[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Underground Injection of Hazardous Waste
- Subject: Re: Underground Injection of Hazardous Waste
- From: "Ralph Cooper" <email@example.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 07:18:33 -0500
- List-Name: P2Tech
- Reply-To: "Ralph Cooper" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
I thought this was resolved earlier. I missed putting a sig on the item.
Professor until 1977. AAAS Congressional Science Fellow, 1977-78.
Battelle, 1978-1983, doing EISs on energy and waste related projects, and
related projects. PCB transformer decontamination industry, Corp. Dir. Govt
Affairs, Env., Safety, etc. 1984-85. Environmental management consultant
and seminar instructor, 1985-1996, major focus on reducing environmental and
resource impact of industry and major govt facilities, inc. pollution
prevention. Chaired hazardous materials conference, 1988-1993. Law
student, 1996-99. Just completed the Texas Bar Exam.
Ralph E. Cooper, Ph.D., J.D.
San Antonio, TX 78231
From: Jeff Cantin <email@example.com>
To: firstname.lastname@example.org <email@example.com>; firstname.lastname@example.org
Date: Thursday, August 19, 1999 2:55 AM
Subject: Re: Underground Injection of Hazardous Waste
>Please, everyone, provide your affiliation if you want your postings to be
>taken seriously. This was a helpful response but we can't infer much about
>who email@example.com is or from what experience s/he is speaking.
>At 11:14 AM 8/4/99 -0400, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
>>The basic concept of deep well injection is to use geologic formations of
>>the type that have formerly held oil and gas for thousands of years to
>>permanently trap wastes underground. The requirements include that the
>>waste is to be injected at least 1000 feet below any potential underground
>>source of drinking water, with at least one confining geologic strata (one
>>that is impervious to the waste and not likely to be fractured. Most
>>are more than 5,000 feet deep and many are substantially deeper.
>>In addition, the siting requirements include a surface distance from any
>>drinking water well.
>>Injection wells are triple cased, with the outer casing either cemented or
>>containing gas pressure for leak detection, the middle ring containing gas
>>pressure for leak detection (so that leaks go into the inner casing,
>>than out) and the inner casing used for disposal.
>>>From observation of such operations, my remark is that the risk of other
>>hazardous materials operations is much greater. For example, I think
>>is a greater risk to drinking water from the transportation of gasoline
>>from deep well injection of wastes, given current regulation of the
>>and the limited regulation and high frequency of the transportation of
>>Deep well injection is used primarily for dilute wastes which are very
>>difficult to treat in a cost effective manner, including dilute organics,
>>and acids and bases that have either metal or organic contamination or
>>Keep in mind that the residues of treatment are still legally hazardous
>>waste and cannot be discharged to surface unless delisting has taken
>>Delisting is a very expensive process with not the greatest likelihood of
>>success, and treatment to a level that is likely to result in delisting
>>be prohibitively expensive, however, that should be the goal.
>>Deep well injection is recognized by most users and advocates for it as a
>>temporary solution until better treatment technology is available and a
>>regulatory structure that makes it easier to certify a waste as treated to
>>level appropriate for discharge.
>>Much of the deep well injection in this country is for other purposes,
>>including disposal of brines, such as from oil and gas production, and
>>enhanced recovery operations in oil and gas fields.
>>From: Alvin_McGrath@ci.savannah.ga.us <Alvin_McGrath@ci.savannah.ga.us>
>>To: email@example.com <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>>Date: Tuesday, August 03, 1999 11:38 AM
>>Subject: Underground Injection of Hazardous Waste
>>>I am interested in learining more about these types of injection wells as
>>>noted in the following EPA Federal Register notice. Can anyone on the
>>>help direct me to information on this type of disposal system is supposed
>>>to work? Is there no danger of groundwater contamination? And not one
>>>comment received by the EPA prior to approving this system.
>>>Alvin McGrath, Jr.
>>>---------------------- Forwarded by Alvin McGrath/WaterSewerPlan/SavGa on
>>>08/02/99 02:25 PM ---------------------------
>>>email@example.com@valley.rtpnc.epa.gov on 08/02/99 02:17:19 PM
>>>[Federal Register: August 2, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 147)]
>>>>From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
>>>ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
>>>Underground Injection Control Program Hazardous Waste Injection
>>>Restrictions; Petition for Exemption--Class I Hazardous Waste Injection
>>>AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
>>>ACTION: Notice of final decision on no migration petition reissuance.
>>>SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that an exemption to the land disposal
>>>restrictions under the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments to the
>>>Resource Conservation and Recovery Act has been granted to Rubicon Inc.,
>>>(Rubicon) for four Class I injection wells located at Geismar, Louisiana.
>>>As required by 40 CFR part 148, the company has adequately
>>>demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Environmental Protection Agency
>>>the petition and supporting documentation 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. This final
>>>decision allows the underground injection by Rubicon, of the specific
>>>restricted hazardous wastes identified in the exemption, into four Class
>>>hazardous waste injection well nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 at the Geismar,
>>>Louisiana facility, until December 31, 2025, unless EPA moves to
>>>the exemption under provisions of 40 CFR 148.24. As required by 40 CFR
>>>148.22(b) and 124.10, a public notice was issued May 20, 1999. The public
>>>comment period closed on July 7, 1999. No comments were received. This
>>>decision constitutes final Agency
>>>action and there is no Administrative appeal.
>>>DATES: This action is effective as of July 26, 1999.
>>>ADDRESSES: Copies of the petition and all pertinent information relating
>>>thereto are on file at the following location: Environmental Protection
>>>Agency, Region 6, Water Quality Protection Division, Source Water
>>>Protection Branch (6WQ-S), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
>>>FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Philip Dellinger, Chief Ground Water/
>>>UIC Section, EPA--Region 6, telephone (214) 665-7165.
>>>Oscar Ramirez, Jr.,
>>>Acting Director, Water Quality Protection Division (6WQ).
>>>[FR Doc. 99-19732 Filed 7-30-99; 8:45 am]
>>>BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
>>>Juna Z. Snow
>>>Waste Management & Research Center
>>Juna Z. Snow
>>Waste Management & Research Center
> ______ _____ _____
>| ____| __ \ / ____| Jeff Cantin
>| |__ | |__) | | __ ERG, Inc.
>Eastern Research Group www.erg.com
>| |____| | \ \| |__| | 110 Hartwell Ave.
>|______|_| \_\\_____| Lexington, MA 02424-3136