[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 166 (Monday, August 28, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 44652-44668]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-20765]



      

[[Page 44651]]

_______________________________________________________________________

Part IV





Environmental Protection Agency





_______________________________________________________________________



40 CFR Parts 144 and 146



Class V Wells--Regulatory Determination and Minor Revisions to the 
Underground Injection Control Regulations; Technical Correction to the 
Regulations for Class I Wells; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 166 / Monday, August 28, 1995 / 
Proposed Rules  
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 44652]]


[[Page 44652]]


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 144 and 146

[FRL-5280-5]
RIN 2040-AB83


Class V Wells--Regulatory Determination and Minor Revisions to 
the Underground Injection Control Regulations; Technical Correction to 
the Regulations for Class I Wells

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Today's proposal presents the findings of the Environmental 
Protection Agency (EPA) with regard to the need for additional 
Underground Injection Control (UIC) regulations for Class V wells. 
Typically, Class V wells are shallow wells which inject a variety of 
fluids directly below the land surface. They include shallow non-
hazardous industrial waste injection wells, septic systems, storm water 
drainage wells, and assorted other wells that have been found in some 
instances to emplace potentially harmful levels of contaminants into 
and above underground sources of drinking water. All Class V wells are 
currently authorized by rule provided they do not endanger underground 
sources of drinking water (USDWs) and meet certain minimum 
requirements.
    Because EPA has found that some of these wells pose environmental 
hazards, EPA is developing a comprehensive strategy to manage these 
hazards. As part of this strategy, EPA will continue to authorize Class 
V wells by rule but will aggressively use the authority provided by the 
current regulations to achieve the closure of Class V wells which may 
endanger USDWs and the proper management of other Class V wells.
    EPA is also proposing some minor changes to the UIC regulations 
that would make it easier for the regulated community to understand who 
is subject to the current Class V UIC requirements and what these 
requirements mean to the owners of a specific type of well.

DATES: EPA will accept public comment, in writing, on the proposed 
regulations until October 27, 1995.
    A public hearing has been tentatively scheduled for October 18, 
1995, from 1 pm to 4 pm EST. Requests for a public hearing must be 
received by September 27, 1995. When requesting a public hearing, 
please state the nature of the issues proposed to be raised. EPA 
expressly reserves the right to cancel this hearing unless a 
significant degree of public interest is evidenced by the above date.

ADDRESSES: Address written comments to UIC Amendments, Water Docket 
(mail code 4101), USEPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. Please 
submit all references cited in your comments. Facsimiles (faxes) cannot 
be accepted. EPA would appreciate 1 original and 3 copies of your 
comments (including any references). Commenters who would like EPA to 
acknowledge receipt of their comments should include a self-addressed, 
stamped envelope.
    The hearing will be held in the EPA Auditorium of the EPA Training 
Center, Waterside Mall, 401 M Street, SW, Washington DC.
    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.
    Requests for a public hearing should be addressed to Lee 
Whitehurst, EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (mail code 
4602), 401 M Street, SW, Washington DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lee Whitehurst, Underground Injection 
Control Branch, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water (mailcode 
4602), EPA, 401 M Street, SW, Washington DC, 20460. Phone: 202-260-
5532.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Preamble Outline

I. Background
    A. Statutory and Regulatory Framework
    1. Categories of Class V Wells
     2. Requirements Applicable to Class V Wells
    B. Report to Congress on Class V Wells
    C. Consent Decree with the Sierra Club
II. Proposed Agency Determination on the Adequacy of Current 
Regulations
    A. Implementation of Current Requirements
    B. State Ground Water Protection Programs
    C. Assessment of the Need for Additional Class V Regulations
    1. Beneficial Use Wells
    2. Fluid Return Wells
    3. Sewage Treatment Effluent Wells
    4. Cesspools
    5. Septic Systems
    6. Experimental Technology Wells
    7. Drainage Wells
    8. Mine Backfill Wells
    9. In Situ and Solution Mining Wells
    10. Industrial Waste Discharge Wells
III. EPA's Strategy for the Management of Class V Wells
    A. Technical Assistance
    1. Program Management Implementation Guidance
    2. Technical Guidances
    a. Industrial Waste Discharge Well Closure Guidance
    b. Septic System Guidance
    c. Agricultural Drainage Well Guidance
    d. Storm Water Drainage Well Guidance
    B. Outreach and Education
    C. Compliance Assurance Initiative
IV. Proposed Minor Amendments to the UIC Regulations in 40 CFR Part 
144
    A. Proposed Amendments to Subpart A--General Provisions
    1. Sec. 144.1(g)--Specific Inclusions and Exclusions
    2. Sec. 144.3--Definitions
    3. Sec. 144.6--Classification of Wells
    B. Proposed Amendments to Subpart C--Authorization of 
Underground Injection by Rule
    1. Sec. 144.23--Class IV Wells
    2. Sec. 144.24--Class V Wells
    3. Sec. 144.26--Inventory requirements
V. Proposed Minor Amendments to UIC Regulations in 40 CFR Part 146
    A. Proposed Amendments to Subpart A--General Provisions
    1. Sec. 146.3--Definitions
    2. Sec. 146.5--Classification of Injection Wells
    3. Sec. 146.10--Plugging and Abandoning Class I, II, III, IV and 
V Wells
VI. Solicitation of Comments
    A. General Solicitation
    B. Specific Comment Solicitations
VII. Regulatory Impact
    A. Executive Order 12866
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Impact on Small Businesses
    D. Unfunded Mandates
    E. Effect on States with Primacy

I. Background

A. Statutory and Regulatory Framework

    Class V wells are regulated under the authority of Part C of the 
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA or the Act) (42 U.S.C. 300h et seq.). The 
SDWA 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) and June 29, 1995 (60 FR 33926).

[[Page 44653]]

    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).
1. Categories of Class V Wells
    The UIC regulations define and establish five classes of injection 
wells. Class I wells are used to inject hazardous and non-hazardous 
waste beneath the lowermost formation containing a 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 
144.13.) Class V wells are defined in the regulations as any well not 
included in Classes I through IV.
    Class V injection wells are generally shallow waste disposal wells, 
stormwater and agricultural drainage systems, or other devices that are 
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. Such 
systems are often used for the disposal of industrial wastes or other 
fluids that may have not been treated, potentially releasing elevated 
levels of contaminants directly into the same ground water that may be 
used as a drinking water supply by surrounding residences and 
communities. Such wells are commonly located at automobile service 
stations, print shops, dry cleaners, shopping centers, equipment 
manufacturers, and other commercial and industrial establishments.
    Today, EPA is proposing to retain the current definition of Class V 
wells. However, the 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 Report to Congress on Class V Wells, which EPA 
published in 1987 in response to a mandate of the SDWA amendments of 
1986. The Report to Congress drew the distinctions between the 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 the 
appropriate management scheme. Therefore, for today's proposal the 
Agency has grouped Class V wells in ten more appropriate categories 
which combine together wells that are mostly similar both in terms of 
the nature of fluids that they inject and their potential to endanger 
USDWs.
    The 10 general categories of Class V wells are:
     ``Beneficial Use Wells'' which include a variety of well 
types used either to improve the quality or flow of aquifers or to 
provide some other benefit, such as preventing salt water intrusion or 
controlling subsidence.
     ``Fluid Return Wells'' which are used to inject spent 
fluids associated with the production of geothermal energy for space 
heating or electric power, the operation of a heat pump, the extraction 
of minerals, or aquaculture.
     ``Sewage Treatment Effluent Wells'' which are used to 
inject effluent from publicly or privately owned treatment facilities.
      ``Cesspools'' which are wells that receive untreated 
sanitary waste. They may have open bottoms, and are typically located 
in areas not served by sanitary sewers. Under today's proposal, only 
those cesspools having the capacity to serve 20 persons or more a day 
would be considered Class V injection wells subject to the UIC 
regulations 1.

    \1\ Note: The current regulations exclude individual single 
family and non-residential cesspools and septic systems having the 
capacity to serve fewer than 20 persons per day. For reasons 
explained in this preamble, the distinction between residential and 
non-residential sanitary waste disposal systems is unnecessary and 
could be eliminated by applying the 20 person cut-off to all 
systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     ``Septic Systems'' which are wells comprised of septic 
tanks and fluid distribution systems (e.g., leachfields) used to 
dispose of sanitary waste only. Only those septic systems having the 
capacity to serve 20 or more persons per day would be considered Class 
V injection wells subject to the UIC regulations \1\.
     ``Experimental Technology Wells'' which include any 
injection well used as part of an unproven subsurface injection 
technology.
     ``Drainage Wells'' which consist of a variety of wells 
used to drain surface and subsurface fluids including storm water and 
agricultural runoff.
     ``Mine Backfill Wells'' which are used to place slurries 
of sand, gravel, cement, mill tailings/refuse, or fly ash into 
underground mines. Mine backfill wells serve a variety of purposes 
ranging from subsidence prevention to control of underground fires.
     ``In-situ and Solution Mining Wells'' which are used to 
liberate fossil fuels from the geologic formation which contains them 
or to bring minerals from underground deposits to the surface. They do 
not include wells specifically listed as Class III wells under 
Sec. 146.5.
     ``Industrial Waste Discharge Wells'' which are used to 
inject wastewaters generated by industrial, commercial, and service 
establishments.
    Table 1 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.

                                                     Table 1--Categories of Class V Injection Wells                                                     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Category in today's                                                                                              Corresponding injection wells in   
         proposal                           Injection wells in category                    Current Sec.  146.5              report to congress          
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beneficial Use............  Aquifer Recharge..........................................  (e)(6)..................  5R21 (Aquifer Recharge).              
                            Salt Water Intrusion Barrier..............................  (e)(7)..................  5B22 (Saline Water Intrusion Barrier).
                                                                                                                                                        

[[Page 44654]]
                                                                                                                                                        
                            Subsidence Control........................................  (e)(10).................  5S23 (Subsidence Control).            
                            Aquifer Storage and Recovery..............................  Not Listed..............  5X26 (Aquifer Remediation Related).   
                            Subsurface Enfironmental Remediation......................  (e)(6)..................                                        
Fluid Return..............  Wells used to inject spent brines after the extraction of   (e)(14).................  5A6 (Direct Heat Return).             
                             minerals.                                                                            5A8 (Ground-water Aquaculture Return  
                                                                                                                   Flow).                               
                            Wells used to inject heat pump return fluids..............  (e)(1)..................  5A5 (Electric Power Return).          
                                                                                                                  5X16 (Spent-Brine Return Flow).       
                            Wells used to inject fluids that have undergone chemical    (e)(12).................  5A7 (Heat Pump/Air Conditioning Return
                             alteration during the production of geothermal energy for                             Flow).                               
                             heating, aquaculture, or production of electric power.                                                                     
Sewage Treatment Effluent.  Wells used to inject effluent from POTWs, or privately      Not Listed..............  5W12 (Domestic Wastewater Treatment   
                             owned treatment works receiving solely sanitary sewage.                               Plant Effluent Disposal).            
Cesspools.................  Cesspools having the capacity to serve 20 persons or more   (e)(2)..................  5W9 (Untreated Sewage Waste           
                             per day and used solely for the subsurface emplacement of                             (Disposal).                          
                             sanitary waste.                                                                      5W10 (Cesspools).                     
Septic Systems............  Septic tank and fluid distribution system having the        (e)(9)..................  5W11 (Septic Systems--Undifferentiated
                             capacity to serve 20 persons or more per day and used                                 Disposal).                           
                             solely for the subsurface emplacement of sanitary waste.                             5W32 (Septic Systems-Drainfield       
                                                                                                                   Disposal).                           
                                                                                                                  5W31 (Septic Systems--Well Disposal). 
Experimental Technology...  Wells used as part of unproven subsurface injection         (e)(15).................  5X25 (Experimental Technology).       
                             technologies other than waste disposal.                                                                                    
Drainage..................  Wells used to drain surface and subsurface fluids,          (e)(4)..................  5D2 (Stormwater Drainage).            
                             including agricultural drainage and storm water runoff,                              5F1 (Agricultural Drainage).          
                             other than runoff from loading dock areas, storage areas,                            5D3 (Improved Sinkholes).             
                             and process areas.                                                                   5G30 (Special Drainage).              
Mine Backfill.............  Wells used to inject a mixture of water, air, and sand,     (e)(8)..................  5X13 (Mining, Sand, or Other          
                             mill tailings, or other solids into mined out portions of                             Backfill).                           
                             subsurface mines.                                                                                                          
In Situ and Solution        Wells used to inject fluids for the purpose of producing    (e)(13).................  5X14 (Solution Mining).               
 Mining.                     minerals or energy, which are not Class II or III wells.   (e)(16).................  5X15 (In situ Fossil Fuel Recovery).  
Industrial Waste Discharge  Wells used to inject wastewaters generated by industrial,   (e)(5)..................  5X27 (Other).                         
                             commercial, and service establishments and which are not                             5D4 (Industrial Drainage).            
                             included in the proposed Sec.  146.5 e(1) through e(9).                              5W20 (Industrial Process Water and    
                                                                                                                   Waste Disposal).                     
                                                                                                                  5X28 (Automobile Service Station      
                                                                                                                   Disposal).                           
                                                                                                                  5X17 (Air Scrubber Waste Disposal).   
                                                                                                                  5X18 (Water Softener Regeneration     
                                                                                                                   Brine Disposal).                     
                                                                                                                  5X19 (Abandoned Drinking Water Wells, 
                                                                                                                   if used for the subsurface           
                                                                                                                   emplacement of industrial or         
                                                                                                                   commercial wastes not injected in    
                                                                                                                   above categories of Class V wells).  
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


2. Requirements Applicable to Class V Wells
    Class V wells are currently authorized by rule (Sec. 144.24 (a)). 
Well authorization under this section 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 UIC 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. Sections 144.12(c) and (d) 
prescribe mandatory and discretionary actions to be taken by the 
Director if a well may not be 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. As 
described in section II.A below, EPA and the States have effectively 
used these authorities to control priority Class V wells.
    Owners or operators of Class V injection wells must also submit 
basic 

[[Page 44655]]
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.

B. Report To Congress on Class V Wells

    In accordance with the 1986 Amendments to the SDWA (42 U.S.C. 300h-
5(b)), EPA summarized information on 32 categories of Class V wells in 
a Report to Congress entitled Class V Injection Wells--Current 
Inventory; Effects on Ground Water; and Technical Recommendations, 
September 1987 (EPA Document Number 570/9-87-006). This report presents 
a national overview of Class V injection practices and State 
recommendations for Class V design, construction, installation, and 
siting requirements. These State recommendations, however, did not give 
EPA a clear mandate on how to handle Class V wells. 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 State-wide 
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.

C. 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 alleges 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, para.15)
    EPA entered into a consent decree with the Sierra Club which 
provides that no later than August 15, 1995, the Administrator shall 
sign a notice to be published in the Federal Register proposing 
regulatory action that fully discharges the Administrator's rulemaking 
obligations under section 1421 of the SDWA, 42 U.S.C. 300h, with 
respect to Class V injection wells. Under the consent decree in this 
notice, EPA must (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, para.2). The consent decree further provides that, no later 
than November 15, 1996, the Administrator shall 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, para.3). This proposal is 
intended to fulfill EPA's initial obligation under the consent decree.

II. Proposed Agency Determination on the Adequacy of Current 
Regulations
    When EPA promulgated the UIC regulations in 1980, little was known 
about the Class V injection well universe, and EPA anticipated that 
requirements similar to the very specific requirements applicable to 
Class I, II, and III would eventually be promulgated. Therefore, in 
Sec. 144.24 the Agency authorized Class V injection wells by rule 
``until further requirements under future regulations become 
applicable.''
    Several factors had to be considered in deciding whether such 
``further requirements'' are in fact necessary. Important among these 
factors is the way in which EPA and the States have been able to use 
current authorities to control Class V wells and the concurrent 
development of State ground water protection programs.

A. Implementation of Current Requirements

    Since the mid 1980's, EPA and State UIC programs have been actively 
implementing existing requirements for Class V wells, including the 
endangerment prohibition in Sec. 144.12, in order to protect USDWs. For 
example, State UIC programs and EPA directly implemented programs have 
used current authorities to require owners or operators of Class V 
wells deemed to have the potential to endanger USDWs to obtain permits 
so that the wells could be subject to additional requirements. During 
fiscal years 1991 through 1994, EPA and States issued more than 4,000 
permits for existing and new Class V wells.
    Additionally, both States and EPA have been actively identifying 
Class V injection well violations and undertaking enforcement actions 
to ensure compliance with the endangerment prohibition. For example, 
during fiscal years 1991 through 1994, EPA and the States conducted 
more than 20,000 inspections of Class V wells. These inspections led to 
the discovery of more than 8,000 Class V injection well violations. EPA 
and States responded to these violations with more than 4,500 
enforcement actions against owners and operators of endangering Class V 
injection wells. In some of these enforcement actions, EPA has taken 
the position that industrial waste disposal wells used to inject fluids 
exceeding the MCL were in violation of Sec. 144.12. In one such action, 
EPA issued a general Administrative Order on Consent to 10 major 
petroleum marketing companies. As a result of the order, penalties 
totaling more than $830,000 were collected and over 1,300 endangering 
Class V wells were closed.
    States and EPA have also required other endangering Class V wells 
to close in order to protect USDWs. For example, during fiscal years 
1991 through 1994, EPA and States reported that more than 2,500 
endangering Class V wells were closed.

B. State Ground Water Protection Programs

    In addition to their efforts in implementing the UIC program, 
States have been actively developing more comprehensive ground water 
protection programs. These State ground water protection efforts are 
placing greater emphasis on prevention of contamination and not just 
remediating or controlling specific sources of contamination. Such 
efforts help to control the threats associated with several categories 
of Class V wells.
    Two notable examples of general ground water protection programs 
being implemented by the States include Comprehensive State Ground 
Water Protection Programs (CSGWPPs) and the Wellhead Protection Program 
(WHPP). Under a new EPA-State initiative, many States are developing 
CSGWPPs which provide States the flexibility to set priorities and 
focus resources on protecting USDWs from potential sources of 
contamination, including Class V wells. Eleven States and two tribes 
are currently very active in developing CSGWPP programs, while most 
States have taken the initial steps toward their development.
    Under SDWA section 1428, each State must prepare and submit a WHPP 
to protect ground water that supplies wells 

[[Page 44656]]
and well fields that support public drinking water systems. The 
programs are implemented primarily at the State level, with 
municipalities implementing programs that reflect State requirements or 
incentives. Under a WHPP, a State or locality delineates the wellhead 
protection area; identifies sources of contamination in the wellhead 
protection area; and develops management approaches. WHPP are a means 
to identify Class V wells within wellhead protection areas and can 
serve as a mechanism to institute pollution prevention measures, best 
management practices, or well closures. The Program also can be used to 
set priorities among permits and enforcement actions, and provide 
guidance and outreach materials to owners or operators of potential 
contamination sources. As of late 1992, approximately 20 States and 
territories had received EPA approval of their WHPP. By mid-1995, 
approximately three-quarters of the States and territories--40 in all--
had approved Programs.
    The State of Massachusetts is an example of how current UIC 
authorities in the context of their ground water protection efforts can 
be used to address Class V wells. The Division of Water Supply within 
the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP) has 
operated the UIC program in the State since 1989 with a limited UIC 
staff. In order to address the risks of Class V injection wells, 
Massachusetts has undertaken both outreach efforts to industry and 
coordination with municipal officials regarding key elements of its 
ground water protection strategy. These efforts have been further 
supported with an inspection and enforcement program targeting high 
priority violators.
    For example, in 1991, MDEP worked with building code officials and 
law makers to revise the State's Plumbing Code. The code now prohibits 
auto service stations, vehicle maintenance facilities and other 
facilities which generate liquid hazardous waste from maintaining floor 
drains which discharge to the ground. These regulated facilities must 
now either connect their floor drain to a holding tank or a municipal 
sewer, or seal their floor drain--a major step in the protection of 
ground water drinking supplies.
    In addition, MDEP is using its wellhead protection regulations to 
impose certain zoning and non-zoning land use controls to protect new 
municipal water wells. In particular, the regulations state that a town 
seeking approval to construct a new well must prohibit the connection 
of floor drains to subsurface disposal systems in industrial and 
commercial process areas or hazardous material/waste storage areas 
within well head protection areas.
    Other States have shown a great deal in interest in the development 
of EPA's proposed Class V management strategy and have expressed a 
commitment to work with EPA in achieving appropriate control of Class V 
wells using State solutions. This commitment will be finalized in EPA/
State management agreements and through Regional/State enforcement 
agreements.

C. Assessment of the Need for Additional Class V Regulations

    In light of the considerations described above, the Agency has 
analyzed the need for additional federal regulations for each well 
category described in section I.A.1 of this preamble.
    The Agency used two criteria in evaluating the different categories 
of Class V wells to determine whether any category warranted additional 
regulation: The potential to endanger USDWs and the anticipated 
effectiveness of additional federal regulation under the UIC program in 
preventing endangerment to USDWs.
    For wells with a low or no potential to contaminate USDWs based on 
the quality of injected fluids, the Agency considers that existing 
regulations provide sufficient authorities to handle the few cases 
where mismanagement of one of these wells could create an endangerment 
situation.
    To assess the need for additional regulation under the UIC program 
for the other wells, EPA was guided by the following principles.
    (1) Additional Federal UIC regulations are not necessary where 
adequate State or local regulations are already in place.
    (2) Additional Federal UIC regulations are not necessary where the 
Class V wells are not the principal source of endangerment from a 
widespread environmental problem.
    (3) Additional Federal UIC regulations are not necessary where 
endangerments are localized problems, e.g., wells which are found only 
in one or two counties in one or two States. For these wells EPA will 
work with the States if necessary to bring about better controls.
    (4) Additional Federal UIC regulations are not necessary where 
other federal programs address the endangerment caused by certain Class 
V wells.
    Applying these principles, the Agency decided to address the risk 
posed by the 10 Class V well categories listed in the proposed 
regulation as follows:
1. Beneficial Use Wells
    ``Beneficial use'' wells include a variety of well types used 
either to improve the quality or flow of aquifers or to provide some 
other benefit, such as salt water intrusion prevention or subsidence 
control. The Agency recognizes that, as a group, beneficial use wells 
are diverse and have a varying potential to endanger USDWs. The 1987 
Report to Congress concluded that the USDW contamination potential of 
these wells ranges from low to high, depending on the particular type 
of well.
    Salt water intrusion barrier wells have a low potential to 
contaminate USDWs because they generally inject fluids of equivalent or 
better quality than the fluids that naturally exist in the injection 
zone. Based on typical injectate characteristics and the possibilities 
for dilution, injection from these wells does not occur in sufficient 
volumes to increase contaminant concentrations in ground water (Report 
to Congress, p. 4-334).
    Subsidence control wells, used to control the sudden sinking of the 
earth's surface resulting from excessive ground water withdrawal, also 
have a low potential to endanger USDWs. These wells typically inject 
fluids of high quality, and typical well construction, operation, and 
maintenance would not allow fluid injection or migration into 
unintended zones (Report to Congress, p. 4-342).
    The USDW contamination potential of most aquifer recharge wells 
also is low, because injection fluids are usually of equal or better 
quality than receiving fluids and because typical well construction, 
operation, and maintenance would not allow contamination of unintended 
zones (Report to Congress, p. 4-324). However, some aquifer recharge 
wells may pose a moderate to high threat of USDW contamination, because 
the quality of the fluid injected may be poor in some cases and because 
some aquifer recharge wells inventoried by EPA do not appear to be 
properly designed, constructed, and operated. For example, in Texas, 
many recharge wells are operated by farmers as dual purpose irrigation 
supply/injection wells to drain the land and recharge underlying 
aquifers; water injected into these wells may contain nitrates, 
phosphorus, pesticides, herbicides, pathogens, metals, and total 
dissolved solids. The Agency believes that, in general, recharge wells 
have impacts similar to those of agricultural drainage wells and the 
reasons for not proposing additional regulations for these types of 
wells are 

[[Page 44657]]
similar to those described under ``Drainage Wells'' below. In Florida, 
``connector'' wells, specifically designed to allow communication 
between the surficial perched aquifer and the deeper supply aquifer, 
often emplace fluids that greatly exceed primary drinking water 
standards for gross alpha radiation (in 10-20 percent of these wells). 
However, this is an example of a practice which is so localized that 
EPA believes that a more effective approach than Federal regulations is 
to work with and support Florida's efforts to address these wells, and 
to take appropriate Federal enforcement actions where necessary.
    Another type of beneficial use well that could have a high 
potential to contaminate USDWs if not properly controlled is subsurface 
environmental remediation wells. These wells are designed to improve an 
aquifer's quality by extracting and treating contaminated ground water 
and then injecting the treated effluent. While the treated injectate 
should be of higher quality than the receiving aquifer, the injection 
must be controlled closely to make sure that high concentrations of 
contaminants are not released and that it does not exacerbate the 
ground water contamination that is being cleaned up. These remediation 
wells operate as part of facility specific clean-up plans, which are 
approved and overseen by federal and State officials. EPA believes, 
therefore, that additional federal regulations under the UIC program 
are not needed to control potential problems associated with these 
wells because such regulations would simply duplicate existing 
controls. EPA believes that remediation actions are already adequately 
controlled as part of RCRA, CERCLA, or State remediation programs.
2. Fluid Return Wells
    ``Fluid return'' wells are used to inject spent fluids associated 
with the production of geothermal energy for space heating or electric 
power, the operation of a heat pump, the extraction of minerals, or 
aquaculture. The 1987 Report to Congress on Class V wells ranked the 
contamination potential of fluid return wells as moderate to low.
    Both direct heat return wells and electric power wells were 
assessed by the Report to Congress as having a moderate contamination 
potential (Report to Congress, p. 4-106). Reasons given for this 
ranking include the fact that injected geothermal fluids typically have 
at least one constituent exceeding water quality standards (e.g., 
arsenic, chromium, and mercury), and injection occurs in great enough 
volumes to potentially affect ground water quality. The excessive 
temperatures of the injected fluids also may pose a concern. However, 
these wells are believed to pose an overall moderate contamination 
potential because typical well construction, operation, and maintenance 
is not expected to allow fluid injection into unintended ground water 
zones. The wells are typically constructed so that the injection zone 
is a geothermal reservoir, below all USDWs.
    The vast majority of the geothermal fluid return wells are located 
in California and Nevada. Both States already require permits for the 
drilling and operation of these wells. In California, the Division of 
Oil and Gas and Geothermal Energy Resources oversees this permitting, 
and among other conditions, requires monthly reports on injection 
volumes and rates. In Nevada, geothermal wells are regulated by the 
Division of Environmental Protection, and existing permit requirements 
cover construction, operation, and closure of these wells.
    Overall, the Agency believes that the State permit programs 
currently in place are sufficiently stringent to protect USDWs from 
contamination from geothermal fluid return wells, and are sufficient to 
prevent exceedences of the National Primary Drinking Water Standards. 
Furthermore, EPA believes that because many of these well types are 
concentrated in just a few western States, creating a rigorous national 
regulatory system would provide little additional benefits. If any 
wells pose specific problems that are not being adequately addressed by 
the States, EPA can use the prohibition of fluid movement standard in 
40 CFR 144.12 or can require them to be permitted under 40 CFR 144.25 
to prevent the endangerment of USDWs.
    According to the Report to Congress, heat pump/air conditioning 
return flow wells pose a low potential to contaminate USDWs, even 
though they typically inject into or above USDWs (Report to Congress, 
p. 4-117). Because these wells generally dispose of return supply 
water, which has only been thermally altered, injectates are usually 
the same quality as fluids within any USDW in connection with the 
injection zone. Because of the lack of associated serious threats and 
the fact that 16 States already have established permit programs for 
these wells, EPA believes additional federal standards are unnecessary 
at this time. If EPA finds a particular well is endangering USDWs, 
existing authorities under 40 CFR 144.12 or 144.25 will be used to 
remedy the problem.
    The Report to Congress concluded that wells used to inject spent 
brine after the extraction of minerals (halogens or salts) have a low 
potential to contaminate USDWs (Report to Congress, p. 4-236) and are 
found in only seven States. Typically, these wells are adequately 
constructed with multiple layers of protection which isolate the 
injected fluids from overlying USDWs and inject into deep confined 
formations. Therefore, even though the concentrations of some 
contaminants in the injectate may exceed drinking water standards, 
there is little potential for the contaminants to migrate into USDWs.
    Based on these factors, EPA believes that additional federal UIC 
regulations for these wells are unnecessary because these wells are 
most appropriately managed through existing State and local authorities 
who are best equipped to tailor individualized design and operational 
requirements to the hydrogeologic conditions found in each of these 
seven States in order to protect USDWs.
    Aquaculture return flow wells, which are used for disposal of 
liquid and semi-solid wastes associated with aquaculture, have a 
moderate potential to contaminate USDWs according to the Report to 
Congress (Report to Congress, p. 4-136). All injection from these wells 
occurs adjacent to the ocean. Operational monitoring of these wells is 
minimal. However, it is known that the injectate typically contains 
nitrates, nitrites, ammonia, BOD, and orthophosphate, often in 
concentrations exceeding drinking water standards. Injectate volumes 
are also extremely large (exceeding 10,000 acre-feet). Therefore, 
aquaculture return flow wells have the potential to influence ground 
water quality in the vicinity of the point of injection. The potential 
for serious degradation of ground water quality is mitigated, however, 
because the basal ground water flow in coastal Hawaii is usually 
seaward and the flow of contaminants will likely be away from fresher 
water inland (i.e., suitable drinking water). In addition, all 
aquaculture return flow wells are presently regulated under a permit 
program administered by the Hawaii Department of Health that is 
adequate to prevent the endangerment of USDWs. For these reasons, EPA 
believes that additional federal UIC regulation for this type of Class 
V well is unnecessary at this time.
3. Sewage Treatment Effluent Wells
    Data in the Report to Congress suggest that sewage treatment 
effluent wells have a moderate potential (ranging from high to low) to 
contaminate USDWs 

[[Page 44658]]
(Report to Congress, p. 4-185). Some sewage treatment effluent wells 
are used to inject clarified effluent that has undergone secondary or 
tertiary treatment. For example, a few shallow wells in Florida and 
Hawaii inject effluent that has undergone tertiary treatment, and there 
are 10 wells at a U.S. Forest Service ski lodge on Mount Hood, Oregon, 
that inject effluent that has undergone secondary treatment. The Agency 
believes the risk of these injection practices is low because the 
injectate is of high quality.
    In some States, sewage treatment effluent that has undergone only 
primary treatment creates a higher potential to contaminate USDWs. 
Because the majority of these sewage treatment effluent wells of 
concern are being addressed at the State level (Florida and Hawaii have 
80 percent of them), EPA does not believe that additional federal UIC 
regulations are warranted at this time. Any problems with these wells 
in Florida and Hawaii do not stem from inadequate regulations, but 
rather can be overcome through effective enforcement and more active 
implementation of existing regulations and authorities as is presently 
ongoing in Hawaii.
    As a result, the Agency proposes to control any wells not being 
adequately addressed by specific State programs through the application 
of the no fluid movement standard in 40 CFR 144.12 and, if necessary, 
calling individual wells in for a permit under 40 CFR 144.25.
4. Cesspools
    Cesspools are Class V wells which receive untreated sanitary waste 
and allow the waste to percolate directly into the subsurface. EPA 
believes cesspools have a high potential to contaminate USDWs. 
According to the Report to Congress, sanitary waste released in 
cesspools frequently exceeds the MCLs for nitrates, total suspended 
solids, and coliform bacteria (Report to Congress, p. 4-151). Other 
constituents of concern can include phosphates, chlorides, grease, 
viruses, and chemicals used to clean cesspools such as trichloroethane 
and methylene chloride. Numerous States, including Arizona, California, 
Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, New York, Ohio, and Oregon, have reported 
degradation of USDWs from such cesspools. As opposed to properly 
managed septic systems, cesspools provide no treatment except for some 
settling of the solids.
    Based on these concerns, new cesspools are currently banned in all 
States, with the exception of Hawaii, and therefore there is no need 
for a federal ban. Where State bans presently exist, States are phasing 
out existing cesspools over a time period negotiated by State and local 
governments and acceptable to EPA. However, since cesspools are very 
likely to be in violation of the non-endangerment requirements of 
Sec. 144.12, EPA will continue to use its enforcement authorities to 
supplement State bans in direct implementation States.
5. Septic Systems
    Under the UIC program, EPA regulates septic systems which have the 
'capacity to serve 20 people or more but does not regulate smaller, 
single family systems. EPA believes that when properly spaced, sited, 
designed, constructed, and maintained all septic systems, regardless of 
their capacity, should not endanger USDW. However, the Report to 
Congress deemed septic systems as ``high risk''. There are two 
important reasons why the Report to Congress seems to disagree with the 
Agency's view on the risks posed by septic systems. First, the Report 
to Congress considered not only septic systems which receive solely 
sanitary waste, but also systems which receive industrial and 
commercial wastes in addition to, or instead of, sanitary waste. EPA 
does not consider septic systems which receive industrial or commercial 
waste to be properly classified as ``septic systems''. Rather, EPA 
proposes to classify these high risk wells as ``industrial waste 
discharge wells'' and will manage such wells as discussed in the 
appropriate section below.
    Second, the conclusions in the Report to Congress regarding the 
risks posed by septic systems were based, in part, on single-family 
septic systems because local records frequently were not sufficiently 
detailed to distinguish single-family systems from larger units. EPA is 
aware that improperly spaced and sited single-family septic systems can 
endanger USDWs, however, such systems are not included under the 
purview of the UIC program.2 Once these single-family systems, and 
misused systems used for the disposal of industrial or commercial waste 
(which are defined as ``industrial waste discharge wells'' under 
today's proposal), are excluded from the definition of ``septic 
system(s)'', EPA does not believe that the remaining systems pose a 
significant national problem.

    \2\ See 40 CFR 144.2(g)(2)(ii) and House of Representatives 
Report No. 93-1185.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, EPA does not believe that additional federal UIC 
regulations are necessary to control the threat posed by septic 
systems. All 50 States allow septic systems and recognize septic 
systems as a critical element of sanitary waste disposal. Most States 
already have standards governing the siting, spacing, construction and 
operation of septic systems. These standards have generally been 
tailored to reflect local hydrogeologic conditions. In addition, as 
discussed in the Report to Congress, the major cause of ground water 
contamination from septic systems is improper spacing; that is, the 
construction of too many systems too close together. This problem often 
occurs in areas of rapid growth and development, where public sewers do 
not exist. In these instances, EPA believes that land-use planning 
measures, which are available principally at the local level, are the 
only efficient approach to protecting the environment.
    The Agency did consider the option of proposing specific conditions 
of authorization by rule for large capacity septic systems. However, to 
effectively protect USDWs from the risks posed by septic systems, 
proper siting and design standards must be tailored to local 
hydrogeologic conditions. EPA believes that the States and local 
authorities are in the best position to tailor these standards. 
Therefore, in order to avoid interfering with existing State and local 
programs, conditions of rule authorization for septic systems at the 
national level would have to be so general that they may not result in 
any added protection to USDWs while creating an additional 
administrative burden on States. For these reasons, EPA is not 
proposing additional regulations for septic systems and will instead 
rely on its Class V Management Strategy to minimize the threat posed by 
these wells.
6. Experimental Technology Wells
    The Report to Congress ranked the USDW contamination potential of 
experimental technology wells as moderate to low (Report to Congress, 
p. 4-355). The Report identified 225 experimental technology wells in 
17 States, over half of which were inactive underground coal 
gasification, in-situ oil shale retorting, and improperly classified 
in-situ uranium solution mining wells in Wyoming. At present, EPA is 
unaware of any operating experimental technology wells and cannot 
realistically determine what construction and operational processes 
might be involved in future subsurface experiments.
    Therefore, EPA has decided not to propose additional stringent 

[[Page 44659]]
    requirements for Class V experimental technology wells. EPA believes 
that continuing to rule authorize experimental technology wells will 
provide adequate protection of USDWs. Under the current 40 CFR 
144.26(e)(3), the owner or operator of any new experimental technology 
well, in States with EPA administered programs, must submit detailed 
inventory information prior to starting injection. This submittal would 
alert the EPA UIC program about the proposed injection activities and 
give the Director the opportunity to request additional information 
under 40 CFR 144.27 and/or require a permit under 40 CFR 144.25 if 
necessary to protect USDWs.
7. Drainage Wells
    Drainage wells consist of a variety of wells used to drain surface 
and subsurface fluids. According to the 1987 Report to Congress, these 
wells range from low to high in contamination potential, depending on 
the particular type of drainage and well.
    The most common types of drainage wells include agricultural 
drainage wells that receive irrigation tailwaters or stormwater; 
certain stormwater runoff wells that do not receive uncontrolled, 
contaminated runoff (i.e., chemical spills or stormwater runoff that 
has not been adequately segregated from chemical spills); ``special'' 
drainage wells; and improved sinkholes.
    Data collected for the Report to Congress indicate that 
agricultural drainage wells have a high potential to contaminate USDWs 
because they may inject high concentrations of several contaminants, 
including sediment, nutrients, ions (including chloride and sulfate), 
pesticides and other organic compounds, metals (including arsenic, 
chromium, lead, copper, selenium, and mercury), and pathogens (Report 
to Congress, p. 4-27).
    Although the Agency acknowledges these potential problems 
associated with agricultural drainage wells, EPA does not believe that 
additional Federal UIC regulations are necessary or appropriate for 
these wells. As with septic systems, EPA believes that additional 
Federal UIC regulations for agricultural drainage wells would be 
unlikely to prove effective in providing additional protection for 
USDWs. Agricultural drainage wells are a very small part of the overall 
impact of farming on ground water. Most ground water contamination 
problems attributed to these wells are more often the result of common 
agricultural practices such as fertilizer and pesticide application and 
land use practices, which are outside the scope of the UIC program. 
Therefore, the Agency believes that these wells are most appropriately 
managed at the State and local level where the overall risks associated 
with general agriculture practices can be addressed in a holistic 
fashion.
    Therefore, under today's proposal, the Agency would continue to 
rule authorize agricultural drainage wells, while seeking to resolve 
the issues associated with nitrate and pesticide contamination in a 
broader manner. While agricultural drainage wells are numerous, they 
appear to be concentrated in Florida, Idaho, and Iowa. Problems in 
these localized areas can be addressed by specific State and local 
programs, such as the CSGWPPs and the Pesticide State Management Plans. 
EPA also has convened a panel of experts to evaluate and develop BMP 
guidelines to help ensure that agricultural drainage wells do not 
endanger USDWs.3 As envisioned by EPA and other members of this 
panel (including the U.S. Department of Agriculture, State agencies, 
and universities), EPA can best achieve the goal of protecting USDWs 
from contamination associated with agricultural drainage wells by 
informing State agencies as to the available BMPs and then allowing 
regional governmental or regulatory entities to select the techniques 
best suited to local conditions. In the meantime, EPA would work with 
existing State and local programs to provide compliance assistance to 
the owners and operators of these wells. If necessary to protect USDWs, 
EPA could supplement these efforts by enforcing 40 CFR 144.12 and 
requiring owners or operators of individual wells to submit information 
and, if necessary, obtain permits under 40 CFR 144.25.

    \3\ See ``Expert Panel on Water Quality Impacts of Agricultural 
Drainage Practices, September 24-25, 1991 Meeting Summary,'' 
Underground Injection Control Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, September 28, 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA believes that not proposing additional federal UIC regulations 
for agricultural drainage wells is further supported by the ongoing 
development and implementation of other programs designed to address 
agricultural contamination problems. For example, agriculture-related 
activities to reduce pollution receive the bulk of EPA's grant funding 
in the Nonpoint Source program. State funded activities to reduce 
agricultural contamination (e.g., nitrates) of water resources include 
support for technical assistance, educational programs, enforcement 
mechanisms, and assistance for BMP demonstration projects. Similarly, 
region-specific programs, such as the Chesapeake Bay Program, may 
reduce the need for UIC regulation of agricultural drainage wells. In 
1992 alone, the Chesapeake Bay Program spent 54.2 million dollars on 
the installation of agricultural BMPs to reduce agricultural runoff 
contaminating the Bay. This funding has provided for planning, 
designing, and installing nutrient and erosion controls, as well as 
integrated pest management projects intended to reduce the quantities 
of pesticides applied to crop lands. These efforts help reduce the 
amount of fertilizers, manure, and pesticides potentially migrating 
through agricultural drainage wells into USDWs (Managing Nonpoint 
Source Pollution, USEPA Office of Water, EPA-506/9-90, January 1992). 
Section VII of this preamble provides further discussion of the 
relationship between today's proposal and other EPA programs.
    Stormwater drainage wells were ranked by the Report to Congress as 
having a moderate potential to contaminate USDWs (Report to Congress, 
p. 4-41). This assessment considered the fact that urban storm water 
runoff can acquire contaminant loads from streets, roofs, landscaped 
areas, industrial areas and construction sites consisting of 
herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers, deicing salts, gasoline, grease, 
oil, tar and paving residues, rubber particulates, and many other 
constituents. In the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program (NURP), heavy 
metals were found to be the most prevalent priority pollutants in urban 
runoff. Most constituents released into stormwater drainage wells, 
however, usually are not present in concentrations that exceed drinking 
water standards, according to the Report to Congress. Moreover, 
contamination studies to date have not shown that area-wide degradation 
of ground water quality has resulted from these drainage wells.
    EPA believes that the most significant threats posed by storm water 
drainage wells occur when the wells are located near loading docks, 
storage, and process areas where chemical spills may occur. EPA 
maintains that if storm water drainage wells are separated from these 
areas by a physical barrier (e.g., berm, dike, ditch, etc.), then these 
wells do not appear to pose a high potential to contaminate USDWs and 
do not warrant additional UIC regulation. If however, no physical 
barriers are in place that can adequately contain a spill, EPA proposes 
to classify such wells as Class V industrial waste discharge wells, and 
subject them to the same management approach as other industrial wells 
discussed below.

[[Page 44660]]

    A variety of flow diversion structures and/or spill containment 
measures can be used to adequately segregate process areas, loading 
docks, and storage tank areas from stormwater drainage wells. Flow 
diversion structures divert stormwater flow away from or around 
drainage wells and/or potential spill areas. These can include gutters, 
sewers, channels, diversion dikes, or other structures. Effective 
diversion structures are typically constructed with a positive grade, 
although the grades are not so steep as to cause erosion from water 
movement. The conveyance is sized to handle the amount of water it will 
receive and is routinely inspected and cleared of debris.
    Spill containment structures include dikes, curbs, catch basins, 
and other structures capable of containing spills, leaks, or other 
releases. Effective containment structures are sized to handle both 
rainfall and possible releases and spills, and are regularly inspected 
and maintained to insure the integrity of the system. Further 
information about these and other systems that are believed to provide 
adequate segregation from process areas, loading docks, and storage 
tank areas, for the purpose of qualifying as a stormwater drainage well 
under today's proposal, may be obtained in Storm Water Management for 
Industrial Activities; Developing Pollution Prevention Plans and Best 
Management Practices (EPA 832-R-92-006; September 1992).
    Special drainage wells, which include swimming pool water drainage 
wells and landslide control drainage wells, were characterized as 
having a moderate to low contamination potential in the Report to 
Congress (Report to Congress, p. 4-68). All except one of the 1,385 
swimming pool drainage wells inventoried by EPA for the Report are 
located in Florida, although the Agency is aware that such wells also 
exist in other States. Swimming pool drainage fluid may include calcium 
hypochlorite, chlorine, bromine, iodine, fungicides, and other 
contaminants. Some of the free chlorine in the fluid may degrade into 
trichloromethane. Although the drainage fluid sometimes has 
concentrations of constituents in excess of the MCLs, the injectate may 
be of equal or better quality than the fluids within any USDW in 
connection with the injection zone. Moreover, according to the Report 
to Congress, injection from these wells is unlikely to migrate into 
unintended zones (considering typical well construction, operation, and 
maintenance) or degrade the quality of receiving aquifers. Accordingly, 
EPA believes that enforcement of 40 CFR 144.12, requirements to submit 
information, and requirements to obtain a permit in certain situations 
when found to be necessary, under 40 CFR 144.25, would be a more 
appropriate regulatory approach than stringent permit requirements 
under the federal UIC program. Moreover, the Florida Department of 
Environmental Regulation already requires permits for the construction, 
plugging, and abandonment of swimming pool drainage wells and 
implements substantive requirements to protect USDWs.
    All of the landslide control drainage wells inventoried by the 
Agency for the Report to Congress are located in Montana. These wells 
inject ground water from the shallow subsurface to deeper zones and are 
likely to have a low contamination potential due to their use of water 
from relatively uncontaminated shallow aquifers (Report to Congress, p. 
4-68). The primary threat from these wells would arise from accidental 
releases of chemicals at the surface that could immediately transfer a 
large amount of contaminants to an aquifer. However, because these 
wells are already permitted by the State of Montana, and the 
probability of a chemical spill in the immediate vicinity of landslide 
control well appears small, EPA believes that additional federal 
regulation is not warranted.
    A final type of drainage well includes improved sinkholes, or 
natural surface depressions that have been altered in order to direct 
fluids into the hole opening. These wells are constructed in karst 
topographic areas and are used to dispose of stormwater runoff in low 
areas along highways. Based on the analysis in the Report to Congress, 
improved sinkholes pose a high to moderate potential to contaminate 
USDWs (Report to Congress, p. 4-53). Major factors that contributed to 
this ranking included: (1) These wells typically inject into or above 
USDWs, (2) injectates often have constituent concentrations exceeding 
drinking water standards, and (3) runoff fluids, which may include 
lead, petroleum products, pesticides, fertilizers, wastes from wild and 
domestic animals and birds, are injected through and into channeled and 
fractured limestone or dolomite, limiting filtration or other 
attenuative processes.
    To address these risks, EPA will classify improved sinkholes on the 
basis of how they are used as opposed to how they are designed. For 
example, when used to inject raw sewage these wells would be cesspools, 
and thus should be banned by current State regulation. EPA will be 
working with State UIC authorities to make sure that such uses of Class 
V wells are, in fact, prohibited. Similarly, use of these wells to 
inject industrial waste or stormwater runoff from process areas, 
loading docks, or storage areas would cause them to be classified as 
industrial wells. Therefore, today's proposal would in effect limit the 
classification of improved sinkholes as drainage wells to those used 
for stormwater emplacement (other than from process areas, loading 
docks, or storage areas), and the potential for these wells to 
contaminate USDWs would be similar to that of other stormwater drainage 
wells. On this basis, the Agency is proposing to continue to rule 
authorize these wells and continue to utilize existing regulatory 
authority (e.g., 40 CFR 144.12, 144.25, etc.) to protect USDWs.
8. Mine Backfill Wells
    Mine backfill wells are used to place hydraulic (water) or 
pneumatic (air) slurries of sand, gravel, cement, mill tailings/refuse, 
or fly ash into underground mines. Mine backfill wells serve a variety 
of purposes ranging from subsidence prevention to control of 
underground fires. Data collected for the Report to Congress indicate 
that, in general, mine backfill wells have a moderate potential to 
contaminate USDWs (Report to Congress, p. 4-199). This assessment 
considered the fact that injectates consist of slurries that have the 
potential to react with acid mine water to mobilize potential ground 
water contaminants. Mill tailings and fly ash in the slurries also may 
cause detrimental interactions. Although the injectate may contain some 
contaminants, aquifers interconnected with these wells are generally of 
moderate to poor quality already, and the introduction of the injectate 
may not be considered degradation. Short-term use wells (mine fire 
control), in particular, pose little threat to USDWs. Moreover, most 
mine backfill/mine fire control wells are currently regulated under 
State water quality or mining programs.
    An independent assessment of Class V well injection of coal mining 
waste into underground mines in West Virginia 4 provides 
additional evidence that mine backfill wells do not pose a threat to 
ground water. Prior to the start of this research in 1985, the West 

[[Page 44661]]
Virginia Department of Natural Resources and EPA determined that the 
injection of coal slurry and mine drainage precipitate sludge into 
underground coal mines was the most common Class V well injection 
activity in the State. Slurry or sludge injection to underground mines 
was found to be practiced by 46 companies having 65 injection projects 
at 60 mines across the State. Overall, slurry injection to underground 
coal mines was found usually to improve the quality of water that 
accumulates in the mines, commonly increasing pH and alkalinity levels 
as well as causing minor changes in trace element concentrations. 
Slurry injection, however, did result in increased sulfate levels in 
mine water. Sludge injection to underground mines was found to affect 
mine water quality in variable ways. In general, sludge injection 
appeared to improve water quality in highly alkaline mine waters but 
cause some degradation in acidic mine waters.

    \4\ ``An Assessment of Class V Well Injection of Coal Mining 
Waste into Underground Mines in West Virginia,'' prepared by Diane 
M. Smith, Keystone Environmental Resources, Inc. (Monroeville, PA) 
and Henry W. Rauch, West Virginia University, Department of Geology 
and Geography (Morgantown, WV).
    Based on this information, additional federal regulation of these 
wells under the UIC program does not appear warranted to protect USDWs. 
The Agency recognizes that some mine backfill wells may adversely 
affect ground water quality, especially when slurries or sludges are 
injected into mines that accumulate acid mine water. However, the 
generally poor quality of ground water that naturally exists in and 
around mines and the controls that are already in place under State 
water or mining programs indicate that mine backfill wells can 
generally continue to be rule authorized under the federal UIC program 
without endangering USDWs. EPA will continue to control these wells by 
enforcing 40 CFR 144.12, requiring owners or operators of particularly 
troublesome wells to obtain a permit pursuant to 40 CFR 144.25, and, in 
EPA administered programs, requiring the submittal of information under 
40 CFR 144.27 on a case-by-case basis as needed to protect USDWs.
9. In Situ and Solution Mining Wells
    In situ fossil fuel recovery wells are used to inject water, air, 
oxygen, solvents, combustibles, or explosives into underground coal or 
oil shale beds with the purpose of liberating fossil fuels. According 
to the Report to Congress, these wells pose a moderate potential to 
contaminate USDWs (Report to Congress, p. 4-229). The main concern for 
this well type is the potential impact of explosives and combustion 
products on ground water quality, which may include polynuclear 
aromatics, cyanides, nitrites, and phenols. No additional UIC 
regulations for these wells are needed at this time, however, because 
there currently are no such wells known to be operating in the United 
States.
    Owners or operators of solution mining wells use injection and 
recovery techniques to bring minerals from underground deposits to the 
surface. Based on the data in the Report to Congress, EPA believes that 
these wells have a low potential to contaminate USDWs (Report to 
Congress, p. 4-209). This assessment considers the fact that most 
solution mining wells inject below USDWs (though not below the 
lowermost USDW) with very little potential for migration of fluids into 
USDWs. Though injectates may be corrosive acids with pHs exceeding 
drinking water standards and injectate volumes tend to be large, losses 
of fluid from the workings should be minimal. Since the construction 
and operational aspects of solution mining are simple, the potential 
for a malfunction leading to migration is minimal. Moreover, most of 
these wells are located in semi-remote areas far away from population 
centers. Most solution mining occurs in the desert Southwest whose 
alluvial aquifers generally have low water quality and USDWs are 
sparse. New Mexico, Wyoming and Arizona, three States in which the 
majority of these wells are located, have already established permit 
programs for solution mining wells. For all of these reasons, EPA does 
not believe that additional federal regulation of these wells is 
necessary to protect USDWs.
10. Industrial Waste Discharge Wells
    The most difficult decision for EPA concerning this proposal lay 
with the appropriate management strategy for the remaining Class V 
wells--the industrial waste discharge wells. These Class V wells, which 
are used to inject industrial and commercial wastes, present the 
greatest danger to USDWs.
    In the process of developing this proposal, EPA carefully 
considered an option of proposing additional regulatory requirements 
for these wells. Specifically, EPA considered using a traditional 
approach of requiring owners and operators of Class V industrial waste 
discharge wells to apply for a permit or close the wells in accordance 
with closure requirements specified in the regulation. EPA, however, 
believes that its approach to managing Class V industrial waste 
discharge wells has to be different because of the special problems 
posed by these wells. This difference is characterized by three 
factors: The diversity in the types of fluids being injected, the large 
number of facilities to be regulated, and the nature of the regulated 
community.
    The diversity in the types of fluids being injected makes it 
difficult to establish one set of national minimum requirements. On one 
hand, EPA knows of numerous cases where industrial wells have caused 
significant ground water contamination. One survey, by EPA, in 1991 
identified 100 Class V injection well contamination cases. (Drinking 
Water Contamination by Shallow Injection Wells, U.S. EPA Office of 
Water, March 1991.) Remediation costs, for the 10 cases for which cost 
information was available, ranged from tens of thousands to millions of 
dollars per site. Class V wells have been partially or fully 
responsible for the contamination of public water supplies in every EPA 
Region in the country. In EPA Region 10 alone (The States of Idaho, 
Oregon, Washington and Alaska), at least eight Superfund sites can be 
either completely or partially attributed to the disposal of industrial 
or commercial wastes in Class V industrial wells. At one Superfund site 
in Idaho, over $10 million has been spent on remedial investigation and 
feasibility studies to clean up contamination associated with past 
injection practices. At another site in Vancouver, Washington, the 
disposal of dry cleaning solvents in a septic system resulted in the 
contamination of a municipal water supply well, forcing the city to 
switch the approximately 30,000 people serviced by this well to another 
source of drinking water.
    On the other hand, the Agency recognizes that many industrial 
sources inject wastes that have low concentrations of contaminants and, 
therefore, are not likely to endanger USDWs. With proper maintenance 
and management practices, these industrial injection wells may be able 
to inject fluids without endangering USDWs.
    For example, some carwashes dispose of the wash water into a septic 
tank or dry well. If no motor or undercarriage washing is being 
performed, in general, such fluids will have low concentrations of 
contaminants. Laundromat washwater disposed of into a septic system or 
dry well, where no on site dry cleaning is performed and where no 
solvents are used for laundering, usually should not differ 
significantly from household wastewater and should not endanger USDWs.
    Equipment washdown water from such industries as poultry and meat 
processors, seafood processors, and pickling operations are, in 
general, similar in quality to the sanitary waste from restaurant 
kitchens, which the 

[[Page 44662]]
Agency is proposing to define as sanitary waste that can be disposed of 
in septic systems. As long as the wells accept only equipment washdown 
water and not process wastes from food processing operations, EPA 
believes that, in most cases, the injectate would not likely endanger 
USDWs.
    Second, the Agency believes that the sheer size of the regulated 
community and the lack of facility specific data makes it difficult to 
consider a traditional approach. In order to examine options for this 
proposal, the Agency attempted to characterize the segment of the 
industrial waste discharge well population with a significant potential 
(based on the characteristics, volume and type of injected fluids) to 
endanger USDWs (see background document entitled ``Class V Industrial 
Well Inventory Analysis''). EPA did not include in this analysis the 
industrial waste discharge wells which it believes are posing a lesser 
threat to USDWs such as:
    (1) Wells used to inject fluids from car washes where no motor or 
undercarriage washing is performed;
    (2) Wells used to inject wastewaters from laundromats where no dry 
cleaning is performed;
    (3) Wells used by food processors for disposal of washdown water 
from poultry, meat and seafood processing, and pickling operations.
    Based on its analysis, the Agency estimates that of the more than 
one million Class V wells, there are over 117,000 industrial waste 
disposal wells. These wells are used for the disposal of industrial and 
commercial wastewaters at automotive-related facilities, print shops, 
dry cleaners, electronic equipment manufacturers, and photo processing 
labs.
    A third factor is the nature of the regulated community. A large 
proportion of industrial waste discharge wells are owned by small 
businesses. For example, 72 percent of all retail motor fuel outlets 
are owned by small businesses. In reaching today's proposed decision, 
EPA attempted to minimize the administrative burden on small business 
without compromising the protection of USDWs. EPA believes that the 
Class V wells are better managed by State and local officials because 
many are owned and operated as small local businesses such as ``mom and 
pop'' gasoline service stations and convenience stores, or corner dry 
cleaners. These small entrepreneurs could be significantly affected by 
any additional administrative burden, such as the obligation to apply 
for a permit. Also, because of the nature of the regulated community, 
the success of the Class V program for industrial waste discharge wells 
depends on a high level of voluntary compliance and an effective 
program implementation at a State or local level of government. Many 
Class V industrial waste discharge wells are, in fact, misused septic 
systems. Because local health departments are located in or near 
communities with these Class V wells, the Agency believes that control 
of these is best effected at the local level. Implementation of many 
aspects of the Class V strategy could be conducted by these local 
entities and results better measured by local officials.
    Therefore, because of the large diversity and size of the 
industrial waste discharge well universe, and the unique nature of the 
regulated community, EPA believes that additional federal UIC 
regulations to protect USDWs are inappropriate. EPA believes that the 
risks posed by these wells are best addressed, using existing 
authorities, as described below.

III. EPA's Strategy for the Management of Class V Wells

    Instead of proposing additional Class V regulations, EPA will work 
with the States to implement a comprehensive Class V management 
strategy. The goal of the strategy will be to speed up the closure of 
potentially endangering Class V wells using current authorities and to 
promote the use of best management practices to ensure that other Class 
V wells of concern do not endanger USDWs.
    To achieve these goals, EPA will rely on the existing performance-
based standard in Sec. 144.12, its other regulatory authorities in 
subpart C of the UIC rules, and a carefully tailored combination of 
guidance, education, and outreach. EPA believes that this approach will 
be more effective than promulgating additional design-based Class V 
requirements.
    Since the Class V rule was developed in the Fall of 1994, EPA has 
undertaken a number of steps to assure effective consultations with and 
the active involvement of States. EPA has also employed a number of 
other approaches to solicit input from States on the scope and 
appropriateness of the proposed rule. An overall Class V strategy was 
developed early in 1995, which outlined how the Class V rule, coupled 
with guidances on implementation and a variety of technical issues, 
would work to assure that high priority Class V wells are addressed 
properly and their potential threat to USDWs is reduced or eliminated. 
A draft of the Strategy for the Comprehensive Management of Class V 
Wells was presented to State UIC program directors at the semi-annual 
meeting of the Ground Water Protection Council held in Washington, DC, 
on March 13, 1995.
    In a parallel fashion, EPA's efforts to develop a Class V 
Management Implementation Strategy Guidance to help States put in place 
comprehensive Class V programs was also used to advise states on the 
proposed rule. EPA held two consultations with State Class V managers 
on this guidance in which the particulars of the rule and the schedule 
for issuance were discussed. The first meeting was held in Memphis, 
Tennessee, June 20-21, 1995, and attended by 12 States and one Tribal 
government representative. The second meeting was held in Salt Lake 
City, Utah, July 11-12, 1995 and attended by 18 States. EPA's proposed 
approach was generally well received and its inherent flexibilities 
were viewed favorably by the States. The roster of attendees at these 
sessions, added to the list of State Class V program managers who could 
not attend, will serve as the primary target audience for EPA's 
distribution of this Federal Register notice.

A. Technical Assistance

1. Program Management Implementation Guidance
    EPA plans to issue a Class V Management Implementation Strategy 
Guidance to help States and Regions put in place comprehensive Class V 
programs using current authorities. EPA is in the process of drafting 
this guidance with input from the States. As mentioned above, EPA has 
already held two meetings to consult with the States on the development 
of this guidance.
    EPA's goal in this guidance is to help the States put in place 
programs that will result in:

--Closure of endangering Class V wells such as industrial waste 
disposal wells and cesspools, particularly in ground-water priority 
areas (wellhead protection areas, etc.).
--Adequate controls being imposed on other Class V wells with a high 
potential to contaminate USDWs, if improperly managed.

    This guidance will focus on the following areas:
    (1) The need to set priorities and focus the State UIC resources on 
the highest risk Class V wells. To this end, the guidance will offer 
ideas for prioritization schemes based on the types of fluids being 
injected and geographic targeting.
    The Class V management guidance will specifically target the 
following types of Class V industrial wells for inspection and follow-
up enforcement action: 

[[Page 44663]]

    (a) Disposal wells used by automotive related facilities such as:

--Gas stations
--Automobile repair shops
--Automobile parts supply companies
--Motor vehicle dealers

    (b) Disposal wells used by ``light'' industrial facilities such as:

--Dry cleaners
--Photographic processors
--Electroplaters
--Metal fabricators
--Printers

    (2) The need to work cooperatively with other States and local 
authorities to implement the program. The types of facilities regulated 
under the Class V program are also likely to come under the purview of 
other regulatory programs particularly at the local level (county 
sanitarians, fire marshals, zoning boards). The guidance will describe 
how States can reach out to and educate these entities to enlist their 
help in implementing the program.
    (3) The need to develop partnerships with volunteer organizations 
and environmental groups to help with outreach to the regulated 
community.
2. Technical Guidances
    To support the Implementation Guidance, EPA is also proposing to 
issue technical guidances, some directed at the regulated community and 
some directed at the States.
    a. Industrial waste discharge well closure guidance. Since EPA 
believes that the foremost goal of the Class V management strategy is 
the closure of endangering Class V wells, EPA will issue a closure 
guidance. A draft of this guidance should be available for review in 
late 1995. The guidance will be directed to owners and operators of 
Class V industrial wells and will be modeled after the closure 
standards used in EPA's administrative consent order with some major 
petroleum marketers.
    b. Septic system guidance. To support existing State ground water 
protection programs in their efforts to protect USDWs, EPA will issue a 
technical assistance guidance which will include recommendations on the 
installation, operation, and maintenance of large capacity septic 
systems, such as:
     Proper installation of leachfields or other appropriate 
fluid distribution systems in a variety of geographic settings.
     Guidelines for system use and maintenance to avoid design 
capacity exceedences and system failure.
     Inspection techniques for early detection of systems 
malfunction or failure.
     Hydrogeologic factors to consider in system location to 
ensure the protection of USDWs.
    c. Agricultural drainage well guidance. The Agency will issue a 
technical assistance guidance to help owners/operators of agricultural 
drainage wells minimize the impact of their facilities on USDWs. The 
guidance could include such recommendations as:
     Pesticides or fertilizers should not be mixed or stored in 
the immediate vicinity of a drainage well in a manner that allows 
spills, runoff, or leachate to enter the well directly.
     To the extent possible, the timing and methods for 
applying fertilizers should be selected to provide nutrients at rates 
necessary to achieve realistic crop yields, prevent endangerment of 
USDWs, and avoid applications to frozen soil and during periods of 
leaching or runoff.
     To the extent possible, owners or operators should use 
integrated pest management strategies that apply pesticides only when 
an economic benefit to the producer will be achieved (i.e., 
applications based on economic thresholds), and apply pesticides 
efficiently and at times when runoff and leaching losses are unlikely.
     Agricultural drainage wells should be located away from 
unsuitable areas, such as locations with excessively drained or highly 
erodible soils, and areas overlaying fractured bedrock or solution 
cavities that drain directly into USDWs. Appropriate separation 
distances should be based on a variety of factors including soil type, 
hydrogeologic conditions, nutrient and pesticide types and application 
rates.
     Nutrient and pesticide application equipment should be 
properly calibrated and operated.
    d. Storm water drainage well guidance. As a part of the strategy 
for the comprehensive management of Class V wells, the Agency will 
issue a technical assistance guidance on the effective methods of 
managing storm water injection wells to assure the protection of USDWs. 
The guidance will provide information about systems that are believed 
to provide adequate segregation from industrial process or storage 
areas as well as techniques for minimizing the environmental impacts of 
injected storm water.

B. Outreach and Education

    EPA will work with States, Regions, local government, trade 
associations and other industry stakeholders to develop and implement a 
comprehensive communication, education, and outreach program designed 
to encourage closure of Class V wells which may endanger USDWs and 
proper management of other non-industrial wells. EPA's first concern is 
an outreach and education effort directed toward the owners and 
operators of Class V industrial waste discharge wells.
    The materials will be designed to inform the general public and 
local government authorities as well as operators of Class V wells, 
about the potential environmental and public health threats posed by 
these wells. These materials will provide information to operators of 
Class V facilities about the risks associated with these wells, what 
can be done to minimize the environmental threats of shallow injection 
wells, the benefits of closing Class V wells that may endanger USDWs, 
and where to get appropriate technical assistance.
    The outreach effort will be two pronged.
    (1) The Agency will develop materials to help States work with 
local government officials and make them aware of the risks posed by 
Class V wells to the public water supplies on which their constituents 
depend. The goal of this effort is to enlist local government help in 
dealing with Class V wells through the use of local ordinances, zoning 
and other local solutions.
    (2) The Agency will work with specific trade associations through 
this effort to inform operators of industrial waste discharge wells of 
the risks posed by these wells and the benefits of closing wells that 
may endanger USDWs. The Agency will also strive to ensure that 
facilities which close their Class V wells have the necessary 
information to manage their wastes in an environmentally safe manner. 
The Agency will use this effort to promote pollution prevention so that 
wastes generated by the facilities are cost effectively minimized. The 
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water has already produced a set of 
best management practices targeting certain industrial facilities. 
These BMPs can be used as a starting point for this effort.

C. Compliance Assurance Initiative

    Considering the size of the regulated community, EPA believes that 
voluntary compliance is essential to the success of its Class V 
strategy. In cooperation with States, EPA will develop a compliance 
initiative targeting high risk Class V wells. The initiative will seek 
voluntary compliance with section 144.12 and other applicable 
regulation through outreach, education, and technical assistance. EPA 
is in the process of developing a policy to create special 

[[Page 44664]]
incentives for small businesses who take the initiative to identify and 
correct environmental violations by requesting compliance assistance 
from the Director.
IV. Proposed Minor Amendments to the UIC Regulations in 40 CFR Part 144

    Although EPA does not believe that a need currently exists for 
major changes to its Class V rules, EPA believes that in order to 
implement its proposed Class V strategy effectively, some minor 
amendments to the current regulations are necessary. Most of these 
amendments are intended to clarify the regulatory terminology used for 
Class V wells and do not impose new requirements on owners or operators 
of Class V wells. EPA does not solicit, nor will EPA respond to 
comments related to any unamended language included in the proposed 
revised sections solely for the purpose of supplying context for the 
reader.
    This section of the preamble describes the proposed amendments to 
part 144 and the rationale for these changes.

A. Proposed Amendments to Subpart A--General Provisions

1. Section 144.1(g)--Specific Inclusions and Exclusions
    EPA believes that a particularly useful technical amendment to the 
regulations would be the clarification of the definition of septic 
systems and a better explanation of which systems are and are not 
included under the purview of the UIC program.
    The current regulations are somewhat confusing on the issue of 
septic systems. For example, while the specific inclusions in 
Sec. 144.1(g)(1)(iii) include septic tanks or cesspools used to dispose 
of fluids containing hazardous waste, the list of Class V wells in 
Sec. 146.5(e)(9) refers to ``septic system wells'' used to dispose of 
effluent from septic tanks. This has led some operators and States to 
believe that if the effluent from the septic tank is disposed of 
through a leachfield the device is no longer a Class V well. Therefore, 
to clarify the issue, the term ``well'' in sections 144 and 146 would 
be clarified to specifically include subsurface fluid distribution 
systems.
    The current regulation also make a distinction in the definition 
and the exclusion sections 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. EPA now 
believes that 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. Such a non-residential system could include, for example, crew 
quarters or guard stations located at industrial facilities.
    In this proposal, EPA would define cesspools and septic systems as 
wells receiving solely sanitary waste to distinguish them from 
similarly configured devices receiving industrial waste waters which 
would be considered industrial waste disposal wells. The proposal would 
also provide a definition for sanitary waste. Because it makes sense to 
provide the same type of relief to small residential and non-
residential users of cesspools and septic systems, and for the sake of 
simplification, EPA is proposing to exclude from regulation all 
cesspools and septic systems serving fewer than 20 people and to revise 
Sec. 144.1 accordingly. However, any Class V well, including a well 
that is configured like a small capacity septic system or cesspool, 
which receives something other than solely sanitary waste, is not 
considered a septic system or cesspool and is therefore not excluded 
from UIC regulation.
    Under today's proposal, EPA would continue to exclude septic 
systems and cesspools, with the capacity to serve fewer that 20 people, 
from UIC regulation. However, in developing this proposal, EPA 
considered replacing the existing septic system/cesspool exclusion in 
favor of an exclusion that would be based on septic tank size (e.g., 
tanks under 2000 gallons would not be subject to UIC regulations), flow 
rate (e.g. systems receiving less than 5,000 gallons/day would not be 
subject to the UIC regulations), or dwelling size. EPA is requesting 
comment on the merits of the proposed exclusion and any other 
alternative exclusion, including those considered but not proposed by 
EPA, that would appropriately define which septic systems and cesspools 
are subject to UIC regulation.
2. Section 144.3--Definitions
    The proposed regulation would add new definitions for the terms 
``cesspool,'' ``drywell,'' ``improved sinkhole,'' ``sanitary waste,'' 
``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 I.A. of the 
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 use of naturally 
occurring karst or limestone depressions, for the purpose of disposing 
waste waters, fits within the statutory definition of underground 
injection.
    ``Sanitary waste'' would be defined as both ``domestic sewage and 
household waste, including any material (e.g., wastewater from clothes-
washing machines, toilets, showers, and dishwashers) derived from 
single and multiple residences, hotels and motels, restaurants, 
bunkhouses, ranger stations, crew quarters, campgrounds, picnic 
grounds, and day-use recreation areas.'' The definition of sanitary 
waste in today's proposal is an adaptation of the household waste 
exclusion established in the RCRA regulations (40 CFR 261.4(b)(1)).
    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.
3. Section 144.6--Classification of Wells
    The proposed regulation would revise Sec. 144.6(a) by adding a 
paragraph (3) to include in Class I radioactive waste disposal wells 
injecting below all USDWs. Such wells, in fact, are similar to Class I 
wells in terms of their design, the nature of the fluids that they 
inject, and their potential to endanger USDWs. In particular, like 
Class I wells, such radioactive waste injection wells inject below all 
USDWs and warrant the same level of control.
    The Agency believes that all of these wells are located in Texas, 
which already regulates them as Class I wells. Existing Class V 
radioactive waste disposal wells, therefore, 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 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 much 
simpler and more straightforward than keeping the wells in the Class V 
universe and 

[[Page 44665]]
developing identical requirements under the Class V program.
    Section 144.6 (e) would also be revised to include an expanded 
definition of Class V wells. EPA is proposing to maintain the general 
existing regulatory definition, i.e. that Class V wells are injection 
wells not included in Classes I, II, III, or IV. The proposed rule, 
however, would add significant detail to this definition by including a 
list of 10 specific categories of wells that are considered Class V 
wells.

B. Proposed Amendments to Subpart C--Authorization of Underground 
Injection by Rule

1. Section 144.23--Class IV Wells
    A new Sec. 144.23(c) would be added to clearly rule authorize Class 
IV wells used to inject treated water into the formation from which it 
came if such injection is approved by EPA or a State as part of a RCRA 
or CERCLA remediation program. Therefore, these wells would not need a 
UIC permit to operate. However, the Agency encourages effective 
communication between State and Federal RCRA, CERCLA, and UIC programs 
regarding the management of injection wells which are part of an 
approved ground water remediation project.
2. Section 144.24--Class V Wells
    Section 144.24(a) would be amended by revising paragraph (a) to 
authorize all Class V wells by rule for the life of the well instead of 
until further requirements become applicable.
    This section currently provides at Sec. 144.24(b)(3) that 
authorization by rule terminates upon proper closure of the well. EPA 
is mindful of the desire of owners and operators to make sure that they 
are ``out of the system'' and are no longer subject to the requirements 
of authorization by rule. One option to accomplish this goal would be 
to provide the operator with the opportunity to submit a certification 
that the well has been closed in accordance with the closure guidance 
which EPA intends to publish along with the promulgation of this rule. 
This would provide EPA with assurances that the well was properly 
closed and would establish a date certain upon which authorization by 
rule would terminate. EPA is, however, concerned with the 
administrative burden this option might entail. Therefore, EPA is 
requesting comment on the feasibility and advisability of such an 
option. EPA would also like commentors to provide alternatives to this 
option.
3. Section 144.26--Inventory Requirements
    Section 144.26(b)(1)(iii) would be revised to track the new 
categories of Class V wells and drop radioactive waste disposal wells 
from the list.

V. Proposed Minor Amendments to the UIC Regulations in 40 CFR Part 146

    This section of the preamble describes the proposed amendments to 
part 146 and the rationale for these changes.

A. Proposed Amendments to Subpart A--General Provisions

1. Section 146.3--Definitions
    To parallel the proposed amendments at Sec. 144.3, the proposed 
regulation would add new definitions for the terms ``cesspool,'' 
``drywell,'' ``improved sinkhole,'' ``sanitary waste,'' ``septic 
system,'' and ``subsurface fluid distribution system.'' The rule also 
would revise the existing definitions for ``well,'' and ``well 
injection.''
2. Section 146.5--Classification of Injection Wells
    Section 146.5 would be amended to make it consistent with 
Sec. 144.6.
3. Section 146.10--Plugging and Abandoning Class I, II, III, IV and V 
Wells
    The current regulations provide that authorization by rule 
terminates upon proper closure of Class V wells but do not give any 
direction of what constitutes proper closure. This section proposes to 
amend the requirements for plugging and abandonment (i.e., closure) 
found in 40 CFR 146.10 for Class I, II, and III injection wells by 
adding a reference to the Class IV closure requirements at 
Sec. 144.23(b) and reiterating the Class V abandonment requirements at 
Sec. 144.12(a).
    New Sec. 146.10(c) would (1) require the owner or operator of any 
Class V well to close the well in a manner that prevents the movement 
of fluids containing any contaminant into USDWs if the presence of this 
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 and (2) requires that all material removed from or 
adjacent to the well during closure (such as sludge, gravel, sand, and 
possibly soil) be managed in accordance with all applicable Federal, 
State, and local regulations and requirements (including RCRA 
requirements). The existing requirements for Classes I, II, and III 
would not be changed, although they would be renumbered to accommodate 
the addition of the proposed new Class V requirements. As a result, EPA 
is not accepting public comment on the requirements for Classes I 
through III as they appear in today's proposal.

VI. Solicitation of Comments

A. General Solicitation

    EPA invites and encourages public participation in this rulemaking. 
The Agency welcomes any comments on the Strategy for the Management of 
Class V wells announced in this preamble and on the regulatory changes 
proposed herein. The Agency will review and evaluate each and every 
comment received. The Agency asks that comments address any perceived 
deficiencies in the record of this proposal and that suggested 
revisions or corrections be supported by appropriate data.

B. Specific Comment Solicitations

    For the reasons discussed above, EPA believes its proposed Class V 
Strategy is the best approach for effectively implementing the 
requirement of the Safe Drinking Water Act to prevent underground 
injection from Class V wells which endangers USDWs. The Agency 
recognizes, however, that the proposed approach is not necessarily the 
only possible means of accomplishing that goal. Accordingly, we solicit 
comment on the advisability of adopting other approaches, including 
ones that might incorporate more and different regulatory requirements. 
Specifically, we invite comment on the advisability of including the 
following regulatory amendments:
    1. A requirement for notification to EPA or the State before the 
closure of Class V industrial waste discharge wells or other specific 
categories of Class V wells.
    2. A requirement for notification to EPA or the State before the 
construction of Class V industrial waste discharge wells or other 
specific categories of Class V wells.
    3. A provision in the regulations expressly creating general permit 
authority for all or specific categories of Class V wells.
    4. Provisions in the regulations expressly requiring owners and 
operators of Class V industrial waste discharge wells, or other 
specific categories of Class V wells, to apply for and comply with 
specific permitting conditions or to close in accordance with specific 
regulatory requirements.

[[Page 44666]]


VII. 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 programs 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'' 
because it meets test (4) listed above. OMB has reviewed this proposal 
and agrees with this conclusion.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rule places no additional information collection or record-
keeping burden on respondents. Therefore, an information collection 
request has not been prepared and submitted to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq.

C. Impact on Small Businesses

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, an agency is required to 
prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis whenever it is 
required to publish general notice of any rule, unless the head of the 
Agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
These regulations require no additional reporting by owners or 
operators and impose no new substantive requirements or standards. The 
reclassification of radioactive waste disposal wells has no impact on 
any existing wells and these wells are typically owned and operated by 
large mining companies. Therefore, the Administrator certifies that 
this regulation will not have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 
signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a written statement 
to accompany rules where the estimated costs to State, local, or tribal 
governments, or to the private sector, will be $100 million or more in 
any one year. Under section 205, EPA must select the most cost-
effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objective 
of such a rule and that is consistent with statutory requirements. 
Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising 
any small governments that may be significantly and uniquely affected 
by the rule.
    EPA estimates that the costs to State, local, or tribal 
governments, or the private sector, from this proposed rule will be far 
less than $100 million. This proposed rule should have no impact on 
owners or operators of Class V wells because the proposed rule imposes 
no new mandatory requirements. EPA has determined that an unfunded 
mandates statement, therefore, is unnecessary. Moreover, the rule 
proposed today does not establish any regulatory requirements that 
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

E. Effect on States with Primacy

    According to the regulations at 40 CFR 145.32 for non-substantial 
program revisions, primacy States must assert in a letter from the 
State's Director or his authorized representative to the Regional 
Administrator that the State has incorporated the revisions and 
regulatory language into its current program or that it already meets 
the requirements. The State must submit this document within 270 days 
of the effective date of the final rule. The Agency expects that, since 
the proposed amendments do not impose new mandatory requirements, all 
States will be able to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR 145.32 in a 
letter to the Regional Administrator.
    Primacy States are put on notice that program revisions may be 
necessary pursuant to 40 CFR 145.32 following final promulgation of 
these proposed amendments. EPA anticipates that such revisions will be 
non-substantial in nature and that, when submitted, EPA will review 
them accordingly. EPA is aware that jurisdiction over Class V wells is 
often split among several agencies in a State. Some States have 
expressed concern that EPA might require changes in State Agencies' 
scope of responsibility. This is not the case. EPA's interest in 
reviewing State submittals will be to ensure that all types of wells 
covered by the Federal program are subject to the non-endangerment 
standards of the Federal UIC program and to adequate enforcement 
authorities whether or not the State chooses to call them Class V wells 
and regardless of which entity in the State has jurisdiction over the 
wells.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 144 and 146

    Environmental protection, Ground water pollution control, Shallow 
disposal wells.

    Dated: August 15, 1995.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40 of the Code of 
Federal 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 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.

* * * * *
    (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 septic system, cesspool, or other well, used by 
generators of hazardous waste, or by owners or operators of hazardous 
waste management facilities to dispose of fluids containing hazardous 
waste.
    (iv) Any septic system, cesspool, or other well, used solely for 
the subsurface emplacement of sanitary waste, having the capacity to 
serve twenty persons or more per day.
    (2) * * *
    (ii) Any septic system, cesspool, or other well used solely for the 
subsurface emplacement of sanitary waste, having 

[[Page 44667]]
the capacity to serve fewer than 20 persons a day.
* * * * *
    (iv) Any dug hole 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 
which has been modified by man for the purpose of directing and 
emplacing fluids into the subsurface.
* * * * *
    Sanitary waste means domestic sewage and household waste, including 
any material (e.g., wastewater from clothes-washing machines, toilets, 
showers, and dishwashers) derived from single and multiple residences, 
hotels and motels, restaurants, bunkhouses, ranger stations, crew 
quarters, campgrounds, picnic grounds, and day-use recreation areas.
* * * * *
    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 or drain tiles used 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, within one quarter mile of the well 
bore, an underground source of drinking water.
* * * * *
    (e) Class V. Injection wells not included in Class I, II, III, or 
IV. Class V includes, but is not limited to, the following well types:
    (1) Beneficial use wells. Wells used for aquifer recharge, salt 
water intrusion barriers, subsidence control, aquifer storage and 
recovery, or subsurface environmental remediation;
    (2) Fluid return wells. Wells used to inject:
    (i) Spent brines after extraction of minerals;
    (ii) Heat pump return fluids; and
    (iii) Fluids that have undergone chemical alteration during the 
production of geothermal energy for heating, aquaculture, or production 
of electric power into the same formation from which the fluids have 
been withdrawn;
    (3) Sewage treatment effluent wells. Wells used to inject effluent 
from publicly or privately owned treatment works, into formations that 
are not below the lowermost USDW;
    (4) Cesspools as defined in Sec. 144.3.
    (5) Septic systems as defined in Sec. 144.3.
    (6) Experimental technology wells. Any injection well that is part 
of an unproven subsurface injection technology;
    (7) Drainage wells. Wells used to drain surface and subsurface 
fluids into a subsurface formation, including agricultural drainage and 
storm water runoff, other than runoff from load dock, storage, and 
processing areas; Wells injecting runoff from loading dock, storage and 
processing areas are included under paragraph (e)(10) of this section.
    (8) Mine backfill wells. Wells used to inject a slurry of water or 
air with sand, mill tailings or other solids into mined out portions of 
subsurface mines;
    (9) In-situ and solution mining wells. Wells used to inject fluids 
for the purpose of producing minerals or fossil fuels, which are not 
Class II or III wells;
    (10) Industrial waste discharge wells. Wells used to inject 
wastewaters generated by industrial, commercial, and service 
establishments which are not included in paragraphs (e)(1) through 
(e)(9) of this section.
    5. Section 144.23 is amended adding a new paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 144.23  Class IV wells.

* * * * *
    (c) Notwithstanding the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of 
this section, injection wells used to inject contaminated ground water 
that has been treated and is being injected into the same formation 
from which it was drawn are authorized by rule for the life of the well 
if such subsurface emplacement of fluids is approved by EPA, or a 
State, pursuant to provisions for cleanup of releases under the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 
of 1980 (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9601-9675, or pursuant to requirements and 
provisions under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 
U.S.C. 6901-6992k.
    6. Section 144.24 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 144.24  Class V wells.

    (a) Class V wells are authorized by rule for the life of the well 
if the owner or operator uses the well for the subsurface emplacement 
of fluids after the date on which a UIC program authorized under the 
SDWA becomes effective for the first time, and inventories the well 
pursuant to the requirements of Sec. 144.26.
* * * * *
    7. Section 144.26 is amended by revising paragraphs (b)(1)(iii)(A) 
through (F) and by removing paragraph (b)(1)(iii)(G) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 144.26  Inventory requirements.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (A) Mine backfill wells;
    (B) Fluid return wells;
    (C) Experimental technology wells;
    (D) Sewage treatment effluent wells;
    (E) Industrial waste discharge wells; and
    (F) Any other Class V wells at the discretion of the Regional 
Administrator.
* * * * *

PART 146--UNDERGROUND INJECTION CONTROL PROGRAM: CRITERIA AND 
STANDARDS

    8. 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.
* * * * *
    9. Section 146.3 is amended by adding the following new definitions 
in 

[[Page 44668]]
alphabetical order: ``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. 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 domestic sewage and household waste, including 
any material (e.g., wastewater from clothes-washing machines, toilets, 
showers, and dishwashers) derived from single and multiple residences, 
hotels and motels, restaurants, bunkhouses, ranger stations, crew 
quarters, campgrounds, picnic grounds, and day-use recreation areas.
* * * * *
    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 or drain tiles used 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.
* * * * *
    10. Section 146.5 is amended by adding a new paragraph (a)(3) and 
revising paragraphs (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, within one quarter mile of the well 
bore, an underground source of drinking water.
* * * * *
    (e) Class V. Injection wells not included in Class I, II, III, or 
IV. Class V includes, but is not limited to, the following well types:
    (1) Beneficial use wells. Wells used for aquifer recharge, salt 
water intrusion barriers, subsidence control, aquifer storage and 
recovery, or subsurface environmental remediation;
    (2) Fluid return wells. Wells used to inject: Spent brines after 
extraction of minerals; heat pump return fluids; and fluids that have 
undergone chemical alteration during the production of geothermal 
energy for heating, aquaculture, or production of electric power, into 
the same formation from which the fluids have been withdrawn;
    (3) Sewage treatment effluent wells. Wells used to inject effluent 
from publicly or privately owned treatment works, into formations that 
are not below the lowermost USDW;
    (4) Cesspools as defined in Sec. 144.3.
    (5) Septic systems as defined in Sec. 144.3.
    (6) Experimental technology wells. Any injection well that is part 
of an unproven subsurface injection technology;
    (7) Drainage wells. Wells used to drain surface and subsurface 
fluids into a subsurface formation, including agricultural drainage and 
storm water runoff, other than runoff from loading dock, storage, and 
processing areas; Wells injecting runoff from loading dock, storage and 
processing areas are included under Sec. 144.6(e)(10).
    (8) Mine backfill wells. Wells used to inject a slurry of water or 
air with sand, mill tailings or other solids into mined out portions of 
subsurface mines;
    (9) In-situ and solution mining wells. Wells used to inject fluids 
for the purpose of producing minerals or fossil fuels, which are not 
Class II or III wells;
    (10) Industrial waste discharge wells. Wells used to inject 
wastewaters generated by industrial, commercial, and service 
establishments which are not included in paragraphs (e)(1) through 
(e)(9) of this section.
* * * * *
    11. Section 146.10 is revised to read as follows:


Sec. 146.10  Plugging and abandoning Class I, II, III, IV, and V wells.

    (a) Requirements for Class I, II and III wells. (1) Prior to 
abandoning Class I, II and III wells, the well shall be plugged with 
cement in a manner which will not allow the movement of fluids either 
into or between underground sources of drinking water. The Director may 
allow Class III wells to use other plugging materials if the Director 
is satisfied that such materials will prevent movement of fluids into 
or between underground sources of drinking water.
    (2) Placement of the cement plugs shall be accomplished by one of 
the following:
    (i) The Balance method;
    (ii) The Dump Bailer method;
    (iii) The Two-Plug method; or
    (iv) An alternative method approved by the Director, which will 
reliably provide a comparable level of protection to underground 
sources of drinking water.
    (3) The well to be abandoned shall be in a state of static 
equilibrium with the mud weight equalized top to bottom, either by 
circulating the mud in the well at least once or by a comparable method 
prescribed by the Director, prior to the placement of the cement 
plug(s).
    (4) The plugging and abandonment plan required in Secs. 144.51(o) 
and 144.52(a)(6) shall, in the case of a Class III project which 
underlies or is in an aquifer which has been exempted under 
Sec. 146.04, also demonstrate adequate protection of USDWs. The 
Director shall prescribe aquifer cleanup and monitoring where he deems 
it necessary and feasible to insure adequate protection of USDWs.
    (b) Requirements for Class IV wells. In EPA administered programs, 
prior to abandoning a Class IV well, the owner or operator shall close 
the well in accordance with Sec. 144.23(b).
    (c) Requirements for Class V wells. (1) Prior to abandoning a Class 
V well, the owner or operator shall close the well in a manner that 
prevents the movement of fluid containing any contaminant into an 
underground source of drinking water, if the presence of that 
contaminant may cause a violation of any primary drinking water 
regulation under 40 CFR part 142 or may otherwise adversely affect the 
health of persons.
    (2) The owner or operator shall dispose of or otherwise manage any 
soil, gravel, sludge, liquids, or other materials removed from or 
adjacent to the well in accordance with all applicable Federal, State, 
and local regulations and requirements.
[FR Doc. 95-20765 Filed 8-25-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P