'­

Uf\:ITEO STATES ENVI RON MEf,TAL PROTECTION AGENC'.' 

WASHINGTON. D .C . 20400 

20 AUG 19 71) 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 . Mill 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. (EN-33,j) ., 

:-H(;',:: 	 .1ome 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 


YOl: 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· ,A 1"3?(") ... _ _ \'~) .. , l O/l.!, \ , ...IOU :-.. 

rC,,'!! :ltOl' Y act:'1i ~ies unne,' ~h(: :la fe Dr:,lkingo '~';~tCI' ,\(':'i. 


(SO,'.'\) ' :. :In,lc:'v,I'ound ! njeetion Control ,(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 compi y with tllc requin.:mc 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 whe 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 ishmen 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 NEPA 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 on1. 	 tile environmental impac t of tile proposed 


net ion, 


1 ( . 	 nny adverse environmental effects whicll 


connat be avoided should tile proposa l be 


implemented, 


III. alter natives 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 long - ter..71 productivity, 

• 	 and 

• 	 V. any irreversible and i e-retrievable 


conr."litmcn t s of r es·oll , ces which VJould be 


involved ill the proPQs ed action s!lould it be 


. imp 1erne 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 ronlilcn t u l impacts . 11 The c0RtroVCt'sy in the 


courts over NEPA ' s applicability to EPA ccntcl'cd on 


I I It s ho 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 Oll 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 termini 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 url 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 EPA under SIll of the Clenn Air Act "best 


serves tlle ."objective of protecting the environme n t 


which is the purpose of NEPA." 186 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 IFRA11)5/ and the Marine Protection, 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 ctioni\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 sugg 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 Co. v . EPA, $l!Pl' U . 

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

TI1DT~.IS0r2d 12 -1 7 (D.C . Cir . 1973) Envirf)llmentai 

lkfcnsC' Fu ncl v. nllJnt, -158 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[':; IIIl1Cnt 

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 tFRA 

at a time when ne ither of those s t atutes contained a 

NEP.'\ exeri1~tion a lthoug-h the FIVPCA 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 ns in previous b ills 

reported by t he subcor~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 determinat ion wns made 

that this is a [natter which Sllould 

properly be considered by the 

Comnittee o n !'vlcrcil:!nt :'Ihlrine 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 nminution 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 leg 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 lean 

,\ i r Act); Envir o nmental Defen se Fund v. EPA (I)DT), 

SUpl'fI. (FlfHA). 

. , 8/ 1l.R. ~ep. No . 93-1185, 93rd Cong . , 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 dote 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 eqllired 

dll EIS to be preparcd for actions t oke rl ulldel' tllC U IC 

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 Por'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 

requiring EPA to prepare nn EIS for actions t~ken und e r 

the UIC orogr llm . 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 EPA l'cglllutory 

act ions ~ll\dcr thc UIC Proe:t'J.ill: 

1. 	 ruler;-: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 ne'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 Construction, 

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 il 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 Ol' 

§ I .] 2 4 ( c ) . 1 G! 

To determine whether EPA is e xempt from NEPA's EIS 

rcquil' cmcnts for oneh of these f i ve major sets of 

rq!IIJ!ltory uctions Ilndc l' the u re P rOt;t'tlm, it i s 

Ilcccssary to cons i der whe t he r the requirements of the 

':Cunctionnl eqtlivulen t " tes t are met f or enell of 

them . EPA' cleerly is "nn ageJ1C~ with recognized 11 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,elsllnlls, 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§llmc 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.lSSUlnc ~ 

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 nal 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 was re!lCilCd tln d~I' 

the F IFR' in Environmenta l nCf C:1SC Fllnd v.E'A (ocrr) , s uprs , where t he court s tate d : 

We conclude thllt wilere an agency is 

engaged primarily in un cxruninution 

of en vironments l questions, wllcre 

su bstantive find proc edlil'si s t a nd a r ds 

ens ure fu ll dnd ade quate . 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 whel' c th e sta tute required the i\dminist r ntor 

to determi ne 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 Administ rat o r 's e ction i;-. c un cclling tilC ­ registre t ion of pest icides simil ar l y 113S bcen held to 

be cx einpt froin N!ZPA , 10! 

'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 nd 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 12,19 . 

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. EllA <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 le p l' oG"l'am 20/ 

i! n d (b) the con s oli dation o f U I C wit h t Ile 

Haza r dous was te prog r am u ndel' t h e Sol id Waste 

Disposal Act , as ame nded 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 . 

( 1973) (considcri:lg both the independent 

pl'oi11ul:!ation 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 omulgation cf rcgulstions implementing 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 11carings across the country irr qrdcr to 

allow thc public to part i cipate ully ~ in the dcci s ionma!~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 ure reg u latory p r og )' nm provirles 

both (Ot' an opportunity to submit ,Hitten co:n!lcnts Ilr, rl 

t o tcst1fy on til e rccord, I cO ll c 1lldc tllnt EPA' s rc ropos~J nnd promulg3t i on of rcg ulat i ons implementing 

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.tion 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 Ers was prcpul'cd by EPA in 

conncction Ivith the i n it i a l proPQsal. A Supp l ement to 

t he Draft E I S w~s pr'cparcd by EPA 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 


Adl:linistrnt i on shall provide oppor t u n ity for public 


11 " '1;'\' lW . 111' iOI; t o IH":>!Il!I\ of lll ion of [U ICl 
 J'('·~·:oJ 11"( 1\)11:-; . " 

:~ :U ·1·1 Fe 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 

llndergrollnd i niectioll (:ont l' o l pr ogl' um . 

Courts 11 1IV C 11 C ld tllnt nn EIS is not rcqtlirCil '~l\ 

t he 	 EPA I\dm ini s ll' :l tor upgrovcs Stnte implcrncnt."l.tion 

PIu:ls ull 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 

Trn;1 1clncntD.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 inist 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 Implementing 

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 

Administl' 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 rimal' 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 ngs , . stAndn r d,,; 

f o r tll e co ntrol wi t llin tlleir bordel's of SO llrce s of 

po l lution, which standards ... '[ tHe] to be s uffi.::iently 

stl' i iJ;;ent' t o I1ssu re that the cr,tission v o lume f rem nli 

SUCII sources within those area s .. . ,( does] not 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 ul e programs in thut tlley both rcqu ir ~ 

nttnimncn t o f ccr tai!1 r:linimum 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 Ol' 111)[)rOV;I I. 

2~/ SDWA 514 2 2(b )(I)(B)(4); § 123 .5 8 of EPAts PJ"opo~ed 

CO :lsoli<l!ltccl Pe rmit 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 rmines t118! a state docs not 

meet th0 reqlliremcn t s set forth in tIle st3tlltC , he 

shllll prolDulJ;llc u U IC 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 Ilo 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 fUIlctional 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 unless a pel'mit for tilo 

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 1424(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 EPA's ?rorose d 

Con~ol ida ted Permi t H.cGulut ions, 

311 Srn~\ 51424(d) defi nes 11new II!lderground injection 

.'eli" ~lS 1111 undcI'ground injection well '.'.'ho:-;e operlltion 

was not ap~roved hy appropriate State and ll 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 nlncntal 

i s!:.iIl.:!lI, ,li! ryl ~l1d v . Train, 5Up ' ~, so long 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 lude t!lllt tIle 

fUllClio fllll cqui ~ ll t slllndtird is :;:Itisfict! lind it O E I :-; 

is rcqlli rcd for the Adlninistr3tor ' s des ig nati llg nn o r ca 

of 6 Slate as R sa le or princi~6 1 drinking wote r so urce 

aquifer under SDWA Section 14 24(a )(I). 

5. 	 Procedures fo r designating BI' cas huvi ng 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, lilst an a~ea has 811 


aqui fer ',,>,lIich is the sa l e or pdnci 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 termination 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 rmines 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 ugtl its 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 SOII~ ce uquifer areas, 


which, if contam i nated, woul d cr~nte a signi fi cant 


ill1"1.:1r(] to public hea lth , Su 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 ude 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 ll of l~w, be entered into to pl n n or design t;lC 

project to IlSSllre 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 ha l l hold at least one public hearing on whether to 

desio-nllte o an nl'ea under [SDW,!!, 3 1424(c)] , The • 

i1e ~~ion!l1 Ad!ninistrato.' shn l l nlso pl'ovid!.! oppor tunit y 

10; the :)ub l ie to COinncnt in writin,r . " (~ecticn 1·13 . 1 

ot tllcse'Proposed Regulatio:ls dcleg~te s the 

~~ministrotor's nuthority for designation, project 

revi ews and project vetoes to the Rc gio:la l 

Ad:ninistrlltors) . 

331 Po~~e·1 of Pl'@3mble to Pronosed Reg 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 1yinvol 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 

implementing rcgul.::ltions for 5142He) cl zar l y do,34/ 

Such Implcmc 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 . iihrvlund v , TI'ain, supra , No EPA ­

rrcpnred [ISis ~ollld bc re qtli r ed f or SllCll p~aject 

r ev iews linder SrnVA §1424 (c). 

I I . 	 Applicub-ility of Section 5102(2)(,£) of NEPA to tll 0 

UTe: RC f:ulatory Progl'llm . 

Qu~stion 

Must ' EPA conduct ana l ys i s of a ltern atives ulldcr 


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

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

regulations); (2) approv ing State UIC p rogrllms un der 

§1';:;"2; (3) issuin~ permits for underground i njection 

wel l .) in instances ',vhere it :Jdministcrs t 11c applicable 

C pro~['~m wi tll!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 Cl' lll -.: J 

["Hi.:>!' to cst11b1 islm:ent of ;),11 :lppl icubl c UIC pt"),;l'uill 

under 51-l?'·!(a) ; dete rmini "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 rltions 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 

alternatives to r ecommend ed courses of acti o n i n 

any !Jroposl11 which involve s unresolved confl lets 

concerning 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 tCtnc nts . 

The l cgistl\li v e histol' Y (I nc! Cl1SCS 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'nllti'v cs " 

r eCJ uii cmcnt s in §§ 102 (2)(E} and I02 ( 2 ) ( c)(iii) 

l' eq llil' l.!ct 

the E IS 

action" -.

/1,np lify 

'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 De 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 . 19m . ilo\\'cvc!', cc ithc r the CQUI' ts n o r 

rOI:~rcss llO~ gi v ell c l enr gllidnncc os to tile ~ opc of 

~I02(2) (E) or tIle 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 nc omc h o u s ing by JiLlD) ; ;1111] 

ol) in son ~ . :~ncl)cl , 550 ~.2d ~22 (8 t h C ir . 

ldevelo~nent of a r e creational PR I'le 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 type or 

eonecrlled 

with I'e iol'ming tind e r NEPA "" de c is i ons by development 

oriented agcnc i es wh 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 Gen erv.l CO l1 l1$t;! l 

dated :\'lrty 2,1079 (copy attnched) dealt ' cxten s iv ely 

with t he requiremcn t s o f §102(2){E) of NEPA 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';1011 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 lations) . 
 Til3t oprr:ion relied pr im!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 ns c ircure scr i bcd by ex t ensive proccrilll' CS, 


incil1<'l ing 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 NEPA in conncction \'.'i t h thc UIC 


rCf!~lllltory progrom un der SDhl.'\ . 


• 

• 

•