ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

Nay 21,

1992

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

THE ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF

)

R89-15

ENERGY

AND

NATURAL RESOURCES

)

EVALUATION OF UNDERGROUND

)

INJECTION CONTROL

)

OPINION

AND

ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by M.

Nardulli)

This matter is before the Board pursuant to Section 6.2 of

the Environmental Protection Act (Act).

(Ill.

Rev. Stat.

1989,

ch.

111 1/2, par. 1006.2.)

Section 6.2 of the Act requires the

Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources

(DENR) to

conduct a study of underground injection of hazardous wastes and

whether underground injection is an appropriate method of

disposal.

Section 6.2 of the Act directs DENR to. report the

results of the study to the General Assembly and the Board no

later than July

1,

1985.

On October 4,

1989,

DENR submitted its

report to the Board.

The Act directs the Board to hold public

hearings within 90 days of the filing of the study.

On May 17,

1990 a hearing was held in Springfield, Illinois and on June

5,

1990 a hearing was held in Chicago,

Illinois.

The Act also

directs the Board to publish its findings and conclusions on the

areas covered by DENR’s study and the testimony received

at

hearing and to specifically determine whether any Board

regulations should be modified or eliminated.’

DENR’S STUDY

Underground injection is the controlled placement of fluids

into selected, deeply buried geologic formations through

specially designed and monitored wells.

(DENR Study at ES-i.)

Nine Class

I wells,

or deep wells, are operated at seven Illinois

industrial sites.

(u.)

Class

I wells are wells into which

hazardous and nonhazardous industrial and municipal wastes are

injected below Underground Sources of Drinking Water

(USDW).

(j~4.)

The Unites states Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA)

delegated authority to Illinois in 1984 to implement the federal

Underground Injection control

(UIC)

program.

(u.)

Pursuant to

Sections 7.2 and 13(c)

of the Act, the Board has adopted rules

that are identical—in-substance to the federal regulations.

(R89—2; R89—11; R90—14; R9l—4

(dismissed 2—28—91); R91—16

(dismissed 12-6—91).)

DENR’s study “focused on the geological,

technical and environmental feasibility of deep well injection,

the adequacy of current regulations and regulatory practices,

the

ultimate fate of the injected waste in the disposal system and

The Board expresses its appreciation to Anand Rao of

the Board’s Scientific and Technical Section for his

assistance in this proceeding.

I 33—579

---

2

the comparative risks, benefits and costs of deep well injection

and alternative disposal options.”

(a.)

After reviewing:

(1)

UIC regulations and regulatory practices;

(2) geologic and

hydrogeologic conditions critical to deep well injection and

hydrogeologic principles governing fluid flow in geologic

materials:

(3) test results obtained during well construction and

operation;

(4)

limited

(in-well) monitoring data;

and

(5)

information and experience acquired during more than 20 years of

disposal practice, DENR supports the continued “practice of deep

well injection under very strict compliance with the UIC

regulations.”

(~.

at 8-1.)

DENR’s study finds that “tjhe

current regulations——designed specifically to protect underground

sources of drinking water and the near—surface environment——are

adequate in basic concept and scope but deficient to varying

degrees

...

.“

(~.

at 8—1-8—2.)

DENR recommends

19 changes in

regulations and regulatory practices.

(~.

at 8—5-8—6.)

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Three public comments were received after the final hearing.

DENR filed a comment responding to the Illinois Environmental

Regulatory Group’s

(IERG)

position that modifications to the

existing regulations are unnecessary.

(P.C.

#1.)

DENR’s public

comment reviewed each recommendation made in the study in an

attempt to determine if the recommendations were still valid in

light of changes to the UIC regulation which occurred after the

study was completed and in light of proposed federal regulations.

IERG filed a public comment summarizing its position stated at

hearing that some of the recommendations in DENR’s study are no

longer valid in light of changes to the existing regulations

adopted after the DENR study was completed.

(P.C.

#2.)

IERG

states that the recent changes in the UIC regulations address

DENR’s concerns and urges the Board not to take any further

action to amend its UIC regulations.

(P.C.

#2.)

Allied Signal,

Inc.

also submitted a public comment stating that many of the

changes suggested by the DENR study have already been implemented

or are mooted by current regulations.

(P.C.

#3.)

DISCUSSION

At the first hearing2, the question was posed to DENR as to

whether its study reflected USEPA’s 1988 amendments to the UIC

program.

(Tr.i at 53.)

At the second hearing DENR responded

that the study included information through June of 1987 and,

therefore, does not reflect-the Board’s identical—in—substance

adoption of the federal regulations on January 25,

1990

(R89-2).

(Tr.2 at 65-66;

see also,

DENR Study Acknowledgments.)

Both IERG

and Allied Signal testified that ihe regulations have changed

2

“Tr.l” refers to the May 17,

1990 hearing and “Tr.2”

refers to the June 5,

1990 hearing.

I

~—5~)

---

3

significantly since the study was completed and that some of the

conclusions may not be valid in light of subsequently adopted

modifications to the UIC regulations which could not have been

considered at the time the study was prepared.

(Tr.2 at 79-82,

99-101.)

As noted above,

DENR’s public comment addresses the

regulations adopted on January 25,

1990

(R89-2) and their effect

on the study’s recommendations.

(P.C.

#1.)

The Board notes that

in reviewing DENR’s study to determine if any regulatory changes

are needed, the Board has also considered UIC identical—in-

substance regulations adopted on May 24,

1990

(R89—li) and May

23,

1991

(R90-14)

so that the review is as up to date as

possible.

As a preliminary matter, the Board also notes that all Board

UIC regulations have been adopted pursuant to Sections 7.2 and

13(c)

of the Act which require that the Board adopt regulations

which are “identical—in—substance” to the federal regulations

promulgated by USEPA.

(Ill. Rev.

Stat.

1991,

ch ill 1/2, pars.

1007.2,

1013(c).)

Hence, any modification or deletion of any UIC

regulation carries with it the risk that the regulations would no

longer be “identical-in-substance” to the federal regulations

thereby jeopardizing federal authorization.3

The remainder of this opinion reviews DENR’s recommendations

in light of regulations adopted subsequent to the completion of

the study.

(See R89—2; R89-11; R90—14.)

The Board concludes

that many of DENR’s concerns have been addressed by these recent

amendments to the Board’s regulations.

However,

some changes may

be needed to address the remaining concerns expressed by DENR’s

study.

For example, the recent regulatory changes do not address

the underground injection of radioactive wastes.

(DENR Study at

1—7,

8—5.)

Recommendation

1.

Delete 35 Ill. Adm. Code 704.193(b) (3).

(DENR Study at 8-5.)

Section 704.193(b) (3)

provides:

The Agency may require as a permit condition that

injection pressure be so limited that pressure in the

injection zone does not exceed hydrostatic pressure at

the site of any improperly completed or abandoned well

within the area of review.

This pressure limitation

shall satisfy the corrective action requirement.

Alternatively, such injection pressure limitation can

be part of a compliance schedule and last until all

other required corrective action has been taken.

Of course, the Board can adopt UIC regulations which

are more stringent than their federal counterpart and

still be consistent with the mandate to adopt

regulations “identical—in—substance”.

I

3 ~—58I

---

4

DENR’s public comment states that the above recommendation is

still valid in light of the changes to the Board’s UIC

regulations.

(P.C. #1 at 1.)

DENR’s study states that injection

cannot be practiced under this permit condition because injection

of any significant quantity of waste into an injection zone

instantaneously causes a pressure front to move rapidly in a

radial direction from the well toward the margins of the area of

review.

(DENR Study at 8-5.)

According to DENR,

the only

appropriate corrective action that may be undertaken to deal with

improperly sealed, completed or abandoned wells that penetrate

the disposal zone in the area of review is to perform the proper

sealing, completion or abandonment procedures set out at 35

Ill.

Adm. Code 704.193(a).

Section 704.193(a) provides that the Agency may limit

injection pressure consistent with the corrective action

requirement only if

it finds that the plan for preventing

movement of fluid into an USDW, submitted in accordance with 35

Ill.

Adm. Code 704.193(a),

is inadequate.

If injection pressure

cannot be limited in accordance with Section 704.193(b) (3)

to

less than the hydrostatic pressure at any improperly completed or

abandoned well based on the site specific operative conditions,

the owner or operator can demonstrate compliance with the

corrective action requirements of Section 704.193(a)

by

implementing other measures such as sealing of abandoned or

improperly sealed or completed wells.

In view of the optional

nature of the requirement, there appears to be no need to

eliminate 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 704.193(b) (3).

Recommendation 2.

Request the Board to conduct a study

evaluating the UIC regulations from the viewpoint of the Agency

and establish a mechanism to ensure that the Agency reviews

proposed/needed changes, deletions and additions to the

regulations.

(DENR Study at 8-5.)

The intent of this

recommendation is to require the Board to continue to

periodically review the UIC regulations.

(P.C.

#1 at 1.)

DENR’s concerns regarding periodic review of the UIC

regulations are addressed by the current UIC program because the

state regulations are evaluated on an annual basis by USEPA.

(Ex.

7.)

Pursuant to this review, USEPA also provides

recommendations for improving the management of the UIC program.

(Id.)

Therefore,

additional evaluation of Illinois’ UIC program

does not appear necessary.

Recommendation

3.

More narrowly define the term

“radioactive waste”

in Sections 730.105(d)

and 730.105(e) (11) to

specify clearly what levels or li~mitsof radioactivity are

intended and determine what levels of radioactivity in process

wastestreams constitute a hazardous waste.

(DENR Study at 1—6,

8—5.)

DENR states that changes in regulations since the study

was prepared do not negate the need for clarification.

(P.C. #1

I ~3J

—582

---

5

at 2.)

According to DENR,

•a determination is needed as to what

minimum level of radioactivity makes a waste a defined

“radioactive waste.”

(DENR Study at 1-6; P.C.

#1 at 2.)

Radioactive wastes have not been,

and currently are not,

injected into Class

I wells in Illinois.

(DENR Study at 1-6.)

However, the current regulations allow the injection of

radioactive wastes that are not classified as hazardous waste4

into Class V wells

(j.~.,

shallow injection wells

(Tr.2 at 106)).

(35 Ill. Adm. Code 730.105(e) (ll.)~ “The term ‘radioactive

waste’ as used in the definition of Class V wells

is assumed to

represent low—level radioactive wastes, but no intensity levels

are identified.”

(DENR Study at 1-6.)

DENR’s concerns regarding radioactive waste injection are

valid given that the current regulations do not specify:

(1)

any

construction, operation or monitoring requirements for Class V

wells into which such wastes may be injected; and

(2) any upper

limits on the concentration of radioactive constituents that may

be injected.

6

The Board’s review of the record leads it to

conclude that the regulations may need to be modified to specify

the concentration levels of radioactive material that would be

acceptable for injection into Class V wells and prescribing

construction, operation and monitoring requirements for such

wells.

Radioactivity is not a hazardous characteristic under

RCRA.

However, any waste containing a RCRA hazardous

waste as defined in Part 721 and a radioactive waste

which

is not

a “source, special nuclear or byproduct

material” as defined by the Atomic Energy Act is

considered as a radioactive mixed waste and is subject

to RCRA regulations regardless of further

subclassification of the radioactive waste constituent

as high—level,

low-level etc.

While the definition of Class IV wells includes those

wells receiving radioactive wastes

(35 Ill.

adm. Code

730.105(d)), Class IV wells are banned in Illinois

(DENR Study at 1-6).

6

“Radioactive waste” is defined at 35 Ill. Adm. Code

730.103 as any waste which contains radioactive

material concentrations which exceed those listed in 10

CFR 20 Appendix B,

Table II, Column 2,

incorporated by

reference at 35 Ill. Ad~n. Code 720.111.

The

concentration levels in 10 CFR 20 have been proscribed

by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission as the

concentration limits of radioactive constituents in

effluents that are discharged into municipal sewers.

I

33—583

---

6

Recommendation 4.

Restrict injection of low—level

radioactive wastes to Class

I wells only,

specifying the

radiation intensity level, and regulate under Class I

regulations.

(DENR Study at 1-6—1-7, 8—5.)

Similar to the above

recommendation, DENR states that clarification is still needed.

(P.C. #1 at 2.)

DENR’s concerns regarding the injection of radioactive

wastes may be addressed either as suggeste~1above under

Recommendation 3, or by modifying the regulations to restrict the

injection of all radioactive wastes to Class

I hazardous waste

wells.

Recommendation 5.

Require applicants for Class

I well

permits to submit a “well completion report” for evaluation by

the Agency before injection is allowed to begin.

(DENR Study at

8-5.)

In its public comment updating the study’s

recommendations, DENR states that the recommendation has been

implemented by the Agency such that no changes to the Board’s

regulations are needed.

(P.C.

#

1 at 2.)

Applicants are currently required to submit a well

completion report for Agency review.

(35 Ill. Adm. Code

704.181.)

According to the permit condition requirements of

Section 704.181,

a new well may not commence injection until

construction is complete and a notice of completion has been

submitted for the Agency’s review.

Therefore, no regulatory

changes are needed.

Recommendation 6.

Require that the area of review be

enlarged for some proposed well sites at which it can be

demonstrated that the larger area may be necessary to protect

USDW.

(DENR Study at 1-7,

6-9-6-11,

8—5.)

DENR states in its

updated comment that “our

recommendation was that the

regulations be changed to require a 2.

5 mile radius minimum area

of review.

This had already become the practice of IEPA for most

Class

I wells.”

(P.C.

31 at 2.)

DENR recognizes that current

regulations for Class

I hazardous wells now require a minimum

area of review of

2 miles.

(35 Ill.

Adm. Code 730.163.)

Therefore, DENR recommends that a provision be added that would

allow the Agency to require a larger area. of review where non-

uniform geologic conditions may significantly alter radial flow

of the injected waste.

(P.C. #1 at 2.)

Section 704.191 governing permit requirements provides that

the Agency may impose additional conditions if necessary to

prevent the migration of fluids into USDW.

(35 Ill. Adm. Code

704.191.)

Hence, under existing ~regulationsthe Agency may

prescribe a larger area of review where site—specific geologic

conditions may alter radial flow and affect USDW.

Consequently,

the Board finds that no regulatory changes are needed.

I

33—584

---

7

Recommendation 7.

Require a comprehensive inorganic and

organic chemical analysis of the injected wastes at the time of

permitting and whenever the composition of the wastestream

changes, and annually thereafter.

(DENR Study at 8-5—8—6.)

DENR

states that since the completion of its study, the Board

regulations have been modified to require complete physical and

chemical characterization of the waste to be injected.

(P.C.

#1

at 2.)

However, DENR recommends the inclusion of a requirement

that specifies a minimum frequency of analysis of the injected

wastes.

(a.)

DENR suggests that an updated analysis be

performed at least annually and every time the wastestream is

modified substantially.

(~.

at 2-3.)

Sections 730.113

(Class

I nonhazardous waste wells), 730.133

(Class III mineral extraction wells)

and 730.168

(Class

I

nonhazardous wells) set forth requirements for the chemical

analysis of injected wastes.7

These regulations require a

detailed characterization of the injection fluids and specify the

frequency of analysis.

Although the current regulations do not

set forth a minimum frequency of analysis, they do prescribe a

performance standard that requires the selection of a frequency

of analysis that will yield representative data of the waste

characteristics.

Additionally, the regulations require the

Agency to consider

such analytical information in authorizing

injection wells.

Therefore, the existing regulations adequately

address DENR’s concerns such that no changes are needed.

Recommendation 8.

Require consideration of spill

containment at the welihead and any adjacent well components

covered by UIC permits in areas where moderate—permeability and

high-permeability deposits overlie shallow aquifers or are

adjacent to public water supplies.

(DENR Study at 8-6.)

DENR

comments that there have been some Class

I well spills related to

malfunctioning that indicate the storage capacity to contain

waste materials may need to be increased.

(P.C. #1 at 3.)

DENR

recommends that the regulations be modified to require spill

containment capacity for malfunctioning of the well itself

(RCRA

covers spill containment for malfunctioning of the generating

facility and pipelines to the well).

(u.)

The study notes that most above—ground spillage of hazardous

wastes is covered under the Board’s RCRA regulations.

(DENR

Study at 3—23.)

However,

leakage from the actual wellhead due to

repairs or backflow are not covered by such regulations.

(u.)

Although DENR states that there have been some spills related to

Monitoring requirement& for Class V wells are not

specified

in Board regulations, the Department of Mines

and Minerals adopts standards for Class II wells and,

as noted previously,

Class IV wells are banned

in

Illinois.

I 33—585

---

8

malfunctioning of Class

I wells, the study does not document the

size of such spills or their impact on groundwater.

The study

does state that wellhead spillage or leakage

is not expected to

be large

in volume or frequent in occurrence.

(a.)

Therefore,

the Board cannot conclude that spill containment for Class

I

wells is necessary without additional information regarding

wellhead spillage or leakage.

Recommendation 9.

Limit acid

(HC1) waste concentration

injected into carbonate disposal zones to a maximum absolute

concentration, not a maximum average concentration,

or neutralize

the acid in the wastestream prior to injection to render it

chemically inert.

The Board’s current regulations require an

injected waste’s pH to be above

2.

(35 Ill. Adm. Code

738.112(b)(3).)

DENR comments that while this limit is

acceptable for injection into silica rock formation,

a stricter

limit is needed for carbonate disposal zones to ensure that

excess gas is not formed.

(DENR Study at 8—6; P.C. #1 at 3.)

DENR admits in its study that existing information relating

to chemical interactions of injected waste components with

various types of formation fluids and formations is not adequate

and that further research is needed to determine the pH limits

that would provide protection against excess gas formation.

(DENR Study at 4-3; P.C.

#1 at 3.)

Therefore, until further

research in the area of injected waste formation interactions

reveals optimal pH ranges for injecting wastes into carbonate

formations, the Board finds that a regulatory change specifying

additional pH limitations is not warranted.

The Board notes,

however,

that the existing operating requirements in Section

730.167(e) require owners and operators of Class

I hazardous

waste wells injecting wastes having the potential to react with

-the injection formation and generate gases to limit pH or acidIty

of the injected wastes.

Recommendation 10.

Require that all injection pressures and

the pressure exerted by fluids in the well not exceed design

specifications for well testing,

injection,

stimulation and

repair operations.

(DENR Study at 8-6.)

DENR states in its

updated comments that existing regulations allow high injection

pressure levels during well stimulation

(35 Ill. Adm. Code

730.103)

or mechanical integrity testing that may compromise the

integrity of the well.

DENR also notes that in practice, the

Agency does not allow the use of excessive pressures.

(P.C.

#1

at 3—4.)

Sections 730.113,

730.133 and 730.167 applicable to Class

I

nonhazardous wells,

Class

III wells and Class

I hazardous wells

respectively allow the injection pressure to exceed a maximum

level only during well stimulation.

Since the Agency has made it

a practice to not allow excessive pressures to be used during

well stimulation by hydraulic fracturing,

the exception to the

I 33—586

---

9

injection pressure requirement in the above—cited sections may be

deleted to address the Ooncerns expressed by DENR.

Recommendation 11.

Maintain an adequate pressure

differential between the annulus and tubing under all possible

operational conditions.

(DENR Study at 1-5,

8-6.)

DENR notes

in

its comments that this recommendation is similar to

recommendation 10 and that the regulations do not specify the

differential that must be maintained between the annulus and

tubing during operating conditions to maintain the integrity of

thewell.

(P.C#lat4.)

The annulus pressure will usually be maintained,

in

practice, at a higher level than the tubing pressure to prevent

the movement of injected wastes into the surrounding formations

and to monitor the performance of the well.

(DENR Study at 1-5.)

Section 730.167(c)

requires the annulus pressure to be maintained

at a higher level than the tubing pressure.

(35 Ill. Adm. Code

730.167(c).)

However, the regulations do not prescribe such a

requirement for Class

I nonhazardous wells or Class III wells,

nor do the regulations specify any minimum differential that must

be maintained between the annulus pressure and tubing pressure.

The pressure differential plays an important role in assessment

of well performance and integrity.

Therefore,

regulatory change

may be warranted to specify a minimum pressure differential

between the annulus pressure and tubing pressure.

At a minimum,

a requirement similar to Section 730.167(c) requiring the annulus

pressure be maintained at a higher level that tubing pressure

should be included for both Class

I nonhazardous wells and Class

III wells to ensure the integrity of the well.

Recommendation 12.

Require mechanical integrity testing to

be conducted more frequently than every five years on wells more

than 15 years old.

(DENR Study at 1-5,

8—6.)

DENR’s updated

comments note that Section 703.113(b) (3) requires mechanical

testing at least every

5 years.

DENR maintains that more

frequent testing is needed for older wells.

(P.C. #1 at 4.)

Mechanical testing is performed to ensure that:

(1)

there

are no significant leaks in the casing

,

tubing and packer; and

(2)

there is no significant fluid movement into USDW.

Sections

730.113 and 730.133 require Class

I nonhazardous wells and Class

III wells to be tested for mechanical integrity at least once

every five years.

(35 Ill.

Adm. Code 730.113, 730.133.)

Because

large volumes of fluids are injected into these wells, the well

casing and tubing will be subject to operating pressures in the

range of 50 to 400 psi over long periods of time having a

significant impact on the injectibn system, particularly as the

system ages.

Therefore,

to ensure the protection of USDW, the

Board finds that DENR’s concerns regarding more frequent testing

of older wells

(i.e., wells that have been in service for more

I

33—587

---

10

than 15 years) has merit and that an appropriate interval would

be in the range of one to two years.

Recommendation 13.

Require all new Class

I wells

in

Illinois to use packer well design rather than a packerless well

design, except for certain narrowly defined geologic, operational

and waste type conditions.

(DENR Study at 6-4-6-7,

8-6.)

DENR recognizes in its updated comments that this

recommendation has been implemented at 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 730.112.

Therefore,

no regulatory changes are needed.

Recommendation 14.

Use batch mode injection to generate a

more uniform wastestream where contributing streams vary

significantly in chemical character and volume.

(DENR Study at

8—6.)

DENR states in its comments that the Agency has accepted on-

site batch mode injection to generate a more uniform wastestreams

and that no regulatory changes are needed.

(P.C. #1 at 4.)

However, to ensure consistent enforcement,

it may be desirable to

include such a requirement as part of the Board regulations.

Recommendation 15.

Draft regulatory practices to

specifically cover the commercial operation of Class

I wells,

including mandatory compatibility testing of all wastes prior to

injection and adequate recording of all wastes injected.

(DENR

Study at 8-6.)

DENR notes in its comments that there are

currently no commercial wells

in Illinois.

(P.C.

#1 at 4.)

However, DENR maintains that regulations be developed to cover

the special problems commercial wells can pose.

In particular,

DENR recommends regulations governing procedures or

implementation practices for batch mode operations, analysis of

the waste,

injection practices,

injection zone testing and

treatability and compatibility of the wastes.

(P.C. #1 at 4-5.)

The Board believes that existing regulations for Class

I

wells cover most of the items specified by DENR as additional

requirements.

(35 Ill.

Adm. Code 730.)

However,

if a commercial

well operation is proposed needing special requirements,. these

needs may be addressed through the use of permit conditions.

Therefore, no regulatory changes are needed.

Recommendation 16.

Limit injection parameters for wells

utilizing geologic formations in which the natural hydrostatic

head is either above that of the overlying USDW or above the land

surface.

(DENR Study at 6—7—6—9,

8—6.)

DENR comments that this concern has been addressed by

Section 730.112.

(35 Ill.

Adm. Code 730.112.)

Therefore,

no

regulatory changes are needed.

I 33—588

---

11

Recommendation 17.

Require new Class

I well applicants to

include plans for appropriate tests and data collection, to

conduct modeling of pressure distribution and solute transport of

injected wastes.

(DENR Study at 8-6.)

DENR’s updated comments

note that current regulations for Class

I hazardous wells cover

data collection and monitoring requirements.

(P.C.

#1 at 5.)

However, regarding Class

I nonhazardous wells, DENR concurs with

the Agency’s testimony recommending that the Class I hazardous

well requirements be extended to cover Class

I nonhazardous

wells.

(P.C.

#1 at 5; Tr.2 at 75.)

The Agency testified that certain modifications relating to

the disparity between construction, operation and monitoring

requirements for Class

I hazardous and nonhazardous wells are

warranted.

(Tr.2 at 74.)

According to the Agency, under the

pressure of injection,

the movement of nonhazardous—waste fluids

can have as significant effect on underground sources of drinking

water as fluids containing hazardous wastes.

(Pr.

2 at 75.)

Therefore, the Agency recommends .that the stricter rules for

Class

I hazardous waste wells be applied to Class

I nonhazardous

waste wells to ensure the protection of USDW.

(Tr.2 at 75.)

The

Board finds that the record indicates that this recommendation

has merit and that regulatory changes in this regard may be

warranted.

Recommendation 18.

Recommend the following procedures for

selecting a disposal option for industrial waste;

(1) make a

comprehensive identification/evaluation of all significant risks;

(2) establish guidelines for acceptable risk; and

(3) determine

the costs/benefits and environmental impacts associated with each

disposal option or level of pretreatment.

(DENR Study at 8-6.)

DENR’s updated comments state that these concerns are

addressed by USEPA’s proposed regulations.

(P.C.

#1 at 5.)

Since DENR filed its comments, the Board has adopted the federal

regulations identical-in-substance.

(R89—2;

R89—l1.)

Recommendation 19.

Recommend that consideration be given to

requiring monitoring outside the well ~

beyond well casing

and borehole) because making this type of monitoring mandatory

would increase public confidence in deep well injection.

(DENR

Study at 8-6.)

DENR admits

in its comments that more study is needed to

determine exactly what type of monitoring would be appropriate.

Therefore, no regulatory changes are suggested at this time.

In addition to the above recommendations regarding

regulatory changes, DENR’s study also recommends certain changes

geared toward improving management of the UIC program.

(DENR

Study at 8-7.)

While these recommendations do not relate to

changes in any Board regulations,

the Board will summarize the

I 33—589

---

12

recommendations.

The recommendations include:

(1) provide

opportunities for regulatory and scientific advisory personnel

associated with the UIC program to maintain contacts with UIC

staff in other states and with federal agencies;

(2)

retain a UIC

program manager with a broad technical background in deep well

injection technology to enable this person to manage technical

aspects of the program effectively and coordinate staff efforts;

and

(3)

enter analytical results from monthly monitoring reports

into a computerized central database.

Regarding the first recommendation, the Agency testified

that this goal

is being met and that there is a high degree of

contact between the Agency and USEPA and other agencies.

(Tr.2

at 71.)

Therefore,

DENR recognizes in its updated comments that

this suggested has been implemented.

(P.C.

#1 at 6.)

As to the

second recommendation, the Agency testified that given the small

number of underground wells in Illinois, designation of a manager

having responsibility solely for the UIC program and expenditure

of funds for such a position is not warranted.

(Tr.2 at 72.)

DENR responds in its comments that it was not suggesting a full

time assignment to this position, but only that the Agency needs

technical expertise in underground injection to carry out is UIC

functions.

(P.C. #1 at 6.)

Regarding the third recommendation,

DENR comments that it has set up a database for the Agency which

needs to be fully utilized by Agency personnel and that the state

should provide the needed personnel for this function.

(P.C. #1

at 6.)

Lastly,. DENR’s study sets forth six recommendations for

research.

(DENR Study at. 8-7.)

These recommendations do not

fall within the purview of changes to Board regulations.

However, as noted above in the discussion of proposed regulatory

changes, DENR has admitted the need for more research.

DENR

states that there is a need to study:

(1) chemical interactions

of industrial waste components with various formation fluids and

formation rocks under in situ disposal conditions;

(2)

permeability changes in the rocks of the disposal and confining

zones resulting from various chemical reactions:

(3) developing

methods and equipment for sampling and testing formation fluids

under subsurface temperature and pressure conditions;

(4) the

nature of fluid and solute transport to quantify the magnitude

and character of fluid movement in confining beds;

(5)developing

a monitoring strategy for Class

I injection operations that

includes determining the position of monitoring sites in the

disposal system, parameters to be tested and frequency of

testing;

and

(6) developing a methodology to improve monitoring

of waste movement and behavior in the subsurface

in order to

collect data required for testing~mnode1sof subsurface disposal

systems and verifying results from model studies.

(DENR Study at

8—7.)

I

33—590

---

13

Regarding DENR’s research recommendations, the Board notes

that such information is certainly desirable to the extent that

this information is related to the areas noted above where the

Board has found that regulatory changes may be warranted.

In summary, the Board finds that many of the recommendations

set forth

in DENR’s study have been mooted by the subsequent

identical-in-substance adoption of federal regulations by the

Board.

However, the Board does find that certain concerns

expressed by DENR may warrant regulatory changes.

Therefore,

the

Board invites a regulatory proposal consistent with the findings

set forth above.

ORDER

For the reasons given above, the Board finds that many

regulatory changes suggested by DENR’s study have become mooted

by the passage of subsequent Board regulations governing UIC.

However, some regulatory changes may be warranted.

This docket

is hereby closed and any regulatory proposal submitted consistent

with this opinion will receive a new docket number.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Dorothy M. Gunn,

Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify that the above opinion and order was

adopted on the~/-’~-day of

1992 by a vote of

7-~7

Illinois

Control Board

33—59

I