Notice of Intent To Grant an Exemption for the Injection of Certain Hazardous Wastes to Environmental Disposal Systems, Inc. for Two Injection Wells Located at 28470 Citrin Drive, Romulus, MI

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

[Federal Register: December 20, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 245)]
[Notices]
[Page 77981-77994]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20de02-44]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-7421-4]

Notice of Intent To Grant an Exemption for the Injection of
Certain Hazardous Wastes to Environmental Disposal Systems, Inc. for
Two Injection Wells Located at 28470 Citrin Drive, Romulus, MI

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5,
Chicago office, proposes (through this notice) to grant an exemption
from the ban on disposal of hazardous wastes through injection wells to
Environmental Disposal Systems Inc. (EDS) of Birmingham, Michigan. If
the exemption is granted, EDS may inject all Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA) regulated hazardous wastes through waste disposal
wells #1-12 and #2-12. The regulations promulgated
under the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments to RCRA, prohibit the
injection of restricted hazardous waste into an injection well. Persons
seeking an exemption from the prohibition must submit a petition
demonstrating 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.
On January 21, 2000, EDS submitted a petition to the EPA, Region 5,
Chicago office, seeking an exemption from the ban based on a showing
that any fluids injected will not migrate vertically out of the
injection zone or laterally to a point of discharge or interface with
an underground source of drinking water (USDW) within 10,000 years. The
EPA has conducted a comprehensive review of the petition, its
revisions, and other materials submitted and has determined that the
petition submitted by EDS, as revised 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, meets the requirements of 40
CFR part 148, subpart C.

DATES: The EPA, Region 5, Chicago office, requests public comments on
today's proposed decision. Comments

[[Page 77982]]

will be accepted until January 22, 2003. Comments post-marked after the
close of the comment period will be stamped ``Late.'' Late comments do
not have standing and will not be considered in the decision process.
EPA will schedule a public hearing to allow comment on this proposed
action. EPA will publish a notice of this hearing in a local paper and
send it to people on its mailing list. If you wish to be notified of
the date and location of the public hearing please contact the person
listed below. EPA will cancel the hearing if it has no evidence of a
need for a hearing.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments, by mail, to: Ms. Sally Swanson,
Acting UIC Branch Chief, United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Underground Injection Control Branch (WU-16J), 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590; or, to use e-mail,
direct comments to swanson.sally@epa.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Harlan Gerrish, Lead Petition
Reviewer, at the same address, Office Telephone Number: (312) 886-2939,
or, to use e-mail, direct comments to gerrish.harlan@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. Authority

HSWA, which was enacted on November 8, 1984, imposed substantial
additional responsibilities on those who handle hazardous waste. The
amendments prohibit the land disposal of untreated hazardous waste
beyond specified dates, unless the EPA determines that the prohibition
is not required in order to protect human health and the environment
for as long as the waste remains hazardous (RCRA section 3004(d)(1),
(e)(1), (f)(2), (g)(5)). RCRA specifically defines land disposal to
include any placement of hazardous waste into an injection well (RCRA
section 3004(k)). After the effective date of prohibition, hazardous
waste can only be injected under two circumstances:
(1) When the waste has been treated in accordance with the
requirements of 40 CFR part 268 as required by section 3004(m) of RCRA,
(the EPA has adopted the same treatment standards for injected wastes
in 40 CFR part 148, subpart B); or
(2) When the owner/operator 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. Applicants seeking an exemption from the ban must
demonstrate that the hydrogeological and geochemical conditions at the
site and the physicochemical nature of the waste stream(s) are such
that reliable predictions can be made either:
(a) That fluid movement conditions are such that the injected
fluids will not migrate within 10,000 years: (1) Vertically upward out
of the injection zone; or (2) laterally within the injection zone to a
point of discharge or interface with an Underground Source of Drinking
Water (USDW) (the no-migration standard); or
(b) That before the injected fluids migrate out of the injection
zone or to a point of discharge or interface with USDW, the fluid will
no longer be hazardous because of attenuation, transformation or
immobilization of hazardous constituents within the injection zone by
hydrolysis, chemical interactions or other means.
EDS has submitted a petition that uses mathematical models to
demonstrate that the injected fluids will not migrate within 10,000
years.
The EPA published regulations setting forth the requirements for
petitions for exemption from the disposal prohibition in the Federal
Register on July 26, 1988 (53 FR 28118). The demonstrations are based
on direct measurements of 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. Because the
model encompasses a region which is much larger than sampling
techniques employed along and between the well bores can reach, the
demonstration allows for uncertainty by using values which are more
conservative than those which the petitioner believes are most
appropriate. The measurements are used to create a conceptual model of
the geological framework into which waste is injected. Models must
account for such geological properties as the porosity, permeability,
and compressibility of the strata within the injection zone which will
serve as the reservoir and the strata which are expected to confine the
waste within the injection zone. Characteristics, such as density and
viscosity, of the brine currently within the injection zone and of the
waste which will be injected are also considered. Equations have been
developed to calculate the pattern and extent of pressure increase
resulting from injection for many different geologic models. When the
proposed injection is simulated, computer programs use the appropriate
equations to calculate the amount and distribution of increased
pressure in the disposal reservoir. The distance which fluid and then
independent molecules of the injected waste will move through the
reservoir and confining zone are also calculated.
During the period of injection, fluids are pumped through the
injection wells into porous geological formations at pressures which
are sufficient to force the fluids to flow thousands of feet into the
formations. In most cases, the operator of a particular group of
injection wells controls the only injection occurring in the area. If
there are other nearby injection or production wells, however, they
will also affect how fluids move.
Injection moves the fluids at a relatively high velocity. This
movement slows immediately, but continues at greatly reduced speed for
a time after injection ends. The length of that time is approximately
equal to the length of the injection phase. By the end of that time,
the continued movement has allowed the hydraulic pressures around the
injection wells to return to the pre-injection level, if it is a large
injection formation. After the pressure dissipates, significant
movement of waste fluid results from three phenomena: Natural
background or regional flow, density differences, and diffusion of
individual molecules through geological materials.
The simulation of waste movement is carried forward for a period of
10,000 years. EPA chose a time limit of 10,000 years for the
demonstration because a demonstration over that time period would both
suggest containment for a substantially longer time period and a
10,000-year time frame would allow time for geochemical transformations
which might render the waste nonhazardous or immobile. (See 53 FR
28126). The EPA's Science Advisory Board agreed that the 10,000 year
time frame is appropriate in a 1984 study dealing with the storage of
radioactive wastes. 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. Understanding geological
factors such as the permeability of intact rock, the presence of
transmissive fractures, and the identification of artificial
penetrations of the confining zone provides the key to constructing an
accurate model and performing a valid simulation. Because 10,000 years
is a relatively short interval of geologic time, we assume that only
the three phenomena listed above affect the rate of movement. Each of
these phenomena is well understood, and their effects can be
calculated. If the simulation

[[Page 77983]]

establishes that the injected waste will not escape a defined volume of
rock which is some distance below the USDWs or discharge to a USDW for
a period of 10,000 years, the operation meets the regulatory no
migration standard.

B. Facility Operation

EPA previously issued permits to the proposed EDS facility to
commercially dispose of liquid wastes by deep well injection. The
operator has constructed two wells. The proposed exemption is based on
a long term average injection rate, for the facility as a whole, of 166
gallons per minute (gpm) averaged over one-month periods for a total of
7,275,780 gallons per month. The instantaneous injection rate may reach
270 gpm for the facility. The long term average rate limit is used to
bound the area of the waste plume so that the plume will be no larger
than the area estimated in the petition. The instantaneous limit will
allow EDS to inject more waste for some periods of time than others to
accommodate deliveries during normal business hours and other
occurrences. The rate at which EDS may inject is also limited by the
maximum allowable surface injection pressure.
The conservative nature of the demonstration is a significant
aspect of the demonstrations. The result of the simulations which
comprise the demonstration are not predictions of the distance to which
the hazardous waste plume will move. Rather, they are predictions of a
distance beyond which movement will not occur. That is, the actual
distance of movement is expected to be considerably less than that
simulated.

C. Submission

On January 21, 2000, EDS submitted a petition for exemption from
the land disposal restrictions of hazardous waste injection under the
HSWA of RCRA. EPA reviewed this submission for completeness and
provided comments. EPA received revised documents on October 3, 6, 27,
and 31, 2000; January 12, April 24, and October 16, 2001; and January
31, August 22, September 25, 2002 and October 23, 2002, responding to
EPA comments.

II. Basis for Determination

A. Waste Description and Analysis (40 CFR 148.22)

Under the proposed exemption, EDS can inject wastes from a variety
of industrial sectors and processes including: pharmaceutical
production, steel pickling operations, automobile parts fabrication,
and other commercial disposal operations at facilities which do not
have the means to dispose of hazardous liquid wastes. EDS has
petitioned the EPA, Region 5, to grant an exemption to allow injection
of wastes bearing the following RCRA waste codes:

[[Page 77984]]

List of RCRA Waste Codes Approved for Injection
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D001 D022 D043 F027 K015 K036 K071 K106 K141 K174 P017 P042 P067 P094 P118 P203 U020 U042 U064 U086 U109 U130 U151 U172 U194 U210 U249 U382
D002 D023 F001 F028 K016 K037 K073 K107 K142 K175 P018 P043 P068 P095 P119 P204 U021 U043 U066 U087 U110 U131 U152 U173 U196 U220 U271 U383
D003 D024 F002 F032 K017 K038 K083 K108 K143 K176 P020 P044 P060 P096 P120 P205 U022 U044 U067 U088 U111 U132 U153 U174 U197 U221 U277 U384
D004 D025 F003 F034 K018 K039 K084 K109 K144 K177 P021 P045 P070 P097 P121 U001 U023 U045 U068 U089 U112 U133 U154 U176 U200 U222 U278 U385
D005 D026 F004 F035 K019 K040 K085 K110 K145 K178 P022 P046 P071 P098 P122 U002 U024 U046 U069 U090 U113 U134 U155 U177 U201 U223 U279 U386
D006 D027 F005 F037 K020 K041 K086 K111 K147 P001 P023 P047 P072 P099 P123 U003 U025 U047 U070 U091 U114 U135 U156 U178 U202 U225 U280 U387
D007 D028 F006 F038 K021 K042 K087 K112 K148 P002 P024 P048 P073 P101 P127 U004 U026 U048 U071 U092 U115 U136 U157 U179 U203 U226 U328 U389
D008 D029 F007 F039 K022 K043 K088 K113 K149 P003 P026 P049 P074 P102 P128 U005 U027 U049 U072 U093 U116 U137 U158 U180 U204 U227 U353 U390
D009 D030 F008 K001 K023 K044 K093 K114 K150 P004 P027 P050 P075 P103 P185 U006 U028 U050 U073 U094 U117 U138 U159 U181 U205 U228 U359 U391
D010 D031 F009 K002 K024 K045 K094 K115 K151 P005 P028 P051 P076 P104 P188 U007 U029 U051 U074 U095 U118 U139 U160 U182 U206 U234 U364 U392
D011 D032 F010 K003 K025 K046 K095 K116 K156 P006 P029 P054 P077 P105 P189 U008 U030 U052 U075 U096 U119 U140 U161 U183 U207 U235 U365 U393
D012 D033 F011 K004 K026 K047 K096 K117 K157 P007 P030 P056 P078 P106 P190 U009 U031 U053 U076 U097 U120 U141 U162 U184 U208 U236 U366 U394
D013 D034 F012 K005 K027 K048 K097 K118 K158 P008 P031 P057 P081 P108 P191 U010 U032 U055 U077 U098 U121 U142 U163 U185 U209 U237 U367 U395
D014 D035 F019 K006 K028 K049 K098 K123 K159 P009 P033 P058 P082 P109 P192 U011 U033 U056 U078 U099 U122 U143 U164 U186 U210 U238 U372 U396
D015 D036 F020 K007 K029 K050 K099 K124 K160 P010 P034 P059 P084 P110 P194 U012 U034 U057 U079 U101 U123 U144 U165 U187 U211 U239 U373 U400
D016 D037 F021 K008 K030 K051 K100 K125 K161 P011 P036 P060 P085 P111 P196 U014 U035 U058 U080 U102 U124 U145 U166 U188 U213 U240 U375 U401
D017 D038 F022 K009 K031 K052 K101 K126 K169 P012 P037 P062 P087 P112 P197 U015 U036 U059 U081 U103 U125 U146 U167 U189 U214 U243 U376 U402
D018 D039 F023 K010 K032 K060 K102 K131 K170 P013 P038 P063 P088 P113 P198 U016 U037 U060 U082 U105 U126 U147 U168 U190 U215 U244 U377 U403
D019 D040 F024 K011 K033 K061 K103 K132 K171 P014 P039 P064 P089 P114 P199 U017 U038 U061 U083 U106 U127 U148 U169 U191 U216 U246 U378 U404
D020 D041 F025 K013 K034 K062 K104 K136 K172 P015 P040 P065 P092 P115 P201 U018 U039 U062 U084 U107 U128 U149 U170 U192 U217 U247 U379 U407
D021 D042 F026 K014 K035 K069 K105 K140 K173 P016 P041 P066 P093 P116 P202 P119 U041 U063 U085 U108 U129 U150 U171 U193 U218 U248 U381 U408
....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... U409
....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... U410
....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... U411
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 77985]]

B. Well Construction and Operation (Sec. 148.22)

EDS plans to operate the disposal wells for at least 20 years. The
physics of well injection is well understood because of theoretical
studies conducted by oil production companies and observations through
the long history of injection and production in oil fields. EPA has
developed the UIC program under the Safe Drinking Water Act to prevent
underground injection which endangers USDWs. The program regulates
construction and operation of most injection wells. The regulations
impose extra requirements on hazardous waste injection wells. The
operations of wells used for the disposal of hazardous wastes are
subject to an exacting permitting program, monthly review of monitoring
records, and periodic testing of the well and disposal reservoir.
Additional safeguards, such as those set forth in the proposed
decision, are also imposed.
Figure 1 includes a schematic diagram of the construction of Well
#2-12 and the formations penetrated by the wells. The EDS wells
have been constructed using four strings of steel casing for each well.
As the wells were drilled, increasingly smaller casings were placed in
the well and cemented to the surface. The first cemented casings are 20
(in #1-12) and 16 (in #2-12) inches in diameter and
were set at 119 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 planned to
provide the safest possible conduit through the near-surface USDWs.
These casings are 9\5/8\ inches in diameter and are set at 824 and 1444
feet, respectively. The final casing is 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 are 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 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 if 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
before environmental injury occurs. 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 occurs, the waste will not leak into
the annulus; instead, annulus fluid will leak into the injection tubing
through which waste is being injected and be carried downward into the
waste disposal reservoir or, in the case of a casing leak, annulus
fluid, not waste, will leak into the formations surrounding the well.
As described, the construction provides for a replaceable tubing
and a 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.
In order to ensure that the wastes, once safely injected into the
disposal formation, remain there, the UIC program regulates injection
pressure and waste properties, and requires regular testing of the
integrity of injection wells' construction. The injection pressure is
important because injection pressure drives fluid movement through both
the reservoir rock and the overlying confining rock. No rock is
completely impermeable. Because the confining rock is usually less than
one thousandth as permeable as reservoir rock, the distance of vertical
movement through the confining rock is less than one thousandth as
great as the horizontal movement through the reservoir rock. If
sufficiently high, the injection pressure will fracture the reservoir
rock and, at higher pressures, may fracture the confining rock.
Therefore, 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
pound per square inch (psi) measured at the surface will not create
fractures in the injection zone. The permits are being modified to
limit the injection pressure at the surface to 903 psi.
The permits for the injection wells will limit the rate of
injection, the pressure at which injection takes place, and the
concentration of hazardous constituents to ensure that the actual
conditions under which injection occurs are less likely to cause
increased migration of hazardous constituents than those proposed and
simulated as described in section F of this Fact Sheet. This will
ensure that injected wastes will remain in the disposal formations, at
depths below 3,700 feet, for at least 10,000 years.
Information available includes results of testing a well which EDS
drilled in 1993, four miles away from the locations of wells
#1-12 and #2-12. This well is the nearest well drilled
into the Mt. Simon, Eau Claire, and lower Franconia Formations, which
will serve as reservoirs; or into the upper Franconia-Dresbach,
Trempealeau, Greenwood, and lower Black River Formations, which will
serve as the arresting interval for wastes injected by EDS. Information
from this well and other wells in Michigan and Ohio was used to
determine the extent and shape of the important geological formations.
Other nearby wells tend to go no deeper than the Trenton Formation
which was penetrated at about 2,950 feet in the EDS wells.
Additional information was gained through testing of the new wells.
Among other information, the UICB reviewers looked at the distribution
of porosity and permeability along the well bore, the hydrostatic
pressure in the reservoirs to be used for disposal, and the fracture
opening and closure pressures in the disposal formation as well as in
the overlying formations. The interaction of these factors determines
the rate at which waste can be injected without having effects on the
injection zone that can result in vertical movement through created
fractures. The cementing and condition of the casing were also reviewed
and found adequate.

C. Mechanical Integrity Test Information

The mechanical integrity tests described below were witnessed by
EPA's contract inspectors. The test records were examined by UICB
employees who recorded their observations and concluded that the tests
were successfully passed.
To assure that the waste does not leak from the tubing prior to
reaching the injection zone, 40 CFR 148.20(a)(2)(iv) requires
submission of results from a

[[Page 77986]]

satisfactory annulus pressure test and a Radioactive Tracer Survey to
test the cement seal at the base of the casing which were performed
within one year of petition submission. On April 4, 2002, EDS used a
pressure test to demonstrate the absence of leaks in the casing, tubing
and packer of well #1-12 by forcing water into the annulus to
create a pressure of 1,130 psi and then closed the valve used to add
water to the annulus. The test standard is a pressure change of less
than 3% in one hour. The pressure declined by 11 psi, which is just
less than 1%. On April 4, 2002, EDS tested the construction of well
#2-12 by using 1,110 psi. The pressure declined to 1,090 psi.
Twenty psi is about 2%, so both wells passed the test and demonstrated
the absence of leaks in the tubing and casing, and packers. This aspect
of mechanical integrity (MI) is discussed in the federal regulations at
40 CFR 146.8(a)(1). The sealing of the casing to the rock surrounding
the well bore immediately above the injection interval was tested using
a short-lived radioactive (RA) tracer material which was carried deep
into each well by a geophysical logging tool lowered into the wells on
a cable on January 8, 2002, in the case of well #1-12, and on
December 6, 2001, in the case of well #2-12. The tracer was
released during injection of fresh water. The same tool which releases
the tracer also contains detectors that are used to trace the movement
of the RA tracer. If the cement sealing the well bore is not sound, RA
material will go up the well bore outside the casing. The logging tool
is used to determine the depth to which the tracer moves before it
leaves the well bore. There was no indication of upward movement during
either test. Both of these tests will be repeated annually.
In addition, EDS made temperature measurements at short intervals
along the well bores to determine if liquid is moving from any
formations penetrated by the well, along the well bore, and into a
USDW. New temperature logs will be made at five-year intervals. These
two tests (radioactive tracer surveys and temperature logs) offer very
effective means of determining whether the injected waste remains in
the injection zone.

D. Site Description

The EDS injection wells are located at 28470 Citrin Drive within
the City of Romulus in Wayne County, Michigan, near Detroit.
1. Geological Location
Geologically these wells are located on the eastern edge of the
Michigan Basin. Locally, dip is to the northwest at about 100 feet per
mile. About 4,350 feet of Paleozoic sedimentary rocks covered by about
100 feet of glacially deposited materials overlie the granitic
Precambrian basement.
The injection wells at the EDS facility have approximately 2,980
feet of separation between the lowermost USDW, found in the Detroit
River Formation, less than 390 feet below the surface, and the top of
the injection zone 3,369 feet below the surface (See Figure 1). This
separation zone is composed of dolomites, shales, sandstones and
siltstones which are predominantly characterized by low permeability at
this location. Pressure bleed-off zones are an important factor in the
containment of wastes. All sedimentary formations are made up of
horizontal layers which have differing permeabilities. Layers with low
permeability retard upward movement and layers with high permeability
allow both upward and horizontal movement. Because upward movement is
resisted again and again by layers with low permeability, fluids tend
to flow horizontally. As a result, the pressure which drives the
movement is reduced by the horizontal flow which occurs in any layer
having higher permeability than the layer above it. The regulations
require at least one major permeable bleed-off zone between the
injection zone and the base of the USDWs. At the EDS facility, the
major bleed-off zones are the White Niagaran between 2,133 and 2,227
feet and the Sylvania Sandstone between 400 and 550 feet below the
surface. In addition, numerous other zones are composed of sand or
dolomitized limestone which have sufficient porosity and permeability
to function as pressure bleed-off zones.
Seismicity. Michigan is an area of low seismic risk. Earthquakes
felt in Michigan have been generally minor. 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 as demonstrated by wells
in seismically active areas like California and Alaska. Because the
Midwestern earthquakes are widely scattered, with none reported in the
immediate vicinity of the EDS location, and have epicenters deep within
the Precambrian granitic rocks far below the injection reservoir, there
is virtually no possibility of damage as a result of seismic activity.

2. Injection Zone Description

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 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 4,468
feet below the surface. It consists of 900 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 (See Figure 1). 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 4,550 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 will prevent the waste from
moving upward. They make up the arrestment interval. Each of these
formations extends far beyond the vicinity of the EDS facility. The Mt.
Simon and Eau Claire Formations reach the surface in Wisconsin,
hundreds of miles from the EDS facility.
Waste is 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
lower limit for porosity of rock which seems to accept injected liquids
is 12%. The open-hole geophysical logs identified a total of 255 feet
of section with porosity greater than 12%.
The permeability for the receptive intervals of the Eau Claire and
Mt. Simon as a whole has been calculated by analyzing the pressure
changes occurring during injection tests. A two-layer model was
required in order to simulate the pressures actually recorded. The two
layers are actually a summation of the effects of numerous layers, some
with higher permeability

[[Page 77987]]

and some with lower. The zones with higher permeability can be
described as 33 feet in thickness with an average permeability of 400
millidarcies (md). The zone with lower permeability can be described as
190 feet thick with an average permeability of 63.43 md.
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 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, and do 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.
3. Confining Zone Description
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 and 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
(See Figure 1). This confining zone is 1,000 feet in thickness, and the
top is at an elevation 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
area of review.
The confining zone will resist vertical migration because of its
low natural permeability. 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 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. 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 December
27, 2001. 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 even
cause formation water to flow through an open conduit into the USDW.
The layers are continuous for hundreds of square miles. They provide
the added layers of protection required by the regulations.
4. Geochemical Conditions
The petitioner must adequately characterize the injection and
confining zone fluids and rock types to determine the waste stream's
compatibility with these zones. The injection zone is composed mainly
of quartz sandstone, with minor amounts of 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, we anticipate little, if any, compatibility
problems. To alleviate any problems that may arise from reactions
between the native formation fluids and the injected wastes, EDS will
inject fresh water to serve as a buffer between the formation water and
the injectate before it begins to inject wastes and between injecting
each batch of waste. The fresh water buffers will prevent wastes which
might react with each other to form solids from mixing 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.
5. Wells in Area of Review
Under 40 CFR 146.63, the area of review (AOR) of class I hazardous
waste wells is a two-mile radius around the well bore or a larger area
specified by EPA based on the calculated cone of endangering influence
of the well. The cone of endangering influence is the area within which
pressurizing the injection interval can raise a column of formation
fluid or injected fluid sufficiently to cause contamination of a USDW.
When calculated using values for geological parameters which are
accepted as most likely to be representative of actual conditions, the
cone 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
cone of endangering influence which reaches 32,280 feet from the center
of the line connecting the two wells. 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 area of review that penetrate the
injection zone or the confining zone. EDS conducted a well search over
the larger cone 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 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 plug at 1750
feet. 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 a conduit. Moreover,
the maximum depth of this well is almost

[[Page 77988]]

800 feet above the reach of the predicted upward migration of waste
from the EDS well.
The second well, the EDS #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' 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 EPA. Well # 1-20 is properly
completed, is not abandoned, and will be permanently plugged and
abandoned pursuant UIC requirements. Therefore, a corrective action
plan under 40 CFR 148.20(a)(iii) and 146.64 is not required.
It is probable that Sun Pipe Line Company will drill at least one
injection well slightly more than one half mile from the nearest EDS
well. Region 5 issued a permit for the construction of a well to be
used for the injection of non-hazardous salt brine about 2,800 feet
northeast of the nearest EDS well. Any injection wells which the Sun
Pipe Line Company 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.
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).
6. Absence of Known Transmissive Faults
There are no known transmissive faults in the Glenwood,
Trempealeau, and Franconia Formations, the strata within the injection
zone that will confine fluid movement. Moreover, the interference test
conducted on June 12-15, 2002, indicates that there are no transmissive
fractures cutting the injection interval within the area between and
near the wells.

E. The Use of Predictive Models to Demonstrate No Migration

The most practical and credible means for petitioners to
demonstrate no migration of hazardous constituents from the injection
zone is through the use of predictive mathematical models.
1. Conceptual Models
As discussed in the preamble to the final rule for petitioning for
exemption, no-migration demonstrations rely upon conservative modeling
techniques to evaluate the potential for migration of hazardous
constituents from the injection zone. Fluid flow modeling is a well-
developed and mature science and has been used for many years in the
petroleum industry. A wide range of models exists that provide the
capability to analyze pressure build up, lateral waste migration,
vertical fluid permeation into overlying confining material, and
leakage through defects in overlying aquitards; and models make it
possible to predict tendencies or trends of events that have not yet
occurred or that may not be directly observable. Under the no migration
standard, a demonstration need not show exactly what will occur, but
rather what conditions will not occur. Conservative modeling can be
used to ``bound the problem'' and can legitimately form the basis for
the petition demonstration. (See 50 FR 28126-28127 (July 26, 1988)).
2. Model Validation
The conceptual model incorporated within the ``no-migration''
demonstration must be validated. The objective of model validation is
to demonstrate that the model adequately represents the type of rock
layers, the physical processes of the injection zone, and the boundary
conditions of the modeled interval.
In this case, a two-layer model was found to match the pressure
responses measured during an interference test. We know from the
measurements made during drilling that there are many layers of
significantly different properties within the injection zone. However,
it is often the case that the effects of many layers can be
consolidated so that a simpler model can be used. The values determined
for the two model layers are reasonable based on the type of rock in
the injection zone and the actual measurements of physical properties.
As a result, this part of the model is validated.
3. Verification of Mathematical Simulators
When used to make predictions, the simulator must be adequately
verified. The verification process has two principal objectives: (1) To
ensure that the simulation code is mathematically accurate, and (2) to
ensure that the various features of the code are used correctly.
Frequently simulators are verified by comparing the results of the
simulator to be verified against the results from a previously verified
simulator or an analytical solution.
Several different computer programs were used to simulate various
phenomena in this demonstration. Pressurization was simulated using a
computer code named INTERACT. The movement of the plume was simulated
using empirical formulas which were verified by matching results of
simulations incorporating similar models against those produced by
SWIFT II, which has been extensively verified. Each of these methods
and computer codes has been used in previous no migration
demonstrations.

F. Application of Computer Simulation to the No-migration Demonstration

The petitioner chose to demonstrate that waste injected at the EDS
facility wastes will remain in the injection zone and will not migrate
to a point of discharge or interface with an underground source of
drinking water for a period of 10,000 years. This demonstration was
based on a showing that a geological model representative of the
disposal reservoir and the overlying rock strata would contain the
waste constituents within the disposal reservoir for a period of 10,000
years under the conditions of the simulation.
1. Model Development and Calibration
The development of the EDS model was conceived to be conservative
to account for the uncertainties which exist because of inherent
geological variability and because the subject wells had not been
constructed at the time the modeling was begun. A conceptual model was
developed using information developed from logs, core and other testing
carried out during drilling of the EDS #1-20 well. The model
included hydrogeologic information such as porosity, permeability, and
thickness of the various zones. Next, this initial set of hydrogeologic
parameters was calibrated or fine-tuned by comparing pressure responses
predicted using these parameters to pressure records from injection
tests of wells #1-12 and

[[Page 77989]]

2-12 made during the period from June 12-15, 2002.
Other model parameters, such as viscosity of the injected fluid,
and diffusion coefficients of the waste constituents, were assigned
from site-specific information when possible, and otherwise based on
values which have been reported in similar situations and appeared in
peer-reviewed writings. Where parameters were uncertain, conservative
values were chosen. For those parameters most affecting pressure build
up and waste migration, such as permeability, a range of values was
modeled so that pressure and migration under less favorable conditions
could be determined. This sensitivity analysis indicated that
containment of wastes within the injection zone would occur even if
actual conditions are much less favorable than there is reason to
suspect.
The original model assumed that flow within the injection zone
would be within a single zone of uniform properties. This model failed
to allow simulations of tests made in the #2-12 well to match
pressures actually measured. EDS conducted an interference test by
injecting water into one well and measuring the pressure in the other
well to eliminate the pressure effects caused by residual blocking of
pore throats in the sandstone reservoir adjacent to the well bores.
Good data were obtained through this test, but the simulator could
still not match the measured pressures. Other models were tried. A
model incorporating layers having differing permeability with flow
possible between the layers was found to result in a remarkably close
match. The poorest match between correlative simulated and measured
pressure values was within 1.5%. For the most part, the simulator was
able to match the real data almost perfectly. The successful model
includes one layer which is 33 feet thick with a permeability of 400 md
and one which is 190 feet thick with a permeability of 63.43 md, as
mentioned above in the Injection Zone Description. The porosity of both
zones was set at 11%.
This two-layer model is a reasonable explanation of how the
disposal reservoir which was investigated during the drilling of the
three EDS wells will react to injection. The logs and cores showed that
there are many individual layers with varying permeability and that
their effective net thickness is in the range of 200 to 250 feet. The
average net porosity of these layers is about 11%. Other values used in
the simulation also match those measured or calculated using standard
procedures. As a result of approximating measurements made by tests in
the wells, the model has been proved to be a valid surrogate for the
reservoir itself. EDS actually modeled pressure buildup and plume
movement only in the thinner zone (33 feet thick with 400 md
permeability) to simplify the predictive modeling, This is conservative
because it results in a more widespread plume and a larger radius for
the zone of endangering influence than the use of the full two-layer
model would. Although the results are less accurate than they might be,
the deviation from accuracy is toward making the results appear to be
``worse'' than we have reason to expect. Because we are less interested
in accuracy than in ensuring we made conservative assumptions, such
simplifications are an acceptable and commonly used practice.
2. Model Predictions
Two simulation time periods were considered in the demonstration: A
20-year operational period and a 10,000-year post-operational period.
For the operational period, vertical migration was calculated as though
the maximum allowable pressure was used for injection through the
entire operational period. For the post-operational period, additional
lateral migration due to the natural flow gradient and buoyancy, and
additional vertical migration due to molecular diffusion were
simulated. Modeling results, and the parameter choices which ensure
that these results represent reasonably conservative conditions, are
presented below.
For the simulated operational period, the total simulated injection
rate for the facility was set at 166 gpm for the first 19 years and 11
months of the 20-year service life. For the final month, the simulated
rate was increased to 270 gpm for a single well. This rate plan results
in the highest possible pressurization of the reservoir. However, the
33-foot reservoir layer accepted half of this volume while the 190 feet
of the well bore with lower permeability accepted the remainder. This
flow split was determined through the simulation. The product of the
thickness and the average permeability of a zone relative to other
available zones determines the fraction of flow which it will accept.
The pressure increase in the 33-foot zone is the only result which was
calculated. Assuming injection at the maximum rate into a portion of
the injection zone provides a conservative cushion to the demonstration
by causing an over-prediction of waste migration. To simplify
computation and make the assumptions more conservative, the increase of
1,176 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, was assumed to exist for the length of the entire operational
period. The maximum pressure buildup will be greatest near the
injection wells and will decrease outward, declining to less than 89.6
psi at a distance of 4.4 miles (the edge of the regulatory Area of
Review) at the end of the 20-year operational period.
Analytical solutions were also used to predict vertical waste
migration. To be conservative, EDS doubled the length of the
operational period, assumed that the maximum pressure will exist
throughout this period, and found that injectate will penetrate through
10.1 feet of the arresting strata.
During 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 apparently dense rock, becomes the primary mechanism
causing upward 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. This method also used the highest coefficient
of molecular diffusion for any waste constituent and a concentration
reduction to one trillionth (10 -12) of the starting
concentration. This means that the resulting distance is that at which
the concentration of any constituent will be less than one part in a
trillion. For constituents which are still toxic at concentrations of
one in a trillion, 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 EDS UIC permits
will be modified to incorporate these limits. 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, 239 feet below the top of the injection zone. This is a
conservative estimate because it assumes 100% concentration of the most
mobile constituent at the limit of pressure driven fluid movement for
the entire post-operational period. Therefore, the waste will be
contained within the vertical limits of the permitted injection zone
throughout the post-operational period.
Lateral migration of the waste plume during the operational period
is driven almost exclusively by injection pressure. If 100%
displacement of formation waters from a cylinder of rock

[[Page 77990]]

33 feet thick with an effective porosity of 11% is assumed, the plume
edge would be 3,199 feet from a single well at the end of the 20-year
simulation period. This distance is further increased as a result of
failure to displace 100% of native formation waters from the cylinder
surrounding the wells. The effect of this failure and diversion of
waste from straightline movement as a result of diversion around sand
grains is called dispersion. The effects of dispersion can be
calculated. The preparers of the EDS demonstration used a reasonably
conservative estimate of 300 feet for longitudinal dispersivity and 25%
of that value, 75 feet, for transverse dispersivity. Dispersion will
increase the distance of flow by 13,607 feet in direction opposite the
Sun wells. Therefore, 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 16,806 feet. As
mentioned in the Area of Review Section, it is possible that Sun
Pipeline will be injecting 2000 gpm for about two years during the life
of the EDS well at its Inkster Terminal one half mile to the northeast
of the EDS facility. This injection would cause the center of the plume
to be displaced 2,870 feet to the southwest, 141 degrees west of north.
This would drive the southwest edge of the plume 6,069 feet from the
center of EDS' injection. Dispersion would increase this to 16,806
feet. Therefore, the plume could extend more than three miles from the
wells at the end of the projected 20-year operational period. This
distance is within the area of review.
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 added 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 than 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 denser 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 is conservative.
The direction of buoyancy flow is 42 degrees west of north for a
heavier waste and 166 degrees east of north for a lighter waste. EDS
assumed that 100% of the waste to be injected will be a brine with a
specific gravity of 1.22 (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 they 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 those of a heavy waste, 1.22, and the
native brine, the distance of movement due to buoyancy will be greater
to the southeast. The angle of dip must also be considered. The dip to
the southeast is 1.14 degrees and that 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. The distance of updip
movement of the centroid of the plume possible as a result of buoyancy
is 14,792 feet in a direction 166 degrees east of north if the entire
plume is as light as methanol.
Calculations based on the measurements made at the #2-12
well and several others indicated that the rate of flow is 0.4 ft/year
in a northeasterly direction. The effect of regional flow could result
in an additional 4,000 feet of drift plus associated dispersion to the
movement of the waste plume over 10,000 years. Because the direction of
flow is actually somewhat uncertain, 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 updip
movement of the plume centroid is 20,672 feet in a direction 172
degrees east of north.
From that point, an analytical method was used to account for
dispersive spread and project plume movement to the health-based
limits. To make this calculation, the distance the center of the plume
is displaced by regional flow (4,000 feet), the distance the center of
the plume is displaced by buoyancy (14,792 feet), and the distance the
center of the plume might be displaced by the proposed Sun injection
(2,870 feet), each acting alone, are added, for a total distance of
21,662 feet. As explained earlier, the edge of the plume of hazardous
waste is found where the concentration of waste constituents is reduced
to one trillionth of the original concentration. 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 updip direction, the original radius of the
plume (3,199 feet), the distances which the centroid is displaced by
injection through other wells (2,870 feet), regional flow (4,000 feet),
buoyancy (14,792 feet), and the distance added by dispersion must all
be added, taking into account differences in the directions of the
component vectors, including an additional 1,580 feet which SWIFT
modeling indicates should be added to the results determined using the
analytical method. Therefore, the maximum predicted lateral migration
of waste at the EDS site is 52,990 feet (10 miles) in the updip, or
southsoutheast, direction.
EDS used similar methods to calculate the distance of movement in
various directions away from the injection wells. The downdip plume
edge was found to be within 36,158 feet or 6.85 miles of the injection
center in a northwesterly direction. The nearest point of discharge
into a USDW is hundreds of miles to the west. Figure 2 shows the
distances beyond which we can be very certain that the waste will not
spread through a period of 10,000 years. Therefore, EDS has
demonstrated to a reasonable degree of certainty that hazardous
constituents will not migrate vertically out of the injection zone nor
laterally to a point of discharge in a 10,000 year period.

G. Quality Assurance and Quality Control

EDS and its consultants have demonstrated that adequate quality
assurance and quality control plans were followed in preparing the
petition. EPA approved a quality assurance project plan on November 1,
2001. Some changes were made to accommodate changes in plans. These
were reviewed and given informal approval as necessary. EDS followed an
appropriate protocol for locating records for penetrations in the AOR,
for collection and analyses of geologic and hydrogeologic data, for
waste characterization, and for all tasks associated with the modeling
demonstration.

III. Conditions of Petition Approval

In order to receive an exemption from the ban on injection of
certain hazardous wastes, the EDS injection operation must meet the no-
migration standard and the operation must be

[[Page 77991]]

protective of human health and the environment. Federal regulations at
40 CFR 146.13(a) establish the standard for a safe injection pressure.
Region 5 has determined that operation at or below fracture closure
pressure is the best means of assuring that the facility's injection
pressure will be protective of human health and the environment.
Therefore, as a condition of granting this exemption from the ban on
injection of certain hazardous wastes, the EPA will impose 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 Fraconia-
Dresbach, Eau Claire, Mt. Simon, and Precambrian Formations which is
more than 3,900 feet below the surface and less than 4,550 feet, true
vertical depths, below the surface;
(3) The volume of wastes injected in any month through both wells
at the site must not exceed 7,275,780 gallons. This volume will be
calculated each month;
(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. The fracture opening
pressure while injecting waste of the highest density to be allowed was
determined to be 903 psi (gauge) at the well head by tests constructed
during drilling of well #2-12.
(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 only granted while the underlying assumptions
are valid. For instance, if the injection rate at the SPL facility
exceeds 2000 gpm averaged over a period of a year, EDS must run a new
simulation to evaluate the effect.
(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.
There are currently no extraction wells within the AOR, and the
demonstration does not consider the effects of any extraction, such as
the extraction of fluid from the Mt. Simon proposed by the SPL in the
permit application denied by MDEQ. If SPL drills and operates one or
more extraction wells in the AOR, then the conditions under which the
EPA determined the no-migration demonstration to be valid would no
longer exist and the Director will terminate the exemption. EDS would
be prohibited from injection of hazardous wastes and authorization to
inject nonhazardous wastes would probably be withdrawn. EDS would be
allowed to resume injection only if a new demonstration, demonstrating
compliance with the standards of 40 CFR part 148, subpart C were
approved.

Dated: November 15, 2002.
Sally K. Swanson,
Director, Water Division, Region 5.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

[[Page 77992]]

[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TN20DE02.005
[[Page 77993]]
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED]
TN20DE02.006
[[Page 77994]]
[FR Doc. 02-31672 Filed 12-19-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-C

Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994

Notice of Intent To Grant an Exemption for the Injection of Certain Hazardous Wastes to Environmental Disposal Systems, Inc. for Two Injection Wells Located at 28470 Citrin Drive, Romulus, MI

Local Navigation