July 19, 20 & 26, 2001 Public HearingUnderground Injection ControlRule 1200-4-6NAMEORGANIZATIONRULECOMMENTSTAFF RESPONSE(1)David H.AlexanderDuPontWhitePigmentandMineral Products Corporationof America1200-4-6General(oral andwritten)(1)(a) First,generally, Dupontwould like tocomplimentthe Divisionfor its foresight inthedevelopment andimplementationofa strongUICprogram.Dupontstrongly supports the Divisionin its questfor primacy forthis importantprogram.(1)(a) The Division thanks Dupont fortheir support.1200-4-6-.10(2)(c)(1)(b)Inreviewingthe notice for thispublichearing,Dupontnotes withconcern thatthe Divisionhas chosentoidentifytheproposedchanges toRule1200-4-6.10(2)(c)as avariance.This is totally inaccurate,presents awrongpicture tothe intentofthe rule. The proposed language issimilar tothatcontained inRule1200-4-6.11(1)(c).(oral andwritten)Bothrules are identifiedasinjectiondesignation. Theproposedruleisbynomeansa variance.Itappropriatelyaddresses thesubsurface groundwater classification asprovidedinRule 1200-4-3.07.It’s importantthat theDivisionnotrepresentthe intentof thisproposal.Thegoalofthis rule is tobringuniformity tothe UICprogramwhile maintainingcontinuity withintheWaterSupply/Water PollutionControlDivisions.Dupontstronglysupports the adoptionofthis rule asproposed.Weurgethe Divisionto proceedwiththerule-making process.(1)(b) The Division agrees that theterminology used (variance) may havebeen misinterpreted by some.1200-4-6-.02(50)(c)(1)(c) Inreviewing the proposed rule,DuPontrecognizedthat inorder tomaintainappropriate applicability Rule1200-4-6-.02(50)( c)needs tobe changedtoinclude areference toa Class Iinjection zone. DuPontrecommends that thecurrent ruleberevised sothat it(oral andwritten)(1)(c) The Division concurs and hasmade the suggested change to 1200-4-6-.02(50)(c).1readsasfollows:(50)“Undergroundsourceofdrinkingwater”(USDW)means anaquiferorits part that:(a)Currently supplies any public watersystem; or(b)contains a sufficient quantityofgroundwater tosupply a public water system;and1.currentlysupplies drinkingwaterforhuman consumption;or2.contains fewerthan10,000mg/Ltotal dissolvedsolids; and(c)which isnotaportionofanaquiferwhich hasbeen designated bytheDepartmentas aClass Ior Class IIinjectionzone.(2)LindaModicaVice Chair State of FranklinGroup SierraClub1200-4-6-.10(2)(c)(oral)(2) (a) Mynameis Linda Modica.I’mthe vice chairoftheState of Franklingroupofthe Sierra Club. I amalso ahomeowner inWashingtonCo.,TN, andourfamilyuses awellthatisapproximately120 feetdeep for our drinkingwater. We’vegotan11-year-old daughter,variouspets,and two adultsliving inthehousehold. Myconcern todayis,withthe geologyof our areabeingsofracturedandkarstthat, andalso given thefactthat, nottoo longago inTellford, which isonlyabout2miles frommyhouse,therewas asituationwhere families, includingsomefamilies withchildren,suffered ill healtheffectsdue todrinkingandbathing intheir ownwellwater,(insomecases, itwasspring water)that our areamay notbeamenable tothe useof injection disposal directly intothegroundwater.Ialsobroughtwithme, foreveryonewhowishes totakea copy, a copyofa reportjust recently(2) (a) The Division views yourcomment to mean that you areinopposition to the placement of Class Iinjection wells ineast Tennessee. Itwas never the intent of this Divisionto allow the placement of Class Iwells inany other counties than thoselisted in 1200-4-6-.10 (2)(b). Wehave modified the language in theopening paragraph to reflect thischange by adding the following afterthe word“use” inthe second sentence:”only in those counties listed in1200-4-6-.10 (2)(b)”.The Division also understands yourconcern in the placement of shallow2published bythe United States GeologicalSurveycalled“WaterQuality inthe Upper TennesseeRiver Basin.”Andyou’ll see inthis report,early on, that thefindingsofthe geologistswere that our area, well, the entire ridgeand valley areais an areaofthe statewhere the aquiferscan be easily contaminated due tothegeology thatunderlies this region.I thinkthat the,Ihopethat the statewill useextreme caution inourregion, that there are stillmanyof us whorelyongroundwater for drinking waterpurposes and there are alsosometowns including Erwinand Elizabethonwhichrelyonwells andsprings in somecases, where they providedrinkingwatertothe public.Asyou haveyourown littleset-upthere, that shows howinKnoxformationthe surface water and the ground watercan be connected. The sinkholes can easily introducecontaminantstothe ground water, and allof us needcleandrinkingwater.Livinginapartofthecounty, andmanyofus do,where public supplies arenotavailable andwon’tbeavailable for a longtime. Wedon’t wanttohavetorely onthe townof Jonesborough orthe othercities tohavetoprovide uswithsafe drinkingwater.Wethink that the currentgroundwatershouldbe protected asmuch aspossible.And tothat end, theSierraClub andother groups,including watershedwatch groups thatarebeing formed throughouttheregionwiththe helpof theTennessee Valley Authority, are working onprojectsinforminghomeownersand farmers and businesseswhatthey cando toprotect the land, toprotectthe water. Ihope thattheridge andvalleyprovince,following theguidelines thatI thinktheUS Geological Survey verywell placed inthis report that I’mhappy togive to all ofyou.It showsthat it wouldbe toorisky tothe quality ofwater inthe ridgeandvalleyprovince toallow injectionofany typeofcontaminant to the soil. Thankyou.injection systems in your area.(3)..Mike BurtonOil &GasProgram1200-4-6-.10(2)(c)(iii)(written)(3) (a)Afterreading the Proposed Rulesforgroundwater inmineral zones under 1200-4-6-(3)(a) In response to the Division ofGeology’s comments, the division is3.10(2)( c)under 1 part(iii), I feel that noconsiderationhas beentaken for the typeofgeologythatwouldbe encounteredfor thistypeofinjection.For example,most ofyouroilingbearing zonesin Tennesseeare offractureandjoint structure geology. Therefore, hazardouswaste should not beinjected intotheseformationsbecause therewould beabsolutelynocontrolledover the migrationof waste. Mostofthe fractures andjointsexist incarbonatelimestone formations. These fractures and jointsare veryunpredictable intheirextentbothhorizontally andvertically. Inaddition,asignificantnumber ofoilandgaswells arelocated infracturezones, which are expressed atthe surfacein the formof collapse featuresorsinkholes. Thisis particularlytruefor theupperCumberlandPlateau area. Oil andgasoperatorstend to locateoil or gas nearthese featuresandare successful. Migration of hazardouswastecould takeplace tofreshwater zones afteraperiod of yearsregardlessof theprecautionstaken topreventcontamination.Thispolicyofallowing hazardous wasteto beplaced indepletedoilandgas zones isabsurd.Thistypeof injectioncouldworkindepleted saltdomes orhighlycontrolled sandformations inother states,butshouldnotbe consideredfor the limestonefracturedgeology thatoccurs in the State ofTennessee.striking 1200-4-.10(2)(c) 1(iii) and1200-4-.10 (2)(c) 1(iv).(4) MikeHoyalAssistantStateGeologistState of Tennessee1200-4-6-.10(2)(c)(iii)(written)(4)(a) Ihavereviewedtheabovereferencedruleandobject to the inclusion ofSection1.(iii),which states zones thatare mineral, hydrocarbonorgeothermal energy producing are acceptablefor ClassI injection.Injecting hazardouswaste(4)(a) See comment response (3)(a)4intothesegeologic unitscouldhavea severeimpacton Tennessee’snaturalandeconomicresources.Hydrocarbonproduction and potentialoccursacrosstwothirds ofthe northernportion ofTennessee. Productionoccursin geologicformations ranging inage fromthePennsylvanian sandstonesonthe CumberlandPlateau to the Ordovician carbonatesacrossMiddle and EastTennessee. Injection ofhazardous wasteproductsinto these formationscould have amajor impacton theoilandnaturalgas in the subsurface andpresent much greaterproblemsif returnedtothe surface by productionof theseresources.Fresh water commonlyoccurs in youngergeologic formations overlying potentialhydrocarbonproducingzones, oftenwithin onetotwohundredverticalfeet. Pressurized fluidwaste injectedinto theseformations couldresultincontaminationof freshwater zones throughverticalfractures common inthesegeologichorizons.I would stronglyrecommend deleting section(iii) fromthese proposed regulations. Section(iv) should also be reconsideredfor much thesamereasons,although I amunfamiliar with anyminingofthistype usedinTennessee.Yourtimeandattentioninthis matter isappreciated.5(5) Gwen GriffithProgramDirectorTennesseeEnvironmentalCouncil1200-4-6general(written)(5)(a)The Tennessee EnvironmentalCouncilherebysubmitscommentsonproposed regulationsfor theUICprogram(theZone Designationfor ClassIwells) and theissueofstate primacy authority relative tothe EPA.The purposeof the UICprogramis topreventcontamination of undergroundsources ofdrinkingwaterbyany typeofinjectionwell. TEC believes the UICregulations mustalwaysuphold thisgoalabove allotherobjectives.(5)(b)TECopposes allowing injection ofClass Iwastesintoundergroundlocations.Itisour understandingthatthere arenocurrent Class Iinjectionsites inTennesseeand we believe they should not beallowedto resumeoperations.Class I injections shouldespeciallybeavoided anywhere nearpotentialcontactwithunderground sourcesorpotentialunderground sourcesofdrinkingwater.A significantportionofTennessee reliesuponundergroundwaterfordrinkingwatersupply.Allpotential underground water supplies must bestrictlyprotectedfrom eventheslightestchance of contaminationfromhazardous waste materials.(5) (c)We oppose all Class I injectionin Tennessee.However, if this typeof injectionis tobeallowedincertaindesignatedzones, it is imperative that the rulesallowfor absolutely zeropossibility ofgroundwatercontaminationbyjudicioussiterestrictionsandbyoptimaloperating proceduresatthe injection sites. Anyamendment(as proposedtoChapter 1200-4-6pursuanttoT.C.A. 69-3-105 et seq,) thatallows a variance fordeepwell injectionofindustrial waste intoundergroundwatersourcesofanykindshouldnotbepromulgated.If Class I injectionsites are tobeallowedindesignatedzones, the promulgated rulesmustbe absolutelyclear(5)(a) The Division concurs(5)(b) TEC is correct in that thereare no more ClassI wells inoperationin the State. TEC is also correct inthat a significant portion ofTennessee relies upon undergroundwater for drinking water supply. Allpotential underground water suppliesmust be protected from contaminationfrom hazardous waste materials(5)(c) We understand that TEC isopposed to the process of Class Iwells inthe state. TheDivision hasworked to providethe citizens of theState with the most technologicallyacceptable approach to the issues ofClass I well placement. Wehave alsoaddressed the placement of the zonesin response to comment (2) (a)6about what the allowed zonesare and assurethat they arenowhere nearthe vital undergroundwater sands ofWestTennesseeor the regionallydeformedrocks ofEastTennessee. We suggest wording that clarifies thisrestriction withclear languageindicatingthat only thespecified counties under 1200-4-6-.10(2)(b) are allowedand thiswill bestrictly enforced.(6)FrancesLambertsNatural Resources League ofWoman VotersofTennessee1200-4-6-.10(2)(c)(written)(6)(a)The UIC programRule correctlydemands inSect.100-4-6-.05thatmaterials tobeInjectedmustbefreefromsubstances (suchas oil,chemicalconstituents)notfound naturally in aquifers,and must not exceednaturallevels orconcentrationsfor characteristics such as pH,turbidity, etc.For all conditionsspecifiedin(a) through(i) in this section,preventionofintroduction ofharmfulmaterial is, rightly,demanded.For substances listedunder (j), i.e.those that are “toxic, carcinogenic,mutagenic, orteratogenic,” however, a weaker standardseemstobeallowed,namelythat injectionshall notcausetheaquifer“to contain”such substances. Thedifferentiation inwordingbetween (a)-(i) and (j) suggestsa lesseningofthe prevention demand for the lattermaterials.We wouldask thatsubstancesoftoxic/carcinogenic/teratogenic/mutagenic naturealsoberequiredtobeabsentfrominjectate fluid, rather thanonlybepresumedtonotremain(identifiable) in groundwatersubstrates.A similar distinction appearsinthe Rule sectionfor ClassV wells(1200-4-6-.14).Weask thatitbe changed aswell.(6)(b)Weare opposedto underground injectionofhazardous wastes, as appears tobe Proposedtobeallowable(Class I, Class IV wells) insection1200-4-6-.06.Althoughdeepinjections“beneaththe lowermost(6)(a) The comments are addressing1200-4-6.05 theseregulations wereunfortunately not open at this timefor comments but the Division willtake this comment and if the sectionis revisited will address it with you.(6)(b) The deep well disposal methodis monitored as closely as istechnologically possible. TheDivision is not aware ofany cross7formation” containingdrinkingwatersources ismandated,we believe hazardouswaste injection tobe aperilous course. Inseveralstates (e.g. Florida,Texas,Oklahoma), contaminantsfromsuch waste havebeenfoundtohaveentered aquifersusedfordrinkingwatersupply, despite the assumedsafety ofdeepburial. Theveryremoteness of theburialstrataand consequenttechnicaldifficultyand uncertaintyinmonitoringandcorrecting leakageandspreadof contaminantsshouldmake hazardouswaste off-limitstoundergroundburial.We believethere is little basis for theconfidence inexpectinggroundstratatoyield watersafefordrinkingwhenshafts are drilledandmaterials buriedinthemthatare known to pose serious threat to human healthuponexposure.(6)(c)Wewouldurgethe state torequire,and tofacilitatethroughincentivemechanisms, speedy transitionbyindustrial hazardous-waste facilities toclosed-loopsystems which avoid excessof these materials, and tonotallow their injectionunderground.Forasignificantportionofthe state, groundwater constitutes the direct,public drinkingwater source. Itconstitutes source andreplenishment forhalf theflowofmost streams which aresurface-water public sources.Anypotentialcontamination threat togroundwater must thereforebestringentlyavoided.Weconsiderhazardouswasteinjectiontobesuchpotentialthreat.(6)(d) Notwithstanding ourseriousreservationsaboutground injectionof hazardous materials, the proposedUIC Rule contains strongpublic-notice and otherprovisions(e.g. reportingrequirements,monitoringaccess, suretybond)where individualpermitauthorizationapplies.Wecommendthe Divisionfor therelevant sectionsof theRule and hope for theircontinuation intheprogramunder stateprimacy.contamination from any of the previouswells in the state. The Division isalso unaware of other states that havehad contamination from Class Ifacilities and would request that ifyou have any information that thestate bemade aware where copies couldbe obtained.(6)(c) These ideas should bebroachedwith Economic and CommunityDevelopment.(6)(d) The Division appreciates yoursupport.8(6)(e) Thelanguage inSect.4-6-.10,regarding(hazardouswaste) ClassI wellsneedsclarification/strengthening, however.Webelieveprohibitionof suchwellsineastandwesternTennesseeisessential, since the karst and “uncemented sand” soilconditions inthese regions are highly unfavorable tocontaminantcontainment.The language inthissectionseems toonlyprohibitinjectionofwastefluidsdirectlyintogroundwater ineastern Tennessee(1)( c)withoutspecifyingprohibition in other, subsurface strata.Inwestern Tennessee (1)(d), injectionintogroundwaterandbeneathgroundwaterlayersis prohibited butshallowsubsurfaceemplacement is notaddressed.Weask thatthese sectionsclarify thatanysubsurfaceemplacementofhazardous materials in theregionswith these soilconditions isprohibited.(6)(f) Permit-related sections ofthe Rulecontain thejustifiedrequirement, that permitteesmust maintainfunding, staffing, andotherresources adequatetoproperexecutionofpermits. Weare aware of lack of whatwould appeartobe essentialstaff (geologist) in at leastoneof the state’s EAC’s and minimalstaffinglevelsinothers.Wehave concern, therefore,thatthestateunderdelegated authorityfor theUICprogrambe assuredadequacy ofmanpower and other resourcesnecessaryforproperimplementation and oversight.(6)(g)Wedonotclearly understandthe Rule’sproposedtreatmentofradioactivewaste. While well injectionforthis waste isstatedtobeprohibitedin Sect. 4-6-0.3(2),suchprohibitionisnotindicatedinSect.4-6-06(4),i.e.wells underjurisdiction of the Departmentand subject topermitrequirements. Ina later section, 4-6-.13,radioactive wasteinjectiondirectlyintogroundwater,orintosoilstrataaboveit isstatedtobeprohibitedbut(6)(e) See response (2)(a)(6)(f) The referred requirements areplaced on the discharger not the State(6)(g) The discharge of radioactivewaste into or above the uppermostdrinking water aquifer is referred toas a Class IV welland is illegal inboth Federal and State regulations.9possibility ofinjectionbeneathgroundwater layers(as forproposed, hazardous-wastewells)is not addressed.We urge prohibitionofanyundergroundwellinjectionofradioactivewaste and urge thatspecification in applicablesectionsintheRule beclarifiedin thisregard.(6)(h)The LeagueofWomen Voters supports afeesystemadequate tomakethe UIC programselfsupporting.We wouldlike toseechangestothestructureof thefee system, however.As now specified in Sect.4-6-.15, thefixed feesassociatedwithpermitapplication/maintenance/changesare highwhilethevariableuse costisnominal tothepointalmostof“nofee.” There isno incentive,we believe,for a permitholder to be sparing withhazardous waste burial whendoingsocosts a mere 50centsper thousandgallonsinjected.With fixed, permit relatedfees ofat least $7,500per year (excludingconstructionand initial operationalpermit) a perverse incentive towardhigh injectionuseinsteadofminimal-injection use is thereby created.Weurge the state to change the fee structure inways soastoremove anymotivationforexcessivewaste burial,oncethe costly permitis in place,high waste burial not beinginthe state’sbest interest.Inasimilar vein, we wouldlike to seethe state provide strongincentives tomunicipalities/industries/developers,for stormwater runoff avoidanceand mitigative approaches, ratherthanstormwater injection.(6)(h) Insome areas of the state theonly option for stormwater drainage isthrough karst systems. Otherareas ofthe state do not have adequate seweror stormsewer systems to all parts ofthe area to cover the expandingeconomic growth and in thoseareas theonly alternative is subsurfacedisposal.The State has set what it feels areadequate fees to supply the workingcapitol for thestaff of the UICprogram in combination with EPAprimacy money to operate intheir taskof protecting the ground waterresources of the State.(7) BarrySulkinsDirectorTennessee PEER1200-4-6-.10(2)(c)(written)(7) (a)Weare submittingthese comments regardingproposedregulations for the UICprogram(the ZoneDesignation for Class I wells) and the state’s plans forassuming primacyfromEPAfor authority. Ingeneral weare opposedtothe concept ofallowingthe injectionof(7)(a) The statethanks you for yourconcern.10Class I wastes intoundergroundlocations andgroundwaters, especially intoundergroundsources orpotentialsourcesofdrinkingwater.A publicnoticeannouncing the publichearings contained a footnoteregarding “...anew rulechange allowinga variancefordeepwell injectionof industrial waste into undergroundsourcesofdrinkingwaters...,” if this ismeaningaproposal toallow suchinjectionwhere it is nowprohibited,westronglyurge thatthisnotbeapproved.Itisour understanding thatallprevious Class Iundergrounddisposaloperations have ceased and wehopethat thestate will notallow any toresumeorbegin.The lackofcertainties and ability tocontrol suchactivitiesand impactsmakessuchdisposal operationsabad idea andwe hopethat the state will workto eliminateand prohibit all injectionsofthis type,andat a minimumenact regulations at least asstringent asthose of theEPA.(7) (b) Atpresentthe state does nothaveprimaryauthorityorprimacyover the UICprogram,and weunderstandthatthe regulations required,includinga feesystem, are inplace to qualify for delegationof theprogram.Wesupportthismove thatwouldgive the stateprimacy and closeroversight.Weare concerned that stateUICpositionsmay gounfilled,thusunderminingthepursuitofprimacy. The fee systemwas developed tofundthe stafftoruntheprogramandallow forprimacy,andif this is notcarriedout, effortswill havebeenwasted. Thepresentbudget concernsshould havelittle orno impacton thismatter as the fees systemshouldprovidethestate’s portion ofthe neededfunds. Thestate hasexpended much effortand spentmanyyears positioningitself toassume primacy for this programandit shouldnotnowbecanceled orfurther delayed.WefeelthatTennessee cando a better job withan in-state presence, asit isourview that EPA rarely visitsthe state andis7)(b) The state appreciates yoursupport11inconsistentoninspectionsandenforcement.(7)(c)Specific tothe proposedregulations, weofferthefollowingsuggestionsfor changes or clarifications.Regulations for UndergroundInjection Chapter1200-4-6pursuanttoT.C.A.69-3-105 etseq. Seeminglyare being changed toallow for avariance for deepwell injectionof industrialwaste intoundergroundsources ofdrinkingwaters. Itisourunderstanding thatthisistobe atdepthandnever inanear-surface aquifer,which should absolutely be the case.While weoppose the injectionofthis typeofindustrialwaste into all groundwater, ifsuchrules are put inplacethere needtobeadded restrictions and clarity. In additiontoprotecting existing uses,wefeel it is short sightedtodegrade potable water sources withthe injectionofindustrial wastes andbrinestothe point they cannot beusedfordrinkinginthe future. There is alsosignificantrisk thatthe shallow aquiferscouldbe impactedbydeepwellinjectiondependingon the waste beinginjectedandthe care takeninthe operation and maintenanceof theinjectionwell facility. This amendment poses anunnecessaryrisk totheenvironmentandshouldnotbepromulgated asa ruleamendment.If this amendment is togothrough, there needs tobeachange under 1200-4-6-.10(2)(c)“Class I Injection ZoneDesignation.As we understandit,Class Iwellsmaybeoperated inareas where the injection zone hasbeenspecificallydesignated for thatuse. Tomake absolutelysurethat the zonedesignationfor ClassIwells canonlybemadeinthe counties listedunder1200-4-61200-4-6-.10(2)(b) and thatnopossibility exists for a ClassIdesignation tobe made for the sands ofWestTennesseeortheregionallydeformed rocksofEastTennessee thereneeds tobean addition. At the endofthesentencewith(7)(c) See response (2)(a)12“use”, we suggestthat“butonlyinthose countiesspecified under 1200-4-6-.10(2)(b)”needs to beadded.(8) SandraBarberCitizen1200-4-6(Oral)(8)(a) Mynameis Sandra Barber. Ireside at728 GenesisLaneinKnoxville. Andthis is somewhere betweenaquestion and acomment. I do supportwhole-heartedlythe state goingfor primacy.Myown concernorquestionI might add—do you think that the state’s budgetaryissuesright now will allow you all to.... I amnotsomuch involvedinthepermitting,orconcerned aboutthepermitting, butthe enforcement.Havinghad personalexperience withclassifiedwells, I amveryconcernedabout the levelofenforcement. Will there be anadequatepresence toallow enforcement ofthe existingregulationsandthenewregulations?And I dohavea question,backto the Class I, of the counties that are allowed to haveClass Iwells. In readingthe listofcounties, is thereanythingthere excludingall the remainingcounties, inthat right now these counties are allowed but there’snothingsayingthatanyothercounties are notpermitted,and if so, why?(8)(a) The state appreciates yoursupport. The fees that are proposedin these regulations will support theUIC program actions. The Class Icounties are addressed in response(2)(a)13