### '

­

Uf\:ITEO STA TES EN VI RON MEf,TA L PROTECTION AGENC'. ' WASHINGTO N. D

. C

. 20400



# 20 AUG 

# 19 7 

## 1)**o~** ... ..::c ;:)F CCN[Oi"',

. C">uN:.l.. 

## TO, V i c t c l ' Ki nm l)eputy Ass i s t :l nt

.'\.cillli n; s 1,' :) t o;' [or Dr inking Water (\\1

- }-550) 

### J,ef t'r ey 

### C

. M ill c t · Dcpu ty' Ass i s tnn t Admi.-: j 5 t l'Ilt or fO l' Wa t er EnforC 0:ncn i. (E N -33,j) 

## . , 

### :-H( ;' ,::

. 1 ome s /\

. 

### Roge r s

# ~.;S?­ Associ! t e

## Gencra~~**n~e l** **~\Ia e** **r** and Sol i o 

### \\Qste :)iv i sior.**(A-l~! )** 

se: ! .::;:r.r : Apr! iClll>i 1 

### i ty of G§lo:.(2)(Cl

... nf. l02(1)(TI) 1)1 

### NEPA to 

## ute RcgU}utOl'Y Activities Y

Ol :**h~ve** 

### requested a legal**opinio~ ~~gu;dl~~**  

### tile n!>:;tic:1hiiity of §§1 02(2)(C)**il ll** **~** I02( 2)(S} cf :: • .! : l u.:;O,':lll**"': l1vi** **i"o r,** **·;~cp. tal**  Policy :\ ( · t of**1~69 (~,;:r.'.~** **, ~2:**  t
. • .:

.. 

## r "" ' 3"')(") .:t \ ·C ) 8..lL· 1 "3?(")

_ \**'~)** , l \

_ ... ). , __ . ,A

... _ .. O/l.!, , ... IOU :-.. rC ,,' !! : ltOl ' Y**act:'1i ~ies**  unne,'**~h(:** :la fe Dr:,lkingo**'~';~tCI'** ,\(':'i. (SO,'.'\) ' :. :In,lc:'v,I 'ound ! njeetion Co ntrol ,(UIC) pro,j'L'llrt1.

. ]70" t fle**rC:lson~** sc t fo \ ' t h bc l ov:, t cone, ' l dc ttl :,: EPA:'**n,l~** obI**i:~:dcd** t o com pi y with tl lc requin .: m c nts 

### Cof §'q ,) •

.**~('2)(C)** 01 ' IO:H2)(E) of NEP
· '. in**imp~emCiltin~ rc** **~:: tlal** **c!"y** 

### fle t iv:lics und0r**suc~ ~** **l) r** **u~I'.,lTI.** I,**\rOl i~::l** **hi** 1 i 

## t...,. o f 5 11 ):2("2)**(C~** 0f i\EP

.....**~o** 

## t :,(; l. I Te**HC:!~I:** 'I tO I' " Pl' OR I ' f;.;-n

. qucst iO:1**~U~[** 

### EPA**prc~urc** an**enviro~nentnl i~pnet** **5Ioteme.~t** ("E I S") : l lide r 5102(2)(C) of NEPA prior to (1)**rll! .:** **'nakin:~** under SDWA 551 4 2 1 end 14 22 ( i nc lud ing- the**c0:1s0 1** **iC"l ::** **~ed** permi t (' cgu lati o n s} ;. (2) Ilpl'ovi:1g 

### State Ub' pror,"!'ums**und~I'** § 1422j (3) issuinrr pC l ' mits fOl' 

### unrlc;-gl'T)
· II.d injection wells in i:1stonees w h e re i t ud,:inis,

... ·I ·s a stn tc U I C progrll,TIj (4)**CS i~III)lill** **~~** lin QrC:l in ' .',lLich no new undel'ground injection well c:tn b..:! opcrnted p rior to es t abl ish men t o f nn fli>plicl.Ible U I C prog-!'um H:lde r 5142 4 (a) ; (5) de:::iirrnatinc on**arc:~** as a**soJ~** or**~r in** **e pol**  

### d r inking water sou r ce 

### aquire!' and re v 

### i ewi n :·: il PI'oj 

### cct**un ~r**  SDWA § 1.12·1**(c)'~**

### - 2­

mNCI.liS!ON 

### • No.

D I SC;USSIO:-.J
1.. Legal !lflckgl'OH ! ld of NE PA Sec t ion I0 2(2)(r.;).


### Section 10 2(2) (C) of NEPA specifies, among o ther 

### thin gs "l ilot, to tile fullest extent possible. • d 

### 1 1 

### age ncie s of the Federal Government**s~ull** 

### (C) i , nclude in every r ccom-nondalion 01' 

### report 

### on
. .. majo r Federa l actions significanty af f ect in g the

, 

# . qunlity of t he hlLllan envir onment, a detai l ed stdtemcnt by the l' c$po n s i blc official on

### 1. tile 

### environmental impac t of tile 

### proposed n et ion, 

### 1 (

. nny adverse environmental effects whicll connat be avoided should tile 

### proposa l be implemented, 

### III. alter n atives to the proposed action,

IV

. the relationship**bet~e en**  

### local**sho~t** 

### - t C:'m uses of man's environment and the mainte ne nct: and enhancement of lon g - ter

.. 71 productivity, • and



### • V

. any 

### irreversible and 

### i e-retrievable conr."litmcn t s 

### of r es ·oll , ces which VJould 

### be involved il l the proPQs ed actio n s!lould it be

. imp 

### 1 erne n ted. " 42 U. S

. C

. §· t 3:3 2 ( 2) (C)

. Soon.after the enactment of NEPA, 

### the cou:·ts ' .\'Cl' C faced witll the**i~sue** of whether NEPA ' s requirements 

### oppl led to 

### oct i ons take n by un envi ronrnenu.llly protective re g u!atory agency s u ch 

### as**EP~,** or**w!leth~l ·**  

### EPA \'IllS 

### exemp t from 

### NEPJ\ ' s l'equi 

### reme nt s**bccllu ~,;** **c** i 

### ls**s t** **lttlt~ry** 

### manda t c illsurcd c ons i de ration of envi ronlil cn t u l impacts

. 

### 1 1 The c0RtroVCt'sy 

### in the courts over NEPA ' s applicability to EPA ccntcl'cd on



### I I It s h o uld bc 

### borne in mind, as the COUt·t in POl'll[!t1d ("emen t Ass ' n \'

. Ruckel shaus, 436 F."2d :375, 380 (I).f":

. 

### Ci r. 1973) pointed O ll t, thllt EPA did r:ot come into**c:-:i~tcncc** 

### unt i l July 9, 

### 1!J70, whieh wns d ft er til( ': 

### cnnctlllcn t of NEP:\ on Jlllluat'y I , 1970.

### -3­

NEil:'\'::;**~ eqllil** **' c:ncnts**  for the prc[)!l!':J.tion of nn**"!~ S** **,** t!l('**m~lj,,)r** 

### provision of NEPA. This 

### issue wos raised 

### in 

### t.::.:,**~scs** 

### decided by 

### courts of**appc~ls** 

### between 1972 and 1974 .2 / In all len cases, the co urt s concluded that NErA §l02(2) (C) rcquil'cments were not app\ icnble to 

### EPA

. The rationn l c most frequently IldVilnccd in thCS0 decisions '.'1115 t1111t EPA :llccd not comply with '§102(2)(C} 

### of NEPA ! f 

### the Agency's actions i n carrying out statutol'Y obI igations designed t o protect the 

### cnvirOllmcnt amounted 

### to the l'fullctionol equ i valent'! 

### of the rcquil'c'ments of .NEPA.3/ The requi l'cmen ts of tile "[unet ional equi'/ulent I 

### est IT were 

### concisely sllmnarized by fl District Court in State of MUl'vll1nd v
. Tr,'1in, 415 

# - 

# . F.Supp. 116, 122 (D

. !'Ild, 197G), H cnsc involvi!1[ the iSSUllllCC of an occl1n dumping pel'mit under the i\-iorinc 

### Protcction, Reseal'cll, and 

### Sanctur[es Act whcl'e EPA**di~** 

### not prepare a 

### NEPA EIS. In holding to an EIS was 

### not required unded that 

### Act, the 

### court stated: '
Where federal regulato l'Y action is**eir~umscribed** by 

### extensive p!'oc.'}du!'es, including public 

### participution, for evaluatinrr .::nvironmental issues and is 

### taken**~y** an agency with 

### rec0gnized environlTIentnl expel'tise, formal tlrlherence to the NEPA l'equirelflents 

## •
•

2 / t\lnoco Oil Co. v. EPA, 501 F.2d 722,750 (D

. C , Cir

. 

### lU':4T;"l : ! )f 

### v. CP..\, 489 F

. 2d 1 2-17 , 1257 (D.C. ell'. 19 73); 

### Ponland Cement Ass ! n 

### v. Ruckelshaus, supra, 380; Essc:-t! Chemical Corp , v , Rucl,clshn;Js, ·18G t.2d 427; 431 (D.C. CII ', 1973), cert. denied, 415 U.S. 9G9 (197.i) An lleondn Co. v. Ruekels111lUS , 482 F.2d 1301, 1305 (lOth Cir

. lU7-:f); Buc\.::eye PO\'lel', Inc

. v. EPA, :tSI f.2d 162, 174 (6th Cir. 1973); Duquesne l,ir;ht Co. v. EPA, 481 f.2d 1,9 (3rd Cir

. 1973) vacated , 425 U.S

. 1187 (1976); inlCl'tlil.tionnl :10 1've ster Co. v.**H~ekelsh;;.I]S,** 478 r:.2d G15, G50 n

. IJO (D.C. C il' , 1973); A[)p al.<1Cllirl n PO'Ner Co

. v: EPA, 477 F.2d 495,508 (4th CiI', 1973); Gctt;; Oil roo v. Ruckelsilnus, 467 F , 2d 349, 359 (31'd Cil'. IU72 ), eel't. denied , 4 09 U

. S. 1125 (1973).
3/ The terin !ffLlnet 

### ionni equivulentll 

### was coined by the Court of : \ppeols fa!' the District oi Columbia in Port\nlld r:e:ncnt Associ:1tioll v
.**l~lIe;';cl s** **jn lls,**  surrn , I)t 

### 11rl

.

### -4

­

is not required Ilnless Congress h:1S spccifien l l y so directed

. I n de ter mini n G" whether EPA is obi i g;ltcd to COI:lpl/ w ith tile pl ' ovisions of NEPA , the courts !lllVC**cOllsidcJ'(~d** 

### the poli.::ics find purposes behind NEPA , EPA I.lnd the st!ltutes which EPA admin is te r s
. T he COUt't in POl'tland 

### Cement Ass'n v
. Ruckelshaus, supra, devel ope d the 

### fUIlctionol eq uiv ulcil t 

### rat i ona l e by 

### cxrunining the "policies u rl dcrlying' T 111e EPA legislation. 48G r.2d At .133. The cau[ ' t concluded t hat un exempt i on fOl' 

### actions 

### tul,cn by 

### EP A under SIll 

### of the Clenn Air Act "best serves tlle

. "objective of protecting the environme n t which is the purpose of NEPA." 1 86 F

. 2d at 383.

'

. 

### Through appJ icat i o n of the fUllctional equivalent test nnd ill COllsidering St8tutOl'Y purpose, the courts have held 

### that EPA 

### i s exempt from co:nplying 

### Wit!l NEPA requil'c : ncnts when takillg regulatory actions undol'**th~** 

### Clean Air Act (p r'lo r 

### to the sttltuto r y**exein~tion) ,** **4/** 

### the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide 

### and Rodent ic id e- Act, 

### (ffF IFRA 1 1)5/ and 

### the Marine P rotection, Research and 

### Sanctuaries Act,6/ Although no 

### court 

### has explicit ly 

### hcle trlat 

### EPA is

- exempt from all of 

### NEP.,\I S \'cquil'cmcnts, th e courts of appeals which ha'Je 

### c on s idered the applicabil ity of NEPA to EPA 

### have 

### llniformly rejected any requiremcnt for 

### literal com; : ll iance wi tit NEPA 

### and have a dopted 

### tile fUllctionnl equivalent 

### standard

.**~** 

## • 2. 

### Applicability of 

### the Pun ction i \l Equivalent 

## • Test to 

### the UIC Regulatory 

### Pl' o;ru\.m

.

n
.**~i'he le~**  i s 

### lilt i ve 

### his tOl-'Y of the SDWA

. The legal 

### background discussed al)ove 

### sug g ests 

### tho**ccnclusio~** 

### that EPA ' s 

### VIC regulatory program 

### llnder the sm\'A 

### is e::ernpt 

### from the ETS 

### requirements 

### of NEPA. 

### Alt;10Ugh**~n** 

### argument could 

### be made that the absence of

4/ 

### Sec, e.g
. , Appalachian**Po wer** **~o.** 

### v. EPA, supra;



## - 

# --**~** 

### - Portlnn,! 

### Cement Ass'n 

### v . Rllckelshnus, supra ; 

### • Intcrnatil)naJ 

### l!nl"vester Co

. v.**Ruckelshl~us ,**  supr<1: Amoco OIl C o. v
. EPA, $l!Pl ' U

. 

### 5/ Sec, C.I2: .,**l~nvi onmc** **nt l** **fell~;e** Pund 

### v . E PA,**TI1DT~.IS0r2d** 

### 12 -1 7 (D.C

. Cir

. 1973) 

### Envirf)llmentai lkfcnsC' Fu ncl v. nllJnt,

-1 58 

### P .Supp. G50 

### T!"nr:-I.--=--fT'-?8T , io/**~,1llryJ n** **llf l**  

### v ,**'~~.** SlJrrn

.

### -5­

nn ex!:d ic it NEP

.. \ 

### exemptio n in the SDWA , 

### coupled with • tile 

### presence of stich an 

### cxempt ion 

### in the fWrCA I1IH1 

### tile Clenn 

### Air Act, sU!Jgests by 

### negative implicAtion :.hllt no 

### cxcm[>tion fo[' the SDWA wns 

### int c:ld0rl, n similuy H[':; II Il1Cnt W:1S made 

### to and**~umnllr i**  

### ly rejected by**$evcr~l** 

### or the courts**considcrin~** 

### tile question of NEPA's 

### applicability to 

### EPA actions Il nder 

### the CleAn 

### Air Act and under 

### F tFR A at a time when n e ither of those s t atutes contained 

### a NEP.'\**exeri1~tion** 

### a lthou g-h the F IV P C A 

### did.'!...! Ind eed, the l eg i s lative h i s tory 'Of the SOIVA 

### supports the cO[lclusion thut COllgress considere d requirin::; an NEPA E I S 

### fo!' actions taken under the S!)\\'

..\ find decided 

### a!jD.inst such a 

### reqLIi:'ement. The Hou se Cor.l":1 i ttee 'Report on the SDWA 

### 81 stutes : Provi sio n s in previous b ills reported 

### by t he**subco r~** **mi** 

### ttee, 

### a.n.. 9726 

### fl:1 d B.R. 10!)S5, 

### pertaining to the ilp[)l ieabilit y of the Nationa l , Ell vi ronmental Po l ic y Act 

### to 8et ions tn1,en unde: ' this bi 11 

### have been deletod

. The determin at ion 

### wns made that this is a [natter which Sllould properly be considered by 

### the Comnittee o n 

### !'vlcrcil:!nt :'I hlrine 

### und F ish er i e s, iro ,11 which the Nat ional 

### Envir omne ntal Policy Act 

### origi nated. tit 42- , ) 3

. . 

# Y 

# •

, \n 

### ex n minution of the culonel/I!' o f the Conoittcc on**~,lc,~hnn t**  

### i\1urine u n d Fisheries si nc e the**d~tc** of 

### th e

House Corrmi ttee ReDol't on the**SO~ ,JA,**  

### .July 10 , 1874, h as**no~** 

### ['cvcalcd 

### any le g islative con s idel'ution of tlli s**1l"I ~\** **tt\~!'** i):; thllt 

### romniltcc

. 1'l1n.-; it '.'lollle.! 

### Itppc:J.!' thnt if**C0:1~ 1'ess**  

### !l ud int c ll dcd NE?A's EIS 

### \'cqllircmcllts to npp ly



### 7/ Port lnnri Cc: ne nt Ass'n 

### v. Ru ck el s huus

. , supra ( C le an

, \ i r 

### Act); Envir o nmental Defen se Fund 

### v. EPA (I ) DT), 

### SUpl 'fI. (FlfHA).



# . , 

### 8/ 1l.R.**~ep.** 

### No

. 93-1185, 93rd C ong
. , 

### 2d Scss.**T\~7-1) .**  

### The:'e i:.; no 

### Senlltc Conmi ttec ]lepo:-t 0[1 S 1 )\\':\ , 

### 9 / H

. R

. 9726 

### and B.R. 1095 5 

### each provided that "an CllvirOIl:l1Cntll l il!1!"Hlet**stateml~nt** 

### rc sp ect!il;; the 

### inili :- d [)I'Oposcri**rc !~u** **l** fl.t 

### ions un der thi :'i ptlra J;l'ill1h shall be**fi d**  

### \
·.'ithin 1 :20 cloys 

### af ter the d ote 

### o f**l~illlclmcnl** of 

### till S**tit~e."**- li­



# - to EJ'A UI::: 

### Progr'om regulato r y net ions**und~r** 

### SDWA, 

### t he**~OUS3** 

### Report of the Act would**I ~v** **e** 

### retained the EIS 

### requiremcnt,lO/ or it would have 

### found i ts way 

### i n to the SDW:\'s UIC 

### program, ei th er ot the t ime of its ennctmcnt or s ubsequently . I ndeed , Congress could hove r eql lired dl l EIS 

### to be 

### preparcd for actions t oke r l ulldel' tllC U I C**pr '** **o~r'Il:n,** 

### when it enacted the Safe Drin!..;:inr,- Watc r A:nenrlment s of 1977, P .L. 95 -1 90, 

### o n November 16 , 1977, 

### but di d not so. Thus it seems rCllsonable to bel ieve that Con " g! ' ess wns aWllre of the I1f u nctional equivalent" te s t sct forth in P or 'tlllnd Cement As s' !} v.**Rll<:j~clshnu s** **,** s UP; ' .), a 

### case decided in 1973, 

### both Ht the time 

### ol cnllctrnt.:!llt of**SD~\l/\** 

### on Novcmber 16, 1974' , 

### nnd ut the time o f**t!l~** 1971 

### amendments thereto, and decided ogainst requirin g EPA to prepare nn EIS for actions**t~ken** 

### und e r the UIC orogr l lm

. lll



## . 

# - - 

# . b

. The 

### five major sets of EPA reguls.tory actions nndel' the VIC Pl'og-l'am. Thcre n re five major s ets of 

### E P A l'cglllutory act ions**~ll\dcr** 

### thc U I C P roe:t'J.ill : 1. 

### rule r ;-:aldng 121**(jncluding .:!on** **so lid** **atioil** 

### of**V~C** 

### wi th NPDES and RCRA 

### rcgulat ions); 

### 2

.**app~oval** 

### in \vhole or in p a rt of 

### a**stAtel~** 

### unde:'grollnd injecti o n control**P"o~"clr",;13 1**  

### 3

. Is sua nce of pcrmits for und e rground injection wells , whert.:! EPA l\I:ls 

### primary enfol ' c eme nt responsibilit y of t he UIC 

## • pl'o;jram in whole or in PUI't;..!..!1


## • .i, 

### Designat in g an ar
. ea in which no n e'd underground injcctiqn well can be 

### operatuJ



# • 107 A r endin:; o f the floor debates o n the SDWA does not shed 

### ll ny further l i g !lt on this i ssue
. 111 

### Sec,**e.~ .** **,** lA 

### Sutherland Statutory C onstruction, 522

. 3""3T

- lt h 

### cd

.**2) .**  

### 1 21 

### SDW:\ 5 1 4 2 1 ( U ) ; § 

### I 422 ( c )

. \: lj Sm\'A §\ 422(n)(Z).**~** 

### 14 / SOW.\ 

### SI422(e)j §1424(b)(2) (pel' jnlts i ssllcd**durin~** 

### intcrim**\'(~gulat** 

### ion of**\lndel'(~round** 

### injcc t ions)

.

### -7­

p: ' lor t o 0.stllb} i sh!I!::nt of Il i l Ilrp] ield) ] c U I C pl ' og-tum u n de t'**~1- 1** **2 4** **(11);** 15/
5 , Dcsirrnn t ing arCIlS hllving sole 01' !,) J' inc i p:11 

### source uquife l' s and 

### for J ' cvicw of federa ll y uss i sted pr o jects un d O l ' § 

### I .] 2 4 ( c ) . 

### 1 G! 

### To determine whether EPA is e x empt from NEPA's EIS rcquil ' cmcnts for oneh of these f i ve major sets of rq!IIJ!ltory uctions Ilndc l' the 

### u r e P rOt;t'tlm, it i s 

### Ilcccssary to cons i der 

### whe t he r the requirements of the ':Cunctionnl 

### eqt l ivulen t " tes t are met f or 

### enell of them

. EPA' cleerly is "nn**ageJ1C~** 

### with recognized
1 1 

### env i ronmental expert i se
. Mnryland v .**r oi~** **su~rn ,**  ",'e t herefore must look to see whether the Pi'opused 

### regula t ol'Y (lction "is circumscribed by 

### extensive procedu;,cs, including public participation, for 

### cvaluating enviroruncntal iss u es
. . 

### ,"the**ot~~r** 

### part of 

### the stnndard set by 

### that case. In 

### Portld.nd re:ncnt 

### Ass ' n v, Rllcl,elsllnl l s, sllpr3, publ i c pnrticipntion adequate to satisfy 

### the requi [' e :nents 

### of NEPA WEtS found**whe~e** 

### interested parties 

### were afforded an opportunity

15/ SOl\".\**~)l-12"l{a)** ( 1).


### 161 SDW:\. §1424(e) , There a l so is 

### anotjle r "EPA •**rc~ulato;'y** nc t ion under 

### the VIC 

### progl'nm, e,g " the

Adilli;]istr2.tol"s l i sting of stll t es i!l the Federul 

### Rcr::estc!' for wh i ch , in his judg :llent , a S t llte VIC proGt't:lln Inc.y btJ necessary to · ilSSUI ' C 

### ttwt undci ' grouncl injcctioil wi 

### 11 not cndatlgel ' dr j nking wute r 

### souI'ces. S[)I,,,',\ :314:22(a)

. It can be argued thut since such 1 istillg t r iggers t he 

### time period in 

### whicl, n 

### gtutc must nct 

### to nS§l l mc primacy or
- tIle Administrator will 

### pron1ulgiltc u 

## vir program 

### f or it , 

### the**listin:~** is n "nlnjor Fede r al action significantly affecting tile cnvi[ ' onmcnt." However , I 

### conc!ude that .su c h list in g is not 

### in 

### ana of 

### i t self such a mujor 

### Fede r al action 

### since it 

### is no t the listing as such which 

### results in r egulatory action, but ru t !ler, it is the l isting 

### whlell trigg-el ' s the timc pe r- ioel which a 

### state has 

### to I.lSSU l nc**~** pcimncy 

### fOl' 9. VIC rrog r 'llill

. SDW.

- \ §§1422(u) ; l-1:22(b)(1)(A)

. Since the Agency**~)l'ovides** for pub} Ie participation 

### iil its deeisionmaicing 

### on listins;s under §1·122(o.), ' (43 fcr:!. 

### Reg. 4342 (1973) and 4
· 1 Fed

. Reg-

. 352S8 (1979)), the 

### fUllctio n al equivalen t 

### test is sH.tisfied even 

### if, dl ' guenc\o, sllch list i ng 

### is consice:'ed 

### to be**s~!cll** 

### u. :najor Fedcrtll-act ion

. 1':1'Jrylanrl V

. Tri.li!1 , S I I!)I' n, 

# -_ . _­

### - 8­



# - t o participa te in EPA's fulcmn\:in g**proc~dure** 

### thr o ll ;:!h no tice cad cornnen t. A 

### similar**I'c~ ult**  

### w as re!lCilCd**tln d~I** **'** 

### the F IF R' in Environmenta l 

### nCf C: 1SC Fl l nd 

### v.E' A 

### (ocr r) , s u prs , where t he court s tate d : 

### We conclude thllt wilere an agency is engaged primarily in un cxruninution of en viron ments l questions, wllcre 

### su bstantive find proc edl il 's i 

### s t a nd a r ds ens u re fu ll dnd ade q uate

. conside ration o f envi or nment s l issues, then formal compliance with NEPA i s rIot 

### necessary, but 

### functional campI iAnc e 

### i s 

### s uffici en t

. 489 F

. 2d 

### ot 1257.17/ CQ u rts have cons true d 

### ucnvironmentnl i ssues!! br ond ly. For cX[lmp le, EPA h os bee n he l d t o be exemp t Crom NEPA w h el ' c th e sta tute required the 

### i\dminist r ntor 

### to determi n e t hnt the ac tion was "essential , t o tIle publ ic in t eres t or th e public**h~ll lt** **h** 

### llnd 

### welf are
. IIIS ! The 

### A dminist rat o r 's e ction i;-. 

### c un cclling tilC

­ registre t ion of pest icides si mil ar l y 113S 

### bcen held to be cx einpt froin 

### N!ZPA , 1 0! '1ith this bacl;ground in 

### mind , l et us**considc~ ~hether**  

### the functiona l equiv a l ent s tandard is mel**und~r** 

### each of the five majo r sets o f EPA**regul~tory** 

### uctions**\\n~er** 

### the UIe 

### PI'ogrom , n program f o r**~** 

### pl'otection of**· IIJ** **dc r~I'** **ou lld**  

### SO IJI'CCS of**drinkin~** 

### wuter

. 

### •

• 17/ In 

### thltt**cn~c** 

### EPA evidentiary**It en** **rinJ ~s**  

### In s t cd for**~~'c n**  

### rnonths 

### :l n d in vo lved 

### "te s t imo n y 

### fr om**~l** iwollj 

### 5j>eet r um 

### of t he pub li c"

.**~ S!)**  

### F

. 2d lit 

### 1 2, 1 9

.
I'd! I nlcrnntion;l l HUI've s t !.!r 

## ro
. v
. l{ uc\.:clsh:1U';; , S il lHlI

. 

### 19 !**i~nvirtJnl l1cnld** **l** 

### Defense 

### Fund v. 

### El lA <r/O'T); 

### s :J o'!l ;**w,o,n~\;-:-ntlth I\\'nv**  

### ,**)T~TcfI)lj** 

### (10th Ci r, J 

### g- ' r;n-:­ 

# . .**~-**



# - I

. «(t) t ile [,C[HOf)Qs n l Illlt1**!)rornu l** **~!llt** ion oi rCl{ulllt i on::; imp l emen t ing the 

## u l e p l' oG"l'am 20/ i! n d (b) the con s oli datio n o f U I C wit h t I le Haza r dous was te prog r am u ndel ' t h e 

### Sol id Waste 

### Disposal Act , as ame n ded by 

### the Re source Conservation and Recovery Act o f 1976 (HeRA), 42 U

. S.C. SGDOI 

### et seq
. , l \ nd the NPDES p r ogr'am under FWPCA, 3J U

. !5.C. §1311 ct. <;cq

. ( 1 973) (considcri:lg both the independent pl'oi11ul:!atio n of" those proerll ';n regu l at i ons :.lila 

### the consol idation oi the various p l 'ogl'um 

### :,cgulations)

. Public partici[,>o t ion i n t ile Pl ' oposa l and 

### pr o mulgation cf rcgulstions i mplementing the VIC pl'ogro : n is assured undel' Section 1421(a)(2) of tile S! } SA

. 21/ FUl'thcl ' more , the !'cp r oposed**r~gulat i** **ons** pt'ovide for a 120 day comncnt ()eriod as well us for five public 1 1carings across the country irr qrdcr to allow thc public to part i cipate**ully ~** **in** the dcci s ion**ma!~ing** proccss

. 22/ The court in Portland Cement Ass'n v , RLlskelslwLls,sup r a , found public.! [Hlrtic i pat:un to b.: ndcqutl t e ttll'ough not i c e - and

- COITI-ncn t**rul emul~ing**  proc0durcs, Since the 

### u r e reg u latory p r og )' nm provirles both (Ot ' an opportunity to submit ,Hitten co:n!lcnts Ilr, rl 

### t o tcst1fy on ti l e rccord, I cO l l c 1lldc tl l nt 

### EPA' s**rc ropos~J**  nnd promulg3t i on of rc g ulat i ons implementin g tilC UIC pl'ogrtl.:TI is circumscribed by ext.cnsive

- ;H o ccdurcs, including public participation, for

eV!'l.!uuting nn cnvironmenta l issue ilnd thus sat i sf i e s th<!
· ·'functional zquivalent" standard

. i\ I <1l'yland 

### v
. Tr J i n, suorn

. Ti1C some J ' cSis-onjng applies to EPA's co; '

....; o li do t ion of UIC l'c gulat i ons ', ', itll the a rll;\ [tnd 

### NPn : :s**!'<.!!~ ;'** **l l** **llt** ion

... .

• 

### 20 1 ltcgulations wel'C reproposed on Apri l 20 , 1979

. (4-1 Fed

.**rre~** . . 2:372S)

. ncgulll.tio n s were init ' ially proposerl by : -:PA for the UIG prog'l'tlm o n**"'\lll~ st**  31, 197G (

- n Ped. ncg

. 

### 36730). A Drnft 

### E r s was prcpul'cd 

### by EPA in conncction Ivith the i n it i a l proP Q sal. 

### A Supp l ement to t he Draft E I S**w~s** pr'cparcd by E P A i ll conll c ct i on witll**tl ~** **\~** rCl>fOPOS:ll

. Both o f t hese**suppol·t i** **n~ doc~J;n(;nt,=:;**  ii1J.VC been :nndc Tlv[ti lut>le to the pulll ie

. 21/ 

### smv.\

· 5 1 421(n)(2) Sta t es t hl1t !t. thc Ad l :linistrnt i on shall provide oppor t u n ity for public 11 " '1;'\' l W

. 1 11' iOI; t o IH":>!Il!I\ of lll ion of [U I Cl**J'( '·~·** **:oJ** 11"( 1\)11:-;

. "**:~** :U
· 1·1 F e d

. Ii**c:~ ,**  :2 :17 :3 8**~** t. s 1'(']

. ( I 9 '[!))

.

### - 10

­



# - Approval, in whole or in po rt, of 8 s t ll t e ' s 

### llndergrol l nd i niectioll (:ont l' o l pr og l ' um

. 

### Courts 11 1 IV C 11 C ld 

### tllnt 

### nn EIS i s n ot rc qtlirCi l**'~l\** t h e EPA I\dm ini s ll' :l tor upgrov cs Stnte implcrn cnt."l.tion PIu: ls ul l dcr Sect i on 110 of the C IC:lll Ail' Act. '!.;)/ Tilet'..:! lJ. ppCllrS to be no logicul reason for :l COUI't t o r cqu i l'c**~** 

### NE PA EIS for 

### app rov al of 9 slate UI C p rogr am , wilen COUI't s iJave he ld 6 NEi>A 21$ is not r cq ui r ed" fol' State T

rn;1 1c lncntD.t ion PInns under Section 11 0 of the elcn n /\11 '**\(~t. 2** **4 1**  F urth c l'I ,lOr c, publ ic**Pdrtici pJ** **tiol~** in t:IO :\ <':lll ini st r a tor's dcc i s ionmnking is a5su l' e d both by the s t 'ltute o :1d by EPA 's proposed Implementin g 

### Reguln ti o :l s
. 25/**Acco~dingly,** 

### on the basis of



# . . meil:l i r.gfu l p ublic pclrtici[.lation in the dccisionmnk ing process Gi ld on thc basis of Clenn Air Act precedent, I conclude tho t an EIS is not re qu ired wllcn t he A d ministl ' utOI' upp l'oves n St3tC V I C**~ro~I'<I;n** i o \': holc or in 

### P:Ht

. 3

. I ssua nce of permits fo[' undc-r g round injcc ti o : 1 we 

### 1 } s

.

.· .... s disc u ssed abo ve, the U l e: p l 'og['om is one wh;ch co n te :np lates sta te p rim al ' Y**enforce :','~n** **t**

23/ AO[,), " dachi;]:1 r OWe ,' Co , v. "2PA , sup f" a j 3uc:':cvc • PQ:ver, I nc , v

. E!"A, SLlp t'aj Annc ondo Co

. v

. """"TIliCkeTshol!s, SllO r a , Sta t e implementat ion 

### plans es t ab li sh "after rensonnhlc notice nnd public heari n gs , . stAndn r d,,; f o r tll e co ntrol wi t llin tlleir bordel's of SO l lrce s of 

### po l lution, which standards

... '[ t He] 

### to be s uffi.::iently stl' i iJ;;ent' t o I1ssu re that the cr,tission v o lum e f rem nli SUCII sources within those area s
.. . ,( does] n ot exceed { ll c n otional**~mbient** sta n dards." App a lac hia n Power 

### Co

. v , EPA, supl'a , 

### a t 498.

24/ S tate Impleme ntation Plan s under the Clean Air**~et** urc**l i~e**  s t ate 

## u l e programs in thut tlley both**rcqu ir** **~** nttnimncn t o f ccr tai!1 r: linim um fc"der a ll y -**s~t nllnf!Urt~,j,**  hut enable sta tcs to prov i de f o r s tri cter ['cGulations 

# n the y wish to co so , 30th Sta t e**nlpl~mcnt<ltion** PI ",ns 111111 St;lle U I ( '**pl '** **U:~ 'mn~;**  illlve t o be submitted to the

: \ dmi 'list"llll)l' f O l' 111)[)rOV;I I.**2~/** SDWA 514 2 2(b )(I)(B)(4); § 1 23 .5 8 of EPAts**PJ"opo~ed** CO :lsoli<l!ltccl P e r mit l{c fjulo t i o!l S (· 1,1**F ~L**  at 34309,**J~1l1C** 1.I,1 07n)

.

### - 11­
rcsponsitli l ity

. However, the**Sn~\'A** p r ov i des th!!t i f the



# - EPA Administratol' disapproves :.l 

### state's p l 'og)'!lm (or 

### part tllcreof) or if 

### he deta r mines t1 1 8! a state docs not meet th0 

### reqlliremcn t s set forth 

### in tIle st3tlltC , he shllll prolDulJ;llc u U I C program uppl**iCHbI.~** t o such 

### StlltC.'2G/ The sLltute 

### specifically provides tho.l l1[b]cfol'C promu l gating any regulat i on unde r t his 

### section; tIle A&ninistrntor shall 

### provide opport ll nity for public hCtll' i ng 

### respecting such**rcg~lation."27/** Any EPA pl'ogl'am for a state v.,rh i ch does not have 

### primary UIC 

### enforcement responsibility would include grllnting**o~** 

### PC1T, 1its for undcl'gl'ound injccton \'.'e115.281 

### The question thus arises as to whether EPA's



# ..**grantin~** of 

### pel'mits for undergl'ound 

### injection wells would requi,e TI I S ' s. 

### Opportunity for public 

### corn:nent in 

### ocelln dumping 

### pel'mitting o.CtiO!lS 11.9.S 

### been deemed to sa t isfy the fUllctionni 

### equivalallt standard, 

### thereby obviating the need**fo~** 

### nn 

### tIS. Marvland v. Trsin , 

### SU])I':.1. 29/ Undel' 

### the Sf)\ '.'A!s UIC 

### progl'om , p'ubl ie D<lrticipation in the Administl ' e.tO[ " S uuthorizing of per:nits is assured 

### both undel' the**Stat~te** Ilild in 

### EPA!s

• 

### -::(fTSi )"i. \ -31422(e). Since EP,\ intends 

### to list :1 11



### 5tat0s in tIle Federal Regist0l' as those [or 

### which a stut-c 

### UIC 

### pl'og-t'am m;)y be 

### necessary 

### to llSSlire that 

### tlndergrollnd 

### injec t ion w i ll**n~t** 

### clldanger**drin~jng** 

### water**~ourccs ,**  EPA would havc to Pl'oil1ulgate a 

### stale DIC progrnm for 

### all slates whose 

### pI'ogrnms a l ' c 

### I lo t approved by EPA 

### or which fail to 

### meet t he §1

. 422(c) I'cquirCi';"1:.:nt-;.
27/ SDWA**§1~22(c).** 

### 28/ 10

. . 

### Also the SDWA provides t hat 

### EPA may al l ow 

### a state to uuthorize 

### unde r ground injection by 

### Rule. SD\\".-\. 

### 51·121(b)(l)(A)

. Sec 

### also §122

. 35 of EPA!s Proposed**Cot~so!id !l** **tcd** P e rmits**it~C"lIlntionst** An EPA administr0red ule**r)f0frl'<1~n** 11130 could**:~llthori~0 llndc:'~1'0und**  i n j 0c ti o n 

### •**b)~** l'ule

. 

### 29/ Se c <llso , 

### Environmental Defense Fund \" EPA mDT) , suprn , 

### l.l nd**VYOT!li' l~**  v,**~I(tthnwny ,**  

### Stlpr;l 

### (interested porties**bcin~** 

### able to obtain u heu:lllg 

### at the Ild:ninistrut i vc level 

### under FIFRA was held to sat i sfy the fUI l ctional equivalent test) ,

### - 12­**Ir.1plcrncntin~ ncgul~** **t ions.301**  

### /\('col'dingly, I conciu(]c tl1:1t**~EPi\** 

### EIS's urc not I·c<lui

..**,.~d** 

### under the**~1J~';i\** 

### IJ !r; 

### p r ogl'uil1 

### when EPA Iluthol'izes PCl'dlits 

### for w011**i nj** **~etiol) .**  1, 

### Designoting un area i n which no 

### 11CW undcrground inject i on 

### wel l can be operated prior to 

### establ i shment of an**applica~le** UIC**rro~:'om** 

### tinder**~1424{n),** 

### Sec t 

### i on 1 ,12·l{a) (1) of 50\1:\ pro v i des 

### o.s fo l lows: ":\ny person may petition the 

### Adm i nistrator to**hav·~** 

### an 

### Rrea 

### of.a State 

### (or States) designated as an nrC3 

### in wl,icll 110**tl~W** 

### Illld01'gl ' ollnd injection well 311 

### mav be operated (JU t ' jog the 

### period beginning on the date 

### of the**dcsi~nation** 

### and 

### end i ng on 

### the date in 

### which the applicubi3 

### underground injection control program**covorin~** 

### such 

### area takes e f fect 

### u nless a 

### pel'mit for ti lo opcration 

### of such 

### well hns 

### been issued 

### by tl1c 

### Adl1linistr'ator. The Administrator mlly "So designate**~ln** 

### nrea witl,in u State j f 

### he f i nds 

### that the aren !'US 

### onc**~lqllifer** which 

### is the 

### sale 0[' 

### principal**drin:~ing** 

### water source for 

### the 

### area and w:licl1 , if contaminated, \'!ol.lld 

### create u 

### significant 

### ha7.ard 

### to pub l ic health. "
Provision 

### for 

### publ ie pt1rt i cipation in the "\umi n i 

### s tra tor ' s Ge c i s i**ollin~l:~i** ng 

### llnd8 r SD"iI,':\ 

### §142·1 (a) (I) js included under 

### 5 1 424(0)(2) wtlicl, provides 

### ttint**"[~!lpon** 

### r eceip t of 

### u petition 

### under, '

.... [§I-l24(a)(1)1 • the· 

### Admi nistrator shall publish 

### it in the Pede, ' ;.)}**ne~ister** and 

### shall**~rovide** an 

### opportllnity 

### to in t erested

pe!'s--ons 

### to 

### submi t 

### "Nri tten 

### data, views, or arguments 

### tllercon , 

### Not lu tcr than 

### the 30t!, day 

### followitlg the da t e of publication of 

### a petition**l!rlde~** 

### tl,is**para ~raph**  

### !n the 

### Federal Regi s ter, the Adninistrator 

### Sl1011**Ci:!~01'** Ilwk..:.- 

### tr:e des i 2,"ll<lt ion fOl' 

### v:hich the petition is suumi t 

### ted .01 ' deny 

### the peri t 

### ion. 11 • 

### The Administratorls deSignation of an area 

### of a state**und~r** 

### §1424(a)(1) 

### clearly i n volves· 

### a regulatory nction circumscribed by c x tcns i V0 procdures, i nclurl i ng



### , 30/ SOI:

. .' .\ 

### j142:2(c); S§12-l.11-16 

### of E PA's 

### ?rorose d**Con~ol** 

### ida ted Permi t 

### H.cGulut 

### ions,
311**Srn~\** 

### 51424(d) defi n es 11new II!lderground injection**.'eli" ~lS**  1111 

### undcI'ground injection 

### well '

. '.'ho:-;e 

### operlltion 

### was not**ap~roved** 

### hy appropriate 

### State and l l 

### ederal**u~0ncics** 

### befo I' e til C date 

### of cllnctmcnt of 

### o f tilC 

### litl0**Dc cc~bcr**  

### 16, 

### 1974),-13­

pI!1>1 

### Ie:**[J ;:** **:-tic i~** **)tltio n** **.** for cva l llllti n g cllviro n lncntal i s!:.iIl.:!lI,**,li! ryl** **~l1d** v

. 

### Train,**5Up '** **~,** so 

### lon g as t t:e**A~ency** 

### acts co n sis tently with t he reqt:irments of**§1~2 4** **(ft)(2).** 

### Accordingly, 1 conc lu de t!lllt 

### tIle fUllClio f llll**cqui ~** **ll t**  slllndtird is :;:Itisfict! lind it O E I :-; 

### i s rcql li rcd for the Ad l ninistr3tor ' s des i g n ati ll g n n o r ca of 6 

### Slate as R sa le or**princi~6 1**  

### drinking wote r so u rce aquifer under SDWA Section 14 24(a )(I). 

### 5. Procedures fo r designating B I' cas huvi n g sa l e or prillcipal sou rce aquifers ' a nd f or review of fede r ally assisted project s un der S:)V]A 5l 4 2 4 (e)

. 

### Section**1 4~4(e)**  

### of SDWA provides as follows: 

# .. tl li t he Administrato l' de t c!':nines , o n hi s o wn 

### initi a tive aI' Ilpon**~e tition,**  lil st 

### an**a~ea** 

### has 811 aqui fer ',,>,lIich is 

### the sa l e or pdn ci pa l drinking water source for th e 

### area and which, if cont!lITlin " a t cd, \'Jould create 

### a signif icant hazar d to public health, he shall publish notice of that de ter mination In the Fede r al**nc:~i** 

### .. ;tcl'

. After the publication of any 

### suc h not i ce, no 

### conmitmcnt fOl' Ped ei'al f:nanci:ll :1ssistnncc**(thro~g!l** 11 

### g l' Jnt , contract, 10lln gunrantcc , 0 1 ' otherwise) 

### muy be**ent~red** 

### into fo:, any projec t which th e Administt'atol' dct2 r mines may contam i nate such aq uifer**hrou~h** d 

### recharge zone so as 

### to create 

### a s i gnifican t 

### hdZO:'d to public he:1lt!l, but 

### 0 co:nnitment f or Fc (i.r.I'ol 

### fir.ancial**. ~ssis** **lnn<:c** 

### may, if ulltllorizcd l!ndcr**~lnothel'** 

### I:Hovisio n of 

### law , be en tered into to plan or**dcs n**  

### tIle**proj~ct** 

### t o**~SUI'C** 

### that i t will not so cO!ltamin;)te the nq uij' er

. "


### Section 

### 14 24(e) thus provid es for 

### (0)**dcsi~n3 tion**  

### of so la or 

### p rill cipo l source aquifer areas and 

### (b) r ev iew of f ecet' ol financial l y**nssis t** **~d** 

### proj,:cts \\'hicil 

### Inay**contl!l~i n** **a t** **c** 

### ;) so le**O~** 

### pri nci pal" SOU : 'CC aqllif0 1'**sel '** **vin~ ~** **desi~na t** **ed** 

### urea thr o u gt l it s rechar g e zone 

### so as to create a 

### sign ificant hazard to p u bl i c 

### health

. \, ' e :nust lqok t o sce whethcr the Ute 

### pro ;;.l ' il,m f Ol ' ir: ll)"icme nling each of th es e pr ovisio :1 S satisf i es t he fUllcti ona l**~qu ivulent**  

### s t andar d so thllt E PA 

### i s e xempt f" ora**~Er.-\'s** 

### E IS requ i rements 

### as t o each of them , 

### • S0ction 14Z-l(e} authorizes the ;\dm ini st r atol' to desigllotc sale or principal**SOI I~** **ce** 

### uquifer areas, which, if contam i nated, woul d**cr~nte** 

### a signi fi cant ill1"1.:1r(] to public hea lth , S u ch II 

### desir, ll lltioll clclIl'ly 

### involves :In 

### ellvii ' oWllcnt!1 1 ISSlle. :\llll'yllintl \ ', 

### '1'r:lill, sl1prn.

### -14

­



# - Al though §\42-t(e) .jocs not**~ rovij** **c** for any pu!)l it! 

### participation in the Adninistr3tor ' s**dccisio mu~ing**  

### for sole or pr in cipa l SO ll1'ce nquifcr oren::> t hcreundcl', EPA's irn: :l1cmc nt ing- rCC-IIlations**~or** §1·12-1{,:»**cl.~tlrly** do.:3:!! Only uCtCI '**revi~wing** uVllilnbl'Z j.1fol"lTIut i on, se ui ' chin:; out addit ional data tlnd cons i dering tile**ViC~V'5** of the pt:b lic will the decision on '.vhc thci' to dcs i g n '.)tc 

### nn area by made.331 Accordingly, I concl u de that so long 

### as the**fina-l re~ulations**  contain the foregoi:1g' 

### requil'cmcnts,**th~** 

### regulatory action is circlimse:ribcd by**c:~tcnsive** 

### procedures, includin ;{ publi
· c pll rtici pl1tion , ior cVfllu:1tinr: lln cnvil'o:m1c n t!} 1**iss~ l** **e** und thus the 

### fUllctionnl cqlJivlllent s t anrlurd is satisfied ,**~larvla ld**  v , 

### Train,**~upr3,** 

### No E rS 

### t herefore would be requ lr ed for dcsign3ting so le or pr i ncipal drinking water sou rce aqu i fer at' cas under**SD~IJA** 51424(0). b, 

### Review of Federal financia l ly assisted**~roject5** 

### which mlly contaminate :.l 5010 

### or principl11 source aqui fcl'

. 

### Section 142-1(0) 

### of sm\'A**provides ~** **that** 

### once the ;\dl:1:nistrlltor htlS**~ublishcd noti~e**  

### of his designation of a 

### sole or principal d rin king wnter source for 

### a n
a: ' 0fi, 

### "no comnitlllcnt for Fcderal**fin ~\ncjal**  

### assistance (th:"ourrh 

### n grtlnt, contract, 

### loan gUBi'sntec, or otherwise) Inay bc 

### entered into**(o~** 

### o ny pl'oject**whic~** 

### the Administrator determines lnuy cont amina te s uch Ilqui fer throu gh a rechurgc zone so**~s** 

### t " o c!'cute a

. sig!1 ific u nt hllZR1 ' d to public 

### heAlth." Section 142·1(e) 

### further p!'ovides that "u 

### comni tment 

### fOl' Federal fir.;\nc i :1l assistance may, 

### if authorizc d undei' 

### o notl1cr p['ovisio l l of**l~w,** be 

### entered into to pl n n or design t;lC 

### project to IlSSl lre thut it 

### will not 30 

### contomi :lutc the I1qui 

### fer,"

J2 1 

### Scct ion t4S,l2 

### of E!':\'s Proposed itcgulntions fOl' SO\ '} /\ 51424(e) provides that liThe Regionnl Administl'iltol' s h a l l hold at least one public hearin g on whether to desio-nllte o an 

### nl'ea under 

### [SDW,!!, 3 1 424(c)] , The •**i1e ~~ion!l1**  

### Ad ! ninistrato.' shn l l nlso pl'ovid!.! oppor tunit y 10; 

### the :)ub l 

### ie to CO i nncnt in writin,r

. "**(~ecticn** 1
· 13

. 1 

# ot tllcse'Proposed Regulatio:ls

### dcleg~te**s** the**~~ministrotor's** 

### nuthority for designation, project revi e w s and 

### project vetoes to the Rc gio:la l Ad:ninistrlltors)

. 331**Po~~e·1** 

### of Pl'@3mble to Pronosed R eg ulations for 'S'GWA §1

. 114(c), 

### to be Proposed 

# ;$ JO CFR Pu!'t 148

.

### -1 5­

Crcnt ion of a si:; nificnnt )ltlZIlI'O t o public hC:1ltll c I**~** tl r 1 yin vol v C s II n en vir 0 nmc n t [: 1 i::; ::; u c
. [' \' I ,'1 J](J v, T:'nin, SU[> I' U

. Ar:nin, itS in the C;)SC of 

### 5 14 2""'T'rCl HCjuifcr dctc rrr:inntions, !l.lthough the sLltutOl'Y s(:ctio<l itself docs not provide f or any public partic ip ation i n the Ad,ninistrlltor's decisionlnaking, EPAl s propos e d i mplementing rcgul.::ltions for 5142He) cl zar l y do,34/
Such Implcm c ntillg Regulat i ons specifically providc thet**th ~**  Admi ni strator**~hal1** review t)le project u sing 011 relevant information'ava il able to 11im, l ncluding ;"Jublic co:nTtents and informat i on ob t ained dUl'ir.g public**he~~ings .** **35/** Accordingly, I conc lud e that so long 

### os the f in tllimplementing re gulat i ons contD-in the foregoirl g rcql! ir eme nts, tl,a ['c gu lutol'Y cction is**ci~'::ll;ns(,!1'** ibcd by extensi ve proccdul'..?s,**incl~[di:-t~** pl!bl**i~** par tic ipation , for**cval u;1tin** **f~** un cnvironmenta l**issu~** lind tilll S the fUllctional cqllivu l c n t s t 911durd is stltisi i cd

. ii hrvlund v , TI'ain, supra , No EPA

­ rrcpnred [ISis**~ollld** bc re qtli r ed f or Sl l Cll**p~aject** r ev iews linder 

### SrnVA §1424 (c).
I I . A pplicub

- ility of Section 5102(2)(,£) of NEPA 

### to tll 0 

### UT e: RC f:ulatory Progl'llm

.**Qu~stion** Must ' EP A conduct ana l ys i s of a ltern atives ulldcr 

### §]02(2)(E) of**NEP~** in connection w i th :**~l) I'ulcmakil** **l~**

_ under SDW,\ §§1421 end 1 -122**(includin~** the con sol idllt e d

regulations); (2) approv ing State UIC p ro grllms un der §1';:;"2; (3)**issuin~** permits for underground i njection wel l

. ) in instances ',vhere it :Jdministcrs t 1 1c applicable**C pro~['~m**  wi tl l!n 

### d Stnta;**(~) dcsi~nntin~**  :In**~re~ i~**  wh i ell no new**l[ nd(!I'~I'OI** **I!\ d**  injection \\!cll**('~.ln** be O[l C l' lll -.: J ["Hi.:>!' to cst11b1 islm:ent of ;),11 :lppl icubl c 

### UIC pt"),;l'uill under 51-l?'·!(a) ; dete r mini "ng un 

### arell 9S .:l solc Gr principal d l'inl ,ing water source uquifcl' and reviewing**~** project lillde r '1424(e). Ans'.'/c\'
No. 

### ,

3·1! §5 1 , 18.23**~<1** or EPA ' s propo se n r cgul r ltions for S1)II',\ TI·12·1 (e)

. 33/ 51
·IS , 2G of**l~ PI\'** **~** proposed Hcguldtions for**SJ)~'l.\** '§J.124(e)

. 

# -**l)rS CUS** **S!C;~** Sc<-'tioll 102(2)(E) of NEP,\ r e: qui r c;'; Fcdcrlll**1l1~cncic::;** to: eE) Study , develop, and descr ibe**ap~ropri6te** alternative s to r ecomm end ed courses of acti o n i n any !Jroposl11 which involve s unresolved confl lets concernin g nltcl' n n tivc u scs o f ovr. ilablc**I·e~o u** **!·ce s** **.** 

### 42 U

. S

. C

.**§4332(2)(~} .**  r.onsidcl'otion of nlternativc s i s not only 

### hy**:lO~Cn.U:)** lHit 

### also is 

### nil int0.!'f ;a l P:lrt of provi::;io!l o( 5102(2)( c)(il i) willel1 requires 6**(Ji S** **CtISSs~on** of 

### "[u1 Itcrnntivc::; to th e proposed 

### ;:1 a ll i n,p nct stll tC tnc nts

. The l cgistl\li v e histol ' Y ( I n c! C l 1 SCS fnil to I'.'lIn t spccificnl l y i:-, l'cC]uircd by S I0 2 ( 2)( E). COUI·ts which hnve o.ddl·cs scd the ",l ltcl'n l lti ' v cs " r eCJ uii cm cnt s in §§ 1 02 (2)(E} and I02 ( 2 ) ( c)(iii) l' eq llil' l.!ct the 

### E IS

actio n" 

# -.

/1,np lif y '1'1)(' :· • 

### ..,w hovc**~encrA l** **l y**  c o n side red §lQ2(2)(R) to be "supplemental t o lInd lnorc cxten s ivc" than the d ir ec tivc in 5 10 Z( 2)(c)( i ii) , 

### Sec,**0..f~ .,**  l ' :11Vil'Ollln('lllIl1 

### D e f e ns e: Fllnd . I nc
. 

### v . Co rpsof**l~nc ci's** **,** 4 !1 2 [:

. 2d J 12 3 , 1135 t:ltll Cir

. 1 9m

. ilo\\'cvc! ', cc ithc r the CQUI' ts n o r**rOI:~rcss llO~**  gi v el l c l enr gllidnncc os to tile**~ opc**  of**~I02(2)** (E) or tI le mea ni ng of the wOl'ds "n n y proposol whicil involves un r eso lv ed conil iet s co n-cerni ng

- n l r crnalive**us~ s**  of uvailnble r eso ul'ces," T he COUI'ts

of**~ppe a** **13 ca~e5**  i n whicll §I02(2)(E) ha s been raised**hnv~** involved expc n d itul'es of**significo~ t**  Federal Z' CSO ll1'CCS,**c. ~** **. ,** **l~J)F** V

. COI'P ' S of En l! ince]"s, St:!1I 'fI, (c , )lls t ructiOil'Or il nnvip;n tion i'll'oject); Trinitv 1
· ::>i

.... eo[");11 ·Sellc!) l r.O I·f)

. 

### v . HO!lln cy , S:U 

### r

. 2t.flfs""

..... [2cl r. i)·. lJ7 3 ) (co:1strue,:tion o f low i n c omc h o u s in g by J iLlD) ; ;1111]**ol) in** **son ~** **. :~ncl)cl** **,** 550**~.2d ~22**  (8 t h C ir

.**ldevelo~nent** of a r e creational PR I 'l e by the of

. '..g'i'ic li lturc), T hese cns es .:\1 \ inv o lve**d~cisiol1l11Q.k in** **f~** p r ocess es t iwt r.o ngl' css W:15 

### In7?) Deportment the typ e or

eonecrlled with I'e iol'min g tind e r NEPA "" de c is i ons by development oriented agcnc i es w h ich in the post hod negl ectcd env:r onment ll l c o ncerns

. See**11S Con~;** **.** Rcc

. Si7458 ( De c

.**~O,** 19Gn) (1'emll rks**OfS en~1to** **)'** ;\!us:eie}

. 

### ,
A r ece n t op ini o n by the office of G en erv.l CO l1 l1$t;! l dated :\ ' lrty 2,1079 (copy attnched) dealt ' cxten s iv ely with t h e require mcn t s o f §102(2){E) of N EPA in**im;>lell1e~tinP.'** !"cr,ul.1to r y rHOfi1·(t111

. TiI:!t ('II\i:lio ll t o ('ondut'l :1 1 t Cl '; 1 011 ives r\

" spe< :t**~ o** **tlH~** rt'opos:11 activit ies un dcr thc NPnES conclu c!('ci t h at EPA did no t have:

:lllillys(: :; lIlIdc l ' :; 102 (2) (E) ":i t l! and**prolll111~llt** ion of**(· ('I~ll** **J .1** **t** ion s

### - 1"1**i;lIp l** **(';I'.:'lltin:~** the 

### NPnr.S pror,rllm lind**th ~**  (;onso l idutioll**.}:~ ~Pn:~S**  

### wi th the l!!1zD.rdous Waste Pror.ro!11 undo!" th e 

### Solie! \ ':Il!'tc Disposal Act, 

### as nme n d ec by 

## nc:nA , and t he V I C Pl'Orrfllm ur:dcr SO"'"**(considc rin** **~** both the indepenrient**pl'omul~lllion** of those**~rogrllm** ;'cr,ulntions, nnc1 the 

### consolidation of the various program regu latio ns)

. Til3t oprr:ion relied pr i m!lrily on the f Ullc ti on:ll 

### cql!ivCllcnce test, which appl i es wi th equal force to the VIC p r og r cm. 

### Dccnusc each of the five regulatory aspects of t! lC 

### UIr program , d i sctlss cd obove , involves l'cglllntory 

### nctio n s c ircure scr i bcd by ex t ensive proccril ll' CS, incil 1 <'l in g pu b li c pa rticipation, fO l ' CV!llullti n r,­



# - . E:nvi ronincntO,l i ssues , the fun ctiona l 

### equi val ence s t nn dt1l'd is slltisficd

.**~1arylund** 

### v
. 

### Tnlin, slIpr"

. Rcqui!' in g' .'H' lhcrcncc to n requ ir eme nt to "study, dcvclop al1d describe alterna tiv es " in t :1C contcxt of the VIC 

### regu l atory program is no t 

### r equiied and \'.'ould be wasteful ftnd 

### diln t ory
. Acc ordingly , 1 

### concl.ude that EP. \ 

### (locs not hnvc to conduct altcrnt1 :i vcs ilnolysi s ull (]c r §I02(2}(E) 

### oi NEP A in 

### conncction 

### \'.'i t h thc UIC**rCf!~lllltory** 

### progrom un der SDh l .'\

.



## •
•

•