Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2001 / Proposed Rules 22971

Section of this Federal Register and

incorporated by reference herein.

Dated: April 12, 2001.

A. Stanley Meiburg,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

[FR Doc. 01–10989 Filed 5–4–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 144 and 146

[FRL–6975–3]

Underground Injection Control

Program—Notice of Proposed

Determination for Class V Wells

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Proposed

Determination.

SUMMARY: Today, the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing a

determination for all categories of Class

V injection wells not included in the

final rulemaking on Class V motor

vehicle waste disposal wells and largecapacity cesspools (64 FR 68546,

December 7, 1999). These include

shallow non-hazardous industrial waste

injection wells, large-capacity septic

systems, agricultural and storm water

drainage wells, and other wells. The

Agency proposes that additional Federal

underground injection control (UIC)

regulations are not needed at this time

to prevent Class V wells from

endangering underground sources of

drinking water (USDWs). The Agency

will, instead, implement its continuing

statutory obligations and use existing

authorities under the Safe Drinking

Water Act to protect USDWs from any

threatening underground injection

activities. This proposed determination

is based on The Class V Underground

Injection Control Study (EPA Document

Number EPA/816–R–99–014, dated

September 1999) and other information

that has been placed in the public

docket for comment.

DATES: EPA will accept public

comment, in writing, on the proposed

determination and the 1999 Class V

Study until July 6, 2001. The Class V

Study can also be found on EPA’s Web

site at www.epa.gov/safewater/uic/

cl5study.html.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to

the UIC Class V, W–98–05 Comment

Clerk, Water Docket (MC–4101); U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200

Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington,

DC 20460. Comments may be handdelivered to the Water Docket, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street, SW, East Tower Basement,

Room 57, Washington, DC 20460.

Comments: Send one original and

three copies of your comments and

enclosures (including any references).

Please submit all references cited in

your comments. Facsimiles (faxes) can

not be accepted. Commenters who

would like EPA to acknowledge receipt

of their comments should include a selfaddressed, stamped envelope. To ensure

that EPA can read, understand and

therefore properly respond to

comments, the Agency would prefer

that commenters cite, where possible,

the paragraph(s) or sections in the

notice or supporting documents to

which each comment refers.

Commenters should use a separate

paragraph for each issue discussed.

Comments may also be submitted

electronically to ow-docket@epa.gov.

Electronic comments must be submitted

as an ASCII, WP5.1, WP6.1 or WP8 file

avoiding the use of special characters

and form of encryption. Electronic

comments must be identified by the

docket number W–98–05. Comments

and data will also be accepted on disks

in WP 5.1, 6.1, 8 or ASCII file format.

The record for this rulemaking has

been established under docket number

W–98–05 and includes supporting

documentation as well as printed, paper

versions of electronic comments. The

record is available for inspection from 9

to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,

excluding legal holidays at the Water

Docket, EB 57, USEPA Headquarters,

401 M., Washington, DC. For access to

docket materials, please call 202/260–

3027 to schedule an appointment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

technical inquiries, contact Joan

Harrigan-Farrelly, Office of Ground

Water and Drinking Water (mailcode

4606), EPA, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave,

NW, Washington, DC 20460. Phone:

202–260–7077. For general information,

contact the Safe Drinking Water Hotline,

phone 800–426–4791. The Safe

Drinking Water Hotline is open Monday

through Friday, excluding Federal

holidays, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

Eastern Standard Time.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Affected

Entities: Although no new regulations

are being proposed, this notice applies

to owners or operators of any type of

Class V well that is not a large-capacity

cesspool or motor vehicle waste

disposal well, as described in 40 CFR

144.81(2) and (16), respectively. The

following table lists categories and

examples of entities that may have such

wells. This table is not intended to be

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide

for readers regarding entities likely to be

affected by or interested in this action.

Other types of entities not listed in the

table could also be interested in it. To

determine whether your injection well

is affected by this action, you should

carefully examine the applicability

criteria in 40 CFR 144.1(g). If you have

questions regarding the applicability of

this action to a particular entity, consult

the person listed in the preceding FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Category Examples of entities potentially affected by this action

Industry and Commerce ..... Farms, animal feeding operations, and other agricultural sites that drain excess surface or subsurface water into

wells; sites that have storm water drainage wells, facilities operating large-capacity septic systems, or nonhazardous waste disposal wells; facilities that extract minerals from brine and then inject the spent brine underground; mines that backfill materials into mine shafts, pipelines, or other holes that are deeper than they are

wide; aquaculture facilities that dispose of wastewater in underground wells; solution mines that use injection

wells in the recovery of minerals from ore bodies that have already been conventionally mined; sites that use injection wells as part of aquifer remediation activities; geothermal power plants that reinject fluids into the ground;

facilities that extract direct heat from geothermal fluids and then return those fluids underground; and sites that

use ‘‘open-loop’’ heat pump/air conditioning systems.

State and Local Government.Municipalities that use storm water drainage wells; publicly owned treatment works that inject sewage treatment effluent underground; State and local government entities that inject water underground for the purpose of aquifer

recharge or aquifer storage and recovery.

Federal Government .......... Any Federal Agency that owns or operates one of the above entities.

22972 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2001 / Proposed Rules

1A ground water protection area is defined in

§ 144.86(c) as a geographic area near and/or

surrounding community and non-transient noncommunity water systems that use ground water as

a source of drinking water These areas receive

priority for the protection of drinking water

supplies and States are required to delineate and

assess these areas under section 1453 of the SDWA.

Other sensitive ground water areas are defined in

§ 144.85(g) as additional State-defined areas that are

critical to protecting USDWs from contamination.

The other sensitive ground water areas may include

areas overlying sole-source aquifers; highly

productive aquifers supplying private wells;

continuous and highly productive aquifers at points

distant from public water supply wells; areas where

water supply aquifers are recharged; karst aquifers

that discharge to surface reservoirs serving as public

water supplies; vulnerable or sensitive

hydrogeologic settings, such as glacial outwash

deposits, eolian sands, and fractured volcanic rock;

and areas of special concern selected based on a

combination of factors, such as hydrogeologic

sensitivity, depth to ground water, significance as

a drinking water source, and prevailing land use

practices.

Table of Contents

I. Background

A. Statutory and Regulatory Framework

B. Requirements Applicable to Class V

Wells

C. History of this Rulemaking

1. 1987 Report to Congress

2. 1994 Consent Decree With the Sierra

Club

3. 1995 Proposed Determination

4. 1997 Modified Consent Decree

5. 1998 Proposal and 1999 Final Rule

6. 1999 Class V Study

D. Scope of Today’s Proposed

Determination

II. Factors Considered in Making the

Proposed Determination

A. Criteria Proposed in 1995

B. Public Comments on the 1995 Proposed

Approach

C. Proposed Criteria for Today’s Notice

III. Class V Wells Found to Have a Low

Potential to Endanger in the 1995

Proposal

A. 1995 Proposed Finding

B. Public Comments on Well Types

C. 1999 Class V Study

IV. Other Class V Wells

A. Sewage Treatment Effluent Wells

1. 1995 Proposed Finding

2. Public Comments

3. 1999 Class V Study

4. Proposed Determination

B. Mine Backfill Wells

1. 1995 Proposed Finding

2. Public Comments

3. 1999 Class V Study

4. Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Report to

Congress

5. Proposed Determination

C. Storm Water Drainage Wells

1. 1995 Proposed Finding and 1998

Proposal

2. Public Comments

3. 1999 Class V Study

4. Proposed Determination

D. Large-Capacity Septic Systems

1. 1995 Proposed Finding

2. Public Comments

3. 1999 Class V Study

4. Guidelines for Management of Onsite

Wastewater Systems

5. Proposed Determination

E. Agricultural Drainage Wells

1. 1995 Proposed Finding

2. Public Comments

3. 1999 Class V Study

4. Concentrated Animal Feeding

Operations Proposal

5. Proposed Determination

F. Industrial Wells

1. 1995 Proposed Finding

2. Public Comments

3. Subsequent Actions

4. Proposed Determination

V. Comment Solicitation

I. Background

A. Statutory and Regulatory Framework

Class V wells are regulated under the

authority of Part C of the Safe Drinking

Water Act (SDWA or the Act) (42 U.S.C.

300h et seq.). The SDWA authorizes

EPA to protect the quality of drinking

water in the United States, and Part C

specifically mandates the regulation of

underground injection of fluids through

wells. The Agency has promulgated a

series of underground injection control

(UIC) regulations under this authority.

Section 1421 of the Act requires EPA

to propose and promulgate regulations

specifying minimum requirements for

effective State programs to prevent

underground injection that endangers

drinking water sources. EPA

promulgated administrative and

permitting regulations, now codified in

40 CFR parts 144 and 146, on May 19,

1980 (45 FR 33290), and technical

requirements in 40 CFR part 146 on

June 24, 1980 (45 FR 42472). The

regulations were subsequently amended

on August 27, 1981 (46 FR 43156),

February 3, 1982 (47 FR 4992), January

21, 1983 (48 FR 2938), April 1, 1983 (48

FR 14146), July 26, 1988 (53 FR 28118),

December 3, 1993 (58 FR 63890), June

10, 1994 (59 FR 29958), December 14,

1994 (59 FR 64339), June 29, 1995 (60

FR 33926), and December 7, 1999 (64 FR

68546).

Section 1422 of the Act provides that

States may apply to EPA for primary

enforcement responsibility to

administer the UIC program; those

States receiving such authority are

referred to as ‘‘primacy States.’’ Where

States do not seek this responsibility or

fail to demonstrate that they meet EPA’s

minimum requirements, EPA is required

to prescribe a UIC program for such

States by regulation. These direct

implementation (DI) program

regulations were issued in two phases,

on May 11, 1984 (49 FR 20138) and

November 15, 1984 (49 FR 45308). For

the remainder of this preamble,

references to the UIC Program

‘‘Director’’ mean either the Director of

the EPA program (where the program is

implemented directly by EPA) or the

Director of the primacy State program

(where the State is responsible for

implementing the program). Also,

currently all UIC Programs in Indian

Country are directly implemented by

EPA. Therefore, for the remainder of

this preamble, references to DI programs

include UIC programs in Indian

Country.

B. Requirements Applicable To Class V

Wells

The UIC regulations establish five

classes of injection wells. Class I wells

are used to inject hazardous and nonhazardous waste beneath the lowermost

formation containing an underground

source of drinking water (USDW) within

one-quarter mile of the well bore. Class

II wells are used to inject fluids

associated with oil and natural gas

recovery and storage of liquid

hydrocarbons. Class III wells are used in

connection with the solution mining of

minerals from ore bodies that have not

been conventionally mined. Class IV

wells are used to inject hazardous or

radioactive wastes into or above a

formation that is within one-quarter

mile of a USDW. (Class IV wells are

generally prohibited by 40 CFR 144.13.)

Class V wells are defined in the

regulations as any well not included in

Classes I through IV.

Class V wells, other than motor

vehicle waste disposal wells and largecapacity cesspools, are currently

authorized by rule (§§ 144.24(a) and

144.84(a)). Rule authorization expires

upon the effective date of a permit

issued pursuant to §§ 144.25, 144.31,

144.33, or 144.34; upon meeting one of

the conditions specified in § 144.84(b);

or upon proper closure of the well as

described in § 144.82(b). Existing Class

V motor vehicle waste disposal wells in

‘‘ground water protection areas’’ and

‘‘other sensitive ground water areas’’ 1

are banned with a provision that allows

owners and operators of such wells to

seek a waiver from the ban and obtain

a permit (§ 144.88(b)). New Class V

motor vehicle waste disposal wells and

new and existing large-capacity

cesspools were banned nationwide

(§§ 144.88(a) and (b)). These new

requirements affecting motor vehicle

waste disposal wells and large-capacity

cesspools are minimum Federal

standards—primacy States may impose

more stringent requirements.

In addition to these provisions, Class

V UIC Program Directors have many

obligations and authorities under the

SDWA to ensure the protection of

USDWs. Specifically, the current

regulations subject Class V wells to the

general statutory and regulatory

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2001 / Proposed Rules 22973

prohibitions against endangerment of

USDWs, as well as some specific

requirements. Under § 144.12(a) and

§ 144.82(a), owners or operators of all

injection wells, including Class V

injection wells, are prohibited from

engaging in any injection activity that

allows the movement of fluid containing

any contaminant into USDWs, if the

presence of that contaminant may cause

a violation of any primary drinking

water regulation under 40 CFR part 141

or may otherwise adversely affect

human health. Sections 144.12(c), (d),

and (e) prescribe mandatory and

discretionary actions to be taken by the

Director if a well is not in compliance

with § 144.12(a). These actions may

include requiring the well operator to

apply for an individual permit, ordering

such action as closure of the well to

prevent endangerment, taking an

enforcement action, and/or taking an

emergency action.

Owners or operators of Class V

injection wells must also submit basic

inventory and assessment information

under § 144.26 and § 144.83. In

addition, Class V wells are subject to the

general program requirements of

§ 144.25 and § 144.84 under which the

Director may require a permit, if

necessary, to protect USDWs. Moreover,

under § 144.27 and § 144.83, EPA may

require owners or operators of any Class

V well, in EPA-administered programs,

to submit additional information

deemed necessary to protect USDWs.

Owners or operators who fail to submit

the information required under

§§ 144.26, 144.27, or 144.83 are

prohibited from using their injection

wells.

C. History of This Rulemaking

1. 1987 Report to Congress

In accordance with the 1986

Amendments to the SDWA, EPA

summarized information on 32

categories of Class V wells in a Report

to Congress entitled Class V Injection

Wells—Current Inventory; Effects on

Ground Water; and Technical

Recommendations, September 1987

(EPA Document Number 570/9–87–

006). This report presents a national

overview of Class V injection practices

and State recommendations for Class V

design, construction, installation, and

siting requirements. These State

recommendations, however, did not

give EPA a clear mandate on what, if

any, additional measures were needed

to control Class V wells on the national

level. For any given type of well, the

recommendations varied broadly and

were rarely made by more than two or

three States. For example, the

recommendations for septic systems

range from further studies (3 States) to

statewide ground water monitoring (1

State). For industrial waste water wells,

some States recommended immediate

action and closure while others

recommended monitoring and ground

water evaluation studies.

2. 1994 Consent Decree With the Sierra

Club

On December 30, 1993, the Sierra

Club filed a complaint in the United

States District Court for the District of

Columbia alleging that EPA failed to

comply with section 1421 of the SDWA

regarding publication of proposed and

final regulations for Class V injection

wells. The complaint alleged that EPA’s

then current regulations regarding Class

V wells did not meet the SDWA’s

statutory requirements to ‘‘prevent

underground injection which endangers

drinking water sources.’’ (Complaint,

Paragraph 15)

To resolve the issue, EPA entered into

a consent decree with the Sierra Club on

August 31, 1994. This consent decree

required that, no later than August 15,

1995, the Administrator sign a notice to

be published in the Federal Register

proposing regulatory action that fully

discharges the Administrator’s

rulemaking obligation under section

1421 of the SDWA, 42 U.S.C. 300h, with

respect to Class V injection wells. A

final rulemaking on the matter was

required to be signed by no later than

November 15, 1996.

3. 1995 Proposed Determination

On August 15, 1995, the

Administrator signed a notice of

proposed rulemaking that proposed a

regulatory determination on Class V

injection wells intended to fulfill EPA’s

obligation under the 1994 consent

decree with the Sierra Club (60 FR

44652, August 28, 1995). In this notice,

EPA proposed not to adopt additional

Federal regulations for any types of

Class V wells. Instead, the Agency

proposed to address the risks posed by

certain wells using existing authorities

and a Class V management strategy

designed to: (1) Speed up the closure of

potentially endangering wells, and (2)

promote the use of best management

practices to ensure that other Class V

wells of concern do not endanger

USDWs. Several factors led EPA to

propose this approach, including: (1)

The wide diversity in the types of fluids

being injected, ranging from high risk to

not likely to endanger; (2) the large

number of facilities to be regulated; and

(3) the nature of the regulated

community, which consists of a large

proportion of small businesses.

4. 1997 Modified Consent Decree

Based on public comments received

on the 1995 proposal, EPA decided to

reconsider its proposed approach.

Because this reconsideration would

extend the time necessary to complete

the rulemaking for Class V wells, EPA

and the Sierra Club entered into a

modified consent decree on January 28,

1997 (D.D.C. No. 93–2644) that

extended the dates for rulemaking that

had been in the 1994 decree. The

modified decree requires three actions.

First, by no later than June 18, 1998,

the EPA Administrator was required to

sign a notice to be published in the

Federal Register proposing regulatory

action that fully discharged the

Administrator’s rulemaking obligation

under section 1421 of the SDWA with

respect to those types of Class V

injection wells determined to be high

risk for which EPA did not need

additional information. The

Administrator was required to sign a

final determination for these

endangering Class V wells by no later

than October 29, 1999. Thirty-day

extensions were subsequently granted

for both of these deadlines.

Second, by no later than September

30, 1999, EPA was required to complete

a study of all Class V wells not included

in the first rulemaking on endangering

Class V injection wells. Based on this

study, EPA may find that some of these

other types of Class V wells also

endanger USDWs.

Third, by no later than April 30, 2001,

the EPA Administrator was required to

sign a notice to be published in the

Federal Register proposing to discharge

the Administrator’s rulemaking

obligations under section 1421 of the

Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) with

respect to all Class V injection wells not

included in the first rulemaking for

Class V injection wells. The Consent

Decree requires that the Administrator

either (1) propose regulations fully

implementing section 1421 with respect

to all such Class V injection wells, (2)

propose a decision that no further

rulemaking is necessary in order to fully

discharge the Administrator’s

rulemaking obligations under section

1421 with respect to all such Class V

injection wells, or (3) propose

regulations fully implementing section

1421 with respect to some of these

remaining Class V injection wells and

propose a decision that no further

rulemaking is necessary in order to fully

discharge the Administrator’s

rulemaking obligations under section

1421 with respect to all other Class V

injection wells not already covered. The

Administrator must sign a final

22974 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2001 / Proposed Rules

determination for these remaining Class

V wells by no later than May 31, 2002.

5. 1998 Proposal and 1999 Final Rule

On July 29, 1998 (63 FR 40586), in

response to the first action required

under the modified consent decree with

the Sierra Club, EPA proposed revisions

to the Class V UIC regulations that

would add new requirements for three

categories of Class V wells that were

believed to endanger underground

sources of drinking water. According to

this proposal, Class V motor vehicle

waste disposal wells in ground water

protection areas (as defined in footnote

1 above) would either be banned, or

would have to get a permit that requires

fluids released in those wells to meet

the drinking water maximum

contaminant levels (MCLs) and other

health-based standards at the point of

injection. Class V industrial waste

disposal wells in ground water

protection areas also would be required

to meet the MCLs and other healthbased standards at the point of injection,

and large-capacity cesspools in such

areas would be banned.

EPA received substantial public input

on the 1998 proposal. The input

included 97 letters from public

commenters as well as

recommendations from the National

Drinking Water Advisory Council

(NDWAC), which formed a Federal

Advisory Committee Act (FACA)

working group to address Class V UIC

and Source Water Protection Program

integration issues. This FACA

workgroup met twice in 1999 to discuss

the proposed Class V regulation. In

addition, on May 21, 1999 (64 FR

27741), the Agency published a notice

of data availability (NODA) and further

request for comment related to the 1998

proposal. A total of 14 public comment

letters were received in response to this

request.

Taking all the public input into

account, EPA issued final revisions to

the Class V UIC regulations on

December 7, 1999 (64 FR 68546). The

final rule added new requirements for

(1) existing motor vehicle waste

disposal wells located in ground water

protection areas delineated for

community water systems and nontransient non-community water systems

that use ground water as a source and

in other sensitive ground water areas

delineated by the States; and (2) new

and existing large-capacity cesspools

and new motor vehicle waste disposal

wells nationwide. The final rule,

however, did not adopt the proposed

additional requirements for industrial

waste disposal wells to meet the MCLs

and other health based standards at the

point of injection. Many commenters

questioned why the Agency chose to

regulate a wide range of industries with

different disposal practices with one

approach. Some commenters thought

the industrial category was too diverse

and types of industrial waste streams

should be regulated based on their

specific characteristics and risks. After

considering these comments, EPA

agreed that the industrial category is

diverse and represents a variety of waste

streams that required additional review

before deciding on the need for

additional Federal regulations.

6. 1999 Class V Study

On September 30, 1999, in response

to the second action required under the

modified consent decree with the Sierra

Club, EPA published a study of all Class

V wells not included in the 1998

proposal (EPA Document Number EPA/

816–R–99–014). The study consisted of

two major components: (1) An

information collection effort for the

remaining universe of Class V wells,

which was divided into 23 different

categories for the purpose of analysis;

and (2) an ‘‘inventory modeling’’

exercise to estimate the number of storm

water drainage wells and large-capacity

septic systems, two types of wells that

were believed to be quite prevalent, but

for which adequate inventory

information was particularly lacking.

As described in detail in Volume 1 of

the final Study report, the information

collection effort consisted of a

comprehensive literature search, State

and EPA Regional data collection,

requests to the public for data, and peer

review. As part of the State and EPA

Regional data collection, the Agency

distributed nearly 700 questionnaires to

EPA Regional, State, and local program

staff in all 50 States and U.S. territories,

including staff responsible for Class V

well control on Indian Lands in EPA

Regions 5, 8, 9, and 10. The Agency

supplemented the information from the

questionnaires with follow-up

telephone interviews and on-site file

searches in 11 primacy States, 3 DI

States, and 2 Regional Offices with DI

States. The Agency also supplemented

the survey results with visits to a

number of injection well sites, including

geothermal electric power well sites in

California and food processing waste

disposal well sites in Tennessee and

Maine.

For the inventory modeling, EPA

selected and visited a sample of 99

census tracts across the nation to collect

data on the numbers of storm water

drainage wells and large-capacity septic

systems that exist and factors that

influence their prevalence. Storm water

drainage wells were found in 22 of the

99 census tracts visited and largecapacity septic systems were found in

88 of the 99 census tracts visited. EPA

used the data collected from the visits

to develop mathematical models for

predicting the numbers of these wells

nationwide.

D. Scope of Today’s Proposed

Determination

Today’s proposed regulatory

determination addresses all of the Class

V well types not covered by the 1999

final rule, in response to the third action

required under the modified consent

decree with the Sierra Club. For the

purpose of this notice, these other well

types are discussed in the following

categories that track with the earlier

proposals described above as well as the

categories addressed in the Class V

Study: Agricultural drainage wells,

storm water drainage wells, largecapacity septic systems, sewage

treatment effluent wells, spent brine

return flow wells, mine backfill wells,

aquaculture waste disposal wells,

solution mining wells, in-situ fossil fuel

recovery wells, special drainage wells,

experimental wells, aquifer remediation

wells, geothermal electric power wells,

geothermal direct heat wells, heat

pump/air conditioning return flow

wells, saltwater intrusion barrier wells,

aquifer recharge and aquifer storage and

recovery wells, subsidence control

wells, and industrial wells (including,

but not limited to, carwash wells, food

processing waste disposal wells,

laundromat wells, and non-contact

cooling water wells). These categories

are the same as the ones defined in the

existing regulations in 40 CFR § 144.81.

However, in some cases the categories

have been combined or separated to

facilitate the discussion of the data and

rationale used to support this

determination. This determination,

however, does not propose to change

the Class V well categories currently

defined in the UIC regulations to the

ones discussed here.

It is also important to clarify that this

notice satisfies the Agency’s obligations

under the modified consent decree with

the Sierra Club, but it does not end

EPA’s obligations, requirements, and

actions to prevent Class V wells from

endangering USDWs. As described in

Section I.B above, UIC Program

Directors have many obligations and

authorities under the SDWA to ensure

the protection of USDWs from the risks

posed by Class V wells. The Agency will

continue to fulfill these obligations and

using existing authorities for all Class V

wells (Section IV.F.3 below summarizes

some of the actions UIC Program

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2001 / Proposed Rules 22975

Directors take for Class V industrial

wells using these existing authorities).

In addition, nothing in this notice

precludes a State or local government

from promulgating requirements more

stringent than the minimum Federal

requirements. Also, today’s proposed

determination does not affect EPA’s

authority to impose any necessary

regulations in the future on any of the

well types addressed in today’s notice.

II. Factors Considered in Making the

Proposed Determination

A. Criteria Proposed in 1995

The Agency proposed two criteria in

1995 for evaluating the different

categories of Class V wells to determine

whether any category warranted

additional regulation: the potential to

endanger USDWs and the anticipated

effectiveness of additional Federal

regulation under the UIC program in

preventing endangerment to USDWs.

For wells with a low or no potential

to contaminate USDWs, the Agency

proposed that the then existing

regulations provided sufficient

authorities to handle the few cases

where mismanagement of one of these

wells could create an endangering

situation. To assess the need for

additional UIC regulation for the other

wells, the 1995 proposal was guided by

the following principles:

(1) Additional Federal UIC regulations

are not necessary where adequate State

or local regulations are already in place,

(2) Additional Federal UIC regulations

are not necessary where the Class V

wells are not the principal source of

endangerment from a widespread

environmental problem,

(3) Additional Federal UIC regulations

are not necessary where endangerments

are localized problems, e.g., wells that

are found only in one or two counties

or in one or two States. For these wells,

EPA will work with the States, if

necessary, to bring about better controls,

(4) Additional Federal UIC regulations

are not necessary where other Federal

programs address the endangerment

caused by certain Class V wells.

B. Public Comments on the 1995

Proposed Approach

EPA received 57 public comment

letters on the 1995 proposal, several of

which addressed the proposed decisionmaking criteria summarized above.

Many comments supported the

Agency’s proposal to not impose more

regulations for Class V wells based on

these criteria. However, EPA also

received a number of comments that

raised concerns about the overall

approach, including the above criteria

and the related rationale proposed for

some well types. The opposing

comments are best represented by nine

main points made by the Sierra Club,

which are addressed in turn below.

First, the Sierra Club asserted that

blanket authorization of Class V wells

by rule, based on any criteria, violates

the SDWA. The basis for this comment

was the Sierra Club’s interpretation that

SDWA requires EPA to prescribe

regulatory standards for State programs.

EPA disagrees that the Class V

regulations violate the SDWA. SDWA

section 1421(b) requires EPA to issue

regulations for effective State programs

to prevent endangerment of drinking

water sources by underground injection.

The statute specifically States that the

regulations ‘‘may permit a State to

authorize underground injection by

rule.’’ Section 1421(b)(1)(A). EPA has

provided such authority to States for

Class V regulations; the authorization by

rule requirements for such wells include

requirements for reporting and avoiding

endangerment of drinking water

sources. As discussed in more detail

below, EPA has found that these

requirements are generally effective in

preventing endangerment from the Class

V wells discussed in today’s proposed

determination. Thus, EPA has met the

statutory mandate of prescribing

regulations for ‘‘effective’’ State

programs ‘‘to prevent * * *

endangerment’’ from Class V UIC wells.

Second, the Sierra Club stated that

continued reliance on the nonendangerment provision in 40 CFR

144.12 and the authority in 40 CFR

144.25 to require a permit does not

fulfill EPA’s statutory duty to specify

minimum requirements for State UIC

programs. EPA disagrees with this

analysis. The minimum requirements

for State UIC Class V programs are

specified in EPA’s regulations; these

include reporting and nonendangerment requirements. While

these may not be as specific and

detailed as the requirements for the

other UIC well classes, they are

nonetheless ‘‘minimum requirements

for * * * (State) programs’’ as required

by SDWA section 1421(b). Because

these requirements, general as they are,

have been effective in preventing

endangerment from these wells, no

more is required under the statute.

Third, the Sierra Club argued that the

existence of State or local regulations

does not justify a decision not to impose

more Federal regulations. While EPA

agrees that the mere presence of State or

local regulations governing UIC wells

does not justify a decision not to impose

Federal requirements under section

1421(b), such State or local regulations

may be an important factor in

determining the extent of

‘‘endangerment’’ from Class V wells and

the ‘‘effectiveness’’ of additional Federal

requirements. For example, as discussed

below, in determining the extent of

‘‘endangerment’’ posed by various Class

V well types, EPA relied heavily upon

actual contamination incidents;

however, the adequacy of State and

local requirements was also a factor that

helped EPA determine the likelihood of

future contamination from such wells.

Similarly, EPA believes that

comprehensive State and local

regulation of a Class V well type, such

as septic systems discussed below, may

make additional Federal regulation

entirely duplicative, if not disruptive.

Where such regulation exists, further

Federal regulation may be futile in

terms of ensuring ‘‘effective’’ State

programs; rather, Federal efforts may be

better focused on implementation of and

education regarding existing regulations

and programs than merely adding yet

another layer of redundant or

duplicative requirements. Thus, EPA

continues to believe that the extent of

State and local regulation remains a

highly relevant consideration in meeting

the section 1421(b) mandate. At its core,

the statute clearly envisions that the UIC

program be a State-run program and the

Federal role is to ensure that existing

State UIC programs become or remain

effective in addressing any

endangerments from underground

injection wells.

Fourth, the Sierra Club claimed that a

decision not to impose additional

regulations cannot be justified on the

grounds that Class V wells are not the

principal source of endangerment from

a widespread environmental problem,

because partial or incremental solutions

are better than none at all. In order for

this criterion to be valid, the Sierra Club

asserted that EPA would have to show

that additional Federal regulations yield

a gain of trivial or no value. As noted

below, EPA has dropped this criterion

as a basis for deciding not to establish

further regulations for Class V wells.

However, EPA continues to believe that

the extent of contamination from Class

V wells, based on actual incidents of

contamination, remains a critical factor

in determining whether sufficient

‘‘endangerment’’ is posed by Class V

wells to warrant additional Federal

requirements.

Fifth, the Sierra Club argued that EPA

cannot decide against additional Class V

regulations based on a finding that

endangerments are localized problems.

According to the comment, nothing in

SDWA exempts from regulation

endangerments that occur in one or a

22976 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2001 / Proposed Rules

few places, and nothing prevents these

localized problems from emerging in

other areas in the future. While EPA

agrees that ‘‘endangerments’’ that are

‘‘localized’’ may still warrant Federal

regulation since, as a factual matter,

most well contamination will endanger

only a localized area, EPA strongly

believes that additional Federal

regulation is not necessary where the

endangerment posed by a particular

well type appears to be isolated and

rare. No amount of Federal regulation

(or any other regulation) can prevent all

contamination; the fact that an isolated

incident of contamination from a UIC

well occurs does not mean that the State

program for that well is ineffective in

preventing endangerment. Rather, EPA

believes that under Section 1421(b)

Federal regulations for UIC wells are

reserved for situations, such as with

motor vehicle waste disposal wells

(addressed in the December 7, 1999,

final revised Class V UIC regulations (64

FR 68546)), where existing State

programs are not generally ‘‘effective’’

in preventing endangerment from

certain well types. With respect to

assurance that wells may not

contaminate in the future, EPA believes

that it has a continuing obligation under

1421(b) to determine whether additional

Federal regulation is necessary for any

UIC well types. Today’s proposed

determination does not affect EPA’s

authority to impose any necessary

regulation in the future on any of the

well types addressed in today’s notice.

Sixth, the Sierra Club asserted that

EPA’s duty to regulate under SDWA is

not removed by other Federal programs

that also address Class V wells.

Moreover, the fact that Federal programs

overlap in subject matter is no obstacle

to regulation, and in many cases, other

Federal programs do not address the

endangerment fully. As discussed

below, EPA has not used other Federal

programs as a criterion for determining

whether to impose additional UIC

requirements in today’s notice.

However, EPA does believe that the

existence of other Federal programs that

address Class V wells may be highly

relevant in determining whether an

‘‘endangerment’’ exists and whether

additional SDWA regulation would be

‘‘effective’’ in addressing that

endangerment.

Seventh, the Sierra Club objected to

the proposal that additional regulations

could not be developed for some Class

V well types because of diversity in

local hydrogeologic conditions or in

types of fluids injected. According to

the Sierra Club, such variability is not

grounds for a regulatory exemption

under SDWA and could be addressed by

establishing targeted regulations for

more narrowly defined subcategories of

wells. While EPA agrees that such

diversity in conditions is not in itself a

reason for EPA to determine that

Federal regulations are unnecessary,

EPA believes that such diversity may be

a factor in determining whether

additional Federal regulation would

promote more ‘‘effective’’ State

programs to address the well type in

question.

Eighth, the Sierra Club commented

that the existence of large numbers of

regulated entities and an alleged lack of

facility-specific data do not justify a

decision not to regulate further. In

support of this comment, the Sierra

Club said that the size of a regulated

community is always workable, and that

EPA has an obligation to collect the data

necessary to perform its rulemaking

duties. EPA has not used either of the

factors Sierra Club mentions as a basis

for today’s proposed determination.

Ninth, the Sierra Club argued that

EPA cannot decide against additional

regulations for some well types based on

the criterion that a large proportion of

the regulated community is comprised

of small businesses. Among other points

made in support of this argument, the

Sierra Club stated that SDWA creates no

exemption for small businesses and that

EPA did not show that the burden on

small businesses would be severe. EPA

has not used the type of regulated

community as a basis for today’s

proposed determination.

C. Proposed Criteria for Today’s Notice

EPA is proposing today to use the two

main criteria proposed in 1995—

potential to endanger USDWs and the

anticipated effectiveness of additional

Federal UIC regulation—to determine

whether other categories of Class V

wells warrant additional regulation. The

Agency is now better able to apply these

criteria using additional information

gathered from the 1999 Class V Study.

Based on the above comments and

responses, however, the Agency is

dropping from consideration some of

the principles used in 1995.

The potential to endanger USDWs is

by far the more important of the two

criteria, given the SDWA mandate to

ensure non-endangerment. EPA

evaluated this potential based in large

part on the record of documented

incidents of ground water and other

environmental contamination caused by

the operation of the different well types.

While the Agency also evaluated the

potential for such contamination based

on such factors as the quality of fluids

injected, the characteristics of the

injection zone, well design and

operating features, the vulnerability of

the wells to spills or illicit discharges,

and the adequacy of existing State and

Federal UIC programs for addressing

any potentially endangering situations,

EPA believes that the absence of

frequent, widespread, or significant

cases of actual contamination is

compelling evidence of a low potential

to endanger that does not warrant

additional Federal regulation at this

time.

EPA considered the anticipated

effectiveness of additional Federal UIC

regulation for only a few well categories

for which a sound determination could

not be based on the potential to

endanger alone. In evaluating the

anticipated effectiveness of additional

regulation, EPA considered such factors

as the degree to which additional

Federal UIC regulations would simply

duplicate existing State programs

without increasing the ‘‘effectiveness’’

of these programs. While the Agency

also considered the possibility of the

UIC program joining forces with other

existing or emerging programs to

achieve greater results in an integrated

fashion, it did not use the existence of

other Federal programs that also address

Class V wells as a basis for deciding

against additional UIC regulation. In

addition, EPA did not use the diversity

in conditions, the existence of large

numbers of regulated entities, the lack

of facility-specific data, or the existence

of a large proportion of small businesses

as decision making criteria.

III. Class V Wells Found To Have a Low

Potential To Endanger in the 1995

Proposal

A. 1995 Proposed Finding

Based on the data available at the

time, the Agency proposed in 1995 (see

60 FR 44652, August 28, 1995) that

several types of Class V injection wells

generally had a low potential to

endanger USDWs, including: (1) Salt

water intrusion barrier wells, (2)

subsidence control wells, (3) heat

pump/air conditioning return flow

wells, (4) spent brine wells, (5)

swimming pool and landslide control

wells (i.e., ‘‘special drainage’’ wells),

and (6) solution mining wells. This

finding was based on such factors as

good injection quality (e.g., comparable

to or better than the fluids in the

injection zone), appropriate well

construction and maintenance, injection

zone characteristics, and existing

regulatory oversight. In addition, EPA

found that the following well types

generally had a low-to-moderate or

moderate potential to endanger: (1)

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2001 / Proposed Rules 22977

2EPA found that some aquifer recharge wells

pose a moderate to high threat of USDW

contamination when they are operated as dual

purpose wells that alternately withdraw water for

irrigation and inject irrigation drainage water. These

wells are more similar to other agricultural drainage

wells and are included below in the discussion of

agricultural drainage wells.

Aquifer recharge 2 and aquifer storage

and recovery wells, (2) aquifer

remediation, (3) geothermal direct heat

wells, (4) geothermal electric power

wells, (5) aquaculture wells, (6)

experimental technology wells, and (7)

in-situ fossil fuel recovery wells. In

general, EPA found that the fluids

injected into these wells were of lower

quality than those injected into the six

types of wells first discussed above, but

well construction, operation, and

maintenance in combination with

locational factors and existing Federal

and State programs safeguard against

endangerment. In the case of in-situ

fossil fuel recovery wells, the Agency

also noted that no wells of this type

were known to be operating.

B. Public Comments on Well Types

In response to the 1995 proposal, EPA

received no comments on five of these

13 well types: (1) Salt water intrusion

barrier wells, (2) subsidence control

wells, (3) special drainage wells, (4)

geothermal direct heat wells, and (5)

aquaculture wells. EPA received limited

comments that did not disagree with the

Agency’s characterization of the

potential of the wells to endanger

USDWs for another five of these 13 well

types: (1) Spent brine return flow wells,

(2) solution mining wells, (3) aquifer

recharge and aquifer storage and

recovery wells, (4) aquifer remediation

wells, and (5) experimental technology

wells. Of the remaining wells, one

commenter disagreed with the Agency’s

characterization of heat pump/air

conditioning return flow wells and

geothermal electric power wells as

having a low potential to endanger

USDWs. The commenter indicated that

heat pump/air conditioning return flow

wells could allow the introduction of

contaminants (e.g., refrigerants, lead,

copper) into ground water and possible

cross-contamination between aquifers.

In addition, the commenter indicated

that electric power geothermal injection

wells are ‘‘not innocuous’’ because high

temperatures and contaminants picked

up in the power plant may degrade

ground water. Another commenter

indicated that ground water in the

vicinity of five in-situ fossil fuel recover

projects has been contaminated.

C. 1999 Class V Study

The Class V Underground Injection

Control Study (EPA/816–R–99–014,

September 1999) presents additional

information about each of these 13 well

types that was collected following the

1995 proposal. The Agency believes that

this information confirms the findings

proposed in 1995, although some of the

supporting details are new or different.

For example, in 1995, EPA found that

there is little chance that fluids injected

into spent brine return flow wells (in

seven States) would reach USDWs

because the wells were adequately

constructed with multiple layers of

protection and inject into deep confined

formations. The Class V Study found

that spent brine return flow wells

regulated under Class V now only occur

in two States and that in all cases the

wells have individual permits and inject

below the lowermost USDW. Similarly,

in 1995 EPA found that salt water

intrusion barrier wells have a low

potential to contaminate USDWs

because they generally inject fluids of

equivalent or better quality than the

injection zone fluids. The Class V Study

found that waters of varying quality are

injected into these wells, but typically

the injected water meets primary and

secondary drinking water standards. In

addition, ground water monitoring and

associated studies have shown no

measurable adverse effects on either

ground water quality or the health of the

population ingesting the water when the

injectate was treated wastewater

effluent.

Of the 13 well types in this group, the

Class V Study identified reported

contamination incidents associated with

the operation of only three types. For insitu fossil fuel recovery wells, the Class

V Study confirmed the information

submitted by a commenter that ground

water contamination had occurred in

the vicinity of in-situ fossil fuel

recovery operations. The Class V Study

also confirmed, however, that no wells

of this type are known to be in

operation. For heat pump/air

conditioning return flow wells, the

Class V Study identified a few sites

where ground water contamination has

been reported. Thus, EPA agrees with

the commenter who indicated that

operation of these wells could result in

ground water contamination. The

available information indicates,

however, that such occurrences are very

rare in light of the estimated 35,000

wells of this type in over 40 States. For

aquifer remediation wells, the Class V

Study identified a single reported

contamination incident that resulted

from an equipment failure, but

confirmed that these wells are

controlled as part of Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA),

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act (CERCLA), and State remediation

programs in addition to the UIC

program.

For electric power geothermal

injection wells, the Class V Study did

not identify any reported incidents of

USDW contamination, but the Class V

Study did find that injected fluids at

some plants may include a mixture of

surface water, treated wastewater

effluent, and/or storm water in addition

to geothermal fluids. Thus, there is the

potential for the injected fluids to

contain contaminants not present in the

geothermal fluids, as indicated by one

commenter. The Class V Study

confirmed, however, that geothermal

fluids used for power production are not

typically of potable quality, and that

typical well construction, operation,

and maintenance are not expected to

allow fluid injection into unintended

ground water zones.

Based on the information available at

this time, including the Class V Study,

EPA concludes that the 13 wells types

discussed in this section have a low

potential to endanger USDWs. As a

result, EPA concludes that no additional

Federal regulations applicable to these

wells are needed at this time. Where

isolated incidences of endangerment

occur or are threatened, EPA will use its

existing authorities to require

permitting, closure or corrective action

to address the endangerment.

IV. Other Class V Wells

A. Sewage Treatment Effluent Wells

1. 1995 Proposed Finding

EPA found that the overall potential

for sewage treatment effluent wells to

contaminate USDWs was moderate. The

Agency also found that the potential to

endanger USDWs ranged from low to

high, in large part due to the range in

the type of treatment provided prior to

injection. Specifically, the Agency

found that some wells inject clarified

effluent that has undergone secondary

or tertiary treatment and have a low

potential to endanger USDWs, but

effluent that has undergone only

primary treatment creates a higher

potential to contaminate USDWs.

Further, EPA found that the majority of

the wells of concern were located in

Florida and Hawaii and were being

addressed at the State level. Based on

this information, the Agency proposed

that no additional Federal regulations

were needed at the time for sewage

treatment effluent wells.

22978 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2001 / Proposed Rules

2. Public Comments

EPA received only one comment on

its 1995 proposal for these wells. This

commenter asserted that additional

Federal regulations were needed

because only a ‘‘majority’’ (and not all)

of the wells with a high potential to

contaminate USDWs were being

addressed at the State level.

3. 1999 Class V Study

The Class V Study shows that more

than 95 percent of documented sewage

treatment effluent wells are located in

five States: Arizona, California, Florida,

Hawaii, and Massachusetts. Individual

permits are required for the wells in all

five of these States and the wells are

prohibited in some situations (e.g., in

ground water protection zones in

Hawaii). Requirements in other States

with sewage treatment effluent wells

include minimum treatment

requirements prior to injection (e.g.,

secondary treatment, compliance with

MCLs), compliance with MCLs outside

the ground water discharge zone (at a

designated compliance point),

individual permits, and/or compliance

with specified well construction and

operating requirements.

The Study identified approximately

1,700 wells, but only two incidents in

which ground water contamination was

attributed to the injection of treated

sewage effluent through a Class V well.

One of these incidents occurred more

than 25 years ago. Nutrient enrichment

of surface waters, with resulting algal

blooms, has also been reported in offshore waters near some sites where

effluent injection occurs in some coastal

areas in Florida and Hawaii. This issue

is receiving considerable research and

regulatory attention. For example, EPA,

the U.S. Geological Survey, the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration, the Florida Department

of Environmental Protection, the

University of South Florida, the

University of Miami, the Florida Keys

National Marine Sanctuary, and several

other organizations have conducted

studies to evaluate the impacts of

sewage disposal, including the injection

of sewage treatment effluent in Class V

wells, on offshore water quality. These

studies suggest that the operation of

sewage treatment effluent wells and

other disposal practices in the Florida

Keys can lead to rapid nutrient

enrichment and fecal contamination of

marine waters in the Keys, although the

concentrations eventually reaching

surface waters are greatly diluted. To

combat this problem, Florida currently

requires sewage treatment effluent wells

to be individually permitted and to meet

primary drinking water standards at the

point of injection. In addition, owners

or operators of sewage treatment

effluent wells in Monroe County, which

encompasses the Keys, are required as

part of the Class V operating permit

application to provide reasonable

assurance that operation of their wells

will not cause or contribute to a

violation of surface water quality

standards.

4. Proposed Determination

Based on the information available at

this time, including the Class V Study,

EPA concludes that sewage treatment

effluent wells have a low potential to

endanger USDWs due to a combination

of factors. These factors, which may

vary from well to well, include good

injection quality, well construction and

maintenance, and existing regulatory

oversight. The most pressing

documented problem—injectate

migration and contamination of offshore

water and coral reefs in the Florida

Keys—is already being studied by many

researchers and addressed at both the

Federal and State levels. The incidence

of contamination from these wells has

also been rare. Thus, EPA proposes that

no additional Federal regulations

applicable to these wells are needed at

this time. The Agency will use its

existing permitting and enforcement

authorities as necessary to prevent any

sewage treatment effluent wells from

endangering USDWs.

B. Mine Backfill Wells

1. 1995 Proposed Finding

In 1995, EPA found that mine backfill

wells, in general, had a moderate

potential to contaminate USDWs. This

finding was in part based on the fact

that injected slurries had the potential

to react with acid mine water to

mobilize potential ground water

contaminants. However, USDWs

interconnected with, and therefore

potentially affected by the mine backfill

activities, were generally of moderate to

poor quality. In addition, mine backfill

injection had been shown to improve

overall ground water quality in some

situations, even when contaminants

were released from the injected slurry.

The 1995 proposed finding also

recognized that most backfill wells were

regulated under State water quality or

mining programs in addition to the UIC

program. Based on these considerations,

EPA proposed that additional Federal

regulations for these wells were not

needed at the time to ensure the

protection of USDWs.

2. Public Comments

Several comments on the 1995

proposal were supportive of EPA’s

determination that no additional UIC

regulations were needed and

specifically discussed the adequacy of

current requirements for backfilling of

hard rock mines. No commenters

directly opposed the proposed

determination, although one commenter

indicated that they favored the addition

of a general permit authority.

3. 1999 Class V Study

The Study documented that mine

backfill wells are used in many mining

regions of the country to inject a

mixture of water, sand, mill tailings, or

other materials such as coal combustion

ash and flue gas desulfurization sludge

into underground mines. Information

collected and compiled in the Study is

consistent with the information

available in 1995 that showed that

ground water quality within a mine is

often poor (e.g., due to acid mine

drainage) and that backfill wells are just

one of many possible sources (including

natural sources) of ground water

contamination. No incidents of

contamination directly attributable to

these wells were reported, and in some

cases information shows that backfill

wells have negligible or positive effects

on ground water quality. In other cases,

however, backfill material has been

shown to leach contaminants more

readily than predicted by standard tests

and increase contaminant

concentrations in ground water. The

chance that backfill injection will

contribute to ground water

contamination is highly dependent on

site conditions, such as site

hydrogeology, mine mineralogy, backfill

characteristics and injection practices.

More than 90 percent of the

documented mine backfill wells

reported in the Study are located in four

States that have primacy for the Class V

portion of the UIC wells. Two of these

States require individual permits for the

wells while the other two States issue

permits by rule as long as USDW

endangerment does not result. Other

States regulate mine backfill wells by

rule authorizing them and

implementing existing UIC authorities,

or by issuing general (or area) permits or

individual permits.

4. Fossil Fuel Combustion Waste Report

to Congress

Also in 1999, EPA issued a Report to

Congress on Wastes from the

Combustion of Fossil Fuels (EPA 530–S–

99–010). Based on the findings of this

report, comments and additional data

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2001 / Proposed Rules 22979

received, and additional analysis of the

available information, the Agency made

a regulatory determination in May 2000

(65 FR 32214) that additional

regulations under Subtitle D of RCRA

and/or possibly modifications to

existing regulations established under

Surface Mining Control and

Reclamation Act (SMCRA) authority are

warranted when coal combustion wastes

are used to fill surface or underground

mines (i.e., minefilled). In making this

determination, the Agency explained

that although placement of coal

combustion waste in a mine has not

been documented to cause increased

damage to ground water, minefilling is

an increasingly common practice that

could present a danger to human health

and the environment under certain

circumstances (e.g., placement directly

into the ground water). EPA found that

available information indicates that if

the chemistry of the mine relative to the

chemistry of the coal combustion wastes

is not properly taken into account, the

addition of coal combustion wastes to

certain environmental settings can lead

to an increase in hazardous metals (e.g.,

arsenic) released into the environment.

The Agency also noted that management

of coal combustion wastes in the

presence of acid-generating pyritic

wastes has caused metals to leach from

the combustion wastes at much higher

levels than are predicted by leach test

data for coal combustion wastes when

strongly acidic conditions are not

present. Further, the Agency noted that

a recent study of cement kiln dust

showed that placement directly in

contact with ground water led to

substantially greater release of

hazardous metal constituents than EPA

predicted would occur when not placed

in ground water.

In addition, EPA explained that there

are few States that operate

comprehensive programs that

specifically address the unique

circumstances of minefilling, making it

more likely that damage to human

health or the environment could go

unnoticed. In particular, the Agency

found that government oversight has not

‘‘caught up’’ with recent and rapidly

expanding minefilling of coal

combustion wastes and that serious gaps

exist in State programs, such as a lack

of adequate controls and restrictions on

unsound practices, e.g., no requirement

for ground water monitoring and no

control or prohibitions on waste

placement in the aquifer.

5. Proposed Determination

Based on the information available at

this time, EPA concludes that mine

backfill wells generally have a low

potential to endanger USDWs because

no incidents of contamination directly

attributable to these wells were

reported, and in some cases information

shows that backfill wells have negligible

or positive effects on ground water

quality. As discussed above, however,

injection of coal combustion wastes may

threaten ground water under some

circumstances. The Agency has recently

initiated efforts to improve its

understanding of this potential threat to

ground water and address it for both

surface and underground minefilling

(including underground injection) using

the regulatory authorities of RCRA and/

or SMCRA. As a result, EPA proposes

not to develop any additional Federal

UIC regulations applicable to mine

backfill wells at this time. Rather, the

Agency will continue to assess any

potential endangerment of USDWs by

individual mine backfill wells and

address any such potential

endangerment with existing permitting

and enforcement authorities and any

new requirements to be developed

under RCRA and/or SMCRA.

C. Storm Water Drainage Wells

1. 1995 Proposed Finding and 1998

Proposal

EPA found that storm water drainage

wells had a moderate potential to

endanger USDWs. This proposed

finding considered the fact that storm

water can acquire contaminant loads

from streets, roofs, landscaped areas,

industrial areas, and constructions sites.

The most significant concern identified

was wells located in industrial settings

(e.g., near loading docks, process areas)

where chemical spills may occur and

enter the well unless a physical barrier

(e.g., berm) is present to contain a spill.

In other settings, EPA found that storm

water would normally not contain

contaminants in concentrations that

exceed drinking water standards.

Moreover, available contamination

studies did not show that area-wide

degradation of ground water quality had

resulted from storm water drainage

wells.

Based on this information, EPA

proposed not to develop any additional

Federal UIC regulations applicable to

storm water drainage wells at that time.

However, recognizing the potential

concern associated with such wells at

industrial sites, EPA proposed to

categorize storm water drainage wells

located in industrial settings as

industrial wells unless an adequate

barrier is in place to prevent spilled

materials from entering the well.

According to the 1995 proposal, these

so-called ‘‘industrial drainage’’ wells

were to be addressed with additional

guidance as well as outreach and

education to make sure they did not

endanger USDWs.

The Agency extended this proposal

for storm water drainage wells at

industrial sites as part of the 1998

proposal. Specifically, the Agency

proposed that industrial drainage wells

would be subject to the proposed new

requirement to meet MCLs at the point

of injection, just like other kinds of

Class V industrial wells. This new

proposal, however, was predicated on

EPA’s ability to establish a clear and

enforceable definition of an industrial

drainage well that would be subject to

the new requirement, versus a storm

water drainage well at an industrial site

that would not be subject to the new

requirement because it had a low

potential to receive chemical spills or

highly contaminated drainage. The 1998

proposal specifically requested public

comment on the practicality of making

this distinction (see 63 FR 40598, July

29, 1998 for more detail).

2. Public Comments

No comments were received that

opposed EPA’s 1995 proposed

determination that additional Federal

UIC regulations were not needed for

storm water drainage wells. However,

some commenters opposed EPA’s

approach to considering wells located in

industrial settings to be industrial wells.

In particular, some commenters asserted

that industrial settings and acceptable

barriers were not sufficiently well

defined. Other commenters indicated

that the barrier requirement was

impractical, that sound management

practices are at least as effective as

physical barriers in preventing

contaminants from reaching a well, and

that storm water wells at service stations

should not be regulated as industrial

wells.

In response to the 1998 proposal,

some commenters supported EPA’s

revised proposal that wells receiving

storm water in industrial settings be

considered storm water wells (rather

than industrial wells) even if they had

the potential to receive waste due to

leaks, drips, and spills as long as the

amounts of waste would be

insignificant. Other commenters

maintained that wells with the potential

to receive any leaks, drips, or spills

should be considered industrial wells.

Many commenters expressed concern

about EPA’s proposed distinction

between storm water drainage wells and

industrial drainage wells at industrial

facilities and requested that EPA make

the distinction between the two types of

wells more clear and definitive. Still

22980 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2001 / Proposed Rules

3The Agency considers systems that do not

receive solely sanitary waste to be industrial wells

rather than LCSSs.

other commenters requested that all

storm water wells be subject to stringent

requirements, with some commenters

specifically suggesting a ban of storm

water drainage wells in source water

protection areas, in part due to their

vulnerability to spills and misuse.

3. 1999 Class V Study

The Study identified approximately

71,000 documented storm water

drainage wells and estimated that

approximately 248,000 may actually

exist in the United States. Despite this

large number of wells operating

throughout the country, the Study

reports only 12 documented incidents of

contamination of ground water by storm

water drainage wells; eight of these

incidents were associated with storm

water drainage from industrial/

commercial activities. In addition, the

Study identified storm water drainage

wells as potentially vulnerable to spills

or illicit discharges if they are located

near roadways, parking lots, and areas

of commercial/industrial activities.

However, these problems are more

hypothetical than actual. About half of

the States with storm water drainage

wells permit these wells by rule while

the other half have individual permit/

registration systems. Four States ban the

wells entirely or under certain

circumstances. In addition, when

industrial stormwater drainage wells are

found, EPA Regions or States require

them to either close or get a permit.

4. Proposed Determination

Based on the information available at

this time, including the Class V Study,

EPA concludes that additional Federal

regulations under the UIC program are

not required at this time. The available

information indicates that

endangerment of USDWs by storm water

drainage wells occurs only rarely,

considering the relatively small number

of contamination incidents relative to

the number of wells known or estimated

to exist. Although there is a concern that

storm water drainage wells may be

vulnerable to spills and illicit

discharges, there is little evidence that

this is a problem other than at industrial

facilities. Even at industrial facilities,

endangerment of USDWs by storm water

drainage wells does not appear to be a

widespread problem but instead is

limited to isolated, relatively infrequent

incidents. To a much lesser extent, this

proposal is also based on the

impracticality (as supported by public

comments on the 1998 proposal) of

distinguishing between industrial

drainage wells that might be subject to

additional regulations and other storm

water drainage wells that would not.

Therefore, any attempt to target a new

regulation to the few isolated cases that

might pose an endangerment would also

capture and impose needless burdens

on many wells that are not a concern.

EPA believes the situation would be

better addressed by continuing to use

existing authorities to close or otherwise

address problem wells on an individual

basis to prevent these wells from

endangering USDWs. In doing so, the

Agency will coordinate the efforts of the

UIC program with those of the National

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

(NPDES) storm water program.

D. Large-Capacity Septic Systems

1. 1995 Proposed Finding

EPA found that large-capacity septic

systems (LCSSs) do not pose a

significant national problem. This

assessment is different from that

contained in the 1987 Report to

Congress on Class V Injection Wells

(EPA 570/9–87–006) because that report

considered systems that receive

industrial and commercial wastes

whereas LCSSs as now defined receive

only sanitary waste.3 In addition, the

Report to Congress considered singlefamily systems, which are not within

the scope of the UIC program. EPA also

found in 1995 that insufficient spacing

between systems was the major cause of

ground water contamination from

LCSSs. The Agency concluded that land

use planning and siting requirements

tailored to local conditions by State and

local authorities, coupled with

additional UIC program implementation

and technical guidance, was the most

effective approach to protecting USDWs.

2. Public Comments

Some commenters supported EPA’s

proposed finding that no additional UIC

regulations were required as well as the

Agency’s plan to issue guidance, while

some other commenters argued that

LCSSs should be excluded from UIC

regulation altogether. Other commenters

supported additional Federal

regulations, including suggestions that

EPA require ground water elevation

monitoring, establish monitoring

provisions and management strategies to

address loss of system integrity, require

individual permits, or ban septic

systems in sensitive ground water areas.

One commenter argued that State and

local programs with tailored standards

to prevent ground water endangerment

by LCSSs were not in place.

3. 1999 Class V Study

The Study identified three

documented cases of ground water

contamination incidents attributable to

LCSSs and 24 documented cases of

system failures where the extent of

resulting ground water contamination, if

any, is not known. Thus, the prevalence

of contamination cases appears to be

low relative to the number of systems in

use (approximately 350,000), even if

there are additional LCSS failures

(which seems likely) that were not

identified during the Study. The Study

also found that LCSSs are used

nationwide and that although all States

have applicable regulations, the

regulations vary from stringent siting,

construction, and operating

requirements to general construction

permitting. State regulations also vary

with respect to the size standard

definitions that determine which

systems are considered ‘‘large’’ (and

thus subject to UIC regulation) rather

than small.

4. Guidelines for Management of Onsite

Wastewater Systems

On October 6, 2000, EPA published

for review and comment a draft of its

Guidelines for Management of Onsite/

Decentralized Wastewater Systems and

an outline for a guidance manual that

will supplement the guidelines

addressing all sizes of septic systems.

EPA’s development of these guidelines

was described in the Clean Water

Action Plan released by the Agency in

1998 and is in response to State agency

reports that septic systems, which are

predominantly single family septic

systems, constitute the third most

common source of ground water

contamination because systems have

failed due to inappropriate siting or

design or inadequate long-term

maintenance. Thus, the purpose of the

guidelines is to raise the quality of

management programs, establish

minimum levels of activity, and

institutionalize the concept of

management for all sizes of septic

systems. The guidelines apply to both

existing and new septic systems and to

systems of any size for residential and

commercial wastewater treatment and

disposal. The guidelines contain a set of

model programs that rely on

coordinating responsibilities and

actions among the State, tribal or local

regulatory agency, the management

entity or service provider, and the

system owner.

5. Proposed Determination

Based on the information available at

this time and the actions the Agency is

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2001 / Proposed Rules 22981

currently undertaking to improve the

performance of septic systems through

the development of management

guidance, EPA concludes that

additional Federal regulations under the

UIC program are not required at this

time. This conclusion is reached

because (1) based on the results of the

Class V Study, actual contamination

from these wells is relatively isolated

and (2) an additional layer of Federal

UIC requirements, placed on top of

existing State and local LCSS

regulations, would not be effective in

further preventing endangerments from

these wells. EPA believes that the

development and implementation of

management guidance is a preferable

approach to development of additional

UIC requirements for preventing

endangerment of ground water by

LCSSs for several reasons. First, the

approach is comprehensive—it address

all types and sizes of septic systems, of

which LCSSs regulated under the UIC

program are just one small part. Second,

use of an integrated and comprehensive

approach for all septic systems will

expedite implementation and avoid

potential confusion or disruption of

current programs that have varying

approaches to distinguishing ‘‘large’’

from ‘‘small’’ systems. Third, the

management guidance approach is

designed to accommodate regional

differences in environmental sensitivity

and the level of management activities

needed to achieve water quality and

public health protection. Finally, this

approach avoids the additional

administrative burden on States and the

regulated community that would come

from additional Federal UIC regulations

that the Agency believes are not likely

to be effective in preventing

endangerments from these wells. This is

chiefly due to the fact that existing State

and local requirements are already more

specifically tailored to local hydrologic

conditions than new Federal UIC

regulations could be. Adding another

layer of generalized Federal

requirements will not add any real safe

guards in protecting underground

sources of drinking water. EPA believes

that any gap in environmental

protection associated with these wells is

caused by a lack of effective and proper

implementation, not a lack of standards;

thus additional standards would not

address this problem. Rather, EPA’s

approach is to spur better

implementation of existing standards.

E. Agricultural Drainage Wells

1. 1995 Proposed Finding

Based on the 1987 Report to Congress,

EPA found that agricultural drainage

wells have a high potential to

contaminate USDWs because they may

inject sediment, nutrients, pesticides,

metals, and pathogens. The Agency also

found that additional Federal UIC

regulations for agricultural drainage

wells were not likely to be effective in

protecting USDWs in agricultural areas

due to the wide range of contamination

sources such as fertilizer and pesticide

application and land use practices. In

addition, EPA found that agricultural

drainage wells were concentrated

primarily in three States. As a result,

EPA concluded that it could best

achieve the goal of protecting USDWs

from contamination by agricultural

drainage wells by assisting States in

promoting the use of best management

practices (BMPs) that are best suited to

local conditions and to addressing

potential ground water contamination

sources in a holistic fashion. EPA

proposed not to develop any additional

Federal UIC regulations applicable to

agricultural drainage wells and instead

to rely on technical guidance, existing

authorities (such as requiring a permit

under 40 CFR 144.12), and other Agency

programs targeted at improving the

quality of agricultural runoff.

2. Public Comments

One commenter opposed EPA’s

finding that no new UIC regulations

were necessary or appropriate given

other EPA reports that indicated

agricultural runoff was a widespread

threat to drinking water quality in the

midwest. Another commenter indicated

that EPA’s finding failed to meet the

requirements of the SDWA because the

Agency may choose not to regulate only

if it demonstrates that injection will not

endanger USDWs. Two commenters

indicated that the guidance document

that EPA proposed to develop to

facilitate implementation of BMPs

should be developed with State input

and public review and comment.

3. 1999 Class V Study

The Class V Study identified four

documented cases of ground water

contamination clearly attributable to

agricultural drainage wells. Two of

these cases occurred in the 1970’s. In

addition, six other studies point to

agricultural drainage wells as

contributing to the more general

problem of nitrate contamination in

ground water in agricultural areas. The

Study also found that the potential for

agricultural drainage wells to endanger

USDWs is highest when the wells are

located near animal waste management

areas such as manure lagoons and/or in

settings where manure is land applied;

however, no actual cases of

contamination involving spills or leaks

from manure lagoons migrating through

agricultural drainage wells are known to

have occurred. In addition, the Study

found that more than 95 percent of the

approximately 1,100 documented wells

in the country are concentrated in just

five States (Idaho, Iowa, Ohio, Texas,

and Minnesota). Four of these five

States require individual permits/

authorizations or ban the wells under

certain circumstances. For example,

Iowa bans agricultural drainage wells in

areas that have anaerobic lagoons or

earthen manure storage structures, and

Minnesota bans wells that inject into an

aquifer (i.e., saturated zone).

4. Concentrated Animal Feeding

Operations Proposal

On December 15, 2000, the EPA

Administrator signed proposed

revisions to the NPDES permit

regulations and effluent guidelines that

would address the water quality impacts

of manure, wastewater, and other

process waters generated by

concentrated animal feeding operations

(CAFOs) (66 FR 2960, January 12, 2001).

The proposal, which is a step in

implementing the EPA and U.S.

Department of Agriculture’s Unified

Strategy for Animal Feeding Operations

developed in March 1999, would apply

to as many as 39,000 CAFOs across the

country. According to alternate

definitions that were proposed, CAFOs

would be defined as facilities that

maintain anywhere from 300 to more

than 1,000 ‘‘animal units’’ in

confinement, including cattle, swine,

turkeys, chickens, horses, sheep or

lambs, and ducks. The rule would apply

to production areas at CAFOs (animal

confinement areas, manure storage

areas, raw material storage areas, and

waste containment areas) and areas

under the control of CAFO owners or

operators where manure is land applied.

The proposal explicitly recognizes

and addresses the risk of animal wastes

from CAFOs migrating through

agricultural drainage wells into ground

water that has a direct hydrologic

connection to surface waters.

Specifically, the proposal would

prohibit the application of animal

wastes within 100 feet of sinkholes and

intake structures or agricultural well

heads. EPA requested comment on the

presence of such features in crop land

and the extent to which the 100-foot

setback around such features would

interfere with the land application of

manure.

The proposal includes several other

features that would have the effect of

protecting ground water quality and

reducing the endangerment associated

22982 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2001 / Proposed Rules

with agricultural drainage wells at or

near CAFOs. For example, for animal

confinement and manure storage areas,

the proposal would adopt a zero

discharge requirement with no overflow

allowance for swine, veal, and poultry

CAFOs, would require routine

inspections of the production area to

ensure that wastewater and manure

handling and storage are functioning

properly, and would require proper

closure of manure storage units. The

proposal also would require CAFO

operators to land apply manure at

proper agronomic rates, which would

reduce the potential for excess manure

and associated contaminants to migrate

overland or underground into

agricultural drainage wells.

5. Proposed Determination

Although there are potential concerns

associated with agricultural drainage

wells, EPA does not believe the

available information on contamination

incidents and the potential for these

wells to endanger USDWs suggests the

need to develop additional Federal UIC

requirements at this time. The incidence

of contamination from these wells is

very low. States where the vast majority

of agricultural drainage wells are known

to exist are already implementing

effective programs. The CAFO proposal,

if promulgated, would take a significant

step to address the greatest remaining

threat identified for these wells: the

potential for contamination from large

manure lagoons and from the land

application of manure. EPA will

continue to look for situations where

these and other threats might exist and,

if found, take action on a case-by-case

basis to prevent endangerment using

existing authorities.

F. Industrial Wells

1. 1995 Proposed Finding

In the 1995 proposal, industrial wells

were defined to include Class V motor

vehicle waste disposal wells and other

kinds of wells used to inject industrial

and commercial waste that did not fall

into one of the other proposed

categories of Class V wells. Using this

broad definition, the 1995 proposal

found that some types of industrial

wells may have a high potential to

endanger USDWs. The Agency,

however, proposed that these wells are

best addressed using existing authorities

and that additional Federal UIC

regulations to protect USDWs would be

inappropriate. One of the main reasons

for this position was the diversity in the

types of fluids being injected into

industrial wells, which would make it

difficult to establish one set of national

minimum requirements. Another

important reason was a lack of facilityspecific data that EPA would need to

develop a tailored regulatory approach

appropriate to the different kinds of

industrial wells and their respective

degrees of endangerment.

2. Public Comments

While EPA received some comments

supporting the 1995 proposal for

industrial wells, such as from State

agencies that believed they already had

sufficient authority and knowledge to

address these wells, a number of

commenters opposed the 1995

approach. Much of the opposition came

from the Sierra Club. As discussed in

Section II.B above, the Sierra Club

stated that the diversity of fluids

injected into industrial wells is not

grounds for a decision against

additional Federal regulations and

could be addressed by establishing

targeted regulations for more narrowly

defined subcategories of wells. The

Sierra Club further commented that EPA

has an obligation to collect any

additional facility-specific data deemed

necessary to perform its rulemaking

duties.

3. Subsequent Actions

Based on public comments on the

1995 proposal, and in accordance with

the 1997 modified consent decree with

the Sierra Club, EPA issued a revised

proposal in 1998. This revision

proposed to separate motor vehicle

waste disposal wells from the other

kinds of industrial wells considered in

the 1995 notice, and to either ban motor

vehicle waste disposal wells in ground

water protection areas or to require such

wells to be permitted. Other wells left

in the industrial well category, when

located in ground water protection

areas, would be required to meet MCLs

and other health-based standards at the

point of injection, according to the 1998

proposal. The 1999 final rule expanded

this approach for motor vehicle waste

disposal wells to include Other

Sensitive Ground Water Areas as

defined by the States. A final decision

on how to address the remaining

industrial wells was delayed, mainly

because of continuing public concern

that the industrial well category was

still too diverse and included many

kinds of wells that do not endanger

USDWs. Some State and EPA Regional

UIC programs also maintained that

additional Federal regulations for

industrial wells were unwarranted

because the programs already had ample

authority and were already adequately

addressing these wells.

Therefore, instead of finalizing the

1998 proposal for other kinds of

industrial wells not addressed by the

1999 rule on motor vehicle waste

disposal wells, EPA decided to conduct

further review to decide whether

additional Federal regulations are

needed. This additional review

consisted of the following three

components, which are summarized in

turn below: (1) public notice and review

of additional information on

contamination incidents potentially

attributable to Class V industrial wells;

(2) more detailed study of four specific

types of Class V industrial wells; and (3)

evaluation of Class V UIC program

activities to address industrial wells

using existing authorities.

The NODA EPA published on May 21,

1999 (64 FR 27741) presented additional

information on, among other topics,

contamination incidents potentially

attributable to Class V industrial wells.

That information was collected as part

of the Class V UIC Study, which was

still ongoing at the time, as well as from

separate file searches conducted at the

EPA Region II and Region VIII offices.

All of the information was placed in

EPA’s Water Docket for public review

when the NODA was published. As

noted by several commenters on the

NODA, and as determined upon review

by EPA, these reported incidents do not

provide compelling evidence of

significant problems caused by Class V

industrial wells. The primary limitation

is that most of the incidents are

associated with illegally operating Class

IV (i.e., shallow hazardous waste)

injection wells, which are generally

prohibited under the current UIC

regulations, rather than Class V wells.

EPA recognizes that this problem can be

addressed by greater enforcement of the

existing ban of Class IV wells and does

not necessarily require additional

Federal regulations on Class V

industrial wells. Moreover, many of the

potential contamination incidents

included in the NODA are more than 10

years old and not relevant to today’s

practices, are based on anecdotal

information or secondary references of

questionable credibility, involve

contamination that remained below

levels of concern, are not clearly linked

to Class V wells as opposed to other

pollutant sources, and involve only

possible contamination rather than

actual documented contamination.

Altogether, information from the Class V

Study placed in the NODA revealed

only three documented cases of

contamination that site-specific reports

clearly attribute to the operation of Class

V industrial wells, and two of these

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 88 / Monday, May 7, 2001 / Proposed Rules 22983

cases were discovered in the 1970’s and

one was discovered in 1987. This is a

very low contamination frequency

considering the thousands of wells

estimated to be operating, and it does

not suggest a widespread current

problem that warrants new Federal

regulations.

The Class V Study also included a

more detailed examination of four

specific types of Class V industrial

wells: (1) Wells used to dispose of

washwater at carwashes that do not

clean undercarriages or engines; (2)

wells used to dispose of food

preparation-related wastewater and food

processing equipment or facility wash

down water; (3) wells used to inject

fluids from laundromats where no

onsite dry cleaning is performed or

where no organic solvents are used for

laundering; and (4) wells used to inject

noncontact cooling water that contains

no additives and has not been

chemically altered. EPA does not

believe the information compiled for

these well types, presented in Volumes

4, 6, 8, and 22, respectively, of the Class

V Study report, demonstrates a potential

to endanger that warrants additional

regulation. For example, across all four

well types, the Study found only one

documented contamination incident

(involving a lobster processing/holding

facility in Maine) and two possible

contamination incidents (involving

carwashes in Hawaii). There remains

concern about some wells at carwashes

being vulnerable to spills or illicit

discharges when an attendant is not

onsite, but the Study did not find

evidence showing that such problems

associated with carwash wells are

actually occurring and warrant the

development of new UIC regulations.

EPA also reevaluated how Class V

UIC primacy States in their regions

address industrial wells using existing

authorities. Class V primacy States have

demonstrated the ability to use existing

authorities to take some form of action

to ensure that Class V industrial wells

do not endanger USDWs. Some States

have an outright ban of industrial wells

while other States require permits for

industrial wells. Some States ban the

wells under some situations but permit

them under others. When a previously

unidentified industrial well is

discovered, the existing UIC programs

investigate the situation and decide on

the best way to address it, which may

include requiring the well to close or get

a permit, depending on site-specific

conditions and threats. Such follow up

investigation and action is usually taken

immediately after a Class V industrial

well is discovered, or as soon thereafter

as possible given a State’s workload

relative to available resources to

implement the Class V portion of their

UIC program. Limited resources, not

regulatory authorities, appears to be the

primary factor that would constrain a

primacy State from taking immediate

action to address the risks posed by

Class V industrial waste disposal wells.

Therefore, an additional layer of Federal

regulation would providing no real safe

guards for protecting underground

sources of drinking water.

In States where EPA directly

implements the Class V portion of the

UIC program, the EPA Regional Offices

always address endangering Class V

wells as soon as they are identified, as

a matter of routine policy under the

existing UIC regulations and authorities.

Although the exact nature and timing of

actions required vary from one Regional

Office to the next, the DI programs

typically require endangering industrial

wells to close or get a permit, and

require site investigation and

remediation in response to any

contamination that may have occurred.

Such actions have been found to send

a strong message to owners or operators

of uninventoried industrial wells that

they too should close their wells. EPA

also communicates this message

officially in outreach materials

distributed to well owners and operators

in DI programs and to staff in primacy

States for them to use as part of their

programs.

4. Proposed Determination

The 1999 final rule included new

stringent regulations targeting the

subcategory of Class V industrial wells

believed to have the highest potential to

endanger USDWs at the time of the 1995

proposal: Motor vehicle waste disposal

wells. Further review of the remaining

types of Class V industrial wells (1)

indicates that they have not been the

source of frequent contamination

incidents and (2) confirms that existing

UIC programs in States where most

industrial wells are known to exist are

already using existing authorities to

adequately address these wells and

protect USDWs. As a result, EPA does

not believe there is a need to develop

additional Federal UIC regulations

applicable to Class V industrial wells at

this time. Instead, the Agency will

continue to prevent endangerment from

individual wells using existing

authorities. This effort will include

enforcing the existing prohibition of

Class IV wells to prevent accidental or

illicit abuses of Class V industrial wells

and continuing to provide technical

assistance and support to State UIC

programs, where needed, to make sure

these wells are being adequately

controlled. EPA also will explore

additional opportunities to

communicate UIC requirements and

obligations to certain industry sectors in

association with the effluent guideline

program implemented under the Clean

Water Act.

V. Comment Solicitation

EPA is soliciting public comment on

the underlying data and rationale

supporting this proposed determination

that additional Federal UIC regulations

are not needed at this time to prevent

Class V wells from endangering

underground sources of drinking water.

This proposed determination is based

on The Class V Underground Injection

Control Study (EPA Document Number

EPA/816–R–99–014, dated September

1999) and other information that has

been placed in the public docket for

comment. Also, EPA is soliciting any

new data or information relevant to the

findings in this proposed determination

and the Class V injection well types it

addresses.

Dated: April 30, 2001.

Diane C. Regas,

Acting Assistant Administrator for Water.

[FR Doc. 01–11413 Filed 5–4–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

RIN 1018–AG13

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

and Plants; Notice of New Schedule for

Final Determination of Critical Habitat

for Wintering Piping Plovers

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service,

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of 60-day

delay for final determination of critical

habitat.

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, announce a 60-day

delay in making our final determination

of critical habitat for wintering piping

plovers, subject to further court

proceedings. This additional time will

allow us to complete the analyses

required under section 4(b)(2) of the

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as

amended (Act), for designation of

critical habitat. We will publish our

final determination in the Federal

Register.

DATES: We will make our final

determination on the designation of