Part 1.
TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION
Chapter 331.
UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL
The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC or commission)
proposes amendments to §331.121, Class I Wells; §331.161, Applicability;
and §331.163, Well Construction Standards.
BACKGROUND AND SUMMARY OF THE FACTUAL BASIS FOR THE PROPOSED RULES
On June 5, 1992 the Texas Water Commission (a predecessor agency of the
TNRCC) adopted new rules regulating the permitting of Class I salt cavern
disposal wells. This action was taken in response to legislative changes enacted
by the 72nd Texas Legislature in 1991.
Solution-mined salt caverns have been permitted by other agencies for the
storage of petroleum products, but none have ever been permitted in the United
States for the purpose of disposing of hazardous waste. The commission was
cautious but deliberate in developing regulations for these activities and
wanted to ensure that any proposed site would be geologically suitable, that
any proposed salt cavern disposal well would meet stringent construction standards,
and that the design and operation of any project would preclude the escape
of hazardous constituents from the salt cavern injection zone.
A total of five applications for salt cavern waste disposal projects have
been evaluated by the commission, four of which were received before Class
I Salt Cavern Disposal Well rules were adopted in 1992. Of the four, two applications
were received from United Resource Recovery (URR), one from Texstor, and one
from Hunter Industrial Facilities, Inc. (HIFI). All were ultimately denied.
The fifth application, from Secured Environmental Management, Inc. (SEM),
is currently under technical review by commission staff.
On June 5, 2000, Baker Botts, L.L.P., on behalf of SEM, filed a petition
for rulemaking requesting revision of 30 TAC §331.121(d)(1) to clarify
and amend the requirements for information necessary to establish the geologic
suitability of a proposed site for a salt cavern Class I injection well. The
petitioner requested that the requirement to submit three-dimensional (3-D)
seismic survey data sufficient to delineate the edge of the salt stock and
image underneath all suspected overhangs be deleted from the rule and that
it be replaced with a requirement to conduct a 3-D seismic survey over the
cavern location. SEM, in its petition, interpreted the current language as
requiring a 3-D seismic survey of the salt dome in its entirety. SEM argued
that such a requirement would thwart applicants from proposing Class I salt
cavern injection wells in large salt domes due to the expense of the 3-D seismic
survey requirement, and noted the difficulty in obtaining surface access to
neighboring properties to conduct the survey.
By order dated September 11, 2000, the commission directed the executive
director to examine the issues in the petition and initiate rulemaking. As
a result of the examination, the executive director determined that the current
requirements for the 3-D seismic survey are ambiguous and subject to various
interpretations. The existing 3-D seismic survey rule, stated in §331.121(d)(1)(A),
requires an applicant to submit seismic reflection data "sufficient to image
underneath all suspected overhangs and to delineate the edge of the stock."
Although this language has been interpreted by some as requiring delineation
of the entire edge of the salt stock, the executive director believes that
the rule only requires delineation of that portion of the edge of the salt
stock that is technically relevant to the application.
The commission today proposes amendments and clarifications of §331.121(d)(1)(A)
concerning establishing geologic suitability of proposed salt cavern locations.
These changes include the following: 1) deletion of the requirement for a
3-D seismic survey to image underneath all suspected overhangs and to delineate
the edge of the stock; 2) addition of new language to clarify that mapping
the overall geometry of the salt dome includes mapping all edges of the salt
stock and any suspected overhangs of the salt stock; 3) addition of a requirement,
stated in §331.164(b)(1), to demonstrate the existence of a minimum distance
of 500 feet between the boundaries of the proposed salt cavern injection zone
and the boundaries of the salt stock; 4) addition of a requirement to define
the composition and map the top and thickness of the sedimentary rock units
between the caprock and surface; 5) addition of a requirement to map the top
of salt stock; and 6) addition of a provision which specifies that the executive
director may require any other information necessary to demonstrate the geologic
suitability of the location. The commission also proposes to reformat §331.121(d)(1)(A)
to improve readability.
The commission proposes new §331.121(d)(1)(B) that would require,
if determined necessary by the executive director, a surface-recorded three-dimensional
seismic survey, which, in conjunction with §331.121(d)(1)(A), will support
demonstration of the geologic suitability of the site.
While evaluating the petition, staff discovered an administrative error
in the original rules the commission submitted to the Texas Register of the
Office of the Secretary of State in 1992. At that time, the commission adopted
changes to the original proposal in response to public comments, including
a new requirement for a vertical seismic profile (VSP), and clarification
of other provisions in the rules. Except for the VSP requirement, all of the
previously adopted provisions are included in this proposed rule without changes.
The original objective of the VSP, which would be required after drilling
the cavern pilot hole, was to depict the three-dimensional nature of the salt-sediment
interface. In today's proposal, VSP may be required at the discretion of the
executive director to correlate seismic data with geophysical logs, or to
support the 500-foot construction standard in §331.164(b)(1), as needed.
SECTION BY SECTION DISCUSSION
Section 331.121, Class I Wells, is proposed to be amended to clarify information
which must be submitted as part of the technical report of the application
to perform a thorough characterization of the salt dome to establish the geologic
suitability of the location. This information is required as part of the demonstration
required by§331.162 (relating to Performance Standard). In §331.121(d)(1)(A),
the proposed amendments specify that data and interpretation from all appropriate
geophysical methods (such as well logs, seismic surveys, and gravity surveys),
subject to approval by the executive director, must be provided. The information
required for a thorough geologic characterization of a salt dome is specified
in proposed §331.121(d)(1)(A)(i) - (viii), which requires an applicant
to: 1) map the overall geometry of the salt dome, including all edges and
any suspected overhangs of the salt stock; 2) demonstrate the existence of
a minimum distance of 500 feet between the boundaries of the proposed salt
cavern injection zone and the boundaries of the salt stock; 3) define the
composition and map the top and thickness of the sedimentary rock units between
the caprock and surface, including the flanks of the salt stock; 4) define
the composition and map the top and thickness of the caprock overlying the
salt stock; 5) map the top of the salt stock; 6) calculate the movement and
the salt loss rate of the salt stock; 7) define any other caverns and other
uses of the salt dome, and address any conditions that may result in potential
adverse impact on the salt dome; 8) and satisfy any other criteria required
by the executive director to demonstrate the geologic suitability of the location.
The requirements in §331.121(d)(1)(A)(ii) restate the cavern construction
standard in §331.164(b)(1) (relating to Cavern Construction Standards)
to emphasize that the requirement of 500 feet between the boundaries of the
salt cavern injection zone and the boundaries of the salt stock is crucial
in determining the geologic suitability of a proposed site. Section 331.121(d)(1)(A)(iv)
and (v), is proposed to provide clarification of certain data which is needed
to characterize the salt dome, by adding the requirement to define the composition
and map the top and thickness of the caprock as well as to map the top of
the salt stock. The specific requirement in existing §331.121(d)(1)(A)
to submit seismic reflection data, including a 3-D seismic grid survey to
image underneath all suspected overhangs and delineate the edge of the stock,
is proposed to be deleted.
New §331.121(d)(1)(B) is proposed to require a surface-recorded 3-D
seismic survey in support of subparagraph (A) if determined to be necessary
by the executive director to establish the geologic suitability of the location
to show compliance with the performance standard in 331.162. Depending on
the information submitted with the application and the geology of the location,
the executive director may require that the applicant provide information
from a 3-D seismic survey to support the demonstration of geologic suitability.
The information must be provided before completion of technical review and
before a draft permit may be issued.
The commission proposes a correction in §331.121(d)(1)(C) by adding
the words "identification of" at the beginning of the paragraph for proper
grammatical formatting of the subparagraph.
The amendments to §331.161 and §331.163 described in the following
sections propose amendments which were inadvertently omitted, through an administrative
error, when the agency originally submitted these rules to the Office of the
Secretary of State in 1992. All of these changes were adopted as a result
of comments during the 1992 public comment period. The proposed amendments
under §331.161 and §331.163 are the same as they were originally
adopted, except 1) a VSP is no longer always required, and 2) a change in
the purpose and use of a VSP, if one is required.
Section 331.161 is proposed to be amended to make clear that the rules
contained in Subchapter J, Standards for Class I Salt Cavern Solid Waste Disposal
Wells, apply only to salt caverns located in the salt stocks of salt domes.
The term "horizontally bedded salt formation" was not specifically defined
previously, and the prohibition on salt cavern disposal wells and associated
caverns was not specified for "geologic structures or formations other than
salt stocks of salt domes." The commission proposes this clarification to
provide consistency with existing requirements in §331.14 of this title
(relating to Prohibition of Class I Salt Cavern Solid Waste Disposal Wells
and Associated Caverns in Geologic Structures or Formations Other Than Salt
Stocks of Salt Domes).
Section 331.163(b)(1) is proposed to be amended to add the words "and waste"
to the phrase "to prevent the movement of fluids" to clarify that all fluids
and waste must be prevented from moving into underground sources of drinking
water or freshwater aquifers and to prevent potential leaks of fluid and waste
from the well. This additional clarification is necessary because any waste
disposed of in the salt caverns must be stabilized. The word "period" is also
added to modify the term "post- closure care."
Section 331.163(c) is proposed to be amended to substitute the word "tubings"
for "tubing" and to clarify the requirement that two concentric and removable
injection tubings are to be utilized for injection activities. Paragraph (1)
is also proposed to be amended to replace the term "corrosion inhibiting"
with the word "non-corrosive." This proposed change allows greater flexibility
in the type of annulus fluid used. Paragraph (2) is proposed to be amended
to replace the phrase "removable injection tubing" with the phrase "the inner
tubing."
Section 331.163(d)(2) is proposed to be amended to add the words "and waste"
to clarify that the requirements for a tubing and packer system must consider
both the fluid and the waste in stabilized form.
Although the rules originally adopted by the commission require a three-component
offset VSP to depict the three-dimensional nature of the salt-sediment interface,
new §331.163(e)(1)(F) is proposed to require a VSP of the salt dome site,
if deemed necessary by the executive director. This less prescriptive language
will allow the executive director, as needed, to require the type of VSP most
appropriate to supplement or confirm information submitted to demonstrate
compliance with the performance standard under §331.162, gain approval
of the well construction stage under §331.163(i), or to gain approval
of the completion of the cavern construction stage under §331.164(f)(2).
Section 331.163(e)(2)(A) is proposed to be amended to modify the pressure
testing requirements for the surface casing to specify a more commonly accepted
engineering practice. Section 331.163(e)(3)(D), which would allow the executive
director to waive or modify future coring projects, is proposed to be deleted.
Such a requirement would allow the permittee to construct new caverns without
performing confirming cores for each subsequent cavern. Numerous commenters
in 1992 pointed out the danger of making assumptions from the original cavern
due to foreign matter which may be present within the salt and which could
compromise the integrity of waste containment. The commission continues to
agree with this concern.
FISCAL NOTE: COSTS TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
John Davis, Technical Specialist with Strategic Planning and Appropriations,
has determined that for each year of the first five-year period the proposed
amendments are in effect there will be no anticipated fiscal implications
for units of state and local government as a result of administration or enforcement
of the proposed amendments.
The proposed amendments will remove prescriptive language relating to which
methodologies must be employed to make specific demonstrations of geologic
suitability, clarify the information to be submitted in the technical report
to support an application for a Class I salt cavern injection well, add requirements
and clarifications inadvertently left out when the adopted rules were published
in 1992, and add at the discretion of the executive director, a requirement
for a VSP.
If authorized by the commission, salt cavern Class I waste disposal wells
can be used to dispose of industrial hazardous and nonhazardous solid wastes,
including organic and inorganic solids, liquids, and slurries and sludge (which
have been stabilized) such as from manufacturing, waste management, petrochemical
industries, metal refineries, mining, transportation, and other industries.
Units of state and local government are generally not anticipated to be
users of Class I disposal wells. Also, these amendments will not substantially
affect the commission's current practices relative to review of such applications.
Therefore, the commission does not anticipate any fiscal implications to units
of state and local government as a result of implementing the proposed amendments.
PUBLIC BENEFIT AND COSTS
Mr. Davis has also determined for each of the first five years the proposed
amendments are in effect, the public benefit anticipated as a result of implementing
the proposed amendments will be the incorporation of more clearly defined
geological requirements for any proposed salt cavern Class I injection wells.
The proposed amendments will remove prescriptive language relating to which
methodologies must be employed to make specific demonstrations of geologic
suitability, clarify the information to be submitted in the technical report
to support an application for a Class I salt cavern injection well, add requirements
and clarifications inadvertently left out when the adopted rules were published
in 1992, and add at the discretion of the executive director, a requirement
for a VSP.
If authorized by the commission, salt cavern Class I waste disposal wells
can be used to dispose of industrial hazardous and nonhazardous solid wastes,
including organic and inorganic solids, liquids, and slurries and sludge (which
have been stabilized) such as from manufacturing, waste management, petrochemical
industries, metal refineries, mining, transportation, and other industries.
There is currently one company with an application pending before the commission.
The only potential additional cost associated with the amendments, is the
VSP requirement, if required by the executive director. Based on an estimate
provided by a geophysical service company, the commission expects that a VSP
would cost approximately $23,000.
SMALL BUSINESS AND MICRO BUSINESS ASSESSMENT
There will be adverse economic effects, which are not anticipated to be
significant, to small or micro-businesses as a result of the implementation
of the proposed amendments. The proposed amendments will remove prescriptive
language relating to which methodologies must be employed to make specific
demonstrations of geologic suitability, clarify the information to be submitted
in the technical report to support an application for a Class I salt cavern
injection well, add requirements and clarifications inadvertently left out
when the adopted rules were published in 1992, and add at the discretion of
the executive director, a requirement for a VSP.
The only potential additional cost associated with the amendments, is the
VSP requirement, if required by the executive director. Based on an estimate
provided by a geophysical service company, the commission expects that a VSP
would cost approximately $23,000.
The commission is aware of only one company, a micro-business, which might
be affected by these proposed rule amendments. At the present time that company
consists of eight employees, although that number may rise to approximately
75 employees if a salt cavern injection well permit is issued to the company
and authorized activities are initiated.
The cost to comply with the proposal could be approximately $23,000. The
commission believes that the potential one-time cost to small or micro-businesses
would range from as low as $230 per employee for a small business with 100
employees, $1,150 per employee for a micro business with 20 employees, to
$2,875 per employee for the one known small business currently expected to
be affected by the proposed amendments.
The potential cost for a large business, assuming a labor force of 200
employees, would comparatively be $115 per employee.
DRAFT REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS DETERMINATION
The commission has reviewed the proposed rulemaking in light of the regulatory
analysis requirements of Texas Government Code, §2001.0225, and has determined
that the rulemaking is not subject to that section because it does not meet
the definition of a "major environmental rule." A "major environmental rule"
is a rule the specific intent of which is to protect the environment or reduce
risks to human health from environmental exposure and that may adversely affect
in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, or the public health and safety of the state or a sector
of the state.
The primary purpose of this rulemaking is to clarify the information to
be submitted in the technical report under §331.121(d)(1), to remove
prescriptive language that may not be applicable to all proposed sites, to
emphasize the purpose and use of the data as they relate to the performance
standard of no release of hazardous material from the salt cavern and to the
geologic suitability of a proposed site. There is, however, a potential new
technical requirement for persons granted permits for salt dome cavern waste
disposal wells. Proposed new §331.163(e)(1)(F) requires that permittees
perform a VSP, if required by the executive director.
The commission believes the amendments are as protective as those which
currently exist in the agency's rules. The goal under either set of rules
is to maximize protection of human health and the environment by establishing
the geologic suitability of a proposed site for a salt cavern Class I injection
well. By clarifying what information is required in the application, and by
tying the information to current construction and performance standards, the
commission believes the amendments provide appropriate flexibility while maintaining
the level and degree of protectiveness of the permitting process.
The proposed rulemaking is not a "major environmental rule" because it
is not expected to adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector
of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, or the public
health and safety of the state. The proposed amendments should not have a
materially adverse effect on any of the listed categories. The amendments
are intended primarily to clarify requirements which already exist in the
commission's regulations, eliminate prescriptive language relating to the
requirement for a 3-D seismic survey, and relate the demonstrations required
in a permit application to the geologic suitability of a specific site, in
order to ensure there will be no release of hazardous constituents from the
proposed salt cavern injection zone. Because the proposed rulemaking does
not constitute a "major environmental rule," a full regulatory impact analysis
under Texas Government Code, §2001.0225 is not required.
TAKINGS IMPACT ASSESSMENT
The commission evaluated these proposed amendments and performed a preliminary
assessment of whether they constitute a takings under Texas Government Code,
Chapter 2007. The following is a summary of that evaluation and preliminary
assessment. The purpose of this rulemaking is to remove prescriptive language
relating to which methodologies must be employed to make specific demonstrations
of geologic suitability, clarify the information to be submitted in the technical
report to support an application for a Class I salt cavern injection well,
add requirements inadvertently left out of the agency's transmission to the
Secretary of State in 1992, and add a requirement for a VSP if requested by
the executive director. The commission believes that the level and degree
of protectiveness under these amendments is equivalent to that which currently
exists in the agency's rules. The purpose under either set of rules is to
maximize protection of human health and the environment by establishing the
geologic suitability of a proposed site for a salt cavern Class I injection
well. The commission believes the proposed amendments would substantially
advance this purpose by more specifically describing which geologic features
of a salt dome are to be analyzed and authorizing the executive director to
require 3-D seismic or VSP, as needed, to ensure that a proposed cavern location
and any subsequently constructed caverns meet the performance standard "of
no escape of hazardous constituents from the salt cavern injection zone" in §331.162.
Promulgation and enforcement of these amendments would constitute neither
a statutory nor a constitutional taking of private real property. There are
no burdens imposed on private real property under this rulemaking as the proposed
amendments neither relate to, nor have any impact on, the use or enjoyment
of private real property, other than to require certain characterization of
property owned or controlled by an applicant seeking a permit for a salt cavern
Class I injection well. Because there is no new limitation on the property
owner's right to the property, there is also no reduction in value of the
property as a result of this rulemaking.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE COASTAL MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The executive director has reviewed the proposed rulemaking and found that
the rule is neither identified in Coastal Coordination Act Implementation
Rules, 31 TAC §505.11, Actions and Rules Subject to the Texas Coastal
Management Program (CMP), nor will it affect any action or authorization identified
in Coastal Coordination Act Implementation Rules, 31 TAC §505.11. Therefore,
the proposed rules are not subject to the CMP.
ANNOUNCEMENT OF HEARINGS
Public hearings on this proposal will be held in Tyler, on April 3, 2001,
at 7:00 p.m. at the commission's regional office located at 2916 Teague Drive;
in Mont Belvieu, on April 5, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. at the Barbers Hill High School,
in the CTJ Conference Center, located at 9600 Eagle Drive; in Wharton, on
April 10, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. at the Wharton Community Civic Center, in the
Main Hall, located at 1924 North Fulton; and in Austin on April 12, 2001,
at 2:00 p.m. in Building E, Room 201S at the commission's central office located
at 12100 Park 35 Circle. The hearings will be structured for the receipt of
oral or written comments by interested persons. Individuals may present oral
statements when called upon in order of registration. Open discussions will
not occur during the hearings; however, an agency staff member will be available
to discuss the proposal 30 minutes prior to the hearing and will answer questions
before and after the hearings.
Persons with disabilities who have special communication or other accommodation
needs who are planning to attend the hearings should contact the agency at
(512) 239-4900. Requests should be made as far in advance as possible.
SUBMITTAL OF COMMENTS
Comments may be submitted to Joyce Spencer, Office of Environmental Policy,
Analysis, and Assessment, MC 205, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087,
or faxed to (512) 239-4808. All comments should reference Rule Log Number
2000-053-331-WT. Comments must be received by 5:00 p.m., April 16, 2001. For
further information contact Kathy Vail at (512) 239-6637.
Subchapter G. CONSIDERATION PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE