[Federal Register: March 25, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 58)]
[Notices]
[Page 15328-15342]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr25mr04-66]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-7640-1]
Underground Injection Control Program Hazardous Waste Disposal
Injection Restrictions Petition for Exemption--Class I Hazardous Waste
Injection Environmental Disposal Systems, Inc., Romulus, MI
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of issuance of exemption from land disposal
restrictions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is giving the public notice that the Agency has granted an
exemption under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, as amended
by the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments, (RCRA) and its
implementing regulations from the land disposal restrictions (LDR) on
underground injection for wells No. 1-12 and 2-12 drilled by
Environmental Disposal Systems, Inc. (EDS) in Romulus, Michigan. As
required by 40 CFR part 148, subpart C, EDS has demonstrated that, to a
reasonable degree of certainty, there will be no migration of hazardous
constituents from the injection zone for as long as the waste remains
hazardous. Among other things, the EPA reviewed the petition, including
information on the geology of the injection zone, the confining zone,
and the formations between the confining zone and the lowermost
underground source of drinking water (USDW), the conceptual model of
the geology, simulations of the results of the proposed injection of
hazardous wastes into the injection zone, and the mechanical integrity
of each well; evaluated the conclusions and data; determined that
conclusions are based on valid interpretations of measured data and
show that the model used to simulate waste migration is conservative;
and found that EDS's petition meets the requirements of 40 CFR part
148, subpart C. This decision constitutes a final Agency action. There
is no further administrative process to appeal this decision.
DATES: This action is effective as of March 16, 2004.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Harlan Gerrish, Lead Petition
Reviewer, EPA, Region 5, Water Division (WU-16J), 77 W. Jackson Blvd.,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,telephone (312) 886-2939,e-mail address
gerrish.harlan@epa.gov. Copies of the petition and all pertinent
information relating thereto are on file and are part of the
Administrative Record. It is
[[Page 15329]]
recommended that you contact the lead reviewer prior to reviewing the
Administrative Record.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Introduction
As discussed below, EPA has decided to grant EDS an exemption from
the RCRA land disposal restrictions for deep injection of hazardous
wastes through two wells in Romulus, Michigan because it has determined
that EDS's petition for the exemption meets the requirements for an
exemption set forth in 40 CFR part 148, subpart C, and accordingly that
the injection will be protective of human health and the environment.
This notice discusses the requirements for obtaining such an exemption,
and explains how the EDS petition meets those requirements and
demonstrates that the proposed injection will be protective of human
health and the environment. This decision also discusses the Agency's
consideration of public comments and events and changes that have
occurred since the Agency published its notice of intent to grant the
petition in December of 2002, and sets forth the conditions on the
exemption.
Background
RCRA provides for the prohibition of land disposal of certain
hazardous wastes by a number of methods, among them underground
injection by deep wells. RCRA also provides for exceptions from these
prohibitions when methods of land disposal are determined to be
protective of human health and the environment for as long as the waste
remains hazardous. (See RCRA sections 3004(d)(1), (e)(1), (f)(2), and
(g)(5), 42 U.S.C. 6924, (d)(1), (e)(1), (f)(2), and (g)(5)). Under RCRA
section 3004(g)(5), a method of land disposal may not be determined to
be protective of human health and the environment (except with respect
to a hazardous waste which has complied with the pretreatment
regulations promulgated under subsection (m)) unless, upon application
by an interested person, it has been demonstrated to a reasonable
degree of certainty, that there will be no migration of hazardous
constituents from the disposal unit or injection zone for as long as
the wastes remain hazardous.
The EPA previously determined that underground injection of
hazardous waste could meet the RCRA ``protectiveness'' standard
provided that the EPA could review and approve injection facilities on
a case-by-case basis. Accordingly, the EPA promulgated UIC regulations
in 1988 establishing criteria and procedures for no migration petitions
to demonstrate compliance with this standard, 40 CFR 148.20-148.24. As
discussed below, the regulations allow a petitioner to make this
demonstration by showing, among other things, that conditions at the
site and the nature of the waste are such that reliable predictions can
be made that injected fluids will not migrate within 10,000 years
vertically upward out of the injection zone or laterally within the
injection zone to a point of discharge or interface with a USDW. The
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
upheld the regulations in Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v.
EPA, 907 F.2d 1146 (D.C. Cir. 1990).
EDS submitted a petition on January 21, 2000, as amended on October
3, 6, 27, and 31, 2000; January 12, April 24, and October 16, 2001; and
January 31, August 22, September 25, and October 23, 2002, requesting
an exemption from the LDR for injection of all land ban-restricted
hazardous wastes into Well No. 1-12 and Well No. 2-12, located on
Citrin Drive in Romulus, Michigan. EDS's petition is based, among other
things, on a showing under 40 CFR 148.20(a)(i) that the hydrogeological
and geochemical conditions at the site and the physiochemical nature of
the waste stream(s) are such that reliable predictions can be made that
fluid movement conditions are such that the injected fluids will not
migrate within 10,000 years (A) vertically upward out of the injection
zone; or (B) laterally within the injection zone to a point of
discharge or interface with a USDW.
The EPA issued a notice of intent to grant this petition on
November 19, 2002, publishing this notice in the Federal Register (67
FR 77981, December 20, 2002) (Notice of Intent). The EPA accepted
public comments on this Notice of Intent from December 6, 2002, until
October 6, 2003, holding two public hearings (on January 8, 2003 and on
April 21, 2003).
Exemption Determination
After reviewing the petition and additional submissions of
information, and considering public comments, the EPA has determined
that EDS has met the requirements of 40 CFR part 148, subpart C. The
EPA finds EDS has demonstrated that, to a reasonable degree of
certainty, there will be no migration of hazardous constituents from
the injection zone for as long as the waste remains hazardous, by
showing that the hydrogeological and geochemical conditions at the site
and the physiochemical nature of the waste stream(s) are such that
reliable predictions can be made that fluid movement conditions are
such that the injected fluids will not migrate within 10,000 years (A)
vertically upward out of the injection zone; or (B) laterally within
the injection zone to a point of discharge or interface with a USDW and
meets other applicable requirements of 40 CFR part 148, subpart C.
Accordingly, the EPA has determined that EDS's proposed injection is
protective of human health and the environment.
No Migration Standard
A petition submitted under 40 CFR 148.20(a)(1)(i) must show that
the hydrogeological and geochemical conditions at the site and the
physiochemical nature of the waste stream(s) are such that reliable
predictions can be made that fluid movement conditions are such that
the injected fluids will not migrate within 10,000 years (A) vertically
upward out of the injection zone; or (B) laterally within the injection
zone to a point of discharge or interface with a USDW.
A determination under 40 CFR 148.20(a)(1)(i) is based on the
interpretation of data and the use of conservative assumptions to
characterize the injection zone and to predict waste movement. The
plume modeling detailed in the petition document is not intended to
predict the actual plume behavior for 10,000 years, but to ``bound''
the area of potential plume migration as discussed in the preamble to
the 40 CFR part 148 regulations (see 53 FR 28117, at 28126-28127, July
26, 1988). As discussed in the preamble, the EPA believes that the
10,000 year demonstration strikes an appropriate balance between the
need to demonstrate ``no migration with a reasonable degree of
certainty'' and the limits of the technological means available to make
such a demonstration. The EPA believes that a site which could
demonstrate no migration throughout a 10,000 year time period would
provide containment for a substantially longer time frame, and allow
for geochemical transformations or attenuation which would render the
waste non-hazardous or immobile. As set forth in the preamble to the
part 148 regulations and noted in the Notice of Intent:
The EPA's standard does not imply that leakage will occur at
some time after 10,000 years. It requires a demonstration that
leakage will not occur within that time frame.
(53 FR 28117, at 28126, July 26, 1988; 67 FR 77981, at 77982, December
20, 2002).
Considerable weight should be accorded to an executive department's
[[Page 15330]]
construction of a statutory scheme it is entrusted to administer.
Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467
U.S. 837, 844 (1984). (Chevron) If the Agency's choice represents a
reasonable accommodation of conflicting policies that were committed to
the agency's care by the statute, it should not be disturbed unless it
appears from the statute or its legislative history that the
accommodation is not one that Congress would have sanctioned. (See
Chevron, at 845, citing United States v. Shimer, 367 U.S. 374, 382, 383
(1961)).
The EPA interprets the ``reasonable degree of certainty'' standard
to require that the petitioner provide:
Reasonably trustworthy information and data such that the
totality of the facts and circumstances within the Agency's
knowledge be sufficient, in light of its scientific and technical
expertise, to warrant a firm belief that no migration of hazardous
constituents from the injection zone will occur in 10,000 years.
(Kay v. EPA No. 6:90 CV 582, slip op. at 5 (E.D. Tex. Aug 3, 1993). EPA
does not interpret the standard to require proof beyond a reasonable
doubt, or to require that facts be proven to be extremely likely. The
regulations at 40 CFR 148.20(a)(1), which govern this demonstration,
require a showing that reliable predictions can be made based on
conditions at the site.
As discussed below, EPA staff with appropriate technical expertise
reviewed the EDS petition and determined that the requirements of the
no migration standard were satisfied. Information to be submitted in
support of a no migration petition is detailed in 40 CFR 148.20-148.22.
Additional information required for a Class I hazardous waste injection
well permit is detailed in 40 CFR 146.66 and 146.70. A geological
review of a no migration petition includes evaluation of local and area
geology, seismic, and hydrogeologic conditions. Data evaluated in the
geologic review process included, among other things, open hole and
cased hole logs of the injection wells and other area wells, such as
temperature, neutron, electrical, and radioactive tracer logs;
confining and injection zone core data; geological cross sections based
on area wells; well location, structure, and net formation thickness
maps; geological reports from consultants; regional hydrogeological
reports; USDW base maps; injection zone water samples; drilling and
completion reports, scout tickets, plugging and abandonment reports,
and state completion reports for area wells; well injection data;
seismicity reports; and USDW ground water sample data.
During drilling and construction, EDS collected numerous samples,
conducted in situ tests, and completed analyses. These activities were
conducted by experienced service companies and consultants who used
standard methods. EDS repeated many procedures and conducted different
tests that returned complementary results. Results were compared to
demonstrate that any new testing performed by the petitioner was
accurate and reproducible. EDS petitioned to inject all restricted
waste identified under 40 CFR part 261, subparts C and D. While no
specific waste sources have been identified yet, the EPA reviewed the
waste analysis plan, which complies with 40 CFR 146.68(a).
Model Validation and Verification
In the context of the no migration demonstration, validation is a
demonstration by the petitioner that the mathematical simulator for the
model is an appropriate surrogate for the actual geological reservoir
into which waste will be injected. This means that the simulators must
be capable of accurately calculating the effects of injection.
Verification is a demonstration that the mathematical equations which
the simulator uses to emulate the geological factors which govern the
movement of wastes and distribution of pressure increase in the
injection zone give accurate results when the parameter values upon
which the calculation is based are representative of the
characteristics of the injection zone.
EDS used mathematical simulators which are based on standard
analysis of radial, laminar flow of a single fluid phase which has a
constant viscosity and constant, small compressibility from a well
which is perpendicular to the geological formations and is open through
the entire thickness of a bounded, near flat-lying reservoir of uniform
thickness and permeability to calculate pressurization due to
injection. The solutions have been thoroughly tested and long accepted
as accurate means of estimating the pressurization which will occur in
geologic reservoirs similar to that which exists at the EDS site. The
equations used to estimate the distances of vertical and horizontal
movement of the waste plume and its attenuation are similarly accepted.
To meet the requirements of 40 CFR 148.21(a)(3), EDS provided
information which allowed the EPA to validate and verify the
simulators. The EPA consulted with the Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory (LBNL)to confirm the validation and verification of the
simulators. EDS demonstrated that reliable predictions can be made by
using a mathematical simulator to generate a pressure history which
closely matched pressure changes measured in one of the wells while
water was injected into the second well. Through EPA Regional staff,
LBNL requested that EDS benchmark its solution against a popular
numerical simulator which uses a different approach for calculating
plume spread. The distance of migration calculated using this simulator
was somewhat greater than the distance calculated using EDS's analytic
method. To ensure that the results are conservative, the distances
which were calculated using the analytic method were increased by an
appropriate amount.
Quality Assurance and Quality Control
As required by 40 CFR 148.21(a)(4), EDS has demonstrated that
adequate quality assurance and quality control plans were followed in
preparing the petition. The EPA approved a quality assurance project
plan for the construction and testing of the wells and preparation of
the demonstration on November 1, 2001. Some changes were made
subsequently to accommodate changes in plans. These were reviewed and
given informal approval as necessary. EDS followed an appropriate
protocol for locating records of penetrations in the area of review
(AOR), for collecting and analyzing geologic and hydrogeologic data,
for characterizing waste, and for conducting all tasks associated with
the modeling demonstration.
Conservative Assumptions
The demonstration is based on direct measurements of the geological
properties of the injection zone made during the construction and
subsequent testing of the wells at the EDS facility on Citrin Drive or
on values measured at similar locations where conditions can be
expected to be near equivalents. The measurements are used to create a
conceptual model of the geological framework into which waste would be
injected. Many properties were determined by direct measurements. In-
place geophysical measurements and tests of core material recovered
from the injection and confining zones during well construction
provided independent information about the thickness, porosity and
permeability of the rocks making up these zones. The permeabilities for
the receptive intervals of the Eau Claire and Mt. Simon formations, as
wholes were calculated by analyzing the pressure changes occurring
during injection tests. The formation fluid properties were
[[Page 15331]]
determined through analysis of samples of the fluid removed from the
well. However, the model encompasses regions which are larger than can
be reached by sampling techniques employed along and between the well
bores. As required by 40 CFR 148.21(a)(5), the demonstration allows for
uncertainty by using values which are more conservative than those
which the petitioner believes are most appropriate. Many instances of
the use of conservative values are described below.
Sensitivity Analysis
As required by 40 CFR 148.21(a)(6), the demonstration includes a
sensitivity analysis. This analysis showed the effects of variations in
the values characterizing the various parameters and confirmed that
where there is uncertainty, conservative values were used.
Regional Geology
Geological characteristics common to southeastern Michigan include:
sedimentary formations overlying Precambrian igneous and metamorphic
rocks found at a depth of about 4,500 feet below the surface; simple
structure in the sedimentary formations, including no known
transmissive faults or fractures, with a low rate of dip toward the
center of the Michigan Basin to the northwest; and deep reservoir zones
in a formation containing sandstones, shales, and carbonate rocks
overlain by mostly dense carbonate rock which also includes several
sequences of more and less permeable zones. The formations into which
the waste will be injected do not contain salt dome formations, salt
formations or underground mines or caves. Southeastern Michigan lies in
a stable continental area where there is little risk of new faulting,
and any seismic events experienced in Michigan have been minor. The
well siting meets the requirements of 40 CFR 146.62.
Injection Zone
The injection zone must have reservoir strata with sufficient
permeability, porosity, thickness, and areal extent to allow the
injected fluid to be distributed through a large volume of rock so that
there is no long term increase in pressure in the injection zone. Above
the reservoir zone, the injection zone must have strata which have low
vertical permeability and are continuous across the area within which
the reservoir strata will be affected by injection. These are called
arresting strata and make up the arrestment interval. They prevent
upward movement of wastes from the injection zone to USDWs or the
surface.
The injection zone for the EDS facility is between 3,369 and 4,550
feet below the surface. It consists of 1,099 feet of reservoir and
overlying arresting strata, and includes upper Precambrian rocks at the
base and the Mt. Simon, Eau Claire, Franconia-Dresbach, Trempealeau,
Glenwood, and lower Black River Formations. EDS has subdivided the
injection zone into an injection interval and an arrestment interval.
The Mt. Simon, Eau Claire, and Franconia-Dresbach Formations at depths
from 3,937 to 4,468 feet below the surface will actually contain the
injected wastes. They make up the injection interval. The Trempealeau,
Glenwood, and Black River Formations between 3,369 and 3,937 feet below
the surface are the strata within the injection zone which will confine
fluid movement above the injection interval. They make up the
arrestment interval. These formations are tabular and each extends far
beyond the vicinity of the EDS facility. The Mt. Simon and Eau Claire
Formations reach the surface in Wisconsin and thin to the east so that
the porous zones at the EDS site may pinch out and may not be
hydraulically connected to porous zones in the Mt. Simon Formation
beyond Lake Erie. Approaching Chicago, where the Mt. Simon is much
shallower, the salinity of the water in the Mt. Simon decreases, and
west and north of Chicago the Mt. Simon is a USDW. These changes occur
hundreds of miles from the EDS facility. As a result, the effects of
injection by EDS will be negligible.
Waste will be injected directly into the injection interval from
the open-hole portion of the waste disposal wells. The Mt. Simon and
Eau Claire Formations are composed of sandstones interbedded with
siltstone, limestone, dolomite, and shale. These formations contain a
number of zones which appear capable of accepting injected waste. The
porosity of strata which seems to accept injected liquids tends to be
greater than 12%. The open-hole geophysical logs identified a total of
255 feet of section with porosity greater than 12%. The portion of this
injection zone which will receive injected wastes, the active injection
zone, is found almost entirely in the Mt. Simon Sandstone.
The arresting interval is the portion of the injection zone above
the injection interval, and contains dense carbonates and shale units
with low permeability and porous carbonates and sandstones which are
pressure bleed-off units. EDS calculated an average permeability for
the arresting interval by calculating the harmonic average of vertical
permeability measurements from the core samples having less than 12%
porosity. That analysis concluded that the effective vertical
permeability of the arresting interval is less than 0.005 millidarcies
(md).
Fracture logging of the three wells drilled by EDS indicated
several sub-vertical fractures in the arresting interval. These
fractures have limited height and appear to be filled by mineral
deposits. Based on the information, the logging company's analysts
concluded that these fractures did not compromise the integrity of the
arresting interval. Because there are no known transmissive fractures
or faults in the arresting interval, it is suitable for long term waste
retention.
Confining Zone
In addition to the arresting strata within the injection zone, the
injection zone must be overlain by a second series of strata which are
sufficient to prevent upward fluid movement. These strata are known as
the confining zone. Like the arresting interval, the confining zone
must be (1) laterally continuous; (2) free of transecting, transmissive
faults or fractures over an area sufficient to prevent fluid movement;
and (3) of sufficient thickness, lithologic, and stress characteristics
to prevent vertical propagation of fractures. The immediate confining
zone above the injection zone at EDS is made up of the upper Black
River Limestone, the Trenton Formation, and the Utica and Cincinnatian
Shales which are found between 2,364 and 3,369 feet. This confining
zone is 1,000 feet in thickness, and the top is at an elevation almost
2,000 feet below the lowermost USDW. No fractures were detected in the
well bores and no transmissive faults or fractures are otherwise known
to exist in the confining zone within the AOR. The confining zone will
resist vertical migration of fluids because of its low natural
permeability.
Bleed-Off Zone
The confining zone must be separated from the lowermost USDW by at
least one sequence of permeable and less permeable strata that will
provide added layers of protection by either providing additional
confinement (low permeability units) or allowing pressure bleed-off
(high permeability units). Overlying the confining zone, the Clinton
Formation is made up of shales and dolomite having low porosity and
permeability. The White Niagaran between 2,133 and 2,227 feet is a
dolomite which the well site geologist described as ``a new disposal
formation'' in a letter mailed to the EPA on
[[Page 15332]]
December 27, 2001. The Salina Formation contains thick beds of dense,
plastic anhydrite and salt separated by dolomite, some of which is
porous and permeable, and shale between 1,300 and 2,100 feet. The
anhydrite and salt offer very effective barriers to fracturing and flow
because they deform plastically under the weight of the overlying
formations to reseal any void space. In addition, the Sylvania
Sandstone between the depths of 400 and 550 feet is a thick, porous,
and permeable formation which has been used extensively as an injection
zone in the area. It is capable of accepting large amounts of fluid
without developing hydrostatic pressures which would be high enough to
either fracture it or cause formation water to flow through an open
conduit into the USDWs. The layers are continuous for hundreds of
square miles. They provide the added layers of protection required by
the regulations.
Geochemical Conditions and Waste Streams
The petitioner must adequately characterize the injection and
confining zone fluids and rock types to determine the waste stream's
compatibility with these zones. EDS's petition sought permission to
inject listed or hazardous wastes identified under 40 CFR part 261,
subparts C and D. Because each waste code contained in 40 CFR part 261
identifies a specific waste with specific chemical and physical
properties, the EPA already has extensive data on the chemical and
physical properties of listed and characteristic wastes for which EDS
requested exemption from the LDR.
The injection zone is composed mainly of quartz sandstone, with
lesser amounts of shale, siltstone, and dolomite. These rock types are
known to be resistant to most chemical attack. These Mt. Simon rock
types are found in all wells which inject into the Mt. Simon. Periodic
measurements in other wells injecting corrosive wastes into the Mt.
Simon do not show changes in the size and shape of the well bores.
Because these rocks generally are very resistant to chemical
degradation, EDS anticipates little, if any, compatibility problems. To
alleviate any problems that may arise from reactions between the native
formation fluids and the injected wastes, EDS may inject brine or fresh
water to serve as a buffer between the formation water and the
injectate before it begins to inject wastes and between batches of
waste containing constituents which may react with each other. The
water buffers will prevent the formation of solids due to reactions in
the near well-bore region, and will dilute the mixtures when they do
come into contact as a result of mixing due to dispersion so that the
possibility of reactions will be reduced. The confining zone is
composed of silty shale and shaley dolomite. The injected fluid should
have little effect on the dolomitic layers because dolomite does not
react with dilute acids at the temperatures which will exist in the
injection zone. The shale layers are very stable and will be
essentially unaffected by contact with the injectate.
Conceptual Model
The model includes an assumption that chemical reactions between
the formation and the injectate will not have a significant effect on
the receptiveness of the injection zone to injection.
The permeability for the receptive intervals of the Eau Claire and
Mt. Simon formations, as a whole, has been calculated by analyzing the
pressure changes occurring during injection tests using fresh water. A
two-layer model was required to closely match the pressures actually
recorded. The properties of the two layers are actually a summation of
the effects of numerous layers, some with higher permeability and some
with lower. The simulation matched the pressure record by allowing one
half of the injected liquid to flow into each of the two zones. The
zone with higher permeability can be described as 33 feet in thickness
with an average permeability of 400 md. The zone with lower
permeability can be described as 190 feet thick with an average
permeability of 63.43 md. The average porosity of the 33-foot zone is
11% so the porosity-thickness product is 363 porosity-feet.
Results of Simulation
Two simulation time periods were considered in the demonstration: A
20-year operational period and a 10,000-year post-operational period.
The EDS demonstration also assumes that the injection rate will be
continuous at 166 gallons per minute (gpm) for the first 19 years and
11 months of the operational period, and would then increase to 270 gpm
for the final month. These rates are, respectively, the maximum
allowable long-term average rate and the maximum allowable
instantaneous injection rate. These high rates maximize both the
lateral extent of the waste plume and pressurization in the injection
zone during the operational phase.
The demonstration of no migration of hazardous wastes out of the
injection zone is based on physical containment of the wastes by
multiple barriers. Detailed knowledge of the chemical makeup of the
injectate was not required because only the final physical
characteristics of the waste plume such as density and viscosity are
factors in modeling. The demonstration assumes that the injectate will
be a single chemical which does not react to form solids, is not
attracted to the mineral grains of the injection zone, and has the
highest coefficient of diffusion of any molecule. The only factors
tending to reduce concentration are dispersive and diffusive mixing.
The waste is assumed to be toxic at a concentration of one part in one
trillion. Fewer than 10 chemicals which might be injected are toxic at
that level. Concentrations of these few chemicals will be limited to
ensure that their concentrations are reduced to health-based limits at
the same point as the concentration of the theoretical constituent. The
location of this concentration is considered to be at the plume edge.
The EDS lateral waste plume demonstrations included assumptions that
the plume was made up of the least dense and, alternatively, of the
most dense liquids which can be injected. These alternative scenarios
bound the lateral movement of the waste due to buoyancy. By gathering
conservative assumptions and applying them as discussed, EDS
demonstrated that the concentrations of the most mobile constituents
will not migrate out of the injection zone in concentrations which
would be hazardous if the migrating constituents are the most toxic
which might be injected.
A. Vertical Migration
The starting point for calculating upward vertical movement from
the injection zone is at 3,937 feet, the top of the injection interval.
This is shallower than the termination of the corrosion-resistant steel
well casing through which the waste is injected into the injection
interval. To simplify computation of vertical migration and make the
assumptions more conservative, the increase in pore pressure of 1,178
pounds per square inch (psi), which was predicted to occur only at the
end of the operational period as a result of increasing the injection
rate to 270 gpm during the final month of injection, was assumed to
exist for twice the length of the entire operational period. Analytical
solutions used to predict vertical distance of waste migration showed
that the edge of the waste plume will advance through 10.1 feet of the
arresting strata. Therefore, at the end of the operational period, the
waste front will be located at a depth of 3,927 feet below the surface.
[[Page 15333]]
At the start of the post-operational period, pressure in the
injection zone will decrease and cease to cause movement. Molecular
diffusion, which is random motion of individual molecules through the
watery fluid which permeates even dense, essentially non-porous rock,
becomes the primary mechanism causing upward vertical migration. EDS
used an integrating method, taking into account lithologic differences
for each foot of movement, to calculate vertical diffusion distance
above the level reached by injectate during the operational period. The
diffusion rate of cesium was used to maximize the predicted distance
which waste constituents might migrate upward as a result of diffusion.
The no migration demonstration assumed a source which remained at 100%
concentration at the farthest extent of pressure-driven migration for
10,000 years. The distance which waste in hazardous concentration
migrates is the distance at which concentration has been reduced to one
one-trillionth (1:1,000,000,000,000) of the starting concentration. For
constituents which are still toxic at concentrations of one in a
trillion, the EPA will impose limits on starting concentrations in the
injectate to ensure that no constituent will migrate beyond the
resulting distance in hazardous concentrations. The EPA plans to modify
the EDS UIC permits to incorporate these limits. These are very
conservative assumptions. The true concentrations will be small
fractions of 100% and diffusion rates for most hazardous molecules are
very low. Diffusion results in movement over significant distances only
because the time over which it operates is very long. For example, the
distance of travel during the operational period includes both
pressure-driven and diffusive transport; however, this value is within
a foot of that calculated for pressure-driven transport alone. By using
conservative assumptions such as this, the demonstration defines limits
beyond which waste constituents, in hazardous concentrations, will not
migrate.
The maximum vertical movement of the waste front during the post-
operational period is 227 feet from the assumed starting point at 3,925
feet upward to 3,698 feet, 329 feet below the top of the injection
zone. Therefore, the waste will be contained within the vertical limits
of the permitted injection zone throughout the post-operational period.
However, the top of the injection zone itself is inclined so that its
depth decreases by about 1,050 feet at the farthest extent of the updip
plume. Continuing in the same direction, the inclination reverses and
the injection zone formations do not come to the surface.
B. Lateral Migration
The extent of migration within each zone depends on the product of
porosity and thickness. As discussed above, the calculation of lateral
migration assumed that one half of the waste is injected into a single
33-foot zone which has a porosity of 11%. This flow split was
determined by matching simulation results with actual test results. The
product of the thickness and the average permeability of a zone
relative to other available zones determines the fraction of flow which
the zone will accept. For spreading to extend farther in any zone,
including portions of the 33-foot zone, other than in the 33-foot zone
as a whole, the porosity would have to be less than the average
porosity of the 33-foot zone, or the permeability would have to be
higher. Sandstones with porosity less than 10% rarely have sufficient
permeability to allow significant flow while permeability in ancient,
well-lithified, sandstones is rarely as great as 400 md. Therefore, it
is unlikely that such a zone exists within the injection interval, and
assuming injection at one half of the maximum rate into this portion of
the injection zone leads to conservative results.
Lateral migration of the waste plume during the operational period
is driven almost exclusively by injection pressure. The rates of
movement due to buoyancy and diffusion are negligible in comparison. If
we assume 100% displacement of formation waters from a cylinder of rock
33 feet thick with an effective porosity of 11%, so that the liquid
within the cylinder would be 100% waste and the liquid outside the
cylinder would be 100% formation water, the plume edge would be 3,199
feet from a single well at the end of the 20-year simulation period.
This distance is increased as a result of a failure to displace
100% of native formation waters from the cylinder surrounding the
wells. The effect of this failure and of diversion of waste from
straight-line movement as a result of diversion around sand grains is
called dispersion. The effects of dispersion can be calculated. EDS's
demonstration used a reasonably conservative estimate of 300 feet for
longitudinal dispersivity and 25% of that value, 75 feet, for
transverse dispersivity.
In addition to considering the effects of injection by EDS, the
demonstration also calculates the effects of injection at the proposed
location of the permitted Sunoco Partners Marketing and Terminals, LLC
(SPMT) injection well by displacing the plume 2,870 feet to the
southwest. This assumption causes increases in the final distances of
migration for most directions, with resulting decreases being small.
This is generally a conservative assumption because the SPMT well may
not be constructed. At the end of the projected 20-year operational
period, the total distance from the center of the plume to the
southwest edge of the plume, determined at the 10-12
concentration ratio (initial concentration/final concentration), is
19,677 feet. Therefore, the plume could extend more than 3\1/2\ miles
southwest from the EDS wells at the end of the projected 20-year
operational period. This distance is within the AOR. In all other
directions, the distance would be less.
The simulation of plume-flow distance and direction during the
post-operational period considered buoyancy and the natural flow within
the Mt. Simon and Eau Claire Formations in addition to the movement
which occurs during the operation of the wells. Buoyancy flow occurs
because the strata into which waste will be injected dip slightly
northwest into the Michigan Basin and the specific gravity of the
injected waste will be different from that of the native water now
filling the pores in the injection zone. Buoyancy resulting from either
lighter waste being injected into a more dense native brine or a more
dense waste being injected into a less dense natural formation water
results in a substantial movement of the waste front. Because of the
conservative assumptions concerning the specific gravity of the
injected waste, the amount of movement due to the effects of buoyancy
exceeds the movement which will actually occur. Movement of a waste
plume caused by buoyancy differences, regional groundwater flow, or
injection from a nearby well is calculated based on the effect on a
volume of fluid near the center of the plume. This volume is called the
centroid, and it is originally found near the wells. While this volume
may move about nearly intact, the edges of the plume travel greater
distances and the plume becomes diluted.
The direction of buoyancy flow is 42 degrees west of north
(northwest) for a heavier waste and 166 degrees east of north (south
southeast) for a lighter waste. The dip to the south southeast is 1.14
degrees, and the dip to the northwest is about 0.68 degrees. To be
conservative, the greater angle of dip was used to calculate the
distances in both directions. EDS assumed that 100% of the waste to be
injected will be a brine with a specific gravity of 1.22
[[Page 15334]]
(the heaviest fluid which might be injected) when calculating the
distance of flow down into the Basin. When calculating the distance of
movement up-dip it assumed 100% of the waste will be methanol (the
lightest fluid which might be injected) with a specific gravity of
0.88. Because the difference between the specific gravities of the
native brine (1.153) and methanol is greater than the difference
between that of a heavy waste, 1.22, and the native brine, the distance
of movement due to buoyancy will be greater up-dip (to the south
southeast). If we assume that the entire plume has the density of
methanol, buoyancy might cause the centroid of the plume to move up dip
a distance of 14,792 feet to the south southeast. If we assume that the
plume is as dense as a heavy brine, buoyancy might cause the centroid
of the plume to move 6,550 feet to the northwest.
Regional pressure gradients are very small. Calculations based on
pressure measurements made at well 2-12 and at several other
wells indicated that the rate of flow due to regional pressure
gradients could be as high as 0.4 ft/year, possibly in a northeasterly
direction. In 10,000 years, the effect of regional flow could result in
an additional 4,000 feet of drift of the plume centroid plus associated
dispersion. Because EPA wishes to use conservative assumptions, the
4,000 feet of possible movement due to regional flow was added to the
total distance of the movement regardless of which direction it was
calculated. The net up-dip movement of the plume centroid is calculated
by adding the effects of each force individually as vectors. Vectors
are directed line segments. A distance and direction of movement caused
by each force is calculated. The result of each calculation is a
vector. Then the vectors can be added, tail to head. The location of
the final head represents the location of the centroid at the end of
the process. Because the forces are acting simultaneously, rather than
consecutively, the centroid does not follow the path of the vectors,
but the end result is the same. In this case, vectors representing each
distance and its direction were added, resulting in a total 20,672 feet
of movement to the south southeast.
From that point, an analytical method was used to account for
dispersive spread and to project plume movement to the health-based
limits. For this calculation, the distance the center of the plume is
displaced by regional flow (4,000 feet), the distance it is displaced
by buoyancy (14,792 feet), and the distance it might be displaced by
the proposed SPMT injection (2,870 feet), each acting alone, are added,
for a total distance of 21,662 feet, and the dispersion is based on
this distance. Dispersion will move the health-based limit 27,539 feet
beyond the end of the undispersed plume edge. At this distance, all
hazardous constituents will be below the health-based levels or
detection limits. To calculate the total distance of movement in the
up-dip direction, one should add the original radius of the plume
(3,199 feet), the vector-summed distances which the centroid is
displaced by regional flow, buoyancy, and injection through the SPMT
well (20,672 feet), the distance added by dispersion (27,539 feet), and
an additional 1,580 feet which SWIFT modeling indicates should be added
to the results obtained using the analytical method. Based on these
calculations, the maximum predicted lateral migration of waste at the
EDS site is 52,990 feet ([ap] 10 miles) in the up-dip, or south
southeast, direction. The petition describes a similar process,
resulting in a total distance of 36,158 feet, for movement in the down-
dip direction.
The no migration demonstration addressed vertical and lateral waste
movement as required in 40 CFR 148.20(a)(1)(i). The maximum vertical
movement of the waste at the end of 10,000 years was conservatively
estimated at 239 feet above the top of the injection interval located
at 3,937 feet. At the site of the injection wells, the waste will
remain 3,298 feet below the lowermost USDW, which is located at depths
of less than 400 feet. The maximum predicted lateral waste plume
movement within the injection interval was approximately 10 miles in
the up-dip or south-southeasterly direction. The maximum predicted
lateral waste plume movement in the down-dip or northwesterly direction
was 6.85 miles from the injection wells. The nearest point of discharge
to a USDW is over two hundred miles away. EDS's demonstration has shown
that the hydrogeological and geochemical conditions at the site and the
physiochemical nature of the waste stream(s) are such that reliable
predictions can be made that fluid movement conditions are such that
the injected fluids will not migrate within 10,000 years (A) vertically
upward out of the injection zone; or (B) laterally within the injection
zone to a point of discharge or interface with a USDW.
Well Construction and Integrity
The EDS wells were constructed using four strings of steel casing
for each well. As the wells were drilled, increasingly smaller diameter
casings were placed in the well and cemented to the surface. The first
cemented casings are 20 inches (in well 1-12) and 16 inches
(in well 2-12) in diameter and were set at 119 feet and 177
feet, respectively, to stabilize the well bores through the
unconsolidated glacial drift. The second strings of casing are 13\3/8\
inches in diameter and were set at 396 and 598 feet, respectively, to
prevent loss of drilling fluid into cavernous zones in the shallow
bedrock. The third strings of casing were designed to add another layer
of protection through the USDWs, and to establish a separation of the
annulus behind the long string casing from the USDWs. These casings are
9\5/8\ inches in diameter and were set at 824 and 1,444 feet,
respectively. The final casing was set from the surface to within the
top of the formations which will be used as the waste reservoir. These
casings are 7 inches in diameter and were set at 4,080 and 3,983 feet,
respectively. The space around each of the casings was sealed with
cement from the base of the casing to the surface. Cementing eliminates
potential avenues for either the injected fluid or fluid from other,
shallower zones to flow outside the casings and into USDWs.
EDS will inject the waste through a tubing set on a packer just
above the end of the casing and isolated from the casing by a fluid-
filled annulus, which will be continuously monitored for pressure
change. The monitoring system is designed to trigger alarms and shut
off injection before the injection pressure exceeds the maximum
permitted levels, or if the difference between the injection and
annulus pressures falls below the minimum permitted level.
Thus, the integrity of the construction will be monitored
constantly by measuring the pressure within the annulus between the
casings and tubing, and tracking the amounts of liquid added to or
removed from the annulus system. Even a small leak should be detected.
More rigorous annual testing ensures that even very small leaks are
discovered. The pressure in the annulus will be maintained at a higher
level than the pressures in either the formations outside the casing or
within the injection tubing. Therefore, even if a leak in the tubing
occurs, the waste will not leak into the annulus. Instead, annulus
fluid will leak into the injection tubing through which waste would be
injected and be carried downward into the waste disposal reservoir. If
there is a casing leak, annulus fluid, not waste, will leak into the
formations surrounding the well.
As described above, the construction provides for a replaceable
tubing and a
[[Page 15335]]
system to detect when replacement of the tubing is necessary. The
tubing prevents the waste from contacting all except the lowermost few
tens of feet of casing, which are made of a corrosion resistant alloy.
The three casing strings and layers of cement through the fresh water-
bearing formations provide extra protection from contamination.
The UIC program regulates injection pressure, injection rate, waste
properties, and the concentration of hazardous constituents to ensure,
among other things, that the actual conditions under which injection
occurs are less likely to cause increased migration of hazardous
constituents than those proposed and simulated. The injection pressure
is important because injection pressure drives fluid movement through
both the reservoir rock and the overlying confining rock. Because the
confining rock is usually less than one one-thousandth as permeable as
reservoir rock, the distance of vertical movement through the confining
rock is less than one one-thousandth as great as the horizontal
movement through the reservoir rock. If excessive, the injection
pressure can fracture the reservoir rock and, at higher pressures, the
confining rock. EDS conducted tests during well construction to measure
the resistance of the rock of the injection and confining zones to
fracturing. These tests showed that injecting at pressures below 903
psi measured at the surface will not create fractures in the injection
zone. The EPA plans to modify EDS's UIC permits to limit the injection
pressure at the surface to 903 psi. The current permits limit injection
pressure to 521 psi.
The mechanical integrity of the wells has been demonstrated several
times, most recently on November 13, 2003. Well No. 1-12 recorded a
pressure drop from 1,081.06 to 1,077.48 psi, a total of 3.6 psi, in one
hour and Well No. 2-12 recorded a pressure change from 1,045.39 to
1,025.43 psi, a total of 19.95 psi in one hour. The failure criterion
for the test is a pressure change greater than 3% in one hour. For
these wells, a 3% change in an original pressures of 1,050 psi would be
31.5 psi. Therefore, EDS has demonstrated that there are no leaks in
the casing, tubing, or packer in either well. The reason for pressure
drop in this case is that the pressure in the annulus had been
maintained at about 250 psi. Increasing the pressure to the test level
causes the fiberglass tubing to slowly contract. As the tubing
contracts, the annulus space is enlarged and pressure decreases. The
radioactive tracer surveys required under 40 CFR 148.20(a)(2)(4) were
conducted on June 20, 2003. EPA found no evidence to indicate upward
movement of the radioactive tracer.
Absence of Known Transmissive Faults
As discussed below, the AOR around the EDS wells has a radius of
more than six miles centered at the point midway between the two wells
at the Citrin Drive site. The regulations at 40 CFR 148.20(b) require a
showing that the strata which will confine fluid movement above the
injection interval are free of known transmissive faults or fractures.
There are no known transmissive faults in the Glenwood, Trempealeau,
and Franconia Formations, the strata within the injection zone that
will confine fluid movement within the AOR. During construction of the
wells, a geophysical tool which produces images of the walls of the
well bore was used to search for fractures. The few fractures which
were detected appear to be sealed with mineral deposits. Moreover, the
interference test conducted on June 12-15, 2002, indicates that there
are no transmissive fractures cutting the injection interval within a
distance of 800 feet of either well. That test, which evaluates an area
outlined by two contiguous squares of equal size centered on the wells,
supported the conclusion, based on log review, that there are no
transmissive fractures cutting the well bores.
Seismic Activity
An analysis of seismic risk occurring at the EDS facility is
presented in section III.D of the no migration petition. The potential
for seismic activity which might affect the injection wells was also
considered by the EPA prior to approving EDS's UIC permits in
accordance with 40 CFR 146.62(b)(1). Michigan is an area of low seismic
risk. The EPA reviewed information from the National Earthquake
Information Center (NEIC) in Boulder, Colorado regarding earthquakes in
the area of the injection wells. The NEIC reported that the nearest
earthquake was 41 kilometers, about 25 miles, away and occurred in
1980. Two other earthquakes have occurred within 100 km, about 61
miles, of the wells. Moreover, the steel casings of deep injection and
production wells are more flexible and resilient than the rock through
which they pass. As a result, they are not damaged as a result of
earthquakes unless actually sheared as a result of movement along a
fault which they penetrate. Because Midwestern earthquakes are widely
scattered, with none reported in the immediate vicinity of the EDS
location, there is almost no possibility of damage as a result of
seismic activity.
As discussed above, no faults cutting the well bores were
identified. Thus, there is a reasonable degree of certainty that the
wells' casings will not be sheared. The EPA additionally notes that the
well will be continuously monitored throughout the operational life
under the UIC permit. Among other things, annual mechanical integrity
tests are required to demonstrate the mechanical integrity of the
casing, tubing and packer. Other mechanical integrity tests are used at
five-year intervals to demonstrate there is no significant fluid
movement into a USDW through vertical channels adjacent to the
injection well bore.
Where critically oriented faults exist near injection wells, pore
pressure increases may induce seismic activity. Injection-induced
earthquakes cease as soon as the pore pressure declines below a
critical level. Because the Mt. Simon in this area is porous and
permeable, the pressure drop would occur within a few days. Therefore,
if the EDS wells were to induce any earthquakes, such earthquakes could
be stopped simply by stopping injection.
In regard to ground water contamination, EDS has met the no
migration standard of 40 CFR 148.20(a)(1)(i). The no migration
demonstration shows that there will be little upward migration of
hazardous materials if there are no conduits for flow. There are many
layers of rock in the salt-bearing formation between the injection zone
and the USDWs which deform under pressure to fill all voids. Any
conduit which is not artificially protected from closure in such a zone
will be closed by this deformation. This minimizes the potential for
any conduit to penetrate the Salina Group, located between 766 feet and
2,002 feet below ground surface.
Area of Review (AOR)
Under 40 CFR 146.63, the AOR of Class I hazardous waste wells is
minimally a two-mile radius around the well bore or a larger area
specified by the EPA based on the calculated zone of endangering
influence of the well. The zone of endangering influence is the area
within which the pressure induced in the injection interval as a result
of injection can raise a column of formation fluid or injected fluid
sufficiently to cause contamination of a USDW. 40 CFR 148.20(a)(2)
requires a petition to demonstrate that the injection well's AOR
complies with the substantive requirements of 40 CFR 146.63. The
petitioner used refined parameter values and more conservative
[[Page 15336]]
assumptions agreed upon with EPA reviewers to determine a new and
larger AOR radius under 40 CFR 146.63. The petitioner considered the
measured pressure in the injection zone, a pressure in the lowermost
USDW consistent with the level of Lake Erie, and the density of the
brine found in the injection zone to find that an additional pressure
of 89.6 psi in the injection zone is sufficient to cause flow.
Analytical models were also used to simulate the maximum pressure
buildup in the injection interval. When calculated using reasonably
conservative values for geological parameters representative of actual
conditions, the zone of endangering influence for the EDS injection
wells has a radius of 23,275 feet, or 4.4 miles from the center of the
line between the two wells. However, because this did not represent a
worst-case scenario, EDS used more conservative values and calculated
an enlarged zone of endangering influence which, at the end of the
twenty-year operational period, reaches 32,280 feet, or 6.1 miles, from
the center of the line connecting the two wells. EDS showed that there
are no USDWs in the injection zone within this distance. The EPA
determined that this 6.1 mile area was sufficiently conservative
because most of the values used to calculate this distance are less
favorable than those which actually exist. Nor are there any natural or
man-made features which might allow increased vertical movement out of
the injection zone. Considering injection at a single point is
appropriate because the distance between the wells is small in relation
to the radius of the AOR and the sparsity of wells which reach the
confining zone in the region. Although the density of the brine is
greater than the density of many potential wastes which might be
injected, it is appropriate to use the brine density because injected
waste will not reach the limits of the AOR during the operational
period.
Wells in the Area of Review
Under 40 CFR 148.20(a)(2)(ii), a petitioner must locate, identify,
and ascertain the condition of all wells within the injection well's
AOR that penetrate the injection zone or the confining zone. EDS
conducted a well search over the larger zone of endangering influence
consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 148.20(a)(2)(ii) and 146.64,
and identified two wells penetrating the confining zone and/or
injection zone. As discussed below, both of these wells have been
properly plugged, completed and/or abandoned, so no corrective action
is required under 40 CFR 148.20(a)(iii) and 146.64.
The McClure Oil Co. Fritsch et al. 1 is located about 4.5
miles south of the EDS site. That well was drilled to a depth of 2,885
feet in 1955 and then plugged with heavy mud with a bridge which is
firmly fixed in place 1,750 feet from the surface to provide a seal
within the well bore. The plugging was approved on July 21, 1955, by
the Michigan Department of Conservation. This well has been properly
abandoned, and there is no potential for fluids to move through the
well to the USDWs. Moreover, the maximum depth of this well is almost
800 feet above the reach of the predicted upward migration of waste
from the EDS well.
The second well, well 1-20, was drilled by EDS in 1993 at
a site which was to be used for the facility under review. This well,
which was properly completed pursuant to an EPA UIC permit, penetrates
the entire injection zone. The lower portion of the well has been
plugged using a cast iron bridge plug above the injection zone with 50
feet of cement on top of the bridge plug. This meets Region 5's
standards for plugging wells within the AOR, and will prevent the
well's casing from serving as a conduit for the movement of fluids from
the injection zone. Moreover, on January 12, 1999, EDS entered into a
Stipulation and Consent Agreement with the Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality (MDEQ). This agreement authorizes EDS 1-
20 to remain inactive and not be considered abandoned, so long as all
applicable requirements are met, until 30 days after EDS's receipt of
all MDEQ approvals for the Citrin Drive facility. The agreement
requires EDS to permanently plug and abandon the well within that 30-
day period. When the well is abandoned, the EPA UIC permit for well
1-20 requires that the well must be properly plugged and
abandoned under a plan approved by the EPA. Well 1-20 is
properly completed, is not abandoned, and will be permanently plugged
and abandoned pursuant to the UIC requirements.
Injection Well Proposed for Construction
It is possible that SPMT will drill at least one injection well for
the injection of non-hazardous salt brine about 2,800 feet northeast of
the nearer EDS well. Both the EPA and the MDEQ have issued permits for
the construction of this proposed well. Any injection wells which SPMT
drills will be constructed to standards approved by Region 5 for the
protection of USDWs and the construction will be overseen by Region 5's
contract inspectors.
Operation of the EDS Wells
The EPA also considered EDS's operation of two wells at Citrin
Drive. Because the EDS wells are closed in at the surface when not
operating and no liquid can enter from the bottom of the well bore,
wastes will not be pushed into an idle well. As required by 40 CFR
146.68, the EDS UIC permits require continuous monitoring of the
injection rate and injection pressure. In addition, the operator must
maintain a positive pressure differential within the tubing-casing
annulus in respect to the injection tubing pressure and this annulus
pressure must be continuously monitored. The UIC permits also require
automatic alarms designed to sound before pressures, flow rates, or
other parameters exceed permitted values. The continuous monitoring of
the injection wells occurs whether or not the well is operating. EDS is
currently in compliance with its permits and all applicable
requirements of the UIC program.
Because no wells penetrating the confining zone or injection zone
are improperly plugged, completed, or abandoned, a corrective action
plan is not required under 40 CFR 146.64 and 148.20(a)(2)(iii).
Consideration of MDEQ Permit for an Extraction Well
The only changes in circumstance that have occurred since the EPA
issued its Notice of Intent that might affect the determination are the
issuance by the State of Michigan of an extraction well permit to SPMT
on May 29, 2003, allowing SPMT to extract brine from several
formations, including the Mt. Simon Formation, within \1/2\ mile of the
EDS wells subject to certain conditions; and the subsequent State
litigation and direction on that permit. The EPA has reviewed and
considered that permit and comments on that permit, and has decided
that issuance of such a permit should not bar granting of the
exemption. Based on the evidence in the record, the EPA finds that
neither the permit nor the drilling of such a well will affect EDS's
demonstration. It is the operation of an extraction well drilled into
the injection zone within the plume of hazardous waste that would be
problematic. Based on the current record, EPA can make a reliable
prediction that the proposed extraction well, if ever drilled, would
not be drilled and operated in formations that form the injection zone
of the EDS injection wells. The State permit, as qualified by the State
circuit court, requires an investigation and evaluation of the brine
recovery capacity of the
[[Page 15337]]
Lockport Dolomite and further approval before an extraction well can be
drilled to the depth of the confining or injection zone. An extraction
well drilled and operated in the shallower Lockport Dolomite would not
impact EDS's demonstration. The EPA, however, has decided to retain the
condition proposed in its Notice of Intent that would terminate the
exemption if an extraction well is both drilled and operated within the
injection zone in the area of review. Under current conditions, EDS's
demonstration meets the criteria at 40 CFR 148.20.
SPMT's description of its proposed use of the brine extracted from
the Mt. Simon has been sketchy. By letter dated March 28, 2003, SPMT
indicates that SPMT can support a multi-year 1 million barrel cavern
expansion effort utilizing only a single injection well with a target
rate below 200 gpm and that in subsequent years, SPMT can operate the
expanded cavern system with brine injection and production rates below
200 gpm and that the rates can be achieved at injection pressures below
the fracture point of the formation. The May 29, 2003 State permit
requires SPMT to obtain approval of a plan to test the Lockport
Formation for brine production between the approximate depths of 2,120
and 2,140 feet prior to commencing to drill the well. Under the permit,
the plan must specify the methods, materials, and procedures used to
test the Lockport Formation; identify criteria for determining whether
to continue the test at various key points; and establish the criteria
for determining if the Lockport Formation is suitable for commercial
brine production. In the November 19, 2003 proceedings before the
Circuit Court of Ingham County on the May 29, 2003 State permit, the
court made it clear that SPMT has to complete its testing and obtain
the court's approval before it can drill below the Lockport Formation.
Moreover, the State's November 20, 2003 approval of SPMT's plan to test
the Niagara Group (the Lockport Formation) for brine concludes that if
the step-rate injectivity test shows the well capable of receiving
brine at a rate of at least 175 gallons per minute, SPMT will complete
the well in the Niagara Group interval and utilize it for both brine
supply and injection, and will not drill to or utilize the Munising
Group or Mt. Simon formation for these purposes. The plan submitted to
the State on behalf of SPMT for evaluating the Niagran indicates that
brine production is possible from the White Niagran, and references the
Michigan Mineral Resource supply well production of 135 gpm from 3
porosity stringers which have a maximum of 28% porosity. On May 16,
2003, EDS sent EPA the results of an analysis of the native Mt. Simon
Formation water which indicates that the Mt. Simon has a salt
saturation level of approximately 60% and the White Niagaran would be a
better choice for balancing in salt caverns utilized for liquid
petroleum gas (LPG) storage.
Furthermore, injection by EDS would make SPMT's brine extraction
proposal impractical. The May 29, 2003 State permit also provides that
if SPMT's extraction well is completed in one or more Cambrian geologic
horizons below 3,900 feet and EDS begins hazardous waste disposal at
its Citrin Drive facility, SPMT must immediately begin a program of
testing the produced brine for specific chemical components present in
the EDS wastes or a marker compound approved by MDEQ for injection with
the EDS wastes, conduct testing every 15 days, and manage all produced
brine as a hazardous waste until results of the required testing
demonstrate to MDEQ's satisfaction that it is not hazardous waste. EPA
has a reasonable degree of certainty that SPMT will not extract if EDS
injects hazardous waste. It is SPMT's extraction that will draw up
injected wastes; SPMT noted in its October 6, 2003 comments that
injected hazardous waste would render the brine unsuitable for
production; and extraction after EDS injects will require SPMT to
comply with expensive requirements under its State permit. If SPMT has
to treat their extracted brine as hazardous they will have to pay
increased costs for handling the brine pursuant to hazardous waste
requirements. In addition, if the brine actually is hazardous, SPMT
would not be able to place it back on the land without an exemption
from or treatment to LDR levels, much less use it for cavern expansion.
Since EDS will be injecting listed hazardous waste, the presence of any
of the waste in the extracted brine would render the brine subject to
regulation as a hazardous waste under the contained in principle
(unless SPMT were to obtain a contained out determination). As such, it
would have to be treated to LDR levels and, even after such treatment,
would remain a listed hazardous waste. This raises the question of
whether SPMT would be able to use the material for the intended
commercial purposes--essentially a question of whether any use would be
viewed as legitimate or sham recycling. Hence, in addition to the
increased costs to SPMT, the extraction of brine from the Mount Simon
formation following injection of hazardous waste by EDS would engender
significant regulatory complexities, which might bar SPMT's intended
use of the brine. Indeed, in proceedings before the Circuit Court of
Ingham County on June 16, 2003, the State indicated that SPMT would be
prohibited from pumping out because they would, in fact, be creating a
situation where there was hazardous waste, that they would be a
hazardous waste generator at that point in time, so they would probably
be the entity that would be required to shut down. While SPMT noted
that the permit does not explicitly say that they have to shut down, it
admitted that it does not want to become a party that is in the
business of generating hazardous waste, and that the permit says that
would be the effect. (Transcript of 6/16/03 proceedings at pp. 17-18)
Moreover, if SPMT ever does extract, the Agency might consider taking
appropriate action to address such extraction.
The State permit, as qualified by the State circuit court, requires
an investigation and evaluation of the brine recovery capacity of the
Lockport Dolomite and further approval before an extraction well can be
drilled to the depth of the confining or injection zone. The State's
approval of SPMT's plan to evaluate the brine capacity of the Lockport
formation specifies that if the step-rate injectivity test shows the
well capable of receiving brine at a rate of at least 175 gallons per
minute, SPMT cannot drill into the Mt. Simon, and the plan suggests
that the Lockport has the capacity for brine production. Under the
terms of the State permit and as admitted by SPMT, injection by EDS
will make extraction from the injection zone impracticable for SPMT. An
extraction well drilled and operated in the shallower Lockport Dolomite
would not impact EDS's demonstration. The EPA, however, has decided to
retain and clarify the condition proposed in its Notice of Intent to
terminate the exemption if an extraction well is drilled within the AOR
into the injection zone, penetrated by well 2-12 at a depth of
3,369 feet, and is used for extraction from any strata within the
injection zone. Under current conditions, EDS's demonstration meets the
criteria at 40 CFR 148.20.
Comments
The EPA received several hundred comments on this petition. The EPA
offered an extended public comment period between December 6, 2002, and
May 16, 2003, holding two public hearings; and took additional public
comment until October 6, 2003, on the
[[Page 15338]]
May 29, 2003 extraction well permit issued by MDEQ to SPMT. The EPA
also considered some comments that previously had been submitted during
the public comment period for the SPMT injection wells in relation to
the EDS wells. The EPA has also taken into consideration more recent
State court limitations and other developments on the May 29, 2003
State extraction well permit.
Comments submitted raised concerns about hazardous waste management
in Romulus; the potential for harm from waste injection; the land ban
process; local ordinances; modeling and simulation; the EPA's review of
the no migration demonstration; the geological basis for the modeling;
geological concerns; the method of simulation; the results of
simulation; the well search within the AOR; the quality assurance
project plan; the results of the EPA's review; the extent of the
effects of injection by EDS; seismic events; other injection well
operations; well construction; waste disposal operations; alternative
waste management options; the State of Michigan's role; EDS and its
funding; the EPA's decision making process; politics; community
concerns; Canadian waste; civil rights; Michigan waste management
capacity; the effects of EDS's operations on business and property;
public opinion; environmental justice; and the State permit to SPMT for
an extraction well. A number of comments pertained to issues outside
the scope of the determination on the exemption, and the EPA stressed
that this is a determination on an exemption from the RCRA LDR for deep
well injection under 40 CFR part 148, subpart C. The granting of an
exemption from the LDR for EDS's injection does not preclude other
permits, licenses, approvals or requirements that might govern
activities at the site or in the area. It is limited to granting an
exemption from the LDR for restricted waste for this method of land
disposal. Moreover, the regulations require specific showings and do
not consider such factors as community acceptance, politics, violations
history, if any, and above-ground transportation. Some of the comments
related to issues such as the State construction permit and civil
rights which belong in a different forum. The EPA has prepared a
response to comments, which can be viewed at the following URL:
http://www.epa.gov/region5/water/uic/pubpdf/eds_rtc.pdf. In its response, the
EPA discusses underground injection, the geology of the site, its
search for transmissive faults, the construction of the wells
consistent with 40 CFR part 146 requirements, its review of wells in
the area, its inquiry into other underground injection well sites and
releases near those locations, its decision-making process and the
factors it considered, the modeling, the use of buffers, the EPA's
authorities under the Statutes, the land disposal prohibition with its
exemptions, the quality assurance project plan, and the permit issued
by MDEQ to SPMT for an extraction well in the area.
After considering comments, the State extraction well permit and
its litigation, and current conditions, the EPA has determined that its
reasons for granting the exemption as set forth in the Notice of Intent
remain valid. Accordingly, the exemption is issued with specific
conditions listed in this notice. As discussed above, EPA has prepared
a response to comments, which can be viewed on its website.
EPA Review
The injection zone for the EDS disposal operation consists of 1,099
feet of reservoir and overlying arresting strata including the upper
Precambrian rocks at the base and the Mt. Simon, Eau Claire, Franconia-
Dresbach, Trempealeau, Glenwood, and lower Black River Formations from
3,369 to 4,468 feet below the surface where penetrated by EDS's well
No. 2-12. As required by 40 CFR 148.20(b), EDS has delineated an
arrestment zone within the injection zone consisting of the
Trempealeau, Glenwood, and Black River Formations between 3,369 and
3,937 feet below the surface which will confine fluid movement above
the injection interval. EDS has presented evidence that these strata
are free of known transmissive faults or fractures, and the EPA's
investigations found no evidence of known transmissive faults or
fractures affecting these strata. EDS has shown that there is a
confining zone overlying the injection zone. As required by 40 CFR
148.20(a)(2)(i), EDS calculated an AOR extending 32,280 feet from the
center of a line connecting the two wells based on measurements of
hydrogeological properties at the site and meeting the substantive
requirements of 40 CFR 146.63. As required by 40 CFR 148.20(a)(2)(ii),
EDS has located, identified, and ascertained the conditions of all
wells within the injection wells' AOR that penetrate the injection zone
or the confining zone by use of a protocol acceptable to the Director
and meeting the substantive requirements of 40 CFR 146.64. As required
by 40 CFR 148.20(a)(2)(iii), EDS has submitted the results of pressure
and radioactive tracer tests performed within one year prior to
submission of the petition demonstrating the mechanical integrity of
the well's long string casing, injection tube, annular seal, and bottom
hole cement.
After reviewing the petition and other information in the record,
and considering public comments, the EPA determined that EDS has shown
that the hydrogeological and geochemical conditions at the site and the
physiochemical nature of the waste streams are such that reliable
predictions can be made that fluid movement conditions are such that
the injected fluids will not migrate within 10,000 years: (A)
vertically upward out of the injection zone; or (B) laterally within
the injection zone to a point of discharge or interface with a USDW
pursuant to 40 CFR 148.20(a)(1)(i); and has met the other applicable
requirements of 40 CFR part 148, subpart C.
Changes to Conditions of the Exemption
In response to public comments noting that the State and UIC
permits do not allow injection of wastes with the codes D001 and D003,
the EPA is removing wastes carrying the hazardous waste codes D001 and
D003 from the list of wastes approved for possible injection by EDS.
This makes the limitations under the petition decision identical to
those of the permits. Accordingly, this exemption allows injection of
wastes bearing the following RCRA waste codes:
D002
D004
D005
D006
D007
D008
D009
D010
D011
D012
D013
D014
D015
D016
D017
D018
D019
D020
D021
D022
D023
D024
D025
D026
D027
D028
D029
D030
D031
D032
[[Page 15339]]
D033
D034
D035
D036
D037
D038
D039
D040
D041
D042
D043
F001
F002
F003
F004
F005
F006
F007
F008
F009
F010
F011
F012
F019
F020
F021
F022
F023
F024
F025
F026
F027
F028
F032
F034
F035
F037
F038
F039
K001
K002
K003
K004
K005
K006
K007
K008
K009
K010
K011
K013
K014
K015
K016
K017
K018
K019
K020
K021
K022
K023
K024
K025
K026
K027
K028
K029
K030
K031
K032
K033
K034
K035
K036
K037
K038
K039
K040
K041
K042
K043
K044
K045
K046
K047
K048
K049
K050
K051
K052
K060
K061
K062
K069
K071
K073
K083
K084
K085
K086
K087
K088
K093
K094
K095
K096
K097
K098
K099
K100
K101
K102
K103
K104
K105
K106
K107
K108
K109
K110
K111
K112
K113
K114
K115
K116
K117
K118
K123
K124
K125
K126
K131
K132
K136
K140
K141
K142
K143
K144
K145
K147
K148
K149
K150
K151
K156
K157
K158
K159
K160
K161
K169
K170
K171
K172
K173
K174
K175
K176
K177
K178
P001
P002
P003
P004
P005
P006
P007
P008
P009
P010
P011
P012
P013
P014
P015
P016
P017
P018
P020
P021
P022
P023
P024
P026
P027
P028
P029
P030
P031
P033
P034
P036
P037
P038
P039
P040
P041
P042
P043
P044
P045
P046
P047
P048
P049
[[Page 15340]]
P050
P051
P054
P056
P057
P058
P059
P060
P062
P063
P064
P065
P066
P067
P068
P069
P070
P071
P072
P073
P074
P075
P076
P077
P078
P081
P082
P084
P085
P087
P088
P089
P092
P093
P094
P095
P096
P097
P098
P099
P101
P102
P103
P104
P105
P106
P108
P109
P110
P111
P112
P113
P114
P115
P116
P118
P119
P120
P121
P122
P123
P127
P128
P185
P188
P189
P190
P191
P192
P194
P196
P197
P198
P199
P201
P202
P203
P204
P205
U001
U002
U003
U004
U005
U006
U007
U008
U009
U010
U011
U012
U014
U015
U016
U017
U018
U019
U020
U021
U022
U023
U024
U025
U026
U027
U028
U029
U030
U031
U032
U033
U034
U035
U036
U037
U038
U039
U041
U042
U043
U044
U045
U046
U047
U048
U049
U050
U051
U052
U053
U055
U056
U057
U058
U059
U060
U061
U062
U063
U064
U066
U067
U068
U069
U070
U071
U072
U073
U074
U075
U076
U077
U078
U079
U080
U081
U082
U083
U084
U085
U086
U087
U088
U089
U090
U091
U092
U093
U094
U095
U096
U097
U098
U099
U101
U102
U103
U105
U106
U107
U108
U109
U110
U111
U112
U113
U114
U115
U116
U117
U118
U119
U120
U121
U122
U123
U124
U125
U126
U127
U128
U129
U130
U131
U132
U133
U134
[[Page 15341]]
U135
U136
U137
U138
U139
U140
U141
U142
U143
U144
U145
U146
U147
U148
U149
U150
U151
U152
U153
U154
U155
U156
U157
U158
U159
U160
U161
U162
U163
U164
U165
U166
U167
U168
U169
U170
U171
U172
U173
U174
U176
U177
U178
U179
U180
U181
U182
U183
U184
U185
U186
U187
U188
U189
U190
U191
U192
U193
U194
U196
U197
U200
U201
U202
U203
U204
U205
U206
U207
U208
U209
U210
U211
U213
U214
U215
U216
U217
U218
U219
U220
U221
U222
U223
U225
U226
U227
U228
U234
U235
U236
U237
U238
U239
U240
U243
U244
U246
U247
U248
U249
U271
U277
U278
U279
U280
U328
U353
U359
U364
U365
U366
U367
U372
U373
U375
U376
U377
U378
U379
U381
U382
U383
U384
U385
U386
U387
U389
U390
U391
U392
U393
U394
U395
U396
U400
U401
U402
U403
U404
U407
U408
U409
U410
U411
The method of calculating the average injection rate has been
changed as described in condition 3 below. The Notice of
Intent proposed a 7,275,780 gallon limit on the volume of wastes
injected in any month. Condition 3 imposes a limit of a lifetime
average of 166 gallons per minute. This condition was changed because
the petitioner commented that the demonstration was based on an
assumption that the injection rate through the first 20 years of the
life of the wells will not exceed 166 gallons per minute, and requested
that the condition be made consistent with the no migration
demonstration.
Additionally, the example of a circumstance under condition 7 in
which EDS would be required to submit a new demonstration of no
migration has been modified for clarity and elevated to become
condition 9, in light of the May 29, 2003, extraction well
permit MDEQ issued to SPMT.
Conditions
This exemption is issued subject to the following conditions: (1)
The permitted injection zone must be comprised of the Precambrian, Mt.
Simon and Eau Claire, Franconia-Dresbach, Trempealeau, and Glenwood
Formations from 3,369 to 4,550 feet below the surface; (2) Injection
shall occur only into that part of the Franconia-Dresbach, Eau Claire,
Mt. Simon, and Precambrian Formations which is more than 3,900 feet and
less than 4,550 feet, true vertical depths, below the surface; (3) The
volume of wastes injected through both wells at the site must not
exceed an average of 166 gallons per minute. This average rate will be
calculated at the end of each month based on the cumulative injected
volume, the total number of months elapsed since initiation of
injection through either well, and the number of minutes in an average
month (30.44 days/month x 1440 minutes/day); (4) Maximum concentrations
of chemical contaminants which are hazardous at less than one part in a
trillion (1:1,000,000,000,000) shall have limits for maximum
concentration at the well head set through the permits; (5) The
injection pressure at the well head shall be limited to fracture
opening pressure at the casing shoe. Tests during construction of well
2-12 determined that the fracture opening pressure while
injecting waste of the highest density to
[[Page 15342]]
be allowed is 903 psi (gauge) at the well head; (6) The petitioner
shall fully comply with all requirements set forth in Underground
Injection Control Permits MI-163-1W-C007 and MI-163-
1W-C008 issued by the EPA; (7) This exemption is granted only while the
underlying assumptions are valid; (8) The exemption will become invalid
20 years after injection commences. EDS must halt operations at that
time unless Region 5 has approved a new, valid demonstration of no
migration from the injection zone. (9) In the event that a brine
extraction well is drilled within the AOR into the injection zone,
penetrated by well 2-12 at a depth of 3,369 feet, and is used
for extraction from any strata within the injection zone, the exemption
will terminate. In order to resume injection, EDS must prepare a new
demonstration of no migration including consideration of the extraction
activity, and a new exemption must be issued by the EPA. Operation must
be in full compliance with all conditions of its permits and other
conditions relating to the exemption found in 40 CFR 148.23 and 148.24.
Dated: March 16, 2004.
Jo Lynn Traub,
Director, Water Division.
[FR Doc. 04-6697 Filed 3-24-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P