[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 7, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68546-68573]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-31048]
[[Page 68545]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part IV
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Parts 9, 144, 145, and 146
Underground Injection Control Regulations for Class V Injection Wells,
Revision; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 234 / Tuesday, December 7, 1999 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 68546]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 9, 144, 145 and 146
[FRL-6482-2]
RIN 2040-AB83
Revisions to the Underground Injection Control Regulations for
Class V Injection Wells
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Today the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is
promulgating revisions to the Class V Underground Injection Control
(UIC) regulations. This rule adds new requirements for two categories
of endangering Class V wells to ensure protection of underground
sources of drinking water. In particular, it: bans existing motor
vehicle waste disposal wells in ground water protection areas and other
sensitive ground water areas with a provision that allows well owners
and operators to seek a waiver from the ban and obtain a permit; and
bans new motor vehicle waste disposal wells and new and existing large-
capacity cesspools nationwide. The preamble also discusses EPA's
decision to postpone finalization of new requirements for the
industrial well category as defined in the proposed rule. EPA believes
it would be worthwhile to further study this well category and will
finalize the rule for industrial wells at a later date.
DATES: This rule will be effective April 5, 2000.
ADDRESSES: The rule and supporting documents, including public comments
and EPA responses, are available for review in the UIC Class V W-98-05
Water Docket at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 401 M Street,
SW., EB57, Washington, D.C. 20460. For information on how to access
Docket materials, please call (202) 260-3027 between 9 a.m. and 3:30
p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. Eastern Time. For technical
inquiries, contact Robyn Delehanty, Underground Injection Control
Program, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (mailcode 4606),
EPA, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC, 20460. Phone: 202-260-1993. E-
mail: delehanty.robyn@epamail.epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulated Entities: Although certain
clarifications to the UIC regulations apply to owners or operators of
any type of Class V well, the entities regulated by additional
requirements are owners or operators of Class V motor vehicle waste
disposal wells and large-capacity cesspools. Potentially regulated
categories and entities include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of regulated entities (if they
Category have a Class V well)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry and Commerce........ Motor Vehicle Facilities: gasoline
service stations, new and used car
dealers, any facility that does any
vehicle repair work (e.g., body shops,
transmission repair shops, and muffler
repair shops).
Large-Capacity Cesspools: residential or
commercial facilities such as
campgrounds, multi-unit residences,
churches, schools.
State and Local Government... Motor Vehicle Facilities: road
facilities, fire stations.
Large-Capacity Cesspools: campgrounds,
rest stops.
Federal Government........... Any Federal Agency that owns or operates
one of the above entities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities, of which EPA is
currently aware, that are potentially regulated by this action. Other
types of entities not listed in the table could also be regulated. To
determine whether your injection well is regulated by this action, you
should carefully examine the applicability criteria in Secs. 144.81 and
144.85 of the rule. 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.
Table of Contents
I. Format and Scope of Rule
II. Background
A. Statutory and Regulatory Framework
B. History of this Rulemaking
1. 1994 Consent Decree With the Sierra Club
2. 1995 Proposed Rule
3. 1997 Modified Consent Decree
4. 1998 Proposed Rule
III. Actions Taken After Close of the Public Comment Period
A. Public Comment
B. National Drinking Water Advisory Council
C. Notice of Data Availability
1. Class V Study
2. Region II and VIII Data
3. Contaminant Occurrence Report
IV. Description of Today's Action
A. Definitions/Terminology
1. Ground Water Protection Areas
2. Sensitive Ground Water Areas
3. Point of Injection
4. Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal Wells
B. Industrial Waste Disposal Wells
C. Coverage of the Rule
1. Large-Capacity Cesspools
2. Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal Wells
D. Ban of Large-Capacity Cesspools
E. Requirements for Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal Wells
1. Ban New Wells and Require Existing Wells to Either Close or
Get a Permit
2. MCLs at the Point of Injection
3. Reclassification of Certain Motor Vehicle Wells
4. Stormwater Wells at Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal Sites
F. Compliance Period
G. Deadlines for Delineations of Covered Areas
1. Drinking Water Source Assessment Program Not Completed On
Time
2. Sensitive Ground Water Areas Not Delineated on Time
3. Assessments for Ground Water Protection Areas Completed
Before UIC Primacy Revisions are Approved
H. Pre-closure Notification
I. Exclusion Criteria for Cesspools and Septic Systems
J. Other Amendments
1. Categories of Class V Wells
2. Sections 144.3 and 146.3--Definitions
3. Sections 144.6 and 146.5--Classification of Wells
4. Existing Regulations Being Reiterated or Replaced in 40 CFR
Part 144, Subpart G
5. Part 145--State UIC Program Requirements
6. Sections 144.23 and 146.10--Class IV Wells
V. Cost of the Rule
A. Methodology Overview
1. Revised Estimates of the Numbers of Affected Wells
2. Phase-in Assumptions
3. Higher Closure Costs
B. National Cost of the Rule
C. Facility Impacts
VI. Effect on States With Primacy
VII. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
B. Children's Health Protection and Executive Order 13045
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small
Business
[[Page 68547]]
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 USC 601 et
seq.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Unfunded Mandates
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
I. Environmental Justice
J. Congressional Review Act
I. Format and Scope of Rule
Today's notice consolidates Class V UIC regulations in a new
Subpart G to 40 CFR Part 144. This subpart is written in a simple-to-
understand, plain-English format. Before reading the rest of this
preamble, Class V well owners/operators should review the final
regulation that presents the enforceable legal requirements they need
to know about. This preamble does not repeat many of the requirements
contained in the final rule, but rather provides background and
additional rationale not included in the regulation.
II. 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 is designed 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 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), and June 29, 1995 (60 FR 33926).
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 by
regulation to prescribe a UIC program for such States. These direct
implementation (DI) programs 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 Class V UIC Programs in Indian Country are directly
implemented by EPA. Therefore, for the remainder of this preamble,
references to DI Programs include Class V programs in Indian Country.
B. History of This Rulemaking
1. 1994 Consent Decree With the Sierra Club
On August 31, 1994, EPA entered into a consent decree with the
Sierra Club that required that no later than August 15, 1995, the EPA
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.
2. 1995 Proposed Rule
On August 15, 1995, the Administrator signed a notice of proposed
rulemaking that proposed a regulatory determination and minor revisions
to the UIC regulations for Class V injection wells (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 underground sources of drinking water (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.
EPA received many comments that supported the Agency's proposal to
not impose more regulations for Class V wells. However, EPA also
received a number of comments that raised concerns about the proposal.
In particular, several commentors questioned whether a UIC program
without additional requirements for relatively high-risk well types
would prevent endangerment to drinking water sources as required by the
SDWA. Others questioned whether the proposal was really the best EPA
could do given the known threat to USDWs that some wells present.
3. 1997 Modified Consent Decree
Based on comments received on the 1995 proposal, EPA decided to
reconsider that 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 discharges the Administrator's
rulemaking obligation under section 1421 of the SDWA with respect to
those types of Class V injection wells presently determined to be high
risk for which EPA does not need additional information. A thirty-day
extension was granted; the Administrator signed the notice on July 17,
1998. The Administrator is required to sign a final determination for
these endangering Class V wells by no later than October 29, 1999,
although the decree provides the Administrator with discretion to
exercise another 30-day extension.
Second, by no later than September 30, 1999, EPA must complete a
study of all Class V wells not included in the first rulemaking on
endangering Class V injection wells. EPA has completed this study.
Based on this study, EPA may find that some of these other types of
Class V wells also pose an endangerment to drinking water.
Third, by no later than April 30, 2001, the EPA Administrator must
sign a notice to be published in the Federal Register proposing to
discharge the Administrator's rulemaking obligations under section 1421
of the SDWA with respect to all Class V injection wells not included in
the first rulemaking for Class V injection wells. The Administrator
must sign a final determination for these remaining Class V wells by no
later than May 31, 2002.
[[Page 68548]]
4. 1998 Proposed Rule
On July 29, 1998 (63 FR 40586), in response to the first action
required under the modified consent decree, 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 drinking
water. According to this proposal, Class V motor vehicle waste disposal
wells in ground water protection areas (as defined in Section IV.A.1 of
the preamble) would either be banned or would have to get a permit that
requires fluids released in those wells to meet the drinking water
maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) and other health-based standards at
the point of injection. Class V industrial waste disposal wells in
ground water protection areas also would be required to meet the MCLs
and other health-based standards at the point of injection, and large-
capacity cesspools in such areas would be banned.
EPA discussed the 1998 proposal with several stakeholders and small
entity representatives. During January and February of 1998, EPA
convened three stakeholder meetings to inform potentially affected
entities of the requirements under consideration and to solicit
feedback. In addition, as required by the Small Business Regulatory
Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), EPA conducted outreach to
representatives of small entities affected by the rule. In consultation
with the Small Business Administration, EPA identified 17
representatives of small entities that were most likely to be affected
by the proposal.
A Small Business Advocacy Review Panel met for 60 days in 1998 to
identify small entity concerns with the proposed rulemaking. The 1998
proposal incorporated all recommendations on which the Panel reached
consensus (see 63 FR 40590, July 29, 1998).
III. Actions Taken After Close of the Public Comment Period
A. Public Comment
The 1998 proposed rule was initially open for public comment for 60
days. In response to a request to extend the comment period, EPA
published a notice in the Federal Register (63 FR 51882) which reopened
the comment period for an additional 60 days.
Ninety-seven commentors addressed the proposal. EPA has developed a
response to comment document addressing all public comments received on
motor vehicle waste disposal wells and large-capacity cesspools, which
are the well types addressed in this rulemaking. This document is
available at the Water Docket. In addition, some comments are discussed
in today's preamble. Public comment received regarding regulation of
industrial wells will be considered and addressed when the final
determination for those wells is published.
B. National Drinking Water Advisory Council
The National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) was
established by the SDWA Section 1446 to provide practical and
independent advice, consultation, and recommendations to the Agency on
the activities, functions and policies related to the SDWA. At its
April 1997 meeting, NDWAC decided to form a Federal Advisory Committee
Act (FACA) working group to address the Class V Underground Injection
Control and Source Water Protection Program integration issues.
The EPA UIC and Source Water working group represents a broad range
of public interests including: State, federal and local government
representatives; public interest groups, including environmental
organizations; universities; industry; and utility operators. The group
met twice in 1999 to discuss the proposed Class V regulation, as well
as issues addressed in public comment.
The full NDWAC council considered the working group's conclusions
during their May 1999 meeting. The full council then made formal
recommendations to the Administrator.
C. Notice of Data Availability
EPA published a notice of data availability (NODA) and further
request for comment related to the 1998 proposed rule on May 21, 1999
(64 FR 27741). A total of 14 public comment letters were received in
response to this request.
The NODA was published in response to additional information
received during and after the close of the comment period. It outlined
additional data and issues EPA was considering in developing the final
rule, including the following information that is discussed in separate
sections below: contamination incident information and injectate
quality data from the Class V study; a draft report on contaminant
occurrence in public water systems; and injectate quality and
contamination incident data from EPA Regions II and VIII. Two other
categories of information presented in the NODA, Class V well closure
cost data from Penske Truck Leasing Company and Source Water Assessment
Plans submitted to EPA, are discussed in section V.A of today's
preamble relating to the economic impact analysis.
The following sections only address the NODA as it pertains to
motor vehicle waste disposal wells and large-capacity cesspools
targeted in today's rule. As discussed in more detail in section IV.B
of this preamble, several public commentors on the 1998 proposal
questioned the basis for regulating all industrial wells in the same
manner, given the diversity of wells that exist within that category as
it was proposed and the Agency has decided not to go final with the
1998 proposal for industrial wells at this time.
1. Class V Study
EPA has completed a study of Class V injection wells to meet the
requirements of a modified consent decree in Sierra Club v. Browner
(D.D.C. Mo. 93-2644). This consent decree required the Agency to study
Class V wells not included in today's rulemaking. The information was
collected from both State and EPA Regional offices using survey
questionnaires and selected site visits, and from other sources, such
as trade associations, research institutions and universities.
Information from the study will be used to determine if additional
Class V regulations are needed to protect USDWs from Class V injection
wells not regulated by today's rulemaking. The focus of the study
consisted of an information collection effort for 23 subclasses of
Class V wells.
Through the study, States and EPA Regional offices were also asked
to supply information on the three well types addressed in the proposed
rule: motor vehicle waste disposal wells: industrial waste disposal
wells and large-capacity cesspools. Before the study was completed and
the final methods and results were fully documented, information
received on the three well types targeted by the proposed Class V rule
were compiled in a single notebook and made available through the NODA.
The data was presented in three sections. The first section provided
the latest State inventory information for each of the three well types
as reported in survey responses. The second provided information on
contamination incidents identified by the States. The third contained
injectate quality data collected from motor vehicle and industrial
waste disposal wells.
In the NODA, EPA stated its plan to use this new information to
help assess the threat posed by the different well
[[Page 68549]]
types and to better project the number of affected entities. Below, EPA
describes how the recently obtained injectate quality and contamination
case information presented in the NODA supports the Agency's regulatory
determination in today's final rule-making. The new inventory data
presented in the NODA is discussed in Section V of this preamble.
As part of the Class V Study EPA received limited injectate
sampling data for motor vehicle waste disposal wells. In ``Analyses
from Sampling at Class V Industrial and Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal
Wells,'' A. Melcer and N. Wiser, USEPA Region 5, examined the
analytical results of liquid and sludge injectate taken from 26 motor
vehicle waste disposal wells in Indiana, Michigan, and Minnesota.
Approximately 50 percent of the liquid samples collected exceeded MCLs
and approximately 19 percent of the samples exceeded toxicity
characteristic (TC) hazardous waste limits. Approximately 80 percent of
the sludge leachate samples analyzed exceeded MCLs and 30 percent
qualified as hazardous waste. Laboratory results submitted by another
motor vehicle facility indicated that some organic constituents in the
injectate were above MCLs. As a result, the permit for the Class V UIC
well was denied. A database containing thirty cases of soil and/or
ground water contamination caused by the operation of such wells was
also submitted as part of the Study. Most of the contamination cases
are for service stations in New York but the database does not provide
specific details.
Six public commentors said this information did not support the
Agency's proposed high-risk conclusion and a ban for motor vehicle
waste disposal wells. These commentors believed the information shows
that motor vehicle wells can be safely operated under certain
circumstances, that the contamination cases are few in number and
possibly not representative of today's operating practices, and that
the information is too vague and anecdotal to support informed decision
making.
2. Region II and VIII Data
The Region II and VIII data provide additional evidence that fluids
released in motor vehicle waste disposal wells commonly exceed MCLs and
that these wells have been linked with environmental contamination. For
example, one report shows that out of 38 motor vehicle facilities in
the State of New York, 20 had injectate above MCLs entering drywells
and 19 had injectate above MCLs entering septic systems. Out of 27 case
study files reviewed in Region II, nine had documented incidents of
ground water and/or soil contamination. Region VIII submitted both
laboratory reports from motor vehicle waste disposal facilities in
Montana and two reports from South Dakota which included injectate
sampling data. All facilities exceeded primary drinking water standards
in one or more sampling events for volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
and/or heavy metals. For example, benzene was detected in some samples
at 1.1 to 22 times the MCL. Tetrachloroethylene levels were seen
ranging from 1.1 to 38 to 280 times MCL and methylene chloride at 96
times the MCL. Some metals were found to exceed the hazardous waste
toxicity characteristic levels.
Only one commentor addressed these data specifically. This
commentor believed the data support their contention that motor vehicle
wells cannot be categorically classified as high risk. The commentor
noted that less than one percent of all Class V well contamination
cases in Region II involved ground water contamination.
EPA believes the injectate data and contamination cases cited in
the NODA from the study and Regions II and VIII support the 1998
proposal that motor vehicle waste disposal wells warrant additional
federal regulation. The additional information confirm that samples of
injectate exceed the MCLs for volatile organic compounds and metals. In
some cases, contaminants exceeded RCRA toxic characteristic levels.
This data is consistent with information collected to support the
proposed rule making and supports EPA concerns about potential
endangerment of drinking water by these wells. However, the Agency
recognizes that there may be situations in which an owner or operator
of a Class V motor vehicle waste disposal well could implement best
management practices (BMPs) and/or install treatment measures such that
the waste injected would not exceed the MCL or other health based
standards and could therefore remain open without endangering USDWs.
For that reason, today's rule allows owners and operators of existing
Class V motor vehicle waste disposal wells to seek a waiver from the
ban and apply for a permit.
3. Contaminant Occurrence Report
This report summarizes occurrence data from finished water
collected from 14 different State databases for public drinking water
systems. In total, the data include over 10 million analytical results
from over 25,000 public water systems. Only contaminants that were
tested in a significant number of systems (e.g., several hundred or
more) in at least one of the State databases were evaluated in the
report. Twenty-three contaminants known or believed to be associated
with motor vehicle waste disposal wells were selected for analysis.
Each of the 23 contaminants were detected in ground water based systems
at concentrations greater than the MCL.
The results of the analysis show that contaminants associated with
Class V wells occur in public drinking water systems across the nation.
Contaminant occurrence varied widely from State to State. For example,
12.8% and 19.4% of the ground water systems in certain States detected
trichloroethene and 1,1,1-trichlororethane, respectively. Furthermore,
all contaminants were detected at levels that exceeded the MCL. In
certain States, 2.0% of ground water systems exceeded the MCL for
mercury and 5.7% of ground water systems exceeded the MCL for
tetrachloroethylene (PCE). Determining the source of the contamination
was beyond the scope of this report, but the occurrence data clearly
demonstrates that contaminants known to be associated with Class V
wells occur nationally in public water systems.
IV. Description of Today's Action
Today EPA is finalizing additional requirements for motor vehicle
waste disposal wells and large capacity cesspools, to embrace
priorities and help achieve goals defined under the 1996 Amendments to
the SDWA, and to fulfill the first phase of the Agency's requirements
under the 1997 consent decree with the Sierra Club.
Class V wells are currently authorized by rule as long as (1) they
do not endanger USDWs, and (2) the well owners or operators submit
basic inventory and assessment information. If a Class V well may
endanger USDWs, UIC Program Directors can require the owner/operator to
apply for a permit, order preventive actions (including closure of the
well) to prevent the violation, require remediation to assure USDWs are
protected, or take enforcement action. These, and other existing
federal requirements and authorities will continue as basic elements of
EPA's Class V strategy, applicable to all Class V wells in all areas.
Consistent with the 1997 decree, EPA is taking a step-wise approach
to supplement the existing program and ensure Class V injection wells
do not endanger USDWs. This approach
[[Page 68550]]
consists of (1) an initial rule creating additional requirements for
some of the Class V well types determined by EPA, as an initial matter,
to be higher risk, and (2) further study of other types of Class V
wells not covered in the initial rule to provide the factual basis for
further regulatory action, as necessary.
As the first step of its Class V strategy, EPA is today finalizing
additional requirements for two categories of Class V injection wells
determined by EPA to be a source of endangerment to drinking water.
Specifically, the rule covers: (1) Existing motor vehicle waste
disposal wells located in ground water protection areas delineated for
community water systems and non-transient non-community water systems
that use ground water as a source and other sensitive ground water
areas as delineated by States; and, (2) new and existing large-capacity
cesspools and new motor vehicle waste disposal wells nationwide. The
conclusion that these Class V wells pose an endangerment is based on
substantial information and the combined professional judgment of EPA
and State geologists and engineers that are responsible for
implementing the Class V UIC program.
In the case of motor vehicle waste disposal wells, today's rule has
been developed to use and promote linkages between the Class V UIC
program and EPA's State Drinking Water Source Assessment and Protection
Program. Both programs are authorized by the SDWA. The UIC Program is
designed to protect all current and potential USDWs from contamination
by injection wells. The State Drinking Water Source Assessment and
Protection Program is structured to identify all potential sources of
contamination within areas that provide short-term recharge to public
water supply wells and surface water intakes.
The focus on ground water protection areas and other State
delineated sensitive ground water areas is a key element for the
protection of current and future drinking water sources. Areas
delineated under the State Drinking Water Source Assessment and
Protection Program represent, at a minimum, areas designated to receive
top priority for the protection of existing public drinking water
supplies. Sensitive ground water areas are ground water areas
identified by the State as needing additional protection from Class V
wells with injectate likely to endanger drinking water. Consistent with
this prioritization, this rule uses a phased-in approach that targets
motor vehicle waste disposal wells in ground water protection areas
first, and State designated sensitive ground water areas at a later
date. This allows States to prioritize critical ground water areas
initially and phase-in other priority protection areas at a later time.
The decision to regulate motor vehicle waste disposal wells is
based on the high potential for these wells to endanger USDWs. Motor
vehicle waste disposal wells are located throughout the country--mainly
in populated areas--at a variety of facilities, such as automobile
service stations, car dealerships, automotive repair shops, and
specialty repair shops (e.g., transmission shops, muffler shops, body
shops). They tend to be shallow, with injection occurring into or above
USDWs. They also tend to be uncased, which could allow contaminated
fluids to move more easily into USDWs. Given all of these factors, the
quality of fluids they inject becomes very important in determining
whether these wells are a threat to USDWs.
Although the development and use of BMPs by the automotive industry
have improved recycling and waste disposal practices over the past
decade, EPA is concerned about motor vehicle-related facilities which
inject fluids with little or no treatment. These fluids, which may be
injected intentionally for waste disposal or accidentally as a result
of spills or leaks, include spilled gasoline and oil, waste oil,
grease, engine cleaning solvents, brake and transmission fluids, and
antifreeze. Such fluids contain potentially harmful contaminants, often
in high concentrations. For example, fluids containing waste oils or
gasoline generally include benzene, toluene, xylenes, and other
volatile contaminants. Waste oils and antifreeze also contain some
priority pollutant heavy metals, such as barium, cadmium, chromium, and
lead. Other contaminants that may be injected include methylene
chloride, a compound found in many degreasers, and ethylene glycol, a
component of antifreeze. All of these contaminants can be toxic above
certain levels. Some, such as benzene and toluene, have the potential
to cause cancer.
Data collected for the 1987 Report to Congress and from later EPA
Regional investigations indicate that fluids being injected may exceed
health-based limits for contaminant levels in water by 10 to 100 times
(see p. 5-19 of the August 1989 Class V Task Force Report available in
the docket). These data were confirmed for a number of motor vehicle
service stations during the implementation of a 1991 National
Administrative Order addressing failures to submit inventory
information required under 40 CFR 144.26 and 146.52(a). Analyses of
fluids disposed at a group of facilities subject to this order found a
total of 13 contaminants present in concentrations above the drinking
water MCL, although not all contaminants exceeded the MCL in every
sample at every facility (see Data from the National Administrative
Order on Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal Wells, March 16, 1998, available
in the docket). For example, benzene concentrations exceeded the
drinking water MCL at 19 of the 20 facilities tested and in 32 of 35
samples analyzed. The highest measured benzene concentration was 40
times the MCL. Similarly, arsenic exceeded the MCL at 11 of 17
facilities and in 18 of 30 samples, with the highest arsenic
concentration being 31 times the MCL.
The injection of used petroleum products may leave behind an oily
residue within the wells. A 1995 report on natural bioattenuation of
hazardous organic compounds in the subsurface states: ``Most organic
contaminants, however, enter the subsurface as an oily liquid, such as
a fuel spill or release of chlorinated solvent. Groundwater moving
through the material dissolves a small portion of the contaminant,
which becomes a plume of groundwater contamination. Because the
contaminant mass in the oily material is much greater than that
dissolved in the groundwater, the spill can continue to maintain the
plume more or less indefinitely. As the plume moves away from its
source natural biological processes may attenuate the contamination in
the groundwater.'' 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Anderson, William, Innovative Site Technology,
Bioremediation, Chapter 3.4, page 1, 1995
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of instances where motor vehicle waste disposal wells have
endangered USDWs include a case in Missoula, Montana, a sole-source
aquifer area, where investigations starting in June of 1988 discovered
that PCE from operating drainage wells at auto service stations had
contaminated community wells serving approximately 45,000
people.2 3 Three community wells were closed and
another 15 have elevated levels of PCE. In Gilford, New Hampshire, a
March 1988 assessment of a site with a garage, a tire center, auto body
shop, and a U.S. Army Reserves maintenance shop discovered that
operating floor drains had contaminated
[[Page 68551]]
the ground water, the soil, and an on-site water supply with
PCE.4 In Exton, Pennsylvania, trichloroethylene (TCE), PCE,
and 1,1,1-trichloroethane from a stone bed drain field connected to
floor drains of an auto repair/body shop operating until 1984,
contaminated ground water that supplies drinking water to about 76,700
people.5 In Liberal, Kansas, solvents disposed in a septic
system by an engine repair shop resulted in volatile organic compound
(VOC) contamination of several water supply wells in 1982;
concentrations of VOCs in the septic system were as high as 32,000 ug/
l.6 As presented in Section III.C, additional data from
Region II, Region VIII and the Class V study show exceedences of the
MCLs for volatile organic compounds and metals in Class V motor vehicle
waste disposal well injectate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Background Paper prepared by Alan English, Missoula City-
County Health Department for U.S. EPA Underground Injection Control
Program, February 1992.
\3\ An Investigation of the Volatile Organic Content of Sludges,
Soils and Liquids Entering the Missoula Aquifer from Selected
Sources,'' prepared by the Missoula City-County Health Department,
Environmental Health Division, Contributors: Tom Barger and Alan
English, July 27, 1990.
\4\ Background information titled ``5X28 Service Station,
Gilford, NH'' available in the docket. This background information
was obtained from U.S. EPA Region 1 staff in May 1990.
\5\ Superfund Site Fact Sheet, A.I.W. Frank/Mid-County Mustang
Site, Pennsylvania, EPA ID# PAD004351003, Last Update: March 1998.
http://www.epa.gov/reg3hwmd/super/aiwfrank/pad.htm.
\6\ Site Description Printout for the Panhandle Eastern Pipeline
Site, from Teresa Hattan, Kansas Department of Health and
Environment, July 15, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA believes many of the industries that operate motor vehicle
waste disposal wells are making efforts to implement best management
practices, waste minimization techniques, and recycling to reduce their
impact on the environment and lower operating costs. However, more
recent information presented in the NODA and EPA's experience
implementing Class V programs across the country indicate that
contamination of drinking water supplies from endangering motor vehicle
waste disposal wells is a problem that still needs to be addressed.
Some commentors opposed the proposed approach for motor vehicle
waste disposal wells. They felt motor vehicle waste disposal wells did
not pose a risk to USDWs when located in ground water protection areas
and should not be banned. They contended that the industry has
instituted BMPs and recycling, and therefore, are no longer disposing
of motor vehicle wastes in these wells. While EPA agrees that the use
of BMPs and recycling have improved, motor vehicle waste disposal wells
in ground water protection areas and sensitive ground water areas still
pose a potential endangerment to USDWs. However, there are indications
that with treatment, BMPs and recycling, facilities can meet MCLs and
continue to use their wells. Therefore, existing motor vehicle waste
disposal wells are banned in ground water protection areas and other
sensitive ground water areas, but owners and operators can seek a
waiver from the ban and obtain a permit. Additionally, EPA is banning
new motor vehicle waste disposal wells statewide. The Agency will also
issue guidance on conversion of motor vehicle wells to another type of
Class V well if owners and operators take certain steps to prevent
motor vehicle waste from entering the well. EPA has also extended the
compliance time from 90 days to one year to enable owners and operators
to explore all options available for compliance.
Large-capacity cesspools have a high potential to contaminate USDWs
because: they are not designed to treat sanitary waste; they frequently
exceed drinking water MCLs for nitrates, total suspended solids and
coliform bacteria; and, they may contain other constituents of concern
such as phosphates, chlorides, grease, viruses, and chemicals used to
clean cesspools such as trichloroethane and methylene chloride.
Pathogens in untreated sanitary waste released into large-capacity
cesspools could contaminate the water supply sources such as transient
systems and pose an ``acute'' risk if consumed (meaning there could be
a serious health risk with a single exposure given the nature of
contamination). This is a particular concern for Class V cesspools
located in hydrogeologic settings that would permit pathogens to
migrate to a ground water supply well that serves a transient system
with inadequate disinfection of the water or individual wells. To
further limit the acute risk associated with large-capacity cesspools,
EPA expanded today's large-capacity cesspool requirements nationwide.
EPA proposed additional requirements for industrial waste disposal
wells to meet the MCLs and other health based standards at the point of
injection. Many commentors questioned why the Agency chose to regulate
a wide range of industries with different disposal practices with one
approach. Some commentors suggested requirements similar to those
proposed for motor vehicle waste disposal wells, to either ban
industrial wells or require site specific permits. Still others felt
the industrial category was too diverse and types of industrial waste
streams should be regulated based on their specific characteristics and
risks. After consideration of these comments, EPA agrees that the
industrial category is diverse and represents a variety of waste
streams. For this reason, EPA is not including requirements for
industrial waste disposal wells in today's final rule. Industrial waste
disposal wells will be studied further and addressed in a future rule
making.
EPA underscores that this initial rule targets certain ground water
protection areas for the purpose of prioritizing national policy. The
rule does not establish differential levels of protection for different
areas, but rather proposes specific measures EPA believes are necessary
to ensure that potentially problematic Class V wells do not endanger
USDWs in the highest priority areas. The prohibition against
endangerment of USDWs, found in Sec. 144.12 of the existing UIC
regulations, continues to apply to all Class V wells and all areas,
whether or not a State has a completed its State Drinking Water Source
Assessment and Protection Program. Section 144.12(a) in particular
provides that no injection-related activity may be conducted ``in a
manner that allows the movement of fluid containing any contaminant
into underground sources of drinking water, if the presence of that
contaminant may cause a violation of any primary drinking water
regulation under 40 CFR part 142 or may otherwise adversely affect the
health of persons.'' Similarly, Sec. 144.12(c) and (d) authorize a
variety of actions if a Class V well may cause a violation of primary
drinking water regulations or otherwise adversely affect the health of
persons.
In addition to Sec. 144.12, other existing UIC authorities continue
to be available to control Class V wells on a case-by-case basis, as
needed to protect USDWs in any area. These can include requiring a
permit under Secs. 144.25 and/or requiring submission of additional
inventory information under Sec. 144.26. In States with EPA-
administered programs, the inventory requirements under Sec. 144.26 can
be supplemented by additional information requirements, including
ground water monitoring, analysis of injected fluids, or submission of
geologic information under Sec. 144.27.
EPA expects and strongly encourages States to use these existing
authorities to take whatever measures are needed to ensure Class V
wells are not endangering USDWs in any other areas beyond ground water
protection areas and sensitive ground water areas. If believed to be
necessary, States should apply the same requirements in this rule to
these and other areas and/or to other Class V wells. Nothing in this
rule precludes a State or local government from promulgating more
stringent requirements above and beyond the existing UIC authorities.
[[Page 68552]]
A. Definitions/Terminology
1. Ground Water Protection Areas
At Sec. 144.85, the proposal specified that only those owners or
operators of motor vehicle waste disposal wells and large-capacity
cesspools that are located in delineated source water protection areas
for community or non-transient non-community water systems that use
ground water as a source must meet the requirements of the rule.
However, EPA's Final Guidance for Source Water Assessments and
Protection Programs (8/97), does not require States to call their
delineated areas ``Source Water Protection Areas'' and the State
Drinking Water Source Assessment and Protection Programs submitted to
EPA to date indicate that States may identify these areas by other
names (e.g., source water assessment areas, ground water areas).
Therefore, to avoid the confusion these terms may cause, the term
``ground water protection areas'' will be used in this rule to identify
areas delineated and assessed under section 1453 of the Safe Drinking
Water Act for community and non-transient non-community water systems
that use ground water as a source , and are therefore subject to this
rule. In cases where the State delineates zones or areas representing
various levels of protection, the State would determine which areas
correspond to ground water protection areas for the purposes of this
rule.
2. Sensitive Ground Water Areas
The phrase ``sensitive ground water area'' was not used in the
proposed Class V rule. However, the proposal recognized that areas
beyond ground water protection areas might warrant additional
protection and requested public comment on whether the new Class V
regulations should apply beyond these areas, possibly statewide, to
ensure protection of USDWs.
EPA received many comments recommending that the rule requirements
extend beyond ground water protection areas in order to protect future
sources of drinking water and to protect the public health of persons
using individual wells. EPA agrees with those commentors and expanded
the requirements to owners or operators of motor vehicle waste disposal
wells located in additional sensitive ground water areas, as designated
by the program director. The phrase ``sensitive ground water areas'' in
this rule refers to ground water areas that are critical for public
health protection because of hydrogeologic and other features that
would cause USDWs to be vulnerable to contamination from the well-types
regulated by this action. A general definition of other ``sensitive
ground water areas'' has been included in the final rule at
Sec. 144.86. This definition should act as a guide to regulators when
delineating sensitive ground water areas. At Sec. 145.23 EPA requires
States, as part of their Class V program revision, to submit a plan for
delineating other sensitive ground water areas (unless the State
chooses to implement the program statewide). Program revisions are
subject to public review and, therefore, the public will have the
opportunity to comment on the States approach to delineating other
sensitive ground water areas. EPA is not requiring States to submit a
plan for ground water protection areas as part of their program
revision because, as required under 1453 of the Safe Drinking Water
Act, each State's Drinking Water Source Assessment and Protection
Program outlines the States plan for conducting ground water protection
area assessments and has already undergone public review and is
undergoing EPA review. EPA also intends to provide States with further
guidance on delineating sensitive ground water areas. Guidance
documents will be made available from EPA Regional Offices or through
the Safe Drinking Water Hotline.
3. Point of Injection
In the proposed Class V rule, the phrase ``point of injection'' was
used at Sec. 144.88 to establish where fluids injected into a well
would be required to meet MCLs and other health-based standards. The
proposal, however, did not define the term ``point of injection.''
Several commentors requested that this term be defined to avoid
confusion. Other commentors expressed concern about where the ``point
of compliance'' would be and suggested various points to measure
compliance, ranging from ``point of use'' to the property boundary.
Others recommended not defining the point of injection, because a
highly prescriptive definition of the ``point of injection'' would be
difficult to implement due to the many different engineering
configurations of Class V wells.
To resolve this issue, EPA sought public comment in the May 21,
1999, NODA on the need for the final Class V regulation to clearly
define the ``point of injection.'' The majority of the commentors on
the NODA supported defining the point of injection for Class V wells as
the distribution box (for the case of septic systems) or the end of the
pipe for injection wells. One commentor stressed the need to give UIC
Directors the authority to determine the point of injection on a case
by case basis.
In response to public comment, EPA has decided to define ``point of
injection.'' Taking into account the difficulties of applying a
specific definition to a variety of wells, ``point of injection'' is
defined as, ``the last accessible sampling point prior to waste fluids
being released into the subsurface environment,'' at Sec. 144.3. For
septic systems, the last accessible sampling point might be the
distribution box, for injection wells the last accessible point prior
to injection would be the end of the pipe. This definition, in addition
to a guidance document, should act as a guide to regulators and Class V
well owners and operators, regardless of well configuration, when
determining the most appropriate sampling point to determine
compliance.
4. Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal Wells
In its proposal, EPA determined that injection wells located in
ground water protection areas that receive waste fluids from the
servicing of motor vehicles pose an endangerment to underground sources
of drinking water. Motor vehicle waste disposal wells are defined at
Sec. 144.81 (16) as follows ``Motor vehicle waste disposal wells
receive or have received fluids from vehicular repair or maintenance
activities, such as an auto body repair shop, automotive repair shop,
new and used car dealership, specialty repair shop (e.g., transmission
and muffler repair shop), or any facility that does any vehicular
repair work.''
B. Industrial Waste Disposal Wells
In the July 29, 1998 notice, EPA proposed additional requirements
for the group of Class V wells categorized as ``industrial'' when
located in ground water protection areas because these well types may
pose an endangerment to underground sources of drinking water. The
proposed industrial well category included a wide range of industries
disposing of wastes from such various industries as animal hospitals,
environmental laboratories, dry cleaners, and oil refineries. In
addition to representing a wide range of industrial discharges, these
wells vary in construction, depth, and operation. The Agency solicited
comment on the appropriateness of designating industrial wells as high
risk and regulating them under this rule.
Based on public comment, EPA now believes that, although these
wells may pose high risks to underground sources of drinking water, the
well category as defined in the proposal may be too diverse to follow
the same regulatory
[[Page 68553]]
approach. EPA believes that more information is needed to formulate an
effective program for these wells and wastestreams. As a result, EPA
has decided to defer finalization of the 1998 proposal for this
category of wells.
C. Coverage of the Rule
1. Large-Capacity Cesspools
The proposed rule banned large-capacity cesspools in ground water
protection areas. However, in the preamble to the proposed rule, the
Agency recognized that there may be instances where pathogens in
untreated sanitary waste released from Class V large-capacity cesspools
could pose an acute heath risk (i.e., a person could become ill by
taking one drink from an affected drinking water supply) and sought
comment on the merits of broadening the coverage of the rule to include
ground water protection areas for transient public water systems and
possibly statewide. Many commentors supported the idea of extending the
ban on large-capacity cesspools, due to concerns over one-time exposure
to pathogens in drinking water. Some commentors supported extending the
ban to ground water protection areas delineated for transient non-
community systems that use ground water as a source, but the majority
of commentors supported statewide coverage, primarily because of the
acute risk these wells pose, the nature of the contaminants and the on-
site disposal alternatives available to owners or operators.
Based on these public comments, EPA has decided to ban new and
existing large-capacity cesspools nationwide. EPA believes that
extending the rule's coverage is the most appropriate course of action
given that many States already ban new large-capacity cesspools, the
acute nature of the risks posed by these wells, and the relative ease
of developing alternative means to dispose of sanitary waste on-site.
2. Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal Wells
The proposal would have regulated motor vehicle waste disposal
wells in ground water-based community and non-transient, non-community
ground water protection areas, but encouraged States to use existing
UIC authorities to ensure Class V wells are not endangering USDWs
beyond those areas. However, the proposal recognized that additional
areas might warrant additional protection and requested public comment
on whether the new Class V regulations should apply to motor vehicle
waste disposal wells beyond ground water protection areas.
One-third of the commentors on this issue opposed expanding the
rule. These commentors believed existing authority adequately protected
USDWs outside of ground water protection areas, EPA would be exceeding
its authority, limited resources and the need for State flexibility
would inhibit implementation of the rule in additional areas, and
additional regulatory burden would be placed on well owners or
operators outside ground water protection areas.
About one-half of the commentors on this subject favored expanding
the requirements for motor vehicle waste disposal wells beyond ground
water protection areas. A number of these commentors specified
additional areas where the regulation should apply, including impaired
ground water areas, critical aquifer protection areas, sole-source
aquifers, aquifer storage and recovery areas, sand/gravel/karst
aquifers, national parks, possible future USDWs, rural areas with
private wells, and the entire State. Some commentors suggested phasing
in additional sensitive ground water areas over time.
Commentors supporting expansion sought to ensure protection of all
USDWs and uniform application of the regulations. Others believed that
expansion of the rule is needed to protect future sources of drinking
water, private drinking wells, and other sensitive ground water areas
not included in ground water protection areas.
The NODA requested comment on an approach to expand the rule beyond
ground water protection areas to other sensitive ground water areas
that the State identified and phasing in the implementation of the rule
in these additional areas. Eleven commentors addressed the addition of
sensitive ground water areas and nine commentors addressed the phased
approach to implementation. For expansion of the rule beyond ground
water protection areas, seven commentors supported the need to protect
additional areas with two of the commentors recommending statewide
coverage of the rule. Three commentors opposed expansion, stating that
limiting the rule to ground water protection areas adequately protected
USDWs. Seven commentors supported phasing in the regulations beyond
ground water protection areas. They agreed that the given time frame
allowed adequate time for owners/operators and States to implement the
rule, and the phase in would assist States in prioritizing areas for
implementation of the rule. Two commentors opposed the phasing in of
any additional sensitive ground water areas.
EPA agrees with those commentors suggesting additional areas need
to be covered by this rulemaking. The State Source Water Protection
Program provides protection for areas directly around public drinking
water supplies and does not consider or protect drinking water sources
that are not currently being used. In addition, limiting the rule to
ground water protection areas does not take into consideration factors
such as contaminants that could readily migrate to existing water
supplies, sole source aquifers, and individual well fields. Therefore,
the Agency feels it is important to extend the rule beyond ground water
protection areas to fulfill its mandate to protect current and future
drinking water sources. Thus, EPA, at Sec. 144.85, regulates existing
motor vehicle wells in both ground water protection areas and other
sensitive ground water areas, as delineated by the Director and bans
new motor vehicle waste disposal wells nationwide. In delineating
sensitive ground water areas, both Primacy States and EPA Regions (for
DI States) should evaluate the hydrogeologic setting and consider such
factors as: the presence or absence of karst topography, fractured
bedrock, sandstone, and/or confining layers; the depth to ground water;
significance as a drinking water source; and future uses of the land.
Primacy States and EPA Regions (for DI States) must implement the rule
for existing motor vehicle waste disposal wells in ground water
protection areas within one year of the completion of the local
assessments, and must delineate sensitive ground water areas by January
1, 2004 and implement the rule in these areas by January 1, 2007.
D. Ban of Large-Capacity Cesspools
As discussed in section IV of this preamble, concerns over
``acute'' health risks have led EPA to extend the ban of large-capacity
cesspools to all large-capacity cesspools nationwide. Separate from
this issue of the rule coverage, however, is whether large-capacity
cesspools should be banned.
The majority of commentors supported the ban. The prevailing
opinion among these commentors was that strong steps need to be taken
to keep pathogens from these wells from entering drinking water
sources. The use of new large-capacity cesspools is recognized as an
inferior method of disposing of waste that can be remedied by the
installation of a septic system and has already been banned by many
States. Thus, in response to the many
[[Page 68554]]
concerns expressed regarding acute contaminants in cesspools, EPA has
banned new and existing large-capacity cesspools nationwide.
E. Requirements for Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal Wells
1. Ban New Wells and Require Existing Wells To Either Close or Get a
Permit
EPA co-proposed a ban and a ban with a waiver for existing motor
vehicle waste disposal wells. The alternative allowing a waiver for
existing wells would include a permit requiring waste fluids to meet
MCLs and other health-based standards at the point of injection, owners
or operators to adopt practices such as BMPs, and provide injectate and
sludge monitoring.
Half of the commentors opposed the idea of waivers, believing a ban
was necessary to prevent endangerment of current and future drinking
water sources. Commentors' concerns with a permit program included:
inadequacy of monitoring and sampling; limited technical knowledge on
the part of many owners/operators to ensure that USDWs are not being
threatened; and the burden on regulating agencies to satisfactorily
implement and enforce a permit program. Pointing to the vulnerability
of motor vehicle waste disposal wells to accidental spills of motor
vehicle fluids, some commentors thought that any well left open would
violate the existing non-endangerment provision in 40 CFR 144.12(a) of
the UIC regulations. Some of these commentors recommended that if the
waiver option was chosen, the permit must: (1) include sampling to
determine the baseline quality of ground water; (2) specify that
injection of waste must not degrade the current quality of the ground
water, or must meet MCLs, whichever is more stringent; (3) include
continued ground water sampling; (4) specify, based on the baseline
quality of ground water, that no new substances can be introduced; and
(5) specify that MCLs, other health-based standards, or Best Available
Technologies (BATs) are utilized, whichever is most stringent.
Some of the commentors favored the waiver option, viewing a ban to
be unnecessary and supporting the additional flexibility a waiver would
allow States and industry. Commentors suggested a range of permit
requirements including monitoring, sampling, training, and technology
requirements. Some States expressed concern with sampling costs, site-
specific criteria, and compliance assurance.
EPA believes there is a high potential for endangerment of drinking
water sources from motor vehicle waste disposal wells located in ground
water protection areas and other sensitive ground water areas. However,
EPA recognizes that treatment technologies and BMPs, if properly
implemented, could allow wastewater to meet MCLs and other health-based
standards at the point of injection. Therefore, today's final rule
promulgates a ban with a waiver option for existing motor vehicle waste
disposal wells. UIC Directors should use their best judgment when
issuing waivers from the ban, and consider factors such as cost
effectiveness, maintenance of treatment systems, potential for
impacting water systems, a facility's compliance history, and records
showing waste recycling.
The specific permit requirements could vary from one well to the
next, but would have to include the following three conditions at a
minimum. First, owners or operators would have to make sure fluids
released in their wells meet the primary drinking water MCLs and other
appropriate health-based standards at the point of injection. Second,
owners or operators would have to follow specified BMPs for motor
vehicle-related facilities. Third, owners or operators would have to
monitor the quality of their injectate and sludge (if present in dry
wells or tanks holding injectate) both initially and on a continuing
basis in order to demonstrate compliance with the MCLs. The rule,
however, does not specify monitoring requirements that must be
followed, leaving those instead to the discretion of the Director to
specify in the permit.
When all of these requirements are put together, EPA believes the
permit would specify the following kinds of monitoring requirements,
but recognizes that States will design monitoring requirements
appropriate to the situation. As a first step, owners or operators
might be required to characterize the quality of their injectate and
any sludge. If liquid from the sludge has chemical concentrations below
the MCLs, owners or operators might be required to analyze the
injectate quarterly for the first three years and then annually if it
is consistently below the MCLs. They also might be required to analyze
their sludge annually. If the injectate is below the MCLs but liquid
from the sludge is above the MCLs, then owners or operators might have
to follow the same monitoring requirements as above plus pump and
properly dispose of their sludge. Finally, if the injectate is above
the MCL and the liquid from the sludge is above the MCL, then the owner
or operator would need to: (1) Install treatment to meet permit
requirements to meet MCLs and other health based standards at the point
of injection; (2) pump and properly dispose of their sludge; (3)
perform quarterly sampling of injectate for the first three years and
then annually if consistently below the MCLs; (4) perform annual
sampling of the sludge; and (5) other requirements established by the
Director to protect USDWs.
Although the rule envisions that States will issue individual
permits, States are not precluded from issuing a general permit to a
group of facilities that have similar characteristics. For instance,
there may be a number of service stations in an area that have similar
waste streams, BMP's, good compliance histories and for which the
permit conditions would be identical. Another example could be a group
of facilities owned by a municipality that are used for a similar
purpose, have similar waste streams and follow that same procedure,
including BMPs. General permits would have to specify the initial and
ongoing monitoring requirements, BMPs, and that MCLs and other health
based standards must be met at the point of injection. State
regulations would have to include provisions for these general permits,
including their conditions and where they could apply.
2. MCLs at the Point of Injection
Under the ban with a waiver option proposed for existing motor
vehicle waste disposal wells, such wells would be allowed to stay open
subject to a permit that, among other things, requires waste fluids to
meet MCLs and other health-based standards at the point of injection.
As discussed in the preamble to the proposed rule, some members of the
Small Business Advocacy Review Panel thought that EPA should allow MCLs
to be exceeded (e.g., by 10 or 100 times) for certain contaminants
under certain conditions. These Panel members pointed out that metals
and some other contaminants are attenuated as they migrate through soil
prior to reaching the water table and are diluted within an aquifer
prior to reaching a drinking water withdrawal well.
The majority of commentors supported the proposal to meet MCLs and
other health-based standards at the point of injection. In general,
these commentors believed that allowing injection at levels above the
MCL would be the same as providing ``a permit to pollute,'' and that it
would be illogical for EPA to use the MCLs as cleanup benchmarks at
Superfund sites, yet allow new ground water contamination by permitting
injection above the MCLs.
[[Page 68555]]
Several of these commentors also believed it was not realistic to
expect small businesses that own or operate motor vehicle waste
disposal wells to be able to determine whether their site-specific
conditions were suitable to safely allow injection at levels higher
than the MCLs.
A few commentors were concerned that MCLs at the point of injection
was not protective enough, believing instead that background
concentrations in ground water should be used as the standard or that
the rule should prohibit the introduction of any potentially hazardous
chemical into USDWs, even when present in concentrations below MCLs.
About a third of the commentors opposed the proposed requirement,
believing that it was unnecessary to protect USDWs where contaminant
dilution and/or attenuation was expected to be significant and that it
would impose an undue burden on well owners or operators.
Based on these public comments, today's final rule requires fluids
released into motor vehicle waste disposal wells to meet MCLs and other
appropriate health-based standards at the point of injection, as one of
the permit conditions that have to be met when such wells remain open
under the waiver option. EPA also believes that developing a set of
conditions within which a motor vehicle waste disposal well could
release fluids that exceed drinking water standards without endangering
USDWs is not a viable option for most small businesses and regulatory
authorities because of the difficulty and expense involved in
collecting the site-specific hydrologic, geologic, and soil information
needed to determine that injection above the MCLs does not endanger
USDWs. EPA believes that requiring MCLs and other health based
standards to be met at the point of injection is necessary to ensure
that motor vehicle waste disposal wells meet the non-endangerment
provision in Sec. 144.12(a). In future rulemaking, the regulatory
controls needed to prevent endangerment from other types of Class V
wells will be evaluated on a case by case basis. House Report 13002
(July 10, 1974) stated that the UIC endangerment standard should be
``liberally construed so as to effectuate the preventive and public
health protective purposes'' of the SDWA (A Legislative History of the
Safe Drinking Water Act, Committee Print, February, 1982, at 564). More
specifically, in defining endangerment, the House Report states that
``actual contamination of drinking water is not a prerequisite either
for the establishment of regulations or permit requirements or for the
enforcement thereof.'' Id.
3. Reclassification of Certain Motor Vehicle Wells
The proposed rule did not address specific conditions or
requirements for converting a Class V motor vehicle waste disposal well
to another kind of Class V well. The preamble to the proposed rule,
however, did discuss how a motor vehicle service facility might
continue to operate its Class V well if all motor vehicle waste fluids
generated at the facility were segregated and only other liquids, such
as stormwater, ice melt, and wastewater from carwashes, were allowed to
enter the injection well. The preamble to the proposed rule suggested
actions that could result in a well being converted, including
performing motor vehicle maintenance in areas that do not drain into
the Class V well, or installing a semi-permanent plug (also known as a
plumber's plug) in the sump outlet leading to the injection well.
The proposal advised that for the use of a semi-permanent plug to
be acceptable, the plug would truly have to be semi-permanent. It could
not be easily removed, as this would create the potential for the well
to remain open and subject to abuse. Because of these concerns, the
proposal specifically requested comment on the use of semi-permanent
plugs, particularly on their limitations and on circumstances where
their use is or is not appropriate.
Most of the public comment received on motor vehicle waste disposal
well conversions addressed the use of semi-permanent plugs, with the
majority opposing their use. Concerns included potential for improper
disposal of wastes, economic incentives to dispose of automotive wastes
in the well, and the regulatory program's inability to maintain an
adequate field presence to ensure such plugs are being properly used.
The majority of these commentors preferred permanent closure of the
well.
Supporters of semi-permanent plugs maintained that inappropriate
wastes would not enter the drain, adding that the flexibility to inject
appropriate fluids while avoiding the costs of well closure is an
important option for small businesses. Commentors suggested provisions
be added to ensure abuse does not occur.
EPA agrees with commentors concerned with the potential misuse and/
or abuse of floor drains in motor vehicle-related facilities. However,
because of the need expressed by small businesses, EPA will allow motor
vehicle waste disposal well conversions at the UIC Directors'
discretion as long as no motor vehicle waste can enter the well. The
Director must ensure that all motor vehicle fluids are physically
segregated from the fluid being injected and the unintentional or
illicit discharge of motor vehicle waste is unlikely based on a
facility's compliance history and records showing proper waste
disposal. Based on the concerns expressed through public comment, the
use of semi-permanent plugs will not be considered as a viable means to
segregate waste. EPA believes that in order to meet the requirements
for well conversion, owners or operators of converted Class V wells in
motor vehicle related facilities will need to implement BMPs. In
addition, in order to meet the requirements for well conversion, owners
and operators must take measures to ensure that motor vehicle waste
fluids are physically segregated from the injection well. EPA plans to
develop a guidance document for the conversion of motor vehicle waste
disposal wells.
4. Storm Water Wells at Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal Sites
During stakeholder meetings and through public comment, commentors
expressed concern over the classification of storm water drainage wells
located at motor vehicle facilities. In the proposed rule, EPA
solicited comment on ways of defining storm water wells and
distinguishing them from motor vehicle waste disposal and industrial
wells. While this final rule does not address industrial or storm water
injection wells, it is important to clarify EPA's position regarding
storm water wells located at motor vehicle facilities.
Storm water drainage wells located at motor vehicle facilities that
are intended for storm water management but that also may receive
insignificant amounts of fuel due to unintentional small volume leaks,
drips, or spills at the pump are not considered motor vehicle waste
disposal wells and are not subject to this rule. The Agency will
develop guidance to assist owners /operators in determining if their
well is a motor vehicle waste disposal or drainage well.
F. Compliance Period
At Sec. 144.87, the proposed regulation provided 90 days after the
local assessment for ground water protection areas is completed for
owners/operators of existing motor vehicle waste disposal wells in
those areas to either close their wells or submit an application for a
waiver, if allowed. The UIC Program Director would have the flexibility
of extending the 90-day deadline for up to one year.
[[Page 68556]]
While one commentor supported the proposed compliance period, the
majority of the commentors opposed the 90-day deadline. Reasons for
opposition included the burden on small businesses and States, as well
as potential difficulties in disseminating information and finding
alternative means for wastewater disposal within that time frame. These
commentors recommended that the deadline be extended anywhere from 180
days to two years, with the majority suggesting a one-year compliance
period.
EPA agrees with the majority of the commentors that a 90-day
compliance period may not be sufficient to comply with the new
requirements. Therefore, EPA has extended the compliance period to one
year after completion of the local assessment for ground water
protection areas. However, EPA strongly encourages owners and operators
who wish to apply for a waiver to do so within 90 days of the
completion of their local assessment for ground water protection areas
to insure they are operating under permit conditions within the one
year compliance period. The additional time will allow State UIC staff
to conduct outreach and will provide owners and operators additional
time to achieve compliance. In addition, as proposed, the UIC Director
may grant a one-year extension if the most efficient compliance option
is connection to a sanitary sewer or installation of new treatment
technologies.
G. Deadlines for Delineations of Covered Areas
1. Drinking Water Source Assessment Program Not Completed On Time
The proposed rule, at Sec. 144.87(b), states that if a State does
not complete its EPA approved Drinking Water Source Assessment Program
for its community water systems and non-transient non-community water
systems by May 2003, the regulations will apply statewide permanently.
This deadline was chosen because it assumed all States would meet the
deadlines in Section 1453 of the SDWA and that EPA would approve an
eighteen month extension for States to complete assessments, which
would be in May of 2003. The proposal requested comments on alternative
approaches.
About one quarter of the commentors on this issue agreed that the
requirements should apply statewide if a State's Drinking Water Source
Assessment Program is not complete by May 2003, noting that this option
would maintain consistency throughout each State.
The remaining commentors on this issue opposed either permanent
statewide application of the rule or the May 2003 deadline. Many of
those opposed were concerned with the burden on owners and operators. A
few commentors asserted that statewide implementation would exceed
EPA's authority under the SDWA, that States do not need an added
incentive to complete Drinking Water Source Assessment Programs, or
that permanent statewide application of the rule would discourage
partnerships between States and owners or operators.
Several commentors suggested variations on the statewide proposal,
such as: phased implementation linked to Drinking Water Source
Assessment completion; exempting wells on a case-by-case basis from a
statewide ban; and, exempting areas of the State where delineations
were completed but Drinking Water Source Assessments were not.
Commentors who opposed the proposal also expressed concern that the
pressure to complete a State's Drinking Water Source Assessment Program
by the May 2003 deadline may hinder a State's effort to develop an
effective program. Other commentors supported an extension in May 2003
if a State could show significant progress on its Drinking Water Source
Assessments or utilizing financial incentives to encourage States to
complete their Drinking Water Source Water Assessment Program on time.
In response to many of these comments, for purposes of this rule
EPA has extended the deadline. The final rule specifies at Sec. 144.87
(b) that the rule applies statewide on January 1, 2004 if the local
ground water assessments for community water systems and non transient
non community water systems under an EPA approved Drinking Water Source
Assessment Program are not completed. The extra time accounts for
possible modifications to State programs submitted during EPA's review
process. Further, the later date provides additional time for affected
owners and operators to be informed of the application of this rule to
their facilities and come into compliance. In addition, States can
apply to the EPA for an extension to up to one year if they have made
reasonable progress in completing their assessments for ground water
protection areas. States must apply to EPA for an extension by June 1,
2003.
EPA retained statewide implementation, if a State Drinking Water
Source Assessment Program is not completed because this is the only
preventive approach practical given that it would be difficult to
ascertain which areas are most vulnerable if assessments are not
completed. At the same time, EPA believes that all States will complete
assessments for community water systems and non transient non community
water systems before the January 1, 2004 deadline. There are
approximately 170,000 public water systems for which States must
develop source water assessments. Of those systems 40,820 are community
water systems, 18,660 are non transient non community water systems and
87,870 are transient water systems. Thus, for the purposes of this
rule, States must complete less than half of their assessments by this
deadline and EPA believes that if a State does encounter difficulties
it will prioritize its efforts and complete the community and non-
transient non-community systems first. In addition, many States have
received early approval of their programs and have begun their
assessments ahead of schedule. In addition, a review of the State's
Source Water Assessment Plans, which have been submitted to EPA for
approval, indicate that many States intend to use their EPA approved
Well Head Protection Program as the basis for developing their ground
water protection areas. Approved Well Head Protection Programs include
two of the three steps required to complete the ground water portion of
a State Source Water Protection Plan. States that adopt their existing
Well Head Protection Plan will have met the majority of the
requirements for the ground water portion of the State Drinking Water
Source Assessment and Protection Program. Therefore, if a State fails
to complete all local assessments for ground water protection areas by
January 1, 2004 (or January 1, 2005 with an extension) the rule will
apply statewide for existing motor vehicle waste disposal wells.
2. Sensitive Ground Water Areas Not Delineated on Time
Both Primacy States and EPA Regions (for DI States) must delineate
sensitive ground water areas by January 1, 2004. If States have not
delineated their other ``sensitive ground water areas'' by that time,
the regulations affecting motor vehicle waste disposal wells will apply
statewide permanently by January 1, 2007. Existing motor vehicle waste
disposal wells (in delineated sensitive ground water areas but outside
of ground water protection areas) in Primacy States and EPA Regions
(for DI States) must achieve compliance by January 1, 2007.
The January 1, 2004 date was chosen as a deadline for delineation
of sensitive ground water areas to allow States time
[[Page 68557]]
to delineate these areas. EPA is confident that States will delineate
sensitive ground water areas well before the January 2004 deadline.
States can delineate sensitive ground water areas based on existing
information such as State specific geologic and hydro-geologic maps. An
assessment and inventory of contaminant sources within these areas will
not have to be completed. In addition, States already have knowledge of
these areas, and some States and EPA Regions (for direct implementation
States) have already mapped sensitive ground water areas. Phased
implementation will allow resources to be spent on sensitive ground
water areas once the rule has already been implemented in ground water
protection areas. However, States may apply to the EPA for an extension
for up to one year to complete delineations for sensitive ground water
areas if they are making reasonable progress in identifying these
areas. States must apply for this extension by June 1, 2003. EPA will
consider and decide the merits of the extension requests separately for
completing assessments for ground water protection areas and for
identifying other sensitive areas.
3. Assessments for Ground Water Protection Areas Completed Before UIC
Primacy Revisions Are Approved
EPA believes that, based on the current status of States in
developing State Drinking Water Source Assessment and Protection
Programs and EPA in approving them, most programs will likely be
approved by the end of 1999. Once approved, States will begin to
complete their local assessments for ground water protection areas. It
is likely, therefore, that some local assessments will be completed
before certain Primacy States have had an opportunity to revise and
receive EPA approval for their updated Class V UIC programs. In this
case, owners and operators of existing motor vehicle waste disposal
wells (located in a ground water protection area with a completed
assessment) have one year from the date of EPA's approval of their
State's Class V UIC program revision to comply with the new Class V
requirements.
H. Pre-Closure Notification
The proposal, at Sec. 144.88 (table), required owners or operators
of large-capacity cesspools and motor vehicle waste disposal wells in
States where the UIC Program is directly implemented by EPA to notify
the Program Director of their intent to close their well at least 30
days prior to closure.
These requirements were proposed for DI programs based on the need
to track high-priority well closures in EPA-administered programs. In
the interest of flexibility, the proposal did not require State-
administered UIC programs to adopt the same pre-closure notification.
EPA solicited comments on the merits and potential impacts on Primacy
States of requiring pre-closure notification.
The majority of commentors were in favor of requiring pre-closure
notification in Primacy States, as this would allow for a more accurate
inventory, and would provide a mechanism for State oversight of well
closures.
For these reasons, EPA has decided to extend pre-closure
notification for large-capacity cesspools and motor vehicle waste
disposal wells to Primacy States in all areas covered by the rule at
Sec. 144.88 (table).
I. Exclusion Criteria for Cesspools and Septic Systems
EPA proposed to revise the exclusion criteria for septic systems
and cesspools receiving solely sanitary wastes to exclude from the UIC
regulations both septic systems and cesspools with the capacity to
serve fewer than 20 persons per day and those serving individual or
single family residences. The proposal eliminated the distinction
between residential and non-residential systems and set the exclusion
criteria at systems with the capacity to serve fewer than 20 people per
day. While most commentors supported the 1995 proposal, the vast
majority of people addressing this issue added that the 20 persons-per-
day threshold should be changed. These commentors, many of which were
States, generally favored a criterion that was based on waste flow rate
or septic tank size. However, it was not clear to EPA if any of the
alternative criteria that were suggested could be adopted on a national
level without significantly disrupting many State programs nor that
such a change was needed to improve USDW protection.
To shed further light on this issue, the 1998 proposal asked for
further comments on whether the criterion needed to be changed to fix a
significant problem. In general, the comments received were similar to
those received for the 1995 proposal. The majority of the commentors
suggested EPA use a flow rate (ranging from less than 400 to 20,000
gallons per day). Some commentors thought the 20 persons criterion was
too low and should be set at 25. Still others suggested that there is
less waste per person from industrial/commercial sites than residential
sites.
EPA recognizes that the current criterion as written in
Sec. 144.1(g) has weaknesses. However, because no commentor recommended
an alternative criterion that would not disrupt existing State programs
or that was necessary to ensure better protection of USDWs, today's
rule retains the criterion at Sec. 144.1(g). Under this criterion, non-
residential cesspools, septic systems or similar waste disposal systems
are covered under the UIC program if they are used solely for the
disposal of sanitary waste, and have the capacity to serve 20 or more
persons a day. Residential large-capacity cesspools and septic systems
are covered by the UIC program if they are used by a multiple dwelling,
community or regional system for the injection of waste.
EPA will re-evaluate this issue in the context of a future Class V
rulemaking, using information collected during the Class V Study of all
wells not covered by todays rule, including septic systems.
J. Other Amendments
EPA is finalizing other minor revisions originally proposed in the
August 28, 1995 notice, in order to provide a complete and coherent
picture of all Class V UIC changes being contemplated. These revisions
address (1) a few definitions in Secs. 144.3 and 146.3, and (2) the
classification of radioactive waste disposal wells in Secs. 144.6 and
146.5. In addition, certain existing Class V requirements are being
reiterated in or moved to the plain-English version of the consolidated
Class V regulations in 40 CFR 144 Subpart G.
1. Categories of Class V Wells
In the 1995 and 1998 Class V proposals, EPA solicited comment on a
proposed reclassification scheme for all Class V well subtypes. Some
commentors objected to the new classification scheme. Additionally,
preliminary information gathered as a part of the Class V study
indicates the proposed categorization scheme may not appropriately
group the Class V subtypes and could be a source of confusion to Class
V owners and operators in future rules.
In response to the public comment, EPA will retain the current
Class V well type definitions found in Sec. 146.5 (e) with one
exception. The current list of Class V wells at Sec. 146.5 does not
include a definition of Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal wells. Therefore,
EPA is finalizing the definition for Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal wells
at Secs. 146.5 (e)(16) and 144.81 as it was proposed.
[[Page 68558]]
2. Sections 144.3 and 146.3--Definitions
The regulation adds new definitions for ``cesspool,'' ``drywell,''
``improved sinkhole,'' ``point of injection'', ``sanitary waste,''
``septic system,'' and ``subsurface fluid distribution system.'' The
rule also revises the existing definitions for ``well'' and ``well
injection.''
An ``improved sinkhole'' is defined as a type of injection well
regulated under the UIC program. Today's definition codifies EPA's
interpretation that the intentional disposal of waste waters in natural
depressions, open fractures, and crevices (such as those commonly
associated with the cooling of lava flows or weathering of limestone)
fits within the statutory definition of underground injection. A
``subsurface fluid distribution system,'' which is a term used in the
new definition of ``septic system,'' is defined with a standard
engineering description. The definition of ``well'' has been revised to
clarify that a ``well'' includes improved sinkholes and subsurface
fluid distribution systems.
The definition of ``well injection'' has been revised to eliminate
a redundancy and simply state that well injection means the subsurface
emplacement of fluids through a well.
3. Sections 144.6 and 146.5--Classification of Wells
The regulation revises Sec. 144.6(a) and Sec. 146.5(a) by adding a
paragraph (3) to move Class V radioactive waste disposal wells
injecting below all USDWs into the Class I category. Such Class V
wells, in fact, are similar to Class I wells in terms of their design,
the nature of fluids that they inject, and their potential to endanger
USDWs. In particular, like Class I wells, such radioactive waste
injection wells inject below all USDWs and warrant the same level of
control.
The Agency believes that all of these wells are located in Texas,
which already regulates them as Class I wells. Existing Class V
radioactive waste disposal wells, therefore, should not be subject to
any additional regulatory requirements. However, the Agency believes
that Class I requirements related to permitting, construction,
operating, monitoring, reporting, mechanical integrity testing, area of
review, and plugging and abandonment are needed to prevent any new
radioactive waste disposal wells from endangering USDWs. The Agency,
thus, has reclassified Class V wells that inject radioactive waste
below the lowermost USDW as Class I wells and subject them to the full
set of existing Class I requirements. This approach is administratively
simpler and more straightforward than keeping the wells in the Class V
universe and developing identical requirements under the Class V
program.
EPA wishes to clarify that this reclassification of Class V
radioactive waste disposal wells does not affect the disposal of
naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) in Class II wells as
part of oil and gas field operations. The injection of fluids
associated with oil and natural gas production, including such fluids
containing NORM, would continue to be regulated under existing Class II
UIC requirements or under applicable regulations prescribed by the
Primacy State agency.
4. Existing Regulations Being Reiterated or Replaced in 40 CFR Part
144, Subpart G
The existing description of the five classes of injection wells in
Sec. 144.6 has been reiterated in Sec. 144.80 in the new Subpart G.
Similarly, the existing prohibition of fluid movement in Sec. 144.12
has been reiterated in Sec. 144.82.
The description of when Class V injection is authorized by rule in
Sec. 144.24 has been deleted and moved to Secs. 144.84 in the new
Subpart G.
5. Part 145--State UIC Program Requirements
The Agency has amended Sec. 145.11 to be consistent with the
changes in 40 CFR Part 144. These amendments insert a set of new
requirements in Sec. 144.88 that State programs must have the legal
authority to implement.
These amendments to Part 145 are technical corrections to
incorporate the changes to 40 CFR Part 144. The corrections include a
reference to the new section and a redesignation of paragraphs to
accommodate the new references.
6. Sections 144.23 and 146.10--Class IV Wells
The August 28, 1995 notice proposed to add a new Sec. 144.23(c) to
clearly rule authorize Class IV wells used to inject treated water into
the formation from which it came if such injection is approved by EPA
or a State as part of a RCRA or CERCLA remediation program. The 1995
notice also proposed to add a new paragraph in Sec. 146.10(b) to
reiterate that owners or operators of Class IV wells in EPA-
administered programs have to close their well in accordance with the
existing requirements in Sec. 144.23(b) prior to abandonment. Both of
these proposals, which are described in more detail in the preamble of
the 1995 proposal (see 60 FR 44665), are not related to Class V wells
and thus were discussed but not revisited in the 1998 proposed
revisions to the Class V regulations (63 FR 40587).
In general, public commentors supported the August 28, 1995
proposal as it related to section 144.23. Therefore, EPA is finalizing
new language at Sec. 144.23 as proposed in 1995 as part of this
rulemaking action.
No commentors addressed the proposed addition in Sec. 146.10(b)
presumably because it simply reiterates the existing Class IV well
closure requirement in Sec. 144.23(b) for the sake of clarity.
Accordingly, EPA is finalizing the new Sec. 146.10(b) as proposed in
1995.
V. Cost of the Rule
The Agency has prepared an Economic Analysis (EA) of today's final
rule to assess its costs. This section summarizes the burden of the
final rule on Class V large-capacity cesspool and motor vehicle waste
disposal well owner/operators and the methods employed to calculate
this impact. The complete EA has been placed in the rule-making docket.
A. Methodology Overview
EPA's methodology for estimating the national cost of the rule is
largely identical to the methodology used to analyze the July 1998
proposed rule. The analysis was modified in certain respects, however,
to reflect changes in the rule in response to public comment on the
proposal and to make use of data that was not available at the time of
proposal. On May 21, 1999, EPA published a Notice of Data Availability
or ``NODA'' (64 FR 27741) to describe and request public comment on the
additional data obtained by the Agency since its publication of the
proposed rule in July 1998.
The following discussion summarizes the revisions to the Economic
Analysis based data obtained after the proposal. The complete analytic
methodology, along with the detailed results of the analysis, are
presented in the Economic Analysis document available in the public
docket.
1. Revised Estimates of the Numbers of Affected Wells
The Economic Analysis reflects new estimates of the number of wells
that will be affected by today's rule. These estimates are based on
information collected as a part of the ``Class V Study'' described in
Section III.C of this preamble and the notice of data availability
publish on May 21, 1999. The Class V Study provides the latest
[[Page 68559]]
State inventory information (i.e., on the documented and estimated
number of wells of motor vehicle wells and large-capacity cesspools)
reported to EPA in questionnaires completed by staff in the States and
EPA Regions. The Economic Analysis uses the Class V Study to determine
the national universe of potentially affected Class V UIC wells. (In
contrast, the prior analysis developed national estimates of the number
of waste disposal wells by employing a number of assumptions, because
survey data on the number of wells were not available.)
EPA received comments on the use of this data from five commentors.
These commentors expressed concern that there are uncertainties
associated with these data. EPA understands the concerns of the
commentors and recognizes that a certain amount of uncertainty exists
with this (and any other) facility inventory data. However, EPA
believes that the new data presented in the NODA represents the best
available information to use in the economic analysis supporting
today's rule. EPA further believes that using this new information to
estimate the economic impact of the Class V requirements is a vast
improvement over the economic analysis for the proposed rule. In that
analysis, EPA had to make numerous assumptions, relating to Class V
well inventories, to estimate the economic burden of the new
requirements.
The Class V study also collected State Class V regulations. EPA
reviewed State regulations to determine which States had requirements
that were at least as stringent as today's final rule. The analysis
then excluded wells in States with UIC programs that are at least as
stringent as today's final rule. For example, the analysis excludes
large-capacity cesspools in States that already have banned them in
their regulations.
To calculate the number of motor vehicle waste disposal wells that
fall within ground water protection areas, EPA assumed that States will
delineate ground water protection areas by using areas of one-half mile
radius around water supply wells for ground water community water
systems (G-CWS) and of one-quarter mile radius around water supply
wells for ground water non-transient non-community water systems (G-
NTNCWS). This methodology is consistent with the 1998 economic
analysis. However in the Economic Analysis for the final rule, EPA used
data from State Drinking Water Source Assessment and Protection
Programs, when available, to refine actual G-CWS and G-NTNCWS radii on
a State by State basis. These State Drinking Water Source Assessment
and Protection Programs were described in the NODA of May 21, 1999.
The Economic Analysis estimates the number of wells assumed to fall
within sensitive ground water areas based on State-specific data
regarding the presence of certain conditions that might be considered
sensitive for purposes of ground water protection (e.g., sole source
aquifers, shallow unconsolidated aquifers, karst, fractured bedrock).
The NODA requested public comment on applying the rule to wells in
sensitive ground water areas.
As a result of the new data and estimation methodology and the
modified scope of the rule as applied to motor vehicle waste disposal
wells in sensitive ground water areas, the number of wells estimated to
be affected by the rule has changed relative to EPA's estimates for the
proposed rule. The number of affected large-capacity cesspools is now
estimated at 2,723 (compared to 55 estimated for the proposed rule).
The number of affected motor vehicle wells is now estimated at to range
from 3,035 to 9,903 (compared to 7,045 estimated for the proposed
rule). This range is based on the amount of land area that States may
delineate as sensitive.
2. Phase-in Assumptions
The Economic Analysis has been revised to more realistically model
when the rule will take effect. This is important primarily due to one
aspect of how the final rule differs relative to the proposed rule.
Specifically, with regard to motor vehicle wells, the final rule
applies not only to wells in ground water protection areas (as did the
proposed rule), but also to wells in sensitive ground water areas.
However, the rule requires wells in ground water protection areas to
come into compliance with the rule no later than 2004, whereas motor
vehicle wells in sensitive ground water areas must come into compliance
over a slightly longer period (by 2007). Moreover, even for large-
capacity cesspools and for motor vehicle wells in ground water
protection areas, it is unrealistic to assume that all wells will come
into compliance in the same year.
To accurately evaluate the costs of the rule, the Economic Analysis
has been revised to recognize the different time periods over which
wells are expected to come into compliance. For motor vehicle wells in
ground water protection areas, this period is 2001-2004. For motor
vehicle wells in sensitive ground water areas, this period is 2004-
2007. For large-capacity cesspools, this period is 2001-2005.
3. Higher Closure Costs
EPA has increased the estimated well closure costs associated with
the final rule based on data obtained from several sources following
the publication of the proposed Class V rule (63 FR 40586, July 29,
1998). Specifically, EPA obtained additional well closure cost data
from EPA Region II, as well as cost data submitted by the Penske Truck
Leasing Company (Penske). Each of these sources was discussed in the
NODA of May 21, 1999. EPA also considered the cost data submitted by
the American Trucking Association (ATA) during the public comment
period for the proposed rule.
EPA Region II Data. EPA obtained well closure cost data
from EPA Region II during a staff visit in March 1999 to review case
files on Class V wells. This visit provided additional information on
Class V motor vehicle wells found within the State of New York. Among
the information obtained were a limited number of detailed cost
breakdowns used as cost data references for the revised economic
analysis.
Penske Truck Leasing Company (Penske). The Penske data
included closure cost information for seven Class V well closures, as
well as a summary of closure costs for fifteen wells closed by Penske.
EPA used two of the seven well closure reports that provided an
itemized list of well closure costs. In addition, the EPA used the
general summary sheet to obtain information on the costs associated
with various alternative motor vehicle wastewater management
strategies. The Penske information reflected, in particular, the costs
of well closure activities at larger truck maintenance and washing
facilities, rather than smaller automobile service facilities.
American Trucking Association (ATA). During the public
comment period on the proposed rule, the ATA submitted a set of
comments presenting a variety of actual well closure costs and
approximate cost ranges (e.g., minimum and maximum costs). The
appendices included summaries with non-itemized closure costs for 24
different motor vehicle facilities (including some of the same
facilities described in the Penske data) as well as other summaries
presenting partially-itemized closure costs and costs associated with
alternative wastewater disposal strategies (e.g., connection to a
sanitary sewer). Most of the well closure cost data provided by the ATA
were aggregated in a manner that made it difficult to determine costs
for specific well closure activities. Consequently, EPA relied
primarily on certain
[[Page 68560]]
summary sheets included in the appendices.
EPA compared these data to the costs used in the economic analysis
for the proposed rule. Specific cost elements (e.g., soil waste
disposal fees) used in the 1998 economic analysis were compared to the
corresponding cost elements found in cost data from the three sources.
Average costs were used when various cost estimates were available.
Some cost elements could not be compared to cost elements reported in
other sources (ATA, Penske, EPA Region II) because the other sources
presented only aggregated costs or they categorized costs in a
different manner.
As part of the comparison, EPA also considered the scope and
context of the new data. For example, larger facilities that perform
truck maintenance and truck washing may generate a larger amount of
wastewater, with different wastewater constituents, than most smaller
automobile service facilities; therefore, the facilities might have a
larger or different type of Class V well. In addition, more extensive
contamination might occur at such sites, requiring more extensive well
closure activities which in turn led to higher well closure costs. Well
closures and clean ups performed voluntarily by the facility owner
(e.g., to obtain an optional no-liability verification letter from the
State environmental authority) or as a result of a notice of violation
or EPA Administrative Order could be more extensive than would be
required by the new Class V rule.
EPA's cost comparison and analysis of the new data indicated that
EPA's closure cost estimates in the proposal were generally reasonable
or even overestimated the cost of some activities. However, the
comparison also revealed that EPA had underestimated the fees that
contractors, consultants, and/or engineers would charge for their well
closure services. Specifically, EPA's prior estimates did not take into
account the fact that motor vehicle facilities sometimes hire
consultants and/or engineers to lead the well closure efforts. EPA
therefore increased the estimate for the average cost of closing a
motor vehicle waste disposal well to account for hiring consultants and
engineers. However, because the rule does not require a facility to
hire a consultant or engineer to close a well, EPA estimates that only
10 percent of the motor vehicle facilities will do so. The new
estimates therefore reflect a prorated average cost of hiring
consultants and/or engineers. EPA has concluded that no other
adjustments to the unit costs used in the economic analysis are
necessary.
B. National Cost of the Rule
The Agency estimates the total annual cost of the rule ranges from
$18.1 million to $40.3 million. This estimate assumes that all large-
capacity cesspools will be affected by the rule, but that only those
motor vehicle wells located in ground water protection areas or
sensitive ground water areas will be affected. This assumption is
consistent with EPA's belief that all States will complete their
assessments of ground water protection areas by January 2004 and will
delineate sensitive ground water areas by January 2004. In the event
that a State fails to delineate ground water protection areas, or
elects not to delineate sensitive ground water areas, then the
provisions of the rule would apply to all motor vehicle wells in the
State permanently. However, the Agency believes it unlikely that the
rule will be applied to motor vehicles State-wide in any State because
most State Drinking Water Assessment Programs will be approved by EPA
by the end of the year and all States appear to be on track to meet the
milestones established in the new Class V requirements for ground water
protection areas. Further, States can receive a one year extension if
they are making reasonable progress in completing assessments for
ground water protection areas.
C. Facility Impacts
The final rule results in an estimated average annual cost per
facility to owners/operators of motor vehicle waste disposal wells of
between $4,450 and $11,000 depending on the waste streams generated by
the facility. The estimated average annual cost per facility to owner/
operators of large-capacity cesspools is $3,626. These per facility
costs are amortized over 20 years at a discount rate of 7 percent.
EPA estimates that companies in at least 18 SIC codes will be
affected by the final rule. EPA estimates the total number of
facilities affected by the rule to be 5,300 for motor vehicle wells and
2700 for large-capacity cesspools. Approximately 98 percent of the
affected facilities are classified as small businesses under the Small
Business Administration regulations. See Section VI.D for a discussion
of impacts to small businesses. For the final rule, EPA estimates that
2,600 of the entities (or 50 percent the total businesses affected)
will have to incur a cost of greater than one percent of sales to
comply with the proposed rule. An estimated 945 businesses will incur
costs greater than three percent of sales under the final rule. The
cost per facility includes the full cost owners and operators would
incur to implement BMPs such as recycling and waste reduction. A recent
survey of motor vehicle related facilities indicated that a majority of
facilities are already implementing some BMPs. Therefore, EPA believes
that the number of facilities affected at greater that three percent of
sales might be overestimated.
The rule also affects about 380 small government entities. EPA did
not estimate the total number of governments that are affected by the
final rule. Governments are expected to incur a cost of less than one
percent of their net revenue.
VI. Effect on States With Primacy
According to regulations at 40 CFR 145.32, Primacy States would
have 270 days from the effective date of the final rule to submit to
EPA documents demonstrating that proper legal authority and regulations
exist to administer and enforce the new requirements for Class V
cesspools and motor vehicle waste disposal wells. Depending on the
existing State program and authorities, these documents could include a
modified program description that outlines the structure, coverage, and
processes of the State's Class V UIC program. Revisions to State UIC
Programs needed to incorporate the new requirements will be subject to
public notice and comment requirements.
Reasonable efforts by States to implement and enforce the new
requirements as part of their ongoing programs should not be overly
burdensome, because the new requirements are primarily directed toward
well owners/operators, not UIC program authorities. For example, the
ban on new motor vehicle waste disposal wells is self-implementing by
owners or operators, with no new reporting, inspection, or other
administrative requirements for Primacy States. However, there may be
an increased burden on States that choose to use the waiver option for
existing motor vehicle wells to review the permit application and
appropriate conditions for each facility or facilities wishing to keep
its motor vehicle waste disposal well open. Based on this review,
States have to either deny the application or develop and enforce
permit requirements to make sure the well does not endanger USDWs.
Secondly, Primacy States may delineate other sensitive ground water
areas or choose to implement the rule statewide. States will submit a
plan to the EPA with their primacy program revision. The plan will
outline how they intend to conduct the delineations.
[[Page 68561]]
VII. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866, [58 FR 51,735 (October 4, 1993)] the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual
effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a
material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State,
local, or tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by
another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of
entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy
issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or
the principles set forth in the Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this rule is a ``significant regulatory action.'' As
such, this action was submitted to OMB for review. Changes made in
response to OMB suggestions or recommendations are documented in the
public record.
B. Children's Health Protection and Executive Order 13045
Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically
significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns
an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe
may have disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
This final rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is
not economically significant according to the criteria for economic
significance in E.O. 12866. Further, the Agency does not have reason to
believe the rule concerns environmental health or safety risks that may
have a disproportionate affect on children. The environmental health
and safety issues addressed by this rule are the protection of public
drinking water sources used by all sectors of the population.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the
information collection requirements contained in this rule under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) and
has assigned OMB control number 2040-0214.
Several types of information will be collected under the rule.
Owners and operators of large-capacity cesspools (which are banned
under today's rule) will be required to submit a pre-closure
notification to the State or EPA indicating their intention to close
their large-capacity cesspool. Similarly, some owners and operators of
Class V motor vehicle waste disposal wells located within a ground
water protection areas or State-delineated sensitive ground water areas
will close and must also submit a pre-closure notification. The pre-
closure notifications will enable EPA and States to ensure that wells
are closed properly.
Other motor vehicle well owners and operators that receive waivers
will be required to obtain a permit and to meet the monitoring
requirements as specified in the permit. While EPA has not specified
the frequency of monitoring, for the purposes of the ICR, annual sludge
monitoring and quarterly injectate monitoring for the first three years
after the permit is received and annual monitoring thereafter was
assumed in order to calculate information collection costs. The permit
application and monitoring reports will enable the States and EPA to
evaluate whether continued operation of the well will pose an
unacceptable threat to ground water.
At the State level, primacy States will need to prepare revised
primacy applications to demonstrate their readiness to implement the
rule. Also, States and EPA (for direct implementation States), are
likely to delineate sensitive ground water areas within their State
including karst, fractured bedrock, shallow unconsolidated aquifers,
and sole source aquifers. This process will entail preparing a plan
outlining the proposed methods for delineation that will be submitted
with the States primacy program revision. The delineations will enable
States and EPA to determine which motor vehicle waste disposal wells
are affected by today's final rule.
EPA believes the information discussed above is essential to
protecting each State's ground water drinking supplies. EPA uses
information on all classes of injection wells, including Class V wells,
to track the performance of the UIC Program toward meeting its goal of
protecting USDWs from potential threats due to injected wastes.
Responses to the request for information will be mandatory in
accordance with provisions in 40 CFR 144.83 (Underground Injection
Control). Pre-closure notifications allow UIC Programs to track the
success of the Program in closing those wells that pose the greatest
threat to USDWs. The Agency uses the information supplied in permit
applications to track the location and numbers of Class V wells.
Monitoring data provide information on the types of wastes injected and
will be used to determine whether or not injection should be allowed to
continue and under what conditions. State Drinking Water Source
Assessment and Protection Programs may use information on permitted or
closed Class V injection wells if they choose to update their
contaminant source inventories.
Any Class V injection well operator may request that information
submitted be kept confidential, as provided in 40 CFR 144.5
(Confidentiality of Information). All confidential information is
treated in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR part 2 (Public
Information). Respondents to the information collection requirements
may claim confidentiality by stamping the words ``confidential business
information'' on each page containing such information. However, the
Agency will not consider the following information confidential:
The name and address of any facility with a Class V waste
disposal well.
Information regarding the existence, absence, or level of
contaminants in drinking water.
If no claim of confidentiality is made at the time of submission,
EPA may make the information available to the public without further
notice.
EPA has estimated the burden associated with the specific record
keeping and reporting requirements (summarized above) of the rule in an
accompanying Information Collection Request (ICR). Burden means the
total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to
generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or
for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review
instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and
systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and maintaining information, and
[[Page 68562]]
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
The ICR estimates the hourly burden and cost to owners and
operators of affected Class V wells for complying with the
requirements. EPA estimates that, over the three years covered by the
information collection request, the number of owners and operators of
Class V injection wells responding to the information collection
request will be 1,463. The average annual hours per response for
notification of well closure is 4.5 hours at a cost of $115 for large-
capacity cesspools and 7 hours at a cost of $621 for motor vehicle
waste disposal wells. The notification is a one time only requirement.
There are no operation and maintenance costs associated with well
closure. For owners and operators of motor vehicle waste disposal wells
who seek a waiver and obtain a permit, the average annual hours per
permit application is 58 hours at a cost of $1,358. The costs for
quarterly injectate monitoring and annual sludge monitoring, and annual
reporting is $2,057 per facility per year.
Over the three years covered by the ICR, a total of 1,192 Class V
wells (including motor vehicle waste disposal wells and large-capacity
cesspools) may be closed. In addition, 271 operators of motor vehicle
waste disposal wells are expected to seek a waiver from the ban and
apply for permits requiring them to monitor their injectate and sludge.
The total respondent burden associated for the 3-year period is
estimated to be 63,024 hours (an average of 21,008 hours per year), and
the present value cost will be $2,680,674 (an average of $954,075 per
year). The average annual burden per owner/operator is 75.5 hours; the
cost per response is $5,203. The average annual burden per State is 984
hours; their cost per response is $26,143.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15. EPA is
amending the table in Part 9 of currently approved ICR control numbers
issued by OMB for various regulations to list the information
requirements contained in this final rule.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, a small entity is defined as: (1) A small business based on
the definition of small business found in the Small Business Act (SBA);
(2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city,
county, town, school district or special district with a population of
less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-
profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
In accordance with section 603 of the RFA, EPA prepared an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for the proposed rule and
convened a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel to obtain advice and
recommendations of representatives of the regulated small entities in
accordance with section 609(b) of the RFA (see 63 FR 40586). A detailed
discussion of the Panel's advice and recommendations is found in the
Panel Report (W-98-05 A). A summary of the Panel's recommendations is
presented at 63 FR 40590.
As required by section 604 of the RFA, EPA also prepared a final
regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for today's final rule. The FRFA
addresses the issues raised by public comments on the IRFA, which was
part of the proposal of this rule. The FRFA is available for review in
the docket and is summarized below.
The final rule adds new requirements for two categories of
endangering Class V wells to ensure protection of underground sources
of drinking water. In particular, it affects the owners and operators
of existing motor vehicle waste disposal wells in ground water
protection areas and other sensitive ground water areas and owners and
operators of new motor vehicle waste disposal wells and large-capacity
cesspools nationwide (both types of Class V wells are discussed in the
FRFA). As discussed in Section V.B, EPA estimates that approximately
5,300 motor vehicle wells and approximately 2,700 cesspools would be
subject to the final rule.
EPA's analysis to determine the impacts on small businesses uses
the same methodology as the economic analysis for all businesses, as
discussed in Section V, except the SBA size thresholds for small
businesses were used to determine the number of small businesses
affected. The SBA size thresholds were used in conjunction with 1992
census data to determine the percentage of small businesses in each of
the 18 SIC categories believed to have affected wells. Approximately
4,800 small businesses and 380 small governments are affected by the
motor vehicle well provisions of the final rule. EPA has limited data
on the type of entities that use large-capacity cesspools and therefore
has not estimated the number of small entities affected. EPA did not
receive any public comment on the initial regulatory flexibility
analysis.
The rule bans existing motor vehicle waste disposal wells in ground
water protection areas and other sensitive ground water areas, but
allows them to continue to operate if they seek a waiver from the ban
and obtain a permit. The final rule also bans new motor vehicle waste
disposal wells and new and existing large-capacity cesspools
nationwide. EPA estimates that about 50 percent of the affected small
entities may incur costs for closure or obtaining a permit that
represent more than 1 percent of their sales (or revenue for small
governments). EPA estimates that about 18 percent of the affected small
entities may incur costs that represent more than 3 percent of their
sales (or revenue for small governments). Based on these estimates, EPA
has determined that the final rule might have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
To reduce the impact of the final rule on small entities, EPA has
attempted to keep permitting, reporting, and other administrative
requirements to a minimum to provide regulatory relief to small
entities while protecting drinking water supplies. In fact, the final
rule incorporates many of the consensus recommendations offered by the
Small Business Advocacy Review Panel that was convened by EPA to obtain
advice and recommendations from representatives of affected small
entities in accordance with Section 609(b) of the Act. In particular,
the Panel recommended that the rule offer alternatives to the ban of
Class V motor vehicle waste disposal wells. Therefore, the final rule
allows owners/operators of existing motor vehicle waste disposal wells
to seek a waiver from the ban and
[[Page 68563]]
obtain a permit. EPA also adopted the Panel recommendations that UIC
Program Directors be allowed to extend the time to comply with the new
requirements from 90 days to up to a year in certain situations. The
final rule allows owners and operators one year to comply with the new
requirements, and allows the UIC Program Director to extend the
deadline for up to an additional year if necessary to install treatment
or hook up to a sewer system.
In the proposed rule, one option and one alternative were proposed
for existing motor vehicle waste disposal wells: a ban; and rule
authorization with additional requirements. The ban was not selected
because, while it would offer the greatest protection to USDWs, the
Agency recognized that there are some facilities that might be able to
meet MCLs at the point of injection and could therefore seek a waiver
from the ban and obtain a permit that allows them to continue using
their well without endangering USDWs. The Agency did not choose the
rule authorization option because it would not insure adequate
protection of USDWs.
Other changes made in response to Panel recommendations include the
following: The preamble clarifies that Class V wells at motor vehicle
service facilities may not be subject to the rule if motor vehicle
waste fluids are prevented from entering the well; the supporting
economic analysis has been revised to acknowledge and account for the
cleanup requirements that may be triggered by the rule to close certain
Class V wells and to account for the likely overlap between areas where
Class V wells are located and source water protection areas; owners and
operators of existing motor vehicle waste disposal well can take steps
to convert their well to another Class V well type; and the regulatory
language has been expanded to identify ways in which well owners or
operators can learn whether they are in a source water protection area.
EPA is requiring owner/operators of large-capacity cesspools and
facilities with motor vehicle waste disposal wells that will close
their well as a result of the rule to submit a single notification of
their intent to close their wells. The collection of the pre-closure
notification is necessary to track high-priority closures. Some motor
vehicle waste disposal wells may choose to remain in operation based on
a one-time waiver application from the ban to obtain a permit. The ICR
assumes that States may require as a permit condition the collection of
quarterly injectate monitoring and annual sludge monitoring data during
the first three years, in order to provide information for owners and
operators and the State on the injection of potentially threatening
wastes. Individual States will determine whether less frequent
collection may be appropriate for wells in their States. The majority
of the information collection, reporting and recordkeeping required by
this rule can be done by technical and clerical staff.
As required by section 212 of SBREFA, EPA also is preparing a small
entity compliance guide to help small entities comply with this rule.
Small entities can obtain a copy of the compliance guide by contacting
the Safe Drinking Water Hotline at (800) 426-4791, their State or EPA
Regional UIC Director or the EPA website (http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw/).
The small entity compliance guide will be available in April 2000.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under
Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with
State and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13132 requires EPA
to provide to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a federalism
summary impact statement (FSIS). The FSIS must include a description of
the extent of EPA's prior consultation with State and local officials,
a summary of the nature of their concerns and the agency's position
supporting the need to issue the regulation, and a statement of the
extent to which the concerns of State and local officials have been
met. Also, effective November 2, 1999, when EPA transmits a draft final
rule with federalism implications to OMB for review pursuant to
Executive Order 12866, EPA must include a certification from the
agency's Federalism Official stating that EPA has met the requirements
of Executive Order 13132 in a meaningful and timely manner.
This final rule will not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132.
Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply
to this rule. This rule establishes requirements for owners and
operators of certain Class V UIC wells. There will also be some costs
to the implementing agency to administer this rule, however, EPA does
not believe the incremental cost to administer the new requirements in
the rule will be substantial. States and local governments may own or
operate a well subject to this rule. However, the number of wells owned
by States and local governments are limited and therefore there will
not be substantial direct effects.
Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this
rule, EPA did consult with State and local officials throughout the
development of this rule. EPA consulted with States during numerous
Ground Water Protection Council meetings, stakeholder meetings held
prior to rule proposal (63 FR 40590), and the National Drinking Water
Advisory Council UIC/ Source Water working group meetings. States
primarily were concerned with a provision in the proposed rule stated
the requirements would applied statewide if States failed to complete
their Drinking Water Source Assessment and Protection Programs. The
final rule allows States to apply to EPA for up to a one year extension
for to complete their assessments (and sensitive ground water area
delineations) if they have made reasonable progress. State comments on
the proposed rule are addressed in the response to comment document.
F. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not
[[Page 68564]]
required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop
an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments because there are ten
documented wells on tribal lands, and the majority of those are owned
by private businesses not by Tribal governments. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to
this rule. However, EPA did conduct outreach to Indian tribal
governments during the comment period for the proposed rule. EPA
Regions distributed information to tribal representatives through;
presentations at water association meetings; distributing the proposed
rule to Indian health services; direct mailings and notifying national
tribal organizations.
G. Unfunded Mandates
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements. EPA consulted with State and local governments, as
described in section VI.E. and tribes as discussed in section VI.F.
EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any one year. Specifically, the annualized costs of this rule
to the regulated community are estimated to range from $18.1 million to
$40.3 million. The annualized cost estimates for State governments are
$254,000. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the requirements of
section 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small local
governments. Because EPA estimates that any small local government
entities affected by this final rule will incur a cost of less than one
percent of their net revenue, EPA has determined that this rule
contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or
uniquely affect small local governments.
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
As noted in the proposed rule, section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Pubic Law
No. 104-113 section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use
voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do
so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through
OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
As explained in the proposal, this rule does not involve technical
standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary
consensus standards, and no commentor suggested otherwise or suggested
any application.
I. Environmental Justice
Pursuant to Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994),
the Agency has considered environmental justice related issues with
regard to the potential impacts of this action on the environmental and
health conditions in low-income and minority communities. The Agency
believes that today's rule provides equal public health protection to
communities irrespective of their socio-economic condition and
demographic make-up.
J. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective April 5, 2000.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 9
Environmental protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
40 CFR Part 144
Administrative practice and procedure, Hazardous waste, Indians-
lands, Water supply.
[[Page 68565]]
40 CFR Part 145
Confidential buisness information, Indians-lands, Intergovernmental
relations, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water
supply.
40 CFR Part 146
Hazardous waste, Indians-lands, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Water supply.
Dated: November 23, 1999.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 9--AMENDED
1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., 136-136y; 15 U.S.C. 2001, 2003,
2005, 2006, 2601-2671; 21 U.S.C. 331j, 346a, 348; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 33
U.S.C. 1251 et seq., 1311, 1313d, 1314, 1318, 1321, 1326, 1330,
1342, 1344, 1345 (d) and (e), 1361; E.O. 11735, 38 FR 21243, 3 CFR,
1971-1975 Comp. p. 973; 42 U.S.C. 241, 242b, 243, 246, 300f, 300g,
300g-1, 300g-2, 300g-3, 300g-4, 300g-5, 300g-6, 300j-1, 300j-2,
300j-3, 300j-4, 300j-9, 1857 et seq., 6901-6992k, 7401-7671q, 7542,
9601-9657, 11023, 11048.
2. In Sec. 9.1 the table is amended under the indicated heading by
adding new entries in numerical order to read as follows:
Sec. 9.1 OMB approvals under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OMB
40 CFR citation control No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Underground Injection Control Program
* * * * *
144.79-144.89.............................................. 2040-0214
* * * * *
145.23..................................................... 2040-0214
* * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PART 144--UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM
3. The authority citation for part 144 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.;
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.
4. Section 144.1 is amended by adding a new paragraph (f)(1)(vii),
revising paragraphs (g)(1) introductory text, (g)(1)(iii), and
(g)(2)(v) to read as follows:
Sec. 144.1 Purpose and scope of part 144.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(1) * * *
(vii) Subpart G of this part sets forth requirements for owners and
operators of Class V injection wells.
* * * * *
(g) * * *
(1) Specific inclusions. The following wells are included among
those types of injection activities which are covered by the UIC
regulations. (This list is not intended to be exclusive but is for
clarification only.)
* * * * *
(iii) Any well used by generators of hazardous waste, or by owners
or operators of hazardous waste management facilities, to dispose of
fluids containing hazardous waste. This includes the disposal of
hazardous waste into what would otherwise be septic systems and
cesspools, regardless of their capacity.
(2) * * *
(v) Any dug hole, drilled hole, or bored shaft which is not used
for the subsurface emplacement of fluids.
* * * * *
5. Section 144.3 is amended by adding new definitions in
alphabetical order for ``Cesspool,'' ``Drywell,'' ``Improved
sinkhole,'' ``Point of injection, `` ``Sanitary waste,'' ``Septic
system,'' and ``Subsurface fluid distribution system,'' and by revising
the definitions of ``Well'' and ``Well injection'' to read as follows:
Sec. 144.3 Definitions.
* * * * *
Cesspool means a ``drywell'' that receives untreated sanitary waste
containing human excreta, and which sometimes has an open bottom and/or
perforated sides.
* * * * *
Drywell means a well, other than an improved sinkhole or subsurface
fluid distribution system, completed above the water table so that its
bottom and sides are typically dry except when receiving fluids.
* * * * *
Improved sinkhole means a naturally occurring karst depression or
other natural crevice found in volcanic terrain and other geologic
settings which have been modified by man for the purpose of directing
and emplacing fluids into the subsurface.
* * * * *
Point of injection means the last accessible sampling point prior
to waste fluids being released into the subsurface environment through
a Class V injection well. For example, the point of injection of a
Class V septic system might be the distribution box--the last
accessible sampling point before the waste fluids drain into the
underlying soils. For a dry well, it is likely to be the well bore
itself.
* * * * *
Sanitary waste means liquid or solid wastes originating solely from
humans and human activities, such as wastes collected from toilets,
showers, wash basins, sinks used for cleaning domestic areas, sinks
used for food preparation, clothes washing operations, and sinks or
washing machines where food and beverage serving dishes, glasses, and
utensils are cleaned. Sources of these wastes may include single or
multiple residences, hotels and motels, restaurants, bunkhouses,
schools, ranger stations, crew quarters, guard stations, campgrounds,
picnic grounds, day-use recreation areas, other commercial facilities,
and industrial facilities provided the waste is not mixed with
industrial waste.
* * * * *
Septic system means a ``well'' that is used to emplace sanitary
waste below the surface and is typically comprised of a septic tank and
subsurface fluid distribution system or disposal system.
* * * * *
Subsurface fluid distribution system means an assemblage of
perforated pipes, drain tiles, or other similar mechanisms intended to
distribute fluids below the surface of the ground.
* * * * *
Well means: A bored, drilled, or driven shaft whose depth is
greater than the largest surface dimension; or, a dug hole whose depth
is greater than the largest surface dimension; or, an improved
sinkhole; or, a subsurface fluid distribution system.
Well injection means the subsurface emplacement of fluids through a
well.
6. Section 144.6 is amended by adding a new paragraph (a)(3) and
revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 144.6 Classification of wells.
(a) * * *
(3) Radioactive waste disposal wells which inject fluids below the
lowermost formation containing an underground source of drinking water
within one quarter mile of the well bore.
* * * * *
(e) Class V. Injection wells not included in Class I, II, III, or
IV. Specific types of Class V injection wells are described in
Sec. 144.81.
[[Page 68566]]
7. Section 144.23 is amended by adding a new paragraph (c) to read
as follows:
Sec. 144.23 Class IV Wells
* * * * *
(c) Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of
this section, injection wells used to inject contaminated ground water
that has been treated and is being injected into the same formation
from which it was drawn are authorized by rule for the life of the well
if such subsurface emplacement of fluids is approved by EPA, or a
State, pursuant to provisions for cleanup of releases under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
of 1980 (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675, or pursuant to requirements and
provisions under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42
U.S.C. 6901-6992k.
8. Section 144.24 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 144.24 Class V wells.
(a) A Class V injection well is authorized by rule, subject to the
conditions in Sec. 144.84
* * * * *
9. Section 144.26 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(B)
and removing paragraph (e).
Sec. 144.26 Inventory Requirements.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) * * *
(B) Radioactive waste disposal wells that are not Class I wells (40
CFR 146.5 (e)(11))
* * * * *
10. Subpart G is added to read as follows:
Subpart G--Requirements for Owners and Operators of Class V
Injection Wells
Sec.
144.79 General.
Definition of Class V Injection Wells
144.80 What is a Class V injection well?
144.81 Does this subpart apply to me?
Requirements for All Class V Injection Wells
144.82 What must I do to protect underground sources of drinking
water?
144.83 Do I need to notify anyone about my Class V injection well?
144.84 Do I need to get a permit?
Additional Requirements for Class V Large-Capacity Cesspools and Motor
Vehicle Waste Disposal Wells
144.85 Do these additional requirements apply to me?
144.86 What are the definitions I need to know?
144.87 How does the identification of ground water protection areas
and other sensitive areas affect me?
144.88 What are the additional requirements?
144.89 How do I close my Class V injection well?
Subpart G--Requirements for Owners and Operators of Class V
Injection Wells
Sec. 144.79 General.
This subpart tells you what requirements apply if you own or
operate a Class V injection well. You may also be required to follow
additional requirements listed in the rest of this part. Where they may
apply, these other requirements are referenced rather than repeated.
The requirements described in this subpart and elsewhere in this part
are to protect underground sources of drinking water and are part of
the Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program established under the
Safe Drinking Water Act. This subpart is written in a special format to
make it easier to understand the regulatory requirements. Like other
EPA regulations, it establishes enforceable legal requirements.
Definition of Class V Injection Wells
Sec. 144.80 What is a Class V injection well?
As described in Sec. 144.6, injection wells are classified as
follows:
(a) Class I. (1) Wells used by generators of hazardous waste or
owners or operators of hazardous waste management facilities to inject
hazardous waste beneath the lowermost formation containing, within one-
quarter mile of the well bore, an underground source of drinking water.
(2) Other industrial and municipal disposal wells which inject
fluids beneath the lowermost formation containing, within one quarter
mile of the well bore, an underground source of drinking water;
(3) Radioactive waste disposal wells which inject fluids below the
lowermost formation containing an underground source of drinking water
within one quarter mile of the well bore.
(b) Class II. Wells which inject fluids:
(1) Which are brought to the surface in connection with natural gas
storage operations, or conventional oil or natural gas production and
may be commingled with waste waters from gas plants which are an
integral part of production operations, unless those waters are
classified as a hazardous waste at the time of injection.
(2) For enhanced recovery of oil or natural gas; and
(3) For storage of hydrocarbons which are liquid at standard
temperature and pressure.
(c) Class III. Wells which inject fluids for extraction of minerals
including:
(1) Mining of sulfur by the Frasch process;
(2) In situ production of uranium or other metals; this category
includes only in situ production from ore bodies which have not been
conventionally mined. Solution mining of conventional mines such as
stopes leaching is included in Class V.
(3) Solution mining of salts or potash.
(d) Class IV. (1) Wells used by generators of hazardous waste or of
radioactive waste, by owners and operators of hazardous waste
management facilities, or by owners or operators of radioactive waste
disposal sites to dispose of hazardous waste or radioactive waste into
a formation which within one quarter (\1/4\) mile of the well contains
an underground source of drinking water.
(2) Wells used by generators of hazardous waste or of radioactive
waste, by owners and operators of hazardous waste management
facilities, or by owners or operators of radioactive waste disposal
sites to dispose of hazardous waste or radioactive waste above a
formation which within one quarter (\1/4\) mile of the well contains an
underground source of drinking water.
(3) Wells used by generators of hazardous waste or owners or
operators of hazardous waste management facilities to dispose of
hazardous waste, which cannot be classified under paragraph (a)(1) or
(d)(1) and (2) of this section (e.g., wells used to dispose of
hazardous waste into or above a formation which contains an aquifer
which has been exempted pursuant to 40 CFR 146.04).
(e) Class V. Injection wells not included in Class I, II, III or
IV. Typically, Class V wells are shallow wells used to place a variety
of fluids directly below the land surface. However, if the fluids you
place in the ground qualify as a hazardous waste under the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), your well is either a Class I or
Class IV well, not a Class V well. Examples of Class V wells are
described in Sec. 144.81.
Sec. 144.81 Does this subpart apply to me?
This subpart applies to you if you own or operate a Class V well,
for example:
(1) Air conditioning return flow wells used to return to the supply
aquifer the water used for heating or cooling in a heat pump;
[[Page 68567]]
(2) Large capacity cesspools including multiple dwelling, community
or regional cesspools, or other devices that receive sanitary wastes,
containing human excreta, which have an open bottom and sometimes
perforated sides. The UIC requirements do not apply to single family
residential cesspools nor to non-residential cesspools which receive
solely sanitary waste and have the capacity to serve fewer than 20
persons a day.
(3) Cooling water return flow wells used to inject water previously
used for cooling;
(4) Drainage wells used to drain surface fluids, primarily storm
runoff, into a subsurface formation;
(5) Dry wells used for the injection of wastes into a subsurface
formation;
(6) Recharge wells used to replenish the water in an aquifer;
(7) Salt water intrusion barrier wells used to inject water into a
fresh aquifer to prevent the intrusion of salt water into the fresh
water;
(8) Sand backfill and other backfill wells used to inject a mixture
of water and sand, mill tailings or other solids into mined out
portions of subsurface mines whether what is injected is a radioactive
waste or not.
(9) Septic system wells used to inject the waste or effluent from a
multiple dwelling, business establishment, community or regional
business establishment septic tank. The UIC requirements do not apply
to single family residential septic system wells, nor to non-
residential septic system wells which are used solely for the disposal
of sanitary waste and have the capacity to serve fewer than 20 persons
a day.
(10) Subsidence control wells (not used for the purpose of oil or
natural gas production) used to inject fluids into a non-oil or gas
producing zone to reduce or eliminate subsidence associated with the
overdraft of fresh water;
(11) Injection wells associated with the recovery of geothermal
energy for heating, aquaculture and production of electric power;
(12) Wells used for solution mining of conventional mines such as
stopes leaching;
(13) Wells used to inject spent brine into the same formation from
which it was withdrawn after extraction of halogens or their salts;
(14) Injection wells used in experimental technologies.
(15) Injection wells used for in situ recovery of lignite, coal,
tar sands, and oil shale.
(16) Motor vehicle waste disposal wells that receive or have
received fluids from vehicular repair or maintenance activities, such
as an auto body repair shop, automotive repair shop, new and used car
dealership, specialty repair shop (e.g., transmission and muffler
repair shop), or any facility that does any vehicular repair work.
Fluids disposed in these wells may contain organic and inorganic
chemicals in concentrations that exceed the maximum contaminant levels
(MCLs) established by the primary drinking water regulations (see 40
CFR part 142). These fluids also may include waste petroleum products
and may contain contaminants, such as heavy metals and volatile organic
compounds, which pose risks to human health.
Requirements for All Class V Injection Wells
Sec. 144.82 What must I do to protect underground sources of drinking
water?
If you own or operate any type of Class V well, the regulations
below require that you cannot allow movement of fluid into USDWs that
might cause endangerment, you must comply with other Federal UIC
requirements in 40 CFR parts 144 through 147, and you must comply with
any other measures required by your State or EPA Regional Office UIC
Program to protect USDWs, and you must properly close your well when
you are through using it. You also must submit basic information about
your well, as described in Sec. 144.83.
(a) Prohibition of fluid movement. (1) As described in
Sec. 144.12(a), your injection activity cannot allow the movement of
fluid containing any contaminant into USDWs, if the presence of that
contaminant may cause a violation of the primary drinking water
standards under 40 CFR part 141, other health based standards, or may
otherwise adversely affect the health of persons. This prohibition
applies to your well construction, operation, maintenance, conversion,
plugging, closure, or any other injection activity.
(2) If the Director of the UIC Program in your State or EPA Region
learns that your injection activity may endanger USDWs, he or she may
require you to close your well, require you to get a permit, or require
other actions listed in Sec. 144.12(c), (d), or (e).
(b) Closure requirements. You must close the well in a manner that
complies with the above prohibition of fluid movement. Also, you must
dispose or otherwise manage any soil, gravel, sludge, liquids, or other
materials removed from or adjacent to your well in accordance with all
applicable Federal, State, and local regulations and requirements.
(c) Other requirements in Parts 144 through 147. Beyond this
subpart, you are subject to other UIC Program requirements in 40 CFR
parts 144 through 147. While most of the relevant requirements are
repeated or referenced in this subpart for convenience, you need to
read these other parts to understand the entire UIC Program.
(d) Other State or EPA requirements. 40 CFR parts 144 through 147
define minimum Federal UIC requirements. EPA Regional Offices
administering the UIC Program have the flexibility to establish
additional or more stringent requirements based on the authorities in
parts 144 through 147, if believed to be necessary to protect USDWs.
States can have their own authorities to establish additional or more
stringent requirements if needed to protect USDWs. You must comply with
these additional requirements, if any exist in your area. Contact the
UIC Program Director in your State or EPA Region to learn more.
Sec. 144.83 Do I need to notify anyone about my Class V injection
well?
Yes, you need to provide basic ``inventory information'' about your
well to the UIC Director, if you haven't already. You also need to
provide any additional information that your UIC Program Director
requests in accordance with the provisions of the UIC regulations.
(a) Inventory requirements. Unless you know you have already
satisfied the inventory requirements in Sec. 144.26 that were in effect
prior to the issuance of this Subpart G, you must give your UIC Program
Director certain information about yourself and your injection
operation.
Note: This information is requested on national form ``Inventory
of Injection Wells,'' OMB No. 2040-0042.
(1) The requirements differ depending on your well status and
location, as described in the following table:
[[Page 68568]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And you're in one of
these locations
(``Primacy'' States,
where the State runs
the Class V UIC
Program): Alabama,
Arkansas, Or you're in one of
Commonwealth of these locations
Northern Mariana (``Direct
Islands, Implementation'' or
Connecticut, DI Programs, where
Delaware, Florida, EPA runs the Class V
Georgia, Guam, UIC Program):
Idaho, Illinois, Alaska, American
Kansas, Louisiana, Samoa, Arizona,
Maine, Maryland, California,
If your well is . . . Massachusetts, Colorado, Hawaii,
Mississippi, Indiana, Iowa,
Missouri, Nebraska, Kentucky, Michigan,
Nevada, New Minnesota, Montana,
Hampshire, New New York,
Jersey, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, South
North Carolina, Dakota, Tennessee,
North Dakota, Ohio, Virginia, Virgin
Oklahoma, Oregon, Islands, Washington,
Puerto Rico, Rhode DC, or any Indian
Island, South Country
Carolina, Texas,
Utah, Vermont,
Washington, West
Virginia, Wisconsin,
or Wyoming
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) New (prior to . . . then you must . . . then you must
construction of your well). contact your State submit the
UIC Program to inventory
determine what you information
must submit and by described in (a)(2)
when.. of this section
prior to
constructing your
well.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(ii) Existing (construction . . . then you must . . . then you must
underway or completed). contact your State cease injection and
UIC Program to submit the
determine what you inventory
must submit and by information. You
when.. may resume
injection 90 days
after you submit
the information
unless the UIC
Program Director
notifies you that
injection may not
resume or may
resume sooner.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) If your well is in a Primacy State or a DI Program State, here
is the information you must submit:
(i) No matter what type of Class V well you own or operate, you
must submit at least the following information for each Class V well:
facility name and location; name and address of legal contact;
ownership of facility; nature and type of injection well(s); and
operating status of injection well(s).
(ii) Additional information. If you are in a Direct Implementation
State and you own or operate a well listed below you must also provide
the information listed in paragraph (a) (2) (iii) as follows:
(A) Sand or other backfill wells (40 CFR 144.81(8) and 146.5(e)(8)
of this chapter);
(B) Geothermal energy recovery wells (40 CFR 144.81(11) and 146.5
(e)(12) of this chapter);
(C) Brine return flow wells (40 CFR 144.81(13) and 146.5 (e)(14) of
this chapter);
(D) Wells used in experimental technology (40 CFR 144.81(14) and
146.5 (e)(15) of this chapter);
(E) Municipal and industrial disposal wells other than Class I; and
(F) Any other Class V wells at the discretion of the Regional
Administrator.
(iii) You must provide a list of all wells owned or operated along
with the following information for each well. (A single description of
wells at a single facility with substantially the same characteristics
is acceptable).
(A) Location of each well or project given by Township, Range,
Section, and Quarter-Section, or by latitude and longitude to the
nearest second, according to the conventional practice in your State;
(B) Date of completion of each well;
(C) Identification and depth of the underground formation(s) into
which each well is injecting;
(D) Total depth of each well;
(E) Construction narrative and schematic (both plan view and cross-
sectional drawings);
(F) Nature of the injected fluids;
(G) Average and maximum injection pressure at the wellhead;
(H) Average and maximum injection rate; and
(I) Date of the last inspection.
(3) Regardless of whether your well is in a Primacy State or DI
Program you are responsible for knowing about, understanding, and
complying with these inventory requirements.
(b) Information in response to requests. If you are in one of the
DI Programs listed in the table above, the UIC Program Director may
require you to submit other information believed necessary to protect
underground sources of drinking water.
(1) Such information requirements may include, but are not limited
to:
(i) Perform ground water monitoring and periodically submit your
monitoring results;
(ii) Analyze the fluids you inject and periodically submit the
results of your analyses;
(iii) Describe the geologic layers through which and into which you
are injecting; and
(iv) Conduct other analyses and submit other information, if needed
to protect underground sources of drinking water.
(2) If the Director requires this other information, he or she will
request it from you in writing, along with a brief statement on why the
information is required. This written notification also will tell you
when to submit the information.
(3) You are prohibited from using your injection well if you fail
to comply with the written request within the time frame specified. You
can start injecting again only if you receive a permit.
Sec. 144.84 Do I need to get a permit?
No, unless you fall within an exception described below:
(a) General authorization by rule. With certain exceptions listed
in paragraph (b) of this section, your Class V injection activity is
``authorized by rule,'' meaning you have to comply with all the
requirements of this subpart and the rest of the UIC Program but you
don't have to get an individual permit. Well authorization expires once
you have properly closed your well, as described in Sec. 144.82(b).
(b) Circumstances in Which Permits or other Actions are Required.
If you fit into one of the categories listed below, your Class V well
is no longer authorized by rule. This means that you have to either get
a permit or close your injection well. You can find out by contacting
the UIC Program Director in your State or EPA Region if this is the
case. Subpart D of this Part tells you how to apply for a permit and
describes other aspects of the permitting process. Subpart E of this
Part outlines some of the requirements that apply to you if you get a
permit.
(1) You fail to comply with the prohibition of fluid movement
standard in Sec. 144.12(a) and described in Sec. 144.82(a) (in which
case, you have to get a permit, close your well, and/or comply with
other conditions
[[Page 68569]]
determined by the UIC Program Director in your State or EPA Region);
(2) You own or operate a Class V large-capacity cesspool (in which
case, you must close your well as specified in the additional
requirements below) or a Class V motor vehicle waste disposal well in a
ground water protection area or sensitive ground water area (in which
case, you must either close your well or get a permit as specified in
the additional requirements in this subsection). New motor vehicle
waste disposal wells and new cesspools are prohibited as of April 5,
2000;
(3) You are specifically required by the UIC Program Director in
your State or EPA Region to get a permit (in which case, rule
authorization expires upon the effective date of the permit issued, or
you are prohibited from injecting into your well upon:
(i) Failure to submit a permit application in a timely manner as
specified in a notice from the Director; or
(ii) Upon the effective date of permit denial);
(4) You have failed to submit inventory information to your UIC
Program Director, as described in Sec. 144.83(a) (in which case, you
are prohibited from injecting into your well until you comply with the
inventory requirements); or
(5) If you are in a DI State and you received a request from your
UIC Program Director for additional information under Sec. 144.83(b),
and have failed to comply with the request in a timely manner (in which
case, you are prohibited from injecting into your well until you get a
permit).
Additional Requirements for Class V Large-Capacity Cesspools and
Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal Wells
Sec. 144.85 Do these additional requirements apply to me?
(a) Large-Capacity Cesspools. The additional requirements apply to
all new and existing large-capacity cesspools regardless of their
location. If you are using a septic system for these type of wastes you
are not subject to the additional requirements in this subpart.
(b) Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal Wells Existing on April 5, 2000.
If you have a Class V motor vehicle waste disposal well these
requirements apply to you if your well is located in a ground water
protection area or other sensitive ground water area that is identified
by your State or EPA Region. If your State or EPA Region fails to
identify ground water protection areas and/or other sensitive ground
water areas these requirements apply to all Class V motor vehicle wells
in the State.
(c) New Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal Wells. The additional
requirements apply to all new motor vehicle waste disposal wells as of
April 5, 2000.
Sec. 144.86 What are the definitions I need to know?
(a) State Drinking Water Source Assessment and Protection Program.
This is a new approach to protecting drinking water sources, specified
in the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act at Section 1453.
States must prepare and submit for EPA approval a program that sets out
how States will conduct local assessments, including: delineating the
boundaries of areas providing source waters for public water systems;
identifying significant potential sources of contaminants in such
areas; and determining the susceptibility of public water systems in
the delineated areas to the inventoried sources of contamination.
(b) Complete Local Source Water Assessment for Ground Water
Protection Areas. When EPA has approved a State's Drinking Water Source
Assessment and Protection Program, States will begin to conduct local
assessments for each public water system in their State. For the
purposes of this rule, local assessments for community water systems
and non-transient non-community systems are complete when four
requirements are met: First, a State must delineate the boundaries of
the assessment area for community and non-transient non-community water
systems. Second, the State must identify significant potential sources
of contamination in these delineated areas. Third, the State must
``determine the susceptibility of community and non-transient non-
community water systems in the delineated area to such contaminants.''
Lastly, each State will develop its own plan for making the completed
assessments available to the public.
(c) Ground Water Protection Area. A ground water protection area is
a geographic area near and/or surrounding community and non-transient
non-community water systems that use ground water as a source of
drinking water. These areas receive priority for the protection of
drinking water supplies and States are required to delineate and assess
these areas under section 1453 of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The
additional requirements in Sec. 144.88 apply to you if your Class V
motor vehicle waste disposal well is in a ground water protection area
for either a community water system or a non-transient non-community
water system, in many States, these areas will be the same as Wellhead
Protection Areas that have been or will be delineated as defined in
section 1428 of the SDWA.
(d) Community Water System. A community water system is a public
water system that serves at least 15 service connections used by year-
round residents or regularly serves at least 25 year-round residents.
(e) Non-transient Non-community Water System. A public water system
that is not a community water system and that regularly serves at least
25 of the same people over six months a year. These may include systems
that provide water to schools, day care centers, government/military
installations, manufacturers, hospitals or nursing homes, office
buildings, and other facilities.
(f) Delineation. Once a State's Drinking Water Source Assessment
and Protection Program is approved, the States will begin delineating
their local assessment areas. Delineation is the first step in the
assessment process in which the boundaries of ground water protection
areas are identified.
(g) Other Sensitive Ground Water Areas. States may also identify
other areas in the State in addition to ground water protection areas
that are critical to protecting underground sources of drinking water
from contamination. These other sensitive ground water areas may
include areas such as 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.
Sec. 144.87 How does the identification of ground water protection
areas and other sensitive ground water areas affect me?
(a) You are subject to these new requirements if you own or operate
an existing motor vehicle well and you are located in a ground water
protection area or an other sensitive ground water area. If your State
or EPA Region fails to identify these areas within the specified time
frames these requirements apply to all existing motor vehicle waste
disposal wells within your State.
[[Page 68570]]
(b) Ground Water Protection Areas. (1) For the purpose of this
subpart, States are required to complete all local source water
assessments for ground water protection areas by January 1, 2004. Once
a local assessment for a ground water protection area is complete every
existing motor vehicle waste disposal well owner in that ground water
protection area has one year to close the well or receive a permit. If
a State fails to complete all local assessments for ground water
protection areas by January 1, 2004, the following may occur:
(i) The new requirements in this subpart will apply to all existing
motor vehicle waste disposal wells in the State and owners and
operators of motor vehicle waste disposal wells located outside of
completed assessments for ground water protection areas must close
their well or receive a permit by January 1, 2005.
(ii) EPA may grant a State an extension for up to one year from the
January 1, 2004 deadline if the State is making reasonable progress in
completing the source water assessments for ground water protection
areas. States must apply for the extension by June 1, 2003. If a State
fails to complete the assessments for the remaining ground water
protection areas by the extended date the rule requirements will apply
to all motor vehicle waste disposal wells in the State and owners and
operators of motor vehicle waste disposal wells located outside of
ground water protection areas with completed assessments must close
their well or receive a permit by January 1, 2006.
(2) The UIC Program Director may extend the compliance deadline for
specific motor vehicle waste disposal wells for up to one year if the
most efficient compliance option for the well is connection to a
sanitary sewer or installation of new treatment technology.
(c) Other Sensitive Ground Water Areas. States may also delineate
other sensitive ground water areas by January 1, 2004. Existing motor
vehicle waste disposal well owners and operators within other sensitive
ground water areas have until January 1, 2007 to receive a permit or
close the well. If a State or EPA Region fails to identify these
additional sensitive ground water areas by January 1, 2004, the new
requirements of this rule will apply to all motor vehicle waste
disposal wells in the State effective January 1, 2007 unless they are
subject to a different compliance date pursuant to paragraph (b) of
this section. Again, EPA may extend the January 1, 2004 deadline for up
to one year for States to delineate other sensitive ground water areas
if the State is making reasonable progress in identifying the sensitive
areas. States must apply for this extension by June 1, 2003. If a State
has been granted an extension, existing motor vehicle waste disposal
well owners and operators within the sensitive ground water areas have
until January 1, 2008 to close the well or receive a permit, unless
they are subject to a different compliance date pursuant to paragraph
(b) of this section. If a State has been granted an extension and fails
to delineate sensitive areas by the extended date, the rule
requirements will apply to all motor vehicle waste disposal wells in
the State and owners and operators have until January 1, 2008 to close
the well or receive a permit, unless they are subject to a different
compliance date pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section.
(d) How to Find Out if Your Well is in a Ground Water Protection
Area or Sensitive Ground Water Area. States are required to make their
local source water assessments widely available to the public through a
variety of methods after the assessments are complete. You can find out
if your Class V well is in a ground water protection area by contacting
the State agency responsible for the State Drinking Water Source
Assessment and Protection Program in your area. You may call the Safe
Drinking Water Hotline at 1-800-426-4791 to find out who to call in
your State for this information. The State office responsible for
implementing the Drinking Water Source Assessment and Protection
Program makes the final and official determination of boundaries for
ground water protection areas. Because States that choose to delineate
other sensitive ground water areas are also required to make the
information on these areas accessible to the public, they may do so in
a manner similar to the process used by the States in publicizing the
EPA approved Drinking Water Source Assessment and Protection Program.
You can find out if your Class V well is in an other sensitive ground
water area by contacting the State or Federal agency responsible for
the Underground Injection Control Program. You may call the Safe
Drinking Water Hotline at 1-800-426-4791 to find out who to call for
information.
(e) Changes in the Status of the EPA Approved State Drinking Water
Source Assessment and Protection Program. After January 1, 2004 your
State may assess a ground water protection area for ground water
supplying a new community water system or a new non-transient non-
community water system that includes your Class V injection well. Also,
your State may officially re-delineate the boundaries of a previously
delineated ground water protection area to include additional areas
that includes your motor vehicle waste disposal well. This would make
the additional regulations apply to you if your motor vehicle waste
disposal well is in such an area. The additional regulations start
applying to you one year after the State completes the local assessment
for the ground water protection area for the new drinking water system
or the new re-delineated area. The UIC Program Director responsible for
your area may extend this deadline for up to one year if the most
efficient compliance option for the well is connection to a sanitary
sewer or installation of new treatment technology.
(f) What Happens if My State Doesn't Designate Other Sensitive
Ground Water Areas? If your State or EPA Region elects not to delineate
the additional sensitive ground water areas, the additional regulations
apply to you regardless of the location of your well by January 1,
2007, or January 2008 if an extension has been granted as explained in
paragraph (c) of this section, except for wells in ground water
protection areas which are subject to different compliance deadlines
explained in paragraph (b) of this section.
(h) Application of Requirements Outside of Ground Water Protection
Areas and Sensitive Ground Water Areas. EPA expects and strongly
encourages States to use existing authorities in the UIC program to
take whatever measures are needed to ensure Class V wells are not
endangering USDWs in any other areas outside of delineated ground water
protection areas and sensitive ground water areas. Such measures could
include, if believed to be necessary by a UIC Program Director,
applying the additional requirements below to other areas and/or other
types of Class V wells. Therefore, the Director may apply the
additional requirements to you, even if you are not located in the
areas listed in paragraph (a) of this section.
Sec. 144.88 What are the additional requirements?
The additional requirements are specified in the following tables:
[[Page 68571]]
(a) Table 1.--Additional Requirements for Large-Capacity Cesspools Statewide
[See Sec. 144.85 to determine if these additional requirements apply to you]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well Status Requirement Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If your cesspool is. . . Then you. . ............. By. . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Existing (operational or (i) Must close the well.. April 5, 2000.
under construction by April 5,
2000).
(ii) Must notify the UIC At least 30 days prior to closure.
Program Director (both
Primacy States and
Direct Implementation
States) of your intent
to close the well..
Note: This information is
requested on national
form ``Preclosure
Notification for Closure
of Injection Wells,''.
(2) New or converted Are prohibited........... April 5, 2000.
(construction not started before
April 5, 2000).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Table 2.--Additional Requirements for Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal
Wells
[See Sec. 144.85 to determine if these additional requirements apply to
you]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well status Requirement Deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If your motor vehicle waste Then. . ............ By. . .
disposal well is
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Existing (operational or (i) If your well is Within 1 year of the
under construction by April in a ground water completion of your
5, 2000). protection area, local source water
you must close the assessment; your
well or obtain a UIC Program
permit. Director may extend
the closure
deadline, but not
the permit
application
deadline, for up to
one year if the
most efficient
compliance option
is connection to a
sanitary sewer or
installation of new
treatment
technology.
-------------------------------------------
(ii) If your well is By January 1, 2007;
in an other your UIC Program
sensitive ground Director may extend
water area, you the closure
must close the well deadline, but not
or obtain a permit. the permit
application
deadline, for up to
one year if the
most efficient
compliance option
is connection to a
sanitary sewer or
installation of new
treatment
technology.
-------------------------------------------
(iii) If you plan to The date you submit
seek a waiver from your permit
the ban and apply application.
for a permit, you
must meet MCLs at
the point of
injection while
your permit
application is
under review, if
you choose to keep
operating your well.
-------------------------------------------
(iv) If you receive The date(s)
a permit, you must specified in your
comply with all permit.
permit conditions,
if you choose to
keep operating your
well, including
requirements to
meet MCLs and other
health based
standards at the
point of injection,
follow best
management
practices, and
monitor your
injectate and
sludge quality.
-------------------------------------------
(v) If your well is January 1, 2005
in a State which unless your State
has not completed obtains an
all their local extension as
assessments by described in 144.87
January 1, 2004 or (b) in which case
by the extended your deadline is
date if your State January 1, 2006;
has obtained an your UIC Program
extension as Director may extend
described in the closure
144.87, and you are deadline, but not
outside an area the permit
with a completed application
assessment you must deadline, for up to
close the well or one year if the
obtain a permit. most efficient
compliance option
is connection to a
sanitary sewer or
installation of new
treatment
technology.
-------------------------------------------
(vi) If your well is January 1, 2007
in a State that has unless your State
not delineated obtains an
other sensitive extension as
ground water areas described in
by January 1, 2004 144.87(c) in which
and you are outside case your deadline
of an area with a is January 2008.
completed
assessment you must
close the well or
obtain a permit
regardless of your
location.
-------------------------------------------
[[Page 68572]]
(vii) If you plan to At least 30 days
close your well, prior to closure.
you must notify the
UIC Program
Director of your
intent to close the
well (this includes
closing your well
prior to
conversion).
Note: This
information is
requested on
national form
``Preclosure
Notification for
Closure of
Injection Wells''.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) New or converted Are prohibited...... April 5, 2000.
(construction not started
before April 5, 2000).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 144.89 How do I close my Class V injection well?
The following describes the requirements for closing your Class V
injection well.
(a) Closure. Prior to closing a Class V large-capacity cesspool or
motor vehicle waste disposal well, you must plug or otherwise close the
well in a manner that complies with the prohibition of fluid movement
standard in Sec. 144.12 and summarized in Sec. 144.82(a). If the UIC
Program Director in your State or EPA Region has any additional or more
specific closure standards, you have to meet those standards too. You
also must dispose or otherwise manage any soil, gravel, sludge,
liquids, or other materials removed from or adjacent to your well in
accordance with all applicable Federal, State, and local regulations
and requirements, as in Sec. 144.82(b).
(2) Closure does not mean that you need to cease operations at your
facility, only that you need to close your well. A number of
alternatives are available for disposing of waste fluids. Examples of
alternatives that may be available to motor vehicle stations include:
recycling and reusing wastewater as much as possible; collecting and
recycling petroleum-based fluids, coolants, and battery acids drained
from vehicles; washing parts in a self-contained, recirculating solvent
sink, with spent solvents being recovered and replaced by the supplier;
using absorbents to clean up minor leaks and spills, and placing the
used materials in approved waste containers and disposing of them
properly; using a wet vacuum or mop to pick up accumulated rain or snow
melt, and if allowed, connecting floor drains to a municipal sewer
system or holding tank, and if allowed, disposing of the holding tank
contents through a publicly owned treatment works. You should check
with the publicly owned treatment works you might use to see if they
would accept your wastes. Alternatives that may be available to owners
and operators of a large-capacity cesspool include: conversion to a
septic system; connection to sewer; and installation of an on-site
treatment unit.
(b) Conversions. In limited cases, the UIC Director may authorize
the conversion (reclassification) of a motor vehicle waste disposal
well to another type of Class V well. Motor vehicle wells may only be
converted if: all motor vehicle fluids are segregated by physical
barriers and are not allowed to enter the well; and, injection of motor
vehicle waste is unlikely based on a facility's compliance history and
records showing proper waste disposal. The use of a semi-permanent plug
as the means to segregate waste is not sufficient to convert a motor
vehicle waste disposal well to another type of Class V well.
PART 145--STATE UIC PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
11. The authority citation for part 145 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.
Subpart B--[Amended]
12. Section 145.11 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(32) and by
revising the first sentence of paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 145.11 Requirements for permitting.
(a) * * *
(32) Section 144.88--(What are the additional requirements?);
* * * * *
(b)(1) States need not implement provisions identical to the
provisions listed in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(32) of this section.
* * *
* * * * *
Subpart C--[Amended]
13. Section 145.23, is revised by adding paragraph (f)(12) to read
as follows:
Sec. 145.23 Program description.
* * * * *
(f) * * *
(12) For Class V programs only. A description of and a schedule for
the State's plan to identify and delineate other sensitive ground water
areas. States should consider geologic and hydrogeologic settings,
ground water flow and occurrence, topographic and geographic features,
depth to ground water, significance as a drinking water source,
prevailing land use practices and any other existing information
relating to the susceptibility of ground water to contamination from
Class V injection wells when developing their plan. Within the schedule
for the plan, States must commit to: completing all delineations of
other sensitive ground water areas by no later than Jan. 1, 2004;
making these delineation available to the public; implementing the
Class V regulations, effective April 5, 2000, in these delineated areas
by no later than January 1, 2007. Alternately, if a State chooses not
to identify other sensitive ground water areas, the requirements for
motor vehicle waste disposal wells would apply statewide by January 1,
2007.
PART 146--UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM: CRITERIA AND
STANDARDS
14. The authority citation for part 146 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.;
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.
15. Section 146.3 is amended by adding the following new
definitions in alphabetical order: ``Cesspool,'' ``Drywell,''
``Improved sinkhole,'' ``Point
[[Page 68573]]
of injection,'' ``Sanitary waste,'' ``Septic system,'' and ``Subsurface
fluid distribution system,'' and by revising the definitions of
``Well'' and ``Well injection'' to read as follows:
Sec. 146.3 Definitions.
* * * * *
Cesspool means a ``drywell'' that receives untreated sanitary waste
containing human excreta, and which sometimes has an open bottom and/or
perforated sides.
* * * * *
Drywell means a well, other than an improved sinkhole or subsurface
fluid distribution system, completed above the water table so that its
bottom and sides are typically dry except when receiving fluids.
* * * * *
Improved sinkhole means a naturally occurring karst depression or
other natural crevice found in volcanic terrain and other geologic
settings which have been modified by man for the purpose of directing
and emplacing fluids into the subsurface.
* * * * *
Point of injection for Class V wells means the last accessible
sampling point prior to waste fluids being released into the subsurface
environment through a Class V injection well. For example, the point of
injection of a Class V septic system might be the distribution box--the
last accessible sampling point before the waste fluids drain into the
underlying soils. For a dry well, it is likely to be the well bore
itself.
* * * * *
Sanitary waste means liquid or solid wastes originating solely from
humans and human activities, such as wastes collected from toilets,
showers, wash basins, sinks used for cleaning domestic areas, sinks
used for food preparation, clothes washing operations, and sinks or
washing machines where food and beverage serving dishes, glasses, and
utensils are cleaned. Sources of these wastes may include single or
multiple residences, hotels and motels, restaurants, bunkhouses,
schools, ranger stations, crew quarters, guard stations, campgrounds,
picnic grounds, day-use recreation areas, other commercial facilities,
and industrial facilities provided the waste is not mixed with
industrial waste.
* * * * *
Septic system means a ``well'' that is used to emplace sanitary
waste below the surface and is typically comprised of a septic tank and
subsurface fluid distribution system or disposal system.
* * * * *
Subsurface fluid distribution system means an assemblage of
perforated pipes, drain tiles, or other similar mechanisms intended to
distribute fluids below the surface of the ground.
* * * * *
Well means: A bored, drilled, or driven shaft whose depth is
greater than the largest surface dimension; or, a dug hole whose depth
is greater than the largest surface dimension; or, an improved
sinkhole; or, a subsurface fluid distribution system.
Well injection means the subsurface emplacement of fluids through a
well.
* * * * *
16. Section 146.5 is amended by adding a new paragraph (a)(3) and
revising the first sentence of paragraph (e) introductory text to read
as follows:
Sec. 146.5 Classification of injection wells.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(3) Radioactive waste disposal wells which inject fluids below the
lowermost formation containing an underground source of drinking water
within one quarter mile of the well bore.
* * * * *
(e) Class V. Injection wells not included in Class I, II, III, or
IV. Specific types of Class V injection wells are also described in 40
CFR 144.81. * * *
* * * * *
17. Section 146.10 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 146.10 Plugging and abandoning Class I, II, III, IV, and V wells.
(a) Requirements for Class I, II and III wells. (1) Prior to
abandoning Class I, II and III wells, the well shall be plugged with
cement in a manner which will not allow the movement of fluids either
into or between underground sources of drinking water. The Director may
allow Class III wells to use other plugging materials if the Director
is satisfied that such materials will prevent movement of fluids into
or between underground sources of drinking water.
(2) Placement of the cement plugs shall be accomplished by one of
the following:
(i) The Balance method;
(ii) The Dump Bailer method;
(iii) The Two-Plug method; or
(iv) An alternative method approved by the Director, which will
reliably provide a comparable level of protection to underground
sources of drinking water.
(3) The well to be abandoned shall be in a state of static
equilibrium with the mud weight equalized top to bottom, either by
circulating the mud in the well at least once or by a comparable method
prescribed by the Director, prior to the placement of the cement
plug(s).
(4) The plugging and abandonment plan required in 40 CFR 144.51(o)
and 144.52(a)(6) shall, in the case of a Class III project which
underlies or is in an aquifer which has been exempted under
Sec. 146.04, also demonstrate adequate protection of USDWs. The
Director shall prescribe aquifer cleanup and monitoring where he deems
it necessary and feasible to insure adequate protection of USDWs.
(b) Requirements for Class IV wells. Prior to abandoning a Class IV
well, the owner or operator shall close the well in accordance with 40
CFR 144.23(b).
(c) Requirements for Class V wells. (1) Prior to abandoning a Class
V well, the owner or operator shall close the well in a manner that
prevents the movement of fluid containing any contaminant into an
underground source of drinking water, 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 the
health of persons. Closure requirements for motor vehicle waste
disposal wells and large-capacity cesspools are reiterated at
Sec. 144.89.
(2) The owner or operator shall dispose of or otherwise manage any
soil, gravel, sludge, liquids, or other materials removed from or
adjacent to the well in accordance with all applicable Federal, State,
and local regulations and requirements.
[FR Doc. 99-31048 Filed 12-6-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
