&EPA
United .States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office Of Water
(WH-550)
EPA 570/9-91-034
September 1991
Ground-Water Indicators
State Pilot Studies For Idaho.
Minnesota, And New Jersey
Findings Report
-------
-------
GROUND-WATER INDICATORS STATE PILOT STUDIES
FOR IDAHO, MINNESOTA, AND NEW JERSEY:
FINDINGS REPORT
OFFICE OF GROUND WATER AMD DRINKING WATER
GROUND-WATER PROTECTION DIVISION
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
September 30, 1991
-------
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Findings Report describes and presents general findings from the three ground-water
indicator State pilot studies the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency conducted in Idaho, Minnesota,
and New Jersey to investigate the use of indicators to track progress and trends in the ground-water
protection effort. It is intended to provide a concise overview of the results of these studies. It
addresses what it takes to implement ground-water indicators for 305(b) reporting by all the States from
a base of three pilot studies. In doing so, it identifies the extent of existing ground-water data at the
State or Federal level to support the use of indicators in the 305(b) process. EPA evaluated the
following five indicators in these studies:
• Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) violations by public drinking water supplies;
• On-site and off-site contamination at hazardous waste sites;
• Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) concentrations in ground water (as an
indicator or waste site and industrial site activity);
• Nitrate concentrations in ground water (as an indicator of area-wide sources of
contamination); and
• Extent of pesticide use (as an indicator of area-wide pesticide contamination).
For the three pilot studies, there was sufficient datia available to partially meet the objectives of
the MCL and nitrate indicators. Waste site data was available but difficult to compile because it was
primarily located in paper files. In contrast, the limited geographic coverage of VOC data could not
support State wide analyses adequately. Finally, it was difficult to implement the pesticide indicator
because of the lack of information on pesticide usage and groundwater vulnerability information.
Maximum Contaminant Levels
The pilot studies demonstrated that sufficient data were available, at least through EPA's Federal
Reporting Data System (FRDS-II), to use the MCL indicator. Maximum contaminant level data are
available at the county level, lend themselves to visual representation, and allow for comparisons among
counties and individual systems. In addition, FRDS-II contains data on the location of public water
supply systems (PWSS) and the population served by PWSS.
On-site and Off-site Contamination at Hazardous Waste Sites
Much of the information needed for this indicator was obtained from paper files because the
national computerized data bases contained only a limited amount of data for this indicator. Little
information was available to characterize populations at risk at the State level. There are several sources
at the National level which can be used directly or with simple calculations to estimate the population at
risk around any given location.
Volatile Organic Compounds
The limited geographic distribution of the VOC data and the lack of consistent repeat analyses at
many of the sampled wells limited the use of this data to provide a State analysis. The USGS National
Water Information System (NWIS) was used as the data source to characterize this indicator in all three
pilot study States. EPA was able to organize the data that was available from NWIS at the county level
and display trends in VOC levels graphically.
-------
-------
-ii-
Nitrate
Nitrate data were available to support, at least partially, the nitrate indicator. The data can be
organized at the county level and trends can be displayed graphically. NWIS was chosen as the
principal source of nitrate data in the States because it was identified as containing the greatest amount
of data for the pilot study States. It was supplemented with information gathered from State and
Regional data sources, such as the U.S. Forest Service's Intermountain Region campground water
quality data base and Minnesota's Ambient Ground-Water Quality data base. Limitations, such as limited
geographic coverage and inconsistent repeat sampling at well locations, was noted.
Extent of Agricultural Pesticide Use
Of the three pilot States, only New Jersey tracks pesticide use data needed for this indicator.
While the New Jersey program can be used as a model, it is recognized that a variety of data collection
approaches are available to the States and each State may want to select other approaches.
Conclusions
EPA is strongly promoting the wider use of indicator data across all Federal and State
environmental programs as a means to report on the quality of the different environmental media and
the progress in environmental protection programs using actual data. An EPA Task Force, with State
participation, developed concrete principles and objectives to ensure effective and consistent decision-
' making in Agency programs which affect ground water, and will also institute State Comprehensive
Ground-Water Protection Programs to promote complete protection at the State and local level. The
indicators described above serve as measures of the condition of the nation's ground water, and the
progress the nation is making in improving and protecting this resource, a measure of success.
Collecting and reporting ground-water indicator data will help the Agency and States track trends in their
ground-water quality and support better decision-making and priority-setting for their ground-water
protection efforts.
The three pilot studies show that there are enough sources of data available to begin some
indicator reporting right now. The pilot studies identified many activities that States can undertake to
improve the accessibility, quality, and usefulness of their ground-water indicator data. For example,
sampling and analytical consistency can be promoted among different groups collecting indicator data
by establishing consistent scientific and data collection protocols and by promoting the development of
ground-water monitoring networks, as appropriate, to provide trend data. To begin moving toward data
consistency, EPA along with the States and other Federal agency work group participants developed a
set of the most critical data elements for ground-water quality information. The use of this minimum set
of data elements (MSDE) will ensure that EPA and the States can share and manipulate ground-water
data to support environmental decision-making and faciliteite cross-program integration. By supporting
these activities, States can belter support collection, management, and reporting of indicator data
needed for future State 305(b) reports.
Each State has different ground-water data management needs and programs. Some States
may already be collecting and maintaining the indicator data described above, while others may not.
EPA is preparing a Technical Assistance Document (TAD), due early 1992, to the States on how to
gather and use indicator data as part of their 1992 305(b) Reports. The TAD is also intended to help set
the stage for those States that are moving toward developing comprehensive ground-water monitoring
and information systems, particularly in relationship to ground-water indicator reporting, and to assist
those States which are already in the process of doing so,.
-------
-------
-iii-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY -j-
1.0 INTRODUCTION -1-
2.0 BACKGROUND - 1 -
3.0 PURPOSE OF THE FINDINGS REPORT - 2 -
4.0 STATE PILOT STUDY METHODOLOGY - 2 -
5.0 DESCRIPTION AND DISCUSSION FOR EACH GROUND WATER INDICATOR - 2 -
5.1 Maximum Contaminant Levels - 2 -
5.2 On-Site and Off-Site Contamination from Hazardous Waste Sites - 4 -
5.3 Volatile Organic Compounds - 5 -
5.4 Nitrate - 5 -
5.5 Extent of Agricultural Pesticide Use - 6 -
5.6 Data Sources Used in Pilot Studies ' - 7 -
5.7 Additional Indicators - 7 -
6.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS -7-
6.1 Maximum Contaminant Levels - 8
6.2 On-site and Off-site Contamination at Hazardous Waste Sites - 8
6.3 Volatile Organic Compounds - 8
6.4 Nitrate -8
6.5 Extent of Agricultural Pesticide Use - 9
7.0 ISSUES AND PROBLEMS -9
8.0 RESOURCES FOR IMPLEMENTING - 10
9.0 CONCLUSIONS -10
APPENDIX A Summary of the Ground-Water Indicator National Objectives -12
APPENDIX B Summary of Ground-Water Indicator Data Sources for Pilot Studies -13
APPENDIX C Summary of Findings of Three State Ground-Water Indicator Pilot Studies -14
APPENDIX D Achievement of the Ground-Water Indicator National Objectives in the Pilot
Study States -15
BIBLIOGRAPHY -16
-------
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
(OGWDW) is responsible for coordinating ground-water protection with other EPA Programs and for
working with the States to develop and implement State ground-water policies and guidelines which
enhance ground-water protection. As part of this overall ground-water protection effort, EPA has been
investigating the use of indicators to track progress and trends in State ground-water protection
activities. These indicators can be used by each State in developing their State Water Quality Report for
inclusion in the biennial National Water Quality Inventory Report to Congress under the Clean Water Act,
Section 305(b). Section 305(b) mandates that States develop and report information concerning the
quality of the nation's water resources to EPA and the U.S. Congress every two years.
2.0 BACKGROUND
In 1986 EPA began a three phase process to develop a set of ground-water indicators. The first
phase was a two-day workshop comprising representatives, from various EPA Offices, other Federal
agencies, State governments, public interest groups, and technical organizations to identify the criteria to
use when choosing and verifying potential indicators. Following the workshop a second phase was
initiated to develop a preliminary list of indicators and conduct interviews with a number of State, EPA
and Federal officials to further refine the list. The third phase consisted of a field study to test which
indicators best met a set of screening questions, to develop various presentation methods employing
charts and graphs, and to determine potential applications..
EPA published Indicators for Measuring Progress in Ground-Water Protection1 in 1989, which
presented the results of the three phase process used to develop the set of five ground-water indicators
and the principles used to choose them. The principles arid the indicators are presented below:
Principles
Indicators should be based on actual data measurement;
Indicators should lend themselves to graphic display to convey trends and other
information readily;
Whenever possible, existing data should be used rather than requiring new data
collection;
Ideally, data should be collected over time at the same locations; and
Data can have limitations and still be useful as an "indicator" of ground-water
problems or progress.
Ground-Water Indicators
Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) violations by public drinking water supplies;
On-site and off-site contamination at hazardous waste sites;
Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) concentrations in ground water (as an
indicator or waste site and industrial site activity);
Nitrate concentrations in ground water (as an indicator of area-wide sources of
contamination); and
Extent of pesticide use (as an indicator of area-wide pesticide contamination).
-------
-2-
Finally during 1990 three pilot studies were conducted to determine whether the five ground-
water indicators met the criteria as delineated in the workshop process and could be used to track
progress in ground-water protection efforts. Three States (Idaho, Minnesota, and New Jersey)* agreed
to serve as the focus for the pilot studies.
3.0 PURPOSE OF THE FINDINGS REPORT
This Findings Report describes and presents general findings from the three ground-water
indicator State pilot studies. It is intended to provide a concise overview of the results of the studies and
addresses what it takes to implement ground-water indicators for State 305(b) reporting. In doing so, it
Identifies the extent of existing ground-water data at the State or Federal level to support the use of
indicators in the 305 (b) reporting process. It describes each indicator and the national objectives
associated with that indicator, identifies appropriate data sources and the availability of those data,
Identifies issues and problems involved with using ground-water indicators in the 305(b) reporting
process, and presents conclusions.
4.0 STATE PILOT STUDY METHODOLOGY
A five step process was followed in each State to demonstrate the manner in which ground-
water indicator data are and can be collected and reported. Each step in the process is listed below:
1) State and Federal Agency officials were interviewed on-site in each State to
introduce the project and discuss data sources;
2) Follow-up contacts were made with the individuals interviewed to discuss
specific comments and to review data availability and usefulness;
3) A State project plan was prepared that described the data sources and laid out
an approach for characterizing the indicators8;
4) Data were collected and analyzed; and
5) A final project report was prepared for each State3.
This approach was designed to identify appropriate data sources to support indicator reporting in the
States; review whether the available data are of sufficient quality or quantity to support the objectives for
the indicator reporting; document the resources needed to retrieve, analyze, and report the indicator
data; and provide suggestions for improving indicator reporting nationwide. Indicator data were
collected State-wide by county, where available.
5.0 DESCRIPTION AND DISCUSSION FOR EACH GROUND WATER INDICATOR
For each of the five ground-water indicators identified by EPA a description, an overview of the
national objectives as applicable to that indicator (see Appendix A), principal data sources, and
population at risk, when appropriate, are presented below. Additional indicators suggested by the States
are also discussed.
5.1 Maximum Contaminant Levels
Description of the Indicator
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) are drinking water quality standards set under the
authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The Act authorized EPA to establish a cooperative
program among local, State and Federal agencies to protect drinking water quality and ensure that
Idaho has a limited amount of automated ground-water data. Approximately 75 percent of the State's population relies wholly or In part on ground water for
drinking wa!er. Minnesota has collected automated ground-water data over time. Approximately 75 percent of the State's population relies wholly or In part on ground
water (or drinking water. New Jersey Is considered to be ground-water data "rich." Over one-half of the State's population relies on ground water for drinking water.
-------
-3-
human health is not adversely affected by water-borne pollutants. Maximum contaminant levels are set
for inorganic, organic, and microbiological contaminants, radionuclides, and turbidity. An MCL is the
highest amount of a specific contaminant allowed in the drinking water supplied by a public water
system. Primary MCLs are established for contaminants that are known to occur in drinking water,
cause adverse health effects, and can be measured with existing instrumentation.
National Objectives
The MCL indicator was designed to address the following national objectives:4
• Identify the degree to which ground-water based water supply systems meet all
applicable MCLs;
• Identify the size of the population at risk from systems in violation;
• Provide an understanding of the geographic distribution of populations
potentially at risk;
• Identify specific contaminants for which systems are failing to meet the MCLs;
and
• Identify those contaminants which are responsible for the greatest number of
MCL violations.
Principal Data Sources !
EPA found that State and county level MCL data are available from both Federal and State
databases, in limited instances, county health departments also maintain drinking water quality data.
The data sources encountered in the pilot studies are described below.
Public water supply systems (PWSS) report maximum contaminant level compliance data to
State drinking water agencies. In turn, the State agencies either report the data to the respective EPA
Regions who periodically enter the data into the Federal Reporting Data System-ll (FRDS-II) system or
the State agencies enter the data directly into FRDS-II. FRDS-II is maintained by EPA Headquarters and
tracks a number of data elements including:
The public water system identification number;
The location of the public water system;
The population served by the public water system;
The sources of drinking water (ground and/or surface);
The MCL constituent violated;
The concentration reported;
The Federally mandated maximum allowable concentration level;
The date of the violation; and
The number of months that the system was in violation.
The State agencies that report MCL data to FRDS-II also typically maintain their own data
tracking system. For example, data for public drinking water supplies in New Jersey are collected by
the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, EJureau of Safe Drinking Water and are stored
on the New Jersey Public Water file data base in a dBase format. The Idaho Department of Health and
Welfare, Water Quality Bureau tracks MCL compliance for public drinking water systems on a PC-based
system. MCL compliance data for public water systems in Minnesota are tracked by the Minnesota
Department of Health, Division of Environmental Health. However, Minnesota does not maintain an
automated data management system for these data. EPA also found that a small number of county and
local health departments maintain drinking water quality data. Although these data bases provide
supplementary material, their limited geographic coverage reduced their usefulness for the pilot studies.
-------
-4-
Population at Risk
The pilot studies did not collect data to characterize the geographic distribution of the MCL
violations beyond the county level. The FRDS-II data base records the population served by public
water supply systems and the location of these systems by latitude and longitude though this locational
information is optional in the system.
5.2 On-Site and Off-Site Contamination from Hazardous Waste Sites
Description of the Indicator
Active and abandoned hazardous waste sites can serve as significant sources of ground-water
contamination and may pose serious risks to human health and the environment. The level of ground-
water contamination at these hazardous waste sites, the potential risk to drinking water supplies, and the
risk to the population served by those supplies are each assessed individually under this indicator.
This indicator also tracks changes in the number of CERCLA and RCRA sites with on-site and
off-site ground-water contamination over time as a measure of the progress in managing waste sites.
Such indicator data could also be used to monitor progress made in dealing with contaminated sites by
evaluating changes in site identification, remedial investigations, corrective action, remedial design
implementations, corrective actions, and site closures.
National Objectives
This indicator of on- and off-site contamination from hazardous waste sites was designed to
support the following national objectives5:
• Identify the number of Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation
and Liability Act (CERCLA) and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) sites with ground-water contamination on-site and off-site;
• Provide an indication of the risk posed by such contamination to populations
surrounding the waste sites; and
• Identify the relative frequency with which various types of contaminants are
responsible for ground-water contamination at CERCLA and RCRA sites.
Principal Data Sources
EPA found that the majority of data characterizing ground-water contamination at waste sites are
maintained in paper files managed by the States and EPA regions, although some ground-water data are
also maintained in State data bases. The Federal Hazardous Waste Data Management System
(HWDMS) and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System
(CERCLIS) track the administrative status of sites, but have little information regarding the nature and
extent of ground-water contamination at the sites. Hence, the principal data source for RCRA waste site
information is found at the State level. For example, in Idaho, RCRA data are compiled by the
Department of Environmental Quality Hazardous Materials Branch. The majority of these data are in
paper files; however, Idaho has begun coding ground-water monitoring data in a spreadsheet system.
Minnesota also collects data on RCRA facility status, but maintains this information primarily in paper
files.
CERCLA site information in both Idaho and Minnesota is maintained by the EPA Regions,
although Minnesota also tracks its own "Permanent List of Priority" sites. All of these data are in paper
files. Of the three pilot study states, New Jersey maintained the most comprehensive, automated data
-------
-5-
set for its CERCLA, RCRA and New Jersey Environmental Compensation and Reclamation Act (ECRA)
sites. EPA identified New Jersey's Ground-Water Pollution Investigation Data Base (GWPIDB) as the
major source of this information, although data were available for only seven of 21 counties and
population at risk information was not tracked.
Population at Risk
Little information was available to characterize populations at risk at the State level. There are
several sources at the National level which can be used to characterize the population at risk around any
given location. U.S. Census information contains population density by census track. The Census
TIGER files are data files containing detailed information on population. The Graphic Exposure
Modelling System (GEMS), an EPA data base, contains data from the 1980 and 1990 census. Data from
these files can be used directly or with simple calculations to estimate population at risk.
5.3 Volatile Organic Compounds
Description of the Indicator
Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) typically include solvents and other chlorinated
hydrocarbons. They serve as indicators of ground water contamination resulting from industrial and
non-industrial activities. These activities or sources can include landfills, septic systems, spills,
hazardous waste sites, leaking underground storage tanks, underground injection control wells, industrial
sites generally, and other potential point sources. Volatile organic compounds also serve as surrogates
for other compounds that may be released from these sources. Volatile organic compounds can reach
the ground water from improper material handling, and leatkage of tanks and industrial equipment at the
ground surface.
National Objective
The VOC indicator was designed to address the following national objective6:
• Identify the frequency with which various VOCs are found in ground water when
around waste and industrial sites.
Principal Data Sources and Data Availability
VOC data are maintained on the U.S. Geological Surveys (USGS) National Water Information
System (NWIS) (formerly WATSTORE) data base, on EPA's Storage and Retrieval System (STORET),
and on several State and local data bases. For example, Idaho collects VOC data from three
independent data bases: 1) Underground Storage Tank (UST) remedial response data base, 2) UST site
characterization data base, and 3) Rathdrum Prairie data base. New Jersey uses two State data bases
1) Ground-Water Pollution Indicator data Base (GWPIDB) and 2) a VOC file maintained by the Bureau of
Safe Drinking Water. Minnesota also maintains VOC data on the Minnesota Ambient Ground-Water
Monitoring Network data base. On the local level, the City of Rochester, MN Department of Public
Utilities maintains a record of its own VOC monitoring data.
5.4 Nitrate
Description of the Indicator
Nitrate is commonly found in ground water in regions that are affected by area-wide sources of
contamination, such as agriculture and septic systems. Nitrate can leach into ground water from animal
waste, normal agricultural practices (e.g., the use of nitrogen fertilizers), and wastewater disposal
-------
-6-
because of its high solubility in water and its inability to adsorb to soil particles. The detection of nitrate
may also indicate the possible presence of other ground-water contaminants. In addition, high nitrate
concentrations in drinking water supplies are a recognized human health concern, especially for young
children. Exposure to high levels of nitrate can result in methemoglobinemia or "blue baby syndrome."
As a result, the primary drinking water standard for nitrate (as nitrogen) has been set at 10 mg/l7.
National Objectives
EPA identified the following two national analytical objectives for the nitrate indicator*:
• Identify the pattern and level of ground-water quality with respect to the area-
wide sources throughout the country by identifying the geographic pattern of
contamination on a county-by-county basis over a given time span; and
• Display State-by-State trends over time in the area-wide quality of ground-water
by identifying the number of counties where ground-water concentrations of
nitrate are improving and deteriorating.
Principal Data Sources
Nitrate data are collected by a wide variety of Federal, State, and local entities, both to assess
fundamental research questions and to gauge the quality of a drinking water supply. For example,
nitrate data are compiled at the national level in the USGS's NWIS and on EPA's STORET. Such data
are collect by USGS District Offices, State Geological Surveys, and other groups as part of research
projects or ground-water quality investigations. USGS and State Geological Surveys use the NWIS as a
central repository for their data. Data in the NWIS are updated monthly by USGS District Offices which
upload their data to the system. Several States enter their ground-water monitoring data into STORET.
In addition, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) tracks nitrate data on a regional basis in its Intermountain
Region data base. In Idaho and other Western States, the USFS records campground water quality
data, including nitrate and coliform levels, in a central data base.
In addition to these Federal data sources, EPA identified several other nitrate data repositories
within the States. Minnesota maintains its own State ground-water quality data base as part of its
Ambient Ground-Water Monitoring Network, which includes nitrate data and data for other constituents
monitored by the State. Examples of local data sources include the Southeastern Minnesota
Cooperative Well Testing Program and the Brown-Nicollet Community Health Service which both report
nitrate levels in ground water. On the county level, New Jersey's Ocean County Health Department
compiles nitrate data collected during property transactions.
5.5 Extent of Agricultural Pesticide Use
Description of the Indicator
The use of pesticides, primarily associated with agricultural practices, has been identified as a
potential source of ground-water degradation. This indicator is intended to track trends in pesticide
usage to serve as a measure of likely changes in pesticide loadings to ground water.
National Objectives
The agricultural pesticide use indicator was designed to support the following objectives9:
• Identify the relative intensity of pesticide use on a county-by-county basis;
• Identify the relative vulnerability to ground-water contamination on a county-by-
county basis; and
• Provide an indication of where potential ground-water problems from pesticide
use might occur, based on geographic patterns of use and vulnerability.
-------
-7-
Principal Data Sources ' «, ; ;
New Jersey's Bureau of Pesticide Operations maintains an extensive pesticide data base which
tracks pesticide usage by private applicators. The New Jersey data were gathered through surveys
completed in 1986 and 1988. Minnesota also compiles some pesticide data through the Minnesota
Agricultural Statistics and the Minnesota Department of Health, although these data principally address
sales information and do not include records on the location of pesticide usage. Pesticide use
information was not available in Idaho.
5.6 Data Sources Used in Pilot Studies
The data sources that were identified in the pilot studies to support indicator reporting are
presented in Appendix B and include national, State and local sources of indicator data. It should be
noted, however, that although the Resources for the Future data base has been identified by EPA as a
source of pesticide use information, it was not accessed for the pilot studies. Other national databases,
such as EPA's STORET, which are dependent upon State input, are also available but were not used in
the pilot studies. This was due to resource constraints or because the pilot study State had not entered
the data into the system. These data sources are discussed generally under 6.0 Summary of Findings.
5.7 Additional Indicators
In addition to the indicators described above, Minnesota and New Jersey personnel cited two
other constituents that could be tracked as ground-water indicators.
Minnesota personnel identified tritium analyses as indicators of ground-water vulnerability.
Tritium was released into the environment as the result of atmospheric nuclear testing. Because tritium
has a known decay rate, observing concentrations of tritium in ground water can indicate the travel time
for the movement of constituents from the soil surface to ground water. In this way, estimates of an
aquifer's recharge rate and vulnerability to contamination can be estimated.
New Jersey personnel identified sodium chloride levels in ground water as indicators of salt-
water intrusion problems or roadway salt applications. A comparison of the ratio of chloride to sodium
helps to verify the presence of saltwater. Information on sodium and chloride levels in raw water are
tracked by the NJDEP, Bureau of Water Allocation in the "W Quality" data base.
These types of indicators may be applicable to specific regions of the country but not
nationwide. For example, sodium chloride may be a good indicator for coastal States and States with
icy winter conditions, but not for those which have no intrusion or road salt problems.
6.0 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
For the three pilot studies, there was sufficient data available to partially meet the objectives of
the MCL and nitrate indicators. Waste site data was available but difficult to compile because it was
primarily located in paper files. In contrast, the limited geographic coverage of VOC data could not
support State wide analyses adequately. Finally, it was difficult to implement the pesticide indicator
because of the lack of information on pesticide usage and groundwater vulnerability information. The
findings for each indicator are discussed below and are summarized in a table in Appendix C. Appendix
D presents a summary of the achievement of national objectives by State.
-------
-8-
6.1 Maximum Contaminant Levels
The pilot studies demonstrated that sufficient data were available, at least through FRDS-II, to
address the national objectives of the MCL indicator. Maximum contaminant level data are available at
the county level, lend themselves to visual representation, and allow for comparisons among counties
and Individual systems. In addition, FRDS-ll contains data on the location of public water supply
systems (PWSS) and the population served by PWSS. As a result, the geographic distributions of the
PWSs and the sizes of the populations served by those systems could be assessed. There is some
concern with data limitations in FRDS-II; specifically that latitude and longitude data is optional which
makes it difficult to identify the population served by these systems unless provided by the PWSS, and
that those systems supplied by both ground and surface water sources are designated only as surface
water systems.
FRDS-II was used as the source of data for the analysis of the MCL indicator for all three states
because the data were more readily accessible and because the data available through FRDS-II were
believed to be consistent with those in the data bases maintained by the respective State agencies.
Although the data bases maintained by New Jersey and Idaho could have provided much of the
Information needed to support the indicator reports, problems were encountered in accessing them.
6.2 On-site and Off-site Contamination at Hazardous Waste Sites
Much of the information needed for the pilot studies was available in paper files and was used to
support use of this indicator. Currently available computerized data bases do not contain much of the
data needed for this indicator. Because of the time required to obtain data from paper files, EPA was
only able to develop a "snapshot" of waste site status in the three States for the period 1989 to 1990. In
addition, little information was available from the States to characterize the populations at risk from
exposure to contamination. Nonetheless, the waste site data available from the States and EPA Regions
did Identify the number of sites with ground-water contamination, in at least a portion of the State, and
the principal constituents involved. Therefore, EPA was able to use the available data to at least partially
support the national objectives, though the problem with the regular collection and automation of data
remains a real concern.
6.3 Volatile Organic Compounds
The limited geographic distribution of the VOC data and the lack of consistent repeat analyses at
many of the sampled wells could not support State wide analysis adequately. Moreover, EPA found
considerable variation in the geographic coverage of VOC data. For example, USGS reported that
virtually all of the VOC data collected in Idaho were focused on two sites with suspected contamination.
This same pattern was also found in Minnesota and New Jersey; much of the VOC data collection
centered on areas with known or suspected sources of contamination.
The USGS National Water Information System was used as the data source to characterize this
indicator in all three pilot study States. EPA was able to organize the data that were available from
NWIS at the county level and display trends in VOC levels graphically. If a State analysis of ambient
VOC levels in ground water is desired, expanded geographic coverage of VOC data collection efforts is
needed.
6.4 Nitrate
Nitrate data were available in the three pilot study States to support, at least partially, the
objectives of the nitrate indicator. The data were organized at the county level and trends were
displayed graphically. NWIS was chosen as the principal source of nitrate data in the States because it
-------
-9-
was identified as containing the greatest amount of data for the pilot study States. Those data were
supplemented with information gathered from State and Regional data sources, such as the U.S. Forest
Service's Intermountain Region campground water quality data base and Minnesota's Ambient Ground-
Water Quality data base. Limitations, such as narrow geographic coverage and inconsistent repeat
sampling at well locations, were noted, though enough information was available to present trends in
some portions of the States. Since nitrate data are also collected by a variety of State and local entities,
the States should carefully review the data sources to select the best sources to use in reporting.
Increased repeat sampling of well locations is needed to support nitrate trend analysis.
6.5 Extent of Agricultural Pesticide Use
In the three pilot study States, only New Jersey tracks pesticide use data. New Jersey has
tracked pesticide usage from 1985 to 1988 at the county level and is currently completing a State-wide
ground-water vulnerability mapping project. However, the State has not yet linked the pesticide use
information with this vulnerability assessment. As a result, the objectives for the indicator were only
partially addressed in New Jersey and no data were available to support the analysis in Minnesota or
Idaho. While the New Jersey program can be used as a model, it is recognized that a variety of data
collection approaches are available to the States and each State may want to select other approaches.
7.0 ISSUES AND PROBLEMS
In this section of the Findings Report, an overview of the significant issues and problems
' encountered in completing the pilot studies is presented.
Limitations in Data
EPA encountered a number of technical and data management problems relating to the quality
and availability of the compiled data which limited their application to support the indicator objectives.
In particular, EPA found that:
Data Limited in Geographic Coverage
Data characterizing ambient nitrate and VOC concentrations in ground water are generally
collected to support local or regional assessments. As a result, the data may not support State-wide
analyses adequately. In contrast, MCL data are reported for all public water supplies, thereby effectively
serving as a census of drinking water quality. This characteristic allows for more thorough analyses of
geographic patterns in MCL violations. Similarly, waste site and pesticide use information identified in
the pilot studies could be used to track geographic trends in these indicators, but incomplete coverage
limited the usefulness of this information at the State level.
Sampling Practices Not Consistent Over Time
Only the MCL data collected in the three States and the pesticide use data compiled in New
Jersey are updated in a regular and consistent manner with the sampling repeated at the same locations
and ground-water depths. For nitrate and, particularly, VOCs, repeat sampling at the same locations
and ground-water depths is conducted infrequently at most sites. For waste sites, the sampling is not
updated regularly and/or is difficult to access. Because of this, the ability to conduct trend analyses,
especially for VOCs, is limited. Repeat sampling of ground water for MCL, nitrate, and VOCs and regular
updates of the waste site and pesticide use information are needed to support analyses of indicator
trends.
-------
-10-
Data Collection Activities Not Consistent Over Time
Several problems which States may encounter when collecting ground-water indicator data from
State and Federal agencies were identified during the pilot studies. They were not insurmountable but
required a high level of attention to detail and involved considerable use of human resources. Examples
of these problems include the following:
• Different agencies within the States were responsible for the collected data,
leading to inconsistencies;
• Data sources were often fragmented;
• Ground-water indicator data from State and Federal agencies were collected in
a variety of formats;
• Several data files had insufficient documentation;
• Several data files did not include Federal Information Processing Standard
identifier codes as geographic locators (e.g., county codes, lat/long);
• Missing annual data or other gaps were not explicitly identified; and
• Data bases were originally organized to support objectives that differ from those
the indicators were designed to address.
Population at risk not in each indicator
One of the objectives underlying the identification of the ground-water indicator parameters was
the ability to track changes in the populations at risk from ground-water contamination. To account for
this concern, the MCL and waste sites indicators include a measure of the populations at risk from
contamination as a component of the data to be reported. In contrast, the remaining three indicators,
nitrate concentrations, VOC concentrations, and pesticide use, are designed to track trends in ground-
water quality alone.
8.0 RESOURCES FOR IMPLEMENTING
The resources required at the State level to implement national indicator reporting is extensive.
The States cannot significantly improve their data collection and reporting without expending the
necessary resources to solve the problem. As States establish monitoring networks and integrate their
information systems, as many are beginning to do, data will become more accessible for use in
indicator development. Furthermore, after the information is collected and the data elements and data
reporting formats for including ground-water indicators in 305(b) reports are identified and applied, the
effort expended for completing the 305(b) report will be greatly reduced.
9.0 CONCLUSIONS
EPA is strongly promoting the wider use of indicator data across all Federal and State
environmental programs as a means to report on the quality of the different environmental media and
the progress in environmental protection programs using actual data. As more resources are invested in
protecting ground water, the Agency and the States come under increasing pressure to demonstrate
results with concrete measures of success. EPA is developing a game plan to coordinate ground-water
indicator collection efforts across EPA offices to ensure that all data collection activities support the
objectives of the various programs.
An EPA Task Force, with State participation, developed concrete principles and objectives to
ensure effective and consistent decision-making in Agency program decisions affecting ground water,
and will also institute State Comprehensive Ground-Water Protection Programs10 to promote complete
-------
-11 -
protection at the State and local level. The indicators described above serve as measures of the
condition of the nation's ground water, and the progress the nation is making in improving and
protecting this resource, a measure of success. Collecting and reporting ground-water indicator data
will help the Agency and States track trends in their ground-water quality and support better decision-
making and priority-setting for their ground-water protection efforts.
States have different ground-water data management needs and programs. While some States
may already collect and maintain indicator data, other States may not. This document illustrates the
data collection activities of three States with regard to the five indicators described above. EPA is ready
to work with States in implementing and maintaining a meaningful and practical program to collect and
report data on indicators of ground-water quality. Since EPA depends almost exclusively on others for
collection and analysis of ground-water data, EPA and the States must improve the consistency of the
data, and use the data to demonstrate success in environmental protection.
As States continue their monitoring and data collection efforts and begin to develop
comprehensive programs, it is important to keep the issues noted in the pilot studies in mind. For
example, sampling and analytical consistency may be promoted by establishing consistent scientific and
data collection protocols and by promoting the development of ground-water monitoring
networks, as appropriate, to provide trend data. Data management activities may be enhanced by
employing standard data collection formats for each of the indicators, and by maintaining standard data
management protocols between agencies. Where data management systems do not exist, cooperative
effort between EPA and the States will ensure that information collection activities support the objective
of protecting the nation's ground-water resources.
To begin moving toward data consistency, EPA along with the States and other Federal agency
work group participants developed a set of the most critical data elements for ground-water quality
information. These data elements form the foundation upon which ground-water data users may build
their own data base, adding elements to meet their specific needs. The use of this minimum set of data
elements (MSDE)11 will ensure that EPA and the States can share and manipulate ground-water data to
support better environmental decision-making, and facilitate cross-program integration.
While State and Federal data management systems are undergoing development and
enhancement, the States may organize and track their paper files to support indicator reports. Although
pesticide use data may not be generally available for use as an indicator, EPA and the States should
develop approaches to collect this information. Until such programs are implemented, however, it is
recommended that the States report all available data describing pesticide use or ground-water pesticide
concentrations.
EPA is preparing a Technical Assistance Document (TAD)12, due early 1992 to provide
technical guidance to the States on how to gather and use indicator data as part of their 1992 305(b)
Reports. The TAD is also intended to help set the stage for those States that are moving toward
developing comprehensive ground-water monitoring and information systems, particularly in relationship
to ground-water indicator reporting, and to assist those which are already in the process. For those
State that are already collecting and maintaining the indicator data described in this document, the TAD
will provide assistance in reporting the data for their 305(b) reports. For those States that are not
collecting these data, the TAD will provide assistance on the data to gather.
In conclusion, EPA has mentioned many activities that States can undertake to improve the
accessibility, quality, and usefulness of their ground-water indicator data. By supporting these activities,
States can promote better collection, management, and reporting of indicator data needed for future
State 305(b) reports. However, efficient and effective implementation will require cross-program
integration and a long-term commitment in time and resources. While all of the activities listed above
will improve the collection and reporting of indicator data, the three pilot studies show that there are
enough sources of data available to begin some indicator reporting right now.
-------
-12-
APPENDDC A Summary of the Ground-Water Indicator National Objectives
Summary of
the National
Objectives
MCLs
• Identify the degree to which
ground-water based supply
systems meet all applicable
MCLs
• Identify the size of the
population at risk from
systems in violation
• Provide an understanding of
the geographic distribution of
populations potentially at risk
• Identify specif ic
contaminants for which
systems are failing to meet
the MCLs
• Identify those contaminants
which are responsible for the
greatest number of MCL
violations
Waste Sites
• Identify the number of
RCRA and CERCLA sites
with ground-water
contamination on site and
off site
• Provide an indication of the
risk posed by such
contamination to the
population in the vicinity of
off-site contamination
• Identify the relative
frequency with which various
types of contaminants are
responsible for ground-water
contamination at RCRA and
CERCLA sites
VOCs
• Identify the
frequency with
which various
VOCs are found in
ground-water
monitoring at
waste and
industrial sites
Nitrate
• Identify the pattern and
level of ground-water
quality with respect to area-
wide sources throughout
the country by identifying
the geographic pattern of
contamination on a county-
by-county basis over a
given time span
• Display State-by-State
trends over time in the area-
wide quality of ground
water by identifying the
number of counties, State
by State, where ground-
water concentrations of
nitrate are improving or
deteriorating
Pesticides
• Identify the relative
intensity of pesticide
use on a county-by-
county basis
• Identify the relative
vulnerability to ground-
water contamination
county by county
• Provide an Indication
of where potential
ground-water
contamination from
pesticide use might
occur
-------
- 13-
APPENDIX B Summary of Ground-Water Indicator Data Sources for Pilot Studies
National Data
Sources
Regional,
State, or Local
Data Sources
MCLs
• EPA Federal Reporting
Data System (FRDS)
• NJDEP, Bureau of Safe
Drinking Water
• ID State Water Quality
Board
• MN Department of
Health
• Local Departments of
Public Utilities
Waste Sites
• EPA Hazardous Waste Data
Management System (HWDMS)
• EPA Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability
(Act) Information System
(CERCLIS)
• EPA Regional Offices
• ID DEQ Hazardous Waste
Branch
• NJ Bureau of Planning and
Assessment
• NJ Bureau of Ground-Water
Pollution Assessment
• NJ Bureau of Information
Systems
• NJ Bureau of Environmental
Evaluation and Risk Assessment
Hazardous Site Mitigation
Division
• MN Pollution Control Agency
VOCs
• USGS National Water
Information
System (NWIS)
• ID Water Quality Board
• MN Department of
Health
• MN Department of
Agriculture
• MN Pollution Control
Agency
• NJ Bureau of Ground-
Water Pollution
Assessment
• NJDEP, Bureau of Safe
Drinking Water
• Local Departments of
Health
• U.S. Forest Service
Campground Water
Quality
Nitrate
• USGS National Water
Information System
(NWIS)
• U.S. Forest Service
Campground Water
Quality Data
• USGSQWDATA
• ID Water Quality Board
• MN Department of
Health
• MN Department of
Agriculture
• NJ Bureau of Safe
Drinking Water
• Local Departments of
Health
Pesticides
No National Data Base"
• State Bureau of
Pesticides Operations
• State Agricultural i
Statistics f
• State Department of
Health
Resources for the Future maintains a data base which includes estimates of pesticide application rates at the county level nationwide. However, these data, are based upon estimates of cropping practices and do not Include
actual pesticide use data collected at the county level.
-------
-14-
APPENDIX C Summary of Findings of Three State Ground-Water Indicator Pilot Studies
(Idaho, Minnesota, New Jersey)
Category
Indicator
Findings
3ublic Water Supplies
VIOL Violations
Percent of systems with violations
Percent of Population affected
Specific MCL contaminant vs # of systems
Contaminant vs # of MCL violations
Existing Data Available at State/County Level
Contains Location of PWS's and Population
Served
Most Easily Accessed in OW FRDS-II Database
Concern About Several Data Limitations in FRDS-II
Hazardous Waste Sites
On- and Off-Site Contamination
• CERCLA sites with contamination on-site only, off-site,
or off-site and threatening drinking water
• RCRA sites with no contamination, on-site only, or off-
site
• Population affected by off-site contamination
• Contamination Frequency
- at CERCLA sites by Contaminant Group
- at RCRA sites by Contaminant Group
Data Primarily Maintained in Paper Files
Managed by EPA Regions and States
National Databases Track Administrative Status
and not the Nature and Extent of Contamination
• Little Populations at Risk Data ; need to compute
from census information
Waste Sites and Industrial
Sites
VOC
Frequency and Level of Contamination at Landfills,
Leaking Underground Storage Tanks, UIC Wells, Spills
Industrial Sites, etc.
Limited Geographic Coverage, County by County
Inconsistent Repeat Sampling
Difficult For States to Report Trends
Data Collection Focuses on very few Sites
Difficult to Specifically Identify Source
Area-Wide Sources
Generally
Nitrate
Levels in GW Indicative of Wide Range of
Contamination from Agriculture and Animal and
Human Waste (Septic Systems)
Limited Geographic Coverage, County by County
Inconsistent Repeat Sampling
Enough Data to Present Trends in Portions of
States
Area-Wide Sources of
Potential Pesticides
Contamination
Pesticides Use
In Sensitive GW Settings, GW Vulnerability and the
Potential Problem Area are Identified
Pesticide Use Data is Very Limited at State Level
Only NJ had Data From Surveys in 1985/88
Compiled and Automated
Vulnerability Assessments Not available
-------
- 15-
APPENDIX D Achievement of the Ground-Water Indicator National Objectives in the Pilot Study States
State
Idaho
Minnesota
New Jersey
MCLs
Sufficient data to meet
the national objectives are
available through FRDS,
although information
characterizing populations
at risk may be limited.
Sufficient data to meet
the national objectives are
available through FRDS,
although information
characterizing populations
at risk may be limited.
Sufficient data to meet
the national objectives are
available through FRDS,
although information
characterizing populations
at risk may be limited.
Waste Sites
Data characterizing on-site
and off-site contamination at
sites are available primarily
from paper files.
Information is available to
characterize the population
at risk for specific areas.
Data characterizing the
extent of on-site and off-site
contamination and trend
analyses are available from
paper files only. Data are
available at the county level
for estimate of population at
risk.
Automated data are
available to identify the
number of sites and the
general extent of
contamination. Paper files
must be consulted to
characterize the sites fully
and to document trend
analyses. The proximity of
the site to the exposed
population cannot be
obtained from the GWPIDB
data base.
VOCs
VOC data are very
limited in geographic
coverage, generally
focusing on VOC hot-
spots; therefore, the
data do not fully
support a State
analysis.
Current data availability
is limited in geographic
coverage, and tends to
center on areas with
suspected
contamination.
Nonetheless, these
data partially support a
State analysis.
VOC data vary in
geographic coverage,
but the data do
partially support a State
analysis. Additional
cross-sectional
sampling is necessary
to develop a full picture
of ambient VOC
concentrations in
ground water.
Nitrate
The national objectives are
partially addressed by
current data, although
greater geographic
coverage should be
achieved with time.
Available data address the
national objective, and,
with time, expanded
sampling programs and
the Ambient Ground-Water
Monitoring Network will
support trend analyses.
Available data support the
national objective,
although the scope and
geographic coverage of
the nitrate analyses should
be broadened.
Pesticides
No data were available
for indicator
development.
Only limited data
characterizing
pesticide use through
agricultural co-op
purchases were
available.
Pesticide use trends
can be tracked from
1985 to 1988, but no
information is yet
available to relate
these data to ground-
water vulnerability.
-------
-------
-16-
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. U.S. EPA, Office of Ground-Water Protection, "Indicators for Measuring Progress In Ground-Water
Protection," EPA 440/6-88-006, (Washington, D.C.) April 1989, p. v.
2. States of Idaho, Minnesota, and New Jersey Project Plan
3. U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, "Ground-Water Indicator Pilot Study in the
State of Idaho," (Washington, D.C.) September 1991.
U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, "Ground-Water Indicator Pilot Study in the
State of Minnesota," (Washington, D.C.) September 1991.
U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, "Ground-Water Indicator Pilot Study in the
State of New Jersey," (Washington, D.C.) September 1991.
4. "Indicators for Measuring Progress in Ground-Water Protection," p. v.
5. Ibid.
6. Op. cit. p. 21
7. 40 CFR Part 141.11.
8. "Indicators for Measuring Progress in Ground-Water Protection," p. v.
9. Ibid.
10. U.S. EPA, Office of the Administrator, "Protecting the Nation's Ground Water: EPA's Strategy for the
1990s," EPA 21Z-1020, (Washington, D.C.) July 1991.
11. U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, "Definitions for the Minimum Set of Data
Elements for Ground-Water Quality," (Washington, D.C.) July 1991 (draft final).
12. U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, Technical Assistance Document,"
(Washington, D.C.) September 1991 (draft).
-------
-------
-------
------- |