Energy and Environment Monitor

Current News: Coal Slurry injection in West Virginia

A current topic in the news is the injection of Coal Slurry into abandoned underground mines in West Virginia.  Currently, there are 15 active locations and a potential of 65 additional inactive locations utilized before the current permitting process was implemented.  A new bill has been introduced to West Virginia legislatures about this specific topic. 

Members of the West Virginia Senate introduced Bill 568 on March 12, 2009.  Senate Bill 568 proposes prohibiting any approval of new permits or permit modifications for underground injection of coal slurry until scientific studies determine the underground injection of coal slurry is not harmful to the environment or human health.  According to the introduced text of the bill, the studies are required by Committee Substitute for Senate Concurrent Resolution 15, dated March 9, 2007.

 

In my most recent blog, I spoke of regulation of injection wells and a different application, carbon sequestration.  The concept of injection wells and injecting slurry into abandoned underground mines is very similar.  Professionals utilize tools such as geologic modeling and groundwater studies to ensure that the location and amount of deposition is appropriate and adequately contained.  An integral part of the site selection is based on impenetrable “cap” rock layers.  These layers provide boundaries and buffers between storage areas and zones holding groundwater.  Geologically speaking, these are the same layers which have been necessary in the formation, accumulation, and storage of the natural gas fields of West Virginia.  In reference to utilizing underground abandoned mines for storage of coal slurry, similar to the impenetrable zones being necessary for the formation of natural gas, specific conditions are necessary for the formation and hence the presence of coal beds in West Virginia.  It is these same voids left when the coal is removed that have been utilized in storing of a byproduct of processing this coal.

With all of this said, the Earth is a dynamic environment.  A dynamic environment by definition constantly changes and evolves because of multiple influences.   It is imperative that when looking at a scenario of potential cause and effect relationships that all possible scenarios are investigated properly.  

 

Please click on the link below for access to the full text of Senate Bill 568 as introduced.

https://www.legis.state.wv.us/bill_status/bills_text.cfm?billdoc=sb568 intr.htm&yr=2009&sesstype=RS&i=568

 

This article was authored by Rachel Shanteau, Acacia Environmental Group LLC. For more information on the author see here.

EPA Proposes to Find CO2 is a Danger to Public Health

The Environmental Protection Agency has sent a proposal to the White House finding that carbon dioxide is a danger to public health.  This finding, if it becomes final, could result in the implementation of the Clean Air Act to enforce regulation of CO2 as a pollutant.  Discussion is now ongoing about whether EPA will be forced to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act or if this is a political move to force Congress to quickly address greenhouse gases from the perspective of addressing climate change.  President Obama has referred Congress to a cap and trade program for greenhouse gases.

 

What happens if the Clean Air Act is triggered?  Some believe EPA will be required to establish a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (“NAAQS”) for CO2.  If EPA proposes a human health standard, then there would be 10 years maximum to achieve attainment.  Depending upon the level of the standard, the entire country could be designated as non-attainment.  The result would be the imposition of nonattainment new source review (“NSR”) triggering the achievement of Lowest Achievable Emission Rates (“LAER”) and offsets.  Also, at issue would be how a state could maintain attainment or cure nonattainment of a globally circulating pollutant.  The Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“PSD”) program and nonattainment New Source Review (“NSR”) would trigger permitting thresholds of 250 tpy/100 tpy respectively.  Very small sources would be caught by those thresholds to include office buildings, resulting in a massive permitting burden for regulators.

 

EPA may choose to establish a higher threshold, prioritize, use a “general permit” system, or create a “presumptive BACT”.

 

Administrator Lisa Jackson has stated, “Based upon my current knowledge, I do believe the CAA leaves EPA discretion, in the event of regulating greenhouse gas emissions under the Act, to do so in a way that does not necessitate direct regulation of all emissions sources regardless of their size.”

 

No doubt, litigation will ensue to test all of these issues and more.

 

This article was authored by Kathy G. Beckett, Jackson Kelly PLLC, (304) 340-1019 or

kbeckett@jacksonkelly.com. For more information on the author see here.

GE Loses Constitutional Challenge to CERCLA §106 Orders

Under CERCLA once EPA identifies a hazardous site and has identified potentially responsible parties (“PRPs”) it generally initiates negotiations with the PRP’s to achieve clean up.  If negotiations fail EPA has several options.  It may clean up the site itself and recover clean up costs from the PRP’s.  It may seek a court order compelling clean up by a PRP.  Another option is for EPA to issue a unilateral administrative order (UAO) to a PRP for clean up under CERCLA §106.

A PRP receiving a UAO may comply, or if the PRP believes it is not responsible may refuse to comply.  If the PRP complies it may seek reimbursement from other PRP’s or EPA upon completion of the clean up.  If the PRP does not comply, EPA may seek two kinds of monetary penalties.  If PRP lacks sufficient cause and willfully violates the Order then EPA may seek a fine of $32,500 for each day of non-compliance.  EPA may also seek punitive damages up to three times the amount of any costs incurred as a result of the PRP’s failure to take proper action.

            In General Electric Company v. Jackson, 2009 WL 169437, (D.D.C. Jan. 27, 2009), General Electric Company challenged EPA’s administration of Section 106 claiming that EPA’s pattern and practice of issuing UAOs without a prior hearing violated the due-process requirements of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.  Over the years General Electric had never refused to comply with a UAO.

            General Electric’s main argument was that due process required a trial-type hearing for non-emergency “accusatory” agency decisions.  The court applied the balancing tests for such claims dictated by the United States Supreme Court in Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976).  The test involved a balancing of the private interest, the public interest and the risk of error to determine whether existing procedures regarding UAOs satisfied constitutional due process requirements.

            The Court relied upon a substantial record generated in discovery including expert opinions.  As the Court noted, the private interest depends on whether or not the PRP complies with UAO.  Based on the evidence, the Court concluded that the costs of compliance average $4 million and the deprivation—that is the time elapsed before PRP obtains contribution—is three years.  If the PRP does not comply with the UAO the evidence was inconclusive as to the quantum and length of deprivation.  However, the Court concluded both were substantial and, although only financial, normally may be large enough to have collateral effects on operations.

            The EPA asserted that the government had an interest in ordering emergency clean ups.  After reviewing the evidence which showed several years generally elapse between identification of the site and a UAO, the Court concluded the EPA does not issue UAOs in emergency situations.

            The Court was more receptive to EPA’s claim of a substantial financial and administrative interest in preserving its current procedure given the number of CERCLE UAOs it issues.  The Court concluded even minimal additional process would tax EPA’s resources.  As to the risk of error, the Court looked to the actual errors (five) made by EPA in issuing UAOs under Section 106 over 26 years to conclude that the risk was low.

            In determining that the balancing of these factors would not render the UAO procedure unconstitutional the Court determined:

(a)        Because of the number of UAOs a pre-issuance hearing by a presiding EPA officer would constitute a substantial financial and administrative cost to EPA. 

(b)        Because of the low number of historic errors made by EPA in issuing UAOs a pre-decision hearing by an EPA officer would not significantly reduce the risk of error.

(c)        The size and nature of the impacted private interests was not so great as to justify a large increase in government costs which would achieve only marginal improvement in the rate of error.

            Accordingly, the Court held that a pre-decision hearing before an agency officer was not constitutionally required.  The Court finally noted that the analysis does not change if the pre-decision hearing would be before an Administrative Law Judge.

This article was authored by James R. Snyder, Jackson Kelly PLLC. For more information on the author see here.

Times Are Tough, But Not at USEPA – Proposed Budget Up 34% plus Added Stimulus Money and New Excise Tax

On February 26, 2009, the Obama administration proposed a budget of $10.5 billion for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  The proposed fiscal year (FY) 2010 budget would be the largest in the agency’s 39-year history, and a whopping increase of $3 billion from 2008 funding levels.  That amounts to a 40% funding increase over 2008, and a 34% increase over the “2009 likely enacted level”.  Recession?… not at EPA.

 

EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson is obviously pleased with the proposed spending level for her Agency: 

 

“The president’s budget proposes critical resources to protect the American people and the places where they live, work and play.  We are no longer faced with the false choice of a strong economy or a clean environment.  With these proposed resources, and the president’s strong environmental agenda, it should be overwhelmingly clear that EPA is back on the job.”

 

If the proposed FY2010 budget windfall wasn’t enough good news for the nation’s chief environmental regulators, earlier last month President Obama announced that as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, there would be an additional $7.22 billion for EPA-administered projects and programs.

 

The EPA lists the following “funding highlights” of their proposed budget:

 

• Provides $3.9 billion for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, an unprecedented Federal commitment to water infrastructure investment in the United States. 

• Provides $475 million for a new Environmental Protection Agency-led, interagency Great Lakes restoration initiative, which will target the most significant problems in the region, including invasive aquatic species, non-point source pollution, and contaminated sediment.

• Funds the Agency’s operating budget, which comprises its core regulatory, research, and enforcement activities, at $3.9 billion, the highest level ever.

• Provides over $1.1 billion in grants for States and Tribes to administer environmental programs.

Superfund Excise Tax

While EPA’s wallet will be quite fat indeed, it seems that the private sector’s wallets will be shrinking due to EPA’s plan to reinstate Superfund excise taxes that expired in 1995.   The taxation target is oil and chemical producers.  EPA plans to collect over $1 billion to clean up the Nation’s most toxic, contaminated sites within the Superfund program, although another news source pegged the expected amount to be $6.6 billion by 2014.  The reinstated excise taxes will not begin until 2011, when EPA expects the economy to have sufficiently recovered to absorb this added financial burden.

 

For further details on EPA’s FY2010 budget and policy priorities, see the following web sites:

https://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/F34F79B60FCDF4EB852575690068995B https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2010_new_era/Environmental_Protection_Agency1.pdf

https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=awFmri0ADH58&refer=home

 

This article was excerpted from publically available information, and was authored by Rick Wilson, Acacia Environmental Group LLC.  For more information on the author see here.

EPA Issues Information Request Letters to Electric Utilities

            On March 9, 2009, EPA issued Information Request Letters to electric utilities that have surface impoundments or similar units that contain coal combustion residuals.  EPA estimates there may be as many as 300 such units.  These information requests are issued under the authority of Section 104(e) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. 9604(e).  The statute provides that whenever the Agency has reason to believe that there may be a release or a threat of release of a pollutant or contaminant, it may require any person who has or may have information to furnish information or documents relating to the matter, including the identification, nature, and quantity of materials which have been or are generated, treated, stored or disposed at the facility and the nature or extent of a release or a threatened release.  The requests must be fully responded to within ten days of receipt.

 

            The letters request information to assist EPA in evaluating the structural integrity of these management units.  The letters request information such as:

 

• the potential hazard rating for each unit, who established the rating, the basis for the rating, and the federal or state agency responsible for regulating the unit;
• the year each unit was commissioned and expanded;
• what materials are contained in the unit;
• whether a Professional Engineer is or was involved in the design, construction, or safety monitoring of the unit;
• information regarding company initiated safety inspections of the units;
• information regarding state or federal agency initiated safety inspections of the units;
• known safety issues regarding the units;
• the surface area and total storage capacity of the units;
• a brief history of known spills from the units; and
• the identity of the current legal owners and operators of the units. 

            EPA, working closely with other federal agencies and the states, will review the information provided by the facilities to identify impoundments or similar units that need priority attention.  As part of this assessment effort, EPA will also be visiting many of these facilities to see first hand that the management units are structurally sound.  EPA will require appropriate remedial action at any facility that is found to pose a risk for potential failure. The assessment and analysis of all such units located at electric utilities in the U.S. will be compiled in a report and made available to the public.

 

            The letters are a response to last year’s massive coal ash spill at a Tennessee Valley Authority facility in Kingston, Tennessee.  The December 2008 release of 1.1 billion gallons of coal ash from TVA's Kingston, Tennessee facility flooded more than 300 acres of land, damaging homes and property.  Coal ash from the release flowed into the Emory and Clinch rivers, filling large areas of the rivers and killing fish.  TVA cost estimates for the clean-up range between $525 million and $825 million, which does not include long-term cleanup costs.

 

This article was co-authored by Kevin McGuire and Mary Beth Naumann, Jackson Kelly PLLC. For more information on the authors see (McGuire) here and (Naumann) here. 

 

Sierra Club Takes U.S. EPA to Court on Its Revisions to the Definition of Solid Waste

            U.S. EPA is back in court defending its final Revisions to Definition of Solid Waste (DSW Rule or Rule) that the agency published on October 30, 2008 (73 Fed. Reg. 64668).  The final Rule took effect December 29, 2008.  Thirty days later, Sierra Club filed a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit styled Sierra Club v. EPA, No. 09-1041 (D.C. Cir.). The following day, January 29, 2009, Sierra Club petitioned U.S. EPA for reconsideration and requested that the agency stay implementation of the Rule.  Sierra Club’s petition for reconsideration provides insight into its likely arguments before the D.C. Circuit.

            In its petition for reconsideration, Sierra Club claims that U.S. EPA “rushed[ed] to publish” the DSW Rule, resulting in a vague and unenforceable Rule.  Further, Sierra Club asserts that U.S. EPA arbitrarily and capriciously ignored the significant adverse impacts to health and the environment that Sierra Club maintains will be caused by the Rule’s removal of fundamental protections required by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).  In support of its claims, Sierra Club advances both policy and legal arguments.

            For its policy arguments, Sierra Club asserts that the DSW Rule substantially increases threats to public health and the environment without producing compensatory benefits.  To support this policy argument, Sierra Club relies heavily upon U.S. EPA’s January 11, 2007 Assessment of Environmental Problems Associated with Recycling of Hazardous Secondary Materials (2007 Environmental Assessment).  That study identifies 208 cases of damage at facilities that recycle hazardous waste or that store hazardous waste prior to recycling, including the Red Jacket Salvage Yard in West Virginia.  As evidence that U.S. EPA rushed to finalize the Rule, Sierra Club emphasizes that U.S. EPA’s search for damage cases was not “exhaustive” and that U.S. EPA admits that “there are likely to be a significant number of additional relevant cases that [U.S. EPA] did not identify.” To support its claims of increased threats, Sierra Club argues that only nine of the 208 cases involve damage that occurred at recycling facilities under RCRA Part B Permits and that U.S. EPA acknowledges that off-site recycling is inherently more dangerous than recycling on site.  Sierra Club uses statistics from U.S. EPA’s 2007 Environmental Assessment to argue that facilities operating without RCRA Permits are far more likely to cause damage, off-site hazardous waste recycling facilities constitute the great majority of the damage cases, and transfer facilities or “middlemen” represent another significant percentage of the contaminated sites.  As further illustration of its position, Sierra Club notes that the remedial response costs for the damage cases identified by U.S. EPA exceeded $200 million. 

            Sierra Club also argues that the DSW Rule does not account for the instability of recycling markets, and maintains that current financial conditions increase the risk of hazardous waste abandonment.  Sierra Club notes that a third of the damage cases identified by U.S. EPA in its 2007 Environmental Assessment resulted from abandonment of hazardous waste before recycling due to economic pressures. 

            According to Sierra Club, the DSW Rule will not substantially increase hazardous waste recycling.  Sierra Club point to U.S. EPA’s Regulatory Impact Analysis, which indicates that the Rule will result in only 23,000 tons per year in additional hazardous waste recycling or a 1.1% increase above 2005 levels.  Sierra Club further asserts that the economic benefits of the DSW Rule are small and accrue solely to deregulated industries.   Sierra Club asserts that the average economic benefit each such facility can expect, assuming the correctness of the high side of U.S. EPA’s economic benefit range, is less than $17,000 annually, which Sierra Club calls a “tiny fraction” of the revenue of “multi-million dollar companies”.  According to Sierra Club, good hazardous waste recycler jobs could be lost, too.

            In addition to its policy arguments, Sierra Club maintains that the DSW Rule is unlawful. Sierra Club maintains that the DSW Rule should be repealed under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) for two primary reasons.  First, Sierra Club challenges the Rule for vagueness, asserting U.S. EPA failed to define “contained” and “significant release”.  Sierra Club emphasizes the comments of states and industry urging U.S. EPA to define the word “contained,” which is found in virtually every provision of the Rule that excludes hazardous secondary materials destined for recycling from the definition of solid waste.  Because the word “contained” is not defined in the Rule, Sierra Club argues that there is no intelligible standard that establishes compliance with the Rule.  Sierra Club says that U.S. EPA’s attempt to clarify the meaning of “contained” in the preamble by stating that the word means “placed in a unit that controls the movement of the material out of the unit into the environment,” 73 Fed. Reg. 64748, did not solve the problem because U.S. EPA set no standards for what counts as “control”.  Sierra Club also complains that the preamble does not provide any criteria for what counts as a “significant release” while providing that a “significant release” of hazardous secondary materials from a “containment unit” to the environment transforms the hazardous secondary materials, both the materials released and those still in the containment unit, into hazardous waste.  Id. at 64681.   

            For its second argument why the DSW Rule should be repealed under the APA, Sierra Club argues that the administrative record does not support U.S. EPA’s conclusion that the DSW Rule would have no environmental impact.  Sierra Club complains that U.S. EPA has not provided a “reasonable explanation why damage would not occur again and at greater frequency under the Rule.” Sierra Club also challenges U.S. EPA’s failure to conduct an environmental justice analysis based on its determination that there is no net environmental impact.

            For additional information concerning Sierra Club’s challenge to U.S. EPA revisions to the definition of solid waste, contact Gale Lea Rubrecht at 304-340-1200 or galelea@jacksonkelly.com.

This article was authored by Gale Lea Rubrecht, Jackson Kelly PLLC. For more information on the author see here.

One Cleanup Program – A Rational USEPA Initiative

Beginning in the 1970s, the federal government began to enact a series of environmental regulations that included provisions that addressed the cleanup of properties that had become contaminated due to historic or recent activities.  Examples of these cleanup programs included the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA: also known as Superfund); the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Corrective Action Program; the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA); and the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Corrective Action programs.  In addition, many states adopted counterpart statutes as part of obtaining primacy of these federal programs at the state level.  In addition, in the 1980s and 1990s, many states began to enact state brownfields and voluntary cleanup programs.  As these various federal and state programs matured and evolved over time, differences began to become apparent between the programs, in particular, their methodologies used to achieve remedial cleanup and hopefully, the ultimate redevelopment and reuse of formerly contaminated properties. 

One result of these differences that have developed between the programs is that situations can arise where adjacent properties with the same types of contamination can ultimately be cleaned up to significantly different levels based on which environmental program was used to perform the cleanup.  For example, groundwater often has elevated concentrations of benzene at former gasoline stations in the United States.  As reported by the federal Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry (ATSDR), benzene is a known carcinogenic chemical compound that is associated with releases of gasoline to the environment.  Under a state leaking underground storage tank (LUST) corrective action program, groundwater at these LUST sites is often required to be cleaned up to federal and/or state drinking water standards.  For benzene, this clean up standard is 5 parts per billion.  However, under a state brownfields or voluntary cleanup program, the same benzene contamination in groundwater will likely not need to be remediated to anywhere near as low a concentration, and elevated concentrations of benzene often are permitted by the state regulatory agency to remain in groundwater at concentrations of up to several thousand parts per billion.  Numerous other such examples could be cited.

In a practical sense, what does this difference mean to an entity responsible for cleaning up this LUST site?  Under the state LUST corrective action program scenario, cleanup of groundwater typically requires implementing active remediation programs that can require several years to complete at costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars.  The same LUST site, if cleaned up under a state brownfields or voluntary cleanup program scenario, can often be successfully remediated and placed back into productive use in a six month period at a cost that often ranges from fifty to seventy-five thousand dollars.  As has been noted by the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce in its 2008 Policy Issue paper entitled One Cleanup Program – Uniform Standards for Environmental Remediation, “these inconsistent standards have lead to uncertainty and questioning by both the regulated community and the public.”

In an effort to rectify the different methodologies incorporated into the cleanup of contaminated properties under the current patchwork of federal and state programs, in 2003 the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) adopted the “One Cleanup Program” initiative.  The goals and objectives of this USEPA initiative are described in a policy paper that is available at www.epa.gov/oswer/onecleanupprogram/.  Overall, the USEPA stated that the One Cleanup Program initiative is designed to “improve the coordination, speed, and effectiveness of cleanups” and to achieve the following programmatic goals:

·        More consistent and effective cleanups.

·        Clear and more useful information about cleanups.

·        Better cross-program performance measures.

The initiative involves USEPA cleanup programs dealing with brownfields, federal facilities, leaking underground storage tanks, RCRA, and Superfund.  Consistent with this initiative, several states have pursued authorization from the USEPA of their own state-level One Cleanup Programs.  One state that has successfully obtained USEPA approval of its One Cleanup Program is Wisconsin, which received approval on December 6, 2006 of its program in the form of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between USEPA Region V and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

At present, both the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) are negotiating MOAs with USEPA Region III to authorize One Cleanup Programs for these states.  A consistent theme amongst all three state programs is the use of each state’s brownfields/voluntary cleanup program and their risk based cleanup standards to develop site-specific cleanup levels at properties being remediated.  Typically, site-specific standards reflect both the current and future land-use at a property (e.g., residential versus industrial) and are an integral component of developing realistic cleanups of contaminated properties.

In summary, the WVCOC in their Policy Issues paper clearly enumerates the benefits of the USEPA Once Cleanup Program initiative and the value, not only to West Virginia, but to the nation as a whole as follows:

“The citizens of our state will be better served by the elimination of inconsistent cleanup standards and by assurance that when a site is remediated it meets all statutory and regulatory requirements established by both state and federal agencies.  Business in West Virginia will benefit through expedited cleanups and by reducing the uncertainties where multiple environmental programs may apply to a site.  The state’s economy will benefit by having more properties that may have been cleaned up and are available for productive reuse.”

This article was authored by Greg Tieman, Acacia Environmental Group LLC. For more information on the author see here. 

EPA Issues Proposed GHG Reporting Rules

            On March 10, 2009, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) released its draft Greenhouse Gas (“GHG”) reporting rules, setting mandatory reporting requirements for emissions sources, fossil fuel producers, and vehicle and engine manufacturers for calendar year 2010.  The proposed rules would require facilities that annually emit more than 25,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide or carbon dioxide equivalents to begin collecting emissions data on January 1, 2010 and submit annual reports starting in 2011.  EPA predicts nearly 13,000 facilities would be affected by the proposed rules, though small business and livestock operations are expected to fall under the reporting threshold.  The rules would, however, apply to a wide variety of stationary sources, including power plants and upstream producers of coal, coal-based liquid fuels, petroleum products, or any other producers, importers, or exporters of GHG’s.  The average cost of reporting under the proposed rules is estimated by EPA to be 4 cents per metric ton.  This would result in a minimum reporting cost of $1,000 for facilities meeting the threshold reporting requirement.

 

            EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Reporting rules are the result of congressional directive issued as part of the fiscal year 2008 spending bill, which was approved at the end of 2007.  The rules are a precursor to the economy-wide cap-and-trade system designed to take effect in 2012.  The data gleaned from this registry will be used by the government to set values for the cap and trade system.  EPA stated that it developed the reporting rules using principals already in existence in other greenhouse gas reporting programs and guidance documents, such as the Department of Energy’s 1605(b) Voluntary Reporting Program, the Climate Registry, and RGGI.  

 

            Two public hearings will be held.  The first will be on April 6 – 7 in Arlington, Virginia, and the second will be on April 16, in Sacramento, California.  The public will have 60 days to comment on the rule after it is published in the Federal Register.  A pre-publication copy can be found at

https://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/ghgrulemaking.html

 

This article was authored by Chris M. Hunter, Jackson Kelly PLLC. For more information on the author see here.

Injection wells – A Geological Perspective

                US EPA’s Underground Injection Control Program (UIC) classifies injection wells into five categories.  New regulations, proposed in July 2008, under the Safe Drinking Water Act would establish a sixth class to regulate the geologic sequestration of carbon dioxide.  For more information on the proposed regulations and pilot programs, see previous Energy and Environmental Monitor Climate Change articles by Chris Hunter.  

The five current categories of injection wells are as follows:

 

1.    Deep disposal of hazardous wastes, industrial non-hazardous liquids or municipal wastewater. 

 

2.    Deep disposal of hydrocarbons and oil and gas production fluids for storage. 

 

3.    Deep disposal of fluids associated with solution mining of minerals

 

4.    Utilized by specific ground water remediation projects under state or federal programs

 

5.    Typically, but not always shallow disposal of non-hazardous fluids (currently utilized for geologic sequestration pilot projects)

 

As evident from the different categories of injection wells, they are a valuable tool in many industries.  Injection wells are a good solution when the local geologic setting is a match with the necessary disposal application.  For example, the ideal situation, i.e. rock permeability and depth, for a natural gas brine disposal well could be different than a carbon dioxide injection. 

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) is revisiting the importance of injection wells not only because of interest in geologic sequestration but because of recent elevated levels of Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) in tributaries of major watersheds.  A rise in TDS can be attributed to many sources, but has led the PADEP to renew their commitment to research avenues other than local wastewater facilities for disposal of natural gas drilling and fracing fluids.  For this reason, a resurgence in mapping for possible injection well sites has begun in Pennsylvania.  This should not be necessary in areas such as West Virgnia where utilization of injection wells are common practice.

This topic is something that should not be dismissed easily for both business and environmental reasons.  The use of injections wells, when used correctly, could serve as another tool for states like West Virginia and Kentucky to benefit from their unique geology.

For a good depiction of injection wells and how the categories differ in purpose and structure, please see https://www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/wells_drawings.html .

            This article was authored by Rachel Shanteau, Acacia Environmental Group LLC. For more information on the author see here.

Coal Waste Could Become Valuable Fuel Source

The Pennsylvania Energy Development Authority recently obtained a grant for research on converting coal waste impoundments in Pennsylvania into “green” energy.  See https://www.coalnews.net/images/pdf/CoalNews_0209.pdf, at p. 24.  The goal of the project is to build a facility capable of burning coal waste while providing the necessary combustion and emission data needed to design and build commercial Pressurized Fluidized Bed Combined Cycle generating units.  The technology integrates a gas turbine combined cycle for high efficiency and low CO2, a low velocity fluidized bed for low emissions, high carbon utilization and low filters for high particulate and mercury capture, and a pressurized cycle for ash neutralization, reduction of fuel bound nitrogen derived NOx, unhinging the NOx formation, and substantial reduction in boiler tube surface and overall size.  The environmental benefits of this technology include reduction of emissions of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide resulting from coal combustion.  PFBC technology can utilize very low heat-value, wet fuels, such as waste coal, which could assist in the cleanup of coal waste impoundments around West Virginia.  In addition, the waste by-product is benign and can be easily backfilled or used in commercial applications, such as cement, road aggregate and a variety of building materials.  A CONSOL research facility in Pennsylvania has been utilizing this technology to burn coal refuse for power since 2006.

 

In 2007, West Virginia was second in the nation in terms of coal production, producting over 161 million tons of coal.  Such a massive production of coal has resulted in several coal waste impoundments around the State.  Should PFBC technology prove to be efficient on a large scale, it could be the solution to the State's potential coal waste problems.  It would allow the state to dispose of coal waste while also squeezing more energy out of each ton of coal.  This will reduce dependence on foreign energy, create jobs, and reduce the environmental impacts of coal and coal-related waste. 

 

This article was authored by Chris M. Hunter, Jackson Kelly PLLC. For more information on the author see here.