About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

18 Envtl. Admin. Dec.: Dec. U.S. Envtl. 1 (2019-2023)

handle is hein.usfed/eadec0018 and id is 1 raw text is: JORDAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.L.C. IN RE JORDAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, L.L.C. UIC Appeal Nos. 18-06, 18-07, 18-08 & 18-09 ORDER DENYING REVIEW Decided August 8, 2019 Syllabus Mr. Emerson J. Addison, Dr. Ronald J. Kruske, D.D.S., Ms. Amy Kruske, and Ms. Jennifer Springstead each petition the Environmental Appeals Board (Board) to review an Underground Injection Control (UIC) Class II permit that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 (Region) issued to Jordan Development Company, L.L.C. (Jordan) in October 2018. The permit authorizes Jordan to convert an existing oil production well in Gladwin County, Michigan, for injection of brine, a byproduct of oil and natural gas drilling activities. The Board consolidated the four petitions given the common permitting decision and administrative record and the similar and overlapping issues and arguments. Mr. Addison challenges the Region's permit decision on four grounds. He argues that the Region: (1) erred in its evaluation of environmental justice matters in issuing this permit; (2) failed to adequately analyze the risks of natural and induced seismicity, rock fracturing, and rock dissolving events associated with injection at this well; (3) inadequately considered deficiencies in EPA's oversight of state UIC programs and the existence of many violations and problems in Jordan's compliance history; and (4) failed to respond to comments questioning Jordan's financial assurances or ensure the company's ability to pay for environmental costs of cleaning up leaks or spills. Dr. Kruske and Ms. Springstead raise three challenges, arguing that the Region: (1) clearly erred and abused its discretion by issuing a UIC permit with no fixed limit on injection fluid volume, but only a recommended maximum, and failed to respond adequately to concerns that seismic activity may be induced by rapid injection of large volumes of fluids; (2) provided an insufficient response to comments criticizing, as too small, the area of review around the proposed well; and (3) misrepresented the nature of the fluids Jordan will inject and purposefully misled the public on this point. Ms. Kruske also presents three challenges, arguing that the Region: (1) erred by stating that the public failed to offer specific sources of information to support claims that Class II wells leak; (2) erred by finding that commenters' concerns about frequent well leaks do not reflect EPA's experience in Michigan; and (3) abused its discretion by VOLUME 18 1

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most