[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 89 (Monday, May 8, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26607-26611]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11280]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-6586-7]
Water Pollution Control; Program Modification Application by
Wisconsin to Administer the Sludge Management (Biosolids) Program
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of application and public comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to 40 CFR 123.62 and 40 CFR part 501, the State of
Wisconsin has submitted to EPA an application to modify the existing
Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) program to
include administration and enforcement of the sludge management
(biosolids) program where it has jurisdiction. Specifically, the State
is seeking approval of a sludge management program which addresses the
land application of sludge, surface disposal of sludge, and the
landfilling of sludge. Wisconsin is not seeking approval for the
incineration of sludge or the land application of septage. The state's
sludge management program will not extend to ``Indian Country'' as
defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151, and will not include lands within the
exterior boundaries of Indian reservations within or abutting the State
of Wisconsin, as they are not seeking approval for these areas at this
time. According to the state's proposal, this program would be
administered by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR).
The application from Wisconsin is complete and is available for
inspection and copying. Public comments are requested and encouraged.
[[Page 26608]]
DATES: Public comments are to be received or postmarked on or before
June 22, 2000.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to: Rebecca Harvey, Chief, NPDES
Support and Technical Assistance Branch (WN-16J), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604-3590.
You may inspect, and copy at a minimal charge, the documents
relevant to Wisconsin's submittal at the following addresses from 8:00
a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding holidays, at the:
WDNR, Bureau of Watershed Management, 101 South Webster Street,
Madison, Wisconsin 53707, contact: Greg Kester, (608) 267-7611; WDNR-
Southeast Region, 2300 North Martin Luther King Jr. Dr., P.O. Box
12436, Milwaukee, WI 53212, contact: Jim Fratrick, (414) 263-8632;
WDNR-Northeast Region, 1125 North Military, P.O. Box 10448, Green Bay,
WI 54307, contact: Jeff Haack, (920) 492-5811; WDNR-Northern Region-
Park Falls, 875 South 4th Ave., P.O. Box 220, Park Falls, WI 54552,
contact: Jim Hansen, (715) 762-4684 ext. 120; WDNR-South Central
Region, 3911 Fish Hatchery Rd., Fitchburg, WI 53711, contact: Roy
Lembcke, (608) 275-3283; WDNR-West Central Region, 1300 W. Clairemont
St., P.O. Box 4001,Eau Claire, WI 54702-4001, contact: Paul LaLiberte,
(715) 839-3724; and at the EPA Regional Office in Chicago at the
address appearing earlier in this notice, contact: David Soong, (312)
886-0136. Copies of the complete submittal can be obtained at a cost of
10 cents per page (roughly $280.00 for the complete submittal) from
WDNR. Requests for copies should be addressed to Greg Kester, Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources at the address provided above or at
telephone number (608) 267-7611.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Soong, NPDES Support and
Technical Assistance Branch, (WN-16J), EPA, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590, phone number: (312) 886-0136.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document ``we'', ``us'', or ``our'' means EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
II. What was submitted in Wisconsin's application for sludge
management program approval?
III. Are there variations between Wisconsin's sludge management
program regulations and the federal sludge regulations, 40 CFR Part
503?
IV. Can the public comment on Wisconsin's program submittal?
V. Is a public hearing scheduled?
VI. Has a decision been made regarding Wisconsin's program?
VII. If EPA approves Wisconsin's WPDES program modification, what is
the effect of that decision?
VIII. Would EPA's Approval Affect Indian Country (18 U.S.C. 1151) in
Wisconsin?
IX. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Executive Order 13045: Children's Health Protection
C. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments
D. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
H. Paperwork Reduction Act
I. Introduction
Wisconsin has regulated sewage sludge quality and beneficial reuse
under state authority since 1977. Section 405 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA or Act), 33 U.S.C. 1345, created the federal sludge management
program, allowing EPA to issue permits for the disposal of sewage
sludge under conditions required by the CWA. Section 405(c) of the CWA
provides that a state may submit an application to EPA for
administering its own program for issuing sewage sludge permits within
its jurisdiction. EPA is required to approve each such submitted state
program unless EPA determines that the program does not meet the
requirements of Sections 304(i) and/or 402(b) of the CWA or the EPA
regulations implementing those sections. To obtain such approval, the
state must show, among other things, that it has authority to issue
permits which comply with the Act, authority to impose civil and
criminal penalties for permit violations, and authority to ensure that
the public is given notice and opportunity for a hearing on each
proposed permit. The requirements for state sludge management program
approval are listed in 40 CFR part 501.
II. What Was Submitted in Wisconsin's Application for Sludge
Management Program Approval?
Wisconsin's application for sludge management program approval
contains a letter from the Secretary of WDNR requesting program
approval, an Attorney General's Statement, copies of pertinent state
statutes and regulations, amendments to the WPDES Program Description,
and proposed amendments to the WDNR/EPA Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
to be executed by the Regional Administrator, Region 5, EPA, and the
Secretary, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
The Secretary's letter of May 26, 1998, requested that EPA approve
the state's sludge management program as a modification to their WPDES
program. On March 8, 1999, the Secretary limited the state's request to
all sludge activities within the State except for those activities
occurring within Indian Country.
The Attorney General's Statement includes citations to specific
statutes, administrative regulations, and judicial decisions which
demonstrate adequate authority to carry out the state's sludge
management program. State statutes and regulations cited in the
Attorney General's Statement are also included in the application.
The amendments to the WPDES Program Description include a
description of the scope and organizational structure of the sludge
management program, including a description of the general duties and
the total number of state staff carrying out the program, a description
of applicable state procedures, including permitting procedures, and
administrative and judicial review procedures, and a description of the
state's compliance tracking and enforcement program. It also includes
an inventory of the facilities that are subject to regulations
promulgated pursuant to 40 CFR part 503 and subject to the state's
sludge management program.
The proposed amendments to the WDNR/EPA MOA include provisions for
permit administration, enforcement and compliance monitoring, and
annual reporting. The MOA has been signed by the Secretary of WDNR and
will become effective upon the signature of the Regional Administrator
of EPA, Region 5. The MOA does not limit the authority of EPA to take
actions pursuant to its powers under the CWA, nor does it limit EPA's
oversight responsibilities with respect to sludge management program
administration.
III. Are There Variations Between Wisconsin's Sludge Management
Program Regulations and the Federal Sludge Regulations, 40 CFR Part
503?
Following is a brief summary of and rationale for the main points
of variance between Wisconsin's sludge management program and the 40
CFR part 503 sludge rules.
1. Wisconsin restricts application of sludge on agricultural land
when it is frozen or snow covered. 40 CFR part 503 restricts sludge
application on frozen or snow covered ground if there is a likelihood
of sludge entering any waters or wetlands. Wisconsin believes that the
[[Page 26609]]
likelihood of runoff exists on most sites in Wisconsin which are frozen
or snow covered. Therefore, winter land application is restricted
pursuant to Wisconsin regulations.
2. Wisconsin regulations require that sludge must be land applied
at the agronomic rate for the crop grown taking all sources of nitrogen
into account. This is required to preclude over application of nitrogen
which could result in groundwater contamination through the leaching of
nitrates. 40 CFR part 503 requires application at the agronomic rate
but is silent about how to take other nitrogen sources into account.
Wisconsin requires disclosure at the time of soil sampling of the
anticipated rate and type of manure application, percent of legume
forage left standing, and projected options of crops to be grown.
3. Wisconsin regulations establish more stringent site restrictions
regarding the land application of sludge than federal requirements.
Wisconsin regulations address additional environmental and public
concerns such as setback distances from residences, public and private
wells, property lines, waterways of various kinds, rural schools, and
rural health care facilities. Separation distances to bedrock and
groundwater, allowable slopes and soil permeability are also addressed.
4. Wisconsin regulates radium-226 in communities which have
elevated concentrations of radium-226 in their water supply system,
while 40 CFR part 503 does not specifically regulate radium-226.
Wisconsin's concern with the land application of sludge with radium-226
is twofold. First, Wisconsin is concerned that the decay of radium-226
to radon gas could pose a problem if construction were to occur in the
future on a site which had an unacceptably high soil concentration.
Second, Wisconsin is concerned that radium may leach to groundwater if
the soil concentration of radium-226 is elevated.
5. Sludge management plans, which are required by Wisconsin
regulations, are intended to allow facilities some flexibility in how
they comply with the administrative rules. WDNR encourages innovative
alternate beneficial uses of sludge such as mine reclamation,
silviculture, and other projects which are shown to be environmentally
sound. Sludge management plans provide the forum for such proposals to
be presented. 40 CFR part 503 does not specifically require the use of
sludge management plans.
6. State regulations prohibit ``Surface Disposal'' as a sludge
management option, even though 40 CFR part 503 allows surface disposal.
The State believes that surface disposal is not an environmentally
acceptable alternative because it may threaten groundwater quality and
contradicts the beneficial reuse policy WDNR promotes.
7. Bulk exceptional quality sludge is exempt from most of the
management requirements of Wisconsin's regulations. However,
application on frozen or snow covered ground is restricted and the
storage requirement, which is not federally required, applies to this
material.
IV. Can the Public Comment on Wisconsin's Program Submittal?
It is requested and encouraged that the public comment on the
state's sludge management program submittal. Copies of all submitted
statements and documents will become a part of the record submitted to
EPA. All comments or objections presented in writing and postmarked
within 45 days of this notice to EPA, Region 5, will be considered by
EPA before it takes final action on Wisconsin's request for program
modification approval. Written comments should be submitted to Rebecca
Harvey at the address given above.
The public is also encouraged to bring the foregoing to the
attention of anyone interested in this matter.
V. Is a Public Hearing Scheduled?
At the time of this notice, a decision has not been made as to
whether a public hearing will be held on Wisconsin's request for
program modification. During the comment period, any interested person
may request a public hearing by filing a written request which must
state the issues to be raised to EPA, Region 5. The last day for filing
a request for a public hearing is 45 days from the date of this notice
and should be submitted to Rebecca Harvey at the above address. In
appropriate cases, including those where there is significant public
interest, EPA may hold a public hearing. Public notice of such a
hearing will occur in the Federal Register and in enough of the largest
newspapers in Wisconsin to provide statewide coverage and will be
mailed to interested persons at least 30 days prior to the hearing.
VI. Has a Decision Been Made Regarding Wisconsin's Program?
The only decision that has been made is that Wisconsin has
submitted a complete application. EPA sent a letter to the Secretary of
the WDNR on March 14, 2000, stating that the state's application to
modify the WPDES program to include a state sludge management program
was complete. EPA has 90 days from the date of that letter to approve
or disapprove Wisconsin's Sludge management program. The decision will
be based on the requirements of Sections 405, 402 and 304(i) of the CWA
and EPA regulations promulgated thereunder. If the Wisconsin program
modifications are approved, EPA will notify the State of the approval.
Notice will be published in the Federal Register and, as of the date of
program approval, EPA will suspend issuance of NPDES sludge management
permits in Wisconsin (except, as discussed below, for those in ``Indian
Country''). The state's program will operate in lieu of the EPA-
administered program where the State has authority. However, EPA will
retain the right, among other things, to object to WPDES permits
proposed to be issued by Wisconsin and to take enforcement actions for
violations, as allowed under the CWA. If EPA disapproves Wisconsin's
sludge management program, EPA will notify the State of the reasons for
disapproval and of any revisions or modifications to the state program
that are necessary to obtain approval.
VII. If EPA Approves the Wisconsin's WPDES Program Modification,
What Is the Effect of That Decision?
If the Wisconsin program modification is approved, as of the date
of program approval, there will be virtually no change in the program
since Wisconsin has been regulating sludge management under state
authority through its WPDES program. EPA will suspend issuance of NPDES
sludge management permits in Wisconsin (except, as discussed below, for
those in ``Indian Country''). The state's program will operate in lieu
of the EPA-administered program where the State has authority.
Wisconsin will issue and administer permits for all the provisions for
which it is authorized. After approval, EPA will transfer any pending
sludge permit applications, completed permits, or pertinent file
information to Wisconsin upon request. However, EPA will retain the
right, among other things, to object to WPDES permits proposed to be
issued by Wisconsin and to take enforcement actions for violations, as
allowed under the CWA.
Approval will not impose additional requirements on the regulated
community because the regulations by which Wisconsin will be
implementing the sludge management program are already effective and
will not be changed by EPA's approval.
[[Page 26610]]
VIII. Would EPA's Approval Affect Indian Country (18 U.S.C. 1151)
in Wisconsin?
Wisconsin is not authorized to carry out its WPDES program in
Indian Country, as defined in 18 U.S.C. 1151. This includes:
1. Lands within the exterior boundaries of the following Indian
Reservations within or abutting the State of Wisconsin:
a. Bad River Indian Reservation.
b. Forest County Indian Reservation.
c. Ho-Chunk Nation Indian Reservation.
d. Lac Courte Oreilles Indian Reservation.
e. Lac Du Flambeau Indian Reservation.
f. Menominee Indian Reservation.
g. Oneida Indian Reservation.
h. Red Cliff Indian Reservation.
i. Sokaogon (Mole Lake) Indian Reservation.
j. St. Croix Indian Reservation.
k. Stockbridge-Munsee Indian Reservation.
2. Any land held in trust by the U.S. for any Indian tribe, and
3. Any other land, whether on or off a reservation that qualifies
as Indian Country.
Therefore, if EPA approves the state's sludge management program,
it will have no effect in Indian Country where EPA will continue to
implement and administer the NPDES program.
In excluding Indian Country from the approval, we would not be
making a determination that the State either has adequate jurisdiction
or lacks jurisdiction over sources in Indian Country. The state's
application does not include a request for approval within Indian
Country at this time. Should the State of Wisconsin choose to seek
program approval within Indian Country, it may do so without prejudice.
IX. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from the requirements of Executive Order 12866,
entitled ``Regulatory Planning and Review.''
B. Executive Order 13045: Children's Health Protection
Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
If EPA approves the program modification, the action would not be
subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not involve decisions
based on environmental health or safety risks.
C. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is
not required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects
the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes
substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the
federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is
unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation.
In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop an
effective process permitting elected and other representatives of
Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in
the development of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or
uniquely affect their communities.''
If EPA approves the program modification, the action would not be
subject to Executive Order 13084 because it would not significantly or
uniquely affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. Wisconsin
is not authorized to implement the NPDES program in Indian Country.
Therefore, the action would have no effect on Indian Country within the
State.
D. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by state and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among various levels of government.''
Under section 6 of Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that impose substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by state and local governments, or EPA
consults with state and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts state law unless the
Agency consults with state and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
If EPA approves the program modification, it will not have
federalism implications. It will not have a substantial direct effect
on states, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132,
because this rule only effects one State. The approval would simply
modify Wisconsin's existing program that they have voluntarily chosen
to operate. Further, as a result of the approval, provisions of
Wisconsin's sludge management program would apply in lieu of the
equivalent federal program provisions implemented by EPA under CWA.
Affected parties will be subject only to those authorized state program
provisions, as opposed to being subject to both federal and state
regulatory requirements. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the
Executive Order do not apply.
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act, as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedures Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that
the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities
[[Page 26611]]
include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
If EPA approves the program modifications, the action will not have
a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because
it does not impose any new requirements on small entities because small
entities that generate or prepare sewage sludge for land application,
landfilling, or surface disposal are already subject to the regulatory
requirements under state and federal laws. With approval of the program
modification, the state's program would apply in lieu of the equivalent
federal program. Therefore, because the approval will not create any
new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary
impact statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes
a federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs to state,
local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private
sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, EPA must select the
most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the
objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements.
Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising
any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by
the rule.
EPA has determined that this notice does not include a federal
mandate that may result in estimated annual costs of $100 million or
more to either state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or
to the private sector. This federal action provides notice of
availability of the state's submittal and requests comments on the
state's desire to modify its WPDES program to include a state sludge
management program. If EPA approves the program modification, the
state's program would apply in lieu of the equivalent federal program,
therefore, imposing no new requirements under state or local law.
Accordingly, no additional costs to state, local, or tribal
governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical.
EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's
action does not involve technical standards.
H. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., federal
agencies must consider the paperwork burden imposed by any
informational request contained in a proposed rule or a final rule.
Today's action will not impose any information requirements upon the
regulated community.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 123 and 501
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedures,
Indian lands, Intergovernmental relations, Waste treatment and
disposal, Water pollution control.
Authority for parts 123 and 501: Clean Water Act 33, U.S.C.
1251 et seq.
Dated: April 14, 2000.
Elissa Speizman,
Acting, Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 00-11280 Filed 5-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P