E. The Consideration of Future Pollutant Reductions The Oklahoma parties argue that the ALJ improperly considered the reductions in pollutant loadings that will occur when three new treatment plants go on line sometime in the future. I see no reason to examine whether this was a proper consideration because it is clear from the ALJ's detailed findings that he would have reached the same conclusion with or without the evidence of future reductions in pollutant loading. This evidence was only one of many factors that convinced the ALJ that the permit discharge would not violate Oklahoma's water quality standards. The ALJ determined, independent of his consideration of the future reductions of pollutants, that the relevant standards would not be violated due to the assimilative capacity of the river system. 14 III. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, review of STIR's and the Oklahoma Attorney General's petitions is denied. Although I agree with Region VI that the ALJ applied the wrong water quality standards, I find this error to be harmless. So ordered. 14 See Decision on Remand at 7-10 (September 19, 1988). MIDWEST STEEL DIVISION, NATIONAL STEEL CORP. UIC Appeal No. 85-6 ORDER DENYING REVIEW Decided January 19, 1989 Before the Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Opinion by Lee M. Thomas, Administrator: Midwest Steel Division of National Steel Corp. (Midwest) seeks review under 40 CFR § 124.19 of an Underground Injection Control (UIC) permit issued by EPA Region V under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 300f to 300j-11. The permit authorizes the continued operation of a Class I well for the disposal of hazardous waste in Porter County, Indiana. The SDWA and implementing regulations do not provide for automatic review of UIC permit decisions. See 40 CFR § 124.19. Generally, a petition for review will not be granted unless the permit determination is clearly erroneous (legally or factually) or involves an important policy matter or exercise of discretion. The preamble to the regulations states that "this power of review should be only sparingly exercised" and that "most permit conditions should be finally determined at the Regional level ***" 45 Fed. Reg. 33,412 (May 19, 1980). Midwest has failed to persuade me that review is warranted here. Similar contentions regarding the corrective action requirements of Section 3004(u) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C.A. §6924(u), were addressed and rejected in In re Bethlehem Steel Corp., UIC Appeal Nos. 85-8 and 86-13. Midwest's challenge to the inclusion of RCRA general facility and post closure standards is also baseless. Id. Accordingly, Midwest's petition for review is denied.1 So ordered. 1 1 Regarding the post-closure requirements in particular, Midwest argues that these conditions are inconsistent with prior Agency assertions regarding the necessity of such standards for UIC wells. Petition at 7. The UIC program as originally promulgated contained no specific post-closure standards. See 45 Fed. Reg. 42,500 (June 24, 1980); see also 49 Fed. Reg. 20,149 (May 11, 1984). As noted in Bethlehem Steel, however, the rules authorize permit writers to include "on a case-by-case basis such additional conditions as are necessary to prevent the migration of fluids into underground sources of drinking water." 40 CFR § 144.52(a)(9). Although the Agency initially declined to impose post-closure standards for every UIC well through nationwide rulemaking, this determination did not preclude individual permit writers from imposing post-closure (or any other additional) requirements necessary under § 144.52(a)(9). Moreover, the Region's decision to require post-closure care in this case proved prophetic, for the Agency has since recognized the necessity of such standards for Class I hazardous waste wells. See Amendment to the UIC Regulations, 53 Fed. Reg. 28,154 (July 26, 1988) (to be codified at 40 CFR § 146.72). The requirement to maintain an approved post-closure plan "is directly enforceable regardless of whether the requirement is a condition of the permit." Id. (§ 146.72(a)). Finally, Midwest's unsupported request for a stay pending judicial review is denied. INLAND STEEL CO. UIC Appeal No. 85-7 ORDER DENYING REVIEW Decided January 19, 1989 Before the Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Opinion by Lee M. Thomas, Administrator: Inland Steel Company (Inland) seeks review under 40 CFR § 124.19 of two Underground Injection Control (UIC) permits issued by EPA Region V under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 300f to 300j-11. The permits authorize the continued operation of existing Class I wells for the disposal of hazardous waste in East Chicago, Indiana. The SDWA and implementing regulations do not provide for automatic review of UIC permit decisions. Generally, a petition for review will not be granted unless the permit determination is clearly erroneous (legally or factually) or involves an important policy matter or exercise of discretion. See 40 CFR § 124.19. The preamble to the regulations states that "this power of review should be only sparingly exercised" and that "most permit conditions should be finally determined at the Regional level *** 45 Fed. Reg. 33,412 (May 19, 1980). Inland has failed to persuade me that review is warranted here. Similar contentions regarding the corrective action requirements of Section 3004(u) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C.A. §6924(u), were addressed and rejected in In re Bethlehem Steel Corp., UIC Appeal Nos. 85-8 and 86-13. Its challenge to the inclusion of RCRA general facility and post-closure stand ards is also baseless. Id. Accordingly, Inland's petition for review is denied. 1 So ordered. 1 Regarding the post-closure requirements in particular, Inland argues that these conditions are inconsistent with prior Agency assertions regarding the necessity of such standards for UIC wells. Petition at 8. The UIC program as originally promulgated contained no specific post-closure standards. See 45 Fed. Reg. 42,500 (June 24, 1980); see also 49 Fed. Reg. 20,149 (May 11, 1984). As noted in Bethlehem Steel, however, the rules authorize permit writers to include “on a case-by-case basis such additional conditions as are necessary to prevent the migration of fluids into underground sources of drinking water." 40 CFR § 144.52(a)(9). Although the Agency initially declined to impose post-closure standards for every UIC well through nationwide rulemaking this determination did not preclude individual permit writers from imposing post-closure (or any other additional) requirements necessary under § 144.52(a)(9). Moreover, the Region's decision to require post-closure care in this case proved prophetic, for the Agency has since recognized the necessity of such standards for Class I hazardous waste wells. See Amendment to the UIC Regulations, 53 Fed. Reg. 28,154 (July 26, 1988) (to be codified at 40 CFR § 146.72). The requirement to maintain an approved post-closure plan "is directly enforceable regardless of whether the requirement is a condition of the permit." Id. (§ 146.72(a)). Finally, Inland's unsupported request for a stay pending judicial review is denied. |