The topic of a non-hazardous disposal well in Butler County caused some emotional debate and a 4-3 vote Tuesday evening during the Butler County Planning Commission meeting.
The well, which first came before the planning commission at their last meeting but there wasn’t a quorum to make a decision, was proposed to be located at the northwest corner of North 110th Street and U.S. Highway 77.
Monte Markley, co-manager of ZzzAqua, LLC, the company proposing the well, discussed the project with the commission and the residents that more than filled the room.
“I wanted to make sure we had put some information together to answer any concerns,” Markley said.
He explained they would take water that was non-hazardous but can’t be discharged into surface water. There are currently 40 class one non-hazardous disposal wells in the state, although this would be the first commercial well.
“Most industries have these,” he said. “They don’t need a permit; they install them on their own property.”
In fact, he said, Frontier Refinery will be publishing a permit notice for a class one well next week.
Of all the existing wells, he said there were not any leaks in them.
“A lot of businesses in the state and out of state can’t afford these on their own,” he explained.
The water undergoes a vigorous and comprehensive screening process before it leaves the disposing company’s facility and comes to their well. There also is strict compliance monitoring.
The water may have trace amounts of such things as soaps, lubricants, storm water runoff or be industrial rinse water.
“The main thing I want to stress here is none of the water is hazardous,” he said. “We test it, we test it and we test it again. All of these regulations are put in place to protect the ground water.”
Markley went on to present an overview of the project, stating they met all of the EPA’s protocols.
He also pointed out that it will always be a non-hazardous well because that is what their permit allows.
Markley said he also has heard they are going to take radioactive waste, which is not true. That is a class four well and those are not even permitted in the state.
He also went over the precautions in the well itself including the tubing, and concrete that connects everything.
One question he has received is what it will do to the groundwater.
“The water we put in this well is going to dilute the brine water and formation water that is already there,” he explained. “These waters will not have an adverse affect on the arbuckle formation or oil and gas formation.”
They also will have continuous pressure monitoring devices, with battery back-up, to make sure it is not leaking. In addition, they will do daily visual inspections and have to submit regular monitoring operations data to the state.
“There is nothing to hide,” Markley said.
It also had been asked how they know this won’t come up through the rocks into the groundwater. Markley said there are over 700 feet of shale in the confining zone, which is impermeable. Injection also is by gravity only.
They chose this site after looking at five or six sites because of its excellent confining layers of shale. Another benefit was the road infrastructure. They would enter into a maintenance agreement for the township roads though so as not to cause any undo burden on them. They also liked that the arbuckle was 500 to 600 feet thick there, while in other places it thins out.
“Geologically that is a perfect location,” he said.
He also talked about their level of accountability. They have 57 pages of regulations to which they have to adhere.
“This is highly regulated, it’s highly watched and it’s highly monitored,” Markley said. “We are simply not the demons we have been portrayed to be.”
In addition, he said they would benefit the area by probably hiring between 20 to 40 people for the first four to five months to work there. They also would spend a minimum of $1.5 million out there, as well as adding to the tax base when they were in operation.
Commissioner Terry Brown asked to verify that they were not going to put any pumps on the wells, to which he was told they would not.
Brown also asked about the possibility of mixing tracer dyes with the fluids so they would know if it got into someone’s well.
Markley said he hadn’t thought about it, but he didn’t think they would be opposed to that.
Commissioner Mark Suddoth brought up a concern he had received in a letter about how close it was to the Humboldt Fault.
Markley said that fault was outside of the area of review for them, and added that fault is open to interpretation.
“A lot of that faulting and movement was before the arbuckle,” he explained. “Faults in Kansas are generally a sealing nature. If they didn’t seal you would have oil and gas leak out of these things.”
The commission went on to take questions from the public during the public hearing.
The first to speak was Tim Connell, an attorney representing some of the landowners.
“What we’re here about and what we’re concerned about is groundwater contamination,” Connell said. “The purpose of this well is to be privately owned and to accept from all over any waste that they can classify and put down this well. They’re in it to make money. That’s good in the sense it gives people a place to put this fluid, but bad in that it creates incentive to maybe take things they shouldn’t and people sending stuff they shouldn’t.”
Connell said there are three things that can basically go wrong with this situation. One is leaks in the tanks or lines. He pointed out that lines around the tanks are exposed and felt that was generally where they get leaks.
“We’re concerned about these getting leaks and contaminating the groundwater,” he said.
He also was concerned about carcinogens in the water.
“You don’t want these things in your drinking water,” he said. “There is no room for error in what we are talking about. If it is a bad cement job or becomes a bad cement job in the future, there is the possibility of fluids getting up into the drinking water.”
He also asked if the water could come up some other well in a different place.
Another point he made was that about 1 1/2 miles from there the arbuckle is about 50 feet thick and even farther there is no arbuckle.
“If they knew what they would find down here, they would be drilling for oil, not to dispose of fluids,” he said. “They don’t know exactly what they’re going to find down there.”
Connell also pointed out that they have made an application with the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, but they have not granted the permit yet.
“This area is all water wells,” he said. “There is no rural water for five miles.”
He contacted Rural Water District No. 3 and they estimated it would cost $450,000 to get water from the No. 8 school to that area.
“We’re going to put the fluids in there now, but it’s going to be there forever,” Connell said.
He also talked about zoning and the conditional use permit they have requested.
“There is nothing like this,” he said of the zoning regulations. “You have to find that the permitted use you are being asked to approve is substantially similar to other uses in the area.”
He said they also have to look at if all the conditions are met to limit any adverse impact in the area. He said their regulations are to protect the area from hazardous or incompatible uses.
“Is this an industrial use you want to introduce into that area?” he asked.
“The citizens of Butler County wanted the rural and agricultural areas preserved as best as possible.”
He said the intent of the county’s comprehensive plan is to get uses like this close to cities where services are available.
“I don’t think this would promote the comprehensive plan,” Connell said.
Brown asked Connell if the seven requirements in the county’s regulations are met, if he would be in favor of it, to which Connell said he would not.
It also was asked about the ponds in the area and any fresh water springs. One resident pointed out the site is about 1,000 feet from the west branch of the Walnut River and less than 1,000 feet from the east branch of the Walnut River. It was pointed out by a resident any surface accidents would go right into the west branch.
Resident William Haffner asked if this was going to economically help Butler County other than the potential of the three permanent jobs.
Another resident was concerned even though they say it is non-hazardous, they could put anything down it they want as long as they call it non-hazardous.
Another question was if they were going to do the sample testing themselves or have a third party because he felt they could pay off the guy who was taking their sample.
Resident Freda Briggs also addressed the group.
“I respect all of the work that Mr. Markley has done,” she said. “I think one of the reasons (against the well) that we don’t hear about is the traffic. My major concern is 40 to 45 tankers and semis a day within working hours from the Turnpike up that six to seven miles to subdivision where I live.
The road has no shoulders to speak of. It’s dangerous as it is.”
Resident Mike Cooper lives about a mile from that location.
“One thing that hasn’t been addressed is this company is an LLC,” he said. “That stands for limited liability corporation. I don’t think those boys have enough money to get us water to take care of what we need if we have a problem. That area could become a wasteland.”
Earl Glenn of Burns also pointed out that the town of Burns is not that far away and they have three wells that furnish water to the town.
James Smith, a resident in and trustee of Lincoln Township, said he hasn’t heard about the possibility of the smell from the wastewater that they are going to be dumping in open tanks.
Markley addressed some of the questions.
He said they are tested for 119 constituents in the water and further discussed the testing they will do. He also said with the pipes above ground, they can inspect them everyday and that the other wells do not stink.
“We’re here to run a good business,” he said. “We’re going to do it right and we’re going to follow the regulations.”
He said they did offer to test the wells of residents within 1,000 feet and as for the LLC, he said they had to have some type of company.
“I can’t address all of the concerns and I can’t make them go away,” he said. “We live in a society where we like to have tires on our cars and gas in our tank and there is a collective awareness of not in my back yard, but there is not a collective awareness of how we take care of these things.”
Suddoth asked why these waters couldn’t be cleaned up on site.
Markley said some things are hard to clean up because you can’t evaporate them out of the water.
Commissioner Mary Staab asked how often KDHE would be checking their well.
“Most of the wells they don’t check that often,” Markley said. “I think we’re going to see them quite a bit. This is the first time anyone has done a commercial well (in Kansas). This is why we’re being held to a higher standard.”
It also was asked what would happen if they drilled into the area and found it was not what they thought.
Markley said if there was not sufficient thickness of arbuckle they would plug the well and go home. The lease amount of formation they would use would be 300 feet, although they would have to redo all of their calculations for the permit.
It also was asked about the depth of the well, which will be 3,400 to 3,500 total feet. Groundwater is about 25 feet and usable water is 200 to 250 feet.
One resident asked what would happen if a truck rolls over and spills water on the highway.
It was pointed out there are worse things already traveling that highway.
Kurt Bookout also opposed the well as a member of the Kansas Water Offices Walnut Basin Advisory Committee.
“I think Monte Markley has done a very good job trying to design a well that would be foolproof,” he said. “I don’t believe in foolproof. I think this situation requires foolproof. There is not any room for error. For that reason, I am not in favor of the project.”
Commissioner Jeremy Sundgren felt if they were going to have one of these wells, this would be the company to do it, but he did understand a lot of the concerns brought up.
“From my point of view,” Suddoth said, “I think it boils down to the Ag-80 area. We’ve been very restrictive in what goes in that over time. This is an industrial business and something that wasn’t particularly invited. I’m not particularly trusting of government monitoring. I have seen other times when it was a good idea and 20 years later it turned out not to be such a good idea.”
Suddoth made a motion not to approve the special use permit request, which was seconded by Sundgren.
The motion to deny was approved 4-3.
Commissioner Jim Ralston explained his vote against the motion.
“This was a real emotion-issue and a lot of testimony heard was based on emotion and not facts,” he said. “We heard a lot of horror stories just not possible.”
Staab also voted against the motion.
“It is an emotional thing,” she agreed. “I believe that a lot of engineering has gone into this and in checking with Topeka, the KDHE and other geologists, it would be hard for me to have it next door to me, but I still could not deny it being there. I feel it would be good for economic development and personally do not feel it would hurt the groundwater.”
The recommendation of denial will be forwarded to the Butler County Commissioners for a hearing on Dec. 23. From today until 5 p.m. Dec. 17 is the protest period. Letters of protest or petitions of protest can be submitted to the county clerk. If 20 percent or more of the land area within 1,000 feet is owned by those who have submitted a petition it will take a super-majority, or four votes, by the county commission to approve it.
El Dorado, Kan. —
