ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

December 7, 2000

IN THE MATTER OF: )

)

UIC UPDATE, USEPA AMENDMENTS ) R00-11

(July 1, 1999, through December 31, 1999) ) (Identical-in-Substance

) Rulemaking - Land)

________________________________________

IN THE MATTER OF: )

)

UIC UPDATE, USEPA AMENDMENTS ) R01-1

(January 1, 2000, through June 30, 2000) ) (Identical-in-Substance

) Rulemaking - Land)

Adopted Rule. Final Order.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by E.Z. Kezelis):

Under Sections 7.2 and 13(c) of the Environmental Protection Act (Act) (415 ILCS 5/7.2

and 13(c) (1998)), the Board adopts amendments to the Illinois regulations that are “identical in

substance” to underground injection control (UIC) regulations that the United States

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) adopted to implement Section 1421 of the federal

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) (42 U.S.C. § 300h (1998)). The nominal timeframe of docket

R00-11 includes federal UIC amendments that USEPA adopted in the period July 1, 1999,

through December 31, 1999. The nominal timeframe of docket R01-1 includes federal UIC

amendments that USEPA adopted in the period January 1, 2000, through June 30, 2000.

Sections 7.2 and 13(c) provide for quick adoption of regulations that are identical in

substance to federal regulations that USEPA adopts to implement Section 1421 of the federal

SDWA (42 U.S.C. § 300h (1998)). Section 13(c) also provides that Title VII of the Act and

Section 5 of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 ILCS 100/5-35 and 5-40 (1998)) do not apply

to the Board’s adoption of identical-in-substance regulations. The federal UIC regulations are

found at 40 C.F.R. 144 through 148.

The Board will file the adopted amendments with the Office of the Secretary of State

immediately after the date of this opinion. The adopted amendments will become effective when

filed with the Office of the Secretary of State.

CONSOLIDATION OF DOCKETS AND EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION

In its proposal for public comment, adopted by the Board on September 7, 2000, the

Board determined that it was necessary to consolidate two separate dockets in this rulemaking

and expedite our consideration of certain later amendments. The actions involved in UIC update

---

2

docket R01-1 were consolidated with the rulemaking proposal in docket R00-11 because they

require no Board action, are closely related to the actions involved in UIC update docket R00-11,

or are the UIC aspects of the hazardous waste-related actions incorporated into the recent

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C update, RCRA Subtitle C Update,

USEPA Amendments (July 1, 1999, through December 31, 1999) (May 18, 2000), R00-13.

For the foregoing reasons, and on its own motion, the Board consolidated the UIC update

dockets R00-11 and R01-1 into a single action. This consolidation provided the most

expeditious and efficient implementation of both sets of amendments.

FEDERAL ACTIONS CONSIDERED IN THIS RULEMAKING

The following briefly summarizes the federal actions considered in this rulemaking.

Docket R00-11: July 1, 1999, through December 31, 1999

USEPA amended the federal UIC regulations on two occasions during the period July 1,

1999, through December 31, 1999. Each is summarized below:

64 Fed. Reg. 68546 (December 7, 1999)

USEPA adopted amendments relating to Class V injection wells. It consolidated the rules

applicable to Class V wells into a new subpart. The rules ban new large cesspools and

motor vehicle waste disposal wells immediately, and they will require existing cesspools

and motor vehicle waste disposal wells to close by dates to be determined by the location

of the well with respect to protected groundwater resources. The amendments include

permit provisions applicable to the owners and operators of these Class V injection wells.

64 Fed. Reg. 70316 (December 16, 1999)

USEPA corrected its amendments of December 7, 1999.

Docket R01-1: January 1, 2000, through June 30, 2000

USEPA amended the federal UIC regulations on four occasions during the period

January 1, 2000, through June 30, 2000. Each is summarized below:

65 Fed. Reg. 5024 (February 2, 2000)

USEPA corrected its amendments of December 7, 1999.

65 Fed. Reg. 14472 (March 17, 2000)

USEPA vacated the hazardous waste listings and land disposal restrictions (LDRs) for

organobromine production wastes (formerly USEPA hazardous waste numbers K140 and

U408) that it initially adopted on May 4, 1998 (63 Fed. Reg. 24596). One segment of

these amendments vacating the LDRs relates to the underground injection of these

wastes.

---

3

65 Fed. Reg. 30886 (May 15, 2000)

USEPA adopted a series of amendments to various of its National Pollutant Discharge

Elimination System (NPDES) permit rules intended to streamline the regulations. One

aspect of the amendments affects the federal UIC permit rules.

65 Fed. Reg. 36365 (June 8, 2000)

USEPA corrected its action of March 17, 2000.

Later UIC Amendments of Interest

The Board engages in ongoing monitoring of federal actions. When the Board observes

an action outside the nominal timeframe of a docket that would require expedited consideration

in the pending docket, the Board expedites consideration of those actions. Federal actions that

could warrant expedited consideration include those that directly affect the amendments involved

in this docket, those for which compelling reasons would warrant consideration as soon as

possible, and those for which the Board has received a request for expedited consideration. As of

the date of this opinion and accompanying order, we have identified no USEPA actions since

June 30, 2000, that further amend the UIC rules within the scope any of the subject matters as

those already involved in this docket.

Summary Listing of the Federal Actions Forming the Basis of the Board’s Actions

in this Consolidated Docket

Based on the foregoing, the federal actions that form the basis for Board action in this

update docket are as follows, in chronological order:

64 Fed. Reg. 68546

(December 7, 1999)

Class V injection well amendments.

64 Fed. Reg. 70316

(December 16, 1999)

Corrections to the amendments of December 7, 1999.

65 Fed. Reg. 5024

(February 2, 2000)

Corrections to the amendments of December 7, 1999.

65 Fed. Reg. 14472

(March 17, 2000)

Withdrawal of the organobromine production waste listings and

LDRs.

65 Fed. Reg. 30886

(May 15, 2000)

Streamlining amendments to the NPDES permit rules, including

an amendment to the UIC permit rules.

65 Fed. Reg. 36365

(June 8, 2000)

Correction to the action of March 17, 2000.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

The Board adopted a proposal for public comment in this matter on September 7, 2000.

Notices of Proposed Amendments appeared in the October 6, 2000 issue of the

Illinois Register

,

at 24 Ill. Reg. 14528 (Part 738), 14535 (Part 702), 14550 (Part 704), and 14578 (Part 730). The

Board received public comments on this proposal for a period of 45 days following its

---

4

publication in the

Illinois Register

. The public comment period ended on November 20, 2000.

The Board now considers final adoption of the amendments, making any necessary changes made

evident through the public comments. The Board will file these adopted amendments with the

Secretary of State, so that they will become effective without delay. The complete text of the

proposed amendments appears at the end of this opinion and order.

During the public comment period, the Board received the following comment:

PC 1 Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency): “Response of the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency Pursuant to Public Comment Period for

Proposed Identical-in-Substance Rules,” dated November 21, 2000, from Susan J.

Schroeder, Associate Counsel, Division of Legal Counsel (received November 22,

2000).

In addition to the public comments received, the Board received from the Joint

Committee on Administrative Rules (JCAR) on October 12, 2000, a series of four documents

(one for each Part involved in this proceeding) entitled “Line Numbered Version.” JCAR also

submitted four additional documents, one for each Part, entitled “Suggested Revisions.”

In PC 1, the Agency stated that the funding provided by USEPA to aid implementation of

the State UIC program is inadequate for implementation of that program. The Agency observed

that the present amendments will significantly increase the burden of implementing the program,

so that the costs further exceed the resources available to the Agency to do so. The Agency

concluded that it has informed USEPA that it is not in the position to modify the Illinois primacy

package to include the present amendments without additional funding. The Agency did not

comment on substantive aspects of the present amendments.

While the Board appreciates the Agency’s funding concerns, we must adopt amendments

involving the federal Class V injection well restrictions. Under Sections 7.2 and 13(c) of the

Environmental Protection Act (Act) (415 ILCS 5/7.2 and 13(c) (1998)), the Board must adopt

regulations that are identical-in-substance to the federal UIC rules. Nothing in that mandate

allows the Board to reconsider the merits of the federal rules or to weigh the burdens of

implementing or complying with them. Thus, while not insensitive to the Agency’s position that

the State lacks the resources to implement these amendments, the Board must proceed to adopt

them notwithstanding the Agency comments.

DISCUSSION

The following discussion begins with a description of the types of deviations the Board

makes from the literal text of federal regulations in adopting identical-in-substance rules. It is

followed by a discussion of the amendments and actions undertaken in direct response to the

federal actions involved in this proceeding. This first series of discussions is organized by

federal subject matter, generally appearing in chronological order of the relevant

Federal

Register

notices involved. Finally, this discussion closes with a description of the amendments

and actions that are not directly derived from the federal actions.

---

5

General Revisions and Deviations from the Federal Text

In incorporating the federal rules into the Illinois system, some deviation from the federal

text is unavoidable. This deviation arises primarily through differences between the federal and

state regulatory structure and systems. Some deviation also arises through errors in and problems

with the federal text itself. The Board conforms the federal text to the Illinois rules and

regulatory scheme and corrects errors that we see in the text as we engage in these routine update

rulemakings.

In addition to the amendments derived from federal amendments, the Board often finds it

necessary to alter the text of various passages of the existing rules as provisions are opened for

update in response to USEPA actions. This involves correcting deficiencies, clarifying

provisions, and making other changes that are necessary to establish a clear set of rules that

closely parallel the corresponding federal requirements within the codification scheme of the

Illinois Administrative Code.

The Board updates the citations to the

Code of Federal Regulations

to the most recent

version available. As of the date of this opinion, the most recent version of the

Code of Federal

Regulations

available to the Board is the July 1, 1999 version. Thus, we have updated all

citations to the 1999 version, adding references to later amendments using their appropriate

Federal Register

citation, where necessary.

The Board substituted “or” for “/” in most instances where this appeared in the federal

base text, using “and” where more appropriate. The Board further used this opportunity to make

a number of corrections to punctuation, grammar, spelling, and cross-reference format

throughout the opened text. We changed “who” to “that” and “he” or “she” to “it,” where the

person to which the regulation referred was not necessarily a natural person, or to “he or she,”

where a natural person was evident; changed “which” to “that” for restrictive relative clauses;

substituted “must” for “shall”; capitalized the section headings and corrected their format where

necessary; and corrected punctuation within sentences.

In addition, the federal rules have been edited to establish a uniform usage throughout the

Board’s regulations. For example, with respect to “shall,” “will,” and “may,” “must” is used

when an action is required by the rule, without regard to whether the action is required of the

subject of the sentence or not. “Shall” is no longer, since it is not used in everyday language.

Thus, where a federal rule uses “shall,” the Board substitutes “must.” This is a break from our

former practice where “shall” was used when the subject of a sentence has a duty to do

something. “Will” is used when the Board obliges itself to do something. “May” is used when

choice of a provision is optional. “Or” is used rather than “and/or,” and denotes “one or both.”

“Either . . . or” denotes “one but not both.” “And” denotes “both.”

The Joint Committee on Administrative Rules JCAR has requested that the Board refer to

the United States Environmental Protection Agency in the same manner throughout all of our

bodies of regulations (

i.e.

, air, water, drinking water, RCRA Subtitle D (municipal solid waste

---

6

landfill), RCRA Subtitle C (hazardous waste), underground injection control (UIC), etc.). The

Board has decided to refer to the United States Environmental Protection Agency as “USEPA.”

We will continue this conversion in future rulemakings as additional sections become open to

amendment. We will further convert “EPA” used in federal text to “USEPA,” where USEPA is

clearly intended.

The Board has assembled tables to aid in the location of these alterations and to briefly

outline their intended purpose. The tables set forth the miscellaneous deviations from the federal

text and corrections to the pre-amended base text of the rules in detail. The tables are set forth

and explained beginning at page 15. There is no further discussion of most of the deviations and

revisions elsewhere in this opinion.

Discussion of Particular Federal Actions

Regulations for Certain Class V Injection Wells—Parts 704 and 730

USEPA adopted amendments to the UIC regulations on December 7, 1999 (64 Fed. Reg.

68546) that impose requirements on certain Class V injection wells. The principal Class V wells

affected are new and existing large capacity cesspools and motor vehicle waste injection wells.

USEPA corrected these Class V well rules on December 16, 1999 (64 Fed. Reg. 70316), and

February 2, 2000 (65 Fed. Reg. 5024). The new requirements derive from the settlement in

Sierra Club v. Browner, No. 93-2644 (D.D.C.). Under the settlement, USPEA undertook a study

of the impact of Class V wells on groundwater quality. The current rules are the first installment

of regulations prompted by that study.

The new Class V injection well rules designate as “existing wells” those wells currently

in operation or under construction by April 5, 2000. Those wells that are not existing wells are

designated as “new injection wells.” The rules prohibit construction and operation of new or

converted cesspools and motor vehicle waste disposal wells. The owner or operator of an

existing cesspool must notify authorities and close the well by April 5, 2005. The fate of an

existing motor vehicle waste disposal well depends on its location and the status of the State

groundwater protection program where the well is located. In brief, for a motor vehicle waste

disposal well that is located in a “ground water protection area” or “other sensitive ground water

area,” as designated by the State, the owner or operator must obtain a permit or close the well by

dates specified in the rules.

The Board has incorporated the federal amendments into the appropriate segments of the

UIC regulations. We have done so with the deviations from the text of the federal amendments

that are necessary to conform the requirements to the Illinois regulations. For example, USEPA

used its “user-friendly” format for the federal rule. The Board has converted that format to a

more traditional direct format, while still retaining the substance of the federal rules. As a result,

the volume of deviations from the literal text of the federal amendments is greater than normal

for an identical-in-substance proceeding. Persons interested in the substance of the underlying

federal action should refer to the notices that appeared in the December 7 and 16, 1999, and

---

7

February 2, 2000 issues of the

Federal Register

. The tables that begin at page 14 of this opinion

outline the deviations that the Board has made in adapting the text of the federal amendments.

Several issues raised during the course of adapting the federal rules for incorporation into

the Illinois rules warrant specific discussion. Most of these relate to the groundwater protection

aspects of the rule. They are as follows: (1) the federal names given required elements of the

State program do not directly correlate with the names used in Illinois law; (2) various segments

of the rules refer to federal requirements imposed on the State and not on regulated entities; (3)

other segments of the rules impose requirements on regulated entities depending on the status of

the State program; and (4) certain requirements clearly do not apply to entities in Illinois by their

own terms. Other issues relate instead to the structure and content of the rules and have nothing

to do with the groundwater protection aspects.

Under Section 1453 of SDWA (42 U.S.C. § 300j-13 (1998)), federal law provides for

source water assessment programs administered by the states. The states are to delineate the

boundaries of areas where groundwater is used as a source of drinking water. Illinois was

required to submit a program for USEPA review and approval and was to begin implementation

of the program immediately after USEPA approval. Illinois’ program can include elements of

existing state programs intended to protect groundwater resources.

In Illinois, there are two statutes intended to protect groundwater resources used as

sources of drinking water. First, Sections 14.1 through 14.6 of the Act (415 ILCS 5/14.1-14.6

(1998)) establish minimum setback zones around community supply wells and other potable

water supply wells, and Sections 17.1 through 17.4 of the Act (415 ILCS 5/17.1-17.4 (1998))

provide for the evaluation of the adequacy of minimum setback zones around community water

well supply wells and the establishment of a more extensive regulated recharge area around the

wells as necessary to protect groundwater. The regulations of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 615 through 617

implement those provisions of the Act. Second, the Illinois Groundwater Protection Act (IGPA)

(415 ILCS 55/8 (1998)) provides for the classification of groundwater resources in this State,

based on the use and quality of the particular water, and for the establishment of groundwater

quality standards for the water in the various classes. The regulations of 35 Ill. Adm. Code 620

classify Illinois groundwater resources and set forth the required groundwater quality standards.

It is a violation of the Environmental Protection Act and Board regulations to cause a violation of

the groundwater standards. See 415 ILCS 5/12(a) (1998) and 35 Ill. Adm. Code 620.115 (1998).

None of the groundwater protection provisions are directly involved in the December 7,

1999 federal Class V injection well regulations. However, the Class V well rules refer

extensively to groundwater protection and the status of the State groundwater protection

program. The federal rules define and refer to “ground water protection area” and “other

sensitive ground water area.” At Section 144.86(c), USEPA defines a “ground water protection

area” as a geographic area near or around the well used by a community water system or non-

transient non-community water system (both defined in the drinking water regulations at 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 611.101). 40 C.F.R. 144.86(c), as added at 65 Fed. Reg. 68546, 68569 (December 7,

1999). At 40 C.F.R. 144.86(g), USEPA defines an “other sensitive ground water area” as an area

other than a “ground water protection area” that is “critical to protecting underground sources of

---

8

drinking water from contamination.” 40 C.F.R. 144.86(g), as added at 65 Fed. Reg. 68546,

68569 (December 7, 1999).

In order to accommodate the differences in phrasing used in the federal rules and the

existing Illinois provisions relating to the protection of groundwater resources, the Board has

retained the federal phrasing throughout the Class V well regulations. Thus, the Board has

retained the names “groundwater protection area” and “other sensitive groundwater area,” but has

made “groundwater” a single word and has added the word “groundwater” to the federal “other

sensitive area” in Section 704.286. In addition, the Board has added to the definitions in Section

704.286 a statement to the effect that a “setback zone,” as defined in Section 3.61 of the Act (415

ILCS 5/3.61 (1998)) and regulated pursuant to Sections 14.1 through 14.6 of the Act (415 ILCS

5/14.1-14.6 (1998)), is considered a “groundwater protection area,” and that a “regulated

recharge area,” as defined in Section 3.67 of the Act (415 ILCS 5/3.67 (1998)) and regulated

pursuant to Sections 17.1 through 17.4 of the Act (415 ILCS 5/17.1-17.4 (1998)), is considered

an “other sensitive groundwater area.”

The Board has not added references to the IGPA and 35 Ill. Adm. Code 620 to either

definition. Although the IGPA and the Board regulations adopted to implement it, protect

groundwater quality, they do not prohibit the location of any type of facility in any class of

groundwater area, including Class III special resource groundwater area. It would be

inappropriate for the Board to effectively incorporate such a prohibition in the context of an

identical-in-substance proceeding like this one, since such a prohibition would not be derived

from some similar federal prohibition. Rather, the Board has added references in Board notes at

Section 704.285(b) and at the definition of “State drinking water source assessment and

protection program” in Section 704.286 that acknowledge the significance of the IGPA and

associated rules to the protection of groundwater in Illinois. If the Agency concludes that Class

III or any other class of groundwater should be included as either a “groundwater protection area”

or “other sensitive groundwater area” as used in the Class V injection well rules, it should submit

a rulemaking proposal to the Board pursuant to Sections 27 and 28 of the Act.

The second and third sets of issues that the Board confronted in this proceeding also

relate to the federal requirements that the State designate groundwater protection areas and other

sensitive groundwater areas. Certain segments of the federal Class V injection well rules outline

the federal requirements that the State follow in designating these areas. Two groups of rules

accomplish this.

One group of the “state-requirement” rules outlines the federal requirements imposed on

the states for the purpose of informing the regulated community. One such example is found at

40 C.F.R. 144.87(b). The language of subsection (b) outlines what the states must do, then sets

forth the applicability of certain requirements should the states fail to fulfill those obligations. It

outlines the effects on the regulated community of a state’s failure to fulfill its obligations. It is

not possible at this time for the Board to determine that Illinois has fulfilled these requirements

for state action. Accordingly, the impact of a failure to satisfy these requirements might have

significant impact on what requirements apply to a facility in this State. In this instance, the

Board kept the federal language and added an explanatory Board note.

---

9

The other group of “state-requirement” rules focused on state action, rather than regulated

entities. Examples include 40 C.F.R. 144.87(c) and (h). The language of subsection (c) includes

a reiteration of the deadline for state action and outlines the availability of a federal extension of

that deadline. Since the deadline appears in the preceding subsection, the Board omitted a

reiteration of the deadline and included only the language relating to the effect of an extension of

the deadline. The language retained includes certain deadlines for action by the regulated

community that are contingent on the regulatory status of the Illinois Program. In subsection (h),

USEPA outlined action that it encourages states to undertake, none of which relates to

implementation of the substantive requirements of the Class V well rule. Thus, the Board

replaced major segments of the federal language of subsection (h) with a Board note explaining

that we had omitted federal language encouraging the state to undertake certain actions but not

imposing any requirements on the regulated community.

The Board has omitted those provisions that clearly do not apply in Illinois and has

inserted explanatory Board notes in appropriate segments of the rules. This occurred in Section

704.283(b). Corresponding 40 C.F.R. 144.83(b), relating to notification, imposes requirements

based on the primacy status of the applicable state. Since that table itself lists Illinois as a

“Primacy State,” it was unnecessary for the Board to include the requirements applicable to a

facility in a “Direct Implementation State.”

One deviation from the literal text of the federal rule was intended to remove a

redundancy and an area of potential conflict. New provision 40 C.F.R. 144.80 defines a Class V

injection well by exclusion,

i.e.

, it does so by outlining the various classes of injection wells and

defining a Class V well as one that is not within another class. This language is nearly identical

to that of 40 C.F.R. 144.6, from which 35 Ill. Adm. Code 704.106 is derived. The Board has

removed the duplicate language from 40 C.F.R. 144.80 in new Section 704.280 and replaced it

with language indicating that a Class V injection well is defined in Section 704.106.

Another deviation from the structure of the federal rule involved changing the

requirements in the tables at new 40 C.F.R. 144.88 to the standard subsection format in

corresponding 35 Ill. Adm. Code 704.288. These provisions are key to the Class V well rule, and

the Board believes that they are more clearly understood in the standard format. The Board

interprets the requirements as follows: if the condition of column one is true of the facility and

the condition of one cell in column two is also true, then the adjacent cell in column three

indicates the requirement that applies. We further interpret USEPA’s intent to be that all of the

conditions set forth in the first column are considered alternatives to be read in conjunction with

the corresponding condition in the first column. Thus, the conditions in cells (1)(i), (1)(ii),

(1)(iii), etc. are each alternatives to one another.

A final set of deviations from the literal text of the federal rule is intended to clarify

ambiguity in the rule. USEPA repeatedly refers to the additional requirement of new Subpart I.

One section, 40 C.F.R. 144.88, defines the additional requirements. Thus, the Board has

repeatedly changed the reference to read “the additional requirements of Section 704.288” at

Sections 704.284(b)(2); 704.285(a), (b), and (c); 704.286; and 704.287(h). In 40 C.F.R.

---

10

144.88(a), USEPA refers to “new requirements,” and in 40 C.F.R. 144.88(c), USEPA refers to

both “new requirements” and “rule requirements.” In context, the Board reads these as meaning

the same as “additional requirements,” so we have changed to this wording in corresponding

Section 704.288(a) and (c).

Finally, the Board has added Board notes explaining the right of an owner or operator to

appeal certain Agency determinations to the Board pursuant to Section 40 of the Act (415 ILCS

5/40 (1998)). In 40 C.F.R. 144.87(b)(2), (e), and (h) and 144.88(b)(1)(i), (b)(1)(ii), and (b)(1)(v),

the State may extend the deadline for an owner or operator to comply if it determines that the

most efficient compliance option is connection to a sanitary sewer or installation of new

treatment technology. While the Agency is given discretion to determine whether or not the most

efficient compliance option is indeed connection to a sanitary sewer or the installation of new

technology, the Board cannot vest in the Agency the additional discretion to determine whether

or not to extend the deadline for compliance. The Board then added a Board note explaining the

right to appeal an Agency determination. Thus, corresponding Sections 704.287(b)(2), (e), and

(h) and 704.288(b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), and (b)(1)(E), provide that the Agency must extend the

deadline if it makes the compliance determination, and a Board note explains the right to appeal.

The Board requested public comment on incorporation of the December 17, 1999 federal

Class V injection well rule and the subsequent corrections of December 16, 1999, and

February 5, 2000. We received no comments on the substantive aspects of the proposal. For this

reason, the Board has adopted the amendments as proposed without substantive revision.

Organobromine Production Waste Rule—Section 738.118

On March 17, 2000 (65 Fed. Reg. 14472), USEPA withdrew the hazardous waste listings

for organobromine production wastes (USEPA hazardous waste numbers K140 and U408) and

the associated LDRs for these wastes. This was in response to a court order in Great Lakes

Chemical Corp. v. EPA, No. 98-1312, 1999 WL 322757 (D.C. Cir. April 9, 1999), which vacated

the listings. On June 8, 2000 (65 Fed. Reg. 36365), USEPA corrected its March 17, 2000 action.

The Board incorporated all the RCRA Subtitle C hazardous waste aspects of the March 17, 2000

federal withdrawal in the previous hazardous waste update, RCRA Subtitle C Update, USEPA

Regulations (July 1, 1999, through December 31, 1999) (May 18, 2000), R00-13. A segment of

the withdrawn LDRs restricted underground injection of these wastes, and it is that segment that

is involved in this present docket.

USEPA adopted the recently-withdrawn organobromine waste rule on May 4, 1998 (63

Fed. Reg. 24596). The Board incorporated the hazardous waste listings and associated LDRs in

RCRA Subtitle C Update, USEPA Regulations (July 1, 1997, through December 31, 1997)

(December 17, 1998), R98-21/R99-2/R99-7 (Consolidated). The effect of the March 17, 2000

federal withdrawal is that organobromine production wastes are no longer listed hazardous

wastes, so that there is no longer a restriction on their disposal by underground injection.

The Board has incorporated the March 17, 2000 and June 8, 2000 federal actions into the

present update docket. The Board has incorporated the federal revisions into Section 738.118

---