[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 145 (Wednesday, July 29, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40586-40619]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-19936]
[[Page 40585]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Environmental Protection Agency
_______________________________________________________________________
40 CFR Parts 144, 145, and 146
Class V Injection Wells Underground Injection Control Regulations,
Revisions; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 145 / Wednesday, July 29, 1998 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 40586]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 144, 145 and 146
[FRL-6129-4]
RIN 2040-AB83
Revisions to the Underground Injection Control Regulations for
Class V Injection Wells
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) today is proposing
changes to the Class V Underground Injection Control (UIC) regulations
that would add new requirements for three categories of Class V wells
that pose a high risk when located in ground water-based source water
protection areas being delineated by states under the 1996 Amendments
to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). Class V motor vehicle waste
disposal wells in such areas 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) at the point of
injection. Class V industrial waste disposal wells in ground water-
based source water protection areas also would be required to meet the
MCLs at the point of injection, and large-capacity cesspools in such
areas would be banned. EPA is proposing these new requirements to
address three categories of wells that it has identified as posing a
high risk of ground water contamination based on available information.
These are motor vehicle waste disposal wells, industrial waste disposal
wells, and cesspools in ground water-based source water protection
areas. Targeting the requirements to those wells will achieve
substantial protection of underground sources of drinking water.
EPA also is proposing to consolidate the Class V UIC regulations in
a ``plain-English'' format to make it easier for Class V well owners
and operators to understand when and how the regulations apply to them.
To that end, EPA recommends that you review the proposed regulatory
language first, and then refer to the preamble for background and
additional rationale not included in the rule.
DATES: EPA must receive public comment, in writing, on the proposed
regulations by September 28, 1998. Comments will only be accepted on
certain new sections of the proposed rule (see Table 1 of the
Preamble).
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to the UIC Class V, W-98-05 Comment
Clerk, Water Docket (MC-4101); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency;
401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. Comments may be hand-delivered
to the Water Docket, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 401 M
Street, SW., East Tower Basement, Washington, DC 20460. Comments may be
submitted electronically to [email protected].
Please submit all references cited in your comments. Facsimiles
(faxes) cannot be accepted. EPA would appreciate one original and three
copies of your comments and enclosures (including any references).
Commenters who would like EPA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
should include a self-addressed, stamped envelope.
The proposed rule and supporting documents, including public
comments, are available for review in the Water Docket at the above
address. 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 9:00 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: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Regulated Entities: Although certain proposed clarifications to the
UIC regulations would apply to owners or operators of any type of Class
V well, the only entities to be regulated by this proposal when final
are owners or operators of Class V motor vehicle waste disposal wells,
industrial wells, and large-capacity cesspools. Potentially regulated
categories and entities include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of regulated entities (if
Category they have a class V well)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry and Commerce............. 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),
chemical manufacturers, dry
cleaners, electric component
manufacturers, small machine
manufacturers, die and tool
manufacturers, commercial printers,
asphalt manufacturers, and
carwashes where engine or
undercarriage washing is performed
and any other commercial or
industrial facility with a Class V
disposal or drainage well (other
than stormwater drainage wells).
State and Local Government........ Road facilities, fire stations, and
solid waste management facilities.
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 that EPA is now aware
could potentially be 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
proposed 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.
Preamble Outline
I. Format and Scope of Proposed Rule
II. Background
A. Statutory and Regulatory Framework
B. Requirements Applicable to Class V Wells
C. History of this Rulemaking
1. 1987 Report to Congress on Class V Wells
2. 1994 Consent Decree With the Sierra Club
3. 1995 Proposed Rule
4. 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act
5. 1997 Consent Decree With the Sierra Club
6. 1998 Stakeholder Meetings and Small Entity Outreach
III. EPA Strategy for Class V Well Management
A. Initial Rule for High-Risk Well Types in Source Water
Protection Areas
[[Page 40587]]
B. Further Study of Additional Class V Well Types
IV. Integration of the Class V Rule With the Source Water Assessment
Program
A. Overview of the Source Water Assessment Program
B. Class V Rule Focus on Source Water Protection Areas
1. Proposal
2. Alternatives
C. Other Connections Between the Class V Rule and Source Water
Assessment Program
V. Proposed Class V Well Requirements
A. Categories of Class V Wells
B. Requirements for Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal Wells
1. Proposal to Ban New and Existing Wells
2. Proposal to Ban New Wells and Require Existing Wells to
Either Close or Get a Permit
3. Alternative
C. Requirements for Class V Industrial Wells
1. Proposal
2. Alternatives
D. Ban of Large-Capacity Cesspools
E. Exclusion Criteria for Septic Systems and Cesspools
F. Other Amendments
1. Sections 144.3 and 146.3--Definitions
2. Sections 144.6 and 146.5--Classification of Wells
3. Existing Regulations Being Reiterated or Replaced in 40 CFR
Part 144, Subpart G
4. Part 145--State UIC Program Requirements
VI. Regulatory Impact
A. Executive Order 12866
B. Children's Health Protection and Executive Order 13045
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
E. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership
F. Unfunded Mandates
G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
H. Environmental Justice
I. Effect on States With Primacy
I. Format and Scope of Proposed Rule
Today's notice proposes to consolidate 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 and operators should review the proposed
new regulation that presents the enforceable legal requirements they
need to know about. This preamble does not repeat any of the
requirements contained in the proposed rule, but rather provides
background and additional rationale not included in the regulation and
solicits comments on alternative requirements.
Because the new Subpart G consolidates the Class V UIC regulations
in one place, it includes portions of the existing regulations together
with proposed new requirements. The existing regulations that are being
reiterated in, or, in some cases, moved to Subpart G for the sake of
clarity are not open for public comment. Instead, EPA is accepting
public comment only on the proposed new requirements, which include (1)
some of the minor revisions originally proposed in the August 28, 1995
notice, which are repeated today to provide a complete and coherent
picture of all Class V changes being contemplated, and (2) additional
requirements being proposed for the first time today. Table 1 below
identifies those sections of the proposed regulation on which EPA is,
and is not, accepting comment.
Today's proposal does not solicit comments on other minor
amendments proposed on August 28, 1995 that have nothing to do with
Class V wells. These are amendments to Sec. 144.23 to clearly rule
authorize Class IV wells used to inject treated water into the same
formation from which it came if such injection is approved by EPA or a
state as part of a remediation program, and to Sec. 146.10 to include
plugging and abandonment requirements for Class IV wells. At the same
time EPA takes final action on today's proposal, EPA will issue a final
ruling on these other amendments based on public comments received on
the 1995 proposal.
Table 1.--Sections of Proposed Regulation Open for Public Comment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open for public comment Not open for public
--------------------------------------------------- comment Existing
Minor amendments requirements
New requirements in today's proposed on August included in plain
proposal 28, 1995 English format
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 144.1(f) reference to Sec. 144.1(g) Sec. 144.80
Subpart G, Part 144 specific inclusions description of the
and exclusions five classes of
injection wells
(reiterates
existing Sec.
144.6).
Secs. 144.3 and 146.3 Secs. 144.3 and Sec. 144.82 (a)
definition for sanitary 146.3 definitions through (e)
waste. for cesspool, prohibition of
drywell, improved fluid movement
sinkhole, septic (reiterates
system, subsurface existing Sec.
fluid distribution 144.12).
system, well, and
well injection.
Secs. 144.6(e) and 146.5(e) Sec. 144.6(a)(3) Sec. 144.83
description of Class V and 146.5(a)(3) inventory
injection wells. classification of requirements for
radioactive waste Class V wells
disposal wells. (moved from Sec.
144.26(b)(1)(iii)
and (e)), except
the proposed new
inventory
requirement for
well conversions in
Sec. 144.83(a)(2)(
iii), which is open
for public comment.
Secs. 144.81 definition of
12 types of Class V
injection wells.
Secs. 144.83(a)(2)(iii)
requirement to submit new
inventory information if a
well in a DI Program is
converted to an industrial
well.
Secs. 144.84(b)(2) and Sec. 144.84
(b)(3) description of description of when
circumstances in which Class V injection
permits or other action is is authorized by
required. rule (moved from
existing Sec.
144.24), except the
circumstances in
Sec. 144.84(b)(2)
and (b)(3) in which
permits or other
action is required
for Class V
cesspools, motor
vehicle waste
disposal wells, and
industrial wells,
which is open for
public comment.
Sec. 144.85 description of
when additional
requirements apply to Class
V cesspools, motor vehicle
waste disposal wells, and
industrial waste disposal
wells.
[[Page 40588]]
Sec. 144.86 additional
requirements for certain
Class V cesspools, motor
vehicle waste disposal
wells, and industrial waste
disposal wells.
Sec. 144.87(a)(2) Sec. 144.87(a)(1)
discussion of available closure
alternatives for disposing requirements for
of waste fluids. Class V cesspools,
motor vehicle waste
disposal wells, and
industrial waste
disposal wells
subject to Sec.
144.86.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 responsibility to administer the UIC program (those states
receiving such authority are referred to as ``Primacy States''). Where
states do not seek this responsibility or fail to demonstrate that they
meet EPA's minimum requirements, EPA is required to prescribe, by
regulation, a UIC program for such states. These direct implementation
(DI) programs were promulgated 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. Requirements Applicable to Class V Wells
The UIC regulations establish five classes of injection wells.
Class I wells are used to inject hazardous and non-hazardous waste
beneath the lowermost formation containing an underground source of
drinking water (USDW) within one-quarter mile of the well bore. Class
II wells are used to inject fluids associated with oil and natural gas
recovery and storage of liquid hydrocarbons. Class III wells are used
in connection with the solution mining of minerals. Class IV wells are
used to inject hazardous or radioactive wastes into or above a
formation that is within one-quarter mile of a USDW. (Class IV wells
are generally prohibited by 40 CFR Sec. 144.13.) Class V wells are
defined in the regulations as any well not included in Classes I
through IV.
Class V wells are currently authorized by rule (Sec. 144.24(a)).
Well authorization expires upon the effective date of a permit issued
pursuant to Secs. 144.25, 144.31, 144.33, or 144.34, or upon proper
closure of the well. The current regulations subject Class V wells to
the general statutory and regulatory prohibitions against endangerment
of USDWs, as well as some specific requirements. Under Sec. 144.12(a),
owners or operators of all injection wells, including Class V injection
wells, are prohibited from engaging in any injection activity that
allows the movement of fluid containing any contaminant into USDWs, if
the presence of that contaminant may cause a violation of any primary
drinking water regulation under 40 CFR part 142 or may otherwise
adversely affect human health. Section 144.12 (c) and (d) prescribe
mandatory and discretionary actions to be taken by the Director if a
well is not in compliance with Sec. 144.12(a). Specifically, the
Director must choose between requiring the injector to apply for an
individual permit, ordering such action as closure of the well to
prevent endangerment, or taking an enforcement action.
Owners or operators of Class V injection wells must also submit
basic inventory and assessment information under Sec. 144.26. In
addition, Class V wells are subject to the general program requirements
of Sec. 144.25 under which the Director may require a permit, if
necessary, to protect USDWs. Moreover, under Sec. 144.27, EPA may
require owners or operators of any Class V well, in EPA-administered
programs, to submit additional information deemed necessary to protect
USDWs. Owners or operators who fail to submit the information required
under Secs. 144.26 and 144.27 are prohibited from using their injection
wells.
C. History of This Rulemaking
While implementing the above requirements, EPA has inventoried and
assessed Class V wells and has pursued new rulemaking activities and
non-regulatory approaches to Class V well management. Major milestones
during this process leading to today's proposal are summarized below.
1. 1987 Report to Congress on Class V Wells
In accordance with the 1986 Amendments to the SDWA, EPA summarized
information on 32 categories of Class V wells in a Report to Congress
entitled Class V Injection Wells--Current Inventory; Effects on Ground
Water; and Technical Recommendations, September 1987 (EPA Document
Number 570/9-87-006). This report presents a national overview of Class
V injection practices
[[Page 40589]]
and state recommendations for Class V design, construction,
installation, and siting requirements. These state recommendations,
however, did not give EPA a clear mandate on what, if any, additional
measures were needed to control Class V wells on the national level.
For any given type of well, the recommendations can vary broadly and
are rarely made by more than two or three states. For example, the
recommendations for septic systems range from further studies (3
states) to statewide ground water monitoring (1 state). For industrial
waste water wells, some states recommend immediate action and closure
while others recommend monitoring and ground water evaluation studies.
2. 1994 Consent Decree With the Sierra Club
On December 30, 1993, the Sierra Club filed a complaint against EPA
in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia
alleging that EPA failed to comply with section 1421 of the SDWA
regarding publication of proposed and final regulations for Class V
injection wells. In particular, the complaint alleged that EPA's
current regulations regarding Class V wells do not meet the SDWA's
statutory requirements to ``prevent underground injection which
endangers drinking water sources.'' (Complaint, Paragraph 15)
On August 31, 1994, EPA entered into a consent decree with the
Sierra Club which required that no later than August 15, 1995, the
Administrator sign a notice to be published in the Federal Register
proposing regulatory action that fully discharges the Administrator's
rulemaking obligation under section 1421 of the SDWA, 42 U.S.C. 300h,
with respect to Class V injection wells. In this notice, EPA had to (1)
propose additional regulations with respect to all Class V injection
wells, (2) propose a decision that no further rulemaking for these
wells is necessary, or (3) propose additional regulations for some
Class V injection wells and a decision that no further rulemaking is
necessary for the remaining wells (Consent Decree, Paragraph 2). The
consent decree further required that, no later than November 15, 1996,
the Administrator sign a final rulemaking notice to be published in the
Federal Register fully discharging the Administrator's rulemaking
obligations under section 1421 with respect to Class V injection wells
(Consent Decree, Paragraph 3).
3. 1995 Proposed Rule
On August 15, 1995, the Administrator signed a notice of proposed
rulemaking intended to fulfill EPA's obligation under the 1994 consent
decree with the Sierra Club (60 FR 44652, August 28, 1995). In this
notice, EPA proposed not to adopt additional federal regulations for
any types of Class V injection wells. Instead, the Agency proposed to
address the risks posed by certain wells using existing authorities and
a Class V management strategy designed to (1) speed up the closure of
potentially endangering wells; and (2) promote the use of best
management practices to ensure that other Class V wells of concern do
not endanger USDWs. Several factors led EPA to propose this approach,
including: (1) the wide diversity in the types of fluids being
injected, ranging from high risk to not likely to endanger; (2) the
large number of facilities to be regulated; and (3) the nature of the
regulated community, which consists of a large proportion of small
businesses.
EPA received many comments that supported the Agency's proposal to
not impose more regulations for Class V wells. Commenters who supported
the rule included some states and industries that use Class V injection
wells. In general, these commenters supported the rule because it
provided maximum flexibility to states to use existing authorities to
address high-risk site specific factors. However, EPA also received a
number of comments that raised concerns about the proposal, primarily
from states and an environmental group. In particular, several
commenters questioned whether a UIC program without additional
requirements for what they believed to be relatively high-risk well
types, including Class V industrial waste disposal wells and cesspools,
could prevent endangerment to drinking water sources as required by the
SDWA. These commenters claimed that at least some types of wells pose a
known threat to USDWs and that lack of data or ability to address the
entire threat posed by Class V wells does not justify failing to act to
address at least part of the threat.
EPA now believes that the 1995 proposal was inadequate to protect
USDWs for two main reasons. First, the 1995 approach proposed to
address all Class V wells regardless of the level of risks they pose to
USDWs, with one regulatory approach. Specifically the proposed approach
did not provide a clear set of regulatory requirements for different
categories of wells based on their level of risk. As a result, the
proposed rule did not adequately address high-risk wells that threaten
public drinking water supplies. EPA now believes that specific
regulatory requirements are necessary to control the risks posed by
industrial waste disposal wells, motor vehicle waste disposal wells,
and large-capacity cesspools in delineated source water protection
areas, as described below. This belief was echoed in some of the public
comments received on the proposed rule and in recent stakeholder
meetings. Second, EPA believes that the 1995 proposed rule did not
provide for adequate public health protection nationwide. Specifically,
it did not establish a clear baseline program for states to follow and,
therefore, even though the authority exists, states could allow
inadequate controls in those situations where there is inadequate
information and/or inadequate resources to address Class V wells. On
the other hand, it has been suggested that the additional information
expected to be generated through the source water assessment program,
including an inventory of sources of contamination and an assessment of
the vulnerability of public water systems to such contamination could
strengthen the 1995 approach. If commenters wish to submit comments on
this issue they are welcome to do so.
4. 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act
The 1996 Amendments to the SDWA establish a new and flexible
approach to drinking water protection. In particular the Amendments
make source water protection a national priority. They create
requirements and incentives for Primacy states to assess their own
source waters, including the susceptibility of public water systems to
contamination, and to encourage states to establish source water
protection programs that fit their particular needs and conditions.
As discussed in more detail in section IV of today's preamble, EPA
believes it is necessary to re-propose Class V UIC regulations that are
integrated with these new programs for source water protection. For
example, today's proposal focuses on source water protection areas,
consistent with the national priority established by the 1996 SDWA
Amendments. Today's proposal also would provide incentives for states
to complete source water assessments in a timely manner, reinforcing
other actions the Agency is taking to achieve the goal of enhanced
protection of source waters.
5. 1997 Consent Decree With the Sierra Club
The Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund submitted comments on the 1995
proposed Class V rule alleging that the proposal failed to carry out
statutory
[[Page 40590]]
requirements. As noted above, based on these and other comments, EPA
decided to reconsider its proposed approach. Because this
reconsideration would extend the time necessary to complete the
rulemaking for Class V wells, EPA and the Sierra Club entered into a
modified consent decree on January 28, 1997 that extends the dates for
rulemaking that had been in the 1994 decree. The modified decree
requires three actions. First, by no later than July 18, 1998 (EPA used
one of its 30 day extensions to the original June 18, 1998 deadline),
the EPA Administrator must 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 by the Administrator (based on the
additional study described below, other types of Class V wells may be
found to pose a high risk and warrant additional regulation later).
This notice must either (1) propose regulations fully implementing
section 1421 of the SDWA with respect to the types of Class V wells
currently known to pose a high risk, (2) propose a decision that no
further rulemaking is necessary in order to fully discharge the
Administrator's rulemaking obligation with respect to such high-risk
wells, or (3) propose regulations fully implementing section 1421 with
respect to some of these high-risk Class V wells, and propose a
decision that no further rulemaking is necessary in order to fully
discharge the Administrator's rulemaking obligations with respect to
the remaining high-risk Class V injection wells. According to the
consent decree, the Administrator must sign a final rulemaking for
high-risk Class V wells by no later than August 31, 1999. (Consent
Decree, Paragraphs 2a and 2b). Today's proposal has been developed in
response to this first required action and supersedes the 1995 proposal
with respect to these high-risk wells.
Second, by no later than September 30, 1999, EPA must complete a
study of all Class V wells not included in the rulemaking on high-risk
Class V injection wells (Consent Decree, Paragraph 2c). Based on this
study, EPA may find that some of these other types of Class V wells
also pose a high risk.
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 rulemaking for currently identified high-risk Class V injection
wells. That proposal will supersede the 1995 proposal with respect to
all remaining Class V wells. The Administrator must sign a final
rulemaking for these remaining Class V wells by no later than May 31,
2002.
6. 1998 Stakeholder Meetings and Small Entity Outreach
To help shape today's proposal, EPA convened three stakeholder
meetings to inform potentially affected entities of the requirements
under consideration and to solicit feedback. One meeting was in
Washington, DC, on January 20, 1998, one was in Chicago, IL on January
27, 1998, and one was in San Francisco, CA on February 19, 1998.
As required by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness
Act of 1996 (SBREFA), EPA also has conducted outreach directly to
representatives of small entities that would be affected by the
proposed rule. In consultation with the Small Business Administration
(SBA), EPA identified 17 representatives of small entities that were
most likely to be affected by the proposal. In December, 1997, EPA
prepared an outreach brochure titled ``Possible Changes to Class V UIC
Requirements: Information for Owners and Operators of Class V Injection
Wells'' (available for review in the public docket supporting today's
notice). This brochure was distributed to the small entity
representatives and EPA convened a two-hour conference call with these
representatives on January 15, 1998. Also in January, 1998, EPA
presented the new Class V requirements being considered to the SBA
Environmental Roundtable.
Efforts to identify and incorporate small entity concerns into this
rulemaking culminated with the convening of a Small Business Advocacy
Review Panel, as required by SBREFA. This Panel was headed by EPA's
Small Business Advocacy Chairperson with the Office of Policy, Planning
and Evaluation, and consisted of the Director of the Office of Ground
Water and Drinking Water within EPA's Office of Water, the
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
within the Office of Management and Budget, and the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the SBA. For a 60-day period starting in February 1998, the
Panel reviewed technical background information related to this
rulemaking, reviewed comments provided by small entity representatives,
and met on several occasions with EPA and the small entity
representatives to identify issues and explore alternative approaches
for accomplishing environmental protection goals while minimizing
impacts to small business. This process, along with the Panel's
findings and recommendations, are presented in the April 1998 ``Report
of the Small Business Advocacy Review Panel on the Revisions to the
Underground Injection Control Regulations for Class V Injection
Wells,'' available for review in the public docket supporting today's
proposal.
Today's notice incorporates all of the recommendations on which the
Panel reached consensus. In particular, the Panel recommended that the
proposal offer alternatives to the proposed ban of Class V motor
vehicle waste disposal wells. Therefore, in addition to the proposed
ban, today's notice presents a co-proposal in both the preamble and
proposed regulatory language, as well as another alternative that is
discussed in the preamble only (see section V.B of the preamble and
Sec. 144.84(b) and Sec. 144.86 of the proposed regulation). The Panel
also recommended 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. This recommendation has been adopted in today's
notice (see sections V.B and V.C of the preamble and Sec. 144.85(a) and
(I) and Sec. 144.86 of the proposed regulation). Other changes made in
response to Panel recommendations include the following: the proposed
definitions of industrial wells and drainage wells have been revised to
make sure wells intended for stormwater management are (subject to
certain conditions) regulated as drainage wells not industrial wells
(see section V.A of the preamble and Sec. 144.81(b) and (e) of the
proposed regulation); additional data and rationale have been added to
the preamble to support EPA's belief that motor vehicle waste disposal
wells in source water protection areas pose a high risk (see section
V.B.1); the preamble discussion of regulatory impacts has been expanded
to describe and solicit comments on the approach used to estimate the
type and number of small entities potentially subject to the rule (see
section VI.D); the proposed definitions of ``industrial'' and ``other
industrial'' wells have been revised to clarify that wells injecting
wastewater from carwashes qualify as industrial wells subject to the
rule only if specifically set up for engine or undercarriage washing
(see section V.A of the preamble and Sec. 144.81(b) and (l) of the
proposed regulation); the preamble has been revised to introduce a
report submitted by the National Funeral Directors Association on
funeral
[[Page 40591]]
home septic systems and to request comments on the merits of moving
such systems into the other industrial well category (see section V.A);
the preamble has been expanded to clarify 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 (see section
V.B.1); the preamble has been expanded to elaborate on the rationale
for and ask for comment on the proposed statewide coverage of the new
requirements in states that fail to complete their source water
assessments by May 2003 (see section IV.B.1 and 2); the preamble and
the supporting economic analysis have been revised to acknowledge and
account for the cleanup requirements that may be triggered by the
proposal 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 (see section V.B.1); the proposed regulatory language
has been expanded to identify ways well owners or operators can learn
if they are in a source water protection area (see Sec. 144.85(g)); and
the preamble has been expanded to explain the rationale for and ask for
comment on proposing monitoring requirements for motor vehicle waste
disposal wells but not industrial wells (see section V.B.3).
The Panel did not reach consensus on two issues. One issue
concerned the basis for regulation, with some Panel members questioning
whether EPA had an adequate basis to conclude that the non-regulatory
approach proposed in 1995 was inadequate. In response to this issue,
today's preamble includes additional discussion explaining why EPA now
believes the 1995 proposal is inadequate and why the proposed new
regulations are necessary (see section II.C.3).
The other issue concerned the proposed requirement for industrial
well injectate to meet MCLs at the point of injection, with some Panel
members suggesting the EPA consider the possibility of allowing the
injectate to meet some higher multiple of the MCL (e.g., 10 or 100
times the MCL) for certain contaminants under certain conditions, in
recognition of the fact that some contaminants are significantly
attenuated by percolation through soil prior to reaching the water
table, and most are diluted within the aquifer prior to reaching a
public water system. There are several research reports in the docket
which discuss the question of attenuation of volatile organic compounds
and metals in the soil, under various conditions. In addition, many
existing wells are designed in accordance with state and local
requirements to treat wastes before releasing them into the soil. These
Panel members suggested that for such contaminants (e.g., metals, which
generally do not travel far from the point of injection unless injected
directly into the water table) EPA should try to identify conditions
(e.g., soil type, water table depth, distance to nearest drinking water
well) that would allow injection of the contaminants without
endangering drinking water sources. In making this suggestion they
noted that to be workable, such conditions would have to be easily
verifiable. They also suggested that EPA consider expanding the
flexibility available under the permitting option for motor vehicle
wells to allow UIC Program Directors to permit discharges that exceed
an MCL at the point of injection if this would not endanger USDWs,
based on site specific circumstances.
EPA believes that its proposed approach to regulate cesspools,
automotive service station wells and industrial wells is consistent
with its long-standing interpretation of the statutory requirements to
assure the protection of underground sources of drinking water. EPA
also believes that developing a set of conditions within which a Class
V well owner or operator could inject waste that exceeds drinking water
standards without endangering drinking water sources would not be a
viable option for most small entities because of the difficulty and
expense involved in collecting the site-specific hydrologic, geologic,
and soil information necessary to determine if waste, above the MCL,
could be injected without endangering the underlying USDW.
Additionally, EPA questions whether it would be possible to develop
such conditions because of the difficulty of anticipating certain
events (such as high volume spills, illicit discharges, the siting of
new drinking water supplies wells, and improper system maintenance)
that could endanger underlying USDWs.
However, EPA is requesting comment on its position. Some commenters
have suggested that there are situations where a facility could inject
waste that exceeds some MCLs in source water protection areas without
endangering drinking water supplies. EPA believes these situations are
extremely rare and that, if allowed to inject above the MCL, the vast
majority of facilities would pose an endangerment to current and future
water supplies. EPA's proposed regulatory approach to require
facilities to meet MCLs is designed to be protective of public health.
Commenters are welcome to submit their views on whether or not they
agree with EPA's position. If commenters disagree with EPA's position
they should discuss specific contaminants and conditions for which an
alternative regulatory approach would be appropriate and provide data
supporting their position.
III. EPA Strategy for Class V Well Management
Today EPA is proposing an expanded Class V well management strategy
to resolve major issues raised in public comments on the 1995 proposal,
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.
As discussed in section II.B above, 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 injector 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 consists of (1) an initial rule
creating additional requirements for high-risk Class V well types in
ground water-based source water protection areas; 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.
A. Initial Rule for High-Risk Well Types in Source Water Protection
Areas
As the first step of its Class V strategy, EPA is today proposing
to add requirements for three categories of Class V injection wells
determined to be the highest risk by the Administrator. The three
categories are: (1) motor vehicle waste disposal wells, (2) industrial
wells, and (3) large-capacity cesspools, when any of these wells are
located in source water protection areas delineated for community water
systems and non-transient non-community water systems that use ground
water as a
[[Page 40592]]
source.1 Source water protection areas, to be defined by
states in accordance with the 1996 Amendments to the SDWA, will
identify places critical for the protection of most public drinking
water supplies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As defined in the drinking water regulations at 40 CFR
141.2, 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. A ``non-
transient non-community water system'' is 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. Non-transient non-
community water systems may include systems that provide water to
day care centers, government/military installations, manufacturers,
hospitals or nursing homes, office buildings, schools, and other
facilities. A ``transient non-community water system'' provides a
less regular source of water, such as to people visiting rest areas
and campgrounds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In such delineated areas, today's proposal would ban new Class V
motor vehicle waste disposal wells, as well as new cesspools having the
capacity to serve 20 persons or more per day. Existing Class V motor
vehicle waste disposal wells in delineated areas would either be banned
or required to get a permit specifying that released fluids must meet
primary drinking water maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) at the point
of injection. Existing large-capacity cesspools in delineated areas
would have to be phased out within five years. Owners or operators of
Class V industrial wells in delineated areas would either have to close
their wells or make sure the fluids they inject meet the MCLs at the
point of injection.
As discussed later in this preamble, the conclusion that these
Class V wells pose a high risk when located in ground water-based
source water protection areas 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. EPA requests comment on this position. Specifically, do
commenters believe that it is appropriate to designate motor vehicle
and industrial wells in delineated areas as high risk and regulate them
under this proposal or, alternatively, do commenters believe that there
is a better (i.e., more or less inclusive) categorization that EPA
could use to identify high risk wells? Commenters are encouraged to
provide data supporting their position.
Available information presented in the Report to Congress and
summarized in the 1995 proposal also suggests that there may be other
categories of Class V wells that pose a high risk. Individual wells in
any of the Class V categories also may endanger USDWs, depending on
fluids released into the wells and site-specific conditions. However,
available data regarding the risks posed by other Class V wells are
insufficient for EPA to conclude that additional federal regulation is
necessary at this time. Therefore, as the second step of the Class V
strategy, EPA will continue to study all of the categories of Class V
wells not addressed in today's proposal to determine the need for
additional regulations. In the meantime, EPA will continue to rule
authorize the other categories of Class V wells and actively control
them by implementing and enforcing the existing regulations. This will
include enforcing the Sec. 144.12 prohibition against the endangerment
of USDWs, calling individual problem wells in for a permit under
Sec. 144.25 authority, and requiring the submittal of additional
information deemed necessary to protect USDWs in accordance with
Sec. 144.27.
At the same time, EPA expects and strongly encourages states to use
existing UIC authorities to ensure all Class V wells are not
endangering USDWs. These efforts should not be limited to wells in
source water protection areas, which have received national priority
under this regulation. There may be other sensitive areas, outside of
delineated source water protection areas, that warrant more stringent
control on a state or local level. Nothing in this rule precludes a
state or local government from promulgating more stringent requirements
above and beyond existing UIC authorities.
B. Further Study of Additional Class V Well Types
The second step in the strategy will involve continuing study to
assess the size and impact of the Class V well universe not addressed
by today's proposal. Other types of Class V wells are not covered by
today's proposal because more information is needed to determine
whether additional federal regulation for these other well types is
necessary, and if so, what that additional regulation should entail.
Therefore, EPA will undertake further study to assess risks, fill
existing information gaps, and provide a factual basis for any further
regulatory action.
IV. Integration of the Class V Rule With the Source Water
Assessment Program
Today's proposal has been developed to productively use and promote
linkages between the Class V UIC program and EPA's developing source
water assessment program. Both programs are authorized by the SDWA. The
UIC Program is designed to protect all current and potential USDWs from
pollution by injection wells. The source water assessment program is
structured to identify all potential sources of contamination within
areas that now provide short-term recharge to public water supply wells
and surface water intakes.
A. Overview of the Source Water Assessment Program
Section 1453 of the SDWA Amendments of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-182)
establishes a new requirement for source water assessments. EPA
published guidance describing how the states should carry out a source
water assessment program within the state's boundaries. The final
guidance, entitled State Source Water Assessment and Protection
Programs Guidance (EPA 816-R-97-009), was released in August 1997 and
is available in the docket for today's proposal.
Source water assessment programs comprise essentially the first
three steps of a full prevention program. First, a program must
delineate the boundaries of the assessment areas in the state from
which one or more public drinking water systems receive supplies of
drinking water. In delineating these areas, states must use ``all
reasonably available hydrogeologic information on the sources of the
supply of drinking water in the state and the water flow, recharge, and
discharge and any other reliable information as the state deems
necessary to adequately determine such areas.'' Second, the state must
identify contaminants of concern, and for those contaminants, the state
must inventory significant potential sources of contamination in
delineated source water protection areas. Third, the state must
``determine the susceptibility of the public water systems in the
delineated area to such contaminants.''
States must submit their proposed source water assessment programs
to EPA no later than 18 months after publication of the Source Water
Assessment and Protection Programs Guidance, which would be February
1999. EPA then has nine months, until November 1999, to approve or
disapprove the submitted state program. Once approved, a state should
complete its source water assessments by no later than November 2001,
or if EPA grants an extension, by May 2003. For purposes of this
proposed rule, a state program is considered complete when the state
program has been approved by EPA and all its local assessments for
community and non-transient non-community water systems have been
completed. This means that all local assessments within a state have
[[Page 40593]]
performed the three required steps of delineation, source
identification, and susceptibility analysis. This proposed rule does
not regulate wells within the source water protection areas for
transient non-community water systems. Therefore, for purposes of this
proposed rule, assessments for these systems do not have to be
performed for the state program to be considered complete.
Other features of the program include the new section 1452 grant
program, which established the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund.
Grants under section 1452 may be used to assist the states in financing
the source water assessment program and most states have elected to use
the grants for this purpose. In addition, connections between the
source water assessment program and relief from the contaminant
monitoring requirements of the SDWA provide an incentive for states to
complete implementation of the source water assessment program within a
relatively short (two-year) timetable. For a state to tailor
alternative monitoring requirements for public water systems under a
new permanent monitoring relief provision contained in the 1996
Amendments, a state must have an EPA-approved source water assessment
program. Moreover, any public water system seeking alternative
monitoring requirements under a state's permanent monitoring relief
authority must have a complete source water assessment.
Section 1453 expresses Congress' intent that states use data
generated under other programs. To avoid duplication and encourage
efficiency, the source water protection area delineation and source
identifications are specifically encouraged to make use of any of the
following: vulnerability assessments, sanitary surveys, and monitoring
programs; delineations or assessments of ground water sources under a
state wellhead protection program; delineations or assessments of
surface or ground water sources under a state pesticide management
plan; delineations or assessments of surface water sources under a
state watershed initiative or to satisfy the watershed criterion for
determining if filtering is required under the Surface Water Treatment
Rule; and delineations or assessments of surface or ground water
sources under programs or plans pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act.
B. Class V Rule Focus on Source Water Protection Areas
1. Proposal
Today's proposal focuses on source water protection areas as a key
element for the protection of USDWs. Areas delineated under a state
source water assessment program represent, at a minimum, areas
designated to receive top priority for the protection of public
drinking water supplies. Consistent with this prioritization, this rule
would target the high-risk Class V wells in delineated source water
protection areas for public water systems that use ground water as a
source.
Figure 1 shows how the proposed Class V rule would be linked with
the source water assessment program in terms of major milestones and
areas covered. According to the 1997 consent decree with the Sierra
Club (as modified), the new Class V requirements would be finalized by
August 1999. The requirements would then become effective in DI
Programs within 60 days, or by October 1999. Primacy States would have
270 days, or until May 2000, to submit for EPA's approval any program
revisions needed to implement the new requirements. Assuming it takes
three months for EPA to approve these revisions, the new requirements
would become effective in Primacy States by August 2000. If the source
water assessment program in a state is complete by the effective date
of the rule (either October 1999 for DI Programs or around August 2000
for Primacy States), the new requirements would apply only to
delineated source water protection areas. If some but not all local
assessments in a state have been completed by that time, meaning that
the state program is not complete, then the new requirements would
apply to delineated areas where local assessments are complete. If all
local assessments are not done by May 2003, which is the time by which
state programs should be complete according to the State Source Water
Assessment and Protection Programs Guidance, the new Class V
requirements would apply statewide because there would be no way of
knowing which wells in the state pose the highest risk. A possible
exception would be if a state completed local source water assessments
in one geographic area, the state would know which wells within that
specific geographic area pose the highest risk.
The requirements would apply statewide permanently, even if a state
completed its source water assessment program at some later time after
May 2003. EPA realizes that some commenters may think that it is
unreasonable, unfair, or unnecessary to permanently apply the new
requirements statewide if a state's source water assessment program is
not complete by May 2003, but is completed some time later. However,
EPA believes this is the best approach for two reasons. First, this
approach would provide a strong incentive for states to establish and
complete a source water assessment program in a timely manner,
consistent with the goal under the 1996 SDWA Amendments. Second,
applying the requirements statewide starting in May 2003 and then
changing to apply the requirements only to delineated areas when
programs are completed some time afterward would be very confusing and
difficult to implement, both for well owners or operators and for UIC
regulatory agencies. EPA believes this confusion and difficulty would
ultimately result in the new requirements not being implemented
effectively to ensure the protection of USDWs. The next section of this
preamble on alternatives provides further discussion of a permanent
statewide ban and possible alternative approaches. It should be noted,
however, that with the exception of Wyoming and Indian Country as
discussed below, EPA fully expects states to meet the deadline because
the ground water component of source water assessment programs is
likely to be based on the Wellhead Protection Programs already
established in most states. Therefore, the point is expected to be moot
in most places.
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
[[Page 40594]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP29JY98.000
BILLING CODE 6560-59-C
[[Page 40595]]
The situation is more complicated in Wyoming and Indian Country
because the State of Wyoming and Tribes do not have primacy for the
public water system program and, as such, are not required to conduct
source water assessments. Therefore, the proposed Class V UIC
requirements would apply throughout Wyoming and Indian Country unless
the EPA Regional Offices worked with the State and Tribes to delineate
source water protection areas and implement other source water
assessment activities. Alternatively, EPA's Source Water Guidance
recommends that each Tribe implement a source water assessment program
``to the extent appropriate resources are available to do so.'' Tribes
may either establish and implement their own program and submit it to
EPA for approval, or they may participate in a state program as an
alternative to, or in conjunction with, their own program. It is
uncertain, however, which Tribes are likely to participate in source
water assessment activities and to what extent.
States must delineate source water protection areas for: (1) Public
water systems based solely on ground water; (2) public water systems
based solely on surface water; and (3) public water systems using both
ground and surface water, or systems using ground water that is
influenced by surface water. In addition, states must delineate source
water protection areas for: (1) Community water systems; (2) non-
transient non-community water systems; and (3) transient non-community
water systems. The requirements in today's proposal would apply to
Class V cesspools, motor vehicle waste disposal wells, and industrial
wells in source water protection areas delineated for community water
systems and non-transient non-community water systems that use ground
water as a source. For the purpose of today's proposal, this would
include such systems that have at least one ground-water source that
contributes to their annual water supply.
This focus on ground water, rather than surface water, is
consistent with the scope of the UIC program to protect underground
sources of drinking water. Moreover, based on EPA's most recent
Community Water System Survey (EPA 815-R-97-001a, January 1997, page
6), almost 80 percent of community water systems use primarily ground
water. Less than 10 percent of systems surveyed primarily use surface
water sources.
EPA believes the focus on community water systems and non-transient
non-community systems is justified based on the risks involved and the
purpose of this rule. According to the most recent survey, community
systems and non-transient non-community systems supply drinking water
to 93 percent and 2 percent of the U.S. population, respectively
(Community Water System Survey, EPA 815-R-97-001a, January 1997, page
5). In addition, the people relying on transient non-community water
systems, such as at rest areas or campgrounds, do not drink water from
the same system on a regular basis. Any exposure to contamination in a
given system, therefore, tends to be one time or infrequent, as opposed
to the chronic exposure and potentially significant risk associated
with the consumption of contaminated water from community systems and
non-transient non-community systems. Since most of the contaminants
found in wells covered by today's proposal pose chronic, not acute
risks, it would take repeated exposure to these contaminants for
adverse health effects to be realized. Repeat exposure does not occur
in transient systems. The purpose of today's rule is to address
designated high-risk wells for which additional information is
unnecessary. Given the limited exposure at transient systems, EPA does
not believe that wells within delineated areas for such systems are
categorically ``high risk'' and thus they are not part of today's rule.
The Agency recognizes, however, that there may be instances in
which pathogens in untreated sanitary waste released into Class V
cesspools could contaminate the water supply source for a transient
system and pose an ``acute'' risk if consumed (meaning there could be a
serious health risk given the nature and high level of contamination,
despite the fact that the water is not regularly consumed). This would
be a concern only if a Class V cesspool were in a location and
hydrogeologic setting that would permit pathogens to migrate to a
ground water supply well that serves a transient system, and then, only
if there were no (or inadequate) disinfection of the water prior to it
being consumed. EPA believes these circumstances are in fact limited
because of the small number of large capacity cesspools that still
exist. Nevertheless, to further limit the acute risk associated with
large-capacity cesspools, EPA could expand today's proposed cesspool
requirements to source water protection areas delineated for transient
non-community systems that use ground water as a source, in addition to
such areas for community water systems and non-transient non-community
water systems. EPA requests comment on the merits and potential impacts
of including transient systems within the scope of the proposed
requirements for cesspools. Based on such comment, EPA may adopt that
approach in the final rule.
EPA underscores that this initial rule targets certain source 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 high risk 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, would continue to
apply to all Class V wells and all areas, whether or not a state has a
completed source water assessment 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 would
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 sensitive areas beyond
delineated source water protection areas. Examples of other sensitive
areas include areas overlying sole-source aquifers, highly productive
aquifers supplying private wells, continuous and highly productive
aquifers at points distant from public water supply wells, areas where
water supply aquifers are recharged, karst aquifers that discharge to
surface reservoirs serving as public water supplies, susceptible or
sensitive hydrogeologic settings (e.g., glacial
[[Page 40596]]
outwash deposits, eolian sands, and fractured volcanic rock), and areas
of special concern selected based on a combination of factors, such as
hydrogeologic sensitivity, prevailing land-use practices, and
documented ground water contamination. If believed to be necessary,
states should apply the same requirements proposed 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.
2. Alternatives
The Agency requests public comments on whether the new Class V
regulations should apply to areas beyond delineated source water
protection areas, or even apply statewide, in order to ensure
protection of USDWs in other locations. Although the Agency recognizes
the merits of this approach, it is not preferred because it would
uniformly impose stringent new requirements for motor vehicle waste
disposal wells, large-capacity cesspools, and industrial wells in all
areas even though such requirements may not be needed to protect USDWs
in all cases. EPA notes that states are already required to take
appropriate actions to prevent endangerment of USDWs from Class V UIC
wells in any part of the state where such endangerment may occur. In
fact, the Agency strongly encourages states to take appropriate action
using existing authorities to control Class V wells in other areas.
Finally, the proposed requirements would apply statewide if a state
does not have a complete source water assessment program by May 2003.
This would ensure adequate protection in all areas when a state has not
studied and defined areas that warrant the greatest protection.
EPA also requests comments on the merits of broadening the scope of
the additional requirements to other kinds of delineated source water
protection areas. This could include areas delineated around public
water systems using surface water recharged by ground water, or
transient non-community water systems that depend on at least one
ground-water source. As discussed above, EPA does not believe these
options are needed in this first phase of the Class V UIC rulemaking.
EPA also requests that commenters provide suggestions and ideas for
alternatives to permanently applying the new requirements statewide if
a state's source water assessment program is not complete by May 2003.
Several commenters during the SBREFA process believed this proposed
approach would unfairly impose a burden on some injection well owners
or operators, who are not endangering drinking water supplies, because
of a state's failure to comply with applicable deadlines. In order for
any alternative to be viable, it would have to be effective in
accomplishing the overall objective of protecting USDWs. Certain
advantages of the proposed approach include: the fact that it ensures
protection in the event new public water supply systems are created
outside areas currently delineated, and it provides a strong incentive
for timely completion of source water assessment programs.
Nevertheless, EPA recognizes there may be other approaches. One
alternative could be to give UIC Program Directors the flexibility to
extend the statewide ban date beyond May 2003 if states submit, before
that time, a plan demonstrating that their source water assessment
program is ``substantially'' (e.g., 80 to 90 percent) complete and
showing how they are making steady progress toward completion. This
approach, however, would not necessarily buy time for Wyoming or
Tribes, which do not have primacy responsibility for conducting source
water assessment programs and may not delineate their source water
protection areas. EPA requests comments on the merits of this
alternative and any other equally protective alternatives.
C. Other Connections Between the Class V Rule and Source Water
Assessment Program
The proposed Class V rule and state source water assessment
programs will have at least two other potentially beneficial mutual
connections. First, as states carry out the source identification and
susceptibility analysis required as the second and third steps of the
source water assessment program, Class V well inventories and
hydrogeological information developed under authorities such as
Sec. 144.27 will provide substantial inputs into the source water
assessment programs of some states. The Class V program will provide an
important means of both identifying and controlling risks in the
delineated source water protection areas.
Second, grants under section 1452, which established the Drinking
Water State Revolving Fund mentioned above, may also be used to finance
a range of state activities related to public supplies of drinking
water. A state may use up to 10 percent of its allotment for grants
under Sec. 1452 (with a 1:1 dollar state match) to support its state
drinking water program, and to develop and implement a source water
protection program, a capacity development program, and an operator
certification program. These funds can be used for state activities
under the UIC program to manage Class V wells, which may be in wellhead
protection areas of public water supplies. In addition, up to 15
percent of the capitalization grant is available for local assistance
and certain other eligible activities described in the SDWA, including
delineation and assessment of source water protection areas (provided
that each activity separately receives no more than 10 percent of the
grant amount). The total amount appropriated for the Drinking Water
State Revolving Fund Program for fiscal years 1997 and 1998 is $2.0
billion.
V. Proposed Class V Well Requirements
A. Categories of Class V Wells
Class V injection wells are generally shallow waste disposal wells,
stormwater and agricultural drainage systems, or other devices used to
release fluids either directly into USDWs or into the shallow
subsurface that overlies USDWs. In some instances, the fluids released
by these wells contain elevated concentrations of contaminants that may
endanger drinking water supplies. EPA estimates that more than one
million Class V wells currently exist in the United States. These wells
are located in virtually every state, especially in unsewered areas
where the population is likely to depend on ground water. Frequently,
Class V wells are designed as no more than shallow holes or septic tank
and leachfield combinations intended for sanitary waste disposal. While
such designs may be adequate for the treatment of sanitary waste, they
may not be appropriate for the disposal of industrial waste or other
fluids, although they are sometimes used for this purpose. Some types
of Class V wells may include other types of treatment systems, such as
oil water separation tanks, which are designed to treat certain types
of industrial waste.
Today, EPA is proposing to retain the current definition of Class V
wells. However, the current regulations also contain a non-inclusive
list of 16 types of Class V wells (Sec. 146.5). This list was further
divided into 32 categories in the 1987 Report to Congress on Class V
wells. The Report to Congress drew distinctions between well types
based on the design of the well, in some instances, and on the types of
fluids injected, in others. In reviewing the Report to Congress, the
Agency has determined that some of these distinctions are of little
consequence as far as the risk posed by the wells and
[[Page 40597]]
the appropriate management scheme. Therefore, for today's proposal, the
Agency has grouped Class V wells in 12 more appropriate categories that
combine together wells that are mostly similar both in terms of the
nature of fluids they inject and their potential to endanger USDWs.
The 12 general categories of Class V wells are defined in
Sec. 144.81 of today's proposed regulation. Table 2 shows how these
categories relate to the listing of wells in Sec. 146.5(e) of the
current regulations and the Class V well types addressed in EPA's 1987
Report to Congress.
There are two major differences between the categories proposed
today and the ones proposed in 1995: motor vehicle waste disposal wells
and ``other industrial'' wells have been removed from the industrial
well category proposed before and separated into their own categories.
This makes it easier to tailor Class V regulations to the different
types of wells based on their relative risk potential. In particular,
motor vehicle waste disposal wells would be defined more precisely for
the purpose of targeting additional requirements for this category of
wells. In addition, carving out the other industrial wells creates a
smaller and less diverse category of Class V industrial wells than
defined in the August 28, 1995 proposal. The wells remaining in the
industrial category in today's proposal--including wells at carwashes
where engine or undercarriage washing is performed, industrial process
water and waste disposal wells, and industrial drainage wells--are more
likely to pose a high risk and are more amenable to control through one
national minimum requirement than the broader category proposed before.
Insufficient information is presently available to conclude that the
other industrial wells should be banned, as EPA is proposing for motor
vehicle waste disposal wells, or should be required to meet a standard
on injectate quality, as EPA is proposing for Class V industrial wells.
Instead, EPA proposes to enforce the general non-endangerment
provisions in Sec. 144.12 for other industrial wells and, if necessary
to protect USDWs, require owners or operators to submit specific
information under Sec. 144.27 or obtain a permit under Sec. 144.25.
Under the second step of EPA's Class V strategy discussed above, EPA
also will study the other industrial wells further and address them in
another regulatory action, if necessary based on the findings of that
study.
Table 2.--Categories of Class V Injection Wells
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corresponding injection
Category in today's proposal Injection wells in Current Sec. 146.5 wells in 1987 report to
category Congress
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beneficial Use (Sec. 144.81(f)). Aquifer recharge......... (e)(6).................. 5R21 (Aquifer Recharge).
Salt water intrusion (e)(7).................. 5B22 (Saline Water
barrier. Intrusion Barrier).
Subsidence control....... (e)(10)................. 5S23 (Subsidence
Control).
Aquifer storage and Not listed.............. Not addressed as
recovery. separate category.
Subsurface environmental (e)(6).................. 5X26 (Aquifer
remediation. Remediation Related).
Fluid Return (Sec. 144.81(g))... Wells used to inject (e)(14)................. 5X16 (Spent-brine Return
spent brines after the Flow).
extraction of minerals
from produced fluids.
Wells used to inject heat (e)(1).................. 5A7 (Heat Pump/Air
pump return fluids. Conditioning Return
Flow), 5A6 (Direct Heat
Return).
Wells used to inject (e)(12)................. 5A5 (Electric Power
fluids that have Return), 5A8 (Ground
undergone chemical Water Aquaculture
alteration during the Return Flow).
production of geothermal
energy for heating,
aquaculture, or
production of electric
power.
Sewage Treatment Effluent (Sec. Wells used to inject Not listed.............. 5W12 (Domestic
144.81(h)). treated effluent from Wastewater Treatment
POTWs, or privately Plant Effluent
owned treatment works Disposal).
receiving solely
sanitary waste.
Cesspools (Sec. 144.81(c))...... Cesspools having the (e)(2).................. 5W9 (Untreated Sewage
capacity to serve 20 Waste Disposal), 5W10
persons or more per day (Cesspools).
and used solely for the
subsurface emplacement
of sanitary waste.
Septic Systems (Sec. 144.81(d)). Septic tank and fluid (e)(9).................. 5W11 (Septic Systems--
distribution system Undifferentiated
having the capacity to Disposal), 5W32 (Septic
serve 20 persons or more Systems--Drainfield
per day and used solely Disposal), 5W31 (Septic
for the subsurface Systems--Well
emplacement of sanitary Disposal).
waste.
Experimental Technology (Sec. Wells used as part of (e)(15)................. 5X25 (Experimental
144.81(I)). unproven subsurface Technology).
injection technologies
other than waste
disposal.
Drainage (Sec. 144.81(e))....... Wells used to drain (e)(4).................. 5D2 (Stormwater
surface and subsurface Drainage), 5F1
fluids, including (Agricultural
agricultural drainage Drainage), 5D3
and stormwater runoff (Improved Sinkholes),
that may have the 5G30 (Special
potential to receive Drainage), 5X29
insignificant amounts of (Abandoned Drinking
waste due to small Water Wells, if used
volume leaks, drips, or for the subsurface
spills. emplacement of
stormwater).
Mine Backfill and Drainage (Sec. Wells used to inject (e)(8).................. 5X13 (Mining, Sand, or
144.81(j)). materials into mined out Other Backfill).
portions of subsurface
mines, whether what is
injected is a
radioactive waste or
not, including (1)
slurries of sand,
gravel, cement, mill
tailings/refuse, fly
ash, or other solids,
and (2) mine drainage.
In Situ and Solution Mining (Sec. Wells used to inject (e)(13), (e)(16)........ 5X14 (Solution Mining),
144.81(k)). fluids for the purpose 5X15 (In situ Fossil
of producing minerals or Fuel Recovery).
energy, which are not
Class II or III wells.
[[Page 40598]]
Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal Wells used to inject (e)(5).................. 5X28 (Automobile Service
(Sec. 144.81(a)). fluids from motor Station Disposal).
vehicle repair or
maintenance activities,
such as an auto body
repair shop, automotive
repair shop, car
dealership, specialty
repair shop (e.g.,
transmission and muffler
repair shop), or any
facility that does any
vehicular repair work.
Other Industrial (Sec. Wells used to inject (e)(5).................. Not addressed as
144.81(l)). fluids from carwashes separate category.
where no engine or
undercarriage washing is
performed.
Wells used to inject (e)(3).................. 5A19 (Cooling water
noncontact cooling water return flow).
that contains no
additives and has not
been chemically altered.
Wells used to inject (e)(5).................. Not addressed as
fluids from laundromats separate category.
where no onsite dry
cleaning is performed or
where no organic
solvents are used for
laundering.
Wells used to inject (e)(5).................. Not addressed as
wastewater from food separate category.
processing operations.
Industrial (Sec. 144.81(b))..... Wells used to inject non- (e)(5).................. 5W20 (Industrial Process
hazardous wastewaters Water and Waste
generated by industrial, Disposal), 5D4
commercial, and service (Industrial Drainage),
establishments and that 5X17 (Air Scrubber
are not included in one Waste Disposal), 5X18
of the above categories; (Water Softener
these include wells used Regeneration Brine
to inject fluids from Disposal), 5X29
carwashes where engine (Abandoned Drinking
or undercarriage washing Water Wells, if used
is performed. for the subsurface
emplacement of
industrial or
commercial wastes not
injected in one of the
above categories of
wells), 5X27 (Other).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The fourth type of other industrial well listed in Table 2--wells
used to inject wastewater from food processing operations--will receive
special attention in the ongoing study of Class V wells. As a group,
EPA believes most of these wells pose a lower risk than the industrial
wells that would be regulated under today's proposal, because the
injectate is primarily food rinsewater or equipment washdown water
containing small quantities of food particles and relatively low
concentrations of contaminants. The Agency recognizes, however, that
there may be other wells in this group that pose a higher risk, such as
wells that inject brine from pickling operations, nutrient-rich
wastewater from potato processing plants, and so forth. EPA presently
has very little information on these wells. Therefore, they will be
examined more closely in the study to determine whether additional
federal regulation is needed, and if so, what that additional
regulation should entail. In the meantime, if UIC Program Directors
have information that any individual wells that fall in this category
do pose a threat, they can use the existing UIC authorities discussed
above to ensure protection of USDWs.
During the development of this proposal, the National Funeral
Directors Association (NFDA) recommended that the other industrial well
category be broadened to include Class V septic systems operated by
funeral homes. This would move these wells out of the industrial well
category, where they fit in today's proposal, and thus remove them from
the proposed requirement to meet MCLs at the point of injection. In
support of this recommendation, NFDA submitted to EPA a report titled
Septic System Treatment of Funeral Home Wastewater, March 18, 1998
(copy available for review in the docket). According to NFDA, this
report shows that only three preservative compounds with potential
human health concerns--formaldehyde, methanol, and phenol--are likely
to be found in funeral home wastewater in concentrations that exceed
health-based levels (MCLs are not available for these chemicals). The
report concludes that these compounds are generally adequately treated
in septic systems such that concentrations exceeding the health-based
levels do not exit the system. NFDA stated that it is unaware of any
incidence of contamination of USDWs by funeral home septic systems.
Today's proposal does not include septic systems operated by
funeral homes in the other industrial well category, because EPA needs
additional time to evaluate the data submitted by NFDA and determine
whether such a classification of funeral home wells is warranted. EPA
requests comment and additional data on the proper classification of
funeral home septic systems. Specifically, EPA requests comment on the
information contained in the NFDA report as well as comment and
information on any important topics that are not addressed in the NFDA
report but have a bearing on this decision. Based on public comment and
data, EPA may classify these wells as other industrial wells which are
outside the scope of this rulemaking.
Additional discussion is needed to clarify how stormwater drainage
wells are categorized in today's proposal. As shown in Table 2, wells
used to drain stormwater runoff would be classified as drainage wells
(not subject to new requirements under today's proposal), while
industrial drainage wells would be classified as industrial wells
(subject to the proposed new requirement to meet MCLs at the point of
injection). The industrial drainage well category, however, does not
include Class V wells intended for stormwater management that may have
the potential to receive insignificant amounts of waste due to
unintentional small volume leaks, drips, or spills and that cannot
reasonably be separated from potential sources of contamination. Such
wells, even if they were located at a commercial or industrial site,
would be classified as stormwater drainage wells and excluded from the
new regulation. In this context, ``cannot reasonably be separated''
means a well that cannot be moved farther away or uphill from a
potential source
[[Page 40599]]
of contamination (e.g., due to property boundaries, site layout, or
other physical constraints) and cannot be separated from a source by
berms, dikes, or drainage ditches and still perform the function of
draining stormwater runoff from a site. For example, a well at a gas
station would be considered a stormwater drainage well, not an
industrial well, if it is located reasonably far away from the gas
pumps in a downhill direction and only drains stormwater runoff
occasionally contaminated with insignificant amounts of gas due to
unintentional small volume leaks, drips, or spills at the pumps.
However, a well at a gas station or other commercial or industrial site
that is in position to directly receive bulk spills of materials or
wastes, or to receive highly contaminated runoff due to large leaks or
spills, would be classified as an industrial drainage well, even if the
well is intended for stormwater management.
EPA requests comment on this proposed treatment of stormwater
drainage wells. The Agency is attempting to reasonably distinguish
between a well at a commercial or industrial site that routinely
receives highly contaminated drainage or is susceptible to significant
spills of chemicals or wastes, and a well at a commercial or industrial
site that is intended for stormwater management but also may receive
the unintentional insignificant leaks, drips, or spills that are
commonly contained in street runoff. If these two kinds of wells can be
distinguished, the wells that are more like industrial wells could be
regulated like industrial wells and the wells that are more like
stormwater management wells could be regulated like drainage wells. EPA
realizes, however, that it may not be practical to make this
distinction, potentially allowing some endangering drainage wells at
commercial or industrial sites to escape the additional regulations
proposed today. EPA also realizes that the proposed categorization may
be at odds with the programs currently being implemented by existing
UIC authorities. Therefore, the Agency requests that commenters
specifically address the merits and potential impact of the proposed
categorization. Based on these comments, EPA may classify all drainage
wells at commercial or industrial sites as industrial wells in the
final rule.
Finally, wells used to inject fluids from carwashes are in one of
two categories depending on whether the carwashes perform engine or
undercarriage washing. Only those wells at car washes that are
specifically set up to perform engine or undercarriage washing are
considered to be Class V industrial wells under the proposed rule.
Wells at coin-operated, manual carwashes where people use hand-held
hoses to wash only the exteriors of vehicles would be classified as
other industrial wells, as would those at any other vehicle washing
facility not set up to perform engine or undercarriage washing. The
cleaning solutions used at these carwashes generally consist of soap
solutions, rinsewater, and wax, and do not contain degreasing agents or
solvents such as methylene chloride or trichloroethylene. As a result,
the spent washwater disposed in a carwash well that qualifies as
another industrial well primarily contains detergents, road salts,
sediments, and incidental contaminants that may be washed from a
vehicle's exterior, comparable to typical stormwater runoff.
B. Requirements for Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal Wells
As discussed below, EPA is co-proposing two approaches for
regulating Class V motor vehicle waste disposal wells in ground water-
based source water protection areas: (1) A ban of new and existing
wells in such areas; and (2) a ban of new wells and a provision giving
owners or operators of existing wells an opportunity to apply for a
waiver from the ban by seeking a permit that requires fluids to meet
MCLs at the point of injection. EPA also is soliciting comment on a
specific alternative to these proposed approaches. As recommended by
some members of the Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) Panel, the
preamble also seeks comment on the issue of allowing waste to be
injected, in certain situations, that exceeds some MCLs at the point of
injection. EPA does not support this concept because it believes that
injecting waste above the MCLs within source water protection areas
would pose a threat to the public that is drinking this water.
1. Proposal to Ban New and Existing Wells
As one option, EPA proposes to ban motor vehicle waste disposal
wells in source water protection areas delineated for ground water
supplying community water systems and non-transient non-community water
systems. Starting on the effective date of the rule, owners or
operators of such existing wells would be required to cease injection
operations and close their well within 90 days of the completion of the
local source water assessment program responsible for their area. The
UIC Program Director would be allowed to extend this deadline for up to
one year in situations where the most efficient compliance option is
connection to a sanitary sewer or installation of new treatment
technology. UIC Program Directors also would have additional
flexibility to extend the deadline for a reasonable amount of time
beyond a year through compliance agreements with owners or operators of
existing wells. Additionally, UIC Program Directors could use
compliance agreements to extend the 90-day deadline in cases where an
owner/operator is waiting for the permitting authority to act on an
application for a waste disposal permit. New motor vehicle waste
disposal wells, and new conversions to such wells, in those delineated
areas would be prohibited starting on the effective date of the rule.
For the purpose of the Class V regulations, an ``existing'' well would
be one that is operational or under construction when the rule becomes
effective. A new well or new conversion would be anything starting
construction after the rule's effective date. If a state does not have
a complete source water assessment program by May 2003, the ban would
apply throughout the state.
As discussed above, EPA proposes to focus this initial rule on
certain source water protection areas for the purpose of defining a
category of high risk wells and prioritizing national policy. The rule
would establish specific measures to ensure that this category of Class
V wells do not endanger USDWs in the highest-priority areas. All
existing Class V authorities, including the prohibition against
endangering USDWs in Sec. 144.12 and the authority to call problem
wells in for a permit under Sec. 144.25, would continue to apply in all
areas. EPA expects and strongly encourages states to use these existing
authorities to take whatever measures are needed to ensure all Class V
wells are not endangering USDWs in any other sensitive areas beyond
delineated source water protection areas. Examples of other sensitive
areas that may warrant priority attention are provided in section
IV.B.1 above. Nothing in this proposed rule precludes a state or local
government from promulgating more stringent requirements above and
beyond those contained in the rule.
The proposal to ban motor vehicle waste disposal wells located in
source water protection areas is based on the high potential for these
wells to endanger USDWs. Available information and damage cases,
combined with years of experience implementing the Class V UIC program,
[[Page 40600]]
show that these wells stand out as particularly troublesome.
There are approximately 183,000 automotive-related disposal wells.
These wells are located in every state in 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 best management practices
(BMPs) by the automotive industry have improved recycling and waste
disposal practices over the past decade, EPA is concerned that there
are 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.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Anderson, William, Innovative Site Technology,
Bioremediation, Chapter 3.4, page 1, 1995
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of instances where motor vehicle-related waste disposal
wells have endangered USDWs are numerous. They include a case in
Missoula, Montana, a sole-source aquifer area, where investigations
starting in June of 1988 discovered that tetrachloroethylene (PCE) from
operating drainage wells at auto service stations had contaminated
community wells serving approximately 45,000 people.3,
4 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 the ground water, the soil, and an on-site
water supply with PCE.5 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.6 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.7 All of these incidents occurred before
1989. Some small entity commenters have suggested that motor vehicle
facilities routinely use management practices, such as recycling of
used antifreeze and motor oil, that would significantly reduce the risk
of such contamination. EPA, however, conducts periodic inspections that
indicate that many facilities do not routinely implement best
management practices. EPA requests information on more recent instances
of contamination of USDWs by Class V motor vehicle wells, as well as
any data commenters may have on the use of BMPs. EPA also requests
information on situations where USDWs or drinking water wells were
discovered to contain constituents found in motor vehicle waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Background Paper prepared by Alan English, Missoula City-
County Health Department for U.S. EPA Underground Injection Control
Program, February 1992.
\4\ ``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.
\5\ 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.
\6\ 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.
\7\ Site Description Printout for the Panhandle Eastern Pipeline
Site, from Teresa Hattan, Kansas Department of Health and
Environment, July 15, 1998.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many of these documented problems have been associated with the
improper disposal of fluids that qualify as a hazardous waste under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). In other words, some
motor vehicle waste disposal wells are in fact Class IV wells, which
are already generally banned by 40 CFR 144.13. Data obtained from the
1991 National Administrative Order suggest that 13 percent of the motor
vehicle waste disposal wells inject fluids that exhibit the toxicity
characteristic for RCRA hazardous waste. Considering the potential for
these wells to also receive listed hazardous wastes,8 such
as certain spent
[[Page 40601]]
solvents that may be spilled while motor vehicle parts are being
cleaned, the fraction of wells inadvertently injecting hazardous waste
may actually be greater. One study by the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection, for example, determined that six out of ten
automotive waste disposal wells examined (60 percent) were actually
Class IV injection wells (see p. 7 of Distribution of Organic
Contaminants in Automotive Waste Disposal Drywell Systems available in
the public docket). Some small entity representatives and advocates
involved in the development of this proposal have commented that cases
of contamination caused by the shallow injection of hazardous waste at
motor vehicle facilities simply underscore the reason for banning Class
IV wells and point to the need for greater enforcement of this existing
ban, not the need for greater regulation of properly operating Class V
motor vehicle waste disposal wells. EPA, however, believes such cases
are a symptom of a Class V regulatory problem that needs to be fixed.
In particular, the lack of specific regulatory requirements that
mandate control measures to prevent endangerment may provide an
incentive to some well owners or operators to inject hazardous fluids
in Class V wells, either unknowingly or on purpose, to avoid more
stringent regulations governing other waste disposal practices. This is
a real concern for motor vehicle waste disposal wells, such as floor
drains in service bays, which are susceptible to spills of fluids that
commonly qualify as hazardous waste. In these situations, UIC
inspectors usually cannot tell if a motor vehicle waste disposal well
is a Class V or a Class IV well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ A waste can qualify as a RCRA hazardous waste either by
exhibiting one of the four characteristics of hazardous waste
(ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity) or by being
named on one of four lists developed by EPA. The cited 13 percent of
facilities injecting waste that exhibits the toxicity characteristic
does not account for the additional facilities that may be injecting
a listed hazardous waste.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some states, localities, and industry sources have already
identified these wells as potentially posing a threat to USDWs and have
taken steps to address this threat. For example, Connecticut published
a guidebook for local officials with regulatory responsibility for
Class V wells (Best Management Practices for the Protection of Ground
Water, November 4, 1992) recommending that all discharges from existing
wells at automotive repair and service facilities to other than a
sanitary sewer be prohibited, and that discharges at new or expanded
facilities in wellhead protection areas also be prohibited. The state
also recommends that any authorized wells should be permitted and their
compliance with published best management practices should be
certified. Massachusetts does not allow anyone to put fluids in a
service station floor drain without a ground water discharge permit.
New Hampshire disallows discharges into floor drains at automotive
facilities. The City of Missoula, Montana requires a permit for the use
of drainage wells at motor vehicle fueling facilities and requires a
separate stormwater collection system with control devices to prevent
infiltration of fuel-contaminated water into such wells. Other states
also have permitting requirements for motor vehicle and industrial
Class V wells in various circumstances. Finally, the American Petroleum
Institute has developed industry guidance recommending that oil
companies and service stations eliminate the use of Class V wells to
dispose of motor vehicle-related waste (Handling Water Discharges from
Automotive Service Facilities Located at Petroleum Marketing
Operations, API Recommended Practice 1633, January 1992). Because one
of EPA's proposed options would allow continued permitting of Class V
motor vehicle wells in SWPAs, EPA is very interested in state
experience with such permitting programs. Do states issue general
permits, applying to classes of facilities, and under what conditions?
What are the requirements for state issued permits regarding BMPs,
monitoring, and allowable contaminant concentration levels? How much
discretion do state permit writers have in implementing these
requirements? Have there been specific problems with state permitting
programs? How effective have they been at preventing Class V wells from
endangering USDWs? Would there be special difficulties for states with
existing permitting programs if EPA were to require them to close
previously permitted wells in SWPAs?
Based on the above information and experience, EPA believes that
banning motor vehicle waste disposal wells in source water protection
areas would achieve substantial protection.
EPA has designed the ban on motor vehicle waste disposal wells to
be self-implementing by owners or operators, with minimal new reporting
requirements and no new inspection or other administrative
requirements. Owners or operators would have substantial flexibility to
choose how they want to close their wells. Some may choose to connect
their floor drains to a municipal sewer system or holding tank, whose
contents can be periodically cleaned out and disposed of properly.
Others may permanently seal their floor drains or disconnect them from
existing wells. In these latter situations, owners or operators would
have to use alternative methods for managing motor vehicle-related
fluids, such as: (1) Recycling and reusing wastewater as much as
possible; (2) collecting and recycling petroleum-based fluids and
coolants drained from vehicles; (3) washing parts in a self-contained,
recirculating solvent sink, with spent solvent being recovered and
replaced by the supplier; (4) using absorbents to clean up minor leaks
and spills, and placing the used materials in approved waste containers
and disposing of them properly; and (5) using a wet vacuum or mop to
pick up accumulated rain or snow melt, and disposing of it through a
publicly owned treatment works. EPA recognizes that facilities may need
to comply with other regulatory requirements (e.g., obtain permits) in
order to make use of one of these options. EPA believes, based on
firsthand experience with owners and operators, that most facilities
can easily implement these alternatives within a short period of time.
If all motor vehicle waste fluids generated at a service facility
are segregated so that none are injected, the facility's Class V well
may not be prohibited and could be used to dispose of other waste
streams, such as stormwater, ice melt, and carwash waste water. EPA
advises that Directors use careful judgment in making such an
allowance, however, limiting it to cases in which unintentional or
illicit discharge of motor vehicle waste fluids into the well is
unlikely based on the facilities compliance history and availability of
adequate records showing proper waste management and disposal. In these
instances, the well is converted from a motor vehicle waste disposal
well to another type of Class V well defined by the nature of fluids it
receives. For example, a service station could perform all vehicle
maintenance in areas that do not drain to the Class V well. If the
service bay connected to the Class V well is then used only for
draining ice melt or stormwater from tires or vehicle exteriors, the
well would qualify as a Class V stormwater drainage well. If the
service bay connected to the Class V well is used for the exterior
washing of vehicles (and no engine or undercarriage washing is
performed), the well would qualify as an other industrial well. As
another example, owners or operators could install a semi-permanent
plug (also known as a plumber's plug) in the sump outlet leading to the
injection well.
[[Page 40602]]
Automotive waste and spills could then be collected in the sump and
periodically disposed offsite. When necessary, the plug could be
removed and the well used for non-automotive waste only. In order for
this approach to be acceptable, the plug would truly have to be semi-
permanent. It cannot be something that is easily removed, which would
create the potential for the well to remain open and subject to abuse.
Because EPA remains concerned about potential abuses, EPA requests
comment on the use of semi-permanent plugs for well closure,
particularly on their limitations and on circumstances where their use
is or is not inappropriate.
Regardless of the closure method selected, owners or operators
would be required to close their well in a manner that complies with
the prohibition of fluid movement standard in Sec. 144.12 as well as
any additional or more specific closure standards that may be
established by the UIC Program Director. This closure requirement would
be like the one that exists in Sec. 144.23(b)(1) for Class IV wells.
The proposed rule would not specify any new soil or ground water
sampling or site remediation requirements. However, EPA understands
that closure of the well may trigger site characterization and
remediation requirements under EPA Regional and Primacy State UIC
Program implementation of 40 CFR 144.12, other state environmental
programs, insurance policies, business contracts, local ordinances, and
so forth. The economic analysis supporting today's proposal, therefore,
reflects the costs of complying with these other existing requirements,
where they are likely to apply (EA section 2.3.5). Any such remediation
should be, to the extent possible, carried out consistently with any
ongoing remediation of underground storage tank contamination at
affected facilities. In addition, any wastes generated during well
closure or under alternative waste management scenarios after the wells
are closed, such as spent cleaning solutions and absorbents, will have
to be managed in accordance with applicable solid and hazardous waste
regulations. EPA estimates capital costs ranging from $2,500 to $10,000
and annual O&M costs ranging from $700 to $26,000 per facility,
depending on the particular waste stream and off-site management option
selected. EPA estimates that these costs for most facilities will be at
the low end of the ranges. Only a few of the affected well types will
experience costs at the high end of the ranges. EPA requests comment on
its well closure and alternate waste management cost estimates.
For EPA-administered (DI) Programs only, owners or operators of
wells being closed would be required to notify the UIC Program Director
of the intent to close their well at least 30 days prior to closure
(owners or operators of wells in Primacy States would have to meet any
state-established reporting requirements). This is the same requirement
that currently exists in Sec. 144.23(b)(3) for Class IV wells. Based on
the Agency's experience and knowledge of how the federal UIC program
runs, EPA believes such pre-closure notification is needed as a
mechanism for DI Programs to track high-priority closures. The Agency,
however, does not know if all state programs need this same
requirement. States may already have, or could develop, another or a
better mechanism that they prefer. Therefore, rather than impose pre-
closure notification as a minimum federal requirement that all Primacy
States must adopt, EPA proposes to keep this aspect of the new
requirements flexible. If some states want it, they can choose to adopt
the same or a similar requirement under their own authority when they
amend their program. Alternatively, EPA requests comments on whether
such pre-closure notification should be required in every state. If
such an approach is clearly necessary based on these comments, EPA
could broaden the requirement to Primacy States in the final rule.
2. Proposal to Ban New Wells and Require Existing Wells to Either Close
or Get a Permit
As another option, EPA proposes the same ban on new and existing
motor vehicle waste disposal wells as discussed above, but would give
states the option of allowing owners or operators of existing wells to
seek a permit to continue using their wells. In states adopting this
option, and in areas where EPA is the primacy agent, owners or
operators of existing wells would have to either close their wells or
submit a permit application within 90 days of the completion of the
local source water assessment program responsible for their area. While
the permit application is under review, existing wells could continue
to operate subject to the condition that fluids released in the wells
meet the primary drinking water MCLs at the point of injection, or, if
an MCL is not available for specific pollutants, other appropriate
health-based standards approved by the UIC Program
Director.9 As with the first option, the UIC Program
Director would be allowed to extend the closure deadline (but not the
application submittal deadline) for up to one year in situations where
the most efficient compliance option is connection to a sanitary sewer
or installation of new treatment technology. UIC Program Directors also
would have additional flexibility to extend the closure deadline for a
reasonable amount of time beyond a year through compliance agreements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Requiring MCLs to be met at the point of injection is a way
to ensure that the non-endangerment provision in Sec. 144.12(a) is
met. The legislative history of the Safe Drinking Water Act
(Committee Print, February, 1982, at 564) shows that Congress
clearly intended for this endangerment standard to be ``liberally
construed so as to effectuate the preventive and public health
protective purposes of the bill.'' More specifically, in defining
endangerment, the legislative history 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In primacy states that adopted this option, it would require more
state effort than the first proposal. UIC Program Directors would have
to review the permit application and site-specific conditions for each
facility wishing to keep its motor vehicle waste disposal well open.
Based on this review, Directors would have to either deny the
application or develop and enforce permit requirements to make sure the
well does not endanger USDWs.
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 at the
point of injection or other appropriate health-based standards approved
by the UIC Program Director, if an MCL is not available for specific
pollutants (comments are being solicited on whether this requirement
could be relaxed and that EPA does not believe that relaxing this
requirement would provide adequate public health protection, see
section II.C.6). Second, owners or operators would have to follow
accepted BMPs for motor vehicle-related facilities. The BMPs
recommended in the State of Connecticut's Best Management Practices for
the Protection of Ground Water and API's Handling Water Discharges from
Automotive Service Facilities Located at Petroleum Marketing
Operations, both available in the docket, serve as good models. 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, would not
specify new injectate monitoring requirements that must be followed,
leaving those instead to the discretion of the Director.
[[Page 40603]]
When all of these requirements are put together, EPA believes the
permit would specify a monitoring and action plan similar to the
following, 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 permit might require: (1) Implementation of specific BMPs
or treatment measures; (2) pumping and proper disposal of their sludge;
(3) quarterly sampling of injectate for the first three years and then
annually if consistently below the MCLs; (4) annual sampling of the
sludge; and (5) other requirements established by the Director to
protect USDWs. EPA requests comments on this possible set of permit
requirements, and any others that could be used to protect USDWs from
motor vehicle waste disposal wells. EPA is particularly interested in
receiving comment on the appropriate frequency of the injectate
monitoring outlined above given the high variability and unpredictable
nature of the fluids that may be spilled or released into motor vehicle
waste disposal wells.
This option recognizes that there may be instances in which owners
or operators of existing motor vehicle waste disposal wells in source
water protection areas want to keep using their wells and can do so
safely given their site-specific circumstances. These circumstances
include the use of BMPs and/or treatment technologies that effectively
keep potentially endangering fluids from entering the well, combined
with regular injectate monitoring, to make sure fluids meet MCLs at the
point of injection. Some small entity representatives and advocates
involved with the development of this proposal indicated that many
service stations and repair shops have already adopted BMPs, such as
the recycling of used motor oil and antifreeze, spill prevention and
control, and the use of environmentally friendly cleaning products,
which have significantly reduced both the volume and toxicity of their
injectate. These stakeholders asserted that the use of such practices
is now widespread in the automotive service industry, making it
unnecessary to categorically ban every well. Under this option,
therefore, certain motor vehicle waste disposal wells in delineated
source water protection areas could remain open, if approved by the UIC
Program Director based on a review of site-specific circumstances and
if controlled through a permit that requires MCLs to be met at the
point of injection and any other conditions believed necessary to
protect USDWs.
3. Alternative
EPA is requesting comment on an alternative to the two proposals
outlined above. Under this alternative, EPA could require owners or
operators who want to continue using motor vehicle waste disposal wells
in delineated source water protection areas to make sure fluids meet
MCLs at the point of injection. This would differ from the first
proposal by not having an outright ban and it would differ from the
second proposal discussed above by eliminating the site-specific permit
requirement for owners or operators whose injectate and sludge meet the
MCLs. Instead, the requirement to meet MCLs at the point of injection
would be specified in the regulation as a condition for continued rule
authorization. The regulation also would specify monitoring
requirements and actions to take based on the monitoring results.
Owners or operators of existing wells who do not want to or cannot meet
these conditions would have to close their wells according to the same
schedule discussed above. New wells in source water protection areas
would be prohibited starting on the effective date of the rule.
The specific monitoring requirements that EPA proposes, and
requests comment on, are the same as the potential permit requirements
described for the second proposal above. That is, owners or operators
would be required to initially characterize their injectate and sludge
quality. If liquid from the sludge has chemical concentrations below
the MCLs, owners or operators would be required to (1) analyze the
injectate quarterly for the first three years and then annually if it
is consistently below the MCLs, and (2) analyze the sludge annually. If
the injectate is below the MCLs but liquid from the sludge is above the
MCLs, then owners or operators would have to follow the same monitoring
requirements and pump and properly dispose of their sludge. If the
injectate is above the MCL and the liquid from the sludge is above the
MCL, owners or operators would have to either close their wells or make
process or operational changes to ensure compliance with the MCLs.
This approach for regulating existing motor vehicle waste disposal
wells would be almost identical to the proposed approach for regulating
Class V industrial wells, discussed below. The only difference would be
more extensive monitoring at motor vehicle waste disposal wells. EPA
believes this difference is justified given the nature of the fluids
routinely handled at motor vehicle-related facilities (e.g., waste oils
and solvents that have high concentrations of toxic constituents) and
the relatively high potential for spills of these fluids to occur and
enter floor drains. Under these conditions, the quality of the
injectate can be highly variable and unpredictable, and regular
monitoring is needed to confirm that a problem does not exist or to
detect a problem early so that it can be quickly mitigated. EPA
believes the situation is different for most Class V industrial wells,
where the injectate is a process wastestream that is more constant in
terms of quality and quantity than the spills that are the primary
concern at motor vehicle-related facilities. Therefore, although some
industrial wells are also susceptible to spills or process upsets as
discussed in the next section below, frequent and regular monitoring at
industrial facilities is less important in controlling injectate
quality and protecting USDWs. EPA requests comment on this position as
well as suggestions for the specific monitoring requirements that would
be appropriate for motor vehicle waste disposal wells.
C. Requirements for Class V Industrial Wells
1. Proposal
Owners or operators of existing Class V industrial wells in source
water protection areas--delineated for community water systems and non-
transient non-community water systems that use ground water as a
source--would as a condition of rule authorization be required to
either (1) make sure fluids disposed in their wells meet MCLs at the
point of injection, or (2) close their wells. New wells in such areas,
including new conversions to Class V industrial wells, would be
prohibited unless they were able to meet the same standard on injectate
quality. For the purpose of this regulation, an ``existing'' well would
be one that is operational or under construction when
[[Page 40604]]
the rule becomes effective. A well or well conversion would qualify as
``new'' if construction started after the rule's effective date.
Because primary MCLs may not exist for some pollutants released in
industrial wells, UIC Program Directors would have discretion to
require the injectate to meet other appropriate health-based limits, as
needed to protect USDWs for these other contaminants. Industrial well
closures would be subject to the same basic closure requirements as
proposed for motor vehicle waste disposal wells, including the
requirement that owners or operators in DI Programs submit pre-closure
notification at least 30 days prior to abandonment.
The timing for these new requirements would be the same as that
proposed for motor vehicle waste disposal wells. Starting on the
effective date of the rule, existing wells would have to meet the MCLs
or close within 90 days of the completion of the source water
assessment program for their local area. The UIC Program Director would
be allowed to extend this deadline for up to one year in situations
where the most efficient compliance option is connection to a sanitary
sewer or installation of new treatment technology. UIC Program
Directors also would have additional flexibility to extend the deadline
for a reasonable amount of time beyond a year through compliance
agreements with owners or operators of existing wells. The requirements
for new and converted industrial wells in delineated areas would start
applying immediately on the effective date of the rule.
Available information suggests that additional federal regulation
is needed to address the risk posed by Class V industrial wells located
in delineated areas. Industrial process water and waste disposal (5W20)
wells, one major well type that fits in the industrial well category
defined above, pose a significant threat to USDWs especially if they
inject highly contaminated and/or large volumes of waste. According to
the 1987 Report to Congress, such wells could potentially receive any
fluid disposed by the various industries that use Class V wells (e.g.,
commercial printing, die and tool manufacturing, machinery and
equipment manufacturing, chemical production, and drycleaning). For
example, the Report estimated that in Nassau and Suffolk Counties in
New York, an average of 20 million gallons per day--or, 36 thousand
pounds per day of total dissolved solids--was injected into the
subsurface by such facilities. This occurred in the early 1980's
(Report to Congress, p. 4-278).
Industrial drainage (5D4) wells, also within the Class V industrial
well category, also pose a significant threat of contamination to USDWs
especially if they inject poor quality fluids, are susceptible to
accidental industrial spills, and are available for abuse through
illicit discharges. For example, studies from Nationwide Urban Runoff
Program projects in Fresno, CA and Spokane, WA in 1984 and 1986,
respectively, have shown that industrial areas had the lowest quality
stormwater runoff of all land-use types evaluated (Report to Congress,
p. 4-37). A particular example illustrating this high hazard potential
occurred in Hutchinson, Kansas (in 1986) where a diesel/tar mixture
from a newly tarred roof washed into what would now be classified as an
industrial drainage well during a rainstorm, and a nearby city water
well was shut down as a result of the injected hydrocarbon mixture
(Report to Congress, p. 4-38).
Requiring Class V industrial wells in source water protection areas
to meet primary MCLs, or other appropriate health-based limits selected
by the UIC Program Director, at the point of injection will greatly
reduce the threat of these wells. EPA is proposing this approach rather
than an outright ban of industrial wells because of a lack of
information indicating that a ban is always warranted. Also, this
approach is consistent with the controls already imposed in some
locations. For example, Class V industrial wells in Florida are
required to meet MCLs at the point of injection, as are most kinds of
Class V industrial wells in Massachusetts. Requiring MCLs to be met at
the point of injection would establish a clear threshold to ensure the
wells are not endangering USDWs, but would give owners or operators
flexibility in deciding how to meet that threshold. In some cases, it
will require no action or simple containment and/or treatment measures.
Owners or operators wishing to keep their wells open may also have to
monitor their injectate quality to adequately assure that it does not
exceed MCLs though EPA is not proposing any specific monitoring
requirements for owners and operators of Class V industrial wells.
Owners or operators who are not able to ensure that their discharge
meets MCLs at the point of injection (or who choose not to because of
the high cost of doing so) would have to close their wells.
2. Alternatives
As an alternative to the proposed approach, EPA could ban all or
certain Class V industrial wells in source water protection areas as
part of this rulemaking. For example, the ban could be extended to
wells that dispose of washwater from car washes where motor or
undercarriage washing is performed. As mentioned previously, EPA does
not believe sufficient information exists to support a broader ban at
this time. Additional bans, however, could be justified and imposed as
part of subsequent rulemakings, if additional information supporting a
broader ban becomes available.
EPA also requests comment on whether the pre-closure notification
requirement for industrial wells should be added in Primacy State
programs. As discussed above for motor vehicle waste disposal wells,
EPA currently believes it would be best to restrict that requirement to
DI Programs, as it has restricted the pre-closure notification
requirement in Sec. 144.23(b)(3) for Class IV wells. Finally, elsewhere
in this preamble, comments are requested on whether the requirement
that injectate from industrial wells in source water protection areas
always meet all MCLs at the point of injection could be relaxed under
any circumstances without endangering USDWs. EPA's does not support
this position because it believes that allowing injection of waste that
exceeds the MCL into source water protection areas poses an
endangerment to the USDW and to people that drink this water.
D. Ban of Large-Capacity Cesspools
Cesspools are Class V wells that receive untreated sanitary waste
and allow the waste to percolate directly into the subsurface. Only
those cesspools with the capacity to serve 20 or more persons per day
are subject to UIC regulation.
As discussed in the August 28, 1995 proposal, EPA believes such
large-capacity cesspools have a high potential to contaminate USDWs
because: (1) Sanitary wastes released in cesspools frequently exceed
drinking water MCLs for nitrates, total suspended solids, and coliform
bacteria (Report to Congress, p. 4-151); (2) the wastes released in
cesspools also contain other constituents of concern, including
phosphates, chlorides, grease, viruses, and chemicals used to clean
cesspools such as trichloroethane and methylene chloride; and (3)
cesspools provide no treatment except for some settling of the solids.
In addition, the 1987 Report to Congress notes that some states have
reported degradation of USDWs from such cesspools (Report to Congress,
p. 4-151). Based on these concerns, new
[[Page 40605]]
cesspools are already banned in most states. Where such bans presently
exist, states are phasing out existing cesspools over a time period
negotiated by state and local governments and acceptable to EPA.
The August 28, 1995 notice proposed not to impose a federal ban on
large-capacity cesspools because of the actions being taken to control
cesspools at the state level. The Agency proposed instead to use its
existing enforcement authorities to supplement state bans where
necessary to ensure compliance with the non-endangerment requirements
of Sec. 144.12.
Some commenters on the August 28, 1995 proposal raised a number of
issues associated with this approach. For example, the Sierra Club
Legal Defense Fund asserted that the proposal fails to carry out SDWA
requirements to prevent endangerment of USDWs, that reliance on
existing enforcement authorities is inadequate, and that the existence
of some state or local regulations does not justify an EPA decision not
to regulate. In addition, one state commented that it has not banned
new cesspools by existing regulations. A ban in the federal UIC
regulations would ensure that these high-risk wells are not constructed
in this state or any other state that does not have its own regulations
banning them.
Based on these comments, EPA is today proposing to ban, starting on
the rule's effective date, new large-capacity cesspools in source water
protection areas delineated for community water systems and non-
transient non-community water systems that use ground water as a
source. Existing large-capacity cesspools in such areas would be
required to close within five years of the effective date of the rule.
Owners or operators of such cesspools in DI Programs would have to
notify the UIC Program Director of the intent to abandon their cesspool
at least 30 days prior to abandonment (owners or operators of large-
capacity cesspools in Primacy States would have to meet any state-
established reporting requirements). For the purpose of this
regulation, a ``new'' cesspool would be one starting construction after
the rule's effective date. An ``existing'' cesspool would be one that
is operational or under construction when the rule becomes effective.
These new federal requirements would strengthen existing programs to
protect USDWs.
Existing large-capacity cesspools would have five years to close
instead of 90 days with a possible one year extension proposed for
motor vehicle waste disposal wells because cesspool owners or operators
may need this amount of time to implement appropriate alternatives for
managing their sanitary waste. In particular, they cannot stop the
generation of sanitary waste, so the only options they would have would
be to connect to a sanitary sewer system or install a septic system.
Both of these options may take more than a year to implement and may
not even be feasible (e.g., the septic system option would not be
feasible if onsite soils do not satisfactorily pass a percolation
test). In comparison, there are generally accepted methods available to
owners or operators of motor vehicle-related facilities to stop the
disposal of motor vehicle waste fluids in Class V wells that can be
implemented within 90 days with a possible one year extension. These
alternatives include recycling, sending spent solvents back to
suppliers, installing a semi-permanent plug in the well and a sump to
capture any spills of motor vehicle fluids, running a dry shop, and the
other BMPs discussed above. Although EPA recognizes that other types of
permitting may be required for these options, EPA believes that 90 days
is sufficient to complete this process.
EPA proposes to focus the large-capacity cesspool ban on ground
water-based source water protection areas around community water
systems and non-transient non-community water systems for the purpose
of prioritizing national policy and because these are the highest risk
wells. EPA expects and strongly encourages states to use existing
authorities to take whatever measures are needed to ensure Class V
cesspools are not endangering USDWs in any other sensitive areas
outside delineated source water protection areas (see Sec. IV.B.1 for
examples of other such areas). If a state does not have a complete
source water assessment program by May 2003, the federal ban on
cesspools would apply throughout the state. EPA also requests comment
on the merits and potential impacts of broadening the proposed cesspool
ban to source water protection areas delineated for transient non-
community water systems that use ground water as a source. Transient
systems are those that serve at least 25 people but not on a regular
basis (e.g., campground or highway rest stop). Including these
additional areas within the scope of the proposed requirements for
cesspools could address the unique acute risk associated with the
shallow disposal of untreated sanitary waste in areas where ground
water is used as a drinking water source.
As discussed above for motor vehicle waste disposal wells and
industrial wells, EPA is proposing the pre-closure notification
requirement for large-capacity cesspools in DI Programs because of the
Agency's knowledge of how these programs run and what they need to
track high-priority closures. Because EPA does not know if this same
requirement is needed for all Primacy States, and is unsure if such a
requirement may in fact create a burden that outweighs its benefits in
the context of individual state programs, the Agency is not proposing
to impose the pre-closure notification requirement on Primacy States.
Instead, the proposal would give states flexibility to use their own
authority to adopt this or a similar requirement tailored to their
particular needs. However, EPA requests comment on this issue,
including comments on the merits and potential impacts of extending the
pre-closure notification requirement to Primacy States.
E. Exclusion Criteria for Septic Systems and Cesspools
As discussed in the August 28, 1995 notice, the current UIC
regulations distinguish between septic systems used by single-family
homes and non-residential septic systems that receive solely sanitary
waste and have the capacity to serve fewer than 20 people. Section
144.1(g) excludes from UIC regulation ``individual or single family
residential waste disposal systems such as domestic cesspools or septic
systems'' and ``non-residential cesspools, septic systems or similar
waste disposal systems if such systems (A) are used solely for the
disposal of sanitary waste, and (B) have the capacity to serve fewer
than 20 persons a day.''
EPA now believes there is no difference between a single-family
residence septic system and a non-residential system serving only a
small number of people, as long as the non-residential system receives
only sanitary waste. Therefore, the August 28, 1995 notice proposed to
revise Sec. 144.1 to exclude from UIC regulation all cesspools and
septic systems serving fewer than 20 people, regardless of where such
systems are located. This revision would eliminate the distinction
between septic systems used by single-family homes and small non-
residential septic systems that receive solely sanitary waste. At the
same time, EPA proposed to define cesspools and septic systems as wells
receiving solely sanitary waste to distinguish them from similar
devices receiving industrial waste waters, which would be defined as
industrial waste disposal wells. Finally, EPA proposed to define
sanitary waste as domestic sewage and
[[Page 40606]]
household waste. EPA requested public comment on this proposal and any
alternatives, such as exclusion criteria based on septic tank size
(e.g., tanks under 2,000 gallons would not be subject to UIC
regulation), flow rate (e.g., systems receiving less than 5,000 gallons
per day would not be subject to UIC regulation), or dwelling size.
Of the 57 comment letters submitted on the proposal, 28 addressed
this issue. Only two commenters supported the proposal to maintain the
threshold of 20 persons per day for systems subject to regulation.
Eighteen commenters preferred an alternative criterion, with most
preferring a threshold based on flow rate. The suggested flow rates
ranged from 2,000 to 20,000 gallons per day. A few of the commenters
preferred a criterion based on septic tank size (ranging from 2,000 to
7,500 gallons), and one commenter suggested that a soil application
rate be used (1.5 gallons per day per square foot). Apart from these 18
commenters who preferred an alternative criterion, four commenters
asserted that all septic systems receiving solely sanitary waste--
regardless of capacity--should be excluded from UIC regulation and
addressed by states through other, existing legal authorities. Two
other commenters stated that all cesspools--regardless of capacity--
should be banned altogether.
In addition to comments on the threshold for regulation, seven
commenters took issue with the proposed definition of sanitary waste.
These commenters thought the proposed definition would not clearly
establish that small septic systems and other similar systems receiving
only domestic sewage and household-type wastes at commercial and
industrial facilities are excluded from UIC regulation. The commenters
suggested that the sanitary waste definition be broadened to include
examples of commercial or industrial settings where the exclusion would
apply. Alternatively, EPA could use a more general definition of
sanitary waste that includes wastewater generated from human wastes;
personal or employee food preparation; gray water (e.g., hand washing
waste from lavoratory and kitchen sinks); and other domestic-type
wastes, regardless of where the waste was generated.
Based on these comments, as well as experience implementing the UIC
program, EPA recognizes that the current 20 persons-a-day exclusion
criterion in the federal UIC regulations has weaknesses. However, it is
not now clear to EPA that a change to this criterion is necessary to
protect USDWs or could be made without causing undue disruption to
existing state and local programs. State programs currently interpret
the criterion in different ways, with most programs using a septic
system flow rate and other programs using a septic tank size or other
measure. These various state interpretations appear to work well and
achieve adequate protection of USDWs. EPA's adoption of an
interpretation currently used by one or more states may not improve
protection but might invalidate other state interpretations.
Therefore, EPA is again requesting comment on the Sec. 144.1(g)
criteria proposed on August 28, 1995, which would exclude all septic
systems and cesspools with a capacity to serve fewer than 20 persons a
day, without distinguishing between residential and non-residential
systems. This time, however, the Agency asks that commenters
specifically address the question of whether the federal criteria need
to be changed to correct a significant operational problem, such as
inadequate protection of USDWs or extreme burden or confusion in
implementing the UIC program. If alternative criteria are believed to
be needed, the Agency also requests that commenters propose a specific
alternative and address how it would work if adopted on the federal
level. The vast majority of commenters on the prior proposal simply
suggested that EPA adopt one state's interpretation, without regard to
how it might affect other states.
In response to comments on the proposed definition of sanitary
waste, EPA agrees that the definition should be broadened to clarify
that small-capacity septic systems or cesspools at commercial and
industrial facilities are excluded from UIC regulation if they receive
solely sanitary waste. Therefore, the Agency is re-proposing today a
new sanitary waste definition in Secs. 144.3 and 146.3 that references
commercial and industrial facilities. This proposal is based in part on
the household waste exclusion established in the RCRA regulations (40
CFR 261.4(b)(1)).
F. Other Amendments
As outlined in Table 1 at the beginning of this preamble, EPA is
reproposing 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, on which EPA
will continue to accept public comment, 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. EPA is not accepting comment on these requirements,
identified with notes in the proposed rule language, because they
already exist in the UIC regulations and are only being reworded to
improve their clarity.
1. Sections 144.3 and 146.3--Definitions
In addition to the proposed new definition of sanitary waste
discussed above, the proposed regulation would add new definitions for
the terms ``cesspool,'' ``drywell,'' ``improved sinkhole,'' ``septic
system,'' and ``subsurface fluid distribution system.'' The rule also
would revise the existing definitions for ``well'' and ``well
injection.''
The definition of ``cesspool'' and ``septic system'' would conform
with the new Class V categories explained in section V.A of this
preamble.
An ``improved sinkhole'' would be defined as a type of injection
well regulated under the UIC program. Today's proposed definition would
codify 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 proposed new definition of ``septic system,'' would be defined with
a standard engineering description.
The definition of ``well'' would be revised to clarify that a
``well'' includes improved sinkholes and subsurface fluid distribution
systems.
The definition of ``well injection'' would be revised to eliminate
a redundancy and simply state that well injection means the subsurface
emplacement of fluids through a well.
2. Sections 144.6 and 146.5--Classification of Wells
The proposed regulation would revise 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.
[[Page 40607]]
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, would 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, proposes to reclassify 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.
3. 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 would be reiterated, in a plain-English format, in
Sec. 144.82 in the new Subpart G. Similarly, the existing prohibition
of fluid movement in Sec. 144.12 would be reiterated inSec. 144.80.
The existing inventory requirements for Class V wells in
Sec. 144.26(b)(1)(iii) and (e) and the description of when Class V
injection is authorized by rule in Sec. 144.24 would be deleted and
moved to Secs. 144.83 and 144.84, respectively, in the new Subpart G.
With only two exceptions, the substance of these existing
requirements would not be changed. Only the language and format of the
requirements would be revised to make them easier to understand. One of
the changes is a proposed new requirement in Sec. 144.83(a)(2)(iii) for
owners or operators of wells in delineated source water protection
areas, in DI Programs only, to submit new inventory information if they
convert their well into a Class V industrial well as defined in today's
proposal. An analogous inventory requirement for conversions to Class V
motor vehicle waste disposal wells and cesspools is not needed because
the rule would prohibit such well conversions, consistent with the ban
on new motor vehicle waste disposal wells and cesspools. However, wells
in source water protection areas could be converted to industrial wells
after the original submittal of inventory information, and there would
be no way for the UIC Program Director to learn about this potentially
endangering situation if there is not a requirement to submit new
inventory information. The other change calls for the submittal of
inventory information for new wells prior to construction rather than
prior to starting injection, as currently in Sec. 144.26(e)(3). This
change does not add any new burden or cost for well owners or
operators. To the contrary, it is intended to help owners or operators
avoid a situation in which they have incurred all the cost of well
construction and then later, due to some unforeseen problem, are
prohibited from using the well after they submit inventory information.
Submitting the information prior to construction would give UIC
Programs the opportunity to intervene or advise before any construction
costs are wasted.
Just like the pre-closure notification requirement proposed for
motor vehicle waste disposal wells, industrial wells, and large-
capacity cesspools, EPA is proposing the new inventory requirement for
well conversions in DI Programs because the Agency knows how these
programs run and what the EPA Regions want and need to track the status
of high-risk wells. Because EPA does not know if this same requirement
is needed for all Primacy States (comparable or better mechanisms may
already exist or could be developed), and is unsure if such a
requirement may in fact create a burden that outweighs its benefits
given each state's available resources, the Agency is not proposing to
impose the new inventory requirement on Primacy States. However, as
with the pre-closure notification requirement, EPA requests comment on
this issue, including comments on the merits and potential impacts of
extending the inventory requirement to Primacy States. EPA also
requests comment on the merits of broadening the inventory requirement
to well conversions outside of delineated source water protection
areas. Based on public comment, EPA may broaden the inventory
requirement in the final rule.
4. Part 145--State UIC Program Requirements
The Agency proposes to amend Sec. 145.11 to be consistent with the
proposed changes in 40 CFR Part 144. These proposed amendments would
insert a set of new requirements in Sec. 144.86 that state programs
must have the legal authority to implement.
These proposed amendments to Part 145 are technical corrections to
incorporate the proposed changes to 40 CFR Part 144. The corrections
include a reference to the proposed new section and a redesignation of
paragraphs to accommodate the new references.
VI. Regulatory Impact
A. Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 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 program or the right and obligation 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 the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or
recommendations will be documented in the public record.
Section 6(a)(3)(B) of EO 12866 requires that for all significant
regulatory actions, the Agency prepare, and provide to OMB and the
public, an assessment of the potential costs and benefits of the
regulatory action, including an explanation of the manner in which the
regulatory action is consistent with a statutory mandate and, to the
extent permitted by law, promotes the President's priorities and avoids
undue interference with State, local,
[[Page 40608]]
and tribal governments in the exercise of their governmental functions.
Section 6(a)(3)(E) requires that the Agency identify for the public the
substantive changes made between the draft submitted to OMB for review
and the published proposal, and those changes made at the suggestion or
recommendation of OMB.
Accordingly, the Agency has prepared an Economic Analysis (EA) of
the Proposed Rule that assesses its costs. The Agency estimated the
total costs of the rule under two proposals. Under Proposal 1, motor
vehicle waste disposal wells are banned. Under Proposal 2 motor vehicle
waste disposal wells are allowed to continue operating under permits.
The Agency estimates the cost for Proposal 1 at approximately $54.5
million, with a possible range of $27 million to $85 million. Under
Proposal 2, the total costs of the rule are estimated at approximately
$44.5 million, with a possible range of $21 million to $70 million. The
cost estimates under both proposals cover a wide range because the
location of most affected Class V wells is unknown, and the boundaries
of SWPAs have not yet been delineated. Using the multi-step process
described below, the Agency estimated the number of wells that will
potentially be affected by the proposed rule.
First, EPA compiled a list of SIC categories that captures the
universe of facilities that could use motor vehicle waste disposal
wells. Injection well inventory data from eight States were reviewed to
determine the SIC categories associated with industrial wells. An SIC
category was included in the list of affected industries if it appeared
once in at least three of the eight State inventories. Starting with
all facilities listed under each of the selected SIC categories, EPA
eliminated those facilities that would be outside the scope of the
proposed rule. These included facilities connected to sewers or
discharging to surface water, facilities with wells closed under a past
Administrative Consent Order and facilities located outside source
water protection areas (SWPAs) delineated around community water
systems and non-transient non-community water systems that use ground
water as a source. EPA also eliminated 50 percent of facilities within
currently delineated wellhead protection areas (WHPAs), and 50 to 75
percent of the remaining facilities in 10 states that explicitly ban or
otherwise stringently control such wells. This step was taken because
these wells are either already prohibited or are otherwise stringently
controlled.
In order to assess the number of wells in SWPAs, EPA used the
analytical assumption that states will delineate SWPAs by using areas
of one-half mile radius around water supply wells for community water
systems, and of one-quarter mile radius around water supply wells for
non-transient non-community water systems. EPA based this assumption on
the fact that many states used this approach to delineate WHPAs. It was
also necessary to estimate the likely overlap between SWPAs and areas
with Class V wells. Both Class V waste disposal wells and drinking
water wells are likely to be located near populated areas, suggesting
that more Class V wells will be located within SWPAs than if they were
randomly distributed across a State. However, because drinking water
wells are often located on the outskirts of a community and the SWPA is
relatively small (one-quarter mile radius around non-transient systems
and one-half mile radius around community water systems) SWPAs are
likely to have fewer Class V wells than areas near the center of the
community. EPA assumed that a SWPA is twice as likely to contain a
Class V waste disposal well as an equal area of land outside a SWPA
(excluding urban land). Because this assumption is difficult to verify,
EPA also developed a range of cost estimates using the assumptions that
SWPAs were either three times as likely or no more likely to contain
Class V waste disposal wells as non-SWPAs (in the non-urban portion of
each state). The upper and lower bounds of the estimated cost range
shown above reflect these alternative assumptions.
To put this estimate into context, EPA estimates that about 9,420
waste disposal wells will be affected by the rule. Since there are
63,524 community and non-transient non-community ground water systems
in the country, this means on average about one in seven SWPAs will
have an affected Class V well. Using the upper bound estimate of 14,130
affected wells implies that about one in four SWPAs would have an
affected well, while using the lower bound estimate of 4,710 affected
wells implies that one in thirteen SWPAs would have an affected well.
The Agency estimated that nationwide, about 2 percent of all motor
vehicle waste disposal wells are located in SWPAs, with a range of 1 to
3 percent. (Note: For the baseline case of 2 percent, the percentage
varies among states with a range between 0.14 percent and 29.22
percent.) EPA requests comment on its procedure for estimating the
number of affected wells in SWPAs.
The Agency assumed that all states will complete their source water
assessment programs on time. This assumption took into consideration
that 44 states and 2 territories already have existing wellhead
protection programs in place and that these states will be able to
build on these programs to meet the source water protection
requirements. The Agency also assumed the maximum possible time allowed
for completing these assessments, including use of the full 180 day
extension. Further, this proposal affects SWPAs for the 63,524
community and non-transient non-community ground water systems which
comprise only 45% of all of the systems for which the state must
complete a source water assessment and it is envisioned that states
will complete these assessments first. Finally, states can use 10
percent of their FY 1997 allotment from Drinking Water State Revolving
Funds, which totaled $1.2 billion to help this endeavor. EPA is
proposing that the rule apply statewide if SWAPs are not completed on
time, however, EPA realizes that the total cost of the rule could
increase several fold if one or two highly populated states do not meet
the deadline. The Agency requests comment on its assumption that all
states will meet the deadline.
The process described above relating to compiling a list of SIC
categories and then eliminating facilities outside the scope of the
rule was also used to estimate the number of industrial facilities that
might have an affected Class V well. The estimate was provided to EPA's
Regional program managers who considered the results gross
overestimates of the actual number of Class V industrial wells, based
on their extensive field experience. It is likely that using SIC codes
to estimate the number of industrial facilities with Class V wells is
not reliable because it is difficult to specifically identify which
industries within each classification are likely to use Class V wells
and which wells are covered by this proposal, rather than being
included in the other industrial well category that is still being
studied. Also, EPA believes that industrial facilities generally are
more likely to be located in sewered areas and to employ waste
recycling measures than motor vehicle facilities. EPA Region 3
maintained extensive inspection records in their Well Activities
Tracking, Evaluation and Reporting System II, covering a period from
1993 through 1996. An analysis of this data, which contains over 11,000
inspection records, revealed that approximately 75 percent of Class V
waste disposal wells inspected were
[[Page 40609]]
used by automotive service-related businesses. To be conservative, the
Agency assumed that the remaining wells would be industrial, resulting
in a ratio of 3 motor vehicle waste disposal wells for every one
industrial well. Although this yields a much lower estimate for the
number of affected industrial wells (2,355) than the estimate of
potentially affected facilities derived from the SIC code list, EPA
believes that using this data provides a more realistic picture of the
number of industrials wells affected by the rule. EPA requests comment
on this procedure.
Protecting the quality of Underground Sources of Drinking Water
(USDWs) has many benefits. Foremost are the benefits to the health and
welfare of consumers of the water, including children and other
sensitive groups such as the elderly and the health-impaired for the
present and for future generations. Related to potential health
concerns are lost work and school time due to visits to physicians and
the associated costs of providing medical monitoring and care. A
protected high-quality source of drinking water also is important to a
community's development and ability to attract employers. Another major
benefit of protecting USDWs is avoiding the cost of responding to
contamination. These avoided costs could include purchasing replacement
water, installing point-of-use treatment, switching to alternative
water supply systems, drilling replacement wells, building water
conveyance structures from new sources, and/or installing permanent
treatment systems. Some of these benefits are easier to quantify than
others, but all are significant.
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 EPA determines (1) is 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 proposed rule is not subject to E.O. 13054 because this is not
an economically significant regulatory action as defined by E.O. 12866
and because the proposed rule has included community, non community and
non-transient water systems (which include schools and hospitals), EPA
does not have reason to believe the rule concerns environmental health
risks or safety risks that may have a disproportionate affect on
children.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this rule are currently
under development. The Information Collection Request (ICR) will be
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. upon
completion. Two ICR documents are being prepared by EPA--one for each
of the proposed alternative regulatory approaches for the motor vehicle
waste disposal wells (ICR Nos. 1873.01 and 1874.01). Copies will be
available from Sandy Farmer by mail at OP Regulatory Information
Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2137); 401 M St., S.W.;
Washington, DC 20460, by email at [email protected], or by
calling (202) 260-2740. The information requirements will be published
separately in the Federal Register when EPA submits them to OMB for
review and approval. The ICRs are not effective until OMB approves them
and EPA publishes an OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for
EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) as amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA), requires EPA to
explicitly consider the effect of proposed regulations on small
entities. In accordance with Section 603 of the RFA, EPA has prepared
an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) that examines the
impact of the proposed rule on small entities along with regulatory
alternatives that could reduce that impact. The IRFA is available for
review in the docket and is summarized below.
The RFA's definition of small entity includes small businesses,
small governmental jurisdictions and small not-for-profit
organizations. This proposed rule would primarily affect small business
entities. To define small business entities, EPA used the Small
Business Administration's (SBA) industry-specific criteria published in
13 CFR 121. SBA size standards have been established for each type of
economic activity under the Standard Industrial Classification (SIC)
system. These criteria are usually expressed in terms of number of
employees or dollar volume of sales.
The proposed rule would affect the owners and operators of three
categories of Class V wells in source water protection areas delineated
for community water systems and non-transient non-community water
systems that use ground water as a source: motor vehicle waste disposal
wells, industrial waste disposal wells, and large-capacity cesspools.
Because it is infeasible to assess the prevalence of Class V waste
disposal well use in every industry, EPA developed a list of SIC
categories which it believes captures the universe of facilities that
possibly could use motor vehicle and industrial waste disposal wells.
Injection well inventory data from eight states (Illinois, Kansas,
Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West
Virginia) were reviewed to determine the SIC categories associated with
industrial and motor vehicle waste disposal wells. An SIC category was
included in the list of affected industries if it appeared once in at
least three of the eight state inventories.
EPA then pared this list down to reflect the number of facilities
that may be actually affected by the proposed rule. EPA eliminated from
the list those facilities that would be outside the scope of the rule,
including: facilities connected to sewers (which presumably would not
dispose of wastewater in injection wells); facilities located in states
that have already banned types of Class V wells that would be targeted
by the proposal; facilities injecting wastewater likely to qualify as
hazardous waste (in which case, the well is a Class IV well and already
banned under the existing UIC regulations); and facilities located
outside source water protection areas delineated around community water
systems and non-transient non-community water systems that use ground
water (only wells inside such areas would be subject to the rule, as
proposed).
Although states have the flexibility to delineate their source
water protection areas in a variety of ways, EPA believes that such
areas delineated for ground water supply sources will be similar to
wellhead protection areas already delineated in most states. A total of
44 states and 2 Territories have EPA-approved Wellhead Protection
Programs. Most of these programs have defined wellhead protection areas
using a fixed radius around water supply wells.
[[Page 40610]]
Given this situation, EPA estimated the number of facilities likely
to fall within source water protection areas by estimating the number
of facilities likely to fall within a fixed radius of existing supply
wells. Based on data from the State Wellhead Protection Plans, it was
assumed that the typical protection area will be a half-mile radius
around community ground water supply wells and a quarter-mile radius
around non-transient non-community ground water supply wells. Using
these areas and current data on the number of supply wells in each
state, EPA estimated the land area in each state likely to fall within
a source water protection area targeted by the proposal. That area was
then divided by the total land area in the state to estimate the
fraction of land in each state likely to be in a source water
protection area. As described earlier in this section, the number of
potentially affected facilities was estimated by multiplying that
fraction by the total number of facilities in each state estimated to
have a Class V motor vehicle waste disposal well or industrial well
that would be subject to the proposal. Then, this number was doubled to
account for the assumption that SWPA are twice as likely to contain a
Class V well as an equal area outside of a SWPA. EPA specifically
requests comments on this approach, which is described in more detail
in the economic analysis available in the docket, as well as
suggestions and data that could be used for other approaches.
Once a final list of affected facilities was determined in this
manner, EPA estimated which of the affected businesses are primarily
small businesses using SBA's size thresholds. Of the 57 SIC categories
included in the analysis, 50 of them are made up primarily of small
businesses (i.e., at least 95 percent of the facilities fall below the
SBA size threshold) and 9,176 of the 9,422 affected entities are
considered small businesses.
The proposed rule would require affected Class V motor vehicle
waste disposal wells to either close or get a permit that requires
waste fluids to meet MCLs at the point of injection, would require
affected industrial waste disposal wells to close or meet MCLs at the
point of injection, and would ban affected large-capacity cesspools.
EPA has determined that these requirements might have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities that use
either motor vehicle waste disposal wells or industrial waste disposal
wells located in areas delineated for community water systems or non-
transient non-community water systems that use groundwater as a source.
The basis for this decision is as follows.
First, if the proposed rule bans Class V motor vehicle waste
disposal wells while allowing industrial waste disposal wells to
continue operating under specific conditions, about 4,536 to 4,794 (49
to 52 percent) of the affected small entities would incur annualized
compliance costs that represent more than 1 percent of their sales (or
income for small governments). Furthermore, about 2,036 to 2,160 (22 to
24 percent) of the affected small entities would incur costs that
represent more than 3 percent of their sales (or income for small
governments).
Second, if the proposed rule allows existing motor vehicle waste
disposal wells to continue to operate under permits and industrial
waste disposal wells to continue operating under specific conditions,
about 4,118 to 4,448 (45 to 48 percent) of the affected small entities
would incur costs that represent more than 1 percent of their sales (or
income for small governments); whereas, about 1,644 to 1,836 (18 to 20
percent) of the affected small entities would incur costs that
represent more than 3 percent of their sales (or income for small
governments).
To reduce the impact on small businesses, 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.
As discussed above in section II.C.6 of this preamble, EPA
conducted outreach and convened a Small Business Advocacy Review Panel
to obtain advice and recommendations of representatives of the affected
small entities under section 609(b) of the RFA as amended by the SBREFA
of 1996. Today's notice incorporates all of the recommendations made by
this Panel in an effort to minimize impacts to small businesses. For
example, today's notice offers a co-proposal and an alternative to the
proposed ban of motor vehicle waste disposal wells that would give
owners or operators of such wells greater flexibility. It also gives
UIC Program Directors discretion to extend the deadline for complying
with the new requirements when more time is needed by owners or
operators, and proposes flexibility to regulate certain drainage wells
at commercial and industrial sites like stormwater drainage wells
rather than industrial wells, which would be subject to more stringent
standards. In addition, today's proposal requests comment on several
issues raised by small entity commenters on which the Small Business
Advocacy Review Panel did not reach consensus, including the adequacy
of the non-regulatory approach contained in the 1995 proposal, the
possibility of allowing injectate to exceed an MCL at the point of
injection provided it does not endanger USDWs. See section II.C.6 above
for a more complete list and description of changes made to today's
proposal in response to recommendations from the Small Business
Advocacy Review Panel.
E. Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership
To reduce the burden of Federal regulations on state and small
governments, the President issued Executive Order 12875, entitled
Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership, on October 28, 1993 (48 FR
58093). Under Executive Order 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation
that is not required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a
state, local or Tribal government unless the Federal government
provides the necessary funds to pay the direct costs incurred by the
state, local or Tribal government or EPA provides to the Office of
Management and Budget a description of the extent of the Agency's prior
consultation and written communications with elected officials and
other representatives of affected state, local and Tribal governments,
the nature of their concerns, and an Agency statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected
officials and other representatives of state, local and Tribal
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development
of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates''.
Moreover, because there is an insignificant number of Class V wells
owned by state, local and Tribal governments in SWPAs, this proposed
rule does not have significant or unique affects on state, local and
Tribal governments.
F. Unfunded Mandates
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), P.L.
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
[[Page 40611]]
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 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 costs to the regulated
community is estimated at approximately $55 million for the option in
which motor vehicle wells are required to close and $45 million for the
option in which motor vehicle well owners can apply for a permit. The
cost estimates to state governments are still being refined but are not
expected to exceed several million dollars. Thus, today's rule is not
subject to the requirements of section 202 of the UMRA.
G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Under section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act, the Agency is required to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory and procurement 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, business practices,
etc.) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standard
bodies. Where available and potentially applicable voluntary consensus
standards are not used by EPA, the Act requires the Agency to provide
Congress, through MOB, an explanation of the reasons for not using such
standards.
The Agency does not believe that this proposed rule addresses any
technical standards subject to the NTTAA. A commenter who disagrees
with this conclusion should indicate how the Notice is subject to the
Act and identify any potentially applicable voluntary consensus
standards.
H. 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 proposal provides equal public health protection
to communities irrespective of their socio-economic condition and
demographic make-up.
I. Effect on States With Primacy
According to regulations at 10 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, motor vehicle waste disposal wells, and industrial 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 would 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
burdensome, because the new requirements are primarily directed toward
well owners and operators, not UIC program authorities. For example, if
finalized, the ban on motor vehicle waste disposal wells should be
self-implementing by owners or operators, with no new reporting,
inspection, or other administrative requirements for Primacy States
(the new requirements for owners or operators to submit pre-closure
notification is reserved for wells in DI Programs). However, if the
proposal to allow owners or operators of motor vehicle waste disposal
wells to apply for a permit is finalized, there would be an increased
burden to states that choose to adopt this option to review the permit
application and site-specific details for each facility wishing to keep
its motor vehicle waste disposal well open. Based on this review,
states would have to either deny the application or develop and enforce
permit requirements to make sure the well does not endanger USDWs.
List of Subjects
40 CFR Parts 144 and 146
Environmental protection, Ground water pollution control, Hazardous
waste, Shallow disposal wells, Water supply.
40 CFR Part 145
Environmental protection, Water supply.
Dated: July 17, 1998.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40 chapter I of the
Code of Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:
PART 144--UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM
1. 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.
2. Section 144.1 is amended by adding a new paragraph (f)(1)(vii),
revising paragraphs (g)(1) introductory text, (g)(1)(iii), (g)(1)(iv)
and (g)(2)(ii), removing paragraph (g)(2)(iii), redesignating
paragraphs (g)(2)(iv) and (v) as (g)(2)(iii) and (iv), and revising
newly designated paragraph (g)(2)(iv) to read as follows:
Sec. 144.1 Purpose and scope of part 144.
* * * * *
(f)(1) * * *
(vii) Subpart G 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
[[Page 40612]]
fluids containing hazardous waste. This includes the disposal of
hazardous waste into what would otherwise be septic systems and
cesspools, regardless of their capacity.
(iv) Any septic system, cesspool, or other well, used solely for
the subsurface emplacement of sanitary waste, having the capacity to
serve 20 persons or more per day.
(2) * * *
(ii) Any septic system, cesspool, or other well used solely for the
subsurface emplacement of sanitary waste, having the capacity to serve
fewer than 20 persons a day.
* * * * *
(iv) Any dug hole, drilled hole, or bored shaft which is not used
for the subsurface emplacement of fluids.
* * * * *
3. Section 144.3 is amended by adding new definitions in
alphabetical order for ``cesspool,'' ``drywell,'' ``improved
sinkhole,'' ``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 solely untreated
sanitary waste, 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.
* * * * *
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 solely to emplace
sanitary waste below the surface and is comprised of a septic tank and
subsurface fluid distribution system.
* * * * *
Subsurface fluid distribution system means an assemblage of
perforated pipes, drain tiles, or other mechanisms intended to
distribute fluids below the surface of the ground.
* * * * *
Well means:
(1) A bored, drilled, or driven shaft;
(2) A dug hole whose depth is greater than the largest surface
dimension;
(3) An improved sinkhole; or
(4) A subsurface fluid distribution system.
Well injection means the subsurface emplacement of fluids through a
well.
4. 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 in subpart G of this part.
5. Section 144.24 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 144.24 Class V wells.
A Class V injection well is authorized by rule, subject to the
conditions in Sec. 144.84 in subpart G of this part.
Sec. 144.26 Amended
6. Section 144.26 is amended by removing paragraphs (b)(1)(iii) and
(e).
7. 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 well?
144.84 Do I need to get a permit?
Additional Requirements for Class V Cesspools, Motor Vehicle Waste
Disposal Wells, and Industrial Wells
144.85 Do these additional requirements apply to me?
144.86 What are the additional requirements?
144.87 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 to you if you own or
operate a Class V injection well. You may also have to follow
additional requirements listed in the rest of part 144. Where they may
apply, these other requirements are referenced rather than repeated
below. The requirements described in this subpart and elsewhere in part
144 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 more detail in Sec. 144.6 in subpart A, injection
wells are defined as follows:
(a) Class I wells inject hazardous, industrial, or municipal wastes
beneath the lowermost formation containing an underground source of
drinking water (USDW) within one-quarter mile of the well;
(b) Class II wells inject fluids connected with oil or natural gas
recovery or production or for the storage of liquid hydrocarbons;
(c) Class III wells inject fluids for the solution mining of
minerals; and
(d) Class IV wells inject hazardous or radioactive waste into or
above formations containing a USDW within one-quarter mile of the well.
(e) Class V wells include all other injection wells that do not fit
one of the classes listed above. 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. Specific types of Class V wells are described in Sec. 144.81.
[[Page 40613]]
Sec. 144.81 Does this subpart apply to me?
This subpart applies to you if you own or operate one of the
following well types, all of which qualify as Class V wells:
(a) 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. 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.
(b) Industrial wells are used to inject non-hazardous industrial or
commercial waste and fluids other than those described for the other
types of Class V wells. These include but are not limited to:
(1) Wastewater from petroleum refineries, chemical manufacturers,
dry cleaners, electric component manufacturers, small machine
manufacturers, die and tool manufacturers, commercial printers, asphalt
manufacturers, and other industrial operations; or
(2) Spills from industrial or commercial process areas, storage
areas, or loading docks, or drainage highly contaminated by large
spills from such areas. This is different than routine stormwater
runoff. A well intended for stormwater management that may have the
potential to receive insignificant amounts of waste due to
unintentional small volume leaks, drips, or spills, and that cannot
reasonably be separated from potential sources of contamination qualify
as drainage wells, as described below.
(3) Wastewater from carwashes specifically set up to perform engine
or undercarriage washing. This does not include wastewater from manual
carwashes where people use hand-held hoses to wash the exterior of
their cars, trucks, or other vehicles. Wells at such manual carwashes,
as well as other car washes not specifically set up to perform engine
or undercarriage washing, qualify as other industrial wells. This
category includes all other industrial or commercial wells that do not
meet the criteria for other classes of wells or for other Class V
industrial wells.
(c) Cesspools are drywells, which sometimes have an open bottom
and/or perforated sides, used to dispose of untreated sanitary waste.
They are typically located in areas not served by sanitary sewers. This
subpart applies to you only if your cesspool has the capacity to
dispose of sanitary waste from 20 persons or more per day (you are
exempt from this subpart and from the federal Underground Injection
Control program if it is smaller than that). However, if you use your
cesspool to dispose of motor vehicle waste or industrial waste, either
by themselves or together with sanitary waste, your well qualifies as a
motor vehicle waste disposal well or an industrial well rather than a
cesspool.
(d) Septic systems are septic tanks and fluid distribution systems,
such as leachfields or wells, used to dispose of sanitary waste only.
Like cesspools, this subpart applies to you only if your septic system
has the capacity to dispose of sanitary waste from 20 persons or more
per day. However, if you use your septic system to dispose of motor
vehicle waste or industrial waste, either by themselves or together
with sanitary waste, your well qualifies as a motor vehicle waste
disposal well or an industrial well rather than a septic system.
(e) Drainage wells consist of a variety of wells used to drain
surface and subsurface fluids. These wells include agricultural
drainage wells that receive irrigation or stormwater runoff. Drainage
wells also include stormwater runoff wells in municipalities. A well at
a commercial or industrial site also qualifies as a drainage well, not
an industrial well, if it is intended for stormwater management, even
if it may have the potential to receive insignificant amounts of waste
due to unintentional small volume leaks, drips, or spills, as long as
it cannot reasonably be separated from potential sources of
contamination. This category does not include mine drainage wells. Mine
backfill and drainage wells are defined in paragraph (j) of this
section.
(f) Beneficial use wells are used to improve either the quality or
flow of aquifers or to provide some other ground water management
benefit. They include aquifer recharge wells used to re-supply
dwindling ground water resources; aquifer storage and recovery wells
used to place excess water in the subsurface during periods of high
flow and then withdraw the water later when it is needed; subsidence
control wells used to inject fluids to prevent the land surface from
sinking or settling; injection wells used to help clean up contaminated
ground water, either by injecting solutions to neutralize contamination
or to return previously contaminated ground water that has been
treated; and wells that inject water to control the intrusion of salt
water in coastal areas into freshwater aquifers.
(g) Fluid return wells are used to inject fluids associated with
the production of geothermal energy for space heating or electric
power, the operation of a heat pump, aquaculture, or the extraction of
minerals from produced fluids. For example, wells that inject spent
geothermal fluids, following extraction of the heat energy, are used to
recharge geothermal reservoirs and avoid surface discharges. Other
examples of fluid return wells include electric power wells that inject
fluids from electric power generation facilities, and wells used to
inject spent brines after the extraction of halogens (e.g., bromine) or
their salts.
(h) Sewage treatment effluent wells are used to inject treated
effluent from publicly owned treatment works or treated effluent from
privately owned treatment facilities receiving solely sanitary waste.
If you inject effluent from a privately owned treatment facility that
receives industrial waste, your well qualifies as an industrial well
rather than a sewage treatment effluent well. Also, if you own or
operate a well that injects sewage treatment effluent beneath the
lowermost formation containing a USDW, it qualifies as a Class I well
rather than a Class V well.
(i) Experimental technology wells include any well that is an
integral part of an unproven subsurface injection technology other than
waste disposal, such as in situ coal liquification, in situ oil shale
retorting, tracer studies, and secondary water recovery (e.g., using
air to force underground water bound in the unsaturated zone into the
saturated zone where it can be recovered).
(j) Mine backfill and drainage wells are used to place mine
drainage or slurries of sand, gravel, cement, mill tailings/refuse, fly
ash, or other solids into underground mines, whether what is injected
is a radioactive waste or not. Mine backfill and drainage wells may
serve a variety of purposes, including subsidence prevention, filling
dangerous mine openings, disposing of wastes from mine operations, and
fire control.
(k) In-situ recovery and solution mining wells are used to inject
fluids for the purpose of producing energy or minerals. Wells used for
in-situ recovery of lignite, coal, tar sands, oil shale, and geothermal
energy are designed to deliver particular solutions (such as water,
air, oxygen, solvents, combustibles, or explosives) into
[[Page 40614]]
subsurface target formations to liberate the desired products that can
be brought to the surface via recovery wells. Solution mining wells use
injection and recovery techniques to bring minerals from underground
deposits to the surface. Solution mining of conventional mines such as
stopes leaching is included in Class V. However, in-situ production of
uranium or other metals from ore bodies that have not been
conventionally mined is included in Class III (see Sec. 144.6(c)).
Similarly, mining of sulfur by the Frasch process is included in Class
III, not Class V.
(l) Other industrial wells inject industrial and commercial wastes,
which either contain lower concentrations of contaminants or are more
like sanitary waste than wastes injected into Class V industrial wells
described in paragraph (b) of this section. The category of other
industrial wells was created to exclude these wells from the additional
requirements in Sec. 144.85 that apply to industrial wells. There are
four types of other industrial wells:
(1) Wells used to inject fluids from carwashes that are not
specifically set up to perform engine or undercarriage washing
(including, manual carwashes where people use hand-held hoses to wash
the exterior of their vehicles);
(2) Wells used to inject noncontact cooling water that contains no
additives and has not been chemically altered, meaning that it has not
been mixed with or come into contact with a contaminated waste stream;
(3) Wells used to inject fluids from laundromats where no onsite
dry cleaning is performed or where no organic solvents are used for
laundering; and
(4) Wells used to inject wastewater from food processing
operations.
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 listed above, the
regulations below require that you cannot allow movement of injection
fluid into USDWs that might cause endangerment, you must properly close
your well when you are through using it, 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. 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 MCLs in 40 CFR part
142 or may otherwise adversely affect the health of persons. This
prohibition applies to your well construction, operation, maintenance,
conversion, plugging, abandonment, 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. Prior to abandoning your well, 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 at
a local level. 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 well?
Yes, you need to provide basic ``inventory information'' about your
well, if you haven't already. You also need to provide any other
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, and you have not since
converted your well into an industrial well, you must give your UIC
Program Director certain information about yourself and your injection
operation.
(1) The requirements differ depending on your well status and
location, as described in the following table:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
And you're in one of
these locations
(``Primacy'' States,
which run 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,
Nebraska, Nevada, Kentucky, Michigan,
New Hampshire, New Minnesota, Montana,
Jersey, New Mexico, New York,
North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South
North Dakota, Ohio, Dakota, Tennessee,
Oklahoma, Oregon, Virginia, Virgin
Puerto Rico, Rhode Islands, Washington,
Island, South DC, or any Indian
Carolina, Texas, Country
Utah, Vermont, West
Virginia, Wisconsin,
Washington, or
Wyoming
------------------------------------------------------------------------
New (construction not yet * * * then you must * * * then you must
started). 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
(below) prior to
constructing your
well.
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 notifies
you that injection
may not resume or
may resume sooner.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 40615]]
(2) If your well is in a DI Program State, here is the information
you must submit to EPA:
(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) You must submit the above information plus the additional
information described here if you own or operate an industrial well, a
mine backfill and drainage well, a fluid return well, or an
experimental technology well. The UIC Program Director may also require
the owners and operators of other types of Class V wells to submit this
additional information. In these cases, you must provide a listing of
all Class V wells that you own or operate along with the following
information for each well (a single description of wells at a single
facility with substantially the same characteristics is acceptable as
long as the number of wells and their location is described):
(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 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.
(iii) If you convert your well into an industrial well any time
after you submit the inventory information listed in paragraph
(a)(2)(i) and (ii), you must resubmit the information noting the
changes in your well type, status, and operations.
(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) The Director may require you 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 well if you fail to comply
with the written request within the time frame specified. You can start
injecting again only if you get a permit.
Sec. 144.84 Do I need to get a permit?
No, as long as certain conditions do not apply to you.
(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 Action is Required. If
you fit into one of the categories listed below, your Class V well is
no longer authorized by rule. This may mean that you have to get a
permit, if you want to keep using your 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 might 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) above (in
which case, you have to get a permit, close your well, and/or comply
with other conditions determined by the UIC Program Director in your
state or EPA Region);
(2) Proposal 1: You own or operate a Class V cesspool or motor
vehicle waste disposal well in a source water protection area (in which
case, you must close your well as specified in the additional
requirements below);
(2) Proposal 2: You own or operate a Class V cesspool in a source
water protection area (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 source water protection area (in which
case, you must either close your well or get a permit as specified in
the additional requirements below);
(3) You own or operate a Class V industrial well in a source water
protection area, and the fluid you put down your well has chemical
concentrations above the drinking water MCLs (in which case, you must
either close your well or make sure your waste fluids meet the MCLs at
the point of injection as specified in the additional requirements
below);
(4) 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;
(5) 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
(6) 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 Cesspools, Motor Vehicle Waste
Disposal Wells, and Industrial Wells
Sec. 144.85 Do these additional requirements apply to me?
(a) Whether and when these additional requirements apply to you
depends on the location of your Class V cesspool, motor vehicle waste
disposal well, or industrial well relative to delineated source water
protection areas, and on the status of your state's source water
assessment program.
(1) If the source water assessment program in your state is
complete before May 2003 (i.e., the state program has been approved by
EPA and all its local assessments for community and
[[Page 40616]]
nontransient noncommunity water systems have been completed. This means
that all local assessments within a state have performed the three
required steps of delineation, source identification, and
susceptibility analysis), the additional requirements apply to you only
if your well is in a source water protection area delineated for
community water systems and non-transient non-community water systems
that use ground water as a source. The additional requirements start
applying to you 90 days after the local program that covers you is
completed. The UIC Program Director may extend this deadline for up to
one year if you have to hook up to a sanitary sewer or install new
treatment systems in order to comply with the additional requirements.
(2) If the source water assessment program in your state is not
complete, and it is before May 2003, the additional requirements apply
to you only if your well is in a source water protection area
delineated by a complete local program for community water systems and
non-transient non-community water systems that use ground water as a
source. The additional requirements start applying to you 90 days after
your local program is completed. Again, the UIC Program Director may
extend this deadline for up to one year if you have to hook up to a
sanitary sewer or install new treatment systems in order to comply with
the additional requirements.
(3) If the source water assessment program in your state is not
complete, and it is after May 2003 (i.e., the state program has not
been approved by EPA or the state has not completed its local
assessments for community and nontransient noncommunity water systems),
the additional requirements apply to you regardless of the location of
your well relative to delineated source water protection areas and
regardless of the status of any local program that covers your area. In
other words, the additional requirements apply statewide.
(b) Source water assessment program. This is a new approach to
protecting drinking water sources, specified in the 1996 Amendments to
the Safe Drinking Water Act. States must prepare and submit for EPA
approval a program to:
(1) Delineate the boundaries of areas providing source waters for
public water systems (called ``source water protection areas'');
(2) Inventory significant potential sources of contaminants of
concern in such areas, to the extent practical; and
(3) Determine the susceptibility of public water systems in the
delineated areas to contaminants of concern.
(c) Source water protection area. A source water protection area is
a geographic area defined by a state as supplying ground water and/or
surface water for a public drinking water system. Such an area receives
priority for the protection of public drinking water supplies. The
additional requirements in Sec. 144.86 apply to you only if your Class
V well is in an area delineated for ground water (rather than surface
water) and for either community water systems or non-transient non-
community water systems. In many states, these areas will be the same
as Wellhead Protection Areas that have been delineated previously.
(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. States may define the boundaries of a source water
protection area in a variety of ways. Regardless of the methods used,
the delineation will be presented in a format that is understandable to
the public so you will know if your Class V injection well is in a
delineated source water protection area or not. In most instances, maps
will be used to show the boundaries of the source water protection
area.
(g) How to find out if your well is in a source water protection
area. States are supposed to make their delineations widely available
to the public through a variety of methods right after the results are
done. You can find out if your Class V well is in a source water
protection area by contacting the state or local agency responsible for
source water protection 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 information. Alternatively, you may be able to get this information
by calling a special telephone number in your state (if your state has
set one up), calling your local water supplier, calling the EPA Program
Office, following your local news (paper, radio and TV), looking on the
Internet, or getting a copy of your state's Clean Water Act Section
305(b) report. Your state may also send you information in your water
bill, send each household a newsletter or flyer, advertise the
availability of information in a local newspaper, and develop a
database of information that people can access through a computer
homepage. Even though you may get information from these and other
sources, the state office responsible for implementing the source water
assessment program in your area is the source that makes the final and
official determination of boundaries for source water protection areas.
(h) When a state does not have a complete program by May 2003. The
Source Water Assessment and Protection Program requires states to
delineate priority areas for the protection of their public drinking
water systems. If states do not do this, there is no way to tell if
your large-capacity cesspool, motor vehicle waste disposal well, or
industrial well is in an area that overlies ground water serving as a
drinking water supply source. In order to assure protection of public
drinking water supplies, therefore, these requirements will apply
statewide if a state has failed to complete its source water
delineations and assessments by May 2003. The additional requirements
apply statewide permanently, even if the state eventually completes its
source water delineations and assessments sometime after May 2003.
(i) Changes in your status. Over time, three changes in your
state's source water assessment program might occur and affect whether
the additional regulations apply to you:
(1) Before May 2003, if the local source water assessment program
responsible for your area becomes completed, the additional regulations
apply to you if your well is in a source water protection area
delineated for community water systems and non-transient non-community
water systems that use ground water as a source. The additional
regulations start applying to you 90 days after your local program is
completed. The UIC Program Director responsible for your area may
extend this deadline for up to one year if you have to hook up to a
sanitary sewer or install new treatment systems in order to comply with
the additional requirements.
(2) After May 2003, if your state fails to complete its source
water program by that time (meaning all of the local programs in your
state are not complete), the additional regulations apply to you even
if your well is not in a delineated source water protection area.
(3) After May 2003, if your state's source water program was
completed before that time, your state may delineate a source water
protection area
[[Page 40617]]
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 extend the boundaries of a source
water protection area delineated previously. This would make the
additional regulations apply to you if your well is in such an area.
The additional regulations start applying to you 90 days after the
local program responsible for the new or extended area is completed.
The UIC Program Director responsible for your area may extend this
deadline for up to one year if you have to hook up to a sanitary sewer
or install new treatment systems in order to comply with the additional
requirements.
(j) Application of the additional requirements outside of source
water protection 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 source water protection areas (e.g.,
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; susceptible 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,
prevailing land-use practices, and documented ground water
contamination). 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 do not meet the criteria in paragraph (a) of this section.
Sec. 144.86 What are the additional requirements?
The additional requirements are specified in the following table:
Additional Requirements for Large-Capacity Cesspools in Source Water
Protection Areas
[See Sec. 144.85 to determine if these additional requirements apply to
you]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If your cesspool is * * * Then you * * *
(well Status) (requirement) By * * * (deadline)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing (operational or Must close the well. [insert date five
under construction by years from
[insert effective date]. effective date].
Must notify the UIC At least 30 days
Program Director in prior to
your EPA Region (if abandonment.
you are in one of
the DI Programs
listed in the table
above) of your
intent to close the
well.
Must meet any state- The date in state-
established established
reporting reporting
requirements (if requirements.
you are in one of
the Primacy States
listed in the table
above).
New or converted Are prohibited...... [insert effective
(construction not started date].
before [insert effective
date].
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional Requirements for Motor Vehicle Waste Disposal Wells in Source
Water Protection Areas
[See Sec. 144.85 to determine if these additional requirements apply to
you]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If your motor vehicle waste
disposal well is * * * (well Then you * * * By * * * (deadline)
status) (requirement)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing (operational or Proposal 1: Must Within 90 days of
under construction by close the well. the completion of
[insert effective date]). your local source
water assessment
program, starting
[insert effective
date]; your UIC
Program Director
may extend the
closure deadline
for up to one year
if the most
efficient
compliance option
is connection to a
sanitary sewer or
installation of new
treatment
technology.
Proposal 2: Must Within 90 days of
close the well or the completion of
apply for a waiver your local source
from the ban by water assessment
seeking a permit. program, starting
[insert effective
date]; your UIC
Program 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.
Proposal 2: Must The date you submit
meet MCLs at the your permit
point of injection application.
while your permit
application is
under review, if
you choose to keep
operating your well.
Proposal 2: Must The date(s)
comply with all specified in your
permit conditions, permit.
if you choose to
keep operating your
well, including
requirements to
meet MCLs at the
point of injection,
follow best
management
practices, and
monitor your
injectate and
sludge quality.
Both proposals: Must At least 30 days
notify the UIC prior to
Program Director in abandonment.
your EPA Region (if
you are in one of
the DI Programs
listed in the table
above) of your
intent to abandon
the well.
[[Page 40618]]
Both proposals: Must The date in state-
meet any state- established
established reporting
reporting requirements.
requirements (if
you are in one of
the Primacy States
listed in the table
above).
New or converted Are prohibited...... [insert effective
(construction not started date].
before [insert effective
date]).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional Requirements for Class V Industrial Wells in Source Water
Protection Areas
[See Sec. 144.85 to determine if these additional requirements apply to
you]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If your industrial well is * Then you * * *
* * (well status) (requirement) By * * * (deadline)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Existing (operational or Must close the well Within 90 days of
under construction by or make sure fluids the completion of
[insert effective date]). in the well meet your local source
the primary MCLs water assessment
listed in 40 CFR program, starting
Part 142 or other [insert effective
health-based limits date]; your UIC
selected by the Program Director
Director for may extend this
contaminants deadline for up to
without primary one year if the
MCLs. most efficient
compliance option
is connection to a
sanitary sewer or
installation of new
treatment
technology.
Must notify the UIC At least 30 days
Program Director in prior to
your EPA Region (if abandonment.
you are in one of
the DI Programs
listed in the table
above) of your
intent to abandon
the well.
Must meet any state- The date in state-
established established
reporting reporting
requirements (if requirements.
you are in one of
the Primacy States
listed in the table
above).
New or converted Are prohibited [insert effective
(construction not started unless you make date].
before [insert effective sure fluids in the
date]). well are always
below the primary
MCLs listed in 40
CFR Part 142 or
other health-based
limits selected by
the Director for
contaminants
without primary
MCLs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 144.87 How do I close my Class V injection well?
The following describes the requirements for closing your Class V
injection well.
(a) Closure. (1) Prior to closing a Class V cesspool, motor vehicle
waste disposal well, or industrial 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)
above. 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.
(2) This 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, disposing of it through a publicly owned
treatment works; or, 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.
(b) [Reserved]
PART 145--STATE UIC PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
8. The authority citation for part 145 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.
Sec. 145.11 [Amended]
9. Section 145.11 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(32) and
revising the first sentence in paragraph (b)(1):
Sec. 145.11 Requirements for permitting.
(a) * * *
(32) Section 144.86--(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.
* * *
* * * * *
PART 146--UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM: CRITERIA AND
STANDARDS
10. 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.
11. Section 146.3 is amended by adding the following new
definitions in alphabetical order: ``cesspool,'' ``drywell,''
``improved sinkhole,'' ``sanitary waste,'' ``septic system,'' and
``subsurface fluid distribution system,''
[[Page 40619]]
and by revising the definitions of ``well'' and ``well injection'' to
read as follows:
Sec. 146.3 Definitions.
* * * * *
Cesspool means a ``drywell'' that receives solely untreated
sanitary waste, 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
which has been modified by man for the purpose of directing and
emplacing fluids into the subsurface.
* * * * *
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 solely to emplace
sanitary waste below the surface and is comprised of a septic tank and
subsurface fluid distribution system.
* * * * *
Subsurface fluid distribution system means an assemblage of
perforated pipes, drain tiles, or other mechanisms intended to
distribute fluids below the surface of the ground.
* * * * *
Well means:
(1) A bored, drilled, or driven shaft;
(2) A dug hole whose depth is greater than the largest surface
dimension;
(3) An improved sinkhole; or
(4) A subsurface fluid distribution system.
Well injection means the subsurface emplacement of fluids through a
well.
* * * * *
12. Section 146.5 is amended by adding a new paragraph (a)(3) and
revising paragraph (e) 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 described in
Sec. 144.81 in subpart G of 40 CFR part 144.
[FR Doc. 98-19936 Filed 7-28-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P