebody asked the question "How long?" it's much rrore than any three ( 3) years.

MR. SPOONER: Bill is there a legislative oversight review of these .•.

MR. TOLEFREE: Before it is passed and made final it does have to go before the legislative ccmnittee.

MR. SPOONER: Do they have hearings on it?

MR. WRIGHT: No. That's alrrost a formality there .•.

MR. RICK BEEBE: Mr. Wright, is there a deadline you know of? The last meeting we had they took oral comments, took written comments and later they had a deadline

MR. WRIGHT: You got it. You've got ten (10) days to file any written comments if you want. You can file them with a secretary who's here tonight, if you want to file them to me, I' 11 make sure they get there if I have to fax them up there on the tenth (lOth) day.

MR. TOLEFREE: They also can send them to the El Dorado office.

MR. DELE.VAN: 'Ihey can send it to our El Dorado office and they can forward them to Little Rock.

MR. WRIGHT: Ken can handle them, I can handle them or you can mail them directly to them in Little Rock ..• I appreciate all of you earning.

31 ~ECD MA~

May 21, 1992

Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology P. o. Box 8913 Little Rock, AR 72219-8913

Attn: Mr. Chuck Bennett

Dear Chuck:

In reviewing the recent oil field inspections by the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology water inspection task force, I noted several difficulties in docu menting violations by our inspectors.

If you would consider the following additions to Regula tion #1, I believe it would help our field personnel.

1. Require as a Arkansas Department of Pollution/ Control and Ecology requirement all wells have identification. I know the Arkansas Oil and Gas Commission requires this, but they ignore the re quirement.

2. Require all tank batteries to have firewalls.

3. Give the responsibility for spills inside the firewall to the Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology.

Please consider these additions that will help our field inspectors.

RHM/jcv

200 N. Washington, El Dorado, Arkansas 71730 501/862-5155 SIERRA CLUB ARKANSAS CHAPTER

May 5, 1992 Terry V. Ellen PO Box 82 Cal ion, Ar 71724

Doug Szenher Public Affairs Supervisor Arkansas Dept. of Pol lution~ntrol and Ecology PO Box 8913 8001 National Drive Little Rock, Ar 72219-8913

Dear Sir,

On behalf of the Arkansas Chapter of the Sierra Club's Wetlands Subcommittee, Conservation Committee. and Executive Committee, I am writing to inform the Department of Pollution Control and Ecology of our support of the proposed revisions to Regulation #1 which would permanently close all pits and holding basins located within the 100 year flood plain.

We would also like to request that mesh netting be required on all other open pits containing live oil waste. Texas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico have all developed similar regulations after conducting extensive studies on the hazards posed to migratory waterfowl. Their estimates showed that around 100,000 migratory birds were killed each year due to open pits. Considering that the Mississippi Flyway is more widely used than is the Central Flyway, we feel that it is safe to assume that a similar conclusion could be made in our area. We ask that the ADPC&E consider this as a part of the proposed revisions to Regulation #1. Thank you for allowing our input.

Sincerely, ~~/~~ Terry V. Ellen Chair - Wetlands Subcommittee Sierra Club - Arkansas Chapter ARKANSAS WILDLIFE FEDERATION 7509 Cantrell Road • Suite 104 • Little Rock, Arkansas 72207 • Phone (501) 663-7255

April 15, 1992 I Mr. Chuck Bennett Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology P. 0. Box 8913 Little Rock, AR 72219-8913

Dear Chuck:

The Arkansas Wildlife Federation the revisions to Regulation 1.

SUBJECT: Open pits containing free live oil.

In the South Arkansas oil fields only a small percentage of the emergency or holding pits contain live oil. However, it is these pits that cause a large loss of migratory waterfowl. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service documented over 100,000 migratory birds lost in a West Texas, New Mexico study. In order to alleviate this problem, several states have enacted regulations requiring any pits containing live oil waste to be netted. I would like to request this measure be added to the revision to Regulation #1. Several attachments are in cluded for your information. ~~ Richard H. Mason President

RHM/jcv

enclosure

RICHARD MASON BILL RAMBO NEIL CuRRY CHARLES KENNEDY President First Vice President Second Vice President Secretary RoBERT PIERCE DR. REt MEYER KEITH DE NoBLE Treasurer Executive-At-large Executive-At-Large "YOUR VOICE FOR CONSERVATION" WHERE IS THE PROBLEM?

Open pits, ponds, and tanks are attractive to wildlife, especially in arid areas where wetlands are scarce.

The problem is found throughout the oil and gas producing areas of the United States.

Many thousands of oil and gas sludge or brine pits, and open tanks, are found in Texas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico.

Oil and oil-by-products, spills, leaks, ruptured pipes or tanks often drain into lakes, ponds, or pits where they pose an environmental hazard to migratory birds and other wildlife.

Playa lakes and other natural water bodies are often contaminated with oil and its by-products.

Millions of waterfowl, water birds, and shorebirds migrate through and/or overwinter in New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas every year.

Thousands of migratory birds are hatched and raised in the oil and gas producing area of these three States and they are attracted to such con taminated areas.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does not regulate or control oil and gas production, operations, storage, refining, or transfer.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does have authority as defined in the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and other Acts to prosecute the wrongful deaths of migratory birds and other wildlife.

Pictures follow. HOW IS THE PROBLEM SOLVED?

Working together, the problem may be recognized, addressed, and resolved through a "spirit of cooperation."

A concerted effort is needed by industry, State and Federal agencies, and pri vate interests.

Dozens of cases of migratory bird losses due to oil contamination have been documented, complete with hundreds of dead birds as evidence, by law enforcement agents but prosecution is being held up pending a "spirit of cooperation".

The news media is anxious to document the loss of wildlife due to oil contamina tion and communicate the dilemma to the public, but they are holding off, pend ing voluntary compliance through a "spirit of cooperation."

The North American Waterfowl Management Plan was recently endorsed by Canada, Mexico, the United States, and private interests. The purpose is to increase significantly the continental population of waterfowl through the effective application of joint ventures funded and implemented by the cooperating groups.

Proper recognition, action, and resolution of the problem involving enormous losses of wildlife due to oil and its by-products would contribute immeasurably to the goals of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and the needs of the public.

Several states and agencies, including California and Colorado, and the Bureau of Land Management have implemented regulatory changes and improvements, such as screening, fencing, or enclosing pits, ponds, and tanks to reduce or eliminate wildlife losses.

The Service is confident that the problem may be, and will be recognized, addressed and resolved by industry, State and Federal Government, private interests, and individuals working together in a "spirit of cooperation."

Pictures follow. :~ Tex~s Railr~ad Com!'lission adopts rule ~6 ..~tei;~~:::\s seriQ1!S," s~~s. . making netting of pits, tanks mandatory I • Robert Lee, special agent fQI...theJl.S. / i 991 . Fish and Wildlife Departme_nt._5Ve Effective S~, oil and gas opera- tlon be required for open-top tanks need to solve this thin~. The number.of tors in Te~ will no longer fmd netting down to eight feet in diameter. The birds bein,g !

16 • MidContinent Oil World PROVIDES PROTECTION TO BIRDS AND OTHER WILDLIFE FROM SUMPS AND OPEN TANKS. TOREX NETTING IS MANUFACTURED OF 13 MIL POLYPROPYLENE PLASTIC OF DIAMOND DESIGN WITH A ONE INCH MESH. CALL US FOR A QUOTE !

COASTAL ENGINEERING COMPANY P.O. BOX 5787 • BAKERSFIELD, CALIFORNIA 93388 • (805) 589-0210 • FAX (805) 325-0813 Atlanta Exploration Company P.O. Box 1827 Magnolia, AR 71753 l (501) 234-2526

May 14, 1992

Mt~. Doug Sz e uh et~ Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology P.O. Box 8913 8001 National Dr. Little Rock, AR 72219-8913

Gentlemen:

Please consider two changes in your General Guidelines in reference to Regulation No. 1 pertaining to oil field pit clostwes.

Guideline III.E.d.: Please reconsider stating a specific thickness for oil in rods. In sandy soils, one inch would not be enough for a good roadbed during a lat~ge t~ain.

Guideline III.A.2. Consider allowing trees to be excluded ft~om yom~ 1 ist of items to be t~emoved fr~om a / pit before closure. Trees act as a natural buffer in V absorbing the swelling of the mud in warm weather. Please talk with some operators that have experience in closing pits and you will find that without a buffer, mud will creep up and seep out a year or so after a pit closure.

These guidelines are for the most part acceptable, but these two changes would make the guidelines more practical. Also, your representatives present at the May 7th hearing in El Dorado were very informative and knowledgeable regarding these guidelines. I hope that some of the suggestions made at that hearing will be considet~ed.

Sincer~ely,

Alan Ribble

AR/jm NEVADA OIL OPERATORS P. 0. Box 1103 ElDorado, AR 71731-1103

May 8, 1992

Mr. Doug Szenher Public Affairs Supervisor ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF POLLUTION CONTROL & ECOLOGY P. o. Box 8913 8001 National Drive Little Rock, AR 72219-8913

Dear Mr. Szenher:

I am the managing partner for Nevada Oil Operators and operate the Troy and Irma Fields in Nevada County, Arkansas. For many years, the produced oil from these fields has been and is now being stored in pits. These pits conform to all requirements. Unless pits are . utilized, the oil produced cannot be stored. Tanks were attempted~ to be utilized years ago but the oil is so heavy that it cannot be stored in tanks and will become so hard it cannot be removed. We are careful to be sure there is no pollution from the use of these pits.

Please make this letter a part of the record of the public hearing on Regulation No. 1. We request that provision be made to provide a procedure whereby we can continue to produce these two fields.

Very truly yours,

NEVADA OIL OPERATORS

BY: Partner

HC:pp ARKANSAS OIL AND GAS COMMISSION 2215 West Hillsboro St. • P.O. Box 1472 ElDorado, Arkansas 71731·1472

William E. Wright Director Phone: (501) 862-4965 FAX Number: 862-8823

May 12, 1992

Mr. E. Boyd Alderson, Chainnan 736 Bodenhamer Drive El Dorado, AR 71730

Dear Chairman Alderson:

As you are aware, the public hearing held May 7th was very well attended by industry oil and gas operators. I believe the dialogue between the operators and Pollution Control and Ecology staff nenbers was very beneficial to all parties and should be helpful in the longrun to the regulated and the regulator.

Attached is a copy of the newspaper article which appeared in the local paper as well as staterrent read ini:.o tht:: ..:e(..:v.cd :Uy t;i:.t.vr..i.ey Bill Prewett on behalf of James H. Nobles, Jr. , Managing Partner of MacFarlane canpany.

I noted in the State paper, the stateroont by Mr. Wilson 'lblefree, Deputy Director, that if any significant changes were made to the I proposed amendments, to Regulation No. 1, that a second public hearing fl would be held. This I applaud and concur with~ however, I will still . request that the Regulations Ccrrmittee meet in El Dorado to consider the amendrrent to be recarrrended to the full Carmission sitting en bane.

Sincerely, J!rr~ ~£0! W.E. ~Director of Prcxluction and Conservation

WEI'l:dm

cc: See Attached

COMMISSION MEMBERS • E. Boyd Alderson. Chairman, El Dorado James 0. Staggs, V1ce-Chairman, Magnolia • Ned R. Price, Smackover • Spence A. Leamons, fort Smith J. David Reynolds Ill, Camden • Chris Weiser, Magnolia • Kent Dollar, Russellville Phillip E. Norvell, Fayetteville • Robert C. Nolan, El Dorado

An equal opportunity employer ACXr. CCMMISSIONERS DPC&E

·..().I -··;· ( ·~'•

~, :::.....'-··:. ~: .. ., ..·I . .. , ... ~ 11•·-~~-~·...... :.. 1. · ..... _·· ...... :. . ..:..:'. ContlnuedfromPage'1A .. "ljoinwithallthosewhoconsci- fO ucers ...!,n··c, ·;_:_,_,,:···.. .;; :.:··...... - entiouslyinsistonprotectionor P d wants· to rev1se was ·adopted m our environment today. 1 do not .. - ,( 19p8.; ·; ;, . · , , ... : · · join in with those who want con oppose "~ ~~Someof the.:s';lggested scientious producers (to be) re-_ . .:-:,_,.,_., .. cl\anges) hea~dtomght __I had. quired to pay for past sms of . :-'.,,.<~'!·· n~ve;taken mt~c?,ns1der- persons and compani<;s long regu a tJons:, ~:.~ atlon;.'.Delavan ~~~d... o__ ~erthe sinc~_gone from the oil and gas c 1 , , -past 10 .years,,. our· data sl;io,ws :·business." ' , . , ,,, • ,, ·j'.,it!M h t th . 1' 't'. f d', h g ., f · :. :h··;, J!·-'.:<{i~\·~,i:/'1.!:.t a e 1m~~ng P . 1sc ar _es · · ·Prewett urged the P~&~sta f r ByE~SCI;IMBER~;;_;,-','.:,l~(lie\~·~1·-·,'~of. salt wa~-~.r_mtothe-,Ouach1ta to.con<;iuct an econom1c 1mpact f Ne,ws Times St!iff. ·':·: ,,,~~.~~-y·:Rn~e.;~-asl~prove,q.-:r.el'll~rk- , stuqyof the propos~drevisions. 1 1he pro-regulat10n pos1tJon ably. :'. -'· ·. , .. ,. ·.-. ., __ OtherspeakerssaJdthatmany was in a decided. minority . !he greatest:obJec.tlOn by; the oil pits dci not cause an environ Thursday during a public hear-.-.- 011 and natural .gas produc~rsmental problem and the opera ing in El Dorado:()~proP,9se~:-~~ , was _to the proposed regulation tors! leaseholders or landown toughcr laws governmg the--cio~).J,that would force the .closure · ers should not be forced mto sure of oil and natural gas hold-~•. within three,: Y~~rs;<;>f~11. work- making unnecessary expenses ing pits.. .. , .· _ · · :·~;v}~,~i;-.~-'~:'over pits loca.ted w1thm a .. lOO- · to close them. . . About 100 area oil and n·atural('f•1 year flood plam. · · . · · Delavan's comment dunng the gas produce_rs attend.~q.Jl),e,t',.Bill Prewett, an.El Dorado at- h~a.ringthattheintc~tofthc re state PollutiOn ControLand4;.: torney, -.sp_eakin~forJamesH. · v1s1ons was "ccrta111ly not to

Ecology Commissionne:ar_ing at,~·.Nobles Jr., managmg_partner of place an economic hardship on the Oil and Gas Com'mi'ssiori-.r MacFarlan~

~ Arkansas Western Gas 1001 Sain Street P.O. Box 1288 Fayetteville, Arkansas 72702-1288 :.61 ~::~~~~uthwestern Energy Cornpany (501) 521-5400

May 19, 1992

Arkansas Oil & Gas Commissi~ 2215 West Hillsboro V'" El Dorado, AR 71730 Gentlemen: Arkansas Western Gas Company would like to submit comments to the proposed changes to the AWPCC Regulation No. 1. These comments are as follows:

1. We believe the requirement for permitting any existing field or pool\ of wells would be arduous to say the least. Specifically, we have questions concerning the following items: ~ a. Are individual permits required for each well, or can 0 they be combined by fields? We believe it would be ~~ inappropriate for an individual permit to be required A~t .~~~ for each single well. We believe that one permit \ ~ ~- ~t should be available for covering all of the wells in a tD v~~ • particular field. ~ b. What would be the cost per permit? Again, if an individual well permit is required, numerous wells would require a significant outlay of financial capital just for obtaining these permits.

2. We believe that the cost of these permits, and the requirements for these permits should fall to the Operator. We believe that a Purchaser of gas from an Operator of a well should not incur the liability for obtaining these types of permits. We believe either the Operator of the well or the Owner of the interest of the well should be required to obtain this permit. We also believe that the regulation needs to be amended to preclude the possibility of the liability extending beyond the Operator.

We appreciate your consideration of the above comments. Sincerely, ~~CSf!:UW[~ i / ' "7 t{/',I / :!lo/- ~ MAY261992 R. G. Carver Manager, Environmental Affairs ARKANSAS Otl 6 W COMMISSION cc: File ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF POLLUTION CONTROL AND ECOLOGY

<-~ Date o-· 2~2- f_ Registration No. _ __,c=Q,___,.,.._ __

Hearing topic

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF POLLUTION CONTROL AND ECOLOGY Registration for public statement PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY Name L~~b IkE tv e r? Address Po £c X ;cp;·z City & t2a/.e)c State ;(k Zip -}/738

(Check one) Oral & Written statement V"oral statement only __ 4il: _ 3464

Registration No._"3~"-----

Hearing topic

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF POLLUTION CONTROL AND ECOLOGY Registration for public statement C ·~JLE~E PRJ~ LEGIBLY Name/ /..__. / z-z-; / , 6 c....? --- > ' Address/ 2 [ / /7 /? £ ~ f?/7 ' 1 City £'/,Pz-/id· State tf2-=r~ Zip 7/737)

nnP) f('h~=>rk Orrll & Written statement.~ Oral statement only __ ..;;_ _3464 Date)[{~ 7- lffi;;._. Registration No. __5/....:...._. __ _ f /) ·-r ~'b/J ' Hearingtopic V~ ~~~

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF POLLUTION CONTROL AND ECOLOGY Registration for public statement'dl ·e ;t-5 f! ~J,7 ~ A S E P/RJ! N T L E G I 8 L Y f p,/;11 Name /~ j/(=U~'f!/d~ , Address~~j_£,1 :dJ~ ~~ f~ ~ City C:;d4:J:Sla:l[i:= Zip 71? 3 °

(Check one) Oral & Written statement __ Oral statement only L..-- 41: _3464

Date s-7-9 ~ Registration No. __~-=---- Hearing topic

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF POLLUTION CONTROL AND ECOLOGY Registration for public statement PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY

Name ..._:~~,{-=d-'--.!.:...... :- L-==--_ __:.:,.~..L.::~=..t...:::~b=-¥+-' ______

Address \ D l £. /D~ ?f--.

city·*~ A-( Lev w State __L.Af<~---=---- Zip J I l G 2---

(Check one) Oral & Written statement __ Oral statement only_ 41: _ 3464

Date -.5- 7- 7· "2 Registration No .. _~~'--::7L---- Hearing topic

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF POLLUTION CONTROL AND ECOLOGY Registration for public statement Name -z:: & ~S~ P R I N T L E G I B L Y

/) J I 7

Address , 1: tJ · /5 .c :< z;»__;;;>2 <:

(Check one) Oral & Written statement __ Oral statement only ~ 3464 Date ______Registration No. __~ /<--. ___ _ Hearing topic

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF POLLUTION CONTROL AND ECOLOGY Registration for public statement PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY Name 5 Te_, Y --G l~/~ / (_7

Address 2 7 C· Y1 /:? l/.X ~--:// /? cJ city I=--;.. ;2-t4& s:te> r; J -i Zip ______(Check one) Oral & Written statement __ Oral statement only __ 4\: -3464

~-1-<-(7-. y Date ______Registration No. ______

Hearing topic j) I T5

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF POLLUTION CONTROL AND ECOLOGY Registration for public statement PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY Name __.!!_V_!_/!_1ll_V---.f./1/~!l~f ; __1...:....:/V::....______

Address ______

City ______State _____ Zip ______

(Check one) Oral & Written statement __ Oral statement only v-- ~ -3464

Date ______Registration No. __9___ _ Hearing topic

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF POLLUTION CONTROL AND ECOLOGY Registration for public statement PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY Name T(l\...-y_,...~ ~ Address d- rX'Df City s..tzriv.c..--....J State At(< Zip 7 j 7/,

(Check one) Oral & Written statement __ Oral statement only /_, _ 4 4 ' .

Regi strati on No._____,.,/"--.-"()=---- Hearing topic

ARKANSAS DEP,~RTMENT OF POLLUTION CONTROL AND ECOLOGY Registration for public statement ~ L -~ A S E P R I N T L-E G I ~ _,y Name - _ _,-· /7ff;:i. -~d: ;/ fr_ 7 c:..vt.-; ~Cc!..A~/Jt/~ ~ - ? ~ ~ddf:e~?(f~- f/ - ' r- ~-~- ~ . / Cit~C?..J.t2-

Date 5 -]-Cj1... Registration No.__,L<------.LI___ _ Hearing topic /1r CLDSo/(£:.

ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF POLLUTION CONTROL AND ECOLOGY Registration for public statement /;] PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY

Name fcof3t£/l7 RC'jiJOL I?.S

Address 35J'f W£i"1' /-/iLL513of?o

City EL Doll.ltPo State A/2_ Zip ]/73 °

(Check one) Oral & Written statement __ Oral statement only / _ ~ 3464 PHONE(501)863- 7234 With The Compliments Of: SHULER DRILLING CO., INC. SHULER DRILLINC: 3514 W. Hilsboro Phone: (9 ElDorado, AR 71730 501-863-7234 3514 WEST For the Attention of: r JUly DELAVAN EL DORADO ARKAI J£ [ WtLL- HELP AtJ'f wA'1 J C.AAJ. May 8,-

Arkansas Department of j Pollution Control and Ecology Attention Mr. Doug Szenher P. 0. Box 8913 Little Rock, AR 72219-8913 RE: Guidelines for the Closure of All Pits Associated with Oil or Gas Exploration or Production Within the 100-Year Flood Plain of Any Stream in the State of Arkansas Dear Mr. Szenher: Please accept the written comments below regarding the above-referenced proposed new regulation. It is our desire to be constructive and we respectfully request that you and your colleagues consider our comments in that light. I. Pit Closure Requirements A. General Guidelines

11 11 5. Refers to an ADPC&E permitted disposal facil ity , but does / not list the names of any such facilities nor tell how to obtain a list of such facilities. II. Proper Pit Fluid Disposal Techniques B. Pit Fluid Analysis Test Requirements 2. Refers to 11 this Section I. B. 11 and should say 11 this Section/ II. B. 11 3. The limitations on the listed parameters are unduly restrictive and do not conform to existing state and federal standards. For example, the 500 ppm limitation on total dissolved solids is only five percent of the federal standard of 10,000 ppm for drinking water. 4. Refers to ADPC&E Regulation No. 2, but does not say what the maximum allowable discharge values in Regulation No. 2 are. Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology May 8, 1992 Page 2

6. Establishes a 60-day deadline for citizens, but does not . 1 establish a corresponding deadline for an ADPC&E decision. V The regulation should require ADPC&E to act within the same time frame that is required of citizens or the citizen•s request shall be deemed to have been approved. C. Disposal of Pit Fluids Not Meeting Water Quality Standards 1. Refers to "Arkansas UIC code." To our knowledge, there is no~ · Arkansas UIC code. \ 2. Establishes parameters and does not establish limitations,) but instead leaves approval to the discretion of ADPC&E. This is not fair. III. Pit Closures and Closure Technique A. Specific Guidelines for Pit Closure 5. Requires the bottom of the waste mixture to be at least three feet above the seasonal high water table. This requirement j directly contradicts, in some cases, the requirement in Section I. A. 1. to close all pits in flood plains. 10. Requires the filing of a form, but does not show a copy of I the required form. B. Land Treatment/Disposal of Pit Wastes 1. Refers to "ADPC&E permitted commercial disposal facility," I but does not 1i st the names of any such faci 1iti es nor te 11 how to obtain a list of such facilities. F. Offsite Disposal of NOW j 1. Refers to "ADPC&E approved and/or permitted facilities. • Again, the regulation fails to provide what it promises. For the above reasons, we request that you not 1mp1 ement this pract fca11y unworkable regulation. In the event that you elect to rewrite the proposed regulation, we ask that you solicit and incorporate practical suggestions from people who will actually be doing the closure of pits. Sincerely,

Robert Reynolds President

RR:djc '.

STATEMENT TO ADPCE

RE: PROPOSED PIT CLOSURE REGULATIONS DATE: MAY 4, 1992

My name is James H. Nobles, Jr., Managing Partner of

MacFarlane Company at 205 Armstrong Building in El Dorado,

Arkansas. For most of my adult life, I have been an independent

oil and gas producer, primarily in Arkansas prior to the last 10

years. Although production of oil is a dying business in South

Arkansas, we are still the owners of producing oil and gas leases

located in the Smackover Field in Union and Ouachita Counties. My

experience is primarily in the Smackover Field and, accordingly, my

remarks relate primarily to the Smackover Field.

When the initial oil discovery in Union county was made in

1921, there was a tremendous boom in the area. The Smackover area

brought in some bad operators and some who were careless in their

methods of drilling and production. It must also be remembered

that in 1921 the concern for the environment was minimal, if any.

I join with all of those who conscientiously insist on protection

of our environment today. I do not join in with those who want

conscientious producers, who do protect the environment today and

who have in their practices consistently protected the environment,

required to pay for past sins of persons andjor companies long

since gone from the oil and gas business. The consistent decline

in the oil business has been in part because of the overzealous and

unnecessary restrictions and red tape which have added to the cost of business, together with high utility rates and other escalating

costs, to the extent that the entire economy of South Arkansas has ..

suffered and is in a severe and continuing decline. I ask you to remember the history of the Smackover Field. The initial discovery

resulted in growth in population in El Dorado from 4000 quickly to

15,000 and by 1922 to 25,000 people. The Smackover Field became

one of the world's major producers - as much as 400,000 barrels

flowed from it daily during the zenith of the oil boom. During

this period of time, as the drill bits continued to puncture the

oil reservoirs, large earthen storage pits were hastily excavated.

Proper concern for salt water was not within the thinking process

of anyone, including State officials. I invite you to review this

history. In 1928 alone, over 2000 wells were drilled in Union and

ouachita Counties with the first five years bringing $600,000,000

into South Arkansas from the development of petroleum operations,

an amount five times the value of all the gold recovered from the

Klondike gold fields, and 24 times greater than the combined

capital of all 500 banks in Arkansas at the time oil was discov-

ered. Despite the millions of barrels of oil extracted from

Arkansas lands, more than 50% of the oil still remains under the

surface according to the best geological estimates. This is a

tremendous untapped reservoir for Arkansas. In addition, it should be recognized that South Arkansas today leads the world in brine

production, a by product of oil exploration. It must be developed,

but that development must be in such a manner that the environment

will not be damaged. This can be with reason and understanding.

Today, there is very little use of pits in South Arkansas for

the containment of salt water. This contrasts with the situation

many years ago, and represents advancement through recognition of the need for protection of our environment. Many small operators, much smaller than MacFarlane Company, and what is often termed as

"Mom and Pop" operations, are today barely managing to eke out a living but are doing so while complying with the proper disposal of salt water and oil residues. Importation of foreign oil, increase in utilities cost, increase in all other operating costs together with the decline in oil prices from a high of over $40 per barrel to less than $15 per barrel for most oil from the Smackover Field has created a real depression in the industry. The economic impact of your proposed "Regulation No. 1", which in effect will require totally innocent owners andjor operators to fill pits, plant grass or sod areas where grass has never existed, has not been properly addressed. The population of Union County has declined from approximately 50,000 in 1950 to less than 47,000 today and continues to decline. This is due to a large extent to the severe economic depression in the oil and gas industry.

It is absolutely essential that an economic effect and benefit study be thoroughly conducted with reference to the proposed pit closure regulations.

Smackover Field wells will be producing and contributing to the economy of Arkansas only as long as its economic base is stable. Today, oil is priced at approximately $15.00 for lube quality crude and only $14.00 for the majority of crude produced in

Smackover Field.

3 I call your attention to A.C.A. 15-76-201 which makes it unlawful to dispose of salt water into the waters of this State and requires it be disposed of by either putting it into pits or recycled. Does the proposed regulation repeal the law which permits use of pits in this area? Can you legally do this? Too many of our business activities are being regulated by commissions without thought of the economic benefits and detriments. Does the

Commission have authority to regulate as proposed until A.C.A. 15-

76-201 is repealed or amended by the General Assembly?

This salt water problem started in the late 50's and at that time pits were permitted for use as a settling basin. Since that time, MacFarlane Company has gone from a total open system to a closed system and is now injecting all of its salt water in appropriate underground facilities. What has happened that should necessitate this severe regulation to the detriment of the economy~ of Union and Ouachita Counties, Arkansas? I have heard of no surface water being polluted by pits which were built over 70 years ago. What problems will be corrected by the expenditure of high sums on these pits?

These pits will not be used for impoundment again. However, they were built back in the 20's by owners other than the present owners and have been there for nearly 65 years. If they haven't\ \ caused serious damage since then, they probably should be allowed to continue unless the State can prove a particular pit is causing damage. In the 1920's, they did not have the technology nor the

4 science we have today, but they did drill wells that produced over

25,000 barrels a day, set casing on top of the formation, opened the well with cable tools and let it flow with two six inch chokes to pits. From these pits, the oil was stored and sold; there is today a certain amount of sludge but these pits do no damage. They have been there over 50 years without causing harm. Oil operators today are not responsible for building these pits; they should not be forced out of business by a regulation which serves no purpose.

Certainly, we should not be called upon to correct the ills of history, particularly when these pits were legally constructed upon the known techniques of the day.

In Section II, Proper Pit Fluid Disposal Technique, the\

Commission has set up very drastic guidelines for the discharge of , fluids involving testing of all fluids which will be quite an expensive procedure. Have you analyzed the cost? How will your regulators interpret these regulations? What are the time factors?

The bottom line of this pit closure regulation is the survival of the South Arkansas oil economy; it has now become a cripple.

Remember there are many businesses that depend on this oil economy; you will soon have nothing to regulate (except the major companies who can subsidize their Arkansas operations). There will be no

"Mom and Pop" producers and you will see the population of Union

County continue to decrease on an escalating scale.

In this depressed oil market, and with the future not looking any brighter, it is unconscionable to legislate expensive rules and

5 regulations on the operators and land owners, particularly since there seems to be no reason to cause such regulations. Perform an economic analysis of your proposal. It is my honest belief that the imposition of these closure rules will be the death penalties of these old stripper wells; it is especially wrong to try and make the present struggling operators take care of pits which were dug

65 years ago. There is no justice in such ex post facto regulations. Make them applicable, if they must be applied, from this period forward, not going back to require today's operators to clear up half a century of wrong. Section IB of the guidelines grossly unfair; I may have a lease on which a pit is located - not constructed by me - never used by me. Why should I be required to fill and reseed a pit to which no one, except the regulators, objects?

The proposed regulations on road application of oil sludge are unduly restrictive and will require too much prior approval and paperwork. This type of work must be done in the summer months and it is absolutely essential that we be able to use oil in preparing our lease roads because, if we don't, in the wintertime we will be unable to travel over them with our equipment. I notice in

Paragraph III E.2b of guidelines that application of oily sludge shall not exceed one inch. I don't think that this will ever be done because if you did, you wouldn't be able to get over it for quite some time.

6 MacFarlane Company has leases on which exist a number of old pits that were used as settling basins in the first years of underground salt water disposal. We secured a study by Treat-Rite

Water Lab, Inc. of Nuwater, Oklahoma, and they advised us that the best method to dispose of Smackover salt water was to go to the open system. There were two problems with the underground disposal of the salt water - the iron oxide in the water and the accumula tion of asphaltic material from our crude oil. Both were extremely capable of plugging any disposal well. To avoid arguments, we now use exclusively salt water disposal wells.

FLOOD MAPS

I have bought the flood hazard boundary maps as developed by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and I have some questions as to their correct determination of the 100-year flood plain. Frankly, I am concerned whether they have a 100-year record. But, I presume they do. All of my Umsted lease, in

Section 4-16-15, is shown to be in the flood hazardous boundary.

In my 50 years of experience in this area, I know that certain areas of that lease have never flooded and probably never will flood. Provisions should be made for exceptions to these maps.

In Paragraph IIIA7, the terrain of pits that are closed must\ be returned to the original configuration prior to pit construc tion. Who knows at this late date how it was in the 1920's? In

Paragraph IA7, closure requires the surface be reclaimed and seeded with a vegetive cover for a period of two years. In many instanc-

7 es, this will exceed the value of the land which means the "Mom and

Pop" operator will simply abandon the property and the innocent landowner forced to forfeit his property. This is unduly harsh.

Since 1958, there has been a lot of work in this area, but it is done where there is an economic benefit recognizing it takes time to reconstruct soil to grow new things.

Paragraph IA9 which is apparently in recognition of the fact that many pits pose no problem is good but it fails to give fair guidelines. "To the satisfaction" of unknown and sometimes over zealous persons is no guide; this standard may never be met. At least, establish understandable guidelines whereby the exception must be granted when the guidelines are met.

A deadline of three years is unrealistic. I would recommend that if this does pass, operators should be given a minimum of five years to comply. This will give an opportunity for economic planning for this unusual expense.

The economic affect of pit closure, as proposed, has been described. A personal reference to my company may be appropriate.

MacFarlane Company - a medium size independent - in the year 1991 had a payroll in Smackover Field of $369,754.53. This proposed action, if adopted, will substantially reduce this amount. If you multiply this by similar producers plus the "Mom and Pop" producers who will go out of business, it will run into millions of dollars.

In addition to this, MacFarlane purchased supplies and services in

1991 in the amount of $695,097.19. our Smackover Field operations

8 are marginal. We have received a gross average sale price for oil in 1992 of $13. 60 per barrel and we have had a gross lease operating, including salt water disposal, that averages to $10.87 per barrel. We also withheld and paid to the State of Arkansas on royalty income taxes of $9,805.97 and paid severance tax of

$56,531.13 for Smackover Field production for the year of 1991.

Multiply these figures by the daily production in the field and the need for an economic impact statement is self-evident.

Protect our environment - yes. Require proper disposal of salt water - yes. Destroy the livelihood of many people for no good reason - NO. I urge you to reconsider this proposal.

I have attached as a supplement to this statement a recent article in the Wall Street Journal entitled "Weary of Dry Holes in u.s., Independents Search for Oil Broad."

9 "A .... DEPI\,:!-¥,r~!-1 '"'!= DQ' '''~'ON (""~,...,.~...,. ,\''" ~,...,-.,, "'G" ARKAN·:J S h~ i i iCI\; J, 1 LLLJ i 1 1 'Ji'i i KUL .~~\Li :.LULU,:

-N-A-~~-L--c------.1~-A-.C---D--_R_E_S_S------~----.::,~-.c-~:-.-._,,-:-.::-.t..--:--~~~-J.\

(PLEA 5 E P R I NT LEG I o L Y) 1 SIR i:_ c -~- C I 'Y S T;., ~::: Z : ? · , ~ _:;, ~:. _ S::. :-,-;- c~ ~· I

.- ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF POLLUTION CONTROL AND ECOLOGY HEARING/MEETING REGISTRATION N A ME A D D R E S S ORGANIZATION (PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY) STREET CITY STATE ZIP REPRESENTED

/~;.\ £3.49 ···-AR· nt --,,,..../M··---,.,..~ ;-..:u . :c= 1 ! 1'i1...1 ------,------N A I~ E ! A ·!= :s R E s s ! ,::, R G:., \ ; .:: .\-:- = c.\ ( P L E /l. 5 E P R IN T LEG i o L Y) ; 5 I R [ c ·,- C I: Y 5-;- r~ ~ = ?.. : ? ! , _ ::> :::. _ S :=: \ ~ c~ .:_., t

7".r ?-:- Z/ '

' 7 . 9/,t:' Ar1-t.-/V" ,A:~)· f I ,!J.:v·~~J. !,\ ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF POLLUTION CONTROL AND ECOLOGY HEARING/MEETING REGISTRATION

N A ME A D D R E S S ORGANIZATION (PLEASE PRINT LEGIBLY) STREET CITY STATE ZIP REPRESeNTED

'l/ Jt

Public hearing/meeting on ~~~. " Date l f- Z- 9;;) Location · c!/-.i\o/2££/t; Page !:/- of ~ /'!\ E349 ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF POLLGTION CGN~ROL A~D ~COLOGY

N A iV: E (PLEASE PRI~T LEGibLY)

I I " 1 {

~ Zo (.:. v4-t£ llvll--S·r t::_-z._ .D ' ;J-rUl.. ; 2 (I s-: '· lpc' . Eib 1hz 7!731 ~~~·KWBES K. W Brown Environmental Services A Division of AMEC Environmental Services, Inc. 501 Graham Road, College Station, TX 77845 Telephone: ( 409) 690-9280, Fax: ( 409) 690-7310

September 23, 1994

Mr. J. K. Rudder Lion Oil Company El Dorado Refinery 1000 McHenry El Dorado, AR 71731-7005

RE: Draft Proposed Protocol to Remediate Brine-Affected Soils in Arkansas

Dear Mr. Rudder:

Please accept our draft "Proposed Protocol to Evaluate Effectiveness of Chemical Amendments for Remediating Brine-Affected Soil in Arkansas". This "interactive" draft has been prepared by K. W. Brown Environmental Services (KWBES) and Soil Solutions Technologies, Inc. (SST) for consideration by the Union County, Arkansas, Soil Conservation District Board (UCSCDB). A copy of this draft has been sent to the five individuals named below, and this "original" copy has been sent to you, at the request of Mr. G. T. Mallett, P.E., President of SST.

At the outset, it is important to clearly understand the objectives of a study. As you are aware, many project "failures" can be traced to finding the correct answers to the wrong questions. Thus, this first draft of the proposed protocol has been designed primarily to stimulate dialogue among interested parties. The final version will conform to a refinement of scope and information needs which develop out of our interactive dialogue.

Perhaps the central theme to this proposal is that brine-affected soil and landscape characteristics are extremely diverse, and that the treatment protocol must be able to address the diversity. Yet, simplicity and uniformity of response are also important considerations. Our task is to develop a testing protocol which can bridge these two factors, and your input is strongly encouraged. Mr. Mallett has spoken very highly of you, and I am looking forward to meeting you at our forthcoming meeting. At that time, I will bring some information describing KWBES. In brief, KWBES is a national scientific and engineering consulting firm which specializes in soil, geologic, and water media. We are known for our ability to solve complex problems, and for devising solutions which are looked upon favorably by both industry and regulatory agencies. We have also written or co-authored regulatory guidance documents on several environmental issues. My personal training is in soil mineralogy and chemistry, and I have been an environmental consultant in nonhazardous oilfield and RCRA hazardous waste sectors since 1986. ,,, . .,,,

Mr. J. K Rudder Lion Oil Company El Dorado Refinery September 23, 1994

Please feel free to call me or Mr. Mallett if you have any questions or comments. Our mission is to respond to your needs, and I believe you will be pleased with the final testing protocol. ~~ /..HY David Jth.D., CPSS 7- · Senior Scientist, Project Manager

DJC/seh Enclosure cc Mr. Bruce Kirkpatrick, ADPCE, Little Rock, AR Mr. Ken Estes and Mr. Ed. Thompson, ADPCE, Little Rock, AR Mr. Tony Benoit, Phillips Petroleum Mr. Theodis Bunch, UCSCD File:382094001-125 via Federal Express

2 SOIL SOLUTIONS TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

DRAFT

PROPOSED PROTOCOL TO EVALUATE EFFECTIVENESS OF CHEMICAL AMENDMENTS FOR REMEDIATING BRINE-AFFECTED SOIL IN ARKANSAS

prepared for

Union County, Arkansas Soil Conservation District Board

prepared by

David J. Carty, Ph.D.• CPSS K. W. Brown Environmental Services 501 Graham Road College Station, TX 77845

and

G. T. Mallett, P.E. Soil Solutions Technologies, Inc. 16000 Memorial Drive, Suite 207 Houston, TX 77079

September 1994

16000 Mecrorial Dr.• Suite 207 Houston, Texas 77079-4008 (713)597-3707(Phone) (713)597-3727(FAX) 1.0 INTRODUCTION

In sprtng 1994, the Union County Soil Conservation Distrtct Board (UCSCDB) requested that G. T. Mallett, P.E. (Soil Solutions Technologies, Inc., SST) propose and conduct field tests to compare potential treatments for remediating brtne-affected soils in Arkansas. Test results will be used to guide remediation efforts in soils and landscapes with similar properties in Arkansas. Proper planning is essential to the success of a field testing effort. This document is presented as a first approximation reference from which a final protocol will be developed based on discussions with interested parties. A planning meeting is important for establishing the proper objectives, choosing appropriate soil/ landscape/brine conditions, and selecting appropriate remediation technologies and amendments.

2.0 STUDY OBJECTIVES AND PHILOSOPHY OF TESTING

Perhaps the most critical element in designing an effective test protocol is to clearly formulate the essential question. The test protocol proposed in this document is designed to answer the following question: "What has been demonstrated to be the most effective, yet economical treatments (or treatment scenarios) for reclaiming the common types of brtne-affected soils/landscapes in Arkansas, to the extent that remediation (established vegetation) can be sustained with minimal additional inputs by man?" As in all states with brtne-affected soils, brtne releases have affected a wide variety of soils and landscapes. As a result, the question above will have different answers depending on intended land use, type of soil and landscape, and extent of brtne contamination. In general, however, there will be two criteria for a treatment (or treatment scenario) to be judged as successful: the treatment must be 1) effective in the manner stated, and 2) relatively inexpensive (commensurate with desired remediation speed and intended use of the land). As a third consideration, the testing itself must be inexpensive. Study Objectives

1. Characterize several sites and soils representative of common brine-affected circumstances. 2. Evaluate most beneficial physical practices required for remediation. 3. Evaluate most beneficial chemical practices required for remediation. 4. Evaluate most beneficial cultural practices required for remediation. 5. Compare effectiveness of different chemical amendments. 6. Control testing costs to reasonable extent possible. 7. Use test results to recommend methodology for clean-up of similar soils.

General Requirements for Remediation

Several conditions must be established to consider a soil remediated. Sustained plant growth is probably the most obvious indicator of successful remediation. Therefore, conditions which promote sustained plant growth is the objective. Plant growth is promoted when a soil is moist, but not wet. permeable to air and moisture, fertile (including suitable pH), and contains an acceptably low level of toxins, salinity, and sodicity.

Review of Important Variables

Important variables include intended land use (final landscape appearance, type of plants), water availability, drainage (slope, water table, infiltration, permeability). pH, fertility, soil organic matter, erosion control, salinity, sodicity, petroleum hydrocarbons, ability to utilize technology, rapidity of remediation, environmental and legal issues, and cost of remediation. For successful remediation, all of these variables must be successfully handled. Intended Land Use - Intended land use should be the first design criterion for remediation planning. At a given site, the intended land use could be anything from a shopping mall, cash crop, improved pasture, natural landscape, reforestation area, recreational area, or even improved wetlands (saltwater or freshwater). Remediated sites often constitute a significant improvement over pre-spill conditions. One aspect of intended land use is final landscape appearance. Suitable remediation techniques will be somewhat dependent on whether a reclaimed site should be landscaped (e.g., golf course or park), re-shaped as rolling hills, or formed as farmland with a slight slope. Measures required to control erosion (especially severe gullies) can simultaneously provide an opportunity for desired land shaping. Some soils are suitable for various landscapes, whereas others are very limited in capability. The type of plants to be grown is another aspect of intended land use. As with most life forms, plant growth depends on a tremendous number of variables. Plant species have evolved to survive within certain ranges of variables. Whereas some plants can tolerate a wide range of some variables, other plants may have very specific requirements. Likewise, some plants require the constant assistance of man to survive whereas other plants are successful scavengers. Thus, the type of plant to be established should be based on these considerations. Water availability - Water is generally considered to be available from three sources; rainwater, surface water, and groundwater. Remediation of saline and sadie soils cannot succeed unless excess sodium and total salts can be removed, isolated, or leached from the soil. Leaching is the most common form of salt removal. The need for water is dictated by losses due to evaporation, plant transpiration, and internal drainage. In many parts of the country, Arkansas included, annual rainfall provides sufficient moisture to counteract these losses. However, rainfall may not always fall at desired intervals. Hence, application of supplemental water should be contemplated. Even though plentiful water may be present near some sites to be remediated, conditions may be such that applying it is virtually impossible. Drainage - Soil and site drainage are also important considerations for site remediation. Drainage can be adequate, excessive, or inadequate. Excessively drained soils may enter drought-stress conditions with a few days of a good rainfall. An example would be deep sandy soils which are well above the water table. Soils on very steep slopes are excessively drained when most water runs off instead of infiltrating the soil. Plants are also susceptible to drought stress on shallow and rocky soils where the moisture holding capacity is very low. Inadequate drainage can occur in any type of soil if the water table is near the soil surface. Heavy clay soils with predominantly small pores, and shrink-swell characteristics are especially prone to poor drainage due to slow permeability. Inadequate drainage usually implies low oxygen content. Plants suffer in excessively drained soils due to drought stress, and in inadequately drained soils due to lack of oxygen. Soil pH - Soil reactivity (pH) controls many functions in the soil, and will affect several remediation practices. Establishing and maintaining a soil pH within a range of 6 to 8 pH units is suitable for many plants. At lower and higher pH values, soils can exhibit toxicities or deficiencies of various plant nutrients. Soil pH is also a major consideration when attempting to remove salts and sodium. Addition of lime to a saline-sadie soil which is also acidic, may remediate both conditions because the lime cation displaces sodium and helps to aggregate the soil. However, lime materials are of little value at neutral or alkaline pHs. In alkaline soils, acids may sometimes be used, especially if the soil contains calcium carbonate. Fertility - Since the most obvious indicator of successful remediation is plant growth, fertility is of concern during remediation efforts. Many plant nutrients may be leached out of a soil during acid conditions. Sandy soils also quickly loose plant nutrients to leaching. SoU organic matter - Soil organic matter is especially important to sandy and clayey soils. In sandy soils, soil organic matter greatly improves the ability of the soil to retain moisture and plant nutrients. In clayey soils, soil organic matter helps to keep the soil aggregated, and improves infiltration and drainage. Soil organic matter is also important for maintaining a healthy biologic ecosystem including beneficial bacteria and fungi. Previous studies have shown that application of appropriate organic matter significantly improves salt-remediation efforts. Applied soil organic matter can include high nitrogen manure such as livestock (cattle, horse, poultry, hog, etc.) and green manure (plant tissue such as alfalfa). High nitrogen organic matter additions do not cause temporary depletions of plant-available soil nitrogen. Low nitrogen organic matter amendments include materials such as wheat straw and rice hulls. Soil microbes will cause temporary depletions of plant-available nitrogen while decomposing low nitrogen organic matter, unless supplemental nitrogen is also applied. Erosion- The most plant-compatible portion of a soil is topsoil (usually the upper 6 inches). Most plant nutrient recycling is done at this depth, and oxygen is most available. Plants roots will explore deeper in the soil for moisture and certain plant nutrients. Topsoil is formed from geologic material (parent material) which is broken down as a result of weathering and biologic activity. Soil erosion carries topsoil downslope and into surface waters. Most topsoils form very slowly, and the rate of erosion of unprotected soil can quickly exceed the rate of topsoil formation. Plant cover, good soil aggregation, and gentle and short slopes help protect a soil against erosion. Therefore, revegetation, organic matter and structural enhancing materials, surface reshaping, and slope-length-limiting measures help soils recover from brine spills. Slope limiting measures can include small well-placed berms, silt fences made of hay bales or other materials, and geotextile fabric. Lowering a water table can also help limit erosion because erosion is typically greater when soils are saturated with water. Salinity and sodicity - Excessive total salts (salinity) and sodium have very harmful effects on soils and plants. Plants must compete for water with soil salts. As salinity increases, less of the water in the soil is available for plant uptake, even though the total quantity of water in the soil remains the same. Thus excessive salinity causes symptoms of drought stress to occur when the soil is still relatively moist. Excess sodicity causes two problems: poor soil structure and elevated pH. When total salts are low in concentration, excessive sodium can result in dispersion of soil clays. Dispersed soil clays clog up soil pores and cause crusting (sealing) at the soil surface, and decreased permeability below the soil surface. Surface sealing results in very low infiltration rates. With low infiltration rates, water and oxygen cannot move effectively into the soil, germinated seedlings often cannot break through the crusts, and soil erosion is increased. Low infiltration and permeability limit remediation options due to the added difficulty of getting chemical amendments into the soil. The destructive effects of excessive sodium can often be prevented by applying an appropriate chemical amendment prior to leaching the soil. Petroleum hydrocarbons - Petroleum hydrocarbons can be decomposed in aerobic soils when plant nutrients (primarily nitrogen and phosphorous), water, and microbes are present. Most soils have a sufficiently wide variety of microbes that no microbial additions are required, but there may be circumstances where additions may accelerate decomposition. The decomposition of petroleum hydrocarbons is also enhanced by the addition of high nitrogen organic matter. The high nitrogen organic matter will also add fiber and bulking to the soil. A number of studies have shown that the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons actually benefited the soil in the long term (after decomposition) because the soil organic matter content was increased over pre-hydrocarbon conditions. Rapidity of remediation - A major consideration in selecting an appropriate remediation technology is the desired speed of remediation. Very rapid remediation may be called for due to legal or appearance issues. If possible, slower remediation is often more cost-effective. Remediation rates vary based on factors such as supplemental irrigation, application of organic matter and plant nutrients, kinetics of chemical amendments, etc. Environmental issues - Environmental issues usually center around water quality. Over application of manures, fertilizers, and some chemical amendments (acids, bases, phosphates, and nitrates) can result in releases of oxygen demanding and toxic constituents into surface water and groundwater. Excessive runoff or leaching of salty water into surface water and groundwater can also alter the quality of these waters. Oxygen demanding constituents can deprive aquatic fauna of oxygen. Acids and bases can alter water pH and result in water clarification or increased turbidity. Eutrophycation can result from excessive phosphates and nitrates, and excessive nitrates can also be toxic to some life forms. In potentially sensitive areas, choice of remediation materials and application rates should be adjusted to minimize collateral damage. Further considerations are the destination and quality of the water which may become affected. In some instances. subsurface injection may be a suitable option for salt and remediation-affected water. Legal issues - Legal issues which should be considered include neighboring property owner rights, property accessibility, and regulatory authority. AbUity to utilize technology - Some brine-affected sites will be difficult to remediate due to accessibility and site conditions. Accessibility may be due to remoteness or rugged landscape. Some sites may be in forested areas, contain tree stumps or thick underbrush, or be underlain with shallow pipelines, or overlain by industrial objects, etc. There may few, if any, practical remediation options for some extremely difficult sites. Remediation cost - The decision to initiate remediation, and the quality of remediation efforts are often based upon cost factors. Compromises regarding final appearance, speed of remediation, and thoroughness of remediation often result when costs are considered. Because remediation design is dependent upon the availability of funds, this factor should be one of the first factors considered.

3.0 RECOMMENDED TECHNOLOGIES TO BE TESTED

The following are major categories of tests to be performed. Tests must be adjusted for specific site conditions (e.g., water table, slope, texture, impermeable subsoil). Except for control (background) soils, all soils will be either saline-sodic, or sodic as a result of old brine spill. The soils selected for testing should represent the most common conditions and soil types. Study areas should be as uniform as possible. Due to the extremely wide range of variables in soils and landscape conditions, not all field circumstances can be evaluated, and extrapolations must be made.

Recommended Range of Site Characteristics

The following range in characteristics should be considered for testing. The soils/landscapes, etc., selected for testing should cover the following range of characteristics.

Range of Site Characteristics Water table: I) at surface, 2) near surface 3) deep Tillage: I) untillable 2) tillable Texture: 1) sandy, 2) loamy, 3) clayey Subsoil: I) impermeable, 2) permeable Salts: 1) saline-sodic, 2) sodic (and dispersed) Salt concentration: 1) very high, 2) low, but requiring remediation pH: 1) very alkaline, 2) alkaline, 3) neutral, 4) very acidic TPH: 1) high, 2) low, 3) none Environmentally sensitive areas: 1) near surface water, 2) sensitive groundwater Slopes: steep, moderate, flat Other soil constituents: 1) presence of calcium carbonate, 2) rocks, 3) neither Vegetation: 1) denuded, 2) trees, 3) grassland Erosion: 1) severe, 2) moderate, 3) minimal Fertility: 1) naturally poor, 2) naturally adequate

Recommended Major Categories of Remediation Technologies Testing

The following represents the major categories proposed for testing. Based on discussions with UCSCDB, the following proposed testing may be.expanded, reduced, combined, or changed. Subfactors such as application rates, dilution rates, depth of tillage, etc., can be addressed as circumstances permit. Variations such as testing different low nitrogen mulches including straw and rice hulls, can also be tested. Practices such as fertilization, erosion control, and revegetation should be implemented as indicated by site conditions. A background plot (similar and proximal soil, but not brine-affected) should also be studied for comparison. One or more control plots within each treatment area should be evaluated. Multiple samples should be collected and composited whenever possible. Tests should be combined to the extent possible. Plots requiring common physical practices should be proximal for efficiency. Tests should be in triplicate.

For acid soils

Dolomite on surface CaO or Ca(OH)2 on surface CaO or Ca(OH)2 slurry injected above w I tillage above w I mulch w I tillage above w I manure w I mulch w I tillage

For alkali (recommend dispersed) soils

(Note: Some of below tests also applicable to impermeable subsoil. Chisel plowing may also be considered for impermeable subsoil. Split applications may also be considered.) Concentrated H2S04 on surface Dilute H2S04 on surface H2S04 injected Gypsum on surface (also consider industrial byproduct gypsum, etc.) Gypsum slurry injected Sulfur wl tillage Al2(S04)3 solid on surface Al2(S04)3 solution on surface Al2(S04)3 solution injected FeS04 solid on surface FeS04 solution on surface FeS04 solution injected Magnacal C on surface Diluted Magnacal C on surface Magnacal C injected Magnacal K solution on surface followed by Magnacal C solution on surface Magnacal K solution on surface followed by gypsum on surface above w /tillage above w/mulch w/ tillage above w /manure w I mulch w I tillage For clayey soils

SC prior to surface applied solid or solution amendments Chemical amendment injection Mulching

For TPH-affected soils

(Note: Consider chicken, hog, and cattle manure. Also consider urea as a substitute for NH4N03.) . Control = no microbes, no manure, no nitrogen additions Microbes w /NH4N03 NH4N03 alone Microbes w /Magnacal C Magnacal C alone Microbes w /manure Manure alone Microbes w /NH4N03 w I straw mulch or rice hulls _NH4N03 w/straw mulch or rice hulls alone Microbes w /manure w I straw mulch or rice hulls Manure w I straw mulch or rice hulls alone Microbes w /Magnacal C w I straw mulch or rice hulls Magnacal C w I straw mulch or rice hulls alone

For High water table Subsurface drain Perimeter trench drain Vertical drain

For Nitrate, acid, and alkali sensitive environments (If used, apply amendments with nitrates (including manure), acids, and alkali in small split applications, etc. to minimize potential for entry into surface water or groundwater.)

For Erosion sensitive environments

Silt fences Sprigs (vs seeds) Surface shaping Geotextile fabric

For Massively-affected areas [control = none) Burial with hydrologic and gypsum barrier Fertility Options

[control= none) N only (variable rates) NP only (variable rates) NPK only (variable rates) Fertilize according to soil fertility test

Revegetation Options

[control= none) Salt tolerant grasses Native seed mix Improved grasses Wetland vegetation Water AppUcatlon (At this time water application by rainfall alone is the sole option, because Arkansas is a water surplus state. If deemed an important consideration, other water applications can be considered.)

Recommended son and site characterization tests

Part of the cost of remediating any site includes the cost of determining the extent of soil damage and the site characteristics. Thus, opportunities for evaluating several soil sampling and site characterization techniques are also presented below. Testing of site evaluation equipment could be simplified and oriented toward training site evaluation personnel. Techniques which were overly complicated or provided inessential information could be rejected, and performance of useful techniques could be refined for optimum utility and cost effectiveness. A field sampling and remediation technology guide based on this information could be an additional product of the overall testing effort. However, for the purpose of evaluating the remediation amendments and technology tests, all soils to be tested under this protocol will be evaluated much more completely than would be expected for typical field remediation efforts.

Site evaluation equipment to be tested Data-collection forms including site map guidelines Four-wheeler soil-core devices (for large areas or remote areas) Intact soil core samplers Groundwater push probes Subsurface imaging equipment Infiltrometer /permeameter Penetrometer (impermeable/restricted layer testing) Field EC meter Field pH meter Clinometer (slope measuring device)

Minimizing test variables

In order to conduct an inexpensive test, the number of variables must be limited. Thus, variables must be carefully selected to derive the optimum benefit. A final selection of those variables to be held constant, and those variables to be tested can be made based upon an examination of the soils to be tested and the interests of UCSCDB. Potential variables which should be held constant may include physical, chemical, or cultural practices which are likely to be essential for success, regardless of other variables which are to be tested. For instance, if adequate drainage cannot be achieved without lowering a high water table (displaced salts unable to move out of soil). then a lowered water table could be considered a required constant for some tests. Potential variables (some of which may become required constants for other tests) may include: drainage, fertility adjustment, revegetation, mulching, type of mulch, tillage practice, chemical amendment, and amendment application rate, among others.

4.0 PROPOSED PROTOCOL

It is anticipated that the fmal testing protocol will be developed after discussion among involved parties. An initial visit with concerned parties should be arranged to review objectives and refine the testing protocol. At this time working relationships and responsibilities among parties should be identified. The final protocol document should contain a projected timeline. The following represents the currently proposed protocol (modifications will be required):

I. Determine and characterize representative sites/soils A. Determine most common soil/landscape types which should be tested. B. Gather and review existing information with interested parties. 1. From Soil Survey, (and USGS quad map and FEMA map), describe landscape, interrelated soils, vegetation, and surface drainage. Prepare annual water balance, estimate groundwater and surface water sources, availability, and quality. C. Visit each site (with USDA-SCS soil mapper, if possible) and characterize background and brine-affected areas. 1. From surface, select uniform appearing area of at least 1 acre. 2. From surface, characterize vegetation, landscape position, slope, surface drainage, hydrology (determine if possible wetland), describe soil surface appearance (erosion, crusts, etc.). 3. With soil auger, verifY sufficient soil-similarity to 8 ft within surflcially similar area. Collect soil from cores by distinct horizons. Confirm if wetland. Estimate SHWf. Use holes as piezometer nests (at least four per brine-affected site). With rod & transit, note relative surface and groundwater elevations at each piezometer. Collect groundwater samples for salts/pH analysis. Flag piezometer locations and close holes. Flag perimeter of> 1 acre uniform area as test area. 4. If warranted, initiate (and later complete) infiltration rate test. 5. (Optional) From pit in center of uniform area, more completely describe horizonation above water table, describe restrictive layers, root density, hydrologic indicators, estimate SHWf, collect samples for laboratory physical and chemical analysis. If warranted, initiate and complete permeability test of limiting horizon(s). Cover or close and flag pit. 6. Determine preferred type of revegetation, and potential for various cultural practices. 7. Determine if circumstances favor installation of rain gauge (someone to record data, or automatic recorder available). 8. Instruct analytical laboratory to prepare at least two composites for each horizon from each site. Analyze each composite for percent moisture as received, TPH, CEC, ESP, lime requirement, gypsum requirement, (possibly texture by hydrometer), and from saturated paste extract, measure pH, EC, soluble cations (Ca. Mg. Na, K) and anions (Cl, S04, HC03, C03), SAR, saturated paste moisture content. For surface horizon measure fertility and report fertilizer recommendations. (Can be done by competent laboratory in Arkansas.) 9. (Optional) Evaluate site and soil characterization equipment, techniques.

II. Prepare experimental design. A. Interpret analytical results. B. Consider control plots, triplicate tests, arrange plots to facilitate mechanical practices. C. Determine options. 1. Physical options. 2. Chemical options. 3 Cultural practice options. D. Prepare timeline. 1. Prepare experimental timeline. 2. Coordinate and prepare final timeline with contractors.

III. Initiate experimental plots (anticipate fall 1995). A. Initiate contractor action. B. Perform any required field cleanup (debris removal, etc.). c. Layout and mark test plots in accordance with finalized protocol. D. If applicable, dig drainage and interception trenches. E. Calibrate and apply (and incorporate as appropriate) test materials in appropriate order. Consider appropriate timing of additions.

IV. Monitor experimental progress. A. Monitor Experimental Progress(anticipate after germination in spring 1995). 1. Evaluate vegetation (type, percent germination or cover, growth rate). 2. Evaluate soil appearance (crusting, slick spots, etc.). 3. If warranted due to minimal emergence, collect interim soil samples (0-6 inch depth). 4. If warranted, determine height of water table and infiltration rate.

11 5. If warranted, deliver samples to analytical laboratory. Instruct laboratory to composite as appropriate, and measure percent moisture as received, TPH, CEC, ESP, and from saturated paste extract, measure pH. EC, soluble cations and anions, SAR, and saturated paste moisture content. If conditions warrant, measure fertility, etc.

V. Conclude experiment and gather final field data. A. Conclude experiment (anticipate fall 1995). 1. Evaluate vegetation (type, percent cover, dry matter yield). 2. Evaluate soil appearance (crusting, slick spots, etc.). 3. Collect final soil samples (0-6 inch, 6-18 inch, 18-36 inch depth). 4. If warranted, determine height of water table and infiltration rate. 5. Deliver samples to analytical laboratory. Instruct laboratory to composite as appropriate, and measure percent moisture as received, TPH, CEC, ESP, and from saturated paste extract, measure pH, EC, soluble cations and anions, SAR, and saturated paste moisture content. If conditions warrant, measure fertility, etc.

VI. Prepare and present fmal report and recommendations. A. Prepare final report. 1. Assemble and reduce field and analytical data into tables. 2. Interpret field and analytical data to determine effectiveness of tested treatments. 3. Prepare conclusions and recommendations. B. Prepare and present fmdings to UCSCDB. 1. Prepare presentation for UCSCDB. 2. Present report to UCSCDB. 3. Discuss findings and recommendations with UCSCDB.

5.0 CONCLUDING COMMENTS

This proposed protocol has been purposefully left in draft form to stimulate the input from UCSCDB. The study can become confined and focused, or broad and diverse, depending on the interest of UCSCDB. Effective communication between UCSCDB and with SST and other interested parties will be the key to success. Most, if not all, brine-affected soils in the state of Arkansas can be remediated, and much is already known about remediation techniques. It is a lack of serious attention to the remarkable diversity of soils and landscapes which has heretofore caused a number of failures in remediating these soils. Each soil is unique and requires an adjustment in one or more remediation inputs for cost effective success. That fact is the basis upon which this testing protocol has been proposed.