ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

August 13,

1992

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

)

PETITION OF CABOT

)

AS 92-8

CORPORATION FOR AN ADJUSTED

)

(Adjusted Standard)

STANDARD FROM 35

ILL. ADM.

)

(Also see R92-16)

CODE 738.SUBPART B

)

ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by J.

Anderson):

On August 3,

1992, Cabot Corporation (Cabot), requested a

site—specific “no migration exemption” from the underground

injection control

(UIC)

land disposal prohibitions in 35 Iii.

Adm. Code 738.Subpart B.

USEPA has granted an exemption from the

federal UIC rules.

Cabot asks that the Board either grant a

State exemption by way of adopting a site-specific identical in

substance rule pursuant to Section 13(c)

of the Act,

or,

alternatively,

by granting an adjusted standard pursuant to

Section 28.1 of the Act.

The Board initially docketed the

petition as a regulatory petition, R92-16, which was dismissed

this same day.

For the reasons set forth in that dismissal

order, this matter will proceed as an adjusted standard.

40 CFR 148 and 35

Ill.

Adin.

Code 738 prohibit the disposal

of certain hazardous waste in UIC wells.

40 CFR 148.20 et seq.

establishes a procedure for obtaining a “no migTation exemption”

from the prohibition on injection.

The Board adopted identical

in substance rules in R89—2.

35

Ill. Adm. Code 738.120 et seq.

provides for the use of “adjusted standards” pursuant to Section

28.1 of the Act for granting “exemptions” at the State level.

This matter concerns two UIC wells owned by Cab-O-Sil

Division, Cabot Corporation, located at Tuscola,

in Douglas

County.

These are described as Wells No.

1 and 2.

USEPA proposed exemptions for these wells at 55 Fed. Reg.

34739, August

24,

1990.

USEPA published a notice of exemption

for Well No.

2 at 55 Fed. Reg.

49340, November 27,

1990,

and for

Well No.

1 at 56 Fed.

Reg.

5826, February 13,

1991.

The Board accepts the petition as an adjusted standard

petition, but asks for more information.

Will Cabot clarify the

USEPA exemption language, which appears to be ambiguous in at

least three respects?

First,

although the discussion in the

USEPA notice of proposed exemption identifies the wastestreams

which may be injected pursuant to the exemptions, the exemptions

themselves are not specific.

Second, although the USEPA

exemptions are conditioned on concentrations found in “Table 8—6

in the petition document”, that Table

is not reproduced in any of

the material before the Board.

Third, the exemption for Well No.

OI35-OL~O3

---

2

1 is specifically conditioned on testing which was to have been

done in 1991,

subject to approval by USEPA, Region V.

Has this

testing been done?

In addition, the petition generally references the

voluminous petition filed with USEPA.

The amended petition

should specifically address the information requested in 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 106.Subpart G and 738.Subpart B, the latter of which is

nearly identical to the USEPA petition contents.

The petitioner

is granted leave to give summary responses,

with references to

the appropriate portions of the TJSEPA petition, only one copy of

which needs to be filed with the Clerk.

Within 45 days after the date of this order, Cabot is

directed to file an amended petition for adjusted standard,

curing the above deficiencies, or this petition will be subject

to dismissal.

We note that the amended petition must be

accompanied by the filing fee.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Dorothy N. Gunn,

Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Boa~. hereby certif

that the above order was adopted on the

/~~dayof

__________________,

1992, by a vote of

7c)

~

Dorothy M./~nn, Clerk

Illinois P~LlutionControl Board

0135-

OL~o~