[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 89 (Monday, May 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26607-26611]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11280]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-6586-7]


Water Pollution Control; Program Modification Application by 
Wisconsin to Administer the Sludge Management (Biosolids) Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of application and public comment period.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to 40 CFR 123.62 and 40 CFR part 501, the State of 
Wisconsin has submitted to EPA an application to modify the existing 
Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) program to 
include administration and enforcement of the sludge management 
(biosolids) program where it has jurisdiction. Specifically, the State 
is seeking approval of a sludge management program which addresses the 
land application of sludge, surface disposal of sludge, and the 
landfilling of sludge. Wisconsin is not seeking approval for the 
incineration of sludge or the land application of septage. The state's 
sludge management program will not extend to ``Indian Country'' as 
defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151, and will not include lands within the 
exterior boundaries of Indian reservations within or abutting the State 
of Wisconsin, as they are not seeking approval for these areas at this 
time. According to the state's proposal, this program would be 
administered by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR).
    The application from Wisconsin is complete and is available for 
inspection and copying. Public comments are requested and encouraged.

[[Page 26608]]


DATES: Public comments are to be received or postmarked on or before 
June 22, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: Rebecca Harvey, Chief, NPDES 
Support and Technical Assistance Branch (WN-16J), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 
Illinois 60604-3590.
    You may inspect, and copy at a minimal charge, the documents 
relevant to Wisconsin's submittal at the following addresses from 8:00 
a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding holidays, at the: 
WDNR, Bureau of Watershed Management, 101 South Webster Street, 
Madison, Wisconsin 53707, contact: Greg Kester, (608) 267-7611; WDNR-
Southeast Region, 2300 North Martin Luther King Jr. Dr., P.O. Box 
12436, Milwaukee, WI 53212, contact: Jim Fratrick, (414) 263-8632; 
WDNR-Northeast Region, 1125 North Military, P.O. Box 10448, Green Bay, 
WI 54307, contact: Jeff Haack, (920) 492-5811; WDNR-Northern Region-
Park Falls, 875 South 4th Ave., P.O. Box 220, Park Falls, WI 54552, 
contact: Jim Hansen, (715) 762-4684 ext. 120; WDNR-South Central 
Region, 3911 Fish Hatchery Rd., Fitchburg, WI 53711, contact: Roy 
Lembcke, (608) 275-3283; WDNR-West Central Region, 1300 W. Clairemont 
St., P.O. Box 4001,Eau Claire, WI 54702-4001, contact: Paul LaLiberte, 
(715) 839-3724; and at the EPA Regional Office in Chicago at the 
address appearing earlier in this notice, contact: David Soong, (312) 
886-0136. Copies of the complete submittal can be obtained at a cost of 
10 cents per page (roughly $280.00 for the complete submittal) from 
WDNR. Requests for copies should be addressed to Greg Kester, Wisconsin 
Department of Natural Resources at the address provided above or at 
telephone number (608) 267-7611.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Soong, NPDES Support and 
Technical Assistance Branch, (WN-16J), EPA, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590, phone number: (312) 886-0136.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Throughout this document ``we'', ``us'', or ``our'' means EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
II. What was submitted in Wisconsin's application for sludge 
management program approval?
III. Are there variations between Wisconsin's sludge management 
program regulations and the federal sludge regulations, 40 CFR Part 
503?
IV. Can the public comment on Wisconsin's program submittal?
V. Is a public hearing scheduled?
VI. Has a decision been made regarding Wisconsin's program?
VII. If EPA approves Wisconsin's WPDES program modification, what is 
the effect of that decision?
VIII. Would EPA's Approval Affect Indian Country (18 U.S.C. 1151) in 
Wisconsin?
IX. Administrative Requirements
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Executive Order 13045: Children's Health Protection
    C. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    D. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    H. Paperwork Reduction Act

I. Introduction

    Wisconsin has regulated sewage sludge quality and beneficial reuse 
under state authority since 1977. Section 405 of the Clean Water Act 
(CWA or Act), 33 U.S.C. 1345, created the federal sludge management 
program, allowing EPA to issue permits for the disposal of sewage 
sludge under conditions required by the CWA. Section 405(c) of the CWA 
provides that a state may submit an application to EPA for 
administering its own program for issuing sewage sludge permits within 
its jurisdiction. EPA is required to approve each such submitted state 
program unless EPA determines that the program does not meet the 
requirements of Sections 304(i) and/or 402(b) of the CWA or the EPA 
regulations implementing those sections. To obtain such approval, the 
state must show, among other things, that it has authority to issue 
permits which comply with the Act, authority to impose civil and 
criminal penalties for permit violations, and authority to ensure that 
the public is given notice and opportunity for a hearing on each 
proposed permit. The requirements for state sludge management program 
approval are listed in 40 CFR part 501.

II. What Was Submitted in Wisconsin's Application for Sludge 
Management Program Approval?

    Wisconsin's application for sludge management program approval 
contains a letter from the Secretary of WDNR requesting program 
approval, an Attorney General's Statement, copies of pertinent state 
statutes and regulations, amendments to the WPDES Program Description, 
and proposed amendments to the WDNR/EPA Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) 
to be executed by the Regional Administrator, Region 5, EPA, and the 
Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
    The Secretary's letter of May 26, 1998, requested that EPA approve 
the state's sludge management program as a modification to their WPDES 
program. On March 8, 1999, the Secretary limited the state's request to 
all sludge activities within the State except for those activities 
occurring within Indian Country.
    The Attorney General's Statement includes citations to specific 
statutes, administrative regulations, and judicial decisions which 
demonstrate adequate authority to carry out the state's sludge 
management program. State statutes and regulations cited in the 
Attorney General's Statement are also included in the application.
    The amendments to the WPDES Program Description include a 
description of the scope and organizational structure of the sludge 
management program, including a description of the general duties and 
the total number of state staff carrying out the program, a description 
of applicable state procedures, including permitting procedures, and 
administrative and judicial review procedures, and a description of the 
state's compliance tracking and enforcement program. It also includes 
an inventory of the facilities that are subject to regulations 
promulgated pursuant to 40 CFR part 503 and subject to the state's 
sludge management program.
    The proposed amendments to the WDNR/EPA MOA include provisions for 
permit administration, enforcement and compliance monitoring, and 
annual reporting. The MOA has been signed by the Secretary of WDNR and 
will become effective upon the signature of the Regional Administrator 
of EPA, Region 5. The MOA does not limit the authority of EPA to take 
actions pursuant to its powers under the CWA, nor does it limit EPA's 
oversight responsibilities with respect to sludge management program 
administration.

III. Are There Variations Between Wisconsin's Sludge Management 
Program Regulations and the Federal Sludge Regulations, 40 CFR Part 
503?

    Following is a brief summary of and rationale for the main points 
of variance between Wisconsin's sludge management program and the 40 
CFR part 503 sludge rules.
    1. Wisconsin restricts application of sludge on agricultural land 
when it is frozen or snow covered. 40 CFR part 503 restricts sludge 
application on frozen or snow covered ground if there is a likelihood 
of sludge entering any waters or wetlands. Wisconsin believes that the

[[Page 26609]]

likelihood of runoff exists on most sites in Wisconsin which are frozen 
or snow covered. Therefore, winter land application is restricted 
pursuant to Wisconsin regulations.
    2. Wisconsin regulations require that sludge must be land applied 
at the agronomic rate for the crop grown taking all sources of nitrogen 
into account. This is required to preclude over application of nitrogen 
which could result in groundwater contamination through the leaching of 
nitrates. 40 CFR part 503 requires application at the agronomic rate 
but is silent about how to take other nitrogen sources into account. 
Wisconsin requires disclosure at the time of soil sampling of the 
anticipated rate and type of manure application, percent of legume 
forage left standing, and projected options of crops to be grown.
    3. Wisconsin regulations establish more stringent site restrictions 
regarding the land application of sludge than federal requirements. 
Wisconsin regulations address additional environmental and public 
concerns such as setback distances from residences, public and private 
wells, property lines, waterways of various kinds, rural schools, and 
rural health care facilities. Separation distances to bedrock and 
groundwater, allowable slopes and soil permeability are also addressed.
    4. Wisconsin regulates radium-226 in communities which have 
elevated concentrations of radium-226 in their water supply system, 
while 40 CFR part 503 does not specifically regulate radium-226. 
Wisconsin's concern with the land application of sludge with radium-226 
is twofold. First, Wisconsin is concerned that the decay of radium-226 
to radon gas could pose a problem if construction were to occur in the 
future on a site which had an unacceptably high soil concentration. 
Second, Wisconsin is concerned that radium may leach to groundwater if 
the soil concentration of radium-226 is elevated.
    5. Sludge management plans, which are required by Wisconsin 
regulations, are intended to allow facilities some flexibility in how 
they comply with the administrative rules. WDNR encourages innovative 
alternate beneficial uses of sludge such as mine reclamation, 
silviculture, and other projects which are shown to be environmentally 
sound. Sludge management plans provide the forum for such proposals to 
be presented. 40 CFR part 503 does not specifically require the use of 
sludge management plans.
    6. State regulations prohibit ``Surface Disposal'' as a sludge 
management option, even though 40 CFR part 503 allows surface disposal. 
The State believes that surface disposal is not an environmentally 
acceptable alternative because it may threaten groundwater quality and 
contradicts the beneficial reuse policy WDNR promotes.
    7. Bulk exceptional quality sludge is exempt from most of the 
management requirements of Wisconsin's regulations. However, 
application on frozen or snow covered ground is restricted and the 
storage requirement, which is not federally required, applies to this 
material.

IV. Can the Public Comment on Wisconsin's Program Submittal?

    It is requested and encouraged that the public comment on the 
state's sludge management program submittal. Copies of all submitted 
statements and documents will become a part of the record submitted to 
EPA. All comments or objections presented in writing and postmarked 
within 45 days of this notice to EPA, Region 5, will be considered by 
EPA before it takes final action on Wisconsin's request for program 
modification approval. Written comments should be submitted to Rebecca 
Harvey at the address given above.
    The public is also encouraged to bring the foregoing to the 
attention of anyone interested in this matter.

V. Is a Public Hearing Scheduled?

    At the time of this notice, a decision has not been made as to 
whether a public hearing will be held on Wisconsin's request for 
program modification. During the comment period, any interested person 
may request a public hearing by filing a written request which must 
state the issues to be raised to EPA, Region 5. The last day for filing 
a request for a public hearing is 45 days from the date of this notice 
and should be submitted to Rebecca Harvey at the above address. In 
appropriate cases, including those where there is significant public 
interest, EPA may hold a public hearing. Public notice of such a 
hearing will occur in the Federal Register and in enough of the largest 
newspapers in Wisconsin to provide statewide coverage and will be 
mailed to interested persons at least 30 days prior to the hearing.

VI. Has a Decision Been Made Regarding Wisconsin's Program?

    The only decision that has been made is that Wisconsin has 
submitted a complete application. EPA sent a letter to the Secretary of 
the WDNR on March 14, 2000, stating that the state's application to 
modify the WPDES program to include a state sludge management program 
was complete. EPA has 90 days from the date of that letter to approve 
or disapprove Wisconsin's Sludge management program. The decision will 
be based on the requirements of Sections 405, 402 and 304(i) of the CWA 
and EPA regulations promulgated thereunder. If the Wisconsin program 
modifications are approved, EPA will notify the State of the approval. 
Notice will be published in the Federal Register and, as of the date of 
program approval, EPA will suspend issuance of NPDES sludge management 
permits in Wisconsin (except, as discussed below, for those in ``Indian 
Country''). The state's program will operate in lieu of the EPA-
administered program where the State has authority. However, EPA will 
retain the right, among other things, to object to WPDES permits 
proposed to be issued by Wisconsin and to take enforcement actions for 
violations, as allowed under the CWA. If EPA disapproves Wisconsin's 
sludge management program, EPA will notify the State of the reasons for 
disapproval and of any revisions or modifications to the state program 
that are necessary to obtain approval.

VII. If EPA Approves the Wisconsin's WPDES Program Modification, 
What Is the Effect of That Decision?

    If the Wisconsin program modification is approved, as of the date 
of program approval, there will be virtually no change in the program 
since Wisconsin has been regulating sludge management under state 
authority through its WPDES program. EPA will suspend issuance of NPDES 
sludge management permits in Wisconsin (except, as discussed below, for 
those in ``Indian Country''). The state's program will operate in lieu 
of the EPA-administered program where the State has authority. 
Wisconsin will issue and administer permits for all the provisions for 
which it is authorized. After approval, EPA will transfer any pending 
sludge permit applications, completed permits, or pertinent file 
information to Wisconsin upon request. However, EPA will retain the 
right, among other things, to object to WPDES permits proposed to be 
issued by Wisconsin and to take enforcement actions for violations, as 
allowed under the CWA.
    Approval will not impose additional requirements on the regulated 
community because the regulations by which Wisconsin will be 
implementing the sludge management program are already effective and 
will not be changed by EPA's approval.

[[Page 26610]]

VIII. Would EPA's Approval Affect Indian Country (18 U.S.C. 1151) 
in Wisconsin?

    Wisconsin is not authorized to carry out its WPDES program in 
Indian Country, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. This includes:
    1. Lands within the exterior boundaries of the following Indian 
Reservations within or abutting the State of Wisconsin:
    a. Bad River Indian Reservation.
    b. Forest County Indian Reservation.
    c. Ho-Chunk Nation Indian Reservation.
    d. Lac Courte Oreilles Indian Reservation.
    e. Lac Du Flambeau Indian Reservation.
    f. Menominee Indian Reservation.
    g. Oneida Indian Reservation.
    h. Red Cliff Indian Reservation.
    i. Sokaogon (Mole Lake) Indian Reservation.
    j. St. Croix Indian Reservation.
    k. Stockbridge-Munsee Indian Reservation.
    2. Any land held in trust by the U.S. for any Indian tribe, and
    3. Any other land, whether on or off a reservation that qualifies 
as Indian Country.
    Therefore, if EPA approves the state's sludge management program, 
it will have no effect in Indian Country where EPA will continue to 
implement and administer the NPDES program.
    In excluding Indian Country from the approval, we would not be 
making a determination that the State either has adequate jurisdiction 
or lacks jurisdiction over sources in Indian Country. The state's 
application does not include a request for approval within Indian 
Country at this time. Should the State of Wisconsin choose to seek 
program approval within Indian Country, it may do so without prejudice.

IX. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from the requirements of Executive Order 12866, 
entitled ``Regulatory Planning and Review.''

B. Executive Order 13045: Children's Health Protection

    Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies 
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant'' 
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an 
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may 
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action 
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health 
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    If EPA approves the program modification, the action would not be 
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not involve decisions 
based on environmental health or safety risks.

C. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects 
the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes 
substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the 
federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is 
unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a 
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation.
    In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an 
effective process permitting elected and other representatives of 
Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in 
the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or 
uniquely affect their communities.''
    If EPA approves the program modification, the action would not be 
subject to Executive Order 13084 because it would not significantly or 
uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. Wisconsin 
is not authorized to implement the NPDES program in Indian Country. 
Therefore, the action would have no effect on Indian Country within the 
State.

D. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by state and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among various levels of government.''
    Under section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications, that impose substantial 
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless 
the federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by state and local governments, or EPA 
consults with state and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation 
that has federalism implications and that preempts state law unless the 
Agency consults with state and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    If EPA approves the program modification, it will not have 
federalism implications. It will not have a substantial direct effect 
on states, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, 
because this rule only effects one State. The approval would simply 
modify Wisconsin's existing program that they have voluntarily chosen 
to operate. Further, as a result of the approval, provisions of 
Wisconsin's sludge management program would apply in lieu of the 
equivalent federal program provisions implemented by EPA under CWA. 
Affected parties will be subject only to those authorized state program 
provisions, as opposed to being subject to both federal and state 
regulatory requirements. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the 
Executive Order do not apply.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act, as Amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative 
Procedures Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that 
the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Small entities

[[Page 26611]]

include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    If EPA approves the program modifications, the action will not have 
a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because 
it does not impose any new requirements on small entities because small 
entities that generate or prepare sewage sludge for land application, 
landfilling, or surface disposal are already subject to the regulatory 
requirements under state and federal laws. With approval of the program 
modification, the state's program would apply in lieu of the equivalent 
federal program. Therefore, because the approval will not create any 
new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(UMRA), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary 
impact statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes 
a federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs to state, 
local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private 
sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, EPA must select the 
most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the 
objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. 
Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising 
any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by 
the rule.
    EPA has determined that this notice does not include a federal 
mandate that may result in estimated annual costs of $100 million or 
more to either state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or 
to the private sector. This federal action provides notice of 
availability of the state's submittal and requests comments on the 
state's desire to modify its WPDES program to include a state sludge 
management program. If EPA approves the program modification, the 
state's program would apply in lieu of the equivalent federal program, 
therefore, imposing no new requirements under state or local law. 
Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local, or tribal 
governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires federal agencies to evaluate existing 
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with 
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards'' 
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies 
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical.
    EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's 
action does not involve technical standards.

H. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., federal 
agencies must consider the paperwork burden imposed by any 
informational request contained in a proposed rule or a final rule. 
Today's action will not impose any information requirements upon the 
regulated community.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 123 and 501

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures, 
Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Waste treatment and 
disposal, Water pollution control.

    Authority for parts 123 and 501:  Clean Water Act 33, U.S.C. 
1251 et seq.

    Dated: April 14, 2000.
Elissa Speizman,
Acting, Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 00-11280 Filed 5-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P