EPA 816-2-01-002
Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 88/Monday, May 7, 2001/Proposed Rules
22971
Section of this Federal Register and
incorporated by reference herein.
Dated: April 12, 2001.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 01-10989 Filed 5-4-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 144 and 146
[FRL-6975-3]
Underground Injection Control
Program—Notice of Proposed
Determination for Class V Wells
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of Proposed
Determination.
SUMMARY: Today, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing a
determination for all categories of Class
V injection wells not included in the
final rulemaking on Class V motor
vehicle waste disposal wells and large-
capacity cesspools (64 FR 68546,
December 7,1999). These include
shallow non-hazardous industrial waste
injection wells, large-capacity septic
systems, agricultural and storm water
drainage wells, and other wells. The
Agency proposes that additional Federal
underground injection control (UIC)
regulations are not needed at this time
to prevent Class V wells from
endangering underground sources of
drinking water (USDWs). The Agency
will, instead, implement its continuing
statutory obligations and use existing
authorities under the Safe Drinking
Water Act to protect USDWs from any
threatening underground injection
activities. This proposed determination
is based on The Class V Underground
Injection Control Study (EPA Document
Number EPA/816-R-99-014, dated
September 1999) and other information
that has been placed in the public
docket for comment.
DATES: EPA will accept public
comment, in writing, on the proposed
determination and the 1999 Class V
Study until July 6, 2001. The Class V
Study can also be found on EPA's Web
site at www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/
cl5study.html.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to
the UIC Class V, W-98-05 Comment
Clerk, Water Docket (MC-4101); U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington,
DC 20460. Comments may be hand-
delivered to the Water Docket, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 401
M Street, SW, East Tower Basement,
Room 57, Washington, DC 20460.
Comments: Send one original and
three copies of your comments and
enclosures (including any references).
Please submit all references cited in
your comments. Facsimiles (faxes) can
not be accepted. Commenters who
would like EPA to acknowledge receipt
of their comments should include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope. To ensure
that EPA can read, understand and
therefore properly respond to
comments, the Agency would prefer
that commenters cite, where possible,
the paragraph(s) or sections in the
notice or supporting documents to
which each comment refers.
Commenters should use a separate
paragraph for each issue discussed.
Comments may also be submitted
electronically to ow-docket@epa.gov.
Electronic comments must be submitted
as an ASCII, WP5.1, WP6.1 or WPS file
avoiding the use of special characters
and form of encryption. Electronic
comments must be identified by the
docket number W—98—05. Comments
and data will also be accepted on disks
in WP 5.1, 6.1, 8 or ASCII file format.
The record for this rulemaking has
been established under docket number
W-98-05 and includes supporting
documentation as •well as printed, paper
versions of electronic comments. The
record is available for inspection from 9
to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays at the Water
Docket, EB 57, USEPA Headquarters,
401 M., Washington, DO. For access to
docket materials, please call 202/260-
3027 to schedule an appointment.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
technical inquiries, contact Joan
Harrigan-Farrelly, Office of Ground
Water and Drinking Water (mailcode
4606), EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave,
NW, Washington, DC 20460. Phone:
202-260-7077. For general information,
contact the Safe Drinking Water Hotline,
phone 800-426-4791. The Safe
Drinking Water Hotline is open Monday
through Friday, excluding Federal
holidays, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
Eastern Standard Time.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Affected
Entities: Although no new regulations
are being proposed, this notice applies
to owners or operators of any type of
Class V well that is not a large-capacity
cesspool or motor vehicle waste
disposal well, as described in 40 CFR
144.81(2) and (16), respectively. The
following table lists categories and
examples of entities that may have such
wells. This table is not intended to be
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide
for readers regarding entities likely to be
affected by or interested in this action.
Other types of entities not listed in the
table could also be interested in it. To
determine whether your injection well
is affected by this action, you should
carefully examine the applicability
criteria in 40 CFR 144.1(g). If you have
questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult
the person listed in the preceding FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
Category
Examples of entities potentially affected by this action
Industry and Commerce
State and Local Govern-
ment.
Federal Government
Farms, animal feeding operations, and other agricultural sites that drain excess surface or subsurface water into
wells; sites that have storm water drainage wells, facilities operating large-capacity septic systems, or nonhaz-
ardous waste disposal wells; facilities that extract minerals from brine and then inject the spent brine under-
ground; mines that backfill materials into mine shafts, pipelines, or other holes that are deeper than they are
wide; aquaculture facilities that dispose of wastewater in underground wells; solution mines that use injection
wells in the recovery of minerals from ore bodies that have already been conventionally mined; sites that use in-
jection wells as part of aquifer remediation activities; geothermal power plants that reinject fluids into the ground;
facilities that extract direct heat from geothermal fluids and then return those fluids underground; and sites that
use "open-loop" heat pump/air conditioning systems.
Municipalities that use storm water drainage wells; publicly owned treatment works that inject sewage treatment ef-
fluent underground; State and local government entities that inject water underground for the purpose of aquifer
recharge or aquifer storage and recovery.
Any Federal Agency that owns or operates one of the above entities.
-------
22972
Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 88/Monday, May 7, 2001/Proposed Rules
Table of Contents
I. Background
A. Statutory and Regulatory Framework
B. Requirements Applicable to Class V
C. History of this Rulemaking
1.1987 Report to Congress
2.1994 Consent Decree With the Sierra
Club
3.1995 Proposed Determination
4.1997 Modifie'd Consent Decree
5.1998 Proposal and 1999 Final Rule
6.1999 Class V Study
D. Scope of Today's Proposed
Determination
II. Factors Considered in Making the
Proposed Determination
A. Criteria Proposed in 1995
B. Public Comments on the 1995 Proposed
Approach
C. Proposed Criteria for Today's Notice
HI. Class V Wells Found to Have a Low
Potential to Endanger in the 1995
Proposal
A. 1995 Proposed Finding
B. Public Comments on Well Types
C. 1999 Class V Study
IV. Other Class V Wells
A. Sewage Treatment Effluent Wells
1.1995 Proposed Finding
2. Public Comments
3.1999 Class V Study
4. Proposed Determination
B. Mine Backfill Wells
1.1995 Proposed Finding
2. Public Comments
3.1999 Class V Study
4. Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Report to
Congress
5. Proposed Determination
C. Storm Water Drainage Wells
1.1995 Proposed Finding and 1998
Proposal
2. Public Comments
3.1999 Class V Study
4. Proposed Determination
D. Large-Capacity Septic Systems
1.1995 Proposed Finding
2. Public Comments
3.1999 Class V Study
4. Guidelines for Management of Onsite
Wastewater Systems
5. Proposed Determination
E. Agricultural Drainage Wells
1.1995 Proposed Finding
2. Public Comments
3.1999 Class V Study
4. Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations Proposal
5. Proposed Determination
F. Industrial Wells
1.1995 Proposed Finding
2. Public Comments
3. Subsequent Actions
4. Proposed Determination
V. Comment Solicitation
I. Background
A. Statutory and Regulatory Framework
Class V wells are regulated under the
authority of Part C of the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA or the Act) (42 U.S.C.
300h et seq.). The SDWA authorizes
EPA to protect the quality of drinking
water in the United States, and Part C
specifically mandates the regulation of
underground injection of fluids through
wells. The Agency has promulgated a
series of underground injection control
(UIC) regulations under this authority.
Section 1421 of the Act requires EPA
to propose and promulgate regulations
specifying minimum requirements for
effective State programs to prevent
underground injection that endangers
drinking water sources. EPA
promulgated administrative and
permitting regulations, now codified in
40 CFR parts 144 and 146, on May 19,
1980 (45 FR 33290), and technical
requirements in 40 CFR part 146 on
June 24, 1980 (45 FR 42472). The
regulations were subsequently amended
on August 27, 1981 (46 FR 43156),
February 3, 1982 (47 FR 4992), January
21,1983 (48 FR 2938), April 1, 1983 (48
FR 14146), July 26, 1988 (53 FR 28118),
December 3,1993 (58 FR 63890), June
10,1994 (59 FR 29958), December 14,
1994 (59 FR 64339), June 29, 1995 (60
FR 33926), and December 7,1999 (64 FR
68546).
Section 1422 of the Act provides that
States may apply to EPA for primary
enforcement responsibility to
administer the UIC program; those
States receiving such authority are
referred to as "primacy States." Where
States do not seek this responsibility or
fail to demonstrate that they meet EPA's
minimum requirements, EPA is required
to prescribe a UIC program for such
States by regulation. These direct
implementation (DI) program
regulations were issued in two phases,
on May 11, 1984 (49 FR 20138) and
November 15,1984 (49 FR 45308). For
the remainder of this preamble,
references to the UIC Program
"Director" mean either the Director of
the EPA program (where the program is
implemented directly by EPA) or the
Director of the primacy State program
(where the State is responsible for
implementing the program). Also,
currently all UIC Programs in Indian
Country are directly implemented by
EPA. Therefore, for the remainder of
this preamble, references to DI programs
include UIC programs in Indian
Country.
B. Requirements Applicable To Class V
Wells
The UIC regulations establish five
classes of injection wells. Class I wells
are used to inject hazardous and non-
hazardous waste beneath the lowermost
formation containing an underground
source of drinking water (USDW) within
one-quarter mile of the well bore. Class
II wells are used to inject fluids
associated with oil and natural gas
recovery and storage of liquid
hydrocarbons. Class in wells are used in
connection with the solution mining of
minerals from ore bodies that have not
been conventionally mined. Class IV
wells are used to inject hazardous or
radioactive wastes into or above a
formation that is within one-quarter
mile of a USDW. (Class IV wells are
generally prohibited by 40 CFR 144.13.)
Class V wells are defined in the
regulations as any well not included in
Classes I through IV.
Class V wells, other than motor
vehicle waste disposal wells and large-
capacity cesspools, are currently
authorized by rule (§3 144.24(a) and
144.84(a)). Rule authorization expires
upon the effective date of a permit
issued pursuant to § 144.25,144.31,
144.33, or 144.34; upon meeting one of
the conditions specified in § 144.84(b);
or upon proper closure of the well as
described in § 144.82(b). Existing Glass
V motor vehicle waste disposal wells in
"ground water protection areas" and
"other sensitive ground water areas"J
are banned with a provision that allows
owners and operators of such wells to
seek a waiver from the ban and obtain
a permit (§ 144.88(b)). New Class V
motor vehicle waste disposal wells and
new and existing large-capacity
cesspools were banned nationwide
(§ 144.88(a) and (b)). These new
requirements affecting motor vehicle
waste disposal wells and large-capacity
cesspools are minimum Federal
standards—primacy States may impose
more stringent requirements.
In addition to these provisions, Class
V UIC Program Directors have many
obligations and authorities under the
SDWA to ensure the protection of
USDWs. Specifically, the current
regulations subject Class V wells to the
general statutory and regulatory
1A ground water protection area is defined in
§ 144.86(c) as a geographic area near and/or
surrounding community and non-transient non-
community water systems that use ground water as
a source of drinking water These areas receive
priority for the protection of drinking water
supplies and States are required to delineate and
assess these areas under section 1453 of the SDWA.
Other sensitive ground water areas are defined in
§ 144.85 (g) as additional State-defined areas that are
critical to protecting USDWs from contamination.
The other sensitive ground water areas may include
areas overlying sole-source aquifers; highly
productive aquifers supplying private wells;
continuous and highly productive aquifers at points
distant from public water supply wolls; areas where
water supply aquifers are recharged; karst aquifers
that discharge to surface reservoirs serving as public
water supplies; vulnerable or sensitive
hydrogeologic settings, such as glacial outwash
deposits, eolian sands, and fractured volcanic rock;
and areas of special concern selected based on a
combination of factors, such as hydrogeologic
sensitivity, depth to ground water, significance as
a drinking water source, and prevailing land use
practices.
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 88/Monday,-May .7, 2001/Proposed Rules
22973
prohibitions against endangerment of
USDWs, as well as some specific
requirements. Under § 144.12(a) and
§ 144.82(a), owners or operators of all
injection wells, including Class V
injection wells, are prohibited from
engaging in any injection activity that
allows the movement of fluid containing
any contaminant into USDWs, if the
presence of that contaminant may cause
a violation of any primary drinking
water regulation under 40 CFR part 141
or may otherwise adversely affect
human health. Sections 144.12(c), (d),
and (e) prescribe mandatory and
discretionary actions to be taken by the
Director if a well is not in compliance
with § 144.12(a). These actions may
include requiring the well operator to
apply for an individual permit, ordering
such action as closure of the well to
prevent endangerment, taking an
enforcement action, and/or taking an
emergency action.
Owners or operators of Class V
injection wells must also submit basic
inventory and assessment information
under § 144.26 and § 144.83. In
addition, Class V wells are subject to the
general program requirements of
§ 144.25 and § 144.84 under which the
Director may require a permit, if
necessary, to protect USDWs. Moreover,
under § 144.27 and § 144.83, EPA may
require owners or operators of any Class
V well, in EPA-administered programs,
to submit additional information
deemed necessary to protect USDWs.
Owners or operators who fail to submit
the information required under
§g 144.26, 144.27, or 144.83 are
prohibited from using their injection
wells.
C. History of This Rulemaking
1. 1987 Report to Congress
In accordance with the 1986
Amendments to the SDWA, EPA
summarized information on 32
categories of Class V wells in a Report
to Congress entitled Class V Injection
Wells—Current Inventory; Effects on
Ground Water; and Technical
Recommendations, September 1987
(EPA Document Number 570/9-87-
006). This report presents a national
overview of Class V injection practices
and State recommendations for Class V
design, construction, installation, and
siting requirements. These State
recommendations, however, did not
give EPA a clear mandate on what, if
any, additional measures were needed
to control Class V wells on the national
level. For any given type of well, the
recommendations varied broadly and
were rarely made by more than two or
three States. For example, the
recommendations for septic systems
range from further studies (3 States) to
statewide ground water monitoring (1
State). For industrial waste water wells,
some States recommended immediate
action and closure while others
recommended monitoring and ground
water evaluation studies.
2.1994 Consent Decree With the Sierra
Club
On December 30,1993, the Sierra
Club filed a complaint in the United
States District Court for the District of
Columbia alleging that EPA failed to
comply with section 1421 of the SDWA
regarding publication of proposed and
final regulations for Class V injection
wells. The complaint alleged that EPA's
then current regulations regarding Class
V wells did not meet the SDWA's
statutory requirements to "prevent
underground injection which endangers
drinking water sources." (Complaint,
Paragraph 15)
To resolve the issue, EPA entered into
a consent decree with the Sierra Club on
August 31,1994. This consent decree
required that, no later than August 15,
1995, the Administrator sign a notice to
be published in the Federal Register
proposing regulatory action that fully
discharges the Administrator's
rulemaking obligation under section
1421 of the SDWA, 42 U.S.C. 30 Oh, with
respect to Class V injection wells. A
final rulemaking on the matter was
required to be signed by no later than
November 15,1996.
3.1995 Proposed Determination
On August 15,1995, the
Administrator signed a notice of
proposed rulemaking that proposed a
regulatory determination on Class V
injection wells intended to fulfill EPA's
obligation under the 1994 consent
decree with the Sierra Club (60 FR
44652, August 28,1995). In this notice,
EPA proposed not to adopt additional
Federal regulations for any types of
Class V wells. Instead, the Agency
proposed to address the risks posed by
certain wells using existing authorities
and a Class V management strategy
designed to: (1) Speed up the closure of
potentially endangering wells, and (2)
promote the use of best management
practices to ensure that other Class V
wells of concern do not endanger
USDWs. Several factors led EPA to
propose this approach, including: (1)
The wide diversity in the types of fluids
being injected, ranging from high risk to
not likely to endanger; (2) the large
number of facilities to be regulated; and
(3) the nature of the regulated
community, which consists of a large
proportion of small businesses.
4. 1997 Modified Consent Decree
Based on public comments received
on the 1995 proposal, EPA decided to
reconsider its proposed approach.
Because this reconsideration would
extend the time necessary to complete
the rulemaking for Class V wells, EPA
and the Sierra Club entered into a
modified consent decree on January 28,
1997 (D.D.C. No. 93-2644) that
extended the dates for rulemaking that
had been in the 1994 decree. The
modified decree requires three actions.
First, by no later than June 18,1998,
the EPA Administrator was required to
sign a notice to be published in the
Federal Register proposing regulatory
action that fully discharged the
Administrator's rulemaking obligation
under section 1421 of the SDWA with
respect to those types of Class V
injection wells determined to be high
risk for which EPA did not need
additional information. The
Administrator was required to sign a
final determination for these
endangering Class V wells by no later
than October 29,1999. Thirty-day
extensions were subsequently granted
for both of these deadlines.
Second, by no later than September
30,1999, EPA was required to complete
a study of all Class V wells not included
in the first rulemaking on endangering
Class V injection wells. Based on this
study, EPA may find that some of these
other types of Class V wells also
endanger USDWs.
Third, by no later than April 30, 2001,
the EPA Administrator was required to
sign a notice to be published in the
Federal Register proposing to discharge
the Administrator's rulemaking
obligations under section 1421 of the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) with
respect to all Class V injection wells not
included in the first rulemaking for
Class V injection wells. The Consent
Decree requires that the Administrator
either (1) propose regulations fully
implementing section 1421 with respect
to all such Class V injection wells, (2)
propose a decision that no further
rulemaking is necessary in order to fully
discharge the Administrator's
rulemaking obligations under section
1421 with respect to all such Class V
injection wells, or (3) propose
regulations fully implementing section
1421 with respect to some of these
remaining Class V injection wells and
propose a decision that no further
rulemaking is necessary in order to fully
discharge the Administrator's
rulemaking obligations under section
1421 with respect to all other Class V
injection wells not already covered. The
Administrator must sign a final
-------
22974
Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 88/Monday, May 7, 2001/Proposed Rules
determination for these remaining Class
V wells by no later than May 31, 2002.
5.1998 Proposal and 1999 Final Rule
On July 29,1998 (63 FR 40586), in
response to the first action required
under the modified consent decree with
the Sierra Club, EPA proposed revisions
to the Class V UIC regulations that
would add new requirements for three
categories of Class V wells that were
believed to endanger underground
sources of drinking water. According to
this proposal, Class V motor vehicle
waste disposal wells in ground water
protection areas (as defined in footnote
1 above) would either be banned, or
would have to get a permit that requires
fluids released in those wells to meet
the drinking water maximum
contaminant levels (MCLs) and other
health-based standards at the point of
injection. Class V industrial waste
disposal wells in ground water
protection areas also would be required
to meet the MCLs and other health-
based standards at the point of injection,
and large-capacity cesspools in such
areas would oe banned.
EPA received substantial public input
on the 1998 proposal. The input
included 97 letters from public
commenters as well as
recommendations from the National
Drinking Water Advisory Council
(NDWAC). which formed a Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA)
working group to address Class V UIC
and Source Water Protection Program
integration issues. This FACA
workgroup met twice in 1999 to discuss
the proposed Class V regulation. In
addition, on May 21,1999 (64 FR
27741), the Agency published a notice
of data availability (NODA) and further
request for comment related to the 1998
proposal. A total of 14 public comment
letters were received in response to this
request.
Taking all the public input into
account, EPA issued final revisions to
the Class V UIC regulations on
December 7,1999 (64 FR 68546). The
final rule added new requirements for
(l) existing motor vehicle waste
disposal wells located in ground water
protection areas delineated for
community water systems and non-
transient non-community water systems
that use ground water as a source and
in other sensitive ground water areas
delineated by the States; and (2) new
and existing large-capacity cesspools
and new motor vehicle waste disposal
wells nationwide. The final rule,
however, did not adopt the proposed
additional requirements for industrial
waste disposal wells to meet the MCLs
and other health based standards at the
point of injection. Many commenters
questioned why the Agency chose to
regulate a wide range of industries with
different disposal practices with one
approach. Some commenters thought
the industrial category was too diverse
and types of industrial waste streams
should be regulated based on their
specific characteristics and risks. After
considering these comments, EPA
agreed that the industrial category is
diverse and represents a variety of waste
streams that required additional review
before deciding on the need for
additional Federal regulations.
6. 1999 Class V Study
On September 30,1999, in response
to the second action required under the
modified consent decree with, the Sierra
Club, EPA published a study of all Class
V wells not included in the 1998
proposal (EPA Document Number EPA/
816-R-99-014). The study consisted of
two major components: (1) An
information collection effort for the
remaining universe of Class V wells,
which was divided into 23 different
categories for the purpose of analysis;
and (2) an "inventory modeling"
exercise to estimate the number of storm
water drainage wells and large-capacity
septic systems, two types of wells that
were believed to be quite prevalent, but
for which adequate inventory
information was particularly lacking.
As described in detail in Volume 1 of
the final Study report, the information
collection effort consisted of a
comprehensive literature search, State
and EPA Regional data collection,
requests to the public for data, and peer
review. As part of the State and EPA
Regional data collection, the Agency
distributed nearly 700 questionnaires to
EPA Regional, State, and local program
staff in all 50 States and U.S. territories,
including staff responsible for Class V
well control on Indian Lands in EPA
Regions 5, 8, 9, and 10. The Agency
supplemented the information from the
questionnaires with follow-up
telephone interviews and on-site file
searches in 11 primacy States, 3 DI
States, and 2 Regional Offices with DI
States. The Agency also supplemented
the survey results with visits to a
number of injection well sites, including
geothermal electric power well sites in
California and food processing waste
disposal well sites in Tennessee and
Maine.
For the inventory modeling, EPA
selected and visited a sample of 99
census tracts across the nation to collect
data on the numbers of storm water
drainage wells and large-capacity septic
systems that exist and factors that
influence their prevalence. Storm water
drainage wells were found in 22 of the
99 census tracts visited and large-
capacity septic systems were found in
88 of the 99 census tracts visited. EPA
used the data collected from the visits
to develop mathematical models for
predicting the numbers of these wells
nationwide.
D. Scope of Today's Proposed
Determination
Today's proposed regulatory
determination addresses all of the Class
V well types not covered by the 1999
final rule, in response to the third action
required under the modified consent
decree with the Sierra Club. For the
purpose of this notice, these other well
types are discussed in the following
categories that track with the earlier
proposals described above as well as the
categories addressed in the Class V
Study: Agricultural drainage wells,
storm water drainage wells, large-
capacity septic systems, sewage
treatment effluent wells, spent brine
return flow wells, mine backfill wells,
aquaculture waste disposal wells,
solution mining wells, in-situ fossil fuel
recovery wells, special drainage wells,
experimental wells, aquifer remediation
wells, geothermal electric power wells,
geothermal direct heat wells, heat
pump/air conditioning return flow
wells, saltwater intrusion barrier wells,
aquifer recharge and aquifer storage and
recovery wells, subsidence control
wells, and industrial wells (including,
but not limited to, carwash wells, food
processing waste disposal wells,
laundromat wells, and non-contact
cooling water wells). These categories
are the same as the ones defined in the
existing regulations in 40 CFR § 144.81.
However, in some cases the categories
have been combined or separated to
facilitate the discussion of the data and
rationale used to support this
determination. This determination,
however, does not propose to change
the Class V well categories currently
defined in the UIC regulations to the
ones discussed here.
It is also important to clarify that this
notice satisfies the Agency's obligations
under the modified consent decree with
the Sierra Club, but it does not end
EPA's obligations, requirements, and
actions to prevent Class V wells from
endangering USDWs. As described in
Section IB above, UIC Program
Directors have many obligations and
authorities under the SDWA to ensure
the protection of USDWs from the risks
posed by Class V wells. The Agency will
continue to fulfill these obligations and
using existing authorities for all Class V
wells (Section IV.F.3 below summarizes
some of the actions UIC Program
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 88/Monday, May 7, 2001/Proposed Rules
22975
Directors take for Class V industrial
wells using these existing authorities).
In addition, nothing in this notice
precludes a State or local government
from promulgating requirements more
stringent than the minimum Federal
requirements. Also, today's proposed
determination does not affect EPA's
authority to impose any necessary
regulations in the future on any of the
well types addressed in today's notice.
II. Factors Considered in Making the
Proposed Determination
A. Criteria Proposed in 1995
The Agency proposed two criteria in
1995 for evaluating the different
categories of Class V wells to determine
whether any category warranted
additional regulation: the potential to
endanger USDWs and the anticipated
effectiveness of additional Federal
regulation under the UIC program in
preventing endangerment to USDWs.
For wells with a low or no potential
to contaminate USDWs, the Agency
proposed that the then existing
regulations provided sufficient
authorities to handle the few cases
where mismanagement of one of these
wells could create an endangering
situation. To assess the need for
additional UIC regulation for the other
wells, the 1995 proposal was guided by
the following principles:
(1) Additional Federal UIC regulations
are not necessary where adequate State
or local regulations are already in place,
[2) Additional Federal UIC regulations
are not necessary where the Class V
wells are not the principal source of
endangerment from a widespread
environmental problem,
(3) Additional Federal UIC regulations
are not necessary where endangerments
are localized problems, e.g., wells that
are found only in one or two counties
or in one or two States. For these wells,
EPA will work with the States, if
necessary, to bring about better controls,
(4) Additional Federal UIC regulations
are not necessary where other Federal
programs address the endangerment
caused by certain Class V wells.
B. Public Comments on the 1995
Proposed Approach
EPA received 57 public comment
letters on the 1995 proposal, several of
which addressed the proposed decision-
making criteria summarized above.
Many comments supported the
Agency's proposal to not impose more
regulations for Class V wells based on
these criteria. However, EPA also
received a number of comments that
raised concerns about the overall
approach, including the above criteria
and the related rationale proposed for
some well types. The opposing
comments are best represented by nine
main points made by the Sierra Club,
which are addressed in turn below.
First, the Sierra Club asserted that
blanket authorization of Class V wells
by rule, based on any criteria, violates
the SDWA. The basis for this comment
was the Sierra Club's interpretation that
SDWA requires EPA to prescribe
regulatory standards for State programs.
EPA disagrees that the Class V
regulations violate the SDWA. SDWA
section 142 l(b) requires EPA to issue
regulations for effective State programs
to prevent endangerment of drinking
water sources by underground injection.
The statute specifically States that the
regulations "may permit a State to
authorize underground injection by
rule." Section 1421(b)(l)(A). EPA has
provided such authority to States for
Class V regulations; the authorization by
rule requirements for such wells include
requirements for reporting and avoiding
endangerment of drinking water
sources. As discussed in more detail
below, EPA has found that these
requirements are generally effective in
preventing endangerment from the Class
V wells discussed in today's proposed
determination. Thus, EPA has met the
statutory mandate of prescribing
regulations for "effective" State
programs "to prevent * * *
endangerment" from Class V UIC wells..
Second, the Sierra Club stated that
continued reliance on the non-
endangerment provision in 40 CFR
144.12 and the authority in 40 CFR
144.25 to require a permit does not
fulfill EPA's statutory duty to specify
minimum requirements for State UIC
programs. EPA disagrees with this
analysis. The minimum requirements
for State UIC Class V programs are
specified in EPA's regulations; these
include reporting and non-
endangerment requirements. While
these may not be as specific and
detailed as the requirements for the
other UIC well classes, they are
nonetheless "minimum requirements
for * * * (State) programs" as required
by SDWA section 1421(b). Because
these requirements, general as they are,
have been effective in preventing
endangerment from these wells, no
more is required under the statute.
Third, the Sierra Club argued that the
existence of State or local regulations
does not justify a decision not to impose
more Federal regulations. While EPA
agrees that the mere presence of State or
local regulations governing UIC wells
does not justify a decision not to impose
Federal requirements under section
1421(b), such State or local regulations
may be an important factor in
determining the extent of
"endangerment" from Class V wells and
the "effectiveness" of additional Federal
requirements. For example, as discussed
below, in determining the extent of
"endangerment" posed by various Class
V well types, EPA relied heavily upon
actual contamination incidents;
however, the adequacy of State and
local requirements was also a factor that
helped EPA determine the likelihood of
future contamination from such wells.
Similarly, EPA believes that
comprehensive State and local
regulation of a Class V well type, such
as septic systems discussed below, may
make additional Federal regulation
entirely duplicative, if not disruptive.
Where such regulation exists, further
Federal regulation may be futile in
terms of ensuring "effective" State
programs; rather, Federal efforts may be
better focused on implementation of and
education regarding existing regulations
and programs than merely adding yet
another layer of redundant or
duplicative requirements. Thus, EPA
continues to believe that the extent of
State and local regulation remains a
highly relevant consideration in meeting
the section 1421(b) mandate. At its core,
the statute clearly envisions that the UIC
program be a State-run program and the
Federal role is to ensure that existing
State UIC programs become or remain
effective in addressing any
endangerments from underground
injection wells.
Fourth, the Sierra Club claimed that a
decision not to impose additional
regulations cannot be justified on the
grounds that Class V wells are not the
principal source of endangerment from
a widespread environmental problem,
because partial or incremental solutions
are better than none at all. In order for
this criterion to be valid, the Sierra Club
asserted that EPA would have to show
that additional Federal regulations yield
a gain of trivial or no value. As noted
below, EPA has dropped this criterion
as a basis for deciding not to establish
further regulations for Class V wells.
However, EPA continues to believe that
the extent of contamination from Class
V wells, based on actual incidents of
contamination, remains a critical factor
in determining whether sufficient
"endangerment" is posed by Class V
wells to warrant additional Federal
requirements.
Fifth, the Sierra Club argued that EPA
cannot decide against additional Class V
regulations based on a finding that
endangerments are localized problems.
According to the comment, nothing in
SDWA exempts from regulation
endangerments that occur in one or a
-------
22976
Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 88/Monday, May 7, 2001/Proposed Rules
few places, and nothing prevents these
localized problems from emerging in
other areas in the future. While EPA
agrees that "endangerments" that are
"localized" may still warrant Federal
regulation since, as a factual matter,
most well contamination will endanger
only a localized area, EPA strongly
believes that additional Federal
regulation is not necessary where the
endangerment posed by a particular
well type appears to be isolated and
rare. No amount of Federal regulation
(or any other regulation) can prevent all
contamination; the fact that an isolated
incident of contamination from a UIC
well occurs does not mean that the State
program for that well is ineffective in
preventing endangerment. Rather, EPA
believes that under Section 1421(b)
Federal regulations for UIC wells are
reserved for situations, such as with
motor vehicle waste disposal wells
(addressed in the December 7,1999,
final revised Class V UIC regulations (64
FR 68546)), where existing State
programs are not generally "effective"
in preventing endangerment from
certain well types. With respect to
assurance that wells may not
contaminate in the future, EPA believes
that it has a continuing obligation under
1421(b) to determine whether additional
Federal regulation is necessary for any
UIC well types. Today's proposed
determination does not affect EPA's
authority to impose any necessary
regulation in the future on any of the
well types addressed in today's notice.
Sixth, the Sierra Club asserted that
EPA's duty to regulate under SDWA is
not removed by other Federal programs
that also address Class V wells.
Moreover, the fact that Federal programs
overlap in subject matter is no obstacle
to regulation, and in many cases, other
Federal programs do not address the
endangerment fully. As discussed
below, EPA has not used other Federal
programs as a criterion for determining
whether to impose additional UIC
requirements in today's notice.
However, EPA does believe that the
existence of other Federal programs that
address Class V wells may be highly
relevant in determining whether an
"endangerment" exists and whether
additional SDWA regulation would be
"effective" in addressing that
endangerment.
Seventh, the Sierra Club objected to
the proposal that additional regulations
could not be developed for some Class
V well types because of diversity in
local hydrogeologic conditions or in
types of fluids injected. According to
the Sierra Club, such variability is not
grounds for a regulatory exemption
under SDWA and could be addressed by
establishing targeted regulations for
more narrowly defined subcategories of
wells. While EPA agrees that such
diversity in conditions is not in itself a
reason for EPA to determine that
Federal regulations are unnecessary,
EPA believes that such diversity may be
a factor in determining whether -
additional Federal regulation would
promote more "effective" State
programs to address the well type in
question.
Eighth, the Sierra Club commented
that the existence of large numbers of
regulated entities and an alleged lack of
facility-specific data do not justify a
decision not to regulate further. In
support of this comment, the Sierra
Club said that the size of a regulated
community is always workable, and that
EPA has an obligation to collect the data
necessary to perform its rulemaking
duties. EPA has not used either of the
factors Sierra Club mentions as a basis
for today's proposed determination.
Ninth, the Sierra Club argued that
EPA cannot decide against additional
regulations for some well types based on
the criterion that a large proportion of
the regulated community is comprised
of small businesses. Among other points
made in support of this argument, the
Sierra Club stated that SDWA creates no
exemption for small businesses and that
EPA did not show that the burden on
small businesses would be severe. EPA
has not used the type of regulated
community as a basis for today's
proposed determination.
C. Proposed Criteria for Today's Notice
EPA is proposing today to use the two
main criteria proposed in 1995—
potential to endanger USDWs and the
anticipated effectiveness of additional
Federal UIC regulation—to determine
whether other categories of Class V
wells warrant additional regulation. The
Agency is now better able to apply these
criteria using additional information
gathered from the 1999 Class V Study.
Based on the above comments and
responses, however, the Agency is
dropping from consideration some of
the principles used in 1995.
The potential to endanger USDWs is
by far the more important of the two
criteria, given the SDWA mandate to
ensure non-endangerment. EPA
evaluated this potential based in large
part on the record of documented
incidents of ground water and other
environmental contamination caused by
the operation of the different well types.
While the Agency also evaluated the
potential for such contamination based
on such factors as the quality of fluids
injected, the characteristics of the
injection zone, well design and
operating features, the vulnerability of
the wells to spills or illicit discharges,
and the adequacy of existing State and
Federal UIC programs for addressing
any potentially endangering situations,
EPA believes that the absence of
frequent, widespread, or significant
cases of actual contamination is
compelling evidence of a low potential
to endanger that does not warrant
additional Federal regulation at this
time.
EPA considered the anticipated
effectiveness of additional Federal UIC
regulation for only a few well categories
for which a sound determination could
not be based on the potential to
endanger alone. In evaluating the
anticipated effectiveness of additional
regulation, EPA considered such factors
as the degree to which additional
Federal UIC regulations would simply
duplicate existing State programs
without increasing the "effectiveness"
of these programs. While the Agency
also considered the possibility of the
UIC program joining forces with other
existing or emerging programs to
achieve greater results in an integrated
fashion, it did not use the existence of
other Federal programs that also address
Class V wells as a basis for deciding
against additional UIC regulation. In
addition, EPA did not use the diversity
in conditions, the existence of large
numbers of regulated entities, the lack
of facility-specific data, or the existence
of a large proportion of small businesses
as decision making criteria.
HI. Class V Wells Found To Have a Low
Potential To Endanger in the 1995
Proposal
A. 1995 Proposed Finding
Based on the data available at the
time, the Agency proposed in 1995 (see
60 FR 44652, August 28,1995) that
several types of Class V injection wells
generally had a low potential to
endanger USDWs, including: (1) Salt
water intrusion barrier wells, (2)
subsidence control wells, (3) heat
pump/air conditioning return flow
wells, (4) spent brine wells, (5)
swimming pool and landslide control
wells (i.e., "special drainage" wells),
and (6) solution mining wells. This
finding was based on such factors as
good injection quality (e.g., comparable
to or better than the fluids in the
injection zone), appropriate well
construction and maintenance, injection
zone characteristics, and existing
regulatory oversight. In addition, EPA
found that the following well types
generally had a low-to-moderate or
moderate potential to endanger: (1)
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 88/Monday, May 7, 2001/Proposed Rules
22977
Aquifer recharge 2 and aquifer storage
and recovery wells, (2) aquifer
remediation, (3) geothermal direct heat
wells, (4) geothermal electric power
wells, (5) aquaculture wells, (6)
experimental technology wells, and (7)
in-situ fossil fuel recovery wells. In
general, EPA found that the fluids
injected into these wells were of lower
quality than those injected into the six
types of wells first discussed above, but
well construction, operation, and
maintenance in combination with
locational factors and existing Federal
and State programs safeguard against
endangerment. In the case of in-situ
fossil fuel recovery wells, the Agency
also noted that no wells of this type
were known to be operating.
B. Public Comments on Well Types
In response to the 1995 proposal, EPA
received no comments on five of these
13 well types: (1) Salt water intrusion
barrier wells, (2) subsidence control
wells, (3) special drainage wells, (4)
geothermal direct heat wells, and (5)
aquaculture wells. EPA received limited
comments that did not disagree with the
Agency's characterization of the '
potential of the wells to endanger
USDWs for another five of these 13 well
types: (1) Spent brine return flow wells,
(2) solution mining wells, (3) aquifer
recharge and aquifer storage and
recovery wells, (4] aquifer remediation
wells, and (5) experimental technology
wells. Of the remaining wells, one
commenter disagreed with the Agency's
characterization of heat pump/air
conditioning return flow wells and
geothermal electric power wells as
having a low potential to endanger
USDWs. The commenter indicated that
heat pump/air conditioning return flow
wells could allow the introduction of
contaminants (e.g., refrigerants, lead,
copper) into ground water and possible
cross-contamination between aquifers.
In addition, the commenter indicated
that electric power geothermal injection
wells are "not innocuous" because high
temperatures and contaminants picked
up in the power plant may degrade
ground water. Another commenter
indicated that ground water in the
vicinity of five in-situ fossil fuel recover
projects has been contaminated.
2 EPA found that some aquifer recharge wells
pose a moderate to high threat of USDW
contamination when they are operated as dual
purpose wells that alternately withdraw water for
irrigation and inject irrigation drainage 'water. These
wells are more similar to other agricultural drainage
wells and are included below in the discussion of
agricultural .drainage wells.
C. 1999 Class V Study
The Class V Underground Injection
.Control Study (EPA/816-R-99-014,
September 1999) presents additional
information about each of these 13 well
types that was collected following the
1995 proposal. The Agency believes that
this information confirms the findings
proposed in 1995, although some of the
supporting details are new or different.
For example, in 1995, EPA found that
there is little chance that fluids injected
into spent brine return flow wells (in
seven States) would reach USDWs
because the wells were adequately
constructed with multiple layers of
protection and inject into deep confined
formations. The Class V Study found
that spent brine return flow wells
regulated under Class V now only occur
in two States and that in all cases the
wells have individual permits and inject
below the lowermost USDW. Similarly,
in 1995 EPA found that salt water
intrusion barrier wells have a low
potential to contaminate USDWs
because they generally inject fluids of
equivalent or better quality than the
injection zone fluids. The Class V Study
found that waters of varying quality are
injected into these wells, but typically
the injected water meets primary and
secondary drinking water standards. In
addition, ground water monitoring and
associated studies have shown no
measurable adverse effects on either
ground water quality or the health of the
population ingesting the water when the
injectate was treated wastewater
effluent.
Of the 13 well types in this group, the
Class V Study identified reported
contamination incidents associated with
the operation of only three types. For in-
situ fossil fuel recovery wells, the Class
V Study confirmed the information
submitted by a commenter that ground
water contamination had occurred in
the vicinity of in-situ fossil fuel
recovery operations. The Class V Study
also confirmed, however, that no wells'
of this type are known to be in
operation. For heat pump/air
conditioning return flow wells, the
Class V Study identified a few sites
where ground water contamination has
been reported. Thus, EPA agrees with
the commenter who indicated that
operation of these wells could result in
ground water contamination. The
available information indicates,
however, that such occurrences are very
rare in light of the estimated 35,000
wells of this type in over 40 States. For
aquifer remediation wells, the Class V
Study identified a single reported
contamination incident that resulted
from an equipment failure, but
confirmed that these wells are
controlled as part of Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA), and State remediation
programs in addition to the UIC
program.
For electric power geothermal
injection wells, the Class V Study did
not identify any reported incidents of
USDW contamination, but the Class V
Study did find that injected fluids at
some plants may include a mixture of
surface water, treated wastewater
effluent, and/or storm water in addition
to geothermal fluids. Thus, there is the
potential for the injected fluids to
contain contaminants not present in the
geothermal fluids, as indicated by one
commenter. The Class V Study
confirmed, however, that geothermal
fluids used for power production are not
typically of potable quality, and that
typical well construction, operation,
and maintenance are not expected to
allow fluid injection into unintended
ground water zones.
Based on the information available at
this time, including the Class V Study,
EPA concludes that the 13 wells types
discussed in this section have a low
potential to endanger USDWs. As a
result, EPA concludes that no additional
Federal regulations applicable to these
wells are needed at this time. Where
isolated incidences of endangerment
occur or are threatened, EPA will use its
existing authorities to require
permitting, closure or corrective action
to address the endangerment.
IV. Other Class V Wells
A. Sewage Treatment Effluent Wells
1. 1995 Proposed Finding
EPA found that the overall potential
for sewage treatment effluent wells to
contaminate USDWs was moderate. The
Agency also found that the potential to
endanger USDWs ranged from low to
high, in large part due to the range in
the type of treatment provided prior to
injection. Specifically, the Agency
found that some wells inject clarified
effluent that has undergone secondary
or tertiary treatment and have a low
potential to endanger USDWs, but
effluent that has undergone only
primary treatment creates a higher
potential to contaminate USDWs.
Further, EPA found that the majority of
the wells of concern were located in
Florida and Hawaii and were being
addressed at the State level. Based on
this information, the Agency proposed
that no additional Federal regulations
•were needed at the time for sewage
treatment effluent wells.
-------
22978
Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 88/Monday, May 7, 2001/Proposed Rules
2. Public Comments
EPA received only one comment on
its 1995 proposal for these wells. This
commenter asserted that additional
Federal regulations were needed
because only a "majority" (and not all)
of the wells with a high'potential to
contaminate USDWs were being
addressed at the State level.
3.1999 Class V Study
The Class V Study shows that more
than 95 percent of documented sewage
treatment effluent wells are located in
five States: Arizona, California, Florida,
Hawaii, and Massachusetts. Individual
permits are required for the wells in all
five of these States and the wells are
prohibited in some situations (e.g., in
ground water protection zones in
Hawaii). Requirements in other States
with sewage treatment effluent wells
include minimum treatment
requirements prior to injection (e.g.,
secondary treatment, compliance with
MCLs), compliance with MCLs outside
the ground water discharge zone (at a
designated compliance point),
individual permits, and/or compliance
with specified well construction and
operating requirements.
The Study identified approximately
1,700 wells, but only two incidents in
which ground water contamination was
attributed to the injection of treated
sewage effluent through a Class V well.
One of these incidents occurred more
than 25 years ago. Nutrient enrichment
of surface waters, with resulting algal
blooms, has also been reported in off-
shore waters near some sites where
effluent injection occurs in some coastal
areas in Florida and Hawaii. This issue
is receiving considerable research and
regulatory attention. For example, EPA,
the U.S. Geological Survey, the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, the Florida Department
of Environmental Protection, the
University of South Florida, the
University of Miami, the Florida Keys
National Marine Sanctuary, and several
other organizations have conducted
studies to evaluate the impacts of
sewage disposal, including the injection
of sewage treatment effluent in Class V
wells, on offshore water quality. These
studies suggest that the operation of
sewage treatment effluent wells and
other disposal practices in the Florida
Keys can lead to rapid nutrient
enrichment and fecal contamination of
marine waters in the Keys, although the
concentrations eventually reaching
surface waters are greatly diluted. To
combat this problem, Florida currently
requires sewage treatment effluent wells
to be individually permitted and to meet
primary drinking water standards at the
point of injection. In addition, owners
or operators of sewage treatment t
effluent wells in Monroe County, which
encompasses the Keys, are required as
part of the Class V operating permit
application to provide reasonable
assurance that operation of their wells
will not cause or contribute to a
violation of surface water quality
standards.
4. Proposed Determination
Based on the information available at
this time, including the Class V Study,
EPA concludes that sewage treatment
effluent wells have a low potential to
endanger USDWs due to a combination
of factors. These factors, which may
vary from well to well, include good
injection quality, well construction and
maintenance, and existing regulatory
oversight. The most pressing
documented problem—injectate
migration and contamination of offshore
water and coral reefs in the Florida
Keys—is already being studied by many
researchers and addressed at both the
Federal and State levels. The incidence
of contamination from these wells has
also been rare. Thus, EPA proposes that
no additional Federal regulations
applicable to these wells are needed at
this time. The Agency will use its
existing permitting and enforcement
authorities as necessary to prevent any
sewage treatment effluent wells from
endangering USDWs.
B. Mine Backfill Wells
1.1995 Proposed Finding
In 1995, EPA found that mine backfill
wells, in general, had a moderate
potential to contaminate USDWs. This
finding was in part based on the fact
that injected slurries had the potential
to react with acid mine water to
mobilize potential ground water
contaminants. However, USDWs
interconnected with, and therefore
potentially affected by the mine backfill
activities, were generally of moderate to
poor quality. In addition, mine backfill
injection had been shown to improve
overall ground water quality in some
situations, even when contaminants
were released from the injected slurry.
The 1995 proposed finding also
recognized that most backfill wells were
regulated under State water quality or
mining programs in addition to the UIC
program. Based on these considerations,
EPA proposed that additional Federal
regulations for these wells were not
needed at the time to ensure the
protection of USDWs.
2. Public Comments
Several comments on the 1995
proposal were supportive of EPA"s
determination that no additional UIC
regulations were needed and
specifically discussed the adequacy of
current requirements for backfilling of
hard rock mines. No commenters
directly opposed the proposed
determination, although one commenter
indicated that they favored the addition
of a general permit authority.
3. 1999 Class V Study.
The Study documented that mine
backfill wells are used in many mining
regions of the country to inject a
mixture of water, sand, mill tailings, or
other materials such as coal combustion
ash and flue gas desulfurization sludge
into underground mines. Information
collected and compiled in the Study is
consistent with the information
available in 1995 that showed that
ground water quality within a mine is
often poor (e.g., due to acid mine
drainage) and that backfill wells are just
one of many possible sources (including
natural sources) of ground water
contamination. No incidents of
contamination directly attributable to
these wells were reported, and in some
cases information shows that backfill
wells have negligible or positive effects
on ground water quality. In other cases,
however, backfill material has been
shown to leach contaminants more
readily than predicted by standard tests
and increase contaminant
concentrations in ground water. The
chance that backfill injection will
contribute to ground water
contamination is highly dependent on
site conditions, such as site
hydrogeology, mine mineralogy, backfill
characteristics and injection practices.
More than 90 percent of the
documented mine backfill wells
reported in the Study are located in four
States that have primacy for the Class V
portion of the UIC wells. Two of these
States require individual permits for the
wells while the other two States issue
permits by rule as long as USDW
endangerment does not result. Other
States regulate mine backfill wells by
rule authorizing them and
implementing existing UIC authorities,
or by issuing general (or area) permits or
individual permits.
4. Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Report
to Congress
Also in 1999, EPA issued a Report to
Congress on Wastes from the
Combustion of Fossil Fuels (EPA 530-S-
99-010). Based on the findings of this
report, comments and additional data
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 88/Monday, May 7, 2001/Proposed Rules
22979
received, and additional analysis of the
available information, the Agency made
a regulatory determination in May 2000
(65 FR 32214) that additional
regulations under Subtitle D of RCRA
and/or possibly modifications to
existing regulations established under
Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act (SMCRA) authority are
warranted when coal combustion wastes
are used to fill surface or underground
mines (i.e., minefilled). In making this
determination, the Agency explained
that although placement of coal
combustion waste in a mine has not
been documented to cause increased
damage to ground water, minefilling is
an increasingly common practice that
could present a danger to human health
and the environment under certain
circumstances (e.g., placement directly
into the ground water). EPA found that
available information indicates that if
the chemistry of the mine relative to the
chemistry of the coal combustion wastes
is not properly taken into account, the
addition of coal combustion wastes to
certain environmental settings can lead
to an increase in hazardous metals (e.g.,
arsenic) released into the environment.
The Agency also noted that management
of coal combustion wastes in the
presence of acid-generating pyritic
wastes has caused metals to leach from
the combustion wastes at much higher
levels than are predicted by leach test
data for coal combustion wastes •when
strongly acidic conditions are not
present. Further, the Agency noted that
a recent study of cement kiln dust
showed that placement directly in
contact with ground water led to
substantially greater release of
hazardous metal constituents than EPA
predicted would occur when not placed
in ground water.
In addition, EPA explained that there
are few States that operate
comprehensive programs that
specifically address the unique
circumstances of minefilling, making it
more likely that damage to human
health or the environment could go
unnoticed. In particular, the Agency
found that government oversight has not
"caught up" with recent and rapidly
expanding minefilling of coal
combustion wastes and that serious gaps
exist in State programs, such as a lack
of adequate controls and restrictions on
unsound practices, e.g., no requirement
for ground water monitoring and no
control or prohibitions on waste
placement in the aquifer.
5. Proposed Determination
Based on the information available at
this time, EPA concludes that mine
backfill wells generally have a low
potential to endanger USDWs because
no incidents of contamination directly
attributable to these wells were
reported, and in some cases information
shows that backfill wells have negligible
or positive effects on ground water
quality. As discussed above, however,
injection of coal combustion wastes may
threaten ground water under some
circumstances. The Agency has recently
initiated efforts to improve its
understanding of this potential threat to
ground water and address it for both
surface and underground minefilling
(including underground injection) using
the regulatory authorities of RCRA and/
or SMCRA. As a result, EPA proposes
not to develop any additional Federal
UIC regulations applicable to mine
backfill wells at this time. Rather, the
Agency will continue to assess any
potential endangerment of USDWs by
individual mine backfill wells and
address any such potential
endangerment with existing permitting
and enforcement authorities and any
new requirements to be developed
under RCRA and/or SMCRA.
C. Storm Water Drainage Wells
1.1995 Proposed Finding and 1998
Proposal
EPA found that storm water drainage
wells had a moderate potential to
endanger USDWs. This proposed
finding considered the fact that storm
water can acquire contaminant loads
from streets, roofs, landscaped areas,
industrial areas, and constructions sites.
The most significant concern identified
was wells located in industrial settings
(e.g., near loading docks, process areas)
where chemical spills may occur and
enter the well unless a physical barrier
(e.g., berm) is present to contain a spill.
In other settings, EPA found that storm
water would normally not contain
contaminants in concentrations that
exceed drinking water standards.
Moreover, available contamination
studies did not show that area-wide
degradation of ground water quality had
resulted from storm water drainage
wells.
Based on this information, EPA
proposed not to develop any additional
Federal UIC regulations applicable to
storm water drainage wells at that time.
However, recognizing the potential
concern associated with such wells at
industrial sites, EPA proposed to
categorize storm water drainage wells
located in industrial settings as
industrial wells unless an adequate
barrier is in place to prevent spilled
materials from entering the well.
According to the 1995 proposal, these
so-called "industrial drainage" wells
were to be addressed with additional
guidance as well as outreach and
education to make sure they did not
endanger USDWs.
The Agency extended this proposal
for storm water drainage wells at
industrial sites as part of the 1998
proposal. Specifically, the Agency
proposed that industrial drainage wells
would be subject to the proposed new
requirement to meet MCLs at the point
of injection, just like other kinds of
Class V industrial wells. This new
proposal, however, was predicated on
EPA's ability to establish a clear and
enforceable definition of an industrial
drainage well that would be subject to
the new requirement, versus a storm
water drainage well at an industrial site
that would not be subject to the new
requirement because it had a low
potential to receive chemical spills or
highly contaminated drainage. The 1998
proposal specifically requested public
comment on the practicality of making
this distinction (see 63 FR40598, July
29,1998 for more detail).
2. Public Comments
No comments were received that
opposed EPA's 1995 proposed
determination that additional Federal
UIC regulations were not needed for
storm water drainage wells. However,
some comrnenters opposed EPA's
approach to considering wells located in
industrial settings to be industrial wells.
In particular, some comrnenters asserted
that industrial settings and acceptable
barriers •were not sufficiently well
defined. Other comrnenters indicated
that the barrier requirement was
impractical, that sound management
practices are at least as effective as
physical barriers in preventing
contaminants from reaching a well, and
that storm water wells at service stations
should not be regulated as industrial
•wells.
In response to the 1998 proposal,
some commenters supported EPA's
revised proposal that wells receiving
storm •water in industrial settings be
considered storm water wells (rather
than industrial wells) even if they had
the potential to receive •waste due to
leaks, drips, and spills as long as the
amounts of waste wpuld be
insignificant. Other commenters
maintained that wells with the potential
to receive any leaks, drips, or spills
should be considered industrial •wells.
Many commenters expressed concern
about EPA's proposed distinction
between storm water drainage wells and
industrial drainage wells at industrial
facilities and requested that EPA make
the distinction between the two types of
wells more clear and definitive. Still
-------
22980
Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 88/Monday, May 7, 2001/Proposed Rules
other commenters requested that all
storm water wells be subject to stringent
requirements, with some commenters
specifically suggesting a ban of storm
water drainage wells in source water
protection areas, in part due to their
vulnerability to spills and misuse.
3.1999 Class V Study
The Study identified approximately
71,000 documented storm water
drainage wells and estimated that
approximately 248,000 may actually
exist in the United States. Despite this
large number of wells operating
throughout the country, the Study
reports only 12 documented incidents of
contamination of ground water by storm
water drainage wells; eight of these
incidents were associated with storm
water drainage from industrial/
commercial activities. In addition, the
Study identified storm water drainage
wells as potentially vulnerable to spills
or illicit discharges if they are located
near roadways, parking lots, and areas
of commercial/industrial activities.
However, these problems are more
hypothetical than actual. About half of
the States with storm water drainage
wells permit these wells by rule while
the other half have individual permit/
registration systems. Four States ban the
wells entirely or under certain
circumstances. In addition, when
industrial stormwater drainage wells are
found, EPA Regions or States require
them to either close or get a permit.
4. Proposed Determination
Based on the information available at
this time, including the Class V Study,
EPA concludes that additional Federal
regulations under the UIC program are
not required at this time. The available
information indicates that
endangerment of USDWs by storm water
drainage wells occurs only rarely,
considering the relatively small number
of contamination incidents relative to
the number of wells known or estimated
to exist. Although there is a concern that
storm water drainage wells may be
vulnerable to spills and illicit
discharges, there is little evidence that
this is a problem other than at industrial
facilities. Even at industrial facilities,
endangerment of USDWs by storm water
drainage wells does not appear to be a
widespread problem but instead is
limited to isolated, relatively infrequent
incidents. To a much lesser extent, this
proposal is also based on the
impracticality (as supported by public
comments on the 1998 proposal) of
distinguishing between industrial
drainage wells that might be subject to
additional regulations and other storm
water drainage wells that would not.
Therefore, any attempt to target a new
regulation to the few isolated cases that
might pose an endangerment would also
capture and impose needless burdens
on many wells that are not a concern.
EPA believes the situation would be
better addressed by continuing to use
existing authorities to close or otherwise
address problem wells on an individual
basis to prevent these wells from
endangering USDWs. In doing so, the
Agency will coordinate the efforts of the
UIC program with those of the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) storm water program.
D. Large-Capacity Septic Systems
1.1995 Proposed Finding
EPA found that large-capacity septic
systems (LCSSs) do not pose a
significant national problem. This
assessment is different from that
contained in the 1987 Report to
Congress on Class V Injection Wells
(EPA 570/9-87-006) because that report
considered systems that receive
industrial and commercial wastes
whereas LCSSs as now defined receive
only sanitary waste.3 In addition, the
Report to Congress considered single-
family systems, which are not within
the scope of the UIC program. EPA also
found in 1995 that insufficient spacing
between systems was the major cause of
ground water contamination from
LCSSs. The Agency concluded that land
use planning and siting requirements
tailored to local conditions by State and
local authorities, coupled with
additional UIC program implementation
and technical guidance, was the most
effective approach to protecting USDWs.
2. Public Comments
Some commenters supported EPA's
proposed finding that no additional UIC
regulations were required as well as the
Agency's plan to issue guidance, while
some other commenters argued that
LCSSs should be excluded from UIC
regulation altogether. Other commenters
supported additional Federal
regulations, including suggestions that
EPA require ground water elevation
monitoring, establish monitoring
provisions and management strategies to
address loss of system integrity, require
individual permits, or ban septic
systems in sensitive ground water areas.
One commenter argued that State and
local programs with tailored standards
to prevent ground water endangerment
by LCSSs were not in place.
3 The Agency considers systems that do not
receive solely sanitary waste to be industrial wells
rather than LCSSs.
3.1999 Class V Study
The Study identified three
documented cases of ground water
contamination incidents attributable to
LCSSs and 24 documented cases of
system failures where the extent of
resulting ground water contamination, if
any, is not known. Thus, the prevalence
of contamination cases appears to be
low relative to the number of systems in
use (approximately 350,000), even if
there are additional LCSS failures
(which seems likely) that were not
identified during the Study. The Study
also found that LCSSs are used
nationwide and that although all States
have applicable regulations, the
regulations vary from stringent siting,
construction, and operating
requirements to general construction
permitting. State regulations also vary
with respect to the size standard
definitions that determine which
systems are considered "large" (and
thus subject to UIC regulation) rather
than small.
4. Guidelines for Management of Onsite
Wastewater Systems
On October 6, 2000, EPA published
for review and comment a draft of its
Guidelines for Management of Onsite/
Decentralized Wastewater Systems and
an outline for a guidance manual that
will supplement the guidelines
addressing all sizes of septic systems.
EPA's development of these guidelines
was described in the Clean Water
Action Plan released by the Agency in
1998 and is in response to State agency
reports that septic systems, which are
predominantly single family septic
systems, constitute the third most
common source of ground water
contamination because systems have
failed due to inappropriate siting or
design or inadequate long-term
maintenance. Thus, the purpose of the
guidelines is to raise the quality of
management programs, establish
minimum levels of activity, and
institutionalize the concept of
management for all sizes of septic
systems. The guidelines apply to both
existing and new septic systems and to
systems of any size for residential and
commercial wastewater treatment and
disposal. The guidelines contain a set of
model programs that rely on
coordinating responsibilities and
actions among the State, tribal or local
regulatory agency, the management
entity or service provider, and the
system owner.
5. Proposed Determination
Based on the information available at
this time and the actions the Agency is
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 88/Monday, May 7, 2001/Proposed Rules
22981
currently undertaking to improve the
performance of septic systems through
the development of management
guidance, EPA concludes that
additional Federal regulations under the
UIC program are not required at this
time. This conclusion is reached
because (1) based on the results of the
Class V Study, actual contamination
from these wells is relatively isolated
and (2) an additional layer of Federal
UIC requirements, placed on top of
existing State and local LCSS
regulations, would not be effective in
further preventing endangerments from
these wells. EPA believes that the
development and implementation of
management guidance is a preferable
approach to development of additional
UIC requirements for preventing
endangerment of ground water by
LCSSs for several reasons. First, the
approach is comprehensive—it address
all types and sizes of septic systems, of
which LCSSs regulated under the UIC
program are just one small part. Second,
use of an integrated and comprehensive
approach for all septic systems will
expedite implementation and avoid
potential confusion or disruption of
current programs that have varying
approaches to distinguishing "large"
from "small" systems. Third, the
management guidance approach is
designed to accommodate regional
differences in environmental sensitivity
and the level of management activities
needed to achieve water quality and
public health protection. Finally, this
approach avoids the additional
administrative burden on States and the
regulated community that would come
from additional Federal UIC regulations
that the Agency believes are not likely
to be effective in preventing
endangerments from these wells. This is
chiefly due to the fact that existing State
and local requirements are already more
specifically tailored to local hydrologic
conditions than new Federal UIC
regulations could be. Adding another
layer of generalized Federal
requirements will not add any real safe
guards in protecting underground
sources of drinking water. EPA believes
that any gap in environmental
protection associated with these wells is
caused by a lack of effective and proper
implementation, not a lack of standards;
thus additional standards would not
address this problem. Rather, EPA's
approach is to spur better
implementation of existing standards.
E. Agricultural Drainage Wells
1.1995 Proposed Finding
Based on the 1987 Report to Congress,
EPA found that agricultural drainage
wells have a high potential to
contaminate USDWs because they may
inject sediment, nutrients, pesticides,
metals, and pathogens. The Agency also
found that additional Federal UIC
regulations for agricultural drainage
wells were not likely to be effective in
protecting USDWs in agricultural areas
due to the wide range of contamination
sources such as fertilizer and pesticide
application and land use practices. In
addition, EPA found that agricultural
drainage wells were concentrated
primarily in three States. As a result,
EPA concluded that it could best
achieve the goal of protecting USDWs
from contamination by agricultural
drainage wells by assisting States in
promoting the use of best management
practices (BMPs) that are best suited to
local conditions and to addressing
potential ground water contamination
sources in a holistic fashion. EPA
proposed not to develop any additional
Federal UIC regulations applicable to
agricultural drainage wells and instead
to rely on technical guidance, existing
authorities (such as requiring a permit
under 40 CFR 144.12), and other Agency
programs targeted at improving the
quality of agricultural runoff.
2. Public Comments
One commenter opposed EPA's
finding that no new UIC regulations
were necessary or appropriate given
other EPA reports that indicated
agricultural runoff was a widespread
threat to drinking water quality in the
midwest. Another commenter indicated
that EPA's finding failed to meet the
requirements of the SDWA because the
Agency may choose not to regulate only
if it demonstrates that injection will not
endanger USDWs. Two commenters
indicated that the guidance document
that EPA proposed to develop to
facilitate implementation of BMPs
should be developed with State input
and public review and comment.
3.1999 Class V Study
The Class V Study identified four
documented cases of ground water
contamination clearly attributable to
agricultural drainage wells. Two of
these cases occurred in the 1970's. In
addition, six other studies point to
agricultural drainage wells as
contributing to the more general
problem of nitrate contamination in
ground water in agricultural areas. The
Study also found that the potential for
agricultural drainage wells to endanger
USDWs is highest when the wells are
located near animal waste management
areas such as manure lagoons and/or in
settings where manure is land applied;
however, no actual cases of
contamination involving spills or leaks
from manure lagoons migrating through
agricultural drainage wells are known to
have occurred. In addition, the Study
found that more than 95 percent of the
approximately 1,100 documented wells
in the country are concentrated in just
five States (Idaho, Iowa, Ohio, Texas,
and Minnesota). Four of these five
States require individual permits/
authorizations or ban the wells under
certain circumstances. For example,
Iowa bans agricultural drainage wells in
areas that have anaerobic lagoons or
earthen manure storage structures, and
Minnesota bans wells that inject into an
aquifer, (i.e., saturated zone).
4. Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations Proposal
On December 15, 2000, the EPA
Administrator signed proposed
revisions to the NPDES permit
regulations and effluent guidelines that
would address the water quality impacts
of manure, wastewater, and other
process waters generated by
concentrated animal feeding operations
(CAFOs) (66 FR 2960, January 12, 2001).
The proposal, which is a step in
implementing the EPA and U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Unified
Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations
developed in March 1999, would apply
to as many as 39,000 CAFOs across the
country. According to alternate
definitions that were proposed, CAFOs
would be defined as facilities that
maintain anywhere from 300 to more
than 1,000 "animal units" in
confinement, including cattle, swine,
turkeys, chickens, horses, sheep or
lambs, and ducks. The rule would apply
to production areas at CAFOs (animal
confinement areas, manure storage
areas, raw material storage areas, and
waste containment areas) and areas
under the control of CAFO owners or
operators where manure is land applied.
The proposal explicitly recognizes
and addresses the risk of animal wastes
from CAFOs migrating through
agricultural drainage wells into ground
water that has a direct hydrologic
connection to surface waters.
Specifically, the proposal would
prohibit the application of animal
wastes within 100 feet of sinkholes and
intake structures or agricultural well
heads. EPA requested comment on the
presence of such features in crop land
and the extent to which the 100-foot
setback around such features would
interfere with the land application of
manure.
The proposal includes several other
features that would have the effect of
protecting ground water quality and
reducing the endangerment associated
-------
22982
Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 88/Monday, May 7, 2001/Proposed Rules
with agricultural drainage wells at or
near CAFOs. For example, for animal
confinement and manure storage areas,
the proposal would adopt a zero
discharge requirement with no overflow
allowance for swine, veal, and poultry
CAFOs, would require routine
inspections of the production area to
ensure that wastewater and manure
handling and storage are functioning
properly, and would require proper
closure of manure storage units. The
proposal also would require CAFO
operators to land apply manure at
proper agronomic rates, which would
reduce the potential for excess manure
and associated contaminants to migrate
overland or underground into
agricultural drainage wells.
5. Proposed Determination
Although there are potential concerns
associated with agricultural drainage
wells, EPA does not believe the
available information on contamination
incidents and the potential for these
wells to endanger USDWs suggests the
need to develop additional Federal UIC
requirements at this time. The incidence
of contamination from these wells is
very low. States where the vast majority
of agricultural drainage wells are known
to exist are already implementing
step to address the greatest remaining
threat identified for these wells: the
potential for contamination from large
manure lagoons and from the land
application of manure. EPA will
continue to look for situations where
these and other threats might exist and,
if found, take action on a case-by-case
basis to prevent endangerment using
existing authorities.
F. Industrial Wells
1.1995 Proposed Finding
In the 1995 proposal, industrial wells
were defined to include Class V motor
vehicle waste disposal wells and other
kinds of wells used to inject industrial
and commercial waste that did not fall
into one of the other proposed
categories of Class V wells. Using this
broad definition, the 1995 proposal
found that some types of industrial
wells may have a high potential to
endanger USDWs. The Agency,
however, proposed that these wells are
best addressed using existing authorities
and that additional Federal UIC
regulations to protect USDWs would be
inappropriate. One of the main reasons
for this position was the diversity in the
types of fluids being injected into
industrial wells, which would make it
difficult to establish one set of national
minimum requirements. Another
important reason was a lack of facility-
specific data that EPA would need to
develop a tailored regulatory approach
appropriate to the different kinds of
industrial wells and their respective
degrees of endangerment.
2. Public Comments
While EPA received some comments
supporting the 1995 proposal for
industrial wells, such as from State
agencies that believed they already had
sufficient authority and knowledge to
address these wells, a number of
commenters opposed the 1995
approach. Much of the opposition came
from the Sierra Club. As discussed in
Section II.B above, the Sierra Club
stated that the diversity of fluids
injected into industrial wells is not
grounds for a decision against
additional Federal regulations and
could be addressed by establishing
targeted regulations for more narrowly
defined subcategories of wells. The
Sierra Club further commented that EPA
has an obligation to collect any
additional facility-specific data deemed
necessary to perform its rulemaking
duties. >
3. Subsequent Actions
Based on public comments on the
1995 proposal, and in accordance with
the 1997 modified consent decree with
the Sierra Club, EPA issued a revised
proposal in 1998. This revision
proposed to separate motor vehicle
waste disposal wells from the other
kinds of industrial wells considered in
the 1995 notice, and to either ban motor
vehicle waste disposal •wells in ground
water protection areas or to require such
wells to be permitted. Other wells left
in the industrial well category, when
located in ground water protection
areas, would be required to meet MCLs
and other health-based standards at the
point of injection, according to the 1998
proposal. The 1999 final rule expanded
this approach for motor vehicle waste
disposal wells to include Other
Sensitive Ground Water Areas as
defined by the States. A final decision
on how to address the remaining
industrial wells was delayed, mainly
because of continuing public concern
that the industrial well category was
still too diverse and included many
kinds of wells that do not endanger
USDWs. Some State and EPA Regional
UIC programs also maintained that
additional Federal regulations for
industrial wells were unwarranted
because the programs already had ample
authority and were already adequately
addressing these wells.
Therefore, instead of finalizing the
1998 proposal for other kinds of
industrial wells not addressed by the
1999 rule on motor vehicle waste
disposal wells, EPA decided to conduct
further review to decide whether
additional Federal regulations are
needed. This additional review
consisted of the following three
components, which are summarized in
turn below: (1) public notice and review
of additional information on
contamination incidents potentially
attributable to Class V industrial wells;
(2) more detailed study of four specific
types of Class V industrial wells; and (3)
evaluation of Class V UIC program
activities to address industrial wells
using existing authorities.
The NOD A EPA published on May 21,'
1999 (64 FR 27741) presented additional
information on, among other topics,
contamination incidents potentially
attributable to Class V industrial wells.
That information was collected as part
of the Class V UIC Study, which was
still ongoing at the time, as well as from
separate file searches conducted at the
EPA Region II and Region VIII offices.
All of the information was placed in
EPA's Water Docket for public review
when the NODA was published. As
noted by several commenters on the
NODA, and as determined upon review
by EPA, these reported incidents do not
provide compelling evidence of
significant problems caused by Class V
industrial wells. The primary limitation
is that most of the incidents are
associated with illegally operating Class
IV (i.e., shallow hazardous waste)
injection wells, which are generally
prohibited under the current UIC
regulations, rather than Class V wells.
EPA recognizes that this problem can be
addressed by greater enforcement of the
existing ban of Class IV wells and does
1 not necessarily require additional
Federal regulations on Class V
industrial wells. Moreover, many of the
potential contamination incidents
included in the NODA are more than 10
years old and not relevant to today's
practices, are based on anecdotal
information or secondary references of
questionable credibility, involve
contamination that remained below
levels of concern, are not clearly linked
to Class V wells as opposed to other
pollutant sources, and involve only
possible contamination rather than
actual documented contamination.
Altogether, information from the Class V
Study placed in the NODA revealed
only three documented cases of
contamination that site-specific reports
clearly attribute to the operation of Class
V industrial wells, and two of these '
-------
Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 88/Monday, May 7, 2001/Proposed Rules
22983
cases were discovered in the 1970's and
one was discovered in 1987. This is a
very low contamination frequency
considering the thousands of wells
estimated to be operating, and it does
not suggest a widespread current
problem that warrants new Federal
regulations.
The Class V Study also included a
more detailed examination of four
specific types of Class V industrial
wells: (1) Wells used to dispose of
washwater at carwashes that do not
' clean undercarriages or engines; (2)
wells used to dispose of food
preparation-related wastewater and food
processing equipment or facility wash
down water; (3) wells used to inject
fluids from laundromats where no
onsite dry cleaning is performed or
where no organic solvents are used for
laundering; and (4) wells used to inject
noncontact cooling water that contains
no additives and has not been
chemically altered. EPA does not
believe the information compiled for
these well types, presented in Volumes
4, 6, 8, and 22, respectively, of the Class
V Study report, demonstrates a potential
to endanger that warrants additional
regulation. For example, across all four
well types, the Study found only one
documented contamination incident
(involving a lobster processing/holding
facility in Maine) and two possible
contamination incidents (involving
carwashes in Hawaii). There remains
concern about some wells at carwashes
being vulnerable to spills or illicit
discharges when an attendant is not
onsite, but the Study did not find
evidence showing that such problems
associated with carwash wells are
actually occurring and warrant the
development of new UIC regulations.
EPA also reevaluated how Class V
UIC primacy States in their regions
address industrial wells using existing
authorities. Class V primacy States have
demonstrated the ability to use existing
authorities to take some form of action
to ensure that Class V industrial wells
do not endanger USDWs. Some States
have an outright ban of industrial wells
•while other States require permits for
industrial wells. Some States ban the
wells under some situations but permit
them under others. When a previously
unidentified industrial well is
discovered, the existing UIC programs
investigate the situation and decide on
the best way to address it, which may
include requiring the well to close or get
a permit, depending on site-specific
conditions and threats. Such follow up
investigation and action is usually taken
immediately after a Class V industrial
well is discovered, or as soon thereafter
as possible given a State's workload
relative to available resources to
implement the Class V portion of their
UIC program. Limited resources, not
regulatory authorities, appears to be the
primary factor that would constrain a
primacy State from taking immediate
action to address the risks posed by
Class V industrial waste disposal wells.
Therefore, an additional layer of Federal
regulation would providing no real safe
guards for protecting underground
sources of drinking water.
In States where EPA directly
implements the Class V portion of the
UIC program, the EPA Regional Offices
always address endangering Class V
wells as soon as they are identified, as
a matter of routine policy under the
existing UIC regulations and authorities.
Although the exact nature and timing of
actions required vary from one Regional
Office to the next, the DI programs
typically require endangering industrial
wells to close or get a permit, and
require site investigation and
remediation in response to any
contamination that may have occurred.
Such actions have been found to send
a strong message to owners or operators
of uninventoried industrial wells that
they too should close their wells. EPA
also communicates this message
officially in outreach materials
distributed to well owners and operators
in DI programs and to staff in primacy
States for them to use as part of their
programs.
4. Proposed Determination
The 1999 final rule included new
stringent regulations targeting the
subcategory of Class V industrial wells
believed to have the highest potential to
endanger USDWs at the time of the 1995
proposal: Motor vehicle waste disposal
wells. Further review of the remaining
types of Class V industrial wells (1)
indicates that they have not been the
source of frequent contamination
incidents and (2) confirms that existing
UIC programs in States where most
industrial wells are known to exist are
already using existing authorities to
adequately address these wells and
protect USDWs. As a result, EPA does
not believe there is a need to develop
additional Federal UIC regulations
applicable to Class V industrial wells at
this time. Instead, the Agency will
continue to prevent endangerment from
individual wells using existing
authorities. This effort will include
enforcing the existing prohibition of
Class IV wells to prevent accidental or
illicit abuses of Class V industrial wells
and continuing to provide technical
assistance and support to State UIC
programs, where needed, to make sure
these wells are being adequately
controlled. EPA also will explore
additional opportunities to
communicate UIC requirements and
obligations to certain industry sectors in
association with the effluent guideline
program implemented under the Clean
Water Act.
V. Comment Solicitation
EPA is soliciting public comment oh
the underlying data and rationale
supporting this proposed determination
that additional Federal UIC regulations
are not needed at this time to prevent
Class • V wells from endangering
underground sources of drinking water.
This proposed determination is based
on The Class V Underground Injection
Control Study (EPA Document Number
EPA/816-R-99-014, dated September
1999) and other information that has
been placed in the public docket for
comment. Also, EPA is soliciting any
new data or information relevant to the
findings in this proposed determination
and the Class V injection well types it
addresses.
Dated: April 30, 2001.
Diane C. Regas,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Water.
[FRDoc. 01-11413 Filed 5-4-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AG13
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; Notice of New Schedule for
Final Determination of Critical Habitat
for Wintering Piping Plovers
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of 60-day
delay for final determination of critical
habitat.
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, announce a 60-day
delay in making our final determination
of critical habitat for wintering piping
plovers, subject to further court
proceedings. This additional time •will
allow us to complete the analyses
required under section 4(b)(2) of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act), for designation of
critical habitat. We will publish our
final determination in the Federal
Register.
DATES: We will make our final
determination on the designation of
-------
------- |