11418333 Y l
dieing” State
University ‘

WHESV'

.

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

REGULATION OF THE SPREADING OF
OIL FIELD BRINE 0N MICHIGAN ROADWAYS

presented by

Jeffrey E. Herrold

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

 

Master of Science degree in Resource Development

 

 

M )01’ professor

Daniel Bronstein

Date W

0-7639

lllll Will A \lllllllll‘l llll llllllllllL

131293 0132

 

 

MSU RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to
LJBRARJES remove this checkout from
—:-—— your record. _F_____INES will

 

 

 

be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

' Ma .2 a is“?

MAR \ 4_l995.
. WR 0 ‘5 l’p‘y's

 

 

 

REGULATION OF THE SPREADING OF
OIL FIELD BRINE ON MICHIGAN ROADWAYS

BY

Jeffrey E. Herrold

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Resource Development

1985

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to express my gratitude to Dr. Peter Kakela and Dr. William
Taylor for their many helpful suggestions during the preparation of
this manuscript. I extend special thanks to Dr. Daniel Bronstein, my
committee chairman, for his advice and understanding throughout my
studies at the University. I am also indebted to Allen Crabtree for
providing the opportunity which enabled me to examine the management
of oil field brine in Michigan. My foremost thanks go ix: my family
for the love and encouragement which made the completion of this

thesis possible.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF FIGURES

II.

III.

INTRODUCTION

THE USE OF OIL FIELD BRINE

A. SOURCES OF OIL FIELD BRINE

B. ROAD BRINING FUNDAMENTALS

THE REGULATORY ENVIRUbMENT

A. FEDERAL AND STATE STATUTES

B. PAST REGULATORY ACTIONS

C. THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

D. OTHER STATE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES

vi

15

21

33

40

TABLE OF CONTENTS

V. STUDY FINDINGS

A. EXISTING PROBLEMS

B. RECOMMENDATIONS

C. SUMMATION

VI. AFTERWORD

APPENDIX A SUPERVISOR OF WELLS SPECIAL ORDER NUMBER 1-81
APPENDIX B NOTICE TO ALL OIL AND GAS PRODUCERS
APPENDIX C GUIDELINES FOR PREPARATION OF AN INTERIM BRINE

MANAGEMENT PLAN UNDER SUPERVISOR OF WELLS ORDER l-8l

APPENDIX D BRINE INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE

FOOTNOTES

BIBLIOGRAPHY

44

52

67

72

75

77

78

82

84

92

TABLE 1

TABLE 2

LIST OF TABLES

Page

A COMPARISON OF SEAWATER TO MICHIGAN OIL FIELD BRINE 2

SITES OF WATER WELL CONTAMINATION POSSIBLY ATTRIBUTABLE 13
TO THE USE OF OIL FIELD BRINE UPON MICHIGAN ROADWAYS

FIGURE 1

LIST OF FIGURES

OIL FIELD BRINE DISPOSAL (1937 - 1968)

A

23

ABSTRACT

REGULATION OF THE SPREADING OF
OIL FIELD BRINE ON MICHIGAN ROADWAYS

BY

Jeffrey E. Herrold

Waste brine from oil and gas operations has been applied on Michigan
roadways as a dust palliative and de-icing agent since the 19303. In
1981 the Supervisor of Wells established a program to regulate the
spreading of oil field brine through the use of brine management
plans. To examine the effectiveness of this program, the lauthor
interviewed seventy-one individuals from government and industry who
were familiar with road brining practices and problems. This study
concluded that, despite several flaws, the management plan program
adequately addressed known road brining problems. Recorded incidents
involving improper brine spreading have steadily declined since
program inception. The mere fact that the State established a new
regulatory program, rather than actual enforcement of approved
management plans, has produced a degree of self-regulation by those
parties spreading brine. Overly frequent brine applications on some

roads was found to be the major problem yet to be resolved.

INTRODUCTION

Saltwater known as oil field brine is produced as a consequence of the
exploration for and extraction of oil and natural gas. Brine is
naturally occurring nonpotable water laden principally with dissolved
chloride, sodium, calcium, and magnesium. Found in the pore space
within sedimentary formations, brine will normally be fossil water
that was entrapped at the time of the rocks' deposition. Oil and gas
operations provide a pathway for this water to move out of the rock

and up to the surface.

As shown in Table 1, oil field brine is many times more saline than
seawater. Consequently, its disposal necessitates responsible
planning to assure that it does not enter and pollute drinking water
resources. In Michigan oil field brine is typically disposed of
either through injection to subsurface formations or through
application upon roadways for dust control or ice removal. In the
past little concern existed as to the manner in which oil and gas
producers disposed of their brine. In the 19705, with the rise in
public concern over environmental degradation, attention became
focussed upon the dumping of brine on Michigan lands. Allegations
began to surface that widespread abuses by the transporters of oil
field brine were occurring that might adversely impact the waters of
the state. Reports indicated that brine haulers were dumping oil

field brine into streams, in woodlots, and onto roadways.

TABLE 1

A COMPARISON OF SEAWATER TO MICHIGAN OIL FIELD BRINE

 

swig
Ion Average Value
Sodium (Na+) 10,760 mg/l
Calcium (Ca++) 413 mg/l
Magnesium (Mg++) 1,294 mg/l
Chloride (Cl') 19,375 mg/l

MICHIGAN OIL FIELD BRINE+

 

 

Ion Average Value Approximate Maximum value
Sodium (Na+) 50,000 mg/l 90,000 mg/l
Calcium (Ca++) 28,000 mg/l 75,000 mg/l
Magnesium (Mg++) 6,000 mg/l 16,000 mg/l
Chloride (Cl‘) 160,000 mg/l 250,000 mg/l

A. Gene Collins, 1975, Geochemistry of Oilfield Waters,
Developments in Petroleum Science Series, 'Vfilume l, ElseVIér
Scientific Publishing 00., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, page 194.

 

Michigan Geological Survey Division, United States Bureau of
Mines, and Cory Laboratory, Inc., 1976, Oil Field Brine Collection
and Analysis Program, unpublished analyses of 319 samples.

The Geological Survey Division of the Michigan Department of Natural
Resources responded to these growing concerns by developing a set of
instructions to regulate the spreading of oil field brine. Ultimately
the Supervisor of Wells issued Special Order Number 1-81 to specify
approved brine disposal methods and to more tightly regulate the use
of oil field brine in road maintenance practices. Issued in March of
1981, this Order was the first attempt to regulate the disposal of oil

field brine on a statewide basis.

Special Order 1-81 established a program centered upon the use of
brine management plans (hereafter the brine management plan program)
administered tn/ the Department of Natural Resources. The purpose of
this program was to eliminate environmentally unsound road brining
practices. The author has sought to examine the veracity of a
supposition widely accepted within the Department, a belief that the
brine management plan program has failed to curb brine spreading

abuses.

This study will test the following hypothesis: the brine management
plan program initiated under Special Order 1-81 has failed to
adequately regulate the use of oil field brine on Michigan roadways.
The fundamentals of road brining will be introduced along with the
rationale underlying the use of oil field brine in road maintenance
practices. Federal and state statutes pertinent to the handling and
disposal of oil field brine will be reviewed. The past history of the

regulation of oil field brine disposal in Michigan will be summarized

with an emphasis upon the origin and implementation of the Supervisor
of Wells' order. Current administrative responsibilities in
regulating brine disposal practices will be reviewed with particular
attentitwi paid to the legal and procedural bases behind existing
arrangements. The status of public and private sector compliance with
Special Order 1-81 will then be examined in an attempt to define
problem areas. Finally, recommendations will be made concerning
changes that could be made in the current regulatory framework to

improve its effectiveness.

SOURCES OF OIL FIELD BRINE

Oil and gas exploration is one of the two sources of the fluids
collectively referred to as oil field brine. During the drilling of
an oil or gas well, brine may flow into the borehole from strata
beneath the zone of potable groundwater. In part to prevent this
influx of brine, most oil and gas drilling operations in Michigan
utilize hydraulic rotary equipment. Such equipment requires the
circulation of drilling muds down the borehole to provide the
hydrostatic pressure necessary to counterbalance the inflow of
formation waters or natural gas. These muds normally contain brine to
prevent the solutioning of the massive salt beds that overlie many
Michigan oil pools. Michigan's salt beds are the thickest encountered
by oil and gas drilling operations in the United States.1 Many
drilling operations encounter 1,200 to 1,600 feet of salt and
consequently use large volumes of saline drilling muds.2 The brine
in the drilling mud will eventually empty into a lined pit or other
surface containment along with rock: cuttings that. result from ‘the
drilling. The resulting supernatant must be disposed of upon
completion or abandonment of the well. Thus, exploration may produce

brine both from the formations being drilled through and from the muds

being utilized in the drilling operation.

Oil and gas extraction, commonly called production, is the second

source of oil field brine. Brine exists in the interstices of each of

the nineteen formations from which oil and/or natural gas are produced
in Michigan. This brine mixes with the oil or gas being produced and
must be separated from the fluid Inixture brought to the surface.
Separation by gravity, heat, or a combination of methods will result
in crude oil or natural gas and oil field brine. The volume of brine
present after‘ separatinww will vary according to two factors: the
formation of origin and the productive age of the oil pool. Older oil
pools -- those in production since the 19305 and 19405 -- generally

produce more brine than oil.

Whether generated by drilling activities or separated from produced
oil or natural gas, oil field brine has traditionally been viewed as a
waste product requiring disposal. Michigan oil and gas operations
annually generate more than 3 billion gallons of brine. From this
total, an estimated 50 to 100 million gallons will be spread upon land

surfaces to suppress dust, melt ice, or stabilize roadbed materials.

ROAD BRINING FUNDAMENTALS

During the summer months oil field brine is applied on unpaved roads
and parking lots to suppress the formation of dust. Summertime heat
often evaporates the moisture that bonds together the soil particles
of an unpaved road or parking lot. In addition, traffic tends to
reduce both the clay and the moisture content of the road surface,
leaving it drier and more friable.3 The action of tires can then
erode the dried road, producing dust which may adversely impact people
in several ways. Dust produced by a passing vehicle can reduce
visibility, creating a hazard for following and oncoming traffic.
Road dust can settle on and damage crops or dirty laundry hung outside
to dry. The airborne particles can also make breathing more difficult
for nearby people and livestock. In general, residents living along
unpaved roads find road dust to be a continual nuisance. In a larger
sense, most Michiganians are affected by dusty roads. Traffic causes
the loss of fine soil particles from the surfaces of unpaved roadways,
material which must eventually be replaced. The costs of required
road maintenance -- grading, stabilization, or paving -- will be borne

by Michigan taxpayers.

Application of oil field brine reduces road dust in two ways. First,
brine wets the road surface, binding fine soil particles to one
another. Until the water in the brine evaporates, dust cannot form.

Second, brine acts as a dust palliative due to the nature of its

constituents. Oil field brine contains sodium, calcium, and chloride
ions. As brine evaporates the ions bond to form sodium chloride and
«calcium chloride. These compounds are hygroscopic: they attract,
absorb, and retain moisture from the air surrounding the road
surface. Simply put, an application of brine improves the ability of
the road surface to attract and retain moisture. Not only does this
action delay the formation of dust but it also aids in the retention

of roadbed materials, especially in the case of a gravel road.

Oil field brine may also be used in the maintenance practice known as
road stabilization. When an unpaved road is graded or resurfaced,
brine can be incorporated into the top layer of road materials to
improve soil retention. The hygroscopic nature of sodium and calcium
chlorides helps the road surface retain moisture, reducing erosion and
lowering future maintenance costs. An application of brine for
stabilization purposes is normally made at volumes double that which

would be applied for dust control.A

During the winter months, oil field brine is used to remove ice and
snow from roadways. Sodium and calcium ions in the twine lower the
freezing point of water, thereby allowing ambient heat to melt ice and
prevent its reformation.5 The sodium and calcium compliment one
another. Sodium ions will melt ice and snow when the air temperature
is between ten and thirty-two degrees Fahrenheit; calcium ions work at
temperatures down to minus thirty degrees Fahrenheit.6 A mixture of

the two can provide ice and snow removal from freezing down to zero

degrees.7 However, brine is not the most efficient choice for ice
or snow removal. Brine has a tendency to refreeze, leaving a fdghly
slippery coating on the pavement. Also, solid granules of sodium
chloride (halite or rock salt) will penetrate through ice or snow to
break the bond of ice with the pavement; brine does not accomplish
this. In general, for snowfalls greater than two or three inches
mechanical removal becomes necessary. "Aqueous solutions are not
suitable for treatment of thick layers of pure ice or hardened or

packed snow."8

Approximately 80% of the oil field brine applied to Michigan roads is
spread to control dust. The utility of oil field brine as a dust
palliative therefore bears closer examination. Calcium concentration
will be the most important parameter in assessing the effectiveness of
a given volume of oil field brine as a dust palliative. Calcium and
sodium chlorides are both hygroscopic. However, calcium chloride
attracts and retains water much more readily than does sodium
chloride. Whenever the relative humidity exceeds 29%, calcium
chloride will pull moisture from the atmosphere.9 The relative
humidity must exceed 80% for sodium chloride to be hygroscopic.10
Thus, superior dust suppression will be provided by an oil field brine
with a relatively high calcium concentration. The effectiveness of
oil field brine as a dust palliative will generally be less than a
commercially produced brine. As shown in Table 1 above, Michigan oil
field brine may contain up to 75,000 milligrams per liter (mg/1) of

calcium ions. On the other hand, LIQUIDOW, a calcium chloride brine

sold throughout Michigan as a dust palliative, contains approximately
190,000 mg/l of calcium.11 A field study by the Dow Chemical
Company in Midland County found that LIQUIDOW may provide three times

better dust suppression than will a typical oil field brine.12

Aside from the Dow study, few studies have been undertaken to document
the effectiveness of natural brine as a dust palliative. University
of Arkansas researchers conducted field tests using waste brine from a
bromide extraction operation.13 This brine contained 66,800 mg/l of
sodium and 32,000 mg/l of calcium, values quite similar to a typical
Michigan oil field brine.14 The Arkansas researchers found that,
when applied at a rate of 1,800 gallons per mile per road lane, the
waste brine provided dust control for thirty or more days.15 The
experience of county road commissions also suggests that thirty days
is the upper limit of effective dust suppression provided by the
typical Michigan oil field brine. Consequently, oil field brine may
be applied four to six times during the May through September dust
control season. This rate may be compared to the suggested one or two

applications of commercial calcium chloride brine that would be made

in the same period.16

Cost is the principal factor underlying the disposal of oil field
brine on the public roads. Commercial calcium chloride brine sells
for about 270! per gallon delivered in most areas of the Southern
Peninsula.l7 For an additional 3d per gallon, the supplier will

apply the brine on his customer's property.18 Conversely, county

road commissions can obtain oil field brine at little or no cost. In
1981 the Manistee County Road Commission paid 25¢ for each barrel of
brine loaded into county vehicles at a well site.” This cost is
equivalent to O.6¢ per gallon, considerably less than would be paid
for a commercially produced brine. In 1983 the average price of brine
had increased slightly to 30¢ per barrel.20 Southwestern Michigan
Dust Control, a. company which spreads oil field brine in several
counties, charges road commissions 7¢ for each gallon applied.21

Nonetheless, in many counties oil field brine can be obtained for free

at well sites; a road commission need only incur the costs of

transporting and spreading the brine.

In all cases examined by the author, oil field brine from drilling
pits has been spread upon the public roads at no charge to county road
commissions. Brine removed from a drilling pit contains suspended
solids from the spent drilling mud and cuttings held in the pit.
These particulates tend to clog the pores of subsurface formations
when drilling pit brine is placed down a brine disposal well.
Consequently, disposal well owners are often reluctant to accept
fluids from drilling pits. Flocculation and settling or mechanical
filtration can remove the suspended solids but these operations
increase disposal costs. Both transportation and disposal costs can
be minimized by spreading drilling pit brine on roadways near well
sites. In this manner a producer can empty a drilling pit at a
minimal cost while a road commission can gain a degree of dust control

on some county roads without spending any tax dollars.

Since oil field brine has a very low dollar value, the cost of
transporting the brine to a disposal site normally outweighs the
profit that can be gained through its sale. This fact underscores the
brine transporter's desire to haul oil field brine a minimal distance
from a well site. That desire in turn may lead to illegal disposal of
brine through outright dumping into streams, in woodlots, or onto
roadways. Since the mid-19705 reports of road brining abuses have
centered upon the actions of licensed industrial waste haulers.
Anyone seeking to haul liquid industrial wastes, which include oil
field brine, from the premises of another must be licensed under the
provisions of Michigan's Liquid Industrial Wastes Act. Licensed waste

haulers transport much of the oil field brine taken for disposal.

The most important consequence of brine dumping by these waste haulers
is the potential contamination of drinking water supplies. Several
incidents of water well contamination in Michigan have been linked to
road brining activities. Table 2 lists sites where water supply wells
are believed to have been contaminated by road brining activities. In
each case oil field brine has been repeatedly spread on nearby roads.
Well water contaminated as a result of road brining will normally
contain less than 600 mg/l of chloride. This contaminated water may
be characterized by a salty taste but will not necessarily pose a
hazard to the health of its users. The United States Environmental
Protection Agency has recommended that 250 mg/l be the maximum
22

concentration of chloride in water for domestic use. This

standard was based upon palatability and not upon adverse health

TABLE 2

SITES OF WATER WELL CONTAMINATION POSSIBLY ATTRIBUTABLE
TO THE USE OF OIL FIELD BRINE UPON MICHIGAN ROADWAYS

(l)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

Peterson and other residences
Mill and Fouch Roads

Section 28, Blair Township
Grand Traverse County

Harper, Peterson, and Wolfinger residences
Chula Vista Drive

Section 22, Big Rapids Township

Mecosta County

Potter and Quinn residences
U.S. Route 131

City of Big Rapids

Mecosta County

Adams and Jewett residences
72nd Avenue

Section 6, Weare Township
Oceana County

Martell residence

Arrowhead Trail

Section 27, Bagley Township
Otsego County

Depew residence
Colfax Street
City of Cadillac
Wexford County

Forsgren residence

411/2 Road

Section 4, Cedar Creek Township
Wexford County

seven wells

Plett Road area

Section 34, Haring Township
Wexford County

effects. Given time for the body to adjust, a healthy person can
consume water with up to 2,000 mg/l of chloride with no ill
effect.23 However, a high concentration of chloride in a well's
water may indicate the presence of sodium and excessive sodium can be
harmful to individuals suffering from cardiovascular or kidney
diseases. In the eight cases listed in Table 2, no well sampled
contained more than 550 mg/l of chloride and no health effects have

been reported to state officials.

In brief, oil field brine may be spread to control dust on unpaved
roads, incorporated into the surfaces of unpaved roads to provide soil
stabilization, or applied to roadways to remove ice and snow. Much of
the oil field brine annually spread on Michigan roads is applied to
control dust. Although commercial brine can provide superior dust
suppression, individuals often opt to use oil field brine because it
can be obtained at little or no cost. Continual applications of oil
field brine on particular roads have probably been responsible for a
number of cases of known water well contamination. To date, however,
no adverse health effects have been observed as a result of these

incidents.

FEDERAL AND STATE STATUTES

Federal statutes of interest to this study focus upon the protection
of the environment and the public health from harm. The federal
government can play a major role in protecting the health, safety, and
welfare of its citizens. Brine spreading activities may be seen as
falling under the purview of three principal federal acts. However,
no federal statute, rule, or regulation appears to directly impact the

spreading of oil field brine on Michigan roadways.

Oil field brine is a liquid waste product which may pollute water
supplies if not properly handled during disposal. The Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) contains provisions which
govern solid waste management practices.24 Under RCRA solid waste
includes solid, liquid, and semisolid wastes from industrial,
commercial, mining, and agricultural activities.25 One objective of
RCRA is the prohibition of open dumping.26 An examination of the
Act's legislative history indicates that "open dumping" refers to the
use of nonregulated disposal sites such as the proverbial town
dump.27 Nevertheless, "open dumping" could encompass uncontrolled
spreading of waste brines on road surfaces. The United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was charged with defining those
solid waste management practices which constitute open dumping but did
not mention waste brine spreading in its State Waste Management Plan

Guidelines.28

RCRA also provides for the establishment of regulations to govern the
disposal of hazardous wastes. Oil field brines have been specifically

exempted from the promulgated regulations:

Solid wastes which are not hazardous wastes....(5) Drilling
fluids, produced waters, and other wastes associated with the
exploration, development, or production of crude oil, natural
gas, or geothermal energy.

 

In summary, neither RCRA nor its promulgated regulations currently

govern land surface applications of oil field brine.

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act protects water resources in
part by establishing a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES).30 The NPDES rules establish a permit system to govern
discharges into navigable waters from point sources which, by
definition, would appear to include a vehicle applying oil field
brine. However, since brine is spread upon land surfaces rather than
discharged into water, NPDES permit requirements do not govern brine

spreading activities.

The brining of unpaved roads can pose a potential threat to public
drinking water supplies. Brine can percolate through the roadbed and
into freshwater aquifers, introducing compounds such as chloride into
potable water resources. The Federal Safe Drinking Water Act sets
national drinking water standards for public water supplies.31

Under this Act, the EPA has established primary and secondary maximum

allowable levels of particular contaminants for public drinking water
supplies. A primary maximum contaminant level or PMCL serves as the
upper limit for the quantity of a particular contaminant allowable in
drinking water. A secondary maximum contaminant level or SMCL sets a
limit necessary for the protection of the public welfare in the
judgement of the EPA. In other words, a SCML serves as a recommended
limit rather than a legal limit. The EPA has established a SCML for
chloride at 250 milligrams per liter, 3 recommendation based upon
taste rather than health effects.32 If the spreading of oil field
brine were to adversely impact public water resources, this SCML could

serve as a basis for determining contamination.

The three federal statutes discussed above are parallelled by several
Michigan statutes. For example, provisions found in RCRA are embodied
in two acts. Act 641, the Michigan Solid Waste Management Act,
governs the management of solid wastes but, unlike RCRA, does not
include liquids or semisolids in its definition of "solid waste."

Act 64, the Michigan Hazardous Waste Management Act, parallels those
sections of RCRA which provide for the establishment of hazardous
waste management regulations.34 However, like the RCRA rules,
Michigan's Hazardous Waste Management Rules exempt oil field brine

from regulation as a hazardous waste.35

State permit requirements for discharges to ground and surface waters

have been established under Act 245, the Water Resources Commission

Act.36 The use of oil field brine on roadways could be construed as

a potential discharge to groundwater. However, the Water Resources
Commission General Rules exempt brine spreading activities from permit

requirements. Under Rule 2209(1):

The following activities do not require a permit from the
commission cm: a hydrogeological report or groundwater
monitoring, except as may be required by the commission on a
case-by-case basis, where such activities are or may become
injurious to the protected uses of a usable aquifer:...(b)
Controlled application of dust-suppressant chemicals used
with normally accepted or regulated practices [and] (c)
Controlled application of de-icing chemicals used with
normally accepted or regulated practices...

As noted above, the EPA has set a SCML for chloride in public water
supplies that potentially has an indirect bearing upon road brining
operations. From a state enforcement perspective, however, the impact

of this SCML is nil. Act 399, the Michigan Safe Drinking Water Act,

does not adopt any SCML proposed by the EPA.37 Thus, road brining

activities stand largely exempt from state water protection statutes.

The authority to regulate the use of oil field brine on Michigan

roadways lies in Act 61, the Supervisor of Wells Act.38 Under

Section 6(0) of this Act, the Supervisor of Wells holds the authority

to regulate the disposal of oil field brine:

(T)he supervisor...is specifically empowered...to require the
disposal cfl’ salt water and brines and oily wastes produced
incidental to oil and gas operations, in such manner and by
such methoos and means that no unnecessary damage or danger
to or destruction of surface or underground resources, to
neighboring properties or rights, or to life, shall result.

Rule 601 promulgated under Act 61 states: "Brine or salt water
resulting from oil and gas drilling and producing operations shall be
stored, transported and disposed of in such manner as may be approved
by the supervisor." Rule 602 further states that such brine "shall be
returned to an approved underground formation or otherwise disposed of

as approved by the supervisor..."

On March 3, 1981 the Supervisor of Wells issued Special Order Number
1-81 to govern the disposition of oil field brine. The author has
compiled the provisions of this order and its subsequent amendments in
Appendix A.” Special Order 1-81 establishes the approved methods
of oil field brine disposal. The five principal methods are as

follows:

1. injection to an approved subsurface formation by means an
approved brine disposal well;

2. injection to 21 subsurface formation pursuant to an approved
secondary recovery plan;4U

3. use as a constituent in hydraulic drilling muds;

4. use on oil and gas production facility access roads for dust
control, ice removal, or road stabilization upon annual
written authorization from a District Supervisor of the
Geological Survey Division; and

5. use on public roads and private properties for dust control,
ice removal, or road stabilization in accordance with a brine

management plan approved pursuant to procedures adopted by
the Water Resources Commission.

One final NUchigan statute does establish authority to regulate oil

field brine disposal practices independent of Special Order 1-81.

Act 136, the Liquid Industrial Wastes Act, contains an obscure
provision that governs the disposal of liquid industrial wastes such
as oil field brine.41 Section 8(4) states that licensed waste
transporters shall not dispose of wastes onto or into the ground
except at locations specifically approved by the Water Resources
Commission. To date the Commission has not utilized this provision to

regulate land surface applications of oil field brine.

PAST REGULATORY ACTIONS

Michigan's petroleum industry has enjoyed a relatively long and
prosperous history. Exploration began in the 18605 soon after the
initial North American oil discoveries in Pennsylvania and Ontario.
Twenty years passed before a driller, while searching for natural gas,
struck oil near Port Huron in 1886. Sporadic exploration continued
until the first commercially successful oil operation began in the
City of Saginaw in 1925, marking the emergence of a new industry in
the state. By the late 19305 Michigan had become one of the nation's

leading oil producers.42

During the years that followed the opening of the Saginaw Field, oil
field brine was often held in large surface lagoons or smaller earthen
pits prior to disposal. While some of these storage sites were lined
with clayey soils, many provided no barrier to impede the seepage of
brine into the waters of the state. The use of brine lagoons faded by
the late 19405. Earthen pits declined in number, replaced by tanks of
wood or steel. By the beginning of the 19805 open pits could only be
used to temporarily hold brines produced during drilling operations.
Also, impervious plastic liners were now required for nearly all of

these drilling pits.

While brine storage facilities evolved towards improved containment,

the ultimate destinations of waste brine also changed. In 1937, the

first year in which records were kept, one-half of the brine generated
by oil and gas operations was returned to subsurface formations.43
Approximately one-quarter of the brine produced was used by the
chemical industry, usually as a source of sodium or calcium chloride.
The rest was left in pits to evaporate or seep away. Figure 1
illustrates the trends in brine disposal throughout the jyears of
recordkeeping. The year 1952 marked a sharp decrease in the use of
oil field brine by chemical companies and a corresponding initiation
of its recorded use on roadways. Furthermore, as the use of earthen

pits declined irnlflna early 19605, the amount of brine used on roads

increased.

In 1983 more than 3.8 billion gallons of brine were generated by
Michigan oil and gas operations.M Approximately 98% of this total
was returned to subsurface formations.45 Nonetheless, based upon
the most accurate data presently available, 79 million gallons of oil
field brine were spread on roadways in fifty-eight counties.“6 This
figure is likely to be conservative due to the imprecision of the
Michigan Geological Survey Division's data collection procedures. The
estimated quantity of brine separated from oil or gas at each well is
supplied to the Division by the well operator. Division personnel
then attempt to record the manner in which that brine was disposed.
The estimated quantity of brine drawn from each drilling pit is
derived through simple volumetric calculation. Data for 1983, the
most recent reporting year, show that 57 million gallons of production

facility brine and 22 million gallons of drilling pit brine were used

Million Gallon

Figure I

OIL FIELD BRINE DISPOSAL (I937-I968)
Excluding brine returned to subsurface formations

 

.7
4": ............. used by the chemical industry
ISO— '3 ----- Left in pits
‘ . Spread on roads
.4
-1 ..
..I

lILIl

I

50

lLll

l

 

 

 

for road maintenance purposes. In reality the amount of oil field
brine used on Michigan roadways annually may well be greater than the

79 million gallons on record.

Geological Survey statistics first record the disposal of oil field
brine on roads in 1952. Waste brine has in fact been spread on
Michigan roads since the infancy of the oil industry. The first
allegations of adverse impacts resulting from brining also date from
this period. Reports surfaced as early as 1936 of injury to roadside
trees caused by the use of oil field brine as a dust palliative.47
Forrest C. Strong of the Michigan State College (now University)
examined these reports and found evidence In” foliage damage
attributable to the spreading of oil field brine.48 He discovered
that when a road surface dries after brining, a fresh layer of dust
containing salts could be lifted by the wind to coat nearby foliage.

The salt, in turn, caused leaf browning (necrosis) detrimental to the

trees' vigor.

Although forty years have since passed, one factor governing the
disposal of oil field brine has remained constant. In 1944 Strong
wrote: "As the brines represent waste products and are consequently
cheap, they have sometimes been applied too heavily so that there was
a considerable run—off [sic] which killed vegetation."49 In recent
years the runoff of applied brine to low-lying areas is believed to
have killed roadside maple trees in Kent County and a stand of poplars

in Gladwin County. A more serious concern to arise recently was

speculation that brine runoff or seepage was contaminating drinking
water supplies. Beginning in 1976 several Michigan Department of
Natural Resources employees expressed the belief that road brining
adversely impacted the groundwater in many areas of the state.
Particular attention was drawn to the actions of brine haulers who
were believed to be dumping loads of oil field brine on roads adjacent
to well sites. Interest was sparked within the Geological Survey

. .. .50
Div1510n to more carefully examine road brining practices.

In early 1978 Douglas L. Daniels, a field geologist in the Geological
Survey's Plainwell District, became concerned about the misuse of oil
field brine on roads in Allegan County. Industrial waste haulers were
rumored to be dumping large quantities of oil field brine on the
county's roads. Allegan County lies in one of the state's older oil
producing areas. Older wells often produce brine in volumes much
greater than the oil they produce; for each barrel of oil, operators
in the Allegan fields may have several barrels of brine requiring
disposal. After discovering that no one knew how much brine was being
spread on the county roads, Daniels discussed the situation with an
Allegan County Road Commissioner and a representative from the
Department's Water Quality Division. He then developed and circulated
a set of guidelines to govern the use of oil field brine on roads
within the Plainwell District.51 These guidelines were later
incorporated in a formal "Notice to All Oil and Gas Producers" issued
on June 19, 1978 by the Assistant Supervisor of Wells Arthur E.

Slaughter (Appendix B).

The Assistant Supervisor's Notice contained many of the stipulations
embodied in subsequent attempts to regulate brine disposal. The
Notice prohibited brine applications during or immediately after
rainfall and required spreading vehicles to be in motion while
applying brine. Producers were asked to keep records of the amount of
brine taken from their facilities for use on roads. Most important,
the Notice stipulated that brine spreading must be done in a manner
which prevented runoff to ditches or watercourses and also guarded
against the contamination of groundwater resources. Through these and
other provisions, the intent of the Notice was made very clear -- oil
field brine was not to be disposed of through dumping disguised as

road maintenance work.

Despite some excellent provisions, the Notice failed to curb road
brining abuses due primarily to a lack of enforcement by Geological
Survey personnel.52 As noted previously, haulers of oil field brine
were deemed to be responsible for most brine disposal problems. At
the time when the Notice was issued, the Department's Water Quality
Division regulated the activities of these waste haulers. Geological
Survey field staff believed that Water Quality personnel, rather than
themselves, should be responsible for overseeing road brining. In
addition, Geological Survey Division administrators did not issue any
instructions concerning the implementation of the Notice. In the
absence of a firm comnitment to monitor brine spreading activities,
the Geological Survey Division did not effectively regulate the

disposal of oil field brine. A new, more forceful approach was needed.

In the later part of 1980, faced with growing concern about brine
dumping abuses, the Supervisor of Wells contemplated the issuance of
an order to control the disposition of oil field brine. A public
hearing was held on December 22 to receive testimony concerning the
need for such an order. Oral or written statements were presented by
the Michigan Oil and Gas Association, the Dow Chemical Company, the
Michigan Environmental Council, numerous industry representatives, and
several county road commission officials. A position statement was
read by the Engineer-Director of the County Road Association of
Michigan, the organization which represents the state's eighty-three
county road commissions. Personnel from the Geological Survey and
Water Quality Divisions also testified. From the evidence presented,
the Supervisor reached two conclusions.53 First, oil field brine
had utility when properly used for drilling or road maintenance
purposes. Second, the misuse of brine posed a potential threat to
freshwater resources which required that its disposal be carefully
controlled. Based upon these conclusions, the Supervisor issued
Special Order Number 1-81 on March 3, 1981 (Appendix A, Feragraphs 1
through 5). The intent of the Special Order was two-fold: to
designate acceptable methods of oil field brine disposal and to more

tightly regulate the use of that brine on the public roads.

Shortly after ‘the issuance of Special Order 1-81, the Geological
Survey Division began to receive inquiries from oil and gas
producers. They were confused by the Order's provision permitting the

brining of their facility access roads and asked that the language of

this provision be clarified.54 Comments were also received during
this ‘time from .industrial waste haulers and other' parties. These
individuals complained that the Supervisor's Order precluded the use
of oil field brine on private property. These concerns were addressed
in a public hearing on October 13, 1981. After the hearing, the
Supervisor concluded that the use of oil field brine on facility
access roads and private properties was appropriate for dust and ice
control. Paragraphs 7 and 8 were added to the original Order on

November 3, 1981 (see Appendix A).

Through Special Order 1-81 and its amendments the Supervisor of Wells
has defined the approved methods of disposal for oil field brine.
These methods include the use of oil field brine for dust control, ice
removal, and road stabilization on public roads and on private
properties. The Supervisor's Order necessitated the creation of an
administrative process through which these uses could be properly
regulated. At the heart of that process lies a document known as a

brine management plan.

Under Paragraph 1 of Special Order 1-81, the use of oil field brine on
the public roads must be "in accord with a plan approved pursuant to
procedures adopted by the Water Resources Commission." In the months
following the issuance of Special Order 1-81, personnel in the Water
Quality Division drafted a set of procedures for the Commission's
consideration. In the minutes of the .11ne 18, 1981 meeting of the

Water Resources Commission appears the following statement:

The Executive Secretary presented the following draft procedures
for obtaining approval of road brining management plans for use
of oil field brines:

"The March 3, 1981 Special Order No. 1-81 of the Supervisor
of Wells allows the use of oil field brines by governmental
units for ice and dust control if done in accordance with a
plan approved pursuant to procedures adopted by the Water
Resources Commission.

Approval of management plans is contingent on compliance
with Act No. 136, Public Acts of 1969, the Liquid
Industrial Waste Haulers Act [sic] and the following Rules
of the Water Resources commission to prevent pollution of
the waters of the state in the transporting, storage,
handling and use of such brines:

Part 4 Rules, Water Quality Standards
Part 5 Rules, Spillage of Oil and Polluting Materials
Part 22 Rules, Ground Water Quality Standards

A management plan should detail the manner in which brines
will be transported; equipment or contract services to be
used; ownership of vehicles; the storage facilities to be
used including a Pollution Incident Prevention Plan (PIPP);
the manner in which road brining will be carried out to
prevent runoff into surface drains and watercourses;
application rates and equipment to be used; and the manner
and facilities to be used to prepare salt/sand mixtures to
prevent contamination of groundwaters.

Failure to operate in accordance with the approved

management plan "1% result in loss of approval to accept
oil field brines."

By an unanimously approved motion, the Water Resources Commission
chose to "concur" with these draft procedures.56 This action may
have constituted a formal adoption of procedures as required by

Special Order 1-81.

From these procedures personnel in the Water Quality Division

developed "Guidelines for Preparation of an Interim Brine Management

Plan under Supervisor of Wells Order 1-81" (Appendix C). Commission
meeting minutes contain no reference to an adoption of these
"Guidelines;" their acceptability may be inferred based upon their
development from the above procedures. The "Guidelines" set forth the
required contents of a brine management plan. Five topics must be
fully addressed by an applicant in order for a submitted management

plan to be approved. An applicant must:

1. describe the location and owner of each well from which
brine will be taken for use by the applicant;

2. describe the location, construction, and operation of
the applicant's brine storage facilities;

3. provide a Pollution Incident Prevention Plan (PIPP) for
each brine storage facility owned by the applicant;

4. describe the vehicles which transport and spread brine
for the applicant; and

5. describe the method, quantity, and frequency of brine
applications for dust control and for ice removal.

The "Guidelines" also contain several caveats. Brine must be applied
"in a manner to prevent direct runoff to any watercourse or from the
road surface."57 Brine applications may be made only when the
spreading vehicle is in motion and all spills must be promptly
reported to the Department of Natural Resources. Furthermore, brine
may not be used for snow removal when effective removal can be
attained by pflowing. Most important, management plan recipients are
required to maintain up-to-date records of their activities. These

records must show the date, volume, and specific location of each

brine application as well as a listing of the brine source and
transporter. Records must be kept for a three-year period and be

available to Department personnel for inspection upon demand.

The brine management plan serves as the keystone of the Department's
administration of the Supervisor's Order. Under Special Order 1-81 as
amended, management plan approval must be obtained prior to any use of
oil field brine on public roads or private properties. Only a
governmental body or agency, such as a county road commission, may
hold a management plan permitting the spreading of brine on the public
roads. Conversely, any party with a legitimate need for dust control
or ice removal on private property may submit a brine management plan
for approval. The first brine: management plans, for 'the City of
Standish and the Kalkaska County Road Commission, were approved on
December 15, 1981.58 To date ninety—eight management plans have
been approved under the "Guidelines;" the majority of these plans were

approved from May through August in 1982.59

One further administrative action was taken subsequent to the issuance
of Special Order 1-81. To examine and improve brine handling
practices under the new brine management program, the Department
initiated a Brine Task Force in May of 1982. Its charge was to
develop a "brine handling/disposal management system including Water
Quality Division policies and procedures... [that is] consistent with
existing Department statutes and regulations."60 With members drawn

from the Environmental Enforcement, Geological Survey, and Water

Quality Divisions, the Brine Task. Force: met from June 24 'through
November 1, 1982. Although the Task Force was not formally dissolved,
no report was issued and no new brine management system was proposed
or implemented. Task Force members did, however, reach a consensus on

several issues.

Task Force members concluded that the use of oil field brine on roads
was "adequately regulated by the terms of Special Order 1-81" but that
current staffing was insufficient for' proper' monitoring and
enforcement IN” the Order's provisions.61 They recommended increased
staffing to counter the Department's inability to adequately monitor
brine management plan compliance, particularly in areas of accelerated
drilling activity. Members also recommended that information
concerning brine spreaders operating under another party's management
plan should be entered into the Law Enforcement Information Network
(LEIN) maintained by the Michigan State Police. The LEIN .system
contained data, such as motor vehicle registrations, which could be
transmitted to peace officers by shortwave radio. Once in the LEIN
system brine management plan information could be speedily accessed by

enforcement personnel statewide.

THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has been designated by
executive order as the state entity responsible for the "coordination
of all environmental functions and programs of the state of
Michigan."62 Its duties include the protection of persons and
property from environmental harm to land resources, water quality, and
land-water interfaces. Furthermore, the DNR holds the responsibility

to protect the health of Michigan citizens through the prevention of

health hazards associated with liquid and solid wastes.

At present, the DNR holds the only statutory authority to directly
regulate the spreading of oil field brine in Michigan. That authority
chiefly resides with the Supervisor of Wells, a cabinet level position
held by the DNR Director. Oirrent regulation of oil field brine
disposal involves four DNR Divisions: Geological Survey, Groundwater
Quality, Hazardous Waste, and Law Enforcement. Of these four
divisions, Geological Survey and Groundwater Quality play the leading

roles in the current brine management program.

The Geological Survey Division monitors all aspects of oil field brine
disposal under Special Order 1-81 except the use of brine on public
roads and private properties. Geological Survey personnel issue
permits for brine disposal wells and periodically inspect these

facilities. The Division approves secondary recovery plans under

which a producer may inject oil field brine into an oil-bearing
formation to increase production. Also, a District Supervisor of the
Geological Survey Division may authorize the use of oil field brine in
hydraulic drilling muds. Of greatest interest to this study, this

Division regulates road brining on oil and gas lease sites.

Under Paragraph 7 of Special Order 1-81, the Geological Survey
Division oversees the use of oil field brine on oil and gas production
facility access roads. A District Supervisor, acting as the
representative of time Supervisor of Wells, may grant annual written
authorization to an operator allowing the brining of his production
facility access roads. Applications for this authorization must
follow provisions set forth in a November 9, 1981 memorandum from the
Chief of the Geological Survey Division. To date no such applications
have been submitted to any District Supervisor and, therefore, no

access road brining has been authorized in the state.

Groundwater Quality is currently the lead Division in administering
the Department's program governing land surface applications of oil
field brine. In order to spread oil field brine on public property, a
governmental body must obtain approval of a brine management plan.
Private property brining can begin after the Division has approved a
management plan submitted by an individual, company, or cooperative
association. From June 1, 1981 through June 30, 1983 the circulation
and review of management plan applications was accomplished by one

centrally located contact person within the Water QJality Division.

On August 1, 1983 this person's application review responsibilities
were transferred to the District Supervisors within the newly formed
Groundwater Quality Division. All brine management plans on file in
Lansing were disseminated to the eight District Headquarters that
serve the Southern Peninsula. The Division does not maintain a

comprehensive central file of approved management plans.

As the third Division involved in oil field brine management, the
Hazardous Waste Division is responsible for the licensing of brine
transporters and their vehicles. Once a function of the defunct Water
Quality Division, the administration of Act 136 under which these
liquid industrial waste haulers are licensed is now handled by
Hazardous Waste personnel. Licensed waste haulers must maintain trip
records for each load of brine transported, with a two-month record to
be carried on the transporting vehicle. Trip records from all of the
licensee's vehicles must be preserved for two years. Hazardous Waste
personnel do not yet inspect vehicle-carried records. Licensee
facilities are to be inspected annually; vehicles that transport brine
will not be inspected unless they are present during this inspection
visit. Under Section 8 of Act 136, the outside of the hauling vehicle
and its accessory equipment must be kept clean but the Division has

not yet issued any additional vehicle maintenance requirements.

Law Enforcement is the fourth Division involved in the current oil
field brine management program. Law Enforcement personnel assist the

other three Divisions in implementing and enforcing orders, rules, and

laws relevant to brine management. The Division's field personnel,
known as conservation officiers, carry the same authority as is vested
in the Michigan State Police. Conservation officers can aid in the
collectirwr of“ evidence against and observation of suspected brine
management plan violators. Conservation officers play a vital role in
field enforcement because the stopping of a suspected violator on a
pgblig road must by law be done by a uniformed officer in a vehicle
equipped with a light and a siren.63 Thus, of the Department
personnel involved in brine management, only a conservation officer
may stop a brine spreader who the officer has probable cause to

believe is improperly applying oil field brine on a county road.

Under the current regulatory framework, the field staffs of the
Geological Survey and Groundwater Quality Divisions carry the bulk of
responsibility for‘ monitoring road brining activities. Both larine
management plan applications and access road brining proposals must be
submitted to field offices for review and approval. Field personnel
interviewed by the author stated that they have been acting under the
following supposition: the Geological Survey Division will be
responsible for overseeing the handling of brine on oil and gas lease
sites while the Groundwater Quality Division will assume this
responsibility after the brine has been removed from a lease site. As

will be demonstrated, this is a false supposition.

Under Department Policy Number 2305, the Supervisor of Wells "shall be

responsible for...a11 handling and disposal of oil-field brines.“54

By this policy the Geological Survey Division, whicfl acts. as the
Supervisor's representative, would appear'lx) have been designated as
the Division responsible for regulating oil field brine. Furthermore,

under Department Procedure Number 4505.5:

The Geology Division is responsible for all investigations,
clean-up, and enforcement action for losses resulting from
oil and gas well operations. This irmludes...the handling,
storage and disposal of produced brines.

These policy and procedure statements indicate an intent by the
Department of Natural Resources to delegate oil field brine management
responsibilities to the Geological Survey Division. Furthermore,
contrary to the interviewee supposition cited above, the Groundwater
Quality Division has 921; been assigned the task of regulating the
handling of oil field brine after its removal from a lease site. The
Supervisor (Hi Wells' Order“ does not assign brine management plan

administration responsibilities to a specific Division.

A review of past events leads to the conclusion that Groundwater
Quality personnel administer the Department's management plan program
for two reasons. The Water Quality Division, predecessor of today's
Groundwater Quality Division, acted as the representative of the Water
Resources Commission, which had been asked by the Supervisor to adopt
procedures to govern road brining activities. Water Quality personnel
drafted the procedures adopted by the Commission; one would logically

expect the same personnel to assist in the development of the

management plan program which was to be based upon those procedures.
Also, at the time of the Order's issuance, the Water Quality Division
was responsible for regulating the activities of liquid industrial
waste haulers. These waste haulers not only transported much of the
oil field brine taken for disposal but were also held to be
responsible for most instances of improper road brining. Water
Quality personnel could naturally be expected to participate in any
new program designed to more tightly monitor the disposal of oil field

brine by licensed waste haulers.

The brine management plan approach has received little active support
from either Geological Survey or [Houndwater Quality personnel. Due
to the supposition cited previously, Geological Survey field personnel
have largely avoided direct involvement in monitoring road brining
activities. In only one of six districts have Survey personnel
assumed a more active role in regulating brine spreading practices.
Coincidentally, in only one district have Groundwater Quality
personnel actively monitored compliance with plans approved by their
own Division. In fairness to field personnel in both Divisions, no
effort had been made until August of 1983 to distribute copies of
approved management plans to field offices even though the program had
been in operation for more than two years. Furthermore, only
Groundwater Quality District personnel received the management plans
distributed to the field. Geological Survey and Law Enforcement field
staffs do not yet have ready access to approved plan files. Without

access to management plan particulars, Department field personnel are

unable to determine whether illegal brine spreading is occurring in a

given situation.

OTHER STATE DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES

The Michigan Department of Public Health (DPH) is responsible for the
protection of human health "through the management, control, and
prevention of environmental factors which may adversely affect the
health of individuals. This activity is concerned with the existence
of substances, conditions, or facilities in quantities, of
characteristics, and under conditions, circumstances, or duration
which are or can be injurious to human health."66 Given this broad

mandate, the environmental risks inherent to land surface applications

of oil field brine could fall within the domain of the DPH. As the '

environmental health agency for the state, the Department must:

- Advise the governor, boards, commissions, and state agencies on
matters of the environmen as those matters affect the health of
the people of this state. 7

- Develop and maintain the capability to monitor and evaluate
conditions which represent potential and actual environmental
health hazards, reporting its findings to appropriate state
departments and local jurisdictions, and to the public as
necessary.

- Serve as the central repository and clearinghouse for the
collection, evaluation, and dissemination of data and

information on environmental health hazards, programs, and
practices.

Clearly, the DPH could play an advisory role in the regulation of
brine disposal practices. The Department could gather information an
the environmental fate of brine applied to road surfaces and then

evaluate the seriousness of attendant health risks. However, DPH

statutory authority does not include the power to directly regulate

brine spreading practices.

The Michigan Department of Transportation (DOT) would seem at first
glance to be a natural candidate to regulate brining operations on
Michigan roadways. Instead, DOT holds no direct responsibility for
supervising brine spreading activities on county roadways. County
road commissions have jurisdiction over primary and local roads listed
under a duly adopted county road system.70 These county road
systems included all public roads save for federal routes, state
trunkline rdghways, and city streets. Furthermore, road commissions
hold authority to maintain roads under their control by methods of
their own choosing.71 Thus, as long as oil field brine is spread

upon a road under county jurisdiction, the DOT lacks the statutory

authority to regulate spreading operations.

Nearly all public road applications of oil field brine for the purpose
of dust control occur on roads under the jurisdiction of city or
county governments. The only exceptions discovered by the author were
the use of brine by the DOT for road shoulder stabilization in
Kalkaska and Montmorency Counties. On the other hand, oil field brine
is applied to state trunkline highways to melt ice. The DOT
distributes tax monies to county road commissions to provide ice
control on both county and state roadways. Some counties receiving
these monies use oil field brine exclusively in their winter

maintenance operations. The DOT could choose to attach a rider to

each contract made for county de-icing operations. The rider could
set conditions upon the use of oil field brine for snow and ice
removal. Failure to comply with the terms of the revised contract
would provide grounds for a denial of or reduction in future releases
of tax dollars to the offending road commission. This approach to
brine spreading regulation is both untested and only applicable to

cases involving winter maintenance use of oil field brine.

The Michigan Environnental Review Board (MERB) is the final state
agency with a potential role to play in the regulation of oil field
brine disposal. The Board includes 15 members, nine from the general
public as well as the Directors of the following Departments:
Administration, Agriculture, Commerce, Natural Resources, Public
Health, and Transportation.72 Duties and responsibilities of“ MERB

include:

- Providing advice to the Governor and the Department of
Natural Resources on environmental issues that are of
concern to more than one department or agency of state
government; and

- Making recommendations to the Governor, the Director of the

Department of Natural Resources, or other state agencies on
environmental policy issues as may be requested.

Functioning strictly as an advisory body, MERB cannot actively pursue
the regulation of brine spreading operations. The Board could make
recommendations to the Governor or the DNR Director concerning

necessary improvements in state brine disposal regulations.

By statute and executiwe order, the Department of Natural Resources
holds the authority necessary to administer brine disposal
regulations. Both MERB and the DPH could aid the DNR through
environmental risk assessment and advisory statements. A lesser role
could be played by the DOT through new stipulations in winter
maintenance contracts. But, in the final analysis, only the DNR can

directly regulate the use of oil field brine on Michigan roadways.

EXISTING PROBLEMS

To investigate the status of public and private sector compliance with
Special Order 1-81, the author conducted a series of interviews with
individuals familiar with road brining practices. A questionnaire was
developed to elicit detailed responses from these individuals on a
wide range of brine management topics (Appendix D). Through use of
the questionnaire, the author attempted to determine the scope of
existing problems throughout the Southern Peninsula.73 Of special
importance, the questionnaire also provided an opportunity for the
interviewees to make useful recommendations concerning current and

future regulation of brine spreading activities.

The author interviewed forty-seven Michigan Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) employees from six Divisions: Environmental
Enforcement, Geological Survey, Groundwater Quality, Hazardous Waste,
Law Enforcement, and Surface Water Quality. All of these individuals
took part in either the development or administration of the
Department's brine management plan program. In addition, the author
interviewed twenty-four other individuals to attain a comprehensive

view of current road brining practices and problems:

- four employees of the Michigan Department of Transportation;
- six members of the Michigan Oil and Gas Association; and

- fourteen county road commission officials.74

Michigan Oil and Gas Association interviewees included representatives
from three major companies, two small independent operators, and an
Association spokesman. The road commission officials interviewed
included representatives from eleven counties which spread large
quantities of oil field brine and a spokesman from the County Road
Association of Michigan. Interviews were conducted in Cadillac,
Gaylord, Imlay City, Lansing, Mt. Fieasant, Plainwell, and Roscommon

during the period of July 14 to November 8, 1983.

The interview process was intended strictly to serve as a qualitative
assessment of the effectiveness of Michigan's brine management
program. Quantification of questionnaire responses proved elusive due
primarily to necessary variations in the questions posed to particular
individuals. The questionnaire was originally designed to be given
solely to Department of Natural Resources employees, administrators of
the brine management plan program. Questions concerning management
plan compliance and administration were not asked during interviews
with representatives from the oil industry and the other governmental

agencies.

Several problem areas were delineated by the interview process.
Improper road brining practices were found to occur throughout the
Southern Peninsula and most especially in areas where new oil and gas
wells were being drilled. The most frequently cited problem involved
excessive brining by licensed industrial waste haulers and by oil and

gas producers who hauled and spread their own brine. Waste haulers

and producers spread oil field brine on public roads under the
auspices of city or county governmental bodies. Some of these agents
have applied oil field brine at a frequency many times greater than
cited in the management plans under which they operate. In areas
where drilling operations were active, haulers. and Iaroducers have
applied brine from drilling pits to adjacent roadways in quantities
believed to greatly exceed permitted application rates. In sum, 8
number of waste haulers and producers appear to be dumping oil field
brine rather than applying it in accordance with an approved brine

management plan.

Two factors lie at the root of excessive brining by agents of city and
county governments. First, inclusion of these parties in a brine
management plan affords them an avenue for disposing of oil field
brine at a minimum cost. As noted previously, oil field brine as a
commodity has a very low dollar value. The transportation of waste
brine to a disposal site costs more money than can be gained through
its sale. Consequently, waste haulers and producers can maximize
their profits by disposing of brine as close as possible to its place
of origin. Authorization to spread brine for a city or county
provides them with this opportunity. Second, to compound the problem,
city and county officials have frequently failed to adequately
supervise the activities of their agents. Nearly all county road
commissions have failed to designate roads to be brined by producers
and waste haulers; this failure in turn allows the less scrupulous to

repeatedly dump brine on roads close to well sites.

A related problem surfaced during the interview process. When the
frequency of brine applications was closely scrutinized, the author
learned that some waste haulers have claimed that Inultiple brine
spreadings by their vehicles constitute one "application." In two
separate instances investigated by DNR personnel, 8 hauler spread
brine on the same section of road on three different days in one
week. In both cases the hauler recorded those three passes as one
"application." In another case, a hauler used two trucks spreading in
tandem to make "one" application; in reality double the prescribed
volume of brine had been spread. In the absence of proper supervision
or recordkeeping by local governmental officials, several contracted
brine spreaders have violated the provisions'of the management plans

under which they operate.

Applications of excessive amounts of oil field brine by some waste
haulers and producers was the only problem found to occur throughout
the Southern Peninsula. However, more localized problems also exist.
Road commissions in several counties, most notably Montcalm and
Roscommon, have been spreading large quantities of oil field brine
without having obtained approval of a brine management plan from the
Department. In the cities of Clare, Mt. Pleasant, and Roscommon oil
field brine has been used for snow and ice removal. In each of these
cities, DNR personnel have observed brine-laden meltwaters entering
storm sewers or running directly into local streams. In particular,
the City of Mt. Pleasant appears to use oil field brine as a

substitute for mechanical snow removal rather than as an adjunct to

plowing. As a crowning irony, none of these cities operates under an
approved brine management plan. Finally, in some northern and
southwestern counties, road commissions and their agents have been
spreading brine during or immediately after rainfall throughout the
dust control season. Such spreading is superfluous since the rain
itself acts as a dust palliative. Furthermore, applying brine during
or just after a rainfall increases the possibility that the brine will

run off of the roadway and enter local watercourses.

Brining during rainfall is symptomatic of a twdlosophy that prevails
in many areas of the state. Numerous county road commissions operate
under what may be termed a "no dust" policy. They believe that their
duty lies in assuring that secondary roads remain relatively dust-free
during the dry months of summer. This philosophy is analogous to the
"bare pavement" policy practiced every winter by state highway
agencies nationwide. Similar to the use of large quantities of solid
salt II) maintain ice-free roads, the county road commissions use
frequent doses of oil field brine in order to attain what they feel is
adequate dust control. In practice, this policy increases the
possibility of excessive road brining and the related opportunity for

oil field brine to enter the waters of the state.

The "no dust" philosophy finds its genesis and strength in the desire
expressed by some county residents for increased dust control. County
road commission officials attest to the fact that many rural residents

demand dust-free roads. Department of’ Natural. Resources personnel

cpestioned by the author concurred. Department field offices received
more citizen complaints concerning a perceived restriction of road
brining by the State than complaints of excessive brining or other
abusive practices. Six of every ten citizens calling about road
brining complained that not enough brine was being spread near their
residences. DNR interviewees did add that county officials were apt
to urge citizens to complain to the Department about insufficient
brining and to suppress complaints about abuses by the road commission
or its agents. Nevertheless, given a vocal citizenry and diminishing
budgets, county road commissions are likely to pursue their "no dust"
policy iri‘Una most cost effective manner: frequent applications of

low-cost oil field brine.

The brining of public roads was not the only topic discussed during
the interviews. Questions were also posed concerning brine spreading
on private properties and production facility access roads. Few
problems appear to have arisen from either practice. Interviewees did
cite two instances of illegal dumping of oil field brine in gravel
pits but, in each case, the violator was successfully prosecuted. In
general, the use of oil field brine on private property is very
limited in terms of the quantity of brine spread and the acreage
brined. Several individuals did express the belief that the demand
for private property brine applications will increase in the immediate
future and cautioned that monitoring such applications will be

difficult.

[.0

When questioned about proauction facility access road brining,
Department personnel stated that some violations of Special Order 1-81
have occurred. Under the Supervisor's Order, an oil or gas production
facility operator must have written authorization from the Geological
Survey Division prior to the use of oil field brine on his access
roads. To date no permits have been applied for or issued anywhere in
the state. Operators claim that the permit requirements established
by the Division are too burdensome and some have chosen not to comply
with the Supervisor's Order. Field personnel have been able to stop
several instances of illegal access road brining but some operators

continue the practice.

To summarize, through an extensive interview process, the author
sought to examine the status of public and private sector compliance
with Special Order 1-81. The key problem uncovered was overly
frequent brine spreading by licensed industrial waste haulers and oil
and gas producers operating as agents of city and county governmental
bodies. In other words, the problem centers upon abuses by private
sector parties allowed to spread oil field brine under a public sector
brine management plan. Both waste haulers and producers have sought
to dispose of oil field brine at the lowest cost possible. County
road commissions have sought to provide their citizens with dust-free
secondary roads at the lowest cost possible. These goals have
combined to produce an uneven distribution of brine spread upon
Michigan roadways. Overly frequent applications of oil field brine

are made to roads near well sites while little is spread in areas

distant from oil and gas fields. This problem is most acute in areas
where drilling operations are active. Haulers and producers empty
drilling pits by spreading the collected fluids upon nearby roads. At
the crux of the hauler-producer problem is brine disposal in the guise
of acceptable road maintenance. Haulers and producers have a monetary
incentive to dump their brine on local roads and county road

commissions have little incentive to discourage this practice.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The brine management plan approach has been the keystone of the
Department of Natural Resources' regulation of the land surface
disposal of oil field brine. Has this approach been effective in
curbing road brining abuses? Interviewees believed that conditions in
the field have improved substantially since the issuance of Special
Order 1—81. The number of incidents involving improper brine
spreading, both those reported to and those witnessed by DNR
personnel, have steadily declined since program inception. Although
precise records are unavailable, noteworthy problems appear to have
dropped from roughly a dozen per year in the late 1970s to just four
during 1984. Finally, no reports of waste haulers dumping brine into
streams, in woodlots, or on roadways have been recorded in the past

two years.

Effective enforcement of management plan stipulations has n93 brought
about these improvements. State government employees, road commission
officials, and well operators all agree that program enforcement has
been lax or nonexistent. Instead, the fact that the State has taken
an active interest in regulating the spreading of oil field brine has
lead to a certain degree of self-regulation by those parties handling
brine. Some brine spreaders perceive the mere existence of the brine
management plan program as increasing the risks involved in continuing

questionable or illegal brining practices. The key factor responsible

for the marked reduction in brine dumping problems in the past several
years seems to be a desire to avoid undesirable consequences, such as
prosecution or negative publicity, rather than effective enforcement

of brine management plans.

The perception that the State has acted to more tightly regulate the
brining of roadways has resulted in a decrease in improper activities,
at least in the short term. However, problems do exist that have not
yet been rectified by the current management plan approach. Should
the State replace this approach with a new regulatory format? Most
interviewees did not favor such a change. The majority felt that
fine-tuning could improve the effectiveness of the current program.
One pointed to the fact that brine management plans have existed for
only three dust control seasons. Regulatory efforts during the past
three years have largely been confined to the circulation of brine
management plan applications to all interested parties. Many DNR
interviewees believed that, given more time, the brine management plan

approach would run smoothly.

How can the State's regulation of road brining activities be made more
effective? Interviewed DNR employees offered several suggestions,

listed here in the order of their frequency of mention:

1. Prohibit oil and gas producers from spreading oil field brine
on public roadways.

2. Prohibit industrial waste haulers from spreading oil field
brine on public roadways.

3. Require county road commissions to schedule the brining of
specific road sections if brine applications by waste haulers
are to continue.

4. Increase the number of personnel responsible for monitoring
road brining activities and enforcing brine management plan
provisions.

5. Distribute photocopies of approved brine management plans to
all appropriate Department field offices.

Roughly two-thirds of the DNR interviewees recommended that Special
Order 1-81 be amended to prohibit brine spreading by oil and gas
producers. Such an amendment may not be necessary to attain this
goal. Special Order 1-81 does not make reference to producers
spreading oil field brine under the auspices of a city or county
government. Rather, the Order speaks of producers providing brine to
"a hauler if the hauler can verify his authorization to receive brines
on behalf of a governmental unit."75 The term "hauler" refers to an
industrial waste hauler licensed under Act 136, an act which excludes
from regulation oil and gas producers who transport their own brine.
Thus, producers need not comply with the regulations that govern the
actions of all other transporters of oil field brine. Authorization
for producers to spread brine appears to have come about through a
failure by Water Quality personnel to differentiate between licensed
waste haulers and non-licensed producers. Regardless, oil and gas
producers have been responsible for a number of the brining abuses
reported in recent years. Their elimination from approved brine

management plans would be a sensible step towards correcting existing

problems.

The second most-cited recommendation centers upon the elimination of
industrial waste haulers from approved brine management plans.
Reports spanning the past decade have consistently pointed to these
individuals as the cause of many brine disposal abuses. Like the
producers who haul their own brine, waste haulers operate under a
powerful incentive to get rid of the brine they transport as quickly
as possible. Brine haulers garner the highest profits by minimizing
the distance travelled to disposal sites and maximizing the number of
loads hauled in a given period of time. Faced with such constraints,

the less scrupulous have dumped brine on roads adjacent to well sites.

Supervision of waste hauler activities is a crucial element in the
successful regulation of oil field brine spreading. A governmental
body submitting a management plan for DNR approval must include copies
of the written contracts between itself and its agents. In almost
every case to date, governmental units have failed to produce copies
of the required contracts. Under the terms of their own "Guidelines,"
Water Quality Division personnel should have denied approval of these
management plans. A written contract would set forth the conditions
under which a waste hauler could apply brine for a governmental body.
A chain of responsibility would thus be established and recognized by

all participants.

Although DNR interviewees recommended the elimination of waste haulers
from all brine management plans, they recognized that such an action

may run: be taken. Given the large volumes of brine transported by

waste haulers, the safest course to pursue may be to allow their
continued inclusion in public sector management plans. Interviewees
speculated that outright prohibition of brining by these haulers could
lead to an increase in illegal dumping of oil field brine. Brine
transporters operate every day of the week; round-the-clock
surveillance of their activities is virtually impossible. By
permitting haulers to dispose of their loads on roads, the Department
channels hauler activities towards a setting where effective
enforcement is more easily achieved. However, if haulers are 'to
continue applying brine for county road commissions, DNR interviewees
insist that the Department require those commissions to schedule
brining by specific road section. Under the current "Guidelines,"
public sector holders of approved management plans must maintain
records of the date, amount, and specific location of each application
of oil field brine. With few exceptions, Groundwater Quality
personnel have not insisted upon this recordkeeping. Most road
commissions have not bothered to schedule brine applications and
thereby better control the activities of their agents. In the absence
of pressure from the Department, road commissions have found that they
can simply turn their agents loose to brine roads without any

supervision.

The failure to supervise the activities of private sector agents was
the chief indictment leveled at county road commissions by DNR
personnel interviewed by the author. Elimination of these agents from

approved management plans or increased enforcement of recordkeeping

requirements should substantially reduce existing road brining
problems. However, the Department may still face a related problem in
dealing with county road commissions. The authority to issue and
enforce Special Order 1-81 resides in Act 61 but governmental units
are not defined as "persons" subject to the provisions of the
Act.76 This means that government agencies at all levels may fall
outside of the jurisdiction of the Supervisor of Wells, the ultimate
administrator of Act 61. The Supervisor has decided to allow county
road commissions to spread oil field brine but the DNR holds only
three means of controlling their activities. Department personnel can
attempt to persuade county road commissioners to act within the terms
of a brine management plan. If persuasion fails, the Geological
Survey Division does have the authority to demand that producers stop
releasing brine to a commission that has violated management plan
stipulations. Such an order would not only be politically unpopular
with both the road commission and the people served by it but might
also be slow to take effect due to the Division's formal
runncompliance procedures.77 Finally, the Department can attempt to
prosecute the offending road commission under the general provisions
of Act 245 or bring suit under Act 127, the Michigan Environmental
Protection Act.78 In any case, the Department would be relying upon
an indirect means of regulating county road commission activities. In
order for the Supervisor of Wells to obtain direct control over road
commission activities, the Michigan legislature may have to amend Act
61 to define governmental bodies as "persons" subject to the Act's

provisions.

Regulating the activities of county road commissions may pose
continuing problems for DNR personnel. Nevertheless, the Department
can substantially improve its brine management program 'through an
increased emphasis upon the enforcement of management plan
provisions. The author's interviews highlighted several abuses
warranting more attention: waste haulers and producers who spread
brine too frequently, county officials who fail to maintain adequate
records of brine applications, and a city government which spreads
brine as a substitute for mechanical snow removal. Every one of these
problems can be attacked through strict enforcement of existing brine
management plans. Difficulties may arise -- observing that a section
of road is brined too often is not the same as catching a brine
spreader in the act of violating a management plan. Yet no
explanation should excuse allowing the continued use of oil field
brine by county road commissions which do not have approved management
plans. The: management plan approach was designed with a central
purpose: to govern the manner in which oil field brine is spread upon
Michigan roads. To fulfill this purpose, the activities of brine
spreaders must be monitored and the provisions of brine management

plans must be enforced.

When discussing program enforcement, many field employees recommended
that the Department increase the number of personnel responsible for
monitoring road brining activities. Given current budgetary
constraints, increases in the number of field personnel may prove

impractical. Another alternative lies in increasing the emphasis upon

enforcement rather than increasing the s_iz_e_ of the Department's field
staff. Based upon the responses made during the interviews, many
individuals in the responsible Divisions do not want to assume an
active role in monitoring road brining activities. Indeed they have
shown a marked reluctance to involve themselves in brine management
matters in the three years that have passed since the approval of the
first brine management plans. Aside from a small number of cases,
Department personnel have not pursued management plan violations. In
the absence of a firm commitment from their superiors, field personnel
are likely to continue this course of inaction. Decision makers
within the Department must resolve whether or not the spreading of oil
field brine warrants attention. If they conclude that continued
regulation is valuable, then they should stress the need for better

enforcement of the objectives of the brine management program.

Even with a heightened emphasis upon enforcement, Department personnel
cannot effectively monitor road brining activities without ready
access to the information contained in approved management plans.
Many interviewees, when asked about their roles in the brine
management program, excused their nonparticipation by pointing to the
absence of access to management plan information. Many stated that
photocopies of approved brine management plans need to be distributed
to all appropriate field offices. While definitely a step in the
right direction, disseminating photocopied files is not the only means
available for improving field staff access to brine management plan

particulars. Both the 1982 Brine Task Force and Law Enforcement

Division interviewees have recommended entering management plan
information into the Law Enforcement Information Network (LEIN)
system. If practical, this reconmendation would provide Department
personnel with speedy access to information while in the field. They
could check for possible management plan violations while actually
observing a vehicle in the act of spreading brine. Whether
distributed as photocopies or entered into the LEIN system, management
plan information must be made more accessible if the Department's

program is to succeed.

In addition to the recommendations made by DNR personnel, the author
suggests several further changes in the current brine management
progran. A revised set of brine management plan instructions should
be introduced. Field experiences indicate that the time has come to
reassess the contents of the current "Guidelines." Minor changes can
correct a number of the problems delineated by this study. For
example, a stipulation should be incluoed in a revised version of the
"Guidelines" to prohibit brine spreading during or immediately after
rainfall. This activity increases the risk that brine will wash from
the road surface into a nearby watercourse. Another caveat should
plainly state that all brine spreading not performed by the management
plan applicant must be done by a party under written contract to that
applicant. A copy of the written contract would then have to be
submitted with the proposed management plan. Through this provision,
a contracted brine spreader would be required to sign a legal document

stating his willingness to adhere to the terms of the applicant's

management plan. Finally, the revised instructions should specify
that applications of brine for dust control may only be made by means
of a fully operational spreader bar. Current management plan
instructions do not forbid brining by means of an open valve or splash
plate, methods conducive to brine dumping in the guise of dust
control. With this new stipulation in place, individuals who dump oil
field brine on a public road can be more easily prosecuted than has
proved possible with management plans approved under the present

"Guidelines."

Revising the "Guidelines" is a first step towards improving the
existing brine: management plan approach. However, many management
plans that have already been approved contain flaws that need to be
corrected. Many plans were approved despite the fact that the
information they provided was incomplete. Some do not list the names
and addresses of contracted brine spreaders; others do not name the
well sites from which brine is taken for use upon the public roads. A
number of plans do not state whether oil field brine will be used to
control dust, to melt ice, or to do both. In several cases, two
different plans submitted by a county road corrmission have received
approval and no one within the Department can say which approved plan
takes precedence. Because of such discrepancies, a complete review of

existing brine management plans is in order.

To improve the current management plan format, emphasis should be

placed upon producing consistent, enforceable brine management plans.

[1

The repetition of some road brining problems under future management
plans can be prevented through the introduction of revised
instructions as discussed above. To correct deficiencies in existing
plans, the recipients of approved management plans should be asked to
submit new brine spreading proposals that conform to the revised
"Guidelines." This process would entail Department review of all
brine spreading proposals prior to granting new approval of management
plans. In this manner the Department can correct past mistakes by
requiring the submission of information missing from current brine
management plans. All current management plans are plainly labeled as
"interim" plans. Furthermore, no provision in either Special Order
1-81 or the "Guidelines" states that management plan approval
continues in perpetuity. A review and reapproval process can also
help to assure more consistency in approved management plans
statewide. At present, the brine management program is plagued by a
confusing array of differing plans. A myriad of spreading volumes and
frequencies proliferate throughout the counties of the Southern
Peninsula. Dissimilar applicant needs can not explain these
variations. Instead, most management plans were approved in the form
in which they were submitted, with little cross-referencing to
previously approved plans. In addition, two different application
forms have been used for the submission of brine management plan
proposals. The earlier version produced management plans that,
although few in number, contain less essential information than later
plans. Requiring all brine management plans to be written under one

set of revised instructions, on one standard form, will produce a

uniformity which will make plans easier to compare and enforce. More
consistent plans could also better protect the waters of the state
from brine pollution by curbing the wide variations in application

volumes and frequencies that now exist.

The foundation of a revised brine management program could rest upon a
standard set to govern brine application rates so that the state's
water resources are adequately protected. Neither the Water Resources
Commission nor the Groundwater Quality Division has proposed or
adopted standards to govern the application of oil field brine on
roadways. The August 18, 1983 meeting of the Groundwater Quality
Division Supervisory Staff did result in informal agreement with the
following standard: the maximum permissible rate of application of
oil field brine to Michigan roads should be 1,000 gallons per mile per
road lane. The suggested maximum frequency of application agreed upon
was six applications per dust control season. These standards were
deemed to provide a reasonable assurance that the State's groundwater
resources would not be adversely impacted by road brining
activities.79 If such standards were formally adopted, the
Department would foster a statewide uniformity in brine application

rates and frequencies.

Adopting interviewee recommendations and revising management plan
instructions alone will not solve road brining problems. For these
changes to be truly effective, stronger cooperation among the

responsible Department Divisions will be needed. Field staff

confusion over monitoring responsibilities and the failure to properly
distribute management plan information highlight the need for program
coordination. A number of irfierviewees stressed the desirability of
designating a contact person in Lansing to coordinate the Department's
brine management progran. This person could coordinate the review of
brine management plans submitted under the revised instructions and
thereby insure the use of consistent criteria in approving management
plans. A central contact position could also serve as a focal point
for obtaining or distributing informaticwr concerning approved

management plans.

Clearly, since several Divisions play a part in the Department's brine
management program, cooperation and coordination of effort are
essential to effective enforcement. At the least, a memorandum of
understanding between the Geological Survey and Groundwater Quality
Divisions would be useful in promoting stronger program coordination.
These two Divisions play the largest roles in the current brine
management program. A formal memorandum could delineate the roles
each Division must play in program administration, helping to end the

confusion that has prevailed in the past several years.

Forty of the forty-seven DNR employees interviewed by the author (85%)
believed that the Department should assign to one Division primary
responsibility in administering the brine management program. Several
compelling reasons support the designation of the Geological Survey

Division as that lead Division. First, the Geological Survey Division

has a larger field staff than do either the Groundwater Quality or
Hazardous Waste Divisions. Furthermore, the duties of Geological
Survey field personnel include regular visits to oil and gas
production facilities throughout the state. Survey personnel are
familiar with the facilities which serve as the sources of oil field
brine and they know the individuals who are involved in the handling

and disposal of that brine.

Second, the Geological Survey and Law Enforcement Divisions recently
signed a formal Memorandum of Understanding establishing a cooperative
enforcement of Act 61. As discussed in the preceding section of this
report, conservation officers are the key to the effective monitoring
of road brining activities and enforcement of brine management plan
provisions. Under the recent agreement, conservation officers have
received special training so that they may assist Survey personnel in
enforcing the provisions of Act 61. That assistance includes the

enforcement of Special Order 1-81.

Third, and perhaps most important, Geological Survey personnel
administer Act 61 and its promulgated regulations. In Act 61 lies the
authority under which the program to regulate oil field brine disposal
was initiated. The review and approval of brine management plans now
relies upon Groundwater Quality personnel acting under the authority
of Special Order 1-81 even though the Supervisor of Wells has not
designated their Division as his representative in these matters. On

the other hand, the Geological Survey Division already administers all

other provisions of Special Order 1-81. And, under current Department
policy and procedure statements, the Geological Survey should be the
lead Division in regulating the handling and disposal of oil field
brine. The authority to enforce management plan provisions resides in
Act 61, authority that has not been vested upon the Groundwater
Quality Division. Clearly, enforcement of the Supervisor's Order
would be (NT firmer legal grounds if management plan responsibilities

were tied to the Geological Survey Division.

SUMMAT ION

Oil field brine is highly saline water produced as a by-product during
oil and gas drilling and production operations. Most of this waste
brine will be returned to the subsurface; however, 50 million gallons
or more will be spread each year upon roadways and other properties in
Michigan. A strong suspicion exists that this road brining will cause
long-term, low-level contamination of the state's groundwaters but no
proof of this trend currently exists. In recent years the continual
use of oil field brine on several roads has probably been the cause of
a number of cases of well water contamination. No adverse health

effects have been reported as a result of any of these incidences.

The Supervisor of Wells holds the authority to regulate the disposal
of oil field brine under Act 61. Through Special Order 1-81 and its
amendments, the Supervisor has declared that this brine may be used
for dust control, ice removal, and road stabilization on public roads,
private properties, and production facility access roads. The
Supervisor's Order resulted in the creation of an administrative
process through which these uses could be properly regulated. At the
heart of this process lies the brine management plan. Approval of a
brine management plan must be obtained from the Department of Natural
Resources prior to any use of oil field brine on public roads or

private properties.

To examine the effectiveness of the DNR brine management plan program,
the author interviewed seventy-one individuals familiar with road
brining practices. Interviewed individuals included state government
personnel, oil producers, and county road commissioners. The
interview process focussed upon testing the validity of the following
hypothesis: the brine management plan program initiated under Special
Order 1-81 has failed to adequately regulate the use of oil field
brine on Michigan roadways. Based upon the responses garnered through
the use of a questionnaire, the author concludes that this supposition
is erroneous. The mere fact that the State has moved to regulate the
manner in which oil field brine is spread has lead to a marked
decrease in improper practices. The perception that the State has
acted, rather than actual enforcement of management plan particulars,
has produced a degree of self—regulation by those parties spreading
brine. DNR personnel assert that incidents of improper brine
spreading have clearly declined since the inception of the brine
management plan program. No reports of brine dumping into streams, in
woodlots, or on roadways have been recorded in the past two years.
Thus, the DNR brine management plan program can be said to have
adequately addressed known road brining problems. Nevertheless, the
results of this program remain imperfect and improvement should be

made to tighten existing regulations.

The key problem uncovered by this study involved excessive brine
spreading by licensed industrial waste haulers and by oil and gas

producers who hauled and spread their own brine. These individuals,

operating for county, township, or city governments, have in a number
of cases applied oil field brine at a frequency many times greater
than cited in the management plans under which they operate. In areas
where new drilling operations are active, some haulers and producers
have been applying brine from drilling pits to adjacent roadways in
quantities believed to greatly exceed permitted application rates. In
summary, some waste haulers and producers appear to be dumping oil
field brine rather than applying it in accordance with an approved

brine management plan.

At the crux of this problem is brine disposal in the guise of
acceptable road maintenance. Waste haulers and producers want to
dispose of oil field brine at the lowest possible cost. County road
commissions want to provide their citizens with dust-free secondary
roads at the lowest possible cost. In essence, haulers and producers
have a monetary incentive to dump their brine on local roads and
county road commissions have little incentive to discourage this
practice. As a result, overly frequent applications of oil field
brine are made to roads near well sites while little is spread in

areas distant from oil and gas fields.

In the three years since its inception, the brine management plan
approach has received limited support from personnel in the DNR
Divisions responsible for administering this program. Regulatory
efforts during these three years have largely been confined to the

circulation of management plan applications to all interested

parties. Furthermore, DNR field personnel have not adequately
monitored road brining activities, in part due to a failure to
distribute management plan information to District offices.
Department decision makers in turn have not delineated the roles to be
played by each Division in the enforcement of brine management plans.
In the absence of a coherent Department policy, road commissions and
their agents have been able to ignore those management plan

restrictions which they have deemed to be inconvenient.

Because of lethargy and indeciSIon within the Department of Natural
Resources, the brine management plan approach has not yet been truly
tested. Both the author and most interviewees have concluded that the
management plan approach can be improved and need not be abandoned.
Based upon the findings of this study, the author recommends that the

following actions be taken:

1. The Geological Survey Division should be designated as the
lead Division in administering the Department of Natural
Resources' brine management plan program.

2. A Memorandum of Understanding between the Geological Survey
and Groundwater Quality Divisions should be drafted to
delineate the roles each Division should play in the brine
management program.

3. A revised set of brine management plan instructions should be
introduced. Current holders of approved management plans
should be required to resubmit their brine spreading
proposals for approval under the revised instructions.

4. Oil and gas producers should no longer be permitted to spread
their brine on the public roads.

Licensed industrial waste haulers should not be permitted to
spread oil field brine on the public roads unless the
governmental unit for' whom ‘they operate specifies. exactly
where and how that brine will be applied, under a written
contract signed by both parties.

The Department should increase the emphasis placed upon
monitoring road brining activities and enforcing management
plan provisions.

The information contained in approved brine management plans
should be made readily accessible to personnel at all
appropriate Department field offices.

A centrally located contact person should be assigned the
responsibility of coordinating the statewide implementation
of the brine management program.

AFTERWORD

Since this study was conducted, a series of events have transpired
which will affect future state actions concerning the use of brine on
Michigan roadways. New irfibrmation has been gathered concerning the
presence of toxic compounds entrained in oil field brines. A study
performed by the staff of the Geological Survey Division has
established that benzene, toluene, and xylenes are present in Michigan
oil field brines.80 Of greatest concern, benzene, a known
carcinogen, was present in all brine samples collected for analysis.
Based Iflxfll this finding, Edvision administrators contemplated
additional research to determine the environmental fate of benzene in

order to assess the risk of groundwater contamination associated with

the brining of roads.

Prior to the commencement of new research, the Chairman of the
Michigan Environmental Review Board (MERB) learned of the Division's
initial study. Upon review of the study findings, MERB concluded that
the potential harm to human health and the environment posed by toxic
contaminants in brine necessitated a moratorium on further spreading
of oil field brine. On September 24, 1984 MERB recommended that the
Governor direct the Supervisor of Wells to prohibit the release of
brines from oil and gas production facilities for use in road
maintenance practices. MERB also recommended that this Inoratorium

should begin no later than October 31, 1984 and remain in effect until

three conditions had been met:

1. A study is completed by the DNR and other appropriate
state agencies to determine acceptable levels of
specific organics and other pollutants in brines. MERB
recommends that the study be coordinated by the Toxic
Substances Control Commission;

2. Currently known sources of such brines are analyzed for
levels of organics and other pollutants;

3. A periodic monitoring program is established to ensure

that acceptable organic and other pollutant levels in
the brines are not exceeded.

Although the Governor never formally acted on these recommendations,
the DNR Director chose to pursue the moratorium approach suggested by
MERB. Such a moratorium could not legally be imposed prior to a
public hearing before the Supervisor of Wells and the subsequent
amendment of Special Order Number 1—81.82 The Geological Survey
Division, acting on behalf of the State, petitioned the Supervisor to
issue a new Order prohibiting the use of oil field brine on roads

after April 15, 1985. This date reflects the approximate commencement

of the annual dust control season.

On November 29 and 30 of 1984 a public hearing was held before the
Supervisor of Wells and the Oil and Gas Advisory Board to consider the
State's petition. Created by Act 61, this Board assists the
Supervisor during all hearings to consider the adoption of orders
having statewide application.83 Board members then deliberate and

submit a formal opinion to the Supervisor regarding the adoption of

the proposed order. Seventeen hours of testimony were presented
during the two-day hearing. Due to the volume of testimony under
review, the Advisory Board had not submitted its opinion to the
Supervisor at the time of this writing. A decision by the Supervisor

is expected by April 1, 1985.84

APPEND ICES

APPENDIX A

SUPERVISOR OF WELLS SPECIAL ORDER NUMBER l-8l

Paragraph 1. All brines shall be disposed of by injection to approved
subsurface formations through approved brine disposal wells, injected
pursuant to anw approved secondary recovery plan, reused for drilling
purposes, or use[d] in accord with a plan approved pursuant to
procedures adopted by the Water Resources Commission, except as
provided in paragraphs 2 and 7 below.

Paragraph 2. The field representative of the Supervisor of Wells may
authorize the disposal of on-site drilling fluids to dry holes under
controlled conditions as part of the plugging operations, or in the
event that production casing is run on a well, may, under special
conditions, authorize annular space disposal of injectable drilling
fluids generated during the drilling of that well, provided in both
cases that drilling fluids are injected in permeable formations below
the fresh water horizons and that disposal pressure gradients do not
exceed 0.7 psi per fact at the surface casing seat.

Paragraph 3. Producers shall be responsible for the proper handling
of all brines on their lease site, central tank battery, or other
proximate loading site [facilities] irrespective of the ownership of
storage or loading facilities.

Paragraph 4. Producers shall maintain records for two years of the
disposition of all brines. The records shall indicate dates, volumes,
recipient, transporter, destination, and proof of delivery.

If an authorized hauler receives brines at an unattended loading site
the hauler shall provide the producer a signed record describing the
volume, time, date, destination, and proof of delivery.

Paragraph 5. Producers may provide brine to governmental units or a
hauler if the hauler can verify his authorization to receive brines on
behalf of a governmental unit. After September 15, 1981, all uses of
oil field brines by units of government will be in accord with a
management plan approved pursuant to procedures adopted by the Water
Resources Commission.

Paragraph 6. The governmental unit receiving brine shall be
responsible for the safe handling and use of brines from the point of
loading, and for separate storage and place of use, regardless of
ownership of hauling vehicles.

Paragraph 7. A District Supervisor of the Geological Survey Division,
as a representative of the Supervisor of Wells, may grant an annual
written authorization to an operator to use oil field brines for dust
or ice control and [road] stabilization on oil and gas production
facility access roads that are maintained and controlled by the
operator. The application shall be made to the District Supervisor
providing such data as is required. Failure by the operator to use
the brine as required by the Supervisor of Wells may result in the
revoking of the Supervisor of Wells' written authorization.

Paragraph 8. Oil field brines may be used on private roads and
property (i.e. parking lots, construction projects) for dust or ice
control and road stabilization. The applicatbmi on private property
shall be pursuant to a management plan approved by the Water Resources
Commission.

Paragraph 9. No brines shall be used as drilling fluid for the
drilling and workover of any kind of well or test hole without written
approval from the field representative of the Supervisor of Wells. In
no case will such approval be granted if brines are derived from oil
and/or gas wells containing more than 20 ppm of H25 in the gas
stream unless it can be shown that there is less than 500 ppm
concentration present in the brine.

Paragraph 10. Brines used for road purposes:

(a) Brines containing H25 may be used in accord with an
approved plan under Special Order 1-81 for road dust, ice control, or
[road] stabilization purposes.

(b) All brines from oil and/or gas wells known to contain
H25 shall be tested for their H25 concentration by September 30,

1982 and annually thereafter.

(0) Those using brines containing H25 should implement
training programs for their employees in the safe handling of these
materials. The Michigan Department of Public Health and Michigan
Department of Labor should be consulted in developing programs. It
should be noted that existing regulations concerning occupational
health and safety are applicable to exposure to H25 and must be
complied with.

Paragraph 11. All testing for H25 shall be done by methods approved

by the Supervisor of Wells. The attached instructions for testing
H25 in brine [not included here] are to be followed and are

incorporated in this order by reference. Results of all tests shall
be filed with [the] appropriate field representative of the Supervisor.

APPENDIX B

NOTICE TO ALL OIL AND GAS PRODUCERS

Rules 601 and 602 of the Administrative Rules promulgated pursuant to
Act 61, P.A. 1939 provide that brine or saltwater produced in the
drilling for or production of oil and gas shall be returned to an
approved underground formation or otherwise disposed of as approved by
the Supervisor of Wells. Most brine is returned to the subsurface but
some is in demand for beneficial uses.

Employment of produced brines for the drilling of other wells or for
secondary recovery projects are highly regarded and approved
practices. Utilization of brines for dust control, road
stabilization, or ice removal is acceptable if ground surface
spreading is performed in a careful manner and will not cause
groundwater contamination.

Authorization by the Supervisor of Wells for surface use of oil field
brines is subject to owners, operators, and haulers compliance with
the criteria which follow:

1. Brine may be used only for road stabilization, dust control,
and ice removal.

2. Permission and authorization for brine application must first
be obtained from each owner of the surface on which the brine
is to be applied.

3. Devices, such as spreader bar or sprayer, must be used for
even distribution of brine. Dump valves are not acceptable.
The truck must be in motion during the spreading process.

4. Brine is not to be applied during or immediately after rains
or while the road surface is wet.

5. Brine is to be applied only in a manner where runoff to
ditches or watercourses will not occur.

6. Brine application shall be performed in a manner that will
prevent the contamination of groundwaters. Brine dumping or
spreading to the ground surface as a disposal method is not
approved.

7. Brine application to [surfaces] other than roadways or
parking areas is not approved.

it Producers are expected to keep records of the quantities of
brine employed in ground surface applications.

I.

2.

APPENDIX C

GUIDELINES FOR PREPARATION OF AN INTERIM

BRINE MANAGEMENT PLAN UNDER SUPERVISOR OF WELLS ORDER l-8l

Describe Source of Brine

 

A. Include:

Name of company that produces brine.
Address and telephone number of producer.
The principle or designated authority of said company.

County, township, town and range, 1/4, 1/4, and section.

Storage Areas

 

A. Brine Storage

Management plan shall comply with Part 5 of the Water
Resources Commission Administrative Rules and as a minimum
shall address and adhere to the following:

1.

2.

Include in location: county, township, section number,
1/4, 1/4, road name, and address.

Container shall be constructed of material resistant to
material stored.

Compliance with Rule 157, Part 5, by submitting detailed
construction plans witrn management plan for existing
storage and loading/unloading areas and thirty (30) days
prior to any new construction.

Maintenance of all storage containers and associated
piping and valving in a liquid tight condition at all
times.

Prohibit cross-contamination with materials not
otherwise allowed for the uses identified in the plan.

Provide for locked valves when not in use.

Develop and post in a conspicuous location at all
transfer sites operating procedures designed to prevent
overflows and all other spillage.

Develop and practice procedures for the immediate
recovery of spills.

Report spills as required by Rule 164, Part 5.

B. Salt/Brine/Sand Mixing and Storage Sites

1.

Maintain impervious primary surface pad curbed
sufficently to prevent the entrance of uncontaminated
runoff and to direct contaminated runoff to impervious
containment or authorized discharge.

Compliance with Rule 157, Part 5, by submitting
detailed construction plans with management plan for
existing salt/brine/sand mixing and storage sites and
thirty (30) days prior to any new construction.

Provide sufficent cover to direct rain and snow melt
runoff to the outside of the curbed area of the primary
impervious pad.

Provide for disposal of liquids generated by the
operation of the facility in accordance with the
provisions of the approved management plan.

111. Pollution Incident Prevention Plan

 

Management plan shall comply with Part 5 of the Water Resources
Commission Administrative Rules. Rule 162 outlines the necessary
components of a Pollution Incident Prevention Plan, which are
stated in part below:

Owner/operator of such facility shall file with the
Commission a Pollution Incident Prevention Plan setting
forth:

1.

The procedures by which such person proposes to prevent
pollution of the waters of this State from storage and
use areas.

The emergency clean—up procedures to be used in case of
a spill, discharge, seepage, runoff, or leakage into
the waters of this State.

The type of surveillance employed by such a person.

The method by which inventories are made from the time
the materials are received until such time as they are
treated and discharged or shipped out.

IV. Describe Transportation and Spreader Vehicles Used

 

Approved vehicles

1.

2.

be government owned.

be privately owned under terms of a written contract
(copy to DNR) with governmental unit that as a minimum
incorporates and provides for compliance with the
provisions of:

a. the approved management plan.

b. State of Michigan Motor vehicle Codes.

c. license under Act 136, P.A. of 1969.

Transport tanks and associated piping and valving must
be maintained in a liquid tight condition at all times
except during the actual spreading for purposes
addressed in the management plan.

Prohibit cross-contamination with materials not
otherwise allowed for the uses identified in the plan.

Provide contingency planning for the immediate
containment and recovery of spills.

Report spills as required by Rule 164, Part 5.

V. Describe Method of Application

 

A.

For Dust Control/Soil Stabilization

1.

Applied at a rate and in a manner to prevent direct
runoff to any watercourse or from the road surface.

Indicate application rate per lane mile and frequency
of application.

6.

Indicate application method (i.e. diffusing plate,
spreader bar).

Application only when vehicle is in motion.

Maintain up-to-date records showing dates, specific
locations including road lane, volume, brine source,
and name of hauler for three (3) years and make
available to DNR upon demand.

Direct injection of brine to storm or sanitary sewers
shall not be allowed by this management plan and such
activities may result in removal from the list of those
authorized to receive oil and gas brines.

For Ice Removal

1.

2.

3.

Applied at a rate and in a manner to prevent direct
runoff to any watercourse or from the road surface.

Indicate application rate. Application rate and
frequency not to exceed that necessary for ice removal
as dictated by conditions.

Indicate application method (i.e. spreader bar, open
valve in center of road).

Application only when vehicle is in motion.

Maintain up-to-date records showing dates, specific
locations..including :road lane, volume, brine source,
and name of hauler for three (3) years and make
available to DNR upon demand.

Brine shall not be used for snow removal when effective
removal would be achieved by plow or grader.

APPENDIX D

BRINE INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE

Do the following occur in your district?

a. Too frequent brine applications at some sites? (how often?)
b. Too much brine per application? (how can you tell?)

0. Improper spreading techniques? (such as?)

d. Application when unnecessary? (why unnecessary?)

e. Application on roads not designated for brining?

f. Application on roads not suitable for brining?
(due to slope, drainage, or other factors?)

9. Application by unlicensed waste haulers?

Is there misuse of brine in applications on private roads?
Is this a major problem?

Is there misuse of brine in applications on lease sites roads?
Is this a major problem?

In which areas of this district have road brining problems
occurred? Have attempts been made to prosecute individuals or
companies for improper or unauthorized brine spreading? To what
result?

What environmental impacts do you foresee resulting from the use
of oil field brine on roadways?

Have any of these impacts occurred? Do you have documentation of
those occurrences?

7. Do you have records of complaints from residents about too much
brining? Do you have records of complaints from residents about
not enough brining?

8. Which county road commissions request or receive date, location,
and quantity information prior to brine applications by contracted
waste haulers? Would such information be useful if submitted to
you?

9. If brine is properly applied in accordance to an approved brine
management plan, would we still have problems? (if YES, would you
recommend any changes in the current BMP program?)

10. Who is responsible for current road brining problems? Why?

a. The oil & gas producers?
b. The waste haulers?

c. The county road commissions?

11. Which Division should be responsible for overseeing brine disposal
practices? Why? Should joint enforcement be attempted?

12. How much do county road commissions pay for oil field brine?

13. Do the following pose any problems? (How severe?)

a. Brine contaminated with oil?
b. Brine contaminated with hydrogen sulfide?
c. Brine contaminated with toxic chemicals?

d. Brine drawn from drilling pits?

FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTES

1 Kenneth S. Johnson and Serge Gonzales, 1978, Salt Deposits in the
United States and Regional Characteristics Important for Storage of
RadioaCtive Wastes, prepared for the Union Carbide Corporation and’the
United States Department of Energy, March 1978, Earth Resource
Associates, Inc., Athens, Georgia.

 

 

2 Ibid, pages 21, 24, 25, 25, and 29.

3 Hassan A. Sultan and Peter Fleming, 1974, Soil Erosion and Dust
Control on Arizona Highways: Part 1. State ofTTthe Art Review,
Arizona Transportation and Traffic InstitOte, The University of
Arizona, Research Project HPR-l-lO(l41), The Arizona Department of
Transportation, page 92.

 

4 P.J. Moses, 1981, "An Environmental Review of calcium Chloride in
Road Dust Control and Stabilization Applications," The Dow Chemical
Company, June 1981.

5 Franklin S. Adams, 1973, "Highway Salt: Social and Environmental
Concerns," Environmental Degradation by De-Icing Chemicals and
Effective Countermeasures, Highway Research Record Number 425, Highway
Research Board, National Academy of Sciences - National Academy of
Engineering, page 5.

 

 

6 J. Hode Keyser, 1973, "De-Icing Chemicals and Abrasives: State of
the Art," Environmental Degradation by De-Icing Chemicals and
Effective Countermeasures, Highway Research Record Number 425, Highway
Research Board, National Academy of Sciences - National Academy of
Engineering, page 37 (Table 2).

 

7 Keyser, 1973, page 37 (Table 2).
8 Keyser, 1973, page 40.
9 Sultan, 1974, page 96.

10 Sultan, 1974, page 96.

FOOTNOTES continued

11 Based upon an assumed LIQUIDOW specific gravity of 1.34 and a
calcium chloride content of 38% by weight.

12 P.J. Moses, 1982, "A Study on Dust Control Effectiveness of
Calcium Chloride and Waste Brine," The Dow Chemical Company, April
1982.

13 James W. Moore and Robert C. Welch, 1977, Environmental Aspects
of Brine Usage for Highway Purposes, College of Engineering,
University of Arkansas, Highway Research Project 44, Arkansas State
Highway and Transportation Department, page 2.

 

 

14 Moore and Welch, 1977, page 31, Table I.
15 Moore and Welch, 1977, page 118, Figure 61.
15 P.J. Moses, 1982.

17 Henry W. Kirchner, December 19, 1983 correspondence with the
author.

18 Ibid.

19 Testimony given by Micheal K. Dillenbeck, Engineer-Manager of the
Manistee County Road Commission, at the October 13, 1983 public
hearing before the Supervisor of Wells on Cause (A) 18-10-81.

20 Information supplied by Douglas L. Daniels, Area Geologist,
Plainwell District, Geological Survey Division during an interview
conducted by the author on August 30, 1983.

21 Ibid.

22 40 C.F.R. 143.3 (1983). This recommended standard has not been
adopted in Michigan and is therefore not enforceable for public or
private water supplies (Michigan Environmental Health Association,
1983, Environmental Health Ready Reference, 2nd edition, page 64).

F OOTMJTES continued

23 R.E. Hanes, L.W. Zelazny, and R.E. Blaser, 1970, Effects of

Deiciqu Salts on Water G

 

uality and Biota: Literature Review and

 

 

Reconmended Research, Nat:

 

Lonal Cooperative Highway Research Program

Report 91, Highway Research Board, National Academy of Sciences -

National Academy of Enginee

2“ 42 0.5.0. 6901 gtwsgg. (

ring, page 5.

1982) .

25 42 u.s.c. 6903 (27) (1982).

26 42 0.5.0. 6902 (3) (1982).

27 1976 U.S. Code Gong. and Admin. News, p. 6238.

28 40 C.F.R. 256 et seq. (1983).

29 40 C.F.R. 261.4 (0) (1983).

30 33 u.s.c. 1251 EE seq. (
31 42 0.5.0. 300r EE seq. (
32 40 C.F.R. 143.3 (1983).
33 M.C.L. 299.401 EE seq. (
3" M.C.L. 299.501 _e_t_s__g. (

35 R 299.6202 (2) (1981).

1982); 40 C.F.R. 122 SE £29- (1983).

1982)

1979).

1979) .

35 M.C.L. 323.1 2E seq. (1979).

37 M.C.L. 325.1001 Esta.

(1979).

FOOTNOTES continued

38 M.C.L. 319.1 $533. (1979).

39 Special Order Number 1-81 was amended on June 15, 1981 (a change
of date in paragraph 5), on November 3, 1981 (the addition of
paragraphs 7 and 8), and again on June 2, 1982 (the addition of
paragraphs 9 through 11).

40 Secondary recovery involves the injecthmi of a fluid such as oil
field brine into an oil-bearing formation in order to drive the oil
from the rock's pore space so that it may be pumped to the surface.

41 M.C.L. 323.271 Etieg. (1979).

42 Information in this paragraph was derived fron Daniel H. Pollard,
1964, "Michigan: Oil State of the Great Lakes, Origin and Early
Development 1860-1935," Doctor' of Philosophy Thesis, University of
Michigan.

43 Geological Survey Division, Michigan Department of Natural
Resources, 1969, Michigan Oil and Gas Fields, 1968, Annual Statistical
Summary 10, Table 17, page 63.

 

44 Jeffrey E. Herrold, 1984, "Revised Oil Field Brine Statistics,"
November 27, 1984 memorandum to Allen F. Crabtree, Assistant Division
Chief, Geological Survey Division.

45 Ibid, page 1.
46 Ibid, page 4.

47 Forrest C. Strong, 1944, "A Study of Calcium Chloride Injury to
Roadside Trees, " QuarterlL Bulletin, Volume 27, Number 2, Michigan
State College, Agricultural Experiment Station, page 216.

 

48 Strong, 1944, pages 216 - 217.

49 Strong, 1944, page 217.

FOOTNOTES continued

50 Information supplied by Douglas L. Daniels, Area Geologist,
Plainwell District, Geological Survey Division during an interview
conducted by the author on August 30, 1983.

51 Ibid.
52 Ibid.

53 Supervisor of Wells' Findings of Fact, Cause No. (A) 21-12-80,
Special Order Number 1-81, March 3, 1981.

54 Paragraph 2 of Special Order 1-81 originally included the
following:

The field representative may also authorize limited quantity
application of brine for ice or dust control to a drilling
site access road which is not a part of a governmental road
system. Such applications shall be done with the permission
of the property owner or his representative and at rates and
in a manner to prevent contamination of ground or surface
waters.

Compare this language with Paragraph 7 of the amended Special Order
(Appendix A).

55 Minutes of the June 18, 1981 meeting of the Michigan Water
Resources Commission.

55 Ibid.

57 Water Quality Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources,
1981, "Guidelines for Preparation of an Interim Brine Management Plan
under Supervisor of Wells Order 1-81," section V (A)(l) and (B)(1).

58 Geological Survey Division, Michigan Department of Natural
Resources, Brine Management File.

59 Ibid (as of November 27, 1984).

FOOTNOTES continued

60 David M. Dennis, 1982, undated memorandum entitled "Special
Assigrments for Ron Shaver, Unit Chief, Emergency Response 5: Waste
Hauler Licensing Section, Water Quality Division."

61 Water Quality Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources,
Brine Task Force, 1982, Minutes of the September 20, 1982 meeting at
Mt. Pleasant, Alice Cantu, recording secretary.

62 Executive Order 1973-2 issued by Governor William G. Milliken on
January 11, 1973.

63 M.C.L. 257.602a (1980).

64 Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Policy‘and Procedure,
Department Policy Number 2305, effective January 1, 1977.

 

65 Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Policy and Procedure,
Department Procedure Number 4505.5, effective July 1, 1977.

 

55 M.C.L. 333.12101 (l) (1980).

67 M.C.L. 333.12103 (a) (1980).

58 M.C.L. 333.12103 (c) (1980).

59 M.C.L. 333.12103 (e) (1980).

70 M.C.L. 224.1 (1982) and M.C.L. 224.18 (1982).
71 M.C.L. 224.19 (1982).

72 Executive Order 1973-9 issued by Governor William G. Milliken on
July 26, 1973.

FOOTNOTES continued

73 Oil or natural gas are not produced in Michigan's Northern
Peninsula and no oil field brine is presently spread upon Northern
Peninsula roads.

74 The author also contacted seven licensed waste haulers who
transport and spread large volumes of oil field brine. All either
declined to be interviewed or expressed the opinion that they operated
within the bounds of existing state regulations.

75 Paragraph 5, SOpervisor of Wells' Special Order 1-81 as amended.
75 M.C.L. 319.2 (a) (1979).

77 Allen F. Crabtree, Assistant Chief, Geological Survey Division,
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, October 12, 1983
conversation with the author.

78 Legal actions can be brought against a governmental body alleged
to be violating the provisions of either Act. Pertinent sections of
each Act are as follows:

Section 6(a) of Act 245: "It shall be unlawful for any
[governmental body] directly or indirectly to discharge into
the waters of the state any substance which is or may become
injurious to the public health, safety, or welfare..."

Section 10(2) of Act 245: A governmental body which
"discharges a substance into the waters of the state contrary
to the provisions of this act...is guilty of a misdemeanor and
shall be fined not less than $2,500.00 nor more than
$25,000.00 for each violation."

Section 2(1) of Act 127 [M.C.L. 691.1201 et.§§g. (1979)]: The
State "may maintain an action in the ”Shout court having
jurisdiction where the alleged violation occurred or is likely
to occur for declaratory and equitable relief against...any
political subdivision [of the state]...for the protection of
the air, water and other natural resources and the public
trust therein from pollution, impairment or destruction."

QT]

FOOTNOTES continued

79 Gene L. Hall, Water Quality Specialist, Groundwater Quality
Division, Michigan Department of natural Resources, October 26, 1983
conversation with the author.

80 J.R. Heinzman, J.E. Herrold, J.A. Daniels, and H.R. Fitch, 1984,
Analysis for Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Oil Field Brine - A Preliminary
Report, Oil Field Brine Sampling Cbmmittee, Geological’ Survey
Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, August 24, 1984.

 

81 Motion passed at the September 24, 1984 meeting of the Michigan
Environmental Review Board as recorded by the author.

82 M.C.L. 319.16 (1979) and R 299.2004 (1983).
83 M.C.L. 319.3 (1979) and R 299.2003 (a) (1983).

84 Allen F. Crabtree, Assistant Chief, Geological Survey Division,
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, February 5, 1985
conversation with the author.

B IBLIOGRAPHY

lO.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, Franklin 5., 1973, "Highway Salt: Social and Environmental
Concerns," Environmental Degradation by De-Icing Chemicals and
Effective Countermeasures, Highway Researctl Record Number 425,
Highway Research Board, National Academy of Sciences - National
Academy of Engineering, pages 3 - 13.

 

 

Collins, A. Gene, 1975, Geochemistry of Oilfield Waters,
Developments in Petroleum Science Series, volume 1, Elsevier
Scientific Publishing Co., Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

 

Dennis, David M., 1982, undated memorandum entitled "Special
Assignments for Ron Shaver, Unit Chief, Emergency Response & Waste
Hauler Licensing Section, Water Quality Division."

Edison Water Quality Laboratory, 1971, Environmental Impact of
Highway Deicing, Project 1104OGKK, OffiCe of Water Quality
Research, United States Environmental Protection Agency.

 

 

Geological Survey Division, Michigan Department cn’ Natural
Resources, 1969, Michigan Oil and Gas Fields, 1968, Annual
Statistical Summary 10.

 

Geological Survey Division, Michigan Department of Natural
Resources, 1983, Michigan Oil and Gas FieldsL 1981, Annual
Statistical Summary 36.

 

Groundwater Geology Unit, Geological Survey Division, Michigan
Department of Natural Resources, 1983, Brine Investigation Report
Summary, October 1, 1982 - September 30, 1983.

Groundwater Quality Division, Michigan Department of Natural
Resources, 1982, Assessment of Groundwater Contamination:
Inventory, of Sites, Task 3(a)(2) a 3(0) of the Groundwater
Management Strategy for Michigan, July 1982.

 

Groundwater Quality Division, Michigan Department of Natural
Resources, 1984, Michigan Sites of Environmental Contamination
Priority List, prepared pursuant to Act 307 (P.A. 'I982),‘_the
Michigan Environmental Response Act, February 1984.

 

Hanes, R.E., L.W. Zelazny, and R.E. Blaser, 1970, Effects of
Deicing Salts on Water Quality and Biota: Literature Review and
Recommended Research, National Cooperative Highway Research
Program Report 91, Highway Research Board, National Academy of
Sciences - National Academy of Engineering.

 

 

ll.

l2.

l3.

14.

15.

16.

l7.

l8.

I9.

20.

BIBLIOGRAPHY continued

Heinzman, James R., Jeffrey E. Herrold, Jennifer A. Daniels, and
Harold R. Fitch, 1984, Analysis for Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Oil
Field Brine - A Prelimifiary Rgoort, Oil Field Brine Sampling

 

 

Committee, Geological Survey Division, Michigan Department of
Natural Resources, August 24, 1984.

Herrold, Jeffrey E., 1984, "Revised Oil Field Brine Statistics,"
November 27, 1984 memorandum to Allen F. Crabtree, Assistant
Division Chief, Geological Survey Division.

Johnson, Kenneth S., and Serge Gonzales, 1978, Salt Deposits in
the United States and Regional Characteristics Important for

 

 

Storage of Radioactive Wastes, prepared for the Union Carbide

 

Corporation and the United States. Department of Energy, March
1978, Earth Resource Associates, Inc., Athens, Georgia.

Keyser, J. rode, 1973, "De-Icing Chemicals and Abrasives: State
of the Art," Environmental Degradation by De-Icing Chemicals and
Effective Countermeasures, Highway Research Record Number 425,

 

 

Highway Research Board, National Academy of Sciences - National
Academy of Engineering, pages 36 - 51.

Kirchner, Henry W., 1983, December 19, 1983 correspondence with
the author.

Michigan Environmental Health Association, 1983, .Epyironmental
Health Ready Reference, 2nd edition, November 1983, Lansing,
Midhigan.

Michigan Geological Survey Division, United States Bureau of
Mines, and Cory Laboratory, Inc., 1976, Oil Field Brine Collection
and Analysis Program, unpublished analyses of 319 samples.

Moore, James W., and Robert C. Welch, 1977, Environmental Aspects
of Brine Usage for Highway Purposes, College of Engineering,

 

 

UnIVersity of Arkansas, Highway Research Project 44, Arkansas
State Highway and Transportation Department.

Moses, P.J., 1981, "An Environmental Review of Calcium Chloride in
Road Dust Control and Stabilization Applications," The Dow
Chemical Company, June 1981.

Moses, P.J., 1982, "A Study on Dust Control Effectiveness. of
Calcium Chloride and Waste Brine," The Dow Chemical company, April
1982.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

BIBLIOGRAPHY continued

Mulholland, R.W., 1972, Evaluation of Selected Dust Palliatives on
Secondary Ffighways, Saskatchewan Department of Highways Technical
Report’18.

Pollard, Daniel H., 1964, "Michigan: Oil State of ‘the Great
Lakes, Origin and Early Development 1860-1935," Doctor of
Philosophy Thesis, University of Michigan.

Rich, Avery E., 1973, "Some Effects of De-Icing Chemicals on
Roadside Trees," Environmental Degradation by De-Icing Chemicals
and Effective Countermeasures, Highway Research Record Number 425,
Highway Research Board, National Academy of Sciences - National
Academy of Engineering, pages 14 - l6.

 

Segall, R. Thomas, 1981, "Dust and ice control on oil and gas

lease roads, " November 9, 1981 memorandum to Regional 5: District
Geologists, Regions II a 111.

Strong, Forrest C., 1944, "A Study of Calcium Chloride Injury to
Roadside Trees," Quarterly Bulletin, volume 27, Number 2, Michigan
State College, Agricultural Experiment Station, pages 209 - 224.

 

Sultan, Hassan A., and Peter Fleming, 1974, Soil Erosion and Dust
Control an Arizona Highways: Part 1. State of the Art Review,
Arizona Transportation and Traffic Institute, The University of
Arizona, Research Project HPR-l-10(l4l), The Arizona Department of
Transportation.

 

Sultan, Hassan A., 1974, Soil Erosion and Dust Control on Arizona
.Highways: Part 11. Laboratory Testin Pro ram, Ariiona
Transportation and Traffic Institute, The Univer51ty of Arizona,
Research Project HPR-1-10(l4l), The Arizona Department of
Transportation.

 

 

Sultan, Hassan A., 1974, Soil Erosion and Dust Cgptrol an Arizona
fighways: Part 111. Pro ress Report - Field Testing Prptgram,
Arizona Transportation an Traffic Institute, The Univer51 y of
Arizona, Research Project HPR-l-10(l41), The Arizona Department of
Transportation.

 

Sultan, Hassan A., 1976, Soil Erosion and Dust Control on Arizona
'Highways: Part IV. Final Report - Field TestingProgram, Arizona
Transportation and Traffic Institute, The University of Arizona,
Researcrr Project HPR-l-10(l41), The Arizona Department of
Transportation.

 

 

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

BIBLIOGRAPHY continued

Supervisor of Wells, State of Michigan, 1980, recording tape of
the December 22, 1980 public hearing before the Supervisor of
Wells on Cause No. (A) 21-12-80.

Supervisor of Wells, State of Michigan, 1981, Special Order Number

 

Supervisor of Wells, State of Michigan, 1981, Special Order Number
1-81 Amended, June 15, 1981 (amendment of Paragraph 5).

 

 

Supervisor of Wells, State of Michigan, 1981, recording tape of
the October 13, 1981 public hearing before the Supervisor of Wells
on Cause No. (A) 18-10-81.

Supervisor of Wells, State of Michigan, 1981, Amendment of Special
Order Number l-8l, November 3, 1981 (addition.5tParagraphs 7 and
BIZ

Supervisor of Wells, State of Michigan, 1982, Special Order 1-81,
Amended (re Use of Sour Brine), June 2, 1982.

 

 

 

 

Water Quality Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources,
1981, "Guidelines for Preparation of an Interim Brine Management
Plan under Supervisor of Wells Order 1-81."

Water Quality Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources,
1982, Minutes of the Brine Task Force meetings held from June 24,
1982 through November 1, 1982, Alice Cantu, recording secretary.

Water Resources Commission, State of Michigan, 1981, Minutes of
the 1981 Commission meetings.

"‘IIIIIIIIIIIIIII