[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 140 (Monday, July 22, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47721-47726]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-18410]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 147
[FRL-7247-7]
Underground Injection Control Program Revision; Aquifer Exemption
Determination for Portions of the Lance Formation Aquifer in Wyoming
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The State of Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality
(WDEQ) has requested Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approval of
a revision to the State Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program,
specifically that EPA approve an aquifer exemption from classification
as an underground source of drinking water (USDW) for portions of the
Lance Formation within the Powder River Basin in Johnson County,
Wyoming.
Until August 2000, COGEMA Minerals was mining uranium from the
Wasatch Formation under a UIC Class III in-situ leaching permit, issued
by WDEQ. A previous Lance Formation aquifer exemption, approved by EPA
in the Federal Register on March 26, 1999, allowed COGEMA to inject
mining and mineral processing waste fluids from the Wasatch into the
Lance Formation through two Class I Non-Hazardous deep injection wells
permitted in 1997. COGEMA, after closing its mining operations, is
extending its large-scale ground water restoration throughout the
entire mined portion of the Wasatch Formation.
During the active mining process, the disposal capacity of the two
existing Class I wells were adequate for the smaller scale restoration
waste stream as COGEMA mined, then closed each Class III well field
sequentially. However, now that COGEMA is restoring the entire mine
site, large-scale restoration will produce a larger volume of waste
fluid. WDEQ issued the final permit to COGEMA for the operation of two
additional wells on November 3, 2000. However, COGEMA cannot inject any
fluids into these wells until EPA approves this aquifer exemption.
Today's approval of this new aquifer exemption will allow COGEMA to
use the newly permitted Class I injection wells to inject ground water
restoration waste fluids from the Wasatch Formation into the Lance
Formation. As a result of this increased disposal
[[Page 47722]]
capacity, COGEMA will be able to restore the Wasatch ground water more
quickly and pump and treat less ground water. The rate of pumping out
of the Wasatch will prevent any negative impact to the adjacent
portions of this USDW.
EPA published a notice of the aquifer exemption request and asked
for comments from the public in the Federal Register on January 30,
2001. EPA did not receive comments and after careful review of the
exemption request, EPA has determined that the designated portions of
the Lance Formation meet the requirements for an aquifer exemption. EPA
is approving this aquifer exemption as a revision of the Wyoming UIC
program. This final rule contains a table listing approved aquifer
exemption areas for Class I wells on Wyoming State lands within the
Lance Formation approved since January 1, 1999.
DATES: This rule shall become effective on August 21, 2002. In
accordance with 40 CFR 23.7, this rule shall be considered promulgated
for the purposes of judicial review at August 5, 2002.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Valois Shea, US EPA Region 8, Mail
Code 8P-W-GW, 999 18th Street, Suite 300, Denver, CO 80202; (303) 312-
6276.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Regulated Entities
COGEMA Mining, Inc. is the only regulated entity affected by
today's action. COGEMA will derive some economic benefit as a result of
this approval because the accelerated restoration will reduce the
volume of waste being disposed and close the site more quickly. There
is no other impact on regulated entities.
II. Introduction
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) established the Underground
Injection Control (UIC) Program, which protects underground sources of
drinking water \1\ (USDWs) from potential contamination from injection
well practices. The UIC program regulations also provide for exempting
aquifers from the definition of USDWs stated in 40 CFR 144.3. The UIC
regulations, specifically 40 CFR 144.7 and 146.4, define and provide
criteria for exempting aquifers.
On September 25, 2000, the EPA Regional Office in Denver, Colorado
(Region 8) received a request from the Wyoming Department of
Environmental Quality (WDEQ), dated September 9, 2000, submitted on
behalf of COGEMA Mining, Inc. (COGEMA), for EPA to grant an aquifer
exemption for the Lance Formation. This exemption surrounds two Class I
\2\ Non-Hazardous deep injection wells in Johnson County, WY. The
exemption area includes two cylindrical volumes with centers in the
wells COGEMA DW No. 2 and COGEMA DW No. 3 respectively, and a radius of
1320 feet. These volumes were determined to be required to protect
adjacent portions of the USDW from contamination from the injection
activity. Traditional algorithms were used to determine the minimum
distance from the wells that would be affected by the injection of the
restoration waste. Both wells are located in the Christensen Ranch, in
Johnson County WY. The COGEMA DW No.2 is located at approximately 2,290
feet from the North line and 1130 feet from the East line SW1/4 SE1/4
NE1/4 of Section 7, Township 44 North, Range 76 West. The COGEMA DW No.
3 is located approximately 3300 feet from the North line and 1340 feet
from the West line center of SW1/4 of Section 5, Township 44 North,
Range 76 West. The upper boundary of the exemption is at 3800 feet
below ground surface and the lower boundary is at 6500 feet below
ground surface.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ An underground source of drinking water (USDW) means an
aquifer or its portion: (a)(1) which supplies any public water
system; or (2) which contains a sufficient quantity of ground water
to supply a public water system; and (i) currently supplies drinking
water for human consumption; or (ii) contains fewer than 10,000
milligrams/liter total dissolved solids; and (b) which is not an
exempted aquifer.
\2\ Injection wells are divided into 5 classes. Class I wells
are associated with the disposal of industrial, municipal or
radioactive waste into formations below the lowermost underground
source of drinking water (USDW). These wells have strict standards
for siting, construction and operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA has reviewed this aquifer exemption request and approves the
request to exempt the designated portions of the Lance Formation from
classification as a USDW. The technical review done by EPA included the
verification of the volume of the Lance formation that would be
affected by the waste. Part of this verification included determination
that all contaminants injected in the wells would be precipitated out
of solution, neutralized, diluted or adsorbed by the formation matrix
within the volume of the exemption. The January 30, 2001 Federal
Register document (66 FR 8234, January 30, 2001) contains a detailed
discussion of the justification of this aquifer exemption approval.
Today's approval exempts two cylindrical volumes with centers in the
wells COGEMA DW No. 2 and COGEMA DW No. 3 respectively, and a radius of
1320 feet (approximately one square mile of the Lance Formation, at
depths between approximately 3,800 to 6,500 feet below the surface). On
March 26, 1999, EPA approved a similar exemption of an nearby portion
of the Lance Formation for two other COGEMA Class I wells located
within 2 miles of the Class I wells involved in today's final rule. EPA
published a Request for Public Comment on a Substantial Modification to
the Wyoming 1422 Underground Injection Control Program in the Federal
Register on August 27, 1998 (63 FR 45810). EPA received no public
comment and subsequently published approval of the aquifer exemption in
the Federal Register on March 26, 1999 (64 FR 14799).
The procedures to follow for approval or disapproval of State
program revisions in the UIC program are codified in 40 CFR 145.32 and
described in UIC Guidance 34, Guidance for Review and Approval
of State UIC Programs and Revisions to Approved State Programs. EPA UIC
Guidance 34 also identifies criteria that EPA generally uses
to determine whether or not a State program revision is substantial.
The Lance Formation ground water contains less than 3,000 milligrams
per liter total dissolved solids (TDS), and the aquifer exemption is
associated with a Class I injection well permit. For these two reasons
this aquifer exemption is a substantial revision of the Wyoming UIC
program as approved under section 1422 of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
WDEQ determined that the Lance Formation in the exemption area is
located at such a depth below the surface so as to make its use
economically impractical as a possible source of drinking water.
Previously, WDEQ's request for public participation in issuing the well
permits focused on the poor quality of the water in the Lance formation
to justify the exemption. Subsequent analysis of the water quality and
geological data by EPA determined that this criterion was not adequate
and was replaced with the * * * (2) It is situated at a depth or
location which makes recovery of water for drinking water purposes
economically or technologically impractical; * * * Sec. 146.4(b)(2)).
The depth of the Lance Formation in the exemption area is between
approximately 3,800 to 6,500 feet below ground surface, based on its
depth at the nearer of the two other COGEMA Class I Non-Hazardous deep
injection wells. WDEQ issued a public notice in local newspapers, the
Casper Star Tribune and the Johnson County Buffalo Bulletin on October
2, 2000 inviting public
[[Page 47723]]
comment on its intent to issue a permit for the two new wells. The
public comment period began October 2, 2000, and ended October 31,
2000, but WDEQ did not receive any public comments or requests for a
public hearing.
On January 30, 2001, EPA published a notice in the Federal Register
(66 FR 8234, January 30, 2001) requesting public comment on the aquifer
exemption request by COGEMA, based on both the contamination
(Sec. 146.4(b)(3)) and the location (Sec. 146.4(b)(2)) criteria.\3\ EPA
did not receive comments or requests for a public hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Final decision to grant the exemption only under the
location criterion did not occur until after this notice was
published in the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Background
Until August 2000, COGEMA operated the Christensen Ranch in-situ
leaching uranium mine within the Wasatch Formation in Johnson and,
Campbell Counties WY. The mining operation included five well fields
operating under a UIC Class III \4\ permit. The mining process
contaminated ground water within the mined portions of the Wasatch
Formation. To fulfill the mine permit closing requirements, COGEMA is
engaging in large-scale ground water restoration throughout the entire
mined portion of the Wasatch Formation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Class III wells are associated with the extraction of
minerals, such as uranium, salts and sulfur, by in-situ mining.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COGEMA must conduct ground water restoration upon completion of
mining activities to return the ground water affected by mining to
baseline condition or to a condition consistent with its pre-mining or
potential use. Once the ground water within the Wasatch is restored,
the concentrations of contaminants in the ground water will be below
drinking water standards. Complete restoration of the ground water
quality within the mined-out areas of the Wasatch Formation will
require a wastewater disposal capacity of 300 to 500 gallons per minute
(gpm) over the next 4 to 6 years.
While mining was active, COGEMA used two Class I Non-Hazardous deep
injection wells permitted in 1997 to inject mining, mineral process and
ground water restoration waste fluids into the Lance Formation. Under
the previously planned mining closure and aquifer restoration process,
the disposal capacity of the two previously permitted Class I wells
(and the volume of the previously granted aquifer exemption) would have
been adequate for the long-term (18 years) restoration waste stream as
COGEMA sequentially mined, then closed each Class III well field.
However, now that COGEMA is restoring all areas of the mine site
simultaneously, large-scale, accelerated restoration will produce a
larger volume of waste fluids more quickly than the existing two Class
I wells can inject it into the Lance Formation at the permitted
injection rate.
Limiting the rate of the restoration process results in the
generation of a bleed stream (discussed below) which constitutes an
additional volume of waste fluids. Much of the mined portion of the
Wasatch is on ``standby'' until either (a) the two new wells increase
the disposal capacity, or (b) COGEMA sequentially restores each well
field and completes the restoration process in other mined-out areas.
In the standby areas, it is necessary to keep underground water flow
directed into the mined portions until COGEMA can begin the restoration
process there. Ground water flowing into the unrestored mined areas
prevents contaminated water migration from the mined part of the
aquifer outward into the surrounding high water quality areas of the
Wasatch Formation. In order to allow underground water to flow into the
standby areas, COGEMA must continuously pump ground water out of them.
The term ``bleed stream'' refers to the ground water that COGEMA
extracts for this purpose.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The mined volume acts like a vessel, which the ``bleed
stream'' is continually emptying. This makes water drain into the
vessel, preventing any contaminated water from flowing outside the
mined area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The injected wastewater consists of the bleed stream described
above and fluids from the restoration of the Wasatch Formation. The
injectate also includes yellow cake wash water from washing any
residual uranium recovered during the restoration process, laboratory
wastewater, reverse osmosis brine, and ground water sweep solutions.\6\
The bleed streams are non-hazardous, beneficiation \7\ wastes exempt
from regulation as hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act as stipulated by the Bevill Amendment (40 CFR 261.4(b)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ To restore the Wasatch Formation, COGEMA must pump ground
water from the mined portion and treat it by reverse osmosis. The
reverse osmosis process cleans most of the water, but also generates
a large volume of concentrated brine that COGEMA must inject into
the Class I wells. Pumping the ground water out draws clean ground
water into the mined area from surrounding areas in the Wasatch
Formation and from injection wells used for injecting the previously
extracted and treated ground water. This process causes the ground
water to ``sweep'' through and clean the mined area. Eventually this
process will restore the water in the formation to a pre-determined
baseline quality.
\7\ For a list of the processes included under beneficiation,
please see 40 CFR 261.4(b)(7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bringing the two new Class I wells on line to handle an increased
volume of restoration waste water will increase the rate of the
restoration process and will allow restoration to begin more
immediately in the standby areas. These two new injection wells will
decrease the time these mined areas will have to remain in standby
mode, producing a continuous bleed stream. Use of the two new Class I
injection wells will prevent the production of an additional 31 million
gallons of bleed stream requiring disposal.\8\ The increased rate of
restoration will allow COGEMA to complete the restoration of the
Wasatch Formation two years sooner than without the two additional
wells.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ This volume is the amount of additional bleed off fluids
that would have to be disposed in the two years that this action
would save.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Basis for Approval of the Aquifer Exemption
EPA approves the exemption of the designated portions of the Lance
Formation because the formation meets the following criteria for
exempted aquifers:
Sec. 146.4 Criteria for exempted aquifers
An aquifer or a portion thereof which meets the criteria for an
``underground source of drinking water'' in 146.3 may be determined
under 40 CFR 144.8 [sic--should read 144.7(b)] to be an ``exempted
aquifer'' if it meets the following criteria:
(a) It does not currently serve as a source for drinking water;
There are no drinking water wells, public or private, extracting
water from the Lance Formation in the exemption area or within 30 miles
of the exemption area.
(b) It cannot now and will not serve as a source of drinking water
because:
* * * (2) It is situated at a depth or location which makes
recovery of water for drinking water purposes economically or
technologically impractical.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Originally the State had requested the exemption under a
different criterion. Analysis of the request indicated that the
stated criterion is more relevant.
The depth of the Lance Formation within the aquifer exemption area
ranges from 3,800 to 6,500 feet. The Powder River Basin is a deep
syncline \10\ and the aquifer exemption area occurs
[[Page 47724]]
very near the center of the syncline, which is the deepest occurrence
of the Lance Formation within this syncline. Retrieval of water from an
aquifer at these depths is very expensive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ A syncline is a geologic structure in which earth's
compressional forces deformed originally flat-lying rock strata into
a large U-shaped fold where the center of the fold is deeper than
the edges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the great depth of the Lance Formation within the
exemption area, it is also a low-yielding aquifer and does not produce
a sufficient volume to supply drinking water to a public system.
Verification that the Lance Formation is unable to provide a public
drinking water system with a sufficient supply of water is presented by
the towns of Midwest and Edgerton, WY, which depended on the Lance
Formation for drinking water until 1997. These towns are located 30
miles southwest of the exemption area where the Lance Formation occurs
near the surface at the western edge of the Powder River Basin. In 1997
these wells were abandoned because of low water productivity (40
gallons per minute (gpm) sustainable flow). At that time the towns of
Midwest and Edgerton determined that piping in pre-treated water 50
miles from Casper, WY is more economically feasible than continuing
operation of the drinking water wells completed in the Lance Formation,
even at the relatively shallow depth of 1,500 to 2,000 feet. (The
Wasatch formation is not present near these two towns.) Another factor
in this decision was the expense of treatment that would be required to
continue using the Lance wells as a public water supply (COGEMA, 1998).
Alternatively, the Wasatch Formation occurs 2,600 feet above the
Lance Formation in the mining restoration area and provides a
shallower, more prolific, better quality water supply source available
for use in the area. Given this abundant, shallower supply of high
quality ground water, EPA concludes that the deeper Lance Formation
will never be required to provide drinking water in the area of the
aquifer exemption. (Please note that the Wasatch is the same aquifer
that COGEMA will restore to drinking water quality more quickly if
these disposal wells are available to increase capacity for disposal of
aquifer restoration waste fluids into the Lance Formation.)
As indicated before, neither the State of Wyoming nor EPA received
comments or a request for a public hearing in response to several
public notices including the January 31, 2001 notice published in the
Federal Register (66 FR 8234) for this aquifer exemption.
V. Regulatory Impact/Administrative Requirements
A. Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
This action does not establish new monitoring and reporting
requirements. Reporting by this facility, involving the injection
wells, is already required by the State UIC program and it is not
affected by the approval of this exemption. The approval of this
aquifer exemption does not impose any additional information collection
burdens.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information; processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
B. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., material specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, business practice) that are developed or adopted
by voluntary consensus standard bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB),
explanations when EPA decides not to use available and applicable
voluntary consensus standards.
This action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA
did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including Tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
Today's rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory
provision of Title II of the UMRA), for State, local or Tribal
governments, or the private sector. This rule imposes no enforceable
duty on any State, local or Tribal governments or the private sector.
This final rule merely approves the exemption of a portion of the Lance
aquifer from the definition of a USDW. Thus, today's rule is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. For
the same reasons, EPA has also determined that this rule contains no
regulatory requirements that
[[Page 47725]]
might significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
Thus, today's rule is not subject to the requirements of section
203 of UMRA.
D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.
The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, we defined small entities as (1) a small business based on
Small Business Administration (SBA) size standards; (2) a small
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a population less than 50,000;
and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise
which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its
field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's final rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final
rule will not impose any requirements on any small entities. Further,
EPA received information with the exemption request and confirmed that
there are no entities of any size currently using the Lance Formation
as a source of drinking water within 30 miles of the aquifer exemption
area.
E. Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments)
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by Tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have Tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have Tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
This final rule does not have Tribal implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, on the relationship
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
This rule does not apply to any Tribal government and there are no
Tribal jurisdictions on or near the area of this aquifer exemption.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
F. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
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 rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
It has been determined that this rule is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and is
therefore not subject to OMB review.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (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.
This final rule is not subject to Executive Order 13054 because it
is not ``economically significant'' as defined in Executive Order
12866. Further, it does not concern an environmental health or safety
risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect
on children.
H. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism)
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. This final rule does not have
any substantial direct effect on the State of Wyoming or local
governments in the State of Wyoming, on the relationship between the
national government and the State of Wyoming or local governments in
the State of Wyoming, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Thus,
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.
I. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as
[[Page 47726]]
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective on August 21,
2002.
J. Executive Order 13211 (Energy Effects)
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
VI. References
USEPA 1998. Underground Injection Control Program: Substantial
Modification to an Existing State-Administered Underground Injection
Control Program, 63 FR 45810, August 27, 1998.
USEPA 1999. Underground Injection Control Program Revision; Aquifer
Exemption Determination for Portions of the Lance Formation Aquifer in
Wyoming; Final Rule. 64 FR 14799, March 26, 1999.
USEPA 2001. Underground Injection Control Program: Substantial
Modification to an Existing State-Administered Underground Injection
Control Program. 66 FR 8234, January 30, 2001.
COGEMA Mining, Inc. 1998(b). ``Submittal of Supplemental Technical
Document in Support of Lance Formation Aquifer Exemption; Application
for Modification of Class I UIC permit No. 95-241,'' Apr 17, 1998,
COGEMA Mining, Inc., 935 Pendell Boulevard, P.O. Box 730, Mills, WY
82644.
``Approval of Programs and Revisions to Approved State Programs,
GWPB Guidance 34,'' July 9, 1984, US Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC.
WDEQ 2000, ``Public Notice of Draft Permit 00-340,'' Oct 2, 2000,
Casper Star Tribune, Casper, WY.
WDEQ 2000, ``Public Notice of Draft Permit 00-340,'' Oct 2, 2000,
Buffalo Bulletin, Johnson County, WY.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 147
Environmental protection, Indians--lands, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Water supply.
Dated: July 12, 2002.
Christine Todd Whitman,
Administrator.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 147 is amended
as follows:
PART 147--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 147 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 300h; and 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.
Subpart ZZ--Wyoming
2. Section 147.2555 is amended by revising the table heading and
adding an entry to the table to read as follows:
Sec. 147.2555 Aquifer exemptions since January 1, 1999.
* * * * *
Aquifer Exemptions Since January 1, 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Approximate depth
Formation (feet below Location
ground surface)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lance Formation at indicated depths and 3,800--6,500 Two cylindrical volumes with centers in the wells
locations. COGEMA DW No. 2 and COGEMA DW No. 3 respectively,
and radius of 1320 feet. Both wells are located in
the Christensen Ranch, in Johnson County WY. The
COGEMA DW No. 2 is located at approximately 2,290
feet from the North line and 1130 feet from the
East line SW1/4 SE1/4 NE1/4 of Section 7, Township
44 North, Range 76 West. The COGEMA DW No. 3 is
located approximately 3300 feet from the North
line and 1340 feet from the West line center of
SW1/4 of Section 5, Township 44 North, Range 76
West.
* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 02-18410 Filed 7-19-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P