July 19, 20 & 26, 2001 Public Hearing 

Underground Injection Control Rule 1200-4-6 NAME ORGANIZATION RULE COMMENT (1) David H. Alexander DuPont White Pigment and

Mineral Products Corporationof America 

1200-4-6 General (oral and written)

(1)(a) First, generally, Dupont would like the Division for its foresight in the deimplementation of a strong UIC prostrongly supports the Division in its quest this important program.

1200-4-6-.10(2)(c ) (1)(b) In reviewing the notice for this 

Dupont notes with concern that the Divisioidentify the proposed changes to Rule 12as a variance. This is totally inaccurate, ppicture to the intent of the rule. The proposimilar to that contained in Rule 1200-4-6.

(oral and written)

Both rules are identified as injection deproposed rule is by no means a variance. addresses the subsurface ground water provided in Rule 1200-4-3.07. It’s impDivision not represent the intent of this goal of this rule is to bring uniformity to thwhile maintaining continuity within the Water Pollution Control Divisions. Dsupports the adoption of this rule as propthe Division to proceed with the rule-maki

1200-4-6-.02(50)(c) (1)(c) In reviewing the proposed rule, Du

that in order to maintain appropriate ap1200-4-6-.02(50)( c) needs to be changreference to a Class I injection zrecommends that the current rule be re

(oral and written)

1
reads as follows: 

(50) “Underground source of d

(USDW) means an aquifer or its part that: 

(a) Currently supplies any 

system; or 

(b) contains a sufficient qua

water to supply a publiand 1. currently supplies 

for human consumpt

2. contains fewer than 

total dissolved solids

(c) which is not a portion 

which has been desigDepartment as a Class 

injection zone

. 

(2) Linda Modica Vice Chair State of Franklin 

Group Sierra Club 

1200-4-6-.10(2)(c) (oral) 

(2) (a) My name is Linda Modica. I’m tthe State of Franklin group of the Sierra Cluhomeowner in Washington Co., TN, and owell that is approximately 120 feet deep water. We’ve got an 11-year-old daughtand two adults living in the household. Mis, with the geology of our area being skarst that, and also given the fact that, not Tellford, which is only about 2 miles fthere was a situation where families, families with children, suffered ill health drinking and bathing in their own well cases, it was spring water) that our aramenable to the use of injection disposal ground water. I also brought with me, fowishes to take a copy, a copy of a repo

2
published by the United States Geologica

“Water Quality in the Upper Tennessee And you’ll see in this report, early on, thathe geologists were that our area, well, and valley area is an area of the state whcan be easily contaminated due to thunderlies this region. I think that the, I howill use extreme caution in our region, thmany of us who rely on ground water for purposes and there are also some towns and Elizabethon which rely on wells and cases, where they provide drinking wateAs you have your own little set-up there, in Knox formation the surface water and tcan be connected. The sinkholes can econtaminants to the ground water, and all drinking water. Living in a part of the coof us do, where public supplies are nowon’t be available for a long time. We have to rely on the town of Jonesboroucities to have to provide us with safe drinthink that the current ground water should much as possible. And to that end, the other groups, including water shed watch being formed throughout the region with Tennessee Valley Authority, are workiinforming homeowners and farmers and they can do to protect the land, to protehope that the ridge and valley provinceguidelines that I think the US Geologicwell placed in this report that I’m happy you. It shows that it would be too risky twater in the ridge and valley province to of any type of contaminant to the soil. Th

(3)..Mike Burton Oil & Gas Program 1200-4-6-.10(2)(c)(iii)

(written)

(3) (a) After reading the Propground water in mineral zones u

3
.10(2)( c) under 1 part (iii), 

consideration has been taken fgeology that would be encounterof injection. For example, most bearing zones in Tennessee are joint structure geology. Therewaste should not be injectformations because there would bcontrolled over the migration of the fractures and joints exist limestone formations. These fracare very unpredictable in thehorizontally and vertically. significant number of oil and located in fracture zones, which the surface in the form of collasinkholes. This is particularly trCumberland Plateau area. Oil antend to locate oil or gas near theare successful. Migration of hcould take place to fresh wateperiod of years regardless of taken to prevent contamination. allowing hazardous waste to depleted oil and gas zones is abof injection could work in depletehighly controlled sand formationbut should not be considered fofractured geology that occurs Tennessee. 

(4) Mike Hoyal Assistant State Geologist

State of Tennessee 

1200-4-6-.10(2)(c)(iii) (written)

(4)(a) I have reviewed the above and object to the inclusion of which states zones that are mineror geothermal energy producing for Class I injection. Injecting h

4
into these geologic units could 

impact on Tennessee’s natural resources. Hydrocarbon production and pacross two thirds of the northTennessee. Production occurformations ranging in agPennsylvanian sandstones on tPlateau to the Ordovician carMiddle and East Tennessee. hazardous waste products into tcould have a major impact on the gas in the subsurface and presenproblems if returned to the surfacof these resources. Fresh water commonly occugeologic formations overlyhydrocarbon producing zones, oto two hundred vertical feet. Pwaste injected into these formatiin contamination of fresh water vertical fractures common in horizons. I would strongly recommend d(iii) from these proposed regula(iv) should also be reconsideresame reasons, although I am unfamining of this type used in TenneYour time and attention in appreciated.

5
(5) Gwen Griffith Program Director Tennessee

Environmental Council

1200-4-6 general (written)

(5)(a)The Tennessee Environmental Csubmits comments on proposed regulatioprogram (the Zone Designation for Class issue of state primacy authority relative to The purpose of the UIC program contamination of underground sources of by any type of injection well. TEC beregulations must always uphold this goal objectives. 

(5)(b) TEC opposes allowing injection of into underground locations. It is our unthere are no current Class I injection sitand we believe they should not be allooperations. Class I injections should avoided anywhere near potential underground sources or potential undergrdrinking water. A significant portion of Tupon underground water for drinking wapotential underground water supplies mprotected from even the slightest chance ofrom hazardous waste materials. (5) (c) We oppose all Class I injection However, if this type of injection is to certain designated zones, it is imperativallow for absolutely zero possibility contamination by judicious site restrioptimal operating procedures at the injecamendment (as proposed to Chapter 1200T.C.A. 69-3-105 et seq,) that allows a vawell injection of industrial waste into undsources of any kind should not be promulgIf Class I injection sites are to be allowezones, the promulgated rules must be a

6
about what the allowed zones are and assu

no where near the vital underground wateTennessee or the regionally deformed Tennessee. We suggest wording tharestriction with clear language indicatinspecified counties under 1200-4-6-.10(2)and this will be strictly enforced. 

(6) Frances Lamberts Natural Resources League of 

Woman Voters of Tennessee 

1200-4-6-.10(2)(c) (written)

(6)(a) The UIC program Rule correctly d

100-4-6-.05 that materials to be Injecte

from substances (such as oil, chemical cfound naturally in aquifers, and must not levels or concentrations for characteristiturbidity, etc. For all conditions specifie(i) in this section, prevention of introducmaterial is, rightly, demanded. For suunder (j), i.e. those that are “toxicmutagenic, or teratogenic,” however, a wseems to be allowed, namely that injection the aquifer “to contain” such subs

differentiation in wording between (a)-(i) a lessening of the prevention demand materials. We would ask that toxic/carcinogenic/teratogenic/mutagenic required to be absent from injectate fluid, 

be presumed to not remain (identifiable) 

substrates. A similar distinction appears in the Rule sV wells (1200-4-6-.14). We ask that it well. (6)(b) We are opposed to undergrounhazardous wastes, as appears to be P

allowable (Class I, Class IV wells) in se.06. Although deep injections “beneath 

7
formation” containing drinking wate

mandated, we believe hazardous waste inperilous course. In several states (e.g. Oklahoma), contaminants from such wfound to have entered aquifers used for supply, despite the assumed safety of devery remoteness of the burial strata atechnical difficulty and uncertainty in correcting leakage and spread of contamake hazardous waste off-limits to undeWe believe there is little basis for the expecting ground strata to yield water sawhen shafts are drilled and materials burare known to pose serious threat to humexposure. (6)(c) We would urge the state to require, through incentive mechanisms, speedy industrial hazardous-waste facilities systems which avoid excess of these mateallow their injection underground. Foportion of the state, ground water constipublic drinking water source. It constitreplenishment for half the flow of most strsurface-water public sources. Acontamination threat to ground water mustringently avoided. We consider hainjection to be such potential threat. (6)(d) Notwithstanding our serious resground injection of hazardous materialsUIC Rule contains strong public-notprovisions (e.g. reporting requiremenaccess, surety bond) where indiauthorization applies. We commend the relevant sections of the Rule and hcontinuation in the program under state pr

8
(6)(e) The language in Sect. 4-6

(hazardous waste) Class I clarification/strengthening, however. prohibition of such wells in east and westeessential, since the karst and “uncemenconditions in these regions are highly contaminant containment. The language seems to only prohibit injection of waste into ground water in eastern Tennessee specifying prohibition in other, subsurfwestern Tennessee (1)(d), injection into gbeneath groundwater layers is prohibitsubsurface emplacement is not addressedthese sections clarify that any subsurface 

hazardous materials in the regions wconditions is prohibited. (6)(f) Permit-related sections of the Rjustified requirement, that permittees funding, staffing, and other resources adeexecution of permits. We are aware owould appear to be essential staff (geoloone of the state’s EAC’s and minimal stothers. We have concern, therefore, that 

delegated authority for the UIC progradequacy of manpower and other resourcproper implementation and oversight. (6)(g) We do not clearly understand the Rtreatment of radioactive waste. While w

this waste is stated to be prohibited in Ssuch prohibition is not indicated in Sectwells under jurisdiction of the Departmenpermit requirements. In a later seradioactive waste injection directly into 

into soil strata above it is stated to be 

9
possibility of injection beneath ground wa

proposed, hazardous-waste wells) is not adWe urge prohibition of any underground w

radioactive waste and urge that specificatisections in the Rule be clarified in this reg(6)(h) The League of Women Voters system adequate to make the UIC supporting. We would like to see changes 

of the fee system, however. As now spec6-.15, the fixed fees associated application/maintenance/changes are hvariable use cost is nominal to the poinfee.” There is no incentive, we believholder to be sparing with hazardous wadoing so costs a mere 50 cents per thinjected. With fixed, permit related fees oper year (excluding construction and inpermit) a perverse incentive toward higinstead of minimal-injection use is thereby We urge the state to change the fee structuto remove any motivation for excessive wthe costly permit is in place, high waste in the state’s best interest. In a similar like to see the state provide strong municipalities/industries/developers, for soff avoidance and mitigative approachstormwater injection. 

(7) Barry Sulkins Director Tennessee PEER 1200-4-6-.10(2)(c) 

(written)

(7) (a) We are submitting these commproposed regulations for the UIC progDesignation for Class I wells) and the sassuming primacy from EPA for authorityare opposed to the concept of allowing 

10
Class I wastes into un

derground 

groundwaters, especially into un

dergrou

potential sources of drinki

n

g water. A 

announcing the public hearings contairegarding “

...a new rule change allowi

n

g 

deep well injectio

n of ind

ustrial waste in

sources of 

drin

king waters...,” if this 

proposal to allow such i

njection wh

prohibited, we strongl

y urge that t

his not b

It is our u

n

derstanding that all pre

undergro

und disposal o

perations have 

hope that the state will not allow any to rThe lack of certainties and ability to activities and i

mpacts 

makes such dispo

bad idea and we ho

pe that the state will w

and pro

hibit all injections of this type, an

enact regulations at least as stringent as tho(7) (b) At prese

nt t

he state does no

aut

hority or 

primacy over the UIC pro

understan

d t

hat t

he regulations required, 

syste

m, are i

n place to qualify for de

program. We sup

port this move that wou

primacy and closer oversight. 

We are con

UIC 

positio

ns may go unfilled, thus u

pursuit of pri

macy. The fee system wa

fund the staff to run the program an

d allo

an

d if this is not carried out, efforts 

wasted. The present budget co

ncerns shou

no i

mpact on this matter as t

he fees system 

the state’s portion of the needed funds. expe

n

ded much effort and s

pent many y

itself to assume primacy for this program not now be canceled or further delayedTennessee can do a better job with an in-sit is o

ur view that EPA rarely visits t

11
inconsistent on inspections and enforceme

(7)(c) Specific to the proposed regulatiofollowing suggestions for changes or Regulations for Underground Injection Cpursuant toT.C.A. 69-3-105 et seq. Seemingly are ballow for a variance for deep well injectiwaste into underground sources of drinkiour understanding that this is to be at deptnear-surface aquifer, which should absoluWhile we oppose the injection of this tywaste into all groundwater, if such rules there need to be added restrictions and clato protecting existing uses, we feel it is degrade potable water sources with thindustrial wastes and brines to the point used for drinking in the future. There is risk that the shallow aquifers could be imwell injection depending on the waste bethe care taken in the operation and maiinjection well facility. This amendmunnecessary risk to the environment and promulgated as a rule amendment.If this amendment is to go through, therchange under 1200-4-6-.10(2)( c) “Class Designation. As we understand it, Class operated in areas where the injection specifically designated for that use. To msure that the zone designation for Class I be made in the counties listed under 120.10(2)(b) and that no possibility exists designation to be made for the sands of Wor the regionally deformed rocks of East needs to be an addition. At the end of th

12
“use”, we suggest that “but only in 

specified under 1200-4-6-.10(2)(b)” needs 

(8) Sandra Barber Citizen 1200-4-6

(Oral) 

(8)(a) My name is Sandra Barber. I reside Lane in Knoxville. And this is somewquestion and a comment. I do support the state going for primacy. My own conI might add—do you think that the stissues right now will allow you all to...much involved in the permitting, or concpermitting, but the enforcement. Havinexperience with classified wells, I am about the level of enforcement. Will there presence to allow enforcement of the exisand the new regulations? And I do have to the Class I, of the counties that are aClass I wells. In reading the list of coanything there excluding all the remainithat right now these counties are allownothing saying that any other counties arand if so, why?

13