Petitioners raise numerous objections to the Region's permit decision in this matter. After careful consideration of the arguments raised in the petitions for review, the Region's and EDS's responses, and the relevant portions of the administrative record underlying the permit decisions, the Board concludes that petitioners have not met the standards necessary to invoke Board review. Thus, for the reasons stated below, the petitions for review are denied.

A. Sandra K. Yerman Petition

Issue 1: Ms. Yerman seeks to have the permits revoked because her copy of a letter from Rebecca Harvey, Chief of the Region V Underground Injection Control Branch, transmitting the final permits to EDS was not signed. However, as the transmittal letter was not integral to the permits' terms, the Region's failure to sign the letter cannot serve as a basis for obtaining Board review under 40 C.F.R. § 124.19. See In re Federated Oil & Gas of Traverse City, Michigan, 6 E.A.D. 722, 730 (EAB 1997) (in order to satisfy a basic prerequisite for Board review, a petitioner must identify a specific permit term that is claimed to be erroneous); Envotech, 6 E.A.D. at 273-74 (petitioner must establish a link to a condition of a permit in order to provide a jurisdictional basis for a grant of review). The permits themselves were signed by an EPA permitting official. Review is therefore denied on this issue.*

Issue 2: Ms. Yerman argues that the permits should be revoked because the final permits and the Region's response to comments document were not available for viewing at two public libraries in the community until March 26, 1998, six days after Ms. Yerman was notified that the permits had been issued. Apparently, Ms. Yerman believes that the six-day delay in transmitting the permits to these two libraries constitutes a sufficient reason to revoke the permits. We disagree.

Under 40 C.F.R. § 124.19, any person who filed comments on a draft permit or participated in the public hearing may file a petition for review with the Board within 30 days after service of the final permit decision, plus three days for service by mail (40 C.F.R. § 124.20(d)). Because notice of the final permit decision was served on March 20, 1998, the appeals period would have ordinarily expired on April 22, 1998. However, in its letter transmitting the permits, the Region stated that any appeals must be filed with the Board no later than May 1, 1998. See 40 C.F.R. § 124.19(a) ("The 30-day period within which a person may request review under this

In any case, as the Region states in its response, the original letter sent to EDS was indeed signed.

section begins with the service of notice of the Regional Administrator's action unless a later date is specified in that notice."). Ms. Yerman does not dispute that the final permits were made available for viewing at the Romulus Public Library and the Taylor Community Library by March 26, 1998. Thus, Ms. Yerman had a total of 36 days to review the final permits and file her petition for review with the Board, six days more than required by the applicable regulations. We therefore conclude that Ms. Yerman was not prejudiced in any way by the Region's alleged delay in making the permits available for viewing. Accordingly, review is denied on this issue.

Issue 3: Ms. Yerman questions the appropriateness of Rebecca L. Harvey signing the permits for Jo Lynn Traub, Director of the Water Division, and asks whether this makes any difference to the Board.

As the Region makes clear in its response, at the time the permits were issued, Rebecca Harvey, Chief of the Region V Underground Injection Control Branch, had the delegated authority to sign final UIC permits as the Acting Water Division Director. See Memorandum from Jo Lynn Traub, Director, Water Division, to Rebecca L. Harvey, Chief, Underground Injection Control Branch, (Oct. 10, 1995) ("Designation of Acting Division Director") (Exh. I to Region's Response). Thus, contrary to Ms. Yerman's suggestion, we find nothing improper or erroneous regarding Ms. Harvey's signature on the permits.

Issue 4: Ms. Yerman asserts that certain testing requirements in Attachment A to the permits (Summary of Operating, Monitoring, and Reporting Requirements) should be amended to require testing for the presence of bacteria in the injected wastes. In particular, Ms. Yerman argues that such a testing requirement should be added to the Waste Source Characterization provisions in section D.1. and the Fingerprint Analysis Provisions in Section G. Petition at 7.

Ms. Yerman appears to have raised this or a similar issue in her comments on the draft permits. Specifically, in her written comments Ms. Yerman stated:

THERE IS (PROBABLY) BACTERIA IN THE MOUNT
SIMON FORMATION, IN THE ANCIENT SEDIMENTS;
AND ANY BACTERIA PRESENT MUST BE TESTED IN
COMBINATION WITH ALL POSSIBLE COMBINATIONS
OF TOXIC WASTE TO BE INJECTED BY EDS, BEFORE
ANY PERMIT CAN BE GRANTED TO EDS.

Ms. Yerman's Written Comments on the Draft Permits at 6 (Oct. 21, 1997) (Exh. F to Region's Response) (emphasis in original). In its response to this comment, the Region stated:

EDS will be required under the permit to perform com-
patibility testing between the injection wastes and the
injection formation, natural fluids present in the forma-
tion, and all materials used in the well. This testing will
determine if the presence of bacteria in the formation
could cause any precipitation of solids in the formation
that could impact the formation's ability to transmit fluids.

Response to Comments at 22 (Exh. D to Region's Response). Because Ms. Yerman's petition does not indicate why the Region's response was erroneous or otherwise warrants review, review is denied on this issue. See Federated Oil & Gas, 6 E.A.D. at 726-27 (“[I]n order to obtain review a petitioner must demonstrate why the Region's response to a particular objection or set of objections is clearly erroneous or otherwise warrants review.”) (quoting In re Suckla Farms, Inc., 4 E.A.D. 686, 700 (EAB 1993))."

Issue 5: In Attachment B (Closure Plan) to the permits, the cost for plugging the injection wells after closure is estimated at $19,500. Ms. Yerman states that the Board should review this provision, presumably because she considers this amount insufficient.

As the Region states in its response, however, EDS provided a written estimate of the cost for plugging the wells in accordance with 40 C.F.R. § 144.62 (Cost estimate for plugging and abandonment). See Attachment B to permits at B-7. The Region further states that it “carefully reviewed [EDS's] submission and determined the cost estimate to be adequate." Region's Response at 24. Nothing in the petition for review or in the record before us indicates that the Region's determina

As the Board has previously stated:

The Board generally tries to construe petitions filed by persons unrepresented by counsel in a light most favorable to the petitioners. While the Board does not expect or demand that such petitions will necessarily conform to exacting and technical pleading requirements, a petitioner must nevertheless comply with the minimal pleading standards and articulate some supportable reason why the Region erred in its permit decision in order for the petitioner's concerns to be meaningfully addressed by the Board.

Envotech, 6 E.A.D. at 268 n.13 (quoting In re Beckman Production Services, 5 E.A.D. 10, 19 (EAB 1994)).

tion in this regard was erroneous or otherwise warrants review. Review is therefore denied.

Other Issues: Ms. Yerman raises the following additional issues in her petition: 1) the Board should review all references in the permits to 40 C.F.R. Parts 136, 141, 261, 262, 268, "and Part 2!" Petition at 3; 2) the Board should review whether the permits should have made reference to section 3004(a) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”); 3) the Board should review whether provision I.D. of the permits, allowing the permittee to claim certain information as confidential, complies with the applicable regulations; 4) permit condition I.E.6. (Proper Operation and Maintenance) should be removed from the permit; 5) the permittee should be required to retain records concerning the nature and composition of injected fluids for a period longer than the three years required by condition I.E.9(c) of the permits; 6) the Board should strike condition I.E.12(a) (Planned Changes) from the permits; 7) conditions I.E.12(b) (Anticipated Noncompliance) and I.E.12(c) (Compliance Schedules) in both permits should be revised to require only full compliance; 8) permit conditions I.F.1. (Closure Plan) and I.G.1. (Post-Closure Plan) should be amended to include language stating that the permittee's obligations survive the dissolution of EDS or any related entity; 9) condition I.G.8. (Notice in Deed to Property) in both permits should be amended to require that EDS record a notation on the deeds of all property surrounding the facility where wastes will have migrated; 10) condition I.G.9. (Financial Responsibility for Post-Closure Care) in both permits should be amended to include language stating that the obligation to maintain financial responsibility survives the dissolution of EDS or any related entity; 11) the permits should be revoked because condition II.B.1. (Injection Pressure Limitation) indicates that injection pressure can propagate existing fractures; and 12) the Board should review the Irrevocable Standby Letter of Credit and an amendment to the letter of credit in Attachment B (Closure Plan) to the permits because the letters may have expired and the credit amount is insufficient."

Ms. Yerman also made a Freedom of Information Act request in which she requested that the Board provide copies of RCRA §§ 3004(f), (g), and (m). By letter dated May 11, 1998, the Clerk of the Board responded to this request and provided Ms. Yerman with a copy of § 3004 in its entirety, along with a list of some libraries in the Detroit metropolitan area where federal statutes and regulations might be available.

Because these issues were not raised during the comment period, however, they were not preserved for review by the Board." Accordingly, review is denied.

B. Raymond E. Basham Petition

Issue 1: In response to a comment arguing that the permit should include more frequent monitoring for hazardous waste sources than for non-hazardous sources, and that the permit should require weekly rather than quarterly hazardous waste sampling, the Region stated:

The sampling and monitoring frequency is determined
separately for each source. Some sources may be moni-
tored quarterly, monthly, or weekly, depending on the
contents of the waste and the potential variability of the
source ***. Each waste stream will be carefully reviewed
and the sampling and monitoring determined by the
USEPA as each source is approved.

Response to Comments at 14. With regard to EPA's statement that each waste stream will be carefully reviewed before a waste source is approved, Mr. Basham asserts that because the permits include a list of likely waste sources, the permits should also include a monitoring schedule for these likely sources "to give the public some understanding of the extent of monitoring they can expect from the USEPA." Basham Petition at 1.

Although Mr. Basham is correct that the permits do not contain monitoring requirements for specific waste sources (as these sources have not yet been approved), our review of the permits indicates that, contrary to Mr. Basham's suggestion, the permits do contain provisions sufficient to

A petitioner must “raise all reasonably ascertainable issues and submit all reasonably ascertainable arguments supporting their position by the close of the public comment period (including any public hearing) under § 124.10.” 40 C.F.R. § 124.13; In re Brine Disposal Well, Montmorency County, MI, 4 E.A.D. 736, 740 (EAB 1993). As the Board has previously explained, compliance with this requirement and the corresponding provision in 40 C.F.R. § 124.19 requiring a demonstration that “any issues being raised [in a petition for review] were raised during the public comment period (including any public hearing),” is necessary to "ensure that the Region has an opportunity to address potential problems with the draft permit before the permit becomes final.” Brine Disposal, 4 E.A.D. at 740 (quoting In re Renkiewicz SWD-18, 4 E.A.D. 61, 64 (EAB 1992)). Any issues not previously raised may not be raised on appeal except to the extent that these issues concern changes from the draft to the final permit decision. 40 C.F.R. § 124.19(a).