[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 58 (Thursday, March 25, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15328-15342]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-6697]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 
[email protected]. 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: 
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