35 Ill. Adm. Code 730.189
Mechanical Integrity
Section 730.189 Mechanical Integrity
a) A
Class VI injection well has mechanical integrity if both of the following
conditions exist:
1) There is no significant
leak in the casing, tubing, or packer; and
2) There
is no significant fluid movement into a USDW through channels adjacent to the
injection well bore.
b) To
evaluate the absence of significant leaks under subsection (a)(1), the owner or
operator must, following an initial annulus pressure test, continuously monitor
each of the following parameters:
1) The injection pressure,
rate, and injected volumes;
2) The
pressure on the annulus between the tubing and the long-string casing; and
3) The annulus fluid
volume, as specified in Section 730.188(e);
c) At
least once per year, the owner or operator must use one of the following
methods to determine the absence of significant fluid movement under subsection
(a)(2):
1) An approved tracer
survey, such as an oxygen-activation log; or
2) A temperature or noise
log.
d) If
required by the Agency, at a frequency specified in the testing and monitoring
plan required by Section 730.190, the owner or operator must run a casing
inspection log to determine the presence or absence of corrosion in the
long-string casing.
e) The
Agency must require any requested alternative test that the Agency has
determined is necessary to evaluate mechanical integrity under subsections
(a)(1) or (a)(2) after obtaining the written approval of USEPA.
BOARD NOTE: Corresponding 40 CFR
146.89(e) provides that the Agency must submit a written request to USEPA
setting forth the proposed test and all technical data supporting its use to
obtain approval for a new mechanical integrity test. USEPA stated that it will
approve the request if USEPA determines that the proposed test will reliably
demonstrate the mechanical integrity of wells for which its use was proposed.
USEPA stated that it will publish any alternative method that USEPA has
approved in the Federal Register, and the Agency must approve use of the published
method if the Agency has determined that the method is appropriate to evaluate
mechanical integrity, unless USEPA restricts its use at the time of approval by
USEPA.
f) In
conducting and evaluating the tests enumerated in this Section or others that
the Agency has required by permit, the owner or operator and the Agency must
apply methods and standards generally accepted in the industry. When the owner
or operator reports the results of mechanical integrity tests to the Agency,
the owner or operator must include a description of the tests and the methods
used. In making its evaluation, the Agency must review monitoring and other
test data submitted since the previous evaluation.
g) The
Agency must require additional or alternative tests if the Agency determines
that the results presented by the owner or operator pursuant to subsections (a)
through (d) are not satisfactory to demonstrate that there is no significant
leak in the casing, tubing, or packer or that there is no significant movement
of fluid into a USDW resulting from the injection activity, as required by
subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2).
BOARD NOTE: This Section
corresponds with 40 CFR 146.89 (2017).